Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/7/1981lednesday, October 7, 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, October 7, 1981, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; William C. Wodtke, Jr., Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; Alfred Grover Fletcher; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Coordinator; George G. Collins, Jr., Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director; Dan Fleischman, Bailiff; and Janice Caldwell and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerks. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Commissioner Fletcher led the Pledge of Allegiance to the - Flag, and Attorney Collins gave the invocation. Additions to the Agenda agenda. The Chairman asked if there were any additions to the Finance Director Barton requested adding an item regarding a request from the Sheriff's Department for use of funds from the Florida Compensation Crime Fund for Confiscated Property. Commissioner Fletcher initiated a discussion about what was an "emergency item." He suggested it be referred to, in the future, as "time of essence item." Attorney Collins explained that the emergency items added at the beginning of the meeting were an internal policy of the Board. No item would be added unless it was by unanimous vote; not the nature of the item. �p 'ROOK 47 PAGE JCS OCT � ��� 6 1 OCT 7 1981 "BOOK '47 mu -099 Commissioner Wodtke requested adding an item regarding out-of-town travel to Jacksonville for the Florida Shores and Beach Preservation Convention on October 13th through 15th. Administrator Nelson stated he received a formal request from Frank Zorc to be added on the agenda for rebuttal to Attorney Quinn's remarks made at last week's meeting. Mr. Zorc interjected that he wanted to have the same treatment Attorney Quinn received as it is a reflection on his integrity and reputation; he asked for the opportunity to protect his image. Commissioner Bird commented that Attorney Collins wasn't asked to review the ad prior to Mr, Zorc having the ad published in the newspaper. He stated he would not vote to add this item on the agenda. On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the two emergency items to the agenda, as requested by the Finance Director and Commissioner Wodtke. Motion was made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Com- missioner Fletcher, for the Board to add Mr. Zorc's emergency item to the agenda. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 3 to 2, with Commissioners Wodtke and Bird voting in opposition. The emergency item was not added due to lack of a unanimous vote. South County Fire District The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 8:50 o'clock A.M. in order to reconvene as the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the South Indian River County Fire District. being prepared separately. Those Minutes are North County Fire District The Board of County Commissioners thereupon reconvened at 8:58 o'clock A.M. and promptly recessed in order that the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Indian River County Fire District might convene. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. The Board of County Commissioners thereupon reconvened at 8:59 o'clock A.M. with the same members present. Finance Director - Request for Disbursement of Funds Finance Director Barton reviewed the following letter from the Sheriff's Department: 1� I P. O. Box 608 PHONE 562.7911 lion.. Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman BOARD OF COUNTY CO}DIISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Post Office Box 1028 Vero Beach, Florida32960 R.T."TIM' DOBECK - ix»viv COUNTY MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION \I Itu Itl .\i tl, t'I��Itlit.\ :IJt�it�l t September 22, 1981 Reof fund:; I I,om 11,010DA 01INTRARANI) ANP 1`0R11,11111' ACT S 615.84 Dear Chairman Lvown : During the past seveTal ,nontlls, this ()if ice 11.11, incurred hll Is ,,L11-tnlning to drug-rc1at ed clses of t,,hich T nm rec;nr!7:tiny1, a 10imhn1-r1ement of ;nmr. Tho.;e expended funds are as follows: S 1"1H.LIU -to National Car Rearm -rented car used in drug raid 7/10/81 '301.45 -to National Car Rental -ranted car used In drug raid 7/18/81 23.12 -to Vero Beach Press Journal -act in re: Per- nando vs. Norvarette Case 8/13/81 13.56 -to Vero Beach Press Journal -ad for O.C.B. Sale 5/11/81 138.72 -to Vero Beach Press Journal -ads for O.C-.R. Sale on 9/21/81 if at all pnssible, Please date this check prior to October 1, 1981, in order that these funds can he reilected in our current budget. Shnuld there he anv questions regardi1w till. for,,F,Pinp, Please call me. OCT 7 -1981 3 YourH Hincerely, l � rl R. T. "Tim" I)ohe Ick,, Sher, i 1 f I NW AN IbbHR "IT 6 PAGE 700 ,. OCT 7 1991 BOOK 47 PATE 71 On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commis- sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the $615.84 from the Florida Contraband and Forfeiture Act, as requested by the Sheriff's Department. Spoil Island Development Commissioner Wodtke explained that individuals are putting permanent structures on the Spoil Islands in the north portion of the County and living there. The Department of Natural Resources, at their meeting, addressed this problem and were to establish guidelines for removal of the structures. Attorney Collins commented that the zoning of Marine Island Parks does not permit structures; there is also a jurisdictional question involved. Lengthy discussion followed, and it was determined that the staff would convey the Board's thoughts on this problem to the DNR, and try to work out the problem of jurisdiction in this matter. On Motion made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Com- missioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously authorized the staff to communicate with the DNR; instruct the Attorney to research this matter, prepare an appropriate resolution, and set a time frame; and bring the matter back to the Board ,for further action. North Beach - Discussion regarding Water & Sewer Commissioner Scurlock wanted to make the Board aware that he, along with Attorney Collins and John Robbins, will be meeting to develop an approach for providing utility service for the North Beach area. He will advise the Board of their progress. - r s Out -of -County Travel Commissioner Scurlock advised that there is a meeting scheduled for Water Management from October 27th to October 29th, 1981, but explained there was a Special Meeting of the Board on October 29th. Administrator Nelson commented that Utilities Director Liner might be attending the meeting. Commissioner Scurlock then stated that he would not plan to attend and instead, an appropriate official would go to the meeting. Public Hearing - Laurelwood Street Lighting District - Ordinance 81-34 The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County', Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a D in the matter of7� %` # / 01 in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 5zt 1�2 , 11(F1 (F1 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 © y f_—_—y A.D. NOTICE + NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on October 7th; 1981, at 9:15 A.M., in the Vero Beach City Hall, City Council Chambers, to consider the adoption of an Ordinance amending Article IV of Indian River County Ordinance No. 76-8 providing for the levy of taxes and adoption of budget within the Laurelwood Subdivision Street Lighting District; and providing for an effectlye date. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which record includes the testimony In evidence on which the appeal is based. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida ft -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman Sept. 10, 1981. (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Iridi River County, Florida)' ROOK OCT 7 1981 5 4 7 PAGE 702 1 111 -1 i , OF ,� 60ox 47JAGE 703 The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who wished to be heard. There were none. Finance Director Barton stated that he went to the Laurel - wood Homeowner's meeting and explained the plan which they endorsed 100%. On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 81-34 amending Article IV of Indian River County Ordinance 76-8 providing for the levy of taxes and adoption of budget within the Laurelwood Subdivision Street Lighting District; and providing for an effective date. ORDINANCE NO. 81-34 AN ORDINANCE A14ENDING ARTICLE IV OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 76-8 PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF TAXES AND ADOPTION OF BUDGET WITHIN THE LAURELWOOD SUBDIVISION STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, it has been determined that a modification.in the ,_r:. -method of the levy of taxes and adoption of budget in the Laurel - wood Subdivision Street Lighting District as provided in Article IV of Indian River County Ordinance No. 76-8 would be in the best interest of said district, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that Article IV of Ordinance No. 76-8 be amended to read as follows: Levy of Taxes; Adoption of Budget: The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, hereby authorizes the levy of a tax upon each tract or parcel, subject to taxation, for that area which is or shall be receiving street lighting service within the Municipal Service Taxing Unit created under the provisions of this Ordinance. The tax shall be equal and uniform in amount upon.each acre of land assessed and the minimum tax shall be not less than the one -acre rate. The tax shall be levied and a budget prepared and adopted by the Board at the same time and in the same manner as the Board prepares and adopts its county annual budget and levies taxes as provided by law. Said taxes shall be assessed, levied, collected, remitted to and accounted for at the time and in the manner as the assessment,' levy, collection, remittance and accountability of taxes by the Board as provided by law. The budget shall contain all or such portion of the estimated cost of providing street lighting within the boundaries of the unit, determined under the provisions of Article III of this Ordinance, as the Board shall determine to be necessary to provide such services. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and filing as provided by law. DONE AND ADOPTED in regular session this 7th day of October, 1981. EOG � PAGE �� 0CT 7 ,191 4 600K 1 4 7 PAcE 710.5 Report on Lease Arrangements at Administration Building Administrator Nelson advised that he would have a written presentation for the Board on October 21st regarding the lease arrange- ments for the Administration Building. He commented that the rent is computing out to be $8.75 per square ft. Beach Preservation Seminar - Out -of -County Travel On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously approved out -of -County travel for Commissioner Wodtke to Jacksonville, from October 14 through October 16, for the Beach Preservation Seminar. Public Hearing - Mobile Home Advisory Board - Ordinance 81-35 The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk.read-the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaperpublished at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a ,! I ` 1 in the matter of in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of - Court, was pub- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this (SEAL; (Clerk of the Circuit Court, I If A. D.. NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on October 7, 1191111, at 9:30 A.M. in the City Council Chambers In the Vero Beach City Hall to consider the adoption of an Ordinance creating an Indian River County Mobile Home Advisory Boards providing for Its membership; qualifications and terms; providing for removal of members; providing for its organization, quorum and meetings; providing for duties of the Board; declaring budgeting and expenditure of funds to be'a County purpose; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.' If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need, a record of the proceedings, and for such pur• poses, he may. need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony Ip evidence on which the appeal is based. Board of County Commissioners «; of Indian River County, Florida :lir: By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairmani ; Sept. 10,1981.«' The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who wished to be heard. John Sullivan, Chairman of the Mobile Home Ad Hoc Committee, came before the Board. He then read aloud a suggested amendment for the ordinance concerning Section 2 - Creation of Mobile Home Board. Lengthy discussion followed, and it was determined not to incorporate this amendment regarding park owners or managers who cannot be located to serve on the Board. Attorney Collins pointed out that the burden is on the County Commission to appoint the various members of the Advisory Board. He then expressed concern about incorporating Chapter 83 into the ordinance and felt it should not be made a part of the ordinance. Mr. Sullivan advised that the State Attorney's office would intervene if there were criminal activities involved in any violations of Chapter 83. Lengthy discussion followed,and various word changes were suggested to be incorporated in the ordinance in Sections 4, 5-C, and 8. Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern that people would i.. -ant to come to the Board regarding rent control. Fred Messner, Village Green, came before the Board and advised that the Advisory Board would not have the authority to handle rent control. If any discussion of rent would come up, it would be regard- ing what the tenants got in return for the rent increase. On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously agreed to close the public hearing. On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commis- sioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 81-35, with amendments made in Sections 4, 5-C, and 8, as discussed. OCT ° 19� 7 9 B06K 47 PAGE 766 r BOOK '47 PAP,- J OCT 19111 ORDINANCE NO. 81- 35 AN ORDINANCE CREATING AN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MOBILE HOME ADVISORY BOARD; PRO- VIDING FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP, QUALIFICATIONS AND TERMS; PROVIDING FOR REMOVAL OF MEM- BERS; PROVIDING FOR ITS ORGANIZATION, QUORUM AND MEETINGS; PROVIDING FOR DUTIES OF THE BOARD; DECLARING BUDGETING AND EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO BE A COUNTY PUR- POSE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Indian River County, Florida, is composed of a large percentage of people who reside in mobile homes; and WHEREAS, it is recognized that such mode of living is a unique type of living and different from other modes of living and residence; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is desirous of aiding in the solution of problems encountered in the mobile home community; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. DECLARATION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT 1.01 It is hereby declared to be the purpose and intent of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, to create and establish a Mobile Home Advisory Board for the purpose of obtaining information as to the unique problems -and conditions of mobile home park owners and tenants within Indian River County and to give recommendations and advice to the Board of County Commissioners on such matters. Section 2. CREATION OF MOBILE HOME BOARD 2.01 The Indian River County Mobile Home Advisory Board shall consist of seven (7) members to be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. Three (3) members of the Board shall be persons with no inter- est in or affiliation with mobile home parks. Two (2) members of the Board shall be mobile home park owners or managers and two (2) members of the Board shall be residents of mobile home parks. Only one appointee may come from any one park or owner- ship. Each member shall be a resident and elector of Indian River County and shall possess a reputation for integrity, responsibility, civic accomplishment and professional or business ability. The initial appointments shall be four (4) members for a term of two (2) years and three (3) members for a term of one (1) year. All subsequent appointments shall be for a term of two (2) years. The members of the Board shall receive no compensation for performance of their duties. An appointment to fill a vacancy shall be for the unexpired term only. Section 3. REMOVAL OF ME14BERS 3.01 Any member of the Board who ceases to be a qualified elector, or resident, or who becomes a candidate for public office shall immediately forfeit his office. Any member may be removed from office without cause by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners. Except for excused health or welfare reasons, any member who fails to attend at least seventy- five per cent (750) of the meetings of the Mobile Home advisory Board during any twelve (12) month period shall be deemed to have vacated his position on the Mobile Home Advisory Board. A vacancy so created shall be immediately reported to the Board of County Commissioners by the Chairman of the Mobile Home Advisory Board or, if there be no Chairman or the Chairman has vacated his position, by any remaining member of the Mobile Home Advisory Board. Section 4. ORGANIZATION, QUORUM AND MEETINGS 4.01 The Mobile Home Advisory Board shall initially select a Chairman and such other officers as deemed necessary and desirable who shall serve at the pleasure of the Advisory Board. The initially selected Board shall serve until the first meeting in January, 1983, at which time new elections shall be held and continue to be held annually thereafter. The Board shall meet at least quarterly at any appropriate place and shall arrange a time for holding regular meetings of the Board and for such other meetings as shall be neces- sary. A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum. A majority vote of those members present and voting at any meeting shall be sufficient to enable taking any action. The Board may adopt such rules of procedure as it may deem necessary. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public and shall be 2 - Box 47 PAGE X08 OCT 7 ���� OCT 7 806K 47 PnE'109 . subject to the requirements of Chapter 286.011, Florida Statutes. Section 5. DUTIES OF THE BOARD 5.01 The Indian River County Mobile Home Advisory Board shall have the following functions, duties and responsibilities: (a) To conduct public meetings on issues and problems pertaining to or affecting mobile homes, mobile home parks and mobile home living; (b) To hear complaints and grievances relating to mobile homes, mobile home parks and mobile home living and to issue findings, conclusions and recommendations; (c) To hear and voluntarily mediate desputes sub- mitted to them relating to mobile homes, mobile home parks and mobile home living arising between mobile home residents and mobile home park owners or operators;. (d) To review existing and proposed Indian River County ordinances and regulations pertaining to or affect- ing mobile homes, mobile home parks and mobile home living; (e) To collect, review, maintain and disseminate infor- mation, data, literature, statistics, laws, ordin- ances and regulations pertaining to or affecting mobile home parks and mobile home living; (f) To make written report and recommendation to the County Commission, the County Administrator, or both, on issues and matters pertaining to mobile homes, mobile home parks and mobile home living; (g) To study and report on any issue or matter pertain- ing to mobile homes, mobile home parks or mobile home living submitted to -them by the County Commission or the County Administrator. Section 6. LIMITATION ON POWERS OF ADVISORY BOARD AND BUDGETING AND EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS DECLARED A COUNTY PURPOSE 6.01 The adoption of this Ordinance and the creation of the Indian River County Mobile Home Advisory Board shall not 3 - L be construed or deemed to impose a mandatory requirement upon the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, to provide office space, staff or funding for said Advisory Board. However, the Board of County Commissioners may, if it deems advis- able, budget and provide for the expenditure of funds for such Board. Such budgeting and expenditure of funds is declared a valid County and public purpose. Section 7. AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES TO ADOPT CODES 7.01 Each municipality within the County is hereby granted the same authority to adopt and enforce a code of rules and regulations as that granted to the County Commission herein. Section 8. FLORIDA MOBILE HOME LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 8.01 "The Florida Mobile Home Landlord and Tenant Act", Chapter 83, Part III, is hereby recognized as being the current legislation providing statutory rights of mobile home owners and mobile home park owners. Section 9. SEVERABILITY 9.01 If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions.of this Ordinance. Section 10. INCLUSION IN CODE 10.01 It is the intention of the Board of County Commission- ers that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Indian River County Code and shall appear within Chapter 16, Section 16-15 through 16-25, and that the Sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article" or such other appropriate word or phrase in order to accomplish such intentions. Section 11. EFFECTIVE DATE 11.01 This Ordinance shall become effective as provided by law. This ordinance shall become effective October 16, 1981. R 4 Bed 47 PAGE ALO OCT 7 1981 r OCT 7 191 BOOK 47 P, n, 71 Discussion followed, and it was agreed to accept, as a final report, the Preliminary Report presented by the Ad Hoc Committee at the September 2nd meeting. On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commis- sioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 81-82 dissolving the Indian River County Mobile Home Ad Hoc Committee. 9 RESOLUTION NO. 81-S_ BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Resolution No. 80-138, creating the "INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MOBILE HOME AD HOC COMMITTEE", and Resolution No. 81-9, in which the members of said "INDIAN DRIVER COUNTY MOBILE HOME AD HOC COMMITTEE" were appointed, are hereby abolished. ********** Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 7th day of October I , 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Petrick B. "Lyons, /C13iairman Attest: Freda Wright, Cl k OCT 7 BOOK 47 pAeE712 OCT 7 1991 BOOK South Beach Water System - Report 47 P,�PF 713 John Robbins, Engineer, came before the Board and gave a report on the South Beach Stater System. He advised that he and his firm have performed an inspection, as per the City -County agreement, and they are in the midst of preparing their written report. He advised they have a collection of as -built information from the City, as well as information on the distribution system. Mr. Robbins reported,that they will take the as -built information and display it on the wall map so that they will have a big picture of the system. Then when requests are made for water service, Mr. Robbins continued that this map will be very helpful to them. Mr. Robbins asked the Board for direction as to whether or not they want them to design the master plan re modification of the agreement. Discussion followed about the agreement that was made back in 1972, as well as the need to have aerial photographs. Mr. Robbins then discussed the master plan approach. He added that they would like to put together some designs on the subaqueous crossing, as the permitting can take as long as a year. Mr.Robbins stated that he would like to submit the contract for the engineering on the basis that they would look at the master plan, go ahead on all phases of the work, and adhere to the schedule of the City -County agreement. He requested that the contract their firm submits, for the South Beach, be for -the master plan design. They will, in this phase, continue until they can get the contract drawn up on the other areas that need to be done, he added. The master plan would tie in to the South County Water System at the South County Relief Canal and U. S. #1; a 20" river crossing pipe to the east bank of the Indian River would be installed; then install a normal system with pipe tying into the existing 12" system that 'now' ~` serves The Moorings, et al. Mr. Robbins noted they would install a 10" pipe parallel to the existing 12"; they would install a 14" pipe parallel to the existing 10" pipe that now goes to The Moorings; and then install the required pipes to serve the remaining area of the South Beach. Included in that would be a 750,000 gallon ground storage tank and an in-line booster pump station that would be installed at the City Limits, per the agreement. Ile noted that the fire control x,. booster station, that goes in conjunction with the 750,000 gallon ground storage tank, would also be included in the master plan. Commissioner Bird inquired about the scope of work. Mr. Robbins stated that the scope of work that the Board would be authorizing from this point forward would be from the City sub -station site, which is located on the east side of the river near Smuggler's Cove; it would then continue from the south extreme of The Moorings to the South County Line. He explained that this was the other piece that was not included in the present scope of work. Mr. Robbins pointed out that one pipe has not been discussed, and that is the one that would go parallel to the existing 12" from the City Limits to the elevated tower where it connects. He commente:i that all this information has been previously submitted to the Board. Mr. Robbins just wanted - to indicate to the Board that in order *to stay on schedule, there are some permitting activities they need to get under way. He recommended that they indicate a lump sum contract and simply bill for the work that has been done to date; which would be the phase one design. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding expenditure of funds. Mr. Robbins explained that they have not signed any agree- ments with anyone for service, or collected any impact fees, because the agreement has not been signed. He stated that they are at the time where financing should be lined up for the master design. Chairman Lyons commented that it is important that the agreement between the County and the City be signed. � OCT 7 1981 17 goon 47 PAGE U4 -- `����rr� `, O C d pct 715 Intergovernmental Coordinator Thomas elaborated that it was true that the anticipated fees and charges will take care of the first phase, and the people who are going to pay these fees are basing it on the assumption that they are going to have water. Commissioner Fletcher asked if it was possible to create a contingency fund with the users putting up the money to be used for expenses. fees : Mr. Robbins then reviewed the following calculated impact CALCULATION OF PROPOSED IMPACT FEES FOR SOUTH BEACH 1ATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Prepared by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. Beindorf and Associates, Inc. (A Joint Venture) The following calculation of Impact Fees is based on the proposed 255 water connections paying for the necessary Phase I Improvements for the South Beach Water System. Attached is a copy of the Preliminary Cost Estimate for the Phase I Improvements. Phase I Project Cost Number of Phase I Connections allowed by County -City Agreement Impact Fee Required r $899,515.56 255 Connections $ 3,527.51 s PHASE I SOUTH BEACH WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PRELIMINARY 1TE Prepared by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. Beindorf and Associates, Inc. (A Joint Venture) 1. Land Acquisition 2. In-line Booster Pump Station a. Pump - Horiz. Turbine b. Pump House (10' x 15') c. Misc. Piping, Valves & Fittings 3. Ground Storage Tank (GST) (750,000 gal.) 4. Pump Station a. Pump - Horiz. Split Case .b. Pump House (25' x 30') c. Misc. Piping, Valves QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST 1 Ac. $175,000.00 $175,000J'' 2 Ea. $ 4,800.00 $ 150 Sq. Ft. 40.00 6,000.10 1 L.S. 20,000.00 20,000.00 1 L.S. $200,000.00 $200,000.00 2 Ea. $ 81000.00 $ 16,000.00 750 Sq. Ft. 45.00 33,750.00 & Fittings 1 L.S. 45,000.00 45,000.00 d. Controls 1 L.S. 45,000.00 45,000.09 5. 14" D.I.P. 3,100 L.F. $ 25.00 $ 77,500.0✓ 6. Bore & Jack (12" D.I.P.) 90 L.F. $ 120.00 $ 10,800.00 Sub -total = $638,650.00 Contingencies (10%) = 63,865.00 Sub -total = $702,515.00 Engineering (10.5%) = 67,058.00(1) Sub -total = $769,573.00 Legal and Administrative (2.5%) = 19,239.00(2) Sub -total = $788,812.00 Purchase of system from City of Vero Beach (per Agreement) = 52,703.58 Sub -total = $841,515.58 Purchase of existing meters from City of Vero Beach = 58,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST = $899,515.58 FOOTNOTES: (1) Engineering fee based on construction cost without contingencies (Engineering includes basic design and construction surveillance). (2) Legal and Administrative based on total project cost including Engineering and contingencies. Engineer's Project No. 7362 September 30, 1981 OCT 7 1981 Bou 4.7 PAGE 716 19 r OCT 7 1981 BOOK `7. FacF 717 Chairman Lyons suggested that Administrator Nelson, Utilities Director Liner and Mr. Robbins get together, review the figures, and decide what impact fee is going to be required of the user. Mr. Robbins explained that they have estimated there are 1,248 non -vested potential customers and together they will work for a unified position for an impact fee. Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Bird, to contact the people requesting the system and ask them to put up a percentage of the fee to absorb the inspection costs. Debate continued along those lines. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and defeated with a vote of 1 to 4, with Commissioner Fletcher voting in favor. Transportation Planning Committee - Resolution 81-81 Administrator Nelson advised the Board that the Committee would consist of various members in the Non -Technical Voting portion and the Technical Non -Voting portion. He added that the basic goal of this committee would be to develop, evaluate and make recommenda- tions; and to make short and long range plans to assist the Board for programs regarding community transportation needs. The Administrator advised that Michael Orr was hired as Traffic Engineer and he has made contact with the City Traffic Technician and they are developing a standard form of analyzation of traffic problems in the County. Administrator Nelson advised their first area of study would be east of Lateral A, north of Oslo Road, and extending out to the ocean. Chairman Lyons suggested the Town of Orchid be included as part of this committee. On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 81-81 establishing a Transportation Planning Committee. RESOLUTION NO. 31- $1 WHEREAS, there is a great need within Indian River County for the Board of County Commissioners to receive recommendations from all municipalities of certain unincorporated areas and certain other governmental entities regarding short and long range transportation needs of the County; and WHEREAS, in order to consider all the transportation needs for the Countv, a committee is hereby established as hereinafter set forth, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that it is hereby established a Transportation Planning Committee made up of eight (3) voting representatives from geographic or political areas and six (6) nonvoting technical advisory members, all either to be desig- nated from the named political entity or who fill the job classification set forth: NONTECHNICAL VOTING: Vice Chairman of the Indian River -County Board of County Commissioners will serve as the Chairman One member of City of Vero Beach City Council One member of City of Sebastian City Council One member of City of Fellsmere City Council One member of Town of Indian River Shores Town Council One member of Indian River County School Board One member at large (Gifford area at this time) One member of Town of Orchid Town Council TECHNICAL NONVOTING: One member of Indian River Farms Water Management District City/County Traffic Engineer County Planning Director City of Vero Beach Planning Director Indian River County Director of Public Works or his Representative City of Vero Beach Director of Public Works or his Representative BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the basic goal of the above named committee shall be to develop, evaluate and make recom- mendations to the Indian River County Board of County OCT ig$1 Boos 47 PACE 7.18 i OCT 7 1981 Box 4"7 PnF 719.: Commissioners for short and long range transportation plans that will: A. Assist the Board of County Commissioners in determining courses of action and formulating attainable capital improvement programs in anticipation of community transportation needs. B. Coordinate with the municipalities County roads within those municipalities and plan for overall movement of traffic throughout the County. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDRIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA trick B. Lyo , Cn firman Attest: Freda Wright, rk Adopted: October 7, 1981 t A great deal of discussion followed regarding the problem with traffic on 16th Street, and it was felt special emphasis should be placed in this particular area. It was also determined that there will be a comprehensive study on what needs to be done in the area, such as data gathering, fact finding, and analysis. Engineer Davis explained that there will be a series of drawings of each collector and arterial road; priorities for improvements; as well as visual and graphic presentations that should address all the traffic functions in those areas. Chairman Lyons noted that the Committee will end up with one or more recommendations from each municipality so that trouble spots can be pin -pointed right away - these will receive priority on the work list. Commissioner Wodtke explained that as soon as all the municipalities make their appointments, then the Committee will start to function and get involved by doing research, gathering input from DOT, and researching the funding. After the Traffic Engineer reaches an understanding regarding the County and State responsibilities for roads, then funding can be researched. Commissioner Wodtke asked if there was any specific direction or restrictions the Committee should be given, prior to their first meeting. Chairman Lyons felt County roads going through municipalities was a major concern. Frank Zorc, interested citizen, spoke