Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6/2/1982
Wednesday, June 2, 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, June 2, 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, Community Services Director; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director; and Virginia Hargreaves and Janice Caldwell, Deputy Clerks. The Chairman called the meeting to order. The Reverend Ronald E. Wright 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. Commissioner Lyons requested adding an item regarding out -of -County travel to a meeting of the State Association of County Commissioners on June 23, 1982. On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the emergency item, as requested by Commissioner Lyons. Commissioner Wodtke requested adding an item regarding the issuance of a Proclamation designating June 6th through June 12th as National Child Abuse Prevention Week. On Motion made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the emergency item, as requested by Commissioner Wodtke. 9 w- cru JUN 21982 Fr'_ I JUN 2 1982 4 Fa c Chairman Scurlock requested adding an item concerning the low bid received and a building permit for the South County Fire District. Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by - Commissioner Lyons, that the Board add -the emergency item to the South County Fire District Agenda, as requested by the Chairman. A brief discussion ensued. 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 add an emergency item concerning a Mobile Home Advisory Committee appointment, as requested by Commissioner Fletcher. Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board approve the appointment of Belle Taylor to the Mobile Home Advisory Committee as a Member -at -Large. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. -" PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK Chairman Scurlock read aloud the following Proclamation and presented it to representatives from the Local Flotilla 5-6 of the U. S. Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Vero Beach Squadron of the U. S. Power Squadrons Tl DECLARING THE WEEK OF JUNE 6, 1932 NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WHEREAS, more Americans each year are choosing recreational boating as an ideal way to relax with their families and.friends. All too often, however, what starts out as a pleasant cruise ends in tragedy because boatmen fail to teach their families to swim, fail to properly equip their craft with life preservers and other protective devices, or fail to instruct their passenger on the use of such devices prior to a boating cruise; and WHEREAS, every year, about 1300 lives are lost in boating accidents. These fatalities can be reduced and boating made more pleasurable if those who engage in it will emphasize boating safety rules; and WHEREAS, the local Flotilla 5-6 of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Vero Beach Squadron of the U.S. Power Squadron are sponsoring this week in a joint effort to promote safe boating; and ° WHEREAS, recognizing the need for that emphasis, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved June 4, 1958 (72 Statute 179), has requested the President to proclaim the week of June 6-12, 1982, as NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, do hereby designate the week beginning June 6, 1982, as NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto .set my hand this 2nd _ - day of June, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-two. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Don C. Scurlock, Jr. N' AT EST: Chairman �~ >>>'`'"�,� �'7 Freda Wright, Cle JUN 21982 3 Fr - JUN 21982 roc 49 Ph - JE -863 -ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Commissioner Lyons requested adding an item concerning a discussion of the sound system in the Courthouse. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by — Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved adding the emergency item to the Agenda, as requested by Commissioner Lyons. Commissioner Bird inquired about the extra microphone for the Commission Chambers. Assistant Administrator Greene advised that the microphone was on order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 1982. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 1982, as written. CONSENT AGENDA A. Report on File r` The following report was received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Report of Juveniles in Jail - April, 1982 B. Release of Easement - Earl L. Frank Request The Board next reviewed the following memorandum from Mr. Greene: b, TO: The Honorable Board DATE: May 25, 1982 FILE: IRC -82 -ER -5 of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Release of Easement Request by Earl L. Frank LD FROM: David Greene REFERENCES: Assistant County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The County has been petitioned by Mr. Earl L. Frank to release the common side lot 2.5 foot easements of Lots 7 and 8 and Lots 8 and 9 on Block B, Unit 1, Granada Gardens Subdivision. The request has been reviewed by"Southern Bell, 'Florida'Power and Light, Florida Cablevision Corporation, 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 Mr. Frank to retain his existing greenhouse on the three 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 opportunity to retain his existing greenhouse on these three adjacent lots. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the release of the common side lot 2.5 foot easements of Lots 7 and 8 and Lots 8 and 9 on Block B of Granada Gardens Subdivision, Unit 1, Alternative A. 1 On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 82-53 releasing those common side lot 2.5 foot easements of Lots 7 & 8 and Lots 8 & 9 of Block B, Granada Gardens Subdivision, Unit 1, as requested by Earl L. Frank. JUN 2198.2 5 ow 49 fg- 864 r JUN 1,2 1982 RESOLUTION NO. 82-53 �ooK 49 865 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the common side lot line easements of Lots 7 & 8 and Lots 8 &-9 on Block B, Unit 1, Granada Gardens Subdivision, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 3, Page -91, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Granada Gardens 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 Granada Gardens Subdivision, Unit 1, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: Those common side lot 2.5 foot easements of Lots 7 & 8 and Lots 8 & 9 on Block B of Granada Gardens Subdivision, Unit 1, 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 3, Page 91. 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 2nd day of Attest: Freda Wriaht, C rk June 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: F Don Scur o , Jr., h rman Apnruvec aato torn and legaijakienQ# B=.y C S JUN RELEASE OF EASEMENT This Release.of Easement, executed this 2nd day of June , 1982 by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political. -subdivision of the State of Florida, first party; Earl L. Frank, whose mailing address is 26 S.E. 11th Street, 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 2.51foot easements of Lots 7 & 8 and Lots 8 & 9 on Block B of Granada Gardens Subdivision, Unit 1, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 91, public records of Indian River County, Florida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all the singular the appurtenances thereunto 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 WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by_the law and the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA loci, r. Wright, C rman 49 -PAU-E:866 )UN: 21982�a©K �� PA t 867 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledge- ments 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 b• 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 �� day of „0 1982. Notary P ic, State.of F rida at Large My commission expires: "OTARY MIC STATE OF FtCqiEBA AT (Notary Seal) A'ay COMMISSION EXPtUS ,uZy 8 jV82 &ONDv'a TM Ie aces. L4caW&ITV3 ir C. Jones Intercable - Public Hearing Request The Board reviewed the following memorandum dated May 27th, 1982 from Mr. Greene: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 27, 1982 FILE: - the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Jones Intercable, Inc. Request RE: Rate Adjustment FROM: David �Greene REFERENCES: Assistant County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Enclosed please find copy of correspondence dated May 21, 1982, from Jones Intercable, Inc. At is indicated in the correspondence Jones Intercable is requesting that a public hearing be held on June 16th for the purpose of obtaining a rate adjustment. Staff cannot comply with this request due to they -fact that there;is insufficient time available to satisfy the legal requirements as well as pull together a complete agenda package and updated information concerning their request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission establish 4:00 P.M. July 7, 1982 as the appropriate time for the holding of a public hearing regarding the request of Jones Intercable. Commissioner Fletcher requested having the public hearing in Sebastian. - Commissioner Bird suggested that after the regular County Commission meeting on July 7th, they take a break for supper, then conduct the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. in Sebastian. • On Motion made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously authorized that a public hearing be set for 7:30 P.M. on July 7, 1982 at the Sebastian Community Center concerning Jones Intercable. MEETING REGARDING WITNESS FEES The Board next reviewed the following letter dated May 20, 1982 and other material concerning witness fees: JUN 2 1982 9 ��oAfa� 868 JUN 21982 �Qox 49 FAH869 of Al=iba DAVID S. DOUGLASSi�i$ "t J��u41«1 ROOM 401 COURT ADMINISTRATOR COUNTY COURTHOUSE FORT PIERCE, FLA. 334SO May 20, 1982 PHONE: (305) 461-0210 ��h2521 �8� . 1o,�`L.�� N Board of CountyCommissioners o er , VN' : o al) Indian River County ti 0� , County Courthouse o`o� Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 Dear Commissioners: In the most recent special session of the Legislature HB0009-D was passed in reference to witness coordination offices throughout the State of Florida and State assumption of witness fees now paid by the counties. Attached is a copy of -this legislation and the wording of intent from the Appropriations Bill which states that the witness fees will be paid by the State, "upon the matching con- tributions by each county of sufficient personnel and funds to establish a witness coordination office for all witnesses". The Stag of Florida is presently paying witness costs for State Attorney investigations and witnesses appearing before the Grand Jury. It is my understanding after reading the attached Bill and attending a meeting in Jacksonville on Monday, May 17th, that witnesses for preliminary hearings, witnesses for State Attorney depositions, witnesses for Public Defender or indigent defendant depositions, witnesses at trial on behalf of the State Attorney or Public Defender or indigent defendants, expert psychiatric witnesses for trial of indigent defendants, and expert psychiatric witnesses for indigent Baker Act defendants, all of which are presently being paid out of county funds will in the future be paid out of State funds as.a result of IB0009-D. For your information, the meeting in Jacksonville last Monday was attended by Court Administrators from throughout the State of Florida, representatives of the Florida Association of County Commissioners, representatives of the Florida Association of Court Clerks, legislative staff who worked on this recently passed law and Donald Conn, State Courts Administrator, and representatives of his office who will be responsible for assisting in staffing req ireumts and procedures to be followed by the various witness coordination offices that are set up throughout the_State of Florida. It has been estimated by staffs of the'Legislature that the assumption of the above mentioned witness costs statewide would be an annual expenditure of $6,000,000. The recent special session appropriated $2,463,140. This has been calculated to cover the necessary funds for a five month period. Consequently. State assumption of costs for these witnesses will begin on a reimbursement basis to participating counties beginning February 1, 1983. It is hoped that those counties who quality for the setting up of witness coordination offices will budget funds for personnel, office space, supplies and equipment beginning October 1, 1982. The State Courts Administrator's Office plans to conduct seminars for new personnel during November and December, 1982. Based on information -concerning the number of witnesses subpoenaed annually by the State Attorney and Public Defender, the State Courts Administrator's Office will be assisting our office in estimating the personnel needed on a county'by county basis._ With this program the State will not only be taking over some expenses being borne by the counties but equally important the thousands of witnesses subpoenaed annually will hopefully be coordinated in a more efficient manner lessening their invonvenience, in many cases, a financial hardship. Total annual witness costs now being paid by Indian River County, to be assumed by the State, can be obtained from your Clerk of Circuit Court. Our office has scheduled a meeting with personnel from the State Courts Administrator's Office for 9:00 A.M., Friday, June 4, 1982 in the St. Lucie County Courthouse. By separate letter we are inviting representatives of the State Attorney's Office, Public Defender's Office, and Clerks of Circuit Courts of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit. We also hope that someone representing the Indian River County Commission will be able to attend. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the existing witness coordination programs and how they operate, to give estimates for staffing an office for Indian River County and to relate how the lst Circuit (4 counties) and the 3rd Circuit (7 counties) are planning to comply with the new law so that they might receive witness funds on a reimbursement basis. It is hoped that with the assistance of the State Courts Administrator's Office, based on numbers of witnesses subpoenased, that staffing requirements will be supplied to you by June 15, 1982. For your further information there are presently in operation similar programs in Collier, Hillsborough, Lee, Orange and Sarasota counties. These programs are funded by the individual counties, but of course, their costs will be assumed by the State beginning February 1, 1983. It is hoped that should this program prove successful it will be another step of the State taking over various court costs that are presently being borne by the counties. Very truly yours, Davi:d, glass Court Administrator Chairman Scurlock stated that he would like to attend that meeting and take another person with him - the meeting is in Fort Pierce. •4 On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved out -of -Country travel to Ft. Pierce, Florida for the Chairman and other appropriate persons to attend the meeting concerning witness fees. JUN 21982 11 (go to 15 ) �QQ S ` 49 w)t 870- JUN 21982 bBOK 49 FAUr 871 APPOINTMENT TO CIRCUIT CONFLICT COMMITTEE Chairman Scurlock recommended Attorney Brandenburg, or Assistant County Attorney Chris Paull to be on this committee to represent the County. — Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board adopt Resolution 82-55 appointing a representative of the Commission to serve on the Circuit Conflict Committee, namely, County Attorney Brandenburg, or his designee. 