HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/20/1982� � r
Wednesday, January 20, 1982
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the Board of
County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, on Wednesday, January 20, 1982, at 8:30 o'clock
A. M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Alfred
Grover Fletcher, Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; Patrick B. Lyons;
and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Neil A.
Nelson, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas,
Intergovernmental Coordinator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to
the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton,
Finance Director; Dan Fleischman, Baili-ff; and Janice
Caldwell and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerks.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Commissioner Lyons led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag, and J. G. Glenn, Chaplain, Indian River Memorial
Hospital, gave the invocation.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
November 18, 1981.
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 18, 1981.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Lyons requested adding an item
concerning a Water Seminar being held at Rollins College on
January 22, 1982. He next requested adding an item
regarding right-of-way licenses. Commissioner Lyons also
requested adding an item concerning the Florida Association
of County Commissioners meeting on February 3, 1982.
JAN 2 0 19048 Pasr54
JAN 2 01982. eaoh 8 PAGES`
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the
addition of the three emergency items.
PROCLAMATION
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
following Proclamation for Eugene F. Hamilton:
P R
O
C
L
A
M
A
T
I
O
N
WHEREAS, EUGENE F. HAMILTON has retired effective the first
day of January, 1982 as Assistant to the Director of the Public
Works Department of Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, EUGENE F. HAMILTON began work with Indian River
County Road and Bridge Department on August 1, 1950 and has been
a diligent and capable employee of Indian River County since that
time; and
WHEREAS, EUGENE F. HAMILTON started work as a Truck Drive
and eight years later was promoted to the position of
Superintendent of the Road and Bridge Department, a title which
he held for twenty-three years, for a total of over thirty one
years of dedicated service to this County; and
WHEREAS, EUGENE F. HAMILTON has had a thorough
understanding of the work he pdrformed and during his time of
employment was a"very loyal and conscientious employee;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAI14ED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, hereby expresses
their gratitude to EUGENE F. HAMILTON for his fine employment
record and contribution to Indian River County; and
BE IT FURTHER PROCLtiAIMED that the Board expresses and
extends to EUGENE F. HAMILTON the County's sincere appreciation
and best wishes in all future endeavors.
Dated this 20th day of January, 1982, Vero Beach, County of
Indian River, Florida.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B,
Y
Don C. Sc rlock, Jr,
Chairman`'
2
CLERK TO THE BOARD
A. A. G. Holley State Hospital
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously gave retro -active
approval for admission of William McCaig to A. G. Holley
State Hospital.
B. Approval of Deputies
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Chairman's signature for the following deputies appointed by
Sheriff Dobeck:
Deputy Sheriff:
Dawn M. Murphy Brian D. Wood
Richard J. Batiste Steven M. Rubino
Peter C. Lenz Willie J. Griffieth
Carol L. Boyd Gordon A. Michael
Ralph E. Smith
Part-time Deputy: Jeffrey W. Luther
Auxiliary Deputy:
James P. Pedrazzoli Shawn M. Smith
William J. Peters
Corrections Officer:
Joe A. Baker Gerard J. Green
Mary D. Morning Willie M. Dean
Thomas J. Loughlin, Sr.
Bookkeepers:
Ruth J. Harding Alma C. Fred
Vera G. Morris
Secretary to Sheriff: Carol A. Joiner
Civil Secretaries:
Eva B. Carter Jill E. Brunner
3
JAN 2019
�00K 48 PAcF 556
JAN 2 01992 BOOK 4$ �Acc 557
0
C. Report
The following report was received and placed on
file in the Office of the Clerk:
Report of Juveniles in Jail - November, 1981.
BOND FOR SHERIFF
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Sheriff's Public Official Bond.
4
IT IS IMHAT THIS BOND BE EXECUTED AND QUALIM PAPERS COMPLETED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS RECTION
STATE OF FLORIDA
County of.,INDIAN RIVER
KNOW ALL HIEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That We,_..Rr.....»T. _"TIDI" DOBECK
....................................................._............................_...........
as principal, and ...... ............... AMERI.CAN SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY
... ............................ ....... ............ ................................. ...... ..... _........... _..................................................................... _.... _............................. ........... __....... ...._._....... ....... as sureties
are held and firmly bound unto the Governor of the State of Florida, and his successors in office,
in the sum of.... N._..' QUI A.N..O.... AND..... IOl10.!a DOLLARS ---------------...i.. Z.Q.>..Q.�..Q.....Q.Q.i... -.-
.... ......».............. .....
lawful moIIey, for the payment whereof, well and truly to be made, we do bind ourselves, our and each of
our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
Sealed with our seals, and dated this .....1ST... day of ........... _..... Y..................JANUARY.............................................., 19.....8..x.....
The condition of the above obligation is such, That whereas, the above bounden..................................................................
_........... »....... _... ......._........".,TIM"....DOB.L�.CK.................................................................................. was, on the .....4TH.... day of November,
A. D. 19.3..0 ........, elected..._...............SHERIFF OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
........... ....................................................................................................................................._.................................._.......
to hold his office for the term of four years from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, A. D.
19.8.1........, and until his successor is qualified according to the Constitution and laws of this State.
Nov, therefore, if the said .......».......... R.. T ......... .... TIM " DOBECK _, _shall faithfully
perform the duties of his said office, as provided by lav, then this obligation to be void, else to be and remain
in full force and virtue.
Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of us:
J J.
...... _ ............... Principal.. _...___..» »»»» _ . _ » »» .. .... _ ....... » _...... ... (L. S. )
�x �- ....................� _ _ _ . .._......—..........._........................ » . _ ..» .._.....__._.....».» ....» ._ _ _ . » » »»»...... ..._......_... _...__
AMERICANSOUTHERN ,INSURANCT� GONSpArv�
�urety . ... ...
The above bond is approved this .......... ». day of ... _...... _....... ......_......................... ................ _............ ...._...........................
.....w........._._............._.»....._.__.................. ........................................... _............... ......
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.
_..... _..... ........... ................................... ............................ ......... ......... ............. ....._..................
County Commissioners.
Theabove bond is approved this .._....... .._ day of ................................ _..... ................................... ........................ .......... ............... 19 ..................
Comptroller.
:lec-21
.1-5-64
JAN 2 0 Z fQ0K 48 Dv, 558
JAN 2 0198'x: P HOK 48 PnF559
SET -BACKS ON S. R. 60
The Board reviewed the following memorandum from
the County Administrator:
TO: Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Neil A. Nelson,
Administrator
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
DATE: January 13, 1982 FILE:
SUBJECT: Ordinance 80-40 Relating
to Set -backs on each side
of S.R. 60
REFERENCES:
The subject Ordinance was adopted December 17, 1980 for a
one year period. This Ordinance provides a 75 foot building and
construction set -back on all real property fronting on S.R. 60
from the Nest boundary line of the main Canal to the I-95
interchange. The Ordinance was adopted for a period of one year
only in anticipation of the C.L.U.P. and Transportation Element
being adopted by January 1982. This, as you }snow, has not
occurred. It is anticipated that the Transportation Element may
be adopted sometime in May, 1982.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the Administrator be authorized to
advertise for a public hearing to consider the readoption of this
Ordinance on February 17, 1982.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
Administrator to adve4tise for a public hearing to consider
the readoption of Ordinance 80-40 relating to set -backs on
each side of S. R. 60.
RELEASE OF EASEMENT - GEORGE POMINVILLE
The Board discussed the following memorandum dated
January 8, 1982:
TO: The Honorable Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: raj
Neil Nelson
County Administrator
DATE: January 8, 1982 FILE:
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST
BY GEORGES' POMINVILLE
REFERENCES:
It is recommended that the data herein presented by given formal consideration by
the County Commission.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Mr. Georges' Pominville to release the common
side lot three foot easements of Lots 8 and 10 on Block 1 of Tropical Village
Estates Subdivision.
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power & Light, and the
Utility and R.O.W. Departments. Planning and Zoning staff analysis, which includes
a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled by the existing
front and rear swales.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
A) To release the easement. This would allow Mr. Pominville to construct a fence
around both lots and later build an addition on to his existing house over the
easeme;ts. The release of the easement is not anticipated to have any adverse
effect.
B) If the County decides to not release the easement it would be denying the
applicant the opportunity to build an addition on his home as well as pro-
hibit the constricting of a fence around his property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the release of the common side lot three foot easements of Lots 8
and 10 on Block 1 of Tropical Village Estates Subdivision, as outlined in Alternative
A.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
82-24 releasing the side lot line easements lying between
Lots 8 and 10, Tropical Village Estates, as requested by
George Pominville.
JAN 2 0 198a
noK 48 PASE560
JAN 201982
RESOLUTION NO. 82-24
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, have been requested to release the side lot
line easements lying between Lots 8 and 10, Tropical Village Estates,
according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 942, of
the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the
Plat of Tropical Village Estates for public utility purposes, and
WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement has
been submitted:' in pr.oper'=fo'rm;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot
a
line easdfients in Tropical Village Estates shall be released, abandoned
and vacated as follows:
Those common side lot three foot easements of Lots 8 and
10 on Block 1, Tropical Village Estates Subdivision,
according to the Plat of the same filed in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County,
Florida, in Plat Book 4, Page 942.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they
hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot
line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording
and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
This 20th day of January
Attest:
Fre a Wrig t, C
p1rk
Approved as to f
urg�ttorney
, 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Don C. Scur oc , Jr., airman
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
This Release of Easement, executed this 20th
day of January , 1982 by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the
State of Florida, first party; Georges Pominville, whose mailing
address is 9401 129th Court, Fellsmere, Florida, 32908 second party:
WITNESSETH:
That the said party of the first part for and in considera-
tion of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable
consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby
remise, release, abandon, and quit claim unto the said second party
forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the
said first party has in and to the following described easement, lying
on land situated in the County of Indian River County, State of Florida,
to -wit:
Those common side lot three foot easements of Lots 8
and 10 on Block 1, Tropical Village Estates Subdivision
as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 942, public records of
Indian River County, Florida.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the
appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and
all estate, right, title, interest, equity and claim whatsoever of
the said first party either in law or equity to the only proper use,
benefit and behoof of the said second party forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and
sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law and,
the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and
delivered in the presence of:
APPR/VED AS TO ,FFgW:
ry Bran enur , Attorney
JAN 201992
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Don Scur oc , Jr., C man
Attest:
re a Wrigftt, rc
tm 48 fA�F 6'.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
BOOK. 48 PA E 563
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer
duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledge-
ments personally appeared, DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., as Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political sub-
division of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT, as Clerk of the
Circuit Court, to me know to be the persons duly authorized by said
County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged be-
fore me that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said
political subdivision.
WITNESS by hand and seal in the County and State last
c
aforesaid this 164� day of 1982.
.A
(Notary Seal)
Notary Public, tate of Florid/ at
My commission pires:
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE
MY COMMISSION E.XYMES JULY 8 1982
WNDED THRU GEN-R'L INS UNDERWRITERS
- M
rge
SOUTH BEACH IMPACT FEES
The Board discussed the following memorandum from
Utilities Director Liner.
TO: Neil Nelson DATE: January 15, 1982 F! LE:
County Administrator
Ie S__11
FROM: Ge'oLge Liner
Utilities Director
SUBJECT- South Beach Impact Fees -
Deadline of January 15, 1982
REFERENCES:
As of the end of the work day, January 14th, we have in hand
impact fees or letter of credit for a total of 206 units in the
south beach area. Aside from this I have had calls from about
three (3) out-of-state people who called me earlier this week and
said their impact fees are in the mail, that are not counted in
that total. There are other people that are concerned about the
January 15th deadline and not being able to get payments in until
next week.
Aside from those, I have been informed by Mr. Padgett and Mr.
Vara that they would be happy to pay for eighteen (18) connections
and ten (10) connections respectively in addition to those already
"paid for to make sure that we will reach the escrowed amount of
$790,000. As I understand it, their proposal would be based on
conditions that are established by the county attorney which if they
cannot be identified with a specific property, could be subject to
them purchasing additional property to be able to use those connections -
or else a condition where they can be returned to the county as needed
be to supply individual people who need those connections for their
properties.
It would be my suggestion to work out an arrangement for these
developers to have connections paid up to about 240 or 245 so that
the escrowed amount of funds would be entirely from developers and
customers rather than working with the county's money.
Administrator Nelson stated that January 15th was
a self-imposed deadline in order to receive the South Beach
impact fees. He continued that he would prepare a payment
list and submit it to the City of Vero Beach. Mr. Nelson
advised that the money would be put in escrow; this would
give
the City the go-ahead to
connect those who
make
an
JAN 2 0198.2-
48
PAa564
JAN 2 01982. g 49 .FAcF565
application. He continued that the consulting engineers
could be authorized to proceed with the design of the 2z"
water main and ground storage tank.
The Board briefly discussed the agreement they
have with the City of Vero Beach.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the report and the
recommendation, as pointed out in the memorandum of January
15, 1982.
The Chairman called for the question. It was
voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with
Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition.
MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded -''by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved E. J.
Beidler as the designated Registered Agent for Indian River
Mosquito Control District.
PUBLIC HEARING - WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLA.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that staff has recommended
this Public Hearing be postponed until the next meeting, as
there have not been many responses received; the staff
wanted to send out questionnaires.
Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded
by Commissioner Bird, that the Public Hearing be continued
until the next regularly scheduled County Commission
Meeting.
Commissioner Lyons requested that the Board have
its meeting on Tuesday, February 2, 1982 in order to avoid a
conflict of a meeting with the Florida Association of County
Commissioners that he felt the Board should attend in
Daytona Beach on February 3rd. The Board agreed.
Mr. Harris, of Waste Management, interjected that
he was in agreement with the change in date.
12
Discussion followed, and it was determined that
the next scheduled County Commission Meeting would be held
on February 2, 1982.
The Chairman called for the question. It was
voted on and carried unanimously.
RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND - VILLAGE GREEN PHASE IV
Administrator Nelson reviewed his memorandum of
January 13, 1982, as follows:
TO: The Honorab.e Members of the ®ATE: January 13, 1982 FI LE:
Board of CoLnty Commissioners
FROM: Neil A. Nelson,
County Administrator
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
SUBJECT: Village Green Phase IV
Request for Release of Performance
Bond posted Aug. 19, 1981
REFERENCES: James Young,P.E., Project Engineer
to Board of County Commissioners
dated December 18. 1981
In August of 1981, Village Green Phase IV submitted a cash performance bond
in the amount of $33,160. to provide for the completion of paving, drainage, water
and sewer work (see attached letter from James W. Young, P.E. dated August 11, 1981
to Board of County Commissioners). The Engineer -of -record has certified that the
items included in the bond are complete, and is requesting release of the perform-
ance bond.
ALTERATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Inspection of the site by the County Public Works Director on January 13,
1982 revealed that the work is complete.
REC0,%1\]ENDATIONS AND MINDING
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners release the $33,160.
cash performance bond submitted August 26, 1981 to cover certain improvements to
Village Green Phase IV.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to release
the $33,160 cash performance bond submitted on August 26,
1981 to cover certain improvements to Village Green Phase
IV.
13
JAN 56S
�� Pc
2 019��
JAN 20 198
CLEARING OF CANAL D
The Board next considered the
memorandum:
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
FROM Neil A. Nelson,
County Administrator
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
DATE: January 11, 1952
®o�8 PA 567
following
FI LE:
SUBJECT: Clearing of Canal "D" Located East
of CR 510 South of CR 512 Length of
Project Approximately 2200 Lineal
Feet
REFERENCES:
On the east side of CR 510 south of CR 512 exists a drainage canal
(commonly referred toas "Canal D") which provides drainage for approximately
10,000 acres south of CR 512 west of CR 510. This canal lies within a 150'
wide easement presently under control of the Sebastian River Drainage District
(see copy of Quit Claim Deed attached).
The canal has not been maintained for many years, and it has now become
necessary to clear the canal of vegetation so that an emergency situation causing
severe erosion of the canal banks does not increase damage to private property
and County Road 510. The Sebastian River Drainage District has refused to maintain
the canal since the 10,000 acres that it drains does not lie within the District.
The upstream water shed area consists of:
1) Approximately 4000 acres owned by the Ro-Ed Coporation (T. Bradley, agent)
2) Approximately 4000 acres owned by the Corrigan Family (Pat Corrigan, agent)
3) Vero Lake Estates Subdivision, approximately 2000 acres, the drainage
of which is maintained by Indian River County.
In order to accomplish clearing of the Canal, Mr. Marvin Carter, Carter and
Assoc., representing concerned property owners, has approached the County in
finding a solution as to how to pay for the clearing of the canal. The County
Administrator and County Public Works Director held a series of meetings to resolx,e
the issue with Dir. Pat Corrigan, Mr. T. Bradley, and Marvin Cartcr.
ALTER\:ATIVES AND ANTALYSIS
At a meeting held October of 1951, the affected property o,„ncrs decided
to first define the cost for the cloaring work. Six companies not-ma]ly enraged
in clearing work were contacted and John Trod -]en and Company suhi-.fitted the.
low bid price of $13,690.
