being the Board of County Commissioners meeting, the afternoon portion. Mr. Clerk. Chair of the first item on the agenda is the presentation of the state required closure plan for Florence landfill. All right. Good evening, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Steve Haasdetter, Electrical County Environmental Protection Department. Go Gators. Go Gators. So we have two items tonight. They're both in response to the motion the board made on January 28th, 2025, at your meeting there in reference to the Florence landfill. So we're addressing two of those six items this evening. First item is the kind of we'll go through the steps of what's required for the closure plan for the Florence C&D landfill. That's an informational item. There's no action associated with that based on the fact that this is a requirement and a plan that submitted as part of this permit with the state. But we'll walk through through what that involves so that everyone can understand what will be involved in that closure. Chris Gilbert, our hazardous materials program manager is going to give that presentation. Once we do that, we can maybe take comment from the board. The next item is our air quality monitoring strategies that will then we do have a recommendation for that and we'll talk about that once we complete the closure plan. So unless you have any questions we'll get started I'll turn it over to Chris. Good evening Mr. Chair, commissioners Chris Gilbert and the Lachel County Environmental Protection Department has its materials program manager. So again, as Steve mentioned, that there was the direction in January 28th, the direct staff to utilize our efforts to review the current closure plan and bring back that information to y'all in regards to what the state permit from DEP requires. Site history, as you're aware in the early 60s through to about 1984, it was an unpermitted local landfill that became the Figuille-Fill Dirt business operation. From 84 through 1991, it then became the Renfro landfill. And then from 1994 to present, it has been the Florence construction and demolition landfill. And of course, it's residents that were concerned about potential error emissions from the landfill site that led us to where we are currently with the presentations. So general requirements for a C&D closure fall under the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 62-701.600, which is the final closure requirements. The closure design plan covers everything from the engineering plans, the phasings of the closure if they have multiple cells that are part of it. Key drawings showing the existing and final topography with final side slopes and final cover plans and I do have some slides to cover that. It also covers the cover options. There are several that they can submit through their geotechnical engineering firm, control of stormwater on the site to keep it on site so that there's nothing that is going off site and affecting any of the parcels around it. Access control, limiting who can get onto the property. And then of course, the final one is, is if applicable would be a gas management system. So the cover options it's specific under 7.730. Final cover has to consist of a 24 inch thick soil layer and the upper six inches of which shall be capable of supporting vegetation and again and that is to control so there's no erosion that comes off of it which will then potentially impact the storm, water basins, or get itself off site. Within 180 days of the closure this has to be completed and it has to be a 3-to-1 slope for the entire site to again limit the amount of water runoff that is running across it. And you can see from the right side of the drying here, the vegetative grass cover, a minimum again of that backfill soil. There is a material below that that's usually put in to help with the runoff that percolates through and flows around the site. And they also have the optional design of they can put a geomembring in there if it's recommended by the engineer to help with that that rain runoff. But it is not something that is required. That's based on the engineering specs and the DEP would review those plans and confirm or agree to which option. And as long as it meets those standards under the statute, then that would be acceptable. Stormwater, again, the closure design plan has to demonstrate that the stormwater management systems will be operated on the site and maintain to meet the requirements of containing all of that rain runoff within the site. And as you can see from one of the drawings that is tied to their current closure plan, you can see the storm water retention up on the top left as well as on lower left side, are the current retention basins that they have, and they would basically expand those to, unless of course the engineer changes it to include more stormwater retention. General requirements, again, the closure operational plan, the time schedule for the completion would be to cover the 28 current acres out of the 40 plus that they currently have for the footprint of the site. Based on the last submission, which is provided every five years per the statute. In May of 2019, the closure estimate was $478,000. The plan for long-term care is a five-year plan. Once it's closed, they got to maintain monitoring of the site for five years past the closure date. The fiscal assurance of the long-term care, again five years, and it was estimated in May of 2019 at $107,000. And that's mostly for the groundwater monitoring of the site. Water quality monitoring plan, again, the groundwater monitoring for that five years to ensure that, again, nothing is migrating from onsite to offsite. And of course, the gas management system, again, if it is deemed necessary, then they would have to have a gas management system as part of that closure plan. Final determination, there's three things that tie to it. The certificate closure, again, after the construction has been completed for the closure, the engineer of records shall certify to the DEP that the closure is complete and it's been done in accordance with the plans that have already been pre-approved by the DEP. They have to do a declaration to the public once the closure construction has been completed, the landowner or operator will file a declaration to the public in the DEDS record in the office of the county clerk in which the landfill is located. And then the official closing date is tied to a DEP provided letter within 30 days of meeting both condition A and B. And then that would be considered fully closed. Is there any questions in regards to the DEP's closure requirements? Okay, I have have Commissioner Alfred Furs, I have been Commissioner Wheeler, and I don't know. Oh, okay, and then you good? Okay, all right. Okay, thank you for the presentation. A couple of few questions. I assume that we cannot have any stricter requirements than the state has put on this. Yeah, Mr. Chair, that is correct. The DP is the regulatory authority for the landfill. So that would be the requirements that would have to be met. We can monitor that, but again, they have jurisdiction. And that five years, it requires the six inches of soil that has to be able to support vegetation. It doesn't require vegetation. It doesn't require signing. It requires vegetation on top of an expert of the closure. That's again if you didn't have that then all the material would slough off to it. Exactly. That was my question because you didn't mention that the vegetation was required just that it had to support it. And, and the three to one slope, they have plenty property to be able to create that three to one slope that would also help reduce runoff. Correct, and again, that's part of the length of time for the closure and that is working on getting from the top point out, and again, there is 150 foot buffer all the way around the perimeter there. That would be part of that area that they would be operating within to get that three to one. And do you know what testing is involved in determining if there is going to be a need for any sort of gas management system? That would be dependent on the Department of Environmental Protection and part of their closure plan is Looking at the entire history of the site and whether they deem that would be necessary But they just look at the history. They don't actually do any testing to see if gas is being I would have to reach out to the DP and then get back with you in that to see if there's any constituent that would identify and direct that but the last conversation they did have with the DP they they were treating that as a non-issue. As a non-issue, yeah that's what I suspected. And then for stormwater. No I think I've got question. Okay, I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. Okay Commissioner Wheeler Commissioner Alfred just asked the question of the three to one that I had to but what is that ratio? What is that how to what three to one? What is that? That's the different the distance in regards to the slow That for I got it, but it said feed is it degrees is okay? That's what I was trying to understand how they would come yes It's a slope that you get so that again your One feet up three three feet out. Okay, yeah, so it would take quite a bit of land then to to accommodate that that slope Okay, yeah as Director Hofstetter just mentioned that the final closure that you see on the right-hand side of the screen is the footprint of the closure of the site. