[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] can see on the board. Um, as such there is a potential for a tie. Um, to avoid too much complication over that, we'd ask that all of the motions be made in the positive. And so, regardless of of
how you would like to see a property disposed, uh, we will say, you know, we we make a motion to find it eligible and then go from there. Just know that will help us keep things clean, I think, for the record. >> May I ask a question before we get
started? Is Mr. Feeser going to be voting today? And >> we can. >> Okay. Just making sure there's been some. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Absolutely. >> Because we made that motion, he can vote and participate.
>> All right. Um before we get into items, um I do have one public participation form. Um, as noted, public participation is limited to three minutes. So, come forward. Um, we have Mike Ponitowski as our our one form. >> Good morning, chair, vice chair, members
of the committee. I want to bring to your attention a very nice piece of property that I'm Mike Ponettowiki from the Tmoka Farms Village. There are 96 acres of pristine wetlands uh that currently that currently have about 3,000 very old
oak trees. Um it sits south of Taylor Road in the Port Orange area and north of Pioneer Trail. It is on the west bank of Spruce Creek proper. Uh of course that land has been there for thousands of years. It has Timquin burial grounds on it. It is a pristine area of Valuchia
County. It is currently um has a contingent um contract for purchase by a developer who wants to put in about 135 homes and bulldoze that land. So for the record, uh the partial numbers are 6236-0000-00- 005, 623600
060, and 62352010, otherwise known as the Creek Crossing PUB. So, I know that we are working with the owner's agent to allow us to approach you uh to preserve this land in
perpetuity. We are working feverishly. We have been working on this since January. We're making progress, but I wanted to bring it to your attention that this property is probably the best piece of property that you could preserve. Again, it has over 3,000
species trees, oak trees in the 300year range. It is packed full of these trees. It is so full you can't walk through the property and it abuts Spruce Creek and we know that Spruce Creek is where all of our storm water on the east side of the county now dumps. It has limited
capacity and we haven't cleaned it in decades. This property, if built, will prevent lots of storm water from draining successfully to Rose Bay, which will hap which will cause more tail water for more homes and properties to
flood north, west, south, and east of this property should it be developed. Now, there are studies out there. We've consulted hydraological experts, experts on the ecosystem, and soil experts. So, all of this is in the 15-page technical review that county staff did uh back in
September for your review, should you choose to review it. But I'm going to work very hard with my friends in the Tomoka Farms Village to make sure that the owner's agent allows us to reach out to you to look at this property for preservation. It's currently on the
market for $3.1 million. It is probably the best $3.1 million you'll ever spend for 96 acres of land that is beautiful. It is all in the environmental uh corridor overlay. It is in it has wetlands. It has everything that we should preserve to preserve our
ecosystem in southeast blue county. It is uh the center of drainage and if we build this property we will be doing countless damage and once we do this damage it can never be undone. So let's talk about creek
crossing going forward. Let's look at uh our bank accounts and let's preserve this land. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. And do we have anyone else from the public who wishes to speak? Seeing none, our our next agenda item is
approval of the August 29th, 2025 meeting minutes. Um has everyone had a chance to review those? And do we have a motion or corrections? If no one has corrections, I'll make a motion that we approve the meetings as drafted. >> Right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Motion and seconded. All those in favor, please notify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Those opposed. Right. Those minutes carry. That brings us directly into new business. So, we are doing eligibility and sorting today. But we will start with eligibility. Um an initial note
items one and two the augur drive one and two have been withdrawn and so we will start with bots landing. >> Good morning committee members. Tim Telur um wish forever program and uh Ashley are you going to move us for
Thank you very much. Okay so the first item for your consideration on eligibility and just as a reminder we are just determining eligibility at this stage on this project. This is not the ranking stage. We're just making sure that this program fits the mission and goals of the Vucha Forever program. The first one for your consideration is the
bots landing application. It's a fee simple application. Staff had prescored it at 10 out of 21. The minimum required under fe simple ESL is 10 out of 21. 62 acres in size. It's not within one of our acquisition target areas and we
don't have any conservation property adjacent. And with that, we stand by for any questions. Any questions or comments for staff? Yes. >> Uh question. >> Certainly. Go. >> All right. Y'all can hear me. Okay.
>> We can. >> All right. Great. Um I know this property very well. Uh I was probably even one to try to talk the property owners into coming to this. This was part This is the remaining part of an old dairy farm that was out there been out there for over a hundred years. Uh
the photo that you see right now is probably a dated photo because most of the property that's to the north and to the east or is is either undevelopment or or is fixing to be developed. This property was also looking to be acquired. Uh I suggested to the property
owners that this would make a great place for a park because as we start to build more and more out there around the train station, uh there's just no green space being preserved, you know, unless you get all the way up to the wildlife refuge to the north. And so, uh, when
you take this property and and if it was possible to get the property that's to the south, that's, uh, would be also south and west of where that little trailer park is, there is a really nice piece of property along the river that was, uh, created probably, oh, 100 years
ago with a canal dug along there. Uh, I look at this as a long-term goal to try to acquire these properties to create access to the St. John's River and uh rema retain some of the open space uh that is you know used to be very prevalent in that area but is rapidly
being covered up by houses. Uh and so with that I would like to move for eligibility of this property. >> Okay, we have a a motion. We do have another comment, but we can get a second on the motion and then go to discussion that >> I'll second the motion. >> Perfect. Thank you. We have a motion and
a second. And Wanda, I believe you had comments. >> If I may jump in real quick. Um, can everybody utilize the mic and make sure they speak into the mic so we can capture the audio? >> Thank you. >> Okay, one question. Um, I noted that the
property owner had um checked off both environmentally sensitive lands and working force and farmlands. Was there any and that they're still using the property to raise cattle the way it looks? Were there discussions about an easement, agricultural easement, so that
they could continue with the cattle operations or did they want to go directly to the fee simple? >> So I I did have a conversation with the property owners representative and they they have selected fee simple. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you.
>> I have some questions. Um is that on page 99 um is that a building or What is that on the property on the east side? Well, I'm calling it the east side. I mean, yes, east side. >> So, um from my memory, there are uh it
is an old farm, so I believe those are the agricultural uh structures as well as and I'm not quite sure if it shows up in your photos, but there was some uh boat trailer parking on the property also as another revenue stream for the landowner. So, it is a mixture of
agricultural buildings and and it possibly has some of those boat trailer trailers parked there, too. >> Okay. So, if it were purchased, uh, I mean, a boat trailer could be moved, but if it's a building or some
other structure, I mean, I'm I'm just asking because I mean, it's a legitimate question. Properties are not usually purchased that have structures on them. So how would that what would happen? >> So I can't give you 100% confidence in
any answer that that is exactly what will happen. So some of these decisions if we reach that purchase stage are going to have to be made by the county council. How many of those buildings will remain in place and what their end use is going to be. Um, anytimes there's a structure on a piece of property, we've tried to convert it into either
uh, you know, public use or something that, uh, staff utilizes to, uh, you know, for example, uh, reduce the the the distance of deployment to, um, you know, uh, maintain these properties, but we it's a little bit early for me to
give you a firm answer on that. >> Any other I I still have more questions. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to regroup here. Um, on page 109, rare species habitat conservation priorities.
I'm asking what are the what are the rare species that are in FNAI? What is it? because it says at the bottom the data overlay >> the bottom right hand corner in the fine print. >> Hi Hunter Fulmer, chief of land
management. So I think this is uh like habitat types. Um I don't necessarily it says rare species but I believe it's referencing like the vegetation communities. Okay.
So, listed in FNAI, what what is it that's being referred to? >> Looks like probably some flood plane swamp. I know that there's some other if it was a scrubby flatwoods, they would probably pop up on here. Scrub would pop
up. If you're further south, dry prairie, sort of more imperiled uh ecosystems. And then on page 113, am I understanding this correctly? That sea level rise would take out part of
the land in the future for the 2070. >> So this is one model on potential sea level rise. Um and so we we had to pick one. uh we've tried to stay in line with uh the the um sea level rise models that are used but statewide for the
resiliency program. It sounds like you're familiar with that. So it does indicate that there is some potential for the sea level to rise on on a portion of this property. Thank you. I'll stop there. Thank Mr. Gamble. >> Yeah, I I'm kind of torn. Be I mean,
this looks kind of like a good idea for the wetland protection, that part of it. But, but pasture land isn't really environmental land. And and Gerald talking about, you know, be a great place for a park. I start looking for a
different source of money, you know, like a split very similar to the property north of the land high school that we looked at that might, you know, be ball fields or something and then environmental land behind it.
