[00:00:04] OKAY, I'M NOT FLOWERS OR JB MILLER. IN THE EVENT THEY ARRIVE, I WILL SWITCH SEATS. WE WILL GO AHEAD [Call meeting to order] AND GET STARTED IN THE INTEREST OF TIME. WE WILL CALL THS JUNE 9TH MEETING OF THE LAMP WERE TO ORDER. STARTING WITH ROLL CALL. KAUFMAN IS ABSENT. MARINE FLOWERS IS ABSENT. JB MILLER IS ABSENT. ELIZABETH TATE. >> HERE. >> RHONDA LOVETT. >> I'M HERE. >> KEVIN GAMBLE. >> PRESENT. >> OKAY. I MIGHT STILL HAVE A COPY OF THE STABILITY CLAUSE. RYAN, UNLESS YOU HAVE ONE. >> YOU CAN READ IT. [General public comment (Part 1 of 2)] >> IF YOU WANT, I CAN READ IT REALLY QUICK. >> MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BEGIN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON PROPOSITIONS BEFORE THE BOARD. AS THOSE ITEMS ARE ADDRESSED ON THE AGENDA, FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT BEING CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TODAY, A GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE PROVIDED TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON MATTERS OF THE JURISDICTION. EACH PERSON ADDRESSING THE BOARD SHALL LIMIT COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES. PERSONS SHALL NOT ADDRESS THE BOARD OR ANY MEMBER THEREOF UNLESS SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRPERSON TO DO SO. ONCE RECOGNIZED, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SHALL ADDRESS THE COMMENTS TO THE BOARD AS A WH WHOLE. 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 PUBLIC COMMENT ON WAS THE QUESTION OR COMMENT IS DIRECTED TO THE CHAIR OR MADE WITH PERMISSION OF THE CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, RYAN. SO WITH THAT, WE WILL GO TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA DO WE HAVE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK? PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME. WE HAVE ONE. IS THAT YOU? >> MY NAME IS SUE CHITWOOD. DO YOU WANT ME TO GIVE YOU MY NAME AND ADDRESS AND ALL THAT STUFF? I LIVE THAT 600 CHRISTINA DRIVE IN SAINT AUGUSTINE SHORES, SAINT AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA 32,086. THREE 2086. I HAVE QUESTIONS. IS THIS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO DO THAT. >> YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS. THE BOARD MAY OR MAY NOT RESPOND. >> WHAT EXPERTISE OR PERSPECTIVES ARE CURRENTLY UNDER PRESENTED -- WAIT A MINUTE. THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. DEAR, I'M NOT SURE I HAVE MY QUESTIONS WERE I NEED THEM TO BE. HOLD ON. DON'T START MY TIME YET. I SOMEHOW DISAPPEARED MY QUESTIONS. MAY I HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY? I NEED TO GO FIND THEM. THAT'S. WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNORTHODOX BOARD MEETING GOING ON TODAY ANYWAY. >> UNDER THE INSTRUCTION OF THE CHAIR, GENERAL PUBLIC, IT IS TIME FOR THE BOARD TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE TO HAVE COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. YOU MAY HEAR THAT AT ANY TIME DURING THE MEETING. IT IS AT YOUR DISCRETION. [LAMP Meeting Minutes for Board Approval: 3.10.2026] >> OKAY. MOVING TO THE NEXT ITEM, WE WILL HAVE APPROVAL MINE MARCH 10TH, 2026TH MEETING. HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THOSE. I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES AT THE LAST MEETING WITH THE RECORDING. BUT A PORTION OF THE MEETING WAS STILL RECORDED AND ACCESSIBLE HERE ARE THERE ANY EDITS OR COMMENTS TO THE MINUTES? >> OKAY. SEE NONE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LAMP BOARD MEETING FROM MARCH 10, 2026. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> SECOND FROM TATE. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AND HE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. >> MOTION CARRIES AND MINUTES [Approval of current agenda] ARE APPROVED. MOVING ON TO THE CURRENT AGENDA [00:05:06] IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY. ONE, FOR A SECOND REVIEW AND SCORING UP THE ARAPAHOE AVENUE PROPERTY AND THE SECOND BEING A FIRST REVIEW OF THE JACK WRIGHT ISLAND PROPERTY. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA? OR DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CURRENT AGENDA? >> THANK YOU. SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND. >> OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE AGENDA AS WRITTEN, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> OPPOSED, SAY NAY. [1. LAMP 2026-01 Arapaho Ave. Arapaho Ave, 5.1-acre total property submitted for LAMP Board Consideration and potential St. Johns County land acquisition for conservation purposes including preservation and/or passive recreational uses.] >> OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. THE AGENDA IS APPROVED AND WE WILL START OUT WITH AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF. >> THIS IS RYAN MALCOLM, STAFF AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. I WANTED TO START OUT BY SAYING GREETINGS AND WELCOME TO THE NEW LAMP BOARD MEMBER, RHONDA LOVETT WHO IS SITTING TO THE RIGHT. SHE WAS APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THE APRIL 7TH MEETING. ONTO