Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08282002CRA AgendaHOME OF PE, LICAN iSlAND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA Wednesday August 28, 2002, 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 2. 3. 4. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 6/26/02 CONSIDERATION OF JACKSON STREET EXTENSION (see City Council agenda packet pages 1 t 1-t62 for backup) A. Presentation by City Manager and Growth Management Director B. CRA Action ADJOURN ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING (OR HEARING) WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING iS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (286.0105 F.S.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMODA TION FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT 589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING. HEARING ASSISTANCE HEADPHONES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR ALL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Wednesday August 28, 2002, 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida Mayor Barnes celled the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLLCALL City Council Present: Mayor Walter Barnes Vice Mayor James Hill Mr. Joseph Barczyk Mr. Raymond Coniglio Mr. Edward Majcher, Jr. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 6~26~02 MOTION by Coniglio/Hill "1 move we accept the minutes." ROLL CALL: Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye MOTION CARRIED 5-0 CONSIDERATION OF JACKSON STREET EXTENSION (see City Council agenda packet pages 11 I- 162 for backup) A. Presentation by City Mana,qer and Growth Manaqement Director The City Manager cited pages 22 and 23 of the Community Redevelopment Plan relative to goals and objectives, specifically goals 5, 6, and 7 (see attached) as they correlate to the extension of Jackson Street. He then distributed a memo from the City Engineer dated August 28, 2002 and read it into the record (see attached). He then referenced page 162 of the Regular City Council meeting agenda packet relative to "Jackson Street CostsNalues" (see attached). He stated that both the city and the developer would benefit from this agreement. CRA Meeting August 28, 2002 Page Two John King addressed City Council on the proposed agreement for the extension of Jackson Street, cited their reasons for the proposal, and exhibited a conceptual drawing. The Growth Management Director reiterated that this proposal had been originally recommended by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to ease traffic flow through the corridor and support development in the neighborhood. The City Attorney said this was a meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, and there was no restriction on whether or not public input is taken. He said this is coming to them as the planning committee for river[rent development, and that they would have to vote on an issue to send it on to Council for expenditure of the trust funds. Becky Hoch, adjacent property owners, 1724 North Central Avenue, stated two sides of her property abut the subject property. She requested assurance that she be given access to Jackson Street if this matter is approved, noting that her property is zoned commercial. She asked if there are any impact fees that would impact her property, and was advised that the only impact fee was the recreational impact fee for residences. The City Attorney said he would anticipate that her property would have access from both streets, and some of the parking spaces would be lost. He said he did not see that any access would be denied. He said there is an implied right of access, and denial would have to be based on specific engineering problems. Mrs. Hoch asked if she could request a driveway permit at this time. Mr. King said Ms. Hoch did not own property adjacent to Jackson Street right- of-way, but that Mr. Adams owned the 20 feet between row and her property. Discussion took place on whether she will be impacted if she cannot use Jackson and wants to develop further. She said she then questioned whether this is serving the public. CRA Meeting August28,2002 Page Three Mr. Majcher expressed concern for the city making this purchase and limiting other people from using it. John King said Ms. Hoch has never had access to the subject right-of- way and that the development could not take any proposed parking away. The City Attorney cited the angle that Jackson comes into North Central, and that at this point, with her not fronting on the right-of-way there can be no assurances made, and if agreed to would knock out required parking for the development. He noted that she would reap a profit for her property by being able to use the public parking on Jackson Street. Mayor Barnes said without an agreement such as this, the city won't get the street. Mr. Hill said without the street, the developer will make this a pdvate parking lot, that the twenty feet in question will be developed as private parking if the development does not go through. Tut Connelly, offered a solution, citing the Council's favorable response to the Parks and Recreation report; suggested tabling this matter and establishing a new Community Redevelopment Agency. Fred Mensing, agreed with the extension of Jackson Street, and also suggested extending it over the railroad tracks to the west. Each Council member offered his input on the proposal. Mr. Barczyk said if the extension did not occur, the developer would end up building a private parking lot and no one else would benefit by it. Mr. Majcher suggested scaling down the development or paying for more of the road construction. It was noted that a great portion of the funds will come from tax increment funds which are derived specfically from the riverfront for the riverfront. B. CRA Action MOTION by Coniglio/Hill "1 move that we accept the Jackson Street extension as proposed by Capt'n Butchers, Inc. and as developed by the Community Redevelopment Agency." CRA Meeting August28,2002 Page Four ROLL CALL: Mr. Hill Mr. Barczyk Mr. Coniglio Mr. Majcher Mayor Barnes - aye - aye - aye - aye - aye MOTION CARRIED 5-0 Being no further business, Mayor Barnes adjourned the CRA meeting at 6:58 p.m. Approved at the Walter W. Barnes Mayor Sally A. Maio, CMC City Clerk C. J1Y OF COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA Wednesday August 28, 2002, 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 2. 3. 4. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 6/26/02 CONSIDERATION OF JACKSON STREET EXTENSION (see City Council agenda packet pages 111-182 for backup) A. Presentation by City Manager and Growth Management Director B. CRA Action ADJOURN ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MA TTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING (OR HEARING) WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MA Y NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD, (286.0105 F,S,) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMODA TION FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT 589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING. HEARING ASSISTANCE HEADPHONES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR ALL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS. DRAFT COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Wednesday August 28, 2002, 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida Mayor Barnes called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLLCALL City Council Present: Mayor Walter Barnes Vice Mayor James Hill Mr. Joseph Barczyk Mr. Raymond Coniglio Mr. Edward Majcher, Jr. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 6/26/02 MOTION by Coniglio/Hill "1 move we accept the minutes." ROLL CALL: Mayor Barnes - aye Mr. Hill - aye Mr. Barczyk - aye Mr. Coniglio - aye Mr. Majcher - aye MOTION CARRIED 5-0 CONSIDERATION OF JACKSON STREET EXTENSION (see City Council agenda packet pages 111-162 for backup) A. Presentation by City Mana,qer and Growth Manaqement Director The City Manager cited pages 22 and 23 of the Community Redevelopment Plan relative to goals and objectives, specifically goals 5, 6, and 7 (see attached) as they correlate to the extension of Jackson Street. He then distributed a memo from the City Engineer dated August 28, 2002 and read it into the record (see attached). He then referenced page 162 of the Regular City Council meeting agenda packet relative to "Jackson Street CostsNalues" (see attached). He stated that both the city and the developer would benefit from this agreement. CRA Meeting August 28, 2002 Page Two John King addressed City Council on the proposed agreement for the extension of Jackson Street, cited their reasons for the proposal, and exhibited a conceptual drawing. The Growth Management Director reiterated that this proposal had been originally recommended by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to ease traffic flow through the corridor and support development in the neighborhood. The City