HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/16/1981WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 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, SEPTEMBER 16,
1981, AT 8;30 O'CLOCK A,M, PRESENT WERE PATRICK B. LYONS, CHAIRMAN;
WILLIAM C. WODTKE, .JR., VICE CHAIRMAN; DICK BIRD; ALFRED GROVER
FLETCHER; AND DON C. SCURLOCK, .JR. ALSO PRESENT WERE NEIL A. NELSON,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; L,S, "TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL 000RDI—
NATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS, SJR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS—
SIONERS; .JEFFREY K. BARTON, FINANCE DIRECTOR; DAN FLEISCHMAN, BAILIFF;
AND .JANICE CALDWELL AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERKS.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE
FLAG, AND DR. JULIUS RICE, COMMUNITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, GAVE
THE INVOCATION.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA.
FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM REGARDING
FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING.
ATTORNEY COLLINS REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM REGARDING A
RESOLUTION FOR FMHA CONCERNING THE TAKE—OUT LETTER FOR THE SOUTH
COUNTY WATER SYSTEM.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA.
ralavalmy.1twilm
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS
TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1981.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1981, AS WRITTEN.
SEP 161981
BOOK 7 PAGe 468
r5 E P 16 1981
on l ,00 69p►0
Boog 47 PAGE 469
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REQUESTED THAT ITEMS A AND B,
APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENTS, BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
FOR DISCUSSION.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE STATE WITNESS PAYROLL,
CIRCUIT COURT, SPRING TERM, 19811 IN THE AMOUNTS OF $72.69 AND $47.05.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BUDGET ACCOUNT AMENDMENT #3
AS REQUESTED BY THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT.
1
fel
Indian River _
Sheriff's Department
Indian River
Board of County Commissioners
BUDGET ACCOUNT AMENDMENT
COUNTY
No.: 3 FY: 1980-81
COUNTY 1 hereby request approval for the amendment of the Sheriff's
Budget Accounts
411 SALARY OF SHERIFF
412 SALARIES OF DEPUTIES AND ASSISTANTS
42 MATCHING FUNDS, SOCIAL SECURITY,
RETIREMENT, & OTHER BENEFITS
43/4 EXPENSES OTHER THAN SALARIES
45 EQUIPMENT
46 INVESTIGATIONS
47 CONTINGENCIES
Original Budget or Last
Amended
FY 1980-81
$ 29,920.00
1,502,837.00
294,787.00
668,116.00
141,820.00
8,000.00
4a
-0-
TOTAL BUDGET $ 2,645,480.00
DATE REQUESTED
September 9, 1981
Amendments Requested
$ + 500.00
-27,800.00
- 6,670.00
+33,970.00
-0-
as set forth below:
-She-if Chief
FORM 76-7.4
uty.
ac
Budget Including Amend- �.
ments Requested
$ 30,420.00
1,475,037.00
288,117.00
702,086.00
141,820.00
8,000.00
-0-
$ 2,645,480. 00
®7
T&*tacknowled a r1-1 ec ipt by the Board of County Commissioners. Thij( is!
SEP 16 1981 Boox 47 71
THE FOLLOWING REPORTS WERE RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK:
DEPORT OF CONVICTIONS, MONTH OF AUGUST, 1981
TRAFFIC VIOLATION BUREAU - SPECIAL TRUST FUND,
MONTH OF AUGUST, 1981, $35,878.44
TRAFFIC VIOLATION FINES BY !NAME, AUGUST, 1981
ITEM A - BUDGET AMENDMENT RE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE
BUDGET AMENDMENT.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED,AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS WAS
ONLY PART OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE LAND USE PLAN.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE BUDGET AMENDMENT
AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDURE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND ORDINANCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION, AS FOLLOWS:
ACCOUNT TITLE ACCOUNT NO. INCREASE
OTHER CONTRACTURAL
SERVICES
BCC CONTINGENCIES
004-205-515-33.49
004-199-513-99.91
$35,000
ITEM B - BUDGET AMENDMENT RE COMRREHENS'IVE PLANNING GRANT
MR=
$35,000
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE BUDGET AMENDMENT
REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING GRANT, AS FOLLOWS:
Re: Bvdnet for Ccarprehensive Planning Grant
On the 17th of December, 1980, a contract was entered into between the
State of Florida, Department of Ccimmuiity Affairs, and Indian River County.
A budget should be adopted for the receipt of funds from the Department of
Corm= --y Affairs and for the cash match to be provided by the Board and the
expenditures that will be made. I reccrriend that the .following budget be
adopti
�:
Fond 106 Crz prehensive Planning Grant
Estil-nated Receipts
Account Title Account No. -Increase Decrease
Other Physical Envi.rcnent 106-000-334-39.00 20, 000
Transfers 106-000-381-20.00 4,500
Appropriations:
Other Prof Services 106-205-515-33.19 24,500
I also recoimiend that the following budget transer be made:
Fund Transfers 001-199-581-99.21 4,500
B.C.C. Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91 4,500
ITEM F - GENERAL REVENUE SHARING.
FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON SPOKE OF THE CHAIRMAN BEING
AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES REGARDING ENTITLEMENT
13 OF THE GENERAL REVENUE SHARING,
ON POTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE SIGNATURE OF THE
CHAIRMAN ON THE STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES REGARDING ENTITLEMENT 13 OF
THE GENERAL REVENUE SHARING,
SEP 16 1981 Ra�� 47
2
5
SEP 16 1981
CAPY':
original copy - sertd to n1lce of revenue
47 PACE473
GENERAL
REVE:NIIE
11 SHARING ENTITLEMEINT PERIOD 13
(DrTOEER 1. :9'1 - S_PTEMRER 30, 1962
T. A11'E M N T 0 F A te° R A NCES
10 1 031 031
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
VERO BEACH FLORIDA
The recipient government assures that it will:
13
329601
(1) Establish a trust fund and deposit all revenue sharing funds received in that trust fund, according to
regulations prescribed by the Office of Revenue Sharing.
(2) Use revenue sharing funds within a reasonable time (tvtio Years from the end of each entitlement period)
according to regulations prescribed by the Office of Revenue Sharing.
(3) Not use entitlement funds for lobbying purposes.
(4) Provide for the expenditure of revenue sharing funds in accordance with the laws and procedures
applicable to the expenditure of its own revenues.
(5) Use fiscal accounting and audit procedures as specified by the Office of Revenue Sharing; provide
access to and the right to examine books, documents, papers or records for purposes of reviewing
compliance with this Act; and make such reports as the Director may require.
(6) Comply with the prevailing wage provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act on any construction project costing
in excess of $2,000 when 25 percent or more of the costs of such project are paid with revenue sharing
funds.
(7) Pay individuals employed in jobs financed in whole or in part with revenue sharing funds not less than
the prevaiiing rates of pay for Persons employed by it in similar public occupations. This provision does not
a
pplly o an employee or employees in any program category who are being paid in whole or in part with
general revenue sharing funds unless 25 percent or more of the total wages paid to all employees in that
category are paid from revenue sharing funds.
(8) Not exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination under any program
or activity, any person in the U.S. on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex. Not discriminate on
the basis of age under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, or with respect to an otherwise qualified
handicapped individual as provided m Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or religion except that
anv exemption from such prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion as provided in the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, or Title VII of the Act of April 11, 1968, shall also apply.
(9) In the event a Federal or State court or Federal administrative law juggge makes a holding against the
recipient government, as defined in Section 51.67 of the regulations, provide a copy of the holding to the
Director of the Office of Revenue Sharing within 10 days of receipt of such a holding by the rpcipient
government
I assure the Director of the Office of Revenue Sharing that this government will comply with the mandatory
requirements of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 as amended and the regulations, with respect to
payment received under the Act.
I further assure the Director of the Office of Revenue Sharing that this government will comply, when applicable,
with the public hearing and public participation requirements and the accounting, auditing, and fiscal procedures
requirements of the Act.
1 understand that the acceptance of this form by the Director of the Office of Revenue Sharing does not prevent
the Director from holding a recipient government responsible for noncompliance with the Act and the regulations.
i 305 J 569-1940
AREA CODE TELEPHONE NUMBER
Patrick B. Lyon Chairman, Board of County Connissioners 9-16-81
NAME AND T11LE (PLEASE PRINT) DATE
ORS -G`_ 3 J . 5978
Li00266r"_
PROCLAMATION RE CONSTITUTIONAL WEEK
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING
THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 17 - 23, 1981 AS CONSTITUTION WEEK.
P R O C L A ,M A T I O N
WHEREAS, September 17, 1981, marks the one hundred ninety-
fourth anniversary of the drafting of tLe Constitution of the
United States of America by the Constitutional Convention; and
WHEREAS, to accord official recognition to this memorable
anniversary, and to the patriotic exercise that will form a
noteworthy feature of the occasion, seems fitting and proper;
and
WHEREAS, Public Law No. 915 guarantees the issuing of a
proclamation each year by the President of the United States
of America designating September 17 through September 23 as
Constitution Week;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN COUNTY, FLORIDA, That
and
The week of September 17 - 23, 1981
shall be designated as:
CONSTITUTION WEEK
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Board on behalf of itself
and of The Daughters of the American Revolution urges all citizens
to study our Constitution during Constitution Week in order
that you may more fully understand its meaning and understand
why this Document has endured as the Great Charter of human
liberties.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIA' ZIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
SEP 161991 B r=1ck B. Ly6frs, Chairman
BOOK 47 474
7
SEP 161981 aoox 47 PnE.4 75
CHAIRMAN LYONS THEN PRESENTED THE PROCLAMATION TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, MRS, DON C.
SCURLOCK.
11-173 211 6Z I a as TIM RK11k • Imo:
RUTH STANBRIDGE, SAFETY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN OF COUNTY
COUNCIL OF PTAs, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND INTRODUCED THE FOLLOWING
PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE 16TH STREET TRAFFIC CONDITIONS: JANE VANN,
SARA MONTGOMERY, AND RUTH BARNES. SHE THEN READ ALOUD THE FOLLOWING
MATERIAL:
4835 66t1i Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
September 16, 1981
Chairman Lyons and
Members of the County Commissioners
Indian River County Courthouse
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Gentlmen:
The Safety Committee of the Indian River County Council of PTAs has
asked to be placed on this agenda to discuss our concerns for the dangerous
situation existing on 16th Street. We do not plan a lengthy presentation,
since we know that you are aware of the problems existing along this
corridor. Also there are several people with me to speak.
The traffic count, though quickly taken by Chief McCall's office,
conveys just how badly improvements are needed. With the main fire
station scheduled to be moved just south of the intersection of 16th
Street and Old Dixie Highway, the obvious east/west corridor will be
16th Street. On August 27 from 12:00 noon through August 30 at 12:00
the traffic count at 16th Street and 20th Avenue had a grand total of
39,240 vehicles ... (that was a Thursday, the day after school started, to
Sunday at noon). The daily average traffic count was 9,810 and even
Saturday and Sunday the daily total ran over 8,500. Chief McCall's
office also provided a list with dates of accidents occurring on 16th
Street from U.S. 1 west to 27th Avenue. The listed 110 accidents represents
10% of the total 1,057 accidents reported in the same time period.
This corridor is needed by the ambulance squads to dispatch emergency
help to the east, south and west. This corridor is also used by citizens
traveling to the shopping areas, downtown, south U.S. 1, and to the
Plazas. With the 17th Steep Bridge, the south beach is now accessable
by way of 16th Street.
I know that Chairman Lyons has indicated that a list of future road
improvement projects should not be pursued until a traffic engineer is
hired - I understand that just this Monday (September 14) a traffic
technican was engaged. I believe that in March a road priority list was
made for unpaved county roads, with no road priority plans for reconstruction
on existing roads such as 16th Street or construction of new roads-
Gentlemen, it is time to make a tentative list for this traffic
technican to use to find the "iot spots". Who knows this county better
than the people who live here and travel our roads? All of you qualify
as natives, so what more sensible way to begin than to establish a road
priority committee. I am sure the Cities of Sebastian and Fellsmere
have some suggestions; civic leaders in Gifford could probably provide
dozens of road projects. Certainly the City of Vero Beach has a few
items and, of course, they are on record as supporting 16th Street as
their lst priority.
To be fair, to fill the needs for the majority of the county residents,
and to resolve the chaos that exist over the improvements of our roads,
you, our county commissioners must not commit the $3 million road fund
until you have considered road improvement and new construction priorities
from all parts of the county, including Indian River Blvd. Extension.
We, the County Council of PTAs, are more than willing to have 16th
Street stand by itself among other possible road projects.
We are confident that the problems on 16th Street are so notorious
that the only place to put this street would be at the top of the list.
Sincerely,
Mrs. William Stanbridge
Safety Committee Chairman
County Council of PTAs
DATE7_5�,^t. 1� -- - _ , .
TO Chief ,,TcCall __.-- _P'T
FRO Na etif`er -----Z EP'T
SUBJECT Traffic count 16th Street
per youx instructions a traffic count -, &s ccn ,,ctec? on 16th. St. just -East of
from 12;008, 27Auo, 1981 throuCh
0..Daily -o .l
Thursday 27 puc- ^ri day 28 Aub Sa to r : sy 2; Al -,C Sunday 30 qui;
10,711 11,046 - 8,62.) 8,e58
Grand Total 39,200
Daily Average 9,810
uighest peak hour 1017
Daily peak traffic period is bet7,een t:.- ^c;,_._ of 7;001*- and 9;001;.,
SEP 16 1981 RooK 47 PAGE 4°76
cc: Mayor Terry Goff I,CCID::NTS
8-01-80 throu�.h 7-31-81
16th St. (17th)
and
10-03-80
12-03-80
12-2.7-80
1-14-81
1 -30 -sl -
2 -10-81
2-13-81
3-03-81
3-13-81
4-21-'81
4-29-81
5-25-81
6-01-81
6-08-81
7-10-81
14th Ct . 16th Ave.
1.0-01-80 2-13-81
10-11-80
12-05-80
2-04-81
7-15-81
27th Ave.
11-11-80
12-21-80
1-17-81
2-09-81
5-23=81
7-07-81
rnt.Tvv Prr.
10-09-80
1-07-81
1-28-81
17th Ave.
9-02-80
9-18-80
11-07-80
11-15-80
1-11-08-80
2-0/;-81
3-17-81
6-03-81
6-12-81
RR TRACKS
9-19-80
12-17-80
1-02-81
20',-11 Ave.
9 15-E0
9 5-80
10- '110-8 0
10-121-80
11-15-80
12--23-80
1-24-81
3-18-81
5-21.-51
6-G5 1
6-20-81
ULD DIXIE
8-18-80....
8-21-80
9-03-80
10-21-80
11-20-80
12-22-80
12-24-80
12-30-80
12-31-80
1-22-81
2-21-81
3-04-�Il
4-07-81.
4- . 4-81.
5- 01-81
8-
7-1.7-8a.
7-23-81
22nd. Ave.
6-07-1)1.
B� 47 pArf 477
HIGHLAND
5-04-81
5-27-81
14t".1 Ave.
9-1 8C)
10-0 -80
10-2.3-k, 0
1L.-22-80
1-06-S.1
2
4-20-81
24th Avc. 25Th .
8-10-80
10-16-80
The listed 1.10 accident � rt :,;-: -
sent 107 of the -total 1.0':
accidents reported in file
time period.
THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A ROAD
PRIORITY COMMITTEE AND REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING LETTERS:
Telephone (305) 567.7165 SUNCOM No. 465 - 1011
, �c �H�c �c�t_ c�,1 -F F 11, -f r r 1 � 1 �1'e N r UN, t- r t- 'r u
1426 19th Street - P. 0. Box 2648 - Vero Beach, Florida 32960
August 28, 1981
JAMES A. BURNS, Superintendent
Mr. Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator
Board of County Commissioners
2345 14th Avenue (Lawyer's Title Bldg.)
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
SCHOOL BOARD
GARY W. LINDSEY
Chairman
JOE N. IDLETTE,JR.
Vice -Chairman
RUTH R. BARNES
RICHARD A. BOLINGER
DOROTHY A.TALBERT
Dear Mr. Nelson:
The Safety Committee of the Iridian River County Council of PTAs appeared
before the School Board on August 24th to consider addressing the 16th
Street complex. They requested approval of the following statement:
That the Indian River County School Board, recognizing
the dangers to the safety of the students, faculty and
private citizens and realizing that the traffic problems
are increasing along the 16th Street roadway, urge the
City Council and County Commission to seek relief by
initiating improvements to this dangerous traffic
corridor. There are over 2,000 high school students
and another 2,000 students attending schools in this
immediate area.
We also urge that this road project be acknowledged as
one of the primary concerns of the City Council and County
Commission. Coordination in solving these traffic problems
along the 16th Street corridor will be in the best interests
of the citizens of our community.
We would certainly want to cooperate with you in any way possible in this
regard.
Sincerely,
a es A. Burns
S perintendent
SEP 161981 11 Boos 47 PAPE 478
City o f Aero .beach
A 0. BOX 1339 - 1053 - 20th PLACE
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32960
Telephone 567-5151
OFFICE OF THE
MAYOR
September 8, 1981
Mr. Pat Lyons, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
2145 14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Item 9(e) on the City Council Agenda of September 1, 1981 - Discussion
of dangerous situation on 16th Street - area from 20th Avenue to Old Dixie
Highway - Safety Committee of the Indian River Council of PTA's
Dear Pat:
The City Council, after much input from concerned citizens, unanimously passed
a motion to go on record as stating that 16th Street is the number one priority
in the City of Vero Beach.
Council further recommended that a committee comprised of representatives from
the City of Vero Beach, Indian River County and the other municipalities in the
County, be formed to prioritize the ten or twelve problem roads in the area that
need to be addressed. Council also suggested that once the committee comes up
with such a list that they should also get cost estimates. A public referendum
for an additional penny gasoline tax was also discussed. This money can be used
to cover as many roads on the priority list as possible.
The City Council feels this item should be discussed at the joint meeting on
September 14, 1981. It was pointed out that much time and money was spent on the
Twin -Pairs project and we have nothing to show for it. The City Council would like
to see a committee appointed to study the area and come up with a priority list
before we spend more time and money on a project that might not be necessary at
this time.
If you or the County Commissioners have any questions concerning this item I -will
be happy to discuss it with you.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF VERO BEACH
e`rry Go
Mayor
TG:pn
"City of Beautiful Beaches".
12
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON WAS HOPEFUL THAT HE WOULD GET AN
AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE TODAY REGARDING THE POSITION OF TRAFFIC ENGINEER;
THE ACCUMULATED INFORMATION AND PUBLIC INPUT WOULD ENABLE THE NEW
TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO STUDY THE ROAD PRIORITY MATTER MORE EFFECTIVELY.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, ALONG WITH
THE SCHOOL BOARD, COULD ASSIST IN COORDINATING WITH THE COUNTY TO
TRY TO SOLVE THIS TRAFFIC PROBLEM. HE SUGGESTED HOLDING OFF WITH
ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RECREATIONAL FIELD THAT MIGHT FURTHER CONGEST
THE AREA UNTIL THE BOARD KNOWS WHAT WILL TRANSPIRE.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT A DATE SHOULD BE SET FOR THE
PUBLIC TO GIVE THEIR INPUT ON THIS MATTER.
WILLIAM KOOLAGE, INTERESTED CITIZEN, EXPRESSED GREAT CONCERN
OF THE TRAFFIC SITUATION ON 16TH STREET AND URGED THE BOARD TO GIVE
A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT TO THE YOUTH OF TODAY, HE COMMENTED THAT
THE BOARD SHOULD MAINTAIN A LIST OF ROAD PRIORITIES.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS -
STONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO ADD THIS ROAD PRIORITY
AND COMMITTEE DISCUSSION TO EVERY FUTURE AGENDA UNTIL WE HAVE THIS
MATTER SETTLED.
DISCUSSION ENSUED AND IT WAS AGREED THAT THE PROBLEMS ON
16TH STREET NEED ATTENTION.
CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT THE BOARD WANTS TO MOVE
FORWARD IN AN ORDERLY FASHION.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REITERATED THAT THIS ITEM WOULD BE
PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS AND SUGGESTIONS WILL BE MADE AT THE NEXT
MEETING FOR THE FORMULATION OF A COMMITTEE TO STUDY THIS MATTER.
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM:
13
600 %7 PAGE 480
r SEP
16 1981
BOOR 47 PAS
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: September 8, 1981 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Paving of R.D. Carter Rd. (1st
Street S.W.) between 43rd Avenue
and 27th Avenue
FROM: Neil A. Nelson, County Admn. REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the recent August rains, the citizens using R.D. Carter Road
between 27th Avenue and 43rd Avenue have submitted numerous complaints
to have this road paved. Since the average daily traffic count on the
road is over 1000 vehicles per day, the road becomes hazardous to travel
after a heavy rain, even though the County Road and Bridge Department
grades it frequently. On Monday, August 31, 1981, Mrs. Branigan and other
residents using the road requested in a meeting at the County Administrator's
office that the County Commission reconsider paving of R.D. Carter Road
to prevent a dangerous road situation.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The existing right-of-way width.along R.D. Carter Road between 27th
Avenue and 43Rd Avenue varies from 30' to 52' . The citizens attending
the August 31, 1981 meeting agreed to assist the County in encouraging
those property owners abutting the road to donate the right-of-way required
to provide a min. 50' width.
The cost for paving and drainage improvements along the one mile
length of road is estimated at $103,000. Of this amount, 30,000 is for
asphalt work and 39,000 is for base work. Stripping, drainage, and
earthwork is estimated at $34,000.
Two alternative methods of financing are presented by the staff:
Alternative No. 1.
Funding to be provided via special Assessment Ordinance based upon
delineating a benefited assessment area.
