# Rural Land Management Board meeting - August 22, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 22, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4579 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4579?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-08-22 - **Last revised**: August 22, 2018 - **Length**: 10,537 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 August 22, 2018, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber, with Greg presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed four agenda items during the session, including routine administrative matters and specific land use requests. The meeting included one public comment period and resulted in four motions and votes being conducted. Three items received approval from the board: the meeting minutes, an ordinance update, and an accessory structure request for Farm 1-2007 submitted by Rudzik Farms, LLC. Additionally, the board received an informational presentation on the Kentucky Open Meetings Act, which did not require a vote. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on August 22, 2018: **Present:** • Greg • Mr. Davis • Mr. Meyer • Miss Vanmeter • Mr. Delaney • Derek • Mike • Tracey • Chris Edwards **Absent:** • Bethany **Late Arrivals:** • None A total of nine members were present for the meeting, with one member absent. No late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included four motions that were voted on by the board members. **Motion to Reschedule Closed Session** [timestamp: 00:30] Mr. Davis moved to relocate the closed session to after announcements and public comment. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. **Approval of Meeting Minutes** [timestamp: 02:00] Mr. Davis motioned to approve the minutes from the July 19 and May 30 meetings with revisions. Mr. Meyer seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote. **Authorization for Ordinance Presentation** [timestamp: 05:00] Miss Vanmeter moved to authorize Derek to present five ordinance changes to the planning and public safety committee. Mr. Delaney seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. **Farm Accessory Structure Request** [timestamp: 10:00] The board voted on Farm 1-2007, a request from Rudzik Farms, LLC for an accessory structure. The motion passed unanimously, subject to building inspection approval. The specific members who made and seconded this motion were not identified in the record. All four motions were approved without opposition. The first two motions were decided by voice vote, while the final two were unanimous decisions. No roll call votes were conducted, so individual member voting records were not recorded for any of the motions. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one speaker addressed the meeting. **Sammy** spoke regarding Open Meetings Law compliance [timestamp: 180:00]. Identifying himself as a former assistant attorney general, Sammy emphasized the critical importance of adhering to open meetings laws and raised concerns about potential violations that may have occurred during special meetings. His comments focused on ensuring proper legal compliance with transparency requirements for government meetings. ## Contested Items The meeting featured a significant procedural dispute regarding Open Meetings Law compliance. The disagreement centered on whether the board had violated open meetings laws during a previous meeting, with conflicting legal interpretations creating tension among participants. The dispute involved differing opinions between the law department and a former assistant attorney general regarding the board's adherence to open meetings requirements. The specific nature of the alleged violation was not detailed in the available materials, but the disagreement appeared to focus on procedural aspects of how a prior meeting was conducted. This type of open meetings law dispute typically involves questions about proper notice, public access, or whether discussions should have been held in public session versus executive session. Such disagreements can have significant implications for board operations and public transparency requirements. The outcome of this procedural dispute was not specified in the available materials, though the discussion suggests ongoing concerns about ensuring proper compliance with open meetings law requirements in future board proceedings. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this contested item discussion.* ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 02:00] The board reviewed and discussed minutes from two previous meetings during this agenda item. Mr. Davis proposed revisions to the minutes from both the July 19 and May 30 meetings. The discussion involved Mr. Davis and Mr. Meyer as the key participants in reviewing the proposed changes to the meeting records. The specific nature of the revisions proposed by Mr. Davis was not detailed in the available materials. Following the discussion of the proposed revisions, the board voted to approve the minutes from both meetings with Mr. Davis's suggested changes incorporated. **Outcome:** The minutes from the July 19 and May 30 meetings were approved with revisions. ## Ordinance Update [timestamp: 05:00] Miss Vanmeter presented an update on ordinance revisions during the meeting. She discussed five specific revisions to an ordinance that had been previously approved by the body. The primary focus of the discussion was the procedural next step for implementing these changes. Miss Vanmeter explained that authorization was needed for Derek to present the five ordinance revisions to both the planning committee and the public safety committee for their review and consideration. The agenda item was structured as a discussion item, allowing members to review the proposed revisions and consider the authorization request. Miss Vanmeter served as the primary presenter, with Derek identified as the individual who would be responsible for carrying the revisions forward to the respective committees. Following the discussion, the body approved the request to authorize Derek to present the ordinance changes to the planning and public safety committees. This approval allows the revision process to move forward through the appropriate committee review channels before any final implementation. The specific content of the five revisions was not detailed in the available information, but the procedural approval ensures that the previously approved changes will receive proper committee oversight through both planning and public safety review processes. ## Farm 1-2007, Rudzik Farms, LLC, Accessory Structure Request [timestamp: 10:00] Derek presented a request for an accessory structure on behalf of Rudzik Farms, LLC under application Farm 1-2007. The presentation covered the details of the proposed structure and its intended use on the farm property. Following Derek's presentation, the board reviewed the accessory structure request. The application was approved by the board without recorded opposition or significant concerns raised during the discussion. The approval allows Rudzik Farms, LLC to proceed with construction of the accessory structure as outlined in their application materials. ## Presentation on Kentucky Open Meetings Act [timestamp: 20:00] Mike from the Department of Law delivered a presentation on the Kentucky Open Meetings Act, providing guidance on compliance requirements and potential violations for the board. The presentation served as an educational session to ensure board members understood their obligations under state open meetings law. Mike outlined the key requirements that govern how public bodies must conduct their meetings, including proper notice procedures, public access provisions, and restrictions on closed sessions. The discussion covered potential violations that boards commonly encounter and how to avoid them. Mike emphasized the importance of following proper protocols to maintain transparency and comply with state regulations. This was an informational presentation with no action items or decisions required from the board. The session was designed to enhance the board's understanding of their legal obligations under Kentucky's open meetings requirements and help prevent inadvertent violations in future meetings. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Move closed session to after announcements and public comment - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of July 19 and May 30 minutes with revisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Authorize Derek to present five ordinance changes to the planning and public safety committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve Farm 1-2007, Rudzik Farms, LLC, Accessory Structure Request --- ## Full transcript I will take all the world away, so hold on tight, let the flight begin. I don't want to waste a waking moment, I don't want to sleep. I've been so strong and so dear And so are you In my time I've said these words before But now I realize My heart was telling me lies For you they're true We're an all-time life We'll change all that's done before Doing so much more Than falling in love On an all-time life We'll take on the world and win So hold on tight, let the flight begin So hold on tight, let the flight begin We're an untied life guitar solo My plane So I wound up on your flight And we got stuck in Dallas Fort Worth half the night And the only vacancy You could find at Gate 29 Was the one next to mine Call it fake Destiny Calling luck you ended up with me But some things are meant to be Coincidence, circumstance Or something bigger that's just out of our hands Oh, some things are meant to be You said a ladder was your home Well, I happen to live there too I'd just broken up with someone And so had you And when you said for everyone There is someone there meant to find I knew I'd found mine Call it fate, destiny Call me luck, you ended up with me But some things are meant to be ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. I'll call the meeting to order. Appreciate those of you who are here today to join us. First item on the agenda is approval of a couple of sets of minutes, our last meeting on July 19th and our May 30th meeting, and Mr. Davis has a comment. uh first greg before we go into the minutes i'd like to make a motion that we move closed session which is agenda number item number five to after announcements and public comment and the law department's presentation uh in an effort to accommodate our guests today second okay we have a motion and a second any discussion this is the one that will ban yes it's it's much like the council does or the the planning commission does when something is is pressing on the agenda we want to accommodate that in as timely a fashion as we can okay we just need to do a voice vote on that then all in favor say aye aye any opposed okay motion carries unanimously Is Don here? Yeah, we're not going into closed session. We just changed an agenda item. That's all we did. Moved it. We're just going to move the presentation. Okay. Okay. Okay, we'll move on then to the minutes, July 19th and May 30th. Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. Thank you. I watched the May 30th meeting again as well as the July 19th meeting again and noted several omissions and errors in the minutes that were circulated both late last night and in our packet. I've printed off a copy of my proposed revisions and put it in front of everyone. There was one other revision that needs to be noted, and that would be for the May 30th minutes. On page 4, the first full paragraph on the fifth line, the word in should actually be is. So I suppose, Mr. Chairman, I should make a motion that the minutes be updated to include these revisions without objection. We have a motion, a second by Mr. Meyer. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, I think we probably still need approval on all these minutes because that was just addressing, is that approving everything as amended? I think we did that then. Not just your minutes. Yes, that was approval of the minutes with these revisions. All right, we're good then on the minutes. Thank you. Okay, the next item on the agenda is ordinance update, and Ms. Van Meter I think is going to take us through that. Sure. Thank you, Greg. At a prior meeting, we spent significant time discussing the recommendations of the Ordinance Review Committee, and I serve as chair of that committee, and we discussed the five revisions that are listed here on your agenda. my memory is that we previously approved those and so what we want to do today is authorize Derek in September when he goes to report to the planning and public safety committee to report to them that these are the five changes that we are recommending to our ordinance and if I can make a quick update it looks like it's going to get moved till October at the earliest that yesterday's planning public safety committee they talked about moving it to October and they'll i think in the september meeting they'll decide whether or not they're going to talk about in october if it may be later but at this point it looks like september since we don't meet until around that time it's probably best that we just if we can move it forward that'd still be good so do we need a motion to do that greg a motion to authorize derrick to present these five uh changes to the planning and public safety committee yes i think we do Second Okay We have a motion by Ms. Van Meter and a second by Ms. Delaney All in favor say aye Aye Opposed Motion carries unanimously All right the next item on the agenda is Farm 1207 the Rudzik Farm and I believe that Derek is going to take us through this is that correct there you go i'm doing a bad imitation of staff today i don't know where i have placed the packet you know i think i know where it is just give me one second okay so i apologize again uh that's being sick i am filling in last minute here the applicant has who is in the audience and can answer questions uh the farm address 3850 lemons mill what they've asked for is to basically build a two-story structure filling in a pool there's no longer gonna be used the key questions and again from a from our standpoint from a real land management board standpoint it's not adding to any impervious surface i think our biggest concern which is addressed largely by building inspection is just the use of that structure building struct or building inspection is fine with it i believe that they have to confirm when they come that they are not using it as a bed and breakfast and they have done that and so i think from our standpoint we are recommending approval uh subsequent to approval and everything that building inspection needs from a permit standpoint and that is a very quick version of it and if you have any questions i'm going to pronounce your name incorrectly miss rudzy there we go i never get it right so miss rudzik is here if we have any questions um there is a drawing there are some drawings in the back and pictures showing the house showing the pool and again there should be I believe the last page shows a just the layout of the two-story structure and all of it does comply with building inspection are there any questions for other inadequately prepared staff or the applicant we need a motion use the machine please sir can you sign in a move that we approve as as suggested second we have a motion to second if anyone register the votes I will if they want to do it now if they want to move into the other stuff first okay let's go to the presentation okay I believe that's been voted on by everyone unanimously got that I don't really have to, but I will. I'll break ties. Okay. Without objection, I'm going to recommend on this farm acquisition update, we were going to show a video, and since we're changing the order of the agenda, I think we probably ought to go ahead to the presentation on the open meetings because if we have a run over time, probably the video might be the one to not have today. It's a quick PowerPoint. It's not a video. I can go through it pretty quick, but I figure if we want to get to the presentation from law, this might be a good time to start that, just so we have more time. We'll go ahead and have the presentation on open meetings. I'm Mike Sanner from the Department of Law for the Open Meetings presentation. I think you all each have a