HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/1/1982Wednesday, December 1, 1982
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, met in Regular. Session at the County
Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
on Wednesday, December 1, 1982, at 8:30 o'clock A.M.
Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Alfred Grover
Fletcher, Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; Patrick B. Lyons; and
William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright,
Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Community Services
Director; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County
Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director; Sam
Mitchell, Bailiff; and Virginia Hargreaves and Janice
Caldwell, Deputy Clerks.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Rev. Larry Westman, First Baptist Church, Winter Beach,
gave the invocation, and Administrator Wright led the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
The Chairman asked if there were any additions to the
Agenda.
Commissioner Wodtke requested adding an item regarding
the Beach and Shores Committee.
Commissioner Bird requested adding an item concerning a
sub -committee to study available beachfront property.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
agreed to add the emergency items to the Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
October 20, 1982.
WX F
DEC
11982 BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Birdy the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of October 20, 1982, as written.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
A. Budget Amendment - Hand -Held Radios
The Board reviewed the following memorandum dated
November 17, 1982:
November 17,1982
To: Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey K. Barton
Re: Highway Patrol Hand -Held Radios
The following Budget Amendment is necessary because the money for the
Radios was appropriated in last fiscal years budget when they were
ordered. The Radios were not received until this year and a re- ap-
propriation is needed to pay for the Radios.
Accourt Title Account Number Increase Decrease
Other Machine E Equip. 001-114-521-66.49 2,871.
E.C.C. Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91 2,871.
I recommend that the funds be adopted as part of the additional funds
approved.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the Budget Amendment regarding
Highway Patrol Hand -Held Radios, as recommended
by Finance Director Barton.
B. Annual Report from Sheriff
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
accepted the Annual Report for the year ended
September 30, 1982 from Indian River County
Sheriff Dobeck.
DEC 11982 3 WK 452 Pk�E � : .
Fop—
lorad C4124
ANNUAL REPORT
Indian River , COUNTY, SHERIFF
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SE11E:11111•;R 30. 19 82
Section 116.03, Florida matutea
GERALD LEWIS
STATE: COMPTROLLUt
ACTUAi, REt:f•:II1'1-S
RECEIPTS
1`11011 C(WNTY
`—"
Received from Indian River Count Y _3 388 ,990,00
--�
ACCOUNT - FINAL ACTUAL BUDGET
NUMBER EXPENDITURES -
BUDGET EXl'ENUI'I'(!Itt:5 If.A1.AiVt:F.
41
Sheriffs Salary
34,286.00
34.286.00
42
Salaries of Deputies and Assistants 1,
963, 508.71
1,954,456.63
Payroll Taxes
Y
389,456.23
389,456.23
—.91052.14
_p_
EXPENSES OTHER THAN SALARIES:
431
Auto
267,896.61
432
Travel
4,252.01
433
Radio
_
7,702.12
434
Other Criminal
66,920.01
435
Food for Jail ' 1
61,218.03
436
Care for Prisoners
_
32 ,159.58
437
Jail Utilities
37.596.51
438
Jail Supplies
6,959.44
439
Otter Jail
7,045.88
440
Telephone and Telegraph
--31.835.98
441
Office Supplies
—33.735.60
442
Other Administrative
—220,272.32
434
TOTAL
788,207.00
7882194.09
12.91
EQUIPMENT:• (Capital Outlay)
-
451
Auto
173,233.70
452
Jail
3 , Q99.60
453
Radio
_
_
�14 , 769.60
454
Other
7,423.72
45
TOTAL
198,532.00
198,526-.-6T
5.38
46
Investigations
15,000.00
15, 000.00
..0�
47
Contingencies
0-
yXYYYYYYY^
Total Budgetary Expenditures 3s388,990.00 3,379.919.57 9,070.43
Refund to County XXXXXXXXXXX 9,070.43 9,070.43
TOTAL 3,388,990.00 3,388,990.00
NOTE: ;
(1) In Column 1, "Final Budget", and also Column 3 "Budget Balance", enter Total Only fur
items 41, 42, 43-44, 45, 46 and 47.
(2) In Column 2 "Actual Expenditures", enter amount for EACH ACCOUNT LISTED.
STATE OF FLORIDA • .
COUNTY OF Indian River
I• R. T. "Tim" Dobeck Indian River
'—�'---�—, Sheriff, County of
Florida, do solemnly ,State of
swear flat the foregoing is a true, correct and complete report of all re-ceip • and expenditure:
of my office for the year ending the 30th of September, 1982
• N
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13th day
oC October A.D. 19 g� .
Nobry Publk, State of Florida at Lard.
My Cin n%Wm Expires Dec. 26, 1.
Indian River Count.
_
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports on File
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Traffic Violation Bureau - Special Trust Fund,
Month of October, 1982 - $30,058.65.
Traffic Violation Fines by Name - October, 1982.
B. Release of Easement - Carnell - Resolution 82-127
The Board discussed the following memorandum dated
November 16, 1982:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: November 16, 1982
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright
County Administrator
FILE: ER -82-11-02-04
DIVISION _HEAJD.CONCURRENCE SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST
BY TIMOTHY CARNELL
atrick Bruce King SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 13 AND 14,
BOCK B, UNIT 3, OSLO PARK SJD '
FROM:
Betty Davis. REFERENCES:
Zoning Department Inspector
This is in response to a Release of Easement request by Mr. Timothy Carnell
owner of the subject property. It is recommended that the data herein presented
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: 1"
The County has been petitioned by Mr. Timothy Carnell to release the common
side lot 5 foot easements of lots 13 and 14, Block B, Unit 3, Oslo Park
Subdivision.
The request has been reviewed by Southern Belly Fl.-)rida Power and Light,
Florida Cablevision Corporation and the Utility and Right -Of -Way Departments.
The Zoning staff analysis, which includes a site visit, showed that drainage
would be adequately handled by the existing front, rear and side swales.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
After site inspection by Zoning Inspector Betty Davis, it is the Zoning
Departments opinion that to release the common side lot 5 foot easements a$
lots 13 and 14, Block B, Unit 3, Oslo Park Subdivision, would have no adverse
effect and would allow the petitioner to utilize these 2 lots as one larger,
single family residential, lot. However, if the easements are not released,
the petitioner will be denied his request to utilize these 2 lots as one larger
parcel.,
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the release of the common side lot 5 foot easements of lots
13 and 14, Block B, Unit 3, Oslo Park Subdivision.
1992 5 X 2. i F4
D E C 11982
0.40K 052 fr'�E IP
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unani-
mously adopted Resolution 82-127 releasing
the common side lot 5' easements of Lots
13 & 14, Block B, -Unit 3, Oslo Park Sub-
division, as requested by Timothy Carnell.
RESOLUTION NO. 82-127
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, have been requested to release the common side lot 5 foot easements
of lots 13 and 14, Block B, Unit 3, 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, Unit 3 for the public utility and drainage purposes; and
WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements has been submitted
in proper form;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Oslo
Park Subdivision, Unit 3, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows:
The common side lot 5 foot easements of lots 13 and 14, Block B, Unit
3, 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
Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are
authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements
hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the
Public Records of Indian River.County, Florida.
This . 1st
ATTEST:
o
Freda Wright q
' 1
day of December 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: O e
Don -C. Scur ock, Jr., Chn
Approved
and leggy
Brandenbu
Atiorney v -
WK ►2 N'E CeIJ
DEC 11982
RELEASE OF EASE . _XT
This Release of Easement, executed this 1st
g�>< P5 2 Fns;.7
day of December 1982, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
first party; Mr. Timothy Carnell, whose mailing address is 1134 38th Avenue,
S.W., Vero Beach, Florida, 32960, second party;
WITNESSETH:
That the said party of the first part for and in consideration of
the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in
hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon,
and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title,
interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following
described easements, lying on land situated in the County of Indian River,
State of Florida, to -wit:
The common side lot 5 foot easements of lots 13 and 14, Block B
Unit 3, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3, as recorded in Plat Book
4, Page 19, public records of Indian River County, Florida
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all 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 party has signed and sealed these presents
by the parties so authorized by the law and the day and year first above
written.
Signed, sealed and
delivered in the presence of:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: G
Don C. Scur9ork7 Jr., C a' man
ATTEST:
Freda Wright,
47.��00"t
RIWP
Approved
and lega
I 141. branden
My AttorW
F
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 acknowledgements
personally appeared, Don C. Scurlock, Jr., as Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County,.a political subdivision of
the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT, as Clerk of the Circuit Court,
to me known to be the persons duly authorized by said County to execute
the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they':executed
the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision.
WITNESS by hand and seaJ in the County and State last foresaid this
/ day of 1982.
Gti. •
Notary(jublic, State of Fl da at Large
Nay Commission Expi res :
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UNa .
(Notary Sea]) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1986
2
DEC 11982 x NES S
D E C 11982 8.009
C. William Koolage - Bond
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the Bond for William Koolage, Indian
River Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees.
521 1
P' 6E .�.J
� � r
,MPORTANT THAT TWO BOND MIE EXECUTED AND QUALIFICATIO
r•�
STATE OF FLORIDA
County of .INDIAN. RIVER
""ERS COMPLETED WITHIN SIXTY DAYP .o o�.„ten
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That We, _. _BILL KOOLAGE ( 1AX nQLAGE)
as principal, and ..... UNITED STATES FIDELITY. AND GUARANTY COMPANY
BaltimoreMarxland.
__......._� as sureties
are held and firmly bound unto the Governor of the State of Florida, and his successors in office,
in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND AND (5000.00)
lawful money, for the payment whereof, well and truly to be made, we do bind ourselves, our and each of
our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
Sealed with our seals, and dated this ._...?,2nd,.. day of _ �Tczm=b
The condition of the above obligation is such, That whereas, the above bounden
-_ _........B,IZ.L_K04LAGE _ » .._. ---..-._ was, on the .....2Ad__ day of November,
A. D. 19--s.2--., elected. T ustees L Indian River Count Hospital District
_ -._ _ .._
to hold his office for the term of four years from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, A. D.
19.....8.3...._, and until his successor is qualified according to the Constitution and laws of this State.
Now, therefore, if the said ...BILL_ KQQLAZ _ shall faithfully
perform the duties of his said o$ce, as provided by law, then this obligation to be void, else to be and remain
in full force and virtue.
Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of us:
BIJd17K00 E
,.> �a''�� GG ♦T� (L. S.)
W i tp9s s Vdpsd
...«.........
�
Witness
BUCKINGHAM -WHEELER AGENCY, INC.
c se Res,�'detAg
en
ih
es A. Tho s Jr.
The above bond is approved this ....x.51 day of
The above bond is approved this „..».,. day of lg
Surety
Jaffies A. Thompson, ,�'r., At'forney-in-Fact
comptMuer.
Le 1
11-5-64
OE C 11992 P:;�E
�_
�D E C 11982
OATH OF OFFICE
S'K'ATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF Indian liver
I DO SOLE,'11NLY SWEAp that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government
of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Consti-
tution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of
Member, Board of Trustees, Indian River County Hospital District
on which I am now about to e4ter, so help me God.
William W. ;Koola
Sworn to and subscribed before me i this
, it �.
day of 1' G 7 i
(Sign -as you desire camaissio , is,
19 82
i
ta�y Public or other in ividual
authori .ed to administeroaths
My Commission expires MW MM P SM CW F[01M V
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG 1319-65
SECRETARY OF STATE $ONIM THRU GENERAL INS4 UNDEAWRITHS
THE CAPITOL, TALLAHASSE$, FLORIDA 32304
I accept the office of Member Board of Trustees, Indian River of the
County Hospital VistrIct
County of . ,i --- p __-r . The above is the oath of office taken by me.
In addition to the above office I also hold the office of — Non e
(Named office or None)
My postoffice address is _.
DS -DE 56
815 26th Avenue,.,Vero Beach, Florida.32960
FLORIDA
i
(Sign as you desire camissi n issued)
_ CERTIFIED COPY
GENERAL " POWER, OF ATTORNEY .
No....... 750�...................:
Know all Men by there Presents: '
That UNITED STATES FIDELJTY AND GUAR=4NTY COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Maryland. and having its prin0pal office at the City of Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, does hereby constitute and appoint
James A. Thompson, Jr,.
of the City of Vero Beach , Scace of Florida
its true and lawful attorney in and for the State of Florida '
•i -.�.� y , •• 9
for the following purposes, to wit:
To sign its name as surety to, ano to execute, seal and acknowledge any and all bonds, and to respectively do and perform any and
all acts and things set forth in the resglution of the Board of Directors of the said UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY
COMPANY, a certified copy of which 0 hereto annexed and made a part of this Power of Attorney; and the said UNITED STATES
FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMP�NY. through us, its, Board of Directors, hereby ratifies and, =firms all and whatsoever the said
James
A.-Thompson, .r.
Jr.
r'r
may lawfully do in the premises by vi:tui� of these presents,
In Witness Whereof, the said UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY has caused this instrument to be
sealed with its corporate seal, duly attested by the signatures of Its Vice -President and Assistant Serra 14th
Secretary, this
January , A D 19 77 day of
UNTIED STATES FIDELITY AN
. D GUARANTY COMPANY.
{Sigaed) gy„ Bertram .W.,. Sealy, Jr. ......
... .. ..
' Yica•Preridans
(�
(Signed)William J. Phelan
• � .4arfstaat secreta,,'.
STATE OF MARYLAND,
BALTIMORE CITY. as.
On this . 14th day of J a nu a r v . A. D. 197 7 , before me personally came.
Bertram V. Sealy,Jr.Vice•Pres nt
ids of the UNITED STATES
FIDELITY AND GUARANTY
'A
RANTY
COMPANY and William J. Phelan , Assistant Secretary of said Company, with both of
whom I am personelly acquainted, who being by me severally duly sworn, said that they resided in the City of Baltimore, Maryland;
that they, the said Bertram W . Sea 1 y , J r . and W i ld.1 i am J. Phelan were respectively
the Vice -President ind the Assistant Secretary of the said UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, the cor•
poration described in and which executed the foregoing Pcwer of Attorney; that they each knew the seal of said corporation; that the
seal affixed to said Power of Attorney was such corporate seal, that it was so fixed by order of the Board of Directors of said corpora.
tion. and that they signed their names thereto by hLe order :is Vice -President and Assistant Secretary, respectively. of the Company.
My commission expires the first day in July, A. D. 19—M..
II' (Sr.AL) (Signed) Herbert J. A0 T,/
.......:_......................�, .... .
No.. .
ta
STATE OF MARYLAND NOTr'tiRI
BALT11MORE CTl'Y. Sct' �+ PUBLIC
L Robert H. B o u s e . Clark of the Superior Court of" Bal � 1�
chi is a
Conn of Record, and has a seal, do hereby certify that Herbert J J. Au 1 l ' C1 T, E ire, before
whom she annexed affidavits were made, and who has thereto subscribed his name, was at the time of so doing a . ublic of the
State of Maryland, in and for the City of Baltimore, duly commissioned and sworn and. authorized by law to administer oaths and take
aciuwwieQments, or proof of deeds to be recorded therein. I further certify that I am acquainted with the handwriting of the said
Notary, and venly believe the signature to be his genuine signature.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereto set my hand and affix the seal of the Superior Court of Baltimore City, .the same bei a Court
of Record, thu 14th day of January , A. D. 19 7 7
(S Robert "H. Bots P,-u�19, j
19�� (Signed)
DEC to • Ckrk o/ the Superior Court o/ Baltimore City.
•
DEC 11982 COPY OF RESOLUTION BOOK
That whereas, it is necessary for the effectual Transaction of business that this Company appoint agents and attorneys with power
and authority to act for it and in its name in States other than Maryland, and in the; Territories of the United States and in the Provinces
of the Dominion of Canada and in the Colony of Newfoundlandi
Therefore, be it Resolved, that this Company do, and it hereby does, authorize and empower its President or either of its Vice.
Presidents in conjunction with its Secretary or one of .its Assistant Secretaries. under its corporate seal. to appoint any parson or persons
as attorney or attorneys -in -fact, or agent or agents of said Company, in its name and as its act, to execute and deliver any and all con.
tracts guaranteeing the fidelity of persons holding positions of public or private trust, guaranteeing the performances of contracts other
than insurance policies and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings, required or permitted in all actions or proceedings, or
by law allowed, and ,
Also, in its name and as its attorney or attomeys•in-fact, or agent or agents to execute and guarantee the conditions of any and all•
bonds. recognizances, obligations, stipulations, undertakings or anything in the nature of either of the- same, which are or may by law,
municipal or otherwise, or by any Statute of the United States or of any State or Te.-ritory of the United States or of the Pn,vinces of the
Dominion of Canada or of the Colony of Newfoundland, or by the rules, regulations, orders, customs, practice or discretion of any board,
body, organization, office or officer, local, municipal or otherwise, be allowed, required or permitted to be executed, made, taken, given,
tendered, accepted, filed or recorded for the security or protection of, by or for any person or persons, corporation, body, office, interest,
municipality or other association or organization whatsoever, in any and all capacities whatsoever, conditioned for the doing or not doing
of anything or any conditions which may be provided for in any such bond, recognizance, obligation. stipulation, or undertaking, or
.j
anything in the nature of either of the same. ;
1, George W. Lennon, J r . � an Assistant Secretary of the UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND
GUARANTY COMPANY, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the original power of attorney given
by said Company to
James A. Thompson, Jr.
Of Vero Beach, Florida , authorizing and empowering him to sign bonds as therein set
forth, which power of attorney has never been revoked and is still in full force and effect.
And I do further certify that said Power of Attorney was given in pursuance of a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the
Board of Directors of said Company, duly called and held at the office of the Company in the City of Baltimore, on the 11th day of
July, 1910, at which meeting a quorum of the Board of Directors was present, and that the foregoing Is a trite and correct copy of said
resolution, and the whole thereof as recorded in the minutes of said meeting.
In Testimony Whereof I have ereunto set my hand and the seal of the UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY
COMPANY on �' &W -
(Date)
9y
4
i
Li - Li"
-Cj� R•T•IFICATE OF ELECTION
STATE OF FLORIDA,
County of Indian River
OFFIC9 OF SUPERVISION OF ELECTIONS
Vero Beach Florida --November 4 82
-
-----------------------
This
----------------------This is to c
ertify that 1VIr. - SIZ,L-KQOi.AGE-_
was elected_-------•---Member3_-Hospital -Board--------------------------- ----------------
---------------------
__---_-__-_'--- in and for In '
•----:------------- ---- •----- d.an River. County,
at the General Election held on the _ _ 2nd - - - _ day of November, A.D. 19 82. , having received the highest number of
votes for said office at said election, a� shown by the Election Returns oi► file in my office.
pervisor of El ons
W. W. KOOLAGE /111
815 - 26TH AVE., PH. 567-0663 196
VERO BEACH, FL 3a 980 ,
�2
PAY TOORI R THE 'Lk n \ /
- DOLLARS
(((+++2804 14th Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32880 2
FOR
l
40 6 ?00 S 2? 94 3i- 91 ?_ SG 2110 0 1 1 1 I
DEC 11982
F'"'-
DEC 11982
PROCLAMATION - MARCHING BAND FESTIVAL
8K 5 p
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
approved the Proclamation regarding the First
Annual Treasure Coast Crown Jewel Marching
Band Festival.
,w
PROCLAMATION
PROCLAMATION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN RECOGNITION
OF THE FIRST ANNUAL TREASURE COAST CROWN JEWEL
MARCHING BAND FESTIVAL.
WHEREAS, on Saturday, December 4, 1982, fourteen of the
premier high school.marching bands from around the State of
Florida will converge upon Indian River County to exhibit their
musical and marching abilities to both the•public-and a panel of
judges; and ,
WHEREAS, this is'the inaugural event in what is intended
to become the Annual Treasure Coast Crown Jewel Marching Band
Festival, an invitational tournament -originated and sponsored by
the Vero Beach High School Community Education Program and
Instrumental Music Department, with.tlie support of the Dodger
'c organization and other individuals and•groups around the
community; and "
WHEREAS,'the competing schools will meet in the Citrus
Bowl at Noon on December 4th for preliminary performances and
O
Y judging, with the top five bands meeting in the finals at
Dodgertown Saturday evening beginning at 7:30 P.M. to compete for
honors in each of three classes; Emerald, Ruby and Opal; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners on behalf of
the residents of Indian River County, extends a warm welcome to
these young 'and talented competitors and expresses our appreci-
ation for the entertainment and good times which are sure to
accompany this festive event.
ATTEST:
By
FREDA WRIGHT, Clerk
APPROVED..)
AND LE 2t/
By
CH ISTR�
Assis gar
D E C 11982
L_____-
JTO FORM
UFJF,;CIES :
HER Id. PAULL `"
t County Attorney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By
DON C. SCURLOCK, J
Chairman
2 X36
11982 a aK Fut
DISCUSSION ABOUT ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR SOUTHEAST
ENTERPRISE, INC.
Chairman Scurlock asked why the Board was receiving the
material today instead of last week.
