The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/16/1982The 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 16, 1982, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present were Alfred Grover Fletcher, Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; Patrick B. Lyons; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman, was absent from the meeting. Also present were C. B. Hardin, Acting Administrator, L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Community Services Director; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves and Janice Caldwell, Deputy Clerks. The Vice Chairman c4lled the meeting to order. Dr. William J. Crowder gave the invocation, and Commissioner Wodtke led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA The Vice Chairman asked if there were any additions to the Agenda. Attorney Brandenburg requested adding an item to the Agenda concerning the garbage franchise fee effective date. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to add the emergency item to the Agenda, as requested by Attorney Brandenburg. Attorney Brandenburg requested adding an item to the Agenda concerning the Duck Point appeal. JUN 18 1982 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to add the emergency item to the Agenda, as requested by Attorney Brandenburg. JUN 16 1982 'I ioox 50 FACE 02 Attorney Brandenburg requested adding an item to the Agenda concerning the Consent Order for Treasure Coast Utilities. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to add the emergency item to the Agenda, as requested by Attorney Brandenburg. Attorney Brandenburg requested adding an item to the Agenda concerning a resolution of commendation for Bamma Lawson. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to .add the emergency item to the Agenda, as requested by Attorney Brandenburg. Attorney Brandenburg requested adding an item to the Agenda concerning a payment request from Reinhold Construction. After a brief discussion, the Board preferred to study the matter further before any action was taken. Acting Administrator Hardin requested adding an item to the Agenda concerning an antenna on the County tower. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously agreed to add the emergency item to the Agenda, as requested by Dr. Hardin. Dr. Hardin next requested adding an item to the Agenda concerning a regatta to be held at the Tracking Station Park. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to add the emergency item to the Agenda, as requested by Dr. Hardin. Commissioner Bird requested adding an item to the Agenda concerning a resolution for Kim Moyer. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously agreed to add the emergency item to the Agenda, as requested by Commissioner Bird. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Vice Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 19, 1982. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 19, 1982, as written. The Vice Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 26, 1982. Commissioner Lyons referred to page 51, line 26 and suggested that the words "Workmens and" be added before "Unemployment Compensation." ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 26, 1982, as amended. JUN 16 1982 JUN 16 1982 0 04 CLERK TO THE BOARD A. Application for Revenue Sharing ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by - ' Commissioner Wodtke, the Board, by a vote of 3 to 1, with Vice Chairman Fletcher voting in opposition, authorized the Vice Chairman to sign the Application for Revenue Sharing 1982-83, State of Florida, Department of Revenue. RANDY MILLER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR STATE OFFIX)RIDIA TALLA HAti:sEF, 32301 APPLICA MN FOR REVENUE SHARING aING 1982 — 83 Ca,A PIER 218, PART xiFLORIDA STATU a cS} i'lease YP1✓OR PRINT all entries except those requiring a signature. PA:&T ONE Name o. -'County Indian Ri ver County :Maine o ,V.un.cipality Board of County Commis si overs 305/567-8000 i c.cpno-.w it urn- ber (Area Code) - (Number) lviayor or Chairman of Governing Body Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman C. 'l;iSCaiOfficer. Jeffrey K. Barton SES i Street. LlerQ EeaL ch.a` FL! 1 Check here if the address above represents a cha ze. ZIP 12g6a i o be y:".„iUll', zo parzicipate in Revenue Sharing beyond the minh:1urn entitlement for any fiscai year, a ,ni Off' ioal .'Gverniati'nt is requxre.- to have: ;.porte.i A.s finances for its most rece:.tly completed fiscal year to the Department of Bank- ing and 1"IYiaince, pursu-,r:t to Section ,iu.J�, �iG:spa Statutes. Made provisions 'or annual pos-. aL:d.ts of its ilitanciai accounts in accordance with Prov:U- ions of law. J. :ViC d, as SiiOVJ;: Oil IIS il-lost recen', financial : c'30ri, -want to Section 218.321. t :ii::�.i S.'-atut'.s., :vu vicloz"' , taX'x s, e>.ciuI Ive. io .ax%3s :i•vicd1 for deb-,.- Service or other Spec:ai ;nillai"es -ho' t:C.d by ':>al: voters, Iii produce the re.vonue equiviiert to :, millage rate of o; -;tilt; zol ::r based •� on r le ;973 tax--, values a;: certitieen, by the appraiser, pu:sL.a:a L, seccto.l 3 9s. i II�iorit:a tali:::.s, o., .:� oruer to „rowuce revenue equivalent to tihat W-,:.. would ota.•rw:se be pro; used Dysaci: a three (3) nill ad valorem: tax, to have rc- ...:Vii. l t' .o Section l._..1.01(6)(a/, i lorida Statutes, or a::i occapati0f L.' I:4. iiSC tax .3i a ut: i.y tax, ievied ars ad valorem tax, or received rive: ue rd}ait aily %.ci .ii.liatAVAA V1 ta.L i, . )-G sc"m.es. ..r,lontila.tt. , , and if applicable, with Section..f i'MCo:.li te �;-�c %t)'io, ni.iialCS:ib amenued o 'l': ji;.1' 62-,454, laws of Floritia. a .:.:iAeti tilt perso,i, tri ilk ::I1%i. y .15 +uiiLe diitic: iti, :t� uL:liil;l. ,n C11apter 43, 1-to:;cla S.at:inlcot toe quaiificatioas for employment as established by the Police Standards JUN 16 1982 4—A JUN 16 1982 yak 50 F*z 06' ouricil, that its sale;.- ::s meet i :e prc�..:o:.s of Chapter 943, Flll.l a Stat�.t..,,, ..>• no police officer is coi:.,..; .sated for his services at an annual rate of less than. six ..ausZ;--" dollars (6,060.00). - (A) Police Officers, as defined in Chapter 943, Florida Statutes, employed by this Unit meet the qualifications for employment as established by the Police Stan- dards Council. Yes CX No ❑ (B) The salary structure and salary plans for law enforcement officers.meet the pro- visiosls of Chapter 943, Florida Statutes. Yes q `. (C) All police officers, as defined in Chapter 943, Florida Statutes, are compensated at an ,annual salary rate of six thousand dollars (6,000.00) or more. Yes IN R. If the. answer to (C) above is (NO), please state as an addendum to this appli- cation any reason you may have for waiver of such requirement (one of which must be that y re levying ten Q 0)mills of ad valorem taxes). t� G SIG NED:° DATE: June 7 1982 Appropriate Law Enforcement Officer R. T. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff.. PART THREE I hereby certify that all of the foregoing information is accurate and true to the best of my knowledge. I further certify that I will promptly report to the Department of Revenue any change in the above infor- mation. I also realize that failure to provide timely information required, pursuant to the administration of this Act shall, by such action, authorize the Department to utilize the best information available or, if no such information.is available, to tale necessary action including DISQUALIFICATION, EITI-IER PARTIAL OR ENTIRE, and shall further, by such action, waive any right to challenge the determination of the De- partment as to its snare, if any, pursuant to the privilege of receiving shared revenues from the Revenue Sharing Trust Funds. ' Do you believe that you have complied with ALL eligibility requirements as set forth above? Yes IN No ❑ If the answer to the above question is (NO), please -provide as an attachment to this form the ampunt of revenue necessary to meet your obligations as a result o: pledges or assignments or trusts entered int which obligated funds received :rom revenue sharin- f il:L2& v SIGNED.-� �; � SIGNED: (Crset Fps ?Mcer) ( Vice- Chairman of Governing Body) DATE: Jt1ne 16, 1982 DATE: Ji�nb 16 198 MA'EL COUPLE c ED ORIGINAL A?1 11L.'CA. a 7G'N T 3 ADDRESS SHOWN BELOW Deonn.—nn nt Of Revellue Finance & Accoui!.—I-ag ca—Ito n Room. 133 Taliahassae, Flwlea 32301 M _ STATE OF FLORIDA;; INDIAN RIVER COUNTY THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE ANO' CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE. FREDA WRIGHT, CLERK BYr. -D.C. DATE �l� -Ic Q M B. Budget Amendment for Hospitalization & Nursing Home - Medicaid Janice M. Lindsey, Welfare Division Manager, approached the Board and reviewed her memorandum dated May 20, 1982, as follows: TO: Tommy Thomas, Community Services Director 01) FROM: Janice M. Lindsey, Division Manager [SATE: May 20, 1982 . FILE: SUBJECT: Increase in Budget REFERENCES: Account No. 001-111-564-33.18 Medicaid - Nursing Home The 1981 - 82 Budget for the Medicaid - Nursing Home account was.... ..... *-***e*--*-$509000-00 Disbursed to date..............$48,038.70 Balance ........................ 1,961.30 Depletion of my budget amount is due to the increase in Nursing Home placements and the increase in Medicaid rates per diem. An estimate of an additional $30,000.00 will be needed to maintain expenditures for remainder of fiscal year. Account leo. 001-211-564-33.17 Hospitalization Beginning Budget ........... $22,500.00 Expenditures ...............$18,034.49 Balance ....................$ 4,465.51 At present 3 Indigent Hospitalizations are still pending. Request an additional $15,000.00 for this account to carry for remainder of fiscal year. Total increase needed $45,000.00 ON MOTION made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board, with a vote of 3 to 1, with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition, approved the budget amendment as outlined in Finance Director Barton's memorandum dated June 9, 1982, as follows: JUN 16 19826 d -7 JUN 16 1982 400K 50,1 ME 08 �To:.. Board of County Pommissioners June 9, 1982 From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director Re: Hospitalization & Nursing Home - Medicaid ' The following budget amendment is necessary due to the fact that as the budget is prepared for the upcoming fiscal year the figures for the,above are only estimates. The welfare department has no idea as to how many people are going to need these services. I recommend that the funds be approved as part of the additional funds adopted. Account Title Account No. Increase Decf-ease Nursing Home 001-111-5.18 201,000 Hospital 001-111-564-33.17 15,000 B.C.C. Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91 35,000 C. Budget Amendment for Housing Authority The Board reviewed Dr. Hardin's memorandum dated March 15, 1982, as follows: TO!'_, .Teff Barton, Inj`ian River DATE: March 15, 1982 FILE: County Finance Director SUBJECT: Budget Amendment FROM: C. B. Hardin, Jr. ,Ph.D. REFERENCES: Asst. to County Administrator/ Personnel Director On November 23, 1982, Ernestine Park was transferred from the County Administrator's office to the Housing Authoritq/ Community Devglopment office. This was a lateral transfer with the same rate of compen- sation. She Tlas assigned to the position of Sr. Secretary to Edward J. Regan, Director of the Indian River County Housing Authority/Community Development. Her salary a.s to remain $555.56 bi-,weekly through this FY, assuming her efficiency remains the same. This year, the position of Sr. Secretary is budgeted for $10,799. Her salary as an Administrative Secretary is $14,44.4.56. The differentials in salary would cause a budget shortfall to the Housing Authority of $3,645.50 in salaries, plus a 26% in fringe benefit -costs. Mr, Regan advises me that Ernestine Park is rendering servi.ces'comparable to that of an Administrative Secretary and that assuming her efficiency remains the same, the likelihood is that her position will be included with that job description in the Housing Authority budget for FY '82-'83. Please*lnclude this item among the next amendments that are Placed on the agenda for approval. The appropriate adjustments are to to or about November 24, 1981. group of budget County Commission be made retroactive MOTION was made by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board approve the Budget Amendment, as recommended by Finance Director Barton in the following memorandum dated June 9, 1982: June 9, 1982 To: From: Board of County Pommissioners Jeffrey K. Bartop, Finance Director Re: Housing Authority Budget for Salaries and Benefits The following budget amepdment is necessary due to the transfer of Ernestine Park to the Housing Authprity/Community Development office with the same rate of compensation as she wps at during her employment with the Administrator's office. This has caused a shortfall in the Housing Authority's budget for salaries and benefits. recommend that the funds be approved as part of the additional funds adopted. Account Title Account Ne. Increase Decrease Salaries 108-226-554-11.12 3,646 Fica 108-226-554-12.11 2.45 • Florida Retirement 108-226-554-12.12 399, Workman's Comp. 108-226-554-12:14 20 Fund Transfer In 108-000-381-20.00 4,310 Salaries 001-201-512-11.12 3,646 Fica 001-201-512-12.11 245 Florida Retirement 001-,210-512-12.12 - 399 Workman's Comp. 001-201-512-12:14 20 Transfers Out 001-199-581-99.21 4,310 VICE CHAIRMAN FLETCHER CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 3 to 1, with Vice Chairman Fletcher voting in opposition. D. Transfer of Charges The Board next discussed the following memorandum dated May 27, 1982: JUN 16 1982 8 c 50` 09 JUN 16 1982 10 TO: Board of County Corrundjssioners DATE: May 27, 1982 FILE: Indian River County SUBJECT: Transfer of Charges FROM: _.� EFERENCES: Jeffrey <. Ba n, Finance Director Indian River County Since October 1, 1981, the following items have been charged to Acct # 102-220-519-66.4i Vendor Item Amount 1. Leon Industrial Supply Water Cooler - Admin. Bldg. 245.25 2. Hughes Supply. Water Cooler - Admin. Bldg. 538.63 3. Grimes Airconditioning A/C Duct - Computer Room 1,000.00 4. B'& W. Electric Electric Alterations - 3rd Floor 1,550.00 5. Fisher -Robinson 3rd Floor Alterations 2,855.00 6. Fisher -Robinson 3rd Floor Alterations 1,700.00 7. Fisher -Robinson Youth Guidance Renovation 1,050.00 8. Fisher -Robinson Youth Guidance Renovation 410.00 9. Big Pine Nursery Landscaping - Admin. Building 19.50 10. Edw. Miller & Son Landscaping - Admin. Building 762.50 11. Loxahatchee Nursery Landscaping - Admin. Building 90.00 12. Graybar Electric Contact Kit - Admin. Building 196.94 13. Fisher -Robinson Partition -Sheriff's Office (Annex) 3,390.00 14. Domar Stone Co. Landscaping - Admin. Building 25.00 15. Graybar Electric Coil - Admin. Building 45.32 16. Graybar Electric Light Fixtures (Courthouse) 367.30 17. Fisher -Robinson Partition (State Attorney's Office) 2,547.00 18. The Carpetbagger Test Carpet (Judge Stikelether) 657.20 TOTAL: $17 4499 .-6Z+ It is the opinion of this office that these items should have been charged to Accounts # 301-130-519-36.71 & 301-131-519-36.71, construction accounts for the Courthouse, Annex, and Administration Building. We therefore request ,a transfer of charges in amount of $10,488.14 from 102-220-519-66.4 to Account # 301-130-519-36.71 Also, a transfer of charges in amount of $6,961.50 from 102-220-519-66.41 to Account # 301-131-519-36.71• ON MOTION made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized the transfer of charges, as recommended by Finance Director Barton in his memorandum of May 27; 1982. E. Approval of Sheriff's Deputies ON MOTION made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board, subject to review by Attorney Brandenburg, unanimously authorized the Chairman's signature approving the following deputies appointed by Sheriff Dobeck: Part -Time Active Reserve Unit: George T. Stubbs John R. Hill Bernard Stecher Bertram A. Bach Part -Time: Donald E. McCall James W. Thomas James P. Pedrazzoli Edward A. Tillis Jerry Rodney Tillman, CONSENT AGENDA A. Release of Easement - Michaud The Board reviewed the following memorandum from Dr. Hardin: TO: The Honorable Board DATE: June 9, 1982 FILE: IRC -82 -ER -7 of County Commissioners #12 SUBJECT: Release of Easement Request by Lucien Michaud FROM: C.B. Hardin, Jr., P.H.D 9EFEBENCES: Acting County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The County has been petitioned by Mr. Lucien J. Michaud to release the common side lot 5 foot easement of Lots 17 and 18 and Lots 18 and 19 on Block F, Unit 3, Oslo Park 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. JUN 16 1992 10 soot 5U. taz 11- 50. rAci 12 JUN 16 1982 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS A. To release the easements. This would allow Mr. Michaud to develop the 3"adjacent lots as 2 larger residential lots. 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 develop the 3 adjacent lots as 2 parcels. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the release of the common side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 17 and 18 and Lots 18 and 19 on Block F, Unit 3, of Oslo Park Subdivision, Alternative A. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 82-56 for Release of Easement of the common side lot -5 foot easements of Lots 17 and 18 and Lots 18 and 19 on Block F, Unit 3, of Oslo Park Subdivision, as requested by Lucien J. Michaud. RESOLUTION NO. 82-56 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the common side lot line easements of Lots 17 & 18 amd Lots 18 & 19 on Block F, Unit 3, of Oslo Park Subdivision, according to the Plat of same'recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 19, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo Park Subdivision for public utility purposes, and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement has been submitted in proper form; J NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Olso Park Subdivision shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows:. Those common side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 17 & 18 and Lots 18 & 19 on Block F, Unit 3 of Oslo Park Subdivision, according to the Plat of the same filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 4, Page 19. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioner and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorrized 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 16th day of June Attest: jar)");', Freda Wright', Clork , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By; z e: a j - A. Grover Fletcher Vice Chairman AprovR' to form and legal ufticiArl' sy Gar 4 Fra►jder � ty Attorney .��_ JUN 16 1982 50 13 JUN 16 198Z RELEASE OF EASEMENT This Release of Easement, executed this 16th 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; Lucien J. Michaud, whose mailing __ address is 3705 20th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960 second party: WITNESSETH: That the said party of the first part for and in considera- tion of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon, and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easement, lying on land situated in the County of Indian River County; Sate of Florida, to -wit: Those common side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 17 & 18 and Lots 18-& 19 on Block F, Unit 3 of Oslo Park Subdivision,- as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 19, public records of Indian River County, Florida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest, equity 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 anA the day and year first above written. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF Signed, sealed and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA delivered in the resece of: By: A. Grover Flet0er, Vice Chairman Attest: Freda Wright, C rk Apero�:e�1 a to to and lega(� ific:,; y ? P) S ,1 G< < M, 5rar. en bur t; , 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 - A. GROVER FLETCHER, as Vice Chairman . ments personally appeared, PAN Go SGUR1,9GK,- jR v as G -ha i rman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to me know 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. iiITNESS by hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this l60 Zc day of 1982. l/ • Gt. Notary Public State of Flor' a at Large My commission expires: TAW MMIC !STATE Of RMIDA AT LA= �r MMMISSIO v MPIMS AAY • 1982 (Notary Seal) Tit 'd INS. e JUN 16 1982 1 JUN 16 1982 WK 50ew 16 B. Reports on File The following reports were received and placed on file in -the Office of the Clerk: Traffic Violation Bureau - Special Trust Fund, Month of May, 1982 - $36,390.94 Traffic Violation Fines by Name - May, 1982 SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT - AWARD OF BID FOR CENTRAL FIRE STATION The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 9:00 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 9:16 o'clock A.M. with the same members present. 911 CHANGE ORDERS Mary Jane Goetzfried, 911 Project Coordinator, came before the Board and reviewed the three change orders as indicated in the memorandum from C. B. Hardin of June 8, . 1982 TO: The Honorable Board DATE:' ' June 8, 1982 FILE: of County Commissioners SUBJECT: 911 CHANGE ORDERS 2 FROM: C.B. Hardin, Jr. ,Ph.D. REFERENCES: The implementation of the Enhanced 911 Emergency Communication System is in the final phase. The project will be completed as originally anticipated on October 1, 1982. 1. Crank -Call Option. DESC,RTPTTON AWn nnNnTTTnNc. The equipment for the Public Safety Answering Points, to be located in the Sheriff's office and the Vero Beach Police Department will be arriving in mid-June. In reviewing the capabilities of the system with the enforcement agencies it M M r became apparent that the additional feature of a Crank -Calling Option would be needed. This would allow the dispatcher to switch a non -emergency call to a separate line with a record- ing device, informing the caller of the appropriate number for assistance, thus freeing the 911 Emergency Line. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: A) Approve the requests of the Sheriff's office and the Vero Beach Police Department (see attachments 1 and 2). This option would require the installation of one flat business line at a cost of $140 and a monthly maintenance fee of $67.00.. The line and recorder can be shared by the two police agencies minimizing the expense. This feature will aid in familiarizing the residents of the County with the system and hopefully subsequent non -emergency calls would be directed initially to the appropriate number. B) Disapproval of the request would require that all non- emergency calls be handled on an individual basis by the 911 dispatcher, therefore occupying an emergency line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the request for the Crank Calling Option. 2. -Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance Squad. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Consideration should be given to the telephone equipment presently located at the Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance Squad (IRCVAS). At this time all medical emergency calls are directed through the Sheriff's office to the IRCVAS. To utilize the one -button transfer capability of the 911 system, a flat business line to the squad is required. Due to the large building area of the ambulance squad, one loud bell and two speakers are needed to announce all incoming emergency calls, with an extension at the Beach station with similar associated equipment. (See attachment #3). A duplication of this equipment is required until such time that all emergency calls are directed through the 911 line; when this occurs.; the Sheriff's office extension to the squad will be disconnected. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: A) Approve the request of the IRCVAS (see attachment #4). This additional equipment would allow all medical emergency calls to be transfered and dispatched as quickly as possible. B) Disapproval of the request would force all ambulance calls to be routed from the 911 line through the Sheriff 's office switchboard to the ambulance squad extension, thus, not utilizing the one -button transfer feature of the system. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the request of the Indian River Volunteer Ambulance Squad. JUN 16 1992 JUN 16 1982 3. Recording Requirements. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Boor. 50 put The State of Florida mandates in the Emergency Number Telephone Plan that each 911 answering position be equipped•with an instant playback type of recorder to record each incoming call. Also required is a logging magnetic tape recorder to permanently document all incoming calls. This equipment is not included in the hardware provided by Southern Bell, however, a waiver of the requirement is obtainable from the Department of General Services, Division of Communications. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: A) Purchase the required recording equipment for the Public Safety Answering Point to be located in the Sheriff's office. This machinery is available from the Dictaphone Corporation on a State Contract for $13,629.00. The City of Vero Beach would then be responsible for assuming the expense of the recording equipment for the Vero Beach Police Department, at a cost of $12,329. Equalling a total, investment of $25,958. This expenditure would allow the enforcement agencies to monitor incoming calls to determine if appropirate action was taken. Indian River County's''911 System would then meet the operational and technical standards established by the State. A request for Certification of Compliance from the Division of Communications will be submitted in accordance with Chapter 13C-5 of the Rules of the Depart- ment-of epart-meat of General Services. B) Disapproval of the expenditure for recording equipment would necessitate a request for a waiver of the State requirements. This waiver would be granted with 'the con- dition that should any State funds become available from the D.O.C. the County.would purchase recording equipment. This would mean that the system would be operational for an undetermined amount of time without recording facilities (see attachment #5). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the purchase of the recording equipment if the monies are available from the Contingency fund. Frank Menoni, of Southern Bell, discussed the crank call option and noted that it would save the dispatcher a considerable amount of time that would otherwise have been wasted. He added that it would be similar to an answering service system; it would be the same price if it was installed now or at a later date. Commissioner Bird suggested forgoing the option until the Board determined if it was needed or not. The Board next discussed, at great length, Change Order #2 regarding the Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance Squad and why the 911 System did not go directly to the Ambulance Squad. It was determined that this was a transition line and would be phased in. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved Change Order #2 concerning the Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance Squad, as indicated in the June 8, 1982 memorandum from Dr. Hardin. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Change Order #1 concerning the Crank Call Option, as indicated in the June 8, 1982 memorandW, from Dr. Hardin. Discussion followed about Change Order #3 concerning Recording Requirements. The following information was reviewed: JUN 16 1982 18.0 W 19 J U N 16 1982 - TO: File BOOK 50 -fAu 2.0. e' DATE: June 15, 1982 FILE: SUBJECT: 911 CHANGE ORDERS FROM: Bary Jane V. Goetzfried REFERENCES: 911 Project Coordinator MONETARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR 911 CHANGE ORDERS I. Crank Call Option $140 install 804 yr. main. T97+T ` II. IRCVAS $300 install. 1� yr, main. �13III. Recording Equipment $13,629 Service Establishment and 1 year maintenance of 911 System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $176,872 + .15 , 917 Total allocation for 1982-83 Budget $192,789. ry Dictaphone A Pitney Bowes Company COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED SYSTEM - 10 CHANNEL STATE CONTRACT #725-62-82-1 QUANTITY MODEL DESCRIPTION INVESTMENT 1 5102 Ten Channel, Dual Transport Recorder in Deluxe Floor Standing Cabinet $5,833.50 10 4501 Automatic Gain Control Amplifiers 130.00 1 404610 Transparent Plastic Door with Lock 111.00 1 5516 Time Code Generator/Reader with Backup Battery, Crystal Oscillator, Automatic Search, Auto Transfer to a Preselected Time, All Channel ` Automatic Safe Scan, Time/Date Code is Multiplexed with Audio 2,000.00 1 420690 Internal Stand By Power Supply 126.00 35 400414 P Recording Tapes @ $31.00 each 19085.00 1 404845 Bulk Tape Eraser 54.00 1 404850 Monitor Head Phones 22.00 1 404832 Tape Splicer 25.00 1 123908 Head Demagnetizer & Cleaning Kit 15.00 1 420897 Power Line Surge Protection Device 65.00 1 420899 (4 Channel) Audio Line Protection Device 65.00 1 420900 (6 Channel) Audio Line Protection Device 97.50' 4 420600 Beepless Couplers @ $50.00 200.00 3 1100 Call Check with Desk Module @ $1200 ea. 39600.00 Installation 200.00 PURCHASE PRICE $13,629.00 JUN 16 1982 °Boa 50 tgE . 1 I JUN 16 1992 BOOK ,50 FA6c 22 Dictaphone A Pitney Bowes Company QUANTITY 1 10 1 1 1 35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 VERO BEACH CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED SYSTEM - 10 CHANNEL STATE CONTRACT #725-62-82-1 MODEL DESCRIPTION 5102 Ten Channel, Dual Transport Recorder in Deluxe Floor Standing Cabinet 4501 Automatic Gain Control Amplifiers 404610 Transparent Plastic Door with Lock 5516 Time Code Generator/Reader with Backup Battery, Crystal Oscillatory. Automatic Search, Auto Transfer to a Preselected Time, All Channel Automatic Safe Scan, Time/Date Code is Multiplexed with Audio 420690 Internal Stand By Power Supply 400414 P Recording Tapes @ $31.00 each 404845 Bulk Tape Eraser 404850 Monitor Head Phones 404832 Tape Splicer 123908 Head Demagnetizer & Cleaning Kit - 420897 Power Line Surge Protection Device 420899 (4 Channel) Audio Line Protection Device 420900 (6 Channel) Audio Line Protection Device 420600 Beepless Couplers @ $50.00 each 1100 Call Check with Desk Module @ $1200 ea. Installation PURCHASE PRICE $5,833.50 130.00 111.00 2,000.00 126.00 1,085.00 54.00 22.00 25.00 15.00 65.00 '- 65.00 97.50 100.OQ . 2,400.00 200.00 $12,329.00 Attorney Brandenburg recommended that the County provide the recording equipment. Commissioner Wodtke interjected that he thought those things originally were included in the 911 System. Mr. Menoni explained that Southern Bell does not make recording equipment - Dictaphone equipment will be used; and Southern Bell did not include this item in their contract. Lengthy discussion followed along those lines. The Attorney stated that the City Police Department was not recording their calls at this time, and that the City's attorney was going to recommend that the City pay their share of the cost of the recording equipment. Attorney Brandenburg commented that the recordings provide perfect evidence for the County._ Commissioner Bird stated he assumed that in an emergency, it was a fail-safe situation to have the recording. Commissioner Lyons interjected that a problem was created in the past because all of the calls were being recorded, and not just emergency calls. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons that the Board approve Change Order #3. Attorney Brandenburg advised that before the County takes any action and commits itself to the entire amount, they should get in touch with the City to share in the cost of the recording equipment. The Motion died for lack of a second. Community Services Director Thomas explained the financial situation and thought the funds would be available in the Contingency Fund. He commented that he would report back to the Board on this matter. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by_ Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board approve Change Order #3 based on the availability of funds, and that a -satisfactory JUN 16 1982.0 faLd 22 JUN 16 1992 BOOK 5(f mu 24 arrangement with the City of Vero Beach be reached through negotiations with the County Attorney regarding the proportion of their funds. Discussion ensued, and it was determined that the - recording equipment would be located in the Sheriff's Department. Sergeant Reese of the Sheriff's Department talked about their present recorder, which has not worked for several years. When the recording equipment is purchased for the 911 System, he thought it would be beneficial if it were equipped to handle everything, including all the radio transmissions. Commissioner Lyons withdrew his Motion and Commissioner Wodtke withdrew his second. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board approve $13,629 for purchase of the recording equipment, and that the Administrator come back to the Board with a recommendation as to how the funds should be allocated, together with a recommendation to the City_.that they purchase their recording equipment. The Vice Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and the vote was 2 to 2, with Commissioners Lyons and Wodtke voting in favor, and Commissioner Bird and Vice Chairman Fletcher voting in opposition. MOTION was made by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board approve $13,629 for purchase of the recording equipment, and that the Administrator come back to the Board with a recommendation as to how the funds should be allocated, together with a recommendation to the City that they purchase their recording equipment; and if time permits, _ =23 r Sergeant Reese commented that he would investigate to see if their present recording equipment could be repaired. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It ' was voted on and carried with a vote of 3 to 1, with Vice Chairman Fletcher voting in opposition. JASP CONTRACT FOR WORK SITE The Board next discussed the following memorandum dated June 8, 1982 from Lynn Williams, Acting General Services Director: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: June 8, 1982 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THRU: C. B. Hardin, Jr. Ph. D. SUBJECT:J.A.S.P. Contract for Work Site Acting County Administrator FROM: Lynn Williams REFERENCES' Acting General Services Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS J.A.S.P. (Juvenile Alternative Services Program) has approached the Staff for cooperation in providing a Community Service Work Site for children who have voluntarily been made the responsibility of the HRS under the J.A.S.P. Program. The Program is intended to serve youths charged with delinquency violation and act as a meaningful dispositional alternative - to Juvenile Court. J.A.S.P. is funded by HRS under the auspices of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., a non-profit Florida corporation providing services to youths in Indian River and St. Lucie Counties as well as others throughout the State. In most cases, satisfactory completion of the program will provide an opportunity to earn dismissal of the pending charges, divert- ing the youth from the judicial process. Youth are assigned a professional counselor who conducts individual or group counseling sessions. Along with the counseling, they are assigned a specified number of hours in service to public and private agencies who must pf°ovide ' on-site supervision. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS This program is in search of several work sites with varied possibilities for work assignments. Staff discussed with J.A.S.P. representatives the type of work and/or responsibilities applicable to these youths. Lawn maintenance, filing clerk duties, telephone switchboard, painting, and custodial are areas of possible work assignment. JUN 16 1992 24 SO Ulu JUN 16 1982 000K 50 PAu 20 An on-site supervisor, an employee of Indian River County, must be responsible for coordination of assignment with the J.A.S.P. Counselor. There are certain rules -and regulations each youth and his parent must agree to and sign a release form absolving the job site from all liability in case of an accident. Staff feels this is a worthwhile program and there is adequate and varied tasks to warrant providing an on-site supervisor and work site. - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends the following: 1. The Chairman be authorized to sign the J.A.S.P. Contract. 2. Maintenance Foreman, Rex Myers, be assigned additional duties of providing work site and on site supervision. ON MOTION by Commissioner'Lyons, SECONDED by.Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted staff's recommendation that the Chairman be authorized to sign the JASP contract; that Rex Myers be assigned additional duties of providing work site and on site supervision, as indicated in the June 8, 1982 memorandum from Lynn Williams. i J. A. S. P. C C A T R A C T 7'ne Dezarju---it--it of health and R:'-�ilitative Services hereby contracts with-�f Cnimf-v t' �ssioners of Indian River Cody, Florida to pro%Tide i -y service �%o x program site (s) for children w'ro have volutarily pursuant to law, b��-� rade. the responsibility of the Depar-`u�-�t of Health and R6habil.itative Services. • The De par t , n t having the prirary resnonsi.bility will provide that uor',c-,en' s CX-,pensation coverage required bre Sect -don 39.11(6), Florida Stat-r:.es, and fur-,ner author) -zed by Se&Litpn 440.10 (1) , F - ?3_ ida Sim -'L-ut .s, and u i? I at all times h ave access to its a avaniles u J are suGi- so as to v-arify t!e a=ropri at£ -z. ess 0f the pro- c.:.. Board of County Clammissioners of Indian River County, Florida (Title) A. Grover Fletcher, Vice Chairman. of F -=a .Ith and Administ:,ation Building Address: 1840 25th Street', Suite N-158 Da. 1 T �-- Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Date: Tilnp 16, 19P12 Phone: 305-567-€000 Ext. 440 J Alternative Se sero t � Juvenile Alter a i e �.� gram - RULES AND REGULATIONS INC. JASP - 1. Participants found to be in possession p,f drugs- excluding prescription drugs which can be verified—and/or alconol while in attendance at JASP will be terminated immediately. 2. All participants may be sulected to unannounced searc.hes•for'drugs,- alcoholp and/or weapons, by JASP personnel only,. 3. Participants who are suspected to be under the influence of drugs/alcohol will be denied JASP Services for that day and may be subject to further disciplinary action. 40- Participants who do not regularly attend those services for which they have been scheduled to participatep may be terminated from the program. 5. .Smoking is restricted to areas designated by the supervisor or facilitator. 6. many timesq "cussing" is the mark of a limited vocabulary and really doesn't communicate your true feelings to the other party. Therefore., abusive language to staff or fellow participants will not be tolerated. JUN 16 1982 Boa 50 w27 26 I JUN 16 1982 a50 P��f 28 9 _ a 7. Fighting other participants indicated limited ability to resolve inter- - personal conflicts through communications. Please "talk out" your problems —with eac o Ser or fin a sta�3.`f"member to hely you. Fighting at JASF could nean termination. 8. r?uestions, complaints, or suggestions concerning the program or activities should be directed to the participant's respective counselors, !",--Ann Franklin, or Dr. Parrado. 9. Tardiness Transportation to the job site is the participants responsibility. Participants tardiness will result in: 1. Time being makde up at the end of the program. Tardiness will be excused only with written authorization from parent or guardian. (Phone balls will be acceptable) Parent or guardian must be notified by participant when extra time is assigned. 10. Absenteeism Absentees will be required to make up all time missed. For each absence without excuse from parent or guardian, four additional work hours will be assigned. L,cav,-ns� the iob site � -ie-ip nts- nay-lonve-i ob- sto f bat }rO,. n - lunch, ei.c. )- only with nerr-Lzslon of facilitator or supervisor. 12. Tooi. hundl in Tools 1,/'' 11 be h1^!''_ cd'1 'I,cly and with extre no care. 'articiparitS will be rbci o ��i ble for c�jtre of tools avid will mJ:e res+�- tut_ ion for amy danage causea by carelessness or neglect. If the participant feels :.hat the tool is inadequate for the assigned ob notify your facilitator or awrvis:a . `3. Partici-a 1's nerforrance Participants Will be ev2..'-uated day ly satisfac gory oi- unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory per? orm-ance ;;-11 _resin- l eq ;a� m. n i story ti me. - n a.,y ce_.�.�.,. s I have received a cony of the JASP Participant Rules and Renulatiors and •:nderstand then fu -11-Y. 1 understand_ that _I trill not be Daid for r..y hours of work and that my work 41"' be -`=- a non -prof = b community agency.- - -c _ also release t*?e Co^mu_'1_ty `-:oris. Fro -am Coord nator, Juvenile A ternatf ve Services Program,, and Contracted ';or'sites, Of all 1, ab11-i'tty in the evert of an accident. rgent's Signature ?',S? Cou-nselor/'.or, site Coor i niator -- Date Date Date ANTENNA SITE LEASE The Board next discussed the County Attorney's memorandum dated June 15, 1982 concerning the antenna site lease, as follows: TO: Lynn Williams General Services Director FROM: = Gary M. Brandenburg County Attorney DATE: June 15, 1982 FILE: SUBJECT: Antenna Site Lease for the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources --Aircraft and Communication Section Division of Law Enforcement REFERENCES: This office has been requested to review the attached proposed antenna lease for the Wednesday, June 16, 1982, agenda. I have the following comments; 1- The language of the lease should be modified so that it is a lease for an antenna site -on the County owned and operated antenna. The lease will also give the lessee the right to use. the County building for the installation of necessary equipment. The lease should indicate that the lessee takes the facility "as is" and that the County has no obligation whatsoever to make changes to modify the antenna or building to suit their particular needs. Any such modifications would be subject to the prior approval of the County Commission and the cost of any such modifications would be the sole -responsibility of lessee. 2- The term of the lease must be specified. I understand that lessee is agreeable to a one-year lease with an option to continue under the same terms and conditions for an additional one year. 3- The rental rate must be negotiated. Administration suggests $75.00 per month. 4- The lease should contain the standard hold harmless clause. 5- Paragraph 5 of the Agreement should be modified to indicate that the lessor (the County) will pay for electricity only. Lessee is on his own on the remaining services. 6- The lessee should agree to meet all the FCC rules and regulations and further that lessee is responsible for all permitting if any is necessary. 7- The lessee should agree that they will not interfere with the use of the antenna by other users and that the signals broadcast by lessee shall not interfere with signals emitted - from other users of the antenna. Resp fully submitted, ar M.randenbur' Co ty Attorne . O P*E 29 JUN 1.6 1982 .-- JUN 16 1982 rr� foox 50. puf , 30 MOTION was made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the lease, subject to remarks contained in the Attorney's memorandum of June 18, 1982. A brief discussion took place regarding the capacity of the tower, the frequencies, and of extending the height of the antenna. Vice Chairman Fletcher suggested that the Board review the lease. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. The Antenna Site Lease will be made a part of the Minutes when received. REGATTA - TRACKING STATION PARK . MOTION was made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke_.that the Board deny the request to use the Tracking Station Park for a regatta, as there is no way of crossing over the dunes without causing damage. R Barry Caminiti, of Prindle Fleet 49, came before the Board and advised them that the main site of the regatta will be at the beach at the Ocean Grill. The Tracking Station Park would be the secondary site, if the Board approved his request. Mr. Caminiti commented that he inspected the site and found access to the beach where nothing was growing; therefore there would be very little damage. He added that he would be in charge of the regatta and there would be security at the site. Mr. Caminiti continued that the boats would have to be carried over the dunes through the break in the fence, which is on FIT property. Commissioner Wodtke stated he was very much in favor of what Mr. Caminiti wanted to do but he did not know if it were possible without causing damage to the dunes. Commissioner Fletcher pointed out that Mr. Caminiti was asking the Board for permission to cross over land that they did not own. Commissioner Bird suggested that Mr. Caminiti get together on the site with someone from the Audubon Society, and come back to the Board with a plan. Commissioner Wodtke noted that since the boats they would have to lift over the dunes weigh approximately 350 pounds, perhaps a crane could life the boats over the dunes and they could be launched at Jaycee Beach. MOTION was made by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to table this discussion. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and the vote was 2 to 2, with Commissioners Bird and Wodtke voting in favor, and Commissioner Lyons and Vice Chairman Fletcher voting in opposition. Acting Administrator Hardin interjected that one of the reasons it was on the Agenda today was that there would not be enough time for Mr. Caminiti to notify the people associated with the regatta. JUN 16 1982 eqq�.,- 30 JUN 16 1992 BOOK �, 50, 32 Commissioner Lyons AMENDED HIS ORIGINAL MOTION, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board deny the request to use the Tracking Station Park for a regatta as there is no way of crossing - ' over the dunes without causing damage; and recommended that Mr. Caminiti approach the Audubon Society for a recommendation which could be used as a possible basis for crossing over the FIT property. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. REQUEST TO RESEARCH ST. LUCIE COUNTY ARCHIVES.. The Board discussed the following memorandum dated June 9, 1982 concerning research of historic roads and trails: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: June 9, 1982 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THRU: Dr. C.B. Hardin, _ Acting County Administrator SUBJECT: Research of Historic Roads and Trails FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES: Jim Davis to County Staff dated Public Works Director May 27, 1982 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Homer C. Fletcher, Ad Valorem Tax Consultant, has offered to research the St. Lucie County Archives for supporting information to document public ownership of our County's Scenic Roads and Trails. Mr. Fletcher has indicated that,he will perform this work for $75. per hour. The Jungle Trail Research will take an.estimated 10 hours. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Mr. Fletcher is knowledgable in the contents and location of many older documents pertaining to these roads. The following alternatives are presented. Alternative # 1 Authorize the Scenic Roads and Trails Committee to expend, at their discretion, up to but not to exceed, $1000. for the purpose of research into the St. Lucie County Archives to establish data that will support public ownership of Historic Roads and Trails. Alternative # 2 Authorize the staff to do this work in-house. This alternative is not recommended since we are not familiar with these records. RECOMvMATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that Alternative # 1 be approved. Funding to come from Fund 004-214-541-33.19, Professional Services, Road and Bridge Division, unencumbered balance as of May 27, 1982 is $7,767.57. MOTION was made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the recommendation of the Public Works Director that $1,000 be transferred from Account #004-214-541-33.19 to research the St. Lucie County Archives to establish data that will support public ownership of historic roads and trails. Commissioner Bird inquired if there was some cloud on the ownership of the historical roads. The County Attorney responded that their position was that the roads were County -owned at the present time; however, Mr. Fletcher's research may yield something that is vital. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. JUN 16 1982 32 JUN 16 1982 Box 50 Pw 34 "SAVE OUR COAST" PROGRAM - COMMITMENT FOR FUNDING The Board reviewed the following letter to the Department of Natural Resources: June 4, 1982 Mr. David Roddenberry Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Fl. 32303 Re: "Save Our Coast" Land Acquisition Dear NIr. Roddenberry: The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners met on June 21, 1982 and is definitely interested in the acquisition and development of the following beachfront property: Parcel #1 a 16.5 t acre tract immediately south of the Wabasso Beach Park. Approximate value $2,700,000. Parcel # 2 a 22.51 acre tract south of the Seagrove Development, north of the Moorings. Approximate value $4,000,000. We are requesting more time so that we can approve,at our June l5, 1982 meeting, a definite amount of money the County can commit for its share in this land acquisition, and a resolution adopted for a general referendum bond issue November 2, 1982 for an additional amount. 41 We will certainly be back in touch wit; more definite figures in the near future. Thanking you in advance for your consideration and patience, I remain. Sincerely, Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman, Board of County Commi»iont Public Works Director Davis -advised the Board that the deadline had passed for notifying the Department of Natural Resources the specific amount the County wanted to contribute to this program. However, he added, they did write and indicate strong interest in the program. Discussion ensued, and it was determined that there was no urgency now to make a commitment of the funds, but possibly the program could -be approved in order to have a referendum in the fall. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the staff to research the amount of money that might be necessary for the County's part of the purchase and improvement of the two pieces of property; that they come back to the Board with the figures on the size and the approximate cost of the bond issue in order for the Board to consider it for placement on the ballot for a referendum this November. Commissioner Fletcher commented that the Board could also consider the County's approach to the whole project without State funding. Community Services Director Thomas commented that the Board would have that latitude if the bond issue was approved. Commissioner Bird suggested that staff could consult with the Board of Realtors on this matter. Mr. Davis stated that possibly $2 million would be a pretty good share for the County; it would almost be a 50/50 share, which would not be out of line with what the other counties are contributing in this program. JUN 16 1982 34 5 PAfi� 35 JUN 16 1982 BacK 50 Put �6 REQUEST TO CURB COUNTY ROAD 507 The Board next discussed the following memorandum from Mr: Davis dated May 27, 1982: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 27, 1982 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THRU: David L. Greene, Assistant County Administrator SUBJECT: Request from Mayor Suit, City of Fellsmere, for Curbing of County Road 507, Broadway Boulevard FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES: Joe B. Suit, Jr., Mayor of Public Works Director Fellsmere, to Neil Nelson, Board of County Commissioners dated May 10, 1982 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The City of Fellsmere is again requesting the County to consider the curbing of the medianstrip of County Road 507 (Broadway Boulevard). The project involves curbing 2,200 feet of median, both sides. The approximate length of curb is therefore 4,400 L.F. This work would cost approximately $7. per lineal foot, thereby totaling approximately $30,800. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS In 1981, the Board reviewed this request and offered use of the County's curb forms for this work. The County did not agree to supply labor, etc. In analyzing this request, the curb.work would help to control traffic cross- ing the median and would improve safety of the area. The City has agreed to maintain the median. Funding for this item was not approved during the FY 81-82 Budget Session. The Road and Bridge Division's steel curb forms are very old and we do not really have enough forms to adequately do the work in an efficient manner. The -_alter- natives are: Alternative # 1 Authorize the Road and Bridge Division to perform the curbing work. The alter- native is not recommended since our forms are not adequate to efficiently per- form this work and would take our "in house" staff longer than is efficiently warranted. Alternative # 2 Approve retaining the services of an outside contractor to perform the work. The cost of approximately $30,800. would require funding approval. The only Road and Bridge Division account which has such funds is the Road Materials account. These funds, however, have been allocated by the Board for paving R.D. Carter Road (1st. St. S.W.). If the curbing work is approved,an additional funding source should be pursued. Alternative # 3 Deny the request, but consider this item during the FY 82-83 Budget Session. PECON dMATION AND FUNDING ? i5z recommended that alternative No. 3 be approved and that the curb con- struction be considered during the"F'y 82=83-Budget`Hearings. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously agreed to refer the request from Mayor Suit for curbing of County Road 50 to the Transportation Planning Committee for recommendation. FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - 14TH AVENUE The Board next considered the following memorandum from Mr. Davis dated June 4, 1982: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: June 4, 1982 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THRU: Dr. C.B. Hardin, _ Acting County Administrator SOBJECT: Final Assessment Roll - 14th Avenue Petition Paving FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS REFERENCES: Don Finney, Engineering Technician to Jim Davis, dated May 25, 1982 The paving of 14th Avenue between 7th Street and 8th Street is complete. The original cost estimate for the work was $9,981.88. The final cost for the paving was $9,948.00, which is under the original estimate by $33'.88. The Final assessment roll has been prepared and is ready to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be paid within 30 days or in two equal installments, the first due within 30 days after delivery to the Clerk's Office and the second payment due one year thereafter. The approved interest rate is 12% per annum. ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS Since the final assessment to the benefitted owners will be less than than computed on the preliminary assessment roll, the only alternative presented is to approve the final assessment roll. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING ' It is recommended that the final assessment roll for the paving of 14th Avenue be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that it be trans- mitted to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for collection. JUN 16 1982 36 7 . J JUN 16 1992 BOOK 5.0 Fact 3$ , MOTION was made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the final assessment roll for the paving of 14th Avenue, and that it be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk to°the Board for collection. Commissioner Wodtke inquired when the work was completed. Mr. Davis advised that the asphalt work was completed in February but there was a period of time they had to wait for other companies to submit their final paper work. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. REQUEST TO TRANSFER SR -512 FROM STATE TO COUNTY The Board discussed the memorandum dated June 1, 1982 from Public Works Director Davis, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: Jule 1, 1982 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THRU: C.B. Hardin, SUBJECT: Transfer of SR 512 From State to Assistant County Administrator County Jurisdiction FROM: James W. Davis, PE REFERENCES: William K. Fowler, P.E. , Florida Public Works DirectioD.O.T. to Honorable Don C. Scurlock Public Works Directo Chairman, dated May 21, 1982 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Florida D.O.T. has completed widening, resurfacing, shoulder, and related improvements to SR 512. At this time, the State plans to proceed with transferring the road to County jurisdiction. The District IV DOT office has recommended to the Secretary of Transportation approval of this transfer on June 25, 1982. If the Secretary approves this action, the road transfer will occur and the County will assume maintenance of the 4.3 mile section between CR 510 and SR 5. Numerous correspondence has taken place.concerning three issues associated with this road. Those issues are as follows: 1) While the DOT has performed related drainage work associated with the widening improvements, the County Public Works Department and repre- sentatives from the City of Sebastian have had two meetings in the field with DOT personnel to discuss the adequacy of the drainage system. The details of the concerned areas have been sent to the District IV DOT Office (see attached letter). The DOT has responded to those concerns which can be performed by maintenance crews and minor construction. Beyond that work, additional right-of-way acquisition would be necessary in some areas, and major earthwork construction, drainage structures, etc., are perhaps warranted to provide an improved drainage system. The DOT District IV representatives do not feel that this is warranted and have indicated that the system is now bdtter than what historically was present. The City of Sebas- tian City Engineer by copy of his May 20, 1982 letter (copy attached), has not voiced any further objections concerning this matter. 2) The Florida DOT has still maintained the position that it does not have funds to pay for the concrete railroad crossing work performed by the FEC. There is still a question as to who will pay the $10,300. additional cost. The County has gone on record as refusing to pay this cost, as it was DOT's responsibility when the improvements were made. The FEC is looking for payment either from the County or from the DOT. 3) The County Public Works Director has written the DOT State Highway System Coordinator requesting that SR 512 from US 1 to I-95 be functionally reclassified as an arterial road and jurisdiction be transferred back to the State. The response we have received appears negative but our request shall be considered during the DOT's annual review (see'attached letter from State Highway System Coordinator dated April 1, 1982). ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The County approved the jurisdiction transfer of SR 512 to the County in 1978. It has taken the State 4 years to make the improvements to 512 and effect the transfer. At this time, the County has the following alternatives. Alternative # 1 Accept the transfer and maintenance responsibility of SR 512 in its present condition. The DOT is in the process of completing certain drainage improvements which will improve the drainage of the right of way. The impact this alternative will have on the County's Road and Bridge Division includes constructing a short channel to a canal running through the City of Sebastian. This construction has been approved by the City. Also, all further maintenance and drainage shall be the responsibility of the County. The County should not agree to fund the $10,300. railroad crossing improvement. Alternative # 2 Reject acceptance of this road until the Railroad crossing improvement is paid by the DOT. The impact of this alternative is the same as in Alternative # 1 above. Alternative #3 Refuse acceptance of the road and request the State to re-classify the road as a State arterial. The impact this action would have on the County is minimal, however, if the State does not elect to reclassify the road, and it appears that this will be the State's position, then the County will probably be given the road anyway, even under protest by the County. If this occurs, then the County should again refuse to pay the $10,300. railroad crossing improvement cost. AN 16' 1982 38aox JUN 16 1982 T RECOMA MATIONS AND FUNDING BOOK 50 wf. 40 : 1 It is recommended that Alternative No. 3 be initiated, and that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, acting on behalf of the citizens of Indian River County, transmit a letter to the Florida DOT thereby refusing to accept the maintenance and jurisdiction responsibilities of SR 512 until the following two actions by the State DOT are taken; 1) The Florida DOT perform an indepth study on the functional classification of SR 512, taking into consideration such criteria as evacuation route, and the function of the road as it connects US Highway 1 and I-95, both federally assisted routes. Results of this study shall be sent to the County for our review. 2) The Florida DOT pays for the $10,300. FEC railroad crossing improvement west of US 1. - Attorney Brandenburg recommended that the Board consider Alternative #1, which is contingent upon DOT making payment of the railroad crossing fee. MOTION was made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board accept Alternative #1, accepting S.R. 512, contingent upon DOT making payment of the railroad , crossing fee, as recommended by the County Attorney. Vice Chairman Fletcher did not agree with Attorney Brandenburg's recommendation, as S.R. 512 is the only mkjor escape route to I-95 north of State Road 60. General discussion ensued concerning the road. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 3 to 1, with Vice Chairman Fletcher voting in opposition. COUNTY JAIL IMPROVEMENTS — AWARD OF CONTRACTS The Board discussed at length the following information concerning the award of contracts for the County jail TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners THRU: Dr. C.B. Hardin, Acting County Administrator DATE: June 8, 1982 FILE: SUBJECT: Indian River County Jail Improvements - Project No. 8122 - Award of Contracts FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. ,REFERENCES: 0? Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were received June 4, 1982, for the following work to be performed at the County Jail: Bid Item No. 1 - Architectural Site Work Bid Item No. 2 - Fire Escape Bid Iten No. 3 - Security Fencing Bid Item No. 4 - Mechanical - • -KVVAC Bid Item No. 5 - Electrical The Bid Tabulation sheets are attached. Eighteen (18) companies acquired plans and bidding documents, and eight (8) bidders respgnded with bids. No bids were received for Bid Item No. 1 - Architectural Site Work. The following is an analysis of the bids received: Bid Item No. 2 - Fire Escape The low bidder was Barry's Ornamental Iron Works with a Bid of $2,719.00. A 5% bid bond was submitted as required, no performance bond is required since the cost of the work is less than $25,000. as per Florida Statutes Section 255.05 (1). Although the Bidder did not bid on Bid Item No. 1, he has indicated that he would be willing to perform the work (using sub -contractors) at a negotiated price. The work required by Bid Item No. 1 is critical to the performance of the work required by Bid Item No. 2. Bid Item No. 3 - Security Fencing Only one bid was received for this item. The Bidder, AlA Construction Services of Vero Beach, submitted a bid of $19,400. A performance bond and bid bond were required but were not submitted. Since the Bid did come in under $25,000., Florida Statutes does not require the County to secure a performance bond. Three other companies picked up plans and contract documents to bid on this work, however, they did not submit bids. On June 7, 1982, these firms were contacted and asked if they would have submitted bids if a performance bond were not required. Two firms, U.S Wholesale Fence in Orlando and Okeechobee Fence in Okeechobee, stated that they would not due to the Electronic Control work or they did not have the time to do the work. The firm, Inter -County Engineering of Fort Pierce, claimed that they would have bid it if there were no bid bond requirement. Bid Item No. 4 - Mechanical - HVAC Three bidders responded to the call for Bids. The low bidder; Indian River Cooling of Vero Beach, submitted two bids, one using Weather King Equipment and another bid using General Electric Equipment. The amount of the low bidder for the Base Bid and alternate Bids 4C, 4D, and 4E from Indian River Cooling of Vero Beach, was $22,101. This bid was not accompanied by a performance bond nor a bid bond. Also the contractor submitted two bids. It was stated in the Contract Documents that only one bid would be received. 40 `'.. JUN 16 1982 B -id Item No. 5 - Electrical �aoK 50 Pest 42 This'low bidder was White Electric of Vero Beach, with a Base bid and alter- nate Bids 5D, 5E, and 5F amounting to $21,784. No performance bond is required. A 5% bid bond was submitted. Since the bid opening a minor change has occurred which will result in an additional charge. The final contract with Change Order Number 1 will amount to $ 2 3, 3 8 4 if the award goes to White Electric. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The following alternatives are presented Alternative No. 1 Bid Item No. 1 - Architectural Site Work - No bidders responded with a bid, however, the bidder for Bid item No. 2, Fire Escape, Barry's Ornamental, has agreed to do the work for $ 6,200. This can be accomplished with a Change Order in the Amount of $ 6,200. Bid Item No. 2 - Fire Escape - Award the bid to the low bidder, Barry's Ornamental Iron Works, for $2,719. The bidder has qualified his bid as "not including tax". Bid Item No. 3 - Security Fencing - Award the bid to AlA Construction Services, Inc., the only bidder; in the amount of $19,400. The County would waive the for- mality of the Bid bond and performance bond, both of which were required by the Contract documents. The performance bond is not required since the Contract does not exceed $25,000. Bid Item No. 4 - Mechanical - HVAC - Award the Contract to the low bidder, Indian River Cooling, for Bid items 4A,4C,4D, and 4F in the amount of $22,101. The County would waive the following formatities: 1) The bidder submitted two bids whereas the Contract Documents specifically stated that "only one bid from any,firm, partnership, or corporation, under the same or different names, will'be considered". 2) The bidder did not submit a bid bond. 3) The bidder did not submit a performance bond, however, no bidder did do so properly, and since the work is below $25,000., Florida Statutes does not require it. The County can also purchase a Service Contract with General Electric for $95/ton, amounting to $ 3 325. This will cover all parts and labor for five (5) years. The regular manufacture warrantee covers the compresser and condenser for five (5) years and all parts and labor for one (1) year. Bid Item No. 5 - Electrical - Award the Contract to White Electric for items 5A,5B,5D, 5E, and 5F in the amount of $21, 78,,00 Also, approve at the time the Contracts are executed a Change Order in the amount of $ 1,160 for miscellaneous necessary electrical work. Alternative No. 2 Readvertise the call for bids and delete all performance bond requirements. It is not felt that this will be productive, since it appears that no bidders properly bid performance bonds. RECOn4FNDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners award the following bids and waive the respected formalities: Bid Item No. 1 - Since no bidders responded, authorize Barry's Ornamental Iron Works to perform the work for a not to exceed price of $ 6,200. This can be handled by a change order or by using the Bid Schedule for Bid item No. 1. Bid Item No. 2 - Award the Bid to Barry's Ornamental Iron Works for the low bid amount of $2,719. The Contractor does not have to pay sales tax. Bid Item No. 3 - Award the Bid to AlA Construction Services for the low bid amount of $19,400. (only bid received). Bid Item No. 4 - Award the Bid to Indian River Cooling for Bid items 4A,4C, 4D, and 4E in the amount of $22,101. Also, authorize the County to enter into a service agreement with General Electric for a five (5) year service contract in the amount of $ 3,325. Bid Item No. 5 = Award the bid to White Electric for Bid items 5A,5B,5D,5E, and 5F in the amount of $21,784. Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $ 1,160 This change order be attached to the Contract at the time of execution. The total funding to be approved is: Item 1 Site Work $ 6,200. Item 2 Fire Escape 2,719. Item 3 Securfty Fencing 19,400. Item 4 Mechanical 221101. ` 5 year Service Contract_ 3,325. Item 5 Electrical 21,784. Change Order No. 1 1,16 0 TOTAL $ 76,689. To fund the above, it is recommended that $65,000. be transferred from Account no. 001-906-513-99.91, Board of County Commissioners Contingency to Account no. 102-905-523-66.39 - Jail Renovation (Unemcumbered balance is $47,300. as of June 8, 1982). Public Works Director Davis referred to Bid #1 for Architectural Site Work, and Bid #2 for a Fire Escape, and recommended the possibility of having Barry's Ornamental Iron Works do the work with a change order, since no bidders responded to Bid #1. Discussion followed along those lines. ON MOTION made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized that Bid #2 be awarded to Barry's JUN 16 1982 42 ::.. B�D9( ;0 �w 43 JUN 16 1982 man 50 PAGE 44 Ornamental Iron Works with the bid amount of $2,719 increased to reflect the tax; and that the Public Works Department be authorized to negotiate with the same firm for Bid #1, to - be addressed as a change order but not to exceed $6,200. The Board next reviewed Bid #3 for Security Fencing, and it was determined that since a bid bond was not submitted, all bids should be rejected and that the requirements for a bid bond and a performance bond be deleted. ON MOTION made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the rejection of all bids for Bid #3, deleting the requirements for a bid bond and a performance bond. Mr. Davis referred to $id #4 for Mechanical items and_ commented that he would like to change the recommendation for this item, as some difficulties have arisen regarding bid requirements. Attorney Brandenburg agreed. He recommended Colkitt Sheet Metal as being the best bidder and meeting all requirements. ON MOTION made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #4 to Colkitt Sheet Metal & Air / Conditioning, Inc. for Bid items 4A, C, D, and E in the amount of $25,101, as being the best bid and meeting all the requirements. ON MOTION made by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously accepted staff recommendation and awarded Bid #5 to White Electric for Bid items 5A, B, D, E, and F in the amount of $21,784; and change order #1 in the amount of $1,160, as being the lowest and best bid and meeting all the requirements. ON MOTION made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the recommendation that $65,000 be transferred from the Board Contingency Account #001-906-513-99.91 to the Jail Renovation Account #102-906-523-66.39. BEACHES & SHORES RESTORATION & PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT Commissioner Wodtke reported that the Committee recently discussed the status of the Corps of Engineers' recommended plan as well as possible methods of funding. He added that the paper work on this project has been held up since the first of January, waiting for a new funding formula from the office of Secretary Watts. Commissioner Wodtke commented that just as soon as this information is obtained, he will advise the Board of their status of the Indian River project. Commissioner Wodtke advised that the Committee passed a Motion that the Board and City Council be asked to reaffirm their position with the Corps' plan; send letters to Secretary Watts and the Secretary of the Army in order to get the project report back to the City and the County, who can then make a determination of the plan and seek methods of funding. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the Board JUN 16 1982 44 6A►( W45J JUN le 1982 KD FAcf 46 1 of County Commissioners is the only body that can be the sponsor for the project. In the letter to the Secretaries, they will ask them to expedite this plan as quickly as possible in order for the City and County to be able to make a determination of the funding. MOTION was made by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council affirm their position with the Corps of Engineers' plan; and that the Board send letters to the Secretary of the Army and Secretary Watts to ask that they expedite developing a funding formula for the beach restoration project for Indian River County. Commissioner Bird noted that the Motion did not commit the Board to any funds. Commissioner Wodtke stated that the City of Vero Beach had approved the plan; the ,project was within the City limits, and it was an entire County -wide study. Commissioner Fletcher stated that if it was the intent of the Motion to encourage pumping of sand on the bead, then he would not be in favor of it. Commissioner Lyons responded that at the moment there was no other alternative - if the beach must be rebuilt. He felt that the Board should have all the facts before making the final decision on funding, and he was all for expediting this matter. George Dulles, oceanographer, approached the Board, and commerited that the Corps of Engineers had considered a number of possibilities for beach restoration. He added that there were alternatives, which would be putting in sea walls. Mr. Dulles stated that since 1960, more beach e replenishment programs have been studied. He commented that he would plead for the people using the beach, and not for the people that have property on the beach. Commissioner Bird inquired if Mr. Dulles felt Commissioner Wodtke's Motion was a step in that direction. Mr. Dulles responded affirmatively. Frank Zorc, interested citizen, came before the Board and urged them not to imply that the Board was willing to sponsor a program. He then asked that the Board read a report that he had which was signed by 100 geologists. The report is on file in the Office of the Secretary to the Board. Mr. Zorc asked the Board not to make a commitment on behalf of the County. William Koolage, interested citizen, talked about tidal floods and the damage that it can do. He felt that if sand were pumped on the beach, the tides were going to change it. He encouraged getting local input from the residents on this -matter. Mr. Koolage stated that if the beach does recede, he was not about to bail out any property owners on the beach who built there. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 3 to 1, with Vice Chairman Fletcher voting in opposition. Ralph Sexton, Vero Beach resident, thanked the Board for passing the Motion, and wanted to impress upon the Board the importance of the Corps of Engineers project, which he has been working on for eleven years. He advised that he heard from the Secretary of the Army, who wrote that this project depended on the community's willingness to participate. JUN 16 1982 46''0 P6 .47 ... JUIN 16 1982 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY Y 1 1 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20310 Mr. Ralph W. Sexton P.O. Box 1208 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Sexton: 50 May 25, 1982 Thank you for your recent letter to the Secretary of the, Army requesting that the feasibility report for beach erosion for Indian River County be forwarded to the Con- gress. This project is one of many water resources development reports we are currently reviewing to assure implementa- b.i_lity and compatibility with the Administrations cost sharing policies. As part of this review we will be contact- ing project sponsors to solicit expressions of willingness and capability to meet our current cost sharing goals. I expect the report on the Indian River County project, along with many others, to move forward within the next several months. " I appreciate your interest, and I will do my best to get thi.s report to the Congress as soon as it has received the Administration's clearance. Sincerely, William R. Gianelli Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Mr. Sexton next advised that the Committee, the City and the County all previously agreed to adopt the Corps of Engineers' report and their recommendation of placing sand on tho beach, as per the following resolution: and RESOLUTION NO. 75-37 WHEREAS, Indian River County has suffered beach erosion; WHEREAS,a public hearing was held to attempt to find a solution to the problem; and WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach, the Sebastian.Inlet District and Indian River County have agreed to certain recom- mendations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that it supports the State of Florida's and Army Corps of Enginecrs' recommendations for the Sebastian State Park area as follows: 1. The Federal project should provide t'or a protectiv(_ and recreational beach and .future maintei)ance nourishment. It wou.1,.i be very desirable for the project to provide for development of a more efficient sand tran:;fer system at the Inlet and partic- ipation in the operation of that system. We would prefer to have the breakwater groin South of the Inlet included as an authorized alternative for construction only after its need is clearly demon- strated. A monitoring program should definitely be included as a part of a project in this area. The monitoring program would assist in the evaluation of the project and is particularly import- ant for assessing the effectiveness of the sand transfer operation at the Inlet as well as for determining the need for the deferred structure. WITHIN CITY OF VERO BEACH Z. Recommend and concur with the Corps of Engineers' / recommendation for beachfill renourishment in the project area, including a breakwater groin as an authorized alternative for construction only after its need is clearly demonstrated. A monitoring program would assist in the evaluation of the project and is particularly important for assessing the results of the beach -fill project. 3. Recommend a test reef known as the Sabecon Reef be an authorized alternative for construction, undertaken by the Corps of Engineers as authorized by.the United States -Congress. This test reef to consist of two tangents of the reef with no JUN 16 1982 DUCK ;e: 50 PAR 49 J BOOK 50 FAU UN 16 1992 �® beach -fill accompanying. Project monitored to evaluate results. Based on the professional testimony presented during the public hearings, this project could provide a new avenue for beach and shore protection and restoration for the entire coast of the United States, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida agrees to be the sponsoring agent for the project and Jack Jennings the County Administrator, will be the County's contact man; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian - River County agrees to a. Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements-, and rights-of-way, including borrow areas and reloca- tions necessary for construction of the improvements; b. Provide a cash contribution of the noirFederal share of the project cost, exclusive of costs for lands, easements, rights-o_f-way, relocations and alterations, the final percentage to be based on shore ownership and use at the time of construction; c. Assure maintenance of the project after completion as may be required to serve the intended purposes. For beach -fill • type projects, a cash contribution will be provided for the non - Federal share of the cost for periodic nourishment, such contribu- tion to be made prior to each nourishment operation, and the final percentage to be based on shore ownership and use existing at the r time of construction; d. Hold and save the United Stages free from damages due to construction works; e. Assure continued public ownership of the shore upon which the amount of Federal participation in the beach erosion control project is based and its administration for public use and, as appropriate, assure continued availability for public use of privately -owned shores where Federal aid is based on such use; f. Provide without cost to the United States appropriate access and facilities, including parking and sanitation, necessary for rea.lizaticrn of the public benefits upon which Federal partici- pation is based; g. Adopt appropriate ordinances, or provide other means, to insure the intended use of the beach -fill areas; and h. Control water pollution to the extent necessary to safeguard"the health of bathers. BOARD -OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Alma Lee Loy, Cha irm ATTEST: Adopted: June 27, 1975 STATE OF FLORIDA INDIAN RIVER COUNTY THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE. FREDA WRIGHT, CLFRK Mr. Sexton commented that he asked Homer C. Fletcher to perform a study regarding assessments, and then reviewed various assessments throughout the County. The letter from Mr. Fletcher dated June 15, 1982 and his 1981 Tax Roll Valuations are as follows: - 50 JUN 16 1982 50 .51 `, JUN 16 1982 HOMER C. FLETCHER, INC. AD VALOREM TAX CONSULTING P. 'o. BOX 6460 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32961.6460 TELEPHONE (905) 6e2.2925 Mr. Ralph Sexton P.O. Drawer 1208 Vero Beach, Fla 32960 Dear Sir: 50 52 June 15,-1982 HOMER C. FLETCHER PRESIDENT In accordance with your request., I rave prepared an estimate of the amount of revenue to be derived from a millage levy on the taxable value for operating millages county -wide and the taxable value for operating millages for the City of Vero Beach. The figures presented in the exhibit submitted are I. based upon information extrapolated from the 1981 Indian River County Tax Roll on file in the County Tax Collector's office as to taxable assessed valuations. The millage rates used were the tax rate necessary to generate approximately $ 548,000.00 dollars of revenue for beach erosion purposes fora one year levy on the Indian Fiver County Tax Roll... I trust the information enclosed will prove to be beneficial to you in your beach erosion efforts. HCF/pm Taxable Value For Operating Millages County Wide Classified Use Value County Wide City Of Vero Beach Taxable Value For Your very truly, Homer C. Flet 1981 TAX -ROLL VALUATIONS ASSESSED MILLS VALUE .001 $ 1,973,21.6,830.00 $ 155,403,540.00 $ 1,973,216.83 $ 155,403.54 00028 . ILLS 091 $ 552,500.71 $ 43,512.99 Operating Millages .$ 602,581,990.00 $ 602,581.99 $ 548,349.61 * The above taxable values for operating milleges for county -wide and City of Vero Beach on the 1981 Indian .River County Tax Roll disclose the amount of revenue that could be generated based upon a levy of .001 or .00028 of a mill county -wide. City of Vero Beach based upon a levy of .001 or .00091 of a mill. Keeping in mind this represents the amount of revenue that could be expected from a one time or one year levy at the aforementioned valuations and millage rates. The tax base in succeeding years should because of growth should be higher and the millage levys correspondingly lower for succeeding years. I . Mrs. G. K. Sharp, resident of Village Spires, asked the Board if the Committee would be doing research for other alternatives of beach preservation. Commissioner Wodtke advised that the Committee had not been studying any alternatives other than those recommended by the Corps of Engineers. The Committee wanted to study alternative ways of financing. He added that if the Board wanted the Committee to receive proposals, they would be willing to receive them and it would have to go to the Corps of Engineers. Z. 53 JUN 16 1992 52 at a JUN 16 1982 °K DO Puf 54 The Board of County Commissioners recessed 12:20 o'clock P.M. for lunch and reconvened at 1:30 o'clock P.M. with the same members present, except Commissioner Wodtke who was temporarily delayed. - PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING LOT 10, PINSON SUBDIVISION The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL �Sm.# - n Published Weekly f., '�►`�G,y `Beach, Indian River County, Florida ffS /, INY+7! 1I AN RI ,TE FLORf i)k 'Ws 3efo'r ;.und ed authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath he is ir%e ager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published rGy��`3 iver County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of "r�+��KL[ . IX7f 0 71,c . ;! in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of A Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before this - day of _(sipess Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners. of Indian, River - County, Florida, is reviewing the feasibility of making the following changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County', Florida, which changes and additions are substantially as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed In order that the following described property situated . on the north side of 42nd Street, east of U.S. 1, Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Lbt 10, Pinson Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 94, of the Public Records of Indian. River County, Florida. Be changed 'from C -1A Restricted Com- mercial to R-1 Single -Family Residential. •. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to .be heard, will be held by said Board of County Commissioners of -Indian River County, Florida, in the County Commission's Cham- bers of the county Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,. Florida, on Wednesday, June 16, 1982, at 1:30 P.M. If any person decides to appeal any decisidn made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which in - =es testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County { Board of County Commissioners Ws„...' By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr. May 28, June 10,1982- Planner Dennis Ragsdale reviewed the following staff memo, reporting that he does have certification that the residents within 300' of the subject property have been notified. TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: May 10, 1982 County Commissioners FROM: David L. Greene Assistant County Administrator SUBJECT: RANDALL & REQUEST TO OF PINSON REFERENCES: DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: FILE: IRC-82-ZC-5 1458 EVA MAE DAWKINS REZONE LOT 10 SUBDIVISION The applicant is requesting that Lot 10 of Pinson Sub- division be rezoned from C-lA, Restricted Commercial to =' R-1, Single Family Residential (6 units/acre). The site is located on the northeast corner of 42nd Street and 20th Place (just east of U.S. #1) . The Land Use designation of the subject property is MD -1 (up to 8 units/acre). A fifty acre industrial node is located in the vicinity of North Gifford Road and South Gifford Road, east of U.S.#l. ANALYSIS: Approximately 15 single family homes are O.ocated to the north, in Pinson Subdivision. Grove equipment is stored and maintained at Knight's Grove Care to the south. East of the site is groves and wooded acreage. Several single family homes are located to the west, across U.S. #1, in the remainder of Pinson Subdivision. The homes within Pinson Subdivision are presently non- conforming uses in the C -1A, Restricted Commercial district. The applicant originally requested a permit to add a room to an existing single family structure. Non -conforming uses may not be expanded thus, the permit was not issued and a rezoning application was filed. The request for R-1, Single Family Residential zoning complies with the MD -1 (up to 8 units/acre) Land Use designation of the subject property. STAFF POSITION: 1) The request complies with the Comprehensive Plan. 2) Pinson Subdivision is an established single family neighborhood. 3) Residential zoning of the subject property and the re- mainder of Pinson subdivision in the future would leave adequate land to fill the 50 acre industrial node designated for the area. 4) Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone Lot 10 of Pinson Subdivision from C-lA to R-1. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at its regular meet- ing held on April 8, 1982, voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the Board of County Commissioners. 5) Several other single family homes exist as non -conform- ing uses in Pinson Subdivision. In order to avoid a spot zoning and to bring these residences into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning codes, the staff recommends that the Commission initiate rezoning of the remainder of Pinson Sub- division, on the east side of U.S. #1, from.0-lA JUN 16 1982 to R-1, Single Family Residential. 5 JUN 1s 1902 ecor 50 ,fA;f 56 -1 Mr. Ragsdale commented that the rezoning recommended by staff to be initiated by the Board would bring this into conformance with the Land Use Plan and make everything to the east of U.S.I MD -1. P. M. Commissioner Wodtke entered the meeting at 1:40 o'clock Commissioner Lyons did not feel the Board would have to initiate any special action at this time since rezoning of the remainder of the subdivision would occur as a matter of course in conforming to the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Ragsdale agreed that was correct. Attorney Brandenburg felt that the reason staff is recommending the County move forward and rezone the rest of that subdivision as soon as possible is that the current request entails just one lot, which on its own constitutes spot zoning. He noted that it actually would be best to postpone action until the Board could consider the entire subdivision. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Jean Strawter, daughter of the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Dawkins, objected to any postponement of action on her parent's lot. She pointed out that they already have waited a a long time and have paid a fee to get this accomplished. In view of the economy and the continually rising costs, Mrs. Strawter did not feel it would be fair to make them wait any longer, and she felt if the others wish to have their property rezoned, they should have to go through the same process. In discussion, it was noted that if this were to be delayed until rezoning of the entire subdivision was initiated by the Board, it would take 90 days or more. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 82-11, granting the rezoning of Lot 10, Pinson Subdivision, to R-1 as requested by Randall Dawkins, and at the same time in- structed staff to advertise for a County Commission initiated rezoning of Pinson Subdivision on the east side of U.S.1. ORDINANCE NO. 82-11 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at -which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. "That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Lot 10, PINSON SUBDIVISION, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 94, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from C-lA Restricted Commercial to R-1 Single -Family Residential. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. This Ordinance shall take effect June 22, 1982. JUN 16 1982 �oox 56 50 mi 51 JUN 16 1982 APPEAL OF REZONING DENIAL — GEORGE CHILDERS �QOK 50 past 58 The hour of 1:30 o'clock P. M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of Ct' 7 (a,,—g in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues lo2;1�- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the. post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. /.`tel p Sworn to and subscribed before pie this : ��day of ' A. D.LJ2z:9_1 Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit CourtkjAdian River County, Florida) NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatthe Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, is reviewing the feasibility of making the following changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, which changes and additions are substantially as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated North of the intersection of S.R. 60 and 78th Avenue, lying directly east of Westgate Colony Subdivision, in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: East 10 acres of Tract 6, Section 1, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, Indian River Farms, Subdivision, Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from R-3 Multiple Dwelling District and A- Agricultural Dirstrict to R-20,. Multiple -Family District. The Board of County Commissioners will' conduct a public hearing regarding the appeal by the applicant of the decision by the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission to recommend disapproval of the rezoning request. The public hearing, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by said Board of County Com- missioners in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street,. Vero,. Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, June 16, 1982, at 1:30 p.m.. . If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need a r record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners + By: -s -Don D. ScurlockJr., Chairman May 28, June 10, 1982. Planner Dennis Ragsdale informed the Board that Mr. Childers has written Planning Manager Art Challacombe requesting consideration of rescheduling this public hearing since he had learned one of the Commissioners would not be present for the hearing. He understood readver- tisement would be necessary and is prepared to pay any costs necessary because this appeal is very important to him and he feels it should be heard by the full Commission. 9 a X11 Planner Dennis Ragsdale informed the Board that Mr. Childers has written Planning Manager Art Challacombe requesting consideration of rescheduling this public hearing since he had learned one of the Commissioners would not be present for the hearing. He understood readver- tisement would be necessary and is prepared to pay any costs necessary because this appeal is very important to him and he feels it should be heard by the full Commission. Discussion followed as to the fact that there were four or five people present who came to speak at today's hearing, and Attorney Brandenburg suggested that if the Board desired to reschedule, a time should be specified now so that the individuals present would be aware of it. Planner Ragsdale suggested a date of July 21st when there are several other rezoning hearings scheduled, including one in the same neighborhood. Commissioner Lyons asked those present if they could be present at a July 21st hearing, and four indicated they could be. MOTION was made by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner WQdtke, to reschedule the subject public hearing for July 21st with notification to be handled by staff and the cost to be borne by Mr. Childers. Vice Chairman Fletcher stated that he planned to vote against the Motion because the people present were duly notified and appeared to speak, and he believed the priority is to follow the procedures advertised. Commissioner Bird pointed out that four out of the five present have indicated they can come back on July 21st, but Commissioner Lyons emphasized that these people have made the effort to be here today. Mr. Childers also knew that the public hearing was scheduled today, and he could have been represented. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on with Commissioners Bird and Wodtke voting Aye and Commissioner Lyons and Vice Chairman Fletcher voting Naye. The Motion to reschedule the public hearing failed. JUN 16 1992 50 59. . 58 E90K 50 FAGc �O JUN 16 198, Attorney Brandenburg inquired if Mr. Childers recognized there was a possibility the postponement might not be granted and that he should have a representative here to speak his appeal in case it were not. - Planning Manager Challacombe reported that he had spoken with Mr. Childers and informed him of this possibility. He then displayed an aerial of the property in question and reviewed the staff recommendation, as follows, emphasizing the fact that this is located outside a planned service area, and it is an area which has been growing in single family development: TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: May 10, 1982 FILE: IRC-82-ZC-6 County Commissioners #458 GEORGE CHILDERS REQUEST TO • SUBJECT: CULTURE, ANACRES AGRI- CULTURE, 86 ACRES FROM R-3 TO R -2B, MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (8 UNITS/ACRE) FROM: David L. Greene REFERENCES: Letter to Don Scurlock, .Jr. Assistant County from George R. Childers, Administrator - ' dated April L3, 198Z. - DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The applicant is requesting that approximately 3.86 acret presently zoned R-3, Multi -Family Residential and approximately 4.68 acres presently zoned for Agriculture be rezoned to R -2B, Multi -Family Residential (8 units/acre). At the regular meeting of the Planning and 'Zoning Commission the request was denied by a 4 -to -1 vote. The reason given for denial was "the proposed rezoning was not compatible with surrounding zoning and because of the low density all around"(single family). The site, located on the north side of State Road 60, one block east of 79th Avenue, is designated MD -i (up to 8 units/acre) in the Comprehensive Plan.' ANALYSIS: North of the subject property the Land Use designation is MD -1 (up to 8 units/acre) and the zoning is Agricultural. Groves presently occupy this property. Greenbriar Subdivision is located to the south, across State Road 60. The Land Use designation is MD -1 (up to 8 units/acre) and the zoning is R-1, Single Family Residential (6.2 units/ acre). The effective density of this subdivision is approxi- mately 4.7 lots/acre. The property to the east is zoned R-3, Multi -Family Residential and the Land Use designation is MD -1 (up to 8 units/acre). This property is presently vacant. Westgate Colony Subdivision is located immediately west of the site. The zoning is R-1, Single Family Residential (6.2 units/ acre) and the Land Use classification is MD -1 (up to S uriits/ acre). The effective density of this subdivision is approxi- mately 3.4 lots/acre. The site lies partially within the strip R-3, Multiple Family zoning district between 74th and 80th Avenues, which extends 660 feet to the north and south of State Road 60. The strip R-3 District is divided by R-1, Single Family Residential zoning in Westgate and Greenbriar Subdivisions and by the neighborhood commercial node which is located at the southeast corner of State Road 60 and 82nd Avenue. Multi -family resi- dential development has not occurred in the R-3 zoning district. If the subject property were rezoned to R -2B, the maximum .allowable units would be approximately 68. v STAFF POSITION: The Comprehensive Plan makes several statements concerning development, including: 1) "Lower density development should take place in areas outside planned service." The subject property lies within an area designated for service between the years 1991 and 2000. 2) "Proposals for urban development shall compliment existing residential patterns." Single family subdivisions are located to the south, west and northwest of the subject property. Multi -family development is presently non- existent in the immediate area of the site. s 3) "Land Use designations do not represent entitlements." 4) "The Land Use Plan assigns specific density capacities to various land districts. Each district is given its particular residential density according to the following criteria: A) Historical development patterns. B) Proximity to urban centers. C) Physical Characteristics." 9 A portion of the site, as well as, approximately 160 additional acres have been zoned R-3 since 1957, with the adoption of the first zoning map in Indian River County. Despite the zoning, the development trend for the area has been low density, single-family residences. The northern portion of the subject property is zoned for agriculture. There are development pressures for the agri- cultural lands within the State Road 60 Corridor, however, the trend has thus far been toward low densities. The site lies approximately 3.5 miles from Vero Beach City Limits. 