Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/5/1979WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1979 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MET IN REGULAR SESSION AT THE COURTHOUSE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1979, AT 8:30 O'CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR., CHAIRMAN; ALMA LEE Loy, VICE CHAIRMAN; WILLARD W. SIEBERT, JR.; AND R. DON DEESON. PATRICK B. LYONS WAS OUT OF TOWN AND UNABLE TO BE PRESENT UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING. ALSO PRESENT WERE JACK G. JENNINGS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; L. S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR; GEORGE G. COLL.INS, SJR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; .JEFFREY BARTON, FINANCE OFFICER; BAILIFF DAN FLEISCHMAN; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERK. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. ATTORNEY�COLLINS LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. JAY SMITH, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND PRESENTED TO COMMISSIONER LOY AN AMBASSADOR OF GOOD WILL CERTIFICATE FOR HER YEARS OF WORK WITH THE CIVIC ART ASSOCIA- TION AND ALSO PRESENTED HER.WITH A KEY TO THE CITY. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORREC- TIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 1979. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, COMMISSIONER DEESON AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 161 1979, AS WRITTEN. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORREC- TIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 1979. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, COMMISSIONER DEESON AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 240 1979, AS WRITTEN. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, DEC 51979 aw 42 PAGE .79. J DEC Bw 4 PAGE 180 THE BOARD APPROVED THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE IN REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING AUXILIARY DEPUTIES APPROVED BY SHERIFF ,JOYCE: DAVID A. GORE DAVID T. PATRICK WILLIAM E. ,JOHNSON, III ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD APPROVED A BUDGET IN ORDER TO POST FEDERAL FUNDS RECEIVED FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE SYSTEM, AS FOLLOWS: ACCOUNT TITLE ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT Machinery and Other Equipment 102-107-562-66.49 $ 45,150 Federal Funds 102-000-331-90.00 $ 45,150 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD APPROVED A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE $400 ORIGINALLY AP- PROPRIATED FOR CAPITAL - AUTOMOTIVE BUT NOW NEEDED FOR PURCHASE OF A LAWN MOWER: ACCOUNT TITLE ACCOUNT NO. INCREASE DECREASE Capital - Automotive 002-210-572-66.42 $ 400.00 Capital - Other Equip. 002-210-572-66.49 $ 400.00 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD APPROVED A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR THE SPECIAL AUTO COMMERCIAL INSURANCE POLICY ON THE COUNTY OWNED FIRE TRUCKS: ACCOUNT TITLE ACCOUNT NO. INCREASE DECREASE Other Insurance 001-104-522-34.59 $ 6,000.00 Reserve for Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91 $ 6,000.00 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, THE _ 2 a BOARD -APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR.JUDITH WAKEFIELD, -COUNTY - EXTENSION DIRECTOR, AND PETE SPYKE, AGRICULTURAL SPECIALIST, AS FOLLOWS: .JUDITH WAKEFIELD: DECEMBER 5 FT. PIERCE STAFF MEETING AND HOME --ECONOMICS PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TRAINING PETE SPYKE: DECEMBER 13-14 STUART ANNUAL CITRUS E TENSION AGENTS' RETREAT (STATE tUNDS) ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER .DEESON, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD APPROVED STATE WITNESS PAYROLLS, COUNTY COURT, NOVEMBER.- 1979, OVEMBER,1979, IN THE AMOUNT OF $122.01 AND CIRCUIT COURT, FALL TERM, 1979, IN THE AMOUNT OF $67.46. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NEXT DISCUSSED RENEWAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE SERVICES. HE COMMENTED THAT THERE IS A BLANK AT THE BOTTOM STATING THE EMERGENCY SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE "FOLLOWING AREAS," AND ASKED IF THIS SHOULD BE FILLED IN OR LEFT BLANK. HE NOTED THAT IF NEED BE, IN AN EMERGENCY THEY WOULD SERVE THE ENTIRE COUNTY AREA. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT IT SHOULD BE FILLED IN TO INDI- CATE THEY WILL SERVICE THE ENTIRE COUNTY. COMMISSIONER LOY AGREED AND NOTED THAT THESE SERVICES HAVE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EACH OTHER THAT THEY WILL RESPOND OVER THE COUNTY WHEREVER NEEDED. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, COMMISSIONER DEESON AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD APPROVED CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE SERVICE AND THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE SERVICE FOR THE YEAR 1980, DEC 51979 3 BOOK 42 PAGE 181 j P Y F -'!.,� \ 'f ,c • li }, ... , � t "� ,�` . V..r• 4. � ` . Y qP'' ... y iT ,i� ��,--�-•-n,�,� �f \ ��aw _ A"'�• � r, � a. : ty � Nib -rf'�",— • _ •�'�.- _ "_ ti t , }1' 1r;All /!,?�'`'. . CON "'`���,,����},"_ _ . - __ .. ._-_----.__.—z�_ - - - ----- - -- •-- �_ �_—_..- - �_:_...�_---_._.___:.`I ��a�f� '"ham � �., EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITYiaf WHEREAS, the SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER Ambu&nee Service pxov idea quest ity emergency m aenv du a zeros o Indian River County; i,�- g' " %I,.. J and WHEREAS, thence has been demon6t4ated that there iA a need bon this ambuea.nee aenvice .; ti to operate .in this county to provide eaaentia.t zervaica to the citizens o6 this Y ��1,County; and, WHEREAS the above ambutance 6 eAvice ha6 indicated that it wUt compty with at t the requ.inementa o6 the EmVLgeney Medicat Serviceb Act o4 1973, the Board o6 County IC r� Commis.6ioneu o6India Ri County heAeby .i6.6uea a CeAtigeate o6 Pubti.e Convenience and Neeead am ee company on the can ! F� pay � y 1980 ;{ ; ��;.,�,•;.•� .. In "Zu,i.ng thio ceXUji.c.ate it .ia understood that the above named ambulance service- �\ �� �!,li► uti tt meet the kequi,%ement6 o6 State Leg,i.a.2a ti on and provide emergency s ery ices on a twenty-6ouA houh bu is 6or the Jottowing anea(a) • r Indian River County 4 �! December 5, 1979 i j I oA Co o Zoneha , William C. Wodt e, Jr. , L a l .� 1�'E: q1 1t• 1 F. a + .'r ". t 'y _r/t � p � k $. { -i iJ ._ _ , �r 1 _ F i A 7 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WHEREAS,, .the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VOLUNTEER Ambutan.ee Se v.i..ee pnov.i.dea qua ity emeAgeney medtcal.601Ukeez to the zee oT ndian River County; and, ' WHEREAS, there had been demonstrated that there .is a need jot this ambu2anee zsehvice to operate in tht6 county to provide ears entyt.at d eAv ice s to the cyi azend o6 th is County, WHEREAS, the above ambu,anee aenv.iee has .indicated that it witt eomp.ey with a'?.t the nequementa of the EmeAgency Medica. Serv-i.cea Act of f 973, the 8oard of County i&a; Commi-6d.ioneu o6 Indian River County hereby .izzuez a CvW6i,cate of Pubti.c r Convenience and Nece3�s am ee company Jot the yerasc 1980 1 ' 1 In isauing thio eekti-jieate it i4 understood that the above named ambuta.nce .aerviee I was meet the uquiAement3 of State Leg.iatatti.on and prcovide emergency 6eAv.ice,6 on- ' a twenty -jour houA b"" Jon the JoUowlEng ma(.d) : ' In Indian River County. F • .��dd�� r ✓ , p 5 1979 D� December , Co William C. Wod ke, r. 1 ". 'h. �,,,�•cam._ ..�-�_ r� ..r _ ._. •t��.. 'ti_._a.- �.- , -s - - ...: -� - yo -- -_ �'r� � �4' ) fj 0 0 m 01 t� co r DEC 51979 nox 4.2 PAGE 184 ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THE BID SPECIFICATIONS ON THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT, WHICH WERE QUITE EXTENSIVE, WERE ALL FOR NOUGHT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH AN INVITATION TO BID WAS SENT TO SIXTEEN COMPANIES, ONLY ONE BID WAS RECEIVED. THE ONE BID RECEIVED WAS SO FAR OUT OF LINE THAT THE BID COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE REJECTED AND THAT ITEM #30 BE REBID TO TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING WE CAN AFFORD. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO HOW THIS BID COULD BE SO FAR OFF WHEN THE GRANT SUPPOSEDLY WAS BASED ON WHAT THE SYSTEM WOULD COST. MR. NELSON NOTED THAT COMMISSIONER LYONS WAS A PART OF THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AND HELPED DETERMINE THAT IT SHOULD BE REBID. ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT COMMISSIONER LYONS.HAD INFORMED HIM THAT SEVERAL OF THE LARGER COMPANIES DID NOT SUBMIT BIDS AND WOULD DO SO THE NEXT TIME. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER Loy, COMMISSIONER DEESON AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD REJECTED THE BID RECEIVED ON ITEM #30 AND AUTHORIZED THAT THIS ITEM BE REBID. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT PIPPIN TRACTOR SUBMITTED THE LOW BID ON THE DIESEL TRACTOR, BUT IN TESTING OUT THEIR TRACTOR, IT WAS FOUND THAT IT DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH WEIGHT ON THE FRONT END TO BE UTILIZED IN PULLING THE SCRAPER, THEY WERE INFORMED THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A COUNTERWEIGHT ON IT TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE WANTED IT TO DO. WITH THE COUNTERWEIGHT, IT DOES WORK AND IS ACCEPTABLE, AND IT IS THE BID COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE LOW BID OF PIPPIN TRACTOR COMPANY. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THERE WERE ONLY TWO BIDS RECEIVED AND ASKED WHY NONE WERE RECEIVED FROM KELLY TRACTOR CO. AND MINTON EQUIPMENT. THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR REPORTED THAT THEY WERE MAILED BID INVITATIONS ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHERS. ADMINISTRATOR .JENNINGS FELT IT IS HELPFUL TO CALL PEOPLE ON THE TELEPHONE AND SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD MAKE IT A POLICY TO CALL AND REMIND THEM ABOUT THE BID JUST BEFORE THE BIDS ARE DUE 6 SO THEY DO NOT LET IT SLIP BY. HE FELT.IN_THIS INSTANCE, -WE SHOULD CALL THOSE CONTACTED AND DETERMINE WHY THEY DID NOT BID. THE BOARD AGREED TO DELAY A DECISION ON AWARD OF -THIS BID UNTIL THESE COMPANIES CAN BE CONTACTED. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ANNOUNCED THAT FLORIDA POWER &-LIGHT HAS WRITTEN A LETTER REQUESTING THAT DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO MODIFICATION OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT ORDER (ITEM #5) BE WITHDRAWN FROM TODAY'S AGENDA AND CONTINUED UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING SO THEY CAN DO MORE RESEARCH ON SOME POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES. CHAIRMAN WODTKE REPORTED THAT HE, ADMINISTRATOR KENNINGS AND ATTORNEY COLLINS, WENT TO FORT PIERCE MONDAY MORNING AND MET WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THEIR ADMINISTRATOR WELDON LEWIS, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF FP&L AND DISCUSSED THE LETTER SENT TO THEM SETTING OUT OUR REACTION TO THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF OUR DEVELOPMENT ORDER. THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT AFTER A LOT OF PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS, AN ALTERNATIVE CAME UP THAT WAS BASICALLY ACCOM- PLISHING WHAT THIS BOARD WAS CONCERNED ABOUT - CROSSING WEST OF MR. BARNES' PROPERTY. FP&L, HOWEVER, WASN'T ABLE TO GIVE A DEFINITE ANSWER UNTIL THEIR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DID SOME TEST RUNS ON THE PROPOSED ALTERNATE ROUTE. BASICALLY THE ALTERNATE PROPOSAL WAS TO CONTINUE THE LINE IN ST, LUCIE ALONG THE TURNPIKE, UP THE CURVE AND AS CLOSE TO THE TOWER AS POSSIBLE, AND TO CROSS THE TURNPIKE ON A DIAGONAL. THERE WERE SEVERAL ALTERNATES FOR CROSSING THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT. THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT HE DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MRS. HOOKER, THE PROPERTY OWNER IN ST, LUCIE WHO DID NOT WISH THE TRANSMISSION LINES ON HER LAND, AND THIS ALTERNATIVE IS ACCEPTABLE TO HER AND TO ST. LUCIE COUNTY. THE CHAIRMAN BELIEVED OUR CONCERNS CAN BE MET ALSO. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, COMMISSIONER DEESON AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD CONTINUED ITEM #5 ON TODAY'S AGENDA UNTIL THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 19TH. N DEC 51979 BOOK 2 PAGE 185 r DEC 51979 42 BASE 186 DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR HOLDING ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT WITH A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF A PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU WANT IT, BUT DID NOT BELIEVE IT IS REQUIRED. COMMISSIONEP LOY NOTED THAT ATTORNEY SHERMAN SMITH WAS THE ONE WHO REQUESTED THAT THERE BE ANOTHER HEARING IF THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION, BUT HIS CLIENT IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVIATION. CHAIRMAN WODTKE BROUGHT UP THE MATTER OF THE NEXT CENSUS REPORT, A GREAT DEAL OF WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE DONE BY MAIL. HE NOTED THAT THE CHAIRMAN WILL BE REQUIRED TO APPOINT A "COMPLETE COUNT" COMMITTEE, WHICH HE IS NOT PREPARED TO DO AT THIS TIME. THIS ALSO INVOLVES THE HIRING OF CETA WORKERS. HE CONTINUED THAT HE HAS TURNED THIS MATTER OVER TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR TO RESEARCH, COORDINATOR THOMAS STATED THAT HE WILL BE ATTENDING A MEETING IN FORT PIERCE FRIDAY TO DISCUSS THE CENSUS. PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR DAVID REVER BELIEVED THAT THE CETA PEOPLE ARE MEANT TO BE THE SUPPORT STAFF, AND THE COMMITTEE IS TO BE THE DIRECTORATE BODY. DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO HOW THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE CETA PEOPLE COULD BE HANDLED, AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT WITH THIS CENSUS BEING DONE THROUGH THE MAIL, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO EDUCATE THE PEOPLE. HE WONDERED HOW WE WOULD KNOW WHO ANSWERED AND WHO DID NOT. MR. REVER AGREED WE WILL HAVE TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF FILLING OUT THE CENSUS CARDS SO THAT WE HAVE A GOOD RESPONSE. HE NOTED THAT ONE OUT OF FIVE WILL GET A MORE DETAILED FORM, AND HE BELIEVED THESE WILL BE FOLLOWED UP AND CON- TACTED PERSONALLY. - WENDY LANCASTER OF THE PLANNING STAFF REVIEWED THE REVISED APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE. SHE NOTED THAT THE FEES HAVE NOT BEEN REVISED SINCE .JULY OF 1974, AND THE OLD FEES DO NOT NOW COVER THE SERVICES, STAFF TIME, ADVERTISING, ETC. THE PROPOSED FEES ARE NOT AS -MUCH AS SOME OF THOSE CHARGED BY THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, MISS LANCASTER STATED THAT THESE PROPOSED FEES WERE PRESENTED AT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISS MEETING, AND THE -'P & Z COMMISSION .,JJ&- � _ a WAS ASKED TO SEND -THEIR COMMENTS TO THE -BOARD, IF THEY HAD ANY. - CHAIRMAN WODTKE INQUIRED ABOUT THE FEES FOR ZONING PERMITS.- AND ERMITS,AND MISS LANCASTER EXPLAINED THAT THESE ARE HIGHER BECAUSE -OUR ZONING INSPECTORS ARE ACTUALLY GOING OUT -TO SEE THAT THE CORRECT SWALES, ETC., ARE IN AS REQUIRED. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT THEY ARE MAKING AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO SEE THAT THESE THINGS ARE DONE PROPERLY. WE ARE STILL DEPENDENT ON THE CITY -COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO INSPECT WHEN FOUNDATIONS ARE POURED TO BE SURE THESE ARE PROPERLY STAKED OUT AND IN THE CORRECT LOCATION, BUT THERE ARE STILL PROBLEMS AND OCCASIONALLY A STRUCTURE IS SEVERAL FEET OFF SINCE THE FOUNDATIONS ARE NOT ALWAYS POURED EXACTLY THE SAME AS THEY ARE STAKED OUT. MISS LANCASTER STATED THAT THEY HAVE FOUND A PROBLEM WHERE SUBDIVISION ARENIT ROUTINELY INSPECTED UNTIL THEY GO FOR FINAL APPROVAL, AND BY THEN IT IS TOO LATE. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT THE CITY IS CONSIDERING HIRING AN ADDITIONAL FLOATING INSPECTOR WHO WILL INSPECT RANDOMLY AND NOT ON A SET ROUTINE OR JUST WHEN CALLED. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER FELT THIS IS NEEDED AND NOTED THAT THEY HAD A BAD CASE WITH A SITE PLAN WHERE THEY FOUND NUMEROUS THINGS THAT HAD BEEN CHANGED WITHOUT EVER COMING TO US FOR MODIFICA- TION. HE STATED THAT HE DOES FEEL THE INCREASE IN FEES IS JUSTIFIED. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF HE FELT THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW FEES ARE HIGH ENOUGH, AND MR. REVER STATED THAT ACTUALLY HE DID NOT BECAUSE THEY SPEND AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME ON THESE COM- PARED TO THE AMOUNT THEY CHARGE. THEY HAVE TO DO A LOT OF IN-HOUSE WORK AND ARE INVOLVED WITH THE DRAINAGE, ETC. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT THEY ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO CHARGE A FEE COMMENSURATE WITH THE COST OF PERFORMING THE SERVICE. MISS LANCASTER SUGGESTED THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER INITIATING SOMETHING LIKE A ROUTINE INSPECTION DURING THE PROGRESS OF A SUBDIVISION AND POSSIBLY CHARGE AN ADDITIONAL FEE FOR FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE THEY COME IN FOR FINAL APPROVAL. DEC 51979 9 aa BDo 42 PAG� E187 e� DEC 51979 ea 2 FAGE18$, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT QUESTIONED A CHARGE OF $150.00 FOR A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING CHANGE, WHICH HE FELT COULD BE A VERY SIMPLE PROCESS. MISS LANCASTER STATED THAT THEY DO NOT GENERALLY COME ACROSS A REQUEST FOR A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING CHANGE, AND MR. REVER AGREED THAT IT USUALLY IS FOR A BLOCK OR LARGER AREA. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT THIS OCCURS OCCASION- ALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A RESIDENCE THAT IS NON -CONFORMING. MISS LANCASTER FELT THIS MIGHT INVOLVE A LITTLE MORE RE- SEARCH BECAUSE IT COULD BE CONTROVERSIAL, AND MR. REVER COMMENTED THAT THE WORK IS NOT LESS FOR A SMALLER PIECE OF LAND AND WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS STRICTLY FROM THE WORKLOAD FACTOR. MISS LANCASTER COMMENTED THAT ONCE WE ADOPT THE COMPRE- HENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, THERE SHOULD BE A FEE FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO CHANGE THE MASTER PLAN. SHE NOTED THAT THE CITY HAS SUCH A CHARGE. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THEY ARE SAYING THAT THEY GO OUT TO THE INVOLVED PROPERTY AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHERE DRAINAGE IS TO BE AND THEN GO BACK TO BE SURE IT IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE? PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER INFORMED HER THAT THEY STILL ARE HAVING TROUBLE COORDINATING WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTORS ON THIS SO THEY ARE HAVING ONE OF THE COUNTY STAFF GO OUT TO MAKE SURE SWALES AND DRIVEWAYS, ETC., ARE PUT IN PROPERLY, AND IF THE REQUIRED CULVERT IS NOT PUT IN, THEY CITE THEM FOR A ZONING VIOLA- TION. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED WHERE THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES CULVERTS, AND MR. REVER STATED THAT IT DOESNIT,•BUT IT IS A POLICY. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT THE SWALE BELONGS TO THE COUNTY, AND IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO PUT A DRIVEWAY THROUGH IT, IT MUST BE DONE PROPERLY, ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT A RUBBER STAMP BE OBTAINED TO STAMP ON THE PERMIT THAT CULVERTING MUST BE DONE, AND MR. REVER AGREED -THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE CULVERT EVEN WHILE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON SO THE.DRAIN-AGE IS NOT IMPEDED. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON CONCURRED THIS IS IMPORTANT AND NOTED THAT MANY TIMES TO GAIN'ACCESS TO THE LOT, THE BUILDER JUST DUMPS A LOAD OF DIRT IN THE SWALE SO THEY CAN DRIVE OVER IT.- AND T, AND THIS JAMS UP THE DRAINAGE IN THE AREA. THE CHAIRMAN AGREED THAT SUCH A STAMP WOULD BE -A GOOD RE- MINDER, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO DON T KNOW THE REGULATIONS, AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE BUILDING THEIR OWN HOMES. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT SUGGESTED THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER CATE- GORY UNDER ZONING CHANGE FOR ONE PERSON WITH ONE LOT SO THAT THEY COULD GET THE ZONING CHANGE FOR LESS THAN $150. MR. REVER AGREED THAT WE COULD HAVE A SEPARATE WAY TO DO THAT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY WITH AN INDIVIDUAL LOT, AND THE BOARD GENERALLY FAVORED SUCH A CHANGE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED HOW'A ZONING CHANGE IS ADDRESSED IN THE CASE THAT IT IS INSTIGATED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE BOARD, AND MR. REVER STATED THAT THERE IS NO FEE AND WE PAY THE CHARGES FOR ADVERTISING. HE NOTED THAT THE CHARGES FOR ADVERTISING VARY CONSIDERABLY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SOY, COMMISSIONER DEESON AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION N0. 79-117 APPROVING THE PROPOSED NEW APPLICATION FEES, AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 3. ZONING CHANGE A.) 1 ACRE OR LESS FOR ONE DWELLING B.) 10 ACRES OR LESS C.) OVER 10 ACRES - ALL OTHER ZONING CHANGES UNIT $50 + PUBLICATION FEES $150 + PUBLICATION FEES $150 + $25QR EACH ADDITIONAL R ACRES OR FRACTION THEREOF OVER 10 ACRES + PUBLI- CATION FEES DEC 51979 11 DOAK 42 PAGE 18*9 DEC 51979 RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 117 BOOK Orr PAGE �.0.. 2. SUBDIVISION REVIEW (a) 10 acres or less (b) Over 10 acres - More than 10, less than 40 acres. More than 40, less than 100 acres. Over 100 acres 3. ZONING CHANGE (a) 1 acre or less building lot in 1 dwelling unit. (b) 10 acres or less - all zoning classifica- tions. (c) Over 10 acres - all other zoning changes 4. ZONING PERMIT (ZONING CERTIFICATE AND ADDRESS) (a) Mobile homes, fences, walls, additions and minor or accessory structures. 150.00 150.00 + 25.00 for each additional 25 acres or fraction thereof, over 10 acres. 50.00 + publication fees. 150.00 + publication fees. 150.00 + 25.00 for each additional 25 acres or fraction thereof, over 10 acres + publication fees 10.00 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following fees are hereby imposed, effective the date of this Resolution on the following items as herein established: 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW (a) Mobile homes, canopy's, fences, walls, parking, drives or structures and impervious surfaces of less than 750 sq. ft. $ 25.00 (b) Additions, minor or accessory struc- tures with total impervious surfaces over 750 sq. ft. and less than 2,500.00 sq. ft. 50.00 (c) Major site plans not requiring review by Technical Review Committee. 150.00 (d) Site plans requiring review by Tech- nical Review Committee with building coverage up to 99,999 sq. ft. or if site is less than 10 acres. 200.00 (e) Site plan requiring review by Technical Review Committee with building cover- age over 100,000 sq. ft. or if site is 10 acres or more. 400.00 (f) Developments of Regional Impact 750.00 2. SUBDIVISION REVIEW (a) 10 acres or less (b) Over 10 acres - More than 10, less than 40 acres. More than 40, less than 100 acres. Over 100 acres 3. ZONING CHANGE (a) 1 acre or less building lot in 1 dwelling unit. (b) 10 acres or less - all zoning classifica- tions. (c) Over 10 acres - all other zoning changes 4. ZONING PERMIT (ZONING CERTIFICATE AND ADDRESS) (a) Mobile homes, fences, walls, additions and minor or accessory structures. 150.00 150.00 + 25.00 for each additional 25 acres or fraction thereof, over 10 acres. 50.00 + publication fees. 150.00 + publication fees. 150.00 + 25.00 for each additional 25 acres or fraction thereof, over 10 acres + publication fees 10.00 (b) Single family dwellings (c) Multiple family dwellings 5. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (VARIANCE) 6. MINING PERMIT 7. MINING PERMIT ANNUAL RYNEWAL ATTEST: J. . .... Freda Wright, C rk $25.00 50.00 50.00 400.00 100.00 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By ��/d4� C ' William C. Wodtke, J ., Chairman z DEC 5 1979 - BOOK a 42 PACE 19�. DEC 51979 BOOK 42 -PAGE 192 MISS LANCASTER NEXT REVIEWED THE REQUEST MADE BY FRANK ZORC FOR TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF TALL PINE PARK SUBDIVISION. THIS IS A PROPOSED 5 ACRE SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL HAVE S HALF -ACRE LOTS AND IS PLANNED FOR INDIVIDUAL WELLS AND SEPTIC TANKS. IT IS LOCATED ON THE EXTENDED PORTION OF 24TH AVENUE AT 14TH STREET, WHICH IS A PUBLIC ROAD FOR WHICH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTS BUT HAS NOT BEEN IMPROVED. MR. ZORC HAS AGREED TO IMPROVE 24TH AVENUE, WHICH IS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, BY INSTALLING SUB -GRADE UP TO STANDARDS WHICH NOW EXIST. MISS LANCASTER STATED THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DID GIVE TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENTS REQUIREMENT FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO DO A SOIL PROFILE. SHE CONTINUED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR TENTATIVE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENTS APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF SEPTIC TANKS. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED WHAT THE "T" AT THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY ACCOMPLISHES, AND MISS LANCASTER STATED THAT IT PROVIDES A TURN -AROUND SINCE ACCESS IS PROHIBITED FROM THE SOUTH. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER AGREED THAT A TURN -AROUND IS NEEDED. HE NOTED THAT IF THIS IS LATER CONNECTED, YOU CAN DO AWAY WITH THE "T". HE EXPLAINED THAT THERE WILL BE A DEDICATION UP TO THE PROPERTY LINES SO THAT IT CAN BE CONNECTED AT SOME TIME, AND THE DARKENED AREA SHOWN AS THE "T" IS JUST THE PAVED SURFACE OF THE DEDICATED AREA. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED WHY THE ROAD DOESN'T GO ALL THE WAY TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND MR. REVER NOTED THAT IT COULD. MISS LANCASTER POINTED OUT THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS PRO- VIDED ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG 14TH STREET. MR. ZORC STATED THAT THEY CAN PUT THE "T" RIGHT TO THE LINE IF DESIRED. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE IS FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY AND BELIEVES THAT THIS IS THE MOST FEASIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF IT. SUBDIVISION. HE SAW NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED 14 - 7 _ ON MOTION_BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT. SECONDED BY COMMIS-_ STONER Loy, COMMISSIONER DEESON AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD GRANTED TENTATIVE APPROVAL TO TALL PINE PARK SUB- DIVISION BASED UPON THE PAVED RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING SHOWN GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND UPON MEETING THE -REQUIRE- MENTS OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AS OUTLINED IN THEIR MEMO OF NOVEM- BER 1, 1979, AS FOLLOWS: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTIMENT OF Reubin O D Askew, Governor Health & Rehabilitative Services District Nine INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH UNIT 2525 — 14th AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 TO: Members of Indian River County Technical Review Committee FROM: Jack Allen, Indian River County Health Uni o - DATE: November 1, 1979 r, SUBJECT: Items up for consideration on November 6, 1979 1. Turtle Cove S/D, Richard P. Letsinger, Agent All lots in the proposed layout contain the minimum one-half acre, which meets health department requirements as to lot size for septic tank systems and individual wells. However, we will need a soil profile delineating soil classification to a depth of six (6) feet or the water table, whichever is the lesser, from a representative point within the proposed subdivision, prior to giving our tentative approval. Tall Pine Park S/D, Frank Zorc, Trustee i All lots in the•prelimi.nary plat contain the minimum one-half acre, which meets health department requirements as to lot size for septic tank systems and individual wells. However, we will need a soil profile delineating soil classification to a depth of six (6) feet or the water table, whichever is the lesser, from a representative point within the proposed subdivision, prior to giving our tentative approval. MR. ZORC AGREED THIS IS ACCEPTABLE. 15 DEC 51979 Boa PAGE �9i f DEC 51979 som 42 pACE"194 HERCULES KONTOULAS, CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD IN REGARD TO APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS ON THE RENOVATION OF THE COURTHOUSE AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS. HE DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED ADVERTISEMENT WITH THE BOARD AND INFORMED THEM THAT PARAGRAPH 6 WHICH CALLS FOR CHECKS TO BE MADE PAYABLE TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS TO BE CHANGED TO MAKE THEM PAYABLE TO CONNELL, METCALF & EDDY SINCE THEY ARE GOING TO ABSORB THE PRINTING COST. THEY ISSUE THE PLANS, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO ENDORSE THE CHECKS OVER TO THEM IN ANY EVENT. MR. KONTOULAS THEN DISCUSSED THE PREBID CONFERENCE WHICH IS ADDRESSED IN PARAGRAPH 9 AND NOTED THAT THE DATE HAS BEEN CHANGED THREE TIMES AND IS NOW SET FOR JANUARY 3, 1980, AT 2:00 P.M. HE STATED THAT CONNELL, METCALF & EDDY REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE THERE TO CONDUCT THE MEETING AS WELL AS HIMSELF AND ASSISTANT ADMINISTRA- TOR NELSON, AND ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE WELCOME AS OBSERVERS. MR. KONTOULAS THEN NOTED THAT AT -THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE IT PROVIDES FOR PUBLISHING ON THREE CONSECUTIVE DAYS, AND HE FELT THAT BY LAW WE HAVE TO PUBLISH THIS AD ONCE A WEEK FOR THREE WEEKS. HE NOTED THAT THEY WANT TO START ADVERTISING DECEMBER 13TH, AND THE PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE MONDAY, DECEMBER 17TH. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE COULD NOT QUALIFY THE PUBLISHING TIMES REQUIRED RIGHT NOW, BUT DID NOT BELIEVE IT CALLS FOR PUBLISHING ON THREE CONSECUTIVE DAYS. MR. KONTOULAS CONTINUED THAT WHEN THEY RECEIVE THE BIDS, THEY MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY ACCEPTABLE BID BONDS OF 5% PAYABLE TO THE OWNER. THE PERFORMANCE BOND IS TO BE FOR 100% OF THE CONTRACT AMOUNT. ALL BIDS ARE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF•RECEIPT, AND THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT AND READVERTISE. THE OWNER NOTIFIES THE CONTRACTOR OF AWARD OF THE BID. CONNELL, METCALF & EDDY WILL STIPULATE THE NUMBER OF DAYS FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE HANDLED-, AND MR. KONTOULAS FELT THIS WILL AFFECT WHO IS CHOSEN. THE SUCCESSFUL CONTRACTOR, AFTER NOTIFICATION BY THE OWNER OF THE AWARD, HAS TO GET A CONTRACT TO US WITHIN TEN DAYS. MR. KONTOULAS a CONTINUED TO REVIEW_WHAT THE CONTRACTOR.MUST PROVIDE. HE- NOTED -THAT THE SEALED BID WILL CONTAIN A SEALED ENVELOPE WITHIN IT,IN WHICH IS THE LIST OF SUB -CONTRACTORS TO BE USED BY THAT CONTRACTOR.- THIS WILL NOT BE OPENED UNTIL THE AWARD IS MADE. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO NOT OPENING THE ENVELOPE CON- TAINING THE LIST OF SUB -CONTRACTORS, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THIS IS MERELY A LIST AND DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY AMOUNTS. MR. KONTOULAS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY WILL GET A SPECIFIC BREAKDOWN FROM THE SUCCESSFUL CONTRACTOR AS TO EVERY ITEM COVERED. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY HOLD OUT THE LIST OF SUB -CONTRACTORS, AND MR. KONTOULAS.DID NOT EITHER. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT THE LIST OF SUB -CONTRACTORS WHILE YOU EVALUATE THE BID, BUT MR. KONTOULAS NOTED THAT THE LIST IS NOT TO BE MADE PUBLIC AND THIS PREVENTS "SHOPPING" OF BIDS. CHAIRMAN WODTKE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE AND ATTORNEY COLLINS HAD A LENGTHY MEETING YESTERDAY WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, DR. BURNS. AND IT WAS AGREED THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE IN THE LEASE THAT IT IS TO BE SIGNED AND EXECUTED PRIOR TO GOING TO BID SO THAT WE HAVE A LEGAL DOCUMENT AND THEY HAVE APPROVED THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SO WE DON'T GET HUNG UP ON CHANGE ORDERS FOR WHICH WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE. THE CHAIRMAN NOTED THAT WE ARE RUNNING CLOSE ON THE TIME SITUATION SINCE BIDS ARE TO BE RE- CEIVED ON JANUARY 23RD: THEREFORE, WE WANT THE SCHOOL BOARD TO RE- VIEW THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ON A CRASH BASIS. MR. KONTOULAS FELT THE DEADLINE FOR ADDENDUMS TO THE BID WOULD BE THE WEEK BEFORE .JANUARY 23RD. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT IF THAT ADDENDUM CAME OUT WITH A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, IT COULD AFFECT OUR COST FIGURES. HE DOUBTED THAT IT WOULD BE THAT MUCH: BUT DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE. HE THEN NOTED THAT THEY DISCUSSED DELETING THE PARAGRAPH WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCTION, WHICH REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN CHANGED RECENTLY. INSTEAD, IT WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MUST APPROVE THE LEASE. IN FURTHER CONVERSATION, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT DEC 51979 17 BOOK - 42 PAGE 195 F"_ DEC 51979 BOOK 42 PAGE 196 i THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WILL GIVE THEIR APPROVAL, AND THERE IS A RISK INVOLVED. CHAIRMAN WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT WE COULD INCLUDE SOME LANGUAGE REQUIRING THAT THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVE THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND IF THERE ARE ANY MAJOR MODIFICATIONS, THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM. ATTORNEY COLLINS AND MR. KONTOULAS AGREED THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF THE ADDENDUM WOULD HAVE TO BE BID SEPARATELY, AND MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT AN ADDENDUM CAN BE INSERTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS AT A LATER DATE. USUALLY IT IS HANDLED BEFORE THE BIDS ARE RECEIVED, AND THESE ADDS OR DEDUCTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE BID. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS DECIDED THAT JANUARY LITH SHOULD BE THE DEADLINE FOR GETTING ADDENDUMS AND A DECISION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD. WILLIAM KOOLAGE, INTERESTED CITIZEN, ASKED IF THE BOARD HAS ARRIVED AT A LEASE WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD ON THE SAME BASIS AS OTHER DEPARTMENTS, OR IS IT MORE FAVORABLE TO THEM WITH THE COUNTY PICKING UP SOME OF THE COSTS. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THERE COULD WELL BE.SOME DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LEASES, AND THE CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT THAT WE ARE LEASING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT 26,000 SQ. FT. WHILE ONLY 1,600 SQ. FT. TO THE STATE DIVISION OF LICENSING, FOR INSTANCE. THE CHAIRMAN CONTINUED THAT THEY HAVE INSERTED SOME LANGUAGE TO TAKE CARE OF MAJOR REPAIR, BUT BASICALLY IT IS A 30 -YEAR LEASE AT A SET ANNUAL AMOUNT, WHICH IS BASICALLY OUR COST WITH A 10% CON- TINGENCY AND AN ESTIMATED INTEREST FIGURE FROM THE BONDING PEOPLE OF ABOUT 5-1/4%. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO WHETHER THE INTEREST RATE WENT UP BECAUSE WE WENT TO 30 YEARS INSTEAD OF 20, AND MR. THOMAS FELT THERE WOULD BE.A VERY FRACTIONAL CHANGE UNTIL YOU GOT PAST 30 YEARS. THE BOARD THEN WENT INTO A TECHNICAL DISCUSSION OF COLLATERALIZATION, AMORTIZATION, ETC. COMMISSIONER LYONS ENTERED THE MEETING AT 10:55_0"CLOCK A.M. DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON INTEREST RATES AS RELATED TO INFLA- TION AND RECESSION, AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS STATED THAT HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE INTEREST RATE COMES DOWN AT THE DATE WE ISSUE, IT WILL COME DOWN WITHIN A THREE YEAR PERIOD, AND INTERNAL REVENUE WILL ALLOW US TO ISSUE ARBITRAGE BONDS UP TO THREE YEARS. HE NOTED THAT UNLESS THERE IS SOME DRASTIC CHANGE, THEY WILL IN ALL LIKELIHOOD ADVISE ISSUING BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES TO REINVEST AND PICK UP SOME ADDITIONAL INCOME. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT PUTTING THIS OUT TO BID WITHOUT A SIGNED DOCUMENT FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED HIM THAT WE HAVE A POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD THAT IS BEING REDUCED TO A FINAL DRAFT. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF THERE IS ANY WAY TO BID THIS IF THE SCHOOL BOARD DECIDED NOT TO GO ALONG SO THAT WE CAN CUT THEIR PART OFF AND CONTINUE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE DID NOT FEEL THERE IS ANY QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE THE SPACE, AND HE BELIEVED WE CAN GET A COMMITMENT FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD AS TO THE BASIC TERMS OF THE LEASE: WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS GET AWAY FROM GOING TO BID AND HAVING A LOT OF CHANGE ORDERS. HE EXPLAINED THAT WE ARE PRO- POSING TO PUT IN SOME LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THE SCHOOL BOARD UPON SIGN- ING THE LEASE APPROVES THE SPECIFICATIONS AND THAT THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY MAJOR MODIFICATIONS AFTER .JANUARY 11TH. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT WHAT HE IS LOOKING FOR IS AN ASSURANCE THAT THE BIDS WILL BE FOR WHATEVER WE ARE GOING TO BUILD, AND REITERATED THAT WE NEED SOMETHING CONCRETE FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD. CHAIRMAN WODTKE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT DR. BURNS AGREED THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A SIGNED DOCUMENT. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT AS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD HAVING A SPECIAL LEASE, WE ARE DEALING WITH ANOTHER LOCAL TAXING AGENCY AND ANYTHING FAVORABLE IS TO THE TAXPAYER'S ADVANTAGE. MR. KOOLAGE FELT THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD PAY THEIR OWN COSTS SINCE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MILLAGE, AND THE CHAIRMAN INFORMED DEC 51979 19 '800K . 42 PbcE 197 _I DEC 51979 BooK 4' PAGE 198 HIM THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE SEPARATE- THEIR UTILITIES, THEIR SECURITY, THEIR MAINTENANCE, ETC.; WE WILL NOT MAKE A PROFIT OFF OF THEM, BUT WE WILL NOT SUBSIDIZE THEM, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ADVERTISING FOR BIDS ON RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURTHOUSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX AS PER ADVERTISEMENT PRESENTED BY MR. KONTOULAS SUBJECT TO CHANGING PARAGRAPH 6 AND THE DATES AS DISCUSSED. ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (Project #9363) COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida AND (Project #9364) COUNTY COURTHOUSE BUILDING ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 1. Sealed proposals for the construction of either or both of the above listed projects will be received by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, at the office of the Board, 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, until 2:00 pm, local time, January 23, 1980, at which time they will be publicly opened by the Owner's representative and read aloud. Proposals received after the above time and date will be returned unopened. 2. Plans, specifications, and contract documents will be open to public inspection on or after December 17, 1979, at the office of the Board of County Commissioners, and may be examined and obtained at the office of'Connell Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Arch.itects-Engineers-Planners, 1320 S. Dixie Hwy., Coral Gables, Florida, or by written application to the Architects -Engineers -Planners at P.O. Box 341939, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. 3. Plans and specifications will be furnished without charge to approved organized plan rooms for public inspection. 4. No more than two complete sets of plans and specifications of each project will be made available to General Contractors desiring to bid the project, by payment of a deposit of $100.00 dollars per complete set for each project. If requested by return mailing, the documents will be sent by C.O.D. to cover postage and shipping charges. 5. All additional sets of plans and specifications requested by Contractors or Subcontractors shall be purchased for the above listed payment amount per set for each project, which amount is non-refundable. Partial sets will not be issued. 6. Payment in cash or check must accompany all requests for -plans or specifications. Checks shall be made payable to Indian River County, Board of County Commissioners_.. 7. Deposits will be fully refunded only to each bidder who submits a bona fide bid, provided the plans and specifications are returned in a clean condition within 10 days after the bid opening date. 8. Bidders retaining plans beyond 10 days after plan recall date will forfeit the entire deposit. 9. A Prebid Conference will be held at the Commission Room, County Courthouse, 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida on January.3, 1980, at 2 p.m. All prospective bidders and principal subcontractors will be offered an opportunity to air any question,regarding the contract documents. 10. Bidders must comply with the requirements of the Instructions to Bidders. 11. Each bid must be accompanied by an acceptable bid bond, or •certified or cashier's check, made payable to the Owner, in an amount not less than five percent of the total bid, (including all alternates,) as a guaranty that the bidder will enter into a contract with the Owner within 10 days after written notice of award. Bidders must be capable of providing a performance bond for 100 percent of the contract amount. 12. No bid may be withdrawn after the scheduled bid closing time for a period of sixty days. 13. The Owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive formalities and irregularities, and to re -advertise for bids, and may elect to award the contract for this work to the bidder whose proposal is considered most satisfactory and advantageous. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: William C.-Wodtke Jr., Chairman Publish in the - Vero Beach & Orlando Papers, Miami -Herald Dates: December 13, 1979 December 14, 1979 December 17, 1979 ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT THE ZONING DEPARTMENT IS MOVING AHEAD WITH A CRACKDOWN ON CERTAIN ZONING VIOLATIONS IN THE COUNTY. HE NOTED THAT WE DEALT WITH SOME HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS AND AUTHORIZED THEIR REMOVAL SEVERAL MEETINGS AGO, AND THERE ALSO IS A PROBLEM WITH SEVERAL JUNK YARDS. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THERE ARE TWO ALTERNATIVES FOR ENFORCEMENT. ONE IS THROUGH THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SINCE A ZONING VIOLATION IS A CRIME, AND THE OTHER IS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF THROUGH THE CIVIL COURTS. HE NOTED THAT THE STATE'S ATTORNEY WORKS ON A SALARY WHICH IS BUD- GETED FOR WHILE HAVING THE COUNTY'S ATTORNEY HANDLE THIS WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE, HE ASKED IF THE BOARD WOULD PREFER TO TRY FOR RELIEF THROUGH THE STATE'S ATTORNEY FIRST, OR IF THEY WISH TO MOVE AHEAD ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF THROUGH THE CIVIL COURTS. HE NEEDS A PROCEDURE TO FOLOW WHEN THESE VIOLATION ARISE. HE DID COMMENT THAT DEC 5.1979 21 600K 42 PAGE 199 DEC 51979 42 1 PAC,E200 THERE HAS BEEN A PROBLEM IN GETTING THE STATE'S ATTORNEY TO PROSE- CUTE THESE MATTERS, BUT NOTED THAT THERE ARE NOT REALLY TOO MANY THAT ARE A PROBLEM SINCE ZONING DIRECTOR WALKER HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS, AND MOST OF THE JUNK YARDS HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE FENCING REQUIREMENTS. COMMISSIONER LOY FELT, BASED ON THE PAST EXPERIENCE OF THIS BOARD WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THAT WE SHOULD MOVE EXPEDITIOUSLY AND ASK OUR ATTORNEY TO HANDLE THESE MATTERS IN CIVIL COURT. ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED THAT THERE WILL BE A QUICKER RESPONSE THROUGH THE CIVIL COURTS, BUT JUST WISHED TO HAVE THE BOARD'S OPINION. THE BOARD AGREED THAT THESE MATTERS GO ON MUCH TOO LONG. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THOSE WE NEED TO LITIGATE AGAINST FOR VIOLATIONS ARE MR. & MRS. HENRY ALLEN: 3-D AUTO SALVAGE: AND COMMUNITY AUTO RECYCLERS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO INSTITUTE LITIGATION AGAINST THE ABOVE LISTED OFFENDERS THROUGH THE CIVIL COURTS. SENIOR PLANNER DAVID MARSH REVIEWED TWO LETTERS WRITTEN BY VISTA PROPERTIES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, AS FOLLOWS: VISTA PROPERTIES OF -VERO BEACH INC. 100 VISTA ROYALE BOULEVARD - VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 - TELEPHONE (305) 562-9031 Lj November 2, 1979 Mr. Mark Latch Bureau of Permitting Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office: Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 RE: Vista Ro ridiarl River County Permi #31-21035 ;_-� Dear Mark: Please find enclosed a revised site plan showing the two areas Vista Properties has -agreed to delete from the original application. This would eliminate the realignment of the mosquito ditch (and dike) as well as eliminate any fill in the impoundment area. In addition to leaving the mosquito ditch intact and filling only landward of the mosquito ditch (which is also the MHW line), there is the area landward of the mosquito ditch on the No. 3 golf hole which will be left intact. This revised plan with all fill landward of the MHW line also eliminates the need for D.N.R. approval. I would hope this final mitigation on our part will conclude the permitting process for this application and result in a prompt issuance of the permit. If there are any questions, or if.you see any problems, please contact me. Enclosure RLG/cp spectfully y s, Robert L. skill Vice President VISTA PROPERTIES ... "creators of fine living" DEC 51979 23 42PAGE 201 r. DEC 51979 Bou 42 FACE 202 ' VISTA PROPERTIES OF. VERO BEACH INC. 13 100 VISTA ROYALE BOULEVARD - VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 - TELEPHONE (305) $62-9031 Mr. Mark batch Bureau of Permitting Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 RE: Vista Royale Indian River County Perm -21035 Dear Mark: November 16, 1979 Please find enclosed a revised drawing for the mitigation on the dredge and fill permit application. This was agreed on as final mitigation with Mr. Joseph Carroll, Field Supervisor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at an onsite meeting yesterday. In addition to the deletions. from the fill areas stated in my letter of November 2, 1979, this final mitigation is the removal of any Brazilian Pepper along landward side of the mosquito ditch between Section B=B and Government Lot 1. Also, we would scrape this same area to intertidal elevation with a maximum width of this scraping to be seventy (70) feet. The width will vary up to 70 feet depending on native upland vegetation which is to remain. Section C --C on sheet 3 of 3 shows this revision. I would assume this final mitigation on our part will conclude the permitting process for this application and result in a prompt issuance of the permit. I will be calling your office next week to discuss the schedule of your particular processing of this permit. If there are any questions in the meantime, please feel -free to call me. es ctfully yours, Robert L. Gaskill Vice President Enclosure . RLG/cp VISTA PROPERTIES ... "creators of fine living" MR. MARSH COMMENTED THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION BETWEEN VISTA ROYALE AND THE DER ABOUT TWO AREAS, AND IT WAS FINALLY AGREED THAT VISTA ROYALE WOULD NOT FILL IN THOSE TWO AREAS, BUT WOULD LEAVE THEM IN =24 THEIR NATURAL STATE. HE FELT THAT WAS THE ONLY CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE DER AND VISTA PROPERTIES AND THAT IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED AT THIS POINT. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT A RESOLUTION STATING THAT THE BOARD HAS NO OBJECTIONS, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT HE HAD A ODER FORM FOR SUCH A RESOLUTION.' ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS,_,THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 79-118 CONSISTENT WITH THE DER'S LETTER OF NOVEMBER 30, 1979, AS FOLLOWS; TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING 2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 0 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION November 30, 1979 Indian River County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Gentlemen: File No. 31-21035, Indian River County Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc. BOBGRAHAM GOVERNOR JACOB D. VARN SECRETARY Revisions to this project have been received in our office (copies attached). The revisions eliminate the proposed filling in the mosquito impoundment area and as such would not be opposed by our Department. If you have any questions, please call me at 904/488-0130. Sincerely, /;%� Mark Latch Environmental Specialist Standard Permitting Section SAID RESOLUTION WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN RECEIVED. DEC 51979 25 $� `+r o :i n 1 o '?o Cr Revisions to this project have been received in our office (copies attached). The revisions eliminate the proposed filling in the mosquito impoundment area and as such would not be opposed by our Department. If you have any questions, please call me at 904/488-0130. Sincerely, /;%� Mark Latch Environmental Specialist Standard Permitting Section SAID RESOLUTION WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN RECEIVED. DEC 51979 25 $� Fl - DEC 51979 . 'I BOOK 42 PACE 204 ATTORNEY COLLINS DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MINOR SITE PLAN APPROVALS AND NOTED THERE ALSO IS SOME ADDITIONAL CRITERIA INCLUDED DEFINING WHEN THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WILL BECOME INVOLVED WITH SITE PLAN APPROVALS. HE REVIEWED THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN 1, 2 AND 3 FOR THE MINOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, AND EXPLAINED THAT IN THE EVENT THE APPLICANT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONCUR, THEN THAT ITEM IS PUT ON THE ZONING COMMISSION'S AGENDA ALONG WITH OTHERS OF A SIMILAR TYPE AND GIVEN BLANKET APPROVAL WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION UNLESS THE ZONING COMMIS- SION DECIDES IT WISHES TO REVIEW THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. IN THE EVENT THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE APPLICANT, THEN THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO GO BEFORE THE ZONING COMMISSION AS A SPECIAL MATTER. THE INTENTION IS TO SPEED UP CONSIDERATION OF MINOR ITEMS. THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDED A RIGHT OF APPEAL THROUGH NORMAL SITE PLAN APPEAL PROCEDURE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THIS IS SAYING THAT 24 MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS WOULD BE A MINOR ITEM. ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE SECTIONS - MINOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND ADDITIONAL CRITERIA. THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA PROPOSED SUGGESTS THAT 24 UNITS OR LESS WOULD NOT GO THROUGH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT MANY ITEMS NOW DO NOT GO TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE UNLESS THE ADMINISTRATOR FEELS IT IS NECESSARY; THIS IS JUST TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN CRITERIA. CHAIRMAN WODTKE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT WITH THIS SPECIFIC LIMIT, PEOPLE WOULD DELIBERATELY FALL SHORT OF THE NUMBER TO AVOID THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. SENIOR PLANNER MARSH NOTED THAT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COM- MITTEE DOES NOT REQUIRE MORE EXTENSIVE DETAIL THAN IN THE REGULAR SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION PROCESS,'IT JUST CAUSES SOME TIME DELAY, IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED THAT ITEM 2 UNDER ADDITIONAL CRITERIA STATES THAT MOBILE HOME PARKS OR SUBDIVISIONS 26 WOULD -NOT REQUIRE REVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL rREVIEW COMMITTEE IF THE NUMBER OF UNITS WERE LESS THAN 25. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT THE SUBDIVISIONS REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT THEY BE REVIEWED BY THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. MR. -MARSH FELT THAT SUBDIVISIONS WERE INADVERTENTLY INCLUDED AND THAT IT WAS NOT THEIR INTENT TO EXEMPT THEM FROM REVIEW BY THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE BOARD CONTINUED TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED NUMBER OF 24 UNITS, AND COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED HOW YOU ASSURE THAT ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TECHNICAL REVIEW GETS IT. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE BOARD COULD SIMPLY APPROVE THE TOP HALF OF THE PAGE RELATING TO MINOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND DO MORE STUDY ON THE SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL CRITERIA. HE EXPLAINED THAT THEY ARE CONCEPTUALLY APPROVING SOMETHING THAT WILL COME BACK INTO THE ORDINANCE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE QUESTIONED THE NEED FOR THE SECTION ENTITLED ADDITIONAL CRITERIA, AND MR. MARSH NOTED THAT THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH A SET CRITERIA FOR THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT SHE LIKES THE IDEA THAT THE APPLICANT FEELS HE HAS TO GO BEFORE A TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SAY THIS ONE DOES GO OR DOES NOT GO IS NOT IMPORTANT, AND SHE DID NOT WANT TO FOOL WITH NUMBERS AND HAVE PEOPLE FEEL THEY CAN GET AROUND GOING THROUGH THIS COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AGREED THAT HE WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO FEEL THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS COMMITTEE AND THEN LEAVE IT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS COMMENTED THAT IF IT IS A VERY MINOR THING, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND MR. MARSH IS TRYING TO PUT THAT IN WRITING. HE DID UNDERSTAND THE BOARDS CONCERN. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE BOARD AGREED THAT THEY DID NOT WISH TO SET UP THIS CRITERIA, BUT WOULD RATHER LEAVE IT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATORS DISCRETION. DEC 51979 27 BOOK 42 PAGE205 DEC 51979 BooK 42 FAGE 206 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED ADVERTISING A CHANGE IN THE CONING ORDINANCE IN RE MINOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, NOT INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA PROPOSED. THE PROPOSED MINOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL IS AS FOLLOWS: INOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL 1. All applications for decks, fences, mobile homes, pole barns, pools, porches, terraces, walls; 2. Principle structures with up to 2500 sq. ft. of impervious surfaces, including driveways and sidewalks which does not require drainage review; 3. Additions to existing structures -which do not exceed the lesser of ten (10) percent or 2500 sq. ft. and other impervious. surfaces (parking spaces, drives, loading areas, etc.) not to exceed fifteen (15) percent of the existing area or twenty (20) spaces whichever is the lesser amount. _ Minor site plan applications will be accepted no later than seven (7) working days prior to the Friday preceding the next scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and will be given administrative approval by the Director of Planning and Zoning subject to Commission review at the next scheduled meeting. Other site plan proposals which exceed these criteria will be handled as standard application subject to the normal process for site plan approval. Administrative decisions of the department are placed on the agenda of the Commission for the next meeting following the issuance of that decision, for information purposes. Any administrative decision may be appealed by the applicant to the Commission at this meeting upon request. At this time, the Commission may hear the appeal or set a date for a hearing at a future meeting. A request for an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission decision would be handled in the manner of a standard site plana ENGINEER RALPH ENG, OF THE .JOINT VENTURE, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO REPORT ON THE PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SOUTH MUNICIPAL WATER TAXING DISTRICT, AND TO DISCUSS THE SUPPLEMENT HE HAS PREPARED TO HIS PREVIOUS REPORT. THIS SUPPLEMENT IS A RESULT OF SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH FMHA, WHO HAVE INDICATED THAT THE GRANT THAT WOULD BE ALLOCATED FOR THIS PROJECT FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR IS $296,900. HE NOTED THAT THE REPORT, THEREFORE, IS BASED ON THIS AMOUNT, AND HE HAS TRIED TO REVISE AND REDUCE THE TOTAL COST, BUT NOT SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE SYSTEM. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE TREATMENT PLANT AND WELLFIELD REMAIN THE SAME AS PROPOSED, BUT THE DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ARE REVISED FROM THE ORIGINAL REPORT. MR. ENG CONTINUED THAT HE TOOK OUT SOME OF THE LINES THAT WERE FOR FIRE PROTECTION ONLY AND THE HYDRANTS,AND ALSO THEY WILL GO TO PVC PIPE FOR WATER LINES 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND SMALLER. HE POINTED OUT THAT IF THE BID SHOULD COME IN WITHIN THE PROJECT COST, THESE ITEMS CAN BE.ADDED BACK IN. MR. ENG CONTINUED TO REVIEW HIS SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: Ie DEC 5.1979 scox 42, PmE 207 DEC . r r 51979 Supplement To A Prliminary Engineering Report Dated April, 1979 For Water System Improvements For The Indian River County -South Municipal Tax District Engineer's Job No. 6674 November 27, 1979 A. GENERAL BOOK 42 PACE 208 This supplement is prepared to provide additional information and data necessary to implement the South Municipal Tax District Water System Improvements project utilizing loan and grant funds furnished by the USDA Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). The FmHA has allocated $296,900 in grant funds for this project for fiscal year 1979-80. The original proposed Phase I construction program was revised, due to the limited grant funds available, to reduce the monthly user cost to a level compatible with the existing wafter rate schedule adopted by the County Commission in the north county area (Gifford). An up-to-date determination was performed to verify the connections that have become available since the completion of the Preliminary Engineering Report, April, 1979. The total available connections were revised accordingly for a funding analysis to determine the required monthly user cost. The project funding anaylsis includes a proposed water rate schedule, analysis of expected income and a determination of the amount of proposed utility taxes required to meet the projected annual expenses of the water system. C. Project Financing The total project cost is estimated as follows: 'I. Construction Cost $4,764,000 2. Technical Services @ 9.2% 438,300 3. Interim Financing @ 6.6% of Loan 420,000 4. Legal/Administrative @ 1% 47,640 5. Contingencies @ 5% 238,200 6. Escalation to 1981 @ 15% 714,600 TOTAL PROJECT COST $6,622,740 The amount of grant.funds expected to be available is $296,900. The estimated annual expenses are as follows: Total Project Cost $6,622,740 Grant Available 296,900 TOTAL LOAN AMOUNT $6,325,840 Annual Expenses I. Debt Services 5% @ 38 yrs. $ 374,996 2. Operation & Maintenance 265,000 3. 10% Reserve 37,499 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES $ 677,495 Approximately 600 residential connections have become available since January,1979. These additional connections are included in this supplement report for the project financing analysis. The average monthly residential water consumption of the Gifford and Mid -Florida water systems was verified at 7,928 gallons per month for the Gifford area and at 6,340 gallons per month for the Mid -Florida area. An average water consumption rate of 7,000 DEC 51979 BOOK 42 PAGE 209 J 104 Q CD ca cn I- c" — L ✓ -%,"I At ;p".'r tura-s3ld'�°�+v+�ay�� ri•,>w<t� sw.d'1 .,r _ Tr. •i I� !•ail.ha!��•�d!'+,r.�Y�:.ts'S�•��`•'�;A1�'uily"a�t.$.% `0.A1�:�eitt�r._`*�i%. ��il,�',��'�•"F.��.o;�,�'��•°t'�'-•�•,;�i t*•t r ,,,ta - F t•� fir. ' - , - ro �� `� I t , � � tt.2 'd� QR 3 l.�•�7p "C�6 't+R w ,f •ef t `o�twr � 4 ,s a P - 6 ��y+s yy j 3�* a a 1 s �yy,���� ' ('�'� t 1`'�t T, Sa y,A'p'i� � ;�r�„'^•�,•aY tgg�+ a'�'T.d �SJ[ t � 8.i `'D:a �,r , �'t .{"'P•'7�1`Y '.+.� `" :6t`�d14. iz" M ✓ >4.r:. , t d i, t 1 }�y'•¢. t ,.. d'•�..y, � BI Om'+�st r �B'.y'.� �.{ 1� wa.a dt�k 'tt: 's ti g.Fn"t�(u,7! .Y�a+t'�•{ t Et �„ert �_• r v., 02�'vd dri 'S T'.�. ,�! ?.x ",�m� •3'�d.M r�r: L:i.�°�` I' 6 ' { .'%•"J I �l r, a L' i-n•*.r t 7Td �p� `�..t� " irk- ,,''{{ �" a•f }yi rvi }t +1 ,v r' ..'•.. s�'�, Nle i. �giy3- � �• .;.i! rr � '�a k �."�w.k d� ! tlr��'4A ��,;�'N� ,�q, r iij�q"%S,�l�i��' �• j k VERO, rBEACH-111.` tp C�TY �IMITS�5�* {. Y �? •� x'� jj'fi {R t J ? tr,}'1Sjn� _r f E � Dc li ..� �R sc L- �,., DI ,� d . ro RS �,fi ` ,,,• +D., � ! ` t s { �7`3 c , T , s 4;^e• '#t � `'-pry- �'° ��aj•'pC`y �.` -z � y�S�{ lr . F��3� s 4 I �T$j , i ?�' ST% '� ry '"V'r_., '� T':•-+3fi'r r•.+v oy 6 ",�''"�1piY' t ' + 4 ,+ n z<t Y . y�tt .�" r ? a >•$ it U' A..�..M,w' 1' a..� t a." Irk-{ �.x r' a•. 'T+T S t �r # .::a+4jjT`{~g� `1"ia"i"y r$ +' e rstr •�� �� f�a�• N ,1-' '1, T � �" .if; 13n C 51 c M. � z, •.[a "4 'st C� ..�u �'�, .QDI p 1 � J( tf�Lr :9 qt,' • t '10".5'y, 1 %t2,°^y}gt4�! {p/��ia1�4r,5'Xie itis a_ Z :7 .. 9'. i�fi �Ee ,, 3q f+.r $... .gr•Je'� ,,y,�j�F'rt. ; C9 �'1 �^�'�y. als<t �'''';�s, y, yl.b..� '7J W r i { ti, ti v .r� ) y. 5 i., st""b n ! �!M o �,k+C'�yUtl }�.'ST" : Q � � z d :T L' 13J _ BTp, : + : ST , r �, ,•4 ,;•-. 'fie r'! 7 ' S'!' iT'ia'e }}� - �• '�i y9 --t t.Yp'L �'Y '+'6 f �< �i'•tr *..4 '{d� ry{ Y r �'� '• • 4, k ai .1: C +it!(9;1 ',''�f 6PA,,, •,' ` , -t r ��?•b?{j.v. � a-'� k � y��';`� � I ri..lq yy�CY C'�yyJ , � �'.�!£'P, � �'�� � ' � •a�; '�• tati.'er`^a t E �r.r a +�} bt "S} r,i� rte, �y��^^"t b. t j .gid 4 't i':;dP u.. S^a,�� sT� mr ts+ ra" SIRE J� y. t r .� �' '»@�d � y^���+ r �i�"r�F�:�����'1 "a �°' W'„•"e �`�.�f:�t,•a ' �'6i anl, t 4�.ov e4 uc Y N9P" �p� �} �,r7',� S � � p � • ��,.•. , 1�e lia't 6 "�glr.F''-r�.d,�^vpA:3,?S�tlm$`.'".mob 4x}_f:{. "�,s;'�'• 1. r_ c s -$.y L t 5 Y1$•�pEG y�� �'':f'+r:w'�•...'.'+'r t ".^. 1>•L.. TSertnM as2 •;N. ,-.�• t l� .y h7. tM �( - -^�L'- z •.. a -'•=' tea, t � yC: r. Mf r 9• t sa+t � ...* � 0,. , � � l °�l.•'7' t ndt , �''1 ' '✓,r, x • ^,tl .f-_..rF �+�.•.'i•' ^,. `� W .w'l�y rfira",Rrr'F 'c tr• 7 t, 7 ' � .�, �', q �°,> � v• ,$� „�, �,`2'd*a" B• B 4sa • � 'a u JZ..-,� R�fb p .> t !; �o-r ,,�y'.!;b'i�'t'nd , 1 `! r i• t .. �+�•Y r,�_.._,� UJ,s. gj r' d..,•� .W- +�rA yr- 'Xn i is _fi N I, X. ""7• iw� ron a.sw «G. sem- 58a+U84'�'yw C �; ' • � Q t'. t*7.,' �r�,� +x�Y'S� ,,.�1 i 17y”? a. � 'a x('k" Aj Lc.Y yju� "; t� �t�?�y�, :w s�;; tir <,.t�a ? ta't� �•q w O � � � { ''s dt y k, t, pP QSLaQ.ix ROAQs t `� .v .1.:�s 5k ° t s., .'�•di ar# ., '! 4� {:'. is ' �"`Qty a, �14+�k�9 ' d ,..da'tb.�'y"t A000 .-. 2000 LEGEND jDENOTESPROPOSEDPHASEI WATER. SYSTEPd LAYpIT �DENOTESPROPOSEDPHASEIF/RE HYDRANTS tG NOTESP140Posw, IASEI5Go,000 1GALLCW ELEVATED STCRAGE TANK. DENOTES LOCAT/ON OF PROPOSED PHASE I AND PHASE Z A TER TREA TMENT PLANT 6t. OEt_E1'EO-R� Visr_p t Sverdrup& parcel INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOUTH TAX DISTRIC and Assoatates.Inc. D WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS BEINDORFAND ASSOCIATES,Inc. ALTERNATIVE NO. 586 CONSULTING ENGINEERS PROPOSED WATER TRANSMISSION AND VERO BEACH. FLORIDA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LAYOUT 1 (A JOINT VENTURE) I DATEt MARCH 1979 JOB NQ 6146 FIGURE NQ f gallons per month per residential connection was used for the project financing analysis. A proposed monthly water rate schedule is shown on Table Il. -The rate schedule is based on the existing residential rates of the Gifford water system. Table III shows the projected annual income of the Phase I water system improvements based on the existing available connections. The annual expenses are about $677,4.95. The annual income is about $555,276. The difference is about $122,219 which the County is proposing to generate by implementing a utility tax on the users of the water system. There are about 2,886 users including about 115 commercial users of the proposed water system Improvements. The amount of utility tax required is an average of $3.53 per month per user. D. PROJECT SCHEDULE Table IV shows the proposed project schedule for imple- menting and completing the construction of the Phase I South Municipal Tax District Water System Improvement program. E. RECOMMENDATIONS I. The County should consider the implementation of an utility tax program to generate about $122,219 to supplement the annual income. 