PowerPoint in front of you to follow along if you'd like. And at the end of the presentation, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. What is an open meeting? Is that it or is it slow? It's a presentation. Okay. It's any meeting of a public agency or a quorum of the members is present. Public business is being discussed. or there is action being taken. What is a public agency? I don't believe that there is any dispute that the Rural Land Management Board is a public agency. It's a local government board. It is not a legislative board, but it was created by a local ordinance. and a majority or not all of the members of the board were appointed by the mayor and approved by the council. Meetings of a public agency must be open to the public at all times unless the subject of the meeting falls within one or more of the exceptions found in the open meeting statute. This is so that the public knows what you are voting on, the actions you are taking, and why you are taking that action. May a board or commission keep the news media or members of the public out of a meeting? No, unless the meeting falls within one of the exceptions to go into closed session. Members of the public, including the media, are entitled to record meetings. members of the public do not have the right to participate in the meeting or address members of the board or commission this means during your regular meeting they can't come up here and interject themselves in action items you may be taking they are allowed to make public comment at the end when there's at the end of the meeting as is on your agenda may a board or commission conduct a meeting by telephone or video conference Yes, a meeting may be conducted by video conference, which is a meeting occurring in two or more locations where the members can see and hear each other. However, a meeting may not be conducted by telephone. An absent member may listen to the meeting by phone but cannot vote and cannot be counted as part of the quorum. Our committee meetings subject to the Open Meetings Act. Yes. A quorum of committee is based on the membership of the committee and not the membership of the entire board or commission. I think recently you have an ordinance committee, and those meetings are open. And a while ago when I was staffing the PDR board, we had another committee regarding the donation policy. And that was open to the public. What if my board or commission is invited to attend a social gathering or sporting event and a quorum of the members will be at the event? Is that an open meeting? No. A quorum of a board or commission attending a gathering hosted by another entity or group is not a public meeting. meeting. But no public business relating to the board or commission may be discussed among the members of the board at that event. Time and place of meetings. All meetings must be held at a specified time and place that is convenient to the public. Boards and commissions should adopt a schedule of meetings by ordinance, order, resolution, bylaws, etc. I believe this board adopts its yearly meeting schedule and publishes it through GTV. Schedule of meetings must be made available to the public. Is my board or commission required to keep minutes? Yes, boards and commissions must take minutes of the action taken at every meeting and keep an accurate record of the vote and action taken. The minutes must be available for public inspection no later than the conclusion of the board or commission next public meeting. This is after the minutes are approved. Before the minutes are approved, they're considered preliminary. And the retention schedule for the minutes of the board are permanent. The meeting minutes are to be kept permanently. May we vote on a matter by email? No, boards and commissions are required to keep minutes which reflect actions taken by the board. Voting on matters can only be done at a meeting. The minutes should reflect, at a minimum, who was present, who made the motion, what the motion was, who seconded the motion, and what the vote was. It's up to each and every board as to how detailed they want their minutes to be regarding discussion items. What if my board or commission needs to change our monthly meeting? Any meeting which is not a regularly scheduled meeting is considered to be a special meeting. A special meeting may be called by the presiding officer or by the majority of the members of the public agency. What are the requirements for calling a special meeting? Written notice of the meeting which includes the date, time, place and agenda of the meeting. Notice must be given to the members of the board or commission and media organizations which have requested to receive written notice within 24 hours of the meeting. Discussions at a special meeting are limited to items listed on the advertised agenda. for a special meeting. Written notice may be done by email. Notice of the special meeting must also be posted in the building where the meeting is to take place and the building where the agency is headquartered. This is especially important so the public has noticed that the meeting has changed. It should be posted in both places. How do we provide notice? notice may be done by mail fax hand delivery email the notice must also be posted in the building where the meeting takes place and the building where the board commission is headquartered we went over that what if there is an emergency and 24-hour notice is not possible In the case of an emergency which prevents compliance with the special meeting requirements, all board members and meeting organizations that have requested notification must be notified as quickly as possible. At the beginning of the meeting, the chair must describe, for the record, the nature of the emergency which prevented noncompliance, and the comments must appear in the minutes. Discussions must be limited to the emergency for which the meeting was called. When can my board or commission go into closed session and what can be discussed? A board or commission may go into closed session to discuss certain matters so long as notice is given in the regular meeting of the general nature of the business to be discussed. the reason for the closed session is given and specific exemption authorizing the closed session is given the closed session is proper only after a motion is made and carried and passed an open session no final action may be taken in closed session in session in other words no vote is allowed in closed session this is an example and you all do a real good job in this we're going to closed session regarding purchase of easements. I move to going to closed session pursuant to KRS 61810-1C. That's the statute that provides that exemption for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. What can be discussed in closed session? And these are examples of various items that can be discussed in closed session. The first one is regarding future acquisition of sale or real property where publicity would likely affect the value of the property. And I believe this is the exemption you all use to go into your closed sessions. Discussion of proposed or pending litigation. There is a scenario where at some point you may use this exemption. I was involved in a couple lawsuits with the PDR board. None of them required going into closed sessions because they were regarding foreclosure of a PDR farm by a bank, and our easement came up in the title search, so we just had to be named as a defendant. There was no need for us to discuss that. The other one was when the state declared eminent domain to expand a roadway and they took a portion of a PDR farm property, the farm owner gets reimbursed for the property taken, and there's a formula that we get reimbursed a portion of that because we have an interest in that. uh property the only time i would believe you all would go into closed session for depending negation is if there is a violation of an easement on a pdr protected farm where the owner refuses to correct the violation and we are authorized to file an injunction to force them to correct that violation that would probably be the only reason you all would go in hopefully the only reason you'd go into a closed session