Good morning, everyone. Let's go ahead and get started with our March 17th, 2026 BOCC meeting, and we will start with Chaplain Henley giving the invocation and then remain standing for the pledge. I would invite you to pray with me. Heavenly Father, your word declares that you oppose the proud, but show favor to the humble. So we approach you this morning with humble hearts, open to hearing from one another. Let your spirit guide us this morning so that the decisions made here today come not from our own understanding, but rather from your wisdom. Let all that we do here today bring you honor and glory, and I ask this prayer in Jesus' name. Amen. Good morning, commissioners, staff, and visitors. I'm Caitlin Hoverkamp, Public and Media Relations Officer for Polk County Government. Today we are recognizing four employees for their service to Polk County. I'd like to invite the employees to come to the front as their names are called, and then if the honorees will remain at the front while the commissioners return to the dais behind them, we will take a group photo at the end. Michael Blaze Jr. has worked for the Polk County Roads and Drainage Division for 20 years. Michael began his career with the division as a traffic records technician. He was then promoted to a traffic systems operator before being promoted to his current position as a traffic network analyst. Michael obtained a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Central Florida, where he also received university honors for passing the school's Burnett Honors College curriculum, demonstrating academic excellence. Michael is a member of the International Municipal Signal Association. In his spare time, he enjoys camping throughout Florida, traveling, and spending time with his wife, April. In the future, he looks forward to continuing to travel and to visit each continent. Gregory Toole has worked for Polk County Fire Rescue for 20 years. Gregory joined the department as a Fire Inspector 1 and was then promoted to his current position as a Fire Codes Inspector 2. Throughout his time with the department, Gregory has obtained several fire service certifications. He is a certified State of Florida Fire Safety Inspector 2 and Fire Investigator, and he is a certified National Fire Protection Association fire plans examiner and an inspector too. Gregory is a member of the Florida Fire Inspectors Association, a member of the National Fire Protection Association, and a member of the Florida Fire and Explosive Investigators Association. In 2013, Gregory was awarded Polk County Fire Rescue Inspector of the Year. In his spare time, Gregory enjoys spending time with his wife, Andrea, and son, Jordan, traveling, and continuing his professional development in fire safety. In the future, he looks forward to continue serving his community, furthering his fire service education, and to achieve the rank of Fire Codes Inspector 3. Scott Huff has worked for Polk County Fire Rescue for 25 years. He began his career with the department as a firefighter and has held several positions, including firefighter emergency medical technician, driver engineer, EMT, and field captain paramedic, before moving into his current position as a fire training captain. He obtained his associates in science degree in emergency medical services from South Florida State College. Throughout his time with Polk County Fire Rescue, Scott has also obtained a number of certifications. He is a certified hazmat technician, urban search and rescue specialist, fire officer one, instructor one, and live fire instructor one. In his spare time, Scott enjoys hunting, fishing, shrimping, scalloping, shooting, ammo reloading, and attending Tampa Bay Lightning hockey games. He also enjoys traveling with his family, including his wife, Jennifer, who is a battalion chief for Polk County Fire Rescue, their son, Shane, their daughter, Sydney, and their daughter, Autumn, who also works as a firefighter emergency medical technician for the department. In his spare time, Scott looks forward to traveling and enjoying life to the fullest with his family by his side. Dixon Palma has worked for Polk County Fire Rescue for 25 years. He joined the department as a driver engineer and then moved into his current position as fire rescue captain. Dixon obtained his associate's degree from Orlando College, and in 2010, he received the Polk County Fire Rescue Fire Chiefs Award for his assistance coordinating personal protective equipment bags for each staff member of the department. In his spare time, Dixon enjoys clay shooting, pistol shooting, collecting hot wheels, and spending time with his wife, Christine, their daughter, Chelsea, his four sons, Donovan, Devin, Dixon Jr., and Aiden, and his eight grandchildren. Dixon Jr. also works for Polk County Fire Rescue as a firefighter emergency medical technician. In the future, Dixon looks forward to retiring, happy, and owning property in Tennessee. Madam Chair, while you're getting ready for that photo, to the citizens in this room, 90 years of collective service to the citizens of Polk County. 90 years in these four employees. We will resume with our agenda, and we will have now public comments concerning agenda items. Ms. Amber, do we have any? And I'm going to make sure I say your name, the right name. Yeah, one. We have none? Okay. I'll give a few seconds so that those that are leaving the room can leave, and we can continue. We have the county controller. It's not Stacy, but Tamara, what do you have for us today? Good morning. Good morning. Today we have for you to approve and ratify payroll checks number 04443 through 04470 in the amount of $32,636.03. We have 3,010 direct deposits in the amount of $4,604,310.12. Those are dated March 6, 2026. We have wire and electronic funds transfer of $21,503,422.53. Those are dated March 3, 2026 through March 16, 2026. We also have invoice checks numbered 500, 760 through 501, 558, totaling $17,888,729.52, dated March 3, 2026 through March 16, 2026, for you to approve and ratify. Motion for approval. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We also request the approval of the minutes of your regular board meeting held on March 3, 2026. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Anything else for us? No, ma'am. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We move now to the consent, no, approval of the consent agenda. Madam Chair, a motion for approval. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Randy, anything for us? Thank you. Mr. Beasley? Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, members of the viewing audience. The manager's office will have six items for board consideration this morning. Item number G1 is to request the board to approve a technology improvement agreement with Driven Security, LLC, for replacement of various current security systems at the South County and Central County Jail Facilities. Today's action will authorize a one-time contract expense not to exceed $7,300,000. In September of 2025, the board approved the recommendation of the selection committee to enter into negotiations with a preferred vendor in connection with a publicly advertised request for proposal for required security upgrades at both the South County and Central County Jail Facilities. The selected vendor will remove various elements of the existing outdated security systems and install new components at both facilities. The project will include installation of new cameras, over 724 new cameras to be installed, monitors, door controls, intercoms, and related hardware, cabling, and system programming. Of the total negotiated costs, $3 million is assigned to the Central County Jail Facility and $4.3 million is assigned to the South County Jail Facility. Aside from the basic contract replacement services, this agreement will allow access to the vendor for future security technology needs as the needs arise, with negotiated costs subject to board approval. The term of this agreement will be for five years from the date of the board's approval. Funding for this significant security upgrade is available within the county's general capital improvement fund. So, Madam Chair, members of the board, I think in keeping with the board's priority commitment to public safety, I would request the board to approve the proposed agreement with Driven Security, LLC for the replacement of various security systems at both the South County and Central County Jail Facilities in an amount not to exceed $7,300,000. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions? Discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, members of the board, items number G2, G3, and G4 are all consistent with the board's priority commitment to our first responders. Agenda item number G2 is to request the board to approve a construction manager at risk guaranteed maximum price addendum with Miller Construction Management Incorporated in connection with the Bradley Fire Rescue Station in an amount not to exceed $6,076,766.58. In making this contract award today, the requisite community investment program amendment and budget transfer will be included as part of the board's actions today. In July of 2021, the board authorized staff to negotiate a construction manager at risk agreement with Miller Construction to provide both pre-construction and construction services for a maximum of four rescue stations. The projects would include building these stations using the new fire rescue station prototype design. In October of 2021, the board approved the first of the four construction manager at risk agreements for pre-construction services in connection with the now Crest fire rescue station. Those services specifically are being placed on hold pending a completion of the Polk Regional Water Cooperative's new water plant that's being built adjacent to the proposed site of that now Crest facility. In February of 2023, the board approved a guaranteed maximum price addendum for construction of the Watkins Road Station, which has since been completed in May of 2024. In October of 2025, the board approved the final two construction manager at risk agreements for pre-construction services for both the Bradley Junction and the Calusa Lake fire rescue stations. Pre-construction services are now complete for the Bradley Junction fire rescue station, and Miller Construction has provided a guaranteed maximum price to construct that station. In accordance with resolution number 13066, $140,000 is included in the guaranteed maximum price for allowance and contingency work conditions. The total contract time for this facility to be complete has been set at 395 calendar days. Pre-construction services for the Calusa Lake fire rescue station are anticipated to be complete within the next three months, and a guaranteed maximum price addendum to construct that facility is anticipated to be brought back to the board in the late June or early July time frame. The Bradley fire rescue station is a funded project in the board's adopted community investment program. Upon the board's community investment program amendment approval, funds are available in the emergency medical millage fund for transfer to the Bradley fire rescue station's community investment program project account. So, Madam Chair, members of the board, I think in keeping with the board's continued priority commitment towards improved facilities for Polk's first responders, I would request the board approve the proposed construction manager at risk guaranteed maximum price addendum with Miller Construction Management Incorporated in the total amount not to exceed $6,076,766.58 with today's action to include the requisite community investment program amendment and budget transfer from the emergency medical fund reserve for future capital account in the amount of $1,054,532. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? I just have one. Sean, what's the distance between the new fire stations and Bradley and the old one, and what happens to that old, what's going to happen to that old building once they move to the new fire station? Okay, the current distance from the old to the new is less than a mile. It's probably, it's less than three quarters of a mile. Yeah, it's just up in a, if you're really simplified terms, it's up right around the corner. And then what's going to happen to the old station? That I do not know. That would be a county asset. And then, Madam Chair, typically we, we look internally if we have another need for that, but it is possible we'll surplus that site, put it back on the tax rolls. Yes. And I will say this, you know, that, that station's been there a while. Bradley's really looking, really needing this update. Correct. And, and it's in a better location, you know, it's right there in that curve now. Yeah, right there by the water. And so it's really a good thing. Yep. Absolutely. Thank you. Any other questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the board, item number G3 is to, again, to request the board to approve another construction manager at risk guaranteed maximum price addendum. This one with Hinkleman Construction Incorporated in connection with the Eagle Lake Fire Rescue Project. This will be a construction contract not to exceed $5,560,276. In December of 2020, the Board of County Commissioners entered into a master service agreement with Hinkleman Construction Incorporated to provide construction manager at risk services when the anticipated costs of the project are estimated to be less than $7,500,000. In June of 2025, the county authorized Hinkleman to provide pre-construction services for the Eagle Lake Fire Rescue Station project in an amount of $21,000. Final design and bidding have been completed, and Hinkleman has provided a guaranteed maximum price for construction services in an amount not to exceed $5,560,276. In accordance with resolution number 13066, $248,658 is included in the guaranteed maximum price total to address allowance and contingency work conditions. The contract time for this project has been set at 395 calendar days. The Eagle Lake Fire Rescue Station is a funded project within the Board's adopted community investment program. Funds in the amount of $4,240,000 are available in the General Capital Improvement Fund, and funds in the amount of $1,320,276 are available in the Emergency Medical Millage Fund. So, Madam Chair, here again, another project. I think that clearly aligns with the Board's public safety priorities. As such, I would request the Board to approve the proposed construction manager at risk guaranteed maximum price addendum with Hinkleman Construction Incorporated in connection with the Eagle Lake Fire Rescue Station in an amount not to exceed $5,560,276. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions? I do. This is the same thing as Bradley, right? There's an old station in Eagle Lake. How far apart would that be? That one's approximately just over a mile. Okay. It's right up. Go to 17, go north, and then take a quick right right there where Winter Lake empties out into 17. So, yeah. It's not too far. It's a little over a mile, if that. And I'm assuming the building is also on, will be the same thing that we'll look at. We'll make an assessment. Don't be surprised if Eagle Lake makes a request to the Board to take that off. But one way or the other, it'll get repurposed. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other question, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, item G4, I want to say third time's a charm. Here's another one. Another one. It's to request the Board to approve a construction contract with Strickland Construction Incorporated for contract services in connection with the Lakeland Hills EMS Station and a construction cost not to exceed $3,695,394. Board action today will include the requisite community investment program amendment and budget transfer to fully fund this project. Polk County has completed the public process to solicit bids from qualified contractors who were interested in the construction of an approximate 7,400-square-foot EMS station, which includes three pull-through apparatus bays and living quarters to accommodate up to six first responder personnel. The facility is to be located at 650 Robeson Street in the North Lakeland area just north of the Joker Marchant Stadium. Bid number 26041 was issued and 11 contractors submitted a bid. The lowest responsible responsive bid was submitted by Strickland Construction in the total amount of $3,519,423. A recommendation of award was issued and no protests were received. In accordance with resolution number 13066, $175,971 is included in the proposed contract total to address contingency and allowance work conditions. The contract time for this project has been set at 365 calendar days. The Lakeland Hills EMS station is an approved project in the board's adopted community investment program. The initial capital budget assigned to this project totaled $4,077,450. Project expenses and encumbrances to date total $529,786.49. Therefore, a community investment program amendment and budget transfer in the amount of $147,731 from the EMS impact fee reserve for future capital is necessary to fund all remaining obligations. So, Madam Chair, members of the board, I think, again, in keeping with the board's priority commitment to Polk's first responders, I would request the board to approve the proposed construction contract with Strickland Construction Incorporated in connection with the Lakeland Hills EMS station in an amount not to exceed $3,695,394. I'd also request the board approve the necessary community investment program amendment and budget transfer as noted to complete the project funding. Second. I have a motion and a second. Questions, discussion? Madam Chair, for me. Yes. Chief Smith, if you could just talk, just for those watching, you know, from a fire versus EMS requirements of a community, kind of how we've seen that shift over the years and why we are doing just an EMS only station and not having a fire component to this particular location. Yeah. Yes, sir, Commissioner Scott. Yeah, so our EMS specific station is going to be actually in the city limits of Lakeland. And as our responses have gone up, as Polk County is one of the fastest growing counties in the last couple of years, and I know it's tapered down a little bit, our call volume is drastically increased. And just doing an EMS specific station gives us just where we hire single-cert EMTs, single-cert paramedics. And we also, what we do is we just staff ambulances. We're not required. We don't. City of Lakeland provides its own suppression coverage. So this one's strictly a transport service. We provide transport for the whole county. And getting that unit in that city, which is already a very, very high call volume area, that kind of helps with our response times and just getting our closest unit response. Thank you. Yeah, yes, sir. And is this correct? It's the first one we do in Polk County. This is the first specific EMS station that we built in my career here in the last 22, 23 years. Normally, we built joint stations. We built them with the suppression and a transport service. This is a specific transport EMS specific station, correct? Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, what we now have is a prototype and a pilot program for our fire rescue facilities and a pilot or a prototype for our EMS facility. So we've become that sophisticated in terms of the types of service, the location of those services, and how we house the men and women who provide that service. One thing. And then, Chief, just to reiterate, because you say it very simply, that we are the only one that transports. So can you give some information for that? Yeah, so correct. So for all of Polk County, Polk County Fire Rescues responsible, we're duly obligated to provide the EMS transport or EMS care for the whole county. So although we do have municipalities have their own fire department, Winter Haven, Lakeland, Lake Alfred, Frostproof, Fort Meade, we still have rescues or ambulances in those cities that we provide. We provide the care, all medical care, and we're all under Dr. Banerjee's license. So every call. So Polk County Fire Rescue is responsible for running about 130,000, 135,000 calls a year. Out of those 130,000, 135,000 calls a year, about 80,000, 82,000, 83,000 of those are going to be medicals. And they range in acuity from BLS to an ALS. Well, I know how important it is when you're in a crisis and you need that ambulance there right away. Five minutes is a long time. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Especially, yeah. I mean, it is what it is. So we're glad to see this coming to Polk County. Correct. Any other question, discussion? Okay. I have a motion, a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Madam Chair, let me just say these last, these first four items, consistent with this board's priority, this board just approved $22 million in commitments to public safety services in Polk County government. That's a heavy lift and a lift that this board continues to make day in and day out. Madam Chair, members of the board, item number G5 is to request the board to approve a sub-agreement, specifically number SA-7, to the existing Water Wheeling Infrastructure Master Cost Sharing Agreement with the Water Cooperative of Central Florida relating to the Cypress Lake Wellfield Alternative Water Supply Project. This sub-agreement will reflect a one-time Polk County Utilities Division investment in alternative water supply sources not to exceed $2,651,589. In October of 2021, the Polk Board of County Commissioners approved the initial Water Wheeling Infrastructure Master Cost Sharing Agreement with the Water Cooperative of Central Florida relating to the Cypress Lake Wellfield Project. This water-wielding agreement provides a mechanism for the sharing of costs between local member governments for existing and future water transmission infrastructure necessary to deliver finished water from the project source to each member. This agreement includes a water-wielding infrastructure plan, which identifies specific segments of pipeline and the corresponding financial obligations for each member based on their respective percentage of flow or allocation of each pipeline segment. Cost-sharing project sub-agreements are utilized to commit each local government member to pay its cost-share amount of the design, permitting, construction, installation, and subsequent long-term maintenance of each applicable pipeline segment. Project sub-agreements are the sole mechanism for establishing the final cost-sharing obligations of each local government member for each pipeline segment. Specifically, sub-agreement number SA-7 identifies the cost-share for each member for approximately a 12,000-lineal-foot, 30-inch water main to be installed along the Osceola-Polk line, which is County Road 532, from the Toho Southwest Water Treatment Facility running east to U.S. 1792 in the area of the Orange Blossom Trail. Sub-agreement number SA-7 does not become effective unless and until all parties have approved and executed the sub-agreement. The Cypress Lake Wellfield Project is an approved project in the Board's adopted community investment program, and funding is currently budgeted and available for this Cypress Lake Wellfield Project, within the Cypress Lake Wellfield Project for these anticipated expenses. So, Madam Chair, members of the Board, I think consistent with the Board's long-term, long-standing commitments to securing alternative water supplies for Polk's growing population, I would request the Board to approve sub-agreement number SA-7 to the existing water-wielding infrastructure cost-sharing agreement with the Water Cooperative of Central Florida, specifically relating to the Cypress Lake Wellfield Project, at a cost to the Polk County Utilities Division, not to exceed $2,651,589. Madam Chair, a motion for approval. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Madam Chair, if I may. Yes, please. Sitting on the Board for WCCF, I can tell you the focus of that group has been pretty tremendous in finding these alternative water supplies, and in a way that's scientifically meaningful, and we're not just grabbing for the lowest-hanging fruit. So, it's a complex project. It's a long-term project, but there's other municipalities participating with us, so it's good to see the collaboration for us to have that water supply. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? All right, hearing none, I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Final item, Madam Chair, item number G6. If I could ask Holly Newton, who is the fiscal administrator for the Fire Rescue Division, and Chief Smith to come to the podium hearing, and at the end of my read and recommendation for the record, I wanted Holly to give the Board a kind of a brief overview of this next subject. Item number G6 is to request the Board to approve and ratify the letters with all eight of the participating Florida Medicaid managed care organizations in order to supplement anticipated Medicaid revenues for Polk County. Approximately $6,674,200 of Medicaid supplemental payment is anticipated through these agreements. The Medicaid managed care supplement payment program has been active, very active, since June of 2019, and Polk County Fire Rescue has been an initial participating member since its inception. Over the past six years, the state program has provided Polk County Fire Rescue with approximately $18 million in additional Medicaid reimbursements. The Medicaid managed care program operates in coordination with existing state-sanctioned managed care organizations within Polk's region. Polk County Fire Rescue is requesting the Board's approval to renew all eight letters of agreement with each participating managed care organization to maintain those relationships established in 2019. Those organizations include Aetna Better Health of Florida Incorporated, Children's Medical Service, Community Care Plan, Florida Community Care LLC, Umana Medical Plan Incorporated, Simply Healthcare Plans Incorporated, Sunshine State Health Plan, and United Healthcare of Florida. These Medicaid managed care organizations continue to work with the Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration, or ACA, to report the total number of qualified participant transports completed by Polk County Fire Rescue each quarter. The Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration then determines the state funding amount to be distributed to these managed care organizations, which is then paid annually to Polk County by those contracted organizations. These letters of agreements will remain in effect until a managed care organization exits the state Medicaid program or the agreement is otherwise terminated. Those anticipated revenues from the eight managed care organizations covering Polk County are budgeted within the county's Emergency Medical Services General Fund. So, Madam Chair, members of the board, in the interest of continuing to secure maximum revenues to help offset limited standard Medicaid transport reimbursement rates, I would request the board to approve and ratify the eight letters of agreement with the designated managed care organizations as part of Polk's participation in the Medicaid Supplemental Payment Program as sponsored by the Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration. And with that, Madam Chair, I would like Holly Newton to just kind of walk the board through what this program is and how important it is to the program. Okay. As you already pointed out, we have been with the program since 2019, and we've received about $18 million in additional revenue from this program. Medicaid transports make up about 16% of our claims that we have. And with Medicaid, you only get a flat rate of $190 per run. Our average runs are about $660, so there's a big difference between the two. This program was originally started to recoup some of the funds that we need that reimburse us back from the state agency and also the federal government. The next slide I want to just point out, this is how the actual program works. So the program starts off with, the state reaches out to the MCOs, which we're asking you to ratify and approve these agreements. They draw down the funds from Polk County. Then they submit the funds to the federal government. The federal government combines their funds. The federal government then sends it back to the state with the federal share and the state share. Then that share is sent back to the MCOs, which then distribute to us. It's a lengthy process, and it typically takes about a whole year to get this whole program starting. So when we start the program, we don't receive the funds until around September time frame, October time frame. That's how long it takes. The next thing I want to point out also is Mr. Beasley already spoke of, we have eight managed care organizations within our region. We're in Region D, and that's a state mandate. They say which managed care organizations are a part of our region. And he's already pointed out, it's Aetna, the Children's Medical Services, the Community Care, the Florida Community Care, Humana, Simply Healthcare, Sunshine, and United Healthcare. I just want to point out the significance of the revenue that we receive from this program. It has helped us tremendously. Chief Smith can vouch for some of the programs that we've started with this, with the paramedic school that we've been putting through, the bonus structure that we started to start to bring in paramedics within our organization. So this program has really tremendously helped Polk County Fire Rescue. Any other questions? Yeah, so these would be people who otherwise wouldn't pay anything. They can't afford the service and we would get nothing from them. Is that what I'm under? Yeah, they're under the Medicaid program. So we can bill for the actual run, which then we get back from the state, the Florida state, and it's only $190 that we get back. But I mean, I guess where I'm going is, do we normally, we wouldn't identify these people right out of the gate as non-payers. We would bill them the regular $660? No, we bill directly. When we do a claim, we pull up the information, we send it to our billing company. The billing company sees who needs to be billed, Medicare, Medicaid, Aetna's other world, things like that. They dictate where it goes. Then they submit the bill to the state and then the state reimburses for the $190. So somebody's in there figuring out whether these people have insurance before we get to the process. Based on the information that the patient family provides us, that starts the billing process and they start triage where it goes from there based on what the information they provide us. If they're uninsured, it could go to Medicaid, Medicare. If they're insured, we can tap that source. But it all starts with the information the patient has provided us. That brings up a question. And I'm just out of curiosity. Is there like one big database that says you're insured and you're not insured that we can look at and confirm all that? Yes, sir. The Digitech billing company does all that for us. All right, thanks. Yes. Any other questions? Discussion? Okay, so I need a motion. Motion for approval? Second. I have a first and a second. No more questions and discussion. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. That's it for me, Madam Chair. Then let's go on to the commissioners. Commissioner Troutman. In keeping with talking about fire rescue, Friday was Friday the 13th, but it was also the day that our paramedic that was greatly injured in the accident in December, he finally came home on Friday, so a little over three months, and he is back home. So that is a very good news story for Polk County Fire Rescue and the county. Thank you. Anything else? Anything else? Okay. Rick Wilson? No, ma'am. Don't have a thing. Okay. Braswell? Nothing. Scott? Scott? Wow, that's a miracle here. What about you? You have nothing? What about you? St. Paddy's Day. That's okay. I'll just keep going. Don't worry about it. The local county speaks. And then I do have, I did request from Brian Coswell to come and give us a little update on what the seasonal residential yard waste is, how is it moving forward and things like that from the freeze. Good morning, Commissioner. Morning. Madam Chair. A real quick presentation just to give you an update on how we're doing with the collections. Starting, this is some of the stuff that we're receiving calls for on the side of the street for curbside collection. This is a little bit of a stretch in what we're capable of handling. But overall, I think our program, the $10 flat rate receiving at our facility is actually working very well. So the graph here, very simply put, is the participation at our facility, the number of customers that we had gotten. We're noticing a little bit of decline in the commercial customers because of the freeze. I think some of their work has subsided. The residential customers are utilizing the services. We're also measuring the calls to see if the calls coming in are changing. Most of it is informational, which is good. How do we get rid of this stuff? Some of the users haven't used the services previous. Now we're using the yard waste services. And then the NCN tags are the tags that the haulers will use to tag the items to show if we can collect it, how to make it collectible, or if it's something that we don't collect in part of our services. The NCN tags are going down, which is phenomenal. The calls are about the same. This is a list of all calls, not just calls in reference to can you come get my yard waste or anything like that. A lot of them are informational. And then overall, some stats. We've worked the program for about two weeks right now. We've had 536 participants, only about 181 tons to our yard waste processing facility. Like I said, the calls are remaining the same. And we've had some great support from our haulers. Obviously, internal GFL and FCC have done phenomenal efforts to collect some stuff. They're not measuring tree limbs. They're just trying to get the stuff off the ground. And they're tagging some of the items if there's way too much to come back on a second trip, just so they don't overfill the trucks. And I don't remember, Mr. Beasley, how long did we say we were going to do this? 60 days. 60 days. Yes, ma'am. Okay, so we should start seeing the numbers going down as far as the debris. Any questions about this update? Okay, well, thank you so much. I appreciate that. All right, we're going to go into our expedited hearing. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we do the expedited hearings, I'll go over the public hearing and general procedures. I remind everyone, if you wish to speak on any of the public hearing items today, you need to fill out a speaker card in the back and give the card to a member of the communication staff. We ask that you please turn off your cell phones or 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 the topic. Individuals speaking during public comment section of a matter will be strictly limited 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 irrelevant and repetitive but 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 turn, shouting out from the audience, disrespectful sounds or utterances while another is speaking are unacceptable and you will be asked to leave in the chamber's remainder of the day. If any person decides to appeal and decision made by the board with respect to any matter considered here today you would need a record of proceedings and that for such purpose you may need to ensure a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includes the 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 and present testimony today must be sworn in and all testimony given during public hearings shall be deemed to be sworn. At this time if you're going to address commission or speak on any case today please stand and raise your right hand and answer out loud to the following questions and this is for any of the public hearings. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm the testimony or evidence you provide to the commission days of truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. At this time Madam Chair I will 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 hearing and the recommendation of the development review committee is for approval. Expedited procedures are the following. After 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. At the public comment the board will consider the land use case. At any time full presentation from staff can be requested from a commissioner the applicant or a member of the public. All documents attached to the gen item are deemed part of the record of the land use case. Unless removed from the list of experts by motion to the board all individuals on the list of experts attached to the gen item are deemed experts for the purpose of the land use case and at this time I will turn it over to Mr. Peterson to present the episodic hearings. Good morning Eric Peterson for the land development division. I have our first case is LBCT 2025 25 is a request for amending the tower ordinances in the land development code. It was advertised in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on March 4th. the changes are making it an administrative approval in non-residential districts and also modernized some of the conditions and added criteria for temporary mobile communication towers when other towers are under construction. This is the second and final reading. I'll stand for questions. Any questions for staff? Madam Chair, if I may. just for those that may not know as far as residential areas that would be around a tower can you just give us the criteria for that spacing separation of the height of the tower relative to nearby adjacent residents? Yes. Wherever a tower is there is a one times the height of the tower setback from any residential property lines. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. So you have a motion? Need to open public hearing confirm the only one signed up. Amber, do we have anybody signed up for this? Okay. So I close the public hearing for this item and I bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. Second. I have a first and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next. Our next case is LDCT 2025-26. This is an amendment to the Land Development Code with regards to car washes. It combines a number of different categories into one and addresses them as accessory uses in the accessory uses section and also modernized the standards and definitions for car washes. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on March 4th. This is the second and final reading. I'll stand for questions. Any questions? Hearing none. Amber, do we have anybody to speak on this? Okay. We close the public hearing for this item and bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. I have a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Our next case is LDCT 2025-27. This is with regards to drive-thru facilities. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on March 4th, 2026. This changes various things regarding drive-thrus and makes them universally applicable to all types of uses rather than individually within the use tables. This will improve the customer service portion of our land development code because it will be easily identifiable. With that, I'll stand for questions. This is the second and final reading and you may adopt it. Any questions for staff? Amber, do we have anyone for this? Okay. Then I will close the public hearing for this item and bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We have a small-scale map amendment, LDCPA-S 2025-35. This is on Wrecker Highway. The site has been an existing auto salvage yard since the 70s. It had commercial zoning prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan. A salvage yard is only allowed in general or industrial categories. This BPC designation will not make it fully conforming. It will remain as a legally non-conforming salvage yard, but it will make the property eligible for other similar uses that are useful in a salvage yard such as auto body repair and vehicle repair. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on March 4th. Twenty mailers were sent to area property owners on February 23rd, 2026, and one board was posted on the property on January 20th of this year. It's 12.91 acres going from residential suburban to business park center. This is the adoption hearing. I'll stand for questions. Any questions, for staff? We have one question, please. So with this changing to the BPC, there's still not a conditional use that could be obtained to make it conforming. It would truly stop to be the industrial. Yes, salvage yards are only allowed in industrial categories. However, their ability to expand either through an expansion of a legal non-conforming use or to add uses such as auto body repair, towing, things of that nature, couldn't go in the BPC district once it's changed in the next case to BPC too. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Amber, do we have anyone for this? No, ma'am, we do not. Okay, then I close the public hearing for this issue and bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further question, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. This last expedited case is LDCD 2025-11. This is the same site. It's to change from the default category of BPC-1 to BPC-2. This will give it that full ability as I mentioned for the auto body repair. It also allows for outdoor storage of finished goods. Legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on March 4th. 20 mailers were sent to area property owners on February 23rd and one board was posted on the property on January 20th. It received 7-0 approval from the Planning Commission and we've had no opposition. With that, I'll stand for questions. Any questions? Amber, do we have anyone for this? Yeah, we do. All right. Then I close the public hearing for this and bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any other questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Madam Chair. That is all the expedited hearings. Now we'll go into the normal public hearings. The first matter we have is a de novo hearing, so I will go over the de novo procedures. The following is the summary of the procedures governing de novo hearings pursuant to Polk County Resolution 2022-090. Procedures. First, staff will present the staff report and recommendation. After staff presents a staff report and recommendation, the applicant will have 30 minutes to present the applicant's case. After the applicant's presentation, any organized opposition will have 30 minutes total to present their cases. If more than one person or entity qualifies as organized opposition, 30 minutes is split equally amongst them. For example, if three individuals qualify as organized opposition, they will each have 10 minutes to present their case. Organized opposition shall consist of any entity or individual that has filed an application for de novo hearing or which has received written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf and those entities or individuals have agreed to waive their ability to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing. After the organized opposition presentation, the public comment portion of the public hearing will be opened. Each speaker during the public comment will be allotted three minutes. Individuals who are represented by organized opposition will not be allotted three minutes during the public comment. Once public comment has been closed, the applicant will have five minutes at any time reserved from the applicant's presentation to respond to the organized opposition and public comment. After the applicant's response, the chair will close the public hearing and the board will discuss and vote on the matter. They know a hearing record. All documents attached to the agenda and presentations given shall be deemed part of the record unless removed from the record by motion of the board. Counting staff submitting the staff report shall be deemed experts in land planning unless disqualified by motion of the board. Applicants, organized opposition and the public may request documents to be entered into the record during their presentation. Applicants, organized opposition and the public may request a witness to be recognized as expert during their presentation. Applicants, organized opposition and their witnesses are subject to cross-examination by the other party. Ex parte communications. The board members receive numerous communications from the public unless otherwise stated it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the board regarding the matter. During the hearing, the applicant, organized opposition and the public may request the board disclose any ex parte communications or site visits they have had regarding the matter and question the board regarding the communications and site visits. Unless a board member accuses himself, they have determined that he or she is able to hear the case and fairly and partially make a decision on the matter based on the substantial competent evidence in the record. The quorum, just a reminder, the commission expects civility at all times during the public hearings. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. They know what hearings are quasi-traditional, which means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific land development application in a fair and impartial manner. The commission's review is limited to two areas, consistency and compatibility. Therefore, the evidence and testimony you give must be relevant to whether the application is consistent with the Polk County comprehensive plan and the land development code and whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area. Information that is relevant and repetitive only serves to frustrate and necessarily prolong the hearing. Regarding consistency, the commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the land development code. The staff report and presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria as well as the recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria. Regarding compatibility, the commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area. The commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing both written and in the world. Both by law, the only evidence the commission may consider is competent substantial evidence which means evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The following items are competent substantial evidence. Evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria, staff report, staff presentation. This testimony may be competent substantial evidence so long as it is fact-based and may include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise such as aesthetics and compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. However, popularity polls, petitions, testimony that is hypothetical, speculative, based on fear or consist of generalized statements that do not address the land development criteria are not competent to substantial evidence. For example, fear that a project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent to substantial evidence. Lastly, when expertise are required for technical issues like traffic analysis, engineering, drainage, wetland impact, school and utility capacity, light and noise pollution or the applications to impact on property value, citizen testimony is not competent to substantial evidence unless the witness is qualified as an expert in the area. At this time, commissioners, are there any ex parte communications, site visit, personal knowledge or other information you may have regarding this item or item 01 that you need disclose at this time? Commissioner Troutman? Yes. Ex parte communications with both sides and a site visit to not this mine but a sand mine to see the operation. Commissioner Wilson? I haven't visited but have to talk with the lead on the sand mine. Commissioner Santiago? Communication with the applicant and emails and phone calls with the citizens. Commissioner Braswell? Yeah, conversations with the applicant and emails. Commissioner Scott? Conversations with the applicant and emails and phone calls. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time, I will turn it over to Mr. Ian to present the case. All right. Thank you. Good morning. Ian Nance with Land Development. Staff recommends approval of LDCU 2025-29, a request for a sand mine located north and south of State Road 60, south of Camp Mack Road, east and west of Mammoth Grove Road, north of Griffins Road, west of Saddleback Lake Road, and east of the city of Lake Wales in sections 1, 2, 11, 12, and 35, townships 30 and 29, and range 28. This is a de novo hearing with the applicant requesting an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a similar request on December 3rd, 2025. For this hearing, 26 boards were posted on February 20th. 246 mailers were sent to area property owners on February 23rd, and a legal ad was published on March 4th. Staff has logged 38 emails in opposition, several packets of mail-in form letters totaling 1,710 signatures in opposition, and memorandum of understanding and letter support between the applicant and the Saddleback Lake Owners Association. The county's definition for non-phosphate mining is broad and applies to operations of varying intensity and scale. For instance, the same standards are applicable to a 20-acre borrow pit as they are an expansive lime rock mine. However, they all must be weighed against these four basic standards. A plan's ability to minimize impacts on environmentally sensitive lands, the ability to restore these lands, to minimize the adverse impacts of trucks and heavy machinery traffic on local residential roads, and to minimize the extent of adverse impacts such as noise, dust, and visual impacts on non-industrial areas. Given that diversity of mining uses, they are allowed in nearly all future land use districts and require planning commission approval, including in the industrial and agricultural residential rural land use districts in which this site is located. Applicants must submit a general mine plan showing setbacks in any facilities, a haul route showing the travel of vehicles removing mined material from on-site, a reclamation plan, and a post-closure plan that details the long-term uses of the site once mining is complete. All mining activity must be set back a minimum of 200 feet from residential properties and 100 feet from rights-of-way and property lines. To the right is the site plan for this application. This is a wet sand mine utilizing a hydraulic dredge on approximately 256 acres with excavation taking place on approximately 502 acres north and south of State Road 60. Sand mining is market-driven, so how much mining activity takes place in a given year varies. Still, the applicant is anticipating approximately 10 to 20 acres mined per year. This gives the mine an estimated lifespan of 25 to 50 years. After the initial preparation of the site, mined material will be dredged and piped in a slurry to a processing facility north of State Road 60 where the material will be stacked to be hauled off-site for use elsewhere. There are no batch plants proposed with this application. The primary access is from Mammoth Grove Road. Access points off St. Anne's Shrine Road and Rattlesnake Road will be used for ongoing maintenance of the site but not for use by haul trucks. The site plan shows that mining activity will adhere to the setbacks stated earlier. In addition, a 6-foot high berm will be placed along the perimeter of the site prior to mining operations. This is the original project area that was denied by the Planning Commission in December. It included an additional 200 acres east of Mammoth Grove Road and adjacent to Saddlebag Lake Resort as highlighted in yellow. With this appeal, these 200 acres have been removed from the project area. Since this has happened, a memorandum of understanding dated March 10, 2026 was signed between the African and Saddlebag Lake Owners Association and has been submitted into the record. While the site is up, though, I do want to point out this is an area that has long been active in sand mining. Much of the shaded area to the west is within a mineral resource protection district designated by the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of protecting the future mining of known deposits of minerals and soils. Being outside of this district does not preclude the use of this property for sand mining. Rather, this highlights the importance of this part of the county for these mines. As you recall, one standard we must review is the impact of commercial truck traffic on residential neighborhoods. Hauling activity from this mine will not directly impact local roads. There is one access on the Mammoth Grove Road, a collector roadway. All trucks must travel less than a quarter mile south to State Road 60, designated as part of the strategic intermodal system critical to commercial vehicle traffic throughout the state. Per conditions of approval, no haul truck traffic is permitted to go north on Mammoth Grove Road. The applicant has provided a preliminary minor traffic study that is included in the agenda. Again, traffic from sand mines is dependent upon market demands. At full operation, it is estimated this mine could create 536 annual daily trips and 17 peak hour trips. At any rate, there is capacity on the surrounding roadway network to support these trips. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be responsible for the inspection and cleanup of any spilled mine material along Mammoth Grove Road and vehicles are prohibited to be stacked in the county right-of-way. But the site plan allows ample route for vehicle parking on the north side of 60. The processing facility will be sited on approximately 24 acres as shown here and will include office and ancillary structures. There are limited wetlands on site that will be avoided to the extent possible, though impacts are permitted for non-phosphate mining by the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code once mitigated through the responsible state or federal agency. These properties have long been cultivated for citrus, so little natural habitat remains. Again, there will be a 100-foot setback from property lines and right-of-way and right-of-way dedication along Mammoth Grove Road as anticipated. With the removal of the property adjacent to Settlebag Lake Resort, there will be over a half-mile separation between the mining facilities and that development. This distance and the berm will mitigate impacts from noise and any potential dust, though dust is less of a concern with wet mines than with the dry mining operations. Still, a water truck will be used to further suppress dust as necessary. There are no processing facilities south of 60, but there are individual residential properties, so mining activity must adhere to the 200-foot setback in addition to the berm. Circled are access points from St. Ann Shrine Road and Rattlesnake Road. These will be used for initial site work and ongoing maintenance of the properties, but again, no haul trucks will be taking mine material from these sites. The African has submitted the requisite reclamation and post-closure plans. The reclamation plan will be carried out in accordance with state standards towards the end of the mine's life. What will be left afterwards will be lakes and open space as detailed in the post-closure plan. This is an important consideration with mining to answer what happens afterwards. In a rural area already surrounded by natural man-made lakes, this plan provides for potential conservation and open space opportunities in addition to low-density residential and limited commercial activity. To maintain their operating permits, whether any land is mined or not, all non-phosphate mines must submit to land development annual report. These track how many acres have been mined or reclaimed within the year as well as tracks any environmental violations assessed by state or federal agencies. Staff will also annually inspect the site for spillage and compliance with the conditions of approval. Any modifications to conditions or to add land will require an additional level three review. To the bottom right of the screen are documents submitted by staff and to the record. Again, staff recommends approval. This application has demonstrated compliance with the relevant comprehensive plan and land development code standards. It is deemed compatible with the surrounding uses by virtue of its location next to other mines of similar intensity, setbacks from other properties, proposed compatibility measures such as the berm, the haul route and conditions of approval, and the layout of the processing facility in relation to other uses. With that, I thank you and we'll stand for questions. Questions for staff? Yes. Just a couple of things. Can you go back to the slide where we talked about the post closure as far as potential uses? The post reclamation sorry, their post closure plan. So on the, yeah, I mentioned as far as like conservation, I get that as water, but as far as use for the limited commercial, if it's all water with no adjacent property assuming to be assembled, how does that allow for low density residential development on the parcels that we're considering? If there's open space left, and we see it throughout the county on old pits where they'll, it'll be fee simple ownership, frankly, of the waterway and they'll draw lot lines out into there, but again, it's kind of forecasting in the future what's going to happen here in this area and what they're presenting here would be compatible and consistent with what else is out there. Just looking at it from a development perspective, because I know formerly mine lands typically were not building structures on just because of instability of the soil, so I just want to make sure this is more so envisioned as conservation, open waterway would be likely that. True, and that's why that's important in a rural area like this. You're not going to have heavy, high density residential and it wouldn't be something we'd support necessarily in an area that has public investment into infrastructure and utilities and plan for that sort of density. Okay, and then the other question and probably just maybe some oversight on the, I know we haven't talked about the letter from the toxicologist yet, but in this application we referred to the perimeter berm as six feet and the toxicology report it refers to a seven foot berm for minimizing dust that's going to be transferred from the site. This is proposed with a six foot berm, not a seven foot, is that correct? I spoke with Mr. Allen earlier to a six foot minimum berm. Okay, very good, thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Braswell. Do you know how long the saddlebag has been there? Let's see, it was originally approved in 71. If I remember, I think it was originally an RV park, mobile home park, and then it was, had some condition change where they were able to plat it fee simple. And I've driven by it a million times, but I can't remember. Going back to the west, you've got saddlebag, you've got the juice plant there, I can't remember which one it is. Is that Hunt Brothers? No. It's the other one. Yes, the other one. And then you've got another sand mine. What is just west, I guess where I'm going is how far from shopping, town, anything is saddlebag? Just ballpark. Do you know? Oh, let's see. I would say it's half mile there. It's roughly three miles. I'm sure someone in here can correct me, but there's Lake Wales back to your west. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions for staff? No? Okay. Thank you. We'll hear from the applicant. Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, prior to proceeding to the applicant, just for the record, I have right now one organized opposition. That's Ms. Catherine Pratt, who has received the required signatures. I'm not aware of any other organized opposition. Is there any other organized opposition? Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. For the record, Bart Allen, land use attorney with the Peterson and Myers Law Firm. My address is 225 East Lemon Street, Lakeland, Florida. I'm here this morning on behalf of PH Citrus. Before I really get into my conversation, I just have a couple housekeeping items, if that's okay, Mr. Mink and Madam Chair wanted to just kind of, you know, again, we have our 30 minutes as the de novo procedures, but before we get into it, I want to make sure that if I do have any additional time within my 30 minutes, if I can save that for rebuttal, I'm going to try to move through my case relatively efficiently. And then the second thing, I didn't do it earlier, but I have a number of experts that I'd like to tender to this board as experts in their respective fields. And I'd like to do that right now. One second. So with me this morning, I have a number of folks. I have Mr. Crockett from PH Citrus. He's with us this morning. But from my team, we've had a number of folks that you've seen before. They work with us on most of these sand mine cases or non-phosphate mines. First, from the Kalinas group, I have Mr. Matt Mountsea. Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental management, regulatory affairs, environmental consulting with an emphasis on mining and construction materials industry throughout the U.S. He has helped with the site layout and all the documentations that have been prepared for you and are part of the record this morning. I also have Mr. Mark Stevens. He's the president of the Kalinas group. He has 50 years of experience. He is a professional geologist in Florida, Kentucky, Georgia, and South Carolina, licensed in all those states. He's also a professional engineer and has been licensed in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia. He's an AIPG certified professional geological scientist and an AIH certified hydrologist. He's worked on a number of construction materials, non-phosphate mines throughout the southeast. He has worked on our hydrology and different analysis that has been provided as part of our application packets. From an environmental perspective, from the more of the protected species type areas, we have Mr. Lee Walton from Verdantis. Lee has extensive experience in ornithology, wildlife ecology, and management, environmental permitting, and community ecology. His primary responsibilities include species permitting, listed species surveys, wildlife relocations, and other wildlife monitoring. He has performed the initial environmental analysis of the site. Transportation-wise, we have from Kimley Horn, we have Amber Gardner. She's a professional engineer with her bachelor's and master's from the University of Florida. She has 19 years of transportation engineering experience, and she has worked, and if you look at her CV, she's worked on, I think, just about every non-phosphate mine in Polk County, as well as Lee County, Hernando County, Marion County, Sumter County, Citrus County, Lake County. So she's been very involved in traffic analysis throughout Central Florida. And then Ms. Mouncey, she's with us. She is with our public relations and governmental affairs. I don't expect to have Ms. Mouncey speak this morning, but new to our team coming out from the Planning Commission where we heard some concerns regarding health, human health issues. We have engaged Dr. Robert P. DeMott from Ramball, from the Ramball group. Dr. DeMott is a board-certified toxicologist who has practiced for more than 30 years in the field of chemical risk analysis. So he's very experienced in these types of issues as it relates to exposure, whether it's within the workplace, but also external environmental impacts. I have copies of all of their resumes for the record, and I have extra copies if anybody in the audience would like a copy. And I would request a motion that each one of those respective experts be admitted as experts in their respective fields for purposes of this hearing and all of the documentation that's been submitted into the record. Prior to the motion, Madam Chair, if there's any objections, I'll ask you to raise it at this time. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We've got the motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, I'm going to get rolling through the presentation here. This is, as Mr. Nance has given you, a very excellent presentation regarding this request. I don't really have a whole lot to add to it. He's really touched on all the issues, as is typically the case. What you see in front of you and what we're asking for today is an approval of a level three conditional use for a non-phosphate mine. What you see on the screen is, in red, a 656 acre mine, and in yellow reflects the 200 acres that has been removed completely from this application. We resubmitted entire sets of application documents after the Planning Commission. Immediately after the Planning Commission, our team, Ms. Mouncey, led by Ms. Mouncey, and then ultimately turned over to the lawyers, we reached out to the Saddlebag HOA representatives and began engaging in discussions with them, and that led to ultimately removing that 200 acres. That is part of a memorandum of understanding between the parties that's been referenced. It's been submitted to your record. There is a restrictive covenant that's also private restrictive covenant between the community and the property owner, pH Citrus. On that 200 acres, I would preclude the use of this site for non-phosphate mining for a period of 25 years. It can be used for other agricultural uses. We could come in and ask for any other use that's allowed in the ARR or even land use changes during that 25 years, but we have restricted it from non-phosphate mining. The site is east of Lake Wales. It's about three miles, as Mr. Nance pointed out, Commissioner Braswell, along Highway 60. It's in your RDA. It's in the agricultural, rural, residential. It has a little sliver that's industrial. We're not hanging our hat on the industrial. This is, and we'll talk a little bit about that, but this is contiguous to the mineral protection area. That area is important. It was identified when the comp plan was originally put together as a protected area. It reflected at the time existing mines. It has not been expanded and modified as new mines have expanded over time. That's why when Mr. Nance showed you that map with the pink on it, there's mining outside of the pink. It's because the mining has expanded over time. It has moved into other territories and other pieces of property incrementally, which is what we're asking for here as well. A couple of things that want to really clear up a handful of, there were some misconceptions at Planning Commission. I want to make sure that everybody, again, I clarified this at Planning Commission, but I want to clarify it again. We are proposing a wet mining operation. That is all we're asking for. This is not a borrow pit. We are not crushing rock. We are not, there's no chemical processing of the rock like you would find in a phosphate mine. We're not asking for batch plants or block plants or any other of those heavier industrial type activities. This is a wet mine where we will be hydraulically dredging underwater. Again, the mining activity occurs underwater and pumping the slurry back to the sorting plant, which will occur and I'll show you, walk you through the site plan a little bit as we get to it. But it is all done hydraulically, hydraulically, which minimizes impacts, noise and dust. There was also some confusion, if you will, about the trips and the trucks. Today, here's some data. This is the 2024 data as it relates to Highway 60. There are 21,500 vehicles on Highway 60 west of Mammoth Grove today. 4,500 of those are existing trucks. That's 21% of the total traffic before we've ever been considered. East of Mammoth Grove Road, there are 22,360 vehicles per day. 5,000 of them are trucks. But now that I think about it, those numbers are wrong. Ms. Gardner pointed that out. I must not have saved my PowerPoint presentation. They're a little bit lower. I'll get you the correct numbers. But as I was saying that, I realized that I saved some changes that didn't get saved into my PowerPoint. Those numbers are a little bit lower. But it is still about 22% of the traffic. We are less than 1% of an increase in truck trips east of Mammoth Grove Road, and we are just over 1% as you look west of Mammoth Grove Road. So those, so from a trips perspective, we are looking at 268 trucks. That is 536 trips. That's one truck in, one truck out. To get to 268 trucks, that is our maximum production divided by the capacity of a sand mine truck, divided by 365 days per year on a 2 million cubic yard per year production rate. And that's how you get to 268 trucks per day. And that is at max capacity. So concerns over 500 trucks, plus those kinds of things, those are erroneous. The max we can do is 268. Sand, why is sand so important? You see in the exhibits that Mr. Nance showed you, there are multiple sand mines in this immediate vicinity. It's a primary component in a number of different uses, cement, concrete, asphalt, pavers. These go into massive infrastructure projects, homes, bridges. It has been identified by the state legislature under Florida statute 337.0261 as a critical resource for the state. And this statute encourages and urges our local governments to make sure that these resources are critical. And one of the greatest examples of that and why it's so critical, just over the past year and a half, we just had a massive expansion to I-4 that was implemented at a very quick process. And if we didn't have these resources available, we might not have been able to meet the demands or the construction costs would have been much higher because you would have had to haul material from a lot further away. So these kinds of aggregates, these construction materials, are extremely important to have close to home. And they're also only found in certain places. You know, the ridge, which is why you see all of the non-phosphate mines up and down the ridge, is because that sand, that high-quality sand, the DOT quality sand, is located in this area. So much so, so this is a historical aerial. This one goes back to 1971. This is the first one that, this is off your GIS data. This is off the Polk County GIS website. This is the first one that really showed it in a very clear perspective. You can go back to the early 1940s, the 1941 aerial, although it is very clearly kind of taped together and pieced and scanned in, which I appreciate the effort going back, but it was a little hard to read. But you can see these two mines already in existence going back to 1941, which shows that you've had a, you know, half a century at, you know, or more of, of mining in this area. So this is an activity that's been ongoing in this area for a long period of time. And as you see it today, you can see you've, the, the mining has, has moved. It's, it's gone on to adjacent properties, just like we're asking for here today. Um, and you can see that other things have happened. You've got some residential growth that's occurred in the area as well. All along Stokes Road here, right adjacent to this mine, you have residential units that are immediately adjacent to the active, active non-phosphate mines. And this goes all the way, um, all the way up into back, back up to Mammoth Grove Road. You can even see this is off just a little bit off to the side here. That's a, that's a, that's another sand mine. That's another Vulcan mine. That, that one is located within the city of Lake Wales. It was permitted while it was in unincorporated area and ultimately annexed and expanded within the city of Lake Wales. And these are just some of the, again, just highlighting how this is incrementally grown, how they are incrementally attached to each other. Um, and commissioner Braswell, to your point, we are on this eastern side here, the purple, that is Citrus Succo, that is the old juice plant. Um, and the land that is to the north of Citrus Succo is owned by the, the juice company as well. So that's why you kind of see it moving around Citrus Succo. But again, C-Max has their Lake Wales sand mine. That's on both the north and the south side of highway 60 Vulcan diamond sand mine is located right on highway 60 with standard sand and silica on the south side of 60. And then again, this is another Vulcan um, facility. This is the Vulcan Lake Wales site that actually has now expanded across Mammoth Grove Road in a very similar manner to what is going, um, under highway 60 and moving further north. All of that, almost all of those mines at some point are adjacent to existing residential units. Future land use. I'm going to kind of dive into more of the kind of technical aspects of some of this stuff. Future land use, ARR, a little bit of residential non phosphate mining is one of a handful of specialized uses in section 1.25 of your comp plan that is identified to operate in all future land use except, and I forgot to put the star on there, except preservation. It's allowed in every other future land use classification except for preservation. And that's directly out of policy 2.1 to 5.2 of your comprehensive plan. So once you've, once you are asking for a non phosphate mine, what is the, what are the next steps you directed to the land development code and Mr. Nance gave you an overview. I'm not going to rehash all the specific code provisions, but we have gone through the level three, level three process and I've laid out here on the screen going back to July of 2025 relative to the pre-application, formal application in September of last year, planning commission denial in December on December 3rd, we timely filed the De Novo appeal. And, um, after the De Novo appeal was, uh, submitted, we worked with adjacent property owners, um, revised the applications and we're here before you today requesting an approval. What I find interesting is prior to planning commission, we had a staff recommendation of approval. We made substantial revisions to our application. even after all the public testimony at the planning commission hearing, we still have a planning commission, uh, still have a staff recommendation and a DRC recommendation of approval. And I think that's extremely telling as it relates to the compatibility of this project and consistency with your conference of plan and land development code. There are three primary elements, two primary elements, one of the, one of the elements has three sub parts. We have to get a mine approval, which is what we're asking for here today. That's your level three. That consists of an operations plan, a reclamation plan and a post closure plan. And during the level two process, assuming a favorable vote today, we would obtain an operating permit. And those are issued concurrently as you go through site plan and permitting the mine plan. This is, um, again, the same exhibits that Mr. Nance showed you, so I'm not going to belabor those. We're not asking for any deviations from your code requirements as it relates to setbacks. 100 feet from all rights away, 200 feet from any residential. Um, we're implementing a six foot berm. That is a typo in Mr. Demont's, um, report that I did not, uh, catch. Um, so appreciate Commissioner Scott. I found some others, but I didn't find that one. Um, he's got a, uh, a good eye. And, um, and you can see on this site plan, we are looking at mining these four areas. And this is about a 20 to 24 acre, um, operations area that that's here that will remain, um, available for, um, post closure uses. Zooming in on this, what you'll find is that, is that we've done a couple of things. One, we've, we're still implementing all the berms. It's over a half mile away from the saddlebag folks. So very far removed. We're providing for all the stacking on site. So there won't be any stacking of trucks within the right of way. We're providing so that the gate, so that anybody that arrives before our gate opens in the morning, um, they won't have to park on rights away. And then that's where our washing, all that we do on site is the slurry is piped and pumped back to this location. It's washed and it's screened and stacked. No other activities occur. So it's all remains very, um, it has a level of moisture to it so that it remains wet the entire time. And the importance of that and what, as Mr. DeMott pointed out in his, um, toxicology, toxicology report, is that prevents dust from occurring, whether it's heavy dust particles or lighter dust particles, such as PM 2.5, which have been raised by, um, the community. These are the, this is just a cross section of the berm. I just wanted to make sure, um, every, it was in the record six foot tall, 10 foot wide on the top. They'll be grassed and fenced. Um, this is, um, will prevent noise. It prevents dust, but it is also a safety measure. It keeps people out of the property. Um, and then you can see down to the bottom. As we mine, uh, we are, we can go to the angle of repose. Once it's reclaimed, and I didn't put the cross section of the reclamation in here, uh, as its own slide, just due to time. It will be reclaimed at four to one, once it gets five feet below this level of the surface, and then it just goes back to natural, um, angle of repose. This is the reclamation plan, again, identifying the areas that will remain, uh, as basically new lakes. And then this area in green here, which is identified as preservation, conservation, open space type activities, um, today. There are opportunities, um, in some certain circumstances for residential around some of these lakes. Um, there are areas where that has actually been, um, pursued. Um, I've worked on some of that. We actually had a group that tried to buy one of the lakes at one time, um, and they were going to create a water skiing community on the lake. And it was going to be a privately owned lake with about six or eight lots on it. Um, that deal ultimately fell through. But there are people that look, look, and there are opportunities for these types of activities. Fishing, um, uh, passive recreation. All of those kinds of things are extremely, um, um, used on these types of lakes after the fact, because they're replanted. We have to reestablish the littoral shelves with the proper slopes. And then again, this is just showing the passive recreation conservation area on the previous operation area. Um, evaluation of impacts. We've touched, I've already touched on a couple of them a little bit. I'm going to just go back through them again. We've looked at groundwater, surface water. This will have a reduced impact on the upper Floridan aquifer as the mining activity occurs over time. We will be reducing agricultural withdrawals, um, from the upper Floridan. Sand mining uses a very, um, light amount of, of water use. Um, and it is from the upper as from the superficial aquifer. So from a different aquifer. 