Attorney said this was a meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, and there was no restriction on whether or not public input is taken. He said this is coming to them as the planning committee for riverfront development, and that they would have to vote on an issue to send it on to Council for expenditure of the trust funds. Becky Hoch, adjacent property owners, 1724 North Central Avenue, stated two sides of her property abut the subject property. She requested assurance that she be given access to Jackson Street if this matter is approved, noting that her property is zoned commercial. She asked if there are any impact fees that would impact her property, and was advised that the only impact fee was the recreational impact fee for residences. The City Attorney said he would anticipate that her property would have access from both streets, and some of the parking spaces would be lost. He said he did not see that any access would be denied. He said there is an implied right of access, and denial would have to be based on specific engineering problems. Mrs. Hoch asked if she could request a driveway permit at this time. Mr. King said Ms. Hoch did not own property adjacent to Jackson Street right- of-way, but that Mr. Adams owned the 20 feet between row and her property. Discussion took place on whether she will be impacted if she cannot use Jackson and wants to develop further. She said she then questioned whether this is serving the public. CRA Meeting August 28, 2002 Page Three Mr. Majcher expressed concern for the city making this purchase and limiting other people from using it. John King said Ms. Hoch has never had access to the subject right-of- way and that the development could not take any proposed parking away. The City Attorney cited the angle that Jackson comes into North Central, and that at this point, with her not fronting on the right-of-way there can be no assurances made, and if agreed to would knock out required parking for the development. He noted that she would reap a profit for her property by being able to use the public parking on Jackson Street. Mayor Barnes said without an agreement such as this, the city won't get the street. Mr. Hill said without the street, the developer will make this a pdvate parking lot, that the twenty feet in question will be developed as private parking if the development does not go through. Tut Connelty, offered a solution, citing the Council's favorable response to the Parks and Recreation report; suggested tabling this matter and establishing a new Community Redevelopment Agency. Fred Mensing, agreed with the extension of Jackson Street, and also suggested extending it over the railroad tracks to the west. Each Council member offered his input on the proposal. Mr. Barczyk said if the extension did not occur, the developer would end up building a private parking lot and no one else would benefit by it. Mr. Majcher suggested scaling down the development or paying for more of the road construction. It was noted that a great portion of the funds will come from tax increment funds which are derived specfically from the riverfront for the riverfront. B. CRA Action MOTION by Coniglio/Hill "1 move that we accept the Jackson Street extension as proposed by Capt'n Butchers, Inc. and as developed by the Community Redevelopment Agency." CRA Meeting August 28, 2002 Page Four ROLL CALL: Mr. Hill Mr. Barczyk Mr. Coniglio Mr. Majcher Mayor Barnes - aye - aye - aye - aye - aye MOTION CARRIED 5-0 Being no further business, Mayor Barnes adjourned the CRA meeting at 6:58 p.m. Approved at the Walter W. Barnes Mayor Sally A. Maio, CMC City Clerk City of Sebastian, Florida Subject: Developers Agreement between the City of Sebastian and Capt'n Butcher, Inc., a Florida corporation, for construction of the Jackson Street extension. Department Origin:~ .Cr~owth Management Tracy E. Mass/~ Date Submitted August 21, 2002 For Agenda of: June 28, 2002 Exhibits: ~oposed Agreement, comparative analysis, conslrttcfion cost est/mate, property appraisal, and survey. EXPENDITURE AMOUNT BUDGETED: APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: None REQUIRED: None None SUMMARY Enclosed is a proposed developers agreement between the City of Sebastian and Capt'n Butcher IUc, a Florida corporation, for the planned extension of Jackson Street from the existing term'taus at North Central Avenue east to Indian River Drive. The Jackson Street extension will provide commuters and pedestrians with an additional through street from Indian River Drive to a signalized intersection with U.S. 1. The extension was recommended by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council via incorporahon within the Riverfront Master Plan, and at the City's request was incorporated in the Capt'n Butcher's Floodtide Marina site plan expansion project. Although the roadway expansion was included within the Riva/rom Master Plan, the City does not own the requisite right of way necessary for construction of the roadway. Therefore, in order for the project to become a reality, the City and property owner, Capt'n Butcher Inc., began negotiations, that upon successful conclusion will lead to a partnership for the construction of said roadway. The roadway extension includes more than just a roadway however. The plan includes an extension of the sidewalk from Indian River Drive west along Jackson Street to U.S. 1, accented by streetlights matching the existing decorative lamppos~s along Indian River Drive. Conversely, the sidewalk is not included within the right of way, but instead within an easement across the developer's property. You will also note that the retention pond for the roadway extension is incorporated within the developer's private drainage system. Therefore, the developer, as opposed to the City, will be responsible for maintenance of the stormwater retention pond at his expense. Additionally, the plan incorporates parking within the street right- of-way to accommodate patrons of the proposed site plan expansion, as well as members of the general public wishing to utilize available public parking spaces within the north end of the Riverfront District. The aforementioned design troubled certain members of the planning and Zoning Comrrdssion who felt patrons' safety would be compromised due to the anticipated traffic generation on the proposed extension. Therefore, staff and the developer again negotiated to resolve concerns as raised by the planning Commissioner's. As a result, the developer agreed to install a 3-way stop at the intersection of Indian River Drive and Jackson Street. In addition, provisions are underway to include a brick paver crosswalk on Indian R/vet Drive matcking the design of the existing crosswalks along Indian River Drive, thus raising driver's awareness of potential pedestrian traffic. Moreover, an additional stop sign will be installed at the intersection of North Central and Jackson Street, where another crosswalk will be installed as well. These safety measures should provide additional levels of protection for pedestrians traversing the area, as well as patrons visiting establishments within the district. Hopefully the detailed analysis below and all supporting documentation attached hereto will dispel any myths that the proposed developer's agreement benefits the developer more greatly than it does the City. And unfortunately the benefits to the City are not quantifiable as they relate to traffic/transportation improvements and the provision of additional public parking. Although a dollar figure cannot be assigned to this aspect of the agreement, there is a cost associated with the propos~al. Therefore, via the following analysis, you should fred that the proposal equally benefits the developer and the City al/ko from a financial perspective. Included within this packet is an appraisal detailing the land's value, and a comparative anaiysis outlining the proposed acquisition cost to the City versus property value to the developer. The attached agreement proposes that the City acquire the fight-of-way and fund construction of the roadway, which will be constructed by the Developer at cost, as opposed to traditional arrangements that normally include a minimum profit margin. The cost to the City for the Jackson Street extension would be approximately $285,000, while the Developer's cost would be approximately $275,000, when factoring in below market value for the purchase price quoted to the City and other anticipated construction and maintenance related expenses to be absorbed by the Developer. Please note the acquisition cost to the City is equal to that paid by the developer when he purchased the property, winch is much lower than the current market value. Furthermore, a detailed construction costs analysis, as prepared by Mosby and Associates, Inc., has been provided for your review. The data contained therein outlines the cost of constructing the roadway, including engineering costs, fill dirt, drainage improvements, and paving costs. RECOMMENDED ACTION Consider the attached agreement and offer direction accordingly. 