HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/16/1981Wednesday, December 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, December 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
Coordinator; George G. Collins, Jr., Attorney to the Board
of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton Finance Director;
and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Attorney Collins led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag, and Rabbi Richard Agler of Temple Beth Shalom gave the
invocation.
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
Chairman Lyons reported that Rosemary Richey,
Supervisor of Elections, has an opportunity to buy some used
voting machines at a very favorable price, but.time is of
the essence, and he would like this item added to the
agenda.
On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously agreed to add
the emergency item as requested by the Supervisor of
Elections.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October
21, 1981.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that on Page 3, the 3rd
line, the wording should be corrected to reflect that he was
not
approving the Minutes without reading them.
PEC -1619§1
.
BOOK
P�cF31d
DEC 161981
Commissioner Fletcher then discussed Page 17 re payment
to O'Neill & Son for right-of-way on Storm Grove Road, which
was authorized in the amount of $68,000, noting that he has
learned that the final judgment was only $50,000 but the
Clerk's records indicate that we paid $73,000, which seems
to indicate that something is amiss.
Finance Officer Barton stated that they have not
completely verified this yet.
Chairman Lyons commented that the Minutes reflect what
was said at the meeting, and he asked that the Finance
Officer bring the Board a report to clarify the question
raised by Commissioner Fletcher.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 21, 1981, as
corrected.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of October
29, 1981.
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved -the
Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 29, 1981, as
written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of
November 2, 1981.
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 2, 1981, as
written.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
following Budget Amendment transferring funds from the
Administrator to the Clerk to the Board:
2
December 8, 1981
To: Board of County Ccrmissioners
From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director
Subject: Departmmt to Departn�eznt Transfer
County Administrator (201) to Clerk to B.C.C. (300)
This budget amendment is necessary due to the change of Accounts payable from the
Administrator Office to Finance after the Budgets were approved the funds to pay
the expenses involved must be transfered from department to department. I reccnrm eid
the follclaing budget amendment to be approved as part of the additional funds
adopted.
Account Title
Account No. Increase
Decrease
Workmen's Compensation
001-300-512-12.14 200
21,090.00
L\pense-Budget Office
001-300-581-99.93 28,186
321,090.00
Regular Salaries
001-201-512-11.12
22,270
Soc. Sec. Matching
001-201-512-12.11
1,482
Retirement Contribution
001-201-512-12.12
2,434
Ins -Life & Health
001-201-512-12.13
2,000
Workmen's Compensation
001-201-512-12.14
200
Motion was made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, to approve the recommendation of the
Finance Director re the one year Tax Anticipation Note for
financing relating to Indian River Boulevard, as follows:
To: Board of County Commissioners
7
From': Ira ffrey K. Barton, Finance Director
Subject: Citrus Loan # 78049
The one year Tax Anticipation note to First Citrus is due 12/22/81 for
$300,000.00 plus interest ($27,500.00). It is my recomendation to use
$200,000.00 from Fund 101 (Secondary Road Trust Fund) as a loan until
a final accounting can be submitted to the State of Florida to draw
upon the 80% of the 5th & 6th cent gasoline tax held in Tallahassee and
the balance of $100,000.00 principal, plus interest of $27,500.00, be
charged to the construction account in Fund 303.
The original note
of
5300,000.00
plus interest earnings
of
21,090.00
321,090.00
has been used to
pay bills of
126,318.58
leaving a balance
on hand of
194,77172-
9 ,771. 2less
lessunpaid bills
on hand
6,052.94
and 127,500.00 of
12/22/81 P & 1 due
127,500.00
leaving a balance
in construction account
S 61,216.7W
for future bills
DEC 16 1981
DEC 161981 FM
Commissioner Scurlock brought up item 12 D under the
County Attorney's matters - Adoption of Resolution regarding
renewal of General Obligation Note on Indian River Boulevard
and asked about its relationship to the report on the Indian
River Boulevard financing.
Intergovernmental Coordinator Thomas reported that at
the November 18th meeting he reminded the Board that they
did authorize the issuance of the tax anticipation note,
which will become due on December 17, 1981, and advised them
that they could authorize withdrawal of the amount needed
from the trust fund in Tallahassee or that the note could be
paid out of surplus funds and the Board could reauthorize
the immediate reborrowing on an additional tax anticipation
note, which is called "rolling it over." The Board at
this meeting authorized the Finance Department and County
Attorney to proceed with negotiating the tax anticipation
note roll-over. He noted that the Board could pay the note
off if they wished.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know why we are
ultimately pledging ad valorem taxes if the money is going
to come from the 5th and 6th cent gas tax money.
Mr. Thomas explained that originally there was
conversation about whether we.wanted to withdraw the money
from the trust fund in Tallahassee or go with bonds. He
believed it is a foregone conclusion, since the situation
has changed, that the Board does not intend to issue those
bonds
any time
soon,
and he,
therefore, would recommend that
we go
ahead and
pay
the note
off.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that was his preference,
and Finance Director Barton noted that as a part of the
Motion authorizing the transfer of the funds, he would need
authority to go ahead and pay off the note.
Commissioner Scurlock reworded his Motion, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, to approve the transfer of funds as
recommended by the Finance Director in his memo of December
4
8, 1981, and to authorize the Finance Director to pay off
the Tax Anticipation Note for financing relating to Indian
River Boulevard, due December 17, 1981, as discussed.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
Administrator Nelson reported that there is a final
bill due from Reynolds, Smith & Hills and also bills from
Attorneys Joseph Cianfrone and Michael O'Haire, which will
bring the cost to close out Indian River Boulevard up to
around $100,000. He stated that -once all the bills are
finalized, he will bring a report back to the Board.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously authorized the
Finance Director to proceed with applying to the State for
the funds available from the 5th and 6th cent gasoline tax
to pay off our outstanding obligations on Indian River
Boulevard.
Finance Director Barton reviewed the following report
on expenditures on the Courthouse and Administration
Buildings:
Report on Expenditures on Courthouse & Administration Buildinqs
Revised Contracts:
Courthouse Building
Original Contract $689,000.00
Change Orders (Through 27) 167,166.17
5��1 �7
Administration Building
Original Contract $2,748,000.00
Change Orders (Through 69) 351,391.81
_...__....
S3,099,391.81
Total Revised Construction
Contracts with Reinhold Const. Co.
Receipts:
Net Proceeds from 1980 Bond Issue
Net Proceeds from 1981 Bond Issue
Interest on available Const. Funds
Available for Project Expenses
DEC 161991
L
5
$856,166.17
3,099,391.81
$3,955,558.03
3,677,010.57
555,690.87
438,027.04
f477-0 .2$
AUK 48P!E
DEC 16'1381
Disbursements:
Payments on Const. Contract
Courthouse Building
Administration Building
Construstion Supervision (Herc)
Interest Capitalized during Const.
Architechual & Engineering Fees
Additional Supervisor Fees
Total Expenses to Date
4,670,728.48 3,858,344.56
Receipts less Expenses to Date
731,123,23
2,879,975.08
(53,717.75)
(296,668.38)
3,955,558.03
less: Balance due on Reinhold Conracts (3,611,098.31)
less: Refund to Federal Revenue Sharing
for Furniture & Fixtures
Available Balance for future change orders
and other expenditures
y� 1
3,611,098.31
23,333.38
187,955.00
30,957.87
$3,858,344-56
817,383.92
(334,459.72)
(167,553.65)
$305,307.55
Mr. Barton explained that what is shown in the brackets
is what we have paid since the project started. The
architect's fee was paid part out of the construction funds
and part out of Federal Revenue Sharing. We have agreed we
would replace these funds in Federal Revenue Sharing. Mr.
Barton reported that we have spent $167, 553 out of Federal
Revenue Sharing for furniture and equipment, and if that is
replaced, we have a balance of $305,307 for any additional
Change Orders needed. One big item is the fourth courtroom.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired as to the anticipated
figure on outstanding change orders, and Administrator
Nelson stated that we are not accepting any more change
orders to be done on the Administration Building and the
Courthouse, and when we begin work on the Annex, no more
than $5,000 in change orders is anticipated since the
renovation there is much less severe.
It was noted that the amount for change orders includes
those presently in controversy, and also there are some we
are going to handle in-house.
Finance Director Barton stated that if there are no
additional change orders, and we pay the existing contract,
we should have approximately $300,000 left over. Once the
construction is completed, these funds can be transferred to
any other legal on-going project. He then informed the
Board that we do not have a budget account this year for
furniture and fixtures, and this should be rebudgeted.
Discussion ensued as to the Board's feeling that these
funds should be identified in some way so they do not become
a general "grab-bag." t -
Administrator Nelson reported that we have a request
from the Sheriff amounting to about $12,000; we need to put
in a safe for the Tax Collector; and also we need to get a
word processor for the new County Attorney. He felt that
about $50,000 will be needed for re-establishment of that
account.
Finance Director Barton recommended that the Board
first authorize transferring the $167,000 expended back to
Federal Revenue Sharing and then appropriate the funds
needed for renovation.
Intergovernmental Coordinator Thomas explained that
while there is no provision in the new bond issue to furnish
the jail, once these funds are returned to Federal Revenue
Sharing, they can be used for that purpose.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
recommended transfer of $167,000 back to Federal Revenue
Sharing to replace those funds borrowed to pay for furniture
and fixtures in anticipation of receiving financing, and
directed the Finance Director to prepare the appropriate
budget amendment.
Finance Director Barton suggested that once the
transfer of the $167,000 is accomplished, $70,000 could be
earmarked for the Jail and $50,000 should be designated for
additional
furniture and fixtures for the Courthouse
and
DE 16
198,
7
DEC 161991
Administration Building,
which would leave $47,000 in
the
reserve for contingency.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to add a
line item to the budget establishing an account of $50,000
for furniture and fixtures for the Courthouse and
Administration Building, and directed the Finance Director
to prepare the appropriate budget amendment.
Frank Zorc, County resident, wished to know if anyone
has calculated how much the renovation cost per square foot.
No exact figures were available, but the cost was estimated
at between $20.00 and $30.00 per sq. ft. It was further
pointed out that the building is on a valuable piece of
property.
The following reports were received and placed on file
in the Office of the Clerk:
Traffic Violation Bureau - Special Trust Fund, Month of
November, 1981 - $33,469.28
Report of.Juveniles in Jail - October, 1981
Traffic Violation Fines by Name - November, 1981
RESOLUTION 81-104 HONORING WILLIAM GRIZZELL
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 81-104 honoring William Grizzell for his services
on the Board of Zoning Adjustment.
Chairman Lyons read the Resolution aloud and presented
it to Mr. Grizzell.
i
RESOLUTION NO. 31-104
WHEREAS, WILLI —1 G. GRIZZELL was appointed to the Indian River
County Hoard of Zoning Adjustment by the Board of County Com-
missioners on December 1, 1976; and
WHEREAS, WILLIAM G. GRIZZIELL has submitted his resignation
effective January 1982; and
WHEREAS, WILLI.?V4 G. GRIZZELL was a faithful member of the Board
whose major function is to listen to hardship cases and to interpret
the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, WILLIX-4 G. GRIZZELL, during his tenure on the Indian
River County Board of Zoning Adjustment, served the citizens of
Indian River County with diligence and understanding; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County is a better place in which to
live due to the services provided by WILLIAM G. GRIZZELL while he
served on the Indian River County Board of Zoning Adjustment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board, on
behalf of itself and the citizenry of Indian River County, expresses
its deep appreciation to WILLIAM G. GRIZZELL for a job well done;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board wishes WILLIt'1M G. GRIZZELL
continued success in his future endeavors.
Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 16th day
of December 1981.
BOARD_, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
R
DEC 161991
B. Lyont,�CYjairman
9 t ?U325
F" -
DEC 16 . va 48 pmf326
DISCUSSION ON REDUCTION OF YEARLY RENTAL — ST. FRANCIS MANOR
Administrator Nelson reviewed the following memo from
Attorney Brandenburg and reported that a certificate of
insurance has since been received from Mr. Zorc.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
INTER — OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: The Chairman and Members of DATE: December 10, 1981 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County
SUBJECT: Proposal to reduce the yearly
rental on the St. Francis Manor
lease
.FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg REFERENCES:
County Attorney
On November 18, 1981, Mr. Frank Zorc appeared before the County Commission
to request a reduction in the yearly rental contained within the St. Francis
Manor lease. At that time, no definitive action was taken as a result of a
2/2 vote.
Mr. Zorc now requests reconsideration of the matter. In the interim, the
County Administrator's Office requested additional financial information
from the operation, in an effort to verify the necessity of the request.
In response, St. Francis Mianor submitted the complete St. Francis Manor
fiscal report for F1' 1980, prepared by their accountant together with balance
sheets from 1979. Also submitted is a proposed budget for 1982.
The Finance Department and their auditing staff -have advised that a current
audit by a certified public accountant would be necessary before they can maize
any conclusive findings about the Manor's exact financial status. However,
it should be noted that the cost of such an audit would probably exceed the
savings in the proposed lease reduction defeating the purpose of the request.
The Florida Statutes, Section 1?5.35, authorizes the counties to lease countjy
property to the highest and best bidders. It appears that this bidding process
was followed by the County in August of 1973. Any substantial modification of
the lease raises a question whether or not the County must re" -bid under the
Statute. For this reason, this writer would recommend the following procedure
if the County Commission desires to approve the request.
A. Leave the lease intact.
B. Establish and make a finding of fact that the donation of $1,000 to St.
Francis Manor serves as a valid County purpose.
C. Make a donation of $1,000 to the facility contingent upon the funds bein
used for a specific purpose as delineated by the Board.
0. Require the facility to supply an affidavit indicating how the funds were-
actually
ereactually used together with a financial statement from their accountant.
10
In this manner, the same result is achieved while avoiding possible leqal
difficulties with modifications of the lease and also preserves flexibility
for the Board of County Commissioners to reconsider this matter in future
years.
A review of the file indicates an absence of certificate of insurance on the
premises. This writer would recommend that if the County approves the proposal
or donation, that the facility be required to supply the County with an
acceptable certificate of insurance.
Respectfully. submitted-,
'/'!,'" 1
/a;j M. Brandenburg
County Attorneys ---
Mr. Zorc, Director of St. Francis Manor, came before
the Board and requested that the Commission adopt
procedures A through D as outlined and recommended by
Attorney Brandenburg.
Alison DeGenero, founder of the Neighbors Helping
Neighbors Program, wished to defend the dignity of St.
Francis Manor, its residents, its founder, and the community
that helped build it. He argued that while citizens need
the Commission's help in big things, tax dollars, whether
federal, state or county, should not be used in areas where
the community can help. He urged that the Board not deny
the community the privilege of carrying its own weight in
this particular area.
Commissioner Wodtke noted the presentation made is that
the money would be used to provide meals for those who could
not afford them. If there are individuals throughout the
county who are needy and cannot be provided for,
Commissioner Wodtke believed Welfare can verify this and
felt that the taxpayers would be willing to assist in some
way, but he was not receptive to actually altering the
lease.
Mr. Zorc stated that he essentially agreed with the
tenor of Mr. DeGenero's remarks, and St. Francis Manor was
8 FAA27
DEC 16 198 1
QEG 161981
t K U`pn-E�36 ^°
built without federal or state money. The fact is, however,
that the Commission does support many organizations
throughout the county; so, his thought was to ask for a
reduction of the lease. Since a recommendation was made to
relate this to a specific purpose, it was earmarked for the
meal program which is running at a deficit. Mr. Zorc
continued that they are asking only a dollar for a meal that
is costing them $2.00, and they have the checks they pay
Jubilee Catering to make up the deficit from what is
collected, which amounts to about $3,000 annually.
Discussion followed as to the need for financial
information, and a question arose as to the amount of rent
the residents are paying.
Mr. Zorc informed the Board that they submitted a
financial report prepared by their accountant for 1980 and a
budget for 1981-82 to Attorney Brandenburg and financial
information was submitted to Mr. Thomas.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that Attorney Brandenburg
apparently is recommending that instead of altering the
lease, we make this amount of money a donation, and Attorney
Brandenburg explained that in that way, difficulty with the
Statutes can be avoided; we would retain the flexibility to
look at this on a year to year basis; and those funds could
be specifically earmarked.
Motion was made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, to follow the course of action
recommended by Attorney Brandenburg, designating the
specific purpose as subsidization of the meals program, to
be rechecked on an annual basis at budget session, plus
requiring an annual report as to how and who benefited from
the funds, and to approve the following budget amendment:
ACCOUNT NAME ACCOUNT NO. INCREASE
Contributions to out-
side sources -
St. Francis Manor 001-106-562.8846 $1,000
Rents & Royalties 001-000-362-10.00 $1,000
12
Commissioner Bird questioned the number of paid
employees at St. Francis, and Mr. Zorc replied that they
have an administrator, who is paid $4.00 an hour, a part
time social director, and part time yard and maintenance
help.
Mr. DeGenero again urged that the Board not insult
these people's dignity with a hand-out. He pointed out that
Mr. Zorc did not answer the question as to how much rent he
collects from these apartments.
Mr. Zorc felt that whether= -this is a hand-out is
debatable since the County does support many community
organizations, and St. Francis simply would be getting back
a lease factor they should not be paying. As to a rent
schedule, Mr. Zorc reported that in nine years they have had
only one rent increase and some of the older apartments
still rent at $110.00 monthly. In the newest building, the
base rent factor is $140.00 for a small apartment and
$160.00 for the larger, plus a utility charge of $15.00 a
month. He emphasized that although they collect rent, they
are non-profit.
Chairman Lyons stated that he planned to vote for the
Motion not on the basis that it is a gift, but because he
felt $1.00 a year is more appropriate and in line with other
facilities leased by the county, and this is the only
mechanism we have to achieve this.
Mr. DeGenero argued that both the County and Mr. Zorc
are breaking a contract, and he urged that the Board table
this matter to see if the community will help.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would vote in favor of
the Motion in order to assist St. Francis Manor in their
meals program the same as we assist various other
organizations such as Spouse Abuse, for example, and further
noted that we offered the Humane Society a lease for $1.00 a
year.
QEG
161991 13 BOOK 48 PAU32
DEC 161981
gOOK AS FXF
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
Mr. Zorc had a further request. He addressed the fact
that Attorney Brandenburg stated modification of the lease
raises a question of whether the lease must be rebid, and
felt this should be explored. Mr. Zorc continued that if
the State Statutes can be complied with, he felt St. Francis
Manor should be granted a permanent reduction to $1.00 a
year without specific earmarking of the funds. Mr. Zorc
then read a presentation about the low income of the
residents of the Manor and attacking those who "work
against -him."