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, Commissioner Cornell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks, Chris, for that update. So you had mentioned that the closure operation plan is due every five years. Correct. That's required by the Florida Administrative Code for the permit for the facility. Okay, and the last one was on May of 2019. Correct. So it's come and do in 2026 for, again, a update. based on our sorry, sorry, five years. Yeah, it should have been sorry last year and then it would be due for the next, the next five years within that. Yeah, so that's my question. Sorry. Yeah, we don't have the most current on file. I'll have to go back and look at the Department of Environmental Protection's database to see for the latest filing that they had. So they should have filed by May of 2024? Correct. And presumably that updates the cost as well as any changes in... Correct, as you were, cost of gone exceedingly high, so there should be a big shift. So do we know if they did it or do we know? It would have been part of their permit and I do know that in 2023 they did get a renewed Department of Environmental Protection permit for the site so it should have been tied to that permit. Okay, so can you add to this meeting forward that to us? Yes sir, I will research that and get the latest update to you. OK. Second thing you mentioned, OK, let's say they declare the closure. It's got to be certified by DEP and then they have to declare it to the public. Hypothetical. Let's just run through a scenario so you can give me some dates. Let's presume they came up with an August 26 closure date. When would the E.P. sort of fire and when would the declaration to the public be made? They would have to obviously their engineering firm would have to submit the closure plan for review to the D.P. They would have to approve it. Then that starts the clock moving forward. They have 180 days from acceptance of that to complete the work. And then they review those closure plans along with everything that was tied to that closure agreement. And if everything has been met then that would trigger with the notice to the public, the closure letter within 30 days after that. Okay, so if they close it on August 2026, they submit the plan to the EP, which the EP already has it. The EP has 180 days to sign up on it, or they have 180 days to actually do the work. 180 days to do the work from the approval of the closure plans from the engineering firm. Okay, when do we get the approval of the closure plan from the engineering firm? That would be based on again when the initial request to DP4 activation of the closure would begin. Okay, so if they started on August? Yeah, if it was August and that then, and again, if it was approved in August, then the 180 days would be the timeframe for the closure construction. Okay, so they would have 180 days from then. Correct. And then the EP comes out and certifies that they did it correctly. And then from 30 days from that point, they have to file into public records with the clerk. Correct. And then it would be- This is what we've done. And then it would be a DEP closure after that, correct? OK. And then how long is the monitoring? Five years. I mean, what happens after five years? I would have to get with DEP to see if they continue usually after the end of five years. If there has been no indications of any change to groundwater, then typically that ends the closure monitoring of the site. Okay. Unless there's an identification of something that prolongs that further down the road. Okay. So from the county's perspective and the county and the public's perspective, we can presume that best case, if it were to be closed in 26 done by 27 monitored for five years 30 30 to The next I'm asking because of the next item that you're about to bring up You know commissioners. I think we're we're looking at a decade From now or more Maybe not quite a decade, but that's the time period that I think the citizens are looking for the county to be the monitor behind the monitor, perhaps. I mean, I guess we'll see. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't think we have any further comments. I don't think we can finish the offer, Yeah, if I can ask one more follow up question. So, I didn't realize that these maps were from 2019 then. Right. So, assuming that there are stormwater catchments around the edges of the slope, and that it appears to me that that map is getting really close to, I can't see the scale. But I guess what I'm most interested in is comparing the map that they're going to be providing with this map and looking for inconsistencies. And so can I ask that you provide us with that as soon as you get it from DEP? Yeah, as soon as it's available, I'll definitely forward and provide it. OK, and is it possible that maybe Florence might provide it to us to maybe make that happen a little faster? And can reach out to their engineering firm. OK, it seems like it would be something they'd be willing to share. And it should be on file already with the DAP Okay, do you know who that engineering firm is? Not a sorry. Yeah, I'll eat EDA for the closure. Yeah, that's what I thought I'd remember saying on the thing. Okay. Thank you Okay, Commissioner Wheeler I have one more quick. I'm still puzzling over the way to reclaim this area. The three to one. That's a lot of dirt coming in from somewhere. Do we have that kind of dirt even in Florida that's a spare to put cover two feet and then that the skirt, the apron around all of that that's gonna... Yeah, this is typical to any of the C&D or other regular landfills that do go into closure. I do know that part of that dirt estimation will be coming from the side itself and that so I'm not sure what the actual final figure would be of what would have to come in. From the side itself. So we would just kind of push it down. How's that? They would actually be pulling the material from around the perimeter and that to help with that. That three to one slope. And then again, that will also, the basins will probably be adjusted a little bit to accommodate that further runoff. Like a moat around the thing. Just wherever they deem that the runoff's gonna be directed for that, but they'll have to make sure that the capacity is retained on site. It's such a high thing, but in order to get that slope, that's what I'm gonna have to work from that. I need to pause. Outward. Gotcha. Yeah, and again, that's hence the second. I think that's the last second. That's the last. That's the last. That's the last. That's the last. That's the last. That's the last. That's the last. That's the last. That's the last. That's the last. That's the last. and then open up the comments at that point because I think the similar comments will be done at the same time. So I figured that doing it at the end will be even great to hear the next presentation. That's where the actions that we're going to take tonight. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so Mr. Chair, commissioners, for the second presentation, we'll be talking about the working with the Health Department to implement a monitoring program in regards to but not limited to the purchase of a continuous air monitoring equipment to identify hydrogen sulfate gas concentrations and other known contaminants for the site. Again, history, same thing we're brought here due to the yet concerns of potential air emissions and contaminants from the landfill site. So continuous air monitoring systems in the perimeter's form. Again, a unit that collects air samples and weather data, an estimate of every 30 minutes, depending on which of the plans that you decide on. There is an option for, if it's a lesser with the single unit, then it would be every 15 minutes continuously 24-7, if it's more than one unit in the 30 minutes for each unit 24-7. So options for measuring that is measuring particulate matter for 2.5 and 10, as well as hydrogen sulfide, as well as gathering the weather-mated data to give us indication to what direction any of this would be detected from. There's also measuring particular matter hydrogen sulfide, whether nitrogen dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide, which would be more relevant to monitoring for the typical landfill as compared to a construction and demolition site. And then of course the length of monitoring, the recommendation is obviously six months of assessment to determine if there is any constituents that are detected. And then the other potential option is for the active life of the facility. So potential challenges with this is obviously the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regulates and enforces the facility's permit. So it's at a state level, it's not a county level in regards to the regulatory authority. There are no current violations of their DEP permit, which I verified this afternoon. And then, of course, any other permit conditions that are within their operational permit with the DEP all fall under their authority. So again, the other issues that we would see would be the with the air monitoring unit or units, and ongoing data collection would be locations and potential access and access agreements. Power supply and internet reliability for the units. Again, if they're collecting every 15 or 30 minutes, then you want to be able to get that to the cloud and accessible online. So we have that valid data in a good collection point. Protection from any potential vandalism or any effects of mother nature. And that they are in an outdoor hardened box. But again, it's only as good as where it's located and what could happen to the unit. Funding source, obviously to pay for the unit or units in that, the up front and then ongoing costs. Again, if we're going six months then there's a number of issues that have to be dealt with monthly with the