Funding to be provided from the Road and Bridge Department Materials
Account No. 004-214-541-35.39.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
In accordance with the new Special Assessment Ordinance, it is recomm-
ended that a benefitted area be delineated for the paving of R.D. Carter
Road and this road be paved. Funding to be administered via the neer Special
Assessment Ordinance. The right-of-way necessary should be obtained from
those property owners affected prior to construction.
THE BOARD THEN DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING LETTER:
L-
boox 47 PAGE 482
8901 4 7 PAGE 483
LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE SUBJECT OF WHICH ROADS
ARE MAIN COLLECTORS, AND WHICH ARE SUB -LATERAL - THIS WOULD ENABLE
THE BOARD TO KNOW FOR WHICH ROAD THE COUNTY IS RESPONSIBLE, AND
THOSE THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN ASSESSMENT.
WILLIAM B. HERRICK, 3620 FIRST ST. SW, APPROACHED THE BOARD
STATING HE DID NOT WANT TO GIVE UP 20' TO WIDEN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AS
IT WOULD WIPE OUT HIS FRONT YARD. HE DID NOT THINK IT WAS FAIR;. ALSO HE
DID NOT WANT TO HAVE TO PAY FOR PAVING THE ROAD.
DR. BOROVSKY, INTERESTED CITIZEN, STATED THAT IT WAS UNFAIR
TO HAVE TO DONATE SOMETHING FOR NOTHING, AND HE OBJECTED TO DOING
AWAY WITH SOME TREES IN ORDER TO PAVE THE ROAD. HE ADDED THAT HE
MOVED TO THE AREA FOR PEACE AND QUIET AND FELT THIS MATTER NOW UNDER
DISCUSSION WAS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT, BUT A REGRESSION.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE EXPLAINED THAT THE 20' NEEDED BY THE
COUNTY FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD CONTINUE TO BE USABLE TO THE PROPERTY
OWNER; THE COUNTY JUST NEEDS TO HAVE ACCESS FOR DRAINAGE, ETC.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INTERJECTED THAT THROUGHOUT THE YEARS
OF GRADING THE ROAD, THE COUNTY PROBABLY ALREADY HAD THE 20' THERE
WITH THE SHOULDERS OF THE ROAD.
MR. HERRICK REITERATED THAT HE WOULD LOSE $500 WORTH OF
ROSES, AND IT WOULD HARM HIS DRIVEWAY; THEREFORE, HE DID NOT WANT
TO PAY FOR THE PAVING OF THE ROAD.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK EXPLAINED THE FORMULA FOR THE ASSESS-
MENT, WHICH WILL COVER A LARGER BASE AND WILL BE SHARED BY MORE
PEOPLE IN THE AREA.
ENGINEER .JIM DAVIS ESTIMATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WOULD
BE APPROXIMATELY $300 AN ACRE BASED ON THEIR FORMULA.
MRS. CHRIS BRANIGAN, 31ST AVENUE SW, STEPPED BEFORE THE
BOARD AND GAVE A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ROAD, WHICH WAS LISTED AS THE
NUMBER ONE PRIORITY SEVERAL YEARS AGO - ALL THAT WAS NEEDED WAS THE
FUNDING. SHE URGED THE BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE PROJECT, AND
THAT THE ROAD BE PAVED USING COUNTY FUNDS.
M'
CARL EVERATT, 136 31ST AVENUE SW, STATED THAT IF THE COUNTY
PAVED THE ROAD, HE WOULD DONATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT NOT IF IT WAS
GOING TO BE ASSESSED.
CHARLES SULLIVAN, JR., 31ST AVENUE SW, STRESSED TO THE
BOARD THAT THIS WAS AN ARTERIAL ROAD FROM 27TH AVENUE, AND OVER A
THOUSAND PEOPLE USE THIS ROAD TO GET TO THEIR HOMES IN A DAY. HE
POINTED OUT THAT EVERY TIME THERE IS A RAIN, THE ROAD'S CONDITION
BECOMES VERY BAD DUE TO THE HEAVY TRAFFIC. ATTORNEY SULLIVAN URGED
THE BOARD TO PAVE THIS ROAD FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH REASONS.
CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT A MAP CLASSIFYING ALL THE ROADS IN
THE COUNTY WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INTERJECTED THAT THIS ROAD AT ONE
TIME WAS PUT ON THE PRIORITY LIST AND THEN SKIPPED OVER, HE NOW
FELT THE ROAD SHOULD BE PAVED AND PAID FOR BY COUNTY FUNDS,
DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT USING THE SAME METHOD OF PAVING
AS WAS DONE ON REBEL ROAD AND.CITRUS ROAD SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EXPLAINED THAT THEY JUST PUT AN
ASPHALT CAP ON THE ROAD AT ONE-THIRD THE NORMAL COST OF PAVING A
ROAD, HE COMMENTED THAT OUR COUNTY ENGINEER COULD NOT PROFESSIONALLY
RECOMMEND THIS "NEW,CONCEPT" METHOD,
COMMISSIONER BIRD INQUIRED IF THE COUNTY WAS BOUND BY SOME
CRITERIA IF A ROAD WAS DESIGNATED AS A MAIN ARTERIAL ROAD.
ENGINEER DAVIS EXPLAINED THAT IF AN ARTERIAL ROAD WAS TO
BE FUNDED BY GAS TAX MONEY HELD IN TRUST BY DOT, IT MUST BE BUILT
ACCORDING TO THEIR STANDARDS. HE ADDED THAT AN ANALYSIS WOULD HAVE TO
BE MADE AS TO WHETHER THE °ANEW CONCEPT" METHOD WOULD OFFSET THE COST
OF MAINTENANCE OF A STANDARD TYPE ROAD.
COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT THAT SINCE OTHER ROADS ARE PAVED
AS YOU PROCEED SOUTH, THE COUNTY IS SOMEWHAT OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE
ANOTHER EAST -WEST CONNECTOR ROAD. HE STATED THAT SINCE .IT WAS SUCH
A HEAVILY TRAVELLED ROAD, THE COUNTY SHOULD PAVE IT.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS STATED THERE WERE
FUNDS IN THE CURRENT BUDGET THAT COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE; AND IF
MORE FUNDS WERE NEEDED, THE COUNTY TRUST FUNDS COULD BE USED.
SEP 16 1981 Boos 4i PAGE484
M��
Boox 47 pmE485
JANET BOND, OF FIRST -STREET SIS, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND
COMMENTED THAT SHE WAS FEARFUL OF HAVING HER CHILDREN PLAY IN THE
FRONT YARD AFTER IT RAINS BECAUSE THE POOR CONDITION OF THE ROAD
CAUSES CARS TO GO OUT OF CONTROL, AND COULD POSSIBLY SKID INTO HER
YARD.
LENGTHY DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDING HAVING THE ROAD SURVEYED,
ANALYZING THE "NEW CONCEPT" OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION, THE ALLOCATION OF
FUNDS, AND OF HAVING A REPORT READY FOR THE BOARD TO STUDY BY THE
FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRDD THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, NOT
TO EXCEED $50,000; TO PAVE R. D. CARTER ROAD FROM 27TH AVENUE TO
43RD AVENUE, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WILL BE A SURVEY MADE;
A STUDY DONE OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE 50' RIGHT—OF—WAY; ANALYZING THE
ROAD CONSTRUCTION OF THE "NEW CONCEPT" METHOD SIMILAR TO THAT USED
ON CITRUS ROAD; AND THAT A REPORT BE MADE TO THE BOARD ON OCTOBER 7,
1981 CONCERNING THESE MATTERS.
s
_I
}
ANNUAL BIDS - #93 THROUGH #99
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE
BIDDER ON BID #93 FOR ROAD ROCK, AND SINCE THIS ROAD ROCK IS PICKED
UP BY THE ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT AND THE BIDDER IS LOCATED IN LAKE
WALES, APPROXIMATELY 100 MILES AWAY, HE RECOMMENDED THAT THE BID BE
REJECTED.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDA=
TION -TO REJECT, READVERTISE AND REBID BID #93 FOR ROAD ROCK.
ON BID #94 FOR READY—MIX CONCRETE, THE ADMINISTRATOR RE—
PORTED THAT RINKER MATERIALS WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO BID, AND SINCE
THEIR BID IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN THE PRICE WE ARE PAYING THIS YEAR,
HE RECOMMENDED THE BID BE ACCEPTED.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE BID OF RINKER MATERIALS ON
READY—MIX CONCRETE AS DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO, TO BE PAID
FROM ACCOUNT #004-214-541-35-39.
=Bid #94 -Ready -Mix Concrete
Bid Proposals sent out, 2 received (1 No Bid)
Rinker Materials
$40.50 per yd.
1. Ready -Mix Concrete -2500 P.s.i.
2. Ready -Mix Concrete 3000 p.
s.i. $42.00 per yd.
3. Quantity Purchase w/o Min. Load -Charge 5 yds.
$50.00
4. Less than Min. Load -Charge
Prices quoted are subject to a Maximum Increase of $2.50 per cubic yd of Concrete
on Jan. 1, 1982.
The committee recommends Bid #54 be awarded to the only bidder, Rinker Materials.
Fund Account #004-214-541-35-39
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT ALTHOUGH
SOUTHERN CULVERT WAS THE ONLY BID RECEIVED ON BID #95 — ASPHALT
CORREGATED AND ALUMINUM METAL PIPE, WE HAD A GOOD EXPERIENCE WITH
THEM LAST YEAR AND THE PRICE IS IN LINE.
W
a00 47 PAGE %
r SEP 16191
roc 47 Pn E 487
A�
- ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE BID OF SOUTHERN CULVERT ON
ASPHALT CORREGATED AND ALUMINUM METAL PIPE AS SET OUT IN THE FOLLOWING
MEMO, TO BE PAID FROM ACCOUNT #004-214-541-35-32.
Bid #95 -Asphalt Corregated & Alum. Metal Pipe
4 Bid Proposals sent out, 2 received (1 No Bid)
Southern Culvert
6 Mo. Bid I Yr. Bid
1. Asphalt
Coated
Steel Corregated Pipe
it
IT
10" - 16
ga
per ft
4.48
4.90
12" - It
11
it
5.37
5.87
15" - '►
It
" 1r
6.43
7.03
1811 _ 11
"
n if
7.51
8.21
24" - 14
ga
" r1
11.72
12.81
30" - 11
11
it if
14.29
15.61
3611 = if
IT
1r 1t
17.23
18.83
42" - 12
ga
" t1
27.24
29.77
48" - "
'►
" It
31.20
34.09
S411 _ n
"
" tr
37.27
40.73
60" - 10
ga
" "
51.55
56.33
7211 -- It
if
IT r1
61.38
67.07
84" - 8
ga
it 11
87.31
95.41
9611 _ n
it
it it
100.88
110.23
2. Aluminum Metal Pipe
10"
- 16
ga
it
IT
4.76
5.21
1211
- It
rr
if
"
5.27
5.76
15"
- 11'•
if
It
6.29
6.88
" 18„
_ IT
►►
It
sr
7.38
8.06
24"
- 14
ga
"
"
11.47
12.54
30" -
It
It
if
if
14.01
15.31
3611 -
It
'1
It
It
16.88
18.45
42" -
12
ga
"
11
26.67
29.14
481f -
It
it
1t
rt
30.54
33.37
54" -
11
it
if
if
36.50
39.89
60" -
10
ga
it
11
50.48
55.17
7211 -
It
11
r1
it
60.10
65.67
84" -
8
ga
"
85.51
93.34
9611 -
It
it
it
98.79
107.95
The Committee recommends aid "95 be awarded on a yearly basis to the only bidder,
Southern Culvert.
Fund Account #004-214-541-35-32
20
a
THE BOARD NEXT DISCUSSED BID #96 - FIRE EXTINGUISHER
INSPECTION, AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME OF THE COUNTY'S FIRE
EXPERTS COULD INSPECT THESE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS RATHER THAN A PRIVATE
FIRM WAS BROUGHT UP. QUESTION AROSE AS TO THE NECESSITY OF HAVING
STATE CERTIFIED INSPECTORS, AND IT WAS FELT WE COULD LOOK INTO THIS
MATTER.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE BID OF VERO BEACH FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY AS PER THE FOLLOWING MEMO, AS BEING THE LOWEST
AND BEST BID ON THE ANNUAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER INSPECTION CONTRACT,
TO BE PAID FROM ACCOUNT #001-220-519-34-61.
Bid #96- Fire Extinguisher Inspection
3 Bid Proposals sent cut, 3 received
Vero Beach AA Fire Ind. Riv. Fire
Fire Equip Co. Equip. Co. Equip. Co.
Annual Inspection & Tagging
of all Fire Extinguishers- Ea. 1.00 1.50 2.00
Recharge regular dry Chemical Ext.
21/2 lb. Ea.
3.00
3.75
.3.00
5 it "
4.00
5.75
5.00
10 " "
6.00
7.75
10.00
20 " it
9.00
12.75
20.00
Recharge purple K or ABC Chemical Ext.
21/2 lb Ea.
3.90
3.75
3.50
5 it it
5.00
5.75
5.50
10 " ..
7.90
7.75
10.50
20 "it12.00
12.75
21.00
Recharge Co2 Ext.
21/2 " it
1.50
2.75
3.00
31b- 5 lb Ea.
3.00
3.75
4.00
61b -10 lb Ea.
5.50
4.75
5.00
IIIb -15 lb Ea.
6.50
5.75
6.00
161b -20 lb Ea.
7.50
6.75
7.00
Hydro Test Co2 Ext.
21/2 Ib. Ea.
3.00
6.00
10.00
31b - 5 lb Ea.
3.00
6.00
10.00
J 61b -10 lb Ea.
3.00
6.00
10.00
lllb -15 lb Ea.
3.00
6.00
10.00
16lb-20 lb. Ea.
3.00
6.00
10.00
Recharge soda/acid Ext. -Ea.
1.50
N/A
Hydro Test soda/ acid Ext. -Ea.
N/A
Recharge Pressure Water Ext. -Ea.
1.50
2.50
5.00
Hydro Test Pressure Fater Ext. -Ea.
1.50
2.50
5.00
Recharge 22 gal. foam Ext. -Ea.
1.50
N/A
Hydro Test 21-2 Gal. foam Ext.- Ea.
N/A
5.00
The Committee recommends IRC Bid :`96
he awarded to the
overall low bidder -Vero Beach
Fire Equipment Co.
Fund Account #001-220-519-34-61
SEP 161991
X00
7 PAc8
21
BOOK 47 PAGE 48 9
ENGINEER DAVIS REVIEWED BID #97 - TYPE II ASPHALT CONCRETE
AND REPORTED THAT DICKERSON WAS THE LOW BIDDER AND THE PRICE PER TON
IN PLACE THIS YEAR IS ALMOST NO INCREASE OVER LAST YEAR S PRICE.
HE NOTED THAT THERE -IS A CLAUSE BUILT IN THE CONTRACT THAT ANY IN-
FLATION OF OIL COSTS WILL BE BUILT INTO THE CONTRACT.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE BID OF DICKERSON, AS PER THE
FOLLOWING MEMO, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID ON THE ANNUAL TYPE II
ASPHALT CONCRETE CONTRACT, TO BE PAID FROM ACCOUNT #004-214-541-35-39.
Bid #97 -fie II Asphalt Concrete
6 Bid Proposals sent out, 3 received
Dickerson Pan American Ft. Pierce Contracting
1. Type II Asphalt Concrete
Surface Coarse Material in
various quantities and at
various times as needed 26.75 per ton NB 28.50 per ton
2. Hauling and spreading
by an approved mechanical
spreader, and furnishing
Type II Asphalt Concrete
Surface Coarse Material 38.00 per tor. 85.00 Per ton 40.10 per ton
The Committee recommends IP.0 Bid #97 be awarded to the low bidder, Dickerson, Inc.
Fund Account 1`004-214-541-35-39
DISCUSSION ENSUED ON BID #98 FOR ELEVATOR SERVICE
MAINTENANCE. CONCERN WAS EXPRESSED ABOUT THE HIGH COST OF THIS
SERVICE, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON POINTED OUT THAT WE MUST HAVE
THIS SERVICE IN ORDER TO RECEIVE OUR CERTIFICATION, AND OUR MAIN-
TENANCE PEOPLE CANNOT DO THIS.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE BID OF MIAMI ELEVATOR
AS PER THE FOLLOWING MEMO, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID ON THE
ANNUAL ELEVATOR SERVICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT, TO BE PAID FROM THE
ACCOUNTS AS SET OUT IN SAID MEMO.
22
Bid #98 -Elevator Service Maintenance
3 Bid Proposals sent out, 3 received
Schindler Otis
Haughton Co. Elevator
1. Service Maintenance Agreement
for two (2) passenger elevators,
located in the New County Administration
Bldg., 1840 25th St., Vero Beach, F1
2 Ea. 516.00/mo
2. Service Maintenance Agreement
-for one (1) passenger elevator
- located in the Indian River Co. Jail
1 Ea. 101.00/mo
3. Service Maintenance Agreement
for one (1) passenger elevator
located in the County Courthouse,
2145 14th Ave, Vero Beach, Fl
1 Ea. 96.00/mo
Miami
Elevator
884.70/mo 467.00/mo
267.18/mo
277.18/mo
70.00/mo
61.00/mo
The Committee recommends InC Bid `98 be awarded to the tow bidder- Miami Elevator, Inc.
Fund Account - Jail - #001-906-523-34-61
Courthouse & New Admin.
Bldg. #001-7.20-519-34-61
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON .REPORTED THAT THE BID COMMITTEE WOULD
LIKE TO MODIFY THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON BID #99 FOR SOIL CEMENT AND
LIME -ROCK BASE. PAN AMERICAN IS 10� CHEAPER THAN DICKERSON ON THE
SOIL CEMENT BASE, AND ALTHOUGH THIS COMPANY HAS HAD SOME PROBLEMS
-WITH CREDITORS, WE HAVE SPLIT THIS BID IN THE PAST, AND THE STAFF
WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND GOING WITH PAN AMERICAN BECAUSE THEY ARE
THE LOW BIDDER ON THIS ITEM.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE BID OF PAN AMERICAN ON
SOIL CEMENT BASE AND THE BID OF DICKERSON, INC., ON LIMEROCK BASE
AND MIXED -IN-PLACE BASE, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BIDS ON THE
ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THESE ITEMS AS PER THE FOLLOWING MEMO, TO BE
FROM ACCOUNT #004-214-541-35-39.
Bid #99&, Soil C'ement and Limerock Base
3 Bid Proposals sent out, 2 out,
1. Construction of soil cement base
2. Limerock Base
3. Mired -In -Place Base
Dickerson, Inc. Pan American
Sq. Yd. 2.85 2.75
it 5.25 6.25
it114.95 7.10
The Committee recommends IRC Bid 499 be awarded to the overall low bidder - Dickerson, Inc.
Fund Account #004-214-541=35-39
W
,-,ja 47 PAGE 490
$ba! 7 PAGE 91
pr SEP 16 191
DISCUSSION ON REQUEST FOR 25,000-30,000 GPD SEWER ALLOCATION FOR
RALMAR PROPERTY IN GIFFORD
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO SUMMARIZING THE
PRESENT SITUATION:
TO: Honorable Members of the DATE: August 26, 1981 FILE: Ralmar Medical
Board of County Commissioners Center, 2C-5
Requested 25,000 to 30,000 gallons per
SUBJECT: day of Sewage Treatment Allocation for
Ralmar property in Gifford
1. Letter Jackson to Commission,
dated 8/7/81, attached
FROM: Neil Nelson, County Admn. REFERENCES: 2. Letter Nelson to Jackson,
dated 5/27/81
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The reference letter points out that the Ralmar Medical Center is
limited to 20,000 gallons per day of sewer service from City of Vero
Beach. This capacity is used up by the original Medical Arts Center,
The Living Care Center and North River Building (combined office and
nurse's quarter buildi-ng). There are 8 tracts laid out for development.
Tract Gallons/Day Acres
A-1 Medical Arts Center 5,700 2.26
D Florida Living Care Center 8,000 2.75
E North River Building 6,500 1.26
Remaining tracts to be developed are: Tracts A-2 (2.10 acres); A-4
(2.17 acres); B (1.25 acres); C (2,57 acres); A-3 (2.24 acres).
• Mr. Jackson asks if 25,000 to 30,000 gallons per day (in the referenced
letter) can be granted by the county.
Ralmar also was notified (Reference 2) that the easement/right-of-way
problem must be resolved to the satisfaction of the County. The County
can supply water if arrangements are otherwise made for sewer service.
I believe the easement/right-of-way problem is still being worked upon
by Ralmar.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
At a meeting with Vero Beach, (about 8/3/81) they bluntly stated
that they will honor providing 20,OOO.gallons per day allocation but no
more than that. If more allocation can be gained elsewhere, service will
be limited to capacity of the lift -station.
The only location the County has jurisdiction over sewer allocation
is the 600,000 gallons per day for the South County (Vero Mall, 6th -Ave)
area. We currently have agreements (i.e. paid impact fees for water and
sewer service for) 280,300 gallons per day. There have been serious
discussions with other developers to account for an added service demand
for 83,800 gallons per day. The largest development in this group
(Southgate Mobile Home Park for 27,300 gallons per day) is known to have
to come into the county system because their DER permit for their treatment
plant will not be renewed. If only these come on to the county system
we will have a reserve of only 235.900 gallons per day.
The 6th Avenue area is developing with a majority of condominium/
apartment projects which preclude the use of septic tanks in the "Rock -
ridge" area.,
We are a year away from having our own water plant with its increase
of availability of water service. Two developments smaller than the
Tropic Villas project can use up the remaining 235,900 gallons per day.
