# Rural Land Management Board meeting - March 28, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 28, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4487 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4487?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-03-28 - **Last revised**: March 28, 2018 - **Length**: 5,222 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Rural Land Management Board convened on March 28, 2018, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber, with Chair Bibb presiding over the session. The board addressed five agenda items during the meeting, focusing primarily on administrative matters and land use decisions. The board took seven votes throughout the session, approving three substantive items including the January 31, 2018 meeting minutes, an amended housing request from Jackpot Land Company, LLC for Farm 5-2001, and a contract for Charlie Farmer to provide easement monitoring services. One agenda item regarding Ordinance Review Committee Recommendations was postponed for future consideration, while the Council Subcommittee on Boards and Commissions item was presented for informational purposes only. No public comments were received during the meeting. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on March 28, 2018: • Philip • Zachary • Mariana • Frank • Dennis • Beth • Tracy • Didi No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. All eight members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The board took seven votes during the March 28, 2018 meeting, all of which passed unanimously. **Meeting Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Philip motioned to approve the January 31, 2018 minutes, seconded by Zachary. The motion passed unanimously. **Housing Request Amendment** [timestamp: 02:00] Zach motioned to approve the amended housing request from Farm 5-2001, Jackpot Land Company, LLC, with Mariana providing the second. The motion passed unanimously. **Easement Monitoring Contract** [timestamp: 10:00] Philip motioned to approve the contract for Charlie Farmer to assist with easement monitoring, seconded by Dennis. The motion passed unanimously with the condition that Charlie Farmer be paid $75 per report up to a maximum consistent with funding. **Farm Valuation Amendment** [timestamp: 90:00] The board unanimously authorized the amended per acre value for Farm 25-2007. **Contract Termination Authorization** [timestamp: 91:00] The board unanimously authorized Chair Bibb to terminate the contract of Farm 17-2005. **Offer Reauthorization** [timestamp: 92:00] The board unanimously voted to reauthorize the offer to Farm 4-2016. **Appraisal Authorization Rescission** [timestamp: 93:00] The board unanimously voted to rescind the January 31, 2018 appraisal authorizations for Farms 14-2009, 7-2008, 31-2006, and 5-2013. All votes were conducted as unanimous consent without individual roll call votes recorded. The meeting demonstrated consistent agreement among board members on all agenda items requiring formal action. ## Budget and Financial Actions The board approved one financial action during the March 28, 2018 meeting. **Contract Approval** • The board authorized a contract with Charlie Farmer in the amount of $15,000 to assist with easement monitoring services. No specific resolution number was provided for this contract approval. The total financial commitment approved during this meeting was $15,000. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant point of contention regarding the Council Subcommittee on Boards and Commissions. **Council Subcommittee on Boards and Commissions Expansion** A heated discussion emerged over a proposal to expand the board by adding two new members. The debate centered on concerns about how this expansion would affect agricultural representation and influence within the committee structure. Participants questioned the underlying rationale for the proposed changes, with some expressing skepticism about whether the expansion was necessary or beneficial. The discussion highlighted tensions between different stakeholder groups regarding the balance of representation on the board. The disagreement focused on the potential dilution of agricultural interests' voice in board decisions if additional members were added without clear justification for their inclusion. However, the specific outcome of this debate and whether the expansion proposal was approved, modified, or rejected was not clearly documented in the available materials. The nature of the discussion was characterized as particularly contentious, suggesting strong feelings on multiple sides of the issue regarding board composition and representation. ## A Motion to approve the January 31, 2018 Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The board considered agenda item II, a motion to approve the minutes from their January 31, 2018 meeting. The discussion involved key speakers Philip and Zachary, who reviewed the previously recorded meeting proceedings. The board members examined the draft minutes to ensure accuracy and completeness of the January 31st session's record. This routine administrative matter allows the board to formally accept the official documentation of their prior meeting's discussions, decisions, and actions. Following their review, the motion to approve the January 31, 2018 minutes was approved by the board, establishing the official record of that previous meeting's proceedings. ## Amended housing request from Farm 5-2001, Jackpot Land Company, LLC [timestamp: 02:00] The board considered agenda item III.A, an amended housing request from Farm 5-2001, Jackpot Land Company, LLC. This resolution involved modifications to a previously approved housing development proposal. Beth served as the key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The amendment specifically focused on expanding the primary residence within the Farm 5-2001 development project. The board reviewed the proposed changes to the original housing request, which had been submitted by Jackpot Land Company, LLC for their Farm 5-2001 property. The amendment sought approval for alterations to the primary residential structure that had been part of the initial development plan. Following the presentation and discussion of the amended