Love in the world For you, girl, oh, girl There's just not enough love in the world Not enough love in the world In the world In the world I'm not alone Thank you. I wouldn't criticize. I guess you had to weigh in. You said I've got to make you understand. I know it sounds the coolest thing to say. But it's gone better, baby. Because today's another day. You're shining a love for my life. You're shining a love for my life. You're shining a love for my life in the V.C. We'll be right back. You shine a love on my life Let me see Can you understand? Yes, I understand Can you feel it's right? I know it is Will you be the same? I'll do it all again All right, I guess we can call the meeting to order. Your chairman has an ear infection. I can't hear very good. I can't tell how loud I'm talking or anything else, so do the best I can. First item on the agenda is the approval of the May 30th minutes. So I'm going to look those over and entertain a motion on that. Greg, I have something to ask first. Okay, sir, go ahead. I find our minutes are still incomplete as there is no mention of the questions and issues raised by myself and other board members in our last meeting. Specifically, discussion of farm recruitment and the effect of delays on our program's reputation. Discussion of federal rules and how they affect our program and its goal of 50,000 acres. Discussion of how to remedy the backlog of pending closings. discussion of how best to work with NRCS, other possible ways to fund farm easement purchases, discussion of our funding request process, concern regarding communication between the board and the office and you as chair and landowners, and discussion regarding inviting the local NRCS officials to a board meeting to discuss practices and policies and how best to increase efficiency. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but as they stand, we have four sentences in the minutes for a 60-minute discussion. There is also no mention in the minutes of the discussion that followed Mr. McPeak's presentation and request. And finally, the vote on Farm 27-2002, as reflected in the minutes, is incorrect. The correct vote was eight votes for and one recuse. The minutes currently state that it was nine votes for and zero in opposition. I am concerned because we discussed the same issue at our November 2, 2016 meeting, when the minutes did not adequately reflect the extensive discussions regarding Cobra Farm at the August 29, 2016 meeting. The minutes in question at that meeting were not approved, nor should these as they are written. I would again ask that the minutes be updated to reflect the details, all of the details, from the discussion of the last meeting and resubmitted to the board for review prior to a request for approval. Thank you. Prior, in November 2016, the meeting you're referring to, COBRA, we were still meeting in the Phoenix building. Since then, we've been meeting in the council chamber, and it's televised, so it's available for everyone to see. It is recorded. It's on Lex TV, and it says that at the end of our minutes that it's a summary. We've also been advised at times by law to not go into such detail with our minutes. So this is a summary. It's how we've done things. And I'll tell you about the last discussion that actually you were out of order in talking about the letter from the Fayette Alliance because it was a special meeting. And you can only discuss items on the agenda, and that was not. and Greg continuously told you you can't talk about that. You can't talk about that when you tried and you proceeded. And so that was out of order. So I'll be happy to add that to the minutes, but I will note that it was a violation of open meetings laws. Do you have in writing or on the tape where I was told that that is out of order? I'm sure you can hear it. Greg kept shaking his head and saying, you can't talk about that, Zach. You can't talk about that. And I shook my head and said, you can't talk about that. I don't recall. And if that was the case, I should have been ruled out of order immediately. Well, that would be up to our attorney. But regardless, we have four sentences in the minutes for a 60-minute discussion at the last meeting. And they're on TV. This is how the city does these meetings. So they're summaries when they're recorded. When we discussed this at the November 2016 meeting, Derek asked, how would you like those minutes presented? and i think from what i saw on the tape the discussion was basically line by line were those minutes ever produced and presented to the board they were definitely produced della did those she went back i don't recall if they were given i assume they were but we could check i mean that's two years ago so but they were definitely produced well what what raised my concern was that that the initial copy of the minutes that were circulated among the board said that there were no announcements or public discussion at our last meeting and we had an hour of public discussion and now we have a draft of the minutes that have four sentences to discuss what happened in that one hour and it is the of the utmost importance to me and I know everyone else on this board that the minutes be accurate because they are the record that we give both to people from a year from now and 100 years from now. And I know how heavily you rely on them, Beth, in your work to see how things were done before you were here. And so those are my concerns. I've voiced them. I'll be voting no. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Thank you. That's fine, but I would also add to this that sometimes it's important. Again, we've said these are summaries. They're televised. televised, it's much easier, much clearer than someone interpreting what goes on at a meeting in minutes than to be able to see it on TV. You can go there. You said you did that yourself. And you all may recall in August of 2017, Gloria Martin and Melissa Brown and some people came and spoke to you all about the zip line and things like that. And you were instructed by law, because that was not on our agenda you could not talk about that yet when elizabeth jensen spoke you all did engage in a long conversation and technically you weren't supposed to that was not an agenda item so i will be happy to note that but it was a violation of open meetings laws by our board so i'll be happy to do that board recognizes mr penn so what what you're telling me is that everything that can be talked about in a meeting has to be on the agenda for all open meetings or just for PDR if it is a special meeting if we've changed the date if it's not the meeting like today is a special meeting you cannot talk about an item that's not on the agenda So last month was a special meeting also? Yes. So are we going to have any regular meetings? We've had regular meetings all year but that meeting was moved and so it became a special meeting. Well my concern is this we are hung we're hung up on process and short on content. When we have a person come and speak about their easement and we cannot redirect to them What we're doing, we're letting process get in the way of content, and we're not helping the constituents that come here that put our plans there. So however we change this, it has to be changed. We cannot have meetings where public comment can only be heard and not responded back to. Now, I might understand that on something like the zip line or something like that that was very contentious and very public. But when one of our applicants who has had a three-year history with us, and we cannot respond back to them because the open meeting is wrong, there's something wrong with open meetings law. You cannot operate like this, Beth, and I don't know what legal is going to do for it, but hiding behind open meetings records is not the way to do this. For us to have let Elizabeth Jentons do what she did and thus not respond to her, we're as bad as she is. Well, the correct thing would be for people, the best method would be for them to ask to be on the agenda, and then we would be able to discuss it. So Mr. McPeak asked to be on the agenda, so it's okay to respond to him? Is that the answer to that question? Okay. I'm just trying to learn here because it really bothers me out in the rural community to go from really being a strong, forward, going forward, progressive, to putting an impediment in front of everything we do. And that has happened over the last seven years. And I'm not pointing at you or Greg or Eric or any of them. I'm just saying the culture of this whole body has changed in seven years. And we need to get it back to where it was. And I don't know how we do that, but I feel very strongly about that because if anybody that comes down there has to get on the agenda to even speak to be responded back to, there's something wrong. Chair recognizes Ms. Van Meenor. As it relates to the minutes, in an effort to get some consensus on a vote today, would it be appropriate to amend the minutes to just state that there was extensive discussion regarding pending easements, clearing the backlog, meeting with NCRS, and trying to speed up the process for approvals. I mean, if we just added that. That's my comment. Just trying so that we can have some agreement today on these minutes, recognizing the concerns that have been raised. Chair recognizes Ms. Delaney. Yeah, two questions. And one, Beth, do you know how long tapes of meetings are preserved on the government website? Chris Edwards could address that for us. About seven years is what he said. And then secondly, was Roman numeral four announcements and public comment an agenda item at the May 30th meeting? I believe so, yes. So is it the position of the law department if that's an agenda item that speakers can come and make statements but the board can't respond if it's a special meeting? that's a sticky wicket as you know but there's no way that you can eliminate public comment from a public meeting that can never happen thank you so when public comment happens you don't know when it's not a specific agenda item what it's going to be I'm of the opinion that depending on what it is it may and it may incite a response from you all but it may also require you to take it up at a different time in more detail so you know it's sort of on a case but I mean if somebody just comes and makes a statement to you all and nobody really has a response or it's just to tell you all something and they're really not looking for any kind of an elicited response i don't think you're going to make one generally the rule is if you don't put something on the agenda of a special meeting it's not a presented discussion board item because that agenda provides notice to the public about what's going to be discussed obviously if it's a public comment you you can't control what's going to be discussed is the maker of the agenda so you know I think we have we do have to be careful that discussion probably got a little bit long but obviously because of the comments made by Miss Jensen and her concerns that you know and I don't know the answer to give you specifically but you know as long as I'm here I don't personally believe that we can just ignore someone if they're up here during public comment which is on the agenda asking a question and just ignore it I think we have to in some way respond but we may not be able to give them all the answers we may have to tell them we're gonna try to find out more answers and get back with you to another time but it I don't it's I think you can't in every circumstance say that but I do think you can never tell someone in any public