Oct 10, 2023 Land Acquisition and Management Program

[Call meeting to order]

[00:00:30]

>> OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10 MEETING OF THE LAMP ADVISORY BOARD. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

THANK YOU TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FOR MAKING TIME ATTEND THIS MEETING TODAY.

WE WILL START OUT WITH A QUICK ROLL-CALL. DOWN THE LIST.

SAY PRESENT. MR. MICHAEL ADAMS IS ABSENT. TODAY.

MS. KAUFMAN? >> MR. FLOWERS IS ALSO NOTIFIED US THAT HE IS ABSENT TODAY.

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

MR. MILLER? PRESENT. >> MR. MINCH?

>> PRESENT. >> MS. ROB SPHWHINS ROBBINS? MR. SMITH NOT HERE YET.

MR. WATSON. ALL RIGHT. SO WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. LY READ OUR PUBLIC COMMENT STATEMENT. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE ACCEPTED DURING TWO SPECIFIC PERIODS, AND PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY NOT INTERRUPT THE BOARD PROCEEDINGS. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO SPEAK. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD ON PROPOSITIONS BEFORE THE BOARD AS THOSE ITEMS ARE ADDRESSED ON THE AGENERAL DA.

AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOW BEING CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD WILL BE DURING A GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. SPEAKER CARDS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE FRONT TABLE.

SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT, AND STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. EACH PERSON ADDRESSING THE BOARD SHALL LIMIT COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES. A PERSON SHALL NOT ADDRESS THE BOARD OR ANY MEMBER THEREOF UNLESS SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRPERSON TO DO SO. PUBLIC COMMENT IS INTENDED FOR THE BOARD TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEMAND IMMEDIATE RESPONSES FROM THE BOARD OR ITS MEMBERS. BOARD MEMBERS SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN DIALOGUE WITH PERSONS MAKING A PUBLIC COMMENT UNLESS DIRECTED BY THE CHAIR.

WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL AND DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES. WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS.

HELLO, MR. SMITH. GOOD TO SEE YOU. SO WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS WISHING TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA?

>> ED SLAVEN. FOR THE RECORD, I OBJECT TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT STATEMENT YOU JUST READ. I LOOK FORWARD TO OUR NEXT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR HAVING THE NEXT COUNTY ATTORNEY DO A BETTER JOB OF RESEARCH AND NOT VIOLATE OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS WITH THAT CHILLING-EFFECT STATEMENT. ALSO, I WILL BE CALLING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE NEXT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE NEXT COUNTY ATTORNEY. HOW I HAVE BEEN TREATED HERE IN THE PAST BY THE CHAIR. INCLUDING STATING AT THE END OF A MEETING THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK WE HAD JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE ST. AUGUSTINE NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK AND NATIONAL SEA STHOAR WHEN THIS COMMITTEE WAS SPECKLY ASKED BY COMMISSIONER DEAN TO CONSIDER IT AN EXPRESS OPINION ON. IN FACT, LOOKING BACK AT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE LAMP BOARD, HENRY CONTEMPLATED, AS DID I, THAT WE WOULD HAVE A FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR LAMP TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS AND RECOMMEND TO THE ST. AUGUSTINE-- TO THE ST. JOHN'S COUNTY COMMISSION, TAKING A POSITION ON THE NATIONAL PARK AND SEA SHORE. AS YOU MAY RECALL, THE COMMISSION BACK IN 2011 REFUSED TO DO THAT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, LET ME SAY WE ARE SURROUNDED BY AN ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS. HUMAN-CREATED ENVIRONMENTAL CRISISMENT DEFORESTATION IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS AN EMBARRASSMENT.

IT IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS. WE ARE EVERY SINGLE MEETING APPROVING DEFORESTATION.

I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO NEXT TUESDAY'S MEETING WHERE COMMISSIONER JOSEPH WILL BE PRESENTING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDRESSING DEFORESTATION AND ADDRESSING TREE-KILLING.

FASTER THAN A SPEEDING DUMP TRUCK, WHAT WE KNOW AND LOVE ABOUT ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS BEING DESTROYED BY DEVELOPERS WHO GIVE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR COMMISSIONERS, AND IT IS A

[00:05:04]

GLOBAL WEATHER PATTERNS WE HAVE SEEN THIS YEAR AND LAST YEAR, THE WARMEST ON RECORD IS THE DIRECT AND PROXIMATE RESULT OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING TO OUR PLANET AND POLLUTION.

WITH DEFORESTATION. AND THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD HAVE CALLED FOR ENDING DEFORESTATION BY THE YEAR 2030. ARE YOU ONBOARD WITH THAT? COULD WE PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK AND NATIONAL SEASHORE? I HAVE ASKED THIS BOARD SINCE IT WAS CREATED TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA, AND MR. MINCH MADE A MOTION TO ALLOW ME TO MAKE A TEN-MINUTE PRESENTATION. IT WAS VOTED DOWN. THIS BOARD LACKS A WELCOMING SPIRIT. THIS BOARD LACKS DECENT RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS PLANET. I HAD THE HONOR OF TESTIFYING FOR THEN REPRESENTATIVE AL GORE, JR. ON JULY 11, 1993. AGAIN, IF YOU ROLL YOUR EYES, IT IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. WE HAVE A GLOBAL CRISIS. AL GORE CALLED IT BACK IN 1986.

HE WROTE A BOOK WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN 1992. I BOUGHT IT HERE IN ST. AUGUSTINE WHEN VISITING HERE IN AUGUST OF 1992. IN IT, AL GORE COMPARED THE WAY THAT AMERICANS AND OTHER PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH DEAL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, HE COMPARED IT TO A DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY. HE COMPARED OUR GOVERNMENTS TO A DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY IN THAT WE WILL ALWAYS APPARENTLY CHOOSE TO LOOK AWAY OR ROLL OUR EYES OR IGNORE. MS. GUTHRIE, YOU WERE VERY RUDE. YOU CERTAINLY DIDN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY WHAT YOU SAID, UNTUTORED IN THE LAW, DISRESPECTFUL.

AND THIS COMMISSION AND THIS COUNTY GOVERNMENT KIND OF REMINDS ME OF WHAT MY MOM SAID

[Approval of meeting minutes from the August 8th meeting ]

>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA? OKAY. NOT SEEING ANY, WE WILL MOVE AHEAD TO APPROVAL OF OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 8 MEETING.

HOPEFULLY, EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS?

MS. KAUFMAN. (INAUDIBLE). >> PAGE NUMBER.

>> I'M NOT SAYING I DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENTS. THEY SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED.

ESPECIALLY SINCE TWO OF THEM CONCERNED PARKS & REC. I WOULD HAVE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE. ON PAGE TWO, AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO, IT SHOULD SAY ROBBINS INSTEAD OF KAUFMAN AS THE PERSON. WHO MADE THAT COMMENT.

AND THEN AGAIN, ON PAGE THREE, THE SECOND ONE DOWN, WHICH REFERS TO THE FREEDOM COMMERCE CENTER. AND ALSO USES THE TERM "THE RESERVE." I DID GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THE TV RECORDING. MS. ROBBINS REFERRED TO THE TAMUKWIN PRESERVE." I THOUGHT WE SHOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT.

THAT ONE MORE ON PAGE SIX. THE FOURTH ONE DOWN. MS. ROBBINS ASKED WHAT IS THE DOWN SIDE TO LEAVING THE MITIGATION LANGUAGE IN THE PLAN, IN THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. SO YUP. THOSE ARE MY ONLY CORRECTIONS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, MS. KAUFMAN. I SAW MR. MINCH.

HE ALSO HAD POTENTIAL COMAINGS. CHANGES. >> YES.

I ACTUALLY NOTICED SOME DISCREPANCIES AS WELL. I'LL HAVE TO ADMIT, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE HAD THE MEETINGS RECORDED, VIDEOTAPE IS EVEN BETTER.

[00:10:03]

NOW, I HAVEN'T WENT BACK TO THE AUDIO TO GO LINE FOR LINE. I DO KNOW THAT ON PAGE FIVE, AT THE VERY TOP, IT SAYS "A MOTION WAS PUT FORWARD BY MINCH." THAT WAS NOT MY MOTION.

THAT WAS WAYNE FLOWERS' MOTION WHICH IS THE MOTION THAT I BELIEVE IT DID NOT GET A SECOND.

SO IF WE GO BACK TO LOOK AT-- I GUESS THAT WOULD BE MINUTE 49 AND 12 SECONDS, WAYNE FLOWERS IS THE GENTLEMAN SPEAKING. NOT ME. WHAT I DO THINK IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT CORRECTION IS FURTHER DOWN ON PAGE FIVE WHERE IT STATES THAT I HAD MADE A MOTION THAT CARRIED, AND THAT WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.

THAT IS A PRETTY BIG DEAL, AND I'M READING IT-- I WAS CERTAIN THAT I DID NOT MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. I WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AT THAT MEETIN. SO AGAIN, IF YOU GO BACK, THIS WOULD BE MINUTE 48:18 AND YOU LISTEN TO MY STATEMENT. IT SAYS THAT MY MOTION WAS TO BRING BACK THE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. NOT APPROVAL.

SO AGAIN, I'M A LITTLE HESITANT TO ACTUALLY APPROVE THESE MEETING MINUTES.

I HAVEN'T WENT THROUGH IT IN DETAIL. I DO KNOW THAT SOMETHING LIKE APPROVING THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN OR NOT SHOULD BE ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT SHOULDN'T BE MISSED IN A MEETING MINUTES. THAT IS A PRETTY BIG DEAL.

>> OKAY. SO TO RESTATE THAT MR. MINCH, FOR THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE, THAT MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. FLOWERS. THEN IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE

MISSING AN ADDITIONAL MOTION THAT YOU MADE. >> YES.

THE FIRST MOTION WHICH FAILED WAS MADE BY FLOWERS. THE SECOND MOTION WHICH CARRIED IS BEING REPORTED IN THE MEETING MINUTES THAT IT WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. I DID NOT MAKE THAT MOTION. I WAS SPEAKING AT THAT TIME.

>> OKAY. SO WE HAVE MR. MINCH'S CORRECTIONS.

THEN WE HAVE A LIST OF $FOR MS. KAUFMAN. THREE PLACES WHERE MS. ROBBINS' COMMENTS WERE ATTRIBUTED TO MS. KAUFMAN. DO WE HAVE ADDITIONAL CHANGES? OKAY. SO THEN I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS

AMENDED WITH THOSE CHANGES. >> SO MOVED. >> OKAY.

MOTION BY MS. ROBBINS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ARE WE HAVING ISSUES WITH THE MICROPHONES? OKAY. LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON THE

MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. SMITH.

DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE MINUTES? MR. MINCH.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO-- I MEAN, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE ADD THOSE CHANGES TO THE MEETING MINUTES. IT IS JUST I'M STRUGGLING WITH WHETHER TO ADOPT THE MEETING MINUTES AND HAVE THAT BE THE RECORD OF THE MEETING, GIVEN SOME INACCURACIES.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO DO IN THIS CASE BECAUSE USUALLY, APPROVING MEETING MINUTES IS A PRETTY STANDARD PROCEDURE. HOWEVER, GIVEN THAT THE MINUTES WERE NOT RECORDED CORRECTLY, CAN WE-- CAN THEY BE RE-RECORDED, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE AUDIO AND VIDEO OF THE LAST MEETING?

[00:15:05]

THAT IS A QUESTION TO STAFF, I GUESS. >> GUIDANCE FROM --

>> SURE. THROUGH THE CHAIR TO THE BOARD. RIGHT NOW, OFF MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. YOU WOULD NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON THAT MOTION AND A SECOND.

THE OPTION IS YOU CAN VOTE NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT. IF THAT MOTION DOESN'T PASS, YOU COULD COME BACK AND DO FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF RE-RECORDING THE MEETING MINUTES HOWEVER YOU CHOSE. RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE.

>> IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR MOTION? OKAY.

[Approval of current agenda ]

THE MINUTES AS AMENDED, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY. THOSE ARE TWO NAYS.

ONE FROM MINCH AND ONE FOR KAUFMAN. THE MOTION CARRIES.

THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS AMENDED. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF OUR CURRENT AGENDA. WE'VE GOT QUITE A PACKED AGENDA TODAY.

WE HAVE A FEW ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS TO KICK OFF ON ITEMS ONE AND TWO.

AND THEN WE HAVE FOUR PROPERTIES WHICH WE WILL BE TAKING A LOOK AT FOR PRELIMINARY EVALUATION.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA? >> SO MOVED.

>> THANK YOU, MS. ROBBINS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> SECOND FROM MR. MILLER. ANY DISCUSSION ON TODAY'S AGENDA?

>> YES, MA'AM. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE AGENDA ITEM 2.

THE WAY IT READS, ARE WE TO EVALUATE AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON PEOPLE TO

REPLACE US ON THIS BOARD? >> THIS SPECIFIC ITEM NUMBER 2 IS ADDRESSING FOUR OF OUR MEMBERS WHOSE TERMS ARE EXPIRING AT THE END OF THIS MONTH. WE ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING THEIR MEMBERSHIP. SPECIFICALLY. TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH

WILL GO FORTH TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> THE BOARD OF YOUNT COMMISSIONERS WANTS US TO RECOMMEND PEOPLE TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

BOARD POLICY REQUIRES THAT THE COMMISSION OR ADVISORY BOARD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH REGARD TO MEMBERSHIP. CAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OF APPOINTING THOSE MEMBERS.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE DISCUSSON OF THE NINE-MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONS.

>> THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE THE APPLICATIONS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SERVE ON THE LAMP BOARD OR CURRENT MEMBERS REAPPLYING.

>> SO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THOSE APPLICATIONS AND HAVE A DISCUSSION, WHAT WE THINK OF

THOSE PEOPLE SERVING ON THE BOARD. >> THOSE APPLICATIONS WERE

PROVIDED TO US AS PART OF OUR PACKET FOR TODAY. >> DO WE DISCUSS THE MEMBERS THAT ARE-- DO WE DISCUSS THEM HERE IN PUBLIC IN FRONT OF EACH OTHER?

DO I TALK ABOUT WAYNE AND WHAT A GREAT GUY HE IS? >> I THINK HE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. YES. (LAUGHTER).

>> YES. YES. WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THAT.

ON ITEM NUMBER 2. >> I DON'T THINK I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

I MEAN, WE WILL MOVE THROUGH THAT WHEN-- THANK YOU. >> WE WILL WORK TO THAT.

MR. MINCH. >> YOU STOLE MY FIRE THERE. I FEEL EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA THAT I AM SUPPOSED TO RECOMMEND TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION WHO SHOULD SIT ON THIS BOARD. I THINK WHAT THAT DOES IS IT PRESERVES A MAJORITY. IT MAINTAINS A STATUS QUO. AS SOON AS THERE IS A MAJORITY, THAT MAJORITY, IF THEY ARE ADVISING, AND THAT ADVISEMENT CARRIES ANY WEIGHT, CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN THE MAJORITY AND PREVENT NEW IDEAS, NEW PEOPLE, TO GET ON COMMUNITY BOARDS.

