[Music] I [Music] popping in at some point you might actually have abundance of attorneys in addition the two of us I think [Music] Sarah e e e e e e e e e e e e e good morning Tim Telfer land acquisition manager um so this morning's business for our regular uh regularly scheduled meeting is uh the ranking of the three properties that were determined eligible at the prior meeting um just as a reminder you've already seen these properties once you've already made a determination that they are eligible and now it's time to sort them into the A or B group for uh the county council's consideration so with that said the first property for your consideration this is the Bennett Road Pearson application this is a working forest and farmlands agricultural ease application roughly 124 acres in size uh it met 11 out of the 19 uh um site ranking criteria questions uh it is a a good candidate for our upand cominging regional conservation partnership program by nrcs um had no unique attributes and with that we'll turn it over to the committee for discussion and a second to put this property on the a list all those in favor signal by saying I I I I any opposed okay very good next one uh good morning Nick Dunham resource stewardship director the next property for consideration is the Caraway lake property it is also a working forest and farmlands agricultural easement um approximately 493 acres in size received a site criteria score of 12 of 19 it is also in uh some project areas for the Florida forever and it would qualify for the Electoral conservation trust rcpp program as well okay very good questions of staff on this property okay miss scy this just a not that this is the item from the last meeting that I had a voting Conflict for so the vote will be one less okay okay very goodus any AD sorry mber I was going to wait I should have waited till you to say does anyone have any questions yes um does it need to be made public as to why Miss gal is recusing herself I'm asking because I don't know the requirements of recusal there's a form that has to be filed when we recuse anyone does um in so that involves includes that um it's there's also our resolution that deals with any sort of uh advisory or other interest in the property um and in this case this is going to be applicable for mcow any other questions comments okay uh would someone make a motion on the carway Lakes property please how may we put Carol carway lakes in the a grouping second okay we have a motion by Mr Crump and a second by Mr gamble that the carway Lakes property go onto the a list all those in favor sign no by saying I I I any opposed very good so the third and final property for your consideration this morning is the Talman Talmage Gardens property this would be a fee simple acquisition roughly 605 acres in size it met 11 out of the 21 criteria qu uh questions um doesn't really have any good potential matching funds set up for it and it doesn't have any of those standard attributes that we' like to point out uh to your attention but with that we we'll be happy to answer any questions okay questions of staff on this property any comments okay baring none could someone please make a motion on the talage gardens property move that it's added to the a list okay motion by Mr gamble second second by Mr malusa so all in favor signal by saying I I I any opposed okay unanimous to go on to the a list okay very good brings us to staff comments so traditionally I try to provide you some updates on our projects uh during staff comments uh to try to make sure you folks are um uh well informed if you get approached by any by any members of the public uh so we are um uh underway in the appraisal process on the McMillan agricultural easement um we are um significantly far along on the double eal project that's 990 Acres down in the South part of the county um we've had great conversations with the Florida Department of Agriculture and consumer services about partnering on that project and they've actually um moved into a lead position to start negotiations on it um we continue to have weekly discussions about the mocha Marsh project this is something that I have weekly discussions with the Florida forever staff in Tallahassee this is regularly on our agenda for discussion um it remains in a status where where they want to wait until they see if Noah is going to fund the St John's River Water Management District acquisition of that property if that Grant is unsuccessful everybody is in position to Pivot and the uh Florida forever staff would then move to acquire the property in partnership with vucha County um so we we've uh uh been making significant process progress towards closing on the Stewart pieces so we're engaged uh with our surveyor in phasee one assessment team uh the state has their own surveyor in Phase 1 assessment team because if you recall that 2,000 acre a piece we're going to have a dual closing where we actually buy it briefly and then resell it to the state at the same day and get two-thirds of those acquisition funds back for the program um we've started uh appraisals on the Stone Street conservation easement this is also in partner partnership with the Florida Department of Agriculture and consumer services they're excited about that property um uh we are very close to finishing up all the due diligence work on the Evans project and we'll move towards closing on that one shortly um and with that we just have a number of other properties that are actually one more to up update you on is the Lake George in Holdings project uh we've had good discussions with the St John Water Management District talked about a financial sharing uh Arrangement and they have moved ahead and started making some offers on the those