meeting you can't have public comment in a public meeting so you know we had to allow her to do that in terms of your all's minutes i'm treading very lightly on going there with you all but minutes are to reflect what happened at the meeting they don't have to be word for word they don't have to be you know item by item but they do have to reflect what occurs so So yes, we do have tapes and we do have other things, but they generally do need to reflect basic subject matters and basic actions that were taken. The open meetings and open records laws don't require them to be word-for-word specific. So I guess my best advice to you would be in a case where we have public comment, and it only applies in a special meeting situation. I mean, if it's an agenda item, you can have all the discussion you want all day long. But in a special meeting, because of the way and the notice to the public, you're going to get potentially some kind of situation like we got in last time. And in those situations, I think you have to allow the person to comment, and I think we may need to reflect what the basic subject matter of any discussion, and if a response is made by you all, that response. but it does not have to be specific and word for word. And I'm not sure what the retention schedule is on our minutes. I'm assuming we're keeping them, but, you know, if tapes are destroyed in seven years and we have some retention schedule to destroy minutes in some period of time, then, you know, that's another issue for another day. Chair, recognize Mr. Robinson? Well, I would at least, Tracy, from your response, feel like the minutes that were presented don't reflect anything that happened in that meeting. and I would at least at a minimum accept something of Ms. Van Meter's suggestion that we have some reflection, that we had criticism, requests, the backlog of closure, all of that, that it should reflect something of what the questions were in that meeting, what went on. I watch I'm not going to watch that on television, but it's very important as a board member to get at least the flavor in what went on in the meeting for the good of ourselves and the citizenry. So that would be my comment. Just to add one thing to make sure everybody's clear. In the situation that came up where there was public comment and there was some general response from you all if it is not an item that is addressed on the agenda for you to take action on you you would not be able to take action now that doesn't mean you couldn't have some kind of response to something generally not real specifically but you know if you all had come to some conclusion at the end of that that you wanted to take some kind of action you really wouldn't have been able to you would have had to put that to another another meeting day on the agenda as an item to take action on it just to be more clear chair recognize mr pen is there any difference between public comment and an applicant in other words was Elizabeth Jensen here as a as a public citizen there's an applicant and is there any difference well I think that's controlled by the agenda you know if like for example I may be remembering this incorrectly but I was thinking that Kenny McPeak was listed as an agenda item because he talked to the staff ahead of time and said you know I want to talk to the board about this so it isn't really controlled about by are there an applicant or are they it's more controlled by where they are on the agenda so if they're placed on the agenda it can be fully discussed and you can take action on it but anyone applicant or otherwise can come in public comment do you recognize mr. Robinson again well thank you for your your comments that that clarifies things I just I just think to echo mr. Penn I just think this board owes it to applicants to the public this is a public program we're trying to solicit landowners i think our ears and our response is really important so i just again think our minutes should reflect uh the activity whether we want to hear it or not so that's that's my comment did you read those don that i sent back out with the comments because i very much put that miss jensen said this has caused a financial hardship so i don't see what is missing there. You know, she asked for a status on the closings. She's aware. We send out, Greg gets copied on these. We send emails out to the people who are waiting. They're all very aware. You all are very aware of the 2014 Farm Bill and the delays. You've also been very aware that we've been having many closings this summer, which I think would make some of you happy. But, you know, we don't often hear the positive from this board so if we'd like to reflect a lot of negative stuff in there I'll be happy to but I also am going to note that this was a violation of open meetings lost in discussing this. I recognize Mr. Davis. Thank you Chair. Tracy I appreciate your comments and I put a lot of stock in those. My concern is the minutes as they are written not only contain errors but But they are missing significant portions of what actually happened at that meeting. And after seven years, the tapes are destroyed. So even if it was out of order, it happened. That's what I'm worried about. I just want it to be accurate. Zack, they're not archived on the website anymore. We can keep those in PDR. They will provide us . So they're not readily accessible to the public without a request? And that's simple. All they would have to do is ask that for us or ask GTV for that. Excuse me. I'm Chris Edders with LexTV, and Elizabeth is correct. After seven years, they will come off of granite kits because there's always so much storage space we have on the website. But if they call us and call me, go to the website, make a request, we will give anybody a copy of any meeting that we have. It