Groveland council declines 50% match for Shelley Forest Preserve grant; staff asked to produce business plan

Groveland — The Groveland City Council voted 3–2 on Jan. 5 to reject authorizing a 50% city match that would have strengthened a Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Parks and Open Space grant application to acquire the three‑parcel Shelley Forest Preserve, a roughly 90‑acre tract adjacent to Groveland.

Andrew Landis, the city’s Conservation & Strategic Initiatives Division Manager, told council the FCT application would request about $1.57 million to acquire the properties appraised at $1,550,000 (June 2024) and that a 50% local match (about $785,000) would improve competitiveness. Landis said the parcels are ecologically intact upland scrub oak habitat with wetlands and wildlife and that acquisition would align with Groveland’s Comprehensive Plan and Parks Master Plan. "We believe this level of matching funds would significantly strengthen the City's application and help ensure the permanent protection of the land," Landis said.

Property owner representative Deborah Shelley emphasized the land’s long‑term stewardship and public benefits, citing trails, marsh areas for seasonal boating, and educational uses. Public speaker Marty Proctor urged the council to preserve the site for watershed protection and flood‑mitigation benefits, calling the opportunity "once‑in‑a‑generation."

Opposition on council came primarily from Mayor Keith Keogh, Vice Mayor Barbara Gaines and Council Member Michael Jaycox, who raised concerns about competing infrastructure needs, budget timing, and long‑term operating costs. Keogh said he opposed encumbering strategic infrastructure funds without a business plan, expressing that wastewater, roads and other core services were higher priorities. "Infrastructure funds should not be used for land acquisition or ongoing operations without clear planning and budget reservation," he said.

City staff clarified the mechanics of the grant process: the application is due imminently and authorizing a match does not require accepting an award if later conditions make the match infeasible, but staff also warned that accepting an award and then declining a match could affect future competitiveness. City Manager Michael Hein noted a budget miscommunication that left some conservation funds placed in a future fiscal year rather than the current year and said staff would work to clarify available sources.

The roll call on the motion to approve the 50% match was: Carroll and Shylkofski — aye; Keogh, Gaines and Jaycox — nay. After the vote failed, council concurred that staff should prepare a detailed business plan — including operational cost estimates, potential revenue streams, and funding strategies — and return with that analysis before reconsidering any match authorization.

Why it matters: The property is presented as one of the most ecologically intact tracts in the city's utility service area and is cited in the city's strategic documents and public‑feedback surveys as consistent with community preference for nature parks and greenways. The grant application deadline and timeline mean any future application would likely be considered in the next FCT cycle if the council declines to proceed now.

Next steps: Staff will develop a business plan and return to council for further discussion and a possible future vote. The FCT award decision, if pursued, would be made by the state in a later cycle and Council would need to formally accept any grant and reserve matching funds before expenditures are encumbered.