Laserfiche WebLink
r SEP 141993 <br />BOOK 90 F-,* 5?5 <br />grants and matching funds also would be sought, but he contended <br />that County officials did not mention this often enough in meetings <br />held before the referendum. <br />Commissioner Eggert believed that was put forth in many, many <br />conversations. <br />Continuing, Mr. Palmer expressed the Taxpayers' Association's <br />objection to allowing recreation on the acquired lands. He <br />wondered why plans for the riverfront property off of Oslo Road <br />would include a dock, observation platform and a boardwalk when the <br />purpose of the land acquisition plan was to keep the lands in a <br />pristine state and when we already have a recreation budget that is <br />way out of sight. <br />Mr. Palmer questioned why there have not been any official <br />appraisals on either of these two sites as of this date. He <br />pointed out that what the County is going to pay for these <br />properties as opposed to what the County Property Appraiser says is <br />a fair market value for the property is called an admission against <br />interest in legal terms. It seemed to him that this does some <br />damage in the negotiation with these property owners as far as the <br />ultimate value of this property. <br />Mr. Palmer presented the Taxpayers' Association's request for <br />the Board to adopt two resolutions which they have prepared -- one <br />putting a $26 million cap on purchase money and another requiring <br />a supermajority vote for approval of all land purchases pursuant to <br />the referendum. He urged the Board not to put this on hold today <br />but make some decision one way or another. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that there are three occasions under <br />State law when a supermajority vote is required: 1) When an <br />emergency ordinance is considered; 2) When the appraised value is <br />exceeded in --an acquisition; and 3) The expenditure of tourist <br />taxes. Anything else would be a self-imposed restriction which <br />would not be binding on the Commission and one which could be <br />changed by future Commissions with equal ease. <br />Mr. Palmer asked that the Board impose the restriction if it <br />can be done with equal ease and send a signal to the taxpayers in <br />this county that the Board intends to consider all of these <br />acquisitions in a hard-nosed manner. <br />Commissioner Eggert noted that as the temporary chairman of <br />the Land Acquisition Committee when they were preparing for the <br />referendum, she remembered that the discussion was that no more <br />than $26 million could be bonded out. However, it was hoped it <br />wouldn't reach that amount. She also remembered that they always <br />talked about pursuing conservation easements and matching funds <br />24 <br />