It's almost a nice fall day today instead of cold or hot right so that's pretty good. I have a I think a fairly short agenda today it just depends what we talk about but we aren't a normal meeting today so that's a good thing. The first item on the agenda is approval of August 22nd minutes. They are included in your packet and these minutes are very very detailed as I think you've seen if you've looked through them, virtually word for word, a little bit of cleanup I think they did just to take out some maybe comments that are not pertinent. So I entertain a motion on the August 22nd minutes. Okay, you can do that on the system there. Y'all don't have your buttons up? I don't know. Have y'all signed in? We're all signed in over through here. Oh, I understand what you're saying. I think Frank did. He didn't hit the button. I don't think we have our names. Okay, it's coming now. Okay. We have a motion by Frank. Someone else can second alive if you have the buttons. Okay, second by Philip. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Go ahead and pop it in. Okay, thank you. Just as a little bit of information, I know we have some prior minutes that need to come back to the board. The May 30th and July 19 minutes should be ready by the December meeting. We're working on GTV to obtain a transcript of those minutes, and hopefully we'll have those in a full transcript. And the August 29th minutes were approved as amended on November 2nd. The amendment was added to transcripts minutes, and the board didn't ask that it come back, but the transcript has been completed and put in the file. So any questions on those items? I have a question, Greg, please. All right. On the LFUCG website under our PDR program, when you click on the current year meetings, we have minutes for the January and I think the March meetings, but we don't have any other minutes for the rest of the year. There's a link next to the October meeting date, but it goes to October 2017. so do we can we just check on making sure that all the minutes are on there for this year yes thank you thank you thank you Zach okay that got us yes you have a question hard time hearing is that better hard of hearing I'll try to lean into the mic okay all right We'll go to the new business, and the first item under new business is Farm 7207, and Beth is going to go through that. You have any information in your packet? Okay, so this is Farm 7, 2007. It is at 5,000 Mount Horrid Pike. It is approximately 68 acres. It is a horse farm. The owner is Terry Kessler. The date of the easement was November 19, 2007, and the owners at the time of the easement were four quarters LLC. It is not a federal easement. It has no protected structures. There will be no demolition. And the new structure being requested is one primary residence of approximately 4,650 square feet, including a basement, plus a rear-covered porch and awning of 700 square feet with a 99 by 31 footprint. And the builder, I'll continue, but I wanted to point out in case you all have any questions, that the builder, Mike Kerwin, is here today, in case you all have questions for him. They will be doing some paving, approximately 20 feet of paving from the new residence to an existing driveway. There is no impervious surface limit in this easement. The building plans and the map are attached. This is a permitted use. Section 5B in reserved rights of the deed of easement provides the landowner the right to construct or maintain one primary single-family detached dwelling. And Section 4M prohibited uses prohibits paving for reasons not relating to agricultural production or permitted residential use. Both of these actions require private approval by the grantee, and the full text of the paragraphs is included below. The staff recommendation is approval upon the approval of the Division of Building Inspection. Ms. Kessler purchased this farm in September 2017 and there are no existing residences on the farm. The NRCS conservationist recommendation was not needed as this is not a federal easement. So if you all will flip over, this aerial view is something that I just made for you all so you can get an idea of the farm and how it looks. right now and then the next page where the drawings began is the are the materials that mr. Kerwin submitted for us and so you can see that the house he made a note the intent is to have the home blend in to look barn like so he shows us both the front and the rear and then you flip over and he shows us the side views as well as the porch and then the next page the drawing the little part I've highlighted in orange is where it says proposed residence. And so that's where it would be on the farm. And again, the staff recommendation is approval. I think Mr. Kerwin can verify for us, but I believe that Division of Building Inspection is ready to sign off as soon as the Rural Land Management Board does. Yes. Can you have that motion put up on the line for us, please? Yeah, I've got a question. Speak here. I've got a question. Beth, when did the impervious surface thing come in? Was it after 7? It was approximately 2007, and it was initiated by the federal government. and so some of the easements do have those depending on what time they closed that year but it was later in the year so thank you you're welcome okay we have a motion to approve by mr. Robinson looking for a second I'll second can you punch that in the system there Zach? You did, thank you very much. Okay. Motion carries unanimously. i could just say it's been a pleasure working with miss olman she's very thorough what she does and made it pleasant thank you all okay the next time i'm on agenda beth also will take care and give some information it's also a housing request on oscar and betty