Laserfiche WebLink
FEB d 1989 <br />BOOK76 FA;E 64 <br />necessary to waive the deed restrictions for a period of 5 years <br />and during that time, give the DNR an opportunity to prove their <br />intent was to keep the funds for the improvement and maintenance <br />of that park. <br />Commissioner Scurlock commented that, after viewing the map <br />which shows that our property is landlocked, it seems there may <br />be a potential for the DNR to charge a fee on the non- <br />dedicated county land. Obviously they would have to provide some <br />access to our property, but it seems very likely they can charge <br />a fee with or without our concurrence. <br />Attorney Collins advised that they have indicated they could <br />charge a fee on the main body of the park, and they control the <br />access. The county land is just a narrow strip running right <br />along the inlet, and it does not include the jetty on the east <br />side of A -1-A. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that our options continue to be <br />whittled away. His feeling at this time is that the DNR has been <br />good to us on a lot of programs, and it behooves us to be <br />cooperative with them. He believed we all realize there is a <br />need for additional revenue to support and improve our public <br />land, and he felt what has been proposed is the best shot that <br />Commissioner Bird can give. He personally believed our best <br />approach onan interim basis would be to go ahead and allow a fee <br />to be charged for a period of time, which he felt would keep <br />pressure on the DNR to do the right thing by the County, and we <br />still would not have given away our restriction totally. <br />Attorney Collins suggested that the agreement have a <br />provision that would trigger review after the 5 year period, <br />i.e., a provision for automatic renewal of the waiver unless we <br />determined the money was not kept at the park for maintenance, <br />etc., and another provision that if the DNR doesn't report <br />revenues to us that would be a reason to revoke the agreement. <br />This would allow them to go forward getting more money for the <br />park system and also allow the County to retain some interest. <br />64 <br />