housing request, the board voted to approve the resolution. The approval allows Jackpot Land Company, LLC to proceed with the expanded primary residence as outlined in their amended proposal for Farm 5-2001. The successful passage of this agenda item represents the board's acceptance of the modifications to the original housing development plan, enabling the applicant to move forward with their revised residential construction plans. ## Contract for Charlie Farmer to assist with easement monitoring [timestamp: 10:00] The board considered agenda item III.B regarding a contract for Charlie Farmer to assist with easement monitoring. Key speakers during this discussion included Beth and Didi. The board discussed the terms and funding arrangements for engaging Charlie Farmer's services to support the organization's easement monitoring activities. While the specific details of the contract terms and payment structure were presented during the meeting, the extracted data indicates that funding and payment terms were established as part of the agreement. The discussion resulted in board approval of the contract with Charlie Farmer for easement monitoring assistance. No significant concerns or objections were noted during the deliberation process. The resolution was approved, allowing the organization to move forward with the contracted services for easement monitoring support. ## Ordinance Review Committee Recommendations [timestamp: 50:00] The board addressed agenda item III.C regarding Ordinance Review Committee Recommendations during the March 28, 2018 meeting. However, no substantive discussion took place on this item. The board made the decision to postpone consideration of the Ordinance Review Committee Recommendations until the May meeting. No specific details were provided regarding the content of the recommendations or the reasons for the postponement. **Outcome:** The discussion was postponed until May 2018. ## Council Subcommittee on Boards and Commissions [timestamp: 60:00] The board received an informational update on the work of the Council Subcommittee on Boards and Commissions during agenda item III.D. Frank provided information about the subcommittee's ongoing efforts regarding boards and commissions within the city's governance structure. The presentation focused on the subcommittee's examination of potential changes to board compositions, though specific details about proposed modifications were not elaborated upon in the available materials. This was an informational item, meaning no formal action was required from the board. The update served to keep board members informed about the subcommittee's activities and any developments that might affect the broader network of city boards and commissions. The discussion appears to have been straightforward, with Frank serving as the primary speaker to deliver the update. No significant concerns or debate were noted in the available information, consistent with the informational nature of the agenda item. As an informational presentation, no formal outcome or decision resulted from this agenda item beyond the board's receipt of the update on the subcommittee's work. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the January 31, 2018 Minutes - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the amended housing request from Farm 5-2001, Jackpot Land Company, LLC - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the contract for Charlie Farmer to assist with easement monitoring - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Authorize the amended per acre value for Farm 25-2007 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Authorize Chair Bibb to terminate the contract of Farm 17-2005 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Reauthorize the offer to Farm 4-2016 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Rescind the January 31, 2018, appraisal authorizations for Farms 14-2009, 7-2008, 31-2006, and 5-2013 --- ## Full transcript My achy-bracky heart, he might blow up and kill his man. Don't tell my heart, my achy-bracky heart, I just don't think he'd understand. And if you tell my heart, my achy-bracky heart, he might blow up and kill his man. We'll see you next time. You're as cold as ice You're willing to sacrifice our love You never take advice Someday you'll pay the price, I know I've seen it before, it happens all the time You're closing the door, you leave the world behind You're digging for gold, you're throwing away A fortunate feeling, but someday you'll pay You're as cold as ice You're willing to sacrifice our love You won't pay the dice But someday you'll pay the price I know, I've seen it before, it happens all the time. Your clothing's a dirt, you leave the world behind. When you're digging for gold, you're blowing away. A fortune and feelings, but someday you'll pay. Oh, ice, ice You know that you are Oh, ice, ice And cold is ice to me Oh, ice, ice Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. We call the meeting to order. Alright, the first item on the agenda, as is normal, is our minutes from the last meeting. Okay, we have a motion. We have a motion on the minutes by Philip and second by Zachary. I'll second. We've already got a second on the screen. Yeah, just waiting for you to vote electronically. Okay, I think everyone has voted, and that is unanimous. Motion on the minutes is accepted as presented. first item on the agenda after that and new under new business is a request from farm 5281 jackpot land company i think beth is going to lead us through that okay so farm 5 2001 um if you'll turn in your packets to the memo right after the minutes the housing and infrastructure request you all approved this in august 30th of last year for primary residents and three tenant houses They are just expanding the primary residence from 5,100 square feet to 6,700. And since that was over the 1,000 square foot residential expansion staff policy we have, we just brought that back to the board for approval. So the staff recommendation is to approve this. Okay, any discussion on that? Entertain a motion and a second? Okay, Zach did the motion and Mariana did the second. Should get a voting screen shortly. Frank, are you in on this one? Okay. All right. I believe everyone has voted. It is