Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/23/1980APRIL 23, 1980 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MET IN REGULAR SESSION AT THE COURTHOUSE, SERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1980, AT 8:30 O'CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE WILLARD W. SIEBERT, JR., CHAIRMAN; ALMA LEE Loy, VICE CHAIRMAN; WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR.; R. DON DEESON; AND PATRICK B. LYONS. ALSO PRESENT WERE .JACK G. JENNINGS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; L.S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; JEFFREY BARTON, FINANCE OFFICER; BAILIFF DAN FLEISCHMAN; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES AND JANICE W. CALDWELL, DEPUTY CLERKS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. COMMISSIONER WODTKE LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, AND REVEREND J. C. GLENN, CHAPLAIN, INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, GAVE THE INVOCATION. THE BOARD THEN GAVE BOARD SECRETARY FORLANI A HEARTY WELCOME BACK AFTER BEING ABSENT DUE TO AN EXTENDED ILLNESS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 12, 1980. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT SUGGESTED THAT ON PAGE 5, LINE 17, CHANGE THE WORD "AT" TO "WITHIN." COMMISSIONER LYONS SUGGESTED ON PAGE 3, LINE 6, ADD ";" AFTER THE WORD "FUNDS." THESE CORRECTIONS HAVING BEEN MADE, ON MOTION BY COMMIS- SIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 12, 1980, AS WRITTEN. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 9, 1980. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 9, 1980, AS WRITTEN. APR 2 31990 Book 43 FrzE 255- APR 2 31900 Boa 43 pacF256 COMMISSIONER LOY REQUESTED TWO EMERGENCY ITEMS BE ADDED TO THE CLERKS AGENDA: ONE FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $20,000 AS REQUESTED BY THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT; THE OTHER AUTHORIZING TWO ADDITIONAL BANK ACCOUNTS TO BE OPENED. - " ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO ADD THE TWO EMERGENCY ITEMS TO THE CLERKS AGENDA. IfON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR WILLARD D. HOYT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR CARL F. DAMEROW, D.D.S. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM REVENUE SHARING FOR REDOING THE BOOKING ROOM AND RECREATION ROOM AS REQUESTED BY THE SHERIFF, AS FOLLOWS: ACCOUNT TITLE OFFICE BUILDINGS ACCOUNT No. INCREASE 102-906-523-66.21 $4,845 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS - EXCEPT BUILDINGS 102-906-523-66.39 $1,488 1091 -3 -M&M RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES 102-199-584-99.91 $6,333 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR .JUDITH A. WAKEFIELD, COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR, AND PETE SPYKE, AGRICULTURAL SPECIALIST, AS FOLLOWS: JUDITH A. WAKEFIELD: (Retroactive) April 2 Orlando Planning meeting for Area 4-H Horse Show. (5:30 P.M. till midnight) I am Area Agent Chairman of that Advisory ' Committee. Two 4-H Club leaders from I.R.C. are on the Committee and went with me. I called Mr. Siebert about this meeting prior to attending. It was not planned till March 25 when we realized the Area Show was ahouL a month away. May 9-11 Orlando Area 4-H Horse Show. To work at the horse (weekend) show (keep points and aid announcer). May 21 Ft. Pierce To plan youth 4-11 camp with other agents.' May 24 Cocoa District Junior 4-H Speech and Demonstration (Saturday) Contests. May 28-29 Titusville Solar Energy Training. (On State Travel Funds.) PETE SPYKE: MAY 2-3 ASTOR PARK 4-H DISTRICT EVENTS ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED STATE WITNESS PAY ROLLS, CIRCUIT COURT, SPRING TERM, 1980, IN THE AMOUNT OF $143.22; AND COUNTY COURT, APRIL TERM, 1980, IN THE AMOUNTS OF $112.44 AND $145.52. THE FOLLOWING REPORTS WERE RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK: TRAFFIC VIOLATION BUREAU - SPECIAL TRUST FUND - MARCH, 1980 TRAFFIC VIOLATION FINES BY NAME - MARCH, 1980 THE BOARD DECIDED TO TAKE UP THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT IN THE CLERKS AGENDA LATER IN THE DAY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE APPROPRIATE PERSONS TO SIGN THE APPROPRIATE BANK RESOLUTIONS IN ORDER TO SET UP THE BANK ACCOUNTS UNDER THE BOND INDENTURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION OF THE NEW COUNTY ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX. THE CHAIRMAN THEN ASKED IF THE COMMISSIONERS WISHED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE AGENDA. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED HE HAD A VERBAL REQUEST FROM A MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR THREE OR FOUR LOADS OF FILL TO BE USED AT THE CURRENT FOOTBALL PRACTICE AREA. COMMISSIONER Loy COMMENTED THAT PERHAPS WE COULD GET A FOLLOW-UP LETTER FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD:,OFF,ICIALLY MAKING THIS REQUEST. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ADDING THIS EMERGENCY ITEM TO AT THE AGENDA, UNDER COMMISSIONER WODTKE'S MATTERS. COMMISSIONER Loy PRESENTED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM AND INFORMATION CONCERNING THE AUDIT NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE: rl1 ' ' 4 3 Bow 43 PAGE 257 . APP 2 31900 SOON BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILLARD W. SIEBERT, JR., Chairman ALMA LEE LOY, Vice Chairman WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR. R. DON DEESON 43 PAcE 258 PATRICK B. LYONS ACK G JENNINGS. Administrator 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 3296( April 17, 1980 MEMWNDUM TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: BOARD NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE RE: STATE MANDATED ANNUAL AUDIT Pursuant to Florida Statutes, the appropriate Audit Selection Negotiating Committee, after several meetings, recommended certain Auditing Firms as competent and qualified to do the County Audits. The Board of County Commissioners Negotiating Committee then met and negotiated with the designated Firms and received Proposals from W. 0. Daley & Company, by letter of April 14, -1980, and O'Haire, Peterkin & Moran, Chartered, by letter Proposal of April 11, 1980. The Board Negotiating Committee recommends that the Board of County Commissioners enter into an Audit Contract with O'Haire, Peterkin & Moran, Chartered Joint Venture with Doloitte, Haskins & Sells pursuant to the outline of the letter dated April_11, 1980, in an amount not to exceed $54,300.00 for the fiscal year 1978-1979, $56,570.00 for the fiscal year 1979-1980, and an amount of $58,100.00 for the fiscal year 1980-1981. The last year should be subject to approval by subsequent County Commission. The primary reasons for the recommendation are: 1. The recommended Firm has commited itself for three years at set fees; 2. The recommended Firm has considerable experience in County Audits and is, in fact, performing a County Audit in Monroe County with the proposed Staff Manager for Indian Fiver County performing that Audit. 3. The proposed applicant has considerable utility capability for performing future financial utility needs of the County, including necessary impact and rate studies. In conclusion, the Negotiating Committee determin�-�tl - that both W. 0. Daley & Company and the Joint Venture of O'Haire, Peterkin & Moran and Deloitte, Haskins & Sells were qualified to perform the services as requested. The Committee was persuaded by the depth of the Joint Venture and its personnel's experience in both County Audits and 1_1tility matters. Sincerely, n ALMA LEE LOY e` � � r 4 . 011aire, Peterkin Moran, chartered Certified Public Accountants 2145 15th Avonue P. O. Bost 1179 Ve,o 131%ch. Florida 329GO (304*j �0.5235 April 11, 1980 Auditor Selection Coum►itict: Indion River County Veru Beach. Florida 32960 Dear Committee Members: L-� Deloitte Haskins+Sells Certified Public Accountants Forum 111 1675 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (305) 0419 6040 As you requested in our meeting on April 11. 1980, this letter tiununarizes how t:e arrived at the estimated :ec_z, for the following services which we will perform for Indian laver County: ® We will examine the following financial statements for the years Cilded September 30, 1979, 1980.and 1981: General Fund - Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds Enterprise Fund Special Assessment Funds - .'Trust and Agency Funds - Cenaral fixed asset group of accounts - General long-term debt group of accounts 0 Supp.le11101ILal to tilt, :►bone funds and account groups. we w[ll examine the financial reprenentat ions of tl►e following ent it It -ti and/or const [tutlonal coif icers: - Indian River County hoard of - Clerk of Court County Commissioners - Sherill - Tax Collector - Supervisor of Elections - Property Appraiser a Special reports shall be prepared as required by, and in accordance with, t►ottd indentures existing at Lhe date of the financial statemenLs as follows: - Sanitary Landfill - Federal Revenue :haring ® Our examination will be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, including the precepts set forth in the American Insti- tute of Certified public Accountants' State and Local Government Audit Guide. Additionally, currant statutory requirements will be adhered to where appli- cable. e Upon completion of the audit, we will render a report of our At rurueruinE; defic•ieuries In lnnternal accounting control syale•ms and procedures. anti supplemental data which we think should be brought to the attention of Lilt- Commissioners heCommissioners and Constitutional Officers. It is our practice to review this report With the appy ►priatr Co"M y pt-1-nonne1 prior Lu iLs rendiLion. eoo 43 fAcE 259 Auditor Sclection Committee 2. Apxil 11, 1980 The cost of our services is based on our estimate of the hours that will be required for Lite above servicers, multiplied by it titandard hourly rate for the person who will perform such services. Our estimate of the hours involved is based on our review of the records with County personnel on March 29, 1980. The gate for persons performing Lite services 18 based on the experience level of such person, as well as the special qualifications of that person to perform Lite servi.res you need. We will not be hiring inexperienced, part-time help, nor will we be sub -contracting any part of the services to be performed. The attached tabulation shows the individuals' standard rates and hours involved in arrivAg at our fee. It is our general practice to bill clients on all interim basis as services are rendered. However, because the State of Florida will reimburse Lite County for a portion of the fiscal 1979 audit costs subsequent to September 30, 1980, we will bill the County for our services after completion of Lite exainination and will not expect parilent until You submit our billing to the State. This billing will be detailed as to services rendered and the cost pertaining to each of the various agencies. We have the expertise and availability of staff to provide any services relating Lo water and sewer utilities. if specifically requested by the County, we will prepare an estimate of our fees based on Lite work to be performed. Fees for our services will be calculated and not exceed the hourly rates specified on the attached tabulation. We sincerely appreciate Lite time you and other County personnel have afforded us in preparing the above. Tf you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. m Very truly yours, K Andrew W. Wi.l1iants. AWW/jIm Epclosure APR 2 3 1980 - 43 Pw ?,60 Auditor Sclection Committee 2. Apxil 11, 1980 The cost of our services is based on our estimate of the hours that will be required for Lite above servicers, multiplied by it titandard hourly rate for the person who will perform such services. Our estimate of the hours involved is based on our review of the records with County personnel on March 29, 1980. The gate for persons performing Lite services 18 based on the experience level of such person, as well as the special qualifications of that person to perform Lite servi.res you need. We will not be hiring inexperienced, part-time help, nor will we be sub -contracting any part of the services to be performed. The attached tabulation shows the individuals' standard rates and hours involved in arrivAg at our fee. It is our general practice to bill clients on all interim basis as services are rendered. However, because the State of Florida will reimburse Lite County for a portion of the fiscal 1979 audit costs subsequent to September 30, 1980, we will bill the County for our services after completion of Lite exainination and will not expect parilent until You submit our billing to the State. This billing will be detailed as to services rendered and the cost pertaining to each of the various agencies. We have the expertise and availability of staff to provide any services relating Lo water and sewer utilities. if specifically requested by the County, we will prepare an estimate of our fees based on Lite work to be performed. Fees for our services will be calculated and not exceed the hourly rates specified on the attached tabulation. We sincerely appreciate Lite time you and other County personnel have afforded us in preparing the above. Tf you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. m Very truly yours, K Andrew W. Wi.l1iants. AWW/jIm Epclosure 1 1 r 12rsonnel In -Charge accountant Jr./Sr. accountants Managers Partners Total *Percentage of Standard Total Maxim= Fee FISCAL YEAR L—M SUMMER 30, 1979 Hours Rate Total 370 $ 55 $20,350 1,015 30 30,450 120 75 91000 90 140 12,600 1595 $45_40 $72,400 (Avg. ) 75 1980 Hours Fate Total 300 $ 59 $17,700 925 32 29,600 100 80 8,000 75 150 11,250 12400 2��=3 $47.50 L�.3 L��3 $66,550 (Avg.) 85 $56&570 *We have discounted our standard billing because a client the size and caliber of Indian River County would be prestigious for both Firms. In addition, we have further discounted the fee for year end September 30, 1979 for initial start-up costs incurred by our Firs to provide the appropriate level of service to the County. We lock forward to a long and mutually bene- ficial relationship between the County and our Firms and, accordingly, would not expect the County to pay for such one-time, start-up costs. 0 pd_'�A� M Gla W Q 1951 Hours Rate T Total 300 $ `60 $18,000 925 33 30,5p5 r 100 E? 8,200 75 1:;5 11,6=5 1_,400 $48.80 $68,350 (AS• g • ) *We have discounted our standard billing because a client the size and caliber of Indian River County would be prestigious for both Firms. In addition, we have further discounted the fee for year end September 30, 1979 for initial start-up costs incurred by our Firs to provide the appropriate level of service to the County. We lock forward to a long and mutually bene- ficial relationship between the County and our Firms and, accordingly, would not expect the County to pay for such one-time, start-up costs. 0 pd_'�A� M Gla W Q `11 APR 2-31990 O'Haire, Peterkin Moran, chartered Cortifiod Public Accountants 2145 151h Avenue P. O. Box 1179 Vero Beach. Florida 32900 (305) 567-5235 ApriA 15, 1980 Mr. Jeffrey K. Barton Finance Officer Indian River County Veru beach. Florida 32900 Dear Jeff: 43 PAcE262 Deloitte Haskins 1 Sells Cortifled Public Accountants Forum III 1675 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (305) 689-6040 This letter will confirm our recent teli•pl►one conversation conceruinl; out-of- pucicet expenses and the personnel directly in charge of the: Indian River County uudi t . As 1 staLed, our Firms will nut chary;e the County for uuL-ol'-pocket expenses. I will he directly responsible for servic(•:: pl-ovided by O'llAre, t'eterkin & Moran, and Richard J. Kaufman and Howard F. Kershaw will. he the partner and rimnager respectively for Deloitte Ilaskins + Sells. Tentatively, Brian Wilder of 1)a•loi tte Ilaskins + Sells will be the st•nior directing the day-to-day re- sponsibilities. Mr. Wilder is currently running an audit of Monroe County and was a stiff accuuntanL when I)e1oiLte Ilaskins + Sells audited t:.!-'- County. -In addition, he is the senior for the ;►unlit of National Airlines, Southeast Ranks and tune.rican Bankshares. Ix► not hesitate Lu call if you h;ive ;illy Iurlliur yuc•stiuns. Very truly yo►irs, Andrew,Y. WiIIian►s AW14: jI► V W. 0. DALEY N.. E. HARTSAW I\. R. WILLIFORD 0• R. NIYRASO '4- R. VNEATHERFORD J• O -WHITEHEAD H• J.JONE5.JR. C. M. SWAIN K. H. III OR CA N. JR. G. JONES, JR. J. q. LOHMANN W. L. TE D D ER•JR. E. M. LEVANGIE R. F. RANDOLPH A.'A. TODD. JR. B- Miss Alma Lee Loy Auditor Selection Committee Indian River County P. 0. Box 1028 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Miss Loy: (305) 423-3426 April 14, 1980 COMMERCIAL BANK BLDG, VERO (EACH, FLORIDA (3 05) 5 62-415 8 200 N. W. AVENUE L BELLE GLADE, FLORIDA (305.1 996-55?_S In accordance. with _your request, we are pleased to submit our proposal for services to be performed in connection with the examination of the individual and consolidated financial statements of Indian River County as of September 30, 1979 which include the funds and account groups as follows: Board of County Commissioners: General Fund County Transportation Fund Fine and Forfeiture Fund Secondary Road Trust Fund Federal Revenue Sharing Trust Fund Anti -Recession Fund All Funds - Enterprise funds as listed: Sanitary landfill North County Water and Sewer South County Water Dependent Districts: Rockridge Street Lighting Laurelwood Street Lighting Constitutional Officers: Clerk of Circuit Court Property Appraiser Sheriff of Indian River County Supervisor of Elections Tax Collector 4 APR 2 3 0 43. PAce203 W APR 2 31990 - 43 Pae 264 2 Miss Alma Lee Loy Auditor Selection Committee Indian River County April 14, 1980 Our examination shall be performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and, accordingly, shall include such tests of the accounting records, compliance with statutory requirements, and such other auditing procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. At tl'e completion of our examination we will express our opinion on the financial position of the consolidated and individual financial state- ments of the various funds and account groups as of September 30, 1979, the results of operations of such funds and account groups and changes in financial position of enterprise, and non expendable fiduciary fund types for the year then ended. Our examination shall also include a review and evaluation of the County's accounting procedures and system of internal accounting controls to the extent we consider necessary to provide a basis for reliance thereon in determinino, the nature, timing, and extent of auditing procedures to be performed. Primary reliance for the prevention and detection of errors or irregularities must be placed on such system of internal accounting control because it is in constant operation and covers all periods and transactions. Such a system cannot, however., eliminate the possibility that errors or irregularities may occur; but we shall inform you of any such matters detected. At the conclusion of our examination we shall render a memoranda setting forth our comments and recommendations for improvements in ac- counting procedures and internal accounting controls, and compliance with applicable Florida Statutes. Our memoranda shall be submitted in sufficient time to allow written response to our comments which would be incorporated in our final_report. We understand the final report on the 1979 financial statements is'due on or before September 15, 1980. The examination of the financial statements of the Property Appraiser will be a separate absolutely independent audit to be supervised and conducted entirely by a staff from our Orlando office. We prefer this procedure to bringing in another firm to handle this portion of the work, however if this suggestion is not acceptable to the Board, we have arranged for the firm of Edwards, Berger, Harris and Company, Certified Public Accountants, Vero Beach, Florida, to handle this portion of the examination. If the outside firm is used for this portion of the work, we would give them all the necessary professional assistance from our Orlando office to assure full compliance for the County audit. We have visited the county offices, have reviewed the records briefly, and have discussed the work involved with their personnel. Based on our review, we anticipate that the audit work for the fiscal year 1.978- 1979 will require approximately 2,260 man hours. Based on our analysis of the professional staff required to do this work, our fee at our regular 3 Miss Alma Lee Loy Auditor Selection Committee Indian River County April 14, 1980 per diem rates would amount to $59,780, or an average of $26,45 per man hour. This estimate contemplates a normal level of participation by your personnel. It appears, however, that certain of the accounting personnel are highly competent to render substantial assistance which could result in a reduction of the estimated number of hours required by our staff. We have not attempted to quantify the value of such assistance or the extent to which such assistance would be available. We would agree to this estimate as a maximum charge to the County with the under- standing that if our fee computed at our regular per diem rates for the acco•:ntants assigned to the work to satisfactorily perform the job amounts to less than $59,780, we would bill you for the lesser amount. Our estimate of the fee for performing the audit work is also based on the fact that no out-of-pocket expenses would be chargeable to Indian River County. These expenses would be absorbed by our firm. Specific personnel who will be participating in the engagement (and for whom we have previously provided background data) are as follows: Keith H. Morgan, Jr. - Partner in charge Michael W. Smith - Audit Manager John R. Ki :h, Jr. - Audit Senior John David Smith - Audit Senior K. Ward Saxon - Audit Senior 'Additional trained professionals shall be permanently assigned to the examination to complete the work in a timely and efficient manner. We understand that if we are engaged to perform the examination of the September 30, 1979 financial statements it is in the best interests of the County to also accept the contract for the -1980 and 1981 financial statements. Accordingly, we would expect to perform certain preliminary audit procedures with respect to fiscal 1980 transactions in connection with the 1979 examination. Fees in for such work would be separately - accumulated and billed. We understand that fees for the 1980 examination will be separately negotiated. We shall also be available for such additional services, nol a part of the examination, as required by the County including consultation and assistance in connection with the North County Water and Sewer and South County Water operations. We would discuss with you in advance the nature and scope of such services, including estimated fees, whi'_!i would be billed at our regular per diem rates. aoa . 43 FaGf 41U65'1- R APR 2 31980 800 43 WE 266 ,y 4 CA Miss Alma Lee Loy Auditor Selection Committee Indian River County April 14, 1980 We understand that the acquisition cost of the County's water and sewer operations have not been allocated to property units acquired (service lines, mains, lift stations, treatment facilities, etc.); County personnel should obtain sufficient information regarding the fair value of properties acquired to complete the allocation in order to properly reflect the cost of utility plant in service in the September 30, 1979 financial statements. We appreciate being considered for the work outlined above and assure you that if we are selected as auditors for the County, it will receive our close and immediate attention. If you need any additional information, please advise us. Yours very truly, Certified p li Accountants COMMISSIONER Loy SUGGESTED AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH THE .JOINT VENTURE OF O'HAIRE, PETERKIN & MORAN, CHARTERED, AND DELOITTE, HASKINS & SELLS. THE BOARD THEN REVIEWED THE MEMO OUTLINING THE NEGOTIATIONS AND DISCUSSED THE DIFFERENCES IN THE HOURS EACH FIRM PLANNED TO SPEND DOING THE AUDIT. COMMISSIONER LOY REPORTED THAT BOTH FIRMS WERE EXTREMELY COMPLIMENTARY IN THE ASSISTANCE THEY HAD RECEIVED FROM FINANCE OFFICER BARTON AND HIS STAFF; AND A TOUR WAS ARRANGED BY THE FINANCE OFFICER IN ORDER TO SEE THE SYSTEMS WITH WHICH THE FIRMS WOULD BE WORKING. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF THE FIRMS WOULD ALSO ADDRESS THOSE ITEMS THAT MIGHT NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE, AS WELL AS THE DOLLARS AND CENTS. FINANCE OFFICER BARTON ASSURED HIM THAT THE STATE REQUIRES THE ACCOUNTING FIRMS TO RENDER A MANAGEMENT LETTER, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO WHAT THE AUDITOR GENERAL HAS INCORPORATED INTO HIS REPORT. HE CONTINUED THAT THE BOARD AS WELL AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER IN 20 DAYS, AND THEIR RESPONSES MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE AUDIT REPORT TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED WHAT PROCEDURE WOULD BE FOLLOWED IF THE AUDIT IS DONE AND THE AUDITOR GENERAL REQUESTS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ATTORNEY COLLINS ADDED THAT THERE MIGHT BE AN EXTRA COST IF THE STATE ASKS FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WORK CONTRACT. THE ATTORNEY THEN REFERRED TO THE ARTICLE REGARDING WORK PAPERS WHICH WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THREE YEARS, AND WONDERED WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WORK PAPERS AFTER THAT TIME. AT ANDREW WILLIAMS, OF O'HAIRE, PETERKIN & MORAN, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND ADVISED THEY ARE KEPT FOR THREE YEARS FROM THE ISSUE DATE OF OPINION AND ARE THEN THROWN AWAY. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THE COUNTY MAY WANT A PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT THAT THE WORK PAPERS ARE TURNED OVER TO THE COUNTY. 13 Book 43 PASE "7,- APR 2 31980 MR. WILLIAMS STATED THAT THEY WOULD KEEP THE WORK PAPERS, AS THEY BELONG TO THE FIRM, AND WOULD KEEP THEM FOR THE COUNTY, IF SO REQUESTED. ATTORNEY COLLINS ADVISED IT DID NOT MATTER WHO KEPT THEM BUT -IN DEALING WITH COUNTY GOVERNMENT, HE FELT THREE YEARS MIGHT NOT BE SUFFICIENT TIME. ATTORNEY COLLINS BROUGHT UP A QUESTION REGARDING THE TERMINATION. HE ADVISED THE BOARD WANTED THE RIGHT OF TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT AND WILL PAY FOR SERVICES THEIR FIRM HAS PROVIDED UP TO THE DATE OF TERMINATION AS THIS BOARD MAY NOT WANT TO BIND A FUTURE BOARD`. MR. WILLIAMS REPLIED THAT IT SOUNDED FAIR TO HIM AS LONG AS IT IS IN THE CONTRACT THAT THEIR FIRM WILL BE PAID UP TO THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT. COMMISSIONER LYONS WONDERED IF THE CONTRACT INDICATES THAT THE FIRM IS SET UP TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT WAS A VALID ISSUE AND EXPLAINED THAT THE FIRM OUTLINES A SCOPE OF WORK THEY ARE TO D0, BUT THE STATE MAY WANT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN THE SCOPE. HE ADDED THAT HE FELT THE BURDEN OF THE FIRM IS MEETING THE STATES REQUIREMENTS. MR. WILLIAMS ANTICIPATED THAT IF THE STATE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, THE FIRM WILL ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR AUDIT. COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT THE STATE DID OUTLINE IN A STATUTE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND IF THEY REQUIRE ANYTHING OVER AND ABOVE THAT, SHE THOUGHT IT WAS THE FIRM S RESPONSIBILITY TO GET IT. SHE ADDED THAT AS LONG AS WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE FIRM IS GOING BY THAT STATUTE, WE HAVE SATISFIED THE LAW. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE STREET LIGHTING DISTRICTS, FIRE AND WATER DISTRICTS, AND FEDERAL GRANTS. MR. WILLIAMS ADVISED THEY WILL AUDIT ALL FUNDS UNDER THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND WILL AUDIT THE LANDFILL, FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING, AND ANTI -RECESSION FUNDS (WHICH REQUIRES SPECIAL REPORTS) AND WILL ALSO GIVE THE BOARD ASSURANCE THAT THEY HAVE NOT 14 r BROKEN ANY COVENANTS, AND THE REPORT WILL COVER ALL SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS UNDER THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED ABOUT THE PASS-THROUGH ACCOUNTS SUCH AS THE STATE LIBRARY FUNDS. FINANCE OFFICER BARTON EXPLAINED THAT THE COUNTY IS TO BE FURNISHED AN AUDIT AS THE COUNTY HAS PUT THE BURDEN ON THE LIBRARY ORGANIZATION FOR THE AUDIT, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH WE HAVE ACTED AS SPONSOR. ATTORNEY COLLINS ADVISED HE HAD MADE NOTES OF THE VARIOUS SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS MADE TODAY, AND THEY WILL BE INCORPORATED IN THE CONTRACT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE PROPOSAL OF THE JOINT VENTURE OF O'HAIRE, PETERKIN & MORAN, CHARTERED, AND DELOITTE, HASKINS & SELLS, WITH THE COMMENTS ALLUDED TO BY THE ATTORNEY, AND AUTHORIZED PREPARATION OF THE CONTRACT BY THE ATTORNEY, AND EXECUTION BY THE CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NEXT DISCUSSED THE MARINE ISLAND ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING AND HOPED THAT WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS THE COMMISSIONERS COULD REVIEW THE BOOKLET THEY RECENTLY RECEIVED AND OFFER ANY COMMENTS THEY MIGHT HAVE. HE CONTINUED THAT THE BOOKLET EXPLAINS THE WORK THEY HAVE CONTRACTED THROUGH A GRANT TO THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THIS MUST BE FINALIZED WITHIN 30 TO 60 DAYS, AND AFTER THEIR NEXT MEETING OF THE MARINE ISLAND ADVISORY COMMISSION, HE WILL BRING A RECOMMENDA- TION BACK TO THE BOARD. HE ADDED THAT THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATIONAL DISTRICT ADOPTED A RESOLUTION INDICATING THEIR SUPPORT TO THE COUNTY 4 IN TRYING TO SECURE TITLE OR LEASE OF THE SPOIL ISLANDS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ADVISED THAT .JOE S. EARMAN,OF THE DISTRICT, PRESENTED A $1,500 CHECK TO HIM MADE OUT TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO BE EXPENDED AS OUTLINED IN THEIR RESOLUTION. HE ADDED THAT WE MUST GET A COPY OF THEIR RESOLUTION SO THE FUNDS WILL BE EXPENDED AS OUTLINED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ADVISED THAT TWO COPIES OF THE LATEST CHANNEL 15 a�GK 4 PAGE ,,U 43 P* 27® MAPS OF THE INDIAN RIVER WERE RECEIVED FROM THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. HE SUGGESTED A COPY GO TO ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS AND ONE TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH; WE SHOULD GET AN ACCEPTANCE FROM THE CITY OF VERO BEACH INDICATING THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED THEIR MAP. COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED ATTORNEY COLLINS PREPARE THE NECESSARY PAPERS TO HANDLE THIS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT THE BOARD IS VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE $1,500, AND ADVISED THE FINANCE OFFICER TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE CHECK. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION N0. 80-39 HONORING THE MARINE ISLAND ADVISORY COMMISSION,AND SPECIFICALLY JOSEPH S. EARMAN, FOR THEIR EFFORTS, ACCOMPLISHMENTS, AND ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING LOCAL CONTROL OF THE SPOIL ISLANDS. RESOLUTION N0. 80-39 WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN RECEIVED. 16 THE HOUR OF 9:00 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 on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being NOTICE OF HEARING The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will convene on the 23rd - duy of April, 1980, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board /�-[�t ��_ In the matter of of County Commissioners Room at the Indian River County Courthouse, Indian River County, Vero Beach, Florida, to consider granting Florida Cablevision the following rate increase: INSTALLATION (Residentialand Commercial) Current New Rate in the Court, was pub- Rate New Installation (underground) $20.00 - $35.00 ,� �/ R New Installation (overhead)a 20,00 (never previously active) 25.00 lisped in said newspaper in the issues of T_rf_r� Reconnect (previously active) 7.50 - -- 1000 Extra Outlet (new) 14.95 - i 1500 Relocate Outlet 7.5o 110,110 i MONTHLYSERVICECHARGES (Residential and Commercial) Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper ypublished at I � One Outlet S 6.50 Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore 725 Each Additional Outlet 1.95 been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mai l matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida Parties in interest and citizens will be heard bythe Board atsaid Public hearing. for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- This 23rd day of April, 1980. -- . tisem.ent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or Board of County Commissioners -'" = "' "' ' • - corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- Indian River County, Florida tisement for publication i' n the said newspaper. / W. W. Siebert, Chairman An -it 2 1980 Sworn to and subscribed ore a this day of G A.D. Z ya • (Business Manager) I (amu (Clerk of the Circuit Cou t, ndian River County, Florida) I BILLY B. CROSBY, GENERAL MANAGER OF FLORIDA CABLEVISION, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING LETTER AND ATTACH- MENTS REGARDING A RATE INCREASE: APR 2 3 19 4 17 Boal( 43 .PacE271 .y 4 APR 2 3 19 4 17 Boal( 43 .PacE271 .y UF)CC FLOI:IDA CABLEVISION A DIVISION OF UA -COLUMBIA CABLEVISION twc. P.O. Box 2530 567.3444 P.O. Box 1778 461.5311 VERA BEACH. FLORIDA RED FORT PIERCE. FLORIDA February; 28, 1980 - Mr. Jack G. Jennings Hand delivered packet to Jack Jennings Indian River County , on March 4, 1980 at 9:00 AM Court House Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Jennings: For the second time in 21 years, Florida Cablevision finds itself in the position of requiring an upward adjustment in our rate schedule.. Therefore we respectfully request permission, under the terms of Resolution 70-1; to make the changes, detailed on the attached, to become effective as of May 1, 1980, if possible. Our only increase to date was in 1973. Duririg the 7 years since, we have experienced the same inflationary trend as have other businesses. Yet, we have managed to effect improvements in all phases of our operation, including the addition of new services such as Madison Square Garden Sports, Christian Broadcasting Network, optional Pay TV, 'ser viZfs are exceptionally high quality due to satellite service, which Florida Cablevision pioneered in 1975. Since January 1, 1978, we have been obligated under law to pay, and have paid, a copyright fee which represents 17. of our revenue. The effects of inflation in the last 7 years are overwhelming as shown by the informational data attached. If I can provide any further information, please let me know. Re-ga- d -t , BillyBCrosby y General Manager BBC/pl cc: Jerry Cranford - UF3Cc FLORIEMABLEVISiON A DIVISION OF UA -COLUMBIA CABLEV1510N Ixc. P 0. Box 2530 567.3444 P.O. Box 1778 461.5311 ZERO BEACH. FLORIDA HE 10 FORT PIERCE. FLORIDA RATE OF RETURN C4LCUTATION AT $6.50 (Thousands of Dollars) Year Ended September 30 Excess of Revenue Over Expenses 341.6 461.0 523.2 556.6 558.7 Investment in Plant, Property and Equipment 4,601.0 5,164.5 5,810.0 6,590.9 7,084.0 Return on Investment 7.47. 