THIS IS NOT A POSITION THAT IS NEW. I ACTUALLY SENT-- WHEN I WAS NOT A MEMBER OF A BOARD, I SENT AN EMAIL TO, AT THE TIME, COMMISSIONER BLOCKER STATING THAT THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY POLICY OF HAVING COMMITTEES AND BOARDS& MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WHO SITS ON THOSE BOARDS IN A FUTURE-- IN THE FUTURE IS A BACK POLICY.

[00:20:01]

THE REPLY I GOT-- I WAS MUCH YOUNGER. AT THE TIME, I WAS-- THOUGHT I WOULD VOLUNTEER FOR A PARKSENED & REC ADVISORY BOARD. I WITNESSED THOSE MEMBERS VOTE THEMSELVES IN FOR ANOTHER TERM RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. AND WHEN I QUESTIONED IT, I WAS TOLD "WELL, THAT IS THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE." FOR ME, THAT IS NOT A GOOD ANSWER. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING HAS BEEN DONE BACKWARDS FOR 40 YEARS DOESN'T MEAN THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. SO I WILL BE RECUSING MYSELF

FROM MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO WHO SITS ON THIS BOARD. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT CHANGING THE MEMBERS-- RECOMMENDING MEMBERS TO BE FILLING VACANCIES AT THIS POINT.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE AGENDA BEFORE WE MOVE TO APPROVE? OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA?

[1. LAMP Board 2024 Meeting Dates]

AL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE AGENDA, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY.

>> NAY. >> WE HAVE A NAY FROM MR. WATSON.

AND MR. MINCH. THE MOTION CARRIES. THE AGENDA IS APPROVED.

SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1. WHICH WAS LAMP BOARD 2024 MEETING DATES. SO WE ANNUALLY NEED TO APPROVE OUR CALENDAR OF MIDDLE EASTING DATES-- OF MEETING DATES. WE ARE AT THAT POINT WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AHEAD AT OUR DECEMBER MEETING THROUGH NEXT OCTOBER, AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THIS BOARD TO CONTINUE MEETING ON A BIMONTHLY BASIS. THOSE DATES WERE PROVIDED IN OUR PACKET FOR DECEMBER 12, FEBRUARY 13, APRIL 9, JUNE 11, AUGUST 13, AND OCTOBER 8. ARE THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS OR COMMENTS ON THESE PROPOSED DATES OR SCHEDULE? OKAY.

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1? SEEING NONE, I WOULD BE SEEKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LAND ACQUISITION & MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2024 MEETING DATES.

>> SO MOVED. >> THANK YOU, MR. SMITH. LOOKING FOR A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU, MS. ROBBINS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

[2. LAMP Board Member Application Recommendations]

>> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY.

THE MOTION CARRIES. THOSE MEETING DATES ARE APPROVED.

OUR NEXT LAMP BOARD MEETING WILL BE ON DECEMBER 12. OKAY.

MOVINGEN TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2. THESE ARE OUR TERM EXPIRATION AND VACANCY APPLICATION RECOMMENDATIONS. SO AS MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A BOARD IS TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD. AS OUR MEMBER TERMS EXPIRE. SO WHEN THE LAMP BOARD WAS REINSTATED, FOUR OF OUR BOARD APPOINTEES WERE GIVEN TWO-YEAR TERMS, AND THE OTHER FIVE MEMBERS WERE GIVEN FOUR-YEAR TERMS TO PROVIDE STAGGERING. FOUR OF THE MEMBERS' TERMS HAVE COME UP AND WILL BE EXPIRING AT THE END OF THIS MONTH. FIRST I WANTED TO SAY A SINCERE THANK YOU TO THOSE BOARD MEM MEMBERS. MS. ROBBINS, MR. MILLER, MR. MINCH, AND MR. FLOWERS WERE SERVING ON THIS BOARD AND THEIR DEDICATION TO THIS BOARD.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE WILL APPROACH THIS AGENDA ITEM IS WE WILL GO MEMBER BY MEMBER AND ADDRESS THEIR MEMBERSHIP INDIVIDUALLY. OF THOSE FOUR MEMBERS, THREE HAVE APPLIED TO BE REINSTATED FOR ANOTHER FOUR-YEAR TERM. THOSE MEMBERS ARE MS. ROBBINS, MR. MILLER, AND MR. FLOWERS WHO IS ABSENT TODAY. SO WE CAN GET STARTED.

I GUESS WE WILL GO ALPHABETICALLY. WE WILL START WITH MR. FLOWERS.

[00:25:01]

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE HIM REINSTATED. WE WILL SEE IF OUR BOARD HAS ANY

COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION ON THE MEMBERSHIP OF MR. FLOWERS. >> MR. MILLER.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK HE IS AN ASSET. HE IS ALSO A NICE CALMING INFLUENCE, WITHOUT QUESTION. PROCEDURAL HELP AS WELL. AND HIS BACKGROUND AS AN ATTORNEY AND SOMEONE WHO HAS WORKED IN NATURAL RESOURCES IS A HUGE BENEFIT.

>> THANK YOU. MR. SMITH? >> I WOULD SAY FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS THAT MR. MILLER MENTIONED AS WELL AS MY EXPERIENCE WITH HIM ON THE

BOARD, I WILL BE RECOMMENDING HIS APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY.

DO WE HAVE ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MEMBERSHIP OF MR. WAYNE FLOWERS? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO RECOMMEND MR. FLOWERS' CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP ON THIS BOARD.

>> SO MOVED. >> THANK YOU, MR. SMITH. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU, MR. MILLER. >> FOR THE CHAIR, BEFORE YOU PROCEED TO VOTE, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OR COMMISSION MUST VOTE. UNLESS THERE IS A DECLARED CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THERE HAS TO BE A VOTE FROM EACH PERSON.

YOU CANNOT ABSTAIN OR RECUSE YOURSELF UNLESS YOU DECLARE A CONFLICT, FOR STUDENT TO CHAPTER

28.612, FLORIDA STATUTE. >> THANK YOU. OKAY.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION?

MR. MINCH? >> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I FEEL LIKE KNOWING THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION COULD GIVE ME A BENEFIT IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. I WOULD LIKE TO DECLARE I HAVE A

CONFLICT AND WILL BE RECUSING MYSELF FROM THIS VOTE. >> THANK YOU.

AS LONG AS THE CONFLICT IS ANNOUNCED BEFORE THE VOTE AND IN THE PROPER PAPERWORK FILLED OUT

AND FILED WITH THE COUNTY AND THE STATE, WE CAN PROCEED. >> OKAY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CHAIR. INITIALLY, WHEN THE BOARD WAS CREATED, IT WAS A PERSON FROM EACH DISTRICT AND THEN FOUR PEOPLE. IS THERE ANY WAY OF KNOWING, FROM EVERYBODY ON HERE, WHAT DISTRICT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REPRESENT?

AND YOU KNOW, WHO WOULD BE THE FOUR AT-LARGE PEOPLE. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR-- MR. ADAMS, MR. KAUFMAN, MR. SM SMITH,-- I'M SORRY MS. KAUFMAN AND MR. SMITH AND MR. WATSON.

THOSE WERE APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS. THEY ARE APPOINTED TO THE FOUR-YEAR TERMS. SO THOSE-- EACH REPRESENT ONE OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICTS.

THOSE ARE COVERED. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE PEOPLE IN THE RIGHT SERVICE. WE ALREADY HAVE THAT COVERED AS WELL WITH THE BALLOT.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> YES.

GOOD QUESTION AND IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE ARE ALL AT-LARGE SEATS.

OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE MOVING TO VOTE? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RECOMMENDING THE CONTINUED

MEMBERSHIP OF MR. FLOWERS, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY. OKAY.

MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL BE RECOMMENDING THE MEMBERSHIP OF MR. FLOWERS.

OKAY. MOVING ON TO MR. MILLER. AGAIN, I WOULD STATE THAT MR. MILLER HAS BEEN AN ASSET TO THIS BOARD, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND HIS CONTINUED PARTICIPATION.

DISCUSSION. MR. MINCH. >> YES.

AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS VOTE. I FEEL LIKE THERE IS A CONFLIT

[00:30:05]

I WILL NOT BE VOTING. THANK YOU. >> OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION?

>> I BELIEVE MR. MILLER'S PRESENCE ON THE BOARD IS AN ASSET, FOR SURE.

GIVEN HIS EXFOR TEASE,-- EXPERTISE, HISTORY, BACKGROUND. ALL THE WORK HE HAS CONTRIBUTED

TO ADVANCING OUR EFFORTS. >> THANK YOU, MR. SMITH. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON MR. MILLER? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON MEMBERSHIP OF MR. JB MILLER? OKAY. SEEING NONE, I WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION TO RECOMMEND MR.

MILLER'S CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP ON THE LAMP BOARD. >> SO MOVED.

>> THANK YOU, MS. ROBBINS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> THANK YOU, MS. KAUFMAN. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE TO VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RECOMMENDING MR. MILLER'S

CONTINUED PARTICIPATION ON THE LAMP BOARD, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES.

WE WILL BE RECOMMENDING MR. MILLER'S CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP ON THE LAMP BOARD.

THANK YOU, MR. MILLER. OKAY. MOVING ON TO MR. TRAVIS MINCH.

WHOSE SEAT IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE. WE DID NOT RECEIVE AN APPLICATION FROM MR. MINCH TO SERVE ANOTHER FOUR-YEAR TERM. FOR THIS SEAT, WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS BOARD. WE DID RECEIVE A LIST OF APPLICANTS FOR THIS POSITION. LY OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BOARD.

>> YES. I DID READ THE APPLICATIONS. SO IT IS DIFFICULT FROM THE APPLICATIONS TO KNOW A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE APPLICANTS. BUT WITH WHAT INFORMATION WE H HAD, I WAS MOST IMPRESSED BY NICOLE CROSBY'S EXPERIENCE AND I WOULD RECOMMEND NICOLE CROSBY

OUT OF THOSE NEW APPLICANTS. >> THANK YOU, MS. KAUFMAN. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD LIKE TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS ON OUR APPLICANTS? OKAY.

SO WE HAVE ONE RECOMMENDATION SO FAR. FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF MS. NICOLE CROSS CROSBY TO BE PUT FORTH. IT IS RECOMMENDED SHE BECOME A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION?

>> SO MOVED. >> MOTION BY MR. MILLER. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU. MS. KAUFMAN.

BEFORE THAT, I SHOULD ASK IF WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE POTENTIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP OF MS. NICOLE CROSBY. OKAY.

PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF. >> CHUCK LEVIN NOWSKI. I WASN'T GOING TO SAY ANYTHING TODAY. I NEED TO FILL OUT A FORM. YOU COULDN'T ASK FOR A BETTER PERSON. THIS INDIVIDUAL IS DEFINITELY STRONG ON A LOT OF THINGS GOING

ON WITHIN THE COUNTY. I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND NICOLE. >> THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? SEEING NONE, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? OKAY. WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE TO A VOTE TO RECOMMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF MS. NICOLE CROSBY ON THE LAMP BOARD.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, SO WE HAVE THE RECORD CLEAR. GIVEN LAST THREE VOTES, IS MR. MINCH DECLARING A CONFLICT WITH

REGARD TO THIS? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THANK YOU.

>> CONTINUING WITH THAT VOTE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, OF RECOMMENDING MS. NICOLE CROSBY'S

[00:35:02]

MEMBERSHIP TO THE LAMP BOARD, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY. OKAY.

THE MOTION CARRIES. MS. CROSBY WILL BE RECOMMENDED AS A FUTURE MEMBER OF THE LAMP BOARD. AND LASTLY, WE HAVE THE MEMBERSHIP OF MS. SHORTY ROBBINS. SO AGAIN,LY STATE THAT I BELIEVE MS. ROBBINS IS AN ASSET TO THIS BOARD. HAS BEEN DEDICATED AND WILL CONTINUE TO SERVE THIS BOARD WELL FOR AN ADDITIONAL FOUR YEARS. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

LIKE TO COMMENT? >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? IS THIS FOUR OR TWO YEARS?

>> THESE ARE FOUR-YEAR TERMS FOR EACH OF THESE. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> I SHARE THE SENTIMENT ABOUT MS. ROBBINS. I HAD A SEPARATE QUESTION.

BUT I SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED AHEAD OF TIME. I DIDN'T HAVE THE THOUGHT UNTIL NOW. IS OUR RECOMMENDATION ONLY ONE PER SEAT, SHOULD THERE NOT BE AN ACCEPTANCE BY ANY SPECIFIC PERSON, AND WOULD THE COMMISSION NEED POTENTIALLY MORE OR AN ALTERNATE OR SOME OTHER RECOMMENDATION FROM US? I DON'T KNOW, BUT I IMAGINE THERE IS A SCENARIO WHERE A RECOMMENDATION DOESN'T FOLLOW THROUGH.

DOES THAT THEN KICK IT BACK TO US? HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, GENERALLY, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, ONE OF TWO THINGS.

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IF THEY DID NOT ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD, THEY COULD ASK TO COME BACK AND REEVALUATE APPLICATIONS OR RENOTICE IT FOR ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS. OR THEY COULD JUST APPOINT THE PERSON BASED ON THE APPLICATIONS

THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO SERVE IN THAT ROLE. >> THANK YOU.

>> MR. MILLER? >> I ALSO SUPPORT MS. ROBBINS FOR MULTIPLE REASONS WHICH WE DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO. HER EXPERIENCE IS WITHOUT QUESTION.

AND APPRECIATED. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? AND WOULD ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LIKE TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF MS. SHORTY ROBBINS? OKAY.

SEEING NONE, I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF MS. ROBBINS'

CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP ON THE LAMP BOARD. >> SO MOVED.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MILLER. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MS. KAUFMAN. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WITH WILL WE WILL MOVE TO A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

[3. 7070 CR 16A Property Evaluation and Discussion ]

>> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY.

THE MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL BE RECOMMENDING MS. ROBBINS FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS. AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION TO THIS BOARD. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE ARE INTO A SERIES OF FOUR PROPERTIES WHICH WE HAVE RECEIVED OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS.

THIS IS OUR FIRST LOOK AT THESE PROPERTIES, SO THESE ARE THE INITIAL EVALUATIONS.

SO ACCORDING TO OUR PROCESS OUTLINE HERE, OUR DISCUSSION TODAY IS INTENDED TO DETERMINE IF WE BELIEVE THESE PROPERTIES MEET LAMP PROGRAM GOALS. AND IF SO, THEY WILL BE ADDED TO A FUTURE LAMP BOARD AGENDA. LIKELY THE DECEMBER 12 MEETING. FOR FURTHER EVALUATION AND RANKING. THIS IS ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR LAMP BOARD MEMBERS TO REQUEST ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THEY MAY NEED IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT RANKING.

