Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/1/1981m WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 1991 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, .JULY 1, 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 000RDI- NATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS- SIONERS; DAN FLEISCHMAN, BAILIFF; AND JANICE CALDWELL, DEPUTY CLERK. JEFFREY K. BARTON, FINANCE DIRECTOR, WAS OUT OF TOWN. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1-0 THE FLAG, AND DR. FRED W. MCCLELLEN, PASTOR, FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, GAVE THE INVOCATION. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA. COMMISSIONER BIRD REQUESTED ADDING A BRIEF REPORT ON THE. PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE: SINCE NO MEETING WAS HELD OF THE MARINE ISLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE, COMMISSIONER WODTKE REQUESTED THAT A DISCUSSION OF THE COUNTY'S INSURANCE PROGRAM BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT AGENDA ITEM. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM REGARDING JAIL RENOVATION. CHAIRMAN LYONS REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM REGARDING SALES TAX. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO ADD THE ABOVE EMERGENCY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA. INNVITATION TO 4TH OF JULY FESTIVITIES IN SEBASTIAN COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INVITED THE BOARD MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE 4TH OF JULY FESTIVITIES TO BE HELD IN SEBASTIAN. Boa 46 pn�r 733 I J U L 1 1991 00K 46 PAGE 7.34 THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF .JUNE 3, 1981. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REFERRED TO PAGE 24 AND STATED THAT THE VOTE FOR THE MOTION HAD NOT BEEN UNANIMOUS AS HE REMEMBERED VOTING IN OPPOSITION, THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 24, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE REPLACED AS -FOLLOWS: "MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE FOR THE SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM - ESTIMATE OF TOTAL REQUIRED ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION," THIS CORRECTION HAVING BEEN MADE, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 31 19811 AS WRITTEN. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 1981. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF .JUNE 10, -1981, AS WRITTEN, THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 17, 1981. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 17, 1981, AS WRITTEN, �910.limtlmv ON P"LOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE FOR THE FOLLOWING DEPUTY APPOINTED BY SHERIFF DOBECK: MICHAEL FRANKLIN CAMPBELL ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED STATE WITNESS PAYROLL, CIRCUIT COURT, SPRING TERM, 1981, IN THE AMOUNT OF $314,16, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE SUMMER CAMP PROGRAM FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF RETARDED CITIZENS, AS FOLLOWS: ACCOUNT TITLE RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCY ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS CONSENT AGENDA _ 001-199-513-99.91 001-108-572-88.44 $4,000 $4,000 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR: JOSEPH HUNTER SMITH, III JERRE LAWRENCE LUTHER MARION NATHANIEL HARGETT DISCUSSION RE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX CHAIRMAN LYONS BROUGHT UP THE NECESSITY FUR COUNTIES TO FIND A NEW REVENUE SOURCE OTHER THAN INCREASED PROPERTY TAXES TO REPLACE REVENUES LOST BECAUSE OF STATE MANDATES. HE REPORTED THAT THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTS A LOCAL OPTION OF 1/2� SALES TAX AND BELIEVES THAT THE LEGISLATIVE CLIMATE FOR PASSAGE OF SUCH A LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX IS MOST FAVORABLE AT THIS TIME. THEY ARE ASKING FOR OUR BACKING. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT JOHN THOMAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IS WILLING TO COME TO VERO BEACH AND MAKE A PRESENTATION IN THIS REGARD. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND IT WAS AGREED lk TO REQUEST MR. THOMAS TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AT THE WORKSHOP MEETING TO BE HELD AT 7:00 P.M. ON JULY 8TH AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE REQUESTED THAT A TAPE BE MADE OF THIS WORKSHOP MEETING SINCE HE WILL BE OUT OF TOWN ON .JULY 8T.H. TREASURE COAST UTILITIES SUIT AND COUNTY INSURANCE COVERAGE COMMISSIONER WODTKE READ EXERPTS FROM A LETTER WRITTEN BY INTERNATIONAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY TO ATTORNEY COLLINS REGARDING THE COUNTY'S PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES LIABILITY POLICY, AUL 1 1981 3 nu fm,C35 1 L BOOK 46 PAGE '14,. 6 WHICH LETTER DEFINED THE COVERAGE AFFORDED UNDER THIS POLICY IN CONNEC- TION WITH THE SUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY AND THE ATTORNEY BY TREASURE COAST UTILITIES AND LISTED THE FOLLOWING POTENTIAL COVERAGE ISSUES: 1.) F,xclusion 6E of the policy provides that the Company shall not be liable for loss arising, from "inner -o.• c,nider.natien." 2.) We note that the County Attc,rney leas been na:,w-1 as a panty to this litigation. if t?:e L.o1,;11L Attorney• is work in on a retainer or contractual a;;reement, no will he available under Policy (:1' 23£56, We would 1 ikv t.� suggest your own professional Iiahili.ty corri.or be r,,-tilied. 3.) The plaintiff _.niunctive relief. As !.uch, Exclusion 4A and 4B may apply. 4.) We nu -[e that the pr oyer incl u.led a puni t iv« ':rims<;e award- Our ward.Our policy does not respond to puniClve �ar::t�e::. COMMISSIONER WODTKE EXPRESSED GREAT CONCERN ABOUT THE COUNTY HAVING ADEQUATE INSURANCE COVERAGE AND EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING SOMEONE DESIGNATED TO REVIEW THE ADEQUACY OF OUR INSURANCE COVERAGE IN TIME.FOR BUDGET SESSIONS, CHAIRMAN LYONS REPORTED THAT AN INVESTIGATION OF OUR INSURANCE COVERAGE IS UNDER WAY AT THIS TIME, REQUEST BY MOBILE HOME AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR 60 DAY EXTENSION COMMISSIONER FLETCHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ADDITIONAL TIME IS ?SEEDED SO THAT COMMITTEE MEMBERS CAN TOUR THE MOBILE HOME PARKS, VIEW HE CONDITIONS AND PROBLEMS FIRST HAND, AND FORMULATE DATA FOR A FUTURE ORDINANCE, MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER FLETCHER, TO GRANT A 60 DAY EXTENSION AS REQUESTED BY THE MOBILE HOME AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, COMMISSIONER WODTKE STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A TIME LIMITATION MENTIONED IN THE MOTION, COMMISSIONER BIRD ADDED TO HIS MOTION THAT THE BOARD WOULD GRANT ONLY THIS ONE EXTENSION, AND COMMISSIONER FLETCHER SECONDED, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, SOUTH BEACH WATER SERVICE COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REPORTED THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH IS IN THE PROCESS OF DOING AN ANALYSIS OF THE SOUTH BEACH WATER SERVICE SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING CAPACITIES, AND IT SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY AUGUST 15TH HE COMMENTED THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH DOES NOT PRESENTLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SERVICE THIS SYSTEM; IT IS A MATTER OF TIMING FOR THEM AS THEY CAN MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS, AND THIS ANALYSIS OF THEIR SYSTEM WILL SHOW WHAT IS NEEDED. ALL ELEMENTS s ARE BEING STUDIED, AND THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO.COME UP WITH SOME RESOLU- TION SHORTLY AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD. DISCUSSION ENSUED. ATTORNEY COLLINS ADVISED THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A MEETING WITH SOME OF THE DEVELOPERS INVOLVED TO BRING THEM UP TO DATE AS TO OUR PROGRESS IN THIS AREA. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE HAD INSTRUCTED ENGINEER .JOHN ROBBINS TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE DEVELOPERS, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT COMMISSIONER BIRD REPORTED THAT THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE WOULD BE HELD ON JULY 9TH. HE ADVISED THAT THE DODGERS WILL LEND THEM THEIR LARGE VAN, AND THEY WILL TAKE A TOUR OF ALL THE COUNTY'S PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, STARTING WITH LUNCH AT WABASSO BEACH PARK AND PROCEEDING ON FROM THERE FOR THE RE- MAINDER OF THE AFTERNOON; THIS WILL HELP US WITH OUR MASTER PLAN. HE THEN INQUIRED ABOUT PROVISIONS IN OUR INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THEIR VOLUNTEERS. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THIS MATTER BY THE .JULY 9TH MEETING, BUT RIGHT NOW HE COULD NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION. CHAIRMAN LYONS MENTIONED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A LETTER FROM MAYOR NOLAN ALLEGING THAT THE DUNE IS BEING BROKEN DOWN AT THE TRACKING STATION PARK. THE CHAIRMAN REPORTED THAT HE HAD TOURED THAT FACILITY SEVERAL WEEKS AGO AND DID NOT FIND ANY SEVERE PROBLEM, BUT HE WOULD 5 Bou - 46 PA-I;E 7.37 JUL 1 1981 JUL 1 1981 B010K 46 PAIIE 738 LIKE TO ARRANGE FOR ANOTHER TOUR WITH MAYOR NOLAN TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM MORE ACCURATELY. HE FELT WE SHOULD PUT UP A SIGN THAT THERE IS NO LIFE GUARD ON DUTY AND DO WHATEVER ELSE IS NECESSARY TO CUT DOWN ON THE -COUNTY'S RISK, HE CONTINUED THAT THERE IS A DUNE CROSS-OVER THERE WHICH WE WILL BE USING AND WE ARE GOING TO PROHIBIT VEHICLES ON THE BEACH. HE FELT THE PROBLEM COMES, NOT FROM THE TRANSIENTS, BUT FROM PEOPLE WHO LIVE AROUND THE AREA, CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD ASK ATTORNEY COLLINS TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE EXCLUDING ALL VEHICLES, EXCEPT EMERGENCY VEHICLES, ON ALL BEACHES, AND AUTHORIZE HIM TO ADVERTISE -THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. THE BOARD AGREED. PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION ORDINANCE THE HOUR OF 9:00 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: r VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL l Published Meekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 17ry1010 /.31"Pe?, 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 13 da�pf �,s A.D. N (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian �ivjr County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on July 1, 1981, at 9:00 a.m., in the City Council Chambers in the Vero Beach City Hall to consider the adoption of an Ordinance amending Section 25 General Provisions of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances by providing for a new subsection (t) Major Community Impact Development Ordinance; providing for definitions of significant terms related thereto; providing for a definition of Major Development Projects which include any residential activity or use involving con- struction of 250 or more dwelling units and any new residential use or activity which contains 1S acresor more of land and -or water area or requiring 200 or more parking spaces, and any activity or use the Planning and Zoning Of- ficial, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners deems necessary and appropriate to designate as, a Major Development Project based upon specified considerations; providing for an initial advisory meeting prior to submission of development plans; providing for data sub- mission requirements; providing for sub• mission of a proposed master development plan; providing for projection of the impact upon the community of certain developments; providing for identification of environmental, historical and archaelogical resources; providing for document format and procedures; providing for filing procedures; providing for severability and providing an effective date. _.. 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 record includes the testimony in evidence on j which the appeal is based. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida - By: -s-Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman �,ne13,1981. m bm - DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE REVISED ORDINANCE, AND COMMIS- SIONER BIRD QUESTIONED WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD WOULD BE BETTER OFF TO CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING AND, IN THE MEANTIME, HAVE A WORKSHOP MEETING BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE WILL REQUIRE A GOOD DEAL OF WORK AND TIME, OR POSSIBLY IT COULD BE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED TAKING THE PUBLIC INPUT TODAY AND ASKED IF ANY PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. ROBERT SCHUMAN, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE DELTONA CORPORATION, WISHED TO GIVE THE BOARD THEIR COMMENTS IN REGARD TO IMPROVING THE PRO- POSED ORDINANCE. MR. SCHUMAN STATED THAT THEY FELT THE WORDING DIRECTING THIS TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS WAS IMPROPERLY DONE IN THAT IT POSSIBLY COULD INCLUDE EVERY ORANGE GROVE, FARM, ETC. SECONDLY, THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT THE ORDINANCE IS SO DETAILED THAT IT IS PRACTICALLY A MINI DEVELOP- MENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT,AND IT WOULD REQUIRE A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TO AMASS THE REQUIRED INFORMATION. HE CONTINUED THAT ALL THIS VOLUMINOUS INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT TO EVALUATE IN 45 TO 60 DAYS, BUT THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CRI- TERIA BY WHICH THIS WILL BE EVALUTED, WHICH RESULTS IN AN INEFFICIENT ORDINANCE. MR. SCHUMAN ESTIMATED THAT TO HAVE THIS IMPACT EVALUATION DONE PROFESSIONALLY WOULD REQUIRE EXPANDING THEIR DEVELOPMENT COSTS UPWARD BY $10,000 TO $30,000. HE POINTED OUT THAT WHILE THIS IS A COST OF DEVELOPMENT, YOU ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER THE COST TO THE COUNTY. MR. SCHUMAN NOTED THAT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THEY HAVE BEEN FORCED TO FORM AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS AND PHASE THEM OUT TO OTHER AGENCIES; S0, YOU MUST CONSIDER THE STAFF NECES- SARY TO REVIEW THIS EFFECTIVELY. HE AGREED THAT'YOU END UP WITH A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL, BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE EFFECTIVE CRITERIA WITH WHICH TO EVALUATE IT, YOU HAVE WASTED YOUR MONEY. - MR. SCHUMAN THEN WENT ON TO POINT OUT DEFICIE"NCIESIN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND EMPHASIZED THAT IT IS NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH AS TO PROCEDURES OR PROVISIONS ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO OBTAIN REPORTS 7 J U L 1 1981 wx 46 PAGE 7,30 BOOK 46 DCE 740 'JUL 1 19 1' AND TO OBJECT OR APPEAL THE RECOMMENDATIONS, ETC. HE STATED THAT IF THE BOARD DOES HAVEA WORKSHOP, THEY HOPED THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GIVE THE BOARD THE BENEFIT OF THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH THIS TYPE OF ORDINANCE AROUND -THE STATE. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE APPEAL PROCESS. ROBERT RYDER, VERO BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION, CAME TO THE BOARD AND REFERRED TO PAGE 6 OF THE APRIL 2ND PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES RE SECTION 4, WHICH HE FELT WAS INCONSISTENT. IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT AFTER THIS WAS PRESENTED AT THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD, THEY IN- DICATED IT HAD BEEN THE INTENT TO MAKE THIS SIMILAR TO SECTION 27A of THE COUNTY CODE TO PIN IT DOWN IN THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE INTENT IS THAT IT BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE. KENNETH PANGBURN, WABASSO RESIDENT, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND POINTED OUT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE ADVERTISEMENT WHERE IT WAS WORDED NEW RESIDENTIAL" INSTEAD OF "NON-RESIDENTIAL." HE STATED THAT HE BELIEVED IN THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM AND OBJECTED TO INCLUDING ANY NON-RESIDENTIAL USE CONTAINING 15 ACRES OR MORE. HE REFERRED TO PAGE 13 OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WHERE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE POSSIBLE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ORDINANCE. CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO 1:00 P.M. ON JULY 13TH AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS - STONER FLETCHER, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CONTINUED TO MONDAY, JULY 13, 1981, AT A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE NEED TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE AND HOW THE BOARD WILL USE IT. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT THE FINAL SAY AS TO APPEALS SHOULD REST WITH THE BOARD, AND COMMISSIONER BIRD AGREED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF AREAS THAT ARE EXTREMELY VAGUE AND SOMETHING SHOULD BE DRAFTED THAT WILL TELL r ilm THE DEVELOPER EXACTLY WHAT HE HAS TO DO AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO ANALYZE IT, ETC. HE FELT THERE WERE DUPLICATIONS AS FAR AS SITE PLANS WERE INVOLVED AND WONDERED IF WE ARE GETTING TOO FAR AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL INTENT. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THAT THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED THE STRUCTURE OF THE DRI AND POINTED OUT THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS RE- QUESTED TO TRY TO MEET SOME SHORTCOMINGS IN THE EXISTING SITE PLAN ORDINANCE. HE CONTINUED THAT ON PAGE 12 OF THIS DOCUMENT, IT IS STATED THAT A COPY OF THE IMPACT EVALUATION WILL BECOME A PART OF THE SITE PLAN. THIS INFORMATION WILL BE STORED WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION; THE ASSESSMENT IS THAT OF THE DEVELOPER; AND WE MUST EVALUATE WHAT THEIR DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO DO TO OUR COUNTY, HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE IS A PROVISION TO.GET THE COMMENTS BACK TO THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO ANY DECISIONS BEING MADE, COMMISSIONER BIRD REFERRED TO ITEM H ON PAGE 5 WHICH CALLS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL DATA DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE PLANNING & ZONING '' OFFICIAL. MR. REVER COMMENTED THAT THEY WOULD BE PROVIDING FOR A MANDA- TORY PRE -APPLICATION MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER, AND AT THAT TIME, WE WOULD SETTLE WITH THE APPLICANT AS TO WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF HIM. HE AGREED WE SHOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THIS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT THE REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF INSTEAD OF DECIDED AT THE PRE -APPLICATION MEETING. HE NOTED THIS AGENCY IS A GUARDIAN OF THE LAND AND THE RESOURCES THEREOF, AND THERE IS CRITERIA THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED TO GUARD THESE RESOURCES, CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD COME IN AND BROADLY REVIEW WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO SEE WHAT HE WILL NEED; THIS PRE -PLANNING IS MEANT TO BE A TIME AND MONEY SAVER TO THE DEVELOPER. LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR DEVELOPERS TO KNOW WHAT IS REQUIRED OF THEM; 9 JUL 1 1981 BOOK 46 PAGE "141 JUL 1 1,981 NOK 46 PAG6142 7 MR. REVER NOTED THAT IF, FOR INSTANCE, A DEVELOPER HAS ZOO UNITS AND WANTS TO ADD 100 MORE UNITS, THEIR INTENT IS TO REVIEW THE ADDITIONAL UNITS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE WHOLE UNIT SINCE 300 UNITS WOULD CAUSE A GREATER IMPACT. THE OTHER INTENT WAS TO HAVE A WAY OF COLLECTING DATA ON DEVELOPMENTS IN RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER. WHEN WE ASSESS ONE PROJECT AND IT IS APPROVED, WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND WE CAN BUILD A DATA BANK TO REFER TO, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 13TH. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 8I-23 RE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF 1975 THE HOUR OF IO:OO O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Scach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement; being ,, sn a in the matter of in the Court, was pub- ' J fished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me kis I..day of A.D,____ r usiness Manager) (SEAL) (Cleric of the Circuit Court, Ind(art� River County, Florida) i NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on July 1, 1981, at 10:00 a.m., in the City Council Chambers in the Vero Beach City Hall to consider the adoption of an Ordinance declaring the Intent of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,- to exercise the authority granted to it under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975, Sections 163.3161 — 163.3211, Florida Statutes, and for providing an effective date. .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- pose, he may n ed to insure that a verbatim record of the �iroceedings is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.,, ',k'. By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons Chairman June 5, 1981. ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED THIS ORDINANCE WAS JUST A MATTER OF FORM. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO BE HEARD. THERE WERE NONE. ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER BIRD, FOR THE BOARD TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 51-23 DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE BOARD TO EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY GRANTED -TO IT UNDER.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF 1975. ATTORNEY HOULIHAN EXPLAINED THAT THE BOARD IS MERELY STATING THAT THEY ARE EXERCISING THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE COUNTY; THIS HAS NO EFFECT ON ANY EXISTING ORDINANCE. SOME DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ORDINANCE NO. 81- 23 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO EXERCISE.THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO IT UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF 1975, SECTIONS 163.3161 - 163.3211, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FOR PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY CQMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, In compliance with Section 163.3171(.2), Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida hereby declares its intent to exercise, in the unincorporated areas of Indian River County, Florida, the authority set out in Sections 163.3161 - 163.3211, Florida Statutes, commonly known as "The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975". This Ordinance shall take effect July 6, 1581. 11 J U L 1 1981 MGK U Fr�GC WI 43 J U L 1 1991 i _ .—.► 'I-.01wwahlAR_ ► BOOK 46 PAGE 744 ANDREW GRAHAM, ATTORNEY FROM MELBOURNE, FLORIDA REPRESENTING DR. FENNER, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND DELVED INTO THE HISTORY OF THE HIGHLAND MOTEL PRIOR TO HURRICANE DAVID IN 1979. HE EXPLAINED THAT DR. FENNER HAD MANY LAWSUITS AND WAS INVOLVED IN PERSONALITY DISPUTES WITH -SOME COUNTY OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL. ATTORNEY GRAHAM CONTINUED THAT AFTER THE HURRICANE, THERE WAS SOME DAMAGE AND IN FEBRUARY, 1980,,DR. FENNER WAS IN THE PROCESS OF REPAIRING THE MOTEL, BUT WAS DOING SO WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT. AS A RESULT OF THIS, THE ATTORNEY ADDED, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONDEMNED HIS PROPERTY IN MARCH, 1980. HE THEN REFERRED TO A $2031000 LOAN FROM THE SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION FOR WHICH DR. FENNER HAD MADE AN APPLICATION, AND THE PROCEEDS WERE TO BE USED TO BRING THE HIGHLAND MOTEL UP TO -PROPER ORDER. ATTORNEY GRAHAM REFERRED TO VARIOUS CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DR. FENNER AND THE ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD, AND HIS ASSISTANT. IN SEPTEMBER, 1980, DR. FENNER RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE SBA ADVISING HIM THAT HIS LOAN HAD BEEN CANCELLED. ATTORNEY GRAHAM FELT THAT SINCE DR. FENNER HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN APPROVED FOR THE SBA LOAN, -AND SINCE HE WAS UNABLE TO DEAL WITH COUNTY OFFICIALS, ATTORNEY GRAHAM WAS REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD DELAY ANY PROCEEDINGS, DEAL DIRECTLY WITH HIM IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A CLEAR—CUT SET OF FACTS, AND HE WILL ATTEMPT TO REINSTATE THE LOAN WITH THE SBA. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE ONLY MONEY AVAILABLE TO DR. FENNER IS THROUGH THE SBA AND THEY WOULD LIKE TIME TO BE ABLE TO WORK THINGS OUT WITH THE COUNTY. CHAIRMAN LYONS INTERJECTED THAT ATTORNEY GRAHAM STATED A FACT THAT WAS INCORRECT — THE PROBLEM WITH THE MOTEL STARTED BACK IN 1975. IN 1975. ATTORNEY GRAHAM AGREED THAT, INDEED, ONE LAWSUIT WAS INSTITUTED ATTORNEY COLLINS REMINDED THE BOARD THAT DR. FENNER WAS BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT. CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT HE WANTED TO SEE THE MOTEL EITHER DISAPPEAR OR REAPPEAR AND THEN ASKED THE ATTORNEY WHAT SUGGESTIONS HE HAD ON THE MATTER. 4 ATTORNEY COLLINS TOOK ISSUE WITH ATTORNEY GRAHAM'S PRESENTATION THAT CERTAIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES HAVE NOT COOPERATED WITH DR. FENNER. HE ADDED THAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN LAWS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED, AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE LAWS MAY SEEM AS THOUGH PEOPLE WERE NOT BEING COOPERATIVE. THE ATTORNEY STATED THAT HE WAS GLAD TO SEE ATTORNEY GRAHAM INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER AS HE MAY BE ABLE TO FORMULATE A PLAN, HE STATED THAT IT SEEMED TO HIM IF THERE IS A SET PERIOD OF TIME, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE FOR THE BOARD TO GIVE DR. FENNER THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE THIS AVENUE OF FUNDING. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INQUIRED IF THE HURRICANE DAMAGE QUALIFIED DR. FENNER FOR THE SBA LOAN, AND ATTORNEY GRAHAM RESPONDED AFFIRMATIVELY, AND ADDED THAT IT WAS A DISASTER LOAN. CHAIRMAN LYONS REPORTED THAT THE COUNTY HAS HAD THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND AN ARCHITECT LOOK AT THE MOTEL, AND DR. FENNER SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT HE MAY STILL HAVE TO RAZE THE BUILDING. SOME DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. COMMISSIONER BIRD INQUIRED IF A CONDEMNATION ORDER WAS FILED PRIOR TO THE 1979 HURRICANE. ATTORNEY COLLINS RESPONDED THAT THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS SINCE 1975 AND THOUGHT IT WAS FAIR TO SAY THAT THOSE CONDEMNATION ACTIONS DID OCCUR PRIOR TO THE HURRICANE, NOT IN THE WAY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DECISION, BUT BY THE BOARD. JAMES FISH, OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN FULLY INFORMED OF ALL THE DETAILS OF THE CONDEMNATION, BUT HE KNEW THAT IT STARTED PRIOR TO HURRICANE DAVID. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK AFFIRMED THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SBA WILL GRANT A LOAN OR NOT, THIS STRUCTURE WILL HAVE TO BE DEMOLISHED - ALL THE BOARD IS SAYING IS THAT THEY WILL WITHHOLD PROCEEDINGS UNTIL THE SBA GRANTS OR DOES NOT GRANT THE LOAN. COMMISSIONER BIRD UNDERSTOOD THAT WHEN YOU OBTAIN SBA FUNDS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SPECIFIC PLANS ON HOW THOSE FUNDS ARE TO BE USED; 13 BOOK 4 6 Pi IN 745 _I BOOK JUL 1 1981 6 PAGE 746 THEY ARE EAR -MARKED FOR SOMETHING SPECIFIC. HE WONDERED IF THOSE FUNDS COULD BE USED TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE, IF THEIR REQUEST WAS FOR FUNDS TO REPAIR THE HURRICANE DAMAGE, ATTORNEY GRAHAM RESPONDED AFFIRMATIVELY AND ADDED THAT THE REQUEST WAS NOT ONLY FOR HURRICANE DAMAGE, BUT WOULD BE USED FOR SOME COMMERCIAL PROCESS, AND FUNDS WOULD BE FUNNELED THROUGH THIS DISASTER LOAN. HE THEN REITERATED THAT SBA WANTS DR. FENNER TO SETTLE HIS DISPUTE WITH THE COUNTY BEFORE THEY CAN SEE IF HE CAN STILL QUALIFY�FOR THE LOAN. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT PRESENTING ALL THE FACTS TO THE SBA. ATTORNEY GRAHAM SUMMARIZED THAT IF THEY COULD RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES WITH THE COUNTY, AGREE ON THE SERIES OF FACTS - AND THOSE FACTS PROVE THAT THE HURRICANE CAUSED THE DAMAGE - SBA WILL APPROVE THE LOAN. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE WANTED A COMMITMENT SAYING THAT IF THE LOAN IS NOT RECEIVED, DR. FENNER WOULD TAKE THE BUILDING DOWN. ATTORNEY GRAHAM STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT. JOHN CALMES, ARCHITECT, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND ADVISED THAT HE HAD PERFORMED THE INSPECTION OF THE HIGHLAND MOTEL ON DECEMBER 3, 1980 AND SUBMITTED A REPORT DATED DECEMBER 22, 1980 ALONG WITH A SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN DURING THE ON-SITE INSPECTION. IN HIS OPINION, THERE WAS NOT VERY MUCH THAT WAS SALVAGEABLE IN THE BUILDING. HE CITED AS EXAMPLES: MOST OF THE WIRING THAT WAS EXPOSED TO THEIR VIEW WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE; PANEL BOXES WERE OF THE OLD TYPE; AND THE CEILING AREAS HAD NOT BEEN INSULATED. ALSO, VANDALISM WAS DISPLAYED, THERE HAD BEEN A FIRE IN ONE ROOM, AND TWO CEILING JOISTS WERE SEVERED. MR. CALMES WENT ON THAT SINCE THEIR INSPECTION, SEVERAL WALLS HAVE COLLAPSED AND THE BUILDING HAS RECEIVED FURTHER DETERIORATION. HE COMMENTED THAT IF THE ROOMS OF THE MOTEL WOULD MEET THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS, MAYBE SOME OF THE WALLS WOULD BE SALVAGEABLE. MR. CALMES AFFIRMED THAT MOST OF THE DAMAGE HAD OCCURRED DUE TO DETERIORATION, VANDALISM; ALSO DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING WAS OUT -DATED AND NOT UNDER CODE. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON ASKED IF THE ARCHITECT FELT THE BUILDING WAS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO REPAIR. MR. CALMES RESPONDED THAT HIS INITIAL REACTION, WITHOUT FURTHER STUDY, WOULD BE TO TEAR THE BUILDING DOWN. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED HE WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER HAVING THE COUNTY AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT MAKE AVAILABLE THEIR RECORDS; AND ALLOW DR. FENNER AND ATTORNEY GRAHAM UP TO 90 DAYS TO WORK WITH THE SBA; BUT IT THEY CANNOT PRODUCE A COMMITMENT LETTER.FROM THE SBA FOR FULL FUNDING TO BRING THE BUILDING UP TO CURRENT CODE, THEY WILL REMOVE THE STRUCTURE IMMEDIATELY AND THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER LITIGATION. HE THEN REQUESTED THAT THEY PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER AND BRING THIS MATTER BACK TO THE BOARD AT THE NEXT MEETING. LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES. ATTORNEY COLLINS INTERJECTED THAT HE HAD CALLED THE SBA TO INQUIRE IF THERE WAS A COMMITMENT WITH DR. FENNER, AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO COMMITMENT. ATTORNEY GRAHAM STATED HE DID NOT THINK THE BUILDING WAS SALVAGEABLE, AND THOUGHT THAT DR. FENNER WOULD AGREE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE-SUGGESTED THAT IF THEY DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO REMOVE THE BUILDING, THEY COULD AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY TO REMOVE IT. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THE COUNTY WOULD BE WILLING TO REMOVE IT, AND PUT A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE ATTORNEY BE AUTHORIZED TO SEE IF THERE IS A POSSIBLE WAY TO RESOLVE THE CONDEMNATION AND LITIGATION PROCESS, AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD AT THE NEXT MEETING. AFTER DISCUSSING THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING, CHAIRMAN LYONS REMINDED ATTORNEY GRAHAM THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE MUCH LEFT TO BUILD ON. ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT ATTORNEY GRAHAM TALK THINGS OVER WITH HIS CLIENT FOR A FEW MINUTES AND COME BACK TO THE MEETING AT 11:45 O'CLOCK A.M. COMMISSIONER WODTKE WITHDREW HIS MOTION, AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WITHDREW HIS SECOND.- JUL ECOND; JUL 1 1991 �oaK FA '147 15 806K J U L 1 1981 1#1Q.&TA14 "011 10:44:W.11-3:1ut =J1130 JEW THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS DATE: June 22, 1981 46 FACE 748 FI LE: SUBJECT: Release of $5000. Maintenance Bond Pinecrest Subdivision Unit 1 REFERENCES: Edwin S. Schmucker, P'. E. , to Neil LETTER Nelson, County Administrator dated June 9, 1981 During the February 20, 1980 meeting of the members of the Board of County Commission, Final Plat approval of Pinecrest Subdivision Unit 1 was granted subject to'the owner post.ing'a $5000. cash bond for back filling of trenches, grading, seeding of swale ditches, landscaping, and installation of traffic signs. Engineer -of -record, Ed Schmucker, by copy of the above referenced - fe7fe rr, is requesting release of the bond and is certifying that the work Is umplete. The County's Engineering Division has inspected the work and has no objection to'the release of this $5000. bond. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES Since all work is complete and -the 1 year and 90 day warranty periods have lapsed, release of the $5000. bond is appropriate. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the $5000. cash maintenance bond for Pinecrest Unit 1 be released to the owner, Ronald Mitchell. Funding to be from the County's Escrow Account. ON POTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE RELEASE OF THE $5,000 MAINTENANCE BOND FOR PINECREST SUBDIVISION UNIT 1. VILLAGE GREEN, PHASE III - RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND, AND PAVING OF WALKER AVENUE THE BOARD NEXT CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 16, 1981 FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 16, 1981 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Request for release of performance bond - Village Green, Phase III - Paving of Walker Avenue FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS JamesYoung of Beindorf & Associates, the Engineer -of -record for the subject project, has requested release of perTormance bond in the amount of $1,000.00 for Village Green, Phase III. The Engineer -of -record has certified that all remaining bond work has been completed in accordance with applicable Florida Department of Environmental Regulation permits for water and sewer construction and the approved plans and specifications. Furthermore, the County Engineer has been in communication with Dick Sills of Village Green concerning paving and drainage improvements to Talker Avenue between the Phase III Village Green entrance and Rangeline Road. Mr. Sills has stated that they have received a cost estimate of $65,100. for the paving __. and drainage improvements. Since, in some areas the County only has a 30' wide road right-of-way, the County Engineer has received permission to direct drainage runoff to the north onto Mr. Pippin's groves. Thus all drainage from the road may flow north. -. Since the cost estimate involves a sizable sum, Mr. Sills has stated that he does not feel that Village Green can proceed without financial help from the County. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives presented for funding of Walker Avenue as recommended by the staff are as follows: Alternative #1: Require the developer to fund that percentage of the cost of the paving and drainage improvements based upon the developer's front footage along Walker Avenue adjacent to the Village Green Development. The remaining cost to be paid by the County and to be reimbursed at a future date once the property to the north of Phase III (now Mr. Pippin's grove) is developed. Funding on the County's behalf in the amount of $12,676.14 would come from the Road and Bridge Department's budgeted funds (account #004-214-541-35.39). The remaining sum of $52,423.86 to be funded by Village Green. This recommendation would be consistent with County policy. 17 Door . PA -1-C 749 BOCK FAGE `�50 4u� 1 191 Alternative #2: Request Village Green to fund 100° of the $65,100 cost for paving the 2,553 lineal feet of Walker Avenue. Alternative #3: Allow Village Green to submit a petition for the paving of Walker Avenue with Village Green providing 75% of the cost or $48,825. and the County paying the remaining 25% or $16,275. Funding on behalf of the County to come from Road and Bridge Department budgeted funds (account #004-214-541-35.39). In being consistent with past County policy, alternative #1 is recommended by the County staff. RECOMMENDATIONS -AND FUNDING The following is recommended: 1) Release of the $1,000.00 cash performance bond presently being held in the County's escrow account. 2) Alternative #.1 requesting the developer to pay for those paving and drainage improvements along the 2,553 lineal feet of Walker Avenue. The cost to the developer is to be based on the percentage of front footage Village Green o owns, or approximately 4,111.77 If., estimated at $52,423.86. The County is to front the remaining $12,676.14 from the Road and Bridge Department account #004-214-541-35.39. This amount may be reimbursed to the County - once the remaining fronting grove property is developed. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER WODTKE, TO AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF THE $1,000 CASH PERFORMANCE BOND, VILLAGE GREEN, PHASE III, AS OUTLINED UNDER RECOMMENDATION 1 IN THE JUNE 16TH MEMO FROM ADMINISTRATOR NELSON. A SHORT DISCUSSION ENSUED. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, FOR THE BOARD TO ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION 2 AS OUTLINED _IN THE .JUNE 16TH MEMO FROM ADMINISTRATOR NELSON, REGARDING THE PAVING OF WALKER AVENUE. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT THE PAVING OF THIS ROAD WOULD NOT CONNECT IT TO ANY COUNTY ROAD. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. CHAIRMAN LYONS STEPPED OUT OF THE ROOM FOR A FEW MINUTES, AND VICE CHAIRMAN WODTKE PRESIDED OVER THE MEETING. WOMEN 92171km, __ wase 1_3 NERMIM151 Lim In we I RA 544 DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING THE MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 22, 1981 CONCERNING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 22, 1981 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Petition Paving Program Special Assessment Ordin pee IY�� Memo; Neil A. Nelson, Coir, .� r Administrator, to the N- ' �le FROM. Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES Members of the Board o y County Administrator Commissioners dated April 3, 1981 on :: _`_Y, for Paving and Related Improvements to County F* e=Vg DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In response to those comments received subsequent to the above referenced April 3, 1981 memorandum to the Board, the Engineering Division has recognized the concensus that the adoption of a revised Petition Paving Program for County Dedicated Roads'is needed. A petition paving program, which requires the signature and approval of the property owners of at least 2/3rds (66.7%) of the property frontage abutting the unimproved street, is proposed. This program would be authorized by the proposed Special Assessment Ordinance (copy attached). Once the general ordinance has been adopted, each petition paving project would be authorized by resolution. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES The Administration believes that the broader, more comprehensive approach to paving and other assessable type projects is desirable. The proposed ordinance establishes procedures for provision of local services or improvements on a " special assessment basis", establishes the 66.7% petition requirement previously discussed by the Board, allow: for payment of assessments over ten years with appropriate interest charges, and allows for sale of "special improvement lien certificates" to provide funding for special assessment projects. Not only would this ordinance facilitate the "Petition Paving Program" and increase it's utilization by the public, it would also be available for other assessable type services and/or improvements such as street lighting, drainage improvements, and water or sewer line extensions. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING The Administration recommends the Board of County Commissioners call for a public hearing for 9:30 A.M. on Wednesday, Aug. 05, 1981, to consider adoption of the prepared ordinance. It is further recommended that legal notice regarding the public hearing be placed in accordance with Florida Statutes. 19 Boa FDA1,Jv751 e BOOK 46. PAGE752 -7 JUL 1 1981 Should the Board ultimately adopt the proposed ordinance, it will become necessary to provide operating funds for the "assessment program". This can be accomplished by utilizing funds from the Road and Bridge road improvement accounts to establish a revolving "special assessment fund". The amount of this front-end money can be determined by the Board after Ordinance adoption, based upon developed demand for paving assessment projects, and should be re- addressed at least annually, at budget time. A LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED CONCERNING THE SEVEN PAGE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND VARIOUS CHANGES WERE DISCUSSED, SUCH AS: IN SECTION X 4N PAGE 3, SECOND LINE - STRIKE "EITHER" AND "OR AFTER." ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THE "BEFORE OR AFTER" PHRASE GAVE FLEXIBILITY AND SHOULD BE LEFT AS WRITTEN. AFTER MORE INPUT FROM THE BOARD, THEY AGREED SECTION X SHOULD BEGIN AS FOLLOWS: "AT A CONVENIENT AND REASONABLE TIME BEFORE BEGINNING THE WORK,". CHAIRMAN LYONS RETURNED TO THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER WODTKE THOUGHT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE COULD BE WORDED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE ASSESSMENT ROLL BE PREPARED FOR NO MORE THAN THE ACTUAL COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT:' MORE DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INITIATED A DISCUSSION REGARDING SECTION XVII - AUTHORITY TO SELL LIENS. ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THIS WOULD ALLOW THE COUNTY TO RECOUP THEIR INVESTMENT IMMEDIATELY. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS INTERJECTED THAT IN FINANCING, THIS IS REFERRED TO AS LIEN CERTIFICATES. ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR 9:30 O'CLOCK A.M. FOR WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1981 TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF THE PETITION PAVING PROGRAM SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE. DR. FENNER -HIGH-LAND MOTEL - CONTINUED ATTORNEY GRAHAM APPROACHED THE BOARD, AFTER MEETING BRIEFLY WITH HIS CLIENT, DR. FENNER, AND STATED THEY WOULD AGREE TO THE, FOLLOWING TERMS: IF THEY COULD HAVE 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A LOAN COMMIT- MENT FROM SBA, THE BUILDING WILL BE TORN DOWN AND THE LITIGATION WILL BE DISMISSED, AND THAT WILL BE THE END OF IT. HE CONTINUED THAT IF, AT THE END OF 60 DAYS, THEY ARE UNABLE TO HAVE A COMMITMENT AT THAT TIME, THEN THEY WILL REVERT BACK TO WHERE THEY ARE TODAY, AND DR. FENNER WAS NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT THE LITIGATION WOULD STOP. ATTORNEY GRAHAM COMMENTED THAT THE KEY QUESTION WAS NOT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS HAZARDOUS, BUT WHETHER IT WAS PROPERLY CONDEMNED AT THE TIME CONDEMNATION TOOK PLACE IN MARCH OF 1980. HE REITERATED THAT THEIR ONLY SOURCE OF FUNDS WOULD BE THROUGH THE SBA,' IF.THEY CAN DO ALL THIS IN 60 DAYS AND GET THE LOAN, THE BUILDING WILL COME DOWN - BUT, IF THEY CANNOT WORK ANYTHING OUT WITH SBA, THE LAWSUIT WILL NOT BE SETTLED, ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE SEVERAL YEARS OF LITIGATION AHEAD OF THEM, AND ASKED IF ATTORNEY GRAHAM WOULD BE PERSONALLY INVOLVED WITH THE SBA AND IF HE WOULD APPLY HIMSELF DILIGENTLY TO THIS MATTER,' ATTORNEY GRAHAM RESPONDED AFFIRMATIVELY. CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT THE BOARD COULD SIMPLY CONTINUE THIS MATTER UNTIL 60 DAYS FROM NOW AND READDRESS IT AT THAT TIME. HE SUGGESTED THIS MATTER BE RECONSIDERED ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1981. ATTORNEY COLLINS CLARIFIED THAT THE BOARD WAS TELLING HIM NOT TO ACTIVELY FOLLOW THE LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REFERRED TO THE BACK-UP MATERIAL IN THE AGENDA CONCERNING DR. FENNER AT THE .JANUARY 2H, 1981 MEETING. ON PAGE 58, THE LAST PARAGRAPH INDICATED THAT COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION IF IT AUTHORIZED DEMOLITION. ON THE NEXT PAGE, THE MINUTES REFLECT THE FOLLOWING; "THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 - 01 COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING." HE STATED THAT HE INTENDED TO VOTE AGAINST THE DEMOLITION AND REQUESTED THAT THE MINUTES REFLECT THIS FACT. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND THE BOARD AGREED THIS MATTER SHOULD BE READDRESSED AT THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1981. 21 600K 46 pNrE 753 J U L 1 1981 BOOK 4 PAGE ��5 4 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECESSED AT 12:00 O'CLOCK NOON FOR LUNCH AND RECONVENED AT 1:30 O'CLOCK WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT. THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL: ��.o.ei:_:'u'°i;a'.%s'�Gc¢w.-`..�.rs^�FL�'m� -1 C U A F U R A t s .. 1226 N. W. 23rd AVENUE/ FT. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33311 /TELEPHONE (305)684-5990 May 29, 1981 Mr. Neil Nelson County Administrator Lawyers Title Building 2345 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Nelson: This application for the issuance of an IRB is made to you so that Rampmaster, Incorporated can move to Indian River County. The company world bring with it a present employment of approximately 40 people with an average salary of close to $15,000 per person. Considering a marginal propensity to spend of a conservative 90", the effect is 10 times the payroll or a $5 million impact on the county. However, the main reason for the company's move is that we have outgrown our present facility and it is felt that in a very short period at least 60 to 80 people would be employed, and then the impact of that payroll would be even greater. Last year the company purchased over $1.5 million of goods and services. While the primary purchases of the company are aluminum products that come from out of state, many supply items are pur- chased in the local market. These purchases, along with the added employment, should also have a positive impact on the local economy. The company's products are sold on a national and international basis with a space advertising budget of at least 2 to 4% of sales. These advertisements would show Vero Beach as our home address - a fact of which we would be very proud. The project that is contemplated would.approach $850,000. This issue would be sold to Southeast Bank or First State Bank of Miami, both of which have expressed interest in the project. The bonds security would be guaranteed not only by the company but by the principal stock holders as well. Ownership of the project would be in the name of William A. Davis and Robert H. Davis, Jr. and would be handled by a leveraged lease with assignment of the rent to the lender. In conclusion, let me state that we definitely want to be a part of your community. The company will bring approximately 6 families into the county (all of the officers and department heads with the exception of the treasurer) and hopes to create approxi- mately 40 new jobs for Indian River County people within a short period. Above all, we look forward to working with you in the future. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us. Sincerely,, ,f RAMPMASTL, f - , P 00 71kobert H. avis, r. President TO:Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 24, 1981 FILE: Indian River County SUBJECT: Request from Rampmaster, Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, Florida for the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bond Letter to Neil A. Nelson dated FROM . �E-RENCES: May 29, 1981 from Rampmaster Neil A. elson Inc. (Issued Separately) County Administrator This is in response to a request from the above named Corporation. Pursuant to F.S.S. 159 -- Part II, the above named Corporation has requested that Indian River County issue an Industrial Revenue Bond in the approximate amount of $ 850,000.00 "it is necessary and in the public interest to facilitate the financing of capital projects for industrial or manufacturing plants, research and development parks, and pollution -control facilities within the state; to facilitate and encourage the planning and development'pf'these capital pro- jects without regard to the boundaries between counties, municipalities, special districts, and other local governmental bodies or agencies in order to more effectively and efficiently serve the interests of the greatest number of people in the widestarea practicable; and to otherwise effectuate the purpose of s. 10(c) -of Art. VII of the State Constitution through the authorization of the issuance of revenue bonds by counties, municipalities, — - special districts, and other governmental bodies or agencies for industrial or manufacturing plants, research and development parks". 1. Description and Conditions This is the first request we have had from an industry with respect to issuing Industrial Revenue Bonds. To do this, it will be necessary upon the advice of the County Attorney, to establish an"Indian River County Industrial Development Authority " as outlined under F.S.S. 159.45 as follows: "The determination as to whether there is such need for an authority to function: a. May be made by -the Commission on its own motion; or b. Shall be made by the Commission upon the filing of a petition signed by 25 residents of the county asserting that there is a need for an authority to function in JUL1 1981 such county and requesting that the commi 900Kssi n s Gf PAGEo' JUL-1 1981 2. Alternatives and Analysis Staff advises me that they have had several requests regarding this means of financing industry in Indian River County. The alternatives are: a. Authorize staff to prepare a report for the Board of County Commissioners with the information necessary to establish such an authority. b, Employ an outside Bond firm to advise the County. c. Deny the request, 3. Recommendation and Funding Staff recommends to me that we should establish such an authority as they feel the County should be in a position to issue these bonds even though they may not do so at this time. The only funding necessary at this time would be for those costs associated with the staff and the county attorney. Upon issuance of bonds, all costs would be paid in accordance with F.S.S. 159.25. BILL BRYANT, PRESIDENT OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ASKED THE BOARD TO IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ROBERT H. DAVIS, JR., PRESIDENT OF RAMPMASTER, INC. OF FT. LAUDERDALE, INTRODUCED HIS ASSOCIATES: ATTORNEY CHRIS WHEELER, AND ACCOUNTANT PAUL WAYLAND. HE THEN INTRODUCED J. C. NICKENS AND M. L. BOBROFF, OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. HE EXPLAINED THAT THEIR COMPANY FABRICATES LOADING DOCKS OF ALUMINUM, WELDS WITH INERT GAS, BUT DOES NOT DO ANY PLATING OR ANODIZING. MR. DAVIS CONTINUED THAT ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT -BROUGHT THEM TO THIS COUNTY WAS THE MAJOR EMPLOYER THAT IS ALREADY HERE. HE EXPLAINED THAT THEIR TRAINING PROGRAMS ARE NOT NEARLY AS COMPLICATED AS FOR AIRCRAFT riORK. HE WENT ON -THAT THEY DO NOT USE WATER IN THE PROCESS EXCEPT FOR COOLING THE WELDING MACHINES - THEY FILL A 55 GALLON DRUM AND RECIRCULATE THE WATER OVER AND OVER AGAIN. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER RESPONDED THAT HE COULD SEE NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER WITH RAMPMASTER, BUT HE DID HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT THERE SHOULD BE AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN THE COUNTY AS THIS WOULD BE A VEHICLE L WHERE A GROUP OF CITIZENS COULD GIVE ADVICE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED MR. DAVIS IF HE WOULD BE MOVING TO THIS COUNTY WITHOUT THE FINANCE AUTHORITY. MR. DAVIS RESPONDED THAT THEY COULD NOT AFFORD TO MOVE HERE WITHOUT IT. MR. NORTON ONCE AGAIN ENCOURAGED THE BOARD TO APPROVE THIS PROGRAM FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS AS THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WAS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING THE COUNTY, AND ALSO FOR PROVIDING JOBS HERE FOR THE UNEMPLOYED. MR. BOBROFF, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, STATED THAT THE INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS WOULD BE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR THE STIMULATION OF ECONOMIC GROWTH. HE CONTINUED THAT MISSISSIPPI WAS THE FIRST STATE TO USE THEM AND NOW 47 STATES USE THIS PROGRAM. MR. BOBROFF REPORTED THAT THIS WOULD CREATE JOBS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY HERE, AND FOR THOSE THAT WILL MOVE HERE PLUS FOR THE CHILDREN OF THIS COUNTY. HE NOTED THAT IN 1958, $120 MILLION WORTH OF ISSUES WERE BROUGHT ABOUT; IN 1975, $1.8 BILLION OF ISSUES WERE DONE; AND IN 1980, THERE WERE $8.4 BILLION WORTH OF ISSUES GENERATED. MR. BOBROFF THOUGHT THIS COMMUNITY HAD A LOT TO OFFER, BUT SO DO A LOT OF OTHER COMMUNITIES AND STRESSED THAT UNFORTUNATELY, THIS FIELD WAS COMPETITIVE - THE INDUCEMENT TO COME TO AN AREA WOULD BE WITH INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS. HE EXPLAINED THE IMPORTANCE OF OBTAINING AN INDUCEMENT AGREEMENT FROM THE COUNTY IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND PROGRAM. A LONG, DETAILED DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE COMPOSITION OF AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COULD ACT AS THIS AUTHORITY. COMMISSIONER BIRD INQUIRED ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED WITH THE BONDS. ATTORNEY WHEELER INTERJECTED THAT THE COUNTY OWNS THE PROPERTY AND IT IS NOT REMOVED FROM THE TAX ROLL - IT IS SIMILAR TO A LEASE -BACK. mu - 46 PAGE 75 7 J • 80-OK 46 FA nF 158 MR, NICKENS-STATED THAT THE TAX ROLLS DO REFLECT THE PROPERTY THAT IS PURCHASED WITH THE INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS, AND THE TAXES ARE PAID JUST LIKE A MORTGAGE — THE TITLE NEVER TRANSFERS TO THE COUNTY UNTIL THE BONDS ARE PAID. MORE DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE CREATION OF AN AUTHORITY, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS INDICATED THE STATUTES STATE THE BOARD MUST CREATE THIS AUTHORITY BEFORE THE PROGRAM CAN PROCEED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE INQUIRED WHO WERE GENERALLY THE BUYERS OF THIS TYPE OF'BOND ISSUE. MR, NICKENS ADVISED THAT THEY ARE USUALLY HANDLED BY THE LOCAL BANKS IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES — THE BONDS ARE ISSUED TAX FREE, DUE TO THE COUNTY'S EFFORT IN THE PROGRAM. COMMISSIONER WODTKE THOUGHT RAMPMASTERS WAS A VERY GOOD TYPE OF INDUSTRY FOR THE COUNTY TO. HAVE, AND FELT THE BOARD COULD SIT AS AN AUTHORITY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME IF THERE WOULD NOT BE T00 MUCH INVOLVEMENT. HE WANTED TO INDICATE TO RAMPMASTERS THAT THE BOARD WAS RECEPTIVE TO THEM. MR. NORTON STATED THAT MR. DAVIS HAD A BUYER FOR THEIR BONDS AND THE BANK WAS READY TO TAKE OVER THEIR BOND ISSUE. AGAIN HE URGED THE BOARD,TO ACT AS THE BONDING AUTHORITY AND GIVE A LETTER OF INTENT TO RAMPMASTER SO THAT MR, DAVIS COULD BEGIN THE PROCESS OF MOVING HIS FACILITY TO THIS COUNTY. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE BOARD'S FUNCTION WAS TO DECLARE A NEED FOR THIS PROGRAM BY RESOLUTION, AND HE DID NOT THINK THE BOARD WAS IN ANY POSITION TO GIVE ASSURANCE TO A BONDING COMPANY NOW, BUT COULD INDICATE THEIR INTENTION. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO RUSH WHEN SOMETHING OF THIS MAGNITUDE WAS BEING CONSIDERED. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS— SIONER SCURLOCK, FOR THE BOARD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-44 TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THERE WAS A NEED FOR AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THAT IT WAS THE BOARD'S INTENTION TO ACT AS THAT AUTHORITY, THAT THEY INTEND TO FORM AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED AT THE NEXT,MEETING. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT HE EQUATED THIS MATTER WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND TO ACTIVATE IT, A RESOLUTION MUST BE PASSED TO ESTABLISH A NEED, THEN IT WOULD BE IN EFFECT. HE SUGGESTED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS WITH ATTORNEY WHEELER AND PREPARE A DRAFT RESOLUTION THAT COULD BE REVIEWED AT THE NEXT MEETING, RATHER THAN ADOPT A RESOLUTION AT THIS TIME. COMMISSIONER WODTKE WITHDREW HIS LOTION AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WITHDREW HIS SECOND. DISCUSSION ENSUED. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO DIRECT ATTORNEY COLLINS TO PROCEED WITH THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT RESOLUTION REGARDING THE INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS AND THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO BE REVIEWED AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 13, 1981. THE HOUR OF 1;30 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DFPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT; NMI K os** 27 BOOK -46 PAGE'159 1 e 1 If i 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 t in the matter of 4rdAd&8X 4d4a ILC�O/l in the Court, was pub - fished in said newspaper in the issues of t -'T d.� df/ 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 (SEAL) `1 (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian �ivkr County, Florida) BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY In Re: Application of Hobart Landing Services for authority to increase its rates for garbagg service in the unincorporated area of Indian'River County. NOTICE OF HEARING The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County will hold a he on July 1, 1981, at 1:30 P.M. in its hearing room In the Council Chambers, City Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, on the applicAtion of Hobart Landing Services for authority,to make effective the following water service rate increases: Water Present Rate Proposed Rate First 3,000 gals. $4.00 $6.00 -month All over 3,000 gals. 0.55 $1.00 per 1,000 gals. Approved for public hearing Board of County Commissioners Indian River County Date: July 1, 1981 By: -s-N. A. Nelson June 19, 20, 1981. C. C 0 0 I c� Raw ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED HIS MEMO OF JUNE 231 1981 WITH THE BOARD, AS FOLLOWS: TO: Honorable Members of the Board DATE: June 23, 1981 FILE: of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Hobart Landing Franchise, Change of Rates FROM: Neil Nelson, County Adm. REFERENCES: DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On April 17, 1981, a package of information was submitted to Indian River County for review with the intent of raising the water rates. The changes were, requested as follows: Water First 3,000 gals. All over 3,000 gals. ANALYSIS Present Rate $4:00 per month 0.55 per 1,000 gals. Proposed Rate $6.00 per month 1.00 per 1,000 gals. The package data was reviewed by staff with their general approval. The comment -- — by the County Attorney Collins was submitted to Mr. Briggs and discussed with his - attorney, Mr. Quinn.'We requested the safeguard to the County of the maintenance and impact escrow funds as provided in all recently approved franchises or their changes. This hearing has been advertised for 1:30 PM on July 1, 1981 in the Press Journal issues of June 19 and 20, 1981. As inspection of the franchise water plant was made and the appearance and condition of the system is good. We have requested future copies of the treatment reports that are submitted monthly to DER. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the proposed franchise changes be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. UTILITIES DIRECTOR LINER STATED THERE WERE NO ADVERSE COMMENTS ABOUT THE WATER PLANT FROM THE DER OR ANY AGENCY, THAT HE WAS AWARE OF, REGARDING COMPLIANCES OR STANDARDS. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REFERRED TO ITEM 2 1N THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING THE 10% SINKING FUND OF $8,000 AND WONDERED WHAT THE NORMAL PERCENTAGE WAS FOR A SINKING FUND. J U L 1 1981 pp 60b46 PACE � 9Q J J U L 1 1981 BOOK 46 FAG -r-762 MR. LINER RESPONDED THAT THE SIZE OF THE SINKING FUND WAS PROPORTIONATE TO THE SIZE OF THE SYSTEM. LENGTHY DISCUSSION AROSE CONCERNING FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING CONSISTENT WITH PERCENTAGES. COMMISSIONER BIRD -INQUIRED IF THERE WERE ANY ONGOING INSPECTION PROGRAMS ON FRANCHISES IN THE AREA. MR. LINER REPORTED THAT THEY HAVE JUST ESTABLISHED A PROCEDURE WHEREBY ROUTINE INSPECTIONS WILL BE CONDUCTED. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK SUGGESTED THAT AN INSPECTION SYSTEM SHOULD BE ADDED TO FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS, ALONG WITH A FEE SCHEDULE, SO THE COUNTY CQULD RECOUP ITS EXPENSES. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER PRAISED THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM AND BELIEVED IT WOULD BE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE THAN GRANTING FRANCHISES - LET THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM REIGN, AND WHEN IT IS NOT DOING ITS JOB, THEN THE BOARD COULD CONSIDER THE PROBLEM AT THAT TIME AND STEP IN AND HELP THOSE CITIZENS THAT ARE ON THE SYSTEM. HE ALSO FELT THAT PARAGRAPH 4 IN THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION DID NOT CREATE ANY INCENTIVE WHATSOEVER FOR THE PRESENT OWNER OF THE SYSTEM TO MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM OTHER THAN AT A MINIMUM BASE OF $8,000. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED HE WAS OPPOSED TO THE FRANCHISE. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT THE RATE STRUCTURE FOR THE HOBART LANDING FRANCHISE WAS LESS THAN THEY HAD ON THE COUNTY SYSTEM, AND FELT THERE SHOULD BE A SPECIFIC FORMULATOR THE SINKING FUND - ALSO, THERE SHOULD BE EITHER A SEMI-ANNUAL OR ANNUAL INSPECTION OF THE SYSTEMS. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO BE HEARD. FRED BRIGGS, OF HOBART,BROTHERS, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND COMMENTED THAT THEY HAVE SPENT X10,000 IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS PUTTING IN ANEW HOLDING TANK. ALL OF THE ;PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED OF } THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE AND THEY HAVE NOT HAD ONE OBJECTION REGARDING THIS MATTER. MR. BRIGGS FELT THEY WERE ASKING FOR A FAIR AND REASON- ABLE RATE IN ORDER TO SET UP A CONTINGENCY FUND SO THEY WILL HAVE MONEY FOR REPAIRS. HE STRESSED THAT THE MONEY SHOULD BE PUT INTO AN INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNT, AND SUGGESTED THAT THEIR ATTORNEY, .JEROME QUINN, WORK OUT THE DETAILS WITH ATTORNEY COLLINS. GASTON BERNARD, A RESIDENT OF HOBART LANDING, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND STATED HE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE RATE INCREASE AND FELT IT WAS A JUSTIFIABLE INCREASE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED fHE PUBLIC HEARING. ATTORNEY QUINN, REPRESEi,TING HOBART BROTHERS, STATED THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION COULD BE REWORDED, AS A RESULT OF THE ITEMS ADDRESSED TODAY. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOPT THE 10% SINKING FUND. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE CHANGE IN THE RATE STRUCTURE, EFFECTIVE .JULY 1, 1981, AND AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE.APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION INCORPORATING THE $8,000 CASH DEPOSIT TO BE REVIEWED AT THE NEXT MEETING OF THE BOARD. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 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: 31 00� 6. PACE 763 C_ C= r VElRO BEACH PRESS -JOUR I—A Published Weekly to Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida C>®. BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY In Re: 'Application* of Breezy Village (Nater & Sewer Co., Inc., for authority to increase STATE OF FLORIDA Its rates for water and sewer in the unincorporated area of Indian River County and change Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath of ownership. P,. says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published NOTICEOFHEARING at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County will hold a hearing on JUly 1, 1981, at 1:30 P.M. in Its hearing room in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, on the application of Breezy Village Water and Sewer Co., Inc., for authority to a ` make effective the following water and swer rate increases: Water Present Proposed �, t /.,¢�-. in the matter of (/► - y- S.p.�rl A /L4'LC�P/ First 3,000 gallons $6.76 Nex412,000 gallons '1.06 per 1,000 gals. � f First 2,000 gallons $7.10 I -SO per 1,000 all over 2,000 gals. gals. W 1V Sewer First 3,000 gallons 6.76 in the Court, was pub- P Next 12,000 gallons 1.06 per 1,000 gals. -MIL" 11 p / lished in said newspaper in the issues of + 9 tet® 0 OF / 7.10 First 2,000 gallons 87 Pct. of $1.50 per 2,000 gals. all over 1,000 gals. up to 10,000 additional gallons, maximum Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at No charge Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore $30.00 been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered Turnoff (for intermittent user) as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida Reconnect (for intermittent user) 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- Ownership is being transferred from Breezy Village, Ltd., to Breezy village Sewer and co tisement for publication in the said newspaper. -Water Co., Inc, o � � ��.. for public hearing o. Sworn to and subscribed before me this o A. D, Board BBoardd of of County Commissioners , Indian River County, Florida i Date: July 1, 1981. • By: -s-N. A. Nelson. June 19, 20, 1981. (Busine Manager) :Tl (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Ri er County, Florida) �'� (SEAL) THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 23.- 1981 3:1981 FROM ADMINISTRATOR NELSON: TO: Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nei 1 Nelson, County Adm. DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS DATE: June 23, 1981 FILE: SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Breezy Village Franchise, Change.of Ownership and Change of Rates REFERENCES: On March 13, 1981, a package of information was submitted to Indian River County for certain changes to the Breezy Village Franchise in existence. The ownership was sold and the applicant is seeking approval of the franchise for new owner, along with the change of name. There is, in addition, a proposal to change the rates and provide for reconnect fees where none were possible in the past. Overall changes are indicated in the following: Ownership Name of Franchise Rates - Water First 3,000 gallons Next 12;000 gallons First 2,000 gallons all over 2,000 gals. Sewer Fi t 3,000 gallons Next 12,000 gallons First 2,000 gallons All over 2,000 gallons Present Edward T. Karr, Partner Breezy Village, Ltd. Sewer and Water Franchise $6.76 1.06 per 1,000 gals. 6.76 1.06 per 1,000 gals. Turnoff (for intermittent user) Reconnect (for intermittent user) JUL 1 1991 33 Proposed James L. Wilson, Partner Breezy Village Sewer and Water Co., Inc. $7.10 1.50 per 1,000 gals. $7.10 87% of $1.50 per 1,000 gals. up to 10,000 additional gallons, maximum No charge $30.00 Pox 46 PACE 165 ANALYSIS wx . 46 PAGE -166 7 The material has been reviewed* by staff with their general approval. The proposed resolution provides additional protection to the County of providing for buildup of a $10,000 franchise maintenance escrow fund, and an impact escrow fund for any unsold lots. The rates are similar to what the County charges. This hearing had been advertised for 1:30 PM on July 1, 1981 in the Press Journal issues of June 19 and 20, 1981. _ An inspection of the franchise plants has been made and their performance -is acceptable. We have requested copies of the treatment reports that are submitted monthly to DER and requested some improvement in the "housekeeping" of the water and sewer plants. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the proposed franchise changes be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ATTORNEY MANNING EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS, UTILITIES DIRECTOR LINER COMMENTED THAT THIS WAS A COMBINED WATER AND SEWER FRANCHISE AND THE AMOUNT OF':$10,000 FOR THE FRANCHISE MAINTENANCE ESCROW FUND WAS SELECTED AS A PROPORTION THAT SHOULD COVER THE TYPE OF MAINTENANCE FOR THIS SIZE SYSTEM. DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO THE METHOD USED TO ARRIVE AT THE ESCROW FIGURE. ATTORNEY MANNING STATED THAT THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO THE ESCROW AMOUNT BUT WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT IT COULD BE USED ON AN ON—GOING BASIS FOR MAINTENANCE. ATTORNEY COLLINS AFFIRMED THAT THIS MONEY WAS ONLY TO BE USED IN THE EVENT OF A DEFAULT — THE MONEY WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. ATTORNEY MANNING SUGGESTED THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION IN SECTION 2, WHERE THE FUNDS WERE DISCUSSED, SHOULD READ "BE USED ONLY IN THE EVENT OF A DEFAULT". THE BOARD AGREED, DR. JAMES WILSON, PARTNER, IN THE BREEZY VILLAGE FRANCHISE, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND ADVISED THEM THAT THEY WERE RUNNING AT A LOSS EVERY MONTH. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO RENEWAL OR REPLACEMENT FUND AVAILABLE FOR THIS SYSTEM. COMMISSIONER WODTKE WONDERED IF THERE WERE ANY EXISTING PROBLEMS WITH DER. MR. LINER RESPONDED THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY PROBLEMS, RICHARD BOGOSIAN, REPRESENTING MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO RESIDE AT BREEZY VILLAGE, REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC NOTICE. HE STATED IT SHOULD READ 2,000 GALLONS, RATHER THAN 3,000, IN THE WATER AND SEWER CATEGORIES. ATTORNEY BOGOSIAN COMMENTED THAT THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 78 HOMES IN BREEZY VILLAGE AND THE DEVELOPER HAS THE POTENTIAL TO TOTALLY DEVELOP THE AREA, AND TO RECOUP IN THE SALE OF THE ADDITIONAL LOTS NOT YET DEVELOPED. HE THEN REFERRED TO THE LONG-STANDING POLICY OF THE BOARD TO PRESENT DOLLAR FIGURES WHEN REQUESTING A RATE INCREASE, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE A FAIR AND REASONABLE RATE - THIS WAS NOT DONE IN THIS CASE. ATTORNEY BOGOSIAN ALSO FELT THAT MATCHING THE COUNTY RATES WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA; HE DID NOT SEE HOW THEIR RATE INCREASE WAS JUSTIFIED. HE THEN SUGGESTED THE BOARD REQUEST A CERTIFIED AUDIT FOR.BREEZY VILLAGE FRANCHISE. JOSEPH VERDI, OF BREEZY VILLAGE, BLAMED THE PROBLEMS IN THEIR PARK ON POOR MANAGEMENT AND POOR MAINTENANCE. THERE IS ANOTHER PHASE OF 23 HOMES THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED BUT IN THE THREE YEARS SINCE THE PARK WAS SOLD, ONLY 6 UNITS HAVE BEEN SOLD. HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT EVERYTIME THE OWNER DOES SOMETHING IN THE PARK, IT COSTS THE RESIDENTS MONEY; HE POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THEY LIVED ON A FIXED IN- COME, THEY FELT THE RATE INCREASE WAS UNJUST. GENE MAHALICK, BREEZY VILLAGE, ALSO OBJECTED TO THE RATE INCREASE BECAUSE HE FELT IT WAS UNJUST, AND THAT THERE HAS BEEN HAP- HAZARD MANAGEMENT. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE ENGINEER FOR THE FRANCHISE WAS LIVING IN ARIZONA, AND WAS BEING PAID JUST FOR THE USE OF HIS LICENSE. MR. MAHALICK STATED THAT THE METERS WERE BEING READ WRONG. SOME PEOPLE PUT IN THEIR OWN IRRIGATION WELLS AT A COST OF $300 TO $700 PER FAMILY, BUT THEY WERE NOT PERMITTED TO USE THIS WATER IN THEIR HOMES. HE MENTIONED THAT THE SWIMMING POOL HAD A LEAK IN IT AND WAS DRAINING APPROXIMATELY 11" PER DAY, BUT WAS NOT REPAIRED. HE FIRMLY FELT THIS INCREASE WAS NOT WARRANTED, MR. VERDI INTERJECTED THAT HE FELT THE $30 TURN -ON FEE WAS A RIP-OFF. BOOK�j PAGE ��6 7 JUL 1 1981 35 J EOO1KFAr,.- �/ �8 JUL 1 1981 DR. WILSON APPROACHED THE BOARD AND STATED THAT A LOT OF THE THINGS STATED WERE -TRUE. HE ADDED THAT THE FIGURES GIVEN THE BOARD WERE FROM 1980, AND THAT HE HAD TAKEN OVER AS MANAGER OF BREEZY VILLAGE IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS. DR. WILSON ADVISED THAT THEIR EXPENSES WERE OVER $13,000 FOR 6 MONTHS, WITH UNPAID BILLS FOR MAINTENANCE AMOUNTING TO $1,500. HE DISCUSSED THE RECONNECTION FEE, AND OF EXPANDING THE PARK, WHICH WOULD GIVE THEM 135 LOTS. IF THEY HAD THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE, HE CALCULATED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE $1,900 A MONTH, IF EVERYONE PAID. HE ALSO ADVISED THAT NO ONE WAS CONSERVING WATER. CHAIRMAN LYONS POINTED OUT THE MATTER OF ESCROWING THE MONEY AND EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS INTENDED ONLY.FOR THE COUNTY'S USE - THEY MUST HAVE THEIR OWN EMERGENCY FUND, JOHN PHILLIPS, RESIDENT OF BREEZY VILLAGE, STATED THAT A SPRINKLER SYSTEM WAS PUT IN, AND THE PEOPLE WANTED TO PAY A REASONABLE AMOUNT BUT WERE TOLD NOT TO PAY UNTIL EVERYTHING WAS SETTLED. HE MENTIONED THAT EACH OWNER WAS NOT PERMITTED TO HOOK UP THEIR WELL WATER INTO THEIR SYSTEM, AND FELT IF SOME OF THE RESTRICTIONS WERE REMOVED, THEY COULD ALL SAVE SOME WATER, ONCE THE WATER RATE GOES UP, HE THOUGHT THE SEWER RATE WOULD ALSO GO UP. ATTORNEY BOGOSIAN REITERATED THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CERTIFIED AUDIT TO DETERMINE WHAT A FAIR AND REASONABLE RATE WOULD BE, AND THEN A RATE INCREASE COULD BE GRANTED. HE FELT THAT AS THE PROJECT GREW, THE APPLICANT SHOULD COME IN REGULARLY BEFORE THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHAT A FAIR AND REASONABLE RATE WOULD BE. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES. CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THE BOARD MIGHT CONSIDER A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AFTER AN AUDIT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE APPLICANT. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT AN AUDITED STATEMENT, AND NOT A CERTIFIED AUDIT, WOULD BE WHAT THE BOARD REQUIRED. ATTORNEY MANNING STATED THAT THE ACTUAL TRANSFER OF ASSETS OCCURRED IN OCTOBER OF 1978 FROM BREEZY VILLAGE TO TREASURE COAST BREEZY VILLAGE - NOW THE ACTUAL FRANCHISE NEEDS THE BOARDS APPROVAL. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THIS SHOULD ALL BE READVERTISED WITH THE CONCEPT OF HANDLING BOTH THE RATE INCREASE AND TRANSFER AT THE SAME TIME. CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ABOUT THE TRANSFER OF THE FRANCHISE. THERE WERE NONE. ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE BOARD REQUEST BREEZY VILLAGE, LTD. SEWER AND WATER FRANCHISE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE POINT OF THE ACTUAL SALE OF THE ASSETS IN OCTOBER, 1978, IN- CLUDING THE CONTRACT; FURNISH A LIST OF ANY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS MADE; ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION THAT MAY BE REQUIRED BY LEGAL STAFF; AND UPON RECEIPT OF THIS INFORMATION, A TIME CERTAIN BE SET FOR ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FRANCHISE TRANSFER AND RATE INCREASE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FURTHER STATED THAT THE BOARD SHOULD RECEIVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION EVERY YEAR FOR REVIEW. HE FELT IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT A ONE YEAR INCOME AND EXPENSE STATEMENT AND DO A PROJECTION ON WHAT WOULD BE A FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT. COMMISSIONER WODTKE REMINDED THE APPLICANT THAT THIS WAS NOT TO BE A CERTIFIED AUDIT BUT SHOULD HAVE RELIABLE FIGURES. HE STATED HE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE TURN -ON FEE OF $30; IT WAS NOT UNREASONABLY LARGE, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT THEY SEEM TO GO THROUGH THIS EVERY TIME THEY HAVE A FRANCHISE. HE CONTINUED THAT THEIR LAST POLICY WAS TO SUBMIT INFORMATION THROUGH THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, WHICH THEY DID. MR. NELSON THOUGHT A POLICY SHOULD BE SET THAT THIS FINANCIAL INFORMATION BE KEPT ON FILE IN THAT DEPARTMENT. COMMISSIONER BIRD INTERJECTED THAT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT IS NOT YET SET UP FOR THIS. _ COMMISSIONER WODTKE COMMENTED THAT HE DID NOT THINK IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO RECEIVE THE_INFORMATION, ONLY TO ANALYZE IT, AND WHOEVER IS HANDLING THE COUNTY'S FRANCHISES SHOULD TAKE CARE OF IT. DISCUSSION ENSUED. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. J U L 1 1981 80046 PAGE '169 37 )UL POfi R PnE 770 W COMMISSIONER WODTKE LEFT THE MEETING AT 4:32 P.M. ON BUSINESS. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT 4:34 O'CLOCK P.M. IN ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT BOARD OF FIRE COMMIS- SIONERS 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 4:45 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT. R VILLAGE GREEN - CONTINUED GORDON .JOHNSTON, ATTORNEY FOR VILLAGE GREEN, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE FROM VILLAGE GREEN TRAVELLING IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION ON WALKER AVENUE. HE CONTINUED THAT IN TIMES OF RAINY WEATHER, THE PAVEMENT COULD UNDER- MINE, CREATE A BUMP, AND WOULD BE DANGEROUS. HE THEN RE TED THAT THE COUNTY DEFER PAVING WALKER AVENUE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS HOLE AREA FROM LATERAL A TO RANGE LINE ROAD COULD BE PAVED. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY, WITH COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT, AGREED TO BRING THIS ITEM CONCERNING VILLAGE GREEN BACK ON THE AGENDA. ENGINEER JIM DAVIS ADVISED THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PERMISSION FROM MR. PIPPIN, AN ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER, TO DIRECT DRAINAGE FROM THAT ROAD IN THE VICINITY OF VILLAGE GREEN, PHASE III, TO THE NORTH. HE CONTINUED THAT FROM LATERAL A TO THE VILLAGE GREEN PROPERTY IS ABOUT ONE-HALF MILE, AND THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM ALL THE GROVE OWNERS, WHICH WOULD BE VERY COMPLIQ�ATED. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INTERJECTED THAT THE ROAD BE PAVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AS APPROVED EARLIER. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE MATTER REGARDING THE PAVING OF WALKER AVENUE BE DELAYED FOR SIX MONTHS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND THE VOTE WAS 2 TO 2, WITH CHAIRMAN LYONS AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK VOTING IN OPPOSITION, AND WITH COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A MAJORITY. ILIST :,-ROYALE. ND SEWER AGREEMENTS THE BOARD NEXT REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO DATED JUNE,22, 1981: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 22, 1981 FI LE: of the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Vista Royale 'Water and Sewer Agreements FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached proposed agreement between Indian River County and Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc. is the culmination of numerous meetings between County and Vista representatives. The agreement clarifies the obligations for the transition of the Vista water and sewer systems to the County. By "systems", all hardware, documentation, treatment equipment,(water and sewer), distribution piping, meters, collection piping, lift stations, auxiliary power generators, water storage tanks, high service pumps and wells, their easements and all effluent ponds are all covered. This agreement calls for Vista to operate the system until February 1, 1982, after which time the County will assume operation and obtain the revenue from the system. Budget plans for 1981-82 assume this agreement will be approved and take place on schedule. ANALYSIS This agreement has been well studied by all concerned County and Vista personnel as well as the County's consulting engineers. This final version is believed to be acceptable to all parties, and covers all anticipated contingencies. 39 Bm _ 6 PAGE 771 JUL 1 199' The agreement provides water and sewer treatment capacity of 100,000 gallons more than Vista's expected demand. This treatment capability can be used by the County for projects outside of Vista properties; for example, water for the proposed school at Oslo Road and sewage treatment for Treasure Coast Utilities. This system represents over 2,200 units, plus 40 commercial acres at build -out. When that occurs, the County customer base will be virtually double the present quantity. The agreement will be a culmination of Vista's oblieation as stated in their original "franchise agreement". RECOMMENDATIONS ,-IND FUND I I\G The Administration recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed agreement and authorize the Chairman's signature. This agreement and the subsequent system transfer will not require funding by the County. - ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT INVOLVES TWO PARTS. ONE PART STATES THAT EFFECTIVELY ON THE SIGNING OF THE AGREEMENT, THE PARTIES WILL CONVEY THE VARIOUS ASSETS BUT THAT VISTA ROYALE MANAGEMENT WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE SYSTEM UNTIL FEBRUARY 1, 1982. THE ATTORNEY COMMENTED THE REASONS WERE THAT THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE THE PERSONNEL, IT GIVES THE COUNTY AN OPPORTUNITY TO GRADUALLY WORK INTO TAKING OVER THE SYSTEM, AND IT FITS IN HARMONY WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITIES OF THE VISTA GARDENS PROJECT. ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT ONCE WE TAKE OVER THE SYSTEM, THE COUNTY WILL SERVICE THE VISTA ROYALE PROJECT AND THE VISTA GARDENS PROJECT IN THE MANNER THEY ARE PRESENTLY RECEIVING. HE ADDED THAT THE DER REGULATIONS MAY CHANGE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THE IMPOUNDMENT AREAS, IF THE PERMITS WERE OBTAINED. HE STATED THAT THE DER WAS SELECTED IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN IMPARTIAL PARTY - IT WILL BE LEFT TO THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE DER. LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED - THE BOARD EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT ADEQUATE CAPACITIES FOR THIS AREA WOULD BE THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. BOB GASKILL, REPRESENTING VISTA PROPERTIES, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD. HE MENTIONED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS THERE ARE AWARE OF THE SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM TRANSFER. MR. GASKILL THEN DISCUSSED ITEMS OF CONCERN IN THE TRANSFER,, SUCH AS THE RATE STRUCTURE IN THE SEWER AND WATER RATES, AND THE REVERSIONARY CLAUSE. 4P- THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE RATE STRUCTURE AND OF TRYING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF METERS FOR EACH BUILDING. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO NOTIFY THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE VISTA PROJECTS AND HAVE A MEETING ADVISING THEM OF WHAT IS TAKING PLACE, IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY MISUNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE RATE STRUCTURE, ENGINEER JOHN ROBBINS REMINDED THE BOARD THAT ALL FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS MUST BE CERTIFIED. FURTHER DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE. COMMISSIONER BIRD THEN COMMENDED ATTORNEY COLLINS, UTILITIES DIRECTOR LINER, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF VISTA PROPERTIES FOR PREPARING A REMARKABLE AGREEMENT, CHAIRMAN LYONS INQUIRED HOW THE BOARD SHOULD PROGRESS TO FINALIZE THIS AGREEMENT. ATTORNEY COLLINS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CHAIRMAN`S SIGNATURE ON THE AGREEMENT BE AUTHORIZED, SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENTS DISCUSSED TODAY. HE NOTED THAT THIS AGREEMENT WAS NECESSARY AND IMPERATIVE TO THE FMHA LOAN FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM. THE ATTORNEY COMMENTED THAT NEXT THERE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT FROM THE BOND ISSUE STANDING POINT, EVERYTHING IS IN ORDER. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK THOUGHT THE AGREEMENT WAS GOOD AND THAT VISTA PROPERTIES HAS BEEN DILIGENT IN PROTECTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND SO HAS THE COUNTY, AND HE WOULD SUPPORT THE AGREEMENT. SIR. ROBBINS DISCUSSED THE TIME ELEMENT INVOLVED AND STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TAKE-OUT LETTER, HE CONTINUED THAT BIDS WILL BE OPENED ON JULY 14, 1981 AND THEY WILL BE MAKING'A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD IN AUGUST, SO THEY MUST BE IN A POSITION FOR THE ATTORNEY TO CERTIFY THE CONTRACTS, ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT,THE PRIME ISSUE IS HOW THE RATES WILL EFFECT THE PEOPLE IN THAT AREA, AND THE RATES WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE CHANGED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF FMHA. HE ADDED THAT THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. NN 46 PAGE'173 J U L 1 1981 41 @OOK 46 Fnr 774 CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED HE WOULD BE WILLING TO WRITE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION IN THE VISTA PROPERTIES AREA NOTIFYING THEM OF THE INTENTION OF THE BOARD IN REGARD TO THE RATES. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT AS AMENDED, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO NOTIFY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THIS ACTION AND OF THE BOARDS INTENTION TO LOOK AT THE VISTA PROPERTIES RATE STRUCTURE. MORE DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3 TO 1, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT, AND COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. THE BOARD NEXT CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING MEMO DATED JUNE 24, 1981 FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR: TO: Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson County Administrator 1. DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:. DATE: June 24, 1981 FILE: SUBJECT:. wastewater Improvements for the Pebble Bay Sewerage Area REFERENCED: It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consider- ation by the County Commission. On November 5th, 1980, Indian River County (County) entered into an agree- ment with the Town of,Indian River Shores (Town) and the City of Vero Beach (City) for providing wastewater service to the.Indian River Shores and Indian River County Areas (see attached Agreement). The Indian River County Area consists of the County enclave located just north of Island Shores and the Pebble Bay Sewerage Area just north of the City limits. Per the agreement, the City agreed to supply wastewater service to the Town and County Area through use of part of the County's regional waste- water allocation and from City wastewater treatment capacity. The waste- water facilities themselves are to be designed, and constructed by the respective political subdivisions, the Town of Indian River Shores and the unincorporated area, Pebble Bay Sewerage Area (County). Since the original signing of the agreement, deannexation proceedings have increased the County's service area and as a result, the County's portion of con- struction cost has increased accordingly. Z. m The County has discussed the change of scope due to the deannexation issue with the Town of Indian River Shores. A meeting was held in my office on June 5, 1931, with Mr. John Curtain, Town Engineer of Indian River Shores, George Liner and Messrs. John Robbins and Guy Wills of the Joint Venture. As a result of that meeting, certain items of interest were clarified and the design responsibilities outlined. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: As a result of the County now having a larger service area, a decision regarding sewer service to the newly acquired areas is needed by the Board. The de -annexation proceedings have created two alternatives for the County with regards to providing wastewater service to the Pebble Bay Sewerage Area. These alternatives are outlined below. ALTERL AT= ?NO. 1 The County can continue to provide service to the Pebble Bay Sewerage Area, including the area obtained by de -annexation. Improvements will have to be made to the existing Pebble Bay Treatment Plant facility and to pump stations servicing Pebble Bay Subdivision, Sea Watch and Pebble Beach Villas. Engineering plans and specifications were completed in February, 1990 for the referenced improvements. This project has been to bid but a bid was not accepted due to the fact that there was only one bidder and his estimate was 3000 over the engineers' estimate of $106,500.00. Therefore, the plans and specifications are substantially complete, with the only major requirement being the permitting of the project through the Department of Environmental Regulation. G0/G►Y.!!, 1. Would not lose the sewerage system and its customer base. 2. Least costly of alternatives. DISADVANTAGES 1. Be required to continue sewer only operation. 2. Be required to obtain D.E.R. Operation Permit.. 3. Prevent county park from being developed. 4. Costly repairs for old system. ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 The County, as -per the agreement, can tie into the City's wastewater collection system by designing and constructing a pumping station and gravity sewer system. The gravity sewer system was not originally the responsibility of the County. De -annexation has made it the County's responsibility. At the meeting in my office, mentioned previously, between myself, John Curtain, George Liner, John Robbins and Guy Wills, it was concluded that Pebble Beach Villas would be served by the County along with Seven Eleven convenience store and Eckerd Drugs. This will require additional gravity sewer and sewer manholes. In addition, it was discussed, flow from Sea Watch would be directed to the County's pump station, but the construction cost for servicing Sea Watch would be paid for by the Town. The following list of items illustrates the County's revised scope of work and related construction.eosts: JUL 1 1981 43 An6. PAGE7 e J U L 1 1981 pau 41-3 pw 776 DESCRIPTION COST 1. Furnish and install 8" VCP gravity sewer $ 990.00 2. Furnish and install 10" VCP gravity sewer 16,155.00 3. Furnish and install 8" D.I.P. gravity sewer 742.50 4. Furnish and construct standard manholes 3,880.00 (1) 5. Furnish and install 10" D.I.P. force main 15,010.00 6. Rock excavation 600.00 7. Furnish and install 401-- 16" steel casing and 40' - 8" D.I.P. installed by boring and as shown - 3,600.00 ..jacking . (2) 8. Concrete pavement replacement 1,055.00 (3) 9. Furnish and install 12" X 10" tapping sleeve 800.00 and 10" valve on 12" force main (4) 10. Furnish and install flow inter, pit, electrical 1,656.00 _ work 11. Furnish, construct modifications and place 27,500.00 into operation Pebble Bay Pumping Station North 12. Furnish, construct and place into operation 45,000.00 Pebble Bay Ping Station South 13. Furnish, construct and place into operation 55,000.00 Pumping Station No. 1 (5) 14. Furnish, construct and place into operation 570.00 Pumping Station No. 2 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 172,558.50 ESTIMATED E24GINEERING FEES $ 6,500.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 179,058.50 1. Would not have to provide sewer only service. =,2. Acquire area for county park. 3. Acquire additional sewer treatment plant for possible use in other parts of the County. DISADVANTAGES 1. Most costly of the alternatives. 2. Unable to recapture capital cost. J. . J. J n• J. ` $110,000.00 has been previously approved by the Board for this project. RECON M7DATION It is reconmended that: 1. Alternative 2 be adopted by the Board of County Coarissioners. 2. A County 'CaiTassioner or a committee of Com. issioners be appointed to develop alternative means of financing. FOOTNOTES: 9 The County agrees to pay the cost to construct a 6" force main from Master Station No. 1 to the north City limit per page 4. paragraph 7 of the Tripartite Agreement. 1,580 L.F. @ $9.50/ft. = $15,010.00 (2) The County's pavement replacement cost is 57% of 185 L.F. @ $10.00/L.F. = $1,055.00. The 185 L.F. is pavement replacement for construction of force main from Master Pump Station No. 1 to the north City limits. See page 4, paragraph 7 of the Tripartite Agreement. (3) Total cost of 10" force main connection is $3,000.00. County's share is based on tilt, cost of a 6" force main connection equal to $800.00. See page 4, paragrpah 7 of the Tripartite Agreement. (4) Total cost of meter and pit is $12,000.00. County's share is 13.8 of $12,000.00. See Appendix A, Item III. (5)Total cost for Master Pump Station No. 2 is $57.000.00. County's share of cost is lw of $57.000.00. See Appendix A, Item II. ENGINEER JOHN ROBBINS GAVE A BRIEF HISTORY RELATING TO THIS MATTER. IN 1978 THE COUNTY DECIDED TO IMPROVE THE PEBBLE BAY SYSTEM BECAUSE OF VARIOUS VIOLATIONS, SPECIFICALLY THE TREATMENT PLANT AND THE VERA CRUZ PUMPING STATION. HE WENT ON THAT THE SYSTEM WAS ABANDONED BY THE DEVELOPER, LOWELL LOHMAN, AND CITATIONS WERE ISSUED BY THE DER. THE JOINT VENTURE THEN MADE RECOMMENDATIONS, PLANS WERE PREPARED, AND PERMITS WERE RECEIVED — ESTIMATES FOR THE IMPROVE— MENTS WERE $106,500 — BUT BIDS WERE REJECTED AND NEGOTIATIONS WERE OPENED UP BETWEEN THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, AND THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES. MR. ROBBINS STATED THAT ONE CONDITION OF THAT AGREEMENT WAS -THAT THE COUNTY AND TOWN WOULD WORK JOINTLY ON THE SYSTEM, WHICH WOULD BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND TURNED OVER TO THE CITY. HE CONTINUED THAT DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, ANNEXATION WAS CANCELLED FOR AREAS WHICH INCLUDE THE 7-11 STORE, ECKERD'DRUG STORE, AND PEBBLE BEACH VILLAS CONDOMINIUM; IT HAS ALL NOW BEEN RETURNED TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, HE NOTED, STATE THAT THE COUNTY LOOKS AFTER THE COUNTY AND THE TOWN LOOKS AFTER THE TOWN. MR. ROBBINS COMMENTED THE BOARD MUST NOW AUTHORIZE THE INCORPORATION OF THOSE PROPERTIES AND THIS WOULD GO INTO WHAT IS THE COUNTY'S PUMP STATION #1, AND THE TOWN OF J U L 1 1991 45 wx 46 PAGE 777 boon 16 F-Af;r ` 7 INDIAN RIVER SHORES COULD CONSTRUCT A FORCE MAIN. HE REPORTED THAT SEA WATCH IS VESTED IN THE COUNTY'S PLAN. MR. ROBBINS POINTED OUT THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE: THE TOWN HAS COMMITTED TO PAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND PAY THEIR PRO -RATA SHARE FOR THE IMPACT ON THE PUMP STATION. WHICH ARE: DISCUSSION FOLLOWED CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF UNITS INVOLVED, 273 - PEBBLE BAY VILLAS 52 - PEBBLE BAY ESTATES 46 - HARBOR ISLAND 39 - SEA WATCH 79 - VERA CRUZ ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THEY WERE HOPING THERE WAS SOME WAY TO HAVE THE CITY OF VERO BEACH HELP PAY FOR THIS AS THEY WILL BE GETTING CUSTOMERS, PLUS AN OUTSTANDING SYSTEM. MR. ROBBINS NEXT DISCUSSED THE $157.50 CONNECTION FEE. HE ALSO FELT THAT $106,000 WAS AN ADEQUATE FIGURE TO REPAIR THE TWO LIFT STATIONS TO BRING IT UP TO DER STANDARDS. CHAIRMAN LYONS REPORTED THAT THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES WANTS TO GET BACK ECKERDS, 7-11, THE TRACKING STATION, AND THE COUNTY PARK. �IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT THE COUNTY MIGHT CONSIDER RELEASING THE PROPERTY, PROVIDED THE TOWN COULD GIVE THE CHAIRMAN A SATISFACTORY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE TOWN AS TO HOW THE COUNTY COULD OPERATE IN THAT AREA. HE STATED HE NEVER DID RECEIVE AN AGREEMENT. ATTORNEY COLLINS INTERJECTED THAT HE WOULD DEFINITELY ADVISE AGAINST AN AGREEMENT SUCH AS THAT. LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. IT WAS DECIDED THE COUNTY MUST FIND OUT WHAT THE INTENTIONS ARE OF THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES. ENGINEER ROBBINS SUMMARIZED THAT THE COUNTY MUST EITHER CONSIDER SPENDING $106,000 TO REPAIR A PACKAGE PLANT THAT IT FOREVER WILL OPERATE, AS OPPOSED TO SPENDING $179,000, AS OUTLINED IN ALTERNATIVE N0. 2 IN THE MEMO. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED A MUNICIPAL SERVICE DISTRICT COULD BE SET UP IN THE UNINCORPORATED ENCLAVE IN ORDER TO COLLECT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS BEING MADE. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER BIRD, APPROVING ALTERNATIVE No. 2, WITH FUNDS TEMPORARILY COMING FROM FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING, AND THAT A STUDY BE CONTINUED TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDS ELSEWHERE. ENGINEER ROBBINS WANTED CLARIFICATION TO PROCEED WITH MAKING THE ENGINEERING MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO INCORPORATE THIS WORK. THE BOARD AGREED, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 3 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT, AND COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. ARBITRATION WITH CONTRACTOR AND ARCHITECT ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT THE METHOD OF MEETING WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND ARCHITECT, FROM THE COUNTY'S STANDPOINT, IS MUCH BETTER THAN TRYING TO RESOLVE ISSUES WITH ONE PARTY AND THEN WITH THE OTHER PARTY. HE REITERATED THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD SEEK A DECLARATORY DECREE TO BRING THE THREE PARTIES TOGETHER WITH THE SAME FORM - THERE COULD BE A SERIES OF ARBITRATIONS AS THE ISSUES COME TO LIGHT AND IT WILL INCUR SUBSTANTIAL AND UNNECESSARY EXPENSE TO THE COUNTY AND IT COULD BE AVOIDED. THE BOARD DISCUSSED THIS MATTER BRIEFLY.