14
At a meeting held January 8, 19S2, Air. Corrigan, Mr. Bradley and the
County Administrator mutually agreed that since the forementioned respective
parties own 4000 acres, 4000 acres, and 2000 acres, the Corrigans and Ro-Ed
Corporation should each share 40% of the cost ($5,476. each) and the County should
share 200 of the cost ($2,738.). The County's benefit i�muld include unimproved
drainage for the Vero Lake Estates Subdivision and protection from erosion along
CR 510.
RECTI%E-NDATIONS AND FUNDING
Based upon the above meetings it is recormncnded that the County proceed to
stkzre in the $2,738. cost for clearing Canal "D". Funding to be fro.0 accoLLnt
n004-214-541-35.39 Road and Brid^e Aiaterials;Account, (unencumbered balance
11-31-81 is $5,16,779.)
Administrator Nelson commented that this was a
good effort to correct a problem that could be serious; he
felt the County's share of $2,738 for clearing Canal D was
appropriate.
Engineer Jim Davis explained the easements and the
drainage situation of the canal.
Commissioner Wodtke wondered why the owners of the
canal would not maintain it and if they were not going to
maintain it, then the County needs to obtain title.
Engineer Davis stated that this has been a problem
a number of years.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if this canal was
owned by the Drainage District but did not drain the
Drainage District land.
Engineer Davis responded affirmatively.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the location
of the canal and the boundaries; Commissioner Lyons
suggested that this item be tabled in order for the Attorney
to study this matter.
On Motion made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously agreed to table
this item until it could be researched, and that it be
brought back before the Board and that a representative from
the Sebastian River Drainage District be present at the time.
15
JAN 2 0 198 , �Qox 46 PAGE 568
L
JAN 2 01992 BOOK 43 Fa,F 569
RAILROAD CROSSINGS - TRANSFER FROM STATE
The Board referred to the following memorandum
from the County Administrator:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: January 7, 1982 F! LE:
Board of County Commissioners
Glendale Road (CR 612)
SUBJECT: Roseland PQgd (CR505) , and So. Gifford
Road (CR Railroad Crossings -
Transfer from State to County
Jurisdiction
FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: Joseph M. Austin, Florida D.O.T.,
County Administrator District IV Utility Engineer, to
Neil Nelson, County Admininstator
dated November 131 1981
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In accordance with State Legislature Chapter 77-165, the Florida D.O.T. is
requesting the County to accept the transfer and maintenance responsibilities
of the following Railroad Crossings including Traffic Control Signals as a part
of the Secondary Road System transfer to the County:
1) Glendale Road (612 also known as 8th Street) at FEC Railroad
2) CR 630 (South Gifford Road) at FEC Railroad
3) CR 505 (Roseland Road) at FEC Railroad
To process the transfer, the following is necessary:
1) Execution of Florida D.O.T. Railroad Reimbursement Agreement - Grade
Crossing and Traffic Control Devices Transfer Agreement.
2) Adoption of a Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners sub-
stituting Indian River County for the State of Florida D.O.T. in the
original D.O.T. - Railroad Crossing Agreement and Signal Agreement
The County received the responsibility for these roads and the Railroad
Crossings on Oct. 1, 1978, (Agreement attached).,10i�en the Secondary System was
transferred to the County, however, the specific documents formally transferring
individual agreements were not executed at that time.
I
The County has also received the following correspondence from the Florida
East Coast Railway Company
1) A bill dated August 13, 1981 for the rebuilding of the Oslo Road Railroad
Crossing in the amount of $11,290.08. This bill was initially sent to the
D.O.T. and was foriaarded to the County upon DOT's request. The FEC initiated
this work wihtout notifying the County. Oslo Road was transferred to the
County by the DOT in 1978.
2) A letter from the FEC stating that the County is obligated to pay
$10,300. for the reconstruction of the SR 512 (Fellsmere Road ) crossing
which has not been formally accepted by the County. This acceptance is
pending resurfacing and widening improvements by the DOT.
3) A letter notifying the County that the Railway plans to improve the
Glendale Road crossing and grants the County the option of doing the
work in-house. Glendale Road was transferred in 1978 from the DOT
to the County.
- - A
_ M M
.UTERNATIVES kND ANALYSIS
The agreements proposed for transferring each of the crossings contain
the following provisions:
1) Grants right of County for road to cross FEC right-of-way and any
facility placement requires a FEC Railroad Permit.
2. Any work by the County under/over/or across the right-of-way is to
be paid for by the County, whether by reimbursing the Railroad or
by direct payment by County:
3) The County will maintain the crossing unless the Railroad disturbs
paving between headers or ties, in which case, the Railroad will patch.
4) If the Railroad makes changes that affect paving or County facilities,
the County must bear the cost.
5) The County will not take action to prevent operation of trains over
crossings.
6) If the County fails to comply with the agreement, it loses the privilege
to cross the FEC right-of-way.
7) The agreement is for one (1) year, automatically -renewed unless 30 day
notice of termination by Railroad is given.
8) If the County terminates agreement it must remove all improvements in
FEC right-of-way.
9) Cost for maintenance of signals shall be the responsibility of the
Railroadand the County. In the schedule of Annual Cost of Control Devices,
it states that the Railway and Countv will share the.cost ona 50/50/basis.
Alternative #1
As per Chapter 77-165 of the Legislature of the State of Florida, the County
can approve the execution of the agreements and adoption of the resolutions. The
financial impact this alternative will have includes yearly maintenance costs of
$615.00 for the South Gifford Road Crossing and $490.00 for the Glo'ndale Road
Crossing and Roseland Road Crossing (total cost of $1,595, per year). Also,
improvements in the future to the Crossings may be billed to the County. This
impact can be substantial, as some recent improvements to one crossing totaled
$11,290.08. Also, we have been told by the DOT that two other crossing signal
agreements will be forthcoming.
The $10,300. cost for the reconstruction of SR 512 crossing is not recommended
to be paid by the County until the County formally accepts this road. The County
should pay the $11,290.08 cost for improving the Oslo Road crossing.
Alternative # 2
Proceed with avenues to refuse acceptance of the Secondary System and cross-
ings from DOT. This will involve much legal work and the County would consider
not accepting the 800 of the 5th and 6th Cent Gas Tax in the future. Currently,
the County receives approximately` $600,000 per year in revenues plus interest from
this program.
This alternative would be in direct conflict with the Boards action in
October of 1978 when the Transfer Agreement was approved by the Board.
In communicating with other Counties, any attempt to refuse acceptance of
the Crossings would probably not be fruitful, and would be costly on the County's
behalf.
� ,
16
Q004 41A PAfF 570
JAN 2 0198?!
RECO�r�IE''DATIONS AND FUNDING
boex AS 57
Based upon mandate by Florida Legislature, Chapter 77-165, it is recommended
that the Board of County Commissioners approve alternative #1 and accept transfer
of the following three crossings at this time adopting and executing the agreements
and resolutions:
1) Roseland Road (CR 505) at FEC Railroad
2) Glendale Road at FEC Railroad
3) CR 630 (South Gifford Road) at FEC Railroad
It is recommended that the County pay the $11,290.08 for improvements to
the Oslo Road Crossing. The $10,300 cost for improvements to the SR 512 Crossing
are.not to be paid by the County since the County has not accepted this road.
Funding is recommended to be accomplished by transferring $35,OOO.from account
#111-199.=541=99.91=Board of -.County Commission -Contingency (unencumbered balance as of
January 13, 1982 is $ 53,700.00 ) to a new account # 111-214-541-34.46 -.Rent-
Florida East Coast Railway.
ATTACI-D�ZENTS
1) Agreement between Florida DOT and Indian River County dated Oct. 1, 1981
transferring the Secondary Road System to the County.
2) Letter from Joseph M. Austin, DOT District Utility Engineer to Neil Nelson
dated November 13, 1981
3) Railroad Crossing Transfer Agreements (Typical)
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he wanted the
cost sharing between the County and the State discussed.
He wondered where the liability would lie regarding the
crossings and traffic control devices.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that it would lie
with the individuals charged with the maintenance; it was
the railroad, and in his opinion, they would be liable if
their people were negligent.
Engineer Davis agreed with the Attorney.
The Attorney stated the original agreement
provided that the railroad would bear the cost of
maintaining all signals; after that, the Department of
Transportation would pay the cost of up to 50% of
,maintaining the signals. He added that was why the County
was picking up 50% of the cost.
Commissioner Bird inquired if it were possible for
the County to get any kind of a hold harmless agreement.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that he would look
into that possibility but felt it was very remote. He
doubted that they would depart from their standard form for
the County. He added that the County had agreed to this in
1978 and now they were formalizing the agreement. The
Attorney stated that if the County would not agree, the FEC
could stop the County from crossing over their railroad
tracks. He warned that the County would also risk the
chance of losing their funding of the 5th and 6th cent gas
tax.
Mr. Thomas reviewed the financial aspects of this
matter with the Board.
Motion was made by Commissioner'Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, for the Board to accept the
recommendation of the Administrator to adopt and execute the
agreements and resolutions as follows: Resolution 82-26 for
Glendale Road at the FEC Railroad; Resolution 82-27 for
Roseland Road at the FEC Railroad; and Resolution 82-28 for
South Gifford Road at the FEC Railroad; and to authorize the
signature of the Chairman; and that the County pay
$11,290.08 for improvements to the Oslo Road Crossing; that
the funding of $35,000 be transferred from
#111-199-541-99.91 to account #111-214-541-34.46.
Commissioner Fletcher felt it should be stipulated
that the County be notified of any work being done at the
railroad crossings.
Attorney Brandenburg advised that the FEC Railroad
was communicating with the Department of Transportation, and
that he would write to them asking that the County be
notified of any work initiated by the FEC.
The Chairman called for the question. It was
voted on and carried unanimously.
JAN 2 0 19dz kox 8 ��� �� 57�
18
JAN 2 01992
FORM 722-VZBR
1'80
PAGE I OF 1
COUNTY RESOLUTION
CROSSING TRANSFER AGREEMENT
BOOK 48 FA,F 573
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF RAILROAD CROSS r�GEasMtECoast RailwayRCompany
RELATED AGREEMENTS PROVIDING FOR SUBSTITUTION OF THE 11
AS A PARTY TO THE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR-
TATION, OR ITS PREDECESSORS, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
RESOLUTION NO. 82-26
ON MOTION OF Commissioner L,vons ,
and seconded by Commissioner Wndtk
the fr4lowing RESOLUTION was adopted:
MIEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida has enacted Chapter 77-165 providing for the
tFansfF._,aintenance responsibility of certain public roads, including railroad crossing agreements
and other agreements, from the State to the Indian River County , and
WHEREAS, the Indian River C6=n L has been presented with an agreemenCfor this
purpose which it wishes to execute.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION OF. Indian River
COUNTY, FLORIDA:
That Indian River County enter into a CROSSING TRANSFER AGREEMENT
with the State of Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida East Coast Railway
Company providing for the substitution of the Indian River Counter for the FDOT, or its
predecessors, and the transfer of the rights and duties of the agreements listed in Exhibit "A" to the
CROSSING TRANSFER AGREEMENT; and,
That the Chairman and Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners be authorized to enter into
such agreements with the State of Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida East Coast Railway
Company as herein described; and,
That this RESOLUTION shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County Florida, in regular session, this _20_ day of 2..
ATTE.ST:.za" -
Clerk of the Board of Cotn t
Commissioners
_., 44,e,0_4 Z, A
>-..:Chairmanof:the-Board: outlay.
r:
GLENDALE ROAD
FORM 722-92UR COUNTY RESOLUTION
"o CROSSING TRANSFER AGREEMENT
I-AGH 1 OF t
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF RAILROAD CROSSING AGREEMENTS AND OTHER
RELATED AGREEMENTS PROVIDING FOR SUBSTITUTION OF THE Flor:.da East Coast Egjj ay Company
AS A PARTY TO THE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR-
TATION, OR ITS PREDECESSORS, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
RESOLUTIO N NO. $? - 2 7
ON MOTION OF Commissioner - T,vons
and seconded by Commissioner R,n+-1,�
the f,41o%ring RF,SOLUTION was adopted:
tVIIEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida has enacted Chapter 77-165 providing for the
transfer of maintenance responsibility of certain public roads, including railroad crossing agreements
and other agreements, from the State to the - Indian Paver County ,and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County has been presented with an agreement for this
purpose which it wishes to execute.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TIIE COUNTY COMMISSION OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA:
That Indian River County enter into a CROSSING TRANSFER AGREEMENT
with the State of Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida East Coast Railway
Company providing for the substitution of the Indian River ,o r rte_ for the FDOT, or its
predecessors, and the transfer of the rights and duties of the agreements listed in Exhibit "A" to the
CROSSING TRANSFER AGREEMENT; and, '
That the Chairman and Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners be authorized to enter into
such agreements with the State of Florida Department of Transportation and thelalorlda East Coast Railway
Company as herein described; and,
That this RESOLUTION shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County Florida, in regular session, this _20 day of._janua y , 198 2_
Chairman of the Board County
/io!. roved as to rrtrr %,ult
ATTEST: r:'`1ir
Clerk of the Board of Count;
Commissioners
Jai 'n L)isi=+�tJCt1 ►t
ROSELAND ROAD
JAN 20 198 20
Any 48 PA,� (�
JAN 2 0198t
FORM 722-928R'
t-80
PAGE 1 OF t
COUNTY RESOLUTION
CROSSING TRANSFER AGREEMENT
wK 48 'FA jF 575
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF RAILROAD CROSSING AGREEMENTS AND QTHER
RELATED AGREEMENTS PROVIDING FOR SUBSTITUTION OF THE- East Coast Rai way Company
AS A PARTY TO THE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR-
TATION, OR ITS PREDECESSORS, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
RESOLUTION NO. 82-28
ON MOTION OF Commissioner Lyons
and seconded by Commissioner LTC) dfi kP
the fr4Iowing RESOLUTION was adopted:
MIEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida has enacted Chapter 77-I65 providing for the
transfer of maintenance responsibility of certain public roads, including railroad crossing agreements
and other agreements, from the State to the Indian Raver County , and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County has been presented with an agreement for this
purpose which it wishes to execute.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION OF Indian River
COUNTY, FLORIDA:
That Indian River Count -y enter into a CROSSING TRANSFER AGREEMENT
with the State of Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida East Coast Railway
Company providing for the substitution of the Indian River County for the. FDOT, or its
predecessors, and the transfer of the rights and duties of the agreements listed in Exhibit "A" to the
CROSSING TRANSFER AGREEMENT; arid,
That the Chairman and Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners be authorized to enter into
such agreements with the State of Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida East Coast Railway
Company as herein described; and,
That this RESOLUTION shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County Florida, in regular session, this 2Il_ _ day of Inri1 -1 0ru
ATTEST: L JAk _t _'Aj
Clerk of the Board of Count
Commissioners
SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD
Chairman
Aommii k�
rx
dilil {cU.'f jird i; y, 0
AUTHORIZED COUNTY SIGNATURES - RESOLUTION 82-25
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
82-25 directing County depositories to honor certain
authorized signatures on County warrants and other orders
for payment.
V-
&
JAN 2 0 199.
22
tOK AQ
r .u5w
JAN 201982
I
RESOLUTION NO. 82-25
®o� 48 P 577
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEFIS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DIRECTING COUNTY
DEPOSITORIES TO HONOR CERTAIN AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES
ON COUNTY WARRANTS AND OTHER ORDERS FOR PAYMENT.
WHEREAS, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY on January 6, 1982, held an election for the office of
Chairman and Vice -Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the County Commission did nominate and select DON C.
SCURLOCK, JR. as Chairman and A. GROVER FLETCHER as their Vice -
Chairman, and
WHEREAS, FREDA WRIGHT was elected Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Indian River County effective January 4, 1977, and also serves as
a Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Florida
Statutes Sec. 125.17, and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary to re -instruct the County's
depositories as to the signatures necessary to honor County warrants,
checks or other orders for the payment of money drawn in the
Commission's name.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, sitting in regular session that:
1. The County Commission has in the past designated certain
banking institutions as official depositories of County funds, such
designations are hereby ratified and affirmed, and
2. That each designated depository of the Commission is
hereby requested, authorized and directed to honor checks, warrants or
other orders for the payment of money drawn in the Commission's name,
including those payable to the individual order of any person or
persons whose name or names appear thereon, when bearing the facsimile
signature of the Chairman of the County Commission and the facsimile
signature of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, when said check, warrants
or other orders for the payment of money equals or does not exceed the
sum of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00), and
WHEREAS, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if a check, warrant or
other order for the payment of money drawn in the Commission's name
exceeds the sum of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00), said designated
M
depositories are authorized and directed to honor checks, warrants or
other orders for the payment of money drawn in the Commission's name,
only when such check, warrant or other order for the payment of money
bears the facsimile signature of the Chairman and Clerk of the Circuit
Court and further bears the original signature of either the Chairman,
Vice -Chairman, or Clerk of the Circuit Court. Said actual and facsimile
signatures appear below:
(1) Freda Wright -I
Clerk of the Circuit Court `tE-�_
Actual
Facsimile
(2) Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
(3) A. Grover Fletcher
Vice -Chairman
Ac ual
acsi.miie
Ac al
Facsimile
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above named signatories are
hereby authorized to execute any and all signature cards and agreements
as requested by the respective banking institutions designated as
official depositories by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the use of facsimile signatures is
as authorized by Florida Statutes Chap. 116.34 The "Uniform Facsimile
Signature of Public Officials Act".
