WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=7LL7ZSCCMOw

Part: 1

1
00:05:10.000 --> 00:05:30.880
That sucks. >> Good afternoon. We'll call this meeting to >> Wait, are we on? >> Yeah. Are we >> Good afternoon. We'll call this meeting to order. Mike, can you hear that >> or? >> Uh, yes. >> Is that better? >> That's better. >> Okay. Um, I'll do now do the roll call. Uh, Dan Brady

2
00:05:30.880 --> 00:05:45.680
>> here. >> Tom Camp Penny >> here. >> Vicky Davis. >> Uh, Vicki, by the way, is has some issues relating to the board. So, unfortunately can't make it. David Hafner >> here. >> Beth Kavinsky >> here. >> John Keller unfortunately couldn't make

3
00:05:45.680 --> 00:06:00.240
it. Merritt Mat >> here. >> Scott Turnbull >> here. >> And Jim Sneder. >> Um, so do I have a motion to approve the minutes from our April 1st meeting? >> So move. Second. >> All those in favor? >> I

4
00:06:00.240 --> 00:06:17.440
>> I Great. It's passed. Uh, do I have a motion to approve the agenda for today's meeting? All in favor? >> Move. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Sorry. >> All All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Okay. Staff will now update us on the

5
00:06:17.440 --> 00:06:34.440
parcels presented during our previous meetings. >> Mike. Um uh before that on the agenda we have the uh update on the tax revenue generated from the sales tax collection. >> Go ahead with that please.

6
00:06:41.520 --> 00:06:57.840
>> Good afternoon um board. My name is Stephanie Merley. I'm the director of the office of management and budget here for Martin County. And I am just going to give you a little uh update on the tax revenue that we've collected from this halfsent sales tax initiative as well as where it's been spent. Um so to

7
00:06:57.840 --> 00:07:14.479
date we have collected Can you go to the next down at the bottom there on the left? No, no, no. >> Here. >> Yep. We have collected about 26 million to date. um between FY25 which was the partial year if you're wondering we had

8
00:07:14.479 --> 00:07:30.080
projected about 20 to 22 million collection every year um last year was a partial year because it was approved in November and started in January so from January to September we collected 15 million in FY25 and year to date we have

9
00:07:30.080 --> 00:07:45.759
collected um about 11.2 2 million. Um we're it is about three months behind in a rear. So state collections are lagged by three months. So if you're wondering why is that not correlating to what we've done so far, that's what that is. And then go ahead and go back to the

10
00:07:45.759 --> 00:08:02.960
other and collections spent. We have collect we have spent approximately $21.2 million um cumulatively between fiscal year 25 and 26. Mike, if you could scroll all the way to the bottom and there is a breakdown of where all of

11
00:08:02.960 --> 00:08:18.879
that money has been spent with um the majority of it being some really good parcels um between Palmar, Elise J, Perry Beach, Pointiana Gardens, and Barbie Ranch. So far, these numbers do not represent anything that's currently

12
00:08:18.879 --> 00:08:35.200
in the pipe to be closed re um coming up, but we have sufficient cash about 5.1 million in cash to be spent currently and we're still anticipating about 1.5 to$1.8 million monthly um to be collected going forward through the

13
00:08:35.200 --> 00:08:52.640
end of the fiscal year. So we we meet regularly with the um the staff internally on what they're planning to purchase after you all discuss and we decide if the cash flow is sufficient in order to make that purchase and then we make the purchase. So this is a publicly

14
00:08:52.640 --> 00:09:10.480
available site. I had emailed each of you all this link and I'm happy to answer any questions going forward, but we make sure we track everything by um property type so you know exactly where your money is going. So, I'm here to answer any questions and happy to help.

15
00:09:10.480 --> 00:09:26.720
>> No questions. Just thanks for putting this together. It looks great and it really is very user friendly. >> Thanks. >> Yeah, that website is very helpful. Thank you. >> No problem. I'm available to be reached through the email that I contacted you with. So, if you don't have any questions,

16
00:09:26.720 --> 00:09:41.600
>> I I will say as a reminder, once we acquire these properties, we can spend up to 5% of the acquisition cost on uh habitat restoration and habitat management. So, you'll actually see associated with some of these more

17
00:09:41.600 --> 00:09:59.360
expenditures once they've been acquired. >> Thank you, Mike. Thank you. >> Thank you. So Mike, jumping ahead to the status of those properties previously voted on. >> Uh sure. So uh I'll now go into my

18
00:09:59.360 --> 00:10:16.920
presentation that includes you know what we've done in the past and what we'll be looking to evaluate uh with today's ranking meeting. So um if you give me a second, let me get this started.

19
00:10:18.640 --> 00:10:34.560
Uh so previously we have evaluated and approved roughly 11,000 acres for acquisition. Uh these properties represent all four different acquisition zones and the acreage varies from 3500

20
00:10:34.560 --> 00:10:56.880
to 1 acre in size. And on this map it highlights all the properties that you have previously approved. Uh they're all in yellow. And based on our metrics, we've acquired about 1325 acres in fe simple. We've

21
00:10:56.880 --> 00:11:13.839
protected 1699 acres through a conservation easement via the Florida Forever program. We have about 58 acres under contract and are either awaiting BOCC approval to close or we're in the process of closing. And in addition to

22
00:11:13.839 --> 00:11:32.000
that, we have 799 acres that are queued up for conservation easements through our partnership with the rural and family lands protection program. So I don't know if you can read this very well, but it's a list of the properties that have been acquired to

23
00:11:32.000 --> 00:11:46.560
this point. So it lists Barbie Ranch, which was the conservation easement. Uh if you look at the if you look at the spreadsheet, it includes the total cost, uh how much our partners spent and how much the county spent. So overall, we

24
00:11:46.560 --> 00:12:03.040
spent a little over $21 million and our partners have spent about $23 million. In total, uh based on this, we've acquired uh fee simple or conservation easements on close to 3,100 acres. Uh

25
00:12:03.040 --> 00:12:20.160
but there are still in a couple of those projects are still areas that we would like to acquire. So that's why we have acquire acres acquired, acres unacquired, and total acres. Uh does this make sense to everybody? >> Mhm. >> Yep. Everybody.

26
00:12:20.160 --> 00:12:35.519
>> Yes. >> Okay. Yes. >> Okay. So, in terms of recent acquisitions, we closed on the 315 acre Elise J property during the month of May. As a reminder, this is a key connector between Hungry

27
00:12:35.519 --> 00:12:53.000
Lamb Wildlife and Environmental Area and Harmony Ranch. And uh we think if we were able to acquire an additional property, we could add it to Hungerland and just have it managed by the state as one contiguous property.

28
00:12:53.760 --> 00:13:09.600
Another that we've recently closed on is Point Sienna Gardens. Uh this is a area that's a mixture of publicly and privately owned lots. Uh any of the color polygons that you see, um the blue are ones that have been acquired in the

29
00:13:09.600 --> 00:13:26.639
past and the green are the ones that were recently acquired through this program. So we closed on 32 acres during the month of April. The cost was roughly $3 million. It is an important wetland system. Lot lot of wetlands on the site

30
00:13:26.639 --> 00:13:42.160
in addition some pine flatwoods, but also very significantly it's an important buffer to and potential access point to Atlantic Ridge State Park. And so, uh, the blue that you're seeing on the left is actually Atlantic Ridge

31
00:13:42.160 --> 00:14:01.519
State Park. And the third acquisition recently is the 3.5 acre Rogers Atlantic Ridge parcel. Uh it's adjacent to and can help buffer Atlantic Ridge as well or the Metalist property, excuse me. Uh we closed on the property in May for

32
00:14:01.519 --> 00:14:19.120
roughly $200,000. It's a fairly disturbed property, but it does have a small area of scrubby flatwoods. And it's important because once again, it links to the metalist property. So in terms of properties under

33
00:14:19.120 --> 00:14:36.320
um active negotiation or approved projects, this is another spreadsheet. These are properties that we have approved as ELOC projects and sales tax projects, but we haven't uh either been able to close on or uh are in the

34
00:14:36.320 --> 00:14:53.360
process of negotiation. uh in the instance of the rural and family lands easements, we have to approve language with the state who will be taking the lead on those negotiations in terms of those conservation easements. So, um so we have about 7,000

35
00:14:53.360 --> 00:15:11.440
acres that have been approved by this committee that we still have not acquired. Uh some of it I don't have any progress to report in terms of like Wworth Farms or uh uh the Creser parcel or the Thaw family

36
00:15:11.440 --> 00:15:26.639
partnership. Uh so that just kind of gives you an idea where we're at in terms of what what you have approved in the past. >> What was Jane Wild asking for? >> Uh roughly a million dollars an acre.

37
00:15:26.639 --> 00:15:44.000
And what is so that's removed from consideration due to cost for that Jane Wild? >> Yeah. If it if the cost comes down, it's an approved project. You know, it's still there on our radar. We're just not going to work on it um because of the

38
00:15:44.000 --> 00:16:01.279
>> there's an order of magnitude difference in terms of what the property appraises at. Exactly. What a tour is. >> It's not even the same pew, let alone or same church, let alone the same pew on the >> appraisal. So, but like I said, it's still a sales tax approved project. You know, um she

39
00:16:01.279 --> 00:16:18.160
could come forward in six or seven years and if we have money available, we can buy it then. So, um so it's there, but we're we're not going to be working on it. >> Any other questions in >> Have you earmarked the money for that?

40
00:16:18.160 --> 00:16:33.839
>> Can we use that on a different project? >> Yeah, we're we're just taking it as it comes basically. So, so if we end up spending all of our money on other things, then then we wouldn't be buying buying it. But, um, so, so I wouldn't say we're earmarking. We don't earmark

41
00:16:33.839 --> 00:16:50.240
until we have a signed contract. >> Okay. Mhm. >> And Mike, where you say no progress to report, what's being done to spur those along? Well, they're just um in some instances there's a could be a big

42
00:16:50.240 --> 00:17:07.839
difference in terms of you know what the asking price is. It could be that the property would be so expensive that we we even with the large pot of money we have we wouldn't we don't have enough money to acquire it on our own. So we would need partners. Uh so there could

43
00:17:07.839 --> 00:17:26.480
be a lot of different factors. We just don't really have you know I don't have any update to say at this time. >> Got it. Thank you. >> So, we are under uh active negotiation for J.R. Stewart Lands, which is a 642 acre property that's important to

44
00:17:26.480 --> 00:17:42.320
regional connectivity. The recently acquired Elise J property is just to the north of that. The property is under conservation easement as a private mitigation bank. Um but as of this time there's no progress in terms of working

45
00:17:42.320 --> 00:17:58.240
out a deal but we are actively you know talking to the realtor and the land owner on this >> Mike what if it's if it's active as a mitigation bank what happens >> if we purchase it?

46
00:17:58.240 --> 00:18:13.600
>> Well it would yeah you would still then have the conservation easement and you would have the mitigation requirements. So it would mean that you would have to uh take care of the the property and meet whatever those requirements are. Uh they stay with the property even if

47
00:18:13.600 --> 00:18:29.280
there's a change in ownership. >> So does that put is that a disadvantage or does it matter or >> it's certainly something to consider in terms of an acquisition? Now the the realtor is saying that the landowner is trying to get the conservation easement

48
00:18:29.280 --> 00:18:46.480
removed from the parts that weren't used for mitigation. But whether or not that will actually happen is is an open question. >> Are you aware whether or not any active mitigation has been done on the parcel at all? >> There were two credits taken uh on the

49
00:18:46.480 --> 00:19:09.200
property. So, uh, so I think the plan was to just remove the conservation easement from a portion of the property. >> Any other questions? >> Well, if it was acquired, if it's acquired by the county, does it still have to

50
00:19:09.200 --> 00:19:23.760
go forward as a mitigation bank or that would cease? I mean the the two credits that were given out are done, but >> we could certainly um not use it for mitigation. Um >> I mean there's no reason the county

51
00:19:23.760 --> 00:19:39.919
would conservation easement on it. So, um, so but it would be, you know, what we would want to do is put like a trail system through it and and, you know, have recreational amenities that are

52
00:19:39.919 --> 00:20:00.000
consistent with Hungry Land. >> Mhm. >> Which doesn't Hungryland doesn't allow off-road vehicles uh in in their in their preserve area. >> Thank you. So, another one is the Rogers

53
00:20:00.000 --> 00:20:15.520
Conservation Fund parcel. So, this is actually owned now by the Conservation Fund. This map, I apologize, is inaccurate. There's this an area going down is also part of their property. So, it's like two parcels, but total those

54
00:20:15.520 --> 00:20:33.200
two areas are 20 acres. Uh, we think that this could help with the Kitchen Creek project. So, our idea would be to draw water. This is a old like mining site here. So, the idea would be to draw water out from 138th Street in the

55
00:20:33.200 --> 00:20:49.440
roadway system, have it flow into and through this property. So, we'd kind of scrape it down to create a wetland system and then eventually put it back into the ditch. So, uh so it is owned by the conservation fund and we're in negotiations with them in terms of

56
00:20:49.440 --> 00:21:06.799
acquiring it at this time. So, that brings us to the properties that we're going to review today, the 2026 nomination cycle. So, we have uh nine new nominations up for consideration that total roughly 2,800

57
00:21:06.799 --> 00:21:23.679
acres. Uh they are once again throughout each of the different project zones and uh so a wide swath of the areas that have been up for consideration before. So just to explain to the public what we're

58
00:21:23.679 --> 00:21:39.679
going to be doing is following the presentation each parcel uh we're going to ask the public for comment on that parcel uh and then we'll provisionally as a team rank that parcel uh and then the next parcel be presented. After all

59
00:21:39.679 --> 00:21:55.039
of the parcels uh have been presented, then we'll go through them again and rank those provisionals as as a firm uh vote as it relates to the particular parcel. Uh any comments on that, Beth? >> Tom,

60
00:21:55.039 --> 00:22:12.000
>> no. >> We're good. Okay, great. Thank you. Go ahead. >> So, uh this chart just shows all the properties that are up for consideration. It shows which prog program area they're in. Uh at this

61
00:22:12.000 --> 00:22:28.880
point it's so early. We know that some we know will be fee simple acquisition. Some could be fee simple acquisition, could be conservation easement. We don't know. So that's why it says either. Uh, it lists the acreage of each project,

62
00:22:28.880 --> 00:22:47.280
potential partners, which could be anything from the South Florida Water Management District, Florida Forever Program, the FDAX through the rural and family lands program, or in one instance, the city of Stewart uh through their allocation uh from the sales tax.

63
00:22:47.280 --> 00:23:05.760
Any questions on this? Okay. And there are some properties that we're not bringing forward at this time. So they include Wallpole, which um would be a great acquisition, but unfortunately is not within one of our acquisition

64
00:23:05.760 --> 00:23:22.880
program boundaries. So, um, so we put that one to the side and we will, since that one is up for a potential easement, we will try and support, you know, having it acquired by the state, that conservation easement. We just can't financially participate through the

65
00:23:22.880 --> 00:23:38.880
sales tax program. >> Mike, one question relating to the title. Are do all of these uh have clear title? >> You don't really get into clear title until you get into the negotiation phase. >> Okay. So you don't So we assume that

66
00:23:38.880 --> 00:23:56.159
we'll be getting clear title, but you know that takes, you know, doing title work, and we we don't do that until we're further along in the process. >> Got it. Thank you. >> So Pagota Groves, that's a site that's south of I95

67
00:23:56.159 --> 00:24:11.919
on the east side of Bridge Road, but it doesn't really fall within um the Lockal Lucy footprint. So, we didn't consider that property. Uh Danforth Creek, uh there was an interest uh from the

68
00:24:11.919 --> 00:24:27.279
seller, but uh we and we've had conversations, but uh we received a willing seller too late to get the environmental assessment done and get it in front of you. So, when we come back in 3 months, that will be a candidate uh

69
00:24:27.279 --> 00:24:43.840
for consideration. Uh we have the Robert Rose parcel which is on Hutchinson Island. um we know based on what they they paid for it and what they were offering to sell it for we didn't see it as a reasonable request. So we put that aside

70
00:24:43.840 --> 00:25:00.559
for now. And then you have brought up uh merit the 48 and golf course uh but we would need a willing seller letter in order to move that forward. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So this is the review process. We have

71
00:25:00.559 --> 00:25:17.120
nomination forms submitted. We review it as a staff to make sure it is um to make sure there's concurrence with the ordinance. If it's not, then we remove it from consideration consideration. If it is, we bring it forward to you guys

72
00:25:17.120 --> 00:25:32.640
to have it reviewed and ranked, which is where we're at right now. Uh after that, we bring it in front of the board of county commissioners for for review and approval as a sales tax project. all that happens, then we can actually start meeting with the land owners, doing our

73
00:25:32.640 --> 00:25:49.840
due diligence, negotiations, try to get a contract, and then eventually bringing it back for the for final approval by the board of county commissioners. Any uh questions on the review process? >> No.

74
00:25:49.840 --> 00:26:05.200
>> So, this is just the scoring sheet. Uh each member fills out the project scores on the ranking form. there is one error and you know we had decided that category seven we're not going to review so please just re leave those scores as

75
00:26:05.200 --> 00:26:22.600
being a zero. Um so you total up across the 10 categories and then we apply the weights and use that to come up for a weighted score per member uh for each property.

76
00:26:23.039 --> 00:26:39.679
We then take that information and we plug it in across for each property across all the different metrics. And when then we use that to come up with a total project score. And finally, we will uh have all that

77
00:26:39.679 --> 00:26:55.200
listed in here to come up with total scores for each property. uh and we will then use that to come up with a ranked list of of the lands that you have reviewed today. The project with the higher score will have the

78
00:26:55.200 --> 00:27:13.200
higher rank. We will tabulate produce a weighted score then bring it back to you. So now I'm going to start talking about the individual properties and the first ones we're going to discuss are within the IRL South acquisition zone. Uh we

79
00:27:13.200 --> 00:27:29.679
have two nominated properties in that zone today. We have the solo properties parcel and the hawks hammock edition. Uh also if you're looking at the map, the areas in beige are lands that are already acquired as conservation lands.

80
00:27:29.679 --> 00:27:51.600
The areas in green are ones that we could potentially acquire. So first the solo properties parcel which is 139 acre property has uh based on our environmental assessment it seems to have good habitat quality. It there

81
00:27:51.600 --> 00:28:06.880
is a privately owned parcel in the middle of it that has a cell tower. So the big square is going to be the area that would be preserved and that cut out in the middle would be remain in private

82
00:28:06.880 --> 00:28:23.600
ownership. Does everyone understand that? >> Would they have access to that property through this? >> They would have an existing easements. >> Got it. And is that just one road or it be multiple roads? >> I believe it's one road. Okay. So

83
00:28:23.600 --> 00:28:39.360
>> where is the road, Mike? Uh, it's just a I think it comes in from the southeast side. I might have a map further on where it's easier to see, but it's not like it's not like a asphalt road. It's just like a little access route. >> Got it. Thank you.

