Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/5/1976TUESDAY,. OCTOBER S, 1976 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,E FLORIDA MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT THE COURTHOUSE, VERO BEACHi FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER S, 1976, AT 11;30 O'CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE WILLARD W. SIEBERT, SJR., CHAIRMAN; WILLIAM C. WODTKE, .JR., VICE CHAIRMAN; ALMA LEE Loy, EDWIN S. SCHMUCKER. EDWARD J. MASSEY WAS ABSENT. ALSO PRESENT WERE GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; .JACK G. .JENNINGS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; L.S.."TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR, RUTH ELLIOTT, DEPUTY CLERK AND ELIZABETH FORLANI, RECORDING SECRETARY. ALSO IN SPECIAL SESSION AND PRESENT FOR THIS DISCUSSION WAS THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, CITY COUNCIL - MAYOR .JAY SMITH; BERNARD HARRIS, AND PAT LYONS. .JOHN LITTLE, CITY MANAGER; INEZ CORDISCO, CITY ATTORNEY ROBERT "FLIP" LLOYD, CONSULTING. CITY ENGINEER AND CAROL PETERSON, ACTING CITY CLERK. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND STATED THAT THIS SPECIAL MEETING WAS CALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CITY AND THE COUNTY CON- SIDERING A RESOLUTION TO BE FORWARDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REAFFIRMING THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT MADE IN FORT LAUDERDALE ON .JUNE 4, 1976, WHICH WAS LATER REAFFIRMED BY ACTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING OF .JUNE 9, 1976, MAYOR SMITH STATED THAT HE HAD REPORTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER THE .JUNE 4TH MEETING AND THEY TENTATIVELY AGREED PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF FINAL FIGURES. IN CHECKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THERE IS A POSSIBLE PROBLEM OF STRIPPING OF MUCK ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE RIVER FROM CAUSEWAY BLVD. TO S.R. AIA AND WHAT IMPACT THAT WILL HAVE ON UTILITIES THE CITY RECENTLY PUT IN ON THE NORTH SIDE. WE HEAR THAT THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT HAS TOLD THE D.O.T. THAT IT MUST BE STRIPPED TO A DEPTH OF 6 FEET AND IT MUST BE WIDER THAN THE 100 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT EXISTS. IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY MANAGER, MR. LITTLE AND THE ENGINEERS ARE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE D.O.T. TO DO THIS STRIPPING OPERATION FOR THE PAVED AREA ONLY. MR. LITTLE STATED THAT AS FAR AS HE KNOWS THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE ELECTRICAL COST ESTIMATES, THEY ARE FINAL. IN THE AREA OF WATER AND SEWER THERE ARE ONLY TWO POSSIBLE PROBLEMS THAT HE IS AWARE OF: - I. THE POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF A MANHOLE IN THE VICINITY OF U.S.1 AND 17 STREET. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY ARE PROCEEDING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION OCT 51976 RIO G. �Am:4:;U I THAT THE D,O,T, WILL CONSTRUCT ITS 2. ON THE EAST CAUSEWAY SECTION THERE ARE TRANSMISSION POLES ABOUT 14 FEET DEEP AND WE HAVE PUT IN TWO 16" MAINS, WE KNEW THERE WAS POOR SUBSOIL AND IT APPEARS THAT THE D.O.T. NOW CONCURS WITH THAT SOIL EVALUATION. IN TALKING WITH THE D.O.T. IT WAS STATED THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION TO ONLY REMOVE THE POOR SUB -SOIL FROM.CURB TO CURB AND NOT FROM RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE TO RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. IF WE GET APPROVAL TO GO CURB TO CURB ONLY AND THERE IS NO DISTURBANCE OF THOSE 16" LINES, WHICH WERE DELIBERATELY PLACED OUTSIDE OF THE CURB