Community Development Director King explained that they
believed the original questions had been answered but at a
subsequent discussion he had with the Attorney, some
additional information was needed. He explained that there
was a change in seven acres of submerged land and this was
not included in the calculations for density.
FLORIDA LAND COMPANY APPEAL - RIVER BEND
'The Board reviewed the following memorandum:
TO: The Honorable Members of
the Board of County
Commissioners
THROUGH: Art Challacombe
Planning Dept. Mgr.
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Patrick Bruce King, AIL
FROM: Mary Jane V.
.eM` Goetzfried
J Staff Planner
DATE: October 18, -1982
FILE:
IRC-82=SP-54,#69C
SUBJECT; FLORIDA LAND'S APPEAL OF
RIVERBEND SITE PLAN APPROVAL
CONDITION
REFERENCES: Letter from Steve L. Henders,
dated September 7, 1982.
It is requested that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
On July 22, 1982, Mr. Richard Van Slyke, representing Florida
Land Company, submitted an application for site plan approval
to revise the previously approved River Bend project. Th(,
initial phase of the development consists of 116 dewelliu&
units located on a 38.3 acre tract'of.land situated to the
west of Highway A -1-A.
In April of 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
the site plan for the entire River Bend. project . - This action w.
taken prior to the adoption of the Thoroughfare Plan, however,
the Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in
January of 1982. The Plan designates Highway A -1-A as av
arterial, potentially requiring 120' of right-Qf-way. 'Trite
.Department of Transportat-i.on, undet- Florida Statues 163..!'`,O,
completely endorses the projected right-o'f-way needs for
this State Road. One hundred feet of right-of-way exists in
the area of the River Bend project. At the time of the
original site plan approval the developer did not dedicate the
additional right-of-way specified by the Plan. Due to the
design of the proposed development the structural setbact: =
adequately satisfied this requirement.
The subsequent site plan submitter to revise the initial. T-1hase
of the project now proposes a 6' high, 2-1/2' vide, -1conex-p-te
block wall to be cons true ted , at varying points, on ithe z L ght-
of-way' line. This proposal does not conform to the Thorniigh-
fare Element of Indian River County's. adopted Comprehensive
Plan.
On August 26 , 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
the site plan application with the condition that an additional
10' be provided for right-of-way. This condition can be
accomodated by the relocation of the proposed wall to 10' west
of the existing right-of-way lino.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the Planning Staff's recommendation that the appeal of
the condition of site plan approval for the River Bend project
be denied; based on non-conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
D E C 11982 15
LL -
DEC 11992
BOOK P,." �„,,e qq
F: u t
The Chairman stated that this item was,a continuation
of the November 3, 1982 public hearing.
Steve Henderson, Attorney representing Florida Land
Company, approached the Board and stated that this was an
appeal of the site plan approval.
Lengthy discussion took place regarding the site plan
approval and the fact that the building of a wall was
approved, but required that .it be moved 10' away from the
right-of-way.
Attorney Henderson commented that the price of building
the wall was to give a dedication to the County..
Discussion ensued as to what should be stipulated in
the dedication.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that there were some
timing difficulties in relation to the site plan. The
benefit of entering into the proposed agreement with Florida
Land Co. would be to eliminate their ability to present
arguments. He added that if the Board decided this was not
what what it wanted to do, then it did not have to go with
the agreement.
A copy of the site plan under discussion was presented
to the Board for review by the Planning Department.
Attorney Brandenburg felt the agreement was reasonable,
and that the County would be in a fairly good position if it
entered into the agreement.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize
the Chairman to sign the agreement between
Florida Land Co. and the County.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1,.
with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition.
Robert Reider, 1150 Reef Road, expressed concern that
the major site plan was approved with 19 conditions; he felt
this would create a follow-up problem.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
agreed to close the public hearing.
The Board decided to revoke the original Motion because
the public hearing was not officially closed when the
Motion was made.
z _ MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, that the Board grant the
appeal to the extent of the terms of the
agreement, and authorize the signature of the
Chairman,;after receiving a copy from Florida
Land Co.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that the County had the
opportunity of acquiring the right-of-way at this point - it
was called good planning. He would be voting in opposition.
Commissioner Lyons noted that the site plan was
approved with a set of rules which were changed - he felt
the Board had to stay with the rules at the time the site
plan was approved.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1,
with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition.
The Agreement with Florida Land Co. and the County will
be made a part of the Minutes when received.
DEC 11982 l� n' p UtZu
0
0 1992 n
SANITARY LANDFILL - PURCHASE OF 40 ACRES
The Board discussed the following memorandum dated
November 18, 1982:
10: DATE: November 18, 1982 FILE:
Board Of County Commissioners
Through:
Michael Wr ' ght Administrato SUBJECT : Purchase of 40 Acres
FROM: Terrance G. Pinto REFERENCES:
Utilities Director
Attached is a copy of a letter from John W. Bradley, dated November
4, 1982 offering to sell 40 acres of land next to the Sanitary
Landfill to Indian River County for $4,000.00 per acre,
I feel that we will need to obtain fill dirt from some source
within the next year. I recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners consider having this property appraised.
Funding is to come from the renewal and replacement account. This
has been confirmed by Mr. Barton and Post, Buckley, Schuh &
Jernigan, Inc., the Landfill Consulting Engineers.
The current balance in this account is $200,000.00.
MOTION WAS MADE by COmmissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize
the Administrator to receive appraisals on the
40 acres of land as recommended by Utilities
Director Pinto.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the need for a
landfill in the North County.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and carried unanimously.
TELEPHONE SYSTEM UPDATE
The Board reviewed the following memorandum dated
November 18, 1982 from Lynn Williams, Acting General
Services Director.
TO: Honorable Members of the DATE: November 18, 1872 FILE: Agenda
Board of County Commissioners December 1, 1982
THRU; Michael Wright
County Administrator SUBJECT: Telephone System Update
FROM: Lynn Williams,' REFERENCES:
Acting Gener Services Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At the October 20, 1982 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners,
a Southern Bell Telephone Representative presented a proposal for
upgrading the Dimension Telephone System now serving the Indian
River County Administration Building and Courthouse. Costs invol-
ved with the upgrade are an $8,000 one time charge and $470 addit-
ional monthly equipment charge.
Mr. Gene Morris, Tax Collector, had contacted Mr. Marc McEwen of
Southern Bell in regards to a separate telephone system for his
office. Mr. Morris, is concerned about a delay occurring in transfer
of calls into his office area from the switchboard attendant.
Staff estimates the Tax Collector telephone traffic to make up
approximately 20% to 25% of all incoming telephone traffic. This
percentage will vary according to the time of year. Staff expects
a sharp increase after the mailing of tax bills. Mr. Morris is
concerned about this particular time period since we have not
experienced the telephone traffic involved while on this telephone
system. The switchboard attendant now handles an average of 1200
to 1300 calls per day. The Property Appraiser's office and Super-
visor of. Elections both expressed similar concerns except for
different functions, i.e.,.Homestead Exemptions and Election Day.
Staff was directed during budget hearings to search for methods to
reduce long distance telephone usage and better control all. associa.".ed
costs. At the time our present sy.,°tem was ins-Cal.led the opf:ion of
station message recording was not available without considerably
more expense. Our Dimension System Computer was purchased and
installed before occupancy of this building so as to take advantage
of a payment program available at that time.
In December 1981 Staff requested Southern Bell investigate what
options were available that would identify outgoing long distance
calls, At the time we occupied the Administration Building, the
PSC (Public Service Commission) would not allow an upgrade of the
system without changing all equipment and rewriting the Finance
Agreement.
DEC 119 2 19 2 PAGE
: arc ���
DE C 11982
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
BOOK
�n U C
The proposed upgrade will alleviate an existing overload ccndition
on both the switchboard attendant and the equipment. With the
present system and the total number of extensions now installed, we
have expansion capacity remaining for twenty (20).additional tele-
phone extensions. Any additional extensions will require a minor
upgrade. Additionally the off-loading of approximately one-third
(1/3) of the switchboard attendant handled incoming calls will
reduce the number of busy signals the public receives and the
actual waiting time involved in reaching an office.
Station message detail recording, one feature offered, will provide
a printout of each stations long distance calls. Staff feels the
advantages available in respect to identifying long distance and
Suncom calls, will enable us to ear mark areas of abuse and take
necessary steps to correct them. Actual long distance charges
would then be assigned to the funds as they apply to the various
departments. Staff consulted the Tax Collector, Property Appraiser,
Clerk of the Court and Supervisor of Elections in a meeting November
16, 1982. The Property Appraiser and Tax Cdllector agreed to
contribute $2,000 each toward the initial upgrade charge of $8,000.
The remaining $4,000 will be paid from the Telephone Account number
001-251-519-34.11 in the General Services Division Budget.
An additional monthly charge of $470.00 will be offset by an expected
reduction in long distance service cost of approximately 10 to 150 of
the monthly cost or $100 to $150.
Alternative "A"
Authorize Staff to proceed with arrangements to upgrade the telephone -
system as proposed by Southern Bell, with the Tax Collector and
Property Appraiser sharing the one time cost, with a $2,000 contri-
bution each to offset installation costs. Authorize Staff to make
arrangements with Finance Department to charge back long distance
calls to each department not in the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of Alternative "A" as stated.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the telephone
problem, and it was noted that the receptionist was handling
between 1,500 to 1,600 calls a day.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
accepted staff's recommendation for the
telephone system update.
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL - APPOINTMENTS
The Board next discussed the following information:
The Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Indian River County Board of Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Subject: Annual Appointment of Council Members
Dear Chairman Scurlock:
ACTION DEPARTMENT
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Ccmn °unity Dev.
Utiliti-s
Finence
Other
In accordance with Council's Rules of Organization; the December meeting
-is designated as the Annual Meeting, at which time the appointment of all
county, one municipal). It should be noted that all alternates must be
members and alt-rnates is to occur. It is, therefore, requested -that the
Board of County Comnmissioners take the necessary action to appoint mem-
bers and alternates for the upcoming year. In the case of Indian River
County three members as well as three alternates need to be appointed (two
elected officials.
Additionally, the bylaws do not specifically indicate that municipal
appointments must be either appointed or approved by the county. Each
county is assigned the number of appointments and the method for making
the appointments is left to the discretion and cooperation of the local
governments in each area.
Finally, it would be appreciated if the County would notify the Council of
the appointments, including mailing addresses and telephone numbers, as
soon as possible so. -.-.that information can be provided to each member in a
timely fashion for the meeting of December 17th.
Should you have any questions on this matter please contact me at your
earliest convenience.
Yours trul
Sam Shannon
Executive Director
SS:cs
cc: Joe B. Suit, Jr.
Edward J. Nolan
Lee E. Johnston
Pat Flood, Jr.
Jay A. Smith
620 s. diode highway
p.o. drawer 396
._-stuat, florido, 33495.0396
® ohonA f1051 2R&A113
DEC 11982 21
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance
Ott -r
ry adrpmon ler mourice sny+der
Was chairman
-- cormoc c conohon som shonnon
..... secreteru/tr4,n0wer �... ra».nitilm direde►
DEC 11982 x
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
approved the appointment of John Todd, of
Indian River Shores, to the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council.
Commissioner Bird commented that, in the future, the
terms should be for two years, and recommended that
the municipalities consider this suggestion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
approved the appointment of Commissioner Lybns
and Commissioner Bird to the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, that Chairman. Scurlock
be appointed as an alternate for Commissioner
Lyons, and Commissioner Wodtke be appointed as
an alternate for Commissioner Bird.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with
Commissioner Wodtke voting in opposition.
MOBILE HOME ADVISORY BOARD REQUEST
The Board reviewed the following letter from
Edward S. Davis, Jr.:
� � i
L
Telephone• (305) 587-8000
October 18, 1982
I \_
Board of County Commissioners
: Indian River County
1840 25th Street, Suite N-158
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
aune m TehtphMa (305) 424-1012
Gentlemen: - '
Ordinance 81-35 of Indian River County crbated the Mobile
Home Advisory Board, and Section 5 thereof sets fbrth the
duties of the -members of the Board. Included in these
duties are the requirements that the Mobile Home Advisory
Board hear complaints and grievances related to Mobile Home
living, and that it issue Its -findings, conclusions and
recommendati oars thereon to the Mard 4f Count:'
of Indian River County.
FINDINGS:
Complaints have been re.cei ved 'by the . Mobil c Home Advi s�--k-y
Board to the effect that recreational facilities within
some mobile home parks have not been provided in a timj0y
manner as promised by developers.
2. St.'Lucie County presently has an Ordinance affecting
mobile home parks which reads as follows.-
4N.
ollows:"N. Parks may be constructed in phases. No phase shall
contain less than ten (10) acres. A Certificate of
Occupancy shall be issued by the Building and Zoning
Department for each phase, subject to the following:
(1) The St. Lucie County Health Department has
given written approval of the water and
sewerage disposal systems as constructed;
(2) The County Engineering Department has given
its written approval of the drainage and
street systems as constructed;
(3) All recreation facilities shown on the approved
plans shall be completed before any Certificate
of Occupancy is issued for any phase;
(4) All other improvements for each phase shown on
the approved plans shall be completed be -,`u ,&
i Certificate of Occupancy is issued fur that `
phase."
RECOMMENDATION:
We hereby recgmmend that the Board of County CoMP ssioners of
Indian River County, -Florida adopt an O.rdinancc tb the same:
effect -as proyi"ded in St.Aci a County.
if fu"ther inf rmation is r,-.quired, the members of the Mohi7e
Home Adv•lsory Board place themselves at your disposal.
Very truly yciprs,
MOB11-F. •HOME„AUTSORY BOARD
By: 41 .4 -
Edward S. aims Jrd
DEC 11982 Chairman 23 P��6
D E C 11982
Attorney Brandenburg stated that this item was deferred
from the November 3, 1982 meeting, and..it was a request for
further action.
Edward S. Davis, Jr. approached the Board and discussed
his letter, which requested an ordinance that would require
the recreational facilities of a mobile home park be
completed before the certificate of occupancy is granted.
10 Commissioner Fletcher concurred with his request, and
he thought it might also be the time to.address mobile home
recreational facilities being used for protection during
storms.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Fletcher,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that this
item be referred to the County Attorney
for a public hearing.
Commissioner Bird commented that this had been
discussed before and there was some question as to whether
people should stay in a mobile home building during a
threatened disaster. - s
Commissioner Wodtke agreed that there was quite a
disagreement, and Civil Defense did not think this would be
a safe place.
Commissioner Bird suggested that if it was determined
that the recreational structure wat- hurricane -proof, then
it could be considered and discussed at the public hearing.
A brief discussion ensued.
The Chairman stated that the Attorney could make
preparation for a public hearing, and notify the Mobile Home
Advisory Board.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It
was voted on and carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR PROMOTION OF STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF PRESENT
DRINKING AGE
The Board reviewed the following information from the
Indian River Baptist Association:
RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE REPORT
RESOLUTION: PROPOSING THE RAISING OF THE LEGAL DRINKING AGE IN FLORIDA
Whereas, teenage alcoholism is increasing at an unprecedented rate in
our state and nation with an estimated 5009000 adolescent alcoholics in the
United States; and
Whereas, at age 19, the present legal drinking age, an individual is
still in a critical stage of personality development and of social, emotional,
and mental growth; and
Whereas, with the legal drinking age of 19 years alcoholic beverages are
readily available to children ages 12 thru 19 years through their older teenage
acquaintances; and
Whereas, virtually all of the estimated 1210001,000 alcoholics in the
United States began experimenting with alcohol during their adolescent and
even pre -adolescent years; and
Whereas, 60 percent of highway fatalities involving persons age 16-24 are
alcohol related; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Indian River Baptist Association urge the County
Councils of the Tri -County area to promote the strict enforcement of the
present legal drinking age and that a copy of this resolution be sent to -the
County Councils of the Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin Counties; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that individual members of our churches be en•-
couraged to address the respective legislators calling for an increase of the
legal drinking age in Florida to 21 years; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Florida Baptist State Convention Resolution Committee encouraging a similar
resolution to be brought before the meeting of the Florida Baptist Convention
in Tampa, Florida, November 15,16,1T, 1982; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that our churches and individual members be urged
to make every effort to promote healthy Christian attitude and life-styles in
our home,; and communities that will be the strongest deterrent against alcohol
and other substances abuse among the youth of our communities, and to offer
through our churches' ministry, programs that will meet the needs of our young
people who are presently and misguidely seeking to fill those needs through
alcohol and other substance abuse.
Mo,ion to adopt was moved, seconded and carried.
25
INDIAN RIVER BAPTIST ASSOCIATION
Resolutions Committee
Theresa Buss, Chairman
Stan Sanford
Gary Towmsend
P U�8
r OEC 11982
{?K52Pf U
Commissioner Fletcher believed the drinking age should
remain as it was; he thought if a person was old enough to
vote and fight, he was old enough to drink.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board show its
approval and support of the resolution of the
Indian River Baptist Association.
Commissioner Wodtke believed alcohol and driving was a
problem and did not feel that the raising of the drinking
age would have that much effect on the driving situation.
A brief conversation followed in this regard.
W
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and defeated with a vote of 0 to 5.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously agreed
to respond to the Indian River Baptist Association,
indicating to them that the County would suppott'-
the strict enforcement of the legal drinking age
in Indian River County.
SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE SQUAD
The Board reviewed the following letter dated
November 15, 1982:
Sebastian Volunteer Ambulance Squad
A DIVISION OF
Sebastian Volunteer Fire Department
and Ambulance Squad, Inc.
P. O. Box 539
SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA - 32958
15 November 1982
Indian River County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
- -- Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Cam issioners:
We have received our application for State Certification of
our ambulances.
I am requesting from you, a Certificate of Need, so we may
continue serving the public of North Indian River County.
At this time I would also like to thank you fcr your past
help and approving our fiscal 1982-1983 Budget.
Voluntarily yours,
Joy Snell,. Chief
Volunteer Ambulance Squad
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the request for Certificate of Need
from the Sebastian Volunteer Ambulance Squad.
DEC 1 198Z 2 PAU
27
Lil
a)
i'��/9��:i..:i`.`^'jia.� `.,.r -..—.__ �i..�i'y�imf•.V `�,....i�.zi �'..
^.
' s., ty
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
WHEREAS, the Ambu&nee Senv i,ee pnov i dea
quaP.ity emengeney medicatseAviceA to tfte.eiazew od INDIAN RIVER County;
9
and,
thence has been demonstrated that these !A a need Jon thio ambuP.anee saviee
to opvtate in thiz county to provide eas en#.i.ae uAv cea to the vWzend o f thi.6
County; and,
' WHEREAS, the above ambutance,seAvyice had indicated that it utW eampey with aft the
requ kementd o6 the Emergency Medicat SeAvi.cea Act of 1973, the BoaJcd o6 County
Commiu ioneu o f INDIAN RIVER County heh eb y -c s.6ues a Cef+. i6 i,ca to o f Pubt i c
Convenience and Necez.6—am-Fulfance company {nor the yea&1983
In .cszuc ng thiA eerxigcate it is understood that the above named ambutanee uAv ic.e
wiU meet the ltequ.iAementa of State Leg i -s*tat on and prov de emergency zav ieez, on
a twenty-6ouA hou& bad.ca bon the 6o.P.eoutcng area (s) s
in Indian River County.
Adopted: December 1, 1982 on'Scur oc a r. s.canerd
N -
/ s
1
�1
ADDITION TO AGENDA
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Fletcher,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the
Board add an item concerning the Indian River
County Volunteer Ambulance Squad to the agenda
as an emergency item.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and carried unanimously.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE SQUAD
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the request for a Certificate of Need
from the Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance
Squad.
I
DEC 11982 27-B
I
C-)
U-1
Am
I,`
4_1
ti
V.2iir'-i
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
WHEREAS, the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VOLUNTEER Ambu&nce SeAvice WvideA
quatity emeAgency meditcat AeAvkees, to the &Wzem oj TNnTAN RTUE]R County;
and, . . . . . .
WHEREAS, there has been demonAtkated that there i-6 a need jox this ambulance .6env ice
to operate in th" county to pikovide leazentiatzexvice6 to the citizens o Chia
jr,
.and
WHEREAS, the above ambutan&.6eAvice ha4 indicated that it u,[U compty with att the :,J!
.kequi&ement6 o6 the EmeAgency Medicat SeAviceA Act o4 1973, the Boated o6 County
V.-
Commis os INDIAN RIVER County heAeby ia,6ue6 a CvW6icate os Pubtie
Convenience and 11if-
MA-4-My to tw am company Son the yeah 1983
In is.6uing thiA cextijicate it 1,6 andeutood that the above named ambulance 4
7"
uxW meet the uquiumentis oj State Legi-istation and provide emeAgency .6eAviceA6
a twenty- Souk hou& baai4 Son the jottming mea (4)
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
Cal
DECEMBER li 1982 IN
ZZA
ChakAMak_ boakd 'D o c6m
C. eC 4ton
DON URLOCK, JR. 1111
V
.4
� y_n"ih,.; ;. �t`Y i�-+,�•• � �� t �� �Mt .� �r M � ii •� 1 .r��..- .:Y"���'a "s`f
Mo r
'Vj
I
I
I
•R
"SAVE OUR COAST PROGRAM--- RESOLUTION 82-128
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 82-128 confirming the
County's desire to participate in the State
of Florida, Department of Natural Resources'
"Save Our Coast" Program.