in Holdings up in the Lake George area so um that's a brief update on our project status if there's any questions I'd Happ to answer them I'm sorry did you mention the Lake Harney property in there so I didn't mention lake hardy uh Harney it has not changed its status at all so um Florida forever has approved it being added to the Florida forever list it now goes to ranking in December and then goes in front of the governor and Cabinet in March of next year very good that brings us to advisory committee comments any comments from anyone questions okay I have just one thing um I know that we have the workshop coming up and we are going to be spending a considerable amount of time the way it looks doing some um language modification and clarification on our nomination and application process and given that we are going to be discussing this in depth and that we have received um some comments from the public uh in particular the echo forever Alliance Group regarding this property uh I'm wondering and if you could help me out here miss colan would it be appropriate if we were to perhaps take a vote that we halt the distribution of the non-land owner nominated properties until after we have had this workshop and can take a further action on it if necessary at our next meeting you can certainly do that now if you'd like to that is entirely up to the committee but yeah if if you're going to make a motion and vote on it today it needs to be now and not of the workshop so that's something you're interested in doing go for it all right yeah and that was my thought that we cannot take or will not be taking votes at the workshop so miss shriber so this list that we were provided for the workshop of recommended changes in the rationale I believe in the past we did vote I don't remember okay so yeah yes ma'am let me let me go just if you don't mind let me give you a little background on that so you know what you're looking at so we don't have any more confusion um so this is just a very very very early draft that was prepared by staff legal hasn't actually even had a chance to review it so please do not think this is something you're going to vote on today this is a beginning of a conversation during the workshop um so it's not something you're going to be asked to approve today or that we're sending to County Council or anything like that what you had in that packet is the beginning of a conversation and a place to start and a place to start start looking at um what I really would like the committee to do kind of for all of our benefit for staff's benefit is talk to us today less about we need to delete that comma and add that and and talk to us more today about what is it that you think the concerns are where are your questions where do you think Clarity needs to come in is is it just clarifying language we're talking about or are you all interested in recommending a program change to council and also please keep in mind as we do anything on the committee that everything the committee does becomes a recommendation to council you're not changing anything everything is to to vote to send it to council to consider um but yes M dri that's a great question and I want to make sure we're clear about that what you have in that packet it's not something you are going to be asked to vote on today you can't vote at the Workshop that's what workshops are um so please don't think it's a final decision you good you look like you have more questions go go for it ask me what you have to ask I'm happy happy to have a conversation with you I'm going to let it go I think um I think we're not consistent and um I'm just going to let it go okay other comments Mr Dage um yeah just kind of a general clarification um is Ekko doing something similar like this like we're going to do with the workshop or that's they're I I don't follow always everything they're doing but do you know are you referring to an echo Workshop yeah is that that's not part of what I mean Echo is not invited I mean not that I know they're different programs and everything but uh that's not I guess part of my question was Sometimes some properties are you know uh involving Eko um you know and vucha forever I guess so I didn't know if they were that was the intention so the answer that question today no Ekko is not a part of the upcoming Workshop that fcia forever is having after this meeting okay yeah I guess I just came to my attention uh that there was some properties in particular there's one property I was uh made aware of um in Port Orange that uh was purchased I think with grant that uh kind of has been neglected but I don't know if it can get transitioned over to valua forever but maybe uh I didn't know when to bring that up uh if like at a workshop or um here I guess um yeah okay it's actually it's the gamble place near Cracker Creek uh I was just made aware that like it needs management badly and so was kind of hoping uh I don't know when to bring it up I just I'm on this committee so I thought I'd mention that but yeah it was purchased with Echo funds and I think therefore the county should manage it but it's it needs yeah prescribed Burns and other invasive removals and stuff so sorry to mention that now but just um someone just told me recently so I passed that along okay Miss rber I'd actually like to discuss what Derek is bringing up um because I had a question pertaining to um something right on one of these properties that we just voted on so I would like to discuss what he's talking about during the workshop Derek I'm just saying it out loud here since we're allowed to talk to each other um it doesn't relate to that directly but it it does overlap it so okay so you're going to bring that up at the workshop at the