8.9% 9.0% 8.4i 7,9% * Net of Investment Tax Credits Prepared by: Barbara McWhorter Division Office San Angelo, Texas APR 2 3 1980 RATE OF RETURN CALCULATION AT $7.25 (Thousands of Dollars) Average Subscribers Average Revenue per Subscriber Revenues Expenses Service Costs Programming Selling and Administration General Expenses Depreciation Interest Total Income Taxes* Excess of Revenue Over Expenses Investment in Plant, Property & Equipment Return on Investment *Net of Investment Tax Credits Prepared by: Barbara McWhorter Division Office ..n Angelo, Texas Proiections 1980 1981 29,250 31,750 Proiections 98.0 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Average Subscribers 22,226 24,418 26,355 29,250 31,750 Average Revenue Per Sub. 87.0 87.0 90.0 91.0 91.0 Revenues 2,493.9 2,887.2 3,357.6 3,759.9 4,082.6 Expenses Service Costs 719.7 812.5 931.9 1,073.4 1,187.3 Programming 10.8 11.2 11.4 11.9 12.5 Selling & Administration 416.9 433.0 518.2 589.4 632.1 General Expense 209.1 206,3 226.5 265.3 269.1 Depreciation 390.1 421.9 461.9 493.1 523.6 Interest 148.4 188.6 273.8 354.2 477.5 Total 1,895.0 2,073.5 2,423.7 2,787.3 3,102.1 Income Taxes * 257.3 352.7 410.7 416.0- 421.8 Excess of Revenue Over Expenses 341.6 461.0 523.2 556.6 558.7 Investment in Plant, Property and Equipment 4,601.0 5,164.5 5,810.0 6,590.9 7,084.0 Return on Investment 7.47. 8.9% 9.0% 8.4i 7,9% * Net of Investment Tax Credits Prepared by: Barbara McWhorter Division Office San Angelo, Texas APR 2 3 1980 RATE OF RETURN CALCULATION AT $7.25 (Thousands of Dollars) Average Subscribers Average Revenue per Subscriber Revenues Expenses Service Costs Programming Selling and Administration General Expenses Depreciation Interest Total Income Taxes* Excess of Revenue Over Expenses Investment in Plant, Property & Equipment Return on Investment *Net of Investment Tax Credits Prepared by: Barbara McWhorter Division Office ..n Angelo, Texas Proiections 1980 1981 29,250 31,750 98.0 98.0 3,867.3 4,295.4 1,073.4 11.9 589.4 265.3 493.1 354.2 2,787.3 470.6 690.4 6,590.9 10.5% 1,187.3 12.5 # 632.1 269.1 523.6 477.5 3,102.1 530.0 663.3 7,084.0 9.4% )7 ©�K 43 PnE 273. APR 2 31980 FLORIDA CABLEVISION UE:3CC A DIVISION OF UA -COLUMBIA CABLEVISION o+c. P.O. Bo: 2530 567.3444 P.O; Box 1778 461.5311 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA HEO FORT PIERCE. e FLORIDA FLORIDA CABLEVISION INSTALLATION (Residential and Commercial) _ New Rates New Installation ( underground ) $35.00 New Installation ( overhead ) 25.00 ( never previously active ) ',Reconnect ( previously active ) 10.00 Extra Outlet ( new ) 15.00 Relocate Outlet 10.00 Transfer to New Address 35.00 ( underground ) ( never previously active ) Transfer to New Address •25.40 ( overhead ) ( never previously active ) Transfer to New Address 10.00 ( previously active ) MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGES (Residential and Commercial) One Outlet 7.25 Second Outlet ---SBO Each Additional Outlet 2.00 CABLEVISION UE�CC -.FLORIDA A DIVISION OF UA -COLUMBIA CABLEVISION Iwc. P.O. Box 2530 567.3444 P.O. Box 177B 461.5311 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA HEO FORT PIERCE. e FLORIDA FLORIDA CABLEVISION INSTALLATION (Residential and Commercial) Current Rates New Installation ( underground')' $20.00 New Installation ( overhead ) 20.00 ( never previously active ) Reconnect ( previously active ) 7.50 Extra Outlet ( new ) 14.95 I Relocate Outlet 7.50 Transfer to New Address 20.00 ( underground ) ( never previously active ) Transfer to New Address 20.00 ( overhead ) ( never previously active ) Transfer to New Address 7.50 ( previously active ) MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGES (Residential and Commercial) One Outlet 6.50 Second Outlet 1.95 Tach Additional Outlet 1.95 WN 4 til 43 F%cE Z74 February 28, 1980 SYSTEM UPGRADE - FLORIDA CABLEVISION 1. Two microwave receive sites, or "Hubs" are now operational. These "Hubs" allow us to eliminate long trunk lines and avoid the negative effects of excessive amplifier cascading, while giving us a broader base from which to expand our system to serve additional homes. 2. Within the past few years our primary receive sites, including Headend signal processing equipment, towers, and antenna have been completely rebuilt. The• addition of standby generators has given us more reliability at these key locations. 3. Quality Control technicians, using sophisticated electronic equipment, monitor and maintain proper signal levels throughout the cable system. This program helps pinpoint defective electronic devices in the system, so that they can be replaced prior to complete failure. 4. Now common throughout the cable television industry, satellite service was pioneered by Florida Cablevision in 1975. / February 28, 198 SERVICES ADDED BY FLORIDA CABLEVISION SERVICE LOCATION Home Box Office ( Optional ) New York WTBS - 17 Independent Atlanta Madison Square Garden Sports ( New York Various " Calliope " for Children New York Christian Broadcasting Network Virginia Beach WFINT - 9 ABC Orlando " C -SPAN " ( U.S. House of Representatives ) Washington Thursday Night Baseball ( New York ) 1979 Various APR 2 31980 YEAR CABLE ADDED CHANNEL 1975 4 1977 8 1977 11 1978 4 11 1978 3 1 1978 9 1979 3 1979 11 7 BooK 43 FAcE 275 Boa .43 PAGE 276 The cost index for the Cable Television industry can only be discussed by itemizing the day - to - day expense for materials and services. Some expenses are the same for all consumer/businesses, such as utility cost, office supplies, etc. Other expenses such as cable cost, amplifiers, etc., apply only to the cable television industry. Itemized below are some of the most common expenditures in cablevision; indicating item cost in 1973, cost for the same item in 1980, and the percentage of cost increase, or decrease, within that seven year period since Florida Cablevision's last rate increase in 1973. ITEM Gasoline----------------------------- Oil----------------------------- Tires ( Recaps ) -------------------------- BusinessTelephone -----------------------= Electrical Service 1 KWH (City VB Power) -- Insurance ( 1974 - 1979 ) --------- Postage ( 1st Class ) ------------------ CableFeeder ----------------------------- CableTrunk ----------------------------- Connectors - Feeder pins ------------------ Connectors - Feeder splices --------------- Connectors - Trunk pins ------------------ Connectors - Trunk splices ---------------- Ground Rod- w/clamp ----------------------- Transformers----------------------------- Wall Plate w/fitting --------------------- Pedestal•- Tap ----------------------- :____ - Amplifier -------------- I Splitter w/fitting----------------- Amplifier - Trunk/Bridger w/AGC--------- :. Amplifier - Distribution Bridger ---------- Amplifier - Line Extender ----------------- Amplifier - Line Extender w/AGC---------- Florida Cablevision -Avg. Salary (1974-1979) Drop Cable Outdoor ------------------------- Drop Cable Indoor ------------------------ High Strength Strand ---------------------- Trenching & Laying Cable ------------------ COST COST Index 1973 1980 PERCENTAGE 40C/gal --- 1.12/gal ------ 1807. 85C/qt --- 1.25/qt ------ 477. 10.95 ea --- 17.95 ea ------ 647. 14.00 ea --- 23.55 ea ------ 687 61,/KWH --- 9.3C/WH ------ 55% 21,104 --- 54,042 ------ 156% 13C --- 15C ' ------ .157. 89.50/M --- 188.93/M ------ 1117. 225.00/M --- 375.38/M ------ 677. 1.69 ea --- 2.45 ea ------ 45% 3.60 ea --- 5.50 ea ------ 537. 4.86 ea --- ea ------ 14% 6.49 ea r-- ,5.55 9.45 ea ------ 467 1.00 ea _-- 1.85 ea ------ 857 49C ea --- 35C ea ------ (297.) 39C ea --- 42C ea ------ 87 8.93 ea --- 14.31 ea ------ 607 39.95 ea --- 91.24 ea ------ 128% 28.00 ea --- 32.62 ea ------ 177. 363.00ea --- 921.00ea ------ 154% 239.00ea --- 720.00ea ------ 201% 85.00 ea --- 171.00ea ------ 1017 143.00ea --- 225.00ea ------ 577. 8031/yr --- 12�667-yr ------ 63% 36.50/M --- 45.20/M ------ 24% 26.00/M --- 35.70/M ------ 37% 28.50/M --- 58.50/M ------ 1167. 21C/ft --- 40C/ft ------ 90% The accumulative average percentage increase for the *28 items listed above is 74.7%. The rate increase proposed for May 1, 1980 is a very modest increase•'of 11.5% and will only offset the operational expenses that have been incurred by itie -inflationary costs of our day-to-day operation over the past seven years- We have always made every effort to keep our service rates at the lowest possible operating minimum, and we will continue to do so in -the future. The small rate lncrease= z t we have proRra med is necessary for the continuing operational standards of Florida Cablevision. Over the past three years Florida Cablevision has constructed 90 miles of cable system tc serve new areas. New construction is a continuous operation for Florida Cablevision. These projects are becoming more and more expensive. This rate increase will also help off set the.:inflationary rates on new construction. APPrUDIX III �•`� Consumer Price Index and Inflation The following table shows you the equivalent to a $5.00 monthly subscriber rate set in 1966 and how this rate should rise based on the rate of inflation determined by the consumer price index. Year Consumer Price Index Rate of Inflation Ecuivalent 1967 100.0 -- 5.00 1968 104.2 4.2% 5.21 1969 109.8 5_377 5.49 1970 116.3 5.92 5.82 1971 121.3 4.30 6.07 1972 125.3 3.30 6.27 1973 133.1 6.23 6.66 1974 147.7 10.97 7.39 1975 161.2 9.14 8.07 1976 170_5 5.77 8.54 1977 181_5 6.45 9.09 1978 195.4 7.66 9.79 1979 218.5* 11.80* 10.95 i1980 236.3** 8.15** 11.84 Projected based on figures available for first 8 months of 1979 **Projection based on previous five year's average rate of inflation INnAn 1940 2.8% $ YEAR DECRE.NSED VALUE 5.14 PuFCHASING OF $ POWER OF DOLLAR 5.28 DOLLAR (%) 4.0% $ 1940 $ 1.00 5.49 1941 - 4.9% .95 $ 1942 - 9.7% .86 5.77 1943 - 5.8%. .81 $ 1944 - 1.6% .80 6.09 1945 - 2.2% .78 $ 1946 - 7.8% .72 6.34 1947 - 12.6% .63 $•.20 1948 - 7.2% .58 6.54_ 1949 + 1.0% .59 $ 1950 - 1.0% .58 6:93 1951 -, 7.4% .54 $ 1952 - "2.28 .53 7.69 1953 - .8% .52 $ 1954 - .4% .52 8.39 1955 + .3% .52 $ 1956 - 1.58 .52 8.88 1957 - 3.4% .50 $ 1958 - 2.7% .48 9.48 1959 - .8% .48 $ 1960 - 1.6% .47 1961 - 1.18 .47 1962 - 1.3% .46 1963 - 1.2% .46 1964 -- 1.38. _45 1965. - 1_68 .44- 1966 - 2.88 .43 1967 - 2.8% .42 1968 - 4.08 .40 1969 - 5.18 .38 _ 1970 - 5.68 ..36- 1971 - 4.18 .35 1972 - 3.2% .33 -1973 - 5_98 .31 1974 - 11.0% .28 1975 - 9.18 .25 1976 - 5.88 .24 1977 - 6.8% .22 1978' - 9.3% .20 Calculations based on U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Office of 1 0 Management and Budget releases. THE EFFECT OF INFLATION This table shows the equivalents of $5.00 which was the "going" rate for cable television service in 1966, the year that cable television is often considered to have become an industry in the state of Florida. AS OF RATE OF % LOSS DUE EQUIVALENT INFLATION TO INFLATION TO 1966 $5 12/31/66 2.8% $ .14 $ 5.14 12/31/67 2.88 $ .14 $ 5.28 12/31/68 4.0% $ .21 $ 5.49 12/31/69 5.1% $ .28 $ 5.77 12/31/70 5.68 $ .32 $ 6.09 12/31/71 4.1% $ .25 $ 6.34 12/31/72 3.2% $•.20 $ 6.54_ 12/31/73 5.9% $ .39 $ 6:93 12/31/74 11.0% $ .76 $ 7.69 12/31/75 9.1% $ .70 $ 8.39 12/31/76 5.8% $ .49 $ 8.88 12/31/77 6.8% $ .67 $ 9.48 12/31/78 9.3% $ .88 $10.36 Above calculations are based on U.S.Department of Labor Statistics and U.S.Office of Management and Budget releases. Note that official inflation figures are year-end. The financial figures used by systems to justify rates are also year-end. There- fore, credit for the inflation that occurred during the year that previous rates were determined should be taken. A fast formula for calculating equivalent dollars is as follows: $5.00x1.028x1.028x1.04x1.051x1.056x1.041xl.032xl.059xl.11xl.091x 1.058xl.068xl.093=$10.36 Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Office of Management and Budget do release inflation figures in several business cate- gories, there is no specific calculation for cable television and' cable television does not fit any of the other categories, tt- 4 F��� fore, the overall average rate of inflation applies. AN2 3 1980 VLATES CHARGED BY CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEMS AFFILIATED WITH FCTA 500K 43 P"AGF 2 I Q This information is several .months old, there are some rates that have increased, but �3 are not reflected. Primary Cable System Listed by Monthly Primary Monthly Rate City/County Service x.50 Fernandina Beach Cable Tele. Corp. Fernandina Beach/Nassau County $5510- 1 Dynamic Cablevision of Florida,lnc. Hialeah 9.95 2 Southeast Cablevision, Inc. Belle Glade 9.00 3 Southease Cablevision, Inc. Pahokee 9.00 4 Americable Associates Homestead/Dade County 8.95 5 Teleprompter of Lakeland, Inc. Lakeland 8.50 6 Teleprompter Southeast, Inc. Deland/Volusia County 8.25 7 American Video Corporation Pompano Beach 8.00 8 American Video Corporation Tamarac 8.00 9 Cable TV of Coral Springs Coral Springs 8.00 10 Clearview Cable TV Panama City 8.00 11 Clearview Cable TV Tallahassee/Leon County 8.00 12 Community CATV Corporation Clewiston 8.00 13 Highlands Cable TV Sebring 8.00 14 Panama City Beach Cablevision, Inc. Panama City Beach/Bay County 8.00 15 South Florida Cable Tele. Corp. Bonita Springs 8.00 16 Southern Cablevision, Inc. Fort Myers 8.00 17 Teleprompter Florida CATV Corp. Plantation 8.00 18 Teleprompter of Boca Raton Boca Raton 8.00 19 Communie7able, Inc. Cocoa Beach 7.95 20 Communicable, Inc, of Palmetto North Manatee County 7.95 21 Florida Cable Video, Inc. Mulberry/Polk County 7.95 22 Lamar Cablesystems, Inc. Apalachicola 7.95 23 Polk Cablevision, Inc. Polk County 7.95 24 Selkirk Communications, Inc. Fort Lauderdale 7.95 25 Teleprompter Cable TV Hillsborough County 7.95 26 Teleprompter Florida CATV Corp. West Palm Beach 7.95 27 Teleprompter of Florida, Inc. New -Smyrna Beach/Volusia County 7.95 28 Teleprompter of Florida, Inc. Winter Garden/Osceola County 7.95 29 Teleprompter of Holly Hill Holly Hill/Volusia County 7.95 30 Teleprompter.of Southeast Fla. Inc. Bradentou/Manatee County 7.95 31 Teleprompter of Southeast Fla. Inc. Haines City/Polk County 7.95 32 Teleprompter of Quincy Quincy 7.95 33 Cocoa TV Cable a Divis. of ATC Cocoa/Brevard County' 7.80 34 Florida 1V Cable a Divis. of ATC 'Melbourne/Brevard County 7.80 35 Warner Cable of Lake City 'Lake City/Columbia County 7.60 36 American Cablevision Services 'Cape Coral 7.50 37 Area Communications, Inc. Jacksonville/Duval County 7.50 38 Broward Cable TV Dania-Davie/Broward County 7.50 39 Coast -Cable, Inc. Palm Coast- 7.50 40 Cox Cable TV of Pensacola Pensacola/Escambia County 7.50 41 Dade/Broward System Miramar/Broward.CoWnty 7.50 42 Flor.4,1a.TV*cable Ormond Beach%Volusia County 7.50 43 Florida Video Perry 7.50 44 Gulf Coast Teleception,Inc. Tort Charlotte/Charlotte County 7.50 45 Halifax Cable TV, Inc. Daytona Beach/Volusia County 7.50,. 46 Hillsborough CATV, Inc. Plant City 7.50 47 Kissimmee Cablevision Kissimmee/Osceola County 7.50 48 Leadership Cablevision Assoc. Ltd. Delray Beach/Palm Beach County 7.50 49 ',Peninsula Cablevision Corporation Madiera Beach 7.50 50 /Z/ Storer Cable TV Bartow/Polk County 7.50 51 Storer Cable TV Englewood/Sarasota County 7.50 52 Storer Cable TV - Lake Wales/Polk County 7.50 53 Teleprompter of Florida, Inc. St. Petersburg 7.50 54 Teleprompter of Southeast Fla. Inc. New Port Richey/Pasco County. 7.50 55 Warner Cable of Crestview Crestview 7.50 56 Warner Cable of Fort Walton Fort Walton Beach 7.50 57 Warner Cable of Niceville Niceville 7.50 58 Warner Cable of Winter Haven Winter Haven/Polk County 7.50 59 Cable TV of Palatka Palatka/Putnam County 7.31 60 Palm Beach Cable Television Palm Beach Gardens 7.25 61 Micanopy Group Alachua 7.00•. 62 Micanopy Group Branfotd. 7.00 63 Micanopy Group Chiefland 7.00 64 Micanopy Group Cross City 7.00 65 Micanopy Group High Springs 7.00 66 Leesburg Cablevision Leesburg/Lake County 7.00 67 National Cable Co. of the Suwanee. Madison 7.00 68 T.C.I. Cablevision, Inc. Titusville/Brevard County 7.00 69 Televents of Florida, Inc. Crystal River 7.00 70 West Boca Cablevision, Inc. Bocg Del Mar/Palm Beach County 7.00 71 Communicable Inc., of Palmetto Palmetto, 6.95 72 Martin County Cable -Company, Inc. Stuart/Martin County 6.95 73 Gulf Coast Television of Sanibel Sanibel-Captiva/Lee County 6.95 74 Teleprompter of Marianna, Inc. Marianna 6.95 75 University City Television Cable Gainesville/Alachua County 6.62 76 Florida Cablevision Fort Pierce/St" Lucie County 6.50 77 Gulf Coast Television of Lee Co. • Pine Island 6.50 78 Indian River Cablevision, Inc. Sebastian -6.39- % ZS 79 Orange/Seminole Cablevision Orlando 6.50 80 St. Lucie Cable Company, Inc. Port St. Lucie 6.50 81 Storer Cable. TV Lake Flacid 6.50 82 Florida Cablvision Vero Beach/Indian River County 6.50 83 --Storer Cable TV Wauchula/Hardee County -6.50 B4 Storer Cable TV. Villiston/Levy County 6.50 85 Micanopy. Croup Micanopy 6.00 86 Storer Cable TV: Sarasota 6.00 87 Storer Cable TV. Venice/Sarasota County 6.O6 88 Cox Cablevision Corp.. Ocala/Marlon County' 3.95 -89 Gulf Coast Teleception,Inc. Arcadia/De Soto County 3.95. 90 Gulf Coast Teleception North Port/Sarasota County 5.95 91 .Broward Cable TV Lauderdale 'Lake- 4.95 92 This information is several .months old, there are some rates that have increased, but �3 are not reflected. CABLE TV MBSCRIBER RATES Closest surrounding cities to Fort 'Pierce and Vero Beach covering a five county area. w- -ORANGE-- OSCEOLA., ktssimmee Cablevision - $7,50 i �, / - - le a '•.-w. `.4.�•�-`iii Z'S��._izS�Srf.L. Yna�an -City.of Vero Beach-'' - $6_50 II -Ind. River- Coun 5.50 Ind.. River Sfiares:', ;:,-. ':': 6:5Q Floiida �_able�is ion ` __: �roposed''� - 7.25 �-i �i�_. _..• i�.1i'1P�-�'• .. a,..a�_.__r `� • - _ - �� ..T 1.�.Lyps i-� ,.K•�Ty.i-li+—J- �.,a'*f�'�� ��•'g�'" �_ .� �• _7:S,�;;,ry _ CL•ty�vf Fort Pierce _$6.51 ��•-� � _ 6.5( S is Lucie County �LAD - =�;•r�+�.�s =_ .Y.�_ ,;_ -St. Lucie Village 6.51 ' FloriBa Cablevision--- Okeechobee ablevision-Okeechobee Proposed $7.2_. = _ _ Present rate $7.75 �. '"- - osedi$8.95 - _..Fbncrease P 7 k7 City of Stuart $8.( GLADES ` _ .. - - -= _- PALM 13EAGN SUMMARY Florida Cablevision is planning to 'increase its rates from $6.50 to $7.25. We have not had a rate increase for approximately seven years. During that seven years the inflation rate has taken its toll. • As we have demonstrated on the sheet comparing prices between 1973 & 1980, you can see the accumlative average percentage increase to be 74.77. We are asking for a very modest 11.57 increase. Most CATV systems in the State of Florida have already received rate increases as you can see by the list. of " Rates Charged by Cable Television Systems Affiliated with FCTA ". This list is several months old, I am sure there are rate inceases that have not been reflected. Florida Cablevision finds itself among the lowest -monthly rates charged on this list. After we receive our rate increase to $7.25, we will still be in the lower 407.. This rate increase is necessary, to maintain Florida Cablevision's high standard of service to the public it serves. Florida Cablevision serves six entities in this area. We have not tri d -Lo put together financial statements on these entities. To try to do so, would be a very complicated and costly operation, that would involve many people throughout UA -Columbia. Surely we have more than proven, with the material presented in this packet, that this rate increase is both fair and necessary. We appreciate your prompt approval of this rate increase. If there are any questions, or if I can be of any further service, please let me know. c2zz , 68 ao-. Billy B, Crosby /� General Manager APR 2 3190 Book 43 6PaLE279- SPR 2 31990 - ai 43 PAcE 280 URCC FLORIDA CABLEVISIO v A DIVISION OF UA -COLUMBIA CABLEVISION INC. P.O. Box 2530 567-3444 P.O. Box 1778 461.5311 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA HES FORT PIERCE. FLORIDA NOTICE OF. HEARING ON RATE INCREASE IRC COURTHOUSE APRIL 23, 9AM. NEW MONTHLY CHARGE $7.25. SEE PUBLIC NOTICE FOR OTHER CHARGES. This message will appear on April 1 billing for county residents. 19 AjX62 L J. Englbih 43 Wo"aml Drive Apartment 105 Vero Beach. FL 32%0 rt? law f' t 7 !/ iz.re Lcw, ^ , v ZZ � � �..it.. Wit' �'�C�lc�-it �� �t �r.t✓ ,/y� � �%z�� � tit =rr e �elJ cx-�a g rr icul:�ra MR. CROSBY PROCEEDED TO EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS OF THE PACKET AND POINTED OUT THAT FLORIDA CABLEVISION HAS BEEN IN SERVICE FOR 21 YEARS AND THE LAST RATE INCREASE THEY ASKED FOR WAS IN 1973. HE CONTINUED THAT NOW THE COMPANY FINDS THEY MUST RAISE THE PRICE FROM $6.50 TO $7.25 PER MONTH, AND EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING THE OTHER VARIOUS RATE INCREASES THEY ARE ASKING FOR, THIS WILL PUT THEM IN THE LOWER 40% OF THE STATE; THEREFORE, THEY FEEL THIS INCREASE IS FAIR AND NECESSARY. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED HOW MANY OF THE RATES USED AS COMPARABLES INCLUDED A FRANCHISE FEE IN THEM, BUT MR. CROSBY STATED HE DID NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION HERE. MR. CROSBY STRESSED THAT A CABLE COMPANY IS NOT A UTILITY; IT IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS, AND IN THIS AREA, PEOPLE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE CABLE TELEVISION TO HAVE TELEVISION. HE CONTINUED THAT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HAS 70% OF ITS RESIDENTS TAKING CABLEVISION. MR. CROSBY COMMENTED THAT A CABLE SYSTEM HAS A LIFE SPAN OF 10 TO 15 YEARS AND MUST BE UPGRADED OR COMPLETELY REBUILT, WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE RATES. HE ADDED THAT THEIR COMPANY SERVES SIX ENTITIES AND FOUR OF THEM HAVE APPROVED THE RATE INCREASE AS REQUESTED TODAY, AND THEY ARE: CITY OF FT. PIERCE, CITY OF ST. LUCIE, ST. LUCIE VILLAGE, AND INDIAN RIVER SHORES - ALL HAVE A 3% FRANCHISE, EXCEPT INDIAN RIVER SHORES. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED WHAT CABLEVISION'S PARENT COMPANY'S RATE OF RETURN WAS ON THEIR INVESTMENT. MR. CROSBY ADVISED THAT HE COULD GET THE BOARD AN ANNUAL REPORT WHICH WOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS CALLED TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE LAST AGREEMENT At THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO COME TO THE BOARD IF A BILLING CHANGE WAS MADE. HE ADDED THAT CABLEVISION SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED THEIR INCOME AND THEIR CASH FLOW, AND THOUGHT THAT ANY NEW CONTRACT SHOULD HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD TO APPROVE ANY METHOD OF BILLING THAT WOULD EFFECT THE CASH FLOW. 27 APR 2 31980 43 PAGF 2�1 i BOOK 43 ncE 282 MR. CROSBY REPORTED THAT THEY HAVE INCREASED THEIR CASH FLOW DUE TO BIMONTHLY BILLINGS. HE EMPHASIZED THAT THEY ARE A PRIVATE BUSINESS AND NOT A UTILITY, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS. HE ADDED THAT RATE OF.RETURNS CAN BE FIGURED MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, AND THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE VERY FAIR IN THE RATE INCREASE THEY WERE ASKING; WHICH AMOUNTED TO 17� A WEEK, AND SHOULD NOT PUT A BURDEN ON VERY MANY PEOPLE. COMMISSIONER -LYONS FELT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE RUNNING CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF FEELING THE BURDEN, HE REALIZED THAT THEY ARE FIGHTING NOT TO BE CALLED A UTILITY BUT HE THOUGHT THEY WERE, COMMISSIONER LYONS REFERRED TO THE INVESTMENT FIGURES AND DOES NOT KNOW HOW THEY WERE PUT TOGETHER, AND HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MORE DETAILED BREAKDOWN AS TO HOW THEY WERE CALCULATED. HE ADDED THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE A RECOGNIZED STANDARD ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE USED FOR CABLEVISION, FOR THE BOARD TO BE ABLE TO TELL WHETHER OR NOT THIS TRULY IS AN INVESTMENT AS FIGURED IN A STANDARD MANNER. COM- MISSIONER LYONS PERSONALLY THOUGHT WE OUGHT TO HAVE A BETTER HANDLE ON THE OPERATION OF THE CABLE COMPANY. HE NOTED THAT UP UNTIL THE TIME MR. CROSBY BECAME MANAGER, CABLEVISION WAS A VERY INDEPENDENT OPERATION AND HE WAS NOW THANKFUL THAT THINGS HAVE CHANGED; SERVICE COMPLAINTS ARE ANSWERED QUICKLY AND WITH EXPERTISE. COMMISSIONER LYONS REITERATED THAT THE BOARD HAS TO BE IN A POSITION TO HAVE SOME KIND OF CONTROL SO THEY CAN INSURE THE KIND OF OPERATION CABLEVISION IS DOING NOW. MR. CROSBY STATED HE INTENDED TO BE HERE A LONG TIME AND INTENDED TO GIVE GOOD SERVICE. HE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY OR PROPER TO BE CONTROLLED,AS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS BUSINESS AS A PRIVATE COMPANY AND SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE AS A PRIVATE COMPANY. MR. CROSBY ADDED THAT FLORIDA CABLEVISION HAS PRESENTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT IF THE BOARD LOOKS AT THIS COMPANY AS A UTILITY, THEY MUST LOOK AT IT ONE WAY; AND IF THE BOARD LOOKS AT IT AS A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, THEY MUST LOOK AT IT ANOTHER WAY. HE ADDED THERE IS A STANDARD METHOD FOR COMPUTING THE RATE OF RETURN IF IT IS A UTILITY. MR. CROSBY AFFIRMED THAT CABLEVISION IS NOT A UTILITY; AT ONE TIME THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) STATED THAT ALL FRANCHISES MUST HAVE RATES CONTROLLED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BUT NOW THAT HAS BEEN REVERSED. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT CABLEVISION COMES UNDER THE MANDATE OF THE FRANCHISE, AND THE DEFINITION IS THAT THEY ARE NOT A UTILITY; THERE IS A RIGHT TO LEVY A FRANCHISE FEE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THEY ARE A UTILITY IN THE SERVICE THEY ARE PROVIDING, BUT AS FAR AS CABLE TELEVISION, SOME PEOPLE DO NOT EVEN HAVE TO HAVE IT. HE ADDED THAT IF THE BOARD DOES HAVE TO LOOK AT THEIR RATE OF RETURN AND OPERATION, HE WAS PERSONALLY THANKFUL THAT THEY HAVE AN OPERATION THAT IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK IN PROVIDING QUALITY CABLE TELEVISION. COMMISSIONER WODTKE THOUGHT PERHAPS THE BOARD COULD GET A BREAKDOWN ON THE FINANCIAL FIGURES. HE COMMENTED THAT HE WAS QUITE PLEASED WITH THEIR OPERATION, THE SERVICE THEY ARE PROVIDING, AND THE ADDITIONAL THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE ON THE CHANNELS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THEY WERE DOING A GOOD JOB AND THAT THEY WARRANT THE RATE FOR WHICH THEY ARE ASKING. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WAS OPPOSED TO LEVYING A FRANCHISE FEE TO FLORIDA CABLEVISION AS THE CONSUMER IS ULTIMATELY PAYING FOR IT. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE THEORY OF A FRANCHISE FEE IS A METHOD OF RAISING FUNDS; THE SAME RATE IS BEING CHARGED IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE THE FRANCHISE FEE. HE ADDED THAT THE CUSTOMERS IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY RECEIVE NO MORE SERVICE AND PAY THE SAME RATE, WHETHER OR NOT THAT FEE IS CHARGED. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT DISAGREED. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT FRANCHISE FEES, AND THE FACT THAT IT COSTS CABLEVISION MORE TO OPERATE IN THE COUNTY THAN IN THE CITY BECAUSE OF THE TRAVEL DISTANCE INVOLVED. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO BE HEARD. 29 4.3 APR 2 31990 s A APR 2 3 1990 PAGE 284 .JOHN SULLIVAN, 1455 90TH AVENUE, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE, AND TOOK PARTICULAR EXCEPTION TO A FRANCHISE. HE DID NOT THINK THAT ANY COUNTY, CITY OR ANY OTHER COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT ENTITY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A ItTAX It OVER WHICH THE PEOPLE HAVE NO CONTROL. MR. SULLIVAN FELT MR. CROSBY PRESENTED NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER FOR THE RATE INCREASE OTHER THAN MAKING A COMPARISON BETWEEN COUNTIES. HE ADDED THAT HE If WOULD LI -KE TO SEE WHAT -THE COSTS INVOLVED ARE AND IF THEY ARE JUSTIFIED. MR. SULLIVAN QUESTIONED IF THE FIGURES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE BOARD TO ENABLE THEM TO EVALUATE THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS; HAS ANYBODY AUDITED THE FIGURES TO SEE IF THEY ARE LEGITIMATE; WHAT IS THE RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT; WHAT IS THEIR INVESTMENT; HOW DID THEY ARRIVE AT THESE FIGURES; WHERE DID THEY GET THEM? HE CONTINUED THAT BACK IN 1973, FLORIDA CABLEVISION WAS GRANTED AN 18% INCREASE AND IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS THEY HAVE NOT COME FORWARD FOR AN INCREASE, WHICH LED HIM TO BELIEVE THAT 18% WAS FAR TOO MUCH. MR. SULLIVAN FELT THE INCREASE THEY ARE ASKING FOR NOW IS 100% PROFIT, AND NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO INCREASE A COMPANY IS PROFITS BUT TIME TO HOLD THE LINE, AS SUGGESTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL GUIDELINES. HE THEN GAVE THE BOARD A RECENT EXPERIENCE HE HAD WITH CABLEVISION CONCERNING A RE- CONNECT CHARGE WHEN THERE WAS NO RECONNECTING DONE. MR. SULLIVAN ALSO ADVISED HE WAS HAVING PROBLEMS GETTING A PRIOR BILL CORRECTED. HE CONCLUDED BY STATING THAT HE OPPOSED A RATE INCREASE AS HE FELT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSITION TO THOSE WITH A FIXED INCOME, AND HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE CORRECTIONS MADE IN THE BILLING PROCEDURES. WILLIAM KOOLAGE, 815 26TH AVENUE, STEPPED FORWARD AND SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO THE RATE INCREASE. HE ADVISED THAT THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX IS NOW 239.8, OR 41� ON THE DOLLAR, AND THE COUNTY HAS MANY RETIREES LIVING ON A FIXED INCOME AND THIS RATE INCREASE WOULD BE HARD ON THEM. MR. KOOLAGE OBJECTED TO THE FACT THAT HE HAS NEVER BEEN ABLE TO REACH CABLEVISION WHEN HIS TELEVISION IS OUT, AS THEIR LINE IS ALWAYS BUSY. 30 HE REALIZED THAT THE COST OF 1 m w m DOING BUSINESS IS GOING UP ALL THE TIME, BUT SOMEWHERE THERE MUST COME A HALT. MR. KOOLAGE COMMENTED THAT IF THE COUNTY PUTS A FRANCHISE FEE IN, IT CAN BITE BACK, AND THE CITIZENS WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE TAX. MARGARET DIXON, 2344 SW 2ND PLACE, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND STATED HER OBJECTIONS TO THE RATE INCREASE: SHE CAN NEVER GET A CALL THROUGH TO THE CABLEVISION OFFICE; IF IT RAINS, SHE DOES NOT HAVE CABLE TELEVISION AT ALL, MS. DIXON ADDED THAT SHE HAS HAD TO BUY 14 TELEVISION SETS OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, TWO JUST IN THE PAST YEAR, AND FEELS THERE MIGHT BE A ItSURGE It COMING OVER THE CABLEVISION LINE THAT DAMAGES THE SETS, MS, DIXON STATED THAT EVERYBODY MENTIONS THE ELDERLY BUT THERE ARE ALSO THE DISABLED PERSONS TO CONSIDER, AND SHE FELT THAT THIS WAS A 'WRONG TIME TO ASK FOR A RATE INCREASE. RHEA HARRINGTON, 1240 36TH AVENUE, ALSO OBJECTED TO THE RATE INCREASE AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE A LIMITED INCOME. SHE CONTINUED THAT FLORIDA CABLEVISION, IN HER OPINION, HAS NOT EARNED A RATE INCREASE BECAUSE OF THE SERVICE THEY GIVE - THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHANNELS SHE CAN RECEIVE CLEARLY, AND THREE DAYS OUT OF THE WEEK THE CABLE TELEVISION MAY WORK. MS. HARRINGTON COMMENTED THAT SHE HAS BEEN ABLE TO RECEIVE ANSWERS TO HER TELEPHONE CALLS IF THEY ARE PLACED EARLY IN THE MORNING, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ANSWER THE TELEPHONES ARE NOT FRIENDLY. SHE FELT THAT UNTIL CABLEVISION CAN IMPROVE THE SERVICE AND THE CHANNELS COME THROUGH BETTER, THEY DO NOT QUALIFY FOR A RATE INCREASE. WOLFE BISHARA, 1445 WYNN COVE DRIVE, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND ALSO FELT THE QUALITY OF RECEPTION ON CABLEVISION MUST IMPROVE BEFORE THE RATES ARE INCREASED, AS THE CUSTOMER PAYS FOR WHAT HE SEES. HE THEN SPOKE ABOUT THE INTERMITTENT RECEPTION RECEIVED ON CHANNELS It 2, 5 AND 6 - THERE IS NO ASSURANCE A PERSON WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE ENTIRE PROGRAM.., MR. BISHARA FELT THERE WAS A LOT OF DUPLICATION IN THE STATIONS, AND THERE WAS NO VARIETY ON THE SPORTS CHANNELS, WHICH ARE 8 AND 11. HE ADDED THAT CHANNEL 13 IS A NEWS PROGRAM WHICH REPEATS ITSELF EVERY 15 MINUTES, AND IF ANYTHING, HE WOULD LIKE TO' 31 BOOIF 4 FAGE "5 APR 2 31990 -APR 2 3198® nox 43 fcf286 LISTEN TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LOCAL NEWS. MR. BISHARA HAS TRIED FOR FIVE YEARS TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO SEE THE MANAGER, BUT HAS NEVER BEEN ABLE TO GET AN APPOINTMENT. PETE NOEL, OF STATION WGYL, ASKED IF THERE WAS A REGULATION PROVIDING FOR LOCAL ORIGINATION IN EFFECT AND IF CABLEVISION PLANNED TO DO THIS TYPE OF PROGRAMMING. MR. CROSBY RESPONDED NEGATIVELY AND EXPLAINED THAT THE FCC Av HAS REVISED THIS REGULATION FOR LOCAL ORIGINATION, BUT DOES REQUIRE THAT FLORIDA. CABLEVISION CARRY CHANNELS 9 AND 12. HE ADDED THAT CHANNEL 10 HAS BEEN ON THE SYSTEM FOR TWENTY YEARS AND THEY CAN TAKE IT OFF IF THEY CAN FIND SOMETHING BETTER BUT ONCE A CHANNEL HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PUT IT BACK ON, IF THEY SO DESIRE. MR. CROSBY STATED THAT IF THE PEOPLE ARE HAVING PROBLEMS, THEY SHOULD CALL HIS OFFICE AS HEIS ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO TALK TO THE PEOPLE. HE THEN AGREED THAT THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN PROBLEMS WITH CHANNEL 2 AND THE COMMON CARRIER THAT THEY BUY THIS CHANNEL FROM HAS PROMISED TO GET THEM A BETTER CHANNEL 2 IMMEDIATELY. MR. CROSBY OFFERED OTHER POSSIBILITIES: CHANNEL 42 WILL BE AN EDUCATIONAL CHANNEL FROM PALM BEACH; THEY MAY BE ABLE TO GET ANOTHER EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FROM THEIR SATELLITE; CHANNEL 2 IN MIAMI HAS APPLIED FOR A GRANT T.0 MAKE THEIR MICROWAVE LENGTH EXTEND FROM MIAMI TO VERO BEACH, WHICH MIGHT ELIMINATE THESE PROBLEMS. HE REPORTED THAT IN 1975, THEY ADDED HBO, WHICH MEANT ADDITIONAL REVENUE TO THEM, AND THROUGHOUT THE YEARS THEY HAVE BEEN EXPANDING WITH MORE CUSTOMERS, THEREFORE, THEY DID NOT HAVE TO ASK FOR RATE INCREASES, BUT NOW THEY FEEL IT IS FAIR AND NECESSARY. THE BOARD THEN DISCUSSED THE VARIOUS CHANNELS THAT FLORIDA CABLEVISION HAD TO OFFER, AND WHAT PROGRAMS COULD BE OBTAINED WITH JUST A STANDARD ANTENNA. COMMISSIONER Loy SAID SHE WAS SORRY THAT OTHER PEOPLE DID NOT GET AS GOOD A RECEPTION ON CHANNEL 2 AS SHE DID, AND FOR FLORIDA CABLEVISION TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT TAKING ANOTHER EDUCATIONAL CHANNEL, AS CHANNEL 2 HAS BEEN ACCLAIMED AS BEING THE BEST EDUCATIONAL CHANNEL IN THE UNITED STATES. � w � MR. CROSBY COMMENTED HE DOES NOT HAVE CABLEVISION, BUT IS HOPEFUL THAT SOON IT WILL REACH PINE TREE PARK, WHERE HE LIVES. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF HE HAD HIS 1973 INVESTMENT FIGURES IN PRINT, AS WELL AS DATA ON PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, AND MR. CROSBY ADVISED THAT HE HAD THAT INFORMATION IN HIS OFFICE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT MRS. BARBARA MCWHORTER HAD PREPARED THE FIGURES ON PAGES 16 AND 17 OF THE AGENDA INFORMATION SHEETS, AND THAT SHE WAS A DIFFICULT PERSON -TO GET TO TALK TO ON THE TELEPHONE. MR. CROSBY ADVISED THAT SHE HAD BEEN ON A VACATION FOR ONE WEEK BUT COULD ARRANGE A MEETING WITH HER, IF CHAIRMAN SIEBERT REQUESTED. LEE-DIXON, INTERESTED CITIZEN, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND TOUCHED ON THE SUBJECT OF ECONOMICS. HE COMMENTED THAT TODAY'S PRICES HAVE OUTGROWN THE AVERAGE PERSON AND THIS MUST STOP SOMEHOW. MR. DIXON FELT COMPANIES MUST USE THEIR INGENUITY AND NOT RAISE THEIR PRICES. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER LYONS COMMENTED THAT HE WAS INTERESTED IN HAVING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION; AND WOULD VOTE 11NO11 WITHOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT HE HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH WAITING A COUPLE OF WEEKS; HE COULD MAKE A DECISION NOW BUT WOULD WELCOME SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. MR. CROSBY INTERJECTED THAT THEY HAVE SET UP THEIR COMPUTERS FOR MAY IST AND WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO MAKE A DECISION AT THIS TIME. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO RESET THEIR COMPUTERS, COMMISSIONER LYONS DISCUSSED HAVING A MOTION THAT THIS DISCUSSION BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE SECOND MEETING IN MAY AND IN THE MEANTIME, GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE RETURN OF INVESTMENT AND A STUDY ON HOW THE INVESTMENT IS FIGURED, USING A RECOGNIZED STANDARD ACCOUNT PROCEDURE. APR 2 31900 33 8aoy • °;.43��. APR 2 3 1980 43 F**UZSS COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE WOULD SECOND THE MOTION WITH THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATIONS: THAT WE HAVE A BREAKDOWN OF THE FIGURES ON PAGE 16 OF THE AGENDA INFORMATION, AND BE INFORMED HOW THOSE FIGURES WERE CALCULATED. COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO BE SURE WHAT THE BASIS IS FOR ARRIVING AT THOSE FIGURES, AND BE SURE IT FOLLOWS SOME STANDARD ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE FOR SETTING RATES. IVCOMMISSIONER.WODTKE REITERATED THAT THE BOARD IS NOT ASKING FOR AN EXTENSIVE RATE STUDY, JUST A BREAKDOWN OF THE FIGURES ON PAGE 16; POSSIBLY -A PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT AND AN ANNUAL STATEMENT FROM COLUMBIA CABLEVISION, INC. CAN BE INCLUDED. MR. CROSBY THOUGHT HE COULD GATHER THIS INFORMATION IN ABOUT TWO WEEKS. