using the mic. We're on TV. Are they already on? They're on. All right. Automatically, it seems I got one. We have a quum. Yeah. That's the updated copy of
Okay, thank you. Her support. I'm a pinch hitter. Good. Thanks for coming. Of course. Yeah. How are you? Okay. Good evening. Uh we're going to call
this meeting to order. Um, and I'll now do the roll roll call. Uh, Dan Brady here. Tom Campenny here. Vicky Davis here. David Hafner. Beth Kavinsky here. John Keller.
Merrick Mat present. Scott Kernbull here. And Jim Stenker. Um, do I have a motion to approve the minutes from the April 16th meeting? So moved. Second. All in favor. All opposed. Okay. They're
passed. Um do I have a motion to approve the agenda for today's meeting that was sent up previously by Mike Houston? Move approval. Second. Oh, any opposed? Okay. Okay. Staff will
now update us on the parcels presented during our previous meetings. Um Mike and staff, could you please do that? Um, since last meeting was an introductory meeting, we didn't present on any parcels, but we're prepared to
bring two forward two parcels for for tonight. And I apologize. Uh, says Michael Houston, senior project manager in the Martin County Environmental Resource Division. And Mike, do you have an estimate as to the tax revenue that's been generated uh
since January 1? Uh, we John, you going to answer that? pinch hitting already. Yeah. Um my name is John Bale, environmental resource administrator. Update today. Um I think it it just updated this morning
actually. So this is fairly new. Is 6.6 million collected and that is through April. There's about a 3month lag in in the reporting on that. So it's kind of on course with the projection that the Department of Revenue gave us. Great. Have there been any problems with the uh
computer interface and for various stores and etc inputting that data? I mean, is there any any any glitches? None that I'm aware of, but it's an ongoing thing they do with other um optional taxes. So, it probably was a
simple programming update for them. Yeah, I wouldn't think they had to roll out any new software or anything. Okay, thank you. Um, so staff, if you could address those properties that were voted. Um, actually, you know, we've we've done that already. That's covered.
Next item. Um, the staff and I have drafted the process that I've passed out to the members of the committee. Um, as I've mentioned, this is not cut in stone. Um, it's a working document. So, I maintain no pride of authorship.
Um, as I've often said to those that I've worked with in the past, I make mistakes. Um, and so if there's anything on these, uh, that you feel should be, uh, addressed in terms of fine-tuning them, uh, I welcome that feedback. Um,
anything that's sent to me, uh, should in, if it's ever sent to me, preferably be sent to Mike, who would then send it on. uh but it should it should make be be made very clear that in no way at any time uh is there any reference to a
particular parcel. Um we want to be sure that we stick to both the spirit and intent of the sunshine laws and I'm going to certainly do that. I know that John and Mike and staff are as uh firm on that as I am. Um so that's it on the
draft of this format. Um staff is now going to review each parcel uh per the 10 criteria noted in the ELOC project ranking form. Now immediately following their presentation, I'll ask the public
for comment on that particular parcel. Uh any comments from the public are to be limited to 3 minutes. Following this, the ELOC members will discuss and then rank the parcel on a provisional basis. And the reason I say provisional is
after we go through all the parcels especially the next meeting we're going to be have quite a few um you may want to adjust your provisional ranking. Um following this staff will present the next parcel that is from following the first parcel and the above process will
be repeated. The members will retain each form until after the final presentation is made and the members have discussed all parcels presented during that meeting whereupon the members may wish to rerank their provisional
uh notes. So uh staff could you please present the first parcel? Uh and and before I get into the presentation, I did want to mention any feedback in terms of how this process plays out would be appreciated since this was actually meant to be a dry run a little
bit. You know, even though we are ranking some properties, we want to make sure you know that there's no tweaks we can make to the process that would make it more efficient, make it better. if there's any information that you feel you want more of in order to make a more
informed decision that will be uh helpful. Um and uh and just you know please let us know and we can have a discussion with that at the end of the meeting today.
Thank you Mike. Do you sure Mike do you want to give us the score sheets now so we have them in our hand before the like if we want to make you know little notes for the presentation? Each of you will get two
score sheets and I'll actually as part of this presentation before we get into the actual proposals I'm going to discuss how they how they're going to work uh so you can kind of see how this will play out and how uh everything will be scored and tabulated. Perfect. By us.
Great. Thank you, Mike. So, uh this is the Environmental Lands Oversight Committee presentation. Uh today, as I said, we're going to be reviewing two properties, uh for potential acquisition. And this is just a reminder of what our
acquisition process is. So, it starts with the receipt of a nomination form. Those nomination forms can be filled out by anybody. Uh, but they get submitted to our division. We actually have an email address set up and it's written on
the nomination form. It's just land acquisition at martin.fl. us. And once we get that nomination form in, it will be reviewed by staff to make sure it's concurrent with the purpose of the original ordinance uh that was used for
the sales tax number 1221. And in essence, the things that we're looking at is one, is it something that has conservation value and two, is it within one of our acquisition zones that was uh developed for the ordinance. And as
you'll recall, those areas are Palmar, Locky, Indian River Lagoon South, and Blueways. So if we have enough information we will then present those that proposal and support information to the oversight committee to you for
review and ranking. Uh I am planning on for each property we want to have an environmental assessment so you actually have some information to go by and help to put together your form. Uh that's another area where if you feel that there's something that's missing from those assessments, uh please feel free
to speak up so that we can make sure to get it incorporated going forward for when we have a larger scale ranking process. Uh once uh the committee ranks those those properties, we then bring it in front of the board of county
commissioners for review and vote on whether to proceed with acquisition. So this isn't to acquire the property. this is the next step that would be needed to be able to use sales tax funds to attempt to acquire the property. And at that point, we do due diligence and
negotiations before bringing and if if a deal can be reached, then we bring the acquisition before the board of county commissioners for final approval. So, the purpose of this meeting is to review the information on our nominated
parcels, to fill in the project ranking forms, and then to make recommendations to the board of county commissioners on whether to move forward with acquisition. And here is the scoring sheet that's all that's been handed out to each of you. So, you'll see that there are 10 different categories. You'll notice that
there's a waiting unit that's on there in that second line. uh what you guys are going to worry about is just that top line that project score. So you're going to rank ba between one and 100 with 100 being the highest. And what'll happen is the waiting unit is really a
percentage. So if it says the waiting unit is 15 that means it will take whatever score you put in. So if you put in a 90 we'll multiply that times 0.15 and then the score the weighted score will be 13.5. And we'll do that for each
of the categories on that sheet. Uh but what is essentially going to happen is you'll hand in the score sheets. One one thing I didn't write on these is which property uh and your name. Uh so please include your name on the form when you
write it in and what property we're doing that evaluation for. We'll make sure to tweak the form for the next go round so that's actually included on there. And uh but we'll take that information and then we're going to use
it to tabulate results just like these. So you'll see for each category there's each of the uh the committee members and we'll use that to come up with a total a weighted score and a total project score. Now now one thing we're going to
have to be mindful of as we go through this is some meetings we might have six people some we might have nine. So, we're going to have to modify the score to account for the fact that there's less people on there. So, they'll be so so it'll be evened out and averaged uh
before it's overall ranked. Does that make sense to everyone? Mhm. Okay. And then what we'll do is based on that per category for each of the two. So, so here we have the Palmar settlement and
the Barbie Ranch property. So, we'll fill in and get total scores for all of those different metrics for each property. And then a total score for each and whichever project has the higher total score will get the higher rank. The next one down will will be the the
next lowest rank. And and for this, it's pretty easy. But if we're reviewing 15 20 properties, that form is going to look a lot different, I guess. But it it doesn't mean that if it in theory all of the properties that are approved could be could go forward. Correct. This is
merely a so-called ranking. Correct. So just be sure everybody understands that. Yeah. So you might have one to 20. Yeah. So even if something something could be a zero yet we we approve it being sent to the board of county commissioners. Uh that would still go forward to them as a
part as a partial that we recommend they purchase. Is that clear? Everybody got Okay. And as we go through this process, I think a lot of this will become clear because this ranking is a little kind of a little could be confusing. It can be. And but I will say by setting up these
acquisition zones, we've really limited what what can be reviewed here. There's not going to be any bad proposals. everything will have at least some conservation value and and none of it will be, you know, parcels just in the middle of nowhere that don't have any
value other than being a few trees, I guess. And it'll all be in all the four areas that have been designated in the referendum and ordinance. Correct. Yep. So, so that's that's an important consideration that everything's going to be good and it's just going to be trying to pick honestly what the what the
highest value properties will be. Yep. So any rate, I'm now going to start talking about the first uh property that we're reviewing tonight. And this is the Palmar settlement acquisition. So if you see on this map, the blue and and part
of this isn't updated. The northern parts that are up in the chimney will actually not be in government hands, but everything on the southern part of the map that is blue is in government ownership at this point in time.
Anything that's orange is what's being proposed for acquisition through this pro program. How many parcels is that? Uh it's 421 parcels and 387 acres. And we have that all to score here. Correct. You're
scoring the combination of all the orange parcels together. And the non-or parcels, the darker colored ones, those are just privately held. The blue the blue parcels are government ownership, right, as we speak. But the the the areas that aren't
colored in are private. Okay. Still at this time. Now, I will say that we will be bringing forward another item for the next ranking meeting that will be kind of a blanket to buy more lots within that area. So, this isn't meant to be
the end. It there is a potential, you know, if it it ranks and scored and it's and the commission desires it that we'll continue to acquire more properties in that area. Is that because title searches may not have been completed on all of those properties or is there another reason? No, they're just
privately owned. So they're not, you know, this is this is a deal with one owner. Got it. Yeah. No, I understand that. Yeah. But but the way it's my understanding that these parcels may have been purchased 100, you know, 50 years to 100 years ago and that currently individuals are doing title
searches to see what the current generation that owns them and that's a pretty laborious process. So yeah, and there's a multipitude of reasons. There's some uh you know, we we we only operate by willing seller. Yep. So if we don't have a willing seller, then you
know we can't move forward with an acquisition. Got it. There's no, you know, it's all voluntary. Yep. So Mike, so I'm clear. I'm sorry, Jim. So I'm clear. These orange parcels then are those that are subject to the settlement agreement. Is that okay? Yeah. Okay. And
I'll go into a little more detail in terms of what the settlement looks like. Okay. On one of the uh upcoming slides. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One more question. You may you may plan to address this, but did you say this is as it stands now? And
is there a trade in this agreement? Is that where you're getting it? All you said all the blue parcels in the chimney are going to they're currently government owned. I have a I have a a slide that actually details what the actual trade is. Okay. Thank you.
