--------- Good afternoon and welcome back to our board of county commissioners meeting. This is we are taking up department five which is a public meeting for consideration of an unsolicited proposal for a public private partnership which we call P3 to build the Martin County
operations facility. Afternoon. >> Good afternoon commissioners. Matt Graham, assistant county administrator. Uh joining me today is Sean Donahghue, our general services director, Stephanie Merley, our OM director, and Frank Moly from our county attorney's office. Um so
this is an agenda item for the board to consider evaluating our second unsolicited proposal for the operations facility. [snorts] We received this about two weeks ago and as you may recall, we received one last year from
Building Tomorrow's Schools. So, uh, in order to comply with the statute, um, the board would have to accept this. We would go through the, um, expedited process, evaluate it, and then we also would have to, um, accept public comment
today. So, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Um, but that concludes my presentation on this agenda item. >> Okay, Miss Elder, just for clarification purposes. So since we already have a P3 that we are evaluating under the expedited process. If the board accepts
a second one through the expedited process that complic complicates it and it's not really expedite anymore. Then you have two competing proposals. So it it would prolong the review of the one that's currently been approved by the board while we do the other. So it would
complicate the process and prolong it a little bit. So I just want to make sure the board is clear on that. Um and it would might change it from the expedited to a longer tract because you have two competing proposals then. >> So we accepted the first one on December 2nd. >> Correct.
>> And staff has had those intervening two months to review that proposal for uh building tomorrow schools project. And then we would have to if we choose
we would also elect to further evaluate the proposal that we received a week ago or however long ago that was right. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Florida development solutions. >> So one of the other nuances is with building tomorrow schools they had their
proposal valid up until June 15th if I recall. Um, so one of the things that uh puts us up against a time timeline is we do if we did move forward with the evaluation today, that's the next board item. Uh, we still need time to
negotiate that comprehensive agreement should we and the board decide to enter into an agreement with them. So, we're up against a number of time timelines here. I, Madam Chair, if I may uh speak.
Um I think the the P3 process is is is new to us, but I think there's a nuance here that um um uh we weren't as familiar with in terms of the choices that you make in terms of the um review process and we chose the expedited
review. um as I understand it um it it's not an easy way to switch between expedited review and the competitive review process and that would kind of like start over. So my my my thought here on on the fly is that if the board
wants to before they make a decision consider the competitive process um we may want to take no action today and let us explore what that means in terms of time frames and other things. >> How long would it take to for for us to
explore those things? I I think we would come back next meeting or the choice is to say looking at the you know the the submitt which is roughly the or you stick to the original plan original proposal which was to follow the
expedited review uh and um and not accept this proposal and move forward with the second one. I I think as I understand it, that's really our our our only choice um for today based upon um our more detailed understanding of
the statute in the in in this process. So I think so for this item, it it is as I understand it, we we can't simply accept this one and take it on as the expedited process because we already have started the expedited process. So,
we either have to um um um start over with a um advertise process >> with both >> with both of them or before you make that decision, give staff um a couple of weeks to determine so that when you make
that decision, you'll be fully informed on what is the best what you feel is the best interest in the county. We've certainly prepared to um give our analysis of the original proposal um and we were have prepared, you know, a
recommendation for that. Um but I don't want that to um uh undermine your decision unless you're comfortable uh uh with that. >> Okay. Well, for starters, I think that
there is there's been some urgency to pursue this for the last 10 years, and there's real urgency now. So, Commissioner Vargas, as a personal practice, I never go with
one bid. I never do. No, I I just don't. I usually go with three bids. Uh I think it was mentioned uh in the meeting where we discussed this over a month ago. Well, this is like a roof. The roofer will go away. No, no, the roofer is not going away. This is a 75 or 80 million
dollar project. No, nobody's going away. It doesn't come along every day. Um I had had uh conversations with Mr. Donaldson about this [clears throat] and um I understand about the traditional route. You need to get bids.
We need to have people bidding against each other for this. I I'm all for the traditional route. 10 years in the making. Another month or a couple of weeks is not going to make a difference. But we need to be responsible with this money that's being
spent. This is a huge project. It's a big ticket item and we don't need to have some glamorous building. It really just needs to be a square building. You need to pair this down. I was told by some staff, well, this is the going rate. No, it's not the
going rate. It's negotiable. It's all negotiable. And that is my feeling. I'm very strong about this. Can't fault me for it. You need to know what's out there. And if they choose to walk, then that wasn't the right candidate for us.
[clears throat] >> Booster Caps. >> I think this is really timesensitive. Uh the FAA has told us to get our public works facility off of the airport and we have a contractor
with building better schools who can meet the time demands and get the job done and produce this building for us in an 18 months which is really what needs to happen. And you
know, when you're looking at timelines, you have to be prepared for unexpected things that could happen in the process as well. Um, and uh, I think time is of the essence.
So, I'm going to move that we deny department 5 um and stick with the expedited process and stick with the first proposal. >> Commissioner Heatherington,
>> I how I just want to see a time frame that we could get consider both proposals. The other one was very good. They sub submitted it timely. If we were to do this, what kind of time framing are look are we looking [clears throat] at? >> It we would um essentially we would do
an advertisement. It would be more than 6 months. >> So you can't just accept this one into the expediting process, have them put up the $25,000, study that within I mean it took them how long to study this one? A month.
So, uh, apparently by accepting the funds, that's that's the kind of the the nuances as I understand it of of the law. Uh, I think the um we would not be able to accept their funds and um and do
a full analysis under the expedited process. We would essentially be competing them and we'd have to start over. I think the only thing we could explore is to say that um uh that that that is I understand [clears throat] it. You know, if if if we're >> so any proposal if they're competing,
you can't use the expedited process. Is that what I'm hearing you say? >> That's that's what I'm understanding. That's correct. >> Because the last meeting we were anticipating that we could on multiple submissions use the expedited process. That was certainly that was my understanding and my recommendation is
that we would take this proposal and do a um take all of the methods by which the first one was an done the analysis on do the same to this one and then bring them both back to you with uh a recommendation to enter a contract with
one or the or begin negotiations for a contract because that's really the step process is is that um you have the analysis then you decide if you want to move forward Then you then all it all is all closed out and we simply begin um determining
if we can develop a a contract that will be in in in both that both parties can accept and then that contract would come back to you. So any decision today is still not the final decision, but it is um potentially the final decision on on
the process of by whether you're still continuing to review one company or if we want to review two. you know, I think, you know, exploration of how under the expedited process to deal with the second proposer
um is is a challenge at to for today for us to come up with any other option other than to post postpone all action on both of them to give us time or to take action on the as as the motion suggests.
A and if we would do that then we would lose the uh shity of both bids. Commissioner progress. Uh again uh I'll I'll say this is um it's four years. It's not like we have
to move out tomorrow. We don't have to move out tomorrow. But the long-term effects of overspending and not knowing what else is out there is permanent. And I think that the responsible thing
to do is to seek [clears throat] another bid, which we have one in, and possibly a third. But just to say, well, we have one bid and that's it and it's all good. I I can't go along with that. Not at all. Not at all.
I would uh like to uh pass the gabble and second Commissioner Cap's uh motion, but the vice chair isn't here. So So [laughter] give me a little guidance here. >> I I think the chair has the choice then
who you pass it to. [laughter] >> That would be my answer. >> Okay. I know Commissioner Campy is on his way, but um it but that would my you choose who you would like to cast against. >> There you go. >> All right.
>> Well, Commissioner Caps is the motion maker. So you >> So he can't do that. >> Okay. [laughter] >> How about you? >> Sure. I'll practice. >> Okay. >> So can you clarify? So your your motion, Commissioner Caps, is to deny the acceptance of the
>> D5. >> D5. >> So which means we're we're not approving the first proposal, but we are determining that we are not accepting any more proposals. >> That's correct. So then when that item
comes up, we have an opportunity to approve or deny that proposal based on its merit. >> Correct. >> That's correct. And and >> we also have the opportunity if we don't if we if we don't um want to accept that
proposal, then we start this process all over again. >> That's correct. You can also in the if if even if you let's say on this in the second item you accepted a proposal there you don't have to accept it
uh until you sign a contract. So you just keep the process going. So that's the the issue is that the the the accepting um um the or directing staff to go negotiate a contract does not guarantee a contract will be executed is
what I'm saying as uh and so you have the options uh up until you decide to actually sign a contract to um to start over at any time. >> Okay. So the board if approved today has the authority once you present this
contract to reject the contract and solicit more proposals. >> That's correct. >> Absolutely. >> And and I just wanted to say for the public's perspective, the the P3 offers timing and savings that a traditional design bid build process does not. And I
think it's um in this highly abbreviated conversation which we presented to you before it's uh the um the time value of money and the the the method of procurement design bid build all in one
entity is ultimately what's proven why the state adopted this to save government significant funds because of the there is a certain inefficiency and and and in the design, bid, build process
that this new method of procurement or newer to us anyway. The states had it for about 10 15 years, I think, um has proven itself over that time to be an effective tool for for um government
entities to um both speed up the pro um um c and reduce the cost of construction. I could do that. >> Okay. So, we're ready to take a vote. All right. Your motion? >> Yes. I made the motion and we have a second. I guess
>> we have a second. Okay. All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> All those opposed? Opposed. And that would be Commissioner Heatherington. Uh, Chairwoman Herd and Commissioner Caps in favor. Commissioner Vargas opposed. Thank you.
Okay. Now let's move on to department six. >> All right. Good afternoon, commissioners. Uh for department 6, this the county received an unsolicited proposal on October 31st, 2025 and was
brought to the board on December 2nd for approval to accept public comment and to evaluate the proposal from BTS. Uh today we're here to discuss that evaluation. We do have um Mr. Joe Barry uh who's who's sitting right behind me who is our
architect from CPZ as well as Jay Glover from our financial advis advisor PFM financial adviserss and the purpose of this meeting is to address this uh required statutory factors uh which there's five so one the benefits to the
public the financial structure and economic efficiencies the qualifications and experience of the private entity the compatibility with regional infrastructure and county plans and receive public comment and provide comment on why the proposal should
proceed. So, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Donghue, our general services director. So, starting off with the benefits to the public, uh the project proposed does meet the CIP needs uh in the capital improvement plan. Uh it does provide a
hardened facility, a large facility that we can bring all the departments that are not centralized now into a more centralized uh location. Uh it'll be hardened. Uh it'll be newer and get us out of the dilapidated uh older facilities that we're in now. Uh that will reduce our capital needs for
repairs in the near future as we need to fix those buildings up if we do decide to stay. Um so it puts us in a centralized hardened facility. It allows for better storm posttorm response uh for all the departments. It does meet the CIP like I said and it also meets the the FAA approved voluntary
corrective action plan and it gets us off of the airport property and then the financial terms. >> So this slide outlines the financial structure of the proposal and the efficiencies it's designed to achieve. The proposed delivery method reduces the
overall project timeline which helps limit cost escalation and accelerates delivery. It is also expected to generate construction cost savings compared to tra traditional delivery methods through improved coordination and reduced change orders by integrating
design construction and delivery. The project incorporates life cycle efficiencies from the outset supporting long-term performance and cost control. The consolidation component further reduces ongoing operational and and maintenance expenses.
In addition, the negoti negotiated P3 structure can enhance budget predictability and allocates risk in a manner that protects the county's interests. So overall, this approach is intended to maximize the value to for the taxpayers on a $74 million public investment while
promoting both short-term efficiencies and long-term financial sustainability. Additionally, PFM as the county's municipal advisor has reviewed the proposal and has identified an option that is beneficial to the county for the financing of the facility.