SO WE WILL START OUT WITH 7070 COUNTY ROAD 16-A. I WILL ASK MR. MAUCH TO PROVIDE

US WITH AN OVERVIEW OF THIS PROPERTY. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

SO FOR THIS PROPERTY, IT WAS SUBMITTED VIA THE CURRENT SELLER.

IT IS A VACANT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. ALL OF THE INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED IN YOUR PACKETS. ON THE PROPERTY. ALONG WITH A SERIES OF AERIALS AND HERE IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY HERE OFF OF 16-A. IT IS LOCATED IN A PLANNED RURAL

[00:40:07]

A VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOT WITHIN THIS PRD. BASICALLY, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. WITH CERTAIN ALLOWED USES. AND LET'S SEE.

SO THIS IS THE AERIAL HERE. I PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THERE.

THERE ARE SOME CONSERVATION EASEMENTS RECORDED. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PROPERTY THAN WE ARE USUALLY SEEING. THAT IS JUST A VACANT PROPERTY.

THIS HAS GONE THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS, ACTUALLY. IT HAS A RECORDED PLAT.

IT SHOWS SOME CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREAS, A DEVELOPMENT AREA, YOU KNOW, AND THEN PRDS ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN OUR TYPICAL SUBDIVISIONS. THEY ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL FARMING AND AGRICULTURAL-TYPE USES WITHIN THE LOTS THEMSELVES. I ALSO PROVIDED IN YOUR PAC PACKAGES, A SURVEY OF THE LOT, SHOWING THAT AS WELL, THERE WAS A HISTORY WITH THIS PROPERTY.

THIS MIDDLE FLOOR REZ CONDITION USUAL RESIDENTIAL CLEARANCE SHEET.

THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY. IT WAS PARTIALLY CLEARED FOR THAT APPROVAL FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. THERE HAS BEEN NO VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT YET ON THE SITE.

THAT SITE PLAN HAS SINCE EXPIRED. IT IS ONLY GOOD FOR SIX MONTHS.

AND SO YOU WILL SEE SOME OF THAT IN THE PACKAGE, SOME OF THE RECENTLY UPDATED AERIALS.

THAT SHOWS THAT SMALL AREA THAT WAS CLEARED. THE COUNTY ALSO REVIEWED IT IN TERMS OF PARKS AND RECREATION. THEY PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

AND THEIR ONLY CONCERN WAS IT IS ADJACENT TO A VACANT HIGH SC SCHOOL, POTENTIAL PARCEL OFF TO THE EAST THERE ON THE AERIAL, YOU WILL NOTICE A COUPLE OF LARGE PASTURE AREAS OWNED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. I BELIEVE IT IS SOMEWHERE AROUND 40 ACRES.

AND SO THERE IS A CONCERN THAT IF THIS WERE TO BECOME A PARK OR SOME SIMILAR USE, FROM OUR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, THAT THE PARKING WOULD BE POTENTIALLY TAKEN OVER DURING SCHOOL HOURS AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR RESIDENTS TO USE. THAT WAS THEIR ONLY COMMEN.

THIS IS IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR PLANNING AREA. LET'S SEE.

I THINK I HAVE HIT ALL THE MAIN TOPICS ON THIS PROPERTY. I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY

QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE REVIEW. >> OKAY.

WE HAVE TWO OFF THE BAT. FIRST, MR. SMITH, AND THEN WE WILL GO TO MR. MINCH.

>> TO CLARIFY YOUR POINT ABOUT THE PARKING CONCERNS, IS THAT HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, WHILE SCHOOL IS IN SESSION, USING THE PUBLIC SPACE TO PARK AND THEN ACCESS SCHOOL.

>> YEAH. I THINK WHAT THEY ARE THINKING OF IS A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE AN ADJACENT PARK. THERE IS A PARKING AREA THERE. ADJACENT TO THE HIGH SCHOOL.

THAT DOES TEND TO HAVE ADDITIONAL OVERFLOW PARKING. MR. SNINCH.

>> MR. MINCH? >> RYAN, CAN YOU POINT ME TO WHAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THIS

PROPERTY IS? >> THE MARKET VALUE PROVIDED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IS

$305,000. >> NOW, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ASKING F

FOR-- IS IT $699,100 FOR THE PROPERTY? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

THAT IS LISTED ON THE APPLICATION. >> YOU KNOW, I BROUGHT THIS UP AT THE LAST MEETING. AND I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE. PROBABLY APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE.

YOU KNOW, I MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THE MARKET VALUE IS AN IRRELEVANT NUMBER.

WHEN I WENT BACK TO WATCH THE MEETING, WHAT I FAILED TO DO IS EXPLAIN WHY.

YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES MY WIFE S SAYS, YOU KNOW, TRAVIS YOU DON'T EXPLAIN, YOU COME TO CONCLUSIONS. YOU ARE VERY THOUGHTFUL ON INFORMATION, BUT YOU DON'T ALWAYS EXPLAIN THE REASON WHY YOU MAKE CERTAIN STATEMENTS YOU DO.

I WANTED TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE MARKET VALUE IN MORE DETAIL.

HOWEVER, BEFORE I DO, I WANTED TO ASK RYAN AND ACTUALLY, MR. HAWLEY.

BOTH OF YOU FELT LIKE THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT NUMBER TO KEEP ON THE PROPERTY INFORMATION SHEET.

I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE DERIVING FROM THE MARKET VALUE NUMBER?

[00:45:04]

>> I THINK THE MARKET VALUE NUMBER IS AN ADDITIONAL PIECE OF INFORMATION.

CERTAINLY, IT GIVES YOU A BASIS TO COMPARE TO WHAT THE OWNER MIGHT BE REQUESTING.

HERE, THERE IS QUITE THE DISCREPANCY. TO CONSIDER IT AS-- OKAY, WHY IS THERE THAT BIG OF A VARIABLE BETWEEN THE TWO? YOU KNOW, TO BE ABLING TO DO MORE OF A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE COST FOR THE PROPERTY. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GENERAL MARKET-- NOT THAT IT IS A NUMBER WE ARE MARRIED TO.

IT IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE PROPERTY. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR TO MEMBER MINCH, IT IS A STARTING POINT FOR-- THAT IS THE REASON WHY STAFF HAS IT ON THERE.

THE EVALUATION FORM THAT YOU ALL HAVE HAS COST AS A CERTAIN LINE ITEM.

THAT COULD BE FIGURED INTO. AND AGAIN, IT IS JUST AN INITIAL STARTING POINT.

NOW, EVENTUALLY, YOU KNOW, THE ACQUISITION PROCESS IS APPR APPRAISAL-DRIVEN.

THAT IS THE REAL NUMBER THAT THE COUNTY USES IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS.

>> YEAH. I THINK IN THE CASE OF THIS PROPERTY, TOO, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE INFORMATION FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. IT COULD BE A VERY VALUABLE INDICATOR. OF THAT. NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE MARKET VALUE AS LISTED. BUT FOR A RECENT TRANSACTION. THERE IS SEVERAL PIECES OF INFORMATION HERE. ULTIMATELY, IT HAS TO BE APPRAISAL-DRIVEN.

OTHER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT -- >> JUST THROUGH THE CHAIR ON THE SAME SUBJECT REALLY. IT ALSO-- YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT MARKET VALUE ON THE DATABASE, THAT IS BASED ON THE CURRENT ZONING. AND LAND USE.

A LOT OF TIMES, WHEN THEY DO APPRAISALS, IT IS A DIFFERENT WAY OF LOOKING AT IT.

YOU KNOW, GENERALLY, THEY ARE LOOKING TO REZONE SOMETHING TO A HIGHER --

>> GREAT POINT. MR. MINCH, ANOTHER COMMENT? >> IF I COULD SUBMIT A DOCUMENT FOR THE RECORD. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IS A PERFECT POINT.

I MEAN, I HATE TO SAY IT IS AN IRRELEVANT NUMBER. IF I COULD SUBMIT A DOCUMENT FOR THE RECORD. AFTER THE MEETING, I THINK-- AM I THE ONLY LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENT ON THIS BOARD? HAWLEY, YOU ARE AS WELL? OKAY, GREAT.

I WENT BACK THROUGH THE MLS WHICH PROVIDES DATA ON PAST SALES.

AND SO I QUERIED THE LAST TEN VACANT LAND SALES TO SEE WHAT THE ACTUAL SALES PRICE WAS AND COMPARE THAT TO THE MARKET VALUE THAT WE HAVE BEEN USING IN OUR PROPERTY INFORMATION SHEETS.

AND IF I CAN SUBMIT THIS FOR THE RECORD, WHAT I FOUND WAS THAT OUT OF THE TEN, AND THIS WAS THE LAST TEN SALES, I DIDN'T CHERRY-PICK THESE NUMBERS. THE MARKET VALUE TO THE REAL-WORLD SALES VALUE RANGED FROM .9% TO 94%. AND WE HAVE HAD VALUES IN THAT LIST OF .9%. LESS THAN A PERCENT. 1.4%.

ANOTHER 1.4%. AND 8.3%. A 64%.

A 34%. IF I CAN CONTINUE THE PROPERTY THAT WAS JUST VOTED FOR APPROVAL BY THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMMISSION FOR, I BELIEVE IT WAS $735,000, HAS A MARKET VALUE OF $5,300. SO I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT THAT NUMBER SHOULD NOT BE A NUMBER

THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING AS A BASIS FOR ANYTHING HERE. >> THANK YOU, MR. MINCH.

I THINK THE NUMBER WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IS THE LIST PRICE NUMBER FOR THIS DISCUSSION.

BECAUSE THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT THE SELLER IS EXPECTING TO BE PRESENTED OR SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE FOR NEGOTIATIONS. OKAY. OTHER THAN LIST PRICE, MARKET VALUE, CONVERSATIONS, WE HAVE ADDRESSED SOME OF THE PARKING QUESTIONS.

DO WE HAVE OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?

>> HAS ANYONE APPROACHED THE SCHOOL BOARD IF THEY ARE INTERESTED IN IT WITH THEM ON

THE ADJACENT PROPERTY? F. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, THERE HAS

[00:50:05]

>> I THINK THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. THIS IS POTENTIALLY SUITABLE

PROPERTY FOR THOSE PURPOSES. MR. WATSON? >> IS THE-- IS THIS PROPERTY OF ANY VALUE TO US FROM A CONSERVATION STANDPOINT? OR JUST PARKS AND RECREATION, DO

THEY WANT TO MAKE A PARK? >> WAS THAT TO STAFF? I'M SORRY.

>> WELL, I HAVE NOT BEEN ON THE PROPERTY. I CAN'T TELL YOU ITS CONSERVATION VALUE. IT IS GREEN SPACE. AND IT COULD BE CERTAINLY HAS RECREATIONAL VALUE, WITHOUT QUESTION. THAT IS ALSO PART OF OUR MISSION. I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, JIMMY.

SORRY. >> OTHER COMMENTS? MR. MINCH?

>> I'M STRUGGLING WITH HOW TO-- YOU KNOW, I FILLED OUT MY SCORES.

I'M STRUGGLING WITH HOW TO RANK PUBLIC SUPPORT. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHETHER THERE IS PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THS PURCHASE? THAT IS, I GUESS, A QUESTION FOR

STAFF OR ANYBODY ELSE. >> I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT ON

THIS PROPERTY. >> OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WHO ARE HERE ON BEHALF OF THIS PROPERTY. I KNOW WE HAVE A FEW REPRESENTATIVES FROM PROPERTIES FURTHER DOWN THE AGENDA. IF THERE IS ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT, I CAN OPEN THAT UP, TOO SO WE CAN HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.

>> CHUCK LEB NOWSKI. THE TWO SCARCE THAT YOU SEE UP THERE NOW ARE OWNED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. ALONG WITH THAT WOODED TRIANGLE SECTION.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY SHOULD GO TO THE SCHOOL BOARD INSTEAD OF THE LAMP STEPPING IN TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT. I KNOW-- I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE BUILDING IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

THAT HAS BEEN PUT OFF BECAUSE THERE IS A SCHOOL THAT IS FARTHER NORTH THAT THEY ARE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW. THAT WAS DEFINITELY ON THE SCHOOL BOARD.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY.

WE WILL COME BACK. >> JUST ON TRAVIS' POINT. I DO LIKE-- AS I'M EVALUATING AND I COME TO PUBLIC SUPPORT, MY APPROACH IS IF I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE OR NO ONE SPEAKS ON IT PRESENTLY, THAT, YOU KNOW, IT SCORES LOW IN MY BOOK. NOW, WHETHER IT IS GOOD OR BAD FOR THE PUBLIC IS ANOTHER ASSESSMENT. IN TERMS OF SUPPORT, THAT IS HOW I SORT OF GAUGE THE INTEREST LEVEL. I WOULD BE CURIOUS IF ANYONE

ELSE APPROACHES IT DIFFERENTLY. >> ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON THIS PROPERTY?

MR. MINCH AGAIN. >> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION MARK IN MY SCORING FOR LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL COSTS. AND I GUESS THIS IS KIND OF MORE OF A PROCESS QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS A MAJOR-- THIS IS A MATRIX WE APPROVED AS A BOARD.

THE OPERATIONAL COST IS SOMETHING THAT WE START TO GET A BETTER IDEA OF ONCE WE HAVE THE MANAGEMENT PLAN DISCUSSED AND EVEN, YOU KNOW, APPROVED. SO AGAIN, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THAT. I'M PROBABLY IN THE SAME BOAT AS FAR AS RANKING IT A LOW NUMBER UNTIL WE GET BETTER CLARITY AS FAR AS WHAT THAT OPERATIONAL COST MAY BE.

ONE CONSIDERATION IS PERHAPS LOCATION, LIKE, IF IT'S IN A FAR-OUT AREA THAT IS HARD TO, LET'S SAY, MAINTAIN. IF WE BOUGHT A PARK-- LET'S SAY WE BOUGHT A PARK IN A REMOTE AREA, YOU KNOW, FRYING TO MAINTAIN-- TRYING TO MAIN THAIN THAT PARK MAY RESULT IN A HIGH OPERATIONAL COST. THAT IS THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF.

AGAIN, WITHOUT MORE INFORMATION, IT IS A HARD ONE TO SCORE. >> OKAY.

I KNOW WE HAVE MADE A COUPLE OF REFERENCES TO SCORING SHEETS AND JUST A REMINDER TO EVERYONE, THAT THIS MEETING, THIS IS OUR FIRST LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY. WE ARE DETERMINING IF WE ARE GOING TO MOVE IT FORWARD TO OUR NEXT MEETING FOR THE OFFICIAL SCORING AND RANKING.

[00:55:03]

AND THIS PROPERTY-- I MEAN, FOR ME, I THINK ONE OF THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THIS PROPERTY IS THAT IT'S IN A PART OF THE COUNTY WHICH IS LACKING ACCESS TO PUBLIC SPACES.

AT THE SAME TIME, I DO KIND OF AGREE WITH ITS LOCATION, SOME OF THE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES.