But first, um, so this is within the Palmer acquisition zone. Makes sense. Uh but this shows its location on the map. The area in green is what is considered to be Palmar. And so this is on the west side of Palmar in the area known as Palm
Beach Heights, which is kind of the ownership checkerboard. Why is Palmar important? Well, it's a connecting link between Hungry Land and Corbett Wildlife Management Area. And the county is and really the state have made a significant investment in the
past to acquiring and protecting these areas. And the reason we do that is because it contains some of the highest quality wetland systems in all of Martin County. And it's the headarters to the federally designated wild and scenic northwest fork of the Lockache River.
So some other details and these are items that speak specifically to your forms. Uh this is part of a state acquisition program, a state recognized acquisition program, the Florida Forever program, and it's listed as an essential
acquisition. And the red circle on that map represents where it is within the Florida Forever program. And it's also within the Florida Wildlife Quarter. It's a little hard to see there, but you'll see that red line, the red circle on there showing the
wildlife quarter. So, and the Florida Wildlife Court is a state program focused on creating habitat corridors for wildlife. So, this kind of will detail a little more what I was talking about. And and this is a partnership deal. Uh the South
Water South Florida Water Management District is also involved. They're acquiring 600 acres of land at a cost of $1.5 million. Uh that's $19,000 an acre. While Martin County is acquiring roughly
380 acres for $7.3 million, also at uh and there's a typo there, also at $19,000 an acre. In addition to that, the settlement agreement includes a deal to swap properties. So, uh, we're
working with Be a Man by Land, and they are giving up 1,119 acres in the area of Palmar for government lots in the area known as the chimney. So, and if I go back up the chimney, you can't see it all, but it's
the top of the map, those blue parcels. This is the Jupiter Indian Tong Gray. Can you guys see my pointer? Does that show up? Yep. Okay. Anything to the north of that is considered the chimney. So, as part of this agreement, uh, BMAN by land gets the properties up there and then we get all the parcels through the
rest of the acquisition area. Is there any restriction on what BMN by land is going to do with that? I understand it was going to be used for a ranch initially, but I I can't answer that question, but there's still the same property, private property is issue
that we have in the other areas. So, it's wetlands areas primarily. There's wetlands, there's uplands, and uh there's also a lot of other private owners that are in the area. Got it. Thank you. So, continuing on, um
as I said before, uh so in total, we're actually gaining 2,17 acres while trading away 559 acres in the chimney area. So, our net increase is 1548 acres. Mr. Chair, another
question. So when you say we're swapping and it's 19,000 an acre, we're giving acreage plus $19,000 $19,000 an acre for what we're buying. So actually we're actually paying a lot
more than $19,000 per No, the opposite if you think about it. So I'll I'll try and explain this more uh differently. So uh there's two parts of this agreement. The first part is we we have a land swap
and that means for every two acres that BM by land gives us, we give them one acre of ours. So, so that's the origin of the settlement agreement, but we don't have enough land to have the whole thing just
be a land swap. So, we're swapping out a 2:1 and that leaves uh the 608. I don't think I have it totaled up. And the 380 acres. So that would be 988 acres of unacquired land through the
swap. So the settlement agreement includes for us to buy at $19,000 an acre the remaining parcels at BM. So we're not paying anything on the swapped land. We're just paying on the other land. And we have a we have a right of
first refusal. So any of the properties that BMAN has sold because of there are they're financed some of those properties come back and if that's the case and we have the first right to acquire whatever those properties are at the 19,000 at the 19,000 an acre. Yeah.
Okay. Thank you. So um and this is some of the information that was provided in the FNA environmental assessment. uh there is a significant area of what we're gaining, what we're acquiring that is what they
consider to be disturbed habitat. So that could be just old pasture lands. It could in involve exotic plants in some way. The area has been destroyed. So it doesn't have kind of some of the original conservation value. However,
68% of the area is relatively unaltered natural areas and includes a big pine flatwoods and marsh system. So, and the picture that you're seeing right there is an accurate representation of what these areas that we're acquiring look like.
So, there's actually little evidence that there are ditches or other drainage features. That's that's a pretty important component. So, you don't have to worry about the hydraology of the area. It's relatively intact. The wetlands tend to be in good condition and function fairly well. Uh there is
evidence of off-road vehicle use in the area. However, it was noted in the FNA report that there's no visual evidence of conglomerations of off-road vehicles. So, you're not seeing areas with big amounts of tracks circling around and
destroying wetland soils. You're just seeing pathways that go through the area. and and overall according to the Ethne assessment it appears to be in a good in good condition. Mr. Chair, another question. Even though it's not
going back, it's it's it's considered a disturbed habitat once we acquire it at some point, won't it reacquire its its its characteristics, its native characteristics?
um not necessarily on its own. Like when once areas get significantly impacted, they require help. So it might require prescribed fire. It might require removing exotic vegetation. If the hydraology is impacted, it might include
backfilling ditches. So So it would take some effort in order to restore some of the conservation values. But certainly even areas like that when you have large areas of habitat even if it's not great habitat that doesn't mean it still has
value in terms of the overall health of the larger system and a percentage of the proceeds from this from the sales tax goes to a land maintenance. Correct. Correct. 5% of the money that's
generated by this referendum can be used to basically improve conservation values. We can't use it to provide public access, but we can like it, you know, do any type of habitat restoration that's needed on the property and that's a minimum of 5%. It could be more too if
the commission wanted it to be that we had extra money. Correct. That's not my understanding of in the referendum and ordinance. It's pretty clear. U we we'd have to get legal opinion in that, but I think it's 5% would be firm. Yeah. But I but I will say that that doesn't preclude us from then spending our own
money to help to restore the area. Oh yeah, we have a budget. No, this is merely in the context of the referendum and ordinance. Yes. And Okay. Yeah. So there's maximum 5% can be used for restoring the habitat values of the
area. Yep. Mr. Chair, If the county does go, we do do go through with this and purchase the land. Is the county prepared to police it to keep the off-road vehicles off? That's been a real problem out there. It's certainly uh the more area that we can
lock up, the easier it will be to maintain and protect these areas from off-road vehicle use. I will say that the areas where off-road vehicles at this point are the most problems are in the east areas of Palmar. I'll go back
up. So, so this is where most of the activity has been. It's and and where we've had kind of the biggest fight. This area is less impacted. That doesn't mean that it'll always stay that way, but at this point it's less impacted. We
do also now have a relationship with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission where they're doing enforcement out there. So certainly if we're having problems, we can try and plug them in to help uh alleviate the problem. FWC has already already changed
some of the roads out there. Have they shut the roads off? They have not fully shut roads off, but they are just their presence out there does tend to change behavior and helps to deal with some of the larger problems that have been
happening out there. So Mike, for the for the disturbed areas, um the 22% um from what I read in the report, most of that is the result of exotic vegetation or some exotic vegetation and previously being farmed
in some way or another. What I'm happy to see is I don't see torpedo grass on the list, which is a really difficult thing to control in these situations. So that's good. and most of the species look like we have good methods of control for treating those. So, we
should be good there. And I have and and so I have one on management considerations and and once again, you know, you're talking about small parcels and you're talking about how there's a checkerboard of government versus private ownership. And this is something
to think about that uh it's difficult to manage properties. if if you're just dealing with one acre parcels spread out all over the place. Even just being able to tell that you're on the government parcel is difficult. So, in order to really be able to
effective manage effectively manage these areas, we need to form more blocks and be able to and be able to put together larger conservation pieces that then could be managed. Uh, I will say that with this settlement agreement,
there's areas that are going to be 75 to 80% government ownership after this agreement. So, you're much closer to getting to a point where you can, you know, start to carry out some management activities and you can fence off areas and make it
more difficult for the off-road vehicles to get back in there. You can put up no trespassing signs, you know, or no vehicular access signs. So, so it does get us to a point where we're closer to being able to carry out enforcement actions.
Um, and that's kind of what I said. Until we have a lot of land put together, it would be difficult to manage some of these individual lots. So, Effnne did a listed species analysis and they found what would be typical of these kinds of areas. It's not there's
not any what I would call rare habitats in the footprints in in any of these project areas. It's it tends to be this uh deep marsh system with pine forest interspersed in between and you would get the kind of species that you would
associate with those communities that it does list eastern indigo snakes uh sandill cranes woodstos and snail kites in this area. In terms of the development potential, it's it would be pretty hard to develop
these areas obviously, but the impact of off-road vehicles and really the construction of illegal structures is a constant threat in in some of these areas. So, that's just a factor to consider in when you're coming up with
your score. As far as recreational opportunities, I and I apologize, this isn't the best map, but if you look closely, you'll see this orange line that runs all the way up through here. That is called the Jupiter Indian Town grade. It was actually constructed in the early 1900s,
and it was the first way that people would use to get between Jupiter and Indian Town uh way back then. Apparently, it took two days to take that road to get between one and the other. But that feature is still there. We've opened up uh all the way from
Indiantown Road out to Palmar is now actually open to the public. So, it's about six miles, but the county for about 30 years now has been wanting to extend that trail and have it go all the way out to Caner Highway. Uh if we're
able ever able to do that, it would help. And there are parcels on this that uh intersect with the grade. So, it does help us achieve that goal of eventually opening up that trail. Uh, does anyone have questions about the
first property before I jump on to the second one? Anybody? Beth? No. Good. Okay. Go ahead. Would you guys prefer to uh should I just go ahead and do this
one and then we can do discussion and Well, no. Uh well at this point what we do is we ask for public comment on the first one, right? Yes. Okay. So is there any public comment as it relates to what Mike has just gone over, staff has just gone over,
Zack? Anybody? Okay. Um then at that point, uh in terms of members of the committee, uh any comments or do you want to wait until the end to discuss the details? Wait until the end. Yes. Is that okay?
You bet, Scott. Okay. So, Mike, why don't you proceed uh to the next parcel, please? Okay. Well, the second property is the Barbie Ranch property. Uh this is a 1941 acre property that includes a
mosaic of pine flatwoods and large marsh communities. It's in the IRL South project area. And uh it's important to note that what is being put in front of us right now is a conservation easement instead of a fee simple acquisition. Um
and if anyone has any problem or if anyone has any questions about that before I proceed. Uh does everyone understand what a conservation easement is and how it will work or I'll make sure that that's understood. Well, it's important to note that they're in
perpetuity and irrevocable as per the referendum and ordinance, which is wording that we worked very hard to get incorporated. So, that's But the land stays with the private land owner who can continue to use it for agricultural interest. Yeah. He or she or they can
sell it, but it's got to stay in the same correct. The conservation easement is nonrevocable. It will not be developed and in perpetuity also. And in perpetuity. Um And I will say that there's a possibility that there will be a right
of first refusal. So if the owner ever decides to sell the property, we would have the ability to then go and acquire it in full fee simple. So uh just because it's under conservation easement doesn't mean that we have to move on and forget about the property. And I might
note that there are two different types of fees simple. At a future meeting, we'll drill into that a little more fully. one uh limits the options uh of the county. Uh one does not, but it's not it's getting a little bit off course right now to go into it, but we'll we'll
delve into that in a future meeting. Go ahead, Mike. Yeah. So, you can see where the property is. Um and the property is within the uh within the uh boundaries of the Indian River Lagoon South program. So this is a project that's
included in the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan and it's needed as a part of providing uh the the natural lands component of SER and providing shallow storage uh to protect the St.