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. RESOLUTION NO. 82-55 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMISSION TO SERVE ON THE CIRCUIT CONFLICT COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has been informed by ELTON H. SCHWARZ,'Public Defender, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, that the Legislature of the State of Florida for fiscal year 1982-83 has appropriated certain funds to the Office of the Public Defender to help assist toward compensation of court appointed attorneys in conflict cases, and WHEREAS, a Circuit Conflict Committee has been estab- lished to assist in the handling and compensation of such court .appointed attorneys. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that GARY M. BRANDENBURG, County Attorney, or his designee are hereby appointed as the representative of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County on the Circuit Conflict Committee. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Dick Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr, and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. - Aye Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher - Nay Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons - Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. - Aye Commissioner Dick Bird - Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2nd day of June, 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA r" By DON SCURLOCK, JR. Chairman `Attest: c°'/P1 V, FREDA WRIGHT, C k APPROVED TO FORM. AND LEGA UFFIC CY By , G Y M. BRANDENBURG, Couinty Attorney JUN 21982 BBDK. 49 Pd�E�872 rBOOK '19, 1 P- 873 JUN 21982 NEW CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT LINES - DISCUSSION Rosemary Richey, Supervisor of Elections, came before the Board and reviewed the following memorandum of May 26, 1982: — May 26, 1982 MEMO T0: Board -of County Commissioners. The new congressional district lines and new house district lines do not coincide with each other and neither one of their lines correspond with our precinct lines. Unless we make some changes this will create mass confusion on election day. To correct this problem we will need --to: Create new precinct lines Check each registered elector by address to see which congressional district and house district they will vote in. Notify elector of change. Purchase more voting machines before September election. Extra help $3000 Printing and Post 800 Election 2000 $860 Plus voting machines costs. Rosemary R'chey Supervisor oflections Indian River County Mrs. Richey then displayed a map which outlined the .Congressional Districts that have been imposed recently on the County. The only solution, Mrs. Richey continued, was to make two more precincts; and additional voting machines would be needed. Chairman Scurlock mentioned that several groups had filed suit against the action of having new District lines. Mrs. Richey interjected that the County should have had a lobbyist in Tallahassee when this matter was being discussed. Commissioner Fletcher wondered if the County had a choice at all in this action. Attorney Brandenburg stated that this was not a discretionary matter; the County must follow along the lines that have been set out for them. He continued that the court does not have the ability to substitute that which the Legislature has decided - a very high standard of proof would have to be shown before the new District lines could be disturbed. Chairman Scurlock felt the Board needed to express its displeasure in this matter. Discussion ensued about what steps to follow next. Mrs. Richey commented that she could obtain 12 used voting machines at $175 each, for a total cost of '$2,100. She then referred to the various expenses itemized in her memo of May 26, 1982. Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board approve a budget amendment of $8,000 from the General Contingency Fund to the Supervisor of Elections Account. 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. JUN 21982 WK 49 f* x`74 JUN 21982 ado 49 PA 875 To: Board of County Commissioners June 8, 1982 Irom: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director Re: Elections The following budget amendment is necessary due Supervisor of Elections is to the Re -Districting. The and personnel to handle going to need more voting machines, polling the new precints. places I recommend that these funds be adopted as part b• of the additional funds approved. Account Title - Account No. Increase Decrease Outside Printing 001-103-519-34.72 1,000 Other Furn. & Equip. 001-103-519-66.49 2,100 All Travel 001-103-519-34.02 100 Other Salaries & Wages 001-103-519-11.13 4,000 Outside Printing 001-700-519-34;72 400 Postage 001-700-519-34.21 400 B.C.C. Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91 8,000 Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke that the Board draft a resolution of concern as to the Congressional District lines that have resulted in Indian River County specifically having to allocate $8,000 to meet the require- ments for this coming election, which will have a lasting effect on the taxpayers; the Board would like to have some consideration for remedy or reimbursement as soon as possible; and that the Board is very unhappy with the splitting of Indian River County as it does not follow any rhyme or reason. Commissioner Lyons seconded the Motion; and questioned strongly why it was necessary to split a small county of under 100,000 people at all. Attorney Brandenburg stated he would work with Mrs. Richey and draft a resolution. Lengthy conversation took place, and it was determined that this resolution should be sent to Washington and to Tallahassee. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Newsman Phil Long inquired if any of the lawsuits initiated by the counties to the north and south of Indian River County were successful, would there be a possibility that our boundaries could change? Attorney Brandenburg did not know the answer to this question. The only thing being expressed today was the dissatisfaction of the Board. William Koolage, interested citizen, thought that the Board should find out what the other suits were about, and perhaps the Board should join in with the other lawsuits. Commissioner Bird suggested sending them an alternate plan; one that would make some geographical sense, possibly using Route 60 as a dividing line. Mrs. Richey informed the Board that the First Baptist Church of Winter Beach could be used as a polling place; they had .requested a few loads of marl at that location to improve the area before election time. Commissioner Wodtke suggested the Administrator check into this matter of the marl request and take appropriate action. Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, that the Board have Mrs. Richey look into the possibility of redrawing the lines to have the Route 60 corridor as a boundary, as it would appear that projected and present populations would be balanced north and south of Route 60 in the Congressional District, and that it be made a part of the resolution to be drafted. Commissioner Fletcher interjected that the Board should reconsider the Motion of buying the used voting machines. He stated that the Board should stand up and state their objections to all of this. He noted that he had seen no justification that the recent lines drawn on the County map were equitable. JUN 2,1982 20 "ox PACE87-6 L - _. JUN 21982 900Y 49- nq I Lengthy discussion ensued and it was determined to leave the County contiguous and use Route 60 corridor as a boundary, and have Mrs. Richey make an analyzation of the population, under some equitable basis of what the - Legislature has imposed on the County, and make it part of the resolution to be drafted. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Attorney Brandenburg commented that he would give the Board a full report on the drafted resolution at the next meeting. NEW JAIL CONSTRUCTION - RESOLUTION 82-54 The Board reviewed the following correspondence regarding construction of a new jail: Board of County May 11, 19,8 2 TO: Commissioners DATE:FILE: FROM: Patrick B. Lyons SUBJECT: REFERENCES: Attached are copies from Louis Wainwright's office approving our plans for up -grading the jail. The letters point out that approval is based on receiving a Resolution from the Commission indicating that we plan to have a new jail within the next three years. With our present schedule of planning, this appears to be a definite possibility. We have on file a Resolution promising a jail within five years provided we get certain assistance from the State. This is not considered satisfactory. The cost of complying with the State's request is considerably less than putting ourselves in the position of operating under a federal mandate. The Public Safety Committee recognized this and at its meeting on May 18th, unanimously recommended that the County Commissioners provide Mr. Wainwright with a Resolution indicating that we are planning to have a new jail within the next three years. 4 TO: Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons ®ATE: May 11, 1982 FILE: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Request for Resolution b the David L. Greene q Y Asst. County Administrator Board of County Commissioners committing full compliance with Chapter 33-8, F.A.C. within three years. FROM:James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES: Public Works Dirocto Reference Letters: 1) Louis L. Wainwright, D. 0. C., to James W. Davis, dated January 26, 1982, 2) Louis L. Wainwright, D. 0. C., to James W. Davis, dated May 6, 1982 By copy of the above referenced letters from the Department of Corrections, the County is requested to submit a firm committment to the D. 0. C. that our detention facilities will be in full compliance with Chapter 33-8, F.A.C. within a period of three years. As stated in the January 26, 1982 letter, "This can best be accomplished by completing the new jail." Resolution #81-64 adopted September 16, 1981, states that it is the County's goal to construct a new jail within a five year period subject to State funding. It is requested at this time that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a new resolution expressing the firm committment that the County will bring our detention facility into compliance with Chapter 33-8, F.A.C. within a period of three years. No mention of State funding should be made. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board adopt Resolution 82-54 expressing the County's intention to construct a new jail facility within three years. Sheriff Dobeck approached the Board and emphasized how important it was to move forward with a new resolution; it would show good faith. He added that the Board had taken the first steps in preparation of a new facility and should move forward and continue on a time frame. Commissioner Lyons commented that they were under constant pressure to keep the jail going, and the JUN 2.1982 22 BAOK 49" PA. GG E 878 JUN 21982 Boa 49 FAcr 879 recommendation of Mr. Wainwright for a three year goal was not unreasonable. The requirements for jail space are increasing, and the County already has a critical situation; but by proceeding in this fashion, the Board is showing - diligence. Commissioner Lyons noted that the only person standing between the federal government and the County was Mr. Wainwright.. and the Board does not want to have the federal government deciding what to do with the jail. The Sheriff stressed that the Board has moved ahead and made corrections at the existing facility; there have not been any suits filed by the inmates. He continued that if they do fall under a federal or state lawsuit, then they would be faced with putting out prisoners and paying for their room and board. Lengthy discussion followed about the existing facility, and the importance of having it designed in such a way to have necessary room for expansion. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 82- 54 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, EXPRESSING THE COUNTY'S INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT A NEW JAIL FACILITY WITHIN.THREE YEARS. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has made a continuing effort to make the necessary improvements to the current jail facilities to meet the minimum State requirements, and WHEREAS, representatives of the County have met with the various State correction and health officials to pinpoint and formulate solutions to the current problems at the County jail, and WHEREAS, it appears that the growth pattern now estab- lished for Indian_River County will continue resulting in in- creased population placing an additional demand on the County's jail facilities, and WHEREAS, as a part of the overall County planning pro- cess for future capital expenditures, the County Commission now recognizes that it will be necessary to construct a new jail facility to assure full compliance with Chapter 33-8, Florida Admistrative Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that; 1. The County Commission finds and determines that it is in the public's best interest to construct a new jail facility within three (3) years, and 2. It is the established goal of Indian River County to construct a jail facility in three (3) years and assure full con- tinuing compliance with Chapter 33-8, Florida Administrative Code. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wodtke and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Dick Bird Aye JUN 21982 -1- ooK 49� - -QQ - Flr,- -1 JUN 21982 6AOK 49 PAGE 8 1. The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2nd day of June , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA i By / C DON C. SCURLOCK, JR ........ Chairman Attest: FREDA WRIGHT, C rk APPROVED S TO FORD. AND LEG SUFFICIENC By _ GA M BRANDENBURG 96�nty Attorney -2- ir JAIL MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS - REQUEST FOR FUNDS The Board next reviewed the following memorandum dated May 25, 1982 from Mr. Davis: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 25, 1982 FILE: Board of County Commissioners 49 '119 - THRU: David L. Greene, Assistant County Administrator SUBJECT: County Jail Maintenance and Repairs Request for Additional Funds FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. ,REFERENCES: ., Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Insufficient funding was approved during the Fy 81-82 Budget hearings for needed Jail repairs and maintenance. As a result, the current Jail account # 001-906-523-34.61 is overdrawn approximately $8,300. In addition, certain items have been identified as needing immediate attention to comply,with State Fire Marshall and Department of Correct -ions requirements: The item`s as presented in the above referenced memo are as follows: Item Estimated Cost 1) Sanitary Sewer and Plumbing repair $7500. 