reed farm 36201 okay so this farm is farm 36 2000 and the address is 8720 hickory hill road it is 100 acres it is they have a small number of horses on the farm the owners are oscar and betty reed and the date of the easement is january 10 2003 and they are the same owners that place the farm in pdr it is not federal easement there is a historic structure a historic house that was built in 1900 as well as a stone fence and stone lined ice house and they are not requesting any demolition they are requesting to build a primary residence that is 1900 square feet of living space in an 800 square foot garage with a footprint of 60 by 50. they will add a driveway to the home that will be approximately 10 by 800. There is no impervious surface limit in this easement. The building plans and map are attached. It is a permitted use. Section 5B, reserved rights of the deed of easement, provides land under the right to construct single-family detached dwellings. And Section 4M, prohibited uses, prohibits paving for reasons not relating to agricultural production or permitted residential use. Both of these actions require private approval by the grantee and the full text of paragraphs is included below the staff recommendation is approval upon the approval of the division of building inspection and the division of traffic engineering if required mr and mrs reed do not live on the farm their daughter lives in the historic house it is aging quite a bit so they want to build a house for her and use the historic house as a tenant house as they fix up the farm The NRCS conservation recommendation is not required. And if you all will flip over to the next page, I'll show you why I mentioned traffic engineering in this one as well. So first I have the aerial view, and if you all will look down on the bottom right, it says, it's hard to read a little, hard to read a little bit says Hickory Hill Road and then it goes on to say that yes Spirit Ridge Lane Hickory Hill is a private road and so I wanted to make sure when the builder told me that they were going to do a new driveway to the residents that they didn't need to get the state approval because sometimes you do for many of that and he said no it's a private road so I checked with our 9-1-1 addressing staff and they said yes this is a private road it's not serviced by the city and they said you know traffic engineering it would be good for them to know they may have to sign off but possibly not but at least so I did reach out to traffic engineering to tell them about this and to tell them that if it's needed we will you know that our board will be voted on it we'll make it contingent on their approval if it's required at least the paving portion but I've not heard back from them yet but that's why the Division of Traffic Engineering is included in this so if you look at their drawing you will see that they're they've put there the proposed house and the driveway road they would have the only driveway right now is gravel and so they would pave one that they could enter easier into the property and that they have their house detail up here they did it a little differently than mr. Kerwin so we still have the footprint and the dimensions just not as many drawings and so again the staff recommendation is approval upon the approval of division building a bit of division of building inspection and the division of traffic engineering if required. Does anyone have any questions? Yes, go ahead Frank. It might still be good to put that condition on because the site where they locate the gate versus those two turns. You know that's just you you might stop a problem before you have to deal with it. But if they're going to build that whole road they're moving the the entrance to 300 feet one way or the other to make it safer make the view better yes at least somebody out review it okay yes I'll recommend that to them okay entertain a motion okay miss motion to approve mr. McNamara move to approve second by Marianne Marr. All in favor say aye. Aye. And I think you'll be able to vote here in a second. Okay, that motion also carries unanimously. I think we need one more vote. Who motioned? John and Marianne. Okay. There we go. Thank you, sir. Okay. Okay. All right. The next item on the agenda is the reimbursement package information, which Beth will also take us through for 2015 cooperative agreement. Okay. So as you are aware, we were able to close all 10 farms this year from our 2015 cooperative agreement. So that was great. The total cost of those easements was $1.8 million approximately, and our federal reimbursement was $896,210.97. since. So we are required to turn in multiple documents when we seek reimbursement from the federal government after we have closed all of our easements. For your all's purposes, what we have supplied is the request for reimbursement that shows the amount we're paying and the amount. So on line F, it shows the amount that we contributed. And then on line G, the amount that the federal government contributed, and then Greg's signature at the bottom. Greg has to sign all of documents for this with the agreement. And then the next chart is a chart that I keep for myself to track things, but I wanted to provide that to you all so that you can see how that matches up with the totals, but also with the confirmation of matching funds forms that I have attached for you all. So we will start going through those, and I have them in order with the chart. And what you are really looking for on this confirmation of matching funds form is just seeing that we never charge the federal government more than 50%, because that's all that they are limited to in their federal cooperative agreement. So on line E of each of these statements to confirm