Lucy River waterway and it will help to capture storm water runoff that is severely impacting the St. Lucy estuary. It was approved as an acquisition priority by the federal government in the 2007 word bill and state funds are
and and this is an important part of this as well. So the SER program is it's a federal and state partnership and the state and the federal government are supposed to share the cost of this and and pay an equal amount and uh this
project has a potential to count for the state's contribution to the SER program. So they'll able to be able to take credit and it will help to have federal government complete projects that help to uh help uh reach the goals and
objectives of SER. Did I miss anything there, Beth? Nope, you got it. Okay, thanks. But you can also see just from this map, I like to look at it. So, uh, directly to the west and the south, you have the C44 STA and further to the west
of that you have the C44 reservoir. And if you go to the northwest, you have Alapata Flats Wildlife Management Area. So, pretty big conservation piece uh that this could be a part of and really can just help protect a big area of
Martin County. It is a a section of it, not all of it, but the northern half of it is within the Florida Wildlife Corridor and it's listed by the Florida Ecological Greenway network as a priority 2
and it was added to the Florida Forever program in 2021 or 22. So this is just their map showing it as being a Florida forever project. So as I mentioned before, this is a
conservation easement acquisition and the number that is being thrown around is uh $17 million for the $1,910 acres at a cost of $8,900 per acre. Once again, this is for a conservation easement. So you're going to pay less than you would if you're paying fee
simple for the property. and Florida Forever is uh willing to pay. So So basically what has happened is Florida Forever has been in negotiations with this land owner for the last few years and they've reached an agreement and they've asked Martin County to support
that acquisition. So in total it's 17 million. Florida Forever would be paying 12 million and they're asking for $5 million from Martin County and matching funds. In terms of the habitat quality, I will say that a significant portion of this
property is what I would call pasture uh or it's disturbed habitat. So 59% of the area is pasture and those pasture areas, it's interesting, a lot of them are in wetland areas. So what they actually did is they took these wetland areas and
they put lots of ditches and drainage and you know to carry that water away to turn it into farmable arable land. And in those areas it has bear grass as the primary ground cover species which is an exotic plant. Um that's pretty typical
of a lot of improved pasture areas. However, there is uh about 40% of the property is uh pine flatwoods and they do tend to be in pretty good condition. The landowner has used prescribed fire as a tool. They've removed invasive
plant vegetation. So, they've done a pretty good job of trying to maintain the conservation values on the property. And there are some uh smaller wetland systems that also have have been wellmaintained. The picture on the left actually shows one of those little
little wetland areas. So in terms of the question S. Sure. So since it's a a a easement Mhm. can they take the far the pines cut them down and make more pasture out pasture out of it?
I would say no. They can't they can't take habitat and and convert it to agricultural lands. And and you confer on that, Sebastian? Well, and my name is Sebastian Fox. I'm an assistant county attorney. Um I think
the easement document would have to be reviewed before you would be able to confirm, you know, what rights the landowner would retain. Um I have not seen that draft easement. Um that has yet to be negotiated as far as I understand. So that's something that we
would want to look at. So would we be aware of any uh problems trip wires in that? Uh certainly and and it is important to note there's two different state agencies right now that are doing
conservation easements. There's the Florida Forever Program and then there's the rural and family lands program. The purpose of the rural and family lands program is more to uh maintain areas as active ranches. Uh Florida forever is
more about conserving habitat values. You know, we do need to look at the language, but it's certainly likely that if it's a Florida forever easement that they're not going to be happy with conversion of habitat, which is the whole purpose of them being involved, to
agg to uh improve pasture lands. I think it's safe to say the intent of this committee would be that it be as restrictive as possible. So, we would ask council to that to be sure that that happens. uh if there is any issue so
that we know going forward. We wish to know that in advance. Um this does raise one question that in Palm Beach County there were certain conservation easements that were overturned because of certain stipulations and I know that John Mal's conversant on that situation
because it came up John roughly six months ago, nine months ago. Um would you feel comfortable just differentiating between what we're doing in Martin County and what they did in Palm Beach County just so the members of the committee are aware? Yeah, without belaboring the point too much. Um I
believe the instance that you're describing was the A reserve release. And an a reserve is is a totally different thing than a purchased conservation easement, particularly when it's purchased with funds from a ballot measure that had ordinance language that
calls for it to be irrevocable and permanent. So, totally different tools. I know sometimes the easement language is somewhat generic um and and at times it's used as a regulatory function, as an imposition on an environmental permit for development. Those are negotiable um
and and aren't necessarily permanent. uh uh acquisitions of development rights. In this case, it's it's a cut and dry, totally different tool. Um and I was just going to add too that um well to Sebastian's point, we don't have a um a conservation easement to review on this.
That's that would be negotiated between um FD and State Lands and um and the owner of the property um before we would, you know, agree to the contract. We would have the opportunity to review it. But I can say that Florida Forever
Conservation easements, not only do they impose restrictions on um disturbing existing habitat, they would often and usually include provisions to do some restoration work on impacted habitats
and um probably put some limitations on herd size for for grazing and and things of that nature. Thank you, John. Jim, if I might. Yes, ma'am. Um, another question, John, would be related to how it would affect the um the recreational
opportunity form for the form and how we would score that. So, I know a lot of times land owners don't want the public on their properties if it's just a conservation easement. So, it's a great point, uh, Beth. Thank you for bringing
that up. But it's um it's really rare when a private land owner would want to allow public recreation on their property because of the liability that it would create and you know how it might impact their usage with cows or recreation of their own. Um and and um I
think the only thing that we could point to as a a potential win for that would be if we're successful with Florida Forever negotiating to include a first party refusal, which they um they seem favorable to. uh that we I expect that that will be included and and so that
that helps that at some point if it if the family chooses to sell it that we would be at the table alone for that negotiation and it would also be negotiating without development rights and so any subsequent appraisal for
outright purchase fee simple purchase would be subject to that imposition of the easement that has no development rights. So, um, in theory, you're buying the 25% remaining value if the easement's 75% of the appraised value, but of course, that continues to grow
with time. And council, you made a note of that, correct? In terms of those provisions, those quid proquo that John just outlined as it relates to what would be embedded in the the agreement, right? That would be in the easement itself. Got it. Just want to be
sure we're all on the same page. Okay. And that you've got a record of that. Okay. And I just add that in the conversations with Florida Forever, they have an interest in having that same provision. They don't like to limit themselves from being to acquire it fe simple eventually, too. So, they want to
be part of that first rider refusal. Yep. And I think the history of this is it we originally approached it as a fee simple acquisition, but the owner wasn't ready to relinquish, you know, control of the property. they still wanted to be able to hunt it and
use it uh exclusively and and so that's when we that's when Florida Forever kind of switched gears and decided to approach it as a conservation easement just to get you know it's most important to get the job done and then in the future we can always go back and try and
provide you know look at public access if we ever do full acquisition and just a thought since the press is here uh thoughts are if you have any questions especially in conservation easement discussion. Uh just be sure that don't
hesitate to reach out I would think to John or Mike uh and be sure there's absolute clarity because there has been some confusion on that. Thank you. Mr. Chair, one more question. Since it was uh the application, it's two separate parcel IDs.
Uh do you know if Florida Forever or the county has proposed purchasing some of it fee simple um and some conservation easement with the owner? I'll answer the question generally.
I think everything has been considered and kicked around. This is a property we've been looking at and working with the owner either through us or the water management district forever. even FDAX have had conversations and I think every tool in toolbox has been laid on the
table and discussed and um I I I believe that what Florida Forever is circling around um finally is it was probably the path forward the option the only moving forward option. Got it. Thank you. So Mike, please proceed. Sure. Uh in terms
of management considerations, the there is quite a bit of uh public property adjacent to the parcel. So to the south, the east, and to the northwest, you have uh publicly owned lands that include the
C44, STA, and Alapata. Uh there are cattle on the property that can help keep invasive and exotics under control and it since it's under the conservation easement, it's going to be up, you know, it's going to be up to the landowner to do any of that work going forward. Even
if we can provide funding to help facilitate some of that work. uh the pastures would be difficult to restore without res uh restoring the uh getting rid of some of the ditches and blocking
and plugging the ditches. So, but we're not talking about restoring anything. We're buying an conservation easement. So, well, you can include they're called ecosystem services. You can include things to help to restore conservation values on
properties that under are under a conservation easement. But if they're still actively ranching, they're not going to want us or anyone to touch the way they ranch. No, but you could include money to
uh do prescribed fire on the property or remove invasive plant vegetation or or potentially, you know, if there are areas that they don't use as much for cattle, they could instead agree to plug ditches because they might find that
they get more money from whatever the acquisition of those uh of those ecosystem services would entail. I'm not saying that that's going to happen, but it is a possibility. Chair, I would I guess we, you know, there's a lot of hyperbole in a conversation where we
don't have a document. Um, but they're highly customizable. It's it's safe to say you can include anything and everything in those conversations. Um, and sometimes when you have ranching, the ranching itself is not the ultimate purpose that it that it may be for tax
abatement and that the owner is actually just leasing the ranch. So, every single project's going to have a different recipe um for how to get it across the We don't have very many facts for this property. And yet, we're supposedly
giving money to purchase something, but at this point, we don't know what we're actually purchasing. Well, we're purchasing a conservation easement on the particular property. that which we don't know are the legal the legal document that will be involved
in this. Um so if I said to you Jim I want to buy your house you what's the first question you'd ask? How much am I going to pay because you're selling to me fe simple. If I said to you Jim I want to rent that
bedroom for three weeks. It's a different conversation. This is a different conversation in my mind. So, so a question I have for uh John and Mike. Uh when do you think the we would have a handle on the contract and would
that the contract terms and uh if we wait until that point does that create a problem in terms of logistics of make closing the deal? So I I guess um I think the best answer
to that question is to clarify roles. Um yeah, the environmental lands oversight committee's assignment is to rank these based on the parameters, you know, that described in the manual. Ultimately, the permission to move forward with an
agreement will be the board of county commissioners to decide, you know, did we negotiate a fair rate? Does it provide the the elements that we need in the agreement? And did we get the right partners and funding level? So, it's kind of I mean to to to use the metaphor
um that you brought up, Tom, I I'm starting with Jim, but ultimately I need to talk to his wife before we ink the deal. Brilliant idea as well. Go ahead, Mer. Just generally speaking, it'd be wise to talk to the wife on that one. Um, but I
do have a a comment in a little more serious note that when I look at the ranking form and regarding roles of the LOC versus the BOCC and all this is going down, the toughest thing for me is the cost per acre.