` LYNN SNODGRASS, OF REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION, COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD REVIEW THE MATTER WITH HIS EMPLOYER, BUT THAT THEY HAVE NOT TAKEN A POSITION YET. HE ADDED THAT HE FELT THE MATTER WOULD BE DISCOURAGED AND COMMENTED THAT THE BOARD SHOULD PROCEED WITH WHATEVER ACTION IT HAS IN MIND. MR. SNODGRASS STATED THEY REALLY DID NOT FIND THE ARBITRATION PROCESS WOULD SERVE THEIR PURPOSES AT ALL, BUT WOULD LET THE BOARD KNOW IMMEDIATELY IF THEY DO CHANGE THEIR POSITION. ATTORNEY COLLINS ENCOURAGED MR. SNODGRASS TO AT LEAST TRY THIS PROCESS. mo% q PAGE 779 JUL 1 1991 47 JUL 1981 r -. POOK 4V3 `AGF 780 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO IMPLEMENT HIS RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD IN TERMS OF 'THE ARBITRATION PROCESS WITH THE ARCHITECT AND THE CONTRACTOR. SECURITY FOR COUNTY COMPLEX AT 41ST STREET THE BOARD NEXT CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING MEMO FROM ADMINIS- TRATOR NELSON: TO: Chairman, Board of County Commissioners FROM: County Administrator 1. Description and Conditions DATE: June 19, 1981 FILE: SUBJECT: Security for County Complex 4625 41st St. REFERENCES: Bid #6,0 for one Silent/Local Monitoring Security System, located on the perimeter fence at the County Complex, 4625 41st St., was opened on October 23, 1980. The Board awarded this.bid to Martin Security Co., Vero Beach, in the amount of $6975.00 plus $25.00 per month for monitoring and $50.00 per month for maintenance service. Subsequent to the bid award, Martin Security went out of business. I recommended at this time, that the Board re -award the bid to the next low bidder, Guardian Systems. The Guardian bid was $9822.47 plus $3.0.00 per month for monitoring and $60.00 per month maintenance service. We questioned Guardian as to why their bid was $2847.47 higher than the low bid and they offered the following information. The fence sensors used by Guardian are installed in conduit, rather than open type wire used by Martin. This feature eliminates false reports and reduces maintenance time. The multi -zone master control panel will further assist the security by identifying the section of the fence where the alarm condition occurred. The Board recommended at this time that Bid #60 be held in abeyance until the two old houses were removed from the complex. This was completed in April of this year. Security is vital at the complex to eliminate vandalism and stolen property during non -working hours. 2. Alternatives and Analysis We have two alternatives: An electronically operated security system or a personnel type security guard service. 171 M (A) Advantages: Electronically operated system 1. More economical to the County r 2. Provides a signal to the police if someone would jump the fence. 3. Pinpoints the exact section of the fence that was violated. 4. Provides electronic eyes to detect any movement in the yard or around the buildings. These eyes are positioned in such a manner that any stray animals will not set them off; in addition birds cannot trigger this system. 5: We have $12,938.45 in our current budget to fund this system. (B) Disadvantages: Electronically operated system 1. An intruder could enter the compound and quickly steal or vandalize and depart before Sheriff's Department could arrive. (C) Advantages: Personnel Security Guard Service 1. Provides a "roving guard" to detect and possibly capture any intruders. 2. Guards are provided mobile radios so they can be in immediate contact with the Sheriff's Department. 3. Provide a record of any employee entering the area after normal working hours. This record would show the employees name, the time and date, the reason, and the person authorizing the entry. (D) Disadvantages: Personnel Security Guard Service 1. More costly to the County, $21.,600.00, first year versus $10,842.00, difference - $10,758.00 2. More costly each subsequent year, $21,600.00 versus $1020.00, difference - $20,580.00. 3. Adequate funds not available this fiscal year, additional funds would have to be budgeted for fiscal year 1981-82. 3. Recommendation I recommend we acquire the electronically operated security system as presented by Guardian Security Systems, Inc. Neil A. Nelson COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, AS THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT HEAVY EQUIPMENT IS A HIGHLY DESIRABLE ITEM, BUT THE COUNTY HAS LOST JUST ONE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT TO DATE. HE MENTIONED THAT THE NIGHT CREW CLOSES DOWN THE JUL 1 1981 49 F -ON 46 PAGE 781 JUL 1 1981 E"l COUNTY COMPLEX ABOUT.10:00 OR 11:00 P.M. HE ADDED THAT THE SECURITY SYSTEM IS NOT CRITICAL BUT WOULD BE DESIRABLE TO HAVE. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, BUT NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE BOARD AT THIS TIME. DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDING THE ITEMS THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO REPAIR THE JAIL, AND WHO WOULD BE THE FOCAL POINT IN THIS MATTER. ADMINISTRATOR -NELSON STATED HE WOULD WORK WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND COMPILE A PRIORITY LIST FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW OF THE REPAIRS AND THE -.COSTS INVOLVED TO PUT THE JAIL IN A SAFE AND USABLE CONDITION. ll` ► i�► Y.' �� 1 'ISI ►...� ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT AS PART OF THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER PROGRAM, THE COUNTY IS REPRESENTING TO FMHA THAT THEY HAVE THE EASEMENTS TO LAY THE LINES BUT ON OSLO ROAD THERE ARE SOME QUESTION- ABLE AREAS. HE CONTINUED THAT STATUTES SAY THAT IF THE COUNTY CONSTRUCTS AND MAINTAINS A ROAD FOR A PERIODJOF FOUR YEARS, THEN THEY CAN ACQUIRE TITLE TO IT. THE ATTORNEY THEN EXPLAINED THE METHOD TO DO THIS, WHICH INCLUDES A SURVEY. HE THEN ASKED THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL TO HAVE THE ENGINEER PREPARE A MAINTENANCE MAP, AND THEN HAVE THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS SIGN THE DOCUMENT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ENGINEER TO PREPARE A MAINTENANCE MAP, AND AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE OF THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS ON THE DOCUMENT. THE FOLLOWING CHANGE ORDERS SIGNED BY ADMINISTRATOR NELSON PER COMMISSION.AUTHORIZATION OF AUGUST 11, 1979, ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES: ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: N0. 48 AND NO. 49 CHANGE OWNER ARCHIT[CT ❑ B ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ A/A DOCUMENT G701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County (name, address) Administration Building TO (Contractor) F Reinhold Construction inc. P.O.eox 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 43 7 ARCHITECT'S PROTECT NO:9363 CONTRACT FORAdd 1 t Ions and Renovations L I CONTRACT DATER -2-80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP -87A In hallway S-159 provide a shelf azii rai& as shown on sheet 10 of 47 In addendum no. 1. At the oNners request. CP -90 Connect the relOC3ted existing fan coil unit in room 5238 to 120V circuit 28-27. At the ownBrs request. _ Total $2, k22.77 $1,527.12 $595.65 The proposed changes In the work may result in additional time required beyond the contract completion date. Additional time will be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The eontractof mill be paid for the addltfonal required 'days at the rate ofS300.00.(three hundred) per day for faxed overhead costs. The number of days requested are not reflected in the attached documents. The original Contract Suer was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,748,000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 290,071.45 The Contract Suns prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ , 3,038,071.45 . The Contract Sum will be (increased) this Change Order . . . $ 2.122.77 . The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . S 3,040,194.22 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by [- - - ) Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is CONNELL METCALF t EDDY ARCHITECT 132n So- n1m1e stla-hwav Address DATE REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. CONTRACTO P n Anx �5 Address Cocoa, FL 32922 By DATE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 214RS14th Ave Address I . Vero Beach, FL 32960 tl • �. I. . DATE _ Iw ifz. - AIA DOCUMENT GM • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAO • ® 1970 • THE ONE PAGE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS. 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 2MM JUL 1 199151 �009 4 PACE 783 r JUL 1 1981 BDG(• 4u- pnF 734 CHANGE OWNER ARCHITtCT B ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMENT 0701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 49 (name.address) Administration Building TO (Contractor) ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO:9363 r Reinhold Construction Inc. CONTRACT fORAdditlons_and Renovations P.O.Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 L CONTRACT DATE:4-2-80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP -103 Remove adjust aihd reinstall ten existing plastic laminate $792.61 Item 1 covered doors which -do not operate properly. Item 2 Additl3nal work to provide vertical soffits at spaces $716.09 N103, S101, W134, W148 & 2nd floor cboset, at the owners request to resolve unforeseen problems. Item 3 Additional work to provide vertical soffits at spaces $$29.87 ,W122, W123, and N145 at the owners request to resolve _ unforeseen problems. Total $2,338.57 The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time required beyond the contract completion date. Additional time will be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The contractof will be paid for the additional required 'days :n rate of$300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead The number of days requested are not reflected in the attached ,,,,,currents. The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2,748,000,00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2.92 ,194.22 The Contract -Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 3,040,194.22 The Contract Sum will be (increased) WJXfty t$tXXKftI Jt* by this Change Order. . . $ 2,338-57 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . S 3,042,532.79 'The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by (- - ) Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is CONNELL METCALF S. EDDY ARCHITECT i37n So-_ n l v i w m l ahwsa_ Address 0 DATE f-71 f REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. CONTRACTOR Address esc 666 Cocoa. FL 32922 l;Y DATE 7' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY OWNER 244 14th Ave - Vero Beach FL 32960 A BY +� GATE AIA DOCUMENT GM • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 11'70 EDITION • AIA® • a 1970 • THE ONE PAGE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS. 1735 NEW YORK AYE., NW. WASMINGTON. D.C. 200DS ME folwar3wel AGREEMENT BETWEEN ISAAC ROACH AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF .JUNE 17, 1981. BOOK '� PAGF 7 5 JUL1 191 53 J U L 1 1981 AGREEMENT r9 _ BOGS °4 �,g 786 THIS AGREEMENT entered into the 17th day of June, 1981, by and between ISAAC ROACH, individually and as temporary Chair- man of the Treasure Coasters Repeater Association, hereinafter referred to as "ROACH", and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY", their heirs, successors and assigns, WHEREAS, ROACH has requested COUNTY to allow ROACH the use of a COUNTY tower located at Kiwanis Hobart Park for a repeater radio station, and WHEREAS, COUNTY determines that the installation of a repeater station on the tower would be in the public benefit, increasing communications in the case of emergency or disaster, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises, the parties agree as follows: 1. COUNTY shall allow ROACH to install a repeater radio station at the Kiwanis Hobart Park which installation would include the placing of a small cabinet, 4' x 2' x 11, antenna wire and antenna on the tower. 2. The installation of the repeater radio station will have no adverse impact on the COUNTY tower. 3. COUNTY shall grant to ROACH or ROACH's designee the right of access to the tower at reasonable times as shall be jointly worked out between ROACH and the COUNTY Administrator. 4. ROACH agrees to carry public liability insurance and property insurance covering COUNTY from liability, said policy shall be in a minimum amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) and shall be acceptable in form to COUNTY. 5. ROACH agrees to indemnify and hold COUNTY harmless from any and all liability that may result from the installation of the repeater radio station on the COUNTY tower, which indem- nification includes court costs and attorneys' fees. 6. Both parties agree that this Agreement may be termin- ated upon thirty (30) days' notice to the other, and in the event COUNTY gives notice of termination, all equipment shall be removed from the COUNTY tower within the thirty (30) day time frame, and the COUNTY tower restored to its previous condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. SEAL , Mr, WAM dl�001-141' t ISAAC ROACH, ndividually and as Temporary Chairman of the Treasure_ Coasters Repeater Association INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: J U L 1 1981 8000 46 7W -1 1. � �10 mo 46 Fm r 7,S8 THE SEVERAL BILLS AND ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE COUNTY, HAVING BEEN AUDITED, WERE EXAMINED AND FOUND TO BE CORRECT, WERE APPROVED AND WARRANTS ISSUED IN SETTLEMENT OF SAME AS FOLLOWS: TREASURY FUND NOS. 71055 - 71260 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 AUDITOR, REFERENCE TO SUCH RECORD AND LIST SO RECORDED BEING MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, THE, BOARD ADJOURNED AT 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: CLERK C IRM N