2 I§Ei?7B~E~7 MOSBY ^ND ASSOCIATES, iNC. ]ammry 17, 20(32 P.O. Box 78094~ Subject: ~pt, But=h=r's F]ood6d~ Ma~n~ & ~food Mr. Kil~g: Via F a=s imil~ As requeSted, the following is a summary o( th= )and area and pr:llmina~ conS. tructioa cost.'; o'f thc 60 and BO foot rlght-ot-?ays and roadwa5's proposed through the s~bjcc~ pro.]cot. a. To,al Land Ar~a .- 30,762 sF b. Roaflway Co~I 1- ~sp~t paving 2. Fill 5, ~ng ~sts TOT~ CONSTR~ION COST 28;190 SF x ~ C¥ x $4.50tC'Y = t LS x $6,(Y,)0.00 ' 53 e~ch :x $8.00/each $35 . $ l .SIX) $47,&62, DQ BO' RIGP~T-OE"WCLY. -. Total Laz~ Area = 41,0!6 $.~ "' O.~¢.a-ac. b, Roadwa~ Cost 1. ~ephmt Mav~ng 2. Fill 3: Drainage 4, Wheel Stops 36,39~ SF'x $1,257SF 600 CY x $430/CY 1 L$ x $6,000.08 53 ~e~ x · 5. En~ine~rir~ Costs TOT.4J- CONST~JCTION CoS'T 80' ROW = $ $ 6;O00.O'P $ 42a,.00 $ $SJL6t2.t~ The above cost estimate is.based om the prelirni~zry site plan layout and is ~ubj=ct to change; with the final flesi~ o~ the project. p~g¢ 2 ~.~ ~j~ Mt, l-lsrold Adams A: RESTRICTED USE A.PPi~ISAL I~EPORT OF TFI'E' 0.93 ~CRE PA_RCEI, EAST END OF JACKSON ST]~EF,'r TO INDIAN RIVER D~, ~,'RASTIAN, FL. '329~8 PREPAR~D FO!~ MR. I-IA_ROIiD ADAMS CAPTIXi' BUTCI-tER, l/'qC. 1732 IN'DIAN RIVER. DRIVE SFRASTIA.N, FL. 32958 MA]'I', CODE NA AS OF JU'LY23,2002 BY B O'YI .E & DRAKE, INC. 888 DAf-Il ,lA LANE VEttO BEACH, FL 32963 COMPLETED JLrLy 26, 2002 · Boyle & Drake, Inc. Rca~ ~ Appra/mmm ~d Com'alt~am 888 Dohllu Lanes Veto Be~ch, FL 32!~i3 Telephone: (TTg) 234-1303 FaX: (772) 234-1332 Fort Pierce Paul ?~ Drak~ ~ iRA Sm~c C~xificd G~rai P~sl Estae A~ RZ0000027 luly 26, 2002 Mr. Harold Acl2m,q Capfn Butcher, Inc. 1732 Ind/anRiver Drive Sebasfia~ FI. 32958 Re: Restricted use appraisal report of 0.93 acre parcel for the Jac2csan Street adu/dtion located from the east end of Jackson Street to lndi~n River Drive, Sebastian, Fl.. 32958. Dear Mr. Adumq: In accordance with your reques% we Mve made au investigation and a~alysis of the above ref~enced property. The purpose of' thi'.q investigation, and amlys~s was m es~qrnate the Market Value off the Fee Simple Estate of the, subject property as vacant as of July 23; 2002. Tkis r~port is a Restricted Use Pu~mat2 pisa result of our invemfigafion and analysis of'the information obtained therefr~n, as welt as a general knowledge of real estate valuation procedures, it ~s our opinion that the. MarkeI. Value Of the Fee Simple Estate' of'the Subject Property in "as is" condition a~d assnrning; ownership of the entire hr~& as of July 23:2002 was~ Tlt~RW~..IRI, TNDRED 2mTv'EN'I~ FIVE THOUSA_N'D DOIJ:~RS (~2~;000) This ia a 'restricted usc appraisal report that is intended m comply with thc reporting requirements set forth und~ Standard'Rule 2-2(c) of the Un/form Stzndards of Professional Appraisal PractiCe. for a'Restricted Appraisal Report As~ such,, it does not include d.iscnssjnn.q' of the data. reasoning; and:.aualysas that'were used ia the appraisal process to. develop the appraiser's op/ffion of value; S~ppcrrting docmmemtafion crmceaming the dam, reasorfing, and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file; The inforlr~ticm ccrntai'ned ~ this report is specific to ttTM needs of the client and the city of Sebastian and for the intended use stated in thqs repom The appraiser is.not responsible for nnm~lthorJzed use of th/s repom Fm-therrnore, in accor~nce with prior agreement. 5etween the client and thc. apprmser, this' report is for the sole use of' the- client aud' the City of' Sebastian. The Sales Comparison Boyle & DrY, Inc. M~. Harold Adams. Capf~ Butcher, Inc: Juty 26, 2002 PaEe ii Approach te value Wa: kc' oni~ approach usec[ Th~ z~pcrt' is not a limited. ~ ~vo~ng ~owable dep~es' ~m spe~c ~es of: ~e U~ St~ of ~ofession~ .a~ ~dcc; ~o ~.~p~ ~ ~ a~of ~ ~d "a-~" ~ do~ not r~e~t ~c mp~t of ~e cx~on of'Yac~ S~ect ~' ~o~se& ~ v~ue< conct~o~ ~e'con~em ~ ~Ve. 'S~ ~ bc~ ~clu~d f~ yo~ conv~ence: It b~ ~ a pleura m s~e you m tbi~ maker.: RcspectfulIy sul~mitted,. B O~q~E & DKAKB,-INC. David. C..' Brown Florida State Certified C, encral Appraiser RZ0002547 EXpimdon Date 1 Pant P..Drake, MAI, SRA...:. Sam Ccnified: Gcne,~'Appraiser RZ0000027 Expirafion~Date 11/30/02 Boyle & Dr~e, Inc. RESTRIC~ US~ A.PPI~TSAL REPORT- COMPT,F~TE AI:~RAT~A_T. A.PPI~TSERSi: 1Vfr. Harold Adams, Capfn Bntchcr, Inc.. 1732 Indian River Seb~, ~ 32958. Boyle & Drake, Inc. 888 D~hl~a Lane Veto Beach, Elcrdda 32963 SUBJECT:. The subject property is a ri~er view lot located from the east end of Jackson Street ro Indian River Drive, Sebastian. Ft. 32958. The property is' being purchased by the city of Sebastiarr as a right of way for the' extension' of Jackson. Street eastward to Indian River Drive. The highest and best use of the properry'is m create, a commercial development that complies ro curren~ zoning reguLatiOns- and takes advantage of-the river view' locatiom Indian River Drive frontage, and the surrounc~hg: commercial developmenm in the Sebastian Commercial-Waterfiront Residential District. The. subject, site is located on the west side of Indian River. Drive. The' subject'parcel is part ora larger'sire controlled b7 the current owners. The larger site. offers fiver frontage, docks and the Copt' Butchers fish store. Currently, the subject area is befug Site Description: The tot~ land' size per the legal description Wovided To: us. is' approx~mately 40.510' square feet;, or 0.93 acres. The shape is an irregular shaped 80' wide: by approxqmat~ly 506? in length and with approximately 80 front feet on Indian River Drive. The site is zoned' CW'R-Commcrcinl Waterfront Residential by the city of Sebastian and h~.q a: future land use desfgnafion of Riv~f~ont Mixed Use. The plnnned use as a city street wi]lremove it from the code requkemenm and' county tax roll. The. site is nnqmproved2 The' site. is located w/thin the flood zones X-Unshaded. and X- Sh~dhc~ per map ~nmber 12061C007fi E; cl~tad 5/4/89~ Zone X-Unshaded is an area detm,nihed to be outside the 500 year floodplafm Zone X-Shaded is an area determined' to w/thin the 100 year flood plain with average depths, of less than one foot_ The prope,wy is located wi*bin Census Tract 508.01. The subject iS lOCated along Inaqnn River Drive,i winch is the pfimaW ~verfront street in · Sebastian. The: property is adjacent to Capt'n'Buther's Flood Tide Marina and Seafood: Boyle & Drake, Inc. This. area of Sebastian is the locatiom of tho Key West ln~ ldoteA Capm~ Hiram's Restaurant and Marina, several t~ne. share developmenm, other resmuranm, moteis' and bed & breml~asts, and several' marinas'. The area is being upgraded' with sidewalks; lighting, benches; and park upgrades by the City. The. developments recently completed or' m-e-'under' construction include an expan~qion of the Key West Inn with river frontage, the renovation Of Captain Hiram's, the renovation of' the ICH Plaza Office buildqng' ar the co~er of' US Highway 1 and' Trumm~ Street, construction of a new Kuby Tuesday restaurant on US. 1; and the i~frasrracuxe improvements being made. and planned by the City of Sebastian. Located near the subject is a 1.33 acre site that wins: purch~ed by.Presidential F~nanc/al' Corporation in April. This parcel has river frontage mud frontage on the west side of Ii2ctian River Drive. It is being deveI0ped with patio homes and comrnercia~ uses.. The balance of the Capt'n Butchers site that'is nor pan of the sale of the subiec~ site is bimg de'eloped with five. bufl~tqngs having_reta~ on the first floor and residential above, plus a ~;6 unit hotel or motel. These projects are taking advantage of the/r river frontage and Sebastian's' Riverfront Developmem program Presently there are. no structures located on the subject site. Development of the site calls for construction of a two.lane s~reet with angled parkShg in the center and' vertical parking along each side. There will be a 6" wide sidewall? along the north side of the street and extend/ng from US I-iighway 1 to. Indian River Drive. There is a tmf-fic light ar the intersection of Jackson S~ceet: and US' 1.. Tile city wil.~ pay .for 45% of the cost' of the construction of' the :storm water retention area and Capt'n Butcher, Inc; will provide, all n0a~tenance anc~ operalSon cosus thereaftez. A meeliug with Tmcy I-lass of the Sebastian planning Depm tment was held. Tzacy advised the subject property is zoned CWR-Commercial Riverfront Resident/al, Developmen~ of this area and the exxensien of Jackson Street are part' of the clsarrerre developed by the Treasure Coast ?Isnnlng Council for die city of Sebastian. Utilities to the site include telephone, electricity, water and sewer service and trash removal.. Access to the pro3ect/s via Indian River Drive and is' considered to be adequate. - The distance to the closest 1-95 interchange is approximately 8 miles to the west v/a CK512. Ad'Valorem Taxes: Thisl parcel is part of a larger tract diat has several parcel ID n~rnhers and we were not Boyle& Drake · provided spec/tiC de~il.q an the b/Story of hoW. tie subject parcel was 0bt~i~ed. The subject site is being sold to the' C~ty and wilt be rem0~ed from the tax rolls. Therefore, the following ~c~fi~n is strictly an eS~rn~te of information concern{ng, the subject parcel. :TaXlD.No-, 3'i_30-39[00001:0000:00003~3 and' (3.4) · ~" . ... Real E~tate Tax;.