Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/19/1980MARCH 19, 1980 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MET IN REGULAR SESSION AT THE COURTHOUSE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1980, AT 8:30 O'CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE WILLARD W. SIEBERT, .JR., CHAIRMAN; ALMA LEE Loy, VICE CHAIRMAN; R. DON DEESON; AND PATRICK B. LYONS. ALSO PRESENT WERE .JACK G. .JENNINGS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; L.S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR; VIRGINIA HARGREAVES AND JANICE W. CALDWELL, DEPUTY CLERKS. NOT PRESENT WAS WILLIAM C. WODTKE, .JR., WHO WAS ILL; AND GEORGE G. COLLINS, .JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WHO WAS DELAYED BUT DUE TO ARRIVE SHORTLY; AND .JEFFREY BARTON, FINANCE OFFICER, WHO WAS OUT OF TOWN ON COUNTY BUSINESS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. VICE CHAIRMAN LOY LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, AND REVEREND GEORGE P. LABARRE, TRINITY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, GAVE THE INVOCATION. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 1980. COMMISSIONER LYONS SUGGESTED THAT ON PAGE 9, THIRD LINE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, THE WORD "PETITIONS" BE CHANGED TO "PARTITIONS." THIS CORRECTION HAVING BEEN MADE, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 1980, AS WRITTEN. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1980. COMMISSIONER Loy SUGGESTED THAT ON PAGE 82, LINE 11, THE WORD "ESPENSE" BE CORRECTED TO "EXPENSE;" AND ON LINE 16, THE WORD "BAARD" BE CORRECTED TO "BOARD." ON PAGE 44, LINE 11, AFTER THE WORD IfREQUEST,`f THE PHRASE SHOULD READ: "BECAUSE IT WAS A HIGHER ZONING AND DID NOT DOWNGRADE FROM THE NOTICE." ON PAGE 15, LINE 21, THE WORD "DISUCSSION" BE CORRECTED TO "DISCUSSION." COMMISSIONER LYONS REFERRED TO PAGE 15 AND INQUIRED IF MR. HENDERSON HAD FORWARDED THE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE GRANT PROGRAM, AND THE SAMPLE RESOLUTIONS, AS REQUESTED. BOOK 4 FAuE 01 MAR 19 1980 MAR 19 BOOK 43 PAGE 02 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS STATED THAT HE WOULD CHECK INTO THE MATTER. THESE CORRECTIONS HAVING BEEN MADE, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1980, AS WRITTEN. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR ARTHUR HARRY SIDELINGER. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED A RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR: HENRY WILLIAM HELWIG HARMOND D. FELTHOUSEN, III IRA F. GILLIATT THOMAS MARTIN FORTSON ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED STATE WITNESS PAY ROLLS, CIRCUIT COURT, FALL TERM, 1980, IN THE AMOUNTS OF $158.96 AND $76.32; AND COUNTY COURT, FEBRUARY TERM, 1980, IN THE AMOUNT OF $154.80. THE FOLLOWING REPORTS WERE RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK: TRAFFIC VIOLATION BUREAU - SPECIAL TRUST FUND - FEBRUARY, 1980. TRAFFIC VIOLATION FINES BY NAME — FEBRUARY, 1980. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CREATING THE FLORIDA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY, AND A COPY OF THE BY-LAWS OF THE FMPA. COMMISSIONER LOY DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING MEMOS CONCERNING THE AUDIT SELECTION WITH THE BOARD: KA "arch 1C, ``emo to County Commissioners 7e: :'audit Selection Committee Procedure From: Alma I,oe Loy, chairman Pursuant to the r ecom-endation o;' the '-dud i t Selection Committee, i ' would recommond the P,oard authorize a committee composed of one commissioner, the attorney -t -0 -the Fbard and the finance officer to negotiate with the twol companies recommended by the Selection committeE,%. The negotiating committee to make their recommendatia-: to the Poard of County Commissioners f*or final approval and execution of a contract, no later than Wednesday, Aril 2311 1030. March 12, 1980 Honorable W. W. "Bunny" Siebert Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Vero Beach, Florida Dear Mr. Siebert: The Firm of W. 0. Daley $ Company, Vero Beach, Florida, and the Firm of O'Haire, Peterkin $ Moran, Chartered, Vero Beach, Florida, have been selected by the Audit Selection Committee of Indian River County and are submitted to you for your consideration and/or approval to do the audit required by law of the Board of County Commissioners and the Constitutional Officers of Indian River County, Florida. Very respectfully, Clerk Circuit rAuft 3 MAR 19 19 0 - - Q3 MAR 19 j980 - 0 COMMISSIONER LOY EXPLAINED THAT ALL THE ELECTED OFFICIALS UNANIMOUSLY AGREED WITH THE TWO SELECTIONS MADE BY THE AUDIT SELECTION COMMITTEE AND WERE ANXIOUS FOR THE BOARD TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED COMMISSIONER LOY, ATTORNEY COLLINS, AND FINANCE OFFICER BARTON AS THE COMMITTEE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE TWO FIRMS RECOMMENDED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE IN THE MEMO OF PARCH 12, 1980. VICKY RENNA, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, GAVE A PRESENTATION AND PROJECTED MAPS AND DRAWINGS IN REGARD TO TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF SUN SWEPT VILLAGE SUBDIVISION AS REQUESTED BY EDWIN S. SCHMUCKER. SHE ADVISED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 6.9 ACRES AND IS LOCATED 3-1/4 MILES NORTH OF WABASSO BEACH ROAD ON BOTH SIDES OF AlA; THE EAST SIDE IS ZONED R-1, AND THE 14EST SIDE IS ZONED R-lAA. THE BOARD THEN REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DATED MARCH 12, 1980: L1 INOIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING OERARTIVIENT March 12, 1980 TO: Jack Jennings,.County Adminis-trator FROM: David Rever, Planning & Zoning Director ' RE: Sun Swept Subdivision - Tentative Approval. On Tuesday, March 4, 1980,the Technical Review Committee met and reviewed the tentative plans for Sun Swept Subdivision. The only question raised was in regard to the 20 foot addi- tional right-of-way required on Highway A -1-A. = It was pointed out that this requirement would slightly alter the lot sizes. Mr. Waters of the Health Department stated that it was the intent of the law to have an average lot size of 1/2 acre within the subdivision, and that slight variations could be tolerated. The Committee agreed to recommend approval of the tentative plan for Sun Swept Subdivision with.the suggested changes being incorporated on the plan submitted to the County Commission.. These changes have been included, as follows: 1. Add the additional 20' ROW on A -1-A; 2. The 25' proposed ROW in the rear of the western portion of the property has been included in the lots; 3. The setbacks required on the cul-de-sac lots at both ends are shown. mr This plat is recommended for approval as submitted. DAVID M. REVER • DIRECTOR} 212114TH AVE. VERO BEACH, FL 32960 • 305/567-5142 0 43 PACE 05 :. MAR 19 1980 MAR 191990 mox 43-1ACF :fly CHAIRMAN SIEBERT INQUIRED ABOUT THE DEED FOR THE ADDITIONAL 20' ON AlA. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS ADVISED WE MUST HAVE A DEED IN HAND AT THE TIME OF THE FINAL PLAT, AND ENGINEER SCHMUCKER AGREED TO THAT. THE ADMINISTRATOR SUGGESTED THE FOLLOWING LETTER DATED MARCH 13, 1980 FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES: ti•IA1E' O1: FLOR11.)A Isoil �i Health & Rehabilitative Services INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH UNIT 2525 — 14th AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 March 13, 1980 Total Development, Inc. P. 0. Box 10 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Proposed Sun Swept Village Subdivision Mr. and Mrs. Philip Fernandez, owners/developer Gentlemen: This is to advise that the health department can give its tentative approval to the above referenced proposed subdivision as shown on revised plot of March 6, 1�ko. Sincerely, /Jack C. Allen, R.S. Env. Health Director Indian River County Health Unit JCA/tw ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF SUN SWEPT VILLAGE SUBDIVISION, PROVIDED THE CHANGES, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT IN THEIR MEMO OF MARCH 121 1980, HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED. ' THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE APPOINTMENT OF A LIAISON BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE ST. .JOHNS {DIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND IT WAS DECIDED TO PLACE THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS EXPLAINED THAT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, HE HAD ENCOUNTERED DUPLICATION OF EFFORT IN LICENSING; THEREFORE, HE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE.A LIAISON TO AVOID THIS DUPLICATION. HE CONTINUED THAT THIS POSITION IS VERY TIME-CONSUMING AND MAY REQUIRE TRIPS TO PALATKA AND TALLAHASSEE; IT WAS POINTED OUT THERE IS A RESOLUTION ALLOWING FOR OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR SUCH INSTANCES. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO ADD AN EMERGENCY ITEM CONCERNING A REQUEST FROM f1AYOR SUIT OF THE CITY OF FELLSMERE. THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING LETTER FROM MAYOR SUIT: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PHONE 571-0116 March 12, 1980 Mr. W. W. Siebert, Jr., Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County Courtho•se Vero Beach, Florida, 32960 Dear Mr. Siebert: Enclosed herein please find a.City of Fellsmere map indicating proposed closing of County Road, C-507, or Broad- way Boulevard in the City of Fellsmere. The intent of this letter is to request the County Commissions to grant permission to City of Fellsmere to close Broadway Boulevard for the hours on Friday, April 11, 19PO; from s:00 p.m. through 11:30 p.m., Saturday April 12, 1980; from 5:00 a.m. through 11:00 p.m., for purposes of Fellsmere's 69th Birthday Celebration. The Fellsmere City Police Department and City's Street Department will set up and provide a detour route for -ongoing traffic as indicated on the City of Fell^mere map. Activities on these two dates would require Broadway Boulevard to be closed during the above mentioned dates due to activities and foot traffic on the Boulevard. On the behalf of the City Council and myself, we would like to thank you in advance for your continued help and support in this very important matter'to the City of Fellsmere. Res tively. Joe B. Suit, Jr.. ayaor City oFellsmere 7 Q®� MAR 1919 0 f JBS,Jr./k POLICE DEPT. PHONE 571-1360 MAR 19 1980 s BOOK 43 PAGE- Q8 ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS ADVISED THAT THE CITY OF FELLSMERE WILL PROBABLY REQUEST THE USE OF BARRICADES FROM THE COUNTY, AND ASSUMED THIS WOULD MEET THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD. COMMISSIONER DEESON NOTED THE REQUEST JUST INVOLVES A ONE BLOCK DETOUR. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED THE REQUEST FROM MAYOR SUIT, AND AUTHORIZED THE COOPERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS REQUESTED AN EMERGENCY ITEM BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA REGARDING INSURANCE FOR THE BOND ISSUE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED ADDING THE EMERGENCY ITEM TO THE AGENDA REGARDING BOND INSURANCE. DISCUSSION ENSUED ALONG THOSE LINES. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS TO SIGN THE MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE ASSOCIATION (MBIA) INSURANCE APPLICATION FOR THE BOND ISSUE FOR THE NEW COUNTY ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX. h COMMITMENT FOR Li,i MUNICIPAL BONO GUARANTY INSURANCE MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE ASSOCIATION MUNICIPAL ISSUERS SERVICE COMPANY 34 South Broadway, White Plains, N.Y. 10601 General Manager (Date) Marc 12, 1980 Based on an approved application, dated _ March 12 , 191C 80 for Municipal Bond Guaranty Insurance (the "Application"), the insurance companies comprising the Municipal Bond Insurance Association ("MBIA"), each of which participates and is liable hereunder severally and not jointly in the following respective percentages (The /Etna Casualty and Surety Company — 40%, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company — 30%, /Etna Insurance Company —15%, and United States Fire Insurance Company — 15%), agree at the time the municipal bonds are delivered to William R. Hough & Co. in accordance with the terms of the Notice of Sale to issue a policy guaranteeing the following issue of municipal bonds, 14_,_350 000 Indian River Count Revenue Bonds, Series980 (Title of Bonds) Florida Capita MProvement (the "Bonds"), subject to the following conditions: 1. In the event the Bonds are awarded and sold to __William R. Hough & Co. _ Indian River Coun�, Florida will pay for a policy from MBIA guaranteeing the Bonds. 2. An insurarice premium of $ . 110.000 will be paid at the time of delivery of and payment for the Bonds and the insurance policy. 3. The Bonds will receive the unqualified approving opinion of Bond Counsel. 4. There will have been no material adverse change in the Bonds or the Resolution, Bond Ordi- nance, the Trust Indenture or other official document authorizing the issuance of the Bonds or in the final official statement or other similar document, including the financial statements included therein. 5. There will have been no material adverse change in the official offering circular or in any other information submitted as a part of the Application or subsequently submitted to be a part of the Application to MBIA. 6. No event shall have occurred which would allow any underwriter or any other purchaser of the Bonds not to be required to purchase the Bonds at the closing. 7. Prior to delivery of and payment for the Bonds, none of the information or documents submitted as a part of the Application to MBIA shall be determined to contain any untrue or misleading statement of a material fact or fail to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements contained therein not misleading. 8. No material adverse change affecting any security for the Bonds prior to the time of delivery of any payment for the Bonds shall have occurred. 9. Nothwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this commitment will expire on the earlier of (i) 90 days from the date hereof or (ii) on the date of delivery of and payment for the Bonds and issuance of the policy hereunder, unless this commitment shall have been extended in writing by MBIA. A copy of the form of bond guaranty insurance policy which will be issued upon compliance with the foregoing conditions is attached hereto. MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE ASSOCIATION The /Etna Casualty and Surety Company Fireman's Fund Insurance Company /Etna Insurance Company United States Fire Insurance Company By MUNICIPAL ISSUERS SERVICE CORPORATION, as General _Managing Partner of the General Manager MAR 191980 l -4W21 President Attest: BOOK . 3 PAGE PAretary I Application # 80-03-1759 WMIIJ;T �' f f. „, MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE ASSOCIATION MUNICIPAL ISSUERS SERVICE COMPANY 34 South Broadway, White Plains, N.Y. 10601 General Manager (914) 946-4242 The undersigned hereby applies for Municipal Bond Guaranty Insurance to be issued by the Municipal Bond Insurance Association ("MBIA") covering the following issue of municipal bonds: (Tie of Issue of B ndsd $4,350,000 Indian River County, Florida, Capital improvement ev niBonds-Series 198U - In support of this application, the applicant hereby provides the following information and docu- ments and agrees to the terms set forth in this application. Applicant: Issuer: (If otherthan applicant) Indian River County, Florida Address: 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone Number: Address: Telephone Number: Person to Contact: Willard W. Siebert, Jr, Person to Contact: Chairman Board of County Commissioners Bond Counsel: Financial Consultant: Freeman, Richardson, Watson, Slade, William R. Hough & Co. McCarthy & Kelly _ Address: 112 West Adams" Street Address: P • 0. Box 3546 Barnett wank Building 23 West ChurchStreet Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Orlando, Florida 32802 Telephone Number: (904) 353-1264 Telephone Number: (305) 841-1685 Person to Contact: Daniel U. Livermore, JrP.erson to Contact: Arnold W. Schneider Esq. vice PresIdent PART PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES ISSUE: Official description of securities Indian River County, Florida, Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1980 Statutes or other authorities for issuance of securities Principal amount of securities 54,350,000 Proposed date of sale March 12, 1980 Type of Sale: Competitive . Negotiated XXX Maximum legal interest rate (including discount), if any: Has a rating of this issue been applied for? If received, what is the rating? Name of such rating service PART H DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SECURITIES Please enclose the most recently prepared drafts of the following documents -in connection with this issuance of securities, if available. If such documents are not yet prepared, please forward them when prepared: (1) Resolution, Bond Ordinance or Trust Indenture and other- official documents authorizing this issue. (2) Preliminary Official Statement or other similar document. (3) Notice of Sale. (4) Bid form. (5). Any other material document related to the issuance. The applicant believes that it will not be necessary to alter materially any such documents being submitted. PART IA CREDIT INFORMATION Please enclose the following documents. If such documents are not available, please so indicate. (1) Issuer's audited financial statements for the past three years. (If the application relates to a revenue issue, include financial statements for the utility system.) (2) Issuer's budget for the current year and next year, if available. (3) Engineering or feasibility studies (to be furnished for a revenue issue only). (4) Capital planning and economic development studies. (5) Official Statement or other similar document and notice of sale covering the Issuer's last sale of similar securities, if any. (6) Any other information which would be helpful for an evaluation of the Issuer's credit. Additional information may be required to complete a credit analysis. Any request for such information will be made by a separate letter. PART IV AGREEMENTS OF APPLICANT The applicant agrees to furnish information requested by MBIA. After receipt of all necessary Information, MBIA will inform the applicant whether the issue will be insured by MBIA and the premium required for the insurance. Such information may also be published. All information given in connection with this Application is believed to be true and correct as of this date. Date: March 12; 1980 Indian River County, Florida - Name of Applicant= / rj �` i le By , `ter Title Chairman, Board of County, 'Commissioners �a - 9OpK FACE 1 MAR 19 i9 - _ _ MAR 19 1980 a�uK 43 FAR ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESpN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER k LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR CHAIRMAN SIEBERT AND ATTORNEY COLLINS TO NEW YORK, N. Y. FROM APRIL 2 THROUGH APRIL 4, 1980 FOR SIGNING AND SELLING THE BONDS FOR THE COURTHOUSE AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX. A COPY OF RESOLUTION N0. 80-27 HONORING .JOHN J. HRKACH FOR SERVING AS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE OFFICER IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1980. 12 NO. 80 Jux %j OF INDIAN RIVER COUNT'Y, FLORIDA WHEREAS, JOHN J. HRKACH has submitted his resignation as Indian River County Veterans Service Officer; and NHEREAS, JOHN J. HRKACH has served as the Indian River Count_ Veterans Service Officer with diligence during a period in which Indian River County has experienced -tremendous growth and, consequently, increased the burden -upon -all of its Governmen Officials; and WHEREAS, JOHN J. HRKACH has served with great distinction since his appointment on April 30, 1976 to the effective date of his resignation of March 27, 1980 on behalf of the servicemen within Indian River County; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River - County wishes to publicly acknowledge and thank JOHN J. HRKACH for his tireless efforts on behalf of the servicemen of Indian River County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board on behalf of itself and the servicemen of Indian River County expresses its deep appreciation to JOHN J. HRKACH for his devotion to the servicemen of Indian River County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Board wishes JOHN J. HRKACH continued success in his future endeavors.. *********** Said Resolution shall become effective as of the day of March 1980. �, �- ®RO- a 5th Chairman, County Commissioners r 1 MAR �. 919 0 Box 43 PACE 14. ATTORNEY COLLINS ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK A.M. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON":APPROACHED THE BOARD REGARDING THE DRAINAGE STUDY CONSULTING AGREEMENT, AS EXPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 13, 1980: March 13, 1980 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Technical Advisory Committee, Drainage SUBJECT: Drainage Study Consulting Agreement The Joint Technical Advisory Committee on Drainage finished negotiations with Reynolds, Smith and Hills on March 10, 1980. The Committee accepted the proposed agreement as revised and recommends that: 1. The Board of County Commissioners approve the Joint Master Consulting Agreement with Reynolds, Smith and Hills to provide consulting services relating to storm drainage. The Committee feels that the best possible fee structure has been obtained from Reynolds, Smith and Hills with this Contract. Enclosure 1 2. The Board of County Commissioners approve Supple- mental Agreement Number 1 to the "Joint Master Consulting Agreement" and approve the study area. Enclosure 2 3. The Board of County Commissioners approve Supple- mental Agreement Number 2 to the "Joint Master Consulting Agreement". This would authorize the consultants to prepare the aerial photographs required-for-.the.drainage study. The Committee fe6 s•t-hat it is very important to begin this work as soon as possible since this is the time of year--most-favorable for this type of work. Enclosure 3 4. The Board of County Commissioners approve the method of pro -rating the cost of the study between the City and the County. The method would be based upon the percentage of the total study area that is within the City or County. The percentages would be calculated using square miles to the nearest 0.10 square mile. The Committee discussed the possible influences in completing the study - and there are many considerations - but felt that all other methods would be difficult to account for, costly and cumbersome. We have calculated that on an area basis, the cost would be pro -rated at approxi- mately 30% to the City and 70% to the County. 14 5. Phase I cost shall not exceed $55,000, the aerial photography $115,000 and the final report will be $95,000 for a total cost of $265,000. The 70/30 split would mean the County's cost would be $185,000. Pad Vywon'sNAN 1 e ! / P Enclosures Dave Rever Neil Nelson MR. NELSON THEN POINTED OUT THERE WAS_A REVISED SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #Z, WHICH IS ENCLOSURE 3, AND_THIS_WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS. HE STATED THAT THE DRAINAGE TECHN+CAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, COMPRISED OF COMMISSIONER LYONS, DAVID REVrR AND HIMSELF, VERY ENTHUSIASTICALLY RECOMMEND THAT THE AGREEMENTS COVERED IN THEIR MEMO BE SIGNED. HE COMMENTED THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH DID ADOPT THE JOINT MASTER CONSULTING AGREEMENT AND THE TWO SUPPLEMENTS,PLUS ADOPTED AN AGREEMENT OF THEIR OWN, BUT LEFT OUT THE ROYAL PARK AREA FOR RENEGOTIATIONS. COMMISSIONER LYONS COMMENTED THAT HE REALIZED THAT THIS IS AN EXPENSIVE UNDERTAKING BUT WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM THAT IS GETTING WORSE, AND NOW IS THE TIME TO FACE UP TO IT AND DO IT. HE CONTINUED THAT ONE THING WE WILL GET OUT OF THIS IS A SET OF MAPS WHICH WILL BE INVALUABLE AS FAR AS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND DEVELOPERS ARE CONCERNED, AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RECOVER PART OF THIS COST ON THE SALE OF THESE MAPS. COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED THAT IT IS A LOT CHEAPER FOR THE DEVELOPER TO BUY THE MAPS FROM US INSTEAD OF GOING TO A SURVEYOR. HE ADDED THAT THE GROUND IS STILL VISIBLE, PARTICULARLY AFTER OUR FROST, BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THE SURVEY THIS YEAR, WE MUST MOVE ON IT RIGHT NOW. HOWARD B. BOCHIARDY AND ROD GHITO, OF REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS, INTRODUCED THEMSELVES TO THE BOARD. C wi MAR 191980 - mac 43 vacs 15 MAR 191980 -.8009 .43 PAGE 16 THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: MASTER CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS; ATTACHMENT "A" (BASIC SERVICES); ATTACHMENT "B" (COMPENSATION CURVE); MASTER CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS (ENCLOSURE 1); ATTACHMENT "A" (BASIC SERVICES); ATTACHMENT B (COMPEN- SATION CURVE); SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. I (ENCLOSURE Z); EXHIBIT "A" TO SUPPLEMENTAL /AGREEMENT NO. 1; AND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT N0. Z (ENCLOSURE 3). SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED FOR A SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENTS AND TO HAVE THE DIFFERENCES POINTED OUT. MR. GHITO REPORTED THAT THE JOINT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY COVERS THE ENTIRE AREA, AND THE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY IS FOR THOSE SPECIAL AREAS WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A PROBLEM NOW THAT THE COUNTY WOULD WANT TO SOLVE. THE ATTORNEY STATED THE MEMO TO THE COMMISSIONERS SETS OUT COST LIMITATIONS AND ASKED WHERE THEY APPEAR IN THE AGREEMENTS. MR. GHITO ADVISED THERE IS A SUPPLEMENT #1 TO THE CONTRACT; THE CONTRACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THEM TO DO ANYTHING - THE SUPPLEMENTS GIVE THEM THIS AUTHORITY. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON ADDED THAT ENCLOSURE #2 IS SUPPLEMENT #1. DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT ARTICLE 3.2 CONCERNING THE 2.15 MULTIPLIER. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT SUPPLEMENT #1 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FINAL REPORT, JUST TO PHASE 1, AND THAT THE ENGINEERS WILL BE COMING BACK FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS LATER ON. HE ADDED THAT SUPPLEMENT 1 AND 2 APPLY STRICTLY TO PHASE 1 AND THE AERIAL PHOTO- GRAMMETRY AND DO NOT DEAL WITH THE FINAL REPORT. MR. GHITO AFFIRMED THAT THEY WOULD BE BACK AT A LATER TIME FOR SUPPLEMENT 3. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE OTHER CONSULTANTS HAVE BROKEN DOWN THEIR PERSONNEL CHARGES IN VARIOUS CATEGORIES)AND HE NOTICED THEIR FIRM HAS NOT DONE THIS. MR, GHITO EXPLAINED THEY WOULD BE CHARGING THE COUNTY THE SALARY OF THE INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS WORKED THAT HOUR AS OPPOSED TO WORKING WITH SOME KIND OF A SCHEDULE, IN OTHER WORDS, THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ACTUALLY PUTS IN THAT HOUR OF WORK, THE COUNTY WOULD PAY HIS SALARY, PLUS THE MULTIPLIER. MR. BOCHIARDY ADVISED THEY HAVE ALL THEIR PERSONNEL CATEGO- RIZED ACCORDING TO CLASSIFICATION AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO FURNISH THE BOARD THIS INFORMATION. 0 17 MAR 19 1980 - - - - BOOK 3- FAE 17 MAR 191980 - goox 41 -FACE 48 0 THE ATTORNEY FELT THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE COUNTY WANTED TO CROSS-CHECK THE CHARGES!: MR. BOCHIARDY REITERATED THAT THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. AND WILL GIVE IT TO THE BOARD. THE ATTORNEY FELT AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY WOULD BE NEEDED REGARDING THE 70130 SPLIT. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER DISCUSSED THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE UNDERSTANDING THE COMMITTEE HAD WAS THE $115,000 WAS A BENCHMARK, AND IF THERE WERE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES, REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD TO ASK FOR THAT SUPPLEMENT. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF THEY COULD ACCEPT THE PHRASE "NOT TO EXCEED" ON SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT ##2 INSTEAD OF "APPROXIMATELY $115,000" AND THEY AGREED. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THAT WAS THE INTENT. PSR. BOCHIARDY THOUGHT THE $95,000 FOR THE FINAL REPORT WAS JUST AN ESTIMATE AND THIS FIGURE COULD NOT BE NAILED DOWN; IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY FIND IN PHASE 1. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT THEY HAVE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY REASON WHY WE CAN `T PUT ALL OF THESE THINGS ON ONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THAT IN ORDER TO DO CONTOURS IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, THERE MUST BE SOME GROUND WORK; AND THIS REQUIRES SOME -BA -SE LOCATION POINTS, WHICH IS NOT DONE NORMALLY IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. HE CONTINUED THAT IN RELATION TO WHAT WE ARE GETTING HERE IS AN ACTUAL MAP BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE OVERLAY CONTOURS, AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE PAYING FOR. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT IT WAS TOO BAD WE DIDNIT KNOW ABOUT THIS WHEN THE PROPERTY APPRAISER DID HIS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, AND UNFORTUNATELY, ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE HAD ON RECORD WERE NOT SUFFICIENT. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THIS SUBJECT. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS REFERRED TO ARTICLE 9, REUSE OF DOCUMENTS, AND SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNTY MIGHT WANT REPRODUCIBLES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. HE INQUIRED THAT IF THE COUNTY WANTED TO ORDER ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS, WOULD THERE BE A FIXED PRICE? THE ADMINISTRATOR FELT THE PHOTOGRAPHS CANNOT BE SOLD BY THE COMPANY THAT MADE THEM WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE COUNTY. MR. GHITO THOUGHT THAT OBTAINING PERMISSION FROM THE COUNTY TO SELL THE PHOTOGRAPHS COULD BE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT. ADMINISTRATOR .JENNINGS NOTED THAT SOMETHING MIGHT ARISE WHERE THE COUNTY WOULD WANT TO BUY ADDITIONAL FULL SIZE PHOTOGRAPHS FOR ANOTHER USE, AND WONDERED IF THAT COULD BE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT, AT A FIXED PRICE. MR. BOCHIARDY FELT THERE MIGHT BE A PROBLEM WITH LOCKING IN A PRICE FOR AN. INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT THE COUNTY REALLY SHOULD OWN THE NEGATIVES. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS STRONGLY FELT THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD KNOW WHAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE GOING TO COST THEM SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. HE IS CONCERNED THAT THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MIGHT NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT NOW AND FELT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT ON THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS FOR THE COUNTY, THAT THE COUNTY CAN OBTAIN ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS WHEN THEY WANT THEM, AT A FIXED PRICE. THE ADMINISTRATOR CONTINUED THAT HE WAS THINKING STRICTLY OF THE COUNTY'S NEEDS IN CASE THEY WOULD AUTHORIZE ANOTHER ENGINEERING FIRM AND NEEDED CERTAIN PRINTS, HE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THE COUNTY CAN GET THAT PRINT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY. HE FELT THAT IS AN ADVANTAGE TO THE COUNTY, AND NOT UNFAIR TO THE COMPANY MAKING THE PHOTOGRAPHS. MR. BOCHIARDY THOUGHT THAT MAY BE A PROBLEM BUT IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN A DUPLICATE SET OF NEGATIVES; THEY ALL WOULD HAVE TO ARRIVE AT AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER DEESON, THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE u 19 43`racE 1� MAR 19198Q L _ MAR- 19 1980 - a 43 PAGE zo PIASTER CONSULTING AGREEMENT, INCLUDING ATTACHMENTS A & B, WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND REYNOLbS, SMITH AND HILLS, SUBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF A LIST OF PERSONNEL, JOB DESCRIPTION AND RATES. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT ADJUSTMENTS CAN BE MADE WHEN WE ENTER INTO SUPPLEMENTS. MR. GHITO ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE INCLUSION OF THE RATE SCHEDULE AND QUESTIONED WHETHER THAT MODIFICATION WOULD HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE ACTION THE CITY OF VERO BEACH TOOK LAST NIGHT. THE ATTORNEY EXPLAINED THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH IS NOT INVOLVED IN THAT PARTICULAR AGREEMENT. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE MASTER CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS. - THE ATTORNEY STATED THAT AS LONG AS THE SQUARE MILEAGE HAS BEEN VERIFIED, AND THE AGREEMENT IS ON A 70/30 BASIS, HE FOUND NO PROBLEM WITH IT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE JOINT MASTER CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, COUNTY, AND REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS, PROVIDED ON PAGES 40 THROUGH 61 OF THE AGENDA MATERIAL, AND IN ADDITION, ATTACHMENT A TO THE JOINT MASTER CONSULTING AGREEMENT; ATTACHMENT B, AND SUPPLEMENTAL .AGREEMENT PJO. 1 TO THE .JOINT MASTER CONSULTING AGREEMENT; EXHIBIT "-A" TO SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT N0. 1; AND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT N0, 2 TO T -HE -.JOINT MASTER CONSULTING ,AGREEMENT; WITH THE ADDITION IN ARTICLE III OF THE SENTENCE AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE: "COST SHALL BE SHARED PRO RATA BETWEEN CITY AND COUNTY BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF LAND AREA WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND CALCULATED ON A SQUARE MILE BASIS TO THE NEAREST 0.1 SQUARE MILE;" STRIKING "APPROXIMATELY" AND ADDING "NOT TO EXCEED" IN PARAGRAPH II OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT N0, 2; AND WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE RATES AND CHARGES OF THE VARIOUS PERSONNEL. 20 THE HOUR OF 9:30 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who orr 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 fished in said newspaper in the issues of 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 we this (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit (Business Manager) n River County, Florida) NOTICE OF SALE OF REAL ESTATE Pursuant to Florida Statute 125.35, the Board of County. Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will accept written bids to the hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M., Wednesday, March 19, 1980, for the cash purchase of the following described County property: That portion of the East 1/2 of Street R -W formally known as Lemon Avenue lying bet- ween Lot 11 of W.R. Duncans Resubdivision and Lot 4 of Jones Subdivision. The Board of County Commissioner's reserve the right to reject any or all of the bids and make awards in any manner which the Board considers to be in the best interest of Indian River County, Florida. All bids shall be for a cash purchase, in writing by legal description as listed above, and shall include a check payable to Indian River County for -ten percent (10 percent) of the bid price with the balance due five (5) days after acceptance, submitted in an envelope securely sealed and marked on the outside "SEALED BID FOR COUNTY LAND — MARCH 19,1980, AT 9:30 O'CLOCK A.M." Bids may be mailed or delivered to the office of the Board of County Commissioners, Indian River County Courthouse, 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, FJorida 32960. Proposals received after 9:30 o'clock A.M. March 19, 1980, will be returned unopened. Board of County Commissioners Indian River County, Florida By: Willard W. Siebert Jr., Chairman Mar. 2, 9, 1980. 0 THE CHAIRMAN THEN ASKED FOR RECEIPT OF THE BIDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTICE, AND THE FOLLOWING SEALED BID WAS RECEIVED, OPENED AND READ: SUSAN L. SCOTT $150.00 THE ATTORNEY GAVE A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY NOTING THAT IT WAS PART OF A ROAD, AND WAS ABANDONED YEARS AGO. HE CONTINUED THAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS THERE WAS A COMMITMENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY FOR $100 BUT THE PEOPLE WHIy RECEIVED TITLE THROUGH THE ABANDONMENT DID NOT PAY THEIR TAXES, THUS IT REVERTED BACK TO THE, COUNTY. 21 r • MAR 19 1980 - oo 43 PAGE' -L1 MAR -1 9 1980 - - - wuo . 43 PAGE 22 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS ADVISED THAT THE CITY, HAS ALREADY GIVEN A QUIT -CLAIM DEED FOR THE BALANCE OF THE ROAD, AFTER DISCUSSION, IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE PARCEL WAS A NUISANCE AND VERY SMALL - 15' X 50', ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER Loy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f1E EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT CITIZENS ASKING TO BE HEARD AND BEING TOLI3;­IN EFFECT, THAT THE BOARD WILL SIT AND LISTEN BUT NOT PARTICIPATE.- ATTORNEY ARTICIPATE. ATTORNEY SMITH -INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY ARE NOT HERE TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING, THEY AGREE THAT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IS IN ALL RESPECTS PROPER; THEY WOULD NOT EXPECT THE BOARD TO DO OR SAY ANYTHING IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DER; AND THEY DID NOT FEEL THAT WHAT ATTORNEY SMITH WILL SAY WILL AFFECT THOSE PROCEEDINGS. 22 ATTORNEY SMITH CONTINUED THAT HE DID NOT WISH TO MISLEAD ANYONE, HOWEVER, TO BELIEVE THAT THIS MEANS THOSE PROTESTING THE SEWAGE TREAT- MENT PLANT SITE WILL ACCEPT THE FINAL DECISION OF THE DER, ATTORNEY SMITH PROCEEDED TO REVIEW IN DETAIL HIS LETTER OF MARCH 181 1980, TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WHICH EXPLAINS HIS POSITION ON THIS MATTER. SAID LETTER IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES, AND THE PETITION SIGNED BY 1,184 CITIZENS OPPOSING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION AND THE ARTICLES ENDORSED BY DR. WELLINGS SUBMITTED -WITH THE LETTER ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. 23 Booz 43 PacE - 23 `--'" MSR I9 080- - - - `��►i rt►. 0 11A►ir�:, '1*i►.\•r(-.jtj.:►z L� Oi INNA'I"ro1?N1:Y', A'r LAW Sill-AVIIAN N. SAll I'll, .Ilt. MIC'IIAM. t) 11.11111•: 7'110%IAS TICATC'111:It .11•:Itt)M I: 1). 0111 NN CIIAIII.1:S R. C::11tItIS 5'rr,WA12T CAPPS ALAN S. POLACHWICTI March 18, 1980 �eo1c -.43 1'acf 24 VOST M-111C'li llt)X 1():I()VI•:12() 111:AC'II VA.OIt11).% .12m;6? TFiLti['tIONE .It Board of County Commissioners Indian River County, Florida Dear Commissioners: We represent Raymond A. Jackson and others. At your meeting on March 19, we will be presenting to you a petition signed by 1184 citizens of the County who oppose the County's proposed construction of a sewage treatment plant on Kings Highway between North Gifford Road and Lindsey Road. As you know, we opposed the County application for a construction permit in proceedings before the State Depart- ment of Environmental Regulation. The hearing officer has filed her recommended order in which she states that the proposed plant would not cause pollution in violation of standards established by that Department. The recommended order further states that DER has no standards regulating viruses in effluent discharges, that large numbers of virus exist in the effluent discharged from this kind of plant and the viruses remain viable after passage through the plant. The recommended order further states that.DER does not consider local issues relating to zoning, the propriety of expenditure of public funds or the like and because the County has applied only for_,a construction permit, DER is not required to consider and has not considered whether the plant is a necessary or desirable facility. The order does, however, state that the present sewage treatment plant, in -its existing condition, is a greater threat to public health than the proposed plant. We do not -here in this presentation to you take issue reco7-:-elide-' crder. ne are taking issue with it in =ND OFF1Cli uvutl 1', ,t: It l'1': I!N'1'II A%=. 11'NO 01-:A#7!l - FLORIDA i _I Board of County Commissioner; -2- March 18, 1980 the proceedincs before DER. In our presentation.here to' you at this time, we request that you consider the issues not determined by DER. These issues are: 1. The propriety of spending public funds for the construction of this plant at this site. 2. The propriety of constructing this plant in the neighborhood at which -it is proposed to be constructed when there are other areas, both large enough and -remote enough, to accommodate such a plant. 3. The propriety of the County proceeding only with a construction permit knowing full well that after -completion of construction, it will be required to have an operating permit. All the foregoing might be distilled into the question for the Board of County Commissioners being: Is the proposed plant at the proposed site necessary or desirable? The hearing officer rejected our questions concerning the necessity or desirability of this plant by finding that the County had applied only for a construction permit. Questions concerning the necessity or desirability are regulated by the law pertaining to operating the plant. This leaves the County in the position of being confronted with the possibility of receiving a construction permit which permits the plant to be operated only for four months after which the County must have an operating permit. This leaves the County with the.possibility of having constructed a plant which it cannot operate. DER has stated that it has no regulations dealing with discharge of viruses in sewage effluent. As stated in the hearing officer's findings,'in this kind of plant large numbers of virus exist in the effluent. These viruses remain viable. The testimony of Dr. Flora Mae Wellings of the State Department of Health shows a virus is discharged MAR 19 19.80 i 437 - PAGE y' r �MAR 19 19 0 _ 26 �n PAGE r Board of Coupty Commissioners -3- March 18, 1980 from a spray irrigation system such as that proposed at this plant and have been found as far away as 500 to 500 feet traveling by air and as deep as 59 feet traveling through the soil in groundwater. Sprinkler heads are located within 50 feet of the County's property line. This means that there will be air contamination over the lands of the adjacent property owners for a distance of at least 450 feet. The adjacent property owners have homes, shallow wells for their water supply and citrus groves, all of which will be contaminated by viruses traveling through the air. The fact that the State has no regulations concerning virus contamination should not be used by the County as a means of contaminating the homes, properties and citrus groves of adjacent property owners. This contamination could be eliminated if the County required its consulting engineers to design this plant for more complete treatment, including a sealed holding pond. For further information on virus contamination from sewage effluent, we refer you to articles identified by Dr. Wellings as recognized authorities showing the results of tests made pertaining to such effluent. Copies of these articles are attached. We all know and recognize the fact that the present Gifford sewage tre.atment-plant is a menace to public health and we would all l.i.ke to see it corrected. The present plant receives about 37,400 gallons of effluent per day. It serves 175 household units. It serves only 1/8 to 1/10 of the area of Gifford. DER proposes to permit the proposed plant to receive 50,000 gallons of effluent per day. This increased capacity is so small that it will not do what many people think it will do.-- permit service of a sewer system for Gifford. The plans for this proposed plant show that there will be approximately two miles of a force main from the present plant to the proposed plant. According to the County's Board of County Commissioners -4- March 18, 1980 engineers, this force main will cost the County $55,000 to. construct and no telling how much in pumping expenses. This entire two miles is being constructed to reach the proposed site under the pretext that this is the best site available. It is not. The proposed site is entirely surrounded by a fine residential area with homes or property assessed on the County tax rolls at values between $50,000 and $100,000. Less than 1/4 of a mile away from the pfesent plant on exactly the same route as the proposed force main there is a large tract of land used as a cattle ranch'a long—distance away from any human habitation. To give you_an_tdeayof comparable values, the land within the first 1/4 mile of the route of the force main has one tract of 160 acres with a just value assessment (not ag value assessment) on the tax rolls of the County at $600 an acre and another tract of 327.90 acres with a just value assessment of $1,263.16 per acre. We don't have to speculate as to the current market value of this land because it was sold on December 3, 1979 by John D. Cole and wife, clients of Collins, Brown, Caldwell & Evans, to Glickman, Klein and Deitch for $1,900,000 for the entire 719.81 acres in this ranch at an average price per acre of $2,639 which includes 3/4 of a mile of frontage on Kings Highway. The part of this ranch which we refer to as -a proper site does not front on Kings Highway. Its value would be considerably less than the average price but even the average price is much less than the value of the property surrounding the County's proposed site. The'per acre assessed value of the lands of the surrounding owners runs from $3,000 an acre to $25,000 an acre. The County could acquire a sufficient land area within this first 1/4 mile to permit construction of a proper plant. Then the County could eliminate 7/8 of the distance of this force main, saving about $48,125 which could Al be more properly used to acquire a larger land area and to Q construct a treatment plant that will not contaminate the SD K. 43 -ma � 277- -MAR 191980 - MAR 191980 Boa :43, Fm 28 Board of County Commissioners -5- March 18, 1980 surrounding lands. In addition, my clients would-be willing. to buy the County land at the proposed site in order to protect their property from this contamination. The Cou-nty could use the proceeds to build a plant with greater capacity, at a proper site with proper treatment. We respectfully request that the County abandon its plans for the construction of this sewage treatment plait on Kings Highway and that it direct its consulting engineers to determine a more appropriate site. Sincerely, SNS,Jr.:SMP Sherman N. Smith, Jr. Attachments. x ATTORNEY SMITH STATED THAT HE IS QUESTIONING WHY THE COUNTY IS SPENDING $55,000 TO GO TWO MILES WHEN THERE IS A PERFECTLY APPRO- PRIATE SITE CLOSE BY. HE ALSO QUESTIONED WHY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IS TAKING THE POSITION OF ADVISING THAT THE BOARD SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS DISCUSSION, AND HE, THEREFORE, LOOKED IN THE RECORDS TO FIND OUT WHY. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT INTERRUPTED .ATTORNEY SMITH TO INFORM HIM THAT ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT SELECT THE PROPOSED SITE AND STATED THAT HE FELT ANY ALLUDING TO EITHER THE ATTORNEY OR HIS FIRM WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST INVOLVED. ATTORNEY SMITH STATED THAT HE FELT THE -PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE FACTS AND THAT HE WILL CONFINE HIMSELF TO -THE FACTS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT INSISTED THAT ATTORNEY SMITH STICK TO THE SUBJECT AND NOT WHETHER ATTORNEY COLLINS OR HIS FIRM HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT ATTORNEY SMITH I'S TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF A FACT THAT DOES NOT EXIST AND RATHER THAN HAVE IT BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION. HE WOULD PREFER THAT ATTORNEY SMITH CONTINUE. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT HE DID FEEL IT WOULD BE APPRO- PRIATE AT SOME POINT FOR THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW HOW THE PROPOSED SITE WAS SELECTED AND TO NOTE THAT IT WAS SELECTED PRIOR TO THE COLES SELLING THEIR PROPERTY. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WOULD GO ALONG WITH THE ATTORNEY'S WISHES, AND COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT SHE REMEMBERED VERY WELL HOW THE SITE WAS SELECTED, BUT FELT ATTORNEY SMITH SHOULD BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE THIS MATTER WAS BLOWN WAY OUT OF PROPORTION. ATTORNEY SMITH INFORMED THOSE PRESENT THAT THE PUBLIC RECORDS SHOW THAT UNTIL DECEMBER, 1979, THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS FIRM REPRESENTED MR. COLE WHO OWNED THE RANCH, WHICH IS THE ONE MR. SMITH IS PROPOSING AS AN APPROPRIATE SITE FOR THE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY. MR. SMITH CONTINUED THAT MR, COLLINS TOLD HIM MONTHS AGO THAT THE COUNTY WASN'T GOING TO ACQUIRE THAT LAND OR CONDEMN IT OR DO ANYTHING 29 MAR 191990 - "BOOK -43; GE '� MAR 19 1980 - - - - Bou 43 eac£ 30 ABOUT IT; THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH THE SITE THEY HAD. HE STATED THAT IF MR. COLLINS HAD TOLD HiM AT THAT TIME THAT HE WAS REPRESENTING THE OWNERS, HE MIGHT HAVE RESOLVED THIS MATTER THEN, BUT HE WASN'T INFORMED OF THAT FACT. ATTORNEY SMITH THEN REFERRED BACK TO HIS LETTER, NOTING THAT THE PROPOSED SITE ON KING'S HIGHWAY IS IN AN AREA WHERE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ON THE TAX ROLLS AT A VALUE.OF FROM $25,000 AN ACRE TO $3,000 PER ACRE WHILE THE LAND LOCATED MUCH CLOSER TO THE PRESENT PLANT HAS A MUCH LOWER PER ACRE VALUE. MR. SMITH INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HIS CLIENTS WOULD BE WILLING TO BUY THE PRESENT COUNTY SITE FOR WHATEVER IS ESTABLISHED TO BE A FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE, WHICH HE FELT WOULD BE $50,000-$60,000, AND THE COUNTY, THEREFORE, WOULD BE SAVING $100,000 OR SO - $50,000 FOR THE SITE AND $55,000 FOR THE FORCE MAIN. HE EMPHASIZED THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE COUNTY PROPOSED TO PUT THIS SEWAGE FACILITY IS IN ONE OF THE BEST RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THAT PART OF THE COUNTY. HE CONTINUED THAT HE FELT THE COUNTY SHOULD RECONSIDER THESE ISSUES,WHICH THE DER IS NOT CON- SIDERING BECAUSE THEY ARE LOCAL ISSUESIAND THAT IS WHY HIS CLIENTS HAVE COME TO THE BOARD AND ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT THEY RECONSIDER AND FIND A MORE APPROPRIATE SITE. COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT IF HE WERE TO RECONSIDER, IT WOULD BE ONLY ON AN ECONOMIC BASIS. IN REGARD TO CONSIDERING ANY MORE ARGUMENTS RELATIVE TO SPREAD OF VIRUS, HE STATED THAT HE WOULD ASK MR. SMITH TO GIVE-HI'M1 A HISTORY OF THE EPIDEMICS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE VICINITY OF T'HE-'JOHN'S ISLAND GOLF COURSE OR THE CITY OF VERO BEACH COOLING TOWER.WHI-CH SPRAYS THOUSANDS OF GALLONS INTO THE AIR. HE FELT WE DO NOT HAVE THE FACTS ON EITHER SIDE, BUT NOTED THAT THE ECONOMICS OF THE SITUATION INTRIGUES HIM. ATTORNEY SMITH STATED THAT THE SPRAY OPERATION CAN BE CARRIED OUT SAFELY, BUT NOT FROM THIS KIND OF PLANT. IT MUST BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. COMMISSIONER LOY THANKED MR. SMITH AND HIS CLIENTS FOR BRINGING THIS TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION, BUT STATED THAT BEFORE ANY 30 FURTHER DISCUSSION, SHE WOULD LIKE TO DO SOME INVESTIGATION ON HER [A"Al n CHAIRMAN SIEBERT AGREED AND NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT FEEL THE REQUEST IS WITHOUT MERIT, HE WAS NOT READY TO PASS JUDGMENT ON IT AT THIS POINT. HE ASKED IF THE BOARD FELT IT IS NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE HISTORY OF THE SITE SELECTION. ATTORNEY COLLINS WISHED TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS. HE FELT THE COMMISSION WOULD SUPPORT THE FACT THAT NEITHER HE NOR HIS FIRM HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SELECTION OF THE SITE, WHICH WAS MADE SUB— STANTIALLY BEFORE THE HEARING CAME UP. HE STATED THAT HE DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SMITH AFTER THE HEARING HAD --BEEN HELD, AT WHICH POINT IN TIME THE PLANT HAD BEEN MOVED ONTO THE SITE, -SOIL BORINGS TAKEN, AND THE COUNTY HAD EXPENDED CONSIDERABLE SUMS OF MONEY; PERMITS HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR; PLEADINGS HAD BEEN FILED; ARGUMENTS HAD BEEN HELD; AND THE HEARING OFFICER WAS CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT EVERYONE SHOULD REALIZE THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF VACANT LAND IN THIS AREA. HE AGREED THAT ATTORNEY CALDWELL DID REPRESENT MR. COLE IN THE SALE OF HIS PROPERTY, BUT UNTIL THIS WAS BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION TEN MINUTES AGO, HE DID NOT MAKE ANY CONNECTION. ATTORNEY COLLINS CONTINUED THAT HE BELIEVED ANY COMMENTS ATTORNEY SMITH. HAS MADE ABOUT THIS SITUATION.ARE TOTALLY INACCURATE AND CLOSE TO A SLUR WHICH HE DID NOT APPRECIATE. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THAT ONE OF THE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SELECTION OF THE COUNTY'S PRESENT SITE WAS THE FACT THAT THE PLANT COULD BE ALMOST COMPLETELY HIDDEN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THUS CREATE LESS IMPACT, AND IT ALSO WAS GOOD FOR THE GROWTH OF THE TREES.- HE REITERATED THAT IF, HOWEVER, THE ECONOMICS, INCLUDING THE ENGINEERING, PERMITTING, ETC., OF SOME OTHER SITES ARE BETTER, HE FELT THAT RATHER THAN JUST DISMISS THIS OUT OF HAND, WE SHOULD ASK THE ENGINEERS TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE SITUATION AND BRING IT UP AGAIN IN ANOTHER 30 DAYS. COMMISSIONER LOY AGREED THAT IT BEARS CHECKING.,, BUT SHE DID NOT WISH TO CONSIDER IT ANY{ FURTHER TODAY. 31 ' MAR 1919 _ - _ Bbo 43'`PAGE� R 191980 - WOK .43 .PAGE'° . COMMISSIONER LYONS POINTED OUT THAT IT IS POSSIBLE WE COULD ACQUIRE ANOTHER SITE AND THEN HAVE ANOTHtR 1200 PETITIONS SUBMITTED AGAINST THAT SITE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT THIS COULD ALL TAKE A GOOD DEAL OF TIME, AND ATTORNEY SMITH STATED THAT IF THEY CONTINUE TO PURSUE THIS MATTER WITH ALL THEIR RESOURCES, THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TIME TO ACQUIRE ANOTHER SITE MANY TIMES OVER. HE THANKED THE BOARD FOR LETTING HIM MAKE HIS PRESENTATION. UTILITY DIRECTOR GEORGE LINER CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED UTILITY IMPACT FEES AND PROCEDURES, AND STATED THAT THERE ARE THREE DOCUMENTS IN THE PACKAGE HE SUBMITTED, WHICH HE WOULD LIKE TO START OUT WITH - (1) OUR POSITION ON THE 6TH AVENUE FORCE MAIN, WHICH HE NEEDS TO USE TO INFORM THE DEVELOPERS, (2) PROCEDURES FOR THE UTILITY DEVELOPER EITHER WITHIN THE FRANCHISE OR CONNECTING TO THE COUNTY SYSTEM, AND (3) A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT FOR TYING ONTO THE COUNTY SYSTEM. THERE ARE ALSO TWO PROPOSED ORDINANCES FOR IMPACT FEES AND ONE FOR AN AMENDMENT OF AN EXISTING ORDINANCE. MR. LINER STATED THAT THE IMPACT FEE IS BASED ON THREE COMPONENTS - THE PLANT DEMAND, HYDRAULIC LOAD ON THE MAIN, AND UTILITY INSPECTIONS AND CHARGES BASED ON NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS. MR. LINER NOTED THAT HIS MEMO OF FEBRUARY 15TH IN REGARD TO THE STATUS OF THE 6TH AVENUE FORCE MAIN POINTS OUT THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH REQUIRES THAT THE COUNTY BE ABLE TO METER THE SEWAGE COMING FROM THE FORCE MAINr-AND THE REQUIRED METER CANNOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL SOME TIME IN MAY. HE- -CONTINUED THAT MEETINGS HAVE BEEN HELD WITH THE CITY TO DETERMINE AWAY TO METER THE WATER UNTIL THE SEWAGE METER IS INSTALLED. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF WE HAVE ANYTHING CONCRETE ON THIS, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS NOTHING FORMAL IN WRITING, HE BELIEVED THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE UNDERSTANDING. MR. LINER STATED THAT ACTUALLY THIS TYPE OF THING HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE PENDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY, THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, 32 = HE AND ENGINEER JOHN ROBBINS MET WITH CITY MANAGER .JOHN LITTLE, CITY UTILITY DIRECTOR ELLIOTT GROSH, AND CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR TOM MASON, AND CAME TO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE COULD PROCEED WITH USING THAT FORCE MAIN BEFORE THE METER WAS INSTALLED, ESSENTIALLY UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT WILL BE IN THE COMBINED AGREEMENT. HE BELIEVED THE CITY HAS AGREED THERE IS A MEANS OF METERING THE FLOW AND THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DO IT. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STILL FELT SOMETHING HAS TO BE IN WRITING. MR. LINER NOTED THAT HE HAS HIS MEMO AND THE RESULTS OF THAT MEETING AND FELT FOR THE CHAIRMAN'S PURPOSES, WE COULD HAVE THE CITY AND COUNTY SIGN THOSE DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: MEMORANDUM TO: Developers FROM: G. Liner j �-- SUBJECT: Status of 6th Avenue Force Main DATE: February 15, 1980 Before any developers can tie onto the force main from Vero Mall to the Vero Beach treatment, there are a series of events which are planned to be completed. Some of these are out of my control, but others are being urged to be brought to a head. .These events include the following: 1. Vero Beach requires installation of a special sewage meter to determine the volume of treatment from the force main. This meter has been ordered and will be delivered and installed about eleven to fifteen weeks from now. That will be some time in May. 2. A plan is being drawn up by Beindorf and Associates to offer maximum hydraulic use up to the 600,000 gallons per day capacity of the main and Vero Beach treatment allocation. Specific nodes (loading points) are being planned for flow and pressure parameters that offer the most practical approach. 3. Wholesale rates must be defined by Vero Beach that will give us a basis to come to a firm rate for service that we can tell the customers. Vero Beach is still evaluating the audit by which the treatment rate will be figured. They expect to have this information shortly. 33 MAR 19 19 80 - soon 3 WE' -33 0 BOOK 43 -?AGE 34,.'. -Z- 4. The agreement between Vero Beach, Indian River County, and Indian River Shores is being worked on. This agreement governs how we will work with Vero Beach to obtain the sewage allocation and conditions for connections. The execution of this document is not necessarily a deterrant to providing the sewer service, since this only requires approval of legal wording of principles that have been agreed to by City and County officials. 5. A deposit Or b must be worked out with the customer that protects the county with assurance that the monthly sewage bills are paid as billed, based on volume flow. This agreement is essential before servicing any sewer customers to whom we do not supply water. 6. An equitable method of sharing the impact load on the county's existing and proposed utility systems is essential. I am opposed to anyone tying on to our system before an ordinance for this purpose is approved This requires a financial obligation to the county that will help offset the cost of installation and development for treatment equipment capitalization. 