9/14/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

QFP i 4 1QQ3 County Comissioners August 16,1993 Page - 2 - U.5,19 BOOK 90 P.M.; The Intergovernmental Management Agreement between the St. Johns River Water Management District and Indian River Count,, executed in 1991 when the properly was publicly acquired includes the following language relating to acquisition purpose: '"The County acquired an undivided one-half interest in the Property for the purposes of providing environmental protection and public recreation." Therefore, the County made the commitment in 1991 to develop public access on the subject property, albeit passive recreational fa iades compatible with resource conservation, and is obligated to carry out this commitment. In a letter to the County Attorney of July 22, 1993, I asked Mr. Vitunac if such legal commitment by the County existed and in his letter of August 2,1993, he answered that m his opinion: ... the county is not under any legal obligation to develop the Oslo Road Property for public recreation, ... It is clear that staff of the Planning & Development Division has a misunderstandin of County obligations in dealing with the ORP and future matters concerning e 32611-7 Consequently, you in turn may be misinformed in acting in this matter by heavy reliance upon such staff. There is further evidence of a "mandate mentality" affecting the thinking of staff of the Planning & Development Division in considering development of lands purchased by the County in the following additional statement in the DeBlois letter. - Moreover, although the County is not mandated to develop recreation facilities on every property it acquires, the County does have mandates in its Comprehensive Plan to provide resource-based recreadonal oppomtnid a to the public. The County Attorney in his letter again opines that no such mandates exist. It is surprising to us that Mr. DeBlois did not consult with Mr. Vitunac about the existence of legal binding mandates before sending his July 7th letter to FIND. In any event, it appears to us that the understandings of staff of the Planning & Development Division need correction for making future judgements about development plans for County acquired lands. Concerning the second request above, it is our position that in getting the voters to favorably act on the $26 million bond issue, the voters were given to understand thatCHAP of that amount would apply as to the value of land to be removed from the tax rolls. owH -eve now matching funds have entered the picture. If 50% matching funds were to be obtained for all lands purchased under the $26P, the ultimate value of land removed from the tax rolls could equal $52 million. Further, maintenance costs for acquired lands will be increased creating a "double whammy" for the taxpayers. We submit, this is not what taxpayers voted on. We support the concept of seeking matching funds in this land acquisition project, not as add-ons to total available funds, but as means to reduce the tax burden on IRC taxpayers. Thus, we submit that every dollar of matching funds should be subtracted from the $26 million so that this remains the CAP for the project, which is what the voters thought they 18