~:' $6,09i.3~'. The above-assessed valuta results ia a tax rate of $22.50 per $1,000 of assessed value. The land' is assessed at $6.68 p~r.squure foot The subject i~ .fakty assessedl OWN'ER OF RE'CORD/PROPER2~/I:r~qTORY5 The owner of record is Capt'~ Butcher, Inc. The mosr recent sale' recorded on public records for'lots 3.2 and 4.0 was rr~ted' iu. ue 2001. and was in the mount of $250,000. The purchase price was $9;11 per sqpare f0oc Lot.3'..~-, a 1.11 acre parcel, was purchased in April 2001· for. $195,000 or $~.03 per square foo~ ~[his' parcel does not lmve frontage cm the rnclian Kiver). PURPOSE OF'APPRAIS~KL: The purpose ofmi~ aplxa~al was [o eslimare the Market Value of the Fee Simple Estate of the subject prope~-7~ m 25.,2002. INTENDED USE OF REPORT (FLrNCTION' OF_4PPI~ ~,q~L):' The appraisal is intended to' aid in det~,,-~ning ~ current market value for sale of the site to the City of Sebastian. INTENDED USER OF The appr~al is intended' for the sole use of' Capfn Butcher, Inc. mad the city o~ Sebastimz Due to the restricted report format, this report is not intended for any other use; Boyl~ & Drake, Inc. REAL PROPERTY INTEREST APPRATaF,'D:. The interest appraised herein is the. Fee Simple ]Estat~. MA~K~,T VALUE DEYINITION: Per Standards Rrde 1-2 (c)of USPAP 2001 Edition. HIG~q~ST A_ND BEST USE': mg~es~ and Best Use AS. Thoug~ Yack-t:. For development of'a commercial wamr view projec~ of rne~irmwn size permitted by code. A: co,r,,,,ercial project will normally provide high~ returns than a residential project when the' sim acquisition costs are high for the m~rket ar~a. Highest and Best Use As Improved:- Subject property is ~mlr?ro~edc EYFE~ DATE OF DATE' OF REPORT: 2nly 23', 2002' Inly 26, 2002 MA_RI~,T VALUE ESTEVL4TE: FFfF, SIMPI,F, ESTATE: $32_%000 3 to 6 Months S to 6 Months APPI~AISAL DEVELOPB,~.NT A_NI) Rk-SPORTING PROC-ESS: In preparing m~ appraisal~ the appraiser inspected the subject naighborhood and property, =~attiezed iufonmalion on market datm The~ search for comparable sales included properties that sold the subject rn~rket area. Ail sales are com,nexcial properties similar m the subject property: Per tmoz agreement with the client, the appraiser did not use the Cost Approach or the Income Approach. Boyle & Drake, Inc. Failure [o use the Cogt Approach and. Income Approach is not considered a departure from USPAP Standards, 'since we were to appraise.the site as vacant and vacant land in rhi~ area is not typically leased. This restricted use appraisal report sets. forth a s/rmmary~md analysis of the date relied on~ and appraiser's conclusion. Supporting documentation is ret~ned in the appraiser's file. MAI~I~,T DATA: Although a Restricted,USe RePort typically does not conr,in a discussion of market data, a brief discussion of the Sales Comparison Approach has been provided to assist our client. Sales Comparison Approach: We have considered a total of' five commercial.land sales 16cared' in the Sebastian Development area plus a lot adjacent co the new Publix Shopping Center on US Highway 1 at the intersection of Barber Slreet. A summary' chart ks conl~ned on' the facing page. The typical nn~t of measurement or evaluation is sales pr/ce per square foot We analyzed the results on a-per squm-¢ foot of site size basis and arrived at a rn~n~mnm sales price of $3 (md) and a maximmn of $10 (md). The average per square foot price was $6.$6~ The prices varied due to date of sale, location, Site size, and corner locatiom The sales were next adjusted for differences in _msrket conditi°ns, size and comer influence, Location, availability of utilities and other w~s baser on a rating analysis of' s~rni]ar; superior or inferior.. An afljusunem chart snmmar~x~ng ail adjustments 'is contained on the facing page. Support for all adjusunents is conmi'aed in our companyflles. After adjusunenm the range was appro~mately $3.79 to $9.81 with an average of $6.99 per square foot Of grusp land area. We:'cbmPared. the properties and interviewed realio~s ~na ne'aiby P~opercy owners who provided information on market demand and.the lack of available sites in the immediate area'of the subject property: we also contacted the City Piano,ag Department' and discussed their plans for de~relopment of the' fiveffrour area and reviewed the charraue that was prepared-by the'Treasure Coast Planuing Cotlncili We then looked'at invesunem returns from development of comparable gized sites'as ras/denfial and as' commercial projects. The commercial projects provided superior rerarns in most cases analyzed. Finally, we studied nearby development- The F'm's Restaurant, Captaiu ~'m:n's Restaurant, the Key West Inn are all nearby c(,,,,,',~ercial projecm that are prospering. We then rated commercial development of the site as the highest and bes~ use. Boyle & Drake, Inc. 5Iext we looked at the price paid' for the subject parcels and the amount of fill they arc' using to bring the subject property up To constraction grade level. We were advised thi.~ cost will be around' $40.000. We used Sale 2, a purchase by Capt'n Butcher, Inc as a comparable sale for our analysm:. ~ closer cxamqnadon of the comparable sales was made. Sale I is a good location with exposure to the Sebastian Hospim~ and USI and Sale 3is sdso a good coramerciM' location. ~2tey show commercial si~es, are sellihg in the $6 to $8 per squax~ foot range: At'least part of the subject p//vcel' was part'of SaIe 2 wliich shows an adjusted value of $9.3 8 per square foot ~ sale provided Capt'n Butcher, Inc. additional river frontage. Sale'5 was ramd as" Supczior because', of thc fiver frontage, location nex~ to Fin's and the amount of frontage on Indian River Drive. Sale 4 is rated as Sirailar as it has frontage oh Indian River Drive and ~son Sl~eet Sale. 6 was. also rated Similar to the subject However,. thin: site has a large drainage ditch; a sraM1 home and an irregulaz shape.. Both of these sales were made prior to recen; sa~es that h~ve closed at much higher price& and have pn.~bed the mm'kef to new levels. The success of the. Key Westlnn and'the expansion of Capmqn I-Iiram's Restaurant plus the. irapac~ of' the city's ~Vcffront development program, have crud si~i~cant intcres; in property along Indian Riv~ Drive. The lack of/~vallable sites and' a~notmcemencs of nex~ residenfiat-~ondo~ininm and'co~nmercial'projects about to stm-t are' ca-eating demand' that ~s resulting ~s elevate~/' sell;ng .prices in this area of Sebast~a~ Another factor supporting price increases is the condition of'the stock market and' the desire of investoxs to f~n&alternaffve m~,esun~nts'in areas such as.real estate. After consideration we concluded at the higli endof our range of' cc,,,,,, ,ercial properfes, but below the range for those w~th watar frontage. Based on above we conclude that $8.00 per square foot/s market oriented. The indication of value is calculated below: GROSS LA_ND AREA X 40.510 UNIT VALUE = [ PROPERTY VALLIE ROUN]DED [. -$8.00 $324.080 $325,000 Reconciliation The best indication of market value is the approach(s) that mos; closely represents the reactions of' the market place: Analysis of the motivations of purchasers of buyers of river vie~ commercial properties su-ongly indicam that most purchases are based on the purchasers desire to be at that location. For th/s reason, the Sales Comparison ApProach to . Boyle & Drake, Inc~ value was given' the most weight in the valuation of the subject property; W~ 15el/eve lmces ha this area will continue ro i~crease as new projecm nOW i~ the pea:ming, a~c[ design phases are complemd' and' prove to be successful. Based- on' the Sales Comparison Approach. to value, the indication of market ~alue'of the subj.ecr property as vacam was $325,000.~ ~r~'~OSURE TI2fIEAVL~ rq'~,T2~B ILrI~ The marketabilSty of the. Subject Frcrperty is rated as' good. The es~mated' exposure time and~ markeling time is es6.mated to be approximately three to six months.. Boyle & Dra~e, Inc. ASSUM/rrIONS AND/JM/TING CONDrrIONS: The certification of. the appraisers is subject to' the following conditions' and to suck Othez specific conditions as are. set forth by the ap~ers in thi.q reporu unless, otherwise stored; the value appearing in this appraisal represenm the opkfion of. the. Market Value or the. Value De£med' AS' OF' TI~ DATE SPECIFrMD. lV~arket Value of'real estate- /s affected by national:' and' local economic conditi6ns and. comequentiy wilJ: vary with future, changes in such conditions:. 2. The value estimated in this appraisal report is gross, without consideration given to any encumbrance;, resection or question of fide, unless spec/fically defined. 