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER WODTKE, FOR THE BOARD TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION UNTIL 9:30 A.M. ON MAY 21, 1980, AND IN THE MEANTIME, THE BOARD SHOULD BE GIVEN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE RETURN OF INVESTMENT, AND HAVE A BREAK- DOWN OF THE FIGURES ON PAGE 16 OF THE AGENDA INFORMATION, AND OF HOW THOSE FIGURES WERE CALCULATED, AS MENTIONED ABOVE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT SAID HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION BECAUSE COMMISSIONER LYONS IS HANDLING THIS AS A UTILITY - TELEVISION IS ENTERTAINMENT, AND HE WAS NOT SURE THE BOARD SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THIS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND PASSED, WITH CHAIRMAN SIEBERT VOTING IN OPPOSITION. MR. CROSBY REQUESTED THAT A LETTER BE SENT TO HIM INDICATING WHAT THE BOARD WOULD REQUIRE IN THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HE IS TO FURNISH. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NEXT PRESENTED THE FOLLOWING PROCLAMATION TO ELMER TURNER, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS: 34 PROCLAMATEON WHEREAS, today's older Citizens have molded and nurtured the world in which we live and they will act as a positive farce for change in the future by continuing to build bridges between young and old and by helping the community to prepare itself for the future when a still 4reater percentage of its residents will be older; and WHEREAS, OLDER AMERICANS lead lives of independence, dignity, and purpose and, when called upon cheerfully give of their time, talents and money. Their experience, wisdom and caring are vital to our hopes of rehumanizing the world and correcting its wavering direction; and WHEREAS, the VERO BEACH CHAPTER #1406 of A.A.R.P., INC. has approximately nineteen hundred (1900) members; and WHEREAS, the members of the VERO BEACH CHAPTER #1406 of A.A.R.P., INC, are taking part in the affairs of ot..,. community and making significant contributions to the well being of our citizens; and WHEREAS, OLDER AMERICANS perform many services as volunteers for various charitable organizations among them being: AMBULANCE SQUAD HOSPITAL AUXILIARY s RED CROSS MEALS ON WHEELS and WHEREAS, OLDER AMERICANS have held and are holding various public offices among them being service on the follow- ing public boards: CITY COUNCIL COUNTY COMMISSION PARKS, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CITY FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT -PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, That The Month of May shall be designated as. 4 "OLDER AMERICAN'S MONTH" and BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED, that the Board expresses its appreciation to the County's OLDER AMERICANS and most particularly to the members of the VERO BEACH CHAPTER #1406 of A.A.R.P., INC. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLO IDA By I ar ie ert, r Cha irTdan Boa 1 43 PAGE 2.9® ELMER TURNER THEN EXPRESSED APPRECIATION FOR THE PROCLAMATION ON BEHALF OF THE OLDER CITIZENS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, WHICH NUMBER ABOUT 12,000, THE BOARD NEXT DISCUSSED THE REQUEST FROM THE EXCHANGE CLUB -OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, INC. TO GRANT OR LEASE COUNTY LANDS FOR A YOUTH HALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A TEMPORARY HOME FOR NEGLECTED OR MISTREATED CHILDREN. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH PREPARATION, AND IN VIEW OF THE INTEREST, THERE OUGHT TO BE MORE NOTICE BEFORE ANY PRESENTATION IS MADE. DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ATTORNEY EUGENE O'NEILL, REPRESENTING THE EXCHANGE CLUB, STATED THAT HE CHECKED WITH DEWEY WALKER OF THE ZONING DEPARTMENT, AND THE ZONING WAS SOME TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL, AND WAS COMPATIBLE. COMMISSIONER LOY THOUGHT THAT IN FAIRNESS TO EVERYONE INVOLVED, THIS ITEM SHOULD BE PUT ON THE NEXT AGENDA, AS IT IS UN- LIKELY THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TIME TO HEAR BOTH SIDES ANY TIME TODAY DUE TO THE SIZE OF TODAY IS AGENDA. ATTORNEY O'NEILL FELT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A BRIEF ONE-SIDED PRESENTATION TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING. THE BOARD ALL AGREED THAT TODAY WAS NOT THE DAY TO DISCUSS THIS AND SUGGESTED IT BE SET FOR 9:00 O'CLOCK A.M. ON MAY %, 1980. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT REALIZED WHAT A GOOD THING THE EXCHANGE CLUB WAS TRYING TO DO AND THOUGHT THAT IN THE MEANWHILE, ATTORNEY O'NEILL COULD EXPLAIN THE PROPOSAL TO THE PEOPLE THAT DID ATTEND THE MEETING TODAY. THE HOUR OF 10:00 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 on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach inIndianRiver County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously 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. �r Sworn to and subscribed before a this �J day of A.D. (Business Manager) e /' t• (SEAL) u (Clerk of the Circuit C t, Indian River County, Florida) NOTICE . - i NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing an April 23, 1980 at 10:00 A.M. in the County Com- mission Chambers in the Indian River County Courthouse to consider the adoption of an Ordinance Promulgating the Rates and other Costs to Be Chargeg for Use of County Water and Swere Services; Outlining Means of Enforcing Payment for Such Service; Promulgating Requlrementsfor Connection; Setting UP Maintenance Requirements; Prohibiting Free Service; Penalties for Violation; and Amending or Repealing All Ordinances in Conflict Therewith. �. A Rate Schedule Will be adopted by the County providingfor the following user Rates: WATER RATE , RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL First 3,000 Gallons (Base Rate) 47.10 per ihonih•Minimum All over 3,000 Gallons $1.50 per 1,000 Gallons Residential with Master Meter (Base Rate) $7.10 for first 3,000 Gallons Minimum 3,000 Gallons for each Unit $7.10 per month per unit All over 3,W0 Gallons 51.50 per 1A00 Gallons SEWER RATE nemutN IIAL with water service $7:50 per month per single. .family dwelling RESIDENTIAL without water service $7.10 for first 3,000 Gallons (based on water consumption) All over 3,000 Gallons minimum 87 percent Of $1.50 per 1,000 Gallons up t0 10,000 additional Galims !. iBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By:-s•Wlllard W. Siebert. Jr. j Chenrman •Aar. 30, 1980, ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT THE NOTICE ADEQUATELY DESCRIBES THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND PROVIDES FOR RATES ON A GALLONAGE BASIS. HE ADDED THAT THE MATERIAL THE BOARD HAS BEFORE THEM IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT AS THE PUBLICATION APPEARS, BUT HE BELIEVED THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY NOTICED FOR WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CALLED. THE BOARD AGREED TO CONTINUE. GEORGE LINER, UTILITIES DIRECTOR, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND EXPLAINED THAT THE ORDINANCE BEFORE THE BOARD -IS AN AMENDED ORDINANCE BASED ON ONE THAT WAS PASSED FOR THE GIFFORD SYSTEM, AND IT IS FOR COUNTY -WIDE COVERAGE AND THE ORDINANCE DOES ASK THAT,THE RATES WILL BE STANDARDIZED FOR THE COUNTY.- HE CONTINUED THAT IN DECEMBER THE BOARD DID VOTE BY RESOLUTION THAT IF NEEDED, RATES WOULD BE INCREASED TO A HIGHER LEVEL AND THIS COMPROMISE WILL RAISE THE MINIMUM BASE RATE TO $7.10 FOR THE FIRST 2,000 GALLONS AND $1.50 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 1,000 GALLONS. MR. LINER NOTED THAT THE SEWER RATES ARE TO BE BASED ON SOME PROPORTION OF WATER CONSUMPTION. HE ADDED THAT IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS, THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER USED 6,534 GALLONS FOR AN AVERAGE BILL PER MONTH OF $8.53 IN THE SOUTH COUNTY 37 eoo 43 FACE 2 l AP 2 31900 :� a 860K 43 PAGE 299 AREA. MR. LINER ADVISED THAT THE NEW RATE WOULD RAISE THAT FIGURE TO $13.90 PER MONTH, AND POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION IN THE GIFFORD AREA IS 2,909 r GALLONS A MONTH HIGHER THAN IN THE SOUTH COUNTY AREA AND THEIR AVERAGE MONTHLY BILL IS $16.25. HE REPORTED THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE IN THE GIFFORD AREA. ATTORNEY COLLINS HAD SEVERAL COMMENTS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE - IN SECTION 2, IT MENTIONS THE SEWER HOOKUP IS MANDATORY WITHIN 200' OF ANY EXISTING LINE THAT IS IN AND PRESENTLY, THE ONLY PLACE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED WOULD BE THE 6TH AVENUE LINE. HE NOTED A QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION - WOULD THE BOARD WANT CONNECTION TO THE 6TH AVENUE LINE MANDATORY? THE ATTORNEY NEXT SUGGESTED THAT IN SECTION 3 REGARDING RESOLUTION 79-611 THE VERO MALL AGREEMENT SHOULD BE ADDED AS THE COUNTY IS PROVIDING SEWER IN THAT AREA WITHOUT WATER. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT SECTION 2 REGARDING STRUCTURES THAT ARE WITHIN 200' OF A GRAVITY SYSTEM AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE FEASIBLE TO TIE IN TO A FORCE MAIN. MR. LINER REPORTED THAT THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT THAT IS INSTALLED WITHOUT PROVIDING FOR INDIVIDUAL CONNECTIONS TO BE MADE AND HE FELT THAT IF THERE IS AN EXISTING GRAVITY SYSTEM, THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO TIE IN. HE NOTED THAT THE 6TH AVENUE SEWER IS A FORCE MAIN AND NOBODY CAN CONNECT UNLESS THERE IS A PUMPING STATION. COMMISSIONER LYONS REFERRED TO SECTION 10 AND SUGGESTED ADDING A PROVISION CONCERNING WATER THAT IS USED BY HUMANS, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT WAS A GOOD POINT AND WOULD ADD IT TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. ATTORNEY COLLINS REFERRED TO SECTION 121 WHICH PROVIDED THAT 1/2 ACRE LOTS WOULD BE PREVENTED FROM HAVING BOTH A WELL AND A SEPTIC TANK. HE NOTED THAT MANY OF THE PLATTED SUBDIVISIONS, PARTICULARLY THE MOST RECENT ONES, WERE PLATTED WITH THE CONCEPT IN MIND THAT THERE WOULD BE A WELL AND A SEPTIC TANK,AND RESTRICTING IT TO ONE ACRE WILL CHANGE THAT PATTERN CONSIDERABLY. THE ATTORNEY ALSO NOTED THAT THIS SECTION IS PROHIBITING MULTI -FAMILY BUILDINGS AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS FROM HAVING SEPTIC TANKS, AND THAT WOULD THEN RESTRICT MOST OF THE SMALL MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SOME COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTY. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED IT LOOKED TO HIM LIKE AN OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION. MR. LINER RESPONDED THAT IF THERE WAS A GRAVITY SEWER LINE WITHIN 200', A CONNECTION WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE, BUT IF NOT, THIS WOULD PROHIBIT MULTI -FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT WOULD OVERLOAD THE SEPTIC TANKS. DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD BE SAFE, AS FAR AS HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS. MR. LINER BELIEVED THAT A WELL AND SEPTIC WITH VERY PRECISE POSITIONING COULD BE ON 1/2 ACRE AND BE SAFE BUT POINTED OUT THAT WE DON `T ALWAYS HAVE CONTROL AS TO HOW PRECISELY THEY ARE INSTALLED. HE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT DRINKING WATER FROM A WELL THAT IS CLOSE TO A SEPTIC TANK., COMMISSIONER LYONS COMMENTED THAT HE DISAGREED WITH THE PRESENT RULING THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS AND FELT THE BOARD IS NOT IN A POSITION TO DETERMINE IF THAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG. HE ADVISED THAT HE WOULD GO ALONG WITH WHATEVER THE STATE RULES ARE, WITH THE EXCEPTION IF THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN 200' OF A GRAVITY LINE, A CONNECTION SHOULD BE MADE, DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT HOW THE WORDING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE SHOULD.BE AMENDED, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT HE WOULD CLARIFY IT. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THEY ARE TIED INTO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS AND THE ORDINANCE COULD READ THAT WE WILL MEET THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS BUT -IN NO CASE TO EXCEED FOUR 4 UNITS PER ACRE. THE BOARD AGREED. TO SPEAK. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED JOE BLAKE, 300 14TH PLACE, ROCKRIDGE, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND STATED THAT HE OBJECTED TO THE FIGURES USED BY THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER, AND ALSO OBJECTED PAYING $1.50 FOR 1,000 GALLONS OF WATER. HE FELT AS'THOUGH HE WAS FINANCING NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. 39 APR 2 31980 Boa 41,p , 9 � u APR 2 31900 a 49 F*294 CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ADVISED THAT ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WILL PAY A TAP -ON FEE, AND THAT THE INCREASE IS NEEDED TO PAY OFF THE BONDS. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT THE BOARD IS TRYING TO COME UP WITH A UNIFIED SYSTEM IN THE COUNTY TO TRY AND TREAT ALL COUNTY RESIDENTS IN THESAME MANNER; ALSO, THE GIFFORD RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN PAYING THE SAME RATES THAT ARE PROPOSED TODAY. IV .JAMES DUFFY, 1460 4TH COURT, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND ALSO OBJECTED TO THE INCREASE, WHICH HE FIGURED TO BE 65%. HE STATED HE HAS BEEN AT THE SAME LOCATION FOR SEVEN YEARS, USES 3,000 TO 4,000 GALLONS A MONTH WITH AN AVERAGE BILL OF $5.00 TO $6.00 A MONTH. MR. DUFFY COMPLAINED THAT THE PIPES WERE BAD, THE WATER WAS RUSTY, AND THE SERVICE WAS BAD, COMMISSIONER LYONS INTERJECTED THAT MR. DUFFY HAD PUT HIS FINGER ON PART OF THE COUNTY'S PROBLEM - THE OLD WATER PLANT THAT WAS IN THERE DIDNIT TAKE IN ENOUGH MONEY TO KEEP IT UP. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT IF THE COUNTY TAKES IT OVER AND UPGRADES THE SYSTEM, IT WOULD COST MORE MONEY, MR. LINER COMMENTED THAT THERE ARE OLD PIPES IN THE GROUND WHICH NEED TO BE REPLACED AND THEY HAVE PLANS TO CHANGE SOME OF THEM FROM GALVANIZED TO PLASTIC IN ORDER TO CORRECT THIS. HE ADDED THAT THE COUNTY IS BUYING ABOUT 1/3 OF THE WATER FROM THE CITY OF VERO BEACH. MR. LINER BELIEVED THAT IF THE RATES WERE CHANGED TO WHAT THE COUNTY IS PROPOSING, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO BETTER MAIN- TENANCE ON THIS SYSTEM, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED WHAT WOULD BE, FROM A BOOKKEEPING STANDPOINT, A FEASIBLE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE. DISCUSSION CONTINUED AND IT WAS AGREED THAT JUNE 1, 1980 WOULD BE THE EFFECTIVE DATE. COMMISSIONER LYONS COMMENTED THAT THE CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED OF THIS NEW RATE WHEN THEY RECEIVE THEIR NEXT BILL. 40 _ - ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE N0. 80-13, WITH THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF JUNE 1, 1980, WITH THE CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD TO BE INCORPORATED, AND BROUGHT BACK FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW. ATTORNEY COLLINS ADVISED THAT THE BOARD CAN CONTINUE THE MATTER AND VOTE AT THE NEXT MEETING, OR IT CAN BE VOTED ON NOW AND AFTER REVIEWING THE AMENDED ORDINANCE AS SUGGESTED ABOVE, IT CAN BE AMENDED AT THE NEXT MEETING. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ORDINANCE.NO. 80-13 WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN COMPLETED. 41 4 APR 2 3 9� aar� PAcE� THE HOUR OF 11:00 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICES WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO—WIT: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL IV Published Weekly - Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being J _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 e this day of A. D. (Business Manager) C v✓ (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit u_ Indian River County, Florida) 42 t NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatthe Board of County Commissioners of Indian River., i County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on April 23, 1980 at 11:00 A.M. in the County Commission Chambers in the Indian River' County Courthouse to consider the adoption of an Ordinance Amending Indian River County Ordinance 74-12 as amended, by Adopting by Reference the Standard Gas Code, 1979 Edition, which Code will be adopted by reference as the Indian River County, Florida Gas Code, subject to existing modifications as established in Indian River County Ordinance 74-12, as amended. BOARD OF COUNTY COM- MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: -s -Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Chairman Mar. 30, 1980. - VERO BEACH PRESS-JOURNAM Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of in the ) Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of�- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously 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. �s Sworn to and subscribed b ore this —4 day ofy A.D. R xv�_�� 192 - (Business Manager) /' (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit C9,1.dia. River County, Florida) VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a '> (G L C Gv in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of • / ll� c Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this G day of c (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court A. D. � ness Manager) ian River County, Florida) s NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatthe Board fo County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on April 23, 1980 at 11:00 A.M. in the County Commission Chambers in the Indian River County Courthouse to consider'the adoption of an Ordinance Amending Indian River County Ordinance 74-13 as amended, by Adopting by Reference the Standard Mechanical Code, 1979 Edition, which Code will be adopted by reference as the Indian River County, Florida Mechanical Code, subject to existing modific- tions as established in Indian River County Ordinance 74.13, as amended. BOARD OF COUNTY COM- MISSIONERSOF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: -s -Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Mar. 30, 1980. NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatthe Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on April 23, 1980 at 11:00 A.M: in the County Commission Chambers in the Indian River County Courthouse to consider the adoption of an Ordinance�'Amending Indian River County Ordinance 74.14, as amended, by Adopting by Reference the Standard Plumbing Code, 1979 Edition, which Code will be adopted by reference as the Indian River County, Florida Plumbing Code, subject to existing modifications as established in Indian River County Ordinance 74.14, as amended. BOARD OF COUNTY COM- MISSIONERSOF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: -9 -Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Chairman Mar. 30,1980. BOOK 43 PAGE in 40 APR 2 31980 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business- Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a 1 �G Chi in tig matter of C/17* 'e - d � r in the `Zpfd Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously 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 J�_ (SEAL) _day of '/� A. D. 02 _ (Business Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Indian River County, Florida) Bw 43 PAGE NOTICE -- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatthe Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on April 23, 1980 at 11:00 A.M. in the County Commission Chambers in the Indian River County Courthouse to consider the adoption of an Ordinance Amending Indian River County Ordinance 74-11 as amended, by Adopting by " Reference the Standard Building Code, 1979 ` Edition, which Code will be adopted' by reference as the Indian River County, Florida Building Code, subject to existing modifications as established in Indian River County Ordinance 74-11, as amended. BOARD O,F COUNTY COM. MISSIONERSOF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: -s -Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Chairman Mar. 30,1980. ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED USING THE FORMAT OF HAVING ONE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ALL FOUR ITEMS, BUT VOTING SEPARATELY ON EACH CODE. HE ADVISED THERE WERE NO CHANGES ON ANY OF THE CODES OTHER THAN UPDATING THE SOUTHERN STANDARD BUILDING CODE. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO BE HEARD. THERE WERE NONE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE Pio. 80-14 AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE 74-12 UPDATING THE GAS CODE ADOPTED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. 116 I ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO, 80-15 AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE 74-13 UPDATING THE MECHANICAL CODE ADOPTED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE N0. 80-16 AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE 74-14 UPDATING THE PLUMBING CODE ADOPTED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE N0. 80-17 AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE 74-11 UPDATING THE BUILDING CODE ADOPTED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. APR 23, 1981; 4 45 3 n 1 boot 43 ?4400 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 80- 14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE 74-12 OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UPDATING THE GAS CODE ADOPTED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Indian River County Ordinance 74-12 is hereby amended by the adoption of the Standard Gas Code, 1979 Edition, as printed by the Southern Building Code Congress Inter- national:, Inc. which 1979 Edition is by reference hereby adopted as the Gas Code of Indian River County, Florida, with the following modifications: Section I. 1. Bond and License Section 107 is amended to read as follows: "No person shall engage in or work at the installation, extension, alteration of consumer's gas piping or certain gas appliances until such person shall have secured all licenses as required by State and County law. Unless required by State Law, no bond shall be required." 2. Fees Section 113 is amended to read as follows: "Fees for permits required by this Code shall be established by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida." 3. Violations and Penalties Section 114 is amendedto read as follows: "Any person that shall fail to comply with or violate any of the provisions of this Code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor in the second degree and upon conviction thereof shall be liable by fine or imprisonment as pro- vided by State Law." 4. Appeals Section 115 is amended by adding the following: "Appeals shall be made to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals as established in the Building Code Ordinance." Section II. This Ordinance hereby repeals all Ordinances in conflict herewith. Section III. Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective according to law. This Ordinance shall take effect April 28, 1980. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 80-15 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE 74-13 OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UPDATING THE MECHANICAL CODE ADOPTED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Indian River County Ordinance 74-13 is hereby amended by the adoption of the Standard Mechanical Code, 1979 Edition, as printed by the Southern Standard Building Code Congress International, Inc. which 1979 Edition is by reference hereby adopted as the Mechanical Code of Indian River County, Florida, with the following modifications: Section I. 1. Schedule of Permit Fees Section 106.3 is amended to read: "Mechanical Permit Fees shall be paid before a permit is issued in accordance with a schedule established by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, by Resolution." 2. Violations and Penalties Section 109 is amended to read: "Any person, firm or corporation or agent who shall violate a provision of this Ordinance or fail to comply therewith or any provision thereof, or violate a detailed statement or plans submitted and approved thereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, and upon conviction shall be subject to fine or imprison- ment as provided by State Law." 3. Right of Appeal Section 110 is hereby amended to read: "All persons shall have the right to appeal the Mechanical Official's decisions to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals as established in the Building Code Ordinance." Section II. This Ordinance hereby repeals all Ordinances in conflict herewith. Section III. Thib Ordinance shall become effective according to -law. This Ordinance shall take effect April 28,'1980. 4 . Y R 2 319 �� BOOK U ;PAGE 30...1 AP. F y APR 2 31990 Box 43 wu 302 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 80- 16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE 74-14 OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UPDATING THE PLUMBING CODE ADOPTEDBY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Indian River County Ordinance 74-14 is hereby amended by the adoption of the Standard Plumbing Code, 1979 Edition, as printed by the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., which 1979 Edition is by reference hereby adopted as the Plumbing Code of Indian IV River County, Florida, with the following modifications: (1) Plumbing Official. Section 102.1 is -amended to read: "There is hereby established a division of the Building Department to be called the Plumbing Division, which shall be in the charge of the County Building Official (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the Plumbin, Official)." (2) Inspectors. Section 102.2 is amended to read: "With the approval of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida (referred to herein as the Chief Appointing Authorit: a Building Official appointed by the Chief Appointing Authority may appoin such number of officers, inspectors, assistants and other employees as shall be authorized from time to time. No person shall be appointed as Inspector of Plumbing who has not had at least ten (10) years' experience as a plumbing inspector, Journeyman plumber, master plumber, engineer or as a superintendent foreman or competent mechanic in charge of plumbing construction." (3) Requirements not Covered by Code: Section 103.5 is amended to read: "Any requirement necessary for safety, strength, or stability of an existing or proposed plumbing installation, or for the safety of the occupants of a building or structure, not specifically covered by this Code, shall be determined by the Plumbing Official, subject to appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals as established in the Building Code Ordinance." (4) Liability. Section 103.7 is amended by substituting "County Attorney" for "Department of Law". (5) Form. Section 104.2 is amended to read: "Application for a permit shall be made in person. The applicant shall furnish information as may be required to complete the application form furnished by the Plumbing Official. Such application for a permit that involves the construction, installation or modification of a septic tank or absorption field shall bear a current certificate by the County Health Department certifying that said authority has or will issue a permit authorizing the construction or installation shown on the application and drawings." (6) Drawings and Specifications. Section 104.3 is amended to read: "Whenever, in the opinion of the Plumbing Official, drawings and specifications are needed to show definitely the nature and character of the work for which the application is made,'the applicant shall furnish such drawings and specifications. These drawings and specifications shall be drawn to scale and submitted in duplicate. If approved, one set shall be returned to the applicant, marked "approved", and one set shall be - retained and filed as a permanent record in the office of the Plumbing Official. The applicant's approved set shall remain at all times on the job. Such information on drawings and specifications shall be specific, and this code shall not be cited as a whole or in part, nor shall the term "legal" or its equivalent be used as a substitute for specific information.' Drawings for each application that involves the construction, installation or modification of a septic tank or absorption field or well shall show the location of the septic tank, absorption field and well and the location,of the neighboring septic tanks, absorption fields or wells." (7). Schedule of Permit Fees. Section 106.3 (a) is amended to read: "Plumbing Permit Fee When application for permit is approved and before a permit is issued, a fee therefor shall be paid based on_a fee schedule of rates adopted by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County." - (8) The word "County" is substituted for "Municipality" in all sections where applicable and -appropriate. (9) Licensing and Bonding for Plumbers. (a) Section 109.1 is amended by deleting the words If . . and a proper bond posted." (b) Section 109.2 Qualification of Plumbers. Whosoever desires to enter the plumbing business or offers plumbing services in Indian River County shall be licensed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 469, Laws of Florida. The Board of Examiners of the Ci—`ty of Vero Beach is hereby appointed as the Indian River County Board of Examiners. (c) Section 109.5. Bond Required, is hereby repealed. (10) Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Sections 112 4 and 113 of the Standard Building Code are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of the Plumbing Code and the Board of Admustments and Appeals appointed under the provisions of the Building Code is hereby made the Board of Adjustments and Appeals of the Plumbing Code. APR 23190 e�x 43 mE303 APR 231980 BooK 43 PAGE 304 (11) Violations and Penalties. Section 111 is hereby amended as follows: "Any person, firm or corporation or agent who shall violate a provision of this Code or fail to comply therewith or with any of the provisions thereof, or violate a detailed statement or plans submitted and approved thereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor in the second degree. Each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offence for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any provision of this Code is committed or continued, and upon conviction in the Court of Jurisdiction for any such violation such person shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment as provided by State law for second degree mis- demeanor violations." Section II. This�,Ordinance hereby repeals all Ordinances in conflict herewith. Section. III. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective according to law. This Ordinance shall take effect April 28, 1980. , M M M ® INDIAN RIVER � ORDINANCE NO. 80- 17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE 74-11 OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UPDATING THE BUILDING CODE ADOPTED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Indian River County Ordinance 74-11 is hereby amended by the adoption of the Standard Building Code, 1979 Edition, as printed by the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., which 1979 Edition is by reference hereby adopted as the Building Code of Indian River County, Florida, with the following modifications: Section I. 1. Agricultural Exemption. Nothing contained in this Ordinance shall be construed to apply to or affect building, structures, or appurtenances located outside the corporate limits of municipalities and used solely for housing or storing agricultural animals, supplies, equip- ment or products by person, firms or corporations engaged in agriculture. 2. Liability. Section 103.7 is amended as follows: The Words "County Attorney" are hereby substituted for the words "Department of Law". 3. When Permit Required. Section 105.1(c) is amended to read: "Ordinary minor, non-structural repairs not exceeding in cost or value of labor or materials the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) or one percent (1%) of the assessed value of the building for County tax purposes, whichever is less, may be made without the approval of the Building Official and without a permit; provided that such repairs shall not violate any of the provisions of this Code and provided further that this section does not apply to plumbing or electrical work." 4. Form. Section 105.2 is amended by adding thereto the following additional subsections: "(c) Each application for a building permit shall bear a current zoning certificate by the County Administrator certifying that (1) the building site,front yard, side yard, rear yard, minimum floor and parking areas and (2) the building height and (3) the setback from any road, street or highway existing or proposed in the county outside the limits of any municipality, as shown on the application and plot diagram (see Section 105.4), comply with all applicable regulations established by the county zoning ordinance in the district in which the land is located." "(d) Each application for a permit that involves the con- struction, installation or modification of a septic tank or absorption field shall bear a current certificate by the County Health Department certifying that said authority has or will issue a permit authorizing the construction or installation shown on the application and plot =diagram or location sheet." 4 (e) The Building Official shall not otherwise be involved in matters pertaining to county zoning." 5. Plot Diagram. Section 105.4 is amended to read: "The Building Official shall require drawings showing the location of the proposed building or structure and of every APR 2 3198® aoQK , 43.PAGE 305. . I APR 2 3 1980 Building -2- Ordinance continued BOOK 43 PstE 306 existing building or structure on the site or lot. The'plot diagram shall show (1) the building, front yard, side yard, rear yard, floor and parking areas, (2) the building height, and (3)_the.setback from any road, street or highway existing or proposed in -the county outside the limits of any municipality. The Building Official or the County Administrator may also require a boundary line survey, if necessary, prepared by a qualified surveyor. The plot diagram for each application that involves the construction, installation or modification of a septic tank or absorption field and well and the location of the neighboring septic tanks, absorption fields and wells". 