mic we'll go ahead and call the County Commission meeting of January 23rd to order we're going to start with a moment of Silent reflection followed by an invocation by Pastor Chris drenan of the Grace Baptist Church and then we'll have the pledge by commissioner bleser thank you madam chair Mr Hart I don't see the pastor will you be happy to stand in thank you good morning Father God in heaven we just want to thank you for another day thank you for waking us up this morning thank you for this board and and all the I'm going say the accessories that go with this board thank you Lord and use them for your glory and father God we just go this year is a year of increase for any River County whatever we do father God we going to ask that abundance come upon this County that father God we have more than enough in resources to do the task of the people and then father God I'm going to ask that we spread some of that wealth continuously in affordable housing and and and especially for the homeless father God let us find an Avenue of where we can be able to help our less fortunate individuals in the name of Jesus we pray and every soul that love the Lord will say amen amen thank you ladies and Gentlemen please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the greatest nation on Earth the United States of America home of the free because of the Brave I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you all all right Commissioners is there any additions additions or deletions to the agenda commissioner irman I think you wanted to if we could move uh 14 A1 and 15 B1 to the maybe after the consent or whatever you would like to move it forward because I will have to leave around 11 o'clock or so for another appointment okay that's fine with me anybody else have anything move move to approve as amended all right we have a motion in a second all in favor all opposed motion carries our next item is going to be proclamations and presentations we have a proclamation recognizing African-American Pioneer earn James Greer that will be presented by commissioner and I would love the opportunity to do that and Madam chair was proud and honored to have that uh opportunity but I do not see Ernie G here he's probably out photographing something for the greater good of the community and should he should he come could we reserve the uh the right to present it when he comes back of course if he if he does attend we've already presented the proclamation at the uh Martin Luther King day uh dinner but uh I don't see him here so if we can do that then it would be greatly appreciated that would be fantastic all right there's no minutes um informational items and then we'll move on to consent anybody need to pull anything from the consent agenda Madam chair I'd like to pull 8ab Madam chair I'd like to pull 8s all right hold on one second 8 AB S8 all right anybody from the public wishing to pull anything from consent seeing none mam chair move approval as amended second I have a motion on a second all in favor I opposed motion carries commissioner Moss 8s yes um 8s is ADS is the uh God book actually for the Children's Services advisory committee and I wanted to thank uh the staff uh that's uh Miss Cindy Emerson and the people working with her um they've done a great job first they had to unearth the guide book um it dates back to 1997 then they updated it um did a wonderful job with that my favorite part of it is that we are now offering uh professional development uh classes and this is for any nonprofit uh non the nonprofit does not have to be receiving uh seesac funding I attended the one on January 17th which was for Budget planning for performance accountability it was very well done very robust everyone was clamoring for more they want wanted it to go longer uh Miss Emerson's in the audience um thank you very much for that and there's one coming up on March 13th from 9:30 uh to 10:30 a.m. and that's right across the street uh where you get your driver's licenses that's a Building B and the topic is this is for any nonprofit storytelling with data creating compelling narratives so thank you very much and with that I will move to approve second all right there's a motion in a second all in favor opposed motion carries and with that we will move on to 8 a commissioner Ro thank you madam chair as you know you recently appointed me to the ship team which is very uh informative and I actually had my first meeting last Thursday one thing I was thinking about in the vein of affordable housing um the statute allows us to have ship dollars uh pertaining to mobile homes uh some years ago probably in the 90s this started in 93 some years ago this board uh decided to exclude mobile homes from any of those dollars um we've got over 5,500 mobile homes in the county uh and I just thought it' be interesting to bring this up and chat about it and see if this board wanted to uh include mobile homes in the future right what just for repairs and mind you no mobile home manufacturer before 1994 could be utilized for ship dollars this is for emergency repairs for our seniors our veterans and the like yeah um I would I would agree with that uh believe it or not we we're used to dealing with hurricanes but a tornado went through uh mobile homes uh developments and that was in the South County on on my side of the street and we couldn't help them uh for that reason so I would you know and at the time uh staff uh was not favorable toward a change but now the staff has changed perhaps that has changed as well so I I'd be in favor of that thank you for bringing it up um let's see Chris is here if Chris wants to say a few words excuse me for a second let me catch my breath yeah so we had worked on this uh Lop for about a year now going back through aack and all the recommendations and also seeing what other counties were doing plus also seeing what the affordable housing conference was showing so it's been a constructed effort between all our partners and all our non for-profits and taking in all the information for everybody well mam chair I was just thinking that in light of what everything we're doing in the county for affordable housing uh what seems to be happening is lock rent is going up for our seniors and others uh and I'm not saying there's going to be a lot of candidates for this but we do have a as commissioner Moss is a very well oiled screening process I don't think it's going to be a tremendous amount but I think it's something we should be able to offer our [Music] seniors what would the process be it the the process would probably remain the same as far as a a mobile home versus a uh house that that sits on a lot that's owned by the owner the difference here is that a mobile home is permitted through the Division of Motor Vehicles you cannot put a mortgage on it you have to put a lean against the property just like you would put a lean against a car when you buy it on credit so we have had two instances when we did do ship loans with mobile homes where we had to file an action to clear our lean and sell the mobile home because it comes to us as the first lean holder just like a car would when you abandon a car so it's a very simple process it's not very complicated at all I agree that there's probably great need in the community that mobile homes are looking like they may be the next type of affordable housing or a type of affordable housing so as long as you know know there's not a mortgage it's a lean involved I'm I'm fine with it and I I was uh involved with the ship program in the early 2000s and um I I will say that it it was history then as far as the uh modul homes modul homes not mobile homes and uh two of the points were that uh they were registered as uh through the tax collector as vehicles and that was one element and then the other element was that uh most of the J damage that gets sustained and specifically we saw it in 2004 was the awnings and uh they were substantial uh basically the sheets of aluminum on posts and the the damage was very significant uh so I I think there should be a dividing line between awnings or accessories and homes I I think that would be probably the best application uh for going forward to ensure that we can apply ship funds to Residents as opposed to awnings and accessories and I can speak a little bit more on the history so we we did provide Aid after the Hurricanes the lhop was changed to provide aid for mobile homes um when doing so it was seen through the program that it became cost inefficient for the program because mobile homes aren't meant to last as long as single family homes are and designed to the Florida building code it was the same reoccurring issues that were happening on the mobile homes so at the time after the program was finished with that Lop the board chose not to go forward because it was a cyclical process of fixing the same problems at the same mobile homes so it's just something to look be aware of that it can happen again with the same fixes happening because they're not made to withstand you know 30 plus years Ironically in something we observed during 2004 was that while modular homes had a lot significant awning damage uh the homes themselves did not sustain the damage that the stick and brick and the mort homes experienced because they were pliant as opposed to rigid and they went with some of the the the pressure of the Winds and there was far less home damage than when in in a in a conventional home so I could address that quickly I'm sorry M Madam chairman go ahead sure as far as repairing reping awnings I don't think ship repairs awnings unless it's a enclosed structure that's used as a living room or bedroom or something like that if it's just a porch and an awning I don't think you're going to qualify for a ship loan it has to be something structural as far as a a a roof that's uh protecting a a living area used living area that's correct so I have just some clarification questions commissioner Laura you're um suggesting to add mobile homes or modular homes to the emergency repair program right just that one not some of the other ones okay and then secondly for staff when does this lhap have to be submitted and is that something that we can do I think commissioner Lor's question is can we do that now or would that be something we would have to do in next year's lhab um so we could do it now it does have to be submitted and approved by May through the actual state so if we're going to to do it we have to do it fairly quickly so commissioner lure would you like maybe since we have till May um staff to kind of come back with some language about that in this and we can approve it at at the next at a meeting in February sounds good or do you want it to go to um affordable housing because I think we have a meeting in F February of affordable housing to kind of okay or sign off or whatever on whatever language they can come up with and then bring it to us at the end of February that'll be fine okay does that give you time still to meet the May deadline uh it should so can we does that instead of like trying to Hash it out today I got you but I think everybody's supportive of trying to work the language in somewhere and that gives us some time to make sure it's right before we submit it does that sound good that's ma' sounds great how do we do that in a motion table it yes okay yeah I'll make a motion to table it second all right all right we have a motion in a second all in favor opposed motion carries all right so that is you guys have to bear with me I apologize it was a long weekend um that was a consent so the next item we moved up was 14 A1 just kind of taking the two in order which is U my item on County attorney recruitment process and I love Bill and I'm so happy he's here so is not as he knows an effort to try to scoot him out the door but he was very clear that um his time is a little bit certain and I know his wife was even more clear so we want to keep her happy did you see the list but um you know bill will be leaving us in June into June July time period somewhere the date that I've talked about is the end of August okay and so it's going to take us a little bit to find somebody to replace him whether that's an internal or external candidate and we need to figure out what the process is cuz my I would hope we could have some time where there was some overlap just so there's continuity of issues and and whatever is being worked on so how do you guys want to go about that recruitment process do we want to hire an agency I know that's worked for um some of our department heads and and other things do we want to try to do it ourselves do we want to just put postings out um on some of the professional websites or do we want to have staff come back with some prices on any of those I mean what are you guys feeling I just figured we'd start the discussion here my my suggestion would be do we let's say whatever process we choose hiring an internal or external candidate we want him to are we G to have him spend some time with Bill a month or so six weeks or I mean I mean I that's what I wanted to find out from you guys I would think that would be a good thing to do I mean the guys's got more institutional knowledge than everybody probably didn't put commissioner fer here but uh I mean I would think that that would we would want to go ahead and and and use a firm I I'm I'm so far talking with the County Administrator impressed with the The Firm that that that he's been using for to find his department heads and stuff like that I would my suggestion would be uh get his opinion and maybe engage with that firm just to seek a new County attorney and we just need to kind of set a time frame on what we want to do but I would think if we do hire internal external that person could you know work with Bill for maybe a month if he's willing to do that and when that point in time comes to kind of you know show him around show her around and present the institutional knowledge things that stuff but sh you seem pretty happy with the firm that you're using right now yes uh uh commissioner we're using the firm that actually the county previously used to recruit Sean lisy sgr strategic government resources they're widely known firm I've been very impressed with them um and I will tell you that uh I mean the process has gone pretty smoothly we're at the finalist stage now scheduling interviews for the finalist for the assistant County Administrator and then the Public Works director will be following and then the natural resources so they've been very on point on spot I mean video interviews prior to that you can review uh they got a very I mean Mike can talk about that there's just a difference in this process than the process that that resulted in my hiring so that's my suggestion yes yeah I would I I would agree with that let's let's do that do you want to make a motion commissioner L was Madam chair have we investigated like the Treasure Coast Bar Association in River County Bar Association spread those words out first before we spend money on a firm could be someone local right here I think that you would get a qualified field of applicants by using advertisements in the Florida bar the Florida Association of County attorneys um you know you I guess our HR department utilizes indeed and all of the other kind of big search firms um the last time we went through this with Mr reinold I don't think we went with an outside agency we just made sure that we did a broad advertising through Florida Legal um periodicals to attract a candidate um County the county the county attorney's position in a small County would attract a lot of interested candidates um because it's not Miami day Hillsboro those type of areas Much More Much More controlled uh I don't want to say easier but uh kind of issues are different the issues are different wellp put Madam chairman um and I I i' also remind the board that you know internally um I I would certainly hope that you would consider internal applicants as well absolutely Madam chair I would I would suggest initially let's say in the next month that the five of us write down some ksas that we expect our attorney to have some particular things that's going on nowadays versus a long time ago uh and the five of us submit those to HR and direct HR uh to initiate the search for a month and if that doesn't work then we'll go to a firm I think we have time for that so uh did you yes commissioner M um I I was just going to ask what um what would be the estimated cost for a search firm I want to believe it's about $40,000 I'm sorry what $40,000 that's a nationwide search but you we would limit it you know I don't think we have a problem attracting applicants and it won't be that won't be the issue getting applications the issue is um filtering them or running them past um a a review and I think that an an outside of firm dedicated to that would do a more thorough uh review so I appre appreciate your suggestion but I myself I would I it's it's just such an it's too important a position there only there are only two I can share the process that currently used uh and I do agree that the local attorney like the the leagues the the the FAA so that's going to generate interest you know I don't disagree with that at all uh the process that they use like we had 54 applicants for the assistant County Administrator one pulled out they ranked them based on what we agreed upon what the the job description and and what we were looking for the ideal candidate into CB and a c they just were not qualified B they you know they checked a lot of boxes and they had a lot of potentially they potentially had the ability to do the job and then a they clearly were solid and then we went through myself and you know like zto we went through with the recruiter and then took you know evaluated all of them and then we we selected you know the 15 finalists or semi-finalist and then after that they went out and they those semi-finalists had to do video interviews in addition to submitting you know specific you know things that that that we had requested to to get you know so they submitted in writing then they do video interviews and then we've since selected six semi-finalists or finalists now so that's that that's the process that they use and then they do all the background checks and they do all that stuff you know but I don't think if I think for ,000 that's a bargain well I don't know if it would limit or cost but I would almost insist that the attorney that we hire I mean internal would be would be given but that person be a practicing Florida attorney I would want our attorney to to be uh you know Adept at Florida law special government stuff and things like that we'll achieve that goal if we did a boss search uh just they the local searches suggested uh we would probably get a jump start on localizing that if that's the requirement I mean going be members of the bar I I think the one thing that you should consider here is that this person would work for you they would be your employee I don't know how handson you would want to be through that process as far as reviewing all of the resumés and the like um or leave it at the hands of a search firm that that would be your your decision well I think a search firm would uh open up the the def fence and uh at one point we would get to the Corral as we have in the past and and have you know those five top the top five candidates that we were able to interview as uh you you were part of uh in past years and and others have and and I believe that's uh one of the best approaches I think the County Administrator just went through that um and uh I think that's appropriate but I I happen to I like uh Sheriff's idea to at least give it a shot of getting a localized individual uh or it doesn't have to be any River County I mean we can have uh somebody in the State of Florida they're members of the Florida bar I'm sure that there is a second in command somewhere that wants to be a first in command uh that doesn't see the opportunity where they are and uh they they're familiar with uh a small to medium County and and I believe that we can get the best of Two Worlds just by giving it a shot even if it's a four-week shot I think the response will be rather Swift I might add Madam chair that with the benefits and the F FRS it would be very attractive yeah so am I I'm just trying to summarize what I'm hearing from everybody is that we want to make sure that we have um advertising at the Florida bar and faka and maybe whatever the equivalent is with the cities leacy ities um the Florida bar local government uh section would also be alerted to something I think governmental experience is almost a must um do we already have a job description how old is the one that was used in the last recruitment process I I don't know it would have been 10 years ago when Mr reinold or 11 years ago 11 years ago when Mr reinold was hired when I came on will Collins was the attorney he did not go through a vetting process he was promoted from Deputy to County attorney then when he retired Mr ploit uh Alan ploit um was a candidate we did not use a local or we did not use a search firm at that time and then of course when when Dylan was hired if I if memory serves me correctly Mr commissioner salari kind of took took the lead role in making sure that the various entities received notification of the opening why don't we do this um if everybody because we don't really have an updated job description or listing that we could put out immediately it sounds like we need to kind of update the one we have add to it and create something that would be fine um so and commissioner lore had asked for people to submit their qualifications or what they want to see so why don't we ask HR to dust off the old one everybody as far as Commissioners go submit to Suzanne um some qualities or requirements that we want to see by next I don't know can can we do it like in the next week so she can update that um job description and we can approve it at the next meeting and then we can go ahead and submit that to faac and all those different organizations in the meantime maybe the administrator can get with the search firm and bring back um a proposal so we can see what we might have gotten in the interim but still move forward with possibly going with a search firm if we don't get anything so we're not kind of stalling that process because we would have to approve a contract to engage them anyway and that would take some time and that maybe we'll have that figured out by the end of February does that sound which wouldn't back up our Pro it should keep us on track I just want to keep us moving forward on track so we don't get to June 1st and are like oh what are we gonna do so does that make sense Bill yes I think it would okay and John that works you guys can get that and Commissioners we can just submit all that to to Suzanne and let her compile and bring something back at the first meeting in February yes Madam chair and I think a useful tool to get there is to look at the 10-year-old document to see if there are changes to be needed so and we have HR distribute us well ask HR um to send us that whatever they have existing from the last attorney search as far as job descript job description and requirements benefit packages blah they may also want to review our visioning plan that we did two years ago and some of the other topics that are on the horizon okay and we have a lot of those and we'll just get with each of you that you know that we've with public works with the assistant County Administrator like you did with the disposition challenges opportunities and that's something that can review and highlight if you want you can say these are the other issues specific to the office not use some of the documents that you guys have already used for other C okay perfect all right Commissioners well it sounds like we have a general consensus on a path forward which was my goal for today so thank you on that and um we'll get the process started with that and I don't think we need a motion for any of that just general consensus is good right okay good all right with that then we'll move on to the next item that was moved up which is 15 B1 amendment number four to landfill gas agreement with no Petro Eco District LLC Sean are you taking this good morning commissioner Shan liskey utilities director um thanks for the opportunity to bring this back I know it was tabled U during the last meeting and um just a couple maybe quick housekeeping um questions maybe one for bill um in the amendment we mentioned something about shown in an attached drawing and it was not necessarily in the record um would you like me to kind of include that drawing um in the record currently yes it should be I'm going to hand this out to thank you oh thanks sorry thank you thank you Mr Le do you also have one for for their attorney yep okay thank you thank you man just made enough um and also just one one point um in the agenda item itself uh we mentioned changing the commencement date or termination date I'm sorry from uh March 31st to May 31st and it should have been September 30th 2024 to May 31st 2025 just wanted to make those two points of real quick clarification um again this was tabled from from the last meeting and wanted to thank everybody who was involved with the negotiations we sat down and we really got to work um pretty quickly after the the meeting I think we actually met that Tuesday evening and and sat down and and really hashed through this with um no petro and their representatives as well as their attorney and ours attorneys um I think I had an estimate from from Ronnie that we maybe spent 40 to 50 hours um on this over the last couple weeks um trying to reach agreement um and we heard the the concerns of the Commissioners and so we we really worked through those um my understanding is one of the concerns that was raised was the definition of um to what do we call it net receipts or not net receipts um can't think right now um gross receipts thank you and so that definition has been changed to net proceeds um and it was very there was some concern about the way the terminology was in the amend on the original agreement and so the new uh amended agreement specifies what um can be deducted from the gross um income to to reach those net proceeds and so I you know feel that we have addressed that concern er um significantly in identifying those specific items that can be deducted um prior to to us getting the the royalty payment and so um in addition you know I think that you know we addressed one of this the concerns around the 8 PSI and reduced that down to 4 PSI and I feel that after we have reached you know we still have some agreements to to reach out on standard operating procedures associated with sections 3 .1 and 3.2 we actually included a specific date um that we would get together and and reach some agreement on what those specific standard operating procedures would be and so I feel that we have addressed the majority of the concerns that were raised by the commission um you know there was some concern about would we be subsidizing um the the organization um over the term of this contract and I feel that and John might speak to this as well um we you know during those meetings we met with their um accountant and their staff and they really did a good job of detailing over time kind of what expect expected kind of income and ratio was um for for the county um considering that you had to account for um what would be routine operational costs we would incur either way and so um I think we feel very comfortable that over the term of the the contract there may be some good years some bad years um I think in any kind of relationship in any partnership you have to assume some risk and I think we are assuming some risk in this for for sure um but over the term of the contract when you look at even worst case scenario they did a couple of scenarios they did what they called the bank scenario which is what they submitted to the bank um for their approval versus kind of a worst case scenario which is we're kind of delayed in getting the the gas or the the landfill to produce the amount of gas that they may need to to really take off um and to get us that top tier of of royalty and so um that worst case even in that worst case by by the end of those the 20 year term of the contract we feel pretty confident that we will be in good standing um and certainly there's some things that the the county will have to do we have some things that we'll have to do to maintain and operate that landfill to ensure that we're meeting that the the needed gas um but I feel pretty confident and talking to to Ron and and hantu that we will be able to aeve those those goals so um with that I'll turn it over to John to see if he has anything he would like to add just want to touch on the financials uh I know the the concerns were about the clarifications of expenses the ambiguity as it relates to definitions and then the overarching uh concern is not subsidizing so I did have the opportunity to review with each of you the the the financial the financial numbers in terms of uh you know based on the spreadsheet that they prepared that showed the scenarios and what I can tell you to to Sean's point about uh before I say this I would like to you know uh it wasn't just a statement in the meeting about we were relying on their Bank num we have it in writing that this is what the the background to each of those numbers that I shared with you was that this case has been used to secure a conventional bank finan and approved by the underwriters and third party advisers this is from their CFO who's an agent of the company so we had fair amount of reliance and com I was comfortable with the fact that you know not only did they say it they actually put it in writing so there was we have the first scenario is what's it costing us now right and that's so we're putting out X number of dollars to run the landfill operation okay and and then the second scenario is if we don't have a deal is what we would logically we would want to try to use that resource to to help offset our costs for the the evaporator and by doing that you know the savings is over 20-year period approximately $7.5 million and then the scenarios come in with the deal so there's really two scenarios I mean they do have three one what they think is their ideal their aggressive scenario but then they have the bank scenario and then the scenario that we presented them based on our current flow and quantity and quality and that is probably the most conservative scenario so I'm going to focus on that because that's the only one that mean I think that is probably the it is the most conservative scenario that we have and I can compare it to the others but in year one uh under the uh conservative scenario we are expected to potentially have an additional cost of about $1,500 you know out of like 768 th000 it's projected to be 7 769 539 so $1,539 then every year subsequently you know by virtue of the share Ing and them taking on certain expenses and and reducing our operating expenses the county will realize a cost savings or cost avoidance and that number continues to grow throughout the term of the agreement but it also gets to the point because we are getting a royalty payment and in this most conservative estimate we actually recognized no royalty payment year one reduced royalty payment years 2 3 4 and then it starts picking up because that's when we believe in 202 20 30 while it's going to be commencement dates 2025 but we're saying 5 years give us time to ramp up so in that case in that case you're looking at the cost savings continuing to increase and then at year 13 the cost savings are the royalty payment with our reduction of our operating expenses the royalty payment actually exceeds our expenses and we will projected to receive in that year like $68,000 and that amount continues to grow throughout the term of the agreement so the the net effect of the incremental savings is in addition to the a the 7.5 million if we just did our own is an additional $8.6 million this is just just and I get that you know if you all remember the spreadsheet so I think and then if you want I can go into the scenario two where the the net or the impact be potentially 10.7 compared to the addition to the 7.5 that we would do on our own so uh I do feel um you're either looking at year 12 year 13 if it's the more aggressive approach I mentioned to this to each of you that you're looking at year five or year six where you start seeing an actual check being cut to the county because the royalty payments exceed our operating expenses because they've been reduced by the cost of voidance because they're taking on a a a a a significant portion of those operating expenses so with that being said I I would submit that uh I think we addressed the concerns that was raised in terms of uh and we have more we're more comfortable with the numbers uh when we and we met like you know to Sean's point four hours the following day