of the time element of 8 or 9 months for the work of the Traffic Engineer to complete his study. He commented that the Committee will be assigned the task of recommending road priorities, but they will have nothing to do with the design of the road. Mr. Zorc emphasized that the Board should not waste time and asked for a resolution relating that 16th Street has been addressed and that it has the total support of every organization. He continued that no matter what the Committee recommends, he felt that 16th Street would be improved by sheer public demand. Mr. Zorc requested that the personnel should not have to establish this fact but, just start evaluating what has to be done. OCT 7 1991 Beff 47 PACE "I 23 rr BOOK 47 PAGE 72.1 OCT 7 1991 Commissioner Scurlock mentioned that the Traffic Engineer and his assistant were going to be developing a data base, of which 16th Street was a part. Special emphasis should be put on the 16th Street problem, he noted. He would assume that the Traffic Engineer would study this and come up with a solution. Commissioner Wodtke asked for direction as to what the Committee was going to do. Confusion arose as to what would be the duties of the Traffic Engineer and,the Transportation Planning Committee, concern- ing 16th Street. Administrator Nelson noted that the County does not have the capability of redesigning a road. He envisioned that once the problem is identified and the scope of work determined, the Traffic Engineer would come back to the Board to request having an engineer- ing firm design the road. The Administrator explained that 16th Street had many complexities because it was a major arterial connection, and he recommended having an engineering firm do the design. Mrs. Dolly Buck, interested citizen, came before the Board and complained that her life was in danger because of the bad traffic conditions on 16th Street when she -rides her bicycle. She requested that the work on 16th Street be expedited. Commissioner Bird felt the Transportation Planning Committee was intending to look at the problems of the overall community, and find out where the priorities are in the whole County. Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Com- missioner Scurlock , that the Traffic Engineer and staff begin the study within the areas defined by the Administrator; that they study the area of 16th Street and related problems; and after the data is gathered, the matter should come back to the Board. Ruth Stanbridge, interested citizen, felt the Committee— was was very necessary but until it convenes and becomes an active, productive committee, the County could direct their professional staff to proceed with the work on roads. After the Committee is formed, all roads should go to the Committee for consideration for the final priority list and funding. Mr. Zorc expressed his appreciation for the consideration the Board has given for 16th Street, and their support for this new committee. Commissioner Wodtke stated he understood that the Traffic Engineer and staff will do the necessary research and take their recommendations to the Board - the Transportation Planning Committee will not be involved in that. He wanted to know what -would be the responsibilities of the Committee. Commissioner Bird felt the County staff would do their studies and take their report to the Transportation Planning Committee, and that Committee would then make a recommendation to the Board. Commissioner Bird amended his Motion to state that the Traffic Engineer and staff would take their report to the Trans- portation Planning Committee, who will then make the recommendation to the Board. Commissioner Scurlock seconded. the amendment. Discussion followed along those lines. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted.on and carried unanimously. Speed Limit on 4th Street The Board next discussed the following memorandum from the County Administrator: OCT 7 191 25 Boa 47 PAGE 722 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 29, 1981 the Board of County Commissioners BOOK 47 F,,�, 7 FILE: SUBJECT: Request by Lawrence A. Barkett, Re: Speed limit 4th Street/Citrus Road, between Kings Highway and Monroe Road FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On September 4, 1981, a letter was submitted to the Chairman of the County Commissioners requesting a change in the designated speed limit for 4th Street/ Citrus Road, between Kings Highway and Monroe Road. Mr. Barkett requested that the speed limit be reduced from 45 MPH down to 35 MPH and further asked that a sign be placed on 4th Street advising motorists to look out for children. This request has been staffed through the Sheriff's Department as well as the County's Public Works Department. Additionally, we have had further discussion with fir. Barkett. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Based upon staff analysis and research through appropriate agencies, it is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners authorize reduction in speed limit to 35 MPH and that we not place "Children at Play" signs on the roadway, as studies have indicated that these signs create a false sense of security and are, therefore, more dangerous. . RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Funding impact will be minor and will consist of cost associated with signs and installation of same on that roadway. On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commis— sioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously approved the County Ad— ministrator's request to reduce the speed limit from 45 mph to 35 mph and place the appropriate signs on that roadway. Introduction of Carolyn Goodrich, Material Management Director Administrator Nelson introduced Carolyn Goodrich to the Board. She is the new Material Management Director in his department. - =6 r The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 12:15 o'clock P.M. for lunch and reconvened at 1:45 o'clock -P.M. with the same members present. CHANGE PROPOSAL NO. 47 - COURTHOUSE Construction Project Representative Hercules Kontoulas came before the Board and explained that Change Proposal No. 47 deals with the area on the first floor of the Annex which the Sheriff will occupy. He wants partitions added that were not in the original contract. Mr. Kontoulas felt the price is too high at this time and recommended that some other source do the work, possibly the County crews, because we have some demountable partitions that could be used. In discussion, it was agreed that we should not be too permanent about these areas. It was further noted that this has been discussed with the Sheriff and he understands. On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously rejected Change Proposal No. 47 - Courthouse and instructed the Administrator to examine other alternatives. CHANGE PROPOSAL NO. 117 - Administration Building Mr. Kontoulas explained that this relates to a future room for the Sheriff on the west side of the Administration Building. He again felt the cost proposed is too high and recommended that the County crews do this work. On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously rejected Change Proposal #117 - County Administration Building. CHANGE PROPOSAL NO. 116 - County Administration Building Mr. Kontoulas reported that this is an area where Property Appraiser Nolte wants a room torn down. Mr. Kontoulas recommended that Mr. Nolte live with this arrangement for a while after they move in and see if this room possibly can be used for something else. On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner BIrd, the Board unanimously rejected Change Proposal No. 116 - County Administration Building as recommended by staff. OCT 7 1981 27 Boa' 47 PAGE 724 OCT 7 1981 PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING TRANSIENT MERCHANTS BOOR 7 -tn,,E ~I25 Larry Barkett, member of the Board of Directors of the Indian River Chamber of Commerce came before the Board in regard to a proposed Ordinance regulating transient merchants in the county. He stated that the Chamber of Commerce feels such an ordinance would protect both the local merchants and the local consumer. The Chamber of Commerce is asking that they be allowed to work together with the County staff to come up with an ordinance acceptable to the County. Motion was made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, to approve the County staff working with the Chamber of Commerce to come up with an appropriate ordinance regulating transient merchants. Commissioner Fletcher requested that Mr. Barkett elaborate on the need to protect the consumer. Mr. Barkett reported that in the past week they have had eight complaints to the Chamber of Commerce about transient merchants, who