Laserfiche WebLink
JUL 141992' <br />8 0 0 K C , Ft.,E 1' <br />The County Commission expressed a concern that the property >e <br />designated for public use and that the total County piece `be <br />exchanged for Gifford Park for a differential amount of $125,000 <br />which reflects the difference in appraised values. I concurred <br />with this, provided that the county would have first right of <br />refusal if the Town were to find that it did not have a public <br />use for the property at some time in the future. <br />It was my understanding at the meeting on January 14th that this <br />was agreeable with the County Commission. <br />Recent communication with the County Attorney has indicated that <br />this was not agreeable with the County Commission. My Council <br />feels that the Town should be able to dispose of the property at <br />its fair market value in the event no public use is forthcoming. <br />at some time in the future. This would only be fair since the <br />prices on our two properties are based on market values. <br />Presently, there are two or three possible public uses projected <br />for the County parcel. <br />If the County Commission feels that a perpetual public use desig- <br />nation should be attached to the County piece, the Indian River <br />Shores Council is agreeable. However, they do not feel under <br />such conditions that there should be a cash differential reflect- <br />ing appraised values that do not apply. The Town would be get- <br />ting five acres of land for public use in exchange for 28 acres <br />of land for public use. A very fair trade for the County. <br />I would like to clear up the terms of the proposed exchange, <br />inasmuch as it seems that my understanding of our verbal agree- <br />ment may be incorrect. <br />Chairman Eggert remembered that when we first discussed this <br />swap, it was agreed that the County would have the right of first <br />refusal, but when the papers came back at a subsequent meeting, <br />that wasn't included and she didn't catch it. <br />Administrator Chandler explained that when it was presented to <br />the Commission at the meeting of January 21, 1992, he indicated in <br />his memo to the Commission that the Town Manager indicated that he <br />would recommend the provisions relating to restricting the use for <br />public purposes and the first right of refusal, which was one of <br />66 <br />