2) Electrical Work 5000. 3) Window Repairs 2700. 4) Cleaning and Painting of Cell Blocks 2500. 5) Security Guard Screens for Windows 2000. 6) Fire Doors _ 1050. $20,750. To accomplish the above work, to cover the $8,300. over draft on account number #001-906-523-34.61 (Jail Maintenance), and to cover future emergencies within this Fiscal Year additional funding in the amount of $32,000. is recommended to be transferred into account #001-906-523-34.61. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since the County Jail is now under a Notice of Violation from the State Fire Marshall's Office and the Department of Corrections, the work which is proposed is critical to maintain operation of the Jail. The funding recommendation by the County Finance Director is attached. Bas- ically, he recommends transferring $32,000. from the Board of County Commissioners Contingency Account #001-199-513-99.91, to the Jail account #001-906-523-34.61. RECOiNIMENDATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that $32,000. be transferred from Board of County Commissioners Contingency account #001-906-513-99.91 to the Jail Maintenance account # 001-906- 523-34.61 to cover needed Jail repair. JUN 21982 W MR. 49 acE JUN 21982Boor 49'F ��3 Lengthy conversation took place regarding the funds of $70,000 set aside in the original amount for jail renovation. Additional monies will be needed to accomplish items such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, - insufficient lighting, and a fire escape; hopefully, those costs will be defined for the Board by the first meeting in July. Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the account being overdrawn by $8,300. ` Finance Director Barton explained that as of this time, the funds have not been over -expended; however, the projected amount that will be expended when all the bids are in should be over $8,300. After more discussion, it was determined that a budget amendment was not needed at this time. a Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board authorize the work to be performed as itemized in the May 25, 1982 memorandum from Mr. Davis; give permission to draw on the funds set aside in the original account of $70,000; and once bids are received at a later date, come back to the Board and request funding to do the contract work. Sheriff Dobeck suggested that his department would -not make any purchases or repairs, but instead would turn this procedure completely over to Mr. Lynn Williams, County Superintendent of Buildings & Grounds. Community Services Director Thomas interjected that they were trying to straighten out the accounting procedures as problems arise when there is a renovation program of this type - it is difficult to determine what is renovation and what is maintenance. A brief discussion ensued. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING RE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDINANCE NO. 82-10 The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed,. the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a NOTICE in the matter of Intent to consider County Ordinance in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of May 12, 1982 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of 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. Sworn to and (SEAL) A.D. 19 8_ (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian ---...Y, ...,.. _1 ` NVACE T® ONSC IDER COUNTY ORDINANCE Pleasq be advised that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County will hold a Public Hearing on June, 2. 1982 at 10:00 A.M. in the County Commission Chambers, County Administration Building, 1840 2Sth Street, Vero Beach, Florida, toconsider adoption of the following Ordinance which establishes the offices of the County Ad- ministrator, the County Attorney "and the Secretary to the Board: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF .COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVET, COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING THE OFFICES OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, THE COUNTY -ATTORNEY AND THE SECRETARY TO 'THE COMMISSION PROVIDING FOR; .TITLE, CREATION OF OFFICES; AP- POINTMENT, COMPENSATION, VACANCY, REMOVAL; DUTIES OF E COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, DUTIESOF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY; DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION; NON- INTERFERENCE POLICY; INCLUSION IN THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND EF- FECTIVE DATE. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he -she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur poses, he -she may need to ensure that a ver- batim record of the proceedings. is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. May 12, 1982. . Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the ordinance with the Board. Commissioner Fletcher discussed Section 3-A and felt that in the event any of the offices fall vacant, that none of the Board members would fill the void. On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously approved the addition of a sentence in Section 3-A to read: "County JUN 21982 r r 9 ��FE 28 ox 884 �o.,, Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the ordinance with the Board. Commissioner Fletcher discussed Section 3-A and felt that in the event any of the offices fall vacant, that none of the Board members would fill the void. On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously approved the addition of a sentence in Section 3-A to read: "County JUN 21982 r r 9 ��FE 28 ox 884 JUN 2198nK 49 Commissioners shall be ineligible to serve as County officers at any time." Lengthy discussion took place concerning the replacement for the Administrator, job classifications,— salary increases, and budget preparation. Acting Administrator Greene felt it was a good idea to keep job descriptions current. Chairman Scurlock recommended that an analysis be done to properly allocate costs in the County. Conversation ensued regarding Section 7, Non -Interference Policy. The following wording was suggested for Section 7: "All employees shall report any such interference through normal lines of authority to the respective County officers who will bring the matter to the attention of the offending County Commissioner prior to presentation to the County Commission." On Motion made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously opened the public hearing. William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, came before the Board and suggested that the words "if necessary" should be added in the new wording for the Non -Interference Policy just discussed. The Board agreed that it was a good idea. On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 82-10 establishing the Administrative Ordinance, as modified. M. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 82- 10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING THE OFFICES OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION PROVIDING FOR: TITLE; CREATION OF OFFICES; APPOINTMENT, COMPENSATION, VACANCY, REMOVAL; DUTIE$'OF THE COUNTY -ADMINISTRATOR; DUTIES OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY; DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION; NON-INTERFERENCE POLICY; INCLUSION IN THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, it is the intent of this Ordinance to establish the office of the County Administrator, County Attorney, and Secretary to the Commission, such officers to report directly to the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to establish a form of County administration that best assures an adequate and efficient provision of services to the citizens of this County and promotes the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of the County's residents, and WHEREAS, the County Administrator is charged.with the responsibility of the multitude of details which must necessarily arise from the operation of a County as a unit of local govern- ment, thus enabling the County Commission to perform freely with- out unnecessary interruption its fundamental intended purpose of making policies within the framework of the law applicable to County governments in the State of Florida, and WHEREAS, the County Commission by this Ordinance intends to provide a structure for the economic and efficient conduct of County affairs by making the County Administrator responsible for handling all things necessary to accomplish the policies estab- lished by the Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that; SECTION 1. TITLE. This Ordinance shall be called the County Administration Ordinance. SECTION 2. CREATION OF OFFICES. officers; JUN 21982 There is hereby established the following County -1- gook 49 PA-- 8% JUN 219a2 49 (a) The County Administrator (b) The County Attorney (c) The Secretary to the Commission. The County officers shall report directly to the County Commission. SECTION 3. APPOINTMENT, COMPENSATION, VACANCY, REMOVAL. A. APPOINTMENT - The County officers shall be appointed by an affirmative vote of not less than three (3) members of the County Commission at such time as a vacancy occurs in one of the offices. County Commissioners shall be ineligible to serve as County officers at any time. The County officers shall serve at the pleasure of the County Commission subject to the provisions of Section 3 (D). The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners shall have the responsibility to expedite the replacement of County officers when a vacancy occurs. The Chairman shall also act as the liaison between the County Commission and the County officers in establishing efficient and effective operating policies and procedures for the officers. B. COMPENSATION - The compensation of -the County officers shall be established and amended from time to time by the County Commission. Each officer shall be evaluated by the County Commission during the budget session of the Commission each year under such standards and in such a manner as -determined by the Commission. C. VACANCY - A vacancy shall be considered to exist if the incumbent moves his residence from the County or is, by death, illness or other casualty, unable to continue in office, or resigns or is removed from office. D. REMOVAL FROM OFFICE - To remove a County officer, the Commission shall adopt a resolution stating the reasons for the intended removal and offer the officer an opportunity for a public hearing before the Commission on the matters raised. The resolution may suspend the officer from duty immediately with pay. The County officer must, within ten (10) days, request a public hearing or file a written response to the matters addressed in the -2- resolution or consider the removal from office effective on the tenth day. If a public hearing is requested, it shall be held no earlier than twenty (20) days or later than thirty (30) days from adoption of the resolution. Upon conclusion of the public hear- ing, the Commission shall vote -to remove or reinstate the officer. An affirmative vote of no less than three (3) members of the Commission is necessary for the removal of an officer. SECTION 4. DUTIES OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. 1. The County Administrator shall be responsible for the administration of all departments and employees responsible to the Board of County Commissioners, with the exception of the County Attorney and staff and Secretary to the Commission and staff, and for the proper administration of all affairs under the jurisdiction of the Board. The Administrator's authority and duty shall include, but not be limited to the following specific powers and duties; (a) Administer and carry out the directives and poli- cies of the Board of County Commissioners and enforce all orders, resolutions, ordinances, and regulations of the Board in a fair, nondiscriminatory manner. (b) Report to the Board on action taken pursuant to any directive or policy within the time set by the Board and provide an annual report by October 1 of each year to the Board on the state of the County, the work of the previous year, and any recommendations as to actions or programs he deems necessary for the improvement of the County and the welfare of its residents. (c) Provide the Board, or individual members thereof, upon request, with data or information concerning County govern- ment and to provide advice and recommendations on County govern- ment operations to the Board. (d) The Administrator is designated as the County Budget Officer pursuant to F.S. §129.025 and has the ultimate responsibility for preparation of the overall budget for the County and is hereby directed to work with the Clerk of the Circuit Court to prepare and submit to the Board of County Commissioners for its consideration and adoption an annual JUN 2 1982 -3 49 - r �eox 49 889 JUN 21982 operating budget, a capital budget, and a capital program. (e) Establish the schedules and procedures to be followed by all County departments, offices, and agencies under the control of the County Commission in connection with the budget and supervise and administer all phases of the budgetary process. (f) Prepare and submit to the Board after the end of each fiscal year a complete report on the finances and administra- tive activities of the County for the preceding year and submit his recommendations-. (g) Supervise the care and custody of all County pro- perty. (h) Recommend to the Board a current position classifi- cation and pay plan for all positions in County service. (i) Develop, install, and maintain centralized budget- ing, personnel, and purchasing procedures. (j) Organize the work of County departments, subject to an Administrative Code developed by the Administrator and adopted by the Board, and review the departments, administration, and operation of the County and make recommendations pertaining thereto for reorganization by the Board. (k) Select, employ, and supervise all personnel and fill all vacancies, positions, or employment under the jurisdic- tion of the Board with the exception of the employees of the other County officers. (1) Suspend, discharge, or remove any employee other than employees of the other County officers under the jurisdiction of the Board pursuant to personnel procedures adopted by the Board. (m) Negotiate leases, contracts, and other agreements, including consultant services, for the County, subject to the approval of the Board, and make recommendations concerning the nature and