Where do you guys sit on that kind of stuff? I mean th this is this I can kind of see the point and then I kind of say well you know there's half of it that's not environmental at all. I mean it's it
and if we bought it then would we plant trees back on it convert it into flatwoods the the pasture land or or you know it's kind of problematic that way because you have to dump a lot of money
into it kind of converting that into a forest or you know what it was originally and you know kill off all the pasture grass that's not native and that kind of stuff. I mean, I wouldn't want to try and manage it back to natural system. Or I guess you could just let it
go and let nature take its course, but um if if the people around there think that, oh, it's going to be a park when it gets bought, that's not you guys would do passive recreation. You active stuff. So, I I'm I'm just I don't
know where we should be going on this really. Um maybe Gerald can further comment on that, but um >> and I I think >> uh Go ahead. >> Yeah, John, I'd love to comment. >> Um I I think this would be an excellent
project to do a a share as as y'all know I said on both Echo and andh forever. And uh I think we're going to see more of this going forward, like you say, with the uh the the the property north of the land and some of these others that have a both an environmental uh
component to it, but also the availability to have just green space and some type of an active park. And yes, I I could easily see this being a a dual or a joint project uh between uh Forever Echo and and maybe their other
funding sources if they could be uh determined uh through impact fees or whatever because like I've said, so much of the so much of the land that's to the north and east of it is already being developed or is is fixing to, you know, to be developed. and the way our land development regulations are, we really
don't require a whole lot for green space and open space and parks and recreation. You know, we send them a bill for impact fees, but you got to have that land to do it. And and that's where this project would would probably be good for both. Now, how we get to that point, I'll leave that to people
with a much higher pay grade than myself, but uh uh I see this as just one part. I I think there'll be more if we, you know, hopefully they're talking to some of the other property owners in the area to get over to the St. John's and if we can get over to the St. John's River, uh you know, we open both the
environmental component and the uh uh active recreation component together. >> And Miss Shver, >> I share Mr. Gamble's concerns. We're voting based on resource-based recreation. That's what this committee votes on.
We're not voting on Echo's outdoor recreation and You know, this becomes very complicated because when we vote, we vote in good faith that the land's going to be used in resource base because we are voting for the entire purchase.
And then so it's almost like you know I mean um in comparison um what happened with the motocross we voted in good faith that we were voting on resourcebased recreation to purchase the
entire parcel and it also was partly agricultural farmland. So, if we're going to start purchasing um land like this, what is the future of conservation? I
mean, I I'm I'm I'm bringing up a very complex subject. I get it. Maybe I'm the bad guy here, but um we were told for years that we were voting on land that was going to be placed in land conservation and my
understanding was resource-based. And then agricultural land that easements went on were um since they weren't purchased, the public wasn't accessing them and so buildings
could be on them and it didn't those types of things didn't matter. I'm really um torn here. I mean, I want to preserve this, but an easement might be the preference, at least for
me. Um, because I I basically feel like if Ekko takes this over, depending on what type of recreation they would come forward with, we're voting today to purchase those woods over on the left side of that photo,
which is going to be storm water for a neighborhood. Um anyway, I I I don't know unless someone else has comments that can help this situation because
the future of this committee I think is being um slowly determined this year. I mean I don't disagree with what Mr. Fezer said. This is is is this going to be our future? I'm asking. So, I want to narrow us back down to the the type of
application that's before us today and kind of our role. And I I think I I understand the comments and I think they're a really good discussion point. I think that staff has not said just to clarify that this would be a partnership with Echko. They haven't had those discussions yet. I think we have a a committee member who's noted that might
be a good potential like we've talked about in the past. Um our job today and under the adoption of the program is does this property as a whole as noted meet the required score to be found eligible for the program. I think after
that phase we get into ranking right we get into an A priority a B priority at that point we have staff who has gone out on site and who has identified potential partnerships. If one of those potential partnerships is echo, maybe we have initial um feedback on what that
would look like. And if it's a split of funding like we've seen in the past where the forever funding goes towards one portion of the site and echo funds go towards the other, none of that is before us today. It is just on a a baseline review with the standards that we've adopted. If we do not believe that
the staff score of 10 out of 21 is accurate and they don't have the required 10 out of 21, we can reflect that in the vote and go from there. But I think that has to be the the focus of the action. >> So I have one more question
on page 123 and this is for staff under where it says provide resource-based recreation lands the number 14 is yes and you gave it a two. What are your thoughts on the
resource-based recreation? Because if you answer this question, you answered it based on some something some thoughts. >> Yeah, I I can answer that. Tim, see this evaluation, you know, based on the size of the property, the location, and
access, it does seem like we'll be able to get the public out there for some sort of recreational activity. Those activities have yet to be determined. Uh it could be simple as a um a campsite or a trail system. um that has not been determined without a a full assessment
of the property after the acquisition, but we do know it has enough access to get the public to it. >> Yes. >> Yeah, I agree. To me, what we're looking at today is is this eligible or is it not? What happens after that I think is
beyond the scope of what we are here for. Um so to me it's my evaluation is based on is this piece of property worth uh putting into our program uh yes or no and then after that
>> those other discussions kind of come up right now it's criteria based and then later on as priorities come into play that's more of a kind of a policy feeling and and where we want to to target staff on and of course all of that is based on direction from council because they can can supersede that. So,
right now we have a motion and a second further discussion. Eric, >> yeah, just a couple questions and maybe a couple thoughts. Um, but, uh, so first, um, I just wanted to double check on a couple of the maps. Um, if that's okay. So, on the 101, uh, there's this,
uh, scenic road. I think it's Hon Road. Can you just confirm, I guess that's, >> I guess, what that trail is, um, if you don't mind. Is that a a greenway or what's that considered? I guess um the the scenic
road listed on page 101. I think it's called Hon. I'm not in that area. >> We're confirming that is Hon Road. >> It's Hon Road. Yeah. >> And and that is just designated by like the state as a like scenic road or something.
>> Is it part of the scenic highway? >> Is that what you're asking? Yeah, I guess. Is it part of a scenic highway? >> State scenic highway. Correct. >> Okay. >> No, there's there's scenic highways and
those are state scenic highways. It can Does anyone know what state scenic highway that's part of? Because I'm not exactly familiar. >> I drive by it every day. I'm trying to remember what the sign says. There's a big bird on the sign when you drive by it. And there's a steak park at the end.