Another area in the County, whose allocation we do not control, is
the 400,000 gallons per day for the hospital. All discussions about the
size of this allocation imply that it is for expansion to schools, resi-
dence quarters, and doctor suites - the type of which are being constructed
at the Ralmar development. It would appear that this would be a alternate
to explore for any allocation transfer.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the 25,000 to 30,000 gallons per day requested
for allocation from the County be denied since availability of this
trade-off from South County is not sufficient for all needs.
IN DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH
STILL FEELS WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE UP SOME OF OUR ALLOCATION TO
COMPLY WITH THIS REQUEST. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK POINTED OUT THAT
AN OVERALL PLAN FOR SERVICE FOR THIS AREA IS NOT AVAILABLE, AND UN—
TILL WE ADDRESS THE OVERALL HOSPITAL AREA, HE FELT WE WOULD BE REMISS
IN DOLING OUT SMALL ALLOCATIONS.
ATTORNEY ROBERTJACKSON CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING
RALMAR ASSOCIATES, HE WENT INTO THE HISTORY OF THE SITUATION IN
DETAIL, NOTING THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO TAP IN ON THE
HOSPITAL LINE SO THEY WENT AHEAD AND GOT A D.E.R. PERMIT FOR A WELL
AND TREATMENT PLANT, HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THEY PUT IN A 4" LINE ALL
THE WAY TO THE LIFT STATION SOUTH OF THE HOSPITAL AT RALMAR'S EXPENSE
AND PAID THE CITY $9,100 FOR THEIR FUTURE EXPANSION. RALMAR°S ORIGINAL
PLAN WAS FOR A WHOLE 10 ACRE COMPLEX OF MEDICALLY RELATED FACILITIES,
AND ONLY HALF OF THAT HAS GONE IN AT THIS TIME; THE BLOOD BANK HAS
MOVED._IN THERE AND THE NURSING HOME. IF THE CITY STAYS WITH THEIR
DECISION TO DENY MORE PERMITS, ATTORNEY JACKSON STATED THAT THEY WILL
HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO GO BACK TO BUILDING THEIR OWN PACKAGE
TREATMENT PLANT.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO DEVELOPMENT ON 6TH AVENUE, THE
HOSPITAL ALLOCATION, AND THE ALTERNATIVE OF EXTENDING A LINE TO THE
GIFFORD PLANT AND POSSIBLY CROSSING U.S.1 VIA THE BRIDGE AT LINDSEY
ROAD.
SEP 16 1991
25 47 FAu 492
L
SEP 16
1981 8box, 47 Pasr-433 ;
-COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK BELIEVED THERE ARE THREE ALTERNATIVES:
(1) NEGOTIATION WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH;
(2) SERVICE FROM OUR EXISTING PACKAGE PLANT IN GIFFORD; OR
(3) AN INDEPENDENT PACKAGE SYSTEM FOR THE RALMAR COMPLEX,
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK BE
GIVEN THE JOB OF TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND
JUST TAKING A LOOK AT THE GENERAL SITUATION TO SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE,
THE BOARD AGREED,
SALTAIR COVE SUBDIVISION - REQUEST EOR VARIANCE
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON ANNOUNCED THAT THIS MATTER WAS CON-
TINUED FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING IN ORDER TO NOTIFY ADJACENT PRO-
PERTY OWNERS, THE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT HAS SENT NOTIFICATION
TO 71 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, THIS WAS NOT REQUIRED BY STATUTE,
BUT DONE AS A MATTER OF COURTESY,
ATTORNEY JOSEPH CIANFRONE WAS HIRED BY COUNTY ATTORNEY
COLLINS TO TAKE HIS PLACE IN REPRESENTING THE BOARD IN THIS MATTER
BECAUSE OF A PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
THE FOLLOWING MEMO DATED AUGUST 26, 1981, EXPLAINS THE
REQUEST AND THE ALTERNATIVES:
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
AAW
®ATE: August 26, 1981 FILE:
SUBJECT: Salt Air Cove Subdivision
Request or Variance Pursuant to Section
9 of Indian River County Subdivision
Ordinance 75-3 and Request for Preliminan
Plat Approval
FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: 1) Betty A. Reeves, Agent for Owner,
County Administrator to Neil Nelson, C.A. dated Aug. 11,
1981.
Petition for Variance to Boar
of County Commissioners
3) Section 9 of the Indian River
County Subdivision Ordinance
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The owner of approx. 4.3 acres of land zoned R-lA east of
State Road A -1-A north of Smuggler's Cove Subdivision,(John J. and
Avonelle Harold, Betty A. Reeves, Arent) is requesting a variance
from the Indian River County Subdivision Ordinance 75-3 to construct
a 25' wide private right-of-way. The property is between A -1-A and
two lots fronting the Atlantic Ocean. The Technical Review Committee
considered this project during its July 7, 1981 meeting and informed
the engineer of record, Jim B.eindorf, that a request for variance is
required for the 25' right-of-way.
The above referenced i request such a varianc also that
minary plat approval be it -ed by the Board.
26
W
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In analyzing the character of the land lying east of A -1-A along
this South Beach area, a number of parcels exist with narrow, 1401±
frontage on A -1-A. These parcels, if platted individually, would
place many accesses onto A -1-A close together so that an undesirable
traffic situation would develope. The best way to plat these parcels,
in the staffs' opinion, would be for two adjacent tracts to each con-
tribute half of a 50' right-of-way (2S'each) and both tract owners
mutually agree to subdivide with frontage on a common road. This
particular method would be in concurrence with the Subdivision Ordi-
nance Section 4 Article 1(h) for Half Streets. The Technical -Review
Committee agrees with this approach as long as the other 25' portion
of the right-of-way is given once the northern parcel is subdivided
in the future.
The alternatives presented by the Staff for consideration are:
Alternative l: Approve the request for variance and preliminary
plat approval be granted subject to requiring future dedication of
the additional 25' wide portion of right-of-way if the parcel to the
north is ever subdivided. The impact this alternative would have
includes eliminating numerous access onto A -1-A which are not spaced
in a desirable manner. Since this right-of-way is proposed as private,
all lots created by future plat shall have the dedicated right to use
such right-of-way. A beach access should be shown east of this plat
for use by the potential owners. Included in this alternative should
be provisions for a cul-de-sac at the east end of the road and dedica-
tion of a 101wide non -access buffer easement along the east right-of-
way line of A -1-A.
Alternative 2: Deny the request for variance and require the
owner to provide a SO' right-of-way. The impact this alternative would
have includes possible future platting of the north parcel with an
additional access onto A -1-A in close proximity to the proposed access.
This is an undesirable situation. If the variance request is denied,
preliminary plat approval would obviously not be recommended for this
design.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
As the decision to grant a variance request lies solely vested
in the Board of County Commissioners, the staff recommends alternative
no. 1, thereby approving the request for variance and preliminary plat
approval subject to requesting dedication of the remaining 25' wide
portion of the right-of-way to the north in the future if a preliminary
plat is submitteri. Also, a cul-de-sac at the east end of the proposed
road as required in the Subdivision Ordinance and dedication of a 10'
wide non -access buffer easement along A -1-A is recommended. Once these
changes are made, one lot may*have to be deleted from the proposed
plat.
There are no funding considerations to be addressed by the Board
for this item.
P 16 1991 Boas 4 7 fuf 494
L
r 5 E P 1.6 1991 Bo ox 47 PAcE 495
3L B
van CUVE-
SUBDIV.
�1
,l
SALTAI R COVE
15/0 81 -8
I
ATTORNEY GENE RODDENBERRY MADE A PRESENTATION ON BEHALF
OF THE APPLICANTS, EXPLAINING THAT THEY WISH TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY
INTO SEVEN LOTS, AND SINCE A 50' ROAD WOULD EFFECTIVELY LIMIT SUCH
DEVELOPMENT THEY ARE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE AS DESCRIBED IN STAFF S
MEMO.
SOME DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE NEED FOR A TURN—AROUND
FOR CARS, AND ATTORNEY RODDENBERRY STATED THAT A CUL DE SAC IS
ACCEPTABLE TO THEM.
ATTORNEY ,JEROME QUINN NEXT TOOK THE FLOOR REPRESENTING
NIRS. HOPWOOD, THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NORTH, AND SPEAKING
IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE. HE OBJECTED BOTH TO
THE FORM AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION, CLAIMING THAT THE APPLI—
CATION MERELY DESCRIBES THE LENGTH AND WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY AND THE
APPLICANT S DESIRE TO SUBDIVIDE INTO SEVEN LOTS, WHICH DOES NOT FULFILL
THE REQUIREMENT TO DEMONSTRATE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
PECULIAR TO THIS LAND WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDS, HE
FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS
DO NOT RESULT FROM ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. HE POINTED OUT THAT WHEN
THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, THEY HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO
REVIEW THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS, AND THIS IS, THEP.EFORE, AN
ACQUIRED 11 HARDSHIP OF WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE. MR. QUINN
FELT IT WOULD BE VERY HARD FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT
28
Fr SEP 16 1981 Book 47 PACE 497
IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THOSE PRESENT THAT IF THE APPLICANT
GIVES A 50' DEDICATION, HE WILL MEET THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS
AND CAN GO AHEAD AND SUBDIVIDE AND ALSO THAT THE INTENT OF THE
PROPOSAL UNDER DISCUSSION WAS AN EFFORT BY THE TECHNICAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE TO TRY TO REACH A MORE BENEFICIAL SOLUTION FOR THE PUBLIC
BY HAVING TWO TRACTS OF LAND BENEFIT FROM ONE ROAD RATHER THAN HAVE
ENTRANCES ON STATE ROAD AIA EVERY 140',
DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDING THE MEANDERING ROAD ON THE
HOPWOOD PROPERTY AND WHETHER THERE WAS ANY POSSIBILITY OF REACHING
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND MRS, HOPWOOD ABOUT HAVING A
COMMON MEANDERING ROAD,
JOHN LUTHER, MRS, HOPWOOD'S GRANDSON, STATED THAT HE AND
HIS WIFE HAVE ACQUIRED THE RIVERFRONT PROPERTY ACROSS AIA. FROM
f"iRS, HOPWOOD'S.PROPERTY AND THEY ARE BUILDING THEIR HOUSE ON 3-1/2
ACRES OF GROUND, THE PROPERTY OWNERS NEXT TO THEM ARE BUILDING THEIR
INDIVIDUAL HOMES ON FIVE AND SIX ACRE LOTS, AND HE FELT THEY HAVE
MADE A STATEMENT AS TO HOW THEY FEEL THE BEACH SHOULD BE DEVELOPED SO
THAT VERO BEACH IS NOT ONE CONTINUOUS SUBDIVISION, HE THEN DISCUSSED
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, THE WATER PROBLEM IN THE AREA AND THE PROBLEMS
THAT WILL BE CAUSED BY A LOT OF SEPTIC TANKS,
GLENN WAKEMAN, PROPERTY OWNER IN SMUGGLER'S COVE,.SPOKE
ABOUT LACK OF WATER IN THE SHALLOW AQUIFER AND THE PROBLEM OF
EVACUATION OF THE BEACH IN THE EVENT OF A HURRICANE, AND EMPHASIZED
THAT HE WOULD OBJECT TO ANY INCREASED DEVELOPMENT,
IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 35 HOMES
IN SMUGGLERS COVE AND ABOUT 25 HOMES IN WYNN COVE AND THAT THE PRO-
POSED SALTAIR SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS THE SAME AREA AS ABOUT 20 LOTS
IN THOSE SUBDIVISIONS, IS PROPOSED TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO 6 OR 71.LOTS
IT WAS ONCE AGAIN EMPHASIZED THAT IF A DEVELOPER HAS THE PROPER ZONING
AND COMPLIES WITH THE ORDINANCE, THE BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY TO TELL
THAT DEVELOPER THAT HE CAN'T DEVELOP JUST BECAUSE HIS NEIGHBORS WOULD
PREFER TO SEE THE PROPERTY REMAIN IN ITS NATURAL STATE,
CATHY DETKO INFORMED THE BOARD THAT SHE HAS LIVED AT
GRACEWOOD LANE FOR 15 YEARS; THE PROPERTY THERE IS VERY SPECIAL,
AND SHE HAS BEEN ASSURED FOR MOST OF THIS PERIOD OF TIME THAT IT
COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE SUBDIVISIONS
CODES, BASED ON THAT, SHE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE THAT PROPERTY,
30
BASED ON THIS APPLICATION TO JUSTIFY THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, AND
FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ADJACENT OWNER TO THE NORTH, WHOM HE
REPRESENTS, HAS NO INTENTION OF SUBDIVIDING AND NO INTENTION OF
GOING ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF THAT THEY AT SOME FUTURE
TIME CONTRIBUTE 25' ON THE SOUTH OF THEIR PROPERTY TO MAKE UP THE
PROPOSED 50° ROAD; THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS, THEREFORE, BASED
ON CONTINGENCIES WHICH ARE NOT FORTHCOMING,
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK LEFT THE MEETING AT 11:40 A.M.
ATTORNEY CIANFRONE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE ORDINANCE
IS CLEAR THAT THE APPLICATION MUST STATE THAT THERE ARE UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED, AND THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER
THE DESIRE TO SUBDIVIDE INTO SEVEN 1/2 ACRE LOTS COMPRISES SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES,
IN DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE 1/2 ACRE LOTS ARE
NECESSARY IN ORDER TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL WELLS AND SEPTIC TANKS, AND
THE QUESTION OF WATER SUPPLY AROSE,
DAN RICHARDSON, SON—I'N—LAW OF MRS. HOPWOOD, ADDRESSED THE
BOARD, CONFIRMING THAT THIS IS BEAUTIFUL, NATURALLY VEGETATED
PROPERTY WITH A MEANDERING ROAD UP TO -.THE BEACH, WHICH HAS ALWAYS
INTENDED FOR FAMILY USE AND NOT FOR A FUTURE SUBDIVISION, MRS, HOPWOOD
WISHES TO KEEP THIS PROPERTY THE WAY IT IS, AND FEELS THE RECOMMENDED
PROPOSAL WOULD DOWNGRADE HER PROPERTY.
JOHN MCPHERSON SPOKE REPRESENTING PELICAN LANE PROPERTY
OWNERS AND STATED THAT THEY OPPOSE THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WHICH
THEY FEEL WOULD OPEN A FLOOD GATE FOR SIMILAR PARCELS ON THE ISLAND.
HE FURTHER NOTED THAT AT A TIME WHEN THE COMMISSION IS INVOLVED IN A
CONTROVERSIAL LAND USE PLAN AND TRYING TO PROTECT THE BARRIER ISLAND
FROM BECOMING A CONCRETE JUNGLE, PASSAGE OF SUCH A VARIANCE WOULD
RAISE QUESTIONS, AND HE FELT IT WOULD LEAD TO STILL MORE LAWSUITS.
HE REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE SO THEY WOULD NOT
HAVE TO RESORT TO LITIGATION.
CHAIRMAN LYONS DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHETHER THEY WERE OBJECTING
TO THE SUBDIVIDING OF THIS PARCEL OR TO THE ROAD.
w
a00K 47 PAGE 496
m
AND SHE DID NOT NOW UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE CAN BE ALLOWED TO PROFIT
BY BENDING THE RULES AT SOMEONE ELSE'S EXPENSE. MRS. DETKO WAS
ASKED IF THERE IS AN EASEMENT TO THE OCEAN FROM THIS PROPERTY, AND
SHE STATED THAT IT IS BEING CONTESTED.
MR. RICHARDSON STATED THAT HE REALIZED THAT IF THE DEVELOPER
DOES PUT IN A 50' ROAD AND ABIDE BY THE ORDINANCE, HE CAN SUBDIVIDE,
BUT NOTED THAT THE PRESENT ISSUE IS GRANTING A VARIANCE,
CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT HE PERSONALLY WOULD VOTE
AGAINST A VARIANCE BECAUSE HE DID NOT BELIEVE IT MEETS THE REQUIRE-
MENTS, BUT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THIS WOULD PRECLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THIS PROPERTY.
ATTORNEY RODDENBERRY SPOKE IN REBUTTAL TO THE VARIOUS
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED AGAINST THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE, NOTING THAT
THE DEVELOPER IS AWARE OF THE BEAUTIFUL TREES ON THE HOPWOOD PROPERTY
AND WOULD BE VERY AMENABLE TO WORKING WITH THEM,
DR. FLOOD AS A RESIDENT OF SMUGGLER'S COVE EXPRESSED HIS
CONCERN ABOUT HEALTH AND, DID NOT FEEL ANY MORE HOMES SHOULD BE ALLOWED
INTO THIS AREA UNTIL THEY CAN PROVE THE WATER TABLE WILL SUPPORT THEM.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO 0 VOTE, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK BEING ABSENT
FROM THE MEETING, DENIED THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE APPLIED FOR BY
SALT AIR COVE SUBDIVISION,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT
12:40 O'CLOCK P.M. FOR LUNCH AND RECONVENED AT 2:00 O'CLOCK WITH ALL
MEMBERS PRESENT, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK HAVING RETURNED TO THE MEETING,
'11EETING OF SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
C THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECESSED AT 2:05 P.M,
IN ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTH
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MIGHT CONVENE. THOSE MINUTES ARE
BEING PREPARED SEPARATELY.
31
efl�t 7 PAct 498
SEP 16 1981 pox 47 PAPE 499
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECONVENED AT 2:12 O'CLOCK
P.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
ORDINANCE 8I-32 - REZONING FROM A To,R-1A (GRAVES AND MONROE)
f�
THE HOUR OF 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK
READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann., Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of lt_l 4-3 kxe
61
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D.
ivy--
0
��
�f /(,BuWss Manager)
CL,
(SEAL) (Clerk of t e Circuit Court, Ind( River County, Florida)
i
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, is reviewing the feasibility of
making the following changes and additions to
the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County,
Florida, which changes and additions are
substantially as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order
that the following described property, located
In Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
A track of land WEST of 43RD AVENUE,
ABUTTING KELLY ROAD TO THE NORTH
and described as follows:
Tract 8; Section 28, Township 33 South,
Range 39 East, According to the last general
Plat of lands of the Indian River Farms
Company as ,filed in Plat Book 2, Page 25,
public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida;
said land now situated in Indian River County,
Florida. LESS road rights-of-way and con-
taining 38.91 acres, more or less
Be rezoned from A -Agricultural District to
R-lA Residential District.
A public hearing in relation thereto at which
parties in interest and citizens shall have an
opportunity to be heard, will be held by the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, in the Council Chamber
of the City Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Wednesday, September 16, 1981, at 1:30 P.M.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he may need to insure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Aug. 25, 27,1981. _
NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS,
W. C. GRAVES, .JR., AND EARL MONROE, BY FREDA WRIGHT, CLERK, AS REQUIRED
BY FLORIDA STATUTE 125.661 AND COPIES OF SAME ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK.
M,
p
SENIOR PLANNER ART CHALLACOMBE REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING STAFF
MEMO:
TO: NEIL NELSON DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1981 FILE: ZC-81-18-453
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: REZONING FROM A—AGR I CULTURAL
TO R -1A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIA
FROM: DAVID EVER REFERENCES:
PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
It is requested the data herein be given formal consideration by the
Board of County Commissioners.
1. Description and Conditions �.
Applicant requests rezoning of 38.9 acres located on the northwest
corner of 13th Street S.W. and 43rd Avenue, from A -Agricultural to
R -1A Single Family Residential: (4.3 units/acre). Applicant proposes
to develop a single family residential subdivision.
Shady Oaks Subdivision is a recorded subdivision on the east side of
43rd Avenue,. opposite subject property. A canal runs along the east
side of 43rd Avenue. Subject property presently contains groves.
The surrounding parcels on the northwest and south contain groves.
Properties east of 43rd Avenue are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential
(6.2 units/acre) while areas on the subject property's northern,
western and southern -boundaries are in A -Agricultural (1 unit/5 acres)
District. There is an R-1 Single Family District touching subject
property's northwest corner.
2: Alternatives and Analysis
A) Recommend approval of the request to rezone from A -Agricultural
to.R-1A Single Family. This would allow development of the parcel
at a density level appropriate to the level of utility service
available. 43rd Avenue is a major collector, and 13th Street S.W.,
a minor' collector, will provide adequate access. The adjacent
properties on the east are designated as single-family residential.
The requested zoning would be in compliance with both the existing
and proposed Comprehe-nsive Plans.
B)_ Recommend disapproval of the request, leaving the A -Agricultural
intact.
3. Recommendation
- A) That the 38.9 acre site be re -zoned from A -Agricultural to R -1A
Single Family Residential.
B) That the Ordinance effecting the rezoning be adopted.
MR. CHALLACOMBE REPORTED.THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
VOTED 5 TO 0 IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTED REZONING.
33
Boa 7 PAU.' 0
BOOK 47 FnE501 OrP�
SEP 16 1991
QUESTION AROSE AS TO THE CONDITION OF THE CITRUS ON THIS
PROPERTY. NORMAN HENSICK, AGENT FOR MR. GRAVES AND MR. MONROE, REFERRED
TO AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THERE ARE TWO TRACTS
INVOLVED. THE FIRST TRACT WHICH IS VERY SPOTTY IS 35+ YEARS OLD,
A LOT OF TREES HAVE DIED AND NOT BEEN REPLACED, AND PRODUCTION IS NOT
GOOD. THE OTHER GROVE WHICH IS NOT AS SPOTTY IS ALSO IN EXCESS OF 35
YEARS OLD AND THE PRODUCTION RATE IS NOT THE BEST, THEY FEEL THAT
WITH THE SPIRALING LAND COSTS, IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO KEEP THIS LAND
IN GROVES, AND WITH SHADY OAKS SUBDIVISION ACROSS THE STREET, THEY
FEEL IT IS TIME TO MAKE A MOVE.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING DENSITY. IT WAS NOTED THAT
SHADY OAKS IS 2 UNITS PER ACRE, AND MR. HENSICK STATED THAT EVEN
THOUGH THEY ARE APPLYING FOR R -IA, THEY WILL HAVE TO DEVELOP ON A 1/2
ACRE LOT BASIS IN ORDER TO HAVE WELLS AND SEPTIC TANKS.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HARD.
