Aug 08, 2023 Land Acquisition and Management Program

[Call meeting to order]

[00:00:33]

EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE MEETING OF THE LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSERVATION BOARD. TODAY IS TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, CONSERVATION BOARD. TODAY IS TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2023. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I AM GOING TO START OUT WITH A ROLL CALL . AS I GO DOWN THE LIST, PLEASE SAY

[General public comment for items not on the agenda - 3 minutes per speaker]

TRAVIS MINCH. JODY ROBBINS. POLLY SMITH , AND JIMMY WATSON.

OKAY. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA I WILL QUICKLY READ THE PUBLIC COMMENT STATEMENT. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE ACCEPTED DURING TWO SPECIFIC PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD , THEY DO NOT INTERRUPT THE BOARD PROCEEDINGS, THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO SPEAK. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD ON PROPOSITIONS BEFORE THE BOARD IS THOSE ITEMS ARE ADDRESSED ON THE AGENDA, THE PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT BEING CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD WILL B DURING THE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WORK ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HOPING TO SPEAK, PLEASE INDICATE SO BY ENTERING A SPEAKER CARD, SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES , WHO THEY REPRESENT AND STAKE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD . IT PERSON ADDRESSING THE BOARD SHALL HAVE THREE MINUTES. THEY WILL NOT ADDRESS THE BOARD OR ANY MEMBER UNLESS SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRPERSON T DO SO BUT ONCE RECOGNIZED, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SHALL ADDRESS -- PUBLIC COMMENT IS ATTENDED FOR THE BOARD TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEMAND IMMEDIATE RESPONSE. BOAR MEMBERS SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN PUBLIC COMMENT UNLESS THE QUESTION OR COMMENT IS TO ROBER -- UNLESS PERMISSION WITH THE CHAIRPERSON WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? MCKAY

AND MISTRESS D BREADING? >> MY NAME IS STEVE, I AM AT 10690 COUNTY RD. 13 . I'M THE GUY WHO REPRESENTS THE BIG WATE FOREST GROUP AND WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW WITH IT IS YES, THE BOARD WANTS IT, YOU WANTED, THERE'S JUST TOO MUCH OF IT FO THE BUDGET. SO, AS A RESULT YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST NO NEGOTIATION HERE ARE MY THOUGHTS , CAN YOU PUT THAT UP? THERE'S THE 457 ACRES AND I'M PRESENTING AN IDEA TO GET TO THE TABLE THAT WE CAN SPEAK ABOUT MAYBE A SMALLER PORTION .

AND THIS, BY NO MEANS IS CASTING A STONE HIM IF HE CAN GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS OF YOUR OW , OR ANY ENCOURAGEMENT TO KEEP PURSUING THIS , I WILL BE PURSUING IT. IF, HOWEVER IT I KICKING A DEAD HORSE, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT TOO. SO, HERE'S MY IDEA. 57 ACRES IT WOULD KIND OF BUFFER THAT HOLD CURRENT SUBDIVISION AGAINST ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE ON THAT SIDE . SO, THAT WOULD BE A 30,000 ACRE , TALKIN 57 ACRES 1,000,710 , OR IF THAT IS STILL TOO MUCH , DO THE SAME BASIC DESIGN, JUST SKINNIER AND SHORTER FOR 30 ACRES . OR WHATEVER YOU FOLKS MAY WANT TO RECOMMEND. WITH THAT I WILL

[00:05:04]

SPEAK FOR THE BOARD SINCE WE RENTED THIS ONE VERY HIGHLY . I THINK WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE - HE PROPOSED THESE BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR , THESE HAVE NOT BEEN RESUBMITTED FOR

RECONSIDERATION, RIGHT? >> NO, I COULD DO THAT . I COUL GO THROUGH THE EXERCISE, BUT IF YOU THINK IT IS WORTH DOING I WILL DO IT. HERE IS THE REALLY GREAT THING. TOMORROW WHEN I G INTO THE MEETING WITH A DEVELOPER WHO WANTS THE WHOLE THING , DO I TELL HIM LAND IS STILL INTERESTED? THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE FOR. YES OR NO? BECAUSE IF IT IS KNOW I HAVE A PLACE TO GO. IF IT IS YES, THEN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT AND I WILL MAKE IT HAPPEN. I WOULD RATHER SEE YOU IN CHARGE THEM THEM. SPEAK AMONGST YOURSELVES

[Approval of meeting minutes from the June 13th meeting]

>> THANK YOU , DO WE HAVE OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE AGENDA?

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS

>> ALL RIGHT, SEEING NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTERS, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 13 MEETING. THESE WERE A LITTL BIT DIFFERENT FROM THE MEETING MINUTES WE ARE USED TO SEEING, THEY ARE VERY DETAILED. I HOPE EVERYBODY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY T LOOK THROUGH THOSE. I WILL ASK IF THERE ARE ANY CORRECTIONS? OKAY. HEARING NONE , DO I HAVE

-- FROM JUNE 13? >> SO MOVED.

[Approval of current agenda]

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU ANY DISCUSSION O THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN, PLEASE SAY I? ALL OPPOSED SAY MAKE? MOTION CARRIES WE WILL NOW MOVE ON T THE CURRENT AGENDA. WE DO HAVE ONE MAJOR CHANGE TO THE AGENDA PLEASE NOTE THAT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO , WHICH WAS THE PROPERTY VALUATION AND THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN REMOVED FRO THE AGENDA. THE PROPERTY OWNER -- THEY ARE NEGOTIATING WITH ANOTHER BUYER. SO, TODAY WE WIL JUST HAVE THE ONE PROPERTY EVALUATION APPROVAL OF THREE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLANS .

SO, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MOTION AS AMENDED

WITH ITEM NUMBER TWO? >> SO MOVED.

[1. 4250 Popolee Road Property Evaluation and Discussion]

>> THANK YOU, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA? OKAY ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE AMENDED AGENDA, SAY I , OKAY, THE MOTION CARRIES IN THE AGENDA IS APPROVED. SO, WE WILL MOV ON NOW TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE , JUST A REMINDER THAT PUBLIC ITEM COMMENTS ON TH AGENDA WILL BE HELD AFTER EACH ITEM IS ADDRESSED BY THE BOARD PRIOR TO THE BOARD VOTING. SO, WE HAVE THE 4250 PRIOR TO THE BOARD VOTING. SO, WE HAVE THE 4250 PROBABLY RD. PROPERTY , AN THIS PROPERTY WAS INITIALLY REVIEWED AND DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD DURING OUR JUNE MEETING.

SO, ACCORDING TO OUR NEWLY INSTITUTED PROCESS AND PROCEDURES WE ARE AT THE FINAL REVIEW PHASE . SO, FOR TODAY I WILL ASK STAFF TO JUST PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROPERT AND REFRESH OUR MEMORY, WE WIL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS TO ASK ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT ABOUT THE PROPERTY. WE WILL OPE IT THEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE THE BOARD PROVIDES SCORE TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST. 'S BEE A GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. SO A QUICK UPDATE FROM THE LAST MEETING IN JUNE FOR 4250 PROBABLY RD. THIS EVALUATION FROM THE DOCUMENTS THAT I SUBMITTED THROUGH THE FTP WEBSITE , THERE WAS AN F DEP APPLICATION, DEPARTMENT OF

[00:10:02]

SO, THAT IS WHAT IT SHOWS THERE LET'S SEE. ALSO, THERE IS A SMALL RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENT THAT APPROACHES THE PROPERTY.

SO, THAT IS WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY . SO, THAT IS SORT OF ANOTHER LITTLE ADDITION THERETO THE SURVEY.

STAFF ALSO FOLLOWED UP WITH PARKS AND RECREATION FROM THE COUNTY. THIS PROPERTY APPEARED TO BE VERY WET , AND WOULD CAUS ISSUES FOR PARKING FOR ANY PAR USE OR BOAT RAMP. AND , SO, THAT IS BASICALLY THE UPDATE, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS. >> YES, MR. MINCH?

>> ONE QUESTION THAT CAME UP O THE LAST MEETING WAS WHETHER THE NABORS STOCK WAS ACROSS THE PROPERTY? I DON'T SEE IT ON THE SURVEY. CAN YOU VERIFY WHETHER THE DOCK IS OFF THE PROPERTY?

>> I WAS NOT ABLE TO VERIFY THAT. AND, IF THAT SITUATION COMES UP, SAY IT IS ON THE PROPERTY -- WHEN IT IS PART OF THE DUE DILIGENCE OF THE COUNT SECURING THAT PROPERTY, THERE MAY HAVE TO BE SOME SORT OF USE AGREEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THA IF, SAY A PORTION OF THAT DOCK COMES UNDER PROPERTY. BUT, AT THIS TIME I AM NOT AWARE EITHE WAY IF IT IS ON THE PROPERTY OR NOT.

THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS? >> YES, THE ACCESS IS CALLED PROBABLY ROAD EXTENSION, IT IS NORTH-SOUTH, ALSO YOU HAVE PROBABLY ROAD THAT COMES EAST AND WEST THEY ARE, IT COMES AT AN APEX AIR , LOOKS LIKE THE SOUTHERN CORNER THERE . SO, , THERE IS WHERE THE RECORDED EASEMENT IS. IT DURING COUNTY OWNERSHIP. I LOOKED AT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IT IS PART OF THE COMMENT ELEMENTS OF THE OLD REPORTED THE DIVISION. SO, AM ASSUMING IT IS EITHER AN ACCESS EASEMENT OR A

RIGHT-OF-WAY THERE . >> ONE MUST QUESTION, DOES THE COUNTY HAVE ANY STANDARDS FOR EASEMENTS IN TERMS OF IT NEEDS TO BE A MINIMUM SIZE OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE?

>> THERE ARE SOME MINIMUM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS THERE FO RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHEN YOU BRING THEM UP TO COUNTY STANDARDS , O IF YOU HAVE PUBLIC ACCESSING . HOWEVER I WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW-UP WITH TRANSPORTATION TO GIVE AN ACTUAL RESPONSE .

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? YES?

