Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Center at preserve needs some limelight

The Brooker Creek Preserve lately seems to be better at attracting controversy than visitors. A recent audit of the Brooker Creek Preserve Environmental Education Center's operation and attendance reveals some puny numbers and pinpoints the county's decision to build and open the center without a comprehensive marketing plan as a likely source of the problem.

Add to that the county's previous philosophy that use of the preserve by the public should be minimized for the preserve's own protection, and it is no wonder that even today, many years after the preserve's 8,500 acres were acquired and named by the county, comparatively few Pinellas residents and tourists visit it.

The audit of the education center, released late last year, was conducted by the Internal Audit Division of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The audit included an examination of the planning, budgeting and construction of the environmental education center and turned up some issues of concern in that arena, too.

One concern was the county's apparent inability to correctly estimate the cost of building the center, a complex of low-slung buildings off Keystone Road that has won design awards. The estimates in some categories were way off.

For example, the county had estimated the cost of site work at $912,000, but it actually cost twice that, in part because of lead-contaminated soil that had to be removed. The county estimated design costs at $300,000; the actual cost was $1.1-million, according to the auditors. Building construction was estimated at $3.8-million but totaled $7.4-million because the county had failed to include the cost of the center's exhibits and boardwalks in the early estimates.

A second concern for the auditors was a rough start to the project because of permitting problems. The county deliberately built the center in an environmentally sensitive wetland area of the preserve, believing that would be a good way for the public to observe a natural wetland without trampling it - a nice idea, but the construction had its own impacts on the environment, some of which continue today. The auditors noted that several state and federal agencies denied the county's original requests for construction permits because of the wetland, and the county got slapped by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after a contractor began construction in a wetland without permits.

The audit's criticisms of the planning and construction phase indicate that the county needs to examine and streamline its approach to all capital projects.

However, with the center now open, the most important part of the audit is its examination of the center's use by the public. In that respect, the center has failed to meet expectations.

A consultant had projected that the environmental education center, once established, could attract 68,700 to 116,000 visitors a year. Yet the center drew only 22,627 visitors in 2005 and 23,987 in the first 11 months of 2006. In the first five months that the center was open, only 18 programs were scheduled, and they utilized the center for a grand total of 21 hours.

The county should have a marketing plan for the center, updated regularly, that details how to attract residents and tourists and how to make the preserve and the center a resource for Pinellas teachers and students. The preserve is an ideal outdoor classroom.

County officials say they are getting their act together now on marketing the center and scheduling more programs, and that attendance is slowly climbing. Better late than never.

Yet there are still too many residents who don't know about the Brooker Creek Preserve and its environmental education center or who believe the preserve is still off limits to the public.

The county needs to do more to get out its message and to create programs with appeal, not only because of the $10.8-million investment in the center's construction, but also because Brooker Creek Preserve provides a valuable immersion in the natural environment that people can no longer experience in most of Pinellas County.

[Last modified January 6, 2007, 22:18:57]