E
THERE WERE NONE,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ON AOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE 8I-32 GRANTING A REZONING
FROM A TO R -IA ON LAND IN TRACT 8 AS ADVERTISED AND AS REQUESTED BY
W, C, GRAVES, JR. AND EARL MONROE.
?: ,t.._ ';0. 81-32
WHEREAS, the Board of C.„ r.".i"-)si",•ierI of IndiJn R jer-
County, Florida, did publ isn s-!. 1 i is ,l,,ti(:� of Intent to re -,Ore
the hereinafter described prope!—y ,nI :ur•s!:ant thereto held pull is
hearing in relation theretG, ,Ihl ,),i rt 11; 'rite rest a rif, ,.l t e!',s
were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of ,ndian
River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian Riser County,
Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follo:is:
1. That the Zoning Mlap be changed in order that the
follo,.ing descrited property situated in Indian River
County, Florida, to -wit :
Tract 8, Section 28, Township 33 South, Range 39 East,
according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian
River Farms Company as filed in Plat Book 2, page 25, Public
Records of St. Lucie County, Florida; said land now situate
in Indian River County, Florida. LESS road rights -of -•ray
and containing 38.91 acres, more or less
Be changed from A-Acriculturai District to R -1A Single
Family" Residential District.
All with the rieaninc and intent and as set forth ina
described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance snail t;:k effect September 21, 1981.
Boos 47 PASE502
r Blom 47 PnE'503 y�
SEP 161981
APPEAL OF PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NOT TO REZONE
TOR 1PP BY ARISTEK PROPERTIES (LAKEWOOD VILLAGE P10BILE HOME PARK)
THE HOUR OF 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK
READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. v:ho on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper publis^ed
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of a;:vertisement, being
a ZLIO
Z', fD 4y,
Q � 1
in the matter of _/1,C l" -7t'
in the
Court, was pub -
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
,.L
Sworn to and subscribed before me this d'gay of ^ A.D._L:Fj,/
v�� F
(Bu n ss anager)
(SEAL)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board
of Colinty Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, is reviewing the feasibility of
making the following changes and additions to
the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County,
Florida, which changes and additions are
substantially as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order
that the following described property, being A
PORTION OF LAKEWOOD VILLAGE
MOBILE HOME . PARK LYING EAST OF
90TH AVENUE, in Indian River' County,
Florida to -wit:
Tract 4, Section 11, Township 33 South,
Range 38 East,. LESS the North 742.9 feet;
AND the North 19.05 acres of Tract 5, Section
11, Township 33 South, Range 38 East,. less R.
W's of Record.
Be changed from R -IPM Mobile, Home
Subdivision District to R -IMP, Mobile Horde
District.
A public hearing in relation thereto at which.
'parties in interest and citizens shall have an
opportunity to be heard, will be held by said
Board of County Commissioners in the Council
Chamber of the City Hall, Vero Beach,
Florida, on Wednesday, September 16, 1981, at
1:30 P.M.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners,
By: Patrick B. Lyons,
Chairman -
Aug. 28, Sept. 9, 1981.
SENIOR PLANNER ART CHALLACOMBE REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING
STAFF MEMO:
-^i
IM6
M
TO: Neil Nelson,
County Administrator
FROM: David Rgver
Planning and Zoning Director
®ATE:FILE:_'
September 16, 1981 ZC81-16-452-=
.+ J
• ms's �
1 �1)
SUBJECT: ARISTEK PROPERTIES, LTD.�JCONTINIIJANCE
OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NOT
TO REZONE 36.2 ACRES FROM R-WIM TO
R-1 MP
REFERENCES:
.It is recommended that the date herein presented be given.formal consideration by the
Board of County Commissioners in the form of a public hearing for September 16, 1981
-to appeal the Planning and Zoning Commission denial of rezoning request.
1. Description and Conditions:
Applicant requests rezoning of 36.2 acres from R -IPM, Permanent Mobile Home Subdivision,
to R-1MP, Mobile Home Park District. Subject prpperty is located on the -east side of
90th Avenue, one-quarter (1/4) mile north of 12th Street. Lakewood Village is adjacent
_to the northern boundary of the subject property;and across from the site, on the west
..side of 90th Avenue.
Subject property is presently vacant with dense vegetation.
The site is designated as medium densityin the existing Comprehensive Plan. (More
than 4 units/acre, but less than 12 units/acre).
-Both the present and requested rezoning districts allow a maximum gross density of
8.7 units/acre mobile home, the major difference is that R -IPM, Permanent Mobile
:Home Subdivision, allows residents to own the lots, while the R-lMP district allows
;;_the lots to be -leased. The following data indicates the other differences in the
districts.
EXISTING REQUESTED
R -IPM PERMANENT MOBILE
-~ -_ HOME SUBDIVISION
1. Minimum floor area is 550 sq. ft.
(Sec. 13, (d) (1).
=2. Minimum lot size is 5,000 sq. ft.
3. Maximum lot coverage is 40%
-- (Sec. 13, (e) (1).
4. Minimum front yard depth is 20 ft.
(Sec. 13, (f).
5.
6.
7.
Minimum rear yard depth is 20 ft.
Sec. 13, (g).
Minimum pavement width is 20 ft.
Sec. 13,' (i ) (3)
Public address system prohibited
8. Not specified
R-lMP MOBILE HOME
PARK
1. No minimum floor area required
(Sec. 14 (d) (1).
2. Not specified.
3. Maximum lot coverage is 450.
(Sec. 14, (d) (1).
4. Minimum front yard depth is 10 ft.
(Sec. 14, (f).
5. Minimum rear yard depth is 10 ft.
Sec. 14, (g).
6. Minimum pavement width is 18 ft.
Sec. 14, (i) (3)
7. Not specified
8. Recreation/park areas must have 1
acre for the first 20 acres and
.04 acres for each additional acre
(Sec. 14, (i) (5)
SEP 161981 mox 47 PAGE504
.4
r SEP 16 1991
2. Alternative and Analysis:
Box 47 PAPE505
A) Approval of rezoning request. This will accommodate the applicant's development
plan without significantly altering the land use. The mobile home park is
compatible with existing land use configurations and conforms to the present
Comprehensive Plan.
B) Deny the request. This alternative will leave the present rezoning districts
in tact; the potential land use configuration will also remain the same.
On June 25, 1981, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-1 (Mr. Tippin cast the
dissenting vote) not to recommend approval of the request to rezone 35.2 acres from
R -IPM, Permanent Mobile Home Subdivision, to R-lMP I'lobile Home Park District.
Pursuant to Section 27 Zoning Amendments, Subsection (b) Amendment Procedures,
Ordinance No. 81-9, John Seibel, Aristek Properties, Ltd., President, Submitted an
appeal to the Board of County Commissioners. The appeal is dated June 29, 1981.
On Aug. 19, 1981 the applicant was granted a continuance to Sept. 16, 1981.
3. Recommendations:
A) The Planning Department recommends the 36.2 acre tract be rezoned from R-lPM
Permanent Mobile Home Subdivision to R -IMP Mobile Home Park:
B) That the Ordinance effecting the rezoning be adopted.
' 1 i
ARISTEK PROPERTIES. - LTD-,',
1 ' Ntl�.ZC-61r16
II
t tom, -t!
12TH S f
335= 1 3.1---:21 I t I 1 i Gioi I
��� � i •� 1` a�Itai TRA 1� •.'t 1 Ia t f � a`�1l..
'.,� ;t; �t. v�.F `t�fr' itp�t 1 I51�•.I I{r iI'S (;( t ljns�, 1111
' � J �(� 9 I R %a s�Kklq. t � I � �t � (..I }� [ 11�'' '6 1 � ' {,. . r.t.... tl�'t9r1?�{'�.• ,
TF
II
tt
H
'�I
' 1 i
ARISTEK PROPERTIES. - LTD-,',
1 ' Ntl�.ZC-61r16
II
t tom, -t!
12TH S f
335= 1 3.1---:21 I t I 1 i Gioi I
��� � i •� 1` a�Itai TRA 1� •.'t 1 Ia t f � a`�1l..
'.,� ;t; �t. v�.F `t�fr' itp�t 1 I51�•.I I{r iI'S (;( t ljns�, 1111
' � J �(� 9 I R %a s�Kklq. t � I � �t � (..I }� [ 11�'' '6 1 � ' {,. . r.t.... tl�'t9r1?�{'�.• ,
TF
THE BOARD WENT OVER DIFFERENCES IN THE R-1PM AND R -IMP CATE-
GORIES. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THAT IN THE PERMANENT MOBILE
HOME CATEGORY YOU WOULD HAVE A LOT JUST AS IN ANY OTHER SUBDIVISION
WHILE IN THE R -IMP (TRANSIENT), THERE IS A SPACING REQUIREMENT OF 20°
BETWEEN PRINCIPAL LIVING STRUCTURES. ALL IN ALL, HE BELIEVED THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO CATEGORIES ARE MINIMAL. AS TO HAVING LESS
UNITS IN ONE CATEGORY THAN IN THE OTHER, MR. REVER STATED THAT IF
THE R -IMP WERE DEVELOPED AT THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, YOU
MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET A SLIGHTLY INCREASED NUMBER OF UNITS, BUT IN
MOST CASES, THEY DO NOT EVEN APPROACH MINIMUM STANDARDS,
ATTORNEY CHESTER CLEM CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING
ARISTEK PROPERTIES AND CHAMPION HOME BUILDERS, HE REVIEWED THE
HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY NOTING THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED R-1MP,
BUT WAS CHANGED TO R -IPM BY A PREVIOUS OWNER, UNDER WHOSE OWNERSHIP
THE PROPERTY WENT INTO RECEIVERSHIP. THIS HAS CREATED AN UNUSUAL
SITUATION IN THAT THIS 35.6 ACRES IS LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN A 130
ACRE TRACT PRESENTLY ZONED R -IMP AND IT IS SURROUNDED BY RENTAL MOBILE
HOME PARKS, THE PRESENT OWNER SIMPLY IS TRYING TO GET THIS PROPERTY
BACK TO ITS.ORIGINAL ZONING. ATTORNEY CLEM CONTINUED THAT THE
INDIAN RIVER FARMS DRAINAGE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHAEL O'HAIRE,
EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE TAX STRUCTURE FOR RENTAL MOBILE HOME
PARKS, AND THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH ATTORNEY O'HAIRE IN THIS
REGARD AND HAVE AGREED FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BE TAXED ON A PER LOT
BASIS INSTEAD OF PER ACRE AS FAR AS THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT IS CONCERNED.
ATTORNEY CLEM BELIEVED THIS WAS THE ONLY OBJECTION THAT WAS RAISED.
HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IF THIS PROPERTY WERE LEFT IN THE PERMANENT
MOBILE HOME PARK CATEGORY, THE $25,000 HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WOULD
PREVENT ANY GREAT ADDITION TO THE COUNTY'S TAX BASE, AND HE BELIEVED
THE COUNTY WOULD BENEFIT MORE FROM THE TAG MONEY THAT WOULD COME
BACK TO THE COUNTY FROM THE RENTAL PARK.
CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO THE PROBLEMS
THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE BOARDS ATTENTION BY RESIDENTS OF
MOBILE HOME RENTAL PARKS, AND AS TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A VERY
LIMITED AMOUNT OF LAND IN THE COUNTY WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE TO PUR-
CHASE A LOT AND INSTALL A MOBILE HOME,
Pf}
39
boa 47 PAGE 506
r BOOR 47 PAGE 50 7
16 198T
ZONING DIRECTOR DEWEY WALKER REPORTED THAT BESIDES THE
PROPERTY PRESENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR REZONING, THERE ARE 205
ACRES ZONED R -IPM, MAINLY LOCATED IN THE NORTH END OF THE COUNTY.
APPROXIMATELY 80% OF THIS ACREAGE IS UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME.
ATTORNEY CLEM EMPHASIZED THE NECESSITY FOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW OF THE RENTAL MOBILE HOME PARK, THE OVERALL PLANNING
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A CLUB HOUSE AND LAKE, AND THE FACT THAT THERE
ARE REGULATIONS WHICH REQUIRE THE UNITS TO BE KEPT UP TO CERTAIN
STANDARDS.
THE PROBLEM OF TURNOVER IN OWNERSHIP OF MOBILE HOME RENTAL
PARKS WAS BROUGHT UP, AND JOHN SEIBEL OF ARISTEK PROPERTIES, INFORMED
THE BOARD THAT HIS COMPANY HAS DEVELOPED ABOUT 12,000 SITES IN
MOBILE HOME RENTAL PARKS ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY HAVE
NEVER SOLD ONE OF THEIR PARKS. AS TO PEOPLE MOVING THEIR TRAILERS
FROM ONE PARK TO ANOTHER, MR. SEIBEL EXPLAINED THAT IS NOT THE WAY
IT IS DONE. A PERSON MOVING INTO A PARK IS REQUIRED TO BUY THEIR
MOBILE HOME FROM THAT PARK'S SALES CENTER. HE POINTED OUT THAT THIS
DOES NOT TRAP A MOBILE HOME OWNER IN A CERTAIN PARK AS HAS BEEN
CLAIMED BECAUSE THERE IS A VERY ACTIVE MARKET IN RESALE OF MOBILE
HOMES. MR. SEIBEL INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE LOTS IN A PERMANENT
MOBILE HOME PARK DO NOT SELL AS WELL BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO
FORCE THE INDIVIDUAL OWNER TO KEEP UP THEIR PROPERTY WITH THE RESULT
THAT IT BECOMES RUN DOWN, AND, THEREFORE, TO HAVE THIS R-lPM ZONING
REMAIN IN THE CENTER OF THEIR R-lMP PROPERTY WOULD BE VERY DETRIMENTAL
TO THEIR TRYING TO DEVELOP ONE LARGE COORDINATED PROJECT. MR, SEIBEL
URGED THAT THE BOARD RETURN THE ZONING TO ITS ORIGINAL R-1MP.
WILLIAM KOOLAGE, INTERESTED CITIZEN, SPOKE OF PROBLEMS
RELATED TO RENTAL MOBILE HOME PARKS AND ASKED THAT THE BOARD ACT
WITH CAUTION.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WISHED TO KNOW IF A PERSON MOVING
INTO SUCH A PARK IS GIVEN ANY GUIDEINES IN REGARD TO SELLING HIS
PROPERTY AT A FUTURE TIME, AND ATTORNEY CLEM REPORTED THAT STATE
STATUTE ALLOWS SUCH A MOBILE HOME OWNER TO SELL HIS UNIT AT ANY
TIME AND IN ANY REASONABLE FASHION, AND THEY DO NOT HAVE TO GO
THROUGH THE PARK MANAGEMENT.
IT WAS DETERMINED THAT NO ONE FURTHER WISHED TO BE HEARD,
AND ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING,
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT WHILE HE STILL HAS
PROBLEMS RE MOBILE HOME RENTAL PARKS, HE FELT THAT THE APPLICANT
HAS LAID OUT A FAIR CASE FOR THE NEED FOR THE REZONING,
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER WODTKE, TO OVERRULE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING
& ZONING COMMISSION, AND ADOPT ORDINANCE 81-33 REZONING THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY TO R-1MP AS REQUESTED BY ARISTEK PROPERTIES,
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THERE
IS NO OTHER WAY THIS PROPERTY CAN BE DEVELOPED EXCEPT AS MOBILE HOME,
HE BELIEVED IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE IT COORDINATED WITH THE RE-
MAINDER OF THE PROPERTY, HE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE TAXATION
SITUATION BUT FELT THAT PROBLEM NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED ON AN OVER-
ALL STATEWIDE BASIS.
COMMISSIONER BIRD COMMENTED THAT HE FELT WE SHOULD TRY TO
DISCOURAGE EXPANSION OF ANY MORE RENTAL MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THE
COUNTY UNTIL WE CAN GET A BETTER HANDLE ON THE VARIOUS PROBLEMS PRE-
SENTED IN THE MOBILE HOME REPORT, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE
PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY AN INTEGRAL PART OF AN OVERALL COORDINATED
DEVELOPMENT, AND HE FELT IT SHOULD CONFORM WITH THE BALANCE OF THE
PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY OTHER
VIABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT STATED
THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE FOR PERMANENT
MOBILE HOMES THAT WILL BE DELETED BY THIS REZONING IS REPLACED,
CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT HE PLANNED TO VOTE FOR THE
REZONING ON THE BASIS OF THE EXISTING SITUATION OF THE PROPERTY,
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON
AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SEP 16 1991 41 860f 47 PAGE 508
� J
�00� 47 PAGE 5��.. 1
�P 16 1991 _
ORD:iiAiiCE i;0. 81-33 ,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Fl.orida', did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; N01W, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian
River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning MaR, be amended
as follows:
1. That the Zoning llap be changed in order that the
following described property situated in Indian River
County, Florida, to -wit:
Tract 4, Section 11, Township 33 South, Range 38 East,
LESS the North 742.9 feet; AND the North 19.05 acres
of Tract 5, Section 11, Township 33 South, Range 38
East, less R/1,4's of Record.
Be changed from R-1 PM 1-lobiie Home Subdivision District
to R -IMP Mobile Home District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect September 21, 1981.
CHANGE ORDER #67- ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
-xT
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE HERCULES KONTOULAS
EXPLAINED CHANGE ORDER #67 AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
LOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #67 - COUNTY ADMINISTRA-
TION BUILDING, 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.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REQUESTED THAT THE OLD VALVES BE
SALVAGED AS WELL AS ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS SALVAGEABLE, AND MR, KONTOULAS
REPORTED THAT ALL THE COPPER ITEMS ALREADY HAVE BEEN SALVAGED AND'WE
HAVE BEEN PAID FOR THEM,
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SEP 161991 43 p 01
►� A Z u
BOQK ,1 PAGE 51 ..
CHANGE AR HITtCT
~TRACTOR
ORDER FIEELD D
AIA DOCumfNT 0701 OTHER
nOJECT: Indian River County
CHANCE ORDER NUMBER: 67
n me Idd.ess) County Administration Bldg.
TC) (Contractor) --1 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9363
Reinhold Construction Inc. CONTRACT FOR: Add i t ions and Renovations
P- o,13ox 666
Cocoa, FL 32922
L_ CONTRACT DATE: 4/2/30
°;'ou are directed to make the following changes in this Contract:
Cp_109 Replace one(1) 41, gate valve-IBBM- flanced ends.
Replacement of this valve is necessary to co-plete 7G$,59
testing of piping system. An unforeseen cocition
Cp-114 Repair the two (2) missinq awnirq type panes In the
window to Room 5164. The repairs to equal Gid catch the existing.$ 1,092.29
AT OWNER'S REQUEST.
(NOTE: SEE CLARIFICATION CP -114 DATED 8/214/_21)
Replace avminq type window in rope, 5164- to rr.atch Exis:inq.
as requested by owner.
The proposed changes In the work may result in additional time
required beyond the contract completion date; Additional time
will be added to the contract that is directly related to this change
order, ilie eontractof 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
sdocurr.entS. $ 2,748,000.00
The original Contract Sum was . . . S 344,500.23
Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . • • • • • • . S 3,092,500.23
The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . • . •
The Contract Sum will be (increased) Cai�C4�?si�i!? 2S1n},ktt` yY this Chance Ower . S ; ,094,391 . 1 1
The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . • • • • . • . (-----) DaNs.
The Contract Time will be (Increased) (decreased) (un�hangcd) by
he Date of Completion .s of the date of this Change Order therefore ,s
COI,t�ELL METCALF & EDDY REINHOLD CONST=UCTION INIZ.
I.PrW 7,,o - [PN'-RACi09,
0 DI HlghwaY PP Box 666
e.ddress Address
Coral Gables, FL 33134 Cocoa, F1 �2
Ly -
1D A,T f
y DATE
� 1\
DATE C
AIA DOCUVANT 0711 - CHANCE ORDER - APP.I1 1970 EDITION - AIA.0 - C 1970 - THE
AmiR.CAN I\STITUTE Or ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEN YORK AVE., Nw, K,SHINCTON, D C. 20CVb
IND Ir.N RIVER COUI.TY
14th Ave
Address
Veraleach-, Fr 32c,16R,
ATE i L /��
O%E PACE
ENGINEER .JOHN ROBBINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAS RE-
CEIVED FULLY EXECUTED DOCUMENTS FROM THE CONTRACTORS WHO WERE AWARDED
THE BIDS ON CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM, AND THESE
DOCUMENTS NOW REQUIRE THE SIGNATURE OF THE CLERK, THE CHAIRMAN, AND
THE ATTORNEY; HE CONTINUED THAT WHEN THESE DOCUMENTS ARE SIGNED, HE
WOULD BE TAKING THEM DIRECTLY TO THE FMHA STATE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
IN TALLAHASSEE; THE LETTER OF COMMITMENT IS BEING TYPED AT THIS
TIME, AND HE ANTICIPATED NO PROBLEMS WITH THE FMHA AT THIS POINT,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VIODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A
4 TO 1 VOTE APPROVED CONTRACT PART I - (SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM)
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WITH SCARBOROUGH CONSTRUCTIONS, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $902,097,35, AND APPROVED THE SIGNATURES OF THE APPRO-
PRIATE COUNTY OFFICIALS.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A
4 TO 1 VOTE APPROVED CONTRACT PART II - (SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM)
REVERSE OSMOSIS EQUIPMENT WITH WATER SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,217,091.00, AND APPROVED THE SIGNATURES OF THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY OFFICIALS.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A
4 TO 1 VOTE APPROVED CONTRACT PART III - (SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM)
REVERSE OSMOSIS EQUIPMENT SUPPORT FACILITIES WITH GULF CONSTRUCTORS,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,455,100.00 AND APPROVED THE SIGNATURES OF
THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY OFFICIALS.