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Wodtke who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Lyons and, upon being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr.
Commissioner Dick Bird
JAN 2 0199? rox
48,
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
JAN 2 0198 WK -48 F 57*9
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 20th day of January , 1982•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By CooldU4�
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Attest: �_ �/Lb
Freda Wright
Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
•F
2."- A Z 4/4, v
By
Gamey randenb rg
Cfln Attorne
SATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
Before me personally appeared FREDA WRIGHT, DON C. SCURLOCK,
to be
JR. and A. GROVER FLETCHER to 'die known and known to me/the persons who
executed the foregoing instrument, and having been placed under oath
have indicated that the foregoing are their actual and facsimile
signatures.
This 22nd Day of January 1982
a
Not y
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1982
SONDED THRU GENERA INS. UNDERWRITERS
RELEASE OF CLAIM
Attorney Brandenburg explained the claim involving
John H. Cann and Irene M. Cann,: his wife vs. Indian River
County and Harold Whitaker. He continued that Mr. Cann was
a volunteer fireman and he experienced a fall and is now 220
medically disabled. The Attorney added that neither the
County -owned truck nor the individual driving the truck, from
which Mr. Cann Fell, were insured.
3
Commissioner Wodtke interjected that at the time
of this accident, Mr. Cann was drawing 100% disability.
Discussion followed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, to authorize a General Release for
$15,000 to John H. Cann and Irene M. Cann,.his wife; and the
funds be allocated as follows:
The following budget amendment is necessary to allocate funds to settle an
insurance claim due to a 1977 accident.
Account No.
Account
Title
Increase Decrease
001-101-511-33.16
Insurance
Costs
15,000.
001-199-513-99.91 B.C.Q. Contingencies 15,000.
n.
Attorney Brandenburg did not think there was any
doubt that Mr. Cann was 22% disabled. Mr. Cann was a
volunteer fireman on the scene, but they did have some
conflicting testimony as to what occurred. The Attorney
felt that if this matter went to trial, the award might be
greater. He noted that this claim would settle any matter
involving the Civil Court action that is pending with the
County and the driver.
The Chairman called for the question. It was
voted on and carried with a 4 to 1 vote, with Commissioner
Fletcher voting in opposition.
t ''0
P,9GF_ VO
5
201982
GENERAL RELEASE
That .........we,
(1, We)
BOX
Know 1,111 Rlen -By These {presents:
JOHN H. CANN and IRENE M. CANN, his wife
48 uur 581
RAMCO 'FORM 22
first party, for and in consideration of the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND AND N01100
----- -------- —__M— Dollars, or other valuable considerations, received from or on behalf of
HAROLD WHITAKER and INDIAN RIVER .00UNITY
second party, the receipt whereof is hereby acknoa7ledged,
(Wherever used herein the terms "first party" and "second party" shall include singular and plural, heirs, legal representa.
tives, and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corpuratious, wherever the contest so admits or requires.)
IIEREBY remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said second party, of and from
all, and all manner of action and actions, cause and causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money,
accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, vari-
ances, trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims and demands whatsoever, in law or in equity,
which said first party ever had, now has, or which any personal representative, successor, heir or assign of
said first party, hereafter can, shall or may have, against said second party, for, upon or by season of any
matter, cause or thing w6tsoever, from the begfruting of the world to the day of these presents.
Particularly as to all claims, rights of actions, and any
other conceivable relief arising out of those events giving
rise to that particular Civil Court action in the Circuit
Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, of Florida, in and for
Indian River County, Case No. 79-644, and styled John H.
Cann and Irene M. Cann, his wife v. Indian River County and
Harold Whitaker.
In Witness hered, WE have hereunto set OUR hand S and seal S this
day of , A. D., 19
Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of:
....................................................................................... I�---...B
................---------...............................
John . ann
...Yrene N!e ��Cari............................................
-
STATE OF FLORIDA,
COUNTY OF Indian River S
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an
officer duly authorized in the State aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared
John H. Cann and Irene M. Cann, his wife
to me known to be the person Sdescribed in and who executed the foregoing instrument and .they acknowledged
before me that theyxecuted the same.
\1'IT\ESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of
A. D. 19
77nrs* MSI 1111711 prcparnl1,),:
Notary..Publc....................................................................
Aiorlph L. Evans, Esquire, Pos ce Box 3247, Vero Beach, FL
I
MENTAL HEALTH GRANT
The Board next discussed the following letter from
Jane M. Baldwin of the Mental Health Association:
Mental Health Association
of Indian River County
P. O. Box 427
V2 RO BEACH, PLORICA 32960
305-9-62--S7-11-
January
5 ^ l3
January 12th, 1982
County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Suite '1 158
Vero Beach, Florida 329060
Dear Commissioners:
Please put the Mental Health Association on the agenda for January 20th, 1982,
to present the Community Service Trust Fund Grant application from the Department
of Veteran and Community Affairs, for the County Commissioners approval and
signature.
The funds for this grant will serve our Better Baby Program and Crisis Line, which
services all of Indian River County young and old.
Sincerely yours,
A q
Jane,M. Baldwin
Executive Director
(dental Health Association in Indian River County
Board Secretary Elizabeth Forlani advised the
Board that the Mental Health Association did not supply the
application for the grant for the Board to review.
Discussion followed, and it was determined that
this item should be withheld until the next meeting.
NK
JAN 2 01982 8 48 '-PA'7582
J AN 2 01982; K 48 Pau. 583
PUBLIC HEARING — PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
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:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Iridian 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
�
a /G.
in the matter of _ [ct
in the
fished in said newspaper in the issues of Agg r— • -2/? . % / f1
i
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 ` 7 day of 2`2-C , A.D.— I ,
21, A_
�} j(Busrss a a e •
:.SEAL) {Clerk of the Circuit Court, I�River County, Florida)
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on
January 20, 1982, at 10:00 A.M., in the County
Commission Chambers in the Administration
Building, 1640 25th Street, on the preliminary
assessment roll for Project No. 8118, the
grading, draining, paving and hard surfacing
Of 14th Avenue, from 7th Street north to 8th
Street. The preliminary assessment roll is on
file in the Office of the County Administrator
and is open to public inspection during normal
working hours. '
Intersted. parties may appear and be heard
regarding the proposed assessments contained
in the preliminary assessment roll. 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
Dec. 26, 1981.
The Board reviewed the following memorandum dated
January 11, 1982 from the Administrator:
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
_h� I
FROM.'/ -"".Reil A. Nelson,
County Administrator
DESCRIPTION A\'D CONDITIONS
DATE: January 11, 1982 FI LE:
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider Preliminary
Assessment Roll - Petition Paving -
14th Avenue from 7th Street to 8th
Street
REFERENCES:
On December 16, 1981, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution
#81-105 providing for the paving of 14th Avenue between 7th Street and 8th Street.
As prescribed in Special Assessment Ordinance #81-27, preliminary assessment rolls
have been prepared, a notice has been properly published in a newspaper of general
circulation stating that such preliminary assessment rolls have been completed and
are on file in the Office of the County Administrator, and a letter was sent via
certified mail on Dec. 29, 1981 to each property owner affected by the paving
project. The above procedures are required prior to the Public Hearing scheduled
for 10:00 AM, January 20, 1982, County Commission Chambers to consider the Preliminary
Assessment Roll.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Two preliminary assessment rolls have been prepared. One roll is based
upon assessment by front footage and the other is computed upon assessment by
square footage. In computing assessment by square footage, those oi'Nners on
the west side of the street would pay approximately 13% more due to the fact
that the lots on the west side are 130' deep and those on the east side are 115'
deep. If the assessments are computed on a front footage basis, the assessment
will be in agreement with past County Policy. The County staff prefers the
assessment by front footage in this particular case since the lot ol%ner has more
direct benefit along the front property line in the construction of a paved
road along 14th Avenue.
RECO MENDATION
Subject to comments voiced during the Public Hearing, the staff recommends the
Preliminary Assessment roll be approved based upon computation by front footage
oi%nership for the paving of 14th Avenue from 7th Street to Sth Street.
:TTa .11�t -\"I s
1) Preliminary Assessment Roll computed on front footage basis
2) Preliminary Assessment Roll computed on Square footage basis.
3) Notice of Public Hearing
4) Copy of Typical Letter to Benefitted Property Mers
JAN 2 01992.
30
P- 45 594
BooK 48 FA,E 585
JAN 2 0198;.
Engineer Davis stated that staff recommended the
Preliminary Assessment roll be approved based upon
computation by front footage ownership for the paving of
14th Avenue from 7th Street to 8th Street. He added that
they have discussed this matter with the property owners and
there were no adverse feelings.
The Chairman asked if there was any one present
who wished to be heard.
Mr. Malinos, 716 14th Avenue, asked the Board if
side guard rails would be constructed.
Engineer Jim Davis stated that guard rails had not
been included in the design of the road, at the intersection
of 14th Avenue and 8th Street, but they would be installing
a culvert with end walls and there would be appropriate
shoulders. He added that the length of the culvert was 40'
and the road was 201. Engineer Davis calculated that the
guard rails would be approximately $700, or $70 more per
family.
Attorney Brandenburg interjected that adding guard
rails at this time might raise some objections as it would
be increasing the scope of the original work, which was not
in the resolution that was adopted. He suggested that the
scope of work not be increased at this time.
Lengthy discussion followed, and it was determined
that the guard rails could be added after the culvert was
built. One gentleman,, who lived in the same neighborhood,
did not think guard rails were necessary.
Chairman Scurlock indicated that it was the
Board's desire to comply with the wishes of the people but
felt they must comply with the assessment resolution; the
guard rails could be done later.
Mr. Newcomb, 715 15th Avenue, inquired if the cost
of the culvert was buried in the estimated cost for fixing
the road.
Engineer Davis responded that it was not included.
He continued that the existing culvert that was there had
deteriorated so the County replaced the culvert; it was an
emergency.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to close
the public hearing.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted the
assessment roll as published on December 26, 1981 on a front
foot basis for a total of $9,981.88.
Purchase of Treasure Coast Utilities & Ixora Utilities
Administrator Nelson reviewed his memorandum with
the Board, as follows:
TO: Board of County DATE: January 14, 1982 FI LE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Purchase of Treasure
Coast Utilities and
Ixora Utilities
FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES:
Administrator
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
The Board of County Commissioners was presented an offer to
purchase Treasure Coast Utilities. At that time, the County
indicated that it would seriously consider the offer and that the
offer might be acceptable if the assets, etc. of the utility were
as expected by the County. The Attorney for Travis Salter is
attempting to establish a meeting date between County staff and
the utility owners.
Attached to this memorandum please find a letter and draft
contract prepared by Richard Bogosian regarding acquisition of
Ixora Utilities. Subsequent to the County's receipt of these
materials, the County Administrator, Neil A. Nelson, and County
Attorney, Gary Brandenburg, met with Mr. Bogosian and discussed
the offer. County staff inquired whether the Ixora Utility owners
would be amenable to a contract arrangement that would provide
for the County's immediate take over and operation of the
utility with payment by the County to be made within 120 days.
Mr. Bogosian indicated he would communicate with his clients and
respond prior to the Board's consideration of this memorandum.
PIAN 2 0 198 .32 nu '48 PAGE 586
I/
JAN 2 0198
8w 8 PA F587
These purchases, if approved by the Board of County
Commissioners, are anticipated to be out of obligated Farmers
Home Administration monies. The initial contact has been
established with the F.H.A. by telephone by Mr. John Robbins on
these purchases.
If the Board of County Commissioners desire to pursue
purchase of these utilities at this time, staff recommends the
immediate presentation of the attached letter to F.H.A. to obtain
initial indications on the feasibility of the acquisitions.
RECOPdNIENDATI ONS :
It is recommended that:
1. The Board authorize the County Attorney and County
Administrator to meet with Travis Salter and negotiate his offer.
2. -The Board give conceptual approval.to the acquisition of
Ixora Utilities and authorize the County Attorney and County
Administrator to negotiate the financial contract form for the
acquisition.
3. The Board authorize the presentation of the attached to
F.H.A., thus placing the County in a position to proceed with
financing, if the negotiations are acceptable.
4. The staff be authorized to conduct the necessary
engineering work and to submit the pre -application to the F.H.A.,
at the appropriate time.
The Board next reviewed the following letter dated January
14, 1982 to Farmers Home Administration regarding the
request for a loan to purchase Treasure Coast Utilities and
Ixora Utilities:
33
� � r
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
NEIL A. NELSON - County Administrator
Lawyers Title Building
2345 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: (305) 562-4186
January 14, 1982
Mr. Charlie B. Hudnell
District Director
Farmers Home Administration
P. 0. Box 3767
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
Subject: Request for Loan to Purchase
Treasure Coast Utilities and
Ixora Utilities
Dear Mr. Hudnell:
Secretary to Board
Telephone: (305) 569-1940
This letter is written on behalf of Indian River County, Florida with the
intent to request subsequent loan funds for the purchase of the subject
utilities which are a part of the Indian River County South Municipal Tax
District. The source of loan funds requested would be the approximate
1.959 million dollars of remaining obligated water monies and approximate
11.0 million dollars of obligated sewer monies which Farmers Home Adminis-
tration has set aside for Indian River County.
Furthermore, this letter is also to request approval of a procedure to obtain
loan funds which would allow Indian River County, Florida, to meet demands
placed by the Courts and utility owners and also help to eliminate certain
public health problems associated with the subject utilities and thereby
eliminate certain legal actions now being pursued by the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation.
In an effort to provide you with information necessary to evaluate this
request and hopefully issue approval, the following narrative is presented.
Treasure Coast Utilities and Ixora Utilities are two private water and sewer
franchise systems located within the South County Municipal Taxing District.
The Preliminary Engineering Report dated April, 1979 incorporated these two
utilities into the proposed South County Water System now under construction.
As you are aware, funds for this construction are from Farmers Home Adminis-
tration in the form of a $5,825,000 loan and $796,900 grant. Treasure Coast
Utilities water system was to be incorporated into the system as part of
Phase I of the South County Water System. Ixora Utilities was to be incor-
porated into the system at such time as it was feasible.
During the past two years, the referenced utilities have been cited by the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for non-compliance to State and
Federal wastewater standards. As a result of the citations, both utilities
have been taken to Court. A copy of the complaints filed by the Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation is attached. As a further result of the liti-
gation between the referenced utilities and Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Indian River County has become involved in the litigation. The exact
status of Indian River County in the litigation is not known at this time.
JAN 2 0 19822
34
nu 8 PAGF- 588
JAN 20198Z'
apox 48 FSE 589
In the case of Treasure Coast Utilities, the Court has indicated if corrective
actions are not undertaken to meet Florida Department of Environmental Regula-
tion requirements, the Court will order the utility closed which will result
in the County Health Department issuing eviction notices to affected residents.
In addition, the owner of the utility has filed a $4,000,000 suit against the
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners jointly and individually.
In an effort to stay further Court action which could result in families being
evicted and resolve the litigation against the County, the owner of Treasure
Coast Utilities has made an offer for the sale of the utility. The sale price
is $168,500. A copy of the offer of sale is attached for your review. You will
note in the attached letter (Salter to Myers), the offer is to expire
January 11, 1982. This date has been extended by mutual agreement to allow
the County time to evaluate its position. As you can see, time is of the essence
in purchasing this utility.
Ixora Utilities has been cited by the Court with two contempt of Court violations
in conjunction with legal actions filed by Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. At the most recent Court hearing involving Ixora Utilities and
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the Court indicated the County
could be involved. As the County does not own the utility, the County has no
way of making improvements which would eliminate any legal action taken against
the County. The owners of Ixora Utilities have made an offer to sell the utility
to Indian River County for a price of $225,000. A copy of a letter from the
utilities' attorney is attached for your review (letter Bogosian to Collins).
Please note, the owners are indicating in the letter, if the County does --not
agree to the purchase of the utility by January 15, 1982, the utility will be
closed. This date has been extended by mutual agreement to allow the County time
to evaluate its position. Further legal action by Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation could result in a possible interruption of water and sewer
service to the families who live in Ixora Park Subdivision. Again, time is
of the essence to purchase this utility.
From the above, it should be obvious the County has been placed in an unusual
position with respect to purchasing these utilities and providing a remedy to
legal actions pursued by Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
Further, in order to protect the interest and well being of the residents of
these utilities with respect to water and sewer service, the County must act
very quickly.
As stated earlier, the County is requesting the use of Farmers Home Adminis-
tration obligated loan funds to purchase these utilities and make the necessary
capital improvements to comply with State and Federal requirements. In addition,
the County is familiar with the normal procedure for requesting loan and grant
funds from Farmers Home Administration. The County is also aware of the normal
timetable to process such a request. As is stated in the attached letters and
reiterated herein, the County has a short time frame to indicate acceptance of
the Treasure Coast offer and to indicate acceptance of the Ixora offer.
The County is aware Farmers Home Administration could not process a normal loan
request in such a short time frame. It is for this reason the County is request-
ing the following special procedure for handling this loan request.
1. Notification to Farmers Home Administration as to the
necessity to purchase Treasure Coast Utilities and Ixora
Utilities utilizing special procedure.