6.. Contractor's License and Bond. Section 106.2 is amended to 'read: - "Any person engaging in the construction business as defined in Chapter 468, Part II, Florida Statutes, shall be required to establish his competence and qualifications to be registered or certified as therein provided by satisfactorily passing the state examination with the following modifications: (a) Any pers6n holding a current state, county or muni- cipal license for Indian River County, as a contractor, general con- tractor, building contractor or residential building contractor who has not previously passed the state examination is required to do so before a county occupational license shall be issued to that person. _ (b) This ordinance shall have no effect on current occupational -licenses but -any person failing to comply with subpara- graph (a) above shall not be issued a renewal license except those persons who can furnish proof to The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board that he has actively engaged in the business of contracting in Indian River County, Florida, at least two out of the last three years prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be entitled to register and be certified as provided in Florida Statute 468.105(2) (b) . -(c) No residential building contractor shall be authorized to* -do business in Indian River County, Florida, after the effective date'of this ordinance unless he has qualified under the provisions of this ordinance.' No bond shall be required under this Code. l 7. Permits Issued Upon Affidavits. Section 106.5 is amended to read: "Whenever a permit is to be issued in reliance upon an 'affidavit as provided in Section 105.6 or whenever the work to be covered by a permit involves construction under conditions which, in the opinion of the Building Official, are hazardous or complex, the Building Official shall require that the architect or engineer who signed the affidavit or made the drawings or computations, shall supervise .such work, be responsible for its conformity with the approved drawings, and forthwith upon its completion make and file with the Building Official written affidavit that the work has been done in conformity with the approved plans and with the structural provisions of the code. In the event such architect or engineer is not available, the owner shall employ in his stead a competent person or agency whose qualifications are approved by the Building Official. The Provisions of this section shall be in addition to inspections as required by this Code and not in lieu thereof." 8. -Schedule of Permit Fees. Section 107.4 is amended to read: "On all buildings, structures or alterations requiring a building Permit as set forth in Section 105, a fee shall be.paid in accordance With a schedule of fees as established by the Board of CQunty Commis- sioners of Indian River County; Florida by Resolution. One-half of the Building Ordinance continued: =3 - required fee as estimated by the Building Official shall be paid at the time of filing the application and the balance of the fee shall be paid when the Building Permit is issued." 9. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - Appointment. Section 111.1 is amended to read: —' "There is hereby established a board to be called the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, which shall consist of five (5) members. Said Board shall be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, by Resolution." 10. Term of Office. Section 111.2 is amended to read: "The members of the Board of Admustment and Appeals shall serve such terms as established by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, by Resolution." 11. Chapter III, Fire Districts, is repealed. 12. Footings and'Foundations - General. The First Paragraph of Section 1302.1 is amended to read: "Except in the case of temporary structures, footings and foundations unless specifically provided, shall be constructed of grillages of steel, of masonry or of reinforced concrete in no case less than 12 inches below grade. The use of monolithic poured slabs and footings shall be permitted in accordance with sound construction practices and shall.be permitted where justified,. Masonry units used in foundation walls and footings shall be laid up in Type M, S, or N mortar. The base areas of all footings and foundations shall be proportioned as specified in Section 1302.3." 13. Appendix "D" - Hurricane Requirements. The provisions of Appendix "D" - Hurricane Requirements - are declared to be man- datory. 14. Electrical Code. Section 1. Title. The provisions in this article shall constitute and may be cited as "The Electrical Code" hereinafter referred to as "this code." Section 2. Code Remedial. This code is remedial and shall be construed to secure the beneficial interests and purposes thereof - which are public safety, health and general welfare - through safety to life and property from fire and other incidents to the installation, alteration, repair and maintenance of electrical wiring appartus or equipment for lights, heat power and other uses or purposes. Section 3. Scope. P (1) The provisions of this code shall 4pply to all electrical construction, installation, alteration or repair and to all electrical equipment and materials, used, connected to or installed in any building, structure or appurtenance subject to this ordinance as well as the maintenance thereof. (2) No provision of this code shall be held to deprive any federal or state agency or any applicable governing body having jurisdiction of any power or authority which it had on the effective date of this ordinance or of any remedy then existing for the enforce- ment of its orders, nor shall it deprive any individual or corporation of its legal rights as provided by law. Section 4. National Electrical Code Adopted.', Indian River County hereby adopts by reference the National Electrical Code published BOOK 43 • Q t APP 2 3 NO Dgil.ding Ordinance continued eq� . ow*-- 43 PAGE 30$ by the National Fire Protection Association as an electrical code for the county, subject to the limitations, exceptions, and modifications in this article. Three (3) copies of said code are on file in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Indian River County, Section 5. Maintenance. All electrical systems, wiring Materials, devices and safeguards, now existing or hereafter- installed, obai1 be maintained in a safe condition. The owner or his designated agent ahall be responsible for such maintenance. Section 6. Electrical Installation or Maintenance by Home Owner, Nothing in this code shall prevent any homeowner from installing or maintaining electrical wiring apparatus or equipment within his own property boundaries, provided such electrical work is done by himself. and .a used exclusively by him or his family. Such privlege does not eonvey the right to violate any of the provisions of this code, nor is'it to bo construed as exempting any property owner from obtaining a permit and paying the required fees therefor.. Section 7. Organization. There is hereby established a division of the Building Department to be called the Electrical Divi- oi.on, which shall be in charge of the County Building Official. Section 8. Inspectors. The County Building Official, with the dpproval of the Chief Appointing Authority, may appoint such number of officers, inspectors, assistants and other employees as shall be authorized from time to time. No person shall be appointed as electrical inspector who has not had at least.ten (10) years experience as an electrical inspector journeyman electrician,,master electrician or com- petent mechanic in charge of electrical construction. Section 9. Deputy. The Building Official may designate as his deputy an employee in the department who shall, during the absence or disability of the Building Official, exercise all of the powers of the Building.Official. Section 10. Restrictions on Employees. No officer or em- ployee connected with the department, except one whose only connection is as a member of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, shall be finan- cially interested in the furnishing or labor, material or appliances for the construction, alteration or maintenance of electrical instal- lations or in the making of plans or specifications therefor unless he is the owner of such building. No such officer or employee shall engage in any work which is inconsistent with his duties or with the interests of the department. Section 11. Records. The Building Official shall keep or cause to be kept a record of the business of the electrical division. The records of the electrical division shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable times. Section 12. Reports. The Building Official shall annually submit a report to the local governing body covering the work of the electrical division of the department during the preceding year. Section 13. Powers and Duties of Building Official. (1) The County Building Official (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the Electrical Inspector) shall enforce the provisions of this code, and he or his duly authorized representative may enter any building structure or premises that is subject to this ordinance to perform any duty, imposed on hum by this code. (2) Upon notice from the Building Official that.work or any electrical installation is being done contrary.to the provisions of Building Ordinance continued -5- this code or in a dangerous or unsafe manner, such stork shall be im- mediately stopped. Such notice shall be in writing and shall be given to the owner of such property, or to his agent, or to the person doing the work, and shall state the conditions under which work may be resumed. Where any emergency exists, oral notice given by the Building Official shall be sufficient. (3)The Building Official may revoke a permit or approval. issued under the provisions of this act in case there has been any false statement or misrepresentation as to the material fact in the application or plans on which the permit or approval was based. In all such cases, no permit fees shall be refunded. (4) All electrical installations, regardless or tpye, which are unsafe or which constitute a hazard to human life, health or welfare are hereby declared illegal and shall be abated by repair and rehabilitation or by demolition in accordance with the procedure as. outlined in Section 103.4 - Unsafe Buildings, of the Southern Standard Building Code, as modified by this ordinance. (5) Any requirements necessary for the safety of an existing or proposed electrical installation or for the safety of the occupants of a building or structure not specifically covered by this code shall be determined by the Building Official subject to appeal.to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. (6) It shall be the duty of the Building Official to issu: permits for and inspect all electrical -wiring apparatus or equipment for lights, heat, power and other uses or purposes inside of or attached to. buildings, structures or appurtenances subject to this ordinance and to look after the enforcement of laws, rules and regulations relating to same. (7) The Building Official may give temporary permission to connect and furnish electric current to any wiring apparatus or fix- tures for a period of not exceeding thirty (30) days, if, in his opinion, such wiring apparatus or fixtures are in such condition that current may safely be connected therewith, and there exists an urgent necessity, for such use, when written permission is filed with him, requesting such permission. (8) The Building Official is hereby empowered to inspect or reinspect at his option all interior wires and apparatus conducting or using electric current for lights, heat or power; and when said con- ductors or apparatus are found to be unsafe to life or property, he shall notify the person, firm or -corporation owning, using or operating them to place same in a safe and secure condition within twenty-four (24) hours or such further time as he determines necessary. (9) Whenever any wiring apparatus or fixture con- ducting or using current for lights, heat or power is,found upon in- spection by the Building Official or one of his duly authorized assist- ants to be especially or immediately hazardous to life gr property, the said Building Official shall immediately open a switch or circuit breaker controlling the supply of current to such wiring apparatus or fixture and post in a conspicuous place near such switch or circuit breaker a notice reading as follows: "NOTICE WIRING CONDEMNED" 'The use of electric current is prohibited through this wiring or equipment until proper repairs have been made and approved by the County Building Official'." The Building' Official must be notified when repairs are completed. After such notice is posted, nb person shall close the switch or cir- cuit'breaker or use or attempt to use any current through such wiring apparatus or fixture that has boon condemned until necessary repairs .BOOK Building Ordinance continued -6- �Qo 43 PAS 310 have been made and approved by the Building Official. -The Building Official may also notify the person, firm or corporation furnishing current to such wiring apparatus or fixture to disconnect the supply wires and cut off the current from premises where such wiring ap- paratus or fixture is located and such supply wire shall be dis- connected and the current cut off until necessary repairs are made and approved by the Building Official. (10) Any person, firm or corporation failing or re- fusing to comply with any of the prpvisions of this section shall be guilty or a misdemeanor in the second degree and subject to fine or imprisonment provided by law. .Section 14. Requirements Not Covered By Code. Any re- quirement necessary for the safety of an existing or proposed elect- rical wiring apparatus or equipment not specifically covered by this code shall be determined by the Building Official subject to appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Sedtion 15. Liability. Any officer,or employee, or member of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, charged with the enforcement of any of the codes established by this ordinance, acting for the applicable governing body in the discharge of his duties, shall not thereby render himself liable personally for ordinary negligence, and he is hereby relieved from all personal liability for ordinary negligence for any damage that may occur to persons or property as a result of any act required or permitted in the discharge of his, duties. Any suit brought against any officer or employee because of such act performed by him in the enforcement of any provision of such codes shall be defended by the County Attorney (referred to in place of Department of Law) until the final termination of the pro- ceedings. Section 16. Permits. (1) When Required. (a) No electrical wiring, alterations or changes to existing systems or the installation of electrical apparatus or equip- ment for lights, heat, power or other uses or purposes within or attached to any building or structure subject to this ordinance_ shall be under- taken prior to the issuance of a permit therefor. (b) Ordinary repairs to damaged or broken fixtures, apparatus or equipment shall not require a permit. (c) Where installation is commenced before a permit is obtained, the Permit Fees shall be doubled. (2) Form. Application for permit shall be made on a form provided by the Building Official and shall be accompanied by the fees set forth in the Schedule of Fees. The application shall be signed by the owner or his authorized agent. Section 17. Drawings and Specifications. Whenever, in the opinion of the Building Official, drawings and specifications are needed to show definitely the nature and character of the -work for which the application is made, the applicant shall furnish such drawings and specifications.' These drawings and specifications shall be drawn to scale and submitted in duplicate. If approved, one set shall be re- turned to the applicant marked approved, and one set shall be retained and filed as a permanent record in the office of the Building Official. The applicant's approved set shall remain at all times on the job. Such information or drawings and specifications shall be specific, and this code shall not be cited as a whole or in part, nor shall the term "legal" or its equivalent be used as a substitute for specific information. _ M M - Building Ordinance continued -7- M Section 18. Examination Of Drawings. The Building Official shall examine or cause to be examined each application for a permit and the drawings and specifications which may be filed therewith, and shall ascertain by such examination whether the electrical in- stallation indicated and described is in accordance with the require- ments of this code and all other pertinent laws or ordinances. Section 19. Action On Application. (1) If the Building Official is satisfied that the work described in an application for permit and the drawings and specifications which may be filed therewith conform to the require- ments of this code, and other pertinent laws and ordinances, he shall issue a permit therefor to the applicant. (2) If the application for permit and the drawings and specifications which may be filed therewith describe work which does not conform to the requirements of this code or other pertinent laws or ordinances, the Building Official shall not issue a permit, but shall return the drawings to the applicant with his refusal to issue such a permit. Such refusal, shall, when• requested, be in writing and shall contain the reasons therefor. Section 20. Condition Of The Permit. The Building Official shall act upon an application for a permit with plans as filed, or as amended, without unreasonable or unnecessary delay. A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and shall not be construed as authority to violate,.cancel, alter, or set aside any of the provisions of this code, not. shall such issuance of a permit prevent the Building Official from thereafter requiring correction of errors in plans or in construction, or of violations of this code. Any permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by it shall have been commenced within six (6) months after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of one year after the time the work is commenced; provided, that for cause, one or more extensions of time for periods not exceeding ninety (90) days, each, may be allowed in writing by the Building Official. Section 21. Schedule Of Fees. (1) No permit shall be valid until the fees prescribed in this section shall have been paid; nor shall an amendment to a permit be approved until the additional fees, if any, shall have been paid. (2) If any person commences any work on an electrical installation before obtaining the necessary permit, he shall be sub- ject to the penalty prescribed herein. (3) When application for permit is approved and before a permit is issued,'a fee therefor shall be paid as.e.stablished in -a Schedule of Fees by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. 0 Section 22. Inspections. (1) All new electrical work, and such portions of existing installations as may be affected by new work or any changes, shall be in- spected to insure compliance with all the requirements of this code and to assure that the installation and construction of the electrical system is in accordance with approved plans. (2) All piping or tubing to be concealed, shall be in place; all junctions shall be soldered and left untaped, or approved mechanical connectors may be used. If due to structural conditions, panels cannot be set, such adapters shall be in place before meters are installed or system otherwise energized. No such wiring or instal - APR -'2 3198 APR 2 31980 moK 43 PAcE312` Building Ordinance continued -8- lation shall be considered ready for inspection until completed as outlined above. (3) When the electrical work in any building for which a permit has been obtained, is ready for inspection, it shall be the duty of the person in charge of work to give notice in writing on forms furnished at the office of the Building Official, stating the location of the work, name of the owner, name of the person in charge of the work and the name of the person doing the work. (4) It shall be unlawful to lathe, seal or in any manner conceal any electrical wiring or equipment until same has° been inspected and approved. Service switch and distribution panel must be set�and wired. (5) In large and complicated jobs, the work may be inspected in sections, on the approval of the Building Official. (6) It shall be unlawful for any person,. firm .or• corporation to use any electric current in or through any wiring appae ratus or fixtures for light, heat or power in any building or structure subject to this resolution before the same shall have been inspected and approved by the Building Official. (7) The electrical installation or part,thereof shall not be covered until it has been inspected, tested and approved as prescribed in this section. If an electrical installation or part - thereof is covered before being inspected, tested and approved, it shall be uncovered upon the direction of the Building Official. Section 23. Certificate Of Approval. (1) Upon the satisfactory completion of the roughing - in inspection, approval shall be so noted on the Electrical Permit Card. This approval shall give the date of the roughing -in inspection and the initials of the inspector. (2) Upon the satisfactory completion and final test of the electrical installation, a certificate of approval shall be issued by the Building Official to be delivered to the owner. Section 24. Existing Installations. (1) If more than fifty percent (50p) of a system that does not conform to this code is remodeled or altered, the entire system shall be reconstructed to conform to this code. (2) A circuit of an existing system which does not conform to this code shall not be extended or added to until the entire circuit shall have been reconstructed to conform to this code. Section 25. Service Entrance Standards. (a) All services shall be run in approved threaded conduit, minimum size one and one-half (1 1/2) inch rigid conduit to be run as a mast through the roof, unless written approval is obtained from the electric utility department. (b) Underground services may be run with approved cable at a minimum depth of thirty (30) inches, from which point it shall be sleeved for mechanical protection. (c) duit, which must be inches, from which Service masts minimum size 1 1/2 inch Rigid Con - properly secured and have a minimum clearing 30 point it shall be sleeved for mechanical protection. Building Ordinance continued -9- (d) Temporary services shall have a -minimum of 10 feet clearance, be of approved material and be properly braced and supported. (e) Only threaded thick wall metal conduit will be accepted when exposed to the weather and it must be galvanized, or its equivalent. Electrical metallic tubing may be used from meter socket to entrance switch, of not exposed to the weather. (f) Meter rooms shall be provided in all buildings of multiple occupancy (four or more occupancies) and shall have a minimum requirements of: 4 to 8 meters --4' X 6' X 7' inside diameter and if the electrical requirements and demand is larger, the meter room shall be increased accordingly. This meter room shall be equipped with a ventilated door, and approved lock which may be locked only with the approval of the Electrical Inspector. The meter room shall be accessible to all occupancies of the building at all times. The meter shall be provided with adequate ventilation. The purposes of this room shall be to house and main switch or main switches, disconnecting equip- ment and its control devices, terminal equipment for telephone service (in separate area from electrician's area) and all the electric meters which serve the occupants throughout the entire building. The con- struction of this room shall conform to the same type of material and construction as the main building, and there shall be no storage of any kind, gas meters, or water heaters permitted in this room. (g) Service disconnecting switches must be located in a convenient and readily accessible place inside the building when a meter room is not available. The service disconnecting switch or switches, and other disconnecting equipment located in enclosed or semi -enclosed porches not exposed to the weather; shall be considered as being located inside the building. (h) Service disconnect shall be located at the nearest point of service entry not to exceed 25 feet and shall not be installed in bathrooms, bedrooms, closets or kitchen cabinets. (i) All 220 volt circuits must be protected with car- tridge fuses or double pole breakers. (j) All main switches and sub -main switches shall be plainly marked so that the division, sub -division, or separate occu- pancies of .the building which they control can be quickly and posi- tively identified. The mark of identification shall be securely affixed to the switch to prevent its loss or misplacement. rods, not less than 8lfeet rinclength. Watee grounds rlpipeesystems will pped with . ground be allowed. not (1) The service and equipment ground must be taken from the nearest possible point of the system service -after the service is attached to the building. This ground must start at the meter socket, main switch or C. T. can. Point of attachment of ground clamps or approved ground connectors shall be readily accessible, and shall not be in attics, under floor or behind any equipment. (m) All current transformer installations shall be color coded as follows with minimum wire size of #12: 2 red, 2 black, 2 yellow, and 1 white common, with number four (4) copper wire'to an approved ground. Section 26. Commercial Construction. APR 2 31980- Rao 4 PACE 11 Building Ordinance continued -10- max 43 PAGE 314 (a) The sub -feed to each store must -provide a least three -wire, single-phase current or four -wire, three phase current of 60 ampere capacity, and the conductor size shall be not less than No. 4. The conduit raceway shall be not less than one and one-fourth inch trade size. (b) The sub -feeder to each store must be protected in the meter room with an approved indicating -type of circuit breaker or a fused switch of not less than 60 ampere capacity, capable of properly fusing No. 4 conductors to{maintain switch on panel in each store. (c) Color Code. On all multi=wire, lighting branch circuits, color code will be required in compliance with sections 210.4 and 2.0.5 of the National Electrical Code. Switch legs will be considered as the hot wire of the circuit, and must be of the same color as the circuit, except three and four-way travelers may be or different color. (d) Convenience outlets per circuit: Beuty parlors, etc: ------------------------2 maximum Barbershops --------------------------------3 maximum Medical, dental and similar offices --------3 maximum Store show window (for spot lights) --------4 maximum Store show window (at floor) --------------=6 maximum Display areas in retail stores -------------6 maximum School classrooms --------------------------6 maximum Office Space -------------------------------4 maximum Storage Space ------------------------------8 maximum. (e) The maximum number of Mogul base light sockets shall not exceed three per 15 ampere circuit, or four per 20 ampere circuit. No conveniences receptacle shall be permitted on a branch circuit sup- plying Mogul base light sockets. The conductors for such circuits shall be not less that No. 12. (f) Single outlets or taps for signaling transformers, bell -ringing transformers, clocks and similar low current consuming appliances or equipment need not be counted when the location of the tap or outlet precludes the use of the tap or outlet for other purposes than for which it was installed. (g) Maximum number outlets per circuit for lights and receptacles; Light Outlets -------------------------9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Receptacles ---------------------------0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 Section 27. General Requirements. (a) Approved rigid metal conduit surface metal raceways or electrical -metallic tubing shall be required for light, heat and power in the wiring of apartment buildings for three families or more, in churches, schools, hotels, theaters, public buildings, commercial buildings, manufacturing establishments, private clubs, or similar occupancy. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to place, tape around or otherwise conceal any improperly made joint on any light, heat, or power circuit. (c) The wiring for all electric ranges shall be a minimum wire capacity of 40 amperes, to an approved receptacle, for ran- M Building Ordinance continued -11- ges of 8 3/4 KW capacity or less. Conductor size shall be or at least 30 ampere capacity. When oven circuit unit is separate from surface unit, each unit shall be installed on a separate circuit, served with conductors of not less than 30 ampere capacity. An approved method of connection shall be provided for each unit. (A range as referred to above would be a complete cooking unit, consisting of both oven and surface burners. (d) The wiring for all water heaters shall be in a minimum wire capacity of 20 aperes., Water heaters of 1,000 watts or over shall operate on not less than a 208 volt circuit. Nonautomatic water heaters shall be equipped with a pilot light and indicating switch. The switch and pilot light shall be located in a conspicuous place inside the building, preferably in the kitchen or hall. Points of electrical connections for heaters and replacement of elements shall be readily accessible. All leads to equipment shall be pro- tected with Freefield or equivalent material. (e) Fixed motors of 1/3 H-. P. and over shall be.wired on separate circuits. It is recommended that motors of 3/4 H. P: and over be operated on mothing less than a 208 volt circuit. Motors over 3 H. P. shall be protected against short circuits and overloading by approved automatic control devices. (f) Flexible watertight raceway will be approved for weatherproof flexible conduit where flexibility is needed. (g) Short -radius ells, ofter referred to as "telephone" ells, shall not be used in a run of conduit over five feet long, measured from outlet -to -outlet, or from outlet -to -fitting.. The run of pipe shall be straight and shall not include any additional ells. (h) A sufficient number of receptacles shall be installed in every dining -room, breakfast-room,.living-room, parlor, library, den, sunroom' recreation room and bedroom so that any point on the wall will not be more than six feet distance from a convenient receptacle. Any free -wall space in excess of four feet shall have a receptacle installed within that area, even though it may be nearer than 12 feet to another receptacle required in that section of the room, and not more than 2 receptacles per circuit in kitchen, dining -room and service area and z' shall be 3 wire ground receptacles. (i) When the above paragraph has beentcomplied with in residential occupancies, additional recetpacles may be installed in any one room without an increase in the number of branch circuits, provided the possible demand has not been increased. (j) For the small appliance load in kitchens,.laundry- areas, pantries, dining areas and breakfast -rooms of dwelling occupan- cies, one.or more branch circuits shall beprovided for all receptacle outlets (other than outlet for clock) in these rooms,,and such circuits, shall have no other outlets thereon. The conductors for such circuits, shall be not smaller than 20 amp. capacity. The spacing and number of receptacles per circuit shall comply with the table in Section 26(g). (k) Portable cords attached to music boxes, marble machines, floor or table lamps and other similar equipment, shall not exceed six feet in length when measured from the equipment to the outlet supplying its current. Cords shall not be mailed down, tacked, or held with strings or other supports, but shall be left free and clear. (1) All stairways and parts of buildings under demolition, errection or repair shall be adequately lighted while persons are engaged at work. APR- 2 31980 Building Ordinance continued -12- sooK 43 4GAM (m) All electrical outlets used for -portable electrical tools shall be provided with three wire polarized plugs, and all por- table electric tool cables shall be of the three -conductor type, and shall be grounded in accordance with the National Electrical Code. (n) All electrical switches, panels, wiring and other temporary electrical equipment shall be maintained in a safe and ser- viceable condition by qualified electricians. Qualified electricians shall be required to patrol installations when considered necessary by the Electrical Inspector, for safety to life while in use by other trades. All disconnect switched controlling temporary light and power, except emergency lighting such as barricades and walkways shall, when considered necessary by the Electrical Inspector for safety to life and property, be locked in the "off" position where there is no qualified electrician on the job. (o) Separately metered conductors shall not be installed in the same raceway, except in load gutter in meter room. (p) In the wiring of cold -storage plants and rooms or buildings of similar character, all wires used for light, heat or powez shall be installed in rigid galvanized or sherardized metal threaded conduit, and galvanized metal outlet boxes, cut-out and distribution cabinets and fittings installed. Conduits shall be installed in such manner that they will drain to the outlets and cabinets conductors installed in conduit must comply with the National Electrical Code Standard for damp or wet locations. All conduits entering or leaving refrigeration boxes must have an approved seal -off fitting. (q) The minimum wire capacity for window display lighting shall be not less than 100 watts per linear foot and shall not exceed six outlets per circuit including the convenience receptacles and not more than two receptacles with each lighting circuit. The minimum size wire for these circuits shall be 20 amp. capacity. A minimum of two outlets shall be required at least one above the one below. All fixed lighting shall be equipped with switches. (r) Permanently installed electrical space heaters in bathrooms shall be installed so that heaters will not be easily exposed to combustible materials. But said heaters shall not be installed behind doors, under or near towel racks, or near shower curtains or window curtains. Each heater must be on a separate circuit with a minimum wire size of No. 12 AWG or larger. (s) One branch -circuit for signs shall be provided for each store frontage for each individual occupancy, said outlets to terminate outside, on or near the front of the building. Sign outlets and window lighting shall be controlled by wall switches. (It is suggested that these switches be installed near panel, so that time clock installation, if desired, will be conveniently located and less unsightly.) (t) Sufficient bathroom and toilet lighting must be installed and must be controlled by wall switches only. (u) For protection against rust or corrosion, all steel or iron outlet boxes, junction boxes, cabinets, gutters, and similar type equipment subject to rust or corrosion, shall be protected with a zinc or cadmium coating by either the galvanizing or sherardizing process. (v) Wiring of slim line or end to end fixtures shall, be as follows: Asbestos 1,000 volt No. 14 wire or RII No. 12 wire will be accepted for circuit wiring of fixtures that are installed end to end, to the extent of the supply of that circuit passing through fixture Building Ordinance continued -13- that it supplies. The only permitted use of the fixture as a raceway would be for those fixtures approved by the Underwriters for that purpose; with special raceways, and WI No. 12 wiring would be accep- ted for additional circuits when installed according to this approval. Gas and oil burning equipment: Each unit shall be on a separate circuit and be provided with a pilot light and switch located near the entrance to the room where unit is installed. Min imum wire size No. 12 or larger. (w) Swimming pools: All conduits, junction boxes', reinforcing steel, filter pump equipment, lighting fixtures and similar metallic equipment must be bonded together and connected to a common ground. Metallic parts of ladders and diving boards must also be grounded. All underwater pool lights must be of approved low voltage type. Section 28. Feeders. The carrying capacity of each feeder or sub -feeder shall be based on the number of separate circuits which it supplies, computed as follows: (1) Overhead lighting circuits --assumed as having 1,000 watts per circuit for each 15 -amp. circuit. (2) Convenience outlet circuits --assumed as having 1,000 watts per circuit. (3) Non -itemized and heavy duty circuit --specified load for which designed. (4) Underground direct burial circuits shall be adequatel* sleeved under slabs, sidewalks, roads, flower beds, or when entering or leaving a building. To the total of these three, such demand factors as permitted by N. E. C. should be applied. Section 29. Voltage Drop. The maximum allowable voltage drop shall be as follows: (1) Lighting --Mains and Feeders combined, 1% drop from point of attachment to Service drops to point of distribution (panel) for branch circuits. Branches, 2% from distribution panel to receivers. (2) Power --Mains and feeders combined, 3% from point of attachment to service drop, to distribution panel. Branches, 1% from distribution point to receivers. (3) Lighting and power combined -=The maximum allowable voltage frop for Lighting and power combined shall be,l% from point of service entrance to final distribution point. Branches shall be in accordance with the above allowable voltage drop. 4 Section 30. Appeals - Decisions of Board of Adjustments and d,Appeals. Sections 112 and 114 of the Southern Standard Building Code, adopted by reference in this ordinance as part of the Building Code, are hereby adopted, as modified in the Building Code, and made a part of this Electrical Code. Section 31. Board of Adjustments and Ap eals The Board of Adjustments and Appeals appointed under the provisions of the Building Code is hereby made the Board of Adjustments and Appeals of the Elect- rical Code. 15. -Section 902.3, Paragraph 1 of the Southern Standard Building APR 2 31980 __ coax _ 3'. e'AcE317 APR 2 3 1980 Building Ordinance Continued -14- Box 43 PAIS Code is hereby amended for use in Indian River County as follows: Buildings exceeding one story and 50 feet in height is changed to buildings exceeding three stories or more. The purpose of this change is to require installation of fire fighting equipment on each floor within reach of the most remote area of the building in accordance with N. F. P. A. (14-1968 Edition). 