HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/7/1982Wednesday, April 7, 1982
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County
Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
on Wednesday, April 7, 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 David L. Greene, Assistant
County Administrator; L.S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental
Coordinator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of
County Commissioners; Jeffrey.K. Barton, Finance Director;
Curtis Stone, Bailiff; and Virginia Hargreaves and Janice
Caldwell, Deputy Clerks.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Randy Mills, Seventh Day Adventist -Church,
gave the invocation, and Commissioner Lyons led the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO'AGENDA
The Chairman asked if there were any additions to the
Agenda.
t.
Attorney Brandenburg requested adding an item regarding
Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the
addition of the. emergency 'item to the Agenda, as requested
by the County Attorney.
Commissioner Wodtke requested adding an item regarding
a possible light on Kings Highway at the entrance to the
Community College,
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the
addition of the emergency item to the Agenda, as requested
by Commissioner Wodtke.
APR 7 1982 9'2
J
APR '71992
Assistant Administrator Greene requested adding an item
regarding additional FmHA funds in the amount of $58,000.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the
addition of the emergency item to the Agenda, as. requested
by Mr. Greene.
Mr. Greene noted that item 6B should not be on the
Consent Agenda and requested that it be placed under the
Planning & Zoning section as Item 12-D.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the
request by Mr. Greene to move Item 6B and place it in the
Planning & Zoning section as Item 12 -D. -
APPROVAL OF MINUTES --
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of
February 26, 1982.
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 26, 1982, as
written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
March 3, 1982.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 3, 1982, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of
March 10, 1982.
On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Special Meeting of March 10, 1982, as
written.
2
CLERK TO THE BOARD
A. Budget Amendment - Recreation Supervisor - Gifford Park
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the
budget amendment for funding a part-time recreation
supervisor -for the Gifford Park, recommended by the Finance
Officer, as follows:
Account Title
Account Number
Gifford Progressive League 001-000-366-92.00
B.C.C. Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91
Salaries 001-210-572-11.12
Social Security 001-210-572-12.11
Retirement Contribution 001-210-572-12.12
Workmen's Compensation 001-210-572-12.14
Increase Decrease
2,500.
4,144.
195.
4og.
252.
2,500.
B. Budget Amendment - Youth Guidance
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the
budget amendment for outside printing for Youth Guidance,
recommended by the Finance Officer, as follows:
Account Title Account Number Increase Decrease
Outside Printing 001-213-523-34.72 $50
B.C.C. Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91 $50
C. Budget Amendment — Sebastian Volunteer Fire Department
The Board agreed to place this item on the agenda for
the North County Fire District, which will be scheduled at a
later date.
D. Budget Amendment regarding State Baker Act
Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, that the Board approve the budget
amendment regarding the State Baker Act, recommended by the
Finance Officer, as follows:
APR 7 1982 3 49 270
-APR 71982
Account Title Account Number
Mental Health Center 001-106-563-88.16
B.C.C. Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91
Increase Decrease
$3,000.00
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.
E. Annual Audit
Finance Director Barton reviewed the audit contract
with the Board,as well as the Florida Statutes outlining
the provisions for the Audit Selection Committee:
Discussion followed and it was determined that the
$3,000.00
Finance Committee'take an in-depth look at the auditing firms
available and advise the Board of their findings.
On Motion made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized that the
Chairman be designated as the County's representative for
the Audit Selection Committee.
ROCKRIDGE STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 8:45
• o'clock A.M. in order that the Rockridge Street Lighting
District might convene.* Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 8:53
o'clock A.M. with the same members present.
G. .Annual Financial Report
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the Annual Financial
Report, and.it was determined that there needed to be a
great deal of work done in allocating the cost back to the
various departments.
Finance Director Barton explained that the cost -back
allocation was a specialized field and unfortunately, the
County does not have this help in-house. He further stated
that an amendment does have to be made regarding Bond
indebtedness.
Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the Annual Financial
Report of Units of Local Government, 1981, and that an
amendment be made, where appropriate, on pages 32 and 33 of
the report, regarding the bond indebtedness.
A brief discussion followed.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously accepted, for the record,
the actual Audit Report.
The Annual Financial Report of Units of Local Government,
1981, is on file in the Office of the Clerk.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Release of Easement - Resolution 82-43
The Board then discussed the following memorandum
dated March 29, 1982:
5
APR 7 1982 4� ,
APR 7 1992
TO: The Honorable Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: ;March 29, 1982
FILE:
SUBJECT: Release of Easement Request
by Richard & Mary Heath
FROM:id REFERENCES:
David Greene
Assistant County Administrator
It is recommended that the -data herein presented be given formal consideration
by the County Commission.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has been petitioned by Richard & Mary Heath to release the common
side lot 5 foot easements of lots 11 and 12 on Block P of Oslo Park Subdivision,
Unit n2. 7.
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power and Light, and
the Utility and Right -of -Way Departments. The 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 easements. This would allow Richard & Mary Heath to develop
the two adjacent lots as one parcel. The release of the easements is not
anticipated to have any adverse effect.
B) If the County decides to not .release the easements, it would be denying the
applicant the opportbnity to develop the two adjacent lots as one parcel.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the release of the common side lot 5 foot easements of lots 11
and 12 on Block P of Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit #2, as outlined in Alternative
A.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commis—
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
82-43 approving a Release of Easement, as requested by
Richard and Mary Heath, releasing the common side lot 5 foot
easements of Lots 11 and 12 on Block P of Oslo Park Subdivision,
Unit #2.
RESOLUTION NO. 82-43
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, have been requested to release the common side lot line easements
of Lots 11 & 12 of Block P of Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit #2, according to
the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 13, of the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo
Park Subdivision for public utility purposes, and
WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement has been submitted
in proper form;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY, COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following'lot line easements, in Oslo Park
Subdivision shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows:
_ Those common side lot 5 foot easements of lots 11 & 12, Block P
of Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit #2, 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 13.
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 7th day of April 1982
111 U )t�j
Attest:
f,
4b
Freda Wright, Cl
APR 7 1982
1L-- --- --- --
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: / 7
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., ha' man
P
NOK 4�;a . 274
APR _ 7 1982
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
BOOK . 49 . PA6f 275.
This Release of Easement, executed thais 7th
day of An ri1 1982 by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida, first party; Richard & Mary Heath, whose mailing address is
1135 17th Place, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960 second party:
WITNESSETH:
That the said party of the first part for and in consideration
of. the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration
in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon,
and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the 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 5 foot easements of lots 11 & 12, Blk. P
of Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit #2 as recorded in Plat Book
4, Page 13, public records of Indian River County, Florida.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the appurtenances
L -hereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, -
interest, equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second
party forever.
IN WIT(VESS 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.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
Signed, sealed and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
delivered in the presence of:
,moo.. BY✓ �.,
Don C. Scurl oc , Jr., Chai �n
Attest: •�=�/�
Freda Wright, Cler
r
i
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly'authorized
in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements personally appeared,
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT,
as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to me known to be the persons duly authorized by
said County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me
that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision.
WITNESS by hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this
''� -✓b day of ---� %�C 1982.
(Notary Seal)
.4 -
APR 7 1982
Notary Publ ' , State of Fl6rid' q,1 Large
My Commissi n Expires:
=NDED i14RU GENrO. INS UNaERWAi
9 X276
APR 7 1982
C. Pistol Permit
The Board next considered the following memorandum
dated March 18, 1982:
TO: The Honorable Members of ®ATE: March 18, 1982 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Gun Permit Renewal
FROM: D -J-� REFERENCES:
David L. Greene
Assistant County Administrator
In a memorandum dated_Ma.rch 18, 1982, Freda Wright, Clerk
of the Circuit Court, forwarded the following application
for pistol permit renewals for:
Harvey A. Newman
All requirements of Ordinance 79-27 have been met and
are in order. I recommend the issuance of the pistol
permit renewal to the above individual. This application
is the last renewal to be submitted before the Moratorium
becomes effective.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved a permit
to carry a concealed weapon for Harvey A. Newman.
E. Report on File with the Clerk
The following report was received and placed on file
in the Office of the Clerk:
Report of Juveniles in Jail - February, 1982
D. A. G. Holley State Hospital
The Board discussed giving the Chairman approval to
sign the admission petitions for patients going to A. G.
Holley State Hospital, and it was determined that a list
of those admissions be placed on the next agenda for the
Board's review.
10
Motion was.made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, that the Chairman be given the approval
to sign admission petitions for.patients going to A. G.
Holley State Hospital, and those admissions then be placed
on the next agenda for review by the Board.
Commissioner Fletcher inquired if the Board was
giving authority to the Chairman to place -folks in mental
hospitals. The response was negative.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted
on and carried unanimously.
PROCLAMATION
The Board reviewed the following letter regarding
Library Week,
PA 9
lte22(Y �Jrtr.Pfv JC2�P/
MIN
April 18-24:
}
'ye�14pl_ X2460
March 24, 1952
The Honorable Don Scurlock
Chairman of the Indian River County Commission
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Dear Chairman Scurlock:
Library Week will be observed throughout the country from
April 18 to April 24. This year's theme "A Word to the Wise -
Librar_v" is a simple, strong way to remind people that their
library is their number one resource for information, education
and recreation.
The Indian River County Library Association would be honor-
ed if the City of Vero Beach and Indian River County would pro-
claim Library Week. This year marks a concerted drive to gain
new memberships and new friends. Your proclamation will go a
long way to help us. --
S ince,.;;i
3reyrs' er, President
Indian River County Library Assn.,
APR 71982 11 Bm 49 q,
Inc.
APR 7 1982 ;arc
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the Proclamation
designating April 18-24 as Library Week.
PROCLAMATION
PROCLAMATION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING THE
WEEK OF APRIL 18 THROUGH THE 24, 1982 AS LIBRARY
WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
WHEREAS, Library Week will be observed throughout the
nation during the week of April 18 through April 24, 1982; and
WHEREAS, this year's theme, "A Word to the Wise ---
LIBRARY," is a simple, strong way to remind citizens that the free
public library is their number one resource for information, edu-
cation, and recreation; and
WHEREAS, the institution known as the Public Library
represents the essence of the First Amendment protections of free
press, free speech, and the free flow of information and ideas;
and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Library Association,
with the aid and support of its many friends around the community,
is increasingly active in developing and promoting the County's
-library system; and
WHEREAS, it is altogether fitting and proper to recog-
nize the significance of Library Week and to urge support for this
worthy institution.
NOW, THEREFORE, WE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, assembled in regular session this
day of April, 1982, do hereby proclaim the week of April 18
through April 24, 1982 as
LIBRARY WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
in recognition of the vital role of libraries throughout the
country, the local association and its supporting parties, and
urge all citizens to enjoy and arcic_2& e in its observance.
LOARD 0? COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER CO:vNTY, FLORIDA
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Fred_ Wright, Clexx
APPROVE —AS TO FORM
_
AND L!;GA SU�FiC_,� ,,Y
Zry'-/ •I. Brandenb cg
ou'nty ACtorney
-L �_'
A: Grover Fletcher
Vicechairman
atr•ick B. Lyons
William C. Wodtke, Jr.
D.ic:{l Bird
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING PARKING
The Board discussed the following memorandum dated
March 25, 1982;
9
APR 7 1982 1349 � � .`
r �
APR '7 192
TO: The Honorable Mmbers of the DATE: March 25, 1982
Board of County Coamissioners
THRU: David L Greene
Assistant County Administrator
FROM:
James W. Davis
Public Works Di7ecor
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
FILE:
SUBJECT: County Administration Building Parking
REFERENCES:
Existing parking organization within the Administration Building vicinity needs
clarification and improvement. Recent inquiries from the Board of County
Commissioners, the Drivers. License Bureau and the Finance Department concerning
restriction and assignment of parking areas have initiated this ixuestigation into
the subject problem. A brief survey of existing parking conditions and requests
is provided:
1. Employee parking is currently designated for the large east lot.
2. Public parking is designated for the small east lot.
3. Angle parking on 25th Street and 26th Street is undesignated.
4. The Finance Department has requested an assigned space in the small
east lot designated for the public.
5. The Tax Collector has installed a self- assigned space in the old _
emergency entrance lot.
6. Handicap parking (4 spaces) are distributed as follows: one (1) space
in the old emergency entrance lot, two (2) spaces in the small east lot
and` one (1) space neat - the Drivers License Bureau entrance.
7. Loading Zones and No Parking Zones exist along the main entrance drive and
in front of the Welfare Office entrance.
ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPROVE=
A. .Assign parking spaces in the large east lot for all County Vehicles and in the
old emergency entrance lot for the Constitutional Officers (i.e. Tax Collector,
Property Appraiser, and Supervisor of Elections). Initial cost of signing these
spaces will be approximately two hundred dollars for 23 signs (eight (8)
Constitutional Officers and fifteen (15) County vehicles) provided by the County
Sign Shop.
Potential problems may be involved or evolve from assignment of parking spaces;
including enforcement, County Vehicle Fleet expansion; and resentment by, or
spaces for, Department/Division heads and other officals without County Vehicles.
B. Do not provide assigned parking spaces. Designate lots as general "public" or
"e:rployee" parking. This alternative will involve removing the existing spaces
reserved for the Tax Collector and arranging for Finance Department deposit
loading at the main entrance or with a security service.
C. Angle parking along 25th Street may be assigned either "public "employee",
or remain undesignated.
D. Angle parking on the north right of- way of 26th Street should be discouraged
due to safety hazard of backing out rw ements and the unpaved characteristic
of the rigtr of -way.
RECO "MRMATION
Because of the potential problems with assigned parking for the east employee lot,
Alternative B is recozmended. Angle parking along 25th Street is recommended for
"public" use west of 18th Arenue. Angle parking on the north right-of-way of
26th Street is recormended for use by the public visiting the Drivers License Bureau
and Welfare Office; employees should use the east employee lot. The loading area
at the rear entrance should be used only for short- term (i.e. less than 15 minutes)
parking by County employees and for delivery vehicles.
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletchery seconded
by Commissioner Wodtke, for purposes of discussion, to
accept Alternate B, as recommended by,Mr. Davis.
Commissioner Wodtke stated he would support an amend-
ment to Alternate B;.wc should designate one official
place for each constitutional officer.
Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, to amend the original Motion and have
it include one parking space for each of the four constitutional
officers: Property Appraiser; Tax ..Collector; Clerkof the
Court; and the Supervisor of Elections.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that the Clerk of the
Court could designate.her parking space to the Finance Director
for banking use.
Assistant Administrator Greene stated that staff was
reluctant and preferred not to furnish these spaces, as they
felt they were here to serve the public and the spaces should
be used for the public.
The Chairman called for the question on the Motion
amending the original Motion. It was voted on and carried
with a vote of 3 to 2, with Commissioner Fletcher and
Chairman Scurlock voting in opposition.
The Chairman called for the question on the original
Motion. It was voted on and carried unanimously.
