HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/20/1981WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1981
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, MET IN REGULAR SESSION AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
1053 20TH PLACE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1981,
AT 8:30 O'CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE PATRICK B.' LYONS, CHAIRMAN;
WILLIAM C.---WODTKE, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN; DICK BIRD; ALFRED GROVER
FLETCHER; AND DON C. SCURLOCK, .JR. ALSO PRESENT WERE NEIL A. NELSON,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; L.S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS, SJR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS; .JEFFREY K. BARTON, FINANCE DIRECTOR; DAN FLEISCHMAN,
BAILIFF; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES AND JANICE CALDWELL, DEPUTY CLERKS.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE
FLAG, AND REVEREND DALLAS ENFINGER, GLENDALE BAPTIST CHURCH, GAVE
THE INVOCATION.,_�-
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS. TO THE
AGENDA.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM CONCERNING
OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL.
CHAIRMAN LYONS REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM CONCERNING OUT -OF -
COUNTY TRAVEL; AN ITEM CONCERNING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR REZONINGS;
AND AN ITEM REGARDING -THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY -COMMIS-
SIONER WODTKE,-THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE ADDITIONS OF THE
EMERGENCY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA. -
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS
TO THE -MINUTES -OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 1, 1981.
MAY.201981.
I
MAY 2 01980 -
BOOK 46 PAGE451
ON -MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLO.CK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- _
SIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 1, 1981, -AS WRITTEN -.-
CLERK TO THE BOARD
-
- -ON MOTION BY
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK; SEC-ONDED BY
COMMIS -
STONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE STATE
WITNESS
PAYROLL, COUNTY `COURT,
APRIL TERM,- 1981; IN -.THE AMOUNTS OF -$102-.64.0'
$172.74, AND $165.56. -
ON MOTION BY -COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMIS-
SIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE BUDGET AMENDMENT
REGARDING UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION, AS FOLLOWS:
ACCOUNT TITLE
_ ACCOUNT N0. INCREASE
DECREASE
UNEMPLOYMENT COMP.
001-210-572-12.15 319
UNEMPLOYMENT COMP.
001-300-512-12.15 210
RESERVE FOR CONT.
001-199-513-99.91
529
UNEMPLOYMENT COMP.
004-214-541-12.15 1,364
RESERVE FOR CONT.
004-199-513-99.91
1,364
THE FOLLOWING REPORTS WERE RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK:
TRAFFIC VIOLATION BUREAU - SPECIAL TRUST FUND,
MONTH OF APRIL, 1981
TRAFFIC VIOLATION FINES BY NAME, APRIL, 1981
REPORT OF CONVICTIONS, MONTH OF APRIL, 1981
CONSENT AGENDA
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND THE BOARD AGREED TO REMOVE
ITEMS D, E, G AND I FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION.
A - PISTOL PERMITS
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION FOR
A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR:
EDWIN S. SCHMUCKER CARL K. GREENE, .JR.
LUCIANO JOHN ZAMMUTO ADAM V. KELLER
GARY DELL HUDMON
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE PUBLIC HEARING
SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 3, 1981 AT 11:00 A.M. IN ORDER TO ADOPT A LAND
MINING ORDINANCE.
C_- LETTER OF RESIGNATION
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE FOLLOWING LETTER
OF RESIGNATION:
Aynciian 4:,Qlvsx Count (7/oiunfEEz : g4raLfancE -Squad
P. 0. BOX 1417
Ql.w 1 zaai, gfo%lda - 3296o
29 .!pril
1981
B - MINING
ORDINANCE
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE PUBLIC HEARING
SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 3, 1981 AT 11:00 A.M. IN ORDER TO ADOPT A LAND
MINING ORDINANCE.
C_- LETTER OF RESIGNATION
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE FOLLOWING LETTER
OF RESIGNATION:
Aynciian 4:,Qlvsx Count (7/oiunfEEz : g4raLfancE -Squad
P. 0. BOX 1417
Ql.w 1 zaai, gfo%lda - 3296o
Dear Pat:
It is. with regret that I resin From the Mental Health Board
No. 9 as the time spent with the Volunteer Ambulance Squad
is approximatelt' 35 to 50 hours each geek. -
As Pres-ident of the Board and being an EMT. for -two shifts
really consumes a good deal of effort and I am sure . you
will understand.
When I had, -agreed with Bill iiodtke to do this again, _I
didn't realize I Vrould have been selected as President- of
Volunteers. -
Respectf ., ,
Thomas B.- Buchanan, President
Board of Directors _
MAY- 2 Q'9�1
800K b PAGE 452
29 .!pril
1981
r
Indian R l rer Cou:j_ty
Conmi;;s io_j-rs
2
Pat L7y,)ns,� Chairman
Indian v��
13 ,?-Count.,Co.i�rt;no,,se
Vero Bab' c.^,, wlorida
32ab0;
VI U
Re Mental Health Board P -To, 9; Inc
Dear Pat:
It is. with regret that I resin From the Mental Health Board
No. 9 as the time spent with the Volunteer Ambulance Squad
is approximatelt' 35 to 50 hours each geek. -
As Pres-ident of the Board and being an EMT. for -two shifts
really consumes a good deal of effort and I am sure . you
will understand.
When I had, -agreed with Bill iiodtke to do this again, _I
didn't realize I Vrould have been selected as President- of
Volunteers. -
Respectf ., ,
Thomas B.- Buchanan, President
Board of Directors _
MAY- 2 Q'9�1
800K b PAGE 452
MAY 2-0-W MK 46 on 453:.
F - OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER WODTKE,_THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY -APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL
FOR -ADMINISTRATOR NELSON TO ATTEND THE FLORIDA CITY AND COUNTY
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION -CONFERENCE IN PORT ST. LUCIE.,.. FLORIDA, JUNE
16-19, 1981. _
H - PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST - VILLAGE GREEN -
ON MOTION -BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED A REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL°IMPACT OF VILLAGE>GREEN, AS
FOLLOWS:
TO: Neil A. Nelson,
County Administrator
DATE: May 13, 1981 FILE:
SUBJECT: Request for hearing on
Village Green DRI
FROM: David M. R�ver ) REFERENCES: T. C. R. P. C letter
County Planning & Zoning Director April 29, 1980, to Neil Nelson
This is in response to a request from County Administrator Neil Nelson. It is
recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the
County Commission.
1. Description and Conditions:
The County has received notice from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council (T.C.R.P.C.) that the application for Village Green West development
approval, submitted on April 2, 1981, has been found sufficient for the
preparation of the Regional Council's impact assessment report. This report
is required under Chapter 380.06 (8) Florida Statutes. Chapter 380.06 (7),
Florida Statutes and Chapter 22F-1.21, Florida Administrative Code require
that:
A. A date for public hearing be set by the local government at their
next scheduled meeting
B. The notice and hearing be done in the same manner as a rezoning as
specified by local ordinance
C. Additional requirement be applied to publish the notice at least 60
days -prior to the hearing date
D. The Notice of Public Hearing -be sent to the Regional Planning Council.
The R.P.C. then has 50 days to prepare its report and comments.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
While the R.P.C. has 50 days after receipt of the Notice, Sam Shannon,
T.C.R.P.C. Director, has indicated that he anticipates presentation of the
report to the Council on June 19, 1981. Under these conditions the earliest
possible date for a public hearing would be in the latter part of July. This
would provide sufficient time for the County to receive the R.P.C. report and
review its recommendations. During this 60 day period the County planning
staff would prepare an analysis and report for presentation at the local
public hearing. - The County Attorney advises that there only need be one
hearing which would be before the Board of County Commissioners.
3. Recommendations and funding
The recommended course of action is as follows:
A. Set a date for a special hearing in the evening, 7:30 P.M., July 29th.
B. The only funding involved is the cost of advertising which wnculd be
the responsibility of the County.
4. Distribution
This requested action is for the setting of a hc-.ari-nq date as set forth by
state statutes. Available materials are thus provided to the County
Administrator for agenda scheduling, the County Commission for their con-
sideration, and the County Attorney's office =or review and comment.
5. Attachments
A. Letter from T.C.R.P.C..dated April 29, 1981.
B. Copies of the appropriate statutes and codes (as supplied by T.C.R.P.C.).
C. Copies of the Application for Development Approval, Village Green
'West and Village Green South, prepared for Florida Atlantic
Associates, II and III:
J-- PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST - COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED A RECOMMENDATION FOR
A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION ORDINANCE, AS
FOLLOWS. -
�A1'2 0198 �.oOK 46 PAGE454
MAY 2t - :. _ t.0oK 46 Fn,45V
TO: Neil Nelson
County Admi-nistrator
DATE: May 13,-.1981
FILE:
_ SUBJECT: Community Impact Evaluation
Ordi n-ance
-FROM: David -R,,ver, ``REFERENCES: -
Planning & Zoning Director
It is. recommended that the. data herein presented be'given formal
consideration by the County Commissioners.
1. Description and Conditions.
In conjunction with the recently passed local ordinance requiring
a Binding Letter of Interpretation from the Sta-te, the Planning
and Zoning Department is submitting an ordinance requiring the
development of Community Impa.ct Ev-aluation report, -to be prepared
by the applicant for site plans or subdivisions,_whose size or
potential size exceeds the thresholds stated in the document for
the -various types of development.
The intent of this ordinance is much the same as the DRI process,-
to identify local impacts both imnTediate and future, of proposed
"tldevelopments, and to m.itigate these by whatever reasonable means
possible. The county will also be able to suppliment their
information base for ongoing.and-special analysis of growth -problems.
Development proposals such as some recently encountered as well as
some developments which continue to grow in scope and physical, but
which by their nature are not subject to state and regional review
nontheless have significant local impact and should receive local
assessment"prior to the normal review process.
The Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the County Attorney's
office has worked with the Planning and Zoning Department staff
to create this document. A public hearing was held on April 2,
1981, and continued to April 30th, at which a recommendation for
approval was given by a unanimous vote of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
2. Alternatives and Analysis.
A. A date for the public hearing should be set for the earliest
opportunity. Passage of this proposed ordinance will provide
reviewers and decision -makers with greater understanding of
the effects of both the proposed development and the relation -
ship between it and the surrounding areas as well as the
impacts on providing public facilities of all kinds.
B. The second alternative is to continue to use the existing
ordinances with the general statements which allow for requests
for "additional information" at the discretion of the staff
and Boards, which are inadequate and open to interpretation.
i
6
3. Recommendation and Funding.
It is the recommendation of the staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission that a date for public hearing on this item be set for
the June 17th meeting of the County Commission. The only funding
requirement is for advertising, which is the responsibility of the
County.
4. Distribution.
This request is for the setting of a hearing date on the CIE
Ordinance. Available materials are provided for the County
Administrator, Counity Commission and the County Attorney. Other
copies will be distributed to County departments and TRC members
for review and comment, upon receiving approval for a hearing date.
5. Attachments.
A. -The proposed Community Impact Evaluation Ordinance.
B. Copies of the minutes of the County Planning and Zoning Commission
for April 2nd and April 30th.
THE BOARD NEXT REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM AND
SPECIFICATIONS:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 13, 1981 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: County Commission Chamber
Audio System
FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES:
County Administrator
_ In order to assure timely installation of a quality sound system in the new -
County Commission - Chambers at the County Administration Building, the Administration
requests Board approval to_proceed with solicitation of bids -for the proposed
system.
In conjunction with local, qualified sound engineers, -the Administration has had
detailed system specifications developed to assure.a quality -sound system for the
Commission room. Among the objectives of the system design.are:
A. Professional quality sound to permit high quality recording and -to -reduce
listener/speaker fatigue -during long Commission:meeti.ng_s.
B. Prevention -of audio feedback.
C.. Use of a single, high quality speaker array to direct sound -toward the audiance
from the Commission table -rather than from the -walls on each side of the
Chamber.
MAY 2 019 1 _ - - aoaK F�cE-457
D. Ease of operation and maintenance by the use of "state-of.the art".equipment
designed for unattended operation, _
The Administration estimates the installed cost of the sound system to be from,
$10,000 to $12,000. Funds for this purpose.have been -appropriated within the
Federal Revenue- Sharing Fund for fiscal year -1980-81.
Board concurrence with the above recommendations and authorization to proceed
with securing of bids is requested.
LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED CONCERNING THE'BID PRICE
"THAT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE END OF THE SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY
WGYL, IT WAS DECIDED TO REMOVE THAT BID FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATION
-OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND AUTHORIZED HIM TO -PROCEED WITH SECURING
BIDS FOR THE SOUND SYSTEM -FOR THE NEW COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER.
E - APPROVAL OF SECTION S -EXISTING HOUSING PROGRAM
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING REQUEST:
Nay 12, 1981
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Board of Co(ijit Commissioners
FROM: Edw—armed J. Rega
RE: Requisition for Quarterly Payment of
Annual Contributions Contract -
Section 8 Existing Housing Program
Annual Contributions Contract A-3409 with the U.S.
Department of Housing & Urban Development requires the
requisition of funds quarterly. This is our fourth
requisition under the Section 8 Existing Housing Program
for fiscal year 1981.
Attached is a copy of HUD Form 52663 requisitioning
$50,015.00 for the period from July 1, 1981 through
September 30, 1981.
I respectfully request the Board of County Commis-
sioners' concurrence in its,.,execution by the Chairman.
10
LOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER WODTKE, FOR THE BOARD TO APPROVE THE REQUISITION FOR
PARTIAL PAYMENT OF ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS - SECTION S HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM,
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON
AND CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
�� PAf E 458
`46 FADE 4591
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H0'7StNG AND URBAN qt.%, L�Lol-MFNT FOR HUD USE ONLY
:REQUISITION FOR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROr3liA O Vjuchr►Number _
SECTION -23 L1 SECTION 8 X
i Cate of Requisition 52/81 Fisc,11 Year Ending Date 9/30/81 - For Quarter Ending 9/16/m
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PUBLIC HOUSING AGLNCY-(Ineiudl,et stp_Cude/ ACC Contrast Number A-3409
ll nd ian River County_ -Board of -County C.onialissioners - Project Number FL -29-E132-00-1
jL)0, 20th Place.- Suite 3, Veroa rNo. of Months In Fiscal Year 12
D.'_PC wrARY BANK (Neste, Address and Account Number)
Fi rst Citrus Bank - Typo of Project:
11
'cro Beach, Fla. 32960 ACCT. #98-04000-1 � EXISTING � NEW � REHAB.
N-mibar of Units Under Lease to Eligible Families aE of D_ ate of Requisition
5. ,:stimated� Number of Units to be under Lease at End of Requbsted fluarter
j c. Aorage Monthly Huilsing Assistance Payment For Unit as of Date of Requisition
y T _ ESTIMATE OF
REQUIRED
DESCRIPTION ANNUAL
I CONTRIBUTIONS
(1) (2)
86
126
146
PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
ESTIMATED
CUMULATIVE
TOTAL COST
ADDITIONAL
TOTAL
INCURRED
COST TO END
OF REQUESTED
FUNDS
- TO DATE
- QUARTER
REQUIRED
(3)
(4)
(5)
PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
1. Preliminary Administrative Expense—Prior to ACC (Account 4010)
0
0
0
1 0
2. F', eliminary Administrative Expense—After ACC (Account 4012) -
0
1 3. Total Preliminary Administrative Expense (l iines 1 & 2J
_ - NOhiEXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
l 4 Replacement of Nonexpendable Eq:lipment (Account 7524)Fak"�-
1: Property Betterments and Additions (,4ecount 7540)
0
0
0
"� r�f� 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Nonexpendable Equipment (tires 4 d 5)
0 0
- - -
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
1. Housing Assistance Payments (Account 4715)
265,476
9,72393
55.1.88
1520581
AOMINISTRATIVE FEE .
1, Total Administrative Fee Approved for Fiscal Year
31,212
( Monthly Rate of Administrative Fee (Lute 8 divided by number of months
cit fiscal Fear) -
2,601
10. Amount Previously Requisitioned for fiscal year
19,833
11. F:limated Additional Amount Required to end of Requested Quarter
11,379
12. Total Administrative Fee (Lincs 10d 11)
31,212
INDiPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUPJTA14T AUDIT COSTS (Section 8only)
;3. Tot�l-iudspendent Public Accountant Audi. Custs
t
SECURITY AND UTILITY DEFCSI7 S (Section 23 onlyl
0
it
0
:4. Total Allowance Approved for Security and Utility Deposits
0
15. Amount Previously Requisitioned for Fiscal Year
!! 13. Estimated Additional Amount Required to End of Requested Quarter :
7. Total Security and Utility Deposits (Lines 13 d 16)
0
\
0
0
j AMOUNT OF THIS REQUISITION
i Tula! Funds Required to End of Requested Quarter (Lines 3, 6. 7, 12.
134 17)
;. Tot31 Partial Payments Received for Fiscal Year to Data
\
`
�\
183,793
133,778
fiii. Partial Payment Requested (Line 1,; minus Linc 19)
50 O1
IST
INSTALL .SENT
2NO
INSTALLMENT
3RD
INSTALMENT
TOTAL
METHOD OF PAYMEUT
Pi,quested Installment Payments
16,671
50 015
F 1111FY that housing ,+ssistance paymnn,3 have been ¢r will ba made only with rompoct to units which. 11) are under lease by Families at the time such
,.-;:ry etsttance payments are made ex *,pt as uthonviss provided in the Housing Aaisiance Pa munts Contracts and f2) the Housing Agency has within
;,^ar prior to the ma;ung of such housing assistcnce paymznts, adequately trtspectod or ccusad to be inspected (Including inspection of grounds, facilities,
,s• l.)r the henelit cnd use of the I.umilieoi) to assure that decent, safe and saniwry housing accommodations we being provided; that ull applicable pto-
,A :' tha above numbrsred Contract have been complied with by the Housing Agency; and that this requisition for annual contributions has been exam -
f1 ' y me and to the best of my knovrludge and belief it is true, correct and complete. Indian River County
B901 i of County Coamissioners
May 20, 1981
(Dots,)
I t D OFFICE APPROVAL
_ (S.ynatury and Thh, of Ufftcsa: Authorized to Approve)
ACCOUNTING DIVISION
aln.;natad by:
(S,N w(we)
l l �:u.• 1
TV IAL'
I'F+Vh7t:tJT AMOUNT
FOR PAID
MONTH OF
of Official Authorizai fo Certify)
(Date)
DATE CERTIFIED
CERTIFIED FOR BY
PAYMENT (Initials)
,
HUD -52663
0
G - MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
ATTORNEY COLLINS REFERRED TO THE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS
WITH THE AMBULANCE SQUAD, TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, AND NORTH
AND SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS AND HE QUESTIONED WHETHER IT WAS
NECESSARY FOR THE COUNTY TO SIGN THE AGREEMENTS. ATTORNEY COLLINS
STATED THAT IN THE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS WITH THE TOWN OF INDIAN
RIVER SHORES, THE TOWN AND THE COUNTY CONSENTED TO AGREEMENTS BECAUSE
OF OTHER OUSTANDING AGREEMENTS THAT THEY HAD AND WANTED TO BE SURE
THERE WASNIT ANY MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO WHETHER ONE WOULD OVERRULE
THE OTHER. HE COMMENTED THAT THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
DISTRICTS HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA, SINCE THEIR
ESTABLISHMENT, AND HE FELT THE COUNTY PLAYS NO PART IN THE AGREEMENTS.
DISCUSSION ENSUED.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED NOT TO SIGN, AS THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS.
I — REQUEST TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING --COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
ATTORNEY COLLINS ADVISED THAT TWO THINGS WOULD BE NEEDED:
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE ORDINANCE REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND
USE PLAN; AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OFA DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED,�AND-IT WAS•POINTED OUT THAT IT WOULD
BE HELPFUL TO -HAVE A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO REVIEWING THE MASTER PLAN.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER SUGGESTED REVIEWING -THE LAND USE
ELEMENT FIRST AND CONTINUING ON WITH THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF LESSER -
'tONCERN.
-COMMISSIONER WDDTKE SUGGESTED SETTING UP THE MEETINGS ACCORDING
TO THE ZONE IN ORDER TO HAVE VALUABLE INPUT FROM--THE-AREAS T -HE BOARD
-WILL BE DISCUSSING.. _
COMMISSIONER BIRD SUGGESTED THREE ZONES: BEACH; NORTH OF
ROAD 60 MAINLAND; -AND SOUTH OF ROAD.60 MAINLAND. -
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER W.ODTKE, SECONDED.BY-COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE -BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE
MAY 2 01981
13
aoox - 46 F�r_,F 460
_ - -
NAY 201981 - -�io�c 46 PAcE4,
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN BE SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 12 AND AUGUST 26
AT 7:00 Q' -CLOCK P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK,-SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER-WODTKE, THE*BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ADVERTISEMENT
OF THE -ORDINANCE REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN.
MASTER PLAN
CHAIRMAN LYONS ANNOUNCED THAT HE -IS PLANNING TO MEET WITH
MAYOR NOLAN OF THE TDWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES TO DISCUSS A PROBLEM
CONCERNING. COUNTY PROPERTY CUTTING OFF THE PEBBLE BEACH CONDOMINIUM
FROM THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES. HE ADVISED THAT HE WILL REPORT
HIS FINDINGS -TO TH-E BOARD AT A LATER DATE.
CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED HE WAS BOTHERED THAT THEY HAVE SO
MANY PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR REZONINGS ON REGULAR COMMISSION DAYS AND
WONDERED IF A SEPARATE DAY SHOULD BE SET FOR THIS PURPOSE.
A BRIEF DISCUSSION FOLLOWED:AND CHAIRMAN LYONS AND
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK SUGGESTED HOLDING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE
EVENING.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT THEY COULD TRY SETTING
THESE HEARINGS FOR THE FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH.
OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR
CHAIRMAN LYONS TO MIAMI, FLORIDA, ON FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1981 IN CONNECTION
WITH THE SELECTION OF A FIRM FOR THE TREASURE COAST UTILITIES SUIT.
OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY BIRD,
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR COMMISSIONER
WODTKE TO SARASOTA AND NAPLES, FLORIDA IN CONJUNCTION WITH GETTING A
MEANINGFUL PRESENTATION AND DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE.
REACH PRESERVATION & RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING - REPORT
COMMISSIONER WODTKE GAVE A BRIEF REPORT OF THE MEETING
HELD REGARDING THE BEACH PRESERVATION & RESTORATION, AND ADVISED
THAT THE FEASIBILITY REPORT THAT WAS DISCUSSED DID NOT INCLUDE THE
SABECON REEF PROJECT, HE ADVISED THAT THE COST OF THE VERO BEACH
PROJECT WAS $2,979,000 AS OF JANUARY, 1980 AND THE PORTION OF THAT
COST IS NORMALLY 500 FEDERAL AND THE NON-FEDERAL CONSISTS OF 750
STATE AND 250 LOCAL. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT THE LOCAL COST
WOULD BE $464,000, AND AS LONG AS THERE IS PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE OCEAN
EVERY HALF MILE, VERO BEACH WOULD QUALIFY FOR STATE FUNDING.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE REPORTED THAT THIS PROJECT IS TO BE INCLUDED
IN THE WATER RESOURCE ACT, WHICH IS ACTED UPON EVERY THREE YEARS -
THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 144 PROJECTS WAITING TO GET APPROVED THROUGH
THE OFFICE MANAGEMENT BUDGET FOR FUNDING. COMMISSIONER.WODTKE STRESSED
THAT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO ASK OUR CONGRESSMEN TO BE SURE THAT
THEY INCLUDE OUR INDIAN RIVER PROJECT AND HAVE IT LISTED IN THE ----
WATER RESOURCE ACT, OR IT COULD FALL BY THE WAYSIDE. HE ADVISED THAT
HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO DRAFT THE LETTER TO OUR REPRESENTATIVES IN
WASHINGTON.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM-
MISSIONER BIRD, TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN -TO SEND A LETTER TO THE
APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATIVES IN WASHINGTON AND MAKE THEM AWARE OF OUR
WATER PROJECT, AND THAT THEY INCLUDE IT IN THE WATER RESOURCE ACT,
IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR FUNDING.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND THE BOARD AGREED THIS PROJECT
MUST BE KEPT ALIVE. _
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED IF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS -
USED TIRE CLUSTERS TO PREVENT THE BEACH EROSION. -
COMMISSIONER WODTKE-STATED THAT -THIS -WAS NOT DISCUSSED, BUT
THE CORPS DID MAKE A.RECOMMENDATION OF -PUMPING SAND.
THE CHAIRMAN -CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON
AND CARRIED 4 TO 1, -WITH -COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING I --N OPPOSITION.' -
MAY 2 0'981
15
_'F 462`
MAY 2 0190 PAGE 463
REPORT -- PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING- _
COMMISSIONER BIRD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING LETTER FROM
RENE G. VANBEVOORDE AND THE-TRI—PARTYTE RECREATION AGREEMENT
DATED FEBRUARY 18, 1976.-
North
976:l- orth -Indian River County Recreation, INC.
P.O. Dox 573 . Sebastian, Florida 32958 * (305) 589-1339
Karen Ekonomou - Director
Commissioner Dick Byrd
2145 14th Avenue -
Indian River County Courthouse -
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Dick,
Enclosed is a copy of the tri -partite agreement dated 10'h(
and signed by the City of Sebastian, City of Fellsmere, and the
County Commission. It is my understanding that the North County
Recreation, Inc., is only authorized to spend money from the County
Commission in areas described in the agreement.
The Board of Directors has decided that they would like to construct
a concrete basketball court in the Fellsmere area in a park area in the
black community. However, this park area is not one of the parks included
in the agreement. We believe -the community would get good use out of the
court if it was built there. The park area is described as follows:
CENTRAL PARK - HALL,CARTER AND JAMES SUBDIVISION
The funds were those allocated in the 1980-81 budget for a tennis court.
($4,000.00.)
I am therefore requesting permission from the County Commission or the
administrator to spend the funds in this park.
In addition we have certain sums of money allocated in the 1980-81 budget
for clay for the Little League field in Fellsmere ( $1,870.00)
The old Little League field which was part of our trL-partite agreement,
is being given to the school board, for construction of the new Fellsmere
school. The current plans call for, as I understand it, for the construc-
tion of the new Little League field on two lots located near the current
Fellsmere school but owned by the County. I would therefore request
permission to put the clay on that county property.
Finally, I think we should consider revising or amending the tri-partite
agreement to include the new park and recreation sites in Fellsmere and
Sebastian.
Thank you
Sincerely,
_4 Va"
Rene C. VanDeVoorde:
President
North County Recreation, Inc.
MAY 2 :1 17 8OQX 4 PAcE 464
98� _
TRI -PARTITE RF,CREATION AGREEMENT
M0K 46 FAcE 65-
TIiIS AGREEMENT, entered into the 18th day -of February �
1976, by and between INDIAN RIVER.COUNTY,-CITY OF FELLSMERE AND
CITY OF SEBASTIAN;-
MHEREAS, the CITIES OF.FELLSMERE and SEBASTIAN have requested
the -COUNTY for funds to improve recreational facilities located
on the following described properties:
WASHINGTON PARK, City of Fellsmere
Lots 5, 6, 71 8, and 9, Block 97,-TOWN-OF.FELLSMERE, _
according to the Plat filed in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of St, -Lucie County, Florida,
in Plat Book 2, pages 3.and 4; said land now lying
and being in Indian River County, Florida.