84
00:28:39.360 --> 00:28:56.399
>> Road off to the to the west that goes on the south side of Alipata and the north side of >> um >> here and here >> C44. Yes. >> Um that does not extend as far to the east as I don't think it does. I think it stops at the end there, but the blue

85
00:28:56.399 --> 00:29:11.520
line is is in the way. >> I think I remember that the the access might actually be from the east side and the north. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, I would need to do a little more research on that. Um,

86
00:29:11.520 --> 00:29:29.039
it is uh within the footprint of IRL South and so it is a uh SER Natural Lands property. Uh it is adjacent to Barbie Ranch on the north side. But if we wanted to form a greenway that includes C44, Alipata and Barbie Ranch,

87
00:29:29.039 --> 00:29:44.960
obviously we would have a lot more acquisitions that we need to do. Uh the project is completely within the Florida Wildlife Quarter. The polygon area that you see is the location of the property. So it's right up in this area.

88
00:29:44.960 --> 00:30:03.520
Um and it is listed as a priority priority 2 according to the Florida Ecological Greenway network. So once again it is within the footprint of IRL South and can be used for the natural lands component of SER to

89
00:30:03.520 --> 00:30:18.640
capture storm water that is severely impacting the St. Lucy estuary. State funds are credited to the state could be I should say could be uh credited to the state ledger and the SER cross share agreement. So that basically means that

90
00:30:18.640 --> 00:30:33.360
the state has to spend a certain amount of money that the federal government will match doing projects within the SER and this isn't just IRL South within the entire SER area. Did I did I explain that well Beth?

91
00:30:33.360 --> 00:30:50.240
>> Yeah, you're fine. But right now we don't have a partner. >> We we don't have a partner. No. Uh and it is within the Alipata natural storage water quality area as highlighted on that map.

92
00:30:50.240 --> 00:31:06.480
So no partner has been identified, but it does have some potential to eventually get funding since it's within IRL South. So this kind of shows better. So you can see actually here's the access road goes

93
00:31:06.480 --> 00:31:25.120
to the south a little bit southwest and you can see some of these I guess this is where the the tower lines are so that's why they own out in that shape and so we would be acquiring all this land around that. Um it appears to be in

94
00:31:25.120 --> 00:31:41.360
good condition. it. At least from aerials, you don't see any obvious heavy infestations of exotic vegetation, but some of the area has been impacted by humans. Here's another feature over here that looks like a ditch. Yep.

95
00:31:41.360 --> 00:31:58.720
>> Running through the property. Uh so, and the hydraology is impacted by drainage and these these surrounding canal systems. Uh and another thing of interest is that there's no history of evident of uh fire management on the

96
00:31:58.720 --> 00:32:15.440
property which most of what we acquire wouldn't won't have a history of fire management. So in terms of management considerations the communication tower itself and having an access road that goes through the property to maintain the tower and

97
00:32:15.440 --> 00:32:29.760
in addition it would be challenging to use prescribed fire because you couldn't affect the tower uh if you put fire in this area. Uh however, on the other side, it does have a lot of protected land surrounding it, especially to the

98
00:32:29.760 --> 00:32:47.120
south and west, and that can help reduce management challenges. >> Mike, is the does the tower preclude public access? Is the tower fenced off or do people have to keep a certain distance away if it was acquired? >> Yeah, I would imagine that the that

99
00:32:47.120 --> 00:33:04.559
they're not going to want the public to trespass onto their property there. So there won't be access to the tower property, but you know, >> but the surrounding area, not in red, has the potential to be public use. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And I go into that, but I do think that

100
00:33:04.559 --> 00:33:21.279
uh providing access will be challenging just to get out there, you know. So um so this is just a list of um listed species on the property. Uh there's no rare habitats, but you do tend to get some species associated with these

101
00:33:21.279 --> 00:33:35.760
flatwoods marsh areas. And this is the that list. And this also lists the different habitats. You have uh a lot of pine flatwoods, which is in green. You have blue, which is your deep depression

102
00:33:35.760 --> 00:33:53.440
marshes. You have the uh pink area, which is wet prairie. and the purple areas which are impacted. Recreational opportunities would be challenging given the distance from roads and a lack of connection to

103
00:33:53.440 --> 00:34:13.280
existing trail networks features if we were to provide access and we would would focus on hiking, biking and equestrian users. In terms of the development potential, quite a bit of the property is upland. So quite a bit of it would be uh

104
00:34:13.280 --> 00:34:32.720
available for development, but with the current landing use and zoning that would consist of 20 acre ranch heads. >> Any questions about that first project? >> You said there was no potential funding partners. >> What's that? >> There's no potential funding partners.

105
00:34:32.720 --> 00:34:47.839
>> Potential funding partners? >> No, there is. It's a SER. >> There's potential. It's potential. Yeah, there's potential, but I, you know, we don't know um if if there will be an an actual partner. We can't guarantee, but but

106
00:34:47.839 --> 00:35:03.680
there could be potential for us to uh get some funding at some point in the future. >> So, if the county buys it and closes on it, the county manages it manages it >> theoretically. And it you don't have to.

107
00:35:03.680 --> 00:35:21.400
I mean, we can still buy properties and let the state manage it. You know, we don't have to always take on management responsibilities, but the but in essence, um, at least for now, yeah, the county would be the managing entity.

108
00:35:23.520 --> 00:35:39.359
>> So, before we go to the next property, are there is there any public comment on this particular property? Please, three minutes, please. Well, I when I look at this presentation and I and I see >> you want to identify yourself.

109
00:35:39.359 --> 00:35:55.359
>> Yeah, I'm Sharon McGinness. Thank you. Um I really have to wonder what would be the potential that anybody would want to develop that property with a cell tower on it even as a ranchet. I just doesn't look

110
00:35:55.359 --> 00:36:11.520
like a desirable place that people would want to put their home. So I would give it actually a very low priority if anything. Um, I know it attaches to a lot of properties that we're already conserving, but I just think there's a little opportunity for somebody to start

111
00:36:11.520 --> 00:36:28.560
putting houses on that property. That's my own comment. >> Point well made. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. So, at this point, uh, the modus operandi has been we provisionally rank it. Is everybody comfortable with doing

112
00:36:28.560 --> 00:36:44.560
that or do you want to wait until the end? No, I think we should rank them as we discuss >> so let's go through >> discussion of this particular property then please. >> Uh well it it is within the uh the SER project.

113
00:36:44.560 --> 00:37:01.280
>> So I ranked it high. >> Yep. >> Same thoughts. >> Yes. I mean if it's within the SER it's a higher ranking and you know that also means funding potential. Um, in my mind, I mean, we don't have a a partner lined

114
00:37:01.280 --> 00:37:18.240
up, but if it falls within SER, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a much stronger percentage of funding partners. >> Well, I want to hear Beth first. She's the expert. >> Um, I I gave I gave it 100 uh because

115
00:37:18.240 --> 00:37:39.920
it's within the SER boundary and um and I'm going to just go on to number two as well. I did the same for greenways because it's in a in a greenway as well. So I I ranked it a 75 for habitat quality uh because of that cell tower. The surrounding area um outside that

116
00:37:39.920 --> 00:37:58.079
cell tower looks undisturbed, but the that cell tower brought it down for that. Um >> I don't know what to rank it for potential funding partners, however. I mean, do we give it a 20? Do we give it a 50? Give it a 70.

117
00:37:58.079 --> 00:38:12.960
>> Do you want me to go through all of all of them and then Okay. >> Yeah, why don't we do that? Okay. >> Um potential funding partners. I said a 75. Um I it definitely would not be on the um SER priority at this point in

118
00:38:12.960 --> 00:38:31.240
time, but it's it's there and it's a potential. So I didn't want to go as low as 50, but um that um for habitat quality, I agree with merit. Um I I actually gave it a 70. I think the cell tower is um

119
00:38:31.440 --> 00:38:47.440
problematic for for species and for habitat quality. Um management considerations also of 50 primarily because of the potential to have objections to fire management and the communities that are there are firebased

120
00:38:47.440 --> 00:39:04.320
communities. um rare listed rare or listed species also a 50 um and just be um there are some there's some some potential for species there I don't think that the uh report that we gave actually that they

121
00:39:04.320 --> 00:39:20.079
actually went out and looked so they indicated that there was some potential but I don't think um it should be rated very high um recreational opportunities I also gave it a 50 um just again because it's Not the most pleasant thing

122
00:39:20.079 --> 00:39:34.640
to be hiking about a >> an area with a cell tower. Um I ranked it >> excuse me. How do we get to it? >> I mean if we wanted to hike in there, how would we get there? >> I think that the area the road along the south I believe is a public access road.

123
00:39:34.640 --> 00:39:51.040
The area between Alipata and C44 and it looks like it extends further there. So I think that would be something that the county would have to figure out about whether or not you could get access that way. It appears. Um, >> so actually Mike, what's your read on that? >> Well, and there certainly would be an

124
00:39:51.040 --> 00:40:07.920
easement that would allow us to get to the property. >> There's got to be a way that the that the cell tower folks get there that is pretty >> for them. But is that is that their road? Would we have be able to use that road? >> Um, there would be an access route. The

125
00:40:07.920 --> 00:40:23.599
problem is providing vehicular access, right, >> would be, you know, to get and build a parking lot out there. So my read on it is that you would use the existing trail system and people that are already out there and there are equestrians that

126
00:40:23.599 --> 00:40:40.720
will ride through all these areas. So uh could be a stopover site for people riding their horses. So, but but it you know but it other than that it would be difficult to provide some kind of

127
00:40:40.720 --> 00:40:57.359
vehicular based access that gets people to the to the property that they could then hike it. >> So from a reasonable person standard it's on a scale of 1 to 10 it'd be 10 being the best to be a five or a six. I

128
00:40:57.359 --> 00:41:12.880
I it would not be my responsibility to like provide you with scores. So I just uh I'll just give you the the challenges and nuances and and let you make the decision. >> You're not having vehicles there, but

129
00:41:12.880 --> 00:41:31.200
you're got the potential for bikers and horses and hikers >> and watching plenty of reasonable bikers and >> right >> horseback riders and hikers out there, >> right? I I I think it has potential, but I again I for your five out of 10 or

130
00:41:31.200 --> 00:41:46.960
50 out of 100. I I went middle of the road on the recreation. >> That' be my be my gut feel. >> Yeah. >> One of my considerations for recreational prop opportunities is, you know, with the lowest end of the spectrum would be a conservation easement where it's probably going to be

131
00:41:46.960 --> 00:42:03.520
zero uh access to the public. And then I guess, you know, one of the highest might be um the Perry Beach edition where MacArthur Boulevard is right there and there's public access right there for a vehicle, but this is certainly not a

132
00:42:03.520 --> 00:42:19.280
conservation easement. There's there's opportunity for public access. >> Well, that's why I sort of said five just arbitrarily, but again, if you apply the reasonable person standard and meeting our fiduciary responsibility to the voters, that's where I would put it.

133
00:42:19.280 --> 00:42:34.319
Okay. >> All right. Um then the last two, um development potential, I ranked it fairly low. It's it's fairly remote. It's surrounded by natural lands, um and kind of difficult to get to at this point. I mean, there is definitely

134
00:42:34.319 --> 00:42:50.560
potential, but I still gave it a 30. Um and um waterways and shoreline protection. I still have a little >> I know. >> I still really not sure. I gave it a zero because I don't think it applies. I actually gave it a notable applicable, but

135
00:42:50.560 --> 00:43:07.040
>> you know, I will say that um we could have a discussion about modifying that shoreline protection one, you know, >> uh for future rankings to to make it more clear.

136
00:43:07.040 --> 00:43:23.599
>> Right. Right. Because it in in the description, it's clear that it's supposed to be for Barrier Island and and those sorts of properties, >> water access. >> Yes. So, >> true. >> Mike, do you have an extra pack of the ranking sheets by any chance?

137
00:43:23.599 --> 00:43:40.400
>> Uh, not handy. >> Okay, no worries. >> Oh, but we got awesome Sarah over there, >> so she's on top of it. >> Thank you. >> No, I I have one. Thank you. >> Any other com Oh, David.

138
00:43:40.400 --> 00:43:57.359
>> Um, yeah, I think I I was similar on things. I I probably even went lower on recreational just just, you know, the Barbie is not open to the public. Um I I like that it's going to connect Alipata and Barbie, but um I don't know who's going to want to go hike around a tower.

139
00:43:57.359 --> 00:44:14.160
Um same for the development. I don't know who's going to live under that tower. Um so I also put that pretty low, too. Um yeah, other than that, I was pretty pretty much on there. Yeah, if the Mecha property, which is the

140
00:44:14.160 --> 00:44:30.400
and and I'm not saying it will ever ever become available, but if this property ever came into play, I think that would increase the recreational value of this and everything else. So,

141
00:44:30.400 --> 00:44:46.240
>> so one qu it's a great point, Mike. What are the probabilities of us reaching out to that property owner proactively to see if they have any interest? I I know we've the county has tried to put feelers out, but we have not had any success getting generating any interest

142
00:44:46.240 --> 00:45:01.920
from that owner. So, but it would certainly if that ever came into play, that would be one of our highest ranked properties. >> So, do you use a archaic term ter uh diary something? Would it seem to me

143
00:45:01.920 --> 00:45:18.880
maybe every six months it' be worth some type of correspondence to the owner of that property? >> Yes. especially if you have, you know, I I think something like that, you're much more likely to get a response if it's somebody that knows the owner or has the

144
00:45:18.880 --> 00:45:35.599
connections to, you know, uh have a conversation with the owner. >> So, if that, for example, is ranch land, then of course, you know, Rick or Reed Hartman would be the go-to people. Are we pursuing that type of connectivity

145
00:45:35.599 --> 00:45:52.000
with the potential owners? >> We've certainly talked to Rick Hartman. He was uh the Walpole property. Yes. That was brought forward. He was involved in that and I believe he had some involvement with Turnpike Dairy as well. >> So, could you ask Rick or Reed if what

146
00:45:52.000 --> 00:46:07.119
kind of bird dogging they might be able to do on this or am I go is that a bridge too far? >> I would I would say that uh Oh, I don't see John here anymore. Oh, there he is. Yeah, reality check on that. >> Has a good

147
00:46:07.119 --> 00:46:22.319
rapport with Rick Hartman. >> Uh John, >> is there another broker? I I just mentioned them because of their connectivity to that whole, you know, farmers, but please tell us. >> Uh John May, environmental resource administrator. This is um the property

148
00:46:22.319 --> 00:46:36.800
Jim, we've talked about um pretty extensively and you have actually reached out to these folks and >> Oh, it's that same crowd in Miami. Got it. Thank you. >> And there are some other ones that are

149
00:46:36.800 --> 00:46:53.839
desirable to the county um that we don't know how to make an introduction with the land owner. So, if you're if you would be interested, we'd love to bring you in and we could >> actually I'm already at that table. I just didn't realize it was that property. So, here's the question. Could you just when you come up for air, send

150
00:46:53.839 --> 00:47:10.319
me a note with a description of this because they have quite a few parcels under their domain. So, if you could give me the description of this property and I'll reach out to them again and reconnect. Does that make sense? Okay. Yeah, if you could do that, Mike, that'd be great. >> Absolutely.

151
00:47:10.319 --> 00:47:26.079
>> Thank you. Yeah. >> I don't think it's a good idea for us to be naming brokers up here of who we would like to go talk to about this stuff. If the county wants to use a broker or if the broker brings us a property, it's a different thing. But I

152
00:47:26.079 --> 00:47:41.599
don't think we should be the ones recommending any particular >> Yeah. No, that's a good point. I was just thinking generically people in that community, but you get the idea. >> Thank you, Tom. Great. So, we'll leave if you can get back to me on that, Mike, whenever you get a chance, that'd be great.

153
00:47:41.599 --> 00:47:57.760
>> Yeah, absolutely. >> Any other comments? >> I had a question of the the cell tower. Is it a cell tower or radio tower? >> Um, I think I saw radio tower. Yeah, it's radio. Yeah, I think it's Sinclair Broadcasting. So, >> and is that like a long-term lease or do

154
00:47:57.760 --> 00:48:14.640
they own that? >> I they own it. >> They own that portion >> as far as I know. So, >> well, that's a great question. Could you when the time permits, could you find out if they own it outright? >> Sure. >> That would be very interesting.

155
00:48:14.640 --> 00:48:30.319
>> Thank you. >> If it's a lease and the lease expires, it wouldn't have to be renewed. You know, depending on what the terms of the lease were, that might increase the value of the property. >> Exactly. Great. >> Having having had those towers, most people at on this dis will be dead

156
00:48:30.319 --> 00:48:46.079
before that lease expires. >> I don't know. >> Well, we don't know when it started. Think for yourself. >> Yeah. So, there was a hockey rink in your hometown where this happened and they didn't get there in time and they lost the property. >> Well, I'm just saying they they're very long-term leases.

157
00:48:46.079 --> 00:49:01.440
>> Okay. In any case, Mike, if you could I realize you got a lot going on, but that would be helpful just to to you know, maybe a month from now just get back to us when you come up for air. >> Yep. >> Uh any other comments? >> Okay, great. Go ahead, Mike. Thank you.

158
00:49:01.440 --> 00:49:17.839
>> All right. Well, so we're moving on to project number two, which is Hawk Hammock Addition. >> She want to collect these cuz she's >> uh so here is an aerial map of Hawk Hammock Edition. It's a 300 acre 80acre property that's adjacent to an existing 432

159
00:49:17.839 --> 00:49:37.359
acre county preserve. It is not within the boundary of IR South, but it is a part of the drainage to the St. Lucy Canal and it has a high probability of development. In terms of the IRL South program and

160
00:49:37.359 --> 00:49:52.960
the Everglades Restoration Plan, we had conversations with the South Florida Water Management District about this property and we received a correspondence from them saying that it is consistent with IR South and it could

161
00:49:52.960 --> 00:50:08.480
feasibly used for the SER project as a natural land. Uh the SER project captures storm water runoff that is severely impacting the St. Lucy River estuary and state funds can be credited to the ledger and the

162
00:50:08.480 --> 00:50:27.520
ser cost share agreement. And then this map just shows where it is in relation to the IRL South footprint. In terms of the Florida Wildlife Corridor, it does not fall within the Florida Wildlife Corridor, but it does fall as a low priority within the

163
00:50:27.520 --> 00:50:50.559
Florida Ecological Greenway network. There is no partner identify, but there could be potential in the future to get some funding through the IRL South SER project. So this is kind of a little bit more of a close-up aerial to see the property.