Uh, as far as our role um especially when we're we're trying to deal with so many unknowns with this conservation easement. The cost per acre is going to be negotiated further down this process a
lot more by staff and the BOCC and and Florida forever. Our role is as I've seen it intended is one to see if any of these lands fit the criteria of the ordinance
and two we're ranking all these others are very pertinent shoreline protection management opportunities habitat quality. The hardest one that I frankly don't necessarily think should fall under our purview for ranking is that cost per acre because that goes back
that cost per acre is going to fluctuate on the fine print on in you know whether it's actually the settlement agreement with Palm or you know what's the language in this
conservation ement and those are two big unknowns I mean we do know a lot more on the settlement agree agreement. But if we remove the question of ranking by cost per acre, it would allow us to be a little more nimble in our decision making and move
forward with a project like this because that's going to be decided a little more in the negotiations by the BOCC and Florida Forever. But we don't know that language. We're just deciding. Well, you have a better in this case, you have a pretty good idea. Both these
properties we have an actual cost per acre. Certainly there going to be some that we don't. But I would say that if you're looking at properties on Hutchinson Island and Blueway properties or things closest to the urban services boundary, you would expect you're going
to pay a higher cost per acre. But ultimately that decision is going to be made by the board of county commissioners, it would seem to me. So maybe maybe we're getting a little too granular that you know if you look at this as a filtering process we're we're sort of the initial filter and maybe in
in talking about the legal requirements or the the various provisions of the legal document it's it's pre it's it's inappropriate not inappropriate but it's beyond the scope of our charge uh or or perhaps I'm missing something. What what's been the history on this John? If
you could fill us in. We're we're making history tonight and and actually as I was answering Tom's question. Um you know I I some of Merritt's thoughts were in my head and I' I'd really be curious to committees you know if they want if you guys want to deliberate on that I'd love to have your feedback.
Well, uh, issue. I mean, the the there's a big difference in cost per acre when we're talking conservation easements. If the property owner is required to eliminate some of over time on on his dime the cow pastures and do its best to
turn them into natural ecosystems again. Whereas, if it's taxpayer dollars, that cost per acre, you know, changes dramatically, you know. So, I mean, who's paying for the prescribed burns? who's paying for invasive species removal. Um, if it's a
conservation easement, I don't think by any stretch 5% of the revenue generated should be going towards management. That should be on the property owner. They get the luxury of owning the property. But that that's what I'm talking about cost per acre. We have no idea on that
right now. And that's important stuff that needs to be negotiated. But I don't I don't think that would be negotiated now cuz we don't have the information for that. But once the language of the conservation easement comes about,
that can be figured out. We should be deciding on whether it's, you know, benefiting our water quality and benefiting Martin County overall and falls into the ordinance for all these other categories. But I don't I I don't think we have the information for the
cost breaker that we but I'm saying we don't need that right now. I would say you know if you know if there's a discussion on this it's something that we could be I I think um I mean we know at this point
what what the I don't think this is an appraised cost per acre but this is what's being asked. Um, but I think really our more important consideration is how the Martin County tax dollars are leveraged with other dollars from the state. And in both of these cases, I
think we have leverage from Florida Forever and on the Palmar, I forgotten, but there's leverage there from the water management district, I believe, as well. So, I think that may be a more important consideration because I don't think that we, like you said, I don't think we can consider
exactly how much this is going to cost in the long run. And I I went ahead and I pulled back the project ranking form and out of the cost per acre and recreational opportunities are only 5%
each of the project score. Yeah. But I think what Merritt's saying is perhaps it's not even within our province to determine to go with a cost per acre because we don't know the terms of the deal. And so I'm I'm starting to think that maybe we just delete line item.
Mayor, is that where you were headed with that one? Yes. I mean, hypothetically, we're we're talking about 5 million right now, but that more I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but that can certainly change in the negotiations
up or down with what's in the language with Florida Forever and the BOCC. Right. Backing up though, I would say what you're asking, if you're asking to delete an item from the project ranking form, that's not something that as staff we can do in this context here right
now. that would have to actually go in front of the board and be removed by the board of county commissioners from the manual. Is this in any way locking in that cost per acre of I mean or that potential purchase of the 5 million in
that deal right now that can there's some that are more objectives and and there's some that are more subjective. The cost per acre is a bit more of a subjective item. It doesn't have to be perfect. That's just meant to be a metric because there certainly is. If I'm looking at a property on Hutchinson Island, and there's one we're
considering right now, it's $2.2 million for an acre. We're if we're looking out here in the middle of nowhere, this conservation ement or whatever might be $10,000 an acre. So, there's there's a big difference depending on where you're looking. And that's why that metric
specifically was incorporated. But it's not only cost per acre, which is, you're right, it's very immaterial to what we do, but if we already know that everything you're bringing us is within
the criteria established, then if if we don't discuss these things, then why are we here? Just go right to the go right to the county commission. You don't need this committee. I I would push back on that, brother
Cenny, but I'd like to go around the horn. Dan, what are your thoughts on this issue of uh the estimated cost per acre? Is that material at this point or do we put for what what we're doing? We're here to score the property, not determine the value. So maybe we just
leave that blank and then you factor that in. Vic, what are your thoughts? I would agree with with Dan's perception and but yet also with Beth that we're here to look at this leverage like the
leverage between the two entities and and not focus on the estimated cost per acre. Is that correct? Okay. And Beth, how about you? Yeah, I I think what what Vicki said, I'm I would I would like to look at how how that cost is leveraged and, you know, because I think comparatively we're not even going to be
able to compare cost per acre for where we are throughout the throughout the county. How about you? I agree with Beth. It's an estimate. They're giving us the best available information. So, it's just one consideration of many. It is subjective. We're not going to be able to we're not involved in
negotiation. So, it's, you know, it's up to the county and staff to um make that, you know, effort to negotiate the best price. Okay. So, John, you know, for your purposes, I think for the committee's purpose, um, when it comes
to estimated cost per acre that we we leave that blank for now. What's what I would just put this just put the same score. If you wanted to zero it out and put zero and everybody put zero, then that's then that's uh that's reasonable.
And then when it's presented to the uh board of county commissioners, our you know our feelings are expressed at that time. John, what do you think? Yeah. And then we can also take this to the county attorney's office and and you know look at how do we update this? You know we knew when we crafted this manual and
process that there would there would be probably needs to update it as we develop experience in the process. So, um, we can, you know, we can certainly bring this forward to our to the county attorney, to the board for, uh, to update and and if the committee thinks
that it's better off not there, certainly. Okay. And if you closing the loop on this, Tom, are you good with that? Um, it's it's not only cost per acre. The whole reason we're here is to give
balance to the taxpayer and the residents of Martin County. If all we're doing is confirming what these what staff says is good, then we don't need to be here. I don't necessarily agree. Well, you may not agree, but you ask me
a question, I'm giving you an answer. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Um I think proceed Mike through the and I and I'll just say then since this is your committee and you're the one doing these evaluations, we'll have 5% of our ranking criteria
uh would then be available. So just give thought to if there's anything that's missing that you think should be under consideration or if you think something that's just 10% should be 15%. you know, if you want to make modifications, then
present them to us and then we can make those modifications. Yep. Sounds good. So, John, did you want to say anything? At risk of belaboring this topic anymore, I I um I I do think that there's um
a value beyond just approving something for the ordinance. And that as you evaluate these other parameters, it's going to give staff um some direction on what is important to the people that you represent. Exactly. So that we can apply our focus. You know, there's there's not
enough money to do everything. And so your input on all of these other areas will dictate to us where we focus our efforts in negotiations and partnerships with that also have limited funding. Yes. And I would offer that we have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers to do
this. Um, so Mike, could you uh any other slides there or is that I um were we on management considerations? Yes. Okay. I think I gone through this, but uh we're our property is bordered on the west side and the northwest and the
south side by other protected lands. Uh you do have to factor in that there are cow pastures in these areas and those are harder to maintain. And it's harder to restore conservation values once you've disturbed the soil and introduced
cows. So, but they also on the other side can help to control invasive vegetation. And since it's under conservation easement, this falls to the land owner instead of uh the county to do the maintenance that would be necessary.
Just another slide. In terms of wildlife benefits, it's close proximity to the C44, provides canopy cover. I know when we were driving out there to do a site inspection, we saw hundreds of snail kites driving up the the levey, uh deer, all all different kinds of wildlife. So,
it it is actually a pretty heavily used property for uh wildlife. And this is just a list of some of the species that are found here. So nothing too crazy. Uh but in addition, there were no rare habitats found within the
project area. And these are just some of the listed species that are predicted to occur using ENA's model. In terms of development potential, it is located outside the urban services area and has an agricultural designation, one
house per 20 acres future land use. So that would mean that there's a potential for 95 residential units on the property. Uh it is adjacent on the norththeast side to a development, a 20 acre lot development and there is extensive
uplands on the property. So there would be plenty of developable area if somebody tried to develop it. In terms of recreational opportunities, the big factor is that it's a conservation easement. So, in the near
term, there's no potential really to provide public access. But with the right of first refusal, it does have the potential to uh eventually provide public access if if the if the government if government were ever able to get uh fe simple ownership
and it will be managed as part of the larger IRL complex south complex and that is it. So now for the members of the committee, uh what I would like to do is let's discuss each parcel. Uh and then we'll rank them. Uh we'll then turn
our Sorry, chair. Um uh public comments. Public excuse me, that's right. Public comment on this particular parcel. Okay. So we'll then rank them. Uh we'll give our sheets to staff who will then report the results and then we'll
discuss those results amongst ourselves. Uh, is everybody okay with that? And Beth, you want us to rank individually or to discuss in rank? I I would say let's discuss let's go through the first parcel uh and rank that and then we
discuss the second parcel. Uh, and I'm thinking that Beth, would you like to lead that off in terms of your your thoughts on it? Um, well, if we want to go through one by one. Yeah, I well there are two there are two that we've discussed. No, I mean I mean the ranking
criteria. Yeah. Um so um if we can just start with the relation to the C project for the Palmar components. It is not within the C project but it is certainly adjacent to and provides a great connectivity to the C project and um
benefit to the Lockahhatchee River not the IRL project but the Lockahhatchee River project. Um so I I think um it deserves a relatively high score for relation to the SER project but certainly not a 100. So so if we're
going on the basis we originally looking at 1 to 10 and oh okay when we were looking at originally it's been modified to one to 100. Um so uh I guess that with one if each of us
could then rank that accordingly between one and 100 in column number one relation to SER project uh and bet so your council is that it we're highly related highly related but not I
mean I would go mine would be about a 70 to 75% %. So yeah, uh maybe going around the horn, Tom. That's fine. Scott, agreed. Yeah. What are your thoughts on the ranking of that particular parcel?