LINE, THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. IF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION SAYS "NO - WE WANT THE ENTIRE 100 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY EXCAVATED" THEN THERE COULD BE CON- SIDERABLE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE IN SHORING THE TWO 16" MAINS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT QUESTIONED IF THIS AREA BEING DISCUSSED IS BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER BLVD. AND THE INDIAN RIVER AND MR. LITTLE ANSWERED THAT IT WAS NOT. THE AREA HE WAS TALKING ABOUT IS THE EAST CAUSEWAY SECTION FROM THE EAST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER TO S.R. AIA. . CHAIRMAN SIEBERT EXPLAINED THAT RELOCATION COSTS WERE DISCUSSED FOR BOTH U.S. 1 AND 17TH STREET WITH THE POTENTIAL POSSIBILITY EXISTING THAT THERE MIGHT BE ADDITIONAL COSTS AT CAUSEWAY BLVD. THERE WERE SOME COSTS BETWEEN U.S.I AND INDIAN RIVER BLVD. WHICH WERE SOMEWHAT MINOR, BUT THE COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IS RESTRICTED TO CONSIDERATION OF ONLY THAT AREA EAST OF INDIAN RIVER BLVD. AND WEST OF THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER - SECONDARY ROAD FUNDS CAN BE USED FOR NO OTH R PURPOSE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT CONTINUED THAT THERE ARE THREE PURPOSES TO USE SECONDARY ROAD FUNDS. WE HAVE AN OPINION.FROM JAY HENDRICKSON, ATTORNEY FOR THE D.O.T. SAYING THAT SECONDARY ROAD FUNDS COULD BE USED FOR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES ONLY IN THAT PORTION FROM INDIAN RIVER BLVD. EAST TO THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER. IN ADDITION, WE'COULD AGREE TO GO AHEAD AND PAY SOMETHING FOR THE LAND IF THE RELOCATION COSTS THEMSELVES DO NOT GO UP TO $390,000.00. THAT IS THE QUESTION THE COUNTY HAS TO ADDRESS ITSELF TO. THE D.O.T. HAS ASKED US TO TAKE MORE FORMAL ACTION THAN THE COPY OF THE i COUNTY'S MINUTES. THEY HAVE ASKED THAT THE CITY ALSO CONCUR IN THIS FORMAL ACTION AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING TODAY. WE HAVE PREPARED A i RESOLUTION WHICH WE FEEL WILL BE SATISFACTORY TO THE COUNTY AND TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH. -2- OCT 5 1916 ass ATTORNEY COLLINS THEN PROCEEDED TO READ THE COUNTY'S PROPOSED RESOLUTION. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT THEN ASKED THE CITY COUNCIL IF THEY WOULD HAVE ANY PROBLEMS ADOPTING A SIMILAR RESOLUTION. MAYOR SMITH STATED THAT THE PROBLEM COMES AT $390,000.00 WHEN THE RELOCATION COSTS HAVE ESCALATED TO $515,000.00 AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO GO TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING TO GET REIMBURSED FOR THE LAND. ALL OUR EFFORTS TO GET AN APPRAISAL FROM THE STATE HAVE BEEN FRUITLESS. THEY HAVE NEVER TOLD US WHAT THEIR APPRAISAL WAS, I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU OR MR. JENNINGS WERE TOLD OR IF IT WAS EVER MADE PUBLIC. MR. .JENNINGS STATED THAT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STATE HAS AN APPRAISER WORKING ON IT, BUT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY FIGURES. MR. LITTLE STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT THEY DID HAVE AN APPRAISAL AND HE WAS TOLD THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE IT, THEY, THE D.O.T. FELT IT WAS INCOMPLETE, BUT THEY DID HAVE ONE AND IN RESPONSE TO FURTHER QUESTIONS THEY STATED THAT IT MIGHT BE THE SUBJECT OF FUTURE LITIGATION AND THEY WOULD REFRAIN FROM RELEASING IT FROM THEIR OFFICE. CHAIRMAN $IEBERT STATED THAT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE THERE HAS BEEN NO OFFICIAL COMPLETED APPRAISAL DONE BY THE D.O.T. MR. LITTLE STATED THAT IT HAS BEEN RELATED TO HIM THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN APPRAISAL COMPLETED WITH A DOLLAR SIGN ON IT. CHAIRMAN $IEBERT THEN INFORMED THE MAYOR THAT ONE OF THE FIGURES UP ON THE BLACKBOARD AT THE JUNE 4TH, FT. LAUDERDALE MEETING WAS $390,000. WHICH WAS IN THE $500,000. RANGE. MAYOR SMITH REMIN1 THE BOARD THAT PARTICULARLY ON THE ELECTRICAL FOR THAT STRETCH, WE HAD ALTERNATES 1, Z, AND 3 AND WE OPTED TO GO ON THE LOWEST COST ALTERNATE HOPING IT COULD WORK OUT AND IT DID NOT. THE INTERSECTION DESIGN FOR INDIAN RIVER BLVD, WAS CHANGED AND WIDENED AND WE COULD NOT ARRIVE AT ALTERNATE N0. 3, THE LOWEST COST. IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT WE TOOK THAT LOWEST FIGURE HOPING THAT WE COULD ARRIVE AT IT, BUT IF NOT, IT WOULD BE A NEW BALL GAME. CHAIRMAN SIEB ERT STATED THAT WAS NOT HIS UNDERSTANDING. PAT LYONS STATED THAT THE $390,000 WAS NOT SOLID IT WAS PREFERRED AND HOPED FOR. CHAIRMAN $IEBERT STATED THAT THE BOARD THOUGHT IT WOULD COME IN LOWER THAN $390,000. THE D.O.T. FIGURES LEAD US TO BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD COME IN LOWER. IT SEEMS THE CITY'S FIGURES WERE MORE CORRECT. .. -3- OCT 51976 UAA suul ICU ?A 4' MAYOR SMITH STATED THAT WE ARE HUNG UP ON PRICEt MAYBE WE COULD GET MORE BY GOING THROUGH CONDEMNATION, WHERE WE WILL ASK A PROFESSIONAL TO GET AN APPRAISAL. I WOULD PREFER, IN BEHALF OF THE CITY NOT TO GO THAT ROUTE, BUT I THOUGHT WE COULD ARRIVE AT A FIGURE SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE $390,000. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT THE CITY IS TALKING ABOUT COSTS THAT ARE NOT THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY EVEN IF IT DID GO THE CONDEMNATION ROUTE. THE ONLY AREA THAT IS UNDER QUESTION WHATSOEVER IS INDIAN RIVER BLVD. TO THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TOTAL COST OF $515,000 EVEN IF YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL IN A CONDEMNATION SUIT, YOU MIGHT GET SOMETHING FOR THE LAND AND IT MIGHT NOT EQUAL WHAT YOU GAVE UP IN OTHER AREAS THAT THE COUNTY WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO. MR. LITTLE STATED THAT THE COURT HAS DECLARED THAT THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC ROAD. MR. CORDISCO STATED THAT THIS IS TRUE, IN THE 17TH STREET BRIDGE CASE, .JUDGE BEN WILLIS MADE A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE EXTENSION OF 17TH STREET, EAST FROM ITS PRESENT INTERSECTION OF INDIAN RIVER BLVD. IS NOT A PUBLIC STREET. IF THE D.O.T. APPROVES WIDENING OR EXTENDING 17TH STREET ANY UTILITIES LYING IN THAT PART TO BE .WORKED ON MUST BE RELOCATED BY THE OWNERS OF THE UTILITIES. THE CITY AND THE COUNTY ARE DISPUTING WITH EACH OTHER AS TO WHO SHOULD PAY FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE UTILITIES AND IT IS MY JUDGMENT THAT THE STATE SHOULD BE PAYING FOR THEM AND THE REAL ISSUE IS THE VALUE OF THE CITY`S PROPERTY. MR. LITTLE STATED THAT IF THIS WEREjPRIVATE PROPERTY AND A PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANY HAD RIGHTS TO BE ON THE PROPERTY - TWO THINGS WOULD HAPPEN: 1. THE STATE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE PROPERTY; AND 2. ALSO HAVE TO PAY THE UTILITY COSTS; 'NOT ONE OR THE OTHER -THEY WOULD PAY BOTH. IN THIS CASE, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE UTILITY OWNER HAPPEN TO BE THE SAME ENTITY. IF IT WENT ALL THE WAY, IT IS POSSIBLE THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD BE COMPENSATED FOR TAKING OF THE LAND AND THE UTILITY RELOCATION COSTS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ANSWERED THAT THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT STORY COULD BE THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH COULD BE LEFT WITH THE ENTIRE COSTS. -4- OCT 51976 Boot 'U ��g3. MR.