164
00:50:50.559 --> 00:51:07.839
There's a borrow pit lake, but otherwise the habitat tend to be in decent to good condition. There are active catalases on the property. So that can uh change some of the structure and plant life and the hydraology is mostly intact and we know

165
00:51:07.839 --> 00:51:24.720
that from experience with oxamic next. So the hydraology is in pretty good shape. However, the property does lack a fire history. >> Mike, I'm sorry. Can Can you go back to that? Where exactly is Hawks Hammock

166
00:51:24.720 --> 00:51:43.440
Proper on this map? Is it that the piece right next to it? >> Yeah, it's the beige. >> So, it's adjacent. Not only adjacent, but absuts it. Okay. >> A butts it. Yeah. >> Right. >> In terms of management considerations, there would be smoke management problems due to I95. I will say that the county

167
00:51:43.440 --> 00:51:58.960
has implemented a successful burn program next door on the Hawk Hammock pro property. So, it's a challenge, but it's not impossible and we would uh most likely use fire as a tool on the property and there are significant

168
00:51:58.960 --> 00:52:14.559
invasive plant infestations. However, being contiguous to Hawkamic, it makes management easier. And this is uh this is actually of Hawk Hammock, but it kind of shows some of the wetland areas that you could expect to find um

169
00:52:14.559 --> 00:52:32.559
on the addition property next door. Uh terms of listed species, there's no rare habitats, but you have some of these species that you typically find associated with the flatwoods and marsh habitats on the property. Uh you can see

170
00:52:32.559 --> 00:52:49.119
on the map that's next to it the different habitats. So a large chunk of it is actually mess flatwoods but there are wet flatwoods, wet prairie uh and depression marsh make up a significant portion of the property. There is a

171
00:52:49.119 --> 00:53:07.440
small area of improved pasture on the property as well. and the purple are basically the purple areas are the borrow pit lakes. So, we went ahead and put together a plan for if we're able to acquire this

172
00:53:07.440 --> 00:53:24.640
property, how would we provide public access? Uh, we have an access issue to Hawk Sam Hammock. We used to bring people down from Marl Street and out to the preserve, but we actually don't own this section of the road right here. So,

173
00:53:24.640 --> 00:53:40.160
we had to reroute access to the west side of the property. Having this parcel, we could bring people directly to the addition and then they could use a trail that incorporates both Hawk Hammock and and Hawk Hammock Edition. Uh

174
00:53:40.160 --> 00:53:54.559
this area is very popular with equestrian users and there's actually a stables, Green Ridge stables, a public riding stable nearby to the preserve. So, but we would also we'd have a pavilion a like a Shell Rock parking

175
00:53:54.559 --> 00:54:13.839
area and then that trail system. In terms of the development potential, back in 2006, the property successfully went through development review process and had a site plan approved for development. Uh they would most likely

176
00:54:13.839 --> 00:54:30.720
need to start over to get development on the property, but it does show that this area could be developed if uh the right owner came along uh as agg as agricultural ranchets. Is that five acres or 20?

177
00:54:30.720 --> 00:54:48.319
>> I believe that's five acres. >> Trying. Yeah, I can't really see. It's It's on here, but you can't can't really read that map. >> So, was that approved, Mike? That but that development proposal >> that site plan was approved, but since

178
00:54:48.319 --> 00:55:03.760
it was so long ago, like 20 years ago, it would probably have to refile it. But from a development potential perspective, that would almost be a 10, wouldn't it? I mean, in terms of >> It would certainly be one of our higher ranked in terms of development potential.

179
00:55:03.760 --> 00:55:29.960
>> Okay. Thank you. So waterways are or shoreline is zero. >> Yeah. Would not doesn't really have values for waterways. >> So when on that topic. Unless we, you know, broaden that category,

180
00:55:30.480 --> 00:55:48.400
a lot of these are going to be zero. Um, I know and I know we've discussed that. My original intent when I wrote the manual for that is that we're doing all these things on these properties west of town. And we do here in Martin County

181
00:55:48.400 --> 00:56:05.280
value protecting areas that are near river systems. You know, it doesn't have to be right on the river, but in that general area in the drainage basins. Um, so it was just an it was for me at least

182
00:56:05.280 --> 00:56:23.920
a way to try and provide a way to give worthwhile properties some uh attention and and like I said, we can certainly have a conversation and perhaps that could be a topic of conversation for our next ELOC meeting

183
00:56:23.920 --> 00:56:40.799
if if we want to modify that. Um, that is in the manual but not the ordinance. So we can change the actual metric. >> Well, you know, I mean, perhaps it'd be an asterric by it and and dive a little

184
00:56:40.799 --> 00:56:57.359
deeper into waterways and shoreline protection. I mean, a zero would be solid pavement. Pervious surfaces might be a 10 out of 100. You know, wetlands on site might kick it up to a 20 out of 100 is another

185
00:56:57.359 --> 00:57:13.680
way to look at it. um you know an adjacent parcels or connectivity to tributaries or you know proximity to the C44 canal might kick it up to a 50 out of 100 and

186
00:57:13.680 --> 00:57:28.799
then you know a parcel in the Blueways program that is adjacent to a larger waterway might be 100. Um that's in a way how I'm evaluating it be because

187
00:57:28.799 --> 00:57:46.640
every inch of just pvious surface that has the potential to be turned into pavement uh should have a ranking on that waterways and shoreline protection because if it's pavement you're adding more you know harm to the waterways.

188
00:57:46.640 --> 00:58:03.599
>> It makes sense but and but part of that is waterway access. So I would think that something to get the highest score would actually have to yes have the potential for a canoe kayak launch or something else of that >> but this is in the watershed of the St. Lucy Canal, right? So,

189
00:58:03.599 --> 00:58:19.119
>> correct. >> Uh that would be material, I would think. >> And and as we go forth, the properties are going to get less and less desirable, for a lack of a better word, because we're buying up or the uh the

190
00:58:19.119 --> 00:58:36.240
properties that are really >> tens and eights. >> So, I don't know if we change it so much as just keep that in mind. Uh I would posit that since we have a category that we're not using i.e. cost per acre that

191
00:58:36.240 --> 00:58:53.359
we maybe replace that with something like flood plane value or aquafer um replenishment value or something sim similar to what Merritt was saying for this is um you know >> council is there any reason why we can't

192
00:58:53.359 --> 00:59:10.480
do that? Um you can as um uh Mike was saying that you can change certain metrics as long as they're not in the ordinance. So if it's not in there, >> right, but there is a process cuz it will have to get board approval. >> Since this is a board approved manual,

193
00:59:10.480 --> 00:59:26.319
we would need to make the changes to the manual, bring it in front of the board, and then have the board adopt the new manual. >> So in terms of this committee, what's the consensus? How do you feel? Uh, >> I believe a

194
00:59:26.319 --> 00:59:41.119
>> Okay, Tom, >> going around the horn. I >> I I agree with Beth's suggestion. I mean, the cost per acre, we don't have the information. We had that discussion last time, but you know, we have to factor in just what

195
00:59:41.119 --> 00:59:58.000
I said, wetlands, aquifer recharge, pvious area is a big part of doing all this and that, you know, secondarily helps our waterways, >> right? Sure. >> I I would agree with Beth in terms of adding that new category if we could amend it. And then I also agree with

196
00:59:58.000 --> 01:00:13.280
Merritt's assessment that, you know, this property while inland, you know, does have some value in the sense that holds water, >> filters water, >> doesn't you know, provide for water runoff. So, I mean, you know, there's value there. >> I think it's a great idea to change it

197
01:00:13.280 --> 01:00:28.319
because the way it reads now, it's a zero. So Mike, if you could please go ahead, whatever we can do to support you in taking that forward, please advise us. >> Do you want to make a motion or and and make a Beth? >> Could you make the motion, please?

198
01:00:28.319 --> 01:00:44.640
>> Yes. I move that we replace the cost per acre category with a category relative to wetland and and I'm sorry, um wetland value and aquafer. Um what was recharge?

199
01:00:44.640 --> 01:01:01.760
Thank If I could come up with a word. >> Yeah, it would be recharge, I would think. >> So, all those in favor? >> Second. >> Sorry. Second. All those in favor? >> I I. >> All those opposed. >> But if we're going to do this, Jim, then

200
01:01:01.760 --> 01:01:18.640
in some respects, we have to redo the way we're presented with the information so that it's more clear. I think that there is in in the information that we get there is a category that >> and

201
01:01:18.640 --> 01:01:35.119
um >> yeah this already said it's in the watershed of the St. Lucy >> right >> canal. So I think you've done a great job so far. So I just think we just need to get permission. >> I mean it is shown under um criterion 10 >> but it's not but we have

202
01:01:35.119 --> 01:01:53.040
>> this needs to be maybe moved into expanded otherwise >> we just should just keep 10 and we don't need it >> because it does have the natural flood plane protection functional wetland surface water protection etc in in in the report. It's just that in the

203
01:01:53.040 --> 01:02:08.480
description of the category, it doesn't include that. So, >> so is that clear, Mike? Are we okay with that? >> 100%. >> John, you're okay. We're good, council. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> So, I guess we move ahead to the next

204
01:02:08.480 --> 01:02:24.559
parcel. >> Oh, well, you have to discuss that. Uh, >> oops. I'm sorry. >> And public comment specific. >> Yeah, public comment, please, on this one. >> Thank you. Anybody from the public?

205
01:02:24.559 --> 01:02:40.559
Okay. Terms of our team, path, you okay leading on? >> You go first. Um, relation to project. Um, because of the letter, I gave it a 50. It's not in the project, but the con that the district did say that it is

206
01:02:40.559 --> 01:02:59.520
consistent with. So um and then uh similar although not in the Florida wildlife corridor or any specific um it is within that greenway category. So 65 potential funding partners 60

207
01:02:59.520 --> 01:03:16.319
habitat quality 90 um management considerations um I gave it a 65 mostly because of the issue with the fire um rare listed species 60

208
01:03:16.319 --> 01:03:33.000
recreational opportunities 80 um particularly as adjacent to Hawk Hammock development potential 90 and I gave it a zero on the waterways or shoreline protection um for now.

209
01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:48.880
>> So that property kind of so sorry kind of reminiscing um from you know that's just south of I95 and go from I95 to Markle and from Citrus to

210
01:03:48.880 --> 01:04:05.200
that property. Uh way back in the day, I used to deliver for the feed store back in there. Get the box trucks stuck all the time delivering to Miss Miller and they have to dig it out. Um but that that's all it was at one point was just woods and hogs running everywhere. And

211
01:04:05.200 --> 01:04:22.160
now there's development in there. So obviously there's a high development potential cuz it's happening right there right next door. Um, and as far as the uh uh recreational use, I actually at in high school, I uh was told by my soccer coach after played my varsity year of

212
01:04:22.160 --> 01:04:37.760
soccer that I was going to go work for his wife at Green Ridge Stables. Um, so I I actually did work there in high school and I completely agree that is a very um high uh traffic with horses, horseback riding um is going to be a huge thing for recreation, hiking, I can

213
01:04:37.760 --> 01:04:54.240
see. Um, and it's a very good place for that. So, um, both recreation and development, I think that's a very high, um, you know, I think that, um, I was right there with Beth on everything else. Um, agree with that.

214
01:04:54.240 --> 01:05:10.559
>> Great. Thank you, Tom. The only thing I would disagree with is two things actually, and I don't know if it's as high on recreation, so I gave it a 60. I just don't feel it'll be used that much.

215
01:05:10.559 --> 01:05:28.319
And as far as development, if it is a if it is a 5 acre now, I don't know. I mean, they may ask for a land use change and if it's granted, that make that makes everything different. But with five acres, I think it just starts to

216
01:05:28.319 --> 01:05:44.000
become way too expensive to develop it at this point in in Martin County's history. So, I gave it only a 50 at this point. But again, if we get a different commission or we get we feel that we want to put apartment buildings out

217
01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:59.440
there, then that should get a 10. >> That's that's how I had saw it. >> Thank you, Tom. Anything else? Eric, >> uh I'm slightly higher probably on all my rankings. Um but part of that factors

218
01:05:59.440 --> 01:06:16.240
in what Tom said, you know, we are, you know, picking the best properties first and low lowest hanging fruit. And the entire point of this is to acquire land and we have the funding source. Um kind of going down the list

219
01:06:16.240 --> 01:06:34.079
um relationship to SER I gave a 60. Uh greenway a 75. Um uh 60. Habitat quality I gave an 80 because of the borrow pit. uh management was a 90

220
01:06:34.079 --> 01:06:48.000
just because the adjacent property already there. So you're just extending that plan. Um rare endangered species a 70 um recreational opportunities a 95

221
01:06:48.000 --> 01:07:06.319
development potential IC as as 100 um agreeing with Mr. Hoffner and waterway protections A60. Um, and just going on the arguments that I already made um for waterway protections.

222
01:07:06.319 --> 01:07:21.520
I'm pretty consistent with those. I mean, I think it has a higher recreational opportunity because it's adjacent to Hawks Hammock and for the equestrian use and and the with the increased likelihood of access. So, um, other than that, I think pretty much

223
01:07:21.520 --> 01:07:47.920
mine are consistent. I have a question to to Merritt. Uh h how did you end up with uh the relationship to the SER so high? Um mostly because of Mike's comments the beginning that jumped it up from the

224
01:07:47.920 --> 01:08:05.359
zero to you said you had talks um that it could be included in IRL South with the district. >> Mhm. >> Um so >> but it doesn't fall within the boundary of any SER. it it doesn't fall within it, but he did

225
01:08:05.359 --> 01:08:21.040
mention that there was a letter from the district that said that it was consistent with and could potentially be be included for acquisition. So, I know that's an iffy thing, but >> yes, >> that's why I ranked it at a 50 >> and I was a a 60. Oh, I mean it's it's

226
01:08:21.040 --> 01:08:37.359
generally cut and dry and I was at a zero kind of but historically there seems to be some flexibility if it's an adjacent parcel or something like that that it can fall into that criteria and especially if we're conversations have already

227
01:08:37.359 --> 01:08:52.480
happened with the district or something that it can meet those criteria. You know, if I'm basically between a zero and a 100, that's where this one landed because of those conversations that Mr. Houston mentioned.

228
01:08:52.480 --> 01:09:09.040
>> Michael, are we going to tear these funding uh score sheets out and hand them in? >> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I shouldn't have stapled them. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, could I comment? >> Beth, anybody else?

229
01:09:09.040 --> 01:09:24.080
>> Mr. Chair, could I provide some context on the SER uh designation? Um, when we originally were uh kind of putting pencil to paper on how to draft this ordinance and which lands would qualify,

230
01:09:24.080 --> 01:09:39.839
there was a map that showed clear boundaries about uh what would be considered serve natural lands and what would not. In 2022 in the Water Resources Development Act, um Congress changed that um in a what's called a

231
01:09:39.839 --> 01:09:54.560
post authorization change report to eliminate the map. And there were several reasons for that. One of which was land owners that were on that map were expressing um frustration that they were continually being solicited by um

232
01:09:54.560 --> 01:10:11.280
attorneys um that represented um people that were in condemnation cases. and and so they just got this deluge of of uh solicitation um to for a a defense that they didn't really need and had no intention of selling their

233
01:10:11.280 --> 01:10:26.880
land. And so in deference to that um input, the district, the water management district, eliminated those maps and replaced them with a kind of a set of objectives that that those natural lands could fulfill. knowing

234
01:10:26.880 --> 01:10:44.159
that um the process for determining, selecting, acquiring, and then and then at some point certifying them could take 20 years. Uh the eventually what they'll have to do is submit to the core, hey, here's what we believe achieves the

235
01:10:44.159 --> 01:10:59.440
objectives of the SER IRL South Natural Lands component. And the core will have to deliberate and and either accept uh um provide, you know, some kind of feedback or not. that process won't happen until long after this is all over. So really the best that we can do

236
01:10:59.440 --> 01:11:15.360
is to work with the district staff and and and and look at individual projects and say what's the likelihood of this meeting those objectives and qualifying eventually. And so really as a as an ELOC as a board as staff um all we can

237
01:11:15.360 --> 01:11:32.080
really do is is is take our best shot at it. Um, in this particular piece uh that we took to the district, um, they acknowledge that it checks a lot of those boxes and it's something that they would certainly submit to the core of engineers and they're looking at other uh, properties as well that we've

238
01:11:32.080 --> 01:11:47.120
already acquired to potentially fulfill those needs. So, it's it's a little bit squishy, I guess, is a long way of saying that. >> Thank you, John. Any other comments? Okay, Mike.

239
01:11:47.120 --> 01:12:03.520
Okay, so now we are switching acquisition zones to the Palmar acquisition zone which is highlighted in green and we have two properties up for consideration here today. We have the Palmar Chimney and the Big Cypress

240
01:12:03.520 --> 01:12:22.880
Ranch. >> Okay. >> So, first up, we're going to discuss Big Cypress Ranch. >> So, my Florida cap comes later. >> Florida cap is Hawk Hammock edition. Sorry. >> Okay. So, Big Cypress Ranch is an 851 acre

241
01:12:22.880 --> 01:12:37.760
cypress and wetland dominant property that is a potential link between Hungerland and Corbett. And we this could be a potential fee simple or conservation easement acquisition. You'll also notice that it is uh nearby

242
01:12:37.760 --> 01:12:54.960
the Thal Family Partnership, which is a previously approved E-Lock project, and it's one that we are we don't really have anything to report on at this time. Um, you can also see that uh to the north you have the Palmar Chimney which

243
01:12:54.960 --> 01:13:10.320
is also up for consideration and the blue area that you see here is the approved um Palm Beach Heights project. But when you look at the overall picture of things, there's a greenway system

244
01:13:10.320 --> 01:13:25.120
that goes from all the way really from Jonathan Dickinson State Park through this area through Corbett and to plea all the way out to close to Lake Okachchobee. So it's like an ocean to lake

245
01:13:25.120 --> 01:13:42.800
conservation greenway system. The project is within the boundaries of the Florida Forever program and is listed as an essential acquisition by Florida Forever. You can see the oval area on the map is the location of the

246
01:13:42.800 --> 01:14:00.480
property in relation to Florida Forever. >> Are we scoring these together or separately? >> Um >> because I don't have a valuation sheet for Big Cypress. Um, >> separate. >> Yeah, it's

247
01:14:00.480 --> 01:14:16.080
>> you have extras, right? >> Yeah. >> I don't Yeah, I don't There's not one in this packet. >> Yeah, I apologize. I some confusion, I think, on my part in putting all these together. >> Jim, could I also ask um that we get our

248
01:14:16.080 --> 01:14:32.560
our score sheets to um the lady over here so that she can tally them up and doesn't have to do them all. The final though, this we're going to be going through it one more time at the end. >> Oh, we are? Yes. That's what we did last time. I mean, okay. Well, let's let's take a sidebar in this. >> Okay.

249
01:14:32.560 --> 01:14:48.239
>> Last time what we did was we we evaluated their on a preliminary basis. >> Then after we went through all of them, we went through them again to put a final vote on it. Uh what's the consensus of the team here uh as it

250
01:14:48.239 --> 01:15:04.960
relates to doing it that way? that is. Do you wish these votes you're taking now to be the final or do you want to go through them one more time after we've gone through all the properties? Maybe going around the horn. Beth, you want to go first? >> I think I mean I'm fine with my scores. I don't see

251
01:15:04.960 --> 01:15:19.679
>> We spoke about them. >> Yeah, I think once we speak about them, we can make changes as we see fit. But I think how how do you Okay, Dan, how do you >> Exactly. We We should turn them in. >> I'm agreed with that. >> Yeah, I feel like >> so we don't need to go through them

252
01:15:19.679 --> 01:15:35.120
again. This will be the final. Okay. Just want to be sure >> because Okay, that's good. >> So, in that case, after we do this, >> after we discuss them each time and we vote on them, we should give them we should pass them in, >> right?