>> ONE THING I MENTIONED WHEN W LOOKED AT THIS PROPERTY AT THE LAST MEETING WAS HOW THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION COULD PROVIDE AN ACCESS POINT. I THINK WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT I MAYBE NOT BEING A PLACE WHERE THERE WAS A LOT OF PARKING, BUT MORE LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD-SERVIN PARK . BUT, THERE'S A LOT OF HOMES HERE THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE RIVER, BUT HAVE NO SORT OF USER ACCESS TO THE RIVER. AND, I WANTED TO REITERATE THE POINT WHERE I FEEL LIKE THIS PARTICULAR PROMOTIONAL -- PARCEL HAS HIGH POTENTIAL, TO KIND OF ENHANCE THESE HOMES ,

[00:15:03]

>> THANK YOU, MR. MINCH. >> I'M NOT SEEING WHERE IT WAS DISCUSSED, ABOUT BEING A BENEFI AT LEAST TO THE LOCAL NEIGHBOR WITH FOOT TRAFFIC OR BIKES , NOT NECESSARILY WITH THE LACK O PARKING ABILITY . AND SOMEBODY ELSE HAD MADE THE COMMENT .

SORRY, I WAS NOT AT THE LAST MEETING , ABOUT PUBLICLY PUTTING A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY TO NOTIFY THE RESIDENTS OR PEOPLE IN THE AREA TO BETTER PARTICIPATE IN OUR MEETINGS TO GIVE US GENERAL FEEDBACK. BUT , I DO WONDER, IT WOUL BE GREAT TO HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOYS COMPONENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA TO KNOW IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD SUPPORT OR REJECT , WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD WANT THE PUBLIC TRAFFIC THERE. SO, THAT WAS JUST A COMMENT IN QUESTION THAT CAME UP AS I WAS EVALUATING IT MYSELF.

>> OKAY, MR. WATSON? >> YES, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK RYAN. LOOKING AT THE ACQUISITION EVALUATION FORM, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY ANSWERS TO THE ACQUISITION PORTION , THERE ARE SIX OF THEM THERE, SUITABILITY FOR GRANT LISTED O STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCY, PUBLIC SUPPORT , AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL . COULD YOU SPEAK TO THOSE?

>> SURE. AS FAR AS THE COST, WE DO HAVE A LIST PRICE THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT . THA WAS 850,000. WE ALSO HAVE A MARKET VALUE OF $101,400 OF PROPERTY APPRAISERS. I BELIEVE THAT IS FOR THE TOTAL PROPERTY. SO, PER ACRE , YOU KNOW, I GUESS THERE ARE 3.4 ACRES, THE TOTAL PROPERTY ACRES.

>> SUITABILITY FOR GRANT FUNDING?

>> YES, GRANT FUNDING, THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE LAND BOARD T PURSUE FOR GRANT FUNDS. AND, A FAR AS THE ACQUISITION PRIORIT LIST , THIS PROPERTY IS NOT ON ANY STATE LIST . PUBLIC SUPPORT IS UNKNOWN. AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED , IT IS FAIRLY LOW BASED ON THE EXTENT OF WETLAND PROPERTY IN THE AREA

>> YES, I WANTED TO MENTION THAT I RECENTLY ATTENDED A LIVING SHORELINES PERMITTING WORKSHOP, I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT THE BOARD MEMBER REPORTS. BUT, IT COMES UP HERE, BECAUSE THIS MIGHT BE A SUITABLE PROPERTY FOR THAT TYPE OF LIVING SHORELINES INSTALLATION WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SUITABLE FOR GRANT FUNDING , AN ALSO MIGHT BOOST THE SCORE FROM AN EDUCATIONAL VALUE , OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS TO PURSUE LIVING SHORELINES ALONG THE RIVERFRONT PROPERTIES. SO, THA BEING CLOSE TO BRIEFS OR OTHER NATURAL FORMS OF PROTECTION I

THOSE PROPERTIES. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. MR. MINCH, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT?

>> YES. I AM NOT SURE WHEN WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS , BU IN THE PROPERTY INFORMATION SHEET , I HAD MADE A NOTE GOING INTO THIS MEETING ABOUT THE MARKET VALUE LINE. THAT MARKET VALUE LINE IS, IN MY OPINION A RELEVANT, THAT IS COMING FROM A SOMEWHAT EDUCATED OPINION ON REAL ESTATE. I WOULD SUGGEST W DELETE THAT LINE ENTIRELY , BECAUSE IT IS REALLY NOT RELEVANT. AND IN NO WAY WOULD THAT MEAN MARKET VALUE. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD SUGGES IS THAT THAT LOCATION IS HIGHL DESIRABLE IN REAL ESTATE , HAVING ACCESS TO THE WATER IN THE FRUIT COVE AREA, I WOULD SUGGEST IT IS VERY LIKELY TO DEVELOP . SO, I WOULD SAY THE DEVELOPMENT LIKELIHOOD IS HIGH ON THAT. AGAIN, THAT IS ONE PERSON'S OPINION. AND, AS FAR A THE GRANT FUNDING , WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AS A CRITERIA. I THINK WHEN WE DEVELOPED WE WANTED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF

[00:20:04]

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT FROM THE LAND OBSERVATION SIDE AS

WELL, MR. FLOWERS? >> JUST TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE I LIKE HAVING THE INFORMATION O THE MARKET PRICE IT IS A PIECE OF INFORMATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPRAISAL IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO DETERMINE WHAT WE CAN PAY FOR IT, I GUESS IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT. I THINK THAT IS A VALUABLE PIECE OF INFORMATION. I ALSO AGREE WITH STAFF, I THINK THIS HAS BEEN A DIFFICULT DEVELOPMENT FROM A COURSE STAMP, PERMITTIN STANDPOINT , AT LEAST IF YOU AR TALKING ABOUT ONE OF THE SIDE PLANS THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE INFORMATION.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. MR. AND 21 YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? OKAY

THAT'S WHY I CHECKED. >> OKAY, I WOULD JUST SAY, FROM EXPERIENCE FROM THE JACKSONVILL PRESENTATION PROJECT, I WOULD HAVE THE SAME OPINION 10 YEARS AGO, THEN THE DEVELOPED FREEDOM COMMERCE CENTER , AND IF THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE HAD NOT SAVED A GOOD CHUNK OF THE RESERVE I THINK WE WOULD SEE THAT UNDER CONCRETE NOT TOO. SO, I AGREE WITH YOU, I THINK THIS PARTICULAR PIECE WOULD BE HELPFUL, BUT I NEVER SAY NEVER

ANYMORE. >> MR. SMITH?

>> YES, JUST TO REITERATE, IT MAY BE REPETITIVE , BUT I ATTENDED TO AGREE WITH MR. FLOWERS FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT, KNOWING WHAT THE PROPERTY IS , MAYBE THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A BOARDWALK WIT THE UPLAND THAT I GUESS IS WESTERN -MOST ON THE PROPERTY. BUT, MORE THAN LIKELY I THINK THE REASON IT'S IT'S WHERE IT SITS CURRENTLY IS BECAUSE OF THAT REALITY. AND I ALSO WOULD PREFER THE MARKET VALUE JUST TO BE THERE . I KNOW IT IS ANYONE' SORT OF OPINION, BUT JUST TO HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION , I THINK IT IS VALUABLE. CERTAINLY FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE , THAT LIST PRICE IS HIGH.

>> OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAV GOT A FEW BOARD MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MARKET VALUE REMAIN ON OUR EVALUATION SHEET, WE HAVE HEARD SOME GOOD FEEDBACK AND CONSIDERATIONS FRO BOARD MEMBERS. DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTION BEFORE I OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. SEEING NONE , W WILL MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT FO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE , ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE? OKAY. SEEING NONE , OR ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PREPARED TO PROVIDE A RANKING SCORE FOR THIS PROPERTY OKAY. AND IF SO , I WILL JUST GO DOWN THE LIST AND WE WILL RECORD OUR SCORES. THESE ARE BASED ON OUR CRITERIA SHEETS TO BE APPROVED FOR THE PROCESS.

THESE WILL BE TALLIED UP AND AVERAGED ACROSS THE BOARD

[00:25:04]

>> 48. >> THANK YOU, MS. ROBBINS?

>> 45. >> THANK YOU, MR. FLOWERS?

[3. Conceptual Management Plan Discussion for properties to be acquired]

OKAY. MY SCORE IS 33 . >> 47.

>> 60. >> 75.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU ALL . >>> WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLANS FO PROPERTIES TO BE ACQUIRED, THIS IS FORMALLY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE , NOW AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. SO, IN OUR PACKETS WE WOULD HAVE SEEN CONCEPTUAL BANISHMENT PLAN NARRATIVE WRITTEN BY STAFF OUTLINING THE PURPOSE BESIDE THESE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLANS . SO, THE BOAR IS BEING ASKED TODAY TO PROVID ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK ON THESE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLANS , AND WE HOLD

THE MEETING TO APPROVE THAT. >> IF I COULD GO BACK TO THE LAST ITEM, I APOLOGIZE. COULD MR. FLOWERS RESPOND TO HIS

SCORE? I COULD NOT HEAR . >> 41, I AM SORRY .

>> AS WELL , AS A FOLLOW-UP TO THAT ONE, I APOLOGIZE TO GOING BACK TO NUMBER ONE, ARE WE GOIN TO VOTE ON THAT AND TALLY UP TH SCORES BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEX ITEM?

>> DO WE WANT TO TALLY THEM NOW I CONSIDER THE SCORE AS EACH PERSON'S INDIVIDUAL NOTE. WOULD ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS LIKE TO KNOW THAT TALLY AT THI POINT? I AM LOOKING TO THE ATTORNEY TO MAKE SURE WE ARE GOOD THERE .

>> YOU ARE FINE, THAT WAS THE DIRECTION OF THE CHAIR , IF YOU WANT TO DO AT THE FULL TALLY, THAT IS FINE .

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, THE FIRST CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLA THAT WE WILL BE LOOKING AT IS THE MACOLA CREEK PROPERTY , IT' IMPORTANT TO KNOW -- WITH COUNTY REAL ESTATE STAFF. SO, RYAN I WILL GIVE YOU A SECOND, SEE YOU ARE WORKING OVER THERE PICK UP YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE ANY BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR US ON THE MCCULLOUGH CREEK PLAN OR ANY

GENERAL ? >> ABSOLUTELY, THE FIRST ONE I WHAT WE CALL THE MCCULLOUGH CREEK PROPERTY ON COUNTY ROAD 13 SOUTH. WE EVALUATED THAT LAS YEAR , IT WAS ADDED TO THE RECOMMENDATION LIST , IT HAS ALSO MADE ITS WAY THROUGH THE REAL ESTATE NEGOTIATION PROCESS AND WE ARE GETTING FAIRLY CLOS TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY , THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER AND IF IT GETS TO A CERTAIN STAGE WE WILL BE SET FOR A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT. SO, BASICALLY THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES -- TO THESE MANAGEMENT PLANS THAT ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. WE DO HAVE A NARRATIVE FOR THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLANS THA WAS PROVIDED AS A GENERAL GUIDE, BASICALLY SETS FORTH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES TO HAVE MANAGEMENT AND DIFFERENT CONCEPTS HIGHLIGHTED FOR US.