Okay. The next item is the the qualifications and experience of the private entity that submitted the proposal. Uh Building Tomorrow Schools has performed um other projects across the state. Uh most notably nearby is the Indiantown High School. This is the same design team, same construction team that
designed and built that that facility for the college. That was a very expedited pathway too. It was a P3 project for the college. Uh similarly, uh there's a K8 school in Pulk County. Uh very similar uh project that was
expedited as a P3. Uh PBK is a is a former Harvard Jolly Architects. Uh they've done some very good work across the state. I've got some some experience with them uh in my other in my other jobs. Uh their design team is very strong. Ryan, Inc. is a very large land
development firm. Um this is a small site for them. They do large golf courses and much larger facilities than this. So they're fully uh prepared to do this work. Uh Greg Fagan is the engineer. He's been around for 35 40 years. I think I've worked with him in
the past as well. He's very very good. Uh so their team is strong. Uh they do provide a good service uh as as their references uh as their reference is provided. >> Mr. Donaldson, is this an old light for you? >> It is
now. [clears throat] So to briefly summarize, Commissioner Campy, >> I was watching on my phone. >> Okay. So you know, >> you could pass the gavl to me in the car. [laughter] >> I didn't. >> I apologize.
>> Would you like me to continue? >> Yeah, I'm wait a second for Okay. All right, I'm going to talk about the project compatibility with the regional infrastructure and county plans. Um, first, this um has been included in the
CIP for quite some time, past five or or 10 years if I recall. Um, it's also been part of the voluntary corrective action plan to leave the airport property, the VCAP. And this project advances the county's long-term facilities strategy
by consolidating multiple dispersed departments into a centrallylo operations facility. Uh reducing fragmentation and improving coordination. Um the centralization creates efficiencies in site management, security and life cycle maintenance
planning. Um and then further the collo collocation strengthens our emergency response capabilities as as Sean has already mentioned and operational readiness by reducing response time and improving uh unified command functions.
So, um, as I mentioned before in the public comment section, um, at the December 2nd meeting, the board received initial public comment and directed staff to proceed with a detailed evaluation of the unsolicited proposal. Uh today's meeting serves as a second
required public meeting under section 255 0653C of Florida statutes and all comments received will be incorporated into the county's evaluation and addressed as part of the forthcoming comprehensive agreement should the board
decide to enter into those negotiations. Um and with that I'll now turn it over to Mr. Joe Barry. >> Okay, good afternoon everybody. Uh like Matt said, Joe Barry, CPZ architects, we were brought on to uh help the county with this project a few years ago where
we began a programming and conceptual design uh effort. And in that effort, we met with the various uh departments that were going to be part of this consolidation. We uh tooured their existing facilities.
We uh took measurements. We took inventory of their equipment and their vehicles and we put together a draft programming summary and uh developed a conceptual design of what the building could look like.
Next slide. [clears throat] So when we looked at this uh this proposal, we looked at it in in a in a few different ways. Um once we we we we feel that it's a thorough uh proposal
and generally supports the project intent. It's a viable development concept. [snorts] The preliminary floor plan that was provided as part of this incorporated some efficiencies that we didn't consider at the time. And the due
diligence that was uh done for the review of the site plan was evident where they demonstrated an understanding of the site conditions and the site constraints uh generally aligning the site plan with the the uh design intent. They looked at
uh utility connection points and infrastructure. So that was all considered as part of this proposal. We looked at the proposed cost of the project and with [snorts] the help of a firm that specializes in preparing
construction cost estimates, CMS. Uh CMS is construction management services and they use uh detailed quality uh quantity takeoffs and historical data to put uh put together a estimate that combines uh
cost of material, labor and equipment. And comparing the developer proposal at $63 million for construction cost, the CMS proposal came in at 76 million.
We looked at the design fees and feel that they align with the expedited schedule. We looked at the allowance for furniture, fixtures, and equipment and feel that they that would require further evaluation during the contract negotiation.
Next, we also looked at the timeline and realized that 18month uh timeline for this project is um is aggressive. uh they plan to accomplish this by running phases concurrent different
tasks overlapping design permitting and construction. When we compare it to a traditional project delivery delivery uh method we assumed uh a typical project would look at nine months for design, nine months
for permitting and for a project this size roughly 24 months for construction. So it is a significant savings in in time. The developer also proved that they have a track record of completing similar
scale projects in similar time frames. And in that the time savings is financially motivated. There's a few bullet points here I'll just read through. U reducing general conditions. The longer the project goes on, the more costs there
are for general conditions. Uh the shorter the schedule, the lower uh exposure to escalating costs in material and labor and it minimizes financial uh financing costs. So at the end we look at this proposal
and we feel the risk is on the developer and as part of the county's effort to develop a comprehensive agreement. They'll look at setting schedule and cost limit expectations. They'll realize [clears throat] that the contractor is responsible for delivering
the project within the contract price and also within the project deadlines that are set. Part of this would establish design standards for the project and that would all become part of that comprehensive agreement. >> All right. Um, so the board of county
commissioners requested public comment at the December 2nd, 2025 public meeting. Um, we're asking that the board he hear all public comments today for the se second publicly notice meeting which will be considered as part
of the county's evaluation. Since the board and the public will have uh further opportunities to review, consider, and comment upon the comprehensive agreement, the county believes the comments made will be sufficiently addressed in the forthcoming agreement. Um that concludes
our presentation for the day. Um, but staff is recommending that the board move, excuse me, move that the board receive the statutory evaluation findings, consider public comments, adopt the resolution affirming the public interest determination pursuant
to section 255 0653C of the Florida statutes and direct staff to proceed with the remaining required steps, including scheduling the third public meeting and entering into negotiations for a comprehensive agreement.
Thank you. >> Any uh questions of our staff? Then I'll go on to public comment. Uh Lauren Hollander is followed by John Fumero >> and you'll have three minutes to address us. >> Great. Thank you very much. Uh
commissioners, um staff, thank you very much for this comprehensive review. We've we are thrilled to be a part of this initiative recognized um through extensive due diligence the critical need that's present. We commend
everybody for taking these expeditious steps in order to achieve the goal. Um we do get asked regularly about our competitiveness and the ability to save um in the arena of the expense of the
development. And so part of what you saw staff present is the most important thing is we do hit the ground running as soon as we all get to a place in that comprehensive agreement that enores to the benefit of the county. You know,
absolutely within that process, we evaluate all of the costs associated as well as the time and any type of liquidated damages to be sure that we deliver that right on time. Um, in this team that we've presented, there's over
40 years of experience working here in Martin County with multiple developments. And so, there is a familiarity as it relates to your needs. and they've worked in the capacity of working together with bringing infrastructure together, developing
communities, um dedicating certain spaces. So there's a familiarity and an understanding of what that is. This local team that was very effective out in Indian town felt compelled when there was this need that continued to arise.
Is it possible for us to help you bring this project to fruition? and that was the impetus of us presenting to you that uh unsolicited proposal. So, we appreciate the opportunity and commend everybody on this process to try and get
to the fastest place of delivery and giving us the opportunity to work together with you. So, we support this in any way that your needs are. Thank you very much. >> Thanks. John Fumero is next followed by Debbie Shots. >> Afternoon.
>> Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Good to see you again, commissioners. My name is John Fumero. I represent uh Building Tomorrow's Schools, and I'm here to do two things. Number one, to support the staff recommendation and the entry of the resolution uh prepared by staff, and
number two, to compliment the staff. Uh I have handled dozens of P3 projects throughout Florida. I authored Florida's P3 statute in 2010, which passed in 2013. uh most public infrastructure in Europe,
South America and Australia is done through this means. The US has been a little bit slow to catch up. But if you look at 595, that was a P3 project undertaken by a Spanish company because there still weren't enough American
companies doing P3 projects. But uh you are you've put yourself as a leader in the P3 and your staff has followed the the law perfectly. And I just want to also uh your county attorney's council is exactly what I would have told you
with my experience in P3. Uh the other proposal uh would have caused you to get off track and start a whole new process. And Commissioner Vargas, your points are very well taken. And the under traditional procurement, you're right. You want to look at is this really the
best price and best project. But that's been done here by your staff, by competent peer review. And also, if you look at the alternative proposal, if there was a difference in price of millions of dollars, it would cause me to pause, but there's not. The price
differential is less than 1%. And there's a reason for it which we don't need to get into, but I think what you've heard here is you've got a project that will make it work on time, on budget, in an expedited fashion. And I would again ask you just to support
the staff recommendation. Thank you. >> Thanks. Debbie Shots is next, followed by Greg Fagan. >> Hi there. I just wanted to say I'm in support of the staff resolution. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Greg Fagan is next, followed by Brandon
Smith. >> Afternoon. >> Good afternoon, everyone. Nice to see you again. Feels like it's been uh decades of coming up here over the um years. Um, [clears throat] I just want to um
level my support [clears throat] for this team that I've worked with um on numerous projects over the last 20 plus years and um have 100% confidence in them and of course we've done some major
developments here in Martin County and uh it's good to be back and look very much forward to participating ating on this project and seeing it to fruition. Sorry about my voice. Thank you. >> Thanks. Brandon Smith is next, followed
by Jonathan. >> Good afternoon. Uh wanted to say that I'm uh in full support of the staff's recommendation. Uh I personally was out in Indiantown at the Indiantown High School project on a day in dayout basis. uh worked with their team and I'm looking forward to working with your team to bring this to fruition in the
same timeline. >> Thanks. Jonathan at is the last request to speak form I have. If you would like to address us, please fill out one of these forms and hand it to the baiff. >> Yes, ma'am. I would just say that I am in support of the recommendation as
well. Thank you. >> Back to the board. What are you looking for? >> Discussion. A motive. Motion. >> I'm new here. I'm not sure. >> There's a staff recommendation. >> Mr. Campy.
>> I will say that the the 3P the P3 process is new. Obviously, we've heard that. It's not something that a lot of us are familiar with. So, I have been trying to spend some time researching it, speaking to folks. Uh, it feels a
little bit out of reach because most of the decisions we make, we have life experiences and sort of it's been the way that it's been. this one. I I was listening to the comments of the last agenda item and and I do not disagree
with Commissioner Vargas when you you want to make sure that you take in as much information and and proposals as possible. This is a lot of money. But when I've done the homework on how these things work in other countries and
in other areas, it it is a although something that's a little unfamiliar to me, it is something that has worked out for a lot of uh owners, whether it's governments or whatever very successfully. I did have the opportunity
to participate in the very early stages of the Indiantown High School uh with the gentleman that was their largest donor. And one of the things he said was right at the first meeting with IRSC
that uh and some of the school board members that he was an older gentleman and wanted to see the project be built before he passed away. And remarkably, what felt like a very short time later,
I was out there standing in a gorgeous facility, beautifully done. And when I asked around to the IRSC Foundation and their board and the president and others that were involved in the process, nobody had a bad word to say. They
thought it really went very, very well. So with that in mind, that's sort of where I have to like put the the pebbles on the scale. Uh that's that's where it is. I don't have a tremendous amount of personal experience, but the folks that do that I
reached out to felt very comfortable that I could um sort of sign on to that and I will I'll make a motion to accept staff's recommendation. Commissioner Katherington. >> I've had the opportunity to work on some P3 projects before and I think they
offer Martin County um not only increased efficiency but economies of scale and I think that this group has demonstrated u just how they can perform based on how Indiantown High School went. So I'll gladly second the motion.