3. This appraisal report covers-0niy the property described and any values or rates utilized are nor ro be. construed as applicabl~ To any other property, however s~railar the properties m/ght be. It is assumed that the t~e to thc pl~,-ises is good; that the legal description is correcT; that' the !m~o'~crnenrs are cut/rely anti correctly located' on the property described' and that there are no encroachmeais on this property; bur no investigation or survey has been' made. This appraisal expresses our opiniom and employment to make this appraisal was in no way contingent upon the reporting, of predetermined value or conclusi0~ No responsib/lity is assllrned for matters legal' in narare, nor is any opinion of title rendered. In' the performance of our investigatiorr and analysis leading [o the conclusions reached: here/n, the srammenm of' others were relied on. No liability is asm~rned for the correctaess of these stammenrs; an& m any even% .the appraisers" total liability for thi~ report'is l~mqtcd to the actual fee charged. Neither all nor any part of'the contents ofth{s 'report (espec/ally any conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he' is connected, ar any reference to the Appra/sal Iimtimte .or any of its designad0ns) sliall be disseminated ro the public through advert/sing medi~; publ/c.relarions mocha, news medim sales media or any other public me~m of communi'~ation Without o~ pr[or wrkten consent and approval. It is ass~med that there' are no hidden or ~rn ~m'JParenr conditions of the property, subsoil or structures, which would render it mare ar less valuable. The Appraiser assumes no mspormibility for such conditions or the engiueer/ng, which might be required m discover these factors: Boyle & Drake, Inc. Unless othm'wise stated in tbi.~ tapcO, the existence of buTardous, substances, i'nct~ding without limJta~on, asbestos, polycMo~ated .biphanyl's, petrole~rn leakage, or agricultmmt chemicals,~ which' raay or may not be presort; on the property, or'other environmental condi~ons; were not called to the attention of, ncr did the apprmser become aware of' such during the appraiser's, inspect/on. The- appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of" such materials on er in the property unless otherwise stored. The appraiser; however, is not qnali~ed to test for such substances or conditions. ,If thc presence of such subsrauces, such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, cz other haT~rcIous', substances or cnvironrnentaI condidous, ma3~ affect the value of the proper;y; the value estqnaatec~ ~: prcdicatec~ on the .assnmption that' there is no such pro~%nity thereto that would cause a loss in value: Mo responsibility is ass~wned ftsr any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineehng knowledge required to discover 10. The-Am~c~' with ~ties ~t (?'ADA") became effective January 26~ 1992. Ttie appraisers have. not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property ~o determine whether or not. it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements o£ the ADA.. It is posaibl¢ tha~ a compliu~ce survey, of the property; together with a detailed anaIysis of the requirements of the ADA; could revca~ *hat the property is. no; in compliance with one~ or more of the requirements of'the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of .the properyy.. Since the appraisers have no direc; eviaence relating to this issue; possible noncompliance with the requireraents of the ~.~A in esthmating the value of the property has not been c0nsidemd~ t 1. This is a restricted appraisal'' repor~ which is' intended zo comply-with the reporting requiremenm' set forth under Standard Rule 2-2(c) of the. Uniform Standards. of Professional' AppraiSal Practice-for a ReStricted' Appraisal Report. As such, it does not include discussions of the data. reascmi~g, and analyses ~ were used in the-appraisal proc.oas ;o develop the. aPl:a'aiSar's' opimon of value. Supporkug documentatkra concerning the- data. reasoning; and analyses is retained in the' appralsar's file. The information contained, in this. report is specific to the needs of. the client and for ~e intended use stated'in this repor~ The appraiser ia no; responsible for unauthorized' use of'thio report; 9 B0yie & Drake~ Inc. Ct~TIFICATION W~ cm'tify that. to the best of our knowledge and belief: 1.. The smmmenrs and inf0rrn.fi0n in this report are true and correct; and that we have not knowingl~ withheld any information. ¸. The repormd analyses~ opinions;, and.' conclusions ar~ ]imlmd~ only by the :reported assrrmptions: and l~miliug conditiom, and m- otto t2m'sonal, unbiased profeSsional mmalyses; opimous~ and: conclusions. We have no present'or con[cmplated interest in the property appraised; and we have no personal ~nt~res~' or bias with respec~ to the parties involved; The analyses, opimons, and conclusion were' cl~veloped, and this zepor~ has been prepared~ in conformity with the Uaifbrm Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice___ (USPAP): adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of thc Appraisal Found,~ion an& the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standardz. of Professional Appraisal Practice of ttle. Appraisal' I=stitum'. __ The.use of tN~ report is subject m the requirements of the Sram of'l=lorida"relating m review by the. Depm m_~ent' of ProfesSional Regulation, R~al Es*~ta Appraisal Board, and.. to the requkements of the AppraisaI Tn~tnte mla~iug [o review by its' duly authozLzed. repr¢senmtives. Our' cumpensati0zz is. no[ contingent upon .the r¢porfing of a' predete~ ,, ,;ned_ value or direction m value that favors the cause of. the client, thc'amount of the value estimate. the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occ'a~ence'of'a subsequent eve.n~ 7~ David C:. Brown. and: Pant P. Drake made a personal inspection of the property apprised and no other person assist~t in the preparation of thi¢ report 9. Bazed on our experience and training, h is 6ur opinion that we are qu21itSed to provid~ tha. following value esdmate of'the subject.property: 10: As of the date of thqs repor~ we have completed the requirem¢nm of the continn~ng education program, of the'Sram of Flcr~ida and The AppraiSal. Instimm.. 10 Boyle & Drake, Inc~ II. k is our op'mion'that:the Market Value of the Fee Simple Esmm of'tim subject property in "as stabilized" condition, ms of Jnly 23~ 2002 was: HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS) ($325,000) David C. Brown. Florida State Cerlified General Appraiser RZ0002547 Expiration Date t 1730/02' Pant P..Drake, MAI, SPA State Certifier General Appraiser RZ0000027 Expiration Date 11/30/02 ADDENDA SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Boyle & Drake~ Inc. Front ~.ew Street - LEGAL.DESCRIPTION Attachment A L~¢AL Commencing at the intersection of the North line of Lot 32 Estate of August Park, according to the Plot recorded in Plat Book 1, page lc), St. Lucia County Records and the East right of way of Central Avenue, run South 2£°02'30'' East, along said East right of way, 58.31 feet to th~ Point of B~inning of a 80 feet wide ~ight of ~ay of Zac~on. Stre~¢. Fro~ the Point of g~ginning run North 64~24'46'' E,st, 34.92 feet; thence 5outh 89~20'52'' ~as*, 590.87 feat; th,nc* North 63~16'00'' E~, ~.57 fe¢¢ to th~ W~ eight of way *f rndian River Drive, thenc~ 5outh ~6~44'00~ E~, ~len9 s~id W~¢ right of way, 80.00 fe~t; thencE~outh 63~6'00" W~, 97.06 feet; th~,,ce North 89~20'52'' W~t; 391.72 f~et; thenc~ South 64~2~4'46" W~¢, ~I..Z3 feet to the ~arem~tioned Ee~ right of way of Central Avenue; thence North 22°02'30" W~, along said right of ~ay, 8025 ~et to the Point of B~[nning. All the above situate in Indian River County, Florida and containing 0.93 ocr~., more ort-~s. tVA CANT COMMERCIAL LAND SALES B~yle and Drake Inc~ Land Sale No.: Property Type: O1~ Book: Deed Date: Location: I Commerc/al i3{53 Page: 24011 CnunB': Indian River December 2000 This parcel is loca~d on the west ~ide cf US Highway 1 in Sebastian in from of the Sebastian Medical Creater. City: Sebastian Grantor: Sebastian Grantee: KT West Palm Beach Sales Price: '~370,000 Cash Equivalent Sale: Ye~ Front Feet: 270.00 Site Aree/Sq, Ft.: 63,162 Zauing: CO Land Use~ C Utilities: Phone, electricity, water and sewer Topography: Normal Tax Folio Nttrabem 30-38-25-00000--0040-00004.0 Legal: l_~ugthyqegal desc~lSo~ Site SieeAcres: 1.4.5 .- Price per Square Foot: .$5.86 Price per Acre: $255,172 CommelltS: This parcel located on US1 in front of the Sebastian Medical pl~ Th~ property is to be treed for a Ruby Tuesday restaurant. Record Number: 727 Job N,,mher: (M-11 Boyle and Drake Inc. Land Sale No.: 2 Property Type: Comn~rcial OK Book: 1406 Page: 2646 Deed Date: June 2001. Location: Indian River Drive City: Scbustian Grantor: Emery D. Barge Grantee: Capt'n Bulcher, Inc Sale~ Price: $250,000 Financimg: Cash to seller Cash Equivalent Sale: Yes Front Feet: 0.00 Site Area/Sq. Ft.: 27,~3 Zo~i~: CWR Land Use: Commercial Utilities: Topography: Tax Follo N,mher: Legal: Price per Square Foot: Comme.