AND THEY ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE, AS FAR AS THE PLANT ITSELF. SO, IT IS NOT SET, THE TIMING HAS TO BE BY DEPARTMENTA OBJECTIVES AND FUNDING . SO, I WANT TO CLARIFY FURTHER , IF WE ARE EXPECTING A PASSIVE PARK T BE INSTALLED SHORTLY AFTER ACQUISITION , THAT IS BASICALLY A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THAT HAS TO BE A TARGET FOR THE PROPERTY PROJECT ESTABLISHING THE FUNDINGS SET ASIDE. SO, THAT IS AN ASIDE FOR THE CONCEPTUAL POINTS. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CONCEPTUAL TO B ADDED TO, TAKEN AWAY FROM, AND MODIFIED OVER TIME. SO, STOP,

[00:30:05]

JUST TO CHECK WITH YOU, MR. SMITH. LET'S OPEN UP IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS O THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THESE INDIVIDUALLY, SO WE ARE JUST FOCUSING ON THE MCCULLOUGH CREEK MANAGEMENT PLAN. MR.

MINCH? >> IS, BEFORE WE DIVE INTO ONE PARTICULAR PROPERTY, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE USEFUL JUST TO TAL ABOUT IN THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AS A WHOLE, LIK THE STRUCTURE OF IT, SO WE AVOI THAT SORT OF FIRE , READY, AIM SCENARIO AS WE DID BEFORE. I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, AS FAR AS THE STRUCTURE, AND I AM LOOKING AT SORT OF THE BLANK FORM THAT LOOKS LIKE IT LAYS OUT THE BROAD CATEGORIES. I THINK THAT ALL MAKES SENSE AND IS COMPREHENSIVE, I THINK IT IS ACTUALLY A GREAT JOB BY STAFF TRYING TO THINK THROUGH ALL OF THE FACETS . ONE PART OF THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN DOCUMENT THAT IS THE MORE TEXTUAL VERSION HAD A SECTION IN THERE THAT SAID PROVIDE PROPERTY ACQUISITION CRITERIA FROM THE EVALUATION FORM . I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS MEANT BY THAT , OR ONE OF MY ASSUMPTIONS WAS DOES THAT MEAN WE NEEDED T LAY OUT IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY AT ALL , THAT IS WHAT WAS GETTING TO.

>> MR. MINCH, CAN YOU GUIDE US TO WHERE IN THE NARRATIVE YOU

SEE THAT? >> YES, IT IS ON PAGE TWO , IT IS THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, IT IS BULLET NUMBER ONE. IT SAYS PROVIDE PROPERTY ACQUISITION CRITERIA FROM THE EVALUATION FORM . AND I GUESS WHAT I WAS GOING TO IS THAT WE HAD ONE PROPERTY THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THREE PARTS , THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT YOU KNOW, DO WE ACQUIRE ALL OF IT, WHAT IF ONLY ONE PART OF THAT WAS OFFERED, DOES THAT CHANGE THE ACQUISITION GOALS? SO, I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND , IF THERE IS ANY CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO PROPERTY ACQUISITION THAT SHOULD BE OUTLINED IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN IF THAT MAKES SENSE. LIKE YOU, WE ARE ONLY GOING TO ACQUIRE THIS PROPERTY IF CERTAIN THINGS ARE MET REGARDING THE PROPERTY AGAIN, IT IS MORE OF A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

>> GO AHEAD, RYAN . >> SURE. THIS WAS BASICALLY A BULLET TO SAY IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT SORT OF STOOD OUT TO US DURING THE EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY, THAT HE WOULD WAN TO HAVE IMPLEMENTED IT IN THE FUTURE CONCEPT FOR THE PROPERTY, THAT IS WHAT THAT WAS GETTING AT. SO, FOR INSTANCE, THIS LOOKS LIKE A GREAT IDEA FO X, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT X IS CAN -- INCLUDED IN THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. THAT IS HOW I WA INTERPRETING THAT AS WELL. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? W COULD CERTAINLY ASK ABOUT THIS CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN NARRATIVE , IN ADDITION TO THE MCCULLOUGH CREEK CONCEPTUAL

PLAN. MR. KAUFMAN? >> YES, I WANTED TO MENTION, I MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS .

>> YES, THIS IS OF COURSE IMPORTANT IN CONSERVATION, BUT ALSO JUST THE BIODIVERSITY IN GENERAL, I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER. NOT JUST SPECIES THA ARE IN PERIL OR THREATENED , BU THE BIODIVERSITY OF THEM ON TH PROPERTY. SO, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD AD COMPLICATION TO THIS OR IF IT IS JUST SOMETHING WE NEED TO

CONSIDER? >> I BELIEVE WE WERE PROVIDED WITH THE BIODIVERSITY REPORTS FOR THESE? YES, SO, THAT WILL SHOW, OBVIOUSLY IT IS NOT GOING TO BE AN EXACT SCIENCE. BUT, WERE THERE OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION YOU ARE LOOKING FOR

[00:35:03]

>> OKAY, YEAH, I THINK WITH A LOT OF OUR DATA SETS AND INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE , UNLESS WE HAVE A CURRENT DATA SINCE A LOT OF THESE ARE PRIVAT LAND WHERE WE MIGHT NOT HAVE HA A LOT OF THAT INFORMATION FROM THE AGENCIES, THAT ONE IS GOING TO BE A TOUGH ONE FOR SURE. SO WE CAN DEFINITELY TAKE THAT UP ON OURSELVES AS BOARD MEMBERS I WE THINK THERE MIGHT BE A LIKELIHOOD OF SOMETHING ELSE, T MAKE SURE WE BRING THAT UP. BUT

I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT. >> TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS , YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DECIDED TO ACQUIRE IT , THIS IS A VERY GENERAL 30,000 FOOT LEVEL OF WHAT COULD BE OUT THERE, THEN AS THEY PROCEED FORWARD WITH GRANT APPLICATIONS TO HELP SUBSIDIZE THE FUNDING FOR THIS WE PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND THAT THERE AND THE PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS OF WHAT IS OUT THERE AND WHAT CAN BE FOUND. SO, THIS SORT OF GIVES US A STARTING PLACE THAT IS BY NO MEANS THE COMPLETE AND FINAL

THING. >> MR. MINCH?

>> YES, I THINK ONE OF THE CATEGORIES THAT WE HAVE AS THE SORT OF GENERAL CATEGORY IN THA MATRIX, THE FIRST LINE THAT IS RESERVE ECOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AN HABITAT, I WOULD SAY SAY IT IS KIND OF THE ALL-ENCOMPASSING ONE. TO YOUR POINT , WE HAVE A PROVIDE HABITAT FOR LISTED SPECIES THAT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE TARGETED. WHAT I WOULD LIK TO SEE AGAIN, KIND OF MATCHING THAT UP WITH THE PROPERTY INFORMATION SHEET , WE HAVE GOT A MENTION OF AN ALLIGATOR , ALLIGATOR IS NOT LISTED . WE HAVE BALD EAGLE NOT LISTED OR THREATENED. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE TYPE YOU KNOW, WHILE THEY ARE IMPORTANT, YOU DON'T MENTION THE FLORIDA BLUEGILL. THERE'S A LOT OF, OBVIOUSLY , SPECIES THAT ARE NOT MENTIONED IN HERE. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY INFORMATION REPORT FOCUSING ON THOSE THAT ARE LISTED , THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED, NOT THE ALLIGATOR, NOT THE BALD EAGLE. WITH THAT SAID , YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR TASKS IN THE ORDINANCE WAS ENDEMIC SPECIES.

AM NOT SURE WE ARE COVERING THA ANYWHERE IN THE MATRIX OR, I DON'T KNOW IF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN HAS MENTION OF THAT. BUT ENDEMIC BEING SOMETHING THAT, AS FLORIDIANS, PERHAPS WE SHOUL FOCUS ON PROTECTING THOSE ENVIRONMENTS. AGAIN, I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE QUALITY OF THAT DATA SOURCE FOR THE FLORIDA NATIONAL OR WHATEVER, BUT I LIKE THE FACT THAT IT HAD DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF KNOWN TO BE THERE OR LIKELY TO BE THERE AND I THINK THAT IS THE RIGHT FOCUS. IF WE CAN KIND OF PERHAPS EVEN REFINED THAT MATRI CRITERIA TO DEFINE WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY TRYING TO PROTECT? IS IT THE HABITAT FOR THE LISTED

SPECIES INCLUDING ENDEMIC? >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, EVERYONE. I THINK THESE ARE ALL GOOD POINTS . I JUST KIND OF WANT TO REIN US BACK TO THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. I THINK WE SHOULD DEFINITELY TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION FOR FUTURE EVALUATIONS. BUT, THIS I A PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE APPROVE TO MOVE FORWARD FOR ACQUISITION. SO, IF I COULD JUST BRING US BACK TO THE MANAGEMENT PLAN GENERALLY, IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY.

THEN I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MCCULLOUGH CREEK PROPERTY?

COMMENT? >>

>> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE . >> THANK YOU, MR. FLOWERS. DO W

HAVE A SECOND? >> I WAS A.

>> THANK YOU, MS. ROBBINS. AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2 A WHICH IS THE MCCULLOUGH CREEK PROPERTY. OKAY, CNN, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. THE MOTION O THE TABLE IS TO APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN OF THE MCCULLOUGH CREEK PROPERTY .

ALL THOSE PAPER IN OF APPROVAL PLEASE SAY AYE . OTHERS OPPOSE?

