# Rural Land Management Board - December 12, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 12, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4659 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4659?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-12-12 - **Last revised**: December 12, 2018 - **Length**: 10,032 words - **Speakers**: Here Is My Concern > ⚠️ **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 December 12, 2018, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber at 101 East Vine Street, Lexington, KY 40507, with Jim Gray presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed six agenda items during the session, covering both administrative matters and substantive policy issues related to rural land management and development. The meeting included several informational presentations, including updates on recommended changes to the PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) Ordinance, a year-end budget report with easement acquisition status updates, and the 2019 meeting calendar. The board also conducted attendance and introductions of new members as part of their regular administrative procedures. Two significant actions were taken during the meeting, with the board conducting four total votes. The board approved a housing and infrastructure request for Farm 35-2002 submitted by Split Rock Properties, LLC, represented by Derek Braun. Additionally, the board elected new officers for the upcoming term, completing their annual leadership transition process. No public comments were received during the meeting, allowing the board to focus entirely on their scheduled agenda items. The session balanced both routine administrative matters and substantive development decisions, typical of the board's role in overseeing rural land use and conservation efforts in the jurisdiction. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the December 12, 2018 meeting: **Present:** • Jim Gray • Beth Cawood Overman • Will Meyer • Gloria Martin • Derek Paulson (arrived late) • Sally Hamilton • Philip • Don • Greg • Zack • Dennis • Dede • Angela Evans **Late Arrivals:** • Derek Paulson **Absent:** None reported A total of 13 individuals attended the meeting, with Derek Paulson arriving after the meeting had begun. No absences were recorded for this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board took action on four motions during the December 12, 2018 meeting. **Approval of October 17, 2018 Minutes** [timestamp: 00:00] Philip motioned to approve the October 17, 2018 meeting minutes, with Don providing the second. The motion passed unanimously. **PDR Ordinance Changes** [timestamp: 00:00] Greg made a motion to accept changes to the PDR ordinance as suggested, seconded by Mr. Meyer. The board voted unanimously to approve the ordinance modifications. **Infrastructure Request - Farm 35-2002** [timestamp: 00:00] Mr. Bell motioned to approve the infrastructure request for Farm 35-2002 submitted by Split Rock Properties, LLC. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. The motion passed with one abstention recorded. **Election of New Board Officers** [timestamp: 00:00] Zack motioned for the election of new board officers, with Dennis providing the second. The motion to proceed with officer elections passed unanimously. All motions were approved, with three receiving unanimous support and one passing with a single abstention. No roll call votes were recorded for these items, and no conditions were attached to any of the approved motions. ## Appointments The meeting included several key leadership appointments for the upcoming term. The following appointments were made: • **Gloria Martin** was appointed as Chair • **Zack** was appointed as Vice Chair • **Will Meyer** was appointed as Treasurer These appointments establish the leadership structure for the organization, with Gloria Martin taking the top leadership role as Chair, Zack serving in the secondary leadership position as Vice Chair, and Will Meyer assuming responsibility for financial oversight as Treasurer. ## Contested Items The primary contested item during this meeting centered on the election of new board officers, specifically regarding the appropriateness of board members who own land enrolled in the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program serving in officer positions. The discussion became heated as board members debated whether there was a conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety when PDR landowners hold leadership roles on the board. Some members expressed concerns about public perception, arguing that having PDR participants in officer positions could create questions about the board's objectivity in making decisions related to the program. The disagreement focused on balancing the practical reality that many qualified board members are involved in agricultural preservation programs with the need to maintain public trust and avoid any appearance of self-dealing or conflicts of interest. The specific outcome of this discussion and whether any restrictions were placed on PDR landowners serving as officers was not clearly documented in the available materials. The debate highlighted ongoing tensions about governance structure and ethical considerations within the board's operations. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and participant names were not available in the source materials for this contested item.* ## Attendance and Introduction of New Members [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting began with introductions of new members joining the body. Jim Gray led the introductions and recognition portion of the meeting. Two new members were welcomed to the group: • Will Meyer • Gloria Martin The meeting also included recognition for Derek Paulson, who was acknowledged for his service as he transitions to a new role. Gray noted Paulson's contributions during his tenure with the organization. This agenda item served as an informational introduction to familiarize attendees with the new membership composition and to formally recognize both incoming and departing members. No formal action was taken during this portion of the meeting. ## Update on Recommended Changes to the PDR Ordinance [timestamp: 00:00] Greg provided an update on recommended changes to the PDR (Property Development Review) ordinance during this discussion item. The presentation focused on two main areas of proposed modifications to the existing ordinance. The recommended changes include process-related adjustments to how the PDR ordinance operates, though specific details of these procedural modifications were not elaborated upon in the available materials. Additionally, the recommendations involve expanding the composition of the PDR board by adding more members to the current structure. This agenda item was informational in nature, serving as an update to keep the meeting participants informed about the ongoing review and potential revisions to the PDR ordinance. No formal action was taken during this discussion, as it appeared to be part of an ongoing process to evaluate and improve the existing regulatory framework. The PDR ordinance governs property development review procedures, and these recommended changes suggest an effort to enhance either the efficiency of the review process or the representation and expertise available through board membership expansion. ## Farm 35-2002, Split Rock Properties, LLC – Derek Braun, Housing & Infrastructure [timestamp: 00:00] The board discussed an infrastructure request for Farm 35-2002 submitted by Split Rock Properties, LLC through Derek Braun. The request involved the construction of a riding arena and garage on the property. Beth Cawood Overman served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the details of the infrastructure proposal to the board members. The discussion centered on the specific construction plans and their compliance with applicable regulations and requirements. The infrastructure request was reviewed and considered by the board as part of their housing and infrastructure oversight responsibilities. The proposed riding arena and garage construction appeared to meet the necessary criteria for approval. Following the presentation and discussion, the