A Mr. DiSassio took offense at St. Francis Manor being
included in the same category as the Humane Society, was an
CONSENT AGENDA
Item A - Pistol Permit Applications
On Motion by commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
application of Michael A. Hosford for a permit to carry a
concealed firearm.
TERMINATION OF PINECREST/MITCHELL FRANCHISE
Notice of the proposed termination of Mitchell
Builders, Inc., Water Franchise and Lease was published as
evidenced by the following legal Notice:
14
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 lin Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
t
in the matter of /.O,�j/I�>/il���i?�
..,t f 77�
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
(SEAL)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian RiDert/unty, Florida)
NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that Visa Building
Corp, and -or Mitchell Builders Inc. of Mich. &
Fla. will formally request the termination of
Resolution No. 79-12 "Mitchell Builders, Inc. of
Mich. & Fla. Water Franchise" and Lease at
the December 16, 1981, County Commissioners
Meeting, 9:30 A.M., City Hall.
Visa Building Corp.
:Mitchell Builders Inc.
of Mich. & Fla.
P.O. Box 3893
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Nov. 29, 1981.
The Board reviewed the Administrator's memo and
recommendation of December 8th:
TO: The Honorable Mellibers of the
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Neil Nelson, County Admin.
DESCRIPTIO'! AND CONDITIONS
DATE: December 8, 1981 - FILE:
SUBJECT: Termination of Pinecrest/Mitchell
Franchise.
REFERENCES:
On ;/10/79 the Pinecrest/h;itchell Subdivision franchise had been
approved for water service only. The water systeil; for Phase 1 was not
uwD leted and set into service until the end of 1980. From that time until
15
DEC 161981 Box 48 PAA,31
FF'_ t -7
DEC 16 890R 48 PAE332
July 20, 1981, the franchise provided water service to the Phase 1 customers
until their well failed. Because of the emergency situation (in which 17
residential units were left without. Water), we provided an emergency connection
fro -:r a nearby crater- main. The expense of making this emergency connection
was 51,713.65. This amount rias repaid to Indian River County Utilities
Uy Ron i•litchell. From that date, the franchised water supply was taken
out of service.
Phase II of the subdivision had nater lines installed according to
county specification. These lines fere fully inspected by Total Development
and certified as satisfactory. The developer paid the impact fees for
53 units'in Phase II as of 10/6/81. We have developer agreements for Phase iI
and Phase III in our files that require full compliance with county regulations
before service (meter installation) can be applied to any lot in the Sub-
division, namely:
All i;r,pact, service, and deposit fees will be paid in advance by the
developer for all lots prior to any connection.
All crater mains will be built to specifications, pressure tested,
bacteria tested as certified by the engineer and an approval letter shall
be sub!!d tted to us from DER.
:As -built drawings will be received showing easements and appropriate
rights-of-way.
Inasr:auch as there is no intention to restore the well and reactivate
the franchise treatment plant, it is obvious that the subdivision will
require crater service from Indian River County. We have executed agreements
statinu that this is the case. The agreements are worded so that the
develooer has prescribed con,mittilrents which protect the county and contract
for delivery of crater when the committments are fulfilled. Note that the
County has adequate water for this subdivision.
The COu11tV Attorney stated that io terminate the franchise, `pre �:ust
advertize the nreetin(i and hold a public: hearing for such termination.
The advertisen;ent is being appropriately placed and proof will be shoran
at the co iiiission Illeetinq.
RECOMriENDATION AND FUNDING
There were seventeen residential customers acquired from Pinecrest
Franchise. Fro;r: these r:e have 53100 in i:rnact (connection) fees in the
franchise escrow account that :Jill be transferred to the county i!!,pact
fund - once the franchise is terninated.' For all the rernainina lots in
the subdivision we are receiving the full appropriate impact fee for the
service we will provide.
After termination of the franchise, 53400 in the Mitchell/Pinecrest
Franchise Impact Escrow Fund should be transferred to the Utilities Impact
Escrow Fund (From 6U1-000-247-64.00 to 472-000-3413-65.00).
We recommend approval to terminate the Pinecrest/Mitchell Franchise.
There are no funding ependitures to fie ar)proved by the Board for tris i ;>>.
Attorney Collins noted that since the County has taken
over complete service, there is no longer a need for the
above franchise. He did not believe there is any objection
from the franchise holder.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard. There were none.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
16
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
Motion was made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, to terminate the Pinecrest/Mitchell
franchise as recommended by the Administrator and transfer
the $3,400 in the Impact Escrow Fund to the Utilities Impact
Escrow Fund (From 601-000-247-64.00 to 472-000-343-65.00)
The Chairman asked about the disposition of the water
plant located on the property. Attorney Collins stated that
the franchise provides that the"owner can remove the plant,
and he assumed that is what will happen.
Carley Mitchell, representing Visa Building
Corporation, informed the Board that they do have an
agreement of sale, and it states that the plant must be
removed by the end of the year.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION 81-105 - PETITION PAVING OF PORTION OF 14th AVE.
The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the
Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of
Publication attached, to -wit:
DEC 161991 17 8 PAA33
F'""_ -7
DEC 16
1981 An 48 Fpm'
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published 07u'eekly
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
t� L� Q t
in the matter of l Zdt-&Gf- l7 l,� '
in the
fished in said newspaper in the issues of 1_ C=)` / /1
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-
tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before m this a t f 1H,
(Business Manager)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Jn ian i ` r County, Florida)
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENthatthe Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on
December 16, 1981, at 10:00 A.M. in the City
Council Chambers in the Vero Beach City Hall
to consider the adoption of a
Resolution providing for the grading,
draining; paving and hard surfacing, of 14th
Avenue, from 7th Street north to 8th Street,
designated Project No. 8118; providing for the
total estimated cost of the project: providing
for the method of payment of assessments by
that property specially benefited; providing
for the number of annual installments of
assessments and providing the legal
description of the area specially benefited. .
Interested parties may appear and be heard
regarding the proposed Resolution. If any
person decides to appeal any decision made on
the above matter, he will need a record of the
proceedings, and for such purposes, he may
need to insure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes
the testimony in evidence on which the appeal
is based.
Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida
By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Nov. 20, 1981.
County Engineer Jim Davis reviewed the following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County CoTinissioners
FROM: Neil A. Nelson,
County Administrator
D%SC?:IFTi01 ,\ND CO �'TFITTIMS
DATE: December 4, 1951 FILE:
SUBJECT: Petition Paving of 14th Avenue between
7th Street and Sth Street
REFERENCES:
At. the September 30, 1951 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners,
the County Engineering Division t,as directed to proceed with the design of 14th
Avenue, prepare the Project Resolution, and schedule a Public Hearing as re-
quired b�� Ordinance S1 -?7. The project has been designed and the engineering
cost estimate for the project is 89, M .Sl. This amount includes constructior,
engineering, and administrative fees. The Public Hearing has been advertised
(copy attached) .
ALTERNATII'ES AND A\LUYSIS
A meeting was held with the property, oi,,ners of 14th Avenue on D --c. 1, 1981
at the Road and Bridge Dept. All but t .o (2) mv-ners were present. The project
design was discussed, the proposed resolution was read, and the cost estimate
was presented. No objections were voiced. As a result of that meeting, the
staff presents the following Alternatives for consideration by the Board.
Alternative # 1
Approve adoption of the proposed Resolution which contains the following:
1) Estimated cost of improvements is $ 9 , 9 81:.8 3 ,of_ which 75 6 or
$7,486.36 is to be assessed to the property owners and $2,495.45 is
to be paid by the County.
2) Special Assessments shall be collected by the Office of the Tax
Collector in two (2) annual installments with interest established
by the Board of Colony Commissioners. The County Finance Director
rece::unends 12'0 interest per annum.
The impact this alternative would have includes funding $2,495.45 from
budgeted Road and Bridge Department Account #004-214-541-35.39 (unencumbered
balance as of December 3, 1980 is approximarely 500,000), and a reduction
in maintenance costs for this road of $273. per year. There is an existing
culvert beneath 14th Avenue in the Indian River Farms Drainage District
sublateral canal which has deteriorated and should be immediately replaced.
This pipe has been ordered and will be installed -at the County's expense,
since it is needed regardless of paving improvements. This pipe will be sized
in accordance with the new blaster Drainage Plan.
Alternative # 2
Deny adoption of the resolution. The impact this action would have in-
cludes delaying this project whicz ;las been requested since 1977 by a majority
of the property o,%ners. County maintenance costs of $273. per year for this
road would continue.
RECOM%E-NDATIONS ANBD FUNDING
It is recommended that, after consideration of the required public hearing
on the Project Resolution, the Board approve the following;
1) Adoption of the Project Resolution
2) Funding in the Amount of $2,495.45 from Road and Bridge Department
Account x004-214-541-35.39 (unencumbered balance approximately 500,000)
3) Establish the project interest rate of 12% per annum.
4) Schedule a Public Hearing for the first Board meeting in January to
consider the preliminary assessment roll as required by Special Assess-
ment Ordinance ##81-27
Attorney Collins commented that we are not actually
holding a formal public hearing, but rather this is
regarding adoption of a Resolution which then calls for a
public hearing.
Mr. Davis reported that the preliminary assessment roll
has been prepared and there have been no objections.
Question arose as to when the property owners actually
are committed to this project and Attorney Brandenburg
DEC 161991 19 48 , . � : 33
X981 Box � *,,
-
drjo -I
explained that after adoption of the preliminary assessment
roll, the County is committed and the owners are committed
to pay the cost. The time for hearing any complaints is
when adoption of the preliminary assessment roll is being
considered. He suggested that in the future this type of
resolution set out the method by which the assessment is to
be made.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested adopting the proposed
Resolution indicating a tentative preliminary cost of
$7,486.36 as the property owners' portion, to be assessed on
the basis of the front footage as outlined in Exhibit "A".
Attorney Collins did not feel the specific method of
assessment has to be agreed upon at this time, and he
recommended the Board adopt the Resolution as drafted and
direct the Administrator to come back with a report on
possible methods of assessment to be considered at the next
public hearing.
Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, to adopt Resolution 81-105 as
written, and direct the staff to come back with a
recommendation as to an assessment method.
The matter of priorities in regard to use of the paving
funds was brought up, and Engineer Davis suggested that in
the next budget the funds for -the -paving program be
segregated from the Road & Bridge account and that we work
up to the point.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
20
RESOLUTION NO. 81-105
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE GRADING,
DRAINING, PAVING AND HARD SURFACING OF
14th AVENUE, FROM 7th STREET NORTH TO
8th STREET, DESIGNATED PROJECT NO. 8118;
PROVIDING FOR THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
OF THE PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR THE METHOD
OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS BY THAT PROPERTY
SPECIALLY BENEFITED; PROVIDING FOR THE
NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS OF ASSESS-
MENTS AND PROVIDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OF THE AREA SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that it is necessary for the public welfare
of the citizens of Indian River County, and particularly as to
t -
those living, working and owning property within the area described
in Exhibit "A", that the grading, draining, paving and hard surfac-
ing of 14th Avenue, from 7th Street north to 8th Street, shall
occur; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the total estimated cost
of the proposed improvements is $ 9981.81 and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that 75% of the total cost of
such improvements shall be assessed against the property specially
benefited by the improvements; and
WHEREAS, the legal description of the property specially
benefited by the improvements is contained in Exhibit "A" of this
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the special assessments
shall be collected by the Office of the Tax Collector in two (2)
annual installments with interest established by the Board of
County Commissioners;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
That Project No. 8118, providing for the grading, draining,
paving and hard surfacing of 14th Avenue, from 7th Street north
to 8th Street, is hereby approved subject to the terms outlined
above and the requirements of Ordinance No. 81-27.
k
Attest:
DEC 16 da Wrig t, .0 r'-
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIO')RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
48 PArF3*37
Adopted: December 16, 1981
DEC 161991
LoT)-72- �L. �L,,C.j< 2
1. •f
J+ llEw.l ��/CI�Eti.1T
'h Mansfiele
.t
Cardinal
Wrick
ry i
y Bradbury
Kuryschak .
Malinos
p Ruggiero
r
iy
'i
00
Ej
22
Discussion followed on the proposed interest rate, and
concern was expressed that a 12% rate might encourage people
to use the County instead of a financial institution. It
was also noted that the people seemed agreeable to a payback
period of two years instead of installments over ten years.
After further discussion, it was felt the only
additional action required at this time was to set the date
for the public hearing. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out
that if you exclude legal holidays and Sundays, there is not
sufficient time to set this for= -the first meeting in
January.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher,the Board unanimously authorized
advertisement of a public hearing re the assessment roll for
petition paving of lffth Avenue between 7th and 8th Streets
for the second regular meeting in January.
Discussion continued as to a budget amendment to create
a separate fund for the paving program, and Commissioner
Scurlock requested that staff come back with a
recommendation on the dollars to be set aside for this
purpose and information as to the number of existing
petitions.
MENTAL HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD
John Ashcraft, Executive Director of the Indian River
Community Health Center, reported to the Board that the
Center is in a crisis situation because of the inequitable
allocation of funds made by the District Mental Health
Board, and they will have to close their in-patient unit on
December 31st. He explained that the District allocates
almost seven million in the five county area, and of this,
six million was allocated to Palm Beach County with the four
other counties receiving only one million.
Mr. Ashcraft then discussed the inadequacy of the
alternate program proposed rather than the licensed 15 -bed
psychiatric unit, noting that what is proposed to replace
23
DEC 161991 wK 48 PA"F339
DEC 161991
this program is an unsecured and understaffed office, having
an allowance of a fraction of the funds spent last year for
medicines. He pointed out that the key in dealing with
severely disturbed persons is use of tranquilizers and drugs
so they become manageable and then being able to keep -them
for a sufficient time to stabilize them and have a discharge
planning program. Mr. Ashcraft emphasized the impossibility
of handling the number of people they have to deal with in a
smaller facility with less staff and pointed out that
adequate psychiatric back-up cannot be provided with $36,000
a year. He stated that this is an unreasonable proposal
which will result in inadequate treatment and suggested that
the Board exercise its right to hear the program presented
by the District Mental Health Board.
Chairman Lyons agreed there is no equity in having one
kind of service in Palm Beach County and inferior service in
the other counties. He noted that Sheriff Dobeck also is
very disturbed by this situation since his department
averages about one person a day who needs the services of
this facility. Chairman Lyons reported that he has
contacted State Representative Patchett about this situation
and also has written two letters to the Governor; the
Sheriff is working on this problem through the Sheriff's
Association and he also has called the Governor personally.
Discussion followed on whether to have a resolution or
hear a presentation by the District Board, and Mr. Ashcraft
pointed out that they are closing the unit on December 31st.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested sending notice to the
District Mental Health Board that due to the closing of the
local facility on December 31st, we are going to withhold
any Baker Act funds, and we request they be here on January
6th to make a presentation as to how they are going to
provide these facilities.
On Motion.by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted
24
Resolution 81-106, to be prepared by Attorney Brandenburg,
informing the District Piental Health Board that we do not
feel we are being alloted our fair share of the funding and
notifying them that until we fully understand whether or not
the proposed plan is equivalent to what we are getting now,
we are planning to withhold any Baker Act Funds; signature
of the Chairman was authorized.
SIX MONTH EXTENSION GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN
Planning Director Rever reviewed the following memo:
TO: The Honorable Board of
County Commissioners
FROM: Neil' Nelson
County Administrator
DATE: December 9, 1981 FILE:
SUBJECT:. six month extension Gagliardi
site plan
REFERENCES:
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by
the Board of County Commissioners.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On September 11, 1980, Gene Gagliardi submitted a site plan application to construct
a 7,500 square foot light manufacturing facility. The proposed development is planned
for a 1.06 acre site located between U.S.41 and Old Dixie Highway south of 61st
Street, in the M-1, Restricted Industrial District.
The site plan application received approval (which is for an effective period of one
year) from the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 9, MO. Due to the rise
in commo rcial interest rates, construction aas not started and the site plan approval
expired.
On September 16, 1981 the applicant petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to
extend the period of site plan approval which may be granted only at their discretion.
The Planning and Zoning Department revievied the request and recommended to the County
Commission that the extension be granted for an additional 6 months.
During the course of review, a net, ordinance was adopted which requires all newly
constructed off-street parking areas to be paved. The original site plan provided
for a crushed rock drive, and this would not be permitted under the neer paving
ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE & ANALYSIS
A. Approve the request to extend the period of site plan approval for an additional
b months, providing the applicant agrees to pave the off-street parking area.
B. Deny the request. This action t;ould force the applicant to re -apply for site
plan approval. The apr, l i cati or 1vo,.ild c_,^".1y with all applicable Zoning ordinances.
DEC 16 1981 25 BOOK 48 PAcF-34
L
r I
DEC 1619 1 820K 48 PASJ42
RECOMI-IENDATIObi
Staff has reviewed this request and recommends that the site plan extension be
granted for an additional six months, provided that the applicant meets the criteria
specified in the Paving Ordinance (Ordinance #81-36). Staff also recommends that
no further extension be granted unless the c;iner can demonstrate that extreme cir-
cumstances prevent starting of construction.
Discussion followed, and it was noted that this is the
first extension requested.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the Board can require the
applicant to meet the new paving requirements, and Attorney
Collins noted that the time period on the applicant's site
plan already has expired, and he did not feel they are in
any position to argue.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know why the staff is
recommending extension, and Mr. Rever explained that the
proposal is one that does not cause any adverse effect, and
it is the same except for the new paving requirement.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that this will
require additional services and additional staff time, and
he felt there should be some additional fee.
Planning Director Rever reported that they now are
looking into adjusting all their charges and are giving
consideration to such a fee.
Motion was made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, to deny the request for extension.
Commissioner Bird noted that he probably would vote
against the Motion because Mr. Gagliardi will have to come
back in, and this will also be an additional burden on
staff. He stated that he really did not have any problem
with the request as long as the applicant agrees to bring
his site plan up to current requirements.
Chairman Lyons suggested that possibly the Board should
vote this Motion down and table the matter until Mr.
Gagliardi can be present.
26
Commissioner Scurlock withdrew his Motion and
Commissioner Fletcher withdrew his second.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously tabled the.request
for extension of the Gagliardi site plan until the next
meeting.
