Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-141A Prepared by and return to: g ! a COVB Water & Sewer Dept. 8 L P.O. Box 1389 Cj O F 3j Vero Beach, FL 32961 BILL OF SALE OF UTILITY FACILITIEW,S31DOCUMENT HAS BEEN ToRECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FL CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 09/24/2012 a 10932 AMe1 of 3 (when constructed within existing easement or road rights-of-way) JEFFREY R SMITH, CLERK OF COURT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, hereinafter called GRANTOR, in consideration of value received, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has and does hereby grant, bargain, sell, transfer, and deliver unto the CITY OF VERO BEACH, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is P .O. Box 1389, Vero Beach, FL 329614389, hereinafter called GRANTEE, this 21 .qt day of n , l� , Rt , 2012, the following goods and chattels : UTILITY FACILITIES OF VERO BEACH SPORTS VILLAGE Potable Water Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 8" PVC C-900 DR18 902 LF $ 20. 29 $ 181305 . 00 2 8x8 Tapping Sleeve and 8" Gate Valve 1 EA $ 21357 . 00 $ 29357 : 00 3 8" 900 Bends 3 EA $ 346. 00 $ 11040 . 00 4 8" 450 Bends 2 EA $ 346 . 00 $ 693. 00 5 8" MegawLug Mega-LugRetainer Glands 10 EA $ 123. 00 $ 11237000 6 8" HDPE ( DRI 1 ) Directional Bore 120 LF $ 43. 00 $ 5 , 175 . 00 8 Fire Hydrant Assembly 8"x6" Tee, 1 EA $ 41128 . 00 $ 49128 . 00 6" Gate Valve, 5LF 6" PVC, Hydrant) 9 2" Service 1 1 EA $ 1 , 519. 00 $ 1 , 519 . 00 Total Water Construction Cost $ 34 , 454 . 00 which utility facilities are located in existing easements or road rights of way described generally as 4003 26 Street, Vero Beach, Florida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto GRANTEE forever, and GRANTOR hereby warrants to the GRANTEE that it has free and unencumbered title to the above-described facilities, that all persons or entities which have supplied labor or materials with respect to these facilities have been paid in full, that none of them has any claim whatsoever with respect thereto, and that the GRANTOR has full authority to make this conveyance and will warrant and defend the sale of said chattels and utility facilities hereby made unto GRANTEE against the lawful claims and demands of all persons whomsoever. Page 1 of 2 GRANTOR hereby further warrants that should the above described utility facilities fail or otherwise become defective during a period of one year from the date of acceptance of same by GRANTEE, due to defective materials or workmanship, GRANTOR shall upon each occasion be responsible in all respects for such failure or defect and shall correct same at GRANTOR' S sole cost and without expense to GRANTEE upon reasonable notice by GRANTEE. GRANTOR shall be solely liable and shall save GRANTEE harmless from any direct or consequential damage attributable to such failure or defect. GRANTOR hereby also assigns all its right, title, and interest in and to manufacturer' s or supplier' s warranties with respect to the described facilities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has herein set its hand and seal the day and year first above written. ATTEST: JEFFREY R . SMITH , GRANTOR: CLERK OF COURT AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COM TROLLER INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ��.0AMiSS/pN� .0 .. gy; s o: Deputy Jerk Gary Wyeler, Chairman ; (SEAL) •a• 'o�c BCC approval date August 21 , 0� N, • NERC . `p•1R1C MY1 .a+a STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 21st day of August , 2012, by Gary Wheeler, as Chairman, and attested by Maureen Gfo , as Deputy Clerk, of the Board of County Celommissioners of Indian River County, Florida. They are personally known to me and did not take an oath. ayL -to NOTARY PUBLIC � e '��`° TM COLLM84i � MY COMMISSION S EE 012467 Print Name : ' * EXPIRES@ October 30, 2014 Commission No. : 0' � R BandedThiieiNO�' ` My Commission Expires. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: County Attorney (or Assistant) Page 2 of 2 ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYANCE OF UTILITY FACILITIES The conveyance of those certain utility facilities pursuant to the foregoing Bill of Sale dated .August 21 , 2012 is hereby accepted by the City of Vero Beach, Florida, as evidenced by . .. .. ir.. . " i' :r. . . thether s1gnat> e, of the undersigned, who is authorized to accept this conveyance. t by beIF m ' . FF 4 r` F� In I �`� E " IF IF " 'r C VERO BEACH rA. lt It OFF 0} '. 4 aw t t Z r % A. . r IF be t it ? Fit 9+ , f laid r to ,` ' m3� ko,' o k Pilar 1E. Turner �c�ty CJek Mayor Y SS �. . ``t ). 4 Cl, \.1 ♦ FFb-1. IF bid i �.. be r^ [CITY SEAL] Date . 20 / b STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER The foregoing Acceptance of Conveyance was acknowledged before me this g ' t day of t , 2012 by Pilar E . Turner, as Mayor, and attested by Tammy K. Vock, as City Clerk, of the City of Vero Beach, Florida. They are both known to me and did not take an oath. NOTARY PUBLIC p L Sign: F_ ° S � 414461 too �` tAYCOMMI3810N DD 811285 Print c--S`ieR2. . ' ��� X45 EXWIRE9: December 3, 2ot2 State of Florida at Large 0.60 : sa&drnmNufarlraudlounrlotvnil�ra My Commission No . : My Commission Expires. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Approved as conforming to municipal poli Wayn . Coment J s R. O ' Connor City AhJrney City Manager Approved as to technical requirements . 9 le, Robi3olton Water & Sewer Director Re : Proposed Amendments to FS 180. 02(2) and FS 153 .03 ( 1 ) Dear Debbie, At the Legislative Delegation meeting on December 19, 2012, you asked whether our proposed amendment to FS 180 . 02(2) — which would require county consent before a municipality may extend utility services outside of municipal boundaries into the unincorporated county — should apply outside of the urban service area. I am writing to expand on my answer that consent should be required. The urban service area is an important planning tool which is established in Florida through state statutes and local government comprehensive plans . FS 163 .3186(2), which is part of the Florida Community Planning Act, expressly states that "local governments are encouraged to apply innovative planning tools, including . . . urban service area designations . . . . At its most basic level , an urban service area is designated to provide a clear delineation between urban areas where public infrastructure and public services are provided, and rural areas where they are not. However, beyond this basic level , the designation of an urban service area implements many, extremely important policies which are designed to encourage prudent development, on the one hand, and preservation of agricultural and rural lands, on the other. These policies include : • The promotion of residential , commercial and industrial growth in areas where public infrastructure and public services are available, • The discouragement of urban sprawl into traditionally non-urban agricultural or rural areas. The importance of reducing of urban sprawl cannot be overstated in any discussion about urban service areas . In one Florida statute after another, in various contexts, the problems created by urban sprawl are addressed. See, e. g. , FS 163 .2511 (" . . . reduction of future urban sprawl . . . ") ; FS 163 . 