IT IS A PRETTY SMALL PARCEL. WITH A VERY HIGH PRICE EXPECTATION, SO I'M NOT PARTICULARLY FOND OF THIS ONE MOVING AHEAD. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS ON THIS

PROPERTY. MR. MILLER? >> I WOULD SUGGEST WE TABLE THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL UNTIL THE SCHOOL BOARD, IF STAFF CAN REACH OUT TO THE SCHOOL BOARD, TO FIND OUT IF THEY HAVE AN INTEREST. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE-- THEY GET A POINT.

JUST A THOUGHT. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. >> OTHER MEMBERS' THOUGHTS ON

TABLING? >> ANOTHER FURTHER POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

SINCE THIS IS IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, PRD, THE ORDINANCE ACTUALLY REQUIRES THERE TO BE-- BASICALLY, SETS FORTH THE ALLOWED USES ON THIS PROPERTY AS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SO IF THE COUNTY WERE TO PURSUE ACQUISITION OR THE SCHOOL BOARD, THE MODIFICATION TO THAT ORDINANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED. TO SOME OTHER TYPE OF USE.

>> MR. MINCH? >> I THINK THAT IS A GREAT POINT.

I SEE THIS ONE AS HAVING SOME CHALLENGES, AND THE REGULATORY CHALLENGES ARE ADDED IN ADDITION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO NOT MOVE THIS PROPERTY FORWARD.

NOT THAT WE TABLE IT BUT DENY THIS ONE. >> A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO DENY MOVING FORWARD. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION?

>> I'LL SECOND IT. SO WE CAN GET THIS MOVING. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. MILLER. ALL RIGHT. DISCUSSION ON DENIAL? OKAY. I WILL JUST SAY THAT IF WE FOLLOW THAT THOUGHT EXERCISE OF TABLING, YOU KNOW, MY THOUGHT WOULD BE IF THE SCHOOL BOARD IS INTERESTED, GREAT.

IF THEY ARE NOT, IT WOULD COME BACK TO THE LAMP. ARE WE REALLY WANTING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD? I THINK THAT SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION FOR THIS VOTE.

DISCUSSION? OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

BEFORE WE MOVE TO A VOTE. MR. WATSON? >> TO DENY.

>> CORRECT. >> ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE TO A VOTE.

TO DENY MOVING THE 7070 COUNTY ROAD 16-A PROPERTY VALUATION FORWARD.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE DE DENIAL, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES.

THIS PROPERTY WILL NOT BE MOVING FORWARD TO THE NEXT STEP IN OUR EVALUATION PROCESS.

[4. 5960 Don Manuel Road Property Evaluation and Discussion ]

5960. MR. MILLER? >> COULD I ASK THAT STAFF CONTACT THE SCHOOL BOARD? THEY MIGHT NOT KNOW THIS IS AVAILABLE.

THEY MIGHT WANT IT. >> I CERTAINLY COULD PASS THIS ALONG.

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. ON TO 5960. THE DON MANUEL ROAD PROPERTY.

WE WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO Y YOU. >> OKAY.

THIS ONE, AS YOU CAN TELL, IT IS ON DON MANUEL ROAD. ON THE WESTERN EDGE OF THAT ROAD. JUST WEST OF COUNTY ROAD. 13 SOUTH.

YOU KNOW, HERE IS THE INFORMATION SHEET THAT WAS IN YOUR PACKAGE.

THIS IS GENERAL LOCATION HERE. THERE IS COUNTY ROAD 13 SOUTH. THIS IS JUST NORTH OF STATE ROAD 207. THAT GENERAL AREA. IN THE HASTINGS AREA.

THERE IS DON MANUEL ROAD THERE. THE PARCEL IS THERE OFF THE WESTERN EDGE.

THERE IS CURRENTLY NO ACCESS. THERE IS THE AERIAL. THERE IS SOME EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BETWEEN THE EAST. 13 SOUTH AND THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY DOES ALIGN WITH

[01:00:01]

IT IS A PRESERVATION TRACK AS WELL. THIS PROPERTY DOES FALL WITHIN THE FLORIDA FOREVER CORRIDOR. I BELIEVE IT IS THE ST. JOHN RIVER CORRIDOR.

LET'S SEE. BASICALLY, THE PROPOSED USE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION WOULD BE RECOMMENDED TO BE A PRESERVATION-TYPE USE. DUE TO ITS LACK OF ACCESS AND ROADWAYS. THAT IS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION.

>> MR. MILLER, COMMENT? >> SO IF THIS PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED, AND, SAY, THE LAND ON NORTH AND WEST WAS DISTRICT PROPERTY, HOW DO YOU THINK THIS COMMISSION AND THE STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND-- I MEAN, TO ME, IT TO-- GIVEN TO THE DISTRICT AS PART OF THE LARGER CONSERVATION AREA. THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO MANAGE 6.84 ACRES BY ITSELF. IS THERE-- HAS IT HAPPENED WHERE THE COUNTY HAS BOUGHT-- WELL, I CAN THINK OF MOSES. WHERE THE COUNTY COURT STILL HAS OWNERSHIP.

AND IT IS LEASED DIRECTLY TO DEP. REC AND PARKS.

IS THAT HOW IT WORKS? THIS COULD BE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I GUESS.

THAT IS MY CIRCULAR QUESTION. >> IT COULD BE AS WELLS AS, YOU KNOW, CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN LAMP. AS FAR AS YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND AND THE EVENTUAL CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. ONCE THE COUNTY ACQUIRES IT, IT WOULD BE COUNTY OWNERSHIP.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ONE FROM THEBOARD? OKAY.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO ANY LIVE MAPPING. CORRECT?

IN TERMS OF, LIKE, A GIS MAP OR ANYTHING. >> YEAH.

IT IS LIMITED. LIKE THE OTHER BUILDING THAT WE WERE IN.

WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO POTENTIALLY PULL UP I MAP ON OUR TO SORT OF ZOOM IN THAT WAY.

IF YOU ARE RECOMMENDING THAT. >> OKAY. WELL, I JUST MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE WHEN I ZOOMED OUT FURTHER AWAY FROM THIS PARCEL, YOU KNOW, IT IS ADJACENT TO SOME EXISTING CONSERVATION LANDS WHICH IS A BENEFIT. WHEN YOU CONTINUE TO SEE THE FULL PICTURE WITH THE PRESERVES TO THE NORTH. IT IS ACTUALLY PART OF A MUCH LARGER CONTINUOUS CORRIDOR OF CONNECTED LANDS. WHICH ISN'T NECESSARILY REPRESENTATIVE OF SOME OF THESE ZOOMED-IN MAPS. THAT WAS ONE OF THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THIS PROPERTY. IT IS VERY SMALL. PART OF A MUCH LARGER COMPLEX.

MR. SMITH? COMMENT? >> I JUST THOUGHT WITH LOCATION AND FACTORING IN THE COST FOR IT AND THE FACT THAT IT SHARED MUTUAL INTEREST, THE

CONNECTIVITY, IT SEEMED LIKE THE LOGICAL THING TO PURSUE. >> LET'S GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT, THEN. AND SEE IF WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4. OKAY.

IF NOT, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD HERE. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE ALMOST READY TO MOVE.

>> YEAH. I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE THIS FORWARD.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MILLER. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT

MOTION? >> I'LL SECOND. >> MR. SMITH.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS PROPERTY? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE TO VOTE. TO MOVE THE 5960 DON MANUEL ROAD PROPERTY TO SECONDARY EVALUATION

[5. 8805 A1A South Property Evaluation and Discussion]

AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY.

THAT IS ONE NAY FROM MR. MINCH. THE MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL CONTINUE EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION, INCLUDING RANKING OF THIS PROPERTY AT A FUTURE MEETING.

[01:05:08]

THIS IS 8805A1A SOUTH. OKAY. TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU, RYAN.

>> SURE. THIS ONE IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PART OF THE COUNTY.

THE INFORMATION SHEET THERE. HERE IS WHERE IT IS LOCATED. SO IT IS 8805, A1A SOUTH IS THE PROPERTY. THIS IS A VACANT PROPERTY. THERE WAS A DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT THAT WAS THERE, I BELIEVE, TWO YEARS AGO.

MORE ORLESS. SO IT IS RELATIVELY-- IN A BEAP BEACH-TYPE SETTING THERE.

ON THE INLET. THE RIVER RIGHT THERE. IT IS ADJACENT TO THE AREA.

RIGHT ALONG A-1-A SOUTH. HERE IS THE AERIAL. SURROUNDED BY EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. YOU SEE IT IS AVANT. YOU SEE IT IS VACANT.

YOU HAVE A-1-A AND THE BEGINNING OF THE BRIDGE. THERE IS THE INLET JUST TO THE NORTH. EXISTING-- THERE WAS A RESTAURANT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. DISTURBED SOIL THERE. A HANDFUL OF TREES HAVE GROWN UP IN THE MEANTIME. MOSTLY A VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE. THERE ARE EXISTING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH.

JUST ADJACENT TO IT. YOU SEE THE PLAT THERE. YOU KNOW, THOSE PIECES OF PROPERTIES ARE ACTUALLY IN COMBINATION WITH THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST.

IT IS ALL THE SAME OWNERSHIP. YOU SEE THERE IS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE THERE.

TO THE WEST. I BELIEVE THAT IS ALL WITHIN THAT SAME OWNERSHIP.

THERE WO WOULDN'T BE DIRECT ACCS ON THE WATER. YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET APPROVAL OR AUTHORIZATION FROM THAT PROPERTY IN ORDER TO ACCESS THAT WATERWAY.

>> A LOT OF QUESTIONS. MR. SMITH, THEN MR. MINCH. >> THAT WAS THE QUESTION I HAD IN MY REVIEW. THE WATER ACCESS IS, IN FACT, RESTRICTED.

DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT RIGHT? >> YEAH. YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS. AGAIN, THOSE ARE EXISTING PLATTED LOTS.

SORT OF A BIG SITUATION THERE JUST OUTSIDE WITHIN THE WATER BODY THERE.

>> YUP. >> SO THAT IS SORT OF A RU YEEK SETUP ON THIS PROPERTY.

A UNIQUE SETUP ON THIS PROPERTY. IN ADDITION, PARKS AND REC DID REVIEW.

THIS THEY STATE THAT THE PARCEL DOES NOT PROVIDE DIRECT BEACH ACCESS, COULD POSSIBLY SERVE AS OVERFLOW PARKING FOR FISHING ON THE BRIDGE. IF PURCHASED, IT COULD BE USED AS BEACH PARKING. THERE ARE CHALLENGES TO THIS LOCATION TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

THERE ARE CHALLENGES. I BELIEVE, THERE ARE BENEFITS THAT WOULD BE GAINED FOR JUST PARKING, IN GENERAL. THERE ARE PASSIVE RECREATIONAL USES EXISTING IN THE VICINITY.

YOU HAVE A PARKING AREA THAT IS SET UP IN THE STATE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

TO THE EAST. THE OTHER SIDE OF A-1-A. THAT IS QUITE POPULAR.

AGAIN, THIS COULD BE SORT OF OVERFLOW PARKING FOR THAT AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, THE BEACH, FISHERMEN THERE. AS WELL AS FISHERMEN ON THE BRIDGE.

IT HAS BECOME A POPULAR AREA. ESPECIALLY ON THE WEEKENDS. IF ANY BUILDINGS ARE PROPOSED, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT. THAT IS POST-ACQUISITION OF THE COUNTY. IT IS IN FLOOD ZONE AE-7. THERE IS A VERY SMALL AREA OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THAT IS IN VE-FLOOD ZONE. THAT IS WAVE ACTION.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU ARE RIGHT THERE CLOSE TO THE INLET. YOU ARE GOING TO GET SOME OF THAT. THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE.

YOU KNOW, OTHER THINGS ON HERE, JUST TO SORT OF CONCLUDE. YOU COULD HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS LIKE PAVILIONS OUT THERE. YOU KNOW, OTHER TYPE PASSIVE USES ON THE PROPERTY.

[01:10:05]

>> THANKS, RYAN. MR. MINCH, THEN MR. MILLER. >> YEAH.

I JUST THINK THAT THIS PROPERTY IS EXTREMELY UNIQUE. I MEAN, IT SITS RIGHT WHERE THE OCEAN IS COMING INTO THE INTRACOASTAL. I IMAGINE THAT DIVERSITY OF FISH THAT, YOU KNOW, COME IN AND OUT OF THAT INLET PROBABLY MAKE FOR A VERY FUN AND EXCITING SPOT TO FISH. I GREW UP FISHING THIS AREA. THIS AREA HAS SOME OF THE MOST ENJOYABLE FISHING AROUND. IT IS A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A UNIQUE PARCEL TO REALLYK A SENG WAIT WHAT THE COUNTY IS ABOUT. AND PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FISHERMEN TO HAVE A PLACE AT A VERY AWESOME LOCATION, TO DO THEIR FAVORITE HOBBY.

EVEN IF IT'S GOT SOME, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT OF REGULATORY THINGS TO WORK THROUGH. GIVEN IT IS SO UNIQUE, THE STAFF SHOULD TRY TO WORK THROUGH THAT.

YOU KNOW, COMMUNICATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE WEST AND SEE WHAT CAN BE WORKED OUT TO

MAKE THIS A GREAT LOCATION FOR THE COUNTY. >> THANK YOU, MR. MINCH.

MR. MILLER? >> I WAS WAITING FOR RYAN TO FINISH WRITING.

YOU GOOD? SO IF I UNDERSTAND IT, THOSE PLATS, THOSE MORE OR LESS NORTH-SOUTH LOTS. IS IT SHARED LIKE 50% UNDIVIDED INTEREST? DO YOU KNOW HOW THAT WORKS? HOW YOU WOULD-- I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE IF THINGS --

>> I DO KNOW FROM THE PLATITTE, CLICKING ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER INFORMATION, THOSE ARE ALL PRIVATELY OWNED THAT ARE NOT PART OF THIS PROPERTY. AND IN ADDITION, I BELIEVE THERE IS SOMEBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL.

>> ALL RIGHT. TO FINISH OUT MY THOUGHTS. I AGREE WITH TRAVIS.

YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T SEE PROPERTIES LIKE THIS VERY OFTEN. EVEN IF YOU COULD GET OUT TO T THE-- YOU CAN EASILY BUILD A CANTILEVERED FISHING PEER PIER AND PEOPLE WOULD BE FIGHTING TO FISH THERE. THAT IS GREAT FISHING. NO QUESTION.

DEFINITELY COULDN'T PROVIDE WATER ACCESS. THE CURRENT THERE IS BRUTAL.

VERY DANGEROUS. >> YES. I ALSO AGREE.

THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING PROPERTY. I WILL SAY WHEN I READ ALL THE MENTIONS OF THIS BEENING A PARKING AREA, IT MADE ME CRINGE A BIT.

FROM THE LAMP PERSPECTIVE, I CERTAINLY AN ANTICIPATE THE NEED FOR PARKING.