SAID CONTRACTS WILL BE PUT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.
ENGINEER ROBBINS REPORTED THAT THE FMHA FUNDS WHICH WERE
NOT ALLOCATED FOR 1981 HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED, AND HE WILL LEARN ABOUT
THE FUNDS FOR 1982 AFTER OCTOBER 2ND. IN ANY EVENT, OUR APPLICATION
IS STILL ON FILE AND WILL BE ASSIGNED A PRIORITY,
SEP 16 1981 45 now 4 7 PAPE 512
�V
SEP 161981 86OX 4 7 PAGE 513
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REQUESTED THAT THE MEMO OF THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR WHICH IS IN REGARD TO MAKING SURE THAT
THE TAX ANTICIPATION NOTE MONEY WHICH IS BORROWED FROM THE MUNICIPAL
SERVICE FUND ACCOUNT DOES NOT GET LOST IN THE FMHA SHUFFLING OF MONEY,
BE MADE A PART'OF THE MINUTES AS FOLLOWS:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 14, 1981 FILE:
THRU: Neil A. Nelson, S U BJ ECT: Budget - Municipal Service
County Administrator Fund Account #004-513- 99.96
$480,125.00
FROM: REFERENCES:
L. S. "Tommy" Thomas
Intergovernmental Coordinator
Description
I do not believe that the above account #004-513-99.96 should be classified
either as an expense item or a reserve. It is the intent that these funds
shall eventually come from a new Bond Issue to be sold to Farmers Home Ad-
ministration. This sale has been authorized by the Board of County Commissioners
and has been approved in concept by the,Farmers Home Administration. We
currently have $1,900,000.00 set aside for us by agreement with Farmers Home
Administration dated in 1973.
Recommendation
I recommend that we issue Tax Anticipation Notes in the amount of $500,000.00.
These should be issued after October 1, 1981. When the new Bonds are validated
(during fiscal 1981-82), the Tax Anticipation Notes should be replaced with
Bond Anticipation Notes in the amount of $500,000.00. These will be paid in
full when the final Bonds are sold to Farmers Home Administration. I am greatly
concerned that we would use money from the Municipal Service Funds (all of the
unincorporated areas of Indian River County), to secure and finance a project
that is within the South County Water Taxing District only. If this recommend-
ation is accepted, this will release $480,125.00 from the expense side of the
budget - which in turn will lower the ad -valorem tax in the Municipal Service
Fund up to this amount.
I have cleared this matter with Joe Collins, County Attorney.
ATTORNEY COLLINS REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD AT THIS POINT
APPROVE A RESOLUTION ASSURING FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION THAT THE COUNTY
WILL PAY THE SHORTFALL OF $425,808.81 NECESSARY TO ASSURE SUCCESSFUL
COMPLETION OF THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS—
SIONER SCURLOCK, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 81-62 MAKING ASSURANCES TO
FMHA AS ABOVE AND APPROVE THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN.
46
-r
m
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE WORDING
AND WISHED IT MADE CLEAR THAT NO COUNTY TAXPAYER OUTSIDE OF THE SOUTH
COUNTY WATER DISTRICT WILL.HAVE TO PAY THESE MONIES, AFTER SOME
DISCUSSION, IT WAS AGREED TO AD A PHRASE TO THE SIXTH PARAGRAPH OF
THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION STATING THAT THE "SHORTFALL OF $425,808,81 WILL
BE ASSUMED AND PAID BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IN TIMELY FASHION, FROM
COMMISSIONERS WODTKE AND SCURLOCK AGREED TO AMEND THEIR
MOTION TO INCLUDE THIS WORDING,
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION,
47
AU@I( 7 mrE5l4
r
SEP 161991 Bm 47 PArE,51:5
RESOLUTION NO. 81-_(R2
WHEREAS, Indian River County has received a commitment from
the Farmers Home Administration to borrow $5,825,000.00 for the
engineering, construction and completion of the South County Water
System; and
WHEREAS, the County will receive from the Farmers Home
Administration certain grant funds in the amount of $796,900.00;
and
WHEREAS, Indian River County has completely engineered the
project, purchased the land, completed the test well program and
issued notice of award on the subject project; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County has received all permits necessary
to construct the subject project; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County will have a shortfall of $425,808.81
representing the difference between loan grant and other income items
subtracted by contract amounts and associated fees and expenses,
all as reflected in the contract documents and other information
provided to the Farmers Home Administration; and
WHEREAS, the Farmers Home Administration desires assurances from
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
that the shortfall of $425,808.81 will be assumed and paid by Indian
River County in timely fashion, from non -ad -valorem source dollars.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that, as an inducement to the Farmers
Home Administration in issuing the take-out letter as required by
County commitments to the interim lenders and approving the contract
documents, Indian River County hereby agrees to assume and pay the.
shortfall amount as above described.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida, will cooperate in every regard with
Farmers Home Administration to assure successful completion of the
South County Water System improvements.
Attest:
0A.Z-4, cl J/
Freda Wright, Cle k of Circuit Court
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RIVER CQUNTY , FLORIDA
./ L'y,6iis, Chairman
a
I
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL — GREENLEAF SUBDIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATOR REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO AND RECOM—
MENDED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL:
TO: The Honorable Memebers of the DATE: September 9, 1981 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners `
Request for Preliminary Plat Approval
SUBJECT: Greenleaf Subdivision - approx. 19
acres containing 8 lots, zoned R1 E
Owner: George Childers
FROM: Neil A. Nelson, County Admn.REFERENCES: Letter - Paul F. Rosskamp to
Neil Nelson dated Sept. 9, 1981
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The owner's Land Surveyor of Record, Paul F. Rosskamp, is requesting
preliminary plat approval of Greenleaf Subdivision. The Technical Review
Committee reviewed the project on S=eptember 8, 1981, and all TRC comments
have been incorporated into revised drawings.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES
Since all TRC comments have been applied, the County staff has no
objection to approval of this preliminary plat.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Preliminary plat approval for Greenleaf Subdivision is recommended.
There are no funding considerations to be addressed by the Board.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED TENTATIVE APPROVAL TO THE PLAT
OF GREENLEAF SUBDIVISION,
...... ....
CO oty SANITARY LANDFILL BORROW PIT DISCHARGE
ENGINEER RICHARD VOTAPKA OF BEINDORF & ASSOCIATES REVIEWED
THE FOLLOWING MEMO & GAVE THE HISTORY OF THE SITUATION:
49
SEP 161991 BOOK 47 PALE 516
BOOK 7 PAGE 5 7`
TO: The Honorable Member of the DATE: September 3, 1981 FU:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Indian River County Landfill
Borrow Pit Discharge to Indian River
Farms Water Management District
FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: Richard B. Votapka,P.E. Beindorf
County Administrator and Associates to Neil Nelsor'
dated August 18, 1981 \
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS \
The County Landfill is currently under violation of State Water Quality
Standards as determined by the Florida DER for discharging water of excess
turbidity to the C-6 Indian River Farms Canal. Beindorf and Associates, the
Engineering Consultant for the Landfill, has investigated the problem and has
recommended a course of action via the above referenced memo.
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS
The recommended cure involves construction of interconnecting settling
basins, appurtanances,-and turbidity curtain near the pump discharge. The other
alternatives investigated are presented in the above referenced memo.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed plan and has no
objection to the recommended alternative.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the following action be taken by the Board:
1) Approve the Sedimentation Basins proposal method of treatment out-
lined in Mr. Votapka's memorandum.
2) Authorize Beindorf and Associates to apply for the Construction
Permit to be issued by the Florida DER.
3) Approve funding in the amount of $10,000. from account no. 411-
217-534-34.65 (unencumbered balance of September 3, 1981 is
approximately $42,785.), General Operating Funds for the Landfill
for the construction required and necessary incidental work by the
_ County.
4) Approve construction of the settling basins and appurtanances.
MR, VOTAPKA NOTED THAT THE SEDIMENTATION METHOD WOULD BE THE LEAST
COSTLY AS THE SETTLING BASIN CAN BE EXCAVATED BY THE EARTH MOVING
EQUIPMENT LOCATED AT THE LANDFILL, AND THE EXCAVATED MATERIAL CAN BE USED
AS COVER FOR THE DAILY LANDFILL OPERATIONS.
IN DISCUSSION IT WAS NOTED THE BEINDORF & ASSOCIATES WORKED
WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN AS A JOINT VENTURE IN THE DEVELOP-
MENT OF THE SANITARY LANDFILL AND THIS PROBLEM AROSE AFTER THE LANDFILL
WAS BUILT AND THE D.E.R. SAID WE NEEDED AN INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE
PERMIT.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER WODTKE TO APPROVE THE FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS LISTED IN
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1981.
DISCUSSION AROSE ABOUT ENGINEERING COSTS WHICH WERE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED FUNDING OF $10,000, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON
REPORTED THAT THE CONTRACT WE HAVE WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN
AND BEINDORF & ASSOCIATES HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED SINCE THE ORIGINAL STAGES
OF THE LANDFILL OPERATION IN 1976,
IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THAT WE NEED
ANNUAL OR SEMI-ANNUAL REVIEW OF ALL CONTRACTS, AS TO SPECIFIC ENGINEER-
ING COSTS ON THIS MATTER, ENGINEER VOTAPKA STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO
RESEARCH THEIR RECORDS AND REPORT BACK.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE WISHED TO INCLUDE IN THE MOTION THAT
ALL COSTS THAT ARE INVOLVED ARE COSTS THAT WERE INCURRED AND CHARGED
TO THE LANDFILL ACCOUNT, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK HAD NO OBJECTION,
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY,
PERMIT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
AND THE COUNTY IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES,
51
BOOK 47 PAGE 518
� PACE
STP 16 1981
i
PERMIT
THIS PERMIT issued this JQ day of n , 1981, by
and between INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT, a Drainage
District organized and existing under the General Drainage Laws
of the State of Florida, whose address is 4400 20th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "District", and
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a municipal corporation of the State of
Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "Permittee".
NOW, THEREFORE, the District does hereby grant unto the
Permittee a permit for discharge of waters and liquids into
District's Main Canal, provided, however, that as a condition
precedent to the rights herein granted, Permittee agrees to and
with the District as follows:
1. Permittee assumes full responsibility for any dis-
charge into or use of District facilities or structures, and shall
save and hold harmless District from any expense, loss, damage or
claim in regard thereto, and the District assumes and shall have
no liability in connection therewith.
2. This Permit may not be assigned or subletted to a
third party and any transfer of Permittee's property abutting
District's property or right-of-way shall, ipsofacto and without
move, cancel, nullify and revoke this Permit.
3. That this Permit is subject always to the paramount
right of the District to keep and maintain its drainage district
functions and operations, and is subject to revocation and can-
cellation upon thirty days' notice from District to Permittee,
provided, that there is not outstanding and unpaid principal
indebtedness on a bond issue to secure payment of construction by
Permittee.
4. In no event shall the District be liable for any
i
damages done or caused by the District to the public, to Permittee
or any other person, using District's facilities or structures
i
subject to this Permit, and Permittee shall save the District,
its officers, agents, supervisors, and employees harmless from any
costs, charge or expense of claim or demand of any person against
the District arising from or pertaining to any use made of the
property or structures subject to this Permit. Permittee shall,
ith, O'Haire, Quinn & Garris, Attoraw, 3111 Cardinal Drive, Vero Beada 32960
mmmmM5) 231-6900
at any time upon request of District, provide to District evidence,
satisfactory to District, of liability insurance coverage in
amounts and with companies as may be required by District, pro-
tecting the interests of District and naming District as an
additional insured.
5. The District may, on thirty days' written notice to
Permittee, require alteration or relocation of any installation or
construction on District right-of-way.
6. Any construction on District right-of-way or pro-
perty and cleanup shall be completed promptly by Permittee and
in a workmanlike manner with minimum disturbance to existing berm,
channel slopes and grade with proper restoration and planting of
any disturbed areas to prevent erosion within ten days after
completion of construction or installation.
7. Permittee shall advise District's office prior to
commencement or completion of all construction.
8. Permittee shall not discharge any materials not
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United
States Government or the Department of Environmental Regulation
of the State of Florida or pollutants, contaminants, or deleter-
ious materials which may be dangerous into waters or structures
,owned or maintained by, or subject to the jurisdiction of District,
nor permit anything to obstruct the flow of water, and shall save
and hold District harmless from any expense, loss or damage to
District or others by any such discharge or obstruction, remedying
or removing the same immediately upon request of District.
i
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said District has caused these
'presents to be executed in its name by its President and attested
by its Secretary and its corporate seal hereto affixed, by due
authority of its Board of Supervisors.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER
CONTROL DISTRICT
By:
Presi ent
Attest:
ecra y-
(SEAL)
-2-
Smith, O'Haire, Quinn & Garris, Attorneys At Law, 3111 Cardinal Drive, Vero Beach ,Florida 32960
SEP 16 1981 (305) 231-6900 Boa 7 PAGE 5,20
r. � ;SEP 161981
BOOK 4
7 PAPE521,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY hereby accepts the terms of
this Permit, and covenants and agrees that it will comply with
the terms and conditions of this Permit.
Dated this �. day of , 1981.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
9 �
L i u
as Permittee
-3-
Mmith, O'F aire, Quinn & Garris, AttoM Law, 3111 Cardinal Drive, Vero Bewrida 32960
(305) 231-6900
REDISTRICTING PRESENTATION BY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
ROSEMARY RICHEY, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, EXPLAINED THAT EVERY
TEN YEARS IT IS REQUIRED THAT WE REDISTRICT TO BALANCE OUT THE DISTRICTS
AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. MRS. RICKEY THEN REFERRED TO A MAP AND WENT INTO
CONSIDERABLE DETAIL AS TO HOW SHE HAD TRIED TO RELATE THE CENSUS FIGURES
TO THE VARIOUS DISTRICTS, THE REDISTRICTING BEING BASED ON POPULATION
RATHER THAN REGISTERED VOTERS, SHE STATED THAT IN THE PROCESS SHE
TRIED TO INCLUDE A MUNICIPALITY , OR PART OF ONE, IN EVERY DISTRICT; IN
ADDITION, SHE MADE SOME CHANGES IN PRECINCTS AND ADDED TWO NEW ONES.
THE COMMISSIONERS DID NOT HAVE ANY MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE
CHANGES PROPOSED BY MRS, RICKEY, BUT WISHED TO HAVE MORE TIME TO RE-
VIEW THE PROPOSED CHANGES, IT WAS AGREED TO TAKE THIS MATTER UP AGAIN
AT THE OCTOBER 7TH MEETING,
SOUTH BEACH WATER AGREEMENT
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REVIEWED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSE -j
AGREEMENT, NOTING THAT AT ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL MEETINGS HELD, CITY
COUNCILMAN GREGG INTRODUCED A MODIFICATION ON PAGE 41 SECTION 3, WHERE
WE INSERTED LANGUAGE STATING THAT THE COUNTY AGREES TO ENGINEER, LET,
CONSTRUCT, CONTRACT OR FUND THE IMPROVEMENTS IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER,
OR SIX MONTHS FOR LETTING THE CONTRACT AND 18 MONTHS FOR COMPLETION,
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK AND ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THE ASSURANCE OF
PUTTING $780,000 IN ESCROW WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW OUR GOOD FAITH,
BUT MR. GREGG INTRODUCED AN AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL, WHICH BASICALLY SAYS IF THE COUNTY DOES NOT MEET THE SPECIFIED
TIMETABLE, THE CITY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME IN AND USE THOSE
ESCROW FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE IMPROVEMENTS OUTLINED IN THAT PARTICULAR
PARAGRAPH. THAT WAS THE MAIN CHANGE. THERE WERE SOME MINOR CLARIFI-
CATIONS AS FOLLOWS:
ON PAGE 5 WE CHANGED THE 36 MONTHS TO 42 MONTHS, GIVING US
A SIX MONTH GRACE PERIOD; THE 33 MONTHS ON THAT SAME PAGE WENT TO 39,
ETC.
THERE WAS AN INSERT ON THE STH LINE WHICH BASICALLY DEALT
WITH ALL THE ASSETS - AFTER THE WORDS "FREE OF CHARGER INSERT THE
WORDS 'CALL ASSETS IN EXISTENCE AS OF THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT SET
FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 5." THE ATTORNEY FELT THIS WAS A VALID REQUEST BY
f
55
BUCK 47 PACE 522
80(IK 7 pmE 523
SEP 16 1981
THE CITY BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO TURN THOSE ASSETS OVER NOW AND WANT
THEM BACK IF CONTINGENCIES ARE NOT MET,
THE OTHER CHANGE WAS ON PAGE 7, SEC. 12 - "IN THE EVENT
CONDITION A IS NOT SATISFIED, COUNTY MAY ELECT TO TURN OVER TO CITY
THE IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS 6 AND 10," AND THEN AFTER
"(5/8, 3/4 METERS) ADD "AND ANY REMAINING ESCROW FUNDS PLUS ACCRUED
INTEREST" AND THEN ALSO THERE WOULD BE AN INSERTION OF "ALL ASSETS
SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 5."
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THEY AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED
CHANGES AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL EVEN WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT THE
CITY CAN USE THE ESCROW FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. HE NOTED THAT
JOHN ROBBINS, ENGINEER, HAS INDICATED THAT THE TIME FRAME OUTLINED IS
SUFFICIENT AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MEET THE DEADLINE.
ATTORNEY COLLINS READ THE ADDENDUM, EXPLAINING THAT CONDI-
TION A IS THE IMPROVEMENTS, THE LINE, THE WATER TANK AND THE IN-LINE
BOOSTER PUMP, I.E., THE UP -FRONT IMPROVEMENTS ON THE BEACH, IN THE
EVENT CONDITION A IS NOT SATISFIED (EITHER WE HAVE NOT LET THE CON-
TRACTS WITHIN SIX MONTHS AND HAVE NOT COMPLETED THE WORK WITHIN 18
MONTHS), THEN THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO STEP IN AND USE THE ESCROW
MONEY TO SEE THOSE THINGS HAPPEN; THE CONTRACT IS STILL IN EFFECT, AND
THE COUNTY HAS 42 MONTHS TO DO THE SUB -AQUEOUS CROSSING. IF WE DON'T,
THEN THE CITY GETS THE ASSETS BACK AND CONTINUES TO SUPPLY THE 255
CUSTOMERS.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE $780,000 ESCROW, AND INTERGOVERN-
MENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS UNDERSTOOD THIS WILL COME FROM THE DEVELOPERS
PAYING THE IMPACT CHARGE. HE WISHED TO KNOW,IN THE EVENT THEY SHOULD
NOT COME UP WITH THE FULL AMOUNT, WHETHER THERE IS ANY RESTRICTION TO
PREVENT US FROM OBTAINING THIS MONEY FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. ATTORNEY
COLLINS STATED THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS, BUT THERE ARE NO PLANS TO
DO ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS POINT,
IT WAS NOTED THERE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS EXPRESSION OF DESIRE
FOR THIS SERVICE, AND IF THE PEOPLE AFFECTED DON `T EVIDENCE ENOUGH
INTEREST AND PAY THE IMPACT FEES, WE MAY HAVE TO REEVALUATE PRIORITIES.
IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT ENVISION FULL TAPS
SOUTH OF THE MOORINGS, BUT IT DOES ENVISION A LIMITED WATER SUPPLY
WITH POTABLE WATER ONLY.
STAN LIVINGOOD OF ARCH ROBERTS $ COMPANY REPORTED THAT HE
HAD REVIEWED THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT AND SAW NO PROBLEM IN TERMS OF
THIS AGREEMENT HAVING ANY TYPE OF ADVERSE AFFECT ON FINANCING A
SOUTH BEACH WATER SYSTEM. THE AGREEMENT IS ADEQUATE FOR THEIR PURPOSES
BECAUSE IT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE BASIS AND THE ULTIMATE RESULT,
WHCIH IS A COUNTY OWNED AND OPERATED SYSTEM ON THE SOUTH BEACH THAT
WILL PROVIDE RETAIL WATER SERVICE AND WILL PROVIDE A REVENUE STREAM.
MR. LIVINGOOD THEN DISCUSSED HAVING ONE SYSTEM WITH TWO FINAN-
CIAL STRUCTURES (SOUTH COUNTY AND SOUTH BEACH) AND NOTED IT MIGHT BE
ADVANTAGEOUS TO MAKE IT TRULY ONE SYSTEM AND ADD THE GIFFORD SYSTEM.
HE FELT THIS COULD BE DONE BY NEGOTIATING WITH FMHA, AND THE PRIMARY
REASONS FOR THIS WOULD BE TO REDUCE THE COST OF ADMINISTRATION.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER- SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO 1
VOTE, APPROVED THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY FOR SOUTH BEACH WATER SERVICE WITH THE MODIFICATIONS
DISCUSSED ON PAGE 41 SEC. 3; PAGE 51 CHANGING THE MONTHS; PAGE 61 FINAL
LINE; PAGE 7, SECOND PARAGRAPH, AND THE ADDENDUM TO THE MAIN AGREEMENT,
AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
SAID AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN COM-
. ... ...
PLETED AND FULLY EXECUTED.
