9/12/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Administrator Chandler advised that there are agreements on maintenance between Vista Properties and Vista Gardens and Vista Villas condominium associations, but no standards or levels of maintenance are spelled out in those agreements. Those agreements simply state that Vista Gardens and Vista Villas share in the maintenance expenses, and 79% is being borne by those two organizations. Mr. Ewing has indicated that Vista Properties' 210 amounts to $5,000-$6,000 a year. Commissioner Bird asked if we would automatically inherit the agreement to pay 21% of the maintenance costs, and Attorney Vitunac explained that the agreement will show up in the title search, and the County will step into the shoes of Vista Properties, the developer, and we will own the road subject to an easement and the easement is subject to an agreement which requires us to maintain it. The county will pay 21% and the associations will pay 790, but there are no standards mentioned in that agreement. Commissioner Scurlock questioned the inclusion of the wetlands as part of the purchase, since we are paying a significant amount of money for them and have such limited and questionable access. He wondered why we just don't go ahead and buy the uplands, preserve the Gardens, and then negotiate for the best wetland along the river at the cheapest price rather than being held up for top dollar for something that we can't ever get at. Administrator Chandler emphasized that at the very inception of these negotiations, Mr. Ewing made it quite clear that it was all or nothing, whether it be the wetlands, the private roadway, or the piece of property on the corner of U.S. #1 and Indian River Boulevard. Commissioner Scurlock asked why we just could not go in and condemn the upland portion and do what we have to do and not pay the freight for all the other parcels. This was not any reflection on Administrator Chandler who followed the direction of E: P 11 198 3 s ROOK ��/ F'A.ur. ►