Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
8/5/1981
=I WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1981 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MET IN REGULAR SESSION AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1053 20TH PLACE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 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; R. STEPHEN HOULIHAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; .JEFFREY K. BARTON, FINANCE DIRECTOR; DAN FLEISCHMAN, BAILIFF; AND JANICE CALDWELL AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERKS. L. S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR, WAS ABSENT DUE TO ILLNESS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. CHAIRMAN LYONS LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, AND REVEREND DELMAS COPELAND, FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, GAVE THE INVOCATION. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA, THERE WERE NONE, COMMISSIONER WODTKE INQUIRED WHEN THE VILLAGE GREEN .URI MATTER WAS SCHEDULED TO BE PUT ON THE AGENDA AS THERE WAS A 30 DAY TIME LIMIT FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON JULY 29, 1981. NO SPECIFIC DATE WAS NOTED AT THIS TIME FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR REVIEW. APPROVAL OF MINUTES THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 1, 1981. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 1, 1981, AS WRITTEN. Boob- 47 PAGE 15 J OOM PAGE AUG 5198 B 16 THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 2, 1981. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 2, 1981, AS WRITTEN. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 13, 1981. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER'_WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 13, 19811 AS WRITTEN. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 14, 1981. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 14, 1981, AS WRITTEN. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 15, 1981. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REFERRED TO PAGE 58 WHERE MENTION WAS MADE TO THE YEAR 1980. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE VOTED IN OPPOSITION AT THIS MEETING,:SINCE HE WAS NOT A COMMISSIONER AT THAT TIME. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REFERRED TO PAGE 45 AND DISCUSSED PARAGRAPH 4 REGARDING THE INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PROJECT, AND QUESTIONED WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD HAD VOTED FORMAL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. COMMISSIONER WODTKE AFFIRMED THERE HAD BEEN DISCUSSIONS AND THE CONSENSUS WAS THAT INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD WAS TO BE -CONTINUED AS PLANNED, AND BUILT. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT HE AGREED WITH THE CONSENSUS; THE BOARD HAD ENTERED INTO A DISCUSSION AND HE EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT, BUT WOULD SUPPORT IT - HE WANTED TO LOOK AT THE COST FIGURES. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK THEN REFERRED TO PAGE 46, PARAGRAPH 5 AND ASKED IF IT WAS ATTORNEY COLLINS WHO "POINTED IT OUT TO BE IN THE RECORD. If SOME DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE DID NOT THINK ATTORNEY COLLINS WAS ASKED TO GIVE HIS LEGAL OPINION AT THAT TIME, IT WAS MERELY GENERAL DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT HE CHECKED WITH ROBERTS RULES, WHICH STATES THAT A SIMPLE MAJORITY, AND NOT A 4/5 VOTE, WAS ALL THAT WAS NECESSARY TO RECONSIDER AN ITEM. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF .JULY 15, 1981, AS WRITTEN. MR-gamplan ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE FOR DEPUTY CLARENCE EDWARDJDEPUY, JR. APPOINTED BY SHERIFF DOBECK, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE STATE WITNESS PAYROLL, CIRCUIT COURT, SPRING TERM, 1981, IN THE AMOUNT OF $102.48. THE FOLLOWING REPORT WAS RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK: RECEIPT FOR DEPOSIT OF COUNTY FUNDS, N0. 1335, FROM SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $644.50. CONSENT AGENDA COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REQUESTED THAT ITEM A BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM B --RELEASE OF EASEMENT - N1CK OSTANOSKI, JR, THE BOARD NEXT CONSIDERED THE RELEASE OF EASEMENT AS REQUESTED BY NICK OSTANOSKI, JR., AS NOTED UNDER #1 OF THE SUBJECT MATTER IN THE MEMO OF .JULY 23RD FROM ADMINISTRATOR NELSON, AS FOLLOWS: B00 47 PAGE 17 AUG -51981 3 A U G 51981 BOOK 7 PAGE 1 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 23, 1981 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners Requests for Release of SUBJECT: Easement 1. Release of 5' public utility and drainage easement on the common side lot lines of lots 23 & 24, Block B, Oslo Park #3 Subdivision. 2. Release of public utility and drainage �# J' easement on the north 101 of lots 11 & FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: 12, west 5' of lot - 11, & County Administrator south 5' of lot 10, Oslo Park Unit III Subdivision DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Request for the above subject release of easements has been received and the following agencies have reviewed the releases: 1. Southern Bell Telephone Company 2. Florida Power and Light -Company 3. Indian River County..Right=of-�4ay/Engineers Department 4. Indian River County Utilities Department ALTERNATIVES AND -ANALYSIS Based upon'the*staff review and.responses, there are no objections to the release of these easements. - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Recommend approval for the release of the above subject easements and that the release of easement instrument and resolutions.be approved and executed by the Chairman. There are no funding considerations to be considere-d for this item. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-47 RELEASING THOSE COMMON SIDE LOT EASEMENTS LYING BETWEEN LOTS 23 AND 24, BLOCK B, OSLO PARK, UNIT 3, AS REQUESTED BY PACK CSTANOSKI, JR. r �a RESOLUTION NO. 81-47 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release those common side lot easements lying between Lots 23 and 24, Block B, Oslo Nark, Unit 3, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 45, page 306, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo Park for public utility purposes; and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement has been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE I -i RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the public rights on the following common lot line easements in Oslo Park, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: Those common side lot easements lying between lots 23 and 24, Block B, Oslo Park, Unit #3, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4, page 19 , Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements here- inabove referred to in form proper for recording and piacing;^in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This 5th day of Aug. 1981. V Attest: Freda Wright,.'Cler -AUG.5 1981 BOARD OF C IiNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN V COUNTY, FLORIDA By (�P;/ft Lyons, Chair a BQOK _ I PACE �9 RELEASE OF EASEMENT BOOK 1s 7 PAGE 2a 0 This Release of Easement, executed this 5th day of August , 1981, by the board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, first party, to Nick Ostanoski, Jr., whose mailing address is 1941 Leishman Avenue, Arnold, PA 15068 second party: WITNESSETH: That the said party of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon .and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the public rights, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easement,- lying on land situate in the County of Indian River, State of Florida, to -wit: Those common side lot easements lying between lots 23 and 24, Block B, Oslo Park, Unit #3, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4, page 19 , Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining an.d all estate, right, title, interest, equity and clai-m whatsoever of the said first party either in law or equity to the proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law the day and year above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA n Attest: �c� reda Wright, C1 e.! :•<.,�. .. ..:.�.vyx; . ..... L:.. •. �_._:.e .xG-siirsi.��r ,... �w:p..s .-.. ��?�:rtitnS, w: "r:� ru.tc::". .: .,E.-.. r: .;x" �..I��t:.' .w7.. ,_,ss -H.:. '!'t, ��e:3e�aY.e...rre:.K.:F ?3i.>,r �.rs-_. _.:1.�?d c,.a ✓%,a&'s�._:_. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF IiIDIAN RI':ER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknoviledgements personally appeared, PATRICK B. LYONS, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to me known to be the persons duly authorized by said County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision. WITNESS my hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this k57 day of 1931. (Notary Seal) CL. Notary Pub] 'c State of FloriVat Large My cormissi expires: - "OTARY PUBLIC STATLOF FLORIDA AT LAia 1AY COMMISSION EXPIRES Ally 8 1982 fD THRU GMX •,L INS. 44)ERWA I Tl3 BOOK 47 -FACE �� BOOK 4 7 PACE 2,9 THE BOARD NEXT DISCUSSED THE RELEASE OF SEEDING MAINTENANCE BOND FOR TURTLE COVE SUBDIVISION, AS FOLLOWS: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: July 14, 1981 FILE: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Request for Release of Seeding Maintenance Bond - Turtle Cove Subdivision FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Final Plat approval of Turtle Cove Subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissioners during their March 25, 1981 meeting subject to the placement of a $4,140.40 seeding bond. The owner, Mr. Richard P.: Letsinger, has requested via letter dated July 7, 1981 release of said bond since germination has occurred. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Engineering Division has inspected the subject site and has deter- mined that germination has occurred even though many weeds are also present. Erosion -problems should not occur. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Recommend release of the $4,140.40 seeding maintenance bond for Turtle Cove Subdivision. Funding to be from the County's escrow account. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 51-48 RELEASING THE SEEDING MAINTENANCE BOND FOR TURTLE COVE SUBDIVISION. RESOLUTION NO. 81 - 48 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the seeding maintenance bond posted by Turtle Cove Subdivision in the amount of $4,140.40; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Division has inspected the site and has determined that germination has occurred; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the seeding maintenance bond posted on behalf of Turtle Cove Subdivision be released to the owner, Mr. Richard P. Letsinger. DATED this 5th day of August, 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Attest: Freda Wright Clerk 500K 4V7 PAGE 23 AUG - 51991 A U G 5 1991 ITEM D - RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE BOND Bo6K 4 7 FACE24 THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM CONCERNING RELEASE'OF MAINTENANCE BOND FOR KINGSLAKE SUBDIVISION; TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 24, 1981 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Request for release of Maintenance Bond for Kingslake Subdivision FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: Letter: S.P. Musick, County Administrator Agent, to Mr. Neil A. Nelson, dated July 13, 1981 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Mr. Musick, agent for the developer, has requested release of the $5,500. seeding bond required by the Board upon approval of the Final Plat of Kingslake Subdivision. The County Engineer has in- spected the work and has verified that seeding has germinated. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES Since seeding has germinated, erosion should not be occurring in this area. Release of bond should have no impact on the County's maintenance. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Based upon past County policy, the staff recommends release of the $5,500. maintenance bond for Kingslake Subdivision. - ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-49 RELEASING THE MAINTENANCE BOND FOR KINGSLAKE SUBDIVISION. 0 RESOLUTION NO. 81 - 49 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the seeding maintenance bond posted by Kings Lake Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Division has inspected the site and has determined that germination has occurred; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the seeding maintenance bond posted on behalf of Kings Lake Subdivision be released to the developer, Mr. Mac Champsee. DATED this 5th day of August, 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0 Attest: Freda Wright { Clerk AUG Z 1981 BOOK - 7 PAGE J BOOK 47 PAGE 29 THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM DATED .JULY 29,-1981 FROM THE BID COMMITTEE: TO; Chairman, Board of County DATE: July 29, 1981 FI LE: Commissioners SUBJECT: IRC Bid 4191 - (1) 1981 1/2 T. Pickup S (1) 1981 3/4 T. Pickup FROM: Chairman, REFERENCES: Bid Committee 1. A public meeting was held at 11:00 A.M., July 28, 1981 in the County Administrator's office, 2345 14th Ave., Vero Beach, F1. This meeting was advertised on June 30, July 1 and 2, 1981 in the Vero Beach Press Journal. 2. The purpose of this meeting was to open and record IRC Bid 491. This bid was for One New 1981 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck and One New 1981 3/4 Ton: Pickup Truck. These vehicles are to be used by the Sanitary Landfill. 3. The two vehicles to be traded in are: (1) 1973 Ford Sedan, Vehicle 41123 (condition fair, mileage 120,000 plus) (1) 1973 Chevrolet Pickup Truck, Vehicle 4x23 (condition poor, mileage 200,000 plus) 8 Bid Proposals sent out, 3 received Item #1. New 1981 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck Ft. Pierce Dodge $7699.30 Less trade-in, Vehicle 41123 (200,00) Total $7499.30 Dependable Dodge $7472.75 Less trade-in, Vehicle #123 (100,00) Total- $7372.75 Velde Ford $7819,81 Less trade-in, Vehicle 4123 (450.00) Total $7369.81 (Low Bidder) Item -462, New 1981 3/4 Ton Pickup Truck Ft. Pierce Dodge Less trade-in, Vehicle 4623 Dependable Dodge Velc% Ford Less trade-in, Vehicle 4623 Total $7769.33 (150.00) $7519.33 No Bid $7863.31 (400.00) Total $7463.31 (Low Bidder) The Bid Committee recommends this bid be awarded to the low bidder, Velde Ford for both vehicles. Delivery time - 30-45 days after receipt of Purchase Order. Fund Account - Sanitary Landfill 46411-217-534-66.42 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE BID OF VELDE FORD FOR A NEW 1981 1/2 TON PICKUP TRUCK IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,369.81, AND FOR A NEW 1981 3/4 TON PICKUP TRUCK IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,463,31, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BIDS MEETING SPECIFICATIONS. ITEM A - RELEASE OF EASEMENT - EMLET THE BOARD NEXT CONSIDERED THE RELEASE OF EASEMENT AS REQUESTED BY JEFFERY AND BRENDA EMLET, AS NOTED UNDER #2 OF THE SUBJECT MATTER IN THE MEMORANDUM OF .JULY 23RD FROM ADMINISTRATOR NELSON, AS FOLLOWS: 13 BOOT( - 47 PAGE 27. TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson County Administrator BOOK 47 PAGE 28 July 23, 1981 FILE: Requests for Release of SUBJECT: Easement 1. Release of 5' public utility and drainage easement on the common side lot lines of lots 23 & 24, Block B, Oslo Park #3 Subdivision. 2. Release of public utility and drainage eas,.:ment on the north 10' of lots 11 & REFERENCES: 12, west 5' of lot'* 11, & south 5' of lot 10, Oslo Park Unit III Subdivision DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Request for the above subject release of easements has been received and the following agencies have reviewed the releases: 1. Southern Bell Telephone Company 2. Florida Power and Light Company 3. Indian River County Right-of-'Uay/Engineers Department 4. Indian River County Utilities Department ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Based upon*the staff review and responses, to the release of these easements. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING there are no objections Recommend approval for the release of the above subject easements and that the release of easement instrument and resolutions be approved and executed by the Chairman. There are no funding considerations to be considered for this item. LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE SKETCH OF THIS PROPERTY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-50 RELEASING THE SIDE LOT LINE EASEMENTS, NAMELY THE NORTH 10' OF LOTS 11 AND 12, THE WEST 5' OF LOT 11 AND THE SOUTH 5' OF LOT 10, BLOCK B, OSLO PARK UNIT 3, AS REQUESTED BY JEFFERY AND BRENDA EMLET. RESOLUTION N0. 81-50 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the North 10' of Lots 11 and 12, the West 5' of Lot 11 and the South 5' of Lot 10, Block B, Oslo Park, Unit 3, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 4, page 19, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo Park, Unit 3 for public utility purposes; and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement has been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Oslo Park, Unit 3, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: The North 10' of Lots 11 & 12, the West 5' of Lot 11 and the South 5' of Lot 10, Block B, according to the Plat of the same filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 4, at page 19. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This 5th day of Attest: Freda Wright, Clerk August 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN-11tIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Pat Lyons, rman AIU G 51981 '7 PAGE �� . AUG 51991 RELEASE OF EASEMENT This Release of Easement, executed this F BOOK PAGE 30 5th day of August 1981, by th BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, first party; to Jeffery and Brenda Emlet, whose mailing address is 1496 20th Ave. S.W.,Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, second party:' WITNESSETH: That the said party of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon, and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easement, lying on land situate in the County of Indian River County, State of Florida, to-wi-t : The North 10' of Lots 11 and.12, the West 5' of Lot 11 and the South 5' of Lot 10, Block B, Oslo Park, Unit 3, asub- division as recorded in Plat Book 4, page 19, public records of Indian River County, Florida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining:and all estate, right, title, interest, equity and claim whatsoever of the said first party either in law or equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: L � / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA % Luv-�� STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER .M M I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take aeknoaledgements personally appeared, PATRICK B. LYONS, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to me known to be the persons duly authorized by said County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision. WITNESS my hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 5' day of�, 1981. (Notary Seal) M-7 ;;otary Pub ic, State or Flooda at Large My coni ion expires: NOTARY "LIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE MY COMMISSI M EXPIRES RAY S 1982 W THRU GEM -K *.L M, , UNDEW11 TUS BOOKPACE 31 ' .`.s � r = 1`.. •'�.-,�i �:•'�.' :�:}ice � �••� +�'.r. •. BOOK �� FACE 32 AUG 5 1981 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON SUGGESTED THAT INSTEAD OF READING THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION BIOLOGICAL AND WATER QUALITY AND ASSESSMENT REPORT INTO THE RECORD, A FULL PRESENTATION BE MADE ON AUGUST 19TH OF THE INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PROJECT. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY HOULIHAN COMMENTED THAT IN REVIEWING THE MINUTES, THERE WAS SOME UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THIS REPORT. HE ADVISED THAT THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT IS THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST APPROVE THE REPORT, AND IN THE PROCESS OF APPROVING THE PROJECT, A REPORT OF THIS NATURE MUST BE READ INTO THE RECORD. COMMISSIONER WODTKE REPORTED THAT THE BOARD HAD HIRED CONSULTANTS TO WORK -ON THIS PROJECT AND TO GET PERMITS TO BUILD THE ROAD. TO SAY THAT THE BOARD HAS NOT APPROVED INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD WAS AN ASININE STATEMENT, HE EMPHATICALLY STATED. COMMISSIONER: WODTKE THEN ASKED IF THE BOARD WAS SITTING THERE SAYING THAT WE HAVE N.OT APPROVED INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD BEING BUILT? COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED HE WAS. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED HE WAS. LOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD GO ON RECORD STATING THAT INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD IS TO BE BUILT AS PLANNED AND THAT THEY CONTINUE PROCEEDING WITH THE PROJECT. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK MENTIONED THAT HE HAD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PROJECT, AND SINCE HE WAS A NEW COMMIS- SIONER, HE DID NOT NECESSARILY APPROVE IT AND WOULD NOT STAND FOR HAVING IT RAMMED DOWN HIS THROAT. HE CONTINUED THAT THE BOARD HAS NEVER STATED TO THE PUBLIC THAT THIS ROAD WILL BE A MAJOR ARTERY - JUST DISCUSSION ABOUT RESPONSE TIME FOR AMBULANCES GOING TO THE NEW HOSPITAL. HEATED ARGUMENT FOLLOWED, AND COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT THE MOTION WAS OUT OF ORDER. CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT FOR THE PAST 2-2, YEARS THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN WELL AWARE OF THE INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PROJECT, THROUGH PUBLICITY, AND THAT HE PERSONALLY HAD BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN TRYING TO GET PERMITS TO PUT IN INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, WHICH INCLUDED TRIPS TO TALLAHASSEE. HE ADDED THAT THEY FINALLY GOT APPROVAL ON THE BASIS THAT THE COUNTY PLACE THAT ROAD AS FAR WEST AS POSSIBLE, TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECT ON THE WETLANDS. CHAIRMAN LYONS WAS BOTHERED THAT THIS HAD BEEN KNOWN BY THE PUBLIC FOR THE LAST 232- YEARS AND HE HAD BEEN WORKING HARD TO GET THAT ROAD THROUGH - IT IRRITATED HIM THAT NOW THERE WAS THIS LAST MINUTE FLURRY TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME. CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT IF COMMIS- SIONER VIODTKE'S MOTION WAS IN ORDER, HE WOULD VOTE YES, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT HE WAS SYMPATHETIC TO COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK'S VIEW. HE STATED THAT IF HE WERE TO VOTE THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE WITH INDIAtl RIVER BOULEVARD AND IT TURNED OUT THAT THE FUNDING WOULD BE MUCH GREATER THAN PLANNED, HE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE NEGATIVELY. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE COST OF THE PROJECT WHICH IS $3.8 MILLION, AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE INTERJECTED THAT IF IT IS KICKED AROUND FOR ANOTHER 2-:12, YEARS, IT WILL BE ANOTHER $3.8 MILLION. CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT THAT COMMISSIONER WODTKE'S MOTION WAS OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS ON THE AGENDA, COMMISSIONER BIRD INQUIRED WHAT THE BOARD COULD ANTICIPATE REGARDING THIS MATTER. CHAIRMAN LYONS -COMMENTED THAT A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING COULD BE ARRANGED. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON ADDED THAT IT SHOULD BE A PRESENTATION BY REYNOLDS, SMITH & HILLS, GIVING A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT WHAT WAS GOING TO BE DONE, WHERE THE ROAD WAS GOING, THE TYPE OF STRUCTURES TO BE USED, WHERE THE ROAD WILL CONNECT, ETC., IN OTHER WORDS, GIVE THE ENTIRE PICTURE OF WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. AUG 5-1991 19 800K �I PAGE 33 AUG 5 1981 �00�( 4, 7 PAGE 34- CHAIRMAN 4- CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT THE PROPERTY COST WOULD BE SOMEWHAT HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ROAD WAS GOING WEST AS FAR AS IT COULD, AND THIS WOULD LEAVE SOME OF THE PROPERTY IN THE AREA USELESS. HE CONTINUED THAT IF THEY HAD BEEN ABLE TO GO FARTHER EAST, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CUT SOME PROPERTY INTO SUCH SMALL PIECES. THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT AS AN ENVIRONMENTALIST, HE WAS OPPOSED TO THE ROAD, BUT AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, HE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE ROAD BECAUSE IT WAS A NECESSITY. HE -ADDED THAT HE WOULD NOT BE A PARTY TO THE EXTENSION OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD NORTH OF BARBER AVENUE ON A RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS AS FAR EAST AS THE PRESENT ONE - IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERABLY FURTHER WEST. THE CHAIRMAN NOTED IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE HOSPITAL WAS BUILT WHERE IT WAS, BUT WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT. ANN ROBINSON, INTERESTED CITIZEN, STEPPED BEFORE THE BOARD AND COMMENTED THAT AFTER READING THE MINUTES OF JULY 15TH, IT WAS VERY CLEAR TO HER THAT AT LEAST TWO OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY OF THE MATERIAL. SHE THOUGHT THAT FOR THE SAKE OF: THE PUBLIC AND HAVING THE COUNTY'S BUSINESS CONDUCTED PROPERLY, IT :WAS IMPORTANT THAT ALL BOARD MEMBERS RECEIVE ALL AVAILABLE INFORMATION. MRS. ROBINSON REFERRED TO THE LAST MEETING WHEN THERE WAS A MOTION MADE FOR THIS ITEM TO BE RECONSIDERED; THERE WAS A MISTAKE REGARDING THE 4/5 VOTE. SHE ALSO READ ROBERTS RULES WHEREIN ONLY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE WAS NECESSARY IN THIS CASE. DISCUSSION ENSUED. COMMISSIONER BIRD POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD WAS BEING WHIPPED AGAIN OVER AND OVER REGARDING THE MATTER CONCERNING THE 4/5 VOTE. HE STATED THE BOARD WAS GOING TO RECONSIDER THIS MATTER. MRS. ROBINSON STRESSED THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND IT WAS DIFFICULT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE JULY 15TH MEETING. NOT ONLY WAS IT NECESSARY TO READ THE BIOLOGICAL REPORT INTO THE MINUTES, SHE CONTINUED, BUT IT WAS NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE PERMIT APPLICATION. IN ORDER TO PROPERLY TEND TO THE PUBLIC BUSINESS, SHE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE BOARD DID NOT WELCOME SOME KIND OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. CHAIRMAN LYONS REVIEWED WHAT OCCURRED AT THE LAST MEETING: MRS. ROBINSON WAS STANDING TALKING TO THE ENGINEER, AND HE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THAT; HE DID NOT SEE HER GO TO THE PODIUM. HE CONTINUED THAT THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE MATTER AND CALLED FOR THE VOTE - HE DID NOT SEE HER, THERE WAS NO NOISE, AND THE VOTE WAS TAKEN. THE CHAIRMAN STATED THEY DID HAVE A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET HER MATERIAL INTO THE RECORD; HE VOTED "YES" TO RECONSIDER BUT THE VOTE TURNED OUT, WHICH THE BOARD THOUGHT TO BE CORRECT, THAT IT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. HE CONTINUED THAT NOW IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP TODAY FOR RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ENOUGH INPUT. HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE BOARD HAD TO GO BACK OVER WHAT HAPPENED ON JULY 15TH. CHAIRMAN LYONS EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS TRYING TO LIMIT MRS. ROBINSON'S REMARKS AS TO WHAT HAD NOT ALREADY BEEN COVERED; AND JUST IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, AND NOT TO TRY TO SHUT HER OFF. HE WAS WILLING TO DO ANYTHING TO HELP THIS PROJECT ALONG, AND HE THOUGHT IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF CONFRONTATION, AS HE DID NOT THINK IT WAS NECESSARY. WILLIAM J. STEWART, ATTORNEY FOR THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND REMINDED THE BOARD THAT THE DISTRICT ADOPTED A RESOLUTION IN AN ATTEMPT TO EXPEDITE THIS PROJECT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, AND IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AT THAT TIME. HE CONTINUED THAT THE HOSPITAL STILL STANDS READY AND WISHED TO MAKE THAT POINT KNOWN TO THE BOARD. ATTORNEY STEWART RE- EMPHASIZED THAT WHATEVER PROGRAM THE BOARD ADOPTS TO GET TO THE POINT TO RESOLVE THIS, THEIR SUGGESTION WAS THAT THE BOARD GET IT DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AS THE DELAY WAS EXPENSIVE. HE REITERATED THAT IT CAN GET TO BE SO EXPENSIVE, IT CAN GET TO THE POINT THAT THE PROJECT CANNOT BE DONE AT ALL. ATTORNEY STEWART COMMENTED*THAT IF THE BOARD FELT IT WAS NECESSARY TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING -ABOUT SOME- THING THE COUNTY HAS LONG BEEN AWARE OF, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AUG 51981 21 Book PAGE �5 . r aoUK �� UG 5 1981 pact WILLIAM KOOLAGE, INTERESTED CITIZEN, FELT THAT MOST OF THE PUBLIC THOUGHT THAT THE VERY BASIC REASON FOR'HAVING INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD WAS THE RESPONSE TIME IN GETTING PEOPLE TO THE HOSPITAL. NOW HE IS HEARING SOMETHING DIFFERENT AS TO HOW CRITICAL THE ROAD IS, AND THOUGHT THIS MAY BE A REASON FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INPUT. COMMISSIONER WODTKE WITHDREW HIS MOTION AND COMMISSIONER BIRD WITHDREW HIS SECOND. ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CHAIRMAN TO MAKE THE APPROPRIATE CONTACTS WITH THE CITY, AND REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS, IN ORDER TO ARRANGE A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE REGARDING THE INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PROJECT. REVISED PETITION PAVING PROGRAM - ORDINANCE 8I-27 THE HOUR OF 9:30 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a;-z�c in the matter of�/�1 in the [!shed in said newspaper in the issues of ��u r rTTa Court, was pub - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper, Sworn to and subscribed befgxq meAhis /T1 &;, [day ofA.DIT (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Cou usiness Manager) River County, Florida) NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on August 5, 1981, at 9:30 a.m., in the City Council Chambers in .the Vero Beach city Hall, to consider the adoption of an Ordinance establishing procedures by which the Board of County Commissioners may provide for local services or improvements on a special assessment basis,. upon its own initiative or upon 'petition of owners to be benefited thereby; providing requirements and form of petitions; providing for enactment of specific ordinance for the service or im- provement, its publication and adoption; providing for implementation of services or improvement; providing for preparation of preliminary assessment roll and hearing thereon; providing for, notice to owners; providing for final assessment roll; providing for payment of assessments; providing for assessments to constitute a lien; designating entities subject to assessment; authorizing sale of liens; providing for corrections in the assessment roll; providing authority to borrow funds; providing for severability; providing for repeal of prior and conflicting laws and J 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 which the appeal is based. Board of County Commissioners ' Of Indian River County, Florida By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons Chairman July 16, 1981. . THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO BE HEARD, THERE WERE NONE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE BOARD PROCEEDED TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS WERE DISCUSSED: SECTION II (PETITION BY OWNERS) SECTION V (INITIATION BY COUNTY COMMISSION) SECTION XII (NOTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS) SECTION XVI (ENTITIES SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT) AND SECTION XVII (AUTHORITY TO SELL LIENS) A.0 5 -1981 23 600( PACE 37, A U G 5 1991 DcE LENGTHY DISCUSSION ENSUED AND THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS WERE SUGGESTED: TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD BE ASSESSED; TO USE CERTIFIED MAIL TO NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNERS; AND TO HAVE 66.7% OF THE OWNERS OF THE LAND INVOLVED PETITION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT. CITY COMPTROLLER THOMAS MASON CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND EXPLAINED HOW THE CITY OF VERO BEACH HANDLED THEIR PAVING PROGRAM ON THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BASIS-. HE EXPLAINED THAT THEIR PROGRAM BEGAN IN 196+ IN WHICH SEED MONEY WAS PLACED INTO A REVOLVING ACCOUNT. AFTER COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PAVING PROGRAM, FIRST PAYMENT IS SCHEDULED TO BE PAID WITHIN 90 DAYS, AND THEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE 3 YEARS TO PAY FOR THE BALANCE. REGARDING THE SEWER PROGRAM, PROPERTY OWNERS ARE ALLOWED 6 MONTHS FOR THE INITIAL PAYMENT, AND THE BALANCE TO BE PAID IN 5 YEARS. HE THEN SPOKE ABOUT THEIR COMPUTER PROGRAM AND THAT THEY MAINTAIN AWARENESS OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS. MR. NASON THEN DISCUSSED THE CITY'S PETITION PROCESS WHERE THEY MUST HAVE 50% PARTICIPATION; THEY ESTABLISH A COST "NOT TO EXCEED! AND OBTAIN BIDS. WHEN THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED AND THE COSTS COME IN LESS THAN ANTICIPATED, THE MONEY IS RETURNED TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, HE ADVISED. MR. NASON STRESSED THAT THEY MUST HAVE 50% PETITION PARTICIPATI'ON' BEFORE MEETING WITH THE OWNERS INVOLVED, AND IF THEY ARE STILL AT 50%, THEN THE CITY PROCEEDS WITH THEIR PROGRAM. MR. NASON STATED THAT THE CITY FILES A LIEN IMMEDIATELY, AND SO FAR HAVE NOT HAD TO SUE FOR THE LIENS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON FELT THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM IN SETTING UP THE ASSESSMENT ROLL ON THE COMPUTER, ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED THE 66.7% FIGURE AS OPPOSED TO THE 75% PETITION FIGURE SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE. HE ADDED THAT ALL THE 66.7% FIGURE WAS DOING WAS MAKING A GROUP ELIGIBLE TO PETITION TO COME TO THE BOARD - THE COUNTY WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE PEOPLE TO MAKE THIS PETITION. IT WAS STRESSED THAT THE BOARD DOES HAVE THE FINAL WORD, AS FAR AS THE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS WERE CONCERNED. _I 77 COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT THAT IT WAS NECESSARY THAT THE SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY RECOGNIZED COUNTY STANDARDS. CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED CHANGING THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THIS INITIAL PAYMENT ASSESSMENT TO BE WITHIN 90 DAYS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE 81-27.. ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES BY WHICH THE BOARD MAY PROVIDE FOR LOCAL SERVICES OR IMPROVEMENTS ON A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BASIS, AS AMENDED. 25 BOOK 7 PAGE 39 AUG �9�1 BOOK FA _0. ORDINANCE NO. 81 - 27 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES BY WHICH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY PROVIDE FOR LOCAL SERVICES OR IMPROVEMENTS ON A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BASIS, UPON ITS OWN INITIATIVE OR UPON PETITION OF OWNERS TO BE BENEFITTED THEREBY; PROVIDING REQUIRE- MENTS AND FORM OF PETITIONS; PROVIDING FOR ENACTMENT OF SPECIFIC ORDINANCE FOR THE SERVICE OR IMPROVEMENT, ITS PUBLICATION AND ADOPTION; PROVIDING FOR IMPLE- MENTATION OF SERVICES OR IMPROVEMENT; PROVIDING FOR PREPARATION OF PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL AND HEAR- ING THEREON; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE TO OWNERS; PROVID- ING FOR FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL; PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENTS TO CONSTI- TUTE A LIEN; DESIGNATING ENTITIES SUBJECT TO ASSESS- MENT; AUTHORIZING SALE OF LIENS; PROVIDING FOR COR- RECTIONS -IN THE ASSESSMENT 17OLL; PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO BORROW FUNDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVID- ING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR AND CONFLICTING LAWS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION I: The Authorization. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County is authorized to improve and establish services and improvements.. Such services and improvements, performed'or constructed according to County standards, to include: a. Streets and Roads b. Water and Sewage Systems c. Water and Sewage Treatment Plants d. Drainage e. Streetlighting f. Sidewalks g. Such other services or facilities which may be deemed essential. The Board is authorized to provide for the payment of the whole or any part of the cost thereof by levying and collecting special assessments upon property deemed to benefit by such improvement. Procedures which may be used for determining benefit shall include but not be limited to: a. Front footage, including a flat rate front foot charge for similar projects b. Area benefited c. Distance from improvement d. A combination of such methods e. The establishment of a benefit district which shall include all property within fixed boundaries. _I M M SECTION II: Petition by Owners. Whenever two-thirds or 66.7 percent, or more, of the owners of the lands involved in the benefited area or the owners of two-thirds or 66.7 percent, or more, of the lands involved in the benefited area deem it desira- ble to make demand in writing by petition, as hereinafter provided, that the County Commission make improvements or provide a service, and after public hearings to determine practicality and feasibility, the County Commission may adopt and enact, if it so desires, all appropriate and legally required ordinances or resolutions to make the improvements or provide the services designated in the written petition. SECTION III: Form of the Petition. The petition shall contain the following information: a. Specific designation of the boundaries of the area to be improved b. Specific designation of the improvements required c. Specific statement of the total number of feet of lots or land to be benefited by the improvements demanded d. Signatures of two-thirds or 66.7 percent, or more, of the owners of the lands involved in the benefited area or the owners of 66.7 percent, or more, of the lands involved in the benefited area. The specific legal description of the lots or land shall be set forth opposite the name or names of the signer or signers of the petition. e. Property ownership map. SECTION IV: Submission of the Petition. The petition shall be submitted to the County Administrator for administrative evalua- tion and review and for his recommendations to the County Commission. SECTION V: Initiation by County Commission. The Commission may initiate services and/or make improvements in its discretion and without petition. The Commission shall define the area to be included in such a special benefit area and shall have prepared a cost estimate of the project to be undertaken. SECTION VI: Preparation of the Resolution. When the Commis- sion shall determine to make an improvement or provide a service, AUG 5 1981 2 BOOK p� PAGE 41 AUG 5 1981 goo 7 PACE 42 then it shall so declare by resolution stating the nature of the proposed improvements, the total estimated cost, the method of payment of assessments, the number of annual installments and the legal description of area specially benefited. The estimated cost of the services and/or improvement shall include an estimate of the cost of preliminary and other surveys, inspection and superintendence of work; the preparation of the plans, specifications and estimate; the printing and publishing of notices and proceedings; the preparation and issuance of certifi- cates, and any other expenses attributable to the service or improvement. SECTION VII: Publication of Proposed -Resolution. The resolu- tion to be adopted shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area benefited once at least 15 days prior to adoption at any regular or special meeting of the Board -of County Commissioners. SECTION VIII: Adoption of Resolution. At the time and place designated in the notice, said Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed resolution and may adopt or reject same. SECTION IX: Iplementation of Services or Improvements. Upon passage of the resolution, the proposed project shall thereafter be specially designated and placed upon a special improvement work list for implementation, in proper sequence with other such projects, said project being conditioned upon the availability of funds in the Special Improvement Fund or Account. SECTION X: Preparation of the Preliminary Assessment Roll. At a convenient and reasonable time before beginning work, said Commis- sion shall cause to be prepared a preliminary assessment roll con- taining property descriptions and preliminary assessment of cost against each lot or parcel of land benefiting from such improvement. SECTION XI: Hearing to Consider Preliminary Assessment Roll. Upon completion of the preliminary assessment roll the Commission shall cause to be published once in a newspaper of general circula- tion in the benefited area a notice stating that such a preliminary assessment roll has been completed and is on file in the office of 3 M M the County Administrator, and is open to public inspection and that at regular meeting of said Commission on a certain day and hour, not earlier than 15 days from said publication, said Com- mission will hear all interested persons regarding the proposed assessments contained in the preliminary assessment roll, which notice shall further state in brief and general terms a description of the improvement with the location thereof. SECTION XII: Notification of Property Owners. At least 15 days prior to the date of such hearing notice by certified mail shall be sent to each person whose name and address is known or may be reasonably ascertained who is the owner of any lot or parcel of land assessed, advising him of the nature of the proposed improvements, the estimated cost thereof, the specific amount of assessment made against each lot or parcel of land so owned by him or listed in his name, and of the place, date and time of the hearing upon the assessments as hereinabove provided. SECTION XIII: Preparation of Final Assessment Roll. On or after the hearing provided for in this ordinance, the Commission shall either annul or sustain or modify in whole or in part the preliminary assessment indicated on the preliminary assessment roll, either by confirming the preliminary assessment against any or all lots or parcels described therein, or by cancelling, increasing or reducing the same, according to the special benefits which said Commission decides each lot or parcel has received or will receive by virtue of said improvement, but shall not confirm any assessment in excess of the special benefit to the property assessed or in excess of the flat rate approved and adopted for such projects. Immediately after the determination of special assessments as hereinbefore provided, the special assessment roll as sustained or modified shall be delivered to the Clerk of Indian River County and such determination of special assessments shall be final and conclusive. SECTION XIV: Payment of Assessment. Assessments made here- under shall become due and payable at the Office of the Tax AUG 4 MoK - 47 PAGE 43 AUG 5 1981 BOOK 47 PAGE 4 . Collector ninety days after the final determination of the special assessments as hereinbefore provided; all assessments not paid within said period shall thereupon become payable in equal annual installments in each of the ten succeeding years with interest established by the Board of County Commissioners. from the expira- tion of said thirty days, payable annually, unless the Commission shall fix a shorter period for the payment of annual installments; but any assessment becoming so payable in installments may be paid at any time together with interest accrued thereon to the date of the payment. SECTION XV: Assessments to Constitute a Lien. All special assessments for any improvements or services under the provisions of this law shall constitute liens upon the property assessed from the date of the adoption of the resolution ordering the improvement and shall be of the same nature and to the same extent as liens for general county taxes. Collection•of such special improvement assessment liens with such interest and penalties and with reasonable attorney's fee shall be made by foreclosure in the same manner as is provided for the foreclosure of mortgages, and it shall be lawful to join in any such foreclosure any one or more lots or parcels of land_, by'whoso- ever owned upon which such liens are delinquent, if assessed for special improvements made under the provisions of this ordinance. Failure to pay any installment of principal or interest of any assessment lien within 90 days of when such installment is due shall without notice or other proceedings cause all installments of princi- pal remaining unpaid to be forthwith due and payable with interest due thereon at date of default; but if before the sale of the proper- ty at foreclosure payment of the amount of such delinquency shall be paid with all penalties, interest, costs and attorney's fees, further installments of the principal shall cease to become due and payable and shall be due and payable at the time at which the same would be due if such default had not occurred. SECTION XVI: Entities Subject to Assessment. Indian River County and each school district, municipality or other political subdivision owning property which will benefit from the improvement 5 - W M 1 - r for which special assessments are made shall possess the same power and be subject to the same duties and liabilities with respect to the assessments under this ordinance affecting the real estate of such county, district, municipality or political subdivision which private owners of real estate possess or are subject to herein. Such real estate shall be subject to the liens of assessments in all cases to the same extent as if it had at the time of the lien attached been owned by a private owner. SECTION XVII: Authority to Sell Liens. For the purposes of financing of the special,improvements made under the provisions of this ordinance, the County may sell or agree to sell any or all of the special assessment liens assessed against the property benefited. Said liens shall be evidenced by special improvement lien certifi- cates signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and attested by the Clerk and shall be assigned by the County without recourse against the County in the event of a failure of payment. Said liens may be enforced by the person, firm or corporation to whom assigned or anyone holding them in the same manner as the County as provided by this ordinance, and the holder of such special improvement lien certificates may sue in their own names to enforce such liens. SECTION XVIII: Correction of Errors in the Assessment Roll. In case of any omission, error or mistake in making up the assessment roll, imposing special benefit assessment -liens, or in issuing special improvement lien certificates, the Commission may, at any time, correct such omission, errors or mistakes by resolution upon its own motion, provided such correction does not impose a greater special improvement assessment lien on any such lot or parcel of land. Any such correction which increases any such special benefit assessment lien on any lot or parcels of land or which adds any additional lots or parcels of land shall,.in the absence of written consent by�the property owners involved, be made only by re -accom- plishing each and every procedural requirement of this ordinance subsequent to the occurrence of such omissions, errors or mistakes. SECTION XIX: Authority to Borrow Funds. The County is authorized to borrow from any available sources such sums of money AUG 1 1 6 e0ox � PACE II 45 r BOOK AUG 5 1991 A FACE 46 as are necessary to defray the entire cost of such improvements; provided, however, the only security for such a loan shall be the assignment of the special improvement lien certificates to be issued for special improvements. SECTION XX: Severability. If any one or more of the provi- sions of this ordinance should be held contrary to any express provision of law or 'contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions of this ordinance and in no way shall affect the validity of all other provisions of this ordinance.. SECTION XXI: Repeal Prior and Conflicting Ordinances. That all sections or parts of sections of the Code of Ordinances of Indian River County, all ordinances or parts of ordinances, and all resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby.repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION XXII: Effective Date. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State by the Secretary to the Board of County Commissioners within ten (10) days after enactment, and this ordinance shall take effect upon receipt of official acknowledgment from that office that said ordinance has been filed. ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN OPEN MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED IN THE VERO BEACH CITY HALL, IN THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, THIS 5th DAY OF August , A.D. 1981. This Ordinance shall take effect August 10, 1981. 7 PAT FLOOD, JR., MAYOR OF SEBASTIAN, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND REQUESTED THAT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN GET TOGETHER TO DISCUSS ROAD PRIORITIES. HE SPOKE OF SEVERAL HAZARDS IN THE SEBASTIAN AREA AND WOULD LIKE TO GET THE HILL CUT DOWN -ON STATE ROAD 512, WHICH IS THE ROAD THE DOT IS PLANNING TO WIDEN. MAYOR FLOOD INQUIRED IF A TRAFFIC ENGINEER HAS BEEN HIRED BY THE COUNTY. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPLIED THAT THEY ARE STILL TRYING TO SECURE A TRAFFIC ENGINEER - THERE ARE NOT THAT MANY AROUND. DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT MAYOR FLOODS CONCERN OF THE HILL ON SR 512, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT COULD BE HANDLED AS A JOINT VENTURE. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT IT WOULD BE A CHANGE ORDER SITUATION, AND IF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND THE COUNTY SAID THEY WOULD FUND THE CHANGE ORDER, THEN POSSIBLY THEY COULD GET TOGETHER WITH THE DOT. AFTER MORE DISCUSSION, CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT LLOYD AND ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS, GET TOGETHER WITH ENGINEER JIM DAVIS AS TO THE COST OF REMOVING THE HILL. THE CHAIRMAN FELT THE COUNTY WOULD BE RETICENT TO FUND SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE FUNDED ENTIRELY BY THE STATE. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT THE TIME TO REMOVE THE HILL IS WHEN DOT WIDENS THE ROAD. MORE DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AND MAYOR FLOOD ADVISED THAT HE WOULD REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD OF HIS FINDINGS BY THE NEXT MEETING. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THE BOARD SHOULD AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY TO RESEARCH PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS WITH THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND THEN DRAFT A RESOLUTION TO REQUEST DOT TO CONSIDER INCLUDING, IN THE PROJECT OF WIDENING SR 5121 THE REMOVAL OF THE HILL AT.THAT LOCATION; AND THAT THEY CONTACT THE COUNTY AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN FOR A JOINT PARTICIPATION. HE FELT IT WAS A DANGEROUS ROAD - THE COUNTY WOULD NOT DE WILLING TO ACCEPT IT IN SUCH A DANGEROUS CONDITION. HE CONTINUED THAT WE SHOULD INSIST THAT IT BE DONE WHEN THE ROAD IS WIDENED AND IF IT REQUIRES JOINT FUNDING, THAT DECISION COULD BE MADE BEFORE THE ROAD IS WIDENED. AUG -5 991 1 �. � PAGE 4_ � �ooK _7 , 33 AUG 51981 BOOK7 PACE MAYOR FLOOD MENTIONED THAT HE HAS CORRESPONDED WITH SENATOR LEWIS OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS REGARDING THIS MATTER, CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED WE LET THE MENTION OF JOINT FUNDING OUT OF THE RESOLUTION AT THIS TIME. HE FELT WE SHOULD TAKE THE STAND THAT WE WILL -NOT ACCEPT THE ROAD WITH ITS PRESENT ALIGNMENT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-51 REQUESTING DOT TO CONSIDER INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF THE HILL AT THE WIDENING PROJECT AT SR 5121 AND THAT THE COUNTY WILL NOT ACCEPT THE ROAD WITH ITS PRESENT ALIGNMENT. CHAIRMAN LYONS INTERJECTED THAT MAYOR FLOOD IS SCHEDULED TO BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE AUGUST 19TH MEETING. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD WRITE TO THE MUNICIPALITIES IN THE COUNTY WITH THE INTENT THAT THE SERVICES OF A TRAFFIC ENGINEER WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM, ONCE ONE IS HIRED. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK SUGGESTED SENDING A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION TO THE ENTIRE DELEGATION, AND TO THE HEAD OF DOT. RESOLUTION NO. 81- 51 WHEREAS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY has previously passed Resolution 79-50 and the CITY OF SEBASTIAN has passed Resolutions 79-6 and 79-16, copies of which are attached hereto, regarding a traffic hazard near the interesection of State Road 512 and U. S. No. 1; and WHEREAS, to date, no action has been taken by the Department of Transportation in response to the Resolutions; and WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation is again put on notice as to the traffic hazard and request for action made by the above Resolutions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM- MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board requests that the traffic hazard be removed as set forth in prior Resolutions attached hereto, and puts the Department of Transportation on notice that the Board will not accept for maintenance State Road 512 until the hazard is abated and the alignment corrected in such a manner as to eliminate the current traffic hazard that exists. Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 5th day of August , 1981. BOARD 0 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY I P trick B. Lyon hairman Attest: Freda Wri.gh , ,C erk AUG i9oo1 800K - P PACE 49, � J 1 1 ► w, 50 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THERE IS A MEETING OF THE SAFETY COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 17, 1981 AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM AND HE WAS TRYING TO GET PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTIES TO ATTEND THIS, MEETING. CHAIRMAN LYONS REQUESTED PERMISSION TO TRAVEL TO TALLAHASSEE BEFORE THAT AUGUST 17TH MEETING. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IN TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA FOR CHAIRMAN LYONS AND OTHER APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUALS IN CONNECTION WITH THE JAIL. � ii__ i l :"� ► ► COMMISSIONER WODTKE REPORTED THAT THE INTERVIEWING COMMITTEE, MADE UP OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITRUS AND AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY IN THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, AND HIMSELF, MET RECENTLY AND REVIEWED THE APPLICATION RECEIVED FOR THE POSITION OF AGRICULTURAL AGENT. BRIAN SCOTT COMBS WAS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED BY HIS PRESENT EMPLOYER, AND IT WAS THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ACCEPT MR. COMBS AS AGRICULTURAL AGENT - HE CAN BE ON BOARD AFTER AUGUST 28, 1981. COMMISSIONER WODTKE COMMENTED THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HAS AGREED TO CHANGE THE FORMULA FOR FUNDING - IT WILL BE 45% LOCAL AND 55% STATE FUNDING, WHICH WILL ASSIST THE COUNTY MONETARILY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE INTERVIEWING COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION OF THE HIRING OF BRIAN SCOTT COMBS AS THE AGRICULTURAL AGENT. NEW INSTITUTION SEMINAR - DISCUSSION THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM: Q TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 29, 1981 the Board of County Commissioners FI LE: SUBJECT: Request by The National Institution of Jails for attendence by specified Indian River personnel to attend a Seminar entitled "Planning for a New Institution" ► Letter dated Julyf5, 1981, directed FROM: Neild elsonREFERENCES: to the Honorable Pat Lyons, County Administrator Chairman, Indian River County Commissioners, from Roy, H. Raymond, Chief Deputy, Office of Sheriff. Indian Rivor Cnunt;• SighjPct at ahoy This is in response to a request from Roy H. Raymond, Chief Deputy, Indian River County Sheriff's Office. It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the County Commission. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The National Institute of Corrections is offering a special issue seminar designed to assist counties who are contemplating building a new jail facility. The seminar will cover in-depth the following subjects: A complete mission statement Total System Planning Forecasting methods Action planning Jail modeling Project Management Facility development process Jail and offender data analysis and projections Legal issues and jail standards Facility programming and design Jail modeling The Institute has requested that a team consisting of: The Sheriff or Chief Deputy The Jail Administrator A Facility Planner and A member of the County Commission who has decision making authority be appointed and scheduled to attend a seminar to be held at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. The dates currently available for this seminar are: November 8th thru 14th - 1981, or January 17th thru 23rd - 1982 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Funding is not required. NIC will reimburse Coach Class Airfare, .round_ trip, meals, double occupancy, lodging and conference materials. Recommend that a team consisting of the Sheriff, Jail Administrator, a facility planner, the County Administrator, and a member of the County Commission be appointed as a Planning Committee for new jail. Recommend that the Chief Deputy be appointed as alternate for the sheriff, and the Assistant County Administrator as alternate for the County Administrator. Further recommend that the November 8th thru 14th - 1981 date become first consideration. The early date will be more practical due to the proposed renovation program starting date. AUG -5 1981 F -00K 47 PAGE 51 37 .J AUG 51981 DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. POt1K ` 7 FADE 5 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONED BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE SEMINAR OFFERED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS IN BOULDER, COLORADO, NOVEMBER 8 THROUGH 14, 1981., GIFFORD SEWER AND WATER COMMITTEE COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THERE ARE NOW 20 ADDITIONAL CUSTOMERS ON THE SEWER SYSTEM IN GIFFORD. COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE - REPORT COMMISSIONER BIRD REPORTED THAT THE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE MET LAST WEEK AND VARIOUS ITEMS WERE DISCUSSED, SUCH AS THE GIFFORD PARK AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THERE. THEY ALSO DISCUSSED HAVING A SUPERVISOR AT GIFFORD PARK ON A PART- TIME BASIS ON WEEKENDS, WHO WOULD FALL UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT - HE COULD STORE EQUIPMENT IN HIS CAR AND'ASSIST IN ORGANIZING VARIOUS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AT THE PARK. COMMIS- SIONER BIRD ADVISED THAT PAT CALLAHAN, OF THE CITY RECREATION DEPART- MENT, WOULD COME BACK WITH A TENTATIVE SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATE TO THEIR COMMITTEE FOR A SUPERVISOR, AND IF THE COMMITTEE APPROVES, COMMISSIONER BIRD MAY BE BACK TO THE BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION. HE ADDED THAT THEY NEXT DISCUSSED THE TRACKING STATION PARK AND THE ,, GRANT APPLICATION. ENGINEER .JIM DAVIS ADVISED THE BOARD THAT THE DEADLINE FOR THE)1982-83 GRANT IS OCTOBER 31ST, AND STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED SOON FOR THE TRACKING STATION PARK. CHAIRMAN LYONS INQUIRED ABOUT THE COST ESTIMATE TO CHANGE THE PARKING ARRANGEMENTS AT THE TRACKING STATION PARK. ENGINEER DAVIS COMMENTED THAT HE VISITED THE SITE AND DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE DEPRESSED LOW AREA TO THE WEST, CHANGING THE M'. PARKING WOULD REQUIRE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FILL AND COULD IMPACT THE PEOPLE LIVING IN PEBBLE BEACH, AS FAR AS DRAINAGE. HE CONTINUED THE CONSENSUS WAS THAT THE PARKING PLAN ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WOULD BE THE ONE TO USE. DISCUSSION WAS HELD ABOUT USING LANDSCAPING TO BETTER SCREEN THE PARKING LOT, AND THE ENGINEER STATED HE WOULD DISCUSS THIS MATTER WITH THE URBAN FORESTER. COMMISSIONER WODTKE INTERJECTED THAT THE GIFFORD PROGRESSIVE LEAGUE HAD RECEIVED FUNDS TO BE USED FOR SALARIES FOR PEOPLE IN THEIR COMMUNITY. IF THOSE FUNDS WERE STILL AVAILABLE, HE FELT IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO HIRE PEOPLE LIVING IN GIFFORD TO WORK AT THE GIFFORD PARK. COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED HE WOULD FOLLOW UP ON HIS SUGGESTION. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON PARK REGULATION SIGNS FOR ALL OF THE PARKS, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON ADVISED THAT HE WAS WAITING FOR A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ATTORNEYS OFFICE ON THAT MATTER. COMMISSIONER BIRD REPORTED THAT PARK SUPERINTENDENT BILL COOK CONTACTED THE STATE PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR MAKING IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SEBASTIAN INLET, BUT THEY DO NOT ANTICIPATE IMPROVEMENTS AT THAT LOCATION FOR ANOTHER YEAR AND A HALF AND WHICH WOULD INCLUDE DUNE WALK -OVERS ON THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SIDE. HE ADDED THAT MR. COOK REPORTED THE DONALD MCDONALD STATE PARK IS NOW OPERATED BY THE FLORIDA FORESTRY SERVICES BUT IS VERY POORLY MAINTAINED AND IS A DISGRACE. THERE IS SOME TALK THAT THE FORESTRY SERVICE WOULD LIKE THE COUNTY TO TAKE IT OVER, BUT COMMISSIONER BIRD WILL HAVE TO OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION ON THIS MATTER. CHAIRMAN LYONS REFERRED TO THE TRACKING STATION PARK AND ADVISED THAT THE MAYOR OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES CONTINUES TO -INDICATE THEY ARE TRYING TO ANNEX THAT WHICH THEY LOST IN THE COURT -DECISION. THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED TO THE MAYOR IF HE WOULD TELL THE -COUNTY IN WRITING HOW INDIAN RIVER SHORES PLANS TO OPERATE THE PARK, HE WOULD BRING THE MATTER BEFORE THE BOARD. IF THE MAYOR WANTED TO ANNEX THE @OOK 47 PACE 53 I A U 5191 BOOK "It 7PAGE 54 PROPERTY THAT IS NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE PARK, THE CHAIRMAN WOULD HAVE TO ASK ATTORNEY COLLINS FOR HIS LEGAL OPINION ON THE SUBJECT. ANNOUNCEMENT CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT, IF POSSIBLE, THE BOARD SHOULD TERMINATE TODAY IS MEETING AT 5:00 O'CLOCK P.M., AND THEN REASSEMBLE AT 7:30 O'CLOCK P.M. FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM KOOLAGE - COMMENTS WILLIAM KOOLAGE, INTERESTED CITIZEN, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN ATTENDING THE COUNTY COMMISSION MEETINGS SINCE 1973. HE THEN TALKED ABOUT THE EVER-INCREASING PROBLEMS FACING THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN PUTTING SPECIAL INTERESTS IN CONTEXT, AND REPRESENTING ALL THE CITIZENS. MR. KOOLAGE SPOKE.OF THE PROBLEM OF TAXES AND MANDATED PROGRAMS AND URGED WORKING WITH AND THROUGH THE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS. HE EMPHASIZED CONCERN ABOUT LACK OF ATTENDANCE.AT COUNTY COMMISSION MEETINGS. CHAIRMAN LYONS AGREED WITH MR, KOOLAGE ABOUT GETTING THE CITIZENS TO ATTEND THE MEETINGS, AND HE HAS EVEN CONSIDERED PUBLISHING THE AGENDA. HE WELCOMED MR. KOOLAGE'S SUGGESTION ABOUT INVITING VARIOUS CLUBS IN THE COUNTY TO ATTEND THE COMMISSION MEETINGS. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT 12:00 NOON FOR LUNCH AND RECONVENED AT 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT. DEPUTY CLERK VIRGINIA HARGREAVES TOOK OVER FROM DEPUTY CLERK JANICE CALDWELL FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING. CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE HERCULES KONTOULAS CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO REVIEW A NUMBER OF CHANGE ORDERS. HE STATED THAT CHANGE ORDER N0, 50 ENTAILS A WOOD SHELF AND SOME FRAMING FOR THREE COUNTERS WHICH ARE ALREADY IN THE CONTRACT AND ARE WALL HUNG ONLY. THIS INVOLVES A SMALL COFFEE COUNTER BEHIND THE COMMISSION ROOM, A 25-30' COUNTER FOR THE COUNTY ENGINEER, AND 6-7' COUNTERS IN THE WOMEN'S RESTROOMS. COMMISSIONER BIRD REPORTED THAT HE REVIEWED THIS WITH MR. KONTOULAS AND THE ADMINISTRATOR, AND IT IS PRIMARILY ADDITIONAL BRACING FOR SOME SHELVING THAT IS ALREADY BEING PROVIDED; IT WAS THEIR GENERAL OPINION THAT WE COULD ACCOMPLISH THIS WORK WITH OUR OWN PERSON— NEL AFTER COMPLETION OF THE JOB BY THE CONTRACTOR. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY DENIED CHANGE ORDER N0. 50 — ADMINIS— TRATION BUILDING. MR. KONTOULAS REPORTED THAT CHANGE ORDER N0. 