for pending litigation. Collective bargaining, appointments regarding personnel, deliberations of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature, meetings the federal or state law requires be closed, portion of meetings devoted to discussion on specific record exempt under the Public Records Act and that specific statute is regarding homeland security which again I don't believe would affect you. And this is an important part here can less than a quorum of the board members get together to discuss board matters so that we don't have to worry about the Open Meetings Act. No, the Open Meeting Act prohibits any series of less than a quorum members for the members attending one or more of the meetings collectively constitute at least a quorum of the members of the board or commission and if the meetings are held to avoid the open meetings law the open meetings law does not prohibit discussions between individual members if the purpose of discussion is to educate the members on specific issues it's for education and informational purposes can be discussed it's when you're discussing action items and voting items that is prohibited What happens if my board or commission violates the Open Meetings Act? If a person believes that a board or commission has violated the Open Meetings Act, he may file a written complaint to the presiding officer of the board or commission. In this case, it would be Greg. The complaint must state the circumstances of the violation and what the complainant believes the agency should do to correct the violation. Within three days after receiving the complaint, the board or commission must decide whether to correct a violation if there is one and notify the complaining party of its decision in writing if the board or commission believes that no violation has occurred it must cite the statute authorizing its actions and how the statute applies in its written response in a perfect world if you ever got a complaint like that to greg i would think greg would come to the law department we would review the tapes we would review the law and give Greg our legal opinion for him to pass on to the complainant. If the complaining party is not satisfied, he or she may appeal to the Attorney General for review of the agency's action within 60 days after receiving the agency's response. The Attorney General would then do the same thing the Law Department did. They would review the tape, they would review the law, they would review the facts, and they would issue a legal finding and conclusion as to whether or not there was an open meetings violation. And they are the only authority that can state that there was, in fact, a violation of the act unless either party is not satisfied with the Attorney General's response and appeal may be filed to the circuit court in 30 days after receiving the Attorney General's response. So if there is in fact an open meetings violation, the only one that can determine that as a matter of law is the Attorney General and the court system. So I'll be happy to answer any questions anybody may have. Mr. Davis has got a question. Thank you, Greg. Thank you, Mike and Commissioner Graham, for making this presentation at my request. it became abundantly clear that members of the board, our staff, and our chair had different understandings of what open meetings laws are composed of. Members of our board were told at our July 19th meeting by staff, our staff, that we violated open meetings laws during our May 30th meeting. We were also told that this violation would be noted in the revised minutes. Is it the opinion of the law department that any member of this board violated open meetings laws during our May 30th meeting? We reviewed, I personally reviewed that tape three times. We had discussions about it in the law department. there was an agenda item public comment miss Jensen I believe came up and addressed the board in her public comment section and she opened the door to the entire PDR purchasing process reasons for delays start to finish you know from from the application process to the signing the contract process to when do I get my money process and the discussion that ensued was regarding her questions to the board. There was history given. There were comments as to how funding is to, you know, what's wrong with the funding, what's wrong with the closings, how can we do this. In a sense, you all were responding to an agenda item brought up by the public. So in the opinion of Department of Law, there was no violations of the Open Meetings Act. Thank you, sir. Who outside of the Department of Law, other than the Attorney General, of the Commonwealth of Kentucky can make such a proclamation? The Department of Law cannot make the proclamation. Department of Law gives an opinion to the Board Chair as to whether there was an open meetings violation or not. I'm sorry, let me re-board. Our opinion does not carry the force of law, unfortunately. The Attorney General and the court system are the only entities that can determine there was, in fact, a violation of the Open Meetings Act. So the Executive Director of this program is not qualified to make such a determination? No. Members of our board have been told that emails sent from a member of the board to the rest of the board, either requesting information or providing information, is a violation of open meetings. What is the opinion of the law department? We just briefly touched on that in the presentation. You can email the board regarding information to educate yourselves for issues that may be on the agenda. You cannot discuss those issues. You cannot analyze the information. But you can inform the board of this information to educate yourselves. On two occasions, I emailed the board and staff and requested a copy of a letter that had been sent to the members of council with a carbon copy to the members of this board and no one received it. When I made that request, I was told that that was a violation of open meetings. On a second occasion, we received minutes in advance of a meeting. I emailed revisions that I thought should have been made to the entire board and staff. And I was told again that that was a violation. So long as we do not discuss business of the day or make any actions, If we were requesting information or sharing information, that is perfectly within the bounds of law. That is correct. On your email regarding the minutes, I happened to see that email. You were just educating the board on what you thought should be in the minutes, which was fine. Now, if you all had started discussing that, we might have a problem. But your email standing alone was just sharing of information for educational purposes for the board. The board has been told, again by our staff, that the Department of Law has advised that our minutes not, quote, go into too much detail, period, end quote. What is the opinion of the law department? I can only speak from my personal experience. I used to staff this board, and then in the transition when Tracy took over again, there was some issue regarding the minutes, and she may want to chime in here. I believe our advice at that time was not to put legal conclusions and legal opinions in the minutes. I don't recall saying anything else about detail. What detailed discussions you put in the minutes is up to each board. Tracy may have something to add on that. I would agree with most of what Mike said. I mean, generally, as we talked about at our last meeting, we want the minutes to reflect what happened in a meeting. They have to reflect certain things that Mike addressed with you earlier in the presentation. You know, the degree of detail that each board or commission wants is sort of up to you all, but generally the general tenor of a discussion or the general issues that are raised and talked about should be reflected in the minutes because they're the record of what happened. So I don't think that we have any different opinion than we had as Mike informed you. Okay. Do the tapes, the LexTV tapes, qualify as minutes under laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky? No, they don't. the official official minutes for this board are the written minutes and they are to