2. Request to Farmers Home Administration for the use of
$732,115 of obligated sewer monies for the purchase and
capital improvements associated with the purchase of the
sewer portion of the referenced utilities. Request to
Farmers Home Administration for the use of $411,268 of
obligated water monies for the purchase and capital
improvements associated with the acquisition of the water
portion of the referenced utilities.
3. County to submit Preliminary Feasibility Analysis of
Utility Acquisitions to Farmers Home Administration
demonstrating ability of anticipated revenues to repay
loans.
4. County to request letter from Farmers Home Administration
which would indicate Farmers Home Administration would
reimburse Indian River County for Project Expenses from
obligated loan funds with stipulations the County would
submit the necessary back-up material justifying the loan
requests. This will allow the County to purchase the
systems within the required time frame utilizing interim
borrowing of required monies. It should be noted however,
the County can not utilize interim borrowing without an
ultimate source of funds, i.e., Farmers Home Administra-
tion loans.
NOTE: Indian River County understands and acknowledges,
Farmers Home Administration will only provide loans on
the basis of appraisals of the utility systems and the
feasibility to retire debt service. Furthermore, Indian
River County acknowledges it will be responsible for any
cost differential between the purchase price of the
utilities and the appraised value of the systems should
the appraised value be less than the purchase price and,
further, Farmers Home Administration is under no obligation
to provide loans to Indian River County if feasibility can
not be demonstrated.
5. County to purchase utilities with interim funds.
6. County to submit all required information to Farmers Home
Administration for ultimate approval of loan request.
7. County to receive letter of conditions from Farmers Home
Administration with commitment to provide loan funds.
S. County to begin engineering of capital improvements required
for compliance with Florida Department of Environmental Regu-
lation standards. a-
9. County to construct capital improvements.
The above described special procedure will allow Indian River County to solve
many problems associated with the on going litigation and public health danger.
In addition, it will accomplish the solutions as expeditiously as possible.
Our engineering consultants have contacted Pyr. Tom Brown of the State Office
in Gainesville and advised him of the information contained herein. Mr. Brown
indicated this type of procedure could be implemented and requested Indian
River County to make an official request through your office. Please note,
a copy of this letter will also be sent to fir. Brown.
In an effort to expedite this request and in accordance with the procedure
being requested, please be advised:
A. This letter is intended to notify Farmers Home Admin-
istration of the necessity to purchase Treasure Coast.
Utilities and Ixora Utilities.
B. Indian River County is requesting use of $411,268 of
obligated water monies for the purchase and capital
improvements assoicated with the acquisition of the
water portion of the referenced utilities.
Indian River County is requesting use of $732,115
of obligated sewer monies for the purchase and capi-
tal improvements associated with the acquisitions
of the sewer portion of the referenced utilities.
W.
1nnr, 48 PACT 590
A
r 48 FBF 591 �
JAN 20198`,
C. Please find enclosed, Table I, Preliminary Feasibility
of Utility Acquisitions for the Water Portion of Ixora
Utilities and Treasure Coast Utilities. Also, please
find enclosed Table II, Preliminary Feasibility of
Utility Acquisitions for the Sewer Portion of Ixora
Utilities and Treasure Coast Utilities. These tables
should give you an indication of the feasibility for
the County to purchase these systems.
D. Indian River County is hereby requesting a letter
from Farmers Home Administration which would indicate
project expenses would be reimbursed to the County
provided all required information would be submitted
to Farmers Home Administration for ultimate loan
approval.
We realize this letter represents a special request to Farmers Home Adminis-
tration, however, the conditions described herein are also considered special.
Therefore, we hope Farmers Home Administration will issue approval. We have
enjoyed the cooperation of Farmers Home Administration in the past and look
forward to working with you through the development of the South County System.
We are willing to meet with you at your earliest convenience if required to
answer any questions. You may contact our engineering consultant,
Mr. John A. Robbins of Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. - Beindorf and
Associates, Inc., should you need assistance or if I may be of assistance,
please do not hesitate to call.
Very_truly yours,
Neil A. Nelson
County Administrator
TABLE I
PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY OF UTILITY ACQUISITIONS
FOR THE WATER PORTION OF
IXORA UTILITIES AND TREASURE COAST UTILITIES
I. Construction Cost
II. Project Contingency @ 10%
III. Engineering @ 15%
IV. Legal and Administrative @ 2%
V. Purchase of Utility
VI. Reimbursement of County Expenses as
Receiver
VII. Interest During Construction @ 10% for 1 year
I_ Estimated Total Project Cost:
1. Debt Service @ 5% for 38 years
2. Operation and Maintenance (estimated)
3. 10% Reserve
Estimated Total Annual Expense:
$148,730.00
14,873.00
22,310.00
2,975.00
203,490.00
17,500.00
39,238.00
$449,116.00
$ 26,623.60
10,000.00
2,662.36
$ 39,285.96
Calculation of Estimated Revenues:
271 Water Connections in Ixora Utilities
(119) (Connections in Treasure Coast are allocated to Phase I
cost per 1979 Preliminary Engineering Report)
271 Total Units
Average County Monthly Water Bill
Estimated Annual Revenue - 271 x $13.16 x 12
Estimated Annual Expense
Estimated Annual Surplus:
JAN 20198?.
= $13.16 @ 6,040 gal./mo.
= $42,796.32
= 39,285.96
$ 3,510.36
aw 48 rAu 592
JAN 20198.
TABLE II
PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY OF UTILITY ACQUISITIONS
FOR THE SEWER PORTION OF
IXORA UTILITIES AND TREASURE COAST UTILITIES
I. Construction Cost
II. Project Contingency @ 10%
III. Engineering @ 15%
IV. Legal and Administrative @ 2%
V. Purchase of Utility
VI. Reimbursement of County Expenses as Receiver
VII. Interest During Construction @ 10% for 1 year
Estimated Total Project Cost:
1. Debt Service @ 5% for 38 years
2. Operation and Maintenance (estimated)
3. 10% Reserve
Estimated Total Annual Expense
Calculation of Estimated Revenues:
271 Sewer Connections in Ixora Utilities
119 Sewer Connections in Treasure Coast Utilities
390 Total Units
Average County Monthly Sewer Bill
Estimated Annual Revenue - 390 x $12.39 x 12
Estimated Annual Expense
Estimated Annual Surplus:
3 �
tooK 48 PA F 593
$363,000.00
36,300.00
54,450.00
7,260.00
190,010.00
17,500.00
65,102.00
$733,622.00
$ 43,489.11
10,000.00
4,348.91
$ 57,838.02
= $12.39 @ 6,040 gal./mo.
= $57,985.20
= 57,838.02
$ 147.18
Lengthy discussion took place.
Attorney Brandenburg felt that because Mr. Salter
was selling the system to the County, he should have the
burden of showing exactly what he is selling. Mr. Salter
will be presenting the County with general warranty deeds to
the property; a list of the assets; and an indication of
where the utility lines are located. The Attorney stressed
that the key to this transation was the timing of the
financial arrangements.
Discussion ensued about financing.
Commissioner Wodtke was hopeful that the County,
as receiver, would be able to recover the costs incurred by
them in the amount of $35,000. He also mentioned the County
would be obtaining land in this sale, which would be of
value.
Attorney Brandenburg commented that he and the
Administrator had a long list of items that they felt Mr.
Salter should verify; the contract with him would have to be
reworked.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board accept the recommendations
of the County Administrator as outlined in his letter of
January 14, 1982.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he would vote
negatively, as he felt enterprise systems could provide cost
justification and not cause ad valorem taxes to be used. He
pointed out that in 1978 the total County debt was $750,000;
and with this transaction, our total debt will be $14
million.
The Chairman called for the question. It was
voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with
Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition.
40 tool 48PACE MR
JAN 2 01982
�¢ P"'-595
JAN
59
JAN 201981
New 100 Year Flood Rate Ma
The Board next considered the following memorandum
from the County Administrator:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: January 13, 1982 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Neil Nelson
Countv Administrator
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
SUBJECT: New 100 Year Flood Rate Map
(FIRMS)
REFERENCES:
On December 29, 1981, the County Attorney submitted an inter -office
memorandum to the Chairman of the County Commission and Administrative
Staff regarding the appeal process of property owners adversely affected
by the new. FIRM elevations. The key points stressed in the memorandum
follows:
1) The Administration designate a staff person to coordinate
the process;
2) Each municipality within the County be contacted to determine
the feasibility of combining efforts in this matter;
3) The County establish a hearing date to receive individual
appeals regarding the FIRM map;
4) Staff develop an appeal form;
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Administration has designated:
1) Planning and Zoning Department as the lead agency in coor-
dinating the process. -Dennis Ragsdale of the Planning and
Zoning Department is designated as the Project Manager for
this program. He will be responsible for:
a) Development of an appeal form;
b) Contacting by letter and telephone the municipalities
to determine their interest in working with the County
regarding the appeal process.
c) Taking necessary action to ensure that all procedural
requirements are met.
d) Forwarding appeal comments and County concerns to the
F.E.M.A. (Federal Emergency Management Agency) as the
lead agency, the Department will establish the operating
procedures with the municipalities if necessary.
� � r
2) The Commission needs to hold two meetings. The first meeting
should be on Febuary 10, 1982 at 9:00 A.M. This will be
a workshop meeting in which the public would be informed of the
impact of the FIRM revisions. The public will be given an
opportunity to ask questions and will be given instructions
on the appeal process.
The second meeting should be held on March 3, 1982 at 3:00 P.M.
This will be a public hearing where all appeals will be
presented. At this meeting the County will determine whether
to appeal the map or to forward the individual appeals to
the FEMA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests Commission authorization to proceed with the implement-
ation of the aforementioned.
On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the
staff to proceed with implementation of the items set out in
the memorandum of January 13, 1982 regarding the New 100
Year Flood Rate Map (FIRMS).
Bid Recommendation #107
The Board reviewed Bid Recommendation #107 as
follows:
TO: Board of County Corin-in
I-
FROM: Neil A. Nelson
Cot.inty administrator
DATE: December 21, 1981 F! LE:
SUBJECT: Bid Reco,,,rlendaticn - IRC -107
RE FERENICES:
1. A public meeting vias held at 11:00 A.H,, December 7, 1931 in the County Adnini=
trator's Office, 2345 14th Ave., Vero Beach, Fl. This sleeting vias adverLiseJVi.n
the Press Journal on Nove., ber 10, ll,. 12, 13, 14 & 15, 1981. The purpose of fall s
meeting .•ras to open and record the fol uviing bid:
IRC X107 - (1) One Ton Crm-,, Cab Pickup Truck •- 8 Cylinder
2. 15 Bid Proposals G -sere sent.out, 3 ti -:ere received (2 were No Bids).
Ft. Pierce Dodge S9JH.90
Velde Ford NO 3ID
Southside Ford ilO a.p
All vendors who :•lege mailed bid proposals -:ere contacted niter the bid opening to
deterl,ine t•rhy they did not subrit bids.
JAN 2 0 198Z
42 WK 48 PAGE 596
r- noK 48 PDGF 597 I
JAN 2 01987
Ford and In, ern 3-�ionaI do nut rhake a 1 Ton Cre,,-, Cab P1Ckup, 4 Stated thev overlooi:C-d
bid, 2 said their de�!lership °;,ere not large enough to l:arrant bidding and 2 said
they do not % q i sih to L iii as there is no prod t f or tnelih.
In February, 1931 the County Purchased by bid, 1981 6 Cyl. 3/A Ton Crew Cab Pickup
Tru k for $3.164.32, approxi!i;ately x900.00 less than the only bid received, ;ihich
is a 1982 8 Cyl., 1 Ton Crea Cab Pickup.
3. Therefore, it is recommended that the Board award this bid to the only bidder,
Ft. Pierce Dodge. Thn-re is $9500.00 budgeted for this vehicle from Account NL.„,ber
;`102-214-541-66-42.
Administrator Nelson responded to the unanswered
questions concerning this bid from the last meeting. He
advised that this vehicle is made only with 8 cylinders.
The Administrator had checked the State bid list and he
could not get any deviation, as this was a standard list.
Also, Fred Coyne Chevrolet was not asked to bid as there was
a conflict of interest - the County's Purchasing Agent's
husband is an employee there.
Commissioner Fletcher was under the impression
that a vehicle could be made to have any size cylinder.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board accept the lowest and
best bid for a one ton crew cab pickup truck, in the amount
of $9,325.90, from Ft. Pierce Dodge, using Account No.
102-214-541-66-42.
The Chairman called for the question. It was
voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with
Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition.
Bid Recommendation #108
The Board reviewed the following bid:
43
TO: Board of County COlilniissloners
FROM: Neil A. Nelson
County Administrator
DATE: December 22, 1981 FILE:
SUBJECT: Bid Recom;nendations - IRC ''108
REFERENCES-
!. A public meeting was held at 11:00 A.M., Deceriiber 22, 1981 in the County Adininistrator's
Office, 2345 14th Ave., Vero Beach, F1. This meeting was advertised in the Vero Beach
Pi-ess Journal on November 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 & 2G, 1981. The purpose of this meeting
was to open and record the following'bid:
IRC ;;108 - (1) 1982 3/4 Ton Truck Cab & Chassis
2. 15 Bic', Proposals were sent out, 6 were received (2 were no bids)
Velde Ford $10,256.56
Ft. Pierce Dodge 9,128.06
Southside Ford 10,128.24
Dependable Dodge 9,892.81
All bidders met minimuni specifications.
3. The Bid Con:mi ttee reconnliends this bid be awarded to the low bidder, 'Ft- Pierce Dodge.
There is $16,700.00 budgeted for 2 trucks. The second truck is for a 1/2 Ton pick-up,
bid to be opened Jan. 5, 1982.
Account "102-220-519-66-42
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, that this truck be rebid on the basis
of 6 cylinders.
Discussion followed, and it was determined that
both the 3/4 ton truck and the 1/2 ton truck be studied
further regarding 6 cylinder vs 8 cylinder, as well as what
the fuel rating would be on the different vehicles. This
item would have to be brought back to the Board for further
consideration.
The Chairman called for the question. It was
voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with
Commissioner Bird voting in opposition.
JAN 2 0198 44 BOOK 48 PAGE598
nu 48 PAGF 599
JAN 20198.
Bid Recommendation #109 & #110
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to table
this item until later in the afternoon when the Purchasing
Agent could be present.
Presentation of Concept on North Barrier Island Water
James L. Clark, representing Riverbend (Florida
Land Company), came before the Board with the following fact
sheets:
F A C T S H E E T
Proposed Joint Water Service
BACKGROUND The various developers are aware of the County's concern for a
long range solution to provide water treatment facilities on the
North Barrier Island.
3
Each proposed development has a different schedule and therefore
each developer must plan for his individual project.
Meetings have been held to determine if there is a basis for
developing a shared water treatment facility that will be brought
along in stages so that the County objective of combining facilities
is met, while at the same time each project can be assured that
it will have water at the appropriate time.
STATUS Workshop October 15, 1981
Developers Meeting December 15, 1981
Developers Meeting January 7, 1982
Workshop January 13, 1982
PARTICIPANTS
James L. Clark, Riverbend (Florida Land Company)
Dale Crosby, Riverbend (Florida.Land Company)
Robert E. Briggs, Sea Oaks (Zaremba Communities)
M. Edward Hill, Sea Oaks (Outlook Development)
Ben T. Parker, Jr., Sea Oaks (Parker Engineering Co.)
Michael S. Neijna, Sea Oaks (Consulting Engineer)
William Caldwell, Sea Oaks (attorney)
Richard G. Schaub, Jr., Baytree
Steve L. Henderson, Baytree (attorney)
Donnie Rucks, Surf & Racquet Club
John H. Cairns, Surf & Racquet Club
Robert A. Cairns, Surf & Racquet Club (attorney)
Robert S. Schumaker, The Deltona Corporation
Jim Jimenez, The Deltona Corporation (utilities)
Rafael A. Terrero, The Deltona Corporation (engineer)
Gilbert C. Betz, The Deltona Corporation (attorney)
Arsenio Milian, The Deltona Corporation (utilities)
James L. Beindorf, Beindorf & Associates (engineer)
Gordon S. Nutt, property owner represented by R. E. Briggs, Sea Oaks
JAN 2 0198 2.
L-
46
1.boa , PACE 66®
J
JAN 2 0198' -
January 1982, page22
6vog 48PmV oa f
47
.:s
6
,
• Iw
• '�•4ynt�\i
Co\ ' \\
/
\ \\```\\ + r. tilt�±� \ "•.r.
oI r� sy
1
044-S
tq
r '' ''•.l. �O ' 2 p 0 \
C A
2
I +[qfd Nf•' I .� l Arlt q'C�
Y I o +f, n
r
rl
- y i
Fq ''�. •c'• A
�.°o .
94�s �e r r'tOj
IIr1A 1
°oYy ° 7.O_/ yt t o,t 1
'cotsAt
ytt kE 4, +cyrto#
�i u
• t ��YTT / ^' a
yl
. +ytr / �
41
I 4
/• tO /
•lI.
toY.t
• wt r �"
OFA r°Nq +4 r a
J,
a �
rn
JAN 2 0 191002 nu •48,1 PAGE_ 02
48 J
JAN 2 0 19wK 48 Pa,F 603
Mr. Clark then described the water provision
concept on the North Barrier Island to the Board. He
advised that there were six major property owners involved,
and the funding for Phase One of this project would be borne
by those developers. He continued that future connections
to the water system would be funded by those developers who
would require connections. Mr. Clark felt that through
their plan, they could provide the County with a very
innovative system in the area of water conservation.