BUT JUST THOSE ARE THINGS WE CAN TALK ABOUT FURTHER DOWN THE LINE.

BUT BEFORE WE GET TO YOU, MS. KAUFMAN, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WANT TO OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ONE OF THE LAND OWNER REPRESENTATIVES TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS PROPERTY.

I HAVE A CARD FROM KRISTEN WHITE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP.

F WITH SOME COMMENTS. INTRODUCE YOURSELF. F CLEAR.

>> HI THERE. I'M KRISTEN WHITE. 67 SALTPOINT.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. I'M A BROKER ASSOCIATE WITH BERKESHIRE HATH AWAY. I'M THEIR LISTING AGENT. THEY WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE THAT PROPERTY TO BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. IT IS SOMETHING THEY HAVE ENJOYED FOR OVER 30 YEARS. THE WAY I ENVISION THE RESEARCH, I DID LOOK INTO THE RECREATION, THE FISHING. YOU HAVE SOME PRETTY REMARKABLE, HISTORIC MOMENTS THAT COME ALONG WITH THE PROPERTY. YOU HAVE ALL HEARD OF THE MASSACRE.

AN OBSTRUCTED VIEW, LOOKING DOWN THE RIVER TO THE FORT. IT IS A GREAT WAY TO INTRODUCE OUR COUNTY TO TRAVELERS FROM THE SOUTH COMING UP THE HISTORIC ROUTE.

I ALMOST ENVISION A PLACE WHERE THERE IS THE PAVILIONS TO TAKE IN THE WATER VIEWS.

FISH. MAYBE SOME HISTORICAL MARKERS. THE COMMUNITY OF SUMMER HAVEN IS A HISTORIC COMMUNITY FOR THR FL AND REALLY EDUCATE PEOPLE AS THEY ENTER OUR COUNTY, COMING FROM THE SOUTH. AND JUST GIVEN THAT THE VIEW FROM THAT PROPERTY IS

[01:15:02]

IT IS ALSO-- SORRY. IT HAS CHT-- THAT PERMITS THOSE RECREATIONAL USES.

>> THANK YOU, MS. WHITE. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MS. WHITE?

I SEE MR. WATSON. >> I RECOMMEND WE MOVE THIS PROPERTY FORWARD.

>> OKAY. (LAUGHTER) DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO

ASK OF MS. WHITE AT THIS TIME? >> HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS TO UNDERSTAND SORT OF THEIR HOPES OR THEIR IMPRESSIONS OF WHAT COULD BE USED THERE? I JUST WONDER ABOUT RESIDENTIAL BEING NEXT TO A PUBLIC SPACE.

>> THAT IS MY CONCERN. >> I HAVE NOT HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

PRIOR TO IT BEING VACANT, IT WAS A VERY POPULAR BUSY RESTAURANT. WITHOUT MUSIC AND OUTDOOR SEATING AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. AND IT IS STALE COMMERCIAL ZONING, A RESTAURANTS IS STILL AN OPTION FOR THAT PROPERTY. IN MY ESTIMATION, THE NEIGHBORS MIGHT BE MORE INCLINED TO ENJOY A PARK NEXT-DOOR THAN ANOTHER RESTAURANT.

>> SURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MR. MILLER?

>> I THINK I FILED MENTION THAT IT IS ALONG THE SCENIC BYWAY. >> YES.

>> MS. ROBBINS? >> YEAH. I DO NOT KNOW THE OVERLAY OF THE SUMMER HAVEN-MANAGED RETREAT FUNDING. BUT LAST SESSION, WE APPROVED, I THINK, $10 MILLION. FOR ACQUISITION FOR PROPERTIES THAT WERE THREATENED.

AND THAT COULD BE A POTENTIAL-- AGAIN, NO IDEA WHAT THE OVERLAY IS.

THERE IS THE POTENTIAL THERE FOR MANAGEMENT. >> YEAH.

THAT IS A GOOD POINT. F DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE WOULD CONSIDER IN THIS FOOTPRINT.

QUESTIONS FOR MS. WHITE? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE CAN ALSO GO AHEAD AND TAKE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PROPERTY WHILE WE ARE AT IT.

>> I SUPPORT THIS ACQUISITION. IT IS A WONDERFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY.

PLEASE DON'T LET THEM PUT UP A PARKING LOT. WE ARE ALREADY BLESSED WITH PARKING LOTS ON ANASTASIA ISLAND IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. I CAN'T IMAGINE PUTTING A PARKING LOT THERE. IT-- ACCESS FOR THE FISHERMEN. MAYBE A FISHING PIER.

A MONUMENT TO THE MURDER OF 270 FRENCHMEN. OF COURSE, THE HISTORIANS WILL TELL YOU THAT IT WAS MILITARY NECESSITY. WE HAD TO KILL THOSE FRENCHMEN.

BASICALLY, THE ORDERS THAT WERE GIVEN TO ME MEN DEZ WHEN HE CAME TO FLORIDA WERE TO KILL ALL THE ROMAN CATHOLIC-- KILL EVERYBODY THAT WASN'T A ROMAN CATHOLIC. HE DID LET THE-- LET SOME SURVIVE IN THE MASSACRE. HE ALLOWED SOME TO LIVE. THTHAT IS A HISTORIC EVENT.

WE ARE NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE IT TOOK PLACE. IT NEEDS TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE NATIONAL MONUMENT. AND PEOPLE COULD WALK ALONG THE PIER THERE.

AND SEE HISTORIC SIGNAGE. AND IMAGERY. REMINDING THEM OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE HATE EACH OTHER BECAUSE OF SOMETHING LIKE RELIGION.

AND WHO HAS WHAT RELIGION. NOT EVEN-- ALL CHRISTIANS WERE INVOLVED IN THIS EVENT.

SPANISH WERE CATHOLICS. HUGH NOTES WERE PROTESTANT. THEY HATED EACH OTHER BECAUSE OF HOW THEY WORSHIPED GOD. THAT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO CONSIDER RIGHT NOW.

IN THIS STATE. AS DIVIDED AS WE ARE. BY HATERS.

INCLUDING-- WELL, ST. AUGUSTINE CITY COMMISSION HAVE HONORED LGBTQ PRIDE.

OUR CITY COMMISSION WOULDN'T ISSUE A PROCLAMATION FOR PRIDE. THERE IS A PRIDE WEEK IN JACKSONVILLE THIS WEEK. THE MAYOR IS THE LEADER OF THE PRIDE EVENT.

[01:20:10]

YES. I SUPPORT THIS ACQUISITION. PLEASE DON'T RECOMMEND THAT IT BE A PARKING LOT. THAT WOULD BE MONEY DAY. YOU WOULD LIVE TO REGRET IT.

SO WOULD YOUR GRANDCHILDREN. LET'S APPLY THE 7TH GENERATION TEST IN EVERYTHING WE DO IN THIS COMMITTEE. LET'S GET THIS ONE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> NICOLE CROSBY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR EARLIER RECOMMENDATION. I APPRECIATE IT.

AND THANK YOU. MS. KAUFMAN FOR NOMINATING ME. I CHAIR OTHER PEOPLE'S-- I SHARE OTHER PEOPLE'S EXCITEMENT ABOUT THIS PROPERTY. IT SEEMS LIKE A GREAT CANDIDATE TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE. I WOULD ASK A QUESTION. IT IS GOING TO REVEAL MY IGNORANCE. YOU KNOW, HOW QUICKLY OR HOW COULD YOU GO ABOUT DETERMINING IF THERE MIGHT BE MATCHING FUNDS? THE PRICE TAG ON IT QUICKLY FLASHED ON THE LIST OF DESCRIPTIVE LISTS. IT LOOKD LIKE IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD, YOU KNOW, MAKE OUR DOLLARS GO FURTHER THAT WAY. THAT IS JUST SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT. HOW AND WHEN WOULD YOU-- COULD YOU GO ABOUT GETTING MATCHING

FUNDS FOR IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MS. CROSBY.

>> MY NAME IS PATRICK HAMILTON. I HAVE BEEN A REAL ESTATE BROKER IN CRESCENT CAN HAVE BEACH AND SUMMER HAVEN FOR THE LAST-- YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. THE REASON I THINK YOU SHOULD BUY THIS IS BECAUSE IT IS THE BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR THAT FEEDS FROM THE OCEAN TO THE INTRACOASTAL. WE SPENT YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS PUTTING TOGETHER THE CONSERVATION CORRIDOR THAT EXTENDS FROM SOUTHERN ST. JOHNS COUNTY UP THROUGH MOSES CREEK TO THE SHORES. AND AGAIN, I DON'T WANT YOU TO MAKE THAT A PARKING LOT.

I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE YOU SEE THAT AS A CAVEAT. IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE-- WITH THE HIGH PRICE LIKE THIS, IF YOU ARE NOT CAREFUL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING VERY BIG AND VERY INTRUSIVE TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THAT.

THE FAMILY THAT OWNS THE LAND TO THE NORTH WERE THE PEOPLE WHO HAD THE RESTAURANT WHEN WE WERE CHILDREN. IT IS A TRAILER PARK TO THE W WEST.

SHE STILL LIVES THERE. AND WHEN I WAS FIVE YEARS OLD, WE BOUGHT A BEACH HOUSE, A LITTLE SHACK AT CRESCENT BEACH. ON FRIDAYS, WE WOULD EAT THERE. ONE SUMMER, AN ANCHOR CAME UP ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BRIDGE. WE WOULD HAVE TO SIT THERE AND EAT OUR SUPPER.

WE WOULD RACE ACROSS THE BRIDGE AND GO DOWN. IT WAS A 12-FOOT-LONG ANCHOR.

IT ENDED UP COMING UP OUT OF GROUND. AND THE HIGH SCHOOL KIDS DUG UP THAT ANCHOR ALL SUMMER. THEN THEY GOT THESE BIG RINGS OF CHAIN THAT CAME OFF OF IT.

AND THEN THE NORTHEASTERN STARTED GETTING COVERED UP FOR SAND.

THEY SOLD THAT ANCHOR FOR $100. IT WAS ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD.

SO WHEN WE HAD OUR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MEETINGS IN SOUTH ANASTASIA, THEY TOLD THE STORY ABOUT THAT ANCHOR. THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, THE MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGIST SAID "I WISH YOU STILL HAD THE ANCHOR SO WE COULD SEE IT." THE NEIGHBOR SAID "OH, WE HAVE LOTS OF PICTURES IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT." FROM WHEN WE WERE KIDS.

IT IS HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT. I SAT ON THE SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMITTEE FOR 7 YEARS UNTIL WE GOT IT, THE FEDERAL SCENIC BIWAY APPROVED. IT IS REALLY IMPORTAT TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING SOMETHING TERRIBLE. AND WHEN EVENTUALLY, THE BIG PIECE OF LAND NEXT-DOOR COMES FOR SALE, THEN IT IS GOING TO BE THE BIG FIGHT OF EVERYBODY IN THE SOUTH PART OF THE COUNTY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AT THAT INTERSECTION OF THE PROPERTY.

SO THIS IS MY FIRST MEETING. THANK YOU GUYS FOR DOING GOOD WORKS.

TIS NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED. I HOPE YOU CAN PUT SOME CAVEATS ON IT THAT, NO, WE ARE TRYING TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING TOO INTENSIVE. I HOPE YOU CAN PREVENT THAT.

IT SHOULDN'T BE A PARKING LOT. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND PROTECTED.

[01:25:01]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? OKAY. I THINK THAT IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF OUR PUBLIC SUPPORT CATEGORY. THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. THANK YOU ALL FOR THOSE COMMENTS. I SEE MR. MINCH AND THEN MS. KAUFMAN.

WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT. >> I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT I THINK WE SHOULD PURSUE THIS.

VERY DEFINITELY. AS CONSERVATION LAND. I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE A BUILDING BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY. I REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS A RESTAURANT.

I ATE IN THAT RESTAURANT. IT'S AN INCREDIBLY UNIQUE LOCATION.

HISTORIC, SCENIC, RECREATION. BUT I REMEMBER-- I BELIEVE IT WAS HURRICANE MATTHEW.

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HURRICANE IRMA. I THINK IT WAS MATTHEW WHEN THE BUILDING WAS DESTROYED. YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORICAL MARKET VALUE RIGHT NOW, IT IS $300,000 PLUS. BUT IT WAS OVER A MILLION WHEN IT HAD A BUILDING ON IT. UP UNTIL 2016, YOU COULD SEE THAT IT DID HAVE THAT VALUE BECAUSE IT HAD THE RESTAURANT ON IT. AND NOW AS CONSERVATION LAND, YES, IT HAS A LOWER VALUE. I DO REMEMBER SEEING ON THE NEWS WHEN THAT BUILDING WAS DESTROYED AND THE OWNERS WERE INSIDE, AND IT WAS HEARTBREAKING TO SEE THEM GOING THROUGH ALL THE DEBRIS AND THE RUBBLE, JUST WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN AGAIN. I THINK IT IS IN A VERY PRECARIOUS LOCATION FOR A BUILDING. FOR CONSERVATION LAND, I THINK

IT IS AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COUNTY. >> THANK YOU, MS. KAUFMAN.

MR. MINCH, DID YOU COMMENT? OKAY. >> YEAH.

A FEW POINTS. I THINK FOR ME, HEARING THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS EXCITING BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE A BETTER IDEA HOW TO RANK PUBLIC SUPPORT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S STR STRANGE. I THINK IT IS A RESULT OF HAVING A PROPERTY THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED NEAR THE PUBLIC WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. AND SO FOR ME, I KNOW I'M EXITING THIS BOARD. THE ONE THING THAT I ALWAYS THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT IS WHETHER THESE PROPERTIES ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO SERVE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING FOR THEM.

AND SO FOR THIS ONE, I LOVE THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE SURROUNDING IT.

I LOVE TO SEE THAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SHOWING UP IN SUPPORT OF IT.

SO AGAIN, I HOPE WE CAN LEAN PERHAPS MORE SO GOING FORWARD ON THE PUBLIC SUPPORT CRITERIA.

AND AGAIN, IF YOU GO BACK TO SOME OF THE PAST COMMISSION MEETINGS, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR SOME OF THE PROPERTIES WE APPROVED. IN FACT, I THINK THERE WAS SOME VOTES OR SOME COMMENTS AGAINST THEM. THAT IS POINT ONE.

POINT NUMBER TWO IS THE OTHER THING I LOVE TO HEAR HERE IS ABOUT THE CULTURAL RESOURCES.

