HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/7/2000MINUTESATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000 -10:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25h Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONE
Fran B. Adams, Chairman District 1
Caroline D. Ginn, Vice Chairman District 5
Kenneth R. Macht District 3
Ruth M. Stanbridge District 2
John W. Tippin District 4
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney
Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
10:00 a.m. BACKUP
1 1 PAGES
1. PUBLIC HEARING
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING SECTION 210.01, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE,
TO PROVIDE FOR THE LEVY OF AN ADDMONAL ONE -CENT
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX AND AMENDING SECTION
210.03 TO AUTHORIZE USE OF THE REVENUES RAISED FOR
THE PURPOSES SET FORTH IN FLORIDA STATUTE 125.0104(3)(1)
RELATING TO RETAINED SPRING TRAINING FRANCHISE
FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
(memorandum dated August 29, 2000)
(continued from BCC Meeting of September 5, 2000) pages 179-185
2. Los Angeles Dodgers — Proposed Agreements
(memorandum dated Aug. 30, 2000 from James Chandler)
(continued from BCC Meeting of September 5, 2000) page 188
A. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPOINTING ROBERT C.
REID SPECIAL COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COORDINATING, APPROVING, AND NOTING CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE,
LEASEBACK, IMPROVEMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT OF
DODGERTOWN (cont'd. from meeting of 9/5//00) pages 189-190
B1( 115 PG 00 1
BACKUP
PAGES
2. (cont'd.)
B. A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FORM OF AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE, FACILITY
LEASE AGREEMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, INTER-
LOCAL AGREEMENT, DOCUMENT ESCROW AGREEMENT,
CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT AGREEMENT, AND PARKING
AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS DODGERTOWN;
AUTHORIZING OTHER REQUIRED ACTIONS; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
(cont'd. from BCC Meeting of 9/5/00) pages 191-194
1. Exhibit A — Agreement for Sale and Purchase pages 195-207
2. Exhibit B — Facility Lease Agreement pages 208-238
3. Exhibit C — Development Agreement pages 239-286
4. Exhibit D — Interlocal Agreement pages 287-297
5. Exhibit E — Escrow Agreement pages 298-313
6. Exhibit F — Capital Reserve Account Agreement pages 314-332
7. Exhibit G — Parking Agreement pages 333-346
C. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING ITS
INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN PROJECT COSTS INCURRED
WITH PROCEEDS OF FUTURE TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING; PRO-
VIDING CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
(cont'd. from BCC Meeting of 9/5/00) pages 347-348
D. Los Angeles Dodgers and DeGuardiola Development, Inc.
Agreement for Sale and Purchase
(memo from County Administrator dated 8/30/00)
(cont'd. from BCC Meeting of 9/5/00) pages 349-368
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal will be based.
6K 1 15 PG 002
I
•
•
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of
meeting.
Indian River County WebSite: http://bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us
Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office,
Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library
Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13
Rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1:00 p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12:00 noon until
5:00 P.M.
4
8K 115 PG 003
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2000
1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-029 - ADDITIONAL ONE -CENT
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX - SPRING TRAINING FRANCHISE
FACILITIES - DODGERTOWN.................................... 1
2.B. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-099 APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF VARIOUS PROPOSED AGREEMENTS IN
CONNECTION WITH ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
KNOWN AS DODGERTOWN - 1. AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND
PURCHASE; 2. FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT; 3. DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT; 4. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT; 5. ESCROW AGREEMENT;
6. CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT AGREEMENT; 7. PARKING
AGREEMENT ................................................. 14
2.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-100 ESTABLISHING INTENT TO REIMBURSE
CERTAIN PROJECT COSTS INCURRED WITH PROCEEDS OF FUTURE
TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING AND PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN OTHER
MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH ......................... 28
2.D. LOS ANGELES DODGERS AND DEGUARDIOLA DEVELOPMENT, INC. -
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE ........................ 31
2.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-098 - APPOINTMENT OF ROBERT C. REID AS
SPECIAL COUNTY ATTORNEY TO COORDINATE, APPROVE, AND NOTE
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING THE PURCHASE, LEASEBACK,
IMPROVEMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT OF DODGERTOWN ......... 31
1
Bit 115PG 004
0
September 7, 2000
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 251 Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Thursday, September 7, 2000, to hold a public hearing continued from September 5, 2000,
on a proposed ordinance regarding the levy of an additional one -cent Tourist Development
Tax and to consider resolutions and agreements concerning the purchase, leaseback and
development of property and facilities known as Dodgertown. Present were Fran B. Adams,
Chairman; Caroline D. Ginn, Vice Chairman; Kenneth R Macht; Ruth Stanbridge; and John
W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Paul G. Bangel,
County Attorney; and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk. Also present were newly -promoted
Vice President of Spring Training/Minor League Facilities Craig B. Callan (formerly
Director of Dodgertown), Special Counsel Robert C. Reid, and Assistant County
Administrator Joseph A. Baird.
Chairman Adams called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and welcomed everyone.
She announced that staff would make a presentation on all items and then there would be
time for questions and comments and public input.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-029 - ADDITIONAL
ONE -CENT TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX - SPRING TRAINING
FRANCHISE FACILITIES - DODGERTOWN
(CONTINUED FROM REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2000)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 29, 2000:
September 7, 2000
1
TO: Board of County Commissioners
DATE: August 29, 2000
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on an Ordinance for the Levy of an
Additional One Cent Tourist Development Tax
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
FROM: Joseph A. Baird, Assistant County Administrator
On July 24, 2000 the Board of County Commissioners approved a Memorandum of
Understanding between Indian River County, City of Vero Beach, Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc..
Fox Baseball Holdings Incorporated, and deGuardiola Development, Inc. The purpose of The
Memorandum of Understanding was to set the framework to purchase Dodgertown which is the
Dodgers spring training facility.
One of the key elements of the Memorandum of Understanding is Indian River County
would levy an additional one cent tourist development tax to pay debt service of the bonds issued
to finance the acquisition and renovation of the spring training facility. The additional one cent
tourist development tax would go into affect on February 1, 2001. In the event the purchase of
Dodgenown did not occur, the Ordinance would be repealed.
The attached Ordinance must be approved by the Board of County Commission to enable
Indian River County to levy the additional one cent tourist development tax.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Ordinance
to levy an additional one cent tourist development tax.
Administrator Chandler advised that all of the items under consideration were
consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding presented, considered and adopted by
the Board of County Commissioners and City of Vero Beach Council the end of July. He
explained the items on the agenda for the meeting.