• �n
x PAU,E 1L 4
D EC 11982
28
rsix
DEC 11982 ��U.,
RESOLUTION NO. 82- 128
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY'S DESIRE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES' "SAVE OUR
COAST" PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has recognized the need to
acquire and preserve for recreational purposes beachfront land on
the Atlantic Ocean, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County called for a referendum of
qualified voters of Indian River County on the.question of whether
to issue up to $5,000,000 in general obligation bonds to be used
for the purchase of beachfront property on the Atlantic Ocean,
and
- WHEREAS, the voters of Indian River County approved the
issuance of the bonds and the County Commission subsequently
adopted a bond resolution authorizing the bonds, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County now desires to participate
in the State of Florida "Save Our Coast" Program to maximize the
resources of the County and the State in a cooperative effort,
and
WHEREAS, the proceeds of the County bond issue may be
used to match state funds for the purchase of beachfront property
on the Atlantic Ocean under the "Save Our Coast" Program, and
• _ - +aT a
WHEREAS, Indian River County intends to file for
validation of the bonds within the next week making the funds
available within eighty (80) days, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County intends to use the proceeds
to purchase beachfront property and use other funds when available
to develop the areas purchased for outdoor recreation and to
continuously budget sufficient funds to maintain and operate the
sites as developed, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County intends to develop the
areas acquired in stages with initial recreational activities to
commence as soon as possible after acquisition, and
WHEREAS, all properties acquired under the "Save Our
Coast" and Beach Bond Program will be devoted to recreational
purposes in perpetuity.
-1-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The foregoing recitals are confirmed.
2. The County Administrator is directed to commence the
process of reviewing available beachfront properties for possible
acquisition and once prioritized to conduct surveys, including the
location of the mean high water line, ten-year title searches,
history of past property tax assessments and further seek
direction of the County Commission prior to conducting
negotiations with the respective property owners.
3. The Secretary to the County Commission shall forward
a copy of this resolution to Ney C. Landrum, Director of the
Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Natural
Resources.
— "`` 4. The Governor of the State of Florida and Cabinet and
the Director of the Division of Recreation and Parks are requested
to favorably consider Indian River County for inclusion in
currently available funds under the "Save Our Coast" Program.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Wodtke who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Lyons and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows: '
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
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 1st day of December , 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY G
DON C. SCURLCTCK, JR.
Chairman
Attest:
APPROVED TO���
AND LEG e"FFT�'IEN,�l .e�
By
Attorney
D E C 11982 -2-
x 52 PAsc 1
I
C E C 11992
Fx,uL52;
BEACH ACQUISITION SUB -COMMITTEE
Commissioner Bird advised that it would be helpful if a
sub -committee were formed to work closely with staff in
assessing the beachfront needs. He then recommended the
following: Attorney Darrell Fennell; Harry Offutt, CPA; Bob
Koehler, banker;. Dick Bird, Commissioner; and Al McAdam, of
Indian River Shores.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,.SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
approved Commissioner Bird's recommendation
for the Beach Acquisition Sub -Committee.
Discussion ensued.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and carried unanimously.
Attorney Brandenburg inquired if his office would
provide legal assistance, instead of the Sub -Committee.
Commissioner Bird responded affirmatively. He inf-ermed
the Board that staff was preparing a map designating the
parcels that the County owns and that are available to the
public. The Sub -Committee would work with the Tax Assessor
and try to make a determination as to where they need to
acquire additional oceanfront property. Once that had been
determined, Commissioner Bird stated they would contact the
individual property owners. He commented the first
preference would be an outright donation; the second choice
would be a combination of a donation and purchase; and the
third would be a purchase.
BEACH & SHORES DISCUSSION
Commissioner Wodtke advised the Board that he received
a call from Congressman Bill Nelson regarding the reef
"J
7
M M
project with the Army Corps of Engineers, who advised that
it would be a long time before the money for the project
would be available. Each committee should get involved with
some phase of the funding, and he wondered if it would be
possible to utilize the expertise of the Finance Advisory
Board in this matter.
Finance Director Barton reported that the City was
trying to lobby to have the sabecon reef restored to the
project - they would prefer both the pumping and the sabecon
reef.
Discussion followed, and it was determined that the two
projects complemented one another.
Commissioner Lyons stated that this was a research and
development project, and the Corps of Engineers indicate
that you get ten years worth of beach every time it is -
pumped. He stated that the only way he knew how to restore
the beach was to pump.
Commissioner Wodtke stated he would like for the
committee to come up with alternatives as well as cost
figures, and they need involvement from the City. He noted
that the key to the project was how it was to be funded.
Commissioner Bird agreed it would be a complex formula.
The Chairman felt they would have to look at some
alternate financing.
Commissioner Fletcher argued that they were putting the
question in the form of "how do you want to pay for it" and
not "how do you want to do it."
Debate continued, and it was stressed how important it
was to consider beach preservation.
COMPLAINT REGARDING HUTCHINSON UTILITIES, INC. AND THE
MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT CO.
The Board reviewed the letter dated November 22, 1982
from Attorney Jerome F. Kramer, as follows:
DEC 11982 32 Qac 2 PA�1 18
r—BOOKDEC 1198a �_y
JEROME F. KRAMER
W. E. RODDENSERRY
CARROLL F. PALMER
ROBERT F. JAFFE
THOMAS C. PALMER
KRAMER, RoDDENBERRY, PALMER, JAFFE & PALMER
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
3339 CARDINAL DRIVE -POST OFFICE BOX 3383
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
TELEPHONE (30S) 231-6SI6
OF COUNSEL
W. F. HYER (TEXAS BAR)
CABLE: VEROLAW HYER, MATTHEWS 6 REITER
HOUSTON, TEXAS
November 22, 1982
WASHINGTON OFFICE
2001 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
,Vero Beach, -Florida 32960
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a Complaint filed pursuant to Subsection 4(f),
of the Utility Act of Indian River County (Chapter 59-1380;
Laws of Florida, 1959). The Complaint is self-explanatory,
and as attorney for the Complainants, we hereby request that
consideration of the Complaint by the Board be made at the
earliest possible Board meeting now scheduled for Decemher 1,
1982. Specifically, we request that considers L. -Lon of this
Complaii..t he placed on the agenda for that mee•Iiug and that
copies: of the Complaint be made available to each County Com-
missioner and to such other interested patties as may be
designated by the Chairman of the Board, but including speci-
fically Hutchinson utilities Inc. and the Moorings Development
Company. We 4hall, of course, expect to be heard at that
meeting. -
Sincerely,
J ome F. Kramer
Attorney Brandenburg suggested to the Board that they
listen to the Complaint and see if there are any comments;
then review the matter and if the Board would deem it
necessary, a public hearing could be scheduled.
Jerome Kramer, Attorney on behalf of the property
owners who signed the Complaint, reviewed and discussed the
following material with the Board:
COMPLAINT
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Indian River_ County
.Vero Beach, Florida 3296n
RE: Complaint against operation, charges and rates and
County sewer franchise for The Moorings.er
INTRODUCTION
This Complaint is presented under the authorityof Subsec-
tion 4(f) of Chapter 59-1380 (House Bill 251 Subsec
), Laws of Florida
(1959), otherwise known as the "Utility Act of Indian Rive
County"; r
Y , as further implemented by Subsection (f) of Section
24-26 of the Indian River County Code. The Complainants a
1ePresented by the undersigned,s
are user's and potential users
.of -the sewer f4cilities originally installed and operated b
The Moorings s under Y
an exclusive utility
franchise approved on or about October 11, 1973 by Count R -
ution No. 73-69, and currently being operated b Y esol��
-Utilities, Inc, under a second "exclusive" y Hutchinson
franchise approved
for the same area by County Resolution No. 81-58 on or about
August 19, 1981. The Complaint concerns "the rates, charges
and Operation- of such utili '
set fortis.
Y" as and for the reasuTrs hereinafi:E:r
THE SECOND "EXCLUSIVE" FRANCHISE
TO HUTCHINSON IS INVALID AND VOID
Upon information and belief, Hutchinson apparently operated
and maintained the Moorings sewer system, as agent for the Mo
Ings, for some ten months prior to-August,1981. or -
Early in July,
1981, a "Hutchinson Utility Company" made application to the
Board of County Commissioners for transfer of the franchise f
the Moorings to Fsutcbinson. At a County Commission meetin rom
J111y 15, 1)81, at the request of Hutchinson,. a g on
transfer Public hearing
for aFF r. ��val Of the " proposal -
was set for August 19,
1981.• and an appropriate Notice was published on July 28 1981.
��y �1� C � -s �'`a�7iTs Y e r �+ �,P M .. �� .. ; � � f ++.'N `q� �'• ."tb� ��'. } e� 9. °",,..r ,. t � j� _+ � - -. e�
- BOOK 221
.
11982
The public hearing was held on August 19, 1981, and Resolution
No. 81-58 was approved granting "Hutchinson Utilities Inc." the
"exclusive franchise, right and privilege to erect, construct,
operate and maintain a sewer system within the prescribed terri-
tory * * * it. - -
The "prescribed territory" was the same territory which was
the subject of the earlier exclusive franchise granted to the
Moorings Development Co. in October, 1973. There is nothing,in
Resolution No. 81-58 transferring, or otherwise rescinding or
repealing the earlier Moorings franchise. Indeed, under Sub-
section (g)(1, 2 and 3) of the County "Utility Act", no transfer
of the franchise could take place without Board approval at a
public hearing. Moreover, under the.express terms of the original
franchise, Section 13:
"The Company, (Moorings) shall not sell or transfer
its plant or system to another nor transfer any
rights under this franchise to another without the
approval of the Board ***"
Not only was there no express approval of the transfer of
the franchise, but there wds no request for and no apprc)val of
the sale or transfer of the Moorings "plant or system to another".
Upon information and belief, no such sale or transfer of the
Moorings "plant or system" has ever been made to either the
"Hutchinson Utility Company" nor to "Hutchinson Ui:i ] itiv- Inc
Further, upon information and belief, aieithcwr of the letter h o- e
ever taken any steps to erect or construct a plane or system
pursuant to the express terms of the "exclusive" franchise pur-
portedly granted to them under Resolution No. 8158.
If the purported "exclusive" franchisee .under Resoliitiori ' No .
81-58 has neither acquired the Moorings plant or system in the
franchised area, nor otherwise erected or constructed a plant
or system of its own in the franchised area, then it has no
authciity, either as a transferee under the original Moorings
franchise, or as an erector or constructor under Resolution 81-58
to charge users for connection to or for use of the system,
except possibly as agent for the original and subsisting franchisee.
- 2 -
In view of the foregoing, the Board was without authority to
grant the purported "exclusive" franchise to Hutchinson Utilities
Inc., and Resolution No. 81-58 should be rescinded in its en-
tirety. Otherwise, users are facing obligations to two mutually
exclusive franchise owners, and the County does not know which,
if either, are responsible to properly operate and maintain the
franchised sewer facility.
THE INCREASE IN CONNECTION CHARGES AND RATES
GRANTED IN THE SECOND "EXCLUSIVE" FRANCHISE
IS ALSO INVALID AND VOID
Apart from the fact that the second "exclusive" franchise
purportedly granted by County Resolution No. 81-58 is invalid azld
void for the aforesaid reasons, the increase in connection charges
and user rates is specifically invalid and void for failure to
comply with the express provisions of the County "Utility Act"
and Code. If that resolution purports to involve a transfer of
the original franchise, it also fails to meet the requirements
of the original franchise for increasing such charges and rates.
Without conceding that the connection charges and rates
under the Moorings original franchise were proper, the Complainants
contend that there was no showing sufficient to justify the 20%
increase in connection charges and 30% increase in user rates
granted by the Board in their approval of the otherwise invalid
Resolution No. 81-58 on August 19, 3981.
First, if this was intended to be a transfer of the origi.n�_:l
franchise, the original franchise in Section 14(2)(c) provided
that "no change may be made by the company in the basis of its
rates without first making application therefor and public hear-
ing thereon". Further, in Section 18 of the original franchise,
any increase requires approval of the Board after a public hearing.
If this was intended to be an independent franchise, -rather than
a transfer, the applicant would quite clearly have to justify
its charges and rates..
What is to be taken in:.o account to justify original and/or
increases in connection charges and rates? Under the original
19 8-
n'�. ` rk ti4q{ r �y; � w, - G 1 i C ..{.�^
DEC, 11982
franchise to the Moorings, Section 14 provided that such charges
and rates "shall be fair and reasonable and designed to meet all
necessary costs of the service, including a fair rate of return
.on the net valuation of its properties devoted thereto under
efficient and economical management". In this case, since
Hutchinson apparently does not own any of the "properties", they
are not entitled to any rate of return on the net valuation of
such properties. Moreover, they should not be entitled to
impose connection charges whose sole purpose can only be to re-
cover their investment in such properties; in this case zero.
The "official" minutes (Secretary's) of the August 19, 1991
public hearing indicated that the only justification for the
aforesaid increases in connection charges and rates was a repre-
sentation by a principal of Hutchinson that "the current rate
structure is based upon a direct operating cost of $130,000.00
per year; it has nothing to do with capital value". A C.P.A. for
Hutchinson informed the Board "that a 9% to 10% profit is also
built into the rate structure". There is ilio indication in the
"official" minutes of what was included in the "direct operating"
costs nor on what the 9% to 10% profit was based.
However, if you will review the tapes (or unofficial minutes)
of that public hearing, you will find that any attempt to bre;-'_Y
down and identify the so-called "direct operating" costs was
avoided, and further that the "9% to 10% profit" was based on
such direct operating costs. In fact, you will find that the
Hutchinson C.P.A. contended that based on figures from the original
franchise (The Moorings)', the direct -operating cost was on the
order of $110,000.00 plus; that Hutchinson estimated an increase
in such costs to $130,000.00; that it based its profit on 9% to
10% of original direct operating cost and added that to the esti-
mated increased cast; with an expectation of collections on the
order of $40,000.00 to cover the foregoing:' In other words, the
rate increase was designed to cover the estimated increased direct
operating cost plus their profit based on such cost.
4
Y
r � i
Complainants contend that at worst the County Commission was
misled as to the direct operating cost asserted as a basis for the
increased connection charges and•rates; and at best, the County
Commission failed to inquire fully into the basis for such direct
operating costs as justification for the requested increases.
Upon information and belief, the amount represented as "direct
operating cost" in fact also included at least the following:
1. Interest expenses at 10% on total investment.
2. Annual replacement amortization.
3. Return on investment 1 1/2% over interest charge, and
4. 10% overhead and profit.
The foregoing is based on unaudited "Sewer Service Rate
Justification Information" supplied by the Moorings Development
Company to several of the Complainants on or about March 1, 1975,
-ra dopy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. That "Informal
tion" showed that the total direct "sewer operations costs" for
the month of February, 1975 was $1,824.37, and based on that
monthly cost, the "Estimated Total Annual Sewer Operation Costs."
would be $21,892.44. While it is possible that such direct
annual operating costs have increased over the last six or seven
years, it is not likely that they have increased to "130,000.0011.
In fact, since the number of residential'units in the franchise
area have increased substantially over::the same six or seven
years, the actual cost per residential unix: should have decrensed
rather than increased as represented by Hutchinson at tbe AugLi�.t
19, 1981 public hearing.
In view of the foregoing, that increase in connection charges
and user rates was unjustified and should be rescinded ab initio •
with a refund or credit to every user.
HUTCHINSON HAS BREACHED THE ESCROW PROVISIONS
OF RESOLUTION NO. 81-58
Without regard wo whether the franchise granted under County
Resolution No. 81-58 is valid, the fact is"that Section 17 of
said Resolution has been breached. The Resolution provides in
- 5 -
2 PAGE 224
�/J� '//�
�W�:MPi�
�:� �
J:...�
.j `F +T.^F'T 'i t.e?�,'" '��=j�Y� i?- br. p.:atc'•�i�P;�ft �t;
•N
'.`. ir.:sh �.. ..... a .. � .._
�. �'t
.{ b, { +VLM l°+11� .�`y�
DEC. 11982
6Oox
2
said Section 17
that "Ten percent (10%) of the gross
rates
charged
and received by the corporation.(Hutchinson Utilities Inc.) shall
be placed in an interest-bearing escrow account held by the County."
Upon information and belief, as of the date of this Complaint,
only $(.2,000.00 has been placed in the escrow account by the alleged
franchisee.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Board should rescind or revoke the purported
"exclusive" sewer franchise, together with any and all increased
connection and rate charges granted to Hutchinson Utilities Inc,
by Resolution No. 81-58. Any new or renewed attempt to transfer
the plant and original franchise should be the subject of a new
application and public hearing and should be open to other pos-
sible operators, including the Moorings Property Owners Association.
Further, the fact that this Complaint does not reach all objectional
features of Resolution 81-58 should not be construed as a waiver
of those objections which may be raised at_any future public
A
hearing on a renewed application for transfer of plant and ori-
ginal franchise.
Still further, the undersigned representatives of the Com-
plainant•, users hereby certify that they have the authority to
represent the user members of theix respective associations in
presenting the within Complaint to the Board of County Commissioners.
Respectfully submitted,
Harbour Side Condominium The Moorings Property Owners
Associa ion Association `
/J
By :
Victor Lunka, President l/Samuel White, President
ominium ssoci- Sabal Reef Association
Windward Co4ation `o Vero. Beach.,
BY •By : t�' V/
Robert Peters, President Wyman Finley, President
Spinnaker Point
Association West Passage Association
By By • 'owl
Arthur Brown, Secretary- Charles F. Belm6-ff , President
Treasurer
OAT
__ Y_._'i K,�F- _ i a.p °Y,'..�} .: t- e,z' �i`W.�-E` q� ta6�Zir-r `},t: •-�'F�s.,'<< + a..;.,� �e,at{.',�f,7 q.
i
ise Bay Villas Condo-
m ,Assp ation, Inc.
By : /. ,
J.E. C dpm n, President
The Billows Condominium
Association -
t
By :/l_�' ��� I.��1
Russell Gibson, Present
South Passage Condominium
Association
By :
Herbert Grandage, Preside�it
North
Assqd
By
Exhibit A
ssage Condominium
SEWER SERVICE RATE JUSTIFICATION INFORMATION
MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
SEWER RATES
SUMMARY
MARCH 1, 1975 '
Total' Investment in Sewer System $489,563.67
Interest Expenses on Tota.
Investment 10% (Page 2) '$48,956.37
Annual Replacement -
Amortization (Page 3) 27,435.05
Estimated Current Annual
Operating Costs (Page _ 5) _ _Z1_.492.44
Estimated Total -
Annual Charges 3 0.. - . $
10% Overhead
Profit t, 8M 39
Return on Investcnr_11t
lh% over interest charge Yj 3344;. ,U:
Anticipated Annual Requirements $13.5,455.70
Anticipated Monthly '
Requirements $9,621.31
February 1975 Billings (Page 6) $1,259.80-
0
x -•L Yr ,o �~f�'' ".�1I ,,fO�
7 � �. P� `f �f4; :� � � S-: "i"'; +ate '� •"'"'�r.�r .
.. .. .. ...
,,� 3 ..v
,.
I •: � d. �r �a '� .t�...,.�-,ice:,-,'+•L
-�
D E C 1 1992
Interest Expense on Investment @ 10% Annually $48.956.37
MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
SCHEDULE OF REPLACEMENT AMORTIZATION
Boat 52 F�at?7
MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
SCHEDULE OF COSTS IN SEWER SYSTEM
INVESTMENTS
TO MARCH 1, 1975
ITEM
I
COST
Sewer Main, Unit I
$ 44,554.91
Sewer Main, Unit II
124,121.34
Sewer Main & Lift Station, So. Passage
54,015.68
Sewer Main S Lift Station, Unit III
38,423.93
Sewer Main 6 Lift Station, Unit IV
69,338.88
Engineering
21,624.7;
Main Lift Station
52,393.70
Forced Mains .
49,962.50
Franchise Costs
2,418,00
Sever Plants Set Up Charges
U6200-00
Fence -Plant
1,500.00
Land -Plant Site
10,000.00
Polishing Pond Dredging
5,000.00
Annual Replacement -Amortization
Total Investment
$489.563.67
Interest Expense on Investment @ 10% Annually $48.956.37
MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
SCHEDULE OF REPLACEMENT AMORTIZATION
TOTAL
INVESTMENTS
ITEM. THROUGH
MARCH 1. 1975
LIFE
iSever Lines 6 Engineering
$380,551.97
25 yr.
$15,122.08
Lift Stations
73,893.70
10 yr.
7,389.37
Fence
1,500.00
15 yr.
100.00 '
Land S Pond
15,000.00
15 yr.
1,000.00
Rental Set Up 6 Franchise Costs
j-1 618.00 -
L3►r.