met with our attorneys that afternoon uh and then there was a dialogue going on back and forth throughout the throughout the week uh to get it there so uh I I do think staff can support this because I think uh this is a meritorious deal and it will yield you know benefits and acrude benefits both environmentally and fiscally to the county and uh I recognizing with the the the most conservative estimate or projection scenario is that the first year maybe there is about $1,500 of additional expenses that would be in 2025 and with that I can return it to the board and if Sean is there anything you want to clarify if I didn't I think I I think you did it well all right mam chair questioner lur I keep hearing uh royalty royalty payments is that on the 12% 10% or 8% so in the conservative estimate they don't pick up 12% until year uh I think it was year five wasn't it Sean we did the four years at 8% and then or 10% and then we did the and actually the first year there's zero royalty and then year 2 3 4 would be at the 10% % and going after to be projected at 12% and that also depends on the quantity and the quality that is correct so I I'm not comfortable using 12% on all of these projections when we might not get to 12% John do you want to speak to that yeah and Ron might speak to this too but you know we have over the last year you know actually last probably two years two to three years they've been doing a lot of work at the landfill to to accommodate this this Pro this you know this this partnership and probably over the last year the qu the quality of the gas has been and met the requirements of the contract so feel pretty confident that we can meet the quality requirements within within the contract the quantity is something that has is still kind of up and down um and we haven't reached that top tier the top tier is 1150 scfm of dry gas um we haven't consistently met that we were around 15 14 to 1500 maybe about what was it six months ago or so um and then some things caused it to drop off and um and we had some blower problems that caused it to really drop off but generally we've been now on average around 12200 fcfm of of wet gas which only equates to probably around 11 1100 1,000 to 1100 of dry gas so that's why those first several years we've we've kind of conservatively said we would expect to be closer to that 10% um but over after about four or five years because the land pill is going to continue to grow we're going to have to continue to put in additional Wells that we would expect to be closer to that highest tier by year four or five relatively consistently just because we're going to be the landfill itself is going to be larger we're probably going to be moving on to cell three cell two will be closed um and we'll be able to produce more gas from the from the land so my concern is the projections that we're using are 12% um and if that if that hovers at 8 or 10 all of that timeline that you just mentioned will be skewed so the the savings realized could be less that's correct I mean the the royalty payment I mean in the early years uh at 12% it's like 81,000 then it moves up to 168 it's accounting for additional quantity so in the projection that we're using zero for year one $36,000 of royalty payment for year two and when I say we are I'm talking about you know that their CFO prepared one the comparison based on our current what we currently are doing based on the meeting that we had and Christen raised this and so Iran responded and then they built this scenario around what we're currently doing what we're currently producing so that's why it ramps up much slower for example in year five just by way of example under their Bank scenario the they expect the royalty to be $28,946 but in the conservative estimate it's 97,2 192 so it is adjusting it and just one point of clarification too is was their Bank case was developed based off of a report that we had done by SGS Engineers who was was suggesting that the the the landfill over time would be able to continue to produce more and more gas and so what they provided to the bank was based off of that report um and again I think to John's Point what we asked them to do was be a little bit more conservative than that um to to account for what we're seeing currently versus kind of what that report expected and so they went to the bank and got funding based off of this this Engineers report that said hey they're going to the landfill is going to continue to go up and produce more and more gas and so their risk is is minimized and so I think that in the worst case scenario there's certainly risk I mean I think with anything I mean we are talking about a landfill and Ron can probably attest to this more so than anybody that you the landfill is a living breathing you know you know I don't even what you should call it but living it's it's living and breathing right it's it's a it's it's it's really hard to kind of manage it and so you know are those numbers realistic I think from a standpoint of the fact that the landfill is going to continue to expand and grow we're in the process of of of completing cell three um cell to is is probably only going to last about another year or so six months to a year so um we're going to continue to get more and more gas from the landfill as we continue to expand so yes there is some risk associated with it but I think when you look at you know Professional Engineers reports that suggest that the production of that's going to continue to go up we have to assume that it's going to continue to go up right I I have a couple questions um so what is our big base expense currently that's 700 so basically right now it's about 768 projected out over 20 years with the increases uh they used uh which we would do the same used kind of an inflationary factor and it would over the 20 year periods roughly without getting into specifics 20 about $20 million over 20 years is what we're paying right now we would pay okay so if we do nothing we're going to have to pay over the 20-year term about $760 a year which would acre to 20 million it would go all the way out from uh from 768 all the way up to about 1.4 million with inflation over the 20 years and some of that would be offset though so I think operational cost I think under scenario two when not was in scenario two base case was that we have some upfront cost that we have and then operationally because we' be able to send gas to the to the evaporator the evaporator is what's costing around $750,000 right now because we have to purchase gas from the from the distribution system right um and so we would be having to operate a skid in order to get the landfill gas to the Heartland and so the operations of that is expected to be roughly $400,000 or so on a year obviously escalating cost on that as well um so there will be cost that we would have to operate the system even to get the gas to Heartland right um and so that would be a routine operational cost over the life of the 20 years okay but it's somewhere with 760 up to 1.5 per year scenario that I shared was based upon the difference between the doing the deal and then us doing our own thing right I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you so we're starting here on the negative end of the spectrum because we are paying 760 is whatever and what you're saying is over the course of the contract the amount that we are paying it offsets by whatever we're making to the point that that negative becomes less and less and less till we get to zero and then it flips to a positive where we're making money over the course of the 20 years correct and I would just add to that even before you get to the point where you're in the positive you're actually saving money each year because your shared expenses so those incremental savings are also benefits to the district you know as they seek other funding right and so we start in the negative we're working our way to a positive and in the meantime as a landfill grows as it will over time I mean it already has in the past four years we're going to be putting in more Wells because the landfill is growing not necessarily for this project but putting in more Wells anyway which will allow us to extract more gas simply because the resources becoming bigger correct which we would have to do anyway with or without this project without them right which allows us to take advantage of those extra resources and escalate some of that capacity is what you're saying exactly and I think if there were need to to install additional Wells specifically to address you know getting additional gas for them not necessarily just as we as the landfill continues to grow you're going to have to continue to put in Wells that's just that's just what you have to do as as you expand the landfill you have to have a way the gas to escape um and so we need to do that regardless but if we needed to go in and install additional Wells to get some additional gas out to accommodate the needs of their of their facility there was an agreement and even our conversations that that cost would be shared that it wouldn't be a cost that we would just bear as a landfill that they would be willing to share in those costs okay I mean that kind of answers my yes commissioner Moss okay no I go ahead to cut you off um oh I just want to confirm uh my discussion yesterday with the County Administrator was that and it's it's too pronged on the one hand we're saving money and then in addition to that we'll be making money at some point so we start saving in year two and we'll start generating income or making money if you will any time between year six and year 13 does that does that still hold depending on the the the scenarios the most aggressive scenario that they presented would would yield a a a the royalties would out strip the expense or outpace the expenses and we'd see a check based on their projections in year six that is correct but we have looked at the bank scenario that's year 12 the most conservative scenario is year 13 but you're still incrementally even before you get to year 13 you will will have ACC cumulatively saved approximately $2.3 million thank you mam chairman thank you for that projection Madam chair I'm sorry I still have I still have some uh questions about yeah the exhibit but we can get to that in a minute just your your risk in this is that the scenarios that the County Administrator presented are not part of the contract they are simply no Petros estimation of what is going to happen out there at the landfill so they are not guarantees I just wanted to make sure that you understood that that was the scenario as far as my office's advice is concerned you understand your risk yes and I think that in in any contract like this it's very hard to forecast what you're correct what it would be so there's always an inherent risk no matter what that's correct yes commissioner lore the do we know the amount of the loan $20 million I thought they had 20 million in private Equity investors and then 20 million for the the conventional loan they're funing so just to make it clear to everyone um the county if we go into this agreement will be paying the interest on a $20 million loan so I'm not and maybe it's kind of hard to it's backed out because or they you know they use their expenses and they take the the the gross income and then they less out certain expenses and in this case one of the expenses that's projected be L out and it's it's actually a little bit more tighter than it was before from the previous ambiguous vague definition is it's just the interest expense and the principal payment is actually not part of that so it's not the full Debt Service and we I think we all understand early on in debt service that you're paying more interest than you are principal but the principal amount is will not be less out of for the purposes of uh reducing the amount okay and can someone Define the $700,000 a year uh management fee what what what do we get for 700,000 it's it's not necessarily what we get I think that that no Petro is is part of a larger kind of corporate organ organization and just like anything I mean for instance I think utilities pays a management fee if you will to the general fund um this is similar where they have a board that oversees their overall operations and so it's a management fee that they pay to their board to to manage not just this facility but the entire facility Zone and maybe Pete can can allude to that a little bit more than I could but it's a management fee that's paid to that overarching organization that is managing um the no Petro facilities and I just to add to that uh it's capped at 700 it's projected by the end of the agreement to be less than $500,000 if I'm correct and the reason why it's so large in the front end is that you're ramping up the operation and then it goes down and one of the things that the Amendments do is we are assured now that it's limited to this facility and this project the vagueness that was well how do we know we're not subsidizing another that's gone and you know with the definitions that were worked out between the county off County Attorney's Office Administration and the their attorney and their representatives so that's up to an including $14 million over the 20 years well I mean I um I I don't know the I don't know the projection or let me get the calculator no I understand that I'm just saying I don't I don't know I know the initial year and then we cap it there and it and it decreases every year I don't know the full amount over the 20 years I we don't have the benefit of the individual line item amounts uh while we did see them because they shared them at one point but they're proprietary they kind of you know but well that's why we capped it so it couldn't be and and we limited it to directly this facility and our operation the the project but again the management fee is like a salary I I would be very surprised if a corporation would say hey that's okay I'll take a lower salary this year and not go the full $700,000 there is nothing in the contract that requires them to reduce the management fee I would just point out that if we were to do this ourselves and have to employ people to do those jobs with the salary and benefits it would probably be more than 700 ,000 on a yearly basis and I think that that's something that is missing from this conversation is the definition of a public private partnership a public private partnership is not necessarily um the the public part is us the private part they are able to do things faster more efficient assume the risk of financing in a they're in a better better position to do that and move projects forward that are beneficial to the public organization which is us and in in exchange for that you know they assume the risk we help offset some of the expenses in the front end because otherwise we would be incurring all of those in general and we're able to move projects forward faster that then will help us make money or offset our ongoing operational expenses in the long term so a a public private partnership is not simply a contractual Arrangement on paper it's also what what are they doing that we would have would otherwise have to do ourselves and the benefits of that is part of the dis needs to be part of the discussion so we we need to discuss that what because today we're here to extend the contract today we're here to move forward to continue on to ensure that there's proper financing for the project that we have no control over and in in doing so I I I just wanted to step back a little bit some of the things we're hearing um and I I was not impressed with the uh spreadsheet uh again their estimated numbers that uh um can go many different directions I reflected back there was a company um we'll just say a company uh that was to convert uh some vegetative uh matter into ethanol many years ago I know none of you were here but it was a great promise a great Mission and they spent a lot of money ironically this company is now on that property and because that other company's is gone and that other company absorbed over $100 million from the fed and they're gone and this was probably one of the most impressive things that was happening in in recall time wow we're going to be producing ethanol okay that came and went they had some prop proprietary knowledge and proprietary explanation that we we were not able to so we were presented with a concept and presented with a lot of colorful ideas commitments promises predictions spreadsheets how great this was