workshop and relating to historical um relics and so forth like that okay all right thank you yeah I hope that we can do yet some more um talking historic stuff as well uh because I think that's part of besides the protection of land to you know obviously protect historic sites and I I guess we need to look at the resolution and particular language if that's you know part of our mission or not but um I think to some degree it it should be I mean if the lands have these uh important sites on them and uh and again maybe that's partially with with Echo and yeah we can kind of talk about the Partnerships there but um it's all you know County relateded so um yeah happy to discuss more okay so for the workshop okay anyone else Mr Crum um back to your comment Miss vanam help me you were you were speaking about um incomplete applications that didn't have a willing seller or just incomplete applications in general and what do we do with them how do we proceed what does the staff do is this what we're yeah given the fact that we've um we are going to discuss this obviously in depth uh but my question was until we've had a chance to do that and until we've had a chance to perhaps clarify some of the language uh does the committee think it would be a good idea to um perhaps not distribute the information regarding any applications that come in that do not have a willing seller letter uh to that we no longer um distribute to the committee members um the list of nominations that don't have a willing seller letter so that was my question if staff feels that we should make a motion on that and act on that now prior to going into the workshop yeah that I I agree with you that was one of the things I'd been worried about for the last several months um in addition to not Distributing I don't think it should be public record if it's incomplete it just should be an incomplete application awaiting to be finished and I um I have mind an incomplete application and staff can say it's incomplete and this is what's missing and we just wait until the Staff should wait until it's complete before anyone sees it okay sound me yes yeah so would someone like to make a motion on that uh yeah I'll I'll I'll try uh let's say um I move to instruct staff not to proceed with any incomplete applications until they are complete okay so not to distribute not to distribute or publicly release I'm going to have to jump in on that one if you don't mind um as far as what the committee receives absolutely you can certainly make that motion as far as a public record goes and what is available via public records request unless really unless the Florida law gives us some reason that it ex it is exempt from public records request some we really can't keep that information back so absolutely if you'd like to make the motion about not proceeding it proceeding with it uh at committee meetings not Distributing it as part of the packet material 100% that's something you can do we just can't get into the publicly releasable public records realm okay okay okay so we have a motion that on the applications that do not have a willing seller letter the uh information not be disc or presented um or distributed to committee members or general public outside of a public records request is that good Miss Coleman again I think I just leave off the public records request and that this is all up to the maker of the motion but but I I I think I think what you're look looking for is that incomplete applications not be brought forward or information be provided to the committee until they're complete okay all right do we have a second on that okay let me let me just restate I was saying I need to make sure I'm not making emotions so this is definitely understand understand let me just restate what I was trying to write I wrote it down I move to instruct the staff not to proceed with releasing incomplete applications to the committee until they are completely until they are complete sounds good okay that we good yes again as long as we're talking about within the committee meeting and not as a public records request as it's it's it's a language thing I'm sorry to pull in and out language but yeah is that what you mean Mr yes it public re complete to the committee there we go okay Mr SOA you still okay on a second okay and Mr Lage you have a question uh no comment discussing yep I'm I mean personally I think that's a terrible idea I'm sorry to say I I respect that you have I understand what you're trying to do but all it seems to be doing is just restricting what we can see I mean if it's public record uh I want to know about it and I think I I spoke a few years ago and and worked hard to make sure that we had those lists of what applications are considered incomplete because some people don't think they're incomplete and then they just disappear into the ether and people are like well why aren't you discussing my application they're like oh it was incomplete it's like well I don't even know it's incomplete I got to do a public records request comes back maybe you know a month later or so it it misses these timelines I mean we need to have information ready and really the only information that gets out there is the person you know nominating it uh basically it's not anything else that people can't look up on property appraisers websites uh so I'm really confused at the intention is just to like have us have less to look at I I want to have more to look at personally I can clarify uh if we can narrow it down or I mean I understand if you just don't want a page in here that has that but I don't think it's a problem that's that we're fixing it's just that I don't I don't see it as a problem at the moment so could you clarify Mr gamble can we go at