3,'/! .60
Total Invested
$489.563.67
Annual Replacement -Amortization
$27.4;15_ .05
W
MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
SCHEDULE OF SEWER OPERATIONS COSTS
FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1975
I. Auditing: Auditing for the company has run over
$15,000 a year for the past several years. For
examining the sewer operation, estimate is $600
or $50.00 a month.
2. Chemicals:'These charges are directly attributed
to operating the sewage treatment plant.
3. Auto Expense: Auto expenses to furnish the main-
tenance mechanic with a vehicle to make inspection
at the plant. 20 miles a week, 4 1/3 weeks =
87 miles @ 152 or $13.00 a month.
4. Insurance: This.is the actual charges on sewer
equipment and liability insurance on the sewer
operations.
5. Utilities: Any and all electric and water charges
directly connected with operation of the treatYmnt
plant and/or the lift stations.
6. General Office Expenses: Charge sewer depart wnit
with a token charge for offici.ng and supplying its
help. Consider supplies, rent, utilities, photo
machine: Where else for $35.00 a month?
7. Plant Lease: The monthly charge for leasing the
sewage treatment disposal plant.
8. .Repairs: Actual charges incurred in repairing the
treatment plant, lift stations, pumps and/or sewage
mains.
9. Tests: Weekly tests made by a certified engineer
for reports to the county on pollution.
10. Postage: Monthly billings and letters now approx.
80 @ lot = $8.00
11. Salaries -Offices Bookkeepers sending out statements,
making deposits, posting books, etc. equivalent to
1 girl, h week, 1 month = $75.00
12. Salaries -Field: Our maintenance man's allocation of
his time to daily inspections and small repairs of
sewer plant and lift stations, average 5 hours per
week @ $6.00 X 4 1/3 weeks . $130.00.
DEC 11982 42 WK
r
$ 50.00
46.32
13.00
93.00
424.97
48.55
442.00-
7.80
110.00
8.00
i
75.00
233.88
2 PhU� 8
D E C 11982
MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
SCHEDULE OF SEWER OPERATIONS COSTS
FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1975 - CONTINUED
13. Salaries -Supervision: Controller -Treasurer devotes
the most time to sewer supervision, but other
Officers involved periodically, supervision,
accounting, purchasing and maintenance, legal,
financial, overall management, call it $200.00
a month (this certainly not in relation to
earnings and time, but in relation now to
number of customers).
14. Payroll Taxes and Insurance: 15% of salaries for
workman's compensation and liability insurance and
payroll taxes. -
15. Telephone: Cost of a business phone is $22.00 per
month, so we will share one line per month. 50%
or $11.10 a month.
Total for the month of February, 1975 -
Estimated Total Annual Sewer Operation Costs -
12 X $1,824.37
MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
SEWER FRANCHISE
STATEMENT OF INCOME AS OF MARCH 1, 1975
February, 1975 Billings to all serviced
(after discount for prompt payment)
$ 200.00
60.75
�.J..10
$1.824.37
$21.892.44
$1.259.80
� � r
Attorney Kramer stated that the County ordinance
provides for a complaint on the rates, and this matter also
concerns whether there is a valid franchise with Hutchinson
Utilities, Inc. He asked the Board to review Exhibit A of
the Complaint regarding the Sewer Service Rate Justification
Information. Attorney Kramer suggested that the Board
demand to see the operating costs. Also, it should demand
from The Moorings and Hutchinson a complete audited
financial history as to how much had been collected from the
users and where it had gone. Attorney Kramer felt
Hutchinson was mingling the reserves for annual replacement
with their common funds - he also felt their rates should be
reduced, not increased. He then discussed the escrow
account and he felt there were payments made into the
General Fund a there was no escrow account.
Attorney Kramer suggested that in the financial
documentation, Hutchinson be required to isolate their
P
operating cost to The Moorings. He also wondered if they
were meeting all the requirements. of the Department of
Environmental Regulation, such as the overflow retention for
a period of 72 hours. He felt someone should inspect the
system once a year. Attorney Kramer felt the users were
being overcharged, made a comparison with the plant in Johns
Island, and discussed their connection charges and rates.
Commissioner Bird felt they must resolve whether or not
the Board did validly transfer this franchise, and asked the
Attorney for clarification.
Attorney Brandenburg commented that the Board should
take the Complaint and let his office take it under
advisement. He then read a letter from the President of The
Moorings Development Company, Jorge`Gonzalez, as follows:
DEC 11982 44
�1,s82
November 30, 1982
— Garry Brandenburg, Attorney 9� Esquire
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL ..,32960
Dear Mr. Brandenburg:
With reference to the
Commissioners Of Indian
Hutchinson Utilities, to he Complaint filed with
advised that The Moorin County concerningthe Board of Count y.
Inc, pursuant to Resolutin he franchise y
granted to it by Resolutione73169mand Com 81'58 granted to
and belief Company has abandoned be
Hutchinson Utilities that to franchise
for the area described in 1 Inc, the best of our
Resolution 73 holds the "exclusive" knowledge
Please be franchise
Intent between The ��oori n further
Inc. dated Se that in accordance with
all related f cilbtles5 Moorings
Development Com the Letter
1980, title to the
Company
and Hutchinson Utilities,
Hutchinson Utilitieso-wit: sewage treatment
its franchise Inc.Ion the
Personalty and fixtures plant and
was adopted. date Resolution 87_58' Passed to
granting Hutchinson
JG:sz
2125 WI1VllWAR1) WAY
YoT very truly,
10RItGs)DEV#PMENT COMPANY
f.
z
�'EKO BEACI , I'L11RIU.A 32960 • 305-231-5131
Ar
V
A brief discussion followed.
Norman Mead, Attorney from Jensen Beach representing
Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., approached the Board and advised
that there had been a lawsuit filed regarding Harborside
Development and Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. He continued
that the lawsuit did contain elements which Mr. Kramer
brought out and they strictly opposed any determination of
the Board pending the outcome of the lawsuit. Attorney Mead
suggested they await the resolution of the lawsuit; they
felt the Complaint was a smoke screen to get two days in
court instead of one.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if his client felt it owned
the system.
Attorney Mead responded there was no question about it,
and The Moorings also had no question as to who owned the
plant. He stated it was done around August 19th when the
Board granted the franchise.
Dorothy Hudson, Attorney for The Moorings, came before
the Board affirmed that the transfer had occurred under the
guidance of the Board and in concurrence with the property
owners. She felt it was properly done.
Sam White, President of the Property Owners of The
Moorings, approached the Board and commented that they did
have an issue of the rate problem. He felt they were paying
twice what Johns Island residents are paying. Mr. White
emphasized that audited financial statements were needed.to
know how Hutchinson was allocating their costs. He urged
the Board to look into this matter.
Attorney Kramer suggested that the Board have a
committee selected consisting of a County consultant, and
representatives of The Moorings and Hutchinson Utilities,
Inc., and have them meet and examine the files and financial
statements.
46
1982 65, 2 F
Vic Lonka, Harborside Development Co., came before the
Board and asked it to look into the situation to see if the
residents are being treated properly. He indicated that at
the time he bought his large piece of property in The
Moorings, the sewer was paid for in the property purchase.
Mr. Lonka objected to having to make another sewer payment.
The Chairman suggested that this be resolved as
equitably as possible - a full, in-depth analysis was
needed as well as information from the .Attorney regarding
the valid franchise.
Commissioner Bird noted that the Board needed to
resolve the legal and financial questions; it had the right
and obligation to do so.
b, MOTION WAS 14ADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board take
the matter under advisement, await the written
opinion from the County Attorney, gather financial
data, and that the matter will be finally resolved
with a public hearing.
A brief discussion ensued about gathering financial
data, and it was determined that with good, correct
information, all of the questions could be answered.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It
was voted on and carried unanimously.
� r �
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at
11:50 o'clock A.M. and reconvened with the same members
present at 1:30 o'clock P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING TO M-1 (BILL LAW)
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
0�yO Published Daily
t
,.. L to Beach, Indian River County, Florida
h1 Y / IVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
he( ersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says th iap ess Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
ro B than River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a /C6"
in the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of/ ell. /5-03, J Y
,
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscriAed bore mAhio•� day of A.D.119
(SEAL)
DEC
the
Manager)
River County, Florida)
�W,,3*�NOTiCE- PUBLIC HEARING '
"=Notice of hearing to conslder.tde following
proposal to rezone land from:ry;
R -2A, "Multiple Family' DistrlcV" to IY1-10
`•Restricted Industrial District.",The subject
property is located between Old pixie High-
way and'U.S.':Highway No J;(north of the
North Relief Canal. � pF ;� � t. �*�' I:•:;;
¢::°From the Southeast corner of the Southeast
%/ of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 15, Township
32 South; Range 39 East, run South 69 degrees
48' 3011 West, along the East-West 1/4 section
line, a distance of 888.48 feet to an Intersection
with the East right-of-way of Old U.S. Highway
No..' l; thence, run Northwesterly, along the
East ,right-of-way line of Old U.S: Highway No.
10 a, distance of;1,114.83 feet to:lhe.Point of
Beginning." From said POB, continue running
Northwesterly along the East right-of-way tine
of old U.S Highway No.1, a distance of 261.28
feet to an intersection with the North boundary
of the Southeast 1/4 of the.Norfheast 1/4 of said
Section 1S: (1) thence:. run Easterly along the
North boundany..of ,the Southeast 1/4 of the
Northeast y4 of Section 14, a distance of 345.85
feet to an intersection with the West right-of-
way of the New U.S. Highway No. l: (2)
thence, run Southeasterly along the West rigM-
of-Way line of the New, U.S, Highway No. 1, a
distance -:of , 16017,1 feet; :z(3) ;?hence, run
:Westerly parallel to the North boundary of the
:Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Sectlon 15, a
,'.-distance *of 343.97 feet, to the Point of Begin-
,
and citizens shall have an opportunity to
heard, will be held by the Board of C,oun
Commissioners ' of _ Indian ° River County
Florida, in th,CCounty Commission Chamber
of the County'Administration Building; locatOC
'at 1640 25th Street, Vero Beach,, Florida o
.Wednesday, December 1, IM at 1:30 pm;
if any person decides to appeal any decislo
made on the above matter, he will need
record of the proceedings, and for such puri
poses, he may need to Insure that a verbatim,
record of the proceedings is made, whWi in
eludes testimony and evidence upon w. -the
appeal is based.
y. ,Indian River County
Al
kLBoard of County Commissioners
�v;` By: -3-Doug c Scurlock,, Jr . r.
NOV. 15.23.1982 �•<; x> t F
Chairman Scurlock explained the procedure to be
followed.
Bill Law, owner of the subject property, came before
the Board. He noted that he has industrial immediately
48
1982 9009 52 PAGE J z
DEC 11982 5
adjoining his property at the north boundary and only a few
feet to the south it continues to be industrial. His future
plans for the property would be a maxi -type warehouse, and
he believed the rezoning will be in keeping with the trend
in the area.
Staff Planner, Janis Johnson, reviewed the staff
recommendation of approval, which is as follows:
10
TO:
The Honorable Members DATE: November 17, 1982 FILE:
of the Board of IRC-82-ZC-20,#462
County Commissioners
THROUGH: Art Challacombe
Planning Dept. Mgr. SUBJECT:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Fes"{�t.�.c.e�►.� /�+�►?�
atrick Bruce King, AICA
FROM: Janis J
Staff P
BILL LAW'S REQUEST TO REZONE
2.03 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH
OF THE NORTH RELIEF CANAL.
FROM R -2A, MULTIPLE FAMILY TO
M-1, INDUSTRIAL
REFERENCES:
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 1, 1982.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On October 28, 1982, the Planning and'Zoning Commission unani-
mously recommendedaapproval of the request to rezone 2.03
acres of land from R -2A, Multiple Family District (maximum
density of 4 units/acre) to M-1, Industrial. The M-1, Re-
stricted Industrial District allows 18 uses ranging from
maintenance/repairs to light manufacturing and warehousing.
The subject property is located within a mixed use district
which extends north and south, along the U.S.#1/Old Dixie
Corridor. The area directly north of the property is zoned
M-1, Restricted Industrial. The area to the west -of the subject
property, on the west side of Old Dixie, is zoned LM -1,
Light Manufacturing. The area directly south of --the subject
property is also zoned R -2A, Multiple Family Residential.
The area on the east side of U.S.#1 is zoned R -2A, Multiple
Family District.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Environment - The subject property is not within a flood
plain area and contains no_significant vegetation -or endangered
species.
Land Use - The subject property is presently vacant. The
area to the north contains a sand blasting plant. Further
north in the same corridor Carol Sherman's industrial park
49
® r �
is located. The industrial park is not completely developed,
however, warehousing is already located on the southern end
and the northern end, fronting on U.S.#1. A truck storage
facility is located at the northern end, fronting on Old
Dixie Highway. To the south of the subject property is O'Neill's
storage facility. Scattered single family residential develop-
ment is located on the east side of U.S.#1.
Utilities - The subject property does not receive water or
-sewer services. U.S.#l, a major arterial and Old Dixie
Highway, a secondary collector, provide vital transportation
facilities to the site.
Traffic - Traffic analysis was based on -the assumption that
the uses would be similar to the ones already existing and
adjacent to the subject property; light manufacturing/
repairing and warehousing. Based on this assumption, traffic
generated by a permitted use is not anticipated to have a
significant impact on U.S.#1 or Old Dixie Highway at this
location. However, it is recognized that it will contribute
to the accumulative traffic over a long term period. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for frontage roads and limited access
in developments along major arterials. It is strongly recom-
mended that the Old Dixie Highway provide access to the subject
property. Old Dixie can function as a marginal access road
-s ,along U.S.#1 in this particular area.
RECOMMENDATION:
The uses allowed in the M-1 District are compatible and similar
to those uses on the north side. U.S.#1 provides an adequate
corridor separating any residential uses to the east. Old
Dixie provides a marginal access road for U.S.#1 in the area.
Based on these considerations, staff recommends approval.
4
Ms. Johnson described the area, noting that although
there is some residential on the east of U.S.1, the highway
is a buffer. It is recommended that access be onto Old
Dixie. She further noted that this is in compliance with
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if it is the intent that
exclusive access be from Old Dixie.
Ms. Johnson stated that this will be addressed more
specifically when the applicant comes in with his site plan;
they are only monitoring it because there are a number of
e
people accessing onto U. S. 1 now.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if a cardboard placard
announcing the proposed rezoning was placed on the subject
property, and Ms. Johnson stated that, to the best of her
knowledge, it was, but she did not know how long it remained
there.
50
to- 52 Pn E,2,_?6
D E C 1 1982
sQ0K2 t 237
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 82-29 granting the requested
rezoning to M-1. - `77
omi,N CE rio. 82- 29
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of indian
A
County, Florida, did publish and send.its Notice of Intens. 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 a
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian
River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended
as follows:
1. That jhe Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in Indian
River ,''ounty, Florida, to -wit:
From the SScutheast corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Ivor=:east 1/4 of SSction 15, Township 32 South, Range 39
East, run South 89 48' 30" West, along the East-West
1/, section Une, a distance of 888.48 feet to an inter-
seczion with the East right-of-way of Old U.S. Highway
Nr.. :; thence, rur, Northwesterly, along the East right-of-
way Jine of Old U.S. Highway No. 1, a distance of 1,114.83
feel to the Point of Beginning. From said POB, continue
rurn-ng Norrhwesterly along the East right-of-way line of
Old _.S. H�chway No. 1, a distance of 261.28 feet to an
intersectio-, with the North boundary of the Southeast 1/4
of t . _ No i theast 1/4 of said Section 15: (1) -�_-nence, run
51
L�
Easterly along the North boundary of the Southeast 1/4 of
the Northeast 1/4 of Section.15, a distance of 345.85 feet
to an intersectloa with the West rig.tt-of-war of the New
U.S. r."l-giNo. 1: (2) thence, ru- Southeasterly along
the Gr. st 1:1ght-of-way line Gt the New U.S. Highway No. 1,
a distance of 260.57 feet; (3) thence, run Westerly
L.)araliel to the Nort;. boundary of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 15, a distance of 343.97 feet, co
the Point of Beginning.
Be changed from R -2k, Multiple Family District to M-1, Restr_;;te,
Industrial.
All with the meaninS and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 1st day
of December , 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By — r 01 A W4 Z, Q=
DON—C. SC BLOCK, JR.
Chairman
AcKnowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this c7 -r -A., day of ,Q,� , 1982.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this /7.t day of ,�„�, , 1982, at .'00
A.M./gM. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River .County, Florida.
APPROVED—l" TO FO
LEGAL/S FFI/LIEN /
By
G�RY M BRANDENBURG, Co my Attorney
I
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF REZONING DENIAL (CARDINAL GROVES)
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:
52
DEC 11982
D E C 11982
y_o,�,22i3Z4� ERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
cam'Io
Published Daily
� moi. � �� •. ti
$Ver ach, Indian River County, Florida
fl�1NTY I N R : STATE OF FLORIDA
gfow@ t14e gned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says Y i @3 s Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero ndian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of �y'/'C�i/7�r / 61-C, Vim=
In the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of—I&I Id
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. 11
Sworn to and subscribed befo a me this day of OV A.D. 19 � `�
Bu ss Manager)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indi Iver County, Florida)
BOOK 2 FAUC 239
NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the following
proposal to rezone land from:
i
C-1, "Commercial District' and R -1A,
"'Single Family Residential to R-211, "Multiple
Family District." The subject property is
located on the east side of U.S. Highway No. 1,
south of 12th Place, S.E.
The subject property is described as:
Lot 2 and a parcel of submerged land in the
'Indian River in Section 29, Township 33 South,
Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida,
(more particularly described as follows:
Begin at a point on the North line of
Government lot 2 of said Section 29, where said
north line intersects with the West share of the
Indian River; thence East along the extension
of the said North line of Government Lot 2 a
distance of 214.3 feet, more or less, to the
bulkhead line In Indain River County, Florida,
.established by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida,
pursuant to Section 253.122, Florida Statutes;
thence South 18 degrees 15' 46" East, 1397.29
feet, more or less, to the Intersection of the
(Easterly extension of the South line of said
Government Lot 2; thence West 250 feet, more
r less, to the mean high water line at the West
shore of the Indian River; thence, Northerly
long said mean high water line to the POINT
OF BEGINNING. Containing 7.0 acres, more
r less.
AND ALSO
The North one-half of Northeast quarter of
Southwest quarter lying East of U.S. Highway
No. 1, Section 30; South one-half of Northeast
carter of Southwest quarter lying East of U.S.
Highway No. 1, Section 30; North one-half of
he Southeast quarter, Section 30, all located in
Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian
River County, Florida.
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
itizens shall have an.opportunity-to be beard.
III
be held by said Board of County Com-
�hambers
issioners in the County: Commission
of the County Administration
uilding, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, December 1,
1982 at 1:30 p.m.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he will need a
record of the proceedings,and for such pur-
poses, he may need to insure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
,appeal is based.
Indian River Counter ' s
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Doug S. Scurlock, Jr.
Nov. 12, 23.1982.
Chairman Scurlock announced that the Board Secretary
has placed in front of the Commissioners correspondence that
has been received both in favor of and in opposition to the
granting of this appeal and he wished same to be made a part
of the record.
The following are on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Letters opposing the rezoning from:
Mr. & Mrs. Bill F. Stegkemper
Donald R. Nichols
Constance and Robert Marselli
Letters supporting the rezoning from:
John and Ida Cippitelli
Stanley Emerson
Marie Anderson
53
r
Telegrams supporting the rezoning from:
Katherine Watson
Tom and Sue Tatterson
Bobby Dyer
Lou Higgins
Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board on
behalf of the applicant, Southeast Enterprises, and handed
out back-up material to members of the Commission,
consisting of three folders of pictures, plus declaration of
restriction, financial statement of Cardinal Groves, and a
proposed layout of the "Vero Vista" project.
Attorney O'Haire contended that the Planning & Zoning
Commission's recommendation of denial was based on the
emotionalism generated by the residents of River Shores, a
—— .Zsingle family residential area to the north of the subject
property. Mr. O'Haire then made his presentation in support
of the project, emphasizing the developer's reputation and
successful track record and the fact that all the principals
are themselves architects and planners. He stressed that
the proposed rezoning conforms completely with the Master
Plan designation and pointed out that if this property is
rezoned in conformance with the`Mast'tGr Plan, the developer
will have to front the money to extend the water mains from
Oslo Road down to this property, which, in turn, will
considerably broaden the base of utility users for the
County's new water plant.
It
Mr. O'Haire then detailed the existing commercial uses
in the area, including a flea market and a mobile home
subdivision, pictures of which are contained in the folders
submitted to the Board, and felt that the low density
residential his clients are proposing would improve the
area. Mr. O'Haire next reviewed the layout of the proposed
project, informing those present that the two basic
objections raised by River Shores residents at the Planning
& Zoning. Commission hearing have been dealt with by moving
54
DEC 11982.i PACE810
the utility plant to the southern side of the project, or
approximately 1,000' away from River Shores, and also by
redesigning the project to have single family along the
north 200' of property, whichi200' plus a ditch easement
would provide a 250' buffer. iTo assure that this 200' will
be developed as proposed, they have recorded a declaration
of restriction stating that the north 200' may be used for
single family only. Attorney O'Haire informed the Board
that a mailing was done to every owner of a lot in River
Shores explaining the changes in their plan, and they have
had no response. It was Mr. O'Haire's belief that River
Shores residents would prefer 'to see nothing at all take
place on his client's property, which is now an old -citrus
grove, and he asked that Jim Rogers, whose family owned this
grove for many years, address the economic viability of the
grove.