>> Commissioner Caps. I was just going to second. I'm comfortable with uh this uh proposal and I will support it as well. >> Commissioner Vargas, I'm not opposed to P3 projects. [clears throat] I might be
involved in one shortly. However, we do not have enough information and for folks to say on this commission that everything's fine, we're just going to go with the same company. Not what I've heard from people. They said, "What? How much is this going to
cost? Are you kidding? You know, I I don't know what the hesitation is to solicit other bids. It's really quite simple. You do that. And we're talking about not next month, as I said, moving out. It will comply
with the agreement with the FAA. But we need to have the education to see what else is possibly in our benefit. and our benefit. I mean Martin County residents and citizens and taxpayers
and this is where I stand. For that reason, I cannot I oppose this. >> Any further comments? >> There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I >> opposed. >> I That motion passes four to one with
Commissioner Bargas dissenting. Thank you. >> Thanks. And Mr. Walden. We will now take up item number department 7, which is an update on the Chansy Bay Animal Processing Facility. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon,
commissioners. Peter Walden, deputy growth management director. Uh, the board requested that a discussion item come back regarding a animal processing facility in western Martin County uh that is located on the Chanse Bay Ranch.
So I'll go through a quick uh um dissertation of the project scope, the timeline of the application and where the project stands at this time. So it came in as a major final site plan because this the project was 56,000
square ft. So it met the threshold for that in article 10. It was uh planned on 26 acres of the 2,000 acre cattle ranch. It's located, as I said, in western Martin County at 8401 Southwest Conors Highway, which is a road that goes along
the rim ditch along Lake Okachchobee. The land use is agricultural and the zoning district is A2 agricultural district, which is a category C district. This is a map excerpt of the area.
The area in red is the Chanse Bay Ranch. The proposed facility was on the northern edge of the ranch, Lake Okachchobee to the west, FPL just to the southeast, and beyond that, the Village of Indian Towns urban
service district. This is an excerpt of the site plan that was proposed. This is Connor's Highway where it would enter. An improved driveway would lead down to the facility. >> [clears throat] >> Um there was planned water detention and
septic systems and [clears throat] of course the 56,000 acre facility itself. So the timeline uh it goes back a few years. We first uh were introduced to the project in 2020 when it came in for a pre-application meeting. At that time
they were it was a brief discussion with no site plan provided. uh it was just talking about processing animals that were grown and raised on the uh ranch itself. A couple years later, the project came
in as a major final site plan and uh we went through two rounds of review. The discussions began to stall. uh it became apparent that the applicant was pretty adamant about it being a bonafideed
agricultural process and that uh our development review may not be required. So, um, after a while we did not hear from them. And then several years later, we did get a uh about a year after we had uh stopped talking, we got a letter
from the general counsel of Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services or FDAX basically outlining the fact that uh the local um municip the uh county would not be required to uh review the project,
that it was considered bonafideed a that the facility itself was considered a farm building and within the uh right to farm act that that would be considered bonafideed agricultural use and that um
the and over the years the actual description of bonafideed agriculture has grown and it's become more ambiguous and allowed more uses to be implemented into that. So we accepted that letter as
uh general counsel intended and shortly after that the application was withdrawn from our development review process and that's pretty much where we stand now. We don't know what has been taking place since then out on the property and
um I'll be glad to try and answer any questions we have regarding the subject. >> Any questions for staff? [clears throat] >> Commissioner Vargas. So this morning we had quite a few people out here. I've had people call me also. I've had people
stop me about this. So our hands are tied. Is that what I'm understanding? >> That that's correct. >> So no matter what we would want to represent here, which I talked about this morning, which I learned Washington, Tallahassee, this is the movement that's move, you know, that's
happening right now underfoot. >> Correct. As you heard our other legislative things h going on with the state. This is another example of a preeemption. >> Commissioners, um, I am going to allow a presentation of information from the
guardians. Greg Braraw is going to make a very brief PowerPoint presentation. Sorry. >> Oh, >> it is. >> It's already loaded.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Sure. And thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk about this project. Um, indeed, as you saw this morning, there are >> [clears throat] >> uh quite a variety of Martin County people who are concerned about this. And while I don't disagree with what Mr. Walden has presented to you. I'm afraid
that the interpretation of withdrawn has been misinterpreted by uh by everybody. Um indeed, the application to Martin County may have been withdrawn, but as far as we know, the project is moving
forward and unfortunately that means it's moving forward without any environmental controls. And so, um, indeed, I do have a PowerPoint that I'd like to go through in a minute, but I'd like to start off just saying, um, I am a professional ecologist, Greg Braun, here representing the Guardians of
Martin County. I'm the executive director, and certainly we thank you for having this public opportunity for for public comment uh because you're not required to do so. um FDAX and Water Management District and DP all took the
easy way out and shielded the general public from providing any kind of input whatsoever. So, uh I I thank you for at least giving our residents, your constituents the opportunity to speak. When the Guardians first heard about
this um over a year ago, we started looking into it because we indeed had concerns about environmental kinds of things. And so a couple months ago, I provided to you the position paper that the Guardians put together um with input
from a variety of our conservation colleagues, several of whom spoke this morning. You know, Mark Perry, one of the esteemed people on water quality, uh provided us some input into that uh because of our concerns about potential impacts on the Lake Okachchobee wershed,
which as you know has been designated as impaired. So, you've had some time to look through that. Uh, we met with staff uh last week to just kind of talk about things including kind of an interesting nuance of the legal interpretation of how we
got to your preeemption. So, I'll speak about that in a minute. Uh but I will say that the reason that preeemptions happen um is because indeed Martin County has a reputation everywhere for
having some of the most stringent protection standards in the state. That makes it a great place for all of us to live and work and recreate, but that also puts a target right on our back for people who want to get around those kinds of protections. And um I see that
that's the guardians feel that that's exactly what has happened here. Um the state went through the same analysis that that you did when they got an application. They went through their process of determining what was going to be needed to allow them to process the
application. And when the applicant got that package of information saying please give us this, this, and this. They did the same thing to the state D that they did to you. They turned around and walked away. pulled their application and said, "We're not providing it to you." And they tried to
do an end to run end run around. So, as far as we can tell, there has been an exemption from D that has been issued saying that D uh finds that the millions of gallons of water that are going to be used for this project and put on the
landscape does not require a permit. We think that's wrong. um in our and while we've got concerns from the environmental standpoint, um I'm not naive enough to think that environmental things are going to carry the day on this. I I think it's going to
be legal things. [clears throat] And so we have identified in our position paper a variety of legal kinds of avenues that we would ask that you pursue on this. And probably the strongest one is that
you don't even need to look to case law to determine this. You just look at the Florida statute. So I'm going to read to you um the applicable section here which is out of uh section 193461 that states agricultural purposes do not
include the wholesaling, retailing or processing of farm products such as by a canning factory. Same kind of thing. We believe that if Chanse Bay Ranch were raising their own cattle for slaughter on their own
property, that would be covered under the Right to Farm Act. The fact is though that they're bringing in cattle from all over, not just Martin County, but throughout the state, maybe out of the entire southeastern US that will be slaughtered in this meat processing
facility. That takes it out of the agricultural realm and into the industrial realm. And that's where we think you have the legal opportunity to push back on um on FDA's determination. Uh so Peter, if you would go through my
slides here, if you can all see them here, I've just got a couple short slides. Uh first, our location maps that you already know where this is at up in northwestern Martin County. Uh on this one, I'm going to point to point out to to you and everybody else watching. Martin Countyy's boundary goes right out
there into the middle of Lake Okachchobee. So that's indeed part of why we're so interested in this. We know that there are algae blooms in Lake Okachchobee and the problems are nutrientreated and this project can do nothing but
exacerbate those water quality problems. Uh next slide please. Again just a location map. You know where it is east of um Connor Highway. Um although the applicant's property does extend on the west side. The only part of the property that would be used for this is that east
of Connor's Highway. Next one. Uh we do know that you went through um a development review um activity a year or so ago for some houses on that property completely unrelated to this, but they hired a public relations consultant for
that project. Um, and we've talked with them about this particular project and the public relations consultant says they don't have any client [laughter] that we can talk with about this project. If they can spend the resources
to hire a public relations consultant to deal with nine homes, we think that you ought to be able to reach out to them and get some information on a 2,000 acre ranch and a 26,000 acre meat processing
facility. Next slide, please. Uh Peter did put up the site plan. Um and indeed, this is matter of public record. It's through the South Florida Water Management District. They have gone through an extensive permit [snorts] processing um permit process with South Florida
Water Management District. Um, and although there might have been the opportunity for public comment on this, uh, it was, uh, not high enough profile that, as far as I know, there was any public input on it at all. Uh, they have
gotten permits to withdraw millions of gallons of water from the surficial aquifer, which, as you know, in our area, this is considered a water cautionary area. We've already got problems with saltwater intrusion um, in the surficial aquifer.
We'd like to know how is that water going to be treated. There's no information anywhere about um how it's going to be treated to what standards or if there is any water quality monitoring that is to take place. Uh traffic, we understand that from this
plan that they're going to put they have asked to put a turn lane on to 98. U that suggests to us that they know that they're going to be bringing in lots of cattle from other areas. We think that the county should be able to look at that project and make sure that those
transportation um proposals are something that meets the county's comp plan and land development regulations. Uh we'll talk about wetlands on the next slide. Um, I'm wearing my bald eagle tie today because we know that there are
bald eagle nests on the 2,000 acre ranch and we know that if the county was going through the review process, you would require a preserve area management plan on a portion of the property which without your review that's not going to take place. Threatened endangered species also we suspect that there are
some on that property. They've identified kacaras um on the property, one of the protected bird species. If you were if you were requiring a preserve area management plan, there would also be a requirement for removal of invasive pest plants. That's
otherwise not going to happen. Um the county has spent millions of dollars in trying to go through the process for the BMAP to clean up water in Lake Okachchobee. the Lakeside Ranch property, which is right immediately to
the north of this, um has taken millions of dollars of tax monies to create that facility. We think it is inappropriate that this adjoining ranch could produce millions of gallons of water and we can't learn what's going to happen with
the fertilizers that are brought onto the property and where that water is going to go. In our foyer request for FDAP, FDAX, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, we did get a stack of papers. Included in
that was several um cover letters stating that the property owner was not in compliance with their uh BMPPS. What we got was the cover letter that says you're not in compliance as shown on the attached sheet and the attachment isn't there. We made the request. How do
we know how far out of compliance they are? When we asked for volumes of fertilizers that have been applied onto the ranch, we got data sheets back that showed redacted. So, we don't know how many millions of g millions of pounds of
fertilizers are going on. And if we don't know that now, when they start bringing in cattle from elsewhere, we can only assume that there's going to be additional fertilizers that are brought on and that's going to be completely unregulated. Next slide. We do know that there are historic
wetlands on the property. You see on the picture on the left, um there are uh open water areas whether they're currently wetlands or what they call other surface waters. Uh we don't know, but you can tell from the algae bloom on
that pond, something isn't right. There's an abundance of fertilizers, nutrients that have caused that algae bloom. The picture in the middle is one that I took of the canal that is leaving from the Chansy Bay Ranch going straight out to the Rim Canal. There's no kind of
um water treatment swailes or anything like that. And so our concern is that out of the millions of gallons of water that they're going to be withdrawing onto this from the surficial aquifer used for their processing, there is no point of discharge. So, we
can only assume that that's going to be land applied and the nutrients will help the water or help the the grazing of the cattle. But where's that water going to go when it rains? It's going to go right out this canal that you see is already
laden with a variety of invasive species that like the elevated nutrients and it's going going to go into the Brim Canal. Next slide. We know that Lake Okchobee is vulnerable to intermittent algae blooms and that
unfortunately through the St. Lucy Canal, the C-44, often that toxic algae gets swept down into the St. Lucy estuary. We don't want that to be happening and we've spent millions of dollars trying to get the nutrients out of the Lake Okachchobee system.
Obviously, the political will isn't there to prevent additional nutrients in, but you can take a step here to at least make sure that the water quality coming off of this ranch is not going to exacerbate water quality in the Rim Canal.
