MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Chairman
Daniel W. Colhoun
Mildred H. Darcey
Jerry Klasmeier,
representing Comptroller Schaefer
Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer
Kopp
Judith C. Lynch
James Pelura, D.V.M.
Vera Mae Schultz
Joseph F. Tassone, representing the
Secretary, Maryland Department of Planning
Douglas H. Wilson, representing the Secretary,
Maryland Department of Agriculture
TRUSTEES
ABSENT:
Allen H. Cohey
Shirley W. Pilchard
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tammy Buckle,
James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive Director
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Dept. of General
Services
Wally Lippincott,
Carla
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney
General
Jenny
Plummer-Welker,
Bill Powel,
Carroll
William Quinn,
Charles Rice, Charles
Radhika Sakhamuri, Queen Anne's
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrative Officer
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Chairman, called the meeting to order at
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES/ADDITION OR
DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES,
Vera Mae
Schultz, Board member, presented orally and submitted written corrections to
the minutes dealing with the discussion at the previous meeting on
recommendations for changes in MALPF’s policy on
forestry management.
Motion #1: To approve the minutes of
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second:
Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
B.
ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. James Conrad, Executive Director,
noted additions to the regular agenda.
First, Elizabeth Weaver will present a follow-up from the last Board
meeting on the location of the Stevens’ lot in
Ms. Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrative Officer, presented the
follow-up to the discussion at the last Board meeting on the location of the
lot on the Donald R. Stevens, Sr., property (#09-07-91-01) in
Mr. Dan Colhoun, Board member, explained why he
voted “no” for the telephone poll. He
was informed that the landowner was pressed for time, because there was a
contractor available at the moment who may not be
available later to start construction.
He felt that whether a contractor was available or not to build a house
should not be the driving the Board’s decision.
The second and real reason to bring this issue up is that he feels
strongly that when an issue of this sort is up for a Board decision, the child,
the landowner, and/or the program administrator should be here to respond to
any of the Board’s questions. The
assumption that all that is necessary is to present the paperwork and then it’s
a “slam dunk” is simply the wrong way to go.
If there is no one available to respond to questions, the request should
be tabled. The third and probably most
important reason is that to take a child’s lot and place it in the middle of
the field invites a problem that the Board becomes party to creating. Because the dwelling can be sold separately
from the farm to someone with no interest in the farm means that you are almost
inevitably creating a future problem for someone who has no tolerance for the
application of pesticides, herbicides, or any of the normal farm
activities. The lot will become an
island out there unfriendly to agriculture.
The Board should be very careful in these cases. In a case such as this, where this is
probably the only location that the lot can be on the property, then the Board
should consider saying “okay, but the lot can’t be separated from the rest of
the property.” We’ve seen too many
unfortunate situations and even lawsuits merely because people not involved in
agriculture later purchase these lots and have no involvement in farming
whatsoever.
Mr. Joe Tassone, representing the Secretary of
Planning, concurred and suggested that, though the decision was made on the
telephone, he had understood the case presented for the telephone poll somewhat
differently: not that the location was
the highest spot and the most likely to perk, but rather that it was the only
spot on the property that would perk. He
asked for clarification. Ms. Weaver
responded that the Health Department response was based on its staff’s
knowledge of the property and its terrain, soils, etc.
Ms. Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator for
In response to questions, Ms. Weaver noted that the perk tests had been
completed on the Stevens property. The
issue was rather that, given the impact of Hurricane Isabel, builders’
schedules were backed up. Because a
builder was able to commit to start on this dwelling immediately, the landowner
wished a quick approval before the builder became occupied with other
commitments. A slow approval could delay
the construction of the house for a year.
Mr. Douglas Wilson, representing the Secretary of Agriculture, suggested
that these issues be placed on the Policy Review Committee agenda and treated
as policy issues are treated there, having any proposals run by the program
administrators for input, and go through the normal policy review process.
II. DISTRICT/EASEMENT
AMENDMENTS
Mr. Conrad
presented the district and easement amendment agenda items.
A.
1. 06-88-08 BAILE, Gale P. 114.00
acres
Request for a one-acre owner’s lot
under the terms of HB 131.
Ms. Bale is the original owner of the
property. She is requesting a one-acre exclusion for the use of a subsequent owner. The property meets the qualifications
required for a lot under HB 131 as listed in the agenda memo. The lot will not be sub-dividable from the
remainder of the parcel. This is one of
the last HB 131 lots that will come before the Foundation because this bill
will expire at the end of September 2004.