~: Corinth: Indian Site Size Acres: 0.63 Phone, elecu-ic~ty, wat:r and sewer Normal 30-39-30-00001-0000-00003.2 a Lengthy legal description $9.11 Price perAcre: $396,823 This property has frontage on Indian PO, vet Drive in Sebast/au and has access to the fiver. It was por~hased by the adjacent property owner as part of of aasemblage:of land that is to be used for a commercial developme'at project. Plans call for pm't.of this site to be sold to the City of sebastian for the exten~on of Jackson Slxe.~t to Indian l~.iver Dr~ve. Reeord'Nl,raher: 891 Job Number:. 6411 Boyle and Drake Inc.. ¥ ~,~d Sale 1No.: Property Type: OR Book: Deed Date: Location: Sales P~iee: Front Feet: Site Area/Sq. · Zoninc: Commas:iai 1458 Page: 940 County: Indian River Inly 2001 S'~ cromer of US 1 and Barber Strut in SebaStian Sebastian Hya~ Nets~n WoJgr~t:n Co $825,000 Cash to sMl~r 317.00 113~692 Site Size Acres: 2.frl Land Use: C -- Utili/ies: Phone, elecn/nlty, water and sever Topography: Normal Tax Folio N-tuber: 21-31-39--00000--0030-00001,.0 Legal: Lengthy legal d~scfipdon Price per Square.Foot: $7.26 C o~nnmentS: Priceper Acre: $316,091 Ti'dm propel-j, located at the/ntersectio~ of US 1 ~d B~ S~ ~ 19ca~ a~oss ~m ~e new Publ~ ~o~ing can~. ~e W~ ~ ~ b: 1o~ on ~ p~cel ~d ~g have 14,490 sq~ f~ Record Number: 726 Job Nn,nher: 6411 Boyle and Drake Land Sale Ne.: Property Type: OR Book: Deed Date: City: Grantor: Grantee: C~sh Equi~len~ Fron~ $~te Area/Sq. Ft.: Laud Topography: Tax Folio Number: Legal: Price per Sq%mre Foo~: 1437 PRe: 646 Au D~,~ 2001 H~on S~% Scb~ Ci~ of ~3~8,~ Y~ 162.00 94~75 31-39-0~0~00~0~.0 L~n~y le~ d~p6on Co--~: Indian P. iv:r $i~ SizeAcre~: 2.16 $~2 Price per Acre: $183,897 This prcpm'ty located at the int~rr~ion of Han-ison S~ ~c ~ Seb~fi~. Thc ~ ~ bu~g ~c 1~ ~ ~nv~ The p~ ~ b~ ap~ved by Ci~ ~un~ Record Number: 807 Job N~rmher: 6~i1 Boyle and Drake Inc. Land Sale No.: Property Type: OR Book: Deed Date: Location: City: Grantor: Gran~e: Sal~ Pric~ Finan~§: Cash ]~quiYaleat Sale: Fro~t Feet: Sit~ A~e~'Sq.' i~: Land Usm Topography: T~x Folio Number: Legml: Pric~ per Square Foot: Commercial 1474 Psge: 823 Indian River D'riv= Scb~tian Sou~hz~st Foods, LJ~.C. Preside[iai ~inancial Corp. $$62,222 Cash to scllea- 210.00 5?335 Comm'zial Phor~, ele, cn-idity, water and scw~r Nor'ri:mi · 31-30-39-00001-0000-00006. L~ngthy legM. d~sc'r/pfion County: I~di~m River Site Size Acres: 1.33 $9.70 Price per Acre: $422.722 This sim is locat~d along Indian l~iv~r Driv~ in Scbm~tian. Th~ $it~ ia improwd with a i 10' wallczmy into thc river. Th~ arc also two Tm~]l buildings and a trail:=, but di: buyer plac=d no vahm on thee buildings md purchimed the Nnd ~ though wacani. Record Number: 890 Job Number:. 64tl Boyle andDrake.Inc~ Land Sale No.: Property Type: OKBoolc Deed Date: Location: City: Grantor: Grantee: Sales Pri~e: Financing: Cash Equivalent Sale: Front Feet:. Site Area/Sq. Ft.: Zonln~: Land Use: Ulilitie~: Topography: Tax Folio Numbem Legal: ?rice per Square Foot: Comments: 6 Commit:iai 1;85 2oo2 Pa~e: 1290 County: Indian Riv=r NW Carncr of Davis Strut and Indian River Drive, Scb~fian, Florida Sebastian fDi~I Parm~mhip Robert Nillzon $~60,000 Cash to seller 284.52 142,00(~ Site Size Acres: 3.26 Camvmrcial Phone, elec'tricity~ water and sewer Normal 30-39-31-0000-0000-0~00(4.1) Lengthy legal deacription Price per Acre: $14t, 104 This parcel loca£~d-at the NW Corner of Davis Street & Indian River Drive SebaslSan is impro¥~d with a~ old house that does n~t conm'but~ to value. The con~ract is proposed to close in April 2002. The prop~f i~ divided'by Indian l:~ver Drive. It ha~ river frontag~ and riparian rig~m. Record N-tuber: 815 Job Number: 64t2 QUALIFICATIONS PAUL P. DRAKE, MAI, SRA. QUALB~ICATIONS paul p. Drake is a partner in Boyle & Drake, ~uc., a full service real estate appraisal fm:n w~th offices located in Vero Beach and Fort Pierce, Florida. Mr. Drake has been actively engaged.in.various phases of real estate appraisal since 1971. He has prepared appraisals encompassing most of the major categories of land and buildings..Mr. Dr~e has conducted appraisals for the purpose of sale/purchase, insurance, rental, financial, ad valorem tax, purchase price allocation, corporate pt~ni~g :md special studies of market feasibility. Mr. Drak~ has been a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, since 1947. He conducted real estate brokerage and appraisal business in Patm Beach CoI~.~ nntil 1989. He is no.~t a resident of St. Lucia County, Florida. He received his seconctavy education from thc University of lVfi~m~ and Florida Atlantic University, where he graduated in 1969 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Fln_ance. Mr. Drake's recreational activity includes windsurEmg & ten~is. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Member of the Appraisal Institute - MAI Certification No. '7685 Member Of the Appraisal Institute -S1LA · Licensed as a Broker with Florida Real Estate Comn',ission (License 0022786) · State Certified General Appraiser, License RZ000002?, by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Real Estate Appraisal Board, December, 1992 APPRAISAL EDUCATION Society of Real Estate Appraisers Course I01, An Introduction to Appraising Real Properv/i 1975 coUrSe 201, Principles of Incon~ Property Appraising, 1976 Come 202, Applied Income Property Valuation, 198~ BOYLE & DR~ KI~, INC. PAUL P, DRAKE, Qual;ficafions - Continued Page 2 A~nerlcan ~ustitute of Real Estate Appraisers Course 1A-l, Real Estate Appraisal Princip]es, 1981 Course 8-3, Standards of Professional Practice, 1983 Course lA-2, Basic yaluation Procedures, 1986 Course 2-1, Case Studies in Real Estate Yaluation, 1986 Course 2-2, Valuation Analysis and Report Wr/ting: 1986 Course 1B-A, Catfit~l~zation Theory and Technique, Part A, 1986 Course 1B-B, Capitalization TheOry and Technique, Part B, 1986 Course 8-2, Residential Yaluation, 1986 Comprehensive Examination - Challenged and Passed, 1987 Appraisal lnstimte - Standaf~-ofProfes§lonal Practice A & B, 199'2 Standards of Professional Practice A, 1993 -- Lit/gation Valuation, 1993 Understanding I .qmked Scope Appraisals, i99g Sm~l] HoteVMotel Valuatiom--, t998 ~=.minent Domairr and Condemnation Appraising, 1998 Appraising Manufactured, Modular, & Mobile Housing, 1999 Lease Abstracting and Analysis, 1999 Partial Interest Valuation - Div/ded, 1999 USPAP/LavvJdpdate - 1999 Regression Analysis ' 2000 Standards of Professional Practice C, 2000 Regr~sion Analysis - 2000 Standards Part C430 - 2000 Case Studies in Highest & Best Use - 2001 Analyzing Commercial Lease Clauses - 2002 · Other Seminars · Argus Two-Day Power User DCF Seminar, June 2000 Argus Power User Seminar ~PPRA~,~A.L EX?EI~rENCE Parmer in Boyle & Drake, Inc., Real Estate Appraisal amd ConsUlrimg'Firm,;¥ero Beach, Florida-present President. Lawson, Powel & Drake, Inc., Real Estate Appra/sal and Consulting Firm, Jensen Beach, Florida--January 1994 to March 1995. BOYLE & DRAKE, INC. PAUL P. DRAKE, MAI, SRA Qvalificafions - Cox}finued Page 3 Senior Appraiser, Callaway & Price, Inc., Ft. Pierce, Florida. 2nne, 1989 to January, 1994. Responsible for appraising complicated properties in Florida and New England President, Drake & Ernst. Inc., Realtors/Appraisers, Boca Raton, Florida, 1972 to June, 1989 Vice President/Secretary Treasurer, Talbott & Drake, Inc., Realtors/Appraisers, 1973 to t982 + Associate, Etiot West RealtY, 1971 to 1972 Assistant planner, City of Boca Raton Florida. 1968 to 1971 TYP~ES OF PROPERTY APPRAISED Appraisals made on the following types of property from individuals, corporations, banks, attorneys,.' governmenta~ agencies,' savings and loan s, and mortgage companies: Acreage Apartment Complexes Aquaculture. Farms Automobile Agencies Commercial Buildings Condominiums. Coi~dorni~b~m ?rojects Day Care Centers Duplexes Ciums Groves Golf Courses Luxury Homes Mafinaz Medical Bui!d!nSs Mobile Home Parks Motels/Hotelz/Convenfion Centers Office BuS?~ngs 'Planned Unit Developments Residential Multi~mity Residential Single F~mity Restaur~ts Retail Buflai?$s Shopping Centers Surgical Centers Service Stations SPecial Purpose Properties Subdivisions Tennis Ti*ne Share Resorts Tfi~plex~ Vacant Land Warehouses Mr. Drake has appraisal experience in Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. BOYI,E & DRAKE, INC. DAVID QUALI~'ICATIONS David C. Brown is the owuer of IC B. F. nmrprises .of the USA, LC and provides rn~-kmt research and appraisal services to Boyle & Drake, lam. of Veto Beach, Florid,n. Mr. B~own h~ be~al employed and owned fumas ~ were involved in cornm~m:ial general consiraciion and l-emil~g of btt0rt/~C ~. I-]e hm~ a]~o be~ involved as president of smream1.6.urns thxt ~ anrl leased cnmmerci%I propertie~. PROFESSIONAL A~LL&TIOINS o , Sram C~tilled G~m~ral Appraiser RZ-0002547 o (, g~h-li~m Member of~lae Appraisal EDUCATION BS - Business M-n~ent- Salem College MBA - Masters of B,,u+n~s Ach,',i,,;.l~a~i__'on - West V;, g;-ia Wesl~a= Cnll~ APPRAISAL COURSES C°urse 101 - t~*roduction to Appraising Real Property · Course 110 - Appraisal Prindples Lamse Abut,a~ag and Analysis Supportln~ Sales Grid Afljustme,~ fer Residen~l Propcrtie~ App~i~ing Small l-toim_Yts mad Motels uS?AP/Law Update Corn,se 310 - Income Cal~jtaHm~ital Course 320 - C,~aaeml Applications 1410 - Standards ofProf~sional Practim, Pm A 1420 ~ Smadards. ofPmfessiom/Practice, Part B 1031 Exeh~g~,s/_A~./m~ Dmam-A ~umprat~txmiwe S ttu~ of the Crmtive P osm'Diliries OCCUPATIONAL F. XPKR ~ ~:NCE ~- GA Brown & So~, kin. - 1968 - 1990 pnmiele,vt - Brown's Lumber & Smpply Company, ~. - 1975 - 1~7 ~- ~ R~, ~. - 19gl -~ P~ - ~]t~g ~.