this from a little different angle can the staff and I'm talking to the legal people can the staff not accept an application if it's incomplete so it doesn't become a public record I mean just refuse to accept it no different anything else so there's two things there um and I'm going to certainly defer to Tim and to Nick on the way that applications and nominations are processed with staff because I don't see those um like like you all I don't I don't see them until they come to this meeting um our resolution lays out and that's the some of the language we'll talk about in Workshop today our language lays out the the nomination process as well as then the application review during committee meetings and what it says now and I'm sorry the the resolution that I'm I'm talking about is 2023 77 um which is all of this when we're talking about resolutions just so you all know anytime I mention that they're all almost all of the resolutions that are pertinent still are listed I think all of them that are pertinent still are listed on the valua forever website there Google fucha forever committee and you'll see all sorts of great information there um but 20237 7 lays out that process and it does tell us that staff can let me find the language I'm not just talking off the top of my head um I'm looking at it and where is it of course if requested vucha County staff shall provide needed help in completing this form so when we get things in and people need some help with like a parcel ID or they don't actually know what their legal descript description is or they need you know that sort of information um we get into the map stuff we get into things like that that's where staff might really need to get involved uh we also have resolutions there's another one from 2021 it's 20211 that that does tell us as well that the county manager or his designate which in this case is this operational staff you're looking at in front of you um are solely responsible for the advertising for the soliciting for the negotiations with land owners so that's where the letters the the hey someone's nominated your property would you like to participate in the program that's where those letters come in but I would like to remind you that per those resolutions that is something that is an operational decision and it is a county staff decision it's not a committee function it's a staff function um the County Manager her sesign is going to make the decision about when those letters go out how often they go out that's that's up to operational control not Committee Action um so also to I think what you're what you're driving at it sounds like is can we exclude something from becoming a public record and as soon as the county touches something as soon as it comes in our inbox it's a public record um so no is is unfortunately my short answer I hate to like tell you tell you just a no I don't like saying no to committee members but really there's not a way to keep something from becoming a public record as soon as it gets to the county if what you're asking is can we refrain from talking about incomplete applications during committee meetings that is something that is up to the committee to decide if that's what you all would like to do we can do that um as far as the resolution language goes I think what we're talking about not talking about incomplete applications during committee meetings um I think that's already anticipated really the idea that until it's a complete application it doesn't get qualified or unqualified it doesn't get get sorted um that's already in the resolution and we'll talk today at the workshop too and see if you all think there needs to be some sort of additional information provided but I think we're we're already there with what the resolution allows us to do um but as for whether that information is provided to you or not that is up to you all and and staff will will hear what you have to say Mr yeah uh Mr ltin was asking you know what was the why I what was my opinion why am I doing it I think it's frankly I think it's unethical to offer to sell something that isn't yours that's a burn in my shorts that I just can't seem to get past because you're the person that's making the nomination is saying hey they ought to sell this but it's not but but they're not acting under the authority of the owner to act as their agent and and that's what I struggle with be and here's there's several reasons the one I'm worried about is as we're going through and as these nominations are coming in by well-intentioned individuals the land owners are going to are going to get a letter from the county and they're like no I don't want to do this I'm going to throw it away no reply is required it's the same as a spam phone call I'm not obligated to answer those things that say you know uh spam I I just I just do nothing to it and that's what we're becoming as the county and the staff is they're becoming a Spam solicitor and the land owner is going to get tired of this and they're quickly going to say the government is coming to take my property and I'm mad and it will move and I'm going to speak from agricultural terms quickly through the ad community and it's going to turn uh the Goodwill that this for Lua forever has against us and it's going to be difficult to un unravel that uh um we need to make sure this is an optin process right now it's an opt out somebody else can nominate but the landowner has to opt out and that's that's the mess yeah and this is something that we're obviously going to discuss in further detail um when we do get to the workshop but uh my question to the committee was until we've had a chance to do that uh do we want to make a motion requesting staff to no longer um distribute the uh