7. The procedure for proper sequence of planning, permitting agreement, and fee assessments should be approved by the County Board of Commissioners. 8. A priority and elegibility procedure should be defined. There are several projects that have different degrees of obligation on the part of the utility that are in various stages of planning and development. These must be evaluated as to how they fit into the procedure documentation sequence - of item 7 before proper priority can be assigned. GL/kh cc: file MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Jennings, Administrator FROM: G. Liner_, Utilities Director SUBJECT: Meeting with Vero Beach about 6th Avenue Force Main DATE: March 5, 1980 John Robbins and I met with John Little, Elliot Grosh and Tom Nason to discuss what can be resolved as to getting customers on the force main. We gave Vero Beach a copy of the loading and node points along the force main up to a total load of 600,000 GPD. Also, copies of the developer prerequisites as to approval procedure and my list of problems to be solved before using the force main, as well as a list of the early expected connection load. On an interim basis, we will be able to connect develop- ments and give Vero Beach the water consumption meter readings so that 100% of water consumption will be billed for sewage. This will not be a deterrant to connection before we get the master sewage meter. The city auditor is not through with the records, but the bulk sewer rates will be between $1.05 to $1.10 per thousand gallons. Part of the treatment plant is shut down for efficiency." For planning purposes, when the load is sufficient to require the other part of the plant to go on line, the rates will take a quantum jump. We were advised to plan to have Vero Mall as a county sewer customer so that the service will not be divided between City and County. To do this we may need to review the Vero Mall agreement as to whether they must be negotiated with for permission to do this. Nevertheless -;-papers must be drawn up for the legal transfer of ownership of t_he Force Main from Vero Beach to Indian River County..-.. Once the sewage meter is installed, we will need a double check against the treated volume we will bill to our customers. Since we will be billed for everything at the master meter, we must make sure there is no infiltration or illegal connections of non -potable water, i.e.; air conditioning coolant, storm runoff, etc. We must continue to bill customers proportional to their water usage so that we will be covered - as well as checking water consumption against metered sewage. I inquired about a different rate system for Mid -Florida so that we have the option of using less than 100,000 gallons per'day we are being billed for - or possibly some type of planning whereby the moratorium might be lifted. Elliot suggested that since the city is expanding the water plant treatment by 5 MGD, we may want to contract for a larger allocation on an interim basis until our water plant is on line. To implement any variation for the South County agreement, the city will require information on the county's Utility Planning Schedule (being prepared per new City/County/Town agreement). Perhaps any new arrangement proposed for the South County System can be readied in time for the agreement being reviewed and edited now. The question was raised as to whether the county has to pay their unit connection charges. The conclusion was that for a bulk system not belonging to Vero Beach, no connection fees will be paid to the city. The city is agreeable to allow us to use the Force Main as we may plan. The remaining problems to be implemented, have to be accomplished by Indian River County. GL/kh cc: Neil Nelson Joe Collins file MAR 1919x0 CC 6 � -}lLc.. �C. f L_ "BOOK 43 PAGE 35 MAR 191980 - . - soon 43 Pncf 3� . 0 ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT THIS MATTER IS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CITY MANAGER LITTLE AND THAT IT IS NO'f NECESSARY FOR IT TO -GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL -COUNTY COMMISSION LEVEL, THOUGH HE AGREED THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING IN WRITING. ENGINEER ROBBINS CONFIRMED THAT CITY MANAGER LITTLE STATED HE FELT IT WOULD BENEFIT BOTH POLITICAL ENTITIES TO GO AHEAD AND TRANSFER THAT LINE,WHICH IS UNDER THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT WITH THE MALL TO THE COUNTY. MR. ROBBINS FELT THAT WOULD SERVE AS THE FORMAL ACTIVITY TO WHICH THE CHAIRMAN IS REFERRING. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THEY WILL GET SOMETHING IN WRITING. UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER THEN EXPLAINED ITEM Z OF HIS MEMO, WHICH REFERS TO A PLAN WORKED UP BY BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES TO GET FULL UTILIZATION OF THE CAPACITY OF THE FORCE MAIN. HE STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THE PLANS DEVELOPED BY THE ENGINEERS. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF WE STILL HAVE A 600,000 GALLON ALLOCATION FOR THIS LINE, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS AND COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT BASICALLY THAT IS TRUE. GEORGE LINER DISCUSSED ITEM 3 OF HIS MEMO NOTING THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH STILL DOESN'T HAVE THE COMPLETE AUDIT THEY NEED, BUT THEY DO KNOW THEY WILL BE IN AN OPERATING RANGE OF ABOUT $1.10 PER 1,000 GALLONS FOR SEWAGE,;WHICH IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THEY TOLD US A YEAR AGO. MR, LINER CONTINUED THAT THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN VERO BEACH, THE COUNTY_AND-INDIAN RIVER SHORES IS BEING WORKED ON, AND HE DID NOT BELIEVE WE N-E-ED -TO -WAIT UNTIL ALL LEGAL POINTS ON THIS AGREE- MENT ARE WORKED OUT --UNTIL WE PROCEED ON THE 6TH AVENUE MAIN. CONCERNING ITEM -5 OF HIS MEMO, MR. LINER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IT IS A PECULIAR PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH A CUSTOMER WHERE YOU PROVIDE SEWER ONLY SERVICE, AND HE, THEREFORE, IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE GO TO A SIZABLE DEPOSIT TO BE WORKED OUT IN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER THAT WILL PROTECT THE COUNTY. HE FELT THIS CAN BE DONE WITH THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT FORM PRESENTED IN HIS PACKAGE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF THERE ISN'T A DER REQUIREMENT THAT THOSE WITHIN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FEET MUST HOOK UP TO THE LINE. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS INVOLVED THAN JUST THE LINE BEING IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, AND JOHN BOBBINS STATED THAT NORMALLY THIS REQUIREMENT IS RELATIVE TO A REGIONAL FACILITY IN WHICH FEDERAL FUNDS ARE INVOLVED. ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT FEEL THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS. HE NOTED THAT AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY CONTEMPLATE THAT THE CUSTOMERS IN RANGE OF THAT LINE WILL HOOK UP, MR. LINER CONTINUED THAT ITEM 6 REFERS TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR THE IMPACT FEES, AND STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE ORDINANCES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME WE ACCEPT PEOPLE ON THIS MAIN SO WE CAN FULLY REALIZE THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO THE CQUNTY FOR THE SERVICES WE ARE PROVIDING. ITEM % REFERS TO THE PROCEDURE FOR THE PROPER SEQUENCE OF PLANNING, PERMITTING, AND FEE ASSESSMENT, MR. LINER STATED THAT THERE ARE MANY PROJECTS WHERE THINGS HAVE GOTTEN INTO THE WRONG SEQUENCE, AND HE WISHES THE BOARD TO APPROVE THIS IN ORDER TO PRECLUDE THIS HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE. MR. LINER STATED THAT A PRIORITY AND ELIGIBILITY PROCEDURE SHOULD BE DEFINED, AND HE FELT THIS IS WHERE HE IS LOOKING FOR THE MOST HELP FROM THE BOARD. HE BELIEVED EVERYTHING WILL FALL IN LINE PRETTY WELL IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO CHARGE THE IMPACT FEES AND THE DEVELOPERS FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE SPECIFIC ACTION NEEDED, AND CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT IF WE ESTABLISH AN IMPACT FEE, IT HAS TO BE DONE BY ORDINANCE AND HEARINGS HELD, AND MR. LINER APPARENTLY IS RECOMMENDING WE DON T TIE ANYONE ON UNTIL WE HAVE SUCH AN ORDINANCE IN EFFECT. MR. LINER STATED'THAT HE WISHED TO FIND A WAY TO PROCEED WITH THOSE PEOPLE WHO WANT EARLY CONNECTION. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT IF THE BOARD IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE UTILITY DIRECTORS APPROACH, WE CAN ASK HIM TO COME BACK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE PROPOSED IMPACT FEES AND THEN ALLOW CONNECTION WITH THE PAYMENT OF THE PROPOSED IMPACT FEES WHILE WE GO THROUGH THE ORDINANCE PROCESS. 0 37 40 PAGE 37 MAR 19 1980 - MAR 191980 Pact `$ COMMISSIONER DEESON ASKED ABOUT ITEM 5 WHERE IT SAYS "A DEPOSIT OR BONDING AGREEMENT MUST BE WORED OUT." HE FELT IT WOULD BE SIMPLER TO ELIMINATE THE BONDING AGREEMENT, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF WE AREN�T ON SHAKY GROUND IF WE SAY WE WILL ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH A DEVELOPER BASED ON AN ORDINANCE WE MAY OR MAY NOT APPROVE. ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT WE HAVE BEEN MAKING INDI- VIDUAL CONTRACTS WITH DEVELOPERS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT WE MUST KEEP MOVING, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS BELIEVED WE ARE PRESENTING A BASIC ORDINANCE IN THE PACKAGE, AND HE FELT WE CAN GO TO A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN DISCUSS IT. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD PERTAIN ONLY TO 6TH AVENUE, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS ANSWERED THAT IT WOULD PERTAIN TO ALL SYSTEMS IN THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA. COMMISSIONER LOY NEXT ASKED IF THESE ARE THE SAME FIGURES AS FOR WATER, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED HER THAT WE ARE PRESENTLY CHARGING $ZOO FOR CONNECTION, BUT WE ARE SUGGESTING $250. ENGINEER JAMES BEINDORF WISHED TO DISCUSS A SPECIFIC PROJECT ON 6TH AVENUE. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE DEVELOPERS OF TROPIC GROVE ARE PRESENT AT TODAY'S MEETING, AND THEY HAVE FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURES MR. LINER HAS OUTLINED. THE PROBLEM THESE DEVELOPERS ARE FACING IS ONE OF TIMING. MR. BEINDORF CONTINUED THAT HE IS CONFUSED AS TO IMPACT FEES-AND"ESCROW. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLI-SH-THESE FEES WHERE A FRANCHISE IS REQUIRED AND ASKED IF THERE IS.AN-Y WAY FOR TROPIC GROVE TO TIE INTO THE SEWER SYSTEM AS OF MARCH 31ST BECAUSE THEY ARE IN A REAL FINANCIAL BIND. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE FELT THAT IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THE COUNTY HAS ENTERED INTO A FRANCHISE REQUIRING CERTAIN CONNECTION FEES, THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE BOUND BY THAT REGARDLESS OF THE IMPACT FEES THEY CHARGE. TO THE NON -FRANCHISED AREAS. THE BOARD AGREED. HE BELIEVED THE IMPACT FEES WILL APPLY 0 DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT VERO MALL IS THE ONLY ONE ON THE 6TH AVENUE SEWER LINE AT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LYONS DID NOT KN0W WHY WE HAVE TO HOLD UP TROPIC GROVES, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THE BOARD COULD GIVE WHATEVER APPROVAL IS NECESSARY AND THEN LET COUNTY OFFICIALS WORK THE MATTER OUT WITH CITY OFFICIALS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT AGAIN EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE REQUIRE- MENT FOR THE SEWAGE METER AND SOME CONCRETE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY IN THIS REGARD. ENGINEER ROBBINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IN THEIR TECHNICAL DISCUSSION WITH CITY MANAGER LITTLE, HE STATED THAT HIS RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD BE TO ALLOW THE COUNTY TO UTILIZE THE FORCE MAIN PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE METER AS LONG AS A DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED TRANSFERRING THE LINE TO THE COUNTY AND ASSURING THAT THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE SOME MEANS OF METERING THE FLOW IN THE FORCE MAIN AND THAT CITY PERSONNEL WOULD ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE METER READINGS; IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WOULD BE A TEMPORARY METHOD OF READING SEWAGE LOADS, AND ALL PEOPLE WHO WERE ALL0WED TO TIE IN ON A TEMPORARY BASIS WOULD BE EITHER ON A COMMUNITY SYSTEM OR SOME METERED WATER SYSTEM. SEWAGE WOULD BE BILLED ON A BASIS OF 100% OF WATER USE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NOT ANOTHER CITY COUNCIL MEETING BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH 31ST, UNLESS THEY HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING, AND HE DID NOT SEE HOW THE COUNTY CAN TELL TROPIC GROVE THEY CAN HOOK UP WITHOUT THE CITY'S APPROVAL. MR. BEINDORF COMMENTED THAT A LITTLE OVER $400,000 HAS BEEN SPENT ON THE TROPIC GROVE PROJECT, INCLUDING A SYSTEM WHICH SHOULD BE READY TO BE TIED ON BY MARCH 31ST, AND TROPIC GROVES IS SAYING IF THERE IS ANY WAY IT CAN BE DONE, THEY NEED HELP. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT ALL OF US ARE COGNIZANT OF THE MONEY SITUATION THESE DAYS AND STATED HE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO ASKING MAYOR SCURLOCK IF THE COUNCIL WOULD ACT IF WE HAD AN AGREEMENT WE COULD GIVE THEM WHICH WOULD OPEN UP THE TROPIC GROVE MATTER. I u 39 MAR i 91��0 BOOK, -43 fm 39 - MAR 19 19 80 43 FacE 44 CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED HOW WE GET TO A POINT WHERE WE LEGALLY CHANGE THE AGREEMENT TO ALLOW TROPIC GROVE TO DO THIS, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT FEEL THERE IS ANY CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE CITY WILL BE BILLING FOR A WHILE. COMMISSIONER Loy COMMENTED THAT IT WOULD BE AN ARRANGEMENT SIMILAR TO THAT WITH THE VERO MALL. ENGINEER JOHN ROBBINS NOTED THAT DISCUSSIONS WERE HELD IN THE LIGHT THAT THE COUNTY WOULD ACQUIRE THE LINE AND PEOPLE TYING ON WOULD BE COUNTY CUSTOMERS. THE PRESENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, COUNTY AND VERO MALL OUTLINES PROCEDURES FOR TRANSFER OF THAT LINE. HE BELIEVED THE CITY SAID THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF LEGAL DOCUMENT TRANSFERRING THE LINE AND STATING THAT THERE WOULD BE A METHODOLOGY BY WHICH METERING COULD TAKE -PLACE. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT YOU ARE ASKING THE COUNTY TO AGREE TO ACCEPT THE LINE, AND MR, ROBBINS NOTED THAT THERE SHOULD ALSO BE AN AGREEMENT OF SOME FORM BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE DEVELOPER BY WHICH IMPACT FEES ARE OBTAINED. ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT THAT IS SET OUT IN THEIR. FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, AND THAT THE ACTION MR, ROBBINS IS LOOKING FOR IS AN ACT OF AGREEING TO ACCEPT THE LINE NOW AND ONCE THE TRANSFER IS TAKEN OVER TO ACCEPT TROPIC GROVE AS A CUSTOMER. THIS WOULD NECESSITATE A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION TO SIGN SUCH DOCUMENTS. AS ARE NECESSARY TO TRANSFER THE LINE TO THE COUNTY. CHAIRMAN- SIEBERT BROUGHT UP THE MATTER OF ACCEPTING TROPIC GROVE AS A CUSTOMER—WITHOUT THE METER. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT ADMINISTRA- TIVELY AND THAT WE DO HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING AND CAN GET ADMINISTRA- TIVE LETTERS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT EXPRESSED CONCERN BECAUSE THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT CALLS FOR. COMMISSIONER L.OY NOTED THAT FOR THE NEXT STEP WE NEED METERS AND THEN PROCEDURES FOR PUTTING PEOPLE ON THE LINE AND THEY WILL BE COUNTY CUSTOMERS. THOSE CUSTOMERS WILL PAY US, AND WE WILL PAY THE CITY. � Lin O ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THE COUNTY WILL BE READING THE WATER METERS AND THE CITY WILL BE READING THEM ALSO TO VERIFY THE FIGURES. COMMISSIONER Loy INQUIRED WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN WHO DOES NOT HAVE A FRANCHISE, AND MR. LINER STATED THAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED PROCEDURES. MR. ROBBINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IN THEIR DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY, THEY INDICATED TO CITY MANAGER LITTLE BY WRITTEN COMMUNICA- TION, A SUMMARY OF THE POTENTIAL PROJECTS IN_THE AREA. THEREFORE, THE CITY IS AWARE THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIAL. PEOP_LE_WHO THE COUNTY WOULD TIE ON, AND THEY PLACED RESPONSIBILITY FOR READING METERS ON THE COUNTY, AND THE CITY WOULD SUBMIT A BILL FOR SEWAGE BASED ON THE WATER READINGS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF WE CAN ACCOMPLISH ALL THIS BY ACCEPTING THE SEWER LINE, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS BELIEVED THERE HAS TO BE AN ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY IN REGARD TO THE SEWER LINE. .JOHN ROBBINS NOTED THAT THEY HAVE DEFINED THE VEHICLE BY WHICH CONNECTIONS CAN BE TIED ON PRIOR TO THE METER INSTALLATION. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER LOY AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ACCEPTING DOCUMENTS ON THE 6TH AVENUE SEWER LINE AND SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS TO BE MADE ON THE BILLING. MR. ROBBINS COMMENTED THAT THE MASTER AGREEMENT SAYS THAT AT SUCH TIME AS THE COUNTY PROVIDES THE MALL WITH WATER, THE CITY WILL TURN THE MALL OVER TO THE COUNTY AS A SEWER CUSTOMER. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE VERO MALL HAS ABOUT 20,000 GPD AND WE MAY OR MAY NOT WANT TO TAKE IT RIGHT AWAY. COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE FELT THE MOTION IS CON- SISTENT WITH THE MEETING THEY HAD WHERE THEY, IN EFFECT, SAID TO THE TWO ADMINISTRATIONS It SEE WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. It HE NOTED THAT THIS ISN'T THE ULTIMATE WAY WE ARE GOING TO MEASURE, BUT IT DOES GET US OFF DEAD CENTER. ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM, BUT BOTH GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES HAVE SEEN WORKING ON IT, AND HE DID NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A CONFLICT RIGHT NOW. 41 -MAR 19198_ Q -- _ #60K MAR 19 1900 - - - 0 coax .43 PAcE 42 THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED,..,ON AND, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES, THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT,AND THE SEQUENCE OF PROCEDURES. MR. LINER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IN PREPARING THE SEQUENCE OF PROCEDURES, HE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF WHO AGREED THIS WAS AN AREA IN WHICH WE WERE QUITE DEFICIENT. HE CONTINUED THAT THE PROCEDURE IS LAID OUT SO THE PROCESS WILL COVER TYING ON TO EITHER THE COUNTY SYSTEM OR A FRANCHISE SYSTEM. DISCUSSION CONTINUED ABOUT WHAT DEPARTMENT THIS WILL BE STAFFED THROUGH, AND MR. LINER NOTED THAT ESSENTIALLY IT TIES THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENTS, THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD TOGETHER. COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE WAS HEARTILY IN AGREEMENT WITH WRITING OUT THE PROCEDURES. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED THE PROCEDURE FOR DOCUMENTATION, APPROVAL, AND FUNDING SEQUENCE FOR.UTILITY DEVELOPMENT SET OUT ON THE PAGES MARKED 60 THROUGH 63 OF THE PACKAGE SUBMITTED BY THE UTILITY DIRECTOR. SAID DOCUMENT IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES. _ 42 PROCEDURE FOR DOCUMENTATION, APPROVAL, AND FUNDING SEQUENCE FOR UTILITY DEVELOPMENT This procedure is applicable whether a development is first initiate( or being expanded. An orderly sequence of applying for and obtaining utilities results when this procedure is observed by all developers. Any other sequence will lead to confusion and probably a waste of time and money. This sequence is consistent with existing and pending ordinances. Step 1 - Included with data submitted for a plat or site plan approvE the developer must have information as to the planning for water and sewer utilities. The information shall be in three copies of a report, signed and sealed, by the developer's engineer. The following type of information shall be included in the report: Number of units. Type of units. Total daily flow requirements. *Method of treatment for water *Treatment quality. Metering concept. and waste water. Specifications for hardware components Number of hydrants and spacing. Any other pertinent utility plans: - and installation methods. (*required unless project will be connected to county utilities system.) This report will be reviewed by the Utilities Director and when found to be suitable, shall be conceptually approved. One copy, stamped and signed, shall be returned to the developer's engineer; one copy shall be retained for the Planning and Zoning Department files; and one copy shall be retained for the Utility Department project file. This stage of planning requires the use of the developer's engineer, but the details of the system need not be completed until Steps C-2 or F-6 as indicated on the sequence diagram. In the event the development is to be franchised, the application must be prepared and submitted as required by the county ordinances and regulations. If the development will be connected to a county system, confirmation of this intent must be obtained through the above described conceptual approval. After the site plan is approved, the exact sequence depends whether the development is to be connected to an existing county system or whether the developer must have a franchise system. Referring to the sequence diagram, the description below will cover Steps C-2 through C-4 or F-2 through F-7; then 8 through 11. Connection to County System Step C-2 - Where the developer will connect to an existing county water system and/or waste water system, the developer can obtain from the Utilities Department preliminary information on the requirements. Two copies of a blank agreement form will be given to the developer which spell out his obligations and the county obligations. The developer must retain an engineer who will plan, oversee and certify that installation of the system meets the plans and specifications. Four sets of signed and sealed plans will be submitted to the county for approval.. The county will review the plans as to completeness, meeting specs, compliance with master plans and ordinances. Any changes will be.reviewed with the developer's engineer. The plans will then be amended to comply with requirements. The Utilities Director will approve the plans when they meet requirements by signing the four sets of plans and specs and returninc_- one signed set to the developer's engineer. It is this set of plans which must be used for the utility construction. Any subsequent revisions shall require approval for those* changes. A l MAR 191980 Booz. 43. PacE 4 Boob .43 PAGE 44 Step C-3 - As part of discussions with the developer and his engineer, the Developer's Agreement Form will be completed and executed. The related fees, all spelled out in the agreement., state that some fees are payable "up -front" before the DER applications are executed and some are payable prior to meter installation. The fees assessed will be according to county ordinances. Step C-4 - The approved plans and specs will be forwarded through the Technical Review Committee of the county to the Board of County Commissioners for its approval of the project. The package to the Board will include the Developer's Agreement. Approval discussion will normally be scheduled at a regular meeting of the Board. Development Franchise If the developer requires a franchise, a different sequence is re- quired as shown on the sequence diagram. Step F-2 - The County Ordinance and Franchise Procedure spells out the information package contents that must be submitted to the county in applying for a franchise. The major part of this information must be submitted for review before the site plan can be approved. Any questions raised by the county or other agencies must be answered to the satisfactior of the Board of County Commissioners and be included as part of the fran- chise application package. Step F-3 - When the package is considered to be complete, the package is reviewed by the appropriate offices of the county and forwarded with recommendations for approval to the Board of County Commissioners when it is satisfied with the package. Step F-4 - The Board will normally review the franchise applications at a regularly scheduled Board meeting. The Board will approve the fran- chise and all provisos as contained in the application package. Step F-5 - The Franchise Resolution will be prepared and executed per the provisos of the approved franchise package. Step F-6 - The next logical step is the preparation and delivery to the county of three sets of plans and specs. The county will follow a review and approval procedure as described in Step C-2 except the approval of the Board had been previously obtained for the franchises. Since one of the conditions of a franchise is the provision for the county eventually to operate and maintain the system, we are vitally interested in having the most reliable and readily maintainable systems. This is the reason for the careful attention to the specifications and inspections that are planned and will be provided. The plans that are approved are the plans that are to be later submitted to the DER with the application. Step F-7 - In this step, any fees required by ordinance or resolution will be paid. In addition, the escrow account as required for ERC pro- visions of the resolution will be established. This fund will be available to the county to help offset the expense of the plant capacity and hy- draulic mains for connecting the franchised system to the county system. The following steps apply whether the utilities are part of the county system or a franchise system. Step 8 - The developer's engineer will forward the correct number of copies of the DER application to the county. The form will be checked for accuracy of the figures. If the plans had passed through the approval cycle and all applicable fees paid, the applications will be executed and forwarded to the -engineer for permit processing. Step 9 - The DER, upon reviewing the application, will issue the permits as requested. After the permits are received, the developer can proceed with the utility installation as approved. Step 10 - Inspections and acceptance testing as required by county, state and federal regulations will be completed before the system can be put into service. These include pressure tests, disinfection, bacteria analysis, as -built plans, lift -station start up, certifications, etc., as required by regulation. �CvnnENT4T10N, APPROAND FWNr:)I (l S KcE Fclz UTI DEVELoPeAE-N i' I. PLAT orZ SITE PLAXJ APPQo VAL u T -i b t Sy s Ti %-T9Lo(%MEwr ON Cot>>vrli SySTEAA t:-2.. E,jof?jEE2IW6 PLA"S AW) 5pers Svt3A+trrt: b Fotz (f0W *tY REVIEW tMD APPaOVAL AWa AEcoMMEwAAT7o" 'M (3 oA2D C.3. exec-c�i'1= D�VEt,ot'€'tZS A&r- EMe�NT- 2. PAY FE& -S C -N - GoAtz D APPrzo VAL- e>r PAca1Er-T PAC #4AV&E urtt-try eomcep'T-.Ac. ApPRoVAL. F'12Awr-H 15 C-7 F-2. VostA 'r F"a-%PcHtSE APPLIC.^ AT104S Pem CaDI "AMC! M. AN'D F'fd.�4NCt-t tS� t2EGout...°�i'taNg • PPPLtcl'�TtoV� A►�D (2teco�Mt:►aDATtc _ _-. _ _- • _ •'T'° �oA2D Ot:' Ce�MtSStOJu�RS P.- Execvrc UE:- Z, APPLIChnOwg I -oft pammfrs I 12lrcetve ALS- Pegttrs I I0. Pttoc � e'n wtrM DaveLOPMt:t.+r AS p"40 b (I• iiV gpecrimm of COMPLETEO tint - tri L,5 urtLtrY ''Appac At. W/LL 13z TRAJOTTIrb By E'KlECVTED STA p AS Stlowm ; F -H- BoAaD AfP2ovAi-- Or' FRA"C"tSG eAcKAGC IF-5• F2At•CHISE AESOLOTICAJ t`XEt'. IrimC). F-Cp. ENGrNEt=tztt-++ca Pt-A#J , S. - SPF -CS Suibm t7- iq Jtw t'oupTV Fort APPta0VAt_ F-7 • PAyMEUT OF- tAPPLICAOLP- FtES c% EsrhpL_tSttiwG esF' Cot�n•Ty t=.SCa2de.� ACGovi.rt PLANS WERE REVIEWED AND APPROVED EXCEPT AS NOTED. ,UTILITIES DIRECTOR DATE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTIL. DEPT. P.O. BOX 1750 _ MAR 19 WO- -- ,' . -- - Q eEAF�Ac����� MAR 191980- - _ BOOK- 43 PAGE 46 . ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED THE FORM OF THE DEVELOPER'S Ir AGREEMENT AS PROPOSED BY THE UTILITY DIRECTOR, SAID AGREEMENT FORM BEING AS FOLLOWS: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA D E V E L O P E R' S A G R E E M E N T For EXTENSION AND INSTALLATION OF WATER AND/OR SEWAGE FACILITIES AND SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 19 , by and between hereinafter sometimes called DEVELOPERS, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, hereinafter sometimes called COUNTY: WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, DEVELOPERS desire to have water service and/or sanitary.sewage disposal service made available to certain property located in Indian River County, Florida, described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof: and WHEREAS, COUNTY is a supplier of public water supply service and sanitary sewage disposal service to the area in which DEVELOPER'S property herein described is situated; NOW, THEREFORE, said COUNTY and said DEVELOPERS do agree that such installation for the herein described property will be made in the manner herein provided, to -wit: 1. DEVELOPERS represent that they have engaged r •a F PA Y 6 43 PACE : 47 I MAR 19 1980 Boa ' 43 eAu 48 Civil Engineer, registered in the State of Florida, hereinafter sometimes called DEVELOPERS ENGINEER, to prepare plans and specifications for the construction and installation of the required water distribution lines and appurtenances so as to make water service available to the property herein described; and/or to prepare plans and specifications for the construction and installation of all the gravity sewer lines and anniirtPnanePA necessary to bring sewage collection service to the said property; and/or to prepare plans and specifications for the construction,- and installation of all sanitary sewage force mains and/or lift or pumping stations to introduce sewage from the said sewage collection system into the COUNTY'S existing sewage collection and treatment system; all in accordance with applicable specifi- cations and regulations of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, The Indian River County Health Department, Indian River County Utilities, Vero Beach Utility Specifications, and regulations of all other governmental agencies exercising jurisdiction over the same in said area. 2. DEVELOPERS hereby further agree - to notify UTILITIES 48 hours before digging and to construct or cause to be construc- ted in accordance with the said specifications as prepared by the said DEVELOPERS ENGINEER and in accordance with all the applicable regulations and ordinances of cognizant public authorities, and in accordance with the rules, regulations, specifications and requirements of COUNTY applicable to such installations, and including specifically the restoration of all paving, planting, sod and/or other features of the terrain disturbed by said work as nearly as possible to their original condition in the opinion of COUNTY'S Inspector, and in accordance with all of said regula- tions and/or ordinances; and including all surveyor's or engineer's layout or stakeout of the work, all of the facilities shown on said plans prepared by the said DEVELOPERS ENGINEER, As approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and the COUNTY Utilities Director, under the engineering supervision of the said DEVELOPERS ENGINEER, subject to inspection, direction, and approval by the Utilities Inspector of Indian River County, Florida; wholly at DEVELOPERS cost and expense, including all fees assessed by COUNTY'S Consulting Engineer for special approval of design and including all inspection, approval and/or permit fees assessed against the work by the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, and all fees charged by the said DEVELOPERS ENGINEER for design and supervision. 3. Pursuant to the Code of Ordinances of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, Florida, by separate agreement to be attached as Exhibit "B", payments to COUNTY of the plant capacity fee, hydraulic share of existing mains, and engineering review and utility inspections shall be paid as designated upon execution of the Department of Environmental Regulation Applications. 4. Upon completion and acceptance of the facilities to be constructed as hereinabove described, DEVELOPERS do hereby further agree, to convey, transfer and deliver to COUNTY by a properly executed, recordable instrument, free and clear of all encumbrances or liens, all of the facilities so constructed and installed ,as a capital contribution -in -aid -of -construction in consideration of the substantial benefit to the said property which the availability of water and sanitary sewer service will constitute. -2- M Upon the completion, delivery, and acceptance of the facilities herein described, COUNTY does agree to make available water and sanitary sewer service to that portion of the above described property served by the facilities so constructed, conveyed and accepted in accordance with COUNTY'S tariffs as they shall be lawfully constituted from time to time; however, DEVELOPERS do hereby agree that there shall be no obligation on the part of COUNTY under this Agreement or under any public utility law to furnish water service and/or sanitary sewer service to any portion of the within described properties unless and until all of the proposed facilities designed to serve such portion have been constructed, conveyed and accepted as provided herein. 5. DEVELOPERS hereby further agree to dedicate and/or cause to be dedicated by others to the use of the public forever such perpetual easements and/or rights-of-way within DEVELOPERS property or in or upon the lands to be traversed by the faci- lities herein contemplated to be constructed by good engineering practice, as determined by the said Engineers, and/or cognizant governmental authorities, as each phase is completed. 6. It is further understood and agreed that the installation of water meters and connection of water services to individual lots or buildings in the area proposed to be served and the connection of sewer services to such individual lots or buildings will be at the expense of the lot or building owners in the manner customarily provided for other customers of COUNTY'S Utilities Department. DEVELOPERS further agree that no structures or service will be completed unless provided with installed meters as required. Meters will be purchased from and be installed by the COUNTY as engineering plans call for. Service will be provided after mains have been inspected and disinfected as required, and after as -built drawings delivered to COUNTY. 7. DEVELOPERS further agree to install traffic type fire hydrants. It is further understood and agreed that if the DEVELOPER or builder decides that it is necessary to reposition a hydrant, even though the hydrant was installed and positioned correctly according to the plans, then in such cases the DEVELOPER or builder must arrange for the moving of the hydrant, and pay the cost thereof. 8. This Agreement and the provisions hereof shall not be deemed to create a joint venture between the signatories hereto. Neither party shall have the power or authority to incur any obligations or liabilities which will be binding upon the other party. 9. DEVELOPERS further agree that DEVELOPERS will observe all of the Ordinances in relation to obtaining permits for occupying, excavating or in any way obstructing the streets and alleys of JNDIAN RIVER COUNTY. Any expense so incurred shall be borne by DEVELOPERS. 10. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of DEVELOPERS, COUNTY and their respective assigns and corporate successors by merger, consolidation, conveyance, and/or legislative action. -3- MAR 191990 WOK :4 PACE 49 MAR 19 19 80 9Qm 43 PAGE 50 I 11. This Agreement shall be governed by the Laws of the State of Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE parties hereto have set their rG hands and seals the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and Delivered in the presence of us: BY: ATTEST: (DEVELOPERS) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: UTILITIES DIRECTOR ATTEST: Attachments: Exhibit "A" (Legal Description) Exhibit "B" (Committment Agreement) - -4- r • n 1 I , EIVIIBIT "B" INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COMMITTMENT AGREEMENT TO DEFINE DEVELOPMENT FEES 1. DEVELOPER PHONE 2. ADDRESS 3. PROJECT NAME PROJECT FILE NO. 4. INTENDED USE ACREAGE 5. METER SIZE 6. EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS ERC 7. ANTICIPATED FLOW GPD 8. PLAN REVIEW AND UTILITY INSPECTION $ 9. PLANT AVAILABILITY CHARGE $ 10. HYDRAULIC SHARE OF EXISTING LINES $ 11. REFUNDABLE ADVANCE $ SUB -TOTAL $ 12. METER INSTALLATION $ (Size) 13. SECURITY DEPOSIT $ TOTAL $ ITEMS 8,:9; 10 AND 11 ARE PAYABLE UPON EXECUTION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL.REGULATION PERMITS. ITEMS 12 AND 13 ARE PAYABLE PRIOR TO METER INSTALLATION. r y %r •f ; 1 ±I 1 r r 1' 1 MAR 191980 _ aoox< X43 PAGE 51 MAR 191980 900K 43 PAGE 52; ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROMULGATING A UNIFORM SET OF CHARGES FOR NEW CONNECTIONS TO THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY SYSTEMS AND AN ORDINANCE PRESCRIBING A UNIFORM METHOD OF DETERMINING THE COST OF EXTENSION OF MAINS FOR SANITARY SEWER AND/OR WATER SERVICE. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT HE AND UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER BOTH IDEALLY FEEL THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD HAVE A UNIFORM SET OF RATES, AND AS WE EXPAND WE NEED TO HAVE A SET OF RATES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE EXPANDED AREAS. AT PRESENT THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF RATES IN THE COUNTY. THEY ARE, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNTY CONSIDER AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A COUNTYWIDE RATE SCHEDULE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED ADVERTISEMENT OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE N0. 78-34 AS PRESENTED BY UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER, SETTING RATES TO BE APPLIED UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER THEREUPON RECESSED AT 12:10 01CLOCK P.M. FOR LUNCH AND RECONVENED AT 1:45 WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT,, COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOW BEING IN ATTENDANCE. ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED ON THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY, THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES AND STATED THAT THE POSTURE WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE COUNTY PEOPLE HAVE ALL GONE THROUGH THE AGREEMENT AND MADE SUGGESTIONS. THE ATTORNEY CONTINUED THAT HE HAS TAKEN THOSE SUGGESTIONS AND HAS MET WITH CITY ATTORNEY TOM PALMER FOR MANY HOURS OVER THREE DAYS' TIME, AND HE FEELS THEY NOW BASICALLY HAVE AN AGREEMENT OF WHAT THEY THINK THEIR RESPECTIVE CLIENTS AGREE TO. MR. COLLINS NOTED THAT THEY HAVE HAD NO INPUT FROM THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, BUT HE FELT THAT WITH OR WITHOUT INPUT FROM THE TOWN, WE SHOULD STRIVE TO SEEK AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND THAT THE BURDEN NOW WAS ON HIM TO REDRAFT THE DOCUMENTS AND PUT THEM IN ORDER. COMMISSIONER LYONS COMMENTED THAT THE ONE ITEM IN THIS REGARD HE MENTIONED AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING WAS THE QUESTION OF FINANCING THE WATER/SEWER LINE IN THE SOUTH BEACH AREA. HE STATED THAT HE HAS DISCUSSED THIS WITH COORDINATOR THOMAS, WHO HAS REVIEWED IT WITH HOUGH & COMPANY, AND IT APPEARS, IF WE WANT TO PROCEED ALONG THE LINE OF AN ASSESSMENT ROLL, THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM WITH HAVING A BOND ISSUE BACKED BY THE ASSESSMENT ROLL. HOUGH & CO. INFORMED THEM THAT THEY AND OTHERS HAVE FINANCED A NUMBER OF PROJECTS THIS WAY, AND THEY, IN FACT, FEEL THAT THE BONDS WOULD -SELL (QUITE EASILY BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE RELATIVELY SHORT TERM BONDS - PROBABLY UP TO 10 YEARS. HE REITERATED THAT THIS HAD BEEN ONE OF THE MAJOR --STUMBLING BLOCKS AS FAR AS THE CITY WAS CONCERNED, AND HE NOW ANTICIPATES"NO PROBLEM WITH THE FINANCING. COMMISSIONER Loy INQUIRED ABOUT ALLOCATIONS, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT WE STILL HAVE THE 600,000 GPD FOR THE 6TH AVENUE AREA AND ADEQUATE GALLONAGE FOR SOUTH BEACH, AND THEN THERE IS ABOUT 540,000 GPD.FOR INDIAN RIVER SHORES. HE NOTED THAT THESE ARE THE FIGURES THAT HAVE BEEN KICKED BACK AND FORTH CONTINUOUSLY BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF THIS REDUCES THE ALLOCATION IN GIFFORD, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT IT DOES. NOT BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING SEWER AND THE ONLY ALLOCATION IN GlIFFORD IS WATER. HE CONTINUED THAT IT DOES REDUCE THE SEWER IN SOUTH REACH BY THE EXCLUDING OF MANY OF THE EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS SO IT SEEMS FEASIBLE FOR THE SHORT TERM (5-7 YEARS) OR UNTIL THE ALLOCATION IS FREED UP ON 6TH ,AVENUE WHEN IT IS SERVED BY THE COUNTY PLANT. HE FELT IT WILL BE SUFFICIENT BECAUSE OF THE SEPTIC TANKS ON THE BEACH SIDE AND THE AVAILABILITY OF PACKAGE PLANTS ON THE RIVER SIDE. COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HIS FINAL RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE OUGHT TO FINANCE ONCE AND FOR ALL THE RIGHT SIZE LINES FOR SEWER AND WATER AND GET IT OVER WITH. HE INQUIRED WHEN THE BOARD WILL GET THE REDRAFTED DOCUMENTS, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE WOULD TRY TO HAVE THEM BY THE NEXT MEETING. r 0 53 BOOK 4, PA . GEc3 MAR 19 1980 MAR 191980 - - - oox ` 43 PdcE_ 51 CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT ITEM 15, AN APPEAL OF THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SITE PLA{ BY GROVER FLETCHER, HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, AND ASKED IF THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE HAS HEARD THAT IT HAS, BUT HE HAS NOT YET VERIFIED THIS. HE CONTINUED THAT HE WAS IN SEBASTIAN MONDAY AT WHICH TIME HE HEARD THAT THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN WAS GOING TO ANNEX SOME PROPERTY OWNED BY NELSON HYATT; HE WENT UP TO VERIFY WHAT THE PROPERTY WAS AND MAYOR FLOOD APPRAISED HIM THAT THE ANNEXATION WAS COMPLETED. THE ATTORNEY NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY ANNEXED INCLUDES THE MINING OPERATION, AND HE FEELS IT WAS DONE TO AVOID THE UPCOMING COUNTY MINING REGULATIONS. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE PIECE IN QUESTION IS 200 ACRES OR MORE, AND HE FELT WE CAN ANTICIPATE THAT THEY WILL ATTEMPT TO ANNEX MORE PROPERTY ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE RIVER. HE NOTED THAT THE BOARD IS LOOKING AT A MAMMOTH PIECE OF PROPERTY. ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT THE ANNEXATION STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE CITY BE IN A POSITION TO PROVIDE THE UTILITIES, AND HE DID NOT KNOW IF THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY GOALS. HE ALSO VIEWED IT AS'A REAL PROBLEM IN REGARD TO THE MINING INTERESTS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT WHETHER THE ANNEXATION WAS DONE LEGALLY, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THERE SHOULD BE MORE COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE COUNTY SO WE CAN DO A LITTLE MORE PLANNING. BOARD SECRETARY, ELIZABETH FORLANI, REPORTED THAT SHE RECEIVED TODAY FROM -THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN A COPY OF THEIR ORDINANCE ANNEXING THE PROPERTY.' ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THE HYATT PROPERTY HE WAS DISCUSSING IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE GROVER FLETCHER PROPERTY, BUT IS UP AROUND THE A. A. BERRY SUBDIVISION. SENIOR PLANNER DAVID MARSH REPORTED THAT THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN ANNEXED SEVERAL DIFFERENT PIECES OF PROPERTY, BOTH ANNEXATIONS EFFECTIVE PARCH LOTH. HE STATED THAT HE WAS TOLD THEY WERE ADOPTING AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO MINING REGULATIONS THE SAME NIGHT; THIS ORDINANCE, HOWEVER, IS THE SAME AS THE OLD COUNTY ORDINANCE AND HAS SOME WEAKNESSES IN IT. s PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER NOTED THAT ANOTHER PROBLEM IS THAT THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN HAS NO DRAINAGE ORDINANCE SUCH AS THE COUNTY'S. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT MR. FLETCHER IS NOW TAKING HIS APPEAL TO THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN BECAUSE OF THE ANNEXATION. SENIOR PLANNER MARSH COMMENTED THAT IN PLANNING, THEY HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE CITY SHOULD LOOK TOWARDS ANNEXING THE ISLANDS it AND "ENCLAVES" ON THEIR OUTSKIRTS, BUT THIS IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER IN THE PLANNERS' OPINION._ IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT BY THE ANNEXATION THEY HAVE CREATED ANOTHER ENCLAVE, AND MR, MARSH QUESTIONED IF THE__CITY-HAS THE CAPABILITY OF PROVIDING THE NECESSARY SERVICES. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED WHAT THE ATTORNEY IS -SUGGESTING, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE IS ALARMED BY THE SITUATION AND WANTED THE BOARD TO BE AWARE OF IT AND SEE, FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, WHAT SORT OF POSITION THEY WISH TO TAKE, COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THIS IS A VERY BAD THING FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, AND ALSO THAT THE WHOLE THING IS A SUBTERFUGE TO AVOID THE NEW MINING ORDINANCE. HE SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR A RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THE NEXT MEETING AS TO THE PROBLEMS THAT THE ANNEXATION PRODUCES AND A REPORT FROM THE ATTORNEY AS TO WHAT ACTION WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE IF IT WAS DECIDED WE FELT THIS ANNEXATION WAS NOT IN THE GENERAL INTERESTS OF THE COUNTY. THE BOARD HAD NO OBJECTION. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NEIL NELSON CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING MEMO AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ADMINISTRATOR KENNINGS RE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND INSTALLATION. n 5 MAR 191980 - BooK 43 ?AGE 55 MAR 19-1980 gppK 43 PACE 58, March 6, 1980 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jack G. Jennings County Administrator SUBJ.: Traffic Signal Modification and Installation On February 14, 1980, we received three letters from the Department of Transportation responding to our request for authoriza- tion to modify and install certain traffic signals. The first concerned the relocation of a pedestrian traffic control signal on U.S.1 from just south of North Gifford Road to the actual intersection (enclosure 1). Their recommendation was to remove the control device. They further stated that their review of current traffic volumes indicated a traffic signal was warranted, however, installation would have to be borne by the county. Signal Construction Company estimates the cost of removal of the pedestrian crossing light and the installation of a new traffic signal would be $19,000.00 (see enclosure 2). The second letter at enclosure 3 concerns the light at SR -5 (U.S.1) and 12th Street. We had requested a study to determine if an exclusive left turn signal needed to be added. Their analysis indicated that this was not required. They further pointed out a shortage of signal heads at that location and recommended installation. Signal Construction Company recommended the addition of two one-way three section signal heads to achieve MUTCD standards. They did not agree with DOT assessment that an exclusive left turn signal was not required. They recommended that we ask DOT to restudy this location on the basis of potential danger and increased volumes as well as a more up-to-date accident history. Their estimate of the cost of additional signal heads was $900.00 (enclosure 4). The third letter (enclosure 5) approved our request to replace the flasher at SR -60 and Kings Highway with a fully actuated traffic signal. Again, the costs would have to be borne by the county. Signal -Construction Company estimates the cost to be $22,000100 for this change-fenclosure 6). It is recommended that: 1. The cuxrent pedestrian traffic control signal on U.S.1 and North Gifford Road be removed. 2. We do not replace this with a fully actuated signal at this time. 3. Two (2) one-way three section signal heads be added to the traffic signal system at U.S.1 and 12th Street. 4. We ask DOT to restudy this location in an attempt to justify a left turn signal. 5. We replace the flasher with a fully actuated signal at SR -60 and Kings Highway. ENCLOSURE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST COMMISSIONER WODTKE WISHED THE BOARD TO CONSIDER ASKING THE ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE A STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN REGARD TO WIDENING 12TH STREET BETWEEN CLD DIXIE AND U.S. 1. HE FELT THAT EVENTUALLY THIS WILL NEED TO BE WIDENED AND THAT PERHAPS THE POSSI- BILITY OF CREATING A LEFT TURN HOLDING LANE ON 12TH STREET ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. I SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ALSO, HE NOTED THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO CREATE THREE LANES GOING INTO 6TH AVENUE, BUT FELT THE U.S. 1 INTERSECTION WILL REQUIRE LEFT TURN SIGNALS ON ALL FOUR POINTS, COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY BUDGETED TO COVER THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS FELT THERE IS ENOUGH FOR WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE IS IN FAVOR OF ALL FIVE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INCLUDE A STUDY IN REGARD TO WIDENING 12TH ST. BETWEEN U.S. 1 AND OLD DIXIE AND POSSIBLY OVER TO 6TH AVENUE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ,ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE FIVE ITEMS ON PAGE2 OF HIS MEMO OF MARCH 6TH, PLUS AN ITEM TO BE ADDED TO DO A STUDY ON 12TH STREET FOR A POSSIBLE WIDENING OF THE.ROAD AND A TURNING LANE BETWEEN OLD DIXIE AND 6TH AVENUE. ATTORNEY MICHAEL O'HAIRE CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB AS EXPLAINED IN HIS LETTER OF LARCH LOTH, WHICH FOLLOWS: 57 - - BOOK 43 PAGE 57 F, MAR 19 1980- - a March 10, 1980 Mr. Jack Jennings County Administrator Indian River County 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32960 Re: Harbour Island Club Dear Jack: -ao�c 43 PAGE 58 Dean Luethje of Carter & Associates has advised me of something that may require the Board's action. Dean tells me that the engineers have asked for a two week extension on the engineering work for upgrading the package treatment plant and lift station servicing the Harbour Island project, Vera Cruz, Pebble Bay, Pebble Beach Villas and others. A suggestion was made that the developers of the Harbour Island project contribute $40,000.00 to the cost of the work that the county has commited to perform on this system. My client feels that this is unacceptable and arbitrary. In reviewing the matter, I have gone over my file and find that, prior to my client's purchase of the property and prior to commitment and commencement of construction, I appeared with my client before the Board to clarify the situation. At that time, there was on record a commitment from the County to provide sewer collection and treatment service to my client's property for $15,000.00. I understood that that was unrealistic, and advised my client of that fact. On the basis of my advice, at the Board meeting I attended, my client released the County from its $15,000.00 commitment. I had no wish to embarrass the County or to back the Board•intg-a""corner on what was clearly unfair. At that meeting, there was a motion, which passed unanimously, that the County would "accept.sewage from Indian Summer through a renovated.package plant or by connection to the City of Vero Beach, Indian Summer to be expected to pay a proportional charge for the cost of making the system operable". This was fair and I accepted it on behalf of the prospective purchaser of Indian Summer, now known as Harbour Island. At the meeting of December 19, 1979, of the Board of County Commissioners, the subject was presented again by Sperdlup and Parcel and Jim Beindorf's office, consulting engineers for the project, through John Robbins in a scope of work. At that meeting, the County authorized Robbins to proceed and indicated that the work must be done. A part of the scope of work presented by the engineers was a cost sharing analysis to determine the pro rata cost of improvements to the system for the users of the system. John Robbins indicated that the system had a capacity for three hundred users. This, again, was acceptable and fair. In discussing this matter with George Liner, after Dean Luethje had made me aware of it, he indicated to me that you felt that a meeting was not necessary or likely to be productive since neither you nor George Liner had the authority to resolve the question. Somehow I have gotten the idea that the County will withhold approval of my client's DER application until my client agrees to pay $40,000.00. This is grossly unfair and is counter to what the County has agreed to do and what my client has accepted. After we have released the County from its original commitment, fair play would dictate that the County should honor its recommitment on a prorated basis. My client will abide by what he has told the County Commission and I would expect the County Commission to make good on its word. Since there is already a resolution in effect that the cost is to be prorated among the users, I don't feel that it is necessary to go back to the Board, but I will abide by your wishes in the matter. With best regards, I remain ATTORNEY O'HAIRE CONTINUED THAT HE NOW HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT THE ENGINEERS WERE INSTRUCTED TO LEAVE HIS CLIENT S PROJECT OUT OF THE DRAWINGS TO BE SUBMITTED TO DER, HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE NOW IS EMBARRASSED THAT HE ADVISED HIS CLIENT TO RELEASE THE COUNTY FROM ITS $15,000 COMMITMENT, AND IF THE BOARD RENEGES ON ITS DEAL ABOUT PRO RATING THE EXPENSES, HE IS LOOKING DOWN THE BARREL AT $40,000 AND MAY HAVE TO GO TO COURT. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED WHERE THE IDEA CAME FROM THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PAY A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE? ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT RIGHT NOW ALL WE NEED IS AN ADDITIONAL PUMP, BUT IF WE PUT ON THEIR SYSTEM, WE WILL NEED A LIFT STATION, AND HE THEREFORE, DID NOT FEEL THIS IS A DISPROPORTIONATE COST. HE CONTINUED THAT THE $15,000 FIGURE STEMMED FROM BAD INFORMATION WE HAD GOTTEN FROM A PREVIOUS UTILITY EMPLOYEE. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT ON JUNE 20, 1979, THE BOARD MADE A POTION UNANIMOUSLY RESCINDING ACTION IN WHICH THEY WERE F] MAR �. 919 0 59 __ - eoc c 3A PAGt 59. MAR 191980 - - - tiooK ;, . 43 PAGE 60 ALLOWING INDIAN SUMMER TO ADD THEIR 36 UNITS TO THE EXISTING PACKAGE SYSTEM FOR $15,000 FOR THE SURGE TANK MODIFICATION SINCE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAD BEEN RECEIVED INDICATING THAT THE $15,000 MAY NOT BE AN EQUITABLE PAYMENT AND THAT ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS MUST BE MADE TO THE SYSTEM IN ORDER TO MAKE IT OPERABLE; AND AGREED, IN PLACE OF THE PREVIOUS ACTION, TO ACCEPT THE SEWAGE FROM INDIAN SUMMER THROUGH A RENOVATED PACKAGE PLANT OR BY CONNECTION TO THE CITY.OF VERO BEACH; INDIAN SUMMER TO BE EXPECTED TO PAY A PROPORTIONAL CHARGE FOR THE COST OF MAKING THE SYSTEM OPERABLE. HE CONTINUED THAT SINCE THAT TIME, HE BELIEVED THE BOARD HAS RECEIVED OTHER ENGINEERING REPORTS STATING WHAT OTHER PROBLEMS EXIST AND WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY, ETC., AND HAS AUTHORIZED THE ENGINEERS TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS. ATTORNEY O'HAIRE STATED THAT HE HAS HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE ENGINEERS IN THEINTERIM, AND THE CHARGE THAT WAS RELAYED TO HIM WAS $40,000, WHICH IS MORE THAN IT WOULD HAVE COST HIS CLIENT TO INSTALL A PACKAGE PLANT. HE EMPHASIZED THAT THEY ARE PERFECTLY WILLING TO BEAR A PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE COSTS. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS DID NOT AGREE WITH MR. O'HAIRE'S OPINIONS. HE STATED THAT THE $15,000 WAS MERELY DISCUSSION; THERE WAS NO FIRM COMMITMENT; AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY TIME HE KNEW OF WHERE THIS COUNTY HAS RENEGED ON AGREEMENTS. THE ADMINISTRATOR CONTINUED THAT HE. COULD SEE NO REASON FOR THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS COUNTY TO PICK UP $20,000-$30,000 COSTS TO HOOK UP HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB TO THE PEBBLE BAY SYSTEM AND INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE TOLD THE DEVELOPERS IF THEY COULD NOT'WOR K THIS MATTER OUT WITH THE COUNTY, THEY SHOULD PROCEED WITH PUTTING IN THEIR OWN SYSTEM . THE ADMINISTRATOR NOTED THAT IMMEDIATELY UPON THE COUNTY TAKING OVER THE PEBBLE BAY SYSTEM, THE DER STEPPED IN, AND WE HAD UNTIL MONDAY TO GET A PLAN IN TO THEM OR WE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION. HE EXPLAINED THAT HE COULD NOT INCLUDE THE HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB SYSTEM IN THE DRAWINGS BECAUSE IF HE SIGNED FOR IT, IT WOULD MAKE THE COUNTY RESPONSIBLE. WE WERE UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO GET THE COUNTY OUT FROM UNDER THE VIOLATION AND HAD TO PROCEED. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS COMMENTED THAT THE HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB HAS BEEN TOLD THAT WE WILL DESIGN THE PLANT SO THEY CAN COME IN ON IT, AND IF THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THEM AND THEY WANT TO COME IN ON IT, HE FELT THEY SHOULD PAY THE COSTS WHETHER THEY ARE $5,000 OR $40,000. ATTORNEY O'HAIRE AGAIN POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD PASSED A RESOLUTION STATING THAT HIS CLIENTS WOULD PAY THEIR "PROPORTIONATE SHARE" AND STATED THAT IF HE CANNOT RELY ON THEIR RESOLUTION, THEN THE WHOLE BALL GAME HAS CHANGED. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT AGREED THAT THE -AGREEMENT WAS THAT THEY WERE TO PAY A PROPORTIONATE SHARE AND FELT THAT -SHARE IS WHAT WE NEED TO DETERMINE. HE ASKED THE ENGINEERS TO REPORT ON THIS. ENGINEER .JOHN ROBBINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT ORIGINALLY THE SCOPE OF WORK WAS TO IMPROVE THE TREATMENT FACILITY, DESIGN LIFT STATIONS FOR PEBBLE BAY NORTH AND SOUTH, AND CONSTRUCT PLAN SPECIFICA- TIONS FOR THE NEW VERA CRUZ MASTER LIFT STATION. HE STATED THAT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COUNTY WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE IMPROVE- MENTS, AND THE HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB, SINCE IT REQUIRES A LIFT STATION, WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE LIFT STATION. HE FELT THAT THE COUNTY IS QUITE CAPABLE OF MAKING SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TREATMENT PLANT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A MONETARY SAVING, AND THE LIFT STATION WOULD HAVE TO GO TO BID. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY WENT THROUGH THE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND DECIDED TO MAKE VERA CRUZ THE MASTER LIFT STATION, WHICH WOULD EVENTUALLY TIE IN TO THE CITY SYSTEM. MR. ROBBINS NOTED THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE CONFUSION ABOUT THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF COSTS, AND HE NEEDS SOME DIRECTION AS TO HOW TO DEVELOP THE PRO RATA SHARE OR AS TO WHETHER THERE IS GOING TO BE A PRO RATA SHARE. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE COUNTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR CITATION BY THE DER, AND THE DER IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM WITH THE HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB AND THAT THE PRESENT PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FLOW FROM HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF THE LIFT STATION WILL BE BUILT ONLY TO SERVICE THE FLOW FROM HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB, AND FSR. ROBBINS STATED THAT IT WILL INCLUDE ALL THE EXISTING SERVICE AREA, SEA WATCH, VERA CRUZ, ETC., H . 61 A - BOOK .43: pAQ ` �1 MAR 19-1980-.- - - r MAR 191990 - - - mox PAGE. 62 COMMISSIONER WODTKE THEN ASKED IF WE DO CONNECT TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH WITH THE PACKAGE WE ARE GOING TO BID ON NOW, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES? MR. ROBBINS STATED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO UPGRADE THE PUMP IN ORDER TO PUMP TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT WOULD ONLY ALLOW US TO PUMP TO PEBBLE BAY NORTH AND SOUTH AND VERA CRUZ, AND UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER AGREED THAT WE CAN GET BY WITH THE EXISTING LIFT STATION WITH SOME MODEST MODIFICATIONS, EXCEPT FOR GOING TO THE HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT IF ALL THERE IS ROOM FOR IS JUST HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB, THEN IT WOULD BE 100% PRO RATA, MR. ROBBINS COMMENTED THAT THERE ARE 39 HOMES IN THAT AREA, AND POSSIBLY 52 PLATTED LOTS. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THE PLANS SUBMITTED TO DER WOULD TAKE CARE OF EVERY EXISTING LOT IN PEBBLE BAY, AND ,MR. ROBBINS STATED THEY WOULD. SHE THEN ASKED IF THERE WOULD BE ANY ROOM WITH THESE PLANS TO ADD ANYBODY ELSE. PIR. ROBBINS EXPLAINED THAT THE TREATMENT PLANT HAS EXTRA CAPACITY AVAILABLE, BUT CONNECTION TO VERA CRUZ OVERCHARGES THE FLOW FROM THE CONDOMINIUMS AND YOU WOULD BACK SEWAGE UP. YOU, THEREFORE, COULD ONLY UTILIZE THIS EXTRA CAPACITY IF YOU COULD BY-PASS THE VERA CRUZ STATION. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THERE IS GOING TO BE ANYBODY ELSE BETWEEN THE CITY Qf-VERO BEACH AND THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES IN THE COUNTY AREA, ANI7 SMR. ROBBINS WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT THE PRESENT HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB NOW INCLUDES MORE UNITS THAN THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. ATTORNEY O'HAIRE STATED THAT IT IS 40 UNITS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN. HE ASKED IF THE PLAN THE ENGINEERS HAVE DEFINED IS A BORDERLINE SITUATION OF ADEQUACY FOR WHAT IS ALREADY THERE, AND MR, ROBBINS STATED THAT IT IS CLOSE TO IT. ATTORNEY O'HAIRE THEN ASKED IF THE SYSTEM WILL BE OVERTAXED AS THE LOTS IN PEBBLE BAY ARE BUILT ON, AND MR. ROBBINS STATED THAT ®62 m THEY ARE THE BORDERLINE SITUATION HE IS REFERRING TO, AND IF IT IS DONE CORRECTLY, THE SYSTEM COULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. ATTORNEY O'HAIRE THEN QUESTIONED THE ADEQUACY OF THE SYSTEM IF THE COUNTY WERE TO INSTALL PUBLIC RESTROOMS IN THE PROPOSED PARK, AND PSR. ROBBINS ANSWERED THAT HE COULD ENVISION THE PARK TYING DIRECTLY TO THE PLANT. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS ASKED, IF THE COUNTY GOES THROUGH THOSE PLANS AS DRAWN, WHAT ADDITIONAL MONEY IT WOULD TAKE TO MAKE THIS SYSTEM ACCEPTABLE TO HANDLE HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB. MR. ROBBINS STA -TED THAT HE WOULD GUESSTIMATE $40,000 FOR A NEW LIFT STATION BASED ON BIDS RECEIVED ON THE PUMP STATION IN GIFFORD, WHICH IS COMPARABLE IN CAPACITY. IMPROVEMENTS TO VERA CRUZ TO KEEP IN COMPLIANCE WILL RUN $3,.500 TO $5,000. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO BID THE NEW LIFT STATION AS AN ALTERNATE BID SO THAT WE WILL KNOW WHAT IT . WOULD COST FOR THAT LIFT STATION AND THEN WE ALSO WOULD KNOW WHAT IT WILL COST IF WE GO THE OTHER WAY. HE BELIEVED WE DID MAKE A COMMITMENT TO ACCEPT THE SEWAGE FOR THE HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB PROJECT AND FELT WE NEED TO GET INTO THE BID PROCESS TO FIND OUT WHAT IT IS GOING TO TAKE TO GET ON LINE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT FELT THE MOTION CLEARLY STATED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PAY A PRO RATA SHARE OF THE COST. ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IS HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL HOOK ON OTHER THAN MR. O'HAIRE'S CLIENT, AND HE WAS OF -THE OPINION THERE WOULD BE HARDLY ANY OTHERS. .JOHN ROBBINS AGREED THAT PEBBLE BAY IS ACCOUNTED FOR LOT BY LOT BECAUSE THEY MADE A PROJECTION ON THE VACANT LOTS AND INCLUDED THEM. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT THERE ARE MANY WAYS YOU CAN FIGURE THIS OUT, IF WE ARE GOING TO HOOK UP TO VERO BEACH, CERTAIN THINGS HAVE TO BE DONE THAT WILL HAVE A COST THAT WILL BE EVERYBODY'S COST.l IF PART OF THIS IS I.N THE LIFT STATION, THEN POSSIBLY SOME OF THAT COST NEEDS TO BE PROPORTIONED OUT AMONG EVERYBODY. r n 63 43- PACE 63 MAR 19 WO MAR 19 19 8 _ - - _ _ sc►oc 43 PAGE 64 COMMISSIONER LYONS COMMENTED THAT MR. O'HAIRE HAS STATED THAT HIS CLIENTS EXPECT TO PAY THEIR FAIIR SHARE AND THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE WANTS, BUT THE PROBLEM IS TO DECIDE WHAT THE FAIR SHARE IS. HE CONTINUED THAT WITH AN EXPENDITURE OF FROM $3,50045,000, THE LIFT STATION APPARENTLY IS GOING TO BE ADEQUATE FOR THE EXISTING AND PROJECTED CUSTOMERS, LESS HARBOUR ISLAND CLUB, BUT WHEN THEY COME ALONG, THEY BREAK THE CAMEL IS BACK, SO IT IS HARD FOR HIM TO SEE THAT THE COST FOR THE NEW STATION ISN IT THEIR SHARE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED WHY THE PEOPLE IN PEBBLE BAY SHOULD BE HOOKED UP BEFORE HARBOUR ISLAND, AND COMMISSIONER Loy POINTED OUT THAT PEBBLE BAY IS WHERE THE SYSTEM STARTED AND WHAT IT ORIGINALLY WAS MEANT FOR, SHE FELT WE MUST CONSIDER HOW MUCH OF THIS IS THE UP- GRADE FOR THE CONNECTION TO VERO BEACH THAT EVERYONE SHOULD PAY FOR, AND IF IT IS, HOW WE RECOVER IT. COMMISSIONER LYONS DID NOT FEEL THAT MR. O'HAIRE'S CLIENT WOULD PAY ANY MORE THAN SOMEONE WHO HOOKS ON WHEN WE HAVE A FULL LOAD. COMMISSIONER WODTKE INQUIRED ABOUT THE COST OF A PACKAGE PLANT FOR 40 UNITS, AND RALPH ENG ESTIMATED IT WOULD BE BETWEEN $40,000 AND $80,000. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO WHETHER IT WOULD REQUIRE MORE IF THE COUNTY WERE TO GO TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH SYSTEM THAN IF THEY JUST ADDED ON A LIFT STATION FOR VERA CRUZ AND ALSO AS TO WHAT EXACTLY WAS MEANT BY PRO RATA. COMMISSLORER LYONS FELT IT MEANT THEY SHOULD PAY THEIR SHARE OF THE COST FOR THE-C-DDITIONAL CAPACITY; COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT WE MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OTHER LAND IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA THAT CAN COME TO THAT LIFT STATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED; AND MR. O'HAIRE FELT IT SIMPLY MEANT DIVIDING THE COST BY THE NUMBER OF USERS. HE REITERATED THAT, RELYING ON THE BOARDS RESOLUTION, HE HAD ASSURED HIS CLIENT THAT HE WOULD PAY JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE. COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT THERE ISN'T ANYONE ELSE, AND MR. O'HAIRE'S CLIENT MOST LIKELY WILL BE THE LAST ONE THAT IS ON THAT SYSTEM, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS AGREED THAT IT IS THE ADDITIONAL PROJECT THAT CAUSES THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THE EXISTING STATIONS WITH SOME MODIFICATION WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENT. ENGINEER JOHN ROBBINS COMMENTED THAT IF THE COUNTY WISHED TO USE THE EXISTING WET WELL TO TIE INTO VERO BEACH, THERE ARE SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT NEED TO BE CHECKED. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THAT WE REALLY CAN'T EXPECT HARBOUR ISLAND TO FIX THE WHOLE SYSTEM UP TO GO TO VERO BEACH, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE DO NEED A NEW LIFT STATION BECAUSE OF HARBOUR ISLAND, COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED WHAT IT WOULD COST US TO TAKE WHAT WE HAVE GOT AND SEND THE SEWAGE TO VERO BEACH AND WHAT WOULD IT COST IF HARBOUR ISLAND WERE A PART OF IT. THE BOARD AGREED THAT IS THE INFORMATION THAT IS NEEDED, AND ENGINEER ROBBINS STATED HE COULD FIGURE THAT OUT FOR THE BOARD. ATTORNEY O'HAIRE FELT THE BOARD SHOULDN'T TELL HIM PRO RATA WHEN THEY ACTUALLY MEAN IMPACT FEES, AND CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THE BOARD EVER MEANT TO GO BACK AND ASSESS EVERY- BODY ON THIS AND THAT THE MINUTES FROM THREE PREVIOUS MEETINGS INDICATE THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT. MR. O'HAIRE SAID HIS FEELING WAS THAT THE COUNTY WAS BITING THE BULLET FOR THAT DIFFERENCE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE EXPLAINED THAT THE BOARD SAID THERE IS PART OF THIS WORK THE COUNTY HAS THE CAPABILITY OF DOING, BUT THERE IS OTHER WORK THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TO ADDRESS, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF HOW IT IS TO BE FUNDED. HE CONTINUED THAT WE GET IN TROUBLE WHEN WE THROW OUT "HIP SHOTS" ON DOLLARS AND CENTS AND WE NEED ACTUAL FIGURES FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER ALL ANGLES AND WORK THIS OUT. JOHN ROBBINS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD PROCEED IMMEDIATELY TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS AND PLAN ON OPENING THEM AT THE SECOND MEETING IN APRIL. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF ATTORNEY O'HAIRE UNDERSTOOD WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, AND MR, O'HAIRE BELIEVED THE ENGINEER IS BEING DIRECTED TO COME BACK WITH.PEFINITE FIGURES. 0 MAR 1918Q _PAF 90 P1AR 191980 - - - - soox .43: PACE 66 CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT THE ENGINEER IS BEING ASKED FOR FIGURES TO UPGRADE TO CONNECT TO VERO BEACH ALSO. ENGINEER ROBBINS THEN DISCUSSED THE MASTER STATION AT VERA CRUZ WHICH IS DESIGNED FOR ULTIMATE CONNECTION TO VERO BEACH. HE STATED THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME DOWN THE ROAD, WE WILL HAVE TO PUT IN TWO PUMPS CAPABLE OF THIS CONNECTION. HE NOTED THAT THE PUMPS WE WILL BE PUTTING IN NOW ARE CAPABLE OF BEING UTILIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTY. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF HE WAS SAYING THAT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIXING THE LIFT STATION TO BRING IT UP TO STANDARD AND TO BRING IT TO VERO BEACH IS THE PUMPS, AND JOHN ROBBINS STATED THAT HE WAS NOT - HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE MASTER STATION THAT IS GOING FOR BID. QUESTIONS CONTINUED -AS TO THE RESULT IF YOU DO ONE THING AND NOT ANOTHER, OR VARIOUS COMBINATIONS, AND CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF HARBOUR ISLAND DID NOT EXIST, WHAT WOULD WE BE LOOKING AT? ENGINEER ROBBINS STATED WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT UPGRADING THE EXISTING FACILITY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DER OR CONSTRUCTING A NEW FACILITY TO PUMP TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, THAT BEING A LIFT STATION. IN FURTHER CONVERSATION IT WAS FELT THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT THIS SITUATION IN NUMEROUS WAYS, AND ENGINEER ROBBINS AGREED THAT THERE PROBABLY ARE 100 PERMUTATIONS AVAILABLE. DISCUSSION THEN AROSE ABOUT PEBBLE BAY VILLAS AND SEA WATCH, WHICH ARE ON THI§-SYSTEM BUT ON THE EAST SIDE OF STATE ROAD AIA. COMMISSIONEER-WODTKE EMPHASIZED THAT HE FELT WE SHOULD GET THE ALTERNATE BID AND DETERMINE WHAT IT WOULD BE TO HAVE A LIFT STATION JUST TO TAKE HARB-OR ISLAND CLUB WITHOUT GOING TO THE CITY SYSTEM. HE THEN WENT ON TO DISCUSS THE NECESSITY OF OVERSIZING AND STATED THAT IF WE OVERSIZE, THAT COST EITHER SHOULD BE BORNE THROUGH- OUT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OR THE COUNTY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. HE CONTINUED THAT, IN OTHER WORDS, HE WANTED TO BID WITH AN ALTERNATE FOR THE VERA CRUZ MASTER LIFT STATION WITH ENOUGH INFORMATION TO ANALYZE TO COME UP WITH COST FIGURES TO MAKE A DIFFERENTIAL SO WE CAN 66 � s � SIT DOWN WITH MR. O'HAIRE AND HIS CLIENT AND COME UP WITH A FAIR READING. HE NOTED THAT IF WE TAKE ACTION ON WHAT IS PRESENTED TO US TODAY TO GO TO BID, IT WILL NOT INCLUDE ACCEPTING THE WASTE WATER FROM THE HARBOUR ISLAND PROJECT, WHICH HE FELT WE HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT TO ACCEPT. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT FELT THE BOARD AGREES THAT THIS SHOULD BE BID THE TWO WAYS, AND .JOHN ROBBINS ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE MASTER STATION BE BID AS AN ALTERNATE TO FIND OUT_SPECIFIC COSTS, RALPH ENG STATED THAT IF THEY RECEIVE -AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BID, THEY PROPOSE TO GO WITH THE PACKAGE BEFORE THE BOARD AND THE ALTERNATE WILL GO IN AS AN ADDENDUM., ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BID FOR THE WASTE WATER PUMPING STATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEBBLE BAY AS PRESENTED BY THE CONSULTANTS AND AUTHORIZED THE ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS TO INCLUDE ANY ALTERNATE BIDS NECESSARY FOR INCLUSION OF THE VERA CRUZ MASTER PUMP STATION AND AGREED THAT THE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF BY COUNTY PERSONNEL; BIDS TO BE RECEIVED AND OPENED ON APRIL 21sT BY THE BID COMMITTEE AND TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APRIL 23RD. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED ATTORNEY O'HAIRE THAT IF THEY WERE TO START MORE BUILDINGS THEY WOULD DO SO AT THEIR OWN RISK. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE HAD AN EMERGENCY ITEM IN REGARD TO REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADDED THE EMERGENCY ITEM AS ABOVE TO TODAY'S AGENDA. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NEIL NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAS LEARNED THAT WE ARE 190 SPACES SHORT IN OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THE CITY OF VERO BEACH IS NOT CONSIDERING THE 86 SPACES AROUND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, WHICH THEY CONSIDER ON -STREET PARKING. HE CONTINUED THAT;,HE MET WITH CITY PLANNER LES SOLIN, WHO u 67 �+ BOOK . 43' 6� PAGE U 7_ MAR 191980 -- MAR 19 1980 - - BOOK - '43 PAGE 68 WANTED THE COUNTY TO AGREE TO COMMIT ALL THE PROPERTY THEY OWN AT THIS SITE FOR FUTURE PARKING ARRANGEMENT, AND HE ALSO WANTED THE COUNTY TO AGREE TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 104 PARKING SPACES WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER WE OCCUPY THE BUILDING AND THEN ATTEMPT TO ELIMINATE ALL THE ON -STREET PARKING. MR. NELSON CONTINUED THAT AFTER DISCUSSING THIS WITH COMMISSIONER LOY AND PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER, HE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT WORDING BE CHANGED TO READ THAT THE COUNTY WILL PROVIDE "A PORTION" OF THE DESCRIBED LANDS FOR FUTURE USE AS PARKING AREAS AND ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT A PROVISION BE -INSERTED IN THE COUNTY RESOLUTION STATING THAT THE COUNTY WOULD NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM CON- STRUCTION OF APPROVED PARKING STRUCTURES OR USE OF THE ABUTTING DRAINAGE DISTRICT LAND FOR PARKING AREA. HE FURTHER NOTED IN REGARD TO ON -STREET PARKING THAT HE FELT WE SHOULD NOT ELIMINATE THE 86 ON - STREET PARKING SPACES UNTIL IT WAS SHOWN THEY WERE A SAFETY HAZARD AND UNTIL WE FULLY UTILIZED ALL EXISTING SPACES. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED HOW EVERYTHING GOT THIS FAR ALONG WITH SUCH A WIDE DIFFERENTIAL ON THE PARKING SITUATION. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THAT MR. SCHLITT HAD NOT PURSUED THIS VIGOROUSLY ENOUGH AND DID NOT SUBMIT IT EARLY ENOUGH. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT HE WAS JUST INFORMED ABOUT THIS A FEW DAYS AGO, AND THIS SUPPOSEDLY IS BASED ON THEIR REGULATIONS AND WOULD BE REQUIRED OF ANY DEVELOPER, EXCEPT FOR THE ON -STREET - OFF-STREET PARKING SITUATION. ATTORNEY_.COLLINS STATED THAT HE COULD ENVISON A RESOLUTION SAYING WE DO HAVE LANDS IN CERTAIN DESCRIBED BLOCKS AND WILL ALLOCATE ENOUGH OF THESE LANDS FOR THE NECESSARY PARKING, BUT HE DID NOT FEEL WE SHOULD PIN DOWN SPECIF-IC LOTS. COMMISSIONER LYONS AGREED. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER IF HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE CITY'S PARKING FORMULA PERTAINS TO A COURTHOUSE ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITY, AND MR. REVER STATED THAT HE HAD NOT HAD TIME TO GO INTO IT IN DEPTH, BUT THEY ARE SAYING IT IS THE TYPE FACILITY ALLOWED IN THAT ZONE, HE NOTED IT IS A LOT LIKE OUR ZONE BUT THERE ISN IT A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY BUILT IN. HE CONTINUED THAT THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT WHEN YOU BUILD A FACILITY LIKE THIS YOU GET REQUESTS FROM OTHER AGENCIES THAT WANT SPACE. COMMISSIONER Loy POINTED OUT THAT THIS FACILITY PREVIOUSLY WAS A HOSPITAL WITH THREE SHIFTS AND VISITORS, AND THE CITY IS RE- QUIRING US TO HAVE TWICE AS MUCH PARKING EVEN THOUGH WE ARE LEAVING THE COURTS IN THE COURTHOUSE. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS FIGURED ON A SQUARE FOOT BASIS. WE ARE INSTITUTIONAL, AND BASED ON THE BUILDING COVERAGE, TO WHICH THE ASSEMBLY ROOM WAS ADDED, THEY ARRIVE AT HOW MANY SPACES ARE NEEDED - 366 SPACES. -FOR THE OFFICE AREA AND 28 SPACES FOR THE ASSEMBLY ROOM,,-OR--5541- OOM,OR394. HE PERSONALLY FELT THAT THE COURTS ARE THE MAIN TRAFFIC GENERATORS, COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT HE HAD WORKED WITH MR. KONTOULAS ON THIS, AND IN THE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS, IT WAS STATED THAT .JOHN SCHLITT HAD WORKED WITH THE CITY ON PARKING, LAND- SCAPING, ETC. HE FELT THAT WE WERE AGAIN TOLD SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT TRUE. COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED THIS ANALYSIS HAD NOT BEEN MADE UNTIL WITHIN THE WEEK. DISCUSSION ENSUED ON HOW THE SPACES WERE ARRIVED AT, AND MR. NELSON STATED THAT .JOHN SCHLITT DID PROVIDE 399 SPACES BUT INCLUDED THE WRONG AREA BY COUNTING THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT RIGHT-OF-WAY AND 87 SPACES ON THE STREET. DISCUSSION THEN FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO HAVING UNIMPROVED OFF- STREET PARKING PLACES, AND THE BOARD GENERALLY AGREED THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A LOT OF ASPHALT THERE THAT IS NOT BEING USED. COMMISSIONER LYONS SUGGESTED INCLUDING THE EMBODIMENTS OF THE MEMO OF MARCH 18TH FROM CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR SOLIN TO DAVID REVER IN A RESOLUTION, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT UNLESS THE WORD " UNIMPROVED n IS INCLUDED, THE BOARD IS COMMITTING THEMSELVES TO CONSTRUCTING PARKING PLACES. 69 MAR 19 1 980 — ao01 4 3 PAGE 69 r I City of Vero Beach P. 0. BOX 1389 - 1053 - 20th PLACE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32960 Telephone 567-5151 March 18, 1980 MEMO To: ave Rever, County Planning Director From: ester L. Solin, Jr., City Planning Director 4Subj: Site Plan Application #80 -SP -309C - Indian River Administration Building. Location: 1840 25th Street. Owners: Indian River County. Applicant: Indian River County Commissioners Below is a suggested term to be included in a resolution to be attached to your site plan application: _BOOK . 4.3 PAGE 70 The County of Indian River shall provide the following: a. Commit a portion of the following described lands for the exclusive use as future parking areas in order to assure future compliance with "b" and "c" below. Lot 1, North 2 of Lot 2 and Lots 3-11, Block 3, Booker T. Washington Addition, as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 34, St. Lucie County, Florida. Now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Lots 1, 2, 6, & 7, Block 4, Booker T. Washington Addition, as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 34, St. Lucie County, Florida. Now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. West 2 of Lot 1, and Lots 2, 3, 7-10, Block 6, Booker T. Washington Addition, as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 34, St. Lucie County, Florida. Now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Lot 4 & Lots 6-8, Block 7, Booker T. Washington Addition, as recorded in Plat'Bo__ok_'2,_page -84,,-St. Lucie County, Florida. Now lying and being in Indian`­ ndian` River County, Florida This statement does not preclude as an alternative construction of approved parking structures or the possible improvement for parking purposes of -the Indian River Farms Drainage District land abutting the site of the county administrative complex. Such parking improvements shall accommodate all future parking needs as defined in paragraphs "b" and "c" below. b. Provide one hundred and four (104) additional off-street parking spaces on County owned land within Block 6, Booker T. Washington Addition Subdivision. This parking area shall be completed at least one year from the date the County receives an occupancy permit for use of the new County administration complex. "City of Beautiful Beaches" Application #80 -SP -309C March 18, 1980 Page 2 C. In addition, as new floor area for the County administation complex is proposed, parking needs shall be provided pursuant to then existing City Code on County owned land cited above in paragraph "a". The expressed intent also is to delete all on -street parking and replace it with off-street parking pursuant to the City Code at a future point in time after the existing floor area is essentially fully used or at such time as the building's floor area is expanded. However, no such on -street parking shall be relocated unless the City Council requires such removal and relocation based on supportive traffic flow, parking, and safety considerations. LLS:pn ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION No, 80-29 AS PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS DISCUSSED; SECTION B TO CALL FOR 104 ADDITIONAL UNIMPROVED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES. 71 J BOOK' 4,' pb E71, MAR 19 43 P� Ra 2 ° RESOLUTION N0. 80- 29 i. i W6EAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County have filed a Site Plan Application No. 80 -SP -309C for the proposed :Indian ! River County Administration Building, located at 1840 - 25th Street, Vero i Beach, Indian River County, Florida. [dIF1RE S, the City of Vero Beach requests that 104 addi-cixia1 off- � street parking spaces on County awned lands within Block 6, Booker T. '•gashing i ton Addition Subdivision, to be completed at least one year from the date the Cbunty receives an Occupancy permit for use of the new County Administration b Complex. � {- f WHERFAS, the City of Vero Beach requests that the County be willing 1 to eliminate all off-street parking when the existinq floor area is fully used or when the floor area is expanded , upon the condition that the City Council find that the said elimination of all on -street parking is required ..based on support of traffic flow, parking and safety considerations. NOW, 'Ti3FRE.'MM, BE IT RF.SOLIM By TME, BOARD OF COUNTY M,%'ISSTO^L'RS OF DMIAN RIVER COUITY, FMRIDA, that a portion of the following described lands are committed for the future use as parking areas in order to ccm. ly with the City of Vero Beachs' request: i a. Lot 1, North z of Lot 2 and Lots 3-11, Block 3, Booker T. Washington Addition, as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 34, St. Lucie County, Florida. Now lying and being in Indian River County, Flor;,Ja. Pi Lots 1, 2, 6, & 7, Block 4, Booker T. Washington Addition, as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 34, St. Lucie County, Florida. Now lying and being Y 9 i 9 n Indian River Count Florida Y West z of Lot 1 --and Lots 2, 3, 7-10, Block 6, Booker T. Washington e; Addition, as recorded in Plat Book 2 page 34, St. Lucie County, ` Florida. Now flying and being in Indian River County, Florida. i' Lot 4 & Lots 6=8, Block 7, Booker T. Washington Addition, as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 34, St. Lucie County, Florida. Now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida This statement does not preclude as an alternative construction of approved parking structures or the possible improvement for parking purposes of the Indian River Farms Drainage District land abutting i the site of the county administrative complex. Such parking improvements shall accommodate all future parking needs as defined in paragraphs "b" and "c" below. i e 6' • E` i. i{ s S• 1 Y { 1 b. Provide one hundred and four (104) additional unimproved off-street parking spaces on County owned land within Block 6, Booker T. Washington Addition Subdivision. This parking area shall be completed at least one year from the date the County receives an occupancy permit for use of the new County administration complex. C. In addition, as new floor area for the County administration complex is proposed, parking needs shall be provided pursuant to then existing City Code on County owned land cited above in paragraph "a". The expressed intent also is to delete all on -street parking and replace it with off-street parking pursuant to the City Code at a future point in time after the existing floor area is essentially fully used or at such time as the building's floor_ area is expanded. However, no such on -street parking shall be relocated unless the City Council requires such removal and relocation based on supportive traffic flow, parking, and safety considerations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County is not precluded as a result of the above commitment of -lands -to provide for an al- ternative construction of approved parking structures or improvement for parking purposes of the Indian River Farms Drainage District lane abutting the site of the County Administrative Complex, in such a manner as to comply with the City of Vero Beachs' requests for additional parking spaces. This Resolution shall become effective as of the 19th day of March, 1980. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA xz BY i ' arcl`W. ie ert �-Jr. Chairman ATTEST: 'Fre a Wr t , Clerk n _ - BOOK 43 PAGE f J MAR 19 1980 _ MAR 191980 - - - - BOOK 43 PAGE 74 ADMINISTRATOR .JENN I NGS BROUGHT TO THE BOARDS ATTENTION THE REQUEST MADE By BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IN REGARD TO VILLAGE GREEN MOBILE HOME PARK, PHASE II, AS PER THEIR LETTER OF MARCH 12TH, AS FOLLOWS: JAMES L. BEINDORF. P. E. KENNETH W. DAMEROW RICHARD B. VOTAPKA• P. E. March 12, 1950 Mr. Jack G. Jennings County Administrator Indian River County Room 115 County Courthouse Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Jennings: 3885 .20TH STREET POST OFFICE BOX 349 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32950 TELEPHONE 305/552-7981 Re: Village Green Mobile Home Park Phase IT Please find enclosed a color coded print of the site plan for the referenced project. That portion of the project to be completed under the original bond as described in my letter to you of December 11, 1979, is colored in red. The original bond covered work to be completed from the entrance on Walker avenue to Lots 514/515, encompassing the entire east side of the project. The cost of the items of work under.thc_ original bond remaining to be completed is de- tailed below. Also2_-.tlic portion of the site plan colored in green represents the remainder of the work necessary to be completed to finish the entire project. i?xisting wat-ef-and sewer systems which have been installed but re- spectively have not been pressure tested and chlorinated or lamped and infil- tration tested, were s+sown as ten (10) percent incomplete. The cost of sanitary sewer system and force main shown under the original bond portion were shot -.•a as five (5) percent incomplete since they are currently being worked on and prepared for test -in,;. Tho al ozint of monies covering the incompleted items are as follows: POR`T'ION TO 11)E C0i11'LI?TEI) UNDEIR ORIGINAL BOND F01: PIIASE. II ON LAST SIDE $20,277.40 1'I E%1 QUANTI'T'Y UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 . I" A!,p}tal t :learin; Coursr 3,041 S.Y. x$ 1.65 = $ 5,017.65 ?. 6" `;oil Cement l;:i_e 1,532 S.Y. x 3.20 = 5,862.40 3. '.Iiaml Curb aad (,utter 900 1..F. x 4.40 = 3,960.00 +. VaII,-. Gutter - 96 L. F. x 10.75 = 1,032.00 :. Sauitary Set -.,(,r 5;" Incol::plcte 1 44, 104.40 = 2,205.22 i. Fore,, '4:1in 5;' lncoi: Ic-to .: 5,602.