Administrator Chandler then presented a brief but comprehensive overview of all the
items under consideration by specifying all dollar figures, proposed sources ofrevenue, how
the dollars would be used, and the legislation which permits those activities to occur. He
September 7, 2000
2
0
0
-I
•
mentioned that our neighboring counties, St. Lucie and Brevard, are currently at the 4 -cent
tourist tax level. He specified that the application for utilization of State of Florida funds is
required to be submitted prior to October 1, 2000. If approved, Indian River County will
receive $5001000 per year from the State for the next 30 years.
Administrator Chandler then called on Special Counsel Reid to explain the
agreements on the agenda.
Special Counsel Robert C. Reid explained the primary agreements between the
County and the other parties to the transaction, primarily the Dodgers. He explained that the
first agreement is the contract for purchase and sale of the 64 acres known as Dodgertown.
The second agreement provides for the Dodgers to lease Dodgertown back from the County.
He gave details about the agreement and explained the initial lease term is 20 years with four
5 -year renewals and advised of the penalty provisions. Next, he advised of the development
agreement which details the improvements, expansions, and other rehabilitations the Dodgers
are to undertake as lessee. He explained how this agreement specifies the CCNA
(Consultant's Competitive Negotiation Act) requirements. The 4' agreement, between the
City of Vero Beach and the County, concerns the funding and rights of both government
entities. He advised of the requirements and conditions specified in the 5' agreement which
concerns the escrow.
Mr. Reid pointed out that the 6' agreement, the Capital Reserve Escrow Agreement,
has been modified at the request of the escrow agent, First Union. He reviewed the
ministerial changes in the black -lined version of that agreement which was distributed to the
Commissioners and others. He asked that the Commissioners consider this new version
when voting on the Capital Reserve Account Agreement. He then explained the 71
agreement, the three -party Parking Agreement between the County, the Dodgers, and de
Guardiola Development, Inc. He stressed that the exact scope of the easements will be
September 7, 2000
ki
•
B1( 1 15 PG 007
F,
determined as part of the site plan approval process that both the Dodgers and de Guardiola
will be going through with the City of Vero Beach.
Administrator Chandler advised that the proposed resolution under item "C" is the
standard resolution used by the County for bond issues. Item "D" is for information only as
it is an agreement between the Dodgers and de Guardiola.
Chairman Adams called for questions from the Commissioners. She questioned the
second sentence of Section 210.03(b) (page 182 of backup) of the proposed ordinance
because it referenced the "beach issue".
Deputy County Attorney William Collins explained that the modifications were
merely to clarify the existing ordinance so there is no confusion that the revenues derived
from the 4'h cent are not to be allocated to the beaches.
In response to Chairman Adams' next question, Special Counsel Reid advised that the
number of days in the various agreements refers to numerical days unless specified as
business days.
Vice Chairman Ginn was concerned about the survey, and Special Counsel Reid
advised that the survey is in process and is required as part of the title work to be done. He
anticipated its completion within the next 30 days. Mr. Reid stated that the closing date of
March 31, 2001, is a "target" date.
Administrator Chandler added that the legal descriptions in the documents are based
on the old survey; and should there be any changes on the updated survey, they will be
resolved later in conjunction with the title work.
In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiry about the difference between "right of
first refusal" and "first right of refusal", Mr. Reid explained the terms and what they meant
on the pages she mentioned. (Pages 199 and 214 of the backup)
Commissioner Macht referred to a letter from Malcolm Liggett, and Administrator
September 7, 2000
0
4
0
I
•
Chandler advised that Mr. Reid was prepared to respond. Commissioner Macht advised that
Mr. Liggett was present in the audience and could present it himself during the public
comment period.
Concerning insurance coverage, Mr. Reid advised that the Dodgers must carry
insurance for up to full replacement value. Concerning the County's liability in the event
a fan is injured by a ball or bat, Mr. Reid advised that the County may be included as a party
to a lawsuit, but those types of lawsuits have not been very successful in the past. He added
that there is an indemnification provision against all risks. Gross negligence or wilful
misconduct on the part of the County would not apply in the scenario mentioned.
Administrator Chandler pointed out that all the insurance provisions were examined
by the County's Risk Management Department, as well as the Florida League of Cities
which carries our excess insurance coverage.
When Vice Chairman Ginn inquired, Administrator Chandler explained in detail the
reasoning behind the County paying the City of Vero Beach's property tax under the
agreement. Vice Chairman Ginn felt the City should assume the responsibility for paying
their own taxes.
In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's next question, Mr. Reid explained in detail the
County's protection and remedies should there be a cloud or lien on the title.
Vice Chairman Ginn was concerned that the improvements permitted under the
agreement appeared to be carte blanche, and Mr. Reid advised that this portion needed to be
read in conjunction with the Development Agreement, which specifies the improvements,
and all would be part of the site plan approval process.
In response to Chairman Adams' question concerning the lease year definition on
page 212 of the backup, Mr. Reid explained that it had been tied to the spring training period
and it made sense to set it up that way.
September 7, 2000
W
BK 115 PG 009
0
F,
Mr. Callan added that it actually covers 21 years of spring training.
At Chairman Adams' request, the term Spring Training Home Games (page 213 of
the backup)was explained by Mr. Reid and Mr. Callan. That refers to exhibition games
when the Dodgers are designated the "home team" but do not play in Vero Beach. There
are usually between 10 and 15 games each season.
Then Chairman Adams inquired about Section 2.03, Option to Renew, and Mr. Reid
explained that in discussions it seemed to make the most sense for the Dodgers to have to
initiate a renewal. If a renewal deadline is missed, the County would, in essence, be in the
"driver's seat".
Chairman Adams' next question concerned Section 3.02(c), and Mr. Callan advised
that the term "facility" covered everything. The intent of this paragraph is to include some
small items which might be overlooked.
Mr. Callan further responded to Chairman Adams' questions concerning disputes on
rates for use and capital reserve account usage.
Administrator Chandler addressed Chairman Adams' question on the allotted days
that the County is able to use the facility and saw an opportunity for the County to generate
some income to cover the annual taxes. He explained that is to be determined in the future
and the flexibility rests with the County as long as it does not conflict with scheduled games.
In discussing the County's use of the facility, Mr. Reid pointed out that the County
can ask the Dodgers to provide attendants for parking, concessions, etc., but the County is
not obligated to do so. If provided, the Dodgers would provide those services at their cost.
Approval by the Dodgers for any County request could not be conditioned on a fee payment.
