1/21/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO: Board 'of County CommissionersDATE: January 14, 1992 FILE: ' Property Exchange / SUBJECT: Town of I.R. Shores FROM' ames E. Chandler County Administrator REFERENCES: In accordance with the Commission direction at the November 5, 1991 meeting, l pursued further negotiations with Town Manager Joe Dorsky concerning the potential sale and/or trade of the 5.39 'acre parcel adjacent to Tracking Station Park. Based on the $575,000 appraised value .of the 38.96 acre Gifford Park compared to the $700,000 value of the 5.39 acres, a direct exchange predicated on per acre value would result in 4.42 acres transmitted to the Town in exchange for title to Gifford Park. The .97 acre balance adjacent to Tracking Station Park would remain in county ownership. Joe Dorsky has indicated the eastern portion of the 5.39 acres should have a higher value because of the close proximity to the beach. As a result, he proposes that 4.79 acres be exchanged for Gifford Park and the County retain .6 acres. He also requested that the County take into consideration the fact the Town donated 2 acres for the Gifford Community Center and entered into the long term lease for the park. He advised that if the Town were to acquire all - or a portion of the 5.39 acres -he would recommend to the Town Council restricting the use for public purpose. If a future decision were made to the contrary, the County would have first right of refusal. The acreage that would be retained by the County, whether it be .97 or .6 acres, is east of the coastal construction set back line. As a result, any improvements on that acreage would require an application to and approval by the State. Although a need has not been projected, the Park could be expanded into this area to include additional facilities such as picnic shelters and a dune crossover. It is anticipated the State would approve such facilities. Additional parking could potentially be expanded into the area. However, because of the property configuration and dune relationship, the number of spaces would be limited and State approval highly questionable. If the County is to consider retaining a portion of the acreage, it is my opinion that 97 acres is needed if the intent is for future park expansion. Considering the dune and the coastal construction setback line, the benefit of retaining the acreage for park expansion that would be permissible is, in my opinion, minimal. Of the alternatives considered, I believe the County derives more benefit from the original proposal. That proposal provided for the exchange of title of the 5.39 acres for Gifford Park plus a payment of $125,000 to the County. The Town Manager would also recommend the provisions relating to restricting the use for public purpose and first right of refusal. 25 J ! �'t�ool< Ai N924