matching funds, that is the federal share, and line D is our share, and then C is the purchase price. So you're just looking to see that we never charged them more than 50%. And we did have, you'll see, if you read the packets before, you probably noticed that a couple I initialed and it changed. We had minor changes to our share. We submit these confirmation of matching funds forms to the NRCS before we close an easement. We're required to do that. But then sometimes when they went actually for the reimbursement, the people in Washington said, oh, you've got to cut this down. And sometimes it was little minor things. One was that our appraisers sometimes rounded down. So they would say, like, for instance, with this one, that it was $99,000. It would say on there that it's $25,000 per acre and 40 acres. But then they would round down. Instead of saying $99,500, $9,700, $75,000, they might round down to $99,500 on this chart they do. And the feds apparently could not pay anything less. So we only lost $3,000 or $4,000. but that was new for our local staff as well. Usually they've gone by the specifics where it said 25 per acre for the specific acreage, but this year they were a little more picky. So we only lost out around $4,000, but I wanted you all to know why those notes were there. So David and Nancy Alger, you can see that we paid a little more than 50%. percent. And the next one is the Greer Hancock Farm LLC. That was 50-50. Stacey and Tina Brown, we paid $5 more. And Sarah Carolyn Sanderlin, we paid $4,000 more. Damon and Deborah Miller was 50-50 Brist Stables LLC was 50-50 William Merritt Wade let's see we paid yes barely anymore but a slight amount and with the wage you will see that that is six siblings And so there are multiple signatures here, signature pages. And then our next one is Candy Meadows, LLC. And that one we paid approximately 700 more. John Burns and Barbara Burns Roof, we were 50-50. Steve and Catherine Snowden, we paid approximately $4,000 more. And that is it. Does anyone have any questions about the cooperative agreement reimbursement package? I just want to share it with you all so you all are aware. Yeah, you all might remember in the past we've had some issues with the calculations, and so we determined back then to share all these with the board and make sure you could see the actual reports that go out. You're welcome. okay the uh next item on the agenda is a question greg i'm sorry i haven't okay go ahead uh thank you for putting this together beth i'm glad to see so many closings this year where does that leave us in terms of how many we have pending right now let's see i have with me our annual report that we gave to council yesterday that i'll be happy to send out to you we'll be sharing all of this with you all again next month when we do our rankings and but we have seven farms that are currently under contract and six of those have been assigned to an attorney one is pending assignment and then we have one two five that were just awarded funding from nrcs in september greg signs that paperwork those were the offers that you all approved in august contingent on the federal funding come through we had been given initial advice from the feds that it was coming through it was being awarded but the paperwork officially had not been signed yet so So that was signed, those offers have been extended, and so there are five of those. And then NRCS has notified us they're ready for our six farms we have to be 2016 grant substitutions to be submitted. So we will do that this month. So the total for all of that is 12 farms totaling 1,030 acres are currently funded by the LFUCG and NRCS and in various stages of the acquisition process. and six farms totaling nearly 563 acres are being submitted to NRCS as substitutes for the three farm withdrawals on the 2016 cooperative agreement. And what's our expected timeline on those? We can't pinpoint that right now because NRCS is very dependent on what they do. Our attorneys have sent some of the pre-closing packages to NRCS, and then they go through a review process and notify us that they are ready to close. And then the attorneys still have some that they haven't sent yet, so right now it's in their hands as far as those. And the others, that's what NRCS is working on, so I wouldn't be able to give a timeline on any except those seven right now. Any other questions? Okay, the next item on the agenda, which I believe you all have been sent as well, is the internal audit that was done on PDR. I have some comments on that, but I think maybe Beth or Derek can weigh in at some point if you all have any questions. I can tell you that I was in a pre-meeting yesterday or the day before. Remember, we were in a pre-meeting last week. And I sat there with three attorneys. They all thought it was a good audit, so that's pretty good. They believe it was, and I thought it was as well. But basically, the report confirmed that the first four items of the scope and objectives on page two of the audit were met. That is that the PDR program is sufficiently managed. The PDR program properly tracks available funding for future purchases. Management confirms that funding is available and approved prior to extending an offer, and payments made to landowners are approved and accurate. Most of the findings were related to the final two objectives of the audit and related to process changes we have known and need to make in the ordinance that we've been talking about for a while. Four portions of the findings were addressed with ordinance changes that the board approved in May. They were going to be presented to the council yesterday, but they ran out of time. It's going to come along in the next meeting. And then we probably will