268 trucks per day. I talked about that already. This is a de minimis impact. We've already done a minor traffic study, uh, and submitted that to your staff. So we've already looking at trips. There's plenty of capacity on the network, no reduction on level of service. Um, Mr. Walton and Verdantes have already done a desktop review. We will have to do field work as development goes. For instance, gopher tortoises, you go and identify a gopher tortoise and you survey it. You have 90 days to move that tortoise. So we won't get into those efforts on the specifics until you get to those, um, into that level. So environmental impacts will be constantly evaluated and reviewed over time. Looking at the, um, and I'm going to dive into a little bit of detail on each one, looking at the reduction in groundwater withdrawals. pH citrus currently has a, has a, um, permit to withdraw a million gallons a day from the, um, Florida aquifer. That will be reduced over time. There will remain some, um, ag use as we've reduced, as we've removed 200 acres out. So that won't completely go to zero, but it will go, um, significantly lower. On average, a sand mine uses about 40,000 gallons per day in comparison. And again, not from the Floridan, but from the surficial aquifer. So significant improvement to the, um, Florida aquifer. There were concerns raised by the saddlebag. They get their water from the upper Floridan. Um, we recognize that. Um, this, and, uh, hold on before I get to that. This is, um, to show, to demonstrate. This is empirical evidence. This is the adjacent sand mine. This is the Cimex sand mine that's immediately to the west. And again, you can see this is data going back to 2013 to 2025, where they were using, you know, in the range of 25 to 35,000 gallons per day. Again, and that is permitted out of the, out of the surficial aquifer, just to show the empirical data that of what we're talking about is accurate. Saddlebag, um, raised some concerns regarding their well. This is, uh, the scale on the, on the horizontal scale is, is fairly long. So we had to, we had there, this exhibit has a very long, um, big scale on the bottom and a short scale going vertically in order to show accurately kind of the interactions between the sand mine and the saddlebag. Well, you can see they're about a one, one and a half miles apart. They're the wells on the eastern side of their site. These elevations are accurate and precise. This is based on a hydrologic study, uh, Polk County. This is, was prepared by Mr. Stevens. And you can see that what you, the difference in the, in the, um, operations, we have no access to the Florida aquifer on, from the sand mine. And you can see where the different elevations as to how we're, um, using water and withdrawing water in between, you have a confining unit. So those two, so we will, any activity from the sand mine is completely separated through by the confining unit from the upper Florida and aquifer. So they can't have any adverse impacts against each other. And we have to prove all of this as we go through the process, as we, if, if we're approved today, we will move on to Southwest Florida water managed management district permitting, um, FTP. And these issues will have to be proved through that permitting process, um, with those organizations, um, transportation analysis. I provided you a little bit of this. We have, as Mr. Nance indicated, we have 17 PM peak hour trips. It's about 77 in the, in the AM again, 2 million yards per year. It equates to 268 truckloads. That's based on a 20 cubic yard truck for 556 total daily trips. And that 556 includes our employees. So about 10 trips for employee automobile trucks, automobile traffic, not trucks. And they're not driving the sand truck to work. Mr. Nance gave you the distribution 60% of our traffic's anticipated to go east, um, west to, um, into town 40% east on highway 60. Uh, again, per by condition, we're prohibited from going north on mammoth Grove road. So we will have to access to the south. Um, there's tremendous amount of spacing between existing intersections. There's a 2,500 feet between saddle where saddlebag accesses highway 60 to our east. Before, um, this is where mammoth Grove road comes out on highway 60. This is the saddlebag communities access point here into the west. We have a thousand feet before the St. Ann shrine access point. And then in between, you've got some, you've got some other industrial. So you've got a tremendous amount of separation on highway 60 that add, that eases, um, ingress and egress. But on a more granular level, this intersection really makes a lot of sense as well for this type types of trucks. This is in a current Google earth map. You've already got right turn diesel lanes into mammoth Grove. If you're going westbound on highway 60, you've got turn lane in the median dedicated left turn. If you're headed eastbound out of Lake Wales, and you can see that you've also got other. Turn lanes and the acceleration and deceleration lanes already implemented within highway 60. So again, you've got plenty of, um, opportunity for get, uh, to safely maneuver through this intersection. Dr. DeMott, um, we provided this late yesterday afternoon. I apologize for getting it to you, uh, right at five o'clock, but that was our first opportunity to get it to you. We had some other things going on yesterday. We asked Dr. DeMott to look at this proposed project from a number of different perspectives. One, there were concerns related to silica or silica exposure, silicosis. Um, we asked him to evaluate wet sand mining from that perspective. He has 30 years of experience. He's here in the audience. Um, if you have any specific questions for him, but based on his conclusions, based on the scientific literature, the findings, he concludes that there's no basis to expect silicosis or similar conditions in the, in the surrounding communities from the proposed sand mine. Again, the wet activity creating that level of moisture, um, prevents, um, this becoming a concern. It's such a light, um, concern. Exposures for individuals in non-occupational situations have not been found to find to have any cause of silicosis. Going to the, you have as potentially as much exposure as going to the beach, uh, you know, for having some sort of, you know, case of silicosis. You have to be in a environment where they're inside the building where they're drying the sand, which we're not asking for any of that to have any sort of level of exposure to, of any concern. We also looked at, um, PM 2.5 that was raised as a concern. These are some of the finer particles. Again, the wet nature of the process reduces this concern. So he's concluded that there, that the, um, that there's no concerns from inhalation of PM 2.5 on adjacent, uh, communities. We also looked at it from the perspective of being increased truck traffic, whether that's trucks driving on the road and causing dust or combusting diesel fuel. And we've already talked about there being 20,000 plus vehicles on the road, ultimately concluding that there's no significant, um, increase or, um, concerns resulting from the increased truck traffic. So at the end of the day, at the end of the day, there's no expected health concerns from this activity. So I think that's important. I have a copy, uh, I have copies of Mr. DeMott's report, um, for purposes of the record. These are all, all of the exhibit, all, everything that I've shown you on the screen today are directly out of this report. Um, I have copies of each, I have copies for each one of you in case you didn't have an opportunity to read it and have some extra copies. If there's anybody in the audience I would like to review it. So with that, I'm going to conclude and try and save these last couple of minutes here. Um, we have a staff recommendation of approval. It's consistent with your comp plan. You have a finding of compatibility. It meets or exceeds all of your land development or code requirements. I have my entire team here to answer any questions that you may ask. Everything that we have talked about this morning is in the record, um, and we're prepared by the respective experts. So with that, thank you for your time. And, um, we request some time after for rebuttal. Thank you. Anybody want to ask now? Do we want to wait until you want to ask now? Okay. All right. If you can, uh, Dino, as far as the stacking of the sand, once it's mined and then screened and then stacked prior to being hauled off, what's the maximum height? Is there a maximum height prescribed for that stacking? There is, but I don't remember it right off the top of my head. Okay. I'll have to find that out for you. I don't remember. I'll stop. I'm a head commissioner. You can just report back on that. I will. A hundred percent. Anybody? Um, Mr. Allen, two things, the internal stacking of the trucks. Do you have a number of what you're looking at is what would be the internal stacking capabilities on site? We've got, I think it's around three to 400 feet at least of, of, um, stacking on site. So that's plenty for the number of vehicles that we would expect. Okay. Also, um, you talked about the water use of historical information that you had for the CMEX site there. How does this site compare size wise to comparable? And one other thing, could you go back to your early slides where you were talking about the increase of traffic east and west? I was trying to do the math on that. And then you took the slide away right there. So proposed, I'll do this. That's it. Thank you. Anybody else? Just clear the record. If we could have Mr. DeMott come up for a second, just so we have on the record, I know Mr. Allen corrected the typo, but I believe we should hear from you that it was intended to be six feet, six foot berm. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Mink. I do understand that it was a type of... Say your name. Okay. Yes. This is Dr. Robert DeMott from Ramble 10150 Highland Manor Drive in Tampa. And, um, I do understand that the proper height of the berm is six feet and that does not change my opinion in any ways. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Price, do you have questions? If you could come up to the microphone so we can catch it, please. Is this the opposition? Yes, ma'am. But she does have opportunity to ask a question. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Allen, can you please tell me, because I might have missed it, the trucks. Did you say that they are going to be operating 365 days a year? Ms. Gardner, can you please answer this question? I'm not the expert. Well, are you going to be driving trucks 365 days or are you going to do them Monday to Saturday like originally was planned? Ms. Pratt, I'm going to have my expert answer your question. Okay. Good morning. Amber Gardner with Kimley Horn, 1700 Southeast 17th Street, Ocala, Florida. The traffic analysis was based on the operating days of the mine, which is Monday through Saturday, so that's 312 days a year. Okay. So my question is, are the operators going to be running trucks 365 days a year? No. So what days will they be running trucks? I believe she answered that question. We just answered that question. It's in the staff report. We're limited to Monday through Saturday operations. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are you here now? And I wanted to answer, Commissioner Scott, 25 to 35 feet, it's part of your staff report as it relates to the stacking height. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Madam Chair, if no one has anything further from Mr. Allen today, it would be Ms. Pratt's turn to present the organized opposition. You have 30 minutes. Good morning. Just as Mr. Allen had, I have some housekeeping items to do. So if you wouldn't mind, thank you. Thank you. So first off, I would like to enter into evidence my resume as an expert witness. I am a retired engineer with 32 years of experience at General Motors working in both United States and Canada. I have extensive background in regulated industry environments involving automotive manufacturing, emissions, environmental compliance, and quality systems. I have demonstrated ability to analyze engineering data, specifications, drawings, and regulatory frameworks, and to present clear, unbiased, technical conclusions to boards, executives, and governmental decision makers. My professional credibility is grounded in data integrity, engineering judgment, and ethical independence. My education is from Kettering University. I have a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering. So with that, I would like to tender my resume to be a subject matter expert for the opposition. I believe we would need a motion on that. My question, and this may be to Randy, so if there's testimony given relating to traffic and are, I'm thinking, environmental, that, from what I've heard, does not, would not be covered by the areas that she has mentioned. And that's one of the questions of what subject matter are you wanting to be an expert in? Oh, all. I can analyze all the data. I have an engineering degree. I am a problem solver. I worked in environmental engineering for General Motors. I did data regulatory analysis for that. I worked in, well, give me my resume back. I'll tell you it all. So I did work in safety. Oh, God, you guys are stressing me out. I think it would be fair to say because when you see my presentation, okay, I am not going to be giving you technical data saying that I am a hydrologist. I am not going to give you data that says I am a traffic specialist. When you see my presentation, you'll understand that it is of a level that is just bringing to point the code. What the code requires, what the county requires to find compatibility. And I have lots of data to show how the compatibility is questionable. So with that, I just would like to be recognized as an engineer who can do data analysis, who's got some smarts and can do some problem solving. And I don't think we need to worry about being a hydrologist. I'll never claim I'm that. I'll never claim I'm an environmentalist like your guy. Where'd he go? So anyway, that's that. So expert in engineering is based. Ms. DeMott, do you still maintain your license? I'm retired. Okay. So you don't maintain your license? Well, as a retired person, no, I do not maintain my license. Okay. I just wanted to make sure it was clear for the record that I was also an engineer. Good. Yay, engineers. Exactly. So I just wanted to make sure. Okay. Move and accept her as an expert. Please. Second. Wait a minute. You had a motion? Yes. Okay. We have a motion second to accept Mrs. Pratt as the expert engineer. Yeah. Yeah. That too. Any questions? Okay. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. I have a couple more items of housekeeping. Okay. The next item is I would like to submit to the record a formal objection to the accuracy and completeness of the December 3rd, 2025 planning commission minutes. I have a proof of service that this document was sent to the county. Okay. And it was not included in the agenda packet. So none of you folks have seen this. So please put it in the record. One more item of it. Oh, no, there's a couple more. Sorry. Housekeeping. So at the December 3rd hearing, it was stated by both Mr. Allen and their traffic expert that the safety, traffic safety on Highway 60 was not a problem. I'd like to submit into evidence all these traffic safety reports that are from the state of Florida for traffic crash data. Sorry. That's a mouthful. So please accept these reports into evidence. And another housekeeping. I would like to submit into evidence compatibility analysis, multiple. One for water resources and hydrologic impacts. One for noise impacts. One for air quality and respirable crystalline silica. Another compatibility analysis for traffic safety at State Road 60 and Mammoth Grove Road. And a compatibility analysis for air quality and diesel emissions. These were all prepared by myself spending a great deal of time doing data analytics as an engineer. And one more housekeeping item. Can I stop right there? If this is something that she's going to be speaking to, can we get some copies of these? Because I can't imagine what some of those, I don't know. I've never seen a compatibility table that she's. Did we bring extra copies, Ms. Pratt? I did not bring extra copies. But most of that, most of it is included in my presentation. Most. But it would probably be very handy to have it so you could take notes on it. And I did not bring copies. I'm sorry. Madam Chair, do you want us to recess to make copies for the. Let's just go ahead and if you could give us a copy. We just, yeah. Bring one and we can pass it. I guess during the meeting I can have someone make copies. Yeah. Okay. Now let's just go ahead and use whatever copy. Wait, Lauren. Lauren. Hold it. Let's just use whatever copy she has. Just bring it up here and we'll, we'll share it. Yeah. Cause you're going to, you said you're going to be talking or addressing most. Most. Most of it. Most of it will be in. So. Yeah. Bring us. Madam. Madam Chair, if you may have. If we can make copies, I'd just like to have it so we can flip through that. If that's doable. Say that again. I'm sorry. I would prefer to have a copy in front of me if we can. While she's presenting. If that's. How long would it take her to make copies of that? Okay. Go ahead and do it. Thank you, ma'am. I don't think we have to wait for those copies. So yeah. All the evidence you're presenting. Uh, no, I have one more thing that I'd like to say while I'm still in housekeeping mode, because this document that the environmental fella just went over was only put into the record or given to you guys, the county last night. So it's quite unreasonable to think that I've had time to go through this. However, I do have a response to this document, which I would like to share while I'm on housekeeping. No, you would need, you need to give your response in your 30 minutes. All right. Well, I'll, I'll tuck it in there then. Okay. I need one more sip of water. All right. Before you begin, Mr. Allen, you have any objections or anything regarding the evidence before we place that into the record? I don't know whether to object or not. I haven't seen it. Well, we'll get it, get you copies, uh, hopefully so you can review. Appreciate it. Amber, will you make sure that they make extra copies for, um, Bert? Oh, sorry. I do have one more thing. Uh, this is a packet of, um, for evidence. This is the papers that were signed by residents to allow me to speak today. These package that you gave to actually there's more, there's more papers. I have more. So this is an updated one. Uh, there are total of 55 pages here. 55 people have signed to allow me to speak. Oh, one second. And, uh, I just wanted to say that I'll be representing Thomas Lake, Cypress Lake, Park Lake, St. Ann Shrine, South Shore, and also Lake Shore and Indian Lakes. And you may say that those two are too far away to worry about it. Cause they are a little bit far away from the mine site. However, those two communities are extremely concerned about the traffic on Highway 60. So we'll get to that in a minute, but this is all the people I'm representing. Michelle. Just for clarification, my understanding of the rules of procedure relative to speaking on other public's behalf on this in a de novo hearing that anybody that is part of that packet can not speak during the public as well. That's correct. And that they are part of the 30 minutes that Ms. Pratt has. Yeah, that's correct. My understanding that we've checked that the individuals who have the up here have not been part of this. Very, very good. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. All right. Thank you. Member, would you come and get these and kind of cross-reference them? Thank you. Give it to you. Okay. Madam Chair, I think at this time it's appropriate to begin, if you're ready, the 30 minutes for Ms. Pratt. We have to pull up my PowerPoint. Oh, there it is. Thank you. You guys are so on the ball. Thank you to the communications team. Okay. Stay there. So at this point, I want to briefly address the Saddle Bay Lake Owners Association letter that was mentioned earlier. The Saddle Bay Board negotiated with the applicant to address certain concerns specific to their community, including removing approximately 200 acres from their proposed mining area. I respect their effort to advocate for their residents. However, that agreement applies only to Saddle Bay Lake and does not resolve the broader impacts of this project and the surrounding communities. My role as organized opposition is to represent residents from several nearby areas, including Thomas Lake, Cypress Lake, Park Lake, St. Ann Shrine, South Shore, Lake Shore, and Indian Shores, who remain directly affected by the proposed mine and processing operation. In addition, the restriction placed on the 20-acre parcel lasts only for 25 years, after which the land may still be used for mining. For these reasons, while the Saddle Bay Board reached an agreement addressing certain concerns within their community, many residents in the surrounding area continue to oppose this project because of its long-term impacts. A private agreement between a homeowner's association and an applicant cannot resolve the broader land use compatibility issues that affect the surrounding community. With that, let's go to slide two. All right. So what you see here is the proposed Mammoth Grove sand mine is located directly within an area that includes the established residential and community areas. The diagram shows you that these include Saddle Bay Lake Resort, South Shore Resort, Lake Aurora Christian Camp, which actually I forgot to put on the diagram. And it is the lake that's right below South Shore. Okay. That's Lake Aurora. These are all long-standing residential communities where people live, retire, and expect a quiet rural environment. The proposed mine would introduce industrial sand mining operations directly into this setting. The site is also surrounded by lakes that support nearby residences. For example, there's Little Gum Lake that's about 1,000 feet away. Big Gum Lake is about 1,700 feet away. Parks Lake is about 3,600 feet away. Cypress Lake is only about 160 feet away. Thomas Lake is about 1,600 feet away. Saddle Bay Lake is about 600 feet away. Lake Aurora is about 2,000 feet away. These are lakeside residential environments located very close to the proposed industrial mining operation. Many of the homes around these lakes have shallow wells. They are drawing from the surficial aquifer. They are not drawing from the Floridian aquifer. And as Mr. Allen stated earlier, he's going to be drawing his water from the surficial aquifer. Next. Oh, yeah. Under the Polk County Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant must demonstrate that the mine is compatible with surrounding land uses. And that compatibility must be supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. Compatibility evaluations normally include impacts such as air quality, noise, lighting and glare, groundwater and traffic safety. These are the core issues that determine whether industrial mining can coexist with nearby residential uses. The scale of the proposed operation is also important. According to the staff report, sand stockpiles at the processing plant are expected to average 25 to 35 feet high. Please reference the truck in this image. That is a full-size sand truck, sand hauling truck. So that is to scale to what you see for what those stacks are going to look like. Once the stockpiles exceed 25 feet, Polk County requires additional setbacks for every extra foot of height. There is no restriction on the height as long as the setbacks are met. So draw your own conclusion there. A 35-foot sand pile is roughly the height of a three-story building. This is the scale of the industrial operation being proposed in a rural residential area. This photo shows a typical sand processing facility. The image was taken along State Road 60. Even from a distance of about 1,200 feet, the scale of the industrial processing area is clearly visible. This helps illustrate what type of operation actually looks like on our landscape. Wet sand mining also relies on hydraulic dredging. These dredges operate continuously within the pit lake and are connected to pumps, pipelines, and processing equipment. They are a central component of industrial sand mining operations. And in addition to that dredge, there's also auxiliary pumps that are going to be required to get the slurry such a great distance all the way to the processing plant. Those additional pumps were not disclosed through Mr. Allen's presentation. And those pumps are also an impact, a potential for impact on the communities. Okay. So this photo, yep, next one. This photo shows what one of those dredges looks like in operation. These machines run continuously as part of the mining process. So that's the dredge that is currently located at the pit south of 60. And it runs along Dude Ranch Road. And that was taken at the far south end of Dude Ranch Road. Okay, next. So when mines are evaluated for compatibility with nearby residential areas, certain technical studies are normally performed. For example, for air quality, engineers typically prepare emissions inventories in air dispersion models. And at this point, I'm going to reference the report that I was just privy to about a half hour ago. This is the report from Mr. Dermott, and I would like to address that expert report that was just presented. So this report, if you go through it, is based on an idealized assumption that because the mining process is wet, there will be no meaningful dust impacts. However, it does not evaluate real-world conditions. It contains no site-specific wind analysis, despite the well-known wind conditions on the Lake Wales Ridge. It does not evaluate stockpile drying, haul road dust, truck traffic, or material handling, which are the primary sources of airborne dust in actual mining operations. Importantly, there is