APR 7 198
15
WN
APR
7
1982
REQUEST
BY CLYDE HOWARD TO DEED RIGHT-OF-WAY TO COUNTY
Engineer Davis reviewed the memorandum dated March 24,
1982 as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: March 24, 1982 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THRU: David L. Greene, SUBJECT: Request by Clyde Howard to Deed a 60'
Assistant County Administrator Wide Canal Right -of -Way and a 40'
Wide Road Right-of-ZUay to the County
, 1) Chris Paull letter, March i0, 19
FROM: James IV. Davis,P.E. ,�+ REFERENCES. 2) Gene Morris' letter March 9, 19
Public Works Director 3) Robert Lloyd letter Feb, 19, 198
4) G. Hamilton, D. Gentile Memo Oct
1q, 1981
This is in response to a request from Clyde D. Howard. It is recommended
that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the County Commis-
sion.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Clyde Howard, Owner of land south of 12th Street west of 16th Avenue (south
of the Vero Beach Elementary School) is requesting permission to deed to the
Drainage District a 60' wide canal right of way and to the County a 40' wide road
right of way by 500' length, south of the existing 16th Avenue right-of-way in
Tract 10, Section'll, Township 33 South, Range 39 East.
In return for deeding this land to the Drainage District and County, Mr.
Howard requests he be paid $3000. as a cash purchase for the property. Mr. Howard
- stated the purchase price would defray the expenses of back taxes he.has paid on
the property as well as expenses for transfering title, and Federal taxes on the
sale.
Dir: Howard would like.a receipt for this transaction.
ALTERNATIVES AND kNTALYSIS
The Indian River Farms Drainage District has maintained the canal and has
a record that this canal was a part of the 1920 modification to the Plan of
Reclamation. If this is the case, Dir. Howard possibly should not have had to
,pay taxes on this land.
Michael O'Haire, Attorney for the Indian River Farms Drainage District has
stated via telephone conversation March 3, 1982 with the Public Works Department,
that he has no objection to Mr. Howard deeding to the Drainage District the land
with the 60' canal right-of-way and that the Drainage District would issue Mr.
Howard a receipt for said land.
The 40' wide x 500' long strip of land west of the canal is currently being
used as a road and has been maintained by the County, at least the past 25 years.
Mr. Howard has paid ad valorem taxes on this roadproperty since 1952.
The road right of way would be a continuance of the present 16th Avenue
road right-of-way and could be of future interest to the County and future use
in conjimction with maintenance of the canal. Continuing South and joining Mr.
Howard's property is a 64.58' wide part of Lot 19 Block 2 owned by Indian River
County and is currently being used as a road connecting with 10th Place, which is
a private road. To extend 16th Avenue south to 8th Street (Glendale Road.), land
--lemnation would be necessary. This extension would be difficult.
Clyde Howard has paid the following taxes, broken down as follows:
$ 64.50 Drainage District tax on canal right of way
$ 761.67 Ad Valorem tax on canal right of way
5 507.78 Ad Valorem tax on road right of way
$1,333.95 Total tax paid 1952 thru 1981
The County attorney's office has rendered the opinion that there may be
a problom giving a "tax credit" to Mr. Howard, and if cash consideration is decided,
it should be done as a cash purchase, not as a tax credit. Further, this matter
should have been considered through the property appraisal adjustment appeals
process in 1952. If cash consideration is approved, Mr. Howard may not be able
to take a charitable contribution deduction on his taxes.
RECMMENDATION AND FINDING
Since the County has maintained the 401. wide road right-of-way (16th Avenue)
for the past 25 years and the road right-of-way may be of future use to the County
for utility accomodation, canal maintenance, and access to property, it is recom-
mended that:
1) The County purchase the 40' wide road right-of-way from Mr. Howard for
a cash consideration of $1200. This amopnt is 400 of the $3000. Mr. Howard
is requesting for the 100' by 500" road and canal corridor.- Funding via
transfer of $1200. from fund 111-214-541-99.91 Road and Bridge Fund Board
of County Commissioners Contingency to Account # 111-214-541-36.70.
2) Furnish Mr. Howard with receipt documents which accurately reflect the
terms of the transaction.
3) The above be contingent upon conveyance of clear title for the road and
canal property -by separate warranty deeds in fee simple. Mr. Howard
should incur the cost of title opinion.
It is further recommended that Mr. Howard and the Indian River Farms Water
Management District consider the deeding of the 60' canal right of way to the
Drainage District. Since Indian River County has no jusisdiction in this area,
no action by the Board of County Commissioners is recommended for deeding the
canal right-of-way.
Clyde Howard approached the Board and gave a brief
history of the property in question. Mr. Howard stressed that
he was interested in just getting back his tax money. Lengthy
discussion followed, and it was determined that Mr. Howard
was entitled to some kind of monetary reimbursement.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that Mr. Howard might want to
discuss this matter -first with the Drainage District.
Commissioner.Lyons expressed concern and hoped Mr. Howard
would investigate thebest way for the disposal of his property.
He suggested Mr. Howard talk to his accountant and Attorney,
and to determine what was the fair market value of his property.
A P R '7198
17
APR 7 1982
Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Com-
missioner Wodtke, that this item be deferred in order to
give Mr. Howard an opportunity to seek legal and accounting
advice.
Commissioner Bird included in his Motion that the County
Attorney be authorized to meet with Mr. Howard's attorney and
the Drainage District attorney to discuss his options and
to come back to the Board with a report.
Commissioner Wodtke seconded the addition to the Motion.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
STATUS REPORT ON SIXTEENTH STREET
Engineer Davis commented that there was nothing to
report on the Sixteenth Street project at the present time:
THIRTY-SIXTH STREET LIGHTING
The Board discussed the memorandum dated March 30, 1982,
as follows:
TO: The Iionorable Members of the DATE: _March 30, 1982 F1 LE:
Board of County Commissioners
�hRequest from Dr. Edward Attarian, M.D.
THROUGH: David Greene, Acting- SUBJECT: for Installation of Street Lighting
• Cony Administrator .along 36th Street from U.S. #1 to the
Indian River Memorial Hospital
FROM: James W. Davis,T REFERENCES: Letter 1) Dr. E. Attarian, M.D. to
Public Works Director Wn. C: Wodtke dated April 2, 1981,
Requesting Street Lighting of 36th
2) Frank H, Call, Mgr., Electrical
Engineering, City of Vero Beach to
Jim Davis, County Engineer, dated
July 7, 1981 Regarding Street Light-
ing of Barber Avenue.
3) Frank P. Pendleton, Electrical
Engineer, City of Vero Beach, to Jim
Davis, County Engineer, dated July
21,1981
Description and Conditions:
The Engineering Division has contacted the City of Vero Beach Electrical Engineering
Department and requested consideration of providing adequate street lighting of 36th
Street and Barber Avenue (37th St.) from U.S. #1 to the new hospital site. The
City of Vero Beach is the only frachised electrical supplier to this area. A cost
estimate and design has been prepared for both 36th Street and 37th Street, (Barber
Ave.). The design of the 37th Street project includes the installation of 29 -
22,000 lumen high pressure sodium lamps on 35' wood poles spaced every 200' +
at an estimated annual cost of $5,547.12. This design is based upon an intermediate
collector roadway classification.
The design prepared for the 36th Street roadway lighting is based on a residential
collector roadway classification and three alternatives are presented.
The recommended plan and Option #1 call for 11-16,000 lumen high presure sodiun
lamps spaced every 190' + apart using concrete poles (recommended) or wood poles,
(Option #1) for a yearly cost of $1,709.40 and $1,603.80 respectively. Option T2
proposes installing 8-22,000 lumen lights on the existingg poles on the south side
of 36th Street at an annual cost of $1,401.24. This last option is not recommended
due to a resulting insufficient level of illumination provided.
Alternatives and Analysis:
The alternatives are:
1) Install lighting along Barber Ave. fran U.S. #1 to the new Hospital.
Annual Cost: $5,547.12
2) Install lighting along 36th Street from U.S. #1 to the new Hospital.
Annual Cost:
Reccamended Plan •$1,709.40 (concrete poles)
Option #1 1,603.80 (wood.poles)
Option #2 1,401.24
The iract upon providing lighting along these corridors includes improving the
visibility and safety for pa tients,.emergency vehicles, and physicians which use
this facility on a 24 hour basis. Lighting both corridors allows night safety
to two emergency roan access corridors. Alternatives_ may include lighting only
one or neither corridor. If one corridor were illuminated, 37th Street (Barber
Ave.) would serve the west and proposed future east approach, but at three times
the cost of illuminating 36th Street.
Alternative methods of financing include:
1) Set up a special street lighting district as established for the Gifford Area.
It may be possible to simply include this area within the Gifford District. Certain -
Agricultural land fronts on the roads, and it would have to be determined it this
land should contribute.
2) Approach the Hospital Board to consider paying for this service.
3) Provide payment from the County's 14unicipal Service Fund for the 36th Street
lighting and frau the Transportation Trust Fund for the 37th Street lighting
(Barber Ave.).
Recommendations and Funding:
Based upon past policy as implemented in the Gifford area, it is recommended
that a special street lighting district be considered and both 37th Street and
36th Street be illuminated at an annual cost of $7,256.52. Recommend that staff
be authorized to research the delineation of the district limits, determine the
taxable land value in the area, and calculate the anticipated mill -age involved.
Final figures shall be brought back to the Board once complete.
Considerable discussion followed, and it was determined
that this matter should be first reviewed by the Transportation
Planning Committee. It was suggested that the Committee might
want to get the Hospital Board and the City of Vero Beach
involved in this request.
APR 7 1982 aoo 4 _
19
APR 7 1982
so
49
X287
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons,
seconded
by
Commissioner Fletcher, that the Board defer this item to the
Transportation Planning Committee for their evaluation and
recommendation.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
REPAVING PROGRAM - 1981-82 FISCAL YEAR
Mr. Davis reviewed the following memorandum dated
March 30, 1982 with attachments:
DATE: March 30 F1 LE:
T0: The Honorable Members of the 1982
Board of County Commissioners
Thru: David Greene
Acting County Administrator SU BJ ECT: 1982 Road Resurfacing Program
Memo:
James W. DavisC�k 1) Albert VanAuken to Jim
FROM. Public Works Director REFERENCES: Davis, dated 3/9/82
2) Albert
and Albert Vamkuken, Superintendent at/
dated
to Jim
Road and Rridap Divicine Davis, d 3 3/2/82
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Attached is the proposed resurfacing list for F.Y. 1982. From a survey
of the County's existing paved road network, the critical roads requiring re-
surfacing are included. In an effort to bring King's Highway to an acceptable
twenty-four foot'(241) wide, two-lane major thoroughfare, the widening and re-
surfacing from South Gifford Road to the North Relief Canal and between State
Road 60 and 12th Street is included. This project was initiated in the late,
1970's and is ongoing. In the past, the widening was done using a four inch
(41') thick asphalt addition, two feet (21) on each side of existing pavement.
It has been found that the County can do this work with limerock at a lesser
cost, thus saving $3,817 per one-half (Z) mile. Our savings for 1982 will.
amount to approximately $10,700.
ALTERKALTIVES AND ANALYSIS
As the resurfacing program is to protect the County's investment in it's
existing road network, approval is the only alternative recommended.
RECO,NIME\'DATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approving the attached 1982 Road Resurfacing Program.
Funding to come from Account #004-214-541-35.39, unencumbered balance as of
March 30, 1982 is $456,957.94.
.kv
*Q':1
N
fN
• INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEPAJ:r.VMJDJT
Or PUBLIC
WORKS
ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT PROPOSED RESURFACING
LIST - 1982
NO.
DESCRIPTION
14ILE GE
1'iIDTH
TONAGE
CO -ST
1.
58th Avenue from 60 to 12th Street
1.0
241
528
S20,100
2.
58th Avenue from South Gifford Road to N. Relief Canal
1.8
211
845
36 200
3.
N. Minter Beach Road from Icings Highway to Lateral A
1.0
201
444
16,720
4.
45th Street from 58th Avenue to Lateral A
1 1.0
201
440
16,720
5.
14th Avenue between 6th S•treet'& 7th Street
.1
20141E
1t7;30
6.
15th Avenue between 8th Street & 6th Street
.2
201
88
31404
7.
8th Street between 90th Avenue & Ranch Road
1.2
241
6 33
t
2 . lco
,
8.
12th Street S.E. in River Shores
.7
201
308
11,700
9.
12th Place S.E. in River Shores
.8
201
352
13,400
10.
4th Avenue S.E. in River Shores
.1
201
44•
1,700
11.
6th Avenue S.E. in Vero,Shores
.3
201•
134
5,'100
12.
19th Street S.E. in Vero Shores
.2
201
88
31440
13.
5th Court S.E. in Vero Shores
.4
201
176
6,'f00
14.
9th Place nest of 43rd Avenue in Glendale Lakes
.3
201
132
5,100
15.
1st Place S.W. east of 20th Avenue in Eastview Gardens
.2
201
88
3,400
16.
lot Court S.W. youth of 1st Place S.W. in Eastview Gardens
.1
201
44
1,700
17.
'i'nnner Court south of lut Place in Eastview Gardens
.l
201
44
1,700
TOTAL
x172,8110
.kv
*Q':1
N
fN
NO. DESCRIPTION I•IMVIGiZ; Wily H C T
18. Reef Road from Windward to Periwinkle Drive in Moorings .5 20' 220 ;i8,hch�
19. Treasure Lane from Galleon Drive to Beacon Lane in N;oorinE;s .2 201 88 i�t�0p
Total miles 10.2
TOTAL COSTS OF ITEMS 1 THROUGH 17 X172 8110
LIIAkROCK FOR WIDMUNG OF KINGS HIGIWAY 10 , 0^O
TOTAL 1182,840
NOTE: All asphalt will be 3/411 surface
- a
1
TO:
FROM:
Jim Davis
D?d Director
Albert VanAuken, Supt.
Road & Bridge Dept.
DATE: 3/2/82
FILE: R&B
SUBJECT: Widening of. Kings,
�Hig��+
r• v,:; N
REFERENCES:.
Following are the charges to widen Y2 mile
of Kings
Highway by
4 feet from South
Gifford Road to North Gifford Road:
1•:1TF2TA1-Z Limerock
350 yds.
$$5.25
yd.
$1837.50
$1837.50
LNBOR Caraway
16 hrs.
$58.81
hr.
$140.96
L. Patterson
10 hrs.
7.91
hr.
79.10
Bristol
10 hrs.
5.45
hr.
54.50
'
Watson
10 hrs.
6.56
hr.
65.60
_ Bolen
10.hrs.
-4.64
hr.
46.40
D. Jones
10 hrs.
4.67
hr.
46.70
Lindrose
10 hrs.
6.22
hr.
62.20
Farrell
10 hrs.
6.77
hr.
67.70
Shaw
10 hrs.
6.26
hr.
62.60
$625.76
��'rJt1IP,='T Grader
26 hrs.
$;36..00
hr.
$51296.00
Roller
10 hrs.
27.90
hr.
279.00
8-6 yd. Dump
Trucks -
10 hrs.
16.20
hr.
1036.80
$2611.80
GRAND TOTAL
$$5075.06
Co;•SPA?RISC;V
DT_C: RSOV Asphalt
234 Tons
$38.00
Ton
$8892.00
$8892.00
CCUI'TY Limerock
,-4-50. yds.
5.25
yd.
$1837.50
$1837.50
SAVr'GS
$$3817.00
Albert VanAuken Supt. Road
& Bride
Dept.
Commissioner Bird noted that there was extensive erosion
on the east side of Kings Highway.
Mr. Davis commented that he would discuss this matter
with John Amos of the Drainage District. He added that they
were trying to make the rights-of-way wider to avoid this
type of problem in the future.
APR 71982 23 Booz 49 %( 290
APR 7 1982 VGA M w2m
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board accept the recommendation
of the Public Works Director and approve the Road Resurfacing
Program.
A brief discussion ensued.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, INC.
Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the Sales Agreement between
Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc., D. Travis Salter, and the
County. He explained that Louis Aiello had a claim against
Mr. Salter, which he felt was approximately $35,000, and the
Attorney had placed a provision in the sales agreement for
$25,000. He added that, -in the event the $25,000 was not -
sufficient, the receiver would go after the receipts
from Treasure Coast Utilities, Inca If Mr. Aiello was
unsuccessful, the Attorney noted there might be a remote
possibility that he would next look to the County, but he
felt the chances of there being any assets awarded by the
County to the receiver were slim.
Commissioner -Bird inquired if there was an accurate list
of the equipment, and was the question of legal title to the
land resolved.
Attorney Brandenburg stated he could not tell if the
list of assets were accurate, but there was a provision that
the County would receive a quit claim deed. He felt sure
they covered all the major assets.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired if a thorough search had
0
been made of any existing liens that could have been placed
on the property.
The Attorney explained that the seller has provided title
insurance and any liens that were of record would show up on
the title insurance. He added that Mr. Salter refused to
let the County retain $35,000 in escrow for Mr. Aiello's
claim. The Attorney was hopeful that they would settle this
claim prior to closing.
Commissioner Bird inquired what Mr. Aiello would do if
his claim was not paid.
Attorney Brandenburg reiterated that he would go to
Mr. Salter and if unsuccessful, there was the remote possibility
he would attempt to go after the assets received by the
County.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the claim and the
sale agreement.
Commissioner Lyons commended the negotiators who worked
with Mr. Salter; he heartily recommended that the Chairman
be authorized to sign the agreement. He agreed that there
was some possibility of additional liability, but it was a
calculated risk.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the sale: -.,agreement;
authorize the Chairman to sign the sale agreement; and
authorize the County'Attorney's office to take any necessary
action to culminate the closing and acquisition.
Commissioner Fletcher asked about the status of the lawsuit
regarding Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc.
Attorney Brandenburg stated it was dismissed by the
Federal Court when Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc. did not
respond to a 50 page motion. There was a possibility that
the Court could reinstate that claim, as the parties involved
were in negotiations at the same time. He pointed out that
an item was in the sale agreement wherein Mr. Salter would
release and file a withdrawal of his claim to the County.
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.
APR 7 1982
25
APR 7 1992
e
The Sale Agreement dated April 7, 1982 between Treasure
Coast Utilities, Inc., D. Travis Salter, and Indian River
County, Florida is on file in the Office of the Clerk.
DOUGLAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - DISCUSSION
Commissioner Wodtke reported -on the various meetings
with the School Board, where utilization of the property was discussed,
as well as having a reverter clause or a quit claim deed.
He advised that the School Board felt it would be better to
make the building available to the County; then the County
could determine the utilization of the buildings, which are
located on approximately eight acres. Commissioner Wodtke
continued that, in case of an emergency, the School Board
might have to -utilize some of the classrooms until the new
school was built in the north part 'of the County. He
suggested that possibly the Florida Community Health Agency
could use the wooden structure on the premises for their
offices.
Ms. McCoy, of the Florida Community Health Agency, came
before the Board and gave a brief summary of their
background of providing health care' services in seven
counties. She proposed that they discontinue using their
mobile unit, and,try to establish a permanent site at
Douglas'Elementary School. Ms. McCoy stated that this would
enable them to extend into the evening hours to better serve
the people. She added that they have a grant to operate,
plus they have a separate grant for any renovation; all
they need is the facility.
Commissioner Fletcher inquired as to the source of
their funds.
Ms. McCoy responded that they received federal funds: a
12 month grant from the Department of Community Health, and
the second was a Migrant Health Grant. She advised that
they had been in operation since 1976 and did not anticipate
any grant cuts.
Discussion followed about having proper security if
they plan to be open during the evening hours.
Commissioner Wodtke wondered if there was any
possibility of moving the old structure elsewhere on the
premises.
Commissioner Fletcher felt the old structure could be
moved, but not too far.
Commissioner Bird commented that if the County was
given the property by the School Board, what would it cost
to maintain it; and would the Health Agency pay something
for the facilities or renovations?
Commissioner Wodtke responded .that the Health Agency
felt it did not have enough money to pay rent, but they
would be able to make improvements to the building to make
it usable for medical offices.
Ms. McCoy agreed and also noted that they would be
responsible for malpractice insurance, liability insurance,
and the utilities.
Lengthy -discussion ensued regarding the water and sewer
situation at the site.
Commissioner Wodtke talked about the possibility of
utilizing the property with a combination of things; as the
County has had other proposals from other organizations that
should be considered.
Commissioner Fletcher then read a letter from Irwin
Cartwright, as follows:
APR 7 1982 27 99% . 49- PaE 294
APR 7 1982
CcNrrt• FL. 57-c
NDK 4 P,29 .
CHURCH GRoup Nor Civet QC{T,gSICED rO usEo
C l/ -.4R TER
CIVIC C7eO4p TOL.D CHClRVI QP041'b NOr TD USED
0 C V YU 7 -
C> vrc q)eo" P 1-1-Ap NoTHrNqTo Ido !l/irW Pe6,°dS41—
C'H,4/RM4N Co L�/�/�M� SEc,PET9�P� oFpPof�s'Ac.
NO ciL/C.•
c#aeCH GRoup 7-�2N .DOw11 .gy Sup_?l�p-c su�Ns
CHu�i'cff �aROup 7L(RN �/a�N ,g�/ �}-,DMiN.sT�('flTo'P HuN1t
ct-iuRc1t cyRaup W.4/✓1— ENT/eE'E scHa,oL
C/v/G (yeaLID WANTS oNLU tdSE OF CAFE 7rE,PJ,g_ !}T
�J
NWfTs s}ND WEE/< FNDS
INc.RAM kE- FL(SE- To CyivE E(i C' LEGE �oR �2
SHE ,SAID
�jDouGL�s
/N AIEEE-rI41q f �-O G IV/L1- ��' MolieA16r se✓
EEL- ENI EA "74R .
we h9vE %l, ?Xe r 4 C lq,S,E e)gR. 8 a7-.��
c ea�ta -57 63 p,4 M o� /�j SE�VIYE
YP w NC141 � L.�e 4
THEY )) 0 V E Oq-r IT iA/JLL HURT U9 - WEte/ hi 5-
C�u S H d u R� �OU1 L .D/N /d,�D S
JVIR
4 r -7-E'4 E• 6 c w ER45- Gt-oSCC '0
83 THE H)5 -j9 t._ T t! PEp7- (hltfso&lc r� 4f LV I��J
6Z Z86L Z ddb
APR 7 1982
4580 33rd AVENUE
1
Econ "a UPP
M Cowl,
UE Indian River County, Inc.
VERO BEAM, FLORIDA 82060
January 20, 1969
TELEPHONE: 562-4177
Rev. John Knowles, President
Wabasso Progressive Civic League
Post Office Box 417
Wabasso, Florida 32970
Dear Rev. Knowles:
The Economic Opportunities Council of Indian River'County has
received notice from the Office of Economic Opplrtunity in
Atlanta that our budget for fiscal year 1969 -has been approved
and that we should be receiving our funds shortly.
As we have discussed previously, this will enable us to begin
to operate a Service Center in your facility in Wabasso. We
have noted in our budget for this year the following:
-The building -will be donated to the EOC of -Indian
River County for,such use without payment or rent.
-32,500.00 will be used and allocated for the center
and will pay for all expenses that are incurred by
this,agency in the operation of it. This is to in-
clude, electricity, gas, water, telephones and other
utilities as well: -as materials used and related. to
its operation.
-Services rendered in the facility for the -community
will include volunteer representatives of the Florida
State Employment Service, the Welfare Department and
other counselling and vocational services.
-Encouragement of community pride and involvement in
Community Action.
Please advise as to the date we will be able to bein our oper-
ation in your center. We are of course, very appreciative_of
your interest and involvement in this program.
Thanking you again,
Sincerely yours,
-C C Ll -z_ ----_�
Curtis Hunte
Executive Director
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded'by
Commissioner Bird, that Commissioner Wodtke be authorized to
continue negotiations with the School Board on the basis
that the property be deeded to the County; there be no
reverter; and there may be a temporary arrangement for use
of the building by the School Board.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that he would like .to
look into the possibility of relocating the building
elsewhere on the premises.
Lengthy discussion ensued.
The Chairman called for the question.
and carried unanimously.
It was voted. on
On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved that the
County join with the Florida Community Health Agency in
negotiating with the School Board to find an early solution
to utilize the property in. question, including the
possibility of relocating the building.
On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized that
the Administrator and the Planning Department receive
information from whomever is considering using this
facility, including the County, to come up with a broad,
general plan of use, and a plan for a possible fee structure
for the use of this facility.
Discussion followed, and it was determined a good idea
that the Florida Community Health Agency submit a report to
the Board once a year for information purposes.
On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
Attorney to assist with any possible negotiations concerning
the Douglas Elementary School property.
APR 7 1982
31
."
APR 7 1992 B90A 49 W29
OLD SCHOOL BOARD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - DISCUSSION
Commissioner Wodtke related the School Board's interest
to lease or sell the old School Board Administration
Building. He noted that there was less than 5,000 square
feet in the building, and there are two old wooden
structures in the back of the building, and a trailer that
would be removed. Commissioner Wodtke advised that there
was a deficiency regarding the public restroom facilities at
the site.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the Board should consider
entering in a lease agreement with the School Board for this
building for use by the Sheriff's Investigation Division.
Commissioner Lyons suggested a three year term, with
one year options afterwards.
Commissioner Fletcher talked about the Organized Crime
Bureau located in the new Administration Building, and the
possibility of combining the Investigation Division with
them.
Commissioner Lyons commented that he would be glad to
talk to the Sheriff to see if something could be worked out
along those lines.
On Motion made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized
Commissioner Wodtke to proceed with negotiations for the old
School Board Administration offices and that recommendations
be brought back to the Board; and that the Attorney be
authorized to assist in preparing the necessary lease
documents for a three year lease with one year options being
available, as suggested.
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at
11:20 A.M. in order to attend the ground breaking ceremony
for Treasure Coast Village and reconvened at 1:30 o'clock
P.M. with the same members present. Deputy Clerk Hargreaves
took over from Deputy Clerk Caldwell for the remainder of
the meeting.
DISCUSS LEASE SALE COUNTY PROPERTY (PORTION OF OLD STUMP
DUMP)
Personnel Director Hardin reviewed the following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 2, 1982 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: David L. Greene SUBJECT: Bid' for Lease or Purchase
Asst. County Administrator of County Land
FROM: k). REFERENCES:
C. B. Hardin, Jr Ph. D. _
Asst. to Co. Administrator/Personnel Director
1. Descriptions and Conditions:
In a letter to the Board of County Commissioners dated August
1, 1978, Mr. Rudy Hubbard, President of WGYL Radio Corp.,
first expressed interest in a lease arrangement with the
County for an 8.26 acre parcel of land formerly used as part
of the old County dump. It should be pointed out that this
tract was an unused portion of the site. This property is
located west of Old Dixie adjacent to the South Relief and
Lateral "J" Canals.
Access is gained through the use of a 250 ft. wide right-of-
way for the South Relief Canal of the Indian River Farms Water
Management District. This access road appears on the County
Road Maintenance Map -and is maintained by Road and Bridge Dept.
It is unknown at this time if the roadway is properly dedicated.
Public Notice of Lease of Real Estate was published in the
Vero Beach Press Journal September 13, 1978. Pursuant to
Statute 125.35, bids were accepted for lease of said property.
In response to the Notice of Lease, Mr. Hubbard addressed the
Board at the regular meeting held October 4, 1978. Mr. Hubbard
explained his intentions and discussion centered around the
value of the land and possibility of appraisal of the same.
r�
33 WK :� A
APR 1982
APR 7 1982
At the close of discussion, Mr. Hubbard was directed to prepare
a lease for consideration by the Board. Negotiations con-
tinued through May 23, 1979, at which time the file was closed.
WGYL has actively pursued FCC and FAA licensing since that time
and in a letter dated July 28, 1981, restated their intent to
complete the lease of this -property.
.Staff felt it necessary to rebid this property as other firms
had shown interest in lease/purchase of this parcel. Public
Notice was published February 17, 24, March 3, 19821, in the
Vero Beach Press. Journal as required by Florida State Statutes.
Two bids were received in answer to this advertisement. Bids
were opened on March 9, 1982. Both firms submitting bids
offered lease or out right purchase.
An appraisal of this property was made by Ed Schlitt Agency,
Inc. on March 12, 1982, with the market value of the fee
simple title to the property set at $13,000.00. The Indian
River County Property Appraisers' Office set taxable just
value at $16,520.00.
2. Alternatives and Analysis':
A) WGYL Radio has proposed to lease said property for a twenty
year term with monthly payments of $100.00 for the fir.9.t
ten years and $125.00 -monthly for the next ten years.
Proposed use of land is for construction and maintenance
of a radio broadcast tower and transmitter building.
Antenna space may be negotiated on the tower for use by
the Sheriff's Department and Ambulance Squad at agreed
upon rates.
B) WAXE Radio has proposed to lease said property for a ten
year term with a ten year option for an annual lease pay-
ment of $750.00. Proposed use of site is for WAXE Radio
tower and transmitter building.
C) WAXE Radio has proposed to.purchase•'said property for the -
sum of $20,000;00. Proposed use of site for radio tower
and transmitter building.
D) WGYL Radio has proposed to purchase said property for the
sum of $16,000.00. Proposed use of site for a radio tower
and t-fansmitter building.
3. Recommendations and Funding:
A) Staff be instructed to issue a license for the right to use
the property for tower purposes, thereby reserving unto the
County the right to use the balance of the property for
other County purposes. Instruct Staff to issue said license
to WGYL as highest and/or best bidder.
B) Instruct Staff to negotiate a lease based on the terms
stated in the proposal submitted by WGYL with the follow-
ing exceptions:
1) Antenna space on the tower for use by Sheriff's
Department and Ambulance Squad be negotiated
at the rate of $1.00 per year.
2) That negotiations should include whether the lessee
be allowed to construct other buildings for lease
without paying further rent or without the County's
consent.
Dr. Hardin reported that there presently is a lease in
effect with the Sheriff's department and WGYL for $1.00 a
year.
Rudy Hubbard of WGYL commented that although the staff
report says this property was not used as a dump, there are
a lot of old refrigerators and other appliances buried
there, and he further noted that, according to his
understanding, the Appraiser's office has appraised this
property at $1,000 an acre, and it would be $8,000 for the
eight acres.
Considerable discussion ensued as to staff's
recommendations that the lease be for the tower only with
the County reserving the balance of the property and in
regard to negotiating for space on the tower for the Sheriff
at $1.00 a year.
Mr. Hubbard stated he basically had no objection to the
County reserving the balance of the property, but pointed
out that the ground wires will run about 200' out in a
circle around the tower, which would leave just the
perimeter. Re space on the tower for the Sheriff at $1.00 a
year, Mr. Hubbard noted that this tower is a different
i.
arrangement than the existing one located behind the Jail,
which they built and donated to the County, and on which
they still have about 9 years of lease payment left. He
noted they wish to relocate in order to be able to increase
the height of the tower, and while they would remove most of
their equipment from the present tower, they would not
abandon it entirely, but would leave some equipment there
and continue to use it. Mr. Hubbard pointed out that WGYL
will have about an $178,000 investment in the new tower, and
since WGYL will have to pay rent for the property, he would
like to have the Sheriff pay about $150.00 a month for space
on the tower.