16. Elevators. All elevators installed in any structure in Indian River County shall be a minimum 3000# elevator, having a carriage size of five feet six inches by seven feet, and a minimum door size of three feet six inches wide. 17. V4olations and Penalties. Section 114 is amended to read as follows: "Any person that shall fail to comply with or violate any of the provisions of this Code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor in the second degree and upon conviction thereof shall be liable by fine or imprison- ment as provided by State Law." Section II. This Ordinance hereby repeals all Ordinances in conflict herewith. Section III. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective according to law. This Ordinance shall take effect April 28, 1980. _ M M ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO CONTINUE THE 11:30 O'CLOCK A.M. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING COST OF EXTENSION OF WATER MAINS, AND UNIFORM SET OF CHARGES FOR NEW.CONNECTIONS TO WATER AND SEWER UTILITY SYSTEMS, TO 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. TODAY. THE BOARD NEXT DISCUSSED THE EMERGENCY ITEM ADDED TO THE CLERK'S AGENDA EARLIER IN THE MORNING CONCERNING A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FOR LINE TO LINE TRANSFERS -FOR THE $20,000 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES WHICH WAS SET UP WHEN THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET WAS APPROVED FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED A BUDGET AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE FINANCE OFFICER TO ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AS FOLLOWS: ACCOUNT TITLE ACCOUNT N0. INCREASE DECREASE EXPENSE - BUDGET OFFICE 001-600-521-99.93 $10,000 EQUIPMENT 001-600-521-66.00 $10,000 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES 001-199-513-99.95 $20,000 THE BOARD THEN ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH AT 12:15 O'CLOCK P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT. THE HOUR OF 11:30 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICES WITH PROOFS OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: It 65 13 FAA19 - �- VERO BNACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of 64- �� .fit in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously 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 9 day of A. D. O��J (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit (Business Manager) Indian River County, Florida) VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of / It -L,',-,< �� �• in the 7 Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further -says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this n day of A. D. 67(4j,illess Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit C6ud, Indian ty, Florida) nox 4T : a 320 NOTICE IS HEREBY NOTICEGIVEN thatf--- he Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing e on Commril ission, sion, Chambers in hey 1ndianCRiVer County Courthouse to consider the adop+ion of an Ordinance Prescribing a Uniform Method of Determining the Costof Extension of Mains for Sanitary Sewer and -or Wafer Service in a Fair and Reasonable Manner; Providing for. an Effective Date. BOARD OF `.000•NTTY'COM-.,' MISSIONERSOF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,.FLORIDA . By: -s -Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Chairman Mar. 30,1980. NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENthatthe Board Of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on April 23, 1980 at 11:30 A.M. in the County Commission Chambers in the Indian River County Courthouse to consider the adoption of an Ordinance Promulgating a Uniform Set of Charges for New Connections to the Water and Sewer Utility Systems; Their Collection, Application, Requirements; Providing an Effective Date. BOARD OF COUNTY COM- MISSIONERSOF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: -s -Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Chairman Mar. 30,1980. UTILITIES DIRECTOR GEORGE LINER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING AN ORDINANCE FOR IMPACT FEES FOR NEW CONNECTIONS THAT ARE COMING ONTO THE SYSTEM, AND THESE FEES ARE BROKEN INTO TWO CATEGORIES - ONE FOR PLANT CAPACITY AND THE OTHER ESSENTIALLY FOR HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. MR. LINER BELIEVED THE IMPACT FEE SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN PLACE OF THE TRADITIONAL CONNECTION FEE AND SHOULD PARTIALLY OFFSET THE COST OF THE EQUIPMENT INSTALLED FOR THE SERVICE SO THAT EXISTING CUSTOMERS ARE NOT ASSESSED FOR PLANT EXPANSIONS REQUIRED FOR NEW CUSTOMERS. MR. LINER WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THAT THE ACTUAL COST TO SERVE A GIVEN CUSTOMER RESIDENTIAL UNIT VARIES IN RELATION TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PLANT. HE STATED THAT HE DID A SURVEY AND FOUND THAT IN WATER PLANTS, THE AVERAGE COST IS SLIGHTLY OVER $2,000 PER CONNECTION. THE COST FOR CONNECTION TO THE WASTE WATER PLANT IS SOMEWHAT HIGHER, WORKING OUT TO AN AVERAGE OF $3,871 PER CONNECTION. MR. LINER NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED CONNECTION CHARGE OF $250 IS A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE ACTUAL COST, BUT HE FELT IF WE HAD TO CHARGE THE ACTUAL COST, IT WOULD STYMIE ANY FURTHER CONNECTIONS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD REVIEW PAGE BY PAGE THE FIRST PROPOSED ORDINANCE WHICH DEALS WITH A UNIFORM METHOD OF DETERMINING THE COST OF EXTENSION OF MAINS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE QUESTIONED SECTION 2 - ON-SITE FACILITIES, AND ASKED IF WE HAVE ASSURANCES THAT THE ON-SITE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, WHETHER WATER OR SEWER, WILL BE DONE TO COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS. MR. LINER STATED THAT ANY DEVELOPER WHO WILL TIE INTO THE COUNTY SYSTEM WILL BE SIGNING THE AGREEMENT FORM PREVIOUSLY APPROVED . h BY THE BOARD AND THEREBY WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CITY OF It VERO BEACH SPECIFICATIONS, WHICH THE COUNTY HAS ADOPTED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NEXT QUESTIONED PARAGRAPH A, UNDER SECTION 3, WHICH DEALS WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. MR. LINER EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS A COST INVOLVED FOR EXTENDING MAINS PAST PROPERTY, AND EVEN IF THERE ARE LESS THAN 4 UNITS PER ACRE, THE OWNER STILL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY $400 PER APR 2 3 1980 APR 2 319800 ntf ACRE. IF A PARTICULAR RESIDENCE WERE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THREE ACRES, THE OWNER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR 12 UNITS ACCORDING TO THIS FORMULA. A DEVELOPER WOULD BE COVERED UP TO FOUR UNITS PER ACRE. IF HE HAS ONE UNIT ON 10 ACRES AND LATER WANTS TO COME IN WITH 25, HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE ADDITIONAL UNITS HE IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP. ATTORNEY COLLINS BROUGHT UP ATTORNEY O'HAIRE'S CLIENT ON THE NORTH�BEACH, NOTING THAT MR. LINER KNOWS WHAT THE COSTS ARE TO IMPROVE THAT SYSTEM TO ACCEPT THIS DEVELOPER AND HE KNOWS WHAT MR. O'HAIRE'S CLIENT HAS OFFERED. THE ATTORNEY ASKED IF MR. LINER HAD APPLIED THIS FORMULA TO THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT TO SEE WHAT THE COSTS WOULD BE, AS HE FELT IT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE ACTUAL COST THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO FACE TO IMPROVE THAT SYSTEM TO ACCEPT ATTORNEY O'HAIRE'S CLIENT. MR. LINER STATED THAT HE HAD NOT BECAUSE THESE ORDINANCES ARE MEANT TO BE EFFECTIVE AS OF OCTOBER 1ST. HE FELT THEY HAD MENTIONED TO THEM THE COST OF $200 CONNECTION PER UNIT, AND THE ORDINANCE PROPOSES TO INCREASE THAT COST TO $250. HE POINTED OUT THAT BOTH OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES PROVIDE THAT ANY PREVIOUS AGREE- MENTS WOULD BE HONORED. MR. LINER DID FEEL THAT IF A NEW ORDINANCE IS PASSED AT THIS TIME, THEN THE NEW RATES WOULD`APPLY. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED METHOD FOR DETERMIN- ING THE COST OF EXTENSION OF MAINS, AND ASKED WHAT IS TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM GETTING THE CONNECTION AND THEN SUBDIVIDING AFTERWARD. MR. LINER REPLIED THAT THE BASIS FOR ANY EXTENSION IS THAT IT HAS TO BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED THAT THE FIRST PAGE OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE STATED THAT IT IS "SUBJECT TO ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY PERTAINING TO ANY PROPOSED EXTENSION COMPLYING WITH THE MASTER PLAN AND PROVISION FOR DEBT SERVICE." ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT "WHEREAS" CLAUSES ARE NOT BINDING; THEY ARE JUST AN EXPRESSION OF INTENT. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED WHERE WE WOULD INCLUDE SOMETHING TO ASSURE THE COUNTY THAT IT IS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE BEFORE AN EXTENSION •: IS MADE, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE WOULD INCLUDE THIS IN SECTION 1, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE EXPANDED. COMMISSIONER LYONS RAISED A QUESTION ABOUT SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH C - COMMERCIAL USES, WHICH CALLS FOR A CONTRIBUTION OF $1,000 AN ACRE AND ASKED HOW THIS WOULD BE FIGURED IF A SITE INVOLVES LESS THAN AN ACRE. MR. LINER ANSWERED THAT IT WOULD BE PROPORTIONATE, BUT COMMISSIONER LYONS DID NOT FEEL THAT THIS IS SET OUT IN THE PARAGRAPH. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT IT IS MR, LINERS INTENT TO HAVE THE ORDINANCES IN EFFECT BY OCTOBER 1ST, AND HE FELT THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE GONE INTO. HE CONTINUED THAT HE AND.MR. LINER DID NOT NECESSARILY AGREE ON WHETHER THE ORDINANCES SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED TODAY. MR. LINER STATED THAT HE ESSENTIALLY WAS LOOKING TOWARDS HAVING BOTH OF THESE APPROVED, BUT EMPHASIZED THAT THE ORDINANCE REGARDING THE PLANT CAPACITY CHARGE SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF THERE IS A LEGAL PROBLEM INVOLVED IN THE TIMING, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL PROBLEM INVOLVED, BUT AFTER CERTAIN REPORTS CAME IN FROM THE CPAs, HE WOULD EXPECT THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE AMENDED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT ALTHOUGH HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT MR. LINER IS TRYING TO D0, THERE ARE SOME THINGS HE WAS NOT CLEAR ABOUT, AND HE DID NOT KNOW THAT WE WANT TO ADOPT THESE ORDINANCES TO BE EFFECTIVE IN OCTOBER WITHOUT FIRST REVIEWING THEM MUCH MORE THOROUGHLY AND LEARNING FROM THE ACCOUNTING FIRM WHAT AFFECT THEY ANTICIPATE THIS WILL HAVE ON THE RATE STRUCTURE WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT. HE NOTED, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU HAVE ONLY ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON AN ACRE, IT WILL COST $4001 BUT IF THERE ARE FOUR HOUSES ON ONE ACRE, IT WILL COST ONLY $100 A HOUSE ALTHOUGH ONE HOUSE WILL NOT USE AS MUCH WATER AS FOUR WOULD. MR. LINER POINTED OUT THAT IS THE FORMULA FOR EXTENSION OF THE MAINS, AND THERE IS ADDITIONALLY A FORMULA FOR CAPACITY WHICH IS PROPORTIONATE TO WHAT EACH UNIT REQUIRES. 69 43 mci 323 APR 2 3 19 0 o-oa Bax 43 f%cE 324 COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF MR. LINER WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT EXTENSIONS FROM MAJOR LINES THAT ARE GOING IN. MR. LINER NOTED THAT NORMALLY A UTILITY SYSTEM IS A LOOP SYSTEM AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE LARGE MAINS ON A REGULAR GRID. THESE MAINS -ARE OVERSIZE COMPARED TO ONE THAT WOULD SERVE A SINGLE RESIDENT, AND SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THAT OVERSIZE AND GETTING THE FLOW TO A GIVEN POINT. WHEN THE LINE MUST BE EXTENDED A SHORT DISTANCE, WE COULD DO IT AND STILL CHARGE THESE FEES. THIS IS JUST FOR THE MAIN EXTENSIONS, NOTHING ELSE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT THERE CAN BE A PLANT CAPACITY CHARGE, AND THEY COULD OR COULD NOT BE CHARGED FOR EXTENSION OF THE LINES, OR IN OTHER WORDS, A TAP -IN FEE. MR. LINER STATED THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD PROBABLY BE INSTALLING THEIR OWN INTERNAL SYSTEMS IN THEIR PROJECTS AND WOULD NOT BE CHARGED A TAP -IN FEE; THERE WOULD BE A PLANT CAPACITY CHARGE, BUT NOT A TAP -IN FEE. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE A WORKSHOP IN BETWEEN BECAUSE THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT A MATTER FOR THE BOARD TO SIT HERE THIS AFTERNOON AND TRY TO DRAFT ALL THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES, CHAIRMAN SIEBERT AGREED THAT A WORKSHOP IS NECESSARY. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT NOW THEY HAVE AN IDEA OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE RAISED, THEY CAN WORK UP SOME RESPONSES. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TWO PROPOSED ORDINANCES RE EXTENSION OF MAINS AND CHARGES FOR NEW CONNECTIONS UNTIL MAY 7, 1980, AT 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, A WORKSHOP MEETING WAS SET FOR 7:00 P.M. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1980. THE HOUR OF 2:00 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: s 70 s r VERO BEACH Pr ESS JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Bcaeh, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA • 'h:• ,j n.!' ! , : r „ n.u!� ,;I,: .i:, , 1 J ' :. . , t•,. r�....., �.' :•r.�.; •: ,t Ih:• \',• . • ISr.:; !, (•r r. L ;,nt.t! a �•., � t .t .. i � :... L •t;.:tt, I r: -1J, In.:t tV„ Mil.1,hc•.1 t :•... ..�. r. 1711 :n thr Court, was pub• h, . .n .'ud nrw,u,ti„•, ;n the r:',u,•, of i- .. , .r :, .. ,i • :• + \ rr Be•.:<:': I'r• , ! ,u;n.;l r: .t n. ,� ,,t!. pu`�li�,hra ,tt .111 t �1 ;•;, ,tn,l th�;t 11„• •..r;ri r�: �� �• rr h. r. hr•rr•t .for'. :I :n ,.t;tl !n,fiJn P,:crr L nrr•ty, 1 11 r:.iJ, we�_'� �'� .r,�l h•r • !wen nlrrc•i .t. r nt.ni ttt.Itfcr .tt IiI, •'.I ..fair: in t✓:•nt r,�� {'• i'•:•.,rh ,;i •.J:.I ' .u, I: n: r ( :un1- f 1, t.t t t w \r.tr n••�f ;it ,�r.•:'.Iin.; the• first pt;hl;eatI 'FI c,i Ira. t•'•f i(]\cr- n tr:• r •.r.•• t!: It h: hO, n, nh,•r 1,:;ir! n..r I.r, r,u..,.i •r• .�•t. .:,nt •,!,.,h• :,,rnnu.,,.,,t ,,r lcksn,f fur Illi purl,,.•, Of •..`:_urrt : Cr . t , I :,. �. ,.: •,t m ti,�....n:l n,.w, popor. ..,w .:n T •n;— uhr.1 i:r•f:.tr,• n fh;ti � eLtV nt �'� --;•� i).-1--�� i C . 1t (Ci('ri._ Of thr- CIrCU:I Court, I1;1jian t'-iv,.r C, (1r:ry, Vlori,li) tSl Al, NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian River County, Florida, has tentatively ap. proved the following changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, which changes and additions are substantially as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property known as Government Lot 7, Section 26, Township 31, Range 39, in Indian River County, Florida, to - wit: Government Lot 7, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, less State Highway A -)-A ROW Be changed from R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Multiple Family District. A public hearing in relation thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by said Planning and Zoning Commission in the County Commission Room, Indian River County Courthouse, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday, March 13, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., after which said public hearing in relation thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County Com- mission Room, Indian River County Cour- thouse, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wedrr#sday, April 23, 1900, at 7;00 P.M. Board of County Commissioners Indian River County BY: Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Chairman Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission By: Dick Bird, Chairman Feb. 21, 22, 1980. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THERE MAY BE A NOTICE PROBLEM, BUT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PROCEED. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER REPORTED THAT THE PLANNING STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED AN EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING REQUESTED BY BONNIE DAHLSTROM, AS SET OUT IN HIS FOLLOWING MEMO: It 71 c�r� APR 2 31990 BOA.,43 PAGE«:7>w March 19, 1980 MEMO TO: Indian River Board of County Commissioners FROM: David Rever, Director of Planning and Zoning SUBJECT: Request to extend the time of the Public Hearing for rezoning of the property owned by Jonnie Dahlstrom At the last meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, the staff recom- mended extension of the Public Hearing on the rezoning requested by Jonnie Dahlstrom in order to provide sufficient review before giving a recommendation. Mr. Dahlstrom's agent agreed to this extension, and the Board voted unanimously to continue this hearing until their next scheduled meeting on March 27, 1980. It is respectfully requested that the Board of County Commissioners move their scheduled date for the Public Hearing on this application to their next regular meeting date of May 7, 1980. This will provide the needed time period of 30 days after the rescheduled Planning and Zoning meeting. It is our understanding that a move for continuance at the time presently scheduled for this meeting, to a time specific, will relieve the necessity to readvertise. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. PnE 326 MR. REVER CONTINUED THAT HE HAS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO PRESENT ON THIS PARTICULAR REZONING, BUT FEELS THERE NEEDS TO BE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE BOARD WILL HEAR THE REQUEST AT THIS TIME OR HAVE IT CONTINUED BECAUSE OF THE NOTIFICATION PROBLEM. HE THEN EXPLAINED THAT THE PROBLEM WAS RELATED TO THE EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND THE STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE CLERK NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNER 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE BOARD'S PUBLIC HEARING. THIS TIME PERIOD WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH AND ONLY 26 DAYS COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN. THE APPLICANT, THROUGH HIS AGENT, HOWEVER, HAS WAIVED THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE 30 DAY NOTICE AND IS ASKING THAT WE PROCEED. MR. REVER INFORMED THAT IF IT IS LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE, BOTH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE APPLICANT ARE READY TO GO AHEAD WITH THE HEARING. ATTORNEY COLLINS ADVISED THE BOARD THAT IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF EITHER THE APPLICANT OR THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER A VA REZONING REQUEST THAT HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE, AND EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY OWNER IS WILLING TO WAIVE THE NOTIFICA- TION, HE DID NOT FEEL THIS WOULD BE EFFECTIVE AGAINST AN ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER WHO MIGHT ATTACK THE PROCEEDING. HE STATED THAT HE HAS TALKED TO MR. CAIRNS, THE AGENT FOR MR, DAHLSTROM ABOUT THIS, AND ADVISED HIM THAT ANOTHER NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT OUT SETTING A HEARING ON MAY 21ST. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER Loy, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING REQUEST MADE BY .JONN I E DAHLSTROM BE SET 'FOR MAY 21, 1980. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE DID NOT FEEL THE BOARD NEEDS TO TAKE ANY ACTION OTHER THAN TO DECLINE TO HEAR THIS MATTER AT THIS TIME. ATTORNEY SUTHERLAND ARGUED THAT THE NOTICE IS INTENDED FOR THE OWNER `S PROTECTION; HIS CLIENT ALREADY HAS HAD 26 DAYS NOTICE, AND HE DID NOT SEE WHY THIS HEARING SHOULD BE DELAYED UNTIL MAY 21ST INSTEAD OF MAY 7TH. ATTORNEY COLLINS REITERATED THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE CLERK TO GIVE 30 DAYS NOTICE, AND EVEN THOUGH NOTICE WAS SENT OUT PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS SENT OUT STATING THAT A HEARING WOULD BE HELD ON A DIFFERENT DATE THAN.IS NOW BEING CONSIDERED. HE DID NOT FEEL THERE IS ANY QUESTION BUT THAT THE OWNER IS BEING PUT IN AN UNREASON- ABLE POSITION, BUT HE FELT THE STATUTE IS CLEAR ABOUT WHAT MUST BE DONE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT CHAPTER 125 OF THE STATUTES DOES NOT HAVE A WAIVER PROVISION, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS AGREED THAT THIS IS AN IRRITATING SITUATION, BUT HE DID NOT SEE ANY OTHER WAY OUT. HE THEREUPON WITHDREW HIS MOTION, AND COMMISSIONER Loy WITHDREW HER SECOND. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT UPON ADVICE OF THEIR ATTORNEY AND ON THE BASIS OF STATUTE 125, THEY WOULD DECLINE TO HEAR THE ZONING REQUEST MADE BY JONNIE DAHLSTROM BECAUSE OF IMPROPER NOTICE. 73 APP 2 31990 eooK 4 :'F c 3R,57 'APR 2 31980 Boos 43'PAGF 328 THE HOUR OF 2:00 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida i COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being ! Z Ltd a � ����n the matter of !• '2- J° in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 1 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 befor me I-W^Q)'17'_' day of A. D. (SEAL) ness Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, IAicYan River County, Florida) NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian River County, Florida, has tentatively ap- proved the following changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, which changes and additions are substantially as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in .order that the following described property situated on Oslo Road, just west of 19th Avenue S.W. in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Tract 3, Section 26, Township 33 South, .Range 39 East, less and excepting 1.3 acres in the northeast corner, which will remain in the original zoning of C-1 Commercial; North th of Tract 6, Section 26, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of land of the Indian River Farms Company. Be changed from R -IMP Mobile Home District to R-28 Multiple Family District. A pu§Jic hearing in relation thereto at which - parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by said Planning and Zoning Commission in. the County Commission Room, Indian River County Courthouse, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday, March 13, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., after which said public hearing in relation thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida; in the County Com- mission, Room, Indian River County Cour- thouse, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, April 23,1980, at 2:00 P.M. Board of County Commissioners Indian River County By: Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Chairman Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission By: Dick Bird, Chairman Feb. 21, 22,1980. NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO CLIFF REUTER BY THE CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT IN COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 125.66, AND COPY OF SAID NOTICE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. VICKI RENNA OF THE PLANNING STAFF STATED THAT THE SUBJECT PRO-PERTY CONSISTS OF 58.5 ACRES LOCATED ON OSLO ROAD WEST OF SW 19TH AVENUE, AND THE PROPOSED CHANGE WILL ENABLE THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP MULTIPLE FAMILY HOMES INSTEAD OF A MOBILE HOME PARK. THE PARCEL, WHICH IS CURRENTLY VACANT, IS MAINLY SURROUNDED BY R-1 LOW 7_1 DENSITY ZONING, EXCEPT FOR THE NORTHEAST CORNER, WHICH IS C-1. MS. RENNA CONTINUED THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS REZONING TO R -2B BECAUSE IT WOULD BE AN UPGRADING TO THE EXISTING ZONING; IT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING EXISTING ZONING; AND IT ALSO WOULD SERVE AS A TRANSITIONAL AREA BETWEEN R-1 AND C-1. THE PRESENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN SHOWS THIS AREA AS MEDIUM DENSITY, AND THE MASTER PLAN WHICH IS BEING PREPARED PROPOSED THIS PARCEL TO BE AT THE SOUTHEAST END OF THE URBAN INTENSIVE AREA AROUND THE 20TH AVENUE/OSLO ROAD INTERSECTION. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE WILL NOT CHANGE THE DENSITY, BUT JUST THE TYPE OF HOUSING ALLOWED. HE DID FEEL IT WOULD ALLOW A BETTER CONTROL OVER THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. THERE WERE NONE. LEONARD HATALA, PARTNER OF THE APPLICANT, FELT THE REQUEST WAS SELF-EXPLANATORY AND THAT IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE GOOD QUALITY APARTMENTS THAN A MOBILE HOME PARK. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT THE JOG,IN THE UPPER CORNER THAT IS NOT TO BE REZONED, WILL REMAIN IN COMMERCIAL. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT APPLICANT WHO OWNS THAT PIECE ALSO DOES NOT WISH IT CHANGED FROM COMMERCIAL. IT IS NOT DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. MR. MANN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT FOR TEN YEARS HE HAS OWNED THE COMMERCIALLY ZONED END OF BLOCK D, WHICH ADJOINS THE LITTLE NOTCH OF COMMERCIAL OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. HE USES IT AS COMMERCIAL AND. DOES NOT WANT THE COMMERCIAL ZONING CHANGED. MR. REVER FURTHER NOTED THAT CONSIDERATION IS BEING GIVEN TO HAVING A SCHOOL SITE IN THIS AREA, AND STAFF HAS TAKEN THIS INTO CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. 904-0 WWI 75 MOK 4.3 FacE 41,99 APR 2 3 19 90 BOOK 40 PAGE 330 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE 80-18 GRANTING THE REZONING TO R -2B REQUESTED BY MESSRS. REUTER AND HATALA FOR THE REASONS THAT THERE IS NO INCREASE IN DENSITY AND THE BELIEF THAT THE -COUNTY WOULD HAVE BETTER CONTROL OVER THE QUALITY OF THE DEVELOP- MENT. ORDINANCE NO. 80-18 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Tract 3, Section 26, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, LESS AND EXCEPTING 1.3 acres in N.E. corner, which will remain in the original C-1 zoning. North 2 of Tract 6, Section 26, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of land of the Indian River Farms Company Be changed from R-1MP Mobile Home Park District to R -2B Multiple Family District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. This Ordinance shall take effect April 28, 1980. THE HOUR OF 2:00 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian River County, Florida, has tentatively ap- proved the following changes and additions to Published Weekly the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, which changes and additions are substantially as follows: Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida 1. That the Zoning be changed in order that the following described property highly irregular, located west of 58th Avenue and COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: north of State Road 60, in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undcrsi ned authority q y personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr, who on oath The North 1/2 of NE b4 of NE 1/4 of Section S, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Indian says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published River County, Florida at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being LESS AND EXCEPTING Beginning at the -, Northwest corner of the NE 174 of the NE 1/4 of �✓ Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, run due East a along the North line of said Section 5 a distance of 603.92 feet; thence run South 00 degrees 03' 30" West on a line parallel to and 725.25 feet in the matter of y West of the East line of said Section 5, a distance of 265 feet to a point in the centerline of existing roadway; thence run South 89 degrees 25' 26" West along the centerline of roadway, a distance of 603.85 feet to the West line of said NE 1/4 of NE 1/4; thence run North 00 degrees 02' 01" East along said West line a, in the Court, was pub- distance of 271.QS feet to the point of beginning. LESS AND EXCEPTING the north 250 feet of the West 332.25 feet of the East 725.25 feet of j �� / fished in said newspaper in the issues of J� % �� said Section S. SUBJECT TO rights-of-way and easements of record and containing 13.922 acres, more or less. ' SUBJECT TO an easement for ingress and egress along the following described line: Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Easement being 15 feet either side of the following described centerline of existing Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore roadway. Beginning on the East line of Said been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section S, at a point 265 feet as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida South of the NE corner of said Section -5; for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- thence run due West on a line which is 265 feet tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or South and parallel with the North line of said corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- Section 5, a distance of 725.25 feet to a point of tisement for publication in the said newspaper. intersection. AND FROM THIS POINT ON p WESTERLY, 'SUBJECT TO said easement across a strip of land 15 feet in width lying Sworn to and subscribed bef e m his day of A.D. immediately South of and TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress and egress across a strip of land 15 feet in width lying immediately North of the following described continuation I ( Manager) of centerline of existing roadway, from above usiness g mentioned point of intersection, run South 89 degree$ 25' 26" West a distance of 603.83 feet to _/Y) the point of ending on the West line of said NE (Clerk of the Circuit Court, I' d an River County, Florida) 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 5 at a point 271.05 feet South of the Northwest corner of said NE 1/4 of (SEAL) N E 1/a. PARCELTWO All that part of the NW .V4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, _Indian River County, Florida, LESS AND EXCEPTING Beginning at the Northwest .corner of the NE 1/4 of Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, run due East along the North line of said Section S a distance of 1329.18, feet to the Northeast corner of the NW 1/4 of the i NE 1/4 of said Section 5; thence run South 00 degreek92' Ol" West along the East tine of said NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 a distance of 271.05 feet to a .point in the centerline of existing roadway; (thence Westerly along the centerline of, existing roadway through the following three 1 courses) run South 89 degrees 25' 26" West a; distance of 623.03 feet; thence run South 551 degrees 18' 56" West a distance of 622.43 feet; i thence run South 33 degrees 01' 10" West a distance of 3S4.69 feet, more or less, to the West line of said NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 5; thence run North 00 degrees 03125" West along the 1/4 Section line a distance of 928.92 feet to the point of beginning. LESS AND EXCEPTING the East 296.5 feet of the South 662.05 feet of said NW 1/4 of N E 1/4; LESS AND EXCEPTING beginning at the Southwest corner of said NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 run North 00 degrees 03' 35" West along the West line of the NW 44 of NE 1/4 a distance of 100 feet; thence run South 46 degrees 15' S3" East a distance of 144.68 feet to the South line of said NW 1/4 of NE 1/4; thence run North 89 degrees 59' 22" West along said South line a distance of 104.44 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 23.017 acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO an easement for ingress and egress along Ia strip of land 15.feet in width lying immediately South; AND ' APR 2 31980 BOOK 43' WE' 331 TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress and egress across a strip of land 15 feet in width lying immediately North of the following described centerline of existing roadway: Beginning at a point on the East line of the NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of said Section 5, said point being 271.05 feet South of the Northeast corner of said NW 1/4 of NE 1/4; thence run South 89 degrees 25' 26" West a distance of 623.03 feet; thence run South 55 degrees -18'56" West a distance of 622.43 feet; thence run South 33 degrees 01' 10" '-West a distance of 354.69 feet, more or less, to a point of ending of said easement on the West line of said NW 1/4 of NE 1/4' said point being 928.92 feet South of the Northwest corner of said NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section S. PARCELTHREE All that part of the SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida; LESS AND EXCEPTING: From the South- west 2orner of the N E 1/4 of Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida; run North 00 degrees 03' 25" West along the Quarter Section Line a distance of 662.05 feet to the point of beginning. Thence continue North 00 degrees 03' 25" West a distance of 662.01 feet.to the Northwest corner of the SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section S. Thence run South 89 degrees 59' 22" East along the North 1 line of said SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 a distance of 104.44 ifeet. Thence run South 46 degrees 15' 53" East a distance of 957.70 feet; Thence run North 89 degrees 59'35" Weston a, line 662.05 feet North and parallel of the South line of said SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 a distance of 795.16 feet to the point of beginning. d�K 43� PAGE 3:32 LESS AND EXCEPTING the following described parcel: Begin at the Southwest corner of the SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of said Section 5, thence run East on the South boundary line of said SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 a distance of 995.4 feet; thence run North a distance of 662.05 feet; thence run West a distance of 995.76 feet to the West boundary line of said SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of said Section 5, thence run South 662.05 feet to point of beginning. LESS rights-of-way and easements of record and containing 12.169 acres, more or less. i Be changed from A -Agricultural District to R-1 Single Family District and -R-2 Multiple Family District. A public hearing in relation thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to. be heard, will be held by said Planning and Zoning Commission in the County Commission Room, Indian River County Courthouse, Vero Beach, Florida, on' Thursday, March 13, 1980 at 7:30 P.M., after which said public hearing in relation thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County Com- mission Room, Indian River County Cour- thouse, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, April 23,1980, at 2:00 P.M. Board of County Commissioners Indian River County By: Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Chairman Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission By: Dick Bird, Chairman Feb. 21, 22, 1980. NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.WAS SENT TO MS, ELIONNE L.AMAR WALKER BY THE CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 125.661 AND A COPY OF SAID NOTICE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND IS A CITRUS GROVE, CONSISTS OF 49 ACRES AND IS HIGHLY IRREGULAR IN SHAPE, FRONTING 351' ALONG WALKER AVENUE, 602' SOUTH OF WALKER AVENUE ALONG 58TH AVENUE, AND APPROXIMATELY 158` ON ROUTE 60. SURROUNDING LAND USES INCLUDE RIVERA ESTATES TO THE EAST, SOME RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH ALONG WALKER AVENUE, AND WHISTLEWOOD SUBDIVISION ON THE SOUTH AND WEST, THE REMAINDER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY BEING IN GROVES. MR. REVER CONTINUED THAT THE BOUNDARIES POSED SOME CONCERN TO THE STAFF, AND THEY DID NOT BELIEVE R-2 WOULD BE MOST COMPATIBLE TO THE ADJOINING ZONES. THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THE AREA PROPOSED FOR R-2 BE CHANGED TO R -2B, AND THIS WAS AGREED TO BY THE APPLICANT. THEY ALSO PROPOSED THAT THE APPROXIMATE NORTHERN HALF OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BE REZONED TO R-1, WHICH WOULD ALIGN IT MORE WITH THE EXISTING R-1 IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. MR. REVER STATED THAT IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH HAVE EXPRESSED SOME INTEREST IN WORKING IN CONJUNCTION TO THE APPLICANT NOW REQUESTING REZONING TO BRING ABOUT A MORE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT. A PARCEL BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY RIVERA ESTATES IS OWNED BY .JOHN MAGUIRE, AND HE INDICATED AT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION HEARING THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND WOULD PROPOSE THAT HIS PROPERTY BE REZONED TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPOSED ZONING NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION. MR. REVER FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONFLICT ON THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP BETWEEN THE LAND USE INDICATED FOR THIS PROPERTY AND THE SO-CALLED PRIMARY CITRUS DISTRICT. THE STAFF'S FEELING IS THAT ONE OF THESE MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE, AND THE LAND USES INDICATED ON THE MAP DO COINCIDE WITH THE PROPOSAL NOW BEFORE THE BOARD. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF THE PROPOSED REZONING IS EAST OR WEST OF THE SO-CALLED CITRUS LINE, AND MR. REVER STATED THAT KING'S HIGHWAY IS THE DIVIDER, AND ITIS WEST OF THAT. MARVIN CARTER, OF CARTER ASSOCIATES, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, ELIONNE MALKER. HE NOTED THAT WHEN THEY INITIATED THIS REZONING REQUEST, THEY HAD FELT IT WAS IN FULL AGREE- MENT WITH THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, AND APPARENTLY IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE USE BEING PROPOSED, ALTHOUGH IT DOES CONFLICT WITH THE OVERLAY OF THE PRIMARY CITRUS ZONE. HE CONTINUED THAT HIS CLIENT HAS AGREED TO LOWER THE REQUESTED REZONING FOR THE SOUTHERLY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE MORE RESTRICTIVE R -2B ZONING TO FACILITATE A BETTER TRANSITION. MR. CARTER EXPLAINED THAT THE LIMITS OF THE R-1 ZONE WERE DETERMINED BY A TENTATIVE LAYOUT OF 50 HALF ACRE LOTS, WHICH WOULD BE THE INITIAL PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. HE POINTED OUT THAT THIS ZONING IS IN TOTAL 4 CONFORMITY WITH THE EXISTING USE TO THE NORTH AND COMMENTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY HAS RAISED SOME OBJECTIONS, IT IS A TOTAL OWNERSHIP AND WAS SO DIVIDED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE WALKER ESTATE SOMETIME AGO. MR. CARTER CONFIRMED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN FAVORABLE INDICATIONS FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS IN REGARD TO INITIATING SIMILAR REZONINGS AND INTEGRATING WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOP— MENT. HE SUBMITTED A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN FROM .JOHN '' MAGUIRE, ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER, SUPPORTING THE REQUESTED REZONING, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: 79 fs01( 4 PACE +�t)l April 23, 1980 goo 43 PAGE'3.34 Mr. W. W. Siebert, Jr. Chairman of Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Sir: I own the subdivision known as Rivera Estates and I own other land which is adjacent to and approxi- mately South and East of the property being asked for rezoning by Elione Walker. I am unable to be present at the public hearing on the rezoning of the property and wish to state publicly that I believe that the request made for rezoning is the proper and the best use of the property. I recommend this change as I have been in discus- sion with those requesting this change and plan to work in concert with them in over-all development that will be beneficial to this area. I likewise intend as soon as convenient to request rezoning of the property in order to make a compatible usage of the property for.the area based on the zoning request. I have reviewed this matter with Mr. Rever as to my plans and will be in touch with their department to further my efforts along these lines. � Gwv JOHN MAGUIRE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Sworn to and subscribed by JOHN MAGUIRE this ,? 3 -'� day of A. D. 1980. Notary Pu c, State of F ori a (Notary Seal) at Large. My commission expires: CHAIRMAN SIEBERT INQUIRED ABOUT THE CONDITION, AGE AND PRODUCTIVITY OF THE GROVE, AND MR. CARTER STATED THAT IT IS PART OF THE OLDEST GROVE IN THE COUNTY, HAVING BEEN OWNED BY THE WALKER FAMILY BEFORE THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY WAS FORMED; IT HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED FOR YEARS AND IS IN TERRIBLE CONDITION. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. DR. E. WILLIAM AKINS CAME BEFORE THE BOARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED REZONING AND PRESENTED THE FOLLOWING LETTER: x 0 w APR 2 31980 soon - 43w PAG 335 w� Em 43 PnE 336 LAUDERDALE MEDICAL GROZJP 3000 BAYVIEW DRIVE . FORT LAUDERDALE. FLORIDA 33306 AREA CODE 305 5654811 ., INTERNAL MEDICINE RADIOLOGY & NUCLEAR MEDICINE RICHARD R. FERAYORNI, M.D. ARTHUR L. NADDELL, M.D. ALBERT M. IOSUE, M.D. and ASSOCIATES J. WARREN McKAY, M.D. DOYLE R. CAMPBELL, M.D. E. WILLIAM AKINS, M.D. FRANK A. GUIDA, M.D. ROBERT L. ANDREAE, M.D. FRANCIS A. REED, M.D. TIM C. HARRELL, M.D. April 22, 1980 Chairman , Indian River Board of County Commissioners Indian River County, Florida Gentlemen: By way of introduction, I am the owner of the old Walker house adjoining the petitioners property, and I am sure you are aware of how Ms. Elionne balker represented by Carter Associates, came to have the 50 acres in question. I am also a physician in Broward County, and a real estate land and orange grove owner in Indian River County. The purpose of this letter and appearance is to oppose the petition as I did when I appeared before your Planning and Zoning Board Meeting on March 13, 1980. I can, at this time, see no compelling reason for the Board of County Commissioners to proceed against the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board. They voted 4 to 1 denying the rezoning. The Land Use Plan, currently in effect in Indian River County, mitigates against rezoning this parcel. The speculator developers have given no compelling reasons why this particular parcel should be excepted from rules regulating upgrading of zoning now in effect in Indian River County. It is my belief that since they have as not yet purchased the land, that they are merely acting as intermediaries, hoping to cash in on the difference between land selling as agricultural and land selling as single or multiple family zoning. They have not presented you with any clearly agreed upon plan of development concerning density, sewer, water, and other facilities, traffic flow, drainage, and the like. I have great experience living in Broward County with this type of zoning ploy. It has been used extensively in the past taventy years, leading to the present chaos in Broward County. In closing, I wish to restate my plea together- with some of the surrounding land Owners, that you oppose the petition, and deny rezoning. ti Thank you, E. W. Akins, M. D. EWA :mc DR. AKIN COMMENTED THAT DELAYING OF THE HEARING TO A LATER DATE SO A MORE COMPATIBLE REZONING OF THE ENTIRE AREA COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WAS INITIATED IN PART BY HIM BECAUSE A GENTLEMAN CAME TO HIM AND STATED HE REPRESENTED NOT ONLY THE PETITIONER, BUT HER MOTHER, MRS. CLARKSON, AND HER HALF-BROTHER. THE DOCTOR STATED THAT HE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY LEARNED THAT HE DID NOT REPRESENT THEM AND THAT THE MOTHER AND HALF-BROTHER ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE REZONING, AND IN FACT, OPPOSE IT AT THE PRESENT TIME. DR. AKIN REITERATED THAT HE IS OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED REZONING WHICH IS AGAINST THE CURRENT LAND USE PLAN. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP BECAUSE OF ITS ODD SHAPE AND STATED THAT HE COULD ASSURE THE BOARD THAT ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT ARE BEING HARVESTED FROM THE GROVE ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN ILL MAINTAINED SINCE MR. WALKER DIED. COMMISSIONER Loy INQUIRED ABOUT DR. AKIN'S VERO BEACH ADDRESS AND ASKED IF SHE UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY THAT HE WAS STATING THAT THE PETITIONER S MOTHER AND BROTHER WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING. DR. AKIN STATED THAT HIS ADDRESS IN VERO BEACH IS 2585 WALKER AVENUE, AND HE DID SAY THAT THE MOTHER AND BROTHER WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING. COMMISSIONER LOY REQUESTED THAT THE RECORD SHOW THAT THAT STATEMENT IS DR. AKIN'S OPINION, AND HE AGREED IT WAS HIS OPINION. ED SCHLITT, REALTOR, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING THE GROUP OF INVESTORS, WHO HAVE A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM ELIONNE WALKER. THE GROUP CONSISTS OF FRANK SCHLITT, KARL HEDIN, BOB MAXWELL AND DR. WOOFTER, ALL LOCAL BUSINESS PEOPLE, MR. SCHLITT INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAD TALKED WITH LIBBY CLARKSON, MOTHER OF ELIONNE WALKER, WHO INDICATED SHE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED REZONING AND WOULD LIKE TO AID HER DAUGHTER. HE CONTINUED THAT HE HAS MET WITH THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND HAS ASSURED THEM THAT IF THERE IS A GOOD AND LEGITIMATE REASON THIS AREA SHOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED, HIS GROUP SIMPLY WOULD NOT ACQUIRE 4 THE PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE GONE TO A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF EXPENSE. HE CONTINUED THAT IF THERE ARE WAYS THEY CAN WORK WITH THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS SO THAT THEY FEEL THE PROPOSED DEVELOP- MENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA, THEY WILL DO S0. HE NOTED THAT ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ADJOINING A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THE HIGHER DENSITY WOULD BE BY A BORDER STRIP OF COMMERCIAL. .N BOpK4 PAR.�./$ Boos 43 PAGE 338 MR. SCHLITT INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY HAD HOPED TO GET AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT WITH MS. WALKER AND PERHAPS ASK FOR A DELAY IN THE BOARD'S DECISION BECAUSE THEY HAD REASON TO BELIEVE SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS AVAILABLE TO THEM THAT ARE AVAILABLE NOW, BUT THEY CANNOT GET AN EXTENSION BEYOND MAY 21ST AND WOULD, THEREFORE, REQUEST THAT THE BOARD MAKE A DECISION TODAY. MR. SCHLITT FELT THAT WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THIS PROPERTY AND THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. SHAUNA'YAGER SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED REZONING AND PRESENTED THE BOARD WITH A PETITION SIGNED BY APPROXIMATELY 50 PEOPLE, THE FIRST PAGE OF WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS. SAID PETITION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. 84 PETITION RELATING TO WALKER APPLICATION TO TIRE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ZONING BOARD TO REZONE A CERTAIN 49 ACRES ON KINGS HIGHWAY TO MULTIPLE DWELLING (R-1 and R-2) TO PERMIT EIGHT SEPARATE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IN PORTIONS OF THIS REAL PROPERTY. The property is currently zoned Agricultural (A) which permits one dwelling unit per five (5) acres. The undersigned, all of whom are residents in the area generally surrounding the subject real property, oppose the application for rezoning on the grounds that: 1. Such rezoning will substantially impair the property values of the neighboring property, 2. A rezoning will result in a general congestion in the area and for the single access road to the center of Vero Beach, to wit: Kings Hiahwav, 3. The grant of the requested change will alter the general character of the neighborhood, and 4. There is no demonstrable need or hardship other than the desire to profit, as there is sufficient multiple zoned area within the'County. Petitioners: L ' l d i �` ,E , G' r ' /l I d rs- ' IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED THAT MOST OF THOSE WHO HAD GIVEN THEIR ADDRESSES LIVED APPROXIMATELY EIGHT BLOCKS AWAY, AND MANY OF THOSE SIGNING THE PETITION GAVE NO ADDRESS. CHET HOGAN, REALTOR, INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE REPRESENTS MS. ELIONNE WALKER AND WAS THE LISTER OF THIS PROPERTY. 80% HE COMMENTED -APR. 2 31980 41 340 THAT THE WALKER PROPERTY IN 1923 WAS THE SHOWPLACE OF THE COMMUNITY AND IN THE EARLY 1900'S, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WAS NOTED FOR PINEAPPLES, BUT WHEN THE PINEAPPLE GROWERS WENT OUT OF BUSINESS DUE TO A FREEZE, NOBODY TOLD THEM THEY HAD TO RAISE PINEAPPLES AGAIN. HE WENT ON TO POINT -OUT THAT IN 19261 THE KINGHTS HAD SIX FISH HOUSES ALONG THE COAST AND SUBSEQUENTLY WENT OUT OF THE FISH BUSINESS; IN 1921 FELLSMERE SUGAR COMPANY WAS IN BUSINESS AND THEY SHUT DOWN IN 1966; AND HE, HIMSELF, CAME FROM A TOMATO GROWING FAMILY, AND WHEN IT BECAME ECONOMICALLY UNFEASIBLE TO CONTINUE, NO ONE TOLD THEM THEY HAD TO KEEP ON GROWING TOMATOES. TIMES HAVE CHANGED AND THE MAIN INDUSTRIES IN THE COUNTY NOW ARE CITRUS, CATTLE, AND TOURISTS. MR. HOGAN THEN WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT THE TREMENDOUS GROWTH OF THE CITRUS INDUSTRY IN THIS COUNTY, STATING THAT THERE ARE NOW ABOUT 56,200 ACRES OF CITRUS IN THE COUNTY, OR ABOUT A SIXTH OF OUR AREA. MR. HOGAN FELT THAT THE PRIME CITRUS BELT WAS ESTABLISHED ARBITRARILY AND NOTED THAT IF MS. WALKER HAD TO TURN HER LAND BACK INTO CITRUS PRODUCTION TODAY, SHE WOULD HAVE TO EXPEND ABOUT $200,000 JUST TO GET THE GROVE TO FIVE YEARS OLD. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT MANY PEOPLE NOW BELIEVE THAT ANY PROPERTY EAST OF I-95 WILL GIVE WAY TO PROGRESS AND THERE IS MUCH PROPERTY IN THIS AREA THAT ALREADY IS ZONED R-lA, R-lMP, R-lE, C-1, ETC. A. J. HAMILTON OF 26TH ST. STATED THAT HE MOVED TO THIS AREA 23 YEARS AGO FOR THE COUNTRY ATMOSPHERE, AND HE CANNOT FEEL THAT .IT IS SUITABLE TO REZONE IT. HE WISHED THE AREA TO REMAIN AS IT IS AND FELT ONE REZONING WILL LEAD TO ANOTHER. RAY SCENT, REALTOR, SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED REZONING AND FELT IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE STAFF HAS BROUGHT UP THE POSSI- BILITY OF THE ENTIRE AREA BECOMING R -2B, INSTEAD OF JUST THE PORTION BEING DISCUSSED TODAY. HE NOTED THAT THE R -2B, WHICH THE DEVELOPERS HAVE AGREED TO REQUIRES 1,000 SQ. FT. IN AN APARTMENT, AND HE FELT THIS MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION SINCE IN R-1, YOU COULD DEVELOP HOMES THAT WOULD BE MUCH SMALLER. HE EMPHASIZED THAT MERELY CHANGING TO A HIGHER DENSITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY DOWNGRADE AN AREA. .• ATTORNEY RANDY MCKINNON APPEARED REPRESENTING THE BARTLETTS, THE HAMILTONS AND THE BLOCKS, WHO OWN PROPERTY ADJOINING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ACROSS WALKER AVENUE TO THE NORTH, AND OBJECT TO THE RE- ZONING. HE STATED THAT A CONTINUAL REZONING OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY WILL BRING THE LAND VALUE TO THE POINT WHERE IT CANNOT BE USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND WILL DRIVE THE OWNERS BACK TO THE BOARD TO CHANGE THEIR ZONING TO A DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATION. HE COMMENTED THAT IF MS. WALKER'S PROPERTY IS LEFT IN AGRICULTURAL, IT IS NOT BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM HER BUT WILL JUST REDUCE THE PRICE SHE CAN GET FOR IT. ATTORNEY MCKINNON THEN DISCUSSED THE COST OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AND FELT THAT WHEN THE BOARD APPROVES A SUBDIVISION, THEY ARE WARRANTING CERTAIN THINGS TO THE PEOPLE - PROPER LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE PROTECTION, WATER AND SEWER, ADEQUATE ROADS AND DRAINAGE, ETC. HE ASKED HOW MUCH OF THE TAXPAYER'S MONEY MUST BE SPENT TO ASSURE THAT DEVELOPERS CONTINUE TO MAKE THEIR PROFITS. ATTORNEY MCKINNON POINTED OUT THAT WE HAVE MANY EXISTING PROBLEMS IN THE COUNTY THAT NEED TO BE SOLVED BEFORE MORE AGRICULTURAL LANDS ARE REZONED TO CREATE MORE PROBLEMS. HE FELT THAT THERE IS ENOUGH DEVELOPABLE LAND BETWEEN KING'S HIGHWAY AND THE INDIAN RIVER TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO MOVE INTO THE COUNTY IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS. MR. MCKINNON EMPHASIZED THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION VOTED 4 TO 1 AGAINST THIS REZONING REQUEST. ATTORNEY JOHN SUTHERLAND CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT ELIONNE WALKER AND THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE REZONING REQUEST. HE POINTED OUT THAT ATTORNEY MCKINNON REPRESENTS PEOPLE WHO LIVE NORTH OF MS. WALKER'S PROPERTY IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREAS WHERE SUBDIVISIONS COULD BE PUT IN WITH 70' LOTS AND YOU COULD HAVE 4 FOUR FAMILIES TO AN ACRE, AND THEY ARE OBJECTING TO PROPERTY ABOUT 1/4 OF A MILE AWAY FROM THEM BEING REZONED RESIDENTIAL. THERE ALSO HAVE BEEN OBJECTIONS FROM PARTIES WHO LIVE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ON 34TH STREET, WHICH IS EVEN FURTHER AWAY, AND HE DID NOT SEE WHY SOMEONE LIVING IN THIS AREA ON A.1/4 ACRE LOT WOULD OBJECT TO SOMEONE ELSE LIVING NEARBY. L____ ---- Bog , 43 pm' 341 k 41 342 ATTORNEY SUTHERLAND CONTINUED THAT IN 1957 WHEN THE ORIGINAL ZONING WENT IN, EVERYTHING ALONG ROUTE 60 FOR A 660' DEPTH WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL AND ANYTHING ON WALKER AVENUE WAS R -Z; THEN SOME REZONING WAS DONE TO GO ALONG WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, AND -THE APPLICANT S PROPERTY WAS REZONED TO AGRICULTURAL WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS A HOLDING ZONE AND IF THERE WAS A BASIC .NEED, THE PROPERTY COULD BE ZONED BACK. HE FELT THAT THE BOARD HAD PROPERLY ENVISIONED THE FUTURE IN THE MASTER PLAN BY HAVING COMMERCIAL NUBS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF ROUTE 60, AND NOTED.THERE IS A CHANGE OF CHARACTER COMING TO THE AREA AND YOU NEED TO HAVE THE NORMAL TYPE OF THINGS THAT GO ALONG WITH COMMERCIAL, OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL, ALONG YOUR MAJOR ROAD COMING INTO TOWN. THERE ARE ALREADY RESIDENCES AND TRAILER PARKS IN THIS AREA, AND AS TO CREATING THE NEED FOR MORE GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES, IF YOU WENT INTO THE PRESENT R-1 ZONE TO THE NORTH, YOU WOULD BE CREATING THE SAME NEED, ATTORNEY SUTHERLAND FELT THAT MOST PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PLANT NEW GROVES ARE GOING OUT INTO THE ST. JOHNS DRAINAGE DISTRICT, AND HE POINTED OUT THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS SAID THAT WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS PROPER. ALFRED'BARTLETT, WHO OWNS TEN ACRES IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE WALKER PROPERTY, WISHED TO BE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION RECALLED THAT THE ZONING BOARD VOTED 4 TO 1 AGAINST THIS REQUEST, AND CONTINUED THAT ALTHOUGH HIS PROPERTY IS R-1 NOW, WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT, IT WAS AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY. THEY DID NOT ASK FOR IT TO BE CHANGED TO R-1. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT INFORMED HIM THAT THE BOARD DID NOT REZONE THIS PROPERTY; IT WAS R-1, AND MR. BARTLETT STATED THAT IT WAS AGRICULTURALLY EXEMPT PROPERTY. COMMISSIONER LOY AGREED THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN AGRICULTUR- ALLY EXEMPT WITHOUT BEING ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND CONCURRED THAT THIS BOARD DID NOT CHANGE THE ZONING TO R-1. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER WODTKE COMMENTED THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST IRREGULAR SHAPED PROPERTY THE BOARD EVER HAS CONSIDERED AND THOUGH HE COULD SEE SOME DIFFICULT DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS, HE FELT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT THE TOP HALF BE R-1 AND THE BOTTOM HALF R-213 WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS TO DENY THE PROPOSED REZONING FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (1) IT IS WEST OF THE SO-CALLED PRIMARY CITRUS LINE; (2) THERE IS ADEQUATE PROPERTY AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT ZONED IN THIS CATEGORY; (3) ANY SUCH ZONING IS PREMATURE; (4) IT WAS NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING BOARD; AND (5) HE FELT TO REZONE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH ITS VERY IRREGULAR BOUNDARIES, WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER WODTKE, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 80-19 APPROVING THE CHANGES RECOM- MENDED BY THE PLANNING STAFF - THE TOP SECTION TO R-1 AND THE LOWER SECTION TO R-213 FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH REZONING IS IN THE OVERALL BEST INTERESTS OF THE COUNTY. COMMISSIONER WODTKE COMMENTED THAT THERE IS R-1 TO THE SOUTH AND WEST AND ADDITIONAL R-1 ZONING FURTHER WEST. HE FELT THE REZONING IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND BASED ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY AND FELT THAT IS ALL THIS BOARD REALLY HAS A RIGHT TO CONSIDER. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. COMMISSIONER LYONS VOTED IN OPPOSITION, AND THE MOTION CARRIED. It Bow . 43. PACE •J41 -APR 2 31990 sooK 43 PacE-344. ORDINANCE NO. 80-19 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River: County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to`rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River 9 County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East,•Indian River County, Florida, run South 000 03' 30" West along the Section line a distance of 661.85 feet to the Southeast corner of the North half of the Northeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter of said Section 5; Thence run South 890 59' 57" West along the South line of said North half of Northeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter of Section 5, a distance of 1328.89 feet, to the West line thereof; Thence run North 890 59' 22" West a distance of 296.5 feet; Thence run South 000 02' O1" West a distance of 462.05 feet; Thence run North 890 59' 22" West on a line 200 feet North of and parallel with the South line of the Northwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter of said Section 5, a distance of 1031.02 feet; Thence run North 000 03' 25" West along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter a distance of 195.14 feet; Thence run North 330 01' 10" East a distance of 354.69 feet; Thence run North 550 18'. 56" East a distance of 622.43 feet; Thence run North 890 25' 26" East a distance of 623.03 feet to a point on the East line of said Northwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter of Section 5; Thence run North 890 25' 26" East a distance of 603.85 feet; Thence run due East a distance of 332.25 feet; Thence rub North 000 03' 30" East a distance of 265.00 feet to the North line of said Section 2; Thence run due East along the North line of said Section 2 a distance of 393.00 feet to the Northeast corner of Section 2 and point of beginning. Less and excepting that certain parcel conveyed to Elizabeth J. Clarkson and recorded in Official Record Book 594, page 1305, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. Subject to rights-of-way and easements of record. All of the above property lying and being in the Northeast Quarter of Section 5-33-39 Indian river County, Florida, and containing 32.326 acres, more or less. Be changed from A -Agricultural District to R-1 Single Family District, and - M M From the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 33'South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, run North 00° 03' 25" West along the West line thereof a distance of 200 feet to the point of beginning; Thence run South 890 59' 22" East on a line parallel to and 200 feet North of the South line of said Northwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter of Section 5 a distance of 1031.02 feet; Thence run South 000 02' 01" West a distance of 200 feet; Thence run South 89° 59' 22" East a distance of 111.5 feet; Thence run South 000 00' 59" East along the West line of the East 185 feet of the Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter of Section 5, a distance of 1152.37 feet to'the North right-of-way of State Road 60' Thence run South 890 58' 26" West along said right-of-way a distance of 146.00 feet; Thence run North 00° 01' 13" jlest a distance of 490.48 feet; Thence run North 89° 59' 35" West a distance of 200 feet; Thence run North 460 15' 53" West a distance of 1102.38 feet to the West line of the North- west Quarter of Northeast Quarter; Thence run North 000 03' 25" West a distance of 100 feet to point of beginning. Said parcel being part of the Northwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter and part of the Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter of Section 5-33-39, Indian River County, Florida, and containing 16.782 acres, more or less. Be changed from A -Agricultural District to R -2B Multiple Family Distri ct. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. This Ordinance shall take effect April 28, 1980. r eon 0:; F c 345 APR 2 31980 Boa43 facE346 CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT IT IS APPARENT WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FINISH THE AGENDA TODAY AND HE WISHED TO SUGGEST, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE BOARD, THAT WE TAKE THE LAST ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSS RESCHEDULING OF COMMISSION MEETINGS, DISCUSS THE SOUTH -COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT, AND THEN RECONVENE AT 9:30 TOMORROW MORNING. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS DECIDED TO DEAL WITH JUST IV THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT TODAY AND TO RECONVENE AT 1:00 O'CLOCK P.M. TOMORROW, THURSDAY, APRIL 24TH, TAKING UP THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER DISTRICT AT 1:00 P.M. THE HOUR OF 2:00 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly !aero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being 7 /I , a r Z' � in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 04_1 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 rW this (SEAL) L day of G -_L�A.D. C//") (Business Manager) .7 (Clerk of the Circuit Cou River County, Florida) NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and. Zoning Commission of Indian River County, Florida, has tentatively ap- proved the following changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, which changes and additions are substantially as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated at the southeast corner of the intersection of Barber Avenue and Lateral "A" Canal and the 70 acres at the corner of Cherry Lane and Lateral "A" Canal, in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Tracts 17, 18 and 19, ' in the South half of Section 29; Township 32 South, Range 39 East; Tract 4, the East 9 acres of the West 18.62 acres of Tract S, the East 20 acres of Tract S, all in Section 32, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida Be changed from A -Agricultural District to R -IAA Single Family District. A public hearing in relation thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to' be heard, will be held by said Planning. and Zoning Commission in the County Commission Room, Indian River County Courthouse, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday, March 13, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., after which said public hearing in relation thereto at which parties .in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County COm- mission Room, Indian River County Cour- Ithouse, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, April 23,1980, at 2:00 P.M. Board of County Commissioners Iddiatl jtiver County By: Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Chairman Indian River County Planning - and Zoning Commission By:. Dick Bird, Chairman. Feb. 21, 22,1980. s ® � 92 I NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO WILLIAM H. GLENN BY THE CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 125.66, AND COPY OF SAME IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. SENIOR PLANNER DAVID MARSH INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 100 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN BARBER AVENUE AND CHERRY LANE, EAST OF LATERAL A. THE APPLICANT WISHES TO REZONE IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. THE LAND IS PRESENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND IS CURRENTLY PREDOMINANTLY GROVES. THE SURROUNDING AREA TO THE WEST IS AGRICULTURAL AND TO THE EAST R-1 SINGLE FAMILY. TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST THERE ARE SCATTERED RESIDENCES AND TO THE EAST, GRAZING LAND. THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN SHOWS THE PARCEL TO BE LOCATED JUST OUTSIDE THE LOW DENSITY CLASSIFICATION AND JUST INSIDE THE CITRUS AREA. MR. MARSH REPORTED THAT HE DID DO A FIELD INSPECTION AND WOULD ESTIMATE THERE ARE POSSIBLY TEN HOMES IN A HALF MILE RADIUS OF THIS PROPERTY AND ABOUT 50 HOMES WITHIN A MILE. THERE ARE FOUR SUBDIVISIONS APPROXI- MATELY A HALF MILE AWAY. MR. MARSH COMMENTED THAT THE WALKER PROPERTY, WHICH WAS JUST REZONED, WAS LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF KING'S HIGHWAY AND ROUTE 60, AND HAD A DUAL SITUATION, BEING IN THE PRIMARY CITRUS AREA AND ALSO HAVING A LAND USE CLASSIFICATION. THE GLENN PROPERTY, HOWEVER, IS A CLEAR CUT PARCEL, WHICH LIES WITHIN THE PRIMARY CITRUS ZONE AND HAS NO OTHER LAND USE CLASSIFICATION. HE NOTED THAT THE PLANNING STAFF ARE NOT AGRICULTURAL EXPERTS, BUT IN THEIR OPINION, IT IS A PRODUCTIVE GROVE. MR. MARSH STATED THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONERS DENIED THE REZONING REQUEST BY A 3 TO 2 VOTE. ATTORNEY B. T. 000KSEY CAME BEFORE THE BOARD"REPRESENTING MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM GLENN, WHO WISH TO REZONE THEIR PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL TO R-1AA, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST COUNTY RESIDENTIAL ZONING EXCEPT FOR R-lE. MR. COOKSEY HANDED OUT VARIOUS MAPS AND AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH. HE CONTINUED THAT THE PLANNING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION 93 APR 2 31990 3 PAGE3 �c�oK 4 47 , -APR 2 31990 eoof 43 PacE348 ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY MERITS THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION IN THAT THEIR WORDING WAS SIGNIFICANT AND MENTIONED TRANSITIONAL ZONING FOR THIS AREA AS FOLLOWS: RECOMMENDATION: Application is in order. Staff, however, does not recommend rez,_,on,_in4 this property at th t7me thougg7 there are some scattered residential developmentsin the surrounding area, there is no demonstration of immediate develop- ment pressure. The present Land Use Map shows the area Agricultural, and consider- ation on the new land effort leans toward holding the present line or further re- strictions to the urban growth boundary in that area (closer to Kings Highway (58th Avenue)). Thee area between the boundary and Lateral "A" could be considered as transitional areas where R -1E, Country y Estate would be an acceptable rezoning, al owing one unit per acre. David M. Rever Planning and Zoning Director MR. COOKSEY THEN PRESENTED THE BOARD WITH THE FOLLOWING PETITION SIGNED BY SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS SUPPORThNG THE PROPOSED REZONING. 94 We, the following property owners are in favor of the rezoning request from Agriculture to R1AA of the land described below and owned by William H. and Helen M. Glenn: Parcel "A" Tract 17, 18, 19 - S. 1/2 of Sec. 29, 32, 39 E. Parcel "B" Tract 4, Sec. 32, 32, 39 E. Parcel "C" E. 9 acres of W. 18.62 acres of Tract 5, 32-32-39 E. Parcel "D" E. 20 acres of Tract 5, Sec. 32, 32, S. 39 E. 4 BOOK APR 2 31990 J' FdE':. - FA 80�K 43 PAGE 350. ATTORNEY COOKSEY NOTED THAT THERE ARE EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN 1/4 MILE OF THE GLENN PROPERTY. HE FELT ONE OF THE MOST IMPOR- TANT FACTS IS THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS FORMERLY ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND WHEN THE COUNTY ADOPTED THE PRESENT MASTER PLAN, IT WAS REZONED TO AGRICULTURAL OVER THE OBJECTION OF MR. AND MRS. GLENN, WHO WERE ASSURED THAT AGRICULTURAL WAS, IN EFFECT, A HOLDING CATEGORY. IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT THAT RESIDENTIAL BORDERS THIS PROPERTY ALONG THE WHOLE EAST SIDE, AND ALONG LATERAL A CANAL, WHICH IS THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL, IT IS RESIDENTIAL FOR ABOUT 4-1/2 MILES TO THE NORTH. MR. COOKSEY POINTED OUT THAT THE REQUESTED R-lAA REZONING REQUIRES 1,600 SQ, FT. FOR A HOUSE AND 16,500 SQ. FT. OF LOT AREA, WHICH HE FELT, WITH SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND ROADS WOULD WORK OUT TO ABOUT 2 UNITS PER ACRE. HE NOTED THAT HE HAS HEARD SOME BROKERS STATE THAT THE COUNTY HAS A NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF PROPERTY. MR. COOKSEY THEN WENT ON TO DISCUSS THE HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, POINTING OUT THAT THERE WAS A 3-2 VOTE AGAINST THE REZONING ALTHOUGH NO ONE PRESENT SPOKE AGAINST IT. HE NOTED THAT ONE OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONERS MADE A VERY IMPASSIONED PLEA FOR THE AGRICULTURAL USE OF LANDS IN OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FEED THE WORLD, ATTORNEY COOKSEY REPORTED THAT HE PRESENTED THE FOLLOWING STATISTICS AT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION HEARING;, WHICH CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE WAS A 40% INCREASE IN THE CITRUS ACREAGE IN THE COUNTY DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1965 TO 1978: APPROXIMATE ACRES IN CITRUS 1965 40,680 1967 47,000 1969 51,000 1971 52,050 1973 52,260 1976-78 56,200 HE POINTED OUT THAT WHILE THIS INCREASE IN CITRUS ACREAGE WAS TAKING PLACE, THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY INCREASED FROM 25,300 IN 1960 TO 52,300 tN 19781 OR ABOUT 108%. MR. COOKSEY FELT THIS WAS A VERY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE BOARD IS BEING TOLD REPEATEDLY THAT THEY ARE DESTROYING PRIME CITRUS LAND. ATTORNEY COOKSEY NEXT NOTED THAT WILLIAM GLENN, WHO HAS LIVED IN THIS AREA SINCE 1939, STATED AT THE PLANNING & ZONING MEETING THAT THE LANDS THEMSELVES WERE MARGINAL CITRUS LAND. THIS WAS REFUTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THE REZONING, WHO STATED THAT THE LAND BELONGING TO MR. GLENN IS SOME OF THE BEST IN THE COUNTY AND IT SHOULD NOT BE COMPROMISED. MR. COOKSEY THEN PRESENTED AND READ ALOUD THE FOLLOWING LETTERS FROM.PROMINENT LOCAL CITRUSMEN, ALL STATING THAT THE GLENN GROVE IS MARGINAL OR SUB -MARGINAL CITRUS LAND AND DEFINITELY NOT PRIME CITRUS SOIL AND SHOULD NOT BE REPLANTED. ]EGAN, ]Fi CK ETT & COMPANY 1900 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 33450 April 21, 1980 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I have handled fruit for Billy Glenn on his 100 -acre grove located at Cherry Lane and Barber Avenue, Vero Beach. I was very surprised recently to see that his request for re -zoning of this property was denied and that the decision was that this property should be maintained as citrus acreage. 