8/27/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Bm 98 pnc— 941 Under discussion, Commissioner Macht advised he was not in favor of the purchase as presently structured and presented his reasons which included that the County would have virtually no rights except to maintain it. He felt the taxpayers will own nothing because the State will have the right to sell it without recourse. He would rather pay the entire price and have 100% ownership, than subject it to risk. Chairman Adams concurred that the State has the ability to do just as Commissioner Macht stated and speculated on the reasoning. County Attorney Vitunac advised that the lease option had been 15 years, but, after Chairman Adams and Mr. Hardee spoke to the Cabinet, the State agreed to give a 50 -year lease under a management agreement and any sale would be subject to the County's lease. There would also be an option to renew, if extended by the State, to make it 100 years. Commissioner Macht thought it monstrous to have to lease back your own property, and County Attorney Vitunac specified that the lease guaranteed the property would be in the County's hands 50 years. Commissioner Bird expressed concern on the wording of the bond referendum (acquire property). Commissioner Eggert recalled that when the wording was put together, the word "acquiree was utilized because the County was trying to get land by any manner possible, not just by purchase. County Attorney Vitunac felt that we have acquired some interest in the land and bond counsel was comfortable with the 50 - year non -cancelable lease. Commissioner Bird summarized by saying that the County would be paying $5 million for a 50 year lease, and Commissioner Macht maintained it was not good business. Commissioner Macht felt that the property would never change because it has multiple uses including recreation, conservation, and habitat. He recalled that the City of Vero Beach had an ordinance that no park property could be disposed of without a referendum. He could agree to this lease if it was subject to a similar ordinance. Chief of Environmental Planning Roland DeBlois pointed out that we got to this point because it was originally presented to the State as a 50-50 project and, if it had not been presented that way, it probably would still be on the bottom of the State's CARL list. He added that this decision also will affect other properties already approved by the County under the same program. It basically affects the whole CARL program partnership situation. 40 August 27, 1996