Um, we did research this through a variety of uh other conservation colleagues and I've got in in an appendix to our report the paper over on the right from the center for biological diversity. I didn't know anything about
slaughterhouses before this project came up. So, it's been a learning ex experience for me, but we were using the information from that group that has experience throughout the country. And what we did was analyze each of their areas of concern as to how they apply or
don't apply here in Martin County. So with that, let me just close by saying uh FDAX and FD in Tallahassee and the water management district in West Palm Beach, they don't care as much
about Martin County as all of you do and those people who were in the room this morning. So, please consider engaging outside counsel with experience in the Florida Right to Farm Act to help prevent further degradation of the
environment in Martin County. Sometimes you just have to stand up the bullies and we think it's time to do that in this case. >> I'll answer any questions if you have them, but thank you for the opportunity [clears throat] to speak. Commissioner Caps, >> I want to thank the Guardians uh first
of all for championing uh champion >> championing >> championing uh this effort and doing such a deep dive on on the matter and thank you for your excellent presentation,
Mr. Brun. And um this is in my district and can we go back to the map? Oh, the very first slide, I think it was, it just had a picture of the lake and a little circle.
Yeah. Of all the places to have something like this, uh, right on the edge of Lake Okachchobee, um, seems like a very inappropriate place. Um, I want to refer to one of the
public comments early this morning. Tony Zenino is the president of the Guardians and he called for an independent legal review and I think that's what you're asking for here as well, Mr. Brun. And that
seems very reasonable. You know, just because the state is claiming a preeemption doesn't mean that it legally exists. And it seems to me that there there are very good arguments to that that this is an industrial use on agricultural land.
I mean, you can't just claim that something's agricultural when it's clearly industrial. uh and uh perhaps those lines get blurred and the
uh ultimate remedy is a legal route and a court determination as to whether it's agricultural or industrial and I think this is worth uh the fight. So I would make a motion that we have that
independent legal review. Another part of my motion would be that I think it's really important for the people who took the deep dive on this subject to be confident in who the attorney is um and perhaps to be a part of that
process uh in selecting the right attorney so that you all are comfortable with the process uh and the the legal pursuit and and that you have confidence
in and the people doing it. So, um, so I would make the motion that we we authorize independent legal review and that the guardians be consulted as to who the attorney would be that would conduct that review.
>> Miss Elder, >> just for >> just for some background clarification. Um so over the years the right to farm act has evolved and been expanded um expanded dramatically and the statute that Mr. Braun discussed which was
Florida statutes 193461 is really the statutory criteria that the property appraiser needs to review to determine whether or not a piece of property has an a exemption. And what she does is she looks at that statute and that's where the definitions that
Mr. Brun had read to the board they are completely different than the right to farm act. So under the right to farm act non-residential farm buildings are exempt from permitting from build under the building code and under that um right to farm act the statutory
definitions for farm farm product and farm operation are extremely broad. So based on that and the change over the years that the legislature has continually expanded the um definition
of farm product and farm operation, that is part of the basis for not challenging the FDAX letter. Is general counsel binding on us? No. But it might not be a fight that the county would win based on the legislature, based on the definition
of farm product. a farm product and I'll read it to the board is any plant or animal or any product derived there from and then if you have an existing farm a non-residential farm building is completely exempt from permitting under
the building code and a farm operation means any activity and I'm I'm picking the points that are applicable which occur on a farm in connection with the production of farm products. So that's pretty broad and that's been expanded
since 2022. So the criteria in 1934 461 is used. So if you have an existing farm and you have a non-residential farm building and there's many statutes that come into play because you also have agurism involved. So say you have a non-residential farm building on the
farm. The property appraiser will go there and look at what is being done in that building to determine whether or not that building gets the a exemption. So sometimes you'll see a property where the whole property has an exa a exemption but there's a little building carved out because what's being done in
that building is not a it's um it could be agurism it could be a meat processing plant. So that's what the context of 193461 comes into play for the property appraiser to review the property, look at the criteria, and determine whether
or not what is being done on the farm in every aspect on the farm gets an a exemption. It's not applicable to the right to farm act, which is where you get your um exemption from the building code. So it's two se separate statutory provisions that are somewhat related,
but not really. It's really what guides the property appraiser to determine whether your property gets a complete egg exemption or a partial a exemption. >> So, I just wanted to clarify that for the board >> and indeed our attorney has looked into this and thank you for that
interpretation. uh he uh Mike Durham, former county attorney, uh looked into this and he tells us that there is a very refined nuance here under the right to farm act and uh certainly no disparagement to the county attorney's
office whatsoever. It is such an area of specialty. We think that it warrants that outside legal counsel with experience in that the interpretation of that right to farm act. We think this is a high stakes kind of issue. Maybe not as big as those preeemptions that we
were hearing about being brewed in Tallahassee right now. But for Martin County, a slaughter house on a property that is twice the size of Central Park without any environmental review. That's
just not what should happen in Martin County. >> Mr. Campy. certainly not interested in weighing in on this situation, but I get that you're here and I appreciate your efforts. We've had the chance to meet and have a conversation as as well as that I have
had with the staff. My concern is twofold. One, if you've already begun the process, and the guardians of Martin County have a long history, illustrious history of doing exactly that, guarding Martin County.
you've had your attorney take a look and there's a possibility that you know as Commissioner Caps was saying that you might have some recommendations of attorneys that would be the right person. Now I don't think he told us my colleague didn't say about us beginning
legal procedure procedures against the state or FDAX with this. It was more just to look into it but you've already looked into it. So, is this something, and I'm just speaking to you as a friend, is this something that the
Guardian should be doing with your extensive uh fundraising abilities, abilities to raise money, ability to call, have a battle cry, a call for action? What's the what's the rationale or the advantage to have us do it? And here's
my thinking. the the concept the the the initials FDAX has come up quite a bit recently and you as a a big like early um founder of the Lockxaluci
and when we were just doing the Barbie ranch project purchase that was FDAX so if Mr. Mr. M, if you could come forward. But see that seat, that hot seat next to
Pete Walden. And I'm not saying I disagree. I just want to bring these concerns to the surface so that we're all looking at this wideeyed. FDAX partnered. Now, we just heard them called a and I get it. I get why you're
here, but you called them a bully that we should stand up to a bully. But recently we were just calling them partner. So tell me about the Barbie ranch deal and any other deals that are pending that FDAX we would classify as a
partner. Uh for the record, John Male, environmental resource administrator. Um bar Barbie was actually Florida forever. Um but >> whole thing. >> Yeah. But that it's um it's a good example that was one that was being considered by FDAX. Um, at some point
they were working with the rural and family lands folks to to bring that one forward. But a better example is probably Bull Hammock. >> I apologize for confusing the two. >> Yeah, West Carlton's u 6 and a half thousand acres was put under a rural and
family land conservation a easement last year or a little over a year ago. $52 million. Uh, >> where' the money come from? all from FDAX and um you know they get it from the legislature and they continue to get it from them. Um this year the house has
proposed 500 million for uh rural and family lands and zero for Florida forever. The Senate is a little bit more balanced. Um, we have four more FDAX easements that we are working through as we speak. Um, that would partner with
Martin County Forever as funding partners between 30 and 50% uh, funding from the county and the rest from FDAX. Another way that we partner with them recently is they have a new funding uh, aotment from the legislature that allows
them to do grants for uh, regional water quality projects. um we actually kind of helped them draft the language for that grant program. And the S1 Canal is one of the um one of the early ideas for using that regional water quality pro um
uh funding program as a partner with local governments. Um in cases where you've got um agricultural runoff as well as um non-aggricultural runoff working together um we we would anticipate applying for additional funds
from that program as well. The four projects that you mentioned are in the pipeline. Not to hold you to an exact number. Give us a ballpark of what we're talking about in dollars. >> Um that's it's tough. I would if I had
to just ballpark it. um probably 15 to 20 million, but there's some additional ones that that you know could be significantly higher. You know, there's one we're looking at that could be another bull hammock um you know, in
the near future. >> So, my concern is this. We have days where we're partnering with them and then um we have days where we'll disagree. I heard your whole presentation. I
didn't disagree with most of what you said. It it was pretty logical and and very well laid out. You and I had shared it ahead of time. My concern representing the the the entire scope of the county and and the future of these types of projects which we are finally
in the in the front seat with them now because we have the the sales tax referendum with Florida Forever. We finally can partner with them and take we were just cheering about how we could use one Martin County dollar and turn it into two or three or four dollars for
this. My concerns got to been the conversation you guys must have had back at headquarters on because you're trying to do the same thing. The Lockal Lucy initiative, we're trying to do those same partnerships with them. Take a dollar, turn it into more. Uh do you
have any concern that if we poked at something that they've painted pretty much a picture that it's in their backyard uh or in within their scope of of approvals? Are we hurting ourselves more to try to prove a point here that we don't like
how this is going down or or not? Is this something that a statewide recognized organization such as the Guardians should be taking the charge to give us a little kind of you know you're still working on the behalf of Martin
County residents but is it should it be the government of Martin County pushing back so hard because if one more question for Mr. any applications or grant applications in the in the recent past not gone our
way. [sighs] >> Yes. >> During this time frame? >> Uh yes. Uh we had we had one on the S1 canal that uh was 1.9 million and um we
were fully anticipating receiving that and and at the last minute we got a call from staff that the the um secretary's office suggested that we not get that grant whose staff FDAX. Okay, that's
where I am. what you're asking for makes perfect sense in in a vacuum, but in the bigger picture, I'm leerary of supporting my friend makes a makes a strong motion. I'm just I'm that's where
I am. Do I want drainage? And you know, just a soon as you hear the word slaughterhouse, it doesn't it's not that you know, most people can sort of understand what we're talking about. And in Martin County, I thought Mr. Walden did a pretty good presentation about how we were
originally engaging with them until they realized they didn't need to. And then they switched over to engage with the Florida Department uh the D and realized they didn't need to. So now they went to FDAX and basically worked out and and
our legal representative, the person who's working for us said, "Look, this is going to be a challenge. So I don't mind a fight." uh or a skirmish even if it's not a fight. But what are we gambling to just find
out that FDAC says you are not in a position to be making uh approvals up or down on something even though it's in your county. And so I, you know, I didn't mean to put our staff on the spot, but I get to hear these things and I want everyone else to hear them that
it's not like of course we should do this. It makes perfect sense that we back you in something that looks really environmentally questionable. But if they paint if they the final solution is that it's not environmentally questionable or it's not
within your purview, did we damage something else that we are so desperately trying to do? Is the bigger environmental benefit continuing to partner with a a Tallahassee entity or is or is the fight to see who should be
in charge of making these determinations even if it means setting a precedent into the future to protect us from other things? That's where I am. Thank you. I I thank you for the opportunity to carry on this dialogue because indeed this is unusual t
typically there's a threeminute presentation and that's it. Uh but but I appreciate that that offer and the guardians do not like winners and losers. We'd like to collaborate so that a project if it does move forward is
good for the environment, good for the economy, good for the farmers. Mr. Jail has described the collaborative relationship with FDAX and I would suggest a way out of this is if he can coordinate with FDAX and we can get
rural and family lands money for Chanse Bay Ranch. That's the kind of a win-win that we would be assured that environmental damage is not going to happen. they could continue their ranching at the existing levels, not
bringing in thousands of cattle from all over the south southeastern US and that through that process we might be able to hold the property owner to compliance with the BMPPS which currently they have not consistently done.
>> I have one request to speak from the public and that's Carolyn Leonard. If anybody else would like to address us, please fill out a request to speak form, hand it to the baiff, and the baiff will hand it to me. >> Do you prefer a microphone over there, Miss Leonard?