going to be and admittedly we supported it not at first but then they kept on working it and working it and I'm seeing the same pattern here I want you to know that um you know this started many years ago this project and it was purported a whole lot different than it is today I'll say it again it was purported a whole lot different than it is today now um I could probably queue up something during one of the Amendments that clearly showed that we're not being told everything and we have an obligation to the public trust to ensure that we're engaging in the right thing this is a 20year commitment I know you know that I am not in favor of this at all I'm in favor of letting the contract go and wherever the cards fall and then move forward I I'd like to play one of the amendment times that what we did because I'm very impressed with staff going through this and we said we changed things we didn't change anything all we did was change the color of the appearance of what it is I was the one who objected to gross and agreed and agreed George and Alan agreed to yeah you're right it kind of yeah it's not you know no no it's not gross so we changed it so we have some other additives all we did was change the color of what we're seeing it still is what it is as in The Wizard of vs when that purple horse came out and that it went to Green then to Yellow then to Orange it's still a horse originally we're still not gaining what we're doing is we're doing something that's ecologically sound but it can be done it can be done internally for a whole lot less without the concerns and we were told that we're going to up the ante and and I want to say something else when this project began it was first presented it was presented very narrowly in other words we were told the tip of the spear or the edge of the mound we were not given what we now have about the finance package we we still don't know the finances but we do know a lot of numbers that were placed on a spreadsheet we do know a lot of factors and then we see costs that we objected to what we did was just chameleon eyesee it it's still there it still exists we're not gaining it just we owe it to the public just just say you know hey wait a minute stop drop and roll we we're being asked because a bank needs to know for this to happen I heard this word uh Force mure this is not force majour this is a business decision and a relationship that did not work force majour was an act of God an act of nature a typhoon a hurricane a flood that's what force majure is this this is not force majure this is uncontrollable got out of hand I'll give you that but it doesn't rise to the occasion of force majour when now we're now put in a position of having to place the public trust into an engaging in a response so that we can continue on there's still no guarantee Kim did you find that pretty with the Indulgence I'd just like to play this for a minute because I think most of us were here uh that's uh Vincent Burke and and hmana they would make that request to us we would evaluate we might want to start over again and they would fund that exp there a lot of the important stuff just got said and I bring this up because we're saying that we're revisiting and amending amending amending but the first part of the contract was different from now very much so and a lot of things were added and reconstituted and I appreciate what St did but I don't think we're in any any any better position than we were then if they as a developer would like to add say five more gas Wells they would make that request to us we would evaluate that and and and they would fund that expansion so we've given them the ability to do that um we also came up with you know things sometimes break and so they wanted some assurance that if something broke and they identifi Landfield to maybe put in more gas Wells you know we haven't really had an in it's very difficult to hear sir it's really here let me as a develop say five more gas so we've given them the ability just going to say can you summarize what it is that point this you're trying to toward sort of emergency repairs or anything that you know they F and again this is this is this is a project where the more gas we produce the more revenue for them more revenue for us so so they wanted that ability to be able to match some on andm budget and and so we we've agreed to to do that as well um originally in the agreement in terms of payment there was a sort of a 10% % of gross receipts is is from their gross receipts is would be the revenue toward us and what they've done is now that because they had some some of these sort of 1150 scfm quality criteria or quantity criteria they've increased at the 12% gross receipts uh and in order for us to get that they realized that at some months we may have lower than that 1150 and although it wasn't in the original agreement they've kind of agreed to if our flows are between 800 and 1150 scfm once we get started and the project has commenced uh that they would offer 9% of of the grossy receipts and even if we're below 800 scfm we get going they've offered 5% of gross receipts so there's still some Revenue Source coming up but again we put into the agreement the ability for them to help fund expansions ability to make repairs on a quick basis so the the goal here is to continue to optimize the landfill so that we're we're producing as much as as gas as possible the other thing that they've done is this RNG project requires is 45% methane content and we're okay so the point to discussion was that it was we were told that we went in that was one of the Amendments we went in with 10% and then now uh the the graciousness of the organization they're going to up it to 12% so that's what we agreed upon that it was going to be 12% not well I don't know if if you cfms you don't you don't have the volume and my point is is that we were agreeing upon the information that was delived from the podium in the meantime I don't know how much tearing apart the attorney did as our current attorney has done it is very clear that there was stuff laid on here just to get it through all don't worry about it don't look behind the curtain another wizard of us I I just I am very uncomfortable with this because at the end of the day we heard we're going from 10 to 12 and we're not that's not happening and in addition 10 to 12 of what like what what's the we're going from 10 to 12 the 10% to 12% about the funding about we're going to see Revenue royalty payment royalty payment okay did you hear Revenue we're not going to see any Revenue here come come on let let's be honest it's a good thing if we want to talk about environmental but there's no there's no greater good as far as economics here it it just doesn't happen and and all of the clawbacks like miscellaneous I understand that's the catchall in managerial uh assignment uh we had miscellaneous expenses I realize you C the miscellaneous expenses but even at 25,000 uh incidentals I mean what what is that 25,000 time 20 years is half a million dollars U and that's the contract as it goes today I mean this all sounds it sounds good when it's presented the way it's presented by the presenter but when you look at it it's not so so can I maybe bring one point of clarification about what even hamu was mentioning in in the the clip that you just provided was even the way it's written today is based off of the quantity and quality we have an escalation of of the percentage that we get for royalty and I think he even alluded that in the in the clip that the percentage that 12% was that if we got above that 1150 which is where it resides today so I don't think you heard anything different in that clip than what's in the contract currently which is there is a sliding scale of the percentage of royalty we receive based off of the quality of gas we receive as well as the quantity of gas that is provided so I just want to make sure that that's that's clear and that's the way the contract currently reads today and I can go back it's no different than what was was stated in there which you heard him say that at 800 or at 1150 we would get a higher percentage and I think that's all he was saying in that in that CLI so nothing about the royalties has changed from the clip that was shown till today he do you have something you're lurking around do you have something you want to say well come on up and say it let's just get this over I think the purpose of the clip that commissioner man wanted to bring up was that when they were presenting this information and said it was going from an increase of 10% gross receipts to 12 the reality was is that it was going from 10% gross receipts to 12% net receipts that was the purpose of the clip that's the the purpose of the clip because the amendment changed the definition of gross receipts the original contract gross receipts actually meant gross receipts okay so and you have a problem with that no yes I I have no problem I'm just you have no problem with that but you have a problem with that I'm just saying I have no opinion personally I'm just saying trying to explain to how we got here and what the concern I'm trying to understand where we're going with this argument like where we're going with this and I somebody is upset about it so let's who is it and why well go it's it was presented as gross um Elan came up and and said it was gross and then when I refuted that it became yeah you're right George said well yeah yeah it's probably not gross I mean admittedly and it appears we fixed it but we didn't fix it because they're the same numbers so if it was gross and now it's net what is your concern about that just that the definition or the word is my problem is that's how we got to the pathway in other words we started bad it got a little better and now it it's the same thing it's just got a different label on it well I guess I you you know and Y you shook your head yes it it's the same thing but I don't understand it's the same thing can I ask you a question commissioner fer just I'm I'm really trying I hear what you're saying but I'm not um I'm not really un understanding the concern and I apologize so let me ask a question if you're saying that gross receipts is now changed to net receipts but it's the same thing I guess what I'm trying to get at is are you in concerned that that's impacting the royalty percentage are you concerned that that's impacting the overall expenses what's what's the concern and and is that difference a a huge monetary difference and if so is is you see what I'm saying I'm just yes and and you're a business person and we're not talking about in reference to the choice of words okay you say potato I say potato that's one thing right when it comes to gross and net we're talking about two different worlds right okay so what I'm saying is we were impressed upon with gross gross gross now it's net okay and it is net okay okay so I'm not saying that it it didn't change but just a right and so then the concern is because impact is there that the number that was relabeled the percentages are coming off of are then different because it's Net versus gross no no no okay no but how we got there how we traveled was gross gross gross net big difference so okay one of uncomfortable the concern is then that our attorney didn't catch that change and now this attorney has is that the concern you said it can I can I clarify one thing real quick too so under Amendment Three gross receipts the terminology was gross receipts but if you looked at the definition that was in the contract it was really net and so we clarified in this in this amendment that it truly means net proceeds and I think we clarified some of the ambiguity that was in the the previous definition that there was some ambiguity and the way that was worded and so in the current Amendment we've clarified that and we specified what what can be deducted from the gross to come to that net Pro net proceeds and so I think there is there has been a significant change from Amendment Three to what you're seeing in Amendment four with respect to to clarifying what that definition truly means and and I agree that under Amendment Three there was some ambiguity and there was some it wasn't real clear what could be deducted and and kind of left it open and I think we've clarified that in the current amendment that says no these are the these are the items that can can be deducted to reach what that net proceeds is to give us what our royalty would be based off of so I just I have a comment at the last meeting when we had this discussion I very clearly asked the Commissioners and the attorneys what it was that they had concerns about so we could be very specific and trying to get the changes made timely to bring back to this meeting and what was brought up is gross receipts um the percentages and um a few of those things which it sounds like everybody got together and hammered out in a quick fashion they got it what was asked of them done and now we're here but what I'm hearing today is that there's a fear that because the entire contract was put together and amended and overseen and reviewed by an attorney that is no longer here because he you know retired his office the attorney's office is now being run by Mr de braw and it's been assigned to a new attorney who has just come on board with us that he has caught all these things that he didn't bring up at the last meeting as concerns that now require us to question the entirety of the contract is that kind of what your concern is commissioner flesher yes so well done to that I would say first of all we asked specifically so we could move this project forward one way or another last meeting and Keith clearly agreed with the things that we asked to be updated and included and no Petro clearly got together with staff who hashed all of this out and clarified the issues that we were very specific about asking and commissioner Moss had some specific things I think we all did um and they worked together and got it done and got it back in a very timely fashion so I if there are Fe further concerns I think that the um the history here proves that everybody will get together and work those out and has been willing to get together and work those out but I think what it also proves is what you kind of hear about other processes within this County you're working you think you're addressing what's being asked of you and once you get those things addressed boom you're hit with something out of left field that nobody ever anticipated and it further slows down the process whether it's the building process storm water utilities now contract negotiations for a landfill gas project so you know it's a little frustrating to me that we asked for these things this needs to either get done today or not get done and because there's a new attorney that had some concerns about gross versus Net receipts and instead of picking up the phone and just asking the definition or how we got here here is now making a huge problem it's very frustrating to me I understand I don't agree with that if I may I understand your frustrations there was a difference or a internal dispute in the contract language as far as gross receipts and net receipts we changed the definition and the wording in the contract so that difference was made clear so that there was no no question about what constituted net receipts I understand that some of the Commissioners may not agree with some of the terms of the contract 8% 10% 12% they are set in the contract as far as our office is concerned and Mr Jackman is concerned the ambiguity has been resolved that does however a you know if individual Commissioners do not like the specific terms of the contract that's up to them but as far as the direction that the that the county attorney's office and staff received I think we are very clear in bringing this back to you as far as clearing up those problems again if individual Commissioners don't like the terms of the contract that's something that our office can't really take care of at this point it's already in the contract thank you thank you Mr bral how do you feel about this contract I haven't had a chance to spoke with you you are the head County attorney the contract is you know is a legally binding document it sets forth the duties of the parties it's got adequate consideration as with any contract as the chair has pointed out there is risk the numbers that have been presented by no pet are not guaranteed they are estimates so if you go ahead and approve this extension and they proceed