come to the area, set up along the highways, sell something and leave; so, the consumer has no recourse. Mr. Barkett explained that they are not asking that the transient merchant be prohibited from selling, but just that he be required to obtain a license when he comes to town so that the consumer would have the same -recourse against him as they would against any local merchant. He reported that Dade County in 1974 adopted an ordinance totally prohibiting truck sales. Discussion ensued about occupational licenses and the fact that although anyone can buy such a license simply by paying the specified fee, the public seems to feel that by issuing the license, the County is guaranteeing that the licensee is qualified and has insurance, etc., which may not be the case. It was noted that the City of Vero Beach has a requirement that all merchants make their sales within a substantial structure, and when,the City Police come across the transient merchants operating within the City limits, they simply move --- - them out into the county where there is no restrictive ordinance. Discussion continued and examples were given of fly-by-night operators who prey on the elderly and gullible and then disappear, even those who have obtained occupational licenses. It was generally felt that we should look into the situation re occupational licenses and the granting of same. Commissioner Fletcher did not feel it is the responsibility of government to protect the individual from making a bad choice, and he stated that every time an ordinance is passed, some freedom is lost. He felt there are some good, honest people out there that we would be running off the road, and he believed we should aim toward deregulation rather than adding more restrictions. It was pointed out that we simply want these transient merchants to have to play by the same set of rules as the local merchants, and Commissioner Fletcher did not feel the local merchants should be required to have licenses either. Building Director Rymer agreed that just buying an occupational license does not prove that you are necessarily competent. She felt the City of Vero Beach has controlled this problem pretty well by requiring a competency card, which also checks them out as to credit, insurance, etc. This of course, applies only to services, not to retail sales. Mrs. Rymer felt if the county would pass a law requiring a contractor to be certified, that would help. As far as retailing of a product, she did not know what could be done, but felt that a license definitely should be required. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the transient merchant is not paying Workmen's Compensation, etc.; so, they are not paying their fair share. Commissioner Wodtke noted that he is a merchant himself, and the competition is not what is the concern, but he did feel that sales tax is a very important consideration. He.noted there have been numerous complaints about these peddlers, particularly regarding furniture sales, and it is a growing problem throughout the county. Commissioner Wodtke continued that the City license for his business is $147.00 while the County license costs only $15.00, and, therefore, these itinerant peddlers go to the county rather than the city. He emphasized that the object of the proposed ordinance is not to prevent anyone from selling their vegetables at roadside stands, but rather to protect the public from unscrupulous transients. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the OCT 1981 29 wK 47 PAcf X26 BOOK 47 PAPIF 727 flea markets are regulated and anyone can rent space in them. He also felt that we must look further into the occupational license situation. William Koolage, interested citizen, objected to the county residents having all these unqualified people pushed out of the city onto the county residents. He felt that competency cards should be given consideration and that there should not be differences between the city and the county regulations. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. HAZARDOUS STRUCTURES - (GEORGE JOHNSON & RAYMOND DAVIS) Administrator Nelson informed the Board that George Johnson had cpmpleted the removal of the hazardous structure, debris and litter, as set out in the following memo: STATEMENT OF COMPLETION AND/OR COMPLIANCE This statement is to confirm that Mr. Georqe Johnson, File # 6 P & Z, has under the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida, Chapter 4, taken action and has completed the removal of the hazardous - structure, debris and.litter from Lot 179 and 180, Block 12, W.E. Geoffrey Subdivision, 18th Avenue and 37th Place. No action is needed by this Board. Signed: , Date: David M. Reve Z nd Ling Director e4 ey Wa er Zoning supervisor _ 30 M, m Administrator Nelson then reviewed the following memo in regard to the hazardous structure belonging to Raymond Davis: rte' i1 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: October 1, 1981 SLE: , SUBJECT: Removal of hazardous structure belonging to Raymond Davis FROM: Neil Nelson REFERENCES: . County Administrator It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the County Commissioners. Description and Conditions The structure is located on Lot 7, Block 4, Spruce Park Subdivision, Gifford, Florida (24th Avenue and 42nd Place), and belongs to Raymond Davis. There are residents presently surrounding the lot and property of the hazardous structure. The building is in a delapidated condition because of neglect.. The windows are missing; the roof has holes in it, and the structure needs painting: The lot needs to be cleared of large pepper trees. This neglect is a direct result of unkept conditions; allowing children to play in this structure with the possibility of injuries due to nails, glass and other debris; undesirable elements in the neighborhood use the property as a refuge. Alternatives and Analysis A) Initiate action which would result in the removal of the structure. This would help clean up the neighborhood and remove a potentially dangerous situation to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. B) Not to approve the removal of the structure. If this alternative is selected, the building would continue to deteriorate and present an unsafe situation and be a continual eye -sore to the community. Recommendation It is recommended that the County Commissioners authorize staff to proceed with removal of the structure. The following actions need to be taken in order- to initiate resolution of the problem: Action by the County Attorney A) This will require the County Attorney to prepare all legal docum— tation to support the removal of said building. B) This will require the County Attorney to notify the Coubty office that all legal action has been completed. Action by County Administrator A) County Administrator will, within 7 days after notice from County Attorney, instruct the Road and Bridge work crew to remove structure or items. B) The County Administrator will determine the cost of removal and notify the owner in writing of the amount of cost. Follow up action by Attorney A) If payment from the owner or owners have not been received after 30 days from written notice by the Administrator, the County Attorney will cause a lien to be placed against the property. ROOK 4-7 PAGE 728 OCT 7 19181 31 (' 7 19 1 i BooK '47 pn . 799 Mrs. Rymer commented that this is one of the structures Commissioner Fletcher wished to view because it is CBS. She reported that we have given the owner the opportunity to bring it up to Code, and it seems obvious that he has abandoned the structure. Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Scurlock, to accept the recommendation of the County Administrator and authorize the Attorney to prepare the legal documents necessary to support removal of the subject structure. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the neighbors have complained and was informed that this matter has been handled through the normal procedures; the electrical wires were removed in May of 1980, and the Building Director assumed that this action was brought about by a complaint. Commissioner Fletcher still did not see the need to remove the structure simply because it is offensive to the eye. It was pointed out that this is an open structure, which is an invitation to problems. Discussion ensued as to boarding up the structure, and Mrs. Rymer felt that if this action were taken, vandals, etc., simply would remove the boards, and they would have to be replaced every month or so. It was noted that the owner has had proper notification and the Attorney will make sure that the owner is properly notified before any physical action is taken. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 80-13 - Rates The Board reviewed the Administrator's memo as follows: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: 'September 30, 1981 FILE.: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Proposal for amendMent `- Ordinance 80-13 for Ser 6, rates FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: County Administrator DESCRIPTIOI! 'IND CO?,DITIOdS .Because of a peak demand load on utility system dictates the plant capacity, size of pumps and mains, this must be a major component of any rate schedule. A customer must pay for ~ghat is construct -ed and standing by to provide the service, even.if he does not use that service. The rates that we have established provide the arrangement for the customer to pay for this capacity by paying $7.10 for each unit even when on a master meter-. No matter what rate system is chosen, there can be occasions for inequity of the schedule. The inequity of our schedule can occur when we have a master meter and somewhere near Wo, vacancy occurs. This can occur at Vista °oyale and some mobile home parks with master meters. Note that Vista Royale has a 12 inch master meter for each building of 14 units. An example of how the problem of inequities appears is given: Vista Royale uses the same rate schedule as the Count, but they bill for the service as if it is a single unit. An average mont1h bill for a fully occupied building of 14 units will be for 60,000 gallons. For both water and sewer: Vista's bill would be for $177.18 County's bill would be for; 5288.72 a difference of 63-.. However, if the condo is half empty, the consumption would be for 30,000 gallons per month: Vista's bill would be for S 92.88 County's bill would be for; $204.62 a difference of 120'j! Occupation of less than 50% of the residents crake the problem more severe. The extreme case would be if the building were completely empty and no water was consumed. Vista's bill would be $ 14.20 County's bill would be $198.80; a difference of 13COIJ! DA/17 1 r . OCT 1981 33 mx 47 730 OCT 7 191 Bou 47 pn�731 Although this latter is an extreme case, and is not likely, it is still a possibility. Since the County allows for the individual customer to have his service shut off and not pay any bill, this can likewise result in a theoretical case of a multi-million dollar utility system standing by -:with no revenue coming in. Commissioners Scurlock and tFe Utilities Director have met with Robert Gaskill, William Zeedyk and Ellis Duncan of the Vista Homeowners Association, and the proposed rates meet with their approval with the conditions noted. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS A graduated scale of minimum bills for different sized meters'-- based C flow capabilities - is a generally accepted method for base or minimum Vero Beach recently went from the method we now use to this method of billing, after they did a rate study :•,hich took over a year to complete. This probably was partly inspired by the same seasonal vacancy problem that is typical of Indian River County. Inasmuch as the agreement with Vista Properties turns over the utility system at no expense to the County and financial records indicate no financial loss at the current rate being charged there, it is proposed that any rate change as suggested -herein will be made effective on the date of start-up of the County Reverse Osmosis water plant. Only then will the operational costs of the enlarged system and water plant,with it's funding requirements, be applicable. Until that time, the County will merely be continuing to operate the Vista water and sewer plants as they are being operated now. Furthermore, this scheduling would allow a budgeting and transition into the proposed rate schedule - which was considered to be fair by the Vista personnel we met with. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING We recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve the preparation of an ordinance amendment to include the following: It should be noted that the County's maximum bill cannot be less than $7.10. because of bond requirements. However, a graduated minimum bill based on meter flow is recommended as the best compromise for equitable rates. The following schedule would be fair both to master meter customers and to the County. Meter Size Base Rate Base Minimum 5/8 X 3/4" $ 7.10 2,000 gallons 1" 15.50 4,000 gallons 1'-2" 30.00 8,000 gallons 2" 60.00 20,000 gallons 3" 120.00 35,000 gallons 411 240.00. 70,000 gallons Larger sized meters shall be engineered for fees and minimum allowable according to similar acceptable formulae. Rates above minimum shall stay $1.50 per 1,000 gallons. oAGE 2 cf r 1M_ M r ---yam-°--This rate increase is to be effective for all customer bills issued after the date the South County Reverse'Osmosis Water Plant is started. (Planned for October 31, 1982) For the case of Vista Royale of a half empty building (30,000 gal.) this :,::_. result in a bill of: Vista's present bill would be S92.88 County's proposed bill would be X121.32; a difference of 31`� !instead of present 117%) For fully occupied building, this would result in a bill of: Vista's present bill would be S177.13 County's proposed bill would be S206.12; a difference of 16% ;instead of present 63;x) It is felt this solution is a reasonable compromise. GL:ms APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR BY C� PAGF 3 of 3 O C T e7 1981 35 toox 47 PACE 7 L /7' OCT 7 1981 Box -4 r PnE ',3 Commissioner Scurlock commented that the proposed modification of our ordinance would apply to all multi -family structures and would apply to everyone on a master meter. He felt that in the future we should not allow these master meters which present problems. Discussion continued as to the fact that when the original agreement was entered into with Vista Royale, the pitfalls of having master meters were not anticipated. It was noted that having master meters encourages large use of water. Engineer John Robbins commented that in the original determination of the rate structure under FHA requirements for retirement of the debt service for the South County, we will have to generate a certain revenue. He did not think at this point there will be any feeling with the FHA as to how we come up with the rate, but at the time of closing, we will have to come up with the annual revenue calculation, and we may have to look at some of the numbers at that point. Commissioner Scurlock reported that Utilities Director Liner looked at the actual consumptive use and took an average. It was noted that for a significant portion of the year, the consumption is down because many of the units are not occupied. Commissioner Fletcher felt it should be noted that the County's minimum bill cannot be less than $7.10 because of the bond requirements. It was pointed out that that is true only under the present conditions and also noted that the average was based on peak use of a fully occupied building. Discussion continued about finding a way to reduce rates, and Commissioner Scurlock felt the memo presented their best efforts, and it was favorably received by the property owners. Attorney Collins noted that all along under the South County program, we have provided updates of our ordinance to the FHA and 0 although the Engineer has said that at the time we close on the loan, we need to be generating the money for retiring the debt service,he.-­­---_-- would be uncomfortable making any change in the ordinances before FHA can review them. Commissioner Scurlock wanted to make it clear that the residents would remain on their present rate until the County plant comes on line because they would not receive any benefits until the County has the ability to serve them. Discussion continued further with regard to rates, and Utility Director Liner noted that Vista's rates resemble the County's very much; they charge per gallon, but treat each building as a single unit. The Property Association pays the total bill. It was noted that the commercial rates are identical. Engineer Robbins pointed out that requiring multi -family dwelling units to go with individual meters is also going to require that all the initial plumbing be separate, which will increase the cost of the unit. The Chairman felt that in the long run, water conservation will be a controlling factor. Motion was made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Fletcher voted in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote, accepted the recommendation of the County staff and authorized the County Attorney to make the necessary contacts with FHA to get final approvals to proceed to advertise and to contact the Vista representatives and indicate the position of the Commission. REPORT ON SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM Engineer Robbins reported on the $3,500 impact fee proposed for the Phase I improvements of the South Beach water system. He stated that at the last meeting a question was raised and there was some confusion as to whether this accounts for all the various impact fees applicable to the system; so, they went back over their figures. Engineer Robbins explained that there should be no plant capacity charge at this juncture bcause what we are talking about are the improvements required to connect to the Vero Beach system, and these will not place a demand on the water plant because it is not on line yet. The first phase improvement, i.e., the ground storage tank, booster pumps, etc., are facilities in the master system that will benefit the future. In future impact fees, we can take into consideration things that are already in operation and some adjustments can be made to account for plant capacity. OCT 7 POfiy 47 PAGE 7,34. 