>> No, afternoon. from Caroline Leonard from Stewart. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Our Florida state legislature is too authoritarian in the way they are taking away the ability of local government and the public from making laws for their own counties
from the FE FE letter to the South Florida Water Management and so on. Agricultural and Consumer Services seems to want to still do that. So I think enough comments from >> your mic is not on. >> One second ma'am. Your mic is not on.
Yeah. Okay. I hope you heard what I said. I think you probably did. Um, still enough comments from the commissioners and the people could have an influence on decisions. What we must do is we must do what is needed to take back our rights. Um, when one is
considering a slaughter house, we need to consider the facts and the owner needs to tell us what the plans are for the facility and their production. any legal requirements that can be made should be. I think the letter states uh possible problems, things that need to
be monitored. Um the end of the letter suggests several ways to do this. I'm not an expert, but it seemed good. Um she >> Let's see. Greg Braun made lots of good points. Uh with proper environmental oversight of water, soil, and air quality, the prevention of any leeching
into nearby waters in Lake O and the Rim Canal. I think a slaughter house may possibly be built. Regulations and oversight before and anything uh before and after is still needed. What about reducing the size of the facility? Um
farm our farmers need to be able to continue farming and not be enticed to sell out to developers. Local ranchers could continue to raise their cattle, not have the added expenses to get them to market in distant areas with a local slaughterhouse. For too long, developers have been getting owners of orange
groves decimated by diseases to sell their property to continue the overdevelopment in Martin County. There are some online sources for treating the soil of grows for further agricultural production, but the owners choose instead to sell, dazzled by supposedly
high incomes. Uh, storm water runoff is an issue. Um, we do need regulation and to set a precedent. Let's be fair and precise when considering the impacts on any development. Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Miss Thorough Lipish. I'm sorry, but we only allow people to speak once a day. >> Uh I'm just going to be reading some statistics from the uh the Guardian's white paper and that includes US
slaughter facilities produce millions of pounds of pollution annually. Slaughter houses are a top producer of phosphorus generating 14% of the phosphorus discarded into waterways.
uh environmental integrity project study of 98 large slaughterhouse facilities found that the median slaughterhouse produced an average of 331 pounds of nitrogen a day, which is equivalent to the nitrogen pollutants in the untreated
sewage of 14,000 people a day. No records have been found that the Chansy Bay Ranch has been issued a permit, although NPDES permits have been issued for three 328 other sites in Martin County.
Lake Okachchobee in September 2025, Lake Okachchobee has just been named the dirtiest lake in America. A pork processing plant owned by JBS in Illinois spilled 29 million gallons of hog waste in 2015, killing nearly 65,000
fish. I don't know how many cattle are proposed to be brought to the Chansy Bay Ranch. There is a question about general counsel opinions preempting local government authority.
FDAX issued its opinion supporting CBR's exemption claims while simultaneously pursuing enforcement action against CBR for best management practice violations. This conflict is particularly problematic because CBR operates within
the Lake Okachchobee Ba Basin management action plan where BMP compliance is legally mandatory and we're we're also relying we have our own BMPs and they're going to be enforced. They're going to be we don't know you know what the enforcement is
going to be. We don't know what the consequences are going to be because we haven't hit that deadline yet. But if our upstream neighbors are polluting, then we're never going to be able to comply with our own BMP regulations. I I I don't I don't know. I don't know
what to do, but man's no one is responsible for monitoring, measuring water quality. Um that's going off that's going to be uh going off of this 2,000 acre ranch and 26 acre uh
slaughterhouse. The the the I I I I'm speechless. I I believe that the I I believe that the uh general AFDAX legal
council's opinion here is wrong. I don't I I certainly hope that our regulatory abilities, our regulatory authorities are not extinguished by this opinion. Somebody has to protect our water
quality. I can't imagine anybody would would would hold that against Martin County for wanting to make sure that our water quality isn't diminished. I mean, I think that's one of one of the
obligations of local government. Commissioner Campi, I'm not disagreeing with anything that you said or that the Guardian said. I just want all of us to look at the big picture and understand exactly what's on the table here. um
if if the board agrees that this is what we should do, we should just know that we're going in a certain direction and we need to have our eyes wide open so that in the future when we're potentially and I'm hoping that it's not the case, but when we're potentially frustrated on not having the level of
success that we've had um because the FDAX $500 million that you were talking about, not exclusively FDAX, but the money out of Tallahassee, that can go everywhere in the And we're forced now in a situation where someone has decided to put this
issue in our laps. And I don't want to hamstring our ability to partner and and maximize our hard-earned tax dollars that the voters said yes to and then go from a very successful, bright future program to wow, now we don't have it.
So, I'm not I'm not trying to disagree with Mr. Brawn or you, Commissioner Herd. I just think that you got to see this whole thing. >> But I'm not I'm not trying to shut down the slaughter house. What I'm trying to do is to make it safe to make it safe
for everybody. I want it to be bonafideed egg. You know, I want egg to continue to be successful in Florida. It's an hugely important part of of uh good steward stewardship of the land, but man, this is not the way to to get there.
>> How about a a crazy suggestion? if we were to reach out to them. I don't know them. I genuinely have no idea who the folks are. I'm not saying that they won't do it perfectly great, but maybe with John Mail and some of our people, they'd give us an opportunity to just go
over there unofficially and have a tour. not an official kind of like we're trying to review your application, but maybe they can, you know, we can put a small group to go over and sit down with them as neighbors and friends and partners and say, "Listen, we have
legitimate concerns. You might be getting ready to do the most uh fabulous slaughter house that anyone has ever seen." They live there. They asked, as Mr. Brun said, "I think the houses that we approved a year or so ago, whenever
that was across the street, I think that was them. I if I remember correctly, they were talking about building homes that they were going to live in. So maybe they are remarkable stewards of the land. Uh agricultural look, every person I spoke to about this in the last
week or so, you know, all meateers have said, I'm not opposed to a slaughter house. I understand that there's a process that allows us to eat that happens before we eat this meat. Maybe they're going to build the a remarkable facility and maybe they'd be willing to have John mail is very friendly. He
could go out with a couple other people and not try to say that we're looking to approve or um deny their application. just looking for some level of comfort that we can come back and say our people have, you know, went out there and met
with them because they were willing to do it. Just they didn't have to. They just were willing to. I'm sure some of us can make a call. I know that the person that was uh their government liaison or whatever, their public relations person for the houses,
I know him. He's got to know somebody. So, as a suggestion, >> I like that suggestion. >> Mr. Donaldson, >> you're >> just uh just a couple things that hopefully will help. Um I I think the uh
the option of having staff um try to engage both FDAX and the owners uh on both the u technologies on how they deal with the disposal of the material. You know, we've got your our contract with Cedron. I think that has an opportunity
to deal with it. We have partnered with FDAX in the past on hybrid wetland treatment technologies that they continue to invest in. So I think that is a a positive route. I would say that I I I am concerned also about our
regulatory approval and process on it, but I would be fearful that um our engagement in that avenue would only result in a more well-defined preeemption in the legislature either this year or early next year before any
litigation was completed and all other opportunities to work with them will have vanished. So I think I would rather try to at least work with the property owners to start with. I think some of the speakers earlier talked about that if there was a way to develop or work
with the legislature in the future about maybe giving back us some of these tools so that there won't be any more than this one uh is also a good direction. So that would be my staff recommendation is to direct staff to work with both the property owner and FDAX and avail them
to all of the current technologies that both FDAX has used and uh and what we have to offer uh and also to work continue to work with our legislative prior or legislators on uh future actions that would give us some uh
review back on projects like this. >> Commissioner Vargas. >> Yes. Um, oo, this is my first year. Yep, I had that. I did not approve those homes. Just putting it out there again. No, I did not. I I did do a field trip out there. I I felt that uh there wasn't
something there was something disgenuous about that, but I couldn't quite put my finger on until I saw the letter that was sent after the fact that we the others approved it. See, um I I did have the opportunity during my first year to meet with the deputy director of Florida
Department of Environmental Division, very friendly folks, very willing to help us and that's what we want. I think the representative, and I believe she was part owner, but I can't put my finger on it. She was Colombian. I was Colombian. Then she wanted to speak Portuguese to me and I spoke Portuguese because I speak fellow
Portuguese ten uh having lived there. But the thing is that um and she was also from Miami. I I would be willing absolutely to sit down with them and really define how they are going to protect the environment. Different
different procedures don't have to be followed elsewhere. But again, we're Martin County and we have already defined how we want to see our county. And we have the Guardians. We have other groups that have been fighting the
fight, a long fight, an arduous fight, and many people behind them. That's the way I want to support these groups. Um, I would really make the proposal, as Mr. Donaldson said, let's
sit down, let's talk with them if they're willing to, and let's see what they have in mind. Uh because if we just do not oversee anything anymore, we talked all about this this morning.
Then where is Martin County? We we kind of bleed into Palm Beach and St. Lucy County and Miami Dade County and Broward County and we're just one big puddle, I guess. So, um that's what I would
recommend and very happy to do that. And if that's the gal, I really want to speak to her again. Really do have a good I'll have it another language and I'll I'll I'll translate for you, >> Commissioner Caps. You know, I don't know these people and
but I [clears throat] my feeling is that they've intentionally kept us from a lot of information. That's one signal. uh the and the idea that they're going to invite us onto their property and
they and and feel the need to explain all of their processes just to satisfy our curiosity when they feel like they already have FDAX behind them. I think they would say, "No thanks. Uh we're
we're good. Uh we already got this." Um, and I'm not sure it would be a workable solution. Um, I wanted to see if we could ask Mr. Braun what he and the guardians might
think about the path that we should take given recent comments up here today. Um, I would like to be supportive of you and the guardians because I have so much respect for what you all do and what you
have done on this issue. Um, and should my motion be worded a little differently uh in light of comments that have been made here today which I think
are very enlightening. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, [clears throat] Commissioner. Thanks. Off >> there. >> No. >> No. >> There we go. >> Nope. >> Just tapped. >> What do I need to do? >> Supposed to say, can you hear me now?
>> On. On. >> Yes, it's on. Okay. >> Down. Sorry. >> I'll hold it up close. >> Thank you for that. Um, we believe that the Guardians taking on the legal side
of it is really David and Goliath. We would prefer to be in partnership with Martin County. So, I think your initial motion, Commissioner Caps, was was good in that we could collaborate with you. Um, and certainly with the county attorney's office, to find someone who
is well experienced with the Florida Right to Farm Act that might be able to bear it out these nuances. Um, you're also right that I'm not sure that the property owner would meet with us. Um I have reached out personally to ask for a
meeting to get details because as you saw in my presentation there are a lot of question marks because we don't know details because they are indeed intentionally hiding them because this is a very volatile um kind of a project which um the growth management folks
will know of as Lulu's locally unpopular land use. We're we're sure that that's why they don't want to share details about their project because indeed it's apt to raise the wrath of lots of people
who might not be as um diplomatic as the Guardians are. So um I think that's an excellent strategy. Let's start with that sort of diplomatic approach. We would like to hear that they have environmental safeguards in place and
maybe our opposition won't even say opposition maybe our concerns will go away. >> We haven't seen that there are any nutri um uh what they call affluent nutrient guidelines anywhere. There's no
requirement for any kind of water quality monitoring. And so unless those an those questions are answered, uh we are going to be going from right now we're not necessarily opposed to it. We just want to find out more about it. So maybe we start with that diplomatic
approach and your your motion if it were to be seconded and would carry through would be a two-phase. We start with reaching out diplomatically and we see where that leads us. And if indeed that um outreach
comes to the conclusion that our concerns are substantiated, then you've already approved going to that next step and we're doing some sort of a collaboration. >> Next step. >> Great. I think you stated it well. I'll I'll modify my motion to reflect what
was just stated, >> Mr. Vargas. >> Okay. So, uh, Mr. Brun, what would be the second step? Can you clearly state that? >> Well, I I think we're trying to work it out to together here. It would be
certainly uh Mr. Male has an excellent reputation from all sides and his um outreach to the property owner would be successful um and we can get these answers these questions answered to his
satisfaction. I think that would satisfy our concerns. If we don't get answers, that's what I want to know. Then we proceed with what I understood the initial motion to be, and that is that the county retain outside counsel with
experience in the Right to Farm Act to not necessarily file a suit or a challenge or anything like that, but to do a more extensive research into the case law that would either substantiate that the U FDA attorney general has some
backing to it or As we suspect that attorney general general's opinion is based upon being essentially ghostwritten by the applicant's uh attorney.
