4/5/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Your August 1, 1986, letter to Mr. Richard Froemke states that "Indian River County had a proposed land exchange involving Kiwanis- Hobart Park in progress until late 1983, when for some reason the application process was halted." The reason that the process was halted was because the proposed replacement property did not meet federal LWCF requirements and the County was so informed in 1983. Possibly, since you were not with the County at that time, you were not aware of this action and the reason for the rejection. In 1967, the State (Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund) dedicated 489.61 acres, specifically designated for parks and recreation, to Indian River County. In 1969, the County received a federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Program grant (#12-00019) for acquisition of a 106 acre parcel adjacent to the dedicated property. The purpose of the grant was to enable the County. to connect separated park tracts. With approval and funding of the County's project the acquired 106 acres and the 489.61 acres (totaling 595.61 acres) were dedicated to outdoor recreation in perpetuity in accordance with federal LWCF program requirements. The LWCF development grant which the County received in 1971 (#12-00051) only served to reiterate the federal limitation of use requirement and the continued dedication of this park for outdoor recreation purposes. It is our understanding that both the 19.72 acre parcel proposed for conversion to cemetary use and the 38.31 acre parcel which the County again proposes to utilize as replacement property for the' conversion are included within the 595.61 acre park already dedicated in perpetuity to outdoor recreation. Since the 38.31 acres is already part of the park and permanently dedicated to outdoor recreation, it is unsuitable as replacement for the 19.72 acres. As replacement property, the National Park Service is seeking an addition to the recreation estate, since there would be a withdrawal with the removal of the 19.72 acres. As we mentioned previously, if the County proposes to purchase and develop suitable property (of equal value, utility and location) which could be added to an existing park or constitute a viable recreation area in itself, this could possibly be acceptable to the National Park Service. Otherwise, the County could propose the substitution of other property currently owned by the County (of equal value, utility and location) which is neither utilized nor dedicated for outdoor recreational use at this time. If approved, either property would then have to be dedicated, developed and made available for public outdoor recreation. We hope that this letter clarifies the situation for you. As always, we will be pleased to render further assistance in this matter, as needed. APR 5 1988 Sincerel ,V s ull Chry ivan Grants Specialist Office of Recreation Services Division of Recreation and Parks 46 BOOK 71 F'nE 4Th