[00:40:05]

>> OKAY, LET'S BRING UP THE AERIAL. SO, THIS IS A GENERAL SITE PLAN . AGAIN, IT IS CONCEPTUAL. SO, THIS IS , MY STAFF HAD A PASSIVE PARK VIEW FOR THESE THREE PROPERTIES THAT ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER. SO, YOU SEE THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF WHAT WETLAND AREA ON THE EASTER SIDE THERE, ABOUT 20 ACRES, THEN WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE ARE TO WORK WITH ON THE WEST SIDE THERE. AND, GENERALLY , YOU KNOW, I AM SURE YOU HAVE ALL READ THROUGH THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN . WE ARE JUST OUTSIDE OF THE CORRIDOR. THERE IS A ST. JOHNS RIVER CORRIDOR , BUT IT IS SORT OF JUST NORTH OF THE MCCULLOUGH CREEK CONSERVATION AREA, JUST TO GIVE AN IDEA WHERE THIS IS LOCATED I THE RIBALD TALE -- RIVERDALE AREA, WE ARE JUST SOUTH OF LET'S SEE, THAT WOULD BE KING STREET ON COUNTY ROAD , NOT SUR WHAT THAT ROAD IS. BUT, RIVERDALE. WE ARE JUST SOUTH OF THE RIVERDALE PARK AND BOAT RAM AT THE COUNTY OWNS. THAT IS AL WRITTEN IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN. SO, THIS COULD BE POTENTIALLY USED AS A PASSIVE PARK , OR EVE JUST A PRESERVATION AREA FOR THE LOCATION. AS FAR AS, THIS WAS RUN THROUGH PARKS AND REC A WELL , THEY BASICALLY STATED THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR RECREATION USE, BUT STAFF HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE LOT SEPARATION, AND HOW WET THE PARCELS ARE. SO, THAT IS STILL YET TO BE SEEN, OBVIOUSLY THE WETLAND DELINEATION WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE ON THE WETLAND SITE TO CONFIRM OR THE WETLAND AREAS ARE. I BASICALLY HAD THAT EXTENT IT DONE BASED ON THE LAY OF THE LAND . SO, LIKE MY EXPERTISE IN THAT AREA. I VISITED THE PROPERTY, THEY DO , OBVIOUSLY THE WETLAND AREA IS CONFIRMED ON THE EASTERN EDGE THERE. BUT, IT IS A FAIRLY NIC PIECE OF PROSPER PROPERTY. AS YOU GO TO WHERE THE WEST YOU HAVE GOT A PLATTE WOODS TYPE COMMUNITY. SO, I WOULD BE HAPP TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MANAGEMENT PLAN CAN ANY

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ? >> YES, I HAVE KIND OF A GENERAL COMMENT ON THIS ONE , WHICH WILL ALSO BE RELEVANT TO THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN . BUT, UNDER THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION SECTION, THERE IS REFERENCE OF THE POTENTIAL TO UTILIZE THE PARTIAL FOR WETLAND MITIGATION PROJECTS IN BASIN EIGHT. SO, I HAVE SOME HEARTBURN OVER SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE BEING INCLUDED HERE, JUST BECAUSE THAT IS NOT TECHNICALLY A PURPOSE THAT THE LANDLORD EVALUATES PROPERTIES FOR. I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND TH BENEFIT THAT IT HAS TO THE COUNTY, TO BE ABLE TO MITIGATE FOR COUNTY PROJECT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, I WOULD FEEL A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE IF THAT LANGUAGE WAS INGESTED TO SAY I ALL OTHER MECHANISMS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED, OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES JUST, ADDRESSING THE PURPOSE AND CRITERIA THAT W RANKED OUR PROPERTIES ON . SO, THAT IS A GENERAL COMMENT. WE ARE OPEN TO OTHER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? SPINNAKER WAS A I JUST AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENT. AND YOUR EVALUATION.

>> OKAY, MR. MINCH? >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL. I KNOW THAT SHOULD BE TH GOAL, WE ARE ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY NOT TO PROVIDE MITIGATION CREDITS , PERHAPS THAT IS A SIDE BENEFIT. THE OTHER THING I QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT IS REALLY A DESTINATION PARK, WHERE PEOPLE GO THERE TO PARK AND THEN WALK IN THE WOODS ? I DON'T KNOW, TO

[00:45:03]

>> ALL STILL CONCEPTUAL, RIGHT? WE CAN KEEP THAT IN MIND. THER IS STILL MORE INTELLIGENCE TO B DONE. OTHER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS? ON THIS PARCEL? ? YES, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THIS IS SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURAL LAND . SO, I AGREE WITH MR. MINCH THAT I AM NOT SURE IT IS SUITABLE FOR A PARK OR A DESTINATION FOR A WALK IN THE WOODS. BUT MAYBE A FARMERS MARKET, I DON'T KNOW.

] SOMETHING YOUR FARMLAND, A FARMERS MARKET SEEMS LIKE A GOO

USE. THAT'S ALL. >> MR. SMITH?

>> QUICK QUESTION , RYAN, YOU MAY HAVE THE ANSWER. TO THE NORTH , ARE THOSE PLOTTED LOTS? I LOOKED ON THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY WEBSITE , THOSE LOTS ARE NOT DEPICTED, IS THAT JUST THE IMAGE THAT WE HAVE? OR CAN YOU PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION?

>> YES, THOSE ARE ACTUALLY GOLDPLATED LOTS IN THE RIVERDAL COMMUNITY. SO, THEY ARE LEGAL LOTS OF RECORD, OUR ACCESS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THERE. SO, THOSE ARE ON OPEN RIGHT OF WAYS , AND BY TODAY'S STANDARDS, VERY SMAL LOTS. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY GET ACCESS AVAILABLE TO THEM, THEY CAN POTENTIALLY BE USED FO THE RESIDENTIAL USE , IF THEY MEET ZONING SETBACKS. BUT, THA IS WHAT THOSE ARE, THEY ARE PAR OF THE RIVERDALE SUBDIVISION THAT GOES BACK PROBABLY 100 YEARS OPPORTUNITY. I MEAN, IF THAT EVER GOT BUILT OUT OR IF THERE WERE MORE RESIDENCES THERE, POTENTIALLY WITH NO DESIRE TO USE THIS AREA? I WAS CURIOUS YOU KNOW, THE COMMENTS ABOUT TH CONNECTIVITY OF THE TWO PARCELS TO THE ONE PARCEL , AND THE PARKING OBVIOUSLY BEING ON ONE THAT IS DOWN TO THE DETAILS.

BUT, ACCESS TO THE OTHERS , BY WAY OF THE PARKING LOT, OR IS THERE A RIGHT-OF-WAY OR A SIDEWALK NEAR THERE?

>> THAT ROAD, ATLANTIC ROAD, IT IS AN OPEN ROAD, TRAVERSABLE B VEHICLE, A PAVED ROAD. BUT, THERE MAY BE AGRICULTURAL DITCHES AND THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A COBRA TO PROPERTY ITSELF, BUT UNDERSTOOD. THERE IS THAT 10 ACRES BETWEEN THE TWO PARTS OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD STILL BE AN ISSUE.

COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IN THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN? OKAY. HEARIN NONE . I AM LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH APPROVAL.

>> LEATHER CHAIR ? I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL WITHIN THE AMENDMENT DELETING THE SENTENCE AND THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION THAT

STARTS WITH POTENTIAL >> OKAY. SO, THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE SECTION REFERRIN TO THE MITIGATION OF THE BASIN IN THE PURPOSE SECTION. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY.

HEARING NO SECOND , DO WE HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE? AN ALTERNATIVE

MOTION? MR. MINCH? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTIO THAT STAFF TAKE SOME COMMENTS WE HAVE MADE, AND MAYBE REWORK THIS CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN TO BRING IT BACK ON A FUTURE

MEETING? >> MR. MILTON, CAN YOU SPEAK TO

[00:50:02]

>> AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, WE ARE STILL IN SORT OF THE NEGOTIATIO PHASE , AND I BELIEVE THIS PROPERTY IS COMING UP LATER ON IN THE MEETING WITH MY STAFF REPORTS , THE RIVERDALE PROPERT IS SET FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ON AUGUST 15. SO, I CAN CERTAINLY AMEND WHICHEVER SENTENCE IS THAT THE BOARD FEELS PERTINENT TODAY , FOR ITS INCLUSION IN THAT BCC MEETING, AS WELL , IT CAN BE IT OWN AGENDA ITEM AS WELL , WE CA LOOK TO LEGAL FOR THAT ADVICE.

>> SO, THIS IS JUST CONCEPTUAL, IT IS PART OF THE ACQUISITION.

SO, WHAT IS GOING BEFORE THE BOARD IS JUST THE PURCHASE AND SALES , THE ACQUISITION WOULD COME LATER. SO, YOU HAVE TIME T ORK ON THAT IF YOU AND YOU HAVE TWO PHASES, YOU HAVE YOUR CONCEPTUAL PLAN, WHIC YOU ARE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW .

AND THEN, WHEN THINGS ARE SOLIDIFIED, THERE WILL BE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A FINAL MITIGATION PLAN THAT HE WILL RECOMMEND, THAT WILL ACTUALLY G TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL. SO YOU ARE IN THE BEGINNING STAGES THERE IS TIME TO MAKE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. SO, MR. MINCH, YOUR MOTION IS TO HAVE STAFF MAKE ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BOARD TODAY, AND BRING THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN BAC TO THE NEXT LAND BOARD MEETING?

>> YES. I MEAN IF WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO DELETING CERTAIN LINES, I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY MORE COMMENTS TO BE MADE. I THINK WE HAVE GOT A LONGER DISCUSSION TO BE HAD. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH CONCEPTUAL PLAN, DOES THE COUNTY COMMISSION DECIDE WHETHER TO ACQUIRE IT BASED ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN OR DO THEY LOOK FOR THE FINALIZED PLAN BEFORE THEY DECIDE ON PURCHASE?

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD MEMBER, NO, THAT IS NOT I TAKE THE ACQUISITION IS A SEPARATE THING. THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN HELPS IDENTIFY THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. SO, THEY ARE USUALLY NOT NECESSARILY HAVING TO GO HAND-IN-HAND, THEY CAN, IN FACT AFTERWARDS. SO, THE ACQUISITIO IS COMPLETELY SEPARATELY NEGOTIATED, THE MANAGEMENT PLAN COMES AFTERWARD. SO, YOU CAN DELAY THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AT THIS TIME AND STILL MOVE FORWAR WITH THE ACQUISITION.

>> IT DOES. AND FOR ME, I WOULD WANT TO SEE THE MANAGEMENT PLAN FINALIZED BEFORE THE COUNTY DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE GOING TO PURCHASE IT. BECAUSE, IF NOT, THEY MAY BE LESS MISLE INTO WHAT WE ARE THINKING FOR THE PURCHASE. I THINK WE NEED TO FINALIZE BEFORE THE SHOT IS FIRED.