>> Wow. This is really this is like a good movie. Yeah. Exactly. But but I I get I get the picture and how this this could end. It has to be very carefully done because my question was not what the next step is to do. I got that. You said
then we go to the next step. Are we guaranteeing a loss for us? >> No. What we would be doing is asking that legal counsel to do that more indepth review. >> Understand? >> And then if they say uh as the county
attorney's office has o opined here that the attorney general's opinion is intact. That's where it would end. >> I understand that. However, what about the guardians? We could possibly look uh to an attorney that our our county
attorney feels would would be an expert at this, but that you the guardians or other organizations would then hire them to give an opinion. That would be on you. >> I would certainly need to take that back to our board of director.
>> Okay. Take it back to your board of directors. I think that's very viable, though. >> Mr. Heatherington. >> Yeah, I I thought we were getting ahead of ourselves, but it sounds like we're maybe reeling it back in a little bit. Um there's I think if you want to have a conversation with the property owner and
the applicant, having approved the next step to be um a legal endeavor is probably not going to inspire a lot of conversation. So, I support the idea of actually uh reaching out and getting there's some fact versus fishing fish uh
myths. I've heard a lot of things thrown out there today that I don't know if are accurate or not. I'm not an expert in slaughter houses. There's got to be some standard best management practices that FDAX requires of these facility. I would like to hear from FDAX and people that
are um that monitor and have these facilities. They're all over the state. There's got to be some standard practices. And it sounds like if this property owner is adhering to those, then we don't have an issue. But if they're not is where we're going to be
concerned. So I think there's a lot more factf finding involved for the first step for this particular project. I think we can start with FDAX and we certainly can reach out to the property owner and you provided a lot of valuable
information that I think that requires answers. Agreed. Mr. >> Gampy, >> if we are going to follow the strategy that uh Commissioner Caps was talking about in his motion, we need to figure
out what level of a budget we're going to put together for that. I also wonder if you're not talking, you said you felt like it was a David and Goliath. that was a battle. But then you also said that you're just looking to hire an expert in the field of of specifically
what we're talking about. We have a great legal department that can do tremendous research. There's several of them. Maybe they're not agricultural experts, but instead of us and they already work for us, they're already on the payroll. So short of
putting uh what what do you figure it would have to be? 100 grand, 50,000, 100,000. I'd rather hang on to 100 grand, have our staff. If it's just doing that level of research and figuring it out, that's why we have them. I also agree with Commissioner Heatherington that if if it's a
two-pronged approach that says, "Look, we're going to knock on your door and try to reach out to you and and with our neighborly and ask you like what's the original plan here, but if we don't like it, we will sue you." I I'm not interested in that conversation
>> either. So I think my suggestion would be that we ask our staff to do what you're asking to do a deeper dive into what's the you know the legality or the does that their legal opinion what did you say it was the uh attorney general
for FDAX um let's do some research let our people do it first putting a $100,000 into something to find out that oh my god they were right al all along we have no standing
in this fight. I agree. Plus, maybe they're going to run the most uh state-of-the-art environmentally sensitive slaughterhouse that ever existed. Maybe they won't, but we don't know. >> They're not from out of town. They're locals. They live there,
>> as far as No, no, no. They're not from here. >> The Chansy Bay folks that came when we approved, I approved. >> I didn't. >> I didn't. >> Terrific. of that being said, some of those folks that were sitting here in
the audience were locals. [snorts] >> Yeah, I also agree that if you know, you know how we feel when we're when an applicant comes to us and they're all lawyered up and we know that as soon as we say no, they're going to sue us.
There there's so little motive to negotiate. And I don't I don't want to be in this this aggressive posture either. I think that proceeding first of all with information gathering uh fence mending you know let's let's do let's do
these things first before we say yeah if this doesn't work out we're going to sue you commissioner Vargas so um no we're not in the position to spend $50 $100,000 we pay handsomely our legal department I propose that they do
research I mean case law is case law I think we have other slaughter houses in Oka Is that correct? Yes. Okchobee and what other county nearby? Maybe they're in Poke County. I mean, they're all over Florida. I know because I've met folks who are ranchers, but they're also
commissioners in the state of Florida. So, we have 66 other counties to look at and see how how do they do it? Um, I I think that we definitely can give a legal opinion, but if you want to go further, I don't think we ought to entertain that today. We we can just do
some research. Does that sound feasible, Miss Elder? >> Yes. >> Okay. More than what we've already done. All right. So, these folks may not be totally local that are proposing these homes and also this slaughter house and whatever else
may come up agriculturally, but I I think this would be the first step rather than, you know, going on and on with conversation about this today. So, I make a motion that that we uh uh do our in-house thorough research on this matter and get back with you and
then take up the ball there. Speak with your board of directors in the meanwhile. >> Commissioner Caps. >> Um [clears throat] I think expertise uh in legal research is really really
important. Uh, I have great confidence in our legal staff and I'm sure they would be very enlightening. But there there are probably attorneys out there who really deal in this wheelhouse and having the confidence that we're dealing
with the very best of attorneys in that particular field is is very important. And I don't see the big deal here. We're not filing a we're not agreeing to file a lawsuit. we're agreeing to have a really well-written position paper by an
independent legal council. Uh that's not going to cost a fortune and we would all feel a whole lot better uh if we had that. And we knew how we could use it in the next steps and then we that's
where this issue with FDAX and our relationship with with them comes into play. it it really doesn't come into play with doing the study and preparing a a great position paper. It has to do
with what we do with it after that. And um I I don't know that APDAX would even know that we we're doing a study. Is there any big harm to uh >> they're listening? They're watching you. >> I don't think so. They're very busy people. I don't [laughter] I don't just
because a local government authorizes a study and we're not and we don't actually use it in a legal proceeding. >> Uh I don't I don't think there's any great harm done there. Um >> Mr. Mayo, what do you think about that? [laughter]
>> You solve this. I'll I'll answer that one. I think >> I think we need another flag. Commissioner, I will say that um our legislators and multiple ones watch meetings and anytime you all talk about this, it's already being it's already
discussed. So I think um >> there are no secrets in this town and there are no secrets in Tallahassee that we >> that's a point well. So, um, uh, the fact that we're discussing about it is already going to be a conversation in >> Tallahassee,
>> and any actions you take will be noted. >> I I see the point, >> Mr. Vargas. >> Okay. I go back to my other point. Let's try and have a friendly meeting. They don't want to do that. And then why
don't we have our legal counsel just thoroughly research? they know how to present a a position paper and and that's it. Then we'll know where we are and then you will decide how you want to go forward. Do you understand?
>> I I do and I feel pretty confident that um the guardian's board would allocate the funds for our legal counsel to work with staff on that. They know one another. They've worked together. I think that that that could work. >> Okay. So, Miss Elder has help.
And just on your your other point, we did look at other meat processing facilities and there are dozens around the state. Um indeed getting details on many of those is difficult. Um certainly none of them are in none of them that we
found are within a watershed that is designated as impaired and for which millions of dollars are being spent to try to bring them into compliance. And also those that we did identify are
relatively small operations. Nothing of the scale of a meat processing facility that is the size of what's proposed here, which is about the average size for a public's shopping center, a public's grocery store. Not the shopping
center, but the store itself. >> Yes, understand very well. Thank you. >> So much. Maybe I should clarify my motion based on what has been said here. So we start with outreach. That's number one, right? And then number two would be
um to instruct our legal staff to to prepare some type of position paper on the subject matter. Is that is that what we're angling toward? um we would prefer to do some research on it as opposed to preparing a whole
position paper which could if we end up in litigation um we wouldn't want to get out but we can research it we've researched it and I know the guardians have researched it extensively and hasn't come up with anything new but we will research it again if the at the board's direction of course and um we
can update the board on it after that and then we could take I'd rather take the approach figure out what the next step would be after we do the research. >> Commissioner Caps, can I give you some motion suggestions? Um, make the motion the first thing that
you just said that we have a little group reach out to the folks out here and see what we come up with and then report back to us and see where we stand. Maybe, you know, all the planets align and we have a good meeting. I think that's just
send our staff out there with all due respect without the guardians. Uh because there's already been you've made efforts to try to reach out and stuff like that. I think if we sent a couple of our key people, growth management, environmental, engineering, and sent them out that they're watching, they're
listening. If they're not now, they will hear this tape and go out and see what the story is. Maybe let's try that first. I think it it creates an opportunity that, as you said, Mr. brought they don't owe us. They don't have to do it. They don't have to report anything back to us. But maybe they
will. And um and then let's try that. And then if that also would give us some face saving in Tallahassee with FDAX that we heard this, we gave you an opportunity to come and present which officially commissioner heard as chair did not need to do that. You said you
could had three minutes of public comment but we had a 45 minutes an hour. We started at 2:22. It's 3:27. So, with that in mind, I think let's just start with that and take it from there versus having the steps in place.
>> I'll make uh I'll make that a motion that we send out >> second >> just to clarify. We send out environmental growth management and whoever else our administrator feels is appropriate to see if they can have a sit down and discuss this knowing that
they didn't need to, but we asked them to. >> And also, do you have to >> Oh, yeah. Of course, >> but at least we'll know what the project is. >> That sounds that sounds reasonable. I would second that. >> Any further discussion? There's a motion
in a second. All those in favor? I >> I >> opposed. That motion passes unanimously. >> Okay, let's take up our last second to last item >> which is department 8. be sleeping.
>> Good afternoon, commissioners. >> Matt Graham, assistant county administrator. Uh so this is a board item to seek approve approval for a feasibility study to acquire the South Martin Regional Utility. Um about a
month or two ago, Jupiter Island staff uh approached Martin County staff um on the possibility of us acquiring their utility. Um they are currently at 60% capacity for their wastewater treatment
plant. um they are in need of some significant upgrades. So they reached out to see if we are interested before we move forward with uh that process. We're asking to do a feasibility study to see if it makes sense on connecting
um connecting our tropical farms wastewater plant to service the SMRU uh customers. So, with your approval, um, we would conduct a [clears throat] study and we're not, uh, we're
anticipating it not to exceed $50,000. So, that concludes my presentation and I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Mr. Caps. [clears throat] >> Yes. Uh, the, uh, history of public utilities in the southern part of the
county is quite interesting. Um, from the 1970s to the mid 1990s, water and sewer were provided to this area of the county by a private company called Hydrate Tech, which the town of Jupiter Island later purchased and renamed
SMRU, South Martin Regional Utilities. Um, the reason the town of Jupiter Island purchased Hydrotech was to resolve some problems with saltwater intrusion into the water supply on the island.
These problems were resolved with the development of a reverse osmosis RO plant which has service the water needs of the island and the mainland of Hope Sound very well over the years.