57 INVOLVES NEW "C" LABEL DOORS WITH A FIRE—RATED FRAME AND NECESSARY HARDWARE. THERE ARE TWO 2'6" DOORS IN THIS DOORWAY, WHICH OCCURS IN A FIREWALL, AND THERE IS SOME DEMOLITION INVOLVED. QUESTION AROSE AS TO A COST OF $4,500 FOR JUST ONE DOORWAY AND AS TO WHY IT WAS NOT CORRECT IN THE FIRST PLACE. COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED HE COULD NOT HELP BUT FEEL WE ARE BEING BADLY OVERCHARGED ON SOME OF THESE CHANGE ORDERS. MR. KONTOULAS READ A BREAKDOWN OF THE COSTS INVOLVED WITH THESE DOORS, WHICH INCLUDED $130.00.FOR PAINTING, AND NOTED THAT THE CONTRACTOR ALSO HAD DIRECT COSTS AND BOND COSTS. HE EXPLAINED THIS DOOR ONCE WAS AN OUTSIDE DOOR WHERE THE HOSPITAL ADDED ANOTHER WING, AND THE PLANS SHOWED AN EXISTING DOOR WHERE THERE NO LONGER WAS ONE; THERE APPARENTLY WAS A LOT -OF INVESTIGATION WHICH THE ARCHITECT DID NOT CARRY OUT. 41 e00K - 7 PACE 55 AUG ��� BOOK 7 PAGE 56-7 MR. SNODGRASS OF REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THIS WAS NOT JUST A SIMPLE DOOR OPENING; THERE WAS A 3', DEEP CONCRETE BEAM THAT HAD TO BE REMOVED, AND IT TOOK THREE MEN THREE DAYS TO REMOVE IT; IN ADDITION, THERE WAS NO WALL THERE AND THEY HAD TO BUILD A WALL S' LONG TO SET THE DOOR IN. CHAIRMAN LYONS INFORMED MR. SNODGRASS THAT THE BOARD IS NOT INTENDING TO BE CRITICAL, BUT SIMPLY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, COMMISSIONER BIRD VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO 1 VOTE APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0. 57 - ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WITH THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHT IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. 42 s -I M M MANGEOWN[ El ARCHITECT ❑ ���� CONTRACTOR ❑ FIELD ❑ r•1 DOCUMENT G701 OTHER :OJECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER57 •4me.address) County Administration Bldg. (Contractor) ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9363 r Reinhold Construction Inc. CONTRACT FOR:Additions and Renovations P.O.Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 L J CONTRACT DATE: 4/2/80 ou are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: P-94 Provide new doors,"C"label and necessary hardware at door W140. $4,594.21 Provide new hollow metal frame if necessary.At owners request to meet unforeseen conditions, he proposed changes in the work may result In additional time equlred beyond the contract completion date. Additional time 411 be added to the contract that is directly related to this change •rder. The contractaf will be paid for the additional required days t the rate of$300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead osts. The number of days requested are not reflected in the attached ocuments. he original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,748, 00.00 vet change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 318 , 6 602.52 he Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,066,602-52 'he Contract Sum will be (increased) by this Change Order . . . $ 4,594.21 rhe new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,071,196-73 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by (' ') Da.s. the Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is CONNNELL METCALF & EDDY I'a o', Dixie Highway Address Coral Gabl.gs, FL 33134 BY DATE v / REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. "a * OX `�66 Address Cocoa, F1 32922 GATE ' 1 ' I / INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 14th Ave Address , Ver Beach, FL 32960 BY f,A-,V Lr? � DATE e�G /;/. ' AIA DnCUMENT 6791 CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAE9 • ® 1970 • THE O`[ PkCE AMER!, A�N INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS, 1715 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 AUG - 5 1981 - 43 BOOK - i PAGE 57, AUG 1981 BOOK MMIRTZAami W INI o- � 4 7 pAc, 58 7 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 29, 1981 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Water Conservation Measures • St. Johns Water Management FROM. Nei A. Nelson REFERENCES: District Declaration of Water County Administrator Shortage & Order dated July 8, 1981 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On July 8, 1981, the St. Johns River Water:Management District (SJRWMD) extended it's "water shortage declaration" of May 13, 1981, and made mandatory within certain areas, including Indian River County, water conservation measures previously considered voluntary. The District "Order" mandates a 15% reduction from the water useage of the two-week period prior to April 30, 1981. Additionally, all water suppliers within the affected areas shall initiate this reduction within thirty (30) days of the "Order" date, and shall submit a "water conservation plan" to the District containing a public awareness proqram, and any of,the following necessary to achieve the required savings: 1. Pressure reductions 2. Leak detection 3. Ordinance restricting or banning non-essential use 4. Rate structure changes 5. Moratorium on new service areas 6. Any other appropriate methods For the fourteen day period ending April 30, 1981, the Indian River County water system meter logs indicate an average daily useage of 591,428 qal/day. A fifteen percent (15%) reduction yields a target of 502,714 gal/day. Average daily use for the July 1-20, 1981 period was 676,800 gal/day; approximately 35% above the target. It must be noted, however, that average daily use per ,connection is approximately 200 gal/day; considerably below the Vero Beach system average and below national average daily consumption estimates. In addition to the County's own system, many residents are furnished water from franchise systems, mobile home private wells. Comparable useage data for much of this unavailable, but can be expected to follow the pattern 44 and property owners park systems or consumption is of the County's system. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Under the SJRWMD Order, Indian River County has some responsibility to help secure compliance with the mandatory conservation measures, not only on the County's system, but also from the County's franchises and private wells. The administration believes the most effective way to accomplish this objective is through adoption of an ordinance establishing emergency regulations for water conservation. The County Attorney's office has prepared a proposed emergency ordinance for Board consideration. The ordinance prohibits lawn irrigation between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. daily, washing of impervious surfaces, washing of vehicles except at commercial facilities, and filling or refilling of swimming pools. Additionally, the ordinance provides for exemptions for extreme hardship, to be approved by the County Administrator where compliance would directly affect the earning of a livelihood or cause irreparable damage to property. The ordinance would be in effect for a period of 90 days, or until the SJRWMD lifted the mandatory conservation measures order. RECOMMENDATIONS To assist in reducing the potential hazards to the health,safety and welfare of the residents of Indain River County during this period of critical water shortage, the Administration recommends the following: 1. Adoption of proposed ordinance utilizing emergency adoption procedures. This will require a four-fifths vote of the Board. 2. Increased public awareness program utilizing media and customer messages where appropriate. 3. Increased efforts to reduce system -wide water loss, through leak detection program. Additionally, the Administration requests it be authorized to submit the required "water conservation plan" to the SJRI-IMD, utilizing the above actions as the basis for the plan. The "conservation plan" will be submitted as, soon, as possible, following this Board meeting. THE ADMINISTRATOR EMPHASIZED THAT OUR AVERAGE DAILY USE PER HOUSEHOLD IS WAY BELOW THE BASE FIGURE ST. JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IS RECOMMENDING. HE CONTINUED THAT WE ARE A BIG WATER CUSTOMER OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, AND ALTHOUGH THE CITY HAS RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THEIR ENGINEER THAT THEY HAVE SEVERE PROBLEMS IN THEIR DRAWDOWN AND THE POSSIBILITY OF SALT WATER INTRUSION, THEY HAVE THE FIGURES TO BACK UP THAT THEY ARE BELOW THE 15% OVERALL REDUCTION FIGURE RECOMMENDED; SO, THEY HAVE DECIDED TO CONTINUE WITH A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT THE REASON HE IS RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MANDATORY PROGRAM IS THAT IT WOULD BETTER SUPPORT THE ST. JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND ALSO PROMOTE BETTER CONTROL. 45 AUG 5 1981 - POoK - 4 "1 PAGE "A AUG 51981 7 PACE 60, DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE ADVISABILITY OF HAVING A MORE COMPREHENSIVE ORDINANCE WHEREIN YOU COULD REGULATE METER SIZES, ETC., AND CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED POSSIBLE CONSERVATION MEASURES TO BE INCLUDED IN SUCH AN ORDINANCE, I.E., REQUIRING THE CAPPING OF UNCAPPED FLOW WELLS, RECIRCULATION OF -WATER USED TO COOL AIR CONDITIONING UNITS, AND REQUIRING CERTAIN TYPE WATER SAVING FIXTURES IN OUR BUILDING CODE. THE CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT THAT PAGE I OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS TECHNICALLY INCORRECT IN REFERRING TO THE RECHARGING OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SINCE WE ARE ONLY RECHARGING THE SHALLOW AQUIFER IN THIS COUNTY. ATTORNEY HOULIHAN EXPLAINED THAT THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE ST. JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THE MODEL MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE WHICH THEY PROVIDED IS QUITE EXTENSIVE AND INVOLVES MORA- TORIUMS, SURCHARGES, ETC., HE FELT IF OUR USAGE IS IN COMPLIANCE, AS IT SEEMS TO BE, WE DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE SUCH AN EXTENSIVE ORDINANCE AT THIS TIME. CAROLYN EGGERT, CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, WAS NOT AGAINST THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, BUT REPORTED THAT SHE, AS A PLANT NURSERY PERSON, HAS FOLLOWED THE VOLUNTARY PROGRAM SINCE IT WAS PROPOSED, AND SHE WISHED TO POINT OUT SOME PROBLEMS THAT AROSE IN COUNTIES SOUTH OF HERE WHEN THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PUT IN THEIR RESTRICTIONS. SHE WENT ON TO EXPLAIN ABOUT "MIST HOUSES" AND "SHADE HOUSES," NOTING THAT ALTHOUGH PLANTS GROWN UNDER SHADE HOUSES ARE NOT CONSIDERED INDOORS, TEMPERATURES IN THE AFTERNOON HOURS SOMETIMES GO TO 980 AND 10801 AND THE PLANTS CANNOT SURVIVE AT SUCH TEMPERATURES WITHOUT HAVING SOME MINUTES OF COOLING WATER. SHE RECOM- MENDED THAT PLANTS GROWN BOTH IN MIST HOUSES AND SHADE HOUSES BE CON- SIDERED INDOORS. SHE FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT AN EXEMPTION BE GRANTED TO WATER NEW LANDSCAPING FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS. MRS. EGGERT EXPLAINED THAT IRRIGATION PEOPLE CANNOT REPAIR THEIR IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN THE DARK AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TURN ON THE WATER DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS WHEN REPAIRING THESE SYSTEMS. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO ADOPT AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AT THIS TIME RATHER THAN WORKING TOWARDS HAVING A MORE COMPREHENSIVE ORDINANCE LATER. 46 IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT POSSIBLY WE SIMPLY SHOULD REPEAT THE LETTER PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED ASKING THE PUBLIC FOR VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION IN A WATER CONSERVATION EFFORT. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT IF NEITHER THE CITY NOR THE COUNTY FEEL IT NECESSARY TO HAVE AN EMERGENCY ORDI- NANCE, THE PUBLIC WILL BELIEVE THERE IS NO FURTHER PROBLEM. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS LIMITED TO 90 DAYS. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, BECAUSE OF THE EMERGENCY CAUSED BY THE ORDER OF ST. .JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, TO ADOPT EMERGENCY ORDI- NANCE 81-28 CHANGING "FLORIDAN" AQUIFER TO "SHALLOW" AQUIFER, AND INCORPORATING THE CHANGES REQUESTED BY MRS. EGGERT RE SHADE HOUSES, NEW LANDSCAPING, AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIRS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT THE ONLY FIGURES WE NOW HAVE ON WATER CONSUMPTION RELATE TO THE WATER WE ARE PURCHASING FROM THE CITY; WE DO NOT HAVE ANY INDICATION AS TO HOW OUR FRANCHISEES HAVE RESPONDED TO THE REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY REDUCTION. HE HAD NO QUALMS ABOUT VOTING FOR MANDATORY CUTBACK ON WATER USE, BUT PREFERRED TO HAVE FURTHER FIGURES ON COUNTY USAGE BEFORE DOING SO. COMMISSIONER BIRD ALSO WISHED TO HAVE MORE JUSTIFICATION BEFORE WE IMPOSE THIS ON COUNTY RESIDENTS SINCE THE CITY DID NOT MAKE IT MANDATORY. _ UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER REPORTED THAT EACH ONE OF THE FRANCHISES HAS BEEN CONTACTED AS TO HOW THEY ARE DEALING WITH THIS ORDER AND HE HAS HAD WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM SOME; THEY ALL APPEAR TO BE WORKING TOWARDS CONSERVATION. HE NOTED THAT IF WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE, IT WILL GIVE US SOME TEETH TO GO BACK TO THE FRANCHISEES. WILLIAM KOOLAGE, INTERESTED CITIZEN, EXPRESSED THE BELIEF THAT THE PUBLIC IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER SITUATION AND FELT THAT ANYTHING THE BOARD CAN DO TO SHOW THEIR CONCERN WILL HELP CONVINCE THE PUBLIC THAT THE BOARD ALSO VIEWS THE SITUATION AS SERIOUS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR'THE QUESTION ON ADOPTING AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS AS SET OUT IN COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK'S MOTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND DEFEATED WITH COMMISSIONERS WODTKE AND BIRD VOTING IN OPPOSITION. AUG - 5 1981 47 BOOK 4 7 PACE �JL AUG 51981 BOOK 47 PAGE ,G COMMISSIONER BIRD SUGGESTED THAT IT MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT TO ADOPT AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE SIMPLY PROHIBITING WATERING OF LAWNS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 A.M. AND 6:00 P.M. AND LEAVE ALL THE REST OUT. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE WOULD BE HAPPY WITH ANY EMERGENCY ORDINANCE THE BOARD WOULD ACCEPT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD, BY REASON OF THE EMERGENCY CAUSED BY THE ORDER OF ST. .JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 8I-28 PROHIBITING IRRIGATION OF LAWNS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 A.M. AND 6:00 P.M. UNLESS BY HEAT PUMP AIR CONDITION- ING UNITS, THE SAME FINE SCHEDULE AND TIME.LIMITATIONS TO BE INCOR- PORATED; SAID ORDINANCE TO BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. ORDINANCE NO. 81 - 28 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY REGULA- TIONS FOR WATER SHORTAGE WITHIN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY, PENALTIES, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Indian River County is suffering from a significant lack of rainfall; and WHEREAS, the lack of rainfall is manifested by record low water levels in surface water bodies, by prominent declines in both the water table and potentiometric surface elevations of the ground water systems and by salt water contamination of well fields; and WHEREAS, the lack of rainfall has prompted the governing Board of the St. Johns River Water Management District to declare a water shortage and to order mandatory reductions in water usage; and WHEREAS, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is cognizant of the current and potential magnitude of the problems created by the continued lack of rainfall, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: ARTICLE I. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County finds that the lack of rainfall and the resultant failure to recharge the aquifer has reached emergency proportions and that there is a water consumption emergency within Indian River County, Florida, which threatens the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the county. It is thus determined necessary to enact regulations to conserve the water resources of Indian River County. ARTICLE II. The following activity is prohibited: Irrigation of lawns shall be prohibited between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. unless by heat pump air conditioning units. ARTICLE III. All residents of Indian River County are urged to take additional, immediate and decisive actions to conserve water to a maximum extent possible. AUG- 5 1981 - boa 7 FACE 6.3 r U� 51981 600K 4 7 FADE 6 _ 4 ARTICLE IV. The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners endorses the water conservation methods delineated in the St. Johns River Water Management District pamphlet (Water - wise Living) and requests.the media to effect wide dissemination of such methods. ARTICLE V. The County Administrator is hereby granted authority to provide for exemptions from the provisions of this Ordinance in cases of extreme hardship which would directly affect a person or firm in the earning of a livelihood or where the curtailment of use of water would cause irreparable damage to property. ARTICLE VI. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all users of water within the unincorporated areas of Indian River County. ARTICLE VII. This Ordinance shall remain in effect for.90 days or until the_ St. Johns River Water Management District order for mandatory reduction is repealed, whichever shall first occur. ARTICLE VIII. Penalties. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall be subject to the following penalties: First violation $25.00 Second violation $50.00 Third violation $500.00 ARTICLE IX. In the event that any section or provision of this Ordinance is declared invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. ARTICLE X. This Ordinance is adopted under the emergency enactment provisions provided in Chapter 125.66, Florida Statutes, and shall become effective as provided by law. This Ordinance shall take effect August 5, 1981. MANGE ORDER N0. 58 - ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE KONTOULAS REPORTED THAT THIS CHANGE ORDER PROVIDES A NEW "C" LABELED DOUBLEWIDE DOOR IN THE LITTLE CORRIDOR IN THE NORTH WING GOING INTO THE SCHOOL BOARD AREA, THE EXISTING DOORS ARE NOT SATISFACTORY; THEY CANNOT CUT THE DOORS TO CLEAR THE CARPET, ETC., AND HE BELIEVED A NEW FRAME WOULD BE NECESSARY. ALSO ADDITIONAL HARDWARE IS REQUIRED. COMMISSIONER BIRD AGAIN OBJECTED TO THE PRICE QUOTED OF $2,954.70. HE STATED THAT HE WAS INFORMED A "B" LABEL DOOR COULD BE PURCHASED FOR $118 AND FIREPROOF JAMBS FOR $30, WHICH WOULD BE $148 FOR HALF OF THE OPENING. HE GAVE VARIOUS OTHER ESTIMATES ON HARDWARE, PAINTING, ETC., TO REACH A TOTAL OF ABOUT $7001 WHICH LEFT A LARGE GAP COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PRICING. MR. SNODGRASS OF REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE HARDWARE COST ALONE IS $715; THE ARCHITECT DID NOT DETERMINE THE HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS ORIGINALLY, AND REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE HARDWARE SUPPLIER. DISCUSSION CONTINUED OVER WOOD DOORS AS OPPOSED TO METAL DOORS, AND MR. SNODGRASS STATED THAT THEY ARE USING WOOD DOORS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE ARCHITECT HAS RE— QUIRED. HE THEN DESCRIBED HOW THEY HAD TO CUT OUT THE WALL TO SET THE DOOR IN, WHICH LEFT A 12" GAP ON BOTH SIDES OF THE OPENING TO BE REPAIRED.. THIS WAS CAUSED BY HAVING TO REMOVE THE OLD WOOD FRAMES AND REPLACE THEM WITH HOLLOW METAL FRAMES. DISCUSSION ENSUED ON "A" "B" AND "C" LABELS, METAL DOORS, ETC., AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE INQUIRED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE ON THIS CHANGE ORDER FOR ONE DOOR AND CHANGE ORDER 59 WHICH INVOLVES 8 DOORS. MR. SNODGRASS EXPLAINED THAT ON THE 8 DOORS, THE HARDWARE WAS INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE AND THEY DID IT HAVE TO BUY NEW HINGES, ETC. IT,'WAS NOTED THAT AT THIS DATE IT IS TOO LATE TO CHANGE THE HARDWARE SUPPLIER. MR. SNODGRASS DISCUSSED CHANGE ORDERS WHICH GIVE THE OWNER A CHANCE TO GET WHAT HE NEEDS OR WANTS AND THE CONTRACTOR A CHANCE TO MAKE SOME PROFIT. HE TALKED ABOUT THE INCONVENIENCE AND EXPENSE OF HAVING TO UNDO WHAT ALREADY HAS BEEN DONE, SUCH AS REMOVING CARPET, TEARING UP WALLS, ETC., AND STATED THAT HE DID NOT LIKE TO COME BEFORE AUG 5 1981 51 - BoOk 47 PAGE 65. AUG 51981 4 7 WE 66 THE BOARD WITH WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN UNDUE EXPENSE AND RAISE DOUBTS IN THEIR MINDS ABOUT THE CONTRACTOR. HE POINTED OUT THAT IF ALL THIS COULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE JOB TO BEGIN WITH, IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE COST LESS AND THEY COULD HAVE BEEN THROUGH BY NOW. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF SOME OF THIS RELATES TO FIRE- WALL AREAS, AND MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT IT DID. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT THE CHANGE ORDER STATES "AT OWNERS REQUEST," AND MR. KONTOULAS FELT THIS WILL ALL "COME OUT IN THE WASH." HE THEN TALKED ABOUT THE PROBLEM REGARDING THE HARDWARE WHICH HAS EXISTED FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT. SOME DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDINGA POSSIBLE DATE FOR MOVING INTO THE ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT SOME MECHANICAL PROBLEMS HAVE ARISEN TO CAUSE FURTHER DELAY AND THAT IT COULD BE AS MUCH AS ANOTHER THREE TO FIVE MONTHS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER NO. 5F - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,954.70, WITH THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHI- TECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. CHANGE ORDER A/A DOCUAIENT G701 OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR FIELD EJ OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 58 (name.address) County Administration Bldg. TO (Contractor) ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO. 9363 r Reinhold Construction Inc. CONTRACT FO R:Additions and Renovations P.O.Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 L CONTRACT DATE: 4/2/80 You aro directed to make the follo%%Ing changes in this Contrac!: CP -95 Provide new doors,"C" label and necessary hardware, door W158 $2,954.70 Provide new H.M. frame if necessary. At the owners request to meet unforeseen conditions. The proposed changes in the work msy result in additional time required beyond the contract completion date. Additional time wlII be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The cont ractot wlII be paid for the additional required days at the rate of$300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are not reflected in the attached documents. The original Contract Sum was . . . . . g 2 , 748 , 000.00 Net changt. by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 323,196-73 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 3,071,196.73 The Contract Sum will be (increased) iWlfXft XlYrYMl &b) by this Change Order. .$ 2,954-70 The nes. Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . $ 3,074,151.43 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is CONNELL METCALF & EDDY (tirE�o. Dixie Highway Address Coral Gables, FL 33134 By L (!I DATE REiNHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. cP.O.9ox %66 Address Cocoa, Fi 32922 BY DATE ) ` INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 0"M 14th Ave Address Verp Beach, FL 32960 By DATE a CHANGE ORDER N0, 59 - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILD-iNG MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT THE 8 HOLLOW DOORS INVOLVED ARE ALL IN THE FIREWALLS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, COMMISSIONER BIRD_VOTING IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO 1 VOTE APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0. 59 - ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN THE AMOUNT L- q3 @AGK 47 PAGE 67, BOOK 47 PACE 68 OF $4,691,86, WITH THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. ARCHITECT 11C_H i,NGE A ❑ V RCN17fC7 D ORD tR CONTRACTOP. D FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMMT G701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River -County C;4ANGE ORDER NUMBER,: 59 iname.address) County Administration Bldg. 10 (Contractor) F Reinhold Construction Inc. P,O,Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 —1 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9363 CONTRACT FOR Add i t ions and Renovations L_ I CONTRACT DATE -.4/2/80 YOU are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP -97 Replace existing hollowcore doors with "C" label fire doors at S122, S118, S.116, x,108„S120, S117, S121, t, Si06. Reuse existing hardware where possible, and coordinate with hardware schedule. At owners request to correct unforeseen conditions. he proposed changes in the work may result In additional time eou)red beyond the contract completion date. Additional time ill be added to the contract that is directly related to this change rder. The contractot will be paid for the additional required days t the rate of$300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead osts. The number of days requested are not reflected In the attached ocuments. S4,691.86 he original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s 2 , 748, 000.00 et change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 326,151.43 he Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 3,074, 151.43 he Contract Sum will be (increased) (XM(9AXXp(pfX1f@L#Vli=y this Change Order . . . S 4,691 .86 he new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . S 3,078,845.29 he Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( - - -) Days. �r Dale of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is 0-NNE1-1. METCALF b EDDY ”417E T 3�b �o. Dixie Highway Id:eis oral Gables, FL 33134 �,�iCJzt J 417 E 7 REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. C td RA CTC) f�. d. Box %66 Address Cocoa, F1 32922 BY DATE ! DOCUMENT G7a1 - CHANCt ORDtR - APRIL 1970 EDITION - AIAE3 - m 1970 - THE '�IRICAN 1PiS711U7E Or ARCHI7EC7S, 1715 NEW YORK AVE., NW. WASHINCTUN, D.0 20006 s INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 9W 14th Ave Address Vero Beach, FL 32960 DATE ONE PACE L CHANGE ORDER N0. 60 - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MR. KONTOULAS REPORTED THAT CHANGE ORDER N0, 60 INVOLVES TWO DOORS IN THE SCHOOL BOARD WING, TWO DOORS AT THE NORTH END OF THE BUILDING, AND ONE AT THE SOUTH END, HE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0. 60 - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,232.06, WITH THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. AUG 5 1981 BOOR -4 7 PAGE 69, 55 r AUG 5 1981 BOOK 47 PACE .70 CHANGE OWNER ARCHITECT O ORDER CONTRACTORFIELD D A/A DOCUMENT G701 OTHER p OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 60 (name, address) _County Administration Bldg. TO (Contractor) F Reinhold Construction Inc. P.O.Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9363 CONTRACT FOR: Add i t ions and Renovations L J CONTRACT DATE:4/2/80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Co.;,Tract: CP -100 Provide new doors as follows: W177 New "C" label door, frame and hardware W180 New Hollow metal door -no hardware N133 New "C" label door and frame -hinges only NiOI New "C" label door and frame -no hardware S127 New hollowmetal door and frame include hardware threshhold and 24" X 24" louver. At the owners request to resolve unforeseen conditions. The proposed changes in the w3rk 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 contractot will be paid for the additional required days at the rate of$300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are not reflected in the attached documents - $5,232.06 The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,748,000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 330,843.29 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,078,843.29 The Contract Sum will be (increased) Xdi!(dEJXOL}(�(a)S�d,1 by this Change Order. . . $ 5,232.06 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,084,075.35 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is CONNELL METCALF & EDDY Ij FIE Dixle Highway Address Coral Ga less, FLP 33134 ov (!'rw-/d/� DATE - —7 �- '� / i REINHOLD�{ CONSTRUCTION INC. CP17. ox 666 Address Cocoa, F1 32922 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 9W 14th Ave Address Vecd)Beach, FL 32960 BY B 7' r/ DATE r, ) �/ DATE CHANGE ORDER ADMINISTRATION BU__ I MR, KONTOULAS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE SUBCONTRACTOR ON LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION BID THE PROJECT AS EITHER MANUAL OR ELECTRICAL CONTROL, HE HAS PROCEEDED WITH ELECTRICAL CONTROL OF THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, AND THE FIRST ITEM ON THE CHANGE ORDER IS FOR WATERPROOF =I r m OUTLETS ON THE EXTERIOR WALLS. THE SECOND ITEM IS FOR PROVIDING 26-30 SPRINKLER HEADS ON 26TH STREET FROM 18TH TO 20TH AVENUE TO SPRINKLE BETWEEN THE CURB AND SIDEWALK. COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT IT MIGHT BE CHEAPER TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE DO THIS WORK LATER, MR. KONTOULAS BELIEVED IT WOULD BE CHEAPER TO DO IT NOW SINCE THE IRRIGATION MAN ALREADY HAS RUN THE PIPES UNDER THE SIDEWALK; IN ANY EVENT, WE WOULD HAVE DEAD GRASS IF THIS WERE NOT COMPLETED NOW. HE NOTED THAT THIS AREA APPARENTLY WAS OVERLOOKED SOMEHOW, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0. 61 - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,955.26, WITH THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE, ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. A U G 5 1981 57 BOOK FACE AUG 5 1981 CHANCE OWNER ❑ ARCHITICT ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ AJA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER BOOK 4 7 PAGE 72 PROJECT: Indian River County CHANCE ORDER NUMBER: 61 tname, address) County Administration Bldg. 10 (Contractor) ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9363 F Reinhold Construction Inc. P.O.Box 666 CONTRACT FOR Additions and Renovations _ Cocoa, FL 32922 L CONTRACT DATE. 4/2/80 You are directed to make the follov.-ing changes in this Contract - CP -101 Provide 110 power source for east and we,t irrigation controls (2) $3,955.26 (east to be located on east wall of commission room and west to be located on west wall of generator room-Rm N115.) Provide electrical in lieu of hydraulic controls for irrigating at no cost. Provide heads and #iping for irrigation in right of way.(between sidewalk and curb) along 26th street line. (not past 18th avenue) At the request of the owner. The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time required beyond the contract completion date. Additional time ,viii be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The eontractot will be paid for the additional required days at the rate of$300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead casts. The number of days requested are not reflected in the attached &-currents. The original Contract Sum Has . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2,748,000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 336,075.35: The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 3,o84,075.35 The Contract Sum will be (increased) by this Change Order . .$ 3,955.26 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,088,030.61 The Contract Time will be (Increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( - - -) Dais TFie Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is CONNELL METCALF & EDDY PrHITET Elio. Dixie Highway Address Coral �.Gables, FL 33134 BY DATE REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. cP.UR o °�i66 Address Cocoa, F1 32922 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 14th Ave Address Verq Beach, FL 32960 BY DATE �.' I DATE AIA DOCUMENT G791 • CHANGE ORDER - APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAC • m 1970 - THE O%j PACE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, O.C. 20006 CHANGE ORDER N0. 62 - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MR. KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS INVOLVES THE EMERGENCY GENERATOR FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. IN THE BEGINNING, WE ISSUED CHANGE BORDER No. 4'TO TAKE THE OLD GENERATOR OUT OF THE BUILDING AND HAVE IT REWORKED AND TESTED. DURING THE ONE YEAR LAPSE OF TIME, J WE HAVE RECEIVED MANY LETTERS FROM TAMPA ARMATURE REPORTING HOW, IN THE PROCESS OF TESTING, THE ENGINE KEPT BREAKING DOWN. THEY NOW HAVE APPROACHED US, THROUGH THE CONTRACTOR, WITH A PROPOSAL ON A USED UNIT FOR A TOTAL OF $I1,OIO.12. THE MONEY SPENT IN TESTING THE ORIGINAL GENERATOR WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE ASKING PRICE OF THE USED UNIT, WHICH WAS $14,000, MR. KONTOULAS CONTINUED THAT THE USED UNIT WOULD HAVE THE COMPLETE AUTOMATION ORIGINALLY AUTHORIZED; THE OLD UNIT WAS WAR SURPLUS AND HAD PASSED ITS 20 YEARS OF SERVICE. COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED HOW WE KNOW THAT $14,000 IS A REASON- ABLE PRICE, AND MR, KONTOULAS STATED THAT A NEW UNIT WOULD BE $26,00. HE NOTED THAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY CANNOT FIND AN ENGINE THAT WILL FIT THE OLD GENERATOR. COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT WE SHOULD HAVE THE OLD GENERATOR RETURNED, AND MR. SNODGRASS DID NOT KNOW IF THAT WAS PART OF THE DEAL, BUT HE FELT IF THE BOARD WISHED TO HAVE IT BACK, SOMETHING COULD BE WORKED OUT. MR. KONTOULAS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THIS.GENERATOR WOULD OPERATE THE TWO ELEVATORS, EXIT LIGHTS AND LIGHTS IN EACH ROOM AND THE COORIDORS IF THE POWER SHOULD GO OFF. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0. 62 - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,010.12, WITH THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER.REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. 59 - BOOK - 7 PAGE "m � AUG 5 19 1 BOOK 4 7 PAGE 74 -MANGE OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ORDER CONTRACTOR o FIELD ❑ A!A DOCUMENT 0701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 62 ;name. address) County Administration Bldg. TO (Contractor) r ARCHITECT'S. PROJECT NO: 9363 Reinhold Construction inc. P.O,Box 666 CONTRACT FOR Additions and Renovations Cocoa, FL 32922 L I CONTRACT DATE:4/2/E0 N ou are directed to male the following changes in this Contrac' CP -87 Provide a quotation for: A. Rebuitl Engine B. New Engine For For repair of emergency generator system/ per Reinhold and behe I, Umholz electrical contractors. at request of the owner. Per may 14,1981 letter from Tampa Armature Works The proposed changes In the work m3y 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 at the rate of$300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are not reflected In the attached documents. $11.010.12 The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,748,000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 340,030,61 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 3,088,030.61 The Contract Sum will be (increased)by this Change Order . . . S 11 ,010.12 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,099,040,73 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by (_ _ _) Dais The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is CONNELL METCALF s EDDY �RpEIINHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. lNOTEio, Dixie Highway P.J0. IR ox %60 Address Address Coral Gables, FL 33134 Cocoa, Fl 32922 P C:x ft." 717 8 Y DATE —7 DATE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY "z'019 14th Ave Address Ver Beach, FL 32960 1 DATE AIA DOCUMENT C791 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAC • 0 1970 • THE 0%1 PAGE ANtRICAN i%5TI7UT[ OF ARCHITECTS, 1715 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGiON, D.C. 2OW6 60 � � r CHANGE ORDER NO, 26 - COURTHOUSE (FIRE ESCAPE) MR. KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT THE FIRE ESCAPE IS TO GO ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE NORTH COURTROOM, AND WE MUST REPLACE THE FIVE GLASS WINDOWS DOWNSTAIRS WITH WIRE GLASS BECAUSE OF THEIR PROXIMITY TO THE FIRE ESCAPE, HE DID NOT KNOW THE REASON FOR THE WIRE GLASS, BUT IT IS REQUIRED BY CODE. COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, SINCE THE COURTHOUSE RENOVATION IS BASICALLY COMPLETED, TO DO THIS WORK WITH A DIFFERENT CONTRACTOR. IT WAS NOTED THAT IT COULD BE DONE THIS WAY, BUT IT WOULD JUST DELAY THE PROCESS. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT, SINCE WE DO NEED THE FIRE ESCAPE IN ORDER TO MEET CODE, IT WOULD BE GOOD IF WE COULD TAKE CARE OF THIS PROBLEM ALONG WITH THE CLEANING OF THE AIR CONDITIONING. HE STATED THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS GIVEN THEIR.VERBAL APPROVAL TO THE FIRE ESCAPE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0. 26 - COURTHOUSE IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,139.80, WITH THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. E00� 61 7 FADE 7 BOOK 4,; 7PAGE �� FA _'HANGEOWNER ARCHITECT ECT )RDER CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ 1 DOCOMINT G701 OTHER 'c))ECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 26 n,c, address) Courthouse Bldg. ► tContractor) F Reinhold Construction Inc. P.o.Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 ARCIMECT'S PROJECT NO: 9364 CONTRACT FORAdd i t ions & Renovations L J CONTRACT DATE: 4/2/80 .,j are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: P_116 s 46A At the owners request provide an exterior fire escape at north courtroom 210 per the attached documents (item fl). Provide fire exit light over door at new exit (fire escape) interior. Provide wall bracket light fixture, exterior, over fire escape door. 'he -reposed changes in the ►,nrk may result in additional time .e u;red beyond the contract completion date. Additional time ,iili be added to the contract that is directly related to this change )rder. The contractof will be paid for the additional required days )t the rate ofS300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead :csts. The number of days requested are not reflected in the attached Jocuments, $15,139.80 ;he original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 689,000.00 .et change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 153,882-79 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 842,882.79 ;he Contract Sum will be (increased) K*Xr)¢X*)dXXM(36YQM by this Change Order . . . S 15,139-80 i tic new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . S 858,022.59 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by --.e Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is DNNELL METCALF�_E0D.Y RE(_NHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC 1A20tEfo.Dixie Hlg`tway T:`t3 0 656 — — c:dress Address Coral Gables, FL 33134 Cocoa, FL 32922 :)ATE [, 7; BY / t=�� a DATE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Il 4`,R 14th Avenue Address Vero,B�bch, FL _3296 AIA DOCUMENT 0701 • CHANGF ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAS I Z: 1970 • THE ONE PAGE N%4[FIC AN ItiSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS, 1735 NAW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. I0006 62 M M M i GRANT APPLICATION FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING & SHELTERED WORKSHOP RESOLUTION N0. 81-52 MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION N0, 81-52 APPROVING THE C -RANT APPLICATION TO COMMUNITY SERVICES TRUST FUND FOR THE VOCATIONAL TRAINING & SHELTERED WORKSHOP. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER QUESTIONED THE FACT THAT THE SPECIFIC TARGET POPULATION IS SET AT 50, AND THE NUMBER OF THOSE OF THE TARGET POPULATION WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THE PROGRAM IS SET AT 35 TO 40. MR. REZANKA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE WORKSHOP, EXPLAINED THAT THE PEOPLE NOT BENEFITING FROM THIS PROGRAM WOULD BE THOSE WHO ARE HIGHER LEVEL FUNCTIONING PEOPLE WHO REALLY NEED A PROGRAM THAT WOULD GIVE THEM A BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO EARN A WAGE, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER HAD FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUN�"'G AND DISPOSITION OF THE FUNDS AND WISHED TO KNOW IF THE BUILDING IS A COUNTY BUILDING. HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE BUILDING, WHICH IS TOTALLY UNENCUMBERED, IS OWNED BY THE WORKSHOP; IT WAS BUILT THROUGH THE EFFORT OF LOCAL INDIVIDUALS. THE BUILDING IS LOCATED ON COUNTY LAND WHICH IS LEASED TO THEM, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 63 BOOK .47PAGE 7_7, R E S O L U T I O N NO. 81- 52 BooK 47PACE .78 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS UNDER THE FLORIDA FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES -ACT. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section I. That the Chairman is hereby authorized and directed to sign in the name and on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners an Agreement between the .Florida Department -of Community Affairs and Indian River County, under the Florida Financial Assistance for Community Services Act, as per copy attached hereto and made part hereof. Section II. That all funds necessary to meet the contract obligations of the County and its delegate agencies (if applicable) with the Department have been appropriated and said funds are unexpended and unencumbered and are available for payment as prescribed in the Contract. The County shall be responsible for the funds for the local share notwithstanding the fact that all or part of the local share is to be met or contributed by other source, i.e., contributions other agencies or organization funds. PASSED AND ADOPTED THE 5 th DAT of AUGUST, 1981. ATTEST:�` G'l� 4e� Wright Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA FLORIDA FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY SERYL _7.ES ACT OF 1974 (COMUKUNITY SERVICES TRUST FUND) GRANT APPLICATION Page 1 of 7 MAIL TO: Earl Billings Department of Veteran and Community Affairs 2571 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, F1. 32301 1. Local Governmental Unit Applying for Grant: * Submit an Original Copy * PLEASE TYPE - ANS'. -:ER ALL QUESTIONS Name: Indian River County Telephone: ( 309 562-7927 name of town, city or county) Indian River County Courthouse Address: 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida Zip: 32960 County: Indian River 2. Delegate Agency (s) : Vocational Training and Sheltered Workshop (applicable only for private non profit corporation e egates 3. Person with over-all responsibility of grant: Our Department will contact this person should questions arise Name: John M. Rezanka Telephone: ( 301 562-6854 Address: 1385 16th Ave, Vero Beach, Fla. Signature: - 4. Name and address of per on authorized to receive funds. If this ap- plication is funded, checks will be mailed to this person. All checks will be made payable to the local government. Name: Jeffrey Barton (Finance Officer) Address: P.O. Box 1028 Courthouse Annex Vero Beach, Fla zip: 32960 AUG 51991 ma 47 PnE 79 BOOK 4 7 PAGE O ® AUG 5 1991 - GRANT APPLICATION Page 2 of 7 0 Complete a separate page 2 for each individual program. Use an attachment page (s) if necessary. Name of Program DEVELOPMENTAL TRAINING 1. Give a brief overview of.the proposed program. To provide formal or informal compensation and remedial education for developmental? disabled adults, such as enriching learning experiences, adult basic education and developmental training. 2. Identify the unmet need that this program will address. - There is no program in Indian River County to serve the post -school age retarded adults, so they may have an opportunity to develop the skills, attitudes and behaviors which will enable them to function more succesfully as citizens. 3. How will this program impact on the -unmet need? Through the use of Individual program plans, each client will receive training to develop maximum use of their abilities. Progress is scrutinized on an continuous basis. Program areas include self-help, communication, recreation, horticulture, ceramics, daily living, basic sight reading and number recognition. 4. Is this program currently operating? YES x NO If yes, what changes if any will these funds provide for? Program is currently in operation. This,grant will enable us to expand our program with a work -oriented situation and also serve a larger portion of the target population. 5. Identify the specific target population that this program will benefit. Developmentally Disabled adults over age 18 in Indian River County. E. How large is the specific target population? Provide numbers. There are 50 handicapped adults in need of Developmental Trainfh g. 7. How many of the target population will benefit from the program? Provide numbers. 35 to 40 persons 8. Will this pprogram be linked to any other program or services? Clients and their families are referred to supportive services on a continous basis. When a client develops necessary pre -vocational skills, he or she will be transitions into our work -oriented program. When a client has worked in the work -oriented, shel- tered setting, progresses will be evaluated and if necessary the person will be referrc 9 . wifle these grab°L in- n0Sj'i e 0&Se°�a lO°T T -Qu i �� dlf `CTr cB ding a d pacement. grant? If yes, identify the type and amount. No. 10. What funds will sustain this program after the expiration of this grant? Dept of HRS Title XX Funds 11. Who will do the audit of the program? Schecter, Beame, Pfiffer and Burstein. '\ r fr.)r each f,rogram ac-tiv;t; , GVAHT 7kP1'1,1CAT1MJ Pa(.If- 3 of "l To provide training activities to 35 handicappe .adults in Indian River County in the areas of self-help, socialization, recreation, motor coordination, independent -living and pre - vocation. Clients will be exposed to activitie which will foster independence and a healthy self-concept. 1. Evaluation of clients, and referral for supportive services 2. Intake, assessment and Individualized program plans for each client. 3. Habilitation and training, with monitoring of progr monthly. 4. Training in proper adult behaviors such as social and emotional attitude. 5. Elimination of inappropriate behaviors which are a barrier to participation in community activities. b. Referral to a State Vocational Rehabilitation Progr As of: 12/31/812U Clients will be evaluated, screened, and assessed, and provided with a written Individual Program Plan for one year. As of:3/.il/dY An additional 15 clients will be evaluated screened, and assessed, and provided with a written Individual Program Plan for one year. r As of: 6/30/82 35 Clients 'will be receiving habilitation and training in areas of sel-help, recreation, socialization, communication and 1.tJ pre -vocational. Progress reports will be done on a C_D, monthly basis. As of: 9/30/82 Annual progress will be monitored recorded and clients who have reached their potential will be referred to the State of Fla. Vocational RPhahilation Program. Local Governmental Unit Applyinq INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 14ame of Program VOCATIONAL TRAINING & SHELTERED ( town, county or city) WORKSHOP IN INDIAN RIVER CO. INCA , ,,. 0 QD A. Program Objectives D. Major Activities and Substeps C. Planned Results. Show what por- (Provide quantifiable numbers for Required to accomplish objectives tion of your objectives will be .all objectives) accom fished each quarter. (Quan ify all accomplishments.) To provide training activities to 35 handicappe .adults in Indian River County in the areas of self-help, socialization, recreation, motor coordination, independent -living and pre - vocation. Clients will be exposed to activitie which will foster independence and a healthy self-concept. 1. Evaluation of clients, and referral for supportive services 2. Intake, assessment and Individualized program plans for each client. 3. Habilitation and training, with monitoring of progr monthly. 4. Training in proper adult behaviors such as social and emotional attitude. 5. Elimination of inappropriate behaviors which are a barrier to participation in community activities. b. Referral to a State Vocational Rehabilitation Progr As of: 12/31/812U Clients will be evaluated, screened, and assessed, and provided with a written Individual Program Plan for one year. As of:3/.il/dY An additional 15 clients will be evaluated screened, and assessed, and provided with a written Individual Program Plan for one year. r As of: 6/30/82 35 Clients 'will be receiving habilitation and training in areas of sel-help, recreation, socialization, communication and 1.tJ pre -vocational. Progress reports will be done on a C_D, monthly basis. As of: 9/30/82 Annual progress will be monitored recorded and clients who have reached their potential will be referred to the State of Fla. Vocational RPhahilation Program. AUG 5 19GI E :i.^lz 0-4Applicant: Indian River County©0�( Fri+, (City or County TOTAL BUDGET A, Include figures from all delegate agency bu(i(:ets1pp:;. G) 6. Explain by attachment all expenditures over $500 per line item. C. Cash match must be at least one half of state grant recle3ted. D. The cash and in-kind match combined must equal the state grant. r.EVENUE Use only dollars- ,:u Cont: . 1 • State Grant $307').00 2. Ca5b MAtzb (Bs0 12der-" iuD�_1 e::rs: t :�y�:�:ag sbar+-g. al' QWed)1,37.50 3. In -Find. Match 1537.50 4 • TQTBL B' VENUE 6150.00 GRANTEE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CASH IN-KIND 5. Salaries " 6. Rental Space 7. Travel 3. Supplies . Other ( specify on attachment) ^'OTAL ( lines 5 through 9 ) )ELEGATE ADMINIST7'ATIVE EXPENSE Space .3. Travel — .4. Supplies — -5. Ot er (specify on attachment) .6. TOTAL (lines 11 through 16) 7. TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPi;NSES 461.25 (line 10 and 16) *Line 17 must not exceed 131 of two times line 1. GRANTEE PROGRAM EXPENSE S. Salaries .9. Rental Space Travel '. Equipment a '2. Other (specify on attachment) .3. TOTAL (lines 18 through 22) DELEGATE PROGRAM EXPENSE :. Salaries 461.25 Rental Space 1 537.50 6. Travel Equipment 351 ,5 Other (specify on attachment) 1900.00 TOTAL (lines 24 through 26) 4612.50 1537.50 0. TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES (lines 23 and 29) 461?.50 1537.W i. TOTAL EXPENDITURES (line 17 and 30) 4612.50 1537.+0 ��. TCTAL COMBINED EXPENDITURES (Cash and (line 32 should equal line 4) in -rind) 61,0.00 v GRANT APPLICATION Pave 5 of 7 Local Government Unit Applying: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CASH AND IN-KIND M.;,TCH I. Cash Match (no federal funds allowed except federal revenue sharing) Source 1. Cash Contibutions 2. 3.- 4. .4. Amount 1. 1537.50 2. 3. 4. I. TOTAL CASH MATCH 1537.50 II.- in -Kind Salaries inc. Hourly Hours Total Benefits -Position Title Rate Worked $ .> _ $ X _ $ X. _ $ X = $ X = $ X = $ X = II. TOTAL SALARIES III. Other In -Kind Unit Number Total Description & Source Cost Units Building $ .38 X 4000 sq. ft = 1537.50 Y X $ X _ $ X = $ X = $ X = III. TOTAL OTHER 1537.50 AUG 5 I .TOTAL MATCH 3075.00 BOOK r 4 1 PAGE �/ --- •.•. "r rr a jC v v.. r 'AUG 5 19 1 BOOff 4 7 PAGE 84 Local Governmental Unit Applying: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (County or City) * This page applicable only to private non-profit delegate agencies Complete a separate page 6 for each delegate agency provider Program Name: Developmental - Training Name of Delegate Agency: Vocational Training And Sheltered Workshop In Indian River County, Inc. Address • 1385 16th Ave, Vero Beach, Fla 32960 Contact Person: John A1. Rezanka Telephone: ( 305 ) 562-6854 Tax Exempt Number: 59-164-7746 i none, attach a copy of the certificate of incorporation) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 1. Salaries 2. Rental 3. Travel 4. Supplies 5. Other (specify on attachment) 6. TOTAL (lines 1 through 5) PROGRAM! EXPENSES 7. Salaries 8. Rental Space 9. Travel 10. Equipment 11. Other (specify on attachment) 12. TOTAL ( lines 7 through 11) CASH 461.25 2351.25 1800.00 4612.50 13. TOTAL EXPENSES ( line 6 and line 12 ) 4612.50 IN-KIND 1537.50 1537.50 TOTAL BUDGET 6150.00 THE DELEGATE AGENCY HEREBY APPROVES THIS APPLICATION AND WILL COMPLY WITH ALL RULES, REGULATIONS AND CONTRACTS RELAT NG THERETO: APPROVED BY: R.E. Arendas � President of Board (Sig ATTESTED BY: John M. Rezanka �4' Name John Executive Director Title EXPLAIN BY ATTACHMENT ANY LINE ITEM OVER $500. v -I = 0 EXPENDITURES Salaries - Director Operating Expense Telephone Equipment Teaching Supplies Ceramic Supplies Horticulture Supplies Furniture Total Total Salaries Operating Expense Equipment UG 51991 4" 461.00 1800.00 600.00 500.00 700.00 551.00 2351.00 461.00 1800.00 2351.00 Boos 4.7 PnE 85 -7 ' tet~ •r ka<<i:a.+ r_' .'�. •'�,: �Q-:;:;: AUG51991 800k 7 PAGE 86 bi GRPINI F.FPLICAITION Page 7 of 7 Local Governmental Unit Applying: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ( NAME OF CITY OR COUNTY ) 14. THE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT THE DATA IN THIS APPLICATION AND ITS VARIOUS SECTIONS INCL'U'DING BUDGET DATA, ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF HIS OR HER KNOWLEDGE AND THAT THE FILING OF THIS - A-DPLICATION HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED AND UNDERSTANDS THAT IT WILL BECOME PART OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT A -NO THE APPLICANT. THE BOARD OF COUNTY CO11MISSIONERS OR THE CITY COUNCIL- HAS PASSED AN APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION WHICH AUTHORIZES THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE SPECIFIED PROGRAMS. IF FEES OR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TO BE UTILIZED AS MATCHING FOR THIS GRANT, OR IF A DELEGATE AGENCY IS TO PROVIDE THE AT'CH:.%G SHJXRE, AND THESE FUNDS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING, THIS RESOLUTI0:3 ALSO SPECIFIES THAT THE CITY OR COUNTY WILL PROVIDE THE NEC--c- SARY MATCH. THIS APPLICANT FURTHER CERTIFIES, DUE TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT NOT TO DUPLICATE SERVICES AND THAT THESE PARTICULAR SERVICS ARE NOT BEING PROVIDED NOR ARE THEY AVAILABLE FROM ANY OTHER STATE AGENCY. ALTHOUGH SIMILAR SERVICES MAY BE AVAILABLE, THE APPL:CANN7 CERTIFIES THAT NO OTHER RESOURCE EXISTS TO PROVIDE THESE PART:- CULAR SERVICES TO THESE CLIENTS WITHOUT THE USE OF THIS MONEY. Patrick B. Lyons :;a: -.e ( type^ ) i n re Chairman, Board of County Commissioners of Indian River.County, Florida Title : Mayor , Chairman of Board of County Commissioners etc. Indian River County Courthouse 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Aacress (305)569-1940 e ephone ATTESTED BY: Freda Wright ame (type Clerk Title v ignature August 5, 1981 Date GRANT APPLICATION FOR COUNCIL ON AGING - RESOLUTION N0, 81-53 INTERESTED CITIZEN, WILLIAM KOOLAGE, STATED THAT THE COUNCIL ON AGING HAS BEEN AN ONGOING PROGRAM FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS, THEY HAVE BEEN PROVIDING A LOT OF SERVICES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS THAT NO ONE ELSE OFFERS - GETTING THEM TO DOCTORS, ETC. - AND HE ENCOURAGED THE BOARD TO SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WISHED TO KNOW WHAT THE GRANT FOR THE VERO FOUNDATION IS FOR, AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE REPORTED THAT THIS IS A CHARITABLE FOUNDATION SET UP A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO BY A RESIDENT OF THIS COUNTY. THE MONEY IS INVESTED AND USED FOR NEEDY ELDERLY OF THE ,•*•Maio COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH TAKING FEDERAL MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. HE THEN INQUIRED WHY THE PLANNED RESULTS ON PAGE 3 DO NOT INCLUDE (D) IN REGARD TO SOLICITING VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION, IT WAS MT KNOWN WHY THAT WAS LEFT OUT. MR, KOOLAGE NOTED THAT THERE ARE A GREAT MANY VOLUNTEERS WHO PUT IN A GREAT MANY HOURS, BUT THEY DO NOT FILL ALL THE NEED. THESE SENIOR CITIZENS ARE THOSE WHO HAVE VERY LOW INCOMES, FINANCE OFFICER BARTON CONFIRMED THAT THESE ARE INDEED CITIZENS WITH EXTREMELY LOW INCOMES. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO I VOTE ADOPTED RESOLUTION N0. 81-53 APPROVING THE GRANT APPLICATION TO COMMUNITY SERVICES TRUST FUND FOR THE COUNCIL ON AGING. 73 Box 47 PACE 87, AUG 5 .7 PAGE 8 R E S O L U T I O N NO. 81-53 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS UNDER THE FLORIDA FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES- ACT. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section I. That the Chairman is hereby authorized and directed to sign in t e name and on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners an Agreement between the Florida Department of Community Affairs and Indian River County, under the Florida Financial Assistance for Community Services Act, as per copy attached hereto and made part hereof. Section II. That all funds necessary to meet the contract obligations of the County and its delegate agencies (if applicable) with the Department have been appropriated and said funds are unexpended and unencumbered and are available for payment as prescribed in the Contract. The County shall be responsible for the funds for the local share notwithstanding the fact that all or part of the local share is to be met or contributed by other source, i.e., contributions other agencies or organization funds. PASSED AND ADOPTED THE 5 th DAT of AUGUST, 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA D ATTEST: Freda Wright Clerk I FLORIDA FINANCIAL 1.33ISTANCE i 0R COMMUNITY SERI,' iP'ES ACT OF 1974 (COP".MUNITY SERVICES TRUST FUND) GRANT APPLICATION Page 1 of 7 MAIL TO: Earl Billings Department of Veteran and Community Affairs 2571 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, F1. 32301 1. Local Governmental Unit Applying for Grant: * Submit an Original Copy * PLEASE TYPE - AtiS."ER ALL QUESTIONS Name: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Telephone • (305) 562-4186 (name of town, city or county) Address • 2Co4un y-Courioude, Vero Beach, Florida zip: 32960 County: Indian River County 2 . Delegate Agency (s) : Indian River County Council on Aging, Inc. (applicable only for private non profa.t corporationa egates) 3. Person with over-all responsibility of grant: Our' Department will contact this person should questions arise .Name: Judith N. Welchel Telephone: _305-569-0760 Address. 955 7th.Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Signature: a 4. Name and address of person authorized to receive funds. If this ap- plication is funded, checks will be mailed to this person. All checks will be made payable to the local government. Name: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas Intergovernmental Coordinator, Indian River County Address: Room 115 - County Courthouse, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 zip: 32960 A U G - 5 1981 BOX �� PAGE �� r AU9. 51981 BOOK 4t17 P,6cE 90 GRANT APPLICATION Page 2 of 7 FA Complete a separate page 2 for each individual program. Use an attachment page (s) if necessary. Name of Program Indian River County Council on Aging, Inc. 1. Give a brief overview of the proposed program. To coordinate all services offered by this agency so that'the senior citizen will receive the requested service promptly - especially in the transportation/escort, home deliverd meals and homemake areas. To provide central management. 2. Identify the unmet need that this program will address. To eliminate any unnecessary waiting period between request for services and actual delivery. To provide the senior with a sinse of assurance that he/she is not forgotten. 3. How will this program impact on the unmet need? It will allow a trained staff person to assemble an overview of the complete situation regarding eacc senior requesting a service - utilizing the doctor and whatever agency could be involved. 4. Is this program currently operating? ,YES NO If yes, what changes -if any will these funds provide for? All services listed are offered, however, to completely utilize our capabilities and allow for each senior served to fully benefit from services, the position is desperately needed to provide this assurance. 5. Identify the specific target population that this program will benefit. Senior Citizens 60 years and older - 15,000 plus county- wide population: Estimate serving approximately 650 in the above-mentioned haxd core service areas. 6. How large is the specific target population? Provide nur.;bers. We find that complete service packages are not being provided due to lack of coordination. We have found this to be the case in one out of every three seniors served - or approximately 200 recipients should be receiving more than one service. 7. How many of the target population will benefit from tie program? Provide numbers. Approximately 650 unduplicated seniors will e served. This program will allow for an increase of approximately 60 percent. 8. Will this program be linked to any other program or services? Yes, respite care, day care, congregate meals, health screening, companionship, chore, information and referral, recreation, telephone reassurance and the core services listed above, transportation/escort, home delivered meals and homemaker. It can also provide the recipient with direction to another additional agency. 9. Will these grant funds be used to match a federal or other grant? If yes, identify the type and amount. No. 10. What funds will sustain this program after the expiration of this grant? Increase in Federal Budget allowances. 11. Who will do the audit of the program? Indian River County personnel. C.Tt co 'o►n��l�te a ::uratc i�a:au 3 for each urogci_ram activity !� Local Governmental Unit Applying r;ttANI' AVIll.WA't I(M 11,itiv 3 of 7 Indian River County town, county of city) A. Program Objectives B Major Activities and Substeps (Provide quantifiable numbers for Required to accomplish sh obJectives all objectives) a. To coordinate services offered by this a. To educate existing staff of the functions of and 'other agencies to senior citizens program coordination. of Indian River County age 60 and over to effect a more complete and adequate b. To inform other service agencies of the functions package for each individual as their of program coordination and it's goals. needs demand. c. To use all media sources to effect information to the general public. b. To eliminate the possibility of any delay in the delivery of a service(s) d. To solicit volunteer participation (individual and group) in all service areas. 0 r ems., C� lame of Program Indian River County Council on Aging, Inc. C. Planned Results. Show what por- tion of your objectives will be accomplished each quarter. (Quantify all accomplishments.) As of: 12/31/81 507 A. a and b B. a,b and c. As of:3/31 82 757 A. a and b B. a,b,c, and d. As of:6/30/82 A. a and b. B. a,b,c, and d. As of; 9/30/82 A. a and b B. a,b,c, and d 907 1007 1 0.f Applicant. TNDTAN RTVER COUNTY AUG 5•1991 (City- or county) BOOKp FACE 9 TOTAL BUDGET A. Include figures from all delegate agency budgetsil)ps. 6) B. Explain by attachment all expenditures over $500 per line item. C. Cash match must be at least one half of state grant requested. D. The cash and in-kind match combined must equal the state grant. REVENUE Use only dollars- No cents 1 • State Grant 3,146.50 2. Cazb MAICb (DO lcd2r,al fuDdS-- exrEas reY2DU2 sbar+ng,, al:o.red) 1,573.25 3. In -Kind Match 1,573.25 4. TOTAL BZVEbIUR 6,293.00 GRANTEE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CASH IN-KIND 5. Salaries 6. Rental Space 7. Travel 8. Supplies 9. Other (specify on attachment) 10. TOTAL (lines 5 through 9 ) DELEGATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE 4,719.75 1,573.25 4 , 719 .7 5 -=7T3 75- 11. Salaries -0- 12. Rental Space 13. Travel 14. Supplies 15. Other (specify on attachment) 16. TOTAL ( lines 11 through 16 ) -0- .0_ 1, TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES o (line 10 and 16) *Line 17 must not exceed 13% of two times line 1. GRANTEE PROGRAM EXPENSE 18. Salaries 19. Rental Space 20. Travel 21. Equipment 22. Other (specify on attachment) 23. TOTAL (lines 18 through 22) DELEGATE PROGRAM EXPENSE 24. Salaries 4,719.75 25. Rental Space 26. Travel 27. Equipment 28. Other (specify on attachment) 29. TOTAL (lines 24 through 28) 4,719.75 30. TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES (lines 23 and 29) 4,719.75 31. TOTAL EXPENDITURES(line 17 and 30) +,719.75 32. TOTAL COMBINED EXPENDITURES (Cash and (line 32 should equal line 4) in -Kind) 1,573.25 1.573.25 1,573.25 1,573.25 6,293.00 GRANT APPLICATION Pa -e 5 of 7 Local Government Unit Applying:_ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CASH. AND IN-KIND MATCH I. Cash Match (no federal funds allowed except federal revenue sharing) Source Amount 1, Vero Foundation 1. 1,573.25 2• 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. I. TOTAL CASH MATCH 1,573.25 II. In -Kind Salaries inc. Hourly flours Total Benefits -Position Title Rate Worked Homemaker Volunteer 3.35 7 .. 233 - I► 780.55 S Companionship Volunteer $ 3.35 2362 792.70 X $ X = $ X s $ X .. $ X $ X II. TOTAL SALARIES 1,573.25 III. Other In -Kind Unit Number Total Description b Source Cost Units S X = $ X = _ $ X a. $ X $ X a $ X III. TOTAL OTHER AUG- 51991 I V *TOTAL BOOK 7 PACE 9.3. . MATCH 3,146.50 AUG -5 1981 — Book 47 PAcE 9 Local Governmental Unit Applying: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (County or City) * This page applicable only to private non-profit delegate agencie$ Complete a separate page 6 for each delegate agency provider Program Name: Indian River. County Council on Aging, Inc. Name of Delegate Agency: Indian Ri var Ch mt Counr•i 1 on Agi ag, Inc _ Address:- 955 7th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Contact Person: Judith N. Welchel Telephone: ( 305 ) 5697-0760 Tax Exempt Number: 06-00180-00-41 (if none, attach a copy of the certificate of incorporation) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CASH TN-XTUn 1. Salaries 2. Rental 3. Travel 4. Supplies S. Other (specify on attachment) 6. TOTAL ( lines 1 through 5 ) PROGRAM EXPENSES 7. Salaries 8. Rental Space 9. Travel 10. Equipment 11. Other (specify on attachment) 12. TOTAL ( lines 7 through 11) -0- 4,719.75 1,573.25 4,719.75 1,573.25 13. TOTAL EXPENSES (line 6 and line 12) 4,719.75 1,573.25 TOTAL BUDGET . 6 , 293.00 THE DELEGATE AGENCY HEREBY APPROVES THIS APPLICATION AND WILL COMPLY WITH ALL RULES, REGULATIONS AND CONTRACTS RELATING THERETO: APPROVED BY • F. Eugene Cragg /10 President of Board { iggatur-a-Pi Judith N. Welchel ' ATTESTED BY: Name Executive Director (,Signature) Title EXPLAIN BY ATTACHMENT ANY LINE ITEM OVER $500. _I y�•y GRANT ;.FPLICAITION Page 7 of 7 Local Governmental Unit Applying: Indian River County ( NA2ME OF CITY OR COUNTY ) 14. THE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT THE DATA IN THIS APPLICATIO;J;;, ITS VARIOUS SECTIONS INCLUDING BUDGET DATA, ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF HIS OR HER KNOWLEDGE AND THAT THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED AND UNDERSTANDS THAT IT WILL BECOME PART OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE APPLICANT. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR THE CITY COUNCIL HAS PASSED AN APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION WHICH AUTHORIZES THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE SPECIFIED PROGpA.MS. IF FEES OR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TO BE UTILIZED AS MATCHING FOR THIS GRANT, OR IF A DELEGATE AGENCY IS TO PROVIDE THE MATCHI:,G S-44NR ;, AND THESE FUNDS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING, THIS RESOLUTION ALSO SPECIFIES THAT THE CITY OR COUNTY WILL PROVIDE THE NECES- SARY MATCH. THIS APPLICANT FURTHER CERTIFIES, DUE TO THE LEGISLAT-:VE INT"ti: NOT TO DUPLICATE SERVICES AND THAT THESE PARTICULAR S£RVICzS ARE :NOT BEING PROVIDED NOR ARE THEY AVAILABLE FROP^. x,4,y O: HER STATE AGENCY. ALTHOUGH SIMILAR SERVICES MAY BE AVAILABLE, THE APPLICA.`;: CERTIFIES THAT NO OTHER RESOURCE EXISTS TO PROVIDE THESE PARTI- CULAR SERVICES TO THESE CLIENTS WITHOUT THE USE OF THIS MONEY. Patrick B. Lyons ..ar..e t typed ) ure Chairman, Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida Title : Mayor , Chairman of Board of County Commissioners , etc. Indian River County Courthouse 2145 14th Avenue Aero Beach Florida 32960 Address ( 305) 569-1940 Telepnone ATTESTED BY: Freda Wrigh Name ( type Clerk Ti. t e August 5, 1981 Date All ignature AUG 5-1981 4 7 PAGE 95 �J AUG 51981 BUOK 47 PAGE INDUSTRIAL BONDS - RAMPMASTER INC. - RESOLUTION N0. 81-54 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REQUESTED THAT AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE GOING TO REQUIRE ACTION BE NOTED AS SUCH BECAUSE HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ALL THE PERTINENT MATERIAL. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SOME OF THE MATERIAL CAME IN LATE AND WAS DISTRIBUTED, BUT APPARENTLY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER HAD NOT RECEIVED IT ALL, COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THAT ANY ITEM LISTED UNDER THE ATTORNEYS MATTERS ON THE AGENDA IS THERE FOR ACTION. ATTORNEY HOULIHAN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT A MEMBER OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS FIRM, RALPH-EVANS, IS A MEMBER OF THE GROUP WHO HAS BEEN DISCUSSING SALE OF A SITE TO RAMPMASTER, IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID ANY APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED THAT HE HAD REQUESTED ATTORNEY .JUDSON FREEMAN, THE COUNTY BOND COUNSEL, TO BE HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER AND SIT IN FOR HIM. ATTORNEY FREEMAN, HOWEVER, HAS FALLEN VICTIM TO THE AIR CONTROLLERS STRIKE AND COULD NOT GET TO THE MEETING. ATTORNEY HOULIHAN FELT THAT THE BOARD DID NEED COUNSEL WITH REGARD TO THE PROCEDURES INVOLVED WITH THE INDUSTRIAL BOND AGREEMENTS SINCE THERE ARE TECHNICALITIES INVOLVED, AND HE ASKED THAT THE BOARD DECIDE WHETHER THEY DESIRED HIM TO PROCEED TO REPRESENT THIM IN LIGHT OF THE SITUATION JUST EXPLAINED. CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THIS SITUATION RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS ARE CONTROLLING, AND COMMISSIONER BIRD NOTED THAT WHAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO IS TO DEVELOP A STANDARD- IZED RESOLUTION AND AGREEMENT REGARDING INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND ISSUES; NOT ONE TO BE AIMED SPECIFICALLY AT RAMPMASTER. IT WAS AGREED THAT ATTORNEY HOULIHAN SHOULD CONTINUE TO REPRESENT THE BOARD. COMMISSIONER BIRD REPORTED THAT HE AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK TRAVELED TO FORT LAUDERDALE TO LOOK OVER THE RAMPMASTER FACILITIES AND OPERATION, AND HIS PERSONAL IMPRESSION WAS A VERY GOOD ONE; IT IS A VERY CLEAN INDUSTRY WITH NO ODORS OR HARMFUL WASTE BY-PRODUCTS. ON THEIR RETURN, THEY MET WITH COORDINATOR THOMAS AND FINANCE OFFICER BARTON TO DETERMINE THEIR FINANCIAL RECOMMENDATION, AND AFTER OBTAIN- ING THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED FOR AN ANALYSIS OF RAMPMASTER, THE ADMINISTRATOR, MR. BARTON AND MR, THOMAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION: -- T0: lu,lian }fiver cw,llty DATE: Auqus;L i, t9Ill FILE: 11e,.il-d of I'eonuly e',elnmi:.:i"l1e11:. i L.S."'1'umm '1'hnmas, InLerquvernment,ll Coordinator 1. I,1 !nr r i pt i-111 &("Ill -1 i t i 1,►1!1 Al 1 -he ilit „t 111.11.ie,n 11u►L.tinin,j I.) thi:l rcquls:.t. w.1!c I'll 1-ni:Jwd Ie1 1lle 11 ,,IYeI of t'eellllty CommhIniolI411:1 feel' their meeting ut July 15, 1961 , with the exc(:l)ti.on (if Ow I i 11,111,: i,1 I !;Lal ement a of Ite,l,(!rt It. 11.1vi ,11 , andWill iam A. Davis, cnpie , of which are attacher) Lo this memo. ' . Recommendat ion _& Fundi nq It it; .)1►r recominvnll.:t iein, honed on infl,rmat ion whi-h has been furnished to the Industrial Revenue Bond AuthoriLy, that. Lho request as submitted be approved subject to a firm take-out commitment to be issued by the first State Hank of Miami as indicated by their leLter dated May :'7., 1011), nl(Ined by Willi,lyd G. Lee,!I,Ird. Copy of leiter from Mr. lwonard attached to this memn. Fundinq will be a hart oL the proceeds of the bund 1 n!nlo it -1 ,Il:(:ord.11ll'1• with I .:i .:i . 1 Y1 . 3, DistribuLiutl Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator L. S. "'Tummy" 'Phomas, In Lergovernmental Cuurdinatur ,leffre,y K. hart, -n, I'e)unty Financr. Officer Joe Collins, County Attorney 4. Attachmr.nt>; - I. 1'Iu,111ci.a1 £iLaiIowenL-1 (1) 2. C(,py of lattor ftnm 1st. State Bank of Miami. m COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CONCURRED THAT RAMPMASTER IS A DESIR- ABLE KIND OF LIGHT INDUSTRY, SIMILAR TO HELSETH'S MACHINE SHOP ON OLD DIXIE, AND ONE THAT WOULD BE AN ASSET TO OUR COMMUNITY, HE STATED THAT BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF MR. THOMAS AND MR. BARTON AND WITH SOME MODIFICATION IN THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION AND MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, HE WOULD SUPPORT A POSITIVE MOTION FOR THIS COMPANY TO LOCATE HERE AND FOR THE COUNTY TO.ISSUE THE INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS. AUG 5 1981 83 BOOT( _ 4F7 FACE 97 SUBJECT: Reque:it of kampin Ister, luc. a:j submitted to the Board it County Comminnioner!; act.iutt ,1:; thu Industrial Rev1!nuo Blind Aurh„rir in amount of $H5Q,UUII.U0 -- -��% i _ "'`-'moi''... -REFERENCES: FROM: r.ci n. rdel_;�,1►, cl,ullty Adininistt,>tor `^ a f' '. B,IrbLgii, Cu t Finance Off icer i L.S."'1'umm '1'hnmas, InLerquvernment,ll Coordinator 1. I,1 !nr r i pt i-111 &("Ill -1 i t i 1,►1!1 Al 1 -he ilit „t 111.11.ie,n 11u►L.tinin,j I.) thi:l rcquls:.t. w.1!c I'll 1-ni:Jwd Ie1 1lle 11 ,,IYeI of t'eellllty CommhIniolI411:1 feel' their meeting ut July 15, 1961 , with the exc(:l)ti.on (if Ow I i 11,111,: i,1 I !;Lal ement a of Ite,l,(!rt It. 11.1vi ,11 , andWill iam A. Davis, cnpie , of which are attacher) Lo this memo. ' . Recommendat ion _& Fundi nq It it; .)1►r recominvnll.:t iein, honed on infl,rmat ion whi-h has been furnished to the Industrial Revenue Bond AuthoriLy, that. Lho request as submitted be approved subject to a firm take-out commitment to be issued by the first State Hank of Miami as indicated by their leLter dated May :'7., 1011), nl(Ined by Willi,lyd G. Lee,!I,Ird. Copy of leiter from Mr. lwonard attached to this memn. Fundinq will be a hart oL the proceeds of the bund 1 n!nlo it -1 ,Il:(:ord.11ll'1• with I .:i .:i . 1 Y1 . 3, DistribuLiutl Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator L. S. "'Tummy" 'Phomas, In Lergovernmental Cuurdinatur ,leffre,y K. hart, -n, I'e)unty Financr. Officer Joe Collins, County Attorney 4. Attachmr.nt>; - I. 1'Iu,111ci.a1 £iLaiIowenL-1 (1) 2. C(,py of lattor ftnm 1st. State Bank of Miami. m COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CONCURRED THAT RAMPMASTER IS A DESIR- ABLE KIND OF LIGHT INDUSTRY, SIMILAR TO HELSETH'S MACHINE SHOP ON OLD DIXIE, AND ONE THAT WOULD BE AN ASSET TO OUR COMMUNITY, HE STATED THAT BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF MR. THOMAS AND MR. BARTON AND WITH SOME MODIFICATION IN THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION AND MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, HE WOULD SUPPORT A POSITIVE MOTION FOR THIS COMPANY TO LOCATE HERE AND FOR THE COUNTY TO.ISSUE THE INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS. AUG 5 1981 83 BOOT( _ 4F7 FACE 97 AUG 5 1981 Book 47 PAGE 9 CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED HE ALSO WOULD SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDA- TION AS LONG AS WE WERE ASSURED THERE WOULD BE A FIRM TAKE-OUT COMMIT- MENT FROM THE FIRST STATE BANK OF MIAMI. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK THEN NOTED THAT ON PAGE Z, THE RESOLU- TION TALKS IN TERMS OF CREATING APPROXIMATELY 80 JOBS, BUT THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WHICH DESIGNATES 40 JOBS; ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED THAT 40 ACTUALLY IS THE CORRECT NUMBER AND AGREED THIS SHOULD BE MADE CONSISTENT. ATTORNEY HOULIHAN THEN INFOR MED THE BOARD THAT HE HAS DIS- CUSSED THEIR ACTION IN ADOPTING RESOLUTION 8I-44 CREATING THE INDUSTRIAL BOND AUTHORITY WITH OUR BOND COUNSEL, AND IT APPEARS THAT THIS ACTUALLY WAS NOT A NECESSARY STEP. IN ADDITION, SOME DIFFICULTIES HAVE ARISEN SINCE THERE IS AT LEAST ONE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION WHICH INDICATES THAT COUNTY COMMISSIONS CANNOT APPOINT THEMSELVES TO BODIES OVER WHICH THEY HAVE APPOINTIVE POWERS, HE CONTINUED THAT SINCE THE AUTHORITY IS NOT NEEDED, IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY QUESTION, HE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE WITH THESE AGREEMENTS ACTING AS THE COUNTY COMMISSION UNDER PART IIOF THE CHAPTER DEALING WITH INDUSTRIAL REVENUE FINANCING. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED IF THERE MIGHT BE ANY ADDITIONAL LIABILITY TO THE COUNTY IF THE COMMISSION TOOK THAT POSITION,:AND ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED THERE WOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WISHED IT MADE SPECIFICALLY CLEAR IN PARAGRAPH G OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION THAT WE WILL NOT INCUR ADDI- TIONAL EXPENSES AT THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE TO RUN UTILITY SERVICES TO THIS PROJECT, HE DID NOT BELIEVE THEY DESIRE ANY PARTICULAR SERVICE, BUT DID NOT WANT THIS TO COME BACK TO HAUNT US AND HAVE TO PROVIDE WATER AND SEWER LINES. ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED THAT HE HAD USED LANGUAGE AS' -SET OUT STATUTE -AND -BELIEVED THE INTENT IS CLEAR THAT THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE, BUT JUST ASSURE THAT THERE IS A VEHICLE WHEREBY THESE SERVICES CAN BE PROVIDED; IN OTHER WORDS, THE COUNTY CAN CAUSE THE SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED BY ISSUING BUILDING PERMITS, ETC. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED IF WE CANT INCORPORATE LANGUAGE STATING THAT THIS COUNTY WILL COOPERATE IN THOSE THINGS THAT ARE NECES- SARY FOR THE COMPANY TO HAVE THE SERVICES, BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE EXTREME MEASURES TO HAVE THESE FACILITIES PROVIDED AT A COST TO THE TAXPAYER. w m CHAIRMAN LYONS ALSO FELT IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO RUN ANY SEWER OR WATER LINES THERE. ATTORNEY HOULIHAN AGREED THAT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE CAN BE INCORPORATED. HE EXPLAINED THE BLANK IN PARAGRAPH G MERELY RESULTED FROM EARLIER CORRECTIONS AND NO ADDITIONAL WORDING WOULD BE INSERTED THERE. DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO THE ADVISABILITY OF ABOLISHING THE INDUSTRIAL BOND AUTHORITY AT THIS TIME. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RESCINDED RESOLUTION 81-44 WHICH CREATED THE INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND AUTHORITY. ATTORNEY HOULIHAN THEN REVIEWED CORRECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AS FOLLOWS: FIRST PAGE, PARAGRAPH B, 4TH LINE - AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL FOR RAMPMASTER, DELETE "AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE PARTS AND OTHER." PAGE 6, PARAGRAPH (I) - THE LINE READING "OF BOND COUNSEL, AND ANY NECESSARY AND REASONABLE OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS AND EXPENSES," DELETE "ANY NECESSARY AND REASONABLE OUT-OF-POCKET" AND SUBSTITUTE THE WORD "ALL." PAGE 7, PARAGRAPH (M) - ADD A FINAL SENTENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL SURVIVE THE TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT. ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED THAT HE HAD NO MORE CORRECTIONS AND FELT THAT THIS AGREEMENT HAS MORE THAN ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR PROTECTING THE COUNTY'S INTERESTS. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO THE ADVISABILITY OF REQUIRING AN APPLICATION FEE, AND ATTORNEY HOULIHAN RECOMMENDED, BASED ON HIS PAST EXPERIENCE IN THIS FIELD,..THAT THERE BE A FEE TO DEFRAY INITIAL EXPENSES AND ANY PART OF THE UNUSED FUNDS WOULD BE RE- TURNED TO THE APPLICANT. J. B. NORTON OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORTED THAT HE HAS READ SEVERAL RESOLUTION USED BY OTHER COUNTIES TO SET UP INDUSTRIAL BOND AUTHORITIES, AND THEY ALL HAVE A SET FEE, ALTHOUGH EACH COUNTY'S IS DIFFERENT. PALM BEACH COUNTY AFTER GOING THROUGH SEVERAL SUCH AUG 5 1981 85 no - 7 PACE 99 BOOK n AUG 51981 BOND ISSUES, DECIDED ON A FEE OF $500 WITH THE APPLICATION AND A SUM TOTAL OF 1/2 OF 1% UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT, ANY MONEY NOT USED BY THE COMMISSION TO BE REFUNDED TO THE APPLICANT. MR. NORTON CONTINUED THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF AUGUST 3RD REQUIRES A COMMITMENT TO TAKE-OUT BY THE FIRST STATE BANK OF -MIAMI, AND HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CHANGED TO INCLUDE THE SOUTHEAST BANK OF MIAMI AS WELL BECAUSE BOTH OF THEM ARE BIDDING ON THE BONDS AT THIS TIME. THE BOARD AGREED THAT THE MAIN THING WAS TO REQUIRE.A TAKE-OUT LETTER AND THE PARTICULAR BANK COULD BE LEFT FLEXIBLE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO 1 VOTE ESTABLISHED THE APPLICATION FEE FOR AN INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND ISSUE AT A MINIMUM OF $500 OR 1/2 OF 1% OF THE REVENUE BOND APPLICA- TION WITH ALL AMOUNTS NOT USED TO BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT, MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK,.TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-54 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH RAMPMASTER INCORPORATED WITH RESPECT TO FINANCING A PROJECT CONSISTING OF THE ACQUISITION AND EQUIPPING OF AN INDUSTRIAL OR MANUFACTURING PLANT TO BE LOCATED IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS, IN AN AGGREGATE PRIN- CIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $850,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING ALL OR A PORTION OF THE COST OF SAID PROJECT; ALL PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 159, PARTS II AND III, FLORIDA STATUTES. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THE HE LIKES METALWORK AND HAS NOTHING AGAINST THIS COMPANY, BUT HIS PERSONAL FEELING IS THAT THIS IS NOT THE PRINCIPAL FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT AND THAT THE ENERGY EXPENDED BY THE STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS WILL NOT BE OFFSET BY THE FEE AMOUNT. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. RESOLUTION 81-54 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH RA4PMASTER INCORPORATED, WITH RESPECT TO FINANCING A PROJECT CONSISTING OF THE ACQUISITION AND EQUIPPING OF AN INDUSTRIAL OR MANU- FACTURING PLANT TO BE LOCATED IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $850,000.00, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING ALL OR A PORTION OF THE COST OF SAID PROJECT; ALL PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 159, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COUNTY COMMISSION SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 159, Part II Florida Statutes, as amended, and other applicable laws. SECTION 2. FINDINGS. It is hereby found, ascertained, determined and declared that: A. Indian River County, Florida, (the "Issuer") is a public body corporate and politic duly created and existing as a local governmental body and duly constituted as a public instrumentality for the purposes of industrial development, under and by virtue of Chapter 159, Part II, Florida Statutes, as amended, (the "Act)" and is duly authorized and empowered by such act to provide for the issuance of and to issue and sell its industrial development revenue bonds for the purpose of financing all or any part of the "cost" (as defined in the Act) of any "project" (as defined in the Act); and B. in order to promote and foster the economic growth and development of Indian River County, Florida (the "County") and of the State of Florida (the "State"), to increase purchasing power and opportunities for gainful employment, to improve living conditions and to advance and improve the economic prosperity and the welfare of the State and its inhabitants, to foster the industrial and business development of the County, and to otherwise contribute to the health, safety and welfare of the people of the State, Rampmaster, Incorporated, a Florida corporation (the "Company"), proposes that the Issuer issue and sell its Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $850,000.00 (the "Bonds"); that the Issuer use the proceeds thereof to finance all or any part of the cost of issuance of the Bonds and of acquiring, constructing and equipping an industrial or manufacturing plant to be located in the County for the manufacture of metal products (the "Project"); and that the Issuer sell the Project to or otherwise finance the Project for the Company under an installment sale, loan or other financing agreement (the "financing agreement") obligating the Company for payments sufficient to pay the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when and as the same become due, and for the payment of all other costs incurred by the Issuer in connection with the financing, construction and administration of the Project which are not paid out of the Bond proceeds or otherwise; all as permitted.by the Constitution and other laws of the State of Florida and as authorized by the Act; and C. the Company has shown that preserve employment in the'County by additional new jobs within a period and the Project will provide or creating approximately 40 of one year after completion; BOOK - 47 PAGE 01 e, UG 51991 800K 47�J D. the Project and the financing of all or a portion of the cost of the Project by the Issuer will be in furtherance of the purposes of the Act in that it will induce the Company to locate the Project in the County, will alleviate unemployment by providing jobs in the County and will foster the economic development and the industrial and business development of the County; and E. the Project is appropriate to the needs and circumstan- ces of and shall make a significant contribution to the economic growth of the County, shall provide gainful employment and shall serve a public purpose by advancing the economic prosperity and the general welfare of the State and its people as stated in Section 159.26, Florida Statutes, as amended; and F. as of the date hereof the Company is financially respon- sible and fully capable and willii: to fulfill its obligations under the proposed financing agreement for the Project and under any other agreements to be made in connection with the issuance of the Bonds and the use of the Bond proceeds for financing all or a portion of the cost of the Project, including the obligation to pay purchase price installments, loan payments or other payments in an amount sufficient in the aggregate to pay all of the interest, principal, and redemption premiums, if any, on the Bonds, in the amounts and at the times required, the obligation to operate, repair and maintain at the Company's own expense the Project,.and to serve the purposes of the Act and such other responsibilities as may be imposed under such agreements, due consideration having been given to the consolidated financial, condition of the Company, its consolidated ratio of current liabilities, net worth, earning trends and coverage of all fixed charges, the nature of the industry or business and of the activity involved, the inherent stability thereof and other factors determinative of the capabilities of the Company, financially and otherwise, to fulfill its obligations consistently with the purposes of the Act; and G. the Issuer and other local agencies will be able to cope satisfactorily with the impact of the Project and will be able. to cause to be provided when needed, the public facilities, including utilities and public services, that will be necessary for the construction, operation, repair and maintenance of the Project and on account of any increase in population or other circumstances resulting therefrom; provided, however, that this paragraph does not obligate the Issuer to expend public funds to cause such facilities to be provided; and H. it is proposed that the Issuer and the Company enter into a memorandum of agreement in the form presented at this meeting (the "Memorandum of Agreement"), authorizing the Company to proceed with the Project as independent contractor for the acquisition, equipping and completion of the Project, all at no cost to the Issuer pending the issuance and sale of the Bonds; and providing among other things for the Bonds to be issued and sold at negotiated sale; for the use and application of the proceeds of sale of the Bonds to pay all or any part of the "cost" (as defined in the Act) of the Project, to the extent of such proceeds; for the operation, repair and maintenance of the Project by the Company or its assignee at no expense to the Issuer, pursuant to a financing agreement obligating the Company for payments sufficient in the aggregate to pay all of the principal of and interest and redemption premiums, if any, on the Bonds, and for the payment of all other costs incurred by the Issuer in connection with the financing, acquisition, construction, equipping and administration of the Project which are not paid out of the Bond proceeds or otherwise; and for such other financing agreement, indentures, and related agreements as shall be necessary or appropriate; and 2 I. the purposes of the Act will be more effectively served if, and it is necessary and desirable and in the best interest of the Issuer that, the Memorandum of Agreement be executed and delivered by and on behalf of the Issuer. SECTION 3. AUTHORIZATION OF MEMORANDUMS OF AGREEMENT. The Memorandum of Agreement in the form and with the contents presented at and filed with the minutes of this meeting be and the same is hereby approved, and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Issuer is hereby authorized and directed, in the name and on behalf of the Issuer, to execute and deliver said Memorandum of Agreement, and the Clerk of the Issuer is hereby authorized and directed to attest the same and to affix thereto the official seal of the Issuer. SECTION 4. REPEALING CLAUSE. All resolutions or orders and parts thereof in conflict herewith, to the extent of such conflict, are hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August , 1981. (CORPORATE SEAL) �_� 'c"- ' ! Clerk Indian River C unty ratricx Lyons, airman, Board of County Commissioners 3 AUG - 5 1981 eoo PAGE 103 rAUG 5 1991 860K 47 NTE COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED ON NAMING FREEMAN, RICHARDSON, WATSON, KELLY AND LIVERMORE, AS BOND COUNSEL, AND ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED THAT HE INCLUDED THEM BECAUSE HE KNEW THE COUNTY HAD USED THEM IN THE -PAST AND THEY ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE COUNTY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A 14 TO I VOTE, APPROVED THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH RAMPMASTER, INCORPORATED, INCLUDING THE CHANGES REVIEWED AT TODAY IS MEETING, AND AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN. SAID MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RETURNED. CULVERT SIZING IN INDIAN RIVER FARMS DRAINAGE DISTRICT CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD MAKE NO DECISIONS OF ANY KIND ON THIS MATTER THIS AFTERNOON, AND IN THE INTERIM HE HOPED THAT THE JOINT DRAINAGE STUDY COMMITTEE, PLUS REYNOLDS, SMITH& HILLS, AND THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS DRAINAGE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES WOULD GET TOGETHER AND BE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A PROPOSAL IN REGARD TO CULVERTS IN THE DISTRICT, IF THERE IS A PROBLEM. THE CHAIRMAN NOTED THAT HE IS ON THE JOINT DRAINAGE STUDY COMMITTEE, AND MR. SCURLOCK WAS ON THIS COMMITTEE REPRESENTING THE CITY OF VERO BEACH BUT -HAS BEEN REPLACED. CHAIRMAN LYONS WISHED TO HAVE COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REPLACE HIM ON THIS COMMITTEE IF THE REST OF THE BOARD HAD NO OBJECTIONS. HE FELT WE MUST GET THIS PROBLEM CLARIFIED AND STRAIGHTENED OUT. HE EM- PHASIZED WE WANT TO KEEP THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT INFORMED AND SHARE OUR MUTUAL CONCERN. THE BOARD HAD NO OBJECTION TO COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REPLACING THE CHAIRMAN ON THE JOINT DRAINAGE STUDY COMMITTEE. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT A MEETING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED TO DISCUSS THIS PROBLEM. COMMISSIONER WODTKE BELIEVED THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS DRAINAGE DISTRICT KNOWS THE CAPABILITIES OF THEIR FACILITIES AND HE WOULD HOPE THAT THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT ADOPT MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS FOR CULVERT SIZING THAN ARE NECESSARY. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK BELIEVED SOME OF THE PROBLEM WAS CAUSED BY VARIETY OF SIZING AND AGREED THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING OVERSIZED IF IT IS NOT NEEDED. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — LAURELWOOD SUBDIVISION. UNIT 4 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AS PER THE FOLLOWING MEMO: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: July 29, 1981 FILE: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Pequest for Final Plat Approval Prior to Construction of Improvements Laurelwood Unit 4 - Located north of Citrus Road (4th Street) East of 27th Av( FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: Robert T. Shutts , Laurel Homs to County Administrator Neil A. Nelson, County A.dministrato, dated July 15, 1981 with Attachment DESCRIPTION AND COJDITIONS The Vice -President of Laurel Homes, Mr Shutts, is requesting Final Plat approval of Laurelwood Unit 4 Subdivision prior to the completion of the Paving and drainage improvements. A developer's cost completion cash bond in the amount of $65,138.05, a certificate of cost estimate by a registered Engineer, an Escrow agreement, and the final plat document have been submitted with the letter of request. All documents have been reviewed by the County Attorney, County Finance Director, County Engineer, and County Planning Director and the necessary staff recommendations have been incorporated. ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS A portion of the bonded improvements have been completed to date. All submittals are in accordance with the approved Preliminary Plat of January 24, 1979 and the Subdivision Ordinance. At the time of Preliminary Plat approval the Board requested being notified when street lighting was provided. The developer has requested receiving interest on the escrow deposit, and the County Attorney and Finance Director do not object to a passbook interest rate being paid. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Recommend Final Plat approval of Laurelwood Subdivision Unit 4 subject to and including : 1) Submittal by -the developer of the S65,138.05 cash performance bond 2) Approval by the Chairman of the Board of the Escrow Aqreement. 3) The payment by the County of passbook rate interest for the Escrow deposit. 4) Notification by the developer to the Board of County Commissioners when street lighting is installed and operating and proper action by the Developer to initiate light installation. There are no funding considerations to be addressed for this item beyond the escrow agreement. ATTAriiMPNTC Referenced in Developers July 15, 1981 letter AUG 51991 1) Plat Linen 2) Certificate of, Cost Estimate 3) Developer's Cost Completion Bond. 4) Escrow Agreement BOOK 47 PAGE�,�� 5) Certification of Title Information for Filinq Plat. 6) Joinder- and Consent to Dedication AUG 5 1991 k MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER WODTKE, TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF LAURELWOOD SUBDIVISION, UNIT 4, SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATORS RECOMMENDATIONS OF JULY 29TH. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED FOR A BREAKDOWN OF THE ITEMS COVERED BY THE $65,000 CASH'BOND, AND PETER ROBINSON, PRESIDENT OF LAURELWOOD HOMES, STATED THAT IT COVERS THE PAVING AND DRAINAGE IM- PROVEMENTS AS STATED IN THE ESCROW AGREEMENT. THE CANAL WAS DONE IN UNIT 3. ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED THAT HE HAD REVIEWED THE AGREEMENT AND WAS SATISFIED WITH THE CONCEPT. MR. ROBINSON.PRESENTED ADMINISTRATOR NELSON WITH A CHECK FOR $65,138.05. THE BOARD MADE SEVERAL COMPLIMENTARY REMARKS ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAURELWOOD SUBDIVISION. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ESCROW AGREEMENT IT WAS VOTED ON AND THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 15th day of July, 1981 and amended herein this 29th day of July, 1981 by and between LAUREL BUILDERS, INC., Developer of the Subdivision, LAURELWOOD, UNIT 4, and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WITNESSETH: 1. The Developer hereby deposits in escrow with the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY- EIGHT AND 05/100 DOLLARS ($65, 138. 05) to guarantee that all street paving and storm drainage improvements set forth on plans and specifications for Laurelwood, Unit 4 will be fully completed and paid for. 2. That the Board of County Commissioners agrees to hold said funds and to pay the same out in the following manner: a) To the Developer upon request and upon proof satisfactory to the Board that work has progressed satisfactorily to the state of development for which the payment is made, said proof to include a certificate to that effect signed by the Developer and the County Administrator, and upon proof satisfactory to the Board that all bills therefore have been paid to date, including, but not limiting thereto, bills for surveying, engineering and land clearing, and work and material used in the construction of street having and storm drainage improvements which are included in the plan of development. Said interim payments to the Developer shall be based on the following schedule for draws against the escrow deposit: (1) Upon completion of 30% of the Laurelwood, Unit 4 street paving and storm drainage improvements, the Board shall release 30% of the deposit. (2) Upon completion of 60% of the Laurelwood, Unit 4 street paving and storm drainage improvements, the Board shall release a second 30% of deposit. (3) Upon completion of 90% of the Laurelwood, Unit 4 street paving and storm drainage improvements, the Board shall release a third 30%Q of deposit. b) Upon a determination that any portion or all of the said improvements have not been performed by the Developer within 365 calendar days from the date of this agreement, the Board is hereby authorized, but not obligated, to take over and perform any such uncompleted work and to use for such purposes the funds so deposited in escrow. C) Further, the Board is authorized to pay any bills for said improvements upon proof satisfactory to the Board that such claims are just and unpaid, and the Developer hereby consents to any such payments and authorizes and ratifies any such action on the part of the Board and agrees to protect and save harm- less said Board from any claims of any persons whomsoever on account of any improvements which may not have been completed or paid for. (1) Ten percent (10%) of the entire deposit shall not be released by the Board pending final completion of improvements and, certification by the Developer's engineer and the County Administrator that the improvements have been completed satisfactorily and that all work and materials have been paid in full. e) After the Board of County Commissioners is satisfied that all work has been satisfactorily completed and all bills for work and materials have been paid, the Board shall release to the Developer any funds remaining in the escrow account together with all interest that has accrued to the account during the time: the escrow funds have been deposited with Indian River County. THIS AGREEMENT, signed and scaled, the day and year first above written. WITNESSES: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0 Attest: Clerk of the Board LAUREL BUILDERS, INC. B y: A "A' ��L' - A-. 