253
01:15:35.120 --> 01:15:52.640
>> Um, okay. So, with that in mind, Mike, do you want how do you want us to do this? Should we >> separate them from the pack, then give them >> pass them down to Beth? >> Pass them down to Beth. Beth will get them to Sarah. >> Sarah is very busy taking minutes, so

254
01:15:52.640 --> 01:16:08.640
I'm not sure she's going to have everything tabulated as we go along here, but she'll at least have them. So, >> okay. >> Uh, now the only trouble is >> Dan, you're you're missing a few sheets, right? Or not? >> I was just missing the the evaluation

255
01:16:08.640 --> 01:16:25.440
sheet on Big Cypress Ranch. >> Okay. >> And and and she gave me one. >> Okay. Okay. >> Do you want us to turn these in? Yes, please. So, I've got to make a few changes in mine before I turn mine in for the final vote, but we'll we'll get them now. >> Don't forget your name.

256
01:16:25.440 --> 01:16:42.239
>> Okay. So, it's a new new process. >> Okay. With that in mind, >> that's how we did it last time. >> Everybody okay if we proceed? >> Yes. Okay. Go ahead, Mike. >> So, um so it is within the Florida Forever program. I will say that at this

257
01:16:42.239 --> 01:16:58.960
point in time, Florida Forever is not receiving any funding from the state. So, uh, so I don't know how you want to factor that in in terms of funding partners, but they would certainly be somebody we would look to as a funding partner. They just don't have funding

258
01:16:58.960 --> 01:17:15.600
right now. That could change next year. It could change in two years. Um, a lot changes at the state all the time. uh is also within the Florida Wildlife Corridor. That area shaded in yellow. Uh

259
01:17:15.600 --> 01:17:36.280
it is in a segment that extends between Corbett and Hungryland and it is listed as a priority 2 by the Florida Ecological Greenway network. Our main potential funding would come from the Florida Forever Program.

260
01:17:37.360 --> 01:17:54.239
So, this is a map showing the a closeup of the property. You can see how wet it is. Extensive cypress systems and marsh areas. Less than 10% of the property appear to be impacted and the wetlands in particular appear to be in excellent

261
01:17:54.239 --> 01:18:14.239
condition. Upland areas appear do show some evidence of grazing and there's a dense pine canopy which indicates a history of fire suppression. In terms of the management considerations, the cattle grazing and

262
01:18:14.239 --> 01:18:31.440
upland understory impacts uh making dense vegetative fuels that could be problematic in terms of a burn program. And even though invasive vegetation isn't widespread, it is present. And

263
01:18:31.440 --> 01:18:47.480
another consideration is there's just not a lot of development around the uh nominated property, which can actually make it easier to manage. It's easier to manage an area when you don't have homes backing up to your parcel.

264
01:18:48.320 --> 01:19:05.920
In terms of rare enlisted species, it does a section of the property, 6% are considered to be rare habitats by Martin County. Those include Dome Swamp, Beagal, and Hydrick Camik. Uh there's a habitat map on the left that you can

265
01:19:05.920 --> 01:19:23.440
look at. Uh and the property does have several rare species that could be found on the property and this one includes red cockaded woodpeckers because there's a population in Corbett and there are some now in Hungerland Wildlife and Environmental Area. So it can be a

266
01:19:23.440 --> 01:19:43.040
stopover site for those birds. In terms of recreational opportunities, this will depend because this could be a conservation easement acquisition or it could be a fee simple acquisition. So, we don't know at this time. There would also there is a potential to be

267
01:19:43.040 --> 01:20:02.159
challenges associated with the railroad crossing that would need to be navigated in order to get onto the property. Uh, if we did provide public access, it would focus on hiking, biking, and equestrian users. In terms of the development potential,

268
01:20:02.159 --> 01:20:17.920
uh, it actually the property has a PAMP on it now, but they never built the features that went into the pamph. So when that happens, they do have like if somebody were to buy the property, they could make a request to have the pamp

269
01:20:17.920 --> 01:20:38.840
removed. And it has a agricultural land use and zoning. It's mainly wetlands, so it would be hard to develop most of the property, but uh there is some development potential long term >> and that's it.

270
01:20:40.239 --> 01:20:57.760
>> Any comments from the public, please? >> Anybody? >> So, how do how do how would how would you guys rationalize the uh relationship to the SER on this one? Beth, what do you think? >> Um, I wouldn't rationalize with

271
01:20:57.760 --> 01:21:14.880
relationship to the IRL SER, but I would rationalize with with relation to the Lockxahhatche SER um, which is and not in our purview, I guess, at this point. But, um, so I I gave it a 50%, but I'm not really sure I can even

272
01:21:14.880 --> 01:21:30.960
justify that. Um, and >> I gave it a 60 for I believe similar Yeah, based on you know when we were going through the uh Lockxachi River development of the project implementation report and the modeling

273
01:21:30.960 --> 01:21:47.280
and not including Palmar in the Lockachi SER that's why I did not uh incorporate that here. >> Right. and and there was some there was a lot of discussion as the project manager for the Lockxahhatchee plan with

274
01:21:47.280 --> 01:22:02.480
with really pushing to try to include Palmar because it is the primary watershed to the Lockxahhatchee. Um but um unfortunately we went through that at a time when there was very little support for land acquisition at the water management district and with the

275
01:22:02.480 --> 01:22:17.840
core and they didn't want us to include it. So >> but I guess things could change, right? >> Possibly. >> Yeah. Beth, what's your assessment? Greenway corridor and some of these other points. >> Um 100 on Greenway corridors. It's in

276
01:22:17.840 --> 01:22:34.080
totally within the Florida wildlife corridor. Y >> um I again potential funding partners. I I gave it 100 initially. I might reassess that a little bit. Um because it is a Florida Forever project and

277
01:22:34.080 --> 01:22:48.960
>> Florida Forever. >> Yeah. Well, Florida Forever is a potential funding partner if they fund it, but if it's unfunded, >> but we're we're we're proceeding on the basis that they w they will fund it, although we don't we don't know. >> So, will the board of county commissioners by the time this comes

278
01:22:48.960 --> 01:23:05.360
before them, will they be in a position to know the answer to that? >> Uh they Florida forever did not receive funding this fiscal year. So, >> for 2027, no, no funding. >> No funding. they did uh last year and

279
01:23:05.360 --> 01:23:20.560
that helped get Barbie Ranch, >> right? >> Um but you know, it's it's one of like the state right now is prioritizing the rural and family lands protection program, which is more of those agricultural conservation

280
01:23:20.560 --> 01:23:36.320
easements, which this project property would most likely not be eligible for. >> Mostly. Yeah. >> Um so it's just where the state is at right now, >> right? So I I guess yeah I I have to think

281
01:23:36.320 --> 01:23:50.239
>> really a toss up then what you're saying. So it's more like a 50 than anything else right if that >> we we have also talked to Ducks Unlimited >> um and we could potentially look at them as a funding partner but they're

282
01:23:50.239 --> 01:24:06.880
>> like $2 million funding partner. So, so you know the majority of your costs are you're going to have to eat up the majority of your cost for but but they could provide some funding. >> I maybe back it down to 75 for uncertainty. >> Yeah.

283
01:24:06.880 --> 01:24:22.080
>> So, Ducks Unlimited will put up $2 million for each parcel. Why don't I follow that? >> Ducks Unlimited is a grant program. We could apply for a certain amount of funding, but they're but they don't provide they're not like going to provide $10 million towards an

284
01:24:22.080 --> 01:24:37.120
acquisition. So their max would be 2 million. >> Yeah, if even or maybe less than that. So >> and is that just sidebar, but is that for the county in total or just for individual parcels? >> They would look they would probably try and package a bunch of acquisitions

285
01:24:37.120 --> 01:24:54.560
together because they like they have metrics for acreage. Yeah. >> So they like you they mentioned like 3,000 acres. If you can get over 3,000 acres acquired, uh then that increases your chances of of getting funding. So, we might have to package several

286
01:24:54.560 --> 01:25:10.639
acquired lands together that have wetland value into like one grant application, then they give us a $2 million and we're using 20 million or something and match. >> Got it. So, you get one/10enth from Ducks Unlimited >> varies like >> if you're lucky. Got it.

287
01:25:10.639 --> 01:25:25.600
>> Thank you. >> Um Beth, do you want to go ahead or does somebody else anybody want to jump instead of me going to Beth on this one? >> Here's the actual quality. >> Penny will get you to do it. No, if you would.

288
01:25:25.600 --> 01:25:41.280
>> All right. So, habitat quality, I gave it a 95. >> Um, it just looks like a beautiful, relatively unimpacted piece of property. Management considerations, uh, 65, I guess, because of railroad access and

289
01:25:41.280 --> 01:25:59.199
and other issues. Uh, 75 on rare or listed species or habitats. uh 65 on recreational activities again because of potential access issues and whatnot. Um I 50 on development

290
01:25:59.199 --> 01:26:15.920
potential. I'm always a little anxious about development potential because I don't know that much about that. But 50 um and again zero on the waterways protection. >> Got it. You did 50 on waterways. >> I'm sorry. I gave it a zero.

291
01:26:15.920 --> 01:26:31.120
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. I'm I'm trying to be consistent on that for myself. >> That's using the existing criteria, right? Or the new the new improved. >> That's using the existing criteria. >> Got it. Um >> David, >> yeah, I would even go lower on devel

292
01:26:31.120 --> 01:26:46.960
development. Um just because you know the other property that we had talked about before just a little to the south, my family leased that and that is underwater completely 75% of the year. So you might get one property in there if you build it up an island.

293
01:26:46.960 --> 01:27:03.040
Um >> um but yeah, the property in that area is beautiful. Um you know, the the butterfly, not butterflies, the fireflies you see at night, things that you don't get to see anymore in this county, you know, that we're trying to save is there. Um uh recreational

294
01:27:03.040 --> 01:27:17.280
opportunity, especially if you partner with Ducks Unlimited would be incredible or anybody um just the the wildlife that's on these properties, the deer and other things that are out there. Um, even just to to hike it, not not necessarily hunt it would be incredible.

295
01:27:17.280 --> 01:27:32.880
So, um, yeah, I think I think it's a good property. Um, I don't think it has a lot of development development property, but otherwise, I think it's a good property. >> That's very helpful firstirhand experience. Thank you, Tom.

296
01:27:32.880 --> 01:27:48.880
>> Um, I'm about where Beth is. Uh, except development. I have it less. I'm more with where David is. Um, I just hate to leave the waterway >> I know >> number 10 with a zero cuz that throws

297
01:27:48.880 --> 01:28:06.400
everything off. And so I mean I didn't rate write uh rate it yet, but I I I just don't think I think we have to rate something there. uh because it does have you know a

298
01:28:06.400 --> 01:28:22.400
waterway or watershed >> Mhm. >> protection. What did you do Meritt? >> I'm at 70 just cuz the amount of wetlands there. But I'm I'm trying to look at that one as a holistic view. I mean having gone through every one of these. Yeah. I have a hard time just zeroing them all out if they're not on a

299
01:28:22.400 --> 01:28:38.880
a major waterway. Um and the holistic view is you know you know where a drop of water might hit a basin. it's eventually either going to go percolate into the aquifer or go into a tributary leading into our waterways.

300
01:28:38.880 --> 01:28:55.679
Um, so I'm looking at I think a broader view and the amount of wetlands, but I mean again we can each rank them as we want. One thing that's different for for recreational opportunities, I have a note. If it's fe simple, it's a

301
01:28:55.679 --> 01:29:12.800
90. If it's conservation easement, it's a zero. Mhm. >> Um without knowing how that'll trend. That's a tough one to answer. Um but most the others are are fairly consistent. >> Well, what's interesting merits we we're

302
01:29:12.800 --> 01:29:30.400
we're rating it apples and oranges as it relates to the number 10 in terms of the waterways as as compared to the imper imperous versus imperous surfaces. So, uh, Beth, you put a zero on number

303
01:29:30.400 --> 01:29:46.080
10. Yet, if we rate it based upon a being a pvious surface and existing wetlands, it's much higher. So, I'm just afraid those numbers are going to distort the results. Um, >> Scott, what do you say? I I went with a

304
01:29:46.080 --> 01:30:01.840
15 on number 10 just because it has some value uh for you know protecting the watershed and you know it's it's a uh a cyprress uh swamp area and I rated it higher on the rare enlisted species because of the red cockaded woodpecker

305
01:30:01.840 --> 01:30:20.639
which is a very endangered uh species and um if that habitat can support that that you know that's I think a big win. Um, otherwise most of my other rankings are pretty consistent with what David and Beth had said. >> Thank you, Dan. I'm good. Okay.

306
01:30:20.639 --> 01:30:37.120
>> Yeah. And Beth does, you know, holding water in that location and having natural wetland systems. The needs of the Lock Aachi are much much different than the St. Lucy River. The Lockxachi needs water. It just needs the timing of that water to be to follow a

307
01:30:37.120 --> 01:30:53.199
more natural period. uh instead of being lost to be available going into dry seasons to provide dry season freshwater flows. I'm not sure if that property matters that much, but you know,

308
01:30:53.199 --> 01:31:08.480
in my opinion, any little bit helps lock. Um I I guess my concern on again on number 10 is just specifically it says priority on protecting shorelines and coastal waterways and um the goal is

309
01:31:08.480 --> 01:31:25.040
to acquire parcels on barrier islands, peninsulas and seashores to pres preserve their significant natural recreational aesthetic attributes. So, um, I I just have a hard time I understand it totally about the about

310
01:31:25.040 --> 01:31:42.560
the wetland values. I just have a hard time fitting it into that hole. >> Well, I think we'll address that once this change is made. And the only caveat I would note is when it's pres presented to the board of county commissioners on topic on area number 10 that you

311
01:31:42.560 --> 01:31:58.159
consider you guys get your script down as it relates to some folks rated it on one basis and some on another basis. So, uh, >> that inconsistency is probably >> I think that's >> Yeah, that's why we're making that change. But it it relates to this. There may be some confusion. That's

312
01:31:58.159 --> 01:32:15.199
>> and honestly, inconsistency across different ranking meetings is a little problematic, too, you know, um, >> because you've ranked uh, 11 other properties before or 16 other 18 other properties before using a different

313
01:32:15.199 --> 01:32:30.800
metric. Well, I've been I mean I think that's the part of having a diverse board up here. We're we're giving our opinions. If if we're all trying to make our answers exactly the same, that's contradictory to the the

314
01:32:30.800 --> 01:32:47.120
point. Um you know, >> right? >> We're not all going to have I mean, that's why we are all individually ranking these and it's going forward from there. Our answers are not always going to be the exact. I've been trying to be consistent for every property

315
01:32:47.120 --> 01:33:03.120
that's come before me and value the opinions of other board members, but we can all have a, you know, our slightly individual opinions on how we're going to rank them. >> Yeah. And those, you know, the when it

316
01:33:03.120 --> 01:33:20.000
comes to scoring, what we've provided you is a guide. >> Exactly. >> So, it's not like a it's not going to be perfect. That's just a guide to help you understand uh different important things to

317
01:33:20.000 --> 01:33:35.840
consider when it comes to these lands. >> So Mike, maybe an alternative would be instead of uh changing that heading, we have a column number 11. >> Well, we'll change because of the cost per acre. We're going to get rid of that. And then in this so it would be

318
01:33:35.840 --> 01:33:52.960
the pvious versus impervious the ability to recharge the aquifer. I'll yes, but but I'll I'll I'll leave off like saying what exactly that's going to be for now until I have a chance to sit down with it and really think about it.

319
01:33:52.960 --> 01:34:09.920
>> Sounds good. Thank you. >> Any other comments? Are we good to go? >> Okay. >> Okay. Public comments on that. I think we we've covered that one already. Um so, Mike. >> All right. Project four, the Palmar Chimney.

320
01:34:09.920 --> 01:34:25.360
So, here's our map once again. Uh, you can see the Fall family property, the Palm Beach Heights. Uh, you can see C44 to the north. You can see Corbett and Hungerland. And then kind of right in the middle of that, we have the Palmar

321
01:34:25.360 --> 01:34:41.440
Chimney. Um, which could eventually create a link between, you know, Hungerland and the C44 project areas. Uh it's just like Palm Beach Heightso with those little lots that are about an acre in size

322
01:34:41.440 --> 01:35:02.400
and it's about 1,238 acres total. It is within the Florida Wildlife Quarter um as you can see on this map and it's listed as a priority too. In terms of funding partners, there's a

323
01:35:02.400 --> 01:35:18.880
potential for IRL natural uh SER natural lands project and it is adjacent to the uh Palmar Florida Forever project and we could potentially if this became available do a b boundary modification to the Palmar Florida Forever program to

324
01:35:18.880 --> 01:35:39.600
get this area added to that program. In terms of the habitat quality, you can see based on this map that there's a significant portion that has been impacted and turned into improved pasture. Uh there's hydraologic impacts from some ditches that run through the

325
01:35:39.600 --> 01:35:57.840
property and canals. Uh there are some especially pine flatwoods communities that seem to be in at least decent to good condition. In terms of management, the small parcel size would make management difficult. Uh

326
01:35:57.840 --> 01:36:14.159
would be challenging. You know, we're all familiar with Palmar. Uh the challenge of controlling off-road vehicles is massive and there are extensive levels of invest in invasive plants. So, restoring the natural

327
01:36:14.159 --> 01:36:28.159
communities would be could be challenging. Here's your listed species. Once again, this is another one that would have the potential to have red cada woodpeckers, although there's no um rare habitats

328
01:36:28.159 --> 01:36:46.560
found within the area. For recreational opportunities, it could be a potential link between Palmar Hungryland and the C44 project area. However, I will say that in order to do that, we would have to figure out a way to get people across the C44, which

329
01:36:46.560 --> 01:37:04.159
would be something. So, um, >> you can put that old bridge back across. >> I know. >> Fair. That's what I meant. >> Make them swim. Uh it is adjacent to the historic Jupiter Indiantown road uh

330
01:37:04.159 --> 01:37:20.480
which is a 100-year-old road that used to connect Jupiter and Indiantown and features would focus on hiking, biking and equestrian users. I will say that there's a potential it I won't get too much into it but it could be a potential easement even which would

331
01:37:20.480 --> 01:37:38.719
>> a potential what Mike >> easement uh in terms of the development potential there are a significant amount of uplands on the property. The limitation is the small parcel size and that area is currently zoned for one house or it

332
01:37:38.719 --> 01:37:55.360
would have to have its laying use is one house per 20 acres as an agricultural area. So it' be challenging for anyone to put together 20 acres and be able to build something but not impossible. >> Is that zone similar to Palmar itself? >> Yes, it's the same thing. So in Palmar

333
01:37:55.360 --> 01:38:11.920
itself they can never build anything there. Is this that they here they can build something or is it similar that they that they can't build anything there's no zoning there's no well the zoning it it has the same

334
01:38:11.920 --> 01:38:27.920
zoning but if you look at that map you see the uplands versus wetlands on there. If I were to go anywhere else in Palmar, the the amount that would be brown would be the wetlands and the amount that would be blue would be the uplands. Does that make sense?