Palmar. This is this is the Palmar Palmer. And this is from the perspective of the relation to the SER project. I would say probably 60 75%. Okay. I would merit I had already put 80%
um just the relationship the area the headarters of the locksahhatchee aquafer recharge. Okay. Then if we look at greenway corridor I'm going to again refer to Beth. Okay. Mark can you put up
the map that shows um the chimney and um you know the proposed tradeoff and all of that. Um my You want that one? Um what's the other one? One it had a lot of the blue and yellow lot. Now can you
point out on there where the chimney actually is? Just Okay. Yeah. And it doesn't cover the whole thing. It just starts here. Right. Okay. So those are the air those are the lots that are currently in public ownership that are going to be traded for these lots to give us larger a larger conglomeration
of um public property within the lower portion. So I think that warrants a pretty high score. My my biggest concern is um getting rid of the connectivity
between the chimney and the C44 and and and to the north in the wildlife corridor. So again, I'd rank it pretty highly um in you know above 75% but um take that into account that there's um
we're losing a little bit of connectivity there. Okay, Scott, I had that a little bit lower like around 60 65%. Okay. And what's your thinking on that one, Scott? Just the the lack of connectivity, the checkerboard issues. Yep. Yep. Mr.
Campenny, 80% is fine. Okay, Dan. 75. Got it. I would say 70. I agree with Scott regarding the checkerboard.
Y I had 70 as well. Same same answer. It's it's a little hard to manage, but I mean it certainly if the endgame is to get it all, we got to start I mean we've already started
and we're going down the right path. So, what I'm doing, I I'm sort of going to Beth first. Are you folks okay with that or do you are you would you prefer some other process? Is she okay? Okay. Beth has that background. Yeah, that's
kind of what I'm thinking. Yeah. Okay. Um I appreciate that. Okay, you're good. Okay, Scott. Okay, Beth, let's go to talk about potential funding partners, please. Okay. So on this Florida Forever and Water Management District, this is
straight water management. This is straight water management district. Okay. And the water Yeah. So if you're going to look at it from that metric, the water management district is acquiring 600 acre 8 acres at a cost of 11.5 million while the
county is acquiring 380 acres at 7.3 million. Now, I will say, and I don't show this, but the water management district is acquiring properties in different areas of Palmar. It's still Palmar. It's just a different portion of Palmar, right? And the water management district
has been pursuing this property for a long time. Um, as as long as I was involved in SER, they were pursuing pursuing these parcels. And as anybody in real estate knows, they're difficult to acquire because there's a a lot of
little individual lots. Um, but I so I think this agreement is a great agreement um with the with the settlement agreement and um the water management districts. Um, where would your ranking be, Beth? Again, I I think I I would do about an
80% on this as well. I had 70%. Okay. I had 60% because they're acquiring 60% on the properties and we're acquiring the other 40% roughly. Yep.
75 80 80 85%. Um I mean the way I look at this, there's going to be different properties coming up. It's a significant win. If we have a potential funding partner, that's always going to be the goal. you know 100% might be multiple funding partners
state and federal and then 70 65% might be no funding partners but in a sense though that's still also the taxpayers and we're funding it you know every property is even coming
to us I mean well I do have some rankings that are going to be zero like for example recreational opportunities but if we have a funding partner that's the state or federal level. That's a great goal. I also see this settlement
agreement as they in a in a sense 2:1 acres they're helping fund it. Zach Gaza is or be a man by land to get this agreement passed in a way. Yep. Okay. Uh thank you. How about habitat quality
Beth? Um it doesn't get much better than this in Martin County. Um this is uh Palmar is beautiful property has ex excessive wetland character. Um there is a a little bit of disturbed land as was noted in the propos in the proposals and
in the F9 report but um I am I mean I do an 85 okay in habitat quality. Okay. 80% just because of some of the disturbed lands. Tom, having been out there, I think it's not
as pretty as you may you may think from those photos. And I think there's been a lot of degradation. And so I only gave it a 60. Got it. 75. 80%. Okay. Thank you. Uh, moving on to
management considerations. Beth, you're on. Access is difficult. Individual lots, not a lot of um um ease of getting to the parcels. Um I 55. Okay.
Okay. 20% because it's I think it's unmanageable for the most part with all the other private land owners out there. Yep. Tom. Well, with the purchase of of this property, we will have with Florida
Water Management District a significant amount of the parcels in that particular area. So, I gave it a 70. Well made 25. Okay. 45
uh 65%. Okay. Uh, moving on to rare or listed species or habitats. Yeah, Mike, do you have that information? I forget. I What? I think we said not a
lot of rare habitat, but um again, some of the higher quality wetland pro wetlands in Martin County are located in Palmar. Um Yeah, there you go. Mhm. Yeah. I'm um
I'd say I 70% here for not rare but um know as as development continues um may become more rare. Okay. So you're talking 70 Beth. Mhm. Has the potential to be much
better. So I give it I'd agree with that. Okay. Tom, I gave it a 50 because it is it has chased away a lot of wildlife in the last few years. So they would have to come back in.
Yep. Point well made. 70. Okay. 65. Okay. And 75%. Okay. Um and then for purposes the estimated cost per acre, we're going to take a pass on that is everybody is going around the horn. Are you okay?
Zero it out. Okay. Zero. Okay. Vicki, I I agree, but I'm ju just sitting here thinking through as we get to other parcels of of property, I think that question is going to come up. Well, we we can always address it then. I mean,
really, this is a I use the term plastic medium. I mean, it's a we we don't always have to have the exact same format for every parcel, I wouldn't think. uh because we could provide we could present this to the board of county
commissioners with a caveat that uh in these cases we didn't feel comfortable putting a price tag on it but in others we might you okay when it comes to the Palmar area we don't have enough knowledge to
come up with a cost per acre Yes we're not in control of it yes so why go down that road exactly okay so do we have a consensus we'll just put a zero for that. Mhm. I mean, it's a negotiated price p to the agreement. So, yeah. But we're not going to be looking at the
terms of the deal ourselves. So, uh it seems to me that if we just we just zero it out and when it's presented to the board of county commissioners, that's made clear. John, we good? Yep. Okay. Mr. Campenny, I'll zero it out, but
there's only x amount of dollars for this entire thing. So when you say it doesn't matter what it costs, it's not up to us. Well, we are going to run out of money really quickly if we don't have
a price consideration because there's only so much money out there. Yeah, we need more knowledge. Yeah, exactly. There's nothing nothing says we have to do this today. Miss Mr. chair, the way I look at I I give more weight
to the potential funding partners. I I am not saying that relative cost per acre is not a something that needs to be discussed. It's just as Dan just mentioned right now almost with both part properties, we
don't have the knowledge for to dive deeper into the relative cost per acre. I so I shifted the way I'm looking at this form to to more benefit or less on the funding partners. That's how I'm equating it in my mind. Yep, that makes
sense. It's certainly a relevant topic. We just don't have the information. And if we demand that information, this entire process might be hindered by the timeliness for us to get that information. Yeah. I my my personal
feeling is let's let's not get bogged down in those details at this point. Let's def let's give the board of county commissioners our input on the nine criteria that we're talking about at least as it relates to these properties. Um that's just my humble opinion. Uh,
anybody? Well, once once once we get further down the road and we establish what environmental easements cost, then we'll have a better idea, but right now we're just beginning. Yes.
Why don't we Why don't we establish a benchmark as we get further down the road? Yep. Good. It's also going to be relative to the properties that we have before us. We have a 10-year window here. We're only going to have x number of properties at any one given time. So it's not like we can just wait until we
have them all and then do evaluation, you know, it's just that practically won't work. So we just have to work with what is being presented to us at the time. Exactly. Mhm. Okay. I Okay. Is everybody everybody okay with that? Okay. So let's proceed to recreational
opportunities again. Beth going to defer to you on this one? Um sure. I was just looking at on how we're supposed to score this. Um and um essentially it comes right out and says wetland properties have less opportunity for public use or for recreational
opportunities because you can't build facilities on wetland properties. Um I I I'm inclined to give this a relatively high score for hiking and and access in that way but less for facilities. So um
I I want to say 60. Yeah. and on the form of recreation is if I understand you the form of rec recreation and um I mean the Florida trail goes through here the the Indian town grade old Indian town grade so that's good for hiking and
that kind of access um but again if you want to build parking lots and that sort of thing it's less so so um I agree with Beth on that point Tom same okay Dan I agree 50.
I think Beth, you said 60 or 50. I said 60. 60. Yeah. On page 60. 60. I had originally written 80 just because of connecting those trails. Um Yeah, but that's a such a narrow strip. Yeah, I'm going to rate it pretty high too for
that reason, but I'm tend to be a trail guy. Um yeah, you can't really see it that well on here, but this is the Jupiter Indian Town Trail. goes right through here. So, you can see some of the parcels. And does that go through part of uh BM by land? Uh yeah. Jimny.