ITEM NUMBER ONE, IT IS THE ARAPAHOE AVENUE PROPERTY. IT IS THE SECOND REVIEW. AND SO THIS ONE WAS INCLUSIVE OF THE SCORING. AND SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND PROVIDING YOUR SCORING CARDS, WE WILL COLLECT THOSE AT THE END OF THE ITEM. THIS APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR WITH THE FIRST REVIEW AT THE LAST MEETING IN MARCH. THE BOARD VOTED TO MOVE THE SECOND EVALUATION AND SCORING. THEREFORE, AGAIN, PROVIDE YOUR EVALUATION SHEETS TO STAFF AND WE WILL GET THE SCORE OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF TARGET ON US ONE AND WEST OF THE NEWLY DEVELOPED SHIPYARD'S MULTIFAMILY AS A DENTAL PROJECT THERE WAS A DILAPIDATED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE THAT EXISTS ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. ALL THE STRUCTURES THAT WERE ON THIS PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY HAD BEEN REMOVED. AND SO THE PROPERTY WE ARE TODAY VACANT. THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE LIMITS AND IT REPRESENTS AN ENCLAVE OF THE UNINCORPORATED ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. AND SO THIS WAS THE LOCATION OF THE FORMER CHILDREN'S MUSEUM PROJECT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE INITIAL REVIEW. AND SO THE 5 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR, 2025, FOUR 2.975 MILLION BASED ON PROPERTY APPRAISERS REPORT. IT IS A PARTIALLY FORCED A PROPERTY WITH MATURE OAK CANOPY. AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF IDENTIFIED SPECIMEN TREES ON THE SITE. AND IT DOES HAVE A MAINTAIN MODE UNDERSTORY THERE. PARKS AND RECREATION REVIEWED THE APPLICATION. THEY STATED THAT PARKS AND RECREATION CURRENTLY MANAGES A SIMILAR PROPERTY LOCATED A SHORT DISTANCE AWAY THAT ALREADY PROVIDES A VARIETY OF RECREATIONAL AMENITIES. WE CALL IT THE SAINT SEBASTIAN PARK AND OTHERWISE KNOWN AS BULGER AND PARK APPEARED ON STATE ROAD 312 AS A RESULT, THE PARCEL -- AND THIS IS THEIR WORDS STATING THIS. THIS PARCEL WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A HIGH PARK DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY AS ITS USE WOULD LIKELY BE LIMITED TO A PASSIVE PART. IN CONTRAST, WALDRON PARK OFFERS A MORE EXTENSIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AND WOULD LIKE TO COMPETE FOR FUNDING RESOURCES NEEDED TO DEVELOP THE PARCEL ON ARAPAHOE AVENUE. THE GRANTS DEPARTMENT STATED IF PARKS IS NOT INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME URBAN INFILL AND THE STAFF THERE WILL RESEARCH THAT A BIT MORE. AND SO THE BOARD MAY CONTINUE WITH THEIR DISCUSSION AND SCORING AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU, RYAN. ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION THAT THE BOARD HAS FOUR STAFF? >> JUST TO REITERATE, THE COUNTY BELIEVES THIS WOULD JUST BE A REDUNDANT PARK. IT WOULD PULL AWAY FROM THE USE OF -- I FORGET HIS NAME. THE PARK RIGHT THERE BY 312. >> ONE DEPARTMENT, THROUGH THE CHAIR, ONE DEPARTMENT DID HAVE THAT FEEDBACK. THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING PARK IN THE GENERAL AREA AND SO, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A GOOD IDEA, IT IS STILL UP FOR DISCUSSION AMONG THE LAMP BOARD. >> OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> THERE IS MENTION FROM PARKS AND REC ABOUT POTENTIALLY BEING A PASSIVE I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THAT PART. [00:10:01] THE OTHER PART, WALDRON PARK, HAS MORE ACTIVITIES AND IS MORE ACTIVE. WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT OF A PASSIVE PARK? IS IT JUST GREEN SPACE? IS IT BENCHES AND RESTROOMS QUICK S?SO PEOPLE SHOW UP FROM , SUNDOWN TUTORIALS AND THINGS LIKE THAT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. IT WOULD TAKE OUT THE ACTIVE COMPONENT SUCH AS A BALL BALLFIELD OR SOCR FIELD OR THAT SORT OF THING. MORE RESOURCE -BASED. YOU WOULD HAVE TRAILS AND PAVILIONS. UNDER THAT SORT OF THING UNDER A PASSIVE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? >> OKAY. BEFORE WE REPORT OUR SCORES, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE? >> IS THAT A HAND? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD, AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. AND WE ARE NOT BEING FANCY TODAY BUT I WILL TIME YOU ON MY PHONE THREE MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS ROBIN ARNOLD. I LIVE AT 406 MISTY MORNING LANE. I'M ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. I WOULD JUST ASK TO COME. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD HELP ANSWER IF YOU HAD ANY. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. >> GO AHEAD. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> ON THE PROPERTY, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY OLD SEPTIC TANKS OR ANYTHING IN TERMS OF SEPTIC INFRASTRUCTURE? >> WE HAD THE SOUTHERN PARCEL. WE HAD PHASE I DONE AND PHASE TWO. IT WAS LIKE A BODY SHOP. AND SO WE -- EVERYTHING WAS REMOVED. AND WE HAD A CLEAN PHASE. SO I HAVE RECORD OF THAT. >> OKAY. >> I THINK WE ARE GOOD. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE? >> NOT SEEING ANY, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO OUR SCORING. AND SO WE WILL START DOWN AT THIS END., MISTY. >> MY SCORE WAS 28. >> MR. -- NUMA. >> 47. >> MY SCORE WAS 48. >> I DON'T HAVE MY SCORE YET. >> DO YOU HAVE YOUR SCORING SHEET WITH YOU TODAY >> MY SCORE WAS 46. >> ALRIGHT, JUST A SECOND. WE WILL ADD THESE UP AND AVERAGE THEM. THROUGH THE CHAIR, I WANTED TO ASK MR. GAMBLE, DO YOU THINK YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE YOUR SCORE WITHIN THE NEXT FEW MINUTES? >> >> DO WE HAVE AN EXTRA SCORESHEET? >> ANY IN THE FIRE TODAY? IF YOU WANT TO PASS YOURS DOWN. [00:16:33] [SILENCE] 51. AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS AN AVERAGE SCORE OF 44. THAT MEANS THAT IT FALLS SHORT OF THE 50 THRESHOLD, THE 5 50.THRESHOLD. >> JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, THIS PROJECT WILL NOT BE ADDED TO THE RECOMMENDATION LIST FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. [2. LAMP 2026-02 Jack Wright Property. Jack Wright Island Property, 8.35-acre total property submitted for LAMP Board Consideration and potential St. Johns County land acquisition for conservation purposes including preservation and/or passive recreational uses.] THAT CONCLUDES AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. WE WILL MOVE ON TO NUMBER TWO WHICH IS THE JACK WRIGHT ISLAND PROPERTY. THIS IS THE FIRST REVIEW OF THIS PROPERTY. AND I WILL AGAIN TURN IT OVER TO STAFF. >> OKAY. THIS IS THE 8.35-ACRE VACANT FORESTED PROPERTY. IT IS ENTIRELY COMPRISED OF MIXED HARDWOOD WETLAND SYSTEM ASSOCIATED WITH THE FLOODPLAINS OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER. IT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ST. JOHNS RIVER BLUE WAY RIVER CORRIDOR OR. IT IS CONTINUOUS WITH THE COUNTY'S 262-ACRE JACK WRIGHT ISLAND CONSERVATION AREA. UNDER THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, THE PROPERTY, THAT IS. ACQUISITION BY THE COUNTY WOULD ADD TO THIS EXISTING CORRIDOR. THE PROPERTY HAS A MARKET VALUE OF 2087 PER THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE AND IT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE CURRENT OWNER IN MAY OF 2024, FOR $2500. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE STATEMENTS IN WHICH THE APPLICANT'S INITIALS REGARDING APPRAISED PROPERTY VALUES ON THE APPLICATION, STAFF CONTACTED THE APPLICANT DIRECTLY TO STATE THAT THE COUNTY TYPICALLY ONLY OFFERS APPRAISED VALUE FOR ACQUISITIONS. SO SOME GENERAL COMPARTMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS ON THE STAFF DEFINITELY RECOMMENDS MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY AND PRESERVATION IF ACQUIR REQUIREDO ITS EXISTING CONDITION AS A VERY HIGH QUALITY WETLAND SYSTEM. AND IT IS A PART OF. AND CURRENTLY THERE IS NO DIRECT ACCESS TO OLD BL BLUFF ROAD. HOWEVER, THERE IS A RECORDED 40-FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT TO GET TO THE ROAD LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY AREA FOR THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO COORDINATE THAT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO INSTALL THE ACCESS DRIVE TO THE PROPERTY. AND SO RELATING TO THE POWERPOINT SLIDE THERE, IT SHOWS THE ACCESS EASEMENT. THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE FEMA AE FLOOD ZONE. IT HAS OUTDOOR PASSIVE USE THAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE LAND USE AND ZONING. THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, THEY REVIEWED IT AND PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS. THE PARCEL OFFERS LIMITED TO NO RECREATIONAL VALUE IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION. THE SITE LACKS THE INFRASTRUCTURE, ACCESSIBILITY AND [00:20:02] CHARACTERISTICS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT ACTIVE OR PASSIVE RECREATIONAL USE BY THE PUBLIC. THEREFORE, DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE OPERATIONAL SCOPE OR SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED THAT THE SUBJECT PARCEL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR MAINTENANCE OR PROGRAMMING UNDER PARKS AND RECREATION AT THIS TIME. THE PROPERTY DOES NOT PRESENT VALUE -- SORRY. IT DOES PRESENT VALUE FROM A CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PERSPECTIVE OR ACQUISITION OF THIS PARCEL WOULD SUPPORT THE COUNTY'S ONGOING EFFORTS TO PRESERVE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND AND EXPAND PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS. IN PARTICULAR, THE SITE'S LOCATION WITHIN THE FLORIDA FOREVER CORE DOOR MAKES IT A STRONG CANDIDATE FOR PRESERVATION FOCUSED ACQUISITION CONTRIBUTE INTO REGIONAL CONSERVATION PRIORITIES, HABITAT PROTECTION AND THE LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF WATERWAY ECOSYSTEMS. THE GRANT SECTION STATED THERE IS NO POTENTIAL FOR ACQUISITION THROUGH FCT, THE FLORIDA COMMUNITY TRUST PROGRAM. HOWEVER, THERE MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FUNDING THROUGH A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OR DEP. AND STAFF DID SPEAK WITH THEM ON THAT. THE DEP AND THE DISTRICT. CONCURRENTLY, AN APPLICATION FOR ACQUISITION WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY THE DISTRICT. HOWEVER, THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THAT THE DISTRICT STAFF BOARDED THE PROPERTY TO THE DEP STATE LANDS TO GAUGE THEIR INTEREST IN PARTNERING WITH THE COUNTY BUT STAFF IS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADDITIONAL UPDATES TO DATE. AND STAFF WILL STAND BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> GREAT. THANKS, RYAN. AND SO THE REQUEST BEFORE THE LAMP BOARD TODAY IS TO DETERMINE IF THIS PROPERTY IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAMP PROGRAM. AND IF SO, IT WOULD BE MOVED FORWARD TO THE NEXT MEETING WHERE IT WOULD UNDERGO THE SAME SCORING WE JUST DID FOR THE ARAPAHO PROPERTY. SO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ABOUT THIS PROPERTY? >> IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, IS ALL THAT GRAY AREA PRIVATELY OWNED? >> AND THROUGH THE CHAIR, THE AREA THAT IS SORT OF A LIGHT BLUE GRAY IS A RECORDED REGULATORY CONSERVATION EASEMENT. MOST OF THAT IS IN COUNTY OWNERSHIP TO THE NORTH OF THE HIGHLIGHTED PROPERTY THERE IN A YELLOW. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SMALL PORTIONS THAT ARE NOT UNDER THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. SO YOU WILL SEE THEY ARE NOT HIGHLIGHTED IN THE LIGHT BLUE. BUT THEY ARE STILL UNDER COUNTY OWNERSHIP. FOR EXAMPLE, THE AREA TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN THE CE BUT IT IS OWNED BY THE PROPERTY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHO IS THE LAND TRUST THAT CURRENTLY HAS EASEMENT ON THAT? >> I THINK IF IT IS NOT NORTH LAND TRUST, THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER ENTITY. THERE IS A SMALL, I THINK 8 ACRES OR SO, THAT IS OWNED, I THINK UNDER CE NUMBER ONE, THAT MR. CASEY WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT OWNED BY THE COUNTY BUT IT IS UNDER A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. SO IT WOULD BE LIMITED IN SCOPE AS FAR AS THE ACTIVITIES WILL BE ALLOWED IN THAT AREA. ALSO, IT IS SURROUNDED BY CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AS WELL. >> I ASK ONLY BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE COUNTY WAS TO ACQUIRE THE LAND OWNER, DO WE KNOW OF THE LAND PARTNER WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PUTTING EASEMENT ON THIS WHILE CONTINUING THE CORE DOOR? >> STAFF HAS NOT REACHED OUT TO ANY LAND TRUST ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. BUT WE CERTAINLY WOULD BE OPEN TO ASKING ABOUT IT. >> I THINK I RECALL SEEING IN THE MATERIALS FOR THIS THAT THE EASEMENTS ARE HELD BY THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE EASEMENTS ARE DISTRICT EASEMENTS. AND IF I RECALL, THESE WERE -- THE COUNTY ACQUIRE THIS PROPERTY FOR MITIGATION. AND SO THE EASEMENTS WERE A REQUIREMENT AT THAT MITIGATION. >> THAT IS RIGHT. >> THE COUNTY OWNS OTHER PROPERTIES, TERMED REGIONAL OFFSITE LITIGATION AREAS. THIS IS A SIMILAR TYPE SCENARIO WHERE THE COUNTY TAKES DOWN CERTAIN AREAS OF PROPERTY IN A CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR MITIGATION. >> OKAY. BECAUSE IN A TYPICAL SCENARIO, WHERE THE COUNTY WERE TO ACQUIRE A PROPERTY, EASEMENT IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT. IT IS KIND OF A UNIQUE SCENARIO? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY. CAN WE ALSO GO BACK TO THE MAP WHERE IT SHOWS COUNTY OWNERSHIP AND NOT JUST THE EASEMENTS? [00:25:01] I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THAT M MAP. >> SHOULD BE A COUPLE OF SLIDES BACK I THINK, MEGAN. >> OKAY. >> EVERYWHERE HERE IN YELLOW IS OWNED BY ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THAT ONE SORT OF SLENDER PEACE THERE IN THE MIDDLE IS THE ONE THAT IS OWNED BY AN ENTITY THAT IS NOT THE COUNTY BUT A LAND TRUST. >> OKAY. SO THE MIDDLE PIECE IS ALSO PROTECTED? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> I THINK THE MAP IS HELPFUL FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PARCEL IN PARTICULAR, SHOWING THE ADDITION TO THE COUNTY OWNERSHIP WHICH IS HELPFUL FROM THE MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE. >> IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE THE LAST PARCEL PIECES. >> OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROPERTY FROM THE BOARD? WHAT IS THE COST AGAIN? >> THE ASKING PRICE? I DON'T REMEMBER. >> ON THE APPLICATION, I BELIEVE THE ASKING PRICE IS -- I WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT REALLY QUICK. >> IT LOOKS LIKE $250,000 IS THE LIST PRICE. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, WITH REGARD TO THE ASKING PRICE AND THE LIST PRICE, I JUST CAUTION YOU THAT ONCE THEY GO ONTO THE LIST AS A RECOMMENDED AN ACQUISITION, THEY GO THROUGH AN APPRAISAL PROCESS AND SO NECESSARILY WHAT YOU SEE IF THERE IS NOT NECESSARILY THE FINAL PRICE OR TOTAL PRICE FOR ANY PROPERTY SO THAT SHOULD NOT DISSUADE YOU IN ANY WAY ON YOUR DECISIONS. >> GOOD POINT. >> I LIKE THE MARKET VALUE ON IT. >> OKAY, IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WISHING TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO? PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. WHO IS GOING FIRST. >> JONATHAN MALONE, 8201 ST. JOHNS. MY PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY WAS WORKING WITH BILL CURTIS AT FISHER TOUSSIE TO GET THE LAND DEVELOPED FOR OUR'S PERSONAL HOME. WE DECIDED AGAINST THAT. MY WIFE WANTED TO STAY IN A SUBDIVISION. RATHER THAN SELLING IT TO A DEVELOPER LIKE A LOT OF PLACES IN THE RIVER, I DECIDED TO BRING IT TO THIS LAMP PROGRAM TO SEE IF IT WAS A WIN WIN FOR THE BLUE WAY AS WELL AS THE CONTIGUOUS PART AREA. SO IF WE WERE TO GO DOWN THE ROAD OF GETTING IT OUT OF WETLANDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, IT WOULD PROBABLY APPRAISE FOR 700,000. SO THIS IS KIND OF TO SEE IF WE CAN DO A WIN-WIN. SO THANK YOU, GUYS. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. MISS CHAIR. >> NO. >> WE WILL GET TO YOU. I PROMISE. >> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO? WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS PROPERTY? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY, AND RECOMMENDED FOR PURCHASE. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO RECOMMEND THE PROPERTY TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT PHASE OF THE PROCESS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? >> OKAY. SAYING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MOVING THE PROPERTY TO THE NEXT STEP OF THE PROCESS, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED, SAY NAY. >> MOTION CARRIES. >> SO THIS PROPERTY WILL COME BACK UP AT THE NEXT LAMP BOARD MEETING WHERE IT WILL BE SCORED AT THAT RATE. [General public comment (Part 2 of 2)] BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO ST STEP IN BOARD REPORT, MS. CHITWOOD. >> MY NAME IS SUE CHITWOOD. I LIVE AT 600 CHRISTINA DRIVE SAINT AUGUSTINE FLORIDA 32086. >> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE COUNTY BOUNCES PHYSICAL OPPORTUNITY WITH RESERVING UNIQUE PROPERTIES BEFORE THEY ARE PERMANENTLY ALTERED. THAT IS MY REASON FOR BEING HERE TODAY. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IS WHEN A PARCEL IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO EXISTING COUNTY OWNED CONSERVATION LAND AND SERVES AS A NATURAL BUFFER OR EXTENSION OF THAT LAND, DOES THE COUNTY VIEW THAT DIFFERENTLY FROM THE ISOLATED PARCEL ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTY? [00:30:05] I'M ASKING A QUESTION. ANYBODY? RYAN? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, I CAN MENTION A LITTLE BIT OF THAT IN THE REVIEW PROCESS WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT REZONING APPLICATIONS, FOR INSTANCE. IF WE DO SEE A PROPERTY THAT IS ADJACENT TO A COUNTY OWNED OR ANY OTHER PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY, IT IS GOOD TO SEEK THE MANAGER OF THAT PROPERTY TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. THAT IS AN ARTICLE FOUR OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> OKAY. AND HOW DOES THE COUNTY VALUE A PARCEL THAT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING COUNTY OWNED LAND WHERE AN ACQUISITION WOULD EXPAND AND ALREADY PROTECT THE PRESERVED NATURAL AREA? >> IT WOULD DEPEND PEER PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED BY PRIVATELY OWNED VERSUS PUBLICLY OWNED -- OBVIOUSLY, THERE IS PROBABLY SOME DEVELOPMENT, HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THAT PROPERTY. AND ALLOWANCES BASED ON THE LAND USE AND ZONING OF THE PROPERTY. AND SO IT WOULD JUST END ON WHAT IS PROPOSED AND HOW IT MAY AFFECT OR NOT AFFECT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. COMPATIBILITY COMES INTO PLAY WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT USES AND WHETHER THEY JIVE TOGETHER OR CONFLICT WITH ONE ANOTHER. >> WHEN CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES ARE LOST, BECAUSE ACQUISITION OFFERS ARE NOT ACCEPTED, DOES THE COUNTY EVER CONDUCT A POST- ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE WHETHER DIFFERENT ACQUISITION STRATEGIES MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN PRESERVATION? >> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. GENERAL QUESTION FOR THE LAMP BOARD. IF WE ARE CONSIDERING SOMETHING -- FOR INSTANCE, LOOKING AT AN APPLICATION THAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE LAMP BOARD, WE MIGHT THINK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, SAY IF ONE PROPERTY WAS REVIEWED AND NOW IT IS NO LONGER BEING ACQUIRED OR VICE VERSA. WE MIGHT CONSIDER DIFFERENT STRATEGIES. ULTIMATELY, IT IS THE RESULTS OF AVAILABLE FUNDING. WE HAVE OUR OWN INTERNAL REVIEW PROCESS WITH -- SORRY ABOUT THAT. AND SO AS FAR AS THE EVALUATION OF THESE PROPERTIES. AND SO, THAT IS TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THEY GET ADDED TO THE RECOMMENDATION LIST EACH YEAR. AND AGAIN, EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON HOW WE REVIEW THAT AND SCORING AND WHATNOT. >> ONCE IT GOES THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND IT GOES THROUGH TO PCA AND IT IS PASSED BY PCA AND GOES TO THE COUNTY, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN THAT THE COUNTY COULD REVISIT AND LOOK BACK ON THE APPRAISAL AND SEE IF PERHAPS THE APPRAISAL COULD HAVE BEEN LOW? AND ANOTHER OFFERING MADE BEFORE IT GETS TO THE COUNTY? THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? >> YEAH. I THINK WE MIGHT BE TALKING RIGHT NOW. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING THAT LEGAL WANTS TO ADD IN ON THAT QUESTION. >> WHEN THEY HIT THE LIST, WE GO THROUGH THE APPRAISAL PROCESS. WE DO THE TWO APPRAISALS REQUIRED BY STATUTORY FROM THE STATUTES. AND THEN THEIR APPRAISERS AGAIN TO THE WILLING SELLER. OFTEN TIMES, MORE THAN ONE TIME WE HAVE HAD PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON OUR LIST AND THE SELLER HAS WITHDRAWN THE REQUEST TO HAVE THE PROPERTY ON THE LIST OR HAVE NOT ACCEPTED THE APPRAISED VALUE. AND SO IT IS A WILLING SELLER PROGRAM WHEN IT IS ON THE LIST AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY OR THAT THE SELLER WILL CONTINUE WITH THE PROCESS. >> SO BASICALLY, IT ALL GOES BACK TO THE SELLER AND WHETHER THEY ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY OR LAND? >> CORRECT. >> WHAT SAFEGUARDS ARE IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT APPRAISALS FULLY CONSIDERED COMPARABLE SALES OF SIMILAR LAND TYPES AND MARKET CONDITIONS? >> DEPENDING ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, I BELIEVE IT IS UP TO 500,000. THERE IS ONE APPRAISAL DONE. THE COUNTY HAS AN ONGOING CONTRACT. WE GO OUT AND SEEK CONTRACTORS TO DO APPRAISALS. LICENSED APPRAISALS. AND SO IF IT IS OVER 500,000 TOTAL VALUE, THERE ARE TWO APPRAISALS THAT GET DONE. THAT IS WHAT WE RELY ON FOR OUR VALUES THAT LYNN -- THAT THEN LEAD TO THE GOAT NEGOTIATION WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. >> MS. CHITWOOD. WE WILL DO ONE MORE QUESTION AND WE ARE OUT OF TIME. >> IN REGARD TO THE PROPERTY THAT I'M QUESTIONING, ARE THERE TWO APPRAISALS. BECAUSE I ONLY SAW ONE. AND I WAS ONLY TOLD THERE WAS ONE. >> I BELIEVE IT -- I'M ANTICIPATING THE PROPERTY YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT CHRISTINA DRIVE PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE LAMP LIST. [00:35:06] >> NO. THE ONE WE JUST HAD AT THE PCA. YES, CHRISTINA. I WAS ON THE WRONG END OF CHRISTINA. >> SHORES DRIVE AND CHRISTINA DRIVE ARE CURRENTLY NUMBER THREE ON THE LAMP LIST TO. AND SO I BELIEVE ONE APPRAISAL WAS DONE ON THAT PROPERTY. >> WILL THERE BE A SECOND ONE? >> IT IS UNDER 500,000 TOTAL VALUE. I BELIEV IT IS JUST THE ONE APPRAISAL. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> GOOD QUESTIONS. [Staff Report] >> WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE INTO STAFF REPORTS. >> OKAY, STAFF REPORTS. ON APRIL 24TH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION STAFF IN COOPERATION WITH PARK STAFF, SEVEN TOTAL COUNTY STAFF, VISITED THE HAWKINS ISLAND PRESERVE. THAT IS THE LAMP OWNED PROPERTY. RECENTLY ACQUIRED VIA KAYAKS TO CLEAN UP GARBAGE AND DEBRIS. WE TREATED CHINESE TALLOW AND BRAZILIAN PEPPER TREES WITH HERBICIDE OR HAND PULLING, REMOVED SEVERAL BAGS OF GARBAGE AND WILL RETURN TO REMOVE A TREE STAND AND SOME GAME CAMERAS WE FOUND ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ISLAND. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE OF, AFTER WE ACQUIRE PROPERTY, WHAT THE COUNTY DOES TO MAINTAIN THAT PROPERTY. AND SO THIS WAS SORT OF OUR FIRST OFFICIAL VISIT TO THE ISLAND, TO SEE WHAT WE COULD DO AND ACTUALLY, IT WASN'T TOO BAD AS FAR AS THE -- YOU KNOW, THE DENSITY OF THE BASES OUT THERE. WE WENT AHEAD AND TREATED THEM AND REMOVED THE GARBAGE. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, I WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE BOARD THAT THE TOP RIGHT PHOTO THERE IS YOUR VERY OWN RYAN MALCOLM CARRYING ABOUT 75 POUNDS OF TRASH ON HIS KAYAK. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THAT HE SACRIFICED HIMSELF FOR THE CA CAUSE. >> THAT IS RIGHT. IT WAS A FUN TRIP. SO I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT TO THE BOARD TO SAY, LOOK, THE COUNTY IS OUT THERE TAKING A LOOK AT THESE PROPERTIES WHEN THEY DO COME IN FOR ACQUISITION THIS WAS A PRETTY UNIQUE ONE AND WE ANTICIPATED OBVIOUSLY SOME GARBAGE FLOATING IN FROM THE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY. IT REALLY WASN'T TOO THAT. AND AGAIN, WE WILL REVISIT IT. NEXT, LAMP BUDGET BALANCE AS OF MAY 2026 IS $3,092,526. IN ADDITION TO APPROPRIATION OF THE TREE BANK FUND FOR $1.5 MILLION, WHICH GIVES US ROUGHLY $5.5 MILLION THERE THAT YOU SEE. SO THAT IS THE CURRENT BUDGET BALANCE. SO JUST A LITTLE CABBIE OUT THERE FOR THE TREE BANK FUND PORTION OF $1.5 MILLION, THAT CAN ONLY BE USED FOR FORESTED OR NATURAL SITES. AND SO THAT IS WITH CONDITIONS -- CONSISTENT WITH CONDITIONS AND ARTICLE FOUR OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ON HOW THAT FUND CAN BE USED. I DO HAVE A LIST OF BCC ITEM UPDATES AND WE COULD GET INTO THE LAMP LIST A LITTLE BIT. JUST IN GENERAL. STAFF DID DO A SITE VISIT WITH OUR FACILITY'S MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT, PARKS AND RECREATION, ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION, REAL ESTATE. WE ALL VISITED THE ADAMS PROPERTY WHICH IS ON THE CURRENT LIST, 24-25 COUNTY ROAD 13 SOUTH. ALSO COUNTY ROAD 13 SOUTH MACOLA CREEK. THE 