9/14/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Because these directed his Commissioners, issues. ANALYSIS: are major policy issues and because Mr. Palmer latest correspondence to the -Board of County it is appropriate that the Board address these Of the two issues raised by Mr. Palmer, maintenance cost is the more involved. This issue transcends the simple request of providing accurate and realistic annual maintenance cost projections; it indirectly raises the question of how much public access and recreation opportunity should be provided for those environmentally significant lands that are acquired by the County. Since the spending cap issue is more straightforward, it will be discussed first. • Spending Cap In his latest letter, Mr. Palmer requests that the Board of County Commissioners pass a resolution capping the amount of money spent on environmentally significant land acquisition to $26 million, including contributions from regional, state, and "federal cost shares as well as contributions from any source other than the proceeds of the County's $26 million bond referendum. As justification for his recommendation, Mr. Palmer focusses on three points. First, he contends that, if the entire $26 million bond referendum.amount were matched on a dollar for dollar basis, that would remove $52 million from the tax rolls. Second, Mr. Palmer notes that increasing the amount of land acquired will increase annual maintenance costs. Finally, Mr. Palmer suggests that leveraging the $26 million is not what the taxpayers voted for. Staff's position is that Mr. Palmer is incorrect. With respect to what the taxpayers voted for, the ballot language addressed only the question of whether the County could issue $26 million in bonds for environmentally significant land acquisition; it did not reference any limitations on total funds to be spent for land acquisition. In fact, the brochure which the County sent to all voter households specifically noted that "state and federal matching funds to increase the total sum available" would be pursued. With respect to the charge that total maintenance costs will increase if more land is acquired, staff agrees. That cost, however, can be expected to be minimal. Maintenance costs will be discussed in reference to Mr. Palmer's other point. It appears that Mr. Palmer's major objective in advocating the cap is to reduce the loss of ad valorem tax revenue. While that is a valid concern, Mr. Palmer's premise appears to be incorrect. Because assessed values for undeveloped land are low, the purchase of land for $52 million will not remove $52 million from the tax rolls. For example, the Lost Tree Islands which are on the County's acquisition list are assessed at approximately $1,133,000. The general consensus, however, is that this property has a fair market value of, and will be appraised at, four or five times that amount. Similarly, the 28 acre Prang Island site is assessed at approximately ;123,000, but may be appraised at six or eight times that amount. These examples illustrate that bond program acquisitions will probably remove far less assessable value from the tax rolls than will be paid for the property. 21 L_ BOOK 0 PAGE 599SSP :� 4 1993