Oh, well, no. Uh we'll we will not be uh giving up any parcels that would affect our ability to move people down. It goes through through the middle of the Palmar though, right? And into Co Pepper. That's correct. Eventually. and then all the way to the
Cypress Creek Natural Area that's managed by Palm Beach County and that's at Indian Town Road. But what just to be sure we're on the same page, so that trail would not go through the chimney that BMAN by land. There it is. Intends to have for his or
her family on the southern end. It's a little easier to see it on here. And I think there's one. All right. It's kind it's it's a little hard to see, but this orange line is the desired trail. Almost looks like it's the dividing line
between a man by a land property. And so that area in particular is right here. [Applause] Yep. John, is that correct? Uh the settlement actually divides parcels on the grade so that the county ends up
with the grade. Um, so, so the the line actually of the division and the settlement actually starts on the north side of the grade. Okay. Okay. And Mike, you got to lean into your microphone a little bit. Okay. Okay. Thank you. U, moving on to development potential. Can
I let someone else take the lead on this one? Um, how do you feel comfortable doing? I I think it's very low. Yeah. Very low. Maybe maybe 10%. Is that because of the wetlands? Yeah. Uh Scott, how do you Mr. Campy? I
put 60 because you got houses out there now. Mhm. Not legally, but you got houses out there. Yeah. Well, yeah. But we're talking when we're talking development, we're talking about development potential. If we don't buy
it, those illegal structures would remain. there. So to me, we are buying up whether it's legal or illegal, all the illegal development that has occurred there, including the roads, the
paths, digging for wells, all of that. So to me, we're buying development potential. Yes. So that personally, I would rank it very high on that basis. Uh but going around the horn uh do you
want to have a number or um I I put 60%. So we're we're ranking higher if the development potential if we consider the development potential high. That's is it but is should they be permitted development potential not illegal? It
just says threat of conversion uh that is an important factor. location of the property, configuration, existing natural resources, properties in or adjacent to urban services. You don't all have to agree. So, yeah, I I um I
60. Yeah, I put fairly high. I agree with Tom on this one. It it the development potential the development's happening and the this acquiring is the only way to to remove it. you know, um
I if we look at it as only legal development potential, the habitat's still getting destroyed and that's what's happening now. What's happening now? So, Scott, I'm going to go a little higher. Yeah, I guess I just thought of it in a different way that the the probability of it being legally
developed in a significant way was lower. But maybe I'm missing it depends on how you look at it. Criteria, right? Yeah. And Palmer's its own unique animal is subjective, right? Regularly, but I Yeah, a unique critter going around the
horn. I still think it's low. Okay. 70. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Waterways or shoreline protection. Beth, again, wetland protection, not shoreline. Um, I want to
look at the criteria again. Does that category Mr. Chair does that category storm water flow and product? Yes. Um I would rank it high. Okay. So it it includes wetlands not just right
flowing flowing water through opportunities to attenuate damaging storm water flow and protect county estuary environments. again headwaters to the lockahhatchi uh water access is not water access not shoreline. So so it
depends on how high we want to rank shoreline versus wetland. Yeah. Um and or or we consider them independently. So Beth, where are you coming in ranking? Uh I'm coming in fairly high.
Um it's a valuable property at about 80. Mhm. At 70. I put 60 because it's not h does not have a a lot of access to waterway but it does have a lot of access to uh to
important wetlands and and and that's important but because these rankings are all not only for this particular they are for this particular property but I'm looking at it because of all the properties we
have to do and so at some point. Again, no one may agree with me, but there's a finite amount of money. So, if tomorrow something came in that would be on the
on on the Kousa Hatchee or on uh the St. Lucy, would we say, "Oh boy, you know, maybe this maybe Palmar could be take, you know, a lower ranking because it's much more important to have
a shoreline on St. Lucy." So, if I'm if I might too, I'm I'm going to revise my assessment here because now I'm reading what this says and it is specifically related to shorelines and coastal waterways and not necessarily wetlands.
It says outstanding Florida waters, rivers, and lakes. But so I would I would change my assessment here and go lower on this. What would that be? Uh 25. Yeah. Know the the reason for doing that, I probably should have spoke up sooner, is because a lot of these are
going to be geared towards like SER projects and Palmar and these big open wetland expansions and but we do have a Blueways area that does have value and a uniqueness on its own. So we wanted to
provide something to have it an area where it could get a higher score to make sure that that program doesn't get left out. Got it Scott? I originally was thinking of it in terms of being the headarters to the Laka Hatchee and you know that was significant but if the definition is restricted to you know
waterways and shore shorelines then I guess we have to rank it lower because it doesn't have that direct connection. Yeah. 10 15 excuse me 20 got it and merit I was at uh 60%
still I mean the FSU report defines it as Alpata Basin kind of helping to reconnect the historic flow from St. John's down south to the northern Everglades. True. Um, Aquafer Recharge,
it listed that multiple times. Um, and then again, the headarters of the Lockahhatchee. You know, without areas like this, you're just getting more runoff into the St. Lucy and Lockahhatchee. So I mean that's the
purpose of all this is to keep these large tracks of wetlands there so that the water goes into the aquifer rather than hitting cement and going into the river directly. So
I mean I understand where we're going to see some blueways properties but this acquiring and keeping this undeveloped certainly helps our waterways. It's a permeable surface. Yeah, exactly. Um, so
we've now finished the ranking for this particular property. If you could please put your name on the sheet and then Palmore. Um, and then let's proceed to the next one. And and as you do that, can you please hand them in to Genie over here so she can start to tabulate
the results? Right. Do do the um numbers need to be in pen or does it matter? because I brought my pencil so I can No worries. It's okay. Um, okay. So, let's move ahead to the next
one, please. Um, and this is the Barbie Ranch Project. Uh, and I think I'm going to again lead off with Is everybody okay with me leading off with Beth first? Yes, everyone but Beth. That's not a rip.
Um, it's in the SER project. You can't get any higher than that. I'd give it a 100. Okay. Agreed. Tom, I gave you a 70. Okay. Yeah. 100.
Vicki, 100. Merritt. Uh, 100. Okay. Uh, Greenway corridor. Oh. um also provides great connectivity being surrounded by C-44, STA and Alipata. Um and so it provides great
connectivity. Um some other parcels I'd like to see added, but um so I'd say 90. Okay. Go ahead. Um I had a high score too, but it was more like an 80. I mean, just because of What do you think? It's
private land. It's an easement. Yep. Yep. Okay, Tom. I mean, most of my rankings are going to be lower than yours because it is a private. It is private land. Love you anymore. Well, and and when you have cattle tramping on
it, I mean, it's going to affect what it does. So, I put 60. Got it. 60 80. All right. 65 for Okay.
Okay. potential funding partners, Beth, please. Uh, Florida Forever, correct? Um, and I'm sorry, Mike. I've And that's not a potential funding partner. They are funding partner. They
are the funding partner. Yes. So, um, again, I'm going to rank it fairly high at about 85. Okay. Pretty high. 90, Mr. King. 90. 90. 85. All right. uh 100
because of the fact that is a SER it's within SER as well. So the other potential credit is given to the federal government as well. So thank you Merritt. Okay, Beth. Next. Habitat quality. Uh habitat quality. Um there's
some beautiful areas on this property. Um, and it it does provide um good habitat, but there's also a lot of disturbed area with cattle and all of that. So, I'd go about 60%. Okay. Hide that at 50% just because of
the private ownership. It's a conservation easement. We don't know what the restrictions will be. There is a lot of disturbed property. It's used for ranching. Again, Penny 50. Got it. 50 65 65. Got
it. Uh, management considerations. Why don't you never tell us about your score? Oh, okay. It's 70. You know, you haven't done anything yet. We're both from New York. So, pardon if I give this guy a little bit of flack. He once accused me because I used to have in my team some
NYPD cops. He said, "Snetker, you sound like an NYPD cop." So, please pardon the banter between the two of us if I if I push back on brother campy. It's and again, it's not that I don't love him. It's just that sometimes it's
appropriate. Right. I'm not saying a word except that you should tell us your scores also. I will do that, sir. Okay. Management considerations, please, Beth. Again, that there's there's a there's a big if
here because of of it being a conservation easement. Yep. And we don't know really how that will work. Um, and whether or not the landowner is going to take responsibility or the state will step in and and take some
responsibility for management. So, I'm going to go with a 50%. Got it. at a higher number because I'm banking on Florida Forever and you know their conservative approach to their conservation easements and putting restrictions in place. Yep. And I think this land owner wants
to keep this property in a use and not have it develop. So I think they've got good intentions to protect the land. So what would your number be? I said 80. Okay. 50. Got it. 50. I gave it a 75. I agree
with Scott that I think the property owners are going to continue to maintain the property. Yeah. And they're very Yeah. They already have a cal they're very proud of calf operation. Most of them. Yeah. I went back and forth and
just settled on 60%. And I got 65. Okay. Rare or listed? You happy? Yes. It's about time. rare or listed species or habitats. So there are um a lot of um rare species
either directly adjacent to or that use the property. One that was missing from the report is Ottabon's carakara um because there are definitely carakara on that property. um and uh the snail kite uh and then a lot of waiting birds and
um you know um white-tailed deer which obviously are not endangered. Um so 75 to 80. Got it. Yeah. And I I I will speak to um this was done a little different. We didn't this was the previous report that was done for
Florida Forever uh because we just didn't simply didn't have time to have our own particular report. So that's something we need to have conversations with about because I would I would almost guarantee that there's gopher tortoises out there that did not show up in that report. Okay. Thank you.
Um going around the horn be good. I had a 70%. Okay. Penny 75 75 80 uh 90 I'm going 85
and we're going to put a zero for the next Mhm. Yes. Okay. Recreational opportunities. Again, dependent upon the nature of the conservation easement and whether or not um the public is allowed. Um I'm
um from what I know and from what Mike said, I think this is a pretty low score. Um the recreational opportunities are adjacent. Um so there's bird watching availability from from the adjacent C44.
Um but so I'm say 45 45. Okay. I had 20 zero. Got it. 15. I gave it 10. I was at zero as well. Um, it's private property.
Exactly. Now, a lot of this I think will establish a baseline and that may be where in the future we might be able to look back on today or or what happened with this property and get an idea going forward of on cost per acre per
conservation easements and maybe the same with recreational opportunities. But right now with knowing what we know it's a zero zero. We can bring stuff for me. We can have do like just rank conservation easements, you know, and
try and keep them separate from from the fee simple acquisitions. And there's some there's one big one that at this point we don't know if it's going to be a conservation easement. Yeah. Let's let's keep it simple for now. Um yeah, let's when when you present it to the
board of county commissioners, if you can caveat it appropriately, John. Okay. Um so I'm going to put it at 10. Um development potential. I'm thinking that maybe Dan, are you comfortable taking, you know, doing the sort of macro overview as to how you assess
this? It's private property. I don't once once we have the environmental easement through there, it's zero. Yep. But there's development potential now. I think the current like it could be developed. This would be 20 acre
ranch. Well, it's not easily. If if we weren't to acquire it, could it be developed? That's my read on the Is that the correct? Yeah, that's so the question is if you're a real estate broker and you're trying to sell this property, could you sell it for
commercial I mean for development u in Martin County? Yes. No. What about for something like trailside with 20 acre ranchets? Well, that that's a possibility. Yes. Yeah. So then so then it there is development potential.
