CAPTIONING OCTOBER 23, 2009 CONE RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY PANEL ***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the ***following meeting. It should be used for informational ***purposes only. This document has not been edited; ***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words ***that did not translate. >>HEIDI McCREE: THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER OUR CONE RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY PANEL FOR FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23rd, 2009, AND WELCOME TO ALL OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I WANT TO TAKE A FEW MOMENTS BEFORE OUR FIRST AGENDA ITEM JUST TO ANNOUNCE SOME OF YOU REALLY DO NEED TO LEAVE HERE TODAY RIGHT AROUND 4:00, AND YOU CAN NOTE THAT WE HAVE A VERY LONG AGENDA HERE TODAY AND WE WANT TO TRY TO GET THROUGH ALL OF THESE AGENDA ITEMS AND OF COURSE TAKE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT TOO, SO I'VE ASKED THE STAFF WHO ARE GIVING PRESENTATIONS TO TRY TO KEEP THEIR PRESENTATIONS AS CURRENT AND MEANINGFUL AS POSSIBLE. OF COURSE, THEY WILL BE, BUT NOT TO REPEAT ANY OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE ALREADY HEARD AS COMMITTEE MEMBERS BUT TO TRY TO GO RIGHT TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER. TODAY'S AGENDA IS REALLY BUILT AROUND A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE ASKED IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS TO THE COUNTY, AND I WANT TO THANK THE COUNTY STAFF FOR HAVING MET SEVERAL TIMES SINCE WE'VE LAST MET TO CONFER ABOUT THE VARIOUS QUESTIONS WE'VE ASKED AND TO PROVIDE ALL THIS INFORMATION, SO WE'LL GO THROUGH IT AND OF COURSE TAKE QUESTIONS AS WE GO THROUGH EACH AGENDA ITEM, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE EVERYBODY MINDFUL OF OUR TIME CONSTRAINTS TODAY, AND OF COURSE, WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 16th, WHICH WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION IF THE COMMITTEE CHOOSES. SO THE OTHER ITEM I WANTED TO ANNOUNCE IN THE BEGINNING, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, IS WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THIS IS SUCH A -- A CHALLENGE I THINK FOR ALL OF US BECAUSE WE WANT TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AND WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE FOR AS LONG AS THEY'D WISH TO SPEAK, BUT WITH THE TIME CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAVE, WE THINK THAT IT'S PROBABLY BEST THAT WE FOLLOW THE BOCC'S POLICY OF THE THREE-MINUTE LIMIT TODAY, ESPECIALLY IN -- ESPECIALLY BECAUSE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION TO US CAN CERTAINLY DO SO IN WRITING, AND WE CAN POST THAT ON-LINE AND WE CAN ALSO ASK OUR STAFF TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT THE PUBLIC MAY RAISE. I KNOW THAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENED FOR US HERE TODAY. SO IF THE PUBLIC WILL PLEASE RESPECT THAT, AND IF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT, AND THAT WOULD HELP US MOVE THROUGH TODAY'S MEETING I THINK EFFICIENTLY. AND FINALLY, IF EVERYONE CAN JUST NOTE THEIR ELECTRONICS FOR THE -- THE SOUND SYSTEM. I THINK THAT WILL HELP US VERY WELL. THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS -- ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT? I SEE A LOT OF NODDING HEADS, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. -- IS WE'VE RECEIVED THE RECAP FROM OUR LAST MEETING, THE AUGUST 24th, 2009, MEETING, WHICH IF YOU'LL REMEMBER WAS HELD AT THE TAMPA PORT AUTHORITY. I HAVE ACTUALLY RECEIVED AN AMENDMENT TO THOSE MINUTES, WHICH I'LL READ INTO THE RECORD, FROM KRISTIN BENNETT. PAGE 2 OF THE MINUTES WHERE YOU SEE KRISTIN WAS REPRESENTING TETRA TECH, SHE HAS PROVIDED SOME FACTUAL AMENDMENTS TO THE RECAP AS FOLLOWS I'LL JUST READ THOSE. AFTER THE FIRST SENTENCE, THE ADDITION IS, THE PROJECT IS ONE OF TWO PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS CURRENTLY IN PLACE. THIS PROJECT WAS BEGUN IN 1996 IN THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND CONSISTS OF 1,254 ACRES. AND THEN THE LAST SENTENCE THAT HAS BEEN ADDED IS A CREDIT IN QUOTES WORKS OUT TO A ONE-TO-ONE IN PARENS CREDIT ACRE RATIO. THE AMOUNT OF CREDITS NECESSARY TO OFFSET PERMITTED IMPACTS DEPENDS UPON THE ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTIONAL LOSS CREATED BY THE PERMITTED IMPACTS. THIS FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE UNIFORM MITIGATION ASSESSMENT METHOD, UMAM. SO THAT'S BEEN ADDED TO THE MINUTES. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS? DEE. >>DENISE LAYNE: HEIDI, I'D LIKE TO IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH - - WE DID IT IN THE FIRST -- WE MENTIONED THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED. I JUST WANTED TRANSPARENCY, WHO VOTED FOR AND AGAINST THE MOTION. IT SAID 3-3 IT FAILED. I THINK WE NEED TO NAME THE THREE THAT VOTED FOR IT AND THE THREE THAT VOTED AGAINST IT. >>HEIDI McCREE: OKAY. >>DENISE LAYNE: WE DID THAT IN OUR FIRST MINUTES, AND I JUST WANT -- >>HEIDI McCREE: THAT'S FINE. >>DENISE LAYNE: -- TO KEEP THEM CONSISTENT IN CASE SOMEBODY WANTS TO KNOW WHO'S WHAT WHEN THEY'RE REVEALING THEM. >>HEIDI McCREE: EDITH, CAN WE JUST GO BACK AND ADD THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE? >>EDITH STEWART: WE CAN, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE. >>DENISE LAYNE: WE CAN TELL YOU. >>HEIDI McCREE: I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY TELL YOU RIGHT HERE. LET'S -- ALL RIGHT. LET'S JUST RE-READ THE MOTION TO MAKE SURE WE -- ALL RIGHT. DEE MOVED TO RETAIN CONE RANCH AND COUNTY OWNERSHIP, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. >>DENISE LAYNE: JUST ASK THE THREE THAT VOTED FOR IT TO RAISE THEIR HANDS. >>HEIDI McCREE: RIGHT. DO YOU REMEMBER -- I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE REMEMBER WHAT THEY VOTED FOR, WHAT [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] DO YOU REMEMBER? >> YEAH. >>HEIDI McCREE: OKAY. >> IT WAS THE THREE OF US. YOU WEREN'T HERE. >>HEIDI McCREE: YOU WEREN'T HERE. >> [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] >>HEIDI McCREE: WE VOTED AGAINST, THEY VOTED FOR. SO WE'LL REFLECT THOSE NAMES PROPERLY, AND WITH THOSE -- OKAY. THOSE NAMES WILL BE ADDED ACCORDINGLY. >>DENISE LAYNE: JUST TRANSPARENCY REASONS, THAT'S ALL. >>HEIDI McCREE: ANY OTHER -- THANK YOU. ANY OTHER ADDITIONS, CHANGES? HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES. >> SO MOVED. >>HEIDI McCREE: SECOND? >>HUGH GRAMLING: SECOND. >>HEIDI McCREE: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION CARRIES. THOSE MINUTES ARE NOW APPROVED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MIKE MERRILL IS HERE TODAY, AND I WANT TO THANK MIKE FOR WORKING SO HARD WITH THE COUNTY STAFF OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS TO PROVIDE ALL THIS INFORMATION, AND MIKE IS REALLY GOING TO WALK US THROUGH A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, AND THEN OTHER STAFF MEMBERS ARE GOING TO COME BEFORE YOU, SO I'LL JUST TURN THE MEETING OVER TO MIKE AT THIS POINT TO TAKE US THROUGH. THANKS. >>MIKE MERRILL: THANK YOU. I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF A KEY DOCUMENT HERE, WHICH IS -- WAS DISPLAYED UP ON THE SCREEN, BUT IT'S REALLY TOO HARD TO READ UP THERE. IT WAS THE MATRIX, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE, CONE RANCH DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS. I'LL JUST GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF THE OVERARCHING SORT OF THEMES OF THAT, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE BRIEF PRESENTATIONS ON PARTICULAR SEGMENTS FROM SOME OF THE TECHNICAL RESOURCE PEOPLE. AFTER YOUR LAST MEETING AT THE TAMPA PORT AUTHORITY, I OFFERED TO YOU THE ASSISTANCE OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP TO -- TO TRY AND SYNTHESIZE ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAD -- YOU HAD BEEN HEARING, AND THAT'S REALLY THE -- THE RESULT OF THAT IS THIS MATRIX. AND SO REALLY THE PURPOSE, I THINK, OF THAT WAS, FIRST OF ALL, TO ASSIST IN FRAMING YOUR DECISION PROCESS. SECONDLY TO HELP SUGGEST CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES FOR DEALING WITH CONE RANCH, AND THERE'S A SET OF EVALUATION CRITERIA. ALSO IDENTIFYING THE UTILITY SYSTEM AND PRESERVATION INTERESTS THAT MAY DIFFER, MAYBE MAY NOT DIFFER, AND FINALLY JUST MAYBE OFFERS YOU A FRAMEWORK FOR A PROGRESS REPORT TO THE BOARD IN NOVEMBER. SO THE MATRIX BASICALLY, THEN, IS BROKEN DOWN INTO SOME OPTIONS ACROSS THE TOP AND THEN DOWN THE LEFT-HAND SIDE SOME EVALUATION CRITERIA. THE KEY ACQUISITION ALTERNATIVES ARE, FIRST OF ALL, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY OR CONSERVATION EASEMENT BY ELAPP USING ELAPP BONDS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ISSUED. SECONDLY WOULD BE A PRIVATE NONPROFIT CORPORATE PURCHASE EVER SUCH AS FCEG, AND -- EITHER THROUGH REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS OR A SOLE SOURCE, AND SUSAN WILL TALK TO THAT. THIRDLY BY A LAND TRUST SUCH AS NATURE CONSERVANCY. FOURTH TO A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATE PURCHASER THROUGH A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. AND THEN THE FINAL WOULD BE UTILITY SYSTEM WOULD RETAIN OWNERSHIP. AND THEN THERE IS AN OPTION THAT IS REALLY THE FIRST COLUMN, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED AS A HYBRID, AND I THINK THIS IS A USEFUL -- A USEFUL OPTION TO CONSIDER, AND IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY INVOLVE BITS AND PIECES FROM EACH OF THESE. PERHAPS ELAPP WOULD PURCHASE A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND DO WHAT ELAPP DOES WELL, PERHAPS A PRIVATE NONPROFIT WOULD PURCHASE ANOTHER SEGMENT AND DO WHAT THEY WOULD BE DOING, AND THEN FINALLY THE UTILITY SYSTEM MIGHT WANT TO NOT SURPLUS A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND RETAIN IT FOR SOME FUTURE USE. SO IN THAT HYBRID SITUATION, IT'S POSSIBLE MAYBE TO SATISFY A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT INTERESTS, NOT THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING ANY OF THESE AT THIS POINT TO YOU, JUST SIMPLY TO LAY OUT SOME OPTIONS FOR YOU. AND I GUESS I WILL SAY THAT ALL OF THOSE HAVE VALUE, INCLUDING THE -- THE -- THE IDEA OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION INVOLVED BECAUSE ONE OF THE ITEMS YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE MATRIX IS THAT ELAPP DOES HAVE LIMITED CAPACITY -- FUNDING CAPACITY TO -- TO ACHIEVE ITS MISSION, AND I THINK I'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE. THE COUNTY COMMISSION HAS SAID WE WANT TO CAP THE MILLAGE THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED TO PAY DEBT SERVICE ON ELAPP BONDS, BEING SENSITIVE TO GENERAL PROPERTY TAX ISSUES IN -- IN THE COMMUNITY, AND BY LIMITING THE CAP -- OR EXCUSE ME -- LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF MILLAGE THAT CAN BE USED TO PAY DEBT SERVICE IT, IN FACT, THEN, LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF BONDS WE CAN ISSUE, AND AS WE ARE NOW GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO ISSUING THOSE BONDS, THE -- IN FACT THE -- THE VALIDATION HEARING BEFORE CIRCUIT COURT TO VALIDATE THE BONDS IS NEXT THURSDAY. THE NUMBERS WE'RE GETTING IS SOMETHING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ABOUT $55 MILLION IN BOND PROCEEDS THAT COULD BE USED TO ACQUIRE PROPERTIES, AND OF COURSE, YOU'LL HEAR FROM PETE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES ON -- ON THE LIST, AND SO YOU HAVE LIMITED RESOURCES AND PROBABLY MUCH MORE NEEDS THAN THE RESOURCES. SO HAVING A PRIVATE ENTITY HAS VALUE SUCH AS FCEG IN THAT WE DON'T THEN HAVE TO USE THAT ELAPP DEBT CAPACITY FOR -- FOR THIS PURPOSE. SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, THOSE -- THOSE ARE WHAT WE CONSIDERED AS THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP AS SORT OF THE BASIC OPTIONS THAT YOU COULD BE LOOKING AT. EACH ONE OF THOSE HAS ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE'LL -- WE'LL TALK ABOUT. THOSE EVALUATION CRITERIA BREAK DOWN INTO BASICALLY THREE GROUPS, THE EXTENT OF THE SALE, PARTIAL, FULL SALE OF THE PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY IN A HYBRID; THE FORM OF CONSERVATORSHIP, WHETHER IT'S A GOVERNMENTAL, IN THE CASE OF ELAPP WHETHER IT'S PRIVATE WITH A QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT BOARD; THE EXTENT OF PRESERVATION ACHIEVED, WHICH I BELIEVE -- I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOU, BUT THE CONSENSUS SEEMS TO BE SOME SORT OF PERPETUAL PRESERVATION; THE HIGHEST-AND-BEST-USE ISSUE RELATES BACK TO UTILITY SYSTEM OBJECTIVES, WHICH ARE LISTED IN THE CENTER HERE OF THE -- THE GRAPHIC, PRESERVATION BUT FAIR MARKET VALUE, ARM'S-LENGTH SALE, HIGHEST AND BEST USE. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE FORM OF LEGAL CONVEYANCE, WHICH SUSAN WILL TALK ABOUT. YOU HAVE A SECOND GROUP WHICH SPEAKS TO CERTAIN BENEFITS THAT COULD BE DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY. THE ONE YOU'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT IS WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS, AND ANDY WILL BE TALKING TO US ABOUT THAT. CARBON CREDITS IS ANOTHER THAT I'LL BE SPEAKING TO, AND THERE ARE -- IT'S AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT THAT CAN BE EXTRACTED. FEDERAL INCOME TAX BENEFITS THAT WOULD -- COULD OR MAY INURE TO A PRIVATE PURCHASER, AND MARK ADAMS WILL TALK ABOUT THAT, AND ANY CONSERVATION EASEMENT CREDITS THAT MIGHT APPLY. THE THIRD GROUP THEN HAS TO DO WITH REALLY THE -- THE WAY THE PROPERTY'S MANAGED, THE EXTENT OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS. AGAIN, DEPENDS ON WHAT BLEND, WHAT MIX OF INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED. SECONDLY, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. AGAIN, WHO OWNS WHAT, WHO'S GOING TO MANAGE WHAT. ACQUISITION FUNDING SOURCES. THAT GOES BACK TO WHAT I WAS SAYING ABOUT THE ELAPP BOND PROCEEDS. THE ISSUE OF CONTRACTED WATER RIGHTS, WHICH IS THE TAMPA BAY WATER ISSUE. FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE. TAMPA BAY WATER IS -- IS THERE AT THE TABLE. THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHERE DO THEY STAND, WHAT DO THEY WANT, HOW DO THEY WANT TO HELP US. SO THAT'S A KEY THING. AND THEN THERE'S JUST A HOST OF -- OF OTHER ISSUES THAT RELATE TO CONTROL AND TO MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING. SO WITH THAT, THE AGENDA WILL BE TO BRIEFLY HAVE A NUMBER OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY FOLKS COME UP, GIVE YOU A QUICK OVERSIGHT -- OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THESE EVALUATION CRITERIA, LET YOU DISCUSS, ASK QUESTIONS, PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN GIVE US DIRECTION ON WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO DO NEXT. >>HEIDI McCREE: THANKS, MIKE. AND JUST LOOKING AT THIS, AGAIN, THE STAFF'S PUT A LOT OF TIME AND THOUGHT INTO THIS, AND WE'RE GOING TO HEAR SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THE PANEL'S QUERIED OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS, BUT WHAT WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER -- AND YOU-ALL CAN THINK ABOUT THIS -- IS JUST -- YOU KNOW, THIS PROVIDES SOME OPTIONS. AGAIN, WE HAVE TO GET BACK TO THE BOCC AT SOME POINT, AND I THINK THEY'RE -- RECOGNIZING THAT ELAPP WILL BE COMING TO THEM IN DECEMBER WITH THEIR FINAL ANNUAL REPORT, SO AT SOME POINT ELAPP -- WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE -- BUT WILL INCLUDE CONE RANCH. THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF NEXUS BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT THE ELAPP PROCESS IS GOING THROUGH, AND SO WHAT WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER, JUST SOME OVERARCHING, YOU KNOW, PRINCIPLES THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND BACK TO THE BOCC AND COULD EVEN PROVIDE THIS MATRIX OR COULD PROVIDE OUR THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT'S IN THIS MATRIX TO THEM FOR THEIR REVIEW. AS YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM SOME OF THE STAFF HERE TODAY, SOME OF THE NEXT STEPS THAT MIGHT NEED TO OCCUR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS GOING TO NEED TO TAKE THAT ACTION. WE CAN'T ACTUALLY TAKE CERTAIN ACTION, BUT YOU'LL HEAR SOME OF THE ACTIONS THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE TAKEN, AND WE NEED TO CONSIDER FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR THEM TO -- TO GO FORTH. SO I JUST -- AS AN OVERVIEW, AS WE LISTEN TO SOME OF THE STAFF PRESENTATIONS COMING FORWARD. MIKE, ARE YOU GOING TO GO INTO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM ON THE CARBON CREDITS? >>MIKE MERRILL: YES. YES, I WILL. >>HEIDI McCREE: OKAY. >>MIKE MERRILL: THERE IS A PAPER THAT'S ATTACHED HERE THAT DESCRIBES THE PROCESS OF CARBON CREDITS, AND I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A -- A BRIEF OVERVIEW. CARBON CREDITS ARE TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION, INDUSTRIAL MITIGATION, BUT THERE IS A SORT OF NICHE MARKET WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE AMOUNT OF CO2, THE BAD STUFF, THAT GETS SEQUESTERED OR SOAKED UP BY FORESTS AND OTHER SIMILAR TYPES OF -- OF NATURAL STATES THAT CAN SEQUESTER THAT CARBON AND -- SO THAT -- SO THAT AVOIDING DEFORESTATION, AVOIDING THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WETLANDS AND FORESTS ENHANCES THE ABILITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO DRAW CO2 OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE, AND SO THERE HAS DEVELOPED, IN FACT, A MARKET -- COMMERCIAL MARKET TRADED ON VARIOUS COMMODITY EXCHANGES TO BUY AND SELL CREDITS ASSOCIATED WITH A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CARBON THAT GETS SEQUESTERED IN THE LAND. NOW, WE ARE WORKING WITH EPC, AND I JUST FOUND OUT THIS WEEK THAT WE GOT THE GO-AHEAD, THE FUNDING GO-AHEAD FROM EPC TO BEGIN A STUDY OF SOME OF OUR EXISTING ELAPP LANDS, HAVE A CERTIFIED FORESTER OR EXPERT GO OUT INTO SOME OF OUR EXISTING ELAPP LANDS, DO THE STUDY TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH CARBON IS ACTUALLY CURRENTLY BEING SEQUESTERED. FROM THAT WE CAN DETERMINE WHAT THE ECONOMIC VALUE WOULD BE IN SELLING THAT CREDIT TO SOMEBODY WHO IS A POLLUTER WHO WANTS TO OFFSET THE POLLUTION THAT THEY'RE CREATING. THAT'S BASICALLY THE WAY THE CARBON CREDITS WORK. SO THERE IS A VALUE TO THAT. THERE WOULD BE -- THERE IS LIKELY AND WOULD BE A VALUE TO THE CARBON -- CARBON THAT'S BEING SEQUESTERED ON CONE RANCH TRANSLATED INTO AN ECONOMIC VALUE OF CARBON CREDITS. THE OTHER ISSUE THAT I'VE BEEN ASKED TO TALK ABOUT -- AND I WILL SAY THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT -- OR THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENT, THE VALUE OF THOSE CREDITS WOULD REMAIN WITH THE UTILITY SYSTEM AS THE CURRENT OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY. SO IT WOULD BE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION OF A SALE. THE OTHER ISSUE I'VE BEEN ASKED TO SPEAK ABOUT IS AD VALOREM CONSIDERATIONS. THAT SIMPLY GOES TO WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY. WHEN A COUNTY OWNS A PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT IS CONSIDERED IMMUNE FROM TAXATION, AND SO THERE IS NO PROPERTY TAXES THAT CAN BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTY. WHEN YOU MOVE AWAY FROM A COUNTY AND YOU GET -- YOU GET TO NONPROFIT, YOU GET TO EVEN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TAMPA SPORTS AUTHORITY OR -- AS YOU GET FURTHER AWAY FROM A COUNTY INTO A PRIVATE SITUATION, THE PROPERTY BECOMES SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXES SO THAT THAT'S A CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S STILL ON THE TAX ROLL AND MAY NOT BE A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION OVERALL FOR -- FOR THIS GROUP, BUT IT'S SOMETHING TO JUST BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION. THAT'S REALLY WHAT I HAD TO SAY ON THOSE TWO ISSUES UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. YES. >>DENISE LAYNE: MIKE, I'VE READ THIS, BUT I -- THE ONE QUESTION THAT STILL LOOMS -- AND I ASKED IT LAST MEETING -- AND I SAW YOU MENTION CONSERVATION EASEMENTS BY ELAPP IN HERE, SO WE'RE PUTTING -- IF WE PUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT BY ELAPP OVER THE WATER DEPARTMENT OWNING IT -- >>MIKE MERRILL: UH-HUH. >>DENISE LAYNE: -- IF WE WENT INTO THIS WETLANDS -- ASSUMING TAMPA BAY WATER COOPERATES AND ALL THAT, BUT ASSUMING WE WENT INTO THE CARBON CREDITS AND THE WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING AND ALL THAT -- BECAUSE THE OWNERSHIP IS STILL WITH THE UTILITY -- DOES THAT MEAN ALL THE MONEY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GENERATING FROM THOSE CREDITS AGAIN GOES BACK INTO THAT UTILITY POT THAT CAN'T GO FOR RESTORATION, OR BECAUSE ELAPP HAS THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND NOW TECHNICALLY CONTROLS THE PROPERTY WITH THE MONEY GOING TO ELAPP TO GO TOWARD THE RESTORATION? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION? THAT'S A KEY QUESTION TO THIS. >>MIKE MERRILL: YES. THE WAY THAT -- I'M TRYING TO THINK OF -- >>DENISE LAYNE: YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? >>MIKE MERRILL: YES. I'M TRYING TO THINK OF AN ANALOGY. I GUESS IT WOULD BE -- IF IT WERE OIL AND GAS RIGHTS, FOR EXAMPLE, ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, THOSE OIL AND GAS RIGHTS BELONG TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND SO IF THE -- IF THE OWNER'S GOING TO DISPOSE OF IT, THE PROPERTY ITSELF, THE OWNER WOULD WANT TO GET COMPENSATED FOR THOSE OIL AND GAS RIGHTS. THAT'S THE ANALOGY AS IT RELATES TO WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING, CARBON CREDITS, ANY OTHER -- THE VALUE IS -- IS -- RESIDES WITH THE OWNER. WHEN THE OWNER DISPOSES OF AN ASSET, IT WANTS TO BE COMPENSATED FOR ALL OF THOSE -- ALL OF THOSE VALUES. >>DENISE LAYNE: SO ELAPP WOULD EITHER HAVE TO COME UP WITH MORE MONEY ON TOP OF THE -- THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT PART, THEY'D HAVE TO COME UP WITH ADDITIONAL MONEY BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS? >>MIKE MERRILL: NO, NOT NECESSARILY. I MEAN, THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT BECAUSE ALL THEY'RE BUYING IS THE EASEMENT, AND THE UTILITY SYSTEM THEN STILL COULD HAVE A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WITH SOMEONE AS IT RELATES TO CARBON CREDITS, WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS THAT ELAPP DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR. ALL THEY'RE BUYING IS JUST THE EASEMENT, NOT THE UNDERLYING INTEREST IN THE LAND. >>DENISE LAYNE: I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT -- IF THE MONEY -- BUT I WAS TOLD THAT THE WATER DEPARTMENT, IF THEY STILL OWN IT AND THESE CREDITS COME, THEY CAN'T GIVE IT AWAY, THEY CAN'T LET IT GO FOR RESTORATION, IT'S GOT TO GO INTO THE POT OF NEW PROJECT MONEY OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED. >>MIKE MERRILL: RIGHT. >>DENISE LAYNE: SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING -- AND THAT'S WHY I JUST WANT TO -- I'M TRYING TO ELIMINATE CERTAIN THINGS BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE -- THAT ELAPP BUYING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT WILL NOT WORK FOR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO REALLY AND TRULY WITH -- IF WE WANT WETLAND MITIGATION, WE WANT SELF -- HAVING -- HAVING OTHER THINGS PAY FOR THAT RESTORATION ON-SITE. IF THE OWNERSHIP STAYS WITH THE UTILITY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THERE WITH THE RESTORATION, PERIOD, WHETHER IT'S A CONSERVATION EASEMENT -- DOESN'T MATTER; RIGHT? >>MIKE MERRILL: NO, NOT NECESSARILY. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAD A NICE PRESENTATION BY THE LADY FROM TETRA TECH, WHICH IS A COMPANY THAT BASICALLY DOES THIS FOR THEIR LIVING, SO THAT THE DISTINCTION IS -- AND MARK CAN THROW A ROCK AT ME HERE AS BOND COUNSEL, BUT THE DISTINCTION IS THAT, YES, THE UTILITY SYSTEM HAS TO GET SOME VALUE OUT OF IT. WHAT THEY CANNOT BE DOING IS USING THEIR RESOURCES TO DO THINGS THAT ARE NOT THE MISSION OF THE UTILITY SYSTEM. IT'S NOT THEIR MISSION TO RESTORE PROPERTY, BUT IF THEY WERE TO HAVE A CONTRACT, AN ARRANGEMENT WITH A COMPANY WHEREBY THEY RECEIVE SOME VALUE FOR THAT CONTRACT BUT THEN THE RESTORATION WAS THE BUSINESS OF THE -- OF TETRA TECH, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THAT CASE TETRA TECH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING, RESTORING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. THE UTILITY SYSTEM WOULD HAVE RECEIVED SOME COMPENSATION FOR THAT CONTRACT. >>DENISE LAYNE: OKAY. GOTCHA. >>MIKE MERRILL: THAT'S A WAY TO GET THERE. >>DENISE LAYNE: GOTCHA. >>MIKE MERRILL: IS THAT CORRECT, MARK? >> YES. >>DENISE LAYNE: OKAY. SO IT CAN BE DONE THROUGH CONSERVATION EASEMENT VERSUS OUTRIGHT BUYING THE LAND BECAUSE, AGAIN, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WE OWN THE LAND. >>MIKE MERRILL: RIGHT. >>DENISE LAYNE: AND IF WE CAN PAY LESS TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO ACHIEVE WHERE WE WANT TO GO BY PAYING HALF -- I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, I'M THROWING A FIGURE OUT -- THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. >>MIKE MERRILL: RIGHT. >>DENISE LAYNE: BUT WE'VE GOT TO BE ABLE -- I MEAN, AGAIN, SELF-GENERATING THE TREE LEASE ON THERE, THE -- I MEAN ALL THAT STUFF IS GENERATING MONEY. RIGHT NOW IT'S GOING INTO THE UTILITY. I JUST -- IS THERE A WAY WITHOUT HURTING THE BOND AGAIN? >>MIKE MERRILL: YES. >>DENISE LAYNE: YOU SAID YES, SO -- >>MIKE MERRILL: YES. >>DENISE LAYNE: THANK YOU. >>HEIDI McCREE: LET'S HAVE PETE FOWLER SPEAK TO THE ELAPP RANKING AND SELECTION PROCESS, AND THEN WE CAN GET INTO ANYMORE DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELAPP AND WHAT THE COUNTY MAY HAVE TO ADDRESS. PETE. THANK YOU, MIKE. >>PETER FOWLER: OKAY. YOU SHOULD HAVE A HANDOUT IN YOUR PACKET THAT SHOWS THE CONE RANCH RANKING IN 1998 AND THEN AGAIN IN 2009. I MIGHT POINT OUT -- IT ISN'T ON HERE, BUT THE FULL 12,000 ACRES WAS EVALUATED THIS TIME. PREVIOUSLY IT WAS LESS THAN THAT AMOUNT. AND YOU CAN SEE GOING THROUGH -- THIS IS THE ACTUAL CRITERIA THAT THE SITE SELECTION TEAM VOTES ON AND COMES TO A CONSENSUS, AND IT -- IT DID MOVE FROM A CLASS "B" SITE TO A CLASS "A." THE ANNUAL REPORT GOES TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN DECEMBER. IT'LL GO TO OUR PARKS ADVISORY BOARD IN NOVEMBER AND WILL INCLUDE THE CONE RANCH, SO HOPEFULLY -- HISTORICALLY THE BOARD HAS NOT CHANGED ANY RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PAST 23 YEARS, SO THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THAT IT WILL BE APPROVED. >>HEIDI McCREE: SO THAT'S -- THAT'S THE UPDATE. AND IF YOU-ALL RECALL, WE HAVEN'T MET SINCE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15th, WHICH -- TO ALLOW ELAPP TO GO FORTH AND GO THROUGH THIS SITE EVALUATION PROCESS, WHICH IT DID, AND PETE'S PRESENTATION GIVES YOU THE UPDATE. NOW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING NOTHING WILL OCCUR TO MOVE ANY OF THAT FORWARD UNTIL AFTER THE BOARD RECEIVES THE FINAL REPORT IN DECEMBER; CORRECT? >>PETER FOWLER: THAT'S CORRECT. >>HEIDI McCREE: SO THERE'S NO -- BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT -- AND I THINK MIKE SAID THIS AT THE OUTSET. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT THE BOARD'S REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE ULTIMATELY DECISIONS IS WITH THE LIMITED RESOURCES THAT ELAPP WILL HAVE AND ALL OF THE SITES ON ELAPP'S LIST HOW TO PRIORITIZE WHERE TO SPEND THOSE ELAPP DOLLARS, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE MINDFUL HERE -- OF HERE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE DOLLARS YET TO DISCUSS OR WE DON'T KNOW THAT. THE BOARD'S GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY ADDRESS THAT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD IN SORT OF THE SIMILAR TIME FRAME AND SAY HERE'S WHERE WE ARE FROM THE CONE RANCH ADVISORY PANEL, RECOGNIZING THAT ELAPP'S OUT THERE WITH ITS PRESENTATION. SO -- ANY OTHER -- ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT REGARDING THE PROCESS OR WHERE WE ARE WITH ELAPP? REALLY, IT HAS TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD IN DECEMBER, AND YOU CAN CONTINUE TO HEAR ME DRIVING THE POINT THAT WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD IN A SIMILAR TIME FRAME WITH AN UPDATE AS TO WHERE WE ARE WITH SOME SORT OF COORDINATED FLOW OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WE THINK IS THE BEST WAY TO GO FORTH AND PROTECT CONE RANCH, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES IF NOT RECOMMENDATIONS IS THAT WE WANT TO SEE THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF CONE RANCH, LET THE BOARD SET US UP TO GO FORTH AND EVALUATE. SO HEARING NO QUESTIONS, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PRESENTATION AND THEN MOVE FORWARD LATER INTO A DISCUSSION. THE NEXT ISSUE THAT WAS -- WE HEARD GREAT PRESENTATIONS ON MITIGATION BANKING AT OUR LAST MEETING. MANY QUESTIONS WERE ASKED, AND ANDY -- ANDREW -- SORRY -- IS HERE TO GIVE HIS PRESENTATION AS A FOLLOW-UP. >>ANDREW ZODROW: YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. I REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD BEYOND THE MEMORANDUM THAT I PROVIDED. EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE THAT AS PART OF THE DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS. THE MEMORANDUM THAT I WROTE WAS PRETTY GENERAL IN NATURE, AND IT HAD TO BE PRETTY GENERAL BECAUSE ANYTHING BEYOND THAT MEMORANDUM STARTS GETTING VERY TECHNICAL AND WOULD INVOLVE A WHOLE NEW REVIEW, LIKE HOW MANY CREDITS ARE AVAILABLE AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS, BUT THE BASIC PREMISE OF MY MEMORANDUM AND MY DISCUSSION WAS THAT CONE RANCH HAS A SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR USE AS A MITIGATION BANK, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR A REVENUE STREAM TO SATISFY ANY ENCUMBRANCES OR ANY -- ANY -- ANYTHING THAT THE COUNTY MIGHT NEED THOSE FUNDS FOR, AND IT WOULD ULTIMATELY ALLOW THE AREA TO BE RESTORED AND KEPT IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP WHERE IT COULD BE USED FOR PUBLIC RECREATIONAL PURPOSES. AGAIN, ANYTHING REALLY BEYOND MY MEMO IS STARTING TO GET TECHNICAL BECAUSE IT -- MY MEMO REALLY BEGS THE QUESTION, WELL, HOW MANY CREDITS CAN YOU GET, WHAT IS -- WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL, AND I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. THAT WOULD INVOLVE A VERY SPECIFIC ANALYSIS WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WHO'S THE PERMITTING AGENCY, AND THE COUNTY AND EPC AND EVERYBODY ELSE INVOLVED. I ALSO CAN'T REALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUES -- I RAISED THEM IN MY MEMO -- BECAUSE THERE ARE ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE, BUT THE ISSUE OF THE OWNERSHIP BY THE WATER DEPARTMENT AND THE TAMPA BAY WATER EASEMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY. THOSE ARE ISSUES OUT THERE THAT WILL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED; HOWEVER, I CAN'T REALLY DO THAT. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS -- IS THAT THERE IS -- THERE'S POTENTIAL TO USE THAT, AND -- AND I CAME UP WITH TWO OPTIONS. EITHER THE COUNTY COULD DO IT ITSELF AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF MITIGATION BANKING AS THE PUBLIC ENTITY, OR WE COULD ENTER INTO A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH A THIRD- PARTY MITIGATION BANKING CONSULTANT AND DO IT THAT WAY. I GAVE A FEW PROS AND CONS TO EACH, AND THEN I JUST SORT OF LEFT IT AT THAT, AND I'M REALLY OPEN TO QUESTIONS. I GUESS THAT'S PROBABLY THE EASIEST WAY TO ADDRESS THAT. >>HEIDI McCREE: AND JUST TO GET BACK TO THIS -- THIS MATRIX, WHICH I'M SURE WE'RE ALL SITTING HERE TRYING TO DECIPHER AS WE GO FORTH, YOUR -- THE MITIGATION BANKING ASPECT OF IT WOULD CUT ACROSS ANY OF THESE OPTIONS; CORRECT? >>ANDREW ZODROW: CORRECT. >>HEIDI McCREE: A MITIGATION BANK COULD OCCUR WITH -- >>ANDREW ZODROW: YEAH, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH MY UNDERSTANDING, YEAH. IT COULD BE PRIVATE, IT COULD BE ANYBODY, ELAPP. >>HEIDI McCREE: QUESTIONS FOR ANDREW AT THIS POINT? >> OR BOB. >>HEIDI McCREE: OR BOB. THANKS FOR THE MEMO. APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ED HELVENSTON, OVERVIEW OF CONE RANCH WATER RIGHTS. >>ED HELVENSTON: AGAIN, THERE'S A MEMO IN YOUR PACKET ON THIS ISSUE. I'LL JUST KEEP THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ARTICLE. I THINK THE KEY POINT -- AND THERE'S A LOT OF MISUNDERSTANDING AROUND THE TERM "WATER RIGHTS." WHAT TAMPA BAY WATER HAS IS A CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO DEVELOP A WELLFIELD ON THE PROPERTY, AND THIS CONTRACTUAL RIGHT AROSE OUT OF A SERIES OF 1998 AGREEMENTS WHEREBY WEST COAST, WHICH WAS THE PREDECESSOR OF TAMPA BAY WATER, SOLD THE PROPERTY TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND AT THAT TIME RETAINED THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP A WELLFIELD ON THE PROPERTY. AT THE TIME THE CONTEMPLATION WAS THAT WEST COAST WOULD DEVELOP A LARGE PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLFIELD ON THE PROPERTY BASICALLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. SINCE 1980 THERE HAS BEEN AN AGREEMENT WHEREBY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HAD BASICALLY GIVEN WEST COAST PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVELOPING PUBLIC SUPPLY SOURCES WITHIN THE COUNTY, AND THIS AGREEMENT WAS A LOGICAL OFFSHOOT OF THAT. THIS CONTRACTUAL RIGHT INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RIGHT TO SINK WELLS BUT ALSO THE RIGHT TO BUILD ROADS, PUMP HOUSES, WHATEVER THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WELLFIELD. THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THAT IS THAT IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANYONE TO GO OUT AND DO ANY SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION ON THAT PROPERTY OR IMPOSE OTHER OBLIGATIONS ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS A MITIGATION BANK WITHOUT OBTAINING A RELEASE FROM TAMPA BAY WATER BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THEY CAN SINK A WELL ANYWHERE ON THAT PROPERTY THEY WANT TO, BUILD A ROAD ANYWHERE ON THAT PROPERTY THEY WANT TO. VERY SIGNIFICANTLY, THOUGH, THEIR CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE WELLFIELD IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO GET A PERMIT FROM THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, A WATER USE PERMIT TO WITHDRAW ANY WATER FROM THAT PROPERTY, AND THEY CAN ONLY DEVELOP THE WELLFIELD TO THE EXTENT THEY CAN GET A PERMIT FROM SWFWMD TO WITHDRAW WATER FROM THE PROPERTY. AND THE WORLD HAS CHANGED QUITE A BIT SINCE 1988. AT THAT TIME IT WAS ANTICIPATED THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO WITHDRAW AS MUCH AS 50 MILLION GALLONS -- THAT NUMBER WAS THROWN AROUND -- OUT OF THE CONE RANCH PROPERTY. SUBSEQUENT TO '88 THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES IN SWFWMD'S RULES. THEY'VE BECOME SUBSTANTIALLY MORE RESTRICTIVE. SWFWMD HAS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE HYDROGEOLOGY OF THAT AREA, AND AS A RESULT, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT WOULD BE ANTICIPATED THAT THE TAMPA BAY WATER WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO WITHDRAW ANYTHING CLOSE TO THAT FROM THE WELLFIELD PROPERTY. IN FACT, PROBABLY THE BEST ASSESSMENT RIGHT NOW IS THAT TAMPA BAY WATER COULD WITHDRAW SOME PERMITABLE QUANTITY FROM THE PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ZERO, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEY PROBABLY CAN'T WITHDRAW ENOUGH WATER FROM THE PROPERTY TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENSE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE VERY LONG PIPELINE SYSTEM THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GET THE WATER FROM CONE RANCH TO WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE '88 AGREEMENT THAT SAYS THAT IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE USED AS A WATER SUPPLY RESOURCE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD REVERT TO THE COUNTY AND TAMPA BAY WATER WOULD NO LONGER HAVE ANY RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT IT -- AGAIN, AS I'VE INDICATED, I THINK IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO GET A PERMIT FOR SOME QUANTITY, MAYBE JUST NOT AN ECONOMICAL VIABLE QUANTITY OUT OF THE WELLFIELD AT THIS TIME. EXCUSE ME. ANYWAY, I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE AT THIS POINT, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN INDICATED BY A COUPLE OF THE SPEAKERS, IS THAT ANYBODY WHO PLANS ON ANY KIND OF SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY, BE IT CONSTRUCTION, BE IT MITIGATION BANKING, IS GOING TO NEED TO TALK TO TAMPA BAY WATER ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT AS COMPENSATION FOR THEIR WATER RIGHTS, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY SPECULATIVE FOR ANY OF US TO SIT HERE AND TRY AND TALK ABOUT WHAT TAMPA BAY WATER WANTS UNTIL SOME ENTITY OR PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO, YOU KNOW, FORMAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH TAMPA BAY WATER TO FIND OUT WHERE THEY ARE ON THIS ISSUE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. >>HEIDI McCREE: ROSANNE. >>ROSANNE CLEMENTI: HAS ANYBODY ASKED TAMPA BAY WATER OF THEIR OPINION OR THE NEEDS FOR THIS EASEMENT AND -- I MEAN, HAS ANYBODY BROACHED THE QUESTION AT ALL EVER? >>ED HELVENSTON: THE QUESTION HAS BEEN BROACHED FROM TIME TO TIME. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A FORMAL RESPONSE FROM TAMPA BAY WATER AT THIS POINT IN TIME AS TO WHAT THEY WOULD OR WOULD NOT WANT. >>HEIDI McCREE: FELIX. >>FELIX HAYNES: I'M THINKING WE CAN SURMISE THAT RIGHT NOW THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY QUESTION IS WHAT'S HOLDING THEM BACK FROM GOING IN AND ALSO SWFWMD'S MORE RESTRICTIVE POLICIES. HAVE -- HAVE THEY MADE ANY STATEMENTS, TAMPA BAY WATER MADE ANY STATEMENTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 25 YEARS FROM NOW IF THIS HAPPENS, IF THIS HAPPENS, IF THIS HAPPENS WE WOULD OVERCOME THOSE CONSTRAINTS AND SINK THESE WELLS OR -- >>ED HELVENSTON: THE PROPERTY IS -- FROM A STATUS POINT AT TAMPA BAY WATER, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DEFERRED OUT PAST 2020. THEY DON'T ANTICIPATE ANYWHERE IN THE NEAR-TERM DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY AS A WATER SUPPLY WELLFIELD. THAT'S -- BUT IT'S STILL ON THE BOOKS, IT'S STILL A POTENTIAL ASSET. >>HEIDI McCREE: IT'S MY RECOLLECTION IN ONE OF OUR ORIGINAL PRESENTATIONS -- AND AGAIN, WE CAN'T SPEAK FOR TAMPA BAY WATER. I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE -- EITHER WE WOULD HAVE TO ASK SOMEONE TO COME SPEAK TO US, AND WE CAN DO THAT, OR WE COULD RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE ADDRESSED, BUT I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT -- AND WE JUST HAVEN'T HAD A FORMAL RESPONSE, I GUESS, SO WE PROBABLY NEED TO HAVE THAT AS ONE OF OUR ACTION ITEMS. DEE. >>DENISE LAYNE: WE CAN GET INTO THE RECOMMENDATIONS LATER, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND ALLOWING THE COMMISSION TO GET BEHIND THAT TAMPA BAY WATER INITIATIVE TO GO TO TAMPA BAY WATER VERSUS US PULLING THEM IN HERE, AND I JUST THINK THE POLITICS THE WAY THEY ARE SOMETIMES WITH THIS STUFF -- AND WE DO HAVE TWO BOARD MEMBERS FROM OUR COMMISSION SITTING ON THAT. YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE SHOULD LEAVE THAT. MY ONLY QUESTION WITH THE WATER RIGHTS -- AND I THINK I READ THIS IN HERE, ED, AND I JUST WANT YOU TO CONFIRM. WE COULD POTENTIALLY SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO DO WETLAND MITIGATION ON THIS SPECIFIC AREA, THIS SPECIFIC AREA, AND THIS ONE, AND ASK TAMPA BAY WATER TO RELIEVE THOSE RIGHTS IN THOSE SPECIFIC AREAS AND -- YOU KNOW, AND COMPENSATE -- I MEAN, THAT'S AT LEAST DOABLE IF THEY'RE A AGREEABLE; RIGHT? >>ED HELVENSTON: SURE. THEY COULD ALWAYS GIVE US A PARTIAL RELIEF. >>HEIDI McCREE: AND AGAIN, THIS ISSUE ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY STAFF ANALYSIS AND THIS MATRIX CUTS ACROSS ALL OPTIONS, SO IF ANY OF THESE OPTIONS WERE TO MOVE FORWARD, THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO STILL, YOU KNOW -- THAT WOULD -- THIS ISSUE WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. WE CAN'T ADDRESS IT HERE TODAY, BUT IT IT'S AN ISSUE OUT THERE WE NEED TO RAISE. FELIX. >>FELIX HAYNES: [INAUDIBLE] TAMPA BAY WATER BLOCKING ANY ATTEMPTS AT RESTORATION OR WETLAND MITIGATION? [INAUDIBLE] >>DENISE LAYNE: I WOULD THINK AT THIS POINT -- BECAUSE I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THE TAMPA BAY WATER STUFF TOO, AND -- AND AGAIN, THIS USED TO BE IN THE TOP TEN OF THEIR PROJECTS, AND IT'S AT THE BOTTOM FIVE AND 20 YEARS OUT, SO MAYBE THE MOTIVATION WOULD BE FOR THEM AT THIS POINT -- IT'S NOT HIGH ON THEIR LIST -- TO WORK SOMETHING OUT, EVEN IF IT'S PARTIAL, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M HOPING, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, WE CAN MOVE THAT WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT RECOMMENDATIONS IS SAYING, HEY, YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT WHERE YOUR WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS ARE, ASK TAMPA BAY WATER TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE UP THEIR RIGHTS OR BUY THEM ON THOSE AREAS, SO THAT COULD BE PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN THEY'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO PURSUE IT AND SEE WHERE IT GOES FROM THERE. TAMPA BAY WATER COULD SAY [SOUND EFFECT], YOU KNOW, BUT -- YOU KNOW, THE CLIMATE RIGHT NOW IS PRETTY GOOD SINCE IT'S NOT HIGH ON THEIR RADAR AS AN ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE. >>HEIDI McCREE: THANK YOU, ED. OH, I'M SORRY, VIVIENNE. YEAH. >>VIVIENNE HANDY: JUST SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT CLAUSE THAT YOU SAID THAT -- UNDER -- NOW, WHAT WAS THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WOULD HAVE TO -- THEY WOULD REVERT THOSE RIGHTS BACK TO THE COUNTY? >>ED HELVENSTON: THE LANGUAGE IN THE AGREEMENT BASICALLY SAYS IF IT CANNOT BE USED AS A WATER RESOURCE THAT IT WOULD REVERT TO -- THE RIGHTS WOULD REVERT TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. >>VIVIENNE HANDY: OKAY. AND THEN YOU ALSO REFERRED TO COMPENSATING TAMPA BAY WATER FOR THEIR WATER RIGHTS IF THEY WERE TO BE GIVEN UP. THAT SORT OF ASSUMES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO WANT SOME FORM OF COMPENSATION, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE THE CASE; IS THAT CORRECT? >>ED HELVENSTON: I -- I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS FOR FREE. >>VIVIENNE HANDY: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>PAMELA JO HATLEY: HEIDI. >>HEIDI McCREE: YEAH, PAMELA JO. >>PAMELA JO HATLEY: I WAS INTERESTED IN THAT PROVISION AS WELL. I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S SIGNIFICANT, IF IT CANNOT BE USED AS A WATER SUPPLY RESOURCE. SO, YOU KNOW, HOW WOULD THAT BE DETERMINED AND MIGHT WE EXPLORE THAT QUESTION? >>ED HELVENSTON: THAT'S WHY I MADE THE COMMENT, I'M NOT SURE I KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS OR ANYBODY KNOWS WHAT THAT MEANS RIGHT NOW, BUT AGAIN, THE -- TAMPA BAY WATER COULD GO TOMORROW AND OBTAIN A PERMITABLE QUANTITY OF WATER FROM THE PROPERTY, I MEAN, WHETHER IT'S TWO MGD OR THREE OR FOUR MGD OR WHATEVER, SO IN THAT SENSE, I GUESS THEY COULD USE IT AS A WATER SUPPLY RESOURCE, AND I THINK THEY'D PROBABLY TAKE THAT POSITION. YOU KNOW, IT'S PREMATURE TO KIND OF COME TO ANY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THAT. I THINK -- YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN CHALLENGING THAT LANGUAGE, I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, THE MORE APPROPRIATE COURSE WOULD BE TO TALK TO TAMPA BAY WATER AND SEE WHAT THEY WANT FOR THEIR PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE'S OUT THERE AND I WANTED TO POINT IT OUT TO THE BOARD, BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PUT TOO MUCH WEIGHT ON THAT, AT LEAST IN THE SHORT-TERM. >>HEIDI McCREE: WELL, AND IF I MAY AS AN ATTORNEY SPEAKING ON THIS, AT ONE OF OUR INITIAL PRESENTATIONS THERE WERE A LIST OF ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY, AND I REMEMBER TAMPA BAY WATER -- THIS IS ONE OF THEM, SO CLEARLY THIS IS ONE THAT YOU-ALL ARE RAISING AS AN ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF MOVING FORWARD. SOME OF THE OTHERS HAVE BEEN FELT THAT THEY COULD BE WORKED THROUGH IF NECESSARY, BUT THIS IS ONE THAT MAYBE NEEDS TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE SCRUTINY. >>ED HELVENSTON: THIS IS A BIG ONE IF YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT PROPERTY. >>HEIDI McCREE: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IS OUT THERE. THAT'S AN ISSUE. THANK YOU, ED. SUSAN FERNANDEZ IS OUR NEXT ATTORNEY WHO WILL SPEAK TO US ON THE ISSUE OF THE LEGAL CONVEYANCE OF COUNTY PROPERTY. >>SUSAN FERNANDEZ: GOOD AFTERNOON. >>HEIDI McCREE: GOOD AFTERNOON, SUSAN. >>SUSAN FERNANDEZ: THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION, SO I'M GOING TO BE BRIEF, BUT I WANTED TO GO THROUGH IT ONE MORE TIME SO EVERYONE'S CLEAR. IN GENERAL -- IN GENERAL, COUNTY PROPERTY IS DISPOSED OF THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS, BUT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS. SECTION 125.38 OF THE STATUTES AUTHORIZES THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO SELL PROPERTY THAT IS NOT NEEDED FOR COUNTY PURPOSES TO ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OR TO A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION IF IT PROMOTES THE COMMUNITY INTEREST AND WELFARE TO DO SO. NO COMPETITIVE PROCESS IS REQUIRED. THE STATUTE ALLOWS THE BOARD TO SELL OR LEASE THE PROPERTY FOR WHATEVER PRICE THE BOARD MAY DETERMINE, EVEN IF IT'S A NOMINAL AMOUNT, AND REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THERE IS, HOWEVER, A HUGE CAVEAT WITH REGARD TO CONE RANCH. EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES THAT TYPE OF A SALE AT WHATEVER PRICE THE BOARD MAY DETERMINE, THE BOND COVENANTS APPLICABLE TO CONE RANCH HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. SO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CONE RANCH IS SOLD THROUGH A COMPETITIVE OR A NONCOMPETITIVE PROCESS -- EXCUSE ME -- TO A FOR-PROFIT OR NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OR TO A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, THE BOND RESOLUTION REQUIRES THAT ANY DISPOSITION OF CONE RANCH BE FOR FAIR MARKET VALUE. NOW, BASED ON THE STATUTE AND BEARING IN MIND THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE BOND COVENANTS, A SALE TO A CONSERVATION LAND TRUST SUCH AS THAT PROPOSED BY FCEG FOR FAIR MARKET VALUE COULD BE DONE DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT ANY KIND OF A COMPETITIVE PROCESS. YOU COULD DO A COMPETITIVE PROCESS, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS NOT REQUIRED. ANOTHER POSSIBLE TRANSACTION, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED BY MIKE MERRILL EARLIER IN THE MEETING, IS THAT ELAPP COULD PROVIDE FUNDS TO BUY A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER ALL OR A PART OF CONE RANCH AT FAIR MARKET VALUE WITH THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT ITSELF BEING GRANTED TO SWFWMD FOR NOMINAL CONSIDERATION. THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE PRESERVATION OBJECTIVE BY ENCUMBERING THE PROPERTY WITH A -- A CONSERVATION EASEMENT HELD BY A STATE AGENCY. THE WATER DEPARTMENT WOULD RECEIVE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE INTEREST GRANTED, WHICH WOULD SATISFY THE BOND COVENANTS, AND THEY WOULD RETAIN THE UNDERLYING FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO CONE RANCH, WHICH MIGHT BE USED FOR SOME SORT OF MITIGATION BANKING, THEREBY PROVIDING A REVENUE STREAM FOR THE UTILITY SYSTEM. THAT TYPE OF A TRANSACTION WOULD ALSO BE VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE ELAPP ORDINANCE, WHICH ALLOWS PARCELS ACQUIRED FOR PRESERVATION TO BE HELD BY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SO LONG AS THE USE OF THE PROPERTY BY THAT PUBLIC AGENCY IS CONSISTENT WITH ELAPP, WITH PRESERVING, PROTECTING, MANAGING, AND RESTORING THE PROPERTY. ALL OF THE -- THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT I'VE OUTLINED ARE INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP. THEY'RE ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "F." IT'S A SINGLE PAGE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM, BUT AGAIN, MOST OF THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION, SO I WANTED TO BE BRIEF. >>HEIDI McCREE: SUSAN -- AND WHERE YOUR PRESENTATION IS REFLECTED AGAIN IN THIS MATRIX IS ROW "E," I BELIEVE, POTENTIAL METHOD OF SALE WHERE IT LISTS SOLE SOURCE, COMPETITIVE, SOLE SOURCE, COMPETITIVE; CORRECT? >>SUSAN FERNANDEZ: RIGHT. >>HEIDI McCREE: SO THAT'S JUST FOR YOUR EASE OF LOOKING AT THE MATRIX. AGAIN, THAT FIRST COLUMN BEING A HYBRID, SO PORTIONS OF THAT MIGHT HAVE TO BE COMPETITIVELY BID AND OTHER PORTIONS COULD BE A SOLE SOURCE. AND MY UNDERSTANDING -- BECAUSE I'VE ASKED YOU OR ASKED SOME OF THE STAFF ABOUT THIS -- IS THE DECISION IS A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' DECISION. WE CAN RECOMMEND THAT THEY GO ON A ROUTE -- A CERTAIN ROUTE, BUT IF THEY -- WE CAN'T SAY PLEASE -- WE CAN'T AUTHORIZE AN RFP, THIS PANEL. WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND SAY WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU GO THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND THEREFORE INITIATE THE RFP PROCESS OR WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU PURSUE THE SOLE SOURCE BID, WHAT HAVE YOU? >>SUSAN FERNANDEZ: THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. >>HEIDI McCREE: OKAY. QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SUSAN, VERY MUCH. NEXT ITEM IS THE TAX BENEFITS WHICH MIGHT ACCRUE TO FCEG AND OPTIONS FOR FINANCING, AND MARK-DAVID ADAMS IS HERE TO GIVE US THAT PRESENTATION, AND GOOD AFTERNOON. AND I'M -- I MAY BE INCORRECT ON THIS, BUT I THINK THAT THIS AGENDA ITEM COMES FROM SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE BUT ALSO SOME QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL. >> THAT IS EXACTLY CORRECT. AND THE MEMO THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE ADDRESSES THAT. I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THE HIGHLIGHTS OF IT. BASICALLY WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT WHAT FEDERAL TAX BENEFITS MIGHT ACCRUE IN THE SALE OF CONE RANCH, AND THE -- THE APPLICATION OF 170-H OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IS AN EXTREMELY LIMITED SCENARIO, AND IT'S PROBABLY VERY UNLIKELY IN SOME OF THE PROPOSALS OR SOME OF THE PLANS THAT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS LOOKING AT NOW. BASICALLY FOR AN ENTITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF 170, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OR A TAXPAYING INDIVIDUAL THAT ACQUIRED FULL TITLE TO CONE RANCH. THAT MEANS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY CONSERVATION EASEMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE FEE SIMPLE TITLE, AND UNDER 170 WHAT THEY WOULD DONATE WOULD BE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO EITHER THE COUNTY OR ELAPP OR SOME QUALIFIED ORGANIZATION. OBVIOUSLY IF THE COUNTY OR ELAPP OR SOME GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY RETAINS THAT INTEREST BEFORE IT WERE TO SELL THE CONE RANCH PARCEL, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO DONATE, SO 170 WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. IF THE COUNTY WERE TO SELL A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN CONE RANCH, THE REQUIREMENTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF 170-H ARE EXTREMELY DEMANDING, AND THAT IS OUTLINED IN THE MEMO THAT'S PRESENTED, BUT TO HIGHLIGHT, IT HAS TO BE A QUALIFIED INTEREST, IT HAS TO BE TO A QUALIFIED ORGANIZATION THAT HAS THE COMMITMENT AND THE RESOURCES TO DEFEND THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT, AND IT HAS TO BE FOR QUALIFIED CONSERVATION PURPOSE, PROTECTION OF LAND, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, AND IT HAS TO BE GUARANTEED IN PERPETUITY. THERE ARE SOME PRIVATE LETTER RULINGS THAT HAVE LOOKED AT THESE TYPES OF DONATIONS. I CAN TELL YOU THE IRS SCRUTINIZES THEM VERY CLOSELY. THERE WAS AN EXAMPLE WHERE A FARMER TRIED TO DONATE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN A PARCEL THAT THE FARMER OWNED. THEY WENT THROUGH A RIGOROUS ANALYSIS. THERE WERE STUDIES. THE COUNTY IN THIS CASE DID A LOT OF THINGS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE PAST FEW MONTHS. THERE WERE SURVEYS, REPORTS, AND THE DEED WAS NARROWLY WRITTEN. THERE WAS EVEN A COURT PROCEEDING INVOLVED, AND THE IRS LOOKED AT ALL OF THAT, AND WHEN THE IRS LOOKED AT THE DEED, THEY SAID, THIS IS STILL NOT ENOUGH BECAUSE THE DEED PROVIDED THAT IT WAS GRANTED IN PERPETUITY, THAT THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT WOULD BE PROTECTED BY THE ENTITY THAT WAS TAKING IT OVER, BUT THE DEED DIDN'T PROVIDE THAT ANY TRANSFEREE WOULD HAVE TO NOT ONLY MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS BUT ALSO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT HAD THE RESOURCES TO DEFEND THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE SCENARIO WHERE THAT WOULD ARISE I THINK IS -- IS VERY NARROW. IT'S -- IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO ACHIEVE. IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE LIKELY IN SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. >>HEIDI McCREE: SO HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THE BOCC SAYS GO OUT FOR AN RFP, WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHO COMES IN THE DOOR TO -- AND AGAIN, WE WOULD -- THEY WOULD SAY TO -- YOU KNOW, PROTECT CONE RANCH IN PERPETUITY SO IT WOULD BE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THE TRIGGER WOULD BE IF THEY CAME IN AND BOUGHT THE -- THE PROPOSAL WAS TO BUY THE LAND AND FEE AND THEN TURN AROUND THEREAFTER AND PUT THE EASEMENT OVER IT. >> YEAH. >>HEIDI McCREE: WHEREAS, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE FCEG PROPOSAL -- AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT I THINK YOU'VE LOOKED INTO THIS -- IS THEY'RE SAYING THEY WOULD COME IN AND PUT THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER PRIOR TO THIS TRANSACTION, SO THEY WOULD NOT INURE ANY BENEFIT. NOW, MY QUESTION TO YOU -- AND YOU'RE NODDING YOUR HEAD. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WILL THE IRS LOOK AT THAT AS -- WILL THEY VALIDATE THAT OR WILL THEY LOOK AT THAT AS AN INTERESTING TRANSACTION? >> THAT'S NOT A DONATION. THAT'S NOT A DONATION. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS 170-H WOULD HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THAT CASE. >>HEIDI McCREE: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO MARK-DAVID ON THIS? ALL RIGHT. AND AGAIN, WE CAN ASK MORE QUESTIONS OF THEM AS WE MOVE FORWARD. OUR FINAL PRESENTER FROM THE COUNTY TODAY IS JIM ROBERTS, AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE APPRAISAL PROCESS, APPRAISAL OF CONE RANCH. AND GOOD AFTERNOON, JIM, AND THANK YOU, MARK-DAVID. AND I APPRECIATE THE COUNTY STAFF PRESENTATIONS. THEY'VE BEEN VERY SUCCINCT, QUITE MEANINGFUL, AND KEEPING US ON TRACK, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BECAUSE JUST FOR THE PANEL'S AWARENESS, WE HAVE QUITE A NUMBER OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS TODAY, AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THOSE AS WELL, SO -- >>EDITH STEWART: [INAUDIBLE] >>HEIDI McCREE: OKAY. >> WELL, LET ME FIRST SAY THAT THIS PLAN WAS A COLLABORATION BY MANY DEPARTMENTS, PRIMARILY REAL ESTATE, AND THIS PRESENTATION WILL SUMMARIZE THE SCOPE, METHODS, AND PROCESSES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO OBTAIN ANY REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL AND ANY SUPPLEMENTAL VALUATIONS OF THE PROPERTY. IT WILL ALSO ADDRESS THE PERCEIVED ADVANTAGES OF PURSUING THOSE VALUATIONS. THE APPRAISALS THEMSELVES, THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE APPRAISAL WOULD BE CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS AND COMPARABLE SALES, BUT ALSO IMPORTANT IS ASSESSING THE PROPERTY BASED ON HIGHEST AND BEST USE. THAT WILL HELP ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH THE ENTERPRISE'S REVENUE BONDS AND THE BUSINESS PRINCIPLES ADOPTED FOR THE UTILITY. AND THE POSSIBILITIES FOR THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE MAY INCLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY VIA ANNEXATION OF CITY OF PLANT CITY OR THE SALE OF MITIGATION CREDITS THROUGH A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE BANKER, AS WE'VE HEARD ALREADY. THE CONE RANCH ABUTS THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY, AND THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST HURDLE FOR ANNEXATION. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY, THOUGH, WOULD REQUIRE THE CITY TO FILE AN AMENDMENT TO ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOWING THE NEED FOR A CHANGE IN THE PROPERTY'S CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND THEN THE AMENDMENT WOULD NEED THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA. ANY APPRAISAL MUST CONSIDER THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL ENCUMBRANCES, WHETHER ESTABLISHED BY LAW, AGREEMENT, EASEMENT, OR PLAT, AND APPRAISAL OF THIS MAGNITUDE WILL NEED TO INCORPORATE SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS FROM OTHER PROFESSIONALS. THAT WOULD INCLUDE A LAND PLANNER TO ANALYZE THE -- THE PROPERTY'S CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, AN ECOLOGIST TO ANALYZE THE PROPERTY'S ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND THE POTENTIAL FOR THE MITIGATION BANKING WITH ASSISTANCE FROM A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE CONE RANCH, AT LEAST THREE INDEPENDENT APPRAISALS ARE MERITED, AND EACH OF THE OPTIONS PRESENTED HERE PRESERVES THE APPRAISAL INDEPENDENCE REQUIRED BY ENTERPRISE BOND COVENANTS. THE -- THE ACTUAL FEES FOR THE APPRAISERS ARE ESTIMATED TO BE $30,000 EACH AND 25,000 EACH FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL PROFESSIONALS, LAND PLANNER, ECOLOGIST, AND ENGINEER. SO THE FIRST OPTION, WHICH IS HAVING EACH APPRAISER SUBCONTRACT THEIR OWN PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS, IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE OPTION, MINIMUM OF 315,000 THERE FOR THREE APPRAISALS, 105,000 EACH. THE SECOND OPTION, HAVING ONE APPRAISER PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR ALL THE APPRAISALS. THAT WOULD BE BASED ON WHAT EACH APPRAISER MIGHT ASK -- ASK TO BE PROVIDED. THEY DON'T -- THEY'RE NOT LIMITED TO THE SAME ANALYSIS. BUT IT WOULD HELP TO AVOID DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS AND COST, AND THAT OPTION, THOUGH, COULD COMPLICATE THE EVALUATION OF THE APPRAISAL PROPOSALS SUBMITTED. THOSE WOULD BE THE PROPOSALS THAT ARE SUBMITTED BY THE PROSPECTIVE APPRAISERS FOR WHICH WE WOULD AWARD CONTRACTS. THE THIRD OPTION, THE COUNTY HAS SEVERAL ENGINEERING FIRMS UNDER CONTRACT THAT COULD PERFORM OR SUBCONTRACT ALL OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS REQUIRED, AND THIS APPROACH ALSO AVOIDS DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS AND COSTS BUT AVOIDS THE POTENTIAL DIFFICULTY IN EVALUATING THOSE PROPOSALS FROM PROSPECTIVE APPRAISERS. THERE'S THE THIRD OPTION. THESE ARE THE PROCEDURES FOR ENGAGING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NECESSARY TO SECURE INDEPENDENT APPRAISERS. THE -- THE FIRST OPTION THERE -- THE FIRST PROCESS, IDENTIFYING THE FUNDING SOURCE FOR THESE APPRAISALS. ENTERPRISE FUNDING OF APPRAISALS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF THE CURRENT WATER RESOURCE SERVICES DIRECTOR, THE INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISE BOND ENGINEER, AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DETERMINED THAT THE CONE RANCH PROPERTY IS NO LONGER USEFUL FOR ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS. IN ADDITION TO THE APPRAISERS -- APPRAISALS, THE COUNTY COULD CONCLUDE A TRANSFER OF THE CONE RANCH TO A NONPROFIT ENTITY OR TO ANOTHER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OR PROGRAM AT THE AVERAGE OF THE INDEPENDENT APPRAISALS RECEIVED, BUT THE COUNTY COULD ALSO SOLICIT ACTUAL PURCHASE OFFERS FOR THE PROPERTY IF IT BELIEVES AN OPEN-MARKET COMPETITION WOULD RETURN A HIGHER VALUE THAN THE AVERAGE OF THOSE APPRAISALS. THE -- THE ENTERPRISE'S BUSINESS PRINCIPLES REQUIRE THAT THE ASSETS BE MANAGED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS PRESENT AND FUTURE CUSTOMERS, AND THE -- REQUIRE THE EVALUATION AND DISPOSAL OF NONPERFORMING ASSETS WHEN APPROPRIATE. AND ON THAT BASIS, SINCE APPRAISALS ONLY VALUE PROPERTIES BASED ON CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS, AN ECONOMIST COULD HELP THE COUNTY DETERMINE WHETHER THE ENTERPRISE WOULD BENEFIT FROM DELAYING A TRANSFER OF THE RANCH FOR A LIMITED PERIOD. AND THAT ANALYSIS BY AN ECONOMIST WOULD CONSIDER THE RATE AT WHICH LAND VALUES HAVE RECOVERED FOLLOWING PERIODS WHERE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WERE SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT ECONOMY. THE APPRAISAL PROCESS WOULD TAKE ABOUT NINE MONTHS TO COMPLETE, BUT TO ALSO OBTAIN ACTUAL PURCHASE OFFERS AND TO -- TO DEVELOP A MODEL THAT -- THAT COULD POSSIBLY SHOW THE PROSPECTIVE LAND VALUES IN THE FUTURE, NEAR FUTURE, COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE APPRAISAL PROCESS IS TAKING PLACE. THERE ARE SEVERAL ADVANTAGES PERCEIVED FOR GOING FORWARD WITH THE VALUATIONS. THE POTENTIAL USES AND OPTIONS FOR THE RANCH WOULD BE DETERMINED FROM THE HIGHEST-AND-BEST-USE ANALYSIS. THE ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS COULD IDENTIFY PROGRAMS, ELIGIBILITIES, AND TAX ADVANTAGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND MITIGATION BANKING. PROPOSED ECONOMIC MODEL WOULD FORECAST A POTENTIAL VALUE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME IN THE FUTURE. AND COMPLETION OF THE PROCESS SHOULD REINFORCE THE COUNTY'S RESOLVE TO EXPEDITE THE RELEASE OF TAMPA BAY WATER'S EASEMENT RIGHTS. I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. >>HEIDI McCREE: ALL RIGHT. THANKS, JIM, VERY MUCH. CAN I JUST ASK AN OVERARCHING QUESTION BECAUSE I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS FROM A QUESTION I ASKED BEFORE, BUT THE CONE RANCH IS IN THE PRESERVATION CATEGORY, AND IF THE -- THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO AUTHORIZE THE APPRAISAL TO GO FORWARD IF IT SO CHOSE TO DO SO. AND WE TALKED -- I THINK, MIKE, YOU ANSWERED THIS QUESTION FOR ME ONCE, BUT THE BOARD COULD AUTHORIZE TO GO FORTH AND DO AN APPRAISAL FOR PRESERVATION PURPOSES OR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF CONE RANCH; CORRECT? I MEAN, DOES THAT AFFECT -- HOW DO YOU-ALL RESPOND TO THAT? >>MIKE KELLY: OKAY. WELL, I WOULD SAY THE FIRST THING IS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A SURPLUS ASSET. >>HEIDI McCREE: RIGHT, OKAY. >>MIKE KELLY: I MEAN, THE BOARD COULD -- FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES COULD AUTHORIZE APPRAISALS, BUT THEY CAN'T DEFINE WHAT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY IS. THAT'S AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS. CERTAINLY THE LAND USE CATEGORY IS ONE OF THE PRIMARY THINGS ANY LAND PLANNER OR REAL ESTATE APPRAISER WILL LOOK AT AS WELL AS LIKE THE WATER RIGHTS ISSUES AND THE FEASIBILITY OF REMOVING THEM. THAT WILL FACTOR INTO THE HIGHEST-AND-BEST-USE ANALYSIS. >>HEIDI McCREE: OKAY. SO AGAIN, THE BOARD'S GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE THOSE STEPS IF ANY OF THIS IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. DEE, I'M SORRY. >>DENISE LAYNE: YOU-ALL HAD AN APPRAISAL, WHAT -- 2003 IS THE LAST APPRAISAL OF CONE RANCH, 2002, SOMETHING LIKE THAT? >>MIKE KELLY: I THINK THAT'S APPROXIMATELY. IT WAS ON PART OF THE RANCH. I THINK IT WAS THE 600 ACRES ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAND EXCHANGE AND THE PHOSPHATE COMPANY. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL. >>DENISE LAYNE: OKAY. SO IT WASN'T THE WHOLE 13,000 OR 12,800 ACRES, RIGHT -- >>MIKE KELLY: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. >>DENISE LAYNE: -- IT WAS JUST A PIECE OF IT? >> MAY I ASK A -- WAS THAT FOR ELAPP'S PURPOSES? >>MIKE KELLY: NO, THERE WAS A PROPERTY EXCHANGE WITH CF INDUSTRIES. >> OH, OKAY. OKAY. RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. OKAY. >>DENISE LAYNE: CF INDUSTRIES WITH WETLAND MITIGATION AND STUFF. SO THEY WOULD TAKE -- IN AN APPRAISAL, THEY WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE LAND'S HIGHEST AND BEST USE IN THE LAST APPRAISAL ON THAT PIECE WAS PRESERVATION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU-ALL HAD COME UP WITH ON THAT? >>MIKE KELLY: THEY WOULD LOOK AT THAT INFORMATION. >>DENISE LAYNE: OKAY. BUT REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE WITH THIS APPRAISAL IS STARTING FROM SCRATCH, SAYING ASSUME PLANT CITY COULD ANNEX THIS, ASSUME THIS COULD HAPPEN, ASSUME THAT COULD HAPPEN, THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE COULD BE CONDOS. WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO NOT HAVE THIS THING SAY HIGHEST AND BEST USE IS CONDOS ON THIS PROPERTY TO JACK UP THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT WE ARE GOING NUTS, AND SO AGAIN, REAL ESTATE PEOPLE, I -- EXPLAIN -- >> BUT DEE, THAT'S NOT OUR JOB OR YOUR JOB. IT'S THE MARKET THAT DRIVES WHAT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE IS, AND THAT'S WHY THERE ARE PROFESSIONALS, THAT'S WHY THERE ARE APPRAISERS AND THAT'S WHY APPRAISERS GET ENGINEERS TO HELP THEM AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS. THE PLANNER IS THE ONE THAT REALLY HELPS DECIDE WHAT DIRECTION THE PROPERTY COULD GO AND THE WAY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VOTES AND WHATEVER, SO WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO HELP -- >>DENISE LAYNE: NO, NO, I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS ITSELF. >> THAT IS THE PROCESS. >>DENISE LAYNE: THAT BASICALLY IS STARTING FROM SCRATCH. THEY DO LOOK AT HISTORY, BUT WE'RE STARTING AND LETTING A WHOLE NEW BUNCH DECIDE THAT POTENTIALLY THE BEST USE COULD BE CONDOS. I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING IT WILL. >> WELL, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POTENTIAL HIGHEST AND BEST USE COULD BE FOR THIS LAND ANYMORE. I MEAN, THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THAT LAST APPRAISAL, YOU KNOW. IT'S JUST NOT OUR JOB TO THINK -- TO WORRY ABOUT THAT. I MEAN, IT'S AN INDEPENDENT PROCESS. >>DENISE LAYNE: I UNDERSTAND, BUT AGAIN, IF WE ARE SUGGESTING THEY LOOK AND LOOK TOWARD THE PRESERVATION IN TEN OR 20 YEARS OF THIS PROPERTY TRYING TO BE PROTECTED AND THAT KIND OF THING, THAT DOESN'T WEIGH INTO THIS AT ALL? >> WHAT WEIGHS INTO THIS IS LOOKING AT ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR ITS VALUE, NOT WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE WITH THE PROPERTY. I DESERVE A FAIR RIGHT TO SELL AND GET THE AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR MY PROPERTY BASED ON ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE. YOU MAY TURN AROUND AND PUT A SWIMMING POOL ON IT OR PUT IT INTO PRESERVATION, THAT'S IRRELEVANT, BUT I WANT THE TOP DOLLAR FOR MY PROPERTY, SO THAT'S WHERE THE APPRAISAL COMES IN. IF IT WENT FOR THAT PURPOSE, THIS IS THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE. THAT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE SOLD FOR. >>DENISE LAYNE: RIGHT, NO. BUT I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. >>HEIDI McCREE: WELL, THIS JUST GETS BACK TO THE POINT THAT RIGHT NOW THIS LAND IS NOT PERMANENTLY PROTECTED, SO - - I MEAN, IT JUST POINTS OUT THAT WE ARE IN A SITUATION IN THIS COMMUNITY WHERE A LOT OF FOLKS OUT THERE ARE CONCERNED THAT CONE RANCH IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE HERE -- YOU KNOW, THE BOARD IS -- HAS DISCUSSED -- THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS DISCUSSED THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF CONE RANCH, AND FCEG CAME IN, AND THAT'S ONE ASPECT OF IT, BUT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT THE BEST WAY TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF CONE RANCH. SO THE BOARD ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE HOW THEY WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE -- WHAT THEY TELL THE COUNTY STAFF TO GO OUT WITH THE APPRAISAL PROCESS. MY QUESTION WAS REALLY IF THE INTENT OF THIS PANEL AND THE BOCC IS TO PURSUE THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF CONE RANCH THROUGH POTENTIALLY THESE OPTIONS OR ANOTHER ONE THAT SOMEBODY HASN'T COME UP WITH YET, HOW DO WE GO ABOUT THAT? AND I THINK THE CONCERN WE HAVE IS LOOKING AT THIS PRESENTATION WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY THAT IS ABOUT TO BE SPENT ON AN APPRAISAL PROCESS THAT MAY NOT -- WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GOING FORTH IN AN APPRAISAL PROCESS THAT IS USING THE TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS EFFECTIVELY TO GET TO THE INTENT OF WHAT THIS PANEL AND THE -- I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE BOARD, BUT AT LEAST IN THEIR TRANSCRIPTS WHEN THEY SET THIS PANEL UP, YOU KNOW, WERE DISCUSSING, SO I THINK THAT'S SORT OF WHERE THERE'S A DISCONNECT HERE, AND MAYBE SOME OF YOU WHO ARE APPRAISAL EXPERTS CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT. ROSANNE. >>ROSANNE CLEMENTI: I JUST WANT TO DISAGREE THAT THE PROPERTY'S NOT BEING PROTECTED OR PRESERVED. IT'S OWNED BY A COUNTY ENTITY, AND REALLY NOTHING IS HAPPENING ON IT. THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO SELL IT TO ANYBODY, THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO DEVELOP IT, SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO JERK OUR KNEE AND RUSH INTO A SOLUTION WHEN REALLY THE -- THE PROPERTY'S NOT BROKEN. BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON ANY SQUARE FOOT OF IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT BEING PROTECTED. I THINK IT IS ADEQUATELY BEING PROTECTED RIGHT NOW. >>HEIDI McCREE: PAMELA JO. >>PAMELA JO HATLEY: JUST A QUICK QUESTION. OF ALL OF THESE OPTIONS ON THIS -- THIS MATRIX, WHICH ONES REQUIRE AN APPRAISAL LIKE THAT? IN OTHER WORDS, I GUESS MY -- MY REAL QUESTION IS IF ELAPP -- IF ELAPP WERE TO PURCHASE JUST A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, IS SUCH AN APPRAISAL EVEN REQUIRED? >>MIKE KELLY: YES. IF THE WATER DEPARTMENT DISPOSES OF ANY REAL ESTATE INTEREST AT ALL, EVEN IF IT'S AN EASEMENT INTEREST, WE NEED TO GET REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS TO ENSURE THAT THEY GET FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE VALUE OF THE EASEMENT. >>PAMELA JO HATLEY: IF IT'S FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUST PURCHASING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, DOES THAT CHANGE THE PARAMETERS OF THE APPRAISAL, THOUGH? >>MIKE KELLY: YES, IT DOES. >>PAMELA JO HATLEY: SO IT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY A WHOLE LOT LESS? >>MIKE KELLY: POTENTIALLY. >>HEIDI McCREE: RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S I THINK SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO COME FORWARD. LET'S ASK THIS QUESTION. ELAPP, YOU-ALL HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD IN DECEMBER AND PRESENT YOUR ANNUAL REPORT. WHAT IF THE BOARD SAYS, OKAY, GREAT, GO FORTH, TAKE ON CONE RANCH, YOU HAVE TO THEN INITIATE THIS PROCESS, DON'T YOU? OR WHAT -- WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP IS THE WAY I SHOULD PROBABLY ASK THAT QUESTION. >>PETER FOWLER: WELL, ELAPP IS A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM, AND AS MR. KELLY MENTIONED, UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS SURPLUSED OR THE WATER DEPARTMENT INDICATES A WILLINGNESS TO NEGOTIATE WITH ELAPP, BEING -- IT'S STILL A COUNTY AGENCY, BUT WE ARE -- IT IS A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE HANDLED AT THE BOARD LEVEL. >>HEIDI McCREE: WELL, OF COURSE IT WOULD, BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, SAY THE BOARD SAYS, OKAY, WATER DEPARTMENT SURPLUS THE PROPERTY, ELAPP GO FORTH, THEN WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP? >>MIKE KELLY: OKAY. AS AN EXAMPLE, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR US TO DO INTERNAL REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING THE WATER DEPARTMENT LAND. WHAT WE WOULD DO IS BASED ON THE REAL ESTATE INTEREST WE NEED TO ACQUIRE, WE WOULD PROCEED AND GET REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS DONE, WE'D PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE WATER DEPARTMENT, THEY'D HAVE IT REVIEWED BY THEIR BOND CONSULTANT, WE'D HAVE IT REVIEWED BY OUR SENIOR STAFF APPRAISER, AND IF THE NUMBERS WERE ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE, WE'D DO AN INTERNAL TRANSACTION. IT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY EXCHANGE A DEED, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >>HEIDI McCREE: OKAY. NOW, IF THAT APPRAISAL PROCESS IS UNDERWAY -- WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS ON HERE. HOW -- DOES THE APPRAISAL PROCESS THAT ENSUES BECOME -- THAT INFORMATION BECOMES PERTINENT, RELEVANT, USABLE INFORMATION FOR ANY OF THESE OTHER NEGOTIATIONS AS WELL, BE IT A -- >>MIKE KELLY: YES. I THINK EACH OF THESE OPTIONS PROBABLY ARE GOING TO REQUIRE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU GO OUT ON A COMPETITIVE BID, JUST OPEN IT UP TO THE MARKET, YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO HAVE A MINIMUM BID, AND THAT MINIMUM BID MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS THAT WOULD PRECEDE THE BIDDING PROCESS, OTHERWISE YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE A STARTING POINT. >>HEIDI McCREE: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS? WE CAN TAKE MAYBE -- LET'S DO THIS. LET'S DO TEN MORE MINUTES -- >>DENISE LAYNE: [INAUDIBLE] >>HEIDI McCREE: I WILL. I JUST WANT TO GIVE A SENSE. WE HAVE ABOUT 35 MINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMENT, SO I JUST WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT. FELIX. >>FELIX HAYNES: THE QUESTION THAT'S BIG FOR ME IS GIVEN THE INTEREST IN PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE LAND, IS THERE ANY WAY UNDER ANY OF THESE OPTIONS THAT WE COULD PERMANENTLY PROTECT THE LAND AND PREVENT ANY OWNER, INCLUDING A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 30 YEARS FROM NOW, DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT? >>MIKE KELLY: WELL -- >>HEIDI McCREE: MIKE, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT? >>MIKE KELLY: PARTIALLY -- I MIGHT BE ABLE TO PARTIALLY ADDRESS THAT QUESTION. YOU HEARD SUSAN FERNANDEZ MENTIONED ONE OPTION, WHICH IS FOR ELAPP TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, AND THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT WOULD BE GRANTED TO SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT. >>HEIDI McCREE: RIGHT. ESSENTIALLY -- >>FELIX HAYNES: [INAUDIBLE] OF ALL THESE -- >> THE MORE PEOPLE YOU'D HAVE A BENEFICIARY OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, THE STRONGER IT WOULD BE. FOR INSTANCE, YOU COULD HAVE THE EPC BE A HOLDER OF THE EASEMENT. YOU'D HAVE THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BEING A HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT. SO NOT ONLY WOULD YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECIDE, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE SWFWMD GET ONBOARD, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE THE EPC BOARD GET ON, OR EVEN COULD BE A PRIVATE PARTY. COULD BE THE NATURE CONSERVANCY. THE MORE PEOPLE THAT HAVE AN INTEREST IN THAT BEING PRESERVED, THE STRONGER IT'S PROTECTED. >>HEIDI McCREE: THE ONLY WAY -- YEAH, IT'S A PERMANENT -- YOU BUY IT OUTRIGHT FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES OR A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. >>FELIX HAYNES: SET IT UP SO EVERYBODY HAS TO AGREE, WRITE THE PAPERS THAT WAY -- >>HEIDI McCREE: AND IT'S IN PERPETUITY. >>FELIX HAYNES: -- HAVE THE LAWYERS WRITE IT THAT WAY? >>HEIDI McCREE: RIGHT. >>FELIX HAYNES: JUST CHECKS AND BALANCES? >>HEIDI McCREE: RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. PAMELA. >>PAMELA JO HATLEY: I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT TOO, THAT NO MATTER WHETHER THIS PROPERTY GOES, YOU KNOW, INTO ELAPP OR GOES -- OR STAYS AS IT IS IN SOME HYBRID OWNERSHIP OR IS SOLD TO A PRIVATE ENTITY, THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THIS PROPERTY SO THAT 30 YEARS FROM NOW THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR ANYONE ELSE COULDN'T MAKE A DIFFERENT DECISION ABOUT IT IS TO PUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON IT, AND WE'VE HAD COMMENTS AT OUR MEETINGS THAT, WELL, EVEN THOSE CAN BE BROKEN, BUT I MEAN, ANDREW IS RIGHT, AS LONG AS THERE ARE -- YOU KNOW, IT'S SO COMPLEX SO THAT TO BREAK IT REALLY REQUIRES A LOT OF EFFORT. I MEAN, THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DO IT, THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT REALLY. >>HEIDI McCREE: ROSANNE. >>ROSANNE CLEMENTI: I GUESS MY QUESTION IS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OR JUST WETLANDS? I MEAN, NOBODY'S REALLY SPECIFIED THAT. AND THE OTHER THING TOO IS WHEN YOU DO THAT, IF -- LET'S SAY YOU DO IT OVER EITHER ONE OF THEM. THEN YOU RESTRICT THE ABILITY TO -- TO ENCOURAGE THE COUNTY TO DO A -- TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT A MITIGATION BANK BECAUSE YOU'VE PUT THE EASEMENTS ON FIRST, YOU KNOW. IT -- AND IT HAMPERS WHAT YOU CAN DO. >>PAMELA JO HATLEY: THAT COULD BE A PROVISION. >> THAT COULD ALL BE NEGOTIATED. >>ANDREW ZODROW: YOU WOULD TAILOR THE EASEMENT TO ALLOW FOR RESTORATION ACTIVITIES. WE DO THAT QUITE OFTEN. >> OKAY. >>HEIDI McCREE: I THINK THAT'S WHAT SOME OF WHAT THE HYBRID DISCUSSION WAS IS THAT -- AND REALLY GETTING BACK TO YOUR POINT IS MAYBE THERE NEEDS TO BE AN OVERARCHING DISCUSSION OF WHERE WOULD ELAPP WANT TO HAVE ITS CONSERVATION EASEMENT, WHERE WOULD A MITIGATION BANK WANT TO GO, WHERE WOULD A PRIVATE ENTITY WANT TO PLACE ITS CONSERVATION EASEMENT, IF IT WAS EVEN STILL INTERESTED AFTER, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS. BUT I THINK THAT'S ALL PART OF WHAT HAS TO BE SORT OF PURSUED. DEE. >>DENISE LAYNE: WELL, COULD HAVE ELAPP WITH A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. WE WERE TOLD LAST MEETING YOU CAN HAVE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, ON AN EASEMENT, ON AN EASEMENT, SO YOU HAVE ELAPP, YOU KNOW, WITH AN EASEMENT OVER THE WHOLE PROPERTY, AND AS YOU IDENTIFY YOUR CARBON CREDITS, YOUR MITIGATION -- WETLAND MITIGATION, YOUR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, THOSE ARE SEPARATE CONSERVATION. YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO TURN THE WHOLE OF CONE RANCH OVER TO SWFWMD IN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, JUST THE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS YOU WANT, WHICH MIGHT BE ONE-THIRD OF THE PROPERTY VERSUS THE WHOLE THING. SO IT ISN'T JUST ONE OR THE OTHER. I THINK IT COULD BE ALL. AM I CORRECT, ANDREW? >>ANDREW ZODROW: YEAH. >>HEIDI McCREE: COULD I ASK A CLARIFICATION FOR ELAPP FOLKS? YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO THE BOARD IN DECEMBER HAVING ELEVATED CONE RANCH, THE WHOLE PROPERTY OR JUST THAT PORTION THAT YOU DEEMED -- THAT YOU -- YOU KNOW, REMEMBER YOU SAID THERE WAS A -- >> THE WHOLE PROPERTY. >>HEIDI McCREE: LESSER THAN THE WHOLE. >> THE WHOLE PROPERTY. >>HEIDI McCREE: THE WHOLE PROPERTY. YEARS AGO THERE WAS A LESSER PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS THE FOCUS FOR ELAPP, SO HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THAT IN THIS REPORT TO THE BOARD? >>PETER FOWLER: WELL, ONE OF THE -- ONE OF THE -- I THINK IT WAS JUST BASED ON THE FACT OF PUBLIC INTEREST TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE AREA, AND SO WE DID LOOK AT THE ENTIRE AREA. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED, SOME LAND EXCHANGES AND SOME -- ACTUALLY SOME -- SOME WETLAND CREATION OUT THERE. >>HEIDI McCREE: OKAY. SO -- OKAY. ROSANNE. >>ROSANNE CLEMENTI: WELL, WE'RE COMING DOWN TO THE SAME ISSUE THAT THE LAND IS HELD BY THE WATER DEPARTMENT, AND ANYTHING THAT YOU DO TO IT THAT DIMINISHES ITS VALUE, REGARDLESS, AGAIN, HIGHEST AND BEST USE, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE VALUE OF THE LAND BASED ON ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE, WHICH FOR ALL WE KNOW COULD BE CONDOMINIUMS LET'S JUST SAY, FOR EXAMPLE. SO ANYTHING THAT WE SUGGEST TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO DO TO LAY EASEMENTS OVER IT IS GOING TO DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THE LAND, SO NONE OF THAT CAN REALLY HAPPEN, AND MIKE MERRILL, PLEASE JUMP IN. SOMEBODY JUMP IN. COULD ANY OF THAT HAPPEN WITHOUT -- WITHOUT DAMAGING YOUR BONDS? MARK-DAVID. >>HEIDI McCREE: MIKE, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT? >>ROSANNE CLEMENTI: WHOEVER. >>MIKE MERRILL: WELL, I THINK THAT REALLY GETS BACK TO THE NEED TO HAVE THE VALUATION DONE. I MEAN, WE'RE ALL KIND OF GROPING IN THE DARK HERE BECAUSE THE APPRAISAL THAT WAS DONE, YOU KNOW, WHENEVER IT WAS, SIX YEARS AGO, WAS A SPECIAL PURPOSE APPRAISAL FOR A VERY SMALL PIECE OF LAND IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION. IT REALLY HAS NO RELEVANCE TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL SPECULATING, BUT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY GET SOMEONE ON THE GROUND DOING THIS, I'M NOT SURE I KNOW THE ANSWER OR ANYBODY KNOWS THE ANSWER. >>HEIDI McCREE: FELIX. >>FELIX HAYNES: TRUE OR FALSE, TAMPA BAY WATER ONLY HAS WATER RIGHTS ON THIS LAND, AND CONDOMINIUMS ARE NOT WATER RIGHTS? >>ED HELVENSTON: TAMPA BAY WATER COULD PREVENT A CONDOMINIUM FROM BEING BUILT ON A PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY AND ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS TO PUT A WELL ON THAT SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY. >>FELIX HAYNES: OKAY. BUT TAMPA BAY WATER -- WITHIN TAMPA BAY WATER'S WATER RIGHTS TO THE LAND THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD A CONDOMINIUM? >>ED HELVENSTON: THEY CANNOT BUILD A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE COUNTY. >>HEIDI McCREE: I HAVE A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS, AND YOU GUYS CAN DISAGREE. I'M WONDERING -- AND AGAIN, WE'RE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 16th. WE AT LEAST HAVE A SCHEDULED MEETING. I'M HOPING EVERYBODY CAN STILL MAKE THAT BECAUSE AS WE KNOW, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET THE SEVEN OF US TOGETHER. THANK YOU, EDITH, FOR WORKING SO HARD TO DO THAT. BUT I'M TRYING TO FOCUS ON -- I WANT TO GET THE PUBLIC SPEAKING, I WANT TO FOCUS ON BUILDING OUR AGENDA. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ASK HOW YOU-ALL WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED AT SOME POINT. I THINK IT WOULD BE COURTEOUS AT THE VERY LEAST TO PROVIDE A LETTER OR SOMETHING BACK TO THE BOCC, RECOGNIZING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM ELAPP -- AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS AT OUR NEXT MEETING TOO, BUT AT SOME POINT -- AND IT COULD BE VERY SIMPLE, AND WE MAY STILL NEED TO MEET AND IRON OUT SOME DETAILS, BUT WE NEED TO PROBABLY START BUILDING SOME OVERARCHING -- IF THEY AREN'T RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU KNOW, GENERAL CONSENSUS OF WHERE WE ARE AS A COMMITTEE, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT IN THE NEXT FIVE MINUTES, BUT WE NEED TO MAYBE START THINKING ABOUT HOW TO DO THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, I KEEP HEARING IS SEVERAL ACTIONS THE BOARD'S GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE, NOT THIS BOARD, BUT WE COULD BE HELPFUL IN RECOMMENDING THAT THEY TAKE THOSE ACTIONS AND EXPLAIN WHY, FOR INSTANCE, AN APPRAISAL, YOU KNOW, THAT TYPE OF THING. SURPLUSING THE PROPERTY, I GUESS, WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP AND THEN THE APPRAISAL, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO COME TO CONSENSUS ON THAT. I MEAN, IF THEY DECIDE TO GO WORK WITH ELAPP, THERE'S CERTAIN STEPS THAT THEY CAN -- THE BOARD CAN WORK WITH ELAPP ON SEPARATELY, BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO THEM TO HEAR WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE WE ARE THE CONE RANCH ADVISORY PANEL. SO I'M TRYING TO GEAR UP FOR THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM ELAPP IN DECEMBER, AND I THINK WE HAVE PROBABLY SOME THOUGHTS WE CAN -- WE CAN PROVIDE. THEY COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE ASKED THIS QUESTION, BUT -- AND ROSANNE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU FEEL THE SAME, BUT DO WE FEEL THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CONE RANCH BE IN PERMANENT PROTECTION OR IN SOME SORT OF PRESERVATION GOING FORWARD? MY FEELING AND UNDERSTANDING IS THAT RIGHT NOW IT IS NOT. I MEAN, THE WATER DEPARTMENT IS NOT DOING ANYTHING OUT THERE WITH IT, BUT THERE'S NOTHING PRECLUDING IT FROM SELLING IT TO A CONDO DEVELOPER, SO, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO MAYBE TAKE SOME BABY STEPS AND SAY AS A GROUP WE AGREE THAT DA-DA-DA-DA-DA, AND THEY MAY BE VERY GENERAL, AND THEY COULD HELP US THEN LOOK AT THIS MORE SPECIFICALLY IN A FUTURE MEETING, AND MAYBE WE CAN THINK ABOUT OTHER IDEAS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO EACH OTHER AT THE NEXT MEETING. PAMELA, DEE, AND ROSANNE, I GUESS. >>PAMELA JO HATLEY: OKAY. I THINK WE MIGHT ALL HAVE SOME IDEAS IN OUR HEAD THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT FORTH, AND IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR OUR NEXT AGENDA TO SIMPLY BE OPEN SO WE COULD DISCUSS THEM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS PROPER, AND I JUST ASKED EDITH, AND MAYBE SHE'S FOUND OUT FOR ME, BUT IF MAYBE WE HAVE SOME IDEAS IN OUR HEAD THAT WE COULD PUT THOSE INTO WRITTEN FORM AND SUBMIT THEM TO THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY COULD PUT THEM OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND ALL OF US TO SEE SO THAT WE COULD SHARE THAT INFORMATION AND WE COULD COME PREPARED AT THE NEXT MEETING TO DISCUSS IT, AND MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP TO SPEED UP A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, A CONSENSUS. >>HEIDI McCREE: OKAY. DEE. >>DENISE LAYNE: I THINK THE THREE OF US WERE EXACTLY ON THE SAME PAGE BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE -- AGAIN, I THINK WE ALL HAVE OUR IDEA OF WHAT -- KIND OF LIKE STEP ONE, TWO, THREE. IF ONE DOESN'T WORK, HERE'S TWO, HERE'S THREE. WHY DON'T WE ALL JUST WRITE IT DOWN, COME PREPARED, AND IF EDITH CAN -- YOU KNOW, WE CAN E-MAIL IT TO HER ALONE AND LET EDITH THEN DISPERSE IT TO ALL OF US AS THEY'RE COMING IN SO WE'RE ABLE AND WE'RE DOING IT THROUGH SUNSHINE TO READ EVERYTHING. IS THERE A SUNSHINE ISSUE? >>HEIDI McCREE: YEAH, IS THERE A SUNSHINE ISSUE, SUSAN? >>SUSAN FERNANDEZ: I THINK WE'RE OKAY, BUT DO NOT CONFER ABOUT THEM AMONGST YOURSELVES. >>HEIDI McCREE: NO, NO. >>DENISE LAYNE: NO, NO, NO. >>SUSAN FERNANDEZ: SO LONG AS IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU INDEPENDENTLY WRITE -- >>DENISE LAYNE: [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>EDITH STEWART: I WOULD CAUTION YOU-ALL NOT TO PUT OTHER PEOPLE ON THE E-MAIL LIST, MAIL ONLY TO ME, AND I WILL POST THEM ALL TO THE WEB SITE. >>HEIDI McCREE: AND NOT EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO DO THIS. IT'S JUST THOSE OF YOU WHO FEEL THAT -- AND IT MIGHT REALLY HELP US EFFICIENTLY GET THROUGH ANOTHER MEETING. ROSANNE. >>ROSANNE CLEMENTI: I THINK WE OUGHT TO PUT SOME SORT OF DEADLINE ON IT, DO IT WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS OR WHATEVER, SO EVERYONE HAS IT AND CAN CHEW ON IT AND DIGEST IT AND SEE WHERE EVERYONE ELSE IS GOING. THAT WAY WE DON'T COME IN ON THE 16th AND FLOUNDER AND SPEND TOO MUCH TIME NOT GETTING RIGHT TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE BECAUSE BY THEN WE COULD INDEPENDENTLY CREATE ANOTHER LIST FOR OURSELVES TO BRING IN THAT SAYS I TAKE YOURS AND YOURS AND I BRING THEM TOGETHER ON ONE SHEET AND SAY, HERE, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS, SO THAT WE DON'T SPEND A WHOLE LOT -- YOU KNOW, WASTE A LOT OF TIME. SO IF WE COULD PUT LIKE A TWO- OR THREE-WEEK, YOU KNOW, DEADLINE ON IT. >>HEIDI McCREE: WELL, WE'RE MEETING NOVEMBER 16th, SO I WOULD SAY LET'S -- WE'LL PUT A DEADLINE TO IT. FURTHER DISCUSSION. AND THE ONLY THOUGHT I'M HAVING IS MAYBE IF -- AS YOU GUYS PRESENT THESE FOR THE SAKE OF EASE AND MAYBE OVERARCHING TO MOST SPECIFIC IF YOU WOULD SO THAT MAYBE -- I MEAN, THAT'S MAYBE THE WAY I ONLY THINK, BUT I'M THINKING, YOU KNOW, GENERAL GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND WE CAN GET DOWN INTO IT. YOU KNOW, WE MAY NEED TO SPEND SOME MORE TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS AND ASKING SOME MORE QUESTIONS, SO YOU MAY JUST WANT TO PRESENT A FEW GENERAL CONCEPTS AT THIS POINT, AND IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE BOARD, I THINK EVEN SOMETHING SIMPLE YET DIRECT THAT GIVES THE BOARD SOME GUIDANCE AS THEY'RE WORKING WITH HOW TO DEAL WITH ELAPP AND OTHER PROPOSALS THAT ARE OUT THERE. ONE THOUGHT -- AND I'M JUST GOING TO THROW IT OUT THERE -- SHOULD WE AT SOME POINT HAVE A WORKSHOP WITH THE BOCC ON THIS? AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE, AND MAYBE EVERYBODY'S REACTING, AHH, BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS -- AS WE'VE GOTTEN INTO THIS ISSUE A FAIRLY COMPLEX, INTRICATE ISSUE WITH A LOT OF DETAILS TO UNDERSTAND TO MOVE FORWARD, AND I JUST WONDER IF -- IF -- HOW WE SHOULD BEST PRESENT THAT TO THE BOARD. WE COULD PROBABLY DO IT IN A WRITTEN FORM AND THEN ONE OF US, I OR MIKE OR WHOEVER'S APPROPRIATE, GIVE A PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD WITH AS MANY OF YOU THERE AS POSSIBLE, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING -- AND MAYBE THE COUNTY STAFF CAN CONSIDER HOW BEST TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT I THINK AT SOME POINT, EVEN OUT OF, YOU KNOW -- AN UPDATE PRESENTATION AS OPPOSED TO THAT THEY HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE ASKING. I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY HEARD THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN UPDATE, BUT I'M FEELING -- >>DENISE LAYNE: YOU WERE ON THE AGENDA LAST WEDNESDAY -- >>HEIDI McCREE: [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>DENISE LAYNE: -- AND YOU'RE ON THE AGENDA IN NOVEMBER, AND WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO TELL THE BOARD? >>HEIDI McCREE: I THINK THEY'RE WONDERING WHAT'S GOING ON, SO I'M HAPPY TO, BUT I ALSO AS YOUR CHAIR DON'T WANT TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD AND SPEAK WITHOUT CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD. I THINK THAT'S HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE. MIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS. >>MIKE MERRILL: DEE WAS CORRECT. THERE ACTUALLY WAS AN AGENDA ITEM PLACED ON THIS WEEK'S AGENDA BY KEN HAGAN ASKING FOR AN UPDATE, AND THEN WE ASKED FOR IT TO BE DEFERRED BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TODAY, AND SO IT'S -- IT'S -- AS IT STANDS, IT'S DEFERRED TO THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS NOVEMBER 4th, I THINK. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF -- IF YOU'RE NOT READY, THEN CLEARLY WE'RE NOT READY. >>HEIDI McCREE: WELL, WE'RE VERY GENERAL, I THINK, AT THIS POINT IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, MAKING SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE TIME CONSTRAINTS WE HAVE TODAY AND WANTING TO KIND OF MULL OVER SOME OF THE THOUGHTS. >>ROSANNE CLEMENTI: PERHAPS WE COULD GET THE MESSAGE TO THE BOARD THAT WE'LL HAVE SOME WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEM COMPLETED BY -- ON THE 16th, AND THEN THEY'LL SEE THEM AT THE BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER, IS THAT -- DECEMBER 4th OR 5th OR SOMETHING. >>MIKE MERRILL: AND THAT COULD ACTUALLY BE THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE REPORT TO THE BOARD. ALL THEY'RE ASKING FOR -- >>ROSANNE CLEMENTI: A MEMO FROM HEIDI? >>MIKE MERRILL: YEAH, HERE'S WHAT WE'VE DONE, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO, AND WE'RE NOT AT THE RECOMMENDATION STAGE YET, BUT WE'LL BE THERE. >>HEIDI McCREE: AND WE'RE MINDFUL THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM ELAPP, AND THEY MAY ASK ELAPP QUESTIONS, AND ELAPP IS IN -- THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO ANSWER BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING QUESTIONS THAT PERTAIN TO THIS COMMITTEE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. OKAY. SO THAT GIVES US SOME SORT OF COORDINATED DIRECTION ABOUT HOW TO RESPOND TO THE BOARD, AND THE SUGGESTION -- ANYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE WHO WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT YOUR THOUGHTS TO EDITH, PLEASE DO SO. I WOULD SAY BY -- WHAT'S TODAY? NOVEMBER -- WHAT'S TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY? >> LET'S SEE. THAT GETS US TO -- >>HEIDI McCREE: NOVEMBER 6th? THAT'S TEN DAYS BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING. IS THAT ENOUGH TIME? >> THAT'S GOOD. >>HEIDI McCREE: LET'S SAY FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6th, TO EDITH BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS. AGAIN, NOT EVERYONE HAS TO DO THAT. >>EDITH STEWART: YOU MIGHT WANT TO OFFER THE PUBLIC THE SAME OPPORTUNITY AND PUT A HEADER FOR PANEL COMMENTS. >>HEIDI McCREE: OKAY. THAT'S GREAT. EDITH HAS A GREAT SUGGESTION. IF ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO DO THE SAME BY NOVEMBER 6th, PLEASE DO SO, AND THEN WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO HAVE A PRESENTATION OF THOSE COMMENTS FOR OUR NEXT MEETING. I ALSO -- AS YOU HAVE SEEN IN YOUR PACKETS, I'VE -- FCEG IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HAVE THE COUNTY RESPOND TO ALL THE QUESTIONS, AND THE COUNTY HAS DONE THAT. THERE IS A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 19th FROM FCEG. I THINK THEY'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON NOVEMBER 16th. WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE PUT SOME TIME ON THERE IF WE WOULD LIKE TO OR HAVE THEM IN THE AUDIENCE SO WE CAN ASK THEM ANY QUESTIONS. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. DEE. >>DENISE LAYNE: HEIDI, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF THE MEMBERS, BUT I'VE HAD A FEW CITIZENS CALL ME AND SAY THEY REALLY WOULD LIKE A BLOCK OF TIME, BUT THERE'S SO MANY THAT WANT THAT BLOCK OF TIME, IT WOULD BE LIKE DAYS AND DAYS AND DAYS. IS THERE SOME WAY, THOUGH, AT OUR NEXT MEETING -- I REALLY WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME HASHING OUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES, BUT ALLOWING A 15-MINUTE -- AND SOME OF THESE ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS OUT THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF KNOW AND THEY'VE GOT PRESENTATIONS, BUT WORKING WITH EDITH TO MAKE SURE SHE KNOWS THAT -- WHO'S GOING TO BE SPEAKING, 15 MINUTES' WORTH. I'M JUST GETTING -- >>HEIDI McCREE: 15 MINUTES EACH? >>DENISE LAYNE: TOTAL. ALLOW A CITIZEN-ORIENTED PROGRAM TO COME FORWARD. I'M JUST GETTING THE FEELING THEY THINK THAT THEIR THREE MINUTES, THEY CAN'T GET IT ALL OUT. YES, THEY'RE PUTTING IT IN WRITING. THEY DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE READING IT. I MEAN, I AM, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY ELSE. JUST TO KIND OF CULMINATE AND GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY, HEY, YOU GET 15 MINUTES, TELL US -- YOU KNOW, TELL US WHAT YOU THINK. >>HEIDI McCREE: WELL, A COUPLE THOUGHTS. ONE THOUGHT IS JUST WITH WHAT EDITH IS RECOMMENDING, AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEND HER THEIR THOUGHTS TO ALSO HAVE THOSE POSTED SO WE CAN SEE THEM, AND AGAIN THAT IS GOING TO BE SO HELPFUL TO US BECAUSE WE CAN ALL READ THEM AND ASSESS THEM, AND I KNOW SEVERAL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WE ACTUALLY RESPONDED TO PER OUR AGENDA. THERE WERE SOME ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED. I KNOW THAT MARK-DAVID AND SOME OF THE OTHERS WERE DIRECTLY RESPONDING TO SOME OF THE PUBLIC'S COMMENTS, SO I'M NOT SAYING NO, I'M JUST SAYING I LIKE THAT IDEA, I JUST -- I'M TRYING TO RESPECT YOUR TIME TOO, AND WE HAVE CAN HAVE A THREE-HOUR MEETING. >>DENISE LAYNE: [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD WORK DONE, AND THEN -- >>HEIDI McCREE: LET'S DO THAT. >>DENISE LAYNE: -- FOR A FINAL, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOME TIME PUT ASIDE JUST TO HEAR -- >>HEIDI McCREE: WELL, AND WE'VE GOT 35 MINUTES RIGHT NOW OF PUBLIC COMMENT, SO LET'S START -- >>DENISE LAYNE: [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>HEIDI McCREE: NO, NO, I THINK LET'S GO WITH IT, AND AGAIN, ANY OF THE FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY, WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR PUTTING ANYTHING IN WRITING TO EDITH AND THEN TO THE WEB SITE. THE MORE WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, THAT'S GREAT. THEN WE CAN RESPOND TO THAT IN OUR DISCUSSIONS ON NOVEMBER 16th. I THINK WE COULD BE MINDFUL OF, YOU KNOW, THOSE ISSUES THAT ARE OUT THERE AND MAKE A DECISION AS TO HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THEM, BUT WE'VE AT LEAST ADHERED TO THE INPUT OR PROCESSED THE INPUT. ALL RIGHT. SHALL I JUST GO FORWARD. YEAH, FELIX. >>FELIX HAYNES: BEFORE WE GO TO THE PUBLIC I HAVE A SHORT CLARIFYING QUESTION TO ASK. >>HEIDI McCREE: YES, SIR. >>FELIX HAYNES: I THINK I CAN DO IT -- >>HEIDI McCREE: OKAY. GREAT. NO. >>FELIX HAYNES: AT THE FIRST MEETING OF THIS GROUP, WE GOT INTO COMPETITIVE BIDDING A LITTLE BIT, AND I REMEMBER I ASKED THE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, COULD THE COUNTY BOARD ACCEPT THE FCEG PROPOSAL WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING, AND MY MEMORY IS THE ANSWER WAS YES. NOW TODAY I'VE HEARD THAT SINCE -- PERHAPS SINCE FCEG IS A FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS THAT THE BOARD COULD NOT SAY YES RIGHT AWAY TO THE FCEG PROPOSAL. ANY -- THE ONLY WAY THE BOARD CAN SELL -- CAN SELL THIS LAND TO ANYBODY -- ANY FOR-PROFIT AGENCY WOULD BE -- WOULD BE A COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS. AM I RIGHT ON THAT? DID I HEAR RIGHT TODAY? >>HEIDI McCREE: SUSAN, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT, PLEASE. >>SUSAN FERNANDEZ: SURE. FCEG IS A FOR-PROFIT ENTITY, BUT THE PROPOSAL THAT THEY HAVE PUT FORWARD INVOLVES CREATING A 501(C)(3) NOT-FOR- PROFIT IN THE FORM OF A CONSERVATION LAND TRUST, SO ANY CONTRACT THAT THE COUNTY ENTERED INTO WITH THAT LAND TRUST WOULD FALL WITHIN THAT COMPETITIVE EXCEPTION, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, WE COULD NOT JUST SELL FCEG THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY, NO. >>FELIX HAYNES: THANK YOU. >>HEIDI McCREE: AND JUST TO FURTHER THAT, I THINK THE BOARD -- YOU KNOW, THAT COULD ALL BE EXPLAINED TO THE BOARD, AND THE BOARD COULD DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO SOLE SOURCE IT OR GO FORTH IN A COMPETITIVE PROCESS REGARDLESS OF WHOM. ALL RIGHT. WESLEY -- OH, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO DO FOR ALL OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE IS READ THREE NAMES IN A ROW SO YOU KNOW, AND OF COURSE YOU HAVE YOUR THREE MINUTES, I KNOW IT'S NOT A LOT, BUT IF YOU DON'T NEED YOUR THREE MINUTES, THAT'S ALSO FINE TOO. JUST IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING HERE, AND WE CERTAINLY -- WE CERTAINLY DO WANT TO GIVE YOU YOUR THREE MINUTES, SO APPRECIATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND INDULGING US IN THIS TIME CONSTRAINT. WESLEY BAILEY IS FIRST AND THEN FOLLOWED BY CHARLOTTE BUTLER-NELSON AND JOYCE NOONAM. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. BAILEY. >> HELLO. ONCE AGAIN, I'LL REMIND YOU THAT I'M A CARPENTER, NOT A LAWYER, BUT I HAVE READ SECTIONS 125.38 AND 125.35, AND I WANT TO ADVISE YOU THAT THE CREATION OF THE CONE RANCH LAND TRUST AS A NOT-FOR-PROFIT EXPRESSLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING A SALE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY WITHOUT THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS IS A FLAWED LEGAL THEORY. IF YOU APPLY THAT THEORY BROADLY, ANY PUBLIC PROPERTY COULD BE SOLD WITHOUT THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS SIMPLY BY CREATING A NOT-FOR-PROFIT DE JURE TO DO THE DEAL. THE JUDGES, THE COURTS ARE NOT GOING TO LOOK VERY FAVORABLY UPON THIS, SO GO VERY CAREFULLY THERE AND THINK ABOUT THAT REAL HARD. MADAM CHAIR, THERE IS SOMETHING TO PREVENT THE WATER DEPARTMENT FROM BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS ON CONE RANCH, AND IT IS THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITIZENS. MEMBERS OF THE PANEL, I'M GOING TO GET BACK TO MY -- IT'S VERY HARD. I HEAR THINGS AT THESE MEETINGS, AND THEN MY PREPARED REMARKS JUST GO OUT THE WINDOW, BUT I DID WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. I REALIZE YOU'RE HERE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY, AND I APPRECIATE IT. I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THIS PANEL WEREN'T PUT HERE TO TAKE THE HEAT FOR A BAD DECISION. I TRUST YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A GOOD DECISION. REGARDING FCEG ASKING FOR TIME AGAIN, PERHAPS THEY CAN PUT THEIR REMARKS ON-LINE. THEY HAVE PUT A PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU THAT -- IT RIVALS A DERIVATIVE SWAP AND TRYING TO UNRAVEL IT. THERE'S NO DETAILS THERE. IT'S AN UNSPECIFIED -- BUYER'S UNSPECIFIED PRICE, UNSPECIFIED FEES. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. IT'S A DIRTY, LOUSY DEAL. THE LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN IS NOT WRITTEN. THERE'S JUST NO -- TAMPA BAY WATER, ANOTHER ISSUE THAT'S COME UP TODAY. THAT'S A SOLVABLE PROBLEM. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO PUT A WELLFIELD OUT THERE. THE FLORIDA LEGISLATORS HAS ACTED ON THIS AND WILL ACT ON THIS AGAIN. IT JUST ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. DRILLING A WELL DOES NOT PRODUCE WATER. IT TRANSFERS WATER FROM THE AQUIFER TO THE SURFACE. RESTORING WETLANDS ACTUALLY GENERATES A NEW WATER RESOURCE BY RETAINING AND PURIFYING WATER THAT WOULD OTHERWISE DROP INTO THE BAY. IT IS WATER THAT IS GOING TO LIMIT THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, NOT LAND FOR CONDOMINIUMS. WE NEED TO CREATE, PRESERVE, AND ENHANCE OUR WATER SOURCES. WE ALSO NEED TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO LIMIT OUR USE OF WATER. WE NEED TO BECOME WATER WISE INSTEAD OF WATER FOOLISH. DO I HAVE ANOTHER MINUTE LEFT? >>EDITH STEWART: 30 SECONDS. >>HEIDI McCREE: 30 SECONDS. >> 30 SECONDS. LET ME SAY THIS. TO IGNORE THE TRUE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF CONE RANCH FOR THE PEOPLE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THEIR RIVER, AND THE FUTURE OF OUR WATER RESOURCES WOULD BE SIMPLY WRONG, BUT TO DO IT FOR THE SAKE OF A FEW PRIVILEGED WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS, TAKING HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY INTO A PARTNERSHIP AS UNDEFINED AS THE FCEG DEAL, THAT WOULD JUST BE SHAMEFUL. I DO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>HEIDI McCREE: AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. MS. BUTLER NELSON. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR McCREE, AND I WANTED TO SAY THANKS TO ALL OF YOU. COMMISSIONERS HAVE REALLY PUT YOU IN A HOT SEAT, AND I FEEL LIKE THEY'VE ASKED TO YOU DO THEIR DIRTY WORK BECAUSE THEY ARE CHICKENS TO COME OUT TO OUR AREA OF THE COUNTY AND -- AND SAY HERE'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO. SAME THING HAPPENED WITH CHAMPIONSHIP PARK. HERE WE ARE NOW TWO YEARS LATER, AND I'M BACK IN THE SAME THRONGS OF TRYING TO ENSURE THAT I DON'T SEE PLANT CITY ANNEXING ACROSS KNIGHTS GRIFFIN ROAD. I'M SURE DR. HAYNES IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA OF THE COUNTY. THE PANEL DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU'RE HAVING ARE DOWN HERE IN THE COUNTY CENTER. THEY'RE NOT OUT IN THE AREA OF THE COUNTY WHERE I LIVE. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PHONE CALLS I'VE GOTTEN THIS WEEK, PEOPLE THAT WERE INTERESTED TO COME DOWN HERE TO LISTEN TO WHAT ALL GOES ON AT THIS PANEL DISCUSSION? THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BUT YOU-ALL ARE ACTING ON THEIR BEHALF. THESE PROPOSALS THAT YOU'RE COMING UP WITH, WHOEVER'S COMING UP WITH THEM, AND WHEREVER THEY'RE FROM, THEY REALLY DON'T -- THEY DON'T SEE THAT. THEY DON'T SEE -- THEY DON'T HEAR YOUR DISCUSSION. NOW, SOME OF THEM DO NOT WATCH THE WEB SITE, THE STREAMING VIDEO, THEY DON'T SEE THIS BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT USE COMPUTERS. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. IT IS UP TO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO DISSEMINATE THE INFORMATION WHEN THEY'RE GETTING READY TO MAKE MAJOR CHANGES AND DECISIONS IN OUR AREA OF THE COUNTY. ALTHOUGH, YES, THIS IS TAXPAYERS FROM ALL ACROSS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT HAS A SAY IN THIS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT. SO I WANT THAT MESSAGE TAKEN BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS IF IT HASN'T BEEN DRIVEN HOME YET. I WAS -- THE ONLY OTHER THING I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, AND THEN I'M GOING TO SAVE MY TIME FOR SOMEBODY ELSE, IS THAT THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE OUT OF ALL OF THESE IS TO HAVE ELAPP PURCHASE IT. THAT'S BEEN MY STANCE SINCE THE BEGINNING, AND I DON'T WANT TO MUDDY THE WATERS WITH CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. I STILL DISAGREE WITH THAT. PERHAPS THE WAY ANDY WAS DESCRIBING THEM, IT MIGHT WORK. IF YOU'VE GOT ENOUGH ON THERE, THEN YOU'D REALLY HAVE TO BE SOMEBODY VERY WEALTHY TO BREAK THEM, BUT IF THERE'S NOT A LOT OF THEM ON THERE, IT'S NOT INTERESTING TO ME. I WANT IT OWNED BY THE TAXPAYERS FREE AND CLEAR, NO MORE STUFF LIKE THIS HAPPENING AGAIN IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. >>HEIDI McCREE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. AFTER JOYCE IS ELIZABETH BELCHER AND THEN KELLY CORNELIUS. GOOD AFTERNOON. >> HELLO. I THINK THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF CONE RANCH IS TO HAVE ELAPP TAKE OVER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, AND I'D LIKE TO READ SOMETHING. A CHIEF OF ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL BANDS OF NORTHERN BLACKFEET UPON BEING ASKED BY U.S. DELEGATES FOR HIS SIGNATURE TO ONE OF THE FIRST LAND TREATIES IN HIS REGION OF THE MILK RIVER NEAR THE NORTHERN BORDER OF MONTANA AND THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES RESPONDS WITH A REJECTION OF THE MONEY VALUES OF THE WHITE MAN. HE SAID, OUR LAND IS MORE VALUABLE THAN YOUR MONEY, IT WILL LAST FOREVER. IT WILL NOT EVEN PERISH BY THE FLAMES OF FIRE. AS LONG AS THE SUN SHINES AND THE WATERS FLOW, THIS LAND WILL BE HERE TO GIVE LIFE TO MEN AND ANIMALS. WE CANNOT SELL THE LIVES OF MEN AND ANIMALS. THEREFORE, WE CANNOT SELL THIS LAND. IT WAS PUT HERE FOR US BY THE GREAT SPIRIT, AND WE CANNOT SELL IT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT BELONG TO US. YOU CAN COUNT YOUR MONEY AND BURN IT WITHIN THE NOD OF A BUFFALO'S HEAD, BUT ONLY THE GREAT SPIRIT CAN COUNT THE GRAINS OF SAND AND THE BLADES OF GRASS OF THESE PLAINS. AS A PRESENT TO YOU, WE WILL GIVE YOU ANYTHING WE HAVE THAT YOU CAN TAKE WITH YOU, BUT THE LAND NEVER. THANK YOU. >>HEIDI McCREE: THANK YOU. MS. BELCHER. >> ONE OF THE WAYS TO EVADE OPEN BIDDING FOR GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IS TO HAVE THE PURCHASER BE A QUALIFIED NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. FC, A FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, CANNOT QUALIFY FOR THE CLOSED BIDDING, SO IT HAS PROPOSED CREATING A NONPROFIT LAND TRUST WHICH AT THIS POINT IS NOT IN EXISTENCE TO PURCHASE CONE RANCH, THEREBY DEFEATING THE CONCEPT OF OPEN BIDDING. INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING THE LAW AND OPENING THE BIDDING TO EVERYONE, FC WILL PURCHASE THE LAND BY CREATING AFTER THE FACT A NONPROFIT. IT IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW -- IF THIS IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW, THEN IT IS CERTAINLY PUSHING THE LINES SO BADLY THAT IT'S BENDING. I MEAN, I ASSUME THAT THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE OUT HERE THAT ARE HAVING THE SAME CONCEPT PROBLEM AS I AM CONCERNING THIS. THIS IS SUBSTANCE VERSUS FORM. IN ESSENCE, A FOR-PROFIT WILL PURCHASE THE PROPERTY USING AN ENTITY CREATED BY THEM AND THEREBY EVADE THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF OPEN BIDDING. AND APPARENTLY THIS IS WHAT FC WANTS TO DO. AND I'M NOT REALLY CLEAR ON HOW THIS IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. HOW WILL THIS NONPROFIT BE FUNDED SO THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE -- PAY THE COUNTY? KEN JONES HAS MADE VAGUE STATEMENTS SAYING THAT BRIDGE FUNDING WILL BE PROVIDED. NOW MY QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS TO THE EASEMENTS? WILL THIS LAND TRUST PURCHASE CONE RANCH WITHOUT THE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS IN PLACE? IN OTHER WORDS, WOULD THE COUNTY TURN OVER THE DEED TO A RANCH WITHOUT ANY -- WITHOUT ANY EASEMENTS AND HOPE THAT THE OWNERS WILL FULFILL THEIR VERBAL, NOT WRITTEN PROMISES? ANOTHER THING IS THAT NO MATTER HOW RESTRICTIVE THE IRS CODE APPEARS TO BE, ALL A THE TAX COURT CASES THAT I HAVE READ THE ISSUE WAS NEVER WHETHER THIS WAS A VALID DONATION BUT WHETHER WHAT THE VALUE OF THE DONATION WAS. AND AGAIN, I WOULD GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION. WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY PROPERTY AND PROMISE TO GIVE AWAY THE RIGHTS TO MAKE THEIR PROPERTIES ALMOST RESTRICTIVE UNLESS IT WAS FOR SOMETHING ALWAYS AS INGENIOUS, SHALL WE SAY, AS THE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS? AND THEN THE THIRD THING IS THAT THE MEMO THAT'S DATED IN THE PACKAGE 10/19/09 FROM FC REQUESTS MORE TIME BEFORE THE PANEL, AND THIS QUESTION BEFORE THE PANEL WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO CONE RANCH, SO WHY ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FOR THE SALE OF THE CONE RANCH BASICALLY GETTING UNLIMITED TIME WHILE THOSE WHO HAVE THE POSITION OF BEING OPPOSED ARE DENIED THAT RIGHT? AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING. >>HEIDI McCREE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. KELLY CORNELIUS, AND THEN FOLLOWED BY PAM CLOUSTON, FOLLOWED BY GEORGE NIEMANN. GOOD AFTERNOON. >> HI. MY NAME'S KELLY CORNELIUS. THANKS FOR HAVING ME TODAY. THIS IS MY FIRST TRIP DOWN HERE TO THE ADVISORY PANEL MEETING -- I DID ATTEND THE ELAPP MEETING ON THIS PARCEL -- BUT I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING YOU GUYS CLOSELY ON THE VIDEO ON DEMAND, SO I APPRECIATE YOUR -- YOUR WILLINGNESS TO VOLUNTEER FOR THIS. THIS STARTED UNDER WHAT SEEMS TO ME THE GUISE OF PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION. AS FAR AS PRESERVATION GOES, ONE LOOK AT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT'S ALREADY LISTED AS PRESERVATION. THE CONE RANCH IS LISTED AS PRESERVATION. TO CHANGE THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS, WHICH REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARINGS THROUGHOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN PUBLIC HEARINGS AT OUR BOCC, AND ULTIMATELY ONLY THE BOCC CAN DECIDE IF THAT TITLE GETS CHANGED FROM ANYTHING OTHER THAN PRESERVATION. I MEAN, I THINK EVEN OUR WORST COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WOULD KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE POLITICAL SUICIDE TO TRY TO DO THAT, BUT -- BUT IF THERE'S CONFUSION WITH THAT, I SUGGEST MAYBE YOU GET SOMEONE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO COME AND EXPLAIN THAT PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S -- IT'S ALREADY UNDER THE HEADING OF PRESERVATION. AS FAR AS RESTORATION, I'VE WATCHED ALL OF THE MEETINGS, READ THE TRANSCRIPTS. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ANYONE'S REALLY SHOWN US WHAT NEEDS TO BE RESTORED. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE A COUPLE OF DITCHES, BUT NOBODY'S REALLY SAID, WELL, THERE'S THIS GLARING PROBLEM ON CONE RANCH. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S FUNCTIONING FINE. I'M NOT A, YOU KNOW, PROFESSIONAL ON THAT, BUT NOBODY'S REALLY COME UP WITH ANYTHING SAYING THAT IT NEEDS TO BE RESTORED, SO, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE'RE WORRYING ABOUT PUBLIC- PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND MITIGATION BANKS, I THINK SOMEONE NEEDS TO GIVE US SOME OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS ON WHAT EXACTLY NEEDS TO BE RESTORED, IF ANYTHING. AS FAR AS FCEG GOES, I HAVE SOME MAJOR CONCERNS WHEN THEY'RE -- OF WHAT THEY CALL IRONCLAD -- WHAT THEY'RE CALLING IRONCLAD EASEMENTS, AND THE NEXT BREATH THEY'RE EXPLAINING THAT THOSE CAN BE CHANGED BY TWO PARTIES AGREEING. THAT'S NOT IRONCLAD, THAT'S A HOLE BIG ENOUGH TO DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH. AND AS FAR AS -- I HOPE AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO GIVE THIS LAND TO ELAPP. THE REASON THAT -- THAT IT WENT UP HIGHER IN CLASSIFICATION SEEMED TO BE THAT THE THREAT WENT UP FOR THIS LAND TO BE DEVELOPED. WHAT WAS THE THREAT? WELL, THERE'S -- SINCE I'VE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION, THERE'S BEEN TWO THREATS. BOTH OF THEM HAVE BEEN OUR OWN BOCC. SO DOES IT NEED TO BE PRESERVED? NO, IT'S PRESERVED. DOES IT NEED TO BE PROTECTED? YES, ONLY FROM OUR OWN BOCC. THE FIRST THING THAT I'VE NOTICED WAS CONE -- WAS CHAMPIONSHIP PARK. HOW MUCH DID THAT COST US TO GO THROUGH THOSE MOTIONS TO SAY THAT, NO, WE DIDN'T WANT THAT. THERE WAS CONSULTANTS, THERE WAS EVERYTHING ELSE, SO ALL THAT MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN. THAT COULD HAVE GONE TO ELAPP TO BUY MORE LAND. THE SECOND THREAT IS THIS RECENT ONE THAT CHAIRMAN HAGAN BROUGHT FORWARD, WHICH IS WHY YOU'RE ALL HERE, SO -- AND I THINK IT WOULD BE SAFE IN ELAPP. MAYBE THE ELAPP PEOPLE CAN -- CAN ANSWER THIS, BUT HAVE YOU EVER HAD A PANEL TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH LAND THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACQUIRED BY ELAPP, LIKE SELLING IT? I DON'T -- I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING, SO I THINK ONCE IT GETS INTO THAT ELAPP BANK, IT'S SAFE. SO -- SO FINALLY, TAXPAYER DOLLARS, I MEAN, IT'S GREAT THAT WE'RE HAVING ALL THESE MEETINGS. I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE VOLUNTEERS, AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT, BUT THE COUNTY STAFF, THEY AREN'T VOLUNTEERS. TURNING THE LIGHTS ON, THAT COSTS US MONEY. TELEVISING THIS, DOING STUDIES, DOING APPRAISALS. I MEAN, I HOPE AT SOME POINT WE PUT AN END DATE INSIDE OF WHEN THIS RECOMMENDATION IS GOING TO BE MADE, AND I HOPE THAT IT'S TO ELAPP. I THINK THAT'S THE SAFEST WAY, AND AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS. >>HEIDI McCREE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PAM. [APPLAUSE] >> GOOD AFTERNOON. PAM CLOUSTON. I LIVE IN LITHIA. AND MS. HEIDI, YOU WANT US TO GET RIGHT TO THE POINT, THE HEART OF THE MATTER, SO I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT THIS IS THE LAST LARGE RANCH LEFT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT HAS NOT BEEN PLOWED OVER AND BUILT UPON, AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK THAT EVERYBODY HERE GETS THE SENSE THAT THE PUBLIC WANTS THIS SAVED FROM PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SIX RICH GUYS, ONE RICH GUY, OR CONDOMINIUMS, I THINK YOU ALL UNDERSTAND THAT. I KNOW THAT THERE'S THIS HUGE CONCERN OUT THERE ABOUT ELAPP NOT HAVING ENOUGH MONEY; HOWEVER, ELAPP JUST MADE THEIR RANKINGS. THIS LAND GOT THE HIGHEST RANKING EVER, AND I KNOW THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DID NOT WANT TO RAISE ANY TAXES, SO IF YOU HAVE A $200,000 HOUSE WITH 50,000 EXEMPTION, YOU'RE SAVING 24 CENTS ON YOUR TAXES; HOWEVER, COSTS FOR EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING UP. AND I KNOW THAT WAS SYMBOLIC; HOWEVER, THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, SO I THINK PROBABLY BY THE TIME WE'RE READY TO DO THIS, WE'LL BE INTO ANOTHER TAX CYCLE. SO I THINK THAT MAYBE TAKING THE WORRY ABOUT USING UP ALL OF ELAPP'S MONEY AT ONCE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE LOOKED AT BECAUSE THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY SAID, YES, WE'LL SPEND $200 MILLION ON PRESERVATION PROPERTIES, SO I THINK THAT SHOULDN'T BE A CONSIDERATION. I ALSO WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY STILL -- I HAD THAT LIST OF QUESTIONS, AND I REALLY THINK THAT BY THE TIME THIS PROCESS IS OVER, WHOEVER NEEDS TO ANSWER EVERY ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED SO THAT THE -- AND, YOU KNOW, THE ANSWERS SHOULD BE POSTED. HOW MUCH MONEY IS FC&EG GOING TO MAKE OFF THIS DEAL? THAT IS LIKE MY FIRST QUESTION, AND IT -- IT STILL HADN'T BEEN ANSWERED. NOBODY -- EVERYBODY'S LIKE TIPTOEING AROUND THE FACT. I AM SO NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE COUNTY TRANSFERRING THIS TO THE CONE RANCH TRUST. WHO'S GOING TO BE ON THAT? WHO'S GOING TO BE ON THAT IN 20 YEARS FROM NOW? THE CHILDREN OF THE LANDOWNERS MAYBE, AND THEN WHAT CAN HAPPEN WITH THAT? YOU KNOW, THE THREAT OF PLANT CITY WANTING TO ANNEX IT IS ALWAYS A PROBLEM, SO IF IT BELONGS TO ELAPP, SWFWMD, WHATEVER. ALSO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, AND, WELL, IF YOU PUT THEM ON BEFORE, PEOPLE CAN'T GET TAX BREAKS, AND WHO DO YOU GIVE IT TO, WHAT IS A -- AN APPROVED AGENCY, IS IT DUCKS UNLIMITED, IS IT NATURE CONSERVANCY, IS IT SWFWMD? WHAT IF THE RECOMMENDATION TURNS OUT TO BE TO GIVE THIS LAND TO FC&EG SO THAT THEY CAN MARKET IT. COULD WE FIRST PLACE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT THAT BELONGS TO ELAPP BEFORE THAT WOULD HAPPEN? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. >>HEIDI McCREE: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. GEORGE NIEMANN AND VIVIAN BACCA, I BELIEVE, IS AFTER GEORGE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. GEORGE NIEMANN SPEAKING. I WANT TO THANK THE PANEL FOR SPENDING THIS MUCH TIME. THIS IS A WORTHWHILE CAUSE. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT -- JUST TO REPEAT THE PRIMARY FOCUS AND THE GOAL OF THIS PANEL'S WORK IS OR SHOULD BE TO PROTECT CONE RANCH. THAT'S WHAT THE CITIZENS -- I'M IN EAST HILLSBOROUGH, AND THE CITIZENS THAT I SPEAK TO -- AND I SPEAK TO QUITE A FEW -- THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN IS THEY WANT TO PRESERVE CONE RANCH FOR PERPETUITY AND TO PROTECT IT, SO THAT SHOULD BE OUR PRIMARY FOCUS AND IT SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY GOAL. DEVELOPING MITIGATION BANKS IS NICE TO HAVE, BUT AS ONE OF THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS MENTIONED, DO WE REALLY NEED A LOT OF REMEDIAL WORK IN CONE RANCH? IS IT A FEW DITCHES? SO I WOULD SAY LET'S KEEP OUR EYE ON THE BALL, WHICH IS TO PRESERVE IT, AND WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO PRESERVE IT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS -- MYSELF AS WELL -- AS WELL AS SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES WATCH THE BOARD VERY CAREFULLY. WE'RE SOMETIMES CALLED WATCHDOGS, AND I'M GOING TO STEAL A WORD FROM ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES. SHE CAME UP WITH THE TERM TEAM SPRAWL. THERE ARE FOUR MEMBERS ON OUR BOARD THAT WE -- WE LOVINGLY CALL TEAM SPRAWL. WELL, WHO -- WE GET SUSPICIOUS WHEN THE CAPTAIN OF TEAM SPRAWL BRINGS UP THIS WHOLE IDEA AND SAYS, HEY, FOLKS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. WE'RE ALL SITTING THERE SAYING, WHAT PROBLEM? CONE RANCH IS SITTING THERE, IT'S JUST LIVING AND BREATHING, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, HEY, WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM. LET'S BRING IN A PRIVATE COMPANY, A FOR-PROFIT COMPANY, AND LET'S WORK OUT A DEAL. WELL, WHEN TEAM SPRAWL CAPTAIN SAYS TO DO THAT, WATCH OUT, FOLKS, AND I THINK THE CITIZENS ARE VERY LEERY CONSIDERING WHO THIS CAME FROM BECAUSE WHERE PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED, THERE ARE AGENDAS, AND I BELIEVE IN ALTRUISM BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES TO FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES. SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I AND THE CITIZENS IN MY AREA WANT TO SEE ELAPP ACQUIRE THIS LAND. IT IS THE BEST SOLUTION FOR -- IF WE WANT TO CALL THIS AN ISSUE, IT'S THE BEST SOLUTION TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, IN THE LAST ELECTION THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY TO -- TO CONTINUE ELAPP, SO WE HAVE FAITH IN ELAPP. THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO PRESERVE IT. THESE OTHER IDEAS ARE -- YOU KNOW, AS WE SEE HOW COMPLICATED IT GETS, WE DON'T TRUST THE OTHER IDEAS, WE TRUST ELAPP, AND I WOULD -- I WOULD ASK THE CHAIR ONE QUESTION. I CAME TO THIS MEETING TODAY THINKING WE'VE GOT ELAPP, THEY'VE RANKED IT, THEY'VE GIVEN IT A VERY HIGH RANKING, THEY WANT TO ACQUIRE THE LAND. THAT WAS AN OPEN QUESTION UP UNTIL NOW. SO WE ALL COME TO THIS MEETING TODAY, ELAPP SAYS, WE WANT TO ACQUIRE THE LAND. I'M THINKING, WELL, THIS PANEL SHOULD -- SHOULD COME TO A CONSENSUS TODAY, BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS TODAY, AND GO BACK TO THE BOARD. SO I WOULD ASK THE CHAIR -- AND I DON'T MIND, I'LL STAY HERE UNTIL 10:00 P.M. TONIGHT, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ALL VOLUNTEERING, AND I REALLY WANTED TO GET HOME FOR A NICE DINNER, BUT I'LL STAY UNTIL 10:00 P.M. WHEN EVERYONE'S DONE SPEAKING, LET'S OPEN THE DISCUSSION UP AND LET'S GET A CONSENSUS, SHOULD WE JUST GO WITH ELAPP BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DO IT, AND WE SHOULD JUST ARRIVE AT THAT DECISION TODAY, AND THEN WHEN YOU REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD, WE'VE GOT A CONSENSUS, EVERYONE AGREES, OR WE'VE GOT A MAJORITY, WE THINK IT SHOULD JUST GO WITH ELAPP. SO THAT'S MY SUGGESTION. I HOPE YOU CAN GIVE THAT SOME CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. >>HEIDI McCREE: THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. [APPLAUSE] VIVIAN, AND THEN NELSON VASQUEZ I THINK -- MY EYES, I'M SORRY. >> MADAM CHAIRMAN, I'VE GOT A 4:00 WITCHING HOUR THAT I NEED TO -- >>HEIDI McCREE: YEAH, OKAY. I KNOW. I AM GOING TO GET THROUGH THE PUBLIC COMMENT, THOUGH, AND THEN WE WILL ADJOURN, BUT IF YOU HAVE TO LEAVE, WE WILL SEE YOU ON NOVEMBER 16th, AND WE WISH YOU GOODWILL UNTIL THEN. VIVIAN, GOOD AFTERNOON. >> HI. VIVIAN BACCA, 413 EL GRECO DRIVE IN BRANDON. I THINK IT'S SAD THAT IT SEEMS HARDER FOR ELAPP TO BUY PROPERTY ALREADY OWNED BY A COUNTY AGENCY THAN TO NEGOTIATE WITH A PRIVATE LANDOWNER. IF THE BONDHOLDERS ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT HIGHEST AND BEST USE, HOW DOES THE WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT JUSTIFY THE MINIMAL RENT RECEIVED FOR A PASSIVE CATTLE OPERATION? WHY HASN'T THE UTILITY ALREADY DONE A MITIGATION BANK? IT'S NOT AS IF THIS PROPERTY IS TIED TO ALL WATER RESOURCE BONDS. THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY APPROXIMATELY $11 MILLION. WHY NOT JUST RETIRE ANY REMAINING DEBT AND REMOVE THE BONDHOLDERS FROM THE EQUATION? THE COMMITTEE HAS TALKED ABOUT THE NEED TO PAY TAMPA BAY WATER FOR THEIR WATER RIGHTS. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT TAMPA BAY WATER EVER PAID TO RETAIN THOSE RIGHTS. THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED WITH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FUNDS BEFORE TAMPA BAY WATER WAS FORMED BECAUSE THE WATER RESOURCE AGENCY AT THE TIME DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY. ORIGINAL -- THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT SAID SOMETHING LIKE TAMPA BAY WATER WITH A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PAID A DOLLAR FOR THE WATER RIGHTS. I COULDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY GOT A BENEFIT WHEN TAMPA BAY WATER WAS FORMED FOR THESE WATER RIGHTS, SO WHY SHOULD WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT A LARGE PAYMENT TO THEM NOW? IF THEY DID GIVE US A BENEFIT, LET'S ADJUST IT FOR INFLATION AND PAY THEM BACK. MIKE MERRILL SAYS THAT IT IS NOT THE MISSION OF THE WATER DEPARTMENT TO RESTORE THE PROPERTY. I DISAGREE. IF THE WATER UTILITY'S MISSION ISN'T TO PROTECT VITAL WATER RESOURCES, WHAT IS THEIR MISSION, ONLY TO DELIVER WATER FROM WHEREVER THEY GET IT? WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY OF THE IMPORTANCE TO THIS -- TO THE AQUIFER AND STORMWATER RECHARGE OF THE SYSTEM. HOLDING THIS PROPERTY, RESTORING THE STORMWATER MITIGATION ELEMENTS IS ABSOLUTELY THE MISSION OF THE WATER DEPARTMENT. IF WE ARE TO RECLAIM WHAT'S LEFT OF FLORIDA'S PARADISE, WE NEED TO STOP KIDDING OURSELVES THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE GOOD CUSTODIANS OF WETLANDS. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE CONE RANCH PROPERTY MAKES IT VITAL TO PROTECT FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE FUTURE. ELAPP SHOULD DO IT. [APPLAUSE] >>HEIDI McCREE: THANK YOU. NELSON IS NEXT, AND THEN MARILYN SMITH AND FOLLOWED BY BEV GRIFFITHS. YEAH. OKAY. WELL, THANKS FOR BEING HERE ANYWAY. WE APPRECIATE THAT. MARILYN. >> BONJOUR. BUONA SERA. WELL, I SEE WE HAVE AN ATTENDANCE TODAY, THE INVASIVE SPECIES. WE, THE PUBLIC, ARE NOT PLEASED WITH WHAT WE'RE SEEING OR HEARING. WE DON'T EVEN TRUST GOVERNMENT ANYMORE, AND YOU CAN PROBABLY SURMISE WHY. RECENT -- RECENT ACTIVITIES. WE DON'T TRUST THE ELECTED OR APPOINTED. THAT'S HOW BAD IT IS. IT'S A VERY, VERY NEGATIVE PUBLIC OUT THERE. SO YOU'RE KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE -- SWIMMING UPRIVER HERE TRYING TO DECIDE SOMETHING FOR THEIR -- THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE YOUR ADVICE ANYWAY. NOT GOING TO MAKE THEM ENOUGH MONEY. THE WATER DEPARTMENT THE LAST TIME I LOOKED WAS PART OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, A SUBDIVISION -- A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. DID YOU -- DID YOU DEFECT, GENERAL? DID YOU GO AWAY? DID YOU LEAVE THE COUNTRY? DID YOU DECLARE YOUR INDEPENDENCE? YOU STILL BELONG TO ME. THAT'S US. YOU STILL BELONG TO US. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, IT'S ACTING LIKE -- WE'RE ENTERPRISE, WE'RE THIS, WE'RE THAT, WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT. HEY, YOU GET YOUR AUTHORITY FROM THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTY. LET'S NOT FORGET IT. NUMBER TWO -- WELL, I JUST COVERED THAT. NOW NUMBER THREE. TAMPA BAY WATER. THAT WAS INTERESTING, WHAT VIV SAID ABOUT THEM, BECAUSE WEST COAST REGIONAL WAS THE ONE THAT FIRST HAD ALL THAT LAND, AND THEN ALONG CAME JERRY MAXWELL AND CREW AND ED TURANCHIK, MR. RESERVOIR, MR. DESAL, TWO PROJECTS THAT DO NOT WORK, SO I THINK YOU OUGHT TO WANT TO MAYBE FIND OUT FROM TAMPA BAY WATER WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS IS TO EVEN USE THIS. THEY'VE ALREADY GOT TWO PROJECTS THAT AREN'T WORKING THAT WERE GOING TO SOLVE ALL OUR WATER PROBLEMS. YOU REMEMBER THAT? THEY WERE EVEN GOING TO USE THIS FOR THE OLYMPICS OVER THERE, THAT RESERVOIR, TO SKI ON OR CANOE ON OR KAYAK ON. REMEMBER THAT, ANDY? ED'S PROPOSALS. OH, YEAH, MR. SUNSHINE. NOW HE WANTS TO GIVE US A TRADE. WHOOPEE. NUMBER THREE. HERE'S YOUR WHOLE PROBLEM. WE HAVEN'T SEEN -- BESIDES US NOT TRUSTING THE GOVERNMENT ANYMORE -- THE WHOLE FINANCIAL PROPOSAL. WE HAVEN'T SEEN BOTTOM LINE. WHY DID THEY REALLY WANT THIS? I DON'T THINK IT'S ALTRUISTIC. THIS FCE&G, I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, THEY ARE THE INVASIVE SPECIES, BUT LET'S SEE WHAT THEIR BOTTOM LINE IS, LET'S SEE WHAT THEIR REAL MOTIVATION IS. IT'S NOT TO HELP US WITH OUR WATER. WE WANT TO KEEP THE LAND WHERE IT IS UNDER THE AUSPICES AND GET IT TO THE ELAPP SO IT IS MORE PROTECTED BECAUSE THE WATER DEPARTMENT -- AND MIKE SAID IT'S NOT THEIR JOB TO DO THAT. THEN LET'S JUST MOVE IT OVER, GIVE IT TO ELAPP, AND WE DON'T NEED TO PAY HIM AN OUTRAGEOUS PRICE FOR ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T REALLY PAY FOR IT TO BEGIN WITH. THANK YOU. >>HEIDI McCREE: THANK YOU. BEV GRIFFITHS, AND THEN OUR FINAL SPEAKER IS ALLIGATOR BOB YOUNG. BEV, GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. BEV GRIFFITHS, CHAIR OF TAMPA BAY SIERRA CLUB. THE MEMBERS OF SIERRA CLUB, THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 1700 OF US IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT TRANSFERRING THIS PROPERTY INTO THE HANDS OF ELAPP, AND I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU FOR THE REASONS WHY IS BECAUSE IT - - IT'S AN AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA, IT'S CONNECTION BETWEEN THE GREEN SWAMP AND THE HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, IT'S A VERY LARGE PARCEL THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANOTHER SHOT AT LIKE THIS, AND IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT WILDLIFE CORRIDOR TOO. AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BOARD FOR SERVING. I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO BE AT ONE OF THESE MEETINGS YET BECAUSE OF SCHEDULING CONFLICTS, BUT I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE DOING VERY MUCH, AND I THANK YOU. >>HEIDI McCREE: AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. ALLIGATOR BOB. >> AND I'M GLAD I'M LAST BECAUSE I KNOW YOU-ALL WANT TO GET OUT OF HERE. BUT IT'S GOT TO BE SAID. I AM SO CONFUSED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS SIMPLE LITTLE TASK IS SO COMPLICATED. THE TAXPAYERS THROUGH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOUGHT CONE RANCH IN 1988, AND WE AIN'T PAID A DIME OFF ON IT. WE STILL OWE JUST AS MUCH MONEY ON IT TODAY AS WE HAD. NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE WATER DEPARTMENT HAS THE FUNDS TO RETIRE THOSE BONDS WHEN THEY COME DUE, WHICH IS VERY SHORTLY, BUT THE TAXPAYERS HAVE SET THAT MONEY ASIDE BECAUSE THEY HAD TO GUARANTEE IT TO THE BONDHOLDERS. SO THE MONEY IS THERE COMPLIMENTS OF THE TAXPAYERS. THERE WASN'T ANYBODY IN THE ENTERPRISE FUND. THERE IS NO INVESTORS IN THERE. IT'S A PUBLIC ENTITY. IT'S OWNED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE CITIZENS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. IT FUNDED IT. IT PUT UP THE MONEY. SO NOW THIS SIDE COMES OVER AND SAYS, WELL, WE GOTTA HAVE ALL THESE FANCY APPRAISALS FOR LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY, $195,000 TO SAY THAT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS WORTH WHAT? WHATEVER WE DECIDE WE WANT TO PUT ON IT. WELL, I'M ONE TAXPAYER THAT DOESN'T LIKE TO PAY TWICE FOR THE SAME THING. WE ALREADY OWN IT. MONEY IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE TRUST FUND TO RETIRE THE BONDS. ELAPP IS WILLING TO ASSUME THE OBLIGATION OF MANAGING THE PROPERTY AND KEEPING IT IN -- IN PRESERVATION PERPETUITY. THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE FORMED TO DO BY THE CITIZENS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. IT WAS A REFERENDUM, AND THEY APPROVED DOING THAT. AND THEY HAVE APPROVED EVERY DIME THAT HAS GONE IN TO THE PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY. THE TAXPAYERS PAID THAT, AND NOW YOU'RE TELLING THEM YOU GOTTA BUY IT TWICE? AND THEN WE HAVE AN ENTITY SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY $60 MILLION INSTEAD OF 200 MILLION, AND WE CAN'T -- YOU KNOW, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO SELL PART OF IT HERE AND PART OF IT THERE AND HOLD PART OF IT OVER HERE SO THAT ELAPP'S GOT ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY SOME OTHER PROPERTY. WELL, IF THEY GOT 60 MILLION TO SPEND, THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND THE 60 MILLION, WHETHER THEY BUY IT ON ONE PARCEL OR 20 PARCELS, AND I KNOW ONE OF THEM THEY'RE CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW FOR A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY IS ONLY 60 ACRES, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A PUBLIC PARK OUT OF IT. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING FOR WATER RESOURCES, IT'S NOT GOING TO DO VERY LITTLE FOR WILDLIFE BECAUSE IF YOU STAND OVER THERE AND LOOK, THERE AIN'T NO BIRDS USING THAT PROPERTY. SO I AM REALLY CONFUSED AS A TAXPAYER, AND I BELIEVE BY THE TIME THIS IS ALL SORTED OUT, THEY'RE GOING TO FIND OUT THEY GOT DUPED AGAIN AND THEY GOT CHARGED AN INFLATED PRICE FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY ALREADY OWNED. THINK ABOUT THAT. >>HEIDI McCREE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT. [APPLAUSE] ALL RIGHT. I HAVE NO OTHER CARDS FROM THE AUDIENCE, SO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS, AND THEY WILL BE EVALUATED. AGAIN, PLEASE SEND IN YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE WEB SITE TOO SO WE CAN EVALUATE THOSE IN PREPARATION FOR OUR DISCUSSION ON FRIDAY -- OR MONDAY, EXCUSE ME, NOVEMBER 16th. CORRECT, MONDAY? >>EDITH STEWART: [INAUDIBLE] >>HEIDI McCREE: YEAH, IT'S A MORNING MEETING. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON OUR AGENDA, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE MEETING IF THAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE -- YES, DEE. >>DENISE LAYNE: WHAT'S YOUR FAX NUMBER BECAUSE I'M GOING TO BE IN NORTH CAROLINA AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TYPE IT IN MY COMPUTER AND FAX IT TO YOU. >>EDITH STEWART: IT'S 813-272-5248, OR FOR ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SEND COMMENTS VIA E-MAIL STEWARTE@HILLSBOROUGHCOUNTY.ORG. >> HEIDI, CAN I MAKE A QUICK SUGGESTION? >>HEIDI McCREE: YES, UH-HUH. >> I KNOW WE'RE OUT OF TIME FOR TODAY, BUT FOR FUTURE MEETINGS AND ON THE 16th, IF WE HAVE -- WHEN WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE ENOUGH TIME FOR US TO ADDRESS THEM. I THINK THAT THEY DESERVE OUR RESPONSE. >>HEIDI McCREE: SO AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT HAVE OUR -- [APPLAUSE] YEAH, I KNOW. >> AND SOME DISCUSSION. WE CAN ANSWER SOME OF THEIR QUESTIONS, WE CAN CLARIFY THEIR ISSUES. SEVERAL PEOPLE HAD THE QUESTION ABOUT RESTORATION AND IS THAT NEEDED OUT THERE. SOME OF US CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO THE PUBLIC TO HAVE THEM COME UP HERE AND NOT PROVIDE THEM SOME RESPONSE. >>HEIDI McCREE: I THINK THAT'S VERY VALID, AND I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS -- EDITH JUST SENT ME A LITTLE NOTE BASED UPON YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE 15 MINUTES. MAYBE WHAT WE SHOULD DO FOR THE AGENDA IS WE DO SOME OF OUR WORK, TAKE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT, WE'LL BUILD AN AGENDA, HAVE OUR OWN DISCUSSION -- I THINK WE NEED TO START OFF HAVING - - AS WE DISCUSS, WE NEED TO DISCUSS SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT RAISED HERE TODAY AND IN OTHER MEETINGS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED THEM, AND THEN, YES, HAVE MORE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE. I THINK WE CAN BUILD SOME TIME INTO THE AGENDA FOR THAT. THAT'S FINE. I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. IT'S -- THE BOARD'S GOING TO HEAR IT ANYWAY, SO WE MIGHT AS WELL ADDRESS IT AND BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE BOCC AS WELL, SO THAT'S VERY VALUABLE. LET'S HAVE A THREE-HOUR MEETING INSTEAD OF A TWO-HOUR MEETING. >> IS THE ROOM AVAILABLE FOR -- >>HEIDI McCREE: I REALLY THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD SCHEDULE IT FROM 9:00 TO 12:00. I HATE TO SAY THAT, BUT I -- I KNOW RIGHT NOW IT'S 9:00 TO 11:00, BUT IF WE COULD MAKE IT AVAILABLE 9:00 TO 12:00 IF PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO SPEND THAT AMOUNT OF TIME. I KNOW WE GET CRITICIZED FOR TAKING STAFF TIME, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ONE OF THE CRITICISMS, BUT THE FLIP SIDE IS WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES, SO -- AND ACCOMMODATE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. SO -- ALL RIGHT. LET'S ADJOURN FOR TODAY. APPRECIATE EVERYONE BEING HERE, AND WE'LL SEE EACH OTHER ON NOVEMBER 16th. THANK YOU. 1