nominations that do not have a willing seller letter and um ask them not to discuss them uh with the committee and then we will talk about this in depth when we get into the into the workshop itself my idea was just does the committee think it's proper to ask that of them now and then when we after discussion if we decide we want to change our minds and at the next meeting then we can change it but for right now does the committee feel that that's a proper thing to do so that was the question okay I m rber I have a so um I I would prefer to have the discussion I don't I I actually have some questions and I feel like we're having the discussion but yet we have this Workshop so I don't know I don't feel like we're doing this in the proper order I just want to say um I I'll give you an example I started out thinking I knew who I was going to vote and now I've heard some discussion and now I have more more questions and I don't know how I'm going to votee anymore so no I don't really want to vote on this now and if I'm forced to vote on it I'm probably going to vote no because I have more questions and I feel like we have to just have the discussion now and vote so we can just hash this all out or we can wait till the workshop and wait until the appropriate time which I guess the workshop is not the appropriate time to vote so then we'd have to wait until the next meeting and I understand um the I understand what Mr Crump has laid out I um just I would like to discuss it more so do we want to have the discussion now or do we want to wait until the workshop and can I interject just a procedural comment um you all can make that decision about whether you want to discuss this now or later but if you want to discuss really per Roberts rules we do need a motion on the floor if you're going to discuss it so if someone wants to make the motion then it can be discussed I've I've got a motion in a second on the floor I'm so sorry you do have the motion on the floor and I'm sorry y we did do get that I apologize I just blinked out for a second you're right absolutely correct motion by Mr Crump and a second by Mr s and so because there is a motion in a second it is actually appropriate to discuss right now Mr rver I understand your point entirely you can talk about it later on at the workshop if it doesn't pass now but right now there is a motion in a second so yeah discussion is appropriate I'm sorry about that Mr Grump that's okay so my question is to staff um what exactly has changed changed from the way things were done prior uh how was this handled during the first 20 years does anyone know because it it was called nominations correct um they were nominated or only only land owners came forward with their land uh so this is um this this is not something that really occurred in the prior program even though the the enabling language was there in the in the prior resolutions it really was never utilized and certainly not to the extent that we are seeing it utilized now so we don't have the historical practice to look back on okay so um are we I'm asking are we saying that we're not going to allow people to nominate and only land owners can come forward can I answer uh no that was not my intent it was only that only a complete application could come forward okay not nominations could still be made until we get to the workshop and discuss that but right now that's not your intent no it's just I okay but I hope you understand like how I could need to ask this oh yeah I it was never my intent to stop nominations but only complete nominations and truthfully and I'll bring it up in the workshop I would like to see either the signed seller agreement or someone as an authorized agent a form that says they're an authorized agent to represent the seller yeah and historically speaking um on the first 20 years I was on the Lua advisory committee at that point and I do not recall this topic ever coming up it just for whatever reason uh we did not see we either did not have nominations from non-land owners without a willing seller letter or the committee was just never made aware of them because this topic to the best of my recollection was not discussed at all so that's why I was asking yeah yeah I was trying to see and think it all through okay yeah Mr Sosa okay well I I agree we shouldn't be seeing incomplete applications up here anything that comes to us should be complete and be ready to move forward however that doesn't stop any member from up here asking for a list of incomplete documentation you can still do that you can see if somebody has nominated a piece of property and you want to get a status of it you can still as an individual up here still go and look into that process I'm sure you know it would take nothing less than an email saying hey can you give me a heads up on what's happening with project property XYZ and you would still get that that would just basically my understanding is we're only going to see complete applications not incomplete applicate and that's where I I would second that motion okay and again this is until we have further discussion at the workshop but for now um is this something we want to do so we have a motion for Mr Crump and a second from Mr Sosa Mr Lage uh we're still doing discussion a little bit then go ahead yeah I mean for sure I I think this deserves more discussion I I don't know if we want to you know spend another hour right now if we're going to do a workshop later um so I definitely U yeah not the right order to vote we could vote first thing next meeting I mean if if we decide that so I I think uh it's not a big uh deal to to push that through now either way um but I I definitely uh don't agree with uh what Mr Crump was saying so I I guess