Well, I'll change it to 50 then. Okay. No, I'm sorry if I'm that's that's fine. But yeah. So Okay. Well, this is being the first time going through here. A lot of the a lot of the is the interpretation of of the way you read it. Yep. Exactly. and we welcome
feedback in terms of how to tweak that uh language. So, you know, this was written by a biologist writing about development potential. So, you should have gave it to a lawyer. We had them we had lawyers involved, but
you know, like I know I know. Yeah, I'll go 50 on that. I'm thinking if you wouldn't mind just looking at it to see if we can tweak it a little bit and then giving feedback to John and Mike that would I've talked to Mike talk to Mike about it but I will Yeah. I I view it as
if if this property were not acquired or given an easement um it it has a high probability for development. I give it an 80. Got it. Merit uh I gave it a 95.
um the same as right along the lines of what Vicki was talking about. I mean, you can rank it as what could occur now in this instance. You could rank it as what a lobbyist might be able to do with unlimited funding with a developer in
the future. And you could also rank it as we did in Palm with what just might happen, you know, of property owners just building their own thing, not obeying the law. Um, and we're going to have to adjust that for each property,
but right now 20 acre ranchets are there. That doesn't even factor in a lobbyist in the future. Um, so development potential is significant. Hi. Yes. Okay. Um, I put it at 50 because even though there are 20 20 acre
ranchets and while merit may be correct, the possibility of coming to almost any Martin County commission and trying to get much more density exactly would be very difficult. and 20 acre ranchets today
would be extraordinarily expensive the land once they once once they developed it. So I put it at 50. Yeah, I think I would say 60 to 65. Um
and I because I think I mean there's a lot of money out there and people really like to live on 20 acres. Um and it's close to I95. Uh so it that I think um elevates the possibility as well. I agree with that. I mean I give it like
an 80. I think there's a good opportunity to development. It could be another discovery project. Yeah. Yep. I did I did 80. So let's go ahead with waterways or shoreline protection. I think Beth back to Yeah. I'm going to go low on that again. Even though it's in
the SER project and but it's not and it does impact the Indian River Lagoon. I think the the way that the ranking is written, it's that's more uh appropriate to Blueways and um properties that are right on the coast. Right. So 25. Okay.
I'd agree with that. Tom, I had put zero, but I think you're I think you're more in line with it. So I'll change mine to 25. 25. I would agree. Um I may be ranking these all slightly, but I I went 50%.
Um it's adjacent and still within the SER plan and it's adjacent to the C44. Um you know, keeping it the way it is will benefit,
you know, our waterways. Yep. So, I'm going to go with 30. And at this point, we will turn our ranking sheets in. We're going to take uh How long do you think it'll take to pull this together? Five minute, 10 minutes? Three minutes once I have Okay. So, let's take a five
minute break and then we'll be back. Great. Thank you folks. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, campaign. formality of a gavvel. Yeah, let's gavvel it up. Okay. And you'll have to send it to me. Okay.
Michael, please present. So, we're going to have two votes, folks. We're going to going to be two votes on each property. One is going to be whether or not we present it to the board of county commissioners and number two is going to be the ranking. So, let's go through that. Uh Mike, so this is the uh Can
everyone see this? I don't know which property is that, Mike? This one is going to be Palmar. So, you can see all the criteria up here at the top, the one through 10. You can see the one that was zeroed out and then you can see all the uh all the scores were added up to get a
total uh per category. Then we used the weight weighted score which was you took this number and you multiplied it times that 0.15 or 0.1 or 0.05 to come up with your weighted score and then that was
used to develop a total project score. And so we did that for each of those properties as you can see and then used it to come up. Like let's just do the first property, okay? And then we're going to vote. First of all, um I'd like to have a motion that we recommend uh
this property to the board of county commissioners. I move I'll make a motion. Second. Second. Okay. All in favor? I I Any opposed? Okay. So unanimous decision. Um, let's go ahead
as it relates to approving the averages or consensus. Uh, all those in favor in terms of what we're looking at. Yeah, I I understand what we're looking at, but why do we have to approve that if we
approve the we approving the property? So, it's a you're saying it's redundant. Yeah. Yeah. Good point. Mike, I don't Do you agree, John? You okay with that? I don't have a bone to pick. So we what what's your read on that? I think maybe it's redundant. Yeah, it's up to you.
Well, I'm just, you know, it's a points well made. Dan, what are your thoughts on this? It seems like it could be redundant. I would say from my perspective, uh, like vote on the total project score for each. So, we've really already done that. So, I'm what I'm
recommending it to go. Yeah. Yeah. So for it seems to me it's the first time we've gone through this process. So it seems to me that if if we've already ranked it and we've agreed to and that's been calculated, the only vote that we really need to do is do we recommend it
to the board of county commissioners, right? They can look at all this themselves. I don't So we'll just do one vote. Everybody okay? Beth, you okay? That's fine. I I will question. Do you want So you know, next time we could be dealing with 20 of these, right? Right. We could be looking at 20 projects
ranked. And we do have a thing that shows the ranked number, you know, so if there were 20, it go one all the way through 20. Do you want to show the commission and show those ranked scores to say that this is, you know, uh I
don't know if I'd say it's the priority or not so sure I want it. Let's just discuss that. I'm not so sure that the ranking number is is going to be material because in some cases we may have a cost an estimated cost per acre
and that will throw these numbers off. So that is if we're consistent, we have zero cost per acre for every one of these, then that's not going to throw it off. But if we have an estimated cost per breaker for some of them and not for others, that's going to mess up your
ranking in the far right column. Are you following me in that one? Well, well, also, Jim, if you have only six people here, correct? It's going to also throw off the rankings, right? Because it'll be it'll be a different you won't have
432 and 458 because you don't have that you won't have that sixth person. So, so it's a great point, Tom. What we're going to do is we're going to average that and then weight it so that if you have seven people present versus nine
people, you'll end up with a similar weighted um waiting, if you will. So, John, let's talk about that rank number though because that could that's going to be that's that is going to cause some problems if the port of county
commissioners doesn't see that we've estimated cost per acre for zero in some cases and then 20 in others. Staff recommendation on that would be to eliminate the the cost per acre factor totally. So that there's it's never a factor. Absolutely. Okay. But the other
thing about ranking, Mr. chair. If if we send this to them and then then in two months we send 20 prop 20 properties to them, the ranking here is between these two properties. The ranking on the 20 would
be on the 20th properties. So if you're ranked number one here and you're ranked number one with 20 properties, it's different. There'll only ever be one number one. And so we'll keep adding to this as we score more. um properties. So this would become a working document and
as you so then on the next time you see this perhaps there's 22 rows um rather than two rows and so they'll the there'll always only ever be one. It might not be the same one after you've scored new properties but um there'll always only ever be one and that does
help the commission organize where we're at. So otherwise you could have a property that scores has a total score of 200 that gets moved out on by one that has you know 458. So
uh to me it helps to keep a ranked list because of those you know those top ones are the ones that you're then prioritizing for acquisition more than something that would be lower down on the list. Got it. So I think well I think the key is that we're going to delete that column for cost per acre
number one. And Mr. Chair, may I speak to that? May I speak to that point? Y um to the extent this scoring criteria was included in the committee manual, right? um this committee's ability to strike or
or in any way revise this this uh table is going to be limited um to what I would recommend directing staff to make a recommendation perhaps to the board of county commissioners to reconsider this criteria. You you all do not have the
ability to just strike it because it has been adopted. Oh, good. Good. By the commission. And maybe I should say to the public or did any of you in the public wish to comment on us doing that? Okay. So, just for the record, we've asked the public further comment. Um,
tag your IT staff on taking care of that. Okay. Um, one of the challenges though, if I could speak to the ranking issue, is that inevitably you're going to compare properties that are before you in this particular meeting and then in the next meeting if we have, you know, 10 or 20 properties based on the
reviewing those properties, we may have the desire but not the possibility to go back and say, gee, I would have ranked the properties at the last meeting differently. Yes. So, I mean, I'm a little bit reluctant to commit and maybe I don't
have a choice, but it's like, okay, I like these two properties now, but in the future, I may not like them as much or I may like them more. Well, here's the thing. Some of these pro some of these may be timesensitive as it relates to doing the deal. So, my strong preference would be that we make our recommendations to the board of county
commissioners at some future date. If we find that the deal hasn't been done and staff says, "Hey, look, we haven't closed this deal. Do you want to reevaluate it?" So, I would, if it's okay, would you I' I'd defer to the staff to bring that to our attention
because otherwise it's going to delay it. Uh, is that okay? I understand that. Yeah. And I think if the sooner we can close these because apparently the county commissioners have asked that we speed up the process if I understood conversation today correctly. So, uh,
are you okay with that, Scott? Yeah. Okay. I'm just pointing out. Okay. most of what you most of what we're going to do is going to be all at one time, you know, all in the next few months. And then I think it's just going to be odd straggler party properties
that come through over time. Um because of, you know, we've made such a big emphasis and effort to get the willing sellers now that there there might not be many to do for a for a while after this. So, if I could jump ahead, uh, do
a vote on Barbie moving it forward to the board of county commissioners. Um, so move. All those second. Second. Great. All those in favor? I I Any opposed? Okay. So, we go ahead and do that. Um
really at this point I I I I also have right now in my mind Palmar is more important to purchase absolutely than the Barbie ranch. And even though according to this ranking Palmar is
number two and the Barbie is number one. And knowing everything I know, I would say to anybody, we should move heaven and earth to to effectuate the Palmar
uh settlement more so than the Barbie ranch. So I again I'm going to I'm just I think you're right, Scott. This is really hard when you have a such a subject. This is a subjective ranking. This is all very
subjective because this is the way you feel today. Yeah. You may feel completely different tomorrow. So, I'm I'm just going to say for the record and it's being recorded, I I hope that the Palmar settlement is the one that goes
first. Absolutely. We if we have no more money and the county commission doesn't want to borrow or bond or whatever they have to do. This is what we need to do. Got it. We've got very very important. We've got we've got the money. So bottom line is the charge to staff is to
expedite both of these uh in my humble opinion. Well, that's your charge. That's not my charge. Yeah. Yeah. No, but I think I think the point and the what you're hearing from the county commissioner is we want to get things moving. So Well, that's great. I'm just saying for
for the record, for the press, for whomever it happens to be, Palmar in my mind is very important to close on as soon as possible. Okay. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. But John, are are you
further along in the negotiation with Barbie than we are with Palmore? Um, so the Palmer negotiation is complete. There's there's nothing left to do on that. That's number one then. And and
and staff will be uh recommending both of these. Um and the the schedule that Barbie Ranch is on is really at the discretion of Florida Forever. And it's part and parcel. And this is as much for the public who might be listening as it is the board because I think maybe Mike talked to each of you about why we
brought Barbie in at the last minute. Um, our understanding is that last week on when the budget was finalized by the legislature, Florida Forever was nearly zeroed out. And Florida Forever is always working on years and years of
these projects that that you know, they have an entire cadre corpus, if you will, of of potential projects that they're constantly negotiating, working through. And when the budget got zeroed out, there was this lastm minute rush to
we need to figure out how we're going to use what we have. And a lot of the land owners who were in negotiations called up and said, I want to go now because they realized that that it might be limited. And and so the the potential to acquire this became this. And um Florida
Forever reached out to us and said, "We're thinking of a September governor and cabinet meeting for the remaining funds that Florida have Forever has and we're looking to leverage these and get the best deals done that we can. Are you guys in?" And so we needed to accelerate
this process on our end to make sure that that that Barbie Ranch got into the cut for the governor and cabinet meeting that's in September. And it's important to note that this is an IRL South project and and the protection of the St. Lucy River estuary and the Indian
River Lagoon are top priorities of the citizenry of Martin County that have entrusted us to So if I could jump in um so we wrap it up. Uh with our next meeting we expect to have 10 to 20 parcels. Mr. Chair. Yeah. Can I
the the ranking system has been hard for me, but I equate this and I don't know if any of the board members know, but I'm sure the staff is familiar with how the MO has a priorities list and you
know, it's a revolving list working with FDOT of roughly 10 to 13 parcels. Once they're on that list, they're greenlighted to move forward. And
you know, the county and FDOT might be working on number five that could bump up or down in that rank depending on what other projects come up. Um, and negotiations can be taking place on multiple priorities at any given time.