RESOLUTION 81-107 - EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Chairman Lyons had some question regarding the
representation recommended for the Emergency Medical
Services Advisory Committee, which he felt might be a little
lopsided and suggested that instead Sheriff Dobeck by the
spokesman for all law enforcement agencies and Chief Smith
the representative for all the fire districts and fire
rescue in the county.
Discussion followed as to having representation for
each provider of services, and Commissioner Scurlock raised
a question about the hospitals having one representative.
He preferred the Resolution as it was proposed.
Commissioner Fletcher pointed out with regard to the
North County, that the Sebastian Volunteer Fire Department
and Ambulance Squad are all part of one family. 'It was
agreed that this should read Sebastian Volunteer Fire and
Ambulance Squad.
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded_by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 81-107 as presented with Sebastian Volunteer
Squad being corrected to read Sebastian Volunteer Fire and
Ambulance Squad.
DEC 161991 27 600K 48 PAv.
343
L -.A
FF__ -1
EC 161991 rpA,
RESOLUTION NO. 81-107
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, in order to properly evaluate the need, com-
munity support and medical necessity for an EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES PROGRAM hereby establishes an advisory committee as
hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Committee shall be known as the "INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE"; and
WHEREAS, the COMMITTEE shall meet from time to time at the
call of the Chairman for the purpose of evaluating all of the
alternatives concerning an EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PROGRAM
and making recommendations to the Board as to the need, format
and desirability for an EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PROGRAM
within Indian River County, Florida;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that there is
hereby established the "INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE", hereinafter referred to as
"COMMITTEE", which COMMITTEE shall be made up of nine (9)
voting members, with one member from each of the following
areas:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE SQUAD;
FIRE AND
SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER/AMBULANCE SQUAD;
INDIAN RIVER SHORES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY;
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT;
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL;
SEBASTIAN RIVER MEDICAL CENTER;
SOUTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT;
INTERIM EMERGENCY MEDICAL CENTER DIRECTOR, who shall be
a physician;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that each of the nine (9) areas above
above stated shall recommend to the Board of County Commissioners
a representative and the Board, by Resolution, shall appoint
individuals to serve on the COMMITTEE, taking into consideration
the recommendations provided. The County Commission Representative
shall serve as Chairman of the COMMITTEE. The COMMITTEE may
establish its own rules and regulations, shall hold public
meetings and shall make periodic reports with recommendations to
the Board of County Commissioners. The goal of the COMMITTEE
shall be to review the need and necessity for an EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES PROGRAM within Indian River County;, and, if
the need is determined, then the COMMITTEE shall consider
different alternatives and methods of providing the Program to
the Community. Additionally, the COMMITTEE shall consider
sources of funding, adequacy of existing programs and community
support for the various alternatives proposed; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the COMMITTEE shall prepare a
final report to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners
prior to commencement of budget review for the fiscal year
1982-1983. The COMMITTEE shall draw from the expertise of the
COMMITTEE Members and such additional advisory personnel as the
COMMITTEE shall deem necessary to formulate recommendations to
the Board; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the prior EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES ADVISORY COY24ITTEE established May 7, 1975 is hereby
disbanded and relieved of further responsibilities.
Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 16th
day of
December , 1981.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDI IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By JSiC�- A
Patrick B. Lyon�`sfCllairman
Qj
Attest:
'";"' a), ikkI
Freda Wright, C1 k
DEC 161981 48 PdcF-345
'OEc 1619B1
a
6.9:Q1( , na,
AUTHORIZATION FOR DRAFT OF CABLE TV LICENSE ORDINANCE
The Board reviewed the following memo from Attorney
Brandenburg:
TO: Pat Lyons, Chairman, and the DATE: December 8, 1981 FILE:
Members of the Board of County Commissioners
SU'RJE__CT: Request for authorization for
the County Attorney to prepare
a draft of an Indian River CATV
License Ordinance
FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg !REFERENCES:
County Attorney (r
I have reviewed the current licensing practice of Indian River County
with respect to cable T.V. franchises and recommend that the County Commission
consider adoption of a uniform licensing ordinance which would be applicable
to all current license holders as well as any possible future service providers
in the County. 'Within this ordinance current practices and procedures can be
codified and strenghtened. The ordinance can serve as the vehicle to address
issues such as;
1. Procedures for establishing and modifying rate and installation schedules.
2. License fees.
3. Channel and performance requirements
4. Consumer complaint handling.
5. Master planning for expansion of systems, etc.
In the past the County -has adopted resolutions granting permits for the
operation of the services in the County, each service being treated individually.
A uniform ordinance would serve as the basic instrument underwhich all future
proposals would be gauged.
If the County Commission desires to consider such a uniform ordinance,
this writer will prepare and present the draft in the near future.
GMB: ms
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized
Attorney Brandenburg to prepare a draft of an Indian River
County Cable TV License Ordinance.
PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS
The Board reviewed memo from Attorney Brandenburg,
dated December 8, 1981, and attached documents, as follows:
30
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
INTER — OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Pat Lyons, Chairman and Members DATE: December 8, 1981 FILE:
of the Board of County Corramissioners
SUBJECT: Procedure for processing
Industrial Revenue Bonds
FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg REFERENCES:
County Attorney
Attached to this memorandum you will find a proposed questionnaire for
use in the processing of Industrial Revenue Development Bonds. I would
recommend that the County adopt this questionnaire for use by all future
applicants.
The processing of an Industrial Revenue Bond requires the expenditure
of many man hours of administrative as well as legal time, which if the
applicant is successful, inures to the benefit of the applicant. To more
equitably distribute the cost of staff time involved, this writer would
recommend the imposition of an administrative fee. The fee structure could
be established as follows;
1. The initial application fee - (suggested - $1,000) the purpose of this
fee is to offset the cost to the County of the initial staff time involved
with review of the application.
2. An issuing fee - (suggested at .5'' of amount of issue; maximum fee $10,000)
if the applicant is successful and the County proceeds to the sale of Bonds,
the County will devote a great deal of time analyzing the project. Additional
monitoring is always required after the sale of the Bonds.
DISTRIBUTION:
Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator
David L. Greene, Assistant County Administrator
C. B. Hardin, Jr., Assistant to the Administrator/Personnel Director
Respectfully subnii tttied,
Gari M. Brandenbur
Co�inty Attorney
GMB:ms
Attachments
31
DEC 16
1991 em 48
DEC 161981 _ "PDX
All applicants inust complete the follo�'%,inn questionnaire and provide
the County with the additional information as listed at the end of the
questionnaire.
1. Name, address, and telephone number of entity that will lease or purchase
the project (or borrow the bond proceeds) from the bond issuer:
This entity is referred to as the "principal user" of the project for
the remainder of this questionnaire.
Name, title, address, and telephone number of persons working on the
financing for the principal user:
2. Form of organization of principal user (check one): corporation
partnership sole proprietorship.
Is the principal user related to any other organization by more than
50% common ownership? If so, indicate name of related organization
and relationship.
3. Ownership: List all stockholders or partners having 100' or more
interest in the principal user.
4. If any of the above persons own more than 50:" of the principal user,
list all other organizations which are related to the principal user
by virtue of such persons having more than a 50% interest in such
organizations.
5. Location of the project: City Unincorporated Area
Street Address (name)-' (if applicable) State
6. Project site (land)
(a) Indicate approximate size (in acres or square feet) of project site.
(b) Are there buildings now on the project site? _yes _ no.
(c) Indicate the present use of the project site.
(d) Indicate present e:,m er of project site.
32
_ M
M* M M
7. If the principal user no,..,, owns the uroject site, indicate:
(a) date of purchase
(b) purchase price
(c) balance of existing mortgage
(d) holder of mortgage
8. If the principal user is not now the owner of the project site, does the
principal user have an option to purchase the site and any buildings on
the site? If yes, indicate:
(a)
�bj
Date option agreement signed with owner
purchase price under option
expiration date of option
9. Has the principal user entered into a contract to purchase the site?
If yes, indicate:
(a) date signed
(b) purchase price
(c) settlement date
10. If the principal user is not the owner of project site, does the principal
user noir lease the site or any buildings on the site?
11. Is there a relationship legally or by virtue of common control or ownershiN
between the principal user and the seller/lessor of the project site? If yt ;
describe this relationship:
12. Does the project involve acquisition of an existing building or buildings?
If yes, indicate number and size of buildings:
13. Does the project consist of the construction of a new building or buildings?
If yes, indicate number and size of new buildings:
14. Does the project consist of additions and/or renovations to existing
buildings? If yes, indicate nature of expansion and/or renovation:.
15. What will be the use of the building or buildings to be acquired, con-
structed or expanded by the principal user for this project?
DEC 161981 33 BOOK 48 -PAU 349
DEC 16 198
16. If any space in the project is to be leased to third parties, indicate
total square footage of the project, amount to be leased to each tenant,
and proposed use by each tenant.
17. Has
construction work
on this project
begun?
If yes, complete the
' fol lo��ing:
(a)
site clearance_,yes
no
°0
complete
(b)
foundation_,yes
no
;S
complete
(c)
footings
no
%
complete
(d)
(e)
steel_yes
__yes
no
_ °/
complete
(f)
masonry work
other (describe
_yes
yes
no
no
complete
complete
below)
18. List principal items or categories of equipment to be acquired as part of
the project:
19. Has any of the above equipment been ordered or purchased? If yes,
indicate:
Item Date Ordered Delivery Date Price
20. List any Bonds, the proceeds of which were spent in Indian River County
on behalf of or for the benefit of the principal user.
Date of Issue Original Face Current Outstanding
21. State the proposed uses of bond proceeds:
Description of Cost
Land
Buildings
Equipment
Engineering
Architecture
Interest during construction
Bond discount
Cost of financing
Other (please explain)
Face amount of issue
34
Amount
5
S
M
- M M
22. Have any of the above expenditures already been made.by the appiicant?
If yes, indicate particulars:
23. Have any of the above expenditures been incurred but not paid by the
principal user? If yes, indicate particulars:
24. Are costs of working capital, moving expenses, work in process, or stock
in trade included in the proposed uses of bond proceeds?
25. Will any of the funds to be borrowed through the County be used to repay
or refinance an existing mortgage or outstanding loan?
26. Do any of said employees require specialized training or skills to qualify
for said employment? If so, please indicate whether or not training
programs will be instituted or whether or not local technical and vocational
education can provide such training.
27. Please indicate utility needs, i.e., electrical, water, and sewer. Include
quantity and character of said needs.
28. Does the project produce emissions through stacks or chimneys which would
subject it to the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation?
f
29. Does the project produce sewage, industrial effluent, or discharge of an
unusual character requiring specialized treatment?
DEC 161981 35 am $ PAcE3n
r
DEC 1619$
Date
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
A. D. 19
Notary Public
State of Florida at Large
My commission expires
6
Authorized Company Officer
36
day of
M
e
All questionnaires must be accompanied by the following additional
information.
I. Specific amount of U.S. dollars being requested to be raised by
issuance of industrial Development Bonds.
2. A brief description of the company, its history operations.
3. A specific statement of the use to which bond proceeds will be put.
A complete project budget including, as applicable, a breakdown of
building costs, equipment costs, land acquisition costs, and all
other fees.
4. A statement indicating the applicant's estimate of company performances
as a result of new investment made possible by Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, including new employment or existing employment to be
preserved.
5. A statement of the contribution the project will make to the local
economy, expected economic impact of the project including such items
as existing employment, new jobs to be created, amount of local purchases
for operation of the project, increase in the property tax base of the
County, new capital investments, and socio-economic impact on the local
area.
6. A statement indicating the proposed security and guarantors of the bonds.
7. A statement as to the proposed method of sale of the bonds.
8. An applicant (including parent or subsidiary) must include conventional
financing statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principals for the immediate three preceding years and audited
by an•independent Certified Public Accountant. An audited statement is
required for the latest fiscal year prior to the closing on the bond sale.
Information should be available concerning outstanding debts, earnings
history and copies of annual reports or of Form 10-K filed with the
Securities & Exchange Commission, if applicable.
In addition to the above standard financial statements the applicant must
submit special supporting statements prepared by a certified public accountant
for the three immediately preceding fiscal years as follows:
(a) A statement, by year, of cash receipts and disbursements.
(b) A statement, by year, of financing activities.
9. Names, addresses, and phone numbers of the parties to the application
when appropriate, eg. Commercial Banks, Financial Advisor, Underwriter,
General Counsel, etc.
10. Evidence indicating that the proposed project will be used by an entity
which is financially responsible and fully capable and willing to fulfill
its obligations under agreements with Indian River County including the
obligation to pay lease or installment payments in the amounts and at
times required.; the obligation to operate, repair and maintain the
project at its own expense; the obligation to serve the purposes of the
Florida Industrial Development Financing Act; and such other responsibilities
as may be imposed under the agreements executed in connection with the issuance
of the Bonds.
11. The applicant will furnish sufficient information to allow Indian River County
to determine if local government will be able to cope satisfactorily with the
impact of the project and will be able to provide, or cause to be provided when
needed, the public facilities, including utilities and public services, that
will be necessary for the construction, operation, repair, and maintenance of
the project or due to any increases in population or other circumstances
resulting from' the project. The applicant must also show that the project
meets all applicable codes and zoning regulations of Indian River County
All applications should be returned to Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator,
2345 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (305-562-4186), together with a
cashiers check for,the administrative fee as established by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County.
37 BOOK 48 PAGF353
DEC 161981
J
DECON R'A
EG 161981
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously adopted the
items as outlined by Attorney Brandenburg in his memo of
December 8, 1981, establishing an application fee of $1,000
and an issuing fee of 5% of the amount of issue with a
maximum of $10,000, and approved the application form
attached thereto.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that he had been given
to understand that industrial revenue bonds can be issued
outside the county for development in adjoining counties,
and he would like to have this researched.
Attorney Brandenburg believed some such issued have
been validated, but believed they have been located nearby
and would affect the neighboring county. He stated that he
will look into this.
PROCEDURE FOR ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
Attorney Brandenburg noted that the Board previously
had set an evening meeting on January 6th for adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan. He felt there are several
alternatives and recommended that the Board consider
adoption of the Land Use Element only at the Regular Meeting
of January 6th at 3:00 P.M.; then the remaining elements
would be reworked and the Plan would be readopted as a
complete package in the later part of March. He explained
that he was suggesting that the Board adopt the Land'Use
Element in essentially its final form; and if the Board
wished to include the Land Use Element again in the March
hearing on the final form, they could do so. He pointed out
that adoption of the Land Use Element would remove reliance
on moratoriums.
Commissioner Bird asked if the Attorney meant that in
March the Board should go back through the two mandatory
hearings, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that th/e Board
could have two hearing after 5:00 P.M. or could designate
one hearing to be held by the local Planning & Zoning
Commission.
Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern about rewriting
the other elements which will tell how the Land Use.Elements
will be carried out, and it was noted that once you approve
the Land Use Element, you make sure the other elements are
consistent.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if in March the Board will
have an opportunity to adjust the Land Use Element, and
Planning Director Rever stated that they could consider some
refinements to the Plan at that time, but he believed the
plans around the state almost immediately go to review,
which provides a chance to see how the Plan works for a
short time.
Chairman Lyons felt adopting the Land Use Element as
quickly as possible will provide us with some stability.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously agreed to adopt
the procedure for adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan as presented by Attorney Brandenburg, i.e., by
considering an ordinance adopting the Land Use Element on
January 6th, 1982, in the new County Administration
Building.
Attorney Tom Palmer asked when the public will be able
to obtain a draft of the finalized version of the Land Use
Element, and he was told it would be available Friday. Mr.
Palmer wished to know what the procedure would be if someone
makes comments that convince the Board to make a change in
the Plan, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that the Plan
can be adopted subject to those changes.
COMMENDATION TO ATTORNEY COLLINS
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
81-103 commending Attorney Collins for his years of service
to the County.
39 WX 40' Fw,355
DEC 161981
DEC 161991 48 PAcF356
Chairman Lyons expressed his enjoyment of his
association with Attorney Collins. He then read aloud
Resolution 81-108 and presented it to Attorney Collins.
40
M
RESOLUTION NO. 81-103
OF
GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR.
WHEREAS, on December 18, 1974, Indian River County's former
legal advisor became ill and GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR. began advising
the Board of County Commissioners on all legal matters; and
WHEREAS, GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR. was appointed County
Attorney on February 4, 1976, and has served the Board of County
Commissioners and the citizenry of Indian River County, in an
exemplary manner to date; and
WHEREAS, during the tenure of his office, GEORGE G. COLLINS,
JR. has given of his time and knowledge, his dedication, his
allegiance and loyalty in a manner far above and beyond that
called for by public servants; and
WHEREAS, as County Attorney he has guided Indian River
County through a maze of legal intricacies that has grown in
complexity over the years; and
WHEREAS, GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR. has contributed to the
development of the community to the benefit of all of its citizens
in such a manner that his efforts will forever be a part of Indian
River County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, sitting in Regular
Session this 16th day of December, 1981, that the Board commend
GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR. for his excellent service to the County for
the past seven years; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board express and extend to
GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR. the County's sincere appreciation and best
wishes for all his future endeavors.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMIISSIONERS
OF AN• RIVER COU Y, FLORIDA
eh�ai�rman�,Paattriyons
Vice�Chairma-ri, William dtke,Jr.
ssioner A.
Commissioner
ATTEST:
Freda Wright, Cle
DEC 161991 41
ck Bi
ck, Jr.
etcher
F®DK 48 Pa T 357
DEC 161981
Former County Commissioners Alma Lee Loy and Willard
Siebert, Jr., were present, and echoed the Chairman's
sentiments. Miss Loy made a short speech of appreciation of
Attorney Collins many services to the County over the years.
Attorney Collins thanked the Board for their comments
and complimented the Board on their selection of Gary
Brandenburg as the new County Attorney. He made a short
speech noting that he did not believe the community realizes
or gives credit to the leadership they have for the untold
hours the Commissioners spend in trying to resolve their
problems. Attorney Collins also believed at this juncture,
in order for government to function more effectively in the
future, that the Commission should give further
consideration to Charter Government. He felt county
government would be better served if the Commission could
streamline it and control it to meet the public
expectations.
The Board thereupon recessed at 12:00 Noon for lunch
and reconvened at 1:40 o'clock P.M. with the same members
present.