no quantitative modeling in this report. None. There are no predicted particulate levels. There's no dispersion modeling and no comparison to any regulatory standards. Without that, the conclusion that impacts will be insignificant is not supported by scientific analysis. You could say there's not substantial competent evidence. The report also focuses narrowly on silicosis, which is an occupational disease threshold. That is not the standard for compatibility. Residents are concerned with nuisance dust, air quality, and daily exposure, all of which are not addressed here. Finally, the conclusions rely on general literature rather than site-specific data. There is no evidence presented that this particular location, in close proximity to multiple residential communities, will not result in off-site impacts. For these reasons, this report, right here, does not provide competent substantial evidence that the project is compatible with surrounding residential uses. Okay. So, continuing on to dust. Even with wet dredging, many sources of dust still exist in sand mining operations. Dust can come from sand stockpiles, conveyor systems, loader operations, truck loading, hull roads, and land clearing. Wet dredging does not eliminate dust from these surface operations. What you see here is photos that show examples of dust associated with existing sand mining operations nearby. These images were taken along Story Road and along State Road 60. They show how fugitive dust from mining operations can travel beyond the immediate mine site. This is why dust control and air quality analysis are normally evaluated in detail. So, this picture here is, that's actually Story Road. And you're looking at it as you would be heading into the mine entrance. And you can see there on the right side that there is a significant amount of sand piled up there. And that there's truck tracks going through that sand. And it's exactly doing that process that breaks that sand down and puts it into a form that would be considerable to respiratory crystalline silica dust. So, there's a condition in the staff report that states the applicant shall be responsible to inspect adjacent roadway conditions for material spillage and provide its cleanup for its cleanup and removal at least once a day for each day of operation. This is a common condition in Polk County mining applications. That's what's on Story Road. That photo was taken on January 1st, 2026. You can go and see that same pile or maybe bigger pretty much every day. I've never seen it cleaned up. And I go there frequently to look. This is an example of that sand mine on 60. It's an image that was taken from State Road 60 on December 5th, 2025. What you're seeing there in the bright light, this was a very windy day, that fugitive dust is escaping those stockpiles and becoming airborne. Lake Wales Ridge, elevated and exposed. So, this site, the new mine site, as well as that existing mine site that you were looking at, is located on the Lake Wales Ridge, one of the highest landforms in Peninsular Florida. The ridge was formed from ancient coastal sand dunes. It is characterized by sandy soils, open landscapes, and limited tree canopy. The Lake Wales area is also known for persistent seasonal winds. These conditions can allow fine sand and dust particles to travel further once they become airborne. However, the record contains no emissions inventory. There is no air dispersion modeling, and there is no evaluation of particulate exposure at nearby homes. Without those analyses, the record does not demonstrate that air quality impacts have been properly evaluated. And now we're going to move on to noise. Sand mining operations also generate continuous industrial noise. Typical sources include dredge pumps, slurry pumps, conveyors, processing equipment, loaders, truck loading operations. Mining operations will occur 24 hours a day, meaning noise will occur at all hours. Nearby residential areas typically experience background sound levels of about 48 to 53 decibels. I forgot something. Give me my, in that bag, give me the sound meter. There's a sound meter in the bag. Okay, so nearby residential areas typically experience sound levels around 48 to 53 decibels. Sound meter. Okay, so dredge operations can produce sound levels around 55. Oh shoot, I'm on the wrong slide. I'm on ambient sound, that's where I want to be. Yep. Okay, so, I'm sorry. Go back to the dredge. My thing's messed me up here. Um, so, okay. Advance one. There we go. Let's do this. Current ambient sound environment. So, nearby residential areas are typically 48 to 53 DBC. Typical rural residential background sound. And I'm going to demonstrate that. Now, I'm not saying this is a sound study. I'm not saying it's a sound analysis. This is a example of what you would experience in a residential area. And if you just one second, don't play it yet. I'm going to put on my sound meter and we're going to actually play this volume. I'm going to have you increase it until I get to the right decibels. Okay. So, just give me one second. So, my sound meter is set to DBC and I'm ready to go. I will not speak. We are only going to listen to that recording. Is it going? Okay. There's no more than one way to skin the cat, as they say. Can you please stop the time because that's supposed to be running? Or actually back it up. No? Okay, fine. Okay. Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun. Here we go. So, that was in a regular residential area. We've got birds tweeting. Everybody's happy. And our decibel level for that environment is 48 to 53 decibels. Okay, next one. Now we have the dredge noise. The dredge noise, want to try it? Would you like me to play that? Yeah, please. So, you can see there's quite a difference, although you don't really get the full appreciation of the noise because we're in this room. But when you're outside and you're expecting it to be nice and quiet and you go over to the area where the dredging is happening, you hear that constant noise. I won't call it a hum. It's a noise. So, let's go to the next one. So, when you compare those two areas for noise exposure, the current rural sound environment was 48 to 53. The sand dredge was 55 to 60. And the delta between those two is seven decibels. What's important to know is that measuring decibels, it's a linear relationship. Not linear. Sorry. It's not linear. It is logarithmic. So, a logarithmic chart looks like this. It goes flat and then it goes right up high. Okay. When you're talking about noise and decibel ratings, it's logarithmic so that when you have even a seven decibel delta between those two, you're talking about 1.5 to two times louder the dredge will feel to your ear than the original sound. Okay. Next slide. So, in the application materials, the staff report states that after the startup of the mine, after the startup, which means all the land clearing and the burden removal and all the dredges or all the berms have been formed, which all require heavy machinery, bulldozers, land moving equipment, noisy. But after they do all that, they're saying that the ongoing noise is not anticipated to exceed 65 decibels at the property line. They made that statement. However, in all the record, there is no environmental noise study, there is no sound propagation modeling, and no evaluation of startup phase noise from clearing and heavy equipment. So, noise compatibility has not been technically evaluated. We're going to transition over to industrial lighting at sand mining operations. It's caused by processing plant lighting, conveyor and load lighting, stockpile yard lighting, and dredge lighting. The mining operations will occur 24 hours a day, requiring nighttime lighting. Here's an example of the nighttime lighting that you can see off of Highway 60. That's the current mine. It was photographed about 850 feet away from that pile. Next. This is an example of dredge lighting at the distance. Now, this is interesting. That dredge is actually located a mile away from where I'm standing. And the light is that bright. You can see that light from 60. Next. Now, if you drive around to where that dredge is actually located, this is what you see. In that particular spot, there was no berm. So, I could actually get a really good look at this thing. And what you have around the whole top of the dredge are very large light standards that emit a lot of light. I won't tell you how much, because I don't know. But there is a lot of light coming off that thing. It's clear. You can see it. Next. What I did at that particular location, I actually moved over. And then I stood in front of where the sand berm was located. That berm was over 15 feet. I can assure you of that. That was not a six-foot berm. If you go down to the south side of the pit, you can confirm that yourself. But that, what you see, is the light coming up from the dredge over the berm. And that's over a 15-foot berm. The application is talking six feet. Next. And this is another source of light that is currently in the existing pit. That's where the auxiliary pumps are. They're never talked about in the application. They're never talked about the noise. Go ahead. Let's move on to that lighting. Oh, still lighting. So, lighting analysis is not in the record. There's no photometric lighting study, no glare analysis, no evaluation of light spillover to nearby residences. So, the photometric analysis is normally used to evaluate light spillover and glare at nearby residents. It is not done. It's not technically evaluated. I'm running out of time, so I'm going to have to go fast. So, turn it in. Okay. Now, hydraulic dredge mining and groundwater interaction. FDEP dredge mining permit applications require the analysis of. This is FDEP. This is right from their form. You have to talk about the depth and area excavated before the dredge becomes operational. You also have to talk the method of initial excavation before dredging begins, the time required before dredging begins, whether temporary groundwater dewatering will occur, and whether the water table must be augmented to float the dredge. You never heard anything about having to augment the water to float the dredge in any of the application materials. We don't know how much that will be. We don't know if they're going to do it, and we don't know where that water is going to come from. Because there's no mine water readily available to reprocess in the closed-loop system, I would speculate that that water would come from the Floridian Aquifer. But only Mr. Allen and his team would be able to confirm that. Next. Evaporation from the proposed mine pit lake. Sorry. So, the estimated pit lake area is approximately 500 acres of open water. Typical open water evaporation in Florida is about 45 to 55 inches of water depth per year. So, if you use the calculations involved with getting to that, it's about 690 million gallons per year. And that ends up, yeah, that's good. So, how dredge sand mining can alter groundwater flow? Natural lake ridge lake system. Lakes on the Lake Wales Ridge are groundwater-dependent depression lakes. Lake levels rise and fall with the surficial aquifer water tables. These lakes typically have no natural surface inflow and outlet. When dredge mining intercepts the aquifer, wet sand mining excavates below the water table, the mine pit becomes a large open groundwater reservoir, and groundwater flow gradients can shift toward the pit lake. Ridge lakes depend on groundwater levels. Excavation below the water table can intercept groundwater flow and alter the surrounding hydrogeologic system. This is Bonnie Lake. Bonnie Lake currently is dried up. It's been dried up for years. It's located just north of Lake Wales, and it's right next to Sandland Sand Mine. Swift Mud Hydrologic Reports, they monitor all these lakes, several of which are in Polk County. I put in this chart the distance of those to the mines in the area. So, the closest one is Crooked Lake at three miles away, and that Crooked Lake has lost 4.02 feet since 2022. And when you look at all the other numbers on that chart, the pits, the lakes that are near the mines are losing more water than those other lakes. Next. Okay, so groundwater interaction analysis is not in the record. There's no groundwater flow modeling provided. No pit lake equilibrium analysis. No evaluation of evaporation impacts. No analysis of potential effects on the local lakes, residential wells, and agricultural wells. No analysis. So, hydrogeologic modeling is the standard method to use, evaluate, groundwater interaction for dredge mining operations. What you see here, oh, we got traffic. Oh, God, I got to hurry up. Okay. This intersection, that's where the mine is going to come out. Okay, in the white circle there. Go ahead. So, the trucks come in and out, and go ahead. And so, intersection evaluation, oh, back up one, please. There's a median there. Trucks can't fit in that median to actually make a proper left turn. Okay, go ahead. This is an incline at Mammoth Grove Road in the road. So, when trucks are pulling out and trying to head south to 60, they have to go up this incline and then stop, because they better stop and look for traffic. And then, that incline is going to make it even more difficult for them to accelerate from that location as compared to Story Road. Go ahead. Play the video, please. Thank you. You can see how long that truck blocked the traffic on that particular day. This is a sample, a sample of what you can observe on State Road 60 with the haul trucks. Okay, we talked about safety. This is an example of there are significant crashes in the area of this mine where the X is at. That is one of the red areas in all of Polk County where it is a top 20 location for crashes. Next. Intersection safety analysis is not in the record. The minor traffic study evaluated roadway capacity, not safety. There's no analysis of the truck acceleration, gap acceptance, queuing, intersection safety operations. The staff report concludes no intersection improvements are required. Without intersection safety analysis, the record does not demonstrate that sand truck access to State Road 60 can operate safely. Next. Okay, next. You don't need to worry about that. Okay, go ahead. So, that's my last, oh my God, I've got 20 seconds. Commissioners, the Polk County comprehensive plan requires that the mining operations be compatible with surrounding land uses and that determinations must be supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. In this case, several of the technical analysis normally used to evaluate compatibility are not present in the application record. Without them, compatibility cannot be determined. Commissioners, compatibility cannot be assumed. It must be proven. And in this record, it has not been proven. When the technical evidence needed to demonstrate compatibility is missing, the only responsible decision is denial. For that reason, we respect that you deny this application. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Mr. Randy, we're going to go ahead and take a five-minute break before we move forward. So, we'll be back at exactly, let's just take a little bit more at 1130. Let's be back. Ladies and gentlemen, if we could take our seats so that we can continue, please. Thank you. Please do it quickly. Amber, is there anybody else that signed up that you haven't given me there or everybody's here already? Okay. Yeah. I'm going to start with, and please, I apologize if I mispronounced your name. Two things. Maybe I can't pronounce it. And the other one is I can't read the handwriting. So, just bear with me on that. I'm going to start with, we're entering the public hearing now, General. So, we're going to start with Matthew Machata. And Matthew, I think you need to be sworn in. Worn in? Yeah. So, you can come to the front and then Attorney Randy will swear you in. No. Okay. Attorney Randy will take you. Raise your right, if you could raise your right hand. Does the evidence or testimony that you give today, is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yep. All right. Thank you. Good to go. Say your name, address, and you've got three minutes. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Matthew Machata. I live at 6449 Camp Mack Road, Lake Wells, Florida. I'm a neighboring citrus grower who owns and operates groves to the north, south, and east of the proposed project site. My livelihood depends on clean groundwater. So, the hydrologic impacts of this project are of extreme importance to me. Because this is a conditional use permit, the Commission's decision must be supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record, consistent with standard applied to quasi-judicial land use decisions under Florida law. When reviewing the applicant's operations narrative, specifically the section titled Pre- and Post-Development, Environmental, and Hydrologic Conditions, the applicant presents several definitive hydrologic conclusions. For example, the narrative states, there will be no significant changes to the environmental or hydrologic conditions on or near the site. Mining will not change its official aquifer water table or intermediate aquifer levels. Mining will not reduce recharge to the intermediate or upper Florida and aquifers. Maintaining the dredge pond at ambient water table elevation will present off-site drawdown and that the proposed mine will not adversely affect groundwater or surface water. Each of these statements is a hydrologic conclusion that must be supported by competent substantial evidence, such as groundwater modeling, aquifer analysis, or water balance studies. How those supporting analysis do not appear anywhere in the African's submitted materials. Despite that absence, the staff report parrots many of these conclusions and recommends approval of the conditional use permit. The African also states groundwater conditions won't improve because citrus irrigation withdrawals will be eliminated. However, replacing citrus groves with a large open water mining lake does not produce a net water savings. In citrus production on these well-drained ridge soils, the water we apply through our micro-jet irrigation largely infiltrates the soil, with a substantial portion percolating back to recharge the aquifer and only minor losses to evapotranspiration. Conversely, groundwater exposed by the nearly 100-foot deep mining lake will be lost through evaporation, leaving the local aquifer system and ultimately redistributed as precipitation far from this site, where it no longer contributes to local groundwater recharge. Scientific literature from the U.S. Geological Survey shows open water bodies in Florida commonly lose 5 to 6 feet of water annually to evaporation across a 500-acre mine lake system that represents roughly 800 million to nearly 1 billion gallons of water lost each year, or 2 to 3 million gallons every single day. If the lake is hydraulically connected to the aquifer and losing water at that rate, groundwater must flow from surrounding properties into the lake to replace that loss. The significant evaporative loss from the proposed mining lake are not accounted for and not addressed anywhere in the application materials before you today. So I respectfully ask the commission, where in the record is the confident substantial evidence that this commission must rely upon to conclude that excavating hundreds of acres deep into the aquifer system and creating a permanent lake with a direct, unconfined, hydraulic connection to the surficial aquifer will not adversely affect neighboring properties and groundwater resources. Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you. Next, I have Dorothy Logan. After Dorothy, I have Karen Behan. So you just get ready after she comes up, okay? Thank you, commissioners, for letting us little people speak on this matter. My name is Dorothy Logan. I live at 48 Queen of Water Street in Saddlebag Lake Resort. As a resident of SLR, I'm very appreciative of the work our HOA has done to protect its residents. The work resulted in the applicant revising its application to remove approximately 200 acres closest to Saddlebag Lake Resort, along with other provisions that truly did seek to protect SLR. However, everything I've learned throughout this process, in order for me to personally have the moral authority, moral justification, moral foundation from which to oppose this mine or any other mine in the future, I feel compelled to speak in opposition to this project and to have my objections included as part of the public record. The application's revision to omit the parcel of land closest to my community does deserve attention, because it is an admission, not a solution. By altering the footprint, the applicant has acknowledged that the proximity to residential uses does matter. But moving lines on a map does not by itself demonstrate compatibility under the Polk County Land Development Code. Compatibility is not determined by acreage or by unelected governmental staff's recommendation. It is determined by whether adverse impacts to public health, safety, and welfare will occur, and whether those impacts have been analyzed, avoided, or reduced to an acceptable level for citizens through enforceable conditions. And even after the revision, this proposal still includes multiple excavation pits near residential properties. And the application still contains, as we've just heard, no health impact statements, no air quality or silica dispersion modeling, and no construction phase analysis. Just paid experts' general reassurances regarding the sand mine itself. But the most intense phases of mining, land clearing, overburden removal, berm construction, and dry excavation, occur before buffers are fully established and before that wet mining begins. Those impacts are not eliminated simply because one portion of the boundary has shifted. The Land Development Code places the burden on the applicant to prove compatibility. That burden is not satisfied by a revised map that leaves us with the same unanswered technical questions. And where competent, substantial evidence is lacking, approval is not required. For these reasons, I personally, going on record, oppose the revised application as it still fails to demonstrate compatibility. So I believe denial is warranted. Thank you. Thank you. Karen, if you would come up, and next it will be Ruth Schaffer, if you would be ready after Karen. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Karen Behan, and I'm a resident of Saddlebag Lake Resort at 49 Beaverkill Drive. I would like to speak about air quality and compatibility with nearby residential communities. The proposed Mammoth Grove project is not just a sand mine. It also includes sand processing facility where sand will be washed, sorted, stockpiled, and loaded into trucks. Those activities are known to generate airborne dust. This dust can include very fine particles of sand known as respirable crystalline silica. These particles are extremely small. They're very fine. They're small enough to be inhaled deeply into the lungs, and they are associated with serious respiratory diseases. Because the particles are so small, they can remain suspended in the air and travel beyond the boundaries of the industrial site. The Polk County Comprehensive Plan requires the Board to evaluate whether mining operations minimize external impacts such as airborne pollutants on nearby communities. But in reviewing the application materials for this mine, one important thing is missing. There is no air quality analysis. There is no dispersion modeling showing how airborne dust must travel from the mine to surrounding neighborhoods. There is no monitoring data. There is no evaluation of potential exposure at nearby residential communities. Without that analysis, the Board does not have the technical information needed to determine whether this operation will be compatible with surrounding residential uses. Air quality is not a minor issue for those of us who live nearby. I speak as someone diagnosed with asthma in 97 and heart disease in 2026. It affects the health of our families and the quality of life in our community. I respectfully ask the Board to require a comprehensive air quality analysis before making a compatibility determination for this application. Thank you. Thank you. This is Ruth coming up. And then after I have Danielle Paul coming afterwards. Good morning. My name is Ruth Schaefer, 39, Queen of Waters. I am a resident of Saddlebag Lake Resort. I would like to address the statements in the application materials regarding groundwater impacts from the proposed Mammoth Grove sand mine. The project proposes excavation of sand resources below the groundwater table using hydraulic dredging. This process will create multiple permanent lakes that remain connected to the groundwater system. The application materials state that mining activities will not change groundwater levels in the surrounding aquifers. However, the record for this application does not contain a hydro hydrogeologic study supporting that conclusion. Specifically, the record does not include groundwater flow modeling, analysis of groundwater gradients, pit lake equilibrium modeling, evaluation of groundwater interaction between proposed lakes and surrounding aquifers, or analysis of potential impacts to nearby wells and lakes. When projects involve excavation below groundwater tables, these types of analysis are normally performed to evaluate how the groundwater system may respond to the creation of large open water bodies. Because compatibility determinations in a quasi judicial hearing must be supported by competent substantial evidence, it is important that conclusions about groundwater stability be supported by technical analysis. In this case, the application materials include statements regarding groundwater conditions, but the underlying hydrogeologic analysis supporting those statements does not appear in the application record. Since this analysis does not appear in the application record, please save our water and deny this application. Thank you. After Danielle is coming up, we have Andy Malberg. Good morning, Commissioners. I wouldn't have your job for anything today. I came up prepared, like many of them did. But you've seen both sides. You've heard that the traffic will increase. I've been a Floridian for over 20 years. I've lived in that area. I've watched the traffic increase, increase, increase every year. We've had five deaths in this 10-mile stretch where they would be coming out on Monmouth Grove and Highway 60. I just barely missed the one that killed four in December. So I'm hoping that the next one won't be any of us. It is a problem. It will be a problem. This will make the problem worse. Thank you. Next, we have Andy is coming up. And then after Andy, Alana Ward, please be ready. Hi, I'm Andy Malberg. I'm at 9 Pink Lady Lane, Lake Wales, Florida, inside of Saddlebag Lake Estates. My wife and I, Betty, have been part of the community for 19 years at Saddlebag. And over the last few days, I've had the privilege to meet some of our other neighbors around some of the surrounding lakes. At what time I was able to meet Aaron Griner on Cypress Lake. Aaron is 90 years old and he can't be here today but he provided a video that all of you would appreciate if you would take a chance. My name is Aaron Griner. I moved here in 1962, January 1962, from Detroit. My birthplace was northwest Florida around Pensacola. But I lived nine and eight and a half years in Detroit, married my wife in Detroit, and we moved back to Florida to Lake Wales to work with the National Guard as a technician. Since being back, I have seen a lake south of Burns Avenue, Lake Bonnie, I believe was the name. When I got here in January of 1982, the lake was completely dry. It had a dock on it. It was a lake that people used. Across the street was a sand mine. The sand mine had completely dried this lake. Now, the proposal to put in a sand mine here over approximately 600 acres will dry these lakes. There is several lakes in this area, including Saddlebacks Lake, Lake Thomas, my lake, which is Lake Cypress, and just it goes into Little Gum Lake to Big Gum Lake. And all these potholes we see around here that are depressions that's holding water will all dry up. There is pipelines connecting these lakes to destroy the water. I don't know what effect it has on them, I don't know, but it will have some effect. But at my lake, after I spent 91 years to build the home I wanted, will be depreciated, I don't know to what extent already. The orange groves are being pushed up. They're planting watermelons and different things, but it would devastate this country. I don't know what's safe other than that. All the people here are opposed to it. I don't see how this benefits the country. Maybe the people that's pumping the sand, they're making money. But I don't think it's to the benefit of the people who live around here. I want to thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Alana Ward is coming up, and then right after that would be Diane Perkins. Commissioners, my name is Alana Ward, 21 Saddlebag Lake Road North. The proposed sand mine includes several types of industrial operations that are known sources of mechanical noise. Those include hydraulic dredge motors, slurry pumps, sand washing equipment, conveyor systems, heavy loaders and machinery, and truck loading operations. Industrial mineral processing equipment commonly generates sound levels between approximately 70 and 100 decibels at the source, depending on the equipment and the activity being performed. Noise from these types of operations can have significant distances of travel depending on the terrain, atmospheric conditions, and the presence of barriers between the source and nearby homes. For this reason, industrial noise impacts are normally evaluated through acoustic modeling that estimates how sound from equipment will propagate across the site towards the nearby residential areas. However, the record for this application does not contain the type of analysis. Without site-specific modeling, evaluating equipment sound levels, and sound propagation across the site, the record does not demonstrate how operational noise will be reduced to compatible levels at nearby residential properties. The mine plan for this project shows that the proposed operation will create multiple reclaimed lakes, including one lake with approximate surface area of 291 acres. These lakes will be created through excavation below the groundwater table, which means they will remain permanently connected to the surrounding aquifer. Large evacuated lakes within an aquifer can influence groundwater gradients and groundwater flow patterns. For that reason, hydraulic modeling is commonly used to evaluate how groundwater systems will respond to the creation of large pit lakes. However, the application materials for this project do not contain groundwater modeling evaluating how the creation of these large lakes may influence groundwater gradients or groundwater flow patterns. Without that analysis, the record does not demonstrate how the surrounding groundwater system will respond to the induction of hundreds of new acres of open water lakes. Evaluation of groundwater response of lakes of this scale would normally be expected in the application record. That analysis does not appear in the application record. And with the drought that we're having in Florida, it's going to take away the water even more. Thank you. Please deny this approval. Thank you. Danielle Perkins is coming up. And right behind her, we will have Charles Perkins Jr. Hello, my name is Diane Perkins. I live at 1049 St. Anne Shrine Road. I've come here today because we live on a quiet, peaceful community of very small amount of houses. We are a community that is required to do wells. Our wells are not down in the Floridian well tables. It's in the Aquaford well tables. If we have the mines up there mining, they're doing their studies and everything is great. But we've yet to see, and I've addressed this last meeting, there's no studies for St. Anne Shrine Road. There's no studies how our water will be affected, if our wells will dry up, if we're going to have to take and try to get well systems deeper. There is no studies as far as what the gas, oil, sediments, all the pollution will go into the aquifer that we rely on for our water. The mining pits, they're talking about the traffic. If you look at the traffic from our road, there's only the small road. There is no pull offs for them to actually get out of our subdivisions. There's not going to be a big area for them to come in and out safely. We're just very concerned at this point that our community has not been heard. We've tried to put it out there. We've tried to express that we are a smaller community, that we do need people to look at our water aquifer seriously. Without the water, we're going to be really hurting in our division. Our houses are also up on, most of them on stilts because they were built in the 1920s. We're concerned about the foundational repercussions we may have from the mining. If they do draw all of the land down, there is going to be a motion. They said last time there was not going to be any sand mining motions, any, what do you call it? I'm so sorry. The, I'm pulling a blank, but they said there was not going to be any commotion with the land movements. But there will be, if we can hear the land movements from the other location that's just down from us, can you imagine what it's going to be like less than one point miles from our homes? It's not a great distance for us to have to worry about. Or for us, we are worried about this. Because it's just our homes, we're a retirement community as such as the saddlebag. But we are such a smaller one. And I thank you for your time. I oppose it. Thank you. Mr. Charles is coming up. And then right after him, we have Suzanne Speidel. Thank you for this time, commissioners. My name is Charles M. Perkins Jr., 1049 St. Anne Shrine Road. I am a retired Army veteran and a combat disabled veteran. And one of the things that I've noticed is you have heard multiple testimony and multiple people coming up and saying that there are missing reports, studies, documents in the applicant's packet. I ask you to ask yourself why. Why are these missing? They're standard. Why are they missing? I couldn't tell you the reason, but maybe because it doesn't fit their narrative of passing this sand mine. The other thing I would like to point out is Santa Anne Shrine was established in the early 20s, far before the 1941 sand mine that's there now up to the northwest. And I also, if you look at the map that was brought up, there's only one way in and out of Santa Anne Shrine. And that is going to have two sand mine pits, one on each side. And so our property values are going to tank. There's already, if you look at realtor.com, multiple houses for sale as people take and try to flee what they feel is an unsolvable and unethical push by the mining company and PH Citrus to get this passed through. So I ask you all to please consider a no vote based on the fact that, you know, why have they not included what they're supposed to include in their packet? Thank you. Thank you. We have Suzanne coming up and next would be Marsha Pauly. Hello, commissioners. My name is Suzanne Speidel. I'm a resident of Saddlebag Lake Resort at 21 Royal Coachmen. Most of the people before me have said things that I wanted to say except one thing, and that is addressing the traffic and the safety. Denny mentioned that there have recently been some lives taken from us. Just yesterday, there was a sand truck that hit into a vehicle and demolished it. Fortunately, there were no injuries that I'm aware of. Traveling Route 60 from east to west, the speed limit is 65 miles an hour, which few people actually adhere to. There's no slow down signs. There's no traffic lights in any of this area. And cars and trucks just fly by. Now imagine having 268 truck trips pulling out from Mammoth Grove and oncoming traffic is racing down. It's just unforeseeable to see that. I'm a retired registered nurse and healthcare administrator. Throughout my career, I rode in the back of an ambulance with an accident victim. I've provided care in the emergency room for an accident victim, as well as the ICU. I've been with them when they've taken their final breaths. I had to console their families. To me, protecting life is the bottom line. Commissioners, you are elected to protect us as per Polk County Land Development Code for our health, our safety, and our wellness. Please think about this and don't allow the project. We can ill afford to lose more lives this way. Thank you. Thank you. Marsha Pawley is coming up and after her would be Gordon Christie. I'm Marsha Pawley. I live at 26 Saddlebag Lake Trail North. I am a third-generation owner and a full-time resident. Today, I would like to talk about how close this proposed mine is to existing residential communities. The county staff report itself states Saddlebag Lake Resort is the closest community with a notable residential density. We're not a small neighborhood. It's a senior community with more than 750 homes. In addition to Saddlebag, we need to think about St. Anne, South Shore, and the other communities that are near this proposed mine. There are many people that live here full-time, year-round. The location of an industrial sand mining and processing operation near these communities raises an important compatibility question. Airborne particulate matter generated by mining operations does not necessarily remain within the boundaries of the mining site. The fine particles can travel beyond the lines, particularly when they're carried by wind. We all know how much sand comes from the Sahara Desert during the summertime sent through the wind. Yet the application material contains no analysis evaluating the airborne particulate exposure at nearby residential locations. There is no modeling showing how dust might move from the mine site toward nearby neighborhoods. There is no monitoring data evaluating air quality impacts at nearby homes. Without that information, it's difficult to understand how the county can determine that the operation will be compatible with surrounding residential land uses. When industrial operations are located close to residential communities, it's important to monitor the quality of our air. Right now, that analysis does not appear in the record. Thank you for your time. Thank you. We have Gordon coming up and Janet Nowak will be next. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Gordon Christie and I'm a resident of Saddlebag Lake Resort. The applicant frequently describes this project as a wet mine, suggesting that dust will not be a significant issue. But that description can be misleading. While the dredging of sand occurs in water, many other parts of the operation take place outside the dredge pond. For example, sand will be processed at a surface facility. Processed sand will be stockpiled. Front end loaders will move sand piles. And trucks will be loaded with dry material. All these activities occur above ground and involve handling dry sand. Those activities can generate fugitive dust emissions. In addition, the initial development of the mine involves land clearing, overburden removal and berm construction. All of which disturb dry soils and sand before a dredge pond is even established. So even at a wet sand mine, there are multiple sources of airborne dust. Despite this, the application materials do not include any air dispersion modeling or particular analysis evaluating emissions for these operations. Without that analysis, it is difficult to understand how potential air quality impacts have been evaluated. For communities living near the proposed mine, that is an important concern. And one question for Mr. Allen. Can you please confirm for the record that the dredge will be fully electric with no diesel components whatsoever? Thank you. Thank you. We have Janet coming up and next would be Loretta Garcia. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Janet Nowak and I have been a 26-year resident at the Saddlebag Lake Resort community. I would like to focus on one single point and it is the one that has been mentioned several times and it's the air quality analysis. Please, without going over what I have written in front of me, I would like to say, without listing all of those amenities or emissions all over again, that without those types of analyses, it's very difficult to determine how airborne particulate emissions from the proposed mine might affect the nearby communities. Please, before determining whether this project is compatible with nearby residential communities, it would seem important to understand how airborne particulate emissions from the mine might behave and whether they could reach surrounding neighborhoods. These analyses have not appeared. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next, we have Loretta and following Loretta will be Andrew Beck. My name is Loretta Garcia. I live at 29 Silversides inside Saddlebag Lake Resort and pretty much everything I was going to cover has already been covered. So, in relationship to the air quality, the diesel emissions, the sand, I would just like to say that I am opposed to the sand mine going forward and thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Andrew Beck is coming up and then I have Diane Jailies. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Andrew Beck. I'm from Bowling Green, Florida, 2342 County Road. And you might say, that doesn't matter. He's in Hardy County. But I do have property that I am responsible for in the Parks Lakes Road area as a trustee. According to the documents, there's 649 acres going to be mined. Citrus would produce roughly 108 loads of citrus out of this area over a four month period, maybe five months. The sand mine is proposing 536 trips a day or 200 and whatever their name of loads per day. Okay, that generates to roughly 167,000 trips per year or a 770 time increase compared to the citrus, which would have been over a short period of time comparatively. I'd also like to speak on something that happened in Orange County next to where I grew up. A developer came in and put in a one to two acre retention pond that was 60 feet deep roughly. And it reduced the amount of pines it killed on the adjacent five acres. It killed roughly 10 to 20 trees out of the 40 that were on that five acres. Now, you can't say that removing that much soil and changing the water flow doesn't affect things. With that, we need to talk about the Mammoth Grove Road intersection. If you've got all these people coming and going, how's it going to affect everybody that's already been living here all this time? Not to mention you've got 42 accidents that you already have been given in that area. So, please consider it and the deaths that have occurred because of those incidents. And that was just in one year. So, please consider no for this application. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have Diane Gillies and after that, we have Stephen Gillies. I'm sorry. My husband just reminded me that I have to say good afternoon because our morning has got away. Absolutely. My name is Diane Gillies and I live at 77 Royal Coachmen in Saddleback Lake Resort. We have been owners for 23 years. Environmental noise guidance published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identifies 55 decibels as the recommended outdoor noise level for residential environments in order to prevent activity interference and community annoyance. This guidance uses a metric called LDN, which represents a 24-hour average noise level and applies an additional penalty to nighttime noise because nighttime sound is more disruptive to residents. The staff report for this project references a potential operational noise level of 65 decibels at the property line. That level is 10 decibels higher than the outdoor residential sound environment recommended by the EPA. Because the decibel scale is logarithmic, a 10 decibel increase represents approximately a doubling of the perceived loudness. When evaluating compatibility between industrial operations and residential communities, it is important to consider whether the resulting sound environment is appropriate for residential living. The application record does not contain an acoustic analysis evaluating how operational noise from the proposed mine will affect nearby residential properties. Without that analysis, it is difficult to determine whether the proposed mining operation will maintain a noise environment compatible with nearby residential communities. So for that reason, I would ask that you turn down this application. Thank you. Thank you. As Stephen is coming up, the next one will be Tiffany Davidson. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Once again, I'm following my wife around. My name is Stephen Gillies, and I live at 77 Royal Coachman Street in Lake Wales, Florida. As my wife has told you, we've been residents there for 23 years now. I would like to address a traffic study that was submitted with the application for the proposed Mammoth Grove Sand Mine. Appendix C of the Polk County Land Development Code requires that traffic studies evaluate intersections impacted by the project. The traffic study submitted with this application evaluates roadway segments and the proposed site driveway. However, the record does not include an operational analysis of the intersection of Mammoth Grove Road and State Road 60. The intersection of this location where truck traffic from the proposed mine would enter the highway system. Traffic studies normally evaluate intersections where project traffic enters major roadways because those locations are where vehicle conflicts typically occur. Intersection analysis typically evaluates factors such as turning movements, gap acceptance, vehicle queuing, interaction between entering vehicles and the through traffic. These types of operational evaluations do not appear in the record for the Mammoth Grove Road and SR 60 intersection. Because compatibility determinates in a quasi-judicial hearing must be supported by competent substantial evidence. It's important that traffic conclusions be supported by complete technical analysis. In this case, the traffic study evaluates roadway capacity but the record does not contain an operational analysis of the primary intersection where the project, project, project, sorry, truck traffic will enter the highway system. The proponents of the mine talked about 1% more traffic. They talked about deceleration lanes and there are deceleration lanes for traffic coming, trucks coming either direction. Lots of space for them. Acceleration lanes for the loaded trucks are non-existent. A truck going westbound will turn directly into the driving lane of SR 60. A truck heading eastbound will have to cross both lanes of westbound traffic and then enter the acceleration lane. Steven, your time is up. Thank you so much. Thank you. Tiffany's coming down. And after Tiffany, we have Janet Dunlap. Can you hear me okay? Okay. I'm Tiffany Davidson. I live on 3145 Aru's Trail and I live in the Tiger Creek Berserk. Now, I'm down from the mine that has been there already. And what people don't realize is that our well was affected by that mine. We had sulfur smells constantly after they put the mine in. We still do. Sometimes we have to take showers and like this stank of sulfur. And what it is is that when they put it in, it just messed our well up. We don't have clean 100% water. And we had to put in filtration. I'm on disability. I have a physical disability. And I have to deal with all this. I don't have extra money to put in more stuff to my place. And because the state has cut funding, I don't even have Medicare coverage anymore for the coverage that I need for my health. Which you can hear my asthma is really bad. And it has gotten worse since the mine has gone in. And that's what these people are trying to fight. I have seen these trucks pull out in front of ambulances. Right in front of a lit up ambulance. In front of one of our own Polk County workers. This, I don't feel safe having this mine being put in. With all the experience I've had. My fiance has been diagnosed. Well, he's cancer free now, mind you. But he was diagnosed with thyroid cancer right after the mine went in. My asthma got 100 times worse right after the mine went in. So, the guy talked earlier too about the traffic. Not the lawyer dude, but the owner. What it was is that he said they don't go on regular roads, right? I've seen them. They've gone down Stokes. Stokes is marked clearly that there is no thorough food traffic for trucks. I've seen them go down Stokes all the time. And then turn on Highway 60 cutting in front of people. And then going right to the mine. I think this should not be allowed. If they can't control the trucks right now. They're trying to guarantee us that they're going to control the trucks now. No, they're not even controlling them now. And the fact is, is that I have reported to FDOT directly about the stoplight in Lake Wales. That's been busted since the hurricane. They have not fixed that light whatsoever. So, FDOT has pretty much abandoned Highway 60 right now. So, you're adding more traffic to a road they have abandoned. So, the fact is, is that I don't, and I've seen so much wildlife as a photographer. I've seen so much wildlife there that they're just going to plow through and just dig out all that wildlife. And you're just going to let them have it? Please, just vote against us. This is not safe for anybody. Thank you. After Janet Dunlap, who's coming up, it will be skipped. Dunlap, please. Good afternoon. My name is Janet Dunlap. I live at 1701 Cypress Lake Road in Lake Wales. I would like to address the land use and zoning implication of the proposed mining operation. The property subject to this application is located within the county's ARR Agricultural Rural Residential Zoning District. The stated purpose of the ARR district is to preserve agricultural lands and rural character while allowing agricultural activities to continue in a compatible manner with surrounding properties. Sand mining is fundamentally different from those uses because it permanently removes the land itself. Agricultural land can be replanted. Groves can be rehabilitated. Even residential developments leave the underlying land intact. But sand mining on the scale proposed here removes the soil profile entirely and replaces it with a deep body of water. Once that occurs, the land can never return to agricultural use. So the question before the commission is not simply whether this land can be temporarily used for another purpose. The question is whether land zoned for agriculture should be permanently removed from agricultural use altogether. This is especially important on the Lake Wales Ridge where the well-drained sandy soils that support agriculture are a limited and valuable resources. The county has already recognized that mining operations are often incompatible with surrounding land uses. That is why the county created the Mineral Resource Protection Direct District, MRRPD. Those districts exist specifically to identify areas where mineral extraction may occur without conflicting the surrounding lands around. The property before you today is not located within that district, yet the scale of the proposed mine would be comparable to many of the mining operations located inside it. Allowing a project of this size outside of the designated mineral districts would effectively undermine the county's own planning framework. There is an important economic implication. Land containing commercially viable sand deposits often becomes more valuable mining than agriculture. If large-scale mining becomes easier to permit within ARR architectural zoning, landowners may be incentivized to sell farmland into mining operations rather than agricultural producers. Over time, that dynamic can accelerate the loss of agricultural land throughout the region, directly conflicting with the stated purpose of the ARR district. So I respectfully ask the commission to consider this. If land zoned for agriculture can be permanently converted into large mining lakes of this scale, what remains of the purpose of the ARR zoning designation? Thank you. After Dunlap, it will be Patrick Sherrard. All right. Hi, my name is Skip Dunlap. I appreciate the time that you've given me to talk here. A lot of people talked about the Mammoth Grove Road. We live on Cypress Lake. I travel that intersection every day. And it's an uphill