The effects of force majeure were discussed and Mr. Reid explained in detail how
losses would be handled.
In response to Commissioner Macht, Mr. Callan stated that the "Harvest Festival"
September 7, 2000
0
D
' , .1 1
.7
•
would remain under the aegis of the Dodgers.
Chairman Adams asked about the 30 -day period under 18.03(a), and Administrator
Chandler was comfortable with that turn -around time.
Mr. Reid added that any type of response, even "denied", on a documented request
satisfies the requirement.
Chairman Adams then moved to the Development Agreement (2.B.3.). She noticed
that the County is intimately involved in the development procedure and inquired about the
reasoning behind it.
Administrator Chandler explained that since we are using public dollars for what will
be a public facility, we are required by state law to comply with the State's CCNA. All the
language and provisions in the agreement are tied to the CCNA and Administrator Chandler
explained the procedure in detail.
Concerning the construction fund, which will be under the direction of the County,
Vice Chairman Ginn inquired if the County would be reimbursed for staffs' time. She
pointed out that Public Works Director James W. Davis would be involved and his
department is already extremely busy.
Administrator Chandler stated that one of the things considered was County stafftime
and he believed it would not be extensive. There is no provision for reimbursement, but the
Dodgers are aware of the form for submissions. These safeguards are necessary for the
distribution of the funds.
In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiry about the "draw schedule" (page 247),
Mr. Reid detailed how that would be a part of the design/build agreement and also explained
the requisition procedure.
Mr. Reid and Administrator Chandler further responded to Vice Chairman Ginn's
concerns about Article VI, 6.5, County Responsibility; Article VIII, 8.3, Progress Payments;
September 7, 2000
7
OwIIPG011
•
I
Article IX, 9.1.(a), Site Plan/Permitting/Changes; Article X, 10.4., Final Payment; and
Article XIV, 14.3., Construction Drawings.
Next, concerning the Interlocal Agreement, Vice Chairman Ginn thought the City
should pay their own share of the ad valorem taxes.
Chairman Adams asked about the 10.7% calculation, and Administrator Chandler
explained that it was based on the City's contribution versus the County's contribution.
In response to Chairman Adams' question, Mr. Reid explained the events that might
lead to arbitration.
The Commissioners had no questions concerning the Escrow Agreement, the
replacement Capital Reserve Account Agreement, or the Parking Agreement.
Vice Chairman Ginn suggested a clarification on the resolution under "C", and Mr.
Reid advised that the language in the proposed resolution mirrors the Treasury regulations
which authorize the action.
There were no questions concerning the Dodger/de Guardiola Development
Agreement.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
concerning this matter.
Deputy County Attorney Collins introduced the ordinance and what it proposes. He
advised it was advertised for public hearing this past Tuesday, September 5, 2000, and the
public hearing was opened and continued to this meeting and time. He read aloud the
proposed amendments to Sections 120.01 and 210.03 which were underlined in the agenda
backup materials.
County Attorney Bangel suggested that the Chairman entertain public comments on
the ordinance as part of the public hearing separately from comments on the agreements.
September 7, 2000
•
8
0
Chairman Adams felt that input on all matters on the agenda should be considered
because the agreements were contingent on the ordinance.
Deputy County Attorney Collins reminded the Chairman that the ordinance would not
be effective until February 1'. and, if for some reason the agreements do not go forward, the
ordinance imposing the tax could simply be repealed prior to that date.
Chairman Adams then clarified that the Commission would listen to comments on the
tourist tax ordinance first and opened the public hearing on the tourist tax issue only.
Frank Zorc, 2044 DeLeon Avenue, pointed out that he would speak only on the
tourist tax ordinance, and stressed that there has not yet been a public hearing on the question
of the "Dodger issue" and that was needed in the future. He was opposed to the additional
one -cent tax because of its intended use.
Bob Swift, 6450 Glendale Road, advised he learned from reading a market study
business plan done for the Laura Riding Jackson Foundation that one out of three tourists
surveyed had come to Vero Beach for the Dodgers. He found it interesting to see how far-
reaching the benefit of the facility and proposal is to the broad base of the County and how
important it is to our tourist industry.
Frank Coffey, 1335 River Ridge Drive, advised that he fully supported the additional
one percent sales tax for this limited use. He understood the tax could not be used for any
other purpose unless modified at some future date by the Commission.
There being no further comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
September 7, 2000
4
BK 115 PG 013
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board adopted (4-1, Vice
Chairman Ginn opposed) Ordinance No. 2000-029 amending
Section 210.01, Indian River County Code, to provide for the
levy of an additional one -cent tourist development tax and
amending Section 210.03 to authorize use of the revenues raised
for the purposes set forth in Florida Statute 125.0104(3)(1)
relating to retained spring training franchise facilities; providing
for codification; providing for severability; and providing for an
effective date.
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 029
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 210.01, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE
LEVY OF AN ADDITIONAL ONE -CENT TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT TAX AND AMENDING SECTION
210.03 TO AUTHORIZE USE OF THE REVENUES
RAISED FOR THE PURPOSES SET FORTH IN
FLORIDA STATUTE 125.0104(3)(1) RELATING TO
RETAINED SPRING TRAINING FRANCHISE
FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, has levied and imposed a Tourist Development Tax at the rate of three
percent (3%) of each dollar and major fraction of each dollar of the total
consideration charged for lease or rental of living accommodations for a term of six
(6) months or less pursuant to Section 125.0104, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, has determined that it is in the best interest of the public to levy and impose
an additional Tourist Development Tax at the rate of one percent (1 %) of each dollar
and major fraction of each dollar of the total consideration charged for lease or rental
of living accommodations for a term of six (6) months or less, pursuant to the
authority of Section 125.0104(3)(1), Florida Statutes, for the purposes set forth
therein relating to retained spring training franchise facilities;
September 7, 2000
10
BK115PG014
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 029
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.
Chapter 210, Indian River County Code is hereby amended to add Sections
210.01(d) and 210.03(a)(6) and modify Section 210.03(b) as follows:
Section 210.01. Taxing district and levy
(a) There are hereby created two (2) taxing districts in which the tourist
development tax is imposed. One taxing district encompasses the
geographical boundaries of the City of Vero Beach. The second
taxing district encompasses the remainder of geographical boundaries
of Indian River County.
(b) There is hereby adopted and imposed a two (2) percent tourist
development tax in accordance with F.S. § 125.0104, on the exercise
within each of the taxing districts herein created of the taxable
privilege of renting, leasing or letting, for consideration any living
quarters or accommodations in any hotel, apartment hotel, motel,
rooming house, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park, camping
space or condominium for a term of six (6) months or less.