uh you go down Hon River Ridge and then there's the Hon State Island is down there. So, it is designated. I just can't remember what the sign says. >> Classification. >> It might just be a bird scenic highway because it has the the bird sign. >> Well, I just didn't know if anyone uses
that highway. I mean, if they could put a sign on there saying like, "Hey, turn here to check out this." >> It's a dead end. Yeah. >> So, it it dead ends um at Hon State Park. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Yeah. again just trying to see how it could work in and so I'm trying to uh as comments um
were mentioned earlier like look a little bit into the future. I don't want to just completely narrow down what we're looking at today and seeing how this can be used as park or part of you know scenic uh people going on a scenic tour could maybe um enjoy uh this parcel
in the future. But the other uh kind of question on the maps uh I was looking at page 120 and it shows well really you can see it on all the maps the little um creek that's not I guess technically part of the the river that is the little
oh it's like a Sshaped squiggle of shrub swamp or shallow marsh. I was just wondering so is that like standing water in there most of the time or any kind of comments on what what that looks like um on the ground if if you happen to know. I know it's technically kind of off the
property, but it's kind of close. >> Uh to me it looks like an oxbow, an old oxbow, the St. John's. So likely stagnant, doesn't flow with river. Perhaps in times of overflow might go in there, but I cannot confirm from the
field. >> Yeah. Uh well, thank you for that. Um yeah, I know it's a little off the property, but um you know, how how the water flows and floods and what kind of creatures might be there and just Yeah. trying to get a sense of that um for the value of you know the area. Um I guess
also then can you confirm um the maybe it said it somewhere but uh I know the zoning but the ownership of kind of that place to the west and as uh was commented um by our uh guest online uh
the we might be looking at someday well again not today but the southwest uh as like a purchase or so who kind of owns that those properties to the west right now is that any government ownership of any of that >> those are all private property >> and we would need a willing seller
letter if they would wish to participate. >> I say this is not adjacent to any conservation land. >> Correct. >> But it is resource corridor zoned I thought. So like they can't really build on much much of that I don't think. Is that my understanding is is that
correct? No. >> It does have some entitlements but >> it would be limited. >> Got it. Um okay. Uh thank you for answering those questions and trying to think. Uh I I suppose just my my two cents on Yeah, I did I always appreciate
a conversation on what um you know what the goals are and um I don't uh think we're fixed either way and and I wouldn't worry too much about like well whatever we decide at one particular meeting you know we can revisit. I
always like to to think. Um but in terms of yeah our mission again I I think the problem as I see it is less about um sort of you know picking and choosing uh
you know all is this going to be great for the future? Like I I think everyone kind of knows my opinion that I I would love to be saving way more land of all kinds throughout the county. like I I don't want to just save just the big parcels and just the ones that are fully
100% forested. I mean, those are great, of course, but I I I would really like to diversify what we're protecting. So, I think one of the problems is we're not really getting as I mean, as many uh you know, our our supply of things to vote on is you know, it's it's limited. We
get you know, five or six, you know, every session at at the most generally. And um you know, so we're not really having to be terribly choosy. in my opinion that like no reason I I don't see to you know move them forward if these are willing sellers. What I would
like to see is more people applying and then maybe we can make those harder decisions on like well this one's a 10 out of 21, this one's a 12 out of 21. How are we going to do that? Although ultimately the county council has the you know authority of and they'll I trust them as well. I don't think we should put terribly you know all the
burden on us. Um, but I'm going on too and on too much, but I just wanted to share that I think um, yeah, we should heir on the side of moving projects forward if they have an environmental benefit uh, for sure if they meet the the the staff or the requirements. Um,
and oh, I guess one final thing I I know I'm it's going to sound like a typo correction here, but on the score on page 121 says 10 out of two. I think that's a correct I think it's so that fraction wise is a five but that's >> just that um two are unknown that they
didn't okay so it's two un gotcha okay so maybe just a space in there that's the slash made it almost yeah >> mathematic seeing a fraction >> got it >> thank you >> all right we have um before we we move to vote or maybe final comments does
anyone from the public wish to speak on this item I'll remember to ask that in case we we do all right Miss Shyber did you I just want to say I'm voting on what's presented in front of me today in good faith that what we vote on is what
happens in the future. That's that's all. I just want to add that. And I always vote based on what's in front of me that it continues down the path of what I vote on. All right. With that, do we have any
other comments? If not, we have a motion and a second. Um, all those in favor of finding this property eligible, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. This property will be found eligible. Our next
property is Wiregrass and Holdings. >> Hello everyone. Hunter Falmer, chief of land management. Our next property for your consideration is the Wiregrass inholding. Um this is a fee simple application. Staff uh scored it 12 out of 21 out of the required 10. This is
about 10 acres. Um it is not in an acquisition target area and it is adjacent immediately to the wirerass prairie preserve and also the Farm10 Green Key. And with that we'll take any questions.
>> Questions for staff on this one. Seeing none we'll entertain a motion. Move to make eligible. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion and a second. Before we vote, anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? >> Seeing none. All right. All those in favor of finding this eligible, please
say I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed. Right. That one will be found as eligible. And we will move on to Lemon Bluff. Okay. So the next property for your consideration is Lemon Bluff Road. FE simple application staff scored it five
out of 21. The minimum required here is 10 out of 21. It's about 50 acres in size. It's not within a target uh acquisition area and there is no conservation property adjacent. >> Questions for staff on this one?
>> All right. Um just based on the direction this morning um as a reminder motion should be made in the positive and if you vote against it to find it ineligible. Um with that I guess before we have a motion we can say does anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? No.
All right seeing none and no questions or comments. Do we have a motion? >> Move to make eligible. >> We have a motion. Do you want to if you want to second it and then we can go to discussion that >> um Okay. So, we have a motion and a
second for discussion. Mr. Lontain. >> Oh, I just uh maybe has anyone visited this site um from staff? >> Uh yes, one staff member visited the site. >> Okay. Um can are they here or can they
explain or was it if it wasn't you, I guess, or whatever. Uh just can you explain a bit about Yeah. what you saw there or what they saw I suppose um that or actually I was going to say how how they got there maybe was part of my my
question but um yeah just looking for a little bit more info because the staff scores >> um in terms of um actually accessing the property I'm not sure the name of the road but it is accessed um from the north to south along that curve I'm not
familiar with the area but it is a public road and there's houses all along the road as well. >> Just for clarification, that road uh the county maintained road ends before the end of the road. That last segment that
goes up to the gate that's there is a private private piece. And right now, um we happened to be out on the river yesterday. U this piece is underwater for the most part. And the water goes much higher. Even though the water's
high right now, it goes much higher than what it is right now. And um it's pretty much completely underwater right now. So >> uh just then are what kind of uh I guess trees or other things are surviving then
on that property? like are they mangroves uh on there and other things or are they pines that are like submerged or really if I mean if it's getting wet um just trying to see if it's still functioning in a you know great way for vegetation stuff like
that. >> No mangroves on the property. Um, from the pictures I saw in the aerials, I think a lot of this is going to be flood plane marsh. So, we're going to have a mix of willows and other species like that, some cyprress. I do know that
there's considerable acreage in invasive species, invasive grasses like prag grass. There's also proving primrose willow. Other questions for staff? We have a motion and a second. Um, all those in favor of finding this eligible,
please say I. >> Those opposed, >> I. >> I. >> I. >> This property will be found as ineligible. Yes, we had a question. >> Oh, remind me. Can Can we abstain from votes or >> unless you have a conflict, you are required to vote.
>> Thank you. Yes. No, you're required to vote if you're present. Sorry. >> Okay. Um, that takes us to Crude A. >> Okay. So, the last property for your
consideration is a crude egg LLC. This is a fee simple application. Staff scored 11 out of 21 out of the required 10. This is 261 acres. It's not in an acquisition target area and it is adjacent to the
Cameron Mitigation Bank and also the Buck Lake Conservation Area. Take any questions. questions for staff on this one. >> Seeing none, is >> Sorry, I was trying to find it. >> Sure. >> Um,
I would have a similar question on the resource-based recreation. You scored a two and a yes. On page 238, I think that's
So what what are the intentions there? >> Uh the the answer would be the same as before. It does have enough acreage and access that you can do some public recreation on it. Those activities are undetermined at this point. Uh those are
determined after a management plan is is written for the property um to see what our carrying capacity is. Um the the lower score is because we actually have to go into a different county and around to get to this piece. So it's not an easy access property, but you still can
get to it. >> Does anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? All right, seeing none, if we do not have any further questions or comments, we'll entertain a motion. >> I make a motion. Move this on.
>> Second. We have a motion and a second to find this property as eligible. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor, please note it by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed. This property will be found as eligible.
>> That takes us to our >> For the record, I said I. Sorry. Perfect. This takes us to the uh second part of our meeting, which is sorting. So, we'll go over the sorting process. >> Okay. Okay. So, the next two items for your consideration, you've already found to be eligible. We're just now
determining whether they'll fall onto the A-list or the B list. We we're going to recommend to the council that they be placed on either the A-list or the B list. Uh the first one for your consideration is Turbull Bay. This would be a conservation easement 23 acres in size. Uh site ranking criteria is 6 out
of 21 and it requires seven out of 21. We don't have any potential matching funds lined up for this project, but it is within the natural resources management area overlay. >> Questions for for staff here or any discussion?
So, um, yeah, I think I I was, uh, in favor of of this one before and I I know we discussed about, yeah, it's it's ranking to be determined, but, um, yeah, just being in that area, uh, just of kind of, you know, New Samura and that
general area is facing a lot of development pressure as I guess the whole county is. So, um, and kind of adjacent to the, uh, the the Spruce Creek area. I'm very much in favor of getting more expansion in that just for more habitat. Um, and yeah, I know there
might be some management. Uh well, I guess it's since it was adjacent, it's not an issue, but I think um I think people want to to save this um and that it would be a good use to save
it for our program uh to to add to to u you know, conservation areas uh contiguous with the Spruce Creek area. But um so yeah, I'm just speaking in favor in general. And just a a reminder for me, this is access through a gated
subdivision. That would be the only access. Is that do we recall from the right? >> That would be the only access on foot or vehicle that there is water access via canoe kayak. >> Um I just wanted to remind everybody
this this came in as a conservation easement. >> Oh, >> yeah. I just want to just want to comment on uh what Derek said the same when we had the discussion I echoed the same sentiments that Derek had on that for the record.