board voted to approve the infrastructure request for Farm 35-2002. The approval allows Split Rock Properties, LLC to proceed with the construction of the riding arena and garage as outlined in their submission. This approval represents the board's determination that the proposed infrastructure improvements are appropriate for the property and align with relevant development standards and community planning objectives. ## End of Calendar Year Budget Report & Easement Acquisition Status [timestamp: 00:00] Beth Cawood Overman presented the end of calendar year budget report and provided an update on the status of easement acquisitions during this informational presentation. The presentation focused on two key areas: the current financial status of the program and the progress made in acquiring easements throughout the year. Overman highlighted the program's financial position as the calendar year drew to a close, providing stakeholders with a comprehensive overview of budget performance and expenditures. The easement acquisition status update covered the progress made in securing property easements, which appears to be a significant component of the organization's ongoing activities. The presentation outlined both current achievements and future planning considerations for the easement program. This agenda item served as an informational briefing, allowing attendees to understand the financial health of the program and the status of key acquisition activities. The dual focus on budget reporting and easement status suggests these are interconnected priorities for the organization, with easement acquisitions likely representing a major budget expenditure category. The presentation provided stakeholders with year-end data necessary for understanding program performance and planning for future activities. As an informational item, no formal action was required from the meeting participants, but the report served to keep all parties informed of the program's current status and trajectory. ## 2019 Meeting Calendar [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting included a discussion on the proposed meeting dates for 2019, led by Jim Gray. The agenda item focused on reviewing and finalizing the calendar schedule for the upcoming year. During the discussion, adjustments were made to the initially proposed meeting dates to avoid conflicts with other events. Gray presented the proposed calendar and facilitated discussion among attendees regarding potential scheduling issues. The meeting participants reviewed the proposed dates and identified conflicts that needed to be addressed. Through collaborative discussion, the group worked to modify the calendar to ensure optimal attendance and avoid overlapping commitments with other significant events or meetings. This was an informational discussion item, with the primary outcome being the refinement of the 2019 meeting schedule. The adjustments made during this session helped establish a more practical and accessible meeting calendar for the organization's activities in the following year. The discussion demonstrated the group's commitment to thoughtful scheduling that considers the broader context of related events and the availability of key participants. By addressing potential conflicts proactively, the organization aimed to maximize participation and effectiveness of their 2019 meetings. ## Elect New Board Officers [timestamp: 00:00] The board conducted elections for new officer positions during this meeting. The election process resulted in the selection of three key leadership positions for the upcoming term. **Election Results:** - **Chair:** Gloria Martin was elected to serve as the new Board Chair - **Vice Chair:** Zack was elected to the Vice Chair position - **Treasurer:** Will Meyer was elected as Treasurer Zack participated as a key speaker during the officer election proceedings. The elections were conducted and completed successfully, with all three positions filled by the nominated candidates. The board approved the election results, officially installing the new officers in their respective roles. This leadership transition will guide the board's operations and decision-making processes going forward. The new officer structure establishes Gloria Martin in the primary leadership role as Chair, with Zack serving as Vice Chair to provide support and backup leadership. Will Meyer's election as Treasurer places him in charge of the board's financial oversight responsibilities. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the October 17, 2018 Minutes - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Accept changes to the PDR ordinance as suggested - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of infrastructure request for Farm 35-2002, Split Rock Properties, LLC - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Election of new board officers --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Can you all hear me? Now I know. If I can ask everyone to take their seats, please. We'll start the meeting. Okay, we can call the meeting to order. I appreciate everyone coming in today. Got a couple of things to start with here today. We have some changes on the board due to some people that terms expired. You got me right up there. Okay, and we have some new members I'd like to introduce. First one we have is Will Mayer. Will, just raise your hand because we don't have a nameplate for him yet. He's with the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association and appreciate his willingness to serve on the board. next person is sitting to my left here is Gloria Martin representing the Fayette County Neighborhood Council I think most people know Gloria she's been around for a little bit here doing things on the city also want to recognize Derek Paulson Derek will be leaving the city and going to work back in the criminal justice department at EKU he's been our commissioner here for some time that we've worked closely with with the city I think Derek's coming in here today but I'm not seeing him so hopefully he'll come in we'll get a chance to wish him all the best one of the other changes on the board is Lucy van meter ran for office for judgeship and one so since she was named as a judge she can't serve on any board so that particular position is now vacant That's the Historic Society, and they will be nominating someone and hopefully get a replacement in our next meeting. And Mr. Paulson is walking in the room. Derek, I was just thanking you for your service to us. Appreciate all you've done for us here. my son is in ministry at the EKU with Campus Crusade for Christ crew so I'm gonna tell him keep you straight down there if you'd ask him to pray for me I will that's right that's right well thank you all right in the interim Sally Hamilton will be serving as our interim commissioner serving on the with the board and Sally is in the audience. Good to have you with us today. Okay, the first order of business is the approval of the minutes of our last meeting. They are in your packet and as you will recall our minutes are pretty much word for word these days so hopefully everyone is okay with that. If so, I need a motion to accept the minutes. Okay, Phillip made a motion to accept the minutes second by Don all in favor say aye negative all unanimous minutes are adopted thank you very much in your packet today you have an update on the recommended changes to the PDR ordinance we've seen this and talked about this many times for those of you who are new to the board we had a committee that worked probably over a year we actually had some transition during that time some people rolled off so it sort of delayed us a little bit where we recommended some changes to the PDR ordinance most of the changes that we recommended as a board were process related over time as you know when you write an ordinance and you've been operating the program for 10 years or 15 years what you actually have to do to do changes and farm bills and various things are a little different than was originally intended and we knew that we had some things in our PDR ordinance that we were doing that was a little different operationally so as our committee was formed we recommended those changes those changes are in this packet and they