(c) There is hereby adopted and imposed an additional one (1) percent
tourist development tax in accordance with F.S. § 125.0104(3)(d), on
the exercise within each of the taxing districts of the taxable privilege
of renting, leasing, or letting for a consideration any living quarters or
accommodations in any hotel, apartment hotel, motel, rooming house,
mobile home park, recreational vehicle park, camping space or
condominium for a term of six (6) months or less. Said additional tax
shall be for the purpose of funding those authorized uses of tourist
development tax revenue as set out in section 210.03(a)(4) of this
ordinance.
(d) There is hereby adopted and imposed an additional one (1) percent
tourist development tax in accordance with F.S. § 125 0104(3)(1). on
the exercise within each of the taxing districts of the taxable privilege
of renting, leasing, or letting for consideration any living quarters or
accommodations in any hotel apartment hotel motel rooming house
mobile home park. recreational vehicle park camping space or
condominium for a term of six (6) months or less Said additional tax
shall be for the pumose of fundina those authorized uses of tourist
development tax revenue as set out in section 210 03fa)(6) of this
ordinance.
Section 210.03. Authorized uses of revenue.
(a) All revenues received pursuant to this article shall be used for the
following purposes only:
CODING: Additions to text are underlined.
September 7, 2000
11
BK 115 PB 01
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 029
(1) To acquire, construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair,
improve, maintain, operate or promote one or more publicly
owned and operated convention center, sport stadium, sports
arena, coliseum or auditorium within the boundaries of the
county or subcounty special taxing district. However, these
purposes may be implemented through services, contracts and
leases with persons who maintain and operate adequate
existing facilities;
(2) To promote and advertise tourism in the State of Florida and
nationally and internationally;
(3) To fund convention bureaus, tourist bureau, tourist information
centers and news bureaus as county agencies or by contract
with the chambers of commerce or similar associations in the
county;
(4) To finance beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment
restoration and erosion control, including shoreline protection,
enhancement, cleanup, restoration of inland lakes and rivers to
which there is public access;
(5) Until such time as Indian River County reaches a population of
five hundred thousand (500,000) based on the most recent
population estimated prepared pursuant to the provisions of
F.S. § 186.901, as in effect of July 1st of each year, tax
revenues received pursuant to this article may also be used to
acquire, construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair, improve,
maintain, operate or promote one or more museums, zoological
parks, fishing piers or nature centers which are publicly owned
and operated or owned by not-for-profit organizations are open
to the public.
(66) Pay the debt service on bonds issued to finance the
construction reconstruction or renovation of a professional
sports franchise facility, or the acquisition construction,
reconstruction or renovation of a retained spring training
franchise facility, either publicly owned and operated. or
publicly owned and operated by the owner of a professional
sports franchise or other lessee with sufficient expertise or
financial capability to operate such facility, and to pay the
plannino and design costs incurred prior to the issuance of
such bonds.
(b) Up to fifty (50) percent of the revenues to be derived from the tourist
development tax levied pursuant to sections 210.01(b) and (c) of this
ordinance shall be pledged to secure and liquidate revenue bonds
issued by the county for the purposes set forth in section (a)(4) of this
section. Up to one-half (1/2) of the remaining revenue derived from
the tourist development tax levied pursuant to sections 210.01(b) and
((c) of this ordinance may be pledged to secure and liquidate revenue
bonds issued by the county for the purposes set forth in section (a)(1).
CODING: Additions to text are underlined.
September 7, 2000
12
BK 1 15 PG 016
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 029
SECTION 2. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners that the provisions of
this ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Indian River County Code
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate
word or phrase and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered
to accomplish such intention; providing, however, that Sections 2, 3, and 4 shall not
be codified.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance
is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall
not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to
have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Certified copies of this ordinance, as enacted, shall be filed by the Clerk with
the Office of the Secretary of State and the Department of Revenue of the State of
Florida within ten days after enactment, and this ordinance shall take effect on
February 1, 2001.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, on this 7th day of September 2000.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press-Joumal on the 26th
day of August, 2000, for a public hearing to be held on the 5th day of September,
2000, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ti DP n ,
seconded by Commissioner Stan bri doe . , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Ayg_
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Nay
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ave
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
CODING: Additions to text are underlined.
September 7, 2000
13
BK 115 PG 017
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 029
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted
this 7th day of September, 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By. "' 3
6� �'—
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Bars , lerk
Deputy Clerk
ft,
Effective Date: This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on
day of ' 2000, and becomes effective February 1, 2001.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BY
BEP6q4 COUNTY ATTCNNEY
(CLERK'S NOTE: ITEM 2.A WAS CONSIDERED OUT OF
SEQUENCE AND CAN BE FOUND JUST BEFORE THE
ADJOURNMENT.)
2.B. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-099 APPROVING THE FORM AND
AUTHORIZING _EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF VARIOUS
PROPOSED AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH ACQUISITION
OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS DODGERTOWN - 1.
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE; 2. FACILITY LEASE
AGREEMENT: 3. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: 4. INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT: 5. ESCROW AGREEMENT; 6. CAPITAL RESERVE
ACCOUNT AGREEMENT: 7. PARKING AGREEMENT
(CONTHVUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2000)
September 7, 2000
14
is 0
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 30, 2000:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
DATE: August 30, 2000
SUBJECT: Los Angeles Dodgers — Proposed Agreements
FROM: J es E. Chandler, County Administrator
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated July 24, 2000 approved by the Board
provided that the parties would negotiate various agreements referenced in the MOU by not later
than September 1, 2000. The attached agreements have been negotiated by the parties in
accordance with the MOU and are hereby submitted to the Board with the recommendation that
such agreements be approved as to form and substance. If approved by the Board and, where
applicable, the Vero Beach City Council, the agreements will be made a part of the County's
application for State funding which must be submitted by October 1, 2000. The agreements will
be held by the County's bond counsel pursuant to the attached Document Escrow Agreement
pending the satisfaction of the various conditions specified in the MOU and as reflected in the
Document Escrow Agreement.
The Chairman then opened the floor to public comment on the remaining agenda
items concerning the Dodger matter.