37 r OCT 7 1981 BOOK 47 w F 5 Commissioner Scurlock commented that possibly future impact fees could be less because there are certain improvements which will be borne up front by those ready and wanting service right now. Engineer Robbins agreed. He noted we want an equitable situation, and if we wait too long to decide how to finance Phase II, it may affect the impact fees; therefore, possibly it is time to discuss something relative to permanent financing. Intergovernmental Coordinator Thomas pointed out that the interest rate at which the bonds finally are sold also could have an effect on the rate structure or future impact fees. He continued that we have been talking about the possibility of having a fiscal agent and he felt we ought to determine whether the Commission wished to proceed immediately towards that end or rely on the bond people we have talking with and proceed with them. ' Commissioner Scurlock stated that he was still committed to going with a financial agent and listening to all proposals and then making a decisions, but in this particular situation where these people have been on line with our financing, he would not have any problem with continuing on with them. Intergovernmental Coordinator Thomas concurred, that he also is happy with Stan Livingood and Arch Roberts and Company, especially because of Mr. Livingood's special expertise in utilities. He noted that if we do not intend to continue with this firm, we should not expect them to do anything further at this point; also, there is a time element to be considered. Commissioner Wodtke discussed the purchase of the existing meters from the City for $58,000, and Engineer Robbins reported that there are 800 or so existing vested connections, and the City is going to turn these meters over to the county at a depreciated price which he believed is a reasonable price.' Commissioner Wodtke felt these meters already have been paid far by the people, but Engineer Robbins explained that the meter is not physically owned by a property owner; it is the City's property. The fee is for setting the meter and turning it on, and there is a refundable deposit. _ v M M9 Discussion continued in this vein, and Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that this was a negotiated agreement and there are some elements of the agreement that are favorable to the City and some to the County. Intergovernmental Coordinator Thomas stated that he would like authorization to call Arch Roberts and Company and tell them to proceed subject to submitting a satisfactory agreement at the next meeting. On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Fletcher voted in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote, , authorized the Intergovernmental Coordinator to contact Arch Roberts and Company and instruct them to proceed with work on the bond issue for the South Beach water system subject to submitting a satisfactory agreement at the next meeting. On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the Attorney to notify the involved South Beach property owners of the direction the Board is proceeding and the proposed $3,500 impact fee. PHASE II - GIFFORD AREA SEWAGE IMPROVEMENTS - Change Orders Engineer Robbins reported that this is basically wrapping up all the final quantities because we are currently treating sewage in the Gifford area, and he has a call in to FHA to try to find a date acceptable to them for the dedication ceremony. On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4 to l vote, Commissioner Fletcher voted in opposition, approved Change Order #5 Phase II Gifford Area Sewage Improvements in the amount of $8,350.00 � OCT 7 191 39 ROOK 47 �UF 7-316 r OCT 7 1981 Form FmHA 424.7 (Rev. 6-11.80) Phase II - Gifford A BOOK 4 7 FAr,� 73 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE XURM 5EFROV1512 vi FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION ORDER NO. C CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER oATE September 30, 1981 STATE Florida CONTRACT FOR COUNTY Indian River County Indian River OWNER To (Contractor) You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from- the contract plans and specifications: Description of Changes DECREASE INCREASE (Supplemental Plans and Specifications Attached) in Contract Price in Contract Price Final Adjustment of Bid Quantities: $ $ Basic Contract $265,345.25 255,345.25 Change Order No. 1 103,390.85 103,390.85 Change Order No. 2 3,413.40 3,413.40 Change Order No. 3 1,751.00 1,751.00 Change Order No. 4 Time Extension Only N/C Previous Contract Price--- $-3-73,900.50 Change Order No. 5 8,350.00 (See Attached Sheet) 382,250.50 TOTALS s VVor f LUAW.—V twr rnN'r0Arr DDrrO a 8,350.00 JUSTIFICATION:- Final in palce measurements were taken after substantial completion. The quantity differential pertaining to the percolation excavation was due to a difference in field measurements taken by the Contractor and Engineer. This final quantity represents an adjustment as determined by the Engineer based on the Contrac- tor's quantities. The amount of the Contract will be (Decreased) (Increased) By The Sum Of. Eight thousand three hundred_ fifty and 00/100----------------------------------------- Dollars(S 8,350.00 ). The Contract Total Including this and previous Change Orders Will Be: Three hundred eighty-two thou sand two hundred fifty and 50/100---------------------------- Dollars($ 382,250.50 ), The Contract Period Provided for Completion Will Be ( ) 0000 (Unchanged): This doc univiit w1i become a supplemenj to the contract and all provisions will apply hereto. (Owner) (Own.r'a Architect/ Engineer) Accepted-4'-y`� (Contractor) Approved By FmHA (Name and Title) 0 AD /7 /Y;/ Days (Date) (Date) This information will be used as record of any Number copW required: 4 No further monles or other benefits may be Pal out under this ehwws to the original Construction Contract. program unW= this report Is Completed and filed as required by Time to Complete: 30 min. existing law and regulations Q C.F.R. part 1924). su.f tlMAIII .oaebtterttlt4p0<ilinn S FtnHA 424-7 (Rev. 6-11.80) _ . CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER Phase II - Gifford Area Sewage Improvements Indian River County Description of Changes DECREASE. In Contract Price 1. Furnish and install 31 feet of 4" PVC Force Main @ $5.50/L.F. 2. Furnish labor, materials and equip- ment for excavation of percolation ponds, construction of berms less pipes, valves and fittings and back- filling of percolation trenches with on-site material complete: 3,200 C.Y. @ $2.80/C.Y. 3. Furnish all material, labor and equip- ment to isntall chainlink fence: 33 feet @ $8.50/L.F. (Deleted from $ 280.50' this Change Order).* 4. Bid Item No. 14, abandonment of on-site water supply well, will not be performed by Contractor. No payment will be made to Contractor for this Item. OCT 7 Totals: NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: 41 $ 500.00 $ 780.50 Change Order No. 5 September 30, 1981 INCREASE In Contract Price $ 170.50 $ 8,960.00 $ 9,130.50 $ 8,350.00 b ROGK � 7°,S r--- - - OCT 7 191 WORKSHOP FOR AGENDA OF OCT. 21st MEETING BOOK 4.7 C,,AcE 729 Administrator Nelson informed the Board that a preliminary look at the agenda of the next regular meeting indicates that it is quite extensive, and he would, therefore, suggest that the Board set up a workshop meeting previous to the regular meeting,to go through some of the items on the agenda and get some things answered before the meeting. The Board agreed to set up a workshop meeting for 1:30 P.M. October 21, 1981. 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. 77502 - 77590 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 4:00 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Lff-, al -