Laserfiche WebLink
CONCLUSION <br />In his letters, Mr. Palmer makes a number of valid and important <br />points. With respect to maintenance costs, staff shares his <br />concerns regarding minimizing expenditures. Accordingly, staff is <br />developing low,maintenance cost management plans with improvements <br />to be funded through grant programs, with work to be done by <br />volunteers, and with other costs to be funded through non -ad <br />valorem revenue sources. <br />Based upon the comprehensive plan's public access policies and the <br />objective of allowing limited public access to publicly acquired <br />lands, staff disagrees with Mr. Palmer's conservation - only <br />approach to land acquisition. In the past, the Board's policy has <br />been to increase public access and resource-based recreation <br />opportunities, when those activities do not conflict with <br />environmental protection o0jectives. Staff feels that this policy <br />should be maintained. <br />In reference to Mr. Palmer's proposed spending cap, staff feels <br />that this is not warranted. It is staff's position that bond funds <br />should be leveraged with regional, state, and federal grant monies <br />to increase the amount of environmentally important land to be <br />protected.. <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners concur with <br />Mr. Palmer and direct staff to prepare realistic annual <br />maintenance cost projections in conjunction with the development of <br />management plans for lands acquired with County bond program funds. <br />Staff also recommends that the Board retain its policy of providing <br />limited public access to acquired properties. Finally, staff <br />recommends that the Board not agree to cap expenditures for land <br />acquisition at $26 million, the amount of the County's bond <br />referendum. <br />Mr. Palmer advised that the purpose for coming before the <br />Board today is to request that the Board set the spending cap for <br />the County's land acquisition purchases at $26 million, bottom <br />line. They believe that most voters didn't anticipate that more <br />than $26 million would be spent, even though the extra funding <br />would be coming from state grants and not county money. Further, <br />taking additional tracts of land off the tax rolls would add even <br />more to the taxpayers' burden. Mr. Palmer acknowledged that the <br />brochures prepared by the County before the referendum stated that <br />23 <br />SEP 141993 BOOK U0 F-�,F 5?4 <br />