have maybe a work session with this group or maybe able to do it in a regular meeting to discuss the other recommended changes. If you haven't heard, there was a vote yesterday that we had two more people to the board that are voting members that would be, I'm going to call them at-large members for any lack of better description, that would be chosen by the council to serve on this board. and one member that would be an ex officio member would be a member of the council and non-voting. Of course, that's just the planning group yesterday, so that has to go through a few dates. I'm not sure exactly how many dates, but we'll have that. Yeah, they haven't voted on it. So the way that that will work is the way that meeting minutes are reported out is basically a month behind. So there's no planning public safety committee meeting in November, so they'll report it out in December. Anything can change or it can be voted on at that point. I think Frank and Zach had asked me if we might be able, as was just mentioned by Greg, we didn't get to give our quick five-minute presentation, and it would be great if we could get all those changes in there at the same time. There's probably a way we could still do it, but they may just have to take it in two times or just we'll see. But the presentation shouldn't take long. The next planning public safety meeting has been put on the schedule that we will also talk about the PDR audit. So that presentation may actually go well because some of the things in the audit are addressed in the recommendations that you guys are making to council. So hopefully we can get it all done before the end of the year. If not, it will probably be the beginning of 2019. Okay. As I read through this audit, the question came to me. We have never had a payment over time. Is that right? Because people ask me that. I don't ever remember one where you pay over three or four or five years. So taking this out, there's no real precedent for leaving it in here because we've never used it. Isn't that right? We've never been able to use it. It's my understanding we really can with bond funds. That's what we went through before. In the presentation we were going to give yesterday, I think we recommended to take it out, but that there was still that kind of option if they found a way to do it that they could. But as of this point, I don't think we know of a way. That's what we're getting from Commissioner of Finance, Bill O'Mara, that we can't pay it out over time. But it doesn't preclude them. There probably could be a way, if they wanted to put it in cash or something in the future, they might be able to do that. But generally, as of now, we're just sort of removing that as an option, at least from the application. And the TDR is the same reason. We've never used that. So after 18 years, if you haven't used it by now, you're probably not going to need it. Probably. Thank you. We only have one item in closed session, so we've got the agenda a little bit mixed up. We normally do. I had a question. Yes, Mary Ann, go ahead. Will the other changes go through the committee that Lucy chairs? I think that committee is pretty much done. We made our recommendations here, and we've given those recommendations to the council, and they're going to consider those. I thought we were through with those, but we had agreed to take up the others in committee. Which others? The ones you're just talking about now. On the members? Yes. I think we're going to give it to the... Yeah, I mean, that's kind of beyond our control at this point. I mean, they're moving forward with that. I mean, we don't really... Well, I think she's talking about... That's an ordinance change. Ordinance change. I think Dee Dee is talking about the changes, the rest of the audit changes. We thought it would be better just... Oh, I thought you were talking about the members. Just like the planning commission, the full planning commission works on the rural land management plan and the comp plan that the full group would work on the changes that are recommended in the audit that we haven't so that everyone's informed plus there are deadlines on this that we have to respond to when it's an audit that we have to show we've taken action and so that way that speeds it up because sometimes getting our committee together our ordinance review committee was a challenge in itself with everyone's busy schedules and then if they had to make decisions back plus it gives everybody on the board a chance to weigh in on this and have time so we will just what we've talked is um with jim duncan and chris woodall about also joining us um for the portions of the rural land management plan that have changed because um the natural area bees were recognized in here but there are a few other changes in the rural land management plan that do affect our rankings and so i've talked with chris and jim and they will likely join us for that and so we'll we think a work session type format would be better for you all and for all of us where we can just interact more and so we will schedule that i'll work with jim and chris and we'll get that scheduled and let you all know so what is the deadline for responding to the internal audit report i'm not sure he has given it i know that i remember when the auditor worked with me he said we come back and make sure that you've implemented these things but i do not have the deadline i can find out yes it was an internal audit and i'll just say from my experience with other divisions uh where we've had internal audits they generally come back i think we've generally had a year but we'll clarify with bruce ellie just to find out the time that they would like us to have these changes implemented by and get back with the