REZONING TO C -1A AS REQUESTED BY FIRST CITRUS BANKERS
The hour of 1:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
42
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/�_GLL�
in the matter of )J�n- 1F7 —57-,
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of A1,61, 1, I-.2/ , IF41
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
(SEAL)
h4l"_y�
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River
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 situated
on the SOUTH SIDE of SR 60 approximately
.15 MILES EAST of 82nd AVENUE, in Indian
River County, Florida and described as
follows":
The north 2.24 acres of the west 5 acres of the
east 15 acres of Tract 12, Section 1, Township
33 south. Range 38 east, as shown on the Plat of
Indian River Farms Company, recorded in
Plat Book 2, Page 25, St. Lucie County,
Florida, said land now lying and being in In-
dian River County, Florida.
Be rezoned from R-3 Multiple -Family
District to CAA Restricted Commercial.
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, December 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
Nov. 17, 21, 1981.
f
Planning Director Rever reviewed the following staff
report:
TO: Honorable Board of
County Commissioners
FROM: Neil Nelson
County Administrator
DATE: November 17, 1981- FILE: IRC-III-ZC-23 'L.,
T.
SUBJECT: First Bankers of Indian River County
zoning change request from R-3, Multi -
Family to C -1A, Restricted Commercial
REFERENCES:
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by
the County Commissioners in the form of a public hearing on December 16, 1981.
DEC 16 1901 43 @BOK 8 PAcF359
Description and Conditions
BOOK 48P�
The applicant is requesting that approximately 1/2 of a five acre parcel of land be
rezoned from R-3, Multi -Family Residential to C -1A, Restricted Commercial. The other
1/2 is currently zoned A -Agricultural. The site is located on the south side of
State Road 60, approximately 600 feet of 82nd Avenue. The configuration of the portion
of the property to be rezoned is long and narrow (approximately 165' X 600').
Currently a vacant single family house lies on the otherwise wooded site. Greenbrier
Subdivision is located approximately 1,000 feet east of the site, and Ranchland 1,1,obile
Home Park is situated on the northwest corner of 82nd Avenue and State Road 60. East-
ward from 82nd Avenue, other than the Ranchland hIobile Home Park and an approximately
10 acre agricultural parcel, all property in the area fronting State Road 60 is zoned -
either C-1, Commercial or B-1, Planned Business District.
This strip, which extends beyond Interstate 95, contains approximately 400 acres of
Commercially zoned property and approximately 180 acres of Planned Business District,
much of which is undeveloped. There is also a C -1A, Restricted Commercial lot on
the southeast corner of 82nd Avenue and State Road 60 with an adjoining B-1, Planned
Business District to the east and south. Currently the commercial property is
developed, and the Planned Business District is vacant.
Alternatives and Analysis
A) Recommend approval of the rezoning request. Under this alternative, the R-3,
Multi-Family_(15 units/acre) district would be divided, temporarily creating a
spot zoning. The existing R-3 zoning, however, is not the most appropriate use
for this immediate area. The existing Zippy Mart is located approximately 400
feet from the subject property. Because of its proximity to the Ranch Road/
State Road 60 intersection, and its frontage on a major corridor (State Road 60),
this location is ideally suited for neighborhood commercial uses. Further, due
to two rezonings, Aristek Properties from R-1PM to R -IMP (8.7 units/acre) and
Village Green Mobile Home Park from A -Agricultural (1 unit/5 acres) to R -1114P
(8.7 units/acre), over 1,100 mobile home residences are potentially committed
to this area.
Under the proposed Comprehensive Plan, much of the 580 existing undeveloped
acres of corri:ercial zoning would be eliminated. Approval of this 'rezoning, com-
bined with a County initiated rezoning of the westerly portion of the R-3 distrc,
(600 feet in depth) would connect the Zippy Mart property and the subject pro-
perty into a unified corinercial district.
B) Deny the request for rezoning of the property to C -1A, Restricted Commercial.
This site lies in an area which has a substantial amount of commercial and
business zoning, much of which is currently undeveloped.
Recommendation
A) Recommend approval of the rezoning request for the portion of the property zoned
R-3, IMulti-Family Residential to C -1A, Restricted Commercial. The Planning and
Zoning Commission unanimously approved this recommendation in the public hearing
of October 22, 1981.
B) Recommend that the County Commission initiate rezoning of the R-3, Multi -Family
property immediately west of the subject property to C -1A, Restricted Commercial.
This additional recommendation is proposed by Planning staff.
Mr. Rever explained that if the Board would initiate
rezoning of the R-3 property immediately to the west of the
subject property to C-lA, it would provide an 8 acre
commercial neighborhood node as anticipated in the
44
Comprehensive Plan and make this a unified area rather than
creating spot zoning.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Attorney Jackson representing First Citrus Bankers
commented that if the property to the west remained R-3, it
could present a problem as to traffic congestion and
rezoning it to C-lA would solve that problem.
Angelo Sanchez, President of First Citrus Bank,
commented that the facility they are proposing would be a
mini facility with drive-in lines; applications are now on
file with the State Comptroller's Office and the FDIC, and
they anticipate approval shortly, at which time they will
start the process for construction. They are hoping to be
operational by the third quarter of next year. This
facility is needed to relieve the traffic situation at the
Westside Banking center.
Planning Director Rever commented that he has seen a
preliminary projection; it is a very small facility, and he
believed there is enough land for ingress and egress without
traffic problems.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public
hearing.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance
81-42 rezoning the advertised property from R-3 to C-lA as
requested by First Citrus Bankers.
DEC 161981 45 BOOK 48 PAGE 361
890K 8 FnE-36
DEC 161991
ORDINANCE NO. 81-42
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
6
River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent
to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which patties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian
River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended
as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in Indian
River County, Florida, to -wit:
The north 2.24 acres of the west 5 acres of the east
15 acres of Tract 12, Section 1, Township 33 south,
Range 38 east, as shown on the Plat of Indian River
Farms Company, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25,
St. Lucie County, Florida, said land now lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida.
Be rezoned from R-3 Multiple -Family District to C-lA
Restricted Commercial.
All within the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall'take effect December 21, 1981.
Discussion followed in regard to initiating rezoning of
the R-3 property to the west as recommended, and
Commissioner Scurlock stated he had no problem with this,
but felt we should at least touch base with the people
concerned.
Commissioner Vlodtke pointed out that if that 8 acre
node went through, there would be no other location at that
intersection for further commercial.
Planning Director Rever pointed out that if the demand
arose at some later date, this possibly could be
redesignated as a major node.
46
The Chairman instructed the Planning Director to
contact the owners of the R-3 property in question in regard
to pursuing the rezoning of their property to C-lA and come
back with a staff report.
0
REZONING MARSH ISLAND PROPERTY FROM C-1 to R -2A (ROGERS)
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:
VEILO 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 - ZL&',
in the matter of
% in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 9& 2
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 Y7 1/__6_A -D.
6
(Busi ss a ager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Riv ounty, Florida)
(SEAL)
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 situated
In Indian River County, to -wit:
Land located on WABASSO ISLAND, LYING
NORTHERLY AND ADJACENT TO STATE,
ROAD NO. 510 and described as follows:
A parted of land on WASASSO ISLAND
being a part of Government Lot 4, Section 27,
Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying
northerly and adjacent to State Road No. 510,
in Indian River County, Florida, being more
particularly described as follows:
Commence at the Northeast corner of said
Section 27, thence due West 823.34 feet, thence
South 52 degrees 15' West 1950.39 feet to the
point of beginning, thence continue South 52
degrees 15' West 1089.51 feet, thence North 7
degrees S3' 51" West 216.53 feet, thence North 4
degrees 08' 54" West 375.52 feet, thence North
33 degrees 37' 27" West 157.50 feet, thence -
North 13 degrees 35' 31" East 107.44 feet,
thence North 48 degrees 45' 11" West 254.17
feet, thence North 22 degrees 28' 51" West
251.16 feet, thence North 5 degrees 16.51" West
204 feet, thence South 89 degrees 20' 29" West
23.38 feet, thence North 52 degrees 0014111 West
83:19 feet, thence North 22 degrees 59' 53" West
95.41 feet, thence North 38 degrees 03' 06" East
126.94 feet, thence North 52 degrees 10'30"
East 304.55 feet, thence North 60 degrees 13'
52" East 88.39 feet, thence South 72 degrees 07'
0111 East 60.21 feet, thence South 77 degrees 00'
28" East 59.25 feet, thence South 50 degrees 30'
08" East 190 feet, thence South 49 degrees 14'
35" East 166.33 feet, thence South 1 degree 05'
26" East 55.24 feet, thence South 65 degrees 58'
18" East_89J2 feet, thence South 24 degrees 001'
55" East 59.80 feet, thence South 52 degrees 29'
16" East 63.75 feet, thence South 21 degrees 57'
20" East 157.80 feet, thence South 49 degrees
05' 50" East 156.81 feet, thence South 87
degrees 57149" East 95.14 feet, thence South 29
degrees 58' 00" East 137.48 feet, thence South
61 degrees 20' 51" East 88.68 feet, thence North
71- degrees 23' 28" East .137.30 feet, thence
South 30 degrees 00' 00" East 15 feet, thence i
South 58 degrees 41' 13" West 193.78 feet,
thence South 11 degrees 00' 20" East 95.19 feet,
thence South 13 degrees 14' 52" East 58.02 feet,
thence South 13 degrees 51'0611 East 140.47 feet
to the point of beginning.
Less, however, that part of right-of-way of
State Road No. 510 lying within the
aforedescribed parcel.
Be rezoned from C-1 Commercial District to
R -2A Multiple -Family District.
A public hearing in relation thereto at which
parties in interest and citizens shall have an
opportunity to be heard, will be held by said.
Board of County Commissioners in the Council
Chamber of the City Hall, Vero Beach,
Florida, on Wednesday, December 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
Nov.'22, 29, 1981.
47
DEC 161981 BQ09 8 PArF 363
r
DEC 16198
sm 48 w364 I
Planning Director Rever reviewed the following staff
memo:
TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: December 3, 1931 FILE: IRC-8I-ZC-20
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Doyle Rogers' request to rezone Marsh
island from C-2,Commercial to R -2A,
Multi -Family Residential (4 units/acre).
FROM: Neil Nels04�� � REFERENCES:
County Administrator
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the
Board of County Commissioners in the form of a public hearing on December 16, 1981.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The applicant is requesting that 27 _F acres of land be rezoned from C-1, Commercial
to R -2A, Multi -Family Residential (4 units/acre). The subject property commonly knot -in
as Marsh Island, is the section of Wabasso Island which lies north of State Road 510.
To the south of State Road 510, the remainder of Wabasso Island, is zoned R -1A, Single
Family Residential (4.3 units/acre). The only surrounding property owners within 300
feet are Indian River County and the Florida Department of Transportation, and noti-
fication of rezoning action is not required.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as LD -1 (3units/acre
maximum). This land use classification does not specify single or multi -family
development and, therefore, cluster housing would not be restricted by the Plan.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
A) Approve the request to rezone the property from C-1, Commercial to R -2A, Multi -
Family Residential (4 units/acre).
109
The P, -2A zoning would allow a maximum of approximately +94 units to be developed
on Marsh Island. Evaluation by the County Traffic Engineer and Public Works
Director indicate no significant traffic problems would occur as a result of this
development. If proper mitigation measures are taken, problems of providing
water and sewer services and damaging the surrounding environment can be minimized.
Residential rather than the more intensive Commercial zoning would be a positive
step in protecting the sensitive areas of the island.
The existing Land Use Plan designates the uplands of Marsh Island as "medium
density" and the areas beyond the mangrove line, as shown in the applicant's
survey, as environmentally sensitive. Section 17 1/2 - 8 (2) of the Indian River
County Code of Laws and Ordinances states "medium density shall mean more
than four (4) units per acre, but less than twelve (12) units per acre.
The character of the development in the Orchid Island Subdivision, to the south
of the subject property, is low density single family home sites. The zoning
is R -1A, Single Family Residential (4.3 units/acre); however, the effective
density of the 13 + acre subdivision is approximately 2.6 units/acre. The
State Road 510 bridge and a County owned expanse of wooded, undeveloped land
provide an adequate buffer between the existing and proposed uses of the island.
::
If this alternative is selected, a conflict between the zoning and the proposed
Comprehensive Plan would be created. In order to resolve this conflict a new
land use designation would need to be assigned to Marsh Island. The LD -2 (6
unit/acre) classification would accommodate a zoning of 4 units/acre as requested
for the subject property.
B) Deny the rezoning request, leaving the property zoned C-1, Commercial.
Commercial development of Marsh Island is not an appropriate land use and [nay
create a similar or greater problems than would a multi -family development at
4 units/acre. If this alternative is selected, and the proposed Comprehensive
Plan is adopted, a rezoning action will be necessary in order for the zoning to
be consistent oiith the new land use designation.
RECOMMENDATION
Development of an area such as riarsh Island should be at as low of a density as
feasible. Due to the clustering effect of multi -family development, in many cases
there is less impact and disturbance of land than would occur in similar density,
single family developments. The site plan approval process also applies to multi-
family developments where single family homes are exempt. Additional review and
study of this amended request for rezoning has led to staff's concurrence to recom-
mend approval of the rezoning of Marsh Island to R -2A, Multi -Family Residential.
The Planning and Zoning Commission by a 3 to 2 vote approved this recommendation
in the public hearing of October 22, 1981.
Commissioner Fletcher wished to know what was meant
under Alternative A by "proper mitigation measures."
Mr. Rever stated that he has discussed this with the
engineers and Health Department and believes that going
through the proper permitting would take care of any
problems.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if, as a Planner, Mr. Rever
felt comfortable in setting density first and working out
services and resources later.
Mr. Rever stated that is not the best of all possible
worlds, but we are dealing with a commercial entity, which
would have to rely on these services and obviously would
want them right. He felt it would be a far better situation
than leaving the property C-1.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the R -2A zoning
would allow 109 units rather than 190, which apparently is a
typographical error.
Doyle Rogers, Trustee, and applicant, confirmed that
the number of units would be 109 and informed the Board that
DEC 16 198 1 49 MOK
48 mv-365
URK PA
DEC 161991
their architect and planner were present to briefly review
their proposed site plan.
Chairman Lyons noted that unless the Commission asked
for such a review, it is not necessary for the purpose of
rezoning; the question to be addressed is whether the
Commission will allow a density of 4 units per acre or not.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if Attorney Brandenburg has
had an opportunity to look at the dedication of restrictive
covenants submitted.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that the R -2A zoning
provides assurance that the property cannot be developed at
anything more than four units per acre, and in addition, the
owner has provided a dedication voluntarily stating that
they will not have anything more than four units per acre.
If the property was ever sold and an attempt was made to
develop at a higher density, that applicant would have to
come before the Board. Once the dedication is placed on the
property, it could be released by a future Commission, but
it would be an additional step a future owner would have to
take.
Chairman Lyons asked if the matter of getting the
• restrictive covenant is property tied in with rezoning, and
Attorney Brandenburg answered.that the Board cannot require
someone to enter into such a dedication, but in this case,
the applicant has volunteered; it is not a contract zoning
situation.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Commissioner Fletcher wished to know if the home owners
on Orchid Isle were notified of the hearing, and Mr. Rogers
stated that he had met with the property owners of Orchid
Isle and they were aware of today's meeting.
Robert Reider spoke in behalf of the Vero Beach Civic
Association and read a resolution opposing any zoning being
granted to Marsh Island which would create future problems
50
relating to water and sewer. It was pointed out that Marsh
Island is,a spoil bank and does not have good percolation,
and therefore, believed that a package sewer plant would
malfunction; the availability of potable water also was
questioned. Mr. Reider felt the Commission should obtain
disclaimers as to sewer and water and further requested that
the same evaluation procedure be used in the future in
similar situations so a situation such as the Pebble Bay
problem would not reoccur.
Chairman Lyons wished to make the record clear as to
Pebble Bay Sewer Plant - it is not inoperative; it is a
plant that was improperly constructed and improperly
maintained, and the cost that is arising is to make it work
as it should have in the first place.
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public
hearing.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, to adopt Ordinance 81-43 granting the
rezoning to R -2A as recommended by the Planning Department
and the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that his concern all along
was not to vote for anything over 4 units on this property.
He pointed out that concerns re waste water and ingress and
egress all have to be addressed at a later stage and assumed
that part of the Motion is an acceptance of the restrictive
covenants.
Attorney Brandenburg suggested that the representatives
of the project voluntarily indicate on the record that they
are offering the declaration of restriction freely and will
have it executed in a form acceptable to the Attorney's
office within the next few days.
Mr. Rogers inquired if this could be held in escrow.
Discussion ensued as to the fact that this area currently
exists as
LD -1 on the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan,
and in
DEC 16
198,
51
BOOK
48 PnF 367
8,x
order for Mr. Rogers' group to be able to develop at the new
zoning, this would have to be modified to LD -2 at the
January.6th hearing. It was suggested that Mr. Rogers be
present at the January 6th hearing and request that the
Board consider this matter at that time.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that the Commission cannot
give any guarantees in regard to the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan and asked Mr. Rogers if he was freely volunteering the
restrictive covenant.
Mr. Rogers stated that he was because he trusted this
Board to treat him fairly.
Commissioner Fletcher brought up the fact that there is
a residential development on the south side of Orchid Island
which has a density of 2.6 and that the people living there
are dependent on their individual septic tanks and wells.
He noted that when the C-1 zoning originally was granted,
the County had no idea of its limited water resources.
Commissioner Fletcher continued that although he did not
wish to place Mr. Rogers and his associates in a bad
financial situation, his responsibility as a Commissioner to
make sure the resources of this county are used to the best
interests of those presently living here, necessitated that
he suggest the Rogers' property be rezoned to R-lA and
developed with single septic tanks and wells the same as the
property to the south.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that this would result in
about 54 deep wells rather than one large one, and noted
that we have already had experts testify that multi- family
developments use less water per capita.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he also had specific
concerns re water, but the discussions he has had seem to
indicate that this development possibly could provide water
to alleviate problems for the rest of the island. He noted,
however, that this is not our concern at this point.
52
� � r
M
Chairman Lyons reminded the Board that this property is
presently zoned for 15 units per acre, and the question is
whether we should rezone it to allow 4.
The Chairman called for the question to adopt Ordinance
81-43. It was voted on and carried four to one with
Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition.
.