>> WELL . >> TO THE CHAIR, THEN TO THE BOARD. SO, THE ACTUAL ACQUISITION IS COMING UP ON AUGUST 15. SO, IF THAT IS THE DESIRE OF THE BOARD, THEN YOU PROBABLY NEED TO TAKE SOME ACTION. AGAIN, THIS IS THE FIRS STAGE, THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMEN PLAN , NOT THE FULL, FINALIZE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOU WOULD TAKE SOME ACTION TODAY IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT ACCOMPANY THE ACQUISITION.

>> RIGHT, THE ACQUISITION IS NO CONTINGENT UPON THIS MANAGEMENT PLAN. THIS IS A COMPONENT OF WHAT GOES FORTH TO THE COMMISSION . SO, IF WE CHOOSE TO DELAY IT THIS IS FINE, BUT THE ACQUISITION IS MOVING FORWARD. SO, THE MOTION WE HAV ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW, TO APPROVE THIS CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN , IS TO INCORPORATE, EDIT TO THE BOARD THAT WE RECEIVED TODAY , AND ADDRESS THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AT A FUTURE LAND BOARD MEETING. DO WE HAVE

A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? >> I WILL SECOND THAT .

>> OKAY. DISCUSSION? I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

SEEING NONE , DISCUSSION BACK A THE BOARD, MR. SMITH DID YOU

HAVE A COMMENT? >> YES, I CERTAINLY TAKE YOUR POINT, ELIZABETH , ON NOT WANTING TO EVALUATE WITH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MITIGATION, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME , YOU KNOW IT IS COUNTY INTEREST IN THEIR INVESTMENT TO HAVE THAT AS AN OPTION. AND CERTAINLY W WANT TO HAVE THAT IN THE REPOR FOR THE SAKE OF THE BOARD. SO NOT SURE IF THERE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE SECTION OR AN ALTERNATE SECTION THAT CAN BE ADDED , BUT I DO SEE THE NEED T AMEND A LITTLE IT.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE THE VOTE?

[00:55:06]

>> JUST FURTHER CLARIFICATION. SO, I JUST WANTED TO LIST THE DIFFERENT ULCERATIONS THAT WE HAVE BEEN SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS PLAN . OBVIOUSLY IT IS GOING TO DELETE THE SENTENCE ABOUT THE MITIGATION , BUT THERE IS ALSO COMMENT ABOUT POTENTIAL FARMERS MARKET , OR REMOVING THE PARK USE AS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN , BECAUSE IT IS SORT OF OUT OF TH WAY. SO, I JUST WANT TO GET

THOSE FURTHER CLARIFIED. >> OKAY. THOSE ARE CURRENTLY TH ONLY ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE HAVE MADE AS A BOARD. OKAY. SO, MY RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD BE I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO DELAY TO ANOTHER MEETING. ANY OTHERS ?

>> COULD I JUST ASK , WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE OF LEAVING THE

MITIGATION LANGUAGE IN THERE? >> MY ISSUE WITH THE MITIGATION LANGUAGE IS JUST GOING BACK TO THE PURPOSE OF THE LAMP PROGRA , THE LAMP PROGRAM AND THE LANGUAGE WE ARE WORKING UNDER, AND THE FACT THAT MITIGATION IS NOT ONE OF THOSE DIRECT PURPOSES . IT AS OUTLINED IN TH PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION HERE .

IT IS NOT. THAT WE EVALUATE TH PROPERTY FOR. THAT IS WHY I BROUGHT THAT UP. I ALSO SAID YOU KNOW, I AM NOT COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THAT BEING A POTENTIAL OPTION, BUT I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF THERE WAS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ABOUT

EXHAUSTING ALL OPTIONS . >> SO, YOU KNOW, JUST GIVING LAYPERSONS , SO EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND , WHEN SOMETHING IS ACQUIRED , AND THEN IS USED AS MITIGATION , DOESN'T COME IN MANY CASES, THAT INSURANCE PRESERVATION AND ITS CURRENT

STATE? >> MR. FLOWERS?

>> THIS PROPERTY COULD BE, I GUESS THE CONCERN I HAVE IS WHY ARE WE SPENDING MONEY TO PRESERVE LAND TO GO OUT AND FILL WETLANDS OR IMPACT A HABITAT SOMEWHERE ELSE? IT'S

BEEN A GREAT. >> I GUESS WE HAVE TO DO IT SOMEWHERE. I AGREE. BUT, TO THIS PARTICULAR PIECE , I AM JUST KIND OF STRUGGLING A LITTL BIT TO SEE THE DOWNSIDE OF IT.

IF THIS PROPERTY TO THE NORTH WERE TO EVER BE DEVELOPED, IT WOULD NEED SOME MITIGATION SOMEWHERE, I WOULD THINK. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD BE LOOKING AT NEXT DOOR TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO BE MORE EDUCATED ON THAT.

>> THERE TECHNICALLY WOULD NOT BE A NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE PROPERTY IF IT WAS USED FOR MITIGATION. BUT, I THINK IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST , AND A BETTER BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC, I ADDITIONAL WETLANDS WERE SOUGH FOR MITIGATION PURPOSES FOR TH

COUNTY . >> OKAY.

>> THE ONE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT I DON'T SEE THAT .

I COULD SEE A CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH THE COUNTY MIGHT DECIDE THIS IS THE BEST PLACE TO DO SOMETHING , BUT I DON'T THINK U TAKING OUT LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THIS IS A PURPOSE OF THE

ACQUISITION PRECLUDES THAT . >> OKAY.

>> MR. WATSON? >> YES, THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN IS NOT BINDING BY THE PROPERTY OR THE COUNTY,

IS IT? >> NO, IT IS JUST CONCEPTUAL .

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. SO, I BELIEVE, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, WE AR STILL IN THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAN CORE -- I'M SORRY, TO INCORPORATE THE REVISIONS FROM THE BOARD AND BRING THEM BACK AT A FUTURE DATE , CAN WE HAVE SECOND? WE HAVE HAD OUR DISCUSSION. SO, NOW WE ARE TAKING THAT TO A VOTE. OKAY. SO, ALL IN FAVOR OF INCORPORATING THE EDITS , BRINGING IT BACK TO A FUTURE LAND MEETING , PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED? PLEASE SAY NAY.

OKAY. LET THE RECORD SHOW MR. WATSON AND MR. SMITH SAY NAY.

[01:00:08]

TO YOU, RYAN . >> OKAY, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF STATE ROAD 312 ON THE ISLAND THAT WAS ACTUALLY HEARD BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LAST WEEK ON AUGUST 1 , AND THE DID VOTE TO APPROVE IT FOR A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, THAT IS GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THE LISTING PROCESS TO ACQUIRE TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY. SO, THIS PLAN, LIKE THE LAST TWO THAT WE HEARD IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE LESS INTENSIVE, BECAUSE IT IS THE STRAIGHT SALT MARSH AREA. SO, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF MANAGEMENT AND CONCEPTS INVOLVED, OTHER THAN KEEPING INVASIVE EXOTICS OUT OF THE SALT MARSH AREA , IT HAS BEEN A FAIRLY INCREASING ISSUE WITH BRAZILIAN PEPPER ON THE ISLAND, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE MARSH FRONT. SO, KEEPING EYES ON THA TO MAKE SURE IT DOES NOT CONTINUE TO BE AN ISSUE FOR THI PIECE OF PROPERTY . IT MAY NOT BE CURRENTLY , BUT YOU KNOW, I IS RAPIDLY INCREASING ITS EXTEN IN THE ISLAND AREA. THIS AREA IS PART OF A 240 ACRE SALT MARSH AREA CONNECTED TO THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO THE WEST . AND YOU KNOW, IT IS SURROUNDED BY EXISTING RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS ON IT EASTERN, SOUTHERN, AND WESTERN SIDES . SO, THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN , IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER ALTERATIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS , I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE INTO CONSIDERATION.

>> THANK YOU, GO AHEAD, MR. MINCH?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST FOR THIS PLAN AND THE OTHER ONE AS WELL, THAT WE DELETE ANY REFERENCE TO A SPECIES THAT IS NOT LISTED , AND INCLUDE IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN ANY SPECIES THAT ARE LISTED OR ENDEMIC. WE HAVE MENTION OF A BALD EAGLE AGAIN, IT IS NOT THREATENED AND IT IS NOT LISTED.

>> I THINK THE CONTEXT IS THE NEST, NOT NECESSARILY THE SPECIES , BUT THE NESTS DO HAVE PROTECTIONS.

>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> IT IS NOT THREATENED OR ENDANGERED, I BELIEVE. AND YES IT ABSOLUTELY IS PROTECTED. I NEED WE NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT SPECIES THAT ARE NOT

PROTECTED. >> OKAY. MY COMMENT IS GOING TO BE THE SAME AS MY PRIOR COMMENT, FOR THE RIVERDALE PROPERTIES . I HAVE NO OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES FOR THI MANAGEMENT PLAN , OTHER THAN TH LANGUAGE AROUND THE POTENTIAL TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY FOR MITIGATION CREDITS. I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THAT REMOVED OR ALTERED.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS ON THIS ONE OKAY. WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR MOTION . MOTION TO APPROVE?

CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN? >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THE

CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN . >> SECOND?

>> WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. FLOWERS. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? ON THE ANASTASIA LAKE PROPERTY CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT

PLAN? OKAY. OKAY. GREAT . >> GOOD AFTERNOON, 291 COMP RIDGE RD. I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT MS. GUTHRIE'S COMMENTS ABOUT REMOVING THAT LANGUAGE ABOUT THE MITIGATION BANK SPEAK ILLEGAL THAT TO READ THE PURPOSES OF THE LAMP PROGRAM I TO INCREASE ECOLOGICAL VALUE, T PROTECT HYDROLOGY . AND SO, WHILE THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FO SOME PROPERTIES TO BE USED FOR MITIGATION, THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THIS PROGRAM. I

[01:05:02]

WATSON? FURTHER DISCUSSION FRO THE BOARD? MR. MINCH?

>> I FULLY AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT PICKS OKAY. ARE YOU PROPOSING AN AMENDED MOTION WIT THE REMOVAL OF THE LANGUAGE?

>> NO.

>> SO, I WOULD PROPOSE TO TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE SPECIFIC TO MITIGATIO CREDITS.

>> THANK YOU, MS. KAUFMAN, DO W HAVE A SECOND ON THAT AMENDMENT

NOTION? >> AND I ACCEPTED AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? OR DO I JUST SECON IT?

>> WE DON'T HAVE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS.

CAN'T SECOND IT OR IT WILL DIE ON THE TABLE ., GAMES HAPPY TO

SECOND IT. >> OPAQUE . THE EMOTION ON THE FLOOR IS AMENDED TO APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WITH THE REMOVAL OF MITIGATION LANGUAGE .