93 Robert T. Shutts Executive Vice President BooK - 4 7 J AUG 5 1981 17 PACE J08 THE BOARD REVIEWED THE ADMINISTRATORS MEMO OF JULY 24TH: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 24, 1981 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: ReJusst for Final Plat Approval Crystal Sands, Unit II S/D located south of Lindsey Road east of Gifford Neighborhood Park - Approximately 28.4 acres containAng 46 lots. FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: Bryar't Carter and Corbitt County Administrator Smith\\,,, Owners,. to Board of County Commissioners, dated 13 July, 1981. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The owners of the subject subdivision and the surveyor -of -Record, Dana Howard, are requesting Final Plat Approval of Crystal Sands, Unit II Subdivision. The Preliminary Plat for this subdivision was approved on October 6, 1976. As stated in the County's Subdivision Ordinance#75-3, Preliminary Plat Approval is only valid for 18 months, after which an extension should be requested by the'Board. No extension was requested and approval was revoked April 6; 1978. Former County Administrator, Jack Jennings, advised the owner to request Final Plat approval even though the revocation was in effect, as most improvements were completed prior to revocation and:the Engineer -of -Record has certified these improvements. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The County Engineering Division inspected the site on May 27, 1981, and noted.19 discrepancy items of which the applicant was informed. These items have been corrected except for the following: 1. Street signs have not been installed. The owner has submitted a paid invoice for the signs -and is awaiting delivery. 2. A statement from the owner (notarized) certifying that no outstanding indebtedness is due for the required improvements . ` has not been received. 3. Back lot seeding germination is not complete. A maintenance bond of $968. has been submitted by the owner to cover this work. Two alternatives are noted: Alternative #1. Since the Preliminary Plat Approval expired in _ 1978, require the applicant to re -apply for Preliminary Plat Approval prior to request for Final Plat. The impact this option would have includes processing time of perhaps 45 days total.and a^.equesting the applicant to escrow for the paving of a half road along Lindsey Road may result as per past County policy. Alternative #2. Grant Final Plat Approval subject to the acceptance of the $968.00 Grassing Bond, submittal of a letter from the owner certifying indebtedness is not due for improve- ments, and installation of street signs. This alternative would be as recommended by Mr his retirement. Jennings prior to RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Based upon direction given by the former County Administrator on this matter, the staff recommends Final Plat Approval of Crystal Sands, Unit II Subdivision subject to the acceptance by the County of the $968.00 seeding maintenance bond, the installation of street signs, and the submittal of a letter stating that outstanding bills have been paid for all improvements. There are no funding considerations effecting the County's budget funds. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Bryant Carter and Corbitt Smith, owners, to the Board of County Commissioners dated 13 July, 1981. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER BIRD, TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF CRYSTAL SANDS UNIT II AS PER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED ABOUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON LINDSEY ROAD, AND ENGINEER DAVIS STATED THAT THE—DEVELOPMENT IS SOUTH OF THE CANAL AND THERE IS NO PRACTICAL WAY TO HAVE MORE RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH OF THE CANAL, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL KINGSLAKE SUBDIVISION, UNIT_Z ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THE DEVELOPERS AGENT HAS A QUESTION REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SET OUT IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO: AUG 51981 Boo,K Rr DACE: U9 95 AUG 51991 BONa TO: The Honorable :Members DATE: July 21, 1981 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners Request for Preliminary Plat approval - Kingslake, Unit r2 SUBJECT: Subdivision - Approximately 20 acres containing 30 half acre lots zoned R-1 located north of Pecan Road, west of Kings Highway (505A) - Owner: Philo In- vestment, Inc. - Surveyor/Engineer: James J1_ AA. Fowler/Harlan C. Peterson FROM:T Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES. County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS :fir. S.P. Musick, agent for the developer, is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for the above subject project. The Technical Review Committee considered the preliminary plat plan during the July 7, 1981 meeting and a copy of the TRC meeting minutes on'this item is attached. All recommendations of the TRC have been made except for provisions to pave Pecan Road along the 1276.78 foot frontage. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The owner's agent, Mr. S.P. Musick, expressed his feeling that it is unequitable for the County to require both dedication of additional right-of-way along Pecan Road and also paving of Pecan Road. Past County policy (which was applied to Kingslake Subdivision to the north -.and west) is to require placing funds by the developer for the paving of half of Pecan Road in the County's escrow account at the time of Final Plat approval. The impact of this alternative would be that once the property south of Pecan Road was developed and monies received for the paving of the other half of the road, the County could proceed to pave Pecan Road at no expense to the taxpayers of Indian River County. The other alternative is to not require the developer to submit funds for the paving of a half road along Pecan Road and to pave this road some time in the future with budgeted funds. This alternative would burden the County budget with large expenditures for road paving. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Based upon past County policy, it is recommended that Preliminary Plat approval of Kingslake Unit 2 Subdivision be approved subject to the following: The developer be requested to provide funds for the paving of a half road along the 1276.78 lineal 'feet -frontage of Pecan Road at the time of Final Plat approval. There are no funding considerations to be addressed by the Board for this item. AGENT PETE MUSICK DIAGRAMMED ON THE BLACKBOARD WHAT IS HAPPENING BECAUSE OF THE COUNTY'S PRESENT POLICY IN REGARD TO ROAD RIGHT=OF-WAY. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DEVELOPER PAID $10,000 AN ACRE FOR HIS 20 ACRE TRACT, AND BY DEDICATING THE 30' REQUESTED BY THE COUNTY, HE WOULD BE GIVING UP SLIGHTLY OVER $10,000. IN ADDITION, � � O ti THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS SAYING THAT THE DEVELOPER SHOULD ESCROW HALF THE COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PECAN ROAD. MR. MUSICK ESTIMATED, BASED ON A FIGURE OF $100,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MILE OF ROAD, THAT HIS CLIENT WOULD HAVE TO PUT UP AN ADDITIONAL $12,500 FOR PAVING HIS HALF OF 1/4 MILE OF ROAD. THIS TOTALS UP TO A $22,500 COST TO THE DEVELOPER, AND MR, MUSICK FELT THERE IS AN INEQUITY OCCURRING, HIS CLIENT IS REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE 30' DEDICATION BUT NOT REQUIRE HIM TO ALSO PUT UP THE ADDITIONAL $12,500 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HALF ROAD. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE FACT THAT SOONER OR LATER SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR PAVING OF THIS ROAD AND THE PHILOSOPHY IS THAT THOSE WHO BENEFIT MOST FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOULD PAY FOR THE PAVING, MR. MUSICK POINTED OUT THAT IT IS WELL KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT APPROPRIATE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT, AND THE OWNER COULD HAVE REQUESTED APPROVAL OF THE PLAT WITHOUT OFFERING TO DEDICATE ANYTHING TO THE COUNTY FOR THAT ROAD. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS, IN EFFECT, MADE KINGS HIGHWAY A LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAY IN REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION SINCE THE LOTS ABUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT NOT ONE OF THEM ARE ALLOWED ACCESS. ENGINEER DAVIS STATED THAT PECAN ROAD IS ONE OF THE DIVISIONS FOR EVERY HALF MILE AND WOULD BE A COLLECTOR.ROAD, FOR WHICH IT IS DESIRABLE TO HAVE 60' RIGHT-OF-WAY. MR. MUSICK NOTED THAT THEY ARE NOT ARGUING ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDED, BUT IF THE OWNER IS GIVING UP THE LAND, THEY FEEL IT BEHOOVES THE BOARD TO ACCEPT IT AND LET THE PUBLIC PAY FOR BUILDING THAT ROAD WHEN THE TIME COMES TO BUILD IT. HE CONTINUED THAT NONE OF THE LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION HAVE TO USE PECAN ROAD SINCE THEY CAN ENTER IN OFF KINGS HIGHWAY. COMMISSIONER WODTKE PERSONALLY FELT THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEVISE A SYSTEM TO ADDRESS ALL ROADS SIMILAR TO PECAN ROAD AND FELT THAT RIGHT NOW WE SHOULD SETTLE FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. MR: MUSICK FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT A MAN OWNING PROPERTY FRONTING 1/4 MILE ON PECAN ROAD GOT A BUILDING PERMIT AND BUILT A HOME, AND HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE UP ANY OF HIS LAND OR POST ANY BOND FOR BUILDING A ROAD,AND SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE, THE COUNTY WILL HAVE TO BUY RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM HIM, MR. MUSICK NOTED THAT PECAN ROAD IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS, AND TO REQUIRE A MAN w AUG 5 1981 r AUG 5191 BOOK gl NGE E2 TO PAVE IT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS DEVELOPING THERE, HE BELIEVED IS WRONG. MR. MUSICK STATED THAT THIS MATTER DID NOT HAVE TO BE ACTED ON AT THIS MEETING, AND HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO WITHDRAW IT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING AND GIVE THE BOARD TIME TO THINK IT OVER. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE BOARD TODAY PASSED AN ORDINANCE WHEREBY THEY COULD PAVE PECAN ROAD BY ASSESSING THOSE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE BENEFITING BY IT. THE CHAIRMAN AGREED TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL BY MR. MUSICK AND ANNOUNCED THAT THIS MATTER WOULD BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT 5:12 O'CLOCK P.M. AND ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WOULD RECONVENE AT THE WEST CIRCUIT COURTROOM IN THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE AFTER THE SPECIAL MEETING CALLED FOR 7:30 P.M. A MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT WAS CONVENED AT 5:15 O'CLOCK P.M. MINUTES OF THAT MEETING ARE BEING PREPARED SEPARATELY. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECONVENED AT THE WEST CIRCUIT COURTROOM AT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE AT 7:50 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT, THE SPECIAL MEETING IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED GIFFORD STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT WAS DELAYED IN ORDER TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ARRIVE. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: July 14, 1981 Board of County Commissioners FILE: SUBJECT: Application by Mr. R.S. Reeves, 8180 Jungle Trail, Indian River County, to the Florida D.E.R. for a permit to construct.stone bulkhead west of Jungle Trail along the • Indian River FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Mr. Reeves constructed a 320 foot long coquina and coral bulkhead along the eastern shore of the Indian River at Wabasso in late 1980. The D.E.R. has investigated the site and determined that the wall partially severed tidal influence over the nearshore river bottoms where mangrove and other natural species thrive. The D.E.R. is rquiring Mr. Reeves to apply for an after -the - fact permit and has requested that openings.be punched in the wall, as was agreed by the applicant. Tb comply with the D.E.R., certain County approvals must be given. These local requirements are: 1) Application must be made to the Board of County Commissioners requesting a permit for construction. Applicant has requested this permit in his letter dated July 8, 1981. 2) The Board of County Commissioners shall be provided with a biological survey and ecological study. This survey is attached as prepared by Reese Kessler, D.E.R. This report shall be read into the record at a County Commission Board meeting. After the Board's decision to approve/disapprove this permit, the applicant mast obtain a copy of the minutes of the meeting or an appropriate indication of the local approval and submit same to the D.E.R.-to.complete the D.E.R. permit application. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The County Engineer, Tommy Thomas, Reese Kessler with the D.E.R., Haynes Johnson with the Corp. of 2ngineers, and the applicant have met at the construction site and have agreed upon the conditions of this "after -the - fact" permit procedure. The wall has been built in accordance with D.E.R.'s recommendations and necessary precautions to protect the ecology have been made. Two alternatives are available: 1) The Board can approve the biological survey and thereby approve the project and issuance of a permit. The impact this approval would have involves allowing.the modified bulkhead/breakwater to serve as an erosion proiaction structure and not causing harm to the environment. D.E.R. is in agreement with this alternative. 2) The Board can dens- this request and not approve the biological survey. The impact this action would have involves requiring removal of the bulkhead/breakwater and not permitting this method of erosion control west of the 320' portion of Jungle Trail. REC03LV MATIONS AND F[JIING Recommend approval of an Indian River County permit to construct a 320 linear foot bulkhead along the east bank of the Indian River along the applicant's property (R.S. Reeves) 3180 Jungle Trail and the adoption of the standard D.E.R. form resolution by Indian River County. There are no funding considerations to be considered for this item. AUG 51981 L- - BOOK 17 PAGE 11.3. r AUS 51981 806K 4 7 FA, GE - ADMINISTRATOR NELSON THEN READ THE BIOLOGICAL REPORT INTO - THE RECORD AS REQUIRED BY THE D.E.R., AS FOLLOWS: For Routing To District Offices t State of Florida AndiOr To Other Than The Addreawe DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION To: Loctn.: To: Loctn.:.._ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Loctn.:�_ ---- -- From: — Date: ST. JOIiNS RIVER DISTRICT TO: File THROUGH: Walt Wheeler ,j'� lf/ THROUGH: Wilbert Holliday�� - FROM: Reese Kessler`" DATE: June 26, 1981 SUBJECT: R. S. Reeves 31-36462-4E, Indian River County --D/F The applicant proposes to.construct 320 feet of coquina and coral -bulkhead along the east shore of the Indian River at Wabasso. The bulkhead (after -the -fact) extends an average of 5 feet offshore of mangrove and an abrupt bank. No fill has been deposited behind the bulkhead. Five foot wide openings, every 100 feet are proposed to restore better tidal influence. - This section of the Indian River (south of Wabasso Bridge) is Class II waters and includes the Intracoastal Waterway. The Intracoastal Water- way is particularly close to the river's east shore and as such has caused serious problems with the maintenance of Jungle -Trail (a dirt road paralleling the river). Large stands of mangrove vegetate the general shoreline, however, open beaches and areas vegetated by exotics are constant -erosion points. The subject site is a narrow strip of upland between Jungle Trail and the river. Australian Pines dominate the land to the river shore. Several black mangrove (only a few years old or dwarfed because of the presence of -pines) are scattered along the river bank. The appli- cant has planted a few'clumps of smooth cordgrass'(Spartina alterniflora) in front of the mangrove. Erosion around the pine roots is evident. Between the bank (and mangrove) and the subject bulkhead, river bottoms are less than 6 inches deep, consisting of sand and are inhabited by - marine -crustaceans. Water movement is restricted to small weep holes through the bulkhead and an opening at the bulkhead's south end. The north•end was open, however, the littoral drift of sand has caused a bar to close.this opening. The proposed after -the -fact bulkhead has partially severed tidal influ- ence over nearshore river bottoms. Erosion is a potential hazard to the -upland property. Protection to the upland and restoration of tidal action can be provided with this plan. The bulkhead will serve as a breakwater, thereby dissipating water energy. Australian Pines are poor shoreline stabilizers, therefore, removal of the trees and refores- tation with native vegetation is suggested. This shading effect of the pines will greatly reduce the success of any understory vegetation. 100 s LOCAL PEFZ,.ITS A permit frim the local governing body is required for your application to place fill below the line of mean high water of coastal waters or ozdinary high water line of Lakes and inland rivers. Chapter 253.124, Florida Statutes, states in part: "253.124 Application for filing land. - "(1) Any private person, firm or corporation desiring to con- struct islands or add to or extend existing lands or islands located in the unincorporated area of any county.bordering on or in the navigable waters of the state,.as defined in 9253.12, by pumping sand, rock or earth from such waters br by any other me-ans shall make application in writing to the board of county commissioners of the county wherein such construction is desired for a permit authorizing such person, firm or corporation to engage in such construction; provided that where it is desired to construct islands or add to or extend existing lands or islands within the territory of any municipality such application for a construction or fill per- mit shall be made to the governing body of such municipality. "(2) In each instance the written application herein provided for shall be accompanied by a plan or drawing showing the proposed construction and the manner in which said construe- . -tion will be accomplished and also the area from which any fill material -is to be dredged if the proposed construction -is intended to be created from dredged material. In the event the board ofcounty commissioners or other authorized body shall find that -such proposed extension or filling of land or such proposed dredging is not violative of any statute, zoning law, ordinance, or other restrictions which _ may be applicable thereto, that no harmful obstruct,ion.to or alteration of the natural flow of the navigable water, as defined in §253.12, within such area will arise from the proposed construction, that no harmful or increased erosion, shoaling of channels or stagnant areas of wa-ter'will be created thereby, and that no material injury or monetary damage f-b,"adjoining land will accrue therefrom, the same shall-k•e'granted to the applicant, subject to the approval .-of-'the board of trustees of the internal improvement trust fund, who shall have the,power to approve, reject or issue; . provided, however, that prior to the issuance of such per- mit, -the board of county commissioners or other authorized • body shall determine whether the granting of such permit and the construction to be done pursuant thereto would inter- fere with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife -or other natural resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest, and whether the destruction of oyster beds, claim beds, or marine -productivity, including but not limited to, destruction of nate:ral-marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, including established marine soils suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, will result therefrom to such an, emtent as to be contrary to the public interest. The board shall also consider any other fa--to--s affecting the public interests. 101 866K 17 PACE h5 B60K WAGE 6 "(3) No construction permit shall be issued or approved until the board of county commissioners or other authorized body shall have obtained, at the expense of the applicant, a biological survey, an ecological study, and, where deemed necessary by the department of natural resources, a hydro- graphic survey of the area within which such construction and dredging is proposed, each by or under the supervision of the department of natural resources and shall have in hand the report and findings thereof. The report shall be read into the record and duly considered at the same meeting at which the board of county commissioners or other authorized body takes.final action on the application for permit. Such surveys and studies may not be required if the proposed con- struction or dredging is wholly shoreward of a previously established bulkhead line which was fixed after consideration by the bulkhead authority of a biological survey and ecological study previously made by the department of natural resources or under its supervision in connection with the fixing of such line or if the proposed construction or dredging is wholly within lands or islands heretofore purchased from the board of trustees of the internal improvement trust fund under §253.12 and in the consummation of such sale the board had before it a biological survey made by or under the supervision of the department of natural resources. "(8) Any riparian upland owner of land bordering on or in the navigable waters of the state who desires to repair, rebuild, replace, or reconstruct coastal structures in the na.-ure of seawalls, revetments, retaining walls, bulkheads, or other similar protective structures installed upon his riparian upland,'or who desires to restore such uplands after damage by avulsion or by artifically induced erosion, shall, before undertaking such project, obtain a permit for such work from the board of county commissioners or other authorized body or froin the governing -body of a municipality if the work proposed shall be within the territory of such municipality. Such a permit shall be subject to the approval of the board of trustees and shall not be valid without such approval. The riparian owner making application for such a permit may not be required to comply with §253.122. A biological survey and ecological study may not be required if the proposed work lies at no greater distance than twenty- -five feet into the waters where such work is proposed from the existing and established line of mean high water or existing coastal structure. A permit issued under the pro- vi3ions of this subsection shall not be construed to allow CO'istructs:on of coastal structures or restoration of lands that may be subject to the provisions of chapter 161.11 Action cannot be taken concerning fill permits by the Board of Trustees until such time as evidence is received showing the City or county commission granted a permit pursuant to this statute. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-55 GIVING APPROVAL TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BULKHEAD AS APPLIED FOR BY R. S. REEVES$ DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDING THIS APPLICATION ACTUALLY HAVING BEEN RECEIVED "AFTER THE FACT," AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT THE WORDING OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE CHANGED TO READ "WHEREAS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAS RECEIVED AN "AFTER THE FACT" APPLICATION FROM R. S. REEVES, WHO HAS CONSTRUCTED ..." COMMISSIONERS FLETCHER AND SCURLOCK AGREED TO INCORPORATE THE ABOVE WORDING AS PART OF THEIR MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-55. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 103 ���iK F PAGE AUG 51981 goo' 7_P,, 118 RESOLUTION NO. 81 - 55 WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, has received an application from R.S. Reeves, who has constructed 320 feet of coquina and coral bulkhead along the east shore of the Indian River at Wabasso (a copy of the application is attached and incorporated herein); and WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed and it has been determined that the project entertained would not: 1. violate any statute, zoning law, ordinance or other -applicable restriction, nor 2. subject the natural flow of the navigable water as defined in Section 253.12, Florida Statutes, to harmful obstruction or alteration, nor 3. create harmful or increased erosion, shoaling of channels or stagnant areas of water, nor 4. cause material injury or monetary damage to accrue to adjoining land; and WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, has determined: a. whether the project will interfere with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest; and b. whether the destruction of oyster beds, clam beds or marine productivity, including but not limited to destruction of natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, including established marine soils suitable for pro- ducing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life will result therefrom to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest; and has also considered other factors affecting the public interest; and r WHEREAS, the reports designated in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, have been considered and read into the record at the same meeting at which final action has been taken on this application, then BE IT RESOLVED that this Commission hereby gives its approval to the project as constructed subject to the approval of the Department of Environmental Regulation pursuant to Section 253.124 (2) , Florida Statutes. Resolved this 5th day of August, 1981, at a regularly scheduled public meeting. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF B� Attest: Freda Wright Clerk AUG 5 1991 BOOR 7 PAGE J 9 I AUG. 51991 860K 4 7 _R4GE 120 FISCAL AGENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT HE REVIEWED THE DESIRA— BILITY OF HAVING A FISCAL AGENT FOR THE COUNTY WITH THE INTERGOVERN— MENTAL COORDINATOR AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK AND WISHED TO SUBMIT THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 29, 1981 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Fiscal Agent Services FROM: NeiN. elson REFERENCES: County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS During the past few years the County has issued several bond issues for various capital projects. For each of these issues, a fi=rm was selected to provide financial advisory services through the sale of the bonds. Basically, each issue was handled as a separate matter with several firms participating on different issues. During the next few years, the Administration forsees the possibility of additional bond financing particularly for utilities and road construction projects. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The County's past methods of securing financial advisory services on an individual project basis, and of allowing the financial advisor to negotiate the purchase of the bond, in some cases, has proven less than totally satisfactory. Alternatives to past practice include competitive selection of either "fiscal agent" or investment banking" services for: a) each bond issue, b) on an annual basis, or c) to serve at the pleasure of the Board. The Administration believes a potential conflict of interest existing with an "investment banking" agreement. Under this type agreement the County's advisor negotiates with the County to purchase the bonds. The County must then either trust that the investment banker is acting in the Corm ty's best interests, or secure independent advice regarding the merits of the "ba.hkers" offer. Under a "fiscal agent" agreement the County's advisor handles all of the advice and details prior to a bond sale, and then coordinates a competitive bid sale of the bonds, continuing to advise the County regarding the merit of bids received. In both the "investment banker" and "fiscal -agent" agreements, the advisor handles all details preparatory to bond closing.- a A recent study has shown that negotiated bond sales generally cost 4 to 2 a percentage point.more, in annual interest costs, than comparable bonds sold through competitive bid. This cost can be substantial over the life of a bond issue. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Based upon the above review, the Administration submits the following recommendations for Board consideration: 1. The County secure "fiscal agent" services through a competitive selection process. 2. Fiscal Agent •selected will serve at the "pleasure of the Board". 3. Administration be directed to prepare and distribute a "Request for Proposals" seeking statements of interest and qualifications from firms providing "fiscal agent" services within Florida. 4. Administration be directed to review and evaluate proposals received, and to submit a "short list" of from 3 to 5 firms to the Board. 5. Short listed firms be invited to make presentations to the Board with the Board ranking the firms. 6. Administration to negotiate contract for "fiscal agent" services with top ranked firm, for submission to, and approval by, the Board of County Commissioners. Costs for "fiscal agent" services are generally dependent on the size of the bond issue, and are generally payd from bond proceeds as part of the cost of issuance. Due to the ongoinq nature of this contract, however, there may be some costs -for a "retainer". These should be minimal, but should also :be divided between the Utilities and Transportation Trust Funds, subject to ,adjustment if and when particular bonds are actually issued.- The.Administration respectfully requests Board approval of the above recommendations, and direction to proceed as outlined. Should any additional i-nformation be desired, -please advise. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE - HAS REVIEWED THIS MATTER WITH THE FINANCE OFFICER AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR AT LENGTH, AND IT APPEARS THE COUNTY IS IN AN EVER INCREASING MANNER BECOMING INVOLVED WITH VARIOUS BOND ISSUES AND THEY ANTICIPATE THIS TREND CONTINUING, SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE SOMEONE IN THE BOND MARKET DAY TO DAY CAPABLE OF FORMING AND MAKING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO GO OUT AND THROUGH ADVERTISING PROCEDURES, SELECT AN AGENT TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO US, THIS INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE ELIMINATED FROM PARTICIPATION IN ANY OF THE UNDERWRITING AND WOULD FUNCTION STRICTLY AS A FINANCIAL ADVISOR. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK DID NOT BELIEVE WE, AT THIS TIME, HAVE THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE AVAILABLE IN OUR STAFF. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMIS— SIONER WODTKE, TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED IN THE ADMINISTRA— TOR S MEMO OF JULY 29, 1981. • 107 BOOK 43 PACE 121 I r AUG 51981 BOOR 4. 7 PAI-IE122 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER NOTED THAT DUE TO THE ON-GOING NATURE OF SUCH A CONTRACT, THERE MAY BE'SOME COST FOR RETAINER, AND HE WISHED TO KNOW WHAT THAT MIGHT ENTAIL. CHAIRMAN LYONS ENVISIONED WORKING ON A YEAR TO YEAR BASIS, AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THIS WOULD GO ALONG WITH NEGOTIATING A CONTRACT, HE DID NOT FEEL ANY COST WOULD BE ON A RETAINER BASIS, BUT PROBABLY WOULD BE BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE ISSUE. HE POINTED OUT THAT FINAL APPROVAL WOULD NOT BE MADE TONIGHT IN ANY EVENT. DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO WHY HAVING A FINANCIAL AGENT IS PREFERABLE TO WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW AND WHETHER SUCH AN AGENT WOULD BE CONCERNED ONLY WITH BOND ISSUES. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT LEEDY HAS BEEN GIVING US SOME ASSISTANCE IN THIS FIELD BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE ON OUR STAFF WITH THIS PARTICULAR EXPERTISE. HE FELT SUCH AN AGENT WOULD BE AVAIL- ABLE TO PROVIDE ADVICE ON ANY FINANCIAL ENDEAVOR OR FUNDING WE MAY BE LOOKING AT AND TO COME UP WITH VARIOUS MECHANISMS. IT WOULD BE ON A BASIS OF REQUIRED SERVICES. CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT WE SHOULD PROCEED AS RECOMMENDED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS IS WORTHWHILE AND WHETHER WE CAN AFFORD IT. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT 8:20 O'CLOCK P.M. IN ORDER THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING CALLED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED GIFFORD STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT MIGHT TAKE PLACE, MINUTES OF SAID SPECIAL MEETING ARE BEING PREPARED SEPARATELY, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECONVENED AT 9:511 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT. PAVING OF PORTION OF LATERAL "A" AND R.D. CARTER ROADS THE ADMINISTRATOR REVIEWED HIS MEMO OF JULY 27TH: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: July 27, 1981 FILE: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Paving of: 1. Lateral "A" Road from CR510 (Wabasso Rd) to Schumman Drive. 2. 1st Street S.W. (R.D. Carter Rd.) from 27th Avenue to 43rd Avenue. FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Since construction of the new school has commenced just north of Lateral "A" Road along Schumman Drive near Sebastian, a paved road will soon be required for transportation from the County area south of this school. Ms. Kenyon Fish of the Indian River County School Board has informed the County Engineer that this road is considered one of the most important roads recommended for paving, in the School Board's opinion. This road has been prioritized as number 5 on the Priority list prepared in March, 1981, by the County Road and Bridge Department. This road is approximately .6 mile long Efforts are currently being made by the County Attorney to request the appropriate deeds for a 50' wide road right-of-way along this portion of Lateral "A" Road. Also; R.D. Carter Road, (1st Street, S.W.), a County connected road, is also in need of paving. Recent traffic counts taken reveal that 1,051 vehicles per day traverse this road. This road has been prioritized as number 1 on the Road and Bridge Department's Priority list and the School Board has stated that R.D. - Carter Road is on the School bus route system. This road is approximately 1 mile -long and existing right-of-way width varies from 30' to 52' - ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Approximately $173,694.02 remains unencumbered.in the Road and Bridge Department's - account #004 -214 -541 -35.39 -for road materials/supplies under the 1980-81 F.Y. Budget. Of this amount, approximately $58,000. is intended for stripping and traffic paint for those County roads recently paved and where restrippona is sb.rely needed. After this expenditire, approximately $115-,000. remains uncommitted. Three alternatives are presented to the Board to consider spending of this $115,000.: Alternative #1: Construct 6" thick - 24' wide soil -cement base along the 1.6 mile portion of R.D. Carter Road and Lateral "A" Road at -a cost of approximately $65,000. under 109 BOOK P PAG, 123 r AUG 5 19 1 866K P P4E I24 the County's annual contract with Pan American Engineering Company and have Dickerson, Inc. construct a 22' wide 1" asphalt surface for a cost of $43,000. Total cost for the above.work would be $108,000. Minor incidental work, grading, drainage, etc. would be performed by the County Poad and Bridge Department. Any cost overrun could be paid for out of the 1981-82 budget. Hopefully, all right- of-way can be acquired. This paving would relieve heavy maintenance costs 'involved with these roads. Alternative #2: If possible, the unencumbered balance as of September 30, 1981, be carried over to the 1981-82 budget under the same account number. If the priorities of the Board are different than the paving of R.D. Carter Road and Lateral "A" Road or if right-of-way acquisition problems complicate matters, the road paving capability that we have with these funds will not be lost. Alternative #3: Direct the $115,000. to be spent on other than the -above subject roads as approved by the Board. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Based upon the specific paving needs as presented in the March, 1981 Roads Workshop, it is recommended that thefollowing roads be paved with remaining funds in the Road and Bridge Department account #004-214-541-35.39. 1. Lateral "A" Road from C.R. 510 (Wabasso Road) to the connection to Schumman Drive leading to the new Sebastian Elementary School - approximate cost for base and asphalt work = $41,000. Other incidental work along the 3,000' length of project shall be by the Road and Bridge Department. 2. R.D. Carter Road (1st Street S.W.) from 27th Avenue to 43rd Avenue. Length of project 1.0 mile. Approximate cost $67,000. for base and asphalt work. Other incidental work to be done by Road and Bridge Department staff. Total estimated cost: $108,000.00 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER PRESUMED THAT LATERAL "A" WAS GIVEN PRIORITY OVER POWER LINE ROAD BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SITUATION, AND ENGINEER DAVIS STATED THE ONLY REASON WAS PROXIMITY TO THE SCHOOL. HE CONTINUED THAT WE HAVE MAINTAINED LATERAL "A" FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND HAVE SENT EACH PROPERTY OWNER A LETTER REQUESTING THEM TO GIVE US THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE RESPONSE HAS BEEN NEGATIVE SO FAR. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT ROAD PAVING POLICY. ENGINEER DAVIS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE TRAFFIC COUNT ON R.D. CARTER ROAD IS OVER 1,000 VEHICLES PER DAY. IT IS MORE A COLLECTOR ROAD THAN RESIDENTIAL AND THE SAME APPLIES TO POWER LINE ROAD AND LATERAL "A"; ALSO, BOTH OF THESE ARE RECOMMENDED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD AS ONE OF THEIR PRIORITIES. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT IF THE POEPLE ALONG LATERAL "A" DON T WANT TO COOPERATE, WE SHOULD CONTACT PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE OTHER ROAD AND SEE WHO WILL GIVE US THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. COMMISSIONER WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT ONE OF OUR OPTIONS FOR USING THE UNCOMMITTEED $115,000 IS TO CARRY IT OVER INTO THE NEXT YEAR S BUDGET; WE COULD UTILIZE THESE FUNDS IN OUR RESURFACING PROGRAM AND ADDRESS THE SUBJECT ROADS UNDER OUR NEW POLICY ON AN ASSESSMENT BASIS. CHAIRMAN LYONS AGREED THAT HE WOULD PREFER TO PUT THESE FUNDS IN A REVOLVING FUND UNTIL WE SEE WHERE WE ARE GOING. COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED IF WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION REGARD- ING A ROAD TO THE SCHOOL, AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE SCHOOL BOARD WAS NOT ALLOWED BY LAW TO PAY FOR PAVING OF THE ROAD BY THE OSLO SCHOOL, THE COST WAS INCORPORATED IN THE COST OF THE PROPERTY. DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO THE NECESSITY OF OBTAINING RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND IT WAS GENERALLY FELT IF WE CAN GET THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CAN DO A PROPER PROJECT, THEN WE SHOULD PURSUE IT, BUT NOT UNLESS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER SUGGESTED THAT HE DISCUSS THIS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AFFECTED AREA, AND IT WAS AGREED NOT TO TAKE ANY ACTION UNTIL INFORMATION CAN BE RECEIVED FROM COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ABOUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. DATE AND LOCATION FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT AN EMERGENCY ITEM HAS BEEN GENERATED BY A REQUEST FROM THE BOARD TO HAVE A LARGER SPACE FOR HOLDING THE HEARINGS ON THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. HE REPORTED THAT WE CAN USE THE HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM FREE OF CHARGE; RIVERSIDE THEATRE WOULD CHARGE $250 PER NIGHT, AND THE COMMUNITY CENTER ALSO CHARGES.. HE THEN DISCUSSED THE VARIOUS DATES AVAILABLE AT THE VARIOUS LOCATIONS. AFTER A GOOD DEAL OF DISCUSSION, IT WAS DECIDED TO TRY FOR THE DATES OF AUGUST 18TH AND SEPTEMBER IST AT EITHER THE .JUNIOR OR SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUMS. AGREEMENT WITH VISTA PROPERTIES RE SEWER AND WATER FACILITIES THE AGREEMENT WITH VISTA PROPERTIES RE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES WITHIN THE VISTA ROYALE AND VISTA ROYALE GARDEN COMPLEXES IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF .JULY 1, 1981. IHE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD. AUG- 51991 11 BOCK 7 PAGE 125 1 All ' i .•.` 0 Book 47 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of July , 1981, executed in duplicate (each executed copy constituting an original) by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, its governmental successors and assigns and to include utility departments and special districts now in existence or hereafter created, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY", and VISTA PROPERTIES OF VERO BEACH, INC., a Florida corporation, 'hereinafter referred to as "VISTA", its successors and assigns. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the COUNTY, effective September 7, 1972, established an Indian River County Utility Department by Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and VISTA entered into a certain agreement on December 5, 1973, providing that VISTA would donate and construct for the COUNTY, sewer and water facilities to serve a portion of the South County area known as Vista Royale; and WHEREAS, VISTA has developed a portion of said sewer and water facilities; and WHEREAS, VISTA is presently constructing additional sewer and water facilities which VISTA also agrees to donate to the COUNTY; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY is in the process of providing utility services to the South County area; and WHEREAS, VISTA is in the process of constructing in the Vista Royale Gardens project, water.storage and distribution facilities system; water distribution and sewage collection system; and sewage treatment plant. All such facilities then completed shall be conveyed to the county on February 1, 1982 as hereinafter indicated. Any distribution or collection facilities completed after February 1, 1982 shall be M_ conveyed to the county as completed subject to the terms of this Agreement. WHEREAS, the COUNTY and VISTA by this Agreement intend to set forth their respective rights and obligations pertaining to the transfer of said sewer and water facilities. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and other valuable considerations, the parties agree as follows: I. Vista Royale Sewage Treatment Plant. The following -described property shall be used exclusively for sewage treatment and necessary activities associated therewith: A. VISTA hereby conveys to the COUNTY all of its right, title and interest in and to the sewage treatment plant with a tertiary filter having a capacity of 500,000 gallons per day and a 100,000 gallon surge tank as described in the record drawings attached hereto as Exhibit A-1, together with the real property described in Exhibit A-2 of the Vista Royale Sewage Treatment Plant site. B. VISTA hereby conveys to the COUNTY all of its right, title and interest in and to five (5) lift stations and the SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM, all of which are described in the record drawings attached hereto as Exhibit A-3. C. VISTA hereby conveys to the COUNTY all of its right, title and interest in and to one (1) 75 kilowatt auxiliary power generator and one (1) 15 kilowatt portable power generator described in the Inventory attached hereto as Exhibit A-4. VISTA hereby also agrees to convey all available operating records and data pertaining to the said 500,000 gallon per day contact stabilization sewer plant to the COUNTY, including operating data available through February 1st, 1982. II. Vista Royale Water Treatment Plant. A. VISTA hereby conveys to the COUNTY all of its right, title and interest in and to the water plant with a present average daily design capacity of 504,000 gallons per AUG 5 1981 2 BOOK 4 7 PAGE 127 AUG 51991 BOOK 47 F� day, a ground storage tank with a design capacity of 200,000 gallons, a 10,000 -gallon hydropneumatic tank, including but not limited to all pumps, drives, electrical controls, testing equipment and available operating records and data. Said water treatment plant is described in the record drawings attached hereto as Exhibit A-8 and are located on that certain parcel of land in Indian River County as described in Exhibit A-9. B. VISTA hereby conveys to COUNTY the six (6) potable wells and their related.equipment, i.e., pumps and electrical systems attached thereto, same being situated on the Vista Royale project in the approximate locations as indicated on Exhibit A-5 and specifically designated as "Well Site Per Paragraph II B, attached hereto. C. VISTA hereby conveys to the COUNTY its right, title, and interest in and to one (1) 100 kilowatt power generator described in Exhibit A-4 attached hereto. D. VISTA hereby conveys to the COUNTY all its right, title and interest in and to the water distribution: system described in Exhibit A-3, attached hereto. III: Vista Royale Gardens Sewage Treatment Plant: The following -described property shall be used exclusively for sewage treatment and necessary activities associated therewith. A. VISTA will convey to the COUNTY all of its right, title,..and interest in and to the 150,000 gallon per day capacity extended aeration sewage plant with tertiary filtration; the 30,000 gallon surge tank with pumps, drives and controls, all of which are described in the sewage treatment plant construction drawings attached hereto as Exhibit B-1 and located in Indian River County on that certain parcel of land described in Exhibit B-2 attached hereto. B. VISTA will convey to the COUNTY all of its right, title, and interest in and to two (2) lift stations and the entire collection system as described in the water 3 M. M distribution and sewage collection system construction drawings attached hereto as Exhibit B-3. C. VISTA will convey to the COUNTY all of its right, title and interest in and to that certain 65 kilowatt auxiliary power generator described in the inventory attached hereto as Exhibit B-4. IV. Vista Royale Gardens Water Storage and Distribution Facilities. A. VISTA will convey to the COUNTY all of its right, title and interest in and to the 100,000 gallon ground storage tank, 10,000 gallon hydropneumatic tank, two (2) high service pumps and related equipment as described in the water storage and distribution facilities system construction drawings attached hereto as Exhibit B-6 and located on that parcel of land in Indian River County described in Exhibit B-7 attached hereto. B. VISTA will convey to the COUNTY all of its right, title and interest in and to the water distribution system as described in the water distribution and sewer collection system construction drawings attached hereto as Exhibit B-3. C. VISTA will convey to the COUNTY its right, title and interest in and to one (1) 50 kilowatt auxiliary power generator described in Exhibit B-4 attached hereto. V.-. Vista Royale Easements. A. VISTA hereby grants to the COUNTY a non-exclusive easement for access to that certain parcel of land containing more or less six (6) acres of impounded wet lands located in Golf Area Five, which is presently used as an effluent discharge area, said area located in Indian River County, Florida, and which is specifically designated on Exhibit A-5 attached hereto and marked "Six Acre Effluent Easement Area Per Paragraph V-A."; the purpose of this easement is to grant to the COUNTY the use of said six (6) acres for the sole use as an effluent discharge area in sole conjunction with a A U G 5 1^81 4 goo 7 FACE 129 RUG 1981 800(( 47 PAGE 130 the Vista Royale Sewage Treatment Plant as set forth in paragraph III above. B. VISTA hereby grants to the COUNTY a non-exclusive easement in and to that certain parcel of land containing more or less 12.5 acres of impounded -.wet lands and located in the northeast quadrant of the Vista Royale single family residence area, in Indian River County, Florida, and specifically designated on Exhibit A-5, attached hereto, as "12.5 Acres Impounded Wet Lands -Per Paragraph V -B"; the purpose of this easement is to grant to the COUNTY the use of said twelve and one-half (12.5) acres for the sole use as an effluent discharge area in sole conjunction with the Vista Royale Sewage Treatment Plant as set forth in paragraph III above. C. VISTA hereby grants to the COUNTY non-exclusive,ingress and egress easements and water and sewer easements including an easement for all lines and related equipment of fifteen (15) feet in width as shown on Exhibits A-6 and A-7 and specifically designated on said Exhibits as "Fifteen Foot Access Easement Per Paragraph V -C". D. In addition to the foregoing, VISTA hereby grants to the COUNTY a non-exclusive access easement and water and sewer easements including an easement for all lines and related equipment having a fifteen (15) foot width as specifically identified in Exhibit A-9 and marked "Fifteen Foot Easement Per Paragraph V -D". E. It is expressly agreed to between the parties that the sewage effluent treated at the Vista Royale Sewer Plant may be transferred to the Vista Royale Gardens Impoundment Area, which is commonly referred to as that parcel of land containing more or less fifty-two (52) acres of impounded wet lands and located on the eastern border of Golf Area No. 1 of Vista Royale Gardens, and being specifically designated on Exhibit B-10 as the Impoundment Wet Lands per paragraph V -E. 5 M M F. VISTA hereby conveys to the COUNTY a fifteen (15) foot wide easement parallel and adjacent to the easterly right of way of U.S. 1 extending from the northernmost border of the northern potable well fence to the southernmost border of the southern well fence and a fifteen (15) foot wide easement perpendicular from the eastern boundary of the U.S. 1 right of way to each well site extending three (3) feet beyond the existing eastern fence of each potable well site, except that certain well site described in Exhibit B-9 which easement is conveyed as specifically described in said Exhibit B-9. G. VISTA hereby conveys to the COUNTY a non-exclusive right to those easements reserved by VISTA in Vista Royale, which declarations are recorded in Indian River County records as indicated in Exhibit A-10. VI. Vista Royale Gardens Easements. A. VISTA will grant to COUNTY a non-exclusive easement in and to that parcel of land containing more or less fifty-two (52) acres of impounded wet lands and located on the eastern border of Golf Area Number 1 of Vista Royale Gardens, and being specifically designated on Exhibit B-10 as the "Impounded Wet Lands". The COUNTY reserves the right to survey the said Impouinded Wet Lands at its expense and incorporate the result in legal description in this Agreement subject to approval of the legal description by VISTA. B. VISTA will convey to the COUNTY a non-exclusive ingress and egress easement and water and sewer easements including an easement for all lines and related equipment of fifteen (15) feet in width to the water and sewage facilities as specifically designated on Exhibit B-5. C. VISTA agrees to convey all utility easements reserved by VISTA for Phases I and II of Vista Royale Gardens, as shown in Exhibit B-3. VII. Additional Provisions. A. VISTA guarantees to COUNTY water capacity of 100,000 gallons per day and sewage capacity of 100,000 gallons 6 POOL 4, F7 PAGE M AUG ���� E�OQ�( r FACE 132 per day, the said 100,000 gallons of water and sewer represents the total gallons per day available from the combined Vista Royale and Vista Royale Gardens facilities. VISTA retains the use of all capacities in excess of the aforesaid minimums for its use in its various projects including present and future developments which may be serviced by such facilities. The aforesaid 100,000 gallon capacities for water and sewer are based upon the proposed maximum expansion of Vista Royale and Vista Royale Gardens and expec`ad uses, as attached hereto as Exhibit B-8. Provided further that if VISTA does not exceed the stated maximum expansion, VISTA shall not be responsible for failure of the system to provide the said guaranteed capacities after the COUNTY assumes management and operational control of the water and sewer treatment facilities. B. VISTA assumes no responsibility nor any; liability for the capacities of any potable well. C. VISTA represents to COUNTY the COUNTY will be permitted to hook up into the VISTA water system after March 31, 1981 and further represents that said hook-up will provide 100,000 gallons per day from the Vista Royale water treatment plant. D. VISTA further agrees that the COUNTY may, after March 31, 1981, utilize all water and sewage capacities mentioned in this Agreement as the COUNTY may, from time to time, determine, provided, however, the precise location of the hook-up shall be determined by VISTA. E. For those residential and commercial units located in Vista Royale or Vista Royale Gardens or Forest Park Subdivision areas connected to this utility system, the parties agree that VISTA has prepaid all impact fees charged and chargeable by its contribution of the assets of the water and sewer systems of Vista Royale and Vista Royale Gardens. F. VISTA will continue to install water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, and water meters according to the COUNTY'S specifications and other applicable government laws 7 M. and regulations until Vista Royale, Vista Royale Gardens, and Forest Park Subdivision are fully developed. G. The management of the subject water and sewer facility will be provided by VISTA until February 1, 1982; said management to include all maintenance, operation and management of the sewer and water systems. The above described management services will be provided by VISTA to the COUNTY at no cost to the COUNTY; however VISTA will retain all monies collected from Vista Royale and Vista Royale Gardens customers in consideration for the above described management activities until February 1, 1982, at which time the COUNTY will bill, collect and retain all monies collected from Vista Royale, Vista Royale Gardens; and Forest Park Subdivision customers. H. Prior to February 1, 1982, VISTA will make available to the COUNTY 100,000 gallons per day of water treatment capacity and sewage treatment capacity at a bulk -rate charge of $.70 per thousand gallons of water and $.61 per thousand gallons of sewage treatment as measured by the total water usage indicated by the bulk water meter less any water lost as a result of any broken water mains as documented by the COUNTY, but not to exceed 10,000 gallons per break. I. The COUNTY will have the sole and exclusive duties of fixing fees and billing non -Vista Royale, non -Vista Royale Gardens and non -Forest Park Subdivision customers prior to February 1, 1982. J. VISTA will file monthly financial, maintenance, and operation reports as directed and in a form agreed to by the County Utility Department and VISTA beginning one (1) month after the effective date of this Agreement, continuing through February 1, 1982. K. The COUNTY represents that it will not alter the existing types of structures for water and sewage -treatment and will provide adequate screening of these structures from residential areas, to the extent that such screening exists as of February 1, 1982. III BOOK. 47 PAGE 133 AUG 5 19 1 B6 'K Fay 134 L. The parties further agree that, should any offensive odor be detected by VISTA, VISTA will provide the COUNTY with a five (5) day written notice particularly describing the source and cause, if known, of the offensive odors and will allow the COUNTY five (5) days after receipt of the notice to take corrective action. Should the parties hereto fail to agree that offensive odors are emanating from either the sewage treatment plant or effluent discharge area, which are the subjects of this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that the Department of Environmental Regulation, or its successors in interest, will act as mediator to determine whether an unacceptable level of offensive odors is being generated from the sewage treatment facilities. M. The COUNTY represents that it will limit effluent discharge to the present maximum capacity of Vista Royale and Vista Royale Gardens sewer plants as such capacities will exist while operating the sewage -treatment plants at their rated capacities; notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, the above limitations shall be subject to VISTA not interposing any objection to the COUNTY'S right'to install an additional sewage treatment plant not to exceed 150,000 gallons per day treatment capacity to be located near the existing sewage treatment facilities located at Vista Royale Gardens. N. VISTA expressly warrants that all water and sewage facilities as above described will, at the time of execution of this Agreement, be in acceptable working order, and further that the above described water and sewer facilities will have received all necessary permits from the'Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and that said permits will be, at the time of conveyance, in full force and effect, and further that there will be no outstanding deficiencies in the systems above described, nor will there be any outstanding orders from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation D for the repair or maintenance of the subject water and sewer facilities. 0. The parties agree that the present employees of the VISTA water and sewer plants will have the option of remaining in their present job status as COUNTY employees after February 1, 1982. VISTA agrees to carry all insurance and workman's compensation on existing employees and to be responsible for them as their employer until February 1, 1982. P. VISTA agrees to maintain in full force and effect, casualty and liability insurance on all water and sewer facilities and appurtenances subject to this Agreement and further to name the COUNTY as the named insured under said policies. VISTA further agrees to hold and save harmless the COUNTY from and against any and all actions, or causes of actions, claims, demands, liabilities, loss, damage or expense of whatsoever kind and nature, including attorney's fees which the COUNTY shall or may at any time after the effective date of this Agreement incur, by reason or in consequence of the operation of the subject water and sewer facilities until February 1, 1982. Q. VISTA represents that it will maintain the water and sewer plants subject to this Agreement including all lines and appurtenances thereto, and all items described in the Inventory attached hereto as Exhibit A-4 and B-4 in an acceptable manner excepting ordinary wear and tear from the date of execution of this Agreement until February 1, 1982. R. The parties hereto agree that as to any above identified parcels of land hereby encumbered or to be encumbered by.easements for the purpose of providing effluent discharge areas, VISTA reserves the right in and to said easements, at any future date, to unilaterally reduce the size or sizes of the parcel.or parcels of land to be or being encumbered by such easements, if the full capacity treatment of the respective sewage treatment plants for Vista Royale Gardens will not be affected thereby; such reduction shall be 10F AUG 5 1991 aoo� 4 7 PAGE 13 �soon � AUG 51991 7 PnE: % accomplished by an Amended -Easement Deed solely executed and recorded by VISTA; however, the COUNTY will also execute such documents as may be reasonably requested to show its consent to any such amendment. The purpose of the right to reduce the size of any such parcels of land is to reserve possible other future uses of these parcels or portions thereof by VISTA, subject to the following limitation: The Department of Environmental Regulation or its successors in interest shall determine what land area is necessary for effluent discharge at full treatment capacity for both the Vista Royale and Vista Royale Gardens sewage treatment facilities. If no governmental agency has jurisdiction regarding the necessary land area for effluent.discharge at full treatment capacity, then the parties will mutually agree to the necessary land area for discharge of effluent at full treatment capacity, based upon standard engineering practices. S. Moreover, the parties agree that the COUNTY will utilize the parcels of land designated as effluent discharge areas for the sole purpose of effluent discharge and related activities. T. In the event that any of the property subject to this Agreement whether conveyed herein, or agreed to be conveyed, or encumbered by any form of an easement, is not used by the COUNTY or its governmental successors and assigns, the parties hereto specifically agree that any part or portion of the subject property not so used will revert after sixty (60) days written notice to the COUNTY by VISTA, its successors and assigns. This reversionary interest shall apply to all property, real, personal, tangible or intangible, which is the subject of this Agreement, with the exception of the Vista Royale Water Treatment Plant. The County reserves the right to deactivate the Vista Royale Water Treatment Plant in the event that a more economical or efficient source of water supply is available. Such deactivation shall not cause the property to revert to Vista. 11 • U. The COUNTY agrees to maintain those easements granted to the COUNTY. Any roads or landscaped areas destroyed or altered by the COUNTY will be restored to their former condition by the COUNTY. V. VISTA agrees to convey all water and sewer facilities within the Vista Royale and Vista Royale Gardens complexes, free and clear of any and all encumbrances. VIII. Merger and Attorneys Fees. A. This Agreement contains and constitutes the entire understanding between the parties as to the subject matter hereof. B. In the event of litigation by either party against the other to enforce any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys fees from the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first written above. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: INDIAN RIVER -COUNTY By: AttestJ �)gj )A VISTA PROPERTIES OF VERO BEACH, INC. Attest AUG 5 1981 12 8 0 0 K 4-- .7 PAGE 13 `v U� 5 19 1 BOOP( � `� pn �.:38 INDEX TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/VISTA PROPERTIES OF VERO BEACIi, INC., AGREEMENT 1. Exhibit A-1 Vista Royale - Sewer Plant record drawings, (8 sheets) 2. Exhibit A-2 Vista Royale Survey Drawing by Marvin Carter - Date 5/6/75 (1 sheet) Revised 4/78 f 3. Exhibit A-3 Vista Royale - Collection and Distribution System'for Water and Sewer record drawings, (13 sheets) and lift station, (6 sheets) 4. Exhibit A-4 Inventory of Additional Facilities for Vista Royale, list (2 sheets) 5. Exhibit A-5 Vista Royale Gardens Survey Drawing by Dana Iloward - Date 10/28/80 (1 sheet) Revised 10/31/80 6. Exhibit A-6 Vista Royale - 15 -foot Access Easement in Golf Area 5,1egal description (1 sheet) 7. Exhibit A-7 Vista Royale - 15 -foot Access Easement connecting Sewage Treatment Plant Site and Single Family Area legal description (1 sheet) 8. Exhibit A-8 Vista Royale - Water Plant record drawing (6 sheets) 9. Exhibit A-9 Description of Land - Vista Royale Water Treatment Plant Site and 15 -foot Wide Access Easement,legal description (1 sheet) 10. Exhibit A-10 Recording information regarding Vista Royale Declarations,list - (4 sheets) 11. Exhibit B-1 Vista Royale Gardens - Sewer Treatment Plant construction drawings (6 sheets) 12. Exhibit B-2 Vista Royale Gardens - Sewage Treatment Plant Site91egal description (1 sheet) 13. Exhibit B-3 Vista Royale Gardens - Water Distribution and Sewer Collection System construction drawings (7 sheets) 14. Exhibit B-4 Vista Royale Gardens - Inventory,list (1 sheet) 15. Exhibit B-5 Description of Land - Vista Royale Gardens 15 - foot Access Easement for Water and Sewer Facilities,legal description (1 sheet) 16. Exhibit B-6 Vista Royale Gardens - Water Distribution and Storage Facilities System construction drawings (2 sheets) 17. Exhibit B-7 Vista Royale Gardens - Water Distribution and Storage Facilities Site,legal description (1 sheet) 18. Exhibit B-8 Vista Royale Gardens - Schedule of Proposed Uses Water and Sewer Facilities based upon Proposed Maximum Expansion, (letters and information attached) - (7 sheets) a -V. 3.5 IA. S.L 7X. SCOp� i 1 00 {1 \I NORMAL LUATER LEVEL ELEY_ t�) i.o..i�•S,L_r, 7 - SECTION (Holding P= SLOPE BREAK ,• ELEY. (-)-Z.0 /A•S.L. 3-.1 MA J. S4 op" FOND�BOTTOM , 6LEV. (-) 5.0/ASL I F VISTA 'ROYALE- INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 7s -Sewage Treatment Plant --;-007000nt gpd 9 Engineers PROFESSIONAL EXQiANGE BUILDING . . STUART, FLORIDA DIItAYMBY: /d.�. DATE: OCT 1977 PROJECT NO. SHMT SCALE: SITE PLAN , DESIGN DATA DATE _ - AND FLOW DIAGRAM OF SEVEN f��hN-r 2ECo 2'Z Z1 2AWI ua s uje rt .� Z 9 y 2G 'ADYN K� AUG 51981 G - r . AUG 5.1981 19. 20. Exhibit B-9 Exhibit B-10 600K ",I P,!GE 4 Vista Royale - Easement to Potable Well Site (also paragraph 7-F, A-2) legal description (1 sheet) Description of Land - Vista Royale Sewage Treatment Plant Site,legal description (1 sheet) ALL ABOVE NAMED EXHIBITS ON FILE IN THE UTILITY OFFICE I SINGLE FAMILY AREA Ofl M9 O.S. NO, 1 'I - SURVEYOR-, 1 MARVIN CARTER --•� REG. LAND. SURVEYOR , FLA. CERT. N0. 2147 .11 r J � � %'I^TA ALE •.fin. �¢ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA F'Xf.. HIBIT r �� GQ2EENd.EES. TG IIrIRY j ASSOCIATES, INC. .�.. Engineers � .2 kOFESSIONAL. ExC ANGE BUILDING ... STUART, FL&IDA I�rAMM sv: A.S. DATE: 5.6-75 PROJECT NO.T SCALE - BOUNDARY LINE SURVEY OFr Co 1otJ jV l�vj�o AUG 5 191 c �j4 s `. BOOK . , • �PA.uE a- • •f..'