Chairman Scurlock remarked that the meeting held
last week with the developers for the North Barrier Island
was quite productive. He pointed out that this would not be
a tax supported concept, but there were some fine details
that would have to be worked out, such as eventual take-over
by the County.
Commissioner Fletcher inquired if all the
necessary water permits were now in hand for the Phase One
development.
Mr. Clark responded that Florida Land Company has
a permit for gallons in excess of 700,000, which would be
provided to the new entity in order to move forward.
Michael Neijna, Consulting Engineer for Sea Oaks,
pointed out the consumptive use permit that Florida Land
Company now has is sufficient for the first phase. He added
that once the organization of this concept is completed,
then the permits would relate to the entire service area.
Mr. Neijna reported that their plans would be submitted to
the County Utility Department and the Department of
Environmental Regulation; they would receive a permit from
the Environmental Protection Agency, and would be working
with the County Health Department. He pointed out that some
of the water would be reused for irrigation, therefore,
decreasing their requirements for potable water.
H
Lengthy discussion followed.
Mr. Clark interjected that they are proposing to
incorporate a two-tiered system that would encourage the use
of systems that have already been designed. He continued
that it was not their intention to provide treatment for
irrigation water; they anticipate having separate irrigation
and potable water in all developments.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that there should be a
take-over provision that is fair and equitable to all
involved.
Mr. Clark commented that they did not want to
centralize a sewer system; they had anticipated separate
franchises for sewerage, and are now having discussions with
the developers who share common property lines.
Mr. Neijna stated that it was essential to have
operating rules and that regulations be made so the
participants can provide for their own sewerage system. He
advised that Mr. Nutt was included in this venture.
Discussion continued regarding sewer and
irrigation systems.
1. Commissioner Wodtke inquired if water would be
made available in Phase One to the County Park.
Mr. Clark stated there would be no problem in
putting that provision in Phase One.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that it was
inevitable that this water system would have to go to
reverse osmosis. He felt there was an alternative to having
franchises; when people purchase their home, they should be
assuming the responsibilities of where they put their waste.
Commissioner Wodtke discussed the rate structure
and improvements that would have to be made in the future.
Mr. Clark commented that the only equitable way to
recover initial expenses would be to float a bond and have
the future users pay their share.
JAN2 0 1997. 50 BOO 48 PAGP 604
JAN 2 01987
tw 48 %F605
Commissioner Wodtke commended the developers for
their excellent approach to provide the water treatment
facilities on the North Barrier Island.
Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded
by Commissioner Lyons, to authorize the Chairman and staff
to continue working with the developers on this concept.
Commissioner Bird agreed that this was a great
concept.
Attorney Brandenburg advised that the next step
would be for the joint venture to legally establish
themselves as an entity and make a formal franchise
application to the County.
The Chairman called for the question. It was
voted on and carried unanimously.
51
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at
12:00 Noon for lunch and reconvened at 1:30o'clock P.M. with
the same members present.
REZONING GRIFFITH PROPERTY C-1 to R-1
The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of L/S
in the Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of !/ QC , 31, / ILL 211V .3, //
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 Aie this =1 day of J 6rH A. D. %
( usiness Manager)
-
(Clerk of the Circuit Cour ndian River County, 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:
'Parcel 1, Beginning at the Northeast corner
of Lot 6, KARR SUBDIVISION as recorded in -
Plat Book 7, Page 87, Indian River County
Records, run East along the North line of Lot 7,
a distance of 11.5'; thence South parallel to the
east line of Lot 6 to the point of Intersection
With the South line of Lot 7; thence Nor-
thwesterly along the South line of Lot 7 to the
Southwest corner of Lot 7; thence North alc:fg
the West line of Lot 7 to the point of beginning.
Parcel 2, Beginning at the Southwest corner
of Lot 8, KARR SUBDIVISION, run Easton the
'North line of Lot 10 a distance of 40'; thence
South parallel to the West line of Lot 10 to the
South line of Lot 10; thence West on the South
'line to the Southwest corner of Lot to; thence
North on the West line of Lot 10 to the point of
beginning. Said land lying and being in Indian
River County, Florida.
Be rezoned from C.1 Commercial District to
R-1 Single Family Residential District.
A public hearing in relation thereto at which
.parties in interest and citizens shall have an
opportunity to be heard, will be held by said
Board of County Commissioners in the County
-Commission's Chambers of the County Ad -
'ministration Building located at 1840 25th
,Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday,
January 20, 1982, 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
Dec. 31, 1981; Jan. 3,1982.
Planner Dennis Ragsdale made the presentation as per
the following memo:
JAN 201982
52
Aoox 8 Fri F60fi
JAN 2 0 198
TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: December 4, 1981 Fi : IR ' 1P�ZGC `�T 45
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Thomas R. Griffith request to rezone
two parcels from C-1, Commercial to R-1,
Single Family Residential
FROM: Neil Nelson 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 January 20, 1982:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The applicant is requesting that two parcels of land currently zoned C-1, Commercial
be rezoned to R-1, Single Family Residential (6 units/acre). The subject properties
include: Lot 6 and a portion of Lot 7 (approximately .4 acres); and Lot 8 and a portion
of Lot 10 (approximately .25 acres) of Karr Subdivision which is located west of River-
side Drive, north of Sebastian.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property and surrounding area as MD -1 (up to 8
units/acre) and 40 acre commercial node is situated to the south.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
A) 1. Approve the request to rezone both parcels from C-1, Commercial to R-1, Single
Family Residential (6 units/acre).
This would allow single family homes to be developed on the two lots. The
result would be an upgrading of the existing situation in which most of the
lots in Karr Subdivision are occupied by mobile homes. Commercial development
of the subject properties is not appropriate or compatible with the existing
land use in the area.
2. County Commission initiation of a rezoning of the remainder of Karr Subdivision
which is currently zoned C-2, Commercial to R-1, Single Family Residential (6
units/acre).
Lot 9 and a portion of Lot 10 of Karr Subdivision is presently zoned R-1, Single
Family Residential and would not need to be included in the rezoning action.
The subject properties are currently vacant. Single family and mobile homes,
which are non -conforming uses, are situated on the remaining lots within the
subdivision.
Rezoning of the Karr Subdivision would not eliminate most of the non-
conforming uses because mobile homes are not allowed in R-1, Single
Family Residential Districts. However, the commercial zoning is not
appropriate for the predominately residential area. A majority of the
approximately 9 acre commercial district to the south of the subdivision
fs vacant. This commercial district provides land for any future commercial
development which is likely to occur in the area.
B. Deny the request to rezone the subject properties from C-1, Commercial to R-1,
Single Family Residential (6 units/acre).
Under this alternative the properties would remain commercial and are likely
to remain undeveloped because of the incompatibility with the existing
residential development in the area.
RECOhFIENDAT ION
The staff recommends that the subject properties, as well as the entire Karr Sub-
division, be rezoned from C-1, Commercial to R-1, Single Family Residential as out-
lined in Alternative A. This would result in an eventual upgrading of the area as
other lots were developed with single family homes.
The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved this recommendation in the
public hearing of December 3, 1981. This recommendation is consistent with the -
adopt*M rehensive Plan.
53
It was noted that the applicant was not present.
Considerable discussion followed as to the exact physical
location of the property in relation to Sebastian and
Roseland.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that it was the unanimous
recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission that this
property be rezoned as requested; it is consistent with the
adopted Comprehensive Plan; and further it rezones property
from Commercial to Single Family. He did not see any
problem with it.
In regard to the recommendation that the County
Commission initiate a rezoning of the remainder of Karr
Subdivision to R-1, the Board felt that at this time they
should only act on what was advertised.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be .
heard. There were none.
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public
hearing.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, to adopt Ordinance 82-2 rezoning the
Griffith property as advertised to R-1.
Commissioner Lyons asked if the rezoning is consistent
with both the old and new Land Use Plan, and Mr. Ragsdale
stated that it is consistent with the new Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Fletcher inquired whether it was
anticipated that the Single Family Residential District
density of 6 units per acre will be changed under the New
Lnad Use Plan.
Senior Planner Art Challacombe stated that the R-1
Single Family has been 6 units per acre historically; this
zoning covers most of the county presently; and he felt to
change it would create an undue hardship.
JAN 2 0199.
nu 8 PAGE608
54
JAN 2 01991
I
gnu 48 FAU619
Mr. Ragsdale commented that this subdivision is platted
and of record. It was further noted that the Health
Department requirements may limit the density.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 82-2
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, to -wit:
Parcel 1, Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 6, KARR SUBDIVISION
as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 87, Indian River County Records,
run East along the North line of Lot 7, a distance of 11.5'; thence
South parallel to the east line of Lot 6 to the point of intersection
with the South line of Lot 7; thence Northwesterly along the South
line of Lot 7 to the Southwest corner of Lot 7; thence North along
the West line of Lot 7 to the point of beginning.
Parcel 2, Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 8, KARR SUBDIVISION,
run East on the North line of Lot 10 a distance of 40'; thence South
parallel to the West line of Lot 10 to the South line of Lot 10;
thence West on the South line to the Southwest corner of Lot 10;
thence North on the West line of Lot 10 to the point of beginning.
Said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida.
Be rezoned from C-1 Commercial District to R-1 Single
Family Residential District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect January 26, 1982.
5
REZONING VERO VENTURES PROPERTY FROM A to R-1AA
The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian. River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
,t— r
a z%.� G(
in the matter of AIA :9 , 4 M,
in the
Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of ��G 31 , 11Z . �a r 3,
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 beforerse this 3 day of �r�1 s A.D.
,�,
(SEAL)
(Clerk of the Circuit
(/- (%siness Manager)
.,� A
�burt, lQn River County, Florida)
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 WEST SIDE OF SR AIA, 2.20 MILES
NORTH OF SR 510, in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
The south 280 feet of the north 380 feet of the
north 1/2 of Government Lot 11, Section 10,
Township 31, Range 39, lying west of the
westerly right-of-way of SR AIA, lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida.
Be rezoned from A - Agricultural District to
R-1AA Single 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 County
Commission's Chambers of the County Ad-
ministration Building located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida; on Wednesday,
January 20, 1982, 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, i'fRiaq"',
Dec. 31,1981; Jan. 1,.1982. y j
5
Senior Planner Challacombe made the presentation per
the following memo:
JAN 2 01992 56
L
I
JAN 2 01992 Nj�i 48 FAGF61i
TO: The Honorable Board of
County Commissioners
FROM: Neil Nelson
County Administrator
DATE: December 7, 1981 F{LE:IRC-8I-ZC-26 45
SUBJECT: Vero Ventures and Vero Beach Shores,
Inc. request to rezone 5.95 acres
from A -Agricultural to R-1AA
REFERENCES:
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 January 20,
1982.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The applicant is requesting that 5.95 acres of land be rezoned from A -Agricultural
to R-1AA, Single Family Residential (2.6 gross units/acre). The Comprehensive Plan
designates the subject property as LD -1 with a maximum density of 3 units per acre.
The site is located on the west side of State Road A -1-A, approximately 2.2 miles
north of W abasso Beach Road. The applicant's property and the acreage to the north,
south, and east is undeveloped and contains natural vegetation. Citrus groves
occupy the land to the west.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
A. 1) Approve the request to rezone the 5.95 acres of land from A -
Agricultural to R-1AA, Single Family Residential (2.6 units/acre).
That portion of the Barrier Island lying east of the subject property and
east of State Road A -1-A is presently zoned R -2D, Multiple Family with a
maximum density of 6 gross units per acre.
Approximately 300' south of the applicant's parcel lies 14.75 acres of land
in the R-1AA, Single Family District.
It has been County policy to encourage low density developrnent of the Barrier
Island. The applicant's request to rezone this parcel, which would allow for
a maximum of 15 units on the 5.95 acre site, corresponds %,.ith this policy.
2) Initiation by the Board of County Commission to rezone the 6 acres lying
between the proposed R -IAA „Single Family District and the existing R-1AA
parcel.
B. Deny the request to rezone the 5.95 acre parcel from A -Agricultural to R-1AA,
Single Family Residential.
If this alternative were selected, the subject property would remain in the
Agricultural District.'
RECOMIMENDATION
The staff recommends that the subject property be rezoned from A -Agricultural to
R -IAA, Single Family Residential. It is also recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners initiate the rezoning of the 6 acre parcel lying bets,;een the proposed
R-1AA, Single Family District and the existing R-1A.A parcel as outlined in.Alter-
native A. This would form a contiguous 26 acre parcel which would only allow for
low density development.
The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved (4 - 0) this recommendation
in the public hearing of December 3, 1981.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Mrs. George Lier, owner of grove property adjacent to
the subject property on the north, requested that if the
Commission should initiate the rezoning of the acreage
between the proposed R-lAA and the existing R-1AA that they
not include the 100' to the north because she and her
husband are planning to put a grove nursery there.
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public
hearing.
Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, to adopt Ordinance 82-3 rezoning the
advertised property to R-lAA as requested by Vero Ventures
and Vero Beach Shores, Inc.
Commissioner Lyons noted that we seem to have rezoned
a lot of agricultural property in clumps, and he wondered
whether that would constitute spot zoning. He wished to
know who owns the property which the Planning Department has
recommended the Board consider rezoning, and Mr. Challacombe
believed there are two separate owners, Robert Slaton and
Thomas J.G. Kennedy of Summerplace.
Commissioner Lyons asked Attorney Brandenburg if we
create a problem by rezoning in this manner, and Attorney
Brandenburg did not believe so because the Commission in the
future would be rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and might want to consider this piece at that time.
The Chairman called for the question to adopt Ordinance
82-3. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner
Fletcher voting in opposition.
n% 48 PAU 61
JAN 2 01982
noK 48 FAfF 613
ORDINANCE NO. 82-3
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, to -wit:
The south 280 feet of the north 380 feet of the north
1/2 of Government Lot 11, Section 10, Township 31,
Range 39, lying west of the westerly right-of-way of
SR A -1-A, lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida.
Be changed from A - Agricultural District to R-lAA
Single Family District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
This grdinance shall take effect January 26, 1982.
Commissioner Wodtke brought up the fact that the
application for the zoning change just granted was received
in August and the only blank filled on the form was the one
noting that the fee waIs paid.
Mr. Ragsdale explained that the Planning Department
accepts the application and the check and then informs the
applicant of the deficiencies in the application which must
be completed before it can be processed. The application is
kept on file until all required material has been supplied.
Further discussion ensued, and it was agreed that the
blanks on the form in regard to when publication was made,
etc., should be filled in in the future.
BID RECOMMENDATION #109 and #110 - LANDFILL COMPACTOR
The Administrator reviewed the following memo re both
total cost and cash purchase bids:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Neil A. Nelson
County Administrator
DATE: Jan. 11, 1982 FILE:
SUBJECT: Bid Recommendations
IRC #109 - Landfill Compactor (Cash Purchase)
IRC #110 - Landfill Compactor (Total Cost Bid)
REFERENCES:
I. A public meeting was held at 11:00 A.M., December 22, 1981 in the County Administrator's
Office, 2345 14th Ave., Vero Beach, F1. This meeting was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press Journal on Nov. 20, 21, 22, 24,•25, 26, 1981. The purpose of this meeting was to
open and record the following bids:
IRC #109 - One (1) Four Wheel Landfill Compactor
(Cash Purchase Bid)
IRC #110 - One (1) Four Wheel Landfill Compactor
(Total Cost Bid)
2. 11 Bid Proposals were sent out for both bids.
10 Bidders responded to IRC #109. (Eight were No Bids)
8 Bidders responded to IRC #110. (Seven were No Bids)
A Brief summary of the bids is as follows:
IRC #109 - Cash Purchase Price
Kelly Tractor (Caterpillar)
H.F. Mason (Hyster)
IRC #110 - Total Cost Bid
Kelly Tractor (Caterpillar)
1. (1) Four Wheel Landfill Compactor
2. Cost of Bond
3. Total Purchase Price
4. Guaranteed value at end of
5,000 operating hours or 5 years.
5. Item 1 less Item 4
6. Guaranteed total cost of repairs for 5,000
operating hours or 5 years.
7. Total Cost Bid: Item 2, plus Item 5,
plus Item 6.
W
•
$157,118.00
118,825.00
$157,118.00
1,809.00
158,927.00
53,184.00
103,934.00
37,280.00
143,023.00
�100K 48 PAGE A
600K
JAN 2 0198;
The bid submitted by H.F. Mason for the Hyster did not meet the minimum
specifications for the following reasons:
1. 186 Horsepower
2. Cubic Inch Displacement
not stated
3. Did not state
4. Single Cylinder Steering
5. Hydraulic retarder
6. Decelerator not available
7. Electric monitoring not
available
8. Operating weight with ballast
40,325 lb (Do not intend to use
ballast, as it cuts the H.P. of
the machine)
9. 2 wheel machine
Minimum Specifications
1. 210 H.P.
