Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/23/1979� r � WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1979 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MET IN REGULAR SESSION AT THE COURTHOUSE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1979, AT 8:30 O'CLOCK. PRESENT WERE WILLIAM C. WODTKE, SJR., CHAIRMAN; ALMA LEE Loy, VICE CHAIRMAN; WILLARD W. SIEBERT$* JR.; R. DON DEESON; AND PATRICK B. LYONS. ALSO PRESENT WERE .JACK G. .JENNINGS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS, .JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; .JEFFREY K. BARTON, FINANCE OFFICER; BAILIFF DAN FLEISCHMAN; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES AND JANICE CALDWELL, DEPUTY CLERKS, L. S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR, WAS ON VACATION. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. ATTORNEY COLLINS LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, AND REVEREND J. C. GLENN, CHAPLAIN, INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, GAVE THE INVOCATION. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE.ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 9, 1979, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 9, 1979, AS WRITTEN. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT -TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR EDWIN G. WRIGHT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT FOR THE COUNTY .JAIL, AS FOLLOWS: ACCOUNT TITLE ACCOUNT No. INCREASE DECREASE MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT 03-3322-338.00 $200,00 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES 03-9990-701.00 $200.00 am 40 PACE 289 MAY 2 3 ,1979 171 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR JUDITH A. WAKEFIELD, COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR, AS FOLLOWS: JUNE 2 COCOA DISTRICT XII JUNIOR 4-H EVENTS. IRC 4 -HERS WILL BE COMPETING IN SPEECH AND DEMONSTRATION CONTESTS. JUNE 5 WEST PALM BEACH COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTORS' MEETING WITH DISTRICT AGENT, JUNE 11-14 4-H CAMP MCQUARRIE 4-H CAMP COUNSELOR TRAINING. 4-H COUNCIL WILL PAY FOR HALF OF GAS AND EXPENSES FOR IRC COUNSELORS. THE CAMP PLANNING MEETING SHE HAD PERMISSION TO ATTEND ON JUNE 15 IN MARTIN COUNTY WAS CHANGED TO THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 16. THE FOLLOWING REPORTS WERE RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK: AUDIT REPORT - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1978 RECEIPT FOR DEPOSIT OF COUNTY FUNDS, FROM.SHERIFF JOYCE, No. 1309 - $1,274.60. REPORT OF TRAFFIC VIOLATION BUREAU - SPECIAL TRUST FUND, APRIL, 1979. PETE MUSICK, AGENT, APPROACHED THE BOARD REGARDING A REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF REECE SUBDIVISION, OWNED BY BILL REECE. MR. MUSICK STATED THAT THIS SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED TENTATIVELY IN APRIL, 1978-. . ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS AFFIRMED THAT EVERYTHING CONCERNING THIS SUBDIVISION WAS IN ORDER. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL OF REECE SUBDIVISION. DANA HOWARD, OF CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC., APPROACHED THE BOARD REGARDING A REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF HOBART LANDING, UNIT 3, OWNED BY HOBART BROTHERS, INC. WENDY LANCASTER, OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DISPLAYED AN AERIAL MAP AND EXPLAINED THAT THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 3 ACRES, DIVIDED INTO 5 LOTS -OF 1/3 ACRE EACH; LOCATED ON THE INDIAN RIVER EAST OF 78TH STREET;.AND THE WATER WILL BE SUPPLIED BY THE HOBART WATER MAY- 2 3,1979 MOK 40 PAGE 29® I SYSTEM. SHE CONTINUED THAT THE ROAD WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE AN EXTENSION OF 78TH STREET; ALSO THE ROAD WILL BE PAVED TO A WIDTH OF 12 FEET. MISS LANCASTER STATED THAT THE OWNER HAS COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIRE- MENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDS TENTATIVE APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER'SIEBERT ASKED IF CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN GIVEN TO REZONING AND MISS LANCASTER REPLIED NEGATIVELY. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT VARIOUS ZONINGS SHOWN ON THE MAP; AND M-1 ZONING, IN PARTICULAR, DID NOT LOOK APPROPRIATE TO THAT AREA. MR. HOWARD ASKED IF THERE WAS SOME REASON WHY IT SHOULD BE REZONED AND THE ATTORNEY REPLIED THAT -SOMEONE COULD BUY A LOT AND BUILD A MULTI -FAMILY UNIT THERE. COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED THAT THE R-1 ZONING EXTENDS FROM LOTS 1 THROUGH 37 AND DOES NOT TAKE IN THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION. MR. HOWARD COMMENTED THAT HE DID NOT SUPPOSE THERE WOULD BE ANY OBJECTION TO REZONING THE PROPERTYIBUT HE WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH HIS CLIENT, HE FURTHER STATED THAT TRACT C, LOCATED AT THE EAST END OF THE SUBDIVISION, WOULD NOT BE A PART OF THE PLAT, AS IT IS ONE OF THE FEW ACCESSES TO THE INTERCOASTAL. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT MR. HOWARD COULD GET TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO REZONING AND SAID HIS ADVICE WOULD BE NOT TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT UNTIL THE REZONING IS ACCOMPLISHED. HE CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND RELIANCE ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS THE PROPERTY OWNERS COULD AMEND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AT A LATER DATE. FURTHER DISCUSSION ENSUED, AND CHAIRMAN VJODTKE SUGGESTED THAT MR. HOWARD GET TOGETHER WITH HIS CLIENT TO DISCUSS THE MATTER OF CON- FORMING TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONING AND GET BACK WITH THE BOARD LATER IN THE DAY. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING THE EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH AND THE PAVEMENT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO TABLE THIS ITEM PENDING FURTHER ADVICE FROM THE -OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. k MAY 2 31979 m DANA HOWARD, OF CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC., NEXT APPROACHED THE BOARD REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF KINGSWAY SUB- DIVISION, OWNED BY ARTHUR WILSON, WHO WAS THEN INTRODUCED TO THE BOARD. WENDY LANCASTER, OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, STATED THAT THE PROPERTY CONTAINS 20 ACRES AND IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KINGS HIGHWAY AND 37TH STREET. SHE CONTINUED THAT THE ROADS WILL BE PRIVATE AND THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL 15' RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG KINGS HIGHWAY. MISS LANCASTER STATED THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAN MEETS ALL THE REQUIRE- MENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDS TENTATIVE APPROVAL. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THE LOTS FACING KINGS HIGHWAY, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE WILL BE NO DRIVE- WAYS ON KINGS HIGHWAY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF KINGSWAY SUB- DIVISION. ATTORNEY COLLINS MENTIONED THAT A CIRCULAR HE HAD READ RECENTLY STATED THAT 4 SEPTIC TANKS PER ACRE WILL BE ALLOWED, INSTEAD OF 2 SEPTIC TANKS. COMMISSIONER LOY ANNOUNCED THAT ITEM 9 ON THE AGENDA CONCERNING THE PRESENTATION OF A RESOLUTION TO THE GARDEN CLUB OF INDIAN RTVER COUNTY WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE JUNE 6TH MEETING, AT THE REQUEST OF • THE GARDEN CLUB. ZONING DIRECTOR DEWEY WALKER APPROACHED THE BOARD FOR A RELEASE OF EASEMENTS IN GRANADA GARDENS, AS REQUESTED BY MR.jAND MRS. THOMAS E. HARE. HE CONTINUED THAT HE HAS MADE A STUDY OF THE AREA AND NOTED THAT BLOCK A AND B HAVE OVERHEAD POWER LINES BUT DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE REAR LOT OR SIDE EASEMENTS. MR. WALKER STATED THAT THE DRAINAGE FLOWS TO U. S. #1. HE CONTINUED THAT IF THE RELEASE OF EASEMENTS IS ALLOWED, THE OWNER PLANS TO BUILD ANOTHER STRUCTURE, THEREBY CLEANING UP THE AREA THAT IS PRESENTLY CLUTTERED. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED HOW THE DRAINAGE THAT FLOWS TO U. S. #1 IS GOING TO GET THERE. v MAY 213 1979 4 mox 40 ew' 1 MR. WALKER REPLIED THAT THE SWALE DITCH HAS NO INDENTATION, AND HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE TELEPHONE COMPANY IS BURIED CABLES, AS THIS COULD PRESENT A PROBLEM, LOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER LYONS TO TABLE -THIS ITEM IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE ARE BURIED TELEPHONE CABLES ON THE EASEMENTS, DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING WHAT PROCEDURE THE BOARD MIGHT FOLLOW, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT WITHDREW HIS MOTION AND COMMISSIONER LYONS WITHDREW HIS SECOND, COMMISSIONER LYONS SUGGESTED A FORM LETTER BE SENT TO THE POWER COMPANY AND THE TELEPHONE COMPANY INQUIRING ABOUT THE EASEMENTS. COMMISSIONER LOY FELT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA AND ALSO TO HAVE A CHECK LIST SHOWING APPROVALS FOR PROPOSED RELEASE OF THE EASEMENTS. MR, WALKER STATED THAT IF THE BOARD DIRECTS THE ZONING DEPART- MENT TO TAKE CARE OF THIS, HE WILL HAVE HIS SECRETARY SEND OUT THE FORM LETTERS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL OWNER SHOULD CONTACT THE TELEPHONE COMPANY OR THE POWER COMPANY BUT IT WAS DECIDED THAT A REQUEST FROM THE COUNTY MIGHT RECEIVE A QUICKER RESPONSE. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THERE OUGHT TO BE A REASONABLE.FEE CHARGED ON ALL REQUESTS OF THIS TYPE. COMMISSIONER LYONS VOLUNTEERED TO LOOK INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF A CHECK LIST AND A REASONABLE FEE FOR THIS TYPE OF REQUEST TO EITHER THE POWER OR TELEPHONE COMPANY. M ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE ABOVE- MENTIONED ASPECTS HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED. ° ZONING DIRECTOR WALKER AFFIRMED THAT HIS DEPARTMENT WILL MAKE A STUDY OF THE TELEPHONE COMPANY EASEMENT AND REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD LATER IN THE DAY. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NEXT OPENED THE DISCUSSION FOR THE RELEASE OF EXCESS FUNDS FROM TAX DEED SALES. 5 MAY 2 l9?9 6QQK 40 PAGE 29 3 0 ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THE PROCEDURE USED IN TAX DEED SALES AND ADVISED THAT THE CLERK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING AND HOLDING THE FUNDS IN THE GENERAL FUND OF THE COUNTY FOR A TWO YEAR WAITING PERIOD. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE PRIOR OWNER DOES HAVE A RIGHT TO OBTAIN THE EXCESS.FUNDS, BUT THE FUNDS REVERT TO THE COUNTY IF THE PRIOR OWNER DOES NOT CLAIM THEM, ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT BOTH ITEMS ON THE AGENDA REGARDING TAX DEED SALE RELEASE OF EXCESS FUNDS FALL WITHIN THE TWO YEAR TIME FRAME, AND HE SUGGESTED THE COUNTY RET.URN..THE MONEY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO. RELEASE EXCESS FUNDS FROM THE TAX DEED SALE AS REQUESTED BY MAJOR ROSS I. SANDERS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO RELEASE EXCESS FUNDS FROM THE TAX DEED SALE AS REQUESTED BY LOTTE WEINSOFF. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR S. LEE NUZIE TO ATTEND THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HURRICANES AND COASTAL STORMS IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA ON MAY 29-31, 1979. CHAIRMAN WODTKE THEN,BROUGHT UP THE SUBJECT OF SELECTING A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS STATED IN SECTION 163.3207 OF THE FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT, ATTORNEY COLLINS BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THE STATUTE�WHICH STATES THAT EACH UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE SPECIAL DISTRICTS, SUCH AS HOSPITAL, DRAINAGE, ETC. COMMISSIONER Loy QUESTIONED WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD DIRECT A LETTER TO THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS REGARDING THIS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THE LETTER SHOULD BE DRAFTED BY THE ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD BE SOMEBODY WITH THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TO -DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT ARISE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE REQUESTED THAT THE ATTORNEY PROCEED WITH THE LETTER AS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY. DI MA 2 1979 BOOK . 40 PACE 294 I MR. .JENNINGS MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE VARIOUS OTHER TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES THAT MIGHT CAUSE CONFUSION AND WONDERED HOW THIS NEW COMMITTEE COULD BE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT HOW THIS COMMITTEE COULD BE IDENTI- FIED. COMMISSIONER SI5BERT SUGGESTED CALLING IT THE "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE," AND COMMISSIONER LYONS SUGGESTED CALLING IT "CHAPTER 163 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE." NO DECISION WAS REACHED. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED HOW CLOSE THE COUNTY IS IN HIRING A PLANNER. ADMINISTRATOR KENNINGS THEN -DISTRIBUTED A RESUME OF DAVID M. REVER, AND A MEMORANDUM STATING THAT HE WILL ASSUME HIS DUTIES AS COUNTY PLANNER ON .JUNE 4., 1979. DISCUSSION ENCUSED REGARDING THE NEW PLANNER. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF NEWLY -HIRED PLANNER DAVID M. REVER_AS THE COUNTY'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COMPREHEN- SIVE PLANNING ACT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. EDWARD BROWN, GROUP REPRESENTATIVE OF BLUE CROSS - BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, REVIEWED HIS LETTER IN REGARD TO RENEWAL OF THE COUNTY'S GROUP HOSPITALIZATION POLICY FOR THE COMING YEAR, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: 7 MAY 2 31979 Box 40 ex[295 I 3220 South Federal Highway, Suite G 3222 Center Fort Pierce,Florida• 33450 (305) 461-6866 Indian River County : P. 0. Box 1028 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Group 21122 Dear Air. Donlon: I am very pleased to inform you that Blue Cross and Blue Shield will be able to continue your existing group rates for another year beginning 6/15/79. This, by itself, is quite an accomplishment in view of the ever rising in- flationary trends. ' As we discussed, the experience of The Indian River County Employee Croup was good during the recent 12 months, and that factor allows us to retain your current premium level. In addition, we will include two substantial benefit improvements at no additional charge: 1) The upgrading of the present Blue Shield schedule from "h" to "B". This will provide significantly higher allowances for physicians 'charges (a comparison of benefits is attached) and, 2) In accurdance•with PL 95-555, we have adjusted your contract so that it is in full compliance with the law. As you are aware, this new Federal Legislation requires that al -1 maternity claims be covered in the same manner as any other illness. This applies to female employees, regardless of whether a single or family contract is carried, and to both female employees and dependent wives even though conception may have occurred prior to the effective date of coverage. The primary increase in responsibility will fall to the Blne Cross (11ospital) portion of your contract where our liability, instead of a flat $80.00, will be the reEiflar $75.00 per day room allowance plus all hospital miscellaneous charges paid at 100% for up to 31 days. Sincerely, F,Jward W. Brown Gr Twp Reps wont at i ve Ea,'3/vsc Enclosure MAY, 2 31979 Blue Cross of Flu•• _. i . ...f.'• .. . GOOK 40 PACE 296 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Fkxida of Fkvida May 2., 1979 3220 South Federal Highway, Suite G 3222 Center Fort Pierce,Florida• 33450 (305) 461-6866 Indian River County : P. 0. Box 1028 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Group 21122 Dear Air. Donlon: I am very pleased to inform you that Blue Cross and Blue Shield will be able to continue your existing group rates for another year beginning 6/15/79. This, by itself, is quite an accomplishment in view of the ever rising in- flationary trends. ' As we discussed, the experience of The Indian River County Employee Croup was good during the recent 12 months, and that factor allows us to retain your current premium level. In addition, we will include two substantial benefit improvements at no additional charge: 1) The upgrading of the present Blue Shield schedule from "h" to "B". This will provide significantly higher allowances for physicians 'charges (a comparison of benefits is attached) and, 2) In accurdance•with PL 95-555, we have adjusted your contract so that it is in full compliance with the law. As you are aware, this new Federal Legislation requires that al -1 maternity claims be covered in the same manner as any other illness. This applies to female employees, regardless of whether a single or family contract is carried, and to both female employees and dependent wives even though conception may have occurred prior to the effective date of coverage. The primary increase in responsibility will fall to the Blne Cross (11ospital) portion of your contract where our liability, instead of a flat $80.00, will be the reEiflar $75.00 per day room allowance plus all hospital miscellaneous charges paid at 100% for up to 31 days. Sincerely, F,Jward W. Brown Gr Twp Reps wont at i ve Ea,'3/vsc Enclosure MAY, 2 31979 Blue Cross of Flu•• _. i . ...f.'• .. . GOOK 40 PACE 296 I MAY •2 31979 BOOK 40 PACE 297 f ' Blue Cross P.O. Box 1198 J'�• �; r Blue Shicld 532 Riwrside Avenue of Florwa Jacksonville. Florida 32231 ' Claims and Membership Assistance: (904) 354-3331 All Other DLpaflnlents. (904) 791-6111 March 31, 1974 RATING REIVIEW Ga')UP .1A,"7c Indian River`Countyv NUMIRER. 21122 Present Total Rates Effective _ 6/15/78 Benefits 68 PD K -MM ' Monthly Rates Single �—A L.7.8 . __-- Family $ 94_ YP�2r•ience Period_ _3/1/78 _ _ Through 2128/79 Incurred Claims Retention Earned Inco.