~ - 19~ - P~ .. P~- S~ ~, ~. 1989 - ~ ~- S~ ~~ ~. - 1988 -~ P~- BPS - Pr~ ~i,g - 1986 - ~ A~ ~of~ - W~ ~a W~I~ 'C~ - 1996 - 1997 LEGAL DE~cR,rp-czOi"~ - -- ~29-Tr~{ AW'~N~3E - P,O. BOX ~677 %'ERO BEACE, FLOILI~)A 3~61 MLS 945 S~bas~an BlYd. · Sebas~an~ Fiords 32958 T~ (7?2) 589-30~4 Fax'. (772) 589-7557 July 9, 2002 Mr. Terrence ~?,. Moore C~-~/Manager Ci~ o£ Sebaszian !225 Mam Street Sebaszian, Florida 32958 Developer's Construction Agreement Capt'n BuTcher, Inc. and City of Sebastian Detao lVk. Moore: Per our dJscusmon of yesterday, enclosed is a revised copy oldie Developer's Conmamction Agreement for your review. Please ~'~e me a call if you have amy que~ions. I can be reached either ar the office at 589- 3054 or on my eel] phone a~ 4:73-6060. Sincere[y, Jolm A_ Broker JAI<Z/mzs DEVELOPEi:U $ CONSTRUCTION This A.~reement is made lind ~':=~d h=o ~ , d=y of ,2002, Ed b~ ~'n Butsh~, ~c., a ~ofida c~omfio~ ~g i= pl~e of buses= at 1~2 ~n~ ~v~ D~ve, Seh~ Flo~ 2295 ~, h~ r~ ~o as ~e ~lcper~, ~d The C~ of S~b~ ~d~ a PIo~a m~dp~ ~o~:io~ ha~ng J~ pla~ ofgov~c~ a M~ S~, S~fi~ Florida 3295~, h~ r~M ~ as the "Ci~," From fim~ to ~e h~ ~¢ D~oper ~d the C~W ~e ~ to ~dJv~dua~ ~ '~a~'" ~d ~e~ve~ aa the jufi~ion~ ~nas of~e CiW, no~h ofDa~s S~r~et ~ ofNo~h Cemr~ Av~ue and of~ ~v~ P~v~, ~d gen~y ~o~ as ~e d~op~m ~t: of~'Ca~'n Bmcher's ~ood~d~ ~ ~d Se~ood", h~ei~R~ r~d to '~ ~= '~=v= opm~nt?, smd p~ ~, ~e ~ ~ ~e D~lo~ have or ~1 ~ ~to ~ p~6mamd ~e ~ ~ ~p~ ~o a po~on of~e D~opm~t to ~ ~v~ to ~e C~ by ~c Dev~p~ ~ ~ ~ion of2a~on S~% ~ 80' ~b~c right-of-way, ~om ~ b~ ~e ofN~ C~r~ Av~ ~d to ~ w~zem boundarj l~e ~ Drive. ~r~:r relied to ~ ~e "Jack,on S~ E~:nhon", said la.on S~eet ~enmon berg more ~1 y d~'~ ~'~it B a~ hereto and inco~rzted h~ ~ referent; ~d gov~ ~d pro'de for ~ con~on of th~ ro~, dmmge ;mprov~m, ~, m g~ ~d pm~de ~r ~e co~n of a ~de Md~ ~ ~aaw~ ~j~em m ~* no~h~ bo~d~ line of ~g I~c~on S~eg her~r r~ved zo ~ ~ h~ ~d o~ good ~d v~uiole cc~id~ ~ Dev~p~ md ~e C~, cov~ ~ fullows: 1. CO~S~UC~ON O~ ~ WO~. ~ a~rd~ce'~ ~e te~s of t~s ~% ~ D~elop~ h~c~ l~s ;o ~n~¢ the Work ~ ~ord~c~ ~ ~e t~ ~o~, ~c., ~e~ b~ng ~e date of7~ 20~, Yob No. 0]~4, ~a pro~sic~ o~s~d p~ ~d D~aE~ Site ~1~ b~ inco~o~ed h~e~ ~ r~ce ~ ~lk sa fo~ ~ t~ .~mcm or CH) ~ da~ ~1 r~k~d ~i~ ~ve been itsuc~ :o complete 2. PKO~ COST' OF ~ WO~ ~e Dcv~op~ ~ :st~ ~t ~e of ~on of~c Work ~ be $]~636.J0, me co~ being ~oc~ed ~ foEows: - ~ph~t pang $a5.487.50 ~I1 2,700.00 ~cr~e/id~lk~ (7,210 aquae f~t) 18.015,00 '~mg (12 po~) 25,000.00 ~e~g ~ m~g 6.00~.00 $123~12.50 ~e ~ ~r~ m pay ~* D~lcper the fo~o~g sum of $122,212.50 forme conam~on ~c Wor~ s~j~ ro ~jusm~ for ~ ~d a~esd upon ~ ord~s ~d ~r=, ~d ~eP~oper ~ or have embed ~to ~t c~ P~h~e ~d S~e A~m~ ~ r~em m ~e Jack~cn Sw~t E~=ns[on: h~m~er re.ed to ~ the ~r~a~e.~t: The p~ ~m~t ~M1 pr~dc :~t ~e o~m ~ for ~e 5~cn S~: E=emion ~h~ be b~ u~n~e ap~Msed ~ue of th~ l~d ~d drM~ge ~ mo~atefl ~ ~he S~et ~=~o~ a~d ~prd~ m be peffom~ ~ BoCe ~ ~ ~c. The ~r~e sb~ ~de :hm the C~ ~ pay ~* D~Mcp~ c~ ~u~ to $4.00 per aquae foot 2 a;mpr~i:~-A ~tue md the b~t~n~ a£the epp~aised ~ue m~ b~ ~v~ :c ~e ~per of a c~le ~co~ t~ d~ucfion ~ Se~n 170 or other ~1i~ secdon M ~ K~ve~e ~de. F~e~o~, ~e Pur~e A~t sha~ pro'de t~i ~e ~clop~ the Ci~ a ~a~ wa~ dr~nag~ ~t ~om th~ ~a~on S~t ~a~on to the ~to~ wa~er ~m~ ~ r~fiom pond ~mat¢d ~ ~e saucily pecan ~th¢ D~MopmCm ~d ~ Pdv~ Dfiv~ ~d ~Z ~¢ DCvMop~ or its ~c~ssars ~d ~signs ~1 m~ta~n for ~t ~o~ of~m W~rk ncZ to b¢ ~¢d ~ ~¢ ~top~'s ~ ~ploy~. App~v~ or non-app~ or candk~l approvM of~¢ bJd~ ~sub-~onIrsmors ~d mt~al m~ inco~orat~ ~he s~e~, in~r~ce, ~or~ ~d w~ t~ ~a pr~om offs ~¢. Upon ac~p~ce ofth~ sub~or:$ work or the ~t~ m~': Dev~Io~ ~ promp~y psy ~ sub-comr~r or ma*efi~ mm ~ acc~d~ ~ th~ t~s ~ Wo~hom of ~ ~p~a~ ~ bede= ~e Dev~o.p~ ~d the pro~ss ~po~ ¢on~ ¢h¢ ~n~on of~e Work or ~a Ci~'s auto. ed m~ p~]Y ~S~ and i~p~= ~ sit~ of the Work. 6. B~ OF ~0~: ~ D~Moper or H.D, Adms, Inc., of app~le gove~en~ ~nci~ or bodi~, ~ctu~8 ~ Ci~, ha~ juds~n ov~ m~m~on of~e Work. ~ D~I~ ~ ~. ~m, ~c. ~ mtm in c~omt= ~d ~ ~n~ =d pcm= M a~c ~s md ~ good mdhg f~ ~e ~mfion 7. CO~Y~ OF ~ WO~ TO ~ CITY. Upon ~pl~xion of~¢ md ~pm~ ~:~f~ ~c CiW, mc Devdop~ ~ m~e7 tifl~ ~o the Work by deed b~ olde, = ~ppr~pm~, to ~e CiW in accordm~ ~th thru roms md pro'mom oft~t ~rc~ ~d s~e a~¢~e~ by ~d be~ ~e p~ to ~s ~eem~t Upon 07z0~.z2o0~ 09:~ ~.~X ~00~ thc Work to ~he City, thc C~D' sbaZd be responsible far ~ii further mp~s ~d ma~t~c= Wo~. · e i~s of~e S~ of~o~da ~d ~ qu~ed :o do bus~ in ~e St~ of~c~ ~om conz~mpl~ h~ ~ ~t r~ ~ ~ ~0]~on O~ or d~lt undo, ~ ~ or ~n~on ~y ~n% ~ mongag=, ~o~ ~m~I or ~q~ do~enz to w~ch ~e D~elopcr is a p~ or by w~ ~he De~op~ iz bo~. Thee ~ no ~fig~o~ ~nvc~g~on ~ proc~i~E ~ nor to ~e ~wl~gc ~ thc D~'Mopcr cont~ph:~ or a~ ~e D~Iopcr, w~ch would ~p~ ~ D~Moper or adv~r~el~ ~cm thc abOi~ ;o p~om ks ob~ga6om ~ ~ B. ~ De.loper ~ r~d ~d is f~;~;~r ~:h the t~z ~d pro~cm of~c Work to be C ~e D~op~ ~H.w~ ~ly and ~y peffo~ ~ of ~e.respom~de~ obHga~o~ of ~c D~op~r s~ fo~ ~ ~ m~d~ men in · sMEll ~d wor~ m~ E. TheDeveloper ~ ~mply ~ ~ ~bide by ~ p~: apWov~s, 1~, ~e~e~ on the p~ of ~ P~, ~e o~ P~ may ~e ~s ~eeme~ ~e DevMop~ is m d~l, ;he C~ ~ ~so r~u~r~ e~ ~he DevMop~ ~e~, :o ~bl~ ~ d~b~s ~om ~e mm or,he Work. Ei~ P~ m~y'pu~e ~y on~ or mom im ~m, ~ or ~ies hereim or ~p~ue ~ omh~ r~ m law or m ~, wh~h~r ~:~nably offs A~:~% or in ~memplafion h~od ~d ~ ~-b~t ~a~g~ produ~d ~ D~ =h~ll rem~n ~e sol: prop~ of the CiU ~d may be us~ ~, ~ ~v~op~ on work or o~ porous of~e D~o~t. The D~loper ~I no~ ~ ~ h~ or est~h my cidm :o ~ D~m ~d~ the desi~ paten: or cop~gh~ hws ~d ~aH n~z-pubH~h or rzproduce tach D~a ~ wh~e or ~ p~ or in ~5 ~ or fo~ or aumo~ o~s to do so, B. The.Dev~oper ~ ~ or pro'da ac~as xc c~pie~ of ~ ~ bruit or ~mg dra~gs or ~ maI~ upon thc mqu~ or,ha ~ Wo~ d~g mat~Iy from thesa or~ily found, or u~cwn p~si~ ~nditions ~te of the Work af~ unu~ ~, d~efing mate~y ~om ~os~ or~y ~um~ ~7 rezo~d as im~*ding thC Wo~ pro~ded for in ~is Agent. ~e D~ ~t be obag~ed o r~ocate uti~fies or ~ obs~n~ found in ~e ~on of~e Off- Ske Si~ ~g ~om ~e ~ bo~d~ o~or& Cm~r~ kvenu~ ~oog md ~ bound~y of~g Jac~m S~ Iothe em boundau of U.S. ~ghway 1. ~the Ci~ d:sir~ the r:iocafion of UfiI~d~. ~ o~on~ ia~. mnmmon of ~he ~-Sit~ Sid~ the p~ a~ee tha~ ~e Devel~ (i) may be p~d additio~ ~n~ ,qu~ to the ~ ~ .~x ~ to the ~-8ite 8~owflk pomon.ofthe Work. 07/09/200Z 09:,~§ FAX ~007 ~ or mS~. ~fior to compl~ion ofth~ Wor~ ~e Develop~ ~I rcm~e ~ny mbb~ ~om ~d ~t ~e ~te or,ge Work ~d ~ tooJ% iqui~meng ~d matm~s. 5~on compi~io= of the Wor~ ~e Developer ~ t~ve the Work ~d presses N ~ cJe~ n~at ~d 14. ~ BU~ ~G P~S. Upon ~on of ~ .~e~t ~ upon thc Ci~'s ~pr~al of~e D~elop~'s Pang ~ D~age Site P[~ ~e C~ ~ prompdy r~r~ p~B for'~e co~mu~m~t of ~ Work. 15. P~. Upon ~e Ci~'s zppro~ of zhe P~ng and Drainage ~k~g da~ ~o~ded ~d ~e p~g spies deoi~ed in ~e mpprowd Pa~ng ~d P[~ ~ b~ u~;l~d by ths D:vMop~ m me~ the Ci~'s p~g c~z~m for the D~Mopm~ ~e P~es sp~y a~ ~m those p~ng spas depi~ed ~ locked ~ of~e Jack,on Szre~t ~on ~d ~ on ~ p~g depi~:d in ~he ~pm~ed P~g ~d D~age She P~.~r~ suffi~I for ~e ~e D~:topmsm. 16. ~XCUS~ DF.7 ~YS. ~e ~eloper sh~ not be ~le for my p~ce ~ ~ur~ to p~ ~e m caus~ b~ond ~e control and ~t ~e ~t or ~g~ee of~e Develops. Suoh ~es Netude bu: ~e not li~zed m, am offal, a~ pubX= en~, the amor f~ur= to a~ of~ gov~t~ rarity or body, hu~ flood~, ~d~cs, qu~nne r~ ~e=. ~8o~, unu~y s~e w~her, or d~ays of m~n=a~rs or mt~.mm ~g ~m u~or~eeable cm~;~ beyond ~e mnWoi ~d wilho~ ~ f~lt or n~g~ ofm~ ~b-~nWamor~ or mat~fl men. 17. ~US~ ~.WS ~'B~S ~e Dev~o~, ~ ~ max~ers ~=m: ~e ~loy~s of the Ciw ~I~= ~e.m~ of or ~ appHmfiom of my fed~M or r~e mmplo~enr Nsum== ~, So~ ScoW, or ~ Wor~en'~ Compmsafiom ~d~ ~, or other mdu~ffi or ~or law. T~ Developer, al ~ om exp~, ~ ~ ~ Nw~ ~d ~um= ~I obligations ~osed by ~y one or more su~ Iaws ~ r=sp~ t ~. ]2',ISP~ECTI02'I AND ACCF_2T~. r~ by ~ A~m:nt sh~ be mad~ ~ r~on~t~ :~s and at ~e sit~ of~e Work ~. Prior ta ~e ~me of complefi~ of ~ p~on of~* We~ m~ ~ wor~p md ~g~ lh~ cost th~ecf to ~e Developer, or t~nate the .