The location is along the road as shown on the map with access directly
off the road. It has been approved by
the County and conforms to local regulations.
Staff recommends approval.
Motion #2: To approve the request for the exclusion of a
one-acre owner’s lot under the terms of HB 131 from the Baile
easement property.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Dan Colhoun
Status: Approved
2. 06-79-06 DELL, Roger A. & Gregory W. 63.18 acres
Request for the relocation of an owner’s dwelling approved under
the terms of HB 131.
The Dells are the original owners of this property. The original approval of this HB 131 lot by
the Foundation Board was done at the November, 2003, Board meeting. The original approved lot was located in the
woods in the corner of the property. The
Dells have discovered that this location is inappropriate because of steep slopes. The new location is moved inward along the
edge of the woods still in the interior of the property with similar access
along the edge of the property, cutting across the edge of the wood line. The County approved this lot location, and it
conforms to local regulations. Staff
recommends that the Board request that the lot be located closer to the
perimeter of the property if this location is appropriate for construction, but
otherwise the lot would be located as presented.
Mr. Powel, Program Administrator for
Motion #3: To approve the request for relocating the
already-approved HB 131 owner’s lot from that originally approved to the staff
recommended alternative location along the wood line near the perimeter of the
property.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Dan Colhoun
Status: Approved
Mr. Colhoun asked if there is any
follow-up that the lot has actually been located as approved. Mr. Powel noted that this law requires a
metes and bounds description be submitted to MALPF. The survey would be needed before release. Mr. Colhoun
requested clarification if the final location comes back to the Board. Mr. Conrad noted that the survey and release
comes to the staff, not the Board. Mr. Tassone confirmed that MALPF staff is responsible for
verifying that what is approved by the Board is what is followed by the
landowner.
Mr. Powel noted that Mr. Quinn had
indicated that he would be at this meeting for his agenda item on access to
excluded acreage. He had not yet
arrived. At Mr. Powel’s request, the
meeting continued, skipping Mr. Quinn’s item until his arrival or it is clear
that he will not be at the meeting.
B.
1.
Request for the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling.
They are the original owners of a district property with an
easement offer on it. They are in the
process of reviewing the easement offer and would like clarification of the
possibility of relocation in considering this offer. This would not take place until after the
easement is settled. They want to
relocate the existing dwelling from the middle of the property to an
alternative location on the perimeter of the property next to an existing
dwelling owned by the family. There is a
family cemetery located in the proposed area of this lot, which could result in
the lot being moved 50 feet to the south.
Greg Bowen,
What is needed at this point is approval of the location so the
family can move forward and sign the option contract. The family understands that the relocation
cannot be done while there is a pending easement offer, but this is intended to
be insurance for the family that relocation can be done. The lot relies on an existing right of way
for access. The County Advisory Board
approved this request, and it conforms to the local regulations. Staff recommends approval because the relocation
will improve the farming operation.
Relocation approval should be based on it not taking place until the
easement is settled and that the existing dwelling should be removed and the
area returned to agriculture.
Mr. Conrad introduced Jenny Plummer-Welker to the Board. She will be representing
Motion #4: To approve the relocation of the
dwelling on the Ward and Backes district property
with the conditions that the relocation not take place
until there is no longer a pending easement application or settlement on the
property and that the original dwelling be removed and the area returned to
agriculture.
Motion: Mildred Darcey Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
C.
1. 03-81-07 ARMACOST, Wayne A. 342.00 acres
Request
for a tenant house on easement property.
Mr. Armacost is the original owner of
the property. It is for the use of a
tenant fully engaged in the running of the dairy. The proposed tenant house will be a 14’ x 42’
trailer occupied by Melissa Foster who is responsible for the health of a
500-head dairy herd and supervises other farm workers. There have been no other requests for tenant
houses on the property. It will be
clustered other farm buildings. Septic
will be hooked into an existing septic system.
This request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to
local county regulations. Staff
recommends approval.
Motion #5: To approve the request for a tenant
house on the Armacost easement property as presented.
Motion: Lewis Logan Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
Abstained: Dan Colhoun
2. 03-88-05 KEIL, Steven D. 124.75
acres
Request
to amend district agreement to add terminated acreage.