units. And then of course, length of time for that monitoring, whether it's six months or if it's the life of the operation. Estimated cost for equipment. There's six options here that I resourced in that with the highlighted ones being the recommendation of staff, again, either using a single unit to measure for dust particulate matter and hydrogen sulfide. As you can see, this is rental, not purchase. Again, if you purchase, then the costs are gonna be exponentially a lot higher. Whereas with rental and that, you get them for that duration of period. Once you're done with them, they return back and that cost stops. So a single unit for six months you'd be looking at an estimated 41,608 dollars not counting any local access costs that may be associated with it electricity running to the unit and then any internet connection costs. The second recommendation, instead of a single unit which again would determine if there's any constituents that would be detected, it wouldn't be an exact on where the source is coming from with a single unit because you can't triangulate from a single. That's why the second option of three units, which as you can see on the map, would be to the north, to the west, and to the south of the facility. And that would with all the weather data triangulate to where any hits that are detected are coming from. The rest of the estimates in here include even going for the full range, would include monitoring for the former landfill gas constituents if that was deemed applicable by the commissioners. But of course, DEP, again, mentioned that over the length of time and with the amount of cover on it, detection would probably be difficult to detect based on the length of time for the site. I just wanted to point out Steve Hoster again. The numbers you're seeing, all of those options are six months of sampling. sampling. So basically what you'd be doing if you were considering going longer than six months, you'd be basically doubling that for every six months of time you're doing the sampling. These are the rental costs with an operation and maintenance from a contractor as well, including in the cost. Yes. Yes. Yeah, that was for the operation and maintenance of the units and that because again you want to make sure that the sensors are all Accred and operating within their life expectancy which should be when they're sent out there they should be good for that six-month time period but if you go beyond that six-month time period there is a potential that you'd have to switch out any of the the sensors that you're utilizing there as well as that gives a portion of time each month for any of the data collected for again assessment with the firm. Okay. Commissioner Alfred. Couple of questions and I never thought my environmental engineering degree would come in so useful in this position but I Should know the answer to this but the detection limits of the machine for hydrogen sulfide versus the ability to smell hydrogen sulfide What do you have a feel for those numbers at all? I did a self-ide detection detection your nose is a very powerful unit And it can detect it down to about one part per billion And that and again for the units the detection is down in the parts per billion Down to the acceptable and I believe it's it's down to Below one as a detection and that and again and it's the time, length of time collection with that data that's so important for the determination in that. Just do the fact that if you're considering it for sources where it's coming from versus the amount before it gets to a health threshold. So the big elephant in the room question, of course, is we gather this data, we find there is a problem. What can we do with that? That data then would be referred to the Department of Environmental Protection, which again would tie in with their authority over the permit. And again, based on having the appropriate equipment there for that six month period of time would be a subduable data to them and act on. Now, should we find there is a problem and that they are in violation of their permit? Would any of this cost be billable back to them? That's a good question. I would have to investigate that to see if that is a potential on that for cost charge back. Okay. I'm not sure at this point in time I'd have to resource with a couple of the other other parts. I think I would probably be a fee, but I thought it was worth asking. Okay. That's all I've got right now. Thank you. This is interesting. Okay. Commissioner Cornell? Thank you. What's the cost of purchase equipment? I did a quick estimate on that. And you're basically looking at somewhere probably about four times the initial cost that you're looking at here to potentially purchase. And then that's without all of the sampling units attached to it. So, so, so, staff is basically saying let's rent them. Let's see if there's an issue. Then if there's an issue, we report to DEP and then we now we add data from which someone else would hopefully be on the hook to pay for, which makes a lot of sense. How often do we get information of the sampling? Is it monthly, weekly, daily? Depending on which option you go with and that if it was a single unit, then we would set it up for every 15 minutes and that would run consecutively 24 hours a day for six months. So if something were to spike up we would see it. Right? Correct. And that's the whole idea of doing a short time frame. And then if it was the three units then the recommendations is every 30 minutes 24-7? Yeah. Yeah. So Commissioner Domencl favor of either scenario D or F for the six months to see if there is an issue and then from there reassessing. Okay, Mr. Prisya? Yeah, no, I mean, I think that if we're gonna do this, which I think it's a good idea, I think that the three units makes a lot of sense because it allows us to triangulate. And, you know, I don't think there's any other sources of hydrogen sulfide anywhere in the area, but in order to be able to definitively say that it was the landfill and to be able to understand maybe which direction it's coming from too. So if there's mitigation that needs to be done, they know where and how to do that mitigation makes a lot of sense. But I guess I'm not sure why we would want to do the full range if none of those other things have ever been found at this landfill Or been a problem or complaints by the community the community is complained of particulate matters and hydrogen sulfide Gas so I don't know why we would pay more money to Monitor things that have never been found and never been an issue for the community It just seems so I mean, if we feel like those are issues, but they aren't really, they aren't allowed to landfill any regular garbage at this site. Just construction demolition. So I guess I would be in favor of scenario C, and I'm happy to make that motion, or if you all may want to make the motion, but I think it makes a lot of sense to do it. Can we, I would like to make the motion that we move forward with Sonario C in place three units for particulate matter in H2S monitoring for six months in areas surrounding the Florence landfill and then reevaluate and then reevaluate based on the data Motion second are there any further comments commission Wheeler? I just had a question of can this then after six months, if we still feel like there's an issue, we can re-subsorbed for another six months, right? Okay, that's good. I think we'll get definitive information. What? I'm not as much as we get these up in the morning. Oh, okay. Quickly can we get these deployed? Mr. Chair, if the funding's available in that, this could probably be up and running in a number of weeks. I mean, I think the sooner the better, because I think as the temperature heats up, it's when we see things tend to, at least some things, tend to start decomposing quicker, and you start getting more of those gases going. And we'll have more construction going on in the spring and summer one so yeah the biggest thing would be the you have to start doing stuff because students are going so Okay Commissioner Alfred So We have someone there that can calibrate and make sure the equipment stays running What about analysis of the data that that again is part of your consulting fee. That's a really good deal. If we're getting three machines triangulated and that data now analyzed for that price, that's a good deal. So, okay, just, what's that? Well, yeah, but a whole bunch of that is just the rental of the equipment, not the consultant, air pollution consultants or not.s. The consulting fee and with that for us is a resource to go to if we have any concerns with the data. Okay, I'm definitely in favor of option three. So, okay, I just wanted to verify that it did include the analysis. Okay. And is that every 30 minutes? Except for the time. In that, the data would be collected every 30 minutes 30 minutes and that would be uploaded to software that would show us everything from weather data to any hits that we had on any of the sensors. Great. Good. I know we have a motion on the floor, but I did wonder has staff identified potential locations for these sensors where we won't have those access issues and where we'll have reliable internet. I see some general access on that. Yeah, the three sites that are currently upon the board is one is at the church property. The other one is at the public farm to the immediate north and the third one would be down at the school just to the south of the property. So the school is not a problem with access. It would be the other two we'd have to have an access agreement with. And there's all three locations currently. The recommendation would be