the way I would characterize it is we we need to give more power to the people and not worry about uh you know an inconvenience to someone who's getting a lot of spam there's a lot more concern that I have that we will miss a very important property not going before us not proceeding uh as opposed to I guess some other I guess you know feeling of Retribution that people will have if they get too many you know requests to sell it uh and again we're not trying to sell the land to like build on it we're trying to save the property so I mean essentially if this was a family important heirloom they'll still be able to visit it even more they're member of the public so it's not we're not uh you know even with a letter saying hey we're going to you know save your property it's not like it's being lost it's being protected forever uh but again giving those people the answer and I mean I I know I would personally to go with what Mr Sosa said like I mean I would make that request right now as an individual I would like to see all the nominations every single time if you want me to send you an email every time I mean it's inconvenience for me but I personally would like to see if we had a list of nominations because I don't even know how to answer the question when you said uh what's a bigger extent than before like I I don't see evidence for that I don't have any on my agenda today I don't I didn't obviously I know we weren't that wasn't the cycle time but like I'm I'm not seeing it I I don't see anything and I I want to see that so if you say hey we're getting a hundred nominations without willing sellers like I I don't think we're anywhere near that I mean but I don't know I don't have the data and personally I know you know like when I have nominated a paral in the past and there even was a willing seller didn't show up before so again I'm leaning towards the I really really really don't want to have us miss properties that maybe have an absentee land owner maybe have you know multiple owners and I mean this doesn't even get into the question on like you know what what is ownership of land you know back thousands of years ago there was no ownership it's just you know land people take took care of it and I think that's what we're trying to do here is take care of you know our resources before they DND all away I know we all agree on that but I considering it is public record once it touches our County it just I I don't see why we would limit ourselves and I'm sorry if I I feel I'm rambling a bit I apologize for that but I I just I adamantly don't think it's spam to get an email or a letter to a person saying hey we want to save your family farm forever like that's that would be joyous to me if I received such a thing I I'm not lucky enough to own um you know large pieces of land though and I just I I so I don't have the same perspective but I as a person trying to save what's left of you know my County I want to do everything I can and if you would prefer that perhaps you know I don't think I don't know the rule on this but like if you don't want the coming from the the staff because you're like oh we don't want the staff I mean the staff is wonderful and and doing a good job but like if for some reason a letter head from the vucha county uh is not as good as like the applicant um you know the the nominator themselves I mean are we encouraging the nominator to to say hey that property that just kind of is being ignored and you know maybe uh the family owns it in a trust but they've forgotten about it for years like do do you would you prefer if the nominator like reaches out to them because I I just don't know if we want that happening but like at some point if the property is worthy and like it would be sold but just we have to get to that point how do we get over that hurdle is it you know the letter from the county seems that that is the hurdle and but if you prefer the nominator I mean we we could say hey people out there if you're nominating this parcel because you think it it's it's a good idea for whatever reason and you think you know somewhere down the line the owner or the trust or whoever would sell it then I don't know if we want to just have people kind of going uh you know um Renegade and just contacting people I mean they can it's a free country you can contact people but I think having the official saying hey this is could happen is a okay possible so sorry for no I understand and I think all of our goals here are all the same we want to preserve and protect whatever property that uh we can um what I am trying to get at is for now given the concerns that have been risen uh given the content of the letter from the echo forever Alliance is this something that we want to Halt for right now discuss in depth at the workshop and then proceed at the next meeting um so that was why I brought it up and to me this is getting into what is our role to me our role is to evaluate the properties that are put in front of us not to dis discuss or get involved in any way in the properties that are incomplete in terms of their application so that is all that we're trying to do right now is this something that we want to Halt for right now have our indepth discussion and then at the next meeting Carry On from there so I'm Sorry Miss scy I think mine was pretty in line with that I just want to say that based on my understanding the resolution what we're kind of getting into now is if the county sends a follow-up letter all of that we can't decide anyways it's not within our power I think it's just is an incomplete application even if it's not something we vote on included in this packet and binder that we are sent yes or no and that's that's it mam chair I call for the vote roll call