Jim Rogers, who is presently Chairman and President of A
the Packers of Indian River, came before the Board and went
into the details. of the very extensive history his family
has in the grove business in Indian River County, dating
back to 1926, stressing their interest in the County an& i-ts
proper development. Mr. Rogers pointed out that with the
existing commercial zoning which runs 600' deep all along U.
S. 1, his family has had many opportunities to sell this.
property for a shopping center or other commercial
enterprises, but in consideration of the folks at River
Shores, they did not want to develop this commercially.
Accordingly,i they did not object when this was designated
LD -2 under the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as they felt
this was the highest and best use for the property.
Mr. Rogers then addressed the economic viability of the
grove, explaining that 35 acres of the present grove is
about 40-50 years old and in a state of decline; the balance
of the grove was set out in grapefruit on rough lemon stock,
5�
r � r
which peaks at about 15 years, and this also is in a state
of decline. He continued that they also have a severe water
problem with salt water intrusion, difficult irrigation,
etc., and of the 126 acres, approximately 28% is non -usable.
Mr. Rogers noted that although it would have been economical
to have this grove sprayed by airplanes, out of considera-
tion for the residents of River Shores, they sprayed by the
ground method. An additional reason they felt it wise to
dispose of this property and invest in new acreage for
groves west of town is that this grove is isolated from the
bulk of their groves which are located west of town, and the
traffic on U. S. 1 makes it difficult to get grove machinery
to this location. Mr. Rogers continued that before signing
a contract with Southeast Enterprises, he checked out their
previous projects and was satisfied and pleased with what he
saw. ,
Attorney O'Haire felt it has been made clear that
property is not viable as a grove since it is in an urban
area and cannot be maintained as a grove should be. He also
felt it is not feasible to develop as single family
residential because of the economics related to providing a
water main and the fact.that you cannot dredge and fill as
you could previously. Mr. O'Haire felt what it all boils
down to is that the neighbors feel the Rogers family should
be saddled with this property forever. As to this being an
emotional issue, he pointed out that a number of people
present today are people who work with Southeast Enterprises
and live in this county, as well as engineers, sub-
contractors, suppliers and tradesmen, who are interested in
the project. Mr. O'Haire emphasized that over its life this
project will generate more than 36 million in sales and that
money will stay in this community and be recirculated.
Michael Brown, President of Harbor Federal Savings &
Loan, and Hal Roberts, President of the St. Lucie County
56
DEC 11982 90 - 52 PMGE 2� 2
OEC 11982
x 2
Chamber of Commerce, both came before the Board to confirm
their favorable experience with Southeast Enterprises and to
speak in support of their various developments, which they
both agreed have contributed much to St. Lucie County's
economy and environment. They also emphasized that these
projects have been built at densities well below the limits
allowed.
Attorney O'Haire stated that it is the intention of the
plan that the citrus trees will continue.to be maintained
and made a part of the project. He again emphasized the
"I've got mine" sentiments of '~the neighbors and asked for a
hand count of those present in favor of the rezoning.
Approximately 30-40 people raised hands.
Staff Planner, Janis Johnson reviewed the staff
recommendation, as follows:
i
5�
A
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Members
of the Board of
County Commissioners
THROUGH: Art Cha—��14acombe
Planning Dept. Mgr.
ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
FROM: Janis Johns
Staff Plann
DATE: November 19, 1982 FILE:
IRC-82-ZC-16,#461
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION 4 -TO -0 RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY SOUTHEAST ENTERPRISE,
INC. REQUEST TO REZONE ± 125.83
ACRE PARCEL FROM C-1, COMMERCIAL
AND R-lA, SINGLE FAMILY TO R2D,•
MULTIPLE FAMILY
REFERENCES:
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on December 1, 1982.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On October 14, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
'c—4�-to-0 to recommend denial of the request to rezone a ± 125.83
acre parcel•located between U.S.#1 and the Indian River, just
south of 12th Place from C-1, Commercial and R-lA, Single
Family (maximum 4.3 units/acre) to R2D,. Multiple -Family (maximum
of 6 units/acre). The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the
request to rezone because the proposed multi -family development
would conflict with the existing character of the single family
uses in the area. Subsequently, on October 22, 1982, the ap-
plicant submitted an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission
denial of the application. The applicant waived his right to
a 30 day notice prior to the public hearing for his rezoning.
-The subject property is located directly south of River Shores
Subdivision and lies between U.S.#1 and the Indian River. The
subject property is designated LD2, Low Density Residential
(maximum of 6 units/acre). The subje&t property contains ± 31.38
acres along the Indian River which are designated as Environmentally
Sensitive. The applicant has applied for a Binding Letter of
Interpretation (form BLWM-01-81) from the Department of Community
Affairs.'
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Environment - The rectangular shaped parcel has approximately
1,213 feet of frontage on U.S.#1, with the east/west boundaries
extending approximately 4,100 feet to the Indian River. The
subject property contains ± 7.0 acres of submerged land, 24.38
acres of Environmentally Sensitive locateiT east of the dike,
and ± 94.45 acres which are in productive groves and natural
vegetation. These three areas will be discussed .in terms of
the impact of the proposed development on each of these segments.
The environmental analysis will cover a vegetative survey,
drainage considerations, flood hazard classification, the Indian
River and its impacts, and administrative status of the area.
Vegetation - The Environmentally Sensitive area west of the dikes
con ns play. communities of Spartina, Jankus, and other shrubs
associated with tidal area plant communities: Mangroves grow
along the eastern boundary of the Environmentally Sensitive area.
A few scattered mangroves are also located along the D.O.T. ditch
line north of the subject property. Florida Slash Pines and
an oak stand are growing along the northern boundary of the
subject property, approximately 500 to 1000 feet west of the
dike ditch.
1
Vegetative survey and site inspection by Paul Palmiotto,
Urban Forester.
DEC 11982 Rol, 2 PA-bE
rbEc- i T982
Southeast Enterprise
November 19, 1982
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
(Continued)
900K
2 Fr, , 5
Drainage - Discussion of drainage factors in the subject
property consists of two major areas.
1. Existing natural drainage within the Environmentally
Sensitive area.
2. Drainage requirements of proposed development of the
subject property.
The plant community in the Environmentally Sensitive areas are
dependent upon a direct exchange of water with the Indian
River. The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in*their
review of the applicant's Binding Letter of Interpretation
have expressed concern about this water exchange of the Environ-
mentally Sensitive area and the Indian River. Upon submission
of a detailed drainage plan, either through the development of
regional impact (DRI) process or during site plan review, the
applicant may be required to enhance this flow and exchange
process in the wetlands area. It might be.noted that the
flooding of the dikes has also been used as a mosquito control
technique for the area. The Mosquito Control District does
not have a dedicated easement to this area. It is staff's
understanding that these activities have been handled through
"a gentlemen's agreement".: It is likely that during any site
plan process, a permanent easement would be required of the
applicant. Any proposed development would be required to
submit a drainage plan which conforms to the requirements both
of the Indian River County Stormwater Management and Flood Protection
Ordinance and the requirements of the Florida Administrative
Code 17-25. Further, the Comprehensive Plan prohibits direct
point discharge into the Indian River. The requirements of
these ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan will assure pro- _
tection of the wetlands area, as well as adequate on-site
drainage for any proposed development.
Flood Hazards - Approximately 100 acres of the eastern portion
of the subject property lies in Flood Zone "A-10". This flood
district requires floor areas for living elevations whicb must
meet or exceed standards of 6 feet above mean sea level.
Soils - The site contains four major soil types: Myakka Fine
Sand, Pomello Fine Sand, Jupiter Fine Sand and Typic Hydraquent.
These soil associations have moderate to severe.limitations
for septic systems and percolation. Their permeability and
other characteristics will be a consideration in the development
of any sewer system, drainage system and/or percolation ponds.
Indian River - The waters of the Indian River are a part of an
Aquatic Preserve established by the Department of Natural Re-
sources (DNR) under provisions of Chapter 258.39 [8l (Florida
Statutes) This Aquatic Preserve begins at the southern boundary
of the City of Vero Beach and includes all waters to the County
line (Chapter 258.39).
The Environmentally Sensitive area of the subject property in-
cludes.7.0 acres of submerged land in this aquatic preserve.
On April 14, 1964, the Florida Trustees of the of the Internal
Improvements Fund, established under Chapter 258, approved the
conveyance of these 7.0 acres to J. L. Rogers .2 The Indian
River County Property Appraiser's Office indicated that these
7.0 acres are listed on their current tax rolls. Other parcels
to the south appear to include submerged lands, according to
County tax maps.
2
Confirmed by Dan Micuser, Title Division Department of
Natural Resources.
Southeast Enterprise
November 19, 1982
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: (Continued)
Although privately owned lands may be excluded from Aquatic
Preserves (Chapter 258.40(1)) the DNR still maintains juris-
diction over their uses and may negotiate specific agreements
to insure the protection of the Aquatic Preserves. Thus, DNR
maintains the authority to review and issue permits for proposed
uses of the subject property's 7.0 acres of submerged land. The
applicant does have clear title to these 7.0 acres of submerged
land; however, there is a low probability that permits would-be
issued allowing development of these 7.0 acres. Because this
submerged land has only a remote probability to be developed,
the County will not allow the transfer of those 7 units associ-
ated with submerged lands to the non -environmentally sensitive
areas.
Administrative Status - The Environmentally Sensitive area is
recognized as a wetland both in the Indian River County Compre-
hensive Plan and by the Department of Environmental Regulation
and Department of Natural Resources. It is recognized that any
potential development in the area would be governed by the re-
quirements and policies of these three agencies. It is recognized
that it would be extremely difficult to develop, dredge, or
fill in the Environmentally Sensitive Area. However, it is staff's
= position that protection of these Environmentally Sensitive Areas
is covered within the Comprehensive Plan and that protection of
Environmentally Sensitive Areas is a significant local concern.
The enforcement of any drainage requirements which would impact
these Environmentally Sensitive Areas will be within the juris-
diction and responsibility of Indian River County. Based on these
considerations, it is felt that concern for the preservation and
protection of this Environmentally Sensitive Area is an appropri-
ate issue in the review of any rezoning request or subsequent
development proposals.
Land Use - Surrounding Land Use. As mentioned previously, in
this rezoning analysis, the subject property is located adjacent
to River Shores Subdivision. The area south of the subject
property is undeveloped. The area.opposite the subject property
on the west side of U.S.#1 contains an appliance store and a
gift shop. The area north of River Shores Subdivision contains
scattered single family development. Tanglewood Mobile Home Park
is located approximately 2,000 feet north of the subject property
on the east side of U.S.#l. Tommy's Transmission'is just north
of the mobile home park and Mecca Convalescent Home is located on
the southeast corner of the intersection of U.S.#1 and Oslo Road.
A flea market is located on the west side of U.S.#1, just south
of Oslo Road.
The subject property is located within an urban services district
and is designated as -LD -2, Low Density Residential (maximum
density 6 units/acre). The subject property is not within the
boundaries of an established commercial or industrial node.
However, the Comprehensive Plan allows development of neighbor-
hood nodes of up to 8 acres. These nodes allow uses which serve
the immediate needs of residential areas. Because the subject
property presently contains C-1, Commercial zoning, this analysis
will review the impacts of a residential development at present
residential zoning densities and with a neighborhood node. A second
scenario will analyze the impacts of the entire subject property
being developed as a single family residential area under the
provisions of R-lA, Single Family District. Thirdly, this analysis
will address the impacts of the applicant's proposed development.
Under the Plan in the present zoning, an 8 acre neighborhood node
might be developed on the subject property. The C-1, Commercial
District allows apartment uses as an accessory use to commercial
development. It is therefore possible to presently develop an area
2 � X 2 PAK
®EC 119 _
BOOK
DEC 52
Southeast Enterprise
November 19, 1982
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: (Continued)
Land Use - (Continued)
which contains shops and residential mix. Based on an 8 acre size,
a neighborhood node might contain 34.84 lots. Each of these lots
would contain at least one commercial use with one apartment above
it. Based on this development proposal the site could contain 34
apartments and 34 commercial stores. The C-1 District allows a
maximum of 40% lot coverage for principle structures. If this 8
acre node were developed, 86.45 acres would remain for single-family
residential development. Based on development under the provi-&ions
of the R -1A, Single Family Residential District, the site could
contain 371.73 single family units as a gross density of 4.3 units/
acre.- The Environmentally Sensitive Area contains- total of 31.38
acres less 7.00 acres of submerged resulting in 24.38 acres. Under
the Comprehensive Plan one unit/acre may be transferred, therefore,
24.38 units might be added to the residential development area;
thus, allowing a total of 430.95 single family units to be developed
on this site. This would result in a 3.4 units/acre gross density.
(See Table 1 below.)
TABLE 1
Present Land Use with Maximum Neighborhood Commercial Node
Comprehensive'Plan Number Present Allowed Max. Density
Land Use of zoning Use No. or Lot
Designation Acres Units Coverage
Environmentally
Sensitive
Total
Submerged
SUB -TOTAL
Shopping Center
Residential
Development
TOTAL
31.38 R-lA Single Family. 24.38
- 7.00 Residential
2 34 8
8.0 C-1 Commercial
use serving
immediate
needs of res-
idential area
& accessory
apartments
86.45 R-lA Single Family
Residential
125.83
34.84
lots +
34.8k_
apts.
1 du/ac
40%
371.73 4.3 du/ac
430.95 3.4 du/ac
Should the subject property be developed without a commercial district
and with the entire area zoned as R-lA, Single Family, the residential
developable area would contain 94.45 acres. Based upon R-lA, Single
Family District, this area could contain 406.14 units at 4.3 units/
acre. The 24.38 acres of Environmentally Sensitive land (Total 31.38
acre - 7.00 acres submerged land) would allow one unit/acre which
could be transferred to the residential development; thus, a total
of 430.00 single family units might be constructed on the subject
property resulting in a maximum gross density of 3.4 units/acre.
See Table II.
i
Southeast Enterprise
November 19, 1982
Page 5
TABLE II
Present Land Use
Without Neighborhood Node
With 100% Area Zoned RlA, Single Family
Max.
Comp Plan Land Use # Acres Present Allowed # of
Designation Zoning Use Units Density
Environmentally
Sensitive
Total 31.38 R1 -A Single 24.38 1 du/ac
Submerged 7.00 Family
SUB -TOTAL 2� Res,
LD -2, Low Density 94.45 Rl-A Single 406.14 4.3 du/ac
Family
Res.
TOTAL 125.83 30;.$2. 3.
Proposed Land Use - The applicant has proposed to construct approx-
imately 600 multi -family units to be located on the subject property,
west of the Environmentally Sensitive Area. The proposed rezoning
fo _ M, Multi -Family District, would allow 566.7 units to be con-
structed in the non -Environmentally Sensitive Area; in addition,
24.38 units might be shifted from the Environmentally Sensitive
Area to the residential development; thus, the total of 591.08
units might be developed on the parcel. This would result in a
gross maximum density of 4.69 units/acre. (See Table III.)
TABLE III
Applicant's Proposed Land Use
Comprehensive Plan
Number .
Max.
Land Use
of Present
Allowed
# of
Designation
Acres Zoning
tise
Units Density
Environmentally
Sensitive
Total
31.38
Submerged
7.00 R -2D
Preservation
24.38 1 Unit/Acre
with shift-
ing density
SUB -TOTAL 24.38
Residential 94.45 R -2D Multiple 566.7 6 Units/Acre
Development Family
TOTAL
125.83
591.08 4.69
90 .52, PAbE 24 8
DEC 1982
Southeast Enterprise
November 19, 1982
Page 6
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: (Continued)
subject property contains approximately ± 21.79 acres and 71 lots.
The platted density is 3.26 units/acre. The proposed development
outlined in Table I including a neighborhood commercial node re-
sults in a gross maximum density of 3.4 units/acre. This density
is .14 units/acre greater than the platted density of River Shores.
The development proposed in Table II would allow a gross maximum
density of 3.2 units/acre which is .6 units/acre less than the
platted density of River Shores. The applicant's proposed develop-
ment would allow a maximum gross density of 4.7 units/acre. Thus,
the applicant's proposed use would allow 1.44 units/acre greater
density -than the present density in River Shores Subdivision.
Housing Types - The proposed rezoning would allow multiple family
units to be constructed on the subject property. These units
would be adjacent to an established single family neighborhood.
A D.O.T. ditch separates the two parcels. Good planning practices
would prohibit funneling traffic from a multi -family development
through a single family development. In addition, the applicant's
development proposal indicates one direct access to U.S.#1. It
should be noted that site plan requirements under Section 23 of
the Indian River County Zoning Ordinance will require buffering
and setbacks between two residential districts. In addition,
multi -family development under site plan review does provide design
flexibility to minimize any real or preceived negative impacts of
allowing multi -family and single family development to occur next
to one another.
Response to Additional issues addressed at the October 14, 1982,
Public Hearing. ,
During the Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion, the residents stated two objections which have not been
addressed in previous sections of this analysis:
1) The Comprehensive Plan seeks to preserve agriculture uses
while the proposed development would eliminate a productive
grove.
2) The location of the proposed sewage treatment plant would impact
River Shores and could create pollution problems by seepage
into the D.O.T. Ditch.
In response to the first issue, it might be noted that Section B
Agriculture of the Land Use Element which prohibits encroachment
of other land uses on agricultural lands refers to the areas desig-
nated as Agriculture and RR -1, Rural Residential. The intent of
the Plan is to encourage an orderly, timely, urban development
and prohibit premature development of areas outside urban service
perimeters.
While the location of sewage treatment plants is a site plan review
consideration, staff concurs with the residents objection to a plant
located to the north. As a part of site plan review under the
provisions of Section 23 of the Zoning Ordinance, the treatment
plant should be required to be located on the south side of the
property. It is staff's understanding that the applicant has pro-
posed to relocate the sewage treatment on the south side of the
subject property.
Southeast Enterprise
November 19, 1982
Page 7
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: (Continued
Summary - The Proposed rezoning will change the allowed use from
single family residential and commercial to multiple family resi-
dential use. The proposed development of the subject property would
allow:
1) An increase in density of 1.44 units/acre.,
2) A change in the type of housing from single family to multiple -
family.
3) Eliminate commercial use of approximately 8.00 acres.
The applicant's proposal also provides that the eastern Environ-
mentally Sensitive Area will be left essentially in its present
condition.
Utilities - The subject property is not presently served by
municipal or County water/sewer system. Water consumption for the
proposed 600 unit project is estimated to be 135,000 gal/day.
The South County Utilities System extends water service to the
intersection of Oslo Road and U.S.#1 approximately 1/2 mile north
of the subject property. The developer will be required to extend
a water main from Oslo Road, south along U.S.#1 to the subject _
pro-pdrty. The existing development along the line would be allowed
to connect to that water service.
The Florida State and Environmental Health Department indicates
that a 600 unit, multi -family development on the subject property
would not be permitted to use a septic system..
Traffic - The capacity for U.S.#1, in the vicinity of the subject
property, is approximately 24,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT's).
The proposed 600 apartment complex is anticipated to generate
3,700 ADT's, with a peak hour volume of 400 Peak Hour Trips.
U.S. #1 presently has 15,000 ADT's and 1,500 Peak Hour Trips ocur-
ring along this area. Upon completion of'`the 600 unit multi-
family complex, the total volume of traffic is anticipated to be
18,700 ADT's with 1,900 Peak Hour Trips. This will result in a
volume/capacity ratio of .78 or 78% of the capacity will be
utilized.
The Transportation Element
frontage road system along
frontage road system will
capacity but it will limit
onto U.S.#1.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
of the Comprehensive Plan calls for a
major arterials such as U.S.#l. The
not specifically affect the U.S.#1 traffic
access and control the flow of traffic
The maximum density of the proposed rezoning district is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood and is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan allows multiple family
residential development within the LD -2, Low Density areas. The
existing road system can accommodate the level of proposed develop-
ment.
Any negative impacts occurring as a result of mixing multiple and
single family development can be lessened through mitigating actions
which will be required under Section 23 and under development
criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. The design flexibility of
the multi -family development and the transfer of densities will
maximize the level of protection for Environmentally Sensitive areas.
Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the subject
property from C-1, Commercial and R-lA, Single Family to R2D,
Multiple Family.
