9/14/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r SEP x.41993 • Maintenance Costs -7 BOOK 3n F,,r,F 523 Besides the spending cap issue, Mr. Palmer also raised the issue of the on-going cost of maintaining those properties that are acquired. Mr. Palmer's specific request is that the Board require that a realistic projection of annual maintenance cost be done and made a part of the management plan for each property to be purchased. Not only is this a good idea; it is already incorporated within the Land Acquisition Guide. On page 33 of the Guide, it indicates that "Long term management and maintenance costs will be considered in this phase, including a general assessment of annual maintenance cost funding..." Up to this point, the only management plan prepared by staff has been the plan prepared for the Oslo Riverfront Property. It appears that Mr. Palmer's management cost comments evolved from his comments on the Oslo Riverfront Property. In that case, Mr. Palmer took issue with staff's estimate of maintenance costs for the site. As structured, the Oslo Riverfront Property management plan includes minimal public access - type improvements. Among these are a parking lot, restrooms, walking paths, boardwalks, an observation tower, and a dock/pier. These improvements are to be funded through a FIND grant. In developing its maintenance cost estimates, staff made certain assumptions. These included: volunteer assistance from the staff of the adjacent Florida Entomology Lab; no on-site staff; and no maintenance intensive landscaping. Staff also identified a non -ad valorem tax source of maintenance funds. These are the County's upland preservation mitigation fund and the tree fine fund. While staff's annual maintenance cost estimate for the Oslo Property may be low, staff feels that Mr. Palmer's contention (June 15, 1993 letter to David Roach) that those costs will exceed $50,000 per year is high. More important, however, is Mr. Palmer's position that environmentally significant properties acquired by the County be used for conservation - only purposes. Not only is that inconsistent with the intent reflected in the County's Land Acquisition Guide, but also inconsistent with policies in its comprehensive plan. Both of these documents recognize that public access is important for land acquired by the County. Public access to County acquired environmentally significant land is a policy decision of the Board of County Commissioners. In its comprehensive plan, the County's foremost policy document, the Board has addressed public access and resource-based recreation. As reflected in Conservation Element Objective 8 and Policy 8.1, and in Recreation and Open Space Element Objectives 5 and 8 and Policies 5.2, 5.4, and 8.1, the County has established a policy to provide more public access and resource-based recreation. Besides those considerations, it is important to note that some of __-the land acquisition cost share opportunities available to the County depend upon the provision of public access. The Florida Communities Trust (FCT) program is one example. With FCT applications, it is necessary to relate the proposed purchase to enhancement of public access and recreation opportunities. Otherwise, an application will not receive sufficient points to be funded through this highly competitive program. 22