TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of the North Port Commission
FROM: A. Jerome Fletcher II, ICMA-CM, MPA, City Manager
TITLE: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding the City of North Port Land Acquisition Program Utilizing the Environmental Protection Fund.
Recommended Action
Option 1: Pursue all identified properties by priority ranking and availability.
City Commission Options
Option 1: Pursue all identified properties by priority ranking and availability.
* Pros:
o Maximizes flexibility by allowing the pursuit of all ecologically valuable parcels.
o Increases the likelihood of acquiring multiple parcels that meet conservation goals.
o Ensures use of Environmental Protection Funds directly tied to ecological benefit.
* Cons:
o Could lead to extended timelines as staff negotiate with multiple property owners.
o A less targeted approach may dilute focus across too many properties.
o Potential administrative burden associated with evaluating and negotiating numerous parcels.
Option 2: Pursue only the top 10 highest-rated parcels.
* Pros:
o Targets the most ecologically valuable properties, maximizing conservation impact.
o Allows for efficient use of staff time and resources.
o Provides a clear, data-driven prioritization process for decision-making.
* Cons:
o Limits flexibility if few or no top-ranked property owners are willing to sell.
o This could result in unspent Environmental Protection Funds if no transactions are successful.
o 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:
o Concentrates resources on areas that directly support flood mitigation and stormwater management goals.
o Simplifies prioritization by focusing on clear, measurable benefits.
o Aligns closely with infrastructure protection and resilience objectives.
* Cons:
o Excludes upland or habitat connectivity parcels that are ...
Click here for full text