01/22/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• County funding for the initial payment (--$100,000) would come from a combination of General Fund contingencies ($50,000) and native upland set-aside mitigation funds (S50,000). Over the three-year lease period, the County would partner with TPL to apply for cost -share grants for the remaining 75% of purchase cost. To address the unlikely scenario that grant funding would not be forthcoming, staff proposed reserving use of Optional Sales Tax contingencies in the amount of $150,000 for FY 2002/03 and $150,000 for FY 2003/04. At the January 8 Board meeting, staff advised the Board that, in 1994 the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC) concluded that the proper ty (the three core parcels) did not have characteristics that qualified it for expenditure of environmental land bond funds. Notwithstanding, at the January 8 meeting the Board directed staff to bring this matter to the LAAC for the LAAC to reconsider whether the Kroegel property is eligible for purchase with environmental land bond funds. 1 he LAAC considered the matter at a special meeting on January 16, and staff is now reporting back to the Board. ANALYSIS At the January 16 special meeting of the LAAC, staff presented the following infounation for the LAAC's consideration. Legal Eligibility of the Parcel for Expenditure of Bond .Funds 1 he Official Statement (OS) for the environmental lands General Obligation Bonds indicates that the bonds are "to finance the cost of acquiring environmentally significant land..." (emphasis added). The OS makes reference to the Land Acquisition Guide with regard to County acquisition procedures. The Guide defines "environmentally significant lands" as: "Lands with natural features that warrant conservation and protection in the public interest. The term includes those lands defined herein as "environmentally endangered", "environmentally important", and "environmentally sensitive". "Environmentally significant lands" also include: native plant communities which are not necessarily endangered but are pristine and representative of the community type; altered ecosystems with reasonable potential for restoration to correct environmental damage that has occurred; and lands with significant archaeological resources." (emphasis added) In 1993, then Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien wrote a legal opinion on the very issue of whether or not the Kroegel parcels qualify for use of environmental land bond funds (see Attachment 2). Mr. O'Brien concluded that the Kroegel parcels could be construed to meet the definition of "environmentally significant land," but that an appendix to the Guide setting forth "Minimum Criteria for LAAC Property Review" excludes the parcels from consideration. However, Mr. O'Brien noted that "these [minimum criteria] restrictions are BCC established and imposed; therefore, they may be BCC revised within the parameters of the bond referendum." Staffs current position is that the Kroegel property does not qualify for bond funding under existing Guide limitations, but could qualify if the "Minimum Criteria for LAAC Property Review" are revised. If the minimum criteria are revised, the revisions should be narrowly written in that the criteria are applied on a countywide basis and will lose their purpose if written too broadly. The Kroegel Homestead parcels are unique from the standpoint of their significance in the natural history of the county (and of the country), as associated with the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge Moreover, the Rodney Kroegel parcel contains a portion of an archaeological midden that extends from the parcel south onto the other taro core parcels. If the Minimum Criteria are to be revised, one alternative is to add a fourth criterion, as follows: d. the property contains significant archaeological resources, has alter ecosystems with reasonable potential for restoration, and the property is adjacent to a designated greenway or blueway, regardless of property size. JANUARY 22, 2002 -42-