Mr. Conrad noted that additional material is available on this
request. Mr. Keil
is the original owner of the district property.
He’s adding 27.75 acres which was removed from the district in 1993 at
the owner’s request. The original
district was established on
Mr. Wilson asked if his current application includes this acreage
or if he needs to amend his application.
Mr. Wally Lippincott, Baltimore County Program
Administrator, stated that it was included on faith that this request would be
approved. Mr. Tassone
asked what was happening with this request.
Mr. Lippincott responded that he wasn’t sure
what was happening. In the discussion of
doing this, Mr. Keil never indicated why it was taken
out or why he now wants it to be put back into the district.
Motion #6: To approve the request to amend the
district agreement to add the 27.75 acres previously terminated back under the
district agreement for the Keil district property.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
Because Mr. Quinn has arrived, the
Board will consider his request before moving on to the agricultural
preservation district petitions.
A.
3. 06-82-01 QUINN, William F. 153.00
acres
Request for clarification of access to an area excluded from the
easement.
Mr. Quinn is requesting clarification of access to an area excluded
from the easement. This item came before
the Board in June, 2003. Mr. Quinn is
the subsequent owner of the easement property.
He wants to clarify access to an area which was excluded from an acreage
swap previously approved of 1.66 acres.
He had originally asked us to allow the relocation and expansion of a
kennel operation. Commercial kennels are
not allowed on district or easement properties.
Zoning regulations did not allow the expansion of the kennel in the area
along the road. He asked to exchange
acreage that had been excluded from the easement for the kennel operation along
the road for equal acreage located further back on the easement property which
would allow Mr. Quinn to relocate and expand the kennel operation.
During the earlier meeting, the issue of access was addressed but
was not discussed in detail. The
discussion focused on the impact of the relocation. A large part of the concern was that it could
be conveyed separately from the easement property at some point in the future. The motion to approve the request did not
reference the access to the excluded area.
Because it was unclear from the earlier meeting and because there is
still some issue about how the access should be configured, Mr. Quinn is asking
for access to the kennel operation through two fields which Mr. Quinn plans to
convert to pasture land. In a letter to
the Foundation which is attached, he indicates he will separate these two
pastures (which will be used for a thoroughbred operation) by a roadway between
the two pastures. He would like to use
this roadway as access to the kennel.
The Carroll County Advisory Board approved the proposed
access. It complies with local zoning
regulations. Staff recommends approval subject
to some level of assurance that the proposed access will serve the dual purposes
outlined in the letter of request.
Because the aerial shows the exact configuration didn’t come out too
well, there is another map that was passed out that gives a better idea of what
we are discussing.
Mr. Powel wished to give a disclaimer on behalf of the County’s
GIS people. The yellow line is his
attempt to draw in a program now available to the staff. There was a discrepancy in the original
proposal because originally the County Advisory Board recommended the yellow
dotted line as access when they approved the exchange of acreage. The farmers on the Board felt that a roadway
along the edge of the woods would have less impact on the agricultural use of
the property. Mr. Quinn has come back
saying that he is going to convert the land to horse pastures and wanted to
make use of a roadway between the two proposed pastures for access. That access if shown by the solid yellow
line.
Mr. Wilson noted that the minutes describe a discussion and
question at the previous approval that, if this area no longer was a kennel,
could it become a lot? The response was
that it couldn’t because it did not have in-fee access by a road. Also, it was noted that the number of
off-conveyances have already been used up on the property. So Mr. Wilson would like to ask the same
question: if Mr. Quinn’s kennel
activities cease, could this become a building lot?
Mr. Powel responded that, based on his judgment, because the
easement does not grant in-fee ownership of the roadway to this lot, separate
ownership to this acreage could not be permitted. He does not see how it could become a
separate lot. Mr. Powel also clarified
what land is covered by the easement on the aerial and the use of other parcels
indicated on the aerial.
Mr. Powel stated that Mr. Quinn needs conditional use approval
from the Carroll County Zoning Appeals Board to implement this change because
the Advisory Board had specified the dotted line in its earlier approval. Therefore, Mr. Powel’s input into the zoning
appeals process was that this not occur until the legal documents of the
exchange are finalized and until the driveway is relocated because Mr. Quinn
had changed the location when he took his request to the Zoning Appeals Board. The clarification of the location of the
approved access is necessary to allow the request to move forward with the
Zoning Appeals Board based on this alternative access.