IT WAS NOTED THAT THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE IS DEPENDENT UPON
A SURVEY BEING COMPLETED.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO 1
VOTE, AUTHORIZED THE ENGINEERS TO MAKE THE REQUIRED SURVEY AND REPORT
BACK.
REPORT ON LIBRARY
CHAIRMAN LYONS REVIEWED HIS MEMO ON THE LIBRARY SITUATION,
WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS:
S F P 16 1981 57 Box 47 PACE 24
Box 4 7 PAGE 52.)5
TO: hoard of County Corrmissione:DATE: Seotember 10, 1981FILE:
FROM: Patrick B. Lyons
Chairman
SUBJECT: Library
REFERENCES:
I thought it might be well to review the history of the
Library situation with the hope that we can get everyones
energies directed in one direct4cn. Namely, improving
Library services in this County. A good, ,free, public Library
is a priority asset for this County.
Early in 1980 the Library was in a crisis situation and was
not sure whether or not it would be able to keep its doors
open for the remainder of the year. At that time I was asked
to join the Board as the County's representative to provide
assistance. As a result I as:ed the Cortnission for the formation
of an Ad Hoc Library Study Committee which was made up of qualified
local residents. They did a fine job in a short time and came up
with a number of recommendations which were duplicated by a
later study and by the recommendations of Mrs. Virginia Grigg,
Chief, Bureau of Library Development for the State of Florida.
The Library Board, possibly at the insistence of the Librarian,
asked the County to apply for a State grant for another study of
the Library. We obtained the grant and the study was performed
by Dr. I'. William Summers an eminent Library Consultant.
All three sources of information suggested that the Library
report directly to the County and two out of the three recommended
considerably increased financing.
Two of the three also recommended a review of our Library
card procedures since -it appears that our practices are too
restrictive.
Two of the t=ree also indicated that our hours should be
increased.
}
The same number also indicatru that we should have a greeter
emphasis on improving our nor:-fi`r-ion or subjec-_ resources of the
Library:
Mrs. Grigg is somewhat more specific in her letter of August
4th in recommending t -at the Coeur.--,, take considerably more control
of the policies of. the Library in view of the fact that the
greatest majority of the funds are from taxes. She suggests that
the Countv administer the Library and use the Board, such as
the Library Board as an Advisory Board.
The Ad Hoc Committee recom.,.ended a Librarian and an -Assistant
Librarian, each with a degree in Library Science with the suggestion
that the present Librarian be given five years to obtain a degree
in Library Science. The Summers' report suggested a Librarian
and an Assistant Librarian with one to be a graduate in
Library Science. The present Librarian to be retained with certain
duties. Mrs. Grigg indicates that she knows of no Library in
a County of our size with less than two professionals.
The Library Board in its latest action has agreed that the
Library needs a professional as recommended by the Summers' Report
and would follow that recommendation, funds permitting. They have
dropped their commitment to review the Library card procedure and the
commitment to improving the collection as outlined by Dr. Summers -
They have committed themselves to keeping the Library opened longer.
In view of the unanimous recommendations of the reports, it is
my feeling that the Commission should take a stand and require the
Library Board to meet certain goals.
1. The goal of adding a professional Librarian to the
staff.
2. The goal of reviewing and suggesting a Library card
policy which would be satisfactory to the County
Commission; and
3. They should follow the suggestions of Dr. Summers to improve
the collection to the satisfaction of the County Commission. (Mrs.
- ---=----Grigg could help us verify this) .
SEP 16 1981
SEP 16 1991
I think we owe -it to tho citizens of this County to either
,et full measure from the funds �-.e allocate or we should with-
draw the allocation'. I would like to see the Commission increase
its allocation to the Library by $20,000 so that we can assure
the addition of a fully cualified Assistant Librarian.to meet the
goal outlined by the Library Board and if they will agree to the
review of the Library cards and Library hours. We can assure
ourselves of the qualifications of the Librarian through our
County Personnel Department with the assistance of Mrs. Srigg.
CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT WITH ALL THE UPHEAVAL AND
CONTROVERSY GOING ON IN CONNECTION WITH THIS ACTIVITY AT THE PRESENT
TIME, PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO ASK THE LIBRARY BOARD IF THEY WOULD BE IN A
POSITION TO TRANSFER THE OPERATION OF THE LIBRARY TO THE COUNTY AT
THIS TIME, HE NOTED THERE HAD BEEN A POSSIBILITY DISCUSSED THAT THE
LIBRARY BOARD AND ASSOCIATION MIGHT BE WILLING TO COME TO THE COUNTY
THROUGH A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT, AND HE WISHED TO KNOW IF THE
LIBRARY BOARD IS IN A POSITION TO DELIVER THE OPERATION OF THE LIBRARY
TO THE COUNTY PENDING THE FORMATION OF SUCH A TAXING DISTRICT.
MRS, FRIEND, PRESIDENT OF THE LIBRARY BOARD, COULD NOT
ANSWER WITHOUT BRINGING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENTIRE BOARD.
THE CHAIRMAN EMPHASIZED THAT WE WANT THE LIBRARY BOARD TO
MAKE CERTAIN COMMITMENTS AS A REQUIREMENT OF FUNDING.
MRS. FRIEND FELT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE GUIDELINES AND
STATED SHE WOULD CALL A SPECIAL MEETING AND CONVEY THIS TO THE BOARD.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE EXPRESSED CONCERN
ABOUT COMMITTING ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING AT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF BUDGET
PROBLEMS. HE ALSO HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE COUNTY SETTING POLICY FOR
THE LIBRARY BOARD AND FELT WE SHOULD TAKE OVER THE LIBRARY ONLY AS A
LAST RESORT, BUT HAD NO PROBLEM WITH REQUIRING ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE
DOLLARS FUNDED.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF A SPECIAL TAXING
DISTRICT FOR THE LIBRARY. HE ALSO HAD DIFFICULTY IN CONSIDERING AN
EXTRA $20,000 FUNDING BECAUSE OF BUDGET CONSTRAINTS, BUT STRONGLY
BELIEVED, SINCE THE COUNTY IS FUNDING APPROXIMATELY S7j', THAT THE
Eno
COUNTY SHOULD HAVE SOME SAY IN THE OPERATION OF THE LIBRARY, HE
FAVORED THE IDEA OF THE COUNTY TAKING OVER OPERATION OF THE LIBRARY,
ESPECIALLY SINCE HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH A VOLUNTEER BOARD DIRECTING
PAID EMPLOYEES,
IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THAT IT IS A GREAT RESPONSIBILITY
FOR A VOLUNTEER BOARD TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION,
PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE KIND OF SITUATION THAT HAS EVIDENCED
ITSELF.
DISCUSSION AROSE AS TO THE PETITION BEING CIRCULATED ASKING
THAT THE LIBRARY BOARD HOLD A NEW ELECTION, AND MRS, FRIEND NOTED
THAT SHE HAS PRESENTED THAT PETITION TO A LEGAL BY-LAWS AND CONSTITU-
TIONAL COMMITTEE.
MRS, CARLTON INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT SHE PERSONALLY HAS
VERIFIED THE SIGNATURES ON THE PETITION AGAINST THE MEMBERSHIP LIST,,
THERE WERE 131 SIGNATURES, AND CURRENTLY THE LIBRARY HAS A MEMBERSHIP
OF ABOUT 535. DISCUSSION THEN ENSUED AS TO WHETHER THE NAMES OF THE
NEW MEMBERS ACTUALLY WERE READ AT THE MEETING AND APPROVED AS REQUIRED
BY THE BY-LAWS, AND MRS. CARLTON STATED THAT THE LIBRARY BOARD IN ALL
GOOD FAITH ACCEPTED THOSE NAMED AND BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREED TO
HAVE THE NAMES PRESENTED IN TOTO AND NOT READ.
THOMAS FRITZLEN EXPLAINED THE HAPPENINGS AT THE MEETING IN
DETAIL AND NOTED THAT EVEN IF YOU TAKE THE 200 NAMES OUT, THE SIGNATURES
ON THE PETITION WOULD BE 1/5 OF THE MEMBERSHIP. MRS. SCHEIDT ALSO
EXPLAINED HOW THE LIBRARY BOARD HAS BEEN UNDER TREMENDOUS PRESSURE AND
D'ID VOTE THE LIST IN WITHOUT HAVING THE NAMES READ. SHE EMPHASIZED
THAT THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS TRYING TO DO WHAT THEY FEEL IS BEST FOR THE
COMMUNITY.
THE CHAIRMAN INDICATED THAT THE TECHNICALITIES ARE NOT THE
IMPORTANT PROBLEM; THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE
COMMISSION SHOULD CONTINUE TO SPEND MONEY IN AN AREA WHERE WE HAVE
NOTHING BUT CONTROVERSY, IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE COMMISSION IS NOT
INTERESTED IN PERSONALITIES, BUT IN ASSURING THAT THE COUNTY HAS A
QUALITY LIBRARY FOR THE USE OF THE CITIZENS AND WE NEED TO BE MADE
AWARE OF THE LIBRARY BOARD'S GOALS FOR THE YEAR BEFORE REACHING A
FINAL DECISION ON FUNDING.
61
ma 47 pmjE528
TRACKING STATION PARK GRANT APPLICATION
Boox 47 PAGE 529 \
COMMISSIONER BIRD EXPLAINED THE HISTORY OF APPLYING FOR FUNDS
TO DEVELOP THE_TRACKING STATION PARK, NOTHING THAT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
FUNDS AVAILABLE THIS YEAR AND WE HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED TO TRY AGAIN.
HE AND ENGINEER .JIM DAVIS REVIEWED THE REVISED CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR
BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH TRACTS OF THE PARK SITE AND EXPLAINED THAT
THE INTENTION IS TO REMOVE THE OLD TRACKING STATION STRUCTURE AT THE
NORTH END OF THE PARCEL AND ALLOW FOR MORE PARKING. ALSO, THEY ARE
PLANNING ON INTERCONNECTING THE TWO PROJECTS STRICTLY FOR MAINTENANCE
PURPOSES WITH A ROAD CLOSED OFF BY A GATE AT EACH END. THE PLAN IS
AIMED AT PRESERVING THE NATURAL VEGETATION AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BY
CLUSTERING THE PARKING AND INTERSPERSING PICNIC PAVILIONS AMONG THE
TREES RATHER THAN PUTTING IN AN ASPHALT PARKING LOT. THE CONCEPT
FOR THE NORTH TRACT WHERE THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT IS LOCATED IS
TO-PMVI:DE- PARKING AND AN OVER THE DUNE CROSS—OVER. A 50' BUFFER IS
PART OF THE PLAN,
COMMISSIONER BIRD NOTED THAT THE PLANS DISPLAYED ARE A
PREVIEW OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE NORTH TRACKING STATION SITE
AND A FAIRLY FINAL PLAT FOR THE SOUTH TRACKING STATION SITE. THE COST
ESTIMATE FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SOUTH SITE ARE $277,5001 AND THEY
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ACTION TODAY ON THE RESOLUTION REQUIRED FOR THE
COUNTY TO GO AHEAD WITH OUR APPLICATION TO THE STATE FOR FUNDING.
ROBERT LATTA CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING PEBBLE BEACH
VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS AND REPORTED THAT HE AND JACK MACDONALD OF THE
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION STUDIED THE PROPOSED PLANS AND FELT MR. DAVIS
HAD BEEN MOST COOPERATIVE IN LISTENING TO THEIR SUGGESTIONS. THEIR
MAIN CONCERN WAS THEIR EXISTING BOARDWALK WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN ASSURED
WILL BE LEFT AS IT IS, AND THEY, THEREFORE, HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE
CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND FEEL IF THEY ARE FOLLOWED THROUGH, IT WILL BE
VERY SATISFACTORY.
JACK MACKEY SPOKE ON BEHALF OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES AND AGREED
WITH MR. LATTA'S COMMENTS,
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-63 STATING THAT THE COUNTY INTENDS TO
APPLY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR A 2/1 MATCHING GRANT
TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE TRACKING STATION
RECREATION AREA AND THE CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SOURCE OF
THE FUNDING FOR THE GRANT AND THE MATCHING FUNDS, AND IT WAS NOTED
WE HAD SET ASIDE SOME FUNDS THROUGH FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING WHICH
COULD BE CARRIED FORWARD.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED 4 TO I WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION,
63
MR 7 PAGE 530
I
FF"—
s00A 47 PAGE 531
SEP 16 wi
RESOLUTION NO. 81-63
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA intends to apply to the State of Florida, Department of Natural
Resources for a two-for-one (State/Applicant) matching fund grant of
$185,000.00 State Share ($92,500 Indian River County Share), to make
sorely needed improvements to the Indian River County Tracking Station
Recreation Area; and
WHEREAS, said BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, does retain ownership, jurisdictional control, and maintain said
park and facilities; and
WHEREAS, continued maintenance and proposed improvements to this
public beach park facility will be in the interest of all the citizens
of Indian River County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, which was duly established by Special Act
of the Florida Statutes adopted on the 30th day of June, 1925, that this
official document does hereby certify the Board of County Commissioners
intent and agreement to apply for the above mentioned grant, and addi-
tionally to strive to implement the proposed improvements as delineated
in the Grant Application to which this Resolution will be attached;
AND FURTHER THAT, Mr. James W. Davis, P.E., County Engineer of
the Indian River County Engineering Department, 2345 14th Avenue, Vero
Beach, Florida, 32960, Phone (305) 562-4186, is hereby authorized to be
the County Liaison person charged with the responsibility to prepare,
plan, and coordinate said application and development program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution was passed by a vote
of 4 to 1, of the Commissioners present.
This 16th day of September , 1981.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN R COUNTY, FLORIDA
14
ATTEST:
�Wri t,- Clerk
rma n
ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED, SINCE THE PROPOSED PLAN IS
AGREEABLE TO PEBBLE BEACH VILLAS, THAT THE COUNTY MOVE AHEAD, WITH
THE MONEY ALREADY ALLOCATED, ON PUTTING IN SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS
WE HAVE DISCUSSED ON THE TRACT WHERE THE SEWAGE PLANT IS LOCATED
BECAUSE HE FELT THIS WOULD IMPROVE THE COUNTY'S POSITION IN REGARD
TO THE ANNEXATION.
THE BOARD GENERALLY AGREED THIS SHOULD BE DONE AND
AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO PROCEED AS SUGGESTED BY THE ATTORNEY,
CHAIRMAN LYONS REPORTED THAT HE WILL MEET WITH INDIAN
RIVER SHORES COUNCILMAN FRITZ GIERHART TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF
REACHING AN AGREEMENT IN REGARD TO THE TRACKING STATION PARK WHEREBY
THE COUNTY WOULD NOT OPPOSE THE ANNEXATION.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE EXPRESSED DOUBTS ABOUT REACHING SUCH
AN AGREEMENT BECAUSE HE DID NOT WISH TO JEOPARDIZE THE FUTURE OF
THIS PARK IN ANY WAY, BUT WAS WILLING TO HAVE THE CHAIRMAN MEET
WITH MR. GIERHART AND REPORT BACK.
THE CHAIRMAN ANNOUNCED THAT THE MEETING WOULD BE RECESSED
AT THIS TIME AND RECONVENE AT 9:00 A.M. TOMORROW MORNING, SEPTEMBER 17,
1951, IN THE COUNTY COURTROOM TO TAKE UP THE BALANCE OF THE AGENDA.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT
6:30 O'CLOCK P.M.
65
® 47 PAGE 5.32
i
SEP A
19 1 WX 7' PAGE533 �
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECONVENED AT THE
COUNTY COURTROOM, 2145 14TH AVENUE, VERO BEACH, FLA., ON SEPTEMBER 17,
1981, AT 9:00 O'CLOCK A.M. WITH ALL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT, ALSO
PRESENT WERE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR NELSON, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR
L. S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERK.
AWARD OF PEBBLE BAY SEWER IMPROVEMENT BID
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR:
TO: Honorable Members of the DATE: September 9, 1981 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Pebble Bay System Bid Approval
FROM: Neil Nelson, County Admn. REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Pebble Bay sewer system work, integrated with the Town of Indian
River Shores and City of Vero Beach had been engineered and bids were
received on September 1, 1981. Nineteen items on the bid list are required
to satisfy DER requirements and provide a system acceptable to City of
Vero Beach so that the county can transmit the sewage to City of Vero
Beach and take the Pebble Bay Sewage Treatment Plant out of service.
We have plans to remove the sewage treatment plant tanks and reassemble
them at the Gifford Plant Site in order to double the capacitv of the treat-
ment system there.
Bain Underground Utilities, Inc. was the low bidder for_ the contract
work - for both the Town of Indian River Shores and also for the work
for Indian River County. Indian River Shores has awarded the contract
to Bain. The work for the 19 items for Indian River County totals
$114,578.35.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
A review of the overall assessible project cost as set up by Town,
City, and County agreement is as follows:
Contract Work $114,578.35
Engineering 8,000.00
Inspection estimate (150 days) 15,000.00
Leqal estimate 2,000.00
Ads 25.00
City of Vero Beach Impact fee (187.50/unit) 48,750.00
Indian River Shores Reimbursement
6" Force Main Equivalent ($9.50/ft) $ 15,010.00
57% of pavement replacement 1,609.00
500/0' of 10" Force main connection 800.00
500,10 of Meter and Meter Pit 1,536.91
1% of Pump Sta. No. 2 ($50,215) 502.15
Total $207,811.41
- Note that some numbers are estimated and may be subject to change.
However, they are shown to figure an approximation of the overall cost.
If this total is paid on a per unit basis from all connections not in
the Town of Indian River Shores, it would be pro -rata between 260 units
and cost about $800.00 per unit. This would be a manner of assessing the
people benefitting by this project as set by Ordinance 81-27. It should
be noted that $111,700 had been budgeted as available funds, by the
Board of Commissioners on December 19, 1979 from Municipal Service Funds
for this project. This advance of funding for the project will be fully
refundable when paid back by funds obtained by assessment through Ordinance
.81-27.
RECOMMENDATION & FUNDING
I recommend that the low bidder, Bain Underground (per attached
letter from Sverdrup and Parcel Analysis) be approved for the work.
Approximately, $800.00 per unit should be assessed to the 260 units and
lots which will benefit by this project. The assessment is to'be made
as provided in Ordinance 81-27. If this recommendation is approved by
the Board of County Commissioners, the required resolution shall be drawn
up with more exact figures and listinq all property being assessed for
the proposed improvements.
CHAIRMAN LYONS WENT OVER THE HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE NEWER COMMISSIONERS, EXPLAINING THE SITUATION BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, THE COUNTY, AND THE CITY OF VERO
BEACH, AND POINTING OUT THAT WHETHER WE CONNECT UP WITH THE CITY LINE
OR NOT, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO FIX THE LIFT STATION SO THAT WE ARE
NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE D.E.R. REGULATIONS. IN ORDER TO PHASE THE PLANT
OUT COMPLETELY AND HAVE THIS AREA SERVICED BY THE CITY OF VERO BEACH,
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS HAVE TO BE MADE, AND WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT OF
DETERMINING WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS. THE CHAIRMAN
FELT THAT AN ASSESSMENT OF $800 IS REASONABLE FOR THOSE WHO RECEIVE
THE SERVICE, BUT A PROBLEM ARISES IN CONNECTION WITH COLLECTING THIS
ASSESSMENT IN THE EVENT THAT SOME OF THIS PROPERTY WERE TO BE ANNEXED
INTO THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES.
SEP 16 1981
67 BOOK 47 PA. ,E 534
r SEP 16 1991 BOOK 4 7 PAGE535
CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO THE POSSIBLE ANNEXA-
TION AND THE AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY, AND IT WAS FELT ANY NEW AGREE-
MENT SHOULD CONFIRM THE PRIOR AGREEMENT AND SET FORTH THE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR DEFINITE AREAS.
UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER NOTED THAT THE COUNTY IS ESTIMATING
THEIR ASSESSMENT AT ABOUT $800 PER UNIT WHILE THE TOWN OF INDIAN
RIVER SHORES IS ANTICIPATING AN ASSESSMENT OF $635 PER UNIT; S0, IT IS
TO THE INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS INVOLVED TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE TOWN.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE FACT THAT IT IS WORTH SOMETHING TO THE
COUNTY TO BE ABLE TO GET THE SEWAGE PLANT OUT OF THE PARK AREA, AND WE
SHOULD TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION IN ARRIVING AT AN ASSESSMENT CHARGE.
IT WAS NOTED THAT INDIAN RIVER SHORES HAS A BIGGER BASE TO WORK ON THAN
THE COUNTY DOES, AND FURTHER NOTED THAT TIMING IS CRITICAL. UTILITY
DIRECTOR LINER STATED THAT THE PEBBLE BAY PLANT CAN ACCEPT MORE SERVICE,_
BUT THE LIFT STATION IS WHAT IS CRITICAL.
CONVERSATION CONTINUED, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT
THE COMMISSION HOLD A JOINT MEETING WITH THE INDIAN RIVER SHORES TOWN
COUNCIL. IT WAS GENERALLY FELT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA.
WILLIAM KOOLAGE, CITIZEN, OBJECTED TO THE COMMISSION TRYING
TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES ANY FURTHER.
THE BOARD FELT THAT GETTING RID OF THE SEWAGE PLANT WAS
WORTH A FURTHER EFFORT, AND IT WAS AGREED THAT IF CHAIRMAN LYONS'
MEETING WITH INDIAN RIVER SHORES COUNCILMAN FRITZ GIERHART INDICATED
THAT SUCH A MEETING MIGHT BE FRUITFUL, A JOINT MEETING SHOULD BE
SCHEDULED, AND THE AWARD OF BID WOULD BE HANDLED AFTER THAT TIME.