CITY OF SEBASTIAN ------------- 4.08 = acres
SUBDIVISION UNIT 16, TRACT N.
SEBASTIAN COMMUNITY CENTER
.00EAN BREEZE HEIGHTS_ -SUBDIVISION, Lots 1 8 , inclusive,
Block 2
SEBASTIAN Little League Field located on Main Street,
Sebastian
and;
WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to allocate Seven Thousand
"y Six Hundred Dollars ($7,600.00) of Revenue Sharing Funds for the
purpose -of improving the facilities and equipment used by the
Muncipalities on the properties described; and
WHEREAS, all parties agree that the monies allocated shall
be under the control of the COUNTY Administrator to be disbursed
in his discretion based on a plan submitted by the NORTH COUNTY
RECREATION COMMITTEE;
NOW, THEREFORE, .the parties agree as follows:
1. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY shall allocate Seven Thousand
Six Hundred Dollars ($7,600.00) from Revenue Sharing Funds for
the purpose of improving the recreation facilities and equipment
in the Recreation Areas described above.
2. The CITY OF SEBASTIAN and the CITY OF FELLSMERE agree
that when the COUNTY has established either a County -wide Recreation
Program or a County Program, with boundaries encompassing the
above described property,.that both CITIES will permit their
recreation facilities to be i`npludad in the COUNTY Recreation
Plan at no cost to COUNTY and further that the facilities will
]-8
R Cities shall retain full._ownership of all properties.
be used by all COUNTY residents on an equal basis.*
3. The Parties agree that the COUNTY Administrator will
have complete control over the -funds as allocated and he shall,
without further authority, disburse in partial payments, the
necessary funds to pay for the improvements that are constructed
according to the Plan of Improvement submitted by the NORTH
COUNTY RECREATION COMMITTEE. Said disbursement shall be made
directly to the Contractors and Equipment Suppliers based on
invoices presented. All work shall be bid to the COUNTY
Administrator's satisfaction prior to letting Contracts.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSONERS
" �_, ale, //�
By
Wi liard W. Seibdrt, Jr., airman
ATTEST:
Clerk' �
Approved as to For110
County Attorney
CITY OF FELLSMEI2E "... _
By
Y� t` F. W. WMER .
AT EST:
Clerk -
Appproved as toForm:
_City Attorney -
ATTEST:
Clark- .
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
MAY20-1981
CITY OF SEBASTIAN
By
MAYOR F:_ E. ENE CRACC
19
90K PAGE MG.
MAY 2 01981 A6. -PAtE467.
SOME DISCUSSION -FOLLOWED, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS REMEMBERD_
THAT THE. -AREAS IN THE NORTH -COUNTY MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT WOULD
RECEIVE SOME.BENEFIT THAT THE COMMISSION ALLOCATED.
MOTION WAS -MADE -BY COMMISSIONER SCU-RLOCK,-SECDNDED BY COM -
MI SS I ON ER ELETCHE'R, - THAT THE BOARD _APPROVE TH:E REQUEST :AS OUTLINED
IN THE LETTER DATED MAY 15,. 1981, AND TO INSTRUCT THE COUNTY -ATTORNEY
TO INCORPORATE THE TRI -PARTITE RECREATION AGREEMENT INTO -A NEW
ENCOMPASSING AGREEMENT. -
CHAIRMAN LYONS STRESSED THAT THE BOARD MUST MAINTAIN A
COUNTY RECREATION PROGRAM.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON
AND CARRIED -UNANIMOUSLY.
16TH STREET BICYCLE PATH -Discuss-ION
COMMISSIONER BIRD COMMENTED THAT HE REPRESENTS THE COUNTY
ON THE BIKE PATH COMMITTEE AND RECENTLY HE WAS MADE AWARE,_ FROM A
LETTER TO FORMER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ,JENNINGS FROM THE DOT, THAT
THERE WAS $218,000 AVAILABLE FOR BIKE PATHS. HE ADDED THAT THE
BIKE PATH COMMITTEE FELT THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY WAS TO FORM A BIKE
PATH ON 16TH STREET TO CONNECT WITH THE PRESENT BIKE PATH, AND THEY
WOULD LIKE TO FILE AN APPLICATION IN ORDER TO GET THE GRANT FUNDS
AVAILABLE. COMMISSIONER BIRD ADVISED THAT ENGINEER JIM DAVIS HAD
CHECKED INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SITUATION AND THERE IS JUST 11' OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY, MAKING THE AREA LIMITED. HE CONTINUED THAT THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDED THAT THEY GO AHEAD AND APPLY FOR THE GRANT AND THAT THE
LOCAL FUNDING BE SHARED BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, THE CITY OF
VERO BEACH, THE SCHOOL BOARD, AND THE KIWANIS CLUB. COMMISSIONER
BIRD NOTED THE COMMITTEE IS SAYING THAT THE BIKE PATH CAN BE COMPLETED
FOR $20,000; THEY WOULD BE APPLYING FOR A $10,000 GRANT; AND THE
MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE ABOVE FOUR GROUPS WOULD AMOUNT TO $2,500 EACH.
ENGINEER .JIM DAVIS THEN REVIEWED HIS MEMORANDUM DATED
MAY 14TH, AS FOLLOWS:
E
TO: Nei 1 A. Nelson,
County Administrator
FROM:
Jim Davis,
County Engineer
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
. 4
i
.s
DATE: r+ay 14, 198,1 FILE:
SUBJECT: Bicycle Path proposed along the North
of 16th Street between 29th Avenue
and 17th Avenue
In communication with Commissioner Dick Bird, Mayor Terry Goff, and City
Director of Public Works Lewis Greene, I have been investigating the possibility
of applying for a grant from the Florida D.O.T. along with the feasibility of
actual construction of the project. On May 14, I spoke with Douq O'Hara, D.O.T.
District IV Bicycle Coordinator- and the following comments were made:
1) The attached typical section of the 50' wide 16th Street right-
of-way shows a 12' wide shoulder along the north with City power
poles approximately 7' north of the edge of pavement. Doug O'Hara
of the D.O.T. stated that a two-way bike path standard width: -under
the grant criteria, is 8' typical. The power poles restrict this
8' wide design. He did say that we could submit a proposed 6' wide
bicycle lane by extending the 16tH Street pavement to the north.as�
an exception and it would be.considered. To date, about 9 applications
have been -received, and he stated -that if all nine are approved, the
grant money would be depleted. Our request, however; would-be
prioritized based on need and "in kind" contributions. So, we have
a chance.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES
Based on our investigation, we can, after consideration and direction by the
Board of County. Commissioners (in conjunction with the City Council), apply for
a grant from the-D.O.T. prior to May 29, 1981. We have prepared a preliminary
cost estimate for the project as follows:
Construct 6' wide, 3047 L.F. Bike Lane
1) Earthwork/excavation 330 c.y. @$3.00 =$ 990.
2) Subgrade Preparation 2370 s.y. 0$1.00 = 2370.
3) 4" Li,merock -Base 2370 s.y. @$3.-00 7100.
4)'-. 1" D.O.T. Type II Asphalt 113 Tons @ $41.00=4630.
5). Herbicide Treatment -of Subarade -$200.
61 5oi Is Testi na - 250.
Strip pi
no 300. -
�) Ma-intenance of Traffic 400.
9) Sians (Bike Lane) _ 300. _
Encineers Estimate
165�C:
Please be .advised that inadequate drainage-swales and facili-ties exist
alonu this north ri;ht-of-.qay area._ Paving this area. will generate increased
runoff and may.impact the private property owners to the -north.
201981'. _ 21 _ PON 4.6 RAcF. 468_
Commissi.oner_Gird-has expressed to me that he will bring -this matter be-
fore the Board of County Con -vii ss i oners -during the May 20, 1981 regular scheduled
meeting...Mayor Goff will also bring the matter before the. -City -Council at
the next meeting. Once direction is given, we can prepare an application
package if time permits..
--The proposed design is not ideal_since we have clearance restrictions,
but it will grant some- relief to a critical need.
RECOMMENDATIONS A.%1D- FUNDI -1G _
If approved by the Board, it is.recommended that the Engineering Divisi®n
proceed with grant application. Singe time is--o.f the essence,:we Seould have
to put other projects on the back burner until future time permits.
ENGINEER DAVIS REITERATED THAT THE AREA IN QUESTION IS
RESTRICTED AND THEY MAY HAVE TO REDUCE THE WIDTH OF THE BIKE PATH
FROM S' TO 6', AND THEY MAY END UP WITH A UTILITY POLE OR TWO ON
.THE PATH. -
COMMISSIONER WODTKE- EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT AN EXTENSION
OF THE PAVEMENT WHERE THERE WOULD BE NO DIVIDER, AS CARS WOULD BE
DRIVING ON THE SAME PAVEMENT. -
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT A PROCEDURE USING
STRIPES COULD BE DONE, AS WELL AS POSTING SIGNS.•*
COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE PERFECT
SOLUTION BUT THEY COULD STRIPE AND WRITE ON THE BIKE PATH THAT IT
IS A BIKE PATH.
ATTORNEY COLLINS CAUTIONED THAT IF YOU DESIGN SOMETHING
THAT YOU KNOW IS DANGEROUS, YOU DO CREATE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS FOR
YOURSELF RATHER THAN SOLVE THEM.
WILLIAM KOOLAGE, INTERESTED CITIZEN, FELT THE BOARD WOULD
BE ASKING FOR TROUBLE BY PUTTING A BIKE PATH ALONG 16TH STREET, AND
HE FELT A CULVERT WAS NEEDED THERE AND A FOUR LANE ROAD.
TERRY GOFF, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, STATED THAT
THE CITY APPROVED THE BIKE PATH PROVIDED THE FUNDS WOULD COME OUT
OF A MUNICIPAL TAXING DISTRICT; AND THE KIWANIS CLUB HAD APPROVED IT.
COMMISSIONER BIRD COMMENTED THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS TRYING
TO PROVIDE A SAFER WAY FOR THE PEDESTRIAN AND BIKERS TO TRAVERSE;
AND FELT THAT HERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COUNTY TO ONLY INVEST
$2,500 TO BUILD A BIKE PATH. --.,IN ADDITION, HE STATED, SOMEBODY HAS
TO FILL OUT THE APPLICATION, AND ENGINEER DAVIS CAN DO THIS JOB.
COMMISSIONER BIRD NOTED THAT THE ENGINEER HAS BEEN ASSURED OF SOME
ENGINEERING HELP FROM THE KIWANIS CLUB AND SOME DRAFTING EXPERTISE
FROM THE CITY OF VERO BEACH. HE FELT ENGINEER DAVIS COULD FILL OUT
THE APPLICATION WITHIN A WEEK, IF THE BOARD SO APPROVED.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM-
MISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO PROCEED
WITH THE GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE BIKE PATH, WITH FUNDS COMING FROM
THE MUNICIPAL FUND, PLUS IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE MADE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL
THE DESIGN AND SAFETY PRECAUTIONS ARE CERTAIN.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE -QUESTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM.
IT WAS VOTED ON 2 TO 3 AND FAILED, WITH COMMISSIONERS WODTKE AND
FLETCHER VOTING IN FAVOR.
ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THE MOTION BE EXPANDED TO ALLOW
SOME INVESTIGATION OF MOVING THE UTILITY POLES FARTHER TO THE NORTH.
COMMISSIONER BIRD ADVISED THAT MAY -29TH WAS THE DEADLINE
FOR FILING THE GRANT AND HE URGED THAT THE BOARD MOVE AHEAD. HE
FELT IF THIS WAS DELAYED -FOR THE POWER POLES TO BE MOVED, THEY WOULD
NOT BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THE -GRANT.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER-FELT :THIS MATTER WAS MOVING TOO FAST
AND TIME WAS NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THE BIKE PATH WAS DONE RIGHT.
THE CHAIRMAN -CALLED FOR -THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON
3 TO 2 AND CARRIED, WITH COMMISSIONERS WODTKE AND FLETCHER VOTING
IN OPPOSITION.
ORTH COUALY-FLRE_II_ST_RICT
THE BOARD -OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT
10:00 0 CLOCK A.M.-IN ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT BOARD OF Fl -RE
COMMISSIONERS
-
COMMISSIONERS OF THE NORTH INDIAN- RIVER COUNTY FIRE D-ISTRICT MIGHT
CONVENE.- MINUTES OF -THAT MEETING WILL BE PREPARED SEPARATELY.
MAY 2 0 198123 4 �tg, 40
- -- - - -
MAY
BOOK PmcE 4`71
SOUTH COUNTY:FIRE-.ISmCT
THE -BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSLONERS THEREUPON -RECESSED AT
10-:05 O'CLOCK A.M. IN ORDER -THAT THE DISTRI-CT BOARD -OF FIRE
COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTH --INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MIGHT
CONVENE MINUTES OF THAT MEETING WILL BE PREPARED SEPARATELY.
THE BOARD OF -COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON -RECONVENED
AT -10;15 O`CLOCK`A.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT.-
DISCUSSION RE ADDENDUM N0. 2 TO INDIAN RIVER CO. 201 FACILITIES PLAN
ENGINEER -JOHN ROBBINS REFERRED TO ADDENDUM N0, 2 TO THE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 201 FACILITIES PLAN, WHICH IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK, AND REVIEWED THE VARIOUS ITEMS IN THE FOLLOWING LETTER
DATED APRIL 13, 1981
SVERDRUP & PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
AND _
BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
to JOINT VENTURE)
Project No. 6383C
April 13, 1981
Mr. Neil Nelson
County Administrator
Indian River County
2145 14th Avenue
County Courthouse
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Nelson:
Attached herewith are ten (10) copies of Addendum No. 2 to the Indian
River County 201 Facilities Plan. This addendum should correct the
remaining discrepancies which were found in the 201 Plan. Please
note the following changes that were made to the Plan.
1. Section 1.3 - Recommendation 4 was reworded to properly
reflect the terms of the Interlocal Agreement and Recom-
mendation 7 was added to incorporate the conversion of
the Vero Beach Wastewater Plant from aerobic to anaerobic
digestion as part of the 201 Facilities Plan, both at the
City of Vero Beach's request.
.M
2. Section 13.4 - Reworded at the City of Vero Beach's
request to properly reflect the Interlocal Agreement.
3. Section 16.2.3.d - Sentence referencing sale of the power
plant was deleted at the request of the City of Vero Beach.
4. Tables 20-3, 20-6, 20-7, 22-1 and the Tables in Appendix
E had to be revised because the original Appendix E re-
flected a transmission system different from the selected
system and was never revised to reflect the current
selected transmission system when the 201 plan was revised.
This resulted in some minor changes which required genera-
tion of revised costs. All the above tables are based on
Appendix E and, therefore, also required updating. The
revised Tables and Appendix E also reflect the transmission
system being presently designed for Indian River Shores.
5. Exhibit 20-2 - The changes mentioned in Addendum No. 2 were
partly responsible for the changes made to Appendix E.
6. Appendices A, B, and C which were not previously published,
have been included now that the information has been finalized.
The above addendum should complete the 201 Facilities Plan and no
additional changes should be required. It is now necessary for the
County Commission to approve this addendum so that it can be distri-
buted to FDER and EPA and all the participating municipalities.
Therefore, would you review this addendum and have it placed on the h
agenda of the County's next scheduled Commission Meeting. With the
budget cuts forthcoming in the Construction Grants Program, it is
inperative that the County act as quickly as.possible so that the
necessary review process can begin. Any passible delays could re-
duced the County's chances of obtaining adequate funding for this
project.
If I can -be of any further assistance to the County, please do not
hesitate to call on me. 'In the meantime, I will continue to compile
the Step 2 Grant Application for the-County;,to submit to EPA sometime
in May.
S -i ncerely,
Benjamin Dav-id Avery -
For the Joint Venture
Enclosures
cc: John Robbins
Jim Beindorf
25
�cc� 4 ��AF 472
MAY 2 0199 1
PACE 473
MOTION WAS.MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM-
MISSIONER SCURLOCK TO APPROVE ADDENDUM #2 AND THE ITEMS LISTED
IN THE LETTER DATED APRIL 13, 1981 FROM THE .JOINT VENTURE TO
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AND ENGINEER ROBBINS DEFINED SEVERAL
TECHNICAL WORDS -THAT APPEARED- I N ADDENDUM #2-.
COMMISSIONER FLETC-HER REQUESTED A COPY OF THE MOSQUITO
IMPOUNDMENT PLAN - REFERRED TO AS THE BARNETT PLAN.- FROM MR. ROBBINS.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE.QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON 4 TO -
AND CARRIED, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
ENGINEER BOBBINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE PELICAN ISLAND
AUDOBON SOCIETY HAD ENDORSED THE 201 -PLAN. HE ALSO GAVE THE BOARD
AN INDICATION OF WHERE THEY STAND WITH THEIR EFFORTS IN WRAPPING.UP
THE 201 PLAN: ADDENDUM #2 WILL ALLOW THE ENGINEERS TO COMPLETE ALL
OF THEITEMS IN THE STEP ONE PROCESS AND IT WILL BE SENT TO EPA; ALL
THE OTHER INFORMATION WAS TRANSMITTED IN JANUARY. MR. ROBBINS STATED
THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY TRYING TO WRAP UP THE STEP 2 GRANT APPLICATION
To -.-FLORIDA DER,AND AS SOON AS THAT APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED AND
REVIEWED, -EPA WILL PLACE THE COUNTY'S 201 PLAN ON THEIR FUNDABLE
LIST WHICH WILL THEN ALLOW THEM TO REVIEW THE PLAN. HE IS TRYING
TO DOCUMENT WITH EPA THEIR RECEIPT OF FLORIDA DER'S WASTE LOAD
ALLOCATION STUDY AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS TRANSMITTED TO EPA IN
1979. THE INDICATION THAT WE ARE GETTING FROM EPA IS THAT THEY HAD
SOME PERSONNEL CHANGES - THE PEOPLE WHO WERE WORKING ON THIS PROJECT
HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE MISSISSIPPI SECTION, AND IT APPEARS THAT
THE LEFT HAND AND THE RIGHT HAND DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE
PAST. MR, ROBBINS IS ATTEMPTING TO DOCUMENT THE FACT THAT THE LEFT
HAND DID KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT HAND WAS DOING TO BETTER ESTABLISH THE
COUNTY'S POSITION AS FAR AS GETTING ON THE PRIORITY LIST FOR FUNDING,
AND HE WOULD KEEP THE BOARD ADVISED OF HIS PROGRESS. MR. ROBBINS
COMMENTED THAT A MEETING MAY BE NECESSARY WITH OUR SENATOR OR
REPRESENTATIVE IN AN EFFORT TO CLARIFY WHY THERE ARE SOME GREY AREAS
IN THE REVIEW OF THE WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE
26 '
DER IN 1979; THIS IS WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER TO ESTABLISH
THE COUNTY'S POSITION VERY CLEARLY - JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE BOARD
AWARE, HE CONTINUED THAT IF HE GETS A NEGATIVE RESPONSE BACK FROM
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE EPA of REGION Ll HE WILL POSSIBLY SUGGEST
MEETING WITH SOMEONE WHO MAY LEND ASSISTANCE AT A HIGHER LEVEL WITH
EPA, IN ORDER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THESE AREAS,
CHAIRMAN LYONS ADVISED THAT IN THE PAST, THE PREVIOUS BOARD
AUTHORIZED HIM TO TRAVEL, WHENEVER NECESSARY, IN CONNECTION WITH
THE 201 PLAN; THIS HAS NOT BEEN RENEWED BY THIS BOARD.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BIRD, FOR THE BOARD TO AUTHORIZE OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL
FOR CHAIRMAN LYONS, WHENEVER NECESSARY, IN CONNECTION WITH THE 201
PLAN.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
ENGINEER ROBBINS NEXT DISCUSSED THE CUTTING -BACK ON BUDGETS
FOR THE 201 FACILITY PLAN PROGRAMS. HE HEARD THAT THERE MAY RE-
DISTRIBUTIONS OF FUNDS AMONG STATES THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY ACTIVE
IN PURSUING THEIR 201 PLANS, AND SOME OF THOSE FUNDS MAY BE TRANSFERRED
TO OTHER STATES WHERE THERE IS ACTIVITY ON=A PRIMARY BASIS. MR.
ROBBINS STATED THAT HE WAS ADVISED THE COUNTY'S 201 PLAN WILL PROBABLY
BEGIN REVIEW BY. EPA I.N THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1982, WHICH BEGINS _
NOVEMBER IST OF THIS YEAR AND THEY ARE MAKING A DESPERATE EFFORT TO
TRY TO HAVE IT PUT ON THE -PRIORITY LIST BEFORE THAT.. -.JUST AS A POINT
OF CLARIFICATION, THE BOARD AGREED THAT MR-; -ROBBINS HAS THE
AUTHORIZATION TO PURSUE THIS MATTER.
SOUTH BEACH CATER - REPORT _
MA.Y 2 01981
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING -.MATERIAL: -- -
BOOK
27 _
PAGE 474
3 -MAY 2 U 1981 -
ADDITIONAL -COMMENTS_ TO
ADDENDUM NO. 2
SOUTH BEACH WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY$ FLORIDA_
Prepared for
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER -COUNTY, FLORIDA -
Prepared by
SVERDRUP & PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA -
(A Joint Venture)
Engineer's Project No. 7362
May 14, 1981
'.._. ...�,.. .:r. ��� �T!-.9::+a+.it•'+rr�'tY.,,;,;�, �k',�',�,t'�w, y. - �"'�ckc .yj.. sw.•.+�'. �;+v"e�+*r�A$�,`•`���'�ft'�tL1,,a��w-t4} _
. ' ..t -' lxaar-;.� .. .��°•. ... ai':'a.ic:�:i�,'.P,.c�".- �`.".�c' �. +:�.. - -. "^•G�L,•'°.f'Fv. fi.�#""?�—+..^'.'• ".
r-- .;T:esx.;m��-• ,:;�.,,sc+s ac,>:, ..abr..s.� w.1:> _•j ^^r' a��y��` i"�y`-"� .,a `1..:�....-- :.a.,.�,
Z
.?; A�Ba �y,e,ei,»,n,� ' F-,�.,—, ": � e.. :�^x � F �..,�� �,y �y .. 5<a.t.r'`aw`.�. A" � +w-.u`�e i�� �.2{"i .f." `' � •f sa���+w.`�7't�s �`'tasr« f �,y y.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pace
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. IMPACT FEES 2
III. WATER BILLS 4
*Y20 1981-. - - BOOK 46 1. ("477
I. INTRODUCTION -
The. -Joint Venture submitted -Addendum No. 2 to the Supplement of
the South Beach Water- System Analysis to the County Commissiorn..prior
to the Commission meeting of'May-6, 1931. The Addendum was submitted
to allow the Commission to review and make comments or request addi- -
tional information prior. to the subject appearing before -the Commission
- at the meeting of May 20, 1981. The_information..presented herein is
a res-ult of -questions which were asked by various Commissioners and
-County Staff, -and comments made -by Mr. George Liner with respect to
the Addendum.- In addition, -some of the information presented herein
is a result of -a -committee meeting -held_on May -.13, 1981, attended by
-Commissioner Scurlock (Chairman of committee), Mr. George -Liner,
County Utilities Director; Mr. John Robbins and Mr. Guy Wills of the
Joint Venture.
The information presented is directed at determining an_impact
fee which could be required of -any non -vested water connection which
would receive water service from the -proposed South -Beach System.
In addition, a clarification of the -estimated monthly.water-bills for
Alternati-ves 1 and 2 will be addressed. Also presented is an.indica-
tion of how the estimated monthly water bills would'be affected should
more than the existing 861 water connections be available for amortiza-
tion of the Project Cost.
1
II. IMPACT FEES
The following will outline a possible impact fee which could be
assessed to all non -vested water connections on the South Beach if the
County serviced the area. The impact fee shown is based on utilizing
existing County ordinances. The ordinances utilized are 80-21, Water
Main Extensions and 80-22, Reserve Plant Capacity.
As the subaqueous crossing of the Indian River is an unusual
expense requirement to provide water service, the cost of the subaqueous
crossing could be paid for -by the non -vested users of the South Beach
System. In addition, it will be necessary to construct a ground storage -
tank and booster pumping station to provide full- service for any connec-
tion over and above the 1,000 one inch equivalent connections which are
now vested in the Sau-th Beach system. This cost will also be considered
as required to provide service under the Main Extension Ordinance. Below
is a calculation of a possible impact fee-based on the above and consider-
ation of a reserve plant capacity fee.
A. Main Extension Fees
Subaqueous River Crossing Cost $1,6209000
Ground Storage Tank and Pumping
Station.Cost = $ -450,000
Total Cost for Main Extensions - $2,070,000
Number of Pion -Vested Connections = .1,248
Associated Impact Fee for -Main _ -
Extensions = $. -1,658
B. Reserve Plant Capacity -
The -existing fee for providing reserve water treatment plant
capacity for future connections to the County's water --system is $250
_0
478
98 _
-t.;.-�
L"x�dE: 7L?�''�.
.,�.a... �,w-. +�.. �a�-ua...:n _ - .am.sn�.r':-�..:
, ..y
�g ...- ,'�+r.-•�-. ...'� .. ..;,.�.-:-__ ..
,R-.JrJ �+s4 .,y`y "�"_nypf��lwwj7 S f fil�L •' �fyv J `y... ". �X...-i'fa+.tae"4 ..i-�_.v.e.v....... _.
�°-�.�'' 4..—.iw'+a✓0.+.�Y-i.r. - �
... v ., ..
�''�+..4uL�a.
..:-.- ...
h �
`.'.ns. ...+.+..av++Rn.ww�.,umXt!
-
..-a-l+itl-r�.kn - ..
II. IMPACT FEES
The following will outline a possible impact fee which could be
assessed to all non -vested water connections on the South Beach if the
County serviced the area. The impact fee shown is based on utilizing
existing County ordinances. The ordinances utilized are 80-21, Water
Main Extensions and 80-22, Reserve Plant Capacity.
As the subaqueous crossing of the Indian River is an unusual
expense requirement to provide water service, the cost of the subaqueous
crossing could be paid for -by the non -vested users of the South Beach
System. In addition, it will be necessary to construct a ground storage -
tank and booster pumping station to provide full- service for any connec-
tion over and above the 1,000 one inch equivalent connections which are
now vested in the Sau-th Beach system. This cost will also be considered
as required to provide service under the Main Extension Ordinance. Below
is a calculation of a possible impact fee-based on the above and consider-
ation of a reserve plant capacity fee.
A. Main Extension Fees
Subaqueous River Crossing Cost $1,6209000
Ground Storage Tank and Pumping
Station.Cost = $ -450,000
Total Cost for Main Extensions - $2,070,000
Number of Pion -Vested Connections = .1,248
Associated Impact Fee for -Main _ -
Extensions = $. -1,658
B. Reserve Plant Capacity -
The -existing fee for providing reserve water treatment plant
capacity for future connections to the County's water --system is $250
_0
478
98 _
t AY 241981-
. i-,, X79
per connection.
Associated Reserve -Plant Capacity .