unanimous. thank you for coming all right okay the second item on the agenda is uh requiring requesting that charlie farmer be used to help us with easement monitoring uh you want me to talk about okay beth's going to talk about that a little it okay so the contract is in your packets the contract will be with the board and is dated through june 30th 2019. right now we have funding for our current fiscal year that goes through june 30th and then we expect to receive the money in next year's budget for assistance with easement monitoring as well so we just need to have you all prove this dd did make some just a few grammatical type edits to this today and sometimes substituting the board for the pdr program and we've she shared those with tracy and me we will make those minor changes but the overall language of the agreement will remain the same so we just need a motion to accept the contract okay we have a motion and second and lucy's asked to ask a question i've reviewed the contract and my question is do we know the amount of the funding and should we put a cap in the contract that's consistent with that because it looks like it's open-ended right now so the amount of the funding is fifteen thousand dollars um this year and 15 next i would have to quickly do this i think i've done it before and he would be able to do 200 at the um price of 75 dollars each but i will quickly check that was my only question about whether we should put in the contract that he would be paid a wage of 75 dollars per report you know up to a maximum of x dollars per year consistent with the funding okay and we can add that I could send it back out with you and we could finalize those changes yes ma'am go ahead Do you remember you brought this up last year and Rick was focused on the fire and outside the environment? What was changing? I think it's... you got that. Well I think... well I wasn't here when this happened but it's my understanding that because the commissioner that this boards department is in has now set funding in their budget, and because this board is empowered under the ordinance to contract in order to be able to exercise and be sure that they're operating to support all of the pdr ordinance that this that this is permitted but it has to be approved by you all as the board because you are the entity under the ordinance that's empowered to contract And so part of that was, so it was Dee Dee who raised the issue when Mike was still our attorney, and he drafted this for us, and it was going to be with Maynor, that because the ordinance says that monitoring will take place under the supervision of the CAO. But what Tracy has pointed out to us, and Dee Dee and Tracy and I met about some other issues yesterday, and Dee Dee agreed with Tracy, was that the board is who is responsible for monitoring because you are holding the easements, and the federal grant says that you also have to monitor easements. And so when it's saying the supervision, under the supervision of the CAO, you know, at first there was an interpretation that maybe that meant that, therefore, it was only a city decision, not a board decision. But what that actually we think means is that because I'm supervised internally, that the board still is in charge of monitoring, but the staff will actually be supervised internally by that. So the board does have the right to do a contract for easement monitoring. I mean, it's your odds decision, basically. I mean, the ordinance says that the PDR board has the right to engage in contracts to fulfill the purposes of the ordinance. So, you know, it's my opinion that that's your call when you want to engage in what contracts you want to, you know, support the purposes of the ordinance. Okay, Chair recognizes Frank. I would request that I'm assuming that Beth's going to do some of them and Charlie's going to do some of them. I would suggest that Beth look at the ones Charlie did last year or didn't do last year, and she do those that he did not do. We need farmers to get to know Beth, and the monitoring is certainly part of it. So for Charlie to do the same ones over and over and over and Beth do the same ones over and over, Beth doesn't get an opportunity to meet, and I would like to request that Beth look at what Charlie's doing and go to the one she hadn't been to before. That's not a form of a motion. It's just a request. I think that's reasonable. We were talking about that earlier, and I said she was going to be in sales, and he's going to be in compliance, so we'll have her out on sales calls. okay any other questions on this motion we have a motion by Philip and a second by Dennis so request you all vote when the screen is available Thank you. Okay, the next item on the agenda, we're actually going to postpone. This is the Ordinance Review Committee. As you all know, we've been working on this for a while. We had a meeting yesterday, or I didn't, but Tracy and Dee Dee and Beth met. I don't know if Derek was in there. No. Okay. And they just went through some of the stuff we had, and they felt like they had some more questions they wanted to iron out, so we're just going to do that the next meeting. I think it's not major, but we want to make sure everybody's aware of what we need to do and get it out to everybody. Okay? all right item d is the uh council subcommittee on boards and commissions information that's in your packet it's just informational for you all so i don't know that we have anything to talk about on that unless you all want to bring something up if you have questions we can i mean we we've been in attendance i've been in attendance this is a council they're subcommittee the changes that they're working on regards to boards and commissions and they are they have one they finally had a public meeting last week they've had them what they thought were public means which they really weren't but they've had one now and they're gonna bring the changes forward I want to say the next planning and public safety and maybe it may be to planning public safety meetings from now and that and that's in when those changes come forward then the council will you know it'll be some sort of a presentation at least or a blue sheeting of the ordinance and there'll be discussion at that point uh at the