YOU KNOW, LOOKING THROUGH THE PACKET, READING THROUGH THE PACKET, I HAD NO IDEA YOU HAD A DIRECT VIEW OF-- FORGIVE ME, THE NAME OF THE-- THE FORT. YOU KNOW, OF COURSE I HEARD ABOUT THE SLAUGHTER THERE. ED'S COMMENT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS BRINGING THAT TO THE& FRONT ON THIS PROPERTY, SO THAT PEOPLE CAN KIND OF IMAGINE IT AND SEE IT, THAT IS THE TYPE OF EXCITING HISTORY WE HAVE HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. I KNOW WE HAVE LOST AN ARCHAEOLOGIST ON STAFF. HE WAS A GREAT ARCHAEOLOGIST, BUT THAT IS THE SORT OF THING WE WILL PROBABLY NEED TO FIND A WAY TO BE MENTIONED IN THE PACKET. YOU KNOW, AS WE ARE REVIEWING PROPERTY. BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE MAY NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNER WHO KNOWS IT OR ED MAY NOT SHOW UP ONE MEETING. WITH ALL HIS KNOWLEDGE.

THAT WE MISS THAT COMPONENT. THE CULTURAL RESOURCE COMPONENT, AGAIN, I CAN'T SAY ENOUGH ABOUT IT. I THINK THE MARKET PRICE IS SPOT-ON.

I WOULD NEVER SUGGEST IT SHOULD BE OFFERED FOR $300,000. I THINK WHEREAS PAT HAMILTON-- HOW MANY TIMES COULD YOU SELL A PROPERTY FOR $300? PROBABLY BY THE END OF THIS AFTERNOON. RIGHT? SO AGAIN, WE COULD HAVE AN APPRAISAL. LET'S STAY FOCUSED ON THE APPRAISAL.

TO DETERMINE WHAT REAL ESTATE VALUES ARE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MINCH. AND I THINK I HAVE HEARD A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM THE BOARD.

I WOULD ASK US TO MOVE THIS ALONG TO APPROVAL. I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

[01:30:07]

(INAUDIBLE). >> OKAY. THANK YOU DO, WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU, MR. MINCH. ALL RIGHT. ANY FINAL DISCUSSION ON THAT

[6. 2202 Bishop Estates Road Property Evaluation and Discussion]

ALL NOSE FAVOR OF MOVING THE 8805 PROPERTY TO FURTHER EVALUATION AT AN UPCOMING

MEETING, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AWD ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. THAT ONE IS APPROVED.

VERY EXCITING. WE WILL CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT AT A FUTURE MEETING.

WITH REMOVE ON TO OUR FINAL AGENDA ITEM. WHICH IS ANOTHER VERY INTERESTING PROPERTY. THE 20 R 2202 BISHOP ESTATES ROAD PROPERTY.

LY ACTUALLY TURN THIS OVER TO MS. ROBBINS TO INTRODUCE. OR HOWEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO

MOVE. >> RYAN, DO YOU WANT TO START WITH THE OVERVIEW?

THENLY PICK UP? >> SURE. I CAN DO THAT.

SO THIS PROPERTY WAS-- THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED BY MS. ROBBINS VIA THE OWNER.

AND HERE IS THE INFORMATION SHEET. SO HERE IS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. ROUGHLY 70 ACRES IN TOTAL. SOUTHERN MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS-- IT IS ON BISHOP ESTATES ROAD. IN THE CREEK AREA.

I WAS GOING TO SAY IT IS MOSTLY A PASTURE. IT'S ACTUALLY USED FOR AGRICULTURAL VARIOUS USES. IT IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF THE CONFLUENCE OF THOSE TWO WATER BODIES IN NORTHWEST ST. JOHNS COUNTY. IT STRADDLES ALONG THE CREEK PLANTATION. DRI. OR PUD.

THAT IS ALONG THE EAST AND WEST BOUNDARIES. SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES.

AND SO THE DISTINCTION THERE IS THAT WE HAVE THE LARGE 67-ACRE AREA THAT IS THE EXISTING FARM/AGRICULTURAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BISHOP ESTATES ROAD, ROUGHLY THREE ACRES OR SO IS A RESIDENTIAL LOT.

IT'S GOT ONE PROPERTY-- I'M SORRY. ONE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY. THE WESTERN PROPERTY IS VACANT. AND THAT STRUCTURE IS ON THE EASTERN PROPERTY. AGAIN, THAT IS AT THE NORTHERN END OF BISHOP ESTATES ROAD.

ENVIRONMENTAL-WISE, THE PROPERTY IN GENERAL, WE HAVE A CANOPY OF TREES ALONG SORT OF THE WESTERN-CENTRAL AREA THERE. MOSTLY PINE TREES. THEN IT TRANSITIONS ALONG WHERE YOU GOT THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USES. IT IS HARD WOOD.

MOSTLY OAKS IN THAT AREA. IF YOU GO TOWARD THE EASTERN PERIPHERY THERE, THE NORTHEASTERN AREA, YOU HAVE THE NATURAL AREA. PINE FLATWOODS.

THEN IT SLOPES OFF TO FLORA BRANCH. ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE THERE INTO THE CREEK. VERY UNIQUE PROPERTY. THERE IS NOT MANY OTHER COUNTY-OWNED FACILITIES. THE CLOSEST ONE IS ROUGHLY A MILE TO THE WEST.

THAT IS ACTIVE RECREATION SITE. SO SORT OF LACKING FOR THIS TYPE OF PASSIVE RECREATIONAL USE.

I DEAD GET A CHANCE TO VISIT THE PROPERTY. MS. ROBBINS INVITED ME OUT THERE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND GOT A GOOD INFORMATION SESSION ON THAT.

SORT OF WALKED AROUND. IT IS A VERY UNIQUE PROPERTY. FOR THE COUNTY TO POTENTIALLY LOOK AT. AND THE LAMP BOARD. I WILL BE HERE TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. MS. ROBBINS CAN TAKE IT FROM HERE.

>> OKAY. SO EVERYONE RECEIVED KIND OF A FACT SHEET.

I WANT TO GO OVER THAT. JUST A LITTLE BIT. AND CLARK BAILEY IS HERE, TOO FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. BUT BASICALLY, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY HERE, YOU WILL SEE IN YOUR DAY THAT SHEET THAT WE THINK THAT IT WOULD APPRAISE AT ABOUT $20 MILLION. AND THE FAMILY HAS AGREED TO BASICALLY PUT UP HALF THE VALUE OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS A MATCH. SO IT WOULD BE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF

[01:35:06]

SO THERE IS SEVERAL PHASES THAT IT COULD BE SLIT INTO FOR ACQUISITION-- SPLIT INTO FOR ACQUISITION PURPOSES. THE ACQUISITION CYCLE OPENED TODAY.

THIS PROJECT DOES SCORE REALLY WELL FOR THAT. HOWEVER, EACH COUNTY AND PROJECT CAN ONLY ASK FOR $5 MILLION. THERE IS NOT VERY MUCH GOING ON THIS YEAR.

FCT WAS ONLY FUNDED AT $15 MILLION FOR THE YEAR. EACH COUNTY CAN ONLY ASK FOR $5.

SO IF WE WERE TO PUT IN AN APPLICATION FOR FCT ACQUISITION, I WOULD RECOMMEND PHASING IT.

POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT THE MAP, WE HAVE THE LARGE OPEN BOTTOM PIECE.

AND THEN THE TWO PARCELS JUST SOUTH OF BISHOP ESTATES ROAD. THEY ARE-- THE TWO REAL ESTATE NUMBERS TOTAL THERE. THE BIG OPEN SPACE AND THE SMALLER OPEN SPACE ALONG BISHOP ESTATES ARE BOTH THE SAME NUMBER. THEY COUNT AS ONE PARCEL.

THOSE WOULD MAKE A REALLY GOOD PHASE ONE. AND THEN PHASE TWO COULD COME IN IN A YEAR OR SO. IF WE WANTED TO PHASE HATE THE WAY AND NOT PRE-ACQUIRE IT AND THEN THE CREEK PARCELS WOULD MAKE A PHASE TWO. ALSO THE FAMILY IS WILLING TO ACCEPT A PAYMENT PLAN OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. YOU KNOW, THEY KNOW WHAT OUR BUDGET IS. THEY WOULD ACCEPT A PAYMENT PLAN OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS.

IF WE DIDN'T GET GRANT FUNDING OR THE COUNTY CHOSE NOT TO PURSUE THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON.

THEY ARE WILLING TO DO THAT. WE DO REQUEST A LIFE ESTATE FOR SARAH BAILEY.

SHE IS 97. CLARK WILL TALK ABOUT HER IN A SECOND.

AS IT TRANSITIONS FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE, ANY FUNDS GENERATED WOULD GO BACK INTO THE RANCH FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND BE REINVESTED IN THE RANCH. THERE ARE SOME PRIVATE USES GOING ON THERE RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE QUITE A NUMBER OF BORDERS AND PEOPLE WHO STORE THEIR HORSE TRAILERS THERE. THAT WOULD BE PARTIALLY PHASED OUT TO GET TO A MANAGEABLE SIZE OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS. IF THE COUNTY DECIDES TO GO WITH A LUMP SUM ACQUISITION ON THIS, THE BAILEY FAMILY WILL ESTABLISH AN ENDOWMENT TO OPERATE AND FUND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RANCH.

SUPPORTING A NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP THAT COUNTY TYPICALLY DOESN'T WANT TO HANDS-ON MANAGE SOMETHING QUITE OF THIS SIZE. BUT WE'VE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BAILEY FAMILY FOUNDATION TO COME BACK IN AND MANAGE THE PROPERTY.

ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY. WHICH WOULD MEAN A CONTINUATION OF LIVE-ON MANAGERS AT THE SITE.

BECAUSE OF WHERE IT IS. AND THE HORSES AND THE CATTLE THERE.

AND EVERYTHING. IT DOES REQUIRE A LIVE-ON MANAGER.

WE HAVE AN EXISTING PARTNERSHIP OUT THERE WITH A NONPROFIT EQUINE THERAPY PROGRAM.

IT IS A WONDERFUL PROGRAM. I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO COME OUT AND VISIT AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE KIDS. IT IS A WONDERFUL PROGRAM. THERE IS AN EXISTING EASEMENT, AND IT SHOWS UP IN SOME OF THE MAPS IF YOUR DOCUMENTS. THERE IS A 20-FOOT-WIDE BUFFER ALL THE WAY AROUND THE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. AS PART-- IT BELONGS TO THE CVD.

THERE IS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FAMILY MANAGEMENT AND THEN THE CVD TO USE.

THAT IT IS CURRENTSLY USED AS TRAILS. THERE IS ALSO-- ACROSS THE WOODED PARCEL, BELOW BISHOP ESTATES ROAD, THERE IS A TEN-FOOT WIDE EASEMENT GRANTED THERE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS EVEN A MAP OF IT.

IT IS AN ALLOWED USE. TO GO ACROSS TO THE CREEK. THE CREEK ACROSS THE PROPERTY.

IF WE WANTED TO DO A BOARDWALK OR KAYAK LAUNCH. IT IS KAYAKABLE ALL THE WAY UP TO RACETRACK ROAD. I HAVE DONE THAT. THERE IS A LIST OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. AFTER FUNDING. TO, YOU KNOW, APPROVE ACCESS RIGHT NOW, IT IS A ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT DRIVEWAY. WHOEVER IS NOT ON THE DRIVEWAY ITSELF HAS TO SIT ON BISHOP ESTATES ROAD WAITING FOR TRAFFIC.

[01:40:02]

THERE HAS BEEN TALK, AND WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH JEA ABOUT DOING A SOLAR POWER ROOF ON A COVERED ARENA. AND THEN WE DON'T USE MUCH LEAKTRIESOY OUT FROM.

-- ELECTRICITY OUT THERE. WE COULD PROBABLY POWER THE WHOLE RANCH WITH THE SOLAR PROJECT. THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME IMPROVED DRAINAGE TO MANAGE THE WASTE FROM THE CATTLE AREA. THROUGH AN EXISTING HISTORIC DRAIN DITCH THAT IS KIND OF FILLED IN. AN EXISTING POND AND TREATMENT OPPORTUNITIES.

RIGHT NOW THERE IS SEVERAL SEPTIC TANKS ON THE PROPERTY. AND WE WOULD DEFINITELY BE ABLE TO USE THE FUNDING TO EITHER REDUCE SEPTIC OR CONNECT OVER TO SEWER WHICH IS AVAILABLE, AS YOU CAN SEE, ALL AROUND THE PARK. LOTS OF GREAT OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROGRAMMING.

WITH THE EXISTING EQUINE THERAPY, HORSEBACK-RIDING LESSONS.

TRAIL RIDES ARE GOING ON THERE ALREADY. THERE IS ALREADY A COMMUNITY AND THERAPEUTIC GARDENING PROGRAM. YOU WILL SEE PICTURES OF THAT HAPPENING.

THE EXISTING RETREAT FACILITY-- A RETREAT FACILITY AND SOME OF THE EXISTING TINY HOME STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY, OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHORT-TERM CAMPING, ARTISTS AND RESIDENTS.

EXTENSION OFFICE, AGRICULTURAL, INTERNSHIPS ON SOME OF THE AR ARTS-- OF THE CATTLE INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY. THERE IS TWO NEARBY HISTORIC SITES.

THERE IS AN INDIAN-- THERE IS OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTERPRETATION OF THAT.

SUMMER CAMPS. THERE IS SO MUCH THAT COULD BE DONE OUT THERE.

I DO SAY "WE," BECAUSE IN FULL DISCLOSURE, I DO LIVE ON THE PROPERTY.

I HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST IN IT. I DO LIVE THERE.

HERE WE ARE. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I SEE MR. MINCH HAS REQUESTED

TO SPEAK. ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION? >> YEAH.

I JUST WANT TO SAY WHAT AN EXCITING PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, JUST LOOKING AT ALL THE HOMES, RESIDENCES AROUND THAT, I'M SURE, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE COUNTY DOES, THAT IS GOING TO BRING A LOT OF BENEFIT AND VALUE TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE TAXPAYERS.

I THINK THE FACT THAT IT IS A ALSO-- IT BRINGS WATER ACCESS TO THAT LOCATION, IN ADDITION TO ALL THE LAND, I MEAN, WHAT AN AMAZING, AMAZING PROPERTY. MY ONLY CONCERN WITH IT WHICH IS NOT ANY REASON NOT TO PURSUE IT, IN FACT, THE COUNTY SHOULD BE RUSHING TO PURSUE IT.

I FEEL LIKE IT IS A LITTLE BIGGER THAN THE LAMP PROGRAM AND LONGER-TERM, LIKE, THAN WHAT OUR PROGRAM IS DESIGNED FOR. GIVEN ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES WE HAVE.

BUT I COULDN'T SAY ENOUGH ABOUT THE FACT THAT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE OFFERINGS, THE CONCESSIONS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS MAKING IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, KIND OF REDUCING ITS ACQUISITION COST AND PERHAPS EVEN SOME SORT OF FINANCING, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT MAY BE AN OPTION.

I THINK THE COUNTY SHOULD ABSOLUTELY JUMP ON THIS. AGAIN, I TWHISH PROPERTY WAS AVAILABLE-- I WISH THIS PROPERTY WAS AVAILABLE TO US LAST YEAR. BEFORE WE STARTED PURCHASING THE

OTHERS. >> THANK YOU, MR. MINCH. OH, SURE.