35
APR 7 1982 .
APR 71982
Commissioner Wodtke believed we should have space
reserved for the ambulance service as well as the Sheriff's
Department and felt this must be negotiated or possibly we
should consider selling the land.
Chairman Scurlock commented that he was not. generally
in favor of selling County land and asked if we have deter-
mined any future need for this property.
Dr. Hardin believed there is a use for any land the
County has, although they have not come up with any
conclusive ideas at this point. In the event it was decided
to sell, he believed the money should be put in an escrow
fund for future development. Dr. Hardin stressed that the
portion of land the tower itself would be located on was
never used as a dump site, and Zoning Director Walker
concurred that particular portion of the property is clear
of any buried materials.
Question arose as to whether the present tower would be
available for expanded use when WGYL moves their equipment.
Mr. Hubbard noted that the Sheriff is on there now and the
Ambulance Squad could go on too. He -believed the County is -
using a repeater system for the Sheriff's system now and
that they have another.location in Hobart Park, and he did
not knoT# that -the increased height offered by the new tower
would be that important.
Commissioner Lyons concurred that there is a question
about the importance of the increased height, and he felt
the question to be addressed is what the antenna space is
worth to us if we should want it later on. He felt it might
solve things if we just had the option of getting space on
the tower, and asked Mr. Hubbard if he would settle for
$100.00 a month rather than $150.00.
Mr. Hubbard conceded he would be agreeable to that.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons to accept staff's
recommendations in their memo of April 2, 1982, except for
36
B-11 re space for the Sheriff's Department, which would be
changed to the rate of $100.00 a month.
Discussion followed about liability insurance, and Mr.
Hubbard stated that they carry such insurance and the County
could be included as an additional insured.
Attorney Brandenburg believed the license agreement
should have a hold harmless clause as well as the County
being a co-insured on the policy.
Commissioner Lyons agreed to add these provisions re
insurance to his Motion to accept staff recommendations
except B-1., which would be changed to $100.00 a month.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner -Bird.
Commissioner Wodtke felt strongly that the 8 acres is ,
worth more to the taxpayers of this county than $100.00 a
month and did not feel
it is too much
to ask to
have
availability of space on
the antenna for
emergency
purposes
without having to pay for it. He noted that we do have a
higher bid for purchase of the land; although, he did not
believe we want to sell. He stated that he would go along
with the majority, however.
Considerable discussion followed _relating to the
t.
appraised value; the zoning, which is R-1; and the fact that
this property has the south relief canal on one side and a
transfer station on the other and it is not a particularly
desirable location although it could be used for warehouses
or some similar type facility.
The Chairman called for the question on the Motion to
accept staff recommendations with the exception of B-1,
antenna space to be negotiated not to exceed $100.00 a month
and the provision for a hold harmless clause and
co-insurance. It was voted on and defeated 3 to 2, with
Commissioners Wodtke, Fletcher and Chairman Scurlock voting
in opposition.
37
APR 7 19829 p
APR 7 1982
ir..OWr U�=
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, Chairman Scurlock voting in opposi-
tion, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote agreed to accept the WGYL
proposal for lease of the County property as recommended by
staff with the agreement that antenna space may be
negotiated on the tower for use of the Sheriff or Ambulance
Squad not to exceed $1.00 a year and with provisions
regarding a hold harmless clause and co-insurance.
Mr. Hubbard asked if they could just give space for one
0
or the other - the Sheriff or the Ambulance Squad.
Commissioner Wodtke believed that the Motion meant just
one space for emergency services, not two.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would be willing -to
amend his Motion to state that one space should be provided
at $1.00 a year and a second space, if necessary, negotiated
up to $100 a month.
Mr. Hubbard stated that WGYL could make arrangements to
abandon the existing tower and would agree to terminate the
lease prematurely. He noted that they pay no fee for the
existing tower, and they do not maintain it; they built it
and gave it to the county.
In further discussion, it was noted that we have had a
very good relationship with WGYL over the years and do not
want anyone to feel they are being pushed into a corner.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that, if they wished, the
Commission could move to reconsider the already adopted
Motion.
On notion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to
reconsider the Motion previously adopted.
Motion was amended by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, to accept the staff recommendation
regarding lease of County property by WGYL, except for B-1,
with the agreement that one space on the antenna would be
38
reserved for emergency services at $1.00 a year and a second
space, if necessary, negotiated not to exceed $100 per
month; also, a provision for a hold harmless clause in the
agreement and co-insurance would be added. .
Commissioner Wodtke felt it is understood this space
would only be used for the Sheriff or an emergency type of
operation. He hoped we never have to use it and hopefully
when we go into a new Jail, this agreement could be
abandoned.
Discussion followed on having the agreement state that
it is subject to revision when the County feels it has
permanent facilities and the lessee would have the oppor-
tunity to come back before the Commission for consideration
of the relinquishing of the reservAtion. Mr. Hubbard
appreciated this idea.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried by a unanimous vote.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL ROSE HAVEN SUBDIVISION
The Board reviewed the following memo:
a
39
APR 7 1982 MOK .11 .49 P .366
APR '71982
TO: The Honorable Board DATE: March 23, 1982 FILE: IRC-81-S/D-1(.
of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
FOR ROSE HAVEN SUBDIVISION
DLetter from Frank DeJ i
FROM: David L. Greene REFERENCES: o a _to
Assistant County Administrator David Greene, Assistant
County Administrator, dated
3-17-82.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat Approval be
granted for a 4.82 acre parcel to be divided into 8 lots.
The site is located near the northwest corner of 80th Avenue
and 126th Street, north of Sebastian. The propert is
zoned R-3, Multi -Family Residential (15 units/acre and
designated LD -1 (up to 3 units/acre) in the Comprehensive
Pian.
ANALYSIS:
The wording "duplex lot" appears on each lot in the proposed
subdivision. The density would be 4 units/acre if duplexes
were developed on each of the 1/2 acre lots.- Multiple family
dwellings are special exception uses in the R-3 zoning
district. A special exception use requires site plan
approval which should not be addressed in the subdivision
process.
- Ac -cess to the proposed subdivision is via 80th Avenue, a
marl road not maintained by the County. The applicant is
proposing to construct a 20 foot wide marl road and dedicate
an additional 25 feet of Right -of -Way. This would give the
County a total of.60 feet of Right -of -Way on 80th Avenue. -
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Preliminary Plat Approval be granted
only if the following conditions o s are met by the developer.
1. The wording "duplex lot" be removed from each lot.
2. The following road improvement is recommended:
RECO�1,!EIVDATIONS - cont.
Pa,7ement of 80th Avenue from 126th Street to the southeast
corner o- the proposed subdivision. This would create
an approximately 400 foot long section of paved road
between existing unimproved roads. The road to the west,
126th Street, is a County maintained road. The impact
on the County maintenance operation would be minimal.
Commissioner Fletcher wished it noted for the record
that he is an adjoining property owner and did not know if
that would constitute a conflict of interest.
Attorney Brandenburg did not feel that it would. He
noted that Commissioner Fletcher is legally required to vote
and if he wished to abstain, he would have to file a
conflict of interest. If a conflict of interest were filed,
he could take no part in the discussion or action.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he intended to take
part in the discussion and would not abstain from voting.
Attorney Rene Van de Voorde came before the Board
representing the applicant, Frank DeJoia. He informed the
Board that Mr. DeJoia has agreed to reduce density down to
14 by making lots.1 -3 and 6 - 8 duplex lots and the
remaining two lots single family. $e continued that the
proposed subdivision fronts on Estes Street (80th Ave.)
which is a non -existing street at this point with no.paved
roads nearby, the closest being Roseland Road and 126th St,
and Mr. DeJoia has requested permission to put in a marl
road on Estes St. from 126th to the NE boundary line of the
property; the internal street would be paved to county
standards.
area.
Discussion followed in regard 'to paved roads in the
Engineer Jim Davis reported that it is not staff's
recommendation to allow a marl street on Estes Street,
which, similar to many roads in the Roseland area, was
dedicated back in the early 1900's, but never accepted for
maintenance by the County. Mr. Davis felt it will create an
adverse impact on the Road & Bridge Department if the County
accepts another unpaved street. Staff's preference would be
to recommend paving Estes from 126th Street to 128th which
would create a paved loop between two roads presently
maintained by the county but since this would be
41
49
APR 7 1992 WK
quite costly, they recommended paving 80th Avenue (Estes)
from the north property line of the development to 126th St.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that would require the
developer to pave in front of property that he does not own
and further noted that we have allowed others to bring roads
up to marl standards in the past and have accepted them for
maintenance.
Engineer Davis felt that would not be such a bad
situation where you are connecting two roads which the
County maintains, but this would make a very bad situation
for the grader, which would grade just so far and then have
to stop and back out.
Considerable,discussion ensued about the roads in this
area as to which were graded and maintained, which were
dedicated and accepted, etc., and Engineer Davis felt the
dedications are very questionable; they were very crude and
archaic at the time they were platted and the County did not
accept them for maintenance. The same situation exists in
Vero Lake Estates. Mr. Davis noted that the tract adjacent
to this subdivision is undeveloped and the intent is that -
when the owner of that tract wishes to develop, we would
request he pave the portion fronting his lots and in that
way we could end up with a connected paved road along Estes
St. He feared if we start accepting marl roads in this area
it will create a burden to the maintenance operation.
Question next arose regarding the density of the
subject property which is currently zoned R-3 (15 units per
acre) but designed LD -1 (3 units per acre) under the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Attorney Brandenburg informed
the Board that staff is recommending elimination of the
wording indicating that these are duplex lots because this
is not a transition petition, and, therefore, at the time of
site plan review, they would have to recommend denial of
duplex sites as being contrary to the CLUP. He commented
42
that the applicant possibly could change his plan to all
single family with smaller lots and come up with more lots
rather than trying to work with duplexes.
Discussion ensued as to using the overall acreage,
which Attorney Van de Voorde felt was 5.03, in determining
the density, and it was noted that Planning considers the
overall acreage to be 4.82 because they subtract the
right-of-way for Estes Road.
Discussion continued in regard to the possibility of
reducing the size of some of the lots and as to the fact
that Mr. DeJoia has reduced his subdivision to 14 units by
a
making the two rear lots single family. Senior Planner
Challacombe pointed out that the developer cannot reduce the ,
size of his 1/2 acre lots unless he has a public water
supply of some type.
Commissioner Lyons did not feel the Board should try to
redesign the plat, but should either approve or disapprove
the request.
Frank DeJoia came before' the Board to give some
background on the history of his application which he has
been working on for 18 months, noting that before he bought
this property he checked on both the zoning and the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan; the zoning still is R-3, and
according to the old Plan, it was medium density. When he
became aware they were proposing to put his property in LD -1
under the new Land Use Plan, he was well along in his
subdivision application. Mr. DeJoia reported that„ he
contacted Senior Planner Challacombe in this regard since
his property is bordered with mobile homes on two sides, and
if duplexes would not be allowed, he doubted he would
continue with his application. He was advised there was no
moratorium and to proceed. Mr.DeJoia explained in detail
the procedures he went through and pointed out there was no
mention of a problem with duplexes by the Technical Review
APR 7 1982 43
APR 7 198
Committee. As to being beyond the transition period, he
blamed this on the erroneous information he received in a
letter from the Planning & Zoning Department which stated
that he was included in low density under the old Plan,
which was incorrect, and which further incorrectly stated
that the old Land Use Plan called for 3 units an acre for
this property. After receipt of this letter, he got -his
attorney involved, which caused the delay.
Mr. DeJoia felt strongly that consideration should be
given to the fact that when he first submitted his applica-
tion, the old CLUP was in effect. He emphasized that he has
tried to comply with everything required of him, but unless
he could be sure he can have at least 6 duplexes and 3
single family homes, it would not be economically feasible
for him to develop in a mobile home area such as this.
Senior Planner Challacombe informed the Board that he
did speak to Mr. DeJoia a year ago, stating that there was
no moratorium and told him to build before the Plan was in
effect or change his plan, which was the standard answer.
- Mr. Challacombe stated that the old Plan shows low density'
for this property, not medium density, and it was 0-4 units
per acre.
Mr; DeJoia noted that even conceding that point, it
would allow up to 4 units per acre, which he falls under.
Discussion continued in regard to a possible extension
of the transition period, and the point was brought up that
at the time of.site plan review, the county will look at the
single lots involved rather than the entire subdivision.
Commissioner Lyons agreed that since the lots
undoubtedly will be sold individually, the main concern is
what you can put on each lot, not the overall amount, and
he, therefore, felt all the argument about 14 and 16 units
really doesn't have any bearing on the problem.
44
The Board continued to discuss the transition period;
how it would apply to site plan approval on any of the lots
in question; and whether they would have to obtain site plan
approval within that time in order to be valid. It was
Attorney Brandenburg's interpretation that they would, and
that in the case of duplexes, they would be asking for
approval of a site plan contrary to the CLUP.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher to reject the request for an extension
of the 60 day transition period.
Commissioner Bird noted, for the record to be accurate,
that he did believe after looking at the map that. Mr.
DeJoia's property was in the medium density area.
Mr. Challacombe informed the Board that this map is
questionable in concerns of scale. Estes Street is not
shown, and if you take a line drawn from the municipal
airport, the DeJoia property would be in low density;
however if Elaine St. is scaled properly, it would be in
medium. On the new map 80th Avenue is the line between LD -1
and MD -1.
In further discussion on the transition period,
Commissioner Bird noted that the 60 day extension then
actually would not do Mr. DeJoia any good because he would
have
to
sell
all
the
lots
within this period and they
would
have
to
come
in
and
get
final approval; this would
not
create a problem for single family which does not require
site plan approval, but it would for structures such as a
duplex.
Chairman Scurlock called for the question on the Motion
to deny the 60 day extension. It was voted on and carried 3
to 2 with Commissioners Bird and Wodtke voting in opposi-
tion.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, to approve the staff recommendation
45
APR 7 1982+ ��
� 1
APR 7 1982
49 31
for approval of the preliminary plat of Rose Haven
Subdivision with the wording "duplex lot" being removed and
requiring paving of 80th Avenue from 126th St. to the
southeast corner of the proposed subdivision.
Commissioner Wodtke could not agree with making the
developer pave 150' of property he doesn't own.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and failed 2 to 3, with Commissioners Bird, Wodtke, and
Chairman Scurlock voting in opposition.
Chairman Scurlock did believe there is a problem with
requiring a developer to pave in front of property owned by
others and possibly this should be done by assessment.
Commissioner-,Wodtke discussed the County policy
regarding paving of -1/2 -streets.
Assistant Administrator Greene felt that we want to get
as much as we can for the county, and in this case sooner or
later, he felt the residents will request paving which will
put an additional burden on the county. He believed the
staff has been consistent in making the request for paving.
- Discussion continued at length -about roads, paving,
maintenance,.rights-of-way, etc., and Engineer Dana Howard
informed the Board that in 1976 his firm worked on the
Gervais'subdivision in this area, and the Commission at that
time asked that Mr. Gervais improve 128th St. and 80th
Avenue along his stretch of property, do the clearing, bring
it up to grade, bring in the marl, etc., and then the County
would maintain it.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that the County does not
maintain that road and refuses to do so, and discussion
continued as to what was or was not accepted for
maintenance.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired if the applicant would
want tentative approval with the duplex wording removed.