Impact Fee = $ 250
Total -Impact Fee for Non -Vested
Connecti-ons. - _ '$1,908
For the purpose of providing information, below -is a compari-
son of the proposed'impact fees -which would be required for the City to
provide service -versus -the County to provide service to the -South Beach
area. The comparison is based on fees associated with a one inch meter
connection. -
If the City were to provide water service to the South Beach,
the project cost for a main extension from the existing City system would
be paid for -by the non -vested water customers. This would result in a
County impact fee of $1,432 for. -the non -vested user -s.1
From information obtained from the City of -Vero Beach, all new
one inch meter connections.o.n the City System on the beach would-be
assessed an impact fee of $Z,'736. -
City to Provide Service County to Provide Service
$2,736 City Impact Fee $1,908 County Impact Fee
1,432 County Impact Fee
$4,16.8 Total Proposed Impact Fees $1,908
1. The Project Cost as presented in the original report for the 24
inch main extension was $1,787,200. Utilizing the 1,248 non -vested connec-
tions, the associated impact fee would be $1,432.
M,
3
III. WATER BILLS
Addendum No. 2 to the South Beach Water System Analysis presented
two water bills based on two alternatives for project financing.
If private financing at 9% could be arranged, the bill was $49.05.
If part of the system utilized FmHA funds and part of the costs were
privately funded, the bill was presented at $42.02.
The estimated bills shown in Addendum No. 2 represent average
bills required to amortize the total Phase I project cost and includes
the operation and maintenance cost of $8.55 for actual water production
at the water treatment plant ($8.55 0&M costs are for an average water --.-,-
consumption of 19,000 gallons per month per connection). However, some
bills may actually be greater and some bills may be less, depending on
actual consumption.
The estimated water bills for the South Beach area are based upon
the current County rate structure: Please refer to Attachments I and II
as an indicator of estimated water bills based upon an estimated number
of connections (living units).
� _ _ � - � � � � 'i'h-•`na F .i.. 4L'Ftane...:i:.,*±�+ h'^'• 'i-✓.c3i�S.F`2.7.'�Ki..yzrvs/�AtAI':M^t�if+�n�'K4
44�'a.�t"4 w'. i���^$Si��i.i3F".
III. WATER BILLS
Addendum No. 2 to the South Beach Water System Analysis presented
two water bills based on two alternatives for project financing.
If private financing at 9% could be arranged, the bill was $49.05.
If part of the system utilized FmHA funds and part of the costs were
privately funded, the bill was presented at $42.02.
The estimated bills shown in Addendum No. 2 represent average
bills required to amortize the total Phase I project cost and includes
the operation and maintenance cost of $8.55 for actual water production
at the water treatment plant ($8.55 0&M costs are for an average water --.-,-
consumption of 19,000 gallons per month per connection). However, some
bills may actually be greater and some bills may be less, depending on
actual consumption.
The estimated water bills for the South Beach area are based upon
the current County rate structure: Please refer to Attachments I and II
as an indicator of estimated water bills based upon an estimated number
of connections (living units).
F'7
IMAX -2 0 19
806K . 4 PA;E 481
$Ct$ .R
CAP
'77/x' b12JIVA Qs1lyW/1,92
I
�.�m`�n,,"'u..'E"�"`.�"„'E”>s'v ^, ,�s.� N - ^1•..."._��e+-°'�.ra�^�' � r,ts3'� �:�'� F �"`"'^^.z""°",.�.7�^z".';�t�'§�,"�^aen'S'f'^1':°�k"�,,,, +"7'�'.,�-.�'T"�P'�+zq`b':,`
... 6j.•. ...,-, :,,: Fi,'t ..c« :. . -5 � -aA sv«,u-.�.w. �Y .:;�t '1 fid.;- w� 2"�" ri ��-vo_ �-ji+?.v+a'AX�'' C'E�� °:.
"°is�k�'•rr �f+�. '�:;.-z.+zs"=4a,adv.+�:>s'..t.'"��.YSa.'�y"'_�>a-�s`'"-`^'+..�.._.- � �-,==Y.:,.✓ ..... '.c.. .. ... ... ..
4rr.4«1yLNr JL
MAY io 1981- PA
46 F 483
AF}DLIIM NO. 2 TO
'- 'PPLI-A'�NT TO
"oul-ii 'rulo, PIVER, COUNTY
IAT.ER-SYS*1`-.1.1 AWLYSIS
Prepa)Tct for
C
THE BOARD Or Co',!""Jry_ 0 1 S.I� T
0,t' E RS
I IND IAN RIVER CGUNITYj FLORIDA
Pr6pared h.,,
S%"IERDRUP 4 Pi1:"CEL JD ASSOCIATES, INN.
SSC T
V E F,0, 1, E A C 1. i , 1 t -U.'Z 1 L) A
(A
Enqlt-,cer's Project 7262
36
May 1, 190-1
14
SVERDRUP ?c PARCEL AND AssoCIATES, INC.
AND
BEINDORF ANbASSOCIATES, INC. t
(A JOINT VERJTURE)
Project No.
April 29, 1981
MEMORANDUM
TO: George Liner, Utilities Dept.
Indian River County
FROM: John A. Robbins
SUBJECT: Status Report of Projects by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
and Beindorf and Associates, Inc. (A Joint Venture)
ITEM L1 - SOUTH COUNTY TAX DISTRICT Engineer's Proj. No. 6858
667
Status of the South County 4,later System is as follows:
--We have received the report from our hydrogeological consultants,
Geraghty, & Miller, -to -be used .as final supporting documentation for_.-
our water use perit to be issued by St. Jobns River Water
Manage-ment District (SJRW D). -
- --We have received -a report by the Cast Iron Pipe Research Association
(CIPRA), which defines the areas within_our proposed Phase 1 transmis-
sion system Which will require special pipe protection to reduce the
possibility of corrosion. Comments outlined in the subject report _
will be incorporated into our final plans and specifications. We are
also in the process. of preparing maintenance maps on Oslo Road.for the
purpose of establishing specific areas for construction of our pipe -
Tine along Oslo Road. These maintenance maps will -be completed within
.the very near future. -The trans;lisslon system design has been reviel.;ed
by the County's Utilities Cepart;,,ent, and we are currently incorporating
these- continents into our final design. We have completed the site plan;
review process with the Indian River County Planning Department and have
received site plan -approval -for the grater treatment plant site. In ad,di-
tion-, we have teen assisting the South Ccunty Fire District Ji i their site
plan process, and will -continue to work with them -through the site
plan review process. — -
--We are currently.completing the final designs, plans and specifica-
tions for the treatment fac-ility,=transmission system, elevated and
ground storage_.tanks. Weare—currently prgparing permit applica-
tions -to the various regulatD ry agencies=for final approval for the
proposed systems. ,.
--We are currently at a 75% completion status,: of the entire design for
the Phase I Water System Improvements for the. -South County Watof,
System. Our -current schedule is.as follo-ws:' We anticipate advertise
-ing for bid for each of the three contracts for this -project on
June 1; 1981. -Furthermore, we anticipate receiving bids -on all three
contracts on June 31, 1931. It is our intention to review the bids
received at that point and be in.a position to make a recemmendation
_ for the award of the contract on August 1, 1981. -
MAY -2o
ITEM #2 - GIFFORM AREA SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENTS Engineer's Proj. No. 5675-G
Status of the Gifford Area. Sewerage Improvements is as fol1olds:
--Construction of the Gifford area system is progressing as 'scheduled.'
Currently, the reinforcements to the existing gravity collection system
have been completed, and the -force main from the pump station to the
sewage -treatment plant has been instaTled and pressure -tested. In addi--
tion, the _force main -from the High Ridge Mobi1e.Home Park has also been
laid; a-nd is-anifolded to the 6" line which ultimately discharges at
the sewag-e treatment plant. Pond construction is nearing completion,
and the- majority of the sewage treatment plant has been installed.
- The. Contractor is awaiting shipment or -various equip,;ent items. -We antic-
- ipate the project to be completed within the -contract .time period.
ITEM #3 - PEBBLE BAY AREA SEI-JERAGE IMPROMIENTS' Engineer's Proj.-No. 6765
Status of Pebble Bay Area Sewerage Improvements is as follows:
--We are currently in the process of completing -plans and specifications
for the wastewater system which will connect the Town of Indian River -
Shores and the County's. encl-ave are -a Lo the City of Vero Beach's system.
lde have,receivedaerial photographs whi-eh were-flo;•rn specifically for
this project and are currently placing.final design information on the
referenced aerial photographs:
--We will be working with the County Utilities Department in an effort
to coordinate the exact bidding requirements of the work for the
County in conjunction with the bidding arr-angements for the Torn of
Indian River Shores. These two projects are interrelated. It will
be necessary to bid the projects concurrently so -that construction
activities may .be coordinated and the entire system be constructed
_ within the same tire frame.
ITEM ll4 20-1 FACILITIES PLAN Engineer's Proj. No. 6383-C
Status of the 201 Facilities Plan is as follows:
--We have met with theTorn of Orchid to discuss the resolution adopt- -
ing the 201 Plan. '-•,e .rill be foniarding information to the Town of
Orchid which they have indicated is necessary in order for them to
prepare and adopt a resolution.
--We will be submitting an Addendum No. 2 to the 201 Plan which will
correct typographical errors that were contained in the original
report. These errcrs :,,ere brought to ou.r attention by the Department
of Environmental Regulation (DER). Furthermore, the Addendum .fill
contain the various r=esolutions adopted by the participating munici-
palities approving the 201 Plan, as well as certain wastewater agree-
ments required •uy the DER nor inclusion in tine 201 -Plan. It is our
intention to present the Ac:;endum to the Board of County Commissioners
as quickly as it can to sc!;eduled at their next regular meeting.
ITEM r5 - THE LEGAL AGREEiiE;IT R"IE1J FOR -
UTILITIES DEPARTI•ENT
Engineer's Proj. No. 6383-«
-Status of the Lecal Acreem--nt Revie,,i for the Utilities Department
is as follows: V -
--We are currently worO ig wilth the Utilities Department in the revi2•.•r
of the final draft for the between bet:•reen Indican River County and
Vista Properties to aac,;ui•re the Vista uti 1 i t i es system. 4!e Sv'i 11
continue wor; i ng 4•ri th tl-e�'Uti 1 i ties Department and County Attorney
on this matter.
38
ITEi1 ;46- SOUTH BEACH !•:ATER Li1i� FXTE'+SIC','
PRELIMINARY COST ESTI,"IATES
�J
_ Engir;eer's Proj. tIo. 6333
%3621
Status of the South Reach :rater Line Extension Preliminary Cost
Estimates is as rollc„S:
--Status of South Beach plater Line Extension project will be reported
in a separate report to the County Commission for their meeting on
May 6, 1981.
JAR: vs
cc: Mr. Jim Jones
Mr. James Beindorf
Mr. Neil A. Nelson
Ms. Liz Forlani ✓�
File
John A. Robbins '
For the Joint Venture
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
UTILITIES DEPARTRA.ENT
P.O. Box 1750
2345 - 14th Avenue (Lawyers Title Bldg
Vero Beach, Florida 32964
y. r -'Ki �f;'"',��ri 'r4"°,y,`�}'xS F`'.,?L �'�w;,'y}l M- S'� ��'- �'x,Y„s {•TM` 7 ri( } '�a' �,4 .'F `r*4J'
i x
May 12,1981 -
Mr. John Robbins
Sverdrup &Parcel re'
- 3085 - 20th Street j i -
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 N;:�:";,r" ' =` ti
: Oa, 'Lti Vie: Addendum No. 2 to
Suppler,rent .to South R each,
Dated May.:3 � 10S!
Dear John, ,
I just received -the �referericed report and offer the- fo-llov;inq-corrr!onts-tor
your consideration. Some are olviously beyond the scope of your report -
1. An outline sk6tch. of the overali rea dLip ic-t.ing Phase .I arrd Phase iI
would visually au,:�ent the _tabular cost information of the repo.
'*t.
2. Your rates. for service cover basic- service. aecause there is -a -greater
cost -to pump and rechlorinate water to. the beach; we should C'ftsider
th-e- method used by - the City- of Vero Beach of as ai ng a 10"vw--surcharge
for the water. -this would clearly improve. tl':e ;picture of= finaricing the
-project over that which -is presented.
MAY.2.0 MI - �ooK `�r1 PA
39 Ac'o
AY Q 1991
3. -Impact -fees receipts were not addressed in -your report. Impact fees are
held in escrow to pray For plant expansion, main extension or -the .debt
serdice`.'the impact fee for a one inch -service to .give 638 gallons per
day (for water.only.) will be nominally $775:70 per..unit.-For 1,245' -
y�..ay. non -vested connections, these res -idents or developers will pay $96.5,074
total at build -out.
There -are two -other possible source=s of funds for impact that should be
_ corLs i dered by the Board of County COIIMi s 5 i oners .
A. The subaqueous cros:,ing cost of $1,620,G00 can -be added tor the assessed
charge for main-extension.as.provide6 by ordinance 80 -21. -Depending ort
how it is prp-rated it may run het.��e.en 5-1,29'x. )J per-unit to -S10.00 per.
unit in addition tc the impact fres defined i -n 3 (1hove.
- 5. -Everr those vested developers that a.re yet to be conne=cted should !)
assessed t -he difference fro, -ii the dollar amounL they have vested and
the actual -cost of the county- impact fee-. For example, if the developer,
paid $200.00 for each vested unit -and the impact fee is now $775.70, e -i, i -
added connection should pay the difference of $575.70 to Eray-their share. t
6. For Phase II development, I expect that the water_main extensions will
proceed in an orderly basis from the. end. of the Phase I development. -Each
developer will then be responsible -for his share of the -next piece and
will install the main according to the establ'is'hed plan - at little - -
or no added cost.to.the county for Phase II. 14 1_
Sincerely, rr'
- -
George Liner
Utilities Director
JOHN ROBBINS, ENGINEER, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND REVIEWED
THE PROPOSAL, CONSISTING OF TWO PHASES, FOR PROVIDING WATER TO THE
SOUTH BEACH. HE EXPLAINED THAT MODIFICATIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE
MADE TO THE PIPE SIZING. MR. ROBBINS STATED'THAT PHASE I WOULD
CONSIST OF A SUBAQUEOUS LINE CROSSING — A WATER LINE PARALLEL TO
THE EXISTING 12" LINE SOUTHWARD TO TAMARACK ROAD, WHICH THEY FELT
WOULD BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO COVER THE 27 PEOPLE THAT ORIGINALLY
REQUESTED WATER SERVICE ON THE SOUTH BEACH. HE CONTINUED THAT
PHASE 2 WOULD BE SERVING ANYBODY OVER AND ABOVE THE 1,000 1" TAPS.
IN ORDER TO DO THAT, AND ALSO EXTEND THE LINE SOUTH FROM TAMARACK
ROAD TO THE SOUTH COUNTY LINE, HE STATED THAT THIS PARTICULAR LINE
WOULD HAVE TO BE INSTALLED ALONG WITH THE GROUND STORAGE TANK AND
BOOSTER PUMP STATION.
LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AND REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE
ESTIMATED WATER BILL GRAPHS.
MR. ROBBINS STATED THAT IN ORDER FOR THE COUNTY TO SERVE
THE SOUTH BEACH, THE SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING HAS TO OCCUR - THE NON -VESTED
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE GENERATING IMPACT FEES FOR EXTENDING THAT
LINE. HE REPORTED THAT THE RATE STRUCTURE FOR SOUTH BEACH WOULD BE
THE UNIFIED COUNTY RATE STRUCTURE; THE COUNTY COULD ASSESS AN IMPACT
FEE FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT VESTED.
LENGTHY CONVERSATION ENSUED REGARDING THE IMPACT FEES.
IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE COUNTY MUST GENERATE SOME FORM OF REVENUE
FOR PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS.
MR. ROBBINS THEN REFERRED TO PAGE 3 OF THE REPORT REGARDING
THE IMPACT FEES IF THE CITY AND/OR COUNTY WERE TO PROVIDE SERVICE.
HE COMMENTED THAT THEY HAVE PERFORMED AT LEAST TWELVE COMPUTER
SIMULATIONS OF THE VARIOUS PERMUTATIONS FOR PROVIDING WATER SERVICE
TO THE SOUTH BEACH AREA. HE REPORTED THAT THEY HAVE ANALYZED MANY
CONDITIONS WITH -FIRE FLOW, AVERAGE DAY FLOW, -AND MAXIMUM DAY FLOW
ABOUT 12 TIMES IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS LARGE WITHDRAWAL
WOULD NOT HAVE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT AND WILL NOT CREATE ANY DETRIMENTAL
EFFECT TO THE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION, THE AVAILABILITY OF FIRE FLOW,
OR THE AVAILABILITY OF POTABLE WATER FOR -HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
HENRY HULLER, A POTENTIAL CUSTOMER, CAME -BEFORE THE
BOARD AND ANNOUNCED THAT THIS WAS THE BEST. -PRESENTATION HE HAS HEARD
ON THIS SUBJECT. HE THEN DISCUSSED HIS DEVELOPMENT, OCEAN RIDGE
SUBD-IVISION, WHICH HAS NO WATER, AND WAS CURIOUS -WHEN THE COUNTY'S
SERVICE WOULD-BE AVAILABLE.-
MR.
VAILABLE.MR. ROBBINS ADVISED THAT PERMITTING WOULD TAKE3 TO 6 MONTHS;
ENGINEERING PLANS WOULD TAKE 4 -TO 6.MONTHS TO -COMPLETE; AND 75% THROUGH
THE ACTUAL DESIGN, THE INITIAL PERMITS WOULD BE SENT OUT FOR REVIEW
AND THEN THE FINAL DESIGN WOULD BE SUBM-I TTED ^1`0 THE- REGULATORY
AGENCIES. -MR. ROBBI.NS FELT -IT WOULD TAKE 12 -MONTHS OF CONSTRUCTION
TIME, AND HIS CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE WOULD BE 19 MONTHS IN ALL.
MRS NIULLER FELT 24 MONTHS MIGHT BE -MORE APPROPRIATE TO
ALLOW FOR THE USUAL DELAYSI HE COMMENTED -THAT IN THE -TWO YEAR
41 eoo� 46- RAGE 488
MAY 2 0:1981 -
MAY 20198.146 *,E489 -
PERIOD THE RATE -OF CONSTRUCTION MIGHT NOT BE REACHED,- AND HE -MIGHT
BE ABLE TO WORK OUT A RENTAL AGREEMENT WITH -THE MOORINGS OR THE _
COUNTY. HE S-TATED HE -WAS LOOKING TO SIGN A USERS AGREEMENT AND WAS
JUST GETTING BY UNTIL THE COUNTY -HAD THE FACILITY COMPLETED.
-DAVID GREGG, CITY COUNCILMAN, COMMENTED THAT THE CITY WAS
SYMPATHETIC TOWARD THIS PROBLEM. HE STATED -THAT IF THE CITY HAS
THE CAPACITY, AND IT WAS THE -COUNTY I S DESIRE TO RELEASE THE SOUTH -
BEACH WATER SERVICE TO THEM, THEY WOULD BE -HAPPY TO LOOK IN -THAT_ _
DIRECTION.
DISCUSSION ENSUED ON THIS MATTER.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT THIS SERVICE IN PHASE I
IS RESTRICTED TO ONLY 1,000 CUSTOMERS-. HE ASKED IF THE STORAGE TANK
WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CUSTOMERS, WOULD THE ENGINEERS CONSIDER
INCLUDING THE GROUND STORAGE TANK I -N PHASE I.
MR. ROBBINS FELT IT COULD BE EASILY DONE IN PHASE I BY
MODIFYING CONSTRUCTION COST LINE ITEMS. BY PUTTING IN THE GROUND
STORAGE TANK AND BOOSTER PUMPING STATIONS, MR. ROBBINS FELT ALL THE
AREA COULD BE SERVICED IN PHASE I.
COMMISSIDN.ER BIRD WONDERED IF THERE WAS ANY FEASIBILITY IN
GOING AHEAD WITH PHASE 2 IF THERE WERE REASONABLE IMPACT FEES THAT
COULD BE COLLECTED.
MR. ROBBINS COMMENTED THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE AS THE PHASE 2
COST WAS $$00,000. HE FELT IT WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT IDEA,AND THE
COUNTY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO COLLECT AND IMMEDIATELY UTILIZE THE
IMPACT FEES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION COST IN ORDER TO PAY FOR PHASE 2.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM-
MISSIONER BIRD, FOR THE BOARD TO TENTATIVELY APPROVE THAT THEY ARE
GOING TO PROVIDE THE SOUTH BEACH WITH WATER, AND TO AUTHORIZE COM-
MISSIONER SCURLOCK, ATTORNEY COLLINS, AND .JOHN ROBBINS TO NEGOTIATE
WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH IMMEDIATELY, AND THAT THE IMPACT FEE
APPROACH BE CONSIDERED IN THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.
42
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THEY WOULD GET TOGETHER
WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND COME BACK WITH AN ACTUAL PROPOSAL
ON WHICH THE BOARD COULD ACT.
CARL NASHNER, PRESIDENT OF THE MOORINGS ASSOCIATION, CAME
BEFORE THE BOARD STATING THAT HE SAW NO OBJECTION TO THE BOARD MOVING
ALONG THE WAY THEY WERE, BUT SPEAKING FOR THE VESTED PROPERTY OWNERS,
HE THOUGHT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE A DIFFERENCE IN THE
COSTS IN THE ONGOING WATER COST AND THE AMOUNT TO BE RECOVERED BY
WAY OF IMPACT FEES.
DOROTHY HUDSON, WHO SPOKE ON BEHALF OF THE MOORINGS
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, STATED THAT THEY WERE INTERESTED IN CONTINUED,
FULL-FLEDGED, FULL -LINE SERVICE.
EDWIN SCHMUCKER, INTERESTED CITIZEN, ASKED IF THE BOARD
WAS NOW CONSIDERING PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 AS ONE SINGLE OPERATION.
CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT THIS WAS A POSSIBILITY, AS THE
BOARD WAS TRYING TO FIND A WAY, AS ECONOMICALLY AS POSSIBLE, TO
PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SERVICE.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REITERATED THAT SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES
AND A RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED HE WAS.AWARE THAT THERE WAS -
A DECLARATION OF WATER- SHORTAGE -BY THE ST, JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGE-
MENT -DISTRICT; AND POINTED OUT THERE WAS A $300,000 IMPACT FEE FOR
THE WELL SYSTEM ON THE 40 ACRE TRACT. HE FELT THAT FEE WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO HANDLE THE EFFECTS IT WILL HAVE. -ON THE. WELLS IN A ONE
MILE RADIUS,- DUE TO THE HIGH RATE OF USAGE OF THE WATER ON THE BEACH.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER PREFERRED TO SEE MR. MULLER AND HIS GR -OUP PUT
-IN-THEIR-OWN SYSTEM, BECAUSE HE -FOUND THERE WAS 'A GREATER TENDENCY TO
CONSERVATION WHEN THE SOURCE IS CLOSE TO THE USER. HE FELT -
CONSERVATION.WAS VERY IMPORTANT REGARDING WATER -AND HE D-I.D NOT -SEE
ANYTHING BEING DONE REGARDING CONSERVATION. -
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK DISAGREED. -
COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT MR. MULLER-WAS-ON.LY ONE OF
:MANY DEVELOPERS WAITING- IN THE WINGS,- AND -WONDERED HOW MANY REVERSE
OSMOSIS PLANTS ARE WE GOING TO ENCOURAGE IF WE -DON T PROVIDE SERVICE.
MAY_101981- 43 oo 6 PAGE490
MAY 2 01981
4 -PAGE 491
HEPBURN-WALKER, INTERESTED CITIZEN, COMMENTED THAT HE
SUPPORTED MR. ROBBINS' METHODS.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUEST -ION.: IT WAS VOTED ON
AND CARRIED 4 TO 1; WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTINRG IN OPPOSITION.
CHANGE -ORDER #2.- PHASE II GIFFORD AREA SEWAGE IMPROVEMENTS -
THE BOARD.NEXT REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM:
TO: Board of county Cc=- ' ssioners DATE: May 14, 1981 FILE:
SUBJECT: Change order No. 2 - Phase II
Gifford Area Sewage Improvements
FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES:
County Aaninistrator
Descriptions and Conditions
In the field we learned that the lift station wet -well was deeper
than -was originally anticipated. As -built information did not reflect
existing elevations and conditions found in the field during construction.
Change Order 2 is required to utilize the existing wet well as
originally intended in our construction drawings.
Alternatives and Analysis"
The lift station must be set the depth of the deepest manhole. There
is no alternative.
Recommendation and Funding
The cost of correcting this problem will be $3,413.40. I recommend
approving this in order not to further delay this project.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER #2 FOR PHASE II.
GIFFORD AREA SEWAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,413.40.
44
F,
ANN 11191111000,101*
A UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE F RM APPROVED OMS No. 40-83007
Form FmHA 424-7 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION ORDER No.
( Rev. 6-11-80) 1 2
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER I DATE
May 13, 1981
Phase II - Gifford Area Sewage Improvements
STAT E
Florida
coNTIACT ndianRRiver County I COUNTYIndianRiver County
OWNER
Driveways, Inc.
To.........................................................................................................................................
(Contractor)
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plans and specifications:
Description of Changes DECREASE INCREASE
(Supplemental Plans and Specifications Attached) in Contract Price in Contract Price
SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR DESCRIPTION OF
CHANGES
............................................................................
_......_ _
TOTALSS ...................................... .-- .... -..............
_...._�..._::
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE S ..._.................... 3,413.40
--JUSTIFICATION-
As -built information did not reflect existing elevations and conditions
found in the field during construction. Pipe inverts are lower than anticipated
requiring the lowering of the wet well bottom elevation in order to use the exist-
ing wet well.
The amount of the Contract will beXIOMW 0ricreased) By The Sum Of: Three thousand four hundred
thirteen and 40/100--=--------------------------=---- 3 413 40
Dollars (S ' )
The Contract Total Including this an&previous Change Orders Will Be: Three hundred seventy-two thousand
one hundred forty-nine and 50/100---------------------372,149-50.
_ Dollars ($),
The Contract Period Provided for Completion Will BeY(Yr>) XAXMXIMiMM Unchanged): -0- Days
This docume I ecome a supple to: a contract and all provisions will apply hereto.
Requested i - 7
(Owner) _ L115
ate)
Recommended -ems ,*✓ L-'
(owner's Architee Engineer) _- (Dere)
Accepted=�t -. 1 �, ./L�-f - [ 3 ' i -
(Contractor) (Date)
Approved By FmHA
(Name and Title) (Date)
This information w111 be used as record of any " Number copies required: 4 No further monies or other benefits may be paid out under this
change% to the original construction contract. Time to complete: 30 min. program unless this report Is completed and filed as required by
existing law and regulations (7 C.F.R, Part 1924).
A U.S.GPO:19804-666.1161ts14
r0,tlin"
FIT: HA 424-7 (Rev. 6.11-80)
r
MAY 20198� 4546. PAG492
-_- _
MAY 2.b j98 ��� 46 PACE 493
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
Phase II - Gifford Area Sewage Improvements.
Change Order No. 2
Indian River County
May 13, 1981
Description of Changes -DECREASE
INCREASE
In Contract Price
In Contract Price
Furnish all labor, equipment and material
for the additional depth of wet well for
Pumping Station No. 1.
1. Additional structure @ $125.00 per ft.
$ 625:00
2. Paint In & Out '@ $18.00 per foot
90.00
3. Well Painting, excavating, -backfill
and compaction @ $300.00 per"foot _
11500-.00
4. Discharge risers (2) @ $45.00 each
90.00
5. -Stainless Steel Rails (20 ft.) -
-
@ $8.20 per foot
164.00
$2,469.00
Overhead and Bond Expense @ 22%
543.18
$3,012.18
Profit V10%
301.22
$3,313.40
Additio 1 work involved in existing
wet well
100.00.