EMERGENCY ITEM RE HIRING SPECIALIZED LAW FIRM TO HANDLE APPEAL OF
DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION RE THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ARBITRATION
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADDED TO TODAY'S AGENDA AN EMERGENCY
ITEM IN REGARD TO HIRING A SPECIALIZED LAW FIRM TO HANDLE AN APPEAL
AS ABOVE,
ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION HAS
FILED AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION TO LET
ALL THREE PARTIES (THE ARCHITECT, THE CONTRACTOR, AND THE COUNTY) JOIN
IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS. HE STATED THAT SUCH AN APPEAL IS VERY
SPECIALIZED AND THE COUNTY WOULD BE BETTER OFF HIRING SOMEONE WHO
DEALS MAINLY IN THIS TYPE OF WORK. HE SUGGESTED THAT MARJORIE GADARIAN
16 8
OF JONES, FOSTER & MOSS BE HIRED TO HANDLE THIS APPEAL.
SOME QUESTION AROSE AS TO THE COST, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS
DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT WOULD AMOUNT TO. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT
THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF REPORT ON A PERIODIC BASIS TO SEE WHAT
THESE EXPENSES RUN.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY COLLINS TO HIRE
MARJORIE GADARIAN OF JONES, FOSTER & MOSS TO HANDLE THE APPEAL AS
DISCUSSED.
REPORT ON CHANGE ORDER SITUATION - CO.UNTY_ ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO;
TO: Neil A. Nelson BATE: September 10, 1981 FI L
County Administrator 4 *_�
Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: "A" Change Orders voided and/or
work to be done by Owner when Owner
accepts building for occupancy
"B" Outstanding Change Proposals and/
or Change Orders anticipated yet to
FROM: Hercules Kontoul as REFERENCES: come, with some costs.
Construction Project Representative
A-1: Change Order No. 17, Change Proposal No. 43, cost $5,181.92, was approved
by Commissioners on 3-11-81 with the stipulation that the School Board
reimburse Commissioners. School Board rejected reimbursement to Commissioners
by letter from Dr. Burns.
School Board elected to do work when they occupy Bldgs.
Work: Additional electrical outlets, telephone outlets and additional
telephone poles in Finance section.
A-2: Change Order No. 50, Change Proposal No. 88, cost $2,655.24, was voided
by Commissioners on 8-5-81.
Owner will do this work after occupying building.
Work: Leg support and shelf for counters installed in rooms 1-N-167,
2-S-146, & 3-S-152.
1 - N-167 is Lay. counter in Boards section coffee room approximately
10' = 0" long.
- 2 - S-146 is Tax Collectors Public Records books counter,'U' shape with
approximately 26 lin, ft.
3 - S-152 is Public womens toilet room (2) lay. counter top, approximately
6' - 6" long off Commissioners room.
A-3: Change Order No. 63, Change Proposal No. 111, cost $2,464.40, was voided
by Neil Nelson on 8-26-81.
Owner will do this work after occupying building.
SEP 16 1991 69 ma 47 PACE 536
I
S F P 16 1991 Book 47.1 PAPE 537
Work: Replace defective water closet and urinal flush valves on existing
fixtures that remained. Provide (2) new electric water coolers and replace
bubblers on existing elect. water coolers removed from building as per
specs to be reused and relocated. Total of 15 items.
A-4: Install (6) 4 ft. X 4 ft. tack boards.
NOTE: This item is not a Change Order but is in the contract by G.C.
to provide and install.
Work: On 8-21-81 Herkon wrote a memo to Neil Nelson with suggestive
locations. The Administrator turned this over to Personnel Director
for evaluation and an "oral message of, we will install the six (6)
tack boards when Owner occupies bldg."
I have no cost on these (6) installations.
Herkon instructed G.C. to store these in Tax Collector's vault for safe
keeping.
A-5: On 8-4-81, I received a letter from Tax Collector, Gene Morris, not
to install (6) tele/power poles, which were in the G.C.'s contract
to install.
Work: I instructed G.C.'s electrician not to install the (6) tele/
power poles and to store in Tax Col. vault for safe keeping. I have
no cost on these (6) installations.
Total cost (as per Change Orders) for:
A-1
= Excluded
A-2
= $2,655.24
A-3
= $2,464.40
A-4
= No cost available
A-5 =
No cost available
$5,119.64
B-1: Change Order No. 67, with Change Proposals 109, and 114, costs - $798.59
plus $1,092.24, presented today.'
Work: New 4" gasi valve for H.W. main in room N-120 (boiler/chiller)
Total cost $ 798.59
1,092.24
$1,890.83
B-2: Architects memorandum (written in field 8-19-81) on time & material basis.
Work: Existing roof drain piping (horiz. run into wall)
Total cost: $153.14
Status: Change Order to be forthcoming.
B-3: Change Proposal No. 116, (8-26-81) requested by Dave Nolte, Property
Appraiser, via letters to Neil Nelson & Herkon.
Work: Demolish new room S-108.
Involved are:
Finishes - Carpet, walls, ceiling, & base
Electrical - Switches, conn. outlets, light fixtures
Air/Cond. - Diffusers, R/Air grilles.
Status: Being priced out by Gen. Contractor & Subs.
Costs: Will be substantially high, by my opinion.
B-4: Change Proposal No. 117,(8-26-81) 2nd floor of 3 story bldg., southwest
end, "future unassigned space" requested by Sheriff Tim Dobeck's Organized
Crime Bureau, Capt. Jim Atkinson, via letters to Neil Nelson & Herkon.
Work: Build new partitions, provide more electircal & telephone outlets,
and extend one supply duct, provide R/A grilles.
Status: Being priced out by Gen. Contractor & Subs.
Costs: Will be moderately substantial by my opinion.
B-5: Change Proposal No. 118 (9-8-81) 3rd floor, "future room S-338, of 3
story bldg. 47 ft. X 52 ft. (2,444 Sq. ft.).
State Marine Patrol interested in renting 3/4 of this space; the remaining
1/4 space for County.
Work: Completing air conditioning to west 2/3rds of room. Room contains
(1) one thermostat for (4) four air handler units. Add - 3 more thermostats
also.
NOTE: This room will not be usable insofar as being divided into smaller
rooms if this not done.
Status: Being priced out by G.C. cost will be moderately substantial.
B-6: Change Proposal No. 115 (9-1-81) is a "credit to Owner" of 3 items:
Item #1. Credit for reusing an existing door to replace an existing
lined door to Tax Collector's area.
(Change Order #43, C.P. #84 cost was $973.23)
Item #2: Credit for isntalling M -R drywall ceiling in storage room S-174
-- located in Utilities Dept.
(Change Order X41, C.P. #83 - cost was $332.09) Note: This was in original
contract.
Item #3: Credit for (3) new brick man holes and approx. 200 lin. ft. of
-- -`. - 12" round sanitary sewer lines, running north to 26th St.
(Change Proposal #28 - Note: G.C. submitted a cost of $21,000 which was
rejected by Herkon & Architects as being too low, and imcomplete. G.C.
- has not resubmitted to Architect.)
Note: The above M.H. & Sewer lines did not have to be installed.
Status of B-6: C.P. 115 is in hands of Gen. Contr. and after review
- of credits submitted to Herkon & Architect a Change Order a Change Order
will be forthcoming.
B-7: Change Order #24 (3-5-81) was replaced by Change Order #28, Change
Proposal #58 has not been issued.
Status: We have a hold on this as we are waiting for the Gen. Contr.
to submit his time and material cost to Architect in lieu of
$800.00 stated on C.O. #28.
Work: Repair east side only of 3 story building, of loose stucco
(dangerous to pedestrains walking below) various areas. C.O. 28
stipulated 50 sq. ft. max. of areas to be replaced.
This Change Order will be forthcoming. Costs should be less than $800.00
stated.
B-8: Work Order relating to part of Change Proposal No. 74, items 1, 3, 5,
& 12 as time & material cost.
SEP 1.61991 Booz 47 PACEMS
SSP 16 1981 BO0� � PAGE 5p39 �
Status: This method of reimbursement to the Gen. Contr. has been
recommended by the Architect and owners rep. in that we have
been unable, after some 2 months plus of review, to arrive at
what we believe is a reasonable cost. This has been determined
as being extra work not covered by the plans & specs. After
completion of said items 1, 3, 5, & 12, A Change Order will be
forthcoming. Cost should be approx. $20,000 to $24,000 in my
opinion. Does not include extra days cost of extended time to
contract.
Work:
Item 1: H.W. piping extension to AHU- #5.
Item 3: Piping to (3) new fan coil units - CHW-S/R, HW-S/R
Item 5: Furnish & install (3) HW coils, 2nd fl. exist. AHU's, M.E. room
Item 12: Reroute new condenser water piping.
Note: Herkon is monitoring daily work and signing said reports on
above items.
B-9: Work Order relating to replacing existing defective valves and repairing
& some replacement of existing piping, CHW-S/R, & HW-S/R as time &
material cost.
Status: This method or reimbursement to the Gen. Contr. has been recommended
by the Architect and owners rep., in that we have been unable, after some
2 months plus of review, to arrive at what we believe is a reasonable
cost. This has been determined as being extra work, not covered by plans
and spec's.
After completion of said work a Change Order will be forthcoming.
Costs should be approx. $46,000 in my opinion. Does not include extra
- _- days cost of extended time to contract.
Work: (32) valves in chiller boiler room and (6) valves in 2nd floor
M.E. room. Valves vary in size from 1 1/2" to 6". Piping is in
_- various areas of 1st, 2nd, & 3rd floors.
B-10: Work relating to the remaining 13 Items of Change Proposal No. 74 has been
-- - - determined by the A/E.as being in the -original contract.
The original cost submitted on the whole of C.P. 74 by the G.C. was
$94,000 and then revised down to approx. $74,000. With the work
orders deducted from the $74,000, I am sure that the G.C. will do the
remaining 13 items under protest and try and collect on these thru some
other means.
B-11: The following items will be in litigation and cost settlement at this
time cannot be determined.
A. Fire Walls:
B. Painting
End of Administration Building
NOTE: I do not anticipate any more Change Orders, unless some unforseen condition
pops up that I do not know about.
M M
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT AS OF CHANGE ORDER #67,
THE TOTAL OVERRUN FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IS $3L16,391,11,
HE DID NOT HAVE THE FIGURE FOR THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, AND COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK NOTED THAT THE FIGURE FOR THE ESTIMATED COST-PLUS IN THE
B CATEGORY WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED TO THE OVERRUN COSTS,
THE BOARD THEN DISCUSSED THE CHANGES REQUESTED BY PROPERTY
APPRAISER DAVID NOLTE UNDER B-3 IN THE MEMO, AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT
THIS AREA WAS PLANNED BY FORMER PROPERTY APPRAISER BILL LAW, AND MR.
NOLTE DOES NOT FIND IT SATISFACTORY FOR HIS NEEDS, DIVISION OF ROOM
S-338 WHICH THE STATE MARINE PATROL IS INTERESTED IN RENTING, WAS NEXT
REVIEWED, AND IT WAS FELT THIS COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH TEMPORARY
TYPE PARTITIONS INSTEAD OF PERMANENT METAL STUDDING.
DISCUSSION ON RENTAL SPACE IN COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
COMMISSIONER WODTKE WISHED TO KNOW WHO MAKES THE DETERMINATION
RE WHOM WE WILL RENT TO, FOR WHAT AMOUNT, AND WHAT ALTERATIONS WILL BE
MADE.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THEY ARE JUST NOW REQUEST-
ING A CHANGE PROPOSAL REGARDING THE AREA FOR THE ORGANIZED CRIME
BUREAU, BUT BEFORE ANYTHING IS FINALIZED OR ANY REPAIRS ARE MADE, THE
BOARD WILL BE SUPPLIED WITH INFORMATION AS TO COST PER SQ. FT., ETC.,
AND WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION AS TO ALL RENTALS. WE DO NOT HAVE
A STANDARDIZED LEASE FORM YET, BUT HE ASSUMED IT WOULD BE MAINLY ON
A YEAR TO YEAR BASIS, THOUGH POSSIBLY THE DRIVERS LICENSE BUREAU
WOULD LIKE A LONG TERM LEASE, AS TO A FOOD CONCESSION, THE BLIND
SERVICES WILL PUT IN THE EQUIPMENT TO SELL THEIR WARES; THEY DO NOT
PAY RENT, BUT WE GET A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THEIR SALES.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT ANY LEASE SHOULD TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION UTILITY COSTS, ETC,
73
Bou 47 PnE540
S E P 16 1981 BOOK 47 PAGE 541
HAZARDOUS STRUCTURES - A. J. HARRIS
DEWEY WALKER, ZONING DIRECTOR, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD IN RE-
GARD TO THE HAZARDOUS STRUCTURES DISCUSSED IN THE FOLLOWING MEMOS:
TO: DAVID REVER DATE: september 9, 1981 FILE:
Planning & Zoning Director
NEIL NELSON
County Administrator
JOE COLLINS
County Attorney
FROM: DET WALKER
Cou y Zoning
SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS STRUCTURE BELONGING
TO A. J. HARRIS, LOT 77, BLOCK 5
W. E. GEOFFREY SUBDIVISION
REFERENCES:
r±strator
On September 9, 1981, at 11:30 A.M., the Zoning
Department inspected the Hazardous Structure on Lot 77, Block 5,
W. E. Geoffrey Subdivision, owned by A. J. Harris and found no
improvement to Building as required by the Building Department.
Mr. Harris is to appear before the County Commissioners
at their regular meeting of September 16, 1981, to show reason why
this structure should not be removed.
(Ester Rymer 9/9/81 - Note and phone call.)
FROM: REFERENCES: A. J. Harris Residence
DET�dEY ;TALKER 1850 - 38th Place
Com ` Zoning Adm#.ristrator
In reference to the above residence, Lot 211 and 212,
Block 15, W.E. Geoffrey Subdivision Hazardous Structure.
Inspection was made on these lots and structures on
September 9, 1981, at 2:00 P.M. and no improvements to the building
- or grounds were found.
Authur J. Harris was called at 3:20 P.M. on September
9, 1981 (562-5272) and informed to be at the Commissioners Meeting on
the 16th of September,to show why these structures should not be removed.
--- DW/b
74
s
MR. WALKER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE BUILDING DIRECTOR,
MRS, RYMER, HAS THE FULL RECORD, AND THERE WAS SOME IMPROVEMENT MADE,
BUT OF LATE MR, HARRIS HAS LET THIS GO. HE HAS BEEN SENT LETTERS AND
WAS CALLED ON THE TELEPHONE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AND SHOW WHY THESE
STRUCTURES SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED. MRS. RYMER FEELS THAT THERE IS
POTENTIAL FOR BRINGING THE BUILDING ON LOT 212 UP TO CODE, THE BUILDING
ON LOT 211 WAS USED AS A DUPLEX, AND MR. HARRIS' EX-WIFE IS LIVING IN
PART OF IT; THE OTHER PART HAS BEEN BURNED, MR, HARRIS STATES THAT HE
IS NOW FINANCIALLY ABLE TO IMPROVE THIS PROPERTY, BUT HE HAS SAID THIS
MANY TIMES BEFORE. HE AGREES THAT THE STRUCTURE ON LOT 77 SHOULD BE
TAKEN DOWN, THE COUNTY HAS BEEN WORKING WITH HIM ON THIS SINCE 1971.
LOT 212 IS IS COMMERCIAL ZONING AND LOT 211 IS R-2, MR, WALKER FELT
WE SHOULD GIVE MR. HARRIS ANOTHER 30 DAYS TO SHOW HE HAS THE FUNDS,
AND IF NOT, THEN WE SHOULD DEMOLISH THESE STRUCTURES,
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER TO ACCEPT MR,
WALKER'S RECOMMENDATION AND GRANT MR. HARRIS AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS.
COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT THE MOTION SHOULD STATE SPECIFICALLY
WHAT MR. HARRIS SHOULD DO IN THE ADDITIONAL TIME GRANTED, AND HE
SUGGESTED THAT THE MOTION BE REWORDED TO ALLOW MR, HARRIS 45 DAYS TO
PRESENT ZONING DIRECTOR WALKER PERMITS FOR RENOVATION OF THE STRUCTURES,
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER AGREED TO RESTATE HIS MOTION AS SUG-
GESTED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, AND COMMISSIONER BIRD SECONDED THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THE MOTION SHOULD FURTHER STATE
WHAT WILL HAPPEN AT THE END OF THE 45 DAY PERIOD IF MR. -HARRIS HAS
NOT COMPLIED.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WITHDREW HIS MOTION, AND COMMISSIONER
BIRD WITHDREW HIS SECOND.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A
4 TO 1 VOTE, GRANTED A. J, HARRIS AN ADDITIONAL 45 DAYS TO PRESENT
ZONING DIRECTOR WALKER PERMITS FOR RENOVATION OF THE STRUCTURES, AND
AGREED THAT IF AT THE END OF THE 45 DAYS, HE HAS NOT COMPLIED, THE
COUNTY WILL INITIATE EVACUATION NOTICE OF THE OCCUPIED STRUCTURE AND
PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION OF THE UNOCCUPIED STRUCTURE.
75
mox 47 PAGE 542
I
8�0�( 9 pAu 3
S E P 16 1991
OFFICE SPACE FOR THE ORGANIZED CRIME BUREAU
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 8, 1981 FILE:
FROM: Neil A. Nelson
County Administrator
Description and Conditions
SUBJECT: Office Space for Organized Crime
Bureau
REFERENCES:
The enclosed letter from Roy Raymond, Chief Deputy for Sheriff Dobeck, requests
space in the Administration Building for the newly formed Sheriff's Organized
Crime Bureau. This bureau is presently operating out of the State Attorney's
office. When the State Attorney moves to their offices in the Annex Building,
there will no longer be any additional space for the bureau to be located with
the State Attorney.
Rooms 234, 235, and 236 of the Administration Building are designated for future
space. This area,with partitions would be suitable to house the seven man -one
secretary unit. This unit can operate independently and does not have to be
located in the same building with the Sheriff. The partitioning required would
be accomplished after we accepted the Administration Building.
Alternatives and Analysis
The OCB is an authorized unit of the Sheriff's Department. It was formed after
the renovation began. It is the obligation of the Board to provide office space
for all Sheriff's Department units.
Alternative 1 - Approve the request for rooms 234, 235 and 236.
Advantage - A.) he space could be provided with the least amount of cost.
Advantage - B.) Provide the OCB with a private and suitable space.
Disadvantage - A.) Our reserve for future space will be reduced.
Disadvantage - B.) Further separation of the Sheriff's Department.
Alternative 2 - Disapprove the request and continue leasing the office building
that currently houses the Sheriff.
Advantage - A.) Retains the future space reserve.
Disadvantage - A.) Cost .of renting the building.
Disadvantage - B.) Further separation of the Sheriff's Department.
Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that:
1.) Rooms 234, 235 and 236 be assigned to the Sheriff's Department.
2.) The space be partitioned after we accept the building.
3.) Funds required to partition and fur,iish be charged to Account
No. 102-221-510-66.41.
W76
M,
z
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE AMOUNT OF SPACE WE HAVE LEFT FOR
FUTURE EXPANSION, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT THIS OFFICE WOULD
BE CLOSE TO 1,000 SQ. FT., AND WE HAVE A LARGE AREA ON THE THIRD FLOOR
OF ABOUT 1800-2000 SQ, FT. FOR FUTURE EXPANSION. THE ONLY OTHER EXTRA
WE HAVE IS STOREROOM AREA.
CAPTAIN ATKINSON OF THE ORGANIZED CRIME BUREAU INFORMED THE
BOARD THAT THE STATES ATTORNEY HAS HIRED ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL, AND
AT THE PRESENT TIME HIS BUREAU IS WORKING OUT OF THE STATE ATTORNEY S
LIBRARY. THE PROPOSED LOCATION ON THE SOUTHWEST END OF THE BUILDING
GIVES THEM AN INDIVIDUAL ACCESS, WHICH WOULD BE VERY ADVANTAGEOUS FOR
THEM.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ALTERNATIVE I OF THE ADMINIS—
TRATOR IS MEMO GRANTING THE REQUEST FOR ROOMS 234, 235 AND 235 FOR
OFFICE SPACE FOR THE ORGANIZED CRIME BUREAU.
DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTY BEACH ACCESS AREAS NORTH OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: September 8, 1981 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
Development of County Beach Access
SUBJECT: Areas (70' wide) north of Indian
River Shores
FROM: Neil A. Nelson, County Admn. REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has two 70' wide beach access parcels north of Indian
River Shores which are currently unimproved. It was the Board's desire
to improve these parcels to include parking areas and timber over -the -dune
walkover stru-tures. As a result, the County Engineering Department has
applied for, and received, state D.N.R. permits (enclosure 1) for the
walkovers. Furthermore, a parking lot plan has been developed (enclosure 2).
77
Boos 47 PAGE 544
B.ov 47 PAGE 545
SEP 16 1981
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following cost estimates have been orepared for the construction
of parking and beach access improvements:
North Project - Length 391 L.F. - AlA to D.N.R. Line
Walkover (66 L.F.) $ 5,000
Paving (1850 S.Y.) 15,000 r
Stripping 300
Total $20,300
South Project - (524 L.F. - AlA to D.N.R. Line)
Walkover (44 L.F.) $ 3,500
Paving (2500 S.Y.) 20,000
Stripping 400
Total $23,900
The above costs include an asphalt pavement. An unimproved shell_
pavement can be constructed for $7,400 at the North Project and $10,000 -.
at the South Project. If this is done, however, the County will have a
continuing maintenance problem.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Board approve the construction of both
beach access facilities at an estimated cost of $44,200. Funding is
recommended to be provided by transferring $22,100 from each of the
following Revenue Sharing Accounts:
1. 102-221-519-66.41
2. 102-220-519-66.41
These transfers should be to a Revenue Sharing Account for this purpose.
