3/20/2001 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAAC Recommendation At its meeting of February 28, 2001, the LAAC reviewed a draft of the brochure and voted 9 to 3 to recommend that the brochure be accepted as wntten, with an allowance of minor "tweaking" by environmental planning staff and the County Budget Manager regarding certain figures and references in the brochure. The brochure has since been slightly revised based on staff input. The latest revised draft is anached for the Board's approval consideration. ANALYSIS Task Group Discussions One of the main issues of discussion at the Task Group meetings pertained to whether the brochure should focus more on the current and future monetary costs of the program. or instead focus more on the public benefits of the conserved lands. The resulting draft brochure represents a compromise of these two viewpoints, in that it explains the benefits of the program but also summarizes certain costs. On the issue of costs, the Task Group discussed the difficulty of providing a comprehensive analysis and summary in the brochure of the actual costs/benefits of the program. given the multitude of offsetting factors that come into play. In the end, it was the consensus of the Task Group to use rounded figures under a few main categories of costs and expenditures (see brochure "Program Costs"). The Task Group also considered different formats for the information. The Group discussed the altemanves of a booklet or newspaper insert, each of which could provide more details of the program and of the acquired sites. The consensus of the Group was to go with an 8 ';. x 14 inch (legal size) brochure. to keep expense in check. It was also discussed that. for purposes of mailing the information to county citizens, the level of detail of the attached brochure was appropriate vs. something more or less detailed. LAAC Discussion At the February 28, 2001 LAAC meeting, discussions ensued as to whether the brochure should contain more information about the benefits of the program, such as the economic benefits of "ecotourism" and protecting the Indian River Lagoon and associated economic values. It was also discussed whether or not the brochure "background" information should focus on the County's commitment in its comprehensive plan to acquire certain acres of native uplands to make up the difference between county and regional native upland set-aside requirements. Staffs position is that it is not possible to provide comprehensive detail about the 10— year acquisition program in a mail -out brochure. and the level of detail in the latest draft brochure is appropriate. The location map in the brochure of acquired conservation areas was a point of discussion at the LAAC meeting. Some members felt the map would be difficult for the general public to understand. Others thought the map should oniv show sites acquired under the program. and should not include "other conserved land." The malonry of the LAAC voted, however. to recommend that the map be left as is. Cost Estimate Using tax roll information as a basis for addresses for mail -out of the brochure, approximately 70.000 copies of the brochure would need to be published. It is estimated that copying, mail -out. and postage would cost between 516.000 and 820.000. Environmental land bond funds are eligible for use to pay for the cost of brochure production and mailing. RECOMMFNDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached informational brochure and authorize staff to obtain bids for brochure production and mail -out, with costs to be paid with environmental bond funds. 1TTACHNIFNT Draft Environmental Lands Program Informational Brochure March 20, 2001