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE
$3,413.40
A
SOUTH BEACH WATER
ENGINEER ROBBINS REQUESTED A POINT OF CLARIFICATION REGARDING
THE SOUTH BEACH WATER AND IF IT WAS THE BOARDS DESIRE, THEY WOULD
BEGIN CONTACTING THE NECESSARY REGULATORY AGENCIES TO GET THE
PERMITTING OFF THE GROUND. IN ADDITION, MR. ROBBINS WOULD BEGIN
CONTACTING AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES FOR QUOTATIONS TO FLY THE
SUBJECT AREA. HE FELT THE INDICATION FROM THE BOARD WAS THAT THEY
WOULD LIKE THE ENGINEERS TO PROCEED AT A VERY QUICK PACE SO THEY
WILL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS,
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM-
MISSIONER BIRD, FOR THE BOARD TO AUTHORIZE MR. ROBBINS TO CONTINUE
MAKING THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR PERMITTING.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON
AND CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING
IN OPPOSITION.
A -Y 2 0.198 1. -
47 46.. PAGE 494 J
MAY 2 01981 =
o�K �t{GE
THE BOARD OF COUNTY -COMMISSIONERS RECESSED FOR LUNCH AT
12:00 -NOON AND RECONVENED-W-I-TH-THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT AT 1:40 O'CLOCK-
P,h1,. DEPUTY CLERK VIRGINIA HARGREAVES TOOK OVER FROM DEPUTY CLERK
JANICE CALDW-ELL FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING,
DISCUSSION 'RE -DEFERRED- PAYMENT PLAN — GIFFORD SEWER & WATER SYSTEM -
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT $INCE THE COMMISSION HAD
IND ICATED.INTEREST IN -PROVIDING AN -EASIER PAYMENT SCHEDULE .FOR CONNECTING
TO THE GIFFORD SEWER AND WATER SY-STEM,-HE DISCUSSED_THIS WITH -THE
- - ADVISORY -COMMITTEE AND.HAS COME UP WITH THE FOLLOWING MEMO, WHICH IS
SELF—EXPLANATORY:
TO: The Honorable Members of -DATE: May 13,--1981- .FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: "Contract for allowing payment
of Impact Fees over a period of
18 months or 24 months
FROiVi: Doug Scurlock, Chair REFERENCES: Memo "Action toward Board, Item
Gifford Water and Sewer 7D from Meeting of April 7, 1981",
Advisory Committee Liner to Nelson dated 4-8-81 - with
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On the evening of 5/11/81, the Gifford Water and Sewer Advisory Committee
met at 7:00 P.M. in the Library of the Middle 7 School. Discussion centered
around the attached reference -memo and how the procedure will work.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The proposed contract arrangement suggests the minimum down payment of
$50.00. The committee discussed a proposed down -payment of 50% or a minimum
of about $210.00. The concensus agreed that this amount needed for cash in
advance of service would defeat the purpose of the "easy payment plan". It
was felt that the County has financial protection to the contract with provision
to terminate the service if the payment is not on schedule and paid concurrently
with the water usage. )_
The referenced plan further suggests that the contract should not be made
available to landlords. After discussion, we agreed that it would be feasible
to have landlords avail themselves of the contract procedure with the following
conditions:
That is the landlord must pay for both the water service and the contract until
the contract is fully paid. After that he wouid be free to have the account
switched to the tenant's name (only if each unit is metered). There must be
a meter for at least each building.
The interest in having landlords to be eligible is because there is a large
quantity of existing taps that can service these units that have been installed
with the Phase I pipeline work. It was felt that this contract plan may help
get more of those units onto the system and eliminate the use of wells that are
possibly polluted.
-- LIP
Where a unit Has both water and sewer service, the same procedure would apply
except that the contract payments will include the sewer impact also.
It was emphasized that this impact payment procedure is subject to review at
to it's legality as well as having to'be approved by the Board of County Commissioner
It was suggested that the limited time period of 90 days might be extended
if need be - particularly in light of the pending sewage plant completion expected
in June.
It was pointed out that this plan will not preclude any resident going to FmHA
or bank to borrow money for the impact fees.
Members of the Gifford Water and Sewer Advisory Committee commented on their
approval of the proposed plan and pleasure that we were able to propose a plan as
practical as this one.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is anticipated that adoption of the plan proposed herein would enable
people to connect to the water system who otherwise cannot afford the impact
fees to be paid at one time. This will increase the customer base and better
serve the community at the same time. Therefore, we, as the Advisory Committee,
recommend approval of the proposed plan.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A
DEFERRED PAYMENT PLAN AS SET OUT IN COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK'S MEMO OF
MAY 13TH AND AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY TO ASSIST IN IMPLEMENTATION OF
SAID PLAN.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF THE $250 HOOKUP CHARGE -IS' -FOR
WATER HOOKUP, AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT IT IS FOR WATER
AND/OR SEWER — THE FEE VARIES DEPENDING ON THE INSTALLATION, HE CON—
TINUED THAT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSED.A PAYMENT OF $16,00 A
MONTH OVERA 24 MONTH PERIOD. THERE I -S -NO INTEREST PAYMENT, BUT THERE
IS A 10% CHARGE FOR FfANDLING,-
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT SUCH A'POLICY BEING AVAILABLE TO
ANYONE ON THE COUNTY SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO
PAY, AND COMMISSIONER.SCURLOCK STATED THAT IS WHY A LIMITATION OF 90
DAYS WAS SUGGESTED TO SEE-HOW-WEL-L THE -PLAN -WORKED OUT, HE NOTED -
THERE WOULD-BE A $50,00 BASIC DEPOSIT, AND IF THEY FALL BEHIND ON THEIR
PAYMENTS, SERVICE WOULD BE TERMINATED UNTIL ..ARRANGEMENTS COULD BE MADE
TO 'CATCH UP -ON THE PAST DUE PAYMENTS, THIS $50400 WOULD BE CONSIDERED
A SECURITY DEPOSIT AS WELL AS A SERVICE CHARGE. —
MAY 2 19 49 _ BOOK 4 PAGE 496
81
MAY 2 Q 19�� _ �o�K �� FLUE ��`
-DISCUSSION CONTINUED -.IN REGARD TO COSTS FOR HOOKUP, INCLUDING
_METERS, LABOR, ETC., AS SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO FROM THE UTILITY
DIRECTOR, -AND MR. LINER EXPLAINED THAT WHERE -THE LINES_ ALREADY HAVE BEEN
TAPPED, IT IS A RELATIVELY SIMPLE MATTER TO INSTALL THE METER; WHERE A
TAP IS REQUIRED, THERE WOULD BE -AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE.- -
10., Noi 1 No] :0111, Fk_,11!tty r�,lol. DATE: Agri 1 x i'�`tl - FfLC.__ -
SUBJECT: Action Toward Board
Item 7D from Meeting
of April 1, 1981
F ROM: 'C'oorge 6 ner, Utilities Dir. REFERENCES:
I have reviewed with Ralph Anthony(of Data Processing)a method of having our cash
register work with flanging (any."contract" accounts at the time any of those account'
rav for regular service. It is feasible but has not yet been programmed - pending.
ao order for us to -proceed with the project.
"Of" i�,Ir•i(�n has IOint('(i slut th;It. It is 'lot lol:1I (by State Law) for thn t.rlljrity to
'11"lllt -Credit. Joe tilllill-s s.11,i tildt. a crodlt. ,'irrarl(pvient 111dy b(? i)Voidf-d.
in vita-,! of t.hc."1' ((lt„1:11"II" ,+11,1 t. 11 t' l'��1,1rc1', �IC1it;lI Of Itelll /i]. f I(r"e1;}rf'"I.,i �l
"L otlt r.l," t '' forli; HIM 1 `, 1 1't'I( 11't'.1 LI QI.'i thi, t 1°', i dent. S i 11ns the i ndi v i fiurl l ` er yo k('
,411't`th ('111 (.rt t1 ;1. 1 ,1 t.1/',tClilli'r tit'-',
111• lilt
Ih(• COHtr.lit t1)111111cti to A w the 11ilywr.,nl., (i('Itir.it,, l,illrlrlrf-
.I,,,l 'Tontxact SO, vit c' 1 t`t'" 1 l:.11lt. to ; hor(le 1'.) of the haldfM' to t,r
( �1't n,c' .III(1 ►•isl. fn,' u1, to t+;> >t'.11. 11JY,Ilent!. 1,,iperwork.
IT i ht rte isr, taupin r 'Alar'le, it play ddd an(,ther $9.00 per 'month to the pi,yments.
the record sheet (attch. 1) is an example of the record we must keep on each contrast
(ustoiller that must be recorded and upgraded as each payment is made. dote that
credits are based on a priority I have shown oil this form. This offers bast r,rotectio
for the county while incurr•intt the smallest coninlication of recording the revenue
accounts.
WO should have a polic:y,,that contracts are not issued to either renters (who may leav
in the middle of a contract) or landlords. Thoy should only be issued to homeowners
for their own residence.
It is my understaimintt
that any plan we adopt will be limited to
a 90 da;' period
Io that anyone who
At, advantage of
feels
this
the hardship of p,lyirl(r
the impact fee in
a ling) slim may
sprt"Id tint pavrlent pl.rn
for -that interim
period.
frt�l that we call
v:ill•i,
such ;l ;,l,t►1 if this i;
1-Iccept—able to the
A(ivi,,(n j
tilt) Adodilistratioll,
tilt'
tounty,,Attllrrley ,ill(i tit
I;o,,rd of County
C(nrn,l'..iunlrr..
50
i
��:iL•'irl'I' ,
Tliis p3,y11011t is to 6uara-.1c :e any find all indebtedness for wat.c:r-
:�ervicc�Pwhich ii><ty he or become duo',t() Indian r;iv * r Ct,u,:c •. ,•
c..lt 1 � {ttaiCc t c.tllcd ULMLy.) by .�;,Ii*4 Cu>tomur. Custu�ior .cr;r�.'.�;s !.11 ,t
I 11i� noposit o,: a,t�• po`rtiotl tlieroof, m.1Y be rti?1)l1.ed in disch:)rl;c� c1L ,,,
i nllc`l,t V,itt,:� tis of Ciustoaiivr to (it- i li t%,. 11Pnn discontinuance r
✓c't'ou l)V [hi; l`oposit an l ih,' �)reseritativn cif this Receipt and
i 4li•!It i [ ic.it i on, ltti l i t\' Lo rcf'i;l,l t:o Cu!itumer tltt'
�,t�• n111011rlt`*; dw? 11t:ilit".
lilts D; posit x11:111. 11,,jt I),•c`c iutle llti 1 ity 'f rowditic011tinui.n t CII-
!w1111.1y,.I,.•nt t'!1,' ::orvic�' cc»'k•.'c. + ;;t' this 1)c�(•,c�sit regardless ur '�.,•
,t 1 1c i.';ic t• .�i s:tfd [�.•n,,:; it t,Cover any indebtednc• , fc�r sc., h :;, rJiC ,
Customer agroe.,; that: Utility it:; .lf • or
!t , tints f'wplo�•�'@'S ;!i,l? L t i I
.=ti,,, access to Utilit}�' S litZes ni. ,.
!Ler. , and
.1,• i l i -Lies are locat od will ho kq)t fr("' .•i' sll;uhb•�t•,' trt`_ �: , 't ,,: ,••
frow pets, and oilier obstructions •_ Ct.istr. �lr c ay. r,
t x11.111 hold Utility, its a,;u:lLs ar i:nlployces harml ,;;i and Ut.111t,r
:;ii.ill not be li:ihlc* for ally dui:i,tge Or ilijury alleged to have occ:urr,_c:
I hrough tttility, its 4',Onts or einPlavec's coriductine, in:;per_ t.f r)ns :i►t,;
p:tirs to Utility's lines, meters; whether succi ja-, rt: :,brill ll lve •rc,.r, .
vll,;h ne►,ligc'.il��� or of lli i1J1uL, and Whotlier such damage ') jury
t`lir to real property, persons, or puts.
Customer further agrees that all bills for water atnil!cr sec,'nve
i 11
be paid within fifteen (15) days of m�ai.litii; -bills acid of LE. -r i ivt-
c day.; Written notiCe if not so paid, Uti.:lity will li;cve tii�. rif;tlr_ t r,
+"�•�,cu�.�ct service�ttc] charl;c' tt rerisoncilhle fce for r(:ct)nnectil,s;.
it i:: further un..lorstood and 419rced that the sale of wrltur co
:►:,= oawr occil�: at the inot�•r ri:gid UtiIi.t li
• }' •tS no res(�o>zsilriii.L}-Ar�lrft >v,
�
service or 51:11M, 1.y=111, wat,,r after 5.ti.:1 Wat.or passe:. till -o,,.;+, ti:�
t t i 1 i.tv's resphnsibil ir1' relc:tive_.t:a t;rz1vi tN• s(.,w L ,#-r.vice c :•;c , �: r,t
property linos •
iUVER COON'.[)'
[? 'Ice
•11oposit is help in eserow as :security f,):' SL;'Vlt'e l341V, 1!t•
All other fees are non-acfunclahlc>
_
"'VICE USE OnY NEW CUS1*0ME1t FEES - -
ti{)1)1i.c:r3nt Sec.,uricy Deposit.
Itcconncct Fee
..::t . Acct. �
Meter InstallatI-on 0-6
t - Servic-e- Tap Fec --
111.111t C: i (! a C: i t f Y
Share
f: _
_ . �.S t �.7
(, I'A i 11_ H,... � L
MAY - too .6. PAA 498,
ti Cl+errman
PATRICK LYONS
Distal 2
- A77 ti
V.ce Chairmen
MR 499*
WILLIAM C. WOOTKE. JR. A. DROVER rLLTCHER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
t f OiS
DICK slRl.
O wln, n r.�nc t,
UiCI 3 Drsinr.l
BOtAR1) ()F' ('III 'I'1' ('OATAII,5,31UNEhS
`'145 11th- Avenue'. Vara Brach. Florida ♦32960
NEIL A. NELSON -County Admlmshalor
Lawyers Title Buddlnp .
2345 141h Avenue, Ver* BeaC?% Flop-chl 32960 .
Twlephone (305) 562-4188
CONTRACT -
5&cfetary to -Board
Telephone- (305)-569-1940
Date
I/we.agree to pay Indian River. County Utilities -the amount i-ncluding
impact fees, shown -on the accompanying service agreement..
Total Agreement Fees.-
Down
ees. Down Payment (minimum $50.00) S0. 4�
Balance
Cont.rac.t Scrvics Fet?- ( 1O'., c�E haI(-ince) _�? ._._ 3:-�_� .0--�.
Total COMLract Balance S H 0% 3 0
Awount of Monthly Pa,ynient _ L�_r C�
For (lei)gth of payment term)
18 months 24 months
I understand that -this payment must be paid along with the bill for regular
water consumption, at the same time and that the service shall be turned off if
any full payment (both service and this contract) is not made on schedule. When
this occurs, all back charges, including,a $10.00 reconnect charge must be paid
before service can be resumed,'
In the event I default on any payment, the entire sum shall become due and
payable anq Indian River County shall be entitled to attorney fees and court
cost in the event collection is necessary.
Signed - --- -__
9
A�cT-,'
**eX3T 'twr�^L_ t$AV7JL; 16.97 4
_Cp!SjT,(Z J%c 11;
if An
.PA'M: "6q -CS 3 PA In (3A&_AkjCL'
Current Bill 4 07. *3 0
Balance _is. to. paid._w1.thin1qp4pents.
1777 77
-Tr
171
-As.payments are received the following priority.'01
cre4i _§hall be applied:.__.
Firs
payment shall cover "deposit" escrow.
_ --_-2. WhgLjj..)..is fully credited, .the payments shal:l
0
__ _ th�B tae credited to service charges (which i i,
meter installation, tapping char_�� f i
ges,
-ser
3. A ?) is fully credited, balance of payments
A_
-i- _7
4; sp
_pme�4_uerxe!Xto reduce -balance
et impact'fees paid earlier
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED -THAT THERE ARE ABOUT 100 UNITS
AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW WHERE IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF INSTALLING THE METER.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE IS IN FAVOR OF MAKING IT
EASY TO HOOK ONTO -THE -SYSTEM AND IS WILLING TO TRY THIS ON -A TRIAL
BASISj BUT HE.WOULD HATE TO HAVE AN OPEN ENDED POLICY THAT COULD GO ON
INDEFINITELY AND THAT COULD BE A-BOOKKEEPINO NIGHTMARE, ESPECIALLY IF
IT IS NOT, GOING T0. BE UTILIZED, HE, THEREFOREj, WISHED TO HAVE -SOME
FIGURES REPORTED BACK AB -OUT THE EFFECT'THIS WILL HAVE AND THEN RE -.
-
ADDRESS THIS AT A.LATER DATE.
MAY 2 0X9$1 53 . 46 'PAGE500-
.-CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED AN ADDITION TO THE MOTION THAT WE,
GET A REPORT AT7THE END OF 30, 60 AND 90 DAYS, AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK
STATED THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF HIS MOTION AND HE WOULD INCLUDE_ -
IT. IT WAS -AGREED -THE 90 DAY PERIOD} WOULD COMMENCE ON THE IST OF .JUNE.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED I -N REGARD TO THE NECESSITY OF.CHANGING
-THE BILLING ROUTINE AND PUTTING A NEW PROGRAM ON THE'COMPUTER, AND
FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON SUGGESTED THAT WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT BILLINGS
--
A MONTH TO KEEP.TH LS SEPARATE AND THAT THIS SHOULD BE DONE BY HAND AND
NOT BE PUT INTO THE COMPUTER UNTIL EVERYTHING -IS ORGANIZED.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION TO ACCEPT THE DEFERRED
PAYMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF A
MONTHLY REPORT. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED.UNANIMOUSLY.
REPORT - PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING
COMMISSIONER BIRD REPORTED ON THE FIRST MEETING OF THE PARKS
AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, WHICH WAS MAINLY AN ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING.
THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS WERE SUGGESTED:
I) TO REVIEW THE RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION;
2) TO START SOME PRELIMINARY DESIGN WORK AND DEVELOP FUNDING IDEAS
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BLUE CYPRESS PARK AND THE TRACKING STATION PARK.
3) TO PROVIDE A VEHICLE WHEREBY PEOPLE WOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO DONATE
PROPERTY TO THE COUNTY FOR OPEN SPACE,
COMMISSIONER BIRD WISHED TO KNOW IF THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH THE
COMMITTEE'S OBJECTIVES.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE WAS PARTICULARLY IN
FAVOR OF.EN000RAGING DONATIONS OF LARGER TRACTS OF LAND AND FELT THE
BOARD SHOULD LEAN OVER BACKWARDS TO ENCOURAGE THIS RE TAX INCENTIVES
OR PERPETUAL DEDICATION TO INDIVIDUALS, ETC.
THE BOARD HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE SUGGESTIONS PROPOSED BY
COMMISSIONER BIRD.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMITTEE ALSO REVIEW
THE PROPOSED RECREATION BUDGET RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF VERO BEACH.
THE BOARD AGREED.
F
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING DORAN PROPERTY (C -1A AND R-3 TO R -2B) {
I
THE HOUR OF 1:30 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
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 nev.spaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a Z. /�.
in the matter of Aum 'F, 1/, as . % ' . Ll
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 3-0 ea.,,_L,
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 afthe 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 thi d y of // A.D._4Z1f4
q (B ness Manager)
(SEAL)(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indi n River County, Florida)
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, is reviewing the feasibility of
making the following changes and additions to
the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County,
Florida. These changes are:
1: That the Zoning Map be changed in order
that the following described property situated
in Indian River County, Florida, td -wit:
18 ACRES MORE OR LESS OF LAND ON
THEEAST SIDE OF U.S. NO. 1 ABUTTING
THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF
FLORAVON SHORES SUBDIVISION, JUST
BELOW 110TH STREET, HAVING 660 FEET
OF FRONTAGE ON U.S. NO. 1, BE
CHANGED FROM C-lA RESTRICTED-
COMMERCIAL
ESTRICTED -
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND R-3
MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT (1S
UNITSAC.) TO R-28 MULTI -FAMILY.
DISTRICT (8 UNITS -AC.)
Said land being approximately 1300 feet deep
as measured on a straight line from U.S. No: 1
and lying Easterly of U.S. No. 1 in Government
Lots 3 and 4, Section 8, Township 31. South,
Range 39 East, bounded on the North by the
South line of Floravon Shores Subdivision as
recorded in Plat Book 4, page 78 of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida, and
bounded on the South by the North right-of-way
line of State Road Department Lateral Ditch
No. S (Section No. 8801-010-207).-Anthe above
situate in Indian River County, Florida,:and
containing 18 acres, more or less.
. Be changed from C -IA Restricted Com- -
mercial District and - R-3 Multiple Family
District to R -2B Miltiple 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
Board of County Commissioners in the Council
Chamber of the City., Hall, Vero . Beach,
Florida, on Wednesday, May 20, 1981, at 1:30 .
p.m.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he will'need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he may need to insure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Patrick $. Lyons
Chairman -
April 30, May 1, 1981.
ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT THE RECOMMENDATION .FROM
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE -ADVERTISEMENT. IF THE
BOARD -IS PREPARED TO HEAR THE REZONING- AS ADVERTISED, IT IS PROPER
TO PROCEED, BUT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THE BOARD CAN MAKE A DECISION
CONTRARY,TO'THE ADVERTISEMENT WITHOUT A WAIVER FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER,
MAv 2.01981 - aao� 6
55
MAY 2 0198- _ - - ��r�46
.-COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM
- THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS FOR REZONING TO R--2D,.BUT-THE RECOMMENDATION
FROM THE -PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION IS FOR-SOMETHING.ELSE.
PLANNING -DIRECTOR REVER REVIEWED HIS FOLLOWING MEMO AND
COMMENTED THAT WHILE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -DID NOT HAVE
-THE OPPORTUNITY'TO-REVIEW THE -REZONING NOW PROPOSED -FOR THE ENTIRE
PARCEL, SINCE IT CAME DIRECTLY -BAC -K -TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION, THEY
WERE MADE AWARE .OF --IT AND WOULD-BE WILLING -TO GO -ALONG- WITH 11-21 FOR
THE €NTIR€ PARCEL,
TO: Neil Nelson, DATE: May 14,"1981 FILE: ZC- 80-28-448
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Doran rezoning from C -1A to R-3
FROM: David Rever, JR F RENCES:
Plannin_g_and Zoning Director
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
fel.' Description and Conditions
+ The applicant requests a rezoning of 8.1 acres, located on the east
side of U.S. #1, south of 110th Street directly adjacent to the southern
boundary of Floravon Shores Subdivision. This was denied by the Board of
County Commissioners on April 15, 1981. At that meeting the Board voted
to initiate the rezoning of the entire parcel of approximately 16.0
'acres from C-1 Restricted Commercial and R-3 Multiple Family Residential
to R -2B Multiple Family Residential.
The site presently contains 9 occupied mobile home units grouped
An the northwest section of the subject property along U.•S. #1. The
remainder of the property is vacant with marl drives. There is a
dilapidated dock on the Indian River which is part of the R-3 parcel.
The -area is in th-e 100 -year flood plain.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
A) Approve the rezoning of the entire 16 -acre parcel to R -2D
multiple family at 6 units per acre which would allow a maximum gross
density of 96 units.
It is recognized that there is an excessive amount of commercial
districts in this --area, thus staff does not object to down zoning
the
n keeping with existing zoning configuration
subject property. However, i
and carrying capacity of the land, R- DdensityFlevel.ReStafftrecommends
units/acre) would allow an appropriate
approval of this alternative.
B) Approve rezoning of the ets.Thisire 16 wouldallow a
afrom
A and
/acre)maximum
R-3 to R-?BMforithementire parcel./ --
of 128 units
2. Doran rezoning
The Board of County Commissioners initiated action to implement this
rhe nalysis ialternative on May 15, 1981. As stated in
ahowever,oR-2Bt(gnitive
A, residential use is appropriate for the aea
units/acre) is higher than the carrying capacity of the land.
C) Disapprove rezoning leaving the existing zoning configuration
intact. The R-3 portion will allow a gross density of 15 units/acre
with a maximum total of 120 units. There would remain 8.1 acres of
C -1A property.
3. Recommendation
Planning.and Zoning Commission recommended rezoning 8.1 acres from
C -1A Commercial to R -2B multi -family residential.
MR. REVER NOTED THAT, AS THE ATTORNEY POINTED OUT, THE
PLANNING STAFF'.S RECOMMENDATION IS CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS ADVERTISED.
AND A CHANGE COULD NOT BE MADE IN-FAVOR.OF THEIR RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT
THE CONCURRENCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
COMM-ISSIONER_FLETCHER STATED THAT HE PERSONALLY WOULD ACCEPT
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING STAFF. _
MOTION WAS.MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER TO READVERTISE THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR REZONING -TO R -2D.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK -OF A SECOND. _
COMMISSIONER WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD INITIATED THIS
PUBLIC HEARING BASED ON A REZONING TO.R-2B, AND HE WOULD LIKE TO GO ON
WITH THE HEARING AS -ADVERTISED -AND LISTEN TO EVERYONE'S REACTIONS.,
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD.
MAY 2-01981 _ _
57 goon 4 PACE -504
MAS 6- PnE" 505
ATTORNEY STEVE HENDERSON CAME FORWARD REflRESENTING THE DORANS
AND -ENUMERATED . TH-E VAR I-OUS SURPR-I SES W I TH . WH ICH . H I S CLIENTS HAVE BEEN.-
CONFRONTED
EEN.CONFRONTED - THE DISCOVERY THAT THEIR ACREAGE WAS.5 ACRES-LESS THAN
LISTED ON THE TAX.ROLL; THE COUNTY COMMISSION'S.DENIAL OF THE PLANNING
& ZONING COMMISSION'-S UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION -IN FAVOR OF REZONING
THE-C-IA PORTION-OF THE SAID PROPERTY TO R-2B AND-SUBSEQUENT READVER-
TISEMENT TO REZONE THE ENTIRE PARCEL TO R-2B; THE STATEMENT-MADE BY _
MR. REVER THAT THIS HAD.BEEN INFORMALLY.REFERRED TO THE.PLANNING &
ZONING BOARD-WITHOUT ANY NOTICE-T-O THE DORANS AND THAT BOARD NOW CONCURS
-WITH .R-2B FOR THE ENTIRE-TRACT; THE STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY COLL.INS THAT
AVERAGING DENSITIES; WHICH HAS BEEN DONE FOR MANY YEARS, IS NOT PROPER;
AND THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION IS NOW TALKING ABOUT R-2D.