>> And so the the request to make everything a positive motion I think for ranking um we can have either a positive motion to find it on the A list or the B list. So it doesn't have to be A and fail. I think we can do either and make it work. Just wanted to clarify to
anyone who wants to make a motion. What was the motion? >> We do not have one. >> Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. >> I'd like to make a motion that that we have put this on the B list. >> We have a motion to find this on the B list. Do we have a second?
>> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Further discussion. >> So, just again technical voting question. So, if we vote no on B, does that mean we're supporting A or does that mean we're supporting? I think we'd have to have another
motion. >> So maybe we should always do A just to be easier. >> No, I mean you can if you don't support putting it on B, then you would vote no and then you can make a and if it fails for B, then a new motion for A could be made.
>> Just hypothetically though, if I'd rather have it on B than nothing, but I guess we have to put on either A or B by one of these. Is that my understanding correct? >> All right. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second to find this on the B priority list. Um, all those in favor,
please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed. >> I. >> We have three in opposition and so it will be found on the B list. Very bad at math everyone.
Okay. Okay. So, that will move forward on the B list for priority. And then we are moving on to ranking for Deerry Point. dear point. Um, for your ranking, this is a going to be a conservation easement. Uh, 95 acres, staff ranked at
11 out of 21 and other required 10. Looks like no potential matching funds identified and it's within a natural resource management area. >> Any questions for staff? Sure. Mber. Yeah, actually he's correct. We we show it as conservation easement on on the
slide there, but this was a fee simple application and we've we've scored it as simple. Yeah. >> So, just a clarity there that this is fe simple and it was found eligible for fe simple at the >> I had I had a question. Did staff visit
this before we voted the last time? staff have visited this property. I can't can't remember the timeline if it was before the first vote or after, but I can answer questions about the site. Any specific questions for staff?
If not, we can entertain a motion for this property. Well, do we have anyone who wishes to speak on the item? I know we have We'll get back in case they have it. >> Um hello everyone. My name's Christopher Hennon. Um my father is the owner of the
site. Unfortunately has mobility issues so couldn't come today. Um I'd just like to point out on the um the uh the information sheet it was saying that there's only one access through the gated community. There's actually a second access. If you're looking at the
um I'm assuming this is uh north south orientation on the east side, that little point. Um you can access the site through that um point as well. And those roads um in that mobile home area are actually public roads. Um there's a plat
from 1973. Those roads were dedicated to the county. >> So yeah. Um if there's any other questions I can answer. Thank you. >> I don't have anything to add unless you have any questions. >> Very well. Thank you guys for being here. Do we have
>> I have a question for staff. Um can you remind me if there were matching funds for this available? >> That's a very complicated question. Um potentially yes, potentially. But uh and I'll go into in in my comments, I'll go
into why that's a little bit more complicated to answer today than it's been in the past. But the best answer I can give you is there are potential matching funds here. >> And Christopher and I, we met with the city was that a week or two ago and they
would be a a managing partner >> in management. >> Management by the city. >> They have offered to do so. Yes. >> Okay. Just to be clear, this is a fee simple, correct?
>> Yes. Correct. >> I guess I'm not sure how how long you guys have or your family's owned it, but uh yeah. Any just anecdotal things that you like about the property, you know, things that you might have seen growing up? >> Well, my my father's had this um
basically my entire life, so at least 30 years. Um but I mean the uh the site I visited it mobile multiple times. Uh we've hunted on the site. Um you can access it um through the lake. Um and we or I'm sorry for the river and um we've
stopped there multiple times. There's a little beach in multiple areas throughout it. Um and I mean it's it's pretty good to just walk around. There's a lot of nature there. Um we see turkeys, deers, things like that. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
One more question. Uh, this is for staff. Um, same question goes for recreation. What what um I'm looking here for what you scored it
for outdoor recreation. Oh, it's an e. We're sticking. Wait. Um, so it's not an easement. It's v simple. So, we scored it based on fees simple the first time, >> correct? >> Okay. So, same question as I've asked a couple of
other times. >> I'll I'll have the same answer, Suzanne. It's it's going to be dependent upon the management plan when it's created for the property about the uses we think are compatible. Um, each site's, you know, a little different. This one is a a wet site. It's got water access. So, we
would be looking at those type of recreational activities uh versus, you know, another site that has more upland that would be different types of recreational activity. >> Right. I understand. That's actually what I was looking for because when you score it, you certainly have something
in mind. I mean, you can't score something if you don't have anything in mind. So, I don't need to know the details, but if it's going to be as accessed by water, um, I mean, it's a it's a legitimate question that I keep asking here. You know, I again, I get
it. You don't have the details. You don't know. And part of that depends on where the matching funds come from. But, um, I think I'm asking something that's it's either accessessible and how or you know, it's more than just that. It's
what is the general plan. So that's that's enough, Nick. I understand. That's what I was looking for. >> Okay. Well, I'll also add, you know, through our recent echo survey that went out this year, you know, the number one and the number two requests by the citizens were water access and trail systems. So, we keep that in mind when we look at properties.
>> That's excellent because we're voting, like I said, I'm going to repeat myself again. We're voting on resourcebased recreation when we vote. That's what we're voting on right here. So, thank you. Any questions here? >> I'm sorry. Um, and my apologies. I
didn't quite hear. The city did not have interest in obtaining the land. Did I hear now? And has staff talked to city about managing the property? >> So, we we've had an email exchange, but it hasn't gone further than that. So, I've I've had uh I've received one email
from the city manager saying they had an interest in managing it. I responded with some questions back, and I haven't received any further correspondence. So, we don't have a positive or a negative. >> I think that's fair to say. I mean, they did express a willingness, but um at
this early stage without understanding what their intent, what their uh vision is for the property, etc., it's really tough to comment beyond >> a potential. Yes. Right. >> Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. We will entertain a motion.
Motion to put it on the A list. >> We have a motion to put this on the A list. We have a second. >> All right. Seeing none, that motion will fail for lack of a second. Do we have a different motion? >> Move to put it on the B list.
>> We have a motion to find this eligible for the B list. Do we have a second? >> I'll second that. >> We have a second. And we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of finding this eligible for the Blist ranked as a B list, please say I. >> I. >> Those opposed.
>> I. >> All right. This property will be slated for the B list. And with that, that is the end of the ranking applications. Um, so the next is a discussion of the 2026 meeting schedule.
And I think this was emailed out to all members. I believe a few members got back to staff about these dates working. Um, but we'd just like to confirm these are the dates um, targeted. If anyone has any that they know will not work, absolutely. We'd love to to hear it now.
>> And those dates are on page 251 in your binder. >> Yes. We I don't think we need a motion for the meeting schedule. It's justformational. >> The days of the week are all the same or >> they're all Fridays. Yes. >> Yep. It's um Ashlin.
We uh Yes, it'll be Friday 9:00 a.m. in the chambers here. Um but yes, we will need a a motion and a second >> to um to accept that. >> Yeah, I can't make it in August, so I don't know if they want to move that up
to the end of July or beginning of September. I believe we we skipped the summer months June and July because there were a lot of conflicts in terms of a quorum being met. Gotcha. >> Um don't know about if there are any other alternative August dates.
>> I mean I am happy to revisit July end of July and early a sep or yeah early September for you John. Um and then I can also shoot out some some dates >> um today or Monday.
And then we can um I can bring these back on December 12th, I believe, is our next meeting. So, if we could, we can um either vote for all of these and then um I can bring back those uh a few meeting
dates or we can postpone this and bring it to our December 12th meeting. >> I think it it would be good to set the majority of them. So, perhaps we can adopt it with a request that staff look at the August 14th. >> I'm good with that. Okay. Do we have a motion to that effect?
>> I move that we accept the schedule as it is with the exception of the August 14th date and that staff brings back other available dates. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Perfect. We have a motion and a second. >> Just a quick comment. So, yeah, if it
needs to not be a Friday for August or something, I Well, I guess maybe it's gone the whole like week maybe u or vacation. It can not be a Friday. I don't want I know that was a consideration before I was for me perhaps but just throwing that out there. >> Perfect.
>> Did you just request that it stay on Friday? >> No, no, I'm saying for that for that day like if we're trying to find another day around that meeting that was the conflict time it like if the next week of August or something was available. >> There was a Thursday >> if that worked for you.