be to the retention schedule says they are to be kept permanently and any reference in the minutes to say oh we're not putting it here go look at the tape it's really not proper because the minutes are the official are approved by the board and are the official actions of the agency like i said retention schedule is permanent that videotapes of meetings are to be used to help whoever transcribed for the minutes and the retention schedule on the videotapes for meetings is to be kept 30 days after the minutes are transcribed now i believe the last meeting chris edwards said that they have as a matter of fact keep them for six or seven years before they run out of space but the retention schedule says 30 days after the minister transcribed so you can't have the minutes referencing something that is going to be destroyed or not there anymore they're not the the tape is not a substitute for the official minutes one of the items that i added in my revisions of the minutes the the july minutes at the end of the the document had a clause that started out these minutes serve as a summary and and it referenced the tape on on lex tv as as a more complete version in the revisions that i proposed and were accepted i i said that that clause should be removed or amended by the law department to reflect the fact that the minutes are the official record of the meeting the video record is public and after seven years is available upon request the minutes however remain on record in perpetuity right the minutes are to be kept by archives permanent and they reference the minutes using the videotape as a substitute is not proper because they could be gone in 30 days or they could be gone in six or seven years i mean 10 years from now if somebody wants to review the minutes of the meeting and you're referencing a videotape well it's not there anymore and you've lost the history of your actions well as we discussed that at the last meeting and chris said yes it falls off grandicus after seven years but a member of the public could request a thumb drive and they could come down here and get one but it it sort of proves our point that the minutes well you don't want your official minutes in two separate places exactly thank you sir and thank you mr chair okay miss delaney just one follow-up question then as a board member would it be permissible to send an email to the other board members the staff the chair giving them a heads up of an intention to bring up a particular topic at the next meeting as long as you're just limited to i'm bringing up this topic and don't go into your arguments for or against the topic that is fine okay okay mr davis thank you section 2681 of our ordinance states that the board shall administer the pdr program section 2654 states that the staff shall coordinate agendas prepare minutes and handle logistical matters in order to expedite the board's function again at the may 30th meeting staff expressed her intention to place in the minutes a violation of open meetings what mike is the role of this board in relation to staff who does our staff answer to i can give you a brief explanation and then i'll defer to tracy because tracy was in on the beginning of the pr board and helped draft the ordinance the ordinance says the purpose of the pdr board is to manage and preserve agricultural and natural land in fayette county and to be able to do this the board has been given certain functions there's a whole list of them you're allowed to sign contracts you're allowed to purchase easements and this is given this is the powers given to the board by the council to the ordinance the ordinance also says the staff is there to provide logistical support to enable the board to carry out these functions and its powers anything to add you were you were trace was in on that some 20 years ago she helped draft all the all the enabling legislation so is it is it the responsibility of this board to oversee pdr staff I don't know what you mean by oversee. The PDR staff is not employed by the board, but the board can direct the PDR staff to, hey, we want X, Y, and Z done to further the purpose of managing and purchasing agricultural land. Thank you. Okay, anyone else have any questions? Okay, I want to make a comment if I might. I've been on this board probably 15 years, counting some time off, served under other chairs, served under you and Tracy as the legal people. And what you just told me today is totally different than I've been told my entire time here. I'm happy to hear it, happy to do what you're saying today. I've always been told that we're not allowed to communicate via email to a quorum. and what I have observed is every time that happens it creates a chain of emails because people respond to emails and therefore you end up in discussion. That is why I've always been told we do not do that. As it relates to a comment from the public and you say it's on the agenda, I've never been told that we could have things brought up by the public to add to an agenda, that we can only stick to the items on the agenda that were actually meaty and meant something besides just someone coming and bringing up some item. And so that's what we've always tried to do. It's always been my view that when the public comes in a special meeting and brings up something that we can listen, but if we want to discuss it, it needs to be on a future agenda where people in the public know, because in my view, the public does not know that's going to be brought up. therefore they have not given any notice that it's going to be brought up so that we end up discussing something that the public has no ability to hear because someone from the public brought it up. So, you know, if I'm at fault in this, then I'll take the blame for it. But I will tell you that I've been here the whole time I've been here and what we've been doing relative to emails and public discussion from the public and special meetings has been consistent as far as I know, except this last meeting, which went totally out of control. We discussed all kinds of things, and I would actually disagree with you that everything that was discussed was exactly brought up by the public. There were items brought up by this board that was not discussed by the public. But we'll be happy to comply. Well, the May 30th meeting, there was no action taken by the board. Had the board taken an action, like appointed a committee or something, that would have not been proper. Well, you keep talking about the word action, and I'm talking about discussion. And as I read the open meeting laws, it says we can't discuss anything, discuss or action. It doesn't talk about just action. Also, as I read the laws that relates to minutes, it talks mainly about actions and votes. We used to do very detailed minutes when we met outside of this room, and I think the reason we did that is we met outside of this room. We were told by law back then to not make our minutes so detailed, and our minutes became more brief, and we changed that, and then we came back and changed it again, and now we're changing it again. So I served in the banking industry for 40-some years, dealt with regulators. Part of my role was enterprise risk management. And as a part of enterprise risk management, I had multiple committees where I had to answer to. And in that role, they questioned minutes all the time. Everything had to be documented. It's all that they're about. so I'm used to getting different people with different opinions on minutes all the time and having to adapt and change I'm not opposed to detailed minutes but I don't think that anyone intentionally tried to not put things in the minutes well like I said we went over the minimum requirement for the minutes and how detailed the minutes are to be is a decision for the board and that decision may change from board to board as the board make up changes Anyone else have any comments? Surprise, Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. I think the distinction that the Department of Law is making, and please correct me, Mike, if I'm wrong, the minutes can be as detailed as a board asks that they be, but members of staff, whomever is writing the minutes, cannot engage in the