Gene Winne, 2096 Windward Way, stated he was speaking as a board member and
vice president of the Civic Association. He advised that while the members of the Civic
Association are not against the Dodgers and hope they will remain in Vero Beach, they do
have strong objections to many features in the way it has been accomplished. He cited and
expanded on the following reasons for their objections. First, the public has never been
adequately informed about the negotiations; second, the County is providing major financial
assistance to a company controlled by one of the world's wealthier men; third, the positive
effects on the county's economy are less than claimed and no studies or alternatives have
been made available; fourth, it is a somewhat one-sided deal in favor of the Dodgers. He
September 7, 2000
15
BK 115 PG 019
guessed that if there were a referendum the public would vote against it. He recommended
a referendum be held on large issues in the future.
Bobbie Greenlees, 1602 Camino del Rio West, stated a personal "amen" to Mr.
Winne's remarks. On behalf of the Taxpayers Association, she asked the true costs of the
transaction. She also suggested the County verify the bond rating. She asked that someone
clarify the amount of bonds that will be issued, the cost of selling and the cost of interest.
Assistant Administrator Baird advised that the County planned an $11 million bond
issue of which $500,000 will be issuance costs, leaving $10.5 million for the project. The
bond issue will have a 20 -year term; the interest is estimated to be an additional 6.1% and
there will be an "A" underlying rating which the County has received before using the half -
cent sales tax pledge. The bond issue would be a AAA -insured issue after the County buys
insurance. The -estimated interest over the term is $7.7 million. Since the bonds have not
yet been issued he could only speak of estimates.
Ms. Greenlees asked for clarification on the $17 million net proceeds figure.
Assistant Administrator Baird stated that $10.5 million would come from the $11
million issue. There is also planned a $7 million bond issue, using the $ .5 million annual
allocation from the State over a 30 -year period. That issue could potentially have a AA
rating, but an A underlying rating was assumed when it was written. The $15 million interest
on that bond issue would come from the State ($.5 million per year for 30 years).
There was discussion as to the application deadline of October 1, and Administrator
Chandler advised that everything before the Board at this meeting is contingent on the
approval by the State by December 31'a.
Administrator Chandler and Assistant Administrator Baird responded in detail to
Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiries concerning allocation of the bond proceeds.
September 7, 2000
16
•
Malcolm Liggett, 1505 4' Street, handed out copies of his letter and read it into the
record. (CLERK'S NOTE: A copy of the letter is filed with the backup in the office of the
Clerk to the Board.) His suggested language change to put a limit on the period of time that
the Dodgers could use the "penalty" money until an 8 -year period has expired, thus to
preclude any early buyout by the Dodgers which he believed would be to the detriment of
the City and the County.
Mr. Reid explained in detail how the first 8 -year period would be the most expensive
period for the Dodgers to decide to leave. They would have to defease the full amount of
the bonds, not the net proceeds. They would not only have to pay the full principal amount,
but also all interest until the first call date and any penalties. The capital reserve would come
back to the County in addition to the liquidated damages. He also explained how this
provision was part of the original negotiations. He opined that the suggested language would
be a detriment to the County and explained his reasoning. In response to Commissioner
Macht's inquiry, Mr. Reid explained the appraisal process for determining the "fair market"
value.
Mr. Liggett believed the issue of the fair market value of the facility at sometime in
the future is not relevant. He felt that the 8 -year requirement would keep the Dodgers here
eight years.
In response to Mr. Zorc, Administrator Chandler advised that the initial drafts of the
proposed agreements were written by Mr. Reid and the final language was the product of
both Mr. Reid and the Dodgers' attorney.
Mr. Zorc commented that all the agreements would take a famed attorney a long time
to read and form an opinion. He believed the Dodgers held all the cards. He refuted
Commissioner Macht's campaign comments that this "Dodger deal is a great economic
engine for this county", by reading from his ZORGRAM an article entitled "Why Subsidize
September 7, 2000
17
EK 115 PG 021
C�
Sports Millionaires?" (COPY IN THE BACKUP FOR THE MEETING.) He also read from
the ZORGR,4M to state his position against the entire matter. He also spoke in favor of a
referendum vote on the issue.
Clinton Scott, 1926 Ocean Drive, thought it was time to have a binding referendum
on the Dodger deal. Because it is so controversial, he thought the Commissioners would
want to have public input.
Anthony Donadio, 1665 E. Rosewood Court, thought people ought to be aware that
$500,000 per year from the State would go to another community if we muss the critical
October 1' deadline. Things have to move fast, there is no time to hold a referendum. He
thought it should be looked at as an "investment", a business deal for the City and the County
which later can be turned back and sold to make a profit. He believed the study to which Mr.
Zorc referred was for facilities for large major league teams, not spring training teams. The
Dodgers have a large impact on our community.
Lee Kenworthy, 1170 Bounty Blvd., handed out copies of newspaper articles from
the Wall Street Journal. (COPY FILED WITH THE BACKUP FOR THE MEETING.) He
suggested the Commissioners read them and get a copy of the study referred to in the articles.
The conclusion of the study seemed to be that the economic benefit of a sports franchise
usually ends up in the hands of the players and the coaches.
John Clinton, 3606 Mockingbird Drive, had a question about the deadline of October
1, 2000, and was advised that the same deadline was not available in 2001. He spoke in
opposition, as a taxpayer, because he believed the proposal gave the Dodgers total control
of the property without ownership for the next 20 years. As to the economic impact, his
opinion was that the snow in the north during the winter had more impact on this community
than the Dodgers' six-week spring training period.
Bill Curtis, 3410 Buckinghammock Trail, president of the Chamber of Commerce,
September 7, 2000
18
0 . 0
0
applauded the Commission for looking at this proposal and thought nothing had changed
since they approved the MOU. He urged their favorable vote and appreciated their support.
Frank Coffey, 1335 River Ridge Drive, supported this proposal wholeheartedly and
thought Mr. Reid and his law firm should be congratulated for the effort put into the
agreement. He felt they had done an excellent job of presenting the facts. He reminded
those who were opposed, that the governor of Michigan appealed to the Congress to prevent
the Chrysler Corporation from "going down the drain" and the Federal Government had
supported the Chrysler Corporation. He inquired about the unprovement costs on page 283
which he assumed would be brought down into the budget. His other concern was that the
Dodgers could sublease to anyone for any use.
Craig Callan of the Dodger organization addressed both of Mr. Coffey's concerns.
The Dodgers realized it was their responsibility to whittle down the budget since they intend
to not go into the capital reserve. Concerning subleasing the facility, that concerns the
utilization of the facility in the future by foreign teams when they are in the United States.
Mr. Coffey concluded his remarks by saying the Dodgers have been good to Vero
Beach and they will still be good to Vero Beach for the next 20+ years.
