Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Trust for Public Land asks Dade County to commit $500,000 as match for proposed 650‑acre community forest

Dade County Board of Commissioners · September 5, 2024

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Trust for Public Land proposed acquiring ~650 acres adjacent to Cloudland Canyon State Park and asked Dade County to commit $500,000 as local match to stack state and federal grants toward an estimated $1.8 million purchase; the commission did not vote on a commitment but agreed to research the proposal.

The Trust for Public Land urged the Dade County Board of Commissioners on Sept. 5 to back a bid to acquire roughly 650 acres near Cloudland Canyon State Park, saying the land could be managed as a community forest for recreation and economic development.

“Noel Durant, Tennessee state director for Trust for Public Land, told commissioners the parcel is strategically located beside Cloudland Canyon and has roughly 650 acres and Lookout Creek frontage,” said Durant, who outlined three funding strategies that would combine federal and state grants with a local match. He recommended a county commitment of $500,000 to help unlock outside funding and estimated the acquisition at about $1.8 million.

Why it matters: Durant said a community forest could capture more visitor spending locally rather than sending tourists back out of the county. He cited an example study showing modest visitor counts generating millions in economic impact and projected that, if the forest captured 10% of Cloudland Canyon’s visitors, Dade County could see roughly $3 million in annual economic activity.

Durant explained the likely funding sequence: apply to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF; 50/50 match) in October, pursue a preliminary award in February and follow with Department of Community Affairs/ARC funding and recreational trails grants to fund acquisition and infrastructure. He also described alternate paths including the U.S. Forest Service Community Forest Program and the Georgia Outdoor Stewardship Program and warned that the LWCF in Georgia does not allow due‑diligence costs to count as local match.

“We are recommending a county commitment as match for this project — $500,000,” Durant said, and added that due diligence costs (appraisal, survey, title) will likely be $35,000–$50,000 and would need to be funded upfront by the county or the nonprofit because Georgia’s LWCF rules do not qualify those expenses as match.

Commission reaction and next steps: Commissioners asked about timeline, legal constraints and risks of committing funds. Staff said the $500,000 would be a committed match in the application rather than an immediate cash payment; the county would only be expected to provide funds if and when the transaction reached closing. Commissioners emphasized the need to review debt limits, impacts on future boards and alternatives for using ARPA or tourism/hotel–motel tax revenues as partial sources of match. One commissioner asked for research and for the item to return at a future meeting with additional detail.

Durant estimated that, under the fastest scenario, closing could occur in 2026 if grant cycles and due diligence proceed on schedule. He noted that several funding pools stack well across cycles, and that a Yellow Book appraisal and federal‑compliant documents would be required before closing.

The board did not vote to commit funds on Sept. 5. Commissioners asked staff to research legal, fiscal and programmatic implications and to bring a recommendation back at a later meeting.

Authorities referenced: applications and funding sources discussed included the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Appalachian Regional Commission grants, the U.S. Forest Service Community Forest Program and the Georgia Outdoor Stewardship Program. The Trust for Public Land and the Georgia‑Alabama Land Trust were named as project partners.

Ending: The board asked county staff to evaluate the fiscal mechanics and legal constraints and to return with a recommendation; no formal county commitment was made at the meeting.