GO AHEAD. >> JUST A QUICK COMMENT. THIS IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY, ACTUALLY, AND THE LAST ONE, THIS IS WHY THERE IS A LAMP BOARD. I MEAN, THESE ARE, LIKE-- THIS IS, LIKE, YOU KNOW, YAY. THERE YOU GO. MY TWO CENTS WORTH.

>> ALL RIGHT. I DO HAVE A SPEAKER CARD. FROM MR. CLARK BAILEY.

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU. >> CLARK BAILEY. 2177 BISHOP ESTATES ROAD.

FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR SERVING ON THIS BOARD. THANK YOU FOR THE PEOPLE WHO CAME OUT IN SUPPORT OF THE OTHER MY MOTHER, I THINK, HELPED ESTABLISH THIS LAMP BOARD.

[01:45:01]

AND SHE WISHES SHE COULD BE HERE TODAY. JUST A FEW THINGS TO GO OVER.

WHICH I THINK MOST OF IT HAS BEEN COVERED. THE ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT.

THERE WOULD BE ACCESS ON THE CREEK LOTS AND THEN ALSO ACCESS TO THE FLOOR BRANCH.

I WOULD PREFER NOT TO HAVE MOTORIZED VEHICLES. JUST CANOES, KAYAKS, PADDLE-BOARDING. THE LOT IS OFFERED-- THERE IS A LITTLE COVE THERE.

IT IS IDEAL FOR PADDLE-BOARDING. YOU DON'T GET A LOT OF THE WAKE ACTION FROM THE CREEK WHEN THERE ARE A LOT OF SKI BOATS OUT THERE. WE ARE ACTUALLY, HALFWAY BETWEEN ALPINE GROVES AROUND THE CREEK CANOE RAMPS. THE CREEK-- THE ONLY CREEK RAMP IN THE COUNTY. CANOE CREEK RAMP IN THE COUNTY. WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY AS FAR AS SETTING UP THE PURCHASE AND THE AMOUNTS. YOU KNOW, WE ARE WILLING TO WORK IN THAT REGARD. IT IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER NON-DEVELOPED PROPERTIES. THE FLOORA BRANCH CORRIDOR THERE. SOME OF THE CREEK CORRIDORS THAT GO THROUGH THERE.

WE HAVE ALL SORTS OF WILDLIFE ON THE PROPERTY. DEER, FOX, BOBCATS.

BALD EAGLES, NUMEROUS BIRDS. NUMEROUS TYPES OF HAWKS. OSPREYS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF WILDLIFE. WE OFFER A LOT OF-- A WIDE AND UNIQUE RANGE OF ACTIVITIES THAT YOU CAN'T DO AT OTHER SITES. OTHER PARKS. WE WOULD LIKE TO REPLANT SOME OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THE PINE AND ESTABLISH MORE NATIVE VEGETATION.

WWE HAVE A NICE GROVE OF LIVE OAKS ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE PINE TREES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ARE MAINLY SLASH PINES. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE MUCH OF THOSE WITH LONG LEAF. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT SELF-SUSTAINING TH SO THERE IS O BURDEN TO THE COUNTY. THIS PROPERTY CAN GENERATE ENOUGH USE WITH CONCESSIONS TO RUN ITSELF. WITH CANOE AND KAYAK RENTALS. HORSEBACK RIDING ASPECT OF IT.

COMMUNITY GARDENING. CORPORATE OUTINGS. WEDDINGS.

BIRTHDAY PARTIES. IT CAN PRETTY MUCH FUND ITSELF. THANK YOU FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION. ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU, MR. BAILER.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. DID ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? FOR MR. BAILEY? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DID WE HAVE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WERE WISHING TO MAKE COMMENTS? PROVIDE A COMMENT?

MS. CROSBY? >> AGAIN, NICOLE CROSBY. I FLOIF WHERE NEAR THIS PRO PROPERTY-- I LIVE NOWHERE NEAR THIS PROPERTY. I CAN SAY THAT THIS IS JUST LIKE ONE OF MOST EXCITING PROPOSALS I HAVE SEEN FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY. I THINK IT WOULD BE PHENOMENAL.

THE DIVERSITY OF HABITAT, THE FACT THAT IT IS RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR MOST-- PROBABLY OUR MOST POPULOUS AREA OF THE COUNTY. SO MANY PEOPLE WOULD BENEFIT FROM IT. THE WATERFRONT ACCESS. ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED TO US. ALL THE DIFFERENT GROUPS ALREADY BENEFITING FROM IT.

I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT GOING UNDER THE BULLDOZER EVENTUALLY. WHAT HAPPENS IF IT IS NOT PRESERVED? I DON'T KNOW. I ALSO WONDER IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY-- BECAUSE IT REALLY SO DIRECTLY BENEFITS THE HOAS OR CDS, WHATEVER YOU CALL THEM THAT ARE RIGHT AROUND IT. I WONDER IF THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR SOME FUND-RAISING.

A LITTLE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP TYPE OF THING. OBVIOUSLY, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE MOSTLY LAMP DOLLARS. WHATEVER YOU CAN GET. WHO KNOWS IF $500,000 COULD BE RAISED. OR EVERYBODY A MILLION. THAT IS A LOT OF HOMES.

A LOT OF ENERGETIC TEENAGERS. I HAVE SEEN HOW NEIGHBORHOODS CAN GET REALLY MOTIVATED TO FUND-RAISE TO TRY AND SAVE SOMETHING THAT IS CLOSE TO THEM. I JUST THINK IT IS A PHENOMENAL PROPERTY. I HOPE THAT YOU CAN FIND A WAY TO PURSUE IT DESPITE THE PRICE TAG. AND PERHAPS WITH THE PHASING THAT WAS DESCRIBED, PERHAPS

THERE IS A WAY TO DO IT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MS. CROSBY.

>> LET'S CALL IT SAR YEAH BAILEY PARK IN TRIBUTE TO THE LADY WHO DID SO MUCH FOR THE ENVIRONMENT OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN ANALYTICAL-- BECAUSE THERE WAS

[01:50:07]

LET'S MOVE IT FORWARD. LET'S CHECK FOR CONTAMINATION. AND LET'S LOOK AT NATIONAL PARK.

IT HAS NATIONAL PARK AND SEASHORE WRITTEN ALL OVER IT. I FONDLY REMEMBER HOW JOHN HENRY LOOKED AT A SIMILAR PROPERTY ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTY. IT HAD NATIONAL PARK AND SEASHORE WRITTEN ALL OVER IT. THEN FLORIDA FOREVER FUNDS, TOO. I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT IN FORWARDING IT TO THE BCC AFTER YOU DO YOUR FURTHER DUE DILIGENCE, LET'S TALK ABOUT SARY BAILEY PARK. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A FITTING TRIBUTE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS PROPERTY.

MR. MINCH? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE THIS PROPERTY

FORWARD FOR FUTURE CONSID CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU, MR. MINCH.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU, MR. MILLER. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> YEAH. I JUST WANT TO SAY IT IS KIND OF A CIRCLE WITH SARAH HAVING BEEN ON THE COUNTY COMMISSION YEARS AGO. AND THEN A CHARTER MEMBER OF THE LAMP BOARD. TO COME FULL CIRCLE. I DID WANT TO CLARIFY, AS FAR AS SOME OF THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR VALUE AND EVERYTHING, THAT WHATEVER THE APPRAISAL DOES COME BACK AS, THE FAMILY IS WILLING TO PUT UP HALF OF THE VALUE TOWARDS A MATCH.

IN THEORY, THE COUNTY COULD GET THIS FOR NOTHING, IF WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN GRANTS.

>> DEFINITELY A GEM. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FOR A VOTE? OKAY, THEN.

[Staff Report]

>> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. ALL RIGHT.

THE MOTION CARRIES. VERY EXCITING. AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE REACHED THE END OF OUR REGULAR AGENDA. LY TURN IT OVER MR. MAUCH FOR STAFF REPORTS.

>> OKAY. THE STAFF REPORTS ARE THE FIRST THING THAT I'VE GOT.

A REMINDER OF THE SUNSHINE LAW FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS. WE CANNOT COMMUNICATE BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE OF THE BOARD MEETINGS. EMAILS.

JUST A REMINDER. TO SEND ANY COMMUNICATIONS TO THE STAFF LIAISON WHICH IS MYSELF. AND I WILL DISSEMINATE THAT TO THE GROUP AS A WHOLE.

THE NEXT ONE WILL BE THE LAMP RECOMMENDATION PROPERTIES LIST. THAT WILL BE IMPORTANT TOPIC TO DISCUSS AT OUR DECEMBER MEETING COMING UP. AND I HAD A RECOMMENDATION TO ADD THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE EVALUATED. THE EVALUATION SCORE.

BASICALLY, TO ADD THAT TO THE LIST-- ONCE WE GET TO THAT POINT.

IN ADDITION, THE OTHER THREE PROPERTIES WE JUST HEARD TODAY AT OUR DECEMBER MEETING.

AGAIN, JUST A RECOMMENDATION. TO ADD THE DON MANUEL. THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE TWO PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE LIST. THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE 600 QUP STATE ROAD 13 NORTH. THE FIRST COAST ENERGY PROPERTY THAT YOU RECALL.

AND ALSO THE SECOND ONE IS 4405 STATE ROAD 206. THOSE ARE CURRENTLY ON THE RECOMMENDATION LIST. HOWEVER, THEY ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.

AND WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUS THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THAT.

SO SOME BCC CONSENT ITEM UPDATES. WE HAD A RIVERDALE-- THE ONE ON

[01:55:05]

ON SEPTEMBER 5, THE BCC VOTED TO DIRECT REAL ESTATE STAFF TO CONTINUE WITH THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT. AND THE REAL ESTATE STAFF WILL CONTINUE DUE DILIGENCE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, INCLUDING THE REQUIRED INSPECTION PERIOD. THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THAT SAME PROPERTY HAS BEEN REVISED F. WHAT OCCURRED IN AUGUST, WE REMOVED THE LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO WETLAND MITIGATION AND SPECIFICALLY TO TRAILS AT THIS TIME. AND SO WE DID LEAVE-- YOU KNOW, THE CONTINUE SEPTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN DOES HAVE POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE PASSIVE RECREATIONAL USES.

SO THAT PARTICULAR CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, THAT WAS REF VISED.

THAT WAS SET FOR A CONSENT AITEM AGENDA ON OCTOBER 17. THE ANASTASIA LAKES PROPERTY THAT THE BOARD HAD HEARD PREVIOUSLY, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED THE PLAN ON SEPTEMBER 19. THAT PROPERTY IS STILL IN REAL ESTATE FOR ACQUISITION.

COUNTY ROAD 13 SOUTH, THE CREEK PROPERTY. THAT IS ANOTHER ONE CURRENTLY ON THE RECOMMENDATION LIST. THAT IS STILL IN NEGOTIATION WITH THE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORTS. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM MR. MINCH.

>> YEAH. THE QUESTION IS DOES THE, DOES THE COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN BEFORE WE APPROVE THE MANAGEMENT PLAN? IS THAT HOW THE PROCESS WORKS?

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, TO MEMBER MINCH, THE LAMP ORDINANCE SAYS THAT THE LAMP BOARD SHALL REVIEW AND MONITOR ALL MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR THESE PROPERTIES. AND SO-- IT SAYS ALL MANAGEMENT PLANS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF YOUNT COMMISSIONERS.

YOU KNOW, THAT IS ASSUMING THAT THESE MANAGEMENT PLANS GET APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BEFORE THE ACQUISITION OCCURS. AND SO THE LAMP IS THE RECOMMENDATION AGENCY THAT REVIEWS THE CONTINUE SEPTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT EVENTUALLY

GOES TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> SO THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT SAY THAT WE NEED TO ADOPT A MANAGEMENT PLAN BEFORE ACQUISITION, AND I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. I THINK IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS. THAT THE ACQUISITION AND THE MANAGEMENT PLAN MAY HAPPEN SEPARATELY. AND I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT THIS PROCESS. I'M NOT SURE OUR PROCESS OUTLINE FOLLOWS THAT EXACTLY BECAUSE TYPICALLY, YOU WOULD HAVE AN IDEA HOW YOU WERE GOING TO MANAGE THE PROPERTY OR HAVE AN IDEA HOW YOU WILL USE IT BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO PURCHASE IT. SO AGAIN, I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK WHETHER WE HAVE THE RIGHT PROCESS IN PLACE AND WHETHER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH

THE ORDINANCE. I'M NOT SURE IT IS. >> AS AN EXAMPLE TO MAYBE HELP ANSWER IF QUESTION, IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IF FLORIDA FOREVER BUYS A PIECE OF PROPERTY, THERE HAS TO BE-- IT IS NOT A MANAGEMENT PLAN. IT IS NOT FTC REQUIRED.

A DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN. THE STATE DOES NOT-- IT IS A MANAGEMENT PROSPECTUS.

IT TALKS ABOUT HOW THE PROPERTY WILL BE MANAGED IN WIDE TERMS. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHO IS GOING TO MANAGE IT. THEY WILL NOT-- UNLESS THERE IS AN ENTITY THAT STEPS UP TO MANAGE IT, THEY WILL NOT BUY IT. THAT IS KIND OF HOW, FOR INSTANCE, ON A BIGGER SCALE, THE STATE DOES IT. CAN I CONTINUE ON? ARE WE NOT TOO --

>> WE ARE STILL JUST WRAPPING UP THE STAFF REPORT QUESTIONS. (LAUGHTER).

OKAY. MR. MINCH, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT ON THE STAFF REPORT?

>> I WANTED TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION. IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED, THERE IS A SECTION C, NUMBER 3, LETTER K. WHAT IT SAYS IS "THIS IS ABOUT

[02:00:09]

AND I KNOW FOR THE COUNTY ROAD PROPERTY, WE DID NOT APPROVE THAT AT THE LAST MEETING.

HOWEVER, I BELIEVE ON THE AGENDA, THE COUNTERYOU COMMISSION IS MOVING FORWARD WITH ITS PURCHASE. AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND MAYBE HOW THIS

PROCESS IS DESIGNED BY STAFF. >> I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ANSWER THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION.

BUT I THINK FOR THE MOST PART, WE GENERALLY HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THAT GUIDANCE TO REVIEW THEM BEFORE THE ACTUAL ACQUISITION OF THE PARCEL HAPPENS. SO MAYBE WE HAVEN'T BEEN, LIKE, AS ON THE BALL AS WE SHOULD BE, BUT MOVING FORWARD, I THINK WE HAVE THE PROCESS IN PLACE NOW.

THAT WILL COME BEFORE THE LAMP PRIOR TO THE PHYSICAL ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY.

KNOWING IT IS CONCEPTUAL. AND THAT AN OFFICIAL PLAN WILL BE DEVELOPED AFTER ACQUISITION

BY STAFF. SATISFIED? >> YEAH.