46
Mr. DeJoia, after some thought, felt he might consider
going ahead if he could put in just a marl road and not be
saddled with all that paving. He pointed out that if he
were forced to put in an asphalt road, it would be a ribbon
of road in marl country.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he was not going to
design Mr. DeJoia's subdivision for him, but if he wished to
have duplexes, he would have to redraw and possibly lose one
of the 8 lots to get the necessary acreage to comply with
the density requirements.
Chairman Scurlock commented that it would be better to
withdraw and reapply at a later date.
Mr.
DeJoia
stated
that
he would like to go
ahead with
approval
of the
8 lots
if he
could have approval
of the marl
road.
Commissioner Bird asked if he would agree to build the
marl road in front of his property and down to Haven View,
and Mr. DeJoia stated that he would. It was emphasized that
the internal` road would be asphalt.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, to grant preliminary plat approval to
1.
Rose Haven Subdivision with the following changes: the
wording "duplex lots" be removed from each lot and the
developer to be required to build 80th Avenue from the SE
corner of the proposed subdivision to its intersection with
Haven View, 126th Avenue, according to County marl road
standards.
Commissioner Lyons felt this is inconsistent with our
policy of requiring paving of a half street or money being
set aside for that purpose.
Commissioner Bird believed the only other alternative
would be to require him to escrow funds to build the 1/2
road in front of his subdivision only, and Commissioner
Lyons stated he would vote for that.
N
47 ROOK 49 PW 4
APR 7 1992
Discussion continued on the problem with half roads and
what was done in the past in subdivisions in this area.
Petition paving was brought up.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and defeated 2 to 3, with Commissioners Fletcher, Lyons and
Chairman Scurlock voting in opposition.
In further discussion, Commissioner Lyons suggested the
possibility of approaching the paving of the road on an
assessment basis, and Chairman Scurlock stated if the
Commission would indicate they were going to adopt a
consistent policy and approach for this general area, he
could vote in favor of a Motion.
Commissioner,Bird noted that if we do go ahead in this
manner at least we=could be getting a decent marl road to
use as a future base.
Commissioner Bird repeated his earlier Motion, seconded
by Commissioner Wodtke, to grant preliminary plat approval
to Rose Haven Subdivision with the following changes: the
wording "duplex lot" to be removed from each lot, and the
developer to be required to build 80th Avenue (Estes St.)
from the SE. corner of the proposed subdivision to its
intersection with 126th Ave. (Haven View) according to
County marl standards.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher voting in
opposition.
PUBLIC HEARING - PEBBLE BAY SEWAGE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT ROLL
The hour of 3:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
ON.
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily -
t:
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida `1
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 daily newspaper published ,j
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matte f
E'%I;f 91T A
Assrts.eva AOP,rES
y - �I-1:.�: Y ,- •.-,•o i ,• A2['ns wrrn,,.,
0.11
In theCourt, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues
• x„'•�- ear •• •yy i (,•'-;-
�•J�. --"�� 1l G.L. 10 G.L.I
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at �` 1=
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore •:` _ ! 2i �•� 1
been continuously published in said Indian River County, ach °— "^> \ \' �J
Y Florida,a, daily and has been \
enteretl as second class mail matter atthe post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- �• '•1 � " �� _
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of - �` 7� r, I`�..• •;1>; -'� `, ti'•� r '
advertisement; 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
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. _ // �• F
Sworn to and subscribed ore me
before CLJ r ��,•! `�
thi day A.D. 19
�_ . ,� \• *C:\Dg RUNs
siness ManagerB7.a
Or n
Cler of the J '"° w• ,.• rs�, \ ..�-:'..�.
( e Circuit Cou Indian River County, Florida) � D° _• Q r_
(SEAL) 3
PEDDLE BAT �BT.2'.'._� .0129 PFEt3cS ��• •e.C..,.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO
ESTABLISH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
FOR THE PEBBLE BAY SEWAGE
TREATMENT
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS—
..i Please be advised that the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County will
hold a public hearing, April 7,1982 at 2:00 p.m.
In the County Commission Chambers, County
Administration Building, 180025th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida on the adoption of a final
assessment rail to fund improvements to the
-collection and pumping system and to
eliminate the package sewage treatment plant
known as "The Pebble Bay Sewage Treatment
System." The areas specially benefiting from
these improvements are outlined on the at-
tached map- The Board will hear all interested
persons regarding the proposed assessments
contained in fhe preliminary assessment roll
ad file in the office of the -County Ad-
ministrator, and open to public inspection
between the hours of 8:20 A.M: amt Sa00 P.M.,
Monday through Friday.
If any person decide&. to appeal any decision
made on the above matters, he -she will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he -she may need to insure that a ver-
batim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony in
evidence on which the appeal is based.
March
The Board reviewed the following memo:
49 4 .OIL
APR 7 1982
APR 7 1982
TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: Apri 1 1, 1982 FI LE:
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Preliminary Pebble Bay Assessment
Roll' for Final Approval
D
FROM: David Greene, REFERENCES:
Asst. Administrator
Description & Conditions
The determination of the final assessment roll for improvements to the Pebble
Bay Sewage Treatment System by the Board will complete the requirements of Ordinance
No. 81-27. The work to be done involves improvements to the lift station, installation
of gravity mains, disconnection of the sewage treatment plant and connection -to Vero
Beach sewage system. Plans and-speci-fications were approved, the job was advertised
and bids were received, a contract was awarded and the notice to proceed was issued.
It is anticipated that the contractor will complete this job within 150 days.
At their regular meeting of 12/16/81 the Board determined that costs of $117,334
had to be recovered by assessing the property owners specifically benefitting from
the improvements. It was determined that the unit assessment would be $747.35 based
upon there being 157 equivalent residential units in the affected area. An equivalent
residential unit is one single family residential lot or the number of units that
can be put on a multi -family lot. The preliminary assessment roll was prepared
reflecting the following units:
Pebble Bay Estates 52 -
Harbour Island Club Condominiums 41
Vera Cruz Condominiums 57
County Park 14
F.I.T. Project 3
Total 157
The County Utilities Director has received only three complaints about the
proposed assessments. They are as follows:
1) Mr. Plym and Mr. Fite bought one lot apiece and one lot jointly or a total of
3 lots. They were each assessed for 1.5 units. They felt they should only
be assessed for 1 lot each. To do so would not be fair to the other lot owners
some of which bought two lots and were assessed for two units.
2) Mr. O'Haire of the Harbour Island Club, the Utilities Department and the Commission
at a Board meeting June 4, 1980, agreed that they would pay a total of $36,000.00
for their property. They now want to reduce that to $30,641.35 (41 units X $747.35).
They have been advised by phone of our decision and by a letter mailed 4/1/82.
50
0
Ordinance 81-27 provided for the publishing of a notice in a newspaper that
a copy of the preliminary assessment roll is open to public inspection in the office
of the County Administrator and that the Commmission will hear all interested parties
at the regular meeting of the Commission on a certain date at a particular time. The
ordinance also requires notification of property owners by certified mail, of the
nature of the proposed improvements, estimated cost thereof, his specific assessment
and the place, date and time of the hearing. All of these requirements have been
satisfied (see attachments 2 and 3 for copies of the notice and the letter). The
rolls of the finance office and the tax collector's office have been reviewed and
cleared with them for this assessment process.
Alternative & Analvsis
Please find attached the preliminary assessment roll for funding improvements
to the Pebble Bay sewage treatment system. Ordinance #81-27 provides that the
Commission "shall either annul or sustain or modify in whole or in part the pre-
liminary assessment indicated on the preliminary assessment roll, either by confirming
the preliminary assessment against any or all lots or parcels described therein, or
by cancelling, increasing or reducing the same, according to the special benefits
which said Commission decides each lot or parcel has received or,will receive by
virtue of said improvement". Resolution 82-41 provides for the Commission to establish
an interest rate to be applied to all assessments not paid within ninety (90) days
after the final determination of the special assessment roll.
Recommendation & Funding '
Itis recommended that the preliminary assessment roll, as submitted, be approved
as the final assessment roll. It is further recommended that an annual interest rate
of 15% be applied to those assessments not paid within 90 days of
determination of.the final assessment ro1'1..-
Assistant County Administrator David Greene commented
that the preliminary roll which was recently approved was
converted to the final roll.
The Chairman asked if
heard.
anyone present wished to be
Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board on
behalf of Harbour Island Club condominiums and gave a brief
history, noting that in January of 1979, the Board committed
to supply sewer service to Harbour Island in return for a
payment of $15,000. Sverdrup & Parcel subsequently looked
into,the situation and determined that this amount was
woefully inadequate. Attorney O'Haire then quoted from the
Motion made at the Commission meeting of June 20, 1979,
whereby the Board "agreed to rescind action of the
Commission meeting on January 24, 1979, ..... and agreed in
place of the previous action to accept the sewage from
Indian Summer (Harbour Island Club) through a renovated
51,.,
APR. 719$XV
APR '7 1982 49 W319
package plant or by connection to the. City of Vero Beach;
Indian Summer to be expected to pay a proportional charge
for the cost of making the system operable."
Attorney O'Haire commented that although his client was
in a position at that time to sue the County to comply with
their commitment to the $15,000, they agreed to pay a
proportional share; after a long interval, an estimate of
$36,000 was presented, and they agreed to pay $900 per unit.
Attorney O'Haire continued that within the past several
months, cost figures have now come out at approximately $700
per unit. His clients were prepared to pay their
proportional share, and they did pay it, but they want the
balance over their proportional share returned to them. He
noted that Utility N Director Liner in the following letter
apparently feels the County should retain this excess:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
NEIL A. NELSON - County Administrator
Telephone: 1305) 567-8000
April 1, 1982 '
Mr. Michael O'Haire
3103 Cardinal Drive
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Re: Impact Fees for Harbour Island Club
Dear Mr. O'Haire:
Secretary to Board
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
At -our meeting with you, David Greene, Tommy Thomas and me on 3/25/82,we discussed
the impact fee from Harbour Island Club and your request for a rebate. Since then I
researched the minutes of the commission meeting at which the impact fee was established.
The minutes reflect the intent that the $36,000.00 will cover the total expected by v
the county. As a compromise, we settled for the cost of the lift station rather
than the combination cost (which would be analagous to our draft memo, dated 3/17/82,
Alternative IV). The staff therefore concluded that Alternative II would be appropriate;
that is settle for the $900 per unit for $36,000. This is the recommendation going
to the Board of County Commissioners for the April 7, 1982 Public Hearing.
0
JG
Therefore, the county staff has recommended to the Board that the $747.35 per
unit (for 41 units totalling $30,641.35) be paid from the impact fees received from
Harbour Island Club. The balance is to be retained in the Impact Fund.
If you have any question on this, please call me or Tommy Thomas or Gary Brandenburg
Sincerely,
George Liner
Utilities Director
Attorney O'Haire pointed out that the excess in
question is not the County's money and fairness dictates
that his clients get their money back.
No one else from the audience wished to be heard.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public ,
hearing.
Question arose as to where we get the extra $6,000 to
make up the shortfall, and Assistant Administrator Greene
stated that there would not be a shortfall; Harbour Island
Club has paid in $36,000, and at this point the County is
$6,000 ahead according to Attorney O'Haire's argument. He
continued that under the agreement entered into in 1980,
Harbour Island Club agreed to pay $900 per unit, which
included consideration to an impact fee; so, staff's
position is either they pay the $747 plus today's rate of
impact fee or we accept the $900 and not give the rebate.
Motion was. made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, to refund Harbour Island Club the
difference between $36,000 and $30,641.35, or $5,358.65.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the former Commission
met with this developer many times in this regard; the
figure of $900 per unit was agreed upon; they were allowed
to start development much sooner than would have been
possible otherwise; and he did not feel they are entitled to
any refund_.
53
APR 71982
I
NOX 49 PAR 320
APR 71982
R,
Chairman Scurlock announced for the record that the
company for which he works has done some work for this
project, although he himself has not entered into any
contracts with this company, and he plans to vote on the
Motion.
Attorney Brandenburg agreed that making this statement
for the record was all that was necessary.
Commissioner Lyons commented that his position was that
the original $900 figure actually was just an estimated
outside figure.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Wodtke voting in
opposition. _
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that a Motion
is needed to either annul, sustain or modify the preliminary
assessment roll in whole or in part at which time it will
become the final assessment roll.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted and
approved the preliminary assessment' roll as the final
assessment roll for the Pebble Bay Sewage System as outlined
in the Assistant County Administrator's memo of April 1,
1982, acid agreed that all assessments not paid within 90
days after final determination of the special assessment
roll shall bear interest at the rate of 150.
Said assessment roll is as follows:
'v
NAME
00
IV Tisdal.l, W.E.
Ferguson, James
Limuli , Joseph
Walker, Marie
}
Rose, Merrit
Mollicone, Bernard
Daniel, William
Rogen , Edward
Bogen, Sue (Trustee)
Iudson, John B.
Hudson, John B. & Elizabeth D.
Scowd->n , James F. &. Shirley
Rusnak, Edward & Jean
' Ted Lino Pi-operties, Inc.
x
'Schli tt, rdt*ar
W
' Hnnsen, Herbert
C,Lrter, Go-orUe F.E.
-1-
PEBBLE BAY SEWAGE SYSTEM PRELI14INAIIY ASSESSI:II-:I1T BOLT,
nnnREss
LQ11T�lAT,T-.N!T i1FSTD*E!TL'rr:I,
U:1TT Q
.x;71,7, �,
4626
Pebble Bay East, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
$447. 35
4636
Pebble Bay Circle, Vero Beach,
FL 32960
1
V0'7.35
4646
Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach,
FL 32960
l
$71+7.35
4656
Pebble Bay South, hero Beach,
FL 32960
1
$747.35
4666
Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach,
FL 32960
1
$747.35
1440
San Marco, Coral Gables, FL 33134
1
$747.35
661 Date Palm Drive, Vero Beach, FL
32960
1
$747.35
4696
Pebble Bay Circle, Vero Beach,
FL 32960
11
$747-35
4686
Pebble Bay Circle, Vero Beach,
FL 32960
1
$747.35
4726
Pebble Bay Circle, Vero Beach,
FL_3296O
1
$747.35
.P.O.
Box 1388,, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
$747.35
P.O.
Box 8O64,,Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
$747.35
712 Hibiscus Lane, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
$747.35
P.O.
Box 191, Poolesville, MD 20837
1
$747.35
4756
Pebble Bay Circle, Vero Beach,
FL 32960
14745
Pebble Bay Circle, Vero Beach,
FL 32960
1
$7147.35
4735.Pebble
Bay Circle, Vero Beach,
FL 32960
1
$747.35
c/o Amoco
Internationl Oil Co. (Expatriate Svcs)
1
$747.35
P.O.
Box 38530, Houston, TX 77088
1
f
1
I.
11
• i1 ^,i t1.
Harris, Ruth E.
Sarno, Ernest
Jacobs, Eugene
Sch<alow, Barbara
'leist, Edward
Knight, Richard
PEBBLE BAY SLNAGE SYSTEM PRELIMIPIARY ASSEGSi••tENT ROLL
EQ11T.': ALENT I.E.*,Im-,NrrrAL
ADDRESS UNIT $70-35
c/o John F. Strazzula, 1015 Treasure Lane, 1
Vero. Beach, FL 32960
4705 Pebble Bay Circle, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4695 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
2163 Cherry.Cove.Court, Maryland Heights, Mo
63043
4683 Pebble Bay Circle, Vero Beach, FL 32960
P.O. Box 3208, Beach Station, Vero Beach, FL
4665•Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4655 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
c/o Walter A..Taylor, Old Country Club Rd.,
Easton, MD 21601
4645 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL -32960
4635 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4606 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4596 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
h576 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
h61.6 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
2
1
1
1.5
1
1
1
1.5
-2-
Zeck, Walter
P:lym, Eric
`Gluge, Harlow
Blcck, Max E.