grade. And for to get on to Highway 60, trucks aren't even starting at a flat spot. They're starting at a reverse spot, trying to climb the grade to get on 60. The danger is just unbelievable of what it will be. A truck traveling at 65 mile an hour is right at 95 feet a second. And you're going to pull out into the middle of this with trucks going down there? I just, you know, I just don't see it. If you come and look at that, the other thing we talk about, we talk about sight. When you come around the bends and you look at the uphill downhill grades of that road, and there's a double S turn on Mammoth Grove Road with a sinkhole around it, there's no visibility there whatsoever. The accidents that have happened that aren't recorded, just people running in, trucks backing into people and so on is unbelievable. I just think that, you know, most people haven't been there. They're talking about Highway 60. The big concern is the intersection. The intersection is not compatible. If you've got to go west on Highway 60, there is no acceleration. There's nowhere to get a truck rolling. So you've got to take a truck and get it from rolling backwards to go forwards and then get on Highway 60, and it's in the lane. It's not in an acceleration lane. It's right in the traffic at 65 mile an hour. I mean, you know, like I said, we don't live, we live out there in that lake and there's only, we're 160 feet from where the proposed pit's going to be. My property, our house, our everything is so devaluated, it's unreal. And if you people pass this through, it's all about money. It's not about life and quality of life and all these people that are here. I just feel sorry for everybody if you all pass this thing. I thank you for your time. Thank you. Jennifer Castro's coming up. And after Jennifer, it's Ron Tulane. Is Jennifer here? Oh, okay. Hello. I am Jennifer Castro. I'm at 216 Stenbridge Road. So I am right beyond Saddlebag Lake, and I consider myself a farmer. I consider myself a farmer because when I moved here, my specific purpose for moving to Lake Wales was, number one, to find agricultural land. Number two, to have a horse farm that I would have a hobby farm. I'm not here to make money off of it. I'm just trying to enjoy my life. And in this state of existence with a potential mine that's off Saddlebag Lake, I'm literally, my pasture is 12 feet away from that lake. All my water, agriculturally, and my well comes from that lake. I didn't move here for me to get poisoned when I lived in Virginia, and this was not even a case up there that we're doing. Sand mining is no different than fracking, which fracking is happening in the north. And it destroys the water table. It destroys the water. It creates problems. This situation should not be my situation because I didn't move here for this. These people come over state lines from Georgia, go back to Georgia and do this stuff. I am not in Georgia. They want to ruin their state. They want to take their riverways. They want to dry up their lakes. They want to do whatever they want. They can do it. We pay taxes here. We are owed a quality of life because we live here. We enjoy our lives here. We didn't choose to be subjected to rich people, oligarchs, that just come in and say, well, here it is. Here's what we're doing. But let's just talk about sand mining for just a minute. This is happening across the world. It's becoming the next environmental crisis. It's not just Lake Wales. It's coming from all sides. It's happening everywhere. But the biggest things that you can know, just like we talked about, it's biodiversity. Biodiversity, biodiversity of plants, biodiversity of animals, decreases. Pollution increases. The whole fact that climate, the climate of our area will also be subjected to this. Meaning that breathing is a problem. Asthma is already a problem for people. Asthma is a problem for me. I don't want to die here because of money. I want to live my life. I want to enjoy my farm. I want to raise my horses. I want to raise my kids. I want to go to work. I'm a teacher. I don't vote for this. I don't accept this proposal. I don't care what experts are on their team. Their experts get big money to be on there and say, oh yeah, it's safe. It's safe. It's safe. We need people on our side. We're the people who buy the land. We're the people who live the land. We're the people who vote for you. We need to be protected. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm sorry, Patrick. I missed you. So is Patrick here, Sherrard? Yeah. Yeah. If you will come. And after Patrick is Ron Tulin. Good afternoon. I'm Patrick Sherrard from 7625 14th Lane, Vero Beach, Florida. I have the Citrus Grove that is adjacent to this proposed project on Cypress Lake. On the other side of the lake are many residences and we've known that this project was coming. And although I'd still like to see this large citrus grower as my neighbor, unfortunately that's just their decision. As landowners, they can make that decision. I have chosen, at least through today or tomorrow, to continue to try to farm citrus on my property adjacent to them. But if the time comes, and it may, as we've seen in Polk County and other counties throughout the state, the citrus greening is just not making it economic to farm citrus. We've got to do something else. When that time comes, I'm going to look to my land use. I'm going to look to my permitted uses. I'm going to look to what makes economic sense for me. And I'm going to depend on whether it's Polk County or whatever county it may be to stand behind and to fairly administer the codes and the conduct of that land use. And if that means that it's a sand mine or a residential neighborhood or whatever it may be, I'd like to, as a property owner, maintain my right within the accepted land use and considering the environmental concerns, the hydrological concerns, the safety concerns, and many of the concerns that the residents have voiced here today. That should certainly be paramount in the decision. But please don't take away my right as a property owner and your comprehensive plan and the process and the staff recommendations to limit my choices. Because the day is coming. It's happening all around us. Citrus growing is not economically viable. And I'm still in it. I'm still trying. But there will come a day where I may have to make another decision. And when that day comes, I'd like to feel like I have the full use of my land that I've bought and paid for and fought for and fought over for all these years and to use that in a way that's consistent with what the comp plan says. Thank you. Thank you. Ron Turlin is coming up. And the last one will be, I think it's Michelle Daisies maybe. But anyway, we'll get to that in a minute. Ron. Good afternoon. Thanks, Ron. If it pleases the board, my neighbors and council. I'm a practicing attorney in Florida. But I'm only here because my wife and I live on Cypress Lake in Lake Wales. I've noticed some of my neighbors, Mr. Greiner, Mr. and Mrs. Dunlap already testified today. But this proposal is a 600-acre mine contiguous to our lake. We're directly affected. And that's why I'm here today. My family and I worked hard to buy this property as a quiet rural setting and with the expectation we could retire there in peace. And I invite you all out there to drive around and take a look. This proposal changes everything. It turns that peaceful residential agricultural area into a 600-acre industrial mining operation that will last for decades. And what Ms. Pratt said, I can't say it any better than her. It was eloquent and was based on scientific data and fact. But property rights go both ways. And we know, as commissioners, as attorneys, under the Florida Constitution, the Burt Harris Act, a government cannot approve uses that inordinately burden neighboring properties and owners without consequences. And under Florida law, Ms. Pratt accurately described what would be a common law nuisance. Approval of this mine would shift the burden to local homeowners to potentially ligate with both the county and the mine. And you put us in a David versus Goliath position. And these aren't threats. This is not legal posturing. I'm not even nor a solicitation. But these costs are reasonably foreseeable to the county and its residents. These are ordinary people, many of which are elderly and retired, as you can see. And the real impacts are abundantly clear from both sides of the presentation. You have seven days a week, 24 hours a day dredging, constant and daily truck traffic, mining dredging 24-7, noise, vibration, light. Foreseeable environmental harms to our lake, to our well. We have a community well in Cypress Lake that all the houses pretty much of most of them are on. And where is all this water going to come for to wet mine, millions of gallons daily? How is that going to affect our aquifer and our wells? The negative results, once they occur, will be much too late. So this isn't a minor inconvenience. It's a fundamental change in how we live. And that will affect generations over time. It will reduce our property values and our health. And that's not speculation. It's predictable. It's foreseeable. My neighbor and dear friend, 90-year-old retired beekeeper, Aaron Greiner, said it right. They are effectively asking Polk County homeowners to absorb that financial loss of well-being and their health so this private company in Georgia or Massachusetts can profit. And we're already seeing the effects. The nearby Saddlebag Lake Resort may support this project in the letter that you have, but the market tells the truth. This morning, I had a realtor pull the listings. There are 46 properties for sale in that small community alone. People are reacting. They're trying desperately to leave retirees and manufactured homes. It's destabilizing this community. This is not the right place for this operation. We'd ask you to respectfully deny the application. Thank you. Thank you. And the last one we have is Michelle. I'm trying to read your last name, Michelle, but you also have to be sworn in. So, Davies. Okay. So, there you go. If you move over here, right here to this one, and Mr. Meek, if you would swear her in, please. You would. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony evidence that you give today will be truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioner. Can you bring the mic down to your level? There you go. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Michelle Davies, and I live at 6510 Camp Mack Road. I'm new to the area. My name is Michelle, and I'm a neighboring property owner. The county's comprehensive plan requires mining activities that minimize environmentally sensitive lands here. The requirement is especially important here because this project lies within the Lake Wells Ridge, which is one of the most biologically unique regions in Florida. The ridge supports numerous endemic species found nowhere on Earth, including the federally protected sand skink and the blue-tailed sand skink. The federal guidance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is clear that the well-drained xeric soils that occur there are appropriate elevation areas for the sand skink's presence. And it must be assumed, unless it has a survey that's conducted, that the federal protocols demonstrate that the species are absent. But since they don't have that, you have to assume that the sand skink is there. The applicant's own materials show that those habitat conditions exist. The staff report identifies the site's soils as astaloosa fine sand, which the USFWS identifies explicitly as xeric soil, which is associated with the sand skink's habitat. Figures 6 and 7 show that the entire project area lies more than 80 feet above the sea level, which is within the elevation range associated with that sand skink on the Lake Wells Ridge area. Also, under the guidance of the examinations that they're doing, you have to always assume, if they haven't done that survey, you just simply have to assume that they are possibly there. The staff reports also suggest that the land was previously used for citrus, and endangered species are unlikely to be present there. But that conclusion is not supported by science. Former and active citrus groves on the Lake Wells Ridge are well-documented as suitable sand skink habitat. And multiple sand skink mitigation banks in this region have been established on both former and active citrus groves. So, we are asking that you keep in mind that the endangered species of the sand skink located nowhere else on the planet are considered before you build this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Amber, do we have anybody else? Okay, so then I close the public hearing, and I'll bring it back to Bart. Am I correct? Yes. And thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to, there's a number of things I want to talk about. But first, I'm going to have Ms. Gardner, who again is our expert witness related to transportation, talk about a couple of transportation things. Sure there. Good afternoon. I just want to address a couple of things that were raised. One, regarding the requirements by which we're required to follow for this traffic study. So, we are required to do a minor traffic impact study based on our trip generation of the site. We did do that, and we actually extended a little bit more because we're required to only evaluate the directly accessed segment. Staff may require intersection analysis, but it is not a requirement. If we were to be required to do a major traffic study, we would have to evaluate intersections that have an approach that has an 80% or more impact. In this case, we have a 2.5% impact on Mammoth Grove Road and a less than 1% impact on State Road 60. So, we also would not meet that requirement or have to study that as part of your guidelines. Additionally, there was some information provided by one of the commenters by Ms. Pratt regarding crash data. I did not get a chance to see that. It's not required to be included in our study, but we did pull crash history. Crash data is generally pulled from Signal 4 Analytics, which is published by University of Florida. We pulled traffic crash data right at Mammoth Grove Road and State Road 60 as well as the road segment of State Road 60 between Mammoth Grove Road and Saddlebag Lake Road. In the last six years, January 2020 through October 2025, there were four crashes at State Road 60 and Mammoth Grove Road. And there were 12 crashes on State Road 60 between Mammoth Grove Road and Saddlebag Lake Road. A majority of those crashes were due to driver failing to operate correctly, wrong way vehicle, run off the road, three rear end, two side swipe, two tire blowouts, one debris on the road, one hydroplane, and one was filling a crash scene. So, just data in itself does not prove that there is a crash history or crash safety issue. I also wanted to point out that Polk County Vision Zero, which is a study to look at high injury networks across the county, did not identify this area as a high crash location. And in summary, this project does have a less than 1% impact on State Road 60. And as far as the trucks, it is approximately a 1% increase in truck percentage. So, it is insignificant. Now, I'm going to ask Mr. Stevens to talk about hydrology real quick. My name is Mark Stevens with the Colinas Group at 2031 East Edgewood Drive in Lakeland. I'm a professional engineer and a professional geologist. I have been studying Florida hydrogeology for 50 years. So, I have a pretty good handle on the hydrogeology of the entire state of Florida having worked all over the state. A lot of that time, 25 years of that at least, has been permitting and monitoring, developing monitoring plans and monitoring and evaluating monitoring data and reporting that data for the hydrology of the sand mines. So, I have a lot of experience in looking at that data. In all those cases, for any sand mine, we have never seen any impact on the water table aquifer, on the surface aquifer. Since there's a separation between the surface aquifer and the upper Florida, there's no impact there. The evaporation rates that you've been quoted, they're correct, but they miss the fact that evaporation equals rainfall pretty much in central Florida. So, if you have 55 inches of evaporation, you don't lose five feet of water in the lake. You have 55 inches of rainfall that replenishes that. So, even those sinkholes, the lake, Saddlebag Lake, et cetera, they have the same amount of evaporation, but that's replenished by rainfall that comes down naturally. So, basically, what I'm trying to say is that the sand mines have proven throughout Polk County in particular that the mining operations don't have any impact on the water table aquifer. And I think I have four minutes on top of this, 30 seconds I have, so I'm going to move pretty quickly. There were some references to sand skinks and other environmental species. We are fully aware that those sand skink studies happen closer to the time of actually disturbing land. We have months of permitting, months of design, months of engineering to go before we get to that point. Fully recognize we're in a skink area and other protected species that we need to address. I want to talk a little bit about, you know, there was a lot of references to lack of competent substantial evidence in the record, a lot of references to not having an air modeling study, lots of comments about no noise study, things like that. I want us to refocus on some things. One, non-phosphate mines by your comp plan are allowed in every future land use classification but preservation. That's, and we went through that. When you look at it, you go and you get a conditional use. The condition, why are there conditional uses? Conditional uses have additional criteria on top of your standard land development code provisions that ensure that the project will, that if met, ensure compatibility and that they can function without adversely impacting the variety of issues, in this case noise, dust, all of those issues. We provided documents. We provided a report and analysis of every single one of the conditions in chapter 303 of your land development code that applied to non-phosphate mining. And I have a copy of them right here. There's eight pages, eight pages of extra conditions that we have to meet that are all met. And your staff report has indicated that we have met them and that we are in compliance with every single one of these. So I think that's really important. Now, what does that mean? Competent substantial evidence. We have, we provided Mr. Stevens, who has 50 years of hydrologic experience. He's not going to put in his submittal on every non-phosphate mine, every testing result that he's ever looked at related to a hydrology test as part of this particular request. He's going to rely on his 30 years of expert opinion, which he's been admitted by this board as an expert. Written statements are the competent substantial evidence to justify this approval. And that goes the same with Ms. Gartner, Mr. Mouncey. Sorry, I'm losing my track. And Mr. DeMont. So all of those, all of those reports that were submitted as part of the application, that were reviewed by your staff, that were provided to you as part of this request today, that is the competent substantial evidence that justify everything that we hear. If there is a noise study that needs to be done because somebody has a code enforcement complaint, that's a code enforcement issue. This noise studies and the readings I saw on the decibel reader that Ms. Pratt put up were all well within acceptable ranges. There wasn't anything that I saw outside of an acceptable range. Those are the kinds of things that mislead these hearings. What you have in front of you is you have a staff report. You have all of the application documents. You have everything that indicates this project is appropriate. It meets your code. It's squarely within your comprehensive plan. Now, I would say the one thing that I would add that we haven't discussed amongst anybody at this point is, at level two, I would suggest that we do an intersection analysis at Mammoth Grove and Highway 16. That we would include that as a, if there was a favorable consideration today, that we would consider analyzing that intersection. Now, I am not talking about a DOT ice analysis, but I am talking about a safety analysis of that intersection as it relates to truck traffic going in and out of it. So, we would agree to that, and outside of that, I just, you know, and I forget the gentleman's name. I'm not sure, I'm not sure of what his name was, but the gentleman that talked about, that talked about his adjacent Grove and looking at, you know, our codes and, and coming before you and asking for these, for these rights. I think that's important. I think that's important. I think that that's exactly what this is here to do. We can talk about this property being a pristine habitat for wetland, but what we're talking about here is at this time, a burnout orange Grove that is looking for a secondary use that exists all throughout this county, as close and adjacent to residential. Excuse me, ma'am. You're, that's inappropriate. And if you do that again, you will be dismissed from the meeting. And have proven to be compatible and consistent across this county. Thank you for your time, commissioners. Well, my team's here for any questions. Should there be any. Any questions? You could, we could start with you. Excuse me. Excuse me. We could start with you. Dr. Ma, if you don't mind, come up. I just had a couple of questions for you, please. Yes, commissioner. So just again, going over the report and I did read through it, but again, it was from yesterday to today. Totally. Okay. You had mentioned that from the seven foot tall berm down to the six foot. It wouldn't change your opinion as far as the berm, from what I'm inferring, the berm limiting the potential releases of silica or particulate matter from the operational processes outside of the property is the way that your summation of opinion reads. My question is, if that's seven feet to six feet berm doesn't change your opinion, what elevation of that berm in your professional opinion would change that opinion? Meaning what is the physical barrier that's effective at limiting potential releases of the silica? The berm height is not particularly relevant to the concerns about respirable silica. It would be relevant, I guess, to controlling some of the material that was coming off of the truck traffic, but the operations and the stockpiles would not be near that berm. So that's part, the main reason it doesn't change my opinion, whether it's one foot different. Okay. And then specific to that, just on transport of sand material and just going at, I'll go on Dewatt Road, for instance. I personally, when it's not in Lake Wills Ridge, but Dewatt is a phosphate mine, not a sand mine, but it does have open spaces of dirt that is windblown. So you have windblown, so you have windblown transportation out of soil. When we look at this type of sand that's at this project and we look at wind effects for transporting sand, what makes the silica or the particulate of interest, when we're talking about breathing and respiratory safety, what makes it not be transported by wind? Because in the case of Dewatt Road, I've seen wind really look like you're in the middle of a sandstorm half a mile away from where that sand exposed or where the bare soil is to the roadway is over half a mile, right? So it's obviously transporting that dirt or sand or whatever the material is particular to that site. Is this site unique or does silica not transport in the wind? And I want to understand more of how we're able to state that that's not a concern when we're talking about, you know, take last night, there's 50, 60-mile-an-hour straight-line winds. How do we not have that during a non-rain event be a concern for what's talked about today? So the health effects from crystalline silica in the workplace and that relate to the concentrations locally and long-term exposures. But when you talk about an individual, one of our summer storms where there's a strong wind flow or after a front when we have wind blowing down, you may have individual days where you see those type of occurrences. But with regard to lung cancer or silicosis or these other type of health effects that have been brought up, they're related to your daily exposure over many years, not occasional days when it might be wind-blown dust like that. Okay, I appreciate that. And then going to that, talking about the limit, and then we're talking about, you mentioned to a sufficient degree. So just if you can kind of define what that limit is when you're talking about an exposure and, I guess, providing sufficient degree for protection, you know, can we quantify that so I at least understand where that's coming from? So you're asking about the threshold for silica? The threshold for silica and for, in this particular, you referenced this site as the berm, again, potential releases of silica and particulate matter from operational processes to a sufficient degree for protection against related health effects for nearby communities. So just to define what is sufficient, let me talk about that. Okay, so two separately. The first one is straightforward and easy. Three milligrams per cubic meter, which is visible dust type of levels. You would see that over about 30 years is what would be required for lung cancer or silicosis. So that's the number you're asking me is three milligrams per cubic meter. With regard to why do I determine it's sufficient for the neighborhoods, that has to do with the distance down between the road and the community and my determination, not based on specific numerical criterion, but based on the entirety of the scientific literature, where there are no indications that we see silicosis or lung cancer effects in communities near sand mining operations. Those are associated with different type of activities, different type of mining, but there's nothing in the scientific literature about proximity to sand mines. And then just so I know, that literature research, how many years back is that studying? Because I'm obviously not an expert in that field. So how many years back were we talking about on that scientific data that we have referring to no known instances of illness based on sand mines? With regard to sand mine, it goes back into the 80s. Okay, thank you. That's all I have for Dr. DeMont. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to have a few more. I can share that. I don't want to. Oh, no. Well, you have questions? That's all for Dr. DeMont, yes. Did you? No? Oh, okay. All right. All right. So just up for staff, real quick, I had a question on that. And it was pulled, Mr. Allen had quoted it in the presentation. It was in the staff report that residential density in this area is very sparse. Just from a county perspective, so I understand, how are we defining very sparse in our particular regulations and calculations? Well, you're taking a look at this area here between Lake Wales and, I guess, Indian Lake Estates, and you have these old developments that, frankly, I don't want to upset anybody either. Probably wouldn't be approved today under our rural development area and our agricultural residential rural district. So you have just these little pockets of intense development that occurred during previous zoning rules three miles outside of Lake Wales. This is within a future land use district that requires one unit per five acres. It appears that those that aren't within a platic community are hitting well over that. Gotcha. So just very sparse relative to between Lake Wales and, say, saddlebag. That would be what we're defining as very sparse, not referring to saddlebag related to the mine site itself. That would still be higher density residential than one per five acres. The saddlebag would be higher density. Right, absolutely. Anything else around it. Yes, sir. Okay. Yeah, and I understand as far as not permitting it today. I mean, Walt Disney World probably couldn't develop Disney how he did, you know, 50 years ago today either, so I get that. Okay. That's all for staff. And then just a question on, and Mr. Allen, I don't know if you want to answer this or you have another person. As far as operationally, there is some statements made with respect to pre-dredge placement, you know, before there's water for the dredge to float in and start the mining operation. There's the development of the site. Just in understanding the overburden that gets either pushed up into a berm or the overburden, like how is, just from an operational perspective, what does that process look like? Does all the film material stay on site during that, or would there be any off-site hauling of really mined material that's not wet material yet at that point in time? I'll let Mr. Mouncey answer that question. Thank you, sir. All of that material would stay on site for use in reclamation and berms and those type of things once the overburden is removed. Okay. And is there typically any dust mitigation measures that are implemented during that pre-mining, if you will, construction or stripping activities? Yeah, they'll generally be the use of water trucks to tamper it down. Okay. Very good. Thank you. And then I just had two questions. Hold on. I'm sorry. Can you just tell, for purposes of the court reporter, who you are and your address, things like that? I'm announcing with the principal consultant with the Kalinas Group, 2031 East Edgewood Drive, Lakeland, Florida. Thank you. Sorry, Commissioner. That's all right. And just two questions for Mr. Stevens, if you don't mind coming up. Yes, sir. If you want to say your name as well, just so they know. Mark Stevens with Kalinas Group. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Independent of this side, we're talking about the surficial aquifer and shallow wells in general with your, obviously, decades of experience in this field. Can you just give some background on a shallow well and its depth comparative to, you know, water withdrawals from a surficial aquifer, if that's typical or not typical? Because there's a lot of statements that were made about impact potentially to drinking water supply if it's a shallow well. I'd just like to establish from a scientific perspective, is that relatable? If so, what do those depths look like? And if you know specifics about this side or others, then certainly feel free to provide those. Well, the range and depths of water supply wells, residential or otherwise in that area, are either upper Florida wells, which can be up to 600 feet deep, encased down through the upper confining unit, the confining unit overlying the Florida aquifer. Some of the wells can be open to the intermediate aquifer, which are a few limestone units within the confining unit. And some of the wells can be shallow wells, little like little well point wells that are 40 feet deep, just as a general number, that withdraw from maybe 40, 60 feet deep, withdraw water from the surficial aquifer. So it is plausible to say then there could be some shallow wells that are older by nature, but used for a drinking water supply that would be in the surficial aquifer if given, you know, whenever it was developed that was the source of water and they stopped there. There's not a direct correlation that a drinking water well has to be deeper than a surficial aquifer, is that correct? That's correct. That's correct. There could be some residual superficial aquifer wells that are older in the area and some people install them just to irrigate their lawn. Yes, sir. Thank you. And the other question I had, as far as the groundwater gradient, when we look specific to this site, are you aware of which way that groundwater gradient flows? We're talking about where they're going to dredge, and I'll refer to mainly the area north of State Road 60, but when we look at that proposed mine area, which way is the water gradient going from a groundwater supply? When we talk about, again, referring to the surficial aquifer potential for impacts to drinking water wells, is it going towards Saddlebag or away from Saddlebag? Do we have any characterization of the site at this point? Speaking of the groundwater flow in the surficial aquifer? Yes, sir. Surficial, correct. Yes, sir. The water table in the surficial aquifer, the surface of that is a subdued replica of the topography. So depending on where you are in the topography, it kind of flows radially out from the higher elevations. So some areas it flows to the east, some areas to the north, some areas to the west, but in general, that flow is going to be, because the topography drops off from the mining area down to the east, is probably generally going to be towards the east in the surficial aquifer, overall. Yes, sir. And then the last question with that fact, as far as the surficial aquifer really following the topography, if you were to excavate out a large area, are you impacting the gradient of how that water flows or interfaces, or how are you interacting with that surficial aquifer and impacting it, not necessarily adversely, just how does that impact or affect or somehow change the surficial aquifer by excavating down into it? So if you're excavating into this surficial aquifer through the water table, that water table through that mine area would have had a slope on it, okay, following that subdued replica of the topography. Well, when you dig a lake, that water level becomes level, okay, because lakes have a level of water in them. So it's going to be a little higher on the down gradient side. It's going to be a little bit lower on the up gradient side, but only locally. Gotcha. And when we talk about locally, is there, from your scientific understanding, how far out is locally considered when you talk about the impacts? Generally, less than 100 feet. Okay. Thank you. May I ask Mr. Stevens just a couple of quick follow-up questions to that issue? Thank you. And I just, and one of the things that I wanted to ask you, the reason you know that, can you explain the permitting process and kind of the ring of piezometers and how we know that those issues don't happen off-site and kind of how we monitor that? As part of the environmental resource permitting process and the water management district's water use permitting process, we come up with an environmental management plan for a mine. And that environmental management plan involves what parameters you're going to monitor for what period of time and where are you going to monitor those things. And the majority of that is water level in the superficial aquifer, water levels in wetlands, to get a baseline of material prior to the mining starting. So you may have 10 years of baseline water level data that you can use then to evaluate the effect of the mining on those water levels. And in those environmental management plans, there's always key points that if you exceed certain criteria that's established in conjunction with the district and the department, then maybe some mitigation may have to take place with that. I've only seen that in 25 years, I've only seen that in one mine where there was a breaking of that criteria and that was because of a pump failure for a short period of time but that was mitigated. So that's the process that the environmental management plan has to take place, has to be developed, has to be agreed to by the state and then implemented and monitored for some period of time as mining begins to progress. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. That's it. Questions? Farrell, any questions? Mr. Wilson, any questions? I have, I just have two, Mr. Allen. One of them is the report of health has come up a couple of times. Yes, ma'am. Do we have any report, any medical report in Polk County that specifically points to the health issue being because of a sand mine, seeing that there's other sand mines around the area? I certainly can't speak to every report that's ever been written. Have you heard? I have not heard of any. And I think what's important is if you look at Dr. DeMott's analysis, his opinion and his conclusions based on the literature and his 30 years of experience is that that does not occur. There are no, that there are no, that those kinds of cases are not in existence. And, but that's based on Dr. DeMott's report. Okay. Another thing is that I, I'm sure we've all received the letter of support from the HOA. Yes, ma'am. Um, for this, uh, Saddleback and, and that represents, someone said there's 170, no, 750 homes in that area. So can you explain to me this HOA, how many, how many is covered on this HOA support? Well, I can say that the HOA, that the agreement is with the HOA and that it was signed by one of their board members, Mr. Pratt, that that letter does not bind individual residents. And we certainly, I certainly agree with that. We never took any different position on it. I mean, a person has the absolute right to have their own opinion, but it does cover that entire Saddleback Lake HOA, which is in the 750 unit range, which is what they've indicated and what your staff's indicated. Um, so that, that agreement was reached with that board and, um, it is in place and, and that they have a restrictive covenant on the 200 acres. It was somebody that indicated 20 acres during the testimony and I, um, I raised my eyebrows. I think they may have just missed a zero. So it was unintentional of course. Um, but, uh, yeah, so they would cover that entire, that entire area. So just to understand this before this support letter came to us, was it sent to every, do you know that it was sent out to the residents? There was a letter from the board, board themselves indicating that they had reached an agreement that was to be. Now I did not go and get a certified mailing list, but that was part of our MOU that that agreement was to be shared with all the members of the, of the owner's association or the residents. I'm sorry, of the owner's association. Now there's, there's a lot of out of town, out of country addresses located within that community. I don't know about the mailings and how they were all delivered. So I, I did, that was not involved. That was the HOA themselves. Thank you. All right. Any other questions for staff or for, um, Bart? I don't necessarily have questions. Um, as I disclosed, I did make a site visit to a similar operation because as I consider my vote and, and I want it to be fact-based and to what I observed. And as simple as this sounds, we pull up and I do not believe that, you know, the people obviously who scheduled me to be there knew of the site visit, but there sits a burgundy, um, vehicle. There's no dust on top of the vehicle. There's no dust covering doors as you go to walk into places and all of this that I wanted to see firsthand. And this was a, this was from here to the foyer, um, in the area where they would also be loading the truck. So this was not out in the field. I did not understand what wet dredging looked like. Um, and truly as you're out where they are dredging, it's no different than riding around a lake anywhere in Polk County, um, where they were loading the vehicles again. And just by a lay person looking at it, there sits a vehicle, absolutely no dust covering the vehicle, which is what I did expect to see. So just in that site visit alone answered a lot of common sense concerns that I've heard raised today that when you investigate and look at it, um, as what it is, you can clearly see that, um, it's not a dust storm sitting there waiting to happen. So I guess you, we started the board discussion, right? So, okay. So that's good. So we're in the, Oh yeah. Let me close the public hearing. That's okay. We closed the public hearing and now we're going into board discussion and, um, and then a motion. So I'm sorry. You're, I'm sorry, Randy. No, no, well, we're moving on with the board discussion now and, um, we'll take it from there. Yes. Madam chair, just one thing is from a concern standpoint, looking on Google, uh, maps and looking at that median break that's on 65, as it shows on the map, it's about 46, 47 feet wide. I think there is a valid concern as far as traffic safety longterm for the operation of whatever the site becomes, uh, because those trucks with the trailers, it's not a mini wheeler dump truck getting loaded with sand. It's a semi towing a trailer and they're over 47 feet long. And so when we look at coming out on the 60 and trying to make that left turn, uh, that is, that's going to be a tough one because there is no acceleration lane and there's going to be, uh, I think impedance into the travel lanes just because of the length of that combined truck and trailer. They can't get out of the way of traffic. So, um, you know, that, that definitely is a concern that I have. And then I'll just follow up. I've been to several sand mines in the past as an engineer, um, that's done site plans and site reconnaissance. It really comes down to mine operator mentality on if they're dusty, not dusty, if they maintain, you know, status quo and have a water trucks going on and have their sprinklers on the stack of reclaimer areas. Like everything maintains in a pretty good basis, but I've also seen sites where they're what I was in negligent operators and you get, it does look like a dust storm 24 seven, um, that, you know, vehicles would be covered in and dust and, and some not. So it really comes down to the operation more so than the actual type of project. And, uh, so again, depending on how this goes, there's just a lot of, of things that could influence the success or, uh, demise of this particular project. Thank you. And question for you, because I just don't know as much as you do about these things. Aren't those monitored, um, the different sand mines, aren't they monitored to make sure that operationally they're performing the way they should be? So from a regulatory standpoint, you were, you were required to have, you know, onsite monitoring, onsite compliance, and also, uh, agencies that do that. But the reality is there's not enough staff resources to go around for those regulators to implement and, or not to, to enforce those permit conditions. And so as I referenced on do out road, and I won't mention the company, but traveling do out road, probably 50% of the time do out road is covered in dirt coming off from a dredge mine. That's an operation, and it's over a half of a mile from do out road to where this mine base is at. And so the dredging operation itself is, you know, per se dust free because it's wet mining. There's not any dust creation because they're not disturbing dry soil. But the overburden, the berms, when they become, you know, you get a hard freeze and the vegetation goes off the berm. You know, you have dust mitigation measures. But there's, depending, again, on the side operator, I've seen do out road covered in dirt. You could literally almost hydroplane on sand because of it being covered in dirt over half a mile away. So that would be a concern when you look at this side is for State Road 60, you get a strong wind occurrence. You've got the stack of reclaimer fairly close to the highway. You know, with the six-foot berm, it's not going to intercept that. So I think adverse impacts off-site are likely as it's currently proposed. Would a different site plan result in something different? Probably so. But as it's proposed right now, this site plan would certainly lend itself to have adverse impacts both to the travelways, to the citizens around the area, and to those residential neighborhoods. Yes, comments for the board. Let's do a motion and then comments. All right, I'll go ahead and move for approval of item 01. Okay, I have a motion and a second for approval. Now we go into discussions and questions. My only comment. You've already, you could add some more if you want to after the thing, but. I'm just going to add, as far as the, my concern really is how this site plan is laid out when we look at the potential for adverse impacts off-site. I think there's better approaches of what the site plan could look like. I understand the mining operation and that in its whole. It's more so once the slurry comes out of the pipe and it's handled, that's where a lot of this adverse impact comes into play when we talk about physical, spatial type deals. So I would like to see it as a different site plan, not as it's currently proposed, so I would not be in support of it. Okay. Yeah, I see my job as determining compatibility. My nephew lived in Country Oaks for a long time. I measured it while we're sitting here. His house was 1,400 feet from the other sand mine. He never talked about sand, dust, issues, noise. I was over there a million times. I don't know if we'd have even known it was there had we not known it was there. So I think it's totally compatible. We're talking about a sand mine next to a sand mine next to an empty field, a 200-acre field. So I'll be supporting it. Commissioner Troutman? Again, the definition of compatibility, can they coexist over time without undue harm to each other? We have an existing sand mine that's been there for decades, and neighborhoods have been built within some of the vicinities that we're hearing concerns about. So I echo what Commissioner Braswell said, that when you look at compatibility, they can coexist, and being adjacent to another sand mine is really the ideal location that you would be looking for. Mr. Wilson? Yeah, Commissioner Wilson. Yeah. I've been listening to a lot of stuff today, and, I mean, the good, the bad, and the ugly. But you get right down to it. You know, it was mentioned earlier, I mean, I think the first sand mine in there was in 1941. It wasn't very far from right where we're talking about. As a matter of fact, I think it was adjacent. And all my life, and I've lived here a long time, all my life, that area is, you know, sand mines. And so when you, you know, when it's originally sand mines and then somebody, and hey, I know y'all live in a great place, and I know that y'all love your place, but you moved in beside a sand mine back in the day. And, hey, back in the day, yes. Close to one. But anyway, I'm just saying, I'm not, but there was there. So there is going to, you know, when we talk about traffic, we talk about noise, we talk about pollution. Yeah, there's, without sand mine, without anything, we've got way too much traffic anyway on Highway 60. I agree with that a lot. But, and it's not going to get any better. With this sand mine or without this sand mine, there's still going to be a lot of traffic on Highway 60. Compatibility, yeah, you can't ask much more than compatibility for this, for what it is in this area right here. For y'all, it's not. People don't like change. They don't want this next day. I get that. But, you know, the sand mine's there. And so I'm going to cut it shorter. I'm just, I am for this, this. So we got a motion and we got a second, I believe. I haven't finished. Oh, oh, you, okay. Yeah, go right ahead. Thank you. I'm finished. So I'm glad you brought up Highway 60 because that is a dangerous road. We've had quite a bit of accidents, but I appreciate, I think it was Ms. Garner that brought in the accidents, the crash histories. And apparently none of them related to anything with a sand mine or truck. So we're going to continue to have accidents on Highway 60. I claim that to be drivers, not being careful, especially the last one that took place was an unfortunate incident, but it was the drivers. They drive too fast on 60 and they're careless. And that's a fact of life. I also have noticed that there's been a lot of changes that have taken place with the sand mine, with, what is it, hold on, PH Citrus. You've done a lot of changes, have accommodated the people, you've heard the people, and your changes are a reflection of that. Another thing is the HOA letter, even though it doesn't bind everybody, as we could tell, that's why you're here in opposition, or it doesn't bind everybody, but it gives an indication that the residents in that area, the majority of the residents, based on the HOA's letter of support, is saying that they're okay with this because of the changes that have occurred. So with that being said, I'm going to support this, so we're up for vote. We have a motion, a second, any other discussion, any other question before we vote? So, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay, it's 4-1, it moves forward. Thank you. We'll give you a few minutes. We still have some things on our agenda, so we'll give you a few minutes to leave the room so we can get to the next point in our agenda. If you would please leave the room quickly so that we can continue with our agenda. Please leave the room if you're not going to be part of the rest of the agenda so that we can continue. Madam Chair, do you want me? We have one more for the, yes. Madam Chair, do you want me to go ahead and present that? We have the adoption of an ordinance. Yes, ma'am. So, 02 is a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance of the Polk County Board of County Commissioners entitled the Polk County Right-of-Way Sign Enforcement Ordinance. As the board is aware, this creates a fine process for larger signs in the right-of-way, such as banner signs, feather signs, flag signs, and signs constructed rigid or semi-rigid materials, such as wood, aluminum, heavy gauge, PVC, and complete material. It creates a fine of $250 per sign. If they don't remove the sign, once it's been tagged, they've got seven days to remove that sign. If the county has to remove it, then the cost of removal is imposed against the beneficiary user of the sign, and it is recommended for approval by the board. And this is a public hearing. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. Amber, do we have anybody? Seeing none. I see Ms. Richards back there. Seeing none. Seeing none, we will close this public hearing and bring it back to the board. Motion for approval? Second. Okay, I have a motion and a second. Any further questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's all the public hearings at this time. Okay, but now we go to the general public hearing, and we do have, we have... I don't think we do. I think we lost them. Let me see. Ms. Richardson, would you please come up? I guess we do need to confirm that everyone they have left by calling their name. Okay, we'll after Ms. Richardson. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Ms. Richardson, I'm sorry. I'm telling them that maybe my husband's last name is going to be Richardson when I find him or he finds me. But I'm Cassandra Richards, 2357 Freelander Road, Lake Wells, Florida. I want to say I miss you all. I miss you all. I miss coming to the county commissioner's meeting. I am subbing for Polk County. They did ask me about coming back. I'm debating about this full-time day. I enjoy sitting down there at home watching my television. I don't think I want to do full-time. But I do want to say I do miss you all, and I wish the others hadn't left because I was once in their position dealing with the pipe plant in Lake Wells that they wanted to put out in Highland Park, and we fought it. And the only thing we could do was get sensors and, like they say, sound bars and monitor, and if you need to, get your attorney. That's the best you can do because everything is going to go forward regardless. You know, the world is moving on, and what used to be is not always so now because we have too many people moving in the county. And I agree when it comes to Highway 60 because it is a busy road, and a lot of crashes have taken place since they started building up out there. I'm sure I will be reaching back out because we still have those dump trucks that come through, and they are beating down the little humps that we have. But I know in the future I'll probably come back and ask that they be redone. But other than that, I'm here. I thank God that I'm here. And what is going to be? It's always good to see you, Ms. Richards. Thank you for coming. Jennifer Castro. Okay, she's gone. Stephanie Widener. I have two for Stephanie. Was that Stephanie right there? Stephanie Widener. Okay. So she's gone. All right. And Kay Bork. She's gone. And Debbie Higgs. She's gone also. So those that wanted to speak during general public speaking time are gone. And just to clarify, if we had someone that signed up too, they still only get three minutes at the end of the day. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So I close the public hearing. And if there is nothing else, we stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.