>> Okay. >> The conflict is the month. >> The month. Okay. Then never mind, I guess. Well, or whenever >> and and if if everybody else can make it, I just may have to miss a meeting. >> And I I would just suggest that um we
stick with Fridays since we always meet on Fridays because there's other committees that meet on other days in here and in other areas. And just want to remind that >> I say that's why I think we want to get the the slate most of the slate done as well so that we have the room reserved
and everything is set. We have a motion and a second. Um, any further discussion? All right. All those in favor, let it be noted by saying I. >> I. >> Those. >> He was in favor. Um, all right. No opposed there. And so that will be our
schedule. If you want to put it in your calendars and we will come back to the 14th um at our next meeting. Um, that is our last um new business item. So, we will shift over to staff comments. Okay. So,
um I'm gonna I'm going to introduce that my my project updates by just echoing what I said earlier that as as you as as you all know when whenever we bring a project up uh for consideration by county council, we we do it our best to
make sure that we have some financial partner moving forward there. So, that's run the gamut. Sometimes that's a city partnering with us financially. sometimes that state land acquisition program, sometimes it's a a grant program, etc. Um, but but the playing
field shifted in the conservation uh uh world in Florida right now. And the biggest driver of that is two things. Number one, for us locally here, if you recall, we had the uh OTO RCP, regional conservation partnership program, which made about $20 million available, f
federal funds available for agricultural easements in Valuchia County. um we we were paused in February and uh have not been able to pursue any acquisition work. We've shifted those projects over to other programs. We've recently
recently received our recision letter. Our recision letter means that the OTO RCPP is now um uh no more. So uh if we uh want to pursue those funds again, we have to wait for the new farm bill to come out. There'll be a new RCPP
application cycle. will have to reapply again uh with the federal government. So that's made uh that side of the house a little bit more challenging. The other big piece of news is that we received word from D that the standard Florida Forever funds have been exhausted for
this fiscal year. So when we talk about our Florida Forever project areas, um we immediately, you know, open up some dialogue with our colleagues in Tallahassee and we talk about how to move these projects through their triage program. how to get them funded, uh,
etc. Um, so anything all of those Florida forever project areas are now much more complicated. Um, there is a little bit of good news here and that is, uh, if you recall, uh, this past summer, we were working with the North Florida Land Trust to have that OD
to O boundary extended through Valuchia County. So, we have this large area extended through Valuchia County. Okay, the OTO O serves as a um it's a special funding uh uh area. Uh these are Florida Forever funds, but they're kind of protected from the general Florida
Forever fund. So these are special uh Florida Forever funds that could only be applied within that ODO boundary area. So there is a lifeline there. We have uh rep prioritized everything that's within the ODO project area now and are now trying to work with the state and try to move projects through and get
partnerships uh uh through OTO funding. But make no mistake, we're not the only people doing this. Everybody now has to shift to other funding sources. So we now compete uh for those OTO dollars with other counties, etc. Uh as well as
alternative funding sources. So, we had uh a meeting recently with a conservation partner uh and they've talked about submitting a uh a federal what we call a NA grant, North American Wetland Conservation Act grant uh to be
utilized uh as acquisition dollars to help subsidize the cost of conservation in Valuchia County. Um again, we're not going to be the only people making these shifts. the, you know, a lot of the people involved in conservation around the state are going to do the same thing that we're doing. But that's I just want to let you know that's how the picture
has changed just in the last four or five months. It's just it's gotten a lot harder now to find partner dollars for projects. With that, I'm going to go into specific project updates unless there's any questions about those big picture topics that I just mentioned.
>> I have some questions. So, um, the big picture Um what Brad is not here today but he stood at the podium and the council meeting and
spoke about the goal being 50% uh basically one to one 50% goal for land conservation. Can you elaborate is is that what you're trying to achieve here is 50%. >> And before staff weighs in I my
commentary on it as I hope the answer is yes and more and as well you know we'll get to 50 and if the program is still going we will keep going. >> I I wouldn't be asking this question except for it came up from a councilman that he doesn't want 50%. We're an advisory committee and as such I'd kind
of like to know what the goal is. And the reason I'm also asking this today is because Mr. Ponattowski just stood up and talked about a property that has not come before us yet and we're not voting on but we're sitting here being told that we have limited funds and yet when
we vote we vote in good faith on what we're voting on. So, we have limited funds to support land conservation, and I know you're doing everything you can, and I appreciate that. But when I brought it up earlier about where we go in the future in this
committee with our votes and with land that comes for us, we vote based on what's here. So, what is what is the goal? So we don't have a policy goal that I can inform you of. Um Brad had mentioned
a practice. I would I would call that more of a practice than a policy because I think the council sets policy for this program. Um and and that is an aspirational goal. It doesn't mean that we would stop at 50% as been discussed at at the dis here. It it could extend beyond 50% and a lot of that is the will
of the county council. >> Thanks Tim. I was I was about to say that you know Valia Forever has no direction change from our current path. We are still buying conservation lands um and we'll buy as many as we can with the money we can get. Um that is our our
goal. A lot of that is going to depend on partners and timing and willing sellers. U but our goal moving forward is to acquire conservation land. So based on that being a goal, I move that this committee send a
message to the council that we want 50% or greater and that that is the goal. Our intentions as a um committee and I I'm I'm making a motion right now for that.
>> Uh can you clear that motion up? Um, and I think it was public land that the 50% goal was, which includes the stateowned and the federal owned land as well. Or is that just county alone? I
>> think it was of the county not just county owned. I would agree with your interpretation because when we say we are currently at what is it 42 close to 43 that's including all conservation easements land and >> right our current conservation coverage
in the county is 37% >> that's what I was about to say >> and that includes all federal state and local conservation lands and fees simple and easements that's everything >> it does not include mitigation banks is that >> it does include mitigation banks >> it does include >> thought we were higher
So the goal though is simply the goal for all conservation lands which would be ones that you don't have control over as well. I'm trying to understand the goal. That's if someone could clarify >> I say I don't I don't know that staff
can answer because it's not up to them to set. So I think you can make a motion. I think the request by Mr. Gamble was to clarify that if you are asking us to set a formal goal, it is county coverage, not Valuchia forever
having 50% of the county because that might be difficult. >> Are you requesting that I clean up my motion? >> Can you just repeat it, I guess? >> Okay. So, I move that this committee
send a message to the council that we establish a goal of 50% or greater of conservation land in Valuchia County. And if you want something different than that, then you're going to have to express what it is you're looking for or to have more discussion. And I can't
really I mean, are we going to have this discussion without a second? Because I'm trying to open the door here for discussion. >> Yes. So we we have we have a motion. We have a second. So we can go to discussion. >> U. I would start by asking and I think it's just been a while so I don't
recall. Do we do an annual status report and update to council? A work plan. >> There's an annual goals and work plan that's every year the the committee does. >> So then I would suggest that that may be the proper place to put this rather than a standalone um note to council. But
that would be up to the committee. I would say that the only problem with that is the council has jumped ahead of our work plan and this was brought up already in their meeting and as December when we normally have our what month, Nick, do we normally have
our isn't it December? >> It's the first quarter of the year. >> So first quarter that's even further away. So that would be the reason that I would do this today that if if
they choose to do something before our next work plan, why would we why would we wait? So I think part of the question is
I'm trying to think what action the council could take and so this is all hypothetical. Um, but from a legal perspective, if the council said as a policy decision for our county, we want 40% conservation, that does not change the voter approved program of Valuchia
forever. Is that correct? >> That would be correct. >> So, actually, let's bring up the next part of this this issue, and this is why I open this for discussion. Let's talk about bonding. They have the right according to Mr. Dyer, I believe, if I
understood him correctly, to oppose or vote vote against bonding, even though Is that correct? I mean, I'm asking the the attorneys here. I'm not sure what your question is, but the initial uh resolution uh referendum that was voted on by the
voters uh specifically says property interest for conservation and resource-based recreation including issuing bonds not exceeding 60 million bearing interest not exceeding the maximum legal rate payable from continuation and existing ad valorum tax not exceeding 1/5 mil levied for 20
years subject to full public disclosure. So that is the bonding issue on the referendum that was initially voted on by the voters, >> right? But the council has the ultimate decision. So are you telling me that they if we reach a point of bonding which has been
brought up in this committee meeting? I think it was the last committee meeting would do they have the the authority to vote against bond any bonded properties? >> You're you're an advisory committee. The council always has the authority to vote
yay or nay. You're an advisory committee. Okay. So, I'm still not sure what your question is, but the ultimate yay or nay is the council because you were an advisory committee. >> I understand. >> She's asking it. Can the staff bond without council approval because of what
was voted on? >> The staff's not the council. Only council can bond. >> There you go. >> So, the answer is yes. They could deny a bond issue. >> Okay. So that's the reason I would support this motion today in this committee to just simply send a message
that we support 50% or more of land conservation as a goal in Valuchia County. Yeah, I would say maybe I mean we could say the reason because it's important to you know protect our quality of life and
our ecosystems and our uh ecoourism and I mean I mean not just like we want to just because it's a good number but because yeah it's valuable uh for all those reasons and more. Um but yeah, I mean I I think the general idea of what
um Miss Shyber is trying to do is I I I agree with that that I think if I haven't been at maybe those county council meetings where these things were discussed, but if there is any comments from our you know our chance for our staff to respond to like well what our
our position is as the advisory people, I think yeah that is please do share that. I support sharing that. We don't want to limit the amount uh at least you know I speak for myself for sure and I don't think I don't think any of us want >> what I'm asking Derek. Thank you. >> Yeah. So that's I mean just yeah please
share that that if that's our adi advice as advisory people. I mean that's that's what I would like it to say and whether you know that's you know a formal little letter or just like if you or whoever you know is presenting um on behalf of us or just receiving questions from the
council like please make that clear that um yeah there shouldn't be a limit. Um I mean I almost wouldn't even say 50. I'd almost just say like just no limit and yeah definitely I don't know if that's better or not though but >> well and I think the the form of what this looks like I think
is important. I think that as noted, we're an advisory committee on environmentally sensitive land acquisition and so it is of course near and dear to all of our hearts and we're passionate about it. I think that there was a discussion as Miss Shber noted um and that the council is the ultimate
policy makers of the county. I do not and this is a personal note. I do not think that us sending a formal letter after one council member's comment to say we disagree with you as this committee is necessarily the right approach. If we want to take an action
that says this is our goal, we will vote today. We'll put it in our work plan going forward and then if anyone is speaking in their personal capacity, they can say this was adopted by the committee. It is going to be something in our work plan. >> I'm not asking for a letter. I want to
clarify that. I'm asking for it to be made public right now that this is our our goal, our intentions. U and and I have a question. Can anyone from the public speak on this matter?