vote please roll call on the vote Yes call for the vote Miss Ashton Wanda vanam I Jessica GA yes Steve Crump yes John gamble yes Derek lontine a very strong no John Macaluso yes Suzanne sber yes David Sosa yes okay we have a seven to one vote okay very good anything else that um committee would like to bring up prior to the workshop and we have a number of things that we can discuss at the workshop Mr Sosa I I going back to the conversation there's already policies and procedures for when somebody nominates a property that staff goes and they go to the seller so it's not like we're not going after this piece of property we're not excluding it it's just that an incomplete application wouldn't come to the board so we're not discouraging anybody from buying and selling property because you do have the policies procedures where you send the letters correct sir yes that's correct all right thank you okay thank you Mr SOA all right anything else okay then I'm sorry so can I just clarify since I did make the individual request I mean can I still get those documents then or or is that do I do you want me to do something else I'm just curious because I verbally I'm telling you now well respond to a public records request um I I don't know how I don't know how a standing public records request works I'm kind of looking over my shoulder asking that question so um we'll certainly respond to a public records request though this is my request verbally made so thank you miss sangman you look like you have a yeah well we respond to every nomination that comes in now we may not send a letter if it's the second third or fourth time of the same nomination but we do respond to nominations yes we respond to them Dan yeah Danielle can you please thank you yeah so we have a limit like you said we're not going to respond to every single one but it's a year I thought we did that's I guess why I'm asking that that after that year of nomination then they can come back in and nominate over again and then that's will'll send the letter again right so if it comes three times in that year we're only in to send it the first time correct so far the letter sorry that citizen can nominate the same property multiple times right staff will not send three or four letters to that same landowner correct been nominated and we have sent a letter before yes we do make contact with the landowner or attempt to okay that being said then in a year's time this is what I was told so if I'm wrong but inner office work sorry so so if in a year's time they come back we'll start the process again with a nomination if they have everything we need so therefore I'm just saying with his public records request he wouldn't have to do it every single cycle or every single time he could just do it once a year because he's going to get all the ones that came in I think that's an operational decision we'll discuss yeah Derek to your question about standing records request you can have one uh that's fine um I I would however just for the ease of everyone and to make sure that if there's any changes in staff or email addresses or anything else you might want to periodically resend uh hey don't forget to send these this information to me sort of request um but yeah you can do that okay thank you I I just I guess I am confused if this vote neutralized a previous vote that we made where we had voted to get the map every time so that is now neutralized I mean we didn't formally repeal it though it's just it seems they're slightly different so I mean that's it doesn't have to have the person's info and all that stuff but that was a thing we voted on before if you recall so I mean it's that that wasn't repealed though by this vote you don't have to repeal motions this is a new motion and a new vote by the committee so yeah I I I guess we can discuss like it's just I was discussing now because it just uh it's still relevant to that particular topic that it seemed uh and I have to look at the wording of the motion but that was just about the application but the location is different than the application and so my concern considering we're our mission isn't just to you know vote Yes or No I well we can discuss Mission at the workshop too but is to uh you know know where the corridors are because that's like one of the criteria we're referring to so corridors one two and three and if uh you know all the nominations are coming in from Corridor you know this Northern Corridor and then we're not getting much from the south then you know I don't know if that's that affects our votes I mean really like I ideally and I suppose I'm just speaking from my preference I would like to see an even distribution of of protected land uh you know like if we just bought all of Lucia Forever part you know in in orid or something like all everything we ever purchased with luifer was in Orman like that would to me would be unfair so I mean I want to see evenly distributed and to see where the the nominations are on the map I thought that was what we had discussed so you don't have to see the person's info you don't have to see phone numbers or partial IDs or anything but I thought that we still had the the map relevant but I I will try to yeah make sure to reach out every year but I'm still I'll now have to discuss or ask at the workshop about so if there are multiple nominations because let's say the land owner wants to sell but they didn't get the first letter that you guys sent so then we have to wait a whole year and then someone else has to nominate again and then you will send a second letter the second year or just never again that's one letter and never again I wasn't sure because I heard two different things operationally right now staff's decided we have