Aherle, Roland L.
A
Fite, Pct�-r
Gi
PEBBLE BAY SLNAGE SYSTEM PRELIMIPIARY ASSEGSi••tENT ROLL
EQ11T.': ALENT I.E.*,Im-,NrrrAL
ADDRESS UNIT $70-35
c/o John F. Strazzula, 1015 Treasure Lane, 1
Vero. Beach, FL 32960
4705 Pebble Bay Circle, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4695 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
2163 Cherry.Cove.Court, Maryland Heights, Mo
63043
4683 Pebble Bay Circle, Vero Beach, FL 32960
P.O. Box 3208, Beach Station, Vero Beach, FL
4665•Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4655 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
c/o Walter A..Taylor, Old Country Club Rd.,
Easton, MD 21601
4645 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL -32960
4635 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4606 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4596 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
h576 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
h61.6 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
2
1
1
1.5
1
1
1
1.5
-2-
�T
V
iC7
A
co
$71+7.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$1,494.70
$747.35
$747.35
$1,121.03
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$1,121.03
C.0
00 tIAM ;
Williams, Andrew
Smith, J. Frank
i
Schwartz, Lois ..
Van Busch, Patricia
Carnell, Elizabeth
f[owell, Peter D.
Baldwin, Donald
f?nnessy, Pierce R.
Bechstein, Henry
Watts,"Jean A.
Pefirce, Walter
4
Sc}li ndlcr, Kenneth
.Pucker, "Milton
a
PEBBLE BAY SEIIAGE SYSTP-1 PRELTMINARY AS JET',f'IEf'IT ROLL,
ADDRESS
4566 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4556 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
P.O. Box 3549, Vero Beach, FL 32960
c/o Pat Baker, 4551 Pebble Bay South,
Vero Beach, FL 32960
3080 North Bay Road, Miami Beach, FL 33140
4571 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960,
c/o Alfonso & A. Mildred Ianotti, 50 South
Hill Drive, Cranston, RI' 02920
4591 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4601 Pebble Bay Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4611 Pebble BaytSouth, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4617 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4631 Pebble Bray South, Vera Beach, FL 32960
P.O. Box 3681, Beach Station•, Vero Beach, FL
4621 Pebble Bay East, Vero Beach, FL 32960
4616 Pebble Bay East, Vero Beach, FL 32960 °
Ef�tl]:VAhf�.i'1'P I:f;::IUc:1J'i'IP,I,
t U TT 2 $7117.3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$71{7.35
$747.35
-3-
$7 47 - 3 5 3-
I.
1-1
PEBBLE BOY Smwn SYS'PEM PRELIMINARY ASS 1sS J141::11T
ROW,
P1nh1R
ADDRESS
1-:211 f VAL :11T RESTDI;I1'I'TAL
'"f1►`(.',5
11,11'1' i:'
fvynolds, John W.
4711. Pebble Bay Circle, Vero Beach, FL 32961
1
$7117,35
Voro Fore, Inc. c/o
Hiram Manning
P.O. Box 157, Vero Beach, FL 32960, P.O. Box
_ 2
$1,4911-703752,
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Hill, Dudley
44 Orchard Road, Lancaster, PA 17601
'1
$747.35
Steven L. Philipson Properties, Inc.
P.O. Box 1853, Vero Beach, FL 32960 '
1
$747.35
Petrilla, bred Jr.
P.O. Box 804, Vero Beach, FL 32960
_ 1
$7117.35
holm, Barry W.
2071 5th Court, S.E., Vero Beach, FL 32960..
1
$747.35
Allen, normal
1
4691 Pebble Bay South, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
$747.35
P.O, Box 615, Sebastian, FL 32958
'
VERA CRUZ
Cnrdner, George F.
& Virginia W.
5151 N. AlA; Apt. 101, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
$747.35
Nowell, Peter D. &
Stephanie G.
Amherst Place, Amherst St. Peter Port,
Guernsey Channel Islands
1
$747.35
Mark, John D. & N.
Jane'
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 103, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
$747.35
1G•►rilin, Charles J.
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 104, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
$747.35
Currin, Tm�ld1 R.
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 105, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
$747.35
1•;n11on, ;'�.u,lc�
51.51 N. AlA, Apt. 106, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
$747.35
�C7.>
0 NAMP
N
McO�.mott, Ruth E.
Elill, Patricia N.
Iu
nf, . IienrY E. & Mae A.
Sun Hank of Std Lucie County (Trustee)
Wilson, Bernice D.
Loria, Sarah
Rolfe, Andrew & Josephine B.,
Maegillivray, Beatrice F'.
Fisher, Marc W.
Swats, Sarah D.
Childrrs, Jack 1). & Ruth H.
Utley, Henry B. & Doretta R.
Shortz, Lorena B.
Rutledge, Frank E. & Vera G.
111tel, Barbrira Todd
Vnildersteel, P.etsy S.
PEBBLE BAY S SWAGE SYSTEM PRELTI.ITNARY ASSP:S.IZIE T ROLL
ADDRESS
558 Adams St, East Milton, MA 02166
P.O. Box 610, Shelter Island, NY 11964
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 109, Vero Beach, FL 32960
P.O. Box 8, Ft. Pierce,, FL 33450
1829 Spring Valley Dr., Huntington, I -JV 25704
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 112, Vero Beach, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 113, Vero Beach, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 114, Vero Beach, FL 32960
One, Downing Way,°Madison, CT 06443
5151 N. AlA, Apt.,.,116, Vero Beach, FL 32960
5151 N. AIA, Apt. 201, Vero Beach, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 202, Vero Beach, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 203, Vero Beach, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 204, Vero Beach, FL 32960
381 Island Creek Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 206, Vero Beach, Ft 32960
E'QIITVALrT,'T RI.?::Tbh;NTTAL
MU'1' O ::17)17
1
. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
c 1
. 1
1
'711 7.5
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
-5-
1
141 -Ar. I T"
:3.0rnon, Robort Jr. & Marjorie L.
Ravalese, Patsy & Emina P.
Moser,, Richard & Lorise
D41' irks , Herbert �E. , Jr. & Elizabeth H.
R, A-,er, David, M.D.
I'• Li, Uewain L. & Verna E.
W. Reuben & Elizabethr G.
0 • �.�n, Thomas F. Jr, & Lois H.
Kil)i k, Maureen L. i
11-:iton, Joseph E. Sr. & Bette E.
Harbert W. & Grace
Knowles, Sarah F.
Sc•n,rfi , Joseph & Mary
K-ennt.h, .John Albert & Mienking, William
KI iiiic•ke, W1.11i-dn L. & Alma 11.
-clioiick, Al frrr3 K. & M..ary Z.
1-1-1d, Albert Paniel & Grennough Field,
Ri,t.ii
Rnbinn'nn, Alfrnd A..& Josephine S.
Pl''BBLE BAY SEWAGE SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
ADDRESS
EQ!1TVAL1-,I1'I' iann'i)1:i1TI �h
Hiyur ? :1;•i 1i'(. "i`)
Country _Club Rd., W. New Canaan, CT 068ho 1
101 Uplanos Dr., West Hartford, CT 06107
3209 Claridge Circle, South Charleston, WV 25303
5151 N., AlA, Apt. 210, Vero Beach, FL 32960 1
#2 Breezeway Bldg., Vero Peach, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 212, Vero Beach, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 301, Vero Beach, FL 32960'
2150,W. 44th St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 303, Vero Beach, FL 32960
215 N. Dixon Avenue, Dixon, IL 61021
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 305, Vero Beach, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 306, Vero Beach, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 307, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1495 Smugglers Cove, Vero Beach, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 1101, Vere Bench, FL 32960
P.O. Box 3059, Vero Beach, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 1403, Vero Beach, FL 32960
51-51 N. AlA, Apt, h011, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
�1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$71►7.35
$7117.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$7117.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
-6-
1�
11
Cts
CO . NAMR
iv
Wood, Vi 11iam W. Jr. & Lillian II.
Ifarison, Helen M. Waldron
Cook^ey, Benjamin II. Jr. & Martha R.
Odonnell, Francs T. & Eileen E.
Williams, Lois L.
Bucolo, Anthony P. & Helen F.
Barret, Walloce Schouler -
131ans, Frcderick A. & Marjorie R.
Scattergood, Marguerte S.
Bonnett, Loren H. & Suzanne W.
Costos, Lucille B.
Darman , Norma Joan
Rud i nr*if. Jr. & Derenda V.
,a
L -1 --
PEBBLE BAY SEWAGE SYST114 PRELII•ITNARY ASSESSi•1E11`P iiom,
I
ADDRESS
5151 N. AlA, Apt.
501,
Vero Beach, FL
32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt.
502,
Vero Beach, I''L
32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt.
503,
Vero Bach, FL
32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt.
504,
Vero Beach, FL
32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt.
505,
Vero Beach, FL
32960
300 East Main St.,
Centerport, Long Island;.
NY 1172
182 Rumson Rd., Rumson,
NJ 07766
4745 N. AlA, Apt.
508,
Vero Beach, FL
32960
Box 8033, Indian River
Shores, FL 32960
5151 N. AlA, Apt.
512,
Vero Beach, FL
32960,
units 510,& 512
P.O. Box 3483, Vero
Beach,
FL 32960
1600 S. Joyce St., Apt. A707, Arlington,,
VA 22202
11745 N. AIA, Apt. 514, Vero Bench, FL 32960
1?(Z!1fVAi,i?i!'1' RF::,Tl�fa!`i'I,1L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
-7-
or( 35
J
$'(117.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$7h7.35
$747.35
$747.35
$1,494.70
$747.35
$747.35
$7117.35
1
NP;•11:
'i(,Idogl (�, Jacob E.
PEBBLE BAY SEWAGE SYSTIsm PRELIMINARY A SE11,4M4ETIT ROM,
I: ;?►frVAL'.'II'i' hf•:STIi:;'[•J7'I,,h
ADDRE,S)S 1.111('1' c 1;'(117. 5
c/o Ocean Grill, Inc. P.O. Box 3535,
Vero Beach, FL 82960 1
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 516, Vero Beach, FL 32960 1
HARBOR ISLAND CLUB
21 N. University Avenue, Oxford, OH 45056
P.O. Box 3306, Ft. Pierce, FL 33450
131 Park Lake St., Orlando, FL 32803
5101 N. AlA, Unit 4, Vero Beach, FL 32960
c/o Helen Van Sickle, 185 Overbrook Road,
Elyria, OH 44035
P.O. Box 1150, Melbourne, FL 32901
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960'
5151 North AlA, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
1
1
1
37
3
4
1
IT
747.35
$7117.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$27,651.95
$2,242.05
$2989.40
$747.35
D
co
Pryor,
Freda R.
MorGarot M, Clemmons, Clifford
'4. b ^Mearns, Charles B.
Becher,
Richard E.
1•;vnns,
Ponald
Ruck:,
.James E. Jr.
I^1.c.nd
FIASt Co. of Indian River County
K(.-«1)cr,
Jerome (FIT)
Incl i yin
11,1ver County (Parks Dept.)
Vo t --t. Cruz
Condorninium Association
PEBBLE BAY SEWAGE SYSTIsm PRELIMINARY A SE11,4M4ETIT ROM,
I: ;?►frVAL'.'II'i' hf•:STIi:;'[•J7'I,,h
ADDRE,S)S 1.111('1' c 1;'(117. 5
c/o Ocean Grill, Inc. P.O. Box 3535,
Vero Beach, FL 82960 1
5151 N. AlA, Apt. 516, Vero Beach, FL 32960 1
HARBOR ISLAND CLUB
21 N. University Avenue, Oxford, OH 45056
P.O. Box 3306, Ft. Pierce, FL 33450
131 Park Lake St., Orlando, FL 32803
5101 N. AlA, Unit 4, Vero Beach, FL 32960
c/o Helen Van Sickle, 185 Overbrook Road,
Elyria, OH 44035
P.O. Box 1150, Melbourne, FL 32901
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960'
5151 North AlA, Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
1
1
1
37
3
4
1
IT
747.35
$7117.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$747.35
$27,651.95
$2,242.05
$2989.40
$747.35
D
co
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF HU14ANE SOCIETY SITE
PLAN APPROVAL
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO: The lionorable Board of DATE: March 15, 1982
County Commissioners
SUBJECT:
FILE:
REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
REGARDING THE APPEAL OF MILLIMAP
ET AL OF HUMANE SOCIETY'S SITE
PLAN APPROVAL
FROM: David L. Greene REFERENCES:
Assistant County Administrator
On January 28, 1982, Charles Block, acting in behalf of the
Humane Society of Vero Beach Inc., submitted a site plan
application to construct an animal control center.
The application was reviewed and found to be complete by
Planning staff. At its regular -meeting of February 25, 1982
the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request for
site plan approval.
On March 5, 1982, notice was received that Christian Milliman,
J. C. Griffin and Troy Bullard appealed the decision of the
Planning and.Zoning Commission and request a public hearing
by the Board of County Commissioners in relation thereto.
RECOMMENDATION;
The Board of County Commissioners grant the request and set
a date of May 5, 1982 for a Public Hearing.
On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously 'granted the
request for a public hearing on an appeal of the Humane
Society Site Plan Approval to be held on May 5, 1982.
63
49 P*,E=
APR 7 1982
APR 7 1992
COST OF COPIES
The Board reviewed the following staff recommendation:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 2, 1982 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: David L. Greene SUBJECT: Analysis of Duplication Cost
Asst. County Administrator
FROM:REFERENCES: Cost of Copies of Public
C. B. Hardin, Jr . ,-Ph . D.- Records
Asst. to Co. Administrator/Personnel Dir.
This is in response to a request from Thomas C. Palmer, Esq..
It is recommended that from the data herein presented, it be given
formal consideration by the County Commission.
1. Descriptions and Conditions:
On February 10, 1982, Thomas C. Palmer, Esq. addressed corres-
pondence to the Honorable Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners objecting to being charged twenty-five cents (250)
per page for copies of County public records copied in the County
Commission office. The complainant quoted Section 119.07 (1)
of the Florida Statutes which sets the cost of copying general
public documents. Complainant.further asked the County to
ascertain by a study P
the actual cost of copies and reduce the
cost charged to the'public in accordance with the findings of
the review. The Chairman of the Board forwarded Mr. Palmer's
letter to the County Attorney for comment. On March 1, 1982,
County Attorney Gary'BranAenburg, responded to the Chairman
citing the pertinent part of F. S. Section 119.07 and suggested
that the County establish by administrative order, a firm policy
on the charges for duplicating public documents to include (1)
The actual cost of duplicating and (2) A definition of circum-
stances when the "nature or volume" of records requested require
extensive clerical or supervisory assistance and the reasonable
charge for such service. At the direction of the Assistant
County Administrator, the Staff of General Services Department
completed an extensive review on March 31, 1982. Staff compiled
associated expenditures which includes purchase of paper, toner,
dispersant, floor space, equipment base costs or depreciation,
maintenance fees, record-keeping, office supplies, collating and
fastening (as required), supervisory time, clerical and/or
secretarial efforts. The six (6) months average operational
.expense was four thousand five hundred forty dollars and sixty-
nine cents ($4,540.69). Average total copies was fifty-five
thousand three hundred seventy-four (55,374). Staff arrived
at a cost of ($0.082) per copy.