>> THE CHAIR WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS VOTE ON YOUR AMENDMENT , IF THAT PASSES HE WOULD VOTE ON TH MOTION , THE FIRST STEP WOULD B THAT YOU HAVE TO MOTION AND A SECOND IT TO AMENDED TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE RELATED TO MITIGATION BANKS, YOU TAKE A

VOTE ON THAT FIRST. >> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THE

CLARIFICATION . >> MANAGER CAN I ASK A QUESTION WILL THE BOARD NEVER VOTE FOR PROPERTY FOR MITIGATION?

>> THE PURPOSE OF THE LAMP BOAR DOES NOT COVER PURCHASING LAND

SPECIFICALLY FOR MITIGATION. >> SO, THE ANSWER IS NO, WE WIL

NOT? >> I WANT TO DISAGREE WITH THE PREMISE. I THINK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT TO THE MANAGEMENT PLAN IS GOING TO STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPERTY, WE ARE SIMPLY STATING WE ARE NOT PUTTING IT OUT THERE AS THE PURPOSE , THE COUNTY, CA ULTIMATELY DETERMINE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE IF THEY WANT TO USE IT FOR MITIGATION , BUT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THE PURPOSE OF MANAGEMENT PRETTY CLEAR, THEY WANT TO HAVE THE OPTION TO USE ANY OF THESE PROPERTIES FOR MITIGATION. VINAIGRETTE, THE SENTENCE SAYS POTENTIAL TO UTILIZE FOR SALTMARSH MITIGATION. AND I GUESS THE LANGUAGE BEING IN THEIR FLAGS IT AS , YOU KNOW, WE ARE WARM AND FUZZY WITH THAT IF WE DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO BE WE CANNOT THEY KNOW, YOU CANNOT DO THAT. BUT WE CANNOT SAY WE ARE GREAT WITH THAT PICK RIGHT, THE ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS THAT IT IS LISTED IN THE PURPOS FOR THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. SO, SORRY, WE HAVE THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION , WHICH WE ALSO HAVE A SECOND , AND WE ARE HAVING A DISCUSSION.

SO, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED .

>> THAT IS CORRECT . >> OKAY, THANK YOU. SO, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF AMENDING THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE .

>> AYE . >> AYE PICKS ALL OPPOSED SENE?

>> ONE MADE FROM MR. WATSON PICKS SO, THE AMENDMENT PASSES? SO, NOW YOU VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED .

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO APPROVE THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AS AMENDED . I IT JUST A SIMPLE VOTA NOW?

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? >> I'M SORRY.

>> NO YOU CAN HAVE A DISCUSSIO ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED .

>> I THINK WE HAVE ARTIE CLARIFIED THIS, BUT JUST A FINA CLARIFICATION. IF, EVEN THOUGH THE MITIGATION WOULD NOT BE, SHOULD WE PASS THIS, MENTIONED IN THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, THE COUNTY IS STILL, AFTER ACQUIRING IT, CAN USE IT FOR THE INTEREST? IT IS JUST REMOVING IT FOR THE SAKE OF OUR BOARD , AND THAT WE INTEND THE MANAGEMENT TO UTILIZE FOR THE

[01:10:05]

[4. Submission of New Properties Discussion ]

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFOR WE GO TO THE BOAT? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING TH MANAGEMENT PLAN AS AMENDED,

PLEASE SAY I . >> I.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? WE HAVE NAVY FROM MR. MINCH. OKAY, WE HAVE NOW MADE IT TO THE FINAL AGENDA ITEM , WHICH IS THE DISCUSSION ON THE SUBMISSION OF NEW PROPERTIES . SO, IN TH PACKAGE THAT WE RECEIVED , GIVE US SOME INFORMATION FROM THE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT ABOUT PROPERTIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND LISTED ONLINE AS AN EXAMPLE OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE OUT THER THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY LOOK AT FOR MOVING THROUGH THE LAMP PROCESS. I INK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE , AS WE LOOK AT ADDING ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES TO THE PIPELINE, THAT WE HAVE TWO MORE LAMP MEETINGS THIS YEAR, ONE SCHEDULED OCTOBER 10 AND THE NEXT WOULD BE IN DECEMBER, IF WE STICK WITH OUR SCHEDULE . ENTERED IN THE LIST OF APPROVED PROPERTIES GO TO TH COMMISSION IN JANUARY. SO, IF W ARE FOLLOWING OUR CURRENT PROCESS, WE WOULD HAVE OUR INITIAL REVIEW OF PROPERTIES IN OCTOBER, THEN A FINAL REVIEW IN DECEMBER IN ORDER TO GET IT.

SO, WHATEVER COMES TO US THIS WILL COME TO US PRETTY QUICKLY ON THE NEXT APPROVAL LIST. THERE WERE SOME SUGGESTIONS FRO STAFF I THINK IT WOULD BE GOO FOR US TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN . I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT BE SUPER COMFORTABLE REACHING OUT TO ANY LANDOWNER, THINK IT WOULD BE HOPEFUL TO HAVE LANGUAGE TO APPROACH PEOPL WITH. BUT, WITH THAT, BRIAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANY

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? >> SURE, AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS WAS BASICALLY A SAMPLING O WHAT IS POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE OUT THERE . AND OBVIOUSLY I HAV ASKED COUNTY STAFF AND REAL ESTATE WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR EXISTING PROPERTIES THAT ARE OU THERE AND FOR SALE. THEY RECOMMENDED HOMES.COM, SIMILAR TO WEBSITES LIKE ZILLOW . THE REASON THEY WENT WITH HOMES.COM IS IT IS MORE AVAILABLE AND UPDATED REGULARLY. BUT, OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD NOT PROMOTE ONE SIDE OVER ANOTHER, THIS IS JUST, AGAIN, A SAMPLING OF WHAT IS OUT THERE. AND THEN, OUT OF WHAT WE PULLED OUT FROM JULY, THERE'S 45 AVAILABLE PROPERTIES FOR SALE, I DID A QUICK ST.

JOHNS COUNTY SEARCH FOR ANY AND ALL PROPERTY THAT WAS AVAILABLE . AND FROM THAT LIST I DISTILLED IT DOWN TO A GOOD SIX CANDIDATES. AND AGAIN A SAMPLE OF THE LARGER PROPERTIES . SO, THAT IS FURTHER DOWN IN THE PACKAGE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU. YOU HAVE THOSE ADDITIONAL AERIALS ON THESE PROPERTIES. SO, I CAN STAND BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> YEAH, I WOULD JUST OPEN IT UP, IF ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SUGGESTIONS OR IDEAS FOR HOW WE CAN BE A LITTLE BIT MORE PROACTIVE WITH OUTREACH , AND GETTING SOME ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES ON THE LIST , I CAN CERTAINLY VOLUNTEER MYSELF TO REACH OUT TO SOME LOCAL LAND TRUST THAT WORK IN THIS AREA T SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT MAKING IT THROUGH THEIR PROCESS , BUT COULD BE LOOKED AT HERE AT LAMP OR SAME THING GOES WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, SOMETIMES PEOPLE APPROACH IT DIFFERENT DISTRICTS AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS MATCH UP WITH THE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES. I CAN OFFER THOSE TWO AVENUES . I AM WILLING TO EXPLORE. MR. MINCH?

>> I THINK WHAT WE ARE SEARCHIN FOR HERE IS CONTEXT FOR WHAT TO BUY AND WHAT TO BUY, I THINK W NEED TO ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT T

[01:15:04]

>> I DEFINITELY SHARE THAT SENTIMENT , MR. MINCH , PROACTIVELY TARGETING AREAS, I AM HOPING WE CAN STILL GET THER IN THE COMING MONTHS. I THINK MY CONCERN RIGHT NOW IS JUST TH TIMELINE . KNOWING THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THA ACCOMPLISHED IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS , BUT HAVING THAT POTENTIALLY IS ANOTHER DISCUSSION ITEM , THE NEXT MEETING, TO START HONING IN ON SOME SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIES THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO TARGET , I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU THERE I THINK WE WANTED TO BRING THI DISCUSSION TO THE BOARD , JUST IF ANYBODY HAD IDEAS OR WANTED TO OFFER TO BRING A FEW PROPERTIES TO THE LAMP BOARD BEFORE THE OCTOBER MEETING OR OFFER TO REACH OUT TO SOME LANDOWNERS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN

MR. MINCH? >> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT SOMEHOW THE COUNTY APPROAC THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO OWNS TH OUTPOST OFF OF NECK ROAD . THAT WAS PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST WELL-ATTENDED PUBLIC HEARINGS IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY HISTORY. I ATTENDED THAT MEETING, THERE WERE PEOPLE OUT THE DOORS IN SUPPORT OF CONSERVING THAT LAND . I AM NOT SURE WHERE THAT EXIS TODAY, BUT I AM SURE THE COUNT AT LEAST HAS THE CONTACT PERSON FOR THAT . THE OUTPOST, TO ME, IS A PRIME OPPORTUNITY TO ACQUIRE SOMETHING SURROUNDED B THE PRESERVE, IT IS LIKE AN ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PRESERVE AREA. SO, I PUT THAT ON PRIORITY NUMBER ONE.

STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ?

>> STAFF HAS HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNE OF THE OUTPOST FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES, MORE ENFORCEMENT REASONS. THERE HAS BEEN SOME ACTIVITY GOING ON OUT THERE , W HAVE BEEN REVIEWING PLANS FOR THAT , STILL AN ONGOING DISCUSSION. I BELIEVE IT MIGHT BE THE INTENT TO SELL THAT PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE. YOU KNOW, I WOULD HAVE TO CONTACT THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT IT IS ALSO A TO THE LAND BOARD MEMBERS TO REACH OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS TOO IF THEY SEE ANY PROPERTY THAT IS CONSIDERED VALUABLE , WE CAN ASK THAT TO

THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL. >> OKAY. SO, AS A FIRST STEP CAN I REQUEST THAT MAYBE WE HAV SOME TEMPLATE LANGUAGE IN A ON PAGER THAT WE CAN SEND OUT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT THEY CAN USE FOR ANY OUTREACH OPPORTUNITIES THAT THEY COME

ACROSS? >> YES, WE CAN DO THAT.