board so we can be well out in front of that mr bell do you have a question yes if i could just make a comment about yesterday's meeting i was personally very encouraged with what the committee suggested in having having the council appoint a couple of people as well as a council a person serve with ourselves you know this it's this is a this is a big program in our community and obviously the the council plays a significant role in in in all of it and I love to have their participation so um kathy and to all y'all really thank you so very much to to be a part uh with all of this it's um we're all doing this together and i just love that that you know that y'all are interested in wanting to be a part and and i think it's great so i just want to make that that comment and and frank you might want to make a comment that you were speaking as well Hayden and I were talking about this before the meeting I was encouraged that the chairman of the subcommittee that brought the report went back to the fact that this program is about agriculture and is about preserving agriculture and so whoever the council decides whomever the council decides to appoint they need to have some basis in agriculture some reason for why they want to serve other than just to represent a district. And I think that's a very positive thing because I don't care whether it's whole foods, local foods, whatever it is, if it's tied to agriculture, even tourism, ag tourism, if it's tied to one of those types of things, Kathy, I think it'll be a whole lot better if you point out, I don't care whose district they come out of, it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that they have some interest and bring something to the table. And I think we've accomplished that. And I think the council will be able to accomplish what they want to accomplish with these two voting members and one ex-officio member. Okay, any other comments? Marianne? Go ahead, Marianne. You all know the farm bill deadline was September 30th. And nothing's happened. So do we just continue as if the money is going to be out there? I mean, when you go to the Farm Bill website, you will be stunned at some of the facts and the economic condition of the farmers in this country. Frank may have more experience with that than me, but I know this is not too atypical that this happens. I can comment on that. This is the first time since 1986 that we're operating on a Farm Bill that doesn't have an extension. Usually they vote an extension, which carries everything forward. and it doesn't affect us in Kentucky as much as it affects us in farms that have programs, corn, wheat, soybeans, hog program, whatever. All of those programs are in limbo because technically there's no funding for them. As far as what I used to call the Farm Ranch Protection Act, now Beth, it has a different name, but I know in the farm bill it's there. and the pressure is going to come from these groups that are working out in limbo that have this this this harvest crop is not only is the price going to be low but the yield is going to be low in lots of places because too much water so that's going to be an interesting thing to see how fsa farm service agency how they handle appropriating the money to be able to pay off all these insurance claims that's now been brought in-house. So you're going to read a lot more about it between now and the end of the year because harvest season is rolling down. As they say, they're cutting corn and beans. So something has to happen. They've either got to do it in a continuing, because they can't appropriate the money if they don't. So as soon as this election is over with, you're going to see a whole lot of bills pass between now and the end of the year just in order to be able to do what they want to do. I say they can't pay a bill or something. and i would just add to that frank i've been following it as well frank and i've talked about it and nrcs has told me that the money that's already been allocated to us um is safe um so it's good news it's the money going forward sure okay uh if there are no more questions i want best to go ahead and go through these announcements before closed session if that's okay okay i think actually greg has covered these so i had that i gave my annual report to council yesterday and even though we will be giving that to you all in December along with the rankings annual rankings would you all like me to send that out afterwards okay I'll be happy to do that and then we covered the part that in September we were awarded funding for our five substitute farms to our 2015 agreement and then Greg covered the two changes that the council made yesterday and so I think that completes our announcements. We have a couple of people out here. Does anybody want to make any public comment? I don't think anyone wants to make public comment, so if you guys are ready, I would entertain a motion to go into closed session. And where's that language? I've lost my language. Pursuant to KRS 61810-1B to discuss a potential acquisition of real property interest, the public discussion of which is likely to affect the value. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Marianne, a second by Phillip, and hopefully we'll be live here in a minute. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion is unanimous. Call the meeting back to order. We're back in open session. I'll entertain a motion to authorize an appraisal by staff on Farm 14-2009 as discussed in closed session. So moved. Mary and Mara moves. I need a second. I have a second by Dennis. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Have any other business anyone wants to talk about today? Entertain a motion to adjourn. Healy, Mary Ann, all in favor aye. leave.