EC 11982 Pi;�
E C 11982
Ms. Johnson reported that a Binding Letter of Interpre-
tation has been received from the Department of Community
Affairs stating that a Development of Regional Impact study
will not be required. She then talked about the dikes and
environmentally sensitive areas, commenting that the
Comprehensive Plan allows these areas to be developed at 1
unit per acre and those development rights may be shifted to
a non environmentally sensitive area. There are some flood
zone areas that will require increased elevation. Although
the applicant actually does own 7 acres of submerged land
included in the environmentally sensitive area, he cannot
develop those lands, and they are not recommending he be
given those 7 units as development rights. Ms. Johnson
continued to review the memo in detail, noting that the
applicant's planned use has been modified considerably since
working with his neighbors. Ms. Johnson felt the proposed
density is at a fairly compatible level with the applicant
only proposing 1.44 units per acre more than the present
density in River Shores. She felt there is sufficient
buffer. Traffic was researched and the proposed project
would bring it up to 78% of existing capacity. Ms. Johnson
stated that based on extension of utilities, sufficient
traffic system, etc., Planning recommends approval.
Commissioner Lyons asked if the Planning Department
figured density on the basis of 200' of the project being in
single family, and Community Development Director Bruce King
pointed out that the deed restriction re single family on
the north 200' was not filed until this morning; so, the
density figure was based on all multiple family.
Discussion continued as to number of units and density,
and Rafael Portuondo, Vice President of Southeast
Enterprises and President of Buigas & Associates,
Architects, stated that there will be 77 units of single
family in the buffer zone, which will be a density of 1.77.
58
M M a
Commissioner Wodtke questioned whether the declaration
of restriction should specify "detached" single family." He
noted that he personally did not have any problem with
common walls.
Attorney O'Haire stated it is their intention that the
structures on the 200' will be separated, detached, single
family units.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Ann Robinsons, 3008 Nassau Drive, Chairman of the
Pelican Islando Audubon Society, felt it is premature to
rezone this property today since there is no way to assure
..that the environmentally sensitive lands will be protected.
in the future until we have a planned development ordinance
or clear regulations re transferring density. She further
emphasized that since there is no reason to rezone the
environmentally sensitive or submerged lands to multi
family, only the 94.45 acres should be considered for
rezoning.
Attornel O'Haire stated that his clients do not care
whether the environmentally sensitive land is rezoned as
long as the units are transferred. This can remain a green
area.
Mrs. Robinson continued to emphasize that there is a
need for an implementing ordinance and that this is an ideal
project to set a precedent for Planned Unit Development.
In further discussion, it was noted that any transfer
of development rights would be dealt with at the time of
site plan approval.
Ray Scent urged that the Commission keep in mind the
intentions of the Land Use Plan, which designated this
property as LD -2, or up to 6 units per acre, and not get
involved in the emotionalism of those opposing multi -family.
His contention was that with R-1 Single Family you end up
59
DEC 11982 wx 2 P��� 2
DE C 1 °1982 U2,53
with an average of 3.5 people per unit, plus the extra
traffic caused by driving children back and forth to school,
etc., while in R -2D Multi -Family, the average is 1.5 people
per unit, and if you go to two stories, you are covering
less than half the land area covered by R-1.
Robert Scurfield, of 12th Place SE, immediately north
of the property being considered today, objected strongly to
the proposed rezoning and urged that the Board uphold the
recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission. He
presented for the record a petition opposing the rezoning
signed by more than 80 residents of River Shores as well as
property owners south of the subject land. Said petition is
on file in the Office of the Clerk.
CommissioneriFletcher asked if the petition was signed
after the proposed changes to the original project, and Mr.
Scurfield stated that that it.was obtained after the
Planning & Zoning meeting, but before the letter in regard
to the changes was sent out to residents at River Shores.
He continued that his position, however, is not altered by
the changes suggested by Mr. O'Haire since he believed those
houses would be built to the minimum allowed and moving -the
sewage treatment to the south would only result in impacting
property owners to the south. He noted that, in any event,
none of these suggestions are binding in any way on the
developer.
Mr. Scurfield argued that although the Land Use Plan
does allow a maximum of 6 units per acre on the land in
question, the density designations in the Plan are maximum
numbers, and there is no inference that the County will
allow development to the maximum; therefore, these density
districts do not represent entitlements. Mr. Scurfield
stated that allowing the requested rezoning would violate
five standards of the Land Use Plan, i.e., in regard to
complementing residential patterns, avoiding spot zoning,
60
M
protecting environmentally sensitive lands, insuring
compatible land uses are adjacent to one another, and
developing outside existing service perimeters. Mr.
Scurfield was confused by the statement that citrus trees
apparently can grow in a subdivision but not in a grove, and
noted that if Mr. Rogers has trouble with salt water
intrusion, this undoubtedly will cause a multi -family
development problems also. He discussed the matter of
discharge affecting the quality of the Indian River and
quoted from a letter from the Department of Environmental
Regulation which mentioned limitations presented by soil and
the water table. Mr. Scurfield disputed the figures
presented by the Planning Department relating to traffic,
— density, etc., stating that their intensive effort at number
juggling is nothing but a sham and does not fool anyone. He
noted that if the Board denies the appeal, the property is
still suitable for other uses and he did not believe anyone
would object to single family homes. There would not be a
total loss of profit, but merely less profit, and he
believed government is supposed to protect the public
against get rich quick schemes. He pointed out that his
biggest financial investment is his home. Mr. Scurfield
felt that consideration of community interest mandates
denial of the appeal and that a rejection of the decision of
the Planning & Zoning Commission would raise the question of
why that Commission even exists.
Ulio Delgado, 155 12th St. SE., River Shores, confirmed
that the proposed rezoning is an emotional issue for the
people of River Shores, and they are here today en masse be-
cause they have invested their life savings in their homes.
Their money is not risk capital, but hard earned money. Mr.
Delgado emphasized that they, too, have an investment in the
community, and River Shores total assessment this year
amounts to over five million dollars. Mr. Delgado then
61
F 0 11982 ge 2 PA -UE 254
DEQ c
asked property owners from River Shores to stand up to
express their opposition to the proposed project, and about
60 stood up. Mr. Delgado very emotionally continued to urge
that the Commission vote against the rezoning.
Millie Weneckie, owner of several lots in River Shores,
wished to preserve the unique rural quality of River Shores
where children can come to visit and feel safe in the
neighborhood. She claimed that, contrary to Mr. Rogers'
statement, the groves have been sprayed by plan. Mrs.
Weneckie also emphasized that nothing is binding on
Southeast Enterprises and urgently requested that before any
rezoning is considered, the planning be in black and white
so they can be assured the wetlands will not be drained,
that the developers will put up exactly what they say, and
River Shores will be protected.
William Stegkemper, River Shores resident, and
professional realtor and property appraiser, urged that the
Board uphold the decision of the Planning & Zoning
Commission. It was his opinion that condominiums will have
a diminishing effect on residential single family value.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the fact that there -
will -be single family on the northern portion of the adjoining
property would alter his opinion, and Mr. Stegkemper felt
there would be less of a diminishing effect only if the
developer adhered to a minimum house size of 1200 sq. ft.
Ralph Parker, 185 12th Place, noted that this is a
government of the people, by the people and for the people,
and he believed the people have spoken their pleasure.
Jerry Selph, 430 12th Place, spoke at length of the
adverse effect of the proposed rezoning on the rural
character of River Shores, which has no through streets, and
of his realtor's promises that the marsh area never would be
developed and that the adjacent property would remain single
family.
He argued that any change from single family would
62
constitute spot zoning and that the proposed development
would irreparably destroy their quiet country atmosphere and
create horrendous traffic problems. Mr. Selph expressed
outrage that the developers have used the terminology "just
like Vista Royale," and went on to discuss the lowness of
the land which is in the 100 year flood plain and the
drainage problems. He did not feel the fact that people
from St. Lucie County spoke in behalf of the developer
carried any weight because he does not like the way they
develop in St. Lucie County. Mr. Selph stated that if the
Commission votes for this project, they will alter his life
style, endanger him and his children, negate efforts to
�V
establish orderly development in the county, and most
importantly, break the trust the citizens have in the
Commission as elected officials to carry out the wishes of -
the citizens.
Don Nichols, owner of 3 lots on 12th St., informed the
Board that he had plans to build on Lot 3, but three
builders advised him not to do anything until it was
determined how this zoning would go, which he believed
clearly demonstrates that there would be an adverse effect
on the adjoining property.
Lomax Gwathmey, 23 Sea Horse Lane, county resident for
21 years, commented that although we apparently have a very
high class development plan and a reputable builder, he also
was troubled with the numbers presented by staff. He noted
that there are only 94 buildable acres, and at 594 units,
you are over 6 units per acre, and if you deduct the land
for lakes, you are over 7 units per acre. Mr. Gwathmey
emphasized that the density designation in the Land Use Plan
was not an entitlement and favored approval of Mrs.
Robinson's recommendation that the whole thing be put off
until we get into Planned Unit Development.
No One further wished to be heard.
63
D E C 11982 Alex 52 PAGE 2T'75 6
DEC � 2457
ON
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
Attorney O'Haire pointed out that it is the function of
government to provide for the greatest.good of the entire
community, not just 60 some families, and there are hundreds
and hundreds who will benefit from extension of the water
main. He noted that the residents of River Shores are not
going to be looking at a monolith, they are going to be
looking at single family homes, and to assure this, his
client has gone to the extent of placing a deed restriction
on record. Attorney O'Haire requested that the package he
presented to the Commission to be made part of the Minutes.
Said folders, declaration of restriction, financial
statement of Cardinal Groves, and proposed layout of "Vero
Vista" are on file in the Office of the Clerk.
Attorney O'Haire continued to emphasize that his
clients have made as extensive commitments as they possibly
could to conciliate the River Shores interests.
Discussion then ensued regarding the square footage -of
the houses that will be in the buffer zone area, and Mr.
Portuondo stated that these houses will contain 1200 sq. ft.
Attorney O'Haire stated that he could not speak to lot size,
but the density of the northerly buffer would be 1.77. He
explained that the people in these single family homes will
be sharing common expenses, for yard maintenance, security,
etc., with the condominiums.
In further discussion it was noted that requirements
for residences in R -1A, which the residential portion of
this property is presently zoned, are 1200 sq. ft. for a
single family residence with a minimum lot area of 10,000
sq. ft. and a gross density of 4.3.
64
- M M
Commissioner Lyons noted that the property owner,
therefore, right now can go in and build to a density of 4.3
units per acre on everything except the C-1 zoning.
Mr. Scurfield, speaking for River Shores, believed he
just heard for the first time that the proposed homes would
be a minimum of 1200 sq. ft., which is different than the
initial site plan filed, but he still felt that the
community interests should mandate denying the appeal.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the River Shores residents
would object if the two north -south roads were opened to go
into this area. The residents expressed their objections
loudly.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that those are public_
roads accepted by the county, and if the area to the south
were to develop as a single family development, he did not
feel the county would be in a legal position to deny opening
up those roads. Under the site plan approval required for
multiple family development, however, the county could place
restrictions on the use of those roads.
Commissioner Fletcher questioned whether we would be
legally required to open those roads for single family.
Chairman Scurlock noted that during the hearings on the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Board looked very
diligently at potential areas and considered many factors to
make provisions to meet the need for multi -family, and when
this area was designated LD -2 for that purpose, lie did not
remember any objections being raised. For this reason, he
personally had a great deal of problem with upholding the
decision reached by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The
Chairman further felt it has been proven that the grove has
been in decline and not economically viable for a number of
years. He firmly believed there should be some buffer and
transitional zone, and his first thought was to split this
into two-rezonings, one for single family and the second for
65
D E G 1 1982 Wx 52 PAU-E 258
11982
B ttK
.
F
hUL 259
medium density
or R -2D, which would be cleaner cut.
He
could not agree to indicate that this land is totally
unsuitable and unacceptable for LD -2, which would go against
everything said in the Comprehensive Land Use hearings.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird for purposes
of discussion, to adopt Ordinance 82-30
rezoning the subject property to R -2D as re-
quested, with the exception of the 200' on
the north boundary and with the exception of
the environmentally sensitive land.
CommissioneriBird brought up the point that the R-lA
buffer property would have to be platted and subdivided, and
he wondered how the 200' dimension would work out with the
road requirements.
Commissioner Lyons believed that R-lA is a more
restrictive classification than River Shores enjoys in their
own subdivision.
Mr. Portuondo, of the Southeast Enterprises, felt-tthe-
problem in the way this is presented in the Motion is that
this property is going to be developed on a condominium
basis with maintenance, security, private roads, etc., and
he felt that would present a major problem with different
zoning. Mr. Portuondo believed they were accomplishing the
same thing in their declaration of restriction, but in"a
more controlled way.
Chairman Scurlock asked why a single family zoning with
single family lots could not be accommodated with a
condominium concept, and Community Development Director King
believed it can basically; the only additional requirement
would be the process of the plan that would be under the
R-lA zoning district.
Discussion continued on the different processing that
would be required for the R-lA property, and Attorney
O'Haire emphasized that this project was designed for a
single site plan approval and that segregating part of it
and requiring two different processes would present many
problems.
Various questions were raised and alternatives
suggested, and the Chairman called a brief recess so that
the attorneys might have a chance to discuss these problems.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened with the
same members present.
Attorney O'Haire informed the Board that they will
`accept the R -1A density of 4.3 for the buffer zone with the
provision that they can treat this area as one big lot
rather than having to subdivide.
Considerable discussion ensued re the whole parcel
being considered one lot and the fact that nothing can be
constructed in the 200' buffer that doesn't meet R -1A
requirements.
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that this can
be done under our current code. He explained that R -1A
requires 10,000 sq. ft. of property for each unit, but does
not require that it all be grouped in a square lot fashion.
Attorney O'Haire noted that they would like to have the
Motion state that there can be one site plan and also define
the environmentally sensitive land as lying east of the
mosquito control dike.
Community Development Director King informed the Board
that we do have a survey of this property.
Commissioner Lyons and Commissioner Bird agreed to
reword their Motion as follows:
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to adopt Ordinance 82-30
M
® E C 11992 "OK 2 pot- 260
J
D E C 1 1992 sea ^ 52
rezoning the subject property to R -2D, with
the exception of the 200' on the north boundary
of said property from U.S.I up to the environ-
mentally sensitive lands, which 200' will be
rezoned to R -1A and subject to all R-lA re-
quirements, and with the exception of the
environmentally sensitive lands which will be
legally described; the entire property to be
considered in one site plan review.
Commissioner Bird stated that he will support the
Motion because he believes it is a reasonable compromise.
He complimented the River Shores group on their effective
organized presentation, but pointed out that this rezoning
will give them a 200' buffer strip of quality homes; it will
tie this development to a site plan approval which will give
us more control; it will assure that the roads will not cut
through into River Shores; and it will bring a water line to
their subdivision at no expense to them.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he planned to vote
against the Motion. He commented that in the two years—he,
has been on the Board he has never heard a better presenta-
tion as to why something should not be done. Commissioner
Fletcher felt one of the strongest points in the Land Use
Plan is the consideration of the existing families and how
that Plan will affect them. He urged the Board to re-
consider this compromise and say to the developer that we
have no doubt about his integrity and work, but we are
listening to the people who want this used as single family
and not multi family.
Commissioner Wodtke spoke in favor of the proposed
rezoning, stressing the controls provided in the site plan
review required for multi -family. He believed if this
property were left totally in single family, it would be
68
much harder to control the storm water - the drainage - the
roads, etc. He further felt if this land is going to be
developed, it is preferable that it be developed by a group
with a fine reputation. Commission Wodtke did agree,
however, that the use of the name "Vista" has some
misleading connotations.
Attorney O'Haire stated that they will change the name.
Chairman Scurlock felt that compromise is a misuse of
the word. The CLUP had designated this property as LD -2,
and he believed that what we see here is good planning,
i.e., transitional zones and a real effort in terms of not
looking at maximum density. He believed the effort put into
the Master Plan will make itself evident in the community..
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition.
J
D E.( 11982 F�:ut
ORDINANCE NO. 82-30
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:
From the intersection of the North line of the Southwest
quarter of Section 30, Township 33 South, Range 40 East and
the East right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 1, run South 880
24'06" East along said North line a distance of 637.81 feet;
Thence run South 18014106" East, parallel to said East
right-of-way of U.S.Highway No. 1, a distance of 212.61
feet; Thence run Westerly, parallel to and 200 feet South of
the North line of said Southwest quarter of Section 30, a
distance of 637.81 feet to the East right-of-way of U.S.
Highway No. 1; Thence run North 18014106" West along said
East right-of-way to the point of beginning. All of said
property lying and being in the Southwest one-quarter of
Section 30, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River
County, Florida.
Be changed from C-1, Commercial District to R-lA,�Single
Family Residential District.
2. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following
described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Lot 2 and a parcel of submerged land in the Indian River in
Section 29, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River
County, Florida, more particularly described as follows:
Begin at a point on the North line of Government lot 2 of
said Section 29, where said north line intersects with the
West shore of the .Indian River; thence East along the
extension of the said North line of Government Lot 2 a
distance of 214.3 feet, more or less, to the bulkhead line in
Indian River County, Florida, established by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, pursuant
to Section 253.122, Florida Statutes; thence South 18015'46"
East, 1397.29 feet, more or less, to the intersection of the
Easterly extension of the South line of said Government Lot 2;
thence West 250 feet, more or less, to the mean high water line
at the West shore of the Indian River; thence Northerly along
said mean high water line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Con-
taining 7.0 acres, more or less.
AND ALSO
The North one-half of Northeast quarter of Southwest
quarter lying East of U.S. Highway No. 1, Section 30;
South one-half of Northeast quarter of Southwest quarter
lying East of U.S. Highway No. 1, Section 30; North one-
half of the Southeast quarter, Section 30, all located in
Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County,
Florida.
Less and except the North 200' thereof.
Be changed from C-1, Commercial District and
R-lA, Single Family Residential District to
R -2D, Multiple Family District.
* There are 31.81 acres within the above described property
which are designated as Environmentally Sensitive under
the provisions of the Land Use Element adopted January 6, 1982.
All with the meaning and intent as set forth and described
in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 1St day
of December , 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF I`NDDIIA_N RIVER COUNTY.
By
.
DON C. SCTR OCK, JR.
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
thisJ3ZoG day of
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this /7-Z4 day of ��'+*� � 198.E , at 10-'0 *0 A.M./P.M.
and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SVYP ICIkZNC)�s _>
By
Y/M .
ENBURq, County Attorney
Description of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which cannot
be developed at more than 1 unit per acre is attached.
DEC 11982 � x 2 PAVE P'4
F-
. DEC 11982
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA
BQ�K
U`E2 .6
Beginning at a point on the North line of Government
Lot 2 of Section 29, Township 33 South, Range 40 East,
Indian River County, Florida, where said North line
intersects with the West shore of the Indian River;
thence run East along an extension of the North line
of Government Lot 2 a distance of 214.3 feet, more or
less, to the bulkhead line in said Indian River County
established by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, pursuant to Section 253.122,
Florida Statutes; thence South 18015146" East, 1397.29
feet, more'or less, to the intersection of. the Easterly
extension of the South line of said Government Lot 2;
thence West, 250 feet, more or less, to the mean high
water line at the West shore of the Indian River; thence
continue West along said South line of Government Lot 2,
739.24 feet, more or less to a point herein referred to as
"POINT A", said "POINT A" being the edge of water located
on the East side of a mosquito control dike, thence run
generally Northwesterly along said edge of water at dike
to a point on the North line of the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 30, said point being located North 17017127" West,
1420.88 feet from aforementioned "POINT A"; thence run
East, along said 1/4 Section line, 308.66 feet to the
Northwest corner of said Government Lot 2; thence continue
East, along the North line of said Government Lot 2, 508.67
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Above described parcel contains 31.81 acres by calculation.
All lying and being in Indian River County, Florida.
ATTACHMENT #1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
extended the meeting to 5:30 P.M.
ESTABLISH POSITION OF OVERALL EMS FOR INDIAN RIVER COMITY
Dr. William Frazier came before the Board to make a
presentation re the establishment of a Countywide Emergency
Medical Service System and requested that the Board take
action as set out in the following proposal:
Summary of Proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County, Florida
December 1, 1982
Reference: Establishment of a County -wide Emergency Medical Service System
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners take the following
actions to begin the process of establishing an efficient and coordinated
County -wide system for the provision of Emergency Medical Services:
1. Approve the establishment of the Indian River County EMS Council,
a voluntary agency, and its two supporting subcommittees, the
Medical Advisory Committee and the Nursing -EMS Liaison Committee,
as outlined in the minutes of the EMS subcommittee meeting.
it
2. Approve the position of and hiring of the Medical Director of EMS
for Indian River County.
3. Establish the salary level for the Medical Director.
4. Defer establishment of malpractice coverage for the Medical Director
until such coverage is deemed necessary.
Suggested Scope of Activities and Charge to the Indian River County
EMS Council and Medical Director
1. Develop a comprehensive plan for the establishment of a County -wide EMS
system, to include all services currently providing or expected to
provide EMS services within Indian River County. This plan should be
completed within six (6) months and should be presented to the Board
of County Commissioners for consideration. It should include a:
70
DEC 11982 PAGE
A) Plan for coordination of available EMS services.