10,69013 NORTH WHICH IS THE GLEN PROPERTY. ALL THREE OF THOSE IN MARCH FOR THE FIRST STAFF EVALUATION FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTENANCE PERSPECTIVE. THAT IS A VERY UNIQUE AND VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE ACUISITION PROCESS, SORT OF PROJECTING OUT THE MAINTENANCE PERSPECTIVE AND FUNDING AND SET UP FOR FUTURE COUNTY USE. WHAT DEPARTMENTS WILL BE USING THESE PROPERTIES AS THE END USER? AND SO AGAIN, THE 2025 RECOMMENDATION LIST WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN MARCH OF 2026. STAFF IS BEGINNING APPRAISALS AND NEGOTIATIONS TO DUE DILIGENCE WITH PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE APPROVED LIST BASED ON AVAILABLE FUNDING. COUNTY STAFF IS LOOKING FOR AVAILABLE GRANT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL TO ASSIST THE COUNTY AND ACQUISITION OF THOSE PROPERTIES. COUNTY STAFF DID VISIT THE NUMBER ONE RANKED BAILEY RANCH IN APRIL OF 2026 AND THE NORTH FLORIDA LAND TRUST ACQUISITION THROUGH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, ROCO -- RURAL AND FAMILY LANDS PROTECTION PROGRAM IS ONGOING. THE 2025 APPRAISAL WAS COMPLETED [00:40:03] AND THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY RANKED IN THE PROGRAM. OBVIOUSLY IS NUMBER ONE ON THE LIST. SO NUMBER TWO, THE RANKED ADAMS PROPERTY IS ALSO ON THE ROLE FOR THE FAMILY LANDS PROTECTION PROGRAM. THAT IS A STATE PROGRAM AGAIN. THEY ARE FINALIZING NEGOTIATIONS FOR A LESS THAN FEE PROTECTIVE EASEMENT, IS WHAT THAT IS CALLED. THE STATE ACTUALLY WOULDN'T ROSSI OF THE PROPERTY. IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY BUYING THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND RECORDING THE PROTECTED PROTECTIVECONSERVATION EASEMENTE PROPERTY. THAT IS KIND OF HOW THE RURAL AND FAMILY LANDS PROTECTION PROGRAM WORKS. SO THE COUNTY IS TRACKING ALONG WITH THIS ACQUISITION PROCESS ALONG WITH NORTH FLORIDA LAND TRUST AND THE OWNER. THE NUMBER THREE RANKED CHRISTINA DRIVE ENSURES DRIVE PROPERTY WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. THE APPRAISAL WAS ORDERED BY THE COUNTY STAFF AND WAS RECEIVED. THE NEGOTIATION HAS SINCE STALLED DUE TO THE APPLICANT NOT ACCEPTING THE APPRAISED VALUE OVER THE DESIRED LIST PRICE. AND SO THAT NEGOTIATION, WE ARE WAITING ON THE PROPERTY OWNER SISSY HOW THEY ARE GOING TO PROCEED WITH THAT. STAFF HAS ADDITIONALLY CONTACTED POTENTIAL FUNDING PARTNERS, INCLUDING THE NORTH FLORIDA LAND TRUST, WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO FUNDING OVER THE APPRAISED VALUE AT THIS TIME FOR THAT PROPERTY. THE NUMBER FOUR RANKED PROPERTY AT 10690'S IN THE PROCESS OF RECEIVING THE TWO APPRAISALS AND NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING. THE NUMBER FIVE RANKED MACOLA CREEK -- PULLEY, THE LAST NAME OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, THAT ONE HAS STALLED YOU TO A LACK OF RESPONSE. STAFF HAS CONTACTED THE PROPERTY OWNER MULTIPLE TIMES AND WE ARE STILL TRYING TO GET A HOLD OF THEM TO CONTINUE WITH THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS. A QUICK NOTE TO -- I'M PRETTY MUCH DONE WITH THE STAFF REPORTS BUT I WANTED TO PROVIDE A BOARD REPORT FOR MEMBER LAHEARY WHO COULD NOT MAKE IT TODAY. SHE WENT TO STATE THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVIDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THE GRANT REVIEW STAFF, TO THE LAMP APPLICATIONS. SO BASICALLY THE REVIEW, WHICH WE HAVE SINCE INITIATED AS THEY COME IN TO THE COUNTY REGARDING THE VALUE OF HAVING ACCESS TO GRANT STAFF COMMENTS ON FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENTS OF THE FUNDING SUSTAINABILITY. THIS WOULD BE A GREAT ADDITION AND WE WILL ASSIST THE BOARD TO EVALUATE THE SUSTAINABILITY OF GRANT FUNDING SECTION ON THE EVALUATION MATRIX. THAT WAS FROM MEMBER LAHEARY. SHE WANTED TO GET THAT OUT THERE. >> GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT UPDATE. [Board Member Report] AND COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, APOLOGIES. I CAME IN AND THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT MY FEET UP TODAY AND JUST BE A BOARD MEMBER AND I AM CHAIR. SO APOLOGIES SKIPPING OVER YOU TO BEGIN WITH. >> I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO SAY. I WANTED TO MENTION THAT AT THE MEETING, THE FIVE PROPERTIES THAT YOUR BOARD CAME FORWARD WITH, IT WAS DISCUSSED ABOUT REMOVING ONE OF THEM FOR SOME CONCERNS. BUT I REALLY -- I SPOKE OUT AND SAID, YOU GO THROUGH A VERY RIGOROUS PROCESS WHEN IT COMES TO CHOOSING THESE. AND I SAID I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO SUPPORT WHAT IS COMING FORWARD WITH FOR LAMP. WE DID KEEP ALL FIVE YOU SUGGESTED. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT YOU ARE ALL VOLUNTEERING AND WORKING HARD ON THESE PROPERTIES. A LOT GOES INTO EVEN GETTING THEM ON THE LIST. AND SO I JUST FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO REALLY SUPORT WHAT YOU ALL ARE DOING. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE TO BOARD REPORTS AND WE WILL START AT THE END. DAVE, ANYTHING TO REPORT? >> I DO HAVE A REPORT BUT I HAVE SOMETHING I WANT TO PUT FORWARD AS MAY BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE. BEING NEW TO THE BOARD BUT HAVING OBSERVED IT FOR A WHILE, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROCESS, AS WE ONLY PRESENT PROPERTIES TO THE OMMISSION TO REVIEW ONCE A YEAR, MY CONCERN IS THAT WE MAY LOSE GOOD PROPERTIES SOMETIMES BCAUSE OF THE SPEED. BECAUSE ONE IT IS APPROVED, IT STARTS TO HOLD DUE DILIGENCE AND REALLY THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO START NEGOTIATIONS AND THINGS. AND I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN THINK ABOUT A WAY TO -- IF WE IDENTIFY A PROPERTY THAT IS REALLY VALUABLE BUT IS AT RISK THAT WE MAY LOSE IT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER DOESN'T WANT TO WAIT ANOTHER SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE COMMISSION EVEN SEES IT FOR APPROVAL, IF THERE IS A WAY WE CAN ACCELERATE SOME OF THE HIGHER RISK PROPERTIES SO WE DON'T AT LEAST LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY. SOMETHING I WANTED TO PUT OUT FOR CONSIDERATION. >> AND I THINK WE MAY HAVE [00:45:05] DISCUSSED THAT AT SOME POINT, GOING TO A BIANNUAL REVIEW. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE LEFT OFF WITH THAT. >> I THINK YOU AND I DISCUSSED IT. WHERE WE STAND NOW IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT, THERE IS PLENTY OF ROOM THAT, IN AN AD HOC WAY, WE CAN SAY THIS ONE LOOKS IMPORTANT. AND WORK WITH STAFF AND SEE IF THERE IS A PATH TO GET A REVIEW THROUGH A PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I UNDERSTAND A QUESTION. I KNOW THE POTENTIAL SLOWNESS OF THE TRANSACTION. BUT AT THE CURRENT TIME, IF WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE, LET'S WORK TOGETHER AND SEE HOW WE CAN TAKE IT TO THE BOARD. >> SIR, THROUGH THE CHAIR AND TO MEMBER TATE, ACCORDING TO YOUR ORDINANCE, IT STAYS AT THE LAMP CONSERVATION BOARD AND SHALL CHOOSE BY A SUPER MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE BOARD. THE TOP FIVE CANDIDATES FOR ACQUISITION AND CONSERVATION SUBMIT THIS LIST RANKS AS BELOW AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR. YOU CAN DO IT ONCE A YEAR BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE ENTIRE LIST. YOU COULDN'T KIND OF PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH ONES. SO YOU CAN VISIT YOUR LIST MORE THAN ONCE A YEAR BUT IT WOULD BE THE ENTIRE LIST. YOU CAN DO IT BIANNUALLY IF THAT WOULD BE THE WILL OF THE BOARD. >> IT PICKED MY INTEREST A LITTLE BIT, RYAN, WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ADAMS FAMILY PROPERTY. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT ACQUIRING POTENTIALLY THE DEED, DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, VERSUS THE PROPERTY ITSELF. DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? >> YES. THAT IS THROUGH THE STATE. NOT THE COUNTY. THE STATE RURAL AND FAMILY LANDS PROGRAM. >> OKAY. SO THE STATE WOULD ACQUIRE THROUGH THAT PROGRAM UNDER THAT TAX AND THE EASEMENT, OR THE LAND TRUST WOULD BE -- I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY PROTECTED, IS IT NOT? >> NOT YET. IT IS ACTUALLY PRIVATELY OWNED. HE REFERS TO IT AS A CONSERVATION AREA. BUT ONLY IN NAME AND NOT IN A FISHY REALITY, AS FAR AS PUBLIC LANDS. OR EVEN IN A PRIVATE SCENARIO. SO THERE IS NO EASEMENT OVER THAT PROPERTY RIGHT NOW ALTHOUGH A FAIR TECHNIQUES HAVE BEEN USED SUCH AS PRESCRIBED BURNS AND EVEN SOME MONITORING OR REPORTING ON THE LISTED SPECIES OUT THERE. BUT THAT IS ALL UNDER A PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. >> OKAY. >> I BRING UP THE PROPERTY BECAUSE I DRIVE BY IT ALL THE TIME. I WAS JUST OUT BY THE CREEK FRIDAY. IS A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY. I THINK IT IS A GREAT FIT FOR THE COMMUNITY. I'M EXCITED TO HAVE THOSE UPDATES ON IT. THANK YOU. >> TO THE CHAIR, FOR THE MEMBERS, SO YOU ARE AWARE, IN YOUR ORDINANCE, YOU ARE ALLOWED -- THERE IS LAND FOR LESS THAN A FEE. WE WOULD CONSIDER CONSERVATION OR PURCHASE THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO THE EASEMENT PROCESS. YOUR ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW TO PURCHASE, IF THEY ARE BROUGHT FORWARD IN THAT MANNER. >> I IMAGINE THAT WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE PART OF THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS BETWEEN STAFF AND LANDOWNER. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, THROUGH THE MEMBER, IT IS A WILLING SELLER. IT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY BROUGHT FORWARD. IT CAN BE A NEGOTIATION. IF THEY BRING FORWARD THE FEE, THAT IS WHAT THEY BRING FORWARD. WE HAVE HAD A FEW THAT HAVE ASKED TO PURCHASE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE NEGOTIATED. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING FROM MR. GAMBLE IN YOUR REPORTS? >> MS. MISS LOVETT. >> JUST LOOK FORWARD TO SERVING ON THE BOARD. IT IS MY FIRST MEETING. IT IS A PLEASURE. THANK YOU FOR THE TRUST IN ME. . I LOOK FORWARDTO THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. >> IT IS GREAT TO HAVE YOU. >> NOTHING FROM ME. WITH THAT, MOTION TO ADJOURN. OKAY. WE * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.