ATTORNEY HENDERSON FELT CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT THE
FRONT SECTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS BEEN ZONED COMMERCIAL FOR
A NUMBER OF YEARS AND R -2B -IS DEFINITELY AN UPGRADING. HE FURTHER
FELT THE FACT THAT THE BAORD IS SINGLING OUT THLSPARTICULAR PROPERTY
FOR REZONING MAKES THIS ACTION ARBITRARY, AND, THEY, THEREFORE, WOULD
AGAIN INITIATE THEIR REQUEST FOR REZONING THE FRONT SECTION OF THE -
PROPERTY ONLY TO R -2B, IF THE BOARD IS UNWILLING TO APPROVE THIS,
THEY THEN REQUEST THAT THE PROPERTY BE LEFT AS IT IS.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER AGREED THAT WE SHOULD MAKE THIS AREA
MORE CONSISTENT INSTEAD OF SINGLING OUT ANY PROPERTY AND STATED THAT
HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION DIRECTING OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO
INITIATE A NEW PLANNING CATEGORY FOR THOSE LANDS LYING WITHIN THE
FLOOD PLAIN NOT TO EXCEED TWO UNITS PER ACRE.
CHAIRMAN LYONS LIKED THE IDEA, BUT FELT THAT THIS IS NOT
THE TIME TO GO INTO IT.
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE HAD BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION
THAT THE DORANS WERE IN FAVOR OF THE R -2B ZONING. HE INFORMED THE
BOARD THAT THERE IS A TECHNICAL DEFECT IN THAT THE NOTICE THAT WAS
SENT OUT WAS TWO DAYS SHORT OF THE TIME REQUIRED, AND RATHER THAN
PROCEED WITH THIS HEARING WITH THE OPPOSITION OF THE DORANS, HE WOULD
Iq
77
m
RECOMMEND THAT THE MATTER BE READVERTISED IN WHATEVER DIRECTION '
THE BOARD MIGHT SUGGEST. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HAD CALLED HIS OFFICE TO ASK IF THE SHORTFALL IN THE NOTICE WAS SATIS-
FACTORY AND THEY HAD BEEN ADVISED THAT IT WAS.
COMMISSIONER BIRD WISHED IT CONFIRMED THAT THE DORANS WERE
OPPOSED TO R -2B OVER ALL AND WOULD PREFER THAT THE PROPERTY STAY AS IT IS
ATTORNEY HENDERSON AGAIN STATED THAT THEY WOULD PREFER THAT
THE BOARD RECONSIDER HIS CLIENTS ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR REZONING
OF ONLY THE C -IA PARCEL, AND IF THE BOARD SHOULD AGAIN CHOOSE TO DENY
IT, THEN LET THE PROPERTY STAY ZONED AS IT IS JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE
PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THEM.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING DUE TO A
TECHNICALITY RELATING TO INSUFFICIENT NOTICE.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO HOW TO READVERTISE.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER TO DIRECT THE
ATTORNEY TO READVERTISE THE ENTIRE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR REZONING TO
R -2D AS PER RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT WE WENT THROUGH A LOT OF
DISCUSSION AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, AND IT WAS THE CONSENSUS AT THAT
TIME TO REZONE TO R -2B, HE BELIEVED A NUMBER OF ELEMENTS WERE CON-
SIDERED AT THAT TIME AND THAT WE CAME UP WITH A GOOD COMPROMISE.
ONJIOTION.MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER BIRD, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO I VOTE, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER'VOTING
IN OPPOSITION, AUTHORIZED READVERTISEM€NT OF THE ENTIRE SUBJECT -PROPERTY
AT R -2B. -
-COMMISSIONER-FLETCHER INQUIRED_IF THE BOARD. COULD AT THIS -
TIME ENTERTAIN.A MOTION DIRECTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE -
A.NEW CATEGORY -FOR. -LANDS WITHIN THE -IOO YEAR FLOOD PLAIN.
.TN GENERAL DISCUSSION, IT WAS FELT THAT THIS SHOULD BE HELD
OVER UNTIL.A LATER MEETING WHEN"A MAP CAN BE PREPARED TO SHOW WHAT
AREA THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ENCOMPASSES. _
DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO WHETHER TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER,,
ATA-WORKSHOP MEETI.NG.W-ITH THE.PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGARD-ING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THAT THE IOD YEAR FLOOD
PLAIN TAKES IN, A GREAT PORTION OF— INHABITED -AREA. -IN THE COUNTY, AND HE -
WAS DEFINITELY OPPOSED TO -RESTRICTING THAT TO TWO UNITS PER ACRE1 -
PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER NOTED THAT -THERE ARE`EXTEN-SIVE AREAS ALREADY
DEVELOPED IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, AND THEY WOULD BECOME NON—CONFORMING.
FURTHER DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS -TQ -WHETHER IT SHOULD BE THE
SO YEAR FLOOD PLAIN -RAT -HER THAN THE 1-00 YEAR, AND -THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
-FELT THAT NOT JUST THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER ACRE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED,
BUT HOW THEY ARE PUT ON THE GROUND.
THE BOARD ASKED THAT -THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BRING BACK A
RECOMMENDATION PER THE ABOVE DISCUSSION.
PUBLIC HEARING — REZONING FROM M=1 TO C-1-DEL—FIVE CORPORATION
THE HOUR OF 1:39 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
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 /_ZZ -r/ Z�LAG
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of N" . X, a, 14' ll
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-
tiserrent; 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 this dqy of ` - "M ' till D
(Bus),ess Manager)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indiaiyiver County, Florida)
UU
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian
River County, Florida, is reviewing the
feasibility of making the following changes
and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of In-
dian 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 located
in Indian River County, Florida, to -.wit:
Tract C, Vero Beach Highlands, Unit No. 1;
according to plat.thereof filed in Plat Book 5,
page 29, Public Records: of Indian i River _.
County, Florida.- .
AND that portion of 21st Street South of said
Tract C, abandoned per Official Record Book
983, page 856 through 859, Public Records of
Indian River County,. Florida.._;
Be rezoned from M-1 Industrial District to e -
I Commercial 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 of Indian
River County, Florida, on Thursday, April 9,_
1981, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chamber of
the City Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, after which
a 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 Council Chamber
of the City Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Wednesday, May 20,1981, at 1:30 P.M.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he will need a
record of theproceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he may need to insure that a Verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Indian River County Planning
and Zoning Commission
By: Carolyn Eggert, Chairman
Mar. 8, 10, 1981.
51
NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC-,fIEARING WAS SENT TO DEL FIVE CORPORA -
TION BY FREDA WRIGHT, CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT, AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA
STATUTE 125,66,
PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER REVIEWED THE STAFFS RECOMMENDATION,
WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS, AND REPORTED THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
TO: Neil Nelson, DATE: May 14, 1981 FILE: ZC 81-7-450
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Rezoning from M-1 to C-1
Del -Five Corporation
FROM: David M. Rever, REFERENCES:
Planning and Zoning Director
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
-1. Description
Applicant requests a"r.ezoning from M-1 Industrial to C-1 Commercial
District for approximately 1 acre -located between Old Dixie Highway and
the Florida East Coast Railroad, on the south side of 20th Place S.W.
:Applicant --proposes to construct a group of professiona-1 offices.
Subject property is bounded by the Florida East Coast Railroad on
the :east and Old Dixie Highway -on the west. The railroad .depot is
across 20th Place S.W. to the north. Vero -Beach Highlands is located
-'to the west of the subject -property. The adjacent property on the south
is vacant. Vero Beach Nigh -lands -is zoned R-1 Residential (6 units -per
acre); the areas north and south of the site are zoned M-1 Industrial,
:While the area to the east is C-1 Commercial.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
A)- Approve the request to rezone from M-1 Industrial to C-1
:,;;Commercial. The more restrictive C-1 District will allow uses more
compatibl-e with the residenti'a-l-development to the east -of subject
,'proper-ty. While commer-cial uses generate higher ADT counts than
industrial uses, it is°anticipated_-there would-be .a reduction in truck
traffic: Commercial uses -of this magnitude ar.e-not anticipated to
significantly impact Old Dixie.
The C-1- Commercial District allows uses -compatible with the present
-surrounding land uses and the infrastructure is adequate-to_support
.this.type of development Staff recommended approval -of this alter-
native to -the Planning and -Zoning -Commission.
-._ B)- Disapprove the request, leaving the M-1 Industrial District
intact. -
3.- Recommendation
The C-1 Commercial Distr-i-ct allows use compatible -with the present
surrounding land uses and the infras'-tructure is adequate" -to support
this type of development. Staff recommends approval. -
h1A 2 0.198; 61 - BGOK PAGE 508
r
MAY 2.01981.
.-THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF -ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE -HEARD.
_ THERE WERE NONE.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE,-SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY.'CLOSED_THE PUBLIC HEARING. -
ON -MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
-FLETCHER, THE. -BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE.81'18 REZONING THE
PROPERTY AS ADVERTISED FROM -M-1 TO -C-1 AS REQUESTED BY DEL FIVE CORP-
ORATION.
ORDINANCE .NO. 81-18
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, t8 -wit:
Tract C, Vero Beach Highlands, Unit #1, according to
plat thereof filed in Plat Book 5, page 29, Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida
-AND that portion of 21st Street of said Tract C,
abandoned per Official Record Book 483, pages 856
through 859, Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida
Be changed from M-1 Industrial District to C-1 Commercial
District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect May 26, 1981.
M
` PUBLIC BEARING — REZONING C -1A TO R - 2B, AS REQUESTED BY CUMMINS ENT, 1 11
THE HOUR OF 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK
READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO—WIT:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
" NOTICE
l
NOTICE AS HEREBY GIVEN that the
Published Weekly
Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian
River
County, Florida, is reviewing the
feasibility of making the following changes
Vero Beach, Indian River Count Floridaand
y,
additions to the Zoning Ordinance of In -
River County, Florida, which changes
and additions are substantially as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
that the following described property. located
STATE OF FLORIDA
east -of U.S. Highway 1 in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
Commencing at the Northwest corner of the
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
Northeast one-quarter of the Northwest one -
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
quarter of Section 17, Township 31 South,
Range 39 East, run East along the North line of
said Section 17 a Aistance of 84.96 feet to th±
a
East right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 1;
thence run South 25 degrees 57159" East along
•
said East right-of-way a distance of 736.41 feet
�r•
in the matter of . • �7 •L/
to the Point of Beginning of the herein '
described parcel; thence run South 89 degrees
42' 24" East on a line parallel to and 660 feet
South of the North line of said Section 17 a
disance of 602.14 feet; thence run South 25
degrees 57'59" East a distance of 1472.85 feet;
thence -run North 89 degrees 23130" West a
in the Court, was pub-
distance of 335.44 feet; thence run North 25
degrees 57159" West a distance of 1083.25 feet;
thence run North 89 degrees 33128" West a
41, , 6 ��/
distance of 267.96 feet; thence run North 25
degrees
fished in said newspaper in the issues of .2 !
57'59" West a distance of 38697 feet to
the Point of Beginning'. Containing 12.27 acre's,
more or less.
Be changed from C -IA Restrioted Com.
mercial District to R-28 Multiple -Family
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a -newspaper
Ypublished at
District.
A public hearing in relation thereto
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
at which
parties in interest and citizens shall have an
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
opportunity to be heard, will be held by the
said Planning and Zoning Commission of In
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
-
dian River County, Florida, in the Council
tiserr.ent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
Chamber of the City Hall, Vero Beach, 1
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
Florida, on Thursday, Aprlj 9, 1981, at 7:30
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
P.M., after which said public hearing in
1 g�/
;O -
Z,�
relation thereto at which parties: in interest -
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D.
heard. will be held _by the Board of county
'Commissioners of Indian River . County,
Florida, in the Council Chamber of the City
infts Manager)-
Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday,
May 20, 1981, at 1:30 P.M. .
If any person decides to appeal any decision
_
made on the above matter,- he will need a
-
record' of the proceedings, and for such pur-
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, n ian River County; Florida)
poses, -he may need -to insure that a verbatim
(SEAL)
record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based. _
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County, Florida
-
By: Patrick B. Lyons
Chairman i
_ -
Indian River County Planning
And Zoning Commission -
By: Carolyn Eggert, Chairman_ '
-
-Mar. 24, 26, 1981.
NOTICE OF -THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS
SENT TO CUMMINS ENTERPRISES,
INC,, -By FREDA - WR I GHT, CLERK OF ' C I RCU I --T COURT
AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA -
STATUTE 125-0 66.
_ P-LANNING.DIRECTOR-REVER REVIEWED
--THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION,.
WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS, AND NOTED THAT THIS PROPERTY
IS_IN THE SAME
GENERAL" -AREA AS THE DORAN PROPERTY CONSIDERED
EARLIER.. -
MAY . 4 "� -- 63
9�1
L-7
- Roor S F$ 510
TO: Neil-Nel son, - DATE: May 14, 198-1 FILE: rc 81-11-45
County -Administrator -
= - SUBJECT: Cummings Enterprises
Rezoning Request
FROM:- David, R ve -r REFERENCES: -
Planning and' -Zoning Director
It
_
- - It is- recommended that t -he data here -in presen-ted be given- formal
consideration by the Board of County .Commissioners:
1.- Description and Conditions.
Applicant requests rezoning from C -1A Restricted Commercial to
R -2B Multiple Family district for approximately 12.2 acres located east
of U -.S. #1, north -of 106th Street and -Island Harbor Subdivision. The -
segment of property proposed for- rezoning to,R-2B consists of approx-
imately 12.2 acres; the remaining C -1A Restricted Commercial District -
property contains -6.3 acres, and the-existi-ng R-3 Multiple Famil-y
Residential has approximately 18 acres. Applicant proposed to develop. -
a residential area and a related neighborhood commercial area. The
proposed R -2B rezoning would --allow a maximum of 98 -units, while -the
existing 18 acres of P-3 would allow 'a maximum of: 270 units. The -
configuration of the remaining C -1A section would allow access from
both U.S. #1 and 106th Street."
The segment proposed for R -2B zoning area is in groves and has only
a small storage building -on the site. The remaining C -1A segment is
vacant with heavy native vegetation. The existing R-3 area has a few"
rows. of groves on the. -western side with native vegetation extending east
to the Indian River and some wetlands located in the R-3 zone near
the river. There is a group of mobile homes fronting on the river and
an inlet directly south of the R-3 area at the end of 106th Street. The
property south of 106th Street has scattered residential; the -area to
the north of subject property is vacant. Sebastian Highlands is
opposite the subject property on the west of U.S. #1. The entire parcel
is in the 100 -year flood plain.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
A) Approve the requested rezoning of subject property from C -1A
to R -2B. The design flexibility of multi -family development
could be a useful element in addressing the environmentally
sensitive and flood prone areas. However, the overall gross
density of 8.1 units/,acre exceeds the density which is
compatible with the carrying capacity of the land and the
existing land use patterns.
B) Approve an R -2D multi -family district (6 units/acre) for the
12.2 acres of subject property. This alternative incorporates
the advantages of multi -family development with a density which
is more compatible with the limited carrying capacity of the land
and existing land use patterns.
The Planning staff recommends this alternative.
C) Rezone the subject property and adjacent R-3 parcel or other
appropriate areas to a compatible, single zoning district.
D) Deny the rezoning request and maintain the present zoning
configuration and density levels. This alternative will
maintain an area of C -1A property which exceeds the 8 -acre
criteria used in defining a neighborhood commercial development.
3. Recommendation `
ing and Zoning Commissi commended rezoning of pct
pro(12.2 acres) from C-lA icted Commercial to R-9Iti-
family. The vote was 4-1, Mrs. Bowman dissenti-nq.
a
MR. REVER STATED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION`.
AND THE PLANNING STAFF BOTH AGREE THAT WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE
HAPPEN ON THIS PROPERTY IS R -2D ZONING.
ATTORNEY SAMUEL BLOCK CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING
.JOHN MAQUIRE, AGENT FOR LARRY CUMMINS, BOTH OF WHOM WERE PRESENT AT
THE MEETING. ATTORNEY BLOCK STATED THAT MR. REVER WAS INCORRECT AND
THAT ACTUALLY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION HAD VOTED 4 TO 1 IN
FAVOR OF R -2B ZONING, NOT R-21). HE CONTINUED THAT HIS CLIENT'S
PROPERTY IS ABOUT 900' SOUTH OF THE DORAN PROPERTY AND THERE ARE SOME
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. HE STATED THAT THEY CONCUR
WITH THE 12.2 ACRES PRESENTLY C-lA BEING CHANGED TO R-213, AND THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DID VOTE THAT WAY. THEY ALSO ARE WILLING
TO TAKE THE R-3 PORTION THAT THEY REFER TO AS PARCEL C AND GO TO R -2B
THERE ADDITIONALLY. THEY SUGGEST THAT THE PORTION CALLED PARCEL A,
FRONTING ON U.S. 1, BE IN C -1A, AND BELIEVE THAT THE PLANNING.DEPART-
MENT DOES CONCUR WITH THIS AND THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TREND
FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE A NODE OF COMMERCIAL. IN DIFFERENTIATION
FROM THE DORAN PROPERTY, WHERE THERE WERE NUMEROUS PEOPLE OBJECTING TO
THE PROPOSED REZONING, THEY HAVE 58 SIGNATURES OF PEOPLE IN THE AREA
ENDORSING THEIR PROJECT AND WHO WISH THAT COMMERCIAL AREA TO STAY THERE.
-ATTORNEY BLOCK REPEATED THAT -THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF THEIR R-3 BEING
CHANGED TO R-213, EVEN THOUGH IT_WASN'T ADVERTISED, AND BOTH THE OWNER
AND HIS AGENT AGREE. HE STATED THAT.HE,DID NOT WISH TO GET INTO THE
ISSUE OF DENSITY AVERAGING,- BUT -SINCE -THEIR PROJECT I.S PLANNED FOR _
7.53.UNITS PER ACRE, IT CAN FIT NICELY INTO THE ZONING HE HAS SUGGESTED.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER CONTINUED TO CONTEND THAT THE MOTION
OF THE.PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WAS TO APPROVE THE REC-OMMENDATION -
MADE BY THE PLANNING.DEPARTMENT, WHICH WAS TO --REZONE FROM C-lA TO R -2D,
AND ATTORNEY BLOCK JUST AS -FIRMLY STATED THAT WAS NOT SO; AND, IF
NECESSARY, HE FELT THE MEMBERS OF_THE PLANNING_& ZONING.COMMISSION
SHOULD -BE POLLED TO CONFIRM THIS..
IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK,
WHO WAS PRESENT AT -THE MEETING IN QUESTION, THAT IT WAS VERY CONFUSING,
BUT HE BELIEVED THAT ATTORNEY BLOCK WAS CORRECT. -
iWAY0_BOOK 6- PACE512
i9� 7 - 65
�d 4 FAGE 513
.-COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT HE HAD SUPPORTED THE DORAN'S -
REQUEST FOR R -2B ALL.THE WAY THROUGH AND WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH
THE CUMMINS' REQUEST FOR R -2B THE SAME WAY,'BUT HE DID.NOT BELIEVE _
WE CAN TAKE SUCH ACTION.TODAY.
ATTORNEY BLOCK WISHED -TO -KNOW IF THERE I_S A -CHANCE .THIS
COULD BE ADVERTISED QUICKLY AND PUT BACK ON THE AGENDA PROMPTLY BE—
CAUSE OF THEIR TIMETABLE AND THE DOLLARS AND CENTS INVOLVED. HE
REALIZED THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT -FOR THE OWNER TO RECEIVE 30 -DAYS'
NOTICE, BUT POINTED OUT THAT THE OWNER IS -PRESENT TODAY AND CAN DISCLAIM
THAT NOTICE NOW.
=CHAIRMAN LYONS WISHED TO PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE C -IA PORTION AS ADVERTISED AND ASKED I.F ANYONE PRESENT WISHED
TO BE HEARD, THERE WERE NONE.
ON MOTION"BY C OMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
LOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS—
SIONER WODTKE, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 81-19, REZONING FROM C -IA To R -2B,
AS ADVERTISED.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER BELIEVED THAT THIS PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT
THAT THE DORAN PROPERTY*AND THAT THE ELEVATION IS SOMEWHAT HIGHER.
HE NOTED THAT THE R-3 AREA WHICH DOES CONCERN HIM CANNOT BE ADDRESSED
TODAY.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11
ORDINANCE .NO. 81-19
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 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:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast one-
-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 17,
Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run East along the North
line of said Section 17 a distance of 84.96 feet to the
East right-of-way line of U. S. Highway #1; thence run
S 25057'59" E along said East right-of-way a distance of
736.41 feet to the Point of Beginning of the herein described
parcel; thence run S 89042'24" E on a line parallel to and
660 feet_South of the North line of said Section 17 a
distance of 669.05 feet; thence run S:25057159" E a
distance of 1473.12 feet; thence run N 89023'30" W a
distance of 335.44 feet; -thence run N 25057'59"_W a distance
of 1083.33 feet; thence run N 89033128" W a distance of
334.95 feet; thence run N 25o57159" W.a distance of 386.77
feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 12.81 acres,
more or less.
Be c -hanged from C -1A Restricted Commercial District to R -2B
Multiple Family District."
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described
i n sai d- Zoni ng- Regul ati ons-.
This Ordinance shall take effect May 26, 1981.
-oa 4 F 515
.. - MAY 2 01981.
DISCUSSION ENSUED AS -TO WHETHER THE BOARD SHOULD INSTIGATE
THE REZONING OF" -THE -R-3 PORTION OF THE CUMMINS PROPERTY AND HAVE IT COME-
DIRECTLY.BACK TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION WITHOUT RETURNING TO THE PLANNING
& ZONING COMMISSION IT WAS NOTED THE OWNERS --HAVE INDICATED WILLING-
NESS TO GO ALONG -WITH A CHANGE T_0 R—ZB-AND POSSIBLY WE COULD JUST ASK
THE PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION FOR THEIR COMMENTS WITHOUT GOING
THROUGH THE FORMAL PROCESS.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE,- SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER -BIRD, THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY_COMM-ISSIONERS INSTIGATE A ZONING
CHANGE -ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS THE CUMMINS ENTERPRISE R-3 PROPERTY
FROM R-3 TO R -2B TO BE ADVERTISED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .
ATTORNEY BLOCK REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD ALLOW THE NOTICE
REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO BE WAIVED BY THE OWNER.
ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IT IS ONLY -THE
NOTICE" TO THE OWNER WHICH REQUIRES. 3O DAYS, AND ALTHOUGH IT CAN BE
WAIVED, THE PROBLEM WITH IT DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE OWNER, BUT FROM
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO MIGHT ATTACK IT. HE COULD NOT ADVISE
THAT THE 30 DAY NOTICE BE WAIVED.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED, AND ATTORNEY BLOCK ARGUED THAT THE
STATUTE REQUIRING THIS 30 DAY NOTICE IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNER,
NOT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, AFTER LENGTHY DISCUSSION,
COMMISSIONER WODTKE WITHDREW HIS MOTION AND COMMISSIONER BIRD WITHDREW
HIS SECOND,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO I VOTE, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN
OPPOSITION, DIRECTED THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION INITIATE A REZONING
OF THE R-3 PORTION OF THE CUMMINS ENTERPRISE PROPERTY FROM R-3 TO R—ZB;
THAT THE MATTER BE PROPERLY ADVERTISED AND BE BROUGHT BACK DIRECTLY
TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR DISPOSITION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
WE WILL RECEIVE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT FROM THE OWNER WAIVING HIS RIGHT
OF 30 DAY NOTIFICATION.
SAID WAIVER IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES.
68
9
nT
f
t
��'/ 4 a' =Z � 2 y,/ 3� Q i✓ �� o c� � _✓ 3� S � �i s / �S $/ Ste'✓' L %,�' ' `1('�
3 Q
�'3,7�•{{M >� ' � Z _ \! p� � --� Q� n•p.� .. �� / nr3S3 ..�.1 ���V
---_• ,—_ _-•---:a,�!>> �.�j/Ci �r�' `...�--- �_�� ry� j SSirYry✓o� �r 1 �'� p.� �y�-�!•_-! !/r7 .
O ----- 4 ly�
7 °
t�
c 35> a'U Y 3V✓ /j� - — - z N I --vv 'Y7
. N � y� `✓a7 d`vf/ ` J �f�1 0/
46 �,�cE517
MAY
PUBLIC HEARING --REZONING FROM --A ToR—lE REQUESTED BY CHILDERS
THE HOUR-OF.1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK
..READ THE -*FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO=WIT:
VERO BEACH PRE55-JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida I NOTICE
NOTICE IS ,HEREBY GIVEN that the
f Planning -and Zoning Commission. of Indian
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
i .River County, Florida, is reviewing the
feasibility of making the following changes'
STATE OF FLORIDA -and additions to the Zoning, Ordinance of In-
dian River County,Florida, which"changes•
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared. J- J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath and additions are substantiallyasfollows;
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Journal,a weekly newspaper published - 1. That the Zoning Map be changed In order
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of idve0!sement, being that the'following described property situated,
one-eighth mile east of 58th Avenue (Kings
�/� Highway) on the south side of:l3th,Street, S.W.,
a //� ! (Kelley Road): in: Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit -
The
o -wit c ,
/ The East 19.17 acres of Tract' 12,, and the
North .52 acres of the Easf 11.19 acres of Trac
in the matter of r S, 43 yY , i 13, Section. 28, Township 33 South, Range 39 '
East, said land lying and being in Indian River'
'County, Florida.
Be changed from .A -Agricultural District to
R-1 E Country Estate District. `,"
A public hearing in relation thereto at which.
parties in interest and citizens shall have an
in the Court, was pub- I opportunity to be -heard, will be held by said
_ Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian
n Rlver County, Florida, on Thursday, March 26,
lished in said newspaper in the issues of `�/�/� , /�. / Y ( 1981, at 7:30 P.M.; in the Council Chamber of
the City Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, after which
said public hearing in relation thereto at which
parties in interest and citizens shall -have an
iopportunity to be heard will be held by the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian
-Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper River County, Florida, in the Council Chamber
published at of the City Hall, Vero Beach,. Florida, on
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has .heretofore I Wednesday, May 20,1981, at 1:30P:M.
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered If any person decides to appeal any decision
as second class mail matter at the post. office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River -County, Florida made on the above matter, he will need a
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or poses, he may need to insure that a verbatim
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- j record of the proceedings Is made, which in-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper. cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
//I
appeal is based.
{/ jJ% Indian River County
Sworn to and subscribed before meis ___''�day of /� A.D.__(/�/ U f Board of County Commissioners
!"✓Y�. („ .,i v%�?1/yfr I By; Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman -
Indian River County Planning
and Zoning Commission
' (Business Manager) By: Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
l
1 Mar. 8, 10, 1981. .
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, n an River County, Florida)
NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO GEORGE AND DOROTHY
CHILDERS AND .JAMES AND LORRAINE LEWIS BY FREDA NIGHT, CLERK OF
CIRCUIT COURT, AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 125.66.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER REVIEWED THE STAFF AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AS FOLLOWS:
s
TO: Neil Nelson, DATE: May 14, 1981 FILE: ZC 81-5-449
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Childers rezoning from
A -Agricultural to R -1E
Country Estate
FROM: David ever REFERENCES:
Planning and Zoning Director
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal
_"4`4 `-"consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
1. Description and Conditions.
Applicant requests rezoning of 21.9 acres from A -Agricultural to
R -1E Country Estate. The parcel is located 617 feet east of 58th Ave-
-nue on 13th Street. The applicant proposes to construct a single
family residential development.
The subject property contains non-productive groves. The overall
.area between 43rd Avenue and 58th Avenue has new, scattered pockets
of low density residential development. There are also groves in
the area, and the general environment is rural in character.