- ��� �: ------------ r 'ir i• ;b � ;lam,•^ iE _ t i, ' r i ra .a a� •9 .j 1 MARVIN CARTER --•� REG. LAND. SURVEYOR , FLA. CERT. N0. 2147 .11 r J � � %'I^TA ALE •.fin. �¢ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA F'Xf.. HIBIT r �� GQ2EENd.EES. TG IIrIRY j ASSOCIATES, INC. .�.. Engineers � .2 kOFESSIONAL. ExC ANGE BUILDING ... STUART, FL&IDA I�rAMM sv: A.S. DATE: 5.6-75 PROJECT NO.T SCALE - BOUNDARY LINE SURVEY OFr Co 1otJ jV l�vj�o AUG 5 191 c �j4 s `. BOOK . , • �PA.uE a- • •f..'- ��� �: ------------ A U G 198 s � s�•6� �I Y I SINGLE FAMILY A R EIS- tnzor 'Oa 31" E. F- C. N Ln 0 p co BOOK 4.7 FA:GE 142, � V •l4 F - ,4 . U. S. N)• 1 SURVEYOR. MARVIN CARTER REG. LAND, SURVEYOR FLA. CERT. N0. 2147 t r. ROYALE'- INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLONDA GREED UES. E irG® Ry ASSOC IAlf ES, INC. [BIT Engimmrs - ^J P OFMIONAL ECCHANa BUILDING ... STUART, DRAWN BY: A.S. DAT1:: 5-6-75 PROJECT NO. CHEW*: 'SCALE: I" = 200' fi i DATE BOONDARY LINE, SURVEY. d r ; `'a, ' OF . e' f k� VISTA WATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT 6 wells 10 HP 150 GPM each 350 GPM accelator drive unit with aerator 2 gravity clearwell filters 2 high service pumps 1150 GPM @ 150 TDH split case single stage 1775 RPM 60 HP 1 backwash pump 1440 GPM @ 40 TDH 20 HP 1760 RPM 200,000 gal. storage 2 transfer pumps 5 HP 1750 RPM 10,000 gal. hydro pneumatic tank. chlorinator lime feeder, mixer, and chem, pump air compressor 1� HP 1750 RPM auxiliary power generator - Detroit Diesel/KATD SN 78436 100 KW 125 KVD 3 phase lime blow off pond ExK, 4- S t#e c T - OK �o F��GE 143 AUGG 51991 At• BOOK VISTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT 500 GPD -347 GPM contact stabilization J DAVCO plant with filters 2 backwash pumps 20 HP @ 1750 RPM 1342 GPM @ 30' TDH holding pond 2 backwash holding pumps 5 HP @ 1750 RPM 3 blowers_ 461 cfm each 350 GPM @ 30' TDH 1750 ft3/day/#Bod 5 25 HP @ 1755 RPM 1 aux, generator 1 chlorinator - double transfer unit w/scales portable generator - Pincor generator - Pincor 15,000 watts 7 F%E 144 ro3.00' 20(O.00' 55.00' 30-00' 40. 00' 130.00' 80.00' 100.00' 110.00' 255'_59 K. Ix . —APPROXIMATE 1\ V I LINE l JRVEYOR NNA HOWARD :gistered Land Surveyor orida Regis'nation No, 2505 MEAN HIGH WATER LINE 6-22-79 is INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA C. CAMPY MCNICUMEPY ASS®C INI ES, -INC. E X H I B I T Engineers PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE BUILDING STUART, FLORIDA-� DRAWN BY: A.5. DAT'E: 10.26.80 I PROD ECT NO. SHEET , Q CHECK®: SCALE:SEk>7 DA l BOU N DARY LINE SURVEY I] AUG 5 1981 BOOK � 7 P,1 E'.45 Ir -AUG 51991 DESCRIPTION OF LAND VISTA ROYALE ACCESS EASEMENT IN GOLF AREA 5 FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOOK A 15 foot wide easement for purposes of ingress and egress in Section 18, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indi-an River County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at Point R-5 as shown on Exhibit X for VISTA ROYALE (Boundary Line Survey); Thence run South 89059'12" East for a distance of 350.87 feet; Thence run North 00 00'48" East for a distance of 597.01 feet; Thence run North 89016'13" West for a distance of 5.98 feet; Thence run North 00 22'05" East for a distance of 665.00 feet to the Point of Beginning for the following described easement: Thence continue North 00022'05" East for a distance of 671.12 feet; 0 Thence run North 89 18128" West for a distance of 325.90 feet; Thence run North 89018'07" West for a distance of 658.87 feet; Thence run South 00011'39" West for a distance of 15.00 feet; Thence run South 89018'07" East for a distance of 658.74 feet; Thence run South 89"18'28" East for a distance of 310.99 feet; Thence run South 00 022'05" West for a distance of 656.20 feet; Thence run South 89037'55" East for a distance of 15.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. 0 C. CALVI[IRT AWNTItMLIPY i ASSMIATFS, INC. Engineers Professional Exchange Building STUART, E.LORIDA DESCRIPTION OF LAND VISTA ROYALE ACCESS EASEMENT IN GOLF AREA 5 ACCESS EASEMENT IN.GOLF AREA 5 FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY November 24, 1980 1-6 DESCRIPTION OF LAND VISTA ROYALE ACCESS EASEMENT CONNECTING SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE AND SINGLE FAMILY AREA FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY A.15 foot wide easement for purposes of ingress and egress in Section 19, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at Point R-5 as shown on Exhibit X for VISTA ROYALE (Boundary Line Survey); Thence run South 89059'12" East for a distance of 350.87 0 feet; Thence run South 00 99'48" West for a distance of 414.65 feet to the Point of Beginning for the following described easement: 0 Thence continue South 00 00'48" West for a distance of 300.00 feet; 0 Thence run North 89 27'00',' West for a distance of 15.00 feet; Thence run North 00 00148" East for a distance of 299.86 feet; Thence run South 89°59'12" East for a distance of 15.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. DESCRIPTION OF LAND C. CAl.VFI2T l"iC>WlPy d ASSOCIAT11:$, INC. VISTA ROYALE ACCESS EASEMENT CONNECTING SEWAGE TREATMENT Engineers PLANT SITE AND SINGLE FAMILY AREA Professional Exchange Building I FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY STUART, FLORIDA November 24, 1980 808 7 FACE 147, t.i'` i Nati• ._ ...0 �tS1 ltJQe .. `ASS LI&E — _EA,i'A,'ELL �I � IecFLATC/ N AERATOR ' 'Jill/ �II 3_ v h V CGE. 1 ANV_ LATER 1"� y a � � sY 800 x LIME SOLUTIWJ LIME •SULUT70,v FEEDER LINE (FERROUS SULFATE f L//AE 5f 1 OF 1 W n ft DESCRIPTION OF LAND VISTA ROYALE WATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE AND 15 FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY A parcel of ground in Section 19, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at Point F-14 as shown on EXHIBIT X (Boundary Line Survey) for VISTA 0 ROYALE; Thence run South 89 22126" East for a distance of 310.00 feet to the Point of Beginning for the following described parcel: 0 Thence continue South 89 2226" East for a distance of 140.00 feet; Thence run North 00037'34" East for a distance of 100.00 feet; Thence run North 89022'26" 0 West for a distance of 140.00 feet; Thence run South 00 37'34" West for a distance of 100.00 feet to the Point of Beginning TOGETHER WITH a 15 foot wide casement for access 6 utility purposes in said Section 19, '!being more particularly described as follows: Commence at Point F-14 as shown on EXHIBIT X (Boundary Line Survey) for VISTA ROYALE; said point being the Point of Beginning and lying on the easterly right - 0 of -way line of U. S. Highway No. l; Thence run South 89 22'26" East for a distance of 310.00 feet; Thence run North 0003734" East for a distance of 0 15.00 feet; Thence run North 89 22'26" West for a distance of 313.36 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of U. S. Highway No. 1; Thence run 0 South 12 00'10" East along said right-of-way line for a distance of 15.37 feet to the Point of Beginning. C. CALVERT NWWCCWgZY 4 ASSCUATES, INC. Engineers Professional Exchange Building AUG 5 1991 STUART, FLORIDA DESCRIPTION OF LAND VISTA ROYALE WATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE FOR 51 FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY November 3, 1980 BOOT( PA, GE14� r r AUG 51981 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 A— Q tu s���TS Roy 41 PAGE 150 VISTA ROYALE INDIAN RIVER COUIN RDCORDING INFORMATION ON BUILDINGS 1 pATED RECORDED O.R.B. PAGE March 21, 1974 3/22/74 460 425 March 21, 1974 3/22/74 460 552 April 12, 1974 4/12/74 462 236 April 12, 1974 4/12/74 462 363 April 30, 1974 4/30/74 463 848 May 17, 1974 5/17/74 465 618 June 6, 1974 6/10/74 467 636 June 6, 1974 6/10/74 467 759 July 10, 1974 7/11/74 470 414 September 24, 1974 9/24/74 476 537 December 9, 1974 12/27/74 482 1 December 22, 1975 12/22/75 505 794 NO BUILDING March 15, 1976 3/24/75 513 183 March 15, 1976 4/9/75 514 715 January 13, 1976 1/13/76 507 309 June '3, 1976 6/4/76 519 775 June 3, 1976 6/4/76 520 1 July 16, 1976 7/22/76 524 614 June 3, 1976 6/4/76 520 128 July 20, 1976 7/22/76 524 741 September 30, 1976 9/30/76 530 818 September 30, 1976 9/30/76 531 1 September 30, 1976 9/30/76 531 255 September 30, 1976 9/30/76 531 128 February 8, 1977 2/9/77 543 425 February 25, 1977 2/25/77 545 254 February 25, 1977 2/25/77 545 381 May 3, 1977 5/3/77 552 280 PHASE III BLDG. 55 56 57 58 59 60 . 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 :79 80 81 '82 DATED August 25, 1978 August 25, 1978 August 25, 1978 August 25, 1978 August 25, 1978 August 25, 1978 August 25, 1978 August 25, 1978 August 25, 1978 August 25, 1978 August 25, 1978 August 25, 1978 June 18, 1979 August 29, 1979 October 24, 1979 October 24, 1979 November 28, 1979 .November 28, 1979 October 24, 1979 August 29, 1979 June 18, 1979 May 7, 1979 June 18, 1979 May 7, 1979 June 18, 1979 May 7, 1979 April 9, 1979 NO BUILDING M RECORDED O.R.B. 8/31/78 571 8/31/78 571 9/5/78 572 9/5/78 572 9/5/78 572 9/12/78 572 9/12/78 572 9/12/78 572 9/12/78 572 9/12/78 572 9/12/78 572 9/12/78 572 6/19/79 586 9/7/79 590 11/2/79 593 11/2/79 593 12/4/79 594 12/4/79 594 11/2/79 593 9/7/79 590 6/19/79 586 5/9/79 584 6/19/79 586 5/9/79 584 6/19/79 586 5/9/79 584 4/10/79 - 583 7-7 PAGE 2604 2733 394 523 652 1568 1697 1826 1955 2084 2213 2342 1740 1291 0781 0915 2159 2025 1049 1425 1875 1873 2142 2007 2009 2141 677 BOOK 47 PAGE151 51, AUG 51991 PHASE II BLDG. 30 31 32 33 34 AMEND. 35 AAEND. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 DATED RFX''ORDED O.R.B. PAGE June 7, 1977 6/7/77 553 1231 July 1, 1977 7/8/77 554 1920 July 1, 1977 7/8/77 554 2047 August 1, 1977 8/1/77 555 1390 September 13, 1977 9/21/77 557 1654 September 13, 1977 September 13, 1977 October 14, 1977 November 23, 1977 November 23, 1977 November 23, 1977 January 9, 1978 January 9, 1978 February 23, 1978 February 23, 1978 March 24, 1978 March 24, 1978 March 24, 1978 June 5, 1978 June 5, 1978 June 5, 1978 September 25, 1979 September 25, 1979 September 25, 1979 NO BUILDING 9/21/77 10/18/77 10/18/77 11/28/77 11/28/77 11/28/77 1/16/78 1/16/78 3/1/78 3/1/78 3/30/78 3/30/78 3/30/78 6/9/78 6/9/78 6/9/78 10/5/79 10/5/79 10/5/79 557 558 558 560 560 560 561 562 563 563 564 565 565 568 568 568 591 591 591 1526 1830 1701 28 157 286 2838 1 2111 1982 2789 0001 130 756 627 885 2435 2569 2703 PIMSE IV BLDG. LVED RECORDED O.R.B. PAGE 83 November 27, 1978 11/27/78 576 1499 84 November 27, 1978 11/27/78 576 1628 85 November 27, 1978 11/27/78 576 1757 86 November 27, 1978 11/27/78 576 1886 87 November 27, 1978 11/27/78 576 2015 88 November 27, 1978 11/27/78 576 2144 89 September 27, 1978 9/28/78 573 2256 90 September 27, 1978 9/28/78 573 2385 91 September 27, 1978 9/28/78 573 2514 92 October 2, 1980 10/3/80 609 658 93 October 2, 1980 10/3/80 609 792 94 September 4, 1980 9/4/80 607 1614 95 August 21, 1980 8/21/80 606 2258 96 August 21, 1980 8/21/80 606 2124 .97 April 29, 1980 5/2/80 601 2602 98 March 14, 1980 5/2/80 601 2736 `99 April 29, 1980 5/2/80 601 2870 1 00 March 14 1980 3 18 80 / / 599 1232 101 March 14, 1980 3/18/80 599 1098 102 April' 10, 1980 4/10/80 600 2256 103 April 9, 1979 4/10/79 583 543 104 March 5, 1979 3/8/79 581 1505 105 March 5, 1979 3/8/79 581 1634 106 December 11, 1978 12/11/78 577 1138 107 December 11, 1978 12/11/78 577 1267 108 December 11, 1978 12/11/78 577 1396 109 December 11, 1978 12/11/78 577 1525 110 December 11, 1978 12/11/78 577 1654 111 December 11, 1978 12/11/78 577 1783 w A U G 5 1981 boa 153 AiJ G -51981 :TOP.'Cyf. Srr2M 6G6Y..._ 7.0 / - __.. .._ 8._PVC::OYE�hLONiC.�"lP..�..l,VY.__�0...�__:.::. :.�.^--�_'__.'_ A�:P�-A:V,�:T.O-_::':_�.._.✓._` :..___---- w - '' A/ATUAA4 1/ CG TA T1.011. - :- _ Thru _Polishing . Pond Overflow_ Prp.e :.:_ - _= ROYALE ...GARDE ..S_�/ISTA�_ 150,00.0. __..GPD -,-Sewage Treatment Plant..- C. CALVEl2T MCNTcCMEIPY i ASSOCIATES, INC. PROFESSIONAL DCCHANGE BUILDING ... STUART, RORIDA DRAWN BY: DATE: 5 - 80 PROJECT SHEET CHBCKM: scALE: Shown STP- I DATE OF SIX c-�_ 0 DESCRIPTION OF LAND VISTA ROYALE GARDENS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE A parcel of ground in Section 18, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at Point E as shown on Exhibit "X" for VISTA ROYALE GARDENS; Thence run South 89050'04" East for a distance of 45.00 feet to the Point of Beginning for the following described parcel: Thence run North 41°58'27" East for a distance of 261.66 feet; Thence run North 00°00'00" East for a distance of 107.00 feet; Thence run North 90° 00'00" East for a distance of 185.00 feet; Thence run South 00°00'00" West for a distance of 150.00 feet; Thence run South 90°00'00" West for a dis- tance of 203.51 feet; Thence run South 41°58'27" West for a distance of 263.90 feet; Thence run North 89°50'04" West for a distance of 20.12 feet to the Point of Beginning. This parcel contains 0.73 acres, more or less. C. CALVERT MCNlrCC LlPV 4 ASSOCIATES. INC Engineers Professional Exchange Building AUG 5 1981 STUART, FLORIDA B—Z 1 , S tf EE'! DESCRIPTION OF LAND VISTA ROYALE GARDENS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ,_ October 30, 1980 BOOR 7 PAGE 155 r .19 � . - " ' � • . � d _ ..Boos I � -. `s � 4' } . A G 5 Ft.GE %\ .` \ fJ J 10 v- _ 14 8 _ - - S.00°07 2-465 7. 87' 0 / C) a / r 9 0 vary .✓,/ �� 207.56' \ / 8008'42"F N } 20 1` 1 23 - ! N y 4l • , i c' 22 1py J. a Eng3rwmR PROFESSIONAL D(PiANGE WILDING- � . SMART, FLORIDA - oRAwN sir:A.S. ATE: PitOJ�t:T 1�. SHIM CHECK om: SCS: �„ = 10 0 4 OVERALL. SITE PLAN DA'M OF EXHIBIT B-4 (Jt :3i4e� —0 VISTA ROYALE GARDENS INVENTORY Water System - 1- 100,000 gallon ground storage tank 1- 10,000 gallon hydropneumatic tank 2- High -service pumps and related control and housing equipment. Water distribution system and all applicable appurtenances and service easement. 1- 55 KW auxiliary power generator Sewage System - 1- 150,000 gallons per day, extended aeration sewaqe treatment plant with integral 30,000 gallon surge tank and filtration. 2- Lift stations and entire collection system including all applicable appurtenances and service easement. 1- 65 KW auxiliary power generator. Easement and 52 acres of impounded wet lands. AUG 5 1 pyo - 7 PACEl-57 DESCRIPTION OF LAND VISTA ROYALE GARDENS ACCESS EASEMENT FOR WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Boa 47 ulu 158 A i5 foot wide easement for purposes of ingress and egress in Section 18, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the point of intersection of the northerly right-of-way line of the Indian River Farms Drainage District South Relief Canal and the Easterly 0 right-of-way line of U. S. Highway No. 1; Thence run North 74 14'36" East along the Northerly right-of-way line of the Indian River Farms Drainage 0 District Canal for a distance of 2390.51 feet; Thence run North 00 13'14" 0 West for a distance of 455.78 feet; Thence run South 89 50'04" East for a 0 distance of 45.00 feet; Thence run North 41 58'27" East for a distance of 0 20.12 feet; Thence run North 89 50'04" West for a distance of 73.52 feet; 0 Thence run South 00 13114" East for a distance of 455.48 feet; Thence run South 74014'36" West along a line that is parallel to and 15 feet perpendicular OSstance from the Northerly right-of-way line of the Indian River Farms Drain - 0 age District Canal for a distance of 896.21 feet; Thence run North 03 30100" 0 West for a distance of 333.20 feet; Thence run South 74 15'00" West for a 0 distance of 15.35 feet; Thence run South 03 30'00" West for a distance of 0 333.20 feet; Thence run South 74 14'36" West along a line that is parallel to and 15 feet perpendicular distance from the Northerly right-of-way line of the Indian River Farms Drainage District Canal for a distance of 1467.70 feet to a point of intersection with the Easterly right-of-way line of U. S. Highway No. 1, said point lying on a curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 9649.39 feet; Thence run Southeasterly along the arc of this curve, which is the Easterly right-of-way line of U. S. Highway No. 1, through a central angle of 00 05'21" for a distance of 15.00 feet to the Point of ` Beginning. C. CALVEIPT IIS CCMEVY d ASSOCIATES. INC. Engineers Professional Exchange building --.-STUART, FLORIDA DESCRIPTION OF LAND VISTA ROYALE GARDENS ACCESS EASEMENT FOR WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR INDPAN RIVER COUNTY November 3, 1980 -- - ; - - - � ,�_ .. __.__. _. _ P1e0A•i /500! l -FA; �"C/A9l'. Cf/104/A/E./N/fC7oR/'`./+! !e'C./. IfAIK elMF CHLORINE INJECTION DETAIL n.t.s. 7, o„ TAAJK h'RA/N /3AJ/N JEE"OFTA/lJ:_rs1/.t :MEET_ /*A0,5F/FR rsuRF JIV/TCH V/Rf/J /JACK 70 COA/�AOL %'A//FL. //Y/)RO - l`NEUA.-fAT/C A1. 2G ' L AA; - OI sEp, vccE.. 1,'oulfi�,os _7 - , /5 N. i°. C. E. s - Z x 7 ,NFA /ES C TY/`E /??O A /°SFR L F. rJ . fA//a JL/CT/ON CFNTR/PL/I,AL ;' /750 R.I° A1. fJO - ifGO V, 3 o 2 '/t " JuC 71,0A1,' ?G 5 r;. A A7. Q ® CNL OR11 A TOR 1300S7Z_R /0[M-110 / y. ,P. A901)k-L 6/5 A /°EER L E.S.S EA11.> JY/C71a/V CFA/T - R/Fu4i�AL /750 R/oA4. , ?30 V, l I¢ ? " SZICj 10AI , / f -t M JuC,r1011, /Yt" 4/J4CNAR4�E , G5 S:./'./7. LIP 58 7.b. H. -VISTA YALE GIOA' D S A Golf Course -Community Indian River County,, Fla. C. mwuzT mcNircomiapy 4 ASS®CIATIES►. INC. PROFESSIONAL EXCHANM BUILDING .... STUART, FLORIDA MRAWH BY: DATE: 8- 25 - 80 MtWMCT NO. SHAT —� CHS.. SCALE. , WATER SUPPLY DETAILS OF ...TIV O, - .AUG 1991 / . PDGF160 DESCRIPTION OF LAND VISTA ROYALE GARDENS WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE FACILITIES SITE A parcel of ground in Section 18, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at Point A as shown on Exhibit "X" for VISTA ROYALE GARDENS; Thence run South 89 53'24" East for a distance of .60.00 feet; Thence run South 00 11'56" West for a distance of 15.00 feet; Thence run South 890 S3' 24" East for a distance of 92.81 feet to a point of curvature on a curve `,, concave to the Southwest, said curve having a radius of 88.00 feet; Thence run Southeasterly along the arc of this curve through a central angle of 0 90 00'00" for a distance of 138.23 feet to a point of tangency; Thence run 0 South 0006'36" West for a distance of 139.48 feet to a point of curvature on a curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 130.63 feet; Thence run Southeasterly along the arc of this curve thorugh a central angle of. 0 103 40'00" for a distance of 236.35 feet to the Point of Beginning for the following described parcel: Thence continue Southeasterly along said arc through a central angle of 2011'36" for a distance of 5.00 feet to a point of tangency; Thence run North 74015'00" East for a distance of 67.00 feet; Thence run North 15045'00" West for a distance of 72.00 feet;.Thence run South -74 0 15'00" West for a distance of 72.00 feet; Thence run South 15 45'00" East for a distance of 71.90 feet to the Point of Beginning. This parcel contains 0.12 acres, more or less. CALVERT AADIN-FCCI PY 8 ASS0CIAHS, INC. Englneers Professional Exchange Building STUART., FLORIDA 8—,2 C' 434+e=T-) DESCRIPTION OF LAND VISTA ROYALE GARDENS WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE FACILITIES SITE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. -FLORIDA October 30, 1980 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ��- P.O. BOX 1750 2145 - 14th Avenue, doom 103 C-7 4i+c Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Board of County Commissioners Indian River County, FL April 10, 1980 Re: Request for Amendment to Vista Royale Franchise Agreement made by Robert L. Gaskill, V.P. on 3/28/80 (copy attached) Dear Board of Commissioners Member: In response to Mr. Gaskill's request and consistant with ttie Utility Expansion Procedure approved by the Board on 3/19/80, I am submitting i.ay recommendations for response to his request. Upon reviewing Mr. Gaskill's letter and proposed franchise expansion, his proposition offers mutual benefit to his project and to Indian River County. I see no problems in accepting the arrangement as he proposes. There -is no conflict with his `aims and the conditions of the pending impact fee ordinances. These proposed ordinances are written so that they do .not void or preclude previously accepted agreements. Their intent is to have the County be paid for the plant capacity and main capacity which the county provides. Where the expense for these items had been provided by the developer, there is to be no duplication of charges. In other words, when he supplies the mains and treatment, there is no impact charge. "'he expanded franchise facilities Mr. Gaskill is planning will adequately treat the potable water and wastewater volume for his total project, with full fire protection as he proposes. Furthermore, the nominal surplus of treatment capacity can be used by the County to our advantage in extending service to surrounding areas. The change to the Franchise Resolution should provide for extension of the existing Franchise Agreement as he proposes. There should be specific provision that Vista► Properties shall be assured of sufficierr water and sewage treatment for the following: AUG - 51991 '�00_� 47 PAGE161 AUG 5 1981 Vista Royale Multi -Family 1512 units Single Family 104 units Vista Royale Gardens 644 units -L� Box 41 Total 2156 units 104 units Conrnercial 18 acres 22 acres 40 acres (Commercial 40 acres is estimated to require 55-,000 GPD) For these above developed areas there shall be no further assessment to the developer provided the treatment and line facilities are installed as reviewed. This is true whether the system is operated by Vista Properties on behalf of the County or operated by the Counuy. Until the county assumes the maintenance and operation of the system, Vista Properties shall continue to maintain and operate the system on behalf of the county. During this period, Vista Utilities will assess and be Maid service and treatment -charges as provided by the franchise operation of the extended systeM. At the time Indidn River County assumes operation of the -ystem all operational and treatment fees shall accrue to the county. If Vista Properties has not completed building out to the total n%imber of units listed above, they may do so without impact charge other than inspection fees. When the county assumes the maintenance and operation of the system, personnel. employed by Vista Properties for the: utilities shall have the option of being employed by the County to positions in effect and defined in the Personnel: Pay Plan. That is, such employment will be subject to County Regulations. The utilities shall be installed as described by the latest applicable revision of the .Joint Vero Reach and Indian River County Specifications. With these comments the Utilities Department is happy to give conceptual approval for the Proposed Utilities Expansion of the Franchise. GL/kh cc: Robert L. Gaskill Jack ,Jennings Joe Collins ' Bob Donlon David Rever file Enc l.: 1 Sincerely, G. Liner Utilities Director M PLANS WERE REVIEWED AN!0 APPROVED EXCEPT AS NOTEO. ,UTILITIES DIRECTOR [SATE___q//C) (-Co — IN101AN RIVER COUNTY U(IL. DEPT. P.O. Box 1?50 Ft"i BEACH, FL :3113E,D -w^It. R Ic VISTA PlS OF�RO BEACH INC. r i ' 100 VISTA kOYALE COULEv).kD - VEkO REACH. FLOPIDA 32960 - 1ELEuHONE lin;) ;6:-4031 fit 1•1;,rc1) 2'H, 1980 F.oard of Cc+ InL} C, :: .i: i,oli er s> ln'l ian Rivt'r Coullt.'•, } .vr ida i, E: lrnoutii;i_-nt to SoclLh County Utility l'r:,n,h1.::e t;rc• r.crit D;,teal Dc:rcrahc.r 5, 1973 -- (Vista I:o}ale) Dear Com -mission `li•i0-1-5: Vista Propert i is cif % ttr(l F(':cc_h, lllc. itl i l ! el :irlto an ?4;rr.t •tli^nt uitll the county on a f ra:,clilse for the sc,�ut:h � oiuit-y area known as Vista: RLIyale in Dec!inberr cif 1973. In this asarc c:n_nt we a—,recd to l,uild watr_r ;cnd !---.,:at! treatment fncilfi ie:: Arid ::yst e•llls 10 < cry ice this enLire area. WealrCed to donate' t}lese Lo tike county at' tlit'•ir option at a future &itc. We are. pre!;ently in the f i. -nal pl;,rinin; ;cnd f,cr;1)it_1nf; stagy„" of a siI?til;jr, but smaller ::c ale, }sol f deV(11,oli ac 11 t•ont it,I1011S t o the 11orth of Vista Rovale. This dt,vcloprlt:Ilt will l,c kl,tiwn as- Vista Royale Garden, and is located cast and northeast of the. cold MCKCe Carclens attraction. our proposal for this arca was discussed at. a e:c-etirlg with Mr. C4or,-;c Collins, Jr. , County Attorney; Mr. .l;Imus lir•inclorf , County Enl;in(•er; and Mr. C:c•orge Liner, County Utilities Director, on March 26, 1980. That propyGal is as follows: 1) F%pand tile: ex i.stin.g water treatment- plant capacity to near doilble -pr(!sent :zt•atils and construct a ground Stora^e tank in Vista i:c,yal.e Cardens to insure ndeduate storage ;it all times. 2) Construct an additional sewage treatment in the Gardallls area, with the capacity for easy conversion to clearly double capacity. In our disco::siorls, the excess. capac.i.ty of 1,r.,t.11 facilities plus the c•�:'i;tense of an additional ground stores& tartl; in this; calnl,i.ned area would be beneficial to tilt co•enty in the future, both before and. of ter various stages of development of their major plaint -s and systems. • Mir request to the county ;.goad be Lo .inc:Iiide the new system into. the oriy:nal francillse agrec•lnent with reversion to the county of both upon rrdue s;t, wilicll hopefully would be agreed on by the Co;r;miss ion to be set at two years hence or sixty drays prior to col, uncuccniient of service by the oath County hater 1'r.eatment Facility, w`hiche'ver occurs first. This would v1ii�r;hntee between 1500 and 2200 residential units for 1la;riediate servicer to the Farm liome elir_i11icatration For t}u-ir. landing It. :!nhld also allow us to fret both plaTILS and a significant of ci.':;Lribution and collection syst.eins installed prior to turnover. Additionally, si.nce we propose a higher than reduired cap.:jcity for future use by the county, wct would rc::luc.st the .1mpnct fee be deleted. VISTA PROPERTIES . . . ••crca►ors of fine living" _ F rq?til' PAGE 16 AUG 51981 ,A U --G- C, minty C--ol:n—sioners March 28, 1980 r n g c 2 Boa 4 �6 PAGE We I io I, e this iis i equest is rensonabl (I a r, (I kith i your -pprova I QS we- do not, ::Int to impede t1le :oujjty'.,; lot -.-.-:rd a South CounLy Utility rvston. (",j; '- c1 " t17 lV N'Ll I i r Rol�ort L. Gas'i-All Vice Pn.-e-id(--Ilt cc: ILr. Ceorge Collins, Jr. Mir. Jaines Beindorf v -'41,1r. Ceorge Linur Enclosures RLG/cp V i qa. Rpy1j; 7 I.Pqqson-t. Tranch. 1 se)- N.mbvr of Units - *I BE - 431 of tornl; 2 UK = 57Z of total Wal. naily Flow S.T.P. MOW of Tr, ",niii i<.'; .I'. qrO"1MVqt §--;Ijjtv (S.1'.P.) MrPnt: Dat!! 1329 MOL1.0"ily .32 Single f,mily I acre unAorrcial 225^0 un 220,000 GPD Sol ids cu"wrt. - 1 ime lime SOCILP1q; Fxt t Wed Aerat ion whertlary filters F- II. RPOOM - 992 T.S.S. llvaval - 99% 1 S1 hu1 tt.rawly- 104 Single family 18 acres commercial 500, too W) 504,000 GPD Same We but cunverwd to contact stabil izat ion w/1 Prt lary f i I t vrs Similar Similar W,1int; §OpCCTk - Individual Peter per building and house. Same us%K(- coop"Ied for sEwy> trcalm-"L since no irrigation of pwable supply. All irriKatiun by re -chargeable We nyslpm. SOWS A WMallaLirn - Pvr approM Stare and COOMV maL-rials and •M016M. Nnmb.or -q-j--Hvd-raq.Qn and §ppQnj -- 500 f t. max Wm rad ks coverage to any •buil d ings. It should he noted that with the history of ibis project-, we have rakulat-vd the following data on actual usnju: I BR Multi family (no irritation) = 2 BR (no irrination) = Single Family Clubs Rest uaranL Co--m-.iurcial (18 acres MiNte) Daily t1sa!,e :-: Onani-ity = Ult-im.ate 113 X 648 73,224 187 FRANCHISE DATA 1= 864 F3Si -?q,z 161,068 The fol3oving data cavors lath Ge prcsont,frinchinc, Viola Royale, and the proposed cypopsion area, Vista Rovain WrAcns. Under thp prps-nt Finnchke data wo slaw not only th" existing nitimntv Owsltn data, but thr Pitual usngc- of the system after mijorky build --out of the pruj,ct. This gives "s rPOWOMME' 1rSVMP1. ;OnY of W "11 ; ZAIC MOUd of lath p, .."t rrNnniso and prrjw,�& (z.- r"nsion arta. 294,26E ei) V i qa. Rpy1j; 7 I.Pqqson-t. Tranch. 1 se)- N.mbvr of Units - *I BE - 431 of tornl; 2 UK = 57Z of total Wal. naily Flow S.T.P. MOW of Tr, ",niii i<.'; .I'. qrO"1MVqt §--;Ijjtv (S.1'.P.) MrPnt: Dat!! 1329 MOL1.0"ily .32 Single f,mily I acre unAorrcial 225^0 un 220,000 GPD Sol ids cu"wrt. - 1 ime lime SOCILP1q; Fxt t Wed Aerat ion whertlary filters F- II. RPOOM - 992 T.S.S. llvaval - 99% 1 S1 hu1 tt.rawly- 104 Single family 18 acres commercial 500, too W) 504,000 GPD Same We but cunverwd to contact stabil izat ion w/1 Prt lary f i I t vrs Similar Similar W,1int; §OpCCTk - Individual Peter per building and house. Same us%K(- coop"Ied for sEwy> trcalm-"L since no irrigation of pwable supply. All irriKatiun by re -chargeable We nyslpm. SOWS A WMallaLirn - Pvr approM Stare and COOMV maL-rials and •M016M. Nnmb.or -q-j--Hvd-raq.Qn and §ppQnj -- 500 f t. max Wm rad ks coverage to any •buil d ings. It should he noted that with the history of ibis project-, we have rakulat-vd the following data on actual usnju: I BR Multi family (no irritation) = 2 BR (no irrination) = Single Family Clubs Rest uaranL Co--m-.iurcial (18 acres MiNte) Daily t1sa!,e :-: Onani-ity = Ult-im.ate 113 X 648 73,224 187 x 1= 864 F3Si -?q,z 161,068 224 100 23,296 1980 5 = 9,900 2280 x 1 2,280 .2/sf x 120,OD0 A 24,000 294,26E ei) t 7 P a -165 AUG 5 1981 � r� 860 � � pnF ,166 U-Fing actual Pstor)• on all fil,nres excopt Hw "odevelopad c.•nnmcra-ial property, and using the State's design criteria for that, we can project using only 58% of the capacity of the water dant after "total build -out" of all phases of the project. Similarly, the sewage trcv) mant facilitins will 1 iWise he underloaded. The expansion or the franchise to i"clutte the adjolni.nE Vista Royale UrNns would ('Mail i 1ponding Lhu oxisHrZ l:')t .•I' t rua: ."._int `aril it iris to n, ar double its prps,nt capacity ity nd i,C1:.Ing a . el 'tr e r .itniat .. facility of identical O ,ign and mannfacturn s Lim prugdntGnn, Lot O1 407, ult imatc c•Iitarity of the existing Plant, Vista "r:c��•ale G:ir;r_ns (I'r;+�,,,�.,•d f;•.a,:n;:ic,n) ir.atc Da s: .i<,n Data ;ughr_s o.f -Pnits - 640 1•iulti-family _.._ _21 Ac rc•s Cainmrrrial *1HR = 432 of total.; ILK = 57% of total; Total llai ly. P1uw W.11'.I'. '100,0()0-,')00,()00 GI'D (c`''.;:.:n , ion of W.T. P S.T.P. 1 5O, ()OO -3O(), (tOO t;l'1) *Anticipatod actual • •r• for loth systa,currint. ldvtory of pi"jvvt 125,000 GPD @ Total build -out. Method of Trcatroa•nt - W.T.P. TXpansion of existing like softening pl; Sr:)ae t)'l,c systc-n 150,000 GPD E.A. convertible to 300,000 GPD C.S. w/terthr.y filters TrcaUnc nt ual t t Anticipated i ated s see hig � rr� kv. I �l -11 as existing plant. .Met -cri.tly Consent - rNmv ON lz ist ins; Qecs 6 Insral lation - Par apprvved ;tate and Coq wy materials :and methods. Nl: be.r of vd.rant ti and Sp:1tipg - 00 Q. max radius coverage to . uy buJ idings. 1l �i /`: A!_e I 0 I TkT AUG 5 1991 EASEMENT FOR POTABLE WELL SITE An easement for utilities over the following described property: From the northwest corner of Section 19, Township 33 South, Range 40 East; run East along the North line of said Section 19 a distance of 57.44 feet to the East right of way of U. S. Highway No. 1; thence run South 120 00' 10" E along said East right of way a distance of 685.79 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue South 120 00' 10" E along said right of way a distance of 255.0 feet; thence run North 740 29' 50" E a distance of 15.03 feet; thence run North 120 00' 10" W a distance of 173.08 feet; thence run North 770 59' 50" E a distance of 21.4 feet; thence run North 120 00' 10" W a distance of 12.8 feet; thence run South 770 59' 50" W a distance of 21.4 feet; thence run North 120 00' 12" W a distance of 59.12 feet; thence run South 740 29' 50" W a distance of 15.03 feet to said East right of way and point of beginning. LL+..amu C DESCRIPTION OF LAND VISTA ROYALE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Commence at Point R-5 as shown on EXHIBIT X for VISTA ROYALE (Boundary Line Survey); Said point being the Point of Beginning for the following described parcel; Thence run South 89 59'12" East for a distance of 350.87 feet; Thence run South 00 00'48" West for a distance of 414.65 feet; 0 Thence run North 89 59'12" West for a distance of 185.73 feet; 0 Thence run North 04 40'53" West for a distance of 389.36 feet; 0 Thence run South 79 26'20" West for a distance of 100.00 feet; Thence run North 37052'33" West for a distance of 56.95 feet to . the Point of Beginning. This parcel contains 2.028 acres, more or less. DESCRIPTION OF LAND C. CALM -1 AAMCCIMPY i ASSOCIATES, INC. V -I STA ROYALE Enginttr• SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT _SITE FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY �� Professional Exchange Building November 3, 1980 F (} AUG 51981 STUART, FLORIDA AUG 51981 BOOK 47 F4 nF L 70 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. 71455 — 71678 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 MINUTES BOOK AS PROVIDED BY THE RULES OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, REFERENCE TO SUCH RECORD AND LIST SO RECORDED BEING MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:15 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: CLERK CHAIRM N