to building this project the risk is that we will not receive any of the royalties at the end because there may be things that come up we don't know what those things may be they don't know what those things may be that's always been the risk involved in this contract as far as it being legally binding and everything else it's what it is it's different than your normal contract that you're used to seeing where it's we pay you X number of millions of dollars and you build us an extension onto 56th Avenue that's what you're looking at that's what you're used to looking at this is different as far as how we arrive at the end of everything am I satisfied that it's that it's an enforcable document yes I am okay well let me see let me let me back up so in when this first came to the board commissioner moss and I and commissioner L weren't on the board yet the board initially approved the first contract second and third were presented to who us I don't know if commissioner lore was on the third one but those have all been approved we've approved it every time they're asking us to approve a a fourth amendment and we did ex they staff has done exactly what we had in the concerns last meeting my biggest concern was this is a this is a public private partnership there is a risk for any partnership whether it's a marriage or whether it's a Business Partnership there's there's a risk either way so we had concerns pointed out by our assistant County attorney and they're valid concerns we asked staff and because Sean sat right here and told us he said we have some questions on the grocery streets and we have some questions on well who is responsible for what areas in this whole project who's going to you know who's going to take care of the blower who's going to do this who's going to do that we need to have those ironed out I think they've done which is while we asked of them in the last meeting is to come back with a better definition on where we're going with Grocery seips and who is responsible for what and I and I think we've done that I think the question we need to all ask oursel is no contract can cover anything I don't care if it's a labor contract a Union contract or a partnership contract or a business contract with all the contracts we do with the county and we do a bunch of them I don't think we can Define every possibility there is a risk in this there is a risk but it seems to me like a pretty good risk and again what we did two weeks ago staff has done and that's that that's where we're at I think we just need to decide whether we want to end up in this public private partnership as a board do we want to continue to do it or we or do or do we not if we don't do it this project fails it goes by the wayside we're flaring gas out of the landfill and there'll probably be another company that comes and asks us to do something very similar this is not something new it's done in various places all over the United States so I'm sure there' be other ones but Elaine and and George and the rest of them have come to us with this they have a I feel a greater risk than we do uh with regards to this uh project I too had some questions on the sgna and and all that stuff that's in exhibit e of the contract uh from talking with the County Administrator talking with Shawn uh I think they alleviated some of those I've talked with the county attorney the assistant County attorney his position was basically none of this is clear let's just not do this and let's get somebody else to come in here and do it that was his position yesterday I talked with our uh Director of Finance she was basically saying what I'm said we either we enter into the partnership and make it work or we or we or we don't do it at all uh but she uh said there's a possibility could be a huge success there's a possibility be a medium to moderate success where we're just we're covering our cost and and reducing some of our expenditures but but initially there probably will be some be some cost to it so I I think that's what we have to decide here we going to do this partnership or we not because I tell you one thing I won't do is probably give a no matter what we do is probably do a fifth amendment to this like I said at the last meeting I think four is enough if this said you know to keep doing revisions to these amendments would be silly and it doesn't mean for good business if you can't if you can't work it out manto man or even on a handshake sometimes so that's where kind of I'm at commissioner fer I understand your your your question on this but I think I got to agreed with commissioner Adams a little bit to say we as staff to do what we're doing we need to decide on on what we have in front of us right right now and uh and move forward or not move forward with this so that's kind of where I'm at it's all right you say that uh uh commissioner uh all the respect nice that you say that the the Fourth Amendment will be the final four is enough we said that at three and I believe it was discussed at two about a decision about going forward so I I know at Amendment Three you said this the final one I agree I I believe I heard that I would agree okay but now now we're saying well the fourth amendment is the final one and maybe the fifth one will also be the final one okay and then no more after the sixth see that's what we're doing this has been a slippery slope since we got here since well uh the the chair chairman and myself got here and then this thing came evolving and investering and investering and it it moves forward it's growing and now we have spreadsheets that enumerate it all and now those numbers are estimates those estimates are thoughts if this process is so proven we could do it ourselves and there shouldn't be so many amendments and uncertainty and the reason why we're here is for an extension because there was a disagreement with uh a gas company and the applicant uh the the partner and that is considered a force measure it's not okay there was another problem and I remind everybody none of you were here but we we were told we also were told that we would be Distributing the gas that there would be we have an vision of a distribution that'll never happen that's not going to happen that gas is going elsewhere it's being sold that's fine uh whatever um we talked about our our waste trucks and our County trucks if we want it to RNG then we'd have a a steady stream and steady supply everybody's got to look at the evolution of how we got here not just we're here today let's do another amendment and are we going to be able to do that on the fifth and sixth amendment Madam chair yes commissioner I think it's mock me if I can ask the administrator about the last paragraph on page two and it says finally the parties agreed to a provision to reconvene to further Define clarify and finalize the division of responsibilities and operating procedures under sections 3.1 and 3.2 and this should shortly occur after groundbreaking but no later than June of 2024 does that mean the items in the exhibit will be more clear more defined because you know we I'm hearing that staff worked hard with them for two weeks and got this all clarified uh the exhibit numbers are still uh not clearly defined and I get they can't under certain certain circumstances so what does that mean reconvene a meeting and what are we meeting about so well we obviously have two entities that are working on the project and it was to develop the standard operating procedures and have an understanding the responsibilities on the County's part and responsibilities on the the the no Petra part or the district's part and no Petra part so that's kind of we we agreed that wasn't an amendment necessary for the agreement because it wasn't materially changing the agreement it was just us coming together what we do and meet and say okay well here's what we're doing this is what you're doing and and it's consistent with 3.1 3.2 and and the other thing I would just say is what while we don't have the specific uh amounts or figures related to the uh the various expenses where we have clarified and locked it down is listing the exact expenses that will be left out okay it seems like have that before right it seems like that should have been done in the infancy of the first contract just a thought go like this we really didn't have that background okay yes gentlemen go ahead guys so we'll both approach um I Alan Castro thank you all for having me um I'm a partner of the uh no Peto District along with George here at my left who are taking this project forward um I uh I want to just correct some things that I think are misunderstandings um when we started this project when I came to this County in the year 2018 uh we had acquired a fa a failed project from a large Swiss corporation that unfortunately misused a lot of federal money and I side you and I both know this commissioner Fletcher I get as angry about that as you you do I always do it just I get angry just talking about it we came in we bought that project and uh we had a vision of developing a series of projects and part of many I'm not going to go through that Vision but one of the attributes of that vision is every project we would attract sort of the best and brightest part ERS to this County to this little County which is not geographically little but it's a little County from a population perspective right and uh the first project we brought Atlas world class uh you know organic soils producer they they lecture at you know the best universities on this topic and we now have 100,000 or more tons a year of organic soil in Indian River County um and I learned a lot about soil I'm not a soil guy but I I learned a lot about soil through that and and uh and it was an interesting project and I'm I'm really proud we made that happen in the second project we we saw that the county had a problem with the lee8 and we brought a worldclass company the Heartland company here and I'll always remember this this was my point to say all this uh commissioner Fletcher once said in a board meeting and I can't recall what date it was but it was it was a happy moment for me he said you pointed me out and you said you've been a good thing for this County and I was on Cloud9 the rest rest of that day I I genuinely was I was on Cloud9 the rest of that day went home my wife even asked me what happened he said oh one of the County Commissioners said I was a good thing for the county that's all I really want to be you know and she knew that and I said and so the third project you know it's running into some problems covid is what it is it hit all of us but it made the project go slower the land full got full of leech heate holy crap how are we going to deal with that we all bound together with the county we we figured it out but it it it we got some we got dealt some hits right unlike a big Corporation in Switzerland right which you kind of alluded this is kind of more of that we're guys that are refinancing our houses when that sort of thing happens which is factual that's not a theoretical that we we've done that to stay in this to to trudge through and get to where we are right we got a company behind us but we're not a big Swiss multinational So Co has put us out there and we buckle down and we double down and we're doing this and we're already about almost in 1010 million in spent on this project so we've raised private Equity money as your County Administrator properly represented half that Equity money has already been deployed our money we've had to securitize it with our houses our kids our kids college Futures everything so we're in we're not some corporate guys right so I want to make that difference right there we're we're an animal with different spots okay we're not a big multinational this is a very personal project to us very personal and I wanted to just take a moment does this I've never used this overhead is it easy because I just brought like three three slides and they're old slides thank you how do you do it just thank you and I'm only going to keep the first page up for record these are from IRC Indian River County board meeting May 2021 okay and I just grabbed a few of this this is a part of the vision that we explained we had shared with the board at the time two of which are still here the vision was you take a small landfill sorry work yeah take a small landfill which was sending untreated leachate one of the most toxic liquid substances known to man down to the wastewater treatment plant to get mixed with all the other water and was sending its untreated landfill gas to a flare and flaring it and just burning it voluntarily that's it so we said what about this what about a vision where what about a vision where we take landfill gas we power an RNG facility which will one day feed a fleet of trucks or buses and we take the extra Lee the extra landfill gas we power it evaporator and that evaporator so you got the little landfill that could you can almost write a children's book from it right it's beautiful now we said back then hey this is going to take about 15 to, 1600 standard cubic feet per minute of gas your landfill is not there unfortunately your landfill according to back then in that board meeting your your landfill according to the best engineers in the landfill space in United States said that and you know you should be hitting that around the late 2020s right so we're not going to be able to achieve this utopian little landfill that could right out the gate you can go back and find the recordings I probably didn't use the little landfill that could but we we did make clear that the landfill is not going to hit all of this right out the gate but these are steps and then we made one small change the only change is that we said well rather than sending that extra landfill gas once the landfill grows once the landfill has more volumes instead of sending that landfill gas back to the evaporator let's just generate more transport fuel the county will make more royalties and we'll buy our facility will buy the commercial natural gas to run the evaporator it's a better economic decision for all parties right we all win now that's what's happened the fleet of buses and the fleet of trucks uh commissioner Fletcher comes when the vision which is not on this the vision is that we would one day right on the back of this put a refueling station now Petra owns and operates the biggest Fleet of refueling stations for compressed natural gas in Florida and much like I did with Atlas with the organic soil much like I did with Heartland with the evaporators I bought the best in Florida not just best in the US best in Florida and we do have the vision but these are building blocks of having a refueling station selling this landfill gas in Florida we've taken the hits along the way we've done what I think you would want an entrepreneurial partner of a county to do which is be resourceful and find a way through the storm and we're seeing it through and and we'll see it through I just hoped and still hope that we would see it through with you at our side and not you know suddenly saying that the ill terms changed and one last thing and I want to get out of the way and let George talk the only thing that changed um how do I turn that off the only thing that changed is that when we started this project it was a power project and we put in gross receipts and it was around 10% and then the county said why can't you do an RNG project and the RNG project I can understand why the revenue is three times higher it you make three times more Revenue selling transport fuel than you do selling electricity I said man if we do that it's going to be hard to get financing it's going to be hard it's a little landfill so we worked together and I said also RNG projects typical typically pay about 3% 4% gross receipts if you look at the other projects that's what they pay that's what they pay the 3 or 4% gross receipt even up in uh in the other project in Florida it's 3 or 4% gross gross receipts we said let's keep it 10 to 12% but help us we're going to have to cover the debt we're going to have to cover some financing this is a hard project and we bound together and we found a way and we changed it together but very much in front of Dylan very much in meetings with Jason Brown this was very much open discussed let's find a way to keep the county incented and if you look at that video that was put up in honi from that board meeting he said some other very important things he said something like there's money to be put aside