complete agenda - Florida Department of Environmental Protection

ARC Summary August 12, 2010
Dr. Hilsenbeck, TNC, complimented DSL on the workplan, and also reported that the BJ Bar
Ranch (on the less-than-fee list) had been purchased with Federal and water management
district funding, so it could removed from the list.
Mr. Stroh said he appreciated all the work, but as the “new guy”, it would be helpful to have a
more thorough understanding of the carryover projects. Mr. Green said that he would like to
see whatever DSL provides to Mr. Stroh. Ms. Poppell, Director, DSL, said she would be glad to
meet with him, but she wanted to address his concerns, and offered the following explanation of
when negotiations would continue in spite of a lower ARC ranking:
- Appraisals had been ordered and offers had been made for some lands that DSL need to
follow through on, despite the new categorization and ranking process.
- Some funds have to be held out for eminent domain legal proceedings (fees, interest, judicial
decisions on amount).
Ms. Ball thanked them for the work on this, but asked why there were no projects in the
Substantially Complete category. Also she asked how the $2 million in emergency
archaeological funds could be used. Ms. Poppell said that the emergency funds can only be
used consistently with the criteria outlined in statute; e.g. Imminent threat of development. Mr.
Stroh said that they supported the acquisition of the Windover Site, and that he had thought
that, based on the ranking, it would be pursued. However, with the carryover, it would not be.
They were being asked about the use of the emergency funds now because of this. Mr. Green
asked if the emergency funds would be adequate to cover the cost of acquisition and Dr. Brock
said they would. As for the Substantially Complete, there are no projects in that category
because those projects have all been taken care of and removed from the list.
Dr. Frederick echoed the support for acquiring Windover as soon as possible. Dr. Frederick
said that in each case of the carryover projects, it seemed to him that each would be a case by
case situation. He thought that these sorts of situations would continue, especially if ARC was
ranking every six months. The ARC has to understand that there is no way to keep up. He
asked for a white paper that addressed what warranted carryover in a project list. Dr. Brock
said that this was called “good faith” and there was a policy paper written on that in the 80’s that
they could resurrect and expand upon for ARC. That policy still applies. Dr. Brock also noted
that, if acquisitions of properties within a project are certain to have a partner to share the cost
of acquisition, that property might be pursued even if it was not on the list. The rule ARC
worked with and approved does allow DSL flexibility, though a rationale would be needed.
Mr. Green said that the ARC did not have information about these carryover projects when they
were deciding on their ranking. He wondered if knowing about them would have affected his
ranking decisions. Dr. Brock said that it has been done both ways. For some of the ARC
members in previous rankings, knowing a project was a carryover made them place it more
toward the top of the list. For others, knowing that it was certain to be carried over resulted in
them placing a project more toward the bottom of the list.
Dr. Frederick made the motion to adopt the workplan and place that action on the consent
agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gelhardt and unanimously approved.
ARC ACTION: Dr. Frederick moved that this item be placed on the consent. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Gelhardt. By a unanimous vote the motion was approved.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT WORKPLAN
6