2. 635 Cu. In.
3. Transmission 4- forward
and 4 reverse
4. Twin Cylinder Steering
5. 4 wheel brakes
6. Deceleration
7. Electric monitoring on
gauges
8. Operating weight - not less
than .44,500 lbs
9. Specified 4 wheel machine
8 Pb F M
In addition,.the rollers on the Hyster are intended for road work, not landfill
compacting.
3. Therefore, the Bid Committee must recommend that this bid be awarded to Kelly
Tractor for the Caterpillar. There is $145,000.00 budgeted for this piece of equip-
ment in Acct. #411-217-534-66-43. See attached letter from Post, Buckley, Schuh
& Jernigan, Inc.
Administrator Nelson felt the issue raised was
primarily whether they had overspecced the contractor to
prevent other firms from bidding. He commented that it was
specced up because of the 4 -wheel drive requirement.
Material Management Director Carolyn Goodrich reported
that out of the 10 firms requested to bid, eight either do
not supply this type of equipment or could not meet
specifications.
Rex Hailey, Landfill Supervisor, explained that when
you are spreading material in a landfill, you have a variety
of material which leaves voids after it is spread, and you
must have a vehicle that will be able to span the void. It
was his recommendation to go with a four-wheel machine, and
he pointed out that there were items in addition to the
4 -wheel drive requirements where specifications were not
met, i.e., the transmission and the electrical emergency
monitoring system.
6=
Discussion continued as to possible companies other
than just Kelly Tractor which might be able to supply such
equipment. Commissioner Bird commented that if this bid were
within the budget, it might be different, but it is $18,000
over, and Commissioner Lyons also felt we must be satisfied
that this is not the only bidder available.'
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that if Kelly Tractor
is the sole source, the Board could negotiate with them, or
3
the Board can reject all bids and either rebid or take
another approach.
Considerable discussion ensued about the bid list, the
specifications, and the possible need to expand the bid list
and go on a more regional basis.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, to reject all bids and authorize the
Purchasing Department to come back with a negotiated price
from Kelly Tractor as sole source.
Attorney Brandenburg emphasized that before the Board
can negotiate with someone as a sole source, they must be
sure it is a sole source and that the machine is exactly
Kt'
what they want. He did not believe Purchasing has indicated
that Kelly Tractor is a sole source.
Commissioner Lyons withdrew his Motion, and
Commissioner Fletcher withdrew his second.
Commissioner Fletcher suggested there be a Motion
instructing Purchasing to make a determination as to whether
this is a sole source, and if it is, then to negotiate with
Kelly Tractor on the price.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the bid could be left
open and Purchasing and the Administrator instructed to see
if there is a potential supplier who has not been invited to
bid. If there is, we would have to reject and rebid.
It was asked if time is of the essence, and Mr. Hailey
62
reported
that the present equipment at the Landfill has
been
JAN
2 01982
JCh 8 ��,�F
M
62
JAN 2 01�92
down 14 days because of a problem with the diesel
transmission.
Discussion continued as to the fact that a considerable
amount of money is involved in this purchase.
On Motion made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously agreed to postpone
awarding of the bid under discussion and instructed the
Purchasing Deparment to determine if there are any other
sources for a Landfill compactor.
Administrator Nelson brought to the Board's attention
the truck needed for Lynn Williams, Supervisor of Building
Maintenance, and reported that he would like to take a look
at the operation of a 6 cylinder enginer vs. an 8 cylinder.
Considerable discussion ensued as to the economy of a
smaller engine in a heavier truck, whether a heavier truck
is justified, etc., and the Administrator stated that he
would get an expert in this field to make a presentation.
REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
Commissioner Fletcher reported that at the
Transportation Planning Committee meeting a recommendation
was made to delete Indian River Boulevard and the future
bridges from the proposed Thoroughfare Plan and accept the
plan as it is; the map voted on.previously would remain the
same with these deletions. The reasoning behind this
recommendation was that since the Master Plan would be
reviewed every five years and there was no feasible way to
accomplish these items in that time, they should be removed
from the map in order not to confuse future developers.
Engineer Davis explained that only the unconstructed
portion of Indian River Boulevard would be deleted. He felt
the intent was to study the need for the bridges etc., in
more detail before making a specific recommendation, but'to
adopt the Thoroughfare Plan with the deletions in the
interim.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that although
Commissioner Fletcher's rationale is that we are going to
review the Comprehensive Plan every five years, the
Transportation Element is intended to be a 20 -year plan.
There is one map from 1980 to 1990 and one from 1990 to the
year 2000, and if the proposed Thoroughfare Plan is supposed
to be a plan for the ultimate future, he had a problem with
the proposed deletions.
Commissioner Fletcher stated it was the feeling of the
committee that we should not encourage newcomers to the
county to plan around a map containing something we had no
economics for accomplishing.
Engineer Davis informed the Board that it was the
feeling of the technical complement of the Committee that
the bridges and the Boulevard were worthy candidates to be
included on the plan and that the map should be adopted as
presented. He believed the Motion to delete Indian River
Boulevard was made by Mayor Flood.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the right-of-way we
are requesting from developers, and asked if we are being
requested to vote on the Thoroughfare Plan today.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that they were not ready
to firm up on the 80/100' right-of-way requests, but he was
hoping to get the basic concept of the map approved in order
to give the Planning staff something to work on.
Discussion arose on the concept of Indian River
Boulevard, which was shown on the map from Wabasso Road to
Oslo Road, as a future through street. Chairman Scurlock
did not believed that grandiose plan will ever happen, but
he did believe there will be additional segments of Indian
River Boulevard, and that it would be reasonable to assume
there may be a need for the Boulevard to connect to the
hospital.
JAN 20190
64
JAN 2 0 198
A -Poe 4S, m)F 619
Commissioner Lyons felt it is important to stabilize
whatever we can, and the biggest conflict involves Indian
River Boulevard and the bridges. He did believe, however,
that there will be a route parallel to U.S.1 in the future.
Discussion followed on the need for additional
north -south routes through the county, and Commissioner
Fletcher felt the Plan reflects that need in that it shows
U.S.1 in the future as a limited access road and the side
roads as marginal access roads.
Question arose as to where the Traffic Engineer enters
into this. Engineer Davis reported that the Traffic
Engineer is on the committee and he is not in concurrence
with the proposal to eliminate Indian River Boulevard and
the future bridges from the map.
Discussion followed on the need for additional study,
and Commissioner Lyons asked if the Board could at least
agree on everything west of U.S.1 since the Planning
Department needs to have some direction.
Argument continued as to whether to include or delete
Indian River Boulevard and the proposed bridge locations.
Commissioner Bird believed that just about everyone on the
Commission has gone on record at one time or another stating
that Indian River Boulevard will be built, and certainly
within 20 years so he did not understand the fear of
including it on the map. He did not believe we would be
legally locking ourselves in and liable to anyone who would
speculate on that basis. He emphasized that the Committee
is responsible for projecting a map that will plan 20 years
into the future and felt we would remiss in our future
planning if we did not show more access to the hospital and
the barrier island.
Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that the map is just a
planning tool and a thoroughfare protection plan so you
don't have people building on your future rights-of-way.
M M r
W
Ruth Stanbridge of the Transportation Planning
Committee stressed the need for curing the dangers existing
on 16th Street and feared that work would be directed toward
the areas that were included on the map with other areas
being ignored. She did not believe that the Traffic Engineer
has had sufficient time to study some of these other areas,
and she felt a traffic count should be done before making
these decisions.
It was pointed out that Planning needs some direction
and a base tool to work with so they can formulate the
Transportation Element.
Chairman Scurlock did not feel we have the necessary
information or enough analysis at this -time to locate
bridges on a map or decide on another access to the
hospital.
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, to adopt the proposed Thoroughfare Plan
as a broad concept of how the road system will look in the
Transportation Element, based on the Plan being modified and
updated as more data becomes available.
s
Commissioner Wodtke emphasized that the Motion was
saying the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
will follow this map, and he could not agree because this is
saying that in the next 20 years we are not anticipating
Indian River Boulevard to expand to Barber Avenue, which he
believed will be needed for the movement of major
transportation, not just access to the hospital.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that he was not saying that
we are not going to have it in the next 20 years, but just
saying don't show it there now.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that the State wants us
to plan ahead 20 years in the future. They didn't say come
up with a plan and change it every year, which is what
counties
have done in the past
and what they want
to get
JAN 2 01982
66
6m
AR PacF
^2®
JAN 2 01982
BOOK Crn
�F62
away from. There will have to be a certain amount of
change, but he did not believe that is the basic intent of
the Act.
Commissioner Fletcher noted we need to do a great deal
of study on right-of-way and how flowable our arteries are,
and Commissioner Lyons commented that we are aware of the
future need for bridges, and he was inclined to believe we
should not dot the map with a lot of bridges before we get
an idea where we want them.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that we have quite a
few roads in the west of the county indicated with dotted
lines, as well as through Sebastian, and he did not believe
many of these will come about within 20 years. He noted the
Committee is using one' concept in one area and a different
one in another, and since the whole objective was to have a
map for the ultimate movement of traffic for Indian River
County for the long range period of time, we are not being
consistent.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we could indicate in a
verbal way that the Commission anticipates additional
north -south routes east of U.S.1, and Engineer Davis felt
that could be worded within the text of the Transportation
Element.
Discussion continued re verbal indications as to future
bridges, etc., and Administrator Nelson asked if the
proposed bridges weren't located where they were because of
DOT plans and we actually have rights-of-way and bridgeheads
in those areas.
Engineer Davis stated there is right-of-way at the
three proposed locations and there seem to have been plans
in the past. He asked if certain corridors could be
designated on the map as "under study."
M M r
Attorney Brandenburg stated that portions that are
currently under study for future use could be indicated
either in the verbal portion or on the map itself.
Commissioner Lyons suggested having a very wide lane
indicated as an area of study for a future north -south
route.
The Chairman called for the question on the Motion to
delete Indian River Boulevard and the proposed bridges from
the Thoroughfare Plan. It was voted on and carried 3 to 2
with Commissioners Wodtke and Bird voting in opposition.
On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously instructed that
the text of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan include the idea that the bridges and a north -south
corridor somewhere east of U.S.1 will be investigated in a
study.
Commissioner Fletcher informed the Board that at the
Transportation Planning Committee Meeting there also was a
Motion made recommending that Jungle Trail remain a scenic
trail and be kept in its natural state.
Chairman Scurlock noted that this specific issue is
going to come before this Commission at the next meeting,
and he would have a problem making a decision before we have
heard all the evidence and received all the input.
Some discussion ensued as to 16th Street and whether
the committee is considering the possibility of a pedestrian
bridge. Commissioner Fletcher stated that they are, and he
hoped to have a full report and presentation on this at the
Transportation Committee Meeting of the 9th.
WATER SEMINAR
Commissioner Lyons reported that there is going to be a
Water Seminar at Rollins College on Friday, January 22nd,
and he would like to attend.
JAN 201982 ��o P�
6 8 GF ���,
r JAN 2 01987� 89oK 48H, S F 623 I
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -County travel for any Commissioner or staff member to
attend the Florida Water Crisis Environmental Study Seminar
to be held at Rollins College in Winter Park, on Friday,
January 22, 1982.
LICENSING OF POWER LINE RIGHT-OF-WAYS
Commissioner Lyons reported on a situation that caused
a real stir where Florida Power & Light obtained a permit
from the County to put in a power Line, and it turned right
down a residential street, resulting in a main line right in
the front yards. He requested that the Administrator look
into this and see whether we ought to set up a procedure
whereby we would avoid this kind of situation recurring in
the future.
MARINE ISLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE REAPPOINTMENTS AND BEACH
RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REAPPOINTMENTS
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the above are two
committees he has chaired. There are city representatives
and municipal representatives, and they were going to do
some research on the length and tenure of the committee. He
believed staff is checking into this also.
Commissioner Wodtke then noted that there is a meeting
of the Marine Island Advisory Committee with the Parks and
Recreation Committee in connection with a proposed boating
island coming up February 4th when he is going to be out of
the state.
Commissioner Bird believed that this meeting could be
rescheduled.
PROPOSED PARK DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
Commissioner Bird reported _that he has been working
with the University of Florida in regard to obtaining their
assistance with a Master Plan for Parks and Recreation
Development, and he has not gotten the response he had hoped
for. He stated that they do have a commitment from one
student who will be down this weekend and will visit the
Round Island Park area. She will be doing a development
plan for Round Island Park which hopefully will become part
of the Master Plan.
AGREEMENT W/CITY OF VERO BEACH RE SOUTH BEACH WATER SERVICE
The fully executed Agreement with the City of Vero
Beach re South Beach Water Service is hereby made a part of
the record as approved at the Regular Meeting of September
16, 1981.
M
JAN 2 0198? �90K 48 PAP, F 624
70
A G R E E M E N T
BETWEEN
CITY OF VERO BEACH
AND
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
SOUTH BEACH WATER SERVICE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into the
16th day of
September , 1981, by and between the CITY OF VERO BEACH, a
municipal corporation of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred
to as "City", and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County".
WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement entered into a Water and
Sewer Contract on the 11th day of January, 1973, which Contract has
been amended by Annexes I and II, thereto on November 6, 1973, and
Annex III thereto on June 5, 1979; and
WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement on October 22, 1980,
entered into a South Beach Water Service Agreement and a South Beach
Wastewater Service Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined that, due to financing
limitations on behalf of County and certain water supply limitations
on behalf of City, the above two cited Agreements are no longer in
the best interests of both County and City residents; and
WHEREAS, the parties now desire to enter into a new South Beach
Water Service Agreement which would provide for the County to take
over existing facilities and supply water to the territorial area
by means of a subaqueous line from the South County Water Plant;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements hereinafter contained the parties agree as follows:
1. This Agreement sets forth the rights and obligations of the
parties hereto regarding retail water service to the South Beach
area and where in conflict with previous Water and Sewer Agreements,
Contracts and Annexes thereto hereinbefore executed, supersedes
said Contracts and Annexes.
2. The "South Beach" is the land area on the Barrier Island
lying South of the now existing City limits to the now existing
South County boundary line separating Indian River County from
St. Lucie County, including any off -shore islands in the Indian
River which lie within the confines of Indian River County
adjacent to the defined area, however, neither the City nor the
County shall be obligated to provide service to such island(s)
unless adequate bridges for vehicular access are provided at the
expense of parties other than the City or County.
3. Within the South Beach area there exists a City -owned
water transmission line which runs South along Highway A -1-A
from the now existing city limits on the Beach to Spy Glass Lane.
This line has an inside diameter of twelve inches (12") from the
City limits South to approximately Surfside Terrace where it is
reduced to a ten inch (10") line. The line again reduces in size
to six.inches (6") at Mooring Line Drive and remains six inches
(6") to Spy Glass Lane. Said line is called the "12 -inch line herein.
Many parcels of land are presently connected for water service by
the City to said 12 -inch line. Some parcels of property now
utilize water service off said line and others are physically con-
nected thereto but do not now actually receive water service
because they do not need such service at this time.
4. The City of Vero Beach represents that it has entered into
a Stipulation Agreement dated March 13, 1978, pertaining to certain
subjects including the turnover of the South Beach area, 12 -inch
line, appurtenances and customers to the County for a price not
to exceed FIFTY-TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED THREE DOLLARS AND
FIFTY-EIGHT CENTS ($52,703:58). A copy of said Stipulation is
attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A The City represents to
County that there exists, as of May 15, 1981, a replacement value
of FIFTY-EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY-THREE DOLLARS ($58,143.00)
for meters, yokes and meter boxes, less an estimated fifteen percent
(15%) depreciation, for an approximate net value of FORTY-NINE
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-ONE DOLLARS AND NINETY SEVEN CENTS
-2-
JAN 2 01982 Q.`,tIK
8 PAGE_ 6
26
In
JAN 20198
($49,421.97).
The depreciated amount is subject to adjustment by
meters added or subtracted prior to transfer of the assets to
County. Additionally, the City is holding connection fees which
have been charged to and paid by the vested customers where no
meter has been set, in an estimated amount of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND
EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTEEN DOLLARS AND SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS ($25,818.75).
5. On or before the lst day of November, 1981, the City
agrees to convey a good, working and operational water "12 -
inch line" lying within the South Beach area as described and
appurtenances, including water tower, yokes, customer base,
meters, meter boxes, pumps, real estate, etc., used by the
City while servicing the South Beach area with water. Title
to all the City's water utilities in the South Beach area shall
be conveyed free of encumbrances and liens, by customary manner
of conveyance. Conveyance shall include all easements, rights
of way and title to any fee property owned by the City and4
used solely for water transmission and distribution purposes.
The County shall pay for the conveyances above defined on or
before thirty-six (36) months from the date of this Agreement
or the service transfer date, whichever occurs first, by paying
those amounts set forth in paragraph 4 of this Agreement, less
the credit for prepaid connection fees and depreciation. Prior
to execution of this Agreement, County's representatives and
City's representative shall make such tests and inspections
as are appropriate to insure satisfaction that all of the assets
being conveyed by the City to the County are in good operating
order. In the event repairs are necessary, City shall make
repairs either prior to execution of this Agreement or subsequent
to execution upon agreement between the parties.