^.1e ,77P Gain/Loss $_ 24,799 Loss Ratio 79.6 % e,w Total Rates for the Period 6/15/7 Through 6/14j80 Monthly Rates Single S 31.18 Family $ 79.94 Part of our continuing efforts to ght against inflation, Blue Cross. reduce the cost of health care, and to support the of Florida, Inc., e ccrlplying with the President's 'in and'Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., request to limit wage and increases rrcntly cumpliance with the standards ability. price and are. set forth by the Council on Wage and Price would urge all employers to join .e of inflation. us in making all possible efforts to help slow the MAY •2 31979 BOOK 40 PACE 297 • 0 COMPARISON OF BENEFITS BLUE SHIELD TYPE K SURGERY $333 maximum on surgical procedures. MATERNITY •$ 83 Normal delivery $167 Cesarean IN-HOSPITAL MEDICAL $12 payment on first day $5 per day on subsequent days, up to 31. INTENSIVE MEDICAL CARE $50 maximum covering 36 conditions. ANESTHESIA (IN-PATIENT) $200 maximum per confine- ment. Payment according to a Fee Schedule. ANESTHESIA (CUT-PATIENdr) Payment according to a Fee Schedule. X-RAY (IN-PATIEST) $70 maximum payment accord- ing to a Fee Schedule. X-RAY (OUT-PATIENT) $70 maximum payment accord- ing.to a Fee Schedule within 72 hours of accident. X-RAY (THERAPY) $333 maximum. Payment of $10 per treatment. PATHOLOGY $30 maximum. Payment accord- ing to Fee Schedule. (in- patient,hospital out-patient minor surgery). PHYSICAL THERAPY $5 per day, up to 31 days. (in-patient) ELECTROSHOCK THERAPY $200 maximum per contract year MAXIMUM (COMBINATION OF CARE) $800 per confinement. WAITING PERIODS: PRE-EXISTING None MATERNITY None MAY 2 31979 TYPE B $750 maximum on surgical procedures. $100 Normal delivery $250 Cesarean $18 payment on first day $6 per day on subsequent days, up to 31. $75 maximum covering 36 conditions. $300 maximum per confine- ment. Payment according to a Fee Schedule. Payment according to a Fee Schedule. $105 maximum payment accord- ing to a Fee Schedule. $105 maximum payment accord- ing to a Fee Schedule -within 72 hours of accident. $500 maximum. Payment of $10 per treatment. $25 maximum. Payment accord- ing to Fee Schedule. (in- patient,hospital out-patient minor surgery). $6 per day, 31 days per con- finement. (in-patient) $30 treatment, $300 contract year. $1,800 per confinement. None None Boa 40 PAGE 298 MR. BROWN EXPLAINED THAT ONCE A YEAR THEY STUDY THE EXPERIENCE OF THE COUNTY'S ACCOUNTS VERSUS THE PREMIUM PAID IN. IF THERE IS A LOSS, THE COMPANY HAS TO ABSORB IT — IF THERE IS A CREDIT, THE EXCESS IS RETURNED TO THE COUNTY IN THE FORM OF REDUCED PREMIUMS AND/OR EXTRA BENEFITS. MR. BROWN THEN WENT ON TO DISCUSS MATERNITY BENEFITS'WHICH ARE NOW MANDATED BY LAW FOR ALL EMPLOYEES, MARRIED OR SINGLE, AND UP— GRADING OF THE PRESENT BLUE SHIELD SCHEDULE FROM "K" TO "B," WHICH PROVIDES HIGHER ALLOWANCES FOR PHYSICIAN'S CHARGES. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST WOULD BE IF THE COUNTY SHOULD CHOOSE TO STAY WITH THE "Kra SCHEDULE. MR. BROWN STATED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THOSE FIGURES WITH HIM. HE NOTED THEY ARE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE FIRMS TO MOVE TO THE HIGHER PLAN BECAUSE DOCTOR S CHARGES ARE GETTING HIGHER AND HIGHER. "K" NOW PAYS ABOUT 35% OF A TYPICAL DOCTOR'S CHARGE; "B" WOULD PAY 55-60%. CHAIRMAN WODTKE QUESTIONED THE BENEFITS PAID UNDER THE "B" SCHEDULE FOR PATHOLOGY, WHICH ARE LESS THAN IN THE PRESENT SCHEDULE. MR. BROWN STATED -THAT HE COULD ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THIS BECAUSE THE "K" SCHEDULE WAS DEVELOPED IN THE 1950`S, AND SINCE THEN PROCEDURES, SUCH AS CORNEA TRANSPLANTS AND HEART SURGERY, WHICH WERE RARITIES, HAVE BECOME ALMOST COMMONPLACE. HE NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS ONLY A $5.00 DIFFERENTIAL, YOU WILL HAVE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND MORE EQUITABLE AREA OF ALLOWANCE FOR PROCEDURES, CHAIRMAN WODTKE DISCUSSED RECEIVING THE EXCESS PREMIUM PAID IN LAST YEAR AS A REFUND RATHER THAN EXTRA BENEFITS. MR. BROWN STATED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR A REFUND. EXCESS EARNINGS MUST BE RETURNED TO THE COUNTY EITHER BY RATE REDUCTION OR BENEFIT IMPROVEMENT. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT A RATE REDUCTION. COMMISSIONER LYONS EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO BID BEFORE RENEWING THIS POLICY. DISCUSSION.FOLLOWED, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT WE DID GO TO BID ON THIS INSURANCE TWO YEARS AGO, IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT IT IS EXTREMELY 11 BOOK 40 PAGE 299 MAY, 2 31979 DIFFICULT TO COMPARE BENEFITS AND WHEN WE DO GO TO BID AGAIN, WE SHOULD HAVE A BID CONSULTANT MAKE THE COMPARISONS. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED ABOUT MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES, AND MR. BROWN STATED THAT THEY CONSIST OF EVERYTHING IN ADDITION TO THE ROOM CHARGES, I.E., DRUGS, CASTS, DRESSINGS, RECOVERY ROOM. A DAY IN THE HOSPITAL CURRENTLY COSTS ABOUT $250; THE ROOM NOW RUNS ABOUT $105 A DAY; AND THE EXTRAS RUN ABOUT $145. HE NOTED THAT THE COUNTY'S PROGRAM IS SET UP SO THAT 100% OF THE MISCELLANEOUS IS PAID FOR 31 DAYS, WHICH AUTOMATICALLY ALLOWS FOR INFLATION BY FILLING THE GAP AS THE EXTRAS GET MORE EXPENSIVE. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT HE CONSIDERS THE BENEFIT PACKAGE AS PART OF THE PAY STRUCTURE, AND WOULD, THEREFORE, LIKE TO KNOW HOW COMPETITIVE WE ARE WITH OTHER COUNTIES BEFORE HE VOTES TO INCREASE THE BENEFITS. HE DID NOT WISH TO MAKE A DECISION ON RENEWAL BEFORE RECEIVING INFORMATION ON THE RATE DIFFERENTIAL IN THE DIFFERENT SCHEDULES. MR. BROWN NOTED THAT A PROBLEM ARISES IN THAT THE RENEWAL DATE IS .JUNE 15TH, BUT IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING.IS JUNE 6TH. MR. BROWN STATED THAT HE COULD PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING THE PLANS USED BY MARTIN AND ST. LUCIE COUNTY, AND THE CITY OF STUART, WHICH THE BOARD FELT WOULD BE SATISFACTORY. THE BOARD WISHED TO HAVE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BY .JUNE 1ST. WILLIAM KOOLAGE, 815 26TH AVENUE, SUGGESTED THAT THE FINANCE OFFICER LOOK AT THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE POLICY FIGURES, AND MR, BARTON BROUGHT UP THE MATTER OF CHANGING THE ANNIVERSARY DATE OF THE POLICY TO COINCIDE WITH THE FISCAL YEAR, MR, BROWN FELT THERE WOULD BE NO DIFFICULTY ADJUSTING THE ANNIVERSARY DATE AND NOTED IT WOULD GIVE THE BOARD MORE TIME TO STUDY THE FIGURES. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THIS WOULD ALSO PROVIDE MORE MONTHS OF EXPERIENCE TO LOOK AT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO GET THE PROPOSAL FOR OCTOBER IN TIME TO INCORPORATE IT IN THE BUDGET. 12 MAY 2,3 1979 BOOK 40 PACE 300 �— L`— MR. BROWN FELT HE COULD RETURN TO THE BOARD WITH THIS INFORMA- TION IN AUGUST, ASSUMING THAT HE COULD GET APPROVAL FOR RENEWAL OF -THE PRESENT RATE STRUCTURE AND CHANGING THE ANNIVERSATY DATE TO OCTOBER. DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON THE NECESSITY OF RECEIVING THIS INFORMA- TION BY THE MIDDLE OF .JULY. MR. BROWN EXPLAINED ABOUT THE ADVANCE CUT- OFF DATE AND DIFFICULTY OF GETTING THIS MATERIAL. HE FELT IT HAMPERS BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE COMPANY TO ASK THE COMPANY TO PROJECT INTO THE FUTURE BASED ON LESS EXPERIENCE AND THAT IT WOULD HAVE LESS CREDIBILITY. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT THEY CUT-OFF THREE MONTHS IN ADVANCE FOR THE CURRENT PROJECTION AND IF WE GET A PROPOSAL BY JULY 18TH, IT WILL GIVE BASICALLY TWO MORE MONTHS` EXPERIENCE. MR. BROWN STATED THAT HE WILL TRY TO DO WHATEVER THE BOARD WISHES, AND IF THIS MATERIAL IS GOING TO BE PROVIDED FOR JULY, THEY WILL PROBABLY CUT OFF THE CLAIM STUDY AT THE END OF MAY TO REVIEW IT IN JUNE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT THE BOARD WILL SEE MR. BROWN ON THE 6TH OF JUNE WITH THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, BUT COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THIS ALL COULD BE REVIEWED AT THE .JULY 18TH MEETING ALONG WITH THE NEW PROPOSAL. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE -BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO EXTEND THE PRESENT CONTRACT WITH BLUE CROSS - BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA TO THE FIRST*OF OCTOBER AT THE CURRENT RATES, PROVIDED THE REQUEST IS ACCEPTED BY BLUE CROSS - BLUE SHIELD. DANA HOWARD, ENGINEER, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD ACCOMPANIED BY FRED BRIGGS OF HOBART BROTHERS, IN REGARD TO TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF HOBART LANDING, UNIT 3 WHICH WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THE MEETING. MR. BRIGGS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT ALTHOUGH THIS IS ZONED R-3, THEY DO NOT INTEND TO ALLOW ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY. HE STATED THAT, IF THE BOARD WISHED; HE WOULD SEND THEM A LETTER GRANTING PERMISSION TO REZONE THE FIVE LOTS TO R-1. HE NOTED THAT THERE ARE ALREADY DEPOSITS ON THESE LOTS. OR HOMES UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND THERE WOULD BE NO OBJECTION TO SUCH A REZONING. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT INQUIRED ABOUT TRACT A, AND MR. BRIGGS EXPLAINED THAT THEY HAVE PUT IN A RAMP, -A SMALL DOCK AND A PICNIC AREA THERE, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY DEDICATED TO THE NON -WATERFRONT PROPERTY MAY 213 1979 13 am 0 PAGE ®1 I OWNERS, IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR RESIDENCES. MR. BRIGGS HAD NO OBJECTION TO TRACT A BEING REZONED, BUT REQUESTED THAT TRACT C, WHICH IS THE ONLY GATEWAY TO THE DEEP WATER CHANNEL FOR THEIR PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, BE LEFT AS IT IS. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT,' SINCE THE BOARD DESIRES THIS RE- ZONING, IT SHOULD BE ADVERTISED AND DONE AT THE COUNTY'S EXPENSE, THE BOARD AGREED. IT WAS NOTED THERE IS AN M-1 AREA IN THIS VICINITY, BUT MR. BRIGGS STATED THAT IT IS NOT OWNED BY,HOBART BROTHERS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO GRANTING TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONED UPON THE SUGGESTED REZONING. MR. BRIGGS REQUESTED THAT LOT 38, WHICH IS STRICTLY USED FOR A BOAT HOUSE FOR COMPANY EXECUTIVES, BE LEFT OUT OF A REZONING. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER $IEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF HOBART LANDING UNIT 3, SUBJECT TO REZONING, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, LOTS 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 AND,44, HOBART LANDING UNIT 2; LOTS 45, 46, 47, 48 AND 49, TRACT B, HOBART LANDING UNIT 3, PLUS TRACT A AND TRACT D., TO R-1 SINGLE FAMILY, THE REZONING TO BE INITIATED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND ALL EXPENSES TO BE PAID BY THE COUNTY. ATTORNEY ROBERT JACKSON APPEARED REPRESENTING RALMAR ASSOCIATES, INC., IN REGARD TO CONSTRUCTION OF AN 103 BED NURSING HOME FOR FLORIDA LIVING CARE, INC. HE REVIEWED THE HISTORY OF RALMAR RECEIVING THEIR 101000 GPD ALLOCATION FOR THE MEDICAL ARTS CENTER COMPLEX ON THE EAST HALF OF THEIR 20 ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE NEW INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, AND SPECULATED THAT THE COUNTY ONLY ALLOTTED 10,000 GPD BECAUSE THE PLANS WERE FOR .ONLY PARTIALLY DEVELOPING THE 20 ACRES AND THAT WHEN THERE WAS A FURTHER NEED, ANOTHER REQUEST COULD BE MADE, ATTORNEY JACKSON DISCUSSED THE DIRE NEED*TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF "ACUTE" BEDS AND INTO NURSING HOMES, HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY HAVE'A UTILIZATION COMMITTEE TRYING TO WORK THIS OUT, BUT THERE IS NO PLACE T0. PUT THESE PEOPLE. HE POINTED OUT THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING THE PROPOSED FACILITY CLOSE TO THE HOSPITAL AND STATED IT WOULD NEED A MAXIMUM OF 5,000 GPD. 14 MAY 12 31979 BOOK 40 PAGE 302 1 COMMISSIONER SIEBERT INFORMED MR, .JACKSON THAT THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE ANOTHER DROP OF WATER TO ALLOCATE UNLESS WE CAN GET BACK FROM THE HOSPITAL SOME OF THEIR ALLOCATION THAT,THEY ARE NOT USING, HE CONTINUED THAT THE HOSPITAL'S ALLOCATION WAS BASED ON THEIR BUILDING THE ENTIRE NINE STORIES, AND HE FELT THEY MUST SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THAT THEY HAVE GOTTEN FAR MORE WATER ALLOCATED TO THEM THAN THEY WILL EVER USE AND THAT WE ARE TYING UP ABOUT 300,000 GPD FOR SOMETHING THAT WON'T BE NEEDED FOR A VERY LONG TIME. CHAIRMAN WODTKE CONFIRMED THAT OUR ALLOCATION OF WATER IS USED UP UNLESS WE CAN GET SOMETHING BACK FROM THE HOSPITAL OR THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE. HE NOTED THIS WOULD NECESSITATE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, THE COUNTY AND THE HOSPITAL. ATTORNEY .JACKSON AGREED THAT THE ALLOCATION THE COUNTY GAVE WAS WHAT THE'HOSPITAL ENGINEERS THOUGHT WOULD BE NEEDED. HE NOTED THAT AS A MEMBER OF THE HOSPITAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, HE HAD A CONFLICT, AND REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD WRITE DALE SORENSEN, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOSPITAL BOARD, SO THAT THIS MATTER.000LD BE BROUGHT UP AT A HOSPITAL BOARD MEETING. HE COMMENTED THAT THE ENTIRE N-I•NE STORIES OF THE HOSPITAL IS PROJECTED FOR SOMETHING AROUND 2100, AND HE FELT THERE ARE PRIORITY NEEDS. ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED THAT IT IS THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT THE HOSPITAL BOARD ABOUT THIS MATTER. CHAIRMAN WODTKE FELT THE COUNTY CAN WRITE THE HOSPITAL BOARD BASED ON THIS PRESENTATION, SINCE WE ARE AWARE THEY ARE NOT UTILIZING THEIR ALLOCATION AT THIS TIME AND THE ONLY WAY FOR US TO MAKE ANOTHER ALLOCATION IS IF THEY WOULD CONSIDER RETURNING PART OF THEIR ALLOCATION. COMMISSIONER Loy COMMENTED THAT SINCE THE HOSPITAL NOW HAS A TRACK RECORD OF THEIR USAGE, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IF THEY WOULD CONSIDER.RETURNING SOME OF THEIR ALLOCATION BECAUSE WE HAVE MANY NEEDS, DISCUSSION THEN TURNED TO ZONING FOR NURSING HOMES, AND ATTORNEY B. T. COOKSEY, WHO REPRESENTS FLORIDA LIVING CARE, STATED THAT HE INTENDS TO MEET WITH THE NEW PLANNER REGARDING THIS MATTER. COMMISSIONER LYONS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF AN EPISCOPALIAN NON-PROFIT VOLUNTEER GROUP WHO HAD TRIED TO GET A MAY 2 31979 15 CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR A 60 -BED EPISCOPAL NURSING HOME BUT WERE NOT ABLE TO WORK IT OUT. HE CONTINUED THAT HE HAD MADE A STUDY AT THAT TIME, AND IT WOULD BE HIS SUGGESTION THAT A NURSING HOME WOULD FIT WITHIN THE PRESENT ZONING IF THAT ONE USE WERE ADDED TO THE ZONING. HE DID NOT BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE AN INCONSISTENT USE)AND IF IT WERE FELT THIS WOULD LATER CREATE A PROBLEM WITHIN OTHER DISTRICTS, HE BELIEVED WE WOULD HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO COPE WITH IT. HE NOTED THIS WOULD BE THE (QUICKEST WAY TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A NURSING HOME AT,THE PROPOSED LOCATION. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF HE MEANT TO ADD NURSING HOMES AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER THE PRESENT ZONING, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE DID. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT CONCURRED WITH HIS SUGGESTION. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE A HEARING FOR AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE NURSING HOMES AS A. SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER C -IA ZONING. THE HOUR OF 11:00 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: Ia 1W. 2 1�T� 40 PAGE r THE HOUR OF 1.1:90 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVINd PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being In the matter of I / / 1 !6 In the fished in said newspaper in the Issues of 4Aa,2 Z %cZ Court, was pub - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press.Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second'class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of •the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day ofY20-0-11A D - l t usiness Manager) C. (Clerk of the Circuit Court, In i n River County, Florida) prope'"~}i 'y" nesof property descr ped hn Deed RiivBk 43, ae 481, PuRecords of Indian ver County, Florida, atdistance of 352.6 feet to an iron pipe and point of beginning; From Point of beginning continue North 48 degrees 37' 00" West a distance of 197.85 feet; Thence run North 41 degrees 23' 00" East along the North fine of property as described in Parcel No. f and recorded in O.R. Book 453, page 882, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, a distance of 182.76 feet to a concrete monument, said concrete monument lying South 41 degrees 23' 00" West a distance20.17 of River fTrees eel o Subdivision m the h sterlserecorded' n Pfat Book 9,- page 24, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; From said concrete monument run South 45 begrees 27' 00" East a mi nstance of 197.84 et to a concrete ument; Thence run eSouth 41 degrees 2 3 ' 00" West a distance of 171.83 feet to the point of beginning. WATER RATE: Sb" meter (min.) Ist3,000 ed I" meter (min.) ist4,000 $ 7.84 gal. -water used 12 12 144" meter (min.) 1st 8,000 11/2"e meter (min) list 12,000 16.40 al. -Water ue 211 meter (mins) 1st 16,000 31.36 gal. -water used 39.20 All usage in excess of the aforementioned will be charged on a basis of $1,50 per 1,000 gallons. SEWER RATE: 1.5 times 111e water charge. Parties in interest and cifirens will be heard by the Board at said Public Hearing, Dated M6 2 ith day of Apnh 1979. Board of C+,unty Commissioners Iridian pivcr Cuo,ily, Florida By: -s -J. r. Jennings April 27, 29, I919. MAY 2 3.1979 .NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Board of County commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will, on the 23rd day of May, 1979, at 11:00 A.M. in the Board of Cqunty Com�rtissioners Ro m at the IInddian Raver County court House, Sero Beach, Ind;an River County, Florida, consider granting an exclusive franchise to: CHARLES H. VON STEIN LEE T. VON STEIN and SAM MUFSON, TRUSTEE c -o CHARLES A. VON STEIN, INC. 4815 N. Federal Highway Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 to erect, construct, operate and maintain a sewer system, and a water system within all that part of Indian River County, Florida, located within the following -described boun- dary lines, to -wit: From a P.R.M. marker on the Northeast corner of Tract "A" of Van Bergen and Hen- dry's Addition to Roseland, Unit No. 1, as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 39, Docket No. 58971, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, run South 41 degrees 23' 00" West along the North boundary of said Tract "A", said line also being the South right-of-way of Roseland Road, a distance of 138.60 feet to the intersection of the East right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 1; Thence run Northerly along 1he East right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 1 on an arc of a circular curve to the right, having a radius of 1,1459.20 feet, through a central angle of 00 degrees 20' 22", for a distance of 67.90 feet to the intersection with the North right-of-way of Roseland Road and point of beginning. From said point of beginning, run North 41 degrees rof Roseland Road alonga distan a of 714 right-of- way 0 feet to a point, said point being 25 feet North and 1,030.00 feet West of an iron pipe on the bank of the Indian. River, said last mentioned pipe being 10 feet South of a concrete post or monument at Gibson's wharf; Thence at right angles to the North right-of-way of said Roseland Road, run North 48 degrees 37' 00" West along the East line of property described In Deed Book 43, page 487, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, a distance of 300 feet to an iron pipe; Thence continue North 48 degrees 37'0011 West a distance of 250.45 feet to a Point on the North line of property as described in Parcel No. 1 and recorded in Official Record Book 453, page 882, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; Thence run South 41 degrees 23'0011 West along said North line of property a distance of 63.19 feet; Thence run South 46 degrees 18' 00" West a distance of 322.28 feet to the East right-of- way of U.S. Highway No. 1; Thence run Southerly on the East right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 1 along a curve to the left, having a radius of 11,459.20 feet, through a central angle of 03 degrees 19' 42", an arc distance of 665.67 feet to the point of beginning. "From a 4" x 4" Concrete monument at the intersection of Roseland Road and the west shore of the Indian River, said monument being 10 feet North of a pipe marking the old location of Gibson's Vlharf, run Northerly along the shoreline a distance of 356.38 feet to an iron pipe; Thence continue Northerly along the shoreline a distance of 200 feet to a pipe; Thence run South 41 degrees 23' 00" West a . distance of 968.06 feet to a concrete monument and the point of beginning": From said point of beginning continue South 41 degrees 23' 00" West a distance of 182.76 feet to an iron pipe; Thence run South 48 degrees 37' Go" East a distance of 197.85 feet to an iron pipe; Thence run North 41 degrees 23' 00" East a distance of 171.83 feet to a concrete monument; Thence run North'45 degrees 27' 00" West a distance of 197.84 feet lathe point of beginning. Said parcel also being described as Follows; From a P.R.M. Marker on the Northeast corner of Tract "A" of Van Bergen and Hendry's Ad- dition to Roseland, Unit No. 1, as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 39, Docket No. 58971, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, run South 41 degrees 23' 00" West along the North boupdary of said Tract "A", said line also being the South right-of-way of Roseland Road, a distance of 138.60 feet to the intersection of the East right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 1; Thence run Northerly along the East right-of- way of U.S. Highway No. 1 on an arc o1 a cir- cular curve to the right, having a radius of 11,459.20 feet, through a central angle of 00 degrees 20' 22", for a distance of 67.90 feet to the intersection with the North right-of-way of Roseland Road, thence run North 41 degrees 23' 00" East along the North right-of-way of Roseland Road a distance of 714.20 feet to a point, said point being 25 feet North and 1,030 feet West of an iron pipe on the bank of the Indian River, said last mentioned pipe being 10 feet South of a concrete monument at Gibson's Wharf; Thence at right angles to fre North right-of-way of said Roseland Road run N,,rlh soax 4 0 w I u ATTORNEY WILLIAM CALDWELL APPEARED REPRESENTING•THE APPLICANT WHO IS REQUESTING AN EXCLUSIVE SEWER AND WATER FRANCHISE FOR THE ROSELAND $HOPPING CENTER. HE STATED THEIR BACK-UP INFORMATION IS COMPLETE WITH DER APPROVAL FOR WATER AND SEWER AND THEIR TEMPORARY PERMIT FOR OPERATING A SEWER PLANT HAS BEEN EXTENDED FROM .JUNE 30TH TO FEBRUARY ZS, 1980. HE NOTED THAT ATTORNEY COLLINS HAS SOME SUGGESTED CHANGES IN THE FORMAT OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THIS IS A SINGLE STRUCTURE SHOPPING CENTER DIVIDED UP INTO SEPARATE STORES. HE THEN DISCUSSED THE RECENTLY AMENDED FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND STATED THAT HE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE OLD FRANCHISE FORM BE USED IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE THIS CENTER IS LOCATED NORTH OF SEBASTIAN AND IT IS UNLIKELY THAT IT WOULD BE SERVICED BY A COUNTY -WIDE SEWER AND WATER FACILITY IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE: HE, THEREFORE, FELT THERE IS NO NEED TO ENTER INTO THE SALE AND LEASE -BACK AGREEMENT, AND THAT THE OLD FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WOULD SUFFICE WITH A FEW MINOR CHANGES. CHAIRMAN WODTKE COMMENTED ON THE PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE IN THE ADVERTISEMENT. LEE VON STEIN OF FORT LAUDERDALE EXPLAINED THAT THEY HAVE A SIMILAR SHOPPING CENTER IN MARTIN COUNTY, PORT SALERNO, AND THEY APPLIED THE RATE•SCHEDULE WHICH WAS IN EFFECT THERE. THE ONLY CHANGE MADE WAS IN THE ADDITIONAL USAGE., WHICH IS SET AT $1.50 PER 1,000 GAL. INSTEAD OF $1.00. HE NOTED THIS MAINLY AFFECTS THE SUPERMARKET WHICH IS THE LARGEST USER IN THE CENTER, AND IT WAS FELT THIS WOULD RESULT IN THEIR .PAYING A MORE PROPORTIONATE SHARE. MR. VON STEIN CONTINUED THAT THEY HAVE FOUND FROM THEIR EXPERIENCE AT PORT SALERNO THAT, EXCEPT FOR A BEAUTY SALON OR A SMALL RESTAURANT, EVERYONE FITS WITHIN THE MINIMUM CHARGES. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ENCOMPASSES THE SHOPPING CENTER AREA THAT IS NOW FULLY DEVELOPED, AND ATTORNEY CALDWELL STATED THAT IT ENCOMPASSES EVERYTHING. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. THERE WERE NONE. s - MAY, 2 31979 9a� ® PACE 30116 I ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER DEESON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 79-5I APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE SEWER AND WATER FRANCHISE FOR ROSELAND SHOPPING MALL SUBJECT TO REVISIONS AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AGREED THAT THE OLD FORM FRANCHISE IS THE BETTER VEHICLE IN THIS CASE. THE CHAIRMAN EXPRESSED SOME.CONCERN AS TO GETTING INTO GRAY AREAS, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT EACH FRANCHISE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN MERITS. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED HE WOULD LOOK AT IT QUITE DIFFERENTLY IF THEY CAME IN TO EXPAND THEIR SERVICE AREA, AND COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AGREED. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE RESOLUTION WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN COMPLETED AND RECEIVED. • MAY 2 31979 19 u ATTORNEY COLLINS ANNOUNCED THAT ATTORNEY CALDWELL WILL BE JOINING HIS FIRM AS OF JUNE 1ST, BUT IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE FIRM AS OF THIS DATE. ENGINEER ED SCHMUCKER CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING DEVELOPER .JOE ROSCHACH, REQUESTING FINAL APPROVAL OF WHISTLEWOOD SUB- DIVISION. HE EXPLAINED THAT A PROBLEM HAS ARISEN IN REGARD TO THE ACCESS ROAD INTO THIS SUBDIVISION FROM ROUTE 60. THE STATE IS REQUIRING THAT THE CULVERT UNDER THE EXISTING DRIVE BE MITERED AND A HEADWALL POURED, AND HE HAS CONVINCED MR. ROSCHACH THAT THIS MUST BE DONE. EVERYTHING ELSE IS IN ORDER, ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS CONFIRMED THAT ALL IS IN ORDER EXCEPT FOR COMPLYING WITH THE STATES REQUIREMENTS IN REGARD TO THE ENTRANCE CULVERT, AND HE SUGGESTED THE BOARD CONSIDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THAT REQUIREMENT. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER- DEESON, TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO WHISTLEWOOD SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS STATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS TO KEEP THE OWNERS OF LOT 1 FROM CUTTING IT IN HALF AND SELLING PART OF IT, BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT AN ACRE IN SIZE AND HAS SUFFICIENT ROAD FRONTAGE. MR, SCHMUCKER DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WERE ANY. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF MR. ROSCHACH WOULD HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO A RESTRICTION ON THE PLAT STATING THAT THE LOTS WOULD NOT BE SUB` DIVIDED. MR. SCHMUCKER FELT SURE THAT MR. ROSCHACH DOES NOT HAVE ANY INTENTION OF SUBDIVIDING ANY DIFFERENTLY AND DID NOT BELIEVE HE WOULD HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO SUCH A STATEMENT. HE NOTED THIS WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM TO THE DEVELOPER BUT WOULD JUST BE A RESTRICTION ON THE PERSON WHO BUYS THE LOT - COMMISSIONER LYONS WITHDREW HIS MOTION FOR PURPOSES OF REWORDING, AND COMMISSIONER SIEBERT WITHDREW HIS SECOND.. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL TO WHISTLEWOOD �O MAY.. 2 31979 BOOK 40 PACE 308 I SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTING THE HEADWALLS. AND MITERING THE ENTRANCE CULVERT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND SUBJECT TO A STATEMENT BEING INCLUDED ON THE PLAT SETTING OUT THAT THE LOTS WOULD NOT BE SUBDIVIDED. BEN SIMPSON'OF KUNDE-DRIVER-SIMPSON ASSOCIATES, INC., CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO DISCUSS ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS DUE THEM BECAUSE OF EXTRA WORK REQUIRED BY THE DOT. HE REVIEWED HIS LETTER OF APRIL 17TH, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES OF MAY 9TH, AND COVERED ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE DOT WHICH WERE NOT INCLUDED IN HIS PROPOSAL. MR. SIMPSON STATED THAT ALTHOUGH THEY DID NOT PROPOSE QUANTITY BOOKLETS, THESE WERE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT, SO THEY WILL AGREE TO DELETE $1,713.80 FROM THEIR ADDITIONAL CHARGES. HE THEN EXPLAINED THAT PAVEMENT MARKING AND SIGNING PLANS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THEIR PROPOSAL SINCE THAT IS USUALLY DONE WHEN THE CONTRACT IS COMPLETED, THE DOT WISHED THIS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CONTRACT, AND THE REASON IT TOOK SO MANY HOURS IS BECAUSE THEY HAD TO GO BACK AND REDETAIL EVERY SHEET TO A PARTICULAR CRITERIA AND REDRAW EVERY INTERSECTION. MR, SIMPSON CONTINUED THAT THEY HAD BEEN LED TO BELIEVE THAT ALL THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS ACTUALLY IN HAND, BUT THERE WERE ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DOCUMENTS THAT HAD TO BE DRAFTED TO CLEAR UP PROBLEMS WHERE A ROAD WAS DIVERTED AROUND A POND AT THE ENTRANCE OF 87TH AVENUE, HE WENT ON TO DISCUSS THE NEED TO DEVELOP A TURNING RADIUS ON ALL INTERSECTING STREETS AND EXPLAINED FURTHER THAT IN THE ELEVENTH HOUR OF THE DESIGN, THE DOT REASSIGNED..THE -PROJECTS TO ANOTHER REVIEWING ENGINEER, WHO DECIDED THEY HAD TO CHANGE SOME THINGS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED, WHICH NECESSITATED A LOT OF DESIGN CHANGES. MR. SIMPSON FURTHER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY HAD DESIGNED HOBART ROAD AT A 40 MPH SPEED, BUT THE DOT CHANGED THIS TO 45 MPH, WHICH MEANT THEY HAD TO REDESIGN THE RAILROAD CROSSINGS. HE POINTED OUT THAT SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THEIR PROPOSAL WERE CAUSED BY THE URGENCY TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THE JOB. MR. SIMPSON CONCLUDED THAT HE SINCERELY BELIEVED A LEGITIMATE CHARGE TO THE COUNTY FOR THE ADDITIONAL WORK DONE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THEIR PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT DOCUMENT, AFTER TAKING ALL THE FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION, INCLUDING VARIOUS CREDITS, WOULD-BE A TOTAL OF $6,2.09.28. 2.1 1 Itbl 3 �� 4 BOOK 0 PACE309 r MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF $6,209.28 TO THE FIRM OF KUNDE-DRIVER- SIMPSON & ASSOCIATES, FOR WORK DONE IN ADDITION TO THEIR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT THERE WAS A PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT WHICH DEALT WITH ADDITIONAL WORK. HE ASKED IF THAT PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED AND IF THERE WAS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. MR. SIMPSON STATED THAT THEY DID DISCUSS THE ADDITIONAL WORK WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR)BUT THEY DID NOT WAIT TO GET WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BECAUSE OF THE URGENT TIME FRAME UNDER WHICH THEY WERE WORKING. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WOULD VOTE FOR THE MOTION BECAUSE OF THE URGENCY OF THE TIME FRAME, BUT THAT HE WOULD NOT OTHERWISE. COMMISSIONER Loy COMMENTED THAT ON THESE PROJECTS THERE WAS ALMOST DAILY CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE ENGINEERS AND THE ADMINISTRATOR BECAUSE OF THE SEVERE TIME CONSTRAINT TO GET THESE IN ON THE OFF SYSTEMS ROAD PROGRAM. ' THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE WORK DONE WAS NOT DONE UNDER THE USUAL PROCEDURES FOLLOWED BY THE DOT, AND THIS WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE USE OF FEDERAL MONIES. ' CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THE COUNTY WERE TO BE IN A POSITION TO BUILD LUNDBERG & HOBART ROADS NOT USING FEDERAL DOLLARS, WHETHER THE ROADS WOULD HAVE TO BE BUILT TO THESE SPECIFICATIONS OR IF THEY COULD BE DONE AT LESS COST. MR. SIMPSON STATED THAT THE PLANS COULD BE MODIFIED, AND THE ROADS COULD BE BUILT FOR LESS. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF WE WOULD NEED ALL NEW DESIGNS AND SPECI- FICATIONS, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT MONEY YOU DO IT WITH. HE NOTED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GIVES IT A "LINCOLN CONTINENTAL" JOB; THE COUNTY BUILDS SERVICEABLE•ROADS, BUT NOT 22 MAY, 2 3 i9 800K O PAGE cU+ AS LUXURIOUS, HE FELT IF FEDERAL MONEY BECOMES AVAILABLE, THERE IS NO REASON TO REDUCE THE QUALITY OF THE ROAD, COMMISSIONER Loy COMMENTED THAT IF WE HAD TO WE COULD BID THE JOB OUT AND HAVE IT QUALIFY UNDER OUR TRUST FUND. ENGINEER SIMPSON AGREED THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW RESTRAINTS ON THE 5TH AND 6TH CENT FUNDS, BUT YOU DO HAVE TO CONTRACT. MR. SIMPSON THEN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE BELIEVED WE SHOULD BE GETTING THE PERMITS BACK BY THE END OF THIS WEEK FOR BARBER AVENUE. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ARE READY FOR FINALIZATION AND HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE IN THAT SET OF PLANS. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT INQUIRED ABOUT INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD. ADMINISTRATOR KENNINGS DISPLAYED DRAWINGS THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON. COMMISSIONER LYONS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE AND THE ADMINIS- TRATOR HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DER TO TRY AND EXPEDITE THIS MATTER, HE STATED THAT THE DER GAVE THEM A MAP OF WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE END OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, BUT THE DER WAS CONCERNED ABOUT ILLEGAL FILLING OF PART OF THE IMPOUNDMENT AND WANTED THE COUNTY TO TAKE THIS FILL OUT AND USE IT FOR INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD. THIS FILL, HOWEVER, IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND THE COUNTY CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. HE THEN DISCUSSED THE ADMINISTRATORS PROPOSED COURSE FOR INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD AND FELT IF IT LOOKS GOOD ENOUGH TO THE BOARD, IT COULD t BE CARRIED ON TO TALLAHASSEE TO TRY TO GET THIS SETTLED. COMMISSIONER LYONS POINTED OUT THAT WHEN WE DO GET THIS SETTLED, WE ALSO WILL HAVE THE END OF BARBER AVENUE SETTLED. ADMINISTRATOR KENNINGS EXPLAINED HIS DRAWING AND HOW IT IS CURVED AS FAR WEST AS POSSIBLE, HE DISCUSSED THE PROBLEM OF THE FILL THAT WAS PUT IN WITHOUT A DER PERMIT, WHICH HE DID NOT FEEL WAS THE COUNTY'S PROBLEM. HE CONTINUED TO DISCUSS ALIGNMENT OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, NOTING THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR FOUR LANE TRAFFIC, AND STATED THAT HE WOULD BE GLAD AT THIS POINT TO GET EVEN A TWO-LANE ROAD. HE POINTED OUT THAT WE CANT PROCEED WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY UNTIL WE KNOW FOR SURE WHERE THE ROAD IS GOING AND HOPED TO GET APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ROUTE. 23 MAY 2 31979 Boa 40 PAGEM DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO BARBER AVENUE AND INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD COMPLEMENTING EACH OTHER, AND THE NECESSITY FOR THEM TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE OF THEIR INTERRELATED DRAINAGE. COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE AND THE ADMINISTRATOR WILL GO TO TALLAHASSEE TO REVIEW THIS WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT 12:10 01CLOCK P.M. FOR LUNCH AND RECONVENED AT 1:3O O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT. CONSULTING ENGINEER JAMES BEINDORF INTRODUCED CHARLES SWALLOWS OF SVERDRUP & PARCEL & ASSOCIATES, INC., TO OUTLINE THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED AT THE 201 PLAN PUBLIC HEARING. MR. SWALLOWS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY HAVE THE PROCEDURE WELL WORKED OUT AND USUALLY RUN THE HEARING FOR THE LEAD APPLICANT. SINCE THIS IS A LOT BIGGER PLAN THAN THEY ARE USUALLY INVOLVED IN AND MORE CONTROVERSIAL, HE FELT THE COMMISSIONERS SHOULD BE AS INVOLVED AS POSSIBLE. MR. SWALLOWS ALSO STATED THAT HE HAS PREPARED AN INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT FOR THE HEARING QFFICIAL. CHAIRMAN VIODTKE STATED THAT THE BOARD IS EMPLOYING A COURT REPORTER FOR THIS HEARING, AND HE FELT, IF THE PROCEDURES AS OUTLINED BY MR. SWALLOWS ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE BOARD, HE COULD ACT AS THE HEARING OFFICIAL, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE WILL HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL WITH HIM. MR. SWALLOWS REVIEWED HIS PROPOSED AGENDA, NOTING THAT THERE WILL BE A PRESENTATION OF THE FACILITIES PLAN AND THEN PREPARED STATE- MENTS AND TESTIMONY WILL COME FORTH; THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD IS OPTIONAL, BUT HE PERSONALLY FELT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED, AND THE BOARD AGREED. HE STATED THAT THEY PREFER TO DEFER ALL QUESTIONS TO THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD AND SET A TIME LIMIT. IT IS HOPED THE PRESENTATION MAY ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO HOW THE QUESTIONS CAN BE HANDLED, AND MR. SWALLOWS NOTED THAT THIS IS UP TO THE HEARING OFFICER, WHO CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT A QUESTION IS APPLICABLE AND CAN ALSO DIRECT IT TO A SPECIFIC PERSON FOR AN ANSWER. 24 3i M,AY 2 3 1979 IN DISCUSSION, IT WAS FELT THAT MOST QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE AGENCY PEOPLE (THE DER, EPA, ETC.) WHO HAVE THE MOST KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLAT AND THAT SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSIONERS ON THEIR OPINIONS WOULD NOT BE PERTINENT TO THE HEARING. MR. SWALLOWS CONTINUED THAT ANY WRITTEN INFORMATION RECEIVED WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE HEARING WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE TRANSCRIPT, AND ANY QUESTIONS SUBMITTED WITHIN THAT SAME PERIOD MUST BE ANSWERED. HE NOTED THAT THE TRANSCRIPT WILL NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE VARIOUS AGENCIES UNLESS REQUESTED, THOUGH HE FELT SURE THE EPA WOULD REQUEST A TRANSCRIPT. HE SUGGESTED THAT A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT COULD BE KEPT AVAILABLE IN THE COURTHOUSE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC`S INFORMATION. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE COST OF THE TRANSCRIPT, AND IT WAS • NOTED THAT THE COUNTY WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THE COURT REPORTER AND THE TRANSCRIPT. IF PEOPLE.WISH COPIES, THEY WILL BE CHARGED. DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO THE ACTUAL PROCEDURES, SUCH AS FILLING OUT ATTENDANCE SLIPS, SUBMITTING STATEMENTS, ENCOURAGING GROUPS TO HAVE ONE SPOKESMAN, ETC. COMMISSIONER LYONS SUGGESTED HAVING A PRESS RELEASE SET OUT THE RULES FOR THE HEARING AND EXPLAIN ITS PURPOSE IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION. MR. SWALLOWS COMMENTED*THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS TO GET THE PUBLIC INPUT AND DETERMINE IF THE PEOPLE HAVE ANY BETTER IDEAS AND ALTERNATIVES, IF THEY DON `T LIKE WHAT IS PRESENTED, HOPEFULLY, SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE WILL COME OUT OF THE HEARING, AND EVEN IF THE PLAN IS NOT ACCEPTED, PROBABLY 90% OF IT CAN BE SALVAGED IN GOING TO ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE. MR. SWALLOWS POINTED OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE EPA MIGHT SAY THAT THEY WOULD NOT FUND ANY AMOUNT GREATER THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT -THE ORIGINAL PLAN. COMMISSIONER LYONS DISCUSSED HAVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, AND MR. SWALLOWS STATED THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE. IF AN ENYIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS REQUIRED, HE NOTED IT COULD •CAUSE A DELAY OF 18 MONTHS OR SO. HE FELT THE EPA WOULD FINANCE PART OF THE COST OF SUCH A STATEMENT BUT THAT 25% WOULD HAVE TO COME -FROM THIS AREA. 25 BOOK 40 ?AGE 3113 MAY 2 31979. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED WHAT PART THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL PLAYS IN ALL THIS, AND MR. SWALLOWS STATED THAT THEY ARE CON— SIDERED TO BE THE REGIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE AND HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THE 201 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DURING THIS PROCESS, HE FELT THEY HAVE SAID THAT DISCHARGE INTO THE RIVER IS IN CONFLICT WITH THEIR POLICY. MR. SWALLOWS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT AN ALTERNATIVE RECENTLY HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THEM BY THE GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION STAFF WHEREBY THE EFFLUENT WOULD GO INTO THE°MOSQUITO CONTROL IMPOUNDMENTS WHERE THERE IS A POTENTIAL OF NUTRIENT REMOVAL BEFORE THE EFFLUENT GOES INTO THE RIVER, I.E. THESE LAGOONS WOULD ACT AS POLISHING PONDS. HE NOTED THAT THE EPA AND DER HAVE TOLD THEM THAT THIS IS INNOVATIVE TECH— NOLOGY AND THEY CANNOT APPROVE IT UNTIL ALL THE DATA IS IN, BUT THEY WILL DISCUSS THIS IN ATLANTA TO SEE IF THE AGENCIES ARE RECEPTIVE AND WHAT THE CHANCES ARE FOR FUNDING SUCH AN ALTERNATIVE, HE NOTED THE MAJOR FACTOR TO MAKE THIS PROPOSAL PALATABLE TO THE DER AND EPA IS TO SHOW THAT IT IS LESS COSTLY THAN GOING INTO THE RIVER, COMMISSIONER LYOKS DISCUSSED THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR TERTIARY TREATMENT AND ASKED IF THE EPA WOULD FUND THAT AND WHETHER WE WOULD ALSO o GET STUCK FOR"MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION. MR, SWALLOWS STATED THAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION IN ANY EVENT, AND THE EPA WOULD NOT FUND TERTIARY TREATMENT. HE NOTED THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THE HEARING MIGHT BE POSTPONED IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT DISCUSSED ABOVE. HE POINTED OUT THEIR MAIN OBJECTIVE IS TO PUT AN IMPLEMENTABLE PLAN IN THEIR REPORT. THE BOARD THANKED HIM FOR BRINGING THEM THIS INFORMATION. THE HOUR.OF 2:00 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH.PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO—WIT: 26 MAY; 2 31979 nox 40 PAGE 314 II 1 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida t1sement for pubhumon in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of .D.ylL112 �Prflmess Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) THE FOLLOWING NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO ALL AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS BY THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA.$TATUTE 125.66, AS PER COPY TO JORGE GONZALEZ, PRESIDENT, MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. COPIES OF THE REMAINING NOTICES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK, 27 MAY 2 31979 NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Commission of Indian COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: Planning and Zoning Florwill consider the Florida,River STATE OF FLORIDA County, following changes and additions to the Zoning River County, Florida, Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath Ordinance of Indian are substantially says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published which changes and additions at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being as follows: That the Zoning Map be changed in order 1. that the following described property situated County, Florida, to -wit: a in Indian River Lots sl and 53, The Moorings, Unit No. 1, as the Clerk of the Circuit filed in the office of Plat Book B, page 6, in matter � J- ^► the M Court and recorded Florida.u—ss.rc Indian River County, Fl C commercial to R-2 Be changed from -IA Multiple Family District. in relation thereto of which 4 -in 5 3' 7— A public hearing parties in interest and citizens shall have an heard, will be held by said opportunity t o be Planning and Zoning Commission in the Indian River In the Court, was pub- County Commission Room, County Courthouse, Vero Beach, Florida, at 7:30 P.M., after ��,ttt Q Q IS,17r 72 Thursday, April 12, 1979, which said public hearing in relation thereto at citizens shall lished in said newspaper in the issues of p2is // - �---- which parties in interest and to be heard will be held by have an opportunity the Board of County Commissioners of Indian in the County Carlt- River County, Florida, mission Room, Indian River County COur- Florida, on Wednesday, Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at thouse, Vero Beach, May 23,1979, at 2:00 P.M. County Commissioners Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore Board of River County been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida. weekly and has been entered Indian By: William C. Wodtke Jr., Chairman' as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida Indian River County Planning for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- Zoning Commission tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid rior promised any person, firm or and By: Dick Bird, Chairman corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- March 21, 23,1979. t1sement for pubhumon in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of .D.ylL112 �Prflmess Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) THE FOLLOWING NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO ALL AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS BY THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA.$TATUTE 125.66, AS PER COPY TO JORGE GONZALEZ, PRESIDENT, MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. COPIES OF THE REMAINING NOTICES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK, 27 MAY 2 31979 JACK G. JENNINGS, Administrator BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR.. Chairman ALMA LEE LOY. Vice Chairman WILLIARD W. SIEBERT. JR. R. DON DEESON PATRICK B. LYONS 2145 14th Avenue April 16, 1979 Vero Beach. Florida 32960 Mr. Jorge Gonzalez, President Moorings Development Company P. 0. Box 3160 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Gonzalez: In compliance with Florida Statute 125.66, the -following is a Notice of Public Hearing for rezoning, as requested by you, and by the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Department. NOTICE The Zoning Map will be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Lots 51 and 53, .The Moorings, Unit #1, -as filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court and recorded in Plat Book 8, page 6, Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from C-19 Commercial to R-2 Multiple Family District. A public hearing in relation thereto will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida in the County Commission Room in the County Courthouse, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, May 23, 1979, at 2:00 o'clock P.M. Sincerely, Freda Wright Clerk jwc cc: James K. Smith Dorothy A. Hudson WENDY LANCASTER OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STATED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE MOORINGS, LYING EAST OF REEF ROAD AND THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO .CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUM UNITS SIMILAR TO THOSE IN $ABAL REEF.AND THE BILLOWS. THE MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT CORPORA- TION SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO ALLOW MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON 28 MAY 2 31979 $OOK - 40 FAGS 3.16 • 7� 1 LOT 51, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INCLUDED LOT 53. Mlss LANCASTER STATED THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOWS MEDIUM DENSITY; THE REZONING WOULD MAKE THE BILLOWS CONDOMINIUM A CONFORMING USE; AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. THERE WERE NONE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE 79-15 REZONING FROM C -1A TO R-2, LOTS 51 AND 53, THE MOORINGS, UNIT 1. ORDINANCE NO. 79-15 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Lot 51 and Lot 53, The Moorings Unit 1, as filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court and recorded in Plat Book 8, page 6, Indian Riyer County, Florida. Be changed from C -IA Commercial to R-2 Multiple Family District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. This Ordinance shall take effect May 28, 1979. MAY 2.31979 4' BOOK 40 4AUE 317 I • THE HOUR OF 2:00 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO—WIT: VERO BEACH PRESS-JOURPIAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the Court, was pub- lisped in said newspaper in the issues of��%� • Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously publishAd in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the past office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Swom to and subscribe fo me t ' w ydaayt�of�' _ .r l (Business Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit CourtLl4an River County, Florida) (SEAQ NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian River County, Florida, will consider the following changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, which changes and additions are substantially as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated In Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Tracts S and 6 in the South half of Section 9, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company, as filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, page 25; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from R-1 Residential to A- Agriculturai District. A public hearing in relation thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by said Planning and Zoning Commission in the County Commission Room, Indian River County Courthouse, Vero Beach, Florida, Thursday, April 12, 1979, at 7:30 P.M., after which said public hearing in relalion thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have anopportunity to be heard will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County Com- mission Room, Indian River County Cour- thouse, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, May 23,1979, at 2:00 P.M. Board of County Commissioners Indian River County By: William C. WodtkeJr., Chairman Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission By: Dick Bird, Chairman March 21, 231979. THE FOLLOWING (NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO LUKE M. KNIGHT BY THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 125.66. MAY 213 1979 BOOK 40 PACE 318 BOAR® OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILLIAM C. WODTKE. JR.. Chairman ALMA LEE LOY. Vice Chairman WILLIARD W. SIEBERT. JR. R. DON DEESON PATRICK B. LYONS JACK G. JENNINGS. Administrator 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach. Florida 32960 April 17, 1979 Mr. Luke.M. Knight Box 96 Wabasso, Florida 32960 -Dear Mr. Knight: In compliance with Florida Statute 125.66, the following is a Notice of Public Hearing for rezoning, as requested by you and your Agent, Edwin S. Schmucker. NOTICE The Zoning Map will be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Tracts 5 and 6 irl the South half of Section 9, Township 32 South, Range- 39 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company, as filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, page 25; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from R-1 Residential to A -Agricultural District. A public hearing in relation thereto will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida in the County Commission Room in the County Courthouse, Vero Beach, • Florida on Wednesday, May 23, 1979, at 2:00 p.m. Sincerely, Freda Wright Clerk 3wc cc: Edwin S. Schmucker WENDY LANCASTER, OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, -INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF SOUTH WINTER BEACH ROAD AND -WEST OF LATERAL G CANAL AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY ZO ACRES. THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND PLAN SHOWS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IS DEVELOPED IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. MR. KNIGHT 31 - MAY 2 31979 BOOK 40 QAIE 319 WISHES TO PLACE A MOBILE HOME ON HIS PROPERTY TO OVERSEE THE GROVE OPERATION. MISS LANCASTER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THIS PROPERTY WHICH COULD BE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE THE APPLICANT REQUESTS. IT WAS FELT REZONING OF THIS PARCEL TO AGRICULTURE WOULD CREATE SPOT ZONING; THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DENIED THE REQUEST; AND THE PLANNING STAFF CANNOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL. ENGINEER ED SCHMUCKER CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING LUKE KNIGHT. HE NOTED THAT MR, KNIGHT HAS BEEN A RESIDENT HERE SINCE 1926, AND HE SIMPLY WANTS TO PUT A TRAILER OUT IN HIS GROVE FOR HIS SON TO OVERSEE THE GROVE OPERATION. THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING IS NEEDED TO LEGALLY PUT THE TRAILER ON THIS PROPERTY. MR. SCHMUCKER STATED THAT MR. KNIGHT INTENDS TO IMPROVE THE EXISTING GROVE, AND IS -REQUESTING THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING FOR AN AGRICULTURAL USE. HE CONTINUED THAT HE CANNOT AGREE THAT THIS IS SPOT ZONING SINCE THERE ARE MANY AGRICULTURAL AREAS IN THE COUNTY THAT ARE CONSIDERED HOLDING ZONES SO THAT IN THE FUTURE THEY CAN BE PUT BACK INTO OTHER ZONING. MR. SCHMUCKER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT ALL THE ADJACENT NEIG14BORS HAVE SIGNED A STATEMENT THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED*ZONING CHANGE. MR. SCHMUCKER FELT THAT POSSIBLY SOME BIAS MIGHT HAVE ARISEN AND AFFECTED THE VOTE OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE GOTTEN THE•IMPRESSION THAT MR. KNIGHT HAD ALREADY PUT THE TRAILER ON THE PROPERTY, AND HE HAS NOT. CHAIRMAN WODTKE INQUIRED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF UTILIZING THE RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY WHICH IS PRESENTLY RENTED, AND MR. SCHMUCKER STATED THAT MR. KNIGHT`S SON OWNS THIS TRAILER AND HAS BEEN LIVING IN IT AND THAT IS WHY HE WANTS TO PUT THE TRAILER THERE. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT PUTTING A TRAILER ON FIVE ACRES .AS AN ACCESSORY USE IS ALLOWED IN AGRICULTURAL ZONING. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO ADDITIONAL GROVES IN THIS SAME VICINITY. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. THERE WERE NONE. 32 MAY, 2 31979 Boa 40 PACE 340 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER Loy, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 79-16 GRANTING THE REQUESTED REZONING TO AGRICULTURAL. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT IT IS HIS CONTENTION THAT AGRICULTURE IS A HOLDING ZONE. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THAT THIS CONSTITUTES SPOT ZONING, AND DID NOT BELIEVE THAT AGRICULTURAL.ZONING SHOULD BE CHECKERBOARDED ALL OVER THE PLACE. HE NOTED THAT THE BOARD JUST THE OTHER DAY PUT A SQUARE OF AGRICULTURE IN THE MIDDLE OF OTHER ZONING,.AND HE FEELS WHAT IS BEING DONE IS VERY INCONSISTENT. COMMISSIONER DEESON AGREED WITH COMMISSIONER SIEBERT THAT AGRICULTURE IS A HOLDING ZONE, HE STATED THAT HE HAS VISITED THIS PROPERTY; IT IS RURAL IN DEVELOPMENT; AND THERE ARE OTHER GROVES IN THIS AREA, IN ADDITION, THE NEIGHBORS HAVE SIGNED A PETITION SUPPORTING THE REQUESTED REZONING, AND HE} THEREFORE, WOULD SUPPORT THE MOTION. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. COMMISSIONER LYONS VOTED IN OPPOSITION, AND THE MOTION CARRIED. 33 MAY Z 31979 BOOK 40 PAGE 321 • ORDINANCE NO. 79-16 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning flap be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Tracts'5 and 6 in the South half of Section 9, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company, as filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, page 25; said land now lying andobeing in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from R-1 Residential to A-Agricultu.ral District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. This Ordinance shall take effect may 28, 1979. MAY 2 31979 BOOK40 FAGf 1022 JAMES FOSTER, VICE PRESIDENT OF HYDROSTORAGE, INC., CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO DISCUSS THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE ASSESSMENT MADE AGAINST HIS COMPANY RE THE ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOR THE GIFFORD WATER SYSTEM. HE INFORMED THE BOARD -THAT THIS COMPANY IS A RELATIVELY NEW SUBSIDIARY OF PITTSBURGH STEEL, FORMED FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF BECOMING MORE COMPETITIVE IN THE ELEVATED TANK FIELD THAN THE PARENT COMPANY, WHICH IS INVOLVED IN MANY OTHER PROJECTS. HE FELT THEIR BID, WHICH WAS SOME $80,000 BENEATH THE NEXT BIDDER ON THE PROJECT, WAS INDICATIVE OF THEIR EFFORTS. MR'. FOSTER CONTINUED THAT JAMES PANDOLPH OF THEIR TAMPA OFFICE HAD A COMMITMENT FROM THE PARENT COMPANY WHO DOES ALL THE FABRICATION SO THEY COULD ACHIEVE THE FABRICATION IN THE TIME THAT WAS SPECIFIED IN THE ENGINEER S DOCUMENTS. PART OF THIS PROJECT WAS FINANCED BY EDA FUNDS WHERE THEY WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE 10% MINORITY: PARTICIPATION. MR. FOSTER STATED THAT THEY, THEREFORE, BID WITH AN OUTFIT CALLED MACK ADAMS, A COMPANY FORMED BY WEBB CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WITH A BLACK MAN AS PRESIDENT, BUT IT WAS RULED BY EDA THAT THIS COMPANY WAS, IN EFFECT, A NON -LEGAL PARTICIPANT AN-DWAS SET UP AS A CIRCUMVENTING EFFORT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MINORITY BUSINESSTYPE ENTERPRISES. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY THEN WERE FORCED TO,WITHDRAW THAT PORTION OF THE CONTRACT WHICH THEY HAD ASSIGNED TO MACK ADAMS AND HAVE WEBB HIMSELF BUILD THE FOUNDATION, AND HAD TO SEEK MINORITY PARTICIPATION ELSEWHERE. THE ONLY PLACE THEY COULD GET RELIEF ON THIS WAS BY ORDERING THE STEEL FROM A COMPANY WITH A SPANISH NAME LOCATED IN LOS ANGELES, WHICH REALLY DEFEATS THE PURPOSE. MR. FOSTER NOTED THAT HE WANTED TO POINT OUT SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES IN GETTING STARTED ON THIS JOB BECAUSE OF THE MINORITY PARTICIPATION. MR, FOSTER CONTINUED THAT BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL WIND LOADING,- -THIS TANK REQUIRED A SPECIAL DESIGN, AND THE FABRICATION BRANCH WHICH HAD PROMISED DELIVERY, AFTER REVIEWING THE SPECIFICATIONS, SAID IT WOULD REQUIRE A TOTALLY NEW DESIGN AND IF IT COULD BE OBTAINED ALREADY FAB- RICATED, THEY WOULD BE MUCH BETTER OFF BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE SPENDING 12-14 WEEKS EXTRA IN DESIGN, ORDERING STEEL, -ETC.- MR. FOSTER STATED THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO LOCATE A 500,000 GALLON TANK IN.STOCK, WHICH WAS MUCH HEAVIER THAN SPECIFIED, AND TO MAKE IT INTO A 400,000 GALLON TANK, 35 0 wa323 MAY 231979 THEY CUT A PORTION OF THE VERTICAL SHELL OUT AND LOWERED THE ROOF DOWN. HE NOTED THAT IT HAD TO MEET THE ISO MPH WIND LOADING REQUIREMENTS, ETC., AND THEY HAD IT SENT OUT AFTER MINOR MODIFICATIONS. MR. FOSTER POINTED OUT THAT IN ADDITION TO ALL THIS, THE MATERIAL THEY BOUGHT COST THEM 10o MORE BECAUSE OF THE MINORITY REQUIREMENTS; THE STEEL THEY USED WAS HEAVIER; AND PHYSICALLY GETTING STARTED ON THE JOB TOOK LONGER THAN EVERYONE HAD HOPED, HE WISHED TO IMPRESS ON THE BOARD THAT THEY UNDER- . STAND THE BOARD'S DISAPPOINTMENT AND CONCERN, BUT FELT THEY REALLY MADE CONSIDERABLE EFFORTS AND DID ALL THEY COULD TO HELP THE SITUATION. MR. FOSTER EXPLAINED THAT THE NEXT UNFORTUNATE THING WAS THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH THEY HAD CHOSEN TO BUILD THE • FOUNDATION. THE PROGRESS THAT WAS MADE WAS NOT AS SPEEDY AS DESIRED, AND IT TOOK CONSIDERABLE EFFORT ON THEIR BEHALF TO GET IT DONE. WHEN THEY FINISHED THE PROJECT, THERE WAS A LEAK IN THE LINES, WHICH MR. FOSTER FELT STILL HASN`T BEEN TOTALLY RESOLVED. HE BELIEVED THE ENTIRE LINE WAS DUG UP AND EVERY JOINT CHECKED, BUT EVEN AFTER THE LEAK WAS REPAIRED, e THERE WAS STILL WATER SEEPAGE BEFORE IT GOT TO THE TANK, WHICH WAS NOT HIS COMPANY`S RESPONSIBILITY. HE NOTED THAT THEY ARE STILL INVOLVED IN SOME LAWSUITS WITH THIS SUBCONTRACTOR. MR. FOSTER STATED THAT MOST OF THE DELAY INCURRED WAS NOT SO MUCH IN THEIR OWN EFFORTS, BUT IN TYING THE TANK IN, FINISHING THE JOB OFF, AND COMPLETING THE PROJECT TO WHERE THE ENGINEERS COULD DESCRIBE THEIR WORK AS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE WHEN YOU COULD PUT THE TANK ON THE COUNTY SYSTEM AND MAKE IT A USEFUL ENTITY. MR. FOSTER THEN APPEALED TO THE BOARD, PARTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE A NEW COMPANY AND TRYING TO DO THE BEST THEY CAN. HE NOTED THE PENALTY, WHICH IS OVER $20,000, IS A VERY SUBSTANTIAL PENALTY AND HURTS THEM A GREAT DEAL MORE THAN IT MIGHT SOME LARGER COMPANY. HE STATED THAT THEY WANT TO FEEL THAT THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB FOR THE COUNTY; THEY WILL HAVE THEIR PAINTING CONTRACTOR BACK TO REPAINT SHORTLY; AND WHATEVER THEY CAN DO TO MAKE THE TANK RIGHT WHERE ALL CAN FEEL PROUD OF IT, THEY WILL DO. MR. FOSTER FELT THAT NO ONE CAN SAY THAT THEY HAVE TRIED TO BE NEGATIVE ON ANY PART OF THIS, AND THEIR REAL APPEAL IS NOT ONE THAT THEY WANT TO BE IN AN ARGUMENTATIVE STATE BECAUSE THEY CAN `T SAY THEY 36 MAY 2 31979 Boa 40 PA,,,( 324 I DON T AGREE,.BUT THEY APPEAL TO THE BOARD MORE AS AN ACT OF MERCY OR AN ACT OF UNDERSTANDING TO KNOW THAT THERE WERE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS -BEYOND THEIR CONTROL - THE GOVERNMENT EDA PROGRAM, WHICH HE DID NOT WISH TO CRITICIZE DIRECTLY, THE SUBCONTRACTOR WHO THEY HAVE A LAWSUIT AGAINST, AND LATE DELIVERY OF SOME STEEL WHICH WAS BEYOND THEIR CONTROL. HE STATED THAT THEY WERE AT THE MERCY OF OTHERS AND COULDNIT HANDLE ALL OF IT. MR. FOSTER CONTINUED THAT THEY ARE REALLY KNEELING AT THE BOARD'S FEET RATHER THAN ARGUING AND WILL APPRECIATE WHATEVER CONSIDERATION CAN BE GIVEN. HE.STATED THAT HE THOUGHT THEIR TOTAL INVOLVEMENT FOR PENALTIES WAS FOR 102 DAYS AND HOPED THE BOARD COULD SEE THEIR WAY CLEAR TO ASSESS ONLY A PART OF THAT. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THEY WERE IN LITIGATION WITH ANY OTHER SUBCONTRACTORS, AND MR. FOSTER STATED THEY WERE ONLY IN LITIGATION WITH WEBB, BUT UNDERSTOOD THERE WERE SOME OTHERS IN LITIGATION WITH HIM. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER SUBCONTRACTORS THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE TO WHO HAVE NOT BEEN PAID AND SATISFIED. MR. FOSTER SAID THERE WERE NONE WHATSOEVER AND THAT THEY HAVE EVEN PAID WEBB BEYOND HIS CONTRACT. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF THERE WASN'T A DISPUTE AND IF WEBB DID NOT FEEL HE IS ENTITLED TO MORE. MR. FOSTER STATED THAT WEBB CLAIMED THERE WAS ADDITIONAL MONEY DUE TO HIM BECAUSE OF EXTRA TESTING, BUT HYDROSTORAGE FELT THIS WAS MOSTLY HIS FAULT FOR NOT ATTACKING THIS WORK AND COMPLETING IT IN THE TIME SCHEDULE. A JOB THAT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN 3 DAYS TOOK HIM 34 DAYS TO COMPLETE. HE TRIED TO CHARGE HYDROSTORAGE FOR THE EXTRA TIME IT TOOK HIM TO TEST THE LINE, AND HYDROSTORAGE DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AT ALL AND FELT THEY HAD OVERPAID HIM. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED HOW MANY DAYS WEBB HELD THEM UP. MR, FOSTER STATED 38 PLUS, AND EXPLAINED THEY -FIGURED IT FROM THE TIME WHEN THE TANK COULD HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH WATER; THEY LOST 34 DAYS AT THE END OF THE JOB DUE .TO WEBB`S NEGLIGENCE TO GETTING THIS ON LINE. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED HOW LONG THEY WERE HELD UP BECAUSE OF,THE PROBLEM WITH THE MINORITY SUPPLIER. 37 MAY 2 31979 RUGK 40 PAGE 325 MR. FOSTER STATED THAT WAS DIFFICULT TO SAY AND COULD ONLY MAKE A GUESS OF POSSIBLY 15-20 DAYS. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THEY HAD ANY PENALTY CLAUSE IF THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS ARE NOTABLE TO PRODUCE IN TIME. MR. FOSTER ANSWERED THAT UNFORTUNATELY THEY DID NOT. THEIR STANDARD CONTRACT DOES CALL FOR THIS, BUT THEY HAD WRITTEN A SPECIAL CONTRACT WITH WEBB WHICH ELIMINATED THIS PROVISION. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT HE HAD SAID THERE WERE THREE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES - THE 34 DAYS AOR ACTUALLY 31 DAYS TO TEST THE LINE SINCE IT SHOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN 3); THE MINORITY CONTRACT, WHICH WAS ANOTHER 10 DAYS OR SO, AND WHAT ELSE? MR. FOSTER ANSWERED THAT IT WAS LATE DELIVERY OF THE STEEL. HE CONTINUED THAT ANOTHER PROBLEM INVOLVED THE PAINTING CONTRACTOR, NIS CREW LEFT; THE FOREMAN STAYED ON THE JOB BY HIMSELF; AND TIME WAS LOST BECAUSE OF NOT HAVING A FULL CREW ON THE JOB. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE DOES NOT FEEL IT IS FAIR FOR HYDROSTORAGE TO THROW ITSELF ON THE MERCY OF THE TAXPAYER. HE CONTINUED THAT SOME CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES ARE EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL, AND ONE OF THE REASONS THEY ARE IS BECAUSE THEY TAKE HIGH RISKS. SOMETIMES YOU LOSE, AND SOMETIMES YOU WIN. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT CONTINUED THAT THE BOARD DID GIVE THEM -AN ADDITIONAL 53 DAYS, BUT THEN CORRECTED HIM- SELF AND NOTED THAT WAS GIVEN TO WIDELL ASSOCIATES. RICHARD VOTAPKA, CONSULTING ENGINEER, STATED THAT HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT, BUT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT PDM HYDROSTORAGE KNEW THAT THIS WAS NOT A TANK THEY HAD IN STOCK AND THAT IT REQUIRED A SPECIAL WIND LOADING WHICH WOULD TAKE TIME. HE FELT THEY PUT AN EXTRA AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THEIR ORIGINAL BID TO MAKE PROVISION FOR THIS. ADMINISTRATOR .JENNINGS AGREED THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THAT.THIS WAS NOT A STANDARD TANK THAT COULD COME OUT OF STOCK AND THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SPECIALLY FABRICATED.. HE NOTED THAT LATER ON THEY SAID THEY HAD LOCATED A 500,000 GALLON TANK, WHICH WAS HEAVIER THAN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, AND THEY STATED COULD MODIFY THE HEAVIER TANK IF WE WOULD AGREE TO USE IT. MAY 2,3 1979 BOOK" 40 FAGE 326 MR. VOTAPKA NOTED THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER WAY BY DECEMBER 5TH. WEBB GOT IN THERE AND WAS OUT SOME TIME IN.JANUARY, BUT THERE WAS NO WORK DONE THEN UNTIL MAY. HE.CONTINUED THAT HE BELIEVED WEBB WAS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM MAKER BECAUSE THEY HAD COMPLAINTS FROM SUBCONTRACTORS ABOUT NON-PAYMENT. BACK IN OCTOBER WHEN WEBB SHOWED UP TO TEST THE LINE (ONLY ABOUT 120'), THEY COULD NOT GET THE TEST OUT; THEY DID NOT STAY ON THE JOB, BUT WOULD COME UP FROM POMPANO BEACH, SEND A COUPLE OF MEN AND A TRUCK AND STAY I. OR 2 DAYS, LEAVE AND COME BACK. THIS WENT ON FOR A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. THERE WAS A LEAK IN THEIR LINE. MR. VOTAPKA STATED THAT THEY PULLED OFF FOR THE WEEKEND AND LEFT THE CITY PRESSURE ON, (THIS WAS TO SERVE MIDDLE 6 AND MIDDLE %) AND THE MAIN LINE GOING UP TO THE TOWER WAS UNDER PRESSURE.. WE KNEW THERE WAS A LEAK. JIM PANDOLPH OF HYDROSTORAGE CAME AND FOUND A LOOSE COUPLING, WHICH RESOLVED ONE PROBLEM. $TILL THEY COULD NOT TEST IT. MR. VOTAPKA CONTINUED THAT ED MORGAN OF WEBB PRESSURIZED THE LINE AND BLEW THE GAUGE. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY DID HAVE TROUBLE WITH THE VALVE FROM WIDELL.• HE STATED THEY ALSO DISCOVERED THERE WAS A LEAK IN .THE BUTTERFLY VALVE WEBB HAD PUT IN, AND THEY HAD HIM UNEARTH EVERY SINGLE JOINT AND TOOK A VISUAL INSPECTION. THEY DID NOT FIND ANY LEAKS. MR. VOTAPKA STATED THAT THEY PREDICATED THEIR DETERMINATION ON THAT BASIS, APPROVED THE LINE AND GOT THE WATER TURNED ON FOR THE FOLKS IN GIFFORD. THEY WERE ABOUT 116 DAYS BEYOND THE CONTRACT AND WE • GAVE THEM ABOUT 13 DAYS CREDIT BECAUSE OF WEATHER CONDITIONS - THE PENALTY NOW AMOUNTS TO OVER $20,000. MR. VOTAPKA CONTINUED THAT WEBB WAS NOT THE ONLY SUBCONTRACTOR THAT DEFAULTED IN HIS PERFORMANCE. THE PAINT CONTRACTOR DID NOT HAVE A CREW, AND IT WAS NECESSARY TO SPEND AT LEAST A FULL WEEK BEFORE HE GOT HIS CREW.- THE FOLLOWING WEEK HE FAILED TO CALL FOR A SPECIAL SAND FOR u SAND BLASTING AND LOST TWO DAYS WAITING FOR THIS. FINALLY THEY GOT PAINTING ON THE TOWER AND STUCK WITH IT UNTIL THEY RAN OUT OF PAINT AND PULLED OFF THE JOB. OCTOBER 23RD THE PAINTING CONTRACTOR CAME BACK AND FINISHED UP, AND WE WERE ALL DONE BY OCTOBER 27TH. MR. VOTAPKA NOTED THAT EVEN IF WEBB HAD FINISHED EARLY, THERE WAS STILL THE PAINTING OF THE TOWER TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AND THAT WAS NOT DONE. HE FELT 39 MAY 213 1979 Boor - 40 PAcE 3 7 e PDM HYDROSTORAGE'S PROBLEM WAS THAT OF COORDINATION WITH THE SUB— CONTRACTOR, AND THEY HAD NO ONE HERE TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. MR. VOTAPKA STATED THAT HE IS SORRY THIS HAPPENED, BUT DID NOT FEEL WE COULD WAIVE THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. HE STATED THAT HE HAS WRITTEN THEM LETTERS ADVISING THEM OF THE LATE DATE AND WHEN WE WOULD START CHARGING.THEM FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. HE NOTED THAT PDI HYDROSTORAGE WAS THE PRIME CONTRACTOR FOR THE ELEVATED STORAGE TANK, COMMISSIONER LYONS AGREED THAT HYDROSTORAGE HAD A PROBLEM AND STATED THAT HE IS SORRY FOR THEM, BUT.THAT IS ALL. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT APPARENTLY WE STILL HAVE SOME PROBLEMS AND POSSIBLY A PROBLEM WITH LITIGATION WITH WEBB. MR. FOSTER STATED THAT THE COUNTY IS PROTECTED AND HELD HARM— LESS FROM THE LITIGATION. HE STATED THAT THE PAINTING WILL BE REPAIRED. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS ASKED HOW WE ARE HELD HARMLESS, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED IT IS POSSIBLE WE COULD BE NAMED, BUT THAT IS ALL. HE FELT THE REAL DIFFICULTY IS TO SATISFY FMHA AND SUPPLY RELEASE OF LIENS. MR. VOTAPKA STATED THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED A RELEASE FROM THE PAINTING CONTRACTORS, BUT IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED WE WILL NOT RECEIVE ONE FROM WEBB. MR: FOSTER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY HAD DONE JOBS WITH WEBB OVER THE YEARS, AND HE ALWAYS HAD BEEN RESPONSIBLE BEFORE. THEY DID NOT REALIZE HE WAS GOING INTO BANKRUPTCY AND WAS HAVING PROBLEMS. ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT FEEL THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO MAKE A .FINAL DECISION NOW AND STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE EVERYTHING FINISHED BEFORE THEY ADDRESS THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. HE NOTED THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE PAINTING AND RUST. MR. VOTAPKA STATED THAT THEY ACCEPTED THE LINE FROM THE DATE OF OCTOBER 27TH, THE DATE THEY HAD THE TESTS PASS, WHICH IS THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. HE STATED WE DID THIS SO WE COULD,USE THE LINE AND HAVE A ONE YEAR WARRANTY FROM THAT TIME. PDM HYDROSTORAGE IS RE— SPONSIBLE TO REMEDY ANY DEFECTS. MAY 2 31979 0 40 MOK 40 PAGE 3�8 I MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER Loy, THAT WE TAKE NO ACTION AT THIS TIME ON THE REQUEST BY . HYDROSTORAGE, INC. FOR RELIEF FROM THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AGAINST THEM ON EDA PROJECT #04-51-20869. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED HOW'WE CAN EXPEDITE GETTING THE PROBLEM STRAIGHTENED OUT. MR. FOSTER STATED THAT THEY WILL HAVE SOMEONE DOWN NEXT WEEK AND TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS NECESSARY, HE CONTINUED THAT THEY ARE UNDER WARRANTY AND ARE OBLIGATED TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM. HE NOTED THAT THE COUNTY HAS A RETENTION ON THIS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FOSTER THANKED THE BOARD AND ASSURED THEM THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE MADE SATISFACTORY. HE AGAIN ASKED FOR THE BOARD'S UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR PROBLEMS AND REITERATED THAT THEY ARE MAKING EFFORTS, ATTORNEY STEVE HENDERSON APPEARED REPRESENTING MR. AND MRS. DALES OF WABASSO IN REGARD T`0 VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PLAT OF ENOS. THE BOARD REVIEWED AN OLD ENOS PLAT MADE IN THE 1800'S. ATTORNEY HENDERSON EXPLAINED THAT WHEN THEY STARTED EXAMINING PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DALES, THEY CAME ACROSS THE PLAT OF ENOS WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY FILED IN BREVARD COUNTY IN 1889 AND THEREAFTER FILED IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY IN 1913. HE STATED THAT THE DALES ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS A 209 X 209 PARCEL ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT, IN 1917 AND STILL OWN IT. HE CONTINUED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS DESCRIBED WITH REFERENCE TO THE BLUFF LINE AND BECAUSE OF EROSION OVER THE YEARS IT IS A REAL PROBLEM TO DETERMINE THE EXACT BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY. HE INFORMED THE.BOARD THAT HE HAS OBTAINED A CONSENT FROM DEERFIELD GROVES WHO PROBABLY OWN THE AREA BETWEEN THE BLUFF LINE•AND THE ATLANTIC OCEAN. AS CLOSE AS THEY CAN ESTIMATE, THE EROSION SINCE 1889 IS ABOUT 27' FROM THE HIGH WATER LINE. ATTORNEY HENDERSON NOTED THAT MR. AND MRS. DALES WISH TO SELL THEIR PROP€RTY AND THEY HAVE TWO .PROBLEMS. THE FIRST IS THE BOUNDARY LINE, AND SECONDLY, THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF THIS PLAT. OF ENOS SINCE THERE APPARENTLY WAS DEDICATION OF CERTAIN ROADS, BUT THERE IS NO III MAY 23 1979 BOOK 40 ?AGE 329 m INDICATION OF ANY ACCEPTANCE ON THE PUBLIC RECORDS. THEY, THEREFORE, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THESE REVOKED. HE NOTED THAT THERE MIGHT BE A TITLE PROBLEM REGARDING THE PLAT)AND IF THERE IS A DEDICATED ROAD ALONG THE OCEAN, IT WOULD RENDER HIS CLIENT'S PROPERTY VIRTUALLY WORTHLESS. HE STATED THAT THEY ARE PETITIONING THE BOARD TO ABANDON THE PLAT OF ENOS INSOFAR AS IT AFFECTS THIS ONE PARCEL IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER. ATTORNEY HENDERSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE DALES HAVE ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT TO SELL THIS PROPERTY SUBJECT TO REMOVAL OF THE PLAT. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS NOTED THAT THIS IS A RECORDED PLAT AND IF YOU WERE TO LAY THE ROAD AND ALL OFF ;WITH THE EROSION THERE TODAY AND THE WAY THE DESCRIPTION IS WRITTEN ON THE ONE ACRE PIECE AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE 200' SETBACK LINES, HE BELIEVED IT WOULD BE USELESS. ATTORNEY HENDERSON STATED THAT THE SETBACK LINE IS ABOUT 89' FROM THE EDGE OF THE VEGETATION SO THE PROPERTY IS USABLE, DEPENDING UPON WHETHER THERE IS A DEDICATED ROAD. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED HOW YOU GET TO THE PROPERTY, AND ATTORNEY HENDERSON STATED THERE IS A 15' STRIP ACCESS ON THE NORTH SIDE. THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY'250' FROM AIA. AlA WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE WHEN THE PLAT WAS MADE. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE ISSUE IN HIS MIND IS THAT HERE IS AN OLD PLAT AND THERE IS A LEGAL ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THERE EVER HAS BEEN AN ACCEPTANCE. HE FELT THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO MAKE A DECISION WHETHER THERE EVER WOULD BE A NEED FOR THE ROADS THAT ARE DEDICATED FOR ANY PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTORNEY HENDERSON NOTED THAT DEERFIELD GROVES AND ANOTHER. ESTATE OWNS A GOODLY PORTION OF THIS PLAT. HE DID CONTACT THEM ABOUT MAKING A JOINT EFFORT, BUT THEY ARE IN PROBATE RIGHT NOW AND NOT READY TO TAKE ANY ACTION. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT IF THE PLAT IS NOT VACATED, THE TITLE WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED FOR YEARS TO COME. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT WE COULDN'T PUT A ROAD -IN ALONG THE BLUFF LINE IF WE WANTED TO. 112 MAY 2.3 1979 ROOK 40 PAGE 33® COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT WE SHOULD VACATE IT, BUT DID NOT WANT TO ADVERSELY AFFECT SOMEONE UNKNOWINGLY. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE ONLY PERSON THE COMMISSION WOULD BE AFFECTING AT THIS TIME WOULD BE THE PETITIONER WHO HAS REQUESTED THAT THEY TAKE THIS ACTION SINCE ALL THAT COULD BE VACATED IS THE ONE ACRE PIECE PLUS THE,15' STRIP ON THE NORTH LOT LINE, WHICH WAS ADVERTISED AND IS INCLUDED. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED WHY WE SHOULD VACATE THE 15'. HE NOTED THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, AS FAR.AS WE ARE CONCERNED, IS THE COUNTY'S AND POSSIBLY WE WOULD NEED IT FOR WATER LINES. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT POINT IS UP FOR QUESTION, BUT THE ISSUE IS THERE. HE NOTED IF THE COUNTY WANTS TO TRY TO RETAIN IT, IT MIGHT LEAD TO LITIGATION. ATTORNEY HENDERSON COMMENTED THAT THE 15' STRIP SPLITS SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY DEERFIELD GROVES, AND THE BUYER IS PLANNING TO TRADE OFF THE 15' FOR SOME OF THE SAND AREA FOR RIPARIAN RIGHTS. THIS WOULD INTERFERE WITH THAT -TRANSACTION. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF ATTORNEY HENDERSON HAS ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE AREA SET ASIDE ON THE NORTH FOR THE ROAD DOES GO ALL THE WAY TO THE'OCEAN, AND ATTORNEY HENDERSON FELT IT CONNECTS WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND YOU REALLY HAVE A IO' RIGHT-OF-WAY MEETING A 100' RIGHT-OF-WAY. COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT SHE WOULDN'T WANT TO GIVE UP'ANY ACCESS WE HAVE TO THE OCEAN. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON WHETHER THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS•100' OR 80', AND HOW THE DEDICATION LANGUAGE ACTUALLY READ AND WHAT IT INTENDED. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THAT ATTORNEY HENDERSON SHOULD COME BACK WHEN THIS IS BETTER DECIPHERED SO THE BOARD CAN SEE WHAT THEY ARE GIVING UP. FURTHER DISCUSSION ENSUED IN REGARD TO GETTING MORE UP-TO- DATE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD TABLED CONSIDERATION OF VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PLAT OF ENOS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE BOARD L13 MAY 2 31979 Boa Pact . IS PRESENTED WITH AN UP-TO-DATE MAP THAT SHOWS THE PROPERTY IN RELATION TO STATE ROAD AlA AND UNTIL THE BOARD CAN HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING AS TO THE SIZE OF THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY THAT ARE PLATTED SO THEY CAN BETTER UNDER- STAND WHAT THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO D0, THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT THIS MATTER WILL BE PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETINGi ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAS TRIED TO CONSOLIDATE THE THOUGHTS GENERATED AT THE LAST MEETING IN REGARD TO ALLOCATION OF -SEWER ON 6TH AVENUE INTO RESOLUTION FORM, AND HAS ALSO INCORPORATED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ENGINEERS IN SOME PRACTICAL MATTERS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ENGINEER HAS COME UP WITH SEVERAL OTHER SUGGESTIONS, • AND THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) INCLUSION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE DEVELOPER TO REPAIR ANY DAMAGE DONE IN EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY THAT MAY BE CONTROLLED BY THE COUNTY; 2) A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS DONE ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS THAT WE HANE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED FOR THE UTILITY RESOLUTIONS; 3) AN AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT ON THE PART OF THE DEVELOPER TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP UP THE COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND OTHER APPURTENANCES FROM THE POINT OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE POINT OF CONNECTION TO THE COUNTY FORCE MAIN. ' ENGINEER BEINDORF REPORTED THAT HE HAD TALKED WITH THE BER LAST WEEK; THEY ARE RECEPTIVE TO WORKING ALONG WITH THE COUNTY, AND UPON RECEIVING A LETTER FROM THE COUNTY STATING THAT THE APPLICANT'WILL RECEIVE AN ALLOCATION, THEY WOULD REVIEW THE SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS AND ISSUE PERMITS. ATTORNEY COLLINS THEN DISCUSSED THE PRACTICALITIES OF HOW TO METER THE SEWAGE AND STATED,THE ENGINEER HAS CONCLUDED THERE IS NO ECONOMICAL EFFECTIVE WAY OF METERING THE RAW SEWAGE FLOW, AND IT WOULD BE BETTER -TO TIE THE SEWAGE RATES T0. EXISTING -WATER RATES. THEREFORE, THEY HAVE PROVIDED THAT THE CHARGES WILL BE BASED EITHER.ON THE -WATER USAGE THROUGH THE COUNTY SYSTEM OR THE SYSTEM THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL PUT IN TO SERVICE HIS PROJECT. 44 MAY 2 31979 BOOK 40FAcE 332 CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO PRIVATE SYSTEMS IN ORDER TO GET THE'METER READINGS, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THIS WILL BE INCORPORATED IN THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO THE DEVELOPER. THE CHAIRMAN THEN DISCUSSED COORDINATION AND TIMING OF RECEIVING AN ALLOCATION AND APPLYING FOR A FRANCHISE, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THIS CAN BE CARRIED OUT CONCURRENTLY; ENGINEER BEINDORF FELT THIS IS COVERED UNDER PARAGRAPH 3A OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT -THE AMOUNT OF THE TOTAL ALLOCATION IS LEFT BLANK AND WILL HAVE TO BE FILLED IN, AND HE FELT IT SHOULD BE CHANGED TO GALLONS PER DAY RATHER THAN GALLONS PER MINUTE. ATTORNEY DANIEL KILBRIDE CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING FRANK ZORC, WHO OWNS PROPERTY WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE 6TH AVENUE SEWER LINE. HE STATED THAT HIS CLIENT FAVORS THIS RESOLUTION AND FEELS IT IS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY TO MAKE ALLOCATIONS AND SET CRITERIA, BUT ALSO FEELS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS THE BOARD NEEDS TO CONSIDER BEFORE ADOPTING THIS RESOLUTION. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE CURRENT RESO- LUTION ONLY PROPOSES TO AUTHORIZE ALLOCATIONS TO THOSE ALREADY CONNECTED TO THE COUNTY WATER SYSTEM OR ISSUED A COUNTY FRANCHISE. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT MR. ZORC PRESENTLY HAS AN EIGHT UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION AND ANTICIPATES CONSTRUCTING ADDITIONAL UNITS FAIRLY SOON. MR. ZORC PLANS t ON PROVIDING A WELL SYSTEM FOR EACH S -UNIT COMPLEX, AND UNDER THE CRITERIA IN THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION, HE WOULD NOT BE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE A SEWER ALLOCATION. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE STATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER ALLOWING ANY AUTHORIZED WATER SOURCE WHICH CAN BE METERED TO TIE INTO THE SEWER ALLOCATION. HE FELT AN INDIVIDUAL WELL SYSTEM CAN BE METERED, AND THE RATES BASED ON THE COUNTY SYSTEM, ATTORNEY KILBRIDE CONTINUED TO DISCUSS THE FRANCHISE SYSTEM AND NOTED THE MAIN OBJECTION IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PACKAGE PLANTS WOULD BE PHASED OUT AND THE DEVELOPER WOULD TIE INTO A COUNTY WATER SYSTEM. HE FELT THE RESOLUTION AS PROPOSED IS OVERLY RESTRICTIVE AND EXCLUDES THE SMALL DEVELOPER. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE FELT THE COUNTY'S POLICY IN REGARD TO THE 115 MAY 2 31979 "tuUK 40 PACE 333 I m 6TH AVENUE SEWER LINE OF FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED IS INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR WATER POLICY WHERE THEY HAVE ALLOCATED A GREAT DEAL WHICH IS BEING HELD IN RESERVE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF ATTORNEY KILBRIDE'S CLIENT WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO ALLOCATE THE SEWER EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT GOING TO BE USED. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE STATED THAT HIS CLIENT IS READY FOR BOTH WATER AND SEWER AND JUST WANTS TO BRING OUT THE POINT THAT THEY HAVE A PROBLEM AND THAT THE WATER AND SEWER POLICY IS RELATED. HE THEN DISCUSSED THE DEFINITION OF THE AREA TO BE SERVED AND DOUBTED THAT THE SEWER LINE IN ITS PRESENT CAPACITY CAN SERVE THE -ENTIRE AREA. HE FELT IT MIGHT BE BETTER POLICY TO LIMIT THE AREA AND ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT CLOSER TO THE SEWER LINE, RATHER THAN HAVE A LARGE AREA AND ENCOURAGE LEAP FROG DEVELOPMENT, ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT THIS AREA WAS DESIGNED TO INCLUDE STRUCTURES THAT HAVE AN IMMEDIATE PROBLEM. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE CONTINUED TO ARGUE THAT THOSE NEARER THE LINE WOULD MAKE A MORE EFFICI"ENT USE, HE REITERATED THAT ALLOCATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR WELLS IN ADDITION TO THOSE HAVING A FRANCHISE SO AS NOT TO EXCLUDE THE SMALL DEVELOPER. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED HOW 30 OR 40 UNITS ON A WELL WOULD BE METERED. MR. ZORC INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEIR DEVELOPMENT CALLS FOR A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT UNITS ON ONE WELL, AND IT IS AN APPROVED SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY. IN THIS INSTANCE, THERE WOULD BE ONLY ONE METER THAT WOULD METER EIGHT APARTMENTS. THE OWNER OF THE APARTMENTS WOULD PAY THE USAGE OF WATER FOR ALL THE UNITS. THIS WOULD PERMIT THE SMALL DEVELOPER WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO GO INTO A PACKAGE PLANT TO USE A FRESH WATER WELL SUPPLY WHICH IS APPROVED. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED HOW HE WOULD CHARGE THE RESIDENTS, AND MR. ZORC STATED THAT IT WOULD BE A BUILT-IN RENT FACTOR. HE NOTED THAT ST. FRANCIS MANOR HAS ONE METER FOR A 12 -UNIT BUILDING. ENGINEER BEINDORF FELT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WILL ARISE IS THAT THE DER HAS RECENTLY CHANGED THEIR RULES ON PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WHERE YOU ARE SUPPLYING 25 OR MORE. HE FELT A PROBLEM MIGHT ARISE WHEN YOU HAVE MORE UNITS UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP. 46 MAY 2 3 1979 ma 40 PAGE3 3 I MR. ZORC STATED THAT HE IS TRUSTEE FOR FOUR OWNERS, SO THERE IS MORE THAN ONE OWNER. DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON THE SUBJECT OF OWNERSHIP. ENGINEER BEINDORF NOTED THAT BY .REQUIRING A FRANCHISE, THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, WHICH SOMEDAY THE COUNTY WOULD TAKE OVER, WILL HAVE TO BE BUILT WITHIN CERTAIN STANDARDS; IN ADDITION THE FRANCHISE SITUATION ELIMINATES THE POTENTIAL HEALTH PROBLEM CAUSED BY HAVING A LARGE NUMBER OF UNITS ON INDIVIDUAL WELLS. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO LOOK AT THE BEST PROGRAM FOR THE COUNTY AND FELT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO ELIMINATE A LOT OF INDIVIDUAL WELLS. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE POINTED OUT THAT IF'THERE SHOULD BE NEW DER REQUIREMENTS, THEN HIS CLIENT WOULDN'T GET A PERMIT. HE ASKED IF THE COUNTY INTENDED TO CUT OUT THE INDIVIDUAL HOME OWNERS ALONG THIS LINE. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT IT WILL BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE ECONOMICALLY FOR ANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES TO TIE IN. MR. ZORC STATED THAT HE WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER THE DER REGULATIONS ARE AND JUST WANTS TO BE ABLE TO USE ANY SYSTEM FOR WHICH HE CAN GET A PERMIT. • ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT IF THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE STRUCTURE, THEN A FRANCHISE WOULD BE REQUIRED, BUT NOT IF IT IS ALL IN ONE STRUCTURE. IF IT WERE CONDOMINIUMIZED, IT WOULD REQUIRE•A FRANCHISE. ATTORNEY KIL$RIDE STATED THAT THE SMALLEST PACKAGE PLANT COSTS ABOUT $50,000. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF BY REQUIRING A FRANCHISE WE -ARE ENCOURAGING A LOT OF INDIVIDUAL WELLS AND SEPTIC TANKS AND WHETHER WE STAND IN DANGER OF POISONING THE WATER SOURCE. ENGINEER BEINDORF STATED THAT UNLESS THE LAW CHANGES, THIS CAN BE DONE, AND THERE IS THE CHANCE OF A LOT'OF POLLUTION. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF IT WOULD BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR S UNITS TO PUT IN A FORCE MAIN AND LIFT STATION, AND MR. BEINDORF FELT THEY WOULD HAVE TO JOIN WITH SOMEONE ELSE IN ORDER TO MAKE IT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE DID NOT SEE -ANY HARM IN CHANGING THE RULES TO ALLOW SOMETHING SUCH AS MR. ZORC IS PROPOSING BECAUSE HE FELT THE ECONOMICS WILL TAKE CARE OF THE SITUATION ANYWAY. ►47 MAY 2 31979 800K - 4u PAcE 335 1 MR. LORC STATED THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO AVOID PUTTING IN 12 ONE THOUSAND GALLON SEPTIC TANKS. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY HAVE THE PERMITS, AND THE DER CANT BELIEVE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING SEPTIC TANKS IO` FROM A SEWER LINE. COMMISSIONER'SIEBERT FELT WE HAVE TO WEIGH THE VALUE OF THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AS OPPOSED TO THE PROLIFERATION OF SEPTIC TANKS. ATTORNEY CHARLES GARRIS APPEARED, REPRESENTING CARMEN NICOTRA, WHO PLANS ON CONSTRUCTING AN APARTMENT IN THE 6TH AVENUE AREA. HE STATED THEY HAVE THE SAME OBJECTION AS MR. ZORC. HE UNDERSTOOD THE PURPOSE OF THE FRANCHISE TO BE MORE OR LESS A PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL OWNERS WHERE DEVELOPERS PUT IN A WATER SYSTEM. !'HERE YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER OPERATING A SMALL COMPLEX, ATTORNEY GARRIS FELT THERE IS NO NEED TO PROTECT ANYONE SINCE THE TENANTS WILL WORK WITH HIM IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE WATER. ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE BUILDING, IT WILL REQUIRE A FRANCHISE. ATTORNEY GARRIS QUESTIONED THE SEWER RATES BASED ON THE WATER USAGE AND ASKED IF YOU SHOULD, FOR INSTANCE, METER A SINGLE WELL, WOULD THAT MEAN YOUR SEWAGE RATE WOULD BE BASED ON THE WATER USE FOR THAT ENTIRE COMPLEX. HE NOTED THAT OBVIOUSLY SOME OF THE WATER IS BEING USED FOR THE SWIMMING POOL, TO WATER THE LAWN, ETC. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT WOULD*BE THE EFFECT*.' THE RATES THAT THE HOLDER OF THE FRANCHISE COULD CHARGE TO CUSTOMERS WOULD BE I•N THE FRANCHISE, BUT WHAT THE COUNTY WOULD CHARGE TO THE USER WILL HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE. ATTORNEY GARRIS STATED IF YOU ARE MANDATING USE OF A FRANCHISE, YOU ARE BASICALLY DISALLOWING DEVELOPMENT FOR THE SMALL PROPERTY OWNER AND IMPOSING AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THEM. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE COST WOULD BE IN THE CENTRAL WATER SUPPLY, NOT THE FRANCHISE, AND HE DID NOT BELIEVE IT WAS EVER ANTICIPATED THAT A SINGLE OWNER WOULD TIE IN BECAUSE OF THE EXPENSE. DEAN LUETHJE ASKED WHO WILL MAINTAIN THE OWNERSHIP OF THE COLLECTION TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE BUILT BY THE MAY 2 3 1979 1($ BOOK 40 Phcf 336 DEVELOPER, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT IT IS ANTICIPATED THEY WILL BE PRIVATE AND THE DEVELOPER WILL HAVE A CONTINUING RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE UNTIL A BETTER SYSTEM CAN COME IN. CITY MANAGER,JOHN LITTLE INQUIRED IF THE COUNTY IS PROPOSING TO HAVE THOSE CUSTOMERS BE RETAIL CUSTOMERS OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH. HE STATED THAT THE CITY IS NOT INTERESTED IN RETAIL SEWER CUSTOMERS WITHOUT THE WATER SUPPLY, HE WAS INFORMED THAT IS NOT THE INTENT. CITY MANAGER LITTLE EXPLAINED THAT FOR THE MOST PART WASTE WATER SYSTEMS LOSE MONEY, AND THEY WOULD NOT WANT A WASTE WATER CUSTOMER ONLY UNDER THEIR PRESENT RATES BECAUSE THE RATE PAYERS WOULD BE SUB- SIDIZING THIS. CITY MANAGER LITTLE EXPLAINED THEIR RATE FORMULA, NOTING THAT THEY MAKE ALLOWANCES IN MULTI -FAMILY FOR SWIMMING POOLS, ETC., AND HAVE A CUT OFF AT 9,000 GALLONS AS AN AVERAGE FOR USE INSIDE THE HOUSE. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF THE BOARD WISHED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENTS HE CITED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISCUSSION. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 79-48 WITH THE AMENDMENTS CITED BY ATTORNEY COLLINS, PLUS THE ABILITY FOR A SINGLE WELL SYSTEM SUCH AS DISCUSSED TO GET ONTO THE SEWER LINE, BY MAKING AN EXCEPTION TO THE FRANCHISE REQUIREMENT FOR THOSE AREAS WHO DON `T HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY UNDER DER REQUIREMENTS, AND SETTING AN ALLOCATION OF UP TQ 600,000 GPD. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT MOST OF THIS AREA IS ZONED MULTIFAMILY AND HE BELIEVED SOME OF THEM COULD GET TOGETHER'AND HOOK IN. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT WE ARE PROTECTED AS FAR AS THE CENTRAL. -WATER SUPPLY IS CONCERNED, EVEN THOUGH WE MAY NOT LIKE THE QUALITY OF WATER BEING SUPPLIED. CHAIRMAN WODTKE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE WATER AND FELT WE MAY HAVE PEOPLE HERE COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT IF IT IS•THEIR WELL, THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT LESS COMPLAINT. 119, MAY 2 3 1979 BOOK 40 PACE 337 4 CHAIRMAN WODTKE NEXT EXPRESSED THE CONCERN THAT PEOPLE WILL TRY TO CIRCUMVENT THE BOARD BY SETTING UP DUMMY CORPORATIONS, ETC. HE ASKED MR. ZORC IF HE IS GOING TO BUILD ANY MORE THAN $.UNITS, FRANK ZORC STATED THAT HIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN SUBDIVIDED ACCORDING TO COUNTY REGULATIONS, AND HE HAS HAD WELLS TESTED WITH EXCEL- LENT RESULTS. HE STATED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO REQUEST SIX DIFFERENT UNITS. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT HERE IS A GOOD INDICATION OF EXACTLY WHAT IS TRYING TO BE DONE. WE HAVE SOMEONE DEVELOPING WHO IS TRYING TO PUT IN 56 UNITS, AND HE IS GOING TO CIRCUMVENT WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO BY SETTING UP DIFFERENT OWNERSHIPS. HE IS ALSO SAYING IF HE CAN'T • GET INTO THE SYSTEM, HE WILL PUT IN ALL THESE SEPTIC TANKS, MR, ZORC STATED THAT HE IS NOT TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT ANYTHING. HE FELT THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR PUTTING IN THE WELL SYSTEM, AND THAT IS HE WANTS TO DO. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF THERE WILL BE A WELL ON EACH ONE OF THE LOTS, AND MR. ZORC STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE ONE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH BUILDING. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING AN ACCEPTABLE WATER SYSTEM AND NOTED THAT HE WOULD LOVE TO PUT IN A FRANCHISE SYSTEM, BUT THE COST FACTOR IS PROHIBITIVE. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT WITH 56 UNITS, THIS WOULD ONLY AMOUNT TO $1,000 PER UNIT, AND MR. ZORC STATED THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW IF ' ALL OF THESE WILL BE BUILT, BUT WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT THEY COULD BE. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN OPPOSITION, AND THE MOTION CARRIED. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER -DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RETURNED ITEM 7 IN REGARD TO A RELEASE OF SIDE AND REAR LOT EASEMENTS IN GRANADA GARDENS, UNIT 1, TO TODAY'S AGENDA. THE CHAIRMAN NOTED THAT THE BOARD HAD EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT ANY UTILITY LINES BEING IN EASEMENTS, ZONING DIRECTOR DEWEY WALKER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE MET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES. AT&T SAID IT DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THEM, BUT BELL TELEPHONE SAID THEY DO HAVE BURIED CABLE 59 MAY 2 3 1979 :11 ' ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE LOTS NEXT TO U. S. 1 AND HAVE IT ON BLOCK A GOING BACK EAST ON 11TH ST. SW, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY DOWN THE CENTER LOT LINE. MR. WALKER STATED THAT HE ASKED IF THEY OBJECT TO THE EASEMENTS BEING VACATED, AND THE REPRESENTATIVE STATED THAT ONLY THEIR ENGINEERS CAN GIVE THE COUNTY A LETTER TO THAT EFFECT, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY LINES DOWN THE BACK LOT LINES,•AND THEY ARE NOT ON MR. HARES PROPERTY. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RELEASE OF THE SIDE AND REAR LOT EASEMENTS OF LOTS 1,2,3:4,5,6,17,18 AND 19, BLOCK "B", GRANADA GARDENS, UNIT 1, AS REQUESTED BY THOMAS E. AND DEANNE J. HARE. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT WE SHOULD WAIT TO HEAR FROM THE • TELEPHONE COMPANY ENGINEERS. ZONING DIRECTOR WALKER SUGGESTED THAT WE SEND A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF EASEMENTS TO THE ENGINEERS SO THEY CAN SEND BACK THEIR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL. HE NOTED THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE DID SAY THEY DON T HAVE ANY BURIED CABLE ON THESE LOTS, BUT WOULDNIT a COMMIT HIMSELF TO ANY FUTURE USE, DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON HOW THEY WOULD GET SERVICE TO THE BACK LOTS IF THE POLES ALONG 11TH ST, AND 11TH PLACE WERE TAKEN OUT, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF THERE ARE ANY STRUCTURES NOW OVER THE CENTER LINE. MR. WALKER STATED THAT THERE ARE NOT, BUT PART OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE, WHICH IS TO BE AN "L" SHAPE WILL GO OVER THE CENTER AND REAR LOT EASEMENTS. .ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED JUST RELEASING EVERYTHIN& BUT THE REAR LOT LINES AT THIS TIME, BUT THE CHAIRMAN DID NOT SEE WHERE THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING. DISCUSSION ENSUED ON RELEASING EASEMENTS THAT ARE DEDICATED FOR DRAINAGE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES AND POSSIBLY MAY BE NEEDED SOMEDAY FOR SEWER LINES. -COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED .HIS CONCERN WAS JUST ABOUT COVERING UP SOMEONE IS UTILITIES, COMMISSIONER LYONS WITHDREW*HIS MOTION AND COMMISSIONER DEESON WITHDREW HIS SECOND, 51 BOCK 40 mc[3219 MAY 2'3 1979 DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON RELEASING DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OFTHE EASEMENTS REQUESTED$AND COMMISSIONER LOY FELT WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF TO GET THE LETTER FROM THE UTILITY COMPANIES AND DISCUSS THIS WITH ATTORNEY CLEM AND MR. HARE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE INSTRUCTED ZONING DIRECTOR WALKER TO OBTAIN A LETTER FROM SOUTHERN BELL AS TO WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THEM. HE FURTHER INSTRUCTED THAT THIS MATTER BE INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT MEETING. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NEIL NELSON SUBMITTED A TABULATION ON THE BIDS RECEIVED FOR FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERVICE AND INSPECTION AND STATED THAT VERO BEACH FIRE EQUIPMENT IS THE LOW BIDDER ON EVERY ITEM EXCEPT FOUR. HE REVIEWED THE TABULATION, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS, IN DETAIL: 52 MAY 2 31979 BOOK 40 PAcE 0 /BvARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 -14th Avenue A Vero Beach, Florida 32900 y � � 41 ` / Z� BID TABULATION � � I< 4 g A. I J � �. / , C \/ `' " BID o. DAA�aF OPENING 4 G� 4 G� `' �` a� C' WAY/ l IRC -03 p 26, 1979 a��qv �c ° �, v �( BID TtTLL Fire Egtinguisher Service �r o �� � �\-� � /` � �`� and Inspection T�v ITE}.t NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT P 1. Annual Inspection 1 2 1 00 I so //1 13.3 ® /// a o Recharge dry chemical 2. 2-1/2 ound 2 50 2 35—! - 4 00 I3• a2�' �a a2 S d .5� . 7_S /©D:00 I 5 pound 4 25 3 00 5 00 t�L 4- IO cund b 0 5 55 7 00 r 3 �d s'00 5. 20 Pound •. y 0 0 RR 8 40 12 50 d d .1B�hciri m a�ple K or �;- 09 5 �. . ound 5 25 8- 10 pound 7 00 3 95 5 50 IS6 S"O 14aZ. 7® 6 00 8150 % 't9 CIO 9. 20 pound 10 00 12 7514 50 f Recharge Cot e 10. 2-1/2 pound 2 50— 2 00 5 00 11. 3 thru 5 pounds 3 50 3 0 00 1112 5 0fl g 0 6D 11 b thru 10 pounds 4 50 4 0 Q d b 00 3 G --�— il 11 thru 15 pounds 5 505 5 7 00 �Q o �— 14• 16 thru 20 � pounds 6 5 8 00 od Hydro test Cot 6 00 S6 0 p41% One Of two UNIT 1 1 1 OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 -14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION C /BOARD C �` �' �� �' J G� w ' Oro ro'Y o AQ a BID NO. IRC -03 DATE OF OPEN INC3�o April 26 1979 BID TITLE Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Servicin ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT 15. 2 1/2 pound 5 00 3T 75 4 00 r r e D 3 7J V,00 w 16. 3 through 5 pounds 5 00 3 75 4 00D >e . c.0) 0 0 30 '06 3a0b O to A 1; rh-rntigh 10 pounds 5 Of) 1 1 75 13 no,� 1 s` ob t / a� /.Sa u - o 18. 11 through 15 pounds 5 00 3 75 5 PO ® � D U' w W W 19. 16 through 20 pounds 20. Recharge soda acid Ext. 5 00 3 75 5 00 U sa G o 9- 5- Vp a© %/ o 21: Hy ro test soda/ acid N/ w N A N/ a ® Q D Lu j 22. Recharge Pressure Water Ext. 1 00 1 20 2 00. LL FO- t_.) O 23.dro test Pressure Wate 3 00 1 25 2 00 z R ©U / p0 z 24- Recharge 2 1/2 gal foam Ext 3 00 1 20 3 25 / ( .zo 3 J C) 0 25. Hydro test 2 1/2 gal foa N/k 1 25 NIX I W H A,1 ` S �- H z L� � a H O J P- � 499 qs" 563 IS- 9Y2 Certified true price record ng NEIL NELSON, Chairman Page two of two N z I W • � O W ZO w W .� N rn W w w � Ll_ L.-) U Q >e . c.0) 6O O to A z A uj A O W , oU w X: z O Li x a — U w u - o F- =) N F— i W w -%A w F- w W W A LL- O U W Ln w ruj z w ~ N Q Lu j O � O J � LL FO- t_.) O M y. A act z o ¢ z o z � w a owa C) 0 w z W H {— H z L� � a H O J P- � I • EQUIPMENT FOR FIRE EXTINGUISHER INSPECTION AND SERVICE, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $563.15, PROPERTY APPRAISER BILL LAW CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND INFORMED THEM THAT HE NEEDS THEIR DECISION IN REGARD TO AN ITEM HE IS CONSIDERING FOR HIS BUDGET, WHICH HAS TO BE IN TALLAHASSEE BY JUNE 1ST. HE -EXPLAINED THAT THE GOVERNMENT ALLOWS ONLY 1# MILEAGE, AND IN THIS DAY OF SWIFTLY RISING COSTS, THIS IS NOT A LARGE ENOUGH ALLOWANCE FOR HIS PEOPLE TO CONTINUE USING THEIR OWN AUTOMOBILES FOR FIELD WORK, HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IF THE GAS SITUATION GETS WORSE,,HE WOULD ANTICIPATE A NIGHTMARE TRYING TO SECURE RATIONING FOR HIS OFFICE FOR PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILES. HE, THEREFORE, BELIEVED THAT THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE THIS IS FOR HIS OFFICE TO SECURE COUNTY -OWNED AUTOMOBILES FOR HIS FIELDMEN. THERE ARE SEVEN, COUNTING HIMSELF, WHO WOULD BE USING THESE AUTOMOBILES, MR. LAW STATED THAT THEY HAVE A JEEP AT PRESENT THAT THEY SWAP ABOUT, WHICH IS MAINLY USED IN THE AGRICULTURAL AREA. HE FELT THAT THEY COULD MANAGE WITH FIVE NEW VEHICLES TO SHARE BETWEEN THE SEVEN OF THEM. MR. LAW CONTINUED THAT HE ANTICIPAT9S BETWEEN $25,000 AND $30,000 EXCESS WILL BE RETURNED FROM HIS BUDGET THIS YEAR. IF THEY WERE TO SECURE AUTO- MOBILES SIMILAR TO THE DODGE ASPEN RECENTLY PURCHASED FOR THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH CAME TO $6,300, THE FIVE CARS WOULD COST APPROXI- MATELY $31,500; IF HE FIGURED CONSERVATIVELY AND ONLY ANTICIPATED RETURNING $25,000 TO THE COUNTY, HE WOULD NEED AN EXTRA $6,000. MR. LAW STATED THAT HIS QUESTION IS WHETHER THE BOARD FEELS THE COUNTY COULD USE THIS RETURNED EXCESS MONEY TO PURCHASE THE AUTOMOBILES. IF NOT, HE WOULD HAVE TO PURCHASE THEM IN THIS YEAR `S BUDGET. IF HE COULD USE THESE RETURNED MONIES, HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO BUDGET THIS LARGE AMOUNT. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED WHAT HE HAS IN HIS BUDGET NOW FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR EMPLOYEES USING THEIR CARS, AND THE PROPERTY APPRAISER STATED IT WAS BETWEEN $6,000 AND $7,000. COMMISSIONER LYONS DISCUSSED LEASING CARS, AND MR. LAW STATED THAT HE HAS NOT CHECKED INTO THAT, BUT FELT IT WOULD BE AROUND $200.00 A MONTH. ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED INCREASING THE EMPLOYEES' SALARIES TO MAKE UP FOR THE SHORTCOMING BETWEEN THE 14 A MILE AND THE ACTUAL 55 MAY 2 31979 BOOK 40 PAGE 343 COSTS, AND MR. LAW AGREED THAT COULD BE DONE, BUT THE PROBLEM ARISES IF WE GET INTO A GAS RATIONING SITUATION. COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED THAT YOU COULD BUILD IN THIS MONEY, BUT THEN THE SITUATION CHANGES, AND YOU CAN T GET IT BACK. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE DOES NOT LIKE TO INCREASE THE SALARIES. COMMISSIONER LOY DISCUSSED THE COUNTY PROVIDING GASOLINE FOR MR. LAW'S EMPLOYEES, WHICH WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE IF HE COULD GET IT AT COUNTY COST, THIS WOULD BE PROVIDED THEY HAVE COUNTY CARS - NOT THEIR PERSONAL CARS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SUCH AUTOMOBILES, AND COMMISSIONER DEESON ASKED IF THEY CAN GET BY WITH FOUR CYLINDER AUTOMOBILES. COMMISSIONER LOY AGREED THIS SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO, BUT NOTED THEY MUST HAVE THE ONE JEEP. DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON THE MECHANICS OF TAXING, INCLUDING THIS IN BUDGETS, LEVYING, THE BOARD ANTICIPATING THIS IN THEIR CASH CARRY- OVER, ETC. THE -CHAIRMAN FELT IT MIGHT BE BETTER FOR MR. LAW TO SHOW HE IS. OPERATING WITHIN HIS BUDGET AND RETURNING THE EXCESS. MR. LAW STATED THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO GO AHEAD AND REARRANGE HIS BUDGET, BUT HE WILL HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM TALLAHASSEE, • AND THEY WILL WANT SOME APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD, HE STATED THAT HE WOULD PREFER THE BOARD CONSIDER PURCHASING THE AUTOMOBILES KNOWING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE GETTING MONEY COMING IN TO OFFSET THE EXPENSE., COMMISSIONER.SIEBERT STATED THAT FOR BOOKKEEPING PURPOSES, HE WOULD PREFER IT THE.OTHER WAY. HE POINTED OUT THERE ARE OTHER COSTS - INSURANCE, ETC., THAT WOULD BE THE COUNTY'S BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE OUR CARS. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT WE COULD BUY THE CARS AND TURN THEM OVER TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, AND HE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTE- NANCE, INSURANCE; ETC. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT IF.YOU TRANSFER THINGS, IT DOESN'T REALLY SHOW THE TRUE COST PICTURE IN THE BUDGET. 56 MAY 2,3 1979 0 Fa r CHAIRMAfJl`WODTKE NOTED THAT WE COULD PASS A RESOLUTION SAYING WE WOULD AGREE WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS REALIGNMENT OF HIS CURRENT BUDGET ALLOWING HIM TO BUY THESE CARS THIS YEAR, WHICH WOULD BASICALLY BE ACCOMPLISHING THE SAME THING. COMMISSIONER LOY AGREED THAT THE BIDDING AND ACTUAL BUYING WOULD BE A MUCH CLEANER TRANSACTION IF IT WERE DONE RIGHT OUT OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE, AND SHE WOULD PREFER THAT THE COUNTY WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE PAPERWORK. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 79-49 ENDORSING THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S PLAN TO PURCHASE UP TO FIVE AUTOMOBILES OUT OF EXCESS FUNDS FROM THE OPERATION OF HIS OFFICE. 57 MAY 2.3 1979 Box 40 w345 J RESOLUTION NO. 79-49 BE IT.RESOLVED by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, •that said board has no objection to the Property Appraiser amending his current budget and allocat- ing excess funds in the Property Appraiser's budget to the purchase of economy oriented motor vehicles. Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 23rd day of May , 1979 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Wi liam C. Wodtke, Jr. Vf Chairman ATTEST: \ i Freda Wright, C k ADMINISTRATOR .JENNINGS REQUESTED THAT THREE EMERGENCY ITEMS BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADDED THREE EMERGENCY.ITEMS.TO TODAY'S AGENDA AS REQUESTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. 58 MAY 2 31979 BOOK 40 PAGE ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE APPROVAL FOR OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR HIMSELF, THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRA- TOR, THE NEW PLANNER, AND POSSIBLY A COMMISSIONER TO GO TO FORT LAUDERDALE TO ATTEND A STATE ASSOCIATION MEETING IN REGARD TO.IMPACT FEES. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND ANY COMMISSIONER, TO ATTEND THE WORKSHOP HELD BY THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA COUNTIES IN REGARD TO THE USE OF IMPACT FEES FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; SAID MEETING TO BE HELD IN FORT LAUDERDALE ON JUNE 13, 1979. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED RETRO -ACTIVE APPROVAL OF OUT -OF - COUNTY TRAVEL FOR ADMINISTRATOR .JENNINGS TO GO TO ORLANDO TO MEET WITH THE DER IN REGARD TO THE SOUTH COUNTY SEWER MATTER ON MAY 16, 1979, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT-OF-COUNTY.TRAVEL FOR ADMINISTRA- TOR JENNINGS, CHAIRMAN WODTKE, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS, TO GO TO ATLANTA TO MEET WITH THE EPA RE THE 201 FACILITIES PLAN ON MAY 25, 1979. ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT HE HAS HAD NO FURTHER CONTACT FROM RUDY HUBBARD IN REGARD TO A LEASE OF COUNTY PROPERTY FOR THE WGYL RADIO TOWER. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, TO REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE AGENDA. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF THE BOARD IS TELLING HIM THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER INTERESTED IN THIS PROPOSAL. COMMISSIONER DEESON STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT BE WITHOUT SOME ESCALATOR CLAUSES. FURTHER DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO VARIOUS PROVISIONS, LENGTH OF TIME, ETC., AND IT WAS AGREED TO LEAVE THIS MATTER IN THE POSITION OF HAVING MR. HUBBARD COME BACK TO THE BOARD IF HE WISHED TO PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.' 59 MAY 2 31979 BOOK 40 PAGE 347 COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WOULD DROP FROM TODAY `S AGENDA HIS ITEM IN REGARD TO SIGNS IN THE D.O.T. RIGHT-OF-WAY IN INDIAN RIVER SHORES BECAUSE A LETTER HAS BEEN WRITTEN TO THE D.O.T. AND THEY HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO RESPOND. HE WISHED TO KNOW WHO IS GOING 70 WRITE A LETTER TO THE HOSPITAL BOARD ABOUT THE HOSPITAL WATER ALLOCATION, AND THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT HE IS GOING TO ATTEND TO THAT. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT REPORTED THAT HE HAD MET WITH THE CON- SULTANTS TO DISCUSS THE FIRE DISTRICT STUDY, AND HE FELT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO PROCEED PROMPTLY ON THE NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT. HE STATED THAT HE IS IN FAVOR OF DOING S0, AND IF WE DO, THEN IT IS NECESSARY TO DECIDE HOW WE ARE GOING TO HANDLE THE BUDGET FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY NEXT YEAR. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT CONTINUED THAT FINANCE OFFICER BARTON FELT WE OUGHT TO PROCEED IMMEDIATELY TO SET UP THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT AS RECOMMENDED UNDER THE DUAL TAXATION STUDY. ALL THIS DOES IS BREAK OUT THE NON AD VALOREM TAX REVENUES WHICH ARE RECEIVED ON AN UNINCORPORATED BASIS FROM TME AD VALOREM TAX REVENUES, INTO A FUND BY THEMSELVES. HE DID NOT BELIEVE WE CAN SET UP A -SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT FOR NEXT YEAR, AND, WE, THEREFORE, NEED A.METHOD OF FUNDING FIRE PRO- TECTION IN THE SOUTH COUNTY. IF THERE HAD BEEN A MUNICIPAL SERVICE UNIT SET UP FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE WHOLE COUNTY LAST YEAR,'THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A $420,000 SURPLUS, BUT IF YOU DO SET UP THE NORTH COUNTY, INSTEAD OF HAVING ONE, YOU WILL HAVE TWO, AND THEIR PRO RATA SHARE OF - THE SURPLUS SHOULD BE TURNED OVER TO THAT NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT. IN THE SOUTH COUNTY, YOU USE THE REST OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA AND EITHER CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OR GO YOUR OWN WAY - WHATEVER IS DECIDED UPON. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THIS MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING, UNIT WILL BE SEPARATE FOR THE NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT IT IS FIGURED OUT IN THE REPORT THAT THE SOUTH COUNTY BRINGS IN ON A RATIO OF 2 TO 1 WHAT THE NORTH COUNTY DOES SO.WE COULD SAY WE CAN SPEND TWICE AS MUCH OUT OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE UNIT IN THE SOUTH COUNTY AS WE DO IN THE NORTH COUNTY, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO RETURN THEIR SHARE TO THE NORTH COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT IF ONE IS ESTABLISHED. 69 MAY 2 3 1979 BOOK 40 PAGE 8 CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THE TAX DISTRICT IN THE NORTH COUNTY WOULD BE TAXING THEMSELVES. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THEY PROBABLY WOULDNIT HAVE TO WITH THIS CONTRIBUTION. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF WE WILL GET OURSELVES INTO A CORNER IF WE DON `T GET BOTH TAXING DISTRICTS GOING AT THE SAME TIME. HE NOTED THERE ARE AN AWFUL. LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AT THE SOUTH OF THE COUNTY AND HE COULD SEE WHERE WE MIGHT INADVERTENTLY PUT A BIG SQUEEZE ON THE CITY OF VERO BEACH. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT IT WOULD TAKE SOMETHING LIKE A MILL AND A HALF TO ESTABLISH A SOUTH COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT AND HAVE THE EXACT SAME SERVICE FOR WHICH THEY ARE NOW PAYING 9110 OF A MILL, BUT HE FELT IF WE DRAG OUR FEET THAT IS NOT FAIR TO THE NORTH COUNTY. ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT A MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT IS A UNIT THAT IS.ESTABLISHED JUST IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. IT IS THE UNINCORPORATED PORTION OF THE COUNTY, EXCLUDING THE NORTH DISTRICT, ASSUMING WE GET IT SET UP IN TIME. IT WAS NOTED THIS IS PROPERLY CALLED A MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT IT IS NOT A TAX. IT COMES FROM NON AD VALOREM SOURCES, YOU USE THE NON AD VALOREM SOURCES FOR FIRE PROTECTION. THEY ARE USING AD VALOREM IN THE NORTH COUNTY SO YOU CAN T USE THEM IN THE SOUTH COUNTY. THE BOARD FOUND THIS VERY CONFUSING. ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT WE HAVE IN OUR BUDGET A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DOLLARS OF REVENUE THAT IS NON AD VALOREM IN SOURCE WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH FOR FIRE PROTECTION. ONE OF THE POINTS, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT IS GETTING AT, IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE AND SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH WILL BE PAID FROM NON AD VALOREM SOURCES SO THE RESIDENTS WON `T BE CHARGED BOTH CITY AND COUNTY TAXES FOR FIRE PROTECTION. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT.THE NORTH COUNTY WILL GET THE . MONEY BACK IN THE FORM OF A CONTRIBUTION. 