~er ~ m not u~e~s~y dMay ~e Worh E. Shoed k be ~o~d~ed mec~s~ or ~Ms~le ~ the Ci~ ~me b~e ~t~ ~e Work to ~ ~ ~afion of the Work m ~e ~t M~dy ~m,~qo~ ~su~ Wo~ ~ f~d ~o be d~ or n0nco~g m h~, su~ Work i~ fo~d m m~l the requk~:~ offs A~m~ ~o~ mm ~ef0r :o ~e D~elop~ md. ~ comptefio~ of the Work ~ be~ detay~ zhem~, ~ DevOop~ s~ ~n.ad~io& ~* ~te~ a r~on~}e ~nsioa ~. ~e Ci~ a~ h~ve t~ (10) ~ness ~s ~m the D~v~op~'s ~e Work is ~mpl~.m ~um ki ~ gore ~hhe Work ~d to bus~s ~* of deHv~ cf.~e ~g ~. Acc~z~m ~ be fi~al ~d conclum~ ~ reg~ds ~I d~ ~aud, or su~ ~o~ ~ta~ as ~y ~ount 1R. ~S~- B~ ~g ;he W~ ~e Develop~ ~1 pro~* 7 ~ dur:mg ~he entire ::tm of~:hi: Agreemen; insuramc~ of t.b~ kind~ and lira.its armmara~ hereunder a~d on tzsna~ and wi~h an in~urancz c~:r ~aci_~a~ to the Cky. C~r~Sca~ insurmac~ issued by u5¢ Developer% irmuranc~ card~r ~haIl M deSwrzd ~o ~h~ C~7 b~ore ~ ~du~on ~ cave,ge or b~ ~u~ ~z le~ 30 days p~or ~ notiz: ~o k. Wor~n=z Comp~fion ~zu~c~. Th~ DeyMop~, ~k ug~ Co~On In~ in the ~oun~ r~uk~d by the law~ of ~e Stazc of~o~d% ~t~'s ~V cove~ of no~ 1~ ~ ~10C, ~00.00 for bo~y ~j~ by ca~ ~,~0.~ for bod~y ~j~ by ~ ~on~ ~s~ ~d ~500=000.00 H~t for ~y ~j~ by ~d~: or oc~pa~o~ B Compr~cnsive O~ ~ ~n~. ~c Developer and sh~ hz~ in ~cZ po~es of g~al l~b~ ~ for ~ cp~adon% including pzoducm. ~ for ~y pro.c; ma~F,~ or ~e~le~ ~ ~op'z~zion~ t~ ~am $5~,000.00 far ea~ o~c~ $],000,O0fl. O0 ~eg~e ~d $500, 000.~ ~odu~mpi~:~d op~s;ions ~ega~e ~L Th~ p~ sh~l b~ ~dorsed zo be p~m~ non~bum~.zo amy ~c~ ~ may be m~n~ ~ or on b~ of~ ~, C Compr~ Au~omobit~ Liabii~ In~ze. ~e D~Mop~ ~d co~u~oa ~1 ha~ in e~cl ~tomcb~e ~abili~ ~r~c~ cov~sg~ on ~I o~e~, non-o~ and ~ ~omob~, ~c~ ~]~ ~d o~'op~ble ~ or ~qu~pm~l used D~vMop~ ~d ~b-~n~s~or~ ~ p~or~e oft~ ~ork Th~ ;ov~g~ ~ not be ~ ~ :he ~d bu~e~s a~omohH~ liab~ poli~ ~ ~ of noz l~s th~ ~ ~gM ~ for ~ach .o~n~ ~r bo~y inju~ or d~zh ~d prop~ da~ge bo~y ~ju~ ~t~ orS100,000.00 p~ p~/1300,000.00 per accM~l ~d {i~ts o£$500,000,00 per ~cident. by ~e ~toper ~r ~h~s A~e.ment ~1 s~e accutec ~d ~h~ ben~t ~e Cl~. 21. ~ ~ WO~S~, ~1 ~pmen:, ~ate~ ~ ~o~ M thc W~ ~v~ by t~ A~e~t ~e to be ~ mo~ s~te ~dc Pa~ng ~ Dr~ge Sit~ P[~ ~r ~e pu~se ~end~. ~en:~ to ~y ~ mat~ ~ele; or p~snt~ p~o~s by W~e ~e, ~, or ~*~log ~mb~ s~ be r~d~ mb~e my eqmpment m~ ~ide or process which ~ ~e judgm~ of the ~e]oper ~u~ to ~ n~d ~ Develop~ s~ ~ to the ~ fe~ the C~'s approv~ ~e ~e of me ~c~ar, ~e modM numbs, ~d other ide~ing dam ~d info~on r~sp~Jng ~e Developer ~ta~es ~c:~g ~ the Wor~ ~ ~b~e ~ipmem ~. STO~ ~ ~ ~SS. ~e D~elop~ ~ ~o the ~en~ u~e c~ed road ways or c~ ~d u~ ~ch t~po~ r~ad w~s ~ may bc nc~s~ ~'~e Work ~d stomg~ fanatic. ~ ma~s ~ ~pc~ in ~e ~ufion of~e Wor~ veM~ sh~ no, be Io~ed b~ ~e loa~g cap~/re~end~ ~ +~e ~r aft~ v~cles er p~be~ ~ ~ taw ~ ~atian or ~.~ by the ~m~g ~MI be'rep~*d ~= or a~ ~be ~p~ ag the ~elop~r and ~out cam or ~s~ ~ ~e ClX. ~c D~cp~ ~, ~pt ~ n~ded in ~e orflina~ course of~e D~eloper's p~o~ce of ~e Wor~ k~p ~e ~n~on ~e ~ ~om ~dc~ ~t~s as dcfin~ ~d~ or ]ocM lnws. ~cs. or r~]afion~. Wight ~B ~e for~o~g, ~e D~etop~ ~ not ca~e or ~ ~e Work ;o be ~ed to g~ze, ~a~e, re~e, ~por, =~, s:orc, ~, ~z~ ~ loc~ [aw~ ~c~ or r~. Thc D~oper ~I[ eon~ ~d ~mplete DeveIop~ d~d, ~de~ ~ bom ~ss ~e Ci~ ~om ~d a~a~st ~y aa~e, ~ or ~o~ cant~t or o~e~s~, ~smg out oC or m ~y way relat~ t~ pr~c~ ~po~ rel=~¢ or ~n~ r~ of~ b~dous ma~ which D~Mo~, 0~) ~y ~olation ~ ~e D~vMop~ ~Iawg ordm, re~a~z, r=q~ents p~m or pro~ ag~ the D~elop~, or (v) ~ m~i~lNe cos~. con~lmnt 1~o~o~ re=,. ~u~ eosz~ ~ome~ f~s ~d ~pe~ f~. At ~e conct~on of~e DevMop~'z Ci~ ~ of~ ~d ~.b.~.~ous ~s ~o that ~e c~t~a of~z Work ~ ~ .~e Dev~top~ she.be respo~ble for ~e~ r~tat~ ~o ~d dung p~cz ~s ~em~ ~ p~s~on of the ~ork. The Dev~op~ ~ ~e ~h~ ks e~loy~ ~ ~e ~ploy~ of ks a~-contm~m ~ mmt~ m~ ~e no~ of~d obs~e ~d abi~ ~ ~ fedeX, sz~e md loom ~ r:~om ~d law~ inclu~g but not ~os~ ~ ~ :he C)U oz the D~Mop~, md ~y mm~on~ oflhe for~go~g :~ may h~ B. ~e D~Mop~ ~1 ~m~at~ly noi~ the City of~y d~agz ~ inju~ to, or d~ o~ persons whi:h oc~s ~ co~on ~ ~ Wo~. C. ~ D~wl~r ~ 6~f~d, indemn~ and bom hm~e~ ~e Ci~ ~om and ~ ~ju~ ~ d:a~ to pemons ~ prope~' dmag, ~g ~e mmt~on of~e 10 not sh~ on the draggy, or ~ho~ on ~e ~ ~d no~ m~cn~ comp~ for~ or supc~de~ r~o~bly sa~ to the Ci~, on ~ d~g ~e pedo~anc~ of ~ Work. S~d for~ or supe~d~t ~ofi~ ~0 a~ for ~ D~Mo~r. 25. W~ O~ CO~S~UC~OM. In add.on ~o ~ o:n~ A~ ~ D~v~o~ ~ that the Work p~o~d ~der t~ .~e~t 27, ~SCEL~OUS, A. ~y nofi~, ~ o~ commum~ b~e~ th~ P~ ~ conn~on ~h ~s r~es~afi~ of~e other P~ ~ ~e P~ for whom ~;~:d ~t ~= addrcs~ (subjcc; B. ~s A~nX h~ b=cn ncg~ ~d ~t~ in thc S~e of~o~dz and ~1 b~ gov~c~ by ~d ~ u~ ~c laws of ~ Et~ of Florida ~d juHs~on C, ~i~ .~:~.~v b: ~c~ ~ on~ or more cc~;~% ~ ~wMch ~ be d~ ~ o~, b~ ~ of~ch tog~ shill co~;: on: ~d.~: i~- D, ~¢ P~s s~ ~ ~op~: ~c oth:r in good ~ ~ shall su~ ~ do~s ~d ~t ~o~ m~.~ a~ ~ may be r~on~le ne~ or ~prop~ ~ ~ out ~ ~ ~ ~ II .o7/~/2oo£ 09:39 ~.-{.~ ~]0~3 agr~rn~nzs smd undersza~ding~, -,vri~tm or oral, b~-~-ween th~ ?ard~ v~kh respecZ lo ',A~ subj~---t II~ ~fi'/,~-ESS WI-z:_Y,.~OF, :he Developer ~md ~¢ ~ry ba¥c ~xccu~=d this wI~¢h is ea~i'~a~v~ ~ of thc ~ate indlc.~:~d ~b~v~. C~p'~' n Bu~h=, Byl T~-r~ R. Moore, City Manajer Sally .a_ Mmo, CMC, City Cl~rk Aplm-o¥¢d as :o form amd lcgalky for r~liance by :M Cky of S~b~d~m only. l~dch S~-inger, CiV Attorney 12 Objective 4.5 Begin a visual enhancement program through the elimination of visual pollution and by screening surface parking areas with landscaping or other means by 1996. Objective 4.6 E1/minate blighted and dilapidated structures to improve appearance of vacant lots/parcels by 1997. Objective 4.7 Study the use of non-traditional w~kways in the Community Redevelopment Area by 1996. Objective 4.8 Goal 5 Encourage the improvement of back lots and alleyways as a non-traditional open space for customers and downtown employees by 1997. Tran~oortation Goal: Provide an integrated transportation systean within and to the downtown by 2000. Objective 5.1 Develop an effective marketing and management system for the current parking system by 2000. This should include a unified signage and parking lot improvements / maintenance program. Objective 5.2 Study traffic circulation of the downtown and surrounding areas to determine best circulation pattern by 1998. Objective 5.3 Provide appropriate traffic control devices which are integrated with the design of the downtown and which will improve traffic accessibility and internal circulation by 1999. Objective 5.4 City of Sebastian Develop a master plan for accessibility improvements by the handicapped to and within the redevelopment area by 1997. Plan should include current -22- Cornm, l~ity Redevelopment Plan analysis conducted on City owned properties located within the Community Redevelopment Area. -~-~ Goal 6 Public Services Goal: Ensure the provision of adequate and efficient public services to support additional development in the Conmaunity Redevelopment Areao Objective 6.1 A comprehensive analysis of existing utility facilities within the Community Redevelopment Area should be done to determine each system's capacity as it relates to existing land uses and possible increases in land use intensity by 1997. Policy 6.1.1 Provide adequate City services and amenities in the Community Redevelopment Area (such as parking and streetscaping) to encourage private investment in the Community Redevelopment Area, Objective 6.2 Analyze the feasibility of underground inst~ll~tion of all aerial utility facilities in the Community Redevelopment Area and certain other areas within the redevelopment area by 1995. Goal 7 Community Redevelopment Area Agency Goal: The Community Redevelopment Area Agency shall aggressively develop, plan, finance and construct improvements to the Community Redevelopment Area in an effort to further the redevelopment effort. Objective 7.1 City of Se~astiaa By 1996, the Community Redevelopment Area Agency shall adopt a strong policy of utilizing redevelopment funds for those projects that can show justifiable gain in' the property value or redevelopment impact in the Community Redevelopment Area. -23- Community Redevelopment Plaa HOME O]~ PELICAN ISLAND From: Date: Re: Terrence Moore, City Manager Dave Fisher, City En~ 28 August 02 Jackson Street Extension to Indian River Drive Terrence - Further to our discussions regarding the proposed extension of Jackson Street to Indian River Drive, this is to confirm my view: 1. The proposed extension would provide the northernmost connection between Indian River Drive and US 1 within the City limits. The next such connection to the north would be Roseland Road. The next such connection to the south would be Davis Street. This new connection can viewed as enhancing the vitality of the City's Riverfront Corridor in accordance with Policy 1-1.2.4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The cost to the City in dollars and expended effort under the proposed developer's agreement for the project definitely appears to be significantly less than if the City were to initiate such a connection on its own, acquire the necessary right-of-way, and to then follow up with design and construction of the connection on our own account. -- Dave Fisher