>> MR. FLOWERS? >> JUST A COUPLE THINGS. NUMBER ONE, I APPRECIATE THE STAFF TRYING TO REACH OUT TO FIND THINGS THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, IF WE KEEP TELLING THEM WE WANT TO BE PROACTIVE IN FINDING THIS STUFF, WE WILL WAN TO DISCOURAGE THEM FROM DOING THAT. I DO THINK IT WOULD BE VALUABLE TO SEE FOR ANYTHING THAT COMES YOU KNOW, PARTIALLY TO WHAT MR. MINCH SAID, LOOKING INTO WHAT STARTED OUR TENURE O THIS BOARD AND LOOKING AT MAPS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS AND MAYBE THINK IN TERMS OF WHERE THERE IS AN OVERLAY WITHIN THOSE AREAS THAT THE THERE IS FOR SALE , OR, FOR ANY REASON I PARTICULARLY VALUABLE IF YOU WANT TO REACH OUT AND AT THE OWNER IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY IF HE OR SHE HAS ANY INTEREST IN SELLING . SO, I THINK THERE IS KIND OF A MIDDLE LINE HERE THAT WE CAN PURSUE . WHETHER THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS YEAR, I AM NOT SURE . AND, ONE OTHER THING .

[01:20:08]

SELLING? >> I THINK THOSE ARE GREAT POINTS , AND I ALSO THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT IF ANYONE IS GOING OUT ON THEIR OWN TO DO OUTREACHES MAKING SURE WE ARE COMMUNICATING WITH STAFF SO WE ARE NOT DUPLICATING EFFORTS IN

THAT REGARD EITHER. >> I GUESS I WAS HOPING I WOULD HAVE ONE AT THIS POINT BUT I WILL HAVE ONE BY THE OCTOBER MEETING. I HAVE PROVIDED THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH THE SHEET OFF OF THE WEBSITE , AND ANSWERED ALL OF THEIR QUESTIONS . SO, I HOPE YOU HAVE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT PIECE FOR THE BOARD IN IT NOT TOO LONG PICKS OKAY, WE WILL HOLD YOU TO THAT. BEEN NO.

[Staff Reports]

PARTICULAR ISSUE? >> OKAY. THIS IS THAT DISCUSSION ITEM . SO, WE WILL LOOK FOR SOME OF THAT TEMPLATE LANGUAGE TO HELP US APPROACH LANDOWNERS. RIGHT, NEXT ON MY LIST WE HAD STAFF REPORTS THAT WILL BRING THAT TO YOU, RYAN.

>> JUST A QUICK UPDATE, I NOTE THAT JD MILLER , THE LAND BOARD MEMBER HAD REQUESTED INFORMATIO ON THE BRINK OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT PREVIOUSLY , AND THE LAMP BOAR VOTED TO DISMISS THE PROPERTIES , BUT MR. MILLER HAD ASKED PARK AND RECREATION RESPONSE ON THOS PROPERTIES , AND THE RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE EXPANSION AND SOMETHING COULD BE WORKING OUT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT , THEN STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THAT IS THERE IS A WETLAND AREA AND CONSERVATION ON THE PROPERTY. SO, ANY CONNECTION THERE, IT MA BE A CHALLENGE THAT WOULD REQUIRE MODIFICATION TO THE TREATY GROUND PD, AND PERMITTIG FOR IMPACT TO WETLAND AREAS FO THAT CONNECTION. I WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE AS A RESPONS TO THE LAST MEETING. IT ALSO REQUIRES A RELEASE OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT . SO, THA IS THAT ONE UPDATE. I ALSO GOT CONTACTED BY SOMEBODY ELSE, SEEKING INFORMATION ON THAT PROPERTY ON BRINKERHOFF ROAD , AND OBVIOUSLY SOME OTHER PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE PROPERTY AS WELL , REAL ESTATE -WISE.

IN ADDITION , I HAVE ADDED THE LAMP BUDGET PRESENTATION TO TH PRESENTATION, RATHER , A SNAPSHOT . SO, AT THE AUGUST 1 BCC MEETING , LAMP FY 24 BUT IT HAS BEEN IMPROVED TO BE INCREASED FROM 500,000 TO 2 MILLION. THIS WILL BE ADDED TO THE FUTURE BUDGET THAT WILL INCREASE THE CURRENT BALANCE TO ALMOST 3 1/2 MILLION AFTER OCTOBER 1 OF 23. ONE DISTINCTION IS THAT THIS BUDGET INCREASE IS ONLY FOR THE FISCA YEAR 24, AND WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY RENEW ANNUALLY LIKE THE 500,000 THAT WAS REIMBURSED AND GIVEN TO THE LAMP BOARD. SO, THEREFORE THE BUDGET WILL BE REVISITED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I FISCAL YEAR 25. ANOTHER UPDATE ON THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR STAFF TO ENTER INTO THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FISHER ISLAND PROPERTY ON AUGUST 1 , AND THE BCC VOTED TO DIRECT REAL ESTATE STAFF TO CONTINUE WITH THAT SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE ANASTASIA LAKES PROPERTY. AND THEY WILL CONTINUE WITH FURTHER DUE DILIGENCE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND -- AND THAT, I THINK USUALLY LAST 60 OR 90 DAYS,I BELIEVE. BASED ON WHAT REAL ESTATE HAS SAID, THAT WILL CONTINUE WITH THE ACQUISITION O THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, AUGUST 15 THERE IS ANOTHER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING FO THE SAME RING , PURCHASE AND

[01:25:04]

AND OBVIOUSLY IT IS IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP RIGHT NOW. AND THAT

CONCLUDES STAFF REPORTS. >> THANK YOU, RYAN. AND VERY EXCITING NEWS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL PROPOSED BUDGET INCREASE. PROPOSED, EXCUSE ME, BUDGET INCREASE FOR LAMP FOR FISCAL YEAR 24. MR. WATSON DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> YES, I NEED SOME EDUCATION. WHAT IS THE $2 MILLION, WHAT DID THEY EXPECT TO THE BOARD TO SPEND IT ON?

>> PROPERTY ACQUISITION. >> SO, IF I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE COUNTY'S BUDGET OVERALL , ARE THEY TRYING TO LIMIT THE LAND FOR 2 PROPERTIES LESS THAN $2 MILLION? KNOW, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT AN INCREASE OF THE BUDGET , ONE OF THE LAST PREVIOUS MEETINGS, THIS IS A RESPONSE TO THAT. THERE WAS A FURTHER DISCUSSION BY ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS TO INCREASE THE BUDGET THAT WAS APPROVED. SO, AT THIS TIME YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE GENERAL GIST OF IT , TO JUST INCREASE FOR ADDITIONAL PROPERT ACQUISITIONS THAT COME IN.

>> YOU, I SAW WE WERE $15,000 LAST YEAR , CORRECT? WHAT WAS

THAT SPENT ON? DO YOU KNOW? >> THAT WAS SPENT ON THE THREE PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING , THE APPRAISALS THA OCCURRED, THAT IS WHERE THE 15,000 CAME OUT OF.

>> SO, $2 MILLION IS GOING TO B PRIMARILY SPENT ON APPRAISALS? SEE, WE NEVER DISCUSSED SPENDING ANY MONEY FOR THE BOARD. AND NOW WE HAVE $2 MILLION. AND MDM. CHAIRMAN, WHAT DO WE INTEND TO SPEND THE MONEY ON?

>> WILL, THE MONEY IN THE LAMP PROGRAM IS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES THROUGH ST. JOHN COUNTY. SO, OUR ROLE IS TO RECOMMEND PROPERTIES TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION, IT IS UP TO THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE WHAT PROPERTIES THEY AR GOING TO ACQUIRE. WE CAN ONLY ACQUIRE AS MUCH PROPERTY AS WE HAVE FUNDING FOR, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE LOOKING AT VARYING

PROPERTIES ON OUR LIST. >> WAIT, YOU JUST SAID WE CAN ONLY ACQUIRE PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE BUDGETED FOR. SO, $2

MILLION IS IT? >> WELL, WE CAN ONLY PURCHASE PROPERTY WITH THE FUNDING THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US WITH LAMP. WE CAN ALWAYS LOOK FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES THAT WE COULD USRAGE THROUGH OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL SOURCES AND GRANTS . THE MONEY ON THE SPREADSHEET IS THE MONEY THAT THE COUNTY HAS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE LAMP

PROGRAM. >> OKAY. CAN I TALK AND CLARIFY? OKAY, THANK YOU. THE COUNTY HAS OTHER RESERVES. SO, IF WE RECOMMEND IT , IF THE COUNTY CHOOSES , THEY KNOW WHAT

[01:30:01]

[Board Member Reports]

THAT THE COUNTY HAS. >> SO, ANYTIME WE RECOMMEND A PROPERTY ABOUT $2 MILLION WE HOPE THE COUNTY CAN HAVE IT? AND WE HAVE NO CONTROL OF THAT? OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO BOARDMEMBER REPORTS . LET'S START WITH MR. WATSON.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT?

>> NO, THANK YOU. >> OKAY, MS. ROBBINS?

>> I DID , THE GOVERNOR HAD NOT APPROVED THE BUDGET , BUT HE DI RIGHT AFTER I SAID HE HAD NOT APPROVED IT YET. THERE'S LOTS O ACQUISITION-TYPE MONEY IN THEI FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF ENDANGERED LANDS AND THINGS TO THINK THE THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT ARE GOOD OPPORTUNITIES TO GO AFTER.

>> THANK YOU. MR. FLOWERS? >> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOAR TO GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION TO RECONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS NOT AN ACTION TAKEN LAST MONTH, BUT A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NATIONAL SEASHORE PROGRAM , WE HAVE BEEN REMINDED OF IT SEVERA TIMES BY MR. SLAYTON , AND I AM NOT SURE , I DON'T HAVE THE MINUTES , BUT I KNOW THAT THE CHAIR, FOR VERY GOOD REASONS, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING IN OUR -- . YOU KNOW, I FOR ONE, I KNO THAT OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD TO ENTERTAIN AND PERHAPS HAVE A PRESENTATION ON IT, MAYB A TIME-LIMITED, TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION COMES SIMPLY TO BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO SAY THERE IS NO ROLE FOR THE BOARD , OR AT LEAST, PERHAPS SOMEBODY ELSE WE CAN SPIN IT OF TO.

OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW AND IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO BEFORE THE BOARD MULTIPLE TIMES WITH NO DESCENT FROM ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE BOARD. I ALSO, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THE INTEREST FROM THE PUBLIC , I HAVE ALSO RECEIVED SOME PERSONA

HARASSMENT . >> I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT , I DID NOT INTEND THAT, I RESPECT YOU POSITION STATED IN THE MEETING LAST WEEK. AND AGAIN, I AM JUST SUGGESTING PERHAPS WE COULD GE MORE INFORMATION, WE DID NOT HEAR ABOUT IT A LOT, WE NEVER REALLY HAD A PRESENTATION ON IT AND MAYBE MR. SLAVIN IS NOT TH PROPER PERSON TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING.

>> I WOULD ENTERTAIN THE IDEA IT'S STAFF WAS WILLING TO GIVE US A VERY BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THAT PROGRAM. BUT, THAT IS KIN OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH I AM WILLING TO DO THAT AT THIS

POINT. >> UNDERSTOOD, THAT IS ALL I

HAVE PAY >> THANK YOU, MR. FLOWERS.

>> LET'S SEE. FOR MY REPORT, I WANTED TO BRING UP THE IDEA OF SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES . I KNOW WE HAVEKIND OF FLOATED SOME IDEAS AROUND BEING ABLE T USE STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDS FOR LEVERAGE FOR THE LAMP PROGRAM , RECOGNIZING THAT YOU KNOW, OUR FUNDS ARE LIMITED. I KNOW I PERSONALLY WOULD LOVE TO SEE MORE OF THE PROPERTIES ON OUR LIST ACQUIRED. SO, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, IN ADDITION TO SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS THAT I HAVE VOLUNTEERED TO DO , I AM HAPPY TO LOOK AT THESE FUNDINGS SOURCES. THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME CHALLENGES WIT SOME OF THEM, IN TERMS OF OUR TIME SCHEDULE WITH THE LAMP BOARD MATCHING UP WITH DIFFEREN GRANT PROGRAMS. SO, I THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO THINK VERY FAR AHEAD WITH SOME OF THESE

[01:35:01]

>> I DON'T HAVE A REPORT PREPARED, BUT I WAS GOING TO AS IF WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, IF NOW IS THE RIGHT TIME TO RESPOND TO THE GENTLEMAN IN THE BOOK ABOUT THE PROPERTY OR SET UP A PLAN TO DISCUSS HIS REQUEST , I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HEAR HIS PUBLICLY DISPLAYED MULTIPLE OFFERS. I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT TO TAKE THE CHANCE TO EVALUATE THOSE.

KAUFMAN? >> NO, THANK YOU, I HAVE NO

REPORT TODAY. >> AND MR. MINCH?

>> YOU, I WOULD AGREE WITH HOLLY. I AM ALWAYS SENSITIVE TO ANYBODY WHO ATTENDS AND IS LOOKING FOR BOARD DIRECTION. I THINK THAT IS GIVING THE ATTENDANCE AND ASKING FOR SOMETHING, I WELCOME THAT DISCUSSION. ALSO, ELIZABETH , I WOULD SAY THAT I SUPPORT YOUR OPINION , AS FAR AS THE NATIONA SEASHORE DISCUSSION . YOU KNOW SENT AN EMAIL TO STAFF ASKING I WE CAN ADD THAT TO THE AGENDA. THE REASON THAT I HAVE PUT FORWARD THAT REQUEST IS THAT I ALSO SPOKE WITH MR. SLAYTON, AND OUT OF RESPECT FOR HIM AND HIS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, I THINK HE IS DUE THE TIME TO GIVE A PRESENTATION ON SOMETHING HE IS PASSIONATE ABOUT. WITH THAT SAID, THE IDEA OF A NATIONAL SEASHORE BEING DIRECTED OR BEING IN THE REALM OF THE LAMP BOARD, I WOULD DISAGREE WITH IT SO, ESSENTIALLY WHAT I AM SAYING IS I AGREE WE SHOULD GIV HIM THE TIME , GIVEN HIS ATTENDANCE I THINK THIS IS THE ONLY MEETING HE HAS NOT ATTENDED. AND I WOULD WELCOME ANYBODY OF THE PUBLIC TO GIVE PRESENTATION ON SOMETHING THEY ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT , THAT IS SOMEWHAT RELEVANT TO THE BOARD. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION NOW . WE HAVE ONE PERSON ASKING FOR 10 MINUTES, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THAT AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A TIME ISSU HERE. THE ONLY THING I WANTED T BRING UP IS REALLY GETTING BACK TO THE PROPERTY EVALUATION MATRIX. I KNOW EVERYTHING HAS BEEN SO FAST TRACKED , THE MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT, WE FAST TRACKED THE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR APPROVING THAT VERY QUICKLY. SO , THE ON ITEM I WOULD STILL LIKE TO PERHAPS HONE IN ON ANY FUTURE MEETING ON THAT EVALUATION CRITERIA IS THE PUBLIC SUPPORT SECTION. I STILL FEEL THAT CATEGORY IS A? FOR EVERYBODY. STILL LIKE THE IDEA THAT, ON A FUTURE MEETING WHERE WE ARE CONSIDERING A PROPERTY FOR A POTENTIAL ACQUISITION , THAT WE HAVE A SIGN PLACED BY THE COUNTY AFTER THE STREET, SIMILA TO A REZONING , SIMILAR TO A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PUBLIC USE REQUIREMENTS, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE COULD NOT DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT A PROPERTY IN THEIR AREA IS LAID UP FOR POTENTIAL ACQUISITION. I THINK IT MAY DRIVE SOME NEW PEOPLE TO OUR MEETING . IT MAY PROMOTE AWARENESS THAT OUR PROGRAM EXISTS, AND TO THESE POINTS, W WOULD GET SOME DIRECTION UP OR DOWN WHETHER THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD WANT TO SEE PUBLIC ACQUISITION OF LAND IN THEIR AREA. DOES THAT ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE? OR WOULD THEY SAY I DON'T WANT THE TRAFFIC.

OR YES, I AM IN SUPPORT BUT HER ARE THE CONDITIONS AND I WANT T BE VERY PASSIVE. YOU KNOW, NOT A DESTINATION-TYPE PARK, BUT A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK . SO, I WOULD LIKE TO GET BACK TO THE MATRIX TO LOOK AT THAT ONE CATEGORY OF PUBLIC SUPPORT IF WE COULD ALLOCATE 10 MINUTES TO A DISCUSSION IN THE FUTURE

MEETING. >> OKAY. THANK YOU MR. MINCH , I THINK WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THAT. ALL RIGHT . WELL, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER REPORTS FRO THE BOARD MEMBERS?

>> MDM. CHAIR? COULD WE GO BAC TO MR. FLOWERS , GENERALLY WHEN REQUESTS COME UP THAT RELAY SOMETHING IT IS USUALLY BY CONCESSIONS OR A BOAT . I DID NOT KNOW WHERE WE LANDED WITH REGARD TO STAFF , OR MR. SLATER REGARDING THE NATIONAL SEASHORE

PRESENTATION. >> OKAY. SO, DO WE WANT TO

ASK FOR CONSENSUS ? >> IT IS THE ROLE OF THE BOARD

[01:40:07]

WHEN IT FIRST CAME UP I ASKED THE DIRECTOR OF THE WHITE HOUSE KATHY FLEMING, SHE WAS VERY HELPFUL AND FAMILIAR WITH WHER IT WAS. AND I THINKS -- IT LOOKS LIKE JEN FROM KANSAS RIVER KEEPERS ALSO HAS IT. THER ARE MANY RESOURCES OUT THERE.

THEY GIVE US SOME GOOD, CURREN UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION .

>> OKAY, WOULD YOU BE REALLY WILLING TO MAKE THAT CONTACT T ASK THE INDIVIDUAL TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION?

>> SURE . >> OKAY. HAND, IS THE BOARD OKAY WITH THAT DECISION TO HAV SOMEBODY PROVIDE INFORMATION?

>> YES. >> I AM, I SAW MR. MINCH SHAKIN HIS HEAD. I GUESS MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT MR. SLAVEN COUL PROVIDE ANY AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT HE WANTS TO PROVIDE , MY INTENTION WOULD NO BE TOO CLOSE AND JUST LIKE -- TO GET UP AND ADMIT INFORMATION . YOU KNOW, WE GIVE HIM A COUPL OF EXTRA MINUTES AND HE ADDED SUGGESTION TO THAT AS WELL.

GIVE HIM THE THREE MINUTES THAT EVERY OTHER CITIZEN GETS.

>> I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF GIVIN HIM THE 10 MINUTES AND BEING

DONE WITH IT. >> I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THA

SUGGESTION . >> I CAN LIVE WITH THAT AS WELL CAN YOU REPEAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD?

>> IT IS THE LIGHTHOUSE ARCHAEOLOGICAL MARINE PROGRAM.

BUT IT IS THE ST. AUGUSTINE LIGHTHOUSE, AND THEN ALSO -- H WAS FAMILIAR WITH THAT PROPOSAL. I WILL RESEARCH IT FOR YOU, AND BRING IT BACK WITHIN A MONTH .

>> OKAY, I DON'T THINK THERE I ANY HURRY FOR THIS.

>> OKAY. >> OKAY. THAT MOVES US TO --

MS. MS. KAUFMAN? >> I WANTED YOU MENTIONED ON HI REPORT , TALKING ABOUT A NEIGHBORHOOD BILL OF RIGHTS TYP OF NOTIFICATION FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS , IT IS TRUE THAT THERE ARE CITIZEN REVIEW BOARDS SUCH AS THE DESIGN REVIEW TO GET SIGNS POSTED WHEN THERE IS A VARIANCE REQUESTED , OR THAT THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING. SO, I THINK WE ARE KIND OF ON THE SAME LEVEL UNDER THE CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD AND I WANTED TO ASK IF THAT IS POSSIBILITY ? IF HE SIGNS UP O THE PROPERTY ? DO WE KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED AT THA POINT OF OUR MEETINGS? DO YOU THINK IT IS AN ITEM THAT WE CAN ASK STAFF TO LOOK INTO THE FEASIBILITY OF THAT AND HAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT IN THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY. MR. MINCH? IS THIS RELATED?

>> OKAY, GO AHEAD. >> IF I CAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DID EDIT SLAVIN TO SPEAK ABOUT THE NATIONAL SEASHORE AT THE NEXT MEETING.

>> IS THAT A MOTION? >> THAT WAS A MOTION .

>> I WILL SECOND IT. >> OKAY, OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

YOU WILL KNOW MY THOUGHTS ON THIS.

LET'S TAKE IT TO A VOTE . FOR THOSE IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING MR. SLAVIN TIME ON THE AGENDA? FO THE ST. AUGUSTINE NATIONAL

[01:45:03]