were submitted to the Planning and Public Safety Committee they accepted them like two meetings ago talked about them again in the next in this last meeting about a week two weeks ago but they have not yet taken action and I think they're waiting on us to make sure that we're still good with those things. Those items also, you may remember, addressed some of the audit issues. In the interim period, after we were working on some of the changes, there was an audit. You all seen that audit in this board, and a lot of the changes we made were in that audit because they found that we were doing things that weren't exactly according to the ordinance, which basically we had to do because of some of the changes in the processes and things that had happened. the other two changes that are in the ordinance besides the ones we recommended were ones that came from planning and public safety and they were related to adding some more members to this board they recommended two council appointed seats and that they with the stipulation that they must have an interest in agriculture on natural areas to qualify and the second thing is that they wanted to add an ex officio member of the council be a non-voting member but would be on our board which i think most of us believe that was a good idea to have a representative from the council on our board they're going to be meeting the public and planning public safety committee committee are going to be meeting again february the 5th so they're hoping to take this up and we really as a board i think need to get these passed because we are not in compliance with what we do relative to the audit that just occurred and what we do so our ordinance probably needs to be updated i know that there's probably some other things maybe need to be done in the ordinance and we have talked about those somewhat and maybe that's some of the hesitancy about changing this but anyway i just recommend that you all look at that let me know what you want to do if there's any comments on that i would like for us to end up today by having some sort of vote on this so that we can tell them i think they've been a little bit confused that they've not seen a formal vote from this committee that we agree to these changes i think we have as we've talked about it but maybe there's some people that aren't fully on board so my understanding that they're wanting to kind of get more of a formality from us on this so greg if i may at the last meeting we voted to I guess reconfirm our proposed changes to planning and public safety so we I suppose what you're asking is do we support or do we have any comment on their changes well I think that was their recommendation that we offer some opinion on that I think what they know that we have done was pretty much announced that they had taken a vote to do that in the meeting prior to this last meeting that they had so it was reported to this board but our board is not although i don't think anyone here said oh no no no no but we never formally said okay and i think maybe they're looking for a little guidance so that they're not just kind of trampling over our board and hoping that we're in agreement with what they're doing Does everyone understand what the issue was on the members and what they're trying to do? Okay, because I know we've talked about it. Is anyone willing to make a motion that we accept these changes for them so that they can move forward with this? Greg, I'd be willing to make a motion that we accept the changes as suggested. Okay, thank you, Mr. Bell. Can I give a second? I'll second. Okay, Mr. Mayor made a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? I hear none opposed. Okay, that is unanimous. Thank you all very much on that. All right, the next item I think Beth is going to take us through. We have a couple of, well, I guess we just have one thing here today where a farm is wanting to do some infrastructure. We probably have some guests here, I would say, relative to that. I'm not sure. But Beth, will you take us through this item, Farm 35202, Split Rock Properties? Sure. So this is Farm 352002. It's located at 5425 Greenwich Pike. It is 22.12 acres. It is a horse farm. The farm owners are Split Rock Properties, LLC, owned by Derek Braun. The date of the easement was October 15, 2003, and the owners at the time of the easement were Richard and Bonita Maynard. It is not a federal easement. There are no protected structures, and they are not requesting any demolition. The new structures and improvements they are requesting are one indoor riding arena with a 100 feet by 240 footprint, a three-car garage with a 28 by 40 footprint, and to expand an existing barn by 12 feet in length. The paving, they are requesting, well, they are notifying us. He is widening the existing road beginning at the residence through the back of the farm because it is only 10 feet wide. This will not impact the long front entry road to the farm. He will also connect the two paved entrances to the barn to form a circle. This does not require board approval and his easement does not include an impervious surface limit. And paving is only prohibited if it is not for agricultural production or permitted residential use. He does not have an impervious surface limit in his easement. The building plans on map are attached and I will go through those in just a moment. It is a permitted use in section 5B, reserved rights of the deed of easement. Provides the landowner the right to construct single family detached dwellings with reasonable appurtenances including but not limited to garages. Section 5K, Reserved Rights, grants the right to construct pens, corrals, paddocks, fences, barns, and related buildings with access roads reasonably necessary in connection with agricultural production. The staff recommendation is approval of the riding arena and barn extension and approval of the three car garage upon the approval of the Division of Building Inspection. Mr. Braun just purchased this farm in November and is going to make it his home. He reports that the garage attached to the house is small and will only accommodate one normal sized car. The riding arena will be for his personal use as he is a professional show jumping rider. Since the riding arena is for personal rather than commercial use, it does not require the approval of the Division of Building Inspection. The NRCS conservationist recommendation is not needed as this is not a federal easement. and then the pertinent easement language is included below the full text from the easement and then if you will flip over to the first photograph you can see on your left here that's Greenwich Pike and you can see the long treed road that comes in and that is the residence on your right and then there is a blue circle where he would like to put the three-car garage the riding arena will be over here to your left and there is a row of trees that blocks it from the view and from the neighboring property and then if you keep going down the road past the house that is where the barn that they will extend by 12 feet and then they just have a writing ring and a shed back there and if you flip over to the next page they provided the exact dimensions of what they would like to do as improvements does anyone have any questions we don't I have a question. Are the applicants here? I don't think so. You're not the bronze, right? Okay, no. I don't think so. all right we have a motion to allow this to happen I think what the recommendation of staff is so anyone willing to make that much so I'm not getting emotions on our screens okay mr. chairman yes I'd be willing to make the motion to approve all right this It's Farm 35, 2002. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Second. I get a second. A second for Mr. Robinson. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I have to disqualify myself from that vote as I participated in that transaction. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Thank you. Okay. Okay, the next item on the agenda is a PowerPoint on our budget and acquisition totals. All right. So I'm going to walk through this with you all. You all don't have the PowerPoint. You have the maps that I'm going to refer to. And the farms that I'll refer to during the presentation are marked in blue. And a couple, so for those of you who are, other than Will and Gloria, you all have heard these first couple of slides. We've given this summary, but I wanted to go back through this on their behalf. So our 2018 acquisition summary. We had 10 farms totaling 716 acres were permanently conserved at a cost to the LFUCG of only $907,818.78. since. Matching funds for these easements was provided by our 2015 cooperative agreement with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in our CS. The appraised per acre easement value of these farms ranged from $1,900 to $3,000, but by utilizing the 50% federal match, the average cost per acre to the LFUCG was only $1,268. These farms bring our total conserved acreage to 29,669. The average prime farmland and statewide important soil score of these farms was 90% which is great. So we now will go through the farms that we were able to acquire this year and I'll start farm 39 2002 is over on the left bottom of your map it's on military pike that is owned by David and Nancy Alger, it's 40 acres, and with this farm, with the acquisition of this easement, we were able to, we have 427 contiguous acres there, but importantly on Military Pike, we have over 1,300 acres, which is really great. We've been able to accomplish a lot there. And then next is Farm 12015, over on the opposite side, on your right upper corner, this is the Greer Hancock Farm LLC, it is approximately 144 acres, and you can see there that that was just like this tiny missing piece we were able to acquire, and there are now over 1,000 acres there that are contiguous. And next, we have Stacy and Tina Brown, and that's down on your bottom right on Evans Mill Road. That farm is 60 acres, and it contributed to over 235 acres of contiguous conserved land. Next, we'll go back up on your right to Sarah Asbury Sanderlin. This is a 40-acre farm, and Sarah's family, it is the Asbury family, it's over 200 acres, but they subdivided it for the three children. And the other two parcels were already in PDR. Sarah had been waiting a while we were finally able to acquire hers and so now because the whole family farm still functions at one that her brother farms and so now the entire farm but not only that there are over 730 contiguous acres there now next is Damon and Deborah Miller and I have theirs written it's on your here inside the urban service area farm 5 2011 it's the long narrow piece on Jack's Creek Pike that is 142 acres and this contributed to an area the light green that is right above that farm is those are bluegrass conservancy parcels so together with our bluegrass conservancy farms and PDR there are over 574 acres conserved there next is brisk stable llc that is over on your upper left farm one 2013. this one is on kearney road and is 41 acres and it is next to a farm under contract so 120 acres upon closure of our 2016 agreement farms right below that farm 17 2007 we have the wade family and this farm is 78 acres the family the Wade family has conserved over 634 acres through PDR so they are one of our largest contributors to the PDR program and we really appreciate them. Next is Candy Meadows LLC that is up here at the top of the map farm 25 2007 approximately 41 acres and this contributed to an area that is over 600 acres. Next we'll come back down on your right to farm 22008 John Burns and Barbara Burns roof on Athens Walnut Hill Pike. This farm the triangle shape on the other side of I-75 it was one farm originally that was split by the interstate and Mr. Burns and Mrs. Roof had already placed the other half and the adjacent parcel to that NPDR and we were now able to acquire this one so this is their third PDR farm and with the adjacent farm to the newly required one we have over 320 acres there on the right side of I-75. Lastly we have Stephen Catherine Snowden and that one's up here in the middle the urban service area 13 2002 this is a 40 acre farm that is across the street from the city's 280 acre Heisel Farm Park. So it contributes to a large group of city conserved land. All right, next is our pending easement status. So these are our 2016, those were our farms that were funded in our 2015 federal cooperative agreement. These are our 2016 federal cooperative agreement farms. There are seven under contract, and NRCS actually expects these to close by March 31st, which is great news. If that occurs, we should surpass 30,000 acres, as you can see with the total of the acreage there. So next, so I have given this, this is the annual report that I've provided to the council as well as the planning commission, and I've met with some of the council members individually, and so I put this slide together based on some of the feedback I've gotten, and I put it in a question and answer format, because I know it gets very confusing when I'm referring to the different cooperative agreements and the substitutes, and so I just wanted to, based on the feedback I got from those presentations, I created this for you all and thought it would be helpful, too, for our new members. So what do you mean when you refer to a substitute farm? NRCS funds specific farms on each grant. It is not a block grant for us to use at our discretion. When a farm funded on a grant declines our offer, NRCS allows us to use the money allocated towards that farm to acquire other farms. The farms we submit in place of the original farms are known as substitutes. Importantly, prior to the 2014 Farm Bill, it was a one farm for one farm substitution. However, we can now substitute multiple farms to utilize the funding allocated towards the withdrawn farms. farms. This is one big reason we have been able to utilize funding in place rather than requesting new funding both federally and locally. Did any farms withdraw from the 2015 and 2016 cooperative agreements? Yes, two large farms withdrew from our 2015 agreement. That's the farms that closed this year, so there were two others on that that had been funded but withdrew. And in addition, three farms withdrew from our 2016 agreement. Those are the farms that are expected to close in March. And the total allocated for those, the 2015's was 1.38 million and the 2016's was 1.16 million. Have we submitted any farms as substitutes to utilize that money? Yes, we have submitted 11 farms in place of these farms, and they will be shown on the next two slides. So what exactly do you mean by submit? Hasn't this funding already been awarded to us? The funding has been awarded to us, but it has funded specific farms. Since those farms withdrew, the new substitute farms have to be approved by NRCS. However, since the funding is already in place, our NRCS Kentucky partners only have to obtain approval for those farms to be substituted. They do not have to compete nationally for new federal funding, so it is a quicker process. How do we receive authorization to utilize the funding for our substitute farms? After the NRCS Kentucky staff obtains approval for our substitute farms, our board chair will sign an amendment to the cooperative agreement that removes the withdrawn farms from the agreement and adds the newly approved farms. After that paperwork is completed, we can then begin acquiring those substitute farms. Okay. So our pending easement status. Our 2015 grant substitutions and 2018 grant applicants were combined by NRCS. The funding was awarded in September. The board authorized offers in October, and four out of five of those have accepted the offer. So they've signed those contracts. Greg has signed those as well. And one has been extended into some health issues. They are interested in, I think they will sign it. We've just had some delays. So that's a very positive development. Next, we will go to our 2016 grant substitutions. these were submitted in November there are six farms totaling 563 acres I don't have a timeline as this was just late November that we submitted these but those were all great farms many of which applied last year so I expect those to be approved for funding Pending acquisition summary. All right. I think my, oh, did I skip one? Okay. Application status. So we also have farms that are eligible for non-matched LFUCG funding. And we have four of those farms. And two of those do not qualify for the federal funding because of the