3177 ("the discouragement of urban sprawl", "the future land use element and any amendment to the future land use element shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl"; " . . . discouraging urban sprawl . . . "; " . . . the expansion and diversification of these existing centers must be accomplished in a manner that does not promote urban sprawl into surrounding agricultural and rural areas"; and " . . . comprehensive plan to include goals, objectives, and policies that provide for the expansion of rural agricultural industrial centers and discourage urban sprawl in the surrounding areas"); FS 163 . 3245 ( . . . limiting urban sprawl . . . ") ; FS 163 . 3246 (""encourage urban infill at appropriate densities and intensities and separate urban and rural uses and discourage urban sprawl . . . ) ; and FS 1013 . 33 (" . . . in order to encourage central city redevelopment and the efficient use of infrastructure and to discourage uncontrolled urban sprawl"), • The preservation of traditionally non-urban agricultural or rural areas that would be threatened by development beyond the urban service area, • The preservation of environmental areas that would be threatened by development beyond the urban service area, • The encouragement of energy efficient communities where residential development is located reasonably nearby to infrastructure and services, both public and private, and • The avoidance of public expense which is incurred when public services — including police, fire, emergency, etc — are provided to areas of low density, scattered development. Since 1990, the Board of County Commissioners in Indian River County has designated an urban service area in its comprehensive plan. A map of the urban service area is attached as Exhibit A. The urban service area consists of about 20% of the county, located primarily east of I-95 , and west along SR 512 to the City of Fellsmere. The non= urban service area consists of the remaining 80% of the county. The vast majority of the non-urban service area consists of four land use designations : three agricultural designations (AG4 , AG=2 and A&3) and a conservation designation (C- 1 ) . The Indian River County 2030 Comprehensive Plan carefully addresses development both inside and outside of the urban service area — thereby implementing many of the policies outlined above. Development outside of the urban service area has been carefully planned to avoid urban sprawl and preserve the current agricultural and conservation uses. Some comments from the, Urban Sprawl section of the Future Land Use Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan underscore this fact: "Urban sprawl refers to scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental protection, natural resource protection, and agricultural production. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns . leap frog development, ribbon or strip development, and large expanses of low-density, single- dimensional development. The unchecked spread of residential and related uses into previously undeveloped land can have serious consequences in a rapidly growing community such as Indian River County. Those consequences include the increased cost of public services and facilities, loss of valuable agricultural and open natural land, and the possibility of negative environmental impacts. Because urban sprawl is a dispersed land use pattern, it is not energy efficient with regards to transportation or utility infrastructure. Generally, a pattern of dispersed development on large tracts of inexpensive land compounds the effort to provide public services in an efficient and economic manner. Such development provides for an increased demand for services which are already unavailable in many areas of the county, while in other areas, services and facilities operate below capacity because of the dispersed development pattern." Indian River County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, Urban Sprawl Section, page 121 . This section, and other sections of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan relating to urban service areas, are attached as Composite Exhibit B . Against this background, the question is whether a municipality should have the unilateral right to extend municipal services into the unincorporated area of the county — even if that area is outside the urban service area. The answer is that it should not. The above discussion should amply demonstrate that the county has important interests at stake, both inside and outside of the urban service area. Outside of the urban service area, the county has an interest in preventing the many problems that accompany urban sprawl, and in preserving agricultural and rural areas — essentially, in preserving the goals, policies and objectives of its comprehensive plan. If a municipality has the unilateral right to extend utilities into the unincorporated county — even if the area of expansion is outside of the urban service area — these interests are at risk . The extension of utilities into an undeveloped area will lead to the distinct possibility of increased development in that area, and that possibility alone is enough to impact the county' s interests . It is noted that we are not talking about an annexation by the municipality, in which case the municipality would take on responsibility for all other public services. We are talking about an extension of municipal utilities outside of the municipality into the unincorporated area, which leaves the county with the responsibility of providing other public services (e. g. , police, fire, emergency, etc) to the area. Ultimately, the question is not whether the municipality should be authorized to extend utility services into the unincorporated county outside the urban services area. The question is whether the municipality should have the unilateral right to do so — or, stated differently, whether the decision should be the unilateral decision of the municipality or the joint decision of the municipality and the county. Because the county has many important interests at stake, as outlined above, the answer is clear that a joint decision will best serve the public interest.