335
01:38:27.920 --> 01:38:42.239
>> Mhm. >> There's a lot lot more uplands in that area than in the other parts of Palmar. So, so theoretically it it would be very very difficult for anyone even if they

336
01:38:42.239 --> 01:39:07.320
had 20 acres to build roads and whatever infrastructure would be necessary to build a house in the other parts of Palmar there. I'm not saying it would be easier easy but but there is more of a potential and that's um for that property

337
01:39:08.800 --> 01:39:24.400
public comment on this particular property anybody >> okay perhaps going around the horn Beth you okay leading >> um yeah um relationship to sir I gave it a 50. Um

338
01:39:24.400 --> 01:39:39.360
probably was once in the footprint then taken out then put in the footprint again. Um so um just that's historical. uh greenway corridor 100 potential funding pro partners 100

339
01:39:39.360 --> 01:39:55.600
habitat quality 50 management considerations um extensive I gave it a 45 um listed species uh only because of that red caucated woodpecker thing but I might lower it. I gave it a 50. Are

340
01:39:55.600 --> 01:40:11.760
there any old growth pines on the property? >> Uh it's pretty disturbed. Yeah. So, I think I'm going to knock that down to a 30. Um, recreational opportunities of 50.

341
01:40:11.760 --> 01:40:32.239
Development potential, I gave it a 45. I could be convinced to lower it. And again, consistency zero on the number 10. >> Okay. Huh? >> The only thing I would disagree with

342
01:40:32.239 --> 01:40:48.159
is I think I think the um uh development potential is way way low since it's only an acre. There are no roads. There are no plans for ever having roads there. There's just no way to get into a to a

343
01:40:48.159 --> 01:41:04.639
lot to build anything. So, I gave it a 20. And I gave recreational opportunities a 40 because people will go a long way even if they do it illegally to go into Palmar

344
01:41:04.639 --> 01:41:27.679
>> which they do. >> Y >> yeah good point David. >> Um >> yeah I think I was pretty much right right on the same numbers. Uh Dan, you want to go ahead? >> I the only thing I did on management

345
01:41:27.679 --> 01:41:44.320
considerations, I gave it a 15 >> and a zero on waterways, but I I because of what uh Merritt was saying, the potential to the SER is is higher

346
01:41:44.320 --> 01:42:01.840
because of where it's located. >> Mhm. >> So, I gave it a 60. Scott, >> I'm pretty consistent with most of those rankings. >> I'm fairly consistent that, you know, the one I am a little higher on development potential. That's because I

347
01:42:01.840 --> 01:42:19.440
equate the Palmar chimney um to what's happening in general Palmar. Um I don't know if it's happening to the same extent, but uh I gave it a 50 because Palmar is being developed. you know, whether it's

348
01:42:19.440 --> 01:42:34.800
legally developed or not, it's it's being degraded is what I mean. Um, with off-road vehicles and, you know, camps, so to say. So, um, >> I agree with you, Barry.

349
01:42:34.800 --> 01:42:49.040
>> I mean, but I don't agree with your score. That's up to us, us being the people of Barton County, to prevent that from happening. It's illegal. So if we don't want to do anything about the illeg illegality of it, then that's on

350
01:42:49.040 --> 01:43:06.480
us. But if you're talking about development potential in the legal sense, it would be very difficult. >> And the easier way to stop that though is to acquire more parcels into a larger contiguous parcel that is easier to

351
01:43:06.480 --> 01:43:22.639
manage. um you know and that's why I mean I'm certainly not 50 was on that high end but that's the reason for that 50. Um >> I'm interested with one once again with number 10.

352
01:43:22.639 --> 01:43:40.320
>> Uh I have a 40 on that one. Um >> why a 40 on that? I mean I would I would rank it higher if I were using your score. Well, it's directly correlated to the amount of wetlands there than the the one prior. I mean, the last parcel

353
01:43:40.320 --> 01:43:58.639
was, as Mike said, basically reversed the amount of blue to the amount of brown. >> Okay. >> Very helpful, >> Jim. Don't you ever say yours was >> could be disclosed. Um, any other comments?

354
01:43:58.639 --> 01:44:18.480
Nope. Okay. Uh, Mr. Chair, could I request like a short bathroom break? >> Sure. So, >> and I don't I I I asked Mr. Male to say this, but there is another meeting here

355
01:44:18.480 --> 01:44:34.760
at 7. So, >> we will need to leave at least before that. So, it'll be a short bathroom break. Okay. So, how about five minutes and we'll be back. Great. Thank you.

356
01:44:37.440 --> 01:49:51.440
>> Yeah, I think we're on parcel number four or I think five of nine. >> Yeah. Mike, please go ahead. >> Okay, so we are now moving on to our third zone, our Lockal Lucy acquisition zone. Uh, we actually have three

357
01:49:51.440 --> 01:50:10.880
properties up for consideration. the First Methodist parcel, the Dutilio parcel, and MTN Ranch. So, first up, we're talk going to talk about the First Methodist parcel. So, the first meth medalist parcel, it's a

358
01:50:10.880 --> 01:50:26.080
little hard to see because I wanted to kind of show all the different areas, but it's that blue polygon right here, and it's just to the north. That orange parcel right there is the Rogers Atlantic Ridge parcel that we recently

359
01:50:26.080 --> 01:50:42.639
closed on, but it is directly adjacent to the Metalist property, which is 900 acres. Um, and the property could be uh used as an access point to get into the Metalist property. >> But Mike, there looks like there's a

360
01:50:42.639 --> 01:50:57.679
property between it and the road. What am I missing? >> Um, there is >> that part of the church. There is a church and the church is the one that contacted us about selling the uh undeveloped portion of their property.

361
01:50:57.679 --> 01:51:15.440
>> Would the church give us access to that property from that road? >> That would be a conversation we would have with the church as a part of our negotiation. >> Got it. >> Thank you. >> So, uh this is the Florida wildlife

362
01:51:15.440 --> 01:51:31.840
corridor. Uh the polygon area highlights the area of the Florida Wildlife Quarter and it is within that uh connecting Atlantic Ridge and Jonathan Dickinson State Park and it's within a uh priority

363
01:51:31.840 --> 01:51:50.159
two of the Florida Ecological Greenway network. We have not identified any funding partners with this project. In terms of the habitat quality, there is some nice scrub on the property with open sandy areas and good vegetative

364
01:51:50.159 --> 01:52:06.560
structure. Uh the wetland areas and the pine forest which is on the western side of the property tends to be much more woody and dense uh and more disturbed. And you'll notice that there's a little

365
01:52:06.560 --> 01:52:26.400
cleared area here on the south side of the property as well. For management considerations, the small size of the property and surrounding land uses mean that it would be very very difficult to utilize prescribed fire as a management tool. And also

366
01:52:26.400 --> 01:52:47.199
sometimes with properties that are this size, it can be more challenging to control invasive plants because you have a lot of edge effects. You have a lot of uh seeds coming in from surrounding properties. So it is some of the last privatelyowned

367
01:52:47.199 --> 01:53:05.159
scrub habitat in locky footprint. So there is a high potential for rare endemic species that are typical of that scrub habitat. And you can see the list or the species that could occur within this area.

368
01:53:08.880 --> 01:53:25.040
And in terms of recreational opportunities, it has a it could be a potential trail head for the 900 acre Metalist property that currently has no public access. So the Metalist property is landlocked. Um so what we will look at doing is a

369
01:53:25.040 --> 01:53:43.400
small uh keep going back. So this property right now there's no access point. There's no way we can get the public on it. Uh it's it is managed by the South Florida Water Management District, but there's really no public access out here at this point in time.

370
01:53:44.239 --> 01:53:59.679
>> So, we would just look at doing a small parking lot and trail system. >> Where would you put the parking lot, Mike? >> On the east side of the preserve. We might even talk to the church about whether or not we can take a portion of their parking lot and acquire that and then use that.

371
01:53:59.679 --> 01:54:14.880
>> Not even an easement. Maybe you can make a parking deal, per se. >> Yes. >> But we would need to have that access road through their property, right? >> We would need Yeah. Well, to have it as a conservation piece, you don't need that. >> Okay.

372
01:54:14.880 --> 01:54:31.040
>> To have it as a conservation piece that you could use to connect to the metalist property, then yes, we'd need to work out some kind of arrangements. >> Yeah, I would think that would be really key. It would be certainly a strong um reason for us to push like in the

373
01:54:31.040 --> 01:54:47.280
negotiating process. >> Yes. >> Is all of the scrub on the east side? >> Uh the east side is all So there's a this map right here. All that red is scrub area. >> Okay.

374
01:54:47.280 --> 01:55:03.840
So I wouldn't want to put a parking lot in that area. that that would not >> they do have like this there's like this cleared lawn area right here >> and then the parking let's see so here you can kind of see it better so we could like >> Mhm. you know, look at picking this up.

375
01:55:03.840 --> 01:55:19.920
We could ask, you know, if we could acquire a small portion of their parking lot, you know, or we could just ask if the public would be, you know, provide us an easement so that the public could just use their existing parking lot and then hike into the preserve.

376
01:55:19.920 --> 01:55:36.960
>> Gotcha. terms of the development potential that scrub area could be developed. You know, if they uh the Methodist church is looking for money, they could sell it to a developer and then you could get a

377
01:55:36.960 --> 01:55:54.000
site plan that could have, you know, I I I'm not sure how many, but it does have a CRA lang use and zoning designation. >> So, it's 3.9 acres if I've got it right. So, how many houses could you put in there? >> Um,

378
01:55:54.000 --> 01:56:10.880
>> depends. >> You would definitely be able to get several homes in there. So, >> got it. Six acres, but >> Got it. Thank you, Mike. >> But part of it wetland. >> So, so you'd have to preserve the wetland and the buffer around the

379
01:56:10.880 --> 01:56:31.360
wetland. So, really roughly close to half of it would be developable. But unfortunately that is a scrub area that would be developable. >> Yep. >> Okay.

380
01:56:31.360 --> 01:56:50.000
Anything else? >> That's it. >> Any comments from the public, please everybody okay if I go to Beth please? >> I might not be okay. >> I don't want anybody who's been out of joint. Dan Scott, are you okay with that? I'm fine with every day. You're the chair.

381
01:56:50.000 --> 01:57:04.960
>> Just leading the charge. >> Defer to you folks and I want to be sure nobody's >> Go ahead, Beth. Please. >> Just a quick question. Mike, do you know how long um Metalist has been in public ownership? >> No. Okay. Um

382
01:57:04.960 --> 01:57:22.159
I think having access to that would be a great a great thing. Um relationship to SER, I gave it a zero. Um although that part that metalist Atlantic Ridge was part of the original SER project for

383
01:57:22.159 --> 01:57:38.239
IRL South and having access to that is important but I can't see to rank it for that um greenway corridor 60 because I think the material said 66% of it are is in the uh proposed greenway wildlife

384
01:57:38.239 --> 01:57:54.480
corridor. um zero on funding partners. Uh habitat quality, I gave it a 70 because of the scrub habitat. Um and overall in relatively decent shape, although it needs management. Um

385
01:57:54.480 --> 01:58:11.119
management considerations, um 45. Um the scrub probably is of definitely fire dependent and that might be difficult. Um 85 on critical habitats again because of the scrub.

386
01:58:11.119 --> 01:58:30.400
Um recreational opportunities, 60 on development potential, 90 and zero on um waterways or shoreline protection. >> David, how about here? >> Yeah, I was really within five or so

387
01:58:30.400 --> 01:58:45.599
with everything Beth said. Um, again, the only thing I'm going to disagree with is development potential. If there were real development potential, that church would have sold it to a developer. They came to us

388
01:58:45.599 --> 01:59:03.199
because there is almost zero possibility unless the church itself wanted to expand or do some other type of uh church related facility. So, I only gave that a 10. M >> so I rated everything a bit higher than

389
01:59:03.199 --> 01:59:19.440
you folks probably by about 10 points. Um the only thing I I go back to is the relationship to the SER. I'll give it a 30. >> I did too. >> Okay.

390
01:59:19.440 --> 01:59:36.639
>> Any else? Scott. Okay. Merritt. I'm pretty high on the recreational opportunities of a 90 just because of the medalist and and I'm at 95 for development potential. Um

391
01:59:36.639 --> 01:59:54.560
it's a church and I want to believe that perhaps they want to be surrounded by conservation land. Uh I mean there's they're going to get market value for it if they're selling it. So, uh, but everything else, I mean,

392
01:59:54.560 --> 02:00:15.599
I'm I'm fairly close. Um, habitat I'm at 100 because of the, uh, because the amount of scrub that's there remaining. >> What about again, I got to ask you. >> Oh, waterway and shoreline protection

393
02:00:15.599 --> 02:00:30.880
40. Similar to the last one. I mean there is a baseline in my mind of you know the the I'm trying to keep consistent with the way I've been ranking it overall. So

394
02:00:30.880 --> 02:00:48.480
you know just a larger track of pvious even if it's scrub is still helping protect our waterways. So I mean the the 40 is kind of my my baseline and then if if we're adding more wetlands

395
02:00:48.480 --> 02:01:03.520
and stuff like that to it, it can go up from there. Um >> which this would cuz there fair amount of wetlands. So >> yes. >> So you have quite a bit of pvious surfaces and that aqua for recharge. >> Mhm. >> Okay.

396
02:01:03.520 --> 02:01:24.880
>> Anybody else? Are we good? >> Okay. No, I'm good. >> Sheets in please. Michael. >> All right. Project six is the Dutilio property. And uh this one's a little bit

397
02:01:24.880 --> 02:01:41.920
different. Um it's 12.2 acres, but it's a heavily impacted property. And the reason why we're interested in this project is we think that it can help us to expand the footprint of our Kitchen Creek Central Flowway project. which you

398
02:01:41.920 --> 02:01:58.520
see all these polygons down here and this lake area is our Kitchen Creek project. Um, and we think that it could create a potential trail connection from Atlantic Ridge to Jonathan Dickinson State Park.

399
02:01:59.679 --> 02:02:14.639
So, it is part of the Florida Wildlife Corridor connecting Atlantic Ridge and Jonathan Dickinson State Park. It is in a priority to Florida Florida ecological greenway network area. Uh it is within the Florida Forever

400
02:02:14.639 --> 02:02:33.920
program and it's listed as an essential acquisition uh within that program. >> And I will say because I didn't do a slide. Go ahead. If they're not funding Florida forever,

401
02:02:33.920 --> 02:02:52.560
I mean, I guess this is really something for our legislative person. >> Are they going to just throw that program out? I, you know, do we say, well, maybe next year, or is I mean, what's their

402
02:02:52.560 --> 02:03:07.360
rationale? >> Yeah, that's exactly the posture we've taken. Um, the Florida Forever program, you know, exists statutoily. It's it's obviously on life support. Um, but I I would expect and I think we would be

403
02:03:07.360 --> 02:03:23.679
wise to expect that that program is not going away and it'll become popular again someday. Uh, for for the moment, Mike said, rural and family lands is the is the political winner and we've got opportunities to partner with them. We have met with leadership at Florida

404
02:03:23.679 --> 02:03:39.760
Forever specifically about the issue of you we have properties that we'd like to acquire with our our current funding and does it disqualify us if we go ahead and close on those properties without that partnership in place and they have on

405
02:03:39.760 --> 02:03:56.560
multiple occasions implored us not to conclude that that we can come back in the future when they do have funding apply to to Florida forever we can get those funds refunded back into the program to go do more acquisition. So, the urgency to have that partnership

406
02:03:56.560 --> 02:04:12.800
solidified on a particular project at closing is not there. Um, we think we'll be well poised to uh pursue those in the future. And I think it's maybe even more gerine for us to lean into that program when it's not funded because there's not as many people knocking on the door. So,

407
02:04:12.800 --> 02:04:28.239
we can get some those relationships will we can get projects in the pipeline and they'll be there waiting when the funding does come around. Thank you. Very helpful. Thank you. >> So I will say um to in terms of the

408
02:04:28.239 --> 02:04:44.880
Lockachi River SER project that uh there are very specific components of the Lockache River SER and this project is not one of them but this project will provide a benefit to the SER project. Uh

409
02:04:44.880 --> 02:05:00.719
we have the Kitchen Creek project um that we've already done. Uh and essentially there's a ditch that runs on the north and the east side of the property. We've captured that water and we push it into a lake and wetland

410
02:05:00.719 --> 02:05:16.480
system before the water finally comes out into a ditch. Um, as somebody that's been personally involved in that project, I'll tell you that the system still gets overwhelmed with water during high rainfall events and it tends to be

411
02:05:16.480 --> 02:05:33.599
very flashy. Uh, it does help to hold water a little longer into the dry season, but it dries up very quickly once the rains stop. So having additional storage features in this area would provide a benefit to the Lockachi

412
02:05:33.599 --> 02:05:55.520
River project. >> That's very helpful. Thank you. >> Beth, do you have anything to add to that? >> Uh, no. I think you've said exactly um what benefit it could have to the Lockahhatche project. So we could look to the Florida Forever

413
02:05:55.520 --> 02:06:10.639
program or there's a separate state funding program, the Lockachi River Preservation Initiative. We have received funding for land acquisition from that pro program in the past. Uh it's not a guarantee, but uh it's it

414
02:06:10.639 --> 02:06:28.159
basically they it's a committee that ranks properties and makes recommendations to the state, but then it has to go through the legislative process to get approved. uh uh by the legislature and and budgeted by the legislature, but we would certainly seek

415
02:06:28.159 --> 02:06:46.159
funding from the lock from them to recoup some of the investment that we put into the property, acquiring the property. In terms of the habitat quality, there is really nothing in the way of native plant communities and the property is

416
02:06:46.159 --> 02:07:02.560
currently being used to stockpile fill and road building materials. And you can kind of see that on the aerial uh that there's just lots of, you know, dirt piles, there's concrete piles, there's equipment all over the place.

417
02:07:02.560 --> 02:07:20.800
It's it's a bit of a mess. >> So habitat quality would be close to 10 or less. >> Yeah, it' be pretty low. So, so the county would use the property to expand the existing K kitchen creek project, but it would take a substantial

418
02:07:20.800 --> 02:07:35.599
investment, but end goal would be to add to the flowway that captures water from the adjacent drainage system. And this is just a highlight. This is what we had to deal with when we did the Kitchen Creek project. So the picture on the

419
02:07:35.599 --> 02:07:51.679
left is what that pro property looked like when it was acquired and the picture on the right is what the property looked like once we had completed our project. >> Wow. >> The aerials it's the same. So this is this aerial on the left was taken before

420
02:07:51.679 --> 02:08:08.880
we did our project. The aerial on the right is what we did and improved on the project. So um so I'm not sugarcoating the management challenges at all. The thing I will say is that this provides a

421
02:08:08.880 --> 02:08:24.159
unique opportunity where we don't have one to help to store capture water and benefit Kitchen Creek and the Lockache River. >> Can we do that within the 5%? >> No. >> Yeah. >> No.