soil in the natural area being, not meeting the federal guideline that the prime farmland and statewide important have to together equal 50 percent. And the other two, it is due to citizenship of the owner. And this farm that is 1,017 acres was also submitted to our program in three individual tracts, but for this chart, in order not to throw off the total acreage, I just noted that for you all. So our pending acquisition summary, we have 11 farms totaling 1,008 acres are currently funded by the LFUCG and NRCS and in various stages of the acquisition process. In addition, we have six farms totaling nearly 563 acres that were submitted to NRCS in November as substitutes for the three farm withdrawals on the 2016 cooperative agreement. If all federally eligible farms are successfully acquired, we will surpass 31,000 acres. Our federally ineligible farms total approximately 1,200 acres, so if acquired, we'll allow us to surpass 32,000 acres. All right, so our budget report. So this chart, when it's the column that says budgeted, that is what the city provided to us that fiscal year. And so those are the bond funds that have been awarded to us. What is expended is what we've actually written checks on, and that money is gone. It's been charged against our account. Allocated means that it is obligated in contracts and on federal applications. And you all, oh, I'm sorry, you all do have this chart at the back of your packets. It should be on the last page of the packets that I emailed you all. Okay, do you all see it? Okay, it's white so it looks a little different than the blue. And so you can see that with the $2 million in 2015, we have $2,162.58 remaining in that bond fund. In the $1.15 million allocated in 2016, we have $427,000 remaining, although both of these are allocated. And then in 2017, the $2 million we have, 1.716 has been allocated, but $283,610 of that is actually remaining, is not allocated or expended right now. We also have the $1 million that was given to us in 2018 that is neither allocated nor expended yet. So that brings our total in reserve to $1.283 million. essentially all right so a budget recap um so if i and i once again i did this in question and answer based on the feedback we've gotten so if i understand correctly we can fund all of the federally eligible farms shown on slides four six and seven and we still have 1.28 million in reserve yes that is correct one caveat if the estimates for any of the farms not yet appraised are valued higher than my estimates. We may need to utilize some of our reserves but those changes will not be significant. Remind me again how we are acquiring all of these farm easements and still have available funding. The main reason is the substitute process authorized in the 2014 farm bill that is described in slide 5 and the subsequent withdrawals that have occurred. In addition when we submit farms for federal funding we have an to estimate the cost of the easement. The Federal funding is awarded based on that estimate, and sometimes the appraisal comes back less than I estimated. If that happens, we save money. Have there been any additional changes that have impacted our budget? Yes, we no longer accept counterappraisals. For the five years prior to 2014, our program spent $2,094,507 meeting counterappraisals. Since 2014, our counterappraisal costs have been $0, so that has also saved money. That two million numbers, I had not calculated that before. So that is significant. And savings that we don't know that we would have spent that in the last five years, but I am asked regularly by landowners, can they obtain a counterappraise? And we say no. So I think we would have had a lot. So that is a significant change that has impacted our budget. And that is it. Are there any questions about any of that? No. Beth, I heard you, but I couldn't read it. Okay. I'm sorry. Most of it I couldn't read on the screen. Okay. It might be helpful if you could email this to members. I will be glad to. Take a look at the recap and just study it. I became very quickly, so I didn't really have a chance to digest. Thank you. You're welcome. Any others? Okay. I have a question. I guess I want to know how many, here's where we stood up through the previous budget, and we still have some there. How many farms do we have at this minute waiting to either be appraised or, you told us who would be closed on, but how many are in the pipeline yet to be either appraised or? Okay, yes. Let me go back to that. I may need to put on my distance vision. It's not that. Okay. So this group, so this 2015 grant group that are under contract, those have been appraised. We know exactly how much that's going to cost us. But that was from three years ago, right? No. They applied in 2015? That grant, these are substitutes. So these are people who were submitted as substitutes on our federal application. and so that funding was just awarded to us in September of this year. And so we made the offers, the board authorized the offers at our October meeting, and we extended those. So these landowners have signed contracts in the last couple of months, and we know exactly how much those cost, so we can accurately track that. These farms that we just submitted on a federal application in November, there are six of those, we have not had those appraised yet because we don't order the appraisals until we get the funding. So I have estimates based on other farms around them, and we have to estimate that and submit it to the federal government. But we don't have our professional obtained appraisals yet on those. But we know we have the amount of surplus you just said sitting there, so you can go ahead with your guesstimation and have that many appraised, right? Yes, and those are already accounted for in the money that I've got in the allocated column. Okay. So we can, and usually I'm careful about that and, you know, more generous than less so, so that we can know exactly what they will likely cost, how much the easement will be. All right. These four farms we have not had appraised yet. But today we'll also be discussing farms in closed session. Does anyone else have any questions? Yes. Beth, I've got a question. So what was the general pulse of the council as far as the questions that they maybe asked, the understanding that they maybe had with regard to this program and things? How did you feel the communication is with the council and thus the community? I feel like there is a lot of support. We do have one of our council members here today, our recognized council member, Angela Evans, is sitting here by Sally Hamilton. My interpretation is that there is strong support for the program. The audit reports are important to Council, and so they do want to make sure that they are interested in those changing and seeing, but they are very much, my interpretation, especially like at the last meeting, they are very much wanting to work with you all on this. I think that's why instead of they were ready, those items were what they call read out on the council docket and would have gone on and passed last week but you know they were concerned oh did you all actually see in writing the changes they had made so the impression i'm getting is they very much want to involve you all in this process but i don't know if derek or sally or anybody else you agree with okay and do you feel there's a general understanding of the purpose of the program and and what it serves and such within our community through the council and such yes i think so um i think they all realize that it's um very value it's kind of awkward to talk for with i don't know if they would but yes i think they um all feel like it's very valuable and adds a lot and they understand the importance of it and so and I think you know we do have all of the council members are remaining other than there will be three new council members one who has served previously and is familiar with the program and but yes I think they're the votes have all been to engage the board and include the board and try to make these do work together to make these changes well personally I think it's a very positive move to consider having to council excuse me joining our board and be a part of of that I think it's you know I just want this to be a community entity really and So the more engagement we can have, I think, is positive. So I appreciate those comments. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other comments on this? I've been to this meeting too, been to several, and I was very encouraged by this meeting. I thought we got a lot of positive comments from the council members and a lot of support from them. Do we need to accept this report as part of our minutes or it will just automatically appear? Okay. Okay, the next item on the agenda is simply our meeting dates for next year. You have those in your packet. We obviously meet Wednesdays at 3 p.m. All these dates are on Wednesdays at 3 p.m. Generally meet six times a year. Try to meet every other month. And the dates right now are January 30th, March 20th, May 22nd, August 21st, October 30th, and December 11th. So Beth has done a lot of research on these dates relative to council meetings and horse sales and all kinds of things that would conflict with people. So hopefully these dates work. any comments on these dates the dates I don't think are in the packet here right oh they're not no what we got it was in the cover memo okay packet okay well the dates again are January 30th March 20th May 22nd August 21st October 30th and December 11 I do have a comment and that is we need to work on the website the website still says that all the meetings are on the first Monday of the month so if anybody goes to that who in the audience or wants to watch it on TV they might be confused and we probably want to update all of those I think that's a good comment we've had issues with our minutes on there and actually I got on there and I think they've changed the website so I had a little problem navigating myself finding where I found things before so I had to do some looking to get where I needed to go and another comment to that is when you go to the general website when you're searching if you want to just put in purchase of development rights it says not available not there so yeah Okay, everybody okay with those dates? All right. All right, the next item on the agenda is election of officers. We're to do this annually. I think we may have missed a little bit of time on this. I believe we used to do this in our March or April or May meeting. It's when it normally cycled. So we've got that really open for you all to talk about. We normally would present a slate. We don't have a slate today. Current officers, obviously, it's myself as chair, Zach as vice chair, and Headley as treasurer. Oh, no, Don. Don, I'm sorry, Don as treasurer. So entertain anything you guys would like to do on that. Do you happen to know the terms that we have still? The way the bylaws talk, we're supposed to do this once a year. So you basically serve once a year. I'm sorry. Terms of ourselves. Does anybody happen to know? Yes, she's got those listed. Okay, thanks. Yes. So actually, Dawn and Dee Dee, both their terms end this spring. So they would not be able to serve a four year. Headley's, yours ends in July of 2020. That's one of the next ones. The three of you that I've just mentioned, Dawn, Dee Dee and Headley are not eligible for reappointment. You can do two four-year terms in a row, and those will be complete. Zach sends in April of 2020, but he can be reappointed. After that, we get into Greg, whose term ends in August of 2020. And what he has talked about in handing over the reins is that we need someone to – So our program has essentially had two chairs throughout the program. Margaret Graves, and there was Bob Hewitt was for one year. But Margaret Graves was for about 10 or 11 years, and Greg has been for six. Both Bob and Greg served under Margaret as vice chairs and treasurers who learned the role. Greg spent two years as the vice chair, and Bob spent years as treasurer as well, and so they both had time with Margaret to learn. So what Greg has suggested is that we have someone who serve as vice chair who's then willing to move into chair, and then we will copy this person on emails, involve them in all the things, go to a closing, see what all it entails. so that you have a year with him there to kind of know the duties and know what's expected. So he would have all the way if we did that, he would have a full year and then still eight months even if the person needed some. Actually, what I suggested is that we have a chair emeritus so I could know now. And I could do that as a chair emeritus. So, you know, I'm willing to do whatever you all want to do, basically. so are you are you satisfied to stay on as chair for for your extended term well I think if if you want me to stay another year probably better if I only do a year because I only have about eight months I think I must have fulfilled somebody's term that was expired okay because I shouldn't be an August day that's why I think we used to do everything in April May time frame So we're off cycle. And Zach, as vice chair, are you willing to potentially be chair? What I think, my feeling on that is I was prepared to come to this meeting and make a motion for a new slate. And if, Mr. Chairman, if that's all right, I'll go ahead and make that motion now. it's not often that a body like ours gets the benefit of such a brain trust but we have a member that has not only served on council but served on the rural land management plan committee that wrote the rural land management plan and served on the committee that wrote our own ordinance I would like to nominate Gloria Martin to be our chair we could have the election today with a term beginning in January I'm certainly happy to stay on as vice chair if this body desires and I would nominate Don to continue in his role as treasurer so moved we actually could not do Don because he his term ends in April well could we not just when he rotates off whenever his appointment is made could we not just have an election for that officer at that point we could it may just be easier for you all to have a slate I mean speaking to I would you know my input on this would be that Greg Craig is very aware of the federal program, and I know we would be honored to have Gloria join in. It is very intricate. There are a lot of details, and I think having him be as vice chair to help go through this would be a wise move. So he's at least involved, because there is a lot to learn as the federal matching program goes. I would second the motion. Okay we have motion on the floor in a second. All in favor say aye. Sure yeah we can have more comments questions whatever you want. Yeah we have a motion second so you can have a discussion now. Personally I'd like to know Gloria's opinion about it to be honest with you. Well I certainly know a lot about the program sometimes more than I wanted to know about the program. Of course I'm very supportive of the program. Talking about when I was appointed to this and confirmed I did look up everybody's membership and I I noticed that of the people here, we did not all come on at the same time. There are some April, some May, some July. And I noticed that Beth sent me an email, as did the mayor's office, saying when I was confirmed it was mid-November. However, on our website it says April. So really that's seven months different. So I think we have constant change. It was meant to be rotating so that we always had people here with some institutional memory, and we have that. I would love to do it, but I would love for Greg and Zach to continue, and maybe we can do this as a group so that we're sure we always have that institutional memory in place when we look at these things. Yeah, I think our staggered terms are because of the appointment period. I mean, we have people that leave, and the organizations that appoint people to the board don't get us people, you know, for two, three, four months out. And that's one of the problems we've had, actually, in having elections and timely because of the transitions and the changes to get things done. But I'd like to ask a question. Yes, go ahead. Gloria is very confident, very smart, hardworking. Ms. Martin, excuse me. I have a concern. You have land that's in the program. Do you have land that's in the program that you've? I do have land in the program. Beth and I just discussed that I made the first donation to the program