>> You do have a pending motion. So, yes, >> we can. >> Anything that has a pending motion would uh allow public comment on the motion. >> It would be limited to three minutes. >> Thank you once again. >> I'm sorry. Please, please uh do a card for your
>> We'll do another one. >> Sure. >> Happy to do that. >> Thank you again, Mike Ponytowi, the book of farms village. So you are the Valuchia forever advisory committee. >> Forever. Forever is a finite word. It means forever in perpetuity. So it means
that you are here to recommend properties for preservation forever. Once those properties are gone and built on, they're gone forever. So, I would support and as over what 63 or 65% of
the citizens of Valuchia County have more than once affirmed that we want our properties preserved forever, as much as we can. So, a strong resolution supporting that premise should come from this body. in my opinion as someone
who's lived in Valuchia County for over 55 years and have lived in the same house for going on 40 years. So I've seen the changes that happen when things aren't preserved forever and none of them are positive. And again, once they are gone, they are gone forever. So,
it's your job to affirm the 63% of Valuchia Countyy's wishes, the citizens wishes to say, "Yes, we want to preserve 50% or more, 70%, whatever that number is, but not an
acre less than 50%." because that's what we voted for when these when I was first voting way back when when this came up the first time because I have voted yes every time both of these have come up
for reallocation. So that's what your job is. That's what we expect you to do. That's what we want you to do is to preserve as much property as possible. Now, when one councilman makes a statement in the negative to that premise, then
there is going to be discussion and we don't know what that discussion is going to lead to. And if you do nothing, you have done nothing to support what we the voters have supported for the past 20 years, 30
years, 40 years. It's been a long time. I'm an old guy. But we want you to be in the affirmative to preserve as much land as possible to go above and beyond the 50% dollars, you know, available because I know what's being gobbled up around me
and my properties. And this is not for me. This is not for you. This is for our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren because we don't want Valuchia County to become a Fort Lauderdale. We don't want to have a lack of drinking water. portable water. We
know we have problems with our water now. So, whatever you do to preserve that premise is in the positive for Valuchia County forever. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, we've had public comment and there may be further discussion. I I
do want to clarify two things that I think have come up. The program that was enacted by the voters did not have a threshold. It does not state 50%. Um, and I I think that in respect of the program and the voter
adoption, we we need to be careful and I I'm okay with supporting something, but I I would not phrase it to say to preserve as much as possible because that is not our our task. Our task is to preserve the lands that meet the criteria of our program. It is not buying all the land we possibly can. So,
we just need to to be clear in the direction that there is there's no 50% requirement for forever right now. That was not in a ballot. And we do not buy everything possible. We buy the properties that are environmentally
sensitive and meet our standards. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I was going to bring that up too that the resolution what the people voted on did not have a number. It was they voted and I think it was closer to 75% this time voted they wanted land
preservation. And there was no language in there that said we're going to stop when we hit a certain percent or it didn't say our goal is to reach a certain percent. And I don't think our role as an advisory committee has changed since the original
program in 2000. We evaluate the properties that are put in front of us. If they meet the criteria, if they look like they're good for the program, then we ask for them to be advanced and we ask for them to be, if at all possible, acquired. So, I'm not saying I'm opposed
to that, but I do think what's being discussed is possibly putting it in our goals is just a reminder that we are very very um intent on carrying out the the will
of the people. And if that involves more than 50%, if we're fortunate enough to get enough properties in front of us that are eligible and it goes over 50%, so be it. So, I just don't see that our our role has changed here. Uh, I know there was
discussion on it, but um, if there's additional discussion on it, I think that the public will probably get very involved in that. >> I I never brought up just buying all land. if that was somehow implied that I
was looking at going outside of what we vote on like that was never that wasn't part of the motion and it wasn't part of the intent. >> No, I realize that and I'm not saying that and I'm not saying I'm opposed to this. I'm just saying that to me possibly putting it in our our work plan
>> also. Um, it was brought up by one council person, but another one chimed in and said they were willing to discuss that in the future. So, it wasn't like I just brought this up from one council person. I anticipate this coming back. I do
believe what Mr. Ponowski said. I believe it's going to come back, but to wait all the way until our work plan, the council has meetings twice monthly. We don't. Our work plan is not until next spring. This is why I'm choosing to
bring this up today. And if we want to say today that we're um gonna add it to our work plan next year and go ahead and do that now, um I I stand by my motion.
>> So any >> Oh yeah. Uh again I I do support making such a a thing clear and comment and you know for our purposes being advisory advisory means providing advice. So um but yeah on as uh discussion has shown
that maybe um the the vote that the people did for the bond I think has power and again I'm not an attorney and so I mean there are you know other legal considerations that people you know potentially could challenge if like the
you know we weren't enacting it somehow. I mean or the council maybe weren't you know buying land or bonding. So I I think uh it's not just I mean obviously the county has a right to vote how they want but you know they could face you know repercussions for doing stuff that
may be contrary and again they're not the only ones the the bond itself in my understanding is is the people kind of granting itself that power so it's they can't just completely overturn it but again even if they did to I think there'd be a lot of public push back so um perhaps this is just step one we
hearard appreciate the public always commenting and commenting Well, by the way, that was great on the spur of the moment speech. Uh, uh, I wish I could do that. Um, but that, uh, we, uh, hear from people and, you know, they do want, you know, everything saved. And I even think if an owner got through our
process, you know, got on an A-list or, you know, this went to county council and they're like, we're not going to do it. Then I think, you know, they'd face such a pressure from the owners as well and be like, what why are you guys, you know, harming us in that sense? So I I know maybe they they speak a certain way
um because of politics and so forth, but um and I'm not saying, you know, it's not a thing to be concerned about, but I do think, you know, there are mechanisms and and people and places to comment that we will continue to do. And I again do support doing what we can, I guess, uh if that if if you think they'll help
and maybe help, not just uh in the sense of steering one uh way or another, but also for just preventing um it from uh getting to be a bigger issue, just kind of saying like this is what it is so we don't have to revisit it in a bigger way in the future, I guess.
>> Oh, we have another public comment. Again, you'll have to fill out a form. Perfect. My name is David Heg, lifelong resident of Dand. And I know it's tempting to argue with the county council about the
50% number. And I I remember having this discussion with Randy Griffith years ago when we were talking about land preservation. But at what point do you stop? You know, what point does is it too much? >> Sir, can you get closer to the microphone?