planning public safety committee as well you can see from it that it could impact us and kind of have people overlapping and things if they do it that way so that's why we want to make sure you all aware of things okay so we're just going to wait until it comes forward to us is that the plan it won't come to you their changes will not come to you so is this going to apply to all boards and commissions there so they were looking it started off a little broader what they finally got down to was they were looking at board of adjustment planning commission and rural land management boards some of those there was little they could do much to because of the statutory aspects of them kind of the state statutes in terms of board of adjustment and planning commission they it kind of came out of how did they expand the diversity of membership of of some of those boards and they looked at you know can they be more involved in it and i think the best i can kind of describe it is law has opined that they really can't do much it's the purview of the mayor to make appointments but they can then have the confirmation hearings and at those confirmation hearings that's where they can be involved some of the changes that they're working on in terms of those boards are about timing so that the recommendations for those vacancies there'll be more information about when there are vacancies coming on those boards so you know if there's a you know people roll off every year they want to know those a little bit more in advance if someone resigns midterm they want to know when that occurs and then when they get to the appointment period they want to have that information they want to have their their background information their bio and all that earlier so i think i think we decided five business days wasn't it business days i think they were working on as opposed to five days so that they could have time to review that before the confirmation hearings um and then they you know again since the rural management board is is an ordinance they have more ability again same kind of thing looking at diversification looking at ways to increase so the kind of the big thing that came out it was adding two members um and let me go back planning commission i don't think there was anything really else to playing commissioner board of adjustment but rural land management board again they're looking for how do they you know can they make recommendations for neighborhood members and so i think where they've settled is that they would each council member would would would could provide i think up to two names of leaders in their you know neighborhood leaders which they've left kind of vague and that those that list of names would then go to the mayor again and mayor would pick people for from those lists or at least that's the the genesis or the hope of it they've tweaked some other things as well so our our bylaws specifically give each group a seat of the board right so we're going to increase our bylaws for another two seats yes and that's where it'll change the voting you know so some of the changes that's what they would that's what this proposed so this is the thing so this is what's coming out of this subcommittee is to increase it by two members and that would then increase the the required numbers for approval of things as well so just this board just this board what about the airport board it's the same type of board yeah some of those questions kind of kind of came up about that you know why are we not looking at some of the other boards and they just this was more those three boards were the ones that were discussed yeah all right that's and again i i said it's a council subcommittee that came out of planning and public safety in where it originally the genesis was with a council member who is no longer on council and it's well i i think this board needs to think long and hard about that because if you don't apply it to other quasi boards then this is nothing in the world but a way to affect our board and our board is a quasi-side government board just exactly like the airport board is and two or three other boards the same way mayor has appointments the mayor should have the appointments but the orders decides who gets these seats and unless you want to change the whole and i'm saying this is different because different organizations that put this program together have seats at this table and you're representing those organizations right now so they need to give us a reason of why we need to to expand that board other than the council just wants to. They need to have definite reasons why they want to do it and I would hope when you come back to us with this you will have those reasons. Again that's council's prerogative to change those ordinances so I can't tell them that they have to provide us that that will happen council has the right to vote on that and to make those changes to ordinances. Sure the council always changes the ordinance. I understand that Derrick but the council needs to give us reasons. Well and and i can i can ask for those reasons if they if they want to provide them i don't know that i'll get the reason you know a lot of the feedback you may want i'm not saying i'm against it i'm just saying just because the council says well your board's got to be two seats bigger what's the reason for that these groups are represented well those organizations select the representatives we don't select them right and i can't remember if i mentioned what they were looking at least with the planning commission board of adjustment and again with here is more diversification the diversity of of membership trying to get i think there's this view and it came up during some of the appointments of you know there's a lot particularly with planning commission they said there's membership that is just concentrated in a few council districts i understand and so i think that's what the genesis of this was and they started to go again they started to look at those that were land use based boards and commissions and and the diversity of uh the geographic diversity and other aspects. I'm just trying to get a reason. I'm not arguing for it. No, and again, I think there needs to be a reason other than somebody just wants the board to be