when we started that and got some of my neighbors to donate theirs as well. So, yes, I do have land in the program. Your land was donated. It wasn't sold. Not all of my land was donated. Here's my concern. My grandmother used to have a saying is not only things have to be right, they have to be perceived as right. The Herald leaders made assertions that there's insider trading. As we move into the program, I see the future of the program continuing to acquire development rights but also managing, just like today, what people can do with their land that they've sold the development rights on. I think there will be some more challenges. We had one a few weeks ago about a B&B on a farm. I think we're going to see more than that. And I guess my knowledge would be a planning commission made up of all builders and developers. It wouldn't pass the spell test. And with people who are recipients setting the agenda and passing rules to essentially manage themselves and what they can or can't do, I don't know that it gives the perception of you understand what I'm trying to say I don't know that the perception is right and that's the biggest challenge to the program is the people on the streets perception we were just discussing it they don't understand what it's about it's about preventing land being gobbled up in 10 acre tracks and they just see it as a bunch of entitlement and people taking care of their own. And that's my concern. Dennis, I would counter that. I understand what you're talking about. And it's a point taken. But I would also say as a sitting member whose land is in PDR program, particularly as we began this program if farmers and those that were behind this program didn't put our money where our mouth is we couldn't ever convince a neighboring farmer to participate in this program to be legitimate so for me who have always been a champion of protecting farmland and insuring our factory floor. If I didn't, I'll never forget George Logan, a long past council person, challenging me and said, well, what are you doing? And at the time, well, why aren't you doing that? So I feel it's a real example. And granted, I don't think we have the whole board with their land in, but I think it's a, I counter that it's a selling point, that it's important in marketing to future farms to be in the program. Why aren't you doing that? You need to put your money where your mouth is. So that would be my comment to that. I'll have to second that, and it's the reason I made one of the first donations, because I was out there going to the Farm Bureau and the thoroughbred people and people that I worked with on a daily basis, And that was what I got was, well, if you are so supportive of that, are you going to do it? And yes, sir, I am. And so I did it up front and first. And I have always been supportive of the program, very much so on the council, making sure we had the funding for it, making sure that the farmers were happy with it, were well-educated about it. and I'm going to continue to do that regardless as long as I can just because I think it is our signature industry. I think that agriculture to Fayette County, as the saying is always gone, we don't have mountains and we don't have an ocean, so we better take very good care of what we do have. So I agree with Don on that, and I would wish that anybody on this board who has land, hint, hint, would also consider donation or sometimes selling to the program. Mr. Chairman, going along with Dennis' concerns, it is part of our job as a board and our staff to educate the public and to educate the council, and I don't think we've been doing a very good job of that over the past few years. One of the reasons I think Gloria would make a wonderful chair is because she would be a full-time cheerleader for this program, which we so desperately need. She is a leader with unquestioned character, and I would trust Gloria Martin with my life. And I encourage everyone else to do the same. Thank you. Nicely said, Zach. Underlying, I appreciate both of your points being Dennis and Zach. Dennis, we're very sensitive to the community. This is nearly a 20-year-old program, and it is extraordinary, Gloria, how far it's come. But it's grown dated, in my opinion, of relevancy with the community. And so, you know, what I would ask of the chairman or all of us as members here would be, to Zach's point, to make a concerted effort to grow our community of understanding of this program and engagement in this program. You know, Don and I are so very thankful to be a part of Horse Country, which has opened up these horse farms to the community. and underlying this community is made up of of of such as the horse farms and and truly of programs like this you know dennis does a great job of building quality uh products to contribute to our to our community um and and likewise he has the same kind of feeling about this this community That's why he's serving here on this board. But I think we need to re-engage the community, really as if we were starting off from the beginning, in my opinion. And we need some new energy and some zeal about the program and some education about the program. And so with that, I'd like to take just a second and ask Derek, who truly is a special friend to our community. You know, Derek, I would just appreciate your vision for the program in the future and where we are and what we need to do, in your opinion, if you would, please. No pressure with that. Thanks. Honestly, I think the program has gone under, the last couple years have been, again, starting with audits and things like that. we've gone through a lot and i think right now we're in a place to move forward i think you've got a very friendly council i think you've got a very friendly mayor um i think it's always going to be a struggle to get the community to understand pdr there's just a lot and i'll be honest with you that's not just about pdr people don't understand building inspection they don't understand planning they don't understand a lot of it because they just don't it doesn't touch their daily lives and so it's going to be difficult to get a lot of information to them it's going to get difficult to get a lot of uh just to get them to understand it fully um and i think really what the board can do there's a couple things that i think that really the board can do i think you're right it's talking to council it's talking to the community um it's it's letting them understand where we are where we're going you know and again with that goal of 50 000 acres um and you know it's it's not it's not real easy but they don't have to understand all of it but i think trying to get people to understand what it's not is important and then with that the other really big thing the board really needs to do is recruit farms um you know to me that's that's the main role of this board recruiting farms and as zach said being a cheerleader you know getting people to understand it um i think council has a pretty good understanding of it we've talked a lot about it there's still going to be people there's a couple new council members there's always going to be questions about things because some of the stuff that goes along with this is you know when you talk about the federal program and others is byzantine it's not always easy to understand um but you know from a board standpoint i think if we're going to hit that goal of 50 000 acres you've got to recruit farms and you've got to be cheerleaders out there you know selling it to council selling it to i think i don't really mean selling it but making sure that people understand what the program really is and that's really i think that's where your role is going is gonna be big. It's not just coming in here every other month and reading over the agenda as you walk in. It's those other parts. And truly, I think that's where, if you've been on outside boards, you're asked to fundraise. That's your fundraising. You don't have to donate money. You don't have to donate a farm. But if you can help get people to put their farms in it and talking with them, I think that's a really big part of this program. From a board member's standpoint, I think that's really, if you can do that And, again, when it comes to people asking you about PDR, helping explain to