53
BOOK
8 rAcF 369
DEC, 61981 89% 48 F. ,f 370
ORDINANCE NO. 81-43
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent
to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian
River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended
as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in Indian
River County, Florida, t6 -wit:
A parcel of land on WABASSO ISLAND being a part of
Government Lot 4, Section 27, Township 31 South, Range
39 East, lying northerly and adjacent to State Road
No. 510, in Indian River County, Florida, being more
particularly described as follows:
Commence at the Northeast corner of said Section 27,
thence due West 823.34 feet, thence South 52015' West
1950.39 feet to the point of beginning, thence continue
South 52015' West 1089.51 feet, thence North 7053'51"
West 216.53 feet, thence North 4008'54" West 375.52
feet, thence North 3303727" West 157.50 feet, thence
North 13035131" East 107.44 feet, thence North 48045'11"
West 254.17 feet, thence North 22028151" West 251.16
feet, thence North 501651" West 204 feet, thence South
89020'29" West 23.38 feet, thence North 52000'41" West
83.19 feet, thence North 22059'53" West 95.41 feet,
thence North 38003'06 East 126.94 feet, thence North
52010'30" East 304.55 feet, thence North 60013'52" East
88.39 feet, thence South 72007'01" East 60.21 feet,
thence South 77000'28" East 59.25 feet, thence South
50030'08" East 190 feet, thence South 49014'35" East
186.33 feet, thence South 1005'26" East 55.24 feet,
thence South 65058'18" East 89.72 feet, thence South
24000'55" East`°59.80 feet, thence South 52029'16" East
63.75 feet, thence South 21057'20" East 157.80 feet,
thence South 49005'50" East 156.81 feet, thence South
87057'49" East 95.14 feet, thence South 29058'00" East
137.48 feet, thence South 61020151" East 88.68 feet,
thence North 71023'28" East 137.30 feet, thence South
30000'00" East 15 feet, thence South 58041'13" West
193.78 Peet, thence South 11000'20" East 95.19 feet,
thence South 13014'52" East 58.02 feet, thence South
13051'06" East 140.47 feet to the point of beginning.
Less, however, that part of right of way of State Road
No. 510 lying within the aforedescribed parcel.
Be changed from C-1 Commercial District to R -2A Multiple -
Family District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect December 21, 1981.
HEARING RE TRANSFER OF INDIAN RIVER SANITATION SERVICE TO
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
The hour of 2:30 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
1,
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
yr
in the
lished in said newspaper in the issues of7 rl,
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 `� day ofA.D, j
ou/9 1 1 (B si e� e
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River nty, Florida)
NOTICE OF HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County will hold a public hearing
on December 16,1981; at 2:30 p.m, and location
City Council Chambers — City Hall, Vero
Beach, Fla., on the application of Indian River
Sanitation Service for transfer of ownership'
from C. Reed Knight, Jr. to Waste
Management, Inc, of Florida as set forth in
Resolution No. 75-63, Section 10 and defined in
file Utilities Act of Indian River County.
Board Of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida
By: Pat Lyons .I
Chairman
Dec. 2, 1981:
Administrator Nelson reviewed the following memo:
DEC 16191 54 ry
DEC 161991 UaK
{
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: December 9, 1981 FiLE:
Board of County Commissioners
Public Hearing for Waste
SUBJECT: Management, Inc. of Florida
Transfer of Franchise
FROM: Neil Nelson, REFERENCES:
County Administrator
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
An application has been submitted to Indian River County for a transfer
of the Indian River Sanitation Service franchise to Waste Management, Inc.
of Florida.
This change is for a transfer of ownership only. All current customers
will be serviced by Waste Management and there will be no change of present
rates.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Indian River Sanitation Service was granted a franchise for garbage
and trash service in the unincorporated areas of the county on October 3,
1975. They have been in continuous operation since that date.
Waste Management and Indian River Sanitation have furnished all infor-
mation requested by staff. This material has been reviewed by the staff
and meets with general approval. The staff's requested information is
included as follows: Financial information for Waste Management, Inc.
of Florida rather than Waste Management, Inc., a list of litigation now
pending, and a copy of the company's latest audit report and the 1OK filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission. Indian River Sanitation Service
furnished a copy of their financial statement, and a copy of the purchase
agreement, which were reviewed.
Harris Sanitation, a company owned by Waste Management, Inc. (800
N.W. 62nd Street, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309_) has applied for a franchise
on two previous occasions. This application was denied by the Board of
County Commissioners on both occasions (Aug. 20, 1975 and Feb. 11, 1981)
due to the applicant showing a lack of need for the additional service
at that time. A copy of the minutes of those meetings are included as
information in the package of back-up material.
The Indian River Sanitation Service franchise was granted on October
3, 1975, for a period of 30 years and therefore does not expire until
October 3, 2005. The sales agreement requires the approval of this transfer
before January 1, 1982. The expiration date is brought to the attention
of the Commission and should be considered with other recommendations
below. This hearing has been advertised for the loth day of December,
1981, 2:30 P.M. in the Press Journal and published on December 2, 1981.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Inas,ruch as all data and information requirements have been rrnet,
and there is a deadline for approval of this franchise transfer, we
recommend approval subject to renegotiation of the franchise within 120
days after approval is given. The intent of this renegotiation is to
upgrade the terms of the 1975 franchise to the most recent wishes of the
Board of County Commissioners. This will include, modernizing the language
as well as providing for a suitable formula for franchise fees to be paid
to the county, as well as reviewing the appropriate expiration date of
the franchise.
55
Some discussion ensued as to Harris Sanitation
continuing to operate in the county at the Citrus School
site after being notified to desist, and it seems that
Harris Sanitation is running a bill at the County Landfill.
Administrator Nelson informed the Board that they are
picking up materials in Brevard County and going to our
landfill and have applied for a credit account. He further
believed that they have some of their containers in the
cities of Sebastian and Vero Beach, and we have no control
over the municipalities. _-
Commissioner Wodtke brought up the bond covenant,
noting that when we went through all the hearings re
anticipated wasteloads, nowhere in those figures was it
anticipated that any revenue would be derived other than
Indian River County.
Attorney Collins agreed that the original projections
were based on revenues taken from Indian River County, but
there is no prohibition in the bond covenants which requires
the collection of garbage only in Indian River County. He
felt if this becomes a real problem, we may be able to
restrict who can use the landfill, but at this point there
apparently is no problem. Attorney Brandenburg stated that
he would be glad to research the case law on the right of
the county to restrict the use of its landfill operation.
C. Reed Knight, Jr., Owner of Indian River Sanitation,
came before the Board. Certification of notice to all his
customers is made a part of the Minutes as follows:
DEC 161981 56 800K 48 PAGE 373
IL- -.,A
F'" -
DEC 16191
INDIAN RIVER SANITATION SERUICE
P.O. BOX 1356
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
Pho6-6-56.9-1776
December 4, 1981
ZOTICE TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
zn�
This is to certify that I have notified all my customers of the
upcoming hearing before the Indian River County Commissioners on
Wednesday, December 16th, 1981 at 2:30 P.M. for approval of the
change of ownership from C. Reed Knight, Jr. to Waste Management,
Inc of Florida.
This was done on December 1, 1981, and a copy of said notice is
attached.
Indian River Sanitat;U) S rvice
C. Reed Knight, Jr.
Owner and Manager
State of Florida
County of Indian River
I hereby certify that on this day, C.Reed Knight, Jr. did personally
appear before me and signed t1W above.
Witness my hand and official seal in the County and State aforesaid
this l..14n day of �1'%^�,�4_i, 1981.
NGt3ry Puu!ic u'vtc of Florida
My CD�m;1 ssbil Expires .July 12,1S85
Mr. Knight commented that the application made is for a
transfer of Indian River Sanitation Service to Waste
Management, Inc., of which Harris Sanitation is a
subsidiary.
He felt that Mr. Harris will be glad to
57
1.
address the problems addressed to Harris Sanitation, but did
not believe they are relevant to Waste Management taking
over Indian River Sanitation. Mr. Knight then brought up
problems with the way the county garbage franchise is
written, pointing out that yardmen who take clippings and
trash from various homes to the Landfill are not franchised
nor are the trailer parks which are picking up garbage from
hundreds of residential units.
Sam Harris, President of Harris Sanitation, next came
before the Board and explained that because his company was
the only one that had roll -off boxes, they were called to
the county, and, in fact, during renovation of the
Courthouse, he was requested to put one of these boxes at
the door of the Courthouse. He reported that he has a
county occupational license and he does pick up in the
cities within the county. In regard to the Citrus School,
he stated that he talked to the contractor and directed him
to move the boxes, but the School Board said the County did
not have jurisdiction over their agreement with the
contractor. The boxes were removed, however, after the
second notification.
Question arose as to litigation, and Mr. Harris stated
that he was not familiar with any litigation outside of his
own company. He noted that Waste Management, Inc., is
listed on the New York Stock Exchange and anyone can see
their books.
Commissioner Bird noted that Attorney Houlihan received
a letter from W. Brand Bobosky, Associate General Counsel
for Waste Management, Inc., containing the following
statement:
"However, I can also assure you that there is no
litigation now pending against Waste Management of Florida,
Inc. which could adversely affect the outcome of this
proposed assignment."
DEC 161981 58 8 ew.310
DEC 161981 aooK 48 PAGE 376
Attorney Collins commented that Waste Management of
Florida is a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., which is
a national company.
Mr. Harris informed the Board that Harris Sanitation is
a wholly owned subsidiary, and he was asked to attend the
meeting as a representative of Waste Management of Florida,
Inc.
Discussion followed as to renegotiation of the
franchise, and Mr. Harris noted that if the franchise were
to be renegotiated, they would not know what they were
buying. The rates are already set.
Discussion followed as to charges for commercial
pick-up, and Mr. Knight pointed out that Sec. 11 of the
Indian River Sanitation Service Franchise addresses
commercial charges; in addition, it states that a proposed
transferee must meet the same requirements as would an
original applicant.
The possibility of adopting a franchise fee to cover
costs incurred by the County in monitoring franchises was
brought up, and Commissioner Scurlock inquired if we would
have the ability to go back to the existing franchise
agreements and demand such a fee.
Attorney Brandenburg felt this would depend on the way
the Ordinance was written. He did not feel prepared to
indicate that the County can go back freely and change those
contract rights.
Attorney Collins believed the County has the right to
impose reasonable rules and regulations, but pointed out
that a a reasonable rate increase would have to be allowed
concurrently.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that last year we had a
number of objections to an additional franchise being
granted on the basis that not everyone could make a living,
and now one of these franchisees wants to sell to Harris who
wants to come into the county.
59
Commissioner Bird noted that in the original instance,
we would have been adding an additional company, but here we
are replacing one.
In further discussion, it was pointed out that the
complex issue of a franchise for mobile home parks needs to
be addressed, especially since it is possible that these
parks may have more customers than the sanitation services.
Attorney Robert Jackson came before the Board
representing Rural Sanitation. He gave a history of the
sanitation situation in the county since 1961, and stated
the reason franchises are needed is not to prevent free
enterprise, but to control it so a person can invest in the
expensive equipment and trucks needed to provide this
service and know he is in business. Mr. Jackson wished to
know who is buying what - is Waste Management buying Indian
River Sanitation and will it remain Indian River Sanitation,
but Harris Sanitation will run it? He noted that when Reed
Knight started up Indian River Sanitation, Rural Sanitation
did not object because Mr. Knight was local and they could
compete on an equal basis. They believe that Waste
Management, however, would run Rural Sanitation out of
business. He pointed out that Harris Sanitation admits
that even though the county has denied them three times,
they still come into this county. Attorney Jackson then
introduced John Jennings of a solid waste management
consulting firm in Orlando to explain how Waste Management
was run off the Naval Station in Orlando.
John Jennings informed the Board that he has had quite
a bit of experience with Waste Management in Orlando and
possesses a great deal of information about them, and while
the Board might feel that with only two companies in the
county, they are limiting free enterprise, he believed if
Waste Management is allowed in, free enterprise will be
eliminated altogether.
DEC 16191 60
DEC 16 1981 6POK8 PAoE378
Mr. Jennings then went into a detailed presentation
about Waste Management's methods of operation and business
practices, commenting that in a non-exclusive franchise area
such as Brevard County, although 9 or 10 sanitation
companies might be listed in the phone book, their
telephones all would ring in the same office. He stated
that there are newspaper articles available about these
practices and this could be checked on through the Justice
Department. Dir. Jennings proceeded to give the history of
how Waste Management came in and underbid the sanitation
company which was servicing the Naval Base by over a hundred
thousand dollars; how the service and equipment deteriorated
within a year; how within two years instead of having 8 to
10 bidders on the Naval Base, there was only one and the
contract was for over $300,000; and how when Waste
Management was prohibited from bidding, various mysterious
companies bid. He urged that the Commission have the County
Attorney check into the background information thoroughly
and give very careful consideration to this matter before
allowing Waste Management in the County.
Commissioner Bird commented that he had been impressed
by the list of cities and counties where Waste Management
has operations in Florida; especially since some of the
agreements go back to the mid 150s. He expressed surprise
that [-haste Management has continuing relationships in these
counties if their reputation is so tainted.
Mr. Jennings noted that the practice of Waste
Management is to have the subsidiary company operate under
its local name, and a lot of cities that believed they were
dealing with local companies have found out that this is not
the case.
In further discussion, it was noted that although the
Commission has heard these accusations several times, we
have not been presented with any concrete evidence, and it
61
seems this company continues to do business in many counties
and municipalities.
Mr. Jennings suggested that the Commission contact the
F.B.I. in Orlando, noting that they have two companies under
a probe.
Chairman Lyons asked the Attorney whether this matter
could be tables until we can get a further report, and both
Attorney Collins and Attorney Brandenburg agreed that, based
on the testimony presented, the Board has the right to
request additional information. -
William Koolage, of 815 26th Avenue, commented that
about a year ago Mr. Knight, who now wants to sell his
sanitation business to Waste Management, objected to these
same people coming into.the county. Mr. Koolage expressed
the Belief that Indian River Sanitation Service has
financial problems and this is their way out. He was not
sure that in such a thing as waste disposal you can be on a
competitive basis, and he expressed great concern about the
Commission granting a transfer of franchise to an outfit
with this kind of reputation.
Commissioner Wodtke believed that Mr. Knight is vitally
concerned about his customers and this county; he did not
feel, however, that Mr. Harris should be here trying to
defend Waste Management of Florida. Commissioner Wodtke
noted that the Commission has the right to look at Waste
Management in the same light as a new applicant, and felt
that those people who would be in charge at a corporate
level should appear before this Board. He further felt
financial information should be presented as to how this
transfer would be capitalized and what Waste Management's
intentions are.
Mr. Knight informed the Board that his problem is that
time is of the essence since the contract terminates
December 31st. He noted that he entered into this back in
August and he has done his homework, but agreed if something
DEC 161981 62 BOOK 48 wF �e�
BOOK 4$ PRGE 380
DEC 161991
should come out that is detrimental to the people in the
county, he would not want it because he intends to live here
the rest of his life. Mr. Knight agreed that Indian River
Sanitation is not in sound financial condition, noting that
his truck is worn out and he still has two years of payments
due on it; in addition, he cannot come in for another rate
increase on top of the one granted when the Landfill charges
were instituted. He pointed out that a corporation such
as Waste Management is going to bring in new innovative
ideas and modern front end loaders, which is capital
investment he cannot afford. He felt the Board must
consider the benefit such a corporation could render the
people of the county over the long term.
Attorney Collins brought up the Board's past problems
with obtaining up to date information, and suggested that
the Board have their attorney prepare a list of questions he
wants answered and then verify the response.
Discussion followed as to contacting other cities and
counties.
Motion was made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, to table this matter until Attorney
Brandenburg can come up with an appropriate questionnaire
and receive a response; to make contact with various cities
listed to determine what kind of relationship they have with
this company or subsidiary thereof, and not to reschedule
until we have this information and can arrange for a
presentation by a representative from Waste Management of
-r
Florida, Inc.
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that this is a
scheduled public hearing, and the Board could adjourn it to
another date without readvertising. It was generally agreed
that the Board desired to readvertise.
Discussion continued, and it was agreed that once the
information was received, a public hearing would be
63
scheduled for the earliest possible date, which was
tentatively set for the 20th of January.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT - CONTINUATION DISCUSSION RE
CENTRAL FIRE STATION
The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 4:10
o'clock P.M. in order that the District Board of the South
County Fire Commissioners might convene. Those Minutes are
being prepared separately. --
DEC 161991 64 BOOK 48 PAGE' 81
L
BOOK 48 mcF38
D -EC 161981
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:02
o'clock P.M. with the same members present.
BOATING FUNDS FOR DOCKS AT MAC WILLIAM PARK
Commissioner Bird reported a request had been received
from the City of Vero Beach to expend $12,000 out of the
Boating Trust Funds for improvements at MacWilliam Park.
The Park and Recreation Committee felt this was a reasonable
expenditure and approval was recommended. These are the
most heavily used docks in the county.
City Engineer Cliff Suthard reported that the original
plan for replacing the docks at MacWilliam Park was to use
precast.pilings and prestressed slabs, but they found the
cost was quite high. Another alternative was wood, but this
was not favored because of the damage marine borers do to
wooden pilings. A third alternative was to use concrete
encased in PVC for the pilings. He stated that he has
talked to several contractors, and it is now proposed that
the bid have three alternates - one is a 6' wide dock of
reinforced concrete with PVC casing on the pilings, and the
other two alternates would be a 6' dock with wood pilings
and a 4' dock with wood pilings. Mr. Suthard continued that
they intend to replace as many of the six docks as the funds
will allow.
Commissioner Bird asked if $12,000 is the total cost of
renovation of six docks, and Mr. Suthard stated that is
estimated as a base bid - it might be closer to $15,000.
Commissioner Fletcher went into a detailed technical
discussion of the method of building the docks and the
advantages of using prestressed concrete for pilings, noting
that he has found the cost of reinforced concrete running
close to prestressed. He further noted that PVC that is out
in the sun too long gets brittle, and in addition, boats
banging into the PVC will crack it.
Discussion followed in regard to considering
prestressed concrete as an alternate bid.
65
On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed that 10"
prestressed concrete pilings and wood deck be added as an
alternate bid.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized
applying to Tallahassee for funds from the Boating
Improvement Trust Fund not to exceed $15,000 for docks at
MacWilliam Park.
REQUEST FROM MODEL AIRPLANE CLUB FOR USE OF COUNTY LAND
Administrator Nelson reported that Lynn Larson,
chairman of the local model airplane club, has requested
their club be allowed to use the old county dump site across
from the Road and Bridge complex to fly their radio
controlled planes on the weekends. Mr. Nelson stated that
we are not using this property at the present time, and it
would not interfere with us on the weekend. The only
problem is a liability problem, but he believed they do have
sufficient insurance and would hold the county harmless.