B) Plan for development and implementation of a County -wide
Advance Life Support (i.e., Paramedic) system.
C) Detailed implementation time table.
D) Detailed implementation budget to include both start up costs
(e.g., equipment,.training-) and anticipated annual operating
costs (e.g., personnel, supplies, space, insurance).
E) Appropriate letters of support from participating.agencies and
institutions.
umr
2. As part of the planning process, determine the probable funding sources
and amounts for support of both the County -wide EMS Council and the new
Advanced Life Support system. This should include an evaluation of
Federal, State, County, municipal, and voluntary funding sources, with
particular emphasis being placed on the potential for a significant
portion of funding to be derived from non -county sources, preferably
voluntary contributions.
3. Such other activities as deemed necessary or desirable by the Board of
County Commissioners.
Question arose re funding, and Dr. Frazier noted that
systems he has worked with in the past have had costs
ranging between $800,000 and two million dollars, but as he
looks at the county, many of the pieces of the system are
here already. He felt there are some federal funds
available for training, and voluntary contributions must be
considered also. It was the doctor's opinion that the plan
can be put together in six months and be ready before -thea --
next budget sessions.
Chairman Scurlock felt it should be made plain from the
beginnning that the Board is faced with some severe funding
problems.
Commissioner Lyons agreed and stated that he personally
was not sure that it has been proven that this program will
provide sufficient improvement over the emergency services
presently provided to justify it. He wished to be sure that
any planning that is done will provide statistics which will
show that we have used what we have to the fullest extent
and also what we will open up to as far as expenses are
concerned since other counties already have run into
problems with this.
Commissioner Lyons emphasized that we
71
M M
must be assured we are going to get our monies worth out of
making a change because once we make the change, he believed
it will only be a short time before we will lose our
Volunteer Ambulance Squads and be stuck with the major cost
of this system. He further pointed out that in most cases
in this county, we have a situation of very short hauls
because of our geography, and he questioned whether we are
going to get enough benefit out of paramedics in transport
to make a paramedic system worthwhile. Commissioner Lyons
also expressed concern about such a large committee.
Dr. Frazier agreed that justification of this system is
very important. He also believed there is a great deal of
+room for improvement in coordination between the emergency -
services. As to the size of the committee, he noted that
most of the work of the EMS Council is done by a small
group, but they need the input of all the groups. He did
not share Commissioner Lyons concern about a loss of
voluntarism, and stated that he had sensed a great deal of
interest from them.
Commissioner Wodtke also had concerns, especially re
funding, and did not feel it is possible to fund Advanced
Life Support $300,000-$500,000 next year. He agreed that he
will look at the report, but noted that our present EMS are
doing an excellent job and costing us nothing. Commissioner
Wodtke then discussed the responsibility of the individual
to pay for the services rendered and hoped that in the study
and future presentation a fee structure for services
rendered would be considered. In regard to what is.being
proposed today, Com. Wodtke stated that he would be in favor
of setting up a committee, but did not know that he would be
in favor of a full salaried medical director to assist the
committee structure.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the recommendation was
$18,000 and three months already have expired in this budget
72
in .52 ?AcE2P8
DEC 1 ���2 Do '92 FGF q
year. He stated that he would support the position, but
questioned why Indian River Memorial Hospital, which has an
emergency room and is itself a taxing entity has not been
considered as the sponsoring agency and the focal point for
ALS.
Dr. Frazier believed the reason is that hospital
activities tend to focus internally and not look out at the
public whereas the County Commission is working with the
public and is concerned with fire safety., policy safety,
etc. He continued that the Hospital would be involved and
be a major part of the system; they are in the committee
structure and that is part of the coordination that they
P
talked about. As to the question of salary for a Medical
Director, he feltethis is not as important as the concept of
having a paid medical director.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that we
appoint an EMS Council and that they have
three goals:
(1) tell us how to maximize the emergency --y
effort with the available resources;
(2) recommend what our future services might
be; and
(3) recommend sources of funding.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the Motion will allow the
Council the flexibility to address the scope of services
listed, and Commissioner Lyons stated that he mainly wished
to know what we can do with what we have got now, but if
they go into the other areas also, that is fine.
Lengthy discussion ensued on the importance of
gathering detailed statistics, the issue of how we can
maximize the use of the many trained people we presently
73
have to do the best emergency job for the people of the
county, how we can overcome the problem of lack of
cooperation, the problem of funding, etc., and Commissioner
Fletcher expressed his belief that Dr. Frazier has a sincere
interest in providing us with the information we would like
to have by next June and the further belief that the doctor
would'be able to provide us with data that is not just
slanted to justify a system, but to show us the real
situation.
Tom Buchanan of the Vero Beach Ambulance Squad agreed
that the county is getting a tremendous service from the
current ambulance squads, but he did believe there is a need
for a medical director and urged that the Board vote
favorably on this position.
It was noted that the Motion on the floor does not
address the position of a medical director, but that would
be dealt with separately.
Com. Wodtke agreed that we have top level volunteers
and felt they have gone about as far as they can without
ALS. Commissioner Lyons was not sure that is so.
Com. Wodtke asked if the study is going to be to take
our current resources and see how they can work with ALS or
just how they can work to provide us with a better level of
services, and Dr. Frazier felt the study needs to cover both
areas.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that we
hire a Medical Director for $1,500 a month,
not to exceed the $10,000 budgeted for the
current year.
74
DEC 11982 190x 2 %E'270'
6tb 11992 BOK FSU -' ,
Com. Wodtke asked if this would be a contractual
arrangement or whether the Medical Director would be a
County employee, and Attorney Brandenburg felt it would be
better on an independent contractor basis.
Chairman Scurlock stated that his only question was
whether there is any other source of money to take up the
salary for the Mecical Director if there is a shortfall.
Mr. Buchanan believed the Ambulance Squad would make up
the difference in funds if they had to.
Com. Bird asked at what point the $1,500 per.month
either terminates or goes on to a new agreement, and it was
stated that it would be at the end of the fiscal year.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
authorized staff to draw up a contract with
Dr. Frazier to fill the position of Medical
Director, effective Dec. 1, 1982. -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
extended the meeting to 5:50 o'clock P.M.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - HIDDEN HAMMOCK II SUBDIVISION
The Board reviewed memo and recommendation of denial by
Staff Planner, Claire Zimmerman, as follows:
75
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 1, 1982 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
THROUGH: Art Challacombe,
Planning Dept. Mgr.
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
atric Bruce King, A P
FROM: Clare Zimmerman,
Staff Planner QQ
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
OF HIDDEN HAMMOCK II
SUBDIVISION
REFERENCES:
It is requested that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at their regular meeting on December 1, 1982.
DESCRIPTIONS &CONDITIONS:
Hidden Hammock II is the proposed second phase of a
subdivision on 12th Street. This proposed subdivision
contains lots number 16-21 on a + 5 acre site. Lots 16
and 21 already have single family structu Bs on them.
There is a + .4 acre lake in the northwest corner of
the property_. This lake is located within the lot lines
-wof.3 of the lots in the proposed subdivision. The parcel
is zoned R-lA, Single Family Residential (maximum 4 units/
acre). -.The land use classification of the parcel, accord-
ing to the Comprehensive Plan, is LD -1, low density
(maximum 3 units/acre). A preliminary plat of this sub-
division was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee
at their September 7, 1982 meeting.
ANALYSIS:
There were several comments made by the Technical Review
Committee which have not been addressed by the applicant.
These include the following:
1) Lot 18 is landlocked, Access has,not been provided
onto either 12th Street or 45th Court. The Public
Works Division indicates that provision of access
onto 12th Street is not desirable because it would -
require culverting of the Indian River Farms.B2 sub -
lateral canal south of the 12th Street right-of-way.
The only road with the required frontage is 12th
Street. Thus, Lot 18 has no acceptable means of
ingress or egress.
2) No adequate maintenance easements have been provided
around the lake or for drainage culverts.
3) The lake and common drainage areas should be dedicated
to the owners and property owner documents provided
for maintenance of them.
4) An existing paved parking area which serves Lot 21,
and is on both Lots 21 and 18, has not been removed
to the rear setback line on Lot 21.;
5) No provision for mail delivery has been made on the
preliminary plat.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The following alternative actions could be taken.
Alternative 1: Preliminary plat approval could be granted
as shown on the existing drawings..",'
76
DEC`� � 2 PAGE 272
11982 �� �,:r'F?73
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
RECOMMENDATION:
Preliminary plat approval could be granted,
subject to the applicant meeting the conditions
outlined in Items 1 through 5 above.
Preliminary plat approval could be denied.
It is the recommendation of the staff that the Board of County
Commissioners choose Alternative 3, denial of preliminary plat
approval. It is true that access to Lot 18 can be provided
by culverting the drainage ditch, subject to permit issuance
by Indian River Farms Water Management District. However,
culverting of drainage ditches for the individual lots is not
desirable. Without culverting, Lot 18 has no means of ingress
or egress. This is in violation of Section 5, subparagraph 4
of the Indian River County Subdivision Ordinance, "Every lot
shall abut upon and have permanent access to a public or approved
private street."
Engineer James Beindorf came before the Board
representing the applicant. He noted that there are 5 items
that the Technical Review Committee and Planning Department
came up with. Items 2,314, and 5 present no problem. The
maintenance easements and dedication of lake and common
drainage areas to the property owners would be handled under
deed restrictions; the existing parking area can be removed
when it is sold ( he did not see why it should be done now);
and they will make provision for mail delivery. Mr.-- —
Beindorf continued that the real problem is Lot 18. His
contention was that the lot is not landlocked; he pointed
out that it faces on 12th St. and according to County
Ordinance as long as the land is an acre or more and
abutting a public street, it can be sold in any manner the
owner wishes. Mr. Beindorf noted that the density of the
property is at a little over 1 unit per acre and rather than
eliminate a lot, he would prevail on the Board's judgement
to approve it or deny it.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the lot is landlocked or
not, and Commissioner Bird noted that as long as they can
put in a culvert that satisfies the Drainage District, it
cannot be considered landlocked since it abuts on 12th St.
77
Community Development Director King stated that he
wished to assure there was access and the plan did not show
a culvert.
Discussion continued about ingress and egress and Mr.
King felt it is necessary to be assured there is approval
for putting in the culvert.
Commissioner Lyons asked if the Attorney can clarify
whether they do have access to 12th Street.
Attorney Brandenburg felt that Mr. King has a valid
point that he wants to show a workable way to provide
ingress and egress to 12th St. and that permits are
available, etc.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, to grant preliminary
plat approval of Hidden Hammock II Subdivision
with the condition that a permit be obtained for
access to 12th St. from Lot 18 and with the nota-
tion that Items 2,3,4, and 5 are not a problem
for the developer - the final plat to reflect
the five concerns.
Discussion continued re the permit, and Mr. Beindorf
did not anticipate any problem with getting a permit.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
WATER RESOURCES STUDY AND JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed memorandum of Community Development
Director King;
F&
DEC 11982
INK PAGE 274
I /
D E C 1 1992
OOOK U `_7 - 7
52 5
TO: The Honorable Members. of DATE: November 19, 1982 FILE: '
the Board of -County Commissioners
SUBJECT: water Resources Study and
Joint Funding Agreement
FROM: Bruce King, AICP fl� REFERENCES:
Director
Community Development Division
It is requested that the information pro�rided herein be given formal
consideration by the Board -of County Commissioners during their
regular meeting of December 1, 1982.
DES'CRIPTIONS' AND' 'COND'ITI'ONS
On September 15, 1982, a meeting was held with Nlr. Harry G. Rodi.s,
Mr. George R. Schiner, Hydrologist, Mr. Bob Miller, all from the
Water Resources Division of the Geological Survexr, U. S. Department
of the Interior and myself to refine the study proposal which was
original submitted to the County in September, 1981. On September 30,
1982, the Community Development Division received the draft of the
study proposal from the U. S. Geological Survey and this draft was
reviewed by the Public Works Division Director and several staff
members of the Planning Department. On October 15, 1982, a revised
study proposal was submitted to Mr. Schiner for their evaluatiax,.
On October 28:'1982, a presentation concerning the proposed water
resources study.wes donducted by the above representatives from the
U. S. Geological Survey to the Planning and Zoning Commission. This
presentation was well received by the Commissioners who subsequently
voted to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the
subject study be funded during fiscal year 1982-1983.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANAL'YS'IS
The attached study proposal as submitted by the U. S. Geological
Survey is to conduct an assessment of the County's groundwater
resources. The purpose of this study is to conduct field invest:i
gations relating to water quality and quantity analyses of the
County's surficial and Floridian aquifers. In addition, the stii-ly
is to provide development.guidelines which can be incorporated
into the County's proposed land development code. Furthermore,
the objective of the study is to provide the County Planning Depart-
ment and the Board of County Commissioners with water resources
information needed for effective land use planning and for the most
efficient use of the County's groundwater resources.
This investigation will provide new information on the Floridian
aquifer and updated information on the surficial aquifer. Com-
parisons of water quality and quantity will be made between data
of about thirty (30) years agog ten (10) years ago, and the present
time. The investigation is proposed to span three (3) years, and
upon completion of the study, a final report will be presented to
the County. In addition, the water resources data collected during
the investigation will be stored in computer and conventional files
and be available upon our request.
79
The above stated representatives from the U. S. Geological Survey
will be present at the December 1st meeting in order to make
a presentation to the Board concerning the study proposal. Should
the Commission have any questions concerning this matter prior to
the December 1st meeting, please feel free to contact me.
A secondary benefit from the funding of this study proposal is
that the U. S. Geological Survey will provide technical assistance
and training to the County's environmental planner upon initiation
of this study. In addition, this study will provide funding for
the development of abase map at a scale of one inch equals two
thousand feet by the U. S. Geological Survey. Through participation
in this study, existing maps in the U. S. G. S. files would be
available to the County at a very nominal charge.
RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Division staff recommends that the Chairman
of the County Commission be authorized to execute the attached joint
funding agreement with the U. S. Geological Survey in order that the
subject study can be initiated.
FUNDING
Pageeight (8) of the study proposal has a detailed breakdown of the
funding requirements to conduct the subject study. The County's
proportion of the total cost of the study for this current fiscal
year is $38,000 of a total cost of $126,000. In fiscal year 1983-
1984, the County's share of the total cost would be $41,500 of a.
total cost of $1.03,000. In fiscal year 1984-1985, the County':i
share would be $.33,500 which would be matched by an equal. paym,�.,zit
from the U. S. Geological Survey. The aggregate cost for conducting
the avatar resources study would be a total of $296,000 'w.:th thr)
county's total three year cost being $113,000.
Funds for this study were originally allocated in the Board of
County Commissioners budget during the departmental budget hearings.
However, it is my understanding that these funds were deleted during
the public hearing process ori thin year's budget, Therefore, r:hould
this study be initiated during this fiscal year, ii: would be neE u�essary
that sufficient funds be made available from the Board of Cous� `Y
Commissioners contingency funds.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that his only problem is the
funding situation. He asked Finance Director Jeff Barton
where we are on contingencies.
Mr. Barton reported that basically we are going to use
the contingency all up with the knowns we have at the
present time, i.e., the fourth courtroom, Civil Defense,
Reinhold, etc.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to
approve the Water Resources Study and
Funding Agreement with the understanding
M1
D E C 1 1982 900K 2 PA -13E276
btc 11992
the the Administrator will come back at
the next meeting with a suggestion for
funding.
BOOK 52.U?77
Discussion on payments ensued with the representative
of the Department of Interior, and it was determined that
the $38,000 bill would not come due until sometime after
September 30, 1983, and it, therefore, would not be a budget
problem in this fiscal year.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
M
� � r
Fem 9.1366 Department of the Interior FL 20 11-15-82
(saps. 197sr) Geological Survey
Joint Fundinq Agreement
FOR
WATER RESOURCES T.NVESTICATIONS
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 1st day of October 19 82 by the GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, party of the fust part, and the
Indian River, Board of County Commissioners
party of the second part.
1. the parties hereto agree that subject to the availability of appropriations and in accordance with their respective authorities there
daubs maintained in cooperation an investigation of water resources
hereinafter called the program.
2. The following amounts shall be contributed to cover all of the cost of the necessary field and office work directly related to this
program, but excluding any general administrative or accounting work in the office of either party and excluding the cost of publication
by either party of the results of the program.
(a) $38,000.00 by the party of the fust part during the period
October 1, 1982 to September 30, 1983
(b) $38, 000.00 by the party of the second part during the period
October 1, 1982 to September 30, 1983
(c) Additional amounts by each party during the above period or succeeding periods as may be determined by mutual agreement and
set forth in an exchange of letters between the parties.. .
3. Expenses incurred in the performance of this program may be paid by either party in conformity with the laws and regulations
respectively governing each party, provided that so far as may be mutually agreeable all expenses shall be paid in the first instance by
the party of the fust part with appropriate reimbursement thereafter by the party of the second part. Each party shall furnish to the
other party such statements or reports of expenditures as may be needed to satisfy fiscal requirements.
4. The field and office work pertaining to this program shall be under the direction of or subject to periodic review by an authorized
representative of the party of the fust part.
S. The areas to be included in the program shall be determined by mutual agreement between the parties hereto or their authorized
representatives. The methods employed in the field and office shall be those adopted by the party of the first part to insure the required
standards of accuracy subject to modification by mutual agreement.
6. During the progress of the work all operations of either party pertaining to this,program shall be open to the inspection of the other
party, and if the work is not being carried on in•a mutually satisfactory manner, either party may terminate this agreement upon 60
days written notice to the other party.
7. The original records resulting from this program shall be deposited ultimately in the office of the party of the first part and shall
become part of the records of that office. copies shall be furnished to the party of the second part upon request.
8. The maps, records or reports resulting from this program shall be made available to the public as promptly as possible. The maps,
records or reports normally will be published by the party of the first part. However, the party of the second part reserves the right to
publish the results of this program and, if already published by the party of the fust part shall, upon request, be furnished by the party
of the first part, at cost, impressions suitable for purposes of reproduction similar to that for which the original copy was prepared. The
traps, records or reports published by either party shall contain a statement of the cooperative relations between the parties.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
UNTIED STATES.gy nor C geJ41 gSk,_ Jr • • Chairman
DEPARTMENT' OF THE INTRIOR Ado ted : 12-1-8Z
By 00000L %0,�a
By
l (SIGNATURE k TITLE) BY �
i�
NSE REVERSE SIDE IF ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES ARE l QUIR
.•a_
L_ DEC 11982
Ap1)r oVCCI F'fg, to
hrl. Eramlenb,,r
y Alto
. 0t,
S OK 2 PAGE 278
® E C 11982 Boa 52 P,U-F. 79
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
authorized readvertisement of a public
hearing regarding amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance re definition of structure.
In further discussion, it was agreed to carry over all
remaining items on the day's agenda until the next regular
meeting of the Board.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES
at
A. Proclamation - Indian River Queens Pageant
The following Proclamation commending all those
involved in the building and designing of the Indian River
Queens Float is hereby made a part of the Minutes.
83
PROCLAMATION
PROCLAMATION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, COMMENDING THE
DEDICATION OF THE INDIAN RIVER FLOAT COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, The INDIAN RIVER QUEENS PAGEANT is open to young
ladies residing in the Indian River County area, giving them an
opportunity to compete and to represent their respective
communities as INDIAN RIVER QUEENS; and
WHEREAS, for the second straight year, the INDIAN RIVER
QUEENS FLOAT was a winner in the annual ORANGE BLOSSOM CLASSIC
PARADE in Miami; and
WHEREAS, the 1982 INDIAN RIVER QUEENS FLOAT took second
place in the 50TH ANNUAL ORANGE BLOSSOM CLASSIC PARADE with a
float which saluted the Golden Anniversary of the parade; and
z- - WHEREAS, the INDIAN RIVER QUEENS FLOAT had the honor of
being the first unit in the four mile parade: and
WHEREAS, the' float was designed and built by. the INDIAN
RIVER FLOAT COMMITTEE, a non-profit community organization
comprised of several dedicated citizens, who represent various
churches and community groups; and
WHEREAS, with the dedication and support of the INDIAN
RIVER FLOAT COMMITTEE,.the INDIAN RIVER QUEENS PAGEANT is today a
popular and worthwhile project; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, on behalf of
the residents of Indian River County, commends all the people
involved in the building and designing of the INDIAN RIVER QUEENS
FLOAT for their time and effort in representing their County in
such an outstanding fashion.
ATTEST:
FREDA WRIGHT, CLERK
APPROY4P�AS_ TO FORM AND
By
CHRls� PH4H J. PAULL
Assl tant County Attorney
L_ DEC 11982
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By/
- C jwz/�
DON C. SCURLOCK JR.
Chairman
FF, -
DEC 11982
BOOK
B. Governmental Street Lighting Agreement - Gifford
The above agreement is hereby made a part of the
Minutes as approved at the Regular Meeting of November 17,
1982.