422
02:08:24.159 --> 02:08:39.920
But that would be future like we could continue applying to LRPI. We would budget it in our CIP project and just know we might have a $2 million project to turn it into what we want to turn it into. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Uh there are no rare habitats or listed

423
02:08:39.920 --> 02:08:55.920
species due to the current land use. If we turned it into a flowway, that would change, but the existing condition is that it's just all impacted non-listed species habitat. Uh in terms of recreational

424
02:08:55.920 --> 02:09:12.159
opportunities, uh it could be a bridge to get us from the Atlantic Ridge State Park to Jonathan Dickinson State Park. And that's kind of one of the main points of the Lockal Lucy program is to eventually

425
02:09:12.159 --> 02:09:28.880
make that connection. So, uh, the Kitchen Creek property, which is right here, is very wet, but there is like an access road that goes down here to the property. So, we could actually bring in trail users from Offbridgeidge Road who

426
02:09:28.880 --> 02:09:47.760
could then go through the property and then get closer to Jonathan Dickinson State Park without having to walk down a roadway. development potential. There's already heavy use, you know, there's a house, there's storage facilities,

427
02:09:47.760 --> 02:10:05.520
you know, but uh somebody could theoretically take that property and modify it into a development that would have several more houses and that's all. >> Any public comment on this property, please?

428
02:10:05.520 --> 02:10:23.040
>> Okay, going around the horn, Beth, please. It has potential um relationship to SER because of the uh potential connection to Kitchen Creek and Lockxahhatchee. I gave it a 50. Um and 100 on Greenway Corridor and 100 on

429
02:10:23.040 --> 02:10:41.840
potential funding partners. Um 10 on habitat quality because even a really degraded habitat sometimes supports wildlife. Um management considerations a 20 zero on rare listed species.

430
02:10:41.840 --> 02:10:56.960
I have 10 on uh recreational opportunities at least as the project exists or as the property exists. Um I gave it an 80 on development potential um because it's in use now and again a

431
02:10:56.960 --> 02:11:16.320
zero on wershed waterway. >> David Yeah, I think really the only place I significantly differed was the de development potential just because it I don't see how it's not already at 100. It's completely developed, I think, in

432
02:11:16.320 --> 02:11:32.960
my opinion. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Campy, >> again, I'm with David. I think I I gave it a 60 for development, but at the same time, it's there. what you know they put more houses on it probably be better for it.

433
02:11:32.960 --> 02:11:49.679
They'd have to clean it up because it's a you know might be a toxic site for all we know. So yeah, thank you Dan or Scott. >> I I pretty much agreed with all that as to the waterways or shoreline protection

434
02:11:49.679 --> 02:12:10.400
because of the uh connectivity to the Kitchen Creek project. I gave it a 20. Dan, >> I'm in agreement with most of it. Okay, please. >> I'm in pretty close agreement except the

435
02:12:10.400 --> 02:12:27.679
waterways and shoreline. I am optimistic that the county would do eventually what it wants to do. So, I'm at a 75 there. I'm kind of ranking it with that the ultimate end goal in mind. Um,

436
02:12:27.679 --> 02:12:42.719
other than that, yeah, I'm at 75 for development potential. I actually kind of almost want to rank it higher after hearing what Mr. Hoffner said, but I was on that same point. I mean, it's it is somewhat developed. Basically, it's it's heavily

437
02:12:42.719 --> 02:13:00.159
impacted. Um, so it's it's a major restoration project and you know this is where we need the county to continue the efforts of you know we've got the funding source to acquire the land but you know the end goal is a great one.

438
02:13:00.159 --> 02:13:16.400
>> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Just just one other thought is that I I feel like I might have when the scores come in for this one, it might be low, but in my opinion, it seems like it's like a really important one at the same time that maybe there's a asterisk that it might

439
02:13:16.400 --> 02:13:32.719
have a low score, but maybe it should be higher. I don't know if that makes sense. >> Well, I put a pretty high recreation number because of the access. >> Uh, so that over that was very important for me. Uh, okay.

440
02:13:32.719 --> 02:13:48.639
Great, >> Mike. >> All right. Uh, so our third proposal within the Lockal Lucy footprint is the MTM Ranch, which is a 139 acre property south of Bridge Road in the Kitchen

441
02:13:48.639 --> 02:14:06.159
Creek Whed. So, uh, Kitchen Creek, uh, is known for like a flowway concept. And the idea is that at one point in time, water didn't flow in one path. It came from three different or multiple different paths. And so there was an

442
02:14:06.159 --> 02:14:22.320
eastern flowway, a central flowway, and a western flowway. And Kitchen Creek was in the western flowway or or the MTM Ranch property was in the western flowway to Kitchen Creek. Uh the property is directly adjacent to the

443
02:14:22.320 --> 02:14:40.000
Leonard parcel which is the yellow hatched area on on the map. That is an approved sales tax project. Um and in addition to that, we believe that we're going to be successful with the MTM ranch or the sorry the Leonard parcel as

444
02:14:40.000 --> 02:14:54.239
an easement with the rural and family lands program. So we think uh that it will both of those you know if we're successful in this one both of those would be connected areas that are protected. Um it has a large cypress

445
02:14:54.239 --> 02:15:10.960
slew on the property and it could be a conservation easement or fee simple acquisition but the asking price for the owner for a fee simple acquisition would be out of the ballpark of something we would consider. So this would most

446
02:15:10.960 --> 02:15:32.400
likely move forward as a conservation easement and not a fe simple acquisition. It's within the Florida wildlife corridor the and the uh priority two of the Florida ecological greenway network. Uh it is outside but adjacent to the

447
02:15:32.400 --> 02:15:51.440
Atlantic Ridge Florida Forever program. So, that's another one where we could do a boundary amendment if necessary to get it added to uh Florida forever. So, no partner has been identified, but we do believe it will qualify for an

448
02:15:51.440 --> 02:16:08.239
easement with the rural and family lands protection program. So, we would encourage an application uh by the land owner to that program. Um, another thing about rural and family lands program that works well for us is the funding partners is a huge metric

449
02:16:08.239 --> 02:16:23.679
for them. We've had conversations with their leadership and in essence uh they look at properties where they have a full 50% matching partner first and they do all those easements. Then they look at uh ones that are less than 50% and

450
02:16:23.679 --> 02:16:40.240
then they do all those easements and then they look at ones that don't have any matching fund partner. So, um, so we feel pretty strongly that if we were ready to put money towards this acquisition and we worked with, uh, the rural and family lands program that we

451
02:16:40.240 --> 02:16:56.880
would be able to get it under an easement. In terms of the habitat quality, a substantial portion of the property is uh, improved pasture. You can kind of see that. uh pretty mowed areas up here

452
02:16:56.880 --> 02:17:11.519
and down here uh or they have impacts in some way. But there are large cypress sloohs and marsh systems and they do appear to be in good conditions with intactry hydraology but maybe some invasives in

453
02:17:11.519 --> 02:17:34.800
pine forest areas like up here for management considerations. If it's a conservation easement acquired, then there's no county management required. Uh if these simple acquisition, restoring the pasture areas would be particularly challenging. Here's your documented listed species.

454
02:17:34.800 --> 02:17:52.000
It doesn't have uh any rare habitats, but there are several species associated with that area and found within pine flatwoods and marsh areas. Mike, just going back to that management considerations, what's the probability

455
02:17:52.000 --> 02:18:07.599
of those two scenarios, the fee simple compared to the conservation easement? >> Unless the own I my personal opinion is that the owner doesn't want to sell the property. Um, so my guess is this would

456
02:18:07.599 --> 02:18:24.639
be a conservation easement acquisition, but we keep an open mind. So if that were to take place then the management consideration would be a moot point or would it be >> well it means that we wouldn't be responsible for the management. >> Exactly. >> So in in that way it can kind of

457
02:18:24.639 --> 02:18:42.000
potentially boost the score. >> It would be almost 100 because they'd have full responsibility. Right. >> Yeah. But you can look at you can then counter that by saying well how difficult is it going to be to manage this property you know for them? But they even though you have the they've

458
02:18:42.000 --> 02:18:58.160
given up the rights to man to sell to develop it, they still are managing it. Correct. >> Yeah. And there is um these easements do put like things in there about maintaining invasive exotic vegetation

459
02:18:58.160 --> 02:19:14.800
and uh doing other habitat restoration things. So from a probability perspective probably 80% fee simple and 80% would be manage. Got it. >> 80% uh conservation easement. >> Yes.

460
02:19:14.800 --> 02:19:31.679
>> 20% excuse me conservation easement. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> So what happens if they don't keep it up? They decide okay we got our money. Would you we'll just let it go? What I mean what's the >> they they do have uh enforcement

461
02:19:31.679 --> 02:19:47.599
rights associated with that. So they do annual um monitoring of the property. Uh the county would be involved in that but we wouldn't be the ones with the enforcement rights. So, so they would

462
02:19:47.599 --> 02:20:05.439
have site visits, we would be invited, but at the end of the day, it would be up to the rural and family lands program, >> which is fine because then it's ease becomes much easier for them. >> So, the way we're working with them now is so we're actually listed on the title. Um, so that was something that

463
02:20:05.439 --> 02:20:21.760
was important to the county because that's how we can ensure that it remains protected in perpetuity. >> Do those clauses have teeth as it relates to the maintenance? They do, but I'd have to do research in terms of like what the actual enforcement mechanisms are.

464
02:20:21.760 --> 02:20:36.800
>> Got it. >> And the the management priorities, you know, for my ranking or would uh are different >> under Florida Forever versus Rural and Family Lands program.

465
02:20:36.800 --> 02:20:52.080
>> Yeah. >> I you could delve into a little more. It's almost like they, you know, roland family lands, you know, says preserve agriculture and then protect conservation values

466
02:20:52.080 --> 02:21:08.640
>> and Florida forever is really just about conservation values. >> Conservation value of the land. >> Yeah. >> And so I kind of consider that in my management considerations what what you were touching on, Jim. For example, I gave it an 85.

467
02:21:08.640 --> 02:21:25.200
um you know we don't have to handle the management of the land but if our ultimate goal for the entire initiative is you know preserve land to protect water quality Florida forever conservation easement

468
02:21:25.200 --> 02:21:44.720
might have a higher priority in doing that than rural and family lands program. >> Thank you. But >> they're still both high numbers. Yep. >> Um, okay. So, recreational opportunities.

469
02:21:44.720 --> 02:21:59.600
Once again, there' be no public access if we're acquiring a conservation easement. Uh, if the county takes ownership, features could include parking, trail systems, pavilions, um, so on and so forth.

470
02:21:59.600 --> 02:22:15.840
>> But the property is for sale now. >> Property is for sale now. Yes. What are they asking for it? >> Like 30 million. >> That's why it's still for sale. It's been for sale a while. >> That sign will have birthdays. >> Yeah.

471
02:22:15.840 --> 02:22:32.880
But like I said, that to me, you know, and I can't guarantee it, but that's that's what we would pursue with an approved project is is a conservation easement. And then if the price were reasonable, we would look at fe simple acquisition. I wonder how the

472
02:22:32.880 --> 02:22:49.359
conservation easement will affect the value of the land. >> Oh, it certainly drops it. >> It'll drop it fast. >> A major difference. So, you're basically telling anyone who buys it that they they're buying a property that they can use the exact same way that it's being

473
02:22:49.359 --> 02:23:05.040
used. >> So, it's 60 to 70% of market, maybe >> probably less. >> Less less, >> less. >> Got it. and development potential without the easement is high, >> right? >> Yeah, good point.

474
02:23:05.040 --> 02:23:20.240
>> Very high. >> That that area, you know, >> is almost all gold. >> Skyhigh right now. >> So 100% really. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Uh zoning is A1 small farming district

475
02:23:20.240 --> 02:23:38.560
and it has an agricultural land use would allow for one house per 20 acres. So that doesn't mean that if somebody put in a development application, they wouldn't change that. >> Drop it. >> And that's the

476
02:23:38.560 --> 02:23:54.479
end of that uh parcel. >> Thank you, Mike. Any public comment, please? >> Okay, going around Beth. >> Well, this is a hard one. Um I guess most of my rankings are

477
02:23:54.479 --> 02:24:10.399
considering it would be a conservation easement for rural family lands. Um so zero relationship to SER. It is in the greenway corridor. Um it said I think it said 80% of the property is in the greenway corridor.

478
02:24:10.399 --> 02:24:28.640
um 8 of 50 on the uh rural um funding partners for rural and family lands and um Florida forever habitat quality. Um, I gave it a 40. Um, 85 on management considerations,

479
02:24:28.640 --> 02:24:48.479
30 on rare listed species, zero on recreational activities, 90 on development, zero on waterways protection. >> I like Mr. Camp. Close enough in the ballpark. >> Yeah. >> David, >> uh, just want to weigh in with my

480
02:24:48.479 --> 02:25:04.800
personal experience of the property. Um the landowner did take me around a couple years ago. Um so I have seen this property firsthand. He does a great job maintaining his property. It's beautiful. Uh as far as an agricultural pro property, I would I would even say it's pristine. It is really a beautiful

481
02:25:04.800 --> 02:25:21.280
place. Um yeah, I know as far as habitat quality for something that's native, it's it's obviously disturbed. U but for an agricultural habitat, it's I would I would definitely rank it high if you were to look at it that way. and me being an agriculture representative on this board, obviously I am going to go

482
02:25:21.280 --> 02:25:38.160
higher on that. Um, but yeah, I I would be really excited if he does go the way of rural and family lands and decides to keep it and and use that easement. I would be excited for the the property owner to do that and um which then obviously would put the

483
02:25:38.160 --> 02:25:54.240
recreational value at zero. Um but um this I think this is a great property if we can get him to do that. So, >> just a sidebar, you know, considering your connections with a lot of these families, do you ever get involved? Do you ever bring David, do you ever get

484
02:25:54.240 --> 02:26:10.399
involved in any of these discussions? >> I have not been. Um, I also haven't reached out to say that I have these connections either. So, I I probably could do better also to help with that. So my only comment is to the extent that you do, if you have a situation like this where you can help create that

485
02:26:10.399 --> 02:26:26.720
bridge, I'd personally very much encourage that because you're a member of the community. >> Definitely. >> Are you going around? >> Good. >> Any thoughts? >> I'm good. No, I don't have handing. >> Okay. >> Nope. Merit,

486
02:26:26.720 --> 02:26:44.000
>> I'm very close. Uh funding partners was a hundred though for me on this one. Um and then again either zero or 90 for recreational opportunities. Um depending on which way it goes. It's sounding like it'd be a zero. Um you know those are

487
02:26:44.000 --> 02:27:00.800
almost opposite correlation. The the you know if it's rural and family lands it might be 100 for funding partners but obviously a zero for recreational opportunities with almost every project like this. >> Well that's a really good point. So when

488
02:27:00.800 --> 02:27:18.399
it's presented to the board of county commissioners that you're going to see that disparity, Mike and John. So if you could just point that out please to them. Uh that'd be great. Anybody else? Any other comments? We good? Great. Do your sheets

489
02:27:18.399 --> 02:27:40.560
please and hand them in. >> So pass these in. >> Yes, I'll pass these in. And just to let the chair know and everyone, I have a hard out at 4:45 to make another engagement. >> A candidate forum. >> Okay, you should be able to get through

490
02:27:40.560 --> 02:27:56.960
it. >> Okay, >> Michael. >> Okay. Well, uh, we have two properties remaining for consideration. They are in our Blueway zone. Um, and in this case, they're

491
02:27:56.960 --> 02:28:14.399
projects that were actually outside of the Blueway zone, but connected. So, you can see the blue lines represent a Blu-ray property, and then the polygon for these other properties are right next to that. So, and the two we have up

492
02:28:14.399 --> 02:28:32.399
for consideration are Avan Lea, uh, up near Jensen Beach and Justin Wilson down off of Map Road. So we'll start with Justin Wilson addition. This is a 20 acre property linked

493
02:28:32.399 --> 02:28:50.560
between a county conservation area and a park/conservation area here at Justin Wilson. So you can see the little area here and the little area up here. It has drainage that feeds into Bessie Creek and the St. Lucy estruary and it includes important and

494
02:28:50.560 --> 02:29:09.960
rare bagal swamp habitat. So this is not within the boundary of any state recognized program whether that be Florida uh Florida forever, Florida wildlife corridor. Uh it is not within any of those boundaries.

495
02:29:10.880 --> 02:29:28.880
We also have not identified a funding partner and it could be difficult to find grant funding for this particular area. Terms of habitat quality, most of the property has not been cleared and contains native habitat. However, it

496
02:29:28.880 --> 02:29:45.280
does tend to have a very dense pine canopy and understory and there are extensive levels of it exotic vegetation throughout the property. Those are two pictures showing here's old world climbing fern on the property

497
02:29:45.280 --> 02:30:05.200
and here is Brazilian pepper. for management considerations due to the surrounding development. It would be difficult to utilize prescribed fire and it would probably be necessary to go in and do mechanical clearing and harvesting to reduce the height of that

498
02:30:05.200 --> 02:30:24.240
dense vegetation. And the high and levels of invasive exotic plants will require significant resources to to treat and control. Uh for listed species, it does have an extensive area of uh basin swamp which

499
02:30:24.240 --> 02:30:43.600
is considered by Martin County to be endangered and you also have some rare species consistent with flatwoods and marsh areas. If we were to acquire the property, we have the adjacent uh

500
02:30:43.600 --> 02:30:58.560
Justin Wilson Park. So this is just like a little concept of what we would build out there. Like a trail loop with some boardwalks and picnic areas, a trail head that would actually and we would provide parking would be over at uh

501
02:30:58.560 --> 02:31:18.000
Justin Wilson Park and we use the existing parking lot just with the way to for people to then access the trail. In terms of the development potential, it's very high considering the site has an approved site plan that would allow

502
02:31:18.000 --> 02:31:34.960
for the construction of 12 homes. >> That's been approved. >> Approved. >> Wow. >> How long has that been out there? >> Uh, for a while. the owner um developed the other properties

503
02:31:34.960 --> 02:31:49.520
like it was all owned by the same all this right here was all a owned by the same people that own this and this was going to be another phase. >> Okay. >> Boy dense development. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Wow.

504
02:31:49.520 --> 02:32:06.560
But I think the way it was set up, um, the site plan, current site plan only allows for 12 homes. Now, they could come back with the PUD agreement and make some changes, but as of right now,

505
02:32:06.560 --> 02:32:26.960
somebody could build 12 houses, has the approval to build 12 houses on that property. Yep. That's it. >> Any public comment on this particular property? >> Okay, best defer to you.