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, to permit the model airplane club use
of the area requested at the old county dump site on
weekends, based on proof of adequate insurance.
The Administrator commented that the only thing
involved would be putting in a gate as a mound of dirt now
blocks the entrance. It was felt the club could do that.
In further discussion, it was noted that all flying
would be over that property; they fly generally only about
200' high, and there is no problem from the radio signal;
they are licensed with the F.C.C.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we are doing this on a
week to week basis, as we do not want to tie the property
up, and the Administrator stated that he had talked to Mr.
Larson about cancellation of the agreement upon 30 days
notice.
EC 161991 66 BOOK 8 PAGE -383
DEC 161981 610K AS PAoF184 —7
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
BID RECOMMENDATIONS — NOS. 103 and 104
Administrator Nelson reviewed his memo regarding
alternatives on both the road grader and front end loader,
which is as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 8, 1981 F1 LE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Bid Recommendations -
IRC *103 and IRC ;;104
Road Grader & Front End Loader
FROM: Chairman, Bid Committee REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the 1981 Board of County Commissioner's Budget Hearings; the Board
approved $118,000 for the purchase of a Road Grader and $110,000 for the
purchase of a Front End Loader for use by the Road & Bridge Department.
Specifications for the purchase of the equipment were prepared by the Road
and Bridge Superintendent and Vehicle Maintenance Director. Bids were
publicly advertised October 21-25, 1981 and bids were opened and recorded
on November 18, 1981, at a public meeting held in the County Administrator's
Office.
Bids for both the Road Grader and the Front End Loader were requested to bid
both total cost and cash purchase. The total cost bidding concept involves
assurance by the bidder that the repair, cost over a 5 year period (or 5,000
operating hours) will not exceed a specified bid amount and further, at the
end of the 5 year period (or 5,000 operating hours), the bidder will guarantee
a buy-back price as specified on the bid. This buy-back price does not require
the County to purchase a replacement vehicle from the bidder.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Road Grader -
Eight bidders responded to the call for bids. Four responded with a no bid.
Of the four bidders submitting prices, only one bidder met all minimum
specifications and only one bidder submitted a total cost bid. This bidder
was Kelly Tractor. The cash purchase price bids and the total cost bid are
tabulated on the attached bid tabulation sheet along with deviations in the
technical specifications.
In considering both the total cost and cash purchase bid, the low bidder for the
Motor Grader is Kelly Tractor (Caterpillar) with a total cost bid of S44,830.
This bid requires an initial cost to the County of $114,259. However, the
guaranteed buy-back amount of $78,749 in 5 years (present worth is S44,682) and
the guaranteed cost of repairs ($9,320 during the 5 year period) adjusts this
initial purchase cost to 544,830. A brief summary of the bids is as follows:
Cash Purchase Price
Kelly Tractor (Caterpillar) $112,49E.00
Florida -Georgia Tractor (Galion) 82,000.00
Linder Industrial Machinery (Champion) 73,484.00
H.F. Mason (Huber) 59,9 0.00
Total Cost Bid
1.
(1) Motor Grader
$112,498.00
2.
Cost of Bond
z_
1,761.00
3.
Total Purchase Price
$114,259.00
(P.W.)
4.
Guaranteed value at end of 5,000
operating hours or 5 years
78,749.00
44,682
5.
Item 1 less Item 4
33,749.00
69,577
6.
Guaranteed total cost of repairs for
5,000 operating hours or 5 -years
9,320.00
(P.W.)
7.
Total cost bid: Item 2, plus Item
5, plus Item 6
$ 44,830.00
98'j' of parts for Caterpillar are available in 1 day, whereas parts for the
Champion are difficult to get, causing excessive down time while waiting for
parts. For example, in 1931, the 197:, Champion Grader Model 560 -HS developed
brake problems. Parts were ordered and delivery date on a $230 brake drum
was in excess of 30 days. Dorm time for the machine and driver is $75.00 per
hour. Thus, a loss to the County of $12,000. Also, the 1978 Champion Grader
was down for 30 days due to delivery of a starter. The County lost $24,000
on these two instances alone. Under the total cost bid, the supplier is
required to supply a replacement vehicle or pay a rental fee to the County
for equipment which is down for over 7 days. We now stock a supply of
Caterpillar parts and many parts are inter -changeable on different pieces of
equipment.
Another factor is that our mechanics are experienced in working on Caterpillar
equipment and our operators are trained in operating Caterpillar equipment.
Also, there are 2 Caterpillar field men in this area.
Since the range of bids is significant, the Vehicle Maintenance Director contacted
other equipment users in the area to obtain information on the Galion and Huber
Graders. These comments are as follows:
1. Of the 8 area companies using graders, 6 recommend the Caterpillar Grader
over all others in terms of down time and repair cost. Saw Mill Ridge has
used Galion and found them acceptable but the other companies do not
recommend the Galion.
2. Dickerson, Inc. has 1 small Huber, which they rarely use. They do not
recommend it.
In summarizing, the Bid Committee presents the following:
Alternative rl.
Award bid to Kelly Tractor using the total cost bid including an initial cost
of $114,259 and a cost after the 5 year buy-back and guaranteed maintenance cost
of 544,830. There is no way to project a maintenance cost figure over 5 years
for the Huber, Galion or Champion Graders. However, other users in the local
area rate Caterpillar above the others in down time and the County has no
protection on the other models.
DEC 16199 1
68 box 48 PAGF 385
L
bEd16 8 0�( 1981 48
Alternative #2
Award bid to the cash purchase price bidder H.F. Mason (Huber Grader) in the
amount of $59,980. The impact of this alternative includes:
a. Purchasing a Grader with a lighter transmission and less steering
capability.
b. Re-training mechanics on this piece of equipment.
c. Stocking parts which are not compatable with our existing stock.
d. Possibly more down time than that which a Caterpillar Grader is
characteristic. At 575.00 per hour, if the Grader is down 533 hours
or 13 days a year, the County would suffer more cost than in purchasing
the Caterpillar Grader.
Front End Loader -
Nine bids were received with 2 bidders submitting no bid. Of the seven bidders
responding, only one bidder met all specifications, Kelly Tractor (Caterpillar).
The cash purchase price bids and total cost bids are tabulated below and on the
attached bid.tabulation sheet:
Casio Purchase Price:
Florida -Georgia Tractor (International) $ 76,900.00
Kelly Tractor (Caterpillar) 115,299.00
DeWind (Fiat -Allis) 78,326.00
M.D. Moody (Furukawa) 62,243.00
Linder Industrial Machinery (Clark) 92,418.00
Sunrise Ford Tractor (Ford) 69,521.00
H.F. Mason (Trojan) 69,440.00
Total Cost Sid:
In considering both the total cost bid and the cash purchase price bid, the
low bidder for the Front End Loader is Kelly Tractor (Caterpillar) with a
total cost bid of $41,382.00. This bid requires an initial cost to the
County of $117,259. However, the buy-back amount of $86,946 (present worth
is $49,500 at 12% interest) and guaranteed cost of repairs ($11,069 over 5
years) adjusts this cost to S41,382.
Again, 98' of parts for Caterpillar are available in 1 day. It is extremely
difficult to get parts for the Fiat -Allis and Furukawa (foreign), with excessive
down time while waiting for parts. The availability of parts for the other
brands is unknown. Some are metric, which would require the purchase of new tools.
The County now has a rake, which G-rould be inter -changeable with the Caterpillar.
.•
Kelly Tractor
DeWind
Front End Loader
$115,299.00
$111,500.00
2.
Cost of Bond
1,960.00
2,205.00
3.
Total Purchase Price
$117,259.00
113,705.00
Kelly Tractor
DeWind
4.
Guaranteed value at end of 5,000
operating hours or 5 years
S 86,946.00
S 83,000.00
5.
Item 1 less Item 4
28,353.00
30,705.00
6.
Guaranteed total cost of repairs for
5,000 operating hours or 5 years
11,069.00
15,000.00
7.
Total Cost Bid: Item 2, plus Item
5, plus Item 6
S 41,322.00
S 45,705.00
In considering both the total cost bid and the cash purchase price bid, the
low bidder for the Front End Loader is Kelly Tractor (Caterpillar) with a
total cost bid of $41,382.00. This bid requires an initial cost to the
County of $117,259. However, the buy-back amount of $86,946 (present worth
is $49,500 at 12% interest) and guaranteed cost of repairs ($11,069 over 5
years) adjusts this cost to S41,382.
Again, 98' of parts for Caterpillar are available in 1 day. It is extremely
difficult to get parts for the Fiat -Allis and Furukawa (foreign), with excessive
down time while waiting for parts. The availability of parts for the other
brands is unknown. Some are metric, which would require the purchase of new tools.
The County now has a rake, which G-rould be inter -changeable with the Caterpillar.
.•
M
Since the range of bids is significant, the Vehicle Maintenance Director contacted
other equipment users in the area to obtain information in the unfamiliar nature
of those machines bid. These comr;ents are as follows:
1. Whereas two owners recommended the International Loader, another informed
the County of major problems with the International.
2. All owners who own Caterpillar and other brands have recommended Caterpillar
over other brands.
3. No local references were found for the Ford of Furukawa or Fiat -Allis.
4. The Clark Loader (second low bid at $92,418) received fair recommendations
by 3 owners but the bid is too high compared to the total cost bid and the
County gets no assurances.
5. The Trojan Loader has had excessive down time with Florida Rock.
In summarizing, the Bid Committee presents the following:
Alternative #1
Award bid to Kelly Tractor (Caterpillar) using the total cost bid including an
initial cost of $117,259 and a cost after the 5 year buy-back and guaranteed
maintenance cost of $41,382. There is no way to project repair costs and down
time for the other models. However, owners in this area prefer Caterpillar.
Alternative #2
Award the bid to the third low bidder, Sunrise Ford Tractor (Ford) forthe cash
purchase price of $69,521. The impact this alternative would have includes:
a) Purchasing a piece of equipment with no 5 year maintenance guarantee.
b) Re-training mechanics on this piece of equipment.
C) Stocking parts which are not compatible with our existing stock.
d) Possibly more down time than that which the Caterpillar is Characteristic.
REC0MMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
The Bid Committee recommends that the Board award the following bids:
I. Kelly Tractor - Caterpillar Grader
Total Cost Bid - $44,830
Initial cost to County - $114,259
The County is guaranteed a value of $78,749 at the end of 5,000 operating
hours or 5 years and also guaranteed a total cost of repairs of $9,320.00.
Also, if the Grader is down for over 7 days, a replacement will be -provided
by Caterpillar.
2. Kelly Tractor - Caterpillar Front End Loader
Total Cost Bid - $41,382
Initial Cost to County - $117,259
The County is guaranteed a value of $86,946 at the end of 5,000 operating
hours or 5 years and also guaranteed a -total cost of repairs of $11,069.
Also, if the End Loader is downfo-rover7 days, a replacement will be
provided by Caterpillar.
Funding in the amount of $231,518 to be from Account #102-214-541-66.43,
Federal Revenue Sharing, Road & Bridge Department unencumbered balance as
of 11/10/81 is $271,457.
-DEC 161991 70 . 800K 48 PAGF387
48 PACE38 ?
DEC 16°1991
Administrator Nelson emphasized the importance of
getting quality equipment, such as Caterpillar, in the heavy
equipment line to insure reliability, and stated that he
would like to go to total cost for this reason. He stressed
the fact that although the initial outlay is substantial,
expensive downtime is minimized because under a total cost
bid the supplier is required to supply a replacement vehicle
or pay a rental fee to the County for equipment which is
down for over 7 days. The Administrator noted that we
bought a grader this way in March of 1981 and so far have
spent only $135 maintenance and the maximum downtime has
been 2 days. If, however, the Board does not want to go
total cost, then he would recommend Champion even though we
have had some bad experience getting parts for this make
other than normal stock parts. The Administrator did not
want the Huber grader because we are not experienced on it;
we would have to train new mechanics; and the company has
not made it before. He noted that we do have two Champions.
Considerable discussion followed on the substantial
cost difference for the Caterpillar, and the general feeling
was that it would be hard to justify that a Champion
wouldn't do the job.
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#103 to Linder Industrial Machinery for a Champion Motor
Grader, as being the lowest and best bid meeting
specifications, in the amount of $73,484.00.
Administrator Nelson reported that on the front end
loader, since the Board does not feel it can justify
purchasing the Caterpillar, he would much prefer the
International. He noted the only reason they even talked
about Ford is that there are major distributors in this
area.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
71
#104 to Florida -Georgia Tractor for an International Front
End Loader, as being the lowest and best bid meeting
specifications, in the amount of $76,900.00.
RECONSIDERATION OF BID NO. 105
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 8, 1981 FILE:
SUBJECT: IRC Bid .105 - (1) 4-53 Detroit
`- Diesel Parrer Unit
FROM: --v^c-- 0'a-1 -REFERENCES:
Neil A. Nelson
County Administrator
1. IRC Bid .105 for (1) 4-53 Detroit Diesel Power Unit, was awarded by the
Board on December 2, 1981, to the low bidder, Allis Chalmers.
2. After extensive evaluation, it has been determined that a 3-53 Detroit
Diesel Power Unit would be more serviceable for the pump on which it
is to be installed, save fuel and costs approximately $1,000.00 less.
3. Therefore, it is recommended that the Board reject IRC #105 and that
we advertise for bids for (1) 3-53 Detroit Diesel Power Unit, or its
equivalent.
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously accepted the
recommendation of the Administrator to reject Bid #105 and
readvertise for bids for a 3-53 Detroit Diesel Power Unit or
its equivalent.
OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL TO NATL. INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS
SEMINAR
Chairman Lyons reported that the National Institute of
Corrections will accept students at the next session, but
will not pay hotel costs. He stated that it is still his
recommendation that we authorize one Commissioner and one
member from the Advisory Committee, Gary Wheeler, to attend
this seminar. The cost will be something less than $1,000
WIPMC 16 72 Boa 48 PAcF-389
DEC 161981 690K 48 PAGF 390
each for transportation, room and board, and this could come
out of the Jail Account according to Finance Director
Barton.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that four people have
attended this seminary already, and he wondered how much
more benefit we can gain by sending more people.
Chairman Lyons noted that he does not know whether he
will be on the Commission a year from now or not, and he
believed we should have one more Commissioner in on this.
He assured the Board that the benefit is there to be gained.
Considerable discussion followed as to the value to be
gained by sending more people to this seminar and whether it
might be better to have technical people attend.
Chairman Lyons continued to contend that we can save
money by spending money in this instance and he would like
to see a 3 -year Commissioner go and Gary Wheeler. He
pointed out that this is a very important item since a new
jail will cost several million dollars.
In further review of the Commission, it was noted that
none of the 3 -year Commissioners were available to make this
trip, and the Chairman suggested just sending Mr. Wheeler of
the Public Safety Advisory Committee, who is willing to go,
or whomever the committee picks.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that we do need people
with background to guide us in this matter, which concerns a
project that will involve millions.
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioners Bird and Fletcher voted
in opposition, the Board by a 3 to 2 vote authorized
out -of -County travel for one individual from the Public
Safety Advisory Committee to attend the seminar held by the
National Institute of Corrections January 17-23, 1982, in
Boulder, Colorado; said individual to be chosen by the
Public Safety Advisory Committee.
73
REPORT ON SEBASTIAN ANNEXATION
The Board reviewed the following memo from Attorney
Brandenburg:
TO: The Chairman and Members of DATE: December 10, 1981
the Eoard of County Commissioners
of Indian River County
FILE:
SUB'- �Er'T: Report on annexation of uni ncoroorated
property by the City of Sebastian
FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg . REFERENCES:
County Attorney
On Wednesday, December 9, 1981, this writer attended a Town Council
Meeting of the City of Sebastian, also attending was Commissioner Grover
Fletcher.
The City of Sebastian held a public hearing for the purpose of receiving
input on a proposed annexation of the property referred to as the Hyatt or
Duck Point property. During the meeting various members of the public raised
the follo.,ing questions:
1. Does the proposed annexation create an unincorporated enclave?
2. Is the area to be annexed contiguous to the municipality; having a
substantial part of its boundaries coterminous with the municipal
boundaries?
3. Is the area to be annexed reasonably co;rpact in configuration?
4. Whether the area to be annexed is currently developed or currently
developable for urban purposes and whether the municipality has the
current capacity to provide urban services to the area.
The City of Sebastian contemplates taking final action on the ordinance
Monday, December 14, 1981.
REQUEST FOR DIRECTIOid
Does the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County desire
the County Attorney to pursue this matter?
G
Respectfully submitted,
a jr1. Brandenbur4%
C0 ty Attorne�_...1
DEC 16199 74 g oa �� P cit"
F_
8 PAtF
D E C 161981
In discussion, the Commission generally felt the
proposed annexation could create an enclave, and the
Attorney should be given authority to pursue this matter in
the County's interests.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized Attorney
a
Brandenburg and appropriate staff to attend the final
hearing at Sebastian; to oppose the annexation on behalf of
the county and report -back.
ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PEBBLE BAY AREA WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
AND AGREEMENT WITH INDIAN RIVER SHORES
The Board reviewed the staff memo as follows:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Members of
Indian River County
Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Neil A. Nelson,
County Administrator
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
DATE: December 10, 1981
FILE:
SUBJECT: Assessment Fee for Pebble Bay
Area Wastewater Improvements
REFERENCES:_ City/County/Town Wastewater
Agreement Dated November 5, 1980
In accordance with'the referenced legal agreement and with direc-
tion from the Board of County Commissioners, engineering plans, speci-
fications and contract documents have been prepared so as to eliminate
a package sewage treatment system and to bring a deteriorated collection
and pumping system up to acceptable standards for ultimate takeover of
total wastewater service by the City of Vero Beach. Furthermore, on
November 30, 1981, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the Contract
for the required improvements to Bain Underground Utilities. Also, at
the November 30, 1981 Board meeting, representatives from the Town Council
of Indian River Shores were present. The Town Council representatives,
Mr. Fritz E. Gierhart and Mr. John F. Curtin, indicated certain commitments
could be made by Indian River Shores with respect to potential assessments
which may be imposed by the County to cover the County's cost associated
with providing wastewater service to areas which could be annexed by
Indian River Shores. Specifically, Indian River Shores would pay their
pro -rata share of the County's cost to serve areas east of A -1-A which
would be annexed by Indian River Shores. Further, Indian River Shores
would collect Tees including the $187.50 connection fee charged by the
City of Vero Beach and the Town would absorb any differential cost over
and above the Town's now existing $635.00 sewer impact fee.