Al Vilardi, 445 Georgia Blvd, Sebastian, said he gets around and is able to talk to a
lot of people in the area. He has only had one person say that they were in agreement with
this transaction. No one is against the Dodgers, but not at this cost. He has heard it said that
the money will stay in the community but he did not agree. He asked the Commissioners to
reconsider.
Rene Renzi, 340 Waverly Place, asked for an explanation of an issue concerning what
would happen if something went over $270,000, leaving the Dodgers the right to walkaway
from the deal.
September 7, 2000
19
BK11PG023
r�
F,
Mr. Reid advised that this came out of the negotiations on the MOU where the
Dodgers were looking at a potential of $9 million (adding the improvement fund and capital
reserve) for improvements. Three percent of that is $270,000 and if the City requires
additional items which total more than that amount during the site plan approval process, the
Dodgers wanted the ability to not be forced into doing those improvements.
Ms. Renzi asked where that would leave the City and County, and Mr. Reid
explained that no bonds will be issued until all the conditions are satisfied. At that point,
there would be no more outs. Ms. Renzi concluded by saying she was opposed to "give-
away deals".
John Kurtz, 4332 2" a Square SW, thought it very important for everyone to know that
the October 1' deadline was set by the State. He pointed out that this was a real estate
transaction not a "give-away" program. He felt a lot was being done to continue the heritage
and quality of life that we have in Indian River County. If the property were sold to some
other entity, it might not be as advantageous in the future. He thought it was important not
to compare the spring training facility in Aero Beach with major league team facilities in
large municipalities. He believed the Dodgers generate a lot of business year around with
conference users of their facility. This information is not generally known unless it is
investigated He felt there has been ample opportunity for public input on this issue and the
Commissioners have done their due diligence with the aid of proper professionals and should
be given credit. Last, he stated the Commissioners were elected to make decisions and are
the most informed, along with the consultants and staff. He encouraged the Commissioners
to vote in favor of the matter.
George Gross, 1230 39'' Avenue, was in favor of the project but was disturbed about
the cost. He wanted to know what the cost would be to the residents of Indian River County.
0
Assistant Administrator Baird advised that the $823,000 presently to be pledged on
September 7, 2000
F
0
•
this bond issue was a debt payment on an old bond issue which the County defeased on
September 1'. That money will not have an impact on the taxpayers. The Tourist Tax,
which is referred to as a "bed tax", is paid when people stay in hotels or any accommodation
less than six months. Those are the two funding sources. The State allocation comes from
the State as an appropriation. If we do not get it, someone else will.
Vice Chairman Ginn stated that the $823,000 which comes in from the half -cent sales
tax would go into the general fund. That could be used for anything else if it were not going
to be used to support the new bond issue. She thought that was our cost from a tax base over
which we have control.
Mr. Gross then asked if it would cost the residents of Indian River County anything
to proceed with this.
Vice Chairman Ginn responded that there would be no additional cost, but also there
would be no reduction. That $823,000 could be used for parks, libraries, emergency
services, or other things.
Commissioner Macht asked whether it would show up in the property owner's tax
bills, and Mr. Gross understood and stressed that this will not cost the taxpayers any more
money for this project.
Vice Chairman Ginn agreed there would be no ad valorem taxes,- but on the other
hand the $823,000 would not be available to reduce taxes.
Chairman Adams clarified further by stating that this bond issue will not be seen on
property tax bills such as the land acquisition bond issue is.
Wayne Kleinstiver, 4080 8' Place, asked what the cash amount paid on the bonds
per year will be, and Assistant Administrator Baird responded that it would be $1,145,000
to be pledged toward the $11 million bond issue; the rest will come from the State.
Assistant Administrator Baird also pointed out that on the $1,145,000 we have
September 7, 2000
21
•
assumed a 1.25% coverage, so the real debt service is $916,000.
Mr. Kleinstiver suggested that it be assumed the figure is $1.2 million per year, and
if divided by 7%, it comes to about $17 million per year. He offered a wager that the
Dodgers presence generates $17 million in revenue to the county. He further commented
that the this is merely a recycling of dollars generated by the Dodgers.
Milt Thomas, 686 Glenview Terrace, commended the City and County staff for the
work on this and the Commission for the effort. He thought this to be the best deal between
a baseball team and a community anywhere. It is a controversial issue and when the
Commissioners ran for the office, they did not do so because it was going to be an easy job.
There are a lot of difficult decisions, but they were elected to look above the individual
points and look at the horizon and have vision for the future of the community. He suggested
this is all about people who have to earn a living in the county, because it is bringing money,
jobs and visitors into the county. Building economic infrastructure is important for the
future. He made the point that things never stay the same, but people still move here for our
quality of life and the Dodgers are a very big part of that.
Mr. Zorc disputed the "bail out" in Detroit because it was loaned money, not cash.
It may be true this is a business deal, but there are good and bad business deals, and his
opinion was this is a bad business deal for the taxpayers. He believed the $270,000 escape
hatch favors the Dodgers, not the City or County. He was tired of hearing that this is free
money, every dollar of tax money is our tax money, we are paying for it. He asked Vice
Chairman Ginn to look into the October 1' deadline because he could not imagine that an
issue this controversial could not be extended until after a November referendum date.
Mr. Vilardi commented that the area set aside for parking on the master site plan was
insufficient for the stadium.
Mr. Kurtz commented that every business transaction is usually voluntary and takes
September 7, 2000
22
•
two parties to reach agreement. He felt the Dodgers wanted to stay in Vero Beach, otherwise
they would not be taking all the abuse.
Mr. Donadio pointed out that the Dodger facility is a year around facility and
employs 250 people in the off-season and 400 during spring training. If that did not
constitute an economic engine and generate $17 million, he knew of nothing else that would.
Bill Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, predicted this deal would not mean anything for 20
years when the property would be worth two or three times its current value. He was pretty
sure that the five sitting Commissioners had no second agendas or reasons to go into a deal
like this except on behalf of their constituents. He felt that staff had done an excellent job
on the negotiations. Both sides gave up something to arrive at an agreement. He could not
understand how anyone could be so negative on it without saying how that money would be
replaced if the Dodgers were to leave. He had confidence that the best deal possible had
been put together. He suggested the point of first right of refusal versus right of repurchase
was a very cognizant part of the future of the contract. He thanked the Commissioners and
asked them to continue the good work.
Chairman Adams asked for anyone else who wished to speak; there were none. She
then concluded the public input and asked for direction from the Commissioners.
Vice Chairman Ginn wanted Mr. Reid to address the right of first refusal and the first
right of refusal issue so the County is protected.