506
02:32:26.960 --> 02:32:42.880
>> Okay. Um, first three categories I gave it a zero. Um, habitat quality 65 um because of density of exotics and density of vegetation understory. Um

507
02:32:42.880 --> 02:32:59.920
management considerations 45 rare or listed special habitats I gave it a 70 because of the bank swamp. Um recreational opportunities 80 development potential 90 and this one I

508
02:32:59.920 --> 02:33:18.399
varied from um because of its proximity at least to the St. Lucy. Um, I gave it a 55 on the waterways. Um, shoreline protection. >> Thomas, close enough, >> David.

509
02:33:18.399 --> 02:33:35.040
>> Yeah, same. >> Yeah, good, >> Scott. >> Yeah, pretty consistent. I'm >> at a 80 for the habitat because of the swamp and 90 um for the waterways and shoreline

510
02:33:35.040 --> 02:33:51.760
protection because of that same swamp. And uh I would just say, you know, as as a child, I hung out a lot around Pendarvis Park in that area. um you know trudging through this property and some of those

511
02:33:51.760 --> 02:34:07.520
swamps and you know it's not desirable habitat for us. I guess it might be for a 12-year-old kid. Um >> that's why you turned out the way you >> exactly but it it has potential and it's

512
02:34:07.520 --> 02:34:23.920
one of the few remaining. Um >> and again development potential was 100. though. >> Yeah, I think with the recreational um aspect too and providing recreation, you know, a lot of what we're reviewing is west of town in these areas that it'

513
02:34:23.920 --> 02:34:38.960
be hard for the average person to go out and see and use. So, I will say there is recreational value in in town native habitats regardless of the quality where just people from the local neighborhood

514
02:34:38.960 --> 02:34:56.000
can go for a walk. Yes, I have a 95 on that. >> Yeah, I actually rated a 100 exactly thinking along the lines that you are, Mike, because of the surrounding neighborhood and the access to that natural natural area. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Anybody else?

515
02:34:56.000 --> 02:35:12.319
>> Just one more thing just be on speaking on the recreation also that park is used quite a bit for youth sports. My my children do sports there, so I could definitely see people walking over uh to use that for recreation uh to get away from their kids. I would

516
02:35:12.319 --> 02:35:27.680
>> Yeah, that's that's why I really rated it up there. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay, so our last uh for the day is Avon Lea. Uh this is an 18 acre property that drains into the Haney Creek watershed

517
02:35:27.680 --> 02:35:43.200
and really is some of the last undeveloped land in the area. Um you see all the areas highlighted in blue are the areas under consideration but due to other developments in the area a lot of these surrounding properties are under a

518
02:35:43.200 --> 02:36:02.000
pamp and is protected. So you'll have you could theoretically have something that looks like this whole block right here being uh protected. Um it is not within the boundary of any

519
02:36:02.000 --> 02:36:22.880
state recognized program. So the city of Stewart is interested in partnering with the county on the acquisition. They submitted the nomination form using their sales tax fund allocation. >> Wonderful news. By the way, just a sidebar, we're very pleased that they

520
02:36:22.880 --> 02:36:39.680
did a they changed their position on the buying the school building. >> Exactly. >> Uh in large part to merits. >> Well, before we go further, how much is the acquisition? >> I'm not sure at this point, but I think I

521
02:36:39.680 --> 02:36:55.439
remember John, you might have a remember. I think it was like 8 to 10 million, something in that ballpark. So, it's uh it's expensive. Um the per acre cost is really high for a couple of the properties. It was in that ballpark.

522
02:36:55.439 --> 02:37:11.359
And then I think there's about four or five um separate properties. One of them we did not bring forward because it it just we didn't feel like it fit the description of the ordinance. Um but all of them together I thought was close to

523
02:37:11.359 --> 02:37:29.840
$20 million. >> And how much does Steuart get with their sales tax? Lee, if you want to come up and >> they get about 10% of what the county gets. So, in the ballpark of $20 million >> over the 10-year period. >> Correct. >> Correct.

524
02:37:29.840 --> 02:37:46.080
>> For the record, Lee Bagot, city attorney for the city of Stewart. I have some numbers that I got preliminary before coming here from finance and I guess they had budgeted revenue of 2.7 million from 2025 and 2.8 million from 2026. And I think it's going to incrementally go

525
02:37:46.080 --> 02:38:02.080
up each year from what he he described to me. >> So maybe 25 million give or take a few >> over the period of time. Yeah. >> Yes. Okay. Sorry. >> Thank you. >> So and but the city is that's how much a city would have. So if we do a deal with

526
02:38:02.080 --> 02:38:17.040
a city, they could pick up the whole thing in theory. Correct. Or not. What am I missing? >> Yes. They could bond for now and then pay with the bond and pick it up. We have limited funds too. So, anytime we're we're partnering with a sales tax

527
02:38:17.040 --> 02:38:34.880
partner who's getting a percentage of the sales tax, that takes away from what we possibly could use it for in the unincorporated areas. >> But a discounted cash flow analysis on that 25 would probably be what about 18 19. So, if you're going to bond, it's

528
02:38:34.880 --> 02:38:51.280
going to be the current the discounted cash flow on that eventual payout. So probably 18 or 19 million just a sidebar. >> Yeah. And as staff our job isn't to really evaluate that. Yeah. >> That would be something for you guys and

529
02:38:51.280 --> 02:39:08.160
then really honestly the board of county commissioners >> to consider, you know, once we start bringing these projects forward for >> uh to them. But from council's perspective for the city, this is this is definitely on the

530
02:39:08.160 --> 02:39:25.439
radar screen and and every we have every reason to believe that they would be a partner in this. >> Yes, we had a resolution, a unanimous um vote of the commission to go forward with acquiring the land and also u they instructed staff to do some sort of collaboration with the county and prior

531
02:39:25.439 --> 02:39:41.920
to that I myself and other city staff had communications with county staff about the potential. So, we already have a resolution authorizing the city manager to do such. >> I'd be excellent. >> I think it's um I think there have been past acquisitions especially in Haney

532
02:39:41.920 --> 02:39:58.319
Creek that involved county >> 52 acres were done in conjunction with the city at Haney Creek. >> Yeah. So, so there is a history of like even if they have their own sales tax allocations, the county participating at some level.

533
02:39:58.319 --> 02:40:14.720
>> Yeah. No, but that's very helpful. Uh the Haney Creek Preserve, I think it's worth mentioning, is across um the street from two of these parcels. So these are adjacent to the Haney Creek Preserve, which we already have an interlocal agreement with the county on on on the preservation of the C in the

534
02:40:14.720 --> 02:40:30.640
maintenance of the property. >> Got it. >> This is all the Haney Creek stuff right here. So yeah, it's definitely directly contiguous to it. Um >> very helpful that. Thank you, council. >> One more question. Are all the parcels under the same ownership?

535
02:40:30.640 --> 02:40:46.800
>> No. I I've spoken to all the parcel owners. There's three different parcel owners. Uh some have multiple and I think one owner has one of the parcels. I think one of the parcels I didn't get in time. Um and it might be on the next meeting you had indicated to me. So there was one more parcel. It's a couple

536
02:40:46.800 --> 02:41:04.000
of acres undeveloped as well. Um and I think that's one of the acres that's across Green River Parkway from Haney Creek. Um I I I would like to mention while I'm up here that they each have development orders, CPUs, commercial PUDs. Uh so they have entitlements to development

537
02:41:04.000 --> 02:41:20.399
already. Uh if some of you are, you know, they haven't been developed, it's been uh several years. But I would also like to point out that they are eligible under the Live Local Act, which is a newer uh law that was adopted that they can come in administratively and build apartments up to the maximum density

538
02:41:20.399 --> 02:41:37.120
allowed. And so that's a potential. So when you're ranking potential development, there's probably a high potential of development of all these parcels. >> Very helpful. Any other comments, council, on that? >> Can I ask the question? >> Is it is is it an all or nothing with

539
02:41:37.120 --> 02:41:54.000
the parcels or they can be acquired? >> No, because they're individual owners. There's three different >> owners. They have to be acquired. >> I've spoken to all of them individually and they are all interested in selling. >> Okay. >> So >> So when we're ranking them, we're ranking all three of them as to be sure I understand correctly, Mike. >> Yeah. Yeah, we're just ranking all the

540
02:41:54.000 --> 02:42:08.880
ones that you nominated. So, I think there were like five total. >> So, I did not break it apart by owners. >> Got it. >> I just took them all together. >> Okay. >> Except the one parcel. I didn't make it in time, >> which is on the north end of Baker Road

541
02:42:08.880 --> 02:42:26.720
in um >> Gree. >> Well, I did um >> I looked on the map that one, right? >> I did incor I was able to incorporate that one. >> Oh, you did? Okay. And then >> so that's the one if you're looking at it. Is that the one >> that's >> you mentioned? >> No, that so that looks like a flag

542
02:42:26.720 --> 02:42:44.240
parcel. Um that is um Nick Schro's company owns that. That is next to this master uh Aan Lea PUD. So it's not technically in the Aan Lea site plan, master site plan. It's immediately adjacent. Um but I think he's got a development order for um storage

543
02:42:44.240 --> 02:43:00.160
facility and on the the north end of it if you can go back on the north end of of it my understanding is there is a wetland um uh conservation area on the direct side of >> that I understand. So we're talk how many parcels are there in total if we

544
02:43:00.160 --> 02:43:16.640
were 10 parcels? >> Seven parcels. >> Seven parcels. Of those seven parcels, how many are we reviewing right now? >> We're reviewing uh five one I didn't make six. >> Okay. Six. >> So of the seven we're reviewing six. If

545
02:43:16.640 --> 02:43:31.840
we approve all six, is that any any impediment to going forward possibly with the seventh? I just is there >> no we would uh uh so I've already got one parcel property lined up for our next delock

546
02:43:31.840 --> 02:43:49.680
meeting that did make it in time. So we would have we would just bring it forward and and and and rank it uh like when we meet in 3 months. >> So from the city's perspective you don't have to pull the trigger at any point in time. Is there anything in that which

547
02:43:49.680 --> 02:44:06.080
the the the parties agree to which would indicate that we have to close the deal within a certain period of time >> other than I think one of them is listed for sale currently. So someone else could swipe it out from under us. That's always a possibility, but they didn't

548
02:44:06.080 --> 02:44:22.640
I've had a couple of them follow up with me cuz my initial contact was maybe a month or so ago. >> Y >> and um I I I didn't see a sense of urgency from any of them or saying, "Hey, we've already gotten an offer." Anything like that. Nothing like that has been communicated to me. >> So, as a point of order, you could make

549
02:44:22.640 --> 02:44:39.600
a motion to add that seven parcel here and get it considered and reviewed. you wouldn't have the environmental assessment, but I mean you have environmental assessments for all the properties in the area. So you theoretically have a pretty good idea of what you're

550
02:44:39.600 --> 02:44:55.600
going to find there. >> In your professional opinion, would we be talking in a claimant's terms pretty much apples to apples? >> I'm not familiar with that parcel. So um so I I couldn't say

551
02:44:55.600 --> 02:45:14.479
how consistent. County Council, what would be your suggestion, please? >> Um, I I can't foresee that any of these parcels would be any different than the the other six. Um, you can

552
02:45:14.479 --> 02:45:30.560
motion we we can bring the seventh parcel next time and you can factor that into your voting today. Um, but I guess just to make the record clean, perhaps it'd be better just to vote on that one

553
02:45:30.560 --> 02:45:46.319
separately. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I agree. >> I mean, the report that we have doesn't break out the parcels. >> No. >> So, it's just, you know, when you look at the report, it's generic to the six. >> Yeah. >> So, I don't see why that would, you know, if you added a seventh parcel, I

554
02:45:46.319 --> 02:46:02.960
don't, we wouldn't know the difference between parcel one and parcel seven. >> Very good point. So unless parcel 7 was severely degraded, which is my understanding it probably is not. >> Um, >> is it imminent? >> I drove by today.

555
02:46:02.960 --> 02:46:19.520
>> No, it so if I can point to you, I can show you. >> Um, the one that's not marked here. Okay. >> It would be north here. >> That is I drove by it this morning and it's very thick woods. No development. The only issue >> there's been some clearing on this lot.

556
02:46:19.520 --> 02:46:36.160
>> Yes. But if you drive along the road, you can't tell because the woods on the road itself are very thick. But >> there was a gate with a sign that I could see through and it was cleared. >> Yeah. >> But that that that could be an area that's you know the city or can do it alone or in combination with the county

557
02:46:36.160 --> 02:46:51.200
we could do a park. So council, you've you've seen the property I >> buy it today. >> And based upon that assessment, are are we talking apples to apples? Are we Yes. Is it a severely degraded property or is it >> No, I I I would say one of the

558
02:46:51.200 --> 02:47:07.439
properties uh highlighted on there before has been cleared partially. >> Yeah. >> But the one the seventh one that's not has not been >> If you bring your attention to the PowerPoint present Oops. That area on the uh top right is that

559
02:47:07.439 --> 02:47:22.880
cleared area. >> The area that we're talking about. >> Mhm. So, and it's fully cleared. And it's a big area. It's not, you know, it's it's not like a few hundred square feet. It's it's um probably in an acre

560
02:47:22.880 --> 02:47:37.520
or two. >> Mr. Chair, may I suggest if we we haven't done this any other time, he'll bring it forth in two months or wherever we meet again. So that it's got a report even though it's not going to probably

561
02:47:37.520 --> 02:47:54.880
be different than the other reports. But how do you do your due diligence by this type of thing? I don't think you do. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. I I think it's best to bring >> do it right. >> Okay. Okay. So we >> we'll go ahead on the sixth. We'll >> hold on the seventh for now

562
02:47:54.880 --> 02:48:10.720
>> and then Mike, as soon as you got the seventh lined up, >> we go with it. Does that make everybody on board with that? now was council parcel seven owned by Nick. >> No, that was owned by a single owner. >> Okay. >> Um a doctor here in town. >> Okay.

563
02:48:10.720 --> 02:48:25.439
>> So >> So the only question would be council if you could reach out to that party and just say look we very much are very interested but we need to go through the due process. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Y >> um so in terms of

564
02:48:25.439 --> 02:48:40.880
next steps so Michael >> finish the presentation. >> Okay. So, >> so we got comments. Any other comments from the public? >> Okay. So, maybe going around the horn. >> Oh, he hasn't finished his presentation. >> Yeah, I got more to go. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yeah,

565
02:48:40.880 --> 02:48:54.479
>> we haven't got the recreational opportunities yet. >> Well, I got the habitat quality area is pretty impacted. So, this is one of the better areas here. Uh, and this is like if I look at the map, that's that scrub

566
02:48:54.479 --> 02:49:11.200
area. That's this parcel up here. Um but uh the areas tend to be pretty overgrown with exotics especially along the margins. You have that you know so you have dense canopies and palmetto

567
02:49:11.200 --> 02:49:26.640
um and you have that significant area that's been cleared which is you see in this management considerations. Uh here's an area of Brazilian pepper thick area like right on the uh boundary of the parcel. I saw Mount Luke out there.

568
02:49:26.640 --> 02:49:44.720
So you know given the isolated and small size of these parcels there'll be management challenges. Uh the invasive plant management will be costly and will require uh mechanical fuel reduction to under to cut down the understory and

569
02:49:44.720 --> 02:50:02.080
then let alone these cleared areas which would require full restoration. Uh this is a habitat map. So 40% of the property and it's mainly this parcel right up here is a rare scrub habitat

570
02:50:02.080 --> 02:50:17.520
has a much more extensive list of listed species than the other properties we've been looking at. Um and and as I said it's not, you know, it's overgrown, but it's decent quality scrub habitat as well.

571
02:50:17.520 --> 02:50:33.040
Oh, and under scrubby flatwoods, which is also rare over in this side of the park parcels for recreational opportunities, we could use that cleared area, put parking, a picnic pavilion, and create a trail

572
02:50:33.040 --> 02:50:48.000
network through at least the portion of the property that we own um focused on hiking and wildlife watching. Uh there's not a ton of areas to build a trail system, but once again, you know, you have communities right around here. These are the people that are going to

573
02:50:48.000 --> 02:51:07.359
use these areas. Development potential. I mean, he covered that pretty well. Uh, currently the site plan has a mix of residential, including town homes and and commercial development. And that's it.

574
02:51:07.359 --> 02:51:26.399
>> Thank you, Mike. Any other public comment? Uh just a question before I rank or a couple of questions um on the management with a city as a partner. Is the county still on the hook for management or is there going to be some kind of an

575
02:51:26.399 --> 02:51:41.439
agreement with respect to who manages what? >> Typically the parcels that are up in the city of Stewart that uh we partnered on, they end up taking over management responsibilities. we would be able to once again use 5% of the acquisition

576
02:51:41.439 --> 02:51:57.680
cost to go towards that restoration and that's something to factor in you know with the cost to the city is to do management activities on the property if it were acquired but >> that'll be their problem not ours got it

577
02:51:57.680 --> 02:52:14.080
>> okay and the second question with respect to the blueways this is in the blueway footprint >> it is adjacent to >> adjacent to blueway footprint is there connectivity specific connectivity with the river that you're aware of or >> well the drain I mean there's quite a

578
02:52:14.080 --> 02:52:29.439
bit you and you can kind of see the wetlands on here >> I see that >> so uh so there is connectivity to Haney Creek >> Haney Creek okay >> actually it runs right underneath the railroad track the creek does >> okay >> under the road

579
02:52:29.439 --> 02:52:46.319
>> yep all right I I I wasn't aware so I didn't know all right um so 00 on greenway and SER, 100 on potential funding partners, 50 on habitat quality. Um

580
02:52:46.319 --> 02:53:02.000
I don't I'm going to come back to management considerations because I ranked it pretty low, but I think I want to higher it. um 40 on rare habitat, 80 on recreational opportunities, 100 on development potential, and I'm going to

581
02:53:02.000 --> 02:53:18.800
go with a 50 on um waterways or um shoreline protection. And I think I I had a 30 for management, but because the city would handle it probably, I'm going to buck that back up to 80.

582
02:53:18.800 --> 02:53:33.600
>> David, you want to go with it? >> Yes, same. I I was on I was lower on management also in same numbers actually 30 and 80 >> Penny >> I have nothing to say I think this is a mistake to be doing taking the money

583
02:53:33.600 --> 02:53:50.880
from this committee or from the county and doing this when they have their own stream of funding same exact stream >> got it assuming that there's enough >> but in both cases there has to be a match right so yeah >> I mean so they have to find a match in

584
02:53:50.880 --> 02:54:05.760
the county has to find. >> I think also shows a vote of confidence that Yeah. So, good point, Tom. Great. >> So, are you ranking them all zeros? >> No, I'm I'm not doing that. >> He's abstaining. >> I'm not abstaining. >> Can't abstain.

