Laserfiche WebLink
Nov CNI15 1991 <br />_I <br />BOOK 8 F,i E 661 <br />SALE AND/OR TRADE OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO TRACKING STATION PARK <br />The Board reviewed memo from County Administrator James <br />Chandler dated October 25, 1991: <br />TO: Board *of County Commissioners DATE: October 28, 1991 . <br />FILE., <br />FROJames E. Chandler REFERENCES: <br />• County Administrator <br />In response to a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Committee, the <br />Commission requested that staff consider the feasibility of the sale and/or trade <br />of the property adjacent to Tracking Station Park to the Town of Indian River <br />Shores. <br />The 5.39 acres was acquired by the County in 1976 for $200,000. A 1987 <br />appraisal valued the property at $525,00.0. The property was valued at $700,000 <br />by a July, 1991 updated appraisal ( Exhibit A) . Currently, there are no short <br />or long range development plans for the property. It is my. understanding <br />.conceptual plans were considered several years ago but not pursued. <br />According to Town Manager Joe Dorsky, If scquired, there is consideration by <br />the Town to utilize the property for a stormwater drainage retention area and <br />perhaps, .some limited park use. However, there have been no formal decisions' <br />( Exhibit 13).' . .• _': :.1 .. L...'6 <br />An exchange of :the property for Gifford Park had been suggested. The lease <br />with the Town for the 38.96 acre Gifford Park extends through June, 2002. The <br />property is valued at $575,000, according to a July, 1991 appraisal- obtained by , <br />the Town ( Exhibit C) . Joe Dorsky indicated the Town would consider an <br />exchange of the properties and payment of $125,000 to the County which. <br />represents the difference in land value. <br />yin ' considering the alternatives, there appears to be 'no question that at some <br />point the County should acquire title to Gifford Park. Presently, there is no <br />funding for the acquisition and a source would need to be identified prior to ' <br />2002.' <br />The beach .'parcel is a highly desirable piece of property • and will certainly . <br />continue to appreciate in value as time progresses. As such, the option to sell <br />the property would continue to be viable if a determination were made not to use <br />It for park purposes. <br />As indicated previously, there are no current plans to expand Tracking Station <br />Park by developing the parcel in question. There are presently six (6) county <br />beachfront parks ( Exhibit D) totaling 191.8 acres. The 5.39 acres is not <br />Included in that, total. Based on the criteria and projections contained in the <br />Comprehensive Plan, . the projected beachfront park demand for the year 2010 is <br />157 acres ( Exhibit E) . As a result, additional beachfront park land acquisition <br />or expansion is not one of the objectives in the Recreation and Open Space <br />Element of the Comprehensive Plan. <br />However, the Plan provides that the County shall develop one additional beach <br />access ( not park) on the south barrier island by 1995 ( Exhibit F) . The access <br />Is to be improved with a dune crossover, parking, and other facilities by 1996. <br />At this time, the specific location, expense, and funding source, have not ,been <br />determined. <br />Ordinarily, any local government would be extremely reluctant to dispose of any <br />beach property. However, in considering the countywide park needs, the ability <br />to fund those needs, and the Comprehensive Plan beachfront park projections, in <br />my opinion, the Indian River Shores proposal has merit. The beach property is <br />not "critical" from the standpoint of the Comprehensive Plan projection of level <br />of service and needs. An exchange for Gifford Park would eliminate the future <br />acquisition expense. Additionally, the $125,000 could be applied to the south <br />32 <br />