5) Staff recommends denial of this rezoning request. l JUN 1 b 1982 JUN 16 1992 flDOK �� PA�i "6� .. It was noted that letters in favor of the proposed rezoning to R -2B had been received from the following: Mr. & Mrs. Stanley Law Mr. & Mrs. Walter Rice ' Mrs. Geraldine Linn Mr. & Mrs. Frank Torlucci Mr. & Mrs. Lloyd C. Sorensen Commissioner Bird stated that while he was ready to open the public hearing, he felt it is very irregular to take action without the applicant being present, and he also felt Mr. Childers believed he had the right to withdraw or reschedule if a full Commission was not going to be present. Attorney Brandenburg noted that there is nothing in the Code which stipulates that an individual who requests a postponement of a public hearing must be granted one. Commissioner Bird believed it is more a courtesy than a requirement, and Vice Chairman Fletcher pointed out that courtesy is due the citizens involved as well as the one making the request. Commissioner Bird reiterated that he had no problem hearing the people present, but he did have a problem with taking a final vote today. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Dorothy Friberg of 2146 79th Avenue commented that Mrs. Geraldine Linn who sent a letter in favor of the proposed rezoning has her house up for sale and will be moving shortly, and she did not see where her opinion has anything to do with this. Mrs. Friberg opposed any rezoning, stating that she liked the woods in back of her and did not want to see the property changed. Vice Chairman Fletcher -asked what Mrs. Friberg would find satisfactory for development there, and Mrs. Friberg stated that she wanted it to stay the way it is. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that this property can be developed and undoubtedly will be developed. He discussed the advantages of cluster development and asked if Mrs. Friberg would prefer cluster dwellings or a number of single family houses. Mrs. Friberg did not want to see any development, but stated that if this property had to be developed, she would prefer single family as the lesser of two evils. Carolyn Boland of 2175 79th Avenue expressed concern about impact on drainage, increase of traffic, and population exceeding what the land can support. She It inquired about the number of people the proposed townhouse development would generate. Mr. Ragsdale stated that Mr. Childers is asking for 8 units per acre, and Vice. Chairman Fletcher estimated 8 units x 2.5 x 10 acres, or about 200 people. Mrs. Boland noted that in Westgate Colony they have three homes on one acre and informed the Board she has written a letter in opposition to the proposed rezoning signed by some twenty other property owners in this area opposing the requested rezoning, as follows: JUN 16 198Z 62 UU PSE s L - r JUN 16 1982 Honorable Boar; of "Ounty Corm,."esioners, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Pita. "?,960. 4 tt : Don C. Sc7�7,7-1 oc7r, Jr. , Chai r,�i-tan. Gentlemen: r 0 �Gc 64 April 26, 1982. As property owners in Westgate Colony on 79th .4venrae'We wish to go on record as oprosing the rezoning re- quest of George R. Childers of the following described prop- erty from R-3, Multiple Dwelling District and A-4gricul Lural Di strict to R -2B, lful tiple Family District: "East 10 acres of Tract 6, Section 1, Town- ship ^3 So»th, Range'8 East, Indian River Farms Subdivision, Indian River County, Florida." First and foremost, we settled out here in the "country" to escape over -crowding and density pop77,lation, and we prefer the present R-1 zoning in our #Tirestgate Colony su bd i v i s.i o n. The presence of nearby Village Green has al- ready increased the population of our area, and has imposed an additional bu;--len on our scant water anr' drainage problems. An -d we prefer the present agricultural :area to remain as such. lire realize there will be continued sonmercial development, plus the traffic flow that accompanies such ven- tures, in the western area of the county, but we trust that it will be restricted to State Rovte 60. Also, since we do have ?rznerous mobile home divisions i n our area, we certainly do not need any Multi ild?nily distri-cts. We will be very grateful for any help and consideration that !-oOzz can give us in this matter, and we welcome any farther suggestions which will enable us to teep "our little izornes in the cour try" still in the country. P�37PH „T'Y -I. MER 63 Sincerely, William c Carol yn�-� 2175 79th, Avenue, Vero Sea --h, 117a. 329(30 ADDLES, Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that granting a rezoning does not necessarily mean the property will be developed to the maximum allowed, and noted, as an example, that the land Mrs. Boland lives on is zoned for 6.2 units per acre but only developed at 3. Further discussion followed in regard to Mr. Childers' development plan, and Mrs. Boland reiterated that she opposes the proposed rezoning. William Koolage of 26th Avenue was disturbed that any consideration was given to rescheduling the advertised hearing; he opposed continuations, which he felt tend to discourage the public from giving input. He further expressed concern about the fact that the CLUP shows MD -1 for this area, which allgws up to 8 units per acre. He believed that at the time of the CLUP hearings many citizens did not understand what was taking place. No one further wishing to be heard, ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner�Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons that the Childers' appeal be denied on the basis that the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the single family character of the neighborhood. There was no second. The Vice Chairman asked the Attorney if there was any way the Chairman could second a Motion and was informed the Chairman could pass the gavel and then second the Motion. Vice Chairman Fletcher passed the gavel to Commissioner Lyons who thereupon took over as Acting Chairman. JUN 16 1982 THE MOTION WAS SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher. 64 50 pl if 65 JUN 16 1982 wax 5.0 PAGE s6 Commissioner Wodtke commented that, although he did not necessarily disagree with the Motion, he did feel the applicant deserved a chance to make his presentation. He pointed out that while we have heard what the opposition has to say, we also have received five letters in favor of the rezoning, as well as the following petition with over 20 signatures. An application: is pendirg before the=.idian 3iver .n+zr7v'^.. ;")f T ?'. "1' S�lO r±!JI1CeL' _ 1? nr{)pose : rezo.ai ti )f a. tract :)f le,.id 1o.,cribed as east 10 acres of Tract 6, 'section 1, 'ownship 333, Ra_ l -a 33E, located on State Road 60 at 7?th Avenue, comprisill ZD 3.68 acres. The request is to rezone approximately 3.26 acres of R-3 multifamily and 4.63 of A-a.�ricultural to R-23 multifamily (up to Sj units/acre". Ve the undersivned hereby declare that we have no objection to the proposed rezoain.,7 a-� hereby support the <5 pplicant in this eiOeavor. ADDRESS) - -- DAT- - 2666, _77 �.---�'�r-�•�„_�� r�!.,� 021,1.,. _ ___C . (��.-_fcit.�"�- "'•s��`G��- c�� - --- �//tip °.•,�_ �L�-y"" �G' s /__ � �•' i� --/ / `�-�— - --- -- — --- - - - . Z 'I s " 4� (JAL K ikYL CU a l r JUN 16 1982 9009 50 PAsE 68 Acting Chairman Lyons stated that he also felt badly about hearing this matter without the applicant present, but noted that Mr. Childers was aware his request for continuance might not be granted and he had every - opportunity to be represented. Mr. Lyons, therefore, believed it would be unfair to the public not to hear it at this time. In regard to the petition supporting the rezoning, he commented that it seems those favoring the rezoning primarily live across the divided highway from the property while those opposing it, live right next door. Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Lyons felt it would be unfair to continue the public hearing. He noted that the people who are here have had their say, and there may be more present next time. Acting Chairman Lyons pointed out that many people find it difficult to attend these meetings and he did not feel we should ask them to do this twice. Considerable discussion ensued regarding continuing the hearing to give the property owner a chance to make his presentation, and Commissionpr'Wodtke asked the ladies present if they had any objection to the Commission listening to the applicant at a later date. Mrs. Friberg stressed that those present today cameout in a pouring rain be be here, and she felt they should have been notified if there was to be a change. Commissioner Wodtke then expressed concern that if this appeal were taken the the courts, a No vote for the Motion to deny the appeal might be construed as a vote in favor of the proposed rezoning. He noted that, although he would not necessarily vote for the rezoning, he would like to have the opportunity to hear the applicant state his case. Attorney Brandenburg did not feel a No vote for denial of the appeal would be so construed, and it was generally believed that the record will show that Commissioner Wodtke has made his position clear. ACTING CHAIRMAN LYONS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on with Commissioner Fletcher and Acting Chairman Lyons voting in favor of the Motion for denial of the appeal and Commissioners Bird and Wodtke voting in opposition. The Motion failed. Motion was made by Commissioner Bird that the public hearing be recontinued and rescheduled to July 21st to give the applicant a chance to make his presentation; the applicant to bear the costs of republication. The Motion died for lack of a second, and Commissioner Wodtke noted this is the same Motion that failed earlier. Attorney Brandenburg stated that if there are no further Motions, the appeal fails for lack of a positive Motion. Acting Chairman Lyons passed the gavel back to Vice Chairman Fletcher. APPEAL OF.DENIAL OR A FENCE PERMIT - WILLIAM BARTSCH The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: JUN 16 1982 68 50 ; PAGE 69. JUN 16 1992 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being /1 n ,I the matter of 6/Lb eL 1LY in the p Court, was pub - fished in said newspaper in the issues of aD Q >/ D Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. )(�� `Sworn to and subscribed before this day of A.D. �13� p r (Business Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit-Couit,Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) 50 rku 70 NOTICE On April 8, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian River County, Florida, denied the request of William E. Bartsch for site plan approval to retain a 6' cypress fence. The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing, regarding the appeal by the applicant of the decision by the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission to recommend disapproval of the site plan request. The public hearing, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard; will be held by said Board of County Com- missioners in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, June 16,1982 at. 1:30 p.m. If any person decides to appeal any decision:. made on the above matter, he will needa record of the proceedings, and for such pur-. poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim _ record of the proceedings is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairman May 28, June 10, 1982. v, *Vle fi'9 The Board reviewed the following staff memo and recommendation: TO: The Honorable Board of DATE. May 11, 1982 FILE: County Commissioners SUBJECT: APPEAL - WILLIAM BARTSCH' S REQUEST FOR A FENCE PERMIT FROM: David Greene REFERENCES: Assistant County Administrator DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: On December 18, 1981, Mr. William Bartsch petitioned the County to allow him to retain a 6' cypress fence that had been placed around the sides and rear of the applicant's single-family residence. The petition was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular meeting of January 14, 1982, at which time the Board unanimously denied the request, with a recommendation that the owner submit a plan which conforms to the fence ordinance. A portion of the fence had originally been placed on side and rear lot line easements and has sinceo been removed; however, the fence has been retained on the north and east property sides. On March 24, 1982, Mr. Bartsch resubmitted this application to appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the April 8, 1982, agenda, requesting the Board to allow him to retain the 6' fence. At this meeting, the Board denied his request by a 3 -to -1 vote. Reasons for denial were, that the Board was going to stand with the Ordinance because there are too many fences being erected without permits. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: Indian River County Ordinance 71-3, Section 25 (i) (1), (2) , (3) states: (i) Walls and fences. In all districts, except agricultural districts, fences and walls shall be as follows: (1) Front yard. Fences not exceeding three (3) feet in height may be erected in the front yard. Where the house or part of a building is erected with a front yard greater than is required by the zoning ordinance, then the area (3) foot maximum is extended to include all of the area in front of the house or building. (2) Side yard. Fences not exceeding five (5) feet in height may be erected in the required sideyard, provided they do not extend beyond the front of the house or building. (3) Rear yard. Fences not exceeding six (6) feet in height may be erected in the required rear yard, provided that no fence shall be erected in a utility easement. HE= 70 arnc. 50 `1 JUN 1.6 1982 50 .72 The site plan presently indicates the placement of the 6' cypress fence outside of the easements and the permission to retain the fence on the north and east sides of the resident's property. Excepting for 92' along the rear yard property line, the fence would be in violation of the allowable height limitations as specified in Section 25-I (page 1492) of the Zoning Code. The Ordinance further states that: "Higher fences than listed above, and all barb wire fences, may be authorized by the zoning commission, which shall first determine that they will be visually compatible in the area where they are to be located. Fences and walls may not be constructed on or over dedicated public drainage or utility easements or public rights-of-way except in.agricultural zoned areas and then only with the written consent of the public authority holding the easement or right-of-way. (Ord. No. 74-21, 12-1-74; Ord. No. 76-11, 6-14-76)." Staff has reviewed the fence through on-site inspection and has determined that the fence is visually compatible with the surrounding area. F RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Mr. Bartsch's fence based upon its -visual compatibility in the area where it is to be located. Attorney Patricia Horst came before the Board representing William Bartsch. She informed the Board that a portion of the subject fence was accidentally placed on part of an easement, but as soon 4s'this was brought to Mr. Bartsch's attention, he immediately had that part of the fence taken down, and it now is lying flat on the ground; there never was any intention to place anything on the easement. In addition, part of this property needed clearing, and when Mr. Bartsch called to determine whose responsibility this was, he was mistakenly informed that there was no easement and proceeded to pay $420 to have it cleared. Attorney Horst emphasized that the site plan fees, attorney's fees, clearing expenses, etc., all add up to a substantial amount, and Mr. Bartsch has paid quite a 6enalty for not having prior approval to erect his fence. Ms. Horst then referred to her letter to Chairman Scurlock which cited 61 addresses in the area that have 6' fences, many of these being on corners, and reported that she had an additional list of 30 6' fences located close to this property. She understood that investigation has shown that most of these fences are permitted by variances. Ms. Horst presented pictures demonstrating that the proposed fence does'not present a traffic hazard and felt, in view of the many existing similar fences in this area and the fact that nine immediate neighbors have no objection to the fence desired by Mr. Bartsch, that he should be granted the same rights as others in his neighborhood. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if this applicant would have been denied a hearing in front of the Appeals & Adjustment Board, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that the Zoning Code stipulates that this matter is properly heard by the Planning & Toning Commission, not the Appeals & Adjustment Board. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. Planning Manager Challacombe discussed problems with the present Ordinance regulating fences and the need for changes in procedures. He noted that Zoning Manager Dewey Walker has strong feelings on the enforcement aspects of the Fence Ordinance. Mr. Walker agreed that he does have problems and that we have been inconsistent in issuing permits for fences. He confirmed that the list of over 90 fences submitted by Attorney Horst has been investigated, and some of these were granted by the Variance Board some years ago. He continued that the Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission also feels there is a need to revise the Fence Ordinance and has asked for a review. Mr. Walker favored the staff recommendation that Mr. Bartsch be allowed to erect his fence which is visually compatible with the surrounding area, especially since other permits have been issued in JUN 16 1982 POoK 5.0 PALE 73 72 :. JUN 16 1982 800K 50 Phu 74 this area and he did not see how we can say one can have a fence and another cannot. In further discussion, it was felt that it has been clearly demonstrated that people will not be allowed to put ' up a fence without obtaining a permit, and this has been a very expensive correction for Mr. Bartsch to make. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously granted the appeal of William Bartsch and authorized the issuance of a fence permit to Mr. Bartsch. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - PLANTATION RIDGE SUBDIVISION , Planner Dennis Ragsdale reviewed the staff recommendation, as follows:-_., �I TO: The Honorable Board DATE: June 2, 1982 FILE: of County Commissioners IRC-81-S/D-17,#234 SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT AFPROVAL FOR PLANTATION`RIDGE SUB- DIVISION FROM: C.B. Hardin, Jr., Ph.D. REFERENCES: Letter from Joseph Fedele Acting County Administrator to Dennis Ragsdale, dated 4/26/82. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: �- The applicant'is requesting Preliminary Plat Approval to divide 21 acres into 31 lots. The proposed subdivision is located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway and is bounded on the south by 20th Lane, S.W., near the St. Lucie County Line. Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision (Unit One) lies adjacent to the west and south of the subject property, and the land to the north is unplatted. �M-1, Restricted Industrial Zoning lies directly east, across Old Dixie Highway. The site is presently zoned R-1, Single FaTily Residential (6.2 units/acre). The Land Use Designation is MXD from Old Dixie Highway to a point 300 feet west and LD -2 (up to 6 units/ acre) on the remainder of the property. On April 21, 1982, the applicant -request to rezone the site to R -2D, Multi -Family Residential (6 units/acre) was denied by the Board of, County Commissioners. Approval of this request would have allowed development of duplexes on the proposed 1/3 acre lots. Sub- sequent to the denial of the rezoning request, the applicant has revised the proposed subdivision. The street layout remains basically unchanged and each lot has been expanded to a minimum of 1/2 acre. An additional 5 feet of right-of-way will be dedicated so that the requirements of the County's Thoroughfare Plan will be met. The applicant will also construct left turn lanes and a deceleration lane on Old Dixie Highway in order to maintain a stable traffic flow. All Technical Review Committee comments have received appropri- ate attention. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed subdivision complies with the County's Zoning Requirements, Comprehensive Plan, Thoroughfare Plan and Sub- division Ordinance. Staff recommends approval with the cendition that storm water be routed through the swales to the back of the proposed subdivision rather than toward Old Dixie Highway. JUN 16 1982 74 mK_ 50 faf 75', JUN 16 11982 : 50. AGI: 76 Mr. Ragsdale commented that staff is now requesting one additional item which is that the drainage swale be directed towards the rear of the subdivision to the west. Discussion followed as to whether this was feasible, - and County Public Works Director Davis explained that the intent was not to ask Mr. Fedele to drain to the west, but to self -contain the water in the back swale easements. They are up on the sand ridge where the percolation is very rapid. Joseph Fedele, owner of the subject subdivision, informed the Board that the engineers who did the perc test on this property found sand going down some 301; there is no hardpan at all. Mr. Fedele confirmed that they have agreed to make the drainage go west and contain the water within their boundaries. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unani- mously granted Preliminary Plat Approval of Plantation Ridge Subdtvision with the under- standing that the drainage will be directed to the back lot easements. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - MEADOWS SUBDIVISION The Board reviewed staff recommendation as follows: TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: June 2,'1982 FILE: County Commissioners IRC-81-S/D-14,#233 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF THE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION FROM: C.B. Hardin, Jr., Ph.D. REFERENCES: Letter from George Frederick Acting County Adminsitrator to David Greene, Assistant County Administrator, 5/12/82 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The applicant is requesting Final Plat Approval for the Meadows Subdivision. The approximately 10 acre site has been divided into 16 lots. The site is located at the northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and 1st Street, S.W. Access to the subdivision will be provided from 1st Street, S.W. The property is zoned as R-1, Single Family Residential (6.2 units/ acre) with the exception of a portion of Lots 9-16, which is zoned C-1, Commercial. Vie Land Use Designation of the entire site is LD -2 (up to 6 units/acre). ANALYSIS: On January 6, 1982, at the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, the Meadows Subdivision received Pre- liminary Plat Approval. The engineer of record has certified that the street and storm drainage improvements have been constructed as per the submitted as -built drawings and associated test reports. The Public Works Dirgctor has inspected and approved the improvements. Twenty feet of right-of-way will be dedicated on lst Street, S.W. This will give the County 50 feet of right-of-way. The Thoroughfare Plan designates 1st Street, S.W. as a secondary collector, requiring 80 feet of right-of-way. Since this application had been submitted and reviewed by the Technical. Review Committee prior to the approval of the Thoroughfare Plan, the 80 feet right-of-way was not requested, by the Commission, as a condition to Preliminary Plat Approval. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING: 1) The proposed subdivision complies with the County's Sub- division Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Require- ments and staff recommends Final Plat Approval be granted. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING: (Continued) 2) That the County accept the submitted check for $1,023.00 to cover the cost for seeding and mulching. George Frederick, developer, requested final plat approval, noting that he had been told that everything was in order. JUN 16 1992 c . 50...P1*_, 7 76 QflK 50 PAGE 78 JUN 16 1982 Public Works Director Davis reported that there has been one change in the preliminary plat. The developer wishes to preserve the trees on the east property line and does not want to put a drainage swale there. He was ' informed that his engineer would have to design other drainage provisions to substitute for the east property line swale. They have elected to put in some side lot drainage swales on each lot east of the road and contain the water in these easements. This provision has been incorporated in deed restrictions and covenants, and Mr. Davis had no problem with this. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted Final Plat Approval to Meadows ...