not been sending more than two letters to the same land owner that's been nominated multiple times if a no response is considered a no as a courtesy we send the follow-up second letter sometimes um if we do not receive a response to that we do not send out a third or fourth letter yeah so again what I would be looking for is again just even just as a member of the public not of this board is which ones of those in the case where it was lost or you had the wrong address not CU anything you did but just they they had it listed wrong in there where the letters going so how can I check on that as a member of the public uh without you well I mean these records requests so essentially having the table of we reached out you know two letters to this nominated one no response as opposed to respond no or or you know respond maybe or say check back late I mean getting the I'm not behind the you know scenes with you guys in the trenches of like these contacts so maybe you got a phone call maybe you you got something that uh that's I want people to have access to is that information of what the response was no response to one letter or a maybe response or two letters and yeah so that's that's where I'm coming from I just don't know how to get that information okay and here again um as a Committee Member we need to remember what our role is if as a member of the public you would like to make a public records request you can do that but as a member of this committee our role is is not to keep tabs on what these guys are doing in terms of their pursuit of properties to present to us that's their job that's operational not part of what in my view anyway and and Miss Coleman correct me if I'm wrong that is not something that we should be discussing um as a committee I yeah I understand your opinion but I I do respectfully disagree that our our role is to say what the concerns of the public are I mean if the concerns of the public are Lua forever is you know not working for any reason at all or there's something that could be made better that is absolutely our role I don't know who else's role that is like the the public again I know when I say myself I don't want to you know name other names of other people who have you know reached out to me and stuff but like I want them to you know have full faith in in in our in our committee in our and our valua forever program because you know I I saw when you know it was on the ballot of few years ago you know there's a lot of people the people who were against it were had reasons and you know I would thought it should be 100% I know we got like 77% or whatever vote that was awesome but like I I want it to be you know 99% next time so um I think it is our role to to bring this up and to say hey members of the public want it to be more you know transparent more easy to access whatever I I don't think we're just here just to be robots and and vote on on what what is considered complete I mean I don't even agree with what we're considering complete I mean if I find a typo in one of these so-called complete applications is that incomplete I mean I'm sorry I'm stretching the metaphor a little bit too much but um I just want it to be you know easier um for and and make the public just have that trust and right now again based on what I'm hearing um it's it's we're airing on the side of of of less public participation and obviously there's we have like no one in the audience today so it's hard enough for people to to um participate and I don't think your goals are different from anybody else on the committee it's just how we approach what our task is Mr gamble did you have something yeah I just wanted to remind Derek that uh a public records request is an existing record not that they have to create something for you like a list or something if you wanted to see all the unsuccessful applications you need to tell them what you want to see in DET so they can they can make copies of all that stuff and send you the appropriate bill for that work um that's how it works you know if it's just a couple of things it's not a big deal usually for staff but I know people will come in and they want to see we don't create we don't create Maps we don't create lists in the or when I was with the county we didn't um it's all just what the existing record is and if you want to see that stuff then but you have to be real specific because they're not going to be the staff that's going to do it aren't going to be mind readers and they're going to have to take their time which is county taxpayer money to generate that so it has to be really worth something to you and you may have to throw in you know for that work as well you absolutely I agree with you Mr gamble I appreciate that and um so that's the issue though is there's there is exists no document for what responses they got back right so that's that's I have no other way to understand it's in their brains really you know what I mean it's there's not oh yeah I mean if they don't get anything back the their record is we sent this letter that's where it ends the record is the letter but yeah I mean the record is the letter they got a phone call about it and I so that said yeah there're you know that's not a public record yeah I know so but it's a response okay good good discussions yeah good discussions uh that we can carry on in the workshop um I move to adjourn okay Mr comp has made a motion to adjourn do we have a second second okay all in favor I I okay meeting adjourned and we are now going down to training center training room training rooms and on first floor first floor 10 first floor 10 o'clock start and if you would leave your binders with Ashen we'd appreciate it thank you forgot to mention that appreciate it you