location of County improvements. (n) See that all terms and conditions and all leases, contracts, and agreements are performed and notify the Board of any noted violation thereof. (o) Order, upon advising the Board, any agency under -4- 4 his jurisdiction as specified in the Administrative Code to under- take any task for any other agency on a temporary basis if he deems it necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the County government to do so. (p) ,Attend all meetings of the Board with authority to participate in the discussions of any matter. (q) Perform any other duties as may be required of him or her by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. It is the intent of the County Commission to grant to the County Administrator only those powers and duties which are administrative or ministerial in nature and not to delegate any governmental power imbued in the Board of County Commissioners as the governing body of the County pursuant to Section 1 (e), Art. VIII of the State'Constitution. To that end, the powers enumer- ated above are to be construed as administrative in nature, and in any exercise of governmental power the Administrator shall only be performing the duty of advising the Board of County Commissioners in its role as the policy -setting governing body of the County. SECTION 5. DUTIES OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. The County Attorney shall be a member of the Florida Bar and shall be the legal adviser to the Commission, its boards and departments. The County Attorney shall be responsible for the administration of the`County Attorney's office and staff and when necessary shall promote, suspend, demote or dismiss any employee in the office of the County Attorney in accordance with the personnel rules of the County. The County Attorney or his designee shall attend all County Commission meetings and render such professional services as may be required of him by the Commission or the laws of the State of Florida or the United States of America. The County Attorney shall provide provisional legal services to County government and is specifically prohibited -from providing legal services for the personal benefit of County -Commissioners, appointed Board members, County employees or members of the public. The County Attorney shall prepare an annual budget for the operations of the office and shall submit this budget to the Administrator for inclusion in the annual JUN 21982 -5- Box 49 %-E890 IJUN 21982 County budget. BOOK 49 P 891 SECTION 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION. The secretary to the Commission shall be an individual of great integrity and proficiency in modern secretarial/ administrative technologies and be able to deal effectively with the general public. The secretary to the Commission shall be — responsible for the administration of the office and staff and when necessary shall promote, suspend, demote or dismiss any employee in the office of the secretary to the Commission in accordance with the personnel rules of the County. The secretary shall aid the Commission and its individual members on the day to day basis in conducting the business of the Commission and shall be responsible for the preparation of the agenda for regular or special meetings of the Commission and any workshop sessions. The secretary to the Commission shall have such other duties as the Commission may designate. The secretary to the Commission shall prepare an annual budget for the operations of the office and shall submit this budget to the Administrator for inclusion in the annual County Budget. SECTION 7. NONINTERFERENCE POLICY. The members of the Commission and members of appointed Boards and Committees of the Commission shall not interfere with the performance of the duties of any employee of County government who is under the direct or indirect supervision of the County officers. The Board of County Commissioners and appointed boards and committees or members thereof shall deal with County affairs through the offices of the respective County officers. All employees shall report any such interference through normal lines of authority to the respective County officers who will bring the matter to the attention of the offending County Commissioner prior to presentation, if necessary, to the County Commission. SECTION 8. INCORPORATION OF ORDINANCE IN COUNTY CODE. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish -6- M i a such intentions. SECTION 9. SEVERABILITY. If any section, part of a section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be 0constitutional, inoperative or void, such holding or invalidity shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this Ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part therein, and the remainder of this Ordinance after the exclusion of such part or parts shall be deemed to be valid as if such part or parts had not been included therein, or if this Ordinance or any of the provisions thereof shall be held inapplicable to any person, groups of persons, property, kinds of property, circumstances or set of circumstances, such holdings shall not affect the applicability thereof to any other person, property or circumstances. SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this Ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida this 2nd day of June , 1982. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this day of , 1982. Effective Dates Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this day of , 1982, at A.M./P.M. and -filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. Approved to form and legal su iciency. .y Ij By M .`/BRANDENBURG, CpuntyAttorney JUN 2 1982 -7- BOOK 49 PA-bE89 JUN 21992 Boa 49 Pa -r 893 BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE - DISCUSSION Chairman Scurlock briefly discussed the possible composition of the Building Department Committee. Together, the Board compiled the following seven - categories to form such a committee: 1 - City Council member 1 - Board,eof County Commission member 1 - member from the general public at large 1 - member from Community Development 1 - member from the City Building Department - Ester Rymer 1 - contractor representative 1 - architect/engineering representative Commissioner Wodtke offered to be a member of this Committee. On Motion made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously approved an Ad Hoc Building Department Committee, including Commissioner Wodtke as the Board representative. ® ir TREASURE COAST UTILITIES - CONSENT ORDER The Board next considered the following request as indicated in the May 26, 1982 letter from the Department of Environmental Regulation: DEPARTMENT OF RI<:.GULAT0'1Jf- S 7. JOHNS RIVER wnw DiSTRIC �3� �s� SUITE QUIRE BOULEV ORLANDO, FLORIDA c� rr• `ry� co Cpr�9y'O i• �� V,} o,oa. sS,oM��VL� Y `►�•r�l. 1. • 1� AyA4i � I rrAP� OF Floe May 26, 1982 Don C. Scurlock, Jr. OSJ-82-1292 Chairman Indian River County Commissioner Indian River County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Sir: BOB GRAHAM GOVERNOR VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL SECRETARY ALEX SENKEVICH DISTRICT MANAGER I am requesting to make a presentation to the Commission on June 2, 1982, at 11:00 A.M., for the purpose of discussing the proposed Consent Order that is presently pending between Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and Indian River County, in regard to the sewage treatment facility at Dixie Gardens, that was pre- viously owned by Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc. The item of particular consideration has to do with the chlorination of the raw effluent for this facility. Honoring my request would: be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, L. Tv, E. Distric enforcement Chief Mr. L. T. Kozlov, DER District Enforcement Chief, came •4 before the Board and expressed concern over one item in the consent order, between the DER and the Board, regarding the disinfection of the effluent from the present Treasure Coast Utilities system. He explained that there was little or no treatment going on at the facility since it was turned over to the receiver. Mr. Kozlov commented that the DER was concerned with the health aspects of the situation. He JUN 21982 990K 49-,Qabc-894 38 JUN 21982 _ ®�oK 49 PAGE $9. hoped that the receiver would agree to properly disinfect this effluent, as they had a similar situation in Seminole County and it was treated successfully with chlorine. Attorney Brandenburg explained that he was considering the proper language to use for this paragraph under discussion. He added that basically, the County was to - acquire the sXptem and eventually work it into other systems, which was agreed to by the DER. This new requirement,to make improvements to a system that would not be used nine months from now, would prove to be costly to the County. The Attorney felt the Board would have to make a determination on this matter. Utilities Director Liner advised that it would take approximately $9,000 to gas chlorinate the system, which would involve doing a tap on the Oslo Road water main and running a line to the present system, since there is no water there now. Lengthy discussion followed regarding the possibility of having a shallow well with an electrical hook-up. Mr. Kozlov felt that a shallow well at that location would be ideal. He again stressed that.DER would require disinfectant of the secondary treatment. Commissioner Lyons was hopeful that a way could b found, within a reasonable cost, to change the situation for such a short interval. He urged the DER and the Board to have a little mutual faith. Attorney Brandenburg stated that consent orders were to allow a facility to operate until such time that complete improvements could be made. He continued that Mr. Kozlov was asking the Board to indicate that it will maintain a certain level of chlorine even though it may be physically impossible. The Attorney was hopeful that the DER would work with the County with respect to cleaning up this system and to allow this consent order. Mr. Kozlov argued that a consent order.does not allow an indefinite violation. Commissioner Wodtke suggested that Mr. Kozlov, Mr. Liner and Attorney Brandenburg get together to try to -reach some type of an agreement by this afternoon. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT - CENTRAL FIRE STATION DISCUSSION The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 11:35 o'clock A.M. in order that the District Board of the South County Fire Commissioners might convene. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 11:49 o'clock A.M..with the same members present. PROCLAMATION - CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION WEEK Commissioner Wodtke then elaborated on the Child Abuse Prevention program and expressed appreciation for all the work being done for the program in the community through the efforts of the Exchange Club. He asked Dr. Jack McAfee, of the Exchange Club, to accept the following Proclamation, which Commissioner Wodtke read aloud: •0. JUN 21982 40 ags 49 -PAGE896 JUN 21982 P R O C L A M A T I O N 49 PA -F8,97 WHEREAS, the incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect have reached alarming proportions in the United States; and WHEREAS, an estimated two million children become victims of child abuse in this Nation each year; and WHEREAS, an estimated five thousand of these children die as a result b• of such abuse each year; and WHEREAS, the Nation faces a continuing need to support innovative pro- - grams to prevent child abuse and assist parents and family members in which child abuse occurs; and WHEREAS, Congress has expressed its commitment to seeking and applying solutions to this problem by enacting the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974; and WHEREAS, many dedicated individuals and private organizations including the National Exchange Club Foundation for the Prevention of Child Abuse, Parent Anonymous, the National Committee for the prevention of Child Abuse, American Humane Association, and other members of the National Child Abuse Coalition, are working to counter the ravages of abuse and neglect and to help child abusers break their destructive pattern of behavior; WHEREAS, organizations, such as the National Exchange Club Foundation for the Prevention of Child Abuse, Parents Anonymous and • other members of the National Child Abuse Coalition are expediting efforts to prevent child abuse in the next generation through special programs for abused children; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to focus the Nation's attention upon the problem of child abuse; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, proclaim that the week of June 6, 1982 through June 12, 1982 be designated as "National Child Abuse Prevention Week" and urge all citizens of Indian River County to observe the week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. ATTEST: eda rigs/t, r L/ Don C. Scurlock,Jr. Chairman 4 The Board thereupon recessed at 12:00 Noon for lunch and reconvened at 1:45 o'clock P.M. with the same members present. Deputy Clerk Virginia Hargreaves took over from Deputy Clerk Janice Caldwell for the remainder of the. meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION FOR RIVER BEND WATER AND .SEWER FR�AT(`NTCT.'. The Board reviewed the following memo from Utilities Director George Liner: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Members of the DATE: June 2, 1982 FILE: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Application for River Bend Water and Sewer Franchise To be Heard June 2, 1982. FROM: George Liner REFERENCES: Utilities Director Description and Conditions River Bend application was made by Florida Land Company, the same firm that operates the Bent Pine Franchise'in a satisfactory manner. The background information as attached to this memorandum was inadvertently omitted from the package forwarded to the Commissioners. The franchise resolution the Commission had received was a result of several reviews and revisions. Florida Land Company had com- plied with all County requests except the -objection to the manner of determining the price of the utility's land at a time the County plans to purchase the utility. Two alternatives are shown in the proposed resolution (Page 15). These do not include the request of County staff to establish the cost now and/or else give credit for connection fees as paid by home purchasers for plant capacity - toward the purchase cost. It should be noted, the franchise is for the "River Bend Utility Company Water and Sewerage System Franchise," a wholly owned cor- poration of'Florida Land Company, organized expressly for this utility. JUN 2 7982 42 oo 49 Pair X98... JUN 21982 Alternatives and Analysis oaK 49 wbr 899 This franchise resolution contains all financial benefits to pro- tect the interests of Indian River County. These include: 1- Payments are to be made to the County impact escrow fund in the amount of $651.20 (both water and sewer for each condo impact fee rated at 250 gallons per day). 