TO: Environmental Advisory Board
FROM: Stefan Kalev, MS, Natural Resources Manager, Development Services
Shanell Bosch, Environmental Planner, Development Services Department
SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Recommendation Regarding City of North Port Land Acquisition Program Utilizing the Environmental Protection Fund
____________________________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
Option 1 (Staff Recommendation): Recommend that the City Commission Pursue all identified properties by priority ranking and availability.
Recommendation Options
Option 1: Pursue All Identified Properties by Priority Ranking and Availability
Pros:
•Maximizes flexibility by allowing the pursuit of all ecologically valuable parcels.
•Increases the likelihood of acquiring multiple parcels that meet conservation goals.
•Ensures use of Environmental Protection Funds is directly tied to ecological benefit.
Cons:
•Could lead to extended timelines as staff negotiate with multiple property owners.
•A less targeted approach may dilute focus across too many properties.
•Potential administrative burden associated with evaluating and negotiating numerous parcels.
Option 2: Pursue Only the Top 10 Highest-Rated Parcels
Pros:
•Targets the most ecologically valuable properties, maximizing conservation impact.
•Allows for efficient use of staff time and resources.
•Provides a clear, data-driven prioritization process for decision-making.
Cons:
• Limits flexibility if few or no top-ranked property owners are willing to sell.
• This could result in unspent Environmental Protection Funds if no transactions are successful.
• May overlook moderately ranked parcels that could provide critical connectivity or flood mitigation benefits.
Option 3: Focus Exclusively on Wetlands, Floodplains, or Stormwater Benefit Parcels
Pros:
• Concentrates resources on areas that directly support flood mitigation and stormwater management goals.
• Simplifies prioritization by focusing on clear, measurable benefits.
• Aligns closely with infrastructure protection and resilience objectives.
Cons:
• Excludes upland or habitat connectivity parcels that are ecologically valuable but not flood related.
• May reduce opportunities for wildlife corridor protection and biodiversity enhancement.
• Limits the overall scope of conservation planning to a single benefit category.
General Information
The Natural Resources Division has identified five major ecological areas throughout the City that contain parcels of high environmental value. These areas include wetlands, floodplains, and upland habitats that contribute to flood mitigation, water quality protection, and wildlife habitat. The proposed Land Acquisition Program seeks to use the Environmental Protection Fund to acquire and permanently conserve these properties. Acquisition would occur through voluntary transactions only, with willing sellers, and would support both environmental and community resilience goals.
A total of $2,500,000 has been allocated for this initiative. Guidance is being sought from the Environmental Advisory Board, as the Board serves as the City’s primary advisory body to protect and preserve the City’s natural resources. The Board is asked to recommend a potential option for this item to ensure that acquisition priorities reflect both ecological value and community resilience goals.
Attachments
1. Presentation
2. Map of Identified Ecological Zones
3. Parcel Ranking Summary
4. Land Acquisition Scorecard
5. Land Acquisition Scorecard Guidelines
Prepared by: Shanell Bosch, Environmental Planner I, Development Services
Stefan Kalev, MS, Natural Resources Manager, Development Services