585
02:54:05.760 --> 02:54:21.760
>> It is in the you know, the committee has to make a recommendations in terms of what properties we should move forward with acquisition. I mean, if you you'd be welcome to make to not make that recommendation if you if you felt that

586
02:54:21.760 --> 02:54:37.040
um due to that issue. It's not something the county should be involved in. >> Got it. Yeah. I would not encourage that, but that's okay. >> Yeah. >> Go ahead. The only the only difference I had that Beth had was I had 70 on the

587
02:54:37.040 --> 02:54:53.200
waterways and shoreline protection because that that that's a pretty big creek that runs in in through there. And you could, it's actually you could come up in a boat in that in that thing up underneath the railroad bridge. >> Great point. >> Thank you. >> Right next to the marina.

588
02:54:53.200 --> 02:55:08.479
>> Scott, how about you? >> I'm I'm somewhat persuaded by Tom, >> but I'm not sure. So >> So if you if I make a motion, will you second it? Let's have a vote. >> Make a motion.

589
02:55:08.479 --> 02:55:25.120
>> I I move that this property not be considered. I'll second the motion. All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> All those opposed? >> I oppose. David, >> I didn't vote, but I'm going to be an I. Actually, >> you can't you can't be. >> Okay, so we got three opposed and two in

590
02:55:25.120 --> 02:55:40.399
favor. But is that correct? >> No, he has to vote. >> Actually, I said I. Sorry. I said I didn't vote, but I meant to say I. >> Okay, so we got a tie. Somebody have a coin we can flip. >> That doesn't That doesn't work that way. >> Oh, so the >> Mr. attorney. Do you want to tell them

591
02:55:40.399 --> 02:55:55.840
how it works when there's a tie on a motion? >> He might be stumped. Uh, I'm a little stumped as well. It's never happened. >> The motion fails. >> No. No. Call merit. >> Hey, can't pay. This is not the drugs. Mr. Bagot, as the city's attorney and as

592
02:55:55.840 --> 02:56:10.080
the parliamentarian, when there's a tie on a motion, >> motion fails. >> The motion fails. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, >> let's vote again. So, the only question I would have is we don't want to do

593
02:56:10.080 --> 02:56:26.800
anything that'll impede the city's acquisition of this property. >> Excuse me. Why is it our responsibility to determine whether the city acquires a piece of property or not? That's not our

594
02:56:26.800 --> 02:56:41.439
responsibility. And for you to say that, >> you're putting your thumb on the scale. >> Hold on for a second. So then the the point the only question I have is we had a situation where the city wanted to buy a school building with the with the

595
02:56:41.439 --> 02:56:56.560
money. Yours truly and merit push back on that very firmly. >> That's great but it has nothing to do with this committee. >> Okay, hold on for a second. Take it easy, Camp Penny. So the only question I would have is I don't want to in any way jeopardize the possibility of these

596
02:56:56.560 --> 02:57:13.120
acquisitions. So is it possible just to simply remove this one from the agenda altogether? So it doesn't even come up on the radar screen for the city. Would that make any difference? Council, what are your thoughts? If we

597
02:57:13.120 --> 02:57:29.760
just completely ignore the fact that we say we we didn't even consider it. I mean, we we I've already got we've already gotten authorization from the city commission to go forward without the county if that's the case. But um you know, we they also voted for us to to take the initiative to seek

598
02:57:29.760 --> 02:57:45.200
collaboration with the county. I'm not aware. I mean, I gave you two uh budgeted revenues for two years. It looks like we're going to have about 20 some odd million over the long haul. I don't know what these are priced at. I mean, they have develop development

599
02:57:45.200 --> 02:58:01.760
orders inside the city. So, they're they're going to be elevated than some of this, you know, out out west per acre. So, it's going to be but it's also more valuable, I think, to the residents because it's where we all live. >> Yeah. >> You know, we drive by it. It'd be a shame to see a bunch of apartments get built where they are. I don't know if

600
02:58:01.760 --> 02:58:17.439
the city has enough funds to buy them all. We haven't even we haven't even appraised the properties yet. So, >> okay. So, uh >> there's a vote. That motion failed. If you want to bring something else back, you can, but you do it in a you can't do

601
02:58:17.439 --> 02:58:33.439
it, but you have to get a for in the form of the motion. >> Is there any advantage to the county uh approving this project? Any advantage to you as far as funding or anything? because you could pretty much do it on your own >> potentially, but I don't know how much the parcels are going to go for. We have

602
02:58:33.439 --> 02:58:48.240
seven parcels that have development rights. Um, and they know the government wants to buy it. So with taxpayer, >> but Evan Leah was was developed by Frank Walker. >> Exa Exactly.

603
02:58:48.240 --> 02:59:04.800
>> Exactly. For development was approved for development by the city. Now all of a sudden the city has changed their mind about the development that they already approved. It's not like you know this came from nowhere for 20 some odd years.

604
02:59:04.800 --> 02:59:23.040
It was approved for development. Each of these parcels was approved for development. And I'm not saying it should be developed. Not that's the city's problem. I'm saying to take money from the county to take that off when

605
02:59:23.040 --> 02:59:40.800
the city was the one that approved the development. People bought these properties. >> Exactly. >> For the right to develop them. >> That's why Nick bought it. >> That's why Nick bought. Now, maybe he can't sell it for the price he wants anymore or that's immaterial, >> right? But is it is it this committee's

606
02:59:40.800 --> 02:59:56.000
responsibility to save the city from itself? >> I don't think so. >> You can always change your vote. >> One one point I would would like to make on this. If the city didn't have any money and we were just bringing this

607
02:59:56.000 --> 03:00:12.399
property up for consideration, would you >> I would still have the same concerns >> because it's it's in the city >> because they're getting a piece of the sales tax already to do all of this stuff. If they decide they want to do it, >> they can do what they want.

608
03:00:12.399 --> 03:00:29.359
>> So, do you change your vote? >> I will change my vote. >> Then the motion passes. Okay. So, my only concern was that we don't want to send a message to the city that we're not interested. >> So, uh so I guess the point I guess the

609
03:00:29.359 --> 03:00:45.040
point council is if I understand it correctly, we go back to the city and really say, "Look, this is your call as to what you do." >> Exactly. >> And we keep it simple. >> Exactly. >> Forget about what camp penny said. >> No, we have a motion. >> Okay. So, any case, I only So, should I make a motion? We

610
03:00:45.040 --> 03:01:00.160
>> It's already been made. >> Hold on for a second. Camp Penney. Um I just don't want to have a situation where the message gets back to the city that >> we we are not that that we we want to make it clear that's really their call not our call.

611
03:01:00.160 --> 03:01:16.720
>> You are so >> you are talking from the dis about something that's already been passed. >> Okay. But so let me ask the camp penny. >> You can't do that. You're the chair. >> Yeah. You can't make Okay. So uh could someone else ask the

612
03:01:16.720 --> 03:01:33.040
council the question? And I just don't you can see where I'm coming from. I just don't want to send a signal to the city that they shouldn't do this. >> I don't I don't I don't think >> it's not our job. >> I don't think you have to soften it soften the language because it's their call. It's their call. Exactly. So, as

613
03:01:33.040 --> 03:01:49.760
long as they understand that that I'm good. >> It's not that we're It's not that we're fighting them on it. We just think it's their business and not our business. >> Yeah. The the city has the funds and resources to acquire the property if they want to. He would rather use the resources that the county have to acquire property outside the city.

614
03:01:49.760 --> 03:02:06.560
>> Perfect. Is that everybody on the same page with that message? >> Yes. >> Council, you got that what he did? What >> the question I have? This is an advisory board, correct? Correct. Yes. >> I mean, you're not making a final decision. So, is will this not if they vote to not It's a vote not to recommend

615
03:02:06.560 --> 03:02:21.520
to the county. Will this >> No, it's a vote that we're not going to if we don't recommend it, it can't go forward. with the county money, but now we're talking about the city >> said sales tax >> with the city money. So I guess the way

616
03:02:21.520 --> 03:02:37.760
that Scott what you just said was perfect. >> Good, >> if I may say that. Council council, >> thank you. You're welcome. >> So council to council, did you get the script on that? >> I I I understand and I, as I have already said, the city commission has already authorized us to move forward

617
03:02:37.760 --> 03:02:52.319
with acquiring property. >> Okay, then we're good. We're good. We're good. It's been >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Uh Michael, >> we're we're uh we're conferring to Okay. try to understand what this all means.

618
03:02:52.319 --> 03:03:11.200
Uh but I'd also like uh Sarah, did you get you got the motion clearly stated? Okay. Um so, so yeah, sorry about that. We were just >> No worries. >> Trying to understand what what this means. So, um, well then that's the end

619
03:03:11.200 --> 03:03:26.399
of my end of my presentation. So, uh, >> you don't need this sheet. >> We don't need that sheet. >> We don't need this. >> All right. >> Um, I will once again plug the Martin County Forever uh website, martin countyforever.com.

620
03:03:26.399 --> 03:03:42.880
It's, you know, we uh has all of our information about the program. There's a story map on there that shows the different lands that we consider and approve. We provide uh news stories about our program, so on and so forth.

621
03:03:42.880 --> 03:03:57.840
>> So, if we're looking at another meeting, what what are the what is what's in the pipeline, Mike? >> Uh well, we have one property. Uh I'm kind of put on the spot actually. I

622
03:03:57.840 --> 03:04:16.399
showed it in the presentation. um that came in too late for consideration. So, let me uh get back to it. >> And that was a great recommendation to do that uh spreadsheet. By the way,

623
03:04:16.399 --> 03:04:33.760
>> we're supposed to meet every quarter, but we don't have to as long as we have. So, >> so properties not considered. The one was the Danforth Creek property which is 18 acres which is nearby that Justin Molson edition. Um we just received word

624
03:04:33.760 --> 03:04:49.439
that there would be interest recently. So >> that they will what I'm sorry what Mike >> that there was an interest in selling. >> Okay. So if we look at our calendars and and within a time frame, what are your thoughts on get our next

625
03:04:49.439 --> 03:05:05.040
>> Well, why don't we for now let's um the next thing that we're supposed to do is get all those scoring sheets in. Then we'll tabulate the results and then we'll pre present the ranking results. Uh then you make your motion in terms of

626
03:05:05.040 --> 03:05:20.720
what to recommend with forwarding to the county commission. Uh then we have questions from committee members. >> Okay. So we do we have them tabulated though? >> I I don't think they're tabulated at this time. >> Yeah. So why don't we just since they're

627
03:05:20.720 --> 03:05:37.120
being tabulated now? Why don't we just talk about our next unless you prefer we stay in >> No, that's fine. Um >> I would also prefer that we don't have so many to do at one meeting. if we could. I mean, this is a lot of work.

628
03:05:37.120 --> 03:05:54.960
>> But, but you know what? I I if they're in the pipeline, we don't want to just because we don't have the time. >> No, what we should do is meet more often if we have to. >> Yeah. >> And we don't need to meet for three and four and five hours, >> right? >> Well, in fairness, the last time we came

629
03:05:54.960 --> 03:06:10.720
together, I was concerned about having 16 uh proposals. It took it took >> but but I was told by the committee to do them all in one day. >> So I've got it was way too long. >> I've gotten the opposite uh feedback from the

630
03:06:10.720 --> 03:06:26.000
>> What's the What's every Let's go around the horn. What would people prefer in terms of this? >> I prefer shorter meetings and and and and in the mornings because I'm more alert. >> Got it, Scott. >> Um I mean I'm flexible. I I think you

631
03:06:26.000 --> 03:06:42.240
know a 2 to three hour meeting is more than enough and I would agree to meet more frequently to consider the the parcels. >> Okay, David, >> honestly I'm indifferent. I'm I'm fine either way. >> Okay, Beth, >> I'm also indifferent. >> Okay. >> I think afternoon meetings are best for

632
03:06:42.240 --> 03:06:59.120
me though. >> So it sounds like the more frequently the better. Shorter meetings and more frequently. >> Yeah. And this so we had started building this list 6 months ago, right? >> Yeah. >> So every 3 months might be fine.

633
03:06:59.120 --> 03:07:16.680
>> Um >> and that would be in keeping with a procedurals manual that you guys drafted, >> right? >> So that would mean the next meeting would be in September. >> Yeah. So looking at the weekend of September 13th through the 19th um or the 20th through the 26th.

634
03:07:16.960 --> 03:07:34.880
So, does everybody have their calendar with them? Those that have, you know, day jobs are you day job? Well, Scott's got a day job and David's got a day job, >> Beth. >> Nope. No >> campaigning. You've got a day job. >> I got lots of jobs.

635
03:07:34.880 --> 03:07:50.960
>> Uh, so I get So, Scott, >> on the 17th, there's an LPA meeting again. If we meet at the same time, would that be convenient enough? 2 o'clock. If we could keep it till 4. Yeah, I could do that. What date? >> That would be the 17th >> of

636
03:07:50.960 --> 03:08:06.560
>> September. September. >> September. >> David, does that work for you? >> Beth, how about you? >> Um, the month of September is out for me, so don't plan around me. >> Okay. Uh, >> we need Beth. >> Yeah, we she starts off all our

637
03:08:06.560 --> 03:08:21.600
rankings. >> Fountain of knowledge >> at early October. Beth is our guiding light. >> Yeah, >> Beth, how about early October? I I I would say don't I'm going to be out of the country until mid-occtober. So you should schedule >> well as long as we do it in that

638
03:08:21.600 --> 03:08:38.160
quarter. Uh but then we don't have the frequency we were just talking about. >> Correct. >> So um >> 17th is fine by me on >> 17th would be good because we could do it at the same time if it's free if the >> So campaign your job is to get boned up

639
03:08:38.160 --> 03:08:53.760
in all the stuff that Beth knows. Well, that'll be that'll quite take about 35 years and I won't be here. >> Okay. So, the 17th at 2 PM. Does that work for everybody? That works for me. >> Mike, does that work for you for this room? >> Yep. I'm reserving the room right now.

640
03:08:53.760 --> 03:09:10.720
>> Okay. So, 2 p.m. on Thursday the 17th. Campenny, is that okay with you? >> I said yes. >> I just want to be sure. I want you to change your mind. >> Okay. 2 p.m. on the 17th. That's a commission check.

641
03:09:10.720 --> 03:09:29.920
>> Got it. >> Right. >> Yes. >> Can you bring some coffee if you wish? That'd be great. >> All right. It is on. Well, it's thinking. >> Thank you everybody. Now, how we doing,

642
03:09:29.920 --> 03:09:44.880
>> sir? How much time do you think you'll need? >> Um, I'm good with everybody here, but Vicky dropped off her scoring. Are you using those? >> That's fine. Right. >> Can you use them if she didn't come to the meeting? >> That's what I was questioning.

643
03:09:44.880 --> 03:10:02.880
>> I had I had asked her to like at least come in and just sit in for like a minute of the meeting so that she could be recognized in the roll call. >> It's up to you, Mr. Attorney. >> When did she come by?

644
03:10:02.880 --> 03:10:18.399
>> Before the meeting started. Oh then then no I I had told her to like come like just sit in the meeting even for five minutes and submit her scores. So uh so I don't >> I would say no. She wasn't here for the

645
03:10:18.399 --> 03:10:36.960
presentations or or the discussion. So I wouldn't include those. >> Okay. What's your Okay. Camp Penny. What do you suggest? >> I suggest nothing. She totals them up and Vicki can't be counted because she was absent. >> Well, let us um I'd like to get a little

646
03:10:36.960 --> 03:10:52.960
organized before we present that. So, do you mind taking 10 minutes? >> Um so I can look through that list and >> Absolutely. >> get them sorted. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> So, we'll meet back here 5:15. Great.

647
03:10:52.960 --> 03:18:50.080
Thank you. Mhm. Yeah, we're we'll be done. >> Just give me a minute to Okay, >> you're on. >> He said to give us a minute. Give him a minute. So just Mike waiting for him just walk

648
03:18:50.080 --> 03:19:08.800
through it for a minute in terms of >> we're going to be voting on the final rankings in terms of the priority. >> Yeah. Let me let me let make sure that's on. There we go. >> You're going to send you're going to send us a copy of this.

649
03:19:08.800 --> 03:19:33.840
>> Mhm. That's gave them enough time. Yeah. Okay. So, here is your ranked list. Uh, as you can see, >> hold on. Did we just pushed? >> I did. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah, you did. >> Um, so Avan Leia was removed from

650
03:19:33.840 --> 03:19:49.520
consideration. And then from the remaining properties, the rankings come in at uh Big Cypress Ranch had the highest score at 429.5, Hawk Hammock Edition 402.75,

651
03:19:49.520 --> 03:20:04.880
Solo Properties 385.5, Palmar Chimney 363.75, MTM Ranch 347, First Methodist 314.75,

652
03:20:04.880 --> 03:20:23.040
Justin Wilson edition 304.75 and finally the Dilio parcel at 292.25. Does anyone have any questions about the rankings? >> I'm I'm surprised Justin Wilson came in so low

653
03:20:23.040 --> 03:20:42.640
on the rankings. it. Um, yeah. Uh, potential funding partners. If you'll notice, most of the ones that had higher potential funding partner scores, also the Greenway corridors and

654
03:20:42.640 --> 03:21:02.560
the SER, although it looks like we have a score of 102 in there. Um, >> is that possible? >> So, low. >> Wow. So uh but I don't think that'll material change these scores. So I think those

655
03:21:02.560 --> 03:21:19.760
are you know the the SER project the greenway quarter and the funding partners you know are fairly linked >> and uh so they do a pretty you know they drive the scores pretty strongly. So

656
03:21:19.760 --> 03:21:35.279
>> yeah, >> it's funny because Justin Wilson comes in so high on the waterways shoreline. >> Mhm. >> Fair. >> That's because of the large mangrove swap. >> Yeah. >> And it drains right into the river. >> Whatever. Let's let's

657
03:21:35.279 --> 03:21:50.880
>> I would say this is so we go with a go with a score. Any >> I I move we accept the scores. >> I second. I >> All those in favor? I >> I >> I >> and I think we need a second recom um you need to make a recommendation in

658
03:21:50.880 --> 03:22:07.520
terms of what properties should be moved forward as sales tax projects. >> Oh, then I I move these should be moved forward in the order that they were ranked for sales tax property. Is that what you needed? >> Second. >> Second, please. Okay. All those in

659
03:22:07.520 --> 03:22:23.279
favor? >> I I >> All those opposed? >> Yeah, I think it's good. >> Okay. Anything else, Michael? >> Well, let's uh look at our agenda here. >> And uh

660
03:22:23.279 --> 03:22:39.760
I think we >> we've made our dates. Uh does anyone have any questions? >> The only thing is about the uh the material. If before folks leave for the summer, Mike, we just need to capture their summer addresses so that for example, Keller gets a packet of

661
03:22:39.760 --> 03:22:55.680
information. So, if we could just make a note to do that, please. Uh, other than that, any comments? Beth, do >> no comment. >> No comment. >> Great. This meeting is adjourned. Thank

662
03:22:55.680 --> 03:23:00.520
you everybody. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.