2. Alternative and Analysis -
A) Approve the request to rezone the subject property from A-
Agricultural to R -1E Country Estate. The property lies _.between the -
existing urban corridor and predominately agricultural areas of the
western portion of the county.: -The R -1E District allows a low-density
development which provides a buffer area between the agricultural western
area and urbanizing eastern section. The Tow density development is
anticipated to accomodate wells and septic systems while 13th Street,
S.W.-, provides access to 58th Avenue. The maximum gross d-ensity would
be 22 units.
Staff recommends this alternative.
B) Deny -the request to rezone. The parcel would remain A -
Agricultural with a gross maximum density of 1 unit/5 acres.
-- 3. Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval
-of rezoning subject property -from A -Agricultural to R -1E Coun.try
-Estate:s. (March 26, 19-81) .
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD.
GEORGE CHILDERS, .THE APPLICANT, MADE A -PRESENTATION, DISPLAY-
ING AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND POINT-ING OUT THE RESIDENCES ALREADY IN THIS
AREA.. HE NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THEY ARE APPLYING FOR-R—IE, THEY PLAN TO
HAVE ONLY EIGHT HOMESITES AND UTILIZE ONLY ABOUT 40% OF THE DENSITY
PERMITTED By R—IE, HE REPORTED THAT THEY INTEND TO CONSTRUCT_ LARGE QUALITY
HOMES, AND THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT FROM THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE FURTHER WISHED:TO.BE 11EARD. 'UERE
WERE NONE.
MyO - A: = - 71 - BOOK � PACE 518
0 a9��
MAY 2 0 1991 - _ - -BOOK 46 PAF 51-9
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK,- THE 1?OARD- UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARINGI
ON MOTION BY.COMMISSIONER SCURLOCXj SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER-
FLETCHER, TH-E BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE 81-20 APPROVING
THE REZONING -FROM A TO -R -1E AS ADVERTISED AND AS REQUESTED BY THE
CHILDR-S,
ORDINANCE NO. 81=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:
The East 19.17 acres of Tract 12, and the North .52 acres
of the East 18.19 acres of Tract 13, Section 28, Town-
ship 33 South, Range 39 East, said land lying and being
in Indian River County Florida
Be changed from A -Agricultural District to R -1E
Country Estate District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect May 26, 1981.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM A TO R-3 AS REQUESTED BY L. HATALA
THE HOUR OF 1:30 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
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
,)Z474&
in the matter of G71 TAAir ✓e , �� . �� 3 .
in the ii�Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of oz4gi 1fOp /
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 � dA of L • A.D.
(SEAL)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, 7
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian i
River County, Florida, is reviewing the
feasibility of making the following changes
,and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of In
dian 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 located
In Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
The South 70.0 Feet of the North 700.0 Feet of
the East 10 Acres of the West 20:68 Acres of
Tract 10, Section 1, Township 33 South, Range
38 East, Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from Agricultural District to R-3
Residential 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 of Indian
River County, Florida, in the Council Chamber
of the City Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Thursday, March 26, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., after
which a 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 Council
Chamber of the City Hall, Vero Beach, .;
Florida, on Wednesday, May 29, 1981, at t 1:30 1
P.M.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter. he will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he may need to insure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings -is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
Indian River County, -
Board of County Commissioners
By: Patrick B. Lyons.
Chairman
Indian River County Planning
And Zoning Commission
By: Carolyn Eggert, Chairman
March 11, 12, 1181. —y
NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO LEONARD AND
CONSTANCE HATALA BY FREDA WRIGHT, CLERK -OF -CIRCUIT COURT, AS REQUIRED
BY FLORIDA STATUTE 125.66.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO, -
NOTING THATJHE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO. THIS =WAS REZONED SIMILARLY A
YEAR -AGO -
MAY 2 0198 - . BOOK4 PAGE 520 -
73 _
A
(.
.1 1 0 so
Poo 0F�4 E.
TO: - Nei -1 Nel son, - DATE: May 14, 1981 FILE:. ZC 81-3=449
County Administrator -
- --_ SUBJECT: Rezoning -from A -Agricultural
to R=3 Residential
_00/
FROM: David R ver, =REFERENCES:
Planning and Zoning. Director
It -is recommended that the data herein presented be'given formal
consideration by the County Commission.
1. Descr-iption and Conditions
On March 25',-19$1, the Planni►ig and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of a request to rezon-e.a 70.' x -3
325.' (2.2,400 sq. ft.) strip
from A -Agri cultural to R-3 Mial.ti pl e F -ami ly. The strip -i s 1 ocate-d at the
south end of a parcel lying on the south -side -of S. R. 60 between 82nd
Avenue and Range Line Road. The parcel has a total area of 10 acres,
with.4.48 acres zoned R-3 and -.-5.52 acres zoned A -Agricultural. The
701_strip will compensate a 75' setback required on S.R.*60 under'Ordi-
-nance 80-1. The entire parcel is presently v-acant.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
A) Approve the rezoning request. This rezoning of the 70 -foot
strip will allow a flow design flexibility in the.R-3 portion of the
property without a ma3or.alteration of the present.zoning configuration.
The rezoning of this 70 -foot strip will provide design flexibility
in the development of this pa"rcel with no significant change in the
present land use patterns. Staff recommended approval of this alter-
native to the Planning Commission.
B) Disapprove the rezoning request. While this action would not
prohibit-the-devel-opment of the R-3 portion, neither will it
benefit the County by expanding design flexibility.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval
of the rezoining request from A -Agricultural to R-3 multiple family
residential.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD.
THERE WERE NONE,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE 8I-21, APPROVING THE
REZONING TO R-3 AS REQUESTED BY THE HATALAS.
ORDINANCE` N.O. 81-21
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:
The South 70.0 Feet of the North 700,0 Feet of the
East 10 acres of the West 20.68 acres of Tract 10;
Section 1, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, Indian
River County, Florida,
Be rezoned from A -Agricultural District to R-3 Multipl.e _..
Family Residential District. F
All with the meaning_and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect May 25, 1981.
POLICY RE MAINTENANCE OF UNMAINTAINED ROADS
THE BOARD STUDIED THE FOLLOWING MEMO AND SUGGESTED EVALUATION
FORM TO BE USED IN DECIDING ON ACCEPTANCE OF UNMAINTAINED ROADS:
TO-TheHonorable Members of the
DATE: m- 13, 1981 -FILE:
- ay
Board of -County Commi.ssioners-
SUBJECT: -policy on the Acceptance by the County
for. - Mai htbnance of U.nmai..ntai ned- Roads
FROM: Nei -1 A. Nelson, REFERENCES:
County Administrator
DESCRIPTIONAND CONDITIONS
Periodically, the County -is requested to -accept unmaintained roads for County
dedication and maintenance. Roads to be accepted must meet current County Spec-
ifications. To formulate a policy on handling these requests, the Department
of Public Works has drafted an evaluation form to use in formulating recommend-
ations. The 'form is based on a point system which takes into consideration con-
ditions of the road, drainage, right-of-way width, school bus routes, and a
number of parameters. A perfect score of 195 for a paved road is applicable.
Request for County acceptance.of an unpaved road would be handled as a speci6l
--exception by the Board. This exception would be evaluatedthroughthe use of
this form.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
One way to base the recommendation- on the evaluation form is to recommend
approval if the sum of the points assigned for a particular road exceed half
of the perfect score or 97.5 for a paved road.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the attached evaluation form be accepted in recom-
mending maintenance of a non maintained road by Indian River -County.
There are no funding considerations to be considered for this matter.
I
ACCEPTA";CE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING THE
MAINTENANCE. OF A NON -DEDICATED ROAD
BY Ii DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
r�
MAINTENANCE AREA
ROAD NAME
FROM TO
DISTANCE
COMMISSION DISTRICT
PAVEMENT WIDTH
SURFACE CONDITION
TOTAL POINTS '
RIGHT-OF-WAY AVAILABILITY
POINTS RATING
Below 50' Right -of -Way (All or Portion)
0
50' or more available but not by donation
5
50' or more -available by donation
15
50' or more available dedicated
30
r •
TRANSPORTATION (SCHOOL BUS ROUTES)
30
Greater than 2.
20
2
15
1 -
10
0
Q _ -
HOME OR BUSINESS FRONTING PER 1/4 MILE
More than 15
10 .�
tO�10_ to 15
5 ; _
x 0 ao 10
-
=
0
�;y<CQNtJECTIO�t WITH PAVED COUNTY ROADS
f°Both ends
10
4One end
5
None
0
CONDIT!ON OFROADWAY(paved only)
-
Surface in absolutely perfect condition, with no
,' ripples or patches. Typically this paving
-
would-be a maximum of 5-7 years. old.
30
Surface condition-mar•red by ripples and/or
patching, which mildly affects r-iding.quality,
_
ia�,Repaving not immediately. required.-
15 -
Surface conditions -are, extremel y poor. Ridinq
quality is.poor to the extend that automobiles
, -
.q must travel at extremely slow -speeds in order -. -
xa avoid hazard
O ..
`CONDITIOtV OF ROADWAY _-(Unpaved only) -
:Limerock stabilized
20 _
;tilell-stabi l ized marl shell
marl/shell maintained.
--- -
�_
-_Sand surfaced `non stabilized - hazardous
x. •_ .i _�s _ _
0- - -.- - -
MAY 2 0 -1981 - - Roor 46 PAcE 5?4 -
MAY 2 0198 _ �,
tld PAGE -5
FUNCTION OF ROADWAY
Residential.- carries pr-imarily -residential
vehicles through residential -areas.. -
COLLECTOR - Ca.rr.i-es--residential traffic.from.
residential areas- to major or minor arterials.
Major Arterial - carries vehicles -to shopping
centers and work t -rips and connec.ting munici-
palities.--
TRAFFIC
unici-palities.--TRAFFIC VOLUME SERVICE
0 -to -50 vehicles per day
50 to 250 vehicles per day -
25.0 to 500 vehicles -per day
More than 500 vehicles per day
DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
No drainage pattern noticeable
Poor drainage-
Definitive swale pattern
Complete drainage facilities
AVAILABILITY TO -MAINTENANCE ROUTE
Is road near maintenance route?.
Is road far from maintenance.route
FUTURE PLANNING
POINTS = RATING
5
15 -
2-0
10
15
20
0
10
2-0-
20
0_
Is projected Right -of -Way desirable for future
planning? 15
Is projected Right -of -Way not -of interest for
future --planning? 0
THE BOARD IN GENERAL DISCUSSION EXPRESSED APPROVAL OF
THE PROPOSED EVALUATION SHEET,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY ENGINEER AS OUTLINED IN THE MEMO OF
MAY 13, 1981
NATHAN DAVIES OF WABASSO STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE FURTHER
STUDY BEFORE THIS EVALUATION SYSTEM IS APPROVED.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT IT WILL BE DISCUSSED FURTHER
AT A WORKSHOP MEETING, AND POSSIBLY MODIFIED, BUT NOTED THAT AT THE
PRESENT TIME WE HAVE NO POLICY AND THIS IS A STEP FORWARD
MRS DAVIES INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE OWNS INDIAN RIVER VILLAS
AND THERE ARE OVER 45 FAMILIES USING DURRANCE ROAD . HE STATED THAT
THEY ARE THE MOST NEGLECTED PEOPLE IN THE WHOLE COUNTY; THEY HAVE NO
ROAD MAINTENANCE OR MAIL 'DELIVERY, BUT IT IS WATERFRONT PROPERTY, AND
TAXED ACCORDINGLY,
78
i
CHAIRMAN LYONS POINfED,.OUT THAT THIS IS A GUIDE, AND ACCEPT -i
ANCE OF A ROAD DOES GET BACK TO THS COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL.
TO:
MR. DAVIES STATED THAT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING WHEN HE
TALKED WITH COMMISSION FLETCHER THAT THE WORKSHOP MEETING ON JUNE 10TH
WAS TO BE WHEN THEY ALL COULD SIT DOWN TOGETHER AND FIGURE OUT THE
CORRECT PROCEDURES FOR THE COUNTY IN TAKING OVER THIS TYPE OF ROAD.
HE DID NOT FEEL THE BOARD SHOULD ACCEPT TEMPORARY RULES AND THEN SET
UP NEW ONES IN THE FUTURE.
REQUEST TO RESUME MAINTENANCE OF WAUREGAN AND BREVARD AVENUES
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO FROM ADMINISTRATOR
NELSON EXPLAINING THE HISTORY OF THE ABOVE ROADS:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM
The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 6., 1981
Board of County Commissioners '
FROM: Neil A. Nelson,
County Administrator
Description and Conditions
- FILE:
SUBJECT: Request from Mrs. Helen Hanson for
Indian River County to resume. the
Maintenance of Wauregan Avenue and
Brevard Avenue from Spring Street
(80th Court)to Maple Street (79th Avenue)-
in.Roseland - Length of Road Approximately
REFERENCES: 2240 L.F.
Mrs. Helen Hanson, -a long-time resident and property owner in Roseland,
is requesting the County ,to resume the grading and -maintenance of the above
subj-ect unimproved roads. These roads were originally included in the plat
-of Wauregan Subdivision, -which was recorded in 1889. The streets, however,
were not -opened until after the death of -Mr. Hanson in the mid 1960's. Mrs.
Hanson directed the opening of the..streets and sale -of lots.in order to liquidate
Mr. Hanson's estate. With the except-ion.of only a few°parcels of 1an.d, Mrs.
Hanson, now 85 years of age, -has sold all of her platted land in Roseland and
and has no plans to open any other streets in this -area. =
Analysis and Alternatives -
The date of recording for this area goes, back to the late 1800's,and
it -appears that the -opening of the roads since has occurred in phases.- The
_ subject roads,. which - were opened in the 1960's, have been previously and in
advertantly maintained by the County. The grader operators working in -the
area mistakenly .went beyond their limits. It has been reported that this -may -
have occurred for. 3 to 7 years or so. Upon researching- the actual acceptance
Df the roads, the County in 1979 stopped grading the 2240 L..F.--of Brevard and
Wauregan Avenues. When the County was maintaining the roads, it has.been re-
-.ported that the grading did not conform. to the original road slope and the
quality of the road cross-section deteriorated somewhat..
NAY 46 PAGE 526-
2 0198f _ 79
71
IfA4V nn loos
- mok 46 FADE'S,21 - .
Mrs. Hanson,.who -has generously contributed at nQ;.cost to_ -the County
many properties, including the F1restation Property in Ros-e.land, the Right-
of-way for U.S. Highway rl, and much County Park Property; is requesting this
maintenance. The -road conditi-on at this time is fai-r.- No major reconstruc-
tion is necessary to -bring the .road to acceptance. The cost for.maintaining
2240 L..F. of unimproved roadway per year is approximately $848.. per year.
Recommendations.and Fundina-
Since the County has -performed -maintenance df -these road in the pas -t,-
the -roads are directly adjacent- to the gradi ng route, and the - area -has been
legally platted,. -i-t- is 'recommended by the. Public Works Department, County
Engineer, -and County Administration that the -maintenance of Wauregan Avenue- -
and Brevard Avenue from Snr..inq=Street to Maple Street (2240 L.F. to Road) he
resumed by: the County. Also, the numerical evaluation rotinq_of 1.00 indicates
favorable acceptance conditions.
Fundinq in the arount .of $848.00 per.year wi l l .be- provided out of -
the Road and -Bridge Department budgeted funds.
ON MOTION -BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY .COMMISSIONER
SCURLOC-K, THE.BO-ARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR IN REGARD TO RESUMING MAINTENANCE OF WAUREGAN AVENUE AND.
BREVARD AVENUE AS SET OUT IN HIS MEMO OF -MAY 6TH.
PETITION EOR ASSUMPTION OF MAINTENANCE OF DURRANCE ROAD
THE BOARD -REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 11,- 1981 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Petition by Property owners in Durance
Development (A Non Platted Subdivision)
Requesting Indian River County to Assume
Maintenance of Durrance Road
FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: '
County Administrator
I ..
Description and Conditions
A group of property owners in Durrance Development, an unplatted
division located approximately 1 mile north of Wabasso Road east of U.S. High
way 1, is petitioning the County to assume maintenance of Durrance Road, an
unplatted private road approximately 1050 feet long from US 1 to the northerly
extension of 53rd Ave. The owner of the road, Mary Lou Durrance has agreed
to deed the road right-of-way to the County if accepted.
Analysis and Alternatives
Inspection of the 30' wide unimproved road on May 9, 1981, by the County
Engineer reveals that the road is in poor condition. No drainage facilities
are existing and road drainage is poor. To evaluate the suitability of the
County accepting this road, an evaluation for has been prepared. A perfect
point rating of 185 would indicate all conditions are favorable for the staff
j to recommend acceptance. This road receives a rating of 35, which is below
!the halfway score of 92.5. For this reason the staff does not recommend
acceptance of this road by the County.
If the, County decides to assume maintenance, the annual cost to the County
to maintain the road once it has been reconstructed as.necessary for a typical
unimproved road, is $397.7onstruction of the 1,050ft.and
uction of drainage faciliti stimated at $10,000. This hould
uu uune by the owner.
Recommendations
-_ =>-Based upon the low evaluation rating in considering the County's interest
on accepting this road, it is recommended that the County not accept mainten-
ance of Durrance Road east of U.S. Highway #1. -
If the County does accept the road, funding for maintenance in the amount
of $397.72 per annum would be from Road and Bridge Department budgeted funds.
NATHAN DAVIES STATED THAT THIS ROAD IS ACTUALLY 65.3' WIDE
AND HAS QUITE A BIT OF MARL AND SHELL AS A BASE. ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT
DRAINED AS WELL AS IT COULD BE, HE DID NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD REQUIRE A
GREAT DEAL OF MONEY TO GET THIS IN GOOD CONDITION.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE ACTUAL WIDTH OF THE ROAD,
COUNTY ENGINEER DAVIS STATED THAT THE ACTUAL ROAD IS 30'; THE RIGHT—OF—
WAY IS 65.3', AND IT DOES CONSTRICT AS IT APPROACHES THE RIVER TO ABOUT
40'.
MR. DAVIES CONFIRMED THAT Ht AND MRS. DURRANCE HAVE AGREED
TO DEED THIS TO THE COUNTY.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER NOTED THAT THE ROAD WOULD HAVE TO HAVE
SOME ADDITIONAL MARL TO BRING IT TO COUNTY STANDARDS, AND OUR ENGINEER
HAS INDICATED HE IS WORKING ON GETTING SOME FIGURES FOR THE PROPERTY
OWNERS AS TO WHAT THAT COST MIGHT BE.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMIS—
SIONER SCURLOCK, TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
AND DENY MAINTENANCE -OF DURRANCE ROAD UNTIL PROPERTY OWNERS ARE INFORMED
WHAT .IMPROVEMENTS WOULD HAVE.TO BE MADE BEFORE THE COUNTY WOULD ACCEPT
MAINTENANCE.
DISCUSSION -FOLLOWED IN -REGARD TO THE ESTIMATED COST OF
$10,000 WHICH MR. DAVIES FELT WAS A GREATLY EXAGGERATED FIGURE,- AND -
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT COUNTY ENGINEER DAVIS LIMIT HIMSELF TO
SETTING OUT THE STANDARDS _THAT THE COUNTY WILL -ACCEPT, AND THEN MR.
DAVIES AND -MRS. DURRANCE CAN GET THEIR OWN COST -ESTIMATE. _
_ COMMISSIONER FLETCHER AGREED AND FELT --IF MR, DAVIES AND
ENGINEER DAVIS.GET..TOGETHER, SOME OF -.THESE MATTERS -CAN BE ANSWERED.
-COMMISSIONER WODTKE QUESTIONED THE METHOD -OF ARRIVING AT SOME
OF THE-P.OINTS ON THE--EVALUATION-SHEET, AND IT. -WAS AGREED THIS MIGHT
REQUIRE FURTHER STUDY AT !—HE WORKSHOP MEETING, -- -
81
9 PAGE
b
MAY -2619-81- 'box fa�cF529
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED -FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS -VOTED -ON -AND
'CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY;
STIPULATION RE 1980 TAX ROLL
ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED- THE BOARD THAT. A STIPULATION HAS'
BEEN PREPARED-IN.REGARD TO THE 1980 TAX ROLL -AND HE NEEDS TO BE AUTHOR—
IZED TO SIGN IT. HE EXPLAINED THAT PURSUANT TO THE4T.R.I-,Mt BILL, A
SUIT WAS FILED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER WHERE THE
COURT AUTHORIZED THE COUNTY'TO OPERATE UNDER AN.INTERIM.ROLL AND THEN -
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE FINAL ROLL WOULD COME OUT OR WE WOULD
CONTINUE TO OPERATE -UNDER THE INTERIM ROLL. IT WAS DECIDED TO GET
THE FINAL ROLL OUT TO CLEAR UP THE INEQUITIES .IN THE INTERIM ROLL,
THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER REQUIRED THAT WHEN THE ROLL -WAS COMPLETED,
WE WOULD GO BACK TO.THE COURT FOR FINAL DISPOSITION. THIS -STIPULATION
SAYS THAT EVERYTHING IS.NOW'COMPLETE AND WE WANT THE TAX COLLECTOR TO
BE ABLE TO PROCEED AND SEND -OUT THE FINAL BILLS FOR 1980.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO SIGN THE
.--STIPULATION RE THE -19$0 TAX ROLL..
19
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE; and DAVID C. NOLTE
as the Property Appriaser of
Indian River County, Florida,
Defendants.
TN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT' OF FLORIDA IN AND
FOR IdDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 80-863
JUDGE G. KENDALL SHARP
STIPULATION
The parties herein, Indian River County, David C.
Nolte,as Indian River County Property Appraiser, and the De-
partment of Revenue of the State of Florida, joined by Gene E.
Morris, as the Indian River County Tax Collector, do hereby
stipulate to .the following: - r
1. All the requirements concerning notices to tax-
payers, billing, and collection of taxes of the interim roll
have been accomplished.
2. .The final 1980 assessment roll- has been completed
and approved by -the Executive Director of the Department of
Revenue.
3. After proper notice to all taxpayers of -the assess-
ments for 1980, the Indian River County Property Appraisal Ad--
justment Board has completed hearing all petitions filed by
taxpayers -and -certified the _assessment roll.
4. -David C.. --Nolte, as Indian River County Property
Appraiser,.has prepared a proper certified Final -Roll for 1980;
has _ calculated taxes as provided in. -Section' 193.1145(8)(a)-,
F.S. 1-980;_ and - certified the - same to Gene -E. Morris; as Indian
River County Tax -Collect. -0-r.
SAY- 2
46 PA E-531
I.. 'tWiile_ the Court -had directed -the Property-
ApprmRxe4r- anW uiie Tax Collector to provide the_ Court with
i�nf�ca�mmttirrn i order to determine whether. there should be a.
subs; t LUDIDing and,. if not, whether the interim. assess- -
s 11J1 [ife•the final 1980 assessments, -.all the parties
herefml i%P �aYd st-Lpulate that basic fairness -and the in-
t<e're-sttts of ajasTdce require subsequent bil-ling of the .final tax
rain ffinr .II9 ,; wrld icgt the expense .and delay -of. providing such
nfaDwn-,a!t&am `artU Tzai.ve the same. -
rEIffl-RE'ORE; tthe parties request the Court, without
fu,r•th,eir-jucifiiee'or kaar.ing, to -authorize Gene E. Morris, as the
lmdiiam 1E)verr ,Qiunt Tax Collectof, to mail the 1980 final tax •
y' >
tp:luxd-uedi itcT. -coll.ect taxes _and make refunds and to do all
t&img,p—jrxBue ,r�y arad required by law to , complete the collection -
of taxes I ur tale year L980.
Indian River County
George G. Collins, Jr.., County Attorney
c/o 744 Beachland Boulevard, -
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: 1-305-231-4343
Indian River County
David C. Nolte, Property. Appraiser
c/o Robert Jackson, Attorney at Law
2165 -15th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: 1-305-567-4355
Department of Revenue of the State of
Florida; Jim Smith, Attorney General
E. Wilson Crump, II
Department of Legal Affairs
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Telephone: 1-904-487-2142
Indian River County
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
Court House, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: 1-305-562-2303
Em:etc,,uitdian aicinpleted on the day of Hay, 1981.
AMENDMENT TO $725,000 BOND RESOLUTION 81-31, PLEDGING RACETRACK FUNDS
ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT THERE ARE TWO AMENDMENTS
PROPOSED TO PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY TO BOND RESOLUTION 81-31 PASSED
TWO WEEKS AGO, THE FIRST CHANGE PROVIDES THAT IF THERE IS ANY MONEY
LEFT IN THE CONSTRUCTION FUNDS AFTER THE COURTHOUSE PROJECT HAS BEEN
COMPLETED, THE COUNTY CAN USE THOSE FUNDS FOR ANY HIGH PRIORITY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IT DEEMS NECESSARY. THE SECOND AMENDMENT
HAS TO DO WITH THE SURPLUS ACCOUNT IN THE FLOW OF FUNDS PROCESS,
PREVIOUSLY IT WAS REQUIRED THAT THIS MONEY HAD -TO BE USED TO PURCHASE
OUTSTANDING BONDS, BUT THE AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW THE COUNTY TO INVEST
THIS MONEY AND NOT HAVE TO CALL FOR TENDERS EVERY YEAR.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS
CHANGE WOULD ELIMINATE A VERY CUMBERSOME PROCESS WHERE YOU HAVE TO
ADVERTISE IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TO SEE IF ANYONE WISHED TO TENDER
THEIR BONDS AND YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE ANY TAKERS, HE NOTED THAT ACTUALLY
A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY IS INVOLVED.
ATTORNEY COLLINS CALLED THE BOARDS ATTENTION TO TH.E_-PARA-
GRAPH OF THE LETTER FROM BOND COUNSEL JOHN KELLY WHICH EMPHASIZED
THAT UPON THE ISSUANCE OF THESE BONDS, ALL THE RACE TRACK FUNDS ARE
TIED UP AND CANNOT BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE UNTIL THE BONDS ARE RETIRED
SINCE THERE IS NO LONGER-, RELEASE AT -THE END OF THE FLOW OF FUNDS,
-ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SE-CONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED AMENDATORY RESOLUTION 81-32,
A RESOLUTION -AMENDING A RESOLUTION ENTITLED:
"A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR COMPLETION OF
THE -RECONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, FURNISHING
AND EQUIPPING OF A COURTHOUSE ANNEX IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, -FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
OF NOT EXCEEDI-NG $725,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
REVENUE BONDS, SERI -ES 19$1, TO FINANCE THE COST
THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE
PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON SUCH -BONDS FROM THE
-RACE TRACK FUNDS- AND .JAI ALAI. -FRONTON -FUNDS
ACCRUING ANNUALLY TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PURSUANT TO LAW, AND CERTAIN INVESTMENT INCOME;
PROVIDING -FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE.HOLDER_S OF SAID _
BONDS," ADOPTED ON MAY 6, 1981.-
BOOK.