So just being there, I mean it is it's a fluid rank. Um but you don't have to be necessarily number one or two to be moving forward on that. And that's that's the way I've kind of swallowed this ranking list.
It's important for us to document what we're doing and open have our open discussions and the best way to do that is to rank the properties, but it's also important to put on the record comments that Mr. campaign made or that
you know ideally the money is to be spent on purchasing these parcels and we expect the commission to be moving forward on both what we discussed today. As long as they're not rejected at the
outcome of the final vote where we say we don't approve to send this forward with our blessing, in theory, they're going to have made that and be ranked somewhere in there. But negotiations can be ongoing at any given time with
multiple properties. So, I think that's important to put down for the record. And I think the BOCC knows that they're all many of them are familiar with the MO priorities list which is a similar ranking system in a way. Yep. Um thinking about our next
meeting. Uh it could be a long one depending upon the number of parcels. I think it's been mentioned 10 to 20. Uh so I'm going to get together with staff next week ideally to see if we can streamline this process. Uh but you know
if in the meantime if any of you have ideas as to how we can streamline it then I think the best thing to do would be to if you could send a note to Mike and John in terms of your thoughts on how we can
streamline it because it because it is going to be a long meeting. That said we won't have many other meetings like that. I expect that the next meeting will be a long one. Maybe the next two, but then beyond that, they'll probably be similar to this one or smaller. Maybe we could start earlier in the day, too.
Yeah, great point. Yeah. I mean, so let's let's talk about that. If if we were to start earlier, what would be a good time for you? 10:00 in the morning. 10. Yeah. But then we're going through lunch. Well, then we'll have lunch
brought in. Okay. Okay. I'm flexible. I can be Um, Tuesdays and Wednesdays are really hard for me to start earlier, but Thursdays are Mondays or Fridays. Thursdays are good. Thursday and Mondays
are good. Thursday, Mondays, and Fridays. Yep. Okay, Meritt, Tom, how about you? Whatever. That's right. You're tired. Sorry, Beth. Um, I'm flexible. Um, except for
Wednesday's um daytime. Wednesday evenings are fine. Thursdays and Fridays would be okay. Thursdays and Fridays are okay. Fridays would be the best if we're going to start earlier in the day. Okay. Rest of the week. I'm pretty booked far out. So, okay. For members of the
public, if we do it on Fridays, is that okay? Okay. Well, you're out of your mind. Why? What's the matter, camping? This is going to be hard enough. So, we start off, you know, but I think
we've got members of the public who have a vested interest in this going smoothly. In any case, so let's talk about Fridays. If staff could determine what Fridays in August
because we may have to have two meetings in August and September. So, if you could please if you want to pay attention. Uh so the main thing the biggest thing well one is having staff availability but the second on the right is BOCC commission chamber availability
which is important right that's what I'm thinking so August 20 uh 8th and 29th are available at this point in time the Friday would be the 29th uh correct right so the 29th of August
at 10:00 a.m. I'm Dan. Does that work for you, Vick? Works for me. Vicki works for me. I won't be here. That's That's Labor Day weekend. Oh, that Oh, yeah. That's not good. Not good. How about the 22nd?
But you're on vacation, Mike. Um I Yeah, I have a training. Uh if you go to I mean, it's not that far off. The 5th. Are you talking about September 5th? We're talking August. No, we're talking about September. jump. No, I'm sorry.
We're talking about August. No, no, jumpth. I need to I need to make sure I have plenty of time. That would September for FNA to complete these assessments, right? But you when we talked earlier Okay. September 5th would be fine for
September 5th. Is that okay for good for my calendar? Yeah. Okay. And how long would should we do this from 10 to 2? No, it's going to be I would say 10 to two. 10 to And I'm just going to put this tentative for now. Okay. So, this will be September 5th, Friday. Beth, are
you okay with that? Um, I am okay with that. I am planning to be out of the country sometime in September, but I don't think that early. So, Scott, how? Yeah, I can make it work. That's okay. Yeah, sorry about that workday thing. Mr. Camp Pennney. Yes. Mhm.
I think I would I think I would make the hours longer than 2:00 to get done because of sunshine advertising just to get through the day. If if there are 20 properties, are you thinking 10 to three?
I I think 10 to five. We'll take staff's recommendation on that one. Depending how many properties 10 to five Well, done early. We're done early. I'm looking at it looks like between 15 and 20 properties and and varying. Now, what
I'm going to try to do, I don't know if I'm going to be able to do this, but I feel like if you had 20 properties you're doing on one day, that's going to be overwhelming. Not not from the amount of time, but from the number of different properties that you're trying to look at and evaluate and score. So,
I'm going to, if that's the case and you want to do it all in one day, I'm going to try and get you the environmental assessments a few weeks in advance so that you can at least read review them. I'll give you blank scoring sheets. Um,
I'll probably if if anyone prefers it digitally, that's fine. Or I can just figure out a way to get you paper copies. Well, let's actually that's the next item on our agenda. Uh if we do, first of all, let's just confirm Friday the 5th at from 10:00 to 5:00. Everybody
okay with that? Okay, because next item is this whole issue of the uh documentation. So I'm just going to go around the horn in terms of who would like a hard copy and who would like electronic copy. Dan, I can print it out if you can send it to me as an
attachment. It's up I if if you'd rather print it out yourself, that's fine. I print it out ourselves, but I have to get my email working between now and then. But and you might also be receiving something like 50 documents. Like it's, you know, if we if we have 20 properties and each you have a
nomination form, you have an environmental assessment, you might have maps, it's going to be a lot of files. That's going to be a whole cartridge. I can try and do it. I can try and combine it all together and just have one thing. But yeah, you could be theoretically
printing out 400 paper pages. I I I don't know at this point, you know, but it's a lot. My council would be that I'm personally going to ask for a hard copy so I can mark it up and so because I'm Dutch and I'm Scott. I would I'd rather have a hard copy. Okay. Yeah, Vicki.
Hard copy. I'll take a hard copy. I'm It's got to be digital for me with my eyes. So, okay. Um, uh, are you going to try and do this all in one email though or as attachments or I'm going to have to do a share share file for you?
Yeah. And then and then you'll just have to go on the share file and download it from there. Yeah. I mean, okay, I'm fine with it. It's electronic. I'd like a hard copy, please. And Jeannie, please make sure this gets in the minutes so I know who wants what.
I'd like it both ways. Of course you would both ways. So we got two both ways. Scott electronic, but I would ask that if you like can you just create folders for each property so that it's one folder with that's a little more organized. Okay. Yes. Yes. I'll do
my best to come up with something. Yeah. And no word docs any or excels. Please convert them to PDFs if you do that. PDFs. Yeah. Um, I got Jeie getting all this down cuz I'm going to totally forget it.
No, because they get corrupted if they, you know. That's fine. That's like I said, that's why Jeanie's taking these notes. Okay. And in terms of getting the material in advance, I think we need them at least one week prior to September 5th. Do you want them two
weeks in advance? Two weeks. Okay. As long as possible. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And I and so I mean there's going to be a process with Effnne. I have to send them uh I have to create shape files for each property uh and and send them the
nomination form. You know, it's it's it's going to take some time for them. That that's why I didn't want to like ramp things up too soon. That's they're they're going to be the main um limiting factor in all this. Well, would it would it help to to split it, say 10
properties per meeting, and maybe have another meeting in October? That's that's up to your discretion. Well, here's the only thing. I just my personal preference is to the extent that we can expedite the process and get these deals done. My personal preference
is that we go we just do as many as we can. Maybe I'm, you know, we're going to be a little brain dead at the end of that day, but I'd hate to lose the opportunity to close a deal because we didn't get to it. Is are you okay with that? Yeah. Uh, well, you can make happy
hour at three and that way we'd be sure to get done. That's true. We'll also have a large earn of coffee. Okay. Um, so my council would be let's let's stay the course 10 to 5 on that day. Mike, we'll do as many as we can. If you if
you don't if you're not able to get to all of them, let's let's say that you've got one or two that you haven't completed all the paperwork and we're getting within a week. Uh let's cross that bridge when we get to it. Let's see how we stand and then we can Okay. And
uh in terms of the two properties that were just uh reviewed today, we're probably looking at that second board of county commissioner meeting in July to uh to get those. We'll leave that up to you guys. So, do we have to be present
for that? Nope. No. Uh if you want to be, you're welcome to. Uh but uh you can watch it. Okay. So, just be sure we're on the same page. We're going to get the material. The goal is to get it at least two weeks in advance. Will it be mailed? What if we pick up the hard copies? Is
that okay? Pick them up here. Why don't you let them handle it? They'll tell us what to do. They'll call us. They're just so good at it, Jim. Thank you. Can't penny. Okay. Um, that's really it. May I have any other
comments from members of the team or John? Um I I wasn't able to attend your first meeting. So I did want the opportunity on behalf of the board to thank each of you for your service. Um we we we know that this is a volunteer
um assignment and this is uh long hours sitting in the chair inside and I I know you all have busy lives and your time is very important. your service on this was central I I believe to this uh passing uh in November and your your roles here
individually are absolutely critical and I I believe you're each here for a reason and I just personally and on behalf of the board want to thank you for giving your time for this purpose. Thank you John. I would like to reiterate that. I we clearly have a fiduciary duty to to the taxpayers, to
the folks that voted in favor of this and we made it very clear that we were going to oversee this. Uh and and so we're fulfilling that commitment. Um so uh any comments? I realize it's out of order to ask the public for any comments, but do you folks have anything
you want to add in? Okay. Um so may I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? I move. You want another motion? Yeah. So move. We don't need any motion. Second. Second it. All in favor? I I. Thank you very much,
folks. And thank you. You don't need a motion to