�;O = 280.13 Li; . t :tion lO,' Incoulpl� to 19,200.00 = 1,9=0.00 $20,277.40 REiMAINDER OF WORK TO BE COI•ff'LETED T17 PlL1SE II FROM WEST SIDE OF EN'MANCE TO LOT 514/515 $44,411.81 TOTAL A:'1OUNT OF UTILITY WORK Rl�yL1INING $64,689.00 Found To _$65,000.00 The above unit prices as listed above are the -actual-bli prices under contract by the Dickerson Group, Inc. with Florida Atlantic Associates, own& rs of Villa . -a Green, Phase II. They are requesting to post a cash bond for the entire amount shown in order to apply for permits to start placing the mobile homes delivered to Phase II on their respective lots and complete the necessary improvements around them. If you agree with the above, and will allow the owner to post a cash bond in the amount of $8,629.00 in addition to the cash bond of $56,371.00 already posted with Indian River County, the owner could then apply for his per— mits. I would appreciate your earnest consideration to this request and await your reply. Very truly yours, BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Umes L. Ueindorf, P.E. ENGINEER .JAMES BEINDORF EXPLAINED THAT SOME TIME AGO HIS CLIENT ASKED THE COUNTY FOR PERMISSION TO BRING MOBILE HOMES ON CERTAIN LOTS WITHIN VILLAGE GREEN, CONDITIONED ON POSTING A BOND FOR THE UN- COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS. THEY NOW WISH TO POST AN ADDITIONAL BOND ON CERTAIN AREAS TO COVER THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY. MR, BEINDORF REVIEWED THE WORK DONE AND THAT WHICH IS INCOMPLETE AS SET OUT IN HIS LETTER, NOTING THAT ALTHOUGH A GOOD BIT OF THE WORK LISTED NOW HAS BEEN COMPLETED, THEY DID NOT ASK FOR A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF THE MONIES THAT WOULD BE POSTED AS AN ADDITIONAL BOND, HE NOTED THAT THEY ARE RAPIDLY BRINGING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO A CONCLUSION. 75 0 43 PAGE 75 MAR 191980 - ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE A_'tOU`i'T 1. 1" Asphalt l.earinf; Course 4,060 S.Y. x $ 1.65 = $ 6,699.00 2. 6" Soil Cement i:ise 2,'60 S.Y. x 3.20 = 7,372.00 3. 3" Stabilized Subhrade 3,030 S.Y. x 1.60 = 4,848.00 4. :.Rami Curb and Gutter 1,930 L.F. x 4.40 = 8,712.00 5. Concrete Valley Gutter 96 L.F. x 10.75 = 1,032.00 6. 6" PVC [dater :~lain 800 L.F. x 8.25 = 6,600.00 7. Double Water Services 10 Ta. x 2.00.00 = 2,000.,0 8. Single Water Services 1 Ea. x 175.00 = 175.00 9. Existing Water System 10'; Incomplete x 25,737.00 = 2,578.73 10. Existing Sewer System 10Z Incomplete x 38,931.00 = 3,395.03 $44,411.81 TOTAL A:'1OUNT OF UTILITY WORK Rl�yL1INING $64,689.00 Found To _$65,000.00 The above unit prices as listed above are the -actual-bli prices under contract by the Dickerson Group, Inc. with Florida Atlantic Associates, own& rs of Villa . -a Green, Phase II. They are requesting to post a cash bond for the entire amount shown in order to apply for permits to start placing the mobile homes delivered to Phase II on their respective lots and complete the necessary improvements around them. If you agree with the above, and will allow the owner to post a cash bond in the amount of $8,629.00 in addition to the cash bond of $56,371.00 already posted with Indian River County, the owner could then apply for his per— mits. I would appreciate your earnest consideration to this request and await your reply. Very truly yours, BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Umes L. Ueindorf, P.E. ENGINEER .JAMES BEINDORF EXPLAINED THAT SOME TIME AGO HIS CLIENT ASKED THE COUNTY FOR PERMISSION TO BRING MOBILE HOMES ON CERTAIN LOTS WITHIN VILLAGE GREEN, CONDITIONED ON POSTING A BOND FOR THE UN- COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS. THEY NOW WISH TO POST AN ADDITIONAL BOND ON CERTAIN AREAS TO COVER THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY. MR, BEINDORF REVIEWED THE WORK DONE AND THAT WHICH IS INCOMPLETE AS SET OUT IN HIS LETTER, NOTING THAT ALTHOUGH A GOOD BIT OF THE WORK LISTED NOW HAS BEEN COMPLETED, THEY DID NOT ASK FOR A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF THE MONIES THAT WOULD BE POSTED AS AN ADDITIONAL BOND, HE NOTED THAT THEY ARE RAPIDLY BRINGING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO A CONCLUSION. 75 0 43 PAGE 75 MAR 191980 - _ MAR 1919_ _ _ __ - _ _ _ soon . 43 PAGE 7.6 ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS STATED THAT HE WOULD CONCUR WITH WHAT PSR. BEINDORF HAS OFFERED THE BOARD MtODAY, BUT CONTINUED THAT HE IS CONCERNED NOT JUST WITH VILLAGE GREEN, BUT WITH THE FACT THAT WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES INTO THIS COUNTY, HE SHOULD PUT UP SUFFICIENT CASH TO COMPLETE HIS PROJECT AND ALSO FELT, FOR THE COUNTY'S PROTECTION, THERE SHOULD BE A LETTER OF COMMITTAL MAKING THE DEVELOPER RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ESCALATION CLAUSES THAT AFFECT HIS PROJECTI: THE ADMINISTRATOR THEN PROCEEDED TO INFORM THE BOARD OF THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN KEEPING UP WITH A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE AND ISSUING CREDITS FOR PARTIALLY COMPLETED WORK. HE STATED THAT IT WOULD TAKE A FULL TIME MAN TO KEEP UP WITH THIS PRACTICE ON A COUNTY LEVEL, AND HE DOES NOT FEEL IT IS A GOOD SOUND BASIS FOR THE COUNTY TO OPERATE ON. HE NOTED THAT'THEY ARE HANDLING FOUR PROJECTS RIGHT NOW ON A DIFFERENT BASIS. HE REITERATED THAT HE WOULD GO ALONG WITH WHAT MR. BEINDORF HAS PRESENTED TODAY BECAUSE THERE ARE MOBILE HOMES STORED ALL OVER THIS PROPERTY. COMMISSIONER WODTKE AGREED THAT THIS COULD GET VERY CONFUSING, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE GOING FROM SECTION TO SECTION AND HAVE ONE ONLY 80% COMPLETED. HE NOTED THAT THE BOARD GOT INVOLVED IN THIS TYPE OF THING MAINLY TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPER, BUT HE FELT THAT IT HAS STARTED TO SNOWBALL. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE HE COULD EVER ALLOW ANYONE TO HOOK UP PRIOR TO THE FRANCHISE BEING ISSUED. MR. BEINDORF COMMENTED THAT IF THIS GIVES THE BOARD AN UNCOMFORTABLE FEELIN-G,- HIS -CLIENT DOESN'T EVEN WANT TO DISCUSS IT AND WOULD PREFER THAT THE BOARD FORGET THE REQUEST TO HOOK UP THE WATER AND SEWER BEFORE THE FRANCHISE IS GRANTED. HE NOTED THAT THIS ALL GOT STARTED WHEN THIS WAS SPREAD INTO BONDS ON DIFFERENT UNITS, AND HE FELT THAT WHERE THEY ERRED WAS IN NOT ASKING FOR THE WHOLE THING IN THE BEGINNING. MR. BEINDORF POINTED OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THESE ARE FIRM BID PRICES SO THERE IS NO REASON FOR CONCERN ABOUT AN ESCALATION CLAUSE. HE EMPHASIZED THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO GET AT ODDS WITH THE COUNTY IN ANY MANNER, AND WHILE THE MONEY THEY ARE NOW 76 OFFERING FOR BONDING IS ACTUALLY MORE THAN REQUIRED, THEY WILL LEAVE IT AS IT IS, OR IF THE COUNTY WISHES THEM TO ADD TO IT, THEY WILL. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS STATED THAT HE JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE BOARD COGNIZANT OF THE OVERALL PROBLEM. HE FELT THAT VILLAGE GREEN IS A FINE DEVELOPMENT. MR. BEINDORF EXPLAINED TO THE BOARD THE ASTRONOMICAL COST OF THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHY THEY NEED LEAD WAY TO GET THE MOBILE HOMES SET UP. ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, -SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE LETTER FROM BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES DATED..KARCH 12, 1980, CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ANNOUNCED THAT ITEM 13 IN REGARD TO A SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT WOULD BE HELD OVER UNTIL A LATER MEETING. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD THE FOLLOWING LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF OSCEOLA COUNTY IN REGARD TO MAINTENANCE OF SIX MILE ROAD AND FELLSMERE . GRADE, AS FOLLOWS: O S C E O L A C O U N T Y BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PHONE 305/847-1200 P.O. BOX 2107 KISSIMMEE, FLORIDA 32741 February 27, 1980 ' Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Indian River County Courthouse Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Sir: J,A For some years, Osceola County has had an agreement with both Brevard and Indian River Counties to maintain portions of certain roads that traverse into these counties from Osceola County. More specifically, these roads are known as Six Mile Road which enters Brevard County in the vicinity of the Tucker Ranch and, Fellsmere Grade which enters both Brevard and Indi- an River Counties in the vicinity of the Knight Ranch. The Six Mile Road and Fellsmere Grade join together in Osceola County in the north central portion of Section 28, Township 30 South, Range 34 East. Frbm this junction, Fellsmere Grade con- tinues in a north westerly direction for approximately three and one half Q 1/2) miles to its intersection with US 441, just south of Kenansville, Florida. J 77 - - - DOCK 43 PAGE 7 .7 NEAR 19 1980 - - L_ 8 -MAR 191980 - - - $ooK 43 PAGE i With the ever escalating costs of maintenance, due primar- ily to fuel and equipment costs, we wish to explore the possi- bility of an Inter -Local Agreement by the three Counties which would more evenly distribute the cost of road maintenance in this area and would be for the benefit"of all residents in- volved. Therefore, we respectfully submit the following pro- posal for your consideration: 1. That Indian River County pay one half (1/2) of the cost of maintenance, for material, labor and equipment cost to maintain Fellsmere Grade from its junction with Six Mile Road in Section 28, Township 30 South, Range 34 East in Osceola County -to its terminus at both Brevard and Indian River Counties. 2. That -Indian River County pay one third (1/3) of the cost of maintenance, for material, labor and equipment costs, to maintain the three and one half -mile section of Fellsmere Grade from its junction with Six Mile Road to its terminus at US 441, immediately south of Kenansville. 3. That Osceola County would pay one-third (1/3) of the cost of maintenance, for material, labor and equipment cost, to maintain the three and one-half mile section of Fellsmere Grade from its junction with Six Mile Road to its terminus at US 441, immediately south of Kenansville. 4. That Osceola County would utilize its labor force and equipment to maintain all of the above referenced roads in a passable condition as per the present maintenance schedules. Further, that Osceola County would not cause the existing roadway elevations and cross- sections to be changed except as in the course of routine maintenance. Enclosed are several aerial photographs of the vicinity which reflect the location of the above mentioned roads. We trust that these may assist you in your evaluation of the proposal. A similar proposal is being sent to the Chairman, Board of County Commissioners, Brevard County. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Bill Newman, Chairman Osceola County, Florida THE ADMINISTRATOR NOTED THAT THE PROBLEM OF MAINTENANCE OF THESE ROADS GOES WAY BACK. HE STATED THAT WE HAVE FROM THREE TO THREE AND A HALF MILES OF ROAD THE COUNTY IS OBLIGATED TO MAINTAIN, AND IT IS A VERY LONG WAY TO SEND EQUIPMENT. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THESE ROADS ARE BEING USED MORE AND MORE, AND THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN THIS AREA GO TO SCHOOL IN OSCEOLA COUNTY. THE BULK OF THE PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD LIES IN BREVARD 1w, F—J COUNTY, AND MOST OF THE CITRUS DEVELOPED IN THE AREA IS IN BREVARD COUNTY, AND IT IS HAULED ON THE SUBJECT ROADS; THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, HOWEVER, BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS CON- TINUED THAT HE HAS BEEN TRYING TO WORK OUT SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT IN REGARD TO THIS MAINTENANCE FOR SOME TIME, AND NOW THE OSCEOLA COUNTY ENGINEER HAS GONE TO THE OSCEOLA COUNTY COMMISSION WITH THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT SET OUT IN THE ABOVE LETTER, AND THEY ARE WILLING TO TAKE OVER THE MAINTENANCE ON THE BASIS SET OUT. HE STATED THAT IT WOULD BE HIS RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD THAT WE AGREE TO THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT AND JUST PAY OSCEOLA COUNTY FOR OUR PORTION OF THE MAINTENANCE OF THESE ROADS AS SET OUT IN THEIR LETTER OF FEBRUARY_ 27TH. COMMISSIONER WODTKE QUESTIONED WHAT WE ARE PAYING FOR AND WHAT IT MIGHT AMOUNT TO IN TERMS OF DOLLARS. ADMINISTRATOR .JENNINGS EXPLAINED THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE BEEN ABLE IN THE PAST TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR A BORROW PIT ON PRIVATE LAND IN THIS AREA, IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE TO HAUL MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT THE LONG DISTANCE TO KENANSVILLE. HE CONTINUED THAT WE HAVEN'T SPENT A LOT OF MONEY OVER THE YEARS BECAUSE WE HAVE TRADED OFF. HE POINTED OUT THAT YOU CAN'T RUN GRADERS THAT FAR; THEY HAVE TO BE HAULED, AND HE FELT OSCEOLA COUNTY WOULD HAVE A BETTER ARRANGEMENT. COMMISSIONER WODTKE BELIEVED THAT THIS IS THE ONLY OPTION WE HAVE, BUT EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT OSCEOLA COUNTY FEELING THEY WOULD HAVE TO RESPOND TO EVERY CALL THEY GET FOR MAINTENANCE IN THIS AREA. HE FELT IT MUST BE DONE ON A ROUTINE MAINTENANCE TYPE OF THING. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON POINTED OUT THAT VERY FEW PEOPLE IN THAT VICINITY LIVE IN OSCEOLA COUNTY, AND COMMISSIONER Loy FELT THAT WE JUST DO THIS MAINTENANCE NOW WHEN WE GET TO IT, AND STATED SHE DID NOT FEEL THAT OSCEOLA COUNTY WILL RUN OUT THERE EVERY TIME SOMEBODY CALLS. MR. NELSON BELIEVED THAT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND BREVARD COUNTY ARE THE ONES WHO BENEFIT FROM THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT. HE EMPHASIZED THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS COST INVOLVED TO TRANSPORT THE NECESSARY EQUIPMENT SUCH A DISTANCE. 79 MAR 19 19 0 - - BOOK' 413,.PAGE 79 MAR 191980 - - - WOK 43 PAu 80 COMMISSIONER LYONS SUGGESTED THAT A 30 DAY CANCELLATION CLAUSE COULD BE INCLUDED, AND ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS AGREED THIS COULD BE DONE AND THAT HE COULD GET SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. HE FELT THAT OSCEOLA COUNTY IS A VERY CONSERVATIVE COUNTY AND DID NOT BELIEVE THEY WILL RESPOND TO JUST ANY CALL, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS LOCATION IS VERY MUCH OUT OF THEIR WAY. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THE BOARD WISHED SOMETHING IN THE AGREEMENT ABOUT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR WISHED TO ASK WHAT THEY WOULD ESTIMATE THE COST WOULD AMOUNT TO. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT WE COULD JUST GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH A 30 -DAY TERMINATION CLAUSE AND SEE WHAT KIND OF BILLS WE GET. COMMISSIONER Loy POINTED OUT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE AN INTER- LOCAL AGREEMENT AND USE THE AGREEMENT PROPOSED IN THE LETTER AS THE BASIS. SHE FELT WE COULD SAY THAT WE APPROVE OF THE PROPOSED AGREE- MENT IN CONCEPT AND THAT WE ARE WILLING TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT, BUT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME FIGURES ON THE ESTIMATED COST AND WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT BREVARD COUNTY WILL PARTICIPATE ALSO. IN ADDITION, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A 30 -DAY CANCELLATION CLAUSE. ADMINISTRATOR .JENNINGS STATED THAT HE WOULD GO BACK TO OSCEOLA COUNTY WITH THIS INFORMATION, AND THE BOARD AGREED. ATTORNEY COLLINS REQUESTED THAT AN EMERGENCY ITEM BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA IN REGARD TO THE BOND ISSUE FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX. ON MOTION-B`Y COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD ADDED -THE ABOVE EMERGENCY ITEM TO TODAY IS AGENDA AS REQUESTED BY THE ATTORNEY-. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE NEEDS SOME FURTHER DOCUMENTATION ON THE BOND ISSUE BEFORE TRAVELING TO NEW YORK TO COMPLETE THE ARRANGEMENTS. HE NOTED THAT WHEN WE PASSED THE HOME RULE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE, IT WAS DONE SUBSEQUENT TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE COMMITMENT FROM HOUGH & COMPANY, AND IT NEEDED TO BE IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE COMMITMENT. HE FELT THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE THIS IS TO RESCIND OR AMEND RESOLUTION N0. 80-28 AND NOTED THAT THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD IN ANY EVENT FOR THE FURTHER DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THE BOND ISSUE. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR A SPECIAL MEETING TO BE HELD AT 9:30 O'CLOCK A.M., WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1980. RESOLUTION No. 80-28 IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 12, 1980, I 81 - - - BOOK 43 PAGE-- 81 MAR x.91980 MAR 191980 _ _ -_- moo 4.3 ?AGF $2 r r N RESOLUTION NO. 80-28 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that the Board hereby accepts the Proposal of WILLIAM R. HOUGH & CO., dated March 12, 1980 in regard to FOUR MILLION THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLAR ($4,350,000.00) Indian River County, Florida Capital Improvement Revenue'Bonds, Series 1980, at a TIC Rate, as provided therein, not to exceed 9.241808 which includes MBIA Insurance; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said Board authorizes the Chairman to sign the necessary documents to consummate the transaction. Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 12th day of March 1980. BOARD OF COUNTY COB-ZISSIONERS OF ` INDIAN RIVER CO NTY, FLORIDA j' d"-"Z BY Willard W. Siebert,Jr., hairman v" Attest: Freda Wright, Clerk i J ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED ON THE STATUS OF THE FINAL PAYMENT DUE HYDRO -STORAGE, INC. ON THE GIFFORD WATER SYSTEM, AND INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAS WORKED OUT AN ARRANGEMENT WITH HYDRO -STORAGE TO INDEMNIFY THE CLAIMS MADE BY 'HEBB. THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT DUE WAS $55,000, BUT THERE ARE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF $20,600 OWING SO THE AMOUNT DUE IS ACTUALLY $34,400. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED HE DID NOT KNOW THEIR POSITION ON THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, BUT HE FELT THE COUNTY SHOULD HOLD FIRM AND HE WOULD LIKE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A FINAL PAYMENT TO THEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,400 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT HE DOES HAVE IN HIS POSSESSION AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT AND THEY WILL GIVE US A RELEASE OF FINAL PAYMENT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, -SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE FINAL PAYMENT TO HYDRO - STORAGE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,400 BASED ON THE CONDITIONS SET OUT BY THE ATTORNEY ABOVE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT THE CHAIRMAN APPOINTED HIM TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BEACH PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION COMMITTEE ALONG WITH COUNCILWOMAN DOROTHY CAIN OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH,AND HE NOW HAS THREE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THOSE TO SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE WITH THEM, ALL THREE OF WHOM ARE WILLING TO SERVE, THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) DR. ROBERT ,JONES, A SCIENTIST WITH HARBOR BRANCH FOUNDATION. 2) KEN DAMEROW, WHO HAS SERVED FOR YEARS AS AN ENGINEER IN THE SEBASTIAN INLET DRAINAGE DISTRICT AND HAS KNOWLEDGE OF BEACH RESTORATION. 3) FREDERICK ROUSE, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WHO VOLUNTEERED HIS SERVICES AND IS RECOMMENDED BY JOHN TRIPSON. COMMISSIONER WODTKE CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THESE THREE INDIVIDUALS, ALONG WITH HIMSELF AND MRS. CAIN, BE THE INITIAL COMMITTEE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THEY FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADD ADDITIONAL MEMBERS, THEY CAN COME BACK TO THE BOARD TO DO SO. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION N0. $0-30 APPOINTING e THE MEMBERS RECOMMENDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE TO THE BEACH PRESERVA- TION AND RESTORATION COMMITTEE. e 83 - BOOK 4 PdOExi: - LIAR x.919 - - -- - -- - 11A R 191986 x 43. PAGE 84 BO RESOLUTION NO. 80-30 `, M BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following persons are hereby appointed to serve on the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACH PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION COMMITTEE: WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR. Chairman DR. ROBERT JONES KEN DAMEROW DOROTHY CAIN: FREDERICK ROUSE Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 19th day of March , 1980. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.., FLORIDA l BYt`��G%f y ,, Willard ' W. Siebert, iz ..;" Chairman Attest: Freda Wricjh., -: lerk COMMISSIONER I"iODTKE STATED THAT THEY WILL PROBABLY BE DEALING WITH DUNE LINES — RESTORATION — POSSIBLE FUNDING — THE CORPS PROGRAM, ETC., AND CONTINUED THAT IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC AREAS WHERE THE BOARD WISHED THE COMMITTEE TO FUNCTION, THEY SHOULD SO DIRECT THE COMMITTEE SO THEY DID NOT GO OFF ON TANGENTS WHICH THE BOARD DID NOT DESIRE. COMMISSIONER LYONS DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD THE FOLLOWING LETTER WRITTEN BY HIM AS CHAIRMAN OF THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL RELATING TO THE "ESTUARIES" CASE. tre afl are 9 _ St. l�� .Cowl s7"x, regio . . . . . .3 T . 0 IOWAplannin� �� - � ani •.,, ti�.^i•� in council r . ty "vion7 .\ ��� r y March 13, 1980 o� �. '�"• ���'J'C�u �� Alt in �1' P. i /lf �i/• rti.: r y . The Honorable Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Indian River County Commission Chairman 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Commissioner Siebert: Recently, an important case involving local government's authority to regulate land use was decided by the First District Court of . Appeal in Tallahassee, Estuary Properties, Inc. v. Honorable Reubin O'D. Askew, So. 2nd (December 17, 1979, Case No. II -419. This case involved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) appeal in which Lee County entered a Development Order denying permission to develop a large residential community (26,500 dwelling units), which was reversed by the First District Court of Appeal. The purpose of my letter is to make you aware of this decision and to outline our view of its possible implications for local governments. Y,. I am also suggesting a way in which your local government may be able to have input into the final decision of this case which is now pending before the Florida Supreme Court (Case No. 58,485). As you are probably aware, ordinarily in litigation regarding the validity of local government land use regulations, the local government land use regulations are presumed to be valid. Anyone seeking a change in or objecting to such regulations has the obligation to demonstrate by sufficient proof that there are reasons for invalidation. Your local government attorney will, I believe, confirm the importance_ of this presumption in Defending your land use regulations. The Court, in Estuary Properties, Inc., essentially reverses this situation and places the burden of proof (local government, in this case) on Lee County and the other governmental agepcies involved. In Estuary Properties, Inc., one of the primary issues was whether the development would result in a degradation of water quality in nearby Estero and San CarlosF3ays. As part cr the developmerit''1- the developer proposed the removal of an 1,80 acre ma ve t85 MAR 19 1980 J 0 March 13, 1980 Page Two -Boot 43 PACE 86 - and replacement of it with an interceptor waterway ostensibly to perform the same scrubbing effect as the removed mangroves in maintaining water quality. The Regional Planning Council, Lee County, and the Governor and Cabinet, concluded that the developer had not presented sufficient data to demonstrate that the interceptor waterway would perform this function. Therefore, the requested permission for development was denied. The First District Court of Appeal essentially ruled that for a governmental agency to validly deny a development request on this basis, the agencies would have to establish affirmatively that there would be an adverse water quality impact. In other words, it would be up to local government and other governmental agencies involved to fund and perform the extensive engineering studies and testing necessary to demonstrate whether the developer's proposed interceptor waterway would work. Obviously, if this type of rationale is applied to local zoning decisions, as well as local government consideration of Development Orders and other land development regulations, it would not only seriously weaken local government's authority to regulate land use but would also have serious fiscal consequences in these days of ever dwindling sources of revenue. There are also other issues of importance in this case which, in the interest of brevity, I will not review; however, I am sure your local government attorney can provide you with an analysis in regard to these issues. Your local government may be able to have input into the final decision by the Florida Supreme Court in this case by making an effort to file• as an amicus curiae (becoming a party to the litigation as a friend of the court). Such involvement should not require a major commitment of funds and may prove prudent expense in the long run. We at Treasure Coast have authorized our attorney to proceed in this direction on our behalf and are of the opinion that local governments within our region should consider similar action. It is important, we believe, for other local governments to join in this endeavor so that the Supreme Court will appreciate the significance of this case and give it the serious deliberation it deserves. I have asked the Council's Executive Director, Sam Shannon, to make available copies of the First District Court of Appeal decision, the amicus curi-ae;-filed by the Council, as well as any other information the Council has available on this issue to any requesting local government in the region. Please feel free to call on Sam at your earliest possible convenience if you feel we can be of assistance. Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter. Your,nery truly, irma PBL:cs COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE COUNTY TO CONSIDER JOINING IN AND FILING AN AMICUS CURIAE BECAUSE HE FELT THAT THIS CASE IS A VERY FAR REACHING ONE, WHICH PUTS A LOT OF OUR ZONING, IN JEOPARDY. ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED AND FELT IT WOULD COST BETWEEN $1,500 TO $2,000 TO FILE SUCH A BRIEF. COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED THAT A LOT OF THE MATERIAL FOR THE BRIEF IS AVAILABLE AT THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL AND ASKED IF THIS WOULD HAVE AN AFFECT ON THE COST OF FILING. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT IT VERY DEFINITELY WOULD. ON LOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDE--D BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO"FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $1,000. COMMISSIONER LYONS NEXT DISCUSSED HIS FOLLOWING MEMO IN REGARD TO THE LIBRARY: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Commissioner Pat Lyons DATE: March 13, 1980 I attended the Library Board meeting, Tuesday, March 11th and find that they are apparently in dire financial straits. They will fall about $30,000 to $35,000 short of their needs to keep their doors open for the'full year. In other words they would have to close their doors the last three months of the year. The prime reason for their shortage, in my opinion, is under,,budgeting, inflation, and the lack of expected private support. I am sure that they will be coming to the Commission for additional funds. I told them I did not believe that the Commission would act favorably on such a large request and that they must find other ways to make up their deficit. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT WE SHOULD TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE LIBRARY OPERATION SINCE WE ALREADY PICK UP THE MAJOR PART OF THEIR BILL, AND STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A STUDY COMMITTEE SET UP TO SURVEY SEVERAL AREAS - THE AMOUNT OF PARTICIPATION - THE NEEDS OF THE POPULATION - WHETHER THE LI�bRARY MEETS THOSE NEEDS - AND WHAT CHANGES MAR 19 1980 _ 87 L_ AMOK 43 PAGE .87 r _ 1 _MAR 191980 - - - Baox 43 PAGE MIGHT BE SUGGESTED TO BETTER MEET THESE NEEDS. HE STATED THAT HE WOULD ,. LIKE TO HAVE A GENERAL AUDIT OF THE ENTIRE LIBRARY OPERATION TO SUGGEST WAYS TO INCREASE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PRIVATE ASSISTANCE. HE NOTED THAT THERE USED TO BE A VERY ACTIVE ORGANIZATION CALLED "FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY," BUT THIS SEEMINGLY HAS DISAPPEARED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF SUCH A COMMITTEE SHOULD NOT ORIGINATE FROM THE LIBRARY BOARD ITSELF, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE FELT WE SHOULD HAVE A NEUTRAL COMMITTEE WHICH WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROBLEMS FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE. HE ASKED THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER THIS. COMMISSIONER Loy COMMENTED THAT THE LIBRARY DID NOT RECEIVE ALL THEY ASKED FOR IN THEIR BUDGET THIS YEAR, AND IT IS POSSIBLE THEY WERE UNDERBUDGETED. COMMISSIONER LYONS AGREED THAT WAS POSSIBLE, BUT NOTED THAT SOMETIMES IT IS NECESSARY TO TRIM DOWN TO LIVE WITHIN YOUR BUDGET. HE SUGGESTED THAT THIS MATTER BE DISCUSSED AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. COMMISSIONER LOY RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD PASS A RESOLUTION INDICATING THE COUNTY'S INTENT TO APPLY FORMALLY FOR THE TRACKING STATION PROPERTY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION No. 80-31 TO ACCOMPANY OUR FORMAL APPLICATION FOR THE SURPLUS TRACKING STATION PROPERTY. SAID RESOLUTION WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN RECEIVED. CHAIRMAN &I'EBERT DISC-USSED WITH THE BOARD THE FOLLOWING LETTER IN REGARD TOA NATIONAL AWARD FOR THE KIWANIS CLUB OF VERO BEACH AND STATED THAT HE FELT THE BOARD SHOULD MAKE PLANS TO HAVE A COUNTY COMMISSIONER ATTEND THAT MEETING. s8 dational Association of County Park and Recreation Officials �n Affiliate of the National Association of Counties 735 New York Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 (202) 785-9577 1i5 6 March 11, 1980 'M11 �Pti •T.