98., BOOK PAGE -532
u xs ...�. max; ... e .-.x:. :, ., ..,:.•� :•. ... :..,,.. _ ...u. - - ,w.r oe s -s.n.. <,« ,. .:€ »: z. s.. xi.a:. ,f..' �Ww-.,yfi..>ov=.,-:
EPP-
47-41
,,.. ; .::.. �. a' _ ;. .kt .-s: .. .G , : .. ,-. _;...; .. or. ' u .. .,..:,:... .. s�r, a. �. ., '.d.r �: �5'-; ia.. ✓_ r;,..d3s.'�,. a3f'a..o:,, c a+:.�
x�4 1'
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING A RESOLUTION ENTITLED:
"-A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR COMPLETION OF THE
RECONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, FURNISHING AND
EQUI.PP'ING OF A_COURTHOUSE ANNEX IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY,-FLORIDA;-AUTHO.RIZING THE ISSUANCE
.OF NOT EXCEEDING'$725,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 19$1, -TO FINANCE THE
COST THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF
THE- PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON SUCH BONDS-
FAOM THE RACE TRACK FUNDS AND JAI ALAI FRONTON
FUNDS ACCRUING ANNUALLY TO INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO LAW, ANA CERTAIN
INVESTMENT -INCOME -;--PROVIDING FOR. -THE RIGHTS;_ OF
THE HOLDERS OF SAID=BONDS," ADOPTED ON MAY 6, _ -
1981.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,. FLORIDA: _
SECTION 1. - Subsection -s B and C of Section 14 of the
resolution adopted.on May 6, 1981, and referred to by title in
the title of this resolution --(hereinafter. called the "Resolution")_
be and the same are hereby amended -to read as follows:
"SECTION 14. COVENANTS -OF THE COUNTY.
B. DISPOSITION OF .RACE TRACK FUNDS. All Race Track
Funds and -Jai Alai Fronton Funds at any time remaining on deposit
..n_the Sinking Fund --shall be disposed of commencing with the
Fiscal Year 1980-1981, only in the following manner and in the
following order of priority:
(1) Moneys on deposit in the Sinking Fund shall first
be used to pay all interest becoming due and payable on the
Obligations during the current Fiscal Year and the principal
amount of Obligations which will become due and payable on the
next principal maturity date.
(2) Moneys remaining in the Sinking Fund shall next be
applied by the County to maintain a Reserve Account in said
Sinking Fund, which Reserve Account is hereby created and
established, in an amount equal to the maximum amount of prin-
cipal and interest which will mature and come due on the
Obligations in any ensuing Fiscal Year, which such sum shall be
initially provided from the proceeds of the sale of the Obliga-
tions. No further payments shall be made into such Reserve
-1-
Account when there has been deposited therein and as long as
there shall remain on deposit therein a sum equal to the maximum
amount of principal and interest which will mature and come due
on the Obligations in any ensuing Fiscal Year.
Any withdrawals from the Reserve Account shall be sub-
sequently restored from the first moneys available in the Sinking
Fund after all required current payments into the Sinking Fund,
including all deficiencies for prior payments, have been made in
full.
Moneys in the Reserve Account shall be used only for the
purpose of the payment of maturing principal of or interest on
the Obligations when the moneys in the Sinking Fund are insuf-
ficient therefor, and for no other purpose.
The County shall not be required to make any further
payments into the Sinking Fund or into the Reserve Account when
(i) the aggregate amount of moneys in such Sinking Fund -and the
Reserve Account therein are at least equal to the aggregate grin-_,
cipal amount of _Obligations then outstanding, plus the amount of
interest then due or thereafter to become due on such Obligations
then outstanding or (ii) the County shall -have made provision for
payment of the Obligations_as provided in Section 17 of this
Resolution.--
(3)
esolution.-
(3) The balance of any moneys remaining in the Sinking
Fund after the* above required current payments have been made
shall be considered surplus funds and shall be deposited by the
County -into a special account to be known as. -the "Surplus Race
Track Funds Account" (hereinafter called the "Surplus Account") .
The moneys on deposit in -.said Surplus Acco-unt_shall first be
used, prior to any interest or principal payment date, to imple-
ment the Sinking Fund and the Reserve Account to the extent of.
any deficiencies therein. Thereafter in.each F-iscal Year, -.on the
principal maturity date of the Obligations,-ahy moneys remaining
..on deposit in said -Surplus Account shall be used for the purchase
of Obligations of any maturity at not exceeding the redemption_
-2-
PAS
1
gou46 -DIIE-535-
price of the Obligations on the next.succeeding redemption date -
or shall be invested as -hereinafter provided and, commencing on
the first date on which the -obligations become redeem -able, -for
the redemption of Obligations in the manner provided -in Section
10 hereof; provided,: -However, that no. such purchase- or redemption.
of Obligations shall be. made unless, there is .an deposit in said
Surplus Account sufficient moneys to purchase or redeem at least
_- $1.01000 principal. amount of Obligations, -
-
The -purchase or redemption price, -including-redemption
premium, if any, of Obligations so purchased or redeemed -shall be
paid from the Surplus Account and. the interest accrued to the
date of -such purc.hase or the date fixed for.redemption shall be
paid from the Sinking Fund.
Commencing with the first Fiscal Year -in which the
Obligations are redeemable,' -and -in each Fiscal Year thereafter;
the County shall call for redemption, in the manner provided in
Section 10 hereof, on the -principal maturity date occurring in
such FisChl Year, such principal amount of Obligations at least
.esqual to the amount --then available in said Surplus Account suf-
ficient to redeem the same.
(4) The Sinking Fund, and the Reserve Account therein,
the Surplus Account, and any other special funds or accounts
herein established and created shall constitute trust funds for
the purposes provided herein for such funds. All such funds
shall be continuously secured in the same manner as state and
municipal deposits are required to be secured by the laws of the
State of Florida. Moneys on deposit in the Sinking Fund may be
invested and reinvested in Authorized Investments. Moneys on
deposit in the Reserve Account in the Sinking Fund shall be
invested only in direct obligations of the United States of
America. Moneys on deposit in the Surplus Account may be
invested and reinvested in Authorized Investments; provided,
however, that such investments shall be made only in securities,
or at a yield not in excess of the yield limitations, applicable
-3-
under Section 103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code and the regu-
lations promulgated thereunder.
Investments made with moneys in the Sinking Fund and in
the Surplus Account must mature not later than the date that such
moneys will be needed. Investments made with moneys in the
Reserve Account must mature not later than the final maturity of
any Obligations then outstanding. Any and all income received by
the County from all such investments shall upon receipt thereof
be deposited into the Sinking Fund and used only for the payment
of principal and interest on the Obligations and for the Reserve
Account, and thereafter shall be deposited into the Surplus
Account and used for the purchase or redemption of Obligations.
The cash required to be accounted for in each of the
foregoing funds and accounts established herein may be deposited
in a single bank account, and funds allocated to the various
accounts -established herein may be invested in a common.invest-
m ent pool, provided that adequate accounting records are main-
tained to
,reflect and control the restricted allocation of the -
cash on deposit therein and such investments for the various pur-
poses
ur-poses of such funds and accounts as Herein provided.
The designation and establishment of the various funds
in.and by this Instrument shall not be construed to require the
establishment of any completely independent, -self -balancing funds
as such term is commonly defined and used in governmental
accounting, but rather is intended solely to constitute an ear -
m arking of certain moneys and assets of the County for certain
purposes and. to establish certain priorities for application of
such. moneys and assets _as herein provided. -
C. ADDITIONAL -OBLIGATIONS.- The County hereby covenants
and agrees not to incur any other -obligati -on . s or indebtedness,
-e xcept-refunding.obligations, payable from the same sources as
the payments Hereinbefore specified to be made -into the Si-nking
Fund and Reserve Account."
-4-
MAY 2 01981: BOOR- -6 PAGE 536
MAY 2-0 1,%soon 46 PnE 537 -
REQUEST FOR FUNDING OF SUMMER CAMP FOR RETARDED YOUNGSTERS _
= LENORE QUIMBY CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIA-
TION OF RETARDED CITIZENS TO DISCUSS THEIR REQUEST FOR -FUNDING AS -
EXPLAINED IN -THE FOLLOWING MEMO:
TO: Board of -County -'Commissioners
Indian River County
DATE. -May t 3 ; 1981
FILE:
SUBJECT: Let -ter ' from Assoc i at i on ' for
Retarded C.i t -i zens - Indian River County
FROM: 4ijff �z.EFERECES:
1son
County Administrator
1. Description & Conditions -
This -is in response to a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners requesting the sum of $4,000.00 to help defray the costs
of sending retarded children to a summer day camp under the auspices of the
.Association for Retarded Citizens. _
2. Alternatives & Analysis
This is a non -budgeted item and if the Board approves, a budget amendment
will be. required. I am requesting that this item be pl-aced on the agenda at
a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners upon the recommendation
of Commissioner Bird.
3. Recommendation & Funding
recommend that this request be funded on a one-time basis in the amount of
$4,000.00. This amount to come from the General Fund Contingency Account
# 001-199-513-99.91. 1 understand that the City of Vero Beach has included
this project in their 1981-82 budget and that the United Way will also be
an additional source of funds in 1981-82.
MRS. QUIMBY EXPLAINED THAT THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN FUNDED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES IN THE PAST, BUT
DUE TO BUDGET PROBLEMS, THEY HAVE DECIDED NOT TO FUND THE RECREATION
PROGRAMS FOR THE SUMMER. MRS, QUIMBY CONTINUED THAT SHE FIRST MET
WITH THE PARENTS OF THE RETARDED AND ASKED EACH TO PAY $15.00 PER WEEK
PER CHILD AND THEN ASKED THE.SCHOOL BOARD TO PROVIDE TWO BUSES, WHICH
THEY HAVE AGREED TO DO; NOW, THEY ARE ASKING THE BOARD TO FUND THE
$4,000 DIFFERENCE NEEDED TO MAKE UP THE TOTAL BUDGET OF $12,000 TO
$14,000. SHE STATED THAT ALL OF THE EXPENSES ESTIMATED ARE FOR DIRECT
SERVICE STAFF; THE UTILITIES,, INSURANCE, ETC., WILL BE ASSUMED BY THE
ASSOCIATION.
90
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED ABOUT THE $2,000 GAP IN THE AMOUNT'
OF THE TOTAL BUDGET, AND MRS. QUIMBY EXPLAINED THAT IT IS AN ESTIMATED -
BUDGET - THEY HAVE TO PAY THE SCHOOL BOARD DRIVERS, WHO ARE UNION
WORKERS, AND WHILE THEY DO HAVE VOLUNTEERS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE PAID
STAFF WHO WILL BE THERE AT SET HOURS AND WHO ARE ABLE TO COPE WITH
SEIZURES, ETC.; A STAFF OF SEVEN IS REQUIRED FOR 35 CHILDREN. SHE
THEN WENT INTO DETAIL ABOUT HOW THEY ARE PAID AND THE HOURS.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT, WHILE IN OUR COUNTY
RECREATION PROGRAM WE DO HAVE A SUMMER CAMP WITH AN ESTABLISHED FEE
STRUCTURE TO MAKE IT SELF-SUPPORTING, THAT PROGRAM DOES NOT NEED THE
NUMBER OR TYPE PERSONNEL REQUIRED FOR THE RETARDED YOUNGSTERS, AND
HE BELIEVED WE SHOULD ALSO PROVIDE FOR THE RETARDED CITIZEN. HE THEN
ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE ASSOCIATION'S PRIORITIES, NOTING THAT
THEY APPARENTLY HAVE ALLOTTED $60,000 FOR SOME TYPE OF HOME.
MRS, QUIMBY EXPLAINED THEIR VARIOUS PROGRAMS - THE SUMMER
PROGRAM, THE PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAM, THE ADULT PROGRAM, A "REST CURE" PRO-
GRAM DESIGNED TO GIVE -THE PARENTS OF THE RETARDED SOME RELIEF, AND
CONTINUED THAT IT BECAME APPARENT THERE WAS -A NEED TO ESTABLISH A
GROUP HOME FOR RETARDED WOMEN WHO HAVE NOWHERE TO LIVE WHEN THEIR
PARENTS GROW -OLD-AND DIE. MRS. QUIMBY EXPLAINED THAT -THE -GRANTS THEY
RECEIVE -ARE NOTA NTE-RCHANGEABLE SO THAT THE GRANT FOR THE GROUP HOME
-CANNOT BE USED -FOR THE SUMMER CAMP.-
COMMISSIONER
AMP. COMMISSIONER WODTKE-QUEST-IONED THE TOTAL BUDGET FOR THE
ASSOCIATION FOR THIS -YEAR- AND LAST YEAR;AND EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION CON-
TINUED AS TO THE ASSOCIATION'S BUDGET, ITS PRIORITIES, -ITS FUND RAISING
ACTIVITIES, AND THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION HAS A TREMENDOUS
INFLUX -OF REQUESTS FROM EXISTING.PROGRAMS DUE TO THE -NATIONAL CUTBACK
-ON FUNDING.
MRS. QUIMBY EMPHASIZED THAT THEIR ASSOCIATION HAS NOT CHANGED
PRIORITIES,' BUT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,
FROM WHICH THEY- RECEIVE" -90% OF -THEIR -FUNDING,, HAS CHANGED" THE I R PRIOR-
ITIES BECAUSE OF THEIR DEFICIT.- SHE DID FEEL -THE COUNTY -HAS SOME
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE _RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS TO -THESE TYPE OF
CHILDREN WHO HAVE NOWHERE TO G0.
46 PAGE 538
MAY 2-0 -19%' 91
MOK 4 -_F r, F.
MAY 2 0-1981 _ _ 539-
HARRY WILLIAMSON OF THE ASSOCIATION -FOR -RETARDED CITIZENS
ASSURED THE BOARD THAT THEIR ASSOCIATION HAS NO -FREEDOM IN MOVING FUNDS
FROM ONE -.PROGRAM TO ANOTHER; AND HE POINTED OUT THAT -THE UNITED AlAY
WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE..FUND-RAISING EVENT A YEAR.
- MOTION WAS --MADE BY COMMIS -SIGNER- SDURLOCK-, -SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER BIRD, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST OF THE ASSOCIATI-ON FOR RETARDED
CITIZENS FOR $4,00O,FUNDING-TO.COME FROM GENERAL -FUND CONTINGENCY -
#001-199-513-99.91 AND.TO.REQUEST THAT -THE ASSOEIATION DO ALL THAT IT
CAN NEXT YEAR TO SEEK THESE FUNDS FROM ANOTHER-SOURCE..-
COMMISSIO-NER FLETCHER STATED THAT WHILE HE CAN IDENTIFY WITH -
THE PROBLEM AND DID-NOT_QUESTION-THE NEED FOR A SUMMER CAMP PROGRAM
FOR THESE YOUNGSTERS, HE DID QUESTION THEIR SEEKING THESE FUNDS IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR WHEN -THIS ASSOCIATION, --WHICH IS FAMILIAR WITH
DEALING WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE GAPS AND -
DEFICITS -THAT CAN OCCUR. HE NOTED THAT THE RESIDENTS OF THISJOUNTY
-ALREADY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ASSOCIATION THROUGH THE UNITED WAY
AND AGAIN THROUGH THE VARIOUS FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES.- COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER BELIEVED THESE -REQUESTS SET A PRECEDENT AND STATED THAT HE
-WOULD VOTE AGAINST .THE MOTION AND REQUEST THAT THE ASSOCIATION CONTINUE
TRYING TO -RAISE THE NEEDED -FUNDS FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR,
COMMISSIONER BIRD SUPPORTED THE REQUEST BECAUSE HE FELT IF
THIS HAD COME THROUGH NORMAL CHANNELS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LUMPED IN
THE BUDGET. -
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE WOULD SUPPORT THE MOTION
ON A ONE-TIME BASIS, BUT STRONGLY URGED THE ASSOCIATION TO CONTINUE
TO RAISE MONEY IN OTHER WAYS.
CHAIRMAN LYONS ALSO AGREED TO SUPPORT THIS REQUEST ON A ONE-
TIME BASIS, BUT NOTED THAT, AFTER GIVING THIS MATTER FURTHER THOUGHT,
HE BELIEVED WE ARE BEING DISCRIMINATORY AND THAT IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE
CONSIDER HOW WE DIVIDE OUR MONEY IN CONNECTION WITH SUMMER CAMP, THIS
SEGMENT OF OUR POPULATION MUST RECEIVE SOME CONSIDERATION.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK SUGGESTED THAT THE RECREATION COMMITTEE
STUDY THIS MATTER.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
M
COORDINATION OF TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED SERVICES `
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 12, 1981
the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Neil A. Nelson
County Administrator
FI LE:
SUBJECT: Coordination of Transportation
Disadvantaged Services
REFERENCES: Memorandum dated April 20, 1981
At it's meeting of Wednesday, May 6, 1981, the Board of County Commissioners
deferred action recommended in above referenced memorandum (copy attached)
regarding acceptance of a Florida D.O.T. grant offer of $8,000 in.Federal
Section 18 funds to prepare a required "transportation disadvantaged plan".
The Board requested additional information regarding consequences.should it
decide not to proceed with the planning effort.
The direct response to the Board's question is that D.O.T. will either locate
some other -agency or body within the County to undertake this project, or, if
no other agency is.willing,_the Florida "Coordinating Council on the Transporta Von
Disadvantaged" will designate the D.O.T. as it's agent.
Based upon this information, the Board's October 22, -1980 acceptance of the
responsibil-ity subject to funding, the D.O.T:_ funding commitment, and the added
knowledge that the "plan" will be prepared with or without the County's -
participation, the Admini-stration resubmits it's- earlier recommendations and
requests -the -Board's concurrence. -.Those -recommendations are:
1. A request for determination of "Competitive -Negotiation Act" applicabil-ity
be submitted to Mr. Scully and D.O.T.,_ based upon the following:
2.
3..
4.
A. services -required are "planning", not engineering, architectural or land
surveying; and
B. -project is a continuation of -previous. project undertaken by Kimley-Horn,
and relies on previous -work, knowledge gained, and data -base developed.
No action -be taken on proposed contract with D.O.T: until response is received
re. (1) above;
If response to (1) is affirmative, secure proposal -from Kimley-Horn based upon
D.O.T-.-scope-of-services requirements. If response -is -negative, proceed to _
issue.a request -for Proposals and Statements of Interest--
nterest in compliance with
the Competitive Negotiat-ions Act.
Proceed -in accordance -with established procedures,.consistant with Board
action of October -22, 1980; with subsequent submission -of D.O.T. contract
and consultant contract to the Board for approval.
Should there be -any further questions or -additional information desired, please
advise. _ -
MAY 2 0 19�
93 =
BOOK 6 PAGE540
This is i"n response to a req-uest by the Fl.orida-.Department of Transportation to
initiate action concerning the development of a "Transportation Disadvantaged
Plan" for Indian River County, in accordance with -'the presentation.and discussion
at the Board meeting of October 22, 1980
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At the Board of County Cormrissioners meeting of October 22, 1980, a D.O.T.
representative discussed the provisions of FS 427 that pertain to transportation
for the disadvantaged. At that time, the Board accepted the planning responsibility
_.._for transportation for the disadvantaged on the basis that it be activated at
such tine as the County receives funds for the program through D.O.T.
The_D.O.T. now._advises, it is authorized to enter into a joint participation
agreement with the County, through Federal_ Section 18 funds, to prepare a.
transportation disadvantaged plan. Einht.thousand dollars..($8,000.00) in federal..:?
funds have been allocated to the County for.this'purpose.. The agreement provides
that the sWAy shall-be completed within six months after signing
ALTERNATIVES AN ANALYSIS
The scope--of -work for the study is sufficient enough'. thatthe project;
e
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED WITH REGARD TO THE NEED TO DETERMINE
WHETHER WE HAVE TO GO TO COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION TO SELECT A CONSULTANT
AND AS TO WHAT A TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLAN ACTUALLY IS.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT A LOT OF THESE ACTIVITIES
ARE BEING PERFORMED RIGHT NOW IN THIS COMMUNITY, AND HE BELIEVED THEY
ARE TRYING TO COORDINATE THE SERVICES OFFERED BY THE VARIOUS AGENCIES.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT WE TELL THE STATE WE ARE
CONCERNED THAT $8,000 WILL NOT CARRY OUT THE PLAN AND WE DO NOT WISH
TO MOVE FORWARD UNTIL WE ARE ASSURED OF SUFFICIENT FUNDS,
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON BELIEVED THAT $8,000 WOULD BE SUFFICIENT
TO PREPARE SUCH A PLAN IF WE CAN MAKE USE OF THE KIMLEY-HORN STUDY AND
JUST HAVE IT UPDATED.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED WITH REGARD TO THE NECESSITY OF PREPARING
A TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLAN.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER BIRD, THAT WE TELL THE STATE WE DONT FEEL WE GOT TO.
COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEETHE DOCU-
MENT THAT TELLS US WE HAVE NO CHOICE.
RICHARD KELTON, INTERIM ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR,
STATED THAT THEY HAVE RESEARCHED THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING WHEN THE
PRESENTATION WAS MADE REGARDING TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED AND ALSO
THE STATE LAW, AND BASICALLY THE INTENT_OF THE LEGISLATION IS THAT A
PLAN BE DEVELOPED IN EACH COUNTY SO THAT FUNDS.PRESENTLY FLOWING TO
THE COUNTY ARE COORDINATED IN THE FUTURE. THERE ARE COUNTIES WHERE
DIFFERENT AGENCIES RUN SPECIALIZED PROGRAMS, AND THERE IS MUCH-DUPLI-
CATION.-OF
UCH-DUPLI-CATIONOF EQUIPMENT, ETC. BASICALLY THE LAW SAYS EACH COUNTY MUST
DESIGNATE_A PLANNING AGENCY, AND.IF THE COUNTY DOES NOT ACCEPT -THE
RESPONSIBILITY, THE. . ..T. CAN SEEK ANOTHER AGENCY TO. ASSUME THIS.:
RESPONSIBILITY.OR ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY THEMSELVES TO SET UP A
PLAN FOR COORDINATING TO OBTAIN THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF FUNDS.
..COMMISSIONER-WODTKE DISCUSSED THE.REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
D:O. T. I N .1979 -BY K-IMLEY-HORN AND COMMENTED THAT TliE REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL WAS PROBABLY -INVOLVED IN THIS. HE SUGGESTED -THAT WE CONTACT
THE TREASURE COAST'REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL TO SEE IF -THEY WOULD BE
-MAY.. 19 1 95 yid46 -wE 542
MAY 2 Q -1981
.. FAGE3
INTERESTED IN PREPARING THIS PROGRAM FOR US, EVEN SIF IT -IS DOBE UNDER
-A CONTRACTURAL ARRANGEMENT FOR.THE $8,000;
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE-TO TABLE THE PREVIOUS
POTION -UNTIL WE'CAN CONTACT THE -TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
TO SEE IF THEIR DIRECTOR AND -STAFF WOULD BE WILLING TO ASSIST US. WITH-
PREPARATIO.N OF THE -TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLAN.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED F.OR THE QUESTION. THE MOTION TO TABLE
WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
MR, KELTON NOTED THAT K-IMLEY-HORN WERE NOT UNDER CONTRACT
TO THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE BASIC DATA.
ADMINISTRATOR- NELSON ASKED IF HE COULD PROCEED ON BOTH LINES,
I.E., DETERMINE WHETHER WE HAVE TO GO TO COMPETITIVE BID FOR A CONSUL-
TANT AND ALSO DETERMINE WHETHER -THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING -
COUNCIL HAS THE CAPABILITY OF DOING THIS REPORT FOR US FOR THE $8,000.
CHAIRMAN LYONS BELIEVED IT HAD BEEN INDICATED -THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD PROCEED.IN THAT MANNER.
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION RE BICYCLE PATH FUNDS
COMMISSIONER BIRD INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAD FORGOTTEN
TO MENTION THAT ONE OF THE PRIMARY CRITERIA IN THE APPLICATION TO THE
D.O.T. FOR BICYCLE PATH FUNDS IS NEED. PART OF THE NEED IS TO BE
DEMONSTRATED IN.A LETTER FROM THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, AND HE WOULD
LIKE THE COMMISSIONS PERMISSION TO ASK COUNTY ENGINEER DAVIS TO DRAFT
A LETTER TO ACCOMPANY THE -APPLICATION EXPRESSING THE NEED FOR THE
16TH STREET BICYCLE PATH.
ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED COUNTY ENGINEER DAVIS TO
PREPARE A LETTER TO ACCOMPANY THE APPLICATION TO THE D.O.T. FOR FUNDS
FOR THE 16TH STREET BICYCLE PATH, EXPRESSING THE NEED FOR SAID PATH,
AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO, NOTING
THAT THE ONE PROBLEM IS THE FULL PAVING OF THE ACCESS ROAD SERVING
LOTS I THROUGH 6.
TO: The Honorable Menbers of the DATE: May 7, 1981 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval
Roseland Acres Subdivision
Approximately 36.4 Acres Containing 20
Lott Zoned R -1E
Location: South of County Road 512 East of CR 510,
Section 23, T31S, R38E
Owner: Dr. Henry Fischer
FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES -Engineer of Record: Edwin Schmucker
County Administrator
Description and Conditions
The Engineer -of -Record for the above subject project is requesting
Preliminary Plat Approval. This project was approved by the Technical Review
Committee on March 10, 1981 subject to the following revisions:
1) A marginal access paved street be provided to serve the six(6)
residential lots along. -CR 512 (Fellsmere Rd.) in accordance with
Subdivision Ordinance 75-3
2) Provide a 20 foot wide drainage easement along the west side of
Lot 7
Alternatives and Analysis
The Engineer -of -Record has provided the marginal access road and ease-
ment; however, paving of the road is only shown from Fellsmere Road to --the lot
line between lots 3 and 4. Access to Lots 1,2,5,and 6 is proposed via an un-
improved (shell) road.; It is the recommendation of the TRC, Planning Depart-
ment, and County-Engineer-ing.Division to require the full paving of the access
road serving lots I thru 6.
Recommendations and Funding
Approval of the Preliminary Plat Application for Roseland Acres Sub-
division
ub-
division is recommended subject_ to requiring the developer to pave the entire
length of -the marginal -access road along County Road 512.
There are no funding considerations to be considered for this item
at this time.