The funds should be immediately available upon approval of the Board
of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER BIRD NOTED THAT ONE OF THE STRIPS IS PRETTY
WELL CLEARED; THE OTHER, THE SOUTHERNMOST, IS HEAVILY VEGETATED.
HE CONTINUED THAT THEY WILL TRY TO WORK WITH A ROAD TO PRESERVE THE
TREES AND HAVE TRIED TO LEAVE A BUFFER AND STILL HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING.
CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED THAT THE NORTHERN STRIP BE HELD IN
ABEYANCE TEMPORARILY AS THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT ONE OF OUR CIVIC
ORGANIZATIONS, THE PILOT CLUB, MIGHT WISH TO TAKE THAT OVER AS A PROJECT.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS DISCUSSED FUNDING, COM-
MENTING THAT UNDER FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING, WHICH WE USUALLY USE FOR
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND PARKS, IT APPEARS AT THIS TIME WE WILL NOT
EXPEND THE FULL AMOUNT THIS YEAR FROM THE FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR FURNI-
TORE, FIXTURES, ETC., FOR THE COURTHOUSE AND THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
($150,000 EACH). IF THE BOARD COULD APPROVE A TRANSFER FROM THESE
ACCOUNTS TO THE PROPER PARK ACCOUNT IN REVENUE FUNDS, WE COULD ENCUMBER
THOSE FUNDS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO EXPEND THESE FUNDS EXCEPT
UNDER THE TERMS OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING, WHICH IS 3 YEARS, AND THEN
IT WOULD CARRY FORWARD.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED WE MAY HAVE TO CUT SOMEWHERE ELSE,
BUT THIS HAS TO BE DONE.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER BIRD, TO APPROVE CONSTRUCTION OF BOTH BEACH FACILITIES AS SET
OUT -IN THE ADMINISTRATOR °S MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 8TH AT AN ESTIMATED COST
OF $44,200 (1/2 FROM #102-221 AND 1/2 FROM #102-220) AND THAT WE HOLD
OFF DOING ANYTHING ON THE NORTHERNMOST ACCESS UNTIL THE CHAIRMAN CA
CONTACT THE PILOT CLUB,
FURTHER DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT A TRANSFER FROM FEDERAL
REVENUE SHARING, AND IT WAS FELT THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN UP WHEN WE DIS-
CUSS THE FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING BUDGET.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
ADDITIONAL COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 30, 1981
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY SCHEDULED AN ADDITIONAL COUNTY COMMISSION
MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER 30, 1981, AT 8:30 A.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
RESOLUTION 81-64 - RE CONSTRUCTION OF,A NEW JAIL
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER BIRD, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD
BY A 4 TO I VOTE, ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-64 IN REGARD TO MEETING
STATE STANDARDS FOR COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES AND CONSTRUCTION OF. A
NEW JAIL WITHIN FIVE YEARS.
W
ma 4 PAGE 546
SEP 16 1981 47 PASE 54 7
RESOLUTION NO. 81- 64
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida has made diligent efforts to improve the jail
facility, bringing said facility up to minimum State standards;
and
WHEREAS, representatives of the County have met with various
State correction and health officials to isolate problem areas
and cure them; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners established the
Indian River County Safety Committee and appointed well-qualified
County residents to serve on the Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Safety Committee has met on
numerous occasions and made initial recommendations to the Board;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has agreed to
additional funding to the Sheriff's Office in order to meet State
personnel requirements for County jails; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has established a
procedure for retaining an architect to draft plans to implement
structural changes at the jail recommended by State, County
and the Indian River County Safety Committee officials; and
WHEREAS, designated County officials will be attending the
National Institute of Jails, special Seminar "Planning for
a New Institution" in Boulder, Colorado from November 8 through
November 14, 1981; and
WHEREAS, it is the established goal of the Board of County
Commissioners to construct a new jail facility with the aid of
State funding within a five (5) year time frame;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board
hereby adopts this Resolution establishing steps it has taken
to date and will take in the future to meet State standards
for county jail facilities; and
- M. M
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners
intends with financial support from the State, to construct a
new County jail facility within five (5)years.
Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 16th
day of September , 1981.
Attest:
''Freda Wr ght, Clerk
SEP 16 1981
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
ROOK 47 PAGE548
S E P 16 1991 47 PACE 549
HUMANE SOCIETY AGREEMENT
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY HOULIHAN REPORTED THAT HE HAD NOT
BEEN ABLE TO CONTACT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE HUMANE SOCIETY AND HE WOULD
LIKE TO CONTINUE THIS AGENDA ITEM TO ANOTHER MEETING.
r
CONSENT AGENDA - ITEM A - RELEASE OF EASEMENT (LAWRENCE ELLIOTT)_
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO:
TO: NEIL NELSON
County Administrator
DATE: August 25, 1981 FI LE:
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY
LAWRENCE J. ELLIOTT
FROM: David M. Rever REFERENCES:
Planning & Zoning Director
It is recommended that the date herein presented be given formal consideration
by the'County Commission.
1. Description and Conditions:
The County has been petitioned by Mr. Lawrence J. Elliott to release the five
foot drainage and utility easement lying between Lots 21 and 22, Block E, Oslo
Park Subdivision.
_The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power and Light, and
the Utility and R. 0. W. Departments. Planning and Zoning staff analysis,
which included a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled
the existing front and rear swales.
?. Alternatives and Analysis:
Alternative A - To release the easement. This would allow Mr. Elliott to
construct a retail sales facility in the middle of the two -adjoining lots.
The release of the easement is not anticipated to have any adverse effect.
__-.'lternative B - To retain the easement would force the applicant to build two
=-retail sales facilities, which would not be economically feasible.
3. Recommendation:
Staff recommends the release of the easement lying between Lots 21 and 22,
!Block E, Oslo Park Subdivision, as outlined in Alternative A. '
4. Distribution: R
Prepared for the County Administrator for his review and for distribution to
the Board of County Commissio-,2rs for their consideration on the consent agenda
of September 16, 1981.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION No. 81-78 APPROVING
RELEASE OF EASEMENT TO LAWRENCE J. ELLIOTT IN OSLO PARK AS ABOVE.
v ® 82
RESOLUTION NO. 81-78
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, have been requested to release those common side lot easements lying
between Lots 21 and 22, Block E, Oslo Park, according to the Plat of same
recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 96, of the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo
Park for public utility purposes; and
WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement has been submitted
in proper form;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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 21 and 22,
Block E, Oslo Park, a subdivision in Plat Book 3, Page 96, 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 placing in the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
This 17th day of September , 1981.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
(/ at Lyons , C man
V
Attest:
t
L� ,
Freda Wright, Cler
SEP 16 1981 POOK 47 N�GE50V
r
RELEASE OF EASEXENT
ROor 47 PAGGE 551
This Release of Easement, executed this 17th day of September ,
1981, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
a political subdivision of the State of Florida, first party, to Lawrence J.
Elliott, whose mailing address is 7825 1st Street, S. W., Vero Beach, Florida
32960, 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 21 and 22,
Block E, Oslo Park, a subdivision in Plat Book 3, Page 96, 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 proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the 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:
im
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:�
Patrick B. yons;, Chairman
i
Attest: �/(�� �( �/��I "
Freda Wright, Clerk/
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly
authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements
personally appeared, PATRICK B. LYONS, as Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of
the Slate 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 ackno',-4edged before me that they
executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision.
WITNESS by hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid
this _� day of 1931
Notary Pub' c, State of Florid at Large
MY commission expires:
1 OTAAY PUBLIC STATE C' nCViIIA AT V=
(Notary Seal) M( CLIA"•+.W5 10N EMA3 PULLY 9 19,02
30 D THRU GF4-0 *I I NS UNDI WR1 TEPb
R
-= E -P -16 198 t Roos w7 PAGE 552
SEP 16 1991
7 PAGE
Boos 4 53 5
CONSENT AGENDA-- ITEM B - PISTOL PERMIT APPLICATIONS
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATIONS FOR A CONCEALED
FIREARM PERMIT FOR WARREN ROBERT BEANS, PETER JOHN CRIASOLE, AND
MARTIN FITZGERALD.
REPORT ON GIFFORD PARK
COMMISSIONER BIRD REPORTED THAT HE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH PAT
CALLAHAN OF THE CITY RECREATION DEPARTMENT TRYING TO GET SOME PERSONNEL
TO OPERATE AN ORGANIZED RECREATION PROGRAM AFTER SCHOOL HOURS AT
THE GIFFORD PARK, THERE ARE SOME CETA FUNDS AVAILABLE AND SOME YOUNG
CETA WORKERS, BUT MRS. CALLAHAN BELIEVES IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
FOR THESE YOUNG WORKERS TO BE SUPERVISED BY ADULTS, CONTACT HAS BEEN
MADE WITH THE AREA CITIZENS IN REGARD TO FORMING A CITIZEN S GROUP TO
WORK AS AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE PARK DEVELOPMENT AND THE RECREA-
TION PROGRAM AND TO HELP SUPERVISE THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE WORKING
UNDER MRS. CALLAHAN, AND THEY HAVE FORMED A SIX PERSON COMMITTEE.
COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS COMMITTEE
OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE BOARD AND HE WOULD PUT IT ON THE AGENDA
OF THE SEPTEMBER 30TH MEETING, -IN THE MEANTIME, HE ASKED THE BOARD',S
PERMISSION TO GO AHEAD AND MEET WITH THIS GROUP TO TRY TO GET THE
PROGRAM MOVING.
THE BOARD HAD NO OBJECTION. DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO THE
YEARLY GRANT OBTAINED BY THE GIFFORD CIVIC LEAGUE, THE PROBLEM OF
VANDALISM OF THE WATER OUTLET AND FOUNTAIN, ETC., AND COMMISSIONER
BIRD WILL LOOK INTO THIS, HE FURTHER REPORTED THAT MACDONALD`S HAS
DONATED SOME OF THEIR USED PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR THIS PARK PLUS
AN ADDITIONAL $2,000 DONATION OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT TO BE PICKED
OUT FROM THEIR CATALOG,
NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER RECESSED AT 11:20 O'CLOCK
A.M. IN ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE
NORTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MIGHT CONVENE. MINUTES OF
THAT MEETING ARE BEING PREPARED SEPARATELY.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECONVENED AT 11.26 O'CLOCK
A.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT.
ADOPTION OF 1980-81 BUDGET AS AN INTERIM BUDGET FOR 1981-82
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADDED AN EMERGENCY ITEM TO THE AGENDA IN
REGARD TO ADOPTION OF THE 1980-81 BUDGET AS AN INTERIM BUDGET FOR
1981-82.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED1 THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS
ADOPTING THE 1980-81 BUDGET AS AN INTERIM BUDGET FOR 1981-82 FOR THE
FOLLOWING ENTITIES:
RESOLUTION
81-65
- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION
81-66
- LAURELWOOD STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
RESOLUTION
81-67
- SOUTH BEACH MUNICIPAL SERVICE WATER UNIT
RESOLUTION
81-68
- INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MULTIPURPOSE MUNICIPAL
SERVICE UNIT
RESOLUTION
81-69
-NEST
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE
IRE UNIT
RESOLUTION
81-70
- GENERAL FUND
RESOLUTION
81-71
- INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUND
RESOLUTION
81-72
- X59 BOND ISSUE
RESOLUTION
81-73
- X80 BOND'ISSUE
RESOLUTION
81-74
- FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
RESOLUTION
81-75
- LANDFILL ENTERPRISE ACCOUNT
RESOLUTION
81-76
- NORTH COUNTY WATER ENTERPRISE ACCOUNT
RESOLUTION
81-77
- SOUTH COUNTY WATER ENTERPRISE ACCOUNT
RESOLUTIONS 81-65 THROUGH 81-69 ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF
THE MINUTES, AND THE OTHERS WILL BECOME A PART OF THE RECORD WHEN
RECEIVED.
SEP 161991 87
pp 47 N. GE 554
r -
as •
WHEREAS,
�oeK 47 PAPE 555
RESOLUTION NO. 81-6,5
Florida Statutes 200.065 (2)(a) 4.(c) requires
a governmental body to hold public hearings on the tentative
z_
budget and proposed millage no earlier than sixty (60) days
from certification by the Property Appraiser; and
WHEREAS, the Property Appraiser's certification was
received on the 28th day of August, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
Coynty, Florida, is unable to adopt a tentative budget prior
to the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners determines it
is necessary to readopt its prior year's adopted final budget,
as amended, pursuant to Florida Statutes 200.065 (2)(g) 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board
readopts its prior year's adopted final budget, as amended, and
is authorized to expend monies based on that budget until such
time as its tentative budget is adopted, pursuant to paragraph
(2) (c) , commencing October 1, 1981.
Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 17th
day of September , 1981.
Attest:
�1 1
Freda Wright, Clergy
BOARD
INDIA
UNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
R COUNTY, FLORIDA
B. L�r64s , J Cha
RESOLUTION NO. 81-66
LAURELWOOD STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
RESOLUTION FOR 1981-1982
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes 200.065(2)(a) 4.(c) requires
a governmental body to hold public hearings on the tentative
budget and proposed millage no earlier than sixty (60) days
from certification by the Property Appraiser; and
WHEREAS, the Property Appraiser's certification was received
on the 28th day of August, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, on behalf of the LAURELWOOD STREET LIGHTING
DISTRICT, is unable to adopt a tentative budget prior to the
fiscal year beginning October 1: 1981; and
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, on behalf of the LAURELWOOD STREET LIGHTING
DISTRICT, determines it is necessary to readopt its prior
year's budget, as amended, pursuant to Florida Statutes
200.065 (2)(g) 4.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the 1980-1981
budget, as amended, is hereby readopted for the LAURELWOOD STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT for the year 1981-82, until such time as its
tentative budget is adopted, pursuant to paragraph (2)(c),
commencing October 1, 1981.
Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 17th
day of September , 1981.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
SEP 16 1981 �q
BOOK �.1 PAGE 556
pr- 47 PAGE557
SEP 161991
RESOLUTION NO. 81-67
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes 200.065(2)(a) 4.(c) requires a
governmental body to hold public hearings on the tentative
budget and proposed millage no earlier than sixty (60) days
from the certification by the Property Appraiser; and
WHEREAS, the Property Appraiser's certification was received
on the 28th day of August, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY,FLORIDA,-on behalf of the SOUTH BEACH MUNICIPAL SERVICE
WATER UNIT, is unable to adopt a tentative budget prior to the
fiscal year beginning October 1, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, on behalf of the SOUTH BEACH MUNICIPAL SERVICE
WATER UNIT, determines it is necessary to readopt its prior year's
budget, as amended, pursuant to Florida Statutes 200.065(2)(g) 2.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the 1980-1981
budget, as amended, is hereby readopted for the SOUTH BEACH
MUNICIPAL SERVICE WATER UNIT for the year 1981-82, until such
time as its tentative budget is adopted, pursuant to paragraph
(2) (c) , commencing October 1, 1981.
Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 17th
day of
September , 1981.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAU,--4IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
0
Attest: \
L,
Freda Wright, Cle
P,'trick B. - L1onV,, Chairman
RESOLUTION NO. 81-68
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes 200.065 (2)(a) 4.(c) requires
a governmental body to hold public hearings on the tentative
budget and proposed millage no earlier than sixty (60) days
from certification by the Property Appraiser; and
WHEREAS, the Property Appraiser's certification was received
on the 28th day of August, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, on behalf of the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MULTIPURPOSE
MUNICIPAL SERVICE UNIT, is unable to adopt a tentative budget
prior to the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, on behalf of the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MULTIPURPOSE
MUNICIPAL SERVICE UNIT, determines it is necessary to readopt
its prior year's budget, as amended, pursuant to Florida
Statutes 200.065 (2)(g) 4.;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the 1980-81
budget,.as amended, is hereby readopted for the INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY MULTIPURPOSE MUNICIPAL SERVICE UNIT for the year
1981-82, until such time as its tentative budget is adopted,
pursuant to paragraph (2)(c), coromencing October 1, 1981.
Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 17th
day of
September , 1981.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIARLVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
to
Attest:
n
Freda Wright, Cle`k
trick B. Lyon's/, Chairman
E P 161991 ROOK. 47 PAGE 558
RESOLUTION NO. 81-69
BOOK 4./ PAPE 55q
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes 200.065 (2)(a) 4.(c) requires a
governmental body to hold public hearings on the tentative
budget and proposed millage no earlier than sixty (60) days
from certification by the Property Appraiser; and
WHEREAS, the Property Appraiser's certification was received
on the 28th day of August, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, on behalf of the WEST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MUNICIPAL SERVICE UNIT, is unable to adopt a tentative budget
prior to the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, on behalf of the WEST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FIRE UNIT, determines it is necessary to
readopt its prior year;s budget, as amended, pursuant to
Florida Statutes 200.065(2)(g) 4.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the 1980-81
budget, as amended, is hereby readopted for the WEST INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE FIRE UNIT for the year 1981-1982, until
such time as its tentative budget is adopted, pursuant to
paragraph (2)(c), commencing October 1, 1981.
Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 1?th day
of September , 1981.
BOARD
INDIA
0
Attest:
Freda Wright, C1/6- k
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
VER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND TRANSFERS
IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THESE ARE TRANSFERS WITHIN FUNDS
DEALING WITH UNDERBUDGETED OR OVERBUDGETED ITEMS; THEY OCCUR BECAUSE
IT IS NECESSARY TO PUT THESE BUDGETS TOGETHER 18 MONTHS BEFORE THIS
DATE, AND THAT IS WHY CONTINGENCY ACCOUNTS ARE PART OF THE BUDGET,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE FOLLOWING BUDGET AMENDMENTS
AND TRANSFERS AS RECOMMENDED IN THE ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR'S MEMO
OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1981:
Septarber 10, 1981
TO: BoApD OF COUNT y Ca24ISSIUf ERS OF INDIAN RIVER CIXJVN
FDct"I: ED FRY, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR
PE: BUDGET AIS vI L ENTs AND TPANSFERS
The following budget admendn�ents and trans `ers are req`iested per the attached
mem from David Green, Assistant County Administrator.
I reccomend the following budget amendments and transfers be approved as part
of the additional funds adopted.
See Attached:
SEP 16 1991
93
Bou 47 PAGE 560
SEP 161991 BOOK
.'1r'Ci0UNT NO:
ACCOL=TI' TITLE
INCREASE
001-101-511-33.19
Otter Professional Services
10,000
001-101-511-33.11
Legal Services
15,000
001-101-511-33.49
Other. Contractual Services
1,000
001-101-511-34.41
Rent- Land
25
001-101-511-34.72
Outside Printing
500
001-101-511-34.91
Legal Ads
1,000
001-101-511-35.29
Other Operating Supplies
500
001-199-513-99.91
B.C.C. Contingencies
001-118-537-34.11
Telephone
225
001-199-513-99.91
B.C.C. Contingencies z
001-201-512-34.02
Travel
1,500
001-201-512-34.43
Rent - Office DTiiprrent
700
001-201-512-34.63
Maint- Office Equirinent
600
001-201-512-34.64
Maint- Automati_ve Equip.
450
001-201-512-35.11
All Office Supplies
1,°00
001-2017512-35.41
Books and Magazines
500
001-201-512-35.42
Dues - Men-berships
350
001-201-512-35.43
Meetings & Seminars
700
001-201-512-34.11
Telephone
2,500
001-199-513-99.91
B.C.C. Contingencies
001-206-553-34.02
Travel
300
001-206-553-34.11
Telephone
150
001-199-513-99.91
B.C.C. Contingencies
001-208-525-34.69
Maint. - Other Equip.
200
001-208-525-35.43
Meetings & Seminars
500
001-199-513-99.91
B.C.C. Contingencies
002-214-541-66.44
Traffic Signals & Markers
22,000
002-199-541-99.91
B.C.C. Contingencies
004-205-515-33.49
Other Contractual Services
4,000
004-205-515-34.91
Legal Ads
1,500
004-199-513-99.91
1B.C.C. Contingencies
004-207-524-11.14
Overtime
1,400
004-207-515-35.11
Office Supplies - Planning
004-000-381-20.00
Transfers
13,000
0,04-214-541-34.61
Maint. - Buildinas
13,000
102-214-541-66.29
Other Buildings
102-199-581-99.21
Fund Transfers
13,000
004-214-541-34.65
Maint. - Heavy Equip.
15,000
004-199-513-99.91
B.C.C. Contingencies
102-906-523-66.39
Other Irrproverx-nts - E\. Bldgs
500
102-199-584-99.91
B.C.C. Con'angencies
411-217-534-33.13
Ergineoring Scrvi.ces
11,000
•-11-199-534-99.91
B.C.C. Contingencies
411-217-534-35.21
Fuels & Lubricants
8,500
411-199-534-99.91
B.C.C. Continnenci.es
47 PAGE.5 1
DECREASE
28,025
225
9,200
r
450
700
22,000
5,500
1,400
13,000
15,000
500
11,000
8,500
M'
m m
THE CHAIRMAN ANNOUNCED THAT THE BOARD WOULD MEET AS THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE ROCKRIDGE SUBDIVISION STREET LIGHTING
DISTRICT AFTER THE COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED.
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, 72085 — 72205 INCLUSIVE. SUCH BILLS AND ACCOUNTS BEING ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE WARRANTS SO ISSUED
FROM THE RESPECTIVE BONDS BEING LISTED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTE BOOK
AS PROVIDED BY THE RULES OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, REFERENCE TO SUCH
RECORD AND LIST SO RECORDED BEING MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES,
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED
AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 11:35 O'CLOCK A.M.
ATTEST:
CLERK
95 Roos 47 f�r,E U
J