actually goes back to about 2006. So right now, I think 2006 to 2008 are coming off the website. We will have records of those in-house, and if somebody wants a copy of that, we will not charge them for that. Normally, it was a $5 charge for the thumb drive, but we'll give them that for free since it's not accessible on the website. We do have all copies of every meeting that we've done since probably about 2002 at this point, so they are available. chair recognizes mr lane you chris under the archive statutes that minutes of public bodies are required to be kept permanently i'm not sure i'm not sure either but i mean i know that the different departments and divisions have retention schedules that are approved by the people that deal with that in a lot of apartments so if they're supposed to be kept then they should be kept And then secondly, not to put you on the spot, but is it your position that the open meetings law was violated by one or more members of this board? I don't, well, let me qualify what I'm going to say. I am not an open meetings, open records attorney. We have those in our department. I'm not as well versed as they are. so I don't think because it came the way it came up in public comment that it necessarily constituted an open meetings violation but if one of the attorneys in my department felt differently I'm sure they would let me know so and I would defer to them but the reason that I say that is because it wasn't brought up by this board despite the fact that it wasn't noted on their on their agenda was brought up in public comment that would be the basis for what I'm going to just want to miss say and I can I can talk to one of them further about this situation I mean it doesn't happen very often where a public comments made at the end of a meeting and then a discussion ensues for over an hour but I will touch base with them about in the circumstance in case that circumstance happens in the future so we can be better versed i mean we i know that the direction was when there was some discussion about that item coming up in the agenda had been published that the board it couldn't be presented to the board by the staff nor brought up by the board because it wasn't on the agenda but we have no control over what somebody in the public does Indeed, it was actually, Zach brought up the letter from the Fayette Alliance and went into communications issues, and that's what was not on the agenda or brought up by the public, and that was part of the long discussion. So that's what would have not been, is that correct, Tracy? That would not be, that had no bearing on our agenda and was not appropriate to be discussed on that day. Do you recognize Mr. Davis? Deja vu all over again. Yes, you're right, Beth I did bring that up because that letter was sent to members of council and it said carbon copy members of this board and nobody received it and so if that is a violation mea culpa but I wanted to ask if anyone else had received it because I didn't and if there was a problem on my end I wanted to remedy it. Communication is key and that's why I brought it up. Thank you. okay I don't see anybody else asking to speak so we didn't decide what we're gonna do it's a minute from my standpoint I kind of agree with I think the general just what people are saying obviously our minutes need to reflect the general tenor and flavor of what we say and also I agree we can't let people come in here and talk from the public and not respond to them in some way and for clarification Zach when you first brought that up it was actually in the regular meetings when I ask you not to speak when it got in open public comment it came up again and I didn't say anything because I didn't know if we could talk about it at that point so I left it alone and that's why it kept going there but anyway just kind of to this board I think it's up to this board what the quality of minutes we want right I mean that's what you all are supposed to decide so you just need to know what you all want us to do Greg, if I may, can I make a motion? Yes, sir. I would like to move that the minutes as presented be redrafted and resubmitted to the board for review and approval at our next meeting, if that's in line with procedure, Tracy. just i mean here i've mentioned eight items that that came up that were discussed that didn't make it into the minutes so i just want to see things that are discussed and a general overview of questions and and responses to at least be in there in writing for posterity's sake mention those eight sure yeah certainly i can email a copy of just and these this is by no means an exhaustive list i mean if i had two and a half hours this morning i would have sat there and watched the whole tape and then another two and a half hours to transcribe it but i didn't have the time to do that these were just the eight items that i thought were the most significant that were not listed in the minutes okay i need some direction on what we're doing here we have a motion and a second that's posted on here but that's under approved are y'all going to modify the language here for that motion or do we use this to vote how do you want me you can i mean it's just are you asking because it says approval of the minutes yeah okay we've got now motion to reconsider yeah you can i mean i don't know what we got it's i don't i can't see what you have but it's approval of the minutes is just listed as an agenda item that can be right by any other motion then you can do whatever you want with them. Okay, well, we have a motion to have them redone and resubmitted. So we have a motion from Zach and a second from Mary under that request. Right, so you can vote on that. Okay, everyone can vote on that then. This is to revise and reconsider. This is to have them revised and resent to the next meeting. You can give us a screen to vote. Okay. Thank you. Okay, I think everyone has voted. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 5, 2, 4, 6, 8. Yeah, I think everyone has voted, and it's unanimous. So we got through the minutes. That's the good part. Greg, sorry. That's okay, go ahead. I was looking for requests to speak. That's okay. In the interest of trying to inform the public, which I think we're trying to do, maybe on the website, and again I don't know if it's there or not, Tracy, when we have the notice of meetings, if there could be a note there to say that in order to be able to speak, that you need to be on an agenda to encourage the use of an agenda or something? I'm just trying to... But that would only be true in the case of a special meeting. I'm sorry? That would only be true in the case of a special meeting. To be on the agenda? Right. Okay. Something to educate the public so that they don't feel frustrated that we can't talk to them or something like that. Okay. My guess is that when we move a meeting and it becomes a special meeting, they may not pick up on that you know that it's actually a special meeting because it's not a pre-announced date and that they wouldn't necessarily know to call in if they don't understand what meeting it is I think some of us didn't know for sure we were special or not either okay the next item on the agenda is farm 11-202 square your farm and we have a request for a build on the property. I think Beth's going to walk us through that. So this is farm 11-2002 that is located at 3200 Ode Lemon's Mill Road. It's 132 acres. It is a horse farm. The owners are Seclusive Farm LLC, which is Chris Bakari and Samantha Will Bakari. The date of the easement was June 6, 2006. The owners were Tinnakill Bloodstock USA LLC. It is a federal easement. There are no protected structures. They are not requesting any demolition, but they will remove and replace a mobile home with a permanent structure. The new structure would be 30 by 48 tenant house structure to equal 1,600 square feet. They are not requesting any new paving. There is no impervious surface limit in their easement. It is a permitted use. Section 5C, reserved rights of the deeds of easement, allows landowners to add tenant housing with the approval of the grantee. The staff recommendation is approval contingent on the approval of the LFUCG Division of Building Inspection. This active horse farm currently has one tenant house and no primary residence. The Division of Building Inspection allows landowners in the AR Zone to have one tenant house per 40 acres based on the minimum lot size, so this farm could potentially have three tenant houses. The one existing tenant house other than the mobile home being removed is 1,319 square feet. The conservationist recommendation, Charlie Farmer, who is performing work for NRCS right now as well as for us, visited the farm recently for easement monitoring and has no concerns about the proposed location. And below that, I've listed the easement language, and in line two of the Section 5C, you'll see the right to construct or maintain one primary single family detached dwelling and necessary tenant housing. And then if you go to the next page, I have the PVA information showing the current tenant house that they have. It's 1,319 square feet. and then onto the next page shows the various farm buildings they have and you'll see that it lists the mobile home which will be removed. On to the next page, this is something Samantha gave us that shows the kind of purple or pink colors where they will put that, where they're proposing it will be near their horse stables and when Charlie Farmer looked at that he did like that because it was in an area where there was already building taking place or already building established on the next page you can see the what the exterior of the building will look like both in the front and the rear and then on the next page they have the interior and you can see that it's going to be full living quarters for their tenant workers and that is all Thank you. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Okay. Everyone has voting. We have one recusal. Did you get that in the minutes correctly? All right. That item has been approved. Jack Alright Since this is a special meeting We really can't discuss anything else We have this farm 1207 Has withdrawn for now Still looking at some options They may bring that back to us later So I entertain a motion To enter into closed session Percent to KRS 61810-1B To discuss the potential acquisition Of a real property interest the public discussion of which is likely to affect the value. We are going into closed session. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ The End Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Maher moved and Mr. Bell seconded. And the motion carries unanimously. See, see what happened. and we now have the second motion up a motion to authorize an appraisal on farm one 2018 is discussed in closed session mr. Meyer moved and mr. Maher seconded You're just not quick enough. I'm not. I'm not good on this screen. And motion carries unanimously. This is a slow one. Healy took my faster screen. That's why I moved. Speaker. Yeah. How large is Briar Hill, the park itself? I've been buying it. It looks huge. Yeah. I'm not sure. It may say on the city's website, but I'm not sure how big it is. Okay. That's a nice chunk of land there. Yeah. Okay. I don't think we have any other business, so do you put the motion to adjourn on here for us, too, or do we just do that? Motion to adjourn. It's up. I'd like to thank Debbie for her help today. Hanging with us? This is good. I like this one, Donnie. I know you do. That's why you moved it. The meeting is adjourned unanimously. Thank you all.