06/08/2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ballot. Opinions as to appropriateness were mixed and might be an explanation for the split vote. Another point, the bond issue of 1992 focused on environmental significance and now we are considering inserting components for cultural heritage or historic sites and also agricultural lands primarily through the purchase of development rights. Those three components are in this ballot language. He then displayed the June 2, 2004 Revision (page 344 in the backup) which had been proposed working with bond counsel and the Trust for Public Lands. Mr. DeBlois then read and reviewed the reasoning behind the question from page 344. It was determined that the reference to an annual independent audit be left in. There were no questions. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, to approve the use of the June 2, 2004 Revision proposed ballot question as revised by Indian River County bond counsel. Under discussion, Commissioner Adams favored inclusion of agricultural lands because it gives the opportunity to purchase land and allows land to remain in agriculture. Chairman Ginn countered that to her it is a development right and this does not explain that, but Commissioner Adams responded that the County has not used it as a tool yet and this gives us the opportunity. Commissioner Macht spoke in favor of the bond issue question as stated. He thought the majority of properties would be bought in fee simple with a priority on pristine lands that have not been developed and, in some cases, restoring some that have been. Mr. DeBlois stated staff’s position that evaluation criteria for consideration of agricultural land should be developed in the time leading up to the referendum. He specified that anyone from the public may nominate a property at any time under the current guidelines. Chairman Ginn opened the floor for public comment even though this was not a public hearing. June 8, 2004 33