ENGINEER EDWIN SCHMUCKER CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING
DR. HENRY FISCHER. HE.NOTED THERE ARE ONLY SIX LOTS IN THE PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION THAT FRONT ON FELLSMERE ROAD,.AND THEY WANT TO -PROVIDE
A MARL ROAD ALONG THE ROADWAY'BY THESE LOTS WITH A PAVED ACCESS INTO
THE MIDDLE LOTS THIS WILL BE A PRIVATE ROAD RIGHT-OF—WAY, AND -THERE
WON' T BE.'ANY COUNTY COMMITMENT TO -IT. ISR , SCHMUCKER `NOTED THAT WHILE -
COUNTY -REGULATIONS -REQUIRE THAT_A PARALLEL ACCESS -ROAD BEA 40' RIGHT-
OF—WAY WITH A 2O' PAVEMENT, THIS ROAD IS NOT -ACTUALLY A PARALLEL
ACCESS R-OAD-BECAUSE_IT -ISN'T A CONTINUOUS ACCESS ROAD AND CANNOT BE
BECAUSE OF -THE CREEK
MAY
20 l:
97 544
® I
MAI 20 1981
- Far 54- -
_COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT THE.RESIDENTS OF THOSE SIX LOTS _
_ EVENTUALLY WILL -COME TO THE BOARD COMPLAININ-G THAT ALL THE ROADS ARE
PAVED EXCEPT IN FRONT OF THEIR SIX LOTS,_AND.COMMI-SSIONER BIRD COULD
NOT UNDERSTAND -WHY, WITH ALL THE OTHER LOTS FRONTING.ON A PAVED ROAD,
THE DE-VELOPER DOE-SN'T WANT TO PAVE -THIS ONE
MR..SCHMUCKER EXPLAINED THAT MOST OF THE ROADS -WERE EXISTING;
THEY ONLY BUILT THE HALF ROAD AND JUST WISH TO FURNISH AN ACCESS
EASEMENT, - -
COMMISSIONER-SCURLOCK FELT.THAT BASICALLY THEY -ARE REQUESTING
A VARIANCE, AND HE DID NOT SEE ANY HARDSHIPA -
MR, SCHMUCKER CONTINUED TO ARGUE ABOUT WHETHER THIS ROAD IS-
A PARALLEL ACCESS ROAD OR NOT, AND COMMISSIONER BIRD POINTED OUT THAT
IT IS A ROAD WITHIN THE.SUBDIV-ISION AND SHOULD BE PAVED IN ANY EVENTS
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER BIRD, TO ACCEPT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S.RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT
TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF ROSELAND ACRES SUBDIVISION_BASED ON REQUIRING
THE PAVING OF THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF -THE MARGINAL ACCESS ROAD ALONG
COUNTY ROAD 5121
DISCUSSION AROSE ABOUT WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS
OF THESE SIX LOTS*COULD HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO FELLSMERE ROAD, AND THE
POSSIBILITY OF CURB CUTS, ETC. IT WAS AGREED THERE SHOULD BE LIMITED
INGRESS AND EGRESS, AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE WOULD_VOTE
AGAINST THE MOTION IF THE LOT OWNERS COULD GO DIRECTLY OUT ONTO
FELLSMERE ROAD.
ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS
SUBDIVISION AND OTHER SUBDIVISIONS WITH ACCESS ROADS,
ENGINEER SCHMUCKER FELT COMMISSIONER WODTKE IS SAYING THAT
SINCE THESE PARTICULAR LOTS FRONT ON FELLSMERE ROAD, THEY COULD BE
CULVERTED AND GO ACROSS TO FELLSMERE ROAD.
ATTORNEY COLLINS BELIEVED IF SOMEONE WANTED TO GO TO THAT
EXTREMITY, THEY COULD, BUT FELT THIS SITUATION EXISTS THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTY.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH COMMISSIONER WODTKE VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
6
4
3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION — 1981
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ED REGAN SUBMITTED THE 1981
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN AND THE APPLICATION FOR THE 1981 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FOR APPROVAL, NOTING THAT THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN, AND THE BLOCK GRANT APPLICA-
TION HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO 1 VOTE, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN
OPPOSITION, APPROVED THE SUBMISSION OF THE HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN
AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 1981 APPLICATION TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE
OF THE CHAIRMAN.
THE SIGNATURE PAGE OF THE APPLICATION IS MADE A PART OF THE
RECORD AS FOLLOWS. THE BALANCE OF THE DOCUMENT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK.
MAY.2 0 -i981 RooK FArF 546
99
MAY 2 0198% Ob 46 PAcE 5
47
31. PP.OnSED FUN9:14t. 34. CONGRESSIONAL_ DISTRICTS OF:
2L ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT
FEDERAL_ASSI-STANCE
X A'PL1"
` ""WOu -
s- STATE-
is,MUSLa _
AP_ Pl'JNTr QO
i c STATE
- cANrs
CDB -G-8 _- P
APPUC
E�aoul I soon
JCwtev a",&.
APPLI._ -
ID°E,�A.
y
b. DATE row ..owl daps -
11. OFPE D t'"PUCATION
a DATIE -
. 14 5
ACTION ® APPUCATION
CATION
19 °�
FIER
ASiIC►tE0 I9
e. OTHER
�tke�o..+kosaar Q *X1FI:ATi0Y OF t'ffE7dT (0�
y�N
day
0 lmn.7T Of FEDERAL- ACT1iNi
Jitewk
4 LEGAL AP?UU1h-T/RECIPICNT
S. FEDERAL EMPLOYER IDEPtTIFlCAT101`4 NO.
a. AWkanlPoses Indian River County, F-lori-da
59-6006=74 -.
Is. Orywlasbow Unit Community Development
-
R stresur.a. S 800 .20th -Pl-ace,' Suite.3
PRO..' e. AlU11eEA
d: ad Vero -Beach .. Canty : Indian River-
GRA" A• WILL
1. s1.I. Florida Jo:ZIP CA:de: 32960
Vft
redal. Community Devehpment -
- b. Cea:ad Pers"t..r><. Edward -J.. Re an, CD Di -rector
c•JsI•o, Small. Cities Comprehensive.
.1 e.l+»�r..3
{ 305156
Program
TITLE AND DESCR:PT.ON OF APPLICANrS PROJECT -
IL TYPE OF APPi1CAkT/RECIPIENT "
C I - - -
•7IRevital-ization of South Gifford Area--Housin 9
A-SLu - K-Canmwiq Aclwa Adenry
boat wWor 1-Nl;hirEdveoloullaMM"
0 - -
,rehabilitation, relocation assistance, street paving,
C-0%an u F-ledw True
D�,� A -Ott" (Specify)I
kiwater services, park and playground developme-nt,
�Dlrtrkl
jadministration, planning, and. contingencies.
640C.41 Paryese
-
Drano Suter •»..P.;ot• 1atJer
-
9. TYPE.OF ASSISTANCE
b8aeie Cnet D-Imwama
1 _
B 3Yvdeaw�tal 61,10 E••Qlier leie .17►a
deorlRIMuses a" all rmponaes are oftchsd: elawee
euisoAad
O I0. AREA OF .PROJECT IMPACT I`•cl ee of c%dwe, aonutws. LL. ESTIMATED NUM.
IL TYPE OF APPLICATION
SEalca, eta.) BER Of PERSONS
-
South Gifford Area, Indian River RENEFITINO291
A -Ree C-p"Isles [-Augwemtaeww -
"-'°"°°e' �C°°tiw'"°'
®
"or GPgneee.wegorte. an
31. PP.OnSED FUN9:14t. 34. CONGRESSIONAL_ DISTRICTS OF:
2L ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT
IS. TYPE OF CHANGE (Jrw t/e or Joe)
A-Iev�a.s.• Dell F-OtBer. {Saeatifr):
Douer,
woofse Dvnt�om N/A,
5-Oviese GYnues
2L ADDRESS
e nDERPL
i I It 315,Is.
81. AJ. ON TAKEN
❑ a. AWARDED
C) ► REJECTED
13 a. DETUAAED FOA
PtOjECT
O 1
AP_ Pl'JNTr QO
i c STATE
� OO
16. PROTECT START
DATE Yow►nw%fA der
17. PROJECT
DURATION
E�aoul I soon
JCwtev a",&.
•`
d. LOCAL
-. .ESO
. 14 5
15
Mc.tA.
.•• leatstsf
F
e. OTHER
•D;,
17. ESTIMATED DATE TO Taer owe"
day
11. EXISTING FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION HUMMER
@E SU8MITTEO TO
I. TOTAL
1 315.0 0 oo
FEDERAL AGENCY /. IY81 Q
20. FEDERAL AGENCY TO RLCEIVS REQUEST (IJomae, l:str, dsda, Llr code)
XL REMARKS ADDED
npnt-
f HrILLsing & Urban Day Jacksonville, Florida
32204®
Yes K] he
e. To sae bad of m7 bnowtatgs anS bolld.
1. H regeirW q DI18.Gro+lat A -9S this sp,opiiatlea wee w,Yl
submlttad, gnt b IN.Neve•
Roa,»nee
o
C
THE
"1& la this pisappt anon/ebp i:at:on ars
true and correct, the dotaiewat baa bays
atrucUeiq tbaaln, tlt appr9priety
deorlRIMuses a" all rmponaes are oftchsd: elawee
euisoAad
APPLICANT
ay setho,4od by the /seeming be* at
®
CERTIFIES
tae spoll"al sod t1so appl,"M will amply
.(1) Treasure Coast
RPC
❑
THAT >
wILh bN' "►+•a''el-
w Florida Bureau
of Intergovernmental
❑
o) Relation
❑
❑
23L e. TYPED NAYS MID TIr.E t RE c. WE SIGNED
CERTIFYING Patrick B. Lyons, Chmn . raw U. eaw
eTlvc Bd. of Co. Commissioners C„t� 19%k �A-k
2A. AGENCY NAME 2i APPUCA• raw men& dLa►
TION
RiECEEVED 19
27. ADMINISTRATIYE OFFICEI 2LI EDERAL om 1pp
ML FEDERAL GRANT
oOENTIFICATION
Yom *&ML% da,r 174.
.00 1 IL AC`nON DATE R 19 DA'
1L CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMA- 18.
TION (Noma and w.PA~ aemrber) esai
Tat► aeaa% dW
Tar own" A"
•• AMfMYE11T J. LrXAL .001 77. RRA4M92 ADDED
O J DEFEL= a. OTHER Op
❑ a WMWPAriM f. TOTAL 8 .00 0 Yeo 10HO
38. a. is "as above action. Ray team u rs";Ved him darvin hevsae arP- con. b. FIOERAL ACENCY A-95 OfTiCIAt
siderd. It adeaCF rs.aewnw Is dewsd
ew mwta+e" of Part 1. Owt) Cucuta A43. (Now@ and 94&vhasra me.)
FEDERAL AGENCY Is bas soca Or m bdag Sado.
A.93 ACTION
IrTANDARD FORM 424 PAGE 1 (10-73)
Frees►sb•t h GSA. Fode-tJ Mewpwaai C4rnAw 1111'P
100
2L ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT
2L ADDRESS
2{
81. AJ. ON TAKEN
❑ a. AWARDED
C) ► REJECTED
13 a. DETUAAED FOA
22. FUNDING
a. FEDERAL 7
b. APPLICANT
a. STATE
TION
RiECEEVED 19
27. ADMINISTRATIYE OFFICEI 2LI EDERAL om 1pp
ML FEDERAL GRANT
oOENTIFICATION
Yom *&ML% da,r 174.
.00 1 IL AC`nON DATE R 19 DA'
1L CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMA- 18.
TION (Noma and w.PA~ aemrber) esai
Tat► aeaa% dW
Tar own" A"
•• AMfMYE11T J. LrXAL .001 77. RRA4M92 ADDED
O J DEFEL= a. OTHER Op
❑ a WMWPAriM f. TOTAL 8 .00 0 Yeo 10HO
38. a. is "as above action. Ray team u rs";Ved him darvin hevsae arP- con. b. FIOERAL ACENCY A-95 OfTiCIAt
siderd. It adeaCF rs.aewnw Is dewsd
ew mwta+e" of Part 1. Owt) Cucuta A43. (Now@ and 94&vhasra me.)
FEDERAL AGENCY Is bas soca Or m bdag Sado.
A.93 ACTION
IrTANDARD FORM 424 PAGE 1 (10-73)
Frees►sb•t h GSA. Fode-tJ Mewpwaai C4rnAw 1111'P
100
GIFFORD WATER & SEWER PHASE Il,,BOND CLOSING - RESOLUTI 81-33 ;
ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT THE GIFFORD WATER & SEWER
PHASE II BOND CLOSING IS TOMORROW, AND HE NEEDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIOUS
DOCUMENTATION AND A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 79-1 RE FINANCING
PART OF THE COST,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED AMENDING RESOLUTION 81-33:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-33
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79-1 DULY ADOPTED ON JANUARY 4, 1979,
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED:
"RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND ERECTION OF
EXTENSIONS A' -,'D IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY THE COUNTY OF NOT EXCEEDING
$236,000 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SECOND SERIES 1979, TO FINANCE
A PART OF THE COST THEREOF; PLEDGING THE GROSS REVENUES OF SAID SYSTEM,
TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OP AND INTEREST ON THE BONDS; AND
PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF THE BONDS.'
AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE BONDS AND THE REDEMPTION
PROVISIONS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
MAY .2 0199 :
101 , - -
W
_ - soy
r ,MAY 20 1�8i
RESOLUTION NO. 51-33
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79-1
DULY. ADOPTED ON JANUARY 4, 1979, BY THE
B-OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED:
"RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISIT-10N,
CONSTRUCTION AND ERECTION OF EXTENSIONS
A -ND IMPROVEMENTS .TO THE- WATER AND SEWER- -
S YSTEM OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY THE COUNTY
OF -NOT EXCEEDING $236,000 WATER AND SEWER
REVENUE BONDS, SECOND SERIES 1979, TO
F INANCE A PART -OF THE COST `THEREOF; PLEDGING -
THE GROSS -REVENUES OF SAID SYSTEM, TO SECURE -
PAYMENT OF_ THE PRINC-IPAL OF -AND INTEREST ON
THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF
THE HOLDERS OF THE BONDS." -
AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING THE DESCRIPTION OF
THE BONDS AND THE REDEMPTION PROVISIONS
THEREFOR; AND -PROVIDING AN- EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(hereinafter called "Board") OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
t hat:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This resolu-
tion is adopted pursuant to Ch. 159, Fla. -Stat. (1979), and other
applicable provisions of law.
SECTION 2. FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, deter-
mined and declared that:
A. The Board heretofore duly adopted on'Januar,� 4,
1979, Resolution* No. 79-1 entitled:
"RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION,
CONSTRUCTION AND ERECTION OF EXTENSIONS
AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER AND SEWER
SYSTEM OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY THE COUNTY OF
NOT EXCEEDING $236,000 WATER AND SEWER
REVENUE BONDS, SECOND SERIES 1979, TO
FINANCE A PART OF THE COST THEREOF; PLEDGING
THE GROSS REVENUES OF SUCH SYSTEM TO SECURE
PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON
THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF
THE HOLDERS OF THE BONDS."
and subsequently amended the same (hereinafter collectively
called "Resolution").
B. It is necessary and desirable to amend the descrip-
tion of the bonds and the redemption provisions therefor con-
5-
tained in
'
the Resolution.
SECTION
3.7 AMENEMENTS TO RESOLUTION.
e
Sections 2.02 and
2.04 of the Resolution are hereby amended
to read as follows:
"2.02
Description of Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated
as of the
date of their delivery; shall
bear interest at the rate
of 5% per
annum, payable on September 1,
1981, and annually
thereafter ori September 1 of each year;
shall be numbered con-
secutively from one upward in order of maturity; and shall be in
the denominations and mature serially in numerical order on
September
1 in the years and amounts as
follows:
YEAR AMOUNT/DENOMINATION YEAR
AMOUNT/DENOMINATION
1983
$2,000- 2002
$6,000
1984
2,000 2003
6,000
1985
2,000 2004
6,000
1986
3,000 2005.
6,000
1987
3,000 2006
7,000
1988
3,000 2007
7,000
.1989
3,000 2008
7,000
1990
3,000 2009
8,000
1991
3,000 2010
81000
1992
3,000 2011
91000
1993
4,000 2012
._91000
1994
4,000 2013
91000
1995
4,000 2014
10,000
1996
4,000 2015
10,000 - -
1997
41000 2016
11,000
1998
5,000 2017
12,000
1999
51000 2018
12,000.
2000
51000 2019
13,000
2001
5,000 2020
13,000"
"Section 2.04 Provisions for Redemption. Bonds maturing
on -or before
September 1, 1991, are not
subject to redemption
prior -to
their respective stated dates.
of maturity. Bonds
maturing
September 1, 19-92, and thereafter
shall, -a.t the option
of the Issuer,
be redeemable in -whole or
-in part, in inverse
,,numerical
-and .maturity order, -on September
1, 1991, or on any.
.interest_
payment- date thereafter at par
and accrued -interest,.
plus the
following -premiums, expressed
as percentages of the par
_ value of-
the Bonds so redeemed, if redeemed
in the following -
years:
_
-2-
_ _
MAY 0-�87��
_ 550
TAY 201981 = - 1
5%, -.'if redeemed on September 1, 199-1, or thereafter,
t6 and including September 1, 1993; - A%, =if redeemed on September 1, 1994, -or thereafter,
to and ' in'clud ing September 1, 1998;
3 $, if redeemed on September -1, 1999, or- thereafter",-
to
ereafter,to -and including Se-ptember 1, 2002;
2 ,= if redeemed on -September. 1,.20GI or thereafter,
to and including' September_ 1, 2006;
1 $, -if redeemed on --September 1, 2007,_ or thereafter,
to and including September 1, 2010; _
Without premium, If redeemed September 1; 2011, or
thereafter, but prior to -maturity;
p royided, however,- that at leas "t thirty. (3 0) days prior to -the
redemption date, written notice of -such redemption -shall be given
to the paying.agents for the Bonds and to each of the registered
owners at their respective addresses as. they appear upon the
registration books of the Clerk, -and shall be published at least
once in a financial newspaper published in the City of New York,.
New York. Bonds held by the Government may be redeemed by the "
Issuer.on any interest payment date prior to maturity at the
price of par and accrued interest, without premium."
SECTION 4. REPEALING . CLAUSE. All resolutions or parts
thereof of the Board in conflict with the provisions herein con-
tained are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby superseded and
repealed.
i 4'
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take
effect immediately upon its adoption.
I
-3-
11
ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS NEED
TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATE AS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE
BOARD ACTION, THE ADMINISTRATOR NEEDS TO SIGN THE NO PRIOR PLEDGE
CERTIFICATE, AS WELL AS THE CLERK; THE CHAIRMAN NEEDS TO SIGN THE
SIGNATURE AND NO LITIGATION CERTIFICATION AND THE CERTIFICATE OF
DELIVERY AND PAYMENT; AND THE CLERK NEEDS TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATE
OF RECORDING OFFICER - INCUMBENCY CERTIFICATE - FINANCIAL CERTIFICATE -
CERTIFICATE AS TO VALIDATION STATEMENT, AND NON -ARBITRAGE CERTIFICATE,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN AND THE ADMINIS-
TRATOR TO SIGN THE -APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS AS OUTLINED BY THE ATTORNEY,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE CLERK TO SIGN THE APPRO-
PRIATE DOCUMENTS AS OUTLINED BY THE ATTORNEY,
SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE'CLERK,
552
MAY 2 01981 = - 105 -
oar
MAY 2.01981 - - 786K.-.. 46 PAJF 553 -
REQUEST FROM FOUR HILLS BMX, KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, FOR SHELL/SAND-
.FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BICYCLE TRACK
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE REQUEST_AND.RECOMMENDATION AS SET
OUT IN THE ADMINISTRATORS MEMO OF MAY 12TH:
-INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
-INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Members of_ the DATE: May 12, 1981FILE:
Board of County Commissioners -
SUBJECT: Request -from Four Hills BMX, Knights af
- Columbus for County to Donate 150 cubic
yards of shell/sand for Construction
of Public Bicycle Track
FROM: Neil A. Nelson, - . REFERENCES: Letter: John F. Morley to
County Administrator County Administrator dated
April 29, 1981
Description and Conditions
Mr. Morley Track Director, Four Hills BMX, Knights'of Columbus, is re-
questing the County donate 150 cubic yards -of shell/sand mix for.the purpose
of constructing a public bicycle track at the Knights of Columbus site on
Oslo Road.- Transportation of the Material, approximately 15 - 10 yard loads
is to be performed by the Four Hills BMX council. The track is intended to
serve as a sporting facility, and bathrooms in the area of the track are being
built by the Knights of Columbus. There will be a slight fee for using the
track.
Alternatives and Analysis
If the County agrees to contribute this material, the cost to the County
would be approximately $900.00 based on a current cost of $6.00 per cubic yard.
The County does have this material available at the.County marl pit on Oslo
Road.
In the past,.the County Road and Bridge Department has not encouraged the
donation of shell/marl materials. Once word is out, the requests become
numerous. We have over a 10 year supply of this material, however, this is
based on normal projected use on County roads.
Recommendation and Fundin
It -is recommended by the Department of Public Works that the County
seriously consider each request for donating this material. We do not object
to this singular request as long as we reserve -the right to consider each
future request on its own merit, and vie recommend donation of this material.
Since this material is in stack, there will be no direct cost to the
County. Funding, therefore, shall be internal from the Road and Bridge Depart-
ment surplus stock
106
CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT A SIMILAR PROPOSAL HAD COME'
BEFORE THE PREVIOUS BOARD SOMETIME AGO, AND IT HAD BEEN TURNED DOWN.
IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE FORMER PROPOSAL
HAD BEEN FOR A TRACK AT HOBART PARK WHICH POSED SOME QUESTION RE
LIABILITY, ETC, IT WAS FELT, ALTHOUGH THIS IS THE SAME GROUP, THAT
THE NEW PROPOSAL IS ON A DIFFERENT BASIS, AND IT IS A WORTHWHILE
ACTIVITY.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO DONATE THE MATERIAL AS REQUESTED, RESERVING THE RIGHT
TO CONSIDER EACH FUTURE REQUEST ON ITS OWN MERITS.
1981 HURRICANE EVACUATION PLAN
COMMISSIONER WODTKE REPORTED THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM
CIVIL DEFENSE THE REVISED HURRICANE EVACUATION PLAN FOR 1981.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE 1981 HURRICANE EVACUATION
PLAN AS REVISED BY THE CIVIL DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND AUTHORIZED.THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN._
SAID PLAN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS.
PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT-OF NATURAL
RESOURCES RE FUNDS FOR THE VERO SHORES DAY BEACONS IS HEREBY MADE A
PART-OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED BY-.RESOLUTION 81-24 AT THE REGULAR
MEETING OF APRIL 15,- 1981,
MAY 2.'0-.198 107 o � r,r�554 -
RAY .20 1991.
STATE OF FICRIDA
DEPARTMENT OF NAT"RAL .RESOURCES
Florida . Boating L-1provement Program
Project Agreement.- Develonment
BOOK 4 6. w' -555
tered into by and between, the.
This -agreement -made and en
State of Florida Department of Natural Resources, hereinaf ter
called DEPXRTMENT, and County of Indian River hereinafter
called c'Qtnty i.n furti+erarce of -an app -roved -recreational
program involving the -parties hereto in pursuance of which the
-parties hereto agree as follows.: -
1. The DEPARTMENT has found the improvement of recre-
ational boating to -be the primary purpose of the project known as
Vero Shores Channel Markers and enters into this -Agreement with_ the
County to carry out its obligations described in the project'de.
scription attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement as
Exhibit "A
2. The County agrees to carry out its obligations as set
forth in Exhibit "A" hereto and convenants that it has the full
legal authority and capability to do so.
3. The.County agrees to complete said project on or
before August 18, 1982 In the event said project is not
completed on or before August 18, 1982 , the County agrees
to return to the DEPARTMENT any and all unexpended funds the
DEPARTMENT may have provided t,e County for said project.
4. The County agrees to appoint an official Liaison Agent
to be responsible for the successful accomplishment of the County's
obligations toward said project, the prompt implementation of the
articles of this Agreement, and the submission of progress reports
every one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of the excu-
tion of this Agreement until said =roject is completed by the County,
and all County obligations set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto have been
met.
Page 1 of 3 Pages
` DNR 42-017
Rev. 8-1-80
I
9
5. The DEPARTMENT agrees, in consideration of the
promises made by the County herein, to tender to the County funds
in the amount of $ 7,150.00 to be used for the accom-
plishment of the obligations made in Exhibit "A".
6. The County agrees to return to the DEPARTMENT all
funds tendered for said project in the event said project becomes
utilized for other than boating related purposes.
7. In the event unexpended funds exist at the completion
of said project, as described in Exhibit "A", the County agrees to
return said unexpended funds to the DEPARTMENT within sixty (60)
days after said project completion.
S. In the event the DEPARTMENT should demand a return
of any or all funds tendered pursuant to paragraph 5 of this
Agreement, the County agrees to return said funds to the DEPART-
MENT within sixty (60) days. If not returned within sixty (60)
days, the County understands and agrees that any and/or all of
said unreturned funds constitute a legal -debt to the DEPARTMENT,
which frod that point, shall be.due and payable with such interest
as the DEPARTMENT may determine. Any further County requests for
funding from the DEPARTMENT shall be denied until the debt of
said unreturned funds.shall have been satisfied.
9. In the event the County elects to implement a user
fee system for any of its facilities funded. -by the Florida Boating
Improvement -Program, the County agrees to impose such fees -uniformly -
among the users regardless -of -race, sex, age, -religion, or other
condition or the political jurisdiction -in which the user may reside.
1.0. The DEPARTMENT reserves the right to henceforth
inspect the -project -as well as the right to audit -any and all -
financial records pertaining to said project at reasonable-times.--
ll..
easonable"times.--
11.- Any inequities that subsequently appear in,this
Agreement shall be -subject to negotiation upon written request of
either party, and -the parties agree to negotiate in good faith as
to any such inequities.
12.. This Agreement is executed in duplicate, each copy.
- Page 2 c: 3 Pages - -
DNR 42-017 _
Rev. 8=1-80 _
MAY 019 1 is 4 P�4r - 556
-` q �r"�"'�"' _ -_ ,. .�*..p._. �z�-r*%s.:-.s.. z..., ..,. : ep _ - -.,-�+,rt:.-.e.�-- •-' •.r . q = rsem,,,,,
4 Mti'.--* -+.��.•.::.'�" m 3B..s�=`�..+�-MH.r�iY..1*1�4�......,.-•...:`-"1h.� - �F..a,�_„��. �,ar. _ �. _ __ .f e
of -.which shall for..all purposes be .considered an_original.
IN WITNESS THERETO, the parties hereto have caused
-these presents to be executed by the officer or agents -thereunto -
lawfully authorized:
Attest:
Attest:
Effective Date:
EXECUTIVE BOARD OF -THE
DEPARTMENT OF,r1ATURAL RESOURCES
.By:
Elton J. Gissen anner
Executive Director
Its Agent for this Purpose
-BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -
The 0do%f ua 19�/
-Its Agent for this Purpose
Project escription
Work under this project includes the Reconstruction of 10 daybeacons
to mark the Vero Shores Channel within the Indian River, Indian River County,
Florida. Materials and installation shall be to U.S. Coast Guard Standards.
w
MAY 2 U 1 —
- BOOK. 4� P��F c�Q�
•
•t • `ilik
'}".—A
� y 2 .Y.r,•. y., i
- _ L .:9 ..s.a'�a• �• 7,}.. •t'j' «. .b e•a�'•:
'iT•
1
iIr
..�. wP` �` -�•�, �
� its ` ��yx �• i $ (��
'�
�+. '%-•''-'u�?v'44.eL ) mea �,:t ry - s .. v...:f�R"9"" �`i � -
-46 -
MAY 2 0 198 1-
THE SEVERAL BILLS AND ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE -CO -LINTY, HAVING _
.BEEN AUDITEI}, WERE EXAMINED AND FOUND TO BE CORRECT, WERE APPROVED
AND WARRANTS ISSUED IN SETTLEMENT OF SAME AS FOLLOWS:- -TREASURY FUND
NOS, 70569 - 70788 INCLUSIVE, SUCH BILLS -AND ACCOUNTS.BEING ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE -OF THE -CLERK -OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE WARRANTS SO
ISSUED FROM THE RESPECTIVE BONDS BEING -LISTED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL
MINUTE BOOK AS.PROVIDED BY THE RULES OF THE LEGISLATIVE-AUD-ITOR,
REFERENCE TO SUCH RECORD AND LIST SO RECORDED BEING MADE A PART -OF
THESE -MINUTES. = _
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED
AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED -AT 5:25 O'CLOCK P.M.
ATTEST:
CLERK
112 -
0