Mr. Quinn noted he was converting the fields from being cropped to
a horse operation and that last time he was here, he indicated in response to a
question from a Board member the solid line as the access, though the original
local approval was for the alternative dotted line location. This change was in response to a change in
farming operation. He currently has a
horse operation on the other side of the farm.
He didn’t want to have to create one access now and then have to move
the access later when the farming operation changed.
Motion #7: To approve the request to clarify that
the approved access to the kennel operation will be a roadway to run between
the two pastures to be created by the conversion of the fields from cropping to
pasture land for a horse operation, as indicated by the solid yellow line on
the aerial submitted to the Board.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: James Pelura
Status: Approved
III. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
Mr. Conrad
presented the district petitions.
A.
1.
This parcel is located in the community
of Accident. It is contiguous with one
district property. It is cropland and a
cattle operation. There is one dwelling
on the property. 33.5 acre of the total
is woodland. It is owner-operated, and
part of a larger operation. There are
62.9% qualifying soils. Two acres are
being withheld for two family members, which still meets the Foundation’s
guidelines for withheld acreage. This
approach of excluding acreage upfront is standard operation procedure for
2.
This parcel is in the community of
Mr. Tassone
asked if the Benders are aware that, by withholding acreage for family members,
there are rules about family lots and their use. Mr. Wilson suggested that that is a standard
part of the approval letter written to landowners establishing districts. Ms. Weaver noted that withholding acreage
upfront for family lots is a longstanding practice in
Motion #8: To approve the requests of Oren and
Fannie Bender and Jerry and Mikal Zimmerman to establish
an agricultural district on their properties.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
IV.
PROGRAM POLICY
A.
Partial Termination Policy
Mr. Conrad presented this agenda item. In the “Interim Report” issued in 2003, the
MALPF Task Force recommended that the Foundation’s Board of Trustees clarify
its policy on landowners excluding acreage from district properties. The Board adopted at the February, 2004, the
attached policy on withheld acreage on the recommendation of the Task Force and
after revisions of that policy based on review and comments by program
administrators.
The Foundation staff feels that the logical
extension of the policy on withheld acreage is to apply its concepts to
requests for partial termination. After
program participants have fulfilled their five-year district agreement, they
may partially terminate their district agreement, resulting in the functional
equivalent of withholding acreage when their district was originally
established. The reasons for requests
for partial termination are generally similar to those for withheld acreage,
for example to develop residential lots for commercial purposes or for
relatives not eligible under the district agreement or easement or for
activities that are not generally acceptable on district and easement
property. And the potential for problems
to be produced by partial terminations is similar to the problem potential for
withheld acreage. Some of these are
listed in the Task Force report:
·
Partial termination for the development of more than a few lots may
undermine the purpose of the Program and result in substantial residential
subdivision next to a district or easement.
·
Partial termination to enable incompatible activities on adjacent
property can similarly undermine the purpose of the Program.
·
Partial termination can make it difficult to ensure the State is
extinguishing the number of development rights for which it pays on the
remainder of the property, undermining public investment in the purchase of
easement restrictions.
Currently, partial terminations are not reviewed by
the Board of Trustees, but are approved administratively as long as the
district continues to meet minimum eligibility requirements. Staff recommends that, if a partial
termination request does not meet the following guidelines that parallel the
withheld acreage guidelines, the request will be returned to the county for
review and a recommendation by the agricultural land preservation advisory
board and then brought to the Board for consideration. The proposed policy on partial termination
parallels the policy on withheld acreage, both of which are presented in the
agenda material.
Proposed
Partial Termination Policy
(Version:
GENERAL GUIDELINES
·
In
general, the Foundation should allow the administrative approval of a partial
termination request if the excluded land poses little or no potential risk to
future agriculture and forestry on the district.
·
The
Foundation should reach agreements with each county to ensure that, if an
easement is purchased on a district from which land has been excluded by
partial termination, any development rights the State pays to extinguish are
not retained for private use by the original or a subsequent owner of the
excluded land.
·
The
remaining district property resulting from a partial termination must continue
to meet minimum eligibility criteria to remain in the Program.
LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR PARTIAL TERMINATION OF
LAND FROM DISTRICTS
·
To
exclude land zoned for development.
·
To
exclude land planned for a non-agricultural public purpose.
·
To
exclude land that is not developable.