As to the sewer component of SMRU, this was mainly to service the sewer needs of the mainland part of Hob Sound, not the island, as the island's homes are on septic
tanks. And the only part of the island that uses SMRU sewer is the Jupiter Island Club. So over the years, the aged sewer plant on Dixie Highway has serviced the sewer needs of mainland Hobound
satisfactorily, but the FD has adopted new standards that require expensive upgrades to the plant and the town has been evaluating what to do with the sewer plant and their
options. They have three options that were presented at the meeting when we had this discussion at town hall on Jupiter Island. The one the first option is to spend the money to upgrade the sewer plant which would be a large sum of money. And remember now Jupiter
Island really doesn't need the sewer plant for much. You know, all they use it for is the Jupiter Island Club. uh they they just kind of inherited it when they uh bought Hydrotech uh in order
really to just solve their water problems on the island. The option two is to sell the sewer plant to the Florida Governmental Utility Authority, the FGUA, which is a private company
uh that would have the right to upgrade the plant and pass on these huge infrastructure costs uh to consumers in the form of high utility rates.
um which is not a very desirable option for Hopetown residents. Uh the the third option is to sell the sewer plant to Martin County that might have the ability to dis decommission the old SMRU sewer plant
on Dixie Highway and northern Hope Sound and to incorporate the Hope Sound sewer system into Martin County Utilities at a much more reasonable cost. And we think that would really be a good
way to go for Hogtown re residents. Um, and the reason I think option three is particularly good is that the sewer rates for Hopetown residents are likely to be in line
with what the other residents of Martin County pay with their >> [clears throat] >> uh service from Martin County Utilities. Uh, that's really important. if if this thing goes to the FGUA,
um they can really jack the rates uh for Hopes on residents, um which would really pretty be pretty unfair. And then number two, Hopes residents would be able to have their sewer service provided by the governmental entity,
>> this is his name, right? >> To which they pay taxes. Um uh right now um you know when Martin County residents in the northern part of the county have a problem with their ser sewer service, they can come in here and and talk to
this commission about what's on their mind. um you know with uh uh the situation in Hob Sound, a municipality uh that really doesn't even hardly use the the service themselves is the entity
that they would have to go complain to. Um so for those reasons I think it would really be worth the effort to make this study and the uh the recommend the uh the motion would
be that the board approve staff's request to conduct a feasibility study evaluating the potential acquisition of South Martin regional utility wastewater plant operations including consideration of utilizing the county's tropical farms
wast wastewater treatment plant as a service alternative. So with that in mind, I would make that motion that uh we do that. >> Commissioner Campy. >> Thank you for that. District 3
Commissioner Caps. Um I have an option four that when I had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Graham and Mr. Emerson, I think that we should use the feasibility study to look at taking over
acquiring both portions of SMRU also the water. I don't know if we would want to take on only the the wastewater portion of it which is their dilapitated portion. Uh I would also say that whatever the study if Mr. Graham said it
cost 50,000 I think that would have to like you would do something else come out of whatever we eventually purchase because we don't need it as a county. We don't need to have their wastewater treatment plant, which is 60% capacity.
It's older technology. It's failing. We did similar to this um several years ago. I'm not even sure if Commissioner Heatherington was here uh on Hutchinson Island with the Marriott Hutchinson utility. They kept it and ran it independently until it literally was on
its last leg and then the county stepped in and took it over. Uh we also did it once in Palm City with Piper Landing. Believe it or not, that community had its own little small utility plant and they liked being independent from us to control whatever they wanted until it
absolutely failed and then contacted us to say, "Hey, we need to hand it over to you." And it seems like that's what we're hearing now that they're pretty close to either as Commissioner Caps did a terrific recap that said they're going to have to either invest a tremendous
amount of their own money to just get it back to standards uh or that outside of the area company would come in and I completely agree that they would then remember most people think it's just Jupiter Island. It's not. It's a huge portion of just
the workingclass folks that live in in Hob Sound uh east of US1 for the most part and I guess up the US1 corridor all the way to Heritage Ridge. Uh I know that um Point Sienna Gardens as north as
far north as Point Sienna Gardens is also SMRU customers and so I would have liked to see you look at taking over the whole thing. Now I know the concern is is that Jupiter Island has certain water uh expectations levels you know supply
expectations. I think that could be negotiated into uh a conversation that their water supply could be guaranteed for x number of years decades whatever so that they are not going to fight us on it. just to
take over the the crippled uh wastewater portion. I remember my final comment. I remember that in Palm City, the reason we didn't switch people over to purely septic to sewer without the water is that we don't
have a mechanism to to bill customers exclusively for sewer service. So that if they stopped paying, you couldn't shut off their sewer. That when you have the water, Am I correct, Mr.
>> You're right. Yes. >> That you bundled the water service and the sewer service together so that if for some reason people don't pay, you have the the mechanism of shutting off their water. I don't know if that's an everyday occurrence. I just when we had
the conversation I feel that it would be appropriate that we take over the entire SMRU uh the rationale that they had it for all those decades is probably outlived its life. It's similar to what we were going to do in Indian Town before they
decided to try what they're trying which is going to be very difficult because they're only about $80 million away from their goal. Um, I think if the motion maker would be interested in asking for at least us to study the ability of taking over both portions, and I would,
if that's the case, I would second his motion. >> Commissioner Vargas. >> Yeah. Um, I I've had a lot of conversation about this with staff, with you, with Mr. Emerson, with Mr. Donaldson about this. And, um, I
understand that you want to do the study. I understand the condition of the of the plant that is out there now and it's it's limping along pretty soon to die. Um since we are going to be looking
at in this particular case a motion was made both water and sewer then when will this study be complete? I would anticipate we'll have something back within 60 days or so.
>> Okay. I I think that's reasonable reasonable amount of time. >> Be longer. >> I don't I think we're putting the cart before the horse. Uh you know, I think that we need to have a feasibility study and then determine what course of action
we should take. I know that when we when we uh examined the Indian town uh facility, we discovered that it was antiquated and was held together with, you know, band-aids, >> right? Yeah. So, I I don't want to make
to prejudge to conclude anything before we've done the feasibility study. >> No, I'm only talking about the feasibility study. >> Okay. So, yeah, that's what we're going to do, the feasibility. >> Okay. >> Nothing else at this time. But we'll look at both the water and the sewer. >> Well, Commissioner Caps, you're the
motion maker. Do you agree with that? >> We can change. >> Mr. Donaldson, you were there with us at town hall that day and uh based on what you remember, uh are you comfortable with what's being stated here. You know, initially it appears that the island is is not interested in selling the water
portion, but it perhaps perhaps that could be talked about more. Uh you know >> yes if uh the uh um we did talk about the water system and they were open to um they would want to own the water
plant uh sufficient for the island but we could own all the water infrastructure on the mainland as an idea. So I think absolutely the feasibility would would include us. Um, I think the issue is we want to look at what is the most advantageous to Martin
County utilities in its operation and the customers of Hope Sound. Look at the financial arrangements. How's that work? It's just the preliminary work. We would bring that back to you. Um, I would imagine this will probably, as you all recognize, utility transactions are
complicated and that one analysis probably isn't going to do it if you if it if it continues on. or it might show that um it's not in our interest at all in which case it would it would stop with this one one analysis. So we're very comfortable with including the
water in there. I think the town is open to that a portion of the water uh how that would work um and talking to um uh with them at the meeting. We discussed that as a concept uh and um in my recent
conversation with U Bob Garlo u we we briefly talked about it and uh and that was a concept that they were at least open to. >> Great. Great. So I think what you're saying is consistent with the staff recommendation in the uh in the board item here
>> which I just read. >> Yes. With the clarification that uh with Commissioner Campy's that it does include water as well. Yes. >> Okay. Well, I'll just keep that motion on the floor then >> and I will second it. >> Understanding that Hope Sound SMRU
customers are still Martin County residents. They're still our constituency. It's not like we're talking about Juno or Jupiter. >> That that's about 2,000 homes, isn't it? Or over that in Hope Zone >> in that area. >> It's more like 8,000. Is it that many
water customers and sewer customers at SMR? >> That's quite a bit. Okay, great. >> There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. >> We will now uh take a break until 5:05
and where we will resume for our final uh agenda item. That's Part: 2
We are back taking up our last agenda item of the day that is public hearing number three which is a legislative public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance amending article 3 zoning districts land development regulations and code regarding accessory dwelling
units. Please proceed. >> Okay. So, hello. My name is Amy. >> I don't know if I don't think your mic's on. Okay. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. For the record, my name is Amy Offenbach, planner with the Martin County Growth Management Department.
This is LDR25-03, proposed text amendments to the land development regulations for accessory dwelling units, otherwise known as ADUs. This was initiated by the board of county commissioners and the affidavit
of advertisement has been turned into the clerk. So this request is to amend the text of article 3 divisions 1 2 3 4 and 7 of the land development regulations and this is just a brief overview of the proposed
amendments and staff would be happy to go into f further detail after the presentation. So section 3.3 the glossery of terms the term accessory dwelling units will replace the term guest house and this
represents additional d living living um additional living quarters on single family lots and the new term employee dwelling units will be added for living quarters on nonresidential properties
in section 3.11 the permitted use tables will be updated to allow accessory dwelling units in all zoning districts that allow single family dwellings excluding the mobile home districts. And the term employee dwelling units
will be added to the tables to permit living quarters on non-residential properties. In section 3.51, the standards for specific uses will include the criteria for ADUs on
residential properties and edus on non-residential properties. In section 3.201c, 2011 C the the term the text permitting guest houses will be
stricken and the text permitting accessory dwelling units will be replacing that in section 3.403 403. The terms defined for 1967 zoning districts. The term accessory dwelling units will be added
and the term guest house will be stricken. The term employee dwelling units will be added and the number of unrelated persons included in the definition of family will be updated from four to five persons for
consistency with section 3.3. And so this was considered at the local planning agency on December 4th, 2025, which unanimously uh recommended approval. This board considered this on January
27th, 2026. And today is the final approval for this amendment. And so staff recommends approval of LDR25-03 accessory dwelling units on the basis that the proposed amendments are
consistent with the comprehensive plan and state statutes more restrictive or burdensome requirements are not imposed and the affordable housing advisory committee as well as the local land planning a local planning agency uh
supports staff's recommendation. And this concludes the presentation. Staff's available for any questions. >> Any questions for staff? >> I have one request to speak form from the public and that's Rob Reer.
>> Good evening, commissioners. >> I don't think yours is on either. >> I got my eyes on. >> There we go. >> All right. How's that? >> Better. >> All right. for the record, Rob Reer, House of Hope. Um, so a couple things I just want to talk about. Uh, the last,
uh, discussion you had at your prior meeting on this topic, there was some concern, I think, from the commission about that this could potentially change neighborhoods. Um, I've had the opportunity to talk to staff. I'm sure you guys have as well. Um, you know, there's enough guard rails in the
process and policies that I don't think that's a realistic concern. Um, if someone wants to add an accessory dwelling unit, they still have to abide by setbacks, parking requirements, well, and septic, not to mention the cost of actually adding an accessory dwelling
unit. So, um it's not expected that this is going to be a mass uh lineup at the permit department to be able to do this, but I think it will be meaningful for uh for people that uh that have the opportunity to build one to get additional income into their household
and certainly for people that are struggling right now trying to find affordable uh spaces to live in our community. Um, housing has moved really kind of to the top of the list of needs, especially amongst the people that we serve at House of Hope. We do not have
much of a realistic inventory for affordable housing. Uh, these types of units would be wonderful for transitional pieces. ladies coming out of Safe Space or out of Compassion House at Salvation Army. Um young kids starting off, seniors on fixed incomes.
There's there's whole populations that this could be extremely meaningful for and certainly for um several of the uh fixed income seniors who own homes that I've had the chance to speak to. um the opportunity for them to gain income will
keep them in their home longer, will help them keep their home safe and um you know properly maintained um and deal with some of the other rises in insurance and other costs that they're contending with on a fixed income. So, um, you know, I think this is a winning
opportunity, puts a great tool in the toolkit for, uh, affordable housing and, um, and I think it will be certainly something that, uh, members of the community will be, uh, excited to be able to take advantage of. So, thank you for consideration.