64
Staff checked local governmental agencies and found that
machines are placed in those agencies for public use by an
independent company at no cost to the agency except electricity.
A percentage is returned to that agency for allowing them to
place the machine there. Cost to customer is 250 per copy.
Local library has purchased machine for public use and charges
150 a copy for letter size and 200 a copy for legal size.
Indian River Community College has a copy machine placed by
an independent company. No rental charge is made. Company
gets all profit but returns $50.00 per month for space occupied
by copier. Copies are 150 each. All machines are user operated.
As a result of this study, staff contacted two (2) firms to
develop an interest in possible placement of a copy machine
in the County Administration building for use by general public.
Copy Products of Florida in Tampa has indicated a desire to
install a coin operated copy machine, maintenance free, all
supplies furnished and service every two (2) weeks. A $5.00
cash box to reimburse customers is also furnished. At end of
each month, a summary of copies run is given and County would
receive 20% of total receipts.
2. Alternatives and Analysis:
A) Accept the offer as stated by Copy Products of Florida and
'instruct staff,to discontinue public copy service in Copy
room.
B) Instruct staff to seek out other firms who may provide same
service.
C) Establish by administrative order a public copy fee of
100 per page to cover.associated costs.
3. Recommendations'and Funding:
Staff recommends the approval of Alternative "A" with instruction
to pursue a similar arrangement for the Indian River County
_Court House.
No funding is required.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that he has been
informed that by law the County cannot charge more than
their cost of copying, and he wished to know how this
relates to putting a copier in the hall and charging.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that in the event the
Commission did decide to set-up a duplication system where
machines are placed in halls, the actual cost to the County
would be 250 per page.
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Bird for purposes of discussion, to accept
Alternative C and establish a public copy fee of 100 per
page.
65
APR 71982
wK 49 P*332
APR 7
1982
Chairman Scurlock felt staff should have some
guidelines and a policy should be set in regard to the
amount of time per day they can expend on making such
copies, as well as setting up a schedule for special
projects.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he would have no
objection to putting in a 25G per page copy machine also.
Discussion followed on the various factors that are
included in determining the cost, such as for the time of
the personnel who run the copies, etc., and it was noted
that in the last month there have been only about 29
individual copies made for the public.
Finance Administrator Barton wished it made clear that
by Statute the Clerk must charge $1:00 per page for her
official records; it was agreed the 10� charge would apply
only to material from departments of the Board of County
Commissioners.
Discussion continued as to having some costs according
to the volume of work, and Dr. Hardin commented that the
Statutes allow establishing.a reasonable charge when the
"nature or volume" of records requested require extensive
clerical or supervisory assistance.
Commissioner Wodtke felt difficulties could be
encountered in releasing official documents to the public
for them to take and make copies.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to have
this matter reviewed after six months or so.
FUNDING FOR DAY CARE CENTERS
The Board studied Commissioner Lyons memo, which is
self-explanatory:
y
TO: Board of County
Commissioners
FROM:
elP B . Lyons
DATE: March 23, 1982 FILE:
SUBJECT: Funding for Day Care
Centers
REFERENCES:
It is not often that you will find me asking for grants in
the welfare area. However, here is a way to save welfare money
and get people out of the welfare rut by spending a little money.
Turner's and Moore's Child Care Centers provide care to
young children so that parents can work.. Currently, 25 slots are
funded through Title 20_ as follows:
122% Local March
75% Federal (Title 20)
The program started here in 1979-80 and the local match was
provided by Coca Cola - $4,800. Coca Cola withdrew in this area
last year and the 122% was funded as follows: 64% United Fund
and 64% (about $2,400) by fund raising from the citizens of
Gifford. This was to last through September 1982. The State has
now moved up its budget year and asks that the 1982-83 budget
requests be filed in April with new local match. This creates a
big strain on the Gifford fund raisers.
The 25 slots provided by this program lets people who were
on welfare, or who would be on welfare, have child care while
they work or go back to school The hours of the centers are from
6':30 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. so that the parent can work. This gets
people out of the welfare rut and gives`them a chance to begin
helping themselves. In the long run we all save money.
I hope you will see fit to authorize $2,400 to this program.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, to authorize $2,400 local match from the
coming budget for the Day Care Program, the funds to come
from the County Commission Contingency Fund, Account No.
001-199-513-99.91.
Commissioner Bird noted that the 122% and 75% -do not
add up to 100%, and Commissioner Lyons explained that the
State comes up with the other 122%.
Finance Officer Barton assumed this is merely a
commitment toward's next year's budget and that we will not
67
APR 7 1982 . faf-,
4Sit
APR 71982
be paying anything in the current fiscal year. This was
confirmed.
Discussion followed about Turner's and Moore's Child
Care Centers, and Commissioner Lyons reported that he
personally visited these centers- which are located in
Gifford
and was
pleased to
find
that they were clean and
well run
with a
businesslike
set
up.
Mrs. Jackson of the Gifford Women's Club informed the
Board that these centers are for all persons regardless of
race, creed or color, and since Cocoa Cola has withdrawn as
sponsor, they are asking that the County become the donor,
assume the bookwork, make the checks to DHRS, etc. and take
this burden off the Women's Club.
Commissioner Lyons complimented, the club for taking
over this job and carrying the load, but he felt it should
be a public load.
Discussion ensued about the criteria for those who are
eligible for this program, and Mrs. Turner of Turner's Day
Care Center, 4666 30th Avenue, informed the Board that the
families do have to qualify by meeting certain income levels
and it is required that the parents either work or be in
training; they are placed in the center through DHRS. The
Centers are paid on a monthly basis the same as they charge
the others who use their service. Mrs. Turner stated that
she is licensed to care for 20 children and she has 10
private clients and 10 public. All these slots are
allocated to the two child care centers.
Commissioner Fletcher discussed fund raising and wished
to know if the Day Care Centers would close their doors if
they did not receive the $2,400. Mrs. Turner explained that
this would affect the Title 20 funds only.
Commissioner Fletcher did not question the effective-
ness of the program, but felt the County taking up this
burden eliminates the gratification of the people actually
M
knowing that they are doing some good within their own
community, and he would vote against the Motion for that
reason.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher voting in
opposition.
Commissioner Wodtke requested Mrs. Jackson to keep on
trying to find a local sponsor in the interim, and she
assured him she would continue her efforts.
DISCUSSION COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM
Commissioner Lyons reviewed his memo, as follows:
TO: Board of County DATE: April 1, 1982 FILE:
Commissioner
FROM: Pat#idki, LvoY(s
SUBJECT: County Library System
REFERENCES:
After further consideration of the County Library System, it
seems imperative that we have a County Library Board. We need to
give representation to all parts of the: County and we need some-
body to recommend how the funds are to be split between various
libraries in the system and to settle disputes.
It is my recommendation that the County Library Board be
appointed in the following manner. One member by each
Commissioner from a resident in his district; and one member from
each of the branch libraries. The County Librarian would be an
ex officio member.
Commissioner Lyons reported on his meeting with the
group in Sebastian which is trying to put together a library
for the North County, a project he is very much in favor of.
Commissioner Lyons reviewed the history of the library
situation, the studies done by consultants, the recommenda-
tion that in the long run the Library be taken over by the
County, that there be more professionalism, etc. Now that
APR 7 1982
p
� 1
APR 7 1982 19 P*337
we have the strong possibility of a North County library
and, before too many years, we may also need a library in
the South County, he felt we should make provisions for the
long term and set up a County Library Board or committee, as
suggested in his memo, to give representation to all parts
of the county. He commented that he is, in effect,
negotiating to have an agreement between the County and the
Sebastian library group so that we can be in a position to
fund them and enable them to get state funds.
Karen Stephens, President of Sebastian River Library
Assoc., Inc., read the following statement to the Board.
P.O. Box 385, Sebastian, Fl. 32958
April 7, 1982
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Fl ori da 32960
Gentlemen:
The Sebastian River Library Association, Incorporated Board
of Directors unanimously adopted the following statement of
position regarding a proposed countywide library system at
its Board'of Directors meeting on April 6, 1982:
kms
When and if an equitable countywide library system
is established, the Sebastian River Library Association,
Incorporated, in an effort to further the resources
available to its users with respect to both economics
and contents, at this time, see no reason why we should
not support such an effort. It is further stated that
the association requests participation in the formation
of said system.
Sincerely,
Karen M. Stephens, President
Sebastian River Library Assoc., Inc.
70
Mrs. Stephens reported that at this time they have only
a rough draft of a proposed budget and she would like to
request that her group be placed on the agenda of the April
21st meeting, in the morning, if possible, at which time
they will make a presentation re their goals and present a
more detailed budget.
Chairman Scurlock expressed grave concern about the
fact that we do not have a contractual agreement with the
existing Library Association, as required by the State, a
fact which the State has overlooked for years.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons that the Attorney
a
be authorized to draft an ordinance establishing a County
Library System and also prepare appropriate agreements for
the Vero Beach and Sebastian Libraries.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he personally would
prefer to proceed with the appointment of the Library Board
first to provide us with a good cross section of representa-
tion for guidance rather than create an ordinance
immediately:
Commissioner Lyons' Motion died for lack of a second.
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, to form a Library Board per the
recommendation in Commissioner Lyons' memo of April 1st, and
this Board then will come up with a recommendation for an
ordinance.
Discussion ensued re the possibility of forming a
Library Municipal Service Taxing District, and Commissioner
Lyons stated that he took this into account, but felt this
is a two step situation and that we need a recommending
body. He stated that he mainly wanted to find some
mechanism to put these people in business hs far as a budget
is concerned and felt we may need two step agreements with
both libraries also.
71
APR 7 1982 49 PAR00
*"S _
APR 7 1992
Chairman Scurlock emphasized the importance of
negotiating for agreements with the libraries as he doubted
the State will continue to overlook their requirement for a
contract for services before funding, and Commissioner Lyons
stated that he would like to be authorized to negotiate
agreements with both Sebastian and Vero Beach library
associations.
Commissioners Fletcher and Wodtke agreed to include in
their Motion that funding will require a contract for
services.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously agreed to extend
the meeting to 5:30 P.M., if necessary.
DISCUSSION RE QUAY DOCK ROAD
Chairman Scurlock read the following memo from Public
Works Director, -James Davis, with attached Letter from LeRoy
Telkamp:
72
TO: The Honorable Aiembers of the DATE: march 31, 1982 FILE:
Doard of County Commissioners
c9•°—
Thru: David Greene
'Acting County Administrator SUBJECT: Quay Dock Road
FROM: James Iv. Davis`- REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
Indian River County filed a maintenance map for perscriptive rights
to Quay Dock Road in June, 1975. There have been recent allegations that
the map does not physically depict the conditions of the area. As a re-'
sult, Air. J. Holmes has filed suit against the County in regards to the
County's rights in Government Lot 3 at the easterly end of Quay Dock Road. ,
Investigation of this matter has revealed that an accurate location
survey is needed to physically locate all roads, drainage ditches, pro-
perty lines, and facilities in the area. To accomplish this, the surveyor
of the original maintenance map has agreed to perform a more detailed sur-
vey. Once this survey is received, the County staff can enter into dis-
cussion with the parties involved.
March 15, 1982
Hon. Don C. Scurlock, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840.25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
Re: Quay Dock Road in
G. L. 3, 11-32-39
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
In reference to the Petition being circulated in the Winter Beach
area for the "Preservation -of Quay Dock Road", I find it my
civic duty to come forth with my statements and comments.
As a landowner, registered voter and taxpayer in Indian River
County, a 20 year veteran of the Armed Forces (during which time
I risked by life in wars of this country for the sacred truths
for which it stands) and above all the property owner at the
northeast corner of Quay Dock Road at the river whose land in
part seems to be involved in this issue, I make this statement.
73 $90l� .49 ,Puf34 --
APR 7198
APR 71992
_I
First Off, I am in possession of a print or drawing by the county
of a proposed boat ramp, dock and vehicle turn around area that
encompasses my privately owned property. As a Navy man and an
accomplished yachtsman (I own and operate a 40 foot yacht and a
54 foot houseboat), I am very familiar with waterway navigational
charts and maps. With them as a reference and my own personal
survey, by wading hundreds of feet off shore from the east end
of Quay Dock Road, I find the water less than up to my knees --
their is not enough water here to launch a boat. I suppose every-
one knows that if dredging were premitted, it would be near
impossible to do that because of the Solid Rock at the surface.
Secondly, Quay Dock Road if extended east 72 feet from where the
pavement ends, would not at all line up with the "Old Dock",
which is some 30 feet north of my south line.
Thirdly, the public use of Quay Dock Road as a road has terminated
at the end of the pavement primarily because the 72 feet to the
water is not accessible by motor vehicle.
Fourth, I have no wish or desire to have any portion of the paved
portion of Quay Dock Road or the existing drainage ditch on the
south side of the road closed off.
Fifth, since that portion of.land from the centerline at the end
of the pavement of Quay Dock Road, east to the river is owned by
me and is not being used as a public roadway access to the water,
I hereby submit my intention to give an easement -of ten (10) feet,
no more or no less from the centerline at the end of the pavement
of Quay Dock Road east to the river (some 72 feet more or less).
Should the adjacent landowner, Mr. James Holmes do the same, a
more than confortable access path could be had to the waterway.
And Last, it is my humble desire to be accepted into the community
of Winter Beach and become an active member in our community
projects.
Sincerely,
�eRo amp " ry
1950 Qday Dock Ro
Attorney Brandenburg reported that the County has now
received an updated survey of Quay Dock Road showing
drainage, the oyster beds, the old dock, rights-of-way, etc.
Staff is now analyzing how this relates to the original
maintenance map and would request that the County Commission
allow them to continue on with their discussions with the
property owners as well as those interested in preserving
Quay Dock Road and protecting County rights. Attorney
Brandenburg noted that the survey, which differs somewhat
from the maintenance map filed by the County, shows the road
has a bend to the north in the end of it and from the bend
74
to the north up to the oyster bar where the old dock used to
be is the area in question.
The Chairman called a short recess to allow the public
time to look at the survey and the maintenance map.
Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board on
behalf of residents of Quay Dock Road and other residents of
the County who have formed a group for the preservation of
Quay Dock Road. He noted that a good many of this group
have left work to attend this meeting. Attorney O'Haire then
presented petitions bearing more than 1,500 signatures, of
which the following is a sample, the balance being on file
in the Office of the Clerk:
75
APR 7 1992 49 -P 342
. I
APR 7 1992
PETITION
We, the undersigned citizens for the preservation of Quay Dock
Road, located in Winter Beach, Florida, formerly called Quay,
and the hub of this entire area at that time, respectfully petition
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County to retain
(quay Dock Road together with its entry into Indian River for its
historical value, being one of the oldest landmarks of this County;
also for its great need to the future generations for its access
to the river and the present and future need for drainage of much
of Winter Beach.
We further petition that the promises made to us in the past as to
clearing it for fishing and other recreational purposes for our
residents, especially for our children, be fulfilled. We foresee, •
due to the fast growth of our area,many additional needs for this
road and adjacent right-of-way in the not too distant future.