� ',� Board of County Commissioners r �, Indian River County 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Gentlemen: It is a pleasure for me as Chairman of the NACPRO Awards Committee to advise you that your nominee, the Kiwanis Club of Vero Beach was unanimously selected for the Friend of Recreation Award by the Committee and approved by the NACPRO Board of Directors at their March 2, 1980 meeting, to be presented at the Annual NACPRO Awards Banquet in Las Vegas, Nevada, in conjunction with the Annual National Association of Counties Conference. In regard to this Award, I would appreciate you: 1. Advising the nominee of the Award. 2. Providing me with the Name and Address of Local Press, so I can prepare a Press Release on the Award for them following the Annual NACO Con- ference. 3. Making every effort possible in providing for the arrangements to have your nominee or representative present in Las Vegas to receive the Award. This item is most important, as it will give national exposure and recognition to the nominee. The Annual Awards Banquet will be held one evening during the NACO Con- ference which will be held during June 29 through July 3, 1980. I will notify you of the exact time and location as soon as it is available. Congratulations to you and your nominee and I will look forward to hearing from you soon regarding the above requested information. Sincerely, Frank L. Stramler, Chairman NACPRO Awards Committee AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE FORT PIERCE DISTRICT, TROOP "L", FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, IN REGARD TO A PURCHASE OF FOUR MOVING RADAR UNITS IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1980. 89 `` c� MAR 19 190 ®ooK `` .4J PAGE ''89 MAR 19 19 84 BOOK. 43 PAGE -90 A G R E E M E N T Agreement made this 6th day of February, 1980, by and between the County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and the Fort Pierce District, Troop "L", Florida Highway Patrol, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS by resolution adopted at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on the above date, said County Commission has approved a request by the Fort Pierce District, Troop "L", Florida Highway Patrol for appropriation of THREE THOUSAND INE HUNDRED EIGHTY DOLLARS ($3,980.00) in order to purchase four Model K-55 ng radar units from MPH Industries, Inc.; and WHEREAS The Florida Highway Patrol has agreed to limit the use of said radar units to the seven Highway Patrol troopers currently assigned to Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS the Indian River County Commission intends to retain title to said radar units; NOW THEREFORE the parties agree as follows: 1. The above mentioned radar units shall be used by the seven troopers of the Florida Highway Patrol regularly assigned to Indian River unty, Florida. 2. Title of the equipment shall remain in the inventory of Indian ver County, Florida. 3. The equipment shall be permanently loaned to the Florida Highway atrol by Indian River County, Florida. 4. The State of Florida shall be responsible for all certification said units necessary for an FCC license. 5. The State of Florida shall be responsible for all certification ssary of said units to make said units admissible in a court of. law. 6. The State of Florida shall be the licensee for any necessary licenses for said units. Individual Operators 7. The shall maintain said units and be responsible +r for the expense thereof. 11 NORMANN ATTORNEYYATAT IA.LAW ! y ! ! Y AGREED TO at Vero Beach Indian River Count Florida on the year P.O. BOX 267, - VERO BEACH, FL 32960 - r and date first above mentioned. L- 11 MAR 191980 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY r FORT PIERCE DISTRICT, TROOP "L", FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL BY: �t SGT. A. Q. MORRIS, DISTRICT SERGEANT BOOK 4 PAGE, 91 BOOK 43 PAGE 92 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, CREATING AND ESTABLISH4 NG A COMBINED ENTITLEMENT JURISDICTION, APPROVED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 1980 BY RESOLUTION 80-23, IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES. 92 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 20thday of February , 1980, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, by and between the EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (ECFRPC), and the following counties which are political subdivisions of the State of Florida: BREVARD COUNTY, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, LAKE COUNTY, ORANGE COUNTY, OSCEOLA COUNTY, SEMINOLE COUNTY and VOLUSIA COUNTY, and the following cities which are municipal corporations in the State of Florida: SEBASTIAN, VERO BEACH, FELLSMERE, INDIAN RIVER SHORES, FRUITLAND PARK, CLERMONT, EUSTIS, MONTVERDE, GROVE - LAND, HOWEY-IN-THE-HILLS, LEESBURG, MASCOTTE, MINNEOLA, MT. DORA, TAVARES, UMATILLA, LADY LAKE, APOPKA, EATONVILLE, EDGEWOOD, MAITLAND, OAKLAND, OCOEE, ORLANDO, WINDERMERE, WINTER GARDEN, WINTER PARK, KISSIMMEE, ST. CLOUD, CASSELBERRY, ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, LONGWOOD, SANFORD, WINTER SPRINGS, LAKE MARY, OVIEDO, ORMOND BEACH, PONCE INLET, HOLLY HILL, DELAND, DAYTONA BEACH SHORES, DAYTONA BEACH, LAKE HELEN, ORANGE CITY, NEW SMYRNA BEACH, SOUTH DAYTONA, PORT ORANGE, EDGEWATER, OAK HILL, CAPE CANAVERAL, COCOA BEACH, INDIALANTIC, INDIAN HARBOUR BEACH, ROCKLEDGE, TITUSVILLE, COCOA, SATELLITE BEACH, MELBOURNE, MELBOURNE BEACH, PALM BAY, MELBOURNE VILLAGE and WEST MELBOURNE , creating and establishing a Combined Entitlement Jurisdiction: W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Public Law 96-157 provides for formula grants to eligible jurisdictions, including a combination of units of local government which have a total population of 100,000 persons, which provides at least .15 percent of state and local criminal justice expenditures and would receive a minimum $50,000 in LEAA Part D funds, and WHEREAS, each of the parties to this Interlocal Agreement has heretofore passed a Resolution indicating its intent to join with the other parties in forming a Combined Entitlement Jurisdiction, and MAR 191980 B�°� 413 PAGE i�� MAR 191990 mox 43 PAGE 94 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to participate cooperatively as a Combined Entitlement Jurisdiction in order to coordinate efforts, analyze crime and criminal justice problems, set priorities for the use of funds and carry out programs of proven or likely effectiveness in improving criminal and juvenile justice, and WHEREAS, Section 163.01(4) of the Florida Statutes provides that "a public agency of this state may exercise jointly with any other public agency of the state, of any other state, or of the United States Government any power, privilege, or authority which such agencies share in common and which each might exercise separately", and WHEREAS, each party hereto as a public agency or local unit of government has the power, individually or collectively, to administer programs under the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Public Law 96-157, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual convenants, promises and representations herein contained, the parties agree as follows: I. PURPOSE. The purposes of this Agreement are: A. To ensure eligibility for the receipt of formula grant funds pursuant to the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Public Law 96-157. B. To afford each party hereto fair and equitable treatment in the consideration for, and receipt of, formula grant funds re- ceived by the Combined Entitlement Jurisdiction. C. To ensure a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive criminal justice program that results in the analysis of crime and criminal justice problems, setting funding priorities based on the analysis and carrying out programs of proven or likely effectiveness in.improving criminal and juvenile justice. D. To ensure compliance with all requirements of the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 and other applicable laws, guidelines and regulations. 2 II. ADMINISTRATION. A. The ECFRPC shall serve as the applicant for federal formula grants provided for under the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979. B. As the applicant, the ECFRPC shall provide the primary staff to develop the necessary application to receive and disburse the formula grant funds, and to carry out those activities essential to the proper administration of the formula grant funds. C. The ECFRPC shall receive 7?% of the Combined -Entitlement Juris- diction total allocation each fiscal-year;=for the purpose of administering the formula grant_fundss_ Additional matching funds may be made available through the State's matching trust fund. D. The ECFRPC shall be designated as the primary staff unit re- sponsible for ensuring that the following functions, specified in federal guidelines pursuant to the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 are carried out by the appropriate parties: (1) Analyzing criminal and juvenile justice problems of the MAR 19 1981 area. (2) Setting priorities based on the analysis. (3) Preparing and submitting to the State a three-year appli- cation and any amendments thereto, in conformance with federal and state laws, regulations and guidelines. (4) Preparing and submitting to the State Council an annual performance report which includes an assessment of impact, as well as maintaining and providing such other information as may be required by law or regulation. (5) Compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations regarding the use of LEAA funds. (6) The proper accounting, auditing, monitoring and evaluation of projects and programs. AI 3 BOOK 43'. PAGE -95 MAR 191990 - BoaK43 FnE 96 III. COMBINED I ENTITLEMENT JURIS QTION-ADVISORY CONNITTEE. A. Effective October 1, 1980, the ECFRPC shall establish a Criminal Justice Advisory Committed based on specific criteria as referenced in the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979.. The duties of the Committee shall be advisory to the ECFRPC and shall include the following: (1) Analyzing criminal justice problems. (2) Recommending priorities based on the analysis. (3) Recommending projects for funding, based on established priorities. (4) Ensuring adequate shares of funding for all components of the criminal justice system. B. Effective October 1, 1980, within the geographical limits of each county there shall be established a Criminal Justice Advisory Committee comprised of the participating units of local government within each such county, based on specific criteria as referenced in the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979. Each such county committee shall be created or designated in a manner agreed to by the participating units of local government within such county. The duties of the committees shall be advisory to the ECFRPC's Criminal Justice Advisory Committee and shall include the following: (1) Analyzing criminal justice problems. (2) Recommending priorities based on the analysis. (3) Recommending projects for funding, based on established priorities. (4) Ensuring adequate shares of funding for all components of the criminal justice system. IV. FUNDING. A. The primary source of funds for the Combined Entitlement Jurisdiction shall be Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) funds provided by the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979. 2 � � r B. Within the region, the proportionate share of the Combined Entitlement Jurisdiction's annual LEAA allocation to the re- spective geographical areas shall be guaranteed by a formula based on criminal justice expenditures, less 7z% of this share for administrative costs. C. Funds will be allocated within the geographical limits of each county by the county's criminal justice advisory committee, in accordance with state and federal rules and regulations, subject to approval by the ECFRPC's Criminal Justice Advisory Committee. D. Deviation from the funding allocations to the respective counties may be effected only through formal waivers of specific amounts of funds by the county's criminal justice advisory committee and the ECFRPC's Criminal Justice Advisory Committee. E. Local matching funds for formula grant projects shall be provided by the recipient unit of government, public or private implementing agency operating said projects. Additional matching funds may be made available through the State's matching trust fund. F. A possible secondary source of funds for the Combined Entitlement Jurisdiction may be provided for by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended. Should these funds be made available, they shall be administered by the ECFRPC as specified in the Act and/or by the Bureau of Criminal Justice Assistance guidelines, provided that 71-2% of the total JJDP allo- cation shall be utilized to cover administrative costs. G. Use of funds shall be in compliance with the provisions of the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, relating to purposes outlined in the Acts, established priorities, adequate share funding to the various criminal justice system.functions, and assumption of cost requirements and policies. V. ACCOUNTABILITY. A. Each of the participating units of government receiving federal funds through the Combined Entitlement Jurisdiction shall be responsible for compliance with the reporting, evaluation and auditing requirementss,as set forth in the state and federal rules and regulations. 5 MA_ R 1919810 L 0 - - BOOK . 43 wt 97 . MAR 19 1980 - _ - - a©oK 43 PAG9$ B. Each of the participating units of local government receiving federal funds through the Combined Entitlement Jurisdiction shall be fully liable for the propel use and accountability of those funds which it receives. C. Each participating unit of local government shall, and hereby agrees to, save, indemnify and hold -harmless the ECFRPC from any loss, cost or attorney's fees which the ECFRPC may other- wise incur by reason of any breach of this Agreement by the indemnifying unit of local government, or the failure of the indemnifying unit of local government to abide by or comply with applicable federal and state statutes, rules and regulations. VI. EFFECTIVE DATE, DURATION AND TERMINATION. A. The effective date of this Combined Entitlement Jurisdiction shall be October 1, 1980. B. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties hereto, this Agreement shall remain in effect until the administration of all funds received by the Combined Entitlement Jurisdiction pursuant to this Agreement have been expended. Each of the participating units of government shall reaffirm its commitment to the Combined Entitlement Jurisdiction by Resolution at the beginning of each three-year application cycle. C. Termination of this Agreement, or the withdrawal of any party or parties hereto, shall be effected only after written notice of intent .to withdraw -to the ECFRPC, which said written notice shall be given at least sixty (60) days prior to the intended date of withdrawal. Financial commitments for administration purposes made prior to withdrawal are effective and binding for the full term of the then current funding cycle regardless of withdrawal. D. Upon the termination of this Agreement, any equipment or property obtained in the administration of the Combined Entitlement Juris- diction shall remain the property of the ECFRPC; provisions shall be made in a termination document for the appropriate completion of any affected grants and the disposition of funds of such grants. 0 VII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A. How Contract Affected By Provisions Being Held Invalid. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby if such remainder would then continue to conform to the terms and requirements of applicable law. B. Federal Or State Law. Nothin in this Agreement shall require the Combined Entitle- ment Jurisdiction or the parties hereto to observe or enforce compliance with any provision hereof, perform any other act or do.any other thing in contravention of any applicable federal or state law. C. Execution of Agreement. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counter- parts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. D. Constitutional Or Statutory Duties And Responsibilities Of The Parties To This Agreement. This Agreement shall not be construed to authorize the dele- gation of the constitutional or statutory duties of any of the parties. In addition, this Agreement does not relieve any of the parties of an obligation or responsibility imposed upon them by law except to the extent of actual and timely performance thereof by one or more of the parties to this Agreement or any legal or administrative entity created or authorized by this Agreement, in which case the performance may be offered in satisfaction of the obligation or responsi- bility. E. Amendment Of Agreement. Amendments to this Agreement may be initiated by the ECFRPC. Amendments shall be formally ratified and approved by resolution of the respective parties to this Agreement. rA _ MAR 19198D BooK 43 PuE' 99 MAR 191990 8001( 43 PAGE 100 F. Agreement Format. All words used herein in the singul4r form shall extend to and include the plural. All words used in the plural form shall extend to and include the singular. All words used in any gender shall extend to and include all genders. EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL By: n UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Board of County ComMissionexs Indian River County, Florida By: ,� c�✓ Title: E-1 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND SHELTERED WORKSHOP, PROVIDING FOR AN ANNUAL AUDIT, AND COPY OF GRANT APPLICATION, ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 1980. 101 epvK _�:3' vacs 1�1 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of BOOK March 43 PAG£ 102 1980, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of: the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as COUNTY and VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND SHELTERED WORKSHOP OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, INC., hereinafter referred to as VOCATIONAL TRAINING. WHEREAS, Vocational Training has requested the County to sponsor a grant, copy of which is filed by the Executive Director, John M. Rezanka and is attached to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, County is willing to sponsor the grant application, condition upon Vocational Training providing County with an annual audit evidencing the use of all funds. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises the parties agree as follows: 1. County shall sponsor grant application by Vocational Training as submitted in the attached exhibit and governmental officials shall be authorized to sign appropriate documents. 2. Vocational Training shall be responsible for receipt and disbursement of funds including the grant monies received and shall provide County, at the completion of the program, or within one (1) year from date, an audit prepared by a Certified Public Accounting firm, reflecting income and expenditures in- curred by Vocational Training pursuant to the Lawn Maintenance Program attached hereto. 3. Vocational Training agrees to be responsible for receipts and proper expenditure of all funds pursuant to the attached Lawn Maintenance application and in the event Vocational Training fails to provide County with the audit required, County may obtain said audit, collect costs thereof from Vocational Training, including court costs and Attorney fees. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Freda Wright, Clerk Willar�c� iebert, Jt: Chairman VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND SHELTERED WORKSHOP,OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, INC. r ;0Z� RODA FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE COMMUNITY SERVICES ACT IM74 (COMMUNITY SERVICES TRUST FUND) GRANT APPLICATION Page 1 of 7 REPLY TO: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DIVISION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 1. Local Governmental Unit Applying for Grant: * SUBMIT FOUR (4) COPIES (ONE MUST BE ORIGINAL) * PLEASE TYPE — ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS Name: Indian River Co. Telephone: (301 969_7927 name of town, city or county) Address: P.O. Box 1028 Vero Beach Fla _ Z1P: 3 960 ° County: Indian River 2. Delegate Agency (s) : Vocational Training and Sheltered Wnrk4hnP_ 3. Person with over-all responsibility of grant: (Our Department will contact this person should questions arise) Name: John M. Rezanka Telephone: ((QS)562=,hR5t► Address: 1385 16th Ave Vero Beach Fla 32960 Signature: ' 4. Name and address of person authorized to receive funds. If this ap- plication is funded, checks will be mailed to this person. All checks will be made payable to the local government. Name: Kathlppn Carrott (Fina rp nffirpr) Address: p,0, Box 1028 Caurt-halise Ann�� Vero Beach Fla Zip: 32960 0 MAR 91980 - soQK ;4 Pb 113 MAR 19 198 - _ / GRANT APPLICATION Page 2 of 7 (use attachment page if necessary) 1. Give a brief overview of the proposed program:' See Attached 2. Identify the problem this program will address. See Attached 9QOK 4� ,PAGE �®� 3. Specify the target population in your program service area af- fected by this problem. How large is the target population? Provide quantifiable numbers. The target population consist of mentally retarded adults over 18 years of age. There are approximately 10-f2 clients in the program service area. 4. What is the severity of the problem among the target population. Provide quanitifiable numbers/percentages, etc. 10% of the target population are capable of learning necesary lawn maintance skills. This same group currently have no opportunity to apply their skill. 5. How will this program address the problem? See attached 6. How many and what percentage of the target population will be served? Is this amount an increase over the existing services. 6 persons will be served during the grant period. Thib represents approximately 40%-50'/ of the target population. 7. Will this program provide direct access or availability of other services? If yes, how? Clients are referred for supportive services to the Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services. 8. Is the program operating now? If yes, explain what changes this grant will provide for. _. This is a new program,._. 9. Will the CSTF grant funds be used by the local government or delegate agency as match to obtain other funds? If yes, what other funds and No. roximate total dollars -to be gained. 10. Identify program funding pattern and total budget A. Federal % Total FY Budget $ B. State 2sri. 6 u % 541 C. Local ; 5-�0. o Q %3- D. Other $ 11. Has this program previously received CSTF funds?When? No. - GRANT APPLICAMage 2a of 7 (use attachment page if necessary) 12. What funds will sustain the program after this grant expires? Title XX Developmental Training Funds. 13. Who will do the audit of the program? Schecter, Beame, Pfeiffer and Burstein 14. Does a clearinghouse or information and referral service for social services exist in the proposed service area? Will this program participate and how? Our agency will notify the Indian River Council on Community Services Inc. for referals. 15. Could this program be used as a model for similar services in other areas of the State? How? Yes. If this program is sucessful it could be applied to other mentally retarded adults throughout the state. 16. Will quantifiable research data be obtained from this program? Explain? Data will be obtained as to numbers of clients trained and transitioned into the work program. Each component of the training program will be tasks analyzed. MCA 43 'pAr,E 105 'MAR 191980 Page 2 (Attachment) sooK 43 PAGE 106 1. The program will serve to provide an opportunity for moderate to severely retarded adults with an opportunity to apply lawn maintinence training to an actual on th job situation. After demonstrating proficiency in skill areas, the clients will form a crew which will go out into the community - at large and provide a lawn maintenace service the program will provide each client with the necessary pre -vocational and vocational skills, attitudes and behaviors which will enable them to enter the world of work. 2. At this time there is no work -oriented program available to mentally retarded- adults in Indian River County. Developmental Training and daily activities are provided in currently available programs however there is no opportunity to apply training to an actual on-the-'Iob setting, where they can earn a wage. 5. The program will address the problem by 1. Assessing each clients present level of skill in the lawn maintenance. 2. Developing an individual program plan designed around each clients strengths and needs. 3. Training clients in appropiate and safe use of equipment. 4. Traveling out into the community to homes and businesses to provide lawn service. GRANT APPLICATION Page 3 of 7 3 7® CG t® Local Governmental Unit. Applying Indian River County Delegate Agency Vocational Workshop county or city) ' Program Title Lawn Maintenance A. Program Objectives (Quantify.all objectives).. B. Major Activities and Substeps Required to C. Planned Results. Show what accomplish objectives portion of your objectives will be accomplished each quarter. (Quantify all ac- complishments.) To provide training in lawn care and 1. Evaluation and identification of participants As of 6/30/80 6 clients will be identified, maintenance in a sheltered setting at the .workshop. 2, Individual program planning for each participant, screened and assessed and provided with an Educationel Training participants in safety while with task analyses of subject areas. Plan for Training. using equipment. 3. Training program at the Workshop in lawn care, Training in sheltered setting completed Transition from Sheltered setting to maintenance and safe use of equipment, community on a crew providing lawn 4. Transition into work oriented program on lawn maintenance services. maintenance crew. a As of 9/30/80 6 clients successfully participating in work program on a crew in community. w 0 0 F� a rn 1nn,R �/►R � G1:ILNT APPLICATION Page 4 -f 7 MAR 91980 aoo�: 43 :PAcE 10$ Name of Applicant: _ Indian River County - (City or County) TOTAL BUDGET A. Include figures from all delegate agency budgets. B. Explain by attachment all expenditures over $500 per line item. REVENUE 1. State Grant_ _ _ _ _ 2500.00 2. Cash Match (no_federal,funds, except_revenue_sharing, allowed) 1250 00 3. In -Kind Match 125.0.00 4. TOTAL REVENUE_________________ 5000.00 GRANTEE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CASH IN-KIND 5. Salaries 6. Rental Space 7. Travel 8. Supplies 9. Other (specify on attachment) 10. TOTAL (lines_5_through_9) _ _ _ _ _ _ DELEGATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE 11. Salaries 12. Rental Space 13. Travel 14. Supplies 15. Other (specify on attachment) 16. TOTAL (lines 11 through 16) *17. TOTAL -ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (line 10 and 16) GRANTEE PROGRAM EXPENSE * *Line 17 -must not exceed 15% of two times line 1. 18. Salaries 19. Rental Space 20. Travel 21. Equipment 22. Other (specify on attachment) 23. TOTAL (lines 18 through 22) DELEGATE PROGRAM EXPENSE 24. Salaries 5�n_an 25. Rental Space 1250700 26. Travel 250_n0 27. Equipment 2000.00 28. Other (specify on attachment) 29. TOTAL (lines 24 through 28) 3750.00 30. TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES (lines 23 and 29) 3750.00 1250.00 31. TOTAL EXPENDITURES (cash and in-kind) 32. TOTAL COMBINED EXPENDITURES (cash and in-kind) 5000.00 GRANT APPLICATION Page 5 of 7 3 - Local Government Unit,,Applying: Indian River County Delegate Agency: Training ng and Sheltered Work 1-"- - - C® co CASH AND IN-KIND MATCH I. Cash Match Source 1. _General Fund (Donation) 2. 3. 4. II. In -Kind Salaries and Benefits Position Title and Name of Person 1. 2. 3. 4. III. Other In -Kind Description and Source 1. Building (Nettn CnnatrIA-tinn ro.) 0 2. 3. 4. H 0 Amount 1. i) 2. 3. 4. Hourly Rate 1. 2. 3. 4. Unit Cost $ 2 .l� Ft - 2. t 3. 4. Number of Hours To Be Worked 1. 2. 3. 4. No. of Units 1 • ,x,000 2. 3. 4. I. TOTAL CASH MATCH i95n_nn Total (Hourly rate x num- ber hours to be worked) 1. 2. 3. 4. II. TOTAL SALARIES Total (Unit cost x num- ber of units 1. 2. 3. 4. III. TOTAL OTHER IV. TOTAL MATCH $1250.00 MAR 191980 GRANT APPLICATION Page 6 of 7 BOOK 43 PAct11.0 f Local Governmental Unit Applying: Indian River County _ (County or City) Delegate Agency Budget - Complete one for each Delegate Agency Program Name: Lawn Maintance Training Name of Delegate Agency: Vocational Trajn;np, and Sheltered WorkGhop Address: 1385 16th Ave Vero Beach Zip: 32960 Contact Person: Telephone: 1305 ) 562-6854 Tax Exempt Number: 59-164 6 if none, attach a copy of the certificate of incorporation) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CASH IN-KIND 1. Salaries 2. Rental 3. Travel 4. Supplies 5. Other (specify on attachment) 6. TOTAL (lines 1 through 5) PROGRAM EXPENSES 7. Salaries 8. Rental Space 9. Travel 10. Equipment 11. Other (specify on attachment) 12. TOTAL (lines 7 through 11)' 3750.00 1250_.00 13. TOTAL EXPENSES (line 6 and line 12) 3750.00 1250.00 Explain by attachment all expenditures over $500. TOTAL BUDGET 5000.00 THE DELEGATE AGENCY HEREBY APPROVES THIS APPLICATION AND WILL COMPLY WITH ALL RULES, REGULATIONS AND CONTRACTS RELATING, -THERETO: APPROVED BY: Pa»1 ARarhee . President of Board (Signature) ATTESTED BY: T11,, M 12eZela,�.. Name _D1 Y PC. 4 Y' Title GRANT APPLICATION Page 7 of 7 Local Governmental Unit Applying: Indian River County 14. THE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT THE DATA IN THIS APPLICATION AND ITS VARIOUS SECTIONS INCLUDING BUDGET DATA, ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF HIS OR HER KNOWLEDGE AND THAT THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED AND UNDERSTANDS THAT IT WILL BECOME PART OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE APPLICANT. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR THE CITY COUNCIL HAS PASSED A RESOLUTION WHICH AUTHORIZES THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE SPECIFIED PROGRAMS. IF FEES OR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TO BE UTILIZED AS MATCHING FOR THIS GRANT, OR IF A DELEGATE AGENCY IS TO PROVIDE THE MATCHING SHARE, AND THESE FUNDS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING, THIS RESOLUTION ALSO SPECIFIES THAT THE CITY OR COUNTY WILL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY MATCH. THIS APPLICANT FURTHER CERTIFIES, DUE TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT NOT TO DUPLICATE SERVICES AND THAT THESE PARTICULAR SERVICES ARE NOT BEING PROVIDED NOR ARE THEY AVAILABLE FROM ANY OTHER STATE AGENCY. ALTHOUGH SIMILAR SERVICES MAY BE AVAILABLE, THE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT NO OTHER RESOURCE EXISTS TO PROVIDE THESE PARTI- CULAR SERVICES TO THESE CLIENTS WITHOUT THE USE OF THIS MONEY. Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Name (typed) Chairman Signature r Title (Mayor or Chairman of Board of County.Commissioners) Indian River County Courthouse 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Address ( 305) 569-1940 .Telephone m Freda Wright, ATTESTED BY: NaMrityped) Signature Title soa 43 PAGE- MAR 191980 800K 43 PAGE 112 Budget. (Attachment) Equipment Vehicle rental 1500.00 Lawn Mowers 400.00 Assorted Garden Tools 100.00 Total 2000.00 WDA FINANCIAL ASSISTANCEWCOMMUNITY SERVICES ACT IM74 (C0MMUNITY SERVICES TRUST FUND) GRANT APPLICATION Page 1 of 7 REPLY TO: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DIVISION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 1. Local Governmental Unit Applying for Grant: * SUBMIT FOUR (4) COPIES (ONE MUST BE ORIGINAL) * PLEASE TYPE - ANS117ER ALL QUESTIONS Name: Indian Rimer Co. Telephone: (30j562_7927 name of town, city or county) Address: P.O. Box 1028 Vero Beach Fla zip: X2960 ° County: Indian River 2. Delegate Agency (s) : Vocational Training and Sheltered Workahnp 3. Person with over-all responsibility of grant: (Our Department will contact this person should questions arise) Name: John M. Rezanka Telephone: (305)56 _r 5& Address: 1385 16th Ave Vero Beach Fla 32960 Signature: 4. Name and address of person authorized to receive funds. If this ap- plication is funded, checks will be mailed to this person. All checks will be made payable to the local government. . � . Wrl r2=8119 a WOMB Address: Q. Box 1028 rmirt-finust, Annex Vero Beach Fla Zip: 32960 0 - - DOOR MAR 191900 - 43 : p4U 14-x` MAR 19 1980 GRANT APPLICATION Page 2 of 7 (use attachment page if ngcessary) N. 1. Give a brief overview of the proposed program: See Attached 2. Identify the problem this program will address. See Attached MOK -43 PAGE 114 3. Specify the target population in your program service area af- fected by this problem. How large is the target population? Provide quantifiable numbers. The target population consist of mentally retarded adults over 18 years of age. There are approximately 10-f2 clients in the program service area. 4. What is the severity of the problem among the target population. Provide quanitifiable numbers/percentages, etc. 10% of the target population are capable of learning necesary lawn maintance skills. This same group currently have no opportunity to apply their skill. 5. How will this program address the problem? See attached 6. How many and what percentage of the target population will be served? Is this amount an increase over the existing services. 6 persons will be served during the grant period. Thib represents approximately 40%-50% of the target population. 7. Will this program provide direct access or availability of other services? If yes, how? Clients are referred for supportive services to the Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services. 8. Is the program operating now? If yes, explain what changes this grant will provide fos.- This is a new program -a., 9. Will the CSTF grant funds be used by the local government or delegate agency as match to obtain other funds? If yes, what other funds and approximate total dollars -to be gained. No. 10. Identify program funding pattern and total budget A. Federal % Total FY Budget $_ B. State % S',3% C. Local e , % 5' %/ D. Other 7 11. Has this program previously received CSTF funds? When? No. ® GRANT APPLICAage 2a of 7 _ (use attachment page if necessary) 12. What funds will sustain the program after this grant expires? Title XX Developmental Training Funds. 13. Who will do the audit of the program? Schecter, Beame, Pfeiffer and Burstein 14. Does a clearinghouse or information and referral service for social services exist in the proposed service area? Will this program participate and how? Our agency will notify the Indian River Council on Community Services Inc. for referals. 15. Could this program be used as a model for similar services in other areas of the State? How? - Yes. If this program is sucessful it could be applied to_ other mentally retarded adults throughout the state. 16. Will quantifiable research data be obtained from this program? Explain? Data will be obtained as to numbers of clients trained and transitioned into the work program. Each component of the training program will be tasks analyzed. s00K 43 Pa"E 115 -MAR 1-91990 - `M -AR 19 1980 - U BOOK 43 PAGE�� Page 2 (Attachment) 1. The program will serve to provide an opportunity for moderate to severely retarded adults with an opportunity to apply lawn maintinence training to an actual on th job situation. After demonstrating proficiency in skill areas, the clients will form a crew which will go out into the community at large and provide a lawn maintenace service the program will provide each client with the necessary pre -vocational and vocational skills, attitudes and behaviors which will enable them to enter the world of work. 2. At this time there is no work -oriented program available to mentally retarded' adults in Indian River County. Developmental Training and daily activities are provided in currently available programs however there is no opportunity to apply training to an actual on-the'i ob setting, where they can earn a wage. 5. The program will 1. Assessing ea& 2. Developing an strengths and 3. Training clie 4. Traveling out lawn service. address the problem by 1 clients present level of skill in the lawn maintenance. individual program plan designed around each clients needs. its in appropiate and safe use of equipment. into,_t-he community to homes and businesses to provide GRANT APPLICATION Page 3 of 7 =K Local Governmental Unit Applying Indian River County Delegate Agency Vocational county or city) -Workshop Program Title Lawn Maintenance C® c� co A. Program Objectives (Quantify.all.objectives).. B. Major Activities and Subste s P Required to accomplish objectives C. Planned Results. Show what portion of your objectives will be accomplished each quarter. (Quantify all ac - com lishments.) To provide training in lawn care and maintenance in a sheltered setting at the 1. Evaluation and identification of participants As of 6/30/80 6 clients will be identified, .workshop.:' 2. Individual program planning for each participant, screened and assessed and provided with an Educationel Training participants in safety while with task analyses of subject areas. Plan for Training. using equipment. 3. Training program at the Workshop in lawn care, Training in sheltered setting completed Transition from Sheltered setting to maintenance and safe use of equipment, community on a crew providing lawn maintenance services. 4. Transition into work oriented program on lawn maintenance crew. AS Of' 9/30/80 6 clients successfully participating in'owork program on a crew in community. Q O x. r� I MAR 191980 GP,_i1N1' APPLICATION Page 4 of _ 7 -- . _ - Boa 43 PA;E 118 Name Of Applicant: Indian River County (City or County) TOTAL BUDGET A. Include figures from all delegate agency budgets. B. Explain by attachment all expenditures over $500 per line item. REVENUE 1. State Grant _ _ _ _ _ _ 2500.00 2. Cash Match_(no_federalrfunds, exceat_revenue_sharing, allowed) 1250.00 3. In -Kind Match ________________ 1250.00 4. TOTAL REVENUE _ _ _ 5000.00 GRANTEE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CASH IN-KIND 5. Salaries 6. Rental Space 7. Travel 8. Supplies 9. Other (specify on attachment) 10. TOTAL (lines_5_throu2h_9) _ _ _ _ _ _ DELEGATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE 11. Salaries 12. Rental Space 13. Travel 14. Supplies 15. Other (specify on attachment) 16. TOTAL (lines 11 through 16) *17. TOTAL'ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (line 10 and 16) GRANTEE PROGRAM EXPENSE R *Line 17 -must not exceed 15% of two times line 1. 18. Salaries 19. Rental Space 20. Travel 21. Equipment 22. Other (specify on attachment) 23. TOTAL (lines 18 through 22) DELEGATE PROGRAM EXPENSE 24. Salaries _ 1goo -on 25. Rental Space 1250'00 26. Travel - - 250.00 27. Equipment 2000.00 28. Other (specify on attachment) 29. TOTAL (lines 24 through 28) 3750.00 30. TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES (lines 23 and 29) 3750.00 1250.00 31. TOTAL EXPENDITURES (cash and in-kind) 32. TOTAL COMBINED EXPENDITURES (cash and in-kind) 5000.00 GRANT APPLICATION Page 5 of 7 Local Government Unit Applying: Indian River Coun cc Delegate Agency: Vocational Training and Sheltered Workshop ® CASH AND IN-KIND MATCH I. Cash Match Source 1- General Fund (Donation) 2. 3. 4. II. In -Kind Salaries and Benefits Position Title and Name of Person 1. 2. 3. 4. III. Other In -Kind Description and Source 1*- Building (N ttn Cnnatrg;rtinn Cnom) 2. w` 3. 4. 6 Amount 1. 1') 2. 3. 4. I. TOTAL CASH MATCH 1250.00 Total (Hourly rate x num- ber hours to be worked) 1. 2. 3. 4. II.' TOTAL SALARIES Total (Unit cost x num- ber of unit 1. 2. 3. 4. III. TOTAL OTHER IV. TOTAL MATCH 1 Number of Hours Hourly Rate To Be Worked 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. Unit Cost No. of Units 1.$1 _9Sa = Ft., 1. 1000 2 2 3. 3. 4. 4. I. TOTAL CASH MATCH 1250.00 Total (Hourly rate x num- ber hours to be worked) 1. 2. 3. 4. II.' TOTAL SALARIES Total (Unit cost x num- ber of unit 1. 2. 3. 4. III. TOTAL OTHER IV. TOTAL MATCH 1 "B IAR 19 1980 GRANT APPLICATION Page 6 of 7 BOOK PAPE x.20 Local Governmental Unit Applying: Indian River County - I (County or City) Delegate Agency Budget - Complete one for each Delegate Agency Program Name: Lawn Maintance Training Name of Delegate Agency: Vocational Training and Shelr rPd Workshop Address: 1385 16th Ave Vero Beach Zip: 32960 Contact Person: Jnhn M_ RP7nnkn Telephone: 1305 ) 562-6854 Tax Exempt Number: 59-1647 6 if none, attach a copy of the certificate of incorporation) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CASH IN-KIND 1. Salaries 2. Rental 3. Travel 4. Supplies 5. Other (specify on attachment) 6. TOTAL (lines 1 through 5) PROGRAM EXPENSES 7. Salaries 8. Rental Space 9. Travel 10. Equipment 11. Other (specify on attachment) 12. TOTAL (lines 7 through 11) 13. TOTAL EXPENSES (line 6 and line 12) 3750.00 1250.00 Explain by attachment all -expenditures over $500. TOTAL BUDGET 5000.00 THE DELEGATE AGENCY HEREBY APPROVES THIS APPLICATION AND WILL COMPLY WITH ALL RULES, REGULATIONS AND CONTRACTS RELATING,,THERETO: APPROVED BY: Paul A_ RnrheP-- President of Board (Signature) ATTESTED BY: T 1jr A, Pe z i liA' Name Aropc 41 - Title _ ® r GRANT APPLICATION Page 7 of 7 Local Governmental Unit Applying: Indian River County 14. THE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT THE DATA IN THIS APPLICATION,AND:"f.. ITS VARIOUS SECTIONS INCLUDING BUDGET DATA, ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF HIS OR HER KNOWLEDGE AND THAT THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED AND UNDERSTANDS THAT IT WILL BECOME PART OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE APPLICANT. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR THE CITY COUNCIL HAS PASSED A RESOLUTION WHICH. AUTHORIZES THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE SPECIFIED PROGRAMS. IF FEES OR CONTRIBUTIONS• ARE TO BE UTILIZED AS MATCHING FOR THIS -GRANT, OR IF A.DELEGATE AGENCY IS TO PROVIDE THE MATCHING SHARE, AND THESE FUNDS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING, THIS RESOLUTION ALSO..SPECIFI-ES THAT THE CITY OR COUNTY WILL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY MATCH. THIS APPLICANT FURTHER CERTIFIES, DUE TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT` NOT TO DUPLICATE SERVICES AND THAT THESE PARTICULAR SERVICES ARE NOT BEING PROVIDED NOR ARE THEY AVAILABLE FROM ANY OTHER STATE AGENCY. ALTHOUGH SIMILAR SERVICES MAY BE AVAILABLE, THE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT NO OTHER RESOURCE EXISTS TO PROVIDE THESE PARTI- CULAR SERVICES TO THESE CLIENTS WITHOUT THE USE OF THIS MONEY. Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Name (typed) Signature Chairman Title (Mayor or Chairman of Board of County Commissioners) Indian River County Courthouse 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Address ( 30) 569-1940 Telephone Freda Wright, r� J? ATTESTED BY: t NaMrityped) Signature Title 0 - - Boas - f MSIR 19 -i98o- - .. MAR 19 1980 U Budget. (Attachment) Equipment Vehicle rental 1500.00 Lawn Mowers 400.00 Assorted Garden Tools 100.00 Total 2000.00 Bou 43 PAGE 122 F AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RE LANDSCAPING OF THEIR ENTRANCE FEATURE, ETC., IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1980. 113 BOOK 43 � PA ' AGREEMENT I WX 43. PnEx.24 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 6th day of February, 1980, by and between GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "General" and Indian River County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as "Indian River County"; WITNESSETH WHEREAS, General applied to the Indian River County Planning Commission on October 18, 1979, for rezoning and site plan approval of a 3Tacre entrance feature to the Vero Highlands community, located in Indian River County, Florida, and particularly described as follows: Tracts A and B of Vero Beach Highlands, Unit One Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 29, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. All that part of the north 643.7 Feet of the South 1083.7 Feet of the NE 1/4 in Section 31, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, lying West of the West right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 1, as now located, and East of the East right-of-way of the Florida East Coast RR, Indian River County, Florida: WHEREAS, included within the entrance feature site approval request was a proposal by General to plant trees, shrubs, and other landscaping in the median of Southwest 20th Place and along either side of said street in the public right-of-way for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet from U.S. 1, and WHEREAS, Indian River County favors actions that enhance and beautify the County but wishes to be assured that the landscaped portion entrance feature will be continually and properly maintained; s AND WHEREAS Indian River County and General desire to formalize the specific responsibilities of General and Indian River County; Now THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the issuance of the required permits to erect and construct said entrance feature, and other good and valuable considerations, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Indian River County will issue the required permits to General, authorizing General to erect and construct trees and other landscaping in accordance with that landscaping plan and on that property as described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. General shall maintain the aforementioned land- scaping for a period of three (3) years from time of planting. 3. General shall provide Indian River County with a corporate bond with a term beginning three (3) years from time of installation of the landscaping and continuing for an additional seven (7) years in the amount of $10,000.00. Said bond shall be in favor of Indian River County and shall insure the maintenance of such landscaping during said period. 4. General shall establish a Property Owners Asso- ciation for Vero Highlands and record deed restrictions which run with the land and which shall require such Property Owners Association to be responsible for maintenance on such landscaping and further obligate such Property Owners Association to obtain liability insurance on the subject property beginning after the expiration of the initial three (3) year term set forth above, said policy showing Indian River County as an additional insured. 5. General shall agree to indemnify and hold Indian River County harmless from any liability during the planting - 2 - BOOK. '43 PAGE 125' MAR 191980 soox 43: PAGE x.26 and landscaping.of said right-of-ways and continuing for a period of three years thereafter. General shall maintain liability insurance during said period in an amount of $300,000/ $500,000 showing Indian River County as an additional insured. 6. General, subject to approval by and in accordance with requirements of the Florida Department of Transportation, will construct a deceleration and an acceleration lane, should one not presently exist, at Vero Highlands entrance where 20th Place intersects U.S. 1. Said construction shall be commenced within 60 days after approval by the Department of Transportation. General shall proceed to obtain approval by the Department of Transportation and completion of the project with due diligence. 7. General will record deed restrictions for Vero Highlands which, in addition to other obligations, shall obligate the Property Owners Association as follows: (a) To establish a priority budget for purposes of maintenance of the referenced landscaping. (b) Maintain liability insurance in an amount of no less than $300,000/500,000 for any injury re- sulting out of said landscaping showing Indian River County as an additional insured. (c) Contain a provision prohibiting amendment of said specific provisions without the specific consent of Indian River County, 8. That as consideration for the aforesaid, Indian River County agrees that it will permit -General to plant trees, shrubs, bushes, and other landscaping within the public right-of-way of Southwest 20th Place, as set forth more specifically on Exhibit "A". - 3 - , L- M IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this agreement all as of the day and year first above written. General Development Corporation By: Senior Vice -President Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the presence of: P Q14Y PgkrC $1'7-4 rwftha.. Intl! COA+M!S$t"'4 OONDED 114RU 4: Indian River County Commission X—X airman' Attest: (� Ciftuit7C6u, rt Cl&lrk Approv d as to legality and form: C my 4Att ney 60, 4 -- _.MAR 191980 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TREE PLANTING ALONG S.W. 20th PLACE FROM J-5 CANAL ON THE WEST TO OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY ON THE EAST (INDIAN RIVER COUNTY) Boa 43 PAGE 128 1. Trees along both sides of S.W. 20th Place from the J-5 canal on the West to Skyline Drive on the East shall be as follows: On the north side of S.W. 20th Place,the centerline of trees shall be 18'-6" (-t 6") from the centerline of S.W. 20th Place. On the South side of S.W. 206 Place,the centerline of trees shall be 22'-6" (+ 6") from the centerline of S.W. 20th Place, On both the north and south sides of S.W. 20th Place, the centerline of trees shall not be closer than 8'-0" from the edge of any driveway. - 2. Trees along both sides of S.W. 20th Place from Skyline Drive on the West to S.W. 1st Avenue on the East shall be as follows: On the north side of S.W. 20th Place going easterly from Skyline Drive to a point 105' west of the centerline of S.W. 1st Avenue, the centerline of trees shall be 18'-6" (+6" ) from the centerline of S.W. 20th Place;thence,from the point 105' west of the centerline of S.W. 1st Avenue, going easterly towards S.W. 1st Avenue, the centerline of trees shall be a minimum of 26'-0" (+6") from the centerline of S.W. 20th Place. On the south side of S.W. 20th Place, going easterly from Skyline Drive to a point 105' west of the centerline of S.W. 1st Avenue,'the centerline of.trees shall be 22'-6" (+ 6") from thb centerline of S.W. 20th Place.;thence,from the point 105' west of the centerline of S.W. 1st Avenue, going easterly, towards S.W. ist Avenue the centerline of trees shall be a minimum of 27'-0" (+ 03 from the centerline of S.W. 20th Place, On both the north and south sides of S..W. 20th Place,the centerline of trees shall not be closer than 8'-0" from the edge of any driveway. 3. Trees along both sides of S.W. 20th Place from S.W. 1st Avenue on the West to Old Dixie Highway on the East shall be as follows: On the north side - of S.W. 20th Place, the centerline of trees shall be 32'-6" (+6") from the centerline of S.W. 20th Place.. On the south side cf-S`:W. 20th Place, the centerline of trees shall be 31'-6" (+6") from the centerline of S.W. 20th Place. On both the north and south sides of S.W. 20th Place, the center- line of trees shall not be closer than 8'.-0" from the edge of any driveway. r AnpPrMpmm THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 6th day of February, 1980, by and between GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "General" and Indian River County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as "Indian River County"; WITNESSETH WHEREAS, General applied to the Indian River County Planning Commission on October 18, 1979, for rezoning and site plan approval of a 3 -acre entrance feature to the Vero Highlands community, located in Indian River County, Florida, 1W and particularly described as follows: Tracts A and B of Vero Beach Highlands, Unit One Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 29, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. All that part of the north 643.7 Feet of the South 1083.7 Feet of the NE 1/4 in Section 31, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, lying West of the West right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 1, as now located, and East of the East right-of-way of the Florida East Coast RR, Indian River County, Florida: WHEREAS, included within the entrance feature site approval request was a proposal by General to plant trees, shrubs, and other landscaping in the median of Southwest 20th Place and along either side of said street in the public right-of-way for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet from U.S. 1, and WHEREAS, Indian River County favors actions that enhance and beautify the County but wishes to be assured that the landscaped portion entrance feature will be continually - and properly maintained; B©OK' 43- PAGE 129 MAR 191990 M • $l!0)(SJ Aub p ^ � AND WHEREAS Indian River County and General desire to formalize the specific responsibilities of General and Indian River County; Now THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the issuance of the required permits to erect and construct said entrance feature, and other good and valuable considerations, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Indian River County will issue the required permits to General, authorizing General to erect and construct trees and other landscaping in accordance with that landscaping plan and on that property as described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference -incorporated herein. 2. General shall maintain the aforementioned land- scaping for a period of three (3) years from time of planting. 3. General shall provide Indian River County with a corporate bond with a term beginning three (3) years from time of installation of the landscaping and continuing for an additional seven (7) years in the amount of $10,000.00. Said bond shall be in favor of Indian River County and shall insure the maintenance of such landscaping during said period. 4, General shall establish a Property Owners Asso- ciation for Vero Highlands and record deed restrictions which run with the land and which shall require such Property Owners Association to be responsible for maintenance on such landscaping and further obligate such Property Owners Association to obtain liability insurance on the subject property beginning after the expiration of the initial three (3) year term set forth above, said policy showing Indian River County as an additional insured. -5. General shall agree to indemnify and hold Indian River County harmless from any liability during the planting M M and landscaping of said right-of-ways and continuing for a period of three years thereafter. General shall maintain liability insurance during said period in an amount of $300,000/ $500,00.0 showing Indian River County as an additional insured. 6. General, subject to approval by and in accordance with requirements of the Florida Department of Transportation, will construct a deceleration and an acceleration lane, should one not presently exist, at Vero Highlands entrance where 20th Place intersects U.S. 1. Said construction shall be commenced within 60 days after approval by the Department of Transportation. General shall proceed to obtain approval by the Department of Transportation and completion of the project with due diligence. 7. General will recor4 deed restrictions for Vero Highlands which, in addition to other obligations, shall obligate the Property Owners Association as follows: (a) To establish a priority budget for purposes of maintenance of the referenced landscaping. (b) Maintain liability insurance in an amount of no less than $300,000/500,000 for any injury re- sulting out of said landscaping showing Indian River County as an additional insured. (c) Contain a provision prohibiting amendment of said specific provisions without the specific consent of Indian River County. 8. That as consideration for the aforesaid, Indian River County agrees that it will permit -General to plant It: trees, shrubs, bushes, and other landscaping within the public right-of-way of Southwest 20th Place, as set forth more ,specifically on Exhibit "A". - 3 - ' r BOCK`. PAGE MAR 19 1980 nox 43 PAGE 132 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this agreement all as of the day and year first above written. General Development Corporation By: Senior Vice -President Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the presence of: MY COAAMIssl"l +,�r�SES •wts i, 3 p � Indian River County Commission B airman Attest: C�.:cult; Court Cl k ,v.,, C Approv d'as to legality and form: C my eA- tto ney i - 4 - M. • EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TREE PLANTING ALONG S.W. 20th PLACE FROM J-5 CA14AL ON THE WEST TO OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY ON THE EAST (INDIAN RIVER COUNTY) 1. Trees along both sides of S.W. 20th Place from the J-5 canal on the West to Skyline Drive on the East shall be as follows: On the north side of S.W. 20th Placefthe centerline of trees shall be 1.8-6" (+ 6") from the cente�,I ne of S.W. 20th Place. On the South side of S.W. 20th Place,the centerline of trees shall be 22'-6" (+ 6") from the centerline of S.W. 20th Place. On both the north and south sides of S.W. 20th Place, the centerline of trees shall not be closer than 8'-0" from the edge of any driveway. 2. Trees along both sides of S.W. 20th Place from Skyline Drive on the W'=st to S.W. ist Avenue on the East shall be as follows: On the north side of S.W. 20th Place going easterly from Skyline Drive to a point 105' west of the centerline of.S.W. 1st Avenue,the centerline of trees shall be 18'-6" (+6") from the centerline of S.W. 20th Place;th ence,from the point 105' west of the centerline of S.W. 1st Avenue, going easterly towards S.W. 1st Avenue, the centerline of trees shall be a minimum of 26'-0" (+6") from the centerline of S.W. 20th Place. On the south side of S.W. 20th Place, going easterly from Skyline Drive to & point 105' west of the centerline of S.W. 1st Avenue,'the centerline of.trees shall be 22'-6" (+ 611) from thb centerline of S.W. 20th Piace.;thence,from the point 105' west of the centerline of S.W. 1st Avenue, going easterly, towards S.W. 1st Avenue the centerline of trees shall be a minimum of 27'-0" (+ 6"j from the centerline of S.W. 20th Place, On both the north and south sides of S.W. 20th alace,the centerline of trees shall not be closer than 8'-0" from the edge of any driveway. 3. Trees along both sides of S.W. 20th Place from S.W. 1st Avenue on the West to Old Dixie Highway on the East shall be as follows: On the north side of S.W. 20th Place, the centerline of trees shall be 32'-6" (+6") from the centerline of S.W. 20th Place,. An the south side of S.W. 20th Place, the centerline of trees shall be 31'-6" (+6") from -the centerline of S.W. 20th Place. On both the north and south sides of S.W. 20th Place, the center- line of trees shall not be closer than 8'.-0" from the edge of any driveway._ MAR 191990 wi 43* FAGS Ba a J moo 43 PAGE 134 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. 65022 - 65182 INCLUSIVE. SUCH BILLS AND ACCOUNTS BEING ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE WARRANTS SO ISSUED FROM THE RESPECTIVE FUNDS BEING LISTED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTE BOOK AS PROVIDED BY THE RULES OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, REFERENCE TO SUCH RECORD AND LIST SO RECORDED BEING MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 6:20 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: CLERK 119 CHAIRMAN