Mr. Reid stated that all those provisions will be written into the deed which he will
be drafting. He then explained in detail the three different events that were spelled out in the
MOU and in the agreements concerning the County's and Dodgers' rights to purchase and/or
acquire the property.
Discussion ensued and Mr. Reid explained in detail what would happen under
September 7, 2000
23
•
various scenarios regarding the economics of bond repayments and the County's and the
Dodgers' obligations and options.
Mr. Callan pointed out that the developer (de Guardiola) is paying 33% higher than
the appraisal value, and the Dodgers will be putting in $9 million in improvements. He could
not imagine that the land would not appreciate in value.
Vice Chairman Ginn wanted to thank Mr. Reid for a remarkable document which she
believed protected the County. She wanted the Dodgers to stay, but said she is
philosophically opposed to taxpayer buyouts. She was also concerned there might be other
businesses in the community who provide an "economic engine" and might come to the
County for similar or greater assistance. She thought the developer would do a good job but
could not vote in favor of the agreements.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, to adopt the proposed
resolution approving and authorizing the execution and delivery
of the agreements as listed, namely: Agreement for Sale and
Purchase, Facility Lease Agreement, Development Agreement,
Interlocal Agreement, Escrow Agreement, Capital Reserve
Account Agreement, and Parking Agreement.
Under discussion, Commissioner Stanbridge thought this was a partnership between
the State, the City of Vero Beach, the Dodgers, and Indian River County. She thought we
needed to move forward to insure that our community has the opportunity to take advantage
of it.
September 7, 2000
24
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried by a vote of 4-1 (Vice Chairman Ginn. opposed.)
(Adopted Resolution No. 2000-099, providing for the approval
of the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of an
Agreement for Sale and Purchase, Facility Lease Agreement,
Development Agreement, Interlocal Agreement, Document
Escrow Agreement, Capital Reserve Account Agreement, and
Parking Agreement in connection with the acquisition of certain
real property known as Dodgertown; authorizing other required
actions; providing for severability and an effective date.)
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 099
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR
THE APPROVAL OF THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
AND DELIVERY OF AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE,
FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, DOCUMENT ESCROW AGREEMENT,
CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT AGREEMENT, AND PARKING AGREEMENT
IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
KNOWN AS DODGERTOWN; AUTHORIZING OTHER REQUIRED ACTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This Resolution is adopted
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, County Home Rule Ordinance No. 77-
19, enacted August 3, 1977 and effective August 9, 1977, as amended, and other applicable
provisions of law.
SECTION 2. FINDINGS. It is hereby found and determined that:
A. The County Commission approved and executed that certain Memorandum
of Understanding dated as of July 24, 2000 (the "Memorandum of Understanding"), by and
among the County, the City of Vero Beach, Florida (the "City"), Los Angeles Dodgers, inc.
("Dodgers"), Fox Baseball Holdings Incorporated ("Fox") and de Guardiola Development,
Inc. (the "Developer"), which Memorandum of Understanding required the County to
approve additional documents.
B. The additional documents required by the Memorandum of Understanding
have been prepared and submitted to the County for such approval.
September 7, 2000
25
EK 1 1 5 PC 029
•
RESOLUTION N0. 2000-099
SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE. The
Agreement for Sale and Purchase in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby
approved and the Chairman or Vice -Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
execute and deliver the Agreement for Sale and Purchase on behalf of and in the name of the County,
with such additional changes, insertions and omissions therein as may be otherwise made and
approved by said officers of the County executing the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence
of such approval.
SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF THE FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT The Facility Lease
Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B is hereby approved and the
Chairman or Vice -Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver
the Facility Lease Agreement on behalf of and in the name of the County, with such additional
changes, insertions and omissions therein as may be otherwise made and approved by said officers
of the County executing the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval.
SECTION 5.
s
Agreement in subsAPPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The Development
tantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit C is hereby approved and the
Chairman or Vice -Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver
the Development Agreement on behalf of and in the name of the County, with such additional
changes, insertions and omissions therein as may be otherwise made and approved by said officers
of the County executing the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval.
SECTION 6. APPROVAL OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. The Interlocal
Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit D is hereby approved and the
Chairman or Vice -Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver
the Interlocal Agreement on behalf of and in the name of the County, with such additional changes,
insertions and omissions therein as may be otherwise made and approved by said officers of the
County executing the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval.
SECTION 7. APPROVAL OF THE DOCUMENT ESCROW AGREEMENT. The
Document Escrow Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit E is hereby
approved and the Chairman or Vice -Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
execute and deliver the Document Escrow Agreement on behalf of and in the name of the County,
with such additional changes, insertions and omissions therein as may be otherwise made and
approved by said officers ofthe County executing the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence
of such approval.
SECTION 8. APPROVAL OF THE CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT AGREEMENT.
The Capital Reserve Account Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit F is
hereby approved and the Chairman or Vice-Chairmanand the Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver the Capital Reserve Account Agreement on behalf of and in the name
of the County, with such additional changes, insertions and omissions therein as may be otherwise
made and approved by said officers of the County executing the same, such execution to be
conclusive evidence of such approval.
SECTION 9. APPROVAL OF THE PARKING AGREEMENT. The Parking Agreement
m substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit G is hereby approved and the Chairman or Vice -
Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Parking
September 7, 2000
26
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-099
Agreement on behalf of and in the name of the County, with such additional changes, insertions and
omissions therein as may be otherwise made and approved by said officers of the County executing
the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval.
SECTION 10. APPOINTMENT OF THE AGENT AND CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT
AGENT. The County's bond counsel, Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A., is hereby appointed to serve
as "Agent" under the Document Escrow Agreement, and First Union National Bank is hereby
appointed to serve as the "Capital Reserve Account Agent" under the Capital Reserve Account
Agreement.
SECTION 11. APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS. The County recognizes that the
"Improvements" set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding and in the Development Agreement
are subject to adjustment, expansion and deletion as a result of the preparation of the Design Criteria
Package required by the Development Agreement and as a result of the site plan approval process.
The County Administrator is expressly authorized and directed to approve, on behalf of the County,
any such adjustments, expansions and deletions as a result of the preparation of the Design Criteria
Package required by the Development Agreement and as a result of the site plan approval process,
without further action by this Commission.