it, explain what it really is. So with that, Derek, why PDR? What are your sales points about PDR? Well, I think it really does get to that goal of what we as a community have valued. I mean, we are trying to save that thing that is so precious to Lexington. It makes us unique. And it is about being strategic about how we do it. you know we've got a lot of discussion going on right now about the urban service boundary PDR is obviously a part of that but I think we're ever going to get to that goal of preserving 50,000 acres and I think it is a is a valuable goal you know this board has to be some they really have to take that initiative and get out there and and move on it and again from a you know selling to the community I don't think it it takes a lot to sell the community on preserving the farmland I think they really get that I think the part where they get worried at times is is it and this is the big issue you know are we preserving it is it it's the original discussion and glory members this and Dennis does as well the emerald choker and I think that's the the discussion that's always going to be an issue with PDR and with your service boundary is it going to be are we preserving land at a point that it makes it difficult to develop I think that's always the the question about PDR but the in terms of 50,000 acres it's always been a goal that is a good one for this community Derek he Lee if I could add something to that is as the board treasurer I remember I got a bulletin and maybe some of you all did from the American Farmland Trust today about the 2018 Farm Bill and to my shock and surprise they're allocating more money to conservation easements this cycle than ever before 450 million dollars we are a mature program that's in the pipe that's well known it's it incredibly successful so it's a great opportunity to promote the heck out of our program so i see this is all uh promotion and opportunity and i think you're right i think that you know there's been lots of discussion in the federal match the federal match has been there um and and i think you're right as a partner as a local agency we've got to be one of the strongest partners they have we've we've received a lot of money over the years and i see no reason that that's going to stop unless we don't have people putting farms in that's probably the the biggest threat to it. Well, thank you for the discussion. I'm ready to vote. So, back to the motion was with Gloria as the chairman, Zach as the vice chairman, and the treasurer is... Don. Don is in good view. I would be happy for someone to substitute since I go off in April. I mean that's yeah was that so very little yeah Greg or what are you yeah that'd be great okay so we're amending the motion I would amend okay we'll amend the motion to name Gloria Martin as our chairman beginning January 2019. I'm happy to stay on as vice chair and Mr. Meyer as treasurer. Second. Yeah you're already on a second so you seconded the amendment. So we have a motion and a second on the new slate. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay motion carries. I'd like to thank you all very much. Mr. Chairman, speaking of officers, Dede noted what the treasurer's responsibilities are in the bylaws. It's probably something that we should get back to because I don't think we have been doing it, and that is that the treasurer will work with rural land staff to prepare an annual budget. The treasurer shall assist with budgeting and other financial matters. So I would say for 2019, we return to that original purpose. That original purpose never was original and never was done. Okay, well, then the way it is written. Yeah, and in order to do that, you really just need to work with the new commissioner and figure it out because we used to go to the budget meetings, and we were told not to go. So we didn't have any input in the budget, and the budget you're talking about there really is just the operational budget for PDR through the city. It's not a big role, really. But if you can get that done, that's fine. Maybe the new mayor will let you do it. We have announcements and public comment. Anyone here want to come to the microphone and say anything today? Now's your chance because we're about to go on closed session. All right. Need a motion to go in closed session 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 in pursuant to KRS 61810-1C to discuss potential litigation. So moved. Second. Have a motion and a second. That's Gloria and Zach. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, we'll go in closed session as soon as we can secure the property. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End The End Okay, we've been getting the high sign. We're back live, so we're back open session again. entertain some motions. I will read them for you all. The first motion is to approve the rankings as presented in closed session. Second. Don Robinson made the motion and Gloria made the second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Second motion is to authorize appraisals of the six farms submitted as substitutes on the 2016 cooperative agreement upon funding authorization by the NRCS. Those farm numbers are 2-2017, 2-2018, 3-2018, 4-2018, 5-2018, and 6-2018. Entertain a motion. Motion by Zach, second by Mr. Mayor. Okay, and the next motion is to authorize an appraisal or appraisals of farms as the vote. I'm sorry. We had the motion in a second. Did you get that down? Okay. Yeah, that's what I was catching up to here. Okay. I didn't realize she was getting it live for us. You had to punch her name. She's already recorded as a yes, I think. Are you ready for the last one? It doesn't read correctly on there, but... Okay, it says Farm 5-2015. You need to add 4-2015 and 6-2015. Actually, what's that say? 3 up there for? It should be 4-2015, 5-2015, and 6-2015, and not 3. Where do you see this? Right here. No, I mean that. Oh, you've got that. That's not showing up online. No, she's getting ready to, I don't think you've signed in. You don't have me in. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay, I'm asking you all on the prior motion on the appraisal of six farms, it's on your screen now. She wants you to go ahead and record your vote. We did that verbally, but you can record it now. Well, no, it's because we don't have the mover and seconder on here. Even though it's at the top, it's not at the bottom. I don't know how to say it. Is that on this motion? It's not on our screen. no but I'm saying she's got it up there I'm wondering if that is I don't know Zach and Zach and will and that's on the screen here okay all in favor raise your right hand this is the six our sales for appraising the six for NRCS right okay you staying okay Thank you. Thank you. Okay, you now have on your screen the third motion. I'm not sure. It's not displaying up on the top, but this is a motion to authorize appraisals on farms 4-2015, 5-2015, and 6-2015, as discussed in closed session. And the motion was Don Robinson, and I seconded it. Well, go ahead and, Don, you need to record it. Don, go ahead and make the move on this one since you did before. I did it. We're correct. You made the motion, and I seconded it. This is on the last one for the Farm 4? What's up on the screen? The closed session. No, that's screened out there. It's not even correct. It's what's in front of you here. There's a motion to appraise Farm 4 to heaven. Yes. Yes. Yes. Right. Do it live. Go ahead and move inside the system here. Oh, you don't have a screen? All right. Can we just do this verbally? Is that okay if y'all? Okay. Okay. Don makes the motion. Gloria made the second. Don Robinson and Gloria Martin. All in favor raise your right hand. Everyone we have one abstention and one abstention. You got that? All right that motion carries. Yeah right she saw it. All right I don't believe there's any further their business yeah so I will entertain a motion to adjourn mr. Meyer is a first second was mr. Robinson all in favor say aye and leave the building I'm out. It's the time that every Santa has a boy Does he ride a red-nosed reindeer? Does he turn upon his sleigh? Do the fairies keep him sober for a day? So here it is, Merry Christmas Everybody's having fun Look to the future now It's only just begun