4 This grove is, at best, a marginal grove and in my opinion, cannot be rehabilitated. The condition of this grove and the fact that much of the surrounding area has been re- zoned for development indicates, to me, that this property should not be denied re -zoning. 97 Bernard A. `Egan, Presietent CORP.CITRUS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: BOOK 43 PAGE 352 Telephone (305) 562-3139 (305) 567-3106 P. O. BOX 880 * Vero Beach, Florida 32960 April 222 1980 I have looked at Bill Glenn's citrus planting, located East of Lateral "A" and North of Cherry Lane and it is my decision that the planting is sub -marginal and is not capable of returning a profit to the grower. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the soil is not of the type that would warrant replanting; especially in these times of escalating labor and production costs. G orge H. Stre tman General Manager GHS: ptb To Whom It May Concern: April 22, 1980 In regards to the Bill and Helen Glenn property on Cherry Lane and Barber Avenue that is currently up for re -zoning, I would like to state that in my opinion, this property is too "close in" to residential areas to be replanted to a citrus grove. The soil is marginal citrus soil and would not be feasible to replant to citrus when the property is only one mile from the city limits of Vero Beach, and adjacent to R-1 property. C. Reed Knight, President 4 P.O. Box 6310 Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 Phone 562-4612 C. Reed Knight, President APR 2 3 1980ooK Pf 353 APR 2 31980 Buena Vista Groves Custom Citrus Services 2125 Buena Vista Blvd. Vero Beach, Florida 32960 April 22, 1980 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I have looked at Bill Glenn's citrus planting, located East of Lateral "A" and North of Cherry Lane and it is my decision that the planting is sub -marginal and is not capable of returning a profit to the grower. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the soil is not of the type that would warrant replanting; especially in these times of escalating labor and production costs. D vid E. G�unter---�� Citrus Grower DEG:ptb BOOK 43 PAGE 354 FERTILIZER C., INC. P.O. BOX 1137, WINTER GARDEN, FLORIDA 32787 P. 0. BOX 938, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 33450 PHONE 305 - 656-3007 PHONE 305 - 464-7237 APRIL 21, 1980 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: BEING FAMILIAR WITH BILL GLENNS OLD CITRUS - EAST OF LATERAL 8 IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY- WHOEVER CLAIMS THIS SOIL TO BE PRIME CITRUS SOIL ISN'T FAMILIAR WITH THE PRIME HAMMOCK SOILS OF FLORIDA. CITRUS CAN BE GROWN ON MOST SOILS- DOING. IT'S BEST ON THE BETTER SOILS. IN BILL GLENNS CASE LEMON ROOTSTOCK WAS USED INDICATING A POOR SANDY TYPE SOIL. WABASSO FINE SAND IS NOT A PRIME CITRUS SOIL. SI CERELY, LOUIS C. FORGET CITRUS SPECIALIST BSA -'49 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA DIAMOND R FERTILIZER CO. LCF/GD FERTILIZERS < PESTICIDES Suhsidiary Of Pioneer Ag—Chem, Inc. 4 "sflt# 4 3Fxr 5 APP 2 31980 Boo; 43 - pAcE'5% r MR. COOKSEY HOPED THESE LETTERS WOULD PUT TO REST THE PROB- LEM OF WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD WOULD BE DESTROYING A PRIME PIECE OF CITRUS LAND BY REZONING THE GLENN PROPERTY. HE AGREED THAT NO ONE WANTS TO DESTROY AGRICULTURE, AND THEN QUOTED FIGURES FROM THE 1972_ADLEY LAND USE REPORT, WHICH STATED THAT APPROXIMATELY 24%,500 ACRES, OR 3/4 OF THE LAND IN THE COUNTY, WERE DEVOTED TO AGRICULTURE WHEREAS ONLY 18,400 SOME ACRES, COMPRISING A MERE 5.7% OF THE LAND AREA IN THE_COUNTY, WERE DEVELOPED IN AN URBANIZED SENSE. HE RE- ITERATED THAT WHILE THE POPULATION HAS BEEN INCREASING, THE CITRUS ACREAGE ALSO HAS BEEN INCREASING. SUBDIVISIONS ARE A NECESSITY FOR PEOPLE, AND THE GLENNS WISH TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY TO A DEVELOPER TO PUT IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OF A HIGH CLASS NATURE TO DEVELOP THE LAND IN ITS HIGHEST AND BEST_USE. ATTORNEY COOKSEY THEN REVIEWED THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.- NOTING OUNTY, NOTING THAT WHEN MRS. GLENN'S UNCLE, CHARLIE HARRIS, AND THE HALLSTROMS MOVED HERE, THE PRIME CITRUS WAS GROWN ALONG THE RAILROAD: THEN HERMAN ZEUCH OPENED UP INDIAN RIVER FARMS: WHEN MR. COOKSEY'S FAMILY CAME DOWN IN 1911, THE RIDGE GROVES WENT: AND JUST IN THE 50'S AND 60'S, FRED TUERK CAME ON THE SCENE, BOUGHT THE ADRIANA RANCH, AND SET UP ST, JOHN'S DRAINAGE DISTRICT, WHERE THE CITRUS ACREAGE IS NOW MOVING BECAUSE YOU CAN GET A TRACT OF LAND LARGE ENOUGH TO MAKE IT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. ATTORNEY COOKSEY FELT IT IS CLEAR THAT WE HAVE A METAMORPHOSIS TAKING PLACE: THE GLENN ACREAGE LIES IN AN AREA THAT IS IN THE PATTERN OF GROWTH: AND HE COULD SEE NO REASON WHY THIS LAND SHOULD NOT BE REZONED AND WHY THE CITRUS LINE, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE MINUTES, WAS SET FROM AN AERIAL PHOTO, SHOULD NOT BE PULLED BACK. SENIOR PLANNER DAVID MARSH FELT THERE ARE SOME POINTS THAT NEED TO BE CLARIFIED. IN REGARD TO MR. COOKSEY'S MENTION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S REFERENCE TO THIS AREA AS A POSSIBLE TRANSITION ZONE AND SUITABLE FOR R-lE, MR. MARSH NOTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, AND THEY DO BELIEVE THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT THIS WOULD BE AN AREA OF TRANSITION: HOWEVER, THE ORIGINAL STAFF WAS NOT COGNIZANT OF ANY PRESSING NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA AND THEY HAVE NOT SEEN ANY OTHER ACTIVITY. MR. MARSH NOTED THAT MUCH EMPHASIS HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE PRIMARY CITRUS, AND THE STAFF DOES FEEL IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE COUNTY RESERVE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE FUTURE. THEY ALSO FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT IT WILL BE CRITICAL TO TRY AND DEFINE A CITRUS LINE SUCH AS WE HAVE NOW, PERHAPS SLIGHTLY VARIED, IN ORDER TO CONTAIN URBAN SPRAWL BECAUSE IF YOU ALLOW URBAN SPRAWL, YOUR TAX COSTS SKY ROCKET. MR. MARSH BELIEVED THAT THE CITRUS LINE WAS ESTABLISHED BOTH BY EXTENSIVE FIELD INSPEC- TION AND AERIAL PHOTOS, AND FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ACREAGE NUMBERS REFERRED TO FROM THE ADLEY REPORT WERE FOR LAND ACTUALLY IN USE.- NOT SE.NOT ZONING. THE ADLEY REPORT DETERMINED THAT 32,000 ACRES OF LAND WERE ZONED RESIDENTIAL, OF WHICH 3,000 SOME ACRES WERE DEVELOPED. HEARD. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE RAY SCENT, REALTOR, STATED THAT HE WAS A PART OF THE DEVEL- OPMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AS WERE MANY REALTORS, AND IT WORRIED HIM,WHEN THEY STARTED COLORING IN THE MAP,THAT THERE WERE NO SHADED AREAS. HE ALSO QUESTIONED THAT FACT THAT THE TERM "HOLDING ZONE" WAS NOT DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE AND, THEREFORE, ACTUALLY WAS INVALID, BUT CONTINUED THAT THEY WERE ASSURED WE HAD AN AGRICULTURAL HOLDING ZONE WHICH IN THE FUTURE COULD BE REZONED TO OTHER CLASSI- FICATIONS AS THE NEED AROSE. MR. SCENT STATED THAT HE OBJECTED TO THE ARBITRARY DRAWING OF THE "MAGIC" PRIMARY CITRUS LINE, AND HE FELT THE GLENN PROPERTY SHOULD BE REZONED TO R -IAA. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LOY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER DEESON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 80-20 GRANTING THE REZONING TO R -IAA AS REQUESTED BY WILLIAM AND HELEN GLENN FOR THR REASONS THAT THE R -IAA CLASSIFICATION IS A MUCH HIGHER ZONING THAN THE ADJOINING PROPERTY AND THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING ALWAYS HAS BEEN LOOKED ON BY THIS BOARD AS A HOLDING ZONE. COMMISSIONER Loy COMMENTED THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN HAS BEEN USED BY THIS BOARD EVER SINCE IT WAS ADOPTED STRICTLY AS A PLAN, AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE THAT PLAN AS WE HAVE REQUESTS AND DEMONSTRATED NEEDS IN FRONT OF US. SHE BELIEVED THAT THE REZONING OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AS SUBMITTED AND PRE- SENTED IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COUNTY. APR 2 31980 103 51 a. �A� : r .APR 2 31900 anox 43 PACE 358 COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION ON THE BASIS THAT WE DONT NEED ANY ADDITIONAL R-1 PROPERTY: ALSO, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WEST OF THE LINE DRAWN ON THE LAND USE MAP FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE, AND HE FELT YOU CAN BE FLEXIBLE TO THE POINT WHERE THE MASTER PLAN BECOMES MEANINGLESS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION. HE BELIEVED THE PRESENTATION MADE BY ATTORNEY COOKSEY IS THE BEST THE BOARD HAS EVER HEARD IN REGARD TO POINTING OUT THE REASONS FOR PUTTING PROPERTY IN A HOLDING ZONE, AND HE CONCURRED THAT THE PRINCIPAL REASON THIS PROPERTY WAS PUT IN A HOLDING ZONE WAS SO THAT WHEN IT WAS -NOT USABLE FOR AGRICULTURE, IT COULD BE CHANGED. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONER LYONS VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 104 ORDINANCE N0. 80-20 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Tracts 17, 18 and 19, in the South half of Section 29, Township 32 South, Range 39 East; Tract 4, the East 9 acres of the West 18.62 acres of Tract 5, the East 20 acres of Tract 5, all in Section 32, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida Be changed from A-Agricultural.District to R-1AA Single Family District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. This Ordinance shall take effect April 28, 1980. APR 2 319 _ Sao 4 �� E -APR 2 31980 Boor. 43 PAGE000 CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ANNOUNCED THAT DOUG SCURLOCK, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND CITY COUNCILMAN DAVID GREGG WERE PRESENT TO DISCUSS THE FORMATION OF A SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT. COMMISSIONER WODTKE COMMENTED THAT SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT HAS BEEN AGREED UPON, IT IS IM- PORTANT TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS BEFORE BUDGET SESSIONS ON HOW TO APPROACH THE FUNDING OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY. IN DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED THAT WE NEED TO GET THE NORTH COUNTY DISTRICT OUT OF THE MUNICIPAL FIRE SERVICE TAXING DISTRICT, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY AMENDING THE ORDINANCE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT REQUESTED THAT THE ATTORNEY DRAFT SUCH AN AMENDMENT. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN REREADING THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY OUR CONSULTANTS SOME TIME AGO IN REGARD TO FIRE DISTRICTS AND BELIEVED WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM TO FORMULATE A PLAN FOR A DISTRICT IN THE SOUTH COUNTY. ALTHOUGH HE HOPED WE CAN WORK IN COOPERATION WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES TO SET UP SUCH A DISTRICT, COMMIS- SIONER WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MUNICIPALITIES DECIDE, THE COUNTY MUST BE PREPARED WITH A PLAN OF ACTION, AND IF IT SHOULD HAVE TO BE A DISTRICT IN WHICH ONLY THE COUNTY PARTICIPATES, WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS IN REGARD TO FACILITIES TO BE BUILT AND EQUIPMENT TO BE PURCHASED, ALL TO GO INTO OPERATION BY OCTOBER 1ST. HE FELT REGARDLESS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DISTRICT, FIRE INSUR- ANCE RATES WOULD NOT CHANGE IN THE COUNTY. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT AGREED WE WOULD BE DERELICT IN OUR RE- SPONSIBILITIES IF WE DID NOT AT LEAST RECOGNIZE THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A DISTRICT IN THE SOUTH COUNTY WHICH WILL INCLUDE ONE OR MORE OF THE MUNICIPALITIES, BUT HE EMPHA- SIZED THAT HE CONSIDERS THIS A LAST RESORT AND DOES NOT BELIEVE IT IS THE WAY WE SHOULD GO. COMMISSIONER LYONS INQUIRED WHEN THE COUNTY LAST HAD ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES ON THIS MATTER, AND CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT WE HAD HIRED CON- SULTANTS TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED AT A MEETING WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES, AND HE HAD BELIEVED IF THE PLAN WAS UNSATISFAC- TORY TO THE CITY, THEY WERE GOING TO COME BACK WITH AN ALTERNATIVE. HE FELT IT WOULD BE DOING AN INJUSTICE TO THE COMMUNITY TO SAY THAT ONE GROUP OR ANOTHER DROPPED THE BALL, BUT SO FAR WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN BACK TOGETHER. THE CHAIRMAN CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD BE VERY WILLING TO LISTEN TO ANY ALTERNATIVE THAT WAS PRESENTED WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE WHOLE CITY COUNCIL. MAYOR SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT THE COUNTY'S CONSULTANTS, SOUTHERN, KELTON & ASSOCIATES, DELIVERED THEIR REPORT IN MARCH OF 1979, AND THE CITY DID RESPOND: THE PLAN WAS NOT TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE, AND THERE WERE CHANGES. HE STATED THAT THEY WERE GIVEN THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE WAS A GREAT POSSIBILITY OF ADDRESSING THE NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT QUICKLY, AND ONCE THAT PRIORITY WAS DEALT WITH, WE WOULD GET BACK TO WORK ON THE SOUTH COUNTY DISTRICT. MAYOR SCURLOCK INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE AND CITY COUNCILMAN GREGG HAVE MET WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO DEVELOP SOME INITIAL FIGURES IN RESPONSE TO THE SOUTHERN KELTON STUDY, AND THEY FEEL THAT THE ORIGINAL COMMITTEE SHOULD BE RECONVENED AND REVIEW THE FIGURES THEY HAVE COME UP WITH IN TERMS OF MILLAGE TO GO INTO A SOUTH COUNTY DISTRICT,WITH OR WITHOUT THE CITY. HE PERSONALLY FELT THAT A UNIFIED SOUTH COUNTY DISTRICT WAS THE BEST ANSWER, EVEN IF THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES DID NOT WISH TO'PARTICIPATE. MR. SCURLOCK REITERATED THAT THE WHOLE ISSUE SHOULD BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE COMMITTEE, AND HE ALSO NOTED THAT A GREATER PARTICIPATION BY BOTH THE VOLUNTEER AND PAID FIREMAN WAS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE HAD PROBLEMS WITH USING THE COMMITTEE AND WOULD PREFER THAT THEY TAKE WHAT THEY LIKE OUT OF THE SOUTHERN KELTON STUDY: ADD WHATEVER THEY WISH TO'TIT: PRESENT IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND GET THEIR CONSENSUS. THEY CHAIRMAN FELT IN THAT WAY, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEFINE THE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY AND THEN GET BACK TOGETHER. COMMISSIONER WODTKE CONCURRED. MAYOR SCURLOCK STATED THAT IF THAT IS WHAT THE COMMISSION DESIRES, IT CAN BE APPROACHED IN THAT MANNER. HE FELT QUITE FRANKLY THERE IS"SOMEWHAT OF A LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE ENTITIES. 107 APR 2 31990 o -m 4T' -h4: . APR 2 31990 Boa 43 -pnc' 362 THE MAYOR POINTED OUT THAT THEY DON T KNOW WHATA NDIAN RIVER SHORES WILL DO AND WHAT THE COMMISSION REALLY WANTS, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM COMING UP WITH A PROPOSAL, THOUGH IT WOULD BE SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE OTHER PARTIES. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT FELT POSSIBLY THAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY. COUNCILMAN GREGG WAS VERY PLEASED WITH THE IDEA OF THE TAXING DISTRICT IN ORDER TO GET AWAY FROM DUAL TAXATION, AND HE FELT THE BOARD. WILL HAVE A GREAT DEAL.OF SUPPORT IF THAT IS THEIR INTEN- TION. HE NOTED THAT A WEST COUNTY DISTRICT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED ALSO, AND CHAIRMAN SIEBERT AGREED THAT SUCH A DISTRICT IS NEEDED. COUNCILMAN GREGG DID NOT AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER YODTKE THAT THE FIRE DISTRICT WILL NOT RECEIVE THE BENEFIT OF IMPROVED INSURANCE .RATINGS SINCE THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL ADVANTAGES ACCRUING TO THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. HE NOTED THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE AND URGED THAT THE COMMITTEE BE UTILIZED. COMMISSIONER LYONS COMMENTED THAT THE CITY OF VERO REACH APPARENTLY HAS SEVERAL PROPOSALS THEY WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER, AND HE FELT THAT WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THEM, BUT CHAIRMAN SIEBERT EMPHASIZED THAT IT IS MAYOR SCURLOCK, COUNCILMAN GREGG AND CITY MANAGER LITTLE WHO HAVE COME UP WITH THE PROPOSALS, NOT THE CITY COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN GREGG STATED THAT THERE IS NO WAY THE COUNCIL CAN APPROVE A PLAN UNTIL THEY KNOW THE LONG RANGE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMISSION, AND IF THE BOARD WILL DEFINE THEIR OBJECTIVES, THEN THEY CAN REPLY TO THEM. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT SUGGESTED THAT THEY USE THE SOUTHERN KELTON REPORT FOR WHICH WE PAID $13,000. MAYOR SCURLOCK ASKED IF IT STILL IS THE BOARDS POSITION THAT THAT DOCUMENT IS ACCEPTABLE IN ITS PRESENT FORM WITHOUT ANY CHANGES. COMMISSIONER WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT THE REPORT DOES NOT COME UP WITH A SPECIFIC ANSWER, BUT PRESENTS VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES. HE FELT WITH THIS REPORT AS A BASE, THE CITY CAN COME UP WITH SOME- THING SPECIFIC, I.E., WHAT STATION THEY DO OR DO NOT WANT, ETC. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE THREE OPTIONS PRESENTED IN THE STUDY WERE A VERY GOOD APPROACH: ALTHOUGH, HE NOTED IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT CLOSING THE DOWNTOWN STATION. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE CITY IS THE FIRE PROTECTION EXPERT AND REQUESTED THAT THEY REVIEW THE REPORT AND TELL US WHAT IS WRONG FROM A PROFESSIONAL STANDPOINT, AND WE WILL KEEP A TOTALLY OPEN MIND. COMMISSIONER LYONS URGED THAT WHILE WE HAVE COME THIS FAR AND ARE TOGETHER, WE KEEP ON MOVING AND NOT LET ANYONE FEEL THEY HAVE BEEN REBUFFED. COUNCILMAN GREGG STATED THAT HE WILL FORGET THE COMMITTEE IF THAT IS WHAT THE BOARD DESIRES. HE SUGGESTED THAT A COUNTY COM- MISSIONER SIT IN WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT MAYOR PROLAN BE INVITED, AND THEY ALL GET DOWN TO NUTS AND BOLTS AND LET EACH BODY KNOW WHAT THE OTHERS PROBLEMS ARE. HE FELT IN THIS WAY WE CAN COME TO A SOLUTION WITHIN SIX WEEKS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT OFFERED TO SIT IN WITH THE CITY. A FIREMAN WHO WAS PRESENT URGED THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL REMEMBER THAT THEY HAVE DEDICATED PAID AND VOLUNTEER FIREMEN WHO HAVEA DEEP INTEREST IN THIS MATTER. HE EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR A UNIFIED DISTRICT. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT WE NEED TO AUTHORIZE USING SOUTHERN KELTON UNDER THEIR EXISTING CONTRACT, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE IS ENCOURAGED BY WHAT HE HAS HEARD, AND IF THAT WILL HELP BRING'ABOUT A SOLUTION, HE WOULD AGREE TO IT. COUNCILMAN GREGG COMMENTED THAT THE TAXING DISTRICT WHICH THE COUNTY WAS CONTEMPLATING OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CITY OR THE. TOWN BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO REFERENDUM TO BE INCLUDED.- BUT NCLUDED, BUT HE ASSUMED THEY COULD JOIN UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE IDEAL SITUATION APPARENTLY WOULD BE FOR THE CITY, TOWN AND COUNTY ALL TO JOIN TQGETHER, AND IF THAT WERE TO BETHE CASE, THE DISTRICT WOULD BE SET UP AFTER REFER- ENDUM. IF THE COUNTY SET UP THE DISTRICT ON ITS OWN, THEN THE CITY COULD NOT JOIN, BUT WE COULD HAVE CONTRACTS BACK AND FORTH, CHAIRMAN SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT UTOPIA WOULD BE FOR ALL TO AGREE AND BE IN ON THE BALLOT, BUT HE WAS NOT OPTIMISTIC THAT THERE WOULD BE A THREE-WAY AGREEMENT BY OCTOBER. 109 APR 2 31980 wx 43 PAGE 364 RAY SCENT SPOKE AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN OF THE SOUTH COUNTY AREA AND NOTED THAT THE NORTH COUNTY, WHICH CONSISTS.OF FELLSMERE. SEBASTIAN, ETC., HAS AN IDENTITY, BUT THE SOUTH COUNTY DOES NOT. HE DID NOT FEEL WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT NORTH AND SOUTH BECAUSE VERO BEACH AND INDIAN RIVER SHORES ARE NOT THE SOUTH COUNTY: THEY ARE THE CENTRAL COUNTY. HE CONTINUED THAT THE SOUTH COUNTY HAS MUSHROOMED: WE ARE GETTING READY TO PUT A SCHOOL THERE: AND HE FELT THE COUNTY SHOULD BLTE THE BULLET AND PUT IN A FIRE STATION FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGARDLESS OF WHAT VERO BEACH AND INDIAN RIVER SHORES WANT. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT IT HAS BEEN AGREED THAT IF WE CAN DO IT TOGETHER, WE ARE A LOT BETTER OFF THAN DOING IT SEPARATELY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL WORK FOR SOUTHERN KELTON & ASSOCIATES AS OUTLINED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE IN ORDER TO GET INTO DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH -AND TO PREPARE US FOR BUDGET SESSION IN CASE WE DO NOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE SETTING UP A WEST COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED ABOUT THE PROBLEM WITH THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES,'AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE WILL COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION AT THE TIME THE WEST COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICT HEARING IS HELD. CHAIRMAN.SIEBERT STATED THAT HE FAVORS NOTIFYING INDIAN RIVER SHORES THAT WE ARE GOING TO EXERCISE OUR OPTION RE THE CON- TRACTUAL AGREEMENT BECAUSE WE CANNOT GET ANY KIND OF A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITHOUT TAKING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED: AND WE MUST FIND OUT IF WE HAVE A VALID CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE OUR POSITION. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THE BID COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT BID #39 ON THE COMBINATION BACKHOE AND TRENCHER FOR THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT BE AWARDED TO THE LOW BIDDER, CASE POWER & EQUIPMENT CO. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BID COMMITTEE AND ACCEPTED THE BID OF CASE POWER & EQUIPMENT CO. FOR A COMBINATION BACKHOE AND TRENCHER WITH ACCESSORIES AND TRAILER, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS,IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,321.59. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT 6:00 O'CLOCK P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 1:00 O'CLOCK P.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1980, WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT REED KNIGHT AND VICTOR KNIGHT, JR., HAD VISITED WITH ALEX SENKOVITCH OF THE DE- PARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AS INTERESTED CITIZENS AND HAD DISCUSSED THE PROBLEMS THE COUNTY HAS BEEN HAVING WITH THE PERMITTING TO HAVE INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD EXTENDED. BOTH THE KNIGHTS AND MR. SENKOVITCH SEEMED TO BE ENCOURAGED BY THE MEETING, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT HE WAS PREPARING A PACKET TO SEND REYNOLDS, SMITH & HILLS THAT HE HOPED WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THEM FOR THEIR PERMITTING INFORMATION. MR. SENKOVITCH HAS REQUESTED THAT ANYONE FROM REYNOLDS, SMITH& HILLS GO DIRECTLY TO HIM. THE CHAIRMAN ANNOUNCED THAT THE NEXT ITEM TO BE TAKEN UP WOULD BE THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER TAXING DISTRICT. ENGINEER BEINDORF PRESENTED AN AERIAL PHOTO OF THE LANDS THEY ARE CONSIDERING FOR LOCATION OF THE TREATMENT PLANT AND RE- VIEWED THEIR PROBLEMS AND PROGRESS IN FINDING A SUITABLE SITE. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY HAVE MADE PERSONAL CONTACT WITH A MAJORITY OF THE LARGER OWNERS WITHIN THE TAXING DISTRICT, BUT SO FAR THEY ARE NOT FINDING A WILLING SELLER. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY WERE RUNNING INTO STIFF OPPOSITION TO A 30 - 40 ACRE -,TRACT, AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT A 20 ACRE SITE WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH OF A MINIMUM TO ALLOW FOR EXPANSION. MR. BEINDORF REPORTED THAT MR. ANSIN OWNS ABOUT 400 ACRES IN, THIS AREA, BUT APPARENTLY HE -IS IN A SITUATION WHERE SELLING PROPERTY WOULD PUT HIM IN AN AWKWARD TAX POSITION. HE NOTED THAT MR. ANSIN IS AWARE THAT THE COUNTY HAS THE RIGHT OF CONDEMNATION, BUT IT WAS NOT DISCUSSED. MR. ROUNDTREE 111 ��A qmE �u.5 . APR 2 31980 mot 43 PAGE26 HAS APPROXIMATELY 15 ACRES HE USES AS A CITRUS NURSERY, AND HE WAS NOT INTERESTED. MR. BEINDORF CONTINUED TO DISCUSS VARIOUS ALTERNA- TIVES, NOTING THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO THE CENTER OF SOME- ONE I S OMEONES PROPERTY AND ALSO WOULD PREFER NOT TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH A NUMBER OF SMALL OWNERS. TO AVOID THE COMMERCIAL AREA, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO FURTHER AWAY FROM OSLO, HE EXPLAINED THAT IN ORDER TO TAKE A PARCEL WITHOUT DOING AS MUCH DAMAGE AS YOU WOULD TO A SMALLER LAND OWNER, IT ALL LEADS BACK TO THE ANSIN PROPERTY. MR. REINDORF STATED THAT HE DID TALK TO MR. ANSIN ABOUT WELLS; HE WAS NOT OPPOSED AND MIGHT EVEN DONATE SOME PROPERTY FOR THAT PURPOSE, BUT HE DID NOT WANT TO SELL IT. ENGINEER BEINDORF SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD GET THE ATTORNEY TO MAKE A FIRM CONTACT WITH MR. ANSIN. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF THERE IS ANY WAY WE COULD OFFER ARRANGMENTS THAT MIGHT FIT IN WITH MR. ANSIN FROM A TAX STANDPOINT.- AND TANDPOINT,AND THE ATTORNEY FELT THIS COULD BE DISCUSSED. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE COUNTY OWNS 15 ACRES IN THIS AREA.- BUT REA, BUT THIS IS TOO SMALL A SITE AND IT ALREADY HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR A SCHOOL SITE. MR. ENG INFORMED THE BOARD THAT, AS A BARE MINIMUM, 17 ACRES MIGHT ACCOMMODATE THE PLANT WITH SOME ROOM FOR ADDITIONAL EXPANSION, BUT 15 ACRES WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT. ENGINEER BEINDORF NOTED THAT THERE IS GOOD ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY HE WAS DISCUSSING, AND THEY HAVE TRIED TO LOOK AT ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS, FURTHER CONVERSATION ENSUED ON AVOIDING THE COMMERCIAL AREAS. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT STRONGLY THAT WE MUST GET ADEQUATE PROPERTY BECAUSE THIS SHOULD BE A HEADQUARTERS FO.R PUBLIC WORKS, POSSIBLY EVEN A FIRE STATION, AND WE WILL NEED TO EXPAND AS TIME GOES ON. HE POINTED OUT THAT ACTUALLY 30 ACRES IS A VERY SMALL PART OF THE WHOLE PROPERTY, AND SINCE THERE WILL BE A PROBLEM IN OBTAINING IT, HE FELT WE SHOULD GET IT ALL OVER WITH AT ONCE. MR. ENG POINTED OUT THAT THEY ARE NOT PLANNING ANY STRUCTURE IN THE FIRST 200', AND YOU COULD PUT A FIRE STATION IN THE FRONT. � 112 _ m m DISCUSSION CONTINUED, AND IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THAT WE NEED ENOUGH LAND TO SERVE SEVERAL ACTIVITIES AND MUST THINK IN TERMS OF 25 TO 30 ACRES. MR. ENG NOTED THAT 27 ACRES WOULD SQUARE IT OFF, BUT HE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE 30 ACRES, IF WE CAN OBTAIN THEM. DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES AND ACCESS POINTS, ETC., SUCH AS THE PENLAND PROPERTY. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CONDEMN A STRAIGHT PIECE, AND YOU COULD HAVE AN EXTRA PIECE FOR AN ACCESS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT FELT THAT MR. ANSIN MAY HAVE A PREFERENCE, AND WE SHOULD LET HIM HAVE AN OPTION IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE HIS LAND. MR. ENG COMMENTED THAT A CERTIFIED APPRAISAL WILL BE NEEDED. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD.UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO PROCEED WITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE ANSINS AND PENLANDS TO SECURE A MINIMUM OF 30 ACRES OR A MAXIMUM OF 40 ACRES FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER DISTRICT TREATMENT PLANT: AUTHORIZED THE NECESSARY APPRAISAL: AND AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO PROCEED WITH CONDEMNATION, IF NECESSARY. ATTORNEY COLLINS BROUGHT UP THE NEED TO DISCUSS FUNDS TO PAY FOR THE PROPERTY, AND MR. ENG NOTED THAT THEY HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CONTINGENCY IN THE BUDGET, BUT STATED THAT THE COUNTY WILL HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF INTERIM FINANCING PRIOR TO THE FMHA MONEY BECOMING AVAILABLE. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT MR. TESSIER WANTS TO START THE WELL DRILLING PROGRAM ABOUT JUNE 1ST, AND THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE ACQUIRED SO HE CAN BEGIN THE IMPROVEMENTS. MR. ENG COMMENTED THAT, BASED ON FMHA REQUIREMENTS, THE LAND DOESNIT HAVE TO BE PURCHASED UNTIL YOU GO TO CONSTRUCTION, BUT WE HAVE TO GET ON THE PROPERTY TO DO THE TEST WELL PROGRAM. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IF YOU CONDEMN THE LAND, YOU HAVE TO PURCHASE AND YOU ARE COMMITTED TO YOUR INVEST- MENT, BUT MR. TESSIER AND MR. ENG BOTH BELIEVE THE LAND IS SUITABLE 113 • 43 PAGE 368 AND THAT THE TEST WELL WILL BE PRODUCTIVE;SO,WE HAVE THE ASSURANCES TO GO AHEAD WITH THE PURCHASE. HE CONTINUED THAT HE AND MR. ENG -NEED TO WORK WITH FMHA RE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES AND INTERIM FINANCING. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, -THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY AND CONSULTANT ENGINEER TO WORK TOGETHER ON THE FINANCING FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER TAXING DISTRICT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ENGINEER RALPH ENG THEN DISCUSSED HIS LETTER OF APRIL 15, 1980, WHICH REVIEWS THE DATA SUBMITTED BY GERAGHTY R MILLER ON THE TEST WELL PROGRAM AND MAKES A RECOMMENDATION AS FOLLOWS: 114 ® SVERDRUP & PWAND ASSOCIATES, INC. AND BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (A JOINT VENTURE) Mr. Jack G. Jennings County Administrator Indian River County County Courthouse, Room 115 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 April 15, 1980 Project No. 6674 Subject: Engineer's Job No. 6674 Additional Services - Indian River County South County Water System Improvements - Test Well Program Dear Mr. Jennings: We have reviewed the data submitted by Mr. Tom Tessier, Geraghty & Miller, Inc., and presented at the Commission Meeting on April 9, 1980. We have reduced the data to a summary form and are presenting our recommendations below. Please note that three production water supply wells with 12 inches diameter casing are required for the Phase I Water System Improve- ments. SUMMARY 1. We concur that the designated Type I (production well with monitory tube) is too costly and required complex construction requirements. Therefore, should not be considered. 2. We concur that since no existing well is located in the vicinity of the prospective well sites, Geraghty & Miller's "Scenario I - using an existing well to serve as an observation well" should not be considered. 3. Based on the best up-to-date estimates of various types of well construction presented by Geraghty & Miller, the following cost evaluations are presented (based on the median estimated cost). Alternative No. 1 Alternative No. 2 (G&M Scenario II) (G&M Scenario III) Items 1. Type II -Production Well (12") 2: Type III -Observation Well (4") 3. Type IV -Monitoring Well (2") 4. Test Pumping Subtotal - Complete Test Well Program 5. Addition Two - Type II Production Well @ $50,000 Each Estimated Estimated Cost Items Cost 1. Type II -Production $ 53,500 $ 53,500 Well (12") 2. Type II -Production 19,500 Well (12") used as Observation Well 4 32,100 6,000 $111,100 100,000* 3. Type IV -Monitoring Well (2") 4. Test Pumping 53,500 32,100 6,000 Subtotal - Complete Test Well Program $145,000 5. Addition One - Type II Production Well 501000* Total Test Well Pro- Total Test Well Pro- gram and Three Pro- gram and Three Pro- duction Wells $211,100 duction Wells $195,000 *Additional well(s) to meet total of three required. 319 �� ono " Fac . nn APR 2 0, LZ APP 2 31980 FoaK: 43 FAA70 Please note that, as presented in the Geraghty & Miller's summary, Alternate No. 1 (Scenario II) is less costly than Alternate No. 2 (Scenario III) for the testing program. The final requirements are three production wells for the Phase I construction program. Therefore, potential saving for Alternative No. 2 program is about $16,100 plus additional inflation cost if the remaining (second and/or third) production well is to be constructed in mid -year 1981. We are recommending that the County proceed with the test program based on Alternative No. 2 (Geraghty & Miller's Scenario III) utilizing a production well for an observation well and constructing the third production well during the last part of the te9t well program. We will present the above and other findings and recommendations in cdnjunction with the Test Well Program to the Commission on April 23, 1980. Please call if you have any -questions. Sincerely, Ralph E.`Eng, P.E. For the Joint Venture COMMISSIONER WODTKE INQUIRED ABOUT THE DEPTH OF THE OBSERVA- TION WELL, AND MR. TESSIER EXPLAINED THAT THE TYPE 3 OBSERVATION WELL IS THE SAME DEPTH AS THE PRODUCTION WELL. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT IT IS SO COSTLY IS THAT THE CASING HAS TO BE CEMENTED ALL THE WAY BACK UP TO THE LAND SURFACE,AND SO IT IS ABOUT TWICE WHAT YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR A REGULAR IRRIGATION WELL. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS ASKED IF THAT MONEY IS RECOVERABLE WHEN WE HAVE THE GRANT, AND MR. ENG STATED THAT IT IS: ALL OF THIS IS ALLOCATED IN THE BUDGET, INCLUDING THE ENGINEERING. COMMISSIONER LYONS INQUIRED WHETHER THE TEST WELL PROGRAM WAS BEING CONDUCTED FOR US OR FOR THE ST. .JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. MR. ENG EXPLAINED THAT IT IS ABOUT 20% FOR US AND 80% RE- QUIRED BY THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. WE NEED TO DETERMINE WHAT IS A SAFE PUMPING RATE FROM THESE WELLS AND THE QUANTITY OF FLOW WE CAN OBTAIN: ALL THE TECHNICAL DATA IS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE CONSUMP- TIVE USE PERMIT FROM THE WATER DISTRICT. 116 MR. ENG CONTINUED THAT GERAGHTY & MILLER HAS PREPARED A SET OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OUTLINING THE TEST WELL PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE ITEMS TO BE BID UPON. HE HAS REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS, AND THEY ARE IN ORDER EXCEPT FOR A FEW MINOR CORRECTIONS. THE ENGINEERS ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNTY PROCEED WITH AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ENGINEERS TO COORDINATE A BID DATE WITH THE ATTORNEY AS TO WHEN THEY CAN GO ON THE SITE. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED WHETHER IT IS TYPICAL.IN THE DRILLING BUSINESS TO HOLD BACK SUBSTANTIAL MONIES UNTIL COMPLETION. HE NOTED THAT, ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT, THEY ARE HOLDING BACK 40%. MR. TESSIER POINTED OUT THAT YOU DONT HAVE A WELL UNTIL THE WHOLE THING IS COMPLETED, AND THIS IS TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO PRO— CEED. HE STATED THAT 60% IS NOT UNCOMMON IN LARGER CONTRACTS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF HE FELT THIS WILL DETER BIDDING OR CAUSE US TO HAVE A HIGHER BID, AND MR. ENG DID NOT THINK SO BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD SHOULD BE VERY -SHORT. MR. TESSIER CONCURRED. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT QUESTIONED IF WE WOULD BE SAFE TO GO WITH 75% INSTEAD OF WITHHOLDING 40%, AND MR. TESSIER FELT IT WOULD BE ALL RIGHT AND THAT THE COUNTY STILL WOULD BE PROTECTED. THE BOARD AGREED WE SHOULD GO WITH 757, AND RETAIN 25% INSTEAD OF Lo%. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE HAS REVIEWED THE PACKAGE AND FELT THAT MR. TESSIER HAS DONE A NICE JOB. MR. ENG COMMENTED THAT ONE THING WILL BE DELETED — THE STANDARD FMHA CONTRACT AT THAT TIME REQUIREDA MINIMUM WAGE STATEMENT, BUT THAT HAS BEEN DELETED AND LEFT OPEN SHOP. HE NOTED THAT THEY NEED THE ADMINISTRATORS SIGNATURE ON THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT, THE WELL PERMIT. AND THE LETTER OF WAIVER TO THE DER MR. TESSIER STATED THAT HE CONTACTED THE ST. JOHNS RIVER. WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO ASK HOW WE COULD PROCEED WITH THE PROGRAM AND GET WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND WAS INSTRUCTED THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD FILE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND A LETTER REQUESTING THAT THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 1U APR 2 31990 @DOK 41 fAcEt 7 . r' -APR 2 31980 poi 43 pAcE372 WAIVE THE DRILLER S SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT THROUGH THE BIDDING PROCESS, WITH THE DRILLER TO BE DETERMINED AS A RESULT OF THE BIDDING PROCESS. THEY ALSO ASKED THAT WE SUBMIT THE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION ALONG WITH THIS. MR. TESSIER EXPLAINED THAT THE NORMAL PROCEDURE OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IS THAT THEY WILL ISSUE A WATER USE PERMIT FOR UP TO TEN YEARS; SO, IT WAS FELT WE SHOULD START OUT BY ASKING FOR THE MAXIMUM PERIOD. THIS APPLI- IV CATION HAS BEEN PREPARED, AS WELL AS APPLICATIONS COVERING THE TWO' PRODUCTION WELLS AS IN THE $PECIFICATIONS. MR. TESSIER THEN DIS- CUSSED THE LETTER OF WAIVER WHICH HE HAD DRAFTED TO BE SENT TO THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. MR. ENG EXPLAINED THAT THEY WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION BECAUSE IT TAKES THE STAFF A MINIMUM OF 90 DAYS TO REVIEW IT, AND THEREFORE, IF THIS WERE SUBMITTED AT THE END OF THE TEST WELL PROGRAM, IT WOULD BE AT LEAST THE FIRST OF THE YEAR BEFORE WE COULD GET THE WATER USE PERMIT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER PRODUCTION WELLS AND CONSTRUCTION WORK AS SUBMITTED BY GERAGHTY & MILLER AND SUMMARIZED BY THE .JOINT VENTURE IN A LETTER DATED APRIL 15, 1980, AS AMENDED BY THE CONSULTANTS, UTILIZING TEST PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE N0. 2, AND AUTHORIZED THE BID ADVERTISEMENT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT, THE APPLICATIONS FOR TWO WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, AND THE LETTER TO ST. .JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REQUESTING WAIVER OF DISTRICT PROCEDURES. COPY OF SAID LETTER IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES. a JACK G. JENNINGS, Administrator 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 April 25, 1980 Mr. Robert Moresi, Director Department of Resource Management St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32077 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF DISTRICT PROCEDURES Dear Mr. Moresi: Indian River County is embarking on a water -supply development program in the south county area. One of the points of discussion between consultants repre- senting Indian River County and you and other staff members of the St. Johns River Water Management District has been the procedural steps to be taken by Indian River County in filing for well construction permits and a water -use permit. The County has decided to proceed with the release of specifications and bid documents for the construction of two production wells and one monitor well. Enclosed are two applications for public water supply well construction per- mits and one application for water -use permit. The production and observation wells will be installed to provide technical data that will allow the County's consultants to complete the design of the water system. Indian River County is asking the Governing Board to waive several "Rules of the St. Johns River Water Management: Regulation of Wells" so that the County may proceed with the compilation and interpretation of technical data by constructing and testing wells. The requests are being made by Indian River County with consideration of the following facts. A testing program utilizing production wells is very expensive but not very much more expensive than a testing program utilizing test wells. The County feels that wells designed for this program must be acceptable to the District and to the D.E.R. if competitive selection among the various bidders is to be made and negotiations are to be completed. The policy of the Farmers Home Administration, which will be providing grant -and -loan funding for this program, requires that all permits for construction must be approved before a construction contract can be signed. Therefore, the following waivers of District rules are requested: 1. Waive Chapter 40C-3.05 and approve water -well construction permit applica- tions for production wells without prior issuance of a water -use permit. 2. Waive Chaper 40C -3.10(f) and approve the above applications with the proviso that final authorization to commence construction will be made by the District after the submission of the name, address, license number and signature of the selected drilling contractor. 4 All wells will be constructed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida and Indian River County. The County is well aware that the production wells may be of a much greater design capacity than will be permitted for use by the District. Indian River County requests the Governing Board's immediate consideration of these requests so that project scheduling and funding may be finalized in the near future. Sincerely, Jack G. Jennings County Administrator .-t ,e P00}( 43- PA 3-73 r' APR 2 31990 poox 43 PACE -374 ROBERT GASKILL, VICE PRESIDENT OF VISTA PROPERTIES, WAS PRESENT TO DISCUSS EXPANSION OF THE VISTA ROYALE SEWER AND WATER PLANT AND AN EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THE COUNTY PRESENTLY HAS A CONTRACT WITH VISTA PROPERTIES REGARDING THE SEWER AND WATER PLANTS LOCATED AT VISTA ROYALE, THESE CONTRACTS GAVE THE COUNTY THE RIGHT TO TAKE OVER BOTH THOSE PLANTS AT A CERTAIN TIME. BASICALLY THAT TIME HAS EXPIRED, BUT THE ATTORNEY BELIEVED WE HAD A MUTUAL AGREEMENT ALL ALONG THAT THE TIME FRAME WOULD BE EXTENDED. VISTA PROPERTIES IS NOW MOVING INTO THE SECOND PHASE OF THEIR PROJECT BEHIND MCKEE JUNGLE GARDENS, AND THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT THE COUNTY WAIT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE TAKING OVER BOTH PLANTS)PRIMARILY TO INSURE VISTA PROPERTIES AN ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND THE CONTINUATION OF THEIR VISTA ROYALE PROJECT. MR. GASKILL INFORMED THE BOARD THAT BASICALLY THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT AN EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING FRANCHISE TO INCLUDE THE AREA BEHIND THE MCKEE PROPERTY AND SOME TO THE NORTH, IN WHICH THEY PROPOSE TO HAVE A 9 -HOLE GOLF COURSE AND'SURROUNDING RESIDENCES. THEY PLAN TO EXPAND THE EXISTING WATER PLANT TO NEAR DOUBLE CAPACITY AND WOULD BE INSTALLING AN ADDITIONAL TREATMENT PLANT TO THE EAST, WHICH WOULD HANDLE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. THEY WILL HAVE A GROUND STORAGE TANK IN THE NEW AREA FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND IMMEDIATE USE, IF THERE SHOULD BE ANY PROBLEM. THEY WOULD LIKE TO KEEP CONTROL OF THESE PLANTS UNTIL A SET PERIOD BEFORE THE CONVERSION TO THE COUNTY SYSTEM - 60 DAYS, OR WHATEVER WOULD BE AGREEABLE. THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO GET THEIR LINES IN AND MAKE HEADWAY UNDER THEIR OWN BUILDING PROGRAM. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE ORIGINAL VISTA ROYALE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO PRIOR TO THE COUNTY ACTIVELY FRANCHISING UTILITIES;SO,ANY EXTENSION IN THE NEW PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO -MEET OUR NEW FRANCHISING PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS. HE COMMENTED THAT UTILITY DIRECTOR GEORGE LINER AND ENGINEER ENG AGREE THAT FROM A UTILITIES STANDPOINT, IT DOESNIT MAKE TOO MUCH DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE COUNTY ACCEPTS THE SYSTEM NOW OR LATER. HE CONTINUED THAT IF WE ARE TO DEFER ACCEPTING THE PLANTS, HE FELT WE NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A CONTRACT SPECIFICALLY OUTLINING THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED, AND HE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNTY TRY AND ASSIMILATE THE PLANT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, HIS REASONS BEING NOT SO MUCH LEGAL AS THAT THE PARTIES ALL KNOW ONE ANOTHER NOW AND THE RELATIONSHIPS ARE GOOD AND WE DON T KNOW WHAT THEY WILL BE IN TWO YEARS. HE STATED THAT HE WAS NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE COUNTY CONTROL THE UTILITY PLANTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WOULD HAMPER THE DEVELOPMENT OF VISTA ROYALE. ENGINEER RALPH ENG NOTED THAT NORMALLY FMHA WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE THESE SYSTEMS IN HAND LEGALLY BEFORE YOU CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION, BUT HE HAS EXPLAINED THE SITUATION TO THEM, AND THEY HAVE STATED THAT A LEGAL DOCUMENT IN THE FORM OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE FRANCHISE OWNER STATING THAT WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS A CERTAIN PERCENT COMPLETED THEY WILL TIE IN, IS ACCEPTABLE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF THERE WOULD BE ANY ADVANTAGE TO TAKING OVER THE SYSTEM NOW AND HAVING A MANAGEMENT CONTRACT, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THERE.WOULD BE. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF THAT WOULD MEAN, WE WOULD, IN EFFECT, OPERATE THE VISTA ROYALE SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT IF THE COUNTY TOOK IT OVER, WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE, BUT COULD PROBABLY HAVE A MANAGEMENT CONTRACT WITH THE VISTA PEOPLE SO THEY WOULD BE DOING MOST OF'IT. COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE CERTAINLY HAD NO INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING TO CREATE A PROBLEM FOR THE VISTA PEOPLE IN CON- TINUING THEIR PROJECT ACTIVITIES, BUT HE WAS INCLINED TO AGREE THAT 4 WE SHOULD PROCEED TO ACQUIRE THE PLANTS WHILE WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO AND HAVE GOOD RELATIONSHIPS. MR. GASKILL INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THIS HAD BEEN MENTIONED TO HIM, AND WHILE THEY WOULD JUST AS SOON KEEP CONTROL UNTIL THINGS ARE BUILT, THEY WOULD BE AGREEABLE IF THEY HAD A MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO START UP OF THE COUNTY SYSTEM. APR 2 3 1980 121 BOOK. , 4j FA'E`75 r APR 2 31980 Mai 43 PACE 376 COMMISSIONER WODTKE BROUGHT UP QUESTIONS ABOUT THE.°PRATE STRUCTURE, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE RATE STRUCTURE BEING CHARGED BY VISTA ROYALE IS COMPARABLE TO THE COUNTY RATE STRUCTURE. ALSO FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS" WHICH THEY INTEND TO PUT IN THE NEW SECTION, THEY HAVE STATED WHAT THE ACCUMULATED IMPACT FEES AND TAP ON FEES WOULD BE PER CUSTOMER. ATTORNEY COLLINS SAW NO REASON WHY THEY CAN T GET IN-KIND CREDIT RATHER THAN CASH CREDIT FOR THOSE IMPACT FEES. THE CHAIRMAN FELT IT IS THE LOGICAL WAY TO GO. MR. GASKILL COMMENTED THAT THEIR MAIN OBJECTION IS TO AVOID RED TAPE AND GET THE FACILITIES BUILT ON TIME. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THE CONTRACT COULD BE SET UP TO GIVE THEM THE FREEDOM THEY WANT, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT WE COULD LET THEM WRITE IT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF VISTA PROPERTIES TO DRAFT AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM FOR THEIR UTILITY SYSTEM AND REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. COUNTY' ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD THE FOLLOWING LETTER RECEIVED FROM BARRY HYND, PRESIDENT OF HOBART LANDING HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: April 22, 1980 HOBART LANDING HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC, tj 27�8,� .. 0 r v •:� rf �Jjj11 C';7 t 6x1' Mr. Jack Jennings County Administrator Indian River County Courthouse 14th Avenue Ver- 'Reach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Jennings: On January 16, 1980 I met with you in your office, as the spokesman for our Homeowners Association, to protest the potential removal of the row of. Australian pines on county right-of-way at the west end of the waterfront part of our Hobart Landing community. Mr. Art Wilson is developing the R-3 property immediately to the west of us and wishes to remove the pines to enhanc& the salability and value of his development by making it virtually a part of our expensive, single-family, waterfront, private development. After you learned that the Hobart Landing homeowners did not want these pines removed, you promised to write Mr. Wilson rescinding your previous approval of their removal and ordering that nothing be done to these pines until the matter was properly cleared through site -plan approval, Planning and Zoning Commission approval, and County Commission approval. I was to receive a copy of that letter and will appreciate your sending me one. Mr. Wilson chose to ignore, or evade, your orders. On March 26, 1980 his crew arrLved to remove the pines from the Florida Power and Light easement on the west edge of the right-of-way. The crew stated they had FP&L approval, which I need to confirm and discuss with FP&L. They were stopped with great difficulty by our Mr. Jack Donnelly, with the help of your office after Mr. Donnelly telephoned you. (And thank you!) We now hear that further concerted efforts will be made to remove these pines prior to site -plan approval or any Commission hearings. I have the signed petitions from all current homeowners. For those waterfront residents to the east of the pines, fully 1612 homes wish to keep the pines, with 1%2 for removal. For non -waterfront homes who have already had the nein land cleared to the southern limits of their properties, 212 homes wish to keep the pines and 21-2 are for removal. The totals are thus 19 to 3. We feel strongly that the rights and the o0inions of this group of taxpayers owning expensive homes and paying heavy taxes in a private development should be protected. 4 We would like to have from you a flat statement that these pines will not he ;1:;:.urbed unless the matter is approved through the proper channels. If you cannot make and enforce such a statement, please let me know. We shall then approach the County Commission directly, or take suitable legal action, or both. I will appreciate hearing from you at your earl-iest convenience. Sincerely, 4� Harry F. Hynd President - Hobart Landing Homeowners Association, Inc. s APR 2 31980 goo P477 3 Box 43 Ftcf 378 ADMINISTRATOR .JENNINGS STATED THAT HE DID NOT WISH TO DISPUTE MR. HYND'S STATEMENTS, BUT FELT THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE EXPLAINED THE MATTER TO MR. HYND AS CAREFULLY AS HE MIGHT HAVE SINCE ANY PROJECT SUCH AS THIS AUTOMATICALLY GOES THROUGH SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE STANDARD PROCEDURES. MR. JENNINGS COMMENTED THAT MR. HYND WAS THE FIRST PERSON HE COULD RECALL WHO OBJECTED TO TAKING DOWN AUSTRALIAN PINES THAT WERE ON THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY. MR. JENNINGS AGREED THAT I THE APPLICANT WAS TAKING DOWN TREES THAT WERE INTERFERING WITH THE FP&L POWER LINES, WHICH IS STANDARD PROCEDURE. HE CONTINUED THAT FP&L HAS AN EASEMENT AND HAS A RIGHT TO CUT THE TREES, AND HE DID NOT SEE WHERE THE COUNTY WAS AT FAULT. THEY WERE NOT TAKING DOWN ALL THE TREES ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. MR. JENNINGS POINTED OUT THAT A GOOD PORTION OF THESE LARGE AUSTRALIAN PINES,WHICH ARE CONSIDERED TRASH TREES IN MOST PLACESpARE ON PROPERTY THAT BELONGS TO MR. WILSON, AND MR. WILSON HAS A PERFECT RIGHT TO TAKE THEM DOWN ON HIS OWN PROPERTY. THE ADMINISTRATOR REPORTED THAT MR. WILSON AND ENGINEER LUETHJE DID PRESENT A PLAN FOR REPLANTING, WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO OUR PEOPLE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. HE NOTED THAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY AGREED IF THEY WOULD TAKE THESE TREES OUT OF THERE AND LANDSCAPE WITH MORE ACCEPTABLE TREES AND PLANTINGS, NOT PUTTING THE TRUNK OF THE TREES MORE THAN 6' IN ON THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNTY PERMIT THE AUSTRALIAN PINES TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THERE. HE CONTINUED THAT THE TREES ON THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE ENORMOUS. MR. WILSON HAS AGREED TO TAKE THEM OUT AT HIS EXPENSE AND AGREED TO CUT THE SWALE DITCHES BACK FOR THE DRAINAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN PRESENTED. MR. .JENNINGS FELT THAT EVERYTHING IS ENGINEERED AND DONE AS HE WOULD WANT TO SEE IT DONE. THE ADMINISTRATOR NOTED THAT THE PROBLEM FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN IS THAT THIS WILL REMOVE A DENSE MASS OF TREES WHICH HAVE BEEN ALONG THE ROAD A NUMBER OF YEARS. HOWEVER, IN A FEW YEARS' TIME, IF IT IS LANDSCAPED PROPERLY AND DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN PRESENTED, HE BELIEVED IT WOULD BE A MORE PLEASING THING AND CERTAINLY A MUCH BETTER SITUATION FROM THE ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT'S POINT OF VIEW. HE POINTED OUT THAT ONE OF THESE DAYS, IF THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO TAKE THOSE TREES OFF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOME OF THE TREES WILL GO OVER, AND IF ONE OF THEM GOES OVER ON A HOUSE, THERE COULD BE A PROBLEM WHERE THE COUNTY WAS CONCERNED. THE ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTED THAT WE HAVE MANY REQUESTS IN THE COUNTY TO TAKE DOWN THESE TREES WHICH ARE DANGEROUS AND A HAZARD, HE POINTED OUT THAT IF SOMEONE WANTS SCREENING FOR THEIR PROPERTY, HE KNEW OF NO REGULATIONS TO PROHIBIT AN OWNER PLANTING TREES ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY FOR SCREENING. MR. .JENNINGS NOTED THAT MR. WILSON HAS EVEN AGREED TO PUT UP REASONABLE ASSURANCE MONEY WITH THE COUNTY THAT HE WILL PUT THE TREES BACK AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SO THAT IF HE WERE TO SELL THE LAND NEXT WEEK, THE COUNTY IS STILL ASSURED PROPER LANDSCAPING WOULD BE DONE, AND HE RECOMMENDED THAT MR. WILSON BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT THE ONLY TWO QUESTIONS ASKED LAST MEETING WERE IN REGARD TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE TREES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THE KIND OF BOND TO BE PUT UP. MR. LUETHJE STATED THAT THEY HAD DISCUSSED A $10,000 BOND, AND MR. WILSON FELT THAT WOULD BE MAXIMUM. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE INTENDED TO PUT IN A SPRINKLER SYSTEM ON THE EDGE OF HIS PROPERTY TO KEEP THE PLANTINGS WELL WATERED AND NOTED THAT THE GROVE WAS A DECREPIT OLD. GROVE, WHICH HE HAS CLEANED UP CONSIDERABLY. HE FELT HIS PLANS WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT FOR THE AREA. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THAT WITH WHAT MR. WILSON HAS DONE, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE BOND IS GOING MUCH OVER AND BEYOND WHAT THE BOARD COULD REQUIRE, AND IF MR. -WILSON IS WILLING TO DO IT, IT IS MORE THAN WE COULD EVER ASK. at MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER LYONS, TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ALLOW MR. WILSON TO PROCEED; TO MAKE THE PLAN PRESENTED PART OF THE MINUTES BY REFERENCE; AND ALSO TO NOTE THAT THE TRUNKS OF THE TREES ARE NOT TO BE MORE THAN 6' IN THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY. 125 APR 2 31980 BOOK 43 Fa.CE 3791 APR 2 31900 soci 43 PAGE 380 COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED THAT THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE BOARD DID TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE LETTER FROM MR. HYND, AND NOTED HE ALSO HAS HAD SEVERAL LETTERS. HE COMMENTED THAT TEMPORARILY THERE WILL NOT BE A SCREEN, BUT HE FELT IN THE LONG RUN, THEY WILL. BE BETTER OFF. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS PRESENTED THE FINAL PLAT OF GLENWOOD SUBDIVISION TO THE BOARD. HE -STATED THAT WORK WAS IN PROGRESS WHEN HE WENT OUT TO MAKE AN INSPECTION LAST WEEK. THE DITCHES WERE CUT AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT, BUT THE HEADWALLS ON THE CULVERT WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO MEET OUR REGULATIONS. ALSO, THE SHOULDERS NEEDED SOME BUILDING UP,AND THERE WAS DEBRIS AND TREES THAT HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM 33RD AVENUE PILED ON VACANT LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION. THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON THE WEST SIDE WERE NOT FINISHED IN A USABLE MANNER. DEAN LUETHJE OF CARTER ASSOCIATES POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS A PRIVATE SUBDIVISION, AND THE COUNTY WILL NOT HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE ROADS OR THE DRAINAGE. THE ADMINISTRATOR POINTED OUT THAT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE DO THE MAINTENANCE OR NOT, THE REGULATIONS FOR A PRIVATE SUBDIVISION ARE THE SAME. MR. JENNINGS CONTINUED THAT WHEN THEY BUILD THE PRIVATE ROAD, IT IS THE DEVELOPER S PROBLEM, BUT WHEN ALL THE LOTS ARE SOLD AND THE ROAD BREAKS DOWN, THE DEVELOPER MAY BE GONE AND THE PEOPLE COME TO THE COUNTY WITH THEIR PROBLEMS. HE FELT THAT THE SUBDIVISION NEEDS TO BE DRESSED OUT COMPARABLE WITH ANY OTHER THAT WE ACCEPT FOR RECORD. THE ADMINISTRATOR WENT ON TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF POSTING A $2,000 BOND,WHICH HE FELT WOULD BE A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT TO GET THIS WORK DONE. HE EXPLAINED TO MR. REDISH THAT THE SUBDIVISION JUST NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP. MR. LUETHJE BELIEVED THAT EVERYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING IS OF A MINOR NATURE. HE AGREED THAT THE ROAD SHOULDERS HAVE WORN DOWN IN THE LAST NINE MONTHS AND COULD PROBABLY TAKE MORE DRESSING. HE FELT THE OWNERS TO THE WEST IN PINE WOOD ESTATES ARE SATISFIED WITH THE ARRANGEMENTS ABOUT THE DITCH. ERNIE SHERMAN OF PINE WOOD ESTATES CONCURRED THAT MR. REDISH HAS AGREED TO BRING OUT A TRACTOR TO DRESS UP THE DITCH ON THE WEST SIDE. HE INQUIRED ABOUT THE DRAINAGE FLOW. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS INFORMED HIM THAT THE DRAINAGE FLOW IS CORRECT AND WOULD MEET COUNTY REQUIREMENTS, BUT THE DRESSING OF THE DITCH IS IN QUESTION. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE FELT THAT THIS SUBDIVISION HAS TO BE DONE.RIGHT OR THE BOARD WILL NOT APPROVE IT, AND MR. LUETHJE ESTIMATED THAT IT WOULD TAKE A COUPLE OF DAYS TO STRAIGHTEN THESE ITEMS OUT. MR. REDISH INFORMED THE. BOARD THAT HE IS STRICTLY A SPOKES- MAN FOR 12 HOMEOWNERS,AND EXPLAINED THAT SOMEONE HAS BUILT OUT THERE, BUT CAN T OCCUPY THE RESIDENCE UNTIL THE SUBDIVISION IS PLATTED. DISCUSSION CONTINUED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE BOARD DID NOT WISH TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION UNTIL IT WAS DONE CORRECTLY BECAUSE ONCE A PRIVATE SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED AND PUT ON RECORD, THE BOARD HAS NO CONTROL. MR. REDISH STATED THAT RATHER THAN HAVE THE REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL DENIED, HE WOULD WITHDRAW IT AND COME BACK IN A FEW WEEKS. AGENDA ITEM 19. C - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR WEST MEADOWS SUBDIVISION WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA. THE CHAIRMAN DISCUSSED THE MOVEMENT PLAN PRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR RELOCATION OF COUNTY PERSONNEL AS PER THE FOLLOWING MEMO AND COMMENDED MR. NELSON FOR HIS HANDLING OF THE MATTER. THE LEASES REFERRED -TO IN SAID MEMO ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. 127 BOOK 41 ,PAGE 381 'f.P 14E.MO1PAP}DUM TO: April 18, 1980 }ioart.l of comity Commissioncrs I' OM: As ;isl.lnt c' omty Atlmini:itvat-o► ::1111,11?CT: movement Plan 43 . 382 As approvt,(] by t lic 111.1,11 t.l cin Alli 1.1 1), 1980, action b((ll �Lrlkt n tc) 1(1, .-., t c :►►:.1 1 t .l:;r. al?1: r(.)pr i 1i l(, spact, ti? t l►c, Collr t hnu:it' bu i l d i n't iii to -dor L(1 fac i l i t;l t o 1-011OV,► t .i ('►l . 011 April 18tH, L110 Chairman sit1nod leases on 6, :5.1 ski. ft. in the 2001 Builclinq for a total of $3,2`77.00 por 1600 sq. ft. at 73 > 22nd Str(-et for 1,47").00 por month :lntl 1.100:x]. l'L. ir1 Lhe ]aLh Avemio Plaza for $550.00 her rlctnlh. An liti.onal 2200 sq. ft. will be leased in the lath for $1,100.00 per month battinninq June 1, ArranyC.'ments hiive leen mac1c with soutlic-111 11011 t'O relo"'11 t` oxisting telephones. Pai'LiLions r:�rluired will 1w in::tallr,t by cour►ty personnel . At tarhod t.(i this moms i:i ,I pal t.i.11 l y complete move llicilt s(:hu(lule. A1.1 arlenC.y ht�'idsi .md ju(I1It':t 11, Ivo ht '011 110r`;t`II-II Iv .'.�'it.It'tt'.l els Lo Lhel r il'11►1;)orary l()(.- lL.loll and mo�veirent Yt qui roiIInonts. conLa('Lud collcurl t•tl i i their Illove. It, iti :►Ilticil,.ltt•tl t h.lt rxrvemont will bc•t1 ii► April .',tt. I1. 1'vCi �. !�i'1:;(lIl, :�:iF1:'it111 l(�11I1t"�' Aticl. Attao,iimont: ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY HAVE FOUND THAT THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN HAS BEEN UTILIZING OUR COLLECTION STATIONS FOR DUMPING SOME OF THE TRASH THEY ARE COLLECTING WITHIN THE CITY. THIS WAS STOPPED. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY ALSO FOUND THAT THE ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT WAS USING THAT PARTICULAR CONTAINER WHEN THEY CLEARED PARKS IN THE AREA, AND IN ADDITION, THE FORESTRY SERVICE WAS MAKING USE OF THIS STATION. MR. NELSON CONTINUED THAT THEY HAVE CONCLUDED IT MAKES SENSE TO UTILIZE THAT STATION RATHER THEN HAVING THE AGENCIES RUN DOWN TO THE LANDFILL, BUT HE FELT THEY SHOULD PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE BECAUSE IT COSTS THE COUNTY MONEY TO � X128 TRANSPORT THE TRASH. TO DO THIS, THEY WILL HAVE TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH EACH AGENCY PUTS IN THE COLLECTION STATION IN A WEEK AND CHARGE THEM $9.00 PER TON. HE FELT THIS WAS FEASIBLE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT HE HAD HEARD THAT IT ONLY AMOUNTS TO ABOUT $10.00 A WEEK FOR THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, BUT HE NOTED THE USE COULD BE EXPANDED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF THIS COULD BE DONE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE COLLECTION STATION ARE STRICTLY REFUSE FROM THE PARKS, NOT FROM RESTAURANTS, ETC. MR. NELSON STATED THAT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS MATERIAL WAS STRICTLY FROM PUBLIC AREAS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO SET UP THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE RECEIVING OF TRASH FROM OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR CIVIL DEFENSE DIRECTOR LEE NUZIE TO ATTEND A SYMPOSIUM ON HOW BUILDINGS USE ENERGY TO BE CONDUCTED MAY 2, 1980 AT PALM BEACH GARDENS. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD REQUESTING THAT THE COUNTY DONATE 80 YARDS OF TOP FILL FOR THE PRACTICE FIELD, WHICH NEEDS A CROWN. THE VERO BEACH DODGERS HAVE PROMISED THEM THAT THEY WILL SPRIG THE FIELD IF THE SCHOOL BOARD CAN OBTAIN THE FILL, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO SUPPLY THE 80 YARDS OF TOP FILL AS REQUESTED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ANNOUNCED THAT AS OF THE 2tST OF MAY, THE COUNTY COMMISSION WILL START HOLDING ITS MEETINGS IN THE CITY HALL, AND NOTED THAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED THAT IT IS NO LONGER WISE TO LET THREE WEEKS PASS IN BETWEEN MEETINGS. HE WENT ON TO DISCUSS THE ADVISABILITY OF TAKING ONE NIGHT DURING THE MONTH TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS SO THAT WE DON T GET SO JAMMED UP DURING THE REGULAR MEETINGS. 129 Boa 43: PAc, APR 2 31900 BOOK 43 PAA84 COMMISSIONER LYONS AGREED THAT WE HAVE TO MEET MORE OFTEN, BUT FELT IF WE DO HAVE NIGHT MEETINGS, A FIXED TIME SHOULD BE SET FOR ENDING THE MEETINGS. COMMISSIONER Loy INFORMED THE BOARD THAT SHE HAS WORKED OUT-A'TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE AND AGREED THAT EXTRA MEETINGS ARE NEEDED TO EASE UP ON THE WORK LOAD. THE BOARD CONTINUED TO DISCUSS A POSSIBLE MEETING SCHEDULE, AND CHAIRMAN SIEBERT FELT WE SHOULD HAVE A MEETING EVERY OTHER WEEK REGARDLESS OF WHEN IT FALLS, IT WAS AGREED IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CONSIDER NIGHT MEETINGS SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO ADJUST THE MEETING, SCHEDULE AND OFFICIALLY MEET EVERY OTHER WEDNESDAY STARTING MAY 7, 1980. SENIOR PLANNER DAVID MARSH INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING IN REGARD TO THE PROPER TITLE INFORMATION FOR CHRISTOPHER EKONOMOU, WHO IS REQUESTING A RELEASE OF EASEMENT IN OSLO PARK, HAVE NOW BEEN CLEARED UP AND CORRECT TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. STAFFS RECOM- MENDATION IS AS FOLLOWS: Il\.1OIAN RIFER COUNTY _ .I N0 1 March 28, 1980 MEMO TO: Jack Jennings, County Administrator FROM: DavMarsh, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Easement Release Request ®EPA,RTMEN T This request for the release of the 5' public utility and drain— age easement lying between Lots 17 and 18, Block B, Oslo Park Subdivision have been reviewed favorably by the -following agencies: Southern Bell Telephone Company Florida Power & Light Utilities Department Indian River Farms Drainage District A field check showed that front and rear swales do currently exist for drainage purposes. However,,the rear swale does not app,_ar to be graded appropriately to assure proper -drainage. Although the side lot easement requested to be released is in the center of the block, the easement on Lots 5 and 6 directly behind this parcel has already been released. Staff could recommend approval on the condition that side lot easements between Lots 4 and 5 as well as Lots 18 and 19, Block B be retained permanently for future provisions. It should also be noted that regrading will be needed in the future to provide adequate rear drainage in Block B. IN ORDER. ATTORNEY COLLINS CONFIRMED THAT THE TITLE DOCUMENTS WERE ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER-WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER L.OY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 80-40 GRANTING THE RELEASE OF EASEMENT BETWEEN LOTS 17 AND 18, BLOCK B, OSLO PARK, AS REQUESTED BY CHRISTOPHER EKONOMOU; AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN; AND DIRECTED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DENOTE•THAT THE SIDE LOT EASEMENTS BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5 AND LOTS 18 AND 19, BLOCK B, OSLO PARK, ARE TO BE RETAINED PERMANENTLY FOR CROSS DRAINAGE PURPOSES. 131 APR 2 3 1990 e�io Pact 3,85 'APR 2 3 19 90 goo RESOLUTION NO. 80-40 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the lot line easements on the south two and one half (2.5) feet of Lot 17; and the north two and one half (2.5) feet of Lot 18, Block B, Oslo Park, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 3, page 96, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo Park for public utility purposes; and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement has been submitted in proper form; 13 PACE 386 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Oslo Park, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: The south two and one half (2.5) feet of Lot 17; and the north two and one half (2.5) feet of Lot 18, Block B, Oslo Park, according to the Plat of the same filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County,Florida, in Plat Book 3, at page 96. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This 24th day of April BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Attest: ;P-; �,� JIJ Freda Wright, Clerk RELEASE OF EASEMENT This Release of Easement, executed this 24th day of April 1980, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, first party; to Christopher Ekonomou and Katherine Ekonomou, whose mailing address is 670 Royal Palm Place, Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, second party: WITNESSETH: That the said party of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon, and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easement, lying on land situate in the County of Indian River County, State of Florida, to -wit: The south two and one half (2.5) feet of Lot 17; and the north two and one half (2.5) feet of Lot 18, Block B, 'Oslo Park, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 96, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest, equity and claim whatsoever of the said first party either in law or equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA N e , W. W. Siebert, Jr., Chairman Attest: Freda Wright, Clerk i 900K 43`PAGE 138 'APR 2 31980 Boa 43 PAGE388 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements personally appeared, W. W. SIEBERT, JR., as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to me known to be the persons duly authorized by said County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision. WITNESS my hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 24thday of April , 1980. 1A eh A / "-z)-en Nota Prub c StaUr of Flo 'e—d—aat Large. My commis on expires: (Notary Seal) PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER DISCUSSED THE SECOND DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED MINING ORDINANCE WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD FOR REVIEW, AND POINTED OUT THAT TO MAKE THIS AN OPERATIVE ORDINANCE, IT WILL NECESSITATE HAVING A COUNTY ENGINEER. COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF THE PRESENT DRAFT INCORPORATES THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON THE FIRST DRAFT, AND MR. REVER STATED THAT IT DOES. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT THE BOARD CAN REVIEW THE DOCUMENT AND THE NORMAL PROCESS WOULD BE TO SUBMIT IT TO THE ZONING COMMISSION AND THEN LET IT COME BACK TO THE BOARD. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE FELT OUR PRESENT TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IS SUFFICIENT, AND MR. REVER EXPLAINED THAT THEY ARE SUGGESTING THAT THEY BE USED WITH JUST A FEW EXTRA PEOPLE ADDED, IF NEEDED; THEY DO NOT WANT ANOTHER COMMITTEE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY REFERRED THE SECOND DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED MINING ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AND RECONVENED AS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LAURELWOOD SUBDIVISION STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT. APR 2 31980 It 135 BooK � 43 4li