The most significant topic of discussion was the board’s decision to re-advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for surveying services after receiving only one response from WGI. Mr. Camaris informed the board that despite reissuing the RFQ, no additional bids were submitted. Mr. Higgins expressed his surprise at the lack of interest and suggested a more specific scope of work could potentially attract more bidders. Given that there was no urgent need for the survey, the board unanimously agreed to rebid the project in hopes of garnering more interest.

The board also tackled a new requirement from House Bill 7013, mandating Special Districts to adopt goals and objectives by October. The proposed goals and objectives were presented as Exhibit A in the meeting materials. The discussion centered on keeping the objectives simple and compliant with legislative requirements. The board agreed to adopt resolution number 20245 regarding these goals and objectives, and this motion also carried unanimously.

In addition, the board appointed itself as the audit committee and adopted the criteria for advertising new bids for auditing services. It was clarified that the existing auditor would continue services for the current fiscal year and the next, with the requirement to go out to bid every five years. Both motions passed unanimously.

Another issue addressed was the ongoing washouts in the district, with Stephanie Brown providing updates. Brown mentioned her intention to flag the areas and put up caution tape for safety. She described receiving an email about increased activity at gate one, an area where she has limited access due to property owner restrictions. Brown observed that crushed rock had been laid over a mile of access related to a property owned by Zach, stating it “looks beautiful to me” and commenting on the absence of holes, implying a significant investment in maintenance.

Brown discussed her approach to addressing the washouts, mentioning her connection with a licensed friend who could assist with repairs at a competitive rate of $95 per hour. She expressed a preference for swales instead of culverts, believing it would be more effective for water management and less costly for the district. She highlighted that previous maintenance actions had saved the Florida Wildlife Conservation over $10,000, underscoring her commitment to cost-effective solutions.

The board also debated the district’s obligations to private property owners and the extent of liability for damages caused by misuse of established pathways. Legal expertise was deemed necessary to clarify the district’s responsibilities. One member asserted that the district is “not out there to build roads” and reiterated that the word “road” does not apply within the district’s works. Another member pointed out that the maintenance berms were being misused and that the district has a duty to maintain them primarily for access and inspection of the canals, not as public roads.

Law enforcement reported several incidents related to public safety and hunting violations. An officer noted ongoing assistance to the public with stuck ATVs and UTVs and mentioned the installation of GPS systems to track various washouts. The officer highlighted illegal camping on South Florida Water Management property and a single incident of a person fleeing from law enforcement, which remains under investigation. With the hunting season approaching, an increase in violations is anticipated.

A Martin County Commissioner raised concerns regarding unpermitted structures within Pal Mar. The Commissioner sought clarification on the proliferation of such structures, to which the officer responded that many are dismantled during flooding, mitigating the perceived increase.

Transitioning to financial matters, the current fund balance was reported as approximately $1.9 million, with no questions raised about the financial report. The discussion then moved to the invoices, where approval was sought and granted without dissent.

During the public comments segment, a landowner expressed gratitude for the board’s consideration of bids and requested a reconsideration of the selection process for the surveying project. The landowner emphasized that their firm, WGI, had been advertised twice and was deemed qualified, arguing that selecting WGI would allow the board to enter negotiations, with the possibility of re-advertising if negotiations did not yield satisfactory results. The landowner noted that the first advertisement received three responses while the second only received WGI’s bid.