·
To
exclude land with (an) existing residential structure(s) that cannot be further
subdivided.
·
To
exclude land posing little or no potential risk to investment in the district
for agriculture.
·
To
exclude land that, under local agricultural zoning, will allow only three or
fewer lots.
·
To
allow the owner of a farm with no dwelling on it to exclude up to two acres for
a dwelling for the current or a subsequent owner; such excluded acreage must
not be sub-dividable from the farm.
Any partial termination request that does not clearly fall
within these guidelines will not be approved administratively, but will be
returned to the county for review and a recommendation by the county’s
agricultural land preservation advisory board and then submitted to the Board
for consideration.
Mr. Conrad asked Mr. Lippincott to comment on
the need for an explicit partial termination policy. Mr. Lippincott
noted that the Baltimore County Advisory Board concluded that partial
termination requests should go to local Board approvals and then to the State
Board. For example,
Mr. Conrad noted that what Mr. Lippincott is
suggesting is slightly different than the policy proposed to the Board. Specifically, he is suggesting that all
partial terminations be approved at the level of both the county and the state
boards, not just those not meeting the guidelines. Mr. Lippincott
agreed that that is what he is suggesting and would be preferred by the
Baltimore County Advisory Board. Mr.
Conrad noted that one cost of this alternative is that a landowner kept from
partially terminating a district agreement may simply opt to fully terminate
the district, which the landowner is entitled to do.
Mr. Wilson noted that this ultimately goes back to the county side where
the process begins. Thus, there is logic
to having someone who wants to change their district status should have that
change reviewed by the county.
Mr. Colhoun stated that his preference would be
to have the county advisory boards review all requests for partial
termination. The county level should be
the first level of review because of their familiarity with the local situation. It may in many cases better to terminate an
entire district because a partial termination may end up placing a new non-farm
residence right next to a barn.
Mr. Tassone suggested that having partial
termination policy that logically parallels the withheld acreage policy makes
sense, and perhaps a combination of both local review of partial termination
and State review based on the proposed guidelines would allow both the proposed
policy and local review to work together.
Mr. Wilson proposed that all partial terminations be reviewed by the
Board of Trustees using the proposed partial termination policy as a guideline
after being reviewed by the local agricultural land preservation advisory
boards. No partial terminations will be
administratively approved.
Ms. Buckle asked
how someone can take acreage out of the program through partial termination and
then have restrictions placed on its use.
Mr. Wilson responded that that is not the case. Rather, the issue is for the county to be
able to review the impact of partial termination requests. For example, if someone has a 300-acre
district and he comes back to split it in half with partial termination, the
county should be able to review the request, because it may make sense that the
remaining 150 acres should not stay in the program because of the likely impact
on what happens to the 150 acres that leaves on the remainder of the parcel or
even on adjacent parcels. The only real
action you have is to approve partial termination or recommend taking the
entire parcel out of the program. This
gives the county the ability to understand what is happening and why and weigh
in. Of course, the landowner could also
remove the entire parcel from district status and reapply with the part of the
parcel that he did not want to terminate.
However, then the county and state would have the ability to review this
district petition when it comes back in.
Ms. Buckle
wanted to know the logic for the State Board to change its policy setting up in
a way that there can be disagreement between the State and local advisory
boards. Mr. Tassone
responded that actually it sets up the opportunity for two reviews, and that
the State Board nine times out of ten agrees with the county
recommendations. The point is to allow
the counties to address the issues posed by
Motion #9: To adopt the proposed partial
termination policy as a guideline for the Foundation’s Board of Trustees to
review all partial termination requests for approval or denial after they have
been reviewed by the local agricultural land preservation advisory boards.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
B.
Alteration of Signature Process
for Preliminary Release Document
Ms. Weaver presented
the proposal to speed the circulation of release documents by reducing the
number of signatures necessary before recordation. Foundation staff, in consultation with MALPF
counsel, requests the approval of the Board of Trustees to alter the signature
process of the Preliminary Release documents for owners and child’s lots. Staff proposes to require the signature of
the executive director only. The staff
makes this request with the intent to reduce the considerable amount of
paperwork associated with the release of approved lots. The staff requests that only the Preliminary
Release signature process be altered.
The signatures currently required for the Final Release would remain
unchanged.
