9/3/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alternative 1: "As is" recreational use (within Town limits) and development of the portion of the property in Vero Beach where development without a bridge is permitted ($6.5 million FCT approved value). • Alternative 2: Development of the Inner and Outer Islands without a bridge; assumes Indian River Shores removes its requirement that island development requires road access by bridge ($9 million FCT approved value). • Alternative 3: Development of the Inner and Outer Islands with a bridge to the Inner Islands from Silver Sands Road; assumes the current State bndge access restriction is resolved either by ownership of submerged land or by a submerged land lease with the State of Florida ($16.2 million FCT approved value). Since the proposed offer of $15 million is more than the "as is" approved appraised value of$6.5 million, a "super majority vote" (4 out of 5 in favor) is required for the Board to approve the contract offer. FCT Funding Shortfall As earlier explained in this memorandum, the FCT match of $4,875,000 falls $125,000 short of the anticipated $5 million state match toward the $15 million purchase offer. Alternatives for the local governments to make up this shortfall include: 1. Shortfall split evenly among the three local governments ($41,667 each). 2. Shortfall split based on the current local funding ratio of 80/10/10 ($100,000 County, $12,500 City, $12,500 Town). 3. Shortfall paid entirely by the County with environmental land bond funds. The City and Town have agreed to evenly split the shortfall with the County ($41,667 each), which county staff supports as the most appropriate alternative. Fee -Simple Title Interest The FCT Conceptual Approval Agreement provides that, if the project is acquired, the grant Recipient will hold title interest. The FCT will have a "reversionary" interest, such that if the property is used for anything other than conservation and passive recreation, the title will convey to the State Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. It is not specified in the grant agreement as to how the title interest will be held by the Recipient. Alternatives include: 1. Title interest held entirely by Indian River County. 2. Title interest (undivided) split evenly among the three local governments. 3. Title interest (undivided) split based on current local funding ratio of 80/10/10 (County 80% interest, City 10% interest, Town 10% interest). The simplest approach is for the County to hold the title interest, similar to what has been done with the County's other acquisitions of conservation land in municipal boundaries (e.g., Prange Islands, North Sebastian Conservation Area). In those cases, the municipalities are consulted on and participate in management issues, in that the municipalities review and approve project applications and conceptual management plans. Moreover, restrictions associated with use of county environmental land bond funds and FCT grant funds virtually guarantee that a property, if purchased, must be used only for conservation and compatible passive recreation. Notwithstanding, if the City and Town insist on having title interest as a condition of participating in management funding, the most appropriate approach is undivided title interest based on the purchase -funding ratio of 80/10/10 (County 80%, City 10%, Town 10%). September 3, 2002