during operations where this project would co-invest with the county to make improvements to the landfill and there's a staggered 10 and 12% so if the quality goes up they make more money we make more money that's the idea it's always been there that hasn't changed commissioner Fletcher that hasn't changed the only thing that changed is that Co slowed us down liquid in the well slowed us down and unfortunately the build out of the pipeline to all of the island with your local gas utility did make them a bit more bureaucratic and slow that that's [Music] all thank thank you for your comments and um I I me what I said in the past you personally I like you we've had very lengthy conversations about every everything here and everything else in the great planet have we not yes we have countless discussions personally I like if I don't like the contract I don't like the contract and and and I hope that you don't take it personal because I meant what I said then I meant what I said now and I I I'll be clear I don't need any words I don't even need alphabet soup I mean I I just I'm clear I'm I'm committed to what I feel and say but by the same token you're a good man that doesn't mean we have a good contract that doesn't mean that we're not placing the citizens on the hook and if they get placed on a hook I don't want it on a treble hook because they're very tough to get out George Commissioners Good morning George Herrera see for no Petro energy U Commissioners so first addressing your point commissioner flesher from a constituent perspective the project the contract the way everything has been structured has been done incredibly deliberately and in the best interest of all taxpayers in no scenario would the taxpayers in any case subsidize any expense of our project quite the opposite no Petro is investing $40 million into this County and I'll I'll take you back to to chy piggy back on some of alon's words I started no Petro energy in 2007 I was a practicing lawyer but I always dreamed of building a company that would change the world positively within six months of practicing law I started Nedra because I came across the use of natural gas became incredibly curious as a 27-year-old kid I spent the next 14 years I guess if we're at 14 years now building no pet where we've expanded across the state where we've got 17 facilities but you touched on something which is trust I was our company we myself we were able to persuade government Partners across the state major cities and counties just like Indian River 12 years ago that they could trust us that we're going to execute that we're always going to do what's in the best interest of our part partner always and when we look at Indian River County and what we've done over the last 24 months since we've been involved as a partner we've lived up to that and there's no other standard which we would ever live up to it's always excellence and trust and with the county while the county was improving its landfill operations removing the lead shate no Petra was making Investments and that from a company our size we're a midsize company not an startup but we are a midsize company and we were taking risk along with the c County when the county was producing 500 standard cubic feet per minute over the last 18 months our team has met weekly weekly if not bi-weekly worst case scenario with the county staff the administration keeping them appraised of every activity that we're doing keeping each other appraised of the progress that each one is making in June when the county had just achieved basically the production flow that we needed we issued a purchase order for 8 million dollars I had to go to my board just like your your Administration goes to you and get approval for that because I was so confident in working with your staff and your Administration I've worked with them across the State of Florida for the last 15 years they're First Rate they're committed they work on the weekends and to get a project done this project is a game Cher for the country the fact that you have seen this through since Alan started here in 2019 that you saw this Vision through and you're here now where we break ground in 3 weeks we're waiting for our permits we're ready to go the project will be operational in January of next year we're three and a half months late because of events that we couldn't control but we still moved forward we still made Investments we still met weekly with your staff we've got permits filed as of August of last year so you don't have to have any doubts rest assured commissioner flesher that you will be cutting a ribbon in 12 months rest assured and from a financial perspective again given the Dynamics of the landfill we were a growing landfill that never cared about gas generation you guys started to care because you saw the big picture you can't flare gas it's terrible for the environment that's the alternative for the next 36 months and then ultimately from a financial perspective everything has always been represented exactly the way it is from a from a dollar perspective the definitions you know that was bad wording from the lowers I wasn't involved that our company was not involved but the bottom line was the same and that is no petrol will subsidize the county we're going to pay for that natural gas during the early years and we're going to pay royalties it just so happens that once you get to a certain point not only are we paying the Cy's gas costs but we're also giving them royalties so it's a remarkable deal and the fact that we've got a track record for the last 15 years in the State of Florida is all that you need to hang your hat on and say you know what I trust this company they're going to execute and when you talk to your staff when you talk to sha when you talk to hantu when you talk to Mr John who has got to meet us over the last two months I am confident they're going to Echo the same sentiment and I trust I'm here to answer any questions that you have Commissioners but we couldn't be more committed this project will win national awards and I'm calling that now because of the progression the evolution of leate is horrible for your local CI once that water starts to drain that counts us underground pollution nuisance with smell you guys went head on and addressed it so I applaud the commission so I'm here to answer any questions if there's any doubts I'm here to answer any questions please Mr flesher you've expressed a few today I I well I don't have uh a a question I just want to point out uh the word ambiguity because we said we clarified all of that okay you just said that you're a uh Middle Ground company correct I'm putting words in Middle yeah technically midcap company financially yes okay Alan says we take out our mortgages for this suggesting a small company our County Administrator says you're a large National company you want to talk about ambiguity okay I'm just pointed it out this when you hear these mixed signals hold on George um and I'm not going on a different tangent other than you hear this and you say well what is it is it a small company is it a medium company is it a large National company commissioner Fletcher so just three just to clarify myself and my partner Craig donic we are a small company we are the seedling we brought in this is our third partner to bring into in in River County the first one was Atlas The Organic Soil second was Heartland company corporate and then we brought in uh netro now netro is a different comp now we're partnered together on this project we're both investors and owners netra is a Florida wide company they have the largest Fleet of you know comp compressed natural gas stations in Florida and are also launching operations overseas but they're not across the United entire United States they're a Florida wide they span the entire State of Florida they're reasonably sized Company by Florida state standards and you should be proud as a Floridian because you've been here now several you know long you know partially a Floridian to have companies like this but they're a strong Florida company there's no corporations here and so they're not the ones refinancing homes I'm the entrepreneur committed to Indian River County these projects that's partnered in doing it a different different entities so are we dealing with you or we dealing with both we're both in this no petol correct no pet so we're dealing with kind of both corre well we're all investors yeah just snow Petra is is the contracted party but if there's any other questions I'd love to be able to answer that you can't M they're not mutually they're not exclusive this is your partnership to our partnership correct no Petro eal district with Indian River County of your 17 other entities uh are any of them identical to this no cuz there's only one other facility in Florida but the answer is no we distribute renewable natural gas across the state but we'll be building the facility with Symbian which has built 50 facilities across the country commission and the project is fully bonded so from a performance bond and payment Bond perspective performance guarantee so from an execution perspective there's no concern that might have been the source of con confusion the company that's brought in the construction company the procur is a national company that has done over 50 of these exact kinds of projects so that might have been the confusion where whoa I thought we were dealing with a national company this was a National Construction Company a strong state-based you know gas distributor operator sorry if I may you mentioned bonding what who who who is the sh who's the A on on the bond and who does the bond support the bond supports Net's per nro's EPC contract which is a design build contract with symbient which is the construction company that's building the project we have a fully wrapped $32 million guaranteed maximum price contract with performance guarantees all wrapped in and with a substantial completion date of January 15th of 2020 and the name of this Corporation is symbient symbient symbient like aent has promised you and the bonding company that if they don't build the project the bonding company will step in and finish the contract absolutely that was a condition of RPC contract Siran I shared those contracts with your staff thank you thank you Commissioners any other questions of the uh Eco District or no Petro or staff or each other or anybody else um yes commissioner I just I just have one question how um how or or why did that happen that um and I guess this dates back to 2019 before some of us were here and originally it was grocery seats how how did that become net without any discussion and I I understand that you know our legal department perhaps should have advised us but it was gross and it did become it was still stated as is gross I'm not engaging in semantics here but in actuality it became net and there and there was no discussion I mean why didn't you um you know approach us and and clarify everything at that time rather than you know slipping it through so to speak so commissioner from that you know that concerns me because it's true that part of this is that we are going to agree to reconvene and and further discuss and and clarify and I I don't know how we got off track in the first place so on the latter point in terms of reconvene all that we need now to work with the county here over the next four months is just an a standard operating procedure memo we have these across the state of Flor with different partners like Central Florida transit authority and it's just memorializing procedures such as no Petro employees will have access to the landfill from 900 to 8:00 p.m. so very simple kind of non-contractual non-material material elements are all that's remaining in this sop memo that was referenced by by Sean and and John a few earlier and on your prior comment it's always been represented as net receipts in front of the Commission in terms of financially what we were reflecting the reality is that the term that was used was inherited from that First Agreement when the county was only producing very very low volumes of gas and they were trying to do a power plant which is very very different and so for whatever reason be up before our time the lawyers did not clarify that but that ultimately financially was always represented the way it is which simply the revenue minus the actual expenses that it cost to run the facility and this is a very common method across the country for infrastructure projects such as this and ultimately the county does not run a Financial Risk as a result of that it just it just puts both parties aligned in wanting the best thing for the facility because annually the county will audit our books openly and transparently and and we operate in that same we have done that again for the last 15 years where we pay royalties to different clients across across the State of Florida thank you I'll just I'll just add because I I I was around when we made the changes from the power project to a transport fuel project a renewable natural gas project and we had I would say with without being exaggerative um 100 hours of discussion with um County attorney County Administrator and County landfill team over those changes I don't recall if that level of detail was brought to the board but I can I can attest I just don't remember but I can attest it was and I've got lots of emails back and forth on public record it was red line back sorry Red Line back and forth I mean it was so it was very openly discussed as to you know you know that so it wasn't something that was I don't know it it it was certainly something that we felt was very much open as we walk through it I don't um know if you know those that were with us would would agree we we took it forward and had lots and lots and lots of discussion over thank you madam chair what you said what we we didn't get to that level wait okay no I just don't recall when they presented here I might have not even met but usually I stay working with your administ talk about we didn't talk about net and gross we didn't get involved with that kind of no what we said commissioner commissioner Fletcher what we said is the RNG project is going to be a far more expensive of a project we told your cter Administration we're going to have to take on debt to do that big of a lift it's a much bigger capex project as well we weren't privy to that okay so that's I guess that's on our end but George you I know you're not practicing but you attorney right business attorney I haven't practiced law in 15 years but you you did the whole thing I did I did you're an attorney I did yes non-practicing attorney correct think that gross and and that thing was not a minuscule item that it was kind of large so commissioner flesher when when the reality is it could have been it should have been written with a different word but the economics that were represented were always the same so it was always presented in a genuine transparent way in terms of the projections that were reflected and again from a financial perspective when you look at the actual project and the economic return to the county they're compelling on its face right when you're having a company such as no petrol that's going to be subsidizing the County's landfill operations by paying for the natural gas that you need to pay for regardless to power the evaporator plus we're paying royalties it's a true partnership it's a true partnership like we have across with other municipalities and counties well done but that wasn't this is not a Yan's ERA this is not a Scrib's scri ERA this is the difference between the two terms is overwhelming but commissioner respectfully if your Administration and staff is comfortable with the way it's defined and what the economic results are it seems like that meets meets the test right in terms of it's it's been negotiated the return have been reflected no they were sold that it was going to be gross I I I contend that and then we were we were we were informed that in and again from the beginning of the conversation I know you guys weren't here when we first thoughted this but it was uh now we're getting this in the beginning we got this all we did we get the tip of the spear it was sharp and it was moving forward that's all we know so commissioner the economics are still the same it was was just a definition that was clarified to remove the any any ambiguity that was felt by by the county attorney's office and so it was given another code of pain okay yes John I