6]. MAY 2 31979 soo1c 0 PA -UE 349 ri • E77 COMMISSIONER LOY FELT, IN OTHER WORDS, WE WOULD USE SEVERAL SOURCES TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY NEEDED TO CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT IS RIGHT. WHAT IS PAID TO THE CITY WILL BE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE TAXES RAISED FROM THE CITY ON AN AD VALOREM BASIS - SAY COUNTY TAXES ON THE CITY OF VERO BEACH WERE $100 - WE ARE GOING TO TAKE $100 OUT OF THE NON AD VALOREM SOURCE AND PAY THAT TO THE CITY UNDER THE CONTRACT. WE WILL TAX THE PEOPLE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE SERVICE THAT SPECIFICALLY BENEFITS THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. THIS IS IN THE KELTON REPORT. THE FORMULA IS FOR WHAT THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IN AD VALOREM TAXES - THE AD VALOREM TAXES AGAINST CITY RESIDENTS WILL BE REDUCED BY THAT PORTION WE RECEIVED LAST YEAR AND THEN WE WILL GO INTO THE NON AD VALOREM SOURCE AND MAKE THAT UP. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IN THE NORTH COUNTY THEY APPROVED 5/10 OF A MILL CAP, WHICH WILL RAISE $68,000, OR WHAT THEY WILL NEED TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN AS PRESENTED BY KELTON & ASSOCIATES. FROM THE NON AD VALOREM TAX REVENUES FROM THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND, A CONTRIBUTION IS GIVEN TO THE NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT OF $68,000, BUT YOU CAN'T GIVE VERO BEACH MORE THAN DOUBLE, OR $136,000, FROM THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND FOR SOUTH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $136,000 AND $361,000, THEREFORE, WOULD HAVE TO BE RAISED OUT OF A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT FOR.THE--UNINCORPORATED AREA WHICH WOULDN'T PUT THE BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYER OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH. YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY i0 FUND THEIR FIRE PROTECTION. IF WE GIVE THE NORTH COUNTY DISTRICT THE ' $68,000, THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO LEVY ANYTHING. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT WE ARE JUST DESIGNATING WHERE AD VALOREM FUNDS ARE GOING. THERE SHOULDN'T BE A TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE UNDER THIS'PROPOSAL. HE FELT THEY HAVE THE CONCEPT, BUT IT IS CONFUSING AND THEY ARE HAVING TROUBLE COMMUNICATING.IT TO THE BOARD. DISCUSSION CONTINUED ABOUT PROCEEDING TO SET UP THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND, AND COMMISSIONER Loy COMMENTED THAT SHE HAD DISCUSSED WITH 62 MAY 2 31979 BOOK 40 ?ASE 350 THE FINANCE OFFICER CONSOLIDATING THE FINE & FORFEITURE FUND INTO THE GENERAL FUND BY OCTOBER 1sT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY DIRECTED THE FINANCE OFFICER TO CREATE A MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1979-80 AS RECOMMENDED BY KELTON & ASSOCIATES IN THE DUAL TAXATION STUDY AND ALSO TO CONSOLIDATE THE FINE & FORFEITURE FUND INTO THE GENERAL FUND BY OCTOBER 1, 1979. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER DEESON, TO AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE MUNICIPALITIES INVOLVED AND THE COUNTY, IN REGARD TO CREATING A NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT. • CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED WE HAVE APPOINTED TWO FIRE STUDY COMMITTEES, HAVE. HIRED A CONSULTANT AND HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS. THE NORTH COUNTY HAS ADDRESSED THIS, AND WE ARE TRYING TO SET UP ANOTHER MEETING IN THE SOUTH COUNTY. BASICALLY WE DO NOT HAVE AN OFFICIAL REPORT BACK FROM EITHER OF THE STUDY GROUPS. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT THE NORTH COUNTY DID TAKE OFFICIAL ACTION, AND HE HAS THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING. THE CHAIRMAN THEN DISCUSSED HAVING A WORKSHOP MEETING WITH THE FIRE STUDY CONSULTANT PRIOR TO MEETING WITH THE SOUTH COUNTY, AND COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT IT MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT BROUGHT UP THE LAWSUIT WITH THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES IN REGARD TO THE FIRE STATION CONTRACT AND FELT WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH IT. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT.RIGHT NOW THE•TOWN HAS A COMPLAINT, THE BASIC PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO HAVE THE AGREEMENTS DECLARED NULL AND VOID BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE COUNTY. WE FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS, AND IT HAS BEEN STAYED AT THAT POINT. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT AS HE UNDERSTANDS IT, THE ACTUAL QUESTION WON T BE RESOLVED UNLESS WE FILE A COUNT5R SUIT. 63 MAY 2 31979 BOOK O PACE • ATTORNEY ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED THAT WE MUST FIND IF THE AGREEMENTS ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE. IF THEY ARE, AND WE TAKE ACTION, WE COULD FILE AGAINST THE TOWN TO ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT, BUT HE FELT BEFORE WE DO THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A UNIFIED SYSTEM. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THE QUESTION HAS TO BE RESOLVED AS TO WHETHER WE HAVE AN ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT OR NOT. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THEY HAVE DONE QUITE A BIT OF RESEARCH AND EVERYTHING THEY HAVE FOUND INDICATES THE AGREEMENT CAN BE ENFORCED. IT IS A DECISION ON THE COMMISSION'S PART AS TO WHETHER THEY WANT TO DO IT NOW OR IF THEY WISH TO WAIT UNTIL THE DISTRICTS ARE SET UP AND THEN TRY TO WORK OUT THE SOUTH COUNTY PROBLEMS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO WHETHER NOW IS THE TIME TO MOVE AHEAD ON THIS MATTER, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THERE IS A HEARING SET FOR .JUNE 4TH THAT CAN BE CANCELED IF THE BOARD DESIRES. HE ASKED IF THE BOARD WANTS TO GET.OVER THE HURDLE OF THIS PRELIMINARY MOTION OR CANCEL THE HEARING TO SEE WHAT WILL HAPPEN. HE NOTED THE MEETING CAN BE SET UP ON 10 DAYS NOTICE AT ANYTIME. THE BOARD FELT THIS IS A LEGAL MATTER. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THEM THAT THEY WOULD GET A RULING WITHIN A WEEK, AND IT WILL EITHER BE THAT ATTORNEY CLEM HAS A GOOD CASE FOR THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES AND WE HAVE TO ANSWER OR THAT IT IS DEFECTIVE. IT IS JUST A MATTER OF WHETHER THE BOARD WANTS TO START THE MOMENTUM GOING. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE BOARD AGREED THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED THIS FAR, COMMISSIONER LOY REPORTED THAT WE HAVE FOLLOWED UP WITH ONE MORE RECOMMENDATION MADE IN THE.DUAL TAXATION STUDY IN REGARD TO REQUESTING THE SHERIFF TO BREAK HIS BUDGET INTO VARIOUS USES, INVESTI- GATIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, SERVICES, ETC', SHE CONTINUED THAT FINANCE OFFICER BARTON AND MRS. KHAIL OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ARE NOW WORKING ON A FORMAT TO BREAK THESE FIGURES DOWN, AND THE SHERIFF HAS BEEN VERY WILLING TO COOPERATE. SHE NOTED THAT THIS WILL BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT FORMAT TO WORK WITH AT BUDGET TIME, BUT SHE FEELS IT IS A STEP FORWARD. MAY 23 1979 64 BOOK 40 PAGE 352 I COMMISSIONER DEESON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAS A LETTER FROM MAYOR FLOOD ENCLOSING A RESOLUTION TO THE DOT PASSED BY THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN IN REGARD TO THE TRAFFIC HAZARD CREATED BY THE BLIND HILL. ON S.R. 512 WEST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS, AND HE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD ADOPT A SIMILAR RESOLUTION. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 79-50 AS ABOVE. MAY 23 1979 65 BOOK PAGF 353 • RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 50 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of. Indian River County, Florida, is aware and concerned about an existing traffic hazard at S.R. 512, immediately West of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, and WHEREAS, a new middle school has been opened in the area and approximately 700 children are bused daily to and from the school on S.R. 512; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board request the Department of Transportation to give priority attention to State Project No. 88040-3512 (the widening of S.R. 512), and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be duly forwarded to the Department of Trans- portation, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Said Resolution shall become effective as of this. 23rd day of May 1979. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By /GGA v William C. Wodtke, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: ZIP Freda Wright, Cl k MAY 2 31979 BOOK 40 PAGE 354 COMMISSIONER DEESON THEN BROUGHT UP THE COLLECTOR STATION IN FELLSMERE AND STATED THAT HE HAS HAD MORE COMPLAINTS THAT IT IS AN EYESORE. HE DID CONTACT THE URBAN FORESTER AND DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF PLANTING SOME BOTTLEBRUSH TREES THERE, WHICH ARE AT PRESENT 4' PLUS IN HEIGHT. THIS APPEARS TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO THE RESIDENTS OF FELLSMERE. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAS A PRICE FROM A NURSERY OF $7.50 PER BOTTLEBRUSH TREE AND WOULD RECOMMEND A MINIMUM OF 20 TREES BE PLANTED ALONG THE DRAINAGE DITCH. HE NOTED A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE PINE TREES PLANTED WERE LOST WHEN WE DIDN�T HAVE RAIN. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED SPENDING UP TO $300 TO BUY BOTTLE - BRUSH TREES TO PROVIDE SCREENING FOR THE FELLSMERE COLLECTOR STATION. COMMISSIONER DEESON THEN ASKED THE ADMINISTRATOR ABOUT PLANS FOR WABASSO BEACH PARK. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS PRESENTED A PROPOSED PLAN AND SUGGESTED THAT A CERTAIN AREA BE FENCED AND HAVE A GATE. HE ALSO DISCUSSED A PROPOSAL FOR FISHERMEN TO COME IN AT NIGHT, BUT FELT THE FIRST PRIORITY WOULD BE TO PUT IN THE FENCING. IT WAS NOTED THAT THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND $25,000 WAS ALLOCATED. ADMINISTRATOR-JENNINGS ASKED IF HE HAS APPROVAL TO SPEND UP TO $25,000 ON THIS PROJECT AT THIS TIME. FENCE WOULD BE THE #1 PRIORITY. HE SUGGESTED THAT A CONCRETE STRUCTURE PRESENTLY THERE BE LEFT FOR STORAGE. COMMISSIONER LOY FELT WE NEED THE FENCE, THE WALKWAY AROUND THE FENCE, AND SOMETHING IN THE WAY OF A BOARDWALK WITH CROSSOVERS, COMMISSIONER DEESON SUGGESTED WE*GO AHEAD WITH THE FENCE AND WALKWAYS'AND THE CROSSOVERS. HE FELT THE BOARDWALK MAY FORCE THE PEOPLE ' TO WALK AROUND. ADMINISTRATOR .JENNINGS NOTED THAT HE HAS TO CHECK ON COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE AND GET PERMITS. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED TH5 ADMINISTRATOR TO -PROCEED AS DISCUSSED AND SEE HOW FAR HE CAN GO WITH THE MONEY ALREADY ALLOCATED. 67 MAY 21 31979 BOOK . 40 PAGE 355 CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A LADY CONCERNED ABOUT CARS DRIVING ON THE BICYCLE PATH GOING TO*THE BASEBALL GAME, THIS IS BY THE VERO BEACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. COMMISSIONER $IEBERT SUGGESTED PUTTING SOME POSTS UP ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BICYCLE PATH TO PREVENT THIS, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR NOTED THAT THE PROBLEM IS°THAT THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION HAS STORAGE IN THIS LOCATION AND LOADS AND UNLOADS MATERIALS. HE STATED THAT HE WILL CHECK ON IT AND SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO ATTEND THE WORKSHOP MEETING HELD WITH THE HOSPITAL RENOVATION CONSULTANTS, BUT UNDERSTANDS THAT POSSIBLY IN THREE OR FOUR MONTHS THEY WILL BE READY • TO GO TO BID WITH CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMEONE START TO ADDRESS HOW WE ARE GOING TO FUND THIS WORK BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE BUDGET SESSION. HE REQUESTED THAT COMMISSIONER LAY WORK WITH INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS TO TRY TO COME UP WITH SOME SUGGESTED WAYS FOR FUNDING. COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED THAT HE LEARNED AT THE WORKSHOP MEETING THAT THE CONSULTANTS HAVE NOT INCORPORATED AS MANY OF MR. KONTOULASI IDEAS INTO THEIR LAYOUT AS HE THOUGHT THEY HAD. HE STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE A MAN WHO IS DOING A VERY PRACTICAL AND FINE JOB FOR US IN WORKING WITH THE RENOVATION OF THE HOSPITAL COMPLEX, AND HE WOULD HOPE THE CONSULTANTS WILL LISTEN TO HIM. ' COMMISSIONER LYONS POINTED OUT THAT MR, KONTOULAS UNDERSTANDS THE COUNTY FUNCTIONS AND TRAFFIC FLOW PROBLEMS, AND HE DOES NOT FEEL THE CONSULTANTS HAVE REALLY LISTENED TO HIM. COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT SHE HAS COMMENTED ON THIS TO OT OF T S E MR. SINGH AND SHE FEELS A L THIS HAS BEEN STRAIGHTENED OUT. COMMISSIONER LYONS CONTINUED THAT HE FELT THE CONSULTANTS' DESIGN OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION ROOM WAS MORE EXPENSIVE'THAN THAT OF MR. KONTOULAS, AND HE DID NOT SEE WHY THEY DIDN'T ACCEPT IT. THE ADMINISTRATOR FELT THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS•CAN BE CHANGED. CHAIRMAN WODTKE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE'HAS RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STATING THAT THE CITY OF 6a MAY •2 3 1979 BOOK 40 PAGE 356 I VERO BEACH WILL TAKE THE COUNTY UP ON THEIR OFFER TO CLEAR LAND AT THE AIRPORT AND THEY WILL PAY THE COUNTY NOT MORE THAN $4,100 FOR THIS WORK, HE NOTED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT MENTIONED AND WONDERED HOW THE CITY CAME UP WITH THIS FIGURE. HE DID NOT KNOW IF THEY FELT SUCH AN AMOUNT WOULD COMPLETE THE JOB. COMMISSIONER LOY FELT WE SHOULD CORRESPOND WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND ASK THEM TO OUTLINE WHAT THEY HAVE IN MIND. COMMISSIONER LYONS SUGGESTED THAT WE CHECK THE MINUTES OF THE CITY'S METING WHERE THIS WAS DISCUSSED. HE FELT IF THE CITY IS GOING TO ASK OR SOMETHING, IT SHOULD, COME FROM THE CITY AND NOT THE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. IT WAS AGREED THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE VERO BEACH CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE CHECKED ON THIS MATTER. DISCUSSION ENSUED ON APPOINTING SOMEONE TO THE REAC X COMMITTEE, AND COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED WE HAVE ALREADY APPOINTED ASSISTANT ADMINISTRA- TOR NELSON AS THE ENERGY. OFFICER, AND POSSIBLY HE SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO THE REAC X COMMITTEE. BOARD SECRETARY ELIZABETH FORLANI INFORMED THE BOARD THAT CIVIL DEFENSE DIRECTOR LEE NUZIE IS WORKING WITH THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR IN THIS- REGARD. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS FELT MR. NUZIE COULD BE APPOINTED UNTIL THE SITUATION MAY REQUIRE A CHANGE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPOINTED CIVIL DEFENSE DIRECTOR S. LEE NUZIE AS THE COUNTY'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE REAC'X COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER DEESON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE INGRESS AND EGRESS PROBLEM FOR BREEZY VILLAGE AND LAMPLIGHTER MOBILE HOME PARK IN THE EVENT OF TRAIN EMERGENCY HAS BEEN SOLVED BY THE CIVIL DEFENSE DIRECTOR AND HIS ASSISTANT. AN AGREEMENT WITH CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT MIGUEL A. GUZMAN PER THE MINORITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE EDA, IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1979, 69 MAY .2 31979 am 40 PAGE 357. I SUITE /o OI. FORUM 1❑ MIGUEL A. GUZMAN CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT -668 PALM BEACH LAKES BOULEVARD WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401 T64.90MO"c 13091 663.6333 January 4, 1979 Mr. L. Thommy Thomas County -Intergovernmental Coordinator Room 115, County Court House Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Thomas: In accordance with your request for a proposal to perform a final audit of an EDA Project, I submit the following information: 1. I am an "Independent Public Accountant" as defined in Section IV, Part S2 of the Department of Commerce "Audit'Instructions for Local Public Works Grants Under Title I of the Public Works Employment Acts of 1976 and 1977", and certified public accountant licensed by the Board of Accountancy of the State of Florida. 2. I will comply with guidelines fn the Department of Commerce "Audit Instruc- tions for Local Public Works Grants Under Title I of the Public Works Employment Acts.of 1976 and 1977". The scope of the audit and the resulting report will be sufficient to meet the requirements of these instructions. 3. I.agree that all the working papers prepared in connection with this audit shall be retained for a period of three years and that these working papers will be made available for examination, if requested by duly authorized representatives of the Department of Ccmerce, Office of Audits. 4. I will comply with Section IV I of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) "Audit Instructions for Local Public Works Grants Under Title I of the Public Works Employment Acts of 1976 and 1977", in that I will promptly, notify DoC's Regional Audit Manager if. -irregularities involving LPW grant funds as contemplated by this Section of the Guide are encountered. 5. In accordance with the requirements of Section IV I of the Audit Guide any written communications by me to you regarding material weaknessess in internal accounting control would also be furnished to appropriate DoC Regional Audit Managers. 6. By acceptance of this proposal, you are authorizing me to comply with items 3, 4, and 5 of this letter. MAY.2 31979 BOOK 40 PAGE c)58 J -2- Mr. L. Thcmmy Thomas 7'. My charges are based on the time I will employ in performing the'work, plus out -of -packet expenses. I believe my fees are reasonable, however, I am not able to make a competitive bid for the work. The rules of Professional Ethics of the Florida Institute of Certified Public :. Accountants precluc_e me of doing what might be considered a competitive bid for a professional engagement. I wish to assure you that it is not necessary to give me a "blank check" for my services. once I am engaged, I may then negotict. with you regarding my estimated fees. Very truly yours, MMique A. Guzm MAG:Jwc If the terms of this engagement, as set forth in this letter are acceptable to you, you may so indicate by signing in the appropriate place designated below. Accepted: � U ame an MAY 2 3 479 BOOK 40 PAcE 359 THE SEVERAL BILLS AND ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE COUNTY, HAVING BEEN AUDITED, WERE EXAMINED AND FOUND TO BE CORRECT, WERE APPROVED AND WARRANTS ISSUED IN SETTLEMENT OF SAME AS FOLLOWS: TREASURY FUND NOS. 61983 - 62119 INCLUSIVE. SUCH BILLS AND ACCOUNTS BEING ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE WARRANTS SO ISSUED FROM THE RESPECTIVE -FUNDS BEING LISTED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTE BOOK AS PROVIDED BY THE RULES OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, REFERENCE TO SUCH RECORD AND LIST SO RECORDED BEING MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 7:05 O'CLOCK PA ATTEST: CLERK CHAIRMAN Y 72 MAY 213 1979 800 - 0 PAu XmO