>> Yes, I can. Yes. At what point do you stop? And rather than focus on that 50% which Brad mentioned and then the county council member started you know an argument with I guess is rather than get into a fight
with the county council about that number why not simply reinforce the 75% number that Wanda was talking about 73% whatever it was and that 73% of >> of us residents
even old even new residents voted to to buy more land for the county rather than getting into a a push and shove and and it is hard. It's a very philosophical debate about, you know, putting a limit
on private land versus public land. And then and you get into that 50% and then you're well, what about easements and what about, you know, I would just reemphasize that that you're you're here to support the 74% that voted for them. >> Thanks. I'll do
>> Thank you. Yeah, I think that highlights a little bit of of my concern in that I anytime you say a number, I think it gives ammo to anyone to say, "Okay, we met it. Are we done?" And so I think if and we have a motion in a second, so it
either, you know, this is just a recommendation. If we were to say that we we fully commit to the purchase of conservation land um that meets our goals without limitation. I think that is kind of the the clear
goal and we have a motion in a second so we can vote on that or we can amend it. But I I'm fine with making a statement because I think that we all believe in the program that we represent. I just don't love to tie it to a specific number because then people say we met it, we're done and we won't be done. Can
you So, first of all, the reason I made my motion the way I did is because staff stood at the podium and told the council that that was their goal. So, I was attempting to support what staff said, whether they may agree with that or not, but 50% or more was what I said. So, can
you repeat what you just said? And I'm more than happy to amend my own motion. >> I will try to repeat what I just said. It'll it'll always be a little different, I will say. Um, but I think kind of tying into the public comment, we just heard a statement by this board that moving forward in our annual plan
and as a a statement of our goals and intents, a reaffirmation that the voter approved program for Valuchia Forever does not end at a certain threshold and we are committed to purchasing eligible environmentally sensitive properties
without limitation of a percentage. and perhaps emphasize the number of people that voted for the program. >> Right. >> Well, as as an advisory board, we we should advise the county council on on all issues what the majority of this
committee agrees upon. >> Okay. So, I'm going to amend my emotion to what you just stated and that it not be limited. >> So, we'd have to have your second amend as well, would you?
>> Um, yes. I I I think that's I support that or Yeah, of course. Uh, no limit. That's and supported by the people and that's Yeah. >> So, then we have an amended motion and second discussion on that from anyone. >> One question. Are we stating we want
something ahead of our our work program and our goals or are we stating that we want this put into our goals to re-emphasize when our goals are presented to re-emphasize at that point? >> My understanding is we've taken we'll take the action today and so if council
were to ask staff they could say the board has directed us to do this. This is a policy that's important to them. it will be put in our annual goal planning and because if there is a majority vote um we can say that we have agreed and any individual discussions you can say
it will be added to our work plan if that suffices. >> Okay. So I would like to discuss adding that to our work plan now instead of waiting until next spring. >> We won't talk about until spring though. So, I mean adding it now, I'm not sure.
>> That was what I asked. And Nick said that our goal setting is in the spring. Correct. >> Yeah, I'm I'm looking at the calendar now. Uh if we get it on the agenda for the January meeting, um that would likely go to council in February or March.
>> Okay. So, I understand. And council has at least three meetings left this year that I can think of. >> Yes. So um is any for discussion? I mean is is there some reason that we cannot
amend our current work plan? I think we do it annually and I think that if we're not setting our entire work plan then I think that putting this goal an action by this body a motion to do it
now versus at that meeting I think carries the same result. It is just when it it goes before council formally. Okay. Would staff agree with that that if we make a motion now there's we would put it in the work plan when it
is devised. We'd be making that direction now but the formal document with our full work plan may follow. >> Yes. If the committee requests that it be in the work plan we will have it in there. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second. Further discussion.
All right. All those in favor of the motion, which I am not going to try to restate, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> I. >> We have one in opposition. Um, the motion will carry.
I believe we were still in staff comments. >> We are still in staff comments. And uh but I'm going to give you some project updates, but I'm also going to take this opportunity to remind everyone of what I said earlier that um currently the Florida forever funds are exhausted. The Florida legislature will begin a session
in the near future. Um there's been a lot of passion expressed when discussing the land conservation of Valuchia County. So um speaking to the entire room here, not the dis but also members of the audience, you may wish to express that passion towards your state representative as we enter this
legislative session, get some substantial funding within Florida forever. And with that, uh Triple T Ranch, uh we have um had ongoing contract uh in easement discussions with the owner and their attorney. We believe we're uh very
close to reaching an agreement on both of those. Uh you should see that move forward to the council in the near future. Um McMillan, this was an agricultural easement uh Lake Ashby area. Uh easements and contracts uh are with the sellers representatives. Um we've had
some minor changes to the easement and we're waiting for their full comments on the contract itself and then that one will move forward in the near future. Also, um Tal Talmage project, this is the big one that we've talked about a number of times. Uh we have a draft contract uh
that we presented to the owners. Their legal representative is going to contact the county's legal department and discuss specific terms, but we feel encouraged that that one we will be able to move forward. Also, uh Tamoka Farms Road. This is another one that uh this
is a fee simple. Uh and maybe I'm going too fast. I apologize. Uh so there's a map on the screen there so you can see it. Now, um the good news here is that property is partially encumbered by OD to O funds. So, we're trying to get that project ready. We may have a state
partner on that project and be able to bring that forward to the council with uh with uh with a funding partner. Um Careway Lake, another one on your screen right now. Also within the OTO uh project area, uh
we are um we have completed two appraisals on it. We are working with our colleagues at uh D right now. They have hired an appraisal reviewer. There's going to be an appraisal review tour next Tuesday. Um and then we hopefully will uh see the state move forward with the offer shortly after
that. John Anderson property. This is one that uh we had been moving through the Florida Forever system until the funds got exhausted. Uh we have good communication with the owner. uh we have appraisals and we think we could strike
a deal. It's just a matter of putting the dollars together on this one right now. The lef agricultural easement is the next one I'll mention. So we it took a little bit of time, but we do have an agre agreement on easement
terms. The next stage for us is we turn that easement over to the to the uh appraisers. They're going to appraise the easement value out there and so we will make an offer on that in the near future. The final one that I have for you today is the Riverbend Ranch property.
So, we are underway with appraisals on that property right now and um optimistic that we'll be able to reach terms. That's the extent of my updates. >> Fantastic. Questions for staff on any of those? >> Any change on Lake Carney? Is that one
still moving forward pretty well? Um, we we have regular conversations with the owners about the Lake Harney property. Um, I I would not say it's ready to go at this time, but we continue to keep dialogue open and um um
we'll see how things go >> about other maybe just for my own records. Uh obviously we today we didn't talk about items one or two. Um the a u ge rer drive place. Um first of all, how do you pronounce that? Do you know how >> augur?
