During the June 9 meeting, committee members urged staff to provide clearer written guidance on several procedural and policy questions that affect eligibility, ranking and future acquisitions.

Members asked for a written definition of "resource‑based recreation," noting the term is used in scoring and in later management decisions but that committee members do not have a consistent written description. Tim Telfer and staff agreed to provide a clear definition to the committee at a future meeting.

Several members also raised questions about the A/B sorting process and asked whether the committee should have more explicit criteria for placing eligible parcels on the A list (immediate priority) versus the B list (lower priority). Staff responded that the resolution and program documents define A/B pathways but that committee members approach the question from different perspectives; staff agreed to circulate the existing resolution language and consider whether additional clarifying guidance is warranted.

Committee members also pressed staff about public access when parcels abut deed‑restricted, gated subdivisions. Staff said county roads owned by homeowners associations can restrict public land access and that the county will seek alternate access points (e.g., water access or other legal rights). The committee requested staff follow up on access easement options and to document which parcel packets include explicit cost or price information.

Committee members also requested that staff resume the earlier practice of shared email responses when individual members submit questions about packet items so the full committee receives the answers.