SECTION 12. GENERAL AUTHORITY. The Chairman or Vice -Chairman, the County
Administrator, the County Attorney, the Clerk and any other proper officials of the County are hereby
authorized to do all acts and things required of them by this Resolution or that may otherwise be
desirable or consistent with accomplishing the full, punctual and complete performance of all the
terms, covenants and agreements contained in any of the foregoing and the County is hereby
authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all papers and instruments and to cause to be
done any and all acts and things necessary or proper for carrying out the transactions contemplated
thereby. In addition, the County Administrator shall be authorized, on behalf of the County, to
authorize any substitution of exhibits or other matters held pursuant to the Document Escrow
Agreement as may be contemplated therein, without further authorization from this Commission.
SECTION 13. SEVERABILITY AND INVALID PROVISIONS. If any one or more of the
covenants, agreements or provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provision
of law or contrary to the policy of express law, but not expressly prohibited or against public policy,
or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions
shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining covenants, agreements or
provisions and shall in no way effect the validity of the other provisions hereof.
SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its
adoption.
September 7, 2000
27
BK II5PG031
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-099
I
Adopted this pith day of September, 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: �%Cc�
6 JA5,1�_
As. Chairman
Attes
.G1eFIe` --:'CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
2.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-100 ESTABLISHING INTENT TO
REIMBURSE CERTAIN PROJECT COSTS INCURRED WITH
PROCEEDS OF FUTURE TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING AND
PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH
(CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2000.)
Chairman Adams read the title of the proposed resolution and called for action.
September 7, 2000
28
BK 1 15 PG 032
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board adopted by a 4-1 vote (Vice
Chairman Ginn opposed) Resolution No. 2000-100 establishing
its intent to reimburse certain project costs incurred with
proceeds of future tax-exempt financing, providing certain other
matters in connection therewith; and providing an effective date.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-100
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ESTABLISHING ITS INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN
PROJECT COSTS INCURRED WITH PROCEEDS OF FUTURE
TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING; PROVIDING CERTAIN OTHER
MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida (the
"Issuer") has determined that the need exists to acquire lands known as Dodgertown and to cause to
be constructed certain improvements thereon related to spring training facilities to be utilized therafter
by the Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc. ("Dodgers");
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: -
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY. This Resolution (hereinafter called the "Resolution") is
adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Florida Constitution, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, and
other applicable provisions of law.
SECTION 2. DECLARATION OF INTENT. The Issuer hereby expresses its intention to
be reimbursed from proceeds of a future tax-exempt financing for the acquisition of certain lands
known as Dodgertown and the costs of construction, expanding and improving facilities which will
constitute a spring training facility to be used by the Dodgers (the "Project"). Pending
reimbursement, the Issuer expects to use funds on deposit in its general funds or that the Dodgers will
September 7, 2000
29
•
BK I15PG033
J
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 100
advance certain funds to pay costs of the Project. It is not reasonably expected that the total amount
of debt to be incurred by the Issuer to reimburse itself for expenditures paid with respect to the
Project will exceed $18,000,000. This Resolution is intended to constitute a "declaration of official
intent" within the meaning of Section 1.150-2 of the Income Tax Regulations.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any one or more of the provisions of this Resolution shall
for any reason be held illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision
of this Resolution, but this Resolution shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid
provision had not been contained therein.
SECTION 4. REPEALING CLAUSE. All resolutions or orders and parts thereof in conflict
herewith to the extent of such conflicts, are hereby superseded and repealed.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED the !th day of September, 2000.
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
6ete;ty- 4erk = _ - .
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency.
Y
County Aforneyl
September 7, 2000
BK 115 PG 034
BOARD OF COUNTY CONMSSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
0 0
•
2A LOS ANGELES DODGERS AND DEGUARDIOLA
DEVELOPMENT, INC. - AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
(CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2000)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 30, 2000:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
DATE: August 30. 2000
SUBJECT: Dodgers / DeGuardlola Development Agreement
FROM: Jp2ft. Chandler, oC'unryAdminis'�ator
The County has been advised that the Dodgers and DeGuardiola Development, Inc. have
completed an agreement for sale and purchase. The agreement satisfies a provision in the
Collateral Development section of the Memorandum of Understanding. Attached is a copy of
the agreement for your information. No action is required by the Board.
FOR INFORMATION ONLY - NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
County Attorney Bangel reminded Chairman Adams that item 2.A: had not yet been
considered.
Z.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-098 - APPOINTMENT OF ROBERT C.
REED AS SPECIAL COUNTY ATTORNEY TO COORDINATE
APPROVE, AND NOTE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING THE
PURCHASE. LEASEBACK, IMPROVEMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT
OF DODGERTOWN
(CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2000)
September 7, 2000
31
•
BK 16 5 PG 0 3 S
J
Chairman Adams read the title of the proposed resolution and called for a motion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2000-098 appointing Robert C. Reid Special
County Attorney for the purpose of coordinating, approving, and
noting contract documents presented to the Board of County
Commissioners in connection with the purchase, leaseback,
improvement, and development of Dodgertown.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 098
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, APPOINTING ROBERT C. REID SPECIAL
COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COORDINATING, APPROVING, AND NOTING
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN CONNECTION WITH
THE PURCHASE, LEASEBACK, IMPROVEMENT, AND
DEVELOPMENT OF DODGERTOWN.
WHEREAS, Section 102.10(4) of the Indian River County Code (Ordinance 90-
19) provides that "[a]ll contract documents shall be coordinated with and noted by the
county attorney and county administrator before presentation to commission," and
Section 105.02, of the Indian River County Code (Ordinance 90-24), requires the
county attorney's approval as to form and legal sufficiency for certain purchasing
contracts in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000); and
WHEREAS, the services of Attorney Robert C. Reid have been engaged to
prepare documents and conduct negotiations in connection with the purchase,
leaseback, improvement, and development of property known as Dodgertown,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Robert C. Reid is
hereby appointed special county attorney for the purpose of coordinating, approving,
September 7, 2000
32
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- Ogg
and noting contract documents presented to the Board of County Commissioners in
connection with the purchase, leaseback, improvement, and development of
Dodgertown.
The
resolution was
moved for
adoption
by
Commissioner
Macht
, and
the motion was
seconded
by
Commissioner
Ti ppi n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
7th day of September, 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Attest: .BartonClINDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
, B� �
Fran B. Adams
Deputy Clerk Chairman
September 7, 2000
33
rirl`>10VEz AS TO FORM
AND 1=212AL SUFFICIENCY
FAJL S. 4 Kiyr•C.
C.JlJf-VTY Ar 7 0 R N E Y
BK 115 PG 037
r
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 12:57 p.m.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved 4T® 0,06
September 7, 2000
•
34
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
0