that it be connected through cellular. So it's immediately extremely to cloud. Thank you. Okay. Okay. County Attorney. Mr. Chair I just wanted to say from a timing perspective we would need to have an agreement with the contractor. It looks like that would be over the manager's signature authority so it's something we'd bring back to the board to approve and sign and then we would also need license agreements It looks like from the wherever we're going to be putting that the sensors. So that's just a timing consideration Should we could we Could we wave the manager's signature authority for this at this meeting so that we didn't have to bring it back? Can you do that? I believe you have that in, you might have that in your code. I'd have to go back and double check if that's been codified. But in the past, you have not done that. Okay, just curious. I mean, it's not that much more. It'll just be unconcerned. It'll just be unconcerned. Yeah, you're right. Okay. Okay. We'll look at it in a couple of months. Yeah. Okay. more it'll just be on consent yeah you're right okay Okay, we have a motion in a second so I'll open it up now for public comments I'm going to watch this. I'm going to watch this. I'm going to watch this. I'm going to watch this. I'm going to watch this. I'm going to watch this. I'm going to watch this. I'm going to watch this. I'm going to watch this. I'm going to watch this. I'm going comment. Not really. No, this is public comment. Not related to this motion. I would leave to the motion. This morning, and I got some clarification on the or eminent domain piece. So I so thankful that you were able to answer that and make it to the which you're not here now to the attorney. But the public safety piece that's associated with imminent domain. I mean you are allowing the public safety obviously. And so therefore, if you feel that there is a public hazard of safety issue that need to be addressed, you have that power of imminent domain to address it through. Right? You have that. So in this case versus kilow kilo versus new London, I see where it stated something like, I'm just paraphrasing, but if you're trying to implement your powers against an entity that don't want to cooperate, you have the power, the policing ability. Policing powers to address properties that actually pose a danger to public health and safety. So you have that. The state grants you that. So those are tools that, well, you could see it better if I had the color power pouring up, but unfortunately, we can't use the USB port to show documents in highlight colors. I still don't understand why the county doesn't have a middleware person that can isolate this USB port from the county's network. I mean, I can do it, I've dropped my daughter, my granddaughter can do it in a matter of weeks. So it's not that hard to do, but again, you have to see black and white documents. So I'm sorry about that, but there's a highlight of peace there without the phrase I was telling you about. So there are powers that the county have, the county has the red tape people. I mean mean you can make it hard and easy or whoever, you know, business or whoever. So I don't know why the county doesn't see that as a tool in the toolbox for it. You have an important, powerful tool that you're disposal for anything that you need to be taken care of immediately. If you need something taken care of immediately, county has a tool that can do that. You don't need to draw nothing out for years and years. No, no, no, you find something that need to be handled. Experiently, just reaching your toolbox, you got imminent domain there that you can use at any time. Just keep that in the back of your mind as we go forward. Thank you. Thank you. So you're going we go forward. Thank you. Thank you. So you're going to go for finished public comment or read back. Yeah, yeah, let's finish public comment so we get that behind us and then we move forward with the motion that's on the floor. Okay. Well my public comment is something for everyone to go home and fret about all night. Have you ever wondered what it's like to live in Russia or Iran or some place where dissidents end up languishing even dying in frozen gulags? How many steps away are we from that when people can be picked up for their viewpoints and shipped to a third party contracting out for clocking up, unconvicted people with no due process and say they're out of our hands now. There's just a couple steps from, you know, now they're talking about America First, means bring everything home, get all the manufacturing back home, well, get the gulag back home eventually, and we'll see that in this country. In fact, I may walk out of here and get smashed and throw in the back of a vehicle and end up in El Salvador in a couple days. So I want us to be aware. I hope everybody's thinking about what the country's turned into. The current executive accused the previous one of weaponizing the justice department. Well, maybe that was happening a little bit previously. But now it's being done super style. I mean, the weaponizing the justice department now makes the previous one look like amateurs if that's what they were doing. So I didn't call any names but you all know who we're talking about and who we're worried about. We are moving toward autocracy and in this state where one one of his minions is already repeating the phrase, constitutional convention, and trying to strip you of your mechanisms of local revenue so that you will have to beg the legislature, cow-tow to the legislature all the time. Like you saw just recently in DC having to remove a monument of public sentiment. You will have the ultimatum of the month. You might as well keep a journal of ultimatums if that switch and your funding happens. So that's that same kind of behavior coming down to the state and the local level. And it's all, I have said this to you before, it's all about getting public money into private fortunes and consolidating power. Thank you. Good evening. Hi, sorry, I was just making sure that the clock would reset. Okay. Good evening commissioners. Welcome back. I'm back again. I just wanted to raise some of the echo concerns of the citizens. I had a question about how the closure plan relates to that. Well, can you hold on? I mean, I want to make sure that everybody is going to make public comments, which items that are not on the agenda. And so it would look like you're going back to the motion at this point. So we want to make sure we get all of the, yeah, you didn't know. I'm not. You're next. So are there any further public comments? OK, now. Yeah, you should have stayed there. We just have to go through the motions. I'm sorry. No I tripped it up last time too. Because we'll get blasted at the end of the meeting. Yes. Well I'm echoing the concerns of the citizens. I have questions about how the closure plan— Your name again, I'm sorry. I'm Marley Pritchard. I am part of the student organization Public Interest Communication Student Association at UF. And one of the questions I have is how the closure plan relates to the fact that the Landfill is also online. It has been online since its genesis. I'm curious about how the vegetation will actually look like given that rain and hurricanes and things like that since the past five years, especially have gotten worse. I find that that be very concerning. That was one of the things also. I'm also concerned that the DEP who's being reported back to has those regulations changing too and if you have to answer to those I'm concerned about those regulations being changed and not protecting the people that are living in those areas. I'm concerned that that threshold will get much higher and be inconsistent with what is livable and protecting those people. And I'm also concerned about the previous decades of stuff. I'm very thankful and grateful that all action is better than no action and that and that the air monitoring is happening but I'm also concerned for the past you know 30 years minimum that these people have been breathing in these emissions and understanding the long term effect. So I'm nervous that the closure plan is not comprehending or being comprehensive of some of those underlying groundwater and retention issues. And I also, you know, again, worried that the gas management and emissions are seen as a non-issue due to regulations being changed and understanding that if we're relying on the threshold they might be inconsistent with what is actually livable and what our bodies and those living in those areas are able to withstand and how these you know these citizens and residents are having to become tolerant to these thresholds and these limits that are being made by the state that are not really in those areas. So I would like that to be addressed and kind of see what answers can be found about that. And I just echo their concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. It's Sarah Younger with the Swanney St. John's Group CER club. I'm here actually on my own today. I was at a very interesting meeting of the Board of Trustees of the UF where I learned that they are presently considering a $10 million project to demolish McGuire Hall and that actually constitutes by my scribble calculations about the size of ten Olympic-sized pools of debris that could very well land in in Florence. And so my concern tonight is that we make efforts to address where construction debris will land in the next several years because it should not be in the backyard of these people. And we have some massive projects that are going to be coming our way as UF determines to demolish. Not just McGuire Hall, but I also learned that they're doing several other more aged buildings in the area. So it's a big concern to me that this facility is not already in its final steps to close because to me it has the potential of being doubled in height, potentially in the next several years if it's allowed to operate that way. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair and commissioners and staff. My name is Suzy Mishemoris and I live in the Woolworth Springs neighborhood near the Florence landfill. I am in favor of scenario C and that is covering what we've been predominantly speaking about as the particulate matter and the hydrogen sulfide gas. And I like the idea that can be re-evaluated in six months. In the past, it used to be more common that the worst is that my mic is still on. Yes, I can hear you. But in on really cold evenings, that's when the gas would settle the most and stay, you know, it could be the stinkiest, but the last two summers have been very stinky too. And so I'm feeling pretty confident that if that has not been remediated, it'll still be detected and the data that will be collecting will be helpful. And it's really important that we'll be looking at these trends. And I'm also wondering about the letter to the state of speaking with them about having a soon, the closure come sooner and sharing about that and what if that's been followed up with if the letter's been sent to the state. And I do remember back on January of last year Commissioner Alfred stated that staff could potentially make a case that the landfill doesn't meet the conditions of the state because of the fact that in past permits it was stated how it is located in a place that isn't appropriate so that could be brought up. And I am one of the nine neighbors who took part in the legal action, challenging against the State Department of Environmental Protection's decision to approve the doubling and height of the landfill. And I wanted to share that the Florence has had motion to dismiss our petition for the challenge. However, the administrative law judge denied that dismissal without prejudice. And our petition stood only to receive a renewed motion to dismiss from the Florence's. And in this renewed motion to dismiss the Florence's attorneys argued that dump is not a landfill. Whereas at the January Florence landfill discussion county commission meeting, the Florence's Landfill's other attorney for trees voice argued to not call the dump but to call it a landfill. And so however, whatever label either attorney wants to call it, it needs to cease operating in our neighborhood. And it also brings me to my second point that Ms. Boyce did not represent the Florence's in the legal action that the neighbors were involved in. And that could be why Ms. Boyce failed to mention that the only four homes of the nine petitioners who received the 2000 towards their entire home water filtration was because these homes rely on wells. And it was just a secure safe water supply. And it was not a concession. We all reserved our right to still speak up against the landfill at the county level and the city level. Thank you. I want to look at this like a nurse. I think it would be good to ask the County Health Department to request voluntary reporting from the neighbors around there about current and ongoing health conditions. That's something to monitor as well. And as for whether to just look at PM and H2S, there are some poisons that are colorless and overless. Do we know that Florence has never supplied dumpsters to the deconstruction of a reactor or a chemical plant or a tire plant? And to that same thought, has the testing been done or when will it be done to determine that covering and landscaping and grading is sufficient and that this does not need to be dug out like Deepo Park was. So has that testing happened or when will it happen? Good afternoon, commissioners. Back in front of you again. I consider myself to be big, powerful, and strong. And pretty much all the challenges I've faced in my life, I pretty much dealt with them and overcame them. But to feel like I'm pushed into a corner and I have no options. It's a very unfamiliar feeling for me. I kind of feel like that now but I don't feel like that because I know if we dug deep we can fight this. To know that this shouldn't have never began. And he's been allowed to just ravage the neighborhood and the community. I think that has an effect on the whole East Side community, what this dump has been allowed to exist. It has an effect on the whole community. And to know that he don't want to close it. Like all the money he made, all other stiffness and staunchness he calls the neighborhood to not prosper, not grow. And he wants to continue to do it as long as he can. And he's basically telling us there's nothing we can do. You know, the role leading to that dump is only 20 feet wide. Since a lot of we count the comprehensive plan that big trucks travel on a road continuously and constantly, they need to be 22 feet wide. And trucks come in every day. It's against your comprehensive plan. If it's against the comprehensive plan, those trucks need to be pulled over to begin tickets. Because they ain't supposed to be on the road, the road ain't built for big trucks like that. So we can fight. It's up to us if we're going to fight, there's just, at this point, it's like this is inhumane. We got a dump in the middle of our community. A dump. I ain't no trash. I live 168 steps from the edge of the dump. Do I look like I live 168 steps from a dump? But I do. And I can't do nothing about that. I beg the different. We can fight. We got to dig deep. We got to get creative. But we can fight this. We can't let it go on. Thank you very much. Thank you. Could you state his name for the record? John Gainey, right? John. John Elgany for the record. All right, thank you, sir. Thank you. I'm still Anthony Johnson, Mr. Chair. Yes. The thing about the presentation that was unclear, maybe someone can explain it. The first portion was about the clothes to dump, what would happen once it's closed. The second piece with the air monitoring was that after the closure or when does that kick in? I mean, I wasn't sure about that, but you can answer that later. But I agree, the creativity by the Board of County Commission is not just you, but previous boards also has not shown a lot of creativity to try to get this dump closed. Because you have options. You do have things that you could try to put pressure on the owners operators of this dump. But you have, and even as I listen to the conversation now, I mean, all these things that we're talking about now, the money, the equipment, the monitoring, none of that's happening now. They run off the strong water. No one cares about, no one is cared about that for decades. So now it's talking about that now. But the dumps deal isn't closed. And doesn't purer they're going to close anytime soon. And you all are just sitting there going over ways to see how you can come up with ways to basically sound like you're justifying keeping it open rather than trying to be creative and closing it. There are lots of things you've got to say, the roads to narrow, the trucks are that's carrying this debris to the dump. It's the violation of your comprehensive plan, like the other speaker said. And you have a right to not allow that to happen. You just can't just lie down and let them violate the law like that. You supposed to be in charge of safety in the laws of this county. If you're going to just look the other way, what good is it? Use your powers. I've seen you use it before. I've seen you use it swiftly before. Okay. What comes to mind was the, who's the guy, the motorcycle guy here, or by new buried there, for the limping guy. He built those mountains of dirt and was out in the neighborhood and you told them right away, that doesn't belong in that neighborhood, close it. It was no long debate over that. The citizens said, we don't want that there, came to you and told you that and you acted swiftly to close it. And we're talking about a dump now. I would take his motorcycle range over this dump any day when it comes to which world I have in my community. So, I mean, I was listening to that. I was saying, geez, I wish I had that motorcycle range. I'd give you my C&D dump. But you acted that it was the end of the this guy had to close this. Can't think of his name right now but the Parsons, Parsons. Yeah. Why can't that happen in this case? Why can't you act with that type of urgency? It was something so dangerous in how a community is driving down our property values. Thank you. Hello, commissioners. My name is Bracken Camp, and I live in the neighborhood. Only I think it's under maybe it's 0.8 miles from the dump. And I smell it. I smell it all the way down there. So I just want to say thank you for what you're doing today. It's been a long road to get here that everyone agrees that this is something that is important for us as neighbors and for the health of the community. And I want to just, I want to commend that for today. I feel like we have a win with this from what you said of choosing number three. I also want to just say that I'm really interested in what other people have proposed around looking at different ways of being creative of how to close this. I mean, I think I'm looking at that number and I'm like, wow, I mean, you know, Alpham is Alfred over there said that, you know, that's a good deal. When I look at that, I'm like, that's a crazy amount of money, you know? And why is he not paying for that? Is my question is this man has made actual millions of dollars off this dump over since 1994, whatever year