2-_ There is the escalation clause as provided in the County impact ordinances. 3- Three percent'of the annual gross receipts shall be paid to Indian River County as a utility tax. 4- Two and one-half percent of gross revenue will be accumulated for the capital maintenance escrow fund after being seeded by the corporation with $5,000.00. 5- If and when the utility is bought by the County, the maintenance escrow fund will be vested with the County. 6- There is a provision for a fine to be imposed by the Board for utility faults or deficiencies not corrected after a hearing for the problem. 7- The inspection fee of $20.00 per unit will apply during construction of the utility system for services the County will perform. The memorandum attached reflects a question of the advertisement for the public hearing for the franchise approval. Not counting Sundays and holidays, the advertisement would have to be printed no later than May 15, 1982. We did receive proof of publication to be May 17, 1982. This date was two days after the deadline date for proper publication. If this reason is justified, the public hear- ing will have to be approved for a later date and the meeting re -advertised. It must be emphasized that the rules for the adver- tisement were clearly spelled out to Mr. Sundstrom, attorney for the developer. This information included the deadline date for the advertisement as well as "approval" to get on the agenda. This was explained to the developer as a problem with holding the public hearing on June 2, 1982. Nevertheless, he requested that he take this chance to present his case and see if the Commission will approve the franchise at this time. A further question had been raised by staff as to whether the rush to approve this franchise is justified when the same water service can and will'be provided by North Beach Water Company. Approval of this franchise at this time is thought to remove the incentive of North Beach Water Company to expedite their application. An alter- native to approving this franchise at this time would be to wait for the successful application and approval of the cooperative North Beach Water Company as the preferable water utility system. Note that in this event, Florida Land Company would still have to apply for the sewage system franchise included in the present application. Service rates are set up as a different base rate for water and sewer service and usage rates as shown on the attached table (Exhibit A) of the application franchise. Examples of typical usage bills follow for a 5/8 x 3/4 meter: 61 JUN Unit Usage Water Sewer TOTAL 8000 Gallons Per Month 20.15 24.25 $44.40/month 10,000 Gallons Per Month 23.75 28.75 $52.50/month Note that the fixed usage rate of $1.80 per thousand gallons of water and $2.25 per thousand gallons of sewage are believed to be a bit of a deterrent to wasting water; i.e. it helps promote conser- vation. Oversight of staff in preparing all the Board's information package may not be a proper reason to postpone the public hearing. It is proper to consider postponing the public hearing if the procedures have not been rigorously followed. Recommendation Because of the cloud caused by the advertisement requirements, the staff recommends allowing the developer to present his position, and then use this opportunity to schedule the public hearing at a future meeting, say July 7, 1982, 1:30 P.M. This would enable the advertisement to be properly performed. Other advantages may be that negotiations for the North Beach Water Company may proceed to the point where the Florida Land Company will not want to be in the water business for their own franchise. The Attorney for Florida Land Company, William Sundstrom, informed the Board that legal notice was published in the Press Journal as follows and he has the proof of publication in affidavit form: i BEFORE THE BOARD k OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 34 OF INDIAN RIVER. COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Board of County Commissioners will j hold a Public Hearing on June 2, 1982, at 1:30 P.M. at the County Commissioners Chambers at 1840 2Sth Street, Vera Beach, Florida, for the purpose of considering the request of the River [tend Utility Company for a water and sewer franchise. The property which will be covered by the franchise area is a parcel of ground consisting of approximately 84 acres, the northern boundary of which is approximately 1/4 mile south of the Wabasso causeway. Said property is also bounded on the west by the Indian River and on the East by the Atlantic Ocean.. May 17, 1982. q Question arose about placement of the ad, and Chairman Scurlock stated that he had discussed this with the Utility Department and apparently normal procedure has not been followed. He believed there has been some lack of understanding about coordinating this activity. 21982 BOK 44 9 PAGE 900 . . JUN 21982 SOK49 Ftic 901 Utility Director Liner reviewed the facts set out in his memos in regard to advising Attorney Sundstrom that certain conditions must be met before we could set up the date for a public hearing, and noted that Attorney Sundstrom is the one who arranged to get the ad in the paper to meet the required deadline. Attorney U-randenburg explained that the Utilities Department has adopted an in-house procedure whereby they treat these notices the same as if for adoption of an ordinance. The subject ad does not meet the requirements of the in-house procedure, but it does meet the law regarding notice as set out in the Utilities Act, and, therefore, the Board has the latitude to adopt the franchise today, if desired. He continued that another aspect of the public hearing is notification that a person may bring a transcriber to the meeting. This was left out of the ad, but the applicant has brought a court reporter and so that defect has been cured by that action. Chairman Scurlock felt that we must give a great deal of credit to the North Beach developers for their desire to move forward with the North Beach Water Company and provide an overall plant for service for that entire area of the barrier island, but, although there is a "roll-over" provision in the proposed River Bend franchise, he did not find it satisfactory in that he believed it did not keep up the motivation to follow through with the formation of the North Beach Water Company. The Chairman believed issuing an interim franchise to River Bend was the wrong sequence of things, and based on the existing document as presented, he would be in opposition to it. It appears, however, that Florida Land Company has worked out some additional provisions with Attorney Brandenburg, and,he felt it would be appropriate for the Board to at least hear what these are. k 4 Dale Crosby, Vice President of Florida Land Company, stated for the record that Florida Land Company since February has taken the lead on the proposition for an overall North Beach water system; everything they have done in dealing with water supply for the North Beach area has been geared toward a common North Beach utility company, and a lot of time, money and energy has been spent to see that this comes to fruition. Mr. Crosby detailed what they have been through, including selecting engineers for design of the water plant, and stated they are now at the point where they are ready to contract to drill a well which will be situated half -on Florida Land Company property and half on Sea Oaks property. He pointed out that if this well were just for Florida Land Company, it not only would be in a different location, but it would be half the size; and before drilling this well, they would like to have some assurance that North Beach Water Company will be approved by the Board. Mr. Crosby informed the Board that he has a letter from Attorney Caldwell stating that Sea Oaksisfully in support of North Beach Water Company as is Florida Land Company, and these two companies by themselves represent 800 of the development interests on the North Beach. The "roll-over" provision they are proposing suggests that the North Beach Water Company franchise would be granted within 30 days and ties it together so that River Bend is obligated to be part of the North Beach Water Company. Commissioner Fletcher had questions about the proposed well, and Gerald Chancellor, Utilities Manager of Florida Land Company, informed the Board that they have a consumptive use permit from St. John's River Water Management District, and they are planning to put down a 16" well to a total depth of 800 to 900 feet into the Floridan aquifer. The well site is being moved as close as possible 46 to the river at the recommendation of the geologist and well JUN 21982 a®a 49, PAbE 9 ° 46 JUN 2198 ooK 49 PAU 903 driller to avoid the risk of having a dry hole. Sea Oaks also will have a wellfield site adjacent to the river. He explained that DER regulations require that they have at least two wells, one to supply backup. These wells will _ duplicate each other and provide the same capabilities. They will be the first phase of the North Beach Water Company and additional wells will be drilled at other sites in the future. Commissioner Lyons stated that he keeps feeling that we are being asked to put the cart before the horse. If we are talking about pieces of what is going to be the North Beach Water Company, he questioned why we don't handle the whole project first and then let the pieces fall under that umbrella. Attorney Sundstrom noted that the biggest reason they decided to come here today is that they are on a critical path of analysis on a certain set of time frames that have to come together. Because of this time table, they feel that the failure to secure their franchise could be a disincentive to them and cause them to lose about seven months, which might as well be a year. Mr. Sundstrom continued to emphasize Florida Land's leadership re a unified water system, noting that it is the County who wants control over the water system, not Florida Land, and pointing out that if Florida Land Company did not follow through on the North Beach Water Company project, they would lose their consumptive use permit because they do not need such a big well. Mr. Sundstrom then discussed the so-called "roll-over" provision, noting that the franchise presented today already has been modified by five rewrites at request of staff. He proposed a further rewording of Section 22, which contains the roll-over provision, to state that the franchise will be granted as an interim franchise, only as regards potable water, with the understanding that the 47 4 applicant shall diligently and continuously prosecute the franchise application of North Beach Water Company and the sincere commitment by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County to expeditiously process same to fruition within 30 days of the date hereof. Mr. Sundstrom emphasized that Florida Land simply needs the River Bend franchise now because of internal timing, and they are willing to do whatever the Board wants. Attorney Brandenburg did not know of any stronger language than that suggested by Attorney Sundstrom to absolutely tie River Bend into a unified North Beach water system, but asked if it is the intent that the River Bend franchise would come to an end and River Bend would have to reapply if for some reason the county did not grant the North Beach franchise in the 30 day period. Attorney Sundstrom believed they would revert to the remainder of the language in the roll-over provision. Chairman Scurlock felt that actually they are giving only a target date and not binding anything. Attorney Sundstrom pointed out that he cannot come up with language that will commit the Board to a certain action, and stated that if the Board could come up with the language, they would agree to it. Commissioner Wodtke felt it is necessary to have some trust on both sides. Florida Land apparently is taking some risk in putting down a larger well than they need, and the Board obviously does not want to address this developer by developer and have a proliferation of water plants. Since Florida Land has stated this has to be addressed within 30 days, he asked if they would have any objection to putting an expiration date on the River Bend franchise. JUN 21982 Attorney Sundstrom stated that to have a total M BOOK 49 PAA 90 4 Fr'_ -1 JUN 21982 BOOK 49 PA' GF 905 divestment would be a terrible risk hanging on circumstances over which they have no control. Lengthy conversation ensued re the inadvisability of having a number of small plants, and the fact that the - Commission has to answer others who may want franchises the same as River Bend. The possibility of River Bend agreeing to a franchise where they would commit themselves to service the other developers in the North Beach area, should the North Beach Water Company not be successful for any reason, was suggested, and Attorney Sundstrom stated that they would agree to this. Commissioner Wodtke brought up the point that many very important items, such as source of water, prevention of excessive use, etc., are addressed in the draft of the North Beach franchise that are not included in the River Bend franchise. Gerald Chancellor informed the Board that they will use the Floridan aquifer; potable water will not be used for irrigation; and conservation methods will be employed, such as low -flush toilets, which are now mandated, salt resistant facilities, etc., and Attorney Sundstrom noted that the North Beach document by its very nature is a far more complicated document while the River Bend franchise was drafted with the specific intent that it would cease to exist upon granting of the other document. He pointed out that they have tried to cooperate in every way to tighten up the River Bend -franchise and requested that the Commission not send them back for another rewrite. Commissioner Bird stated that he personally did not have any problem with the spirit or intent,of what we are trying to accomplish and why Florida Land wants the interim franchise, but felt it would be less confusing if the new verbiage were incorporated in the proposed River Bend 4 franchise as quickly as possible and a Special Meeting scheduled for a week from today at which time final action could be taken. He stated that he also would agree today to scheduling a public hearing for River Bend and_hopeful'ly,for adoption of the North Beach Water Company franchise. Attorney Sundstrom felt that is a practical answer to the situation and that they could have the reworded document back by Friday. Commissioner Wodtke asked Attorney Henderson, who represents participants in the North Beach Water Company, if he was ready to make an application for a franchise and if he would like to have a public hearing date for that addressed. Attorney Henderson replied that he had with him a package he is delivering today containing a draft of a franchise for the North Beach Water Company and requesting a hearing