just want to in the gross receipts definition that preceded this can we put this see you can put it up sure and we're probably going to read the same thing your attorney up let's see for turned it off would you mind put on sure so it it notes I'll read it and he's going to put it up means the gross receipts received by the company or its subsidiaries during the term from the sale of the RNG facility including any environmental attributes net of any brokerage fees Transportation costs sales taxes and other expenses incurred directly or indirectly by the company and its subsidiaries in connection with such sales from the RNG facility so to again I wasn't here when this happened but I'm just looking at this definition it does include in there the net component and it identifies some expenses and what we did based on the direction of the board is that we worked with no Petro to tighten up the what were those expenses so what's the EXP so from an audit standpoint previously it was indirectly or directly now we know it's directly and we have locked down with the exhibit E I would just submit that to the board I mean but to to M George's Point uh it did that's the definition that was previously adopted of the grocy receipt it did net out I'm sorry definition what date is this this is Amendment Three if I may add to that Amendment two I'm sorry Amendment two two hold on what you just read was from the Second Amendment correct the definition of gross receipts and the Second Amendment included the net concept okay and has that and now that we're looking at the Fourth Amendment how has that definition changed I would submit the definition that we have now is more precise and it limits it to the concerns about it's not ambiguous and it limits it to this facility our project only okay so it's direct it's not the indirect I mean it's very spefic specific Keith and Pete did a good job on I think Keith drafted these ones that are pres presented today for approval in amendment number four but the net attribute is still in there as it has been since the Second Amendment yeah that Madam chair Commissioners if I could very briefly go through it so I have all four of them here including the original agreement Amendment one two and three the original agreement does use the term several times gross receipts at no point did anybody identif a definition for that so we were all working collectively in a partnership with a without a definition of that term but understanding what it meant fast forward Amendment one does not address any definitions Amendment one is totally irrelevant to any discussion today because there's nothing in it it's it's basically one page and I'm happy to put it up but it shows nothing Amendment two is the first time the term gross receipts is used whatsoever and that's what I just had up the execution date on that is May of 2021 and that's the definition that you saw and if we can just have that available again I want to lay it up there for you so that's May 18th 2021 and again there's where you see it and as was just stated by you move it down a little bit if you want us to see the definition thank you there you go okay and what I want to lay right next to it just below it is the current definition net proceeds let me try to come up just a little bit so you can see both of them at the same time'll be a little tight okay there we go as you can see in as Mr Tanis just alluded to not only does this tighten up the term grossery seips because even from the Inception it means grocery receipts received net of and you take out all of your expenses that's all the way from Amendment two that continues in Amendment Three wh Sor didn't me to slide that and so now we fast forward to a term net proceeds which again uses that exact leading means the gross receipts less the itemized expenses even better in this version Amendment four the term itemized expenses has never been defined either ever because we were all working under the same partnership the idea that there would be grosser seats cost and you would have a net so instead in working with your staff and again want to be very complimentary of staff particularly Manu who is on the other side of the world and participated we came to a term for itemized expense and as you've all seen with our exhibit it specifically delineates what those are so if anything four years ago five years ago in 2019 you have a wonderful idea but you don't have all of the terms roughly two years later you have a complete change in the approach no longer electricity but gas and we have a wonderful idea how that can be utilized for huge environmental benefits but also be monetized in a partnership savings to the county cost avoided that you will incur by lessening that burden we move forward as we found more things and we get to a point now where we have a very tight set of definitions that clearly identify what those proceeds are and what the costs are that can be deducted your gross your expenses your net it it is virtually a perfect model for Auditors financial institutions the public anybody to be able to follow and going back to the revenues and percentages again even in Amendment two it was 12% as was alluded and based on the exact same flow rates quite frankly that we're talking about now those haven't changed so there's been no suggestion from our side in fact we tried to do exactly what you asked to do we came in because we needed an extension and we provided that we we we met immediately following we've kept it tight there's nothing to hide here we've never tried to in fact I think we've provided more transparency than it's ever been provided at any point in the last almost five years and again I want to thank John I want to thank Bill the county attorney's office all of Staff because it was a lot of work this is not a simplistic process but we are here as your partners for the next several years next several decades to make the quality of life better in inin River County because we have something that we can provide to the county and we think it's a win for everybody I haven't heard anybody say that the countyy is going to lose money we're not we're here nobody has identified where youd lose money thank you if I may put in my last words okay I would like to thank Mr Jackman for his assistance on matter to commissioner Moss's matter and the paragraph two of the warehous Clauses it is not unusual at all for the parties to reconvene to determine standard operating procedures this is in every single one of our road contracts it's called the the uh preconstruction meeting where everybody gets together all the subcontractors the county the general contractor gets together and hashes out exactly what it's going to be done my last point is the bonding this is the first time that I've heard about the bonding if they have a bond to build this plant this plant will be built plain and simple that's what the purpose of the bond is same with one of our road contracts the bonding company says in our road contract if the general contractor does not build the road I will that's the same benefit that we are going to get I'll be at third party that if no Petro doesn't build this plant or their I'm I should say their contractor does not build this plant the shity will step in and finish it and I thank the chair for her patience in this matter thank you all right Commissioners we have thoroughly thoroughly discussed this issue [Music] um and you know I I really don't know how much more we can discuss so are there any further questions if not what what is y'all's pleasure M Madam chairman with the fact that I'm willing to enter into a public private partnership with a company that's almost going to invest $40 million in this County and create jobs and I have one question George do we collect uh does the state collect tax on um LP sales there is a sales tax with respect to the gas that we distribute into the pipeline yes my point was going to be is that that we we get part of that tax through through the gas tax I would assume um I think our risk is fairly minimal on this I think the risk is all in this company basically they want to sell the gas that we're going to provide so they need us to provide to Gest and I think uh that is the uh prudent thing and the most businesslike thing to do with regards to this um I don't want to see a fifth amendment at all uh so with that Madam chairman I'll be glad to accept staff's recommendation all right I'll second that any further discussion seeing none there is a motion and a second for staff yes you know the my concern is now first of all it's refreshing to hear about the bonding and that came at the 11th Hour uh in fact I don't know John if you knew that yeah I knew uh commissioner I knew that they in June of 2023 they executed a notice to proceed with symbient science engineering consultant I didn't know that they had a performance bond right and that does make a difference however the exhibit and I appreciate Mr Sweeney saying that it was clarified the fact is it's not exactly clarified on the expenses so that to me is a bit of a problem uh if if the company has 17 other entities one would think that financing wouldn't be a problem um we've heard great things about the companies that that they do um last two weeks ago we were here talking about the bank and no bonding was brought up very important um I disagree with commissioner man who says there's little risk in this there's major risk in this um so that's where I'm at all right thank you all right there is a motion by commissioner flesher I mean sorry by commissioner irman for staff recommendation with a second by myself anybody from the public yes sir come on up please state your name and address for the record Tom Sullivan 4187 West 16 square uh I'm just curious the term risk was used and I'm wondering what that meant maybe Bill does that mean if they default that the county would have to pick up the note no no okay so what what exactly in terms of the monetary risk do we have the risk is that we won't make as that we won't make the percentage on the royalties at the top tier the risk is what percentage will we make that's the entire risk that's the entire risk and these guys are on the hook for 40 million $40 million yes sir uh I don't know about the scales of Justice here but it it seems like and I say this all the time all great Endeavors involve risk I mean we wouldn't have a guy in the Moon the Japanese are going crazy because they just landed a ship there're a lot of risk I just think from what the you know and I've listened to this on TV last week and I was here during the original meetings and I I think it's a great idea but I thought the risk was $20 million what you were talking about when we're talking about just the profit risk which is going to be over a 20year period minimal for what the benefit of this science will yield I I really you know and I understand wordage and contracts but I think Bill and Keith have done a great job you know and I read the thing like five times I mean everything is very specific you know and you know to me it's a no brainer but that's just one Citizen's opinion thank you thank you anybody else from the public all right seeing non-c Commissioners all in favor I opposed I commissioner l were you I couldn't hear oos opposed all right so the motion carries three to two and with that we will take a 10-minute recess tomorrow yeah right we are going to is everybody ready to call the meeting back to order we'll call the meeting back to order next item is public hearings our first public hearing is 10 A1 County initiated requests to amend the 5year capital Improvement program and the capital improve Improvement elements of the comprehensive plan for the period of fiscal year 2023 24 through 2728 this is legislative in nature who's Chris you up good morning I want to apologize for earlier on the item I missed the question when I was running here so that's why you had a little bit of a wonky response but just wanted to clarify that for this item we are asking to actually continue to the next meeting which would be February 6th we need a little bit more time to get everything ready um I did advertise for this item and thought it would be completed by today's date however we had some extenda circumstances and also some other figures that we were waiting on so it will be ready for February 6th okay Bill so in order to do that do we need to open the public hearing and then continue it or not open it at all or open the public hearing and continue it to the time certain time and date certain okay all right so at this time I'll open the public hearing and do we need a motion to continue anybody from the public anybody from the public that wants to talk about the issue if not then just continue to the time sir okay thank you I'm sorry go anybody from the public wishing to speak on this item all right seeing none Madam chair yes uh at this time I'd like to make motion to continue at staff's request for additional information thank you commissioner flesher I will second that do we need to mention the date sure and that'll be at the next meeting February 6th perfect thank you so much and thank you for helping to keep me on track today um I need all the help I can get any questions Commissioners all in favor of the continuance I I opposed motion carries with that we'll move on to the public hearing on biosolids moratorium extension who's handling this I'll I'll I'll take this one thank you madam chairman back in 2018 the county enacted a moratorium from the spreading of Class B biosolids on properties west of uh in the western part of the County uh these biosolids were coming from other counties they were in contract with the larger land owners west of town that used the biosolids as a type of fertilizer after we learned of this we started to do some testing we and other uh agencies started to do some testing after alal blooms were found in blue Cypress lake so we went ahead and enacted a moratorium uh prohibiting the spreading of biosolids on these areas we have continued that moratorium ever since this ordinance simply extends the moratorium for another year I'd ask that the chair open the public hearing take any comment on the matter and staff's recommendation is to approve the extension of the moratorium thank you so much at this time I'll open the public hearing anybody from the public wishing to speak on this item please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record seeing none we'll close the public hearing Commissioners yes commissioner Moss I just had a question um why are we doing this annually can we do it for a longer term I understand that initially um we were allowing it in a temp for a temporary period of time so that we could see how things uh settled out so to speak uh but I'm C we must know that by now so could we do it should can and should we do it for a longer term or just just you know make it permanent I mean why is there a reason that it's a one-year term the reason that it was a one-year term is that it's a preferred length of time for moratoriums the reason that we haven't made it permanent is because there are certain state regulations that we do not want to conflict with I think the state was looking at it historically through this last four or five years whether they wanted to conduct some sort of Statewide preemption or things like that so that's why we have been carrying it from year to year basically commissioner moss and I think we went over this last year when we did this if we change it from a moror from a moratorium which is typically a year long it becomes a proh Prohibition we are legislatively preempted from having a Prohibition however because we had a moratorium in place when that legislative statute was passed we are in a great area where we can continue to I mean it sounds ridiculous I don't disagree with you but we can continue to extend the moratorium and skirt that preemption or prohibition but once we change it from a moratorium to something more permanent then we are not allowed to do it and the whole thing would go away okay so moratoriums are always one year typically okay typically typically one year or less Madam chair okay thank you motion to move to extend the moratorium for the year 2024 2025 I'll I'll second that all right I have a motion by commissioner flesher with a second by commissioner Moss any further discussion all in favor opposed motion carries 4 to zero with commissioner irman abson all right the next item is 10 A3 ordinance of Indian River County Florida amending