2. The County should request an application conference with FmHA for requesting grant assistance in the amount of $296,900 (minimum) and final project funding commitment. 3. The County should proceed with the Floridan aquifer test well program. 4. The County should authorize the Engineers to proceed with the final design upon receipt of project funding commitment from FmHA . 51979 kox 42 a41 I r DEC 51979 Bou 4,9 FAcE21Z B. REVISED PHASE I WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 1. Water Treatment Plant and Well Field The proposed Phase I water treatment plant and well field improvements are as proposed in the April, 1979 report. The improvements consist of constructing a 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd) reverse osmosis treatment plant and well field. The reserve capacity of this treatment plant is estimated to be approximately 2,115 equivalent residential -water connections. The well field will consist of three (3) wells tapping the Floridan (deep) aquifer and a manifold piping system. 2. Transmission -Distribution System The proposed Phase I -water transmission -distribution system has been revised to reduce initial construction costs. The revisions include deleting water lines that previously proposed to provide fire protection only, deleting fire hydrants along these water lines and other areas presently served, and utilizing poly- vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe for water lines 12 -inches in diameter and smaller. The revisions to the proposed Phase I transmission - distribution system layout are shown on Figure 1. 3. Estimated Construction Cost The estimated construction costs of the revised Phase I improvements are shown in Table I. As shown in this table, the estimated construction costs of the revised transmission -dis- tribution system and the treatment plant are $1,307,000 and $3,457,000, respectively. The total construction cost of the revised Phase I improvements is estimated to be $4,764,000. These estimates are based on mid -1979 prices. _I 41 TABLE I SOUTH MUNICIPAL TAX DISTRICT WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS REVISED PHASE I -ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST I, Transmission -Distribution Svstem: 2 -inch PVC Pipe (3,920 LF) $ 15,680 6 -inch PVC Pipe (11,220 LF) 72,930 8 -inch PVC Pipe (900 LF) 7,650 10 -inch PVC Pipe (11,610 LF) 121,910 12 -inch PVC Pipe (3,170 LF.) 44,380 14 -inch D.I.P. (5,810 LF). 139,440 20 -inch D.I.P. (6,000 LF) 210,000 30 -inch D.I.P. (530 LF) 34,450 .Fire Hydrant Assembly (41 Ea.) 45,100 Valves and Boxes 25,000 Cast Iron Fittings 22,000 Pavement Replacement 14,000 Cased Crossings (360 LF) 54,000 New Service Connections (478 Ea.) 95,600 Connections to Existing Lines (23 Ea.) 11,500 Refurbish existing Mid -Fla. 150,000 gal. elevated tank 20,000 500,000 gal. elevated storage tank (I Ea.) 341,000 2,700 gpm high service pump (3 Ea.) 32,000 Subtotal: $1,307,000 11. Treatment Plant and Well Field Deep Aquifer Test Well Program $ 63,000 Deep Aquifer Well Field 8 Manifold 326,000 2.5 MGD Reverse Osmosis Treatment Plant 2,788,000 2.0 MG Ground Storage Tank 280,000 Subtotal: $3,457,000 TOTAL: $4,764,000 DEC 51979 600K 42 PAGE 2.1:3 DEC 51979 R©OK 42 PAGE 214 TABLE II SOUTH MUNICIPAL TAX DISTRICT WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED MONTHLY WATER RATES Residential and Apartments on Individual Meters 2,000 gallons or less, minimum charge Over 2,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons Master Meters - Apartments, Mobile Homes and other multiple dwellings on master meters except Motels & Hotels 2,000 gallons or less, $7.10 minimum charge per unit. Number of units times 2,000 gallons establishes minimum gallonage per complex master meter. Consumption over established minimum gallonage, $1.50 per 1,000 gallons. Commercial, Churches and Nursing Homes 2,000 gallons or less, minimum charge Over 2,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons Motel & Hotel Rooms 1,600 gallons or less, $8.50 minimum per room Number of rooms times 1,.600 gallons establishes minimum gallonage per complex. Consumption over established minimum gallonage, $2.25 per 1,000 gallons $7..10 1.50 $10.65 2.25 TABLE III SOUTH MUNICIPAL TAX DISTRICT WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTED ANNUAL INCOME User Type Residential Motel/Hotel Rooms Apartments Churches Service Stations Restaurants Launderetts Retail Stores' Nursing Home Liquor Lounge Car Washes Concrete Batch Plants Citrus Packing Plants TOTALS DEC 51979 600K 42 ew 5 Average Monthly Water Total Number of Consumption Per Monthly Water Monthly Revenue Connections Connection(gal.) Consumpt. (MG) Per Conn. Total •2,747 7,000 19.229 $ 14.60 $ 40,106 12 3,500 0.042 12.77 153 14 7,000 0.098 14.60 204 4 14,00.0 0.056 37.65 150 2 14,000 0.028 37.65 75 8 70,000 0.560 163.65 1,309 2 112,000 0.224 258.15 516 90 7,000 0.630 21.90 1,971 1 21,000 0.021 53.40 53 1 21,000 0.021 53.40 53 1 105,000 0.105 242.40 242 2 140,000 0.280 321.15 642 2 175,000 0.350 399.90 799 2,886 21.644/month $46,273/month 0.71/Day TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME $555,276 DEC 51979 600K 42 ew 5 C® CM LLJy MAJOR TASKS TABLE IV SOUTH MUNICIPAL TAX DISTRICT—WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SCHEDULE q 1 � 1 ' � 1 { 1979 1980 1981 DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN. JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. 12 months I. FmHA Funding Committed ** 2. Test Well Program 3. Authorization Final Design 4. Land Purchase Option—Well/Trt. Pt. * * ** * * 5. Transmission/ Distribution/Elev. Tank Designa��cae 6. Well Field/ Treatment Plant Design******* 7. Well/Consumptive Use Permits 8. DER—Construction Permits 9. Advertise/ v� Receive Bidsa�a�a�acaca�xx 1O 10. Legal/Bond Validation/Interim v t.J..J Financing�c�c�ca�a�x�ca�a�aca�a�a��cacaea�a�a�a�aexrxa�a�x�ca�a�a�xxae II. Award Contract(s) Begin/Complete r Construction 12 months MR. ENG CONTINUED THAT THE REVISED CONSTRUCTION COST IS $4,764,000, AND THE FOLLOWING PAGE SHOWS THE TOTAL COST OF THE SYSTEM IMPROVE- MENT. HE NOTED THAT THEY HAD A 20% ESCALATION FACTOR, BUT FELT THEY COULD LIVE WITH 15%. THE TOTAL ESTIMATE IS $6,600,000, AND THE ANNUAL EXPENSE WHICH THE SYSTEM HAS TO GENERATE TO BE SELF SUFFICIENT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF•$677,495. MR. ENG REPORTED THAT WE HAD 2,500 CONNECTIONS.AVAILABLE; THEY WENT BACK AND INVENTORIED, AND WITH VISTA PROPERTIES AND CUSTOMER SERVICE, FOUND THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 600 ADDITIONAL AVAILABLE AT THE PRESENT TIME. MR. ENG THEN DISCUSSED THE RECORD OF WATER CONSUMPTION IN THE GIFFORD AREA AND IN THE MID FLORIDA, WHICH WAS USED TO COME UP WITH AN AVERAGE OF 71000 GALLONS PER MONTH PER RESIDENTIAL CONNECTION. HE NOTED THAT TABLE II TOOK THE ACTUAL CONNECTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND PROPOSED A RATE SCHEDULE WITH THE BASE RATE IDENTICAL TO THE NORTH COUNTY-GIFFORD RATE. HE THEN DISCUSSED THE CHARGES FOR THE VARIOUS USERS. MR. ENG REVIEWED TABLE III AND EXPLAINED HOW THEY COMPUTED THE MONTHLY REVENUE SCHEDULE OF $46,000, NOTING THAT RESIDENTIAL GENERATES 80% OF THE TOTAL. THE TOTAL ESTIMATED YEARLY REVENUE IS ABOUT $555,000 OR A DEFICIT OF $122,000 ANNUALLY. MR. ENG CONTINUED THAT THE MOST PROMISING ALTERNATIVE TO MAKE UP THIS DEFICIT, AS DISCUSSED WITH FMHA, WOULD BE A UTILITY TAX, AND SUCH A TAX WOULD WORK OUT TO ABOUT $3.50 PER MONTH PER CONNECTION. HE STATED THAT IF THE COUNTY IS WILLING TO IMPOSE A UTILITY TAX AT THIS TIME, THEY CAN PROCEED WITH THE APPLICA- TION CONFERENCE AND HAVE A LETTER OF CONDITION ISSUED BASED ON THESE RATES AND A UTILITY TAX. MR. ENG CONTINUED THAT BEFORE THE BONDS ARE VALIDATED, ABOUT 10 MONTHS FROM NOW, IF ADDITIONAL CONNECTIONS BECOME AVAILABLE, THEY CAN BE UTILIZED TO AMORTIZE THE PROJECT AND THIS CAN BE ADJUSTED BEFORE THE BOND CLOSING. IF ANOTHER 690 CONNECTIONS CAN BE GENERATED BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, A UTILITY TAX WILL NOT BE NECESSARY, BUT FMHA HAS TO HAVE SOMETHING CONCRETE IN ORDER TO PROCEED. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT IF WE HAVE TO BE SURE ABOUT CONNECTIONS, IT WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORY HOOK-UP AND MR. ENG AGREED. 39 DEC 51979 BOOK 42 FACE 217 DEC 51979 42 PACE 218 ENGINEER JOHN ROBBINS NOTED THAT ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALREADY ON A FRANCHISE SYSTEM WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONNECT. HE STATED THAT THEIR ESTIMATES WERE BASED ON 80% OF THOSE IN THE AREAS WHICH ARE NOT NOW CONNECTED, AND MR. ENG FELT THAT OF THE OVER 500 AVAILABLE NOW ABOUT 478 WILL CONNECT. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED HOW MANY THERE MAY BE AVAILABLE IN THE CLASSES OF FRANCHISE THAT STATE WHEN A COUNTY SYSTEM IS AVAILABLE.- THEY VAILABLE, THEY WILL TURN OVER THEIR LINES, I.E. TROPIC GROVE. MR, ROBBINS STATED THAT THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE 600 ADDI- TIONAL BUILDINGS IN THE AREA. WHAT THEY DID NOT INCLUDE. IS VISTA PROP- ERTIES' MCKEE PROJECT, WHICH HE UNDERSTOOD INVOLVES 500-600 UNITS. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED WHAT RELATION THE GIFFORD SYSTEM HAS TO THIS, AND MR. EN -G STATED THAT IT IS JUST THE STANDARD BASE RATE: GIFFORD IS A SEPARATE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF THEY NEED THE RATE SCHEDULE IN EFFECT COUNTYWIDE OR WILL THEY ACCEPT A COMMITMENT THAT THE SYSTEM WILL BE PROPERLY FUNDED IN ORDER TO MOVE AHEAD? MR. ENG REPLIED THAT FMHA NEEDS A COMMITMENT THAT THE SYSTEM WILL BE PROPERLY FUNDED EITHER WITH A RATE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A UTILITY TAX OR BY HAVING A HIGHER RATE FOR THIS PART OF THE COUNTY. THE CHAIRMAN NOTED THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH CHARGING NEW CONSTRUCTION REASONABLE TAP -IN FEES TO PAY FOR THEIR PROPORTION- ATE SHARE. MR. ENG DISCUSSED HAVING THE DEVELOPER PAY FOR RESERVE CAPACITY AND POINTED OUT THAT IT TAKES A YEAR TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THE FMHA HAS TO HAVE SOMETHING CONCRETE NOW. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN If HOOK-UP WERE MADE MANDATORY, AND MR. ENG STATED THERE WOULD BE ABOUT 100 MORE CONNECTIONS RIGHT NOW. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF WE GET ALL THESE CUSTOMERS AND ADD ANOTHER 500 FROM VISTA PROPERTIES, WOULD WE GET TAP -IN FEES FROM THE ONES AT VISTA PROPERTIES, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT. COMMISSIONER LOY THEN INQUIRED ABOUT THE CAPACITY LEFT IN THE PLANT FOR ANY OTHER CUSTOMERS. MR. ENG STATED THAT EVEN WITH THE ADDITIONAL 600, THERE WOULD BE A 2,100 RESERVE. HE THEN EXPLAINED THAT IN THE REPORT WHICH PROPOSED THE SIZE OF THE TREATMENT PLANT, THEY USED 130 GALLONS PER DAY PER CAPITA, OR 9,000 GALLONS PER MONTH. BASED ON THE HISTORY OF GIFFORD AND MID FLORIDA, THEY NOW FIGURE AN AVERAGE OF 7,000 GAL- LONS PER MONTH: SO, IF THIS IS CORRECT, THEN THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL RESERVE CAPACITY ALREADY BUILT IN. HE FELT YOU WOULD HAVE APPROXIMATELY 2,500 ADDITIONAL RESERVE CONNECTIONS BASED ON 7,000 PER MONTH. COMMISSIOENR SIEBERT EMPHASIZED THAT WE SHOULD REQUIRE MANDATORY HOOK-UP AND POINTED OUT THAT WE NEED MORE CUSTOMERS ON THE GIFFORD SYSTEM. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF IT WOULD SIMPLIFY THINGS IF WE EXERCISED OUR OPTION AND TOOK OVER THE VISTA SYSTEM RIGHT NOW. MR. ENG EXPLAINED THAT THIS WOULD HELP VERY LITTLE BECAUSE THE $200 CONNECTION FEE IS A ONE-SHOT ITEM, AND IT WOULD ONLY MEAN A DIFFERENCE OF 2N PER MONTH. COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED THAT WE ARE NOT DOING THE PEOPLE A FAVOR BY ANY FURTHER DELAY, AND EVERY MONTH WE WAIT WILL MAKE THE COST OF WATER HIGHER TO THE CUSTOMERS IN THE LONG RUN. MR. ENG INFORMED THE BOARD THAT ALL THE GIFFORD LINES ARE IN AND WILL BE CLEARED THIS WEEK. HE BELIEVED THERE ARE ANOTHER 300 EXISTING HOUSES THAT COULD HOOK ON IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS. HE STATED THAT THERE ARE AN ESTIMATED 567 UNITS ON THE SYSTEM NOW, AND NO ONE IS ON THE NEW LINES YET. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THEY ARE NOT CONNECTING AS THEY SHOULD BE TO THE GIFFORD SYSTEM AND THAT A FEW PEOPLE ARE FOOTING THE BILL FOR THE WHOLE SYSTEM. MR. ROBBINS NOTED THAT IF MANDATORY HOOK-UP IS REQUIRED IN THE SOUTH COUNTY, THE GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS OF THE PHASE I PROJECT WERE NOT DEFINED IN THE REPORT, BUT HE FELT THE EXISTING WATER LINE DEFINES THE AREA. DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON DEFINING SERVICE AREAS. DEC 51979 41 ao 42 pAcE 219 _I DEC 51979 BOOK 42,,, FAGE220 ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT IN TERMS OF FUTURE GROWTH, THE COMMISSION WOULD BE MUCH BETTER OFF WITH A UNIFORM RATE STRUCTURE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, BUT COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT YOU COULD HAVE A DIFFERENT TAX IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS AS THEY ARE BEING DEVELOPED. DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON A UTILITY TAX, AND COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT SHE DOES NOT WISH TO USE A FRONT FOOT ASSESSMENT AND ALSO DOES NOT LIKE THE UTILITY TAX, WHICH INVOLVES PUTTING A TAX ON OTHER PEOPLE'S FUNCTIONS. MR. ENG COMMENTED THAT IF THE RATES HAVE TO BE RAISED, THEY WILL HAVE TO GO UP ABOUT $3.53 PER MONTH. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS DID NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH JUST INCREASING THE RATES SINCE THE TOTAL BILL WOULD BE THE SAME IN ANY EVENT)AND THE INDIVIDUAL WOULD STILL PAY THE SAME AMOUNT. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT IF WE CAN GET ADDITIONAL CUSTOM- ERS, WE MAY NEVER HAVE TO IMPOSE THE UTILITY TAX, BUT FMHA MUST HAVE CONCRETE FIGURES. HE AGREED THAT HE WOULD JUST AS SOON SEE THE DEFICIT MADE UP IN THE RATE STRUCTURE BECAUSE HE COULDN'T SEE PUTTING A TAX ON ELECTRICITY, ETC, COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF THERE IS ANY DIFFICULTY IN HAVING TWO DIFFERENT RATES, AND MR. ENG STATED THERE WAS NOT FROM FMHA'S POINT OF VIEW. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF MR. ENG COULD WORK UP A NEW TABLE III WHICH WOULD GENERATE THE REQUIRED AMOUNT, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED WHAT HE NEEDED TO GO TO FMHA WITH. MR. ENG STATED THAT HE NEEDS A MOTION TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT AND THEN TO PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION BASF -D ON THIS DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF A MOTION STATING THAT THE COUNTY AGREES TO ADOPT A RATE SCHEDULE FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WILL GENERATE $677,276 YEARLY BASED ON THE ANALYSIS SHOWN IN THE REPORT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO TALK TO FMHA, AND MR. ENG STATED THAT IT WOULD.AND THAT HE COULD WORK UP A NEW RATE SCHEDULE TO BRING BACK LATER TODAY. CHAIRMAN WODTKE REQUESTED MR. ENG TO BRING, BACK A REVISED SCHEDULE THIS AFTERNOON. THE BOARD THEREUPON RECESSED AT 12:20 O'CLOCK P.M. FOR LUNCH AND RECONVENED AT 1:55 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT, THE CHAIRMAN ANNOUNCED THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD RESUME DISCUSSION OF TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF WEST MEADOWS SUBDIVISION WHICH WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1979. JAMES FOWLER,•ENGINEER REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER,JACK REDISH, STATED THAT THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED ON 43RD AVENUE AT CITRUS ROAD BY THE FIRE TOWER. HE STATED THAT HE VISITED THE SITE WITH ADMINISTRATOR KENNINGS AND DISCUSSED THE DRAINAGE PROBLEM WITH MR. REDISH, AND WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS CUT THE DITCHES IN TO DRAIN WATER OFF AND HOPEFULLY LOWER THE WATER TABLE. HE STATED THAT HE TOOK FOUR BORINGS AND SENT THE RESULTS TO .JACK ALLEN OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AND THAT MR. ALLEN HAS SAID THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE 36" OF FILL IN THE DRAIN AREA AND HOUSE SITE TO MEET HIS CRITERIA. ADMINISTRATOR KENNINGS ASKED WHETHER THIS 36" WAS MEANT TO APPLY ONLY TO THOSE LOW LOTS IN THE LOW AREA, AND MR. FOWLER STATED THAT MR. ALLEN WAS TALKING ABOUT THE CLAY AREA IN LOTS 2 AND 3. THE EAST SIDE IS RELATIVELY GOOD. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF THE CLAY AREA IS WELL DEFINED, AND ADMINISTRATOR KENNINGS FELT IT WILL INVOLVE PART OF LOT 1, ALL OF LOTS 2 AND 3, AND PART OF LOT 4. HE WAS SATISFIED THAT IF THE PROPOSED DITCHES ARE CUT TO GRADE, IT WILL LOWER THE WATER TABLE. BUT HIS MAIN QUESTION CONCERNED WHEN THAT LOW AREA IS GOING TO BE FILLED. JACK REDISH INFORMED THE BOARD THAT SOMEONE HAS SPOKEN FOR THOSE PARTICULAR LOTS: SO, ON THE COMPLETION OF THE SUBDIVISION, THEY WILL BE SOLD, AND AT THAT POINT THE NEW OWNER WILL BUILD ON THEM OR DO WHATEVER HE WANTS WITH THEM. COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED THAT WHEN THE LOW LOTS ARE BUILT UP HIGHER THAN THE OTHERS, THEY WILL DRAIN ONTO THEM. ADMINISTRATOR KENNINGS STATED THAT HIS CONCERN WAS THE REVERSE. HE EXPLAINED THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FILL WILL BE RE- QUIRED ON ANY OF THESE LOTS BEFORE YOU BUILD A HOUSE, AND IF THE LEVEL OF ALL THE OTHERS ARE RAISED ABOVE THOSE THAT ARE ALREADY LOW, 43 DEC 5.1979 BOOK 42 PAGE 221 DEC 51979 BOOK 42- PACE222 YOU WILL CREATE A SUMP AREA. WHEN SOMEONE DOES BUILD ON THE LOW LOTS, HE FELT IT WILL TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE BOARD GENERALLY AGREED THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD BE SETTLED IN ADVANCE, MR. FOWLER ASKED IF THEY COULD COMMIT THEMSELVES TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FILL OVER THOSE TWO LOTS OR COMMIT THEMSELVES IN SOME WAY TO GET APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT SUGGESTED THAT THEY GO AHEAD AND CUT THE DITCHES AND THEN COME BACK FOR APPROVAL, MR. REDISH AND MR. FOWLER NOTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3 AND THE LOTS ACROSS THE STREET IS ABOUT A FOOT OR LESS. MR. REDISH INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY WOULD PROPOSE TO PUT IN THE DRAINAGE AND THEN COME BACK AND SEE IF THE BOARD FEELS THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF, OR JUST BRING THOSE LOTS UP TO THE LEVEL OF THE SURROUNDING LOTS, COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THEY WERE PUTTING OFF THE ULTIMATE PROBLEM, BECAUSE IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO GO TO 36" FOR A SEPTIC TANK. MR, FOWLER POINTED OUT THAT THE 36" DOES NOT COVER THE ENTIRE LOT. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS COMMENTED THAT IF THIS PLAN WERE ACCEPTABLE IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, THEY COULD GO OUT THERE AND BRING THE GROUND UP TO.A SATISFACTORY ELEVATION AND THEN ASK FOR TENTATIVE APPROVAL. MR. REDISH STATED THAT IF HE DIDN'T GET THE TENTATIVE APPROVAL NOW AND ANY LAWS WERE CHANGED, THEN THEY WOULD BE CAUGHT WITH THAT CHANGE, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THAT MR. REDISH IS ASKING THE BOARD TO APPROVE A SUBDIVISION ON LAND THAT IS NOT SUITABLE TO BUILD ON. ALLEN CONNEL OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN OUT AT THIS PROPERTY AND QUESTIONS THE FACT THAT JUST TWO LOTS WILL NEED FILL SINCE THE ENTIRE AREA IS UNDERLAID WITH CLAY. HE NOTED THAT THE WEST AREA IS MUCH LOWER THAN THE EAST, AND FILL WILL DEFINITELY BE NEEDED ON THE EAST TO BE SURE THAT THE SEPTIC TANKS WILL WORK. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS CONCURRED. MR. REDISH STATED THAT THEY WOULD PUT IN THE DITCHES AND FILL IN THE SLOUGH: THEY ALSO COULD PUT IN SOME FILL AND ELEVATE THE PROBLEM AREA UP TO THE ELEVATION OF THE SURROUNDING LOTS, BUT HE DID NOT THINK THEY SHOULD BE ANY HIGHER. DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO DEPTH OF THE DITCHES, ETC., AND COMMISSIONER LYONS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS MARGINAL WITH THAT CLAY,SOIL. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS STATED THAT IT CAN BE DEVELOPED IF EVERYTHING IS CARRIED OUT, BUT IT MUST BE DONE PROPERLY. HE NOTED THAT WHEN THEY BUILD THE ROADS, THEY WILL BE GETTING FILL. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED WHY THE ROAD IN THE BACK DOES NOT GO THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY, AND MISS LANCASTER EXPLAINED THAT IT IS ONLY FOR USE OF THE RESIDENTS: THEY HAVE DEDICATED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT ARE NOT GOING TO PAVE IT ALL, COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THIS HAS BEEN OUR POLICY IN REGARD TO PUTTING IN HALF A STREET AS SHE WISHED TO BE CONSISTENT IN WHAT WE REQUIRE, AND COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AGREED THAT WE SHOULD BE SURE WHETHER IT IS REQUIRED TO PAVE ALL THE WAY FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER THOUGHT IF THE ROAD WENT NOWHERE, THAT IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO PAVE THE PART THEY WANT TO USE. DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO PAVING, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT SOME PROPERTY OWNERS COULD USE THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THEIR DRIVEWAY AND CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE, AND THE BOARD AGAIN AGREED THAT WE MUST BE CONSISTENT. WAY. MR. FOWLER STATED THAT THEY WILL PAVE THE ENTIRE RIGHT -OF - MR. CONNELL AGAIN SPOKE ABOUT THE HIGH AMOUNT OF FILL NEEDED TO GET THE SEPTIC TANKS ABOVE THE WATER TABLE, AND THE ADMIN- ISTRATOR DISCUSSED POSSIBLY REMOVING THE CLAY WHERE YOU WOULD BE PUTTING THE SEPTIC TANK AND DRAIN FIELD. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THAT WE SHOULD REQUIRE SUFFICIENT FILL TO BE PUT ON THE PROPERTY TO RAISE THE LEVEL SO THAT WHEN THE FILL REQUIRED FOR SEPTIC TANKS IS PUT ON THE OTHER LOTS, THERE WILL BE NO DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. DEC 51979 45900K ��sZZ j I DEC 51979 I300K FACE 224 MR. CONNELL AGREED THAT IT DID NOT NEED TO BE BROUGHT UP THE FULL AMOUNT NEEDED FOR A HOUSING PAD, MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER SIEBERT, TO REJECT TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF WEST MEADOWS SUBDIVISION AND ASK THAT THE APPLICANT RESUBMIT A PLAN THAT CAN BE RECOMMENDED BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED WHAT A "NON -ACCESS" EASEMENT MEANS, AND MISS LANCASTER EXPLAINED THAT PEOPLE WITH DOUBLE FRONTAGE WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS DIRECTLY TO CITRUS ROAD. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT BY THE PROPOSED MOTION, WE ARE DENYING THIS AND TELLING THEM TO DO ALL THE THINGS DISCUSSED AND THEN COME BACK, BUT WHAT ASSURANCE DO THEY HAVE THAT WE WILL GIVE THEM TENTATIVE APPROVAL AT THAT TIME. COMMISSIONER LYONS SUGGESTED THAT THEY JUST SUPPLYA PLOT PLAN SHOWING THE PROPER ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE PLAT, AND MR. FOWLER STATED THAT THEY COULD SUPPLY A SET OF PLANS WITH ROAD, DITCH AND LAND ELEVATIONS. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD COULD APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PLAN SUBJECT TO THE LAND BEING PREPARED IN AN ACCEPTABLE MANNER THAT WILL SHOW IT WILL DRAIN. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF SOME STANDARD COULD BE REFERRED TO AT WHICH IT COULD BE APPROVED, AND MR. CONNELL FELT THEY SHOULD COME UP TO THE NATURAL HIGHEST ELEVATION SO THERE IS NO POCKET IN THERE, THE ADMINISTRATOR FELT THAT A MINIMUM ELEVATION OF 19' WOULD BE SATISFACTORY, AND MR. FOWLER AGREED IT WOULD BE REALISTIC. MR., REDISH STATED THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO BRING UP THE LOWER AREA TO THE ELEVATION OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TENTATIVE APPROVAL TO DO THIS SUBJECT TO HAVING ADEQUATE DRAINAGE SATISFACTORY TO THE ADMINISTRATOR. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST THIS UNTIL WE CAN BE PRESENTED A SATISFACTORY PLAN BECAUSE HE DID NOT WISH TO GIVE TENTATIVE APPROVAL BASED ON SOMETHING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN. COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT WE HAVE HAD TOO MANY PROBLEMS WITH DRAINAGE, AND SHE, TOO, COULD NOT SUPPORT THIS UNTIL WE HAVE AN APPROVED DRAINAGE PLAN THAT WE FEEL CAN MAKE THE LAND SUITABLE FOR BUILDING HOMES. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF IT IS THE BOARDS FEELING AT THIS TIME THAT WE WILL NOT GRANT TENTATIVE APPROVAL AS TO WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, BUT THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT ANOTHER TENTATIVE APPROVAL _ BASED UPON PROPER DRAINAGE AND IT IS NOT REQUIRED OF MR. REDISH AT THIS TIME TO DO THE DITCHES OR BRING THE ELEVATION UP BEFORE COMING BACK FOR TENTATIVE APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT IF THE DEVELOPER SHOWS THE FINISHED ELEVATIONS, ETC., ON THE PLAN HE SUBMITS FOR TENTATIVE APPROVAL, THAT IS ALL WE CAN ASK. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THEY WISHED TO WITHDRAW THE RE- QUEST FOR TENTATIVE APPROVAL BASED UPON THIS RATHER THAN HAVE IT DENIED. HE NOTED THAT IT HAS TO GO TO THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW COM- MITTEE IN ANY EVENT. MR. FOWLER STATED THAT THEY WILL WITHDRAW. 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-JOURt4AL 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 matter of in the Iished in said newspaper in the issues of D C S :31Ir_5r4 17 77 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 of A.D. 9 7 9 n (SEAL) � DEC 51979 (Bpsiness Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indikn)River County, Florida) 47 NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Zoning Commission of Indian River County, Florida, has tentatively. approved. 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 one-eighth mile east of 58th Avenue (Kings Highway) on the south side of 13th Street S.W. (Kelley Road) in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The East 19.17 acres of Tract 12, and the;l North .52 acres of the East 18.19 acres of Tract 13, Section 28, Township 33 South, Range 391 East, said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from A -Agricultural District to K- I E Country Estate District. A public hearing in relation thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have ani opportunity to be heard, will be heldby said Planning and Zoning Commission in the County Commission Room, Indian River County Courthouse, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday, October 25, 1979, at 7:30 p.m., after i which said public hearing in relation thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity 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, December 5, 1979, at 2:00 o'clock P.M. { Board of County Commissioners Indian River County By: William C. Wodtke, Jr. Chairman Indian River County Planning &, Zoning Commission By: Dick Bird, Chairman Oct. 3, 5,1979. BOOK 42 FAGE % DEC 51979 BOOK 42�PAC'E 226 NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARING WERE SENT TO GEORGE R. AND DOROTHY L. CHILDERS AND DENNIS L. AND RONEE KING BY THE CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 125.66. SAID NOTICES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. PLANNING STAFF MEMBER WENDY LANCASTER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE INTO 2-1/2 ACRE LOTS CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF KELLY ROAD EAST OF KINGS HIGHWAY. SHE STATED THAT THE GROVE IS NEGLECTED AND IS NOT PRESENTLY PRODUCING, BUT IT IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING. THERE ARE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON THE PROPERTY. THE MAJORITY OF THE LAND IS IN OLD GROVES AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IS IN AGRICULTURAL USE. THE PRESENT ZONING WOULD PERMIT 4 RESIDENCES ON THE PROPERTY WHILE 20 WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER R -1E ZONING. Miss LANCASTER CONTINUED THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This rezoning would constitute spot zoning relative to the immense agricultural district surrounding it. 2. The preservation of prime agricultural land is essential to the economic base of Indian River County. 3. Residential zoning would be premature at this time because pressure for urbanization is non-existent in -this region of the county. 4. The possibility to construct 2 additional homes on this parcel currently exists under the agricultural zoning. MISS LANCASTER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION VOTED IN OPPOSITION TO THE CHANGE IN ZONING 2 TO 1. GEORGE AND DOROTHY CHILDERS CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO MAKE A PRESENTATION FOR THEMSELVES AND THE KINGS. MRS. CHILDERS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 1974, AT WHICH TIME THE FRUIT TREES WERE SEVERELY PRUNED, AND THEY ALLOWED THREE YEARS FOR REVITALIZATION. SHE REVIEWED THEIR PRODUCTION ANALYSIS WHICH SHOWS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN A PROFITABLE INVESTMENT; AND THEY, IN FACT, HAD A NET LOSS OF $22,000. SHE DISCUSSED FREEZE DAMAGE, AND NOTED -THAT THE PICKERS REFUSED TO WORK THE�GROVE DUE TO SPARCITY OF THE FRUIT. MRS. CHILDERS THEN GAVE ALL THE EXPENSE FIGURES FOR IMPROVING THE GROVE AND STATED THAT REPLANTING WOULD NOT BE ECO- NOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR THEM AND EVEN LESS SO FOR ANYONE WHO MIGHT PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. SHE CONTINUED THAT THEY PREPARED A LAND USE STUDY OF ZHO ACRES IN THEIR IMMEDIATE VICINITY, WHICH SHOWS THAT A TOTAL OF 64% OF THE LAND IN THIS AREA IS VIRTUALLY NON-PRODUCTIVE, AND SHE STATED THAT MUCH OF THE LAND LYING VACANT IS OWNED BY PROMINENT CITRUSMEN WHO DO NOT WISH TO BE NAMED. MRS, CHILDERS THEN DISCUSSED THE TIMELINESS OF THEIR REQUEST RELATED TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE IN AN AREA DESIGNATED AS PRIMARY CITRUS. SHE CONTENDED THAT THERE IS A DEMAND FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE TYPE THEY PROPOSE, NOTING THAT THE RACQUET CLUB WAS BUILT ON ABANDONED CITRUS LAND. SHE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT PRIMARY CITRUS LAND IS MOVING WEST TOWARD AND BEYOND I-95, AND ALSO THAT THE RECLAMATION DONE BY ST..•JbHN'S MATER CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED LAND ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO PLANT. MRS. CHILDERS NOTED THAT THE ZONING STAFF STATED THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY, BUT POINTED OUT THAT IN ORDER TO DO S0, IT IS NECESSARY TO SUBDIVIDE AND MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING A PAVED ACCESS ROAD, THE COST OF WHICH WOULD BE EXCESSIVE FOR THIS AMOUNT OF HOMES. SHE CONTINUED THAT THEY PROPOSE TO SUB- DIVIDE INTO EIGHT LOTS, AND THE DENSITY THEY ARE REQUESTING IS 60% LESS THAN PERMITTED FOR ZONING OF THIS TYPE. SHE STATED THAT THEIR OWN HOMES ARE LOCATED ON THIS PROPERTY, AND THE BOARD COULD REST ASSURED THAT THIS WOULD BE A QUALITY SUBDIVISION AND MAINTAINED AS SUCH. MR. CHILDERS PRESENTED SLIDES WITH VIEWS OF THE SURROUND- ING PROPERTY SHOWING SCATTERED GROVES WITH 'SKIPS" AND DEAD TREES, ETC., TO DEPICT THAT THE LAND IS NO LONGER BEING PREDOMINANTLY USED FOR CITRUS. MR. CHILDERS THEN SHOWED PICTURES OF GROVES AROUND THE CONCENTRATE PLANT TO PROVE THAT THE GROVES ARE MOV- ING WEST AND ALSO SHOWED PICTURES OF TREES IN THE ST. .JOHN'S WATER CONTROL DISTRICT, WHICH WILL PROVIDE PROPERTY FOR FARMERS TO 49 DEC 51979 BooK 42 pan"E 21'x, DEC 51979 Bom 42 FAGS 228 PLANT WHICH WOULD BE MORE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE THAN PROPERTIES CLOSER IN. HE ALSO HAD PICTURES TO SHOW THAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT IS APPROACHING THIS AREA. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. ,JIM MORAN, WHO LIVES JUST TO THE WEST OF THE PROPOSED SUB- DIVISION, STATED THAT HE BOUGHT FIVE ACRES WITH THE IDEA THAT IT WOULD ALWAYS BE FIVE ACRES IN AGRICULTURAL ZONING AND HOPING THAT SOMEDAY DOWN THE LINE IF IT ISN IT AGRICULTURAL AT LEAST ALL THE HOMES WOULD BE ON FIVE ACRES. MR. MORAN STATED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT A SUBDIVISION IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD. ALLEN CONNELL APPEARED REPRESENTING INDIAN RIVER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND DISCUSSED THE "SO-CALLED" NEED TO REBED THE GROVE. HE NOTED THAT EVERY CITRUS GROVE IN THIS COUNTY NEEDS INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT, AND HE COULD NOT SEE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING JUST BECAUSE OF SOMEONE IS ECONOMIC LOSS. MR. CONNELL CONTINUED THAT THE AREA DEFINITELY IS IN CITRUS. THE GROVES HAVE DETERIORATED -BECAUSE OF THE FREEZE, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY CANNOT BE PUT BACK IN A PRODUCING STATE. HE THEN DISCUSSED THE URBAN SPRAWL IN RELATION'TO AGRICULTURE AND ASKED WHERE IT IS GOING TO END. MR. CONNELL STATED THAT THERE ISN'T MUCH AREA LEFT IN THE' ST. JOHNS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT FOR CITRUS;A LOT OF IT IS WETLANDS, AND HE FELT THEY ARE BEING PROTECTED, NOT DRAINED AND PUT INTO CITRUS. MR. CONNELL FELT WE NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF SOLUTION WHERE WE CAN PROTECT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NOT CONTINUE THE URBAN SPRAWL TO THE WEST. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE FURTHER WISHED TO SPEAK, AND THERE WERE NONE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER LOY, THAT THE REQUEST OF THE CHILDERS AND THE KINGS FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO R—IE COUNTRY ESTATES BE DENIED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL AREA AND THIS IS NOT A TIMELY CHANGE. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION BECAUSE HE DID NOT BELIEVE YOU WILL GET THAT LAND BACK INTO CITRUS JUST BY DENYING THE REZONING. HE DID NOT FEEL THAT 8 UNITS IS A BAD PROPOSAL, AND HE DID NOT FEEL IT IS FEASIBLE FOR SOMEONE OWNING JUST IO ACRES TO REPLANT AND MAKE AN ECONOMIC UNIT. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON WITH COMMISSIONER SIEBERT VOTING IN OPPOSITION, AND THE MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT REPORTED ON THE PROPOSED LEASE WITH THE SUNSHINE REHABILITATION CENTER AND PRESENTED A SURVEY SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE FOOTBALL FIELD IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING SITE. HE STATED THAT THE WHOLE FOOTBALL FIELD IS IN THEIR LEASE AREA AND INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE FOOTBALL FIELD WAS PLACED ON THIS PROPERTY WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SUNSHINE CENTER WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME DAY THEY; WERE GOING TO EXPAND. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT CON- TINUED THAT HE MET WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD AND CITY OFFICIALS, AND EVERYONE SEEMED TO AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE BEST TO RELOCATE THE FIELD AT ANOTHER SITE. THERE STILL, HOWEVER, ARE INGRESS -AND EGRESS PROBLEMS, AND ARCHITECT CHARLES BLOCK HAS OFFERED TO REDESIGN THE PARKING STRIP, WHICH POSSIBLY COULD GO SIDEWISE. DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON LOCATION OF THE FOOTBALL FIELD AND POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF THE SIZE OF THE LEASED AREA. ATTORNEY SAM BLOCK, WHO REPRESENTS SUNSHINE REHABILITATION CENTER, STATED THAT WHAT THEY MAINLY WANT IS A 30 YEAR LEASE WITH A 30 YEAR OPTION, AND BASED ON THE VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS, HE FELT IT COULD BE REDESIGNED AND SPLIT IN HALF BY A NORTH AND SOUTH LINE SINCE IT IS INCOMPATIBLE SIDE BY SIDE. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT BASICALLY HE IS ASKING FOR A LEASE ON THE EAST HALF OF THE PROPERTY, AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF WE COULD RETAIN ACCESS SOMEWHERE IN THE REAR. ATTORNEY BLOCK STATED THAT THEY WOULD FENCE ACROSS THE BACK TO SEPARATE THEM FROM THE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES, AND COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO CUT OFF 20` FOR ACCESS. DEC 51919 51 BOOK 4, PACE 229 DEC 51979 BOOK 42 PAGE 230 ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT 60 YEARS IS A VERY LONG TIME, AND HE DID NOT BELIEVE THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WOULD REQUIRE ANY MORE THAN 40 YEARS. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THAT THE BOARD FAVORED 40 YEARS - A 30 YEAR LEASE WITH A 10 YEAR OPTION. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT WE MUST START OUT WITH THE PREMISE THAT THE PRESENT FACILITIES IN THE FORM OF THE BALLFIELD AND RECREATIONAL COMPLEX WITHIN THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, WHICH ARE ALSO FOR THE USE OF THE CITIZENS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, ARE RIGHT NOW JUST ABOUT SATURATED AND WE WILL NEED ADDITIONAL RECREATIONAL COMPLEXES. HE REPORTED THAT THIS FIELD IN A THREE-MONTH PERIOD HAS OVER 200 DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES AND IT WAS THE FEELING OF THE STAFF PEOPLE FROM THE CITY AND SCHOOL BOARD THAT ANYTHING THEY DO IN THE FUTURE SHOULD BE DONE AS A MULTIPLE USE FACILITY. HE CONTINUED THAT THERE IS AN AREA BY THE NEW BASEBALL FIELD BEHIND THE HIGH SCHOOL ALONG 20TH AVENUE THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER. WITH OR WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNTY, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE A SOCCER FIELD AND WILL MAKE IT A MULTIPLE USE FACILITY. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT SUPERINTENDENT BURNS WILL RECOMMEND THAT THE AREA BE DEVELOPED JOINTLY BY THE CITY, THE COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL BOARD. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT CONTINUED THAT ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS FEELS THAT 20TH AVENUE WOULD BECOME A REAL TRAFFIC PROBLEM IF THERE WAS ANOTHER RECREATION COMPLEX PUT IN THERE, AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE DIVIDED BY THE CANAL, IT WOULD SEEM THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THREE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES TO WORK COOPERATIVELY AND POSSIBLY CONSTRUCT 20TH AVENUE EAST OF THE DITCH TO PROVIDE ACCESS. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THIS WOULD BE THE CHEAPEST WAY,TO HAVE A JOINT THREE-WAY COMPLEX. COMMISSIONER LYONS WAS IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS IS AN OPPOR- TUNITY AND THE WAY TO GO AND ASKED HOW IT WOULD BE FINANCED. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT IS UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL BODY, BUT A COMMITMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE THAT WE ARE GOING TO LOOK FOR A WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. 52 -rt CHAIRMAN WODTKE LEFT THE MEETING- AT 3'40 O'CLOCK P.M., _ AND VICE CHAIRMAN LOY TOOK OVER THE MEETING. SHE ASKED COMMISSIONER SIEBERT IF HE IS TALKING ABOUT A ROAD AND COMPLEX. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT BRIDGING THE CANAL FOR ACCESS AND THEY INDICATED IT WOULD BE EVERYONE'S RESPONSIBILITY. HE FELT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S SOLUTION IS BETTER. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS CONFIRMED THAT 20TH AVENUE IS DANGEROUS AND OVERCROWDED RIGHT NOW. HE NOTED THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT- OF-WAY TO MAKE THE ROAD TWO LANE AND COULD HAVE ONE-WAY TRAFFIC TWO DIRECTIONS. HE FELT THE ROAD SHOULD BE CONTINUED THROUGH. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THAT POSSIBLY OUR SHARE OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT WOULD BE TO BUILD THAT ROAD, AND THEN THE OTHERS COULD BUILD THE COMPLEX OR SOME ARRANGEMENT LIKE THAT, COMMISSIONER LOY AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A TWO LANE ROAD ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT CANAL, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS CONCURRED THAT SOMETHING COULD BE WORKED OUT ALONG THESE LINES. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT REITERATED THAT ARCHITECT CHARLES BLOCK WILL DO A SITE PLAN GRATIS, AND WE WOULD THEN.MEET AGAIN AND PROCEED FROM THERE WITH A DECISION ON THE SUNSHINE CENTER LEASE. THE BOARD AGREED THAT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE BUREAU OF BLIND SERVICES SENT US AN AGREEMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE SIGNED BY THE CHAIRMAN IN ORDER FOR THEM TO DO THEIR ARCHITECTURAL WORK AND ORDER THE MATERIAL. HE NOTED THAT THE ATTORNEY HAS LOOKED THIS AGREEMENT OVER AND HAS NO OBJECTIONS. HE NOTED THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE THIS BEFORE THEY CAN SPEND ANY MONEY, AND THEIR WORK WOULD BE CONFIGURED AS MR. BARLOW SHOWED THE BOARD WHEN HE MADE HIS PRESENTATION. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, COMMISSIONER DEESON AND VICE CHAIRMAN Loy VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BUREAU OF BLIND SERVICES IN REGARD TO THEIR CONCESSION AT THE ADMIN- ISTRATION COMPLEX. SAID AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN RECEIVED. DEC 51979 53 BOOK QPAGE 231 DEC 51979 BOOK 42 PACE 232 THE BOARD NEXT DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING MEMO FROM ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON IN REGARD TO SECURITY SERVICES AT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX: November 16, 1979 MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman, Board of County Commissioners FROM: Assistant County Administrator SUBJECT: Security Services Encl: Pinkerton's Order Confirmation 1.) January 1, 1980, our contract for security services with Pinterton's will expire. They have submitted a confirm- ation of order that will be effective January 1, 1980. 2.) According to the -schedule provided by our engineers, the building could be turned over to the contractor during January or February of 1980. When this occurs, our security responsibility ends. 3.) It is recommended that we accept the confirmation order with -the $.45 increase. That we add a statement to the effect - "That service may be terminated within thirty (30) days upon written notice". . Nelson, Assistant County Adm. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER Loy, COMMISSIONER 1DEESON AND VICE CHAIRMAN Loy VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WITH PINKERTON'S OF FLORIDA, INC. RE SECURITY SERVICES. This is FlnhertoAof Florlda,lnc, Not An CONFIRMATION Invoice OF ORDER DEAR SIR: This letter will confirm your order for services requested by NAME & TITLE ldr. N. Nclson, Asst. County Comm. COMPANY NAME & ADDRESS Indian River County, Room 115, Vero 3cach. Fl..I. 1. SERVICE AUTHORIZED 2. HOURS OF SERVICE Mon. Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. 3. TOTAL HOURS 4. CHARGES & RATES The purpose of this confirmation of ordcr is to record a rate iacrcaL;c from $4.50 per hour to x4.95 per hour, effective January 5. Pinkerton's will ensure a professional, reliable and efficient effort to protect its clients' property and personnel against security hazards. 6. Pinkerton's does not insure against the loss or damage to equipment, furniture, machines, fixtures or other property real or personal, rented, leased or otherwise possessed by the clien t. Therefore it cannot assume any liability for theft, loss or damage other than that resulting from the sole negligence, fraudulent or dishonest acts of its employees. DEC 51979 BOOK PACE (over, please) �/ DEC 51979 —2- BOOK 42 PACE 234 v 7. Pinkerton's liability is limited when a client authorizes partial or other than full coverage protection of his property and personnel. 8. Pinkerton's accepts liability for any and all acts of negligence on the part of any of its employees in the performance of his or her duties. 9. Federal regulations prohibit discrimination against any employee, or applicant for employment, on the basis of race, creed, age, color, sex or national origin. 10. The client agrees not to employ any of Pinkerton's personnel for a period of one year from the date of their termination of employment without Pinkerton's written consent. 11. We take this opportunity to thank you for'allowing us to serve you. There are no more important people in the world to Pinkerton's than our clients. CLIENT COMPANY NAME Board of County Conunissioners of Indian River County, r loriaa -- SIGNED BY n POSITION _ Chairman PINKERTON'S OF FLORIDA, INC. o SIGNED BY - Manager NOTE: Please sign and return the original of this confirmation and retain the attached copy. FL 71A REV. 7!74 ASSISTANT -ADMINISTRATOR NELSON R-EPORTED IN REGARD TO THE BID ON THE TRACTOR DISCUSSED AT THE MORNING SESSION THAT MINTON EQUIPMENT DID NOT BID BECAUSE THE SON LEFT THE FIRM AND APPARENTLY TOOK THE BID WITH HIM. H.. F. MASON EQUIPMENT CORPORATION HAS DIS- CONTINUED THIS SIZE TRACTOR,AND KELLY TRACTOR COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS ANY MORE; LESRAY BOBCAT, INC., ONLY HAS SMALLER SIZES. MR. NELSON CONTINUED THAT THE TYPE TRACTOR NEEDED IS MADE ONLY BY.TORD, MASSEY FERGUSON AND JOHN,DEERE, AND THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED ACCEPTING THE BID OF PIPPIN TRACTOR CO. BECAUSE THEY ARE THE LOW BIDDER AND THEIR MODIFIED TRACTOR MEETS SPECIFICATIONS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, COMMISSIONER LYONS AND VICE CHAIRMAN Loy VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BID COMMITTEE AND AWARDED THE BID FOR A FORD 6600 DIESEL TRACTOR TO PIPPIN TRACTOR & EouIPMENT CO., AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $11.,178.00. ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT HE IS NOW IN A POSITION TO MOVE AHEAD ON THE VALIDATION OF THE HOSPITAL BOND ISSUE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, COMMISSIONER LYONS AND VICE CHAIRMAN Loy VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO PROCEED TO FILE SUIT TO VALIDATE THE HOSPITAL BOND ISSUE. ATTORNEY COLLINS NEXT REVIEWED A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN FLORIDA LAND COMPANY AND THE BOARD IN REGARD TO BENT PINE SUBDIVISION. HE NOTED THAT THE LAND SALES BOARD IS REQUIRING THAT THE FLORIDA LAND COMPANY BE MORE DEFINITIVE IN THEIR SCHEDULING AS TO WHEN THE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE BEGUN AND COMPLETED AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT DEALS ONLY WITH THAT; THERE IS NO OTHER CHANGE. THE ATTORNEY DID NOT FEEL THAT THIS POSES ANY DETRIMENT TO THE COUNTY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, COMMISSIONER DEESON AND VICE CHAIRMAN Loy VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD APPROVED THE AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA LAND COMPANY DATED AUGUST 7, 19791 AND AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN. 57 DEC 51979 BOOK 42 PACE 04.,35 J r DEC 51979 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BOOK 42 PAGE 236 This Agreement is made this 28th day of November, 1979, between Florida Land Company, a Florida corporation, and the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a governmental agency. WHEREAS, Florida Land Company and the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County have heretofore entered into an Agreement dated August 7, 1979, concerning a residen- tial subdivision known as "Bent Pine"; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend said Agreement by clarifying the times when the improvements contemplated by the Agreement will be begun and completed; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings set forth herein and in the August 7, 1979, Agreement, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Paragraph Three of the August 7, 1979, Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety, and substituted therefore shall be the following Paragraph Three: "3. The improvements listed above will be begun no later than December 1, 1979, (as to Unit II) and February 1, 1980, (as to Unit I), and shall be completed no later than October 30, 1980, (as to Unit II) and January 31, 19811 (as to Unit I)." 2. Except as amended specifically herein, the August 7, 1979 Agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals this 28th day of November, 1979• Witnesses: Witnesses: FLORIDA LAND COMPANY O� KBy : '' ,.� j James L. Clark, Executive Vice President BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COi7NTY By : t-a /`GGztA ���C� :I ATTORNEY COLLINS DISCUSSED -WITH -THE BOARD A LETTER FROM CONSULTING ENGINEER ,JAMES BEINDORF IN REGARD TO A REQUIREMENT IN THE COUNTY'S EXISTING FRANCHISE APPLICATION THAT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR THE UTILITIES BE OBTAINED FROM THE DER, ST. JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND TREASURE COAST PLANNING COUNCIL. MR. BEINDORF STATED THAT THESE REGULATORY AGENCIES WILL NO LONGER GIVE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, AND HE SUGGESTED THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS BE AMENDED SO THAT THESE PERMITTING AGENCIES WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THE CONTEMPLATED FRANCHISES, BUT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. VICE CHAIRMAN LOY ASKED IF THE APPLICANT IS TO SHOW PROOF OF NOTIFICATION OF THESE AGENCIES, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD PUT THE AGENCIES ON NOTICE SINCE THEY WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GET A RESPONSE FROM THEM. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AND VICE CHAIRMAN Loy VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD AGREED TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT IN THE COUNTY'S FRANCHISE APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FROM THE DER, ST. .JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND TREASURE COAST PLANNING COUNCIL AND PROVIDE INSTEAD THAT IT WILL BE SUFFICIENT FOR THEM TO BE NOTIFIED OF THE PROPOSED FRANCHISE. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE LIEN ON THE FIRST HAZARDOUS BUILDING THAT WAS TORN DOWN HAS BEEN PAID OFF. RALPH ENG OF THE JOINT VENTURE PRESENTED THE BOARD WITH A REVISED RATE STRUCTURE FOR THE PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY MUNICIPAL WATER TAXING DISTRICT, AS FOLLOWS: 59 DEC 51979 BOOK, 421PAcE237 DEC 51979 BOOK 4ZPAsE 238 TABLE II SOUTH MUNICIPAL TAX DISTRICT 14ATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED MONTHLY WATER RATES REVISED DECEMBER 5, 1979 Residential and Apartments on Individual Meters 2,000 gallons or less, minimum charge $8.00 Over 2,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons 2.00 Master Meters - Apartments, Mobile Homes and other multiple dwellings on master meters except Motels & Hotels 2,000 gallons or less, $8.00 minimum charge per unit. Number of units times 2,000 gallons establishes minimum gallonage per complex master meter. Consumption over established minimum gallonage, $2.00 per 1,000 gallons. Commercial, Churches and Nursing Homes 2,000 gallons or less, minimum charge $12.00 Over 2,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons 3.00 Motel & Hotel Rooms 1,600 gallons or less, $9.60 minimum per room Number of rooms times 1,600 gallons establishes minimum gallonage per complex. Consumption over established minimum gallonage, $3.00 per 1,000 gallons DEC 51979 BOOK 44 pw 239 - TABLE III _SOUTH MUNICIPAL TAX DISTRICT WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTED ANNUAL INCOME F EWSED DEC IENWR 5, 1979 Average Monthly Water Total Number of Consumption Per Monthly Water Monthly Revenue User Type Connections Connection(gal.) Consumpt. (MG) Per Conn. Total Residential 2,747 7,000 19.229 $ 18.00 $ 49,446 Motel/Hotel Rooms 12 3,500 0.042 15.30 183 Apartments 14 7,000 0.098 18.00 252 Churches 4 14,000 0.056 48.00 192 Service Stations 2 14,000 0.028 48.00 96 -Restaurants 8 70,000 0.560 2.16.00 1,728 Launderetts 2 112,000 0.224 342.00 684 Retail Stores 90 7,000 0.630 27.00 2,430 Nursing Home 1 21,000 0.021 69.00 69 Liquor Lounge 1 21,000 0.021 69.00 69 Car Washes 1 105,000 0.105 321.00 321 Concrete Batch Plants 2 140,000 0.280 426.00 852 Citrus Packing Plants 2 175,000 0.350 531.00 1,062 TOTALS 2,886 21.644/month $57,384/month 0.71/Day TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME $688,608 DEC 51979 BOOK 44 pw 239 - 0 ®EC 51979 BOOK .. PAGE 240 MR. ENG STATED THAT THE $688,608 REVENUE THIS RATE STRUCTURE WILL GENERATE WILL MEET THE TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES AND, IN FACT, WILL GENERATE APPROXIMATELY $11,000 MORE THAN NECESSARY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AND VICE CHAIRMAN Loy VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED THE CONSULTING ENGINEERS TO PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION FOR FMHA FUNDING OF THE SOUTH MUNICIPAL TAX DISTRICT WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS BASED ON THE REVISED RATE SCHEDULE DATED DECEMBER 5, 1979, AND AUTHORIZED THE CONSULTANTS TO REQUEST A PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH FMHA TO IMPLEMENT THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THIS KEEPS THE ENGINEERS ON SCHEDULE, AND THEY ARE TO BE COMPLIMENTED. VICE CHAIRMAN Loy INQUIRED ABOUT THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER TEST WELL PROGRAM, AND MR. ENG INFORMED HER THAT THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THE PROPOSAL MADE FOR THE TEST WELL PROGRAM AND WILL PRESENT IT AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THE NEW UTILITY DIRECTOR GEORGE LINER HAS WRITTEN A VERY NICE PAPER REVIEWING THE UTILITY FEES WE, -,HAVE AND DISCUSSING AN IMPACT FEE. IN THIS PAPER HE ANALYZES ALL THREE OF THE COUNTY SYSTEMS, AND HE PRESENTED THIS ANALYSIS TO THE BOARD FOR THEIR INFORMATION. VICE CHAIRMAN LOY NOTED THAT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS WE HAVE HAD CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO QUAY DOCK ROAD AND REQUESTED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO REPORT ON THIS MATTER. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS STATED THAT QUAY DOCK ROAD TO HIS KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING HAS BEEN THERE SINCE HE WAS.BORN - HE KNEW THAT IT GOES BACK TO 1911. HE NOTED THAT IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE STATE IN 1941 FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND WAS THEN TRANSFERRED BACK TO THE COUNTY. DURING THE TIME IT WAS A STATE ROAD, THE COUNTY MAINTAINED IT, AND HE CONTINUED THAT THE COUNTY HAS MAINTAINED IT AS A PUBLIC COUNTY ROAD SINCE IT WAS BUILT. IT NOT ONLY SERVES THE PEOPLE AND FURNISHES ACCESS TO THE INDIAN RIVER, BUT THAT SAME ROAD m W2 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DITCH IS PART OF THE DRAINAGE ALL THE WAY FROM THE F.E.C. RAILROAD TO THE INDIAN RIVER. MR. JENNINGS STATED THAT SINCE HE HAS BEEN WITH THE COUNTY, ONE INDIVIDUAL HAS TRIED TO BLOCK THAT ROAD AND CLOSE IT AT THE RIVER. THE COUNTY HAS FILED MAINTENANCE MAPS ON IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THE ADMINISTRATOR INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IN HIS PERSONAL OPINION, HE WOULD NOT RELEASE ONE FOOT OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE INDIAN RIVER OR THE ATLANTIC OCEAN TO ANYONE WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM THE SUPREME COURT TO DO SO. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, COMMISSIONER LYONS AND VICE CHAIRMAN Loy VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD STATED THAT THEY ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE ACTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION IN REGARD TO QUAY DOCK ROAD AND AUTHORIZED THE ADMIN- ISTRATOR TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTIONS ARE NECESSARY TO PREVENT ANY OBSTACLES FROM BLOCKING THE USE OF QUAY DOCK ROAD BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS PRESENTED THE BOARD WITH A PETITION FROM A GROUP OF PEOPLE IN WINTER BEACH WHO ALSO FEEL THAT THE ROAD SHOULD NOT BE CLOSED, AND MRS. FORLANI, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, SUBMITTED ANOTHER LARGE GROUP OF PETITIONS FROM PEOPLE IN THE AREA. SAID PETITIONS, WHICH ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE RECORD, ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR. COMMISSIONER LYONS REPORTED THAT IN CONNECTION WITH THE WATER ALLOCATION FOR FLORIDA LIVING CARE, HE WAS TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD ANY PROBLEMS MECHANICALLY OR LEGALLY IN REGARD TO LETTING FLORIDA LIVING CARE CONNECT WITH THE RALMAR LINE. HE STATED THAT HE ASKED UTILITY DIRECTOR GEORGE LINER TO LOOK INTO THIS, AND IT APPEARS THERE IS NO OBSTACLE EITHER PHYSICAL OR LEGAL THAT WOULD PREVENT US FROM CONNECTING TO THAT CUSTOMER. COMMISSIONER LYONS CONTINUED THAT HE REALIZES THAT WE STILL HAVE WE UNANSWERED QUESTION OF THE 100,000 GALLONS RETURNED FROM THE HOSPITAL ALLOCATION, BUT HE WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO ASK THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF FLORIDA LIVING CARE FOR WATER CONNECTION TO THE RALMAR LINE FOR ATER 63 DEC 51979 BOOK . 4 : PAGE241 DEC 51979 42 -PAGE 242 NOT TO EXCEED 10,000 GALLONS PER DAY, WHICH HE WAS SURE IS ADEQUATE FOR THEIR PURPOSE. HE FELT THE SEWER SITUATION IS SOLVABLE. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMIS - SIGNER SIEBERT)TO AUTHORIZE THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF -FLORIDA LIVING CARE FOR WATER CONNECTION TO THE RALMAR LINE, NOT TO EXCEED 10,000 GALLONS PER DAY, THE CONNECTION TO BE AT THEIR EXPENSE. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT HE HAS TO GO BACK AND CHECK THE BOUNDARY TO BE SURE IT IS INCLUDED IN THE BOUNDARY WE DESCRIBE BECAUSE IF IT IS NOT, IT WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER LYONS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE GAVE ATTORNEY COOKSEY THE BOUNDARY INVOLVED IN RALMAR AND ALSO GAVE IT TO THE PRINCIPAL OF FLORIDA LIVING CARE, AND HE SAID HIS PROPERTY DOES LIE WITHIN THESE BOUNDARIES. HE STATED THAT HE WAS WILLING TO MAKE THIS PART OF THE MOTION, BUT THE ATTORNEY DID NOT FEEL THIS WAS NECESSARY. VICE CHAIRMAN LOY ASKED IF THE SERVING OF WATER IS CONTINGENT UPON THEIR RECEIVING SEWER FROM RALMAR, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE DID NOT MAKE IT THAT WAY SINCE THERE IS ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY COULD GET A PACKAGE PLANT IF THEY HAD TO. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE HAD MET WITH THE CITY AND DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL BE A PROBLEM WITH SEWER. HE AGREED THERE IS ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY OF A PACKAGE PLANT. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF THERE IS ANY POSSIBILITY THAT THE CITY HAS A LEGAL INTEREST IN WHETHER OR NOT WE MAKE THIS ALLOCA- TION TO THE HOOK-UP. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE HAS TAKEN THE•.POSITION THAT IT WAS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S PART TO SERVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE BELIEVED THEY HAVE EFFECTIVELY, THROUGH THEIR MINUTES, WAIVED ANY RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE AND HAVE FIRMLY PLACED THE PROBLEM IN THE COUNTY'S HANDS AND TOLD THEM TO RESOLVE IT IF THEY DESIRED. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO GIVE AN ALLOCATION THAT THE CITY WOULD OBJECT TO AND GET INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE COUNTY HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE ALLOCATION WITH OR WITHOUT THE CITY'S CONSENT, BUT HE BELIEVED THAT THEY HAVE EFFECTIVELY CONCURRED AS WELL. COMMISSIONER LYONS AGREED WITH ATTORNEY COLLINS. THE VICE-CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED WITH ALL FOUR BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT VOTING IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER LYONS DISCUSSED THE PUBLICS LACK OF UNDER- STANDING ABOUT WHAT GOES ON AT COUNTY COMMISSION MEETINGS AND PROPOSED THAT THE BOARD'S AGENDA AND A VERY BRIEF RESUME OF THE ACTION TAKEN BE PUBLISHED IN THE LOCAL PAPER. HE FELT IT WOULD BE WORTH THE MONEY TO GIVE IT A TRY BECAUSE WE DO A LOT OF VERY IMPORTANT THINGS FOR THE COUNTY AND NEED AS MUCH UNDERSTANDING AS WE CAN GET. HE DID NOT FEEL IT IS THE FAULT OF THE PRESS THAT THE PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW THE KIND OF PROBLEMS WE ARE ADDRESSING. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED HIS REACTION IS THAT IT IS THE REPORTER `S RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM THE PUBLIC, AND HE FELT THAT THERE IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE NEWS MEDIA. HE POINTED OUT THAT THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED CAN COME BY AND PICK UP THE AGENDA OR CAN SIT IN AT THE MEETINGS WHICH ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WOULD OBJECT TO SPENDING TAXPAYERS DOLLARS TO INFORM THE FEW WHO ARE UNWILLING TO TAKE THE TIME TO FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON AND WAS -OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROBLEM LIES WITH PUBLIC APATHY. HE DID AGREE THAT IN REGARD TO REZONINGS THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PUT IN THE PAPER CANNOT BE READ AND UNDERSTOOD BY MOST. MRS. FORLANI, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, STATED THAT THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED AND THE TOP PARAGRAPH NOW STATES WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT A LITTLE MAP ALSO WOULD BE DESIRABLE. COMMISSIONER LYONS COMMENTED THAT COMMISSIONER SIEBERT GREW UP HERE KNOWING WHAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION IS AND THAT YOU CAN COME TO GET THE AGENDA, BUT HE IS APPALLED BY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO DON T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT LOCAL GOVERNMENT. 65 DEC 51979 Box , pAcE 243, _I DEC .5 1979 00ox 42 �Ac 24 COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT MOST OF THEM ARE TOTALLY UNIN- TERESTED UNLESS IT IS SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS THEM PERSONALLY; HE NOTED THAT WHEN WE DID THE MASTER PLAN, WE HAD THEM BURSTING OUT OF THE DOORS. COMMISSIONER DEESON COMMENTED THAT COMMISSIONER LYONS' REMARKS HAVE A LOT OF MERIT, BUT HE DID NOT BELIEVE HE COULD JUSTIFY THE EXPENSE OF ADVERTISING FOR THE FEW WHO ARE REALLY CONCERNED. HE POINTED OUT WHAT A SMALL VOTER TURNOUT THERE IS, AND DOUBTED THE PEOPLE WOULD READ IT WHETHER IT IS IN THE PAPER OR NOT. COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS FELT THAT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HAS MORE PRESS THAN ANY OTHER COMMUNITY ITS SIZE. SHE FELT THE PRESS DOES A FINE JOB AND NOTED THAT THEY HAVE STARTED A SCHEDULE OF EVENTS. COMMISSIONER LOY DID AGREE THAT WE NEED SOMEONE WITHIN OUR COUNTY STAFF TO PUT OUT INFORMATION THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE PROJECTS WE ARE WORKIN ON - A PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSON, BUT SHE COULD NOT JUSTIFY SPENDING TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PUBLISH OUR AGENDA. SHE POINTED OUT THAT WE NOW ARE POSTING A SIGN ON PROPERTY THAT IS TO BE REZONED. COMMISSIONER LYONS BELIEVED THAT THE COMMISSION DOES A LOT OF GOOD WORK OF WHICH THE PUBLIC IS NOT AWARE, BUT STATED HE WOULD DROP THIS MATTER FOR THE MOMENT@ COMMISSIONER LYONS THEN DISCUSSED REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ENERGY CODE FOR INSULATION OF BUILDINGS, NOTING THAT THOSE OF 1,500 SQ. FT. OR LESS ARE EXEMPTED. HE STATED THAT HE AND ATTORNEY COLLINS WENT TO A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY AND COUNTY APPEALS BOARDS, AND THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE -US A RECOMMENDATION TO GO BACK AND INCLUDE INSULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL STRUCTURES THAT ARE HEATED AND COOLED, INCLUDING THOSE OF 1,500 SQ. FT. OR LESS. THEY WERE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT ON THIS MATTER. HE NOTED THAT THEY ALSO RAN ACROSS A CASE WHERE SOMEONE BUILT SOME APARTMENTS AND FOUND A WAY, BY THE WORDING OF THE CODE, TO KEEP FROM INSULATING THEM AND THAT WILL BE COVERED IN THE RECOMMENDATION, TOO. IN REGARD TO THE ROOF SITUATION, THE APPEALS BOARD SEEMS TO BE OF THE GENERAL OPINION THAT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH ROOFS IS THE INABILITY TO GET GOOD INSPECTIONS. THEY FELT THAT IT WAS QUALITY OF WORK THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE FOR US LOSING AS MANY ROOFS AS WE DID DURING THE HURRICANE. THEY WILL LOOK INTO THIS AND SEND US A RECOMMENDATION. COMMISSIONER LYONS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED THAT THE FOLLOWING FIRMS BE INTERVIEWED AS PROSPECTIVE ENGINEERS FOR THE REDESIGN OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD FROM S.R. 60 TO BARBER AVENUE: REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS - '.OR.LANDO GREINER ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. - TAMPA CH2M HILL - BOCA RATON AMERICAN ENGINEERS - ORLANDO HE CONTINUED THAT WE ALSO WANT TO INTERVIEW IN CONNECTION WITH THE JOINT DRAINAGE STUDY, AND THERE MIGHT BE SOME MERIT IN CHOOSING AN ENGINEER FOR INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD OUT OF THE FIRMS ALSO SCHEDULED TO DO THE DRAINAGE STUDY FOR THAT PARTICULAR AREA. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS DECIDED TO SCHEDULE THESE INTERVIEWS FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12TH FROM 3!00 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M. WITH 30 MINUTE PRESENTATION PERIODS FOR EACH AND 15 MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS. 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. 63049 - 641721NCLUSIVE. 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 5:00 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: My =lw�l , �l -- a CHAIRMAN DEC 51979 67 BOOK 42 FACE 6 45