Currently, the
process for approval and release of a lot involves several steps. First, the lot must be approved by the local
advisory board. The Program
Administrator forwards the request, along with the necessary paperwork to the
Foundation. Foundation staff prepares
the request for inclusion in the monthly agenda. Once the lot is approved by the Board of
Trustees, a letter is sent to the landowner informing him or her that the lot
has been approved. The landowner is
instructed to submit a check for the amount due for the acreage released, a
metes and bounds description and, if necessary, a letter from the Health
Department. Once these items are
received by the Foundation, a Preliminary Release document is prepared and sent
to the landowner for signature (and notary).
The landowner returns the release to the Foundation. The document is then circulated for signature
to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees (and notary), the State Treasurer (and
notary), the Secretary of Agriculture (and notary), the Assistant Attorney
General, and the Executive Director of MALPF.
The document is then sent for recordation in the local land
records. The landowner is notified that
the Preliminary Release document has been recorded and he or she may request a
Final Release. The landowner is
instructed to send to the Foundation, a non-transferable building permit. Once
the Foundation receives the building permit, a Final Release is prepared and
sent to the landowner for signature (and notary). The landowner returns the document to the
Foundation and it is circulated once again for signature to the Chairman of the
Board of Trustees (and notary), the State Treasurer (and notary), the Secretary
of Agriculture (and notary), the Assistant Attorney General, and the Executive
Director of MALPF. Finally, the Final
Release is sent for recordation in the local land records.
While the documents
are being circulated, a letter is prepared to accompany each document to each
signatory. Each document must be
tracked. Obviously this process is
time-consuming, using countless man hours.
Additionally, landowners and/or their children often make several phone
calls to the Foundation inquiring about the status of their release. Staff spends a significant amount of time
responding to questions about tracking documents through the system and why
documents cannot be expedited.
Foundation staff
requests the Board’s approval to eliminate the signatures required on the
Preliminary Release with the exception of the executive director. The executive director may not sign a
Preliminary Release document without the prior approval of the release of the
lot by the Board of Trustees.
Mr. Conrad pointed out that counsel points out that
the Board has the right to delegate its signatures if it wishes to do so. MALPF counsel believes that the current
signature requirement for the Preliminary Release is excessive and concurs with
the recommendation of the staff to require only the executive director’s
signature on the Preliminary Release document.
Counsel believes that requiring the signatures on the Final Release
document is sufficient.
Mr. Tassone wondered whether
or not the Board has the ability to change the requirement for the signatures
of the Treasurer, the Secretary of Agriculture, etc., even though it may be
desirable. Mr. Nielsen responded that
the Board can delegate ministerial responsibilities which merely implement a
decision taken by the Board in its meetings.
Mr. Wilson noted that the Foundation will be
systematically reviewing all of the signature pathing
issues, not just for releases. The Board
can ask why it has been done this way and what the Board wants to do to
streamline the process. There may be
good reasons to circulate documents for this many
signatures. However, the case of the
releases is simple and straightforward because it is duplicative, with both a
preliminary and final release being circulated.
Mr. Conrad reminded everyone that the Foundation is
down to a staff of three, so the staff has a deep interest in the outcome of
this request.
Mr. Tassone asked if the
signatories had been consulted and agreed to being cut out of the process. Mr. Wilson responded “no,” but that the Board
can approve this subject to agreement of the signatories. Mr. Tassone asked
if any of the signatories after Jim scrutinize the release document for
legality, consistency, program purpose, etc., and the answer is no, they just
sign based on Jim’s recommendation, then the question is why they should
sign. Mr. Wilson responded that
signatories have called because they have questions about legal documents that
they are signing. However, having a lot
of signatures on innocuous documents is onerous. The Board shouldn’t vote to remove the
Treasurer’s signature until Lewis has been able to explain what is going on and
why, and she agrees.
Ms. Buckle asked if there wasn’t a problem with taking
the landowner’s signature off a recorded document. The Board responded that that was not the
proposal, but rather to take off the signatures of the Treasurer, the Chair of
the Board, and the Secretary of Agriculture.
Motion #10: To approve the proposal to reduce the
number of signatures on the preliminary release after consulting and getting
agreement with the current signatories.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
Motion #11: To
adjourn regular session and go to executive session.
Motion: Lewis Logan Second: Vera Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
The regular session Board meeting was
adjourned at approximately
Respectfully
Submitted:
_____________________________________
James A.
Conrad, Executive Director
_____________________________________
Elizabeth
Weaver, Administrative Officer