practice of law and insert legal opinions into the minutes. I think, Mike, is that? What you're talking about was a legal opinion and a conclusion of law that was really not proper or authorized. But as far as the detail that this board would like in our minutes, that's up to us, and we've had numerous discussions about that. That's up to each and every board. Like I say, the board may change from year to year, and you may want really detailed minutes, and the board four years from now may not want as many detailed minutes. That is up to each and every board how detailed they want their minutes to be. And our counsel, Tracy, made an excellent point at our last meeting when we were discussing the minutes. And again, it was left out of the minutes, but I added it in. Ms. Jones pointed out that public comment cannot be controlled, nor what's going to be discussed as the maker of the agenda. She further stated that the board cannot ignore someone if they're making public comment, which is on the agenda. public comment can never be omitted from a public meeting. Correct. Thank you. I think some of the confusion may have been on one special meeting. You all were told not to respond to the specific public comment because the public comment at that time, they were bringing up an issue that was an active litigation. So you were told not to respond to that. Now that advice would have gone whether that was a special meeting or whether that was a regular meeting. The issue wasn't what kind of meaning it was. The issue was they wanted you all to respond to an issue that was in active litigation. That was the issue with that advice. Any other comments? Just one brief one, Greg. I can't remember now how long I've served on this board, but our mission is to acquire land conservation easements and I feel as a board member it's my duty to we're basically soliciting the public to submit their land to this program we're buying land and we're promoting it and that's really a purpose that's our each individual's duty on this board so I So I would only say with all this discussion of what's open and what's not, and what's okay to discuss and what is not, is this board really needs to work on appearing user-friendly, solicitous to the public, and that we're an open program that wants to hear them. We don't have to take action, but in that spirit, that's how I want to respond to open meetings and public discussion. I think it's really important that we be open and very public about what we do. We want to keep great farms and land masses in this program, and that's our duty and our goal. So that's my comment. Thank you. Okay, anything else? Mr. Davis. Something I forgot. When Dawn spoke, it reminded me that we had this discussion in 2016, I think, after the meeting where Cobra Farm was discussed. The minutes Dawn found lacking, I did too. They were voted down to be redrafted. At our last meeting, Beth said that she was certain that they had been redrafted by Della, but she wasn't sure if they had ever been represented to the board for approval. with Beth not here I understand we'll just have to kick this down the road a bit to the next meeting but Derek can we check on that to see if those minutes have ever been presented we will check thank you so much worked a lot of I know Della did do a lot of work on this okay I agree with Beth I'm fairly certain she has transcribed them completely thank you okay I think we're through discussing this. I see anybody else. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Okay. We now have this farm acquisition update, which we have a little video presentation. It's just a presentation. It's PowerPoint. Yeah. Well done. This is just a presentation just showing the farms that have closed this year. Beth just wanted to put it together for everyone to be able to see. Chris, we can just put the first one up there. And I apologize, I don't know if this is in there, but we will make this. I'll make sure everybody gets a copy of this as well just so everyone can have it. I think one of the things Beth wanted to do was just be able to have everybody see the kind of a little bit of the impact that that the program is happening who the farmers are a little bit about each farm so first farm dancing david uh nancy and david alcher on military pike 40 acres and it is again high quality soil they are uh i believe it's right next to it says don's farm um and it just kind of contributes to over 427 acres and gives a little bit about what they do in terms of farming um chris go ahead the next one um hancock farm 144 acres um and again i apologize for having to kind of read through this as we go um they're hoping their descendants will be able to get it they have uh this completes an area conserved over a thousand acres in one general area which i think is a really great thing to be able to celebrate a thousand acres of any kind of conserved area is quite large uh chris if you go on the next one stacy and tina brown evans mill road 60 acres this is one that's a family farm it's kind of passing on from parents down to the next generation and it's also adjacent to 175 acre pdr farm so we have 235 contiguous acres and they are beef cattle farmers chris go on to the next one if you would jack's creek pike um another cattle farm 55 head uh not next to any any pdr farms but is adjacent to a farm conserved by the bluegrass conservancy and again they are farmers not only on that farm but a few others throughout the county chris if you go to the next one on cleveland road uh 40 acre farm this one was a larger 270 acres that the farm owner grew up on and i believe what i can deduce from it they've subdivided it for their children but the entire 270 acre farm is now in pdr so the 270 acres farm is in there just amongst different family members and it contributes to 730 acres of contiguous conserved land so i just in these two chunks two farms that we've acquired this year complete 1700 acres of contiguous land which is pretty it's pretty impressive um the next one chris if could um this is kearney road 41 acres uh this is one that's been passed down to siblings who uh actually work on different farms and again adjacent to a 79 79 acre farm so we have conserved 120 acres uh contiguous on that one if you go to the next one on elk chester six siblings that together inherited and purchased eight farms that have been placed in pdr totaling over 634 acres which i think is really you know that's really pretty impressive showing the the way this family has really put all their farms in together one of the largest contributors in terms of acreage in the program and jim wade i'm going to read this jim wade who is the sibling that does majority of the farming also grows crops on other farms so next one on lemons mill this is one that contributes to 600 contiguous acres conserved in one area so again we're getting to see filling in pieces that that contribute to very large sections of conserved land within Fayette County you go the next one on eighth and walnut Chris thank you this was a farm that was slip i-75 and i think we've put in a couple different portions of the portion is jason 231 acre sharp farm owned by brown sharp is also in pdr so we have 320 contiguous acres there and it is a cattle farm and i think we've just got one more here and then we'll go over the summary this is briar hill road and this one next to a city park on briar hill road so in a sense it combines to show 280 acres some of it pdr and then the rest through uh through farmland and the last page is just a summary if you would chris 10 farms over 717 acres combined and i think what will make people have this concludes the 2015 cooperative agreement and so where we are if i'm correct i've got to find this there was a note that was sent to me quickly we are now moving on to the 2016 agreement so we've closed out everything from the 2015 agreement we're moving on to the 2016 agreement which we will be discussing more of today any questions about those farms i think that's a good bunch of farms that we've closed there 717 acres 10 farms today alone so our 10 farms this year alone okay any comments on that all right uh we're just about to get ready to go into closed