NOTE: At a special Town Council Meeting of December 4, 1981, the Council
approved an action to provide up to $780.00 per dwelling unit as an accept-
able fee to cover the Town's pro -rata share of the County costs for 75
dwelling units located east of A -1-A and in the area considered by annexa-
tion.
Also, at the Board meeting of November 30, 1981, the Commission
requested the Administrator's office to determine an assessment fee to be
charged to those dwelling units and vacant dwelling sites which will not
be affected by annexation. In addition, an allowance for the proposed Park
site and FIT project were to be incorporated into the assessment fee deter-
mination. Therefore, this memorandum will present the following:
A. Total Project Cost of the planned improvements;
B. Present the total number of potential wastewater connections;
C. Break-out the units associated with the Town's proposed
annexation;
D. Calculate the County's
Shores associated with
A -1-A;
reimburseable cost from Indian River
providing wastewater serivice east of
76 9G0K 48 P� v 393
DEC 161991
860K 8 PAGF. 9 ,
DEC 161991 -
E. Calculate an assessment fee for the dwelling units (including
potential sites) which will remain within the County after
annexation occurs;
F. Determine what level of monetary contribution to the Total
Project Cost would be required of the County in order to
implement an assessment fee equal to the Town's cost and
up to $780.00;
G. Present two alternatives for source of funds to be utilized
if the Board of County Commissioners sets the assessment fee
at the Town's cost and up to $780.00.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following will present the analysis associated with items
A through G described in the above Description and Conditions:
A. Present the.Total Project Costs:
-ITEM COST
1. Construction Cost $114,578.35
2. Engineering 8,000.00
3. Resident Inspection 15,000.00
4. Ads 25.00
5. City of Vero Beach Impact Fees (157 units)
(Unit documentation to follow) 29,437.50
Reimbursement Cost to be Paid to Indian
River Shores per city/County/Town Agreement
Items 6 throw h 11
6.
6" Force Main Fquivalent ($9.50/L.F.)
15,010.00
7.
Pavement Replacement
1,609.00
B.
10" Force Main Connection
800.00
9.
Meter and Meter Pit
1,536.91
10.
1% of Pump Station No. 2 ($50,215.00)
502.15
11.
Contingencies
5,000.00*
12.
Interest During Construction
5,000.00**
7.
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
5196.498.91
B. Present the Total Number of Potential Wastewater Connections:
77
NAME
NO. UNITS
1.
7-11 Store
1
2.
Eckerds
1
3.
Proposed Bank
1
4.
Pebble Beach Villas Condominiums
72
5.
FIT Project '
3
6.
Proposed County Park
4
7.
Vera Cruz Condominiums
57
8.
Harbour Island Club Condominiums
41
9.
Pebble Bay Subdivision
52
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS:
232
77
C. Break-out of Units Associated with Indian River Shores Annexation:
N)VIE NO. UNITS
1. 7-11 Store 1
2. Eckerds 1
3. Proposed Bank 1
4. Pebble Beach Villas 72
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE ANNEXED: 75
D. Calculation of the County's Reimbursable Cost from Indian River
Shores:
The following calculation will present the cost associated with
providing wastewater to the area east of A -1-A which is proposed to
be annexed by Indian River Shores. The calculation is based on the
formula outlined in the City/County/Town Agreement which provides for
a pro -rata cost allocation based on wastewater flow. Flow determina-
tions, as outlined in the referenced Agreement, shall be based on 225
gallons per day per multifamily dwelling and 250 gallons per day per
single family dwelling. -Commercial or institutional units shall be
treated as a single family unit at 250 gallons per day per unit.
*At the Board Meeting of Nov. 30, 1981, this figure was reduced by the
Board from $10,000 to $5,000.
**At the Board'Meeting of Nov. 30, 1981, this figure was reduced by the
Board from $25,000 to $5,000.
Further, the referenced Agreement provides for the pro -rata cost
allocation to be applied to the expense items associated with the
wastewater service. The following will list the expense items and show
the pro -rata determination calculated on the basis of the flow contribu-
tion for each expense item.
Expense Items Applicable to Providing Wastewater Service to the
Proposed Annexed Area of Indian River Shores:
ITEM COST
1. Construction Cost
a. Pump Station No. 1' $35,286.60***
b. Gravity Sewer and Pavement
Replacement 18,091.55****
c. Engineering 81000.00
d. Resident Inspection 15,000.00
Calculation of pro -rated cost for the above listed items shall be
on the basis of flow contribution.
Item 1a. Pump Station Cost:
Indian River Shores Contribution of Flow --
7-11 Store - 1 unit x
250 gpud
= 250
gpd
Eckerds - 1 unit x 250
gpud
= 250
gpd
Proposed Bank - 1 unit
x 250 gpud
- 250
gpd
Pebble Beach Villas -
72 units x 225 gpud
= 16,200
gpd
Sea Watch - 39 units x
225 gpud
= 8,775 gpd*****
TOTAL FLOW FROM
INDIAN RIVER SHORES
= 25,725
gpd
DEC 161981
78
UOK 48
PArr-0395
r -7
DEC 16199A 48 F
Indian River County Contribution of Flow --
Vera Cruz - 57 units x
225 gpud
12,825
gpd
Harbour Island Club -
41 units @ 225 gpud =
9,225
gpd
Pebble Bay Subdivision
- 52 units
@ 250 gpud
=
13,000
gpd
FIT Project - 3 units
@ 250 gpud =
750
gpd
County Park - 4 units
@ 250 gpud =
1,000 gpd
TOTAL FLOW FROM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY = 36,800 gpd
***Item No. 11 and 17 from Bids received September 1, 1981.
****Item No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 from Bids received
September 30, 1981.
*****Althouth Sea Watch is not included in the unit totals presented earlier,
flow from Sea Watch will be handled by Pump Station No. 1. The gravity
sewer cost for Sea Watch has been paid for by Indian River Shores in
their Contract for construction.
TOTAL FLOW FOR BOTH = 62,525 gpd
Percentage of Total Flow for Indian River Shores = 41%
Percentage of Total Flow for Indian River County = 59%
Therefore, Indian River Shores' pro -rata cost of
Pump Station No. 1 = $14,467.51
Indian River County's pro -rata cost of Pump
Station No. 1 = $20,819.09
Item lb. Gravity Sewer and Pavement Replacement:
Gravity Sewer and Pavement Replacement cost are ful-ly allocated
to Indian River Shores as 100% of the flow contribution will be from
7-11, Eckerds, Proposed Bank and Pebble Beach Villas.
Indian River -Shores' pro -rata cost of Gravity Sewer and
Pavement Replacement = $18,091.55
Item lc. and Id. Engineering and Resident Inspection:
Engineering and Resident Inspection cost are allocated on the
basis of flow contributions as calculated for Item la.
Indian River Shores' pro -rata costs for Engineering and
Resident Inspection = 41°0 of 23,000 = $9,430.00
Indian River Shores' pro -rata cost for Engineering and
Resdient Inspection = 59% of $23,000 = $13,570.00
Recapitulation of Pro -rata Cost for Indian River Shores:
ITEM COST
la. Pump Station No. 1 $14,467.51
lb. Gravity Sewer and Pavement
Replacement 18,091.55
I.C. & ld.
Engineering and Resident Inspection 9,430.00
TOTAL PRO -RATA COST = $41,989.06
79
Calculation of Cost Associated with Providing Wastewater Service
to Proposed Annexed Area on a Per Unit Basis:
Total Pro -rata Cost $41,989.06
Total Units to Cover Cost 75 units
Cost Per Unit = $ 559.85
City of Vero Beach Impact Fee = $ 187.50
TOTAL COST PER UNIT TO INDIAN RIVER SHORES =.$ 747.35
E. Calculate an Assessment Fee for the Dwelling Units Which Will
Remain Within the County after Annexation Occurs:
The following will list the expense items to be borne by the
County.
ITEM
1. Remaining Construction Cost -
(Indian River Shores' Cost has
been subtracted)
2. Engineering and Resident Inspection
(Indian River Shores' Cost has been
subtracted)
3. Ads
4. City of Vero Beach Impact Fees (157 units)
5. Reimbursement Cost to Indian River Shores
6. Contingencies
COST
$ 82,019.29
13,570.00
25.00
29,437.50
19,458.06
5,000.00
7. Interest During Construction 5,000.00
TOTAL COST TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY: $154,509.85
Actual Cost Per Unit to Indian River County to Provide Wastewater
Improvements:
Total Cost to County $154,509.85
Total Number of Units 157
Actual Cost per Unit in Indian River County $ 984.14
F. Determination of Level of Monetary Contribution by Indian River County
if Assessment Fee is Set Equal to Indian River Shores' Cost:
Presented below will be two calculations. The first calculation will
indicate what contribution will be required of Indian River County if the
assessment fee is set at $747.35 for all units to remain in the County.
The second calculation will show the required contribution required of
the County if the assessment fee is set at $780.00. Note, the $780.00
assessment fee is an up -set figure agreed to by Indian River Shores.
County Contribution if Fee is $747.35:
•Total Remaining Cost
Set Fee @ $747.35
•Number of Units Required at $747.35
'Actual Units
DEC 161981 80
$154,509.85
206.74
157
Bov 48 PAGF,397
SEC 161991 BOOK 8 %E39-
-Units to be Accounted for by County 49.74
-Contribution by County to Cover Cost
of 49.74 units at $747.35 per unit $ 37,175.90
County Contribution if Fee is $780.00:
-Total Remaining Cost
Set Fee at $780.00 $154,509.85
-Number of Units Required at $780.00 198.09
-Actual Units 157
-Units to be Accounted for by County 41.09
-Contribution by County to Cover Cost
of 41.09 units at $780:00 per unit $ 32,049.85
Recapitulation of County Contribution:
If fee is $747.35, County's Cost = $37,175.90
If fee is $780.00, County's Cost = $32,049.85
G. Two Alternatives for Source of Funds to Cover County's Contribution:
The range of contribution required of the County to set an assessment
fee equal to the cost borne by Indian River Shores is $32,049.85 to
$37,175.90.
Two possible alternatives for funds are:
1. Utilize excess revenues, or investment income associated with
the Utilities Department enterprise system to purchase the
Pebble Bay Sewage Treatment Plant which will be taken out of
service after connection of the system to the City of Vero Beach.
2. Utilize escrowed impact fees which have been collected by the
Utilities Department to purchase the Pebble Bay Sewage Treatment
Plant which will be taken out of service after connection of the
system to the City of Vero Beach.
RECO14MENDATION AND FUNDING
Based on the analysis presented herein and in an effort to provide
an assessment fee which is equitable to the residents of the County and
those residents to be annexed into Indian River Shores, it is recommended
the Board of County Commissioners establish an assessment of $747.35.
It is also recommended Alternative 2, escrowed impact fees, be utilized
to provide the required contribution by the County of $37,175.90.
Commissioner Scurlock noted the County apparently would
be subsidizing the system in the amount of $37,175.90 if
they accepted the proposal presented, and he suggested a
Motion be made approving the recommendation of staff of an
impact fee in the amount of $747.35, with the County's
contribution being $37,175.90.
Discussion ensued as to where the money will come from,
and Engineer John Robbins reported that he contacted FmHA in
81
regard to using the remaining grant funds for the Gifford
area, but he was informed these funds were allocated on the
basis of population to be used specifically in the Gifford
area and could not be used by the County to purchase a
sewage plant for itself. They did say that if a program
could be conceived to install the plant in Gifford, the
money could be used for that purpose.
Discussion continued as to a source for the $37,000.
and Engineer Robbins noted that the County accrued around
$25,000 of investment income on= -the tax anticipation note
for the test well for the South County. In addition, there
is a report that there are some excess funds in the Gifford
system. Mr. Robbins then discussed impact fees in the
General Utility Fund, and Utility Director Liner reported
that all the monies from impact fees are in a special
account, and it is intended for capital expansion.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that if we took money
from the impact fee account and actually purchased this
sewer plant into that account, the account then would have
an asset of a used plant rather than cash, and eventually
whatever.enterprise system we put the plant into would have
to repay the account. It was generally agreed that would be
the way to go.
Chairman Lyons asked how we get the $37,000 right now,
and Engineer Robbins stated they have money in the escrow
account.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board, by a 4 to 1 vote, Commissioner
Fletcher voting in opposition, approved the recommendation
of staff to establish an impact fee of $747.35, with the
County's total contribution being $37,175.90, and to utilize
the impact fee account for this purpose as discussed.
Administrator Nelson commented that some residents of
Pebble Bay are upset because they feel they are paying twice.
DEC 161981 82 8 PAGF3991
DEC 161981 89Qx 48 Pur -400 'I
Lyons suggested that the impact notices
contain an explanation of the whole situation - where we got
the plant; the fact that we are under D.E.R. sanction to
spend money to bring it up to standards so they will have to
pay one time or another, etc.
Adminstrator Nelson brought up the figure of $5,000
estimated for interest during construction and reported that
the Intergovernmental Coordinator does not feel this is
quite enough money.
It was generally agreed we need to move ahead and that
this figure should be left as is.
RESOLUTION 81-108 RE FUNDING OF MANDATED PROGRAMS
Chairman Lyons reported that he has received a proposed
resolution from the State Association of County
Commissioners requesting the Legislature to fund mandated
programs.
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 81-108:
R -W,
RESOLUTION NO. 81-108
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
I.PIDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLOR,1 )A
REQUESTING THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATt OF FLORIDA
TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF THE EFFECT OF STATE !MANDATED
PROGRAMS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has
been faced with balancing the need for fundamental governmental services for
the citizens of the County against the increased taxes necessary to provide
expanded services, and
WHEREAS, the balancing of services versus taxes is disrupted when the
Legislature mandates the various counties to perform and collect taxes for
programs that are not the local government's responsibility, and
WHEREAS, when programs are imposed upon local government without providing
concurrent sources of non -ad valorem funding, the Legislature circumvents Article
7, Section I (A) of the State of Florida Constitution which provides;... no
State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon real estate or tangible personal
property..., and
WHEREAS, State mandated programs include; Medicaid Programs, Mental Health,
Baker and Myer Act Programs, indigent health care, indigent court costs and
Court appointed attorney's fees, medical examiner's fees, the court system
expenses, State Attorney and Public Defender Office space requirements and County
audit prov:isionsf
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT;
1. The County Commission requests that the Honorable Robert Graham establish as a
priority, in the upcoming Legislative Session, a review of the effects of
State mandated programs on local government finances, and
2. The County Commission further requests the Legislature to provide a means
of funding mandated programs other than ad valorei-i taxation, and
3. Certified copies of this Resolution be sent to the Governor of the State
of Florida and the Indian River County Legislative Delegation.
This Resolution shall become effective as of the 16th day of
December 1981
,i
Appro $$d as to form a
lega/juffi.Penco
arM. Bran enburg County Attorney
Attest:
DEC 1619®1 er
BOARD OFOUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN E FLORIDA
BY:
Chair n
890K 48 PvFUI,
r
,DEC 161991 aox 8 wr402
PURCHASE OF VOTING MACHINES
Chairman Lyons informed the Board that Rosemary Richey,
Supervisor of Elections, received a call from Brevard County
reporting that they no longer need their machines, and we
can get them very reasonably —possibly $100-150. apiece.
Mrs. Richey feels she has enough money to cover this and she
would like to be authorized to spend up to $3,000 for voting
machines from Brevard County.
Some discussion ensued re the possibility of going to
computers in the future. Commissioner Wodtke felt that as
long as we have the space to store the machine, we should go
ahead. -These machines apparently are compatible with ours,
and he believed it is a tremendous opportunity. The reason
the Supervisor of Elections may need more machines is based
on a state formula requiring a certain number of machines
based on population.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously a budget transfer
enabling the Supervisor of Elections to expend up to $3,000
for the purchase of used voting machines from Brevard
County.
REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
Commissioner Wodtke reported that the Committee has
discussed a thoroughfare plan which has been worked on by
staff and the technical aspect of the committee, and he
believed they have a recommendation re road classifications.
Administrator Nelson believed that although technically
this is a good plan, there is a need for further work to
relate it to the existing right-of-way problems as some of
the roads would be impossible to build under present
circumstances.
Commissioner Wodtke gave a brief review of some of the
suggestions made re road classifications, i.e., primary
collectors'as opposed to arterial roads, noting that we do
not want to have to maintain the Merrill Barber Bridge and
Ag
would like to ask the DOT to reconsider the Wabasso Bridge.
He then discussed right-of-way requirements and did not know
how technical they are supposed to be on these things.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that within three to four weeks,
they will have enough data to come up with a recommendation.
Administrator Nelson asked if a Resolution was needed
on improvement of 17th Street on the west side of U.S.1.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that this improvement had
been proposed previously, and bids were taken on putting an
enlarged culvert under U.S. 1. _The State felt the bids came
in too high; this was resubmitted and rebid and came in even
higher the second time. Commissioner Wodtke felt we need to
get back to the DOT on -this matter and request that they do
the project and pay for it as they originally were to have
done. He noted that we need turning lanes.
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman and the Administrator to contact the DOT,
requesting them to reconsider their decision not to proceed
with the proposed improvements at the intersection of 17th
Street and U.S.1; request that they either rebid it or
accept the original proposal if it is still available; and
indicate to the DOT that the County would be willing to work
with them in any way possible to complete what is hoped will
be improvements not only in this intersection but 16th
Street as well.
OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR FSACC LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -County travel for all Commissioners and appropriate
members of staff to attend the Mid -year Legislative
Conference for the Florida State Association of County
Commissioners to be held February 3-5, 1981, at Daytona
Beach.
i� Boa$ pacF®
DEC 16
r J
Fr- I
DEC 161981 48 PA X04
RESOLUTION 81-109 SUPPORTING DIVISION OF FORESTRY
Commissioner Bird informed the Board that currently 3�
per acre is contributed by each county for wildlife fire
protection and this is deposited with the state. The
Division of Forestry are asking that this be deposited in
the Incidental Trust Fund of the Division of Forestry rather
than in the State General Revenue Fund and are asking that
the County support their request.
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 81-109 as requested by the Division.of Forestry.