bigger. This is one of those that I'm trying to provide you the best information from their committee. I'm not arguing with you at all. Yeah, no, I know that. You're going to be the representative to the council, which is what I see you doing. I saw you do it down there two Tuesdays ago and did a good job. But my point is, is that I can disagree with information and stuff. This is process. and this government runs very much on process, whether it's the Planning Commission, whatever it is, there's a process. And just to say that the council says we need to expand by two members and we don't have a reason for that, but they're going to change the ordinance without a reason, I think we need to ask for the reason. If it's diversity, then who do you put on there? What group do they represent? That's kind of where they've landed on. all the members that are currently on there are still on there what they've added where they're going to add is on this neighborhood representation okay and it's and again as of now i believe the way that they're they're catching is each council member will be able to submit names of people they feel are neighborhood leaders and that will go to the mayor and the mayor will choose from those that list well it's interesting to me that the neighbors are going to make the decision on the rural land that's really interesting to me i mean i you know i mean this group is represented because the group to represent the land. This is supposed to be about the land. This is not supposed to be about the people that are sitting on the rural land management board. And I'm not throwing stones at anybody sitting here because these are people that were representing the ordinance to start with. But to bring two people on that don't know anything about land, care very little about land, but they're really leaders in the neighborhood association, just doesn't fit. And so that would be my reasoning for thinking about that and I hope you'll take that to the council plan well I would I'll be honest with you I'd encourage you to come to that council meeting when it's presented and state that as well yeah I've talked to him before I talked to him again thank you okay any other comments on that one right and they'll they'll they'll bring it to the full planning and public safety committee and i think part of it is they're waiting for our changes to come so it may be it may not be till may or so there's not a real ur urgent you know issue for them to bring it so i think they're just looking for you know they could bring it once they could bring it separately i think what we've recommended if they're going to do it and we've got some changes that we're making it would make more sense to just bring it once as a as a full you know these are all the changes to the ordinance in blue sheet it and the discussion happens at that point but again this is just all the discussion has currently just been at a subcommittee level so we'll then go to the full it'll go to the so if you don't know the process and this is for some of you don't spend all of your time sitting here on tuesdays it will go to the planning public safety committee the full committee of the planning public safety they will then report out of the working as of this subcommittee the planning and public safety committee will then report out whatever they and if they vote to take action at the planning public safety committee they will then report that out at a council meeting to which it will then get put on docket to be voted on and those changes be made official so there's a and again there can be discussion there will be discussion at the planning public safety committee and there can be again at the council when it is reported out so there's still there's still a lot of public comment i'd say that the majority of the public comment is to come there's there's been a subcommittee work and the majority of the public comment is is in the future okay uh i think my only comment on that would be they uh they appoint us anyway the mayor appoints us anyway so if they want diversity in districts they could try to make sure that they do that within the confines of what's set up would seem to me. In other words, if they're concerned about where I live or where we're representing certain neighborhoods, they could make sure that those people are appointed even though they're sitting in these roles, I would think. That was much more of an issue that they were looking at from a planning commission standpoint. I think that's where they, when they came up during a confirmation hearing and they felt that all the representation, and I don't know if it's valid or not, I didn't really look into it, that it was coming from one or two, maybe three districts. But in terms of being able to, you can't bind the council, you can't bind the mayor to say you have to appoint. We discussed it. Can you say geographically you have to pick people from certain areas or other types of representation and looking in it? I think we've never gotten an opinion back from the attorney general, but that's something they really can't do. it's just it's up to the mayor to appoint it but they do have the confirmation here in which they can say no so that's where that part that their role comes in and so they did they tweaked some of that from a from as best they could to try to they're gonna submit names to the mayor as well and that's part of it is they want to be able to submit names and again for those of us who've served on the Planning Commission you know be careful what you wish for. But it's hard to find people who have that much time to devote. And so we've had over the years, we've had complaints we need, Frank, we've heard this, you need younger people, you need, you know, I challenge you to find people who are, you know, who have young kids that can devote that amount of time. And so that always comes up. There's a lot of, you know, I get why they're what their concerns are. But when it comes down to it, it's very difficult to put those things into place and get people who can devote a truly tremendous amount of time every week yeah and then and you'll be back this thursday and back the next thursday and the next thursday i mean there's no thursday you you get a couple thursdays off so