The City agrees to provide retail water service to the existing
customers and additional vested customers, plus non -vested customers
according to the terms and limitations as hereinafter set forth.
A. City shall provide normal maintenance of the facilities
conveyed to County without charge to County during the term
of this Agreement.
-3-
I
B. Non -connected vested customers and non -vested customers
as hereinafter limited, may connect.by paying to the City
commodity, connection fees, service and other fees as set forth
in City Ordinances on a non-refundable basis, but shall not be
required to pay a City impact charge. The connection charge for
a 5/8" by 3/4" meter is presently $95.00 for the meter and
$11.00 service charge. These charges are subject to change
by City Ordinance.
6. During the term of this Agreement and prior to County actually
providing water through the County's proposed subaqueous line,
City grants to County (based on City's Hardy Cross Study) the right
to assign to non -vested third parties two hundred fifty-five
(255) additional 5/8 inch by 3/4th inch meter taps over and above
the vested taps already allocated. County agrees prior to receipt
of the two hundred fifty-five (255) additional taps to escrow
SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($790,000.00) sufficient
in amount -to construct:
A. Ground water storage tank and appropriate pumps;
B. 14" water line from the existing elevated tank to
Mooring Line Drive;
C. In line booster pump and appurtenances.
County agrees to engineer, let construction contracts for and
fund the improvements in an expeditious manner after receipt of
sufficient escrow funds from third parties. The parties agree that
six (6) months for the letting of contracts and eighteen (18) months
for completion of all improvements satisfies the intent of the
partie he additional water taps shall be available for assignment
by Coun )yy upon funding of the escrow as above described. Said water
taps shall be for immediate use by the third parties as retail
customers subject to payment by third parties to the City of Vero
Beach those connection charges set forth in paragraph 5B of this
Agreement.
In assigning the two hundred fifty-five (255) additional
taps, County shall give pro -rata priority to those parcels of
land which have previously paid some charge in either acreage or
special tap -on charges.
JAN 20 19002 -4-
p ;R� 48 FP'rF 628
JAN 2 01982
The improvements described in paragraphs 6A, B & C, plus any
additional facilities for water service to the South Beach area
may be used by the City during the term of this Agreement subject
to normal maintenance by City.
7. The parties agree to a timetable of forty-two (42) months
from the date of this Agreement for the County to construct the
proposed subaqueous crossing and be in a position to supply treated
water to the South Beach customers on a retail basis as customers
of the South County Water System.
City, during said 42 -month period, shall continue to provide
water service to the South Beach area customers on a retail basis.
City shall not be required to provide wholesale service.
While customers in the said area are retail water and/or waste-
water customers of the City, the City rates and charges for said
customers served by the City shall be governed by appropriate City
ordinance; -as such may be from time to time amended. City shall
deliver to all Beach customers water service and/or wastewater service
on an equal and uniform basis without preference for one area over
another, subject to the limitations contained in this Agreement and
subject to the City's rights to levy rates and charges for service
outside the City limits which may be more than such rates and charges
for service inside the City limits.
19 County shall notify City a minimum of ninety (90) days prior
to providing South Beach retail water service through the proposed
County subaqueous crossing. this -notice shall not occur later
than thirty-nine (39) months from the date of this Agreement.
In the event County is unable to provide retail water service
to the South Beach through the proposed subaqueous crossing
within forty-two (42) months from the date of this Agreement,
then County agrees to transfer to the City, free of charge,
all assets in existence on the date of this.Agreement as described
in paragraph 5, the improvements set forth in paragraph 6, all
vested customers, plus two hundred fifty-five (255) additional
customers and any remaining unexpended escrow funds plus
accrued interest. City shall accept the transfers of the assets
and responsibility to service the two hundred fifty-five (255) additional
-5-
taps at retail. City and County may extend the date of County's
reconveyance beyond the forty-two (42) months by mutual agreement.
The exact date for transfer of retail service responsibility
from the City to the County for the South Beach area shall be
established based on the City's then existing South Beach utility
billing cycle, thus providing complete and accurate customer
billing data. City shall retain all customer deposits acquired
by City. In the event City holds deposits in excess of those
required by the City after transfer, then the excess amounts shall
be refunded to customer.
County agrees to coo erate with City in the collection of
any past -due billings due City and remaining unpaid after County
has accepted retail service responsibility.
8. Except for the negligence of the other, City and County
agree to a joint hold harmless position whereby the City holds
the County harmless for any damages and/or injuries which may
occur during the period of City retail service and the County
holds the City harmless for events that occur after the County
has provided retail service to the South Beach area. In enforcing
this provision, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reason-
able attorney's fees and courts costs.
,9. Both parties recognize that there is a potential for
annexation within the South Beach area as defined. In the event
of annexation by the City, the parties agree that the County shall
continue to provide retail water service to all of the customers
in the South Beach area whether or not the customer resides in the
newly annexed area. Both parties, by mutual agreement, may amend
this section at a later date.
10. Prior to the County assuming retail service responsibility
to the South Beach area, the County shall have installed a booster
pump and appropriate two-way interconnection to enable the booster
pump to operate in both directions. The pump shall remain in
place and in the event of an emergency on either system, the
booster pump shall be activated by mutual agreement of each
party's delegated authority for the benefit of the system that
-6-
JAN 2 1982. 49 .630
48 PAv
JAN 201989
has the emergency. The installed cost of the booster pump and
appurtenances shall be split equally between the City and the
County with County receiving a credit for the City share at
the time County pays the City for the South Beach System. City
grants to County the right to use part of City's South Beach
power substation for the location of said booster pump, free
of charge, subject to mutual agreement as to parcel size and
location.
11. Fire hydrant rentals shall be prorated based upon City's
fiscal year, considering the number of months during which whole
or partial hydrant service was rendered.
12. This Contract is conditioned upon:
A. County raising outside funds to pay for the improve-
ments set forth in paragraphs 6A, 6B and 6C;
B. County obtaining a satisfactory commitment to finance
the South Beach project including the subaqueous crossing;
C. All necessary permits to construct and operate the
subaqueous line, appurtenances and improvements as set forth
in this Agreement.
In the event condition A is not satisfied within one hundred
twenty (120) days from the date of this Agreement, then -this
Agreement shall be declared null and void. In the event condition
A is satisfied within said 120 -day period and either condition
B or condition C is not satisfied within twenty-four (24) months
from the date of this Agreement, then County may elect to.turn
over to City all assets in existence on the date of this Agreement
as described in paragraph 5, the improvements as set forth in
paragraphs 6 and 10, all vested customers plus two hundred fifty-
five (255) additional customers (5/8" by 3/4" meters), and any
remaining unexpended escrow funds plus accrued interest. City
shall accept the conveyance by County and serve said customers
retail. The parties shall then terminate this Agreement for
non -satisfaction of either condition B or condition C.
13. County and City agree that the City shall continue to
provide retail wastewater service to customers now receiving
such service within the South Beach area. It is the intent of
-7-
this Agreement to amend and supersede where any conflict exists
that South Beach Wastewater. Service Agreement entered into between
the parties on October 22, 1980, particularly the October 22, 1980
Agreement as to paragraph 4, as amended. In the event the County
or a franchise holder of the County is authorized by the County
to accept additional wastewater service territory, and the County
requests the City to transfer sewer customers within the South
Beach area to the County, then the City shall be required to transfer
such retail sewer customers within the South Beach area at City's
actual book cost, less grants, contributions in aid of construction
and depreciation.
In conjunction with.City's continuing to provide retail waste-
water service as above set forth, County shall provide City with
water meter readings of the South Beach retail sewer customers
after County assumes retail water service to the South Beach.
14. It is also understood and agreed by the parties hereto that
there i:«:ty, in the future, be some fully "vested" parcel (s) desirous
of having a larger meter size than such parcel(s) is vested for. In
such event and upon approval by County, such parcel(s) will have
any previously paid charges offset against any new County charges
levied under this Agreement. County shall have the right to deny
requests for increased meter size. �•
15. South Beach parcels of land that have previously acquired
the rights to City water under the terms of a previous City -Moorings
agreement of 1968 by having heretofore paid to the City both the then
applicable acreage charges and the then applicable tap -on charges,
shall not be required to pay any further City or County impact
charges. All parcels of land that have heretofore been covered
by the payment of the acreage charge plus the special tap -on charges
shall be considered "vested", but only as to the specific land area
and specific water tap sizes for water service to the extent fully
paid for to the City heretofore. The County will be solely
responsible for collecting its monies from all of the new South
Beach water customers and developments. It is further understood
and agreed by the parties hereto that there may exist some
-8- _
:a
JAN 2 0,1982 aQaK 4 8 PAGE632
JAN 20
1982
48 633
parcel(s) of land that are not fully "vested" as defined herein
but have been partially vested by the payment of some charge
either acreage or special tap -on charges, but not both. Such
partially vested parcel(s) (if any) will have any previously
paid and not refunded charges offset against any new County
charges levied under this Agreement. City represents that
such partially vested amounts previously paid and not refunded
total, not more than FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($4,500.00).
County assumes responsibility for that contract between the
City and Floralton Property Owners Association, more specificially
described and attached as Exhibit "B".
16. This Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred or
hypothecated, or otherwise transferred or encumbered, and any
such attempts) shall be void ab initio.
17. No officer, official or agent of the City has the power
or authority to amend, modify, alter, or add to this Agreement or
waive any of its terms or conditions or to bind the City by
making any promise or representation not contained herein, and no
person shall have any right to rely on any such change or changes.
18. The City reserves the right of its City Manager to decide
all operational questions arising as to the proper performance of
this Agreement.
19. County represents to City its intent to construct
a two and one-half inch (2 1/2") water line South of the Moorings
to Tamerack Lane. The line shall be constructed for the purposes
of servicing existing residences. The number of taps available
South of the Moorings shall be determined jointly by City's
and County's engineers. Service shall be limited to potable
water only and shall not include irrigation or fire protection
service. It is the intent of the parties to serve the minimum
needs of existing residences South of the Moorings until such
time as County provides retail water service to the area.
Such number of taps are part of the two hundred fifty-five
(255) taps referenced in paragraph 6.
20. Should the County or City fail to fully perform any
of the terms, conditions or covenants herein contained, the County
or City shall provide the other party with written notice clearly
specifying the areas of non-performance. Upon receipt of such
notice, the City or County shall correct all such non-performance
as soon as possible and in no event later than ninety (90) days.
Should all default(s) not be corrected within the ninety (90)
day period, the City or County shall have the right to arbitrate
the controversy. Any controversy or.claim arising out of or
relating to this Agreement or the alleged breach thereof will be
submitted to arbitration upon the written demand of one party
served upon the other. The arbitration process shall comply with
and be governed by the Rules of the American Arbitration Association.
There shall be three (3) arbitrators, one named in writing by
each of the parties within fifteen (15) days after demand for
arbitration is received, and a third arbitrator to be chosen by
the two so named. All said arbitrators shall be knowledgable
in the area of utilities. The decision of any two arbitrators
shall be final and binding upon both parties hereto.
All costs and expenses associated with the arbitration process,
including the fees of the arbitrators, shall be borne by the losing
party. The successful party shall recover as costs and expenses
reasonable attorney's fees incurred in connection with the
arbitration process.
21. It is understood and agreed by and between the parties
hereto that if any condition or provision contained in this Agree-
ment is held invalid through the arbitration process, such in-
validity shall not affect the validity of any other condition or
provision herein contained; provided, however, that the invalidity
of any such condition or provision does not materially prejudice
either the City or the County in its respective rights and
obligations contained in the remaining valid conditions or pro-
visions of this Agreement.
22. No party to this Agreement shall be liable to the other
for failure, default, or delay in performing any of its obligations
-10-
JAN U I�
8,90K 8 PAGE 634
JAN 2 0198?. 48 635
hereunder, other than for the payment of any obligations specified
herein, in case such failure, default or delay is caused by strikes
or other labor problems, by forces of nature, unavoidable
accidents, fire, acts of the public enemy, interference by civil
authorities, passage of laws, or of the Court, adoption of rules,
ordinances, acts, failures to act, decisions or order or regulations
of any.governmental or military body or agency, office or com-
mission, delays in receipt of materials, or any other cause, whether
similar or dissimilar in nature, not within the control of the
party affected and which, by the exercise of due diligence, such
party is unable to prevent or overcome. Should any of the foregoing
occur, the parties hereto agree to proceed with diligence to do
what is reasonable and necessary so that each party may perform its
obligations under this Agreement.
23. A*failure to initiate action as to any breach shall not
be deemed as a waiver of that right or action and all sucIr
uninitiated rights or action shall be cumulative.
24. Any notice, demand or request required or authorized by
this Agreement shall be deemed properly given if mailed, postage
prepaid, to the City of Vero Beach, P. 0. Box 1389, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960, Attention: City Manager, in the case of City, and
to the County of Indian River, 2345 - 14th Avenue, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960, Attention: County Administrator. The designation
of the person to be notified and/or the notice address may be
changed at any time by similar notice.
25. This Agreement shall not become effective until same
shall be executed by both parties hereto.
26. In the event litigation is filed against either the
County or the City or both by a customer within the South Beach
area protesting the terms and conditions of this Agreement or
trying to set the terms of this Agreement aside, the parties
agree to cooperate in the defense of such action but in the
event the action as filed could lead to substantial monetary
damages against either party, then either party shall have the
right to terminate this Agreement subject to the condition that
if the County has validated and sold the bonds for interim
-11-
financing necessary to pay for the various constructions con-
templated by this Agreement, then neither party shall have the
right to terminate pursuant to the terms of this paragraph.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized officials of the City
and the County, have executed this Agreement, in duplicate, any
copy of which two may be deemed an original, the date and year
first above written.
CITY OF VERO BEACH
BY
Ma
By
City M nagerT
(SEAL) ATTEST:
(Sity Clerk �
Approved as to form:
Charles P. Vitunac, City Attorney _
INDIAX RIVrR BOUNTY „FLORIDA
By
(SEAL) ATTEST:
i�wricx B. L'y n
Board of Cou ty
Freda Wright,
Circuit Court
Approved as to form:
-GVrgeXo lins, Jr , County Attorney
err o
firman i
ssioners
e
JAN 2 01982 R,00K 48 PAGE 636
ADDENDUM TO THE
MAIN AGREEMENT
DATED:September 16, 1981
BETWEEN
CITY OF VERO BEACH
AND
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
toog 4 8 PA F 6.37
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into the 16th day of
September
, 1981, by and between the CITY OF VERO BEACH, a
municipal corporation of the State of Florida, hereinafter refer-
red to as "City", and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision
of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County".
WITNESSETH, the County and City agree as follows:
Patagraph 6 of the main contract is hereby amended by adding
the following sentence at the point of interlineation.indicated
by the initials of the County and City on the main contract:
"In the event the County fails to meet the 6 month or 18
month deadlines of the preceeding sentence, then the County
acknowledges that the City has the right to complete the improve-
ments shown in paragraph 6 as subparagraphs A, B, and C using the
funds approved for this purpose, and in this event the County
shall execute any documents and take any actions necessary to
accomplish this."
CITY OF VERO BEACH
(SEAL)
Approved as to form:
ar es P. Vitunac
City Attorney
By:
Ma
By
Cit Manager
ATTEST:
O�N4 �, G_
ity C er
(SEAL) /By
App ved as to m -
Ge
rge C s , r.
County Attorney
RIVER COUNTYa FLORIDA
L "�_1 1b1J'• Valu-anula
Board of Co nt Commissi`oners
ATTEST: `-'
re arig t, rk of the
Circuit Court
r � �
LAW OFFICES
VOCELLE
GALLAGHER
P. o. Sax 1900
iERO BEACH, FLORIDA
L_ 32960
A G R E E M E N T
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this^day of
1969, by and between the CITY OF VERO BEACH, a
municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of
Florida, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and FIA RALTON BEACH
ASSOCIATION, INC., a non-profit corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as
ASSOCIATION:
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City has heretofore, on the 18th day of
December, 1.968, entered into an agreement with the Moorings
Development Company, a Florida corporation, hereinafter referred
to as Agreement, wherein and whereby the City agreed to extend its
water distribution system to the south city limits east of the
Indian River, in order to furnish water to the real estate develo
ment being constructed by the Moorings Development Company, and
WHEREAS, under the terms of said Agreement between the
City and the Moorings Development Company, it was provided that t
City would be permitted to serve.customers with water, other than
those located in the development of the Moorings Development
Company, under certain terms and conditions, and within certain
limitations as to the number of such customers, as provided in
said Agreement, and
WHEREAS, the Association has requested of the City the
furnishing of water to certain property owned by members of the
Association, all in accordance and in the.manner provided under
the terms of the Agreement between the City and the Moorings
Development Company;
THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual cove -
cants and agreements as herein set forth, the parties hereto do
mutually covenant and agree, as follows:
Boos '48 PAGE 638
1 JAIL 2101982
LAW arrICES
VOCELLE
GALLAGIIER
P. 0. DOY 1900
RU 6EACII. FLORIDA
32960
i I
ba�� PA -UF -631
1. The City agrees to furnish water from water service lines
constructed by the Moorings Development Company, to the lots and
parcels of land owned by the members of the Association, as de-
scribed and set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a
part of this agreement; provided, however, that -the Association
shall first pay to the City its portion of the total cost of the
water extension in such amount as is provided to be paid and in the.
method by which the same shall be computed as set forth in para-
graph 9 of the Agreement between the City and the Moorings Develop-
ment Company. A copyof this Agreement is hereto attached and
marked and entered as Exhibit "B" and as such made a part hereof.