I
, -
Resolution No. 81-109
WHEREAS, the Counties of the State of Florida and the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of
Forestry have a shared responsibility in the protection of forest
and wild lands and related rural improvements; and
WIIEREAS, increased drainage and water usage has made more
wild lands susceptible to wildfire; and
WHEREAS, many people now build in the rural urban interface
causing greater threat to life and property from wildfire; and
WHEREAS, inflation dictates that a stronger cooperative
effort between fire districts, municiplil. fire deparLments, and the
Division of Forestry be established so as to insure the efficient
utilization of all suppression resources; and
WIIEREAS, it is in the best interest of the people of the
State of Florida, the Counties, and the Division of Forestry to
provide fire protection in the most cost effective manner; and
MILREAS, the Division of ForesLry is propc,!;ing to amend
Subsection (1) of Section 1 of 125.27 Florida Statutes, which
would provide funds to the Division for the purpose of providing
assistance in training and equipping rural and municipal fire
departments of communities of less than 10,000 population.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners in its meeting assembled at Vero Beach, Florida on
December 16, 1981, that it does support the Division of Forestry's
efforts to amend Subsection (1) of Section 1 of 125.27 Florida
DEC 16 1981 89oK 48 PAcF ,
88 ��5
pr 4 -8
PuF 406
DEC 161981
Statutes, which would direct the 3G/acre currently contributed by
Ghe Counties for wild land fire protection be deposited in the
Incidental Trust Fund of the Division of Forestry rather than the
State General Revenue Fund. These funds would be used in
r' listing in training and equipping rural and municipal fire
departments of communities of less than 10,000 population.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Patrick B. on
Chairman
ATTEsT:��c��� 1 �,
Freda Wright
Adopted: December 16, 19$1
• BOAT RAMP AT INTERSECTION OF 512 and C-34 Canal
Commissioner Bird reported that the Parks and
Recreation Committee have recommended that a boat ramp for
air boats be located at the intersection of 512 and C-34
canal. There is a very inadequate ramp there now, and the
recommendation is that the County go in, utilizing County
equipment and materials, at an expenditure not to exceed
$1,500 and improvise a much safer air boat launching ramp.
The funds would come from the Florida Boating Improvement
Trust Funds, and the Coordinator has indicated that this is
a viable use. This ramp will be used by other type boats as
well. The recommended improvements will include improving
the shoulder to make a better parking area.
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
application to the State for funds from the Florida Boating
Improvement Trust Fund not to exceed $1,500 for improvement
of the airboat ramp at the intersection of 512 and C-34
canal as discussed.
GOVERNOR'S SAVE OUR COAST PROGRA11
Commissioner Bird reported that there is a very tight
priority to get on the list of the Governor's Save our Coast
Program, and there was a deadlitie of December 15th to at
least get included in this priority list. No funds are
attached at this time, but it was necessary to establish
some priorities on oceanfront property, and he hoped the
Commission would approve the priorities suggested because
they have been submitted to the State. The priorities
submitted are as follows:
1) To acquire additional property adjacent to Wabasso Beach
Park for additional parking.
2) To acquire additional ocean frontage adjacent to Indian
River County Tracking Station Park.
3) To acquire a 22Z acre parcel south of Sea Grove
Subdivision as we need additional beach access in that
area.
4) To acquire a 4 acre parcel due north of Round Island
Park.
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
submission of the above listed priorities to the Governor's
Save Our Coast Program.
UNIV. OF FLORIDA ASSISTANCE WITH MASTER PLAN ON PARKS
Commissioner Bird reported that the Parks and
Recreation Committee has been working with the University of
Florida re obtaining their assistance on a master plan for
development of parks in the county. They are taking it
before their
faculty, and he felt
they will have
at least
DEC 161981
90
BOOK
48 PAA07
Fr- 'I
DEC 16 48 PATS 408
three students committed to assist the County in developing
a master plan, including a conceptual plan for the Round
Island Park area and for the part of Hobart Park which is
undeveloped. This will be their final thesis and they will
be assisted by Professors. The students will be here about
mid January and will have these projects completed in 16
weeks. The only expense involved is an estimate of about
$400-$500
per
student for
travel
and
supplies.
The Planning
Director
does
have these
funds in
his
budget and
feels it
would be a worthwhile use.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved an
expenditure from the Planning Department budget not to
exceed $2,000 for expenses of University of Florida students
as discussed.
MEMO OF AGREEMENT WITH RAMPMASTER. INCORPORATED
The above fully executed Memo of Agreement is hereby
made a part of the Minutes as approved by Resolution 81-54
adopted at the Regular Meeting of August 5, 1981.
91
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, a public body corporate and politic duly created and
existing under the laws of the State of Florida (hereinafter
called the "Issuer"), and RAMPMASTER, INCORPORATED, a Florida
corporation (the "Company").
1. Preliminary Statement. Among the matters of mutual
inducement which have resulted in the execution of this
Memorandum of Agreement are the following:
(a) The Issuer is a public body corporate and politic duly
created and existing as a local governmental body and
duly constituted as a public instrumentality for the
purposes of industrial development, under and by virtue
of Chapter 159, Part II, Florida Statutes, as amended
(the "Act"), and is duly authorized and empowered by
such Act to provide for the issuance of and to issue
and sell its industrial development revenue bonds for
the purpose of financing all or any part of the "cost"
(as defined in the Act) of any "project" (as defined
in the Act).
(b) The Company proposes to acquire, construct and equip
an industrial or manufacturing plant to be located
in Indian River County, Florida (the "County"), for
the manufacture of metal products (the "Project").
(c) The Company expects that the cost of the Project, in-
cluding the cost of issuance of the Bonds, will not
exceed $850,000.00.
(d) The Company represents that the Project will provide
or preserve employment in the County by creating ap-
proximately 40 additional, new jobs within a period of
one year after completion.
(e) The Company represents that it has not commenced the
acquisition or construction of or the ordering of
equipment for the Project, and that it is essential
that the Company immediately make commitments for
such purposes.
(f) The Company proposes that the Issuer agree to issue
its Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, in an
aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $850,000.00
(the "Bonds"), to finance all or part of the "cost"
(as defined in the Act) of the Project, the Bonds to be
secured by the obligations of the Company under a
lease, installment sale, loan or other financing agree-
ment (the "financing Agreement") to make payments
sufficient to pay the debt service thereon, and the in-
terest on the Bonds to be exempt from federal income
taxation under existing laws of the United States of
America.
(g) The Issuer, by resolution duly passed and adopted, has
made certain findings and determinations and has duly
approved and authorized the execution and delivery of
this Memorandum of Agreement.
(h) This Memorandum of Agreement is entered into to induce
the Company to proceed with commitments for the Project
and to incur costs in connection with various phases
of the Project (including the costs of the acquisition,
construction and equipping of the Project and related
expenses) and to provide assurances by the Issuer,
prior to the issuance of the Bonds, that the Issuer
8909
DEC 161981 PAC,F410�
4AS
DON RDT419,
11
will, in accordance with and subject to provisions of
the Constitution and other laws of the State of
Florida, the Act and this Memorandum of Agreement,
issue and sell the Bonds to make the proceeds thereof
available to finance all or part of the cost of. the
Project, to the extent of such proceeds.
2. Undertakings on the Part of the Issuer. In accordance
with and subject to the limitations of the Constitution and other
laws of the State of Florida, pursuant to Act and upon the
conditions hereinabove and hereinafter stated, the Issuer agrees
as follows:
(a) It will, subject to a firm take-out commitment from the
First State Bank of Miami, or the Southeast Bank of
Miami, authorize the issuance and sale of one or more
issues of the Bonds, pursuant to the terms of the Act
as then in force, for the purpose of financing all or
a portion of the cost of the Project.
(b) It will, at the proper time and subject to the prior
advice and approval of the Company and Bond Counsel,
adopt such proceedings and authorize the execution of
such documents as may be necessary and advisable for
the authorization, sale and issuance of the Bonds, the
acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project
and the financing of the Project, all as shall be
authorized by the Act and mutually satisfactory to the
Issuer and the Company. The Bonds shall not be deemed
to constitute a debt, liability or obligation, or a
pledge of the faith and credit or taxing power, of the
Issuer or of the State of Florida or of any political
subdivision thereof, but the Bonds shall be payable
solely from the payments received under the financing
agreement. The Bonds shall bear interest at such rate
or rates, shall be payable at such times and places,
shall be in such forms and denominations, shall be sold
in such manner, at such price and at such time or
times., shall have such provisions for redemption, shall
be executed, and shall be secured as hereafter.may be
requested by the Company and determined or provided
for by the Issuer, all on terms authorized by the Act
and mutually satisfactory to the Issuer and the
Company. The interest on the Bonds is to be e::empt
from federal income taxation.
(c) The Bonds shall be sold at negotiated sale to one or
a limited number of substantial and responsible in-
stitutional investors, such as banks, insurance
companies or investment firms, to be designated by
the Company with the approval of the Issuer, in a
private placement for such investors' own portfolios
and not for distribution to the public, unless the
Issuer shall otherwise approve.
3. Undertakings on the part of the Company. Subject to
the conditions hereinabove and hereinafter stated, the Company
agrees as follows:
(a) It will generally arrange for, manage and carry out
the acquisition, construction and equipping of the
Project, it will advance its funds for such purpose
as herein provided and, to the extent that the pro-
ceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds are not suf-
ficient to complete the Project and to pay all costs
incurred in connection therewith and with the finan-
cing and administration of the Project, the Company
will supply all additional funds which are necessary
therefor.
2
M It will cooperate with the Issuer in making arrange-
ments for the sale of the Bonds and shall be re-
sponsible for compliance with all applicable securi-
ties laws in connection with the offering and sale
thereof.
(c) Contemporaneously with the delivery of the Bonds the
Company will enter into the financing agreement and
such other agreements and related documents as shall
be necessary or appropriate so that the Company will
be obligated to operate, maintain and repair the
Project at its own expense, to pay for the account
of the Issuer sums sufficient in the aggregate to pay
all of the principal of and interest and redemption
premiums, if any, on the Bonds when and as the same
shall become due and payable, and to pay all other
costs incurred by the Issuer in connection with the
financing, construction and administration of the
Project, except as may be paid out of the Bond
proceeds or otherwise.
(d) It will take such further action and adopt such pro-
ceedings as may be required to implement its under-
takings hereunder. -
4. General Provisions.
(a) Since it is anticipated that the acquisition, con-
struction and equipping of the Project will commence
prior to the sale of the Bonds and the Company knows
and acknowledges that the Issuer will have no funds
available to pay the cost of the Project other than
funds derived from the sale of the Bonds, the Company
agrees to advance from time to time all funds necessary
for the acquisition, construction and equipping of the
Project, and any such funds when so advanced shall be
deemed funds advanced on behalf of the Issuer. To the
extent that the net proceeds derived from the sale of
the Bonds are sufficient for such purpose, the Issuer
agrees to reimburse the Company from such net proceeds
after the issuance of the Bonds for costs of the Pro-
ject incurred by the Company prior to the issuance of
the Bonds (subject to any limitations imposed by Sec-
tion 103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended).
(b) The Issuer agrees that the Company may enter into one
or more agreements with a private lender or lenders
to provide temporary construction financing and obtain
commitments for permanent financing for the Project
without vitiating in any manner the terms of this
Agreement.
(c) The Issuer and the Company agree that the Company shall
act as independent contractor of the Issuer for the
acquisition, equipping and completion of the Project,
and that the Company shall provide all services in-
cident to the acquisition, construction and equipping
of the Project, including without limitation, the
preparation of plans, specifications and contract
documents, the award of contracts, the inspection and
supervision of work performed, the employment of engi-
neers, architects, builders and other contractors
and the provision of money to pay the cost thereof
pending reimbursement- by the Issuer from the Bond
proceeds, and that the Issuer shall have no responsi-
bility for the provision of any such services but
shall retain the right to audit and inspect all docu-
ments upon request.
3
nog 48. PAGF 1I ,
�' ;�
0 0 11
0
loan
48 412
(d) The Company may, with the advice and consent of the
Issuer, engage the services of an underwriter in con-
nection with the offering and sale of the Bonds for
such compensation as shall be mutually agreeable to
such firm, the Issuer and the Company; provided, how-
ever, that the Issuer shall have no liability for the
payment of any such firm's compensation or expenses if
the Bonds are not sold and issued, and if the Bonds
are sold and issued the Issuer shall be liable for
the payment thereof only out of the proceeds of the
sale of the Bonds.
(e) Freeman, Richardson, Watson and Kelly, P.A., is hereby
designated as bond counsel for the Issuer in con-
nection with the issuance of the Bonds, for such com-
pensation as shall be mutually agreeable to such firm
and the Issuer; provided, however, that the Issuer
shall have no liability for the payment of any of such
firm's compensation or expenses if the Bonds are not
sold and issued, and if the Bonds are sold and issued
the Issuer shall be liable for the payment thereof
only out of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds.
(f) If required by the Issuer, the Company or bond counsel,
the Bonds shall be validated pursuant to the provi-
sions of Chapter 75, Florida Statutes, as amended,
prior to the issuance and delivery thereof.
(g) If required by the Issuer, the Company or bond counsel,
such other rulings, approvals, consents, certificates
of compliance, opinions of counsel, and other instru-
ments and proceedings satisfactory to each of them as
to matters relating to the Bonds, the Project, this
Memorandum of Agreement, the financing agreement, the
trust indenture or any other instrument or act con-
templated hereby shall be obtained from such govern-
mental, as well as nongovernmental agencies and en-
tities as may have or assert competence or juris-
diction over or interest in matters pertinent thereto
and the same shall be in full force and effect.at the
time of issuance of the Bonds.
(h) All commitments of the Issuer to issue the Bonds pur-
suant to this Memorandum of Agreement and to use
the proceeds thereof as herein contemplated are subject
to the condition that on or before one (1) year from
the date hereof (or such later date as shall be
mutually satisfactory to the Issuer and the Company),
the Issuer and the Company shall have agreed to
mutually acceptable terms for the Bonds and the sale
and delivery thereof and mutually acceptable terms
and conditions for the financing agreement and other
agreements and documents referred to in Sections 2(b)
and 3(c) and the proceedings referred to in Sections 2
and 3 hereof; provided, however, that the Bonds may not
be issued more than one year after the date on which
the entire Project shall have been first placed in ser-
vice or acquired (whichever occurs last).
(i) If the events set forth in paragraph (h) of this Sec-
tion do not take place within the time set forth there-
in or any extension thereof and the Bonds are not
issued as herein contemplated, the Company agrees that
it will pay all costs and expenses incurred pursuant
to this Memorandum of Agreement by the Company, the
fees and expenses of any underwriter engaged by the
Company, the fees and expenses of bond counsel, and
all costs and expenses incurred pursuant to this
Memorandum of Agreement by the Issuer, including the
normal fees and expenses of legal counsel for the
4
Issuer, whereupon this Memorandum of Agreement shall
terminate.
(j) So long as this Memorandum of Aqreement is in effect,
all risk of loss to the Project will be borne by the
Company.
(k) It is expressly agreed that any pecuniary liability
or obligation of the Issuer hereunder shall be
limited solely to the payments received under the
financing agreement, and nothing contained in this
Memorandum of Agreement shall ever be construed to
constitute a personal or pecuniary liability or
charge against any member, officer, employee or agent
of the Issuer, and in the event of breach of any
undertaking on the part of the Issuer contained in
this Memorandum of Agreement, no personal or pecuniary
liability or charge payable directly or indirectly from
the general funds of the Issuer shall arise therefrom.
The Company hereby releases the Issuer from and agrees
that the Issuer shall not be liable for, and agrees to
defend, indemnify and hold the Issuer harmless against
any liabilities, obligations, claims, damages, liti-
gation, costs and expenses (including but not limited
to attorney's fees and expenses) imposed on, incurred
by or asserted against the Issuer for any cause what-
soever pertaining to the Project, the Bonds or this
Memorandum of Agreement, or any transaction contem-
plated hereby. The provisions of this paragraph shall
survive any.termination of this Agreement.
(1) If any time prior to the issuance and sale of the
Bonds the Issuer shall determine that there has been
material adverse change in the business, operations
or financial condition of the Company, the Issuer may,
at its option, terminate this agreement by written
notice to the Company. The Issuer shall be discharged
of its obligations under this Memorandum of Agreement
if the Company shall not provide at the closing for the
issuance of the Bonds assurances satisfactory to the
Issuer that no material adverse change has occurred in
the representations of the Company herein or in the
financial condition of the Company as presented to the
Issuer as of the date hereof.
(m) If at any time after such Bonds have been sold and de-
livered it is ascertained by the Issuer or its designee
that the interest on the Bonds is no longer exempt
under federal income tax laws, or that the operation of
the Project is no longer economically or legally feas-
ible by reason of the condemnation, damaging or de-
struction of all or any part of the Project or by
changes in the law, measures deemed necessary by the
Issuer may be taken to protect the interest of the
holders of its Bonds, including the acceleration of
the date or dates for calling the Bonds for redemp-
tion, increasing the redemption premium and the rates
of interest on the Bonds, or increasing the payments
under any such financing agreement. The Issuer may
also require financial guarantees by guarantors ac-
ceptable to the Issuer that obligations of any obligor
under such financing agreement shall be performed or
otherwise satisfied. The provisions of this paragraph
shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
(n) In any event, the provisions of this Memorandum of
Agreement, except as otherwise provided, shall be
superseded by any financing agreement entered into
by the Issuer and the Company in accordance with
Sections 2(b) and 3(c) of this Agreement and shall,
S
DEC 16191 800K P PArF 413
DEC 16198 900K 48 PA414
upcn the execution and c.elivery of such financing
agreement, terminate and be of -o effect.
5. 21rc:ina Lffect. All covenants and ac-ree-ents herein
container, or on i;ehaif of the Issuer and the Ccmpary shall
bind and inure to the benefit of the respective successors and
assigns of the Issuer and the Cor.pany, i,hether so expressed or
not.
Ir
IN Iv1IT::ESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into
th�'s Memorandum of AgreerAent by their officers thereunto duly
authorized, as of the 5th day of August , 1981,
(CORTPORP.TE SEAL)
ATTESE :
A,
Clerk,
Indian River County
(CORPORhTE SEAL)
INDIAN RIVED. COUNTY, FLORIDA
I
BY://l/! ��-
Gtrzc,c Lyons , Ci
Board of County �
::pan,
issioi_ers
Signed this 13th day of
RA_".
ATTEST: BY:
J
Secretary
August , 1981.
Signed this 25th day of
August , 1981.
C
6
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. 78164 - 78312 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 7:18 o'clock
P.M.
Attest:
Clerk
DEC 161981 92 e��K 48 F,AcF4 5