within 30 days. Commissioner Wodtke suggested, if both these franchises are ready, that a date of July 7th be advertised for hearings on both, with the hearing on North Beach Water Company to be held first. He did not believe this would create a seven month delay for Florida Land or affect anything other than their commitment on the well. Attorney Sundstrom and Mr. Crosby stressed that while Florida Land can live with coming back in a week, further delay would hurt them because there is a marketing window, and every month they slip back now, they lose a month of prime marketing time; they could entirely miss the peak marketing season. Commissioner Bird suggested that, if the Commission agrees with coming back next week, perhaps that time also could be utilized for a workshop on the North Beach Water franchise rather than waiting for a public hearing to rewrite the franchise. JUN 2 1982 am 49 -'-PAGE 9a6_ 50 UN 21982 ®o 9 VAN Attorney Henderson felt a workshop was a good idea, but noted that he will be out of town on vacation at that time. He believed the other attorneys could work on this in the meantime. The Chairman called a brief recess. The Board reconvened with the same members present, and Chairman Scurlock asked Attorney Brandenburg to comment on the language discussed. Attorney Brandenburg stated that the only two clear options are either to indicate the Board will not consider any franchise except the one whole one for North Beach or to issue one on an interim basis to River Bend to give them assurance to proceed with the 16" well. One other possibility, in the event the North Beach franchise is not issued, would be a clause providing that within a time period of 30-45 days, the County would readdress the River Bend franchise with the idea of imposing additional requirements looking to River Bend to be a major supplier. Discussion continued as to River Bend wishing some kind of assurance before they put-down a 16" well, and the possibility of a Resolution stating that the Commission has every intention of negotiating a North Beach franchise within a reasonable period of time was suggested. }: Commissioner Fletcher brought up the possibility of the 16" well not proving satisfactory, either economically or as to water quality, causing them to look to the mainland for a water supply. In discussion, it was noted that the majority of the Commission has supported the policy of trying to make the barrier island self-sufficient and agreed that the water would not be taken from the mainland. Chairman Scurlock further noted that St. John's Water Management District will not allow additional water from the mainland wellfield to come over a line across the river. Commissioner Fletcher's other concern was the impact of the proposed 16" well on individuals in this area who are dependent on flow wells. Mr. Chancellor pointed out that their well will be a deeper well, and they have already done deep borings which have shown considerable separation between the upper and lower aquifer. He believed this well would be able to serve many of the area residents and solve their present problems. Commissioner Fletcher continued to express concern about the problems that could be caused, and Mr. Crosby felt the Water Management District will address these concerns. Commissioner Fletcher pointed out that it is difficult legally to prove that damage was done; he did not believe St. John's Water Management District will take the responsibility to answer that question, and felt this is the Board's responsibility. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Dr. Charles Holt, resident of orchid Island, noted that he is about 3/4 of a mile from the proposed 16" well, and he takes the point of view that since the County Commission has the power to grant a franchise to this group, that group then becomes.their agent, which makes the County responsible, and he intends to look to the Commission for redress if this development should ruin his water supply. He urged the County Commission to peruse this with a great deal of care and keep in mind the small individual. 4 Considerable discussion ensued as to the number of free flowing wells on orchid Island and the fact that the Water Management District has stated that the greatest threat to the aquifer is the uncapped wells on the barrier islands. Commissioner Fletcher argued that reverse osmosis generates pollutants and changes the balance of nature by using a pump. He further felt it must be established that JUN 21982 nex , 49 Nb`E 9 8 . , 52 r � JU N 2 2 I& pour 999 the big well will not be drawing water from the fixed non -rechargeable lens. Chairman Scurlock stated that St. John's has clarified that the non -rechargeable lens Commissioner Fletcher is - concerned about is not related to the Floridan aquifer. Dr. Holt commented that of the free flowing wells on Orchid Island,.only two are uncapped and flowing into the river, and he has reported these to the Water Management District at least three times but nothing has been done about them. He felt someone should take some responsibility for capping these free flowing wells. Commissioner Wodtke believed the time may come when we consider these responsibilities in the franchise area. Attorney Michael O'Haire spoke on behalf of the Vero Beach Civic Association, noting that this is one of the most complex and far reaching items the Commission has to deal with and he has not heard one reason to justify a stampede on this issue. He emphasized that the only answer to the water for the barrier island is through a unified effort, and there is no point in taking these one -at -a -time applications. William Koolage of 26th Avenue also could see no reason to address anything other than the overall North Beach -- franchise and urged that the Board not act in haste. Robert Reider of the Vero Beach Civic Association concurred that this important matter should not be addressed piecemeal. He suggested that consideration might be given to issuing the -franchise to a North Beach Water Company with two main participants. Florida Land and Sea Oaks, which represent about 900 of the total package for a North Beach effort. Mr. Mills spoke vehemently against any possible consideration being given to taking more water from the a 177 mainland, stating that water quality has been adversely affected already. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the -public hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons to table the request for franchise from River Bend until such time as the franchise for the North Beach Water Company is approved. Commissioner Fletcher stated that he would second for purposes of discussion, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that there is no discussion on a motion to table. Commissioner Lyons withdrew his Motion. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher for purposes of discussion, to deny the application for the River Bend franchise and get a date of July 7th for a hearing on the North Beach Water Company Franchise request. Discussion followed as to the technicalities involved with regard to readvertising and reapplication for a sewer franchise if the River Bend franchise were to be denied today, and Attorney Brandenburg recommended that, if the Board intended to consider the current request at a later date, they not deny the franchise today, but just delay it to a later date; if the Board desired to set both hearings for July 7th, he would recommend readvertising. Commissioner Lyons and Commissioner Fletcher withdrew their Motion. .4 Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, to postpone consideration of River Bend franchise until July 7th and request staff to readvertise according to normal policy, establishing a hearing date of July 7th for North Beach Water Company as well as River Bend, with the North Beach hearing to be held first, at 9:00 A.M. JUN 21992 54 �AOK 49 PAGE10410 p r^911, JUN 21982 Commissioner Fletcher noted that his only concern was to make sure the people -in that area know what's coming and have an opportunity to give their input. He asked if it was correct that there will be no more publications. Attorney Brandenburg explained that this will be published all over again according to the normal procedure. He noted that if Commissioner Fletcher should so desire, he could also request -County staff to do some kind of special notice that doesn't just appear in the legal notices section of the paper. Commissioner Fletcher stated that he_personally would feel more comfortable with that as he wished to make sure those folks know what to do. _ Chairman Scurlock believed that the people in the area are following this very closely. P In further discussion, Commissioner Lyons suggested that we have some water experts present at the July 7th hearing date, possibly representatives from our consultants, Geraghty & Miller, as well as from St. John's River Water Management District. Commissioner Bird asked if there is anything the Commission could do today to give Florida Land a little more comfortable feeling about proceeding with their well. Attorney Sundstrom stated they now have no incentive to drill a well, but if the Board would change their Motion to grant the interim franchise subject to the North Beach issue coming before them, he could leave the document with the County Attorney today and could recommend to his client to proceed. He could not do this with the Motion on the floor. Chairman Scurlock pointed out there are many items which were discussed at thi8 meeting and with Attorney Brandenburg, and he had a problem with trying to construct a document today. _ =5 a M M Commissioner Wodtke realized Florida Land is disappointed, but noted that as a private company they have to make decisions and take risks, while the Commission must address this on an overall basis. He felt that he could positively state right now that there is going to be growth on the north island and there is going to be a need for water. He agreed Florida Land had been the leader in this effort and he thanked them, but emphasized he did not want to lose any control with an interim franchise. He was confident an agreement can be reached on July 7th. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and.carried unanimously. Commissioner Wodtke explained to Attorney Sundstrom that on July 7th there will be a hearing on the North Beach Franchise and for River Bend on both sewer and water, and if North Beach is approved, we will only need to address the sewer for River Bend at that time or could address both if North Beach is not approved. RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND - LAURELWOOD UNIT 4 Recommendation of the Public Works Director is as follows: JUN 2 1992 56 wx 49 PAGE 9.2 JUN 21992 TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 18, 1982 FI LE: Board of County Commissioners _ THRU: David 6_\1 Grp e� e, Assistant County Administrator SUBJECT: Request for Release of Performance " Bond - Laurelwood Unit 4 b FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. , REFERENCES: Robert T. Shutts, Laurel Homes; to Public Works Director Neil A. Nelson dated April 15, 1982 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Mr. Robert Shutts, Executive Vice President of Laurel Homes, is requesting final acceptance of the paving and drainage improvements for Laurelwood Unit 4 Subdivision. Mr. Shutts,.the Engineer-Rf-Record, has certified that.all improve- ments have been constructed in compliance with t1f& Indian River'Cbunty Subdivision Regulations and the approved Preliminary Plan. As -built drawings, Release of Lien Affidavit, and a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $7.100. to cover drainage and paving improvements have been received by the County. ALTEMNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The County Public Works Director inspected the subdivision improvements in April, 1982, and has approved all work performed in the rights-of-way. In Mr. Shutts letter dated.April 15, 1982, (copy attached), it is stated that individual lot drainage and erosion control will take place during the landscaping phase of house construction. Furthermore, the County Attorney's office has reviewed the attached documents and has no objections. The developer is requesting the return of the $6,513.18,which represents the remaining 100 of the $65,138.05. cash bond,plus accrued interest. RECONI%Ei TDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the following motion be made: 1) that the paving and drainage improvements for Laurelwood Unit 4 Sub- division be accepted by the Board of County Commissioners 2) that $6,513.18 plus accrued interest be released to Laurel Builders, Inc. (This amount represents 10% of the original Performance Bond posted in the County's Escrow Account). 3) that the Street and drainage maintenance bond in the amount of $72100, be accepted to cover the 1 year warranty period. Funding to come from the County's Escrow Account. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously accepted the paving and drainage improvements for Laurelwood Subdivision Unit 4 and approved release of the remaining 10% of the Performance Bond in the amount of $6,513.18, plus accrued interest. DISCUSSION RE COMMITMENT FOR FUNDING OF "SAVE OUR COAST" W -09Z i= U The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 21, 1982 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THRU: David L. Greene, Assistant County Administrator SUBJECT: Committment for Funding of "Save Our Coast Program" FROM: James W. Davis,P.E REFERENCES: Elton J. Gissondanner,Execufive Public Works Director Director, Florida Dept. of Natural Resources, to Honorable Patrick B. Lyons dated May 13, 1982 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Department of Natru_al Resources has determined that two of the four parcels which the County has applied for acquisition funds under the "Save Our Coast" program are being nominated to the Governor and Cabinet for inclu- sion on a priority list iif July, 1982. The two properties nominated are: 1) a 16.5 acre ± tract immediately south of the Wabasso Beach Park 2) a 22.5 acre ± tract south of the Seagrove Development north of the Moorings. In the D.N.R.'s May 13 letter, it is stated that the County must submit an early expression that it will develop, operate, and maintain the site(s) after acquisition. 4 Additionally, the D.N.R. asks that the County advise the agency of the amount of funding the County is willing to commit at this time. A response is to be submitted prior to June 1, 1982. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS ' Beach front property in the area of Parcel # 1, Wabasso Beach, has pre- viously sold for $2,000 to $2,500. per front foot. Since this parcel contains 1200 feet of ocean frontage, its purchase price could range from $2,400,000 to $3,000,000. In taking an average value, a figure of $2,700,000. is appli- cable. If the County were to obligate 10% of the cost,the County's share would be $270,000. JUN 21982 wK , 4.9 pAtE914 58 JUN 21982 1aw 49 A.c 915 Beach front property in the area of Parcel#3,South Beach"North of the Moorings, has previously sold for approx. $3,000. per front foot. The fron- [tage at this site is 8501. Since the depth of this parcel is 16001, the addi- tional AlA frontage may cost approx. $100,000. per acre. A very rough cost estimate for the 22.5± acres is approx. $4,000,000. The above figures are not based upon formal appraisals but from general Imowledge of the area. °; `' RECOM\ ENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that a motion be made to adopt a Resolution committing the County to the following 1) That the County shall develop, operate, and maintain the sites if acquired. 2) That the County agrees to fund a specific amount to be included in the'' resolution, that amount to be set aside at the budget hearing. Public Works Director Davis reported. that Mr. Buchanan of the Department of Natural Resources anticipates this will be a 200 million dollar 4- year program, with two 25 million dollar bond issues being made yearly. The applications will be evaluated yearly. It appears two of our applications have an excellent chance of being funded, and two have a lesser chance. Mr. Davis talked about the criteria for evaluation and noted that the threat of possible development gives property a higher priority. Commissioner Lyons expressed the belief that the people in this County would be willing to have a bond of issue of 1/2 a million or more to raise our percentage for this purpose. - Commissioner Wodtke agreed we need to acquire as much beachfront property as we can, but questioned obligating $600,000 out of our upcoming budget before getting into budget sessions. Discussion ensued on the possibility of a referendum on a bond issue and the time frame involved. Community Services Director "Tommy" Thomas noted that November 2nd is the date of the general election, and the,Supervisor of Elections would need all the material aproximately six weeks prior to that date. Discussion followed as to whether waiting that long would cut back on our chances for being funded, and Commissioner Lyons suggested that we indicate by Resolution that this county is willing to initiate a referendum for a bond issue for the necessary funds up to one million dollars. Discussion followed as to the sharing factor concerned, and it was noted that the more you are willing to ante, the higher the State is willing to put you on the priority list. They apparently are trying out to work out how to buy the most property for the least amount of funding. Commissioner Bird brought up the possibility of trying for a larger amount and applying later, and Mr. Thomas pointed out that the fact that you approve bonds up to a certain amount does not mean that you are required to spend them all -at once. Discussion continued as to the necessity of being able to assure that we will be able to develop any property we acquire, and the advisability of being able to propose an overall concept when selling this program to the public. It was agreed that this will require a comprehensive approach and a sales job. Commissioner Lyons discussed a Motion to remand this matter to the Parks & Recreation Committee and inform them we need some idea of how much of the bond issue should be related to land cost and how much for improvements. Further discussion ensued in regard to participating at a certain percentage, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that the Board could commit a certain amount in the budget and indicate their intent to move forward on a bond issue at a much greater amount after a referendum. Commissioner Fletcher felt we must determine first how much we think the public will go for on a referendum, and he expressed the belief that the public would go along with JUN 21982 60 �so�c 49: PAGE 916, JUN 21992 Sony 49 917 a bond issue of between four and six million to buy future beachfront. Commissioner Bird believed this could be sold for five million as well as four. - Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, to have a referendum placed on the ballot at the next general election to approve a five million dollar bond issue for purchasing and improving beachfront property, and to agree that 1% ($50,000) be earmarked out of the 82-83 budget for the "Save Our Coast Program." The possibility of the referendum not passing and the fact that we don't know what we are facing with the budget at this time was brought up, and Chairman Scurlock preferred just to go with the referendum and not earmark the budget. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we have to settle the number of million we want to put on a referendum today. He noted two million could be applied towards purchase and three million towards development, and pointed out that the DNR is only interested in knowing what we are willing to put towards purchasing. Commissioner Bird felt it will cost far less to develop the land than to purchase it. After considerable conversation on various figures, Commissioners Fletcher and Lyons agreed to withdraw their Motion and reschedule this discussion for the next meeting. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously agreed to extend today's meeting until 5:15 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Bird noted that Mr. Gissendanner of the Department of Natural Resources wishes a written response, and he suggested that the Board instruct Public Works Director Davis to correspond with the DNR and indicate we have shown interest in placing a referendum on the ballot re a bond issue for acquisition of beachfront property, the amount to be determined at the next regular meeting of the Board. The Board agreed. EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL - WALTER BIEBER The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Board DATE: May 14, 1982 FILE: IRc-81-SP-4� of County Commissioners - SUBJECT: WALTER BIEBER' S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM: Davie L Greene REFERENCES: Letter from Michael O'Ha' ire Assistant County Administrator to Dennis Ragsdale, dated May 7, 1982. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Mr. Walter Bieber's site plan for the construction of an 11,'960 sq. ft. retail sales facility was unanimously approved at the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission held on June 11, 1981. Section 23, Site Plan Approval (f) (14) (h) of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances states,It"Time limit: The site plan approval shall -terminate twelve (12) months thereafter if construction has not been started. Extensions of time may be made by the Board of County Commissioners at its discretion." As of this date, construction of Mr. Bieber's proposed retail sales facility has not been started. The site plan approval will expire on June 11, 1982. On May 11, 1982, the Planning Department received a letter from Micahel O'Haire requesting extension of Mr. Bieber's site plan approval. The referenced letter states, "The extension is required because uncertain times and the volatility of the money market have made commencement of construction impossible." ANALYSIS: Several general commercial establishments are located in the vicinity of the site which is situated between 11th Place S.W. and 11th Lane S.W. on the east side of U.S. #1. This area -is within the 80 acre commercial node located at the U.S. #1 and Oslo Road intersection. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a one year extension of Mr. Bieber's site plan approval. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously granted a one year extension of site plan approval for Walter Bieber. JUN 21982 62 JUN 21982 p ar.l9 ENGINEERING SERVICES - 16TH STREET The Board reviewed the recommendations of the Public Works Director as follows: T V; Honorable Members of the DATE: May 25, 1982 F1 LE: Board of County Commissioners b- THRU: David L. Greene, SUBJECT: Engagement of Engineering Services - Assistant County Administrator 16th Street Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements FROM: Jim Davis, P.E.,IfREFERENCES: Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Technical Complement of the Transportation PLanning Committee acting as the Selection Committee appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, conducted interviews of four engineering firms. These firms were selected by the Committee from the thirteen letters -of .interest received April 23, 1982, in response to the County's public advertisement. The Committee recommends that the County begin negotiations with the following firms in order of preference: 1) Lloyd and Associates - Vero Beach, Fl. This choice is subject to receiving DOT certification for Traffic Operations Design. 2) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. - West Palm Beach, F1. 3) Williams, Hatfield and Stoner, Inc., Fort Lauderdale in association with Carter and Associates, Vero Beach 4) Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. Orlando, Florida. in association with Beindorf and Associates , Vero Beach, Fl. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS In compliance with Florida Statutes Chapter 287.055, known as the "Consultants Competitive. Negotiation Aft", paragraph 5(a) states that the County "shall negotiate a contract with the most qualified firm for professional services at compensation which the agency determines is fair, competitive, and reasonable". RECON, MENDATIONS AND FUNDING In compliance with Florida Statutes Chapter 287.055, it is recommended that: 1) The County Public Works Director, a representative of the County Administrator's office and a representative of the County Attorney's office be authorized to begin negotiations with the first firm on the list, Lloyd and Associates. If for some reason.a satisfactory agreement is not reached with the first firm, or the firm does not receive DOT certification,the negotiations shall be terminated and after proper notification, negotiations shall proceed with the second firm, etc. 2) Once an agreement is reached, the selected firm will submit a written proposal for undertaking the project, which, upon acceptance by the Board of County Commissioners, shall constitute a contract. C i7---7 Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded,by Commissioner Lyons, to accept staff's recommendation and begin negotiations with Lloyd and Associates. Commissioner Bird noted that apparently the technical complement does not feel that the fact that this firm presently does not have DOT certification for traffic operations design is a problem and indicates that they do not have this expertise. Mr. David noted that Lloyd and Associates have expanded their staff with people who would qualify for this type of work; they are doing condemnation work for the DOT; and they should receive the certification soon. Chairman Scurlock commented on the fact that if there is not a great spread in the qualifications of the firms recommended, he felt a local firm with local people should be used. Commissioner Fletcher asked about a time requirement for obtaining the DOT certification, and Mr. Davis stated that Lloyd and Associates indicated they should be able to get this by next week, and he would hope they would have it within two weeks. Commissioner Fletcher stated that he would make it a part of his Motion that the No. 1 firm be certified within two weeks, and Commissioner Lyons confirmed his second to the inclusion. Further discussion continued in regard to Lloyd and Associates expertise in this aspect of design, and it was •4 felt that the Board would have to rely on the judgment of the technical people and staff. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - HIDDEN HAMMOCK SUBDIVISION JUN 2.1982 Staff recommendation is as follows: 64 8eow 49. PAGE 920 r � JUN 21992 �oX . 49.. TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: May 11, 1982 FILE: IRC -8I -SD -22 County Commissioners #235 LJ—'t�a FROM: David L. Greene Assistant County .t. SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR HIDDEN HAMMOCK SUBDIVISION REFERENCES: Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The applicant is requesting Final Plat Approval for Hidden Hammock Subdivision. The 11.16 acr(_.plat will ba. -divided into 15 lots. The -site is located on the south side'of 12th Street, approximately 1/4 mile west of 43rd Avenue. LD -1 (up to 3 units/acre).is the Land Use Designation and R-lA, Single Family Residential (4.3 units/acre) is the zoning of the proposed subdivision. Glendale Lakes, a 91 lot subdivision, is located to the south. Banyon acres, a 4 lot subdivision and Kanawha Acres with 15 lots, are located to the west. Idlewild Subdivision, with 80 lots, is located to the north and the property immedi- ately east is presently zoned Agricultural. ANALYSIS: On March 3, 1982, at the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, Hidden Hammock Subdivision received Preliminary Plat Approval with the following conditions: 1) The existing residence which is located 10' from the proposed right-of-way shall be removed or relocated so that it meets the 25' front yard setback required in a R-lA zoning district; and 2) A fifteen foot right-of-way shall be dedicated on they south property line. As an alternative to condition number 1, the applicant proposes to relocate the right-of-way and remove 10 feet of the existing structure. The portion of the structure which will be removed is presently being used as a carport. This alternative will create a 25 foot front yard as required in the R-lA zoning district. The 15' right-of-way dedication on the south property line is shown on the Plat. The lots in the proposed subdivision will have a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre. The resulting maximum density of 2 units/acre complies with the existing zoning and Land Use Designation. The Final Plat documents have been reviewed by the County Staff. All staff comments have received appropriate attention. RECO�L'vIENDATION AND FUNDING: 1) That Final Plat Approval be granted for Hidden Hammock Subdivision. 2) That the Board of County Commissioners accept a cash bond for the amount of $94,7.70 to cover the cost of the proposed improvements. 65 k On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner -Lyons, the Board unanimously granted final plat approval of Hidden Hammock Subdivision and accepted performance bond as recommended by staff. EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - CASSARA HEIGHTS The Board reviewed the following memo and letter from Carter Associates: TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: May 20, 1982 FILE: IRC-80-S/D-1" County Commissioners #229 SUBJECT: Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval of Cassara Heights Subdivision Letter from Marvin E. Carter to David Greene, Acting_ FROM: David Greene REFERENCES: County Administrator, dated Assistant County Administrator May 14, 1982. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Cassara Heights Subdivision received Preliminary Plat Approval on January 28, 1981. The Subdivision Ordinance states that "approval of the Board shall have full force and effect.for a period of eighteen (18)- months from the�-date of. approval: An extension may be granted by the Board". The approval of Cassara Heights will expire on June 28, 1982. The attached referenced letter indicates the reasons for the requested extension. P_NALYS IS The proposed subdivision is located on the north side of 4th Street approximately 1/4 mile east of 27th Avenue. The development will include 29 lots on a 20 acre parcel of -land and the minimum lot size will be 1/2 acre. -4 RECOI-RIENDATION That a one year extension of Preliminary Plat Approval be granted to Cassara Heights Subdivision. JUN 21982 .a 49 PR€ E 922 .p JUN 21982 49 23 I CRITTER .-SSS OC)'TA 1'ES, INC. CO\SL:LTING ENGINEERS S AND LAND SURVEYORS .MARVIN E. CARTER, R.L.S. 1708 - 21st STREET LANA HOWARD, R.L.S. VERO BEACH, FL. 32960 DEAN F. LL'ETHJE, P.E. 305 - 562-4191 May 14, 1982 ,,. Indian River County Commission 1840 25th St. Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 Att: Mr. David Greene, Acting County Administrator Dear Mr. Greene: On behalf of our clients, Peter and Marjorie Cassara, we are herewith requesting an extension of time of approval of the preliminary plat of proposed Cassara Heights Subdivision. The Board of County Commissioners originally approved this preliminary plat on January 28, 1981. The state of the economy with resultant inflationary costs and high interest rates, together with other non -controllable circumstances for the Cassara's have placed them in an impossible position to meet the original planned com- pletion date. We are in the process of completing design plans for the project and will be submitting them to appropiate County Agencies for concurance and approval prior to start of any construction on the project. Mr. Cassara has asked that we request a one-year (12 month) extension of the preliminary plat approval so that he may complete the project and record the final plat. He further requests this matter be placed on the earliest possible Commission Agenda and we will be glad to attend such meeting if necessary. Looking forward to hearing from you on this matter at your earliest possible convenience, I remain, On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously granted a one year extension of Preliminary Plat Approval to Cassara Heights Subdivision. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously agreed to extend today's meeting to 5:30 o'clock P.M. REPLACEMENT OF ROAD AND BRIDGE EQUIPMENT The Board reviewed the following memo from the Public Works Director: TO: The Honorable Members of the DHTLE: lktay 26, 1982-- F1 LE: Board of County Commissioners THRU: David L. Greene, SUBJECT: Request to Replace Road and Bride Assistant County Administrator Division Equipment g FROM: James W. Davis, P.EIT REFERENCES: 1) Albert VanAuken, Supt. Road & Public Works Director Bridge Division to Jim Davis, dated 5-18-82 2) Bernard Stuber, Office of the Supervisor of Elections, to Albert VanAuken dated 5-18-82 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS As described in the attached memo from the Superintendent of the Road and Biidge Division, there are currently funds in the amount of $119,959.42 within the Road and Bridge Division FY 81-82 Budget. The following Equipment is needed to replace vehicles which are necessary. for the Division to perform day.to day operation. By purchasing this equipment, savings can be realized in landfill fees, vehicle maintenance costs, and increased inflationary costs. ALTERMATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since funds are available in the FY 81-82 Road and Bridge Budget, no other funding alternatives are presented. By using these budgeted funds, substantial savings can be realized from landfill fees, and vehicle maintenance costs. A complete inventory and analysis of Road and Bridge Equipment has been prepared. This study has indicated that these vehicles are a top priority for replacement. RECOVIKENNDATIONS AND FUNDING _ •4 It is recommended that the unencumbered balance of -approximately $119,959.42 in the Road and Bridge Division fund 102-214-541-66 (automotive, heavy equipment, and other machines and equipment) be used to purchase the following Approximate Cost 1 Olpder Truck $ 14,000, 1 6 yd Dump Truck 49,000. 29,000. 1 Lift gate 3,800. 1 Pickup (mid-size) 8,400. 1 Crew -cab Truck 12,000. TIT6—, 0� To accomplish this action, it is recommended that the appropriate line trans- fers be approved. JUN 21982 U09. 49, fAGE-924 JUN 21982 0 49 Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, to approve the recommendation of staff re purchase of equipment as set out in memo of James Davis dated May 26, 1982. - Commissioner Wodtke's concern was that this was discussed at budget time last year and we really have no idea what is coming up next year. He preferred to address this in budget sessions. Mr. Davis reported that neither Public Works nor the Road & Bridge Department will expend all their budgeted funds for this fiscal year, and additional revenue has been generated by the paving of streets, for which we are receiving contributions from the School Board and from Village Green. He believed there will be excess funds that the Commission can draw upon. Commissioner Wodtke noted that we don't necessarily have to spend excess funds. He asked if Mr. Davis could tell the Commission what he will need next year. Mr. Davis commented that he has developed a chart of all equipment and a capital replacement program based on criteria developed by the Florida Department of General Services, which he prepared to demonstrate what the needs would be if we used State criteria for replacement and t6 - show the Board the total picture. He emphasized that it is not economical to repair the trucks they are requesting be replaced, based on salvage value, etc. Chairman Scurlock stated that he had a lot of faith in the Public Works Director, but his problem is that the Commission does go through such a laborious process in reviewing all these needs at budget time. Discussion continued as to addressing this at budget time. Commissioner Fletcher stated that he had the same concerns, but he has visited the Road & Bridge complex and he has gained a great deal c-_` faith 4Tir. Davis. He a - e believed these items are prioritized and that they have great justification for all of them. His only question was relative to.the need for a crew -cab truck in that he would personally prefer to get a 1 -ton flatbed with a cab built over it. Discussion continued as to the need for the various trucks, and it was noted that these trucks run constantly supplying in-kind services, in addition to their other duties. Commissioner Lyons felt it would be wise to purchase these now while we have the funds. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 8TH STREET EXTENSION RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the Assistant County Attorney'.s memo in regard to the 8th Street extension right-of-way acquisition as follows and recommended that the Board enter into a.purchase agreement with Mr. LaFevers: TO: Board of County DATE: June 1, 1982 FILE: Commissioners SUBJECT: Acquisition of 8th Street Right -of -Way --Current Offer rnCounty FROM: Christr J.Paull REFERENCES: AssistAttorney •4 This office has continued to work on the acquisition of right-of- way for the 8th Street extension, as previously authorized and dis- cussed at the Board of County Commissioners' meeting on May 5, 1982. You will recall that the project requires acquisition of three (3) parcels of property and that terms have been reached previously on the smallest of the three with Mr. James Hammond. The other two parcels are owned by Mr. & Mrs. Skip Wright and C. L. LaFevers, Jr. LaFevers owns the largest of the three parcels and has delivered a counter-offer to the County which warrants formal consideration at this time. As indicated in the attached letter from Charles JUN 21982 agow 49 PAE 926 70 JUN 21982 nor 4R -,PA -,1,'-9Z7 Sullivan, attorney for LaFevers, the owner will convey to the County the south 50 feet of the quarter section, from U. S. #1 through to 6th Avenue, for a purchase price of $85,000.00, plus attorney's fees in the amount of $7,000.00. The previous terms quoted by the owner on this parcel were $95,000.00 purchase price plus $9,500.00 attorney's fees. This represents a compromise by_ the Seller of $12,500.00. Note that this conveyance would include the 15 foot undedicated road shown on the original plat which has been a subject of dispute throughout the negotiations. In order to establish an implied dedication of this road, it may be necessary for the County to resort to litigation and to prove that the original owner clearly intended to dedicate same. As a practical matter, this sort of evidence would be difficult if not impossible to come by, as the plat was recorded in 1914. RECOMMENDATION When compared to the appraisals received by the County, and in light of the expense of litigation which would be required to resolve an arguable question, it is this office's recommendation that the most recent offer by Mr. LaFevers be viewed as a reasonable compromise. If approved, the purchase should be made contingent upon the Seller providing unconditional, full value, title insurance on the entire 50 feet of width. Another condition should be that the purchase is contingent upon acquisition of the Skip Wright parcel, which is still being negotiated at this time. Attorney Brandenburg commented that the purchase price of $85,000 is substantially below the appraisal of $91,000, and this, plus the $7,000 attorney's fees, will bring it to just slightly over the appraisal. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved entering into a purchase agreement with C. L. LaFevers, Jr., for the right-of-way as described in Mr. Paull's memo of June 1,`'" 1982, contingent upon acquisition of the remaining parcel necessary for completion of the 8th Street extension. OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL TO SACO MEETING Commissioner Lyons noted that there is a $50.00 cost per County for the Sales Tax and Legislation Workshop to be held by the State Association of County Commissioners in Orlando. He would like to attend and felt possibly some other tommissioners would be interested in'attending, as well as the County Attorney. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved payment of the $50 cost per county and out -of -County travel for -the County Attorney and any Commissioner who wishes to attend the above workshop to be held in Orlando, Wednesday, June 23, 1982-1 SOUND SYSTEM AT COUNTY COURTHOUSE Commissioner Lyons brought up the problems being experienced with the sound system for the Circuit Courtrooms and believed, in this age of technical expertise, there should be some way to enable people in the back of the courtroom to hear the proceedings. Discussion followed as to the fact that the attorneys address the judge and jury and not the back of the room, and Commissioner Lyons inquired about the use of hand held microphones. He noted that one problem is that the air conditioning system roars. Maintenance Supervisor Lynn Williams reported that he spoke with WGYL Sound Engineer Dave Reucher in regard to this sound system, who explained that it is not like the system in the County Commission Chambers where the mikes cut themselves in and out. He suggested disconnecting the speakers closest to the Judge to cut back on feedback, and estimated a costfof $800-$900 per courtroom to cure the problem. In regard to quieting down the air conditioning, this has not been done because it was felt Judge Stikelether's area should be addressed at the same time. Commissioner Wodtke suggested jacks could be installed for the Press such as we have in the County Commission Chambers or earphones, or possibly a speaker could be placed in the back of the room. Dr. Hardin believed these are all just stop gap measures and that the acoustical problem will not be cured until the air system can be balanced. The air condition- ing unit is too large for the Courtroom and is built almost over it. He noted that to balance the air, you must balance JUN 21982 72 ��K ='� PAGE 928 JUN 21982 900K C; 49' F*,� 929 it through the entire building, and we are being held up by not being able to address Judge Stikelether's quarters at this time. Mr. Williams explained that these are separate systems, but it is preferable to have the engineer do everything at one time because he charges per day. ; Commissioner Lyons inquired what would happen if the Commission instructed Mr. Williams to fix this problem, and Mr. Williams stated that he would fix it. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously instructed Maintenance Supervisor Williams to correct the problem with the sound system in the courtrooms as reasonably as possible. REPORT ON PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE A.wBlue Cypress Lake Park Commissioner Bird reported that he did visit Blue Cypress Lake Park with representatives of the Health Department in regard to bringing the water and restroom facilities to a standard that would again allow overnight camping and to get their ideas as to the minimal amount of work and expense that would be needed accomplish this. The Health Department will transmit this information to the - County Engineering Department, and they will come up with some estimates. Upon receipt of a sketch and estimate, this will be brought back to the Board. B. Tracking Station Park Commissioner Bird informed the Board that the development plans for this park were taken back before the Parks & Recreation Committee prior to proceeding with construction drawings, and the public was invited to their meeting. The only recommendation made was that we try to locate the restrooms as far north as possible, and they will 4 attempt to do this. The plan has gone to Engineering for final construction drawings. Chairman Scurlock commented that Mr. Latta of Pebble Beach Villas keeps calling and indicating that the comments on that design were not actually implemented. Commissioner Bird stated that he had discussed this with Public Works Director Davis, and the final plan presented at the last meeting supposedly incorporated all these. DEPARTURE OF ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR It was noted that this is the last meeting Assistant County Administrator Greene will be attending before he leaves to join private industry. Commissioner Lyons wished to state publicly that he feels Mr. Greene has done a fine job and he is sorry to see him go. The several bills and accounts against the County having been audited were examined and found to be correct were approved and warrants issued in settlement of same as follows: Treasury Fund Nos. 80236 - 80628 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 5:40 o'clock P.M. Attest: Clerk JUN 21982 74 Chairman ago 49 -..PAGE. 930-1