-CORDISCO REFERRED TO CHAPTER 338',119 AND FURTHER STATED THAT THIS PARCEL OF LAND HAS BEEN FOUND BY A JUDGE NOT TO BE A PUBLIC ROAD. THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ASKED, "DIDN'T .JUDGE WILLIS SAY IN HIS FINDINGS THAT THAT WAS NOT THE MAIN ISSUE THAT WAS ON TRIAL". DIDN'T HE SAY IT DID NOT COME UNDER THE DESIGNATION OF A STATE ROAD. MR. CORDISCO STATED THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT WAS WHETHER OR NOT THAT PARCEL OF LAND WAS PART OF THE PARCEL OF THE POWER GENERATING SYSTEM. THE .JUDGE DID NOT USE THE DEFINITION OF A STATE ROAD. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT THIS IS A LEGAL POINT WHICH I KNOW OUR ATTORNEY DOES NOT AGREE WITH AND THAT ALSO THE DAT. ATTORNEY DOES NOT AGREE WITH COMPLETELY. MAYOR SMITH STATED THAT IF THE BOARD WOULD RAISE THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO $450,000 THEY WOULD PROCEED TO DEED THE PROPERTY TO THE COUNTY AND TO PROCEED TO HAVE THE RELOCATION CONTRACTS GO TO BID ON THE PLANS THEY HAVE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT THIS IS A MATTER FOR THE BOARD TO CON- SIDER, BUT HE STATED HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT. MR. LITTLE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE WILL REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL'S AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS ON THE TWO PROJECTS BY OCTOBER 15TH. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED WHAT THE CITY'S COSTS ARE GOING TO BE BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER -BLVD. AND THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER. MR. LITTLE REFERRED TO MATERIAL PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AND INFORMED CHAIRMAN SIEBERT, THAT HE MUST ELIMINATE THE FIRST THREE ITEMS UNDER ELECTRICAL• FOR A TOTAL OF $163,000.00. ON TUE NEXT PAGE -PARAGRAPH TITLED WATER AND SEWER - THERE ARE NO WATER AND SEWER COSTS OUTSIDE OF THE AREA WE ARE DISCUSSING. THIS AMOUNT IS APPROXIMATELY $10,000.00 LOWER THAN THE $261,621.00 ESTIMATE USED TN FORT LAUDERDALE',,'FOR A TOTAL OF $251,621.00. COMMISSIONER WODTKE DISCUSSED A $35,000 FIGURE LISTED UNDER ELECTRICAL. MR. LITTLE INFORMED HIM THAT THIS HAD TO DO WITH PIPE WORK AND IS INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL $515,000.00 FIGURE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE THEN QUESTIONED THE $11,020.00 CHARGE FOR SALVAGE. MR. LITTLE STATED THAT IF THEY CAN SALVAGE THE PIPE THAT IS IN THE GROUND NOW, THE CITY WILL BUY IT RATHER'THAN HAVE A CONTRACTOR SELL IT. -5- OCT 51976 �� C P$:414 ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HIS FIGURES SHOW THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT $414,621.00 - $163,000.00 PLUS $251,621.00. THESE FIGURES WERE ARRIVED AT BY ADDING ITEMS 4 AND 5 UNDER ELECTICAL UTILITIES AND THE COST OF RELOCATION OF WATER AND SEWER LINES. MR. LITTLE AGREED. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED AG _ -'T E R IS OM. _. _....ION DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS SOME QUESTION EVEN IF YOU WENT TO CONDEMNATION THAT THE RELOCATION OF THE 36" WATER DISCHARGE LINES AND THE 12" SEWER LINES AND THE RELOCATION OF THE TWO CONDUIT LEFT BANKS WOULD PROBABLY BE COSTS CHARGED AGAINST THE CITY. MR. LITTLE STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT AGREE. WE HAVE SAID TO THE D.O.T. THAT IF THEY WILL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY IN WRITING AND HAVE THEIR CONTRACTOR ASSUME IT ALSO, IN A LEGAL DOCUMENT, THEY WOULD THEN PROVIDE THE CITY FOR ANY DAMAGES INCURRED TO THOSE FACILITIES IF LEFT IN THEIR PRESENT LOCATION, WE WOULD LEAVE THEM THERE, BUT WE FEEL THEY SHOULD BE RELOCATED. THE D.O.T. HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO DO THIS AND ABSENT OF THAT AGREEMENT FROM THE D.O.T. WE WANT THEM RELOCATED. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT THIS IS ANOTHER LEGAL POINT THAT THE D.O.T. AND THE CITY DO NOT AGREE UPON. THIS WAS DISCUSSED FURTHER, MAYOR SMITH THEN ASKED IF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WOULD GO TO $414,000.00. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE FEELS THERE WERE COSTS PRESENTED THAT SHOULD BE DEDUCTED. THE $354000.00 AND $11,020 FOR SALVAGE. MR. LITTLE STATED THAT THE $35,000 COST IS AN ACCOUNTING TRANSACTION. COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER QUESTIONED IF EVERYTHING IN THE CORRIDOR RIGHT-OF-WAY IS PART OF THE BRIDGE CONTRACT. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT AS HE UNDERSTANDS IT, THE FIGURES GIVEN TODAY BY THE CITY OF $414,621.00 WILL ALL BE ALLOCATED TO THE SITE LOCATION OF THE.BRIDGE. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE SUBJECT OF REDUCTION OF COSTS OF SALVAGE MATERIAL AND SUGGESTED SUBTRACTING THAT AMOUNT FROM THE TOTAL, WHICH WOULD THEN BE $403,621.00. MR. LITTLE STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT $11,020.00 DEDUCTION. COUNCILMAN LYONS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IT SEEMS TO HIM THAT THE COUNTY IS GETTING ONE WHALE OF A BARGAIN. THE COUNTY HAS ALREADY BOUGHT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE TWIN PAIRS AT A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY AND IT SADDENS HIM -6- T 51976 6�'Gr 26 ?Agt 4 15 THAT WE HAVE TO SIT HERE AN HAGGLE BACK AND FORTH FOR SOMETHING THAT IS WORTH AS MUCH MONEY AS THIS. COUNCILMAN LYONS ALSO TOOK EXCEPTION TO THE WORDING IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE PROPOSED COUNTYrS RESOLUTION AND REQUESTED THE WORDING BE CHANGED. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED IF THE BOARD AGREES TO $403,600.00 WE CANNOT TURN OVER $403,600 TO THE CITY. THIS MONEY IS IN A TRUST FUND WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND MUST BE SUBSTANTIATED WITH ACTUAL PAYMENT OF BILLS. REGARDING THE $35,000 IN ITEM 6, 7 AND 0 IN RELOCATION OF UTILITIES WHICH IS WATER AND SEWER, THE D.O.T. HAS STATED THAT THIS EXPENDITURE IS CONTRARY TO ANYTHING THEY HAVE EVER DONE AND THEY HAVE NEVER ASSUMED THAT LIABILITY, THEY MIGHT NOT APPROVE THAT AS AN EXPENDITURE OF SECONDARY ROAD FUNDS AND WE CANNOT APPROVE A BLANKET $403,000 WITHOUT THE D.O.T. APPROVING THOSE FIGURES. L1'TIIE QUESTIONED ILF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PAYMENT OF MONEY TO ACQUIRE LAND, IN WHICH THE CITY WILL ASSUME RELOCATION COSTS, OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT PAYING THE RELOCATION COSTS UNDER A REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA. HE HAD'INFORMED THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO FRONT FOR THIS PROJECT, UNLESS THEY TAKE IT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, THEY DO NOT HAVE IT IN THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. UNLESS THE MONEY COMES FROM SOMEWHERE AND PLACED IN THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ACCOUNT, HE CANNOT LEGALLY LET A CONTRACT. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT WE ARE TALKING IN TERMS ABOUT THE COUNTY PAYING A CERTAIN PRICE FOR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES OR FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. MR. LITTLE STATED THAT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND, IF THE COUNTY TURNS OVER $403,600 TO THE CITY, THE CITY WILL GIVE THEM A DEED TO THE PROPERTY AND THERE IS NO REIMBURSABLE AFTER THE FACT AND THE CITY WILL HAVE MONEY TO LET A CONTRACT, ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT FOR CLARIFICATION, AT THE MEETING IN FORT LAUDERDALE, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY USED FOR THE RELOCATION OF UTILITIES WAS THE BASIS FOR THE FIGURES WE HAVE ARRIVED AT. MR. LITTLE AGAIN STATED THAT WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT IS FRONT MONEY AND NOT REIMBURSABLE AFTER THE FACT MONEY. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SPEND SECONDARY ROAD FUNDS FOR ANYTHING BUT THE RELOCATION OF UTILITIES, NOT THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. MAYOR SMITH QUESTIONED IF THE COUNTY USES SECONDARY ROAD FUNDS TO PURCHASE PROPERTY. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ANSWERED THAT THE COUNTY DOES, BUT THERE MUST BE 51976 -7- 416 APPRAISAL. THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT IF THE TWO PUBLIC BODIES CAN AGREE ON A DOLLAR FIGURE, THE OTHER TRANSACTION COULD POSSIBLY BE WORKED OUT. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THE CITY, BASED ON A BONAFIDE CONTRACT WOULD PASS A RESOLUTION INDICATING THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF $403,600, THE ITEM LISTED AS SALVAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,020,00 WAS DEDUCTED FROM $414;621,00, MAYOR SMITH STATED THAT IF THE DETAILS COULD BE WORKED OUT SO THAT THE CHECK WOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF THE CITY WITH A CONTRACT FOR RELOCATION HE WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE FIGURE OF $403,'600.'00 AND GET THE BRIDGE UNDER -WAY. MAYOR SMITH POLLED THE COUNCILMEN PRESENT AND IT WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THE CITY COUNCIL COULD PASS A RESOLUTION SIMILAR TO THE ONE THE COUNTY HAS PROPOSED, MAYOR SMITH STATED THAT THE RESOLUTION WILL BE PREPARED AND ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR FORMAL ACTION TONIGHT. ATTORNEY CORDISCO WILL PREPARE THE CITY'S RESOLUTION, CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT OUR RESOLUTION WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY - CHANGED IF WE ARE GOING TO PAY $403,600 FOR THE LAND. ATTORNEY COLLINGS WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD DO THAT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVES AND HE CONTINUED THAT WE HAVE A CLEAR ROUTE AS FAR AS AUTHORITY ON RELOCATIONS AND HE FEELS THE COUNTY SHOULD STICK WITH THAT. MAYOR SMITH QUESTIONED HOW CAN YOU TRANSFER FUNDS TO THE CITY BEFORE THE FACT SO THAT WE CAN LET A CONTRAdT, ATTORNEY COLLINS REQUESTED THAT THIS BE LEFT UP TO ATTORNEY CORDISCO, HIMSELF AND THE D.O.T. TO BE WORKED OUT. COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, BASED ON THEIR ORIGINAL REQUEST IN 1968 IS GOING TO RECEIVE APPROXIMATELY A 13 MILLION DOLLAR FACILITY FOR AN EXPENDITURE OF ABCUT $100,000.00. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY A CITY REQUEST AND WE DO NOT SHARE YOUR EXACT FEELINGS AS TO WHO THIS LAND BELONGS T0. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE QUESTION WAS EXACTLY ADDRESSED BY THE JUDGE, IN THE COURT CASE DISCUSSED, BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING ELSE. I DO NOT WANT TO GO TO COURT AND STRING THIS OUT, BUT I WOULD FEEL VERY SECURE GOING TO COURT BECAUSE I FEEL THAT LAND BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE ALREADY AND WE HAVE WORKED HARD TO GET THIS STRAIGHT AS TO HOW WE CAN USE THESE FUNDS TO SECURE THIS BRIDGE, -8- CCT 51910 IF IT COMES DOWN TO OUR PAYING AN ADDITIONAL $13,000.00 OVER OUR ORIGINAL AMOUNT, I STILL WILL SUPPORT IT, ONE MORE TIME. THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE CHANGES TO BE MADE IN THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. FIRST PARAGRAPH, FOURTH LINE, THAT PORTION OF THE SENTENCE READING "..HINDERING THE DEVELOPMENT" BE CHANGED TO READ "..EFFECTING THE DEVELOP- MENT..". THIRD PARAGRAPH, THAT PORTION OF THE SENTENCE READING "..AND FORMALLY THROUGH CITY COUNCIL ACTION.." BE DELETED. FOURTH AND FIFTH PARAGRAPHS THE AMOUNT OF $390,000.00 BE CHANGED TO READ $403,600.00 IN BOTH PLACES. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, COMMISSIONER WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, CHAIRMAN SIEBERT VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD ADOPTED THE AMENDED RESOLUTION N0. 76-68 AND AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN. t 1. OCT 51976 Book. 26 v ^: M 18 OCT 51976 RESOLUTION NO, 76,68 WHEREAS, on Friday, June 4, 1976? representatives from the City of Vero Beach and Indian River County, met with the Department of Transportation in Fort Lauderdale, Florida for the purposes of resolving and expediting certain problems effecting the development and completion of the 17th Street bridge; and WHEREAS, the relocation costs for electric, water and sewer at the bridge location site on the West bank of the Indian River to Indian River Blvd, were represented by the City of Vero Beach to be a tremendous burden for the City to assume; and WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach through its representatives at the Fort Lauderdale meeting has agreed to convey the bridge corridor to the Department of Transportation without costs, if Indian River County contributed to the relocation costs for utilities; and WHEREAS, the County Commission for Indian River County, Florida has formally and unanimously approved contributing to the costs of utility relocation at the bridge site in an amount up to Four Hundred Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($403,600.00) of the total cost of relocation; and WHEREAS, the County's contribution to relocation costs is conditioned upon the City conveying theibridge corridor site to the D.O.T. without the necessity of proceeding through a condem- nation action and further conditioned upon the City of Vero Beach and/or Florida Power and Light Company as their interest may appear, executing all necessary documents for the proper conveyance of the bridge corridor location to the D.O.T. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Indian River County will contribute towards the cost of relocation of utilities at the 17th Street bridge site in an amount up to Four Hundred Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($403,600.00) conditioned upon the City of Vero 5. 26 419 1. CT 51976 Beach conveying the proper bridge corridor to the Department of Transportation by appropriate conveyance documents with title and corridor legal description satisfactory to the D,O.T, and further conditioned upon the joinder of Florida Power and Light Company, if necessary, to release any interest Florida Power and Light Company may have pursuant to their contract with the City of Vero Beach effecting the bridge corridor location; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Vero Beach is re- quested to pass a similar resolution accepting the terms of this County -resolution and agreeing to convey the 17th Street bridge corridor to the Department of Transportation in consideration of Indian River County's contribution towards the cost of relocation of utilities as established herein. This Resolution shall become effective as of the 5th day of October, 1976. Attest; - .1 4:;, Ralph 4arris, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA F By:` Willard W. Siebert, Jr. C airman' r L THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 12;25 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST; CL RK CHAIRMAN i. OCT 51976 _12_ i Boot 20 ?"'4 42