-Subdivision as recommended:by staff. PRESENTATION RE WORD PROCESSOR FOR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT , Sheriff Dobeck reported that he has three proposals he will go over, and possibly tbe,Commission can make a decision today as to how this should go into the budget. He noted that he has a Lanier representative present to give a demonstration, if the Board desires. Sheriff Dobeck stated they would like to put the machines in the warrants and records department and accounting department for the Jail, Detective Bureau and Organized Crime Bureau, and to assist the Crime Watch Program. Total Cash purchase price would be $89,430, or 36 monthly payments of $3,144, or 60 months at $2,378, and at the end of each of those periods, the merchandise would be theirs. The Sheriff felt if the Board would allow them to purchase the entire package, they certainly would be looking at lease/purchase. The Sheriff emphasized the tremendous amount of paperwork and duplication of conies ins,`'ed wit', his operation, noting that they generally average 30 sheets of paperwork per jail inmate. The proposed system would have instant recall, which would eliminate the need for so much duplication. Mr. Ellmore, representative of the Lanier Company, informed the Board that he has researched each department and done a breakdown of time comparisons and dollar savings. He gave as an example the Records Department where there are seven ladies who do clerical typing and handle all daily Court responsibilities. Two of these ladies do nothing but type Complaints, and they have typed over 13,000 Complaints since the first of January; these Complaints can be typed in 10-15 seconds on the word processor and the information would be available for instant recall. Mr. Ellmore stressed the importance of communications, noting that all of the instruments proposed have the communications feature built in and can communicate not only within themselves but also with the State system. Mr. Ellmore then addressed the large amount of duplication encountered in his research, stating that the staff is efficient, but handicapped by out-of-date methods of cross- reference which necessitate having a hard copy in each category. He pointed out that most instances in the Sheriff's situation involve a repetitive typing situation, and the Lanier system will save a great amount of money by eliminating the need to hire additional personnel. Mr. Ellmore next discussed the five separate checking accounts which are all handled manually with an old posting machine and explained the system Lanier proposed for the Accounting Department. He further noted that the Lanier system can offer the Organized Crime Bureau and the Detective Bureau the security and confidentiality they require. Commissioner Lyons asked where we would see the effects of this system in the Sheriff's budget, and Sheriff JUN 16 1992 wK 5.0, PAPE 79 78 a JUN 16 198Z 940K .50 -pw, 80 Dobeck commented that there are certain things they did not include in the budget this year in the hopes of obtaining this equipment, and if they can get on this system, he believed it would not be necessary to hire additional - personnel for the Records Department. Commissioner Lyons stated that he really was looking for a budget with and without to see the savings demonstrated. He did not have any question that the Sheriff will have to come to this system in time, but would like to feel confident that when we spend the money, we are making a saving by it. Sheriff Dobeck believed they would be looking at savings next year because it would not be necessary, for one thing, to purchase as many Complaint forms or as much bulk paper. Mr. Ellmore stated that he would be glad to demonstrate the Lanier machine, but it is difficult to limit the time of the demonstration, and since today's agenda is very full, he gladly meet with the Board on some other day. The Board agreed it would be preferable to set up a workshop and have the demonstration at that time. REQUEST TO WAIVE BONDING REQUIREMENTS FOR TREASURE COAST VILLAGE A request for waiver of bonding requirements was made by the Housing Authority as set out in the following letter from the Executive Director: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 1840 25th Street, Suite S-321 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Ty J. B. Egan, III, Chairman (305) 567-8000 Charles E. Block Godfrey E. Gipson Ext. 321 Tim Bradley, Jr. Daphne K. Strickland June 9, 1982 Board of County Commissioners Indian River County Gentlemen: Within the next thirty (30) days, the Indian River County Housing Authority will be bringing to you for final approval, the plat of Treasure Coast Village Subdivision. Because the project is moving along so well, formal request is made by the Housing Authority to waive the bonding requirement as set forth in the Subdivision Ordi- nance. This matter has been staffed through your Administration and I believe Mr. Brandenburg will make a favorable recommen- dation to you for your consideration. Sincerely, Edward J. Re an Executive Director The Attorney informed the Board that the Ordinance allows the Board discretion to waive the bonding require- ment; this does not waive any requirements with regard to Site Plan Approval. This request was submitted to all interested departments, and they have no problem with it. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously waived the bonding requirement for Treasure Coast Village as requested by the Housing Authority. JUN 16 1982 M 8909 50 pw. Si 50 PAGE 82 JUN 16 1982 OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING & LITIGATION SEMINAR The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Gary M. "Branden County Attorney DATE: June 7, 1982 FILE: SUBJECT: out -of -County Travel/ Construction Contracting/ Construction Litigation Seminars REFERENCES: I have attached to this memorandum pamphlets outlining two practice seminars. The first, Construction Contracting Seminar, will include discussions on negotiation and drafting techniques, arbitration, scope and payment provisions as well as effective termination clauses for contracts. The second revolves around current developments in construction litigation. Both seminars are offered the same day (Contracting/A.M.--Litigation/P.M.) in West Palm Beach, Friday, July 16, 1982. The total cost of both seminars would be $120.00. I would respectfully request permission to attend these seminars. ON MOTION by CommissiRner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved out -of -County travel for the Attorney to attend a construction contracting and litigation seminar to be held in West Palm Beach on Friday, June 16, 1982. ESTABLISHMENT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Attorney Brandenburg reviewed his memo, as follows: TO: Board of DATE: June 8, 1982 FILE: County Commissioners SUBJECT: The Establishment bf a Code Enforcement Board for Indian River County FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg REFERENCES: County Attorney The legislature of the State of Florida adopted House Bill 421 which amended Florida Statutes §166.052 (copy attached for your review) and authorized counties to establish code enforcement boards. The purpose of a code enforcement board is to promote the well- being of the citizens of a county by providing an equitable, expeditious, effective and inexpensive method of enforcing and contesting the enforcement of -the various county codes including but not limited to occupational licenses, fire, building, zoning, sign, and related technical codes. Under the provisions in the Florida Statute a county may create by ordinance a local government -code enforcement board. The board consists of seven members who are residents of the county whose appointments follow the rules set forth in the ordinance establish- ing the board. These individuals are appointed on the basis of experience or interest in the fields of zoning and building con- trol. The membership should include an architect, a businessman, an engineer, a general contractor, a sub -contractor and a realtor. The terms of the board members are staggered. A code inspector would bring all matters of co -compliance to the attention of the board. The board would then conduct a formal hearing on the alleged violation. After the receipt of all testi- mony and evidence, the board would reach a conclusion based upon the record presented and issue an order affording the proper relief. The board would have the authority to adopt rules to conduct its business, subpoena witnesses, take testimony, issue orders having the force of law and may fine individuals who do not comply with orders that are issued, $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues. I believe that a code enforcement board could be very useful in Indian River County in the areas of zoning, building and utilities code compliance and recommend that the County Commission consider establishment of such a board. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to authorize the Attorney to draft an Ordinance establishing a Code Enforce- ment Board. JUN 16 1982,BOOK. 50 P*EE $3 p 82 JUN 16 1992 d K Vin. Es c:. 84 Question arose as to what -such a Board would do other than is handled by the present Board of Building Adjustments & Appeals, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that the proposed Board helps the Code Inspectors, such as Zoning — Manager Walker, enforce the Code. The Board of Adjustment & Appeals merely interprets the Code. Once the Code is interpreted, the problem arises of trying to enforce the Code, and when people do not cooperate, the only alternative at present is to go to the courts. The proposed Board would, be an inexpensive means to enforce the Code; they would have the authority to levy fines and would give the, Zoning Inspectors some clout in enforcing the Code. Vice Chairman Fletcher believed one complaint is that this type of Board insulates the County Commissioners from the people. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that the Commission does not have the authority to levy a fine. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. ROCK RIDGE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT Attorney Brandenburg submitted a proposed ordinances. creating the Rock Ridge Municipal Service Taxing Unit which was modeled after the other MSTU's that currently exist in the County. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to set and advertise a hearing date for the Rock Ridge Municipal Service Taxing Unit Ordinance. It was noted that this Ordinance was prepared at the request of the Rock Ridge group, and they will be notified of the date of the public hearing so they will have an opportunity to review the ordinance and supply input. Commissioner Lyons noted that the proposed ordinance does not mention the previous District and wondered if -there shouldn't be something on the record stating that the taxing unit would supersede the District. Attorney Brandenburg explained that the previous Rock Ridge Subdivision Street Lighting District was set up by referendum and to dissolve it, you would have to have a referendum. However, if a Municipal Service Unit is set up, the Secretary of State will automatically dissolve the District after a number of years. In regard to the exceptions listed in Section 5, the Attorney noted these were existing so he inclgded them and felt they could be discussed at the public hearing. Commissioner Bird inquired about the Rock Ridge Property Owners building, which he did not believe they owned, and the Attorney stated that they would research this question. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. INSURANCE LIMITS ON GARBAGE FRANCHISES The Board reviewed the following recommendation of the County Attorney: JUN 16 1982 84 Fog PaE !. JUN 16 1982 TO: Board of County `Commissioners FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg County Attorney QfN( 50 fisc. fl DATE: June 3, 1982 FILE: SUBJECT: Insurance Limits on Garbage Franchises REFERENCES: The County Commission during the meeting of May 19, 1982, approved two garbage franchises. During the discussions, one of the companies suggested that the new insurance requirements were too high and costly and were not necessary. Consequently, the Board adopted the franchise with a provision that current limits of $100,000/$300,000--$1,000,000 stay in effect for 30 days; and unless the company is notified to the contrary, the limits would automatically increase to that suggested by this -office. In the interim, this office was requested to contact an insurance agent for a recommendation. SubsegAent to the meeting, I contacted Bob Jackson, attorney for Rural Sanitation; and he suggested that Mr. Hamilton G. Arden, Jr. would be the best source of such a recommendation. Mr. Arden's recommendation is attached to this letter and is self- explanatory. I would recommend that the County Commission allow the rates to automatically increase to the amounts originally proposed or in the alternative set limits higher than,that originally proposed. Commissioner Wodtke inquired if both companies were notified of this recommendation, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that Attorney Jackson representing Rural Sanitation was sent a copy of the memo, and he discussed this with the attorney for Waste Management on the phone several days ago. They had no problem with the recommendation. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously agreed to allow the garbage franchise provisions to take effect automatically -and the insurance limits to increase automatically to those originally pro- posed by the Commission. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR GARGABE FRANCHISE FEE Attorney Brandenburg noted that the Board recently adopted two Franchises in the middle of the month, and this causes a bookkeeping headache. He, therefore, recommended that the Chairman be authorized to send the franchisees a letter stating that the franchise fee will be effective as of June 1, 1982. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to write Rural Sani- tation and Harris Sanitation to inform them that the franchise fee would become effective as of June 1, 1982. APPEAL OF DUCK POINT ANNEXATION DECISION BY SEBASTIAN Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that the Sebastian City Council by a 3 to 2 vote agreed to appeal the decision of Judge Sharp against their annexation of'Duck Point. He noted that the question is how to handle this property in the interim because it will take approximately 1h years for a decision from the Fourth District Court. He continued that the filing of an Appeal automatically stays the lower court's order. The Attorney for the City of Sebastian takes the position that by staying the Order, this property remains in the City. Mr. Brandenburg's position is that the annexation was invalid and it remains invalid, and, therefore, the property remains in the County. To deal with the property in the interim, he suggested that the Board authorize him to work with the Attorney for the City of Sebastian on a Stipulation that in the interim both entities agree that the property will remain in the County and any building in the area would come through the County Planning JUN 16 1992 86 50 fAtf 87 � . Box Q pw 8� JUN 16 9982 & Zoning process, which process would include input from the City of Sebastian. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the County Attorney to work with the attorney for the City of Sebastian on a Stipulation re the Duck Point property as discussed above. TREASURE COAST UTILITIES CONSENT ORDER Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he now can recommend approval of a revised Consent Order re Treasure Coast Utilities as explained in the following memo: TO: Gary Brandenburg, County Attorney FROM: TEeorer� 9 Utilities Manager DATE: June 4, 1982 FILE: SUBJECT' Discussion with regard to Treasure Coast Consent Order REFERENCES: I met with Len Kozlov and Bill Bostwick, both of Florida DER, to discuss our differences in the consent order wording and requirements. I agreed that we will contract to install a small well and arrange for power to be brought to the sewage plant. We will clean out the chlorinator shed and chlorine contact tank and the pipe feed to it. If we must water proof it and install baffles, we will do it. I could not guarantee the effluent detention time nor the chlorine residual after application. However, they and I agreed that we will apply chlorine at 100 pounds per day or obtain a 0.5 mg/l residual at the end of the chlorine contact tank. I mentioned that there is no way to implement this chlorination in 5 days. I told them 20 to 25 days would be nearly a practical time allowance. I was told that we would not be held to the five day requirement because of our agreement to satisfy the intent of the consent order. I am taking DER at their word in that this will be satisfactory to them. We should delete any phrase which implies the plant is performing any effective treatment; since we are chlorinating only to avoid possibi� spread of disease. /9 " • `dV"D i ty AttuineY � j, Ai/ I met with Len Kozlov and Bill Bostwick, both of Florida DER, to discuss our differences in the consent order wording and requirements. I agreed that we will contract to install a small well and arrange for power to be brought to the sewage plant. We will clean out the chlorinator shed and chlorine contact tank and the pipe feed to it. If we must water proof it and install baffles, we will do it. I could not guarantee the effluent detention time nor the chlorine residual after application. However, they and I agreed that we will apply chlorine at 100 pounds per day or obtain a 0.5 mg/l residual at the end of the chlorine contact tank. I mentioned that there is no way to implement this chlorination in 5 days. I told them 20 to 25 days would be nearly a practical time allowance. I was told that we would not be held to the five day requirement because of our agreement to satisfy the intent of the consent order. I am taking DER at their word in that this will be satisfactory to them. We should delete any phrase which implies the plant is performing any effective treatment; since we are chlorinating only to avoid possibi� spread of disease. The above mentioned work will take considerable labor from County forces and a well contractor. However, I believe we can perform this task forless then $4,000.00 Note that we have already scheduled work to begin for clearing up the chlorine tank and shed, etc. GL/kh P.S. Misters Kozlov and Bostwick both acknowledged pleasure at the cooperation of Indian River County Utilities in working with them to resolve this and many other problems. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 3 to 1 vote, vice Chairman Fletcher voting in opposition, authorized the Chairman to sign the Consent Order re Treasure Coast Utilities. 50 f i 89 88 JUN 16 1982 \ � N � 1982 _ t. �JU 16 _ 50. ,o .10 CERTIFIED NUMBER P215-152-969 _ BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION , STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Petitioner, V. OGC Case No. 82-0267 INDIAN. RIVER COUNTY, Respondent. CONSENT ORDER This Consent Order is made and entered into between the STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Petitioner, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, Respondent. The Department finds and Respondent admits -the following: 1. Respondent has purchased from Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc., a Florida corporation, a sewage treatment plant located at or near an area known as Wispering Palms a/k/a Dixie Gardens Subdivision, Indian River County, Florida, and a community public water system providing drinking water to more than 25 year-round residents of the same subdivision with more than 15 service connections and located southeast of the intersection of 7th Avenue Southwest and Antiguia Lane, Vero Beach, Indian River County. 2. The sewage treatment plant has been the subject of a litigation in the case of State of Florida, Department of Environ- mental Regulation v. Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc., Indian River County Circuit Court Case No. 76-730. By Final Judgement entered on April 8, 1980, attached as "Exhibit A," the sewage treatment plant was concluded to be in violation of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder with regard to the adequate treatment and disposal of domestic wastewater. 3. In addition, the public water system has been the subject of litigation in State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation v. Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc., Indian River Circuit Court Case No. 80-1157. The complaint, attached as Exhibit "B", was brought to enforce a Final Order of Petitioner dated May 16, 1980. Said Final Order found that Treasure Coase Utilities, Inc., had violated Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules mandated thereunder, in its operation and maintenance of a community public water system. 4. Prior to Respondent's purchase of the sewage treatment plant and water supply system, Petitioner and Respondent entered into negotiations to ensure that Respondent, in purchasing the plant and system, would take appropriate steps to correct the violations described in paragraphs two and three existing at the time of pur- chase of the plant and system; and that in consideration of Respon- dents timely performance of corrective actions, as set forth in a detailed compliance schedule, the Department would refrain from initiating enforcement proceedings against Respondent. Having reached a resolution of the matter, Petitioner and Respondent mutually agree and it is ORDERED A. Respondent shall undertake corrective actions in accordance with the following compliance schedule; 1) Within five (5) days of the effective date of this Consent Order, Respondent shall retain the services of a certified (class "C" or higher) water treatment plant and sewage treatment plant operator to operate the water and sewage treatment facilities in accordance with Florida Administrative Code+Chapter 17-16. The operator shall be required to spend a minimum of 2 hours per day, 5 days per week on-site time at the water treatment facility and a minimum of 1 hour per day, 5 days per week on-site time at the sewage treatment facility until the two facilities have been phased out. 2) Beginning with the effective date of this Consent Order, Respondent shall perform a daily check of each of the lift stations 2 JUN 16 1982 t e oK 50 04 r ,! U N 16 1992 50 TAUT 92 serving the sewage collection/transmission system to ensure'' that they are functionally operable for their intended purpose. 3) Within twenty-five (25) days of the effective date of this Consent Order, Respondent shall institute effective chlorination of the sewage effluent and will apply one hundred pounds of chlorine per day or an amount of chlorine sufficient to - V, retain o Vlretain a 0.5 mg/l total chlorine residual at the end of the chlorine contact chamber at maximum daily flow. 4) Within five (5) days of the effective date of this Consent Order-, Respondent shall implement a monitoring program for the sewage treatment facility in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-19. 5) Within five (5) days of the effective date of this Consent Order, Respondent shall implement a bacteriological monitoring program for the water treatment facility in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-22.105(1)(d) and shall take applicable corrective measures if a violation of the latter is found. 6) Beginning with the effective date of the Consent Order, Respondent shall institute effective disinfection measures at the water treatment facility so as to maintain a minimum con- tinuous free chlorine residual of 0.2, mg/l throughout the distri- bution system at all times. 7) Respondent shall maintain the drinking water supply well, distribution system and water treatment facility in good working order to protect the health and well-being of the con- sumers served by the system until the system is phased out of service. 8) Respondent shall maintain the sewage collection/ transmission system and sewage treatment facility in a manner to prevent the disruption of service to the users and to minimize the creation of nuisance conditions in the environment as a result of the facility's operation until the system is phased out of service. M_ -3- 9) Beginning with the effective date of this Consent Order, Respondent shall submit completed monthly operating reports for the water treatment and sewage treatment facilities to the Department within 15 days following the month of operation. These reports shall be submitted to.the Department on a regular basis until the facilities have been phased out. 10) Upon the effective date of this Consent Order, Respon- dent shall adopt in toto and implement the "Proposed Implementation Schedule to Acquire and Improve Treasure Coast Utilities and Ixora Utilities", dated March 3, 1982, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C", as it applies to Treasure Coast Utilities. 11) Respondent shall comply with the scheduled actions enumerated in Exhibit "C" within the time frames cited therein. 