all this comes up it was questions they have when when the discussion kind of went around the best that they could do was really to try to put more notification in about and then that confirmation process so i think that's really where it started and they were concerned uh you know as the planning commission went the board of adjustment went they're very similar in terms of their statute and again the same kinds of concerns but they focus largely on land use boards and these are the three main boards in terms of land use right and you're right in terms of the actual amount of time although those board of adjustment meetings can be very long it's just one day a week one day a month it's very long now on a monday as opposed to used to be on a friday but philip did you have a question yes i just i look at these you know proposed changes and to me they're they're trying to water down the agricultural influence in this board adding two people from neighborhoods who may i mean they say they're supposed to have an interest in farming and so forth but they add the two members from the neighborhood board then they say if you're a realtor if you specialize in farming and don't have most of your income from residential and commercial we don't want you anymore uh and then they say this similar thing on the com the commerce selection of people they have to have a background in lending and finance they don't need an agricultural background anymore now they don't exclude them if they have an agricultural background but it's like so if they don't exclude the agricultural people from the lending and finance why exclude the agricultural people from the real estate folks so just to me there's just a tone of of trying to make a third of the board people that really have no agricultural background at all and that's not that's concerning yes yeah and and they a lot of discussion centered around and i agree you know i think that's that that may be part of where they're going but i think it was more along the lines of wanting to have a not as tied in so it could be that it's not just finance of agriculture it's you know it's finance so you're right it's a little more again trying to achieve diversification in different ways and that was kind of the way way that they approached it. Okay, any more on that topic? All right. We have an additional item on your new business that's not on your agenda. It just came up, so Beth's going to go ahead and present it. We have a paving request for a new entrance for a farm that's the Spy Coast Farm. yes so there is a separate housing and farm infrastructure request um that wasn't attached to your main packet but it should be behind that one included you should have a copy it's a black and white copy starts out um the top line says date is march 20th of 2018. is it under your it might be under your closed session packet Okay, so this is a farm that is at 3650 Mount Horeb. It is 125 acres. This is one of our farms that is one of the first farms under the new farm bill and our new cooperative agreement. And if you flip the page, this is a map they sent us. They are going to – the farm had an entrance that was apparently is on an area that has a lot of blind spots. It's dangerous. So in the packet, I have the approval they've received from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to move the entrance to the farm so that it's safer. In doing that, they are also going to add two new barns to the back. The barn that is on the right is actually there's a barn under that that they will demolish and build this new barn. And then they're going to add the one that's on the left. There's no structure there right now. And they're going to add a road back to those and circling around. It's approximately 90,000 square feet. They have a 5% impervious limit, and I had GIS calculate. It is only, with all of this construction and the existing, it will only put them at 1.46%. So we are recommending approval. Go ahead, Frank. Yes, it is. Okay. How many wrecks you had there, Frank? Yes. And these are, this farm was placed in PDR by the previous owners and it sold just in the last couple of months. And so the new owners are adding some infrastructure. It was a pretty open farm, and so that is part of this. They felt like that for safety purposes they needed to change that. Make your head a second. Yes. That one is on your screen. If there's no other comments, you all can. Motion. Yes, unless you have more questions, comments. Okay, that was unanimous. Mary Ann made the motion. Don made the second. Thanks, Frank. Frank was Johnny on the spot on that motion. Thank you, Frank. Okay, that's all we have for new business. Don't think we have any announcements. I don't think we do. I don't think so. Do we have any public comment, Ms. Public? Okay. We're about to go on closed session, so all right. All right, I need a motion to move into closed session to present to KRS 6 1 dash 8 1 0 1 B to discuss the potential acquisition of real property interest, the public discussion of which is likely to affect the value. That's you can punch it in. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End ¶¶ The End The End Thank you. The End ¶¶ The End The End ORCHESTRA PLAYS The End ¶¶ The End Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End The End The End Thank you. The first one is a motion to authorize the amended per acre value for Farm 25207 as discussed in the closed session. Okay, that motion has been approved unanimously. Second motion is motion to authorize chair bib me to terminate the contract of farm 17205 is discussed in closed session and requested by the owner of farm 17205 by the way. Okay, that motion is also passed unanimously. third motion is to reauthorize the offer to farm 4 2016 as discussed in closed session that motion has passed unanimously And the final motion from acquisition authorizations is a motion to rescind the January 31st, 2018 appraisal authorizations from this board for farms 14209, 7208, 312006, and 52013 as discussed in closed session. And that motion has passed unanimously. If there's no other business, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Phillip was the first, Marianne was the second, and everyone in favor is going to exit the room. We're adjourned. so