he took over. And I feel like one of the things that we asked for and going back and forth with him in this legal way was to monitor the air. And that was something that we have asked for from him. And that didn't come through. I mean, what's hard about this is that he's sneaky. It's like we do the things the correct way, and then he goes around, and then he goes around, and goes around, and we've been asked to meet with him, and I'm wondering how many people here have actually gone and toured the dump, or if you've been able to see it. Okay, there's a few of y'all. At the bottom, those little ponds that was in that picture, they smell horrific. They smell so bad. And I just, I wanna put that out there, is that if you do go and then what was just mentioned that it smells worse at different times of day, so I'm glad we're getting this really high quality monitoring. And that is a way we can stop it, right? If we find some data, this can get closed. But I want us to be creative in that public domain way, you know, looking at different ways with the roads, what John L. brought up. There's many things that are violations that can also be looked at that. I'm hoping that the county can, you know, give some concern and some more looking into that way, instead of just this one way that we have to find this evidence, you know. I know it's probably the most practical way. And then there was a neighbor that couldn't be here today. She was here at the last one, she's working and she just asked me to bring up about the roads, that 15th of the the roads there's so many potholes and it really is damaged by these huge trucks these trucks are too big for the neighborhood to be coming through there and they're all in but thank you for what you did today and I'm looking forward to finding a way to close this my final question is when will this close I'd like to have a date. Thank you. Hi, my name is Marilyn Wendee. I also live less than a mile from the dump. And I guess, yeah, I really, I agree with what everyone's saying about the creativity because I think that's kind of how how we can move things along quicker. And I think the the name of the game is moving this along quicker. Because August of 2026 is a long time. And that is exposure to carcinogenic and other really toxic chemicals that are in our neighborhoods. And kids are playing outside. Kids are playing on these roads that have humongous trucks going through them, and I know kids have died that way in this area. And I want to say, I appreciate the action y'all are taking. It's really encouraging to see things moving. The, I seem to like everybody's pretty happy with the option C. I kept looking at option D. Just given the past, this well water testing was inconclusive in a lot of ways. And the idea that we could spend months collecting this data and then get down the road and maybe not have been testing the things that are most impactful for people's health health in that neighborhood would be really scary. Like Benzene isn't on that list and that is a really big one to think about. So yeah, and it is expensive, but hopefully we could get Florence landfill to pay for it after. I'm not sure it does seem worth it in the end because the economic cost of community members getting cancer is a lot more expensive than what that would be. So, yeah, I just want to say thank you for the action you all are taking and I agree with others thinking creatively about how to move this along quicker. The Department of Environmental Protection is under attack by our federal government and we have no clue What that is going to look like it could be a shell of what it is now especially in the state of Florida in only a few months We really have no clue and so yeah if we don't act quickly We might have no recourse so thank you all so much. Thank you Okay any further, citizen comments? Going once. Going twice. Okay, back to the board. Commissioner Cornelon and Commissioner Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Steve, to that last speaker's point, what are we potentially missing if we don't do the full range? And does that make sense? Yeah, typically the full range, there's, I think Chris actually had it listed up there. If I back up a little bit. Yeah, right there. Number two, has the additional components with nitrogen dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide. Those are some of the aspects. I think there could be others potentially added, but with each additional, like a benzene, if we were to investigate that, that's an additional cost that we'd have to look into. And it also depend on the type of unit could significantly increase in cost if we're adding some of those components. The reason we're not suggesting that is because it is a C&D landfill, not a full-scale landfill since the 1990s. So that's why we're proposing the two that have been a target of concern for the community, which is the dust and hydrogen sulfide. Okay. So thank you for addressing items 1 and 6 of the motion of January 28. I thought if I could, I would just ask you about the other four items and maybe you or maybe our manager could respond. So I just wanted to go through them if I the second one was to direct the EPD staff to restart graphing of all groundwater data To help identify any potential contaminant trends and report that information to the board Safestive determinative private groundwater data is to be included have we started doing that? Yeah, Mr. Chair We we are doing that and and so with each new submitt work and a get working a document that we've we have been working on those graphs. That's a lot of data. So it sounds like something like just a couple graphs. It can be an extensive amount of work. But yes, we're ready to do that and when we get the next quarterly report, we will be including that information. Okay, super. And will it be readily available to the public? Is there a way to have it uploaded so that the public can just see it? Or is that something we're still working on? Yeah, Mr. Chair, we can put that on our website. Okay. And have a link to that as well as we will provide that link to the board. So it'll be available through a link through that email. I know Suzanne Michelle and the neighbors were asking about that so thank you for that. Number three was to refer to staff the issue of installing no truck signs on the King Cade route report back within 60 days. Mr. Chair it's my understanding that that has been completed. Can I just address that though? I think the idea that these trucks that the trucks are going to stop because of that is is really a nonstarter. And that's because it's a historic use. It's a nonconforming use. But those issues in our conference of plans, sort of the regulations and the style of road and all those things came after they existed there. And so we have nonconforming uses all over the county. It just happens where some business, you know, imagine you had a business and you had been operating for years and then suddenly somebody comes in and puts up a new law that then would like totally eliminate your business. It's like not fair for government to do that either, right? To just like randomly create laws that then like completely change the ability for somebody to operate in a situation where they had been operating in the past. So I think it's It's gonna be a hard one. I mean, I'm just letting you know, that's like an uphill road to try to use that as your creative solution. I think, I mean, I'm just letting you know, that's like an uphill road to try to use that as your creative solution. I think, I mean, I'm not trying to stop you from pushing against this. I understand it's a really awful thing to have in your community. And we stand with you to try to get it closed as quickly and efficiently as possible. But I think you have to recognize that there's also a family behind the business who spent a lot of money and time and energy cleaning up something that was a real mess in the community and trying to make it into a reasonable business and has a lot of money sunk into that business And is trying to recoup those costs and like make money too So I mean I just think there's a lot of interest that are budding heads right now And I think that it's gonna take I realize that the Florence is haven't come to the table to negotiate with the community and that's frustrating for us as commissioners, at least for me as a commissioner that there hasn't been more interest in willingness to like dialogue and come up with better solutions and that you all have had to take it to the courts. But I think at this stage like the county commission is stood by you and I think we continue to stand by you and trying to find these types of solutions with data and information that can empower you all to talk to the state. And I think you really need to start calling your legislators and you really need to start talking to the state because at this stage, they are holding all the cards. They're holding the closure plan over our heads. Even this is a step out because they've said that they hold all the regulatory authority even on the monitoring. So we're doing this because we want to protect you, but I think really your legislators need to start hearing from you and on these issues because they're the ones that manage the DEP and the permits and all of the sort of like regulatory preemptions, basically that we have to protect our own community. And it's just so frustrating to me that we're stuck in this situation now, where because of the preemption at the state level with these emergency orders, we're stuck not even being able to have them come back to us with our special exception permit. When will that happen? Do we know? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Commissioner. I'd sell the floor. Okay. So I want to hear from you, but I want to finish that. So the fourth one was staff is to contact Mr. Florence. Requested all the drywall as collected be diverted to the Polacka facility and ask them to consider implementing an early closure plan that would result in a closure prior to the completion of what Commissioner just talked about the tolling period. Have we had an opportunity to have that discussion? Mr. Charius, we have with Ms. Florence, Ms. Holly Florence still waiting on the response for the drywall. She did say that it was probably about 1% of what they're getting in the drywall and drywall right now is in your code as an allowable construct demolitions break. Is that 1% by waiter volume? Sorry. Mr. Chair in a few minutes, I'll look and see if I can find her email. I doubt it says of what they're taking in. As far as it relates to the closure plan at this time, they are currently planning on continuing operating under the legislative extension timely. Okay, so they then respond to that. Okay, the last part, and then I'll conclude, Mr. Chair, was that we request that we prepare a chair letter, send it to the governor or local delegation to state Department of Environmental Protection and any other governing state agency over this facility of the community's concerns or the league tour meeting and the ask if we've gotten, and to see if we've gotten any responses. Have we sent that letter? I thought we had. Mr. Chair, we sent that letter on March 5th to all of those entities. We included the neighbors petitions with that also. with that also and we discussed what the issues were and that the legislative extensions were really probably not intended for this and were a problem and that we thought that maybe one way that they could address it as far as I know we have not received any responses. No responses. Okay, that's what that was most of us. So we have put though on the record March 5th. March 5th. Okay, so that's I think an important thing to Commissioner Prisius point. So, I conclude, it's true. Okay, Commissioner Prisius, did you finish your statement? Yeah, I just want to finish. I guess I would say I would love to hear from Seth if we do have that timeline, what the legislative extension timeline, if we know based on which emergency they're claiming now, what that final tolling period would be. So because I don't think the August 2026 is that timeline. I think it's a different date. I think yours was a hypothetical, right? Yeah. Yeah. And the idea of the legislature fixing that extension, I mean that's a real thing. You know they have erotabils all the time. And erotabils are essentially when a legislative person kind of realizes that a bill had unintended consequences that they didn't mean to because they didn't address it in the language that they originally proposed. And so they come back with new language to fix the problem. And it's something that our legislature does all the time. And so finding one of our legislative delegation to carry an erotic bill that would fix this loophole that was created in a situation that it really wasn't intended for could be another creative solution that might be tried. Because I do think this wasn't the intention of that bill. That bill was to make sure that we had access to land bills and other tools in our toolbox when there's an emergency, but not in a situation where it was a non-conforming use in a problematic area to begin with. So I would be happy to talk with anyone who's interested in trying to draft some of that language, but I think that's one step in the right direction. And it helps solve the problem for other communities that may be experiencing a similar issue in other ways, not maybe this specific issue. And do we have that deadline, that timeline, I mean? By chance. Mr. Chair, as of right now, they're still operating under their first legislative extension. Tropical storm Nicole expired. I want to say end of 2024. I don't have the exact date in front of me right now. And it would be two years from then, then they would have an opportunity for a second one, arguably, up to 48 months. They have to, so they could claim another emergency extension. Under the way the statute is currently written, they could claim another current open emergency sometime between now and 2020. Yes. And how many emergencies are currently open? Do we know? Two. They only get to claim to it's for it's two years per emergency up to 48 months. Right. Are there current emergencies that they could claim right now? I mean, Hurricane E and it's still ongoing, I believe. I mean, it is their number of emergency. They only get to they've already claimed their two. They don't get to. No, they're on their first one. You just said they're on the first one. So as I understand it Corbin correct me if I'm wrong the statue allows for them to take up to two. They have taken both of them. They have. So there are two in they've had multiple letters in one of the letters that they gave to staff they provided reference to Hurricane Ian and Hurricane Nicole. Hurricane Ian to my knowledge is still not expired it's still ongoing. We don't know when that would expire every 60 days. It seems to be renewed for the last two plus years. Then they did Hurricane Nicole, or Tropical Storm Nicole as well. That one did expire, so the two years begins running at that expiration. But the statute only allows them to take two. Or up to 48 months, yes. Up to 48 months. then the statue is unclear as to whether or not it's concurrent or if it's in a cumulative 48 month. Yes. So I don't think it's what I heard you say, which maybe I just heard it wrong, was Nicole Lens in the end of 26 and then they get another 24 months. I believe it's up to 48 months concurrent from when the first one starts, can't be more than two, and each one can't be more than 24 months. There are a number of different arguments. That would be with under the assumption that Ian ends prior to the two years of Nicole ending as well. And then I would clarify that the statute is ambiguous in that there are multiple ways to argue that. There's obviously the way that we would, the county and his community would probably argue at versus how they would argue it and then it would be up to the courts if it were to go to that. Right. And so I think that's the whole issue is if we can't come to a resolution with Florence, then there's going to be a point in time where we make an argument, they make an argument, and the courts decide. I don't want to get to court. I want to get to a resolution with Florence. But I haven't heard anything yet. And certainly the answers to my questions did not indicate that Florence wants to talk. So I kind of know where I'm headed. I hope it changes, but until I hear from them, that's where I am, and I didn't mean to interrupt. I just, I didn't. Well, I was gonna say, I think we did get a letter from their attorney, though, stating that they weren't interested in diverting drywall at this time. So I think they did actually answer our question. I don't know if you all. Yeah, I mean, I think I wanted to give them a chance to respond to your commission and then I'm ready to roll the y'all out. Okay. Well, I have commission- question I don't know if you all. Yeah I mean I think I wanted to give them a chance to respond here commissioner and then I'm ready to I'm ready to roll the all our. Okay. Well I have commission we were in commission. Yeah just just very quickly I had wanted to to remind everybody that we had sent that chair letter out and that we were we were taking care of the part that we said we would take care of. terms of the question between C and D choices up there, if we go with C, which is what it sounds like, that you all are recommending and that we tend to be, yeah, we have the motion going. If we down the road realize that we need some more testing, can we have additional testing done that may not be with this group, but we could order if we felt like that something else needed to if we needed benzene if we needed to check to see can we add that down the road to alleviate people's concern even if it's not part of that yeah mr. Chair obviously we could you know we could coordinate with the consultant to add anything we want. Of course, it would affect the cost of with the additions and that and whatever contract that we enter in with the consultants for that. But that could be adjusted to include more. This was just the baseline information and that of between C&D and a full landfill. But we could add VOCs, anything that we wanted to. Could we do that on our own? I mean, doing that contract with somebody else to go just check or to do our own testing to see if that was actually a thing, you know, rather than add it, I mean, is there a way to test to see if it is a issue? We can include it in with. But that would be more money. But that would be more money. That's what I didn't know if there was a way to test it aside from there. No, there's not. There's no way to test for those people. No, I think we're going to get this data. And that's valid that we're the other sampling for the six months. I see using the same company using the same company. Okay, thank you. Okay, Commissioner Alfred. Yeah, thinking about volatile organic compounds, they are volatile. So they tend to dissipate into the atmosphere and they don't tend to travel great distances. So while benzene is of concern, it is not likely to be picked up on the monitoring devices that are any distance at all away from the facility I'm