12) Within 120 days of the effective date of this Consent Order, Respondent shall submit completed applications to the Depart- ment for the proposed water and sewage system improvements for appropriate permits. Respondent understands that the proposed improvements may not be undertaken until Respondent is in receipt of an appropriate and currently valid permit for the work desired. B. Respondent acknowledges that it must obtain appropriate permits from Petitioner for the construction and operation of the facilities described herein, and that this Consent Order does not operate as a substitute for the requirement to obtain such permits. C. Respondent shall allow authorized representatives of the Department access to the property at reasonable times for pur- poses of determining compliance with this order and the rules and regulations of the Department. D. The Department hereby expressly reserves the right to initiate appropriate legal action to prevent or prohibit the future violation of applicable statutes or the rules promulgated thereunder. E. The Department, for an in view of the complete and timely performance by Respondent of the obligations agreed to in JUN 16 1982 � tiK 50 PRE 93 4 JUN 16 1982 � tiK 50 PRE 93 JUN 16 7982 - �ooK 50 FAQ a4 the Consent Order *hereby waives its right to seek judicial imposi- tion of damages, or civil or criminal penalties as to Respondent for alleged violations outlined in this Consent Order. Respondent waives its right to a hearing or judicial review of the terms of this Order. F. Entry of this Consent Order does not relieve Respondent of the -need to comply with applicable federal, state, or local laws, regulation, ordinances, or permit requirements. The entry of this Consent Order does not abrogate the rights of substantially affected - persons who are not parties to this Order, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. G. This Consent Order shall take effect upon the date of filing and acknowledgement by the Clerk of the Department and shall constitute final agency action by the Department pursuant to Section 120.69, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-1.58(3). H. Either of the parties to this Consent Order may seek a modification of any of its terms, including the time frames set forth in the Consent Order, by giving written notice to the other of the desire for a modification which sets forth the desired modi- fication. No modification is effective until the modification is reduced to writing and signed by both parties. June 16, 1982 Date O 9 FOR THE RESPONDENT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By: �& Vice Ch irman of the,.Eoard of County Commissibnelrs a.' - Attest: Q j&2 rjY Cler�t ,� �il �J and ieyWu f;l' 'y „�. ;;riiiiGiiillry C unty Attorna,� F _ DONE AND ORDERED this Z-7— day of , 1982, in Orlando, Florida. F(LlNG AND ACiNN "VVI-TEDGEN11ENT FILED, on this dais, pu suant to 5120.52 (9), Florida Statutes, with tl0 designated Depart- ment Clerk, receipt of w; -,"ch is hereby acknow- ledged. Clerk Cate ti JUN 16 1982 AL7, SENKEVICH Di trict Manager State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation 3319 Maguire Blvd., Suite 232 Orlando, Florida 32802 • 0 ouoK 5© � PAGE 95 6 0 ouoK 5© � PAGE 95 cn:._._. G1R JUN 16 IQ 7 0 egg )U TACE PROCLAMATION HONORING BAMMA LAWSON Vice Chairman Fletcher explained that he wished to be able to present Bamma Lawson with a Proclamation from the County Commission honoring her on her 100th birthday party_ on June 22nd. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted a Proclamation honoring Bamma Lawson on her 100th birthday. rv;� PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE 100TH BIRTHDAY OF MRS. BAMMA LAWSON WHEREAS, June 22, 1982, marks the centennial birthday celebration of Indian River County and Sebastian resident MRS. BAMMA LAWSON, who was born 100 years ago in Hahira, Georgia; and WHEREAS, MRS. BAMMA LAWSON has continually resided in downtown Sebastian on U. S. Highway #1 in the same house for the past 71 years; and WHEREAS, MRS. LAWSON has served generation after genera- tion in the community, teaching Sunday school at the Sebastian United Methodist Church, and making her home, books, and refresh- ments available to local children as a first open library; and WHEREAS, MRS. LAWSON planted, and for years decorated, the City's first Christmas tree, in what was then the only City park in Sebastian, the present site of Sebastian City Hall; and WHEREAS, it is altogether fitting and proper for the Board of County Commissioners, on behalf of the residents of Indian River County, to recognize this 100 year milestone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, assembled in regular session this 16th day. of June, 1982, that MRS. BAMMA LAWSON be extended sincere wishes for a Happy 100th Birthday, along with many happy returns. BO RD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS r DON AC. S,CURLOCK, JR. PIAN&A.W.-�Aw.r. PATRICK B. WILLIAM C. WODTKE, y ` DICK BIRD ATTEST FREDA WRIGHT, Clk APPROVED,iAS TO FO AND LS FI CY By , rI_- % ryM. BRANDENBU G, County Attorney ,� JUN 16 1982 Boa' 501w, 97 �50 F4 PF, JUN 16 1982 PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR PARK ORDINANCE Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the following memo, noting that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended the Park Ordinance be adopted and shifted it to his office for I modifications, which have been made as explained in his memo. TO: Board of County DATE: June 4, 1982 FILE: Commissioners of .•Indian River County SUBJECT: Indian River Park Ordinance FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg REFERENCES: County Attorney The County Commission.previously received a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Committee which contained a proposed park and recreation ordinance. The County Commission referred the draft to this office for review and modifications. Attached to this memor- andum you will find a revised draft together with comments on the draft by Bill Cook, Park Supervisor, and Alfred E. MacAdam III, Councilman, Member of Indian River Parks and Recreation Committee. My responses to the respective comments are as follows; BILL COOK'S COMMENTS SECTION 4. RULES AND REGULATIONS A. RULES Page 3 11 The rules are to be adopted by resolution according to the process laid out in the ordinance. The ordinance provides that certain traffic controls are considered regulations. The County may also want to adopt rules with respect to certain aspects of traffic control. The closing hours of each park will be set by resolution. After the hours are set by resolution and posted at the entrance, a violation is covered by Section 19 "TRESPASS". I would recommend that the language remain as written. SECTION 4. RULES AND REGULATIONS y B.9. MEETING Page 5 The number of individuals to trigger the permit requirement is a totally discretionary matter to be set by the County Commission. However, it should be noted that -a pickup softball game or football game with family and friends would probably exceed the 25 person number suggested. Requiring such activities to be permitted might prove to be burdensome. This is especially true in light of the fact that many of the parks do not have full time supervision requiring such individuals to come to the main park headquarters to obtain such a permit. M7 SECTION 4. RULES AND REGULATIONS B.10. NOISE Pages 5 and 6 I believe the 50 foot limitation would restrict noise to unreasonably low levels. Fifty feet is not very far for sound to carry and still be plainly audible. SECTION 4. RULES AND REGULATIONS - B.16. SLEEPING, CAMPING & LODGING Page 7 The language has been corrected. SECTION 4. RULES AND REGULATIONS B.28. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES Page 8 Possession of illegal drugs or marijuana is already against the law. An additional statement that it is against the law is not necessary. The regulations on disorderly conducted was deleted because it was vague and overbroad and, as a result, would be unenforceable and probably unconstitutional. The regulation on literature was deleted because it constitutes a prior restraint on First Amendment rights and is clearly unconstitutional. SECTION 6. PERMITS Page 9 The suggested change was made. SECTION 8. LITTER OFFICER Page 10 The suggested change was made. RESOLUTION Please see response to No. 9 MEETING above. MR. MacADAM'S COMMENTS Mr. MacAdam's comments have all been covered in the responses to Mr. Cook's comments. This writer recommends that the County Commission establish a hearing date to adopt the attached ordinance. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to authorize advertisement of a public hearing on the County Parks Ordinance. Commissioner Wodtke brought up the matter of glass bottles or containers not being allowed, which could include such things as jam, mayonnaise, pickles, etc., and wished to know how this could be enforced. JUN 16 1982 98 BQUK 50 WE �99 s JUN 16 1992 50 P�ur x.00 Attorney Brandenburg noted that the previous wording indicated glass containers would not be allowed in parks, the wording now has been changed to prohibit them on "beaches" only. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. RESOLUTION 82-57 REMOVING PROPERTY FROM TAX ROLL ON MOTION BY commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 82-57 removing from the Tax Rolls the 2.2 acres of property to be used for the location of a ground storage tank for the South Barrier Island.Water System. RESOLUTION NO. 82- 57 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING AND REQUESTING THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND TAX COLLECTOR TO REMOVE A 2.2 ACRE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY FROM THE TAX ROLLS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desired to acquire a tract of property located on the southern portion of the Barrier Island for the purpose of locating a storage tank for the new South Barrier Island Water System and to further locate a fire department substation, and WHEREAS, Vero Mar Development, Ltd. was the owner of a 2.2 acre parcel which was suitable for this County purpose, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County elected to purchase the parcel from Vero Mar Development,. Ltd. and closed the transaction June 1, 1982. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER -COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector for Indian River County are authorized and requested to remove the 2.2 acre parcel of real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, from the tax rolls of Indian River County effective June 1, 1982. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner 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. Absent Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Aye 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 16th day of June , 1982. Attest: "A a FREDA WRIGHT, Cl#rk APPROVED .to TO FARM AND LEGKr.,- ENCy4, By BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By . A. Grover'Fletcher Vice Chairman . BRANDENBURG, gounty Attorney K 50 101 JUN 16 1992 EXHIBIT A F�lg fit~ 102 DESCRIPTION OF 2.2 ACRE PARCEL IN GOVERNMENT LOTS 7 and 8, SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR PROPOSED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOUTH BEACH WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS. Beginning at the intersection of the South line of the North one-half of Government Lot 7, Section 16, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida, and the West right-of-way of State Road A -1-A (said right- of-way being 100 feet in width): thence, Run South 89034'14" West along the South line of staid North one-half of Government Lot 7 a distance of 380.11 feet to a point on the West line of said Government Lot 7, said point being 678.70 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 7; thence, Run South 89036'26" West along the South line of the North one-half of Government Lot 8 in said Section 16, a distance of 244.89 feet.; thence, Run North 00023'34" West a distance of 160 feet; thence, Run North 89036'26" East a distance of 310 feet; thence, Run North 47024'11" East a distance of 126.42 feet to a point on the West right-of-way of State Road A -1-A; thence, Run Southeasterly along said West right-of-way of State Rtiad A -1-A on a curve concave to the Southwest, said curve having a radius of 5679.65 feet, a central angle of 03019'44.4", a chord distance of 329.95 feet, a chord bearing of South 42031'39" East, an arc distance of 330 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel lying and being in Government Lots 7 and 8, Section 16, Town- ship 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida, and containing (96,175 square feet) 2.20 acres, more or less. QUIT -CLAIM DEED - DOUGLAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The Board reviewed the following memo from Attorney Brandenburg: TO: Board of DATE: June 8, 1982 FILE: County Commissioners of Indian River County SUBJECT: Quit -Claim Deed for Douglas Elementary School FROMd Gary M. Brandenburg REFERENCES: County Attorney I have attached to this memorandum a'proposed Quit -Claim Deed from the School Board of Indian River County to Indian River County for the Douglas Elementary Schook property. Also attached is the cover letter used to transmit the proposal to the School Board on May 28, 1982. The School Board's attorney, Bill Caldwell, has informed me that the School Board has approved the Quit -Claim Deed and will execute same at such time as the County is ready to accept the property and the responsibilities that go along with it. The -deed includes a reservation of use that allows the School Board to temporarily occupy the nine classrooms and office area for four consecutive years following the date of the deed. In order to exercise this right of use, the School Board would have to notify the County at least four months in advance and, in any event, prior to May 1 of any given year for the succeeding school year. The School Board also reserves the right to conduct a-1982 Summer Recreation Program on the property. The deed also includes a reversionary clause which indicates that the property shall automatically revert to the ownership of the School Board if the property is ever sold or used by the County for other than public purposes. If the County Commission desires to accept the title to the Douglas Elementary School site, I would recommend that we chose a date that is mutually acceptable by the County and the School Board for transfer of the property. This date would correspond to the mutual adjustments in insurance coverage that will be necessary. GMB /mg Respec ully submitted, a B fi en Aurg Discussion ensued as to whether the medical service that wishes to utilize facilities on this property qualifies as a public purpose, and Attorney Brandenburg believed that as a community health program, it would qualify. JUN 16 1982 102 nox ' 50 A4'f.101�.. K 50.Pt ur t04 JUN 16.198 - a Discussion ensued re the need to be prepared to take over the maintenance and security of these facilities when we -accept the property, i.e., there is cafeteria equipment which must be kept functional, a sewer plant, water system, electricity, etc. Commissioner Bird suggested that the Commission accept this property -October 1st after going through the budget. Community services Director Thomas informed the Board that it will be necessary to make a provision in the budget for funds to operate this facility since no provision has been made so far, and the budgets for all departments have been prepared already. He believed the Building Supervisor feels there is a good deal of work that needs to be done on this property right now. Attorney Brandenburg felt the School Board would like some indication that the Commission does, in fact, want the property, and he felt it would be very satisfactory with them if the Board indicated they would like to have it turned over to them October 1st. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to accept the Douglas Elementary School property on October 1, 1982 and execute the deed at that time. Commissioner Lyons requested that the Board keep in mind the possibility of utilizing some of this space for a branch library. Commissioner Wodtke commented that the health agency which is desirous of utilizing the wooden structure has funds'set aside and they would like to get started. He stated that while he had no objection to them utilizing this facility, there will be a question of security and we would not be able to enter into any ^areement with them until Otober 1st, which would mean a few months' further delay for them. Dr. Hardin felt the School Board might be able to work with them in the interim period, and possibly they could work out something with our concurrence. Vice Chairman asked if the Motion intends that staff will prepare a plan of maintenance, security, etc., in the interim, and Commissioner Bird felt that is implied. In further discussion, Community Services Director Thomas noted that the Road & Bridge Department would like consideration of the possibility of a sub -station there, which could aid on the security aspect. Dr. Hardin noted that Commission Wodtke has put in a great deal of time on this matter and he did not know if he has time to continue further. He suggested that the Board might wish to direct Administration to deal with this. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if there is any opposi- tion to the Administrator continuing negotiations or working for a smoother transition of the Douglas Elementary School property re maintenance, security, insurance, etc. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he will be glad to work on this with the Administration any time, but he did not want to put the Administrator in a position where he would be allocating space until we have an overall plan. He then discussed problems of security relating to the wooden structure that the medical group wishes to utilize. He reported that some concern has been expresssed by the medical society in town about some of the acivities with which this group is involved, and he would like to obtain some more input from them about this. JUN 16 1982 THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 1041. �K , 50 PAgE 105; J - �ga :50 .106 JUN 16 198 REPORT ON EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE Vice Chairman Fletcher reported that the Emergency Meeical Services Committee did accept the recommendation of Dr. Lucas, which basically is to hire 11 paramedics at a - cost in the neighborhood of $245-250,000. The Committee appointed Mr. Buchanan along with Chief Forrest Smith to present a report at budget sessions. Vice Chairman Fletcher continued that a question also arose as to this committee's standing; committee members desired that this committee be able to address some question regarding rules and regulations of the emergency medical services activities. Mr. Fletcher, however, felt this committee basically had been created to answer one question and make a recommenda- tion, and this has been accomplished.. Commissioner Wodtke and Lyons inquired about the. written report from Dr. Lucas, and Vice Chairman Fletcher stated that prior to budget sessions, he would have a report of some eight hours of committee meetings put together for the Commission members to review. Commissioner Lyons commented that he had some difficulty going along with the plan proposed, especially without going to a referendum. He felt one problem with the proposal was that it would nullify the present incentive• program which encourages firemen to become paramedics. William Koolage, interested citizen, also had questions about the report of Dr. Lucas and did not believe the doctor answered the need for paramedics on the quicker responses. It was his opinion that Dr. Lucas knows Martin County and not Indian River, and he felt the Commission is going to be confronted with something that will cost a lot of money, but could -cost less if the Ambulance and Fire Squads could work together. Discussion followed in regard to having a workshop prior to budget sessions, and Mr. Koolage felt there should be doctors present to argue the pros and cons. Vice Chairman Fletcher noted that the committee had viewed a slide presentation which was very worthwhile, -and he highly recommended that the Board ask the Assistant Administrator to set up a workshop. After further discussion, it was agreed that this is a matter of major importance, and the Administrator should try to set up a workshop date. REPORT - TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE. Public Works Director Davis reported that a study was conducted on the Oslo Road and 43rd Avenue intersection, which indicated that signalization of the intersection was not warranted. There have been, however, three deaths there in 1981, and the committee overruled the technical element and recommended signalization of this intersection. Mr. Davis continued that this would cost about $20,000. .The flashing beacons that were there previously were completely wiped out by one of the accidents, and they have been reinstalled to DOT standards at a cost of about $4,000. Some further research has been done into the accident reports, and it was found that the accident history of the intersection at 27th Avenue and Oslo, which does have a traffic signal, is about the same as the 43rd Avenue and Oslo intersection. Discussion continued about the need for signalization of Oslo and 43rd Avenue and whether there are other intersections which might have greater priority. Vice Chairman Fletcher stated that he was not prepared ` for this discussion and would like to bring it back on another agenda. DIRECTION TO AUDIT SELECTION COMMITTEE Community Services Director Thomas reported that when the first auditors were employed, it was on a three year 5Q_. P��; JUN 16 1982 106 ��n ,!O,ie: . oQK ; 50_':08 JUN 16 1982 basis, and it was on a negotiated basis. He believed the selection was narrowed down to three firms and that it worked out very well that way. He noted that the negotiated terms were not necessarily for a fixed amount since the - second year the costs were lower. He believed this procedure comes under the TRIM Bill and asked the Attorney to elaborate. Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that Sec. 11.45 of the Statutes establishes the Audit Selection'Board. Each time auditing services are required, this must be advertised. The Audit Selection Board then reviews each firm to determine whether they are qualified; the top three are selected and negotiations then are conducted simultaneously with all three for a contract^... Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, to authorize the Audit Selection Committee to proceed on a negotiated fee basis in selecting a firm to conduct the County audit. Attorney Brandenburg commented that the Committee can determine which firms are..most qualified, but the Board. of County Commissioners must negotiate. The language reads that "the Board of County Commissioners shall simultaneously negotiate with the recommended firms for auditing services as well as negotiate the scope and quality of service." Commissioner Lyons felt that while some firms will be interested in working on a negotiated fee basis, some will not. Mr. Thomas noted that the agenda apparently is asking that direction be given to the Audit Selection Committee to proceed either on a negotiated fee or bid fee basis, and he had some questions about professionals such as architects, doctors, etc., taking part in a bid procedure. Discussion continued as to whether there is any option for a bid basis, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that he did not see this option in the language of the Statute. Mr. Thomas suggested that the Board defer this matter and allow the Attorney, Finance Director Barton and himself to work together to resolve this matter. Commissioner. Lyons withdrew his Motion. DISCUSSIQN OF CHANGE OF CLUP PUBLIC HEARING DATE Commissioner Wodtke informed the Board that although he has tried every possible means to work it out, there is no way he will be able to get back from Seattle in time for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan hearing scheduled for July 13th and heverymuch would like to be in attendance at that hearing. He believed the Attorney and Planning Director did make contact to see. if there was any problem with state or federal agencies in regard to this and there was none; it was also indicated that no advertisement has been placed as yet, although there has been a general understanding for some time that the dates would be July 13th and July 27th. Commissioner Wodtke, therefore, requested that the Board give consideration to rescheduling the CLUP hearings to July 27th and August 10th, which would only change the date of one meeting. Vice Chairman Fletcher informed the Board that he had asked Planning Manager Art Challacombe to poll the Planning & Zoning Commission members to get an indication of what impact a date change might have on the public, and he received the following memo from Mr. Challacombe: " As per your request, each member was asked how many people they had informed about the July 13th meeting. At least 290 people have been given this information and approximately 20 letters sent to public agencies." JUN 16 1982 JUN 16 1992 Vice Chairman Fletcher did not wish to put an undue burden on Mr. Wodtke, but felt strongly we should consider the impact this will have on previous information given to the public. He emphasized that the public should be able to have faith in the government's word. Commissioner Lyons suggested running a series of small ads indicating that the date of the hearings has been changed. Vice Chairman Fletcher presented a scenario in which he confronted irate citizens whom he has previously informed that they would be able to speak at a July 13th meeting. Commissioner Bird felt if we do the proper amount of advertising the people who have an interest will be reading the paper and will be informed. The agencies.previously notified can be reached. Robert Reider of Reef Road and member of the Vero Beach Civic Association stated that the one problem area he found is the situation where people -purposely have planned vacations around these dates. He reminded the Board that this problem arose last fall when the meeting had to be moved to larger quarters and was rescheduled to be held in the High School Auditorium. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he did not wish to cause anyone any inconvenience, but it will be physically impossible for him to be here on July 13th. Discussion followed about the agenda for the July 13th meeting, and Planning Manager Challacombe reported that they will be including the changes requested at the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, the changes requested by letter since that time, plus staff -recommended changes, all of which'adds up to 13 items. -He pointed out that this involves only changes on the map and does not take into consideration questions that may arise on the other elements. This also does not take into consideration the people who may come to the meeting and wish to speak without giving prior notice. The second meeting is the opportunity for the Board to hear other speakers present their case and the opportunity for the Board to adopt the Plan as an Ordinance with whatever modifications are desired. Discussion continued as to the time required to deal with each item, and Commissioner Lyons believed there well could be a need for a third hearing. He suggested withholding action on any items at the first meeting, which would give Commissioner Wodtke an opportunity to review the record of the meeting and enable him to be effective at the second hearing. Vice Chairman Fletcher stated that he would be agreeable with not taking action until the second hearing. Mr. Reider questioned whether it was anticipated there might be a large enough crowd to warrant moving to a larger building, and it was not felt this would be necessary. Attorney Brandenburg noted that the first public hearing is a joint meeting with the Planning & Zoning Commission; the law requires that they make a recommendation. RESOLUTION 82-58 - COMMENDING KIM MOYER FOR HER WORK RE DEVELOPMENT OF ROUND ISLAND PARK ON MOTION made by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 82-58, commending Kim Moyer of the University of Florida School of Landscape Architecture for her study of Round Island Park, copies of the Resolution to be forwarded to Ms. Moyer and the University. JUN 16 1982 8QUK . , PR6E l 110 JUN 16 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 82-58 g� 50 ') A RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION OF KIM MOYER BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, Indian River County has available an inventory of property that has the potential of being developed into park and recreational facilities, and WHEREAS, the County has lacked the necessary resources to thoroughly plan for the future utilization of these potential park sites, and WHEREAS, the County Commission approached the University of Florida, School of Landscape Architecture and requested the school's aid in the planning process, and WHEREAS, the University was in need of a method to provide their students with experience in the practical application of the abilities acquired through study, and WHEREAS, KIM MOYER, a senior at the University of Florida, -School of Landscape Architecture with a speciality in park and recreation planning volunteered to conduct a study of Round Island Park in Indian River County to serve as her senior project, and WHEREAS, Ms. Moyer's work in the County was conducted in a thorough, professional and dedicated manner to produce several excellent alternative park proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that; 1. The County Commission and the residents of Indian River County commend KIM MOYER for her exemplary achievement in the Round'Island Park project, and 2. The County Commission expresses its appreciation to the University of Florida School of Landscape Architecture for its cooperation in this endeavor and further urges the school to continue this worthwhile program.. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board wishes KIM MOYER continued success in her future endeavors. Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 16th day of June , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. Chairman A. G ER FLET H R Vi -C airman R N ILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR. DICK BIRD s Attest: r FREDA WRIGHT, rk APPROVE 7AS TO FORM AND L L SUF CIE CY By GARY BRANDENBURG, County Attorney JUN 16 1982�t,r 113 -2- JUN 16 1982 50.%i t"114 RIGHT-OF-WAY PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR 8TH STREET EXTENSION Purchase Agreement with James Hammond, III, for right-of-way for the extensioneof 8th Street is hereby made apart of the Minutes as approved at the meeting of May 5, ' 1982. - � L RIGHT-OF-WAY PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 2nd day of June , A.D. 1982, between MR. JAMES HAMMOND, III, having a mailing address of P.'O. Box 3392, Beach Station, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, herein- after called Seller, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political sub- division of the State of Florida, having its administrative offices at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,,Florida 32960, herein- after called Buyer. (Wherever used herein, the terms Seller and Buyer shall include the singular and plural, heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns, as the context may require.) WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, at a meeting duly called and held on the 5th day of May, A.D. 1982, signified its agreement to the condi- . ' tions outlined herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, conditions and covenants set forth herein, the Buyer and Seller agree as follows: 1. TITLE - SUBJECT PROPERTY The Seller shall sell and the Buyer shall buy the following described real property, located in Indian River County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as Subject Property: AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A 2. PURCHASE PRICE Buyer shall pay to Seller at closing the sum of $18,260.00, said payment to be by bank check signed by the Chairman and Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. 3. CLOSING DATE The contract shall be closed and the deed and possession shall be delivered on or before twenty (20) days after such date as Buyer shall have acquired, by execution of purchase agreements or Order of Taking through condemnation, two (2) certain parcels located adjacent to and immediately north and west of Subject Property, referred to at this time as the Wright parcel and the J UN 16192 -1- soca: P. 5 M a .R�� h 4 4 PIRF 1 4 1 ft J JUN 16 1982 LaFevers parcel. 4. CONDITION OF PURCHASE Pro 50 Seller acknowledges that the sale and purchase of Subject Property is for the use and benefit of the public as a right-of-way for County road purposes (extension of 8th Street); and in the event the County does not acquire the other parcels necessary to construct 8th Street between U.S. #1 and 6th Avenue, or determines by final Board action prior to September 30, 1982 not to construct said street at all, the obligations contained herein shall be null and void and both Buyer and Seller shall be forever released. 5. WARRANTY DEED, EXISTING MORTGAGE Seller shall convey title to Subject Property in fee simple, by warranty deed, free and clear of any and all encum- brances, and shall deliver no later than closing absolute releases from all existing mortgagees, including the purchase money mort- gage in favor of Frank Barrett, personal representative, as recorded at Official Record Book 578, page 885 of the Public Records of Indian River County. If, however, the Seller is unable to obtain absolute releases from those persons interested in said mortgage recorded in Official Record Book 578, page 885 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Buyer agrees to accept title to the subject premises subject only to that said mortgage and Seller agrees -=at the time of closing to sign a separate agreement agreeing to con- tinue to maintain and pay off said mortgage encumbrance and to further agree to indemnify and hold the buyer harmless from any and all liability arising under said mortgage. 6. OTHER PROVISIONS The Standards for Real Estate Transactions, attached hereto as EXHIBIT B, shall govern this agreement, provided that only the following lettered paragraphs therein shall apply: A(1), D, G, H. L, M, Q, R, S, U, V, W. 7. EXPENSES Buyer shall pay all costs and expenses, including Mate surtax and documentary stamps, associated with the recording of BooK0 b 4 4 PAGE I 0 the deed or any corrective or release instruments required. 8. LEASES Seller shall provide a written waiver of claim from any lessee presently having the lawful right of possession to any part of the subject parcel or an affidavit of the Seller stating that there are no such outstanding possessory rights. 9. ATTORNEY'S FEES Buyer agrees to pay Seller's reasonable attorney's fees in connection with this transaction at the time of closing. 10. CONTRACT RECORDABLE The parties agree that this agreement may be recorded in the`Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, at the expense I of the recording party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed in their respective names, on the date first above written. JAMES HAMMO D, IAI I STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me : iris••••'••• of 1982, by JAMES HAMMOND, _day NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT. LARGE Notao Pu lic, tate of F1G-x*idba7tz) Large. My Commission Expo ..�,AMISSION EXPIRES FEB 18 1985. , �'/� '•••••''' S .. _--o.0 INKU GENERAL INS, UNDERWRITEU ' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS"'••' OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Witness C. SCURLOCK-, JR., C firman Attest: U ✓• itness C er C STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER The foregoin instrument was acknowledged before mb this �49`� day of A,�,A,�� 19 8 Z , by DON C . SCURis ' iG,,,, JR .� chairman, Boar o County Commissioners of Indian RiA •Q#,y� •,, Florida. ��.'_=�,.A� �•'�� Approved as to form and legal sufficiency By (C •`�L�C�L : Brandenburg County AttorneyI "SIX • w Notary Pu ic, St a teqI71 ,.'--FXi d a: ,at Large. Commission :Ex 'resit NOTARY rR}BCYC'S1ApT,Of iIORIQJ►• T (.ua MY COMmihi Z, EX71Ke- Xy -A T9,47 WN6ED TMU GiI414-r MTmp4;F 117 JUN 16 1982 G.Rvn h 4 4 pAg 1 4 3 b •r , • --moi JUN 161982 a�K ' J EXHIBIT A 5 'f. r Q ti The North 30 feet of the following described parcel: Beginning at the point of intersection of the East right-of-way line of U. S. Highway 01, as the same is now established and the _North line of Section 13, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, and which Point of Beginning is approximately 493.96 feet East of the Northwest corner of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 13, Township 33 South, Range 39 East; thence, run East 482.73 feet along said North line of said Section 13 a distance of 543.80 feet to the- -True Point of.Beginning; thence, continue East 327.27 feet along the North line of Section 13 to an intersection with the West boundary line of a County Road known as Fultz Road; thence, on a deflection angle of 90° 10' to the Right run South 266.20 feet on said West boundary line of said County Road known as Fultz Road_; thence, on a deflection angle of 890 50' to the Right run West 327.27 feet; thence, on a deflection angle of 90° 10' Right run 266.20 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Containing 2.000 acres more or less. BOOK0 b 4 4 PAGE co Y U1 BOOK0 b 4 4 PAGE 1•;XHllil't' H STANDARDS FOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS CI^^.N'., OF TIT.... I! A ciTrl,te .ii-miet ,f t •, t)!er,.lre'i "•. , reruIit•.e :bstrt.: r..... _ ._ .situ, folio .r. .. r _ ... .., all', .. i�1.:t .. .wrV rpt• .. iw re.., .f .-rr.^, - •, ._ .. , , 'l -:.Il :i .1 •,[/'r`•l 1: 1 .., •-.. ..V ; 'f s '.[ ..tl :� .. .1, ... f' .r .•t" , ., . , :act ..: 14,•.ant.'.l a:, [•t dv aV.•t't iv .nr ,r . el"rP :..+1^_. _ d ,...r �I:.Ir ,IK. Cit ^lltt[:rn[ ••1 l,V .t s,. ..r . „ 1.; :..,i : .n;': !er a: tie,•. ;- ,•a,• _ :: rnr!:ng tit he .,.•tvi•t„ eater, in n�n•r cuatantee :n the amunnt •.i the 1••tr. wise rince assuring tee tine ..i the !neer •�, tc it inti ;�r'•r• ..e .•,t .. to liens, encnmnrnnces, etceptions or qualification set forth in this contract and these which shall 1•e dl,altarced he sei)er at or before• ei..w ng l:uyer -haft have 30 ..-... days if abstract, or 1.1..... days if title riarantee e-nmiu0ment. from the date of rcceivin, the evidence of title to rxamne same if t tic is found to 1•e defectrr, the huvor shall• within said period notify the -oiler in writing spe•cifyng the deierth. If the said dofet•ts render the title anmarl.et iNe. tit, .i e dler =h,1; Imve la) ...... days from the receipt of such notice to cure the dcfe cts, and shall use duo dilicenre to do ao; but if niter s.ud tune baso expired. soul tb•ferts are not cured. Fiuver• u,^.nn re iticst. =hall have an additional 120 ...... days to cure acid deGiets, and the rensonable rost,t and fee- inrurn•tl the•rrhv shall ! •• ;,aid ht -11--r if Beier d•ua not cure said defects within Paid ndntional time period* , then buyer ••hall have the option: 11) aece'paang the title a+ it thet' n is, or 'i dt mandua a refund of all montes Paul hereunder which shall forthwith be returned to the buyer, and therourion the buyer and setter shall be released of :111 further obligations under thn contract B. EXISTING MORTGAGES: The Seller .hail obtain and furnish a statement from the mortgagee setting forth the principal balance, method of payment, interest rate, and whether the mortgage is in gond standing. If there is n charge for the chance of ownership records by the mortgagee, it shall he bnrne by the flnyer. In the event the mortgagee does not accept the Buyer for purlxisew of assuming the existing mortgage encumbering the subject property, where the mnrtcace instrument re. quires ;ugh acreptttnee, then and in that event, the Buyer at his. option may cancel the contract and all monies paid on the purchase price shall hr n•funded to him and the parties shall be released from all further obligations. Any variance in the amount of n mortgage to he nssm urd from the amount stated in fill- f'nntract shall be added to or deducted from the cash payment or the purchase money mortgage, as the Buyer may deet. C. PURCIIAS)i MONEY MORTGAGES: Any Purchase mnnev note and mortgage shall follow the forms generally accepted rind used in the county where the I:tart is located. A pur:hase ntotiey mortgage shall provide for insurance against loss by fire with extenr)Pd cover -ire in an amount not less than the full in.urahle vahie of the improvements. In a lint mora- pe, the note and mortgage shall provide for acceleration, at the option of the holder, after thirty (30) days default and in it second meirlcage after 15 ...... flays default. Second mortgages shall require the -owner of the property encumbered by said morteace in keen all prior liens and Pnrum- hranceP in good standing and forbid the owner of the property from accepting modifications of, or future advances under, t prior mortgage. Buyer shall have the right to prepay all or any part of the principal at any time or times with interest to date of payment without penalty and said payments shall apply against the principal amounts next maturing. In the event Buyer executes a mortgage to one other than the Seller, all costs and charges incidental thereto shall be paid by the Buyer. D. SURVEY: The Buyer, within the time allowed for delivery of evidence of title and examination thereof, may have said Property surveyed at his expense. If the sunny shows any encroachment on said property or that the improvements intended to be located on the subject property in fact encroach on the lands of others, or violate any of the covenants herein, the same shall be treated as a title defect. E. TERMITE INSPECTION: Prior to closing, at Buyer's expense. the Buyer shall have the right to have the property inspected by a lirensed exterminating com- pany to determine whether there is any active termite or wood -destroying organism present in any improvements on said property, or any dam:u:e from prior termite or wood drstnszing organism to said improvements. It there is any such infestation or damage. the Seller shall pay all costs of treatment and repairing and/or replacing ail Pgt'tions of said improvements which are infested or have been damaged; provided, however, in the event the cost to be incurred is more than three percent (317,) oP4he purchase price, then either party may cancel the contract within len (10) days of receipt of the termite inspection report and cost estimate for effecting exterminations and necessary repairs, by giving written notice to the other party, a F. INSURANCE: The premium on any hazard insurance policy in force covering improvements on *the subject property shall he prorated hempen the parties, or the Policy may be cancelled as the Buyer may elect. If insurance is to be prorated the Seller shall, on or before closing date• furnish to the Buyer all insurance Policies or copies thereof. G. LEASES: The Seller shall, prior to closing, furnish the Buyer copies of all written leases and, if there are any persons in Possession without written )eases, estoppel leifers from each tenant specifying the nature and duration of said tenant's occup�aray, rental rate, advance rents or security deposits paid by tenant. In the event Seller is unable to obtaio said estoppel letters from tenants, the same information may be furnished by seller to Buyer in the form of a Seller's Affidavit. H. MECIIANICS LIENS: Seller shall furnish to the buyer an affidavit that there have been no improvements to the subject property for PO days iminedintely preceding the date of closing. If the subject property has been improved within 90 days immediately preceding the closing date, the seller shall deliver releases or waiver of all mechanics liens executed by general contractors, subcontractors, suppliers or mnterialmen and a seller's mechanics lien atlidnvit. I. PLACE OF CLOSING: Closing shall be held at the office of the seller's attorney or as otherwise agreed upon. J. DOCUMENTS FOR CLOSING: Seller's attorney or other closing agent shall prepare deed, and corrective instruments, seller's aflidnvit, and closing statement. Buyer's attorney shall prepare the purchase money note and mortgage. Copies of all such documents shall be submitted to the other party's attorney at least 2 days Prior to the cloaing date. Copies shall also be furnished to participating Brokers upon request. K. EXPENSES: State surtax and documentary stamps required on decd, costs of recording any correcting instruments and the cosCof recording the purchase money mortgage shall be paid by the seller. Documentary stamps to be affixed to the note or notes secured by the purchase money mortgage, inlangaible tax on mnrtgage, and the cost of recording the deed shall be paid by the buyer. -- L. PRORATION OF TAXES (REAI, AND PERSONAL): Taxes shall be prorated based upon the current year's tax without regard to discount. If the closing takes place and the current year's taxes are not fixed, and the current year's assessment is ovailnble, taxes will he prorated based upon such assessment and the prior year4 millage. If the current year's assessment is not available, then taxes will be prorated on the prior year's tax, Provided. .however, if there is completed improvem.•nt of the subject premises by January 1 of the yea? of closing, then the taxes shall he prlrnted to the dater'of closing based upon the•prior year's millage and an equitable assessment to be agreeSupon between the parties, taking into consideration Homestead rxemP!ion, if any. However, any tax proration based on an estimate may at the request of either party to the transaction, be subsequently readjusted upon receipt of tax bill, it a statement to -that effect is set forth in the closing statement. i1f. SPECIAL ASSESSNIFNT LIENS: Certified, confirmed or ratified assessment liens as of the date of closing (and not as of the date of the contract) are to lie paid by the seller. Pending liens as of the date of closing shall be assumed by the buyer, provided, however. that where the improvment has been substantially com- pleted as of the, date of the contract, such pending liens shall be considered as certified, -confirmed or ratified and the seller shall at closing tie charged :ar :urnnmr equal to the last estimate by the public body of the assessment for the improvement. N. PERSONAL PROPERTY: The Seller represents and warrants that all major appliances and machinery included in the sale shall he in grand wnrking order and repair as of the date of closing. Buyer may, at his sole expense and on reasonable notice, inspect or cause an inspection to be made of the appliances and ettuipmt•nt involved prior to closing. Any necessary repairs shall be made at the cost of the Seller and, if appropriate, ndequate funds shall be escrowed at time of closing tU effect such repairs. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the Buyer shall, by proceeding to closing, be deemed to have accepted the property as is. O. RISK OF LOSS: If the improvements are damaged by fire or other casualty before delivery of the deed and can he restored to substantially the same condition as now existing within a period of sixty (60) days thereafter, Seller may restore the improvements and the closing date and date of delivery of prnsession hereinbefore provided shall he extended accordingly. If ' 'ter fails to do so, the Buyer shall have the option of (1) taking the property as is, together with insurance proceeds, if any. or (2) cancelling the contract and all depots. will be forthwith returned to the Buyer and the parties shall be released of any further liability hereunder. P. MAINTENANCE: Between the date of the contract and the date of closing. the property including lawn, shrubbery and pool, if nay, .hall be maintained by the Seller in the condition as it existed as of the date of the contract, ordinary wPar and tear excepted. Q. PROCEEDS OF SALE AND CLOSING PROCEDURE: The Seller shall be entitled to receive the net proceeds of the sale at time tat closing, except in raves where mortgagee requires title clearance before disbursing funds, in which event Seller shall he entitled to payment upon receipt of funds from mortgagee. Payment shall he made in the form of cash, cashier's check, certified check, attorney's trust account check, or real estate broker's trust account check. All professional service fens shall lit• disbursed in full at the time of closing. It. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS: In connection with tiny litigation arising out of this contract, the prevailing party shall he entitled to recover all costs incurred• including reasonable attorney's fees. S. M -'FAULT: if Buyer fails to Perform any of the covenants tit this contract, all money paid pursuant to this rnntract by Ilse• Buwer shall be ref.eined by or for the account of the Seller as considertlu,n fur. the execution of this contract, and as .agreed and liquidated damages and ill full seltlrment of any claims for dati tg,•- if he Seller fails to perform any tit Yhe'coveanattts of this contract. all monev paid pursuant to this contract by the Guver, at the opunn of the Boyer. .hall be n•turit-I to the Buyer on demand, or the ,Buyer shall have only the right of specific performance. 1 .. , I J , / T. CONTRACT NOT RECORDABLE: This ttrtlfractur any reference thereto shall not he recorded in the noire of the Clerk of any Circuit Court tat the Stilts• of Florida. IT. PERSONS BOUND: This con!rac� shall hind-, and benefit the parties hereto, their heirs, personal repre>cnt•,tives, sucressors and aasigrs Wrilrss provided herein that this contract is not assignable). , V. OTHER AGREEMENTS: No agreements or representations, unless incorpor.tted in this contra.. -I. shill he binding ulx,n any of the p.artars Typewnten or hand• written provisions inserted in this form or attached hereto as addendums shall control all printed provisions in conflict therewith. The rovenant+ of tins contra -t shdl Purvi,,e delivery of the deed and possession. .t \ W. MAKING TIME OF ESSENCE: Time may be made the essence of this contract by notice in writing to the last known address of the other party ar his attorney, stipulating a reasonable time for further performance. JUN 16.1992 I, R. n t I. 1t nAer 1 11 1 0 U JUN 16 1992 50 120 1 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. 80629 - 80748 inclusive. Such bills and accounts being on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the warrants so issued from the respective bonds being listed in the Supplemental Minute Book as provided by the rules of the Legislative Auditor, reference to such record and list so recorded being made a part of these Minutes. There being no further business, on Motion made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 4:50 o'clock P.M. Attest: Clerk Chairman