session we We have announcements and public comment. Before anyone in the public would like to speak, I'll just make one announcement. Every board member has at their chair one of these large GIS maps. They have a list of all the farm owners in Fayette County so that you can have names to contact people for our next round of farms, which we'll be doing sometime probably in October. So I just encourage you to look these over to see if you know people you can recruit to be in the PDR program. requirements for your take home. I'll say real quick, Don, this actually follows on nicely with what you just said about recruiting farms and doing everything. This is the map that hopefully will help you as board members to see where there are, you know, do you know people that own these farms? Can you help us in terms of getting them for the application process? As of now, I don't think we have that application deadline yet, but we hope it'll be, we assume it'll be in October once we know we will pass that information on. this is kind of one of those things just like when you're on a non-profit board you're selected to help raise money well you're on this one to help bring in farms so we hope you will use this map and and help us bring in some applicants for the next round okay I see a few people here today so does anyone have any comments to the board today yes ma'am Good afternoon. My name is Amy Bensonhaver. I'm a former assistant attorney general. I worked in the Kentucky Attorney General's office for 25 years, where I worked exclusively in the area of open records and open meetings. So I took a special interest in the discussion here today, and that's why I'm present. I was pleased to see almost 100% agreement with what Mr. Sander's presentation included. However, I have to agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that the practices that are being suggested today do place this agency in peril of violation of the open meetings law. That a discussion at a special meeting prompted by a comment from the public is impermissible. I would also suggest to you that from the earliest days of the open meetings law, there has never been a statutory recognition of a public's right to speak. Public comment is not guaranteed under the statute. Interestingly enough, having to explain that to citizens who called regularly and said that is not a right the law grants you, that is not an enforceable right. If an agency extends that right, as they should, and as every agency is encouraged to do, If they extend that right, they need to still be sure they are adhering to the requirements of the open meetings law. And that requirement includes the requirement that no new matter be discussed at a special meeting that's not included on the agenda. So when a member of the public comes to this body at a special meeting and raises an issue that is not on the agenda for the special meeting, and again, bear in mind, a special meeting agenda has to have specific agenda topics. It can't have open-ended topics like new business, old business. It has to be very specific. That is a very common allegation in open meetings complaints. The specificity of an agenda topic in a special meeting. So I can tell you that under those circumstances, my guidance to this, if I were asked to give guidance on this issue, would have been no. At that point at which that individual in public comment made that comment, which was not an agenda topic, I would have suggested that what be said is politely, we appreciate that you've joined us this afternoon or this evening. We appreciate the comments that you've shared with us. We're happy to address those issues at a future meeting where we can include that on our regular meeting agenda. So that is, in fact, I can assure you in the 25 years that I was involved in interpreting this law, that is the law. So again, I understand that there could be a distinction, there is a distinction between a regular meeting and a special meeting. Regular meetings really give you a lot more latitude than special meetings. So I can only tell you that if that issue were presented to me, if I were still working in the AG's office writing these decisions and that issue were presented to me, I would have to rule against this agency. That they engaged in a discussion of a topic at a special meeting that was not brought up by a member of the public during public comment that was not on the agenda. Beyond that, I would like to say too, on the issue of email communication, I find that really interesting. We're experiencing all sorts of developments in communication and just a revolution in communication, which has created all sorts of problems for open records, open meetings. In the early days, it was a fairly straightforward thing. We knew we couldn't pick up the telephone. This is one of the earliest court opinions issued in the 1970s. No telephonic communication about public matters between public officials. But what we have now is all these alternative means of communication that essentially bring us into the realm of potential violation of the law. So my suggestion is when I give training on these issues, and I've probably given more training on open records, open meetings in about 25 years and continuing to the present, then we have multiple fingers and toes. I mean, I can tell you I have given thousands of presentations on these topics, and I encourage public officials to really try to restrict their communications to the public forum. Any discussion outside the public forum, clearly there are instances where you're not violating the law. If you go to lunch with one other member and you simply discuss a topic, you don't have a quorum. you're discussing public business but it requires both of those things discussion of public business quorum of the members of the public agency but since in 1992 the law was amended to recognize serial meetings as a potential violation of the law since the law was amended in 1992 we have seen this problem again and again and again and drawing that narrow distinction between education and discussion items or action items. To be honest with you, I've never heard that distinction before. It's an interesting distinction, but it's one that I think is so hard to observe in practice that I do think the better policy is to restrict communications outside the public forum relating to public business as much as is feasible. I absolutely agree that you want the fellow members of the board to have every opportunity to be prepared for a public meeting, to be prepared to discuss those topics. So sharing a document and many public agencies will include a caveat that says, please do not respond. This is for your informational purpose. Please do not respond in any fashion lest we violate the law. So again, my goal with regard to the open records and open meetings law when I was called so many times in the course of a week would be, I'm urging you to take the course of most conservative action to avoid potential violations of law. I can almost promise you on that special meeting issue that that's going to be a problem if that goes forward. If someone were to challenge it, that could be a problem for this body. On the email issue, I can only tell you that the less you communicate by email, the better. you're creating a public record, you're also potentially running afoul of the open meetings law. So drawing that distinction, and it is an interesting distinction between informational items versus discussion items and action items, I've never heard that distinction before, but I can tell you that in practice I think that's a hard distinction to observe. So I was here today primarily because of my commitment to open government and my belief that although we do absolutely want to have a participatory process, we still want to ensure that we adhere to the strict requirements of the statute. And the statutes have been interpreted. The Attorney General issues between 200 and 250 decisions every year. At least maybe a fourth, a little less perhaps, are open meetings decisions. So this is well plowed ground. So again, I would just urge you to kind of keep those ideas in mind. I think that the presentation was all by and large great. I didn't see too many things, you get into the weeds, there's some subtleties, absolutely with the law that you can't begin to capture in a few minutes presentation. But on the issue of special meetings and public discussion, I would urge you not to engage, politely tell the person who brings up a topic not on the special meeting agenda we appreciate your comments we will do everything we can to entertain those comments at a future meeting where we can include those on the regular and bear in mind with a regular meeting agenda you can be like i said you have a lot more latitude you have a lot more opportunity to to um to discuss to discuss non-agenda items um and on the email issue i would just say again um the less you can communicate by email or text or whatever that might be, public or private device. However much you can restrain from doing that, the better for this agency because it really does draw a public agency into a potential violation based on this series of less than quorum meetings. So thank you. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? I have one question. I'm sure you can hear me. Go back to that public comment is not a right? Is that what you just said? It is absolutely. If you look at the statute which Mike has cited in his presentation, KRS 61800-850, you will not find a word spoken about the right of the public to speak. So if it's on the agenda, public comment, and someone from the public comes to speak, what do we say? Sorry, we don't have the right to hear you or you don't have the right to speak? No, you absolutely can and should include public comment. And in fact, I don't know that Lexington hasn't adopted as a policy, as a matter of ordinance perhaps, a requirement. You can make the requirements of the law harder on yourself. You could include in your law, I'm sorry, Lexington and the Ed Urban County government could include in its law a requirement for public comment. It's just not in the open meetings law that applies statewide. So it isn't in there. and the frustration for most citizens is this idea that this is supposed to be a participatory democracy. How can I come and participate if I'm not allowed to speak? Believe me, there are lots of agencies across the state who take full advantage of the fact that there is not a provision in the law that guarantees the public's right to speak. They don't permit public comment. And those that do, and under these circumstances where it's a special meeting, I think you just have to be aware that the law restricts your discussions at a special meeting to specific agenda topics. So that when someone at public comment brings up an issue that is not on the agenda, it's through no fault of theirs, it's through no fault of yours. But they're drawing you into a potential violation of the open meetings law that could be challenged, successfully challenged. Yeah, so again, I think if it's understood that there's a valid reason for this and that reason is notice to the public. That special meeting notice is notice to the public of what you all intend to discuss at the special meeting. Something has warranted the need for a special meeting. What is it? That's why you have notification requirements that include notice to the media, notice to the members of the public agency, posted notice. All of those are required to ensure that the public thinks, well, I go to these meetings regularly on the third Thursday of each month or whatever this is at 4 PM or 3 PM. So what is it that's prompted then to call a special meeting? And so those agenda topics for special meetings have to be very specific. So when you are connecting a special meeting, there are restrictions that you face that you do not face at a regular meeting. Absolutely, you would want to engage with that person at a regular meeting to the extent you will. Amy, I don't mean to interrupt, but we've got to get done out of here by 5 o'clock. There's a couple other members that want to ask something. I just asked you all to be brief, and hopefully we can move on. Ms. Delaney first. Yes, Amy, are you representing a client this afternoon, or you're here as an individual? Yeah, I'm sort of freelancing now. Okay, Ms. Van Meter. I just had two questions. One, you're not here as a representative of the Attorney General's office, correct? No, no, I left the Attorney General's office in 2016. We heard from our LFUCG attorney and now you've come and given us a different view about this. I would ask you, can you point us to any opinions of the Attorney General that might apply to this issue about whether or not the board can respond to a member of the public who brings up a topic. I'd be happy to do that. I can't off the top of my head, but I can certainly provide you because as I said, there are voluminous open records and open meetings opinions. Yeah, absolutely. I'll be happy to do that. Thank you. Okay. Okay, thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Certainly, we'll give you an opportunity to speak. I'm going to be real brief, but I feel like I need to respond a little bit. I worked at the Attorney General's office from 1996 to 2011. During part of that time, part of my job was reviewing the open meetings and open records decisions that went out. I'm very comfortable about the advice that the law department has given you all today. All right, thank you. Any other public comments today? Okay, I don't think we have anything else on our agenda, so I need a motion to move into closed session. It's on the board for a vote. Okay, we have Don as a mover and Phillip as a seconder, and it should come up to vote here in just a second. Okay, I thank you all for coming today. We're going to go into closed session now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ORCHESTRA PLAYS The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. So who are your playing guests? Who went with you? Alan and his wife. Girlfriend of mine. Okay, we are back in open session and we'll have five motions on five farms today. It should be coming up that we can vote on as discussed in closed session. Okay, the first farm is a motion to authorize an offer on Farm 4, 2017. 4, 2017, if I said that right. Zach, isn't that the one you're supposed to? Okay. Okay, sorry. My bad. Okay. All right, that one is unanimous. the next farm is authorizing offer on farm 3 2017 is discussed in closed session you go buddy i better vote there say that vote is unanimous oh for crying out loud Next motion is authorizing offer on farm 7-2012 as discussed in closed session. Yes, you are. Mr. Chairman, I am disqualifying myself from this vote as the property owners are prior clients. Yes, sir. Thank you. Next motion is to authorize an offer on farm 8, 2013 as discussed in closed session. And the next motion is to authorize an offer on Farm 1, 2018, as discussed in closed session. Better go ahead. Smoking it. I don't know. that's it i thought so okay that's all the farms that came out of closed session if we don't have any other business today i would entertain a motion to adjourn Yes, ma'am. Mary Ann has a question. Following up on our discussion before the meeting, apparently we have a vacancy in the vice chair's position, and I think it would be good to fill that. Right. I don't disagree with that at all. You can do that in the chair, too. Why? well i don't know if he'll take it but i would make a motion to make zach davis our vice chair we have a motion in a second is healy yes okay anyone anyone in favor say aye aye anyone opposed I'm just kidding. Everyone opposed? Okay. Okay. All right. Did y'all get that? Everyone voted for it except Mr. Anderson? All right. He in detail. okay that motion carries there are how many acres were these five farms again 273 those are we talking the closed session ones 273 i'll tell you what i'll do this real quick i'll go back through the do the math on it real quick. I'll go back real quick and add it up again but I added it right before we started. Okay. What kind of backlog do we have now? 273.27. Okay. Thank you. Okay, I'll still entertain a motion to adjourn. Second. Okay, motion by John, second by Ms. Delaney. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? We're adjourned. Thank you.