afraid but that did bring up another thought in my mind which is do we need to have a fourth monitor for background? Good question Mr. Chair we did discuss having a background and of course through the current sampling that we've already done with Handel units and all the rest of that, there was nothing detected on the east side of it. So of course this would be the whole trying to determine if there is any constituents in the area. We'd assume moving out from that, that there would not be anything found at further distances away. But again, a fourth is another option, hence why we put it up there if you wanted a full confirmed background. I'm concerned that we could gather this data and they could argue that there was some thing that happened somewhere that caused that one whatever, you know, detection. I just feel like it might be a good idea. What was the cost difference? It was another... Yeah, if we went to four, then you'd be up to the 95,000. Is that Lincoln? We don't really, we don't have background information, not that in real time. And see that's the point. They could make the argument should we have, just say we have two or three instances of a hit. And they could make the argument that I don't know there was something happening on a farm where they were spreading manure and that brought out hydrogen sulfide that could be a real thing. So that also brings me to the point that we need to, since we do have farms in the area and hydrogen sulfide is something we're measuring, we probably do need to track what's happening on those organic farms in the area, because hydrogen sulfide measurements could, they could argue that those are coming from, the needs is gonna be on a firm agriculture. Number of sources, obviously. There are a number of sources sources So I kind of feel like a background is important. I'm just putting that out there as an as as environmental engineer Which I'm not supposed to do as a commissioner, but I just feel like professionally that would be what I would recommend Yeah Which is the school the school is the bottom exit You see down at the lower right of the screen. Which schools are priority? I believe this is a priority, yes. And then I also wanted to thank Anna for bringing up the legislators. I do think you guys should contact them as often and as you can about all of these issues. It is important and the erratic point is very well taken. I think that is something that we can argue and perhaps change and I think we should take that opportunity all of us. You guys have a large voice here. You're the neighbors, you're the ones being affected, and you have a powerful voice with your legislators, so please, please use it. Thank you. Okay. All right. Any further comments? Mr. Chair? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I would like to see if there would be any, if you would be willing to modify the motion to add the fourth background monitor. Okay. Yeah. Five-minute-engineer, things are important. No, we're not. We're not necessarily. We're not necessarily. Zero, O, E. E, right. Yes, and Ariave. Modified motion, seconder, okay with this. Absolutely. Sure. Great. I just want to make a couple of comments. The further we continue with this process, it's becoming very, very frustrating to me. All of our authority in recent years have been sort of taken from us, from the legislature. And then our power is limited when a person can go use a loophole in the law to get by. And it becomes very frustrating when you're an elected official. And you're trying to be fair on both sides to the residents and to the business owner. But when the business owner doesn't seem that he wants to participate, then it moves me to a different position to say that you don't want to negotiate. In terms of the years of operations, if he hasn't made enough money, shame on him. And if he spent a lot of money to where he is today, and he has not made that money back, shame on him. This has been a problem and each gains will for many, many, many years. This is nothing new. This is nothing. I can remember when my father was on the County Commission and that issue came up. But his board allowed it to happen. So, so, so I'm just saying. So, I'm in a different position because I do have some knowledge, because at that time I think I was a city commissioner when all of that was going on. And so, so it's frustrating to me when someone that didn't want to come to the table, when we're trying to be fair to both sides, we want to hear both sides, we want to hear where you at, where you are with actually closing. What is your time frame? We don't know that. And then we turn around, he used a loophole with a storm. But anyway, I'll leave that alone. So it becomes difficult for me to continue to play games because of me that's what it's wanting up to be. Now I know what our staff is trying to do is to collect enough data, enough information that we can send to the state and say, hey, yes this is a problem here are the information what are you guys going to do about it right and then hopefully Yes, this is a problem. Here are the information. What are you guys going to do about it? And then, hopefully, our board will write a letter to our legislative delegation eventually to ask them to intervene and to help. But we have to have the facts. We have to have this. We have to get this information. In my opinion, I think, we need this to be able to fight and to give to the legislature to show that there is an issue and a reason. You guys have no reason to come here and lot of us about a smell. I just so agree that you all are doing that. You know unheard of. So your information you're giving to us is real. But we don't hear from the other side at all. At least we have it. And what I just heard from our staff, some of the stuff haven't been answered. And it's kind of disappointing. So anyway, it's just frustrating at this point to me that we have to play these legislative games, these political games, to do something that we know needs to happen, and we can't do it. And it's become frustrating to me. Out of all the years, I've served in public office. This is sort of frustrating to me. And I'm up to Whits in here. I'm be honest with you. I don't think I have any more sympathy left for businesses who don't want to participate and help with the problem. So he's not a problem solver, so it's the American way of life greed. So I'm sorry guys, but I just had to vent that tonight. I'm just frustrated at this point and I don't understand why we have to do all of this to get the outcome we want. But it's necessary. This is the way the game is played. So I just hate it. But anyway, I just wanted to make those comments. And again, thank you all for coming and to share your frustration and concerns with us. Because we need to continue to hear that. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Yes. I need to correct something. I said, well, I have not heard back from Holly Florence, but Commissioner Prisya is correct. And the letter that Ms. Boyce sent to the board, she did decline to do anything with the gypsum or the drywall, so they won't be diverting it. Okay. All right. Good Mr. Cornell. Yeah, Chuck, I'm kind of with you on this. So, you know, that that what we just heard just we've tried and now we've we've heard and so I think it's it's something that we're going to have to address here in the near future. We're going to have the data in let's just call it eight months or so but we can prepare prior to that eight months. No matter what the data comes back in, back at, doesn't change the fact that it's not conforming use. It doesn't change that fact. We'll have some data before six. Yeah, we'll have data as soon as the machines aren't going up. But it doesn't change the fact that it's Florence has been operating for 30 years, but if you really want to go back to the first slide, you know, John, I'm 56, I went to high school with John L, I don't know, he's probably 55, but it's before our generation, John L, it's 1960, 65 years. It's an entire generation. And, This commission, which I appreciate this commission, this commission is, is, we're addressing it, um, never fast enough, having to kind of migrate through the bureaucracy of government, but, um, I'm ready to start moving, and I hear you loud and clear. So clear. So we'll start to have some discussions with our staff and see where we can go from here. So thank you all for being here today. You asked for us to do air monitoring. It sounds like you have a unanimous group that's going to do that, and we'll continue to work on this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So any further comments? Okay, those in favor of the motion vote by the sign of aye. Aye. Those opposed, same sign, motion carries. Thank you all. All right. And our next item on the agenda, Mr. Clerk, is the public comment. I believe we did that. We did that. We did that. No, that was 530 but it says closing comments. Oh, we do public comments. That was yeah, yes. In the meeting? In the meeting, right. So I'm filing our rules. Actually, I think we only do. The closing comment was 530. Yet a public comment was but then on mine I have... Oh, it didn't come on. It was hurting. Am I getting confused here? mine I have. Erding. Yes, Mr. Chair. Yeah, we're doing I'm sorry. I'm doing again. I just yeah, I didn't turn to the sheet. I'm sorry. Well, there's any more commission comments. Yeah, 530. We had to 530 and it did say attorney comments, manager comments, and then commissioner comments, we've had commission comments, and the manager didn't and the attorney didn't, so we are adjourned. All right. All right. All right.