the zoning ordinance and the accompanying zoning mat for plus two acres from RS6 single family residential district to rh8 residential mobile home District this is a quasi judicial item so we will go through our you go through my quasi judicial checklist good all right Commissioners have you had um you're asked to disclose any expar communication site visits or independent investigations commissioner not not that I'm aware of have not that I'm aware of as well have not all right and then we will confirm that the Commissioners have an open mind and are able to base their decisions on the evidence presented and applicable all can and will can and will can and will all right at this point we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and then swear everybody in yes Bill yes okay anybody open the public hearing anybody that wishes to speak on this item whether a party or audience member we ask the clerk to swear you in all Witnesses do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth all right with that we'll start with the presentation by County staff welcome good good morning for the record I'm Cindy Thurman senior planner and fore consideration is a rezoning request for School Street Apartments LLC from RS to rm8 I can do it subject 2 acre property consist is uh located on the north side of 45th Street just east of 58th Avenue in the gford area this property is an area that consists of single family subdivisions large lot Mobile Home Development with industrial uses to the South the P purpose of this request is to secure the zoning necessary to develop the site with uses permitted in the rm8 zoning classification the applicant owns approximately 14.5 Acres adjacent to the property and would like to add the subject property to the overall site for redevelopment as you can see here in the light brown or beige the existing zoning is RS6 and it dips down into the middle of the existing darker brown rm8 zoning designation the subject RS6 property is surrounded by the rm8 property a look at the fature land use map shows that the entire area is M2 which is our medium residential 2 which allows up to 10 units per acre take a closer look at the existing zoning the RS6 is a single family zoning District uses are designated for residential provides for single family housing opportunities ensures adequate public facilities to meet the needs of residents and a comparison here quickly of the existing RS6 zoning and requested RMH zoning you can see there are similarities they do have the same uh front rear and side setbacks and then here the proposed proposed zoning rm8 is a mobile home District users are also designated for residential provide opportunities for developing mobile home subdivisions ensures adequate public facilities and then again they're both consistent with with the existing r i mean M2 future land use designation which is intended to provide areas for development of residential uses with densities up to 10 unit per acre and the requested rm8 Zan classification will we limit the density to eight units even though it does allow it up to 10 but we're not asking for a future land designation change because the requested RMH Zing district is consistent with the existing M2 future Lage designation so when we look at resoning we do have to analyze everything consistent with the chapter 90212 Section 3 and these are items a through K so is it in conflict with an applicable portion of the Land Development regulations no conflicts have been identified is it consistent with the elements of the comprensive plan and those elements that are applicable the ones listed here policy 1.13 and policy 1.43 we found them consistent is it consistent with the existing proposed land use land use yes I just went over that it is consistent with the existing M2 and again no future lenus Amendment change is proposed as part of this request is it in compliance with the adopted County thorough FAIR Plan the main access for this site is from 45th Street this property actually dead ends at the end of 54th which comes off of 54th 45th Street sorry um all roadway segments within the area influence would operate at an AM acceptable level of service under the proposed rh8 zoning and I'll go over a little bit more about that in a second the subject changed mod conditions exist that warranted Amendment again this site is bedded on three sides by the rm8 zoning and the applicant owns adjacent property and would like to add this parcel for redevelopment and then again would this development of this property by this resoning decrease the level of Service established for General services such as sanitary sewer poble water solid waste and draining and what this does is this forces us to look at the highest and the most tense use and I've done an evaluation here pursuant to section 9 10.07 of the lam devel regulations and what it tells us here is the most intense under the existing zoning is 12 single family units and under the proposed RRM 8 the most intense would be 16 mobile home units so it's really only a difference of four units going moving on to item eight result in a significant adverse impacts the natural environment no adverse impacts are anticipated due to the resoning of this site with this result in an orderly logical development pattern this will provide for a logical and orderly development pattern consistent with the comence of plan will it be in conflict with the public interest no we believe that it will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of FL development regulations and will there be any other matters that may be deemed appropriate in review and consideration of the proposed amendment such as police protection fire we believe that all concurrency including mandate facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use under the proposed zoning so in conclusion the requested RM zoning district is compatible with the surrounding area consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the County's comprensive plan is consistent with the County's Land Development regulation is deemed suitable for the RMH zoning to further meet the needs of residents with a diverse and varied housing Supply and is already established in the area this request can be supported by staff the plan zoning board recommended unus approval their December 14th 202 23 meeting and the recommendation was is that the board of County Commissioners approve this request to reone the subject property from RS6 to RMH residential mobile home and if you have any questions I'm available thank you Commissioners any questions of Staff my only comment is that this is one of the clearest may this is one of the most clearcut uh sensical rezonings that we've ever been asked to do um so if there's no questions by the Commissioners is there a presentation by the applicant not after that comment um Jeff barquette was shy bin stter 1717 indan River bevard no ma'am thank you very much and if you have any questions I'm not going to answer them all right thank you the non comment was great um is there any input anybody from the public that that wishes to speak on this item if so please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record all right seeing none any final presentations from staff or the applicant no okay is all the documents and been evidence been given to the clerk fantastic with that I will close the public hearing commissioner question chair motion to approve thank you I will second that we have a motion and a second all in favor I opposed motion carries for to zero with commissioner irman ABS thank you very much I was compelled by Jeff [Laughter] speech all right that brings us to our next item which is a request to speak by Mr Gams regarding funding for septic to sewer utilities at 490 US Highway 1 as a reminder um to Commissioners our public discussion items we do not take action on if somebody would like to bring it back as an actionable item in the future you're welcome to do so and the discussion is limited to three minutes Mr gillams welcome thank you chairman for the rec Daman gillams 490 US Highway 1 Sebastian Florida we have a family local business in the community at that location for 32 years I uh first of all I want to thank the County Administrator John for helping us move this along quickly and getting us on the agenda with his administrative assistant and the um and the commission the help of the direction of our commissioners that we had spoken to um and also your staff Sean in utilities he's been awesome helping us get through this situation as well I'm going to try to make this short and sweet it's a dilemma that uh were occurring we always wanted to hook up to the County Utilities from 2015 it's always our intent we went for grant money with the city we got grant money from the city we had to return it we got a letter and I put it on the top of your packet saying we were not part of the septic tour phase one we hired an engineer back then Randy Mosby he did all our drawings we spended three four $5,000 between that surveys fast forward we're having problems with our drain field it's not that we couldn't fix it we tried to fix it the health department didn't want to give us permits we understand we're close to the river we want to be environmentalists there's no bigger environmentalist in the north county than Damen gilliams we need help it's that simple the uh the line is not within the ordinance and we're asking that there's about 75 to 100 feet give or take and Shar and picking up that course and then we can take it from there that only will bring it close to our property with this within the ordinance of 50 ft and it's somewhere between 7500 to$ 10,000 maybe $122,000 um that's what quoted by one of the contractors we still have it out to bid um aside from that um that's basically it uh you know we we lost that money the grant money we had to give it back so we're going to incur thousands and thousands of dollars to make this happen and um we've been a good uh um business for the community we've been there 32 years and we want to do the right thing so with that I'm going to end it there answer any questions you may have thank you Mr gilliams um if a commissioner wants to bring this back for an actionable item we can do that we have the documents that you've submitted and um we'll go from there do I need to uh get with a county commissioner to put it on the agenda how does that work or if a commissioner wants to put it on the agenda they will get with you and they will submit a agenda item in the future okay so if if I don't hear from any commissioner within a period of time what what kind of you're always welcome to reach back out to the office with whatever questions you may have Comm yes we'll submit a copy of this gave one yeah I gave him a copy we have drawings engineering drawings if if you would like to see the engineering drawings we brought a copy I'll be happy they're Sealed Delivered our permits Jesse rollin's been great and expedite and everything we just waai from the D to issue their permit we lied with the city for the rway permit we're we're ready to move on this to make it happen um we want to keep everybody happy thank you so much so then I'm going to leave here with following up is that well the public discussion item is to make all the Commissioners aware of what your concerns are so and then okay that's how it works perfect thank you very much thank you for your time uhhuh all right all right with that we'll move on to County Administrator matters 11a joint meeting with the city of felir and County yes Madam chair and members of the commission uh staff uh met with and had some telephone conversations with the city of felsmere and we've agreed to three General issues we originally agreed to two and then the felir city council ask that the the storm water be added and it's really to discuss Transportation you see the specific projects as well as utilities understanding you know the utility over the an overview of where we are from a Capac capacity as well as the ability to serve both you know the Corgan Ranch then just west of 95 south of 512 the uh uh tropical Village estate so those are the topics for the uh the proposed uh Joint City County meeting and I'll also share that we have had Communications with the new Shores at this time there's no issues that are pending where they feel the need to meet so is this the order that that's going to be in if you have a different order you would like it in I would be more than GL I would suggest just swapping utilities and transportation because I think Utilities in storm water are um you know not that those not that these aren't all important but I think utilities is very pressing considering um the legislation that's coming up and some other things and then obviously uh with the conversations that have been being had with the water control district and the city I think those those two we definitely need to have robust conversations on both of those items and then the transportation um which we also need to talk about I I think you know if that gets abbreviated a bit the utilities and storm water is the most important yeah and I just that for the transportation and you all will see it but it combined with the the felsmere city council as a whole the consultant presentation regarding the 512 s uh cross-sections and access management plan you'll see it at the mo but this will be an opportunity rather than just the one representative but the the collective bodies together to talk about okay and then this will be at fsir City Hall in their Auditorium that is correct um Mr de should we extend a invitation to felme water Control District or no well they are aware that this will be happening um I think the city of felir has set a joint meeting with the water Control District so um it's probably to to keep it on track better to have the two of us meet and then if there's a follow-up meeting that needs to be had with the water Control District that would probably be more timely you may recall we we did that in the past around 2010 and that did not bear uh a tremendous fruit so I I that perhaps maybe we have to meet headon and and discuss all of our intentions in addition Madam chair I agree with you wholeheartedly I think utilities comes to the Forefront because we got a timeline we got a timeline and there's capacity issues and and you know we gotta we got to all be on the same page on that I would agree with you all right yes commissioner M I just had a question in terms of the format will we be receiving uh backup materials this is very specific and I think more spefic specific than the previous uh workshops are are we relying on the presentation from I think the presentation and then uh and largely the city's going to take the lead on the discussion matters uh it was a much longer lengthier more very narrow list and and we kind of try to keep the larger items for the discussion purposes and commissioner Moss one of the things I I will just throw in is that the point of this first meeting like with Sebastian and Vera Beach was kind of to get us all thinking about the more the global issues that we're going to have to face in the future and the intention was to then have follow-up meetings you know whether it's annually or by anually um or semiannually I guess is the right word um to maybe delve into some of these on a more specific nature but I think the goal is kind of to make us all aware what each other's concerns are in the first meeting and then that'll set agenda for future meetings where I would see us drilling down maybe having a future meeting specific to utilities or specific to storm water I think I think it's a great agenda I just wanted to be properly prepared yeah no I don't blame you it can be a lot all right it is January 30th 1M at the Old School auditorium okay is anybody want anything added or deleted or we're good with the topics do we we don't need a motion you're just bringing okay all right and with that M chair yes commission I know we uh we stated uh regarding the proclamation for Ernie James career that we would be doing it later on if he showed up uh he had a scheduling conflict it did show but uh We've uh with your Indulgence I'd like to reschedule that for the next meeting uh and we'll direct staff to place it on the agenda as well fantastic we'll get that done and get him scheduled for his presentation at the next meeting thank you madam chair nothing wonderful all right with that if there's nothing further for the good of the order we stand a journ all right