2. The owners of the lots and parcels of land to which such
water is hereby agreed to be furnished shall, at their own expense
but subject to the inspection and approval of the City Engineer,
provide all necessary mains, pipes and other facilities for con-
nection to such service water main as herein set forth, and will
at their own expense maintain the same until the title to same has
been transferred to and accepted by the City; and for each such
connection will pay to the City, as provided in the Agreement with
the Moorings Development Company, the sum of $100.00 in addition
to the usual connection fee imposed by the City for such connection
upon connections having a 1 -inch water meter or smaller; for con-
nectionslarger than 1 -inch water meters, the connection charge
shall be increased by the ratio of the City's minimum monthly rate
for the first monthly installation as compared to the minimum rate
for a 1 -inch water meter. '''
3. Each water user covered by this Agreement, after connec-
tion with the water service main, will be billed by the City and
will be required to pay to the City for same, at the rate that
shall be from time to time fixed by the City for all users of water
outside of the territorial limits of the City of Vero Beach, except
for such special agreements as have been or may be made by the City
with franchise holders, and shall be subject to all penalties and
cut-off dates for non-payment, as is provided by City regulations.
4. Should the Association desire fire hydrants constructed in
conrB ction with the water service herein provided, the Association
agrees to pay.to the City $90.00 per year for each fire hydrant so
constructed by them. The City reserves the right to decrease or
increase this charge as may be recommended by its consulting
engineers.
5. The City shall not permit any lot or parcel of land other
than that shown on Exhibit "A" to be furnished water from the facia
ities to be constructed in Floralton Beach, by the owners of the
lots or parcels shown on Exhibit "A", until the owner or owners of
such lot or parcel not shown on Exhibit "A" presents to the City a
certificate from the Association certifying that the owner or
owners of such lot or parcel has or have paid such lot's or parcel
prorata share of the cost of construction of the facilities to be
constructed in Floralton Beach, as herein provided.
IN WITNESS IgHEREOF the City has caused this Agreement to be
executed on its behalf by its Mayor and attested to by its City
Clerk and the Association has caused these presents to be executed
by its duly authorized officers and the respective corporate
-2-
0
LAW OFFICES
VOCELLE
GALLAGHER
P. 0. BDX 1900
VERO DEACH. FLORIDA
32960
seals hereto affixed,
written.
CITY OF VERO BEACH
E��
m
all on the day and year first above
^ _�Attest:
BY City Clerk
i K1 'yo r
i r
FLORALTON BEACH ASSOCIATION, INC.
By
President
Attest .
Secretary
J
-3-
ncK 48 PAGE 640-
I
fAiV 2 0192
EXHIBIT "A"
FLORALTON BEACH WATER PROJECT PARTICIPANTS:
800A 4 F'�;cr
Name Lot Block
William Wallace Rowe
1
A
Earl W. Stewart and Grace R. Stewart
2
A
Alvin K. Forney and Margaret Forney
3
A
A. Richard Todd
4
A
Alma M. Keller
A
A
Irving E. Ingraham
B
A
A. L. Ueltschi
C
A
Mr. and Mrs. John D. Bristor
2
B
D.C.Smith and Juanita M. Smith
3
B
Moorings Development Company
4
B
Aubrey E. Sampson and Henrietta A. Sampson
5
B
Rolfe D. Long and Marion M. Long
6
B
Ronald B. Smith
7
B
Leslie C. Johnston
8
B
H. Milton Link
9 & 10
B
Gary W. Rollins
1
C
R. Randall Rollins, Guardian
2
C
Milton L. Aitken
3
C
Norman J. Greene & Milton L. Aitken
4
C
Norman J. Greene
5
C
Moorings Development Co.
-6,7,8,9,10
C
W.'Vernol Cadmus and Mary E. Cadmus
1
D
Hoyt C. Murphy
2,3,4
D
June D. Reichelt Minuer
5
D
Moorings Development Co.
6,7,8,9,10
D
O. Wayne Rollins
1
E
Libbie S. Heselton
3
E
Bernard Roos and Genevieve B. Roos
4
E
Mr. and bars. R.K.Carrigan
5
E
Moorings Development Co.
7,8,9
E
Jack D. Collins and Ruth F. Collins
10
E
Mrs. Earl G. Ward
1
F
Stuart Hedden and Mabel Hedden
2
F
Bernard Roos and Genevieve B. Roos
3
F
Aldis P. Butler and Louise B.S.Butler
4
F
All located in Floralton Beach, according to the plat thereof
designated Plat No. 1, 'Floralton Beach, as recorded in Plat Book
3 page 20, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida;
EXCEPT Lots A,B,C,of Block A, which are part of Floralton Beach
but not included on the recorded plat.
AW OFFICES
VOCELLE
3ALLAGHER
O. Ba% loan
UEACH, rLDRIDA
32960
!THE MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
;!CITY OF VERO BEACH, a municipal
,,corporation, et al.,
f� Defendants.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINE-
TEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR j
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CASE NO. 77-719 CA.
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, THE MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Florida
corporation (Moorings), and Defendants, CITY OF VERO BEACH, a
municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Florida
(City),THOMAS C. PALMER, JOHN V. LITTLE and THOMAS R. NASON,
herewith stipulate for dismissal of this action in which no
�,property has been seized and no property is in the custody of the
i
I!Court, and agree that this action shall be dismissed upon the
i�
!"filing of this stipulation, signed by all parties. The dismissal
I
its with prejudice as to all matters except for the items set forth;
On this stipulation. In addition to filing this stipulation of
jdismissal in this action, which shall operate as a dismissal
without order of Court, the parties agree that this stipulation
shall be recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Indian River County, Florida.
The matters agreed upon between the parties as a basis for
this stipulation of dismissal and the matters which this dismissal
shall be without prejudice are as follows:
1. The City will promptlytpa,y to the Moorings the sum of
One Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($125,000.00). After
payment of that sum, the Moorings will not be entitled to receive
zany further sums of money pursuant to the terms of 'the contract
;ofTDecember 18, 1968, between the City and the Moorings (contract)
Ivor pursuant to any of the matters alleged in this action.
(I
Smith, O'Haire, Thatcher & Quinn, Attorneys At Law, P. O. Box 1030, Vero Bed t -i gfAto
5G7-4351
OK
wiN 2 ® (305)
B
y 'j
JAN 2 0 199.
i 2. The City will provide water service within the
ilMoorings subdivision area consisting of the original 443 acres
(E
!owned by the '"oorings as shown on Exhibit A of the contract upon
ii demand of the Moorings for that service to ,the extent of the remain-
I'ing 600 meter connections provided for in the contract, each11 `
1" equivalent basis. The City and the Moorings
I1calculated on a !!
�i agree that as of September 16, 1977, the City has provided water
is
;Iservice within the original 443 acres owned by the Moorings to a i
'.total of 158 reters on a 1" equivalent basis. As to these remain- i
ing meter connections, the City will not make any charge except
applicable meter connection fee for Installing and i
for its then app ifg
connecting a meter of the size actually installed. After the City
Ihas provided water service for all of the remaining meter cannec-
Itions, then the City may charge the Moorings or the owners of
property within the above described 443 acres for meter connection
exactly the same basis as the City charges
and ~Rater service on Y
:others for the same service, including then applicable impact fees.!
3. Subsequent to the contract between the City and the
!Moorings, the Mooringseacquired additional land which lies immedi-
;ately north of the 443 acres owned by the Moorings as shotrn on I
Exhibit A of the contract, west of State Road AlA and south of the
i
property shown in the.contract in the name of Roy Pom Corp. (46.8).'
The Moorings paid to the City the acreage charge for 17.95 acres
�i
for water service to this area pursuant to the contract. The
Moorings paid to the City the sum of $2,100.00 for one 6" meter
Large and the 11oorings paid to the City an additional $100.00 for
the additional connection fee, all in accordance with the terms
e contract. For this, the Moorings is presently receiving i
of the I
(water service for this area through one 1 1/2" meter and one 1"
Ilmeter. The City will provide water service for this additional
i
(Moorings' area to a total number of connections of 1" equivalents j
!until service has been provided which will be equal to the 6" meter,
iII I
;(less the meters now in service. The Moorings will pay the
-2-
Smith, O'Haire, Thatcher & Quinn, ys At Law, P. O. Box 1030, Vero =Florida 32960
(305) 567-4351
I
L_
,i
I!
i!
I!
11difference between the sum paid
;lit would be required to pay as
for the 6" meter and the amount
if they were installed for service
(within the area of the original 443 acres owned by the Moorings.
;The Moorings is also given the right to have the City install
I
additional meters within the area of this additional -land and to
charge these meters to the remaining 600 meter connections provided
jfor in the contract. The Moorings will pay for these meters in
ii
that additional area at the same rate as if they were installed
ilfor service within the area of the; original 443 acres owned by
!I
Moorings. After the City has provided this %,later service for �
this additional area, then the City may charge the Moorings or the
owners of property within this additional area for meter connection;
land water service on exactly the same basis as the City charges
others for the same service, including the then applicable impact
�fees. i
11
4. The Warranty Deed dated September 25, 1969, recorded i
join Official Record Book 329, page 204, in the office of the Clerk
lof the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, from the
.!Moorings as grantor to the City as grantee, contains the following f
E i
paragraph:
"This conveyance is made for the sole purpose of
vesting the title to the above described land, the
elevated water storage tank and the 12 inch water
main in the City in order to provide the.City with
the facilities to furnish water in accordance with
the above described contract and they shall not be
used for any other purpose. If at any time the
City shall cease to furnish such water service in
accordance with that contract, then the property
herewith conveyed shall revert to'and become the
property of the Grantor, which also retains the i
I right to landscape and beautify said real property."
i i
That paragraph is herewith stricken from that deed and in lieu
thereof, the City and the Moorings agree that the conveyance made
Y !
Iby that deed, the easement hereinafter referred to and the con-
i
jveyance of the water mains within the existing Moorings' platted l
subdivisions are each made in order to provide the City with the
i
facilities to furnish water within the area described in the con-
itract and to furnish water service to such additional areas as
E
the City may, from time to time, elect to serve. If at any time
_3_
Smith, .O'Haire, Thatcher & Quinn, Attorneys At cavy, P. O. Box 1030, Vero Beach Florida
JAN d 9V (305) 567-4351 naK 48 PAGE
which the City was permitted to serve according to the terms of
Ithe contract. The Moorings retains the right to landscape and
beautify the real property conveyed in the warranty deed, and shall
retain said right after said conveyance, if any, by the City to
said entity.
'5. The Moorings does hereby grant to the City an easement
for the purpo.se of installing and maintaining underground water
mains to connect the City's water system from the elevated water
storage tank erected on the real property described in the deed
to the -water main now installed or any water main hereafter
;installed in the right of way of State Road AIA. The. area on
�Iwhich this easement exists is land situated in Indian River County,
Florida, described as follows, to wit:
An easement 20 feet in width lying 10 feet on each
side of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Government
Lot 4, Section 21, Township 33 South, Range 40 East,
run N 890 52' 40" E on the North line of said Govern-
ment Lot 4 a distance of 324.33 feet to a point on
the Westerly righit, of way of State Road AIA;
Thence run S 180 08' 02" E on the said Westerly
right of way a distance of 103.30 feet to the true
+ point of beginning of the centerline of said ease-
ment;
Thence run S 75° 201 36" W a distance of 239.33 feet
Ij to the terminus of said line being a point on the
Easterly boundary of that property conveyed to the
City of Vero Beach -as recorded in Official Record
Book 329, page 204, public records of Indian River
County, Florida.
'jWhen any such grater main is installed or maintained within the
i.area of the easement, the City will restore the surface of the
land to its prior condition.
4-
O'Haire, Thatcher & Quinn, AttorLaw, P. O. Box 1030, Vero BeacMa 329GO
W567-4351-
645
JAIL 2 0198?
i
;;the 1,245.93 acres
referred to in said contract
shall
become the
,water service area
of an entity other than
the City,
then the
,property conveyed in
the deed, the easement
and
the
water mains
thereby conveyed shall
be conveyed by the City
to
the
entity which
;!assumes said area as
its water service area
for a
-sum
of money not
exceed Fifty-two
Thousand Seven Hundred
Three
and
58/100 Dollars
I�jto
i
!($52,703.58). Said
conveyance shall be for
the
use
and benefit
of the then owners
and their successors of
the 1,245.98
acres
which the City was permitted to serve according to the terms of
Ithe contract. The Moorings retains the right to landscape and
beautify the real property conveyed in the warranty deed, and shall
retain said right after said conveyance, if any, by the City to
said entity.
'5. The Moorings does hereby grant to the City an easement
for the purpo.se of installing and maintaining underground water
mains to connect the City's water system from the elevated water
storage tank erected on the real property described in the deed
to the -water main now installed or any water main hereafter
;installed in the right of way of State Road AIA. The. area on
�Iwhich this easement exists is land situated in Indian River County,
Florida, described as follows, to wit:
An easement 20 feet in width lying 10 feet on each
side of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Government
Lot 4, Section 21, Township 33 South, Range 40 East,
run N 890 52' 40" E on the North line of said Govern-
ment Lot 4 a distance of 324.33 feet to a point on
the Westerly righit, of way of State Road AIA;
Thence run S 180 08' 02" E on the said Westerly
right of way a distance of 103.30 feet to the true
+ point of beginning of the centerline of said ease-
ment;
Thence run S 75° 201 36" W a distance of 239.33 feet
Ij to the terminus of said line being a point on the
Easterly boundary of that property conveyed to the
City of Vero Beach -as recorded in Official Record
Book 329, page 204, public records of Indian River
County, Florida.
'jWhen any such grater main is installed or maintained within the
i.area of the easement, the City will restore the surface of the
land to its prior condition.
4-
O'Haire, Thatcher & Quinn, AttorLaw, P. O. Box 1030, Vero BeacMa 329GO
W567-4351-
L__�
6. The Moorings does hereby convey to the City all of the j
i
,water pains located within -the area of the streets as shown upon i
11the plat of The Moorings, Unit One, recorded in Plat Book 8, page
6; the plat of The Moorings, Unit Two, recorded in Plat Book 8, '
i
...page 28; the plat of T.he Moorings, Unit Three, recorded in Plat
i{Book 8, page 63; the plat of The Moorings, Unit Four, recorded in i
!{Plat Book 8, page 72, of the public records of Indian River County,:
Florida.
'i
7. With the exception of the items hereinbefore enumerated,'
i
ionone of the terms and conditions of the contract are of any bind- i
jiing force and effect between the parties, and except for the
i
Obligations of the parties to perforri and abide by the above
11
;ienumerated items, the Plaintiff does herewith release each of the
IlDefendants, and each of the Defendants does herewith release the
Plaintiff from any and all claims and demands which either now
has Qr may hereafter have pertaining to or arising from the terms
of the contract or the matters involved in this action.
8. Each party shall bear its costs incurred in this
,action.
This action is herewith dismissed.
1i
Dated this day of
11
!;Signed, sealed and delivered THE MO 0 If GS DE
;tin the presence of:
s to moorings
1978.
V;EWPMENT COMPANY
ByL
® i Pres, dent
Sherman N. Smith, Jr. "1
Of Smith, O'Haire, Thatcher & Q inn
2205 - 14th Avenue, P. 0. Box 1 30
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
(305) 567-4351
Attorneys for Plaintiff
0
!{�/
t�CITY OF VERO BEACH
/ Cta'1 �!
G
: Y
1' s to City Mayor _
Attest
;Deputy _ i ty C l
(t
-5
JAN 2 i 199 O'Haire, Thatcher & Quinn, Attorneys At Law, P. O. Box 1030, /� Boa
(305) 567-4351
198'
As to Little
As to Naso
(.GL GL-zU G�
,As to Palmer
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
um 8 PAu..647
John V-/Litle
Thomas R. Nason
homas C. Palmer, Individually and
as Attorney for Defendants
1053 - 20th Place, P. 0. Box 1389
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
(305) 567=5151, Ext. 205
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
13th day of March, 1978, by Jorge Gonzalez, President of The
Moorings Development Corporation, a Florida corporation, on behalf
of the corporiftion.
Notay Public, State of Florida
at Large.
My commission expires:
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
_j,' day of March, 1978, by Don C. Scurlock, Jr,, Mayor, and
! Aepuk, City C1 er-k, of the City of Vero
Beach, a municipal corporation under -the laws of the State of
Florida, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary PVblic, State of Florida
at Large.
My commission expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEB. 29 1950
BONDED THRU GFh RAL ;NS. UNDER�`'Xi"ki
Smith, O'Haire, Thatcher & Quinn, Attorneys At Lave, P. O. Box 1030,
- �G7-?351
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 j
i
_I
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. 78567 - 78674 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 3:30 o'clock
P.M.
Attest:
Laqt-- LA'e-"
Clerk
1i 7 _ La. L
JAN 2 0198 a®o� pHIJ.
94