>> We've just said augur. >> Okay. There's different French pronunciations maybe. But um augur uh drive. Uh do you know like I guess why those were pulled? Were we just too slow or was that because I'd hate to you know that be a reason or something. >> Yeah, it's um I would call it secondhand
information, but we did hear that they had um accepted an offer outside of the program. So private owner came in and bought it. >> Okay. Yeah. Just sad to when people get this far and yeah something we could have saved but uh well I guess they can
always change their mind I guess. Um but uh I guess just another kind of staff question um which uh I wanted to ask you had talked about there was a recision letter for one of the programs earlier um that you talked about. >> Yes sir. Yeah. The regional conservation
partnership program. This is the large fed federal award that we had for agricultural easements. >> So is there a physical letter that you could perhaps uh email to me or I don't know if we saw it. I I just I'd like to you know follow along and if this is public I you know read myself because
what I appreciate all the updates on these programs that are being lost and you know the funding being exhausted and so forth but sometimes yeah people ask me I'll be like go ask uh you know our our wonderful staff here. Um but yeah, if I have the information with me, I can maybe um save you some time and them
some time if if you don't mind. >> We we'll send the letter to all the committee members. >> And that generally for me at least it goes for I'm I'm happy the more things you send me. I can always, you know, file it away if I don't know if other staff feels that way too. But yeah, if you guys are hearing big things like
that, you don't have to, at least for me, again, wait to um to contact or email at least uh me to to let me know um you know, some big changes like that might uh affect um future, you know, votes and how this uh committee acts. So
those are my questions I think for the comment. Oh, may one more uh for the staff, I guess. Um I think uh there's is it true that Valuchia Forever Properties basically uh do do they have like um hours of operation or anything like that
or basically it's not like a if it's a park it's a dawn to dusk kind of thing or are people able to be there other time of course like most things it varies but uh from memory I think most of our
parks are going to be dawn of dust Ask Nick. I'm trying to remember if this is in ordinance or not. >> It's it's correct. Each preserve have its own rules, but right now almost all of them are daylight till dark. >> Okay. And if there is one that apparently like just uh seems to be
closed again, we can contact you guys about that. Um just about if someone wants to check it out or get access and it's owned by county. That's >> absolutely. Um there may be gates or roads closed due to weather inclement conditions or or land management activities in the area. So we may
temporarily close off some areas sometimes but the entire preserves are open um 365 daylight to dark. >> Thank you. >> The I'm going to say the the preserves under our management. Yeah, >> I see. And but if it was purchased with
like volu forever dollars, it should at least have open accessible hours at some point. And I mean whoever's managing it should allow. >> That's tricky. It depends on the the manager the managing agency because we do have part management partnerships on Valuchia Forever Acquired lands
>> but in general they're not allowed to just like close it like kind of indefinitely basically right I mean or is that sometimes allowed I guess >> it we can allow it under certain conditions such as storms or damage or restoration
um but it's not nobody's going to close a preserve indefinitely with no public access. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm thinking more of parks. Again, I probably have one or two in mind that kind of have been locked and not accessible that were used or purchased with the county funds and
still trying to get answers on to why they're Yeah. But yeah, not your question. It's more I think the managers are maybe else other people. So, I'll try to figure that out myself. But yeah, I appreciate those answers and yeah, thank you for that. >> You have a question? Sure. >> I have one one last question. Has the
FNAI been updated for this year? Um, Dr. Hawker had said that it gets re I believe that the lands get reviewed, you know what I'm talking about, Tim, that every five years I think it is, and that it was going to be updated. I thought they were shooting for July. Um,
so I'm just asking, has has the review and ground truthing and all that been done? >> Are you referencing the FEGN? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> I said FNAI because of what was earlier, but yes, FEGN. all these. Yeah, that's
it. >> We'd have to research that answer. >> Well, I'm asking because um when it my understanding from the wildlife corridor conference, it was supposed to be com the goal was for them to complete
it in July is my understanding. um if it actually has been reviewed and published, I mean that would impact what you you do. So that's why I'm bringing it up. >> It is entirely possible the maps have
been updated and they're already incorporated into our mapping system and we just need to double check the update date. >> Thank you. I I kind of would like to know if you don't mind sending me an email. I'm I'm curious. I would like to know
Okay, perfect. All right, other questions for staff on property updates. We do still have another staff item. All right. Well, then we'll move to the Valuchia Conservation Corridor update when you get a moment. All right. VCC
update. Um, if you remember correctly, we sent out um letters with um QR codes and hard copies that people could reply to to be included as a willing seller in the Valia conservation corridor expansion, which is a Florida forever
project boundary. That represented a total of 26,000 acres that we sent letters out to 592 parcels. Um we received a low response of uh 35 total parcels rep representing 695 acres. Um
85% of those response were less than 30 acres. Um so it's a fairly low response. We're going to have a discussion with the state to see if this is a viable project uh that they want to take on right now. Um doesn't mean it's dead. Um we just didn't get enough of a response
that may warrant expanding the VCC corridor. Now, there's other pathways for projects in these areas. You we can do boundary expansions. Um you can have a a specific Florida Forever project area created for properties. So, uh just
because it's not in the VCC corridor doesn't mean that there's not an avenue there. >> Questions on that, Miss Shber? Um I would so the the question about the FEGN maps being updated might apply to this
which is part of the reason I was asking too. Just putting that out there other no other questions on the update. All right. Well, thank you staff for those updates and we'll go to advisory committee comments. Anyone have other
any comments that were not addressed during staff questions? Yeah, even though I wasn't here at the last two meetings, I listened very interesting interestedly in the mosquito ditch
comments. In 8 1981, I was hired by mosquito control in this county and one of my jobs was to ditch the salt mar. >> Is your mic on? So, I have a lot of information and
things and I think you guys were kind of headed in the wrong direction on uh some of that discussion. I'm not going to do that today, but when we get another property and somebody wants I'll inform uh the committee at that point, but uh just to let you know that there are
people that have some pretty good information on that sort of thing. So, but uh I listened to both the meetings even though I wasn't here. So, one of them uh I was in Africa. So, I had to catch it when I got some uh um
computer time, but other than that, um glad to be back. So, thanks. >> Glad to have you back and we'd welcome that insight. Absolutely. >> Other committee comments? Y >> uh just want to as always uh say to the
public that you know we appreciate their participation and any people who are uh applying or looking to apply for you know u eligibility to please yeah you know um do so and we I'm just again encouraging more applications for sure
and hope uh you know if there's anything we can do um let us know to help with that and people who may have uh you know been not voted for approval uh either today or maybe they voted on a less than you know high uh you know eligibility if you're Blist and not A-list like you
know if things change and not even just if things change but like if you uh have you know other considerations or you know maybe there's other partnerships that you know about that you know please you know work don't give up I guess I don't know what
to say but like I just trying to give encouragement out there to to um continue to to uh to talk it's not just like whatever we vote one time is you know going to be the end of it at least that's not how I see it I mean we change our mind or things, you know, change, new funding comes available, you
know, flooding changes in different places, uh, you know, various species get added to endangered list, whatever. So, that that's one thing. And and in particular, I know some of the properties that we consider, uh, there's always like this public access question. And I'm really going to just kind of on
my own uh look into ways that I I always think it it's wrong when I I hear that oh it's like it's a private road so like we can't like use it. I mean, just to me, if if it's a road that's like being used by like a community, then it's like
to me, I don't think they should or they should want to um you know, ban people from using it to access like a public good like a park. and even if it's um you know uh you know so I I I think that the access uh idea should be um you know
not not a not a a barrier to um you know what properties we acquire um as much as it perh it is in in my opinion but um yeah I do support uh again new new things coming before us and I I do hope to
especially see stuff uh in the uh Spruce Creek wershed as as my uh favorite thing I like talk about. Um so yeah, hopefully we we see those soon. So thank you for that. >> Other committee comments, Miss Man, >> if I could on the maps, um I love our
new maps. I think these are fantastic. One request I have and I I know I realize it would make more work, but when the subject property abuts incorporated lands, could we put the land use and zoning of the incorporated
lands on the maps as well? >> So, it's for the incorporated lands to actually get the the zoning for the actual cities and what they have there. >> Yes. Um currently um it that is it that's a little it's a
little difficult. So sometimes the cities don't make that easily uh publicly available uh or they don't they provide minimum access to that data. That's why typically even when you have uh zoning maps or future land use meetings they typically don't show what's incorporated because that could
be static data. But I that is definitely something I can explore to see um if that could be readily available and something that is more like a dynamic data set that's updating continually or if that's something we'd have to manually pull for each city which might be a little difficult. We could
definitely take a look at it. And then the one other comment um the Florida forever funding a couple months ago I went to like a question and answer session between um state representatives and senators. One of the questions that
was brought forward was why did you support such a drastic drop in funding for Florida forever? And the reply was because there was so much money left over still to be used. and they had no idea that those funds had already been
committed. So, I think it's very important that as public we keep constantly reminding representatives and senators, we want support for Florida forever. Um, because quite frankly, they have so many things that they're
looking at that I don't think that this always gets in front of them and is always presented the way it should be. um because obviously the funding that was left had pretty much already been committed and now we're out. So that's
something that I think um we as individuals can do and can encourage uh other residents to do is to keep reminding them of how important that is to us. >> I did have also one note that also has to do with mapping. The Valuchia Forever
dashboard um is a fantastic tool and I was wondering if we could add a tab or a view option to our dashboard that shows all of the conservation lands that might be also outside of the forever purchases just so you have it all in one overall
map. I know you can get it in the GRM map where you can click on conservation lands and easements and show those. So I don't know if we could integrate those somehow. So uh currently uh the Valuchia Forever dashboard as it currently sits is maintained by IT and their GIS
department. Um and that's something we can definitely if uh we can definitely push that to them and say we would like to incorporate this. We are also currently creating a uh like a 2.0 version of the Vucha forever which I can easily incorporate and that will be under direct control of resource
stewardship. >> Great. Any other committee comments? All right, seeing none, we will adjourn at 10:45. Thank you everyone. >> So, next one is December 12th. Sorry. Thought I would be on here, but >> Yes.
Okay. Sure. [Music]