NAME
ADDRESS
2-31j
47211, ,' l ' r 1 4 �, �L ' 7 /
Attorney O'Haire then proceeded to review the history
of the situation, stating that the records prove beyond a
doubt that Quay dock Road is a public road all the way to
the river. He cited the following as proof of his
statement:
1) 1908 - A resolution of St. Lucie County designating
Quay Dock Road as a public road.
2) 1915 - Acquisition of property on Quay dock Road by the
Baptist Church.
3) 1916 - Widening of the road by 10' by a Board of Road
Commissioners.
4) 1916 - Designation of Quay dock Road as a public road
by Indian River County.
5) 1920 - Survey of Quay Dock Road by Harry4Damerow,
recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 6: .`
6) 1933 - Survey of the road showing a 60' R/W by Major
Clarkson - obtained from the Property Appraiser's
office.
7) 1936 - Mapping of Quay Dock Road as a public road by
the federal and state governments.
8) 1940 - Navy aerials showing Quay Dock Road.
9) 1941 - Designation by the Legislature as a state r ad.
10) 1949 -,Geodetic survey.
Attorney O'Haire emphasized that, in addition to all
this evidence, -there are about 60"people present today who
personally know, as their fathers knew, that Quay Dock Road
is a public road, and they are bewildered by the suggestion
that they should compromise when the road belongs to the
public. Attorney O'Haire emphasized that the County is
responsible for maintaining and protecting what belongs to
the County, and the people are asking the Commission to
pledge that the county will fight for the preservation of
Quay Dock Road to its full historical extent.
Commissioner Bird asked how our survey complies or
differs from what Attorney O'Haire feels are the wishes of
those he represents, and Attorney O'Haire stated that the
APR 71982 49 P* 34
APR 7 1982
area shown in red is precisely what the public road should
be.
Attorney Gene Roddenberry informed the Board that the
principal question Mr. Holmes has always had is where does
this road go, and until today he has never gotten a
definitive answer. Attorney Roddenberry felt the fact that
it has finally been determined that the maintenance map is
incorrect is the first step towards reaching a conclusion.
Commissioner Bird asked if Attorney Roddenberry had any
problem with the right-of-way as shown in red.
Attorney Roddenberry had no problem with that, but he
did have a problem with the chain of title on the subject
property. He_ noted that in about 1919 Harriet Thompson
bought this property, and upon her death, she specifically
devised Quay Dock Road to her two daughters; the daughters,
in turn; sold the entire thing to Mr. Holmes; and Mr. Holmes
then sold Mr. Telkamp the north one-half. Attorney
Roddenberry, therefore, felt the County is on property
belonging to both of these gentlemen.
Commissioner Lyons wished to know how anyone is able to
sell -a public road, and Attorney Roddenberry commented when
there is no deed -to it.to the County, how do they know who
owns it.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Henry Dukes and Ken Ketcham, both owners of property on
Quay Dock Road wished to know what would stop somebody else
from absorbing some of the right-of-way.
Richard Crippen wished to know if Mr. Holmes is
responsible for the sand pile blocking the road, and
Attorney Roddenberry felt the County had placed it there.
County Public Works Director Davis had no knowledge of
a pile of sand, but felt if there is one there, it possibly
78
may be affiliated with some drainage dredging; there has
been no direction to block the road.
Mr. Stevenson spoke for his aunt who owns property
adjacent to. Roddenberry on the south, noting that when she
bought her property 23 years ago that road was open all the
way to the river, as shown in red, and Mr. Holmes placed
those sand piles there.
Leon Blanton, 2666 67th St. (Quay Dock Road), reported
that he had been before the Board previously in regard to
this same situation; the Board at that time had made it
clear they had no intention of giving away any public
property, and he felt the matter had been`completely
resolved. Mr. Blanton continued that Mr. Roddenberry was
then the only one who appeared in opposition to keeping the
road open, and now he states he merely wants the
discrepancies cleared up. Mr. Blanton wished to know if Mr..
Roddenberry has changed his priorities and now does not want
to close the road.
Attorney Roddenberry believed that Mr. Blanton may have
misunderstood him at that time. He stated that his
objective the entire time was to- straighten out all the
titles involved.
Mr. Blanton felt Mr. Roddenberry avoided his question
and that because he now sees that he ha -s all these people in
an uproar he has changed his priorities. Mr. Blanton
stressed that the people merely are asking that the Board
not give away something that belongs to the people.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously extended the
meeting to 6:00 P.M.
Walter Brant informed the Board that in 1926 he helped
to pave that strip from the highway to the river, and he
believed it has a value the County can't afford to give up,
79
APR 71982 �W.
_I
APR 7 1992
O.�
especially since there are only two roads from the highway
to the river in Winter Beach.
Carl Law informed the Board that, to his knowledge,
Quay Dock Road has been since 1908 and he believed his
wife's father came across that road in 1895.
Isaac Greaves stated that he was born on John's Island
in 1902 and his parents moved there in 1891. The railroad
to Key West was completed in 1894, and thereafter they rowed
their produce across the river and used Quay Dock Road to
transport it to Woodley Station, which is now Winter Beach.
Mr. Greaves stated that he has records to prove Quay Dock
Road has been used as a public road since 1894.
Marion Hamilton stated that he was born on the other
side of the river from -Winter Beach in 1909, and his father
also transferred his produce across the river to Quay Dock
Road. Mr. Hamilton added that he was employed by the St.
Lucie County Road Department and was working on Jungle Trail
Road when the County was divided, and he has personal
knowledge of how long Quay Dock Road has been there.
- Ruth Stanbridge reported that she is on the Nature
Trails committee of the Pelican Island Audubon Society. Quay
Dock Road is their number two priority on their scenic roads
and trails -list and they would support the County keeping
this road.
LeRoy Telkamp, owner of the property on the north side
of Quay Dock Road on the river, next came before the Board
and stated that he is not interested in trying to close the
road. He noted that he offered an 10' easement from the end
of the road to the water based on a judgement according to
his deed that he owned that property. He wished the Board
to know that he is willing to give something for access to
the river.
Commissioner Fletcher asked Mr. Telkamp if he would
give the County what is necessary to make the red line on
RE
the survey a reality, and Mr. Telkamp stated that he would
like to see the County move the drainage ditch over to the
center line, but he really didn't have any objection. He
continued that he would like to have this put in writing and
go through an attorney so his heirs won't believe they own
that road too. Mr. Telkamp noted that he is currently
paying taxes on that property.
Edith Pittman wished to know how a person can deed
property that they do not own. She stated that she would
like to see something legal put on record showing that the
County
does
own this road
so the people
don't
have to keep
coming
back
every year or
so to protect
Quay
a
Dock Road.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that would be a Quit Claim
Deed which is what Mr. Telkamp is talking about.
Ramona Hamilton also wished to know how anyone can give
away something they do not own. She questioned how someone
could have willed this property to her daughters in the
first place and did not believe it is Mr. Telkamp's property _
that is in question here.
Attorney O'Haire also believed the County owns this
road now with or without a Quit Claim Deed, but noted the
1.
deed is "the icing on the cake," and it may solve Attorney
Roddenberry's problem.
Commissioner Wodtke brought up the fact that the County
is involved in a lawsuit re this matter and depositions have
been taken; he wished to know if the Commissioners may say
what they feel without putting us in a difficult position
with the lawsuit.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that the Board members can
say what they feel, but if they make any admissions, he felt
there is no question they will be used against the County in
the litigation.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he has been on the
Commission for eight years and was on it when this matter
81
APR 71982 moo 49 PA 948
I
BOX
19 f'
APR 7 1982
previously came before the Board. As far as he is
concerned, that road will never be abandoned, and it is his
intention to establish that 50' right of way to the river
even if we have to go to court to do it. Commissioner
Wodtke noted that possibly the maintenance map has created a
problem rather than solving anything, but felt that can be
corrected.
Commissioner Lyons stated that the more he listens to
the people, the more he believes that the Board's position
in 1979 was the proper one. He hoped that all the interests
of the people involved can be settled amicably and that we
can get together and end up with the question of Quay Dock
Road settled once,and for all.
Discussion followed in regard to settling this matter
without going to court, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that
if there is any way to do it amicably, there is no purpose
in going to court, and that would be our goal.
Chairman Scurlock wished to clarify that the Commission
has never taken the position that the road isn't ours, and
-- in further discussion, the Board concurred that their
position is that the road is the County's.
DISCUSSION RE USE OF EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRMS
The Board reviewed the following memo:
W
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 26, 1982
the Board of County Commissioners _
FI LE:
Thru: David L. Greene SUBJECT:
Executive Search Firms
Asst. County Administrator
FROM:, REFERENCES:
Co B. Hardin, Jr. PH. D.
Asst. to County Administrator/Personnel Director
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Staff reported to the Board of County Commissioners on
March 17, 1982, a.list of eleven (11) executive search
firms that had been.contacted in reference to possibly
selecting candidates for County Administrator. On_ori-
ginal contact staff requested copies of contracts, fee
schedules, annual statements, and brochures. To date,
information proposals have been received from seven (7)
of these firms. All firms claim to be in the top ten
search firms in this country. While differing slightly
in their approach to some degree, basically, they all
operate in the same manner. In most cases, the search
assignment involves two or more consultants who are
assigned the responsibility of conducting the search.
These consultants would work with all Commissioner's or
their designees, to develop specific qualifications for
this administrative position. Once developed, the spe-
cifications would be resubmitted to the Board for final
approval before the search begins. The search is made
in the field in which the candidateis being sought, i.e.
,local government, etc. However, corporate personnel
would also be contacted if qualified. 'The consultant
will personally interview each candidate in depth. Pre-
liminary reference checks are made and then a detailed
personal and business history and a minimum of two writ-
ten reference reports are submitted. The final three to
five candidates are introduced to the County Commission
for initial interview. Again, a follow-up reference
check is made, if required, following initial interview.
Once a candidate is selected, the firm will assist in
negotiating the compensation package and will help the
candidate withdraw from the current employer, expedi-
tiously and gracefully. Most search companies will not
reveal the client's name to the potential candidate un-
til selected for interview. Costs for these services
range from twenty percent (20%) of estimated annual
starting salary to thirty-three and one-third percent
(33-1/3%) of annual starting salary. In addition, dur
ing the course of the search, the County would be billed
periodically for expenses related to the search, i.e.
telephone, out-of-pocket expenses, etc. Travel expenses
incurred by an associate or candidate would be itemized
and added to the expense bill. Expenses generally do
not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the professional fee.
The fee is generally billed over a three (3) month period
with first payment due on the starting date of the search.
The entire process usually takes from sixty (60) to one
hundred and twenty (120) days to place a candidate.
83
APR 71982
19
APR 71982 � :�`
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
A. Appoint a three (3) "person non-partisan committee to
work with Director of Personnel to screen applicants
for the position of County Administrator. Under the
provisions of Paragraph 1.05A, Rules and Regulations for
the Personnel Management System, instruct the Director
of Personnel to search within the county government for
qualified candidate or candidates, to fill the position
of County Administrator. No funds would be required for
this search.
B. Authorize and direct the Director of Personnel to
conduct a search for a County Administrator. Instruct
the Director of Personnel to proceed immediately to
commence the search through placement of ads in asso-
ciation magazines. Appoint a three (3) person non-
partisan -board to review all applicants and select
three (3) to five (5) final candidates to be inter-
viewed by the Board of County Commissioners. Adver-
tising costs is estimated to be $350. In addition,
it is recommended that reasonable travel and lodging,
not to exceed $3,500, be authorized for candidates*
coming to Indian River County for interview. There
are no funds budgeted for this project.
7.
C. Employ an exe�;utive search firm to conduct a search
for a County Administrator. Employing an outside
firm gives the Board of County Commissioners the lati-
tude to conduct a comprehensive appraisal of a few very
select, qualified candidates. Criteria can be estab-
lished to indentify only those candidates the Board de-
sires to interview, in a minimum amount of time. The
total cost, based on the minimum salary, $40,000 per
year, will range from a fee of thirty percent (30a)
or approximately $12,000 plus travel and other ex-
penses, for approximately twenty percent (200) or
$2,400, for a total of $14,400 minimum to conduct a
search. There are no funds budgeted for this pro-
ject.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative A for the following reasons:
1) The position could be filled immediately, thus no
interruption or delay of county business.
2) Morale is generally better when positions are fil-
led from within any organization.
3) There would be no training or learning period for
an already competent employee moving into that
position.
4) No relocation allowance is required.
5) The Board of County Commissioners as well as county
employees would already have a working knowledge of
policy and procedures, thus fewer changes in regular
administration would be required.
6) By making the position available to county employees,
the risk of losing qualified staff members is minimal.
7) No additional expense is involved, therefore no bud-
get problems are created.
84
Commissioner Lyons noted that there are a number of
publications that reach County Administrators throughout the
United States, for instance the National Planning Council,
the National Association of County Commissioners, etc., and
he suggested we make our wishes known in those publications
and see what we can come up with.
Chairman Scurlock stated that the concept of a search
firm was precipitated by some insinuation that this thing
was all political, and because of wanting the best for the
County, he felt any question of politics would be removed by
going totally independent in the initial process. He noted
that in the past .he had supported a_different process for
selection, and he did not have any problem with the
selection process used in finding the County Attorney;
however, our staff's time is pretty much consumed at this
time because we do not have all our positions filled, and
that was another consideration.
Commissioner Lyons agreed that the staff has a heavy
load, and possibly the best thing to do is to to a search
firm.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he -would prefer to go
with the same process used in choosing Attorney Brandenburg,
and then if it should occur .that we do not feel we are
generating sufficient quality, he would consider at a later
date bringing in a search firm. He felt that the five
Commissioners with the help from the administration should
be involved from the beginning and did not feel comfortable
in getting into a situation that could cost $10,000 to
$20,000 at this time.
Commissioner Bird felt a three person non-partisan
board might be a good idea, but Commissioners Lyons,
Fletcher, and Chairman Scurlock did not agree.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that when he suggested
looking outside, he did not mean to preclude looking
85
APR 71982
J
APR
7
1982
box 49 PA453
in-house.
He agreed that staff time is very critical and we
might need to consider costs and get a search firm.
Dr. Hardin believed that we are looking at some 20-33%
for a fee, plus expenses. He felt the figure he gave of a
cost of $14,200 was minimal and believed it would be more
like $20-25,000. Dr. Hardin stated that he would be willing
to work with a non-partisan committee or work as many hours
as the Board might desire.
Commissioner Bird felt, in talking about a non-partisan
committee, that we would proceed to advertise and generate
applicants after which a non-partisan committee would work
with staff in screening the mass of applications to a
workable volume and at that point the Commissioners would
bebome involved. He felt possibly representatives from
places such as the School Board Personnel Department and
Piper Aircraft -Personnel Department could be of help.
Dr. Hardin confirmed that is what he had in mind. He
noted that it is an employer's market and believed we will
get a lot of applicants.
Discussion continued re search firms, putting an ad in
the paper, guidelines to set out what the Board wants, etc.,
and Commissioner.Lyons,expressed the feeling that we must be
flexiblo and keep the guidelines broad.
On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized an
advertisement indicating that the County is looking for a
County Administrator with a salary range based on a minimum
range of $35,000 to $40,000 annually.
Chairman Scurlock announced that today's agenda would
be carried over to next Wednesday, April 14th.
The several bills and accounts against the County
having been audited were examined and found to be correct
86
I
were approved and warrants issued in settlement of same as
follows: Treasury Fund Nos. 79475 - 79804 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 6:10 o'clock
P.M.
Attest:
C.JCJ
..
Clerk
APR 7 1982
/ G
Chairman