>> Thank you, >> Mr. Campy. >> Uh, first off, thank you, Mr. uh for that assistance. I think part of the reason Rob is passionate about this is he has to deal face to face with the folks that
are struggling to do this. Now, we all understand that having a place to live for yourself, a couple or a family is your first and foremost responsibility. It's also your largest expense. So once if that's a
struggle to do that, it makes everything else more difficult. It makes you decide if you're going to fill that prescription or not. It makes it difficult for you to to do the things that the kids might need uh or that you would need. If you can give someone the opportunity to find reasonable housing,
it allows the rest of their life to be a little bit easier. Um I'll give you some personal experience. I have a family member that um rented and then was looking to save money to purchase a home, but the rent
was so expensive that they were using a majority well beyond what you're supposed to use to live in that apartment. There was no way to save any money to have to buy the house. Magically, they were able to do it. and
they bought a house that that a couple of years ago before the big boom should have been, you know, $1500 to $200,000 and paid in the mid-30s and had to strip it to the cinder blocks. It's a 1970 home that went for 350 and it needs
every single thing. But when you spend every penny that you saved to get the house, there's no money left to fix it up. So for these people, these ADU strategy where you could get into something
that's re even realistic apartments are still going for over $2,2500 a month. So an AUD, not that it's going to flood, I agree with Mr. Reeri, it's not going to flood the market. We are not doing the the silver bullet today to
fix our housing issue. It's really only the first step. It was what we were hopeful is the easiest step to allow. It's not a flood of strangers moving here and destroying neighborhoods. The other example I will use is I have a family member who has is a widow and she
has a three-bedroom, two-b house that she doesn't need. It's way bigger than she needs, but there's nowhere for her to go. She's healthy, God bless her, so she's not going to a nursing home, which would cost 68 $10,000 a month anyway. But she literally is stuck in her house
because there isn't a smaller version for her to go somewhere. If there was, she could put her house back into the market pool and have somewhere else to live. And then the final thing is is that if you are the owner of a piece of property and had the ability to put an a
AUD, which last time Commissioner Caps very smartly said it's not a cheap proposition. It would still be expensive. I think that will dictate how many you'll see. Even if you build something small, it's still going to be expensive to do. But if you're able to,
now you have the ability to put either a family member in it, young or old, or rent it to someone where that little extra money might make the difference of having someone as well as the fact from a from a health and safety point of view. A lot
of people are lonely, live in a house by themselves, having somebody else on the property that was potentially over the garage or in your backyard or attached to your home that would be there to look out for you versus just completely living on your own and hoping that a neighbor would notice if something was
wrong. So, I would hope that my colleagues uh at least two others will see this as an advantage. And I wanted to thank staff. Um, not only was there a group of people that worked did a lot of heavy lifting outside uh in the community, but our staff has really
embraced this and I'm very thankful that they see the mission and hopefully um that we'll have a favorable response today. Commissioner Caps, >> I was planning to make a motion to
postpone this ADA discuss ADU discussion until after the legislative discuss uh session because of my concerns with what may be forced upon us
with some of the bills that are in the legislature right now that regard uh regarding growth management. and land use decisions, the the things that we discussed this morning. And I would like to remind us of the the bills to watch
out for. One of them is House Bill 691, Agricultural Enclaves, a very dangerous proposition for the Martin County Comprehensive Plan. Uh people would would be quite surprised if we went into all the details of what
this could mean for weakening the Martin County comprehensive plan. Another one is Senate Bill 840, land use regulations for local governments, which has to do with the possibility of of modifying Senate Bill 180, which would be a good
thing, but we don't know if that's really going to happen. Um, and then the other one is House Bill 927, local land planning and development, which basically would shut down our uh, planning department here in
the county and farm it out to private contractors from around the state who don't know anything about how we do things around here. Uh, really bad idea. Uh but and there are
other bills in the legislature that have really bizarre notions attached to them that are very very concerning. And so we don't really know what's coming down the pike and we'll we'll not know a lot more in a few weeks. And I was thinking
maybe we ought to postpone this decision and why should we give up anything when we have a legislature that seems kind of out of control uh on this matter. Um but then it kind of hit me um that we
have two classes of people in our community that are very very vulnerable and are basically being steamrolled by our economy and the way things are going and that is one is the young adults.
Um, I have three young adults who live in Hope Sound and they all live in apartments and they're really worried that they'll never be able to own a home, a starter home in Martin Countyy's in the fours. You know, you're going to
spend over $400,000 for >> for a a little junky house that needs a lot of work and u >> and then the parents have to do the work, >> right? Right. You know, and when you think a good way of thinking about the
affordability crisis is uh imagine a starter home at 450 and then imagine a job at 45,000. That's 10. The cost of the house is 10 years of wages.
And then ask yourself when when you were their age, um how much was a house at that time? and how much was my salary? I I guarantee you that the situation was
way better for you >> than it is for our young people today. Uh you probably could have paid for a house with three or four years of wages, maybe two years of wages, maybe five, but it sure wouldn't be 10, you know, 10
years of wages. uh if you just look at an average job for a young person today and how much a house costs, uh that's a great way of measuring the the the problem that they are in today. And then I thought about
elderly people. I have a stepfather um who is in currently he is in the Palm City uh rehabilitative place over here on 714.
Um he's been in and out of there from time to time. Um he's 87 years old and he's not very mobile and he he gets down physically and sort of loses his strength and mobility and he has to check in to a rehab place for a while
and try to get stronger again so he can get out of bed. And um uh and I I thought about how an ADU might help a few families with their elderly uh people in the family, you know, who
need help. Um and what a beautiful thing that is. I' I'd love to have a guest house in my backyard or an ADU as we would change the name to. Um, but uh I don't think my backyard's quite big enough and I I I'm
I'm concerned that if I build it, it'll it'll shade the house too much and I won't get enough sunlight in the house. So, I'm I'm not sure it's a good fit for my house, but it might be for somebody else's house and that might be the way.
Uh, a few older folks are not have, you know, they don't have to be sent to a home and maybe a family some we're out there could afford to uh or or manage to
to take care of uh some seniors uh in in an ADU house. So, in light of those thoughts and concerns, uh we'll second the motion. >> Thank you. I don't I'll mine is a motion and Commissioner
Caps is seconding it. Thank you. >> Is there any further discussion? I certainly recognize the problem of affordability in Martin County, but this is not the solution. This is way too broad. I recognize that there are threats from from Tallahassee, but but
taking action on our own is there there are consequences and the consequences are grave. Um, first of all, uh, the employee dwelling units are on non-residential land uses, which doesn't make a bit of
sense. You can't assess or calculate densities on the parcels, even though you're allowed to put three employee dwelling units on a non-residential lot. Three, not one, three. Uh there are no additional setbacks, no
additional open space requirements, no additional parking requirements, no you don't have to prove that you have sufficient septic capacity. You're adding and you can add the parent unit there. I don't know that there's any limit on how many people can live in
that, but there five five unrelated people can live in the accessory dwelling unit. Um, greedy people will profit from these changes. They will exploit these changes. They
will warehouse families. I nearly every day go by a a warehouse in in uh along Commerce Avenue and I look in the yard. It's a yard and there toys for children and an attempt at
gardening and I know what's going on inside that that warehouse and that is no place for a family to live. So I I'm not going to be be uh supporting this. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor?
>> I >> opposed. Opposed. That motion passes 3 to2 with commissioners Vargas and her dissenting. We've now reached the end of our meeting. Uh would anyone from the public like to address us? >> Please come forward, sir.
And Mr. Reneer, thank you for all the wonderful things that you do for the House of Hope. >> Good afternoon. State your name for the record, please. >> Good afternoon. My name's uh Charles Chason. Um, I'm more here about the uh Cheney
and uh Cheney Bay. I understand that they're going to be getting uh no permits on any of their buildings. It's a it's an issue that that I've had personally. Um I purchased a property in Indiantown, Florida. Um in order to grow hemp and micro greens, when I went ahead
to build a metal building on the property, I spoke with the building department. They told me that I wouldn't be able to build it with permits on the property with no uh primary structure. Um so what they instructed me to do was use state statute 604.5 which would
allow me to build without permits um without permits and uh sort of avoid that issue. So, after I had built the structure, um, very shortly after, I began receiving harassment from a Martin County code
enforcement officer named Christopher Counselor. Um, he told me I still needed permits for the structure even after I explained to him that was frag. I then submitted a permit for the building, but shortly after I had submitted it, I received a call from Christopher once again and he
told me that the building could not be permitted for the same reason the building department gave me. My only option was to tear the building down was his statement. Um, after speaking with him, I got in contact with another Martin County code enforcement officer, John Colando, who told me he didn't know
what to do and that I shouldn't continue to move forward on my building until he figured out what to do. Um, judging by what you guys are doing with Cheney Bay, that's a lie. Um, he took all year, he took all of 2023 in order to determine what to do and got back to me in
November stating that I needed an a exemption from the uh property appraisers office. Again, a lie because 604 or 604.5 does not state that at all. Um, once I uh once I went ahead and started
working on getting the A exemption, um, I did not hear anything from Christopher Counselor or John Colando again. Um, I had assumed that they had realized the error of their ways and were going to leave me alone. What I did not realize is that they had come out and attached
another notice to my fence using a elastic piece of string from the looks of the picture. Um, the kind you'd probably pull from your sock. I didn't receive this notice, which I believe was the intention. um
when I I didn't realize that I had had gotten the notice until I had put in a permit for a house on the property about a year later. So when I put in the permit for the house, they had notified me that I was being fined and I had been being fined. >> Keep going.
>> Um since finding out, I have been fighting to have the fines removed. I sent them receipts of sales that I made. I sent them my licensing. Um, I've also gotten an A exemption. And as of now, I still do not have an affidavit
saying that I'm in compliance even though I was never out of compliance. My question is, why am I being held to a different standard than Cheney Bay? It seems that this is discriminatory and arbitrary. >> Your time is up. Thank you. >> Check into it.
>> Mr. Mr. Donaldson, any suggestions? Um, I'll look in with staff to see the facts of this situation and uh we'll we'll um >> make sure that we have your contact information so that we can get in touch with you. >> Yes. Yes, ma'am. >> Does it have your phone number and
everything? >> Not too long ago. We have it Where are you in Indian Town? Are you in obviously unincorporated Martin County? Not in the village of Indiantown. >> Yes, sir. I'm off of Arrow Road, which is just before um what is it? Uh
can't remember the name of the other one there, >> but in the county. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you. That guy's name is Don Donaldson. He'll be the one looking into it. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. >> What do you guys usually do about this? Uh when the I >> speak to you.
>> Yeah. So, we'll we'll discuss this afterwards. Yeah. Thank you. >> Thanks for coming. >> All right. Thank you. >> Commissioner comments. Commissioner Vargas, I'm set. Commissioner Caps, >> I'm good. >> I'm set. Commissioner Campy, >> this Saturday evening, 6:30 to 8:30 at
the patio, we're having Tony Solomon. He's a well-known entertainer. He is sponsoring and performing. We'll have food trucks, um, all sorts of fun. It's free. And bring a chair or a blanket and
enjoy some music in the park. >> Are you unveiling your art? Oh, and we're also at 6. Thank you very much. At 6 PM, we'll be unveiling our piece that Miss Cororus was talking about today, a beautiful sculpture that we've been working on. It'll be the first of
hopefully many pieces of art in the in that area. So, come out. It's on Map Road right next to the Palm City Fire Station. >> Commissioner Heatherington. >> I'm all set. >> Mr. Donaldson, >> all set. Thank you. >> Miss Elder, >> I'm all set. We are a juror.