I THINK WE HAVE MADE SO MUCH IMPROVEMENT OVER THE LAST YEAR. I HATE TO THROW DAGGERS.

I KNOW EVERYBODY IS WORKING ON THIS, AND THIS HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK.

AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO RELY ON A VERY PROFICIENT STAFF TO KEEP US IN-- YOU KNOW, IN ORDER. BECAUSE WE ONLY MEET TWICE OR EVERY TWO MONTHS.

SO YES. TO THAT POINT, I WAS KIND OF EXPECTING THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS THE CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR COUNTY ROAD 13 SOUTH TODAY. BECAUSE AGAIN, IF YOU GO BACK TO ÚTHE MEETING MINUTES OF LAST MEETING, THE MOTION WAS TO CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION.

IT WAS NOT APPROVED. SO DID WE MISS TODAY'S MEETING FOR DISCUSSION OF THAT

MANAGEMENT PLAN? >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO. THAT WE WILL LOOK INTO IT.

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, WE HAVE THE REVISED MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO-- WITH ALL THE MATERIALS TODAY. AND THAT IS BEING SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

IF THERE IS ANYTHING YOU WANT TO UPDATE ON THAT PLAN, CERTAINLY, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT NOW.

BUT AS FAR AS WHAT WE HAD, AS FAR AS THE COMMENTS MADE, THOSE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE

PLAN. >> YEAH. I HAD A FEW THOUGHTS ON THAT PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THEM THAT, AS I WAS LOOKING AT IT FURTHER, THAT IS IF-- IF EVERYONE RECALLS, THAT IS THE PROPERTY THAT IS 30 ACRES.

TEN ACRES TO THE WEST. AND THEN THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL 20 ACRES.

ACTUAL-- THERE IS AN ACTUAL RESIDENCE IN BETWEEN THOSE PARCELLES.

I THINK IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT MENTIONED MAYBE THE WESTERN SIDE WOULD POSSIBLY BE A PARK.

I KNOW WE ALSO DISCUSSED A PASSIVE PARK AT SOME TIME. I THINK THAT KIND OF GOT NIXED IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN. MY CONCERN IS HAS ANYONE TALKED TO THAT PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS GOIGOING TO BE SANDWICHED BETWEN TWO COUNTY-OWNED PARCELS WHICH POTENTIALLY COULD BE USED AS A PARK? AND EXPRESS ANY-- I MEAN, TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, WERE THEY NOTIFIED? I THINK PERSONALLY, IF THE COUNTY BOUGHT PROPERTY AROUND-- MEANING AT THAT LOCATION WHICH IS SORT OF REMOTE AND THERE IS NOT A LOT OF VISIBILITY, I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PUBLIC BEING WELCOMED TO PROPERTY THAT I'M ADJACENT TO.

THESE ARE FARM LANDS. I MEAN, WE MAY HAVE WORKERS THAT, YOU KNOW, STOP AT THEIR LUNCH BREAK IN THERE. MAYBE LINGER AROUND IN THE EVENING.

AS A PROPERTY OWNER, I WOULD BE EXTREMELY CONCERNED THAT-- WHO IS COMING INTO THESE PARKS AND

[Board Member Reports]

[02:05:01]

MEETING, EVEN THOUGH I WON'T EVEN BE THERE. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. MINCH. WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS RELATED TO THESE STAFF REPORTS? ANY FOLLOW-UP NEEDED THERE? ARE WE GOOD TO MOVE ON TO OUR BOARD REPORTS? ALL RIGHT. WE WILL START WITH YOU, MR. WATSON.

ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO REPORT? OKAY.

MS. ROBBINS? >> MR. MILLER? >> TWO QUICK THINGS.

COULD YOU-- THIS IS TO STAFF. THROUGH THE CHAIR. COULD YOU PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT

THE MAPS, WHEN THEY COME OUT, HAVE LEGENDS ON THEM? >> CERTAINLY.

WE CAN CONFIRM. THAT. >> YES.

LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, LIKE, THE DM. WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE ELEVATIONS WERE. YEAH. MAKE SURE THERE ARE LEGENDS ON THEM, PLEASE. AND WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION, AGAIN, WHEN THE STATE BUYS LAND, AND THESE ARE NOT SMALL PIECES, THESE ARE USUALLY LARGER PIECES, THEY ALWAYS, AND IT DOES COST MONEY, THEY DO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.

PARTICULARLY, LOOKING FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION. THAT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO PROBABLY CONSIDER FOR ANYTHING THAT HAD A PAST AGRICULTURAL USE.

YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT CAN SHOW UP FROM A PRIOR-- THE BAILEY FAMILY HAS OWNED IT FOREVER.

YEAH. THAT IS THE KIND OF THING THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO KNOW.

WHERE ALL THAT STUFF IS. YOU MIGHT NOT ALWAYS HAVE AN OWNER THAT IS FORWARD ABOUT IT AND UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THAT KIND OF THING. SO YES.

>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING, MR. SMITH? MS. KAUFMAN?

>> NO, I DON'T. THANK YOU. >> MR. MINCH?

>> YEAH. A FEW THINGS, ACTUALLY. I HAVE-- I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT AGAIN, THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, THERE IS TWO ACTIONS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN BY THE LAMPBOARD. ONE IS TO SUBMIT THE LIST OF PROPERTIES TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION. AND THERE IS A SECOND ITEM WHICH IS PERTAINING STRICTLY TO THE ACQUISITION. THAT ITEM STATES THAT THE BOARD SHALL RECOMMEND THE PROPERTIES TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION WHICH IT-- IT RECOMMENDS WHICH PROPERTIES THAT SHOULD BE

PURCHASED. I GUESS, BY THE COMMISSION. >> YOU READ THE ORDINANCE, THOSE ARE ACTUALLY TWO SEPARATE STATEMENTS. ONE IS TO SUBMIT A LIST, AND THE SECOND ONE IS TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF.

WHAT I DID IS I WENT BACK TO THE MEETING WE HAD IN JANUARY OF 2022.

TO SEE WHAT THE MOTION WAS, AND WHAT ACTION DID WE ACTUALLY TAKE AS A BOARD TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WE RECOMMENDED PROPERTIES TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR PURCHASE? IF YOU GO PACK TO THAT MEETING, WE DIDN'T. WE DID NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR PURCHASE. WHAT WE DID DO IS WE APPROVED A LIST OF PROPERTIES WHICH WE WERE MANDATED TO DO BY THE ORDINANCE. AND WE APPROVED THAT LIST TO GO TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION.

BUT THAT MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD WELCOME ANYBODY TO GO BACK TO THAT MEETING, LISTEN TO IT, THANK GOD WE HAVE A RECORDING OF IT.

WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE WHAT OCCURRED. I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

BECAUSE AGAIN, PROCESS MATTERS FOLLOWING THE LAW MATTERS, IN MY OPINION.

THE SECOND THING IS I WAS TRYING TO GO BACK TO FIND INFORMATION FROM PAST MEETINGS.

YOU KNOW, WE ARE ALL PROVIDED A PACKET FROM MR. MAUCH. HE DOES A WONDERFUL JOB OF UPLOADING FOR US ON THE FTP SITE. I WANTED TO GO BACK AND ACCESS THOSE EARLIER PACKETS SO I COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT INFORMATION THE BOARD CONSIDERED AT THE TIME THAT IT RANKED IT. AND IT KIND OF-- I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE YOU HAVE THE RECORDS.

I COULD NOT FIND THE RECORDS ANYMORE. THAT IS ONE THING I GUESS I WOULD POINT OUT OR ASK. WHEN YOU EVALUATE, HOW DID WE GET HERE FROM WHERE WE WERE? SOMETIMES IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT INFORMATION WE WERE CONSIDERING AT THE TIME.

BECAUSE THIS IS A FLOWY PROCESS. IT KIND OF CHANGES AS THE PROPERTY MOVES THROUGH THE BOCC AND HAND IT OVER TO STAFF. SOME OF THOSE ACQUISITION CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE PERHAPS HAD AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE, ALL OF A SUDDEN, COULD GET LOST. THAT IS SORT OF A WARNING IN A WAY. IT IS, LIKE, WHO IS ACTUALLY ON STAFF TRACKING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE TIME THAT IT IS ACTUALLY BEING PURCHASED? SO, LIKE, I WAS TRYING TO GET TO THAT POINT AT THE LAST MEETING.

[02:10:02]

IS THERE ANYTHING BEING TRACKED BY STAFF, AND I KNOW THERE IS THE HANDOFF.

IT GOES FROM ENVIRONMENTAL TO REAL ESTATE DIVISION. IS ANYBODY AT STAFF LEVEL ACTUALLY TRACKING TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPERTY STILL MAKES SENSE TO PURCHASE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE AT THE TIME THAT WE VOTED FOR IT? THERE IS ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT COME UP IN DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD. AND SO IT IS VERY POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD HAVE SUBMITTED A PROPERTY WITH CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS IN THE DUE DILI DILIGENCE, IT IS DISCOVERED THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT HOW THAT PROPERTY PERFORMS OR HAS ACCESS TO. WHO IS GOING BACK AT THE COUNTY LEVEL TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS STILL A GOOD PURCHASE? IT DOESN'T GO BACK TO US AS A BOARD.

WE PASS IT ON. IT IS HANDED OVER TO LAMP-- I'M SORRY.

TO ENVIRONMENTAL. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. THEN IT IS HANDED OVER TO THE REAL ESTATE DIVISION. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE R HAD-- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THEY ARE LISTENING TO OUR MEETING MINUTES. THEN THEY GO DO AND DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. I'M NOT SURE ACTUALLY WHO IS RECOMMENDING THE PROPERTY FOR PURCHASE. BECAUSE WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND ANY OF THE LAST ONE.

THAT IS POINT NUMBER THREE. I BELIEVE. AND THEN THE LAST POINT, THIS IS MY FINAL HURRAH. I'M LEAVING THIS BOARD. WE HAVE A PROPERTY EVALUATION PROCESS OUTLINE. ELIZABETH, YOU LED THE CHARGE. FANTASTIC.

AWESOME. ILL IT REALLY DOES BRING TO LIFE THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED.

IT IS LIKE THE PRACTICAL WAY WE DO THINGS. IT IS A ROAD MAP.

I LOVE IT. I THINK IT WAS THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT THAT I THINK YOU STARTED THIS. IT IS PHENOMENAL. ONE RECOMMENDATION I WOULD MAKE IS MY LAST, IF I COULD MAKE A MOTION. CAN I STILL MAKE A MOTION? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND THE PROPERTY EVALUATION PROCESS OUTLINE TO INCLUDE NUMBER 2.3 WHICH STATES THAT A SIGN BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR ACQUISITION TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. AND THEN WE ALSO ADD A 4.3.

IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT, THAT THE THAT A SIGN IS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY, CONSIDERED FOR ACQUISITION. AGAIN, ANNOUNCING THE UPCOMING MEETING.

AND I THINK WE SHOULDN'T PUT ONE OF THOSE LITTLE ORANGE SIGNS WHERE EVERYONE, YOU KNOW, SEES THE REZONING. WE SHOULD PUT SOMETHING THAT I IS-- THAT IS-- YOU KNOW, EMPOWERS PEOPLE. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. IT HAS TO BE GENERIC ENOUGH.

LET'S NOT MAKE IT A LITTLE ORANGE SIGN. LET'S MAKE IT SOMETHING WE ARE PROUD OF. IF WE CAN START POSTING SIGNS ON PROPERTIES CONSIDERED FOR ACQUISITION, WE WILL GET MUCH BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS OR NOT.

I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE MY FINAL MOTION. >> JUST A QUICK COMMENT ON THAT.

I FEEL LIKE THAT WARRANTS A LARGER DISCUSSION. I THINK IT IS WORTHY OF A LARGER DISCUSSION. AMONGST THIS BOARD. WITH STAFF INPUT ON THE ABILITIES TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. BEFORE WE CAN JUST STICK IT IN A PROCEDURE RIGHT NOW.

BECAUSE I JUST THINK THERE IS A LOT MORE TO TO THAT, THAT WE WILL WANT TO EXPLORE AND DISCUSS. PROPERTY OWNERS' WILLINGNESS TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN AND ALL MANNER OF THINGS. SO IF I COULD SUGGEST THAT WE PLACE THAT ON OUR NEXT AGENDA AS

A DISCUSSION ITEM, TO GIVE THAT THE TIME IT DESERVES. >> I JUST-- I MEAN, THERE IS NOT A LOT THAT IS PER FEK IN THE PROCESS, SO I GUESS MAYBE LET ME REFRAME MY MOTION.

I WOULD LIKE THERE TO BE ADDED TO THE PROCESS OUTLINE, BEAR WITH ME-- A 2.3 AND A 4.3 REQUIRING THAT A SIGN ANNOUNCING THE UPCOMING MEETING BE POSTED A MINIMUM OF TEN DAYS IN ADVANCE

OF THE LAMP BOARD MEETING. THAT IS MY MOTION. >> IS ANYONE WILLING TO SECOND THAT MOTION? OKAY. NOT HEARING A SECOND, THE MOTION DIES ON THE FLOOR. BUT I WOULD BE WILLING, AGAIN, TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AT A

[02:15:01]

I THINK, YOU KNOW, IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROCESS. WE CAN CERTAINLY, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. I DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT GOOD STUFF HAS HAPPENED. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. I TACK THEM TO HEART.

I TAKE THEM TO HEART. (INAUDIBLE). >> THE PROPERTY SCORE AND THEN NEXT TO IT, UNDER "COMMENTS," PROPERTY SCORED 66 OR OVER GET PLACED ON THE BOCC ANNUAL LAMP RECOMMENDATION LIST. SO THAT DOES DEFER TO A RECOMMENDATION.

BUT I'M ALSO-- I HAVE READ SOMEWHERE THAT OUR TOP FIVE GO TO THE BOARD-OF-COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THAT KIND OF CONFLICTS WITH THIS.

WE HAD SEVERAL THAT WERE NOT SCORED HIGH, THAT WERE SCORED IN THE 40S.

THAT ENDED UP IN THE TOP FIVE. WE SHOULD PROBABLY CLARIFY. THAT DOES IT HAVE TO BE HIGHER

THAN 66? YES. >> YES.

THAT IS AN OLDER VERSION. >> SORRY. >> OKAY.

YOU ARE CORRECT. IT IS THE TOP FIVE THAT GO TO THE BOARD BY SUPER MAJORITY.

>> IT DOESN'T MATTER THE SCORE. >> CORRECT. OKAY.

SO WITH THAT, AS FAR AS BOARD REPORTS GO, I WOULD SAY THANK YOU TO MR. MINCH FOR HIS SERVICE. ON THIS BOARD FOR LAST TWO YEARS.

I APPRECIATE IT. I WILL ALSO THANK MR. ROBBINS AND MR. MILLER AND MR. FLOWERS. THOUGH HE IS NOT HERE. THEIR DEDICATION TO THIS BOARD.

THAT IS ALL THAT I HAVE. BEFORE WE ADJOURN,

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.