84
CITY OF VERO BEACH
GOVERNMENTAL STREET LIGHTING AGREEMENT
Revised 10/13/82 JVL:emo
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 7982 ,
by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, GIFFORD AREA MUNICIPAL TAXING UNIT ,
name and description
its successors and assigns (hereafter called "The Customer"), and the City of
Vero Beach, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Florida, its successors and assigns (.hereafter called "The City")..
WITNESSETH
.,That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar C$1,00) -paid by
each party hereto to the other, and of the convenants and agreement set forth
herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
THE CITY AGREES:
Section 1. To furnish. to the Customer the street lighting system described
and identified in Section 2, Article III of this Agreement (hereafter called the
"Street Lighting System"). and such other services; including installation and
removal, as are provided for in this Agreement, all in accordance with the terms
of this Agreement and the rate schedule set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached
to and made a part of this Agreement, or any successive rate schedule which may
be approved from time to time by the City Council.
Section 2. To install, modify and/or replace the Street Lighting System upon
the written request of the Customer if consistent with accepted engineering prac-
tices. The request shall be made in the form of Exhibit B, which is attached to
and made a part of this Agreement. The term "modification" shall include the
relocation of poles and/or luminaires, and the change of lamp wattage. The term
"replacement" shall include the substitution of other luminaires and/or poles for
existing facilities.
ARTICLE II
THE CUSTOMER AGREES:
Section 1. To pay, when due, all bills issued by the City for the routine
operation of the Street Lighting System and the depreciated installed -cost of
facilities removed, modified and/or replaced by the City under this Agreement.
Operating bills for Street Lighting System shall be computed in accordance with the
rate schedule set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached to and made a part of the
Agreement, or any successive rate schedule which may be approved from time to time
2 PnE 2 Q-
DEC
11982
r7D E
qIT11982 -900K 52 FAJ
u
Y OF VERO BEACH Page 2
GOVERNMENTAL STREET LIGHTING AGREEMENT
by the City Council. Bills for costs, as estimated by the City, of any modification
and/or replacement of the Street Lighting System shall be paid,by the Customer prior
to the commencement of the modification and/or replacement by the City.
ARTICLE III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT:
Section -1. This Agreement shall be for a term of ten (10) years from the
date of initiation of service as confirmed by written notice by the City. It shall
extend thereafter for further successive periods of five (5) years from the expiration
of the initial ten (10) year term or from the expiration of any extension thereof.
The Agreement shall be extended automatically unless either party shall have given
written notice to the other of its desire to terminate this Agreement. The written
notice shall be given not less than ninety (90) days before the date of expiration
of the initial ten (10) year term, or any extension thereof.
Section 2. The Street Lighting System shall consist initially of
(a) Street Lights described as follows:
Rating of Fixture Type of Number
in Lumens Lamp of Lights
5800 High Pressure Sodium Vapor 137
9500 High Pressure Sodium Vapor 41
(b) Other facilities described as follows:
Type of Number Number
Poles of Poles Conductors of Feet
Treated q Not under paving
Concrete Under paving
(c) Additions or Removals
Any additions or removals of facilities, as requested by the Customer and
approved by the City, shall be incorporated or deleted from the Street Li-gh-ting
System. The request for additions or removals shall be in writing and in the form
of Exhibit C, which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
Section 3. The obligation to furnish or purchase service shall be excused at
any time that either party is prevented from complying with this Agreement by legal
proceedings, strikes, lockouts, fires, riots, acts of God, the public enemy, or by
CITY OF VERO BEACH
GOVERNMENTAL STREET LIGHTING AGREEMENT
Page 3
cause or causes not under the control of the party thus prevented from compliance;
and, the City shall not have the obligation to furnish service if it is prevented
from complying with this Agreement by reason of any partial, temporary or entire
shut -down of service which, in the sole opinion of the City, is reasonably necessary
for the purpose of repairing or making more efficient all or any part of its
electrical system.
h- Section 4. The City, at any time, may substitute for any lamp installed -here-
under another.lamp which shall be of at least equal illuminating capacity and
efficiency. Such substitution may also be made upon the written request of the
Customer, except that no substitution requested by the Customer shall be made without
the City's consent if it would require a change in the size, style or capacity of
any lamp. Upon the written request of the Customer or its authorized agent, the
City, in accordance with the appropriate rate schedule and the terms of this Agreement,
may replace any lamp with one of an increased rating in lumens.
Section 5. Should the Customer fail to pay for any of the electric energy,
services, depreciated installed cost of removed fac{lities, modification and/or
replacement furnished hereunder before a bill therefore becomes delinquent, or other-
wise fail to perform any -of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City at
any time thereafter, may cease to supply electric energy and/or services and/or
refuse to make modification and/or replacement for the Customer until the Customer
has made such payments or has otherwise fully complied with all the terms and con-
ditions of this Agreement; provided, however, that any failure by the City to cease
to supply electric energy and/or services and/or refuse to make modification and/or
replacement for the Customer shall not be a waiver of this Section 5. It is under-
stood, however, that such discontinuance of the supplying of electric energy, and/or
services and/or refusal to make modification and/or replacement shall not constitute
a breach of this Agreement by the City nor shall it relieve the Customer of the
obligation to perform any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Section 6. The parties agree that the City is subject to certain State and
Federal rules and regulations regarding electric service and that such rules and
regulations shall be binding where in conflict with this Agreement.
Section 7. This Agreement supersedes all previous agreements or representations,
either written, verbal, or otherwise between the Customer and the City, with respect
to the matters contained herein and constitutes the entire Agreement between the
parties.
D E C 11982 to 52 %E 284
CITY OF VERO BEACH B�(iK Nage U 4 U
DEC 11982 GOVERNMENTAL STREET LIGHTING AGREEMENT 52
�;
Section 8. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding
upon the successors and assigns of the Customer and the successors and assigns of
the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby caused this Agreement to be executed
in triplicate by their duly authorized officers to be effective as of the day and
year first written above.
November 17, 1982
Date
Date
n ,
Charles Vitunac, City Attorney
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By G
Don C. curlock, Chalrman
County Commission
By*l Cbo k [N)A;ci'----.'
Michael Wright, County'Administrator
Attest:
CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
By,
am H. l:ocnrane
By
John V. Little, City Manager
Attest:
CITY OF VERO BEACH
EXHIBIT A
GOVERNMENTAL STREET LIGHTING RATE SCHEDULE
AVATI ARI 1: -
In all territory served.
APPLICATION:
For lighting of public ways and areas upon properly executed agreement
between County, City or other Governmental Agencies for ten (10) or more
luminaires.
TYPE OF INSTALLATION:
City owned fixtures normally will be mounted on poles of the City's existing
distribution system and served from overhead wires. On request of the Customer,
the City will provide special poles or underground wires at the charges specified
below.
SERVICE:
Service includes lamp renewals, patrol, energy from dusk each day until dawn
the following day, and maintenance of City owned street lighting systems.
LIMITATION OF SERVICE:
If the City is required to remove or replace existing luminaires under this
schedule, forcing premature retirement, the Customer shall be required to pay the
City an amount equal to the original installed cost, less any salvage value,
depreciated, based on applicable depreciation rates, plus the cost of removal.
Standby or resale service is not permitted hereunder.
MONTHLY RATE:
Luminaire
Lamp
Size
KWH/MO
Charge
for Unit
($)
Type
Lumens/Watts
Estimate
Facilities
Maintenance
Energy
Total
High Pressure
Sodium Vapor
5800
70
30
3.21
1.44
2.10
6.75
"
9500
100
42
3.21
1.49
2.94
7.64
"
16000
150
62
3.28
1.55
4.34
9.17
"
27500
250
108
4.38
1.64
7.56
13.58
Mercury Vapor
7000
175
79.
2,11
1.01
5..5.3
8.,65.
"
11000
250
107
3.28
1.35.
-7.49
12,12
"
20500
400
164
3.28
1.33
11.48
16.09
On Customer owned and maintained street lighting systems the monthly rate for
energy shall be 7.0� per KWH of estimated usage of each unit plus adjustments.
D E C 11982, ;1C FA -11E
D E C 1 1982 e K P J ?8 f
CITY OF VERO BEACH Page 2
EXHIBIT A
MONTHLY RATE: (continued)
Charges for other City owned facilities:
Treated wood pole used only for the street lighting system - $2.10
Concrete pole used only for the street lighting system - $3.10
Underground conductors will be provided upon request of the Customer. Charges
will be determined and payable prior to installation.
Adjustments:
The amount computed at the above monthly rate shall be adjusted to include an
energy adjustment charge,
TERM OF SERVICE:
Not less than ten years.
CITY OF VERO BEACH
EXHIBIT B
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION AND/OR
REPLACEMENT OF STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM
City of Vero Beach
Gentlemen:
19
In accordance with the terms and conditions of the Street Lighting Agreement
dated , 19 , this request is made for a modification
and/or replacement of the facilities in the Street Lighting System within the
limits of this body's jurisdiction.
The modification and/or replacement requested is/are as follows (describe
fully):
(Signature)
Title
Customer's Name
Request granted , 19 , subject to your approval of
the following charges which are -payable by yo-u--Fe—fore any modification and/or
replacement can be undertaken:
Request denied , 19 , for the following reason:
CITY OF'VERO BEACH
Signature
City Manager
DEC 11982 im 52 PAIJE 288
C 11982
CITY OF VERO BEACH
EXHIBIT C
REQUEST FOR REMOVAL AND/OR
ADDITION OF FACILITIES
City of Vero Beach
K
52Pr1 i�E
, 19
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the terms and conditions of the Street Lighting Agreement
dated , 19 , this request is made for a removal
and/or addition of facilities in the existing Street Lighting System within the
limits of this body's jurisdiction.
The removal and/or addition requested is/are as follows (describe fully):
Approved as of the following Date
19 by:
CITY OF VERO BEACH
(Signature)
(City Manager)
(Signature)
(Title)
(Customer's Name)
C. Resolution 82-110
The above Resolution, known as the FST Partnership
Sewerage System -Franchise (Meadows Subdivision) is hereby
made a part of the Minutes as approved at the Regular
Meeting of October 20, 1982.
85
DEC 11982 Inc
2 PAGE 290
RESOLUTION NO. 82-110
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida:
SECTION I
This Resolution shall be known and may be cited as the
FST Partnership Sewerage System Franchise (Meadows Subdivision).
SECTION Il
For the purpose of this Resolution, the following terms,
phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given
herein. When not inconsistent with the contest, words using the
present tense include the future, words in the plural number
include the singular and vice versa. The word "shall" is always
mandatory.
(a) "County" is Indian River County, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida.
(b) "County Engineer" may be "County Administrator," or
"Utilities Director."
(c) "Corporation" is the Grantee of rights under this
franchise, to wit: FST Partnership.
County.
(d) "Board" is the Board of County Commissioners of the
(e) "Person" is any person, firm, partnership,
a sociationc corporation, company or organization of any kind:
(f) `Territory" means the area located in Indian River
County, Florida outside the corporate limits of any municipality
as the same is more particularly defined and described herein.
(g) Sewerage System" shall mean and include any plant,
system, facility or property used or useful or having the present
capacity for the future use in connection with the collection,
treatment, purification or disposal of sewage effluent and residue
for the public and without limiting the generality of the
foregoing definition shall embrace treatment plants, pumping
stations, interception sewers, pressure lines, mains, laterals and
all necessary appurtenances and equipment and shall include all
property rights, easements and franchises relating to any such
system and deemed necessary or convenient for the operation
-1-
thereof.
(h) "Service" means supplying to a user the collection
of sewage and the treatment of same.
(i) "Hookup and/or Connection" is the connecting of
potential user's property to the sewerage system in order to
utilize the Corporation's services.
SECTION III
There is hereby granted by the County to the Corporaiton
the non-exclusive franchise, right and privilege to erect,
construct, operate and maintain a sewerage system within the
described territory as herein provided and .for these purposes to
charge for collection and disposal of sewage.within the territory,
and for these purposes to establish the necessary facilities and
equipment and to lay and maintain the necessary lines, pipes,
mains and other appurtenances necessary therefor in, along, under
.- apd. across the public alleys, streets, roads, highway and other
public places of the County; provided, however, that the County
reserves the right to permit the use of such public places for
all other lawful purposes and subject always to the paramount
right of the public in and to such public places.
The Corporation shall, at all times during the life of
this franchise, be subject to all lawful exercise of the police
power and regulatory authority of the County and to such
regulation as the County shall hereafter by resolution provide.
The Corporation shall supply the County with copies of
its Department of Environmental Regulation monthly operating
reports and trouble reports, if any.
The right is hereby reserved to the County to adopt, in
addition to the provisions herein contained and existing
applicable resolutions or laws, such additional regulations as it
shall find necesary in the exercise of the police power and lawful
authority vested in said County, provided that such regulations
shall be reasonable and not conflict with the rights herein
granted and not in conflict with the laws of the State of Florida.
The County shall have the right, but not the duty, to supervise
all construction or -installation work performed.
-2-
D E C
_BOOK PA
DEC 1-1982
SECTION IV
The territory in which this franchise shall be
applicable is all that part of Indian River County, Florida,
located within the following described boundary lines, to wit:
Being a portion of the following described parcel of
land; The West 670 feet of Tract 13, Section 15,
Township 33 South, Range 39 East, as shown on Plat of
Indian River Farms Co., as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page
25, St. Lucie County, Florida; as more particularly
described as follows:
The West 188.0 feet of the Southerly 964.92 feet of
Section 15, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, less and
except the Southerly 30 feet for Road Right of Way of R.
D. Carter Road (].st Street S.W.) and less and except the
Westerly 25 feet of Section 15, Township 33 South, Range
It
39 East, all lands lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida.
SECTION V
It is expressly understood and agreed by and between the
Corporation and the County that the Corporation shall sage the
County and members of the Board harmless from any loss sustained
by the County on account of any suit, judgment, execution, claim
or demand whatsoever resulting from negligence, or intentional
wanton, willful and reckless acts on the part of the Corporation
in the construction, operation or maintenance of the sewerage
system under the terms of this franchise. The parties agree that
in the construction of this section, the claim of any.person
resulting from negligence on the part of the Corporation may be
prosecuted directly by such person against the Corporation. The
County shall notify the Corporation promptly after presentation of
any claim or demand.
SECTION VI
The Corporation shall maintain and operate its sewage
plant and system and render efficient service in accordance with
the rules and regulations as are or may be set forth by the Board
from time to time, which shall include but not be limited to
-3-
"Construction Specifications for Water Distribution and Sewage
Collection Facilities" promulgated by Indian River County
Utilities Department, July, 1980, or as amended. The County shall
require the Corporation to comply with the above standards. Prior
to the issuance.of a construction permit, the Corporation's
project engineer shall certify to the County that the design
standards as set forth in said "Construction Specifications" of
the Indian River County Utilities Department, July, 1980, or as
amended, will be met by completion of the project as shown on the
plans submitted. The Corporation shall cause said certification
to be submitted to the County along with the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation applications and plans, for County
review. Submission to the County for review may occur
simultaneously with submission of said documents to the Florida
--Department of Environmental Regulation. Upon approval by the
County of the plant and system, a permit shall be issued to the
FST Partnership for the construction thereof.
Upon the completion of all construction of the sewage
treatment plant and collection system, the project engineer for
the Corporation shall certify, under seal, that the systems have
been constructed substantially in accordance with the plans and
specifications previously approved and that the systems meet all
of the standards required by the County. The Corporation shall
also submit to the County two sets of "as -built" drawings,
consisting of one set in reproducable vellum and one set of
regular blueprints. Upon receipt of certification from the
engineer the County will issue a letter acknowledging the
construction of the sewerage system. No service is to be provided
to customers until such time as the County issues a letter of
acknowledgement. The issuance of said letter shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Corporation shall grant necessary
easements to County without charge to connect the sewerage system
to County's Master Sewerage System and such easements as are
necessary to provide access to the sewer system. The Corporation
shall pay a $1,000.00 franchise application fee at the time of the
submission of the franchise resolution.
D E C 1.-1992
d C
- B" :,f)
The Corporation shall design all facilities within the
Franchise Area to conform to the Indian River County Master Plan
for utilities, when applicable.
SECTION VII
All of the facilities of the Corporation shall be
constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Department of Environmental Regulation of the
State of Florida and the quantity and quality of collection and
disposal of sewage shall at all times be and remain not inferior
to the quality standards for public sewage collection and other
rules, regulations and standards now or hereafter adopted by the
Department of Environmental Regulation of the State of Florida, or
other governmental body having jurisdiction.
Whenever it is necessary to shut off or interrupt
service for the purpose of making repairs or installations, the
Corporation shall do'bo at such times as will cause the least
amount of inconvenience to its consumers and, unless such repairs
are unforeseen and immediately necessary, it shall give not less
than five (5) days' notice thereof to its consumers for
non -emergencies.
SECTION VIII
(a) The Corporation shall have the authority to
promulgate such rules, regulations, terms and conditions coveting
the conduct of its business as shall be reasonably necessary to
enable the Corporation to exercise its rights and perform its
obligations under this franchise and to issue an uninterrupted
service to each and all of its consumers; provided, however, that
such rules, regulations, terms and conditions shall not be in
conflict with the provisions hereof or with the laws of the State
of Florida and all of the same shall be subject to the approval of
the Board.
(b) If in the judgment of the Board of County
Commissioners, any of the provisions of (a) above are
unreasonable, the Corporation, before discretionay action is taken
by the Board of County Commissioners, can request said Board that
a group of arbitrators be appointed and such group shall consist
-5-
of:
1. County Engineer
2. Corporation Engineer
3. One person selected by the above two
persons
and this Board of Arbitrators shall make recommendations to the
Board of County Commissioners, but such recommendations are not
mandatory.
Any final decision the Arbitrators or Board may have
with respect to this franchise can be appealed to the Circuit
Court of Indian River County by either party.
SECTION IX
All sewer mains and manholes and other fixtures laid or
placed by the Corporation for the sewerage system shall be so
located in the dedicated easements in the County after approval
by County Engineer so as .not to obstruct or interfere with other
uses made of such public places already installed. The
Corporation shall, whenever.practicable, avoid interfering with
the use of any street, alley or other highway where the paving or
surface of the same would be disturbed. In case of any
disturbance of County -owned pavement, sidewalk, driveway or other
surfacing, the Corporation shall, at its own cost and expense and
in -a manner approved by the County Engineer, replace and restore
all such surface so disturbed in as good condition as before said
work was commenced and shall maintain the restoration in an
approved condition for a period of one (1) year. In the event
that any time the County shall lawfully elect to alter or change
the grade or to relocate or widen or otherwise change any such
County -owned right-of-way, the Corporation shall, upon reasonable
notice by the County, remove, relay, and relocate its fixtures at
the Corporation's expense in the ordinary course of business. The
Corporation shall not locate any of its facilities or do any
construction which would create any obstructions or conditions
which are or may become dangerous to the traveling public. In the
event any such public place under or upon which the Corporation
.r
shall have located its facilities shall be closed, abandoned,
vacated or discontinued, the Board may terminate such easement or
�'"DEC 1. 3982
-6- PSE 2TO
BOX
license of the Corporation thereto; provided, however, in the
event of this termination of easement, the party'requesting such
termination shall pay to the Corporation, in advance, its cost of
removal and relocation of the removed facilities in order to
continue its service as theretofore existing, or the County shall
retain an easement not less than ten (101) feet in width for the
benefit of the Corporation and its facilities.
SECTION X
The Corporation shall not, as to rates, charges, service
facilities, rules, regulations or in any other respect, make or
grant any preference or advantage to any person or subject any
person to any prejudice or disadvantage.
SECTION XI
(a) The Corporation shall furnish, supply,.install and
make available to any and all persons -within the territory making
demand therefor, its public sewerage system, and shall provide
such demanding person with its services and facilities; provided,
however, that the Board may, upon application of the Corporation,
extend time for providing such service to such demanding person.
In the event the Corporation fails to provide its services and
facilities as a sewer system to any area within the territory
within the time specified by the Board, then in such event the
County may, by resolution of the Board, limit, restrict and
confine the territory to that area then being serviced by sewerage
by the Corporation or such greater areas as the Board shall
determine; and thereafter, the territory shall be only the area
set forth, in the resolution adopted by the Board.
(b) The Corporation shall not be required to furnish,
supply, install and make available its public sewerage system to
any person within the franchise area unless the same may be done'
at such a cost to the Corporation as shall make the addition
proposed financially feasible. Financially feasible shall mean
that a fair and reasonable rate shall be realized by the
Corporat.}on for all its services under this franchise; that such
rate of return on the net valuation of its property devoted
thereto under efficient and economical management. The burden of
M NW- - - - M
M ® -
showing that a prospective service to the area is not financially
feasible shall be the burden of the Corporation.
SECTION XII
The Corporation or its Shareholders shall not sell or
transfer its. plants or systems or corporate stock to another or
transfer any rights under this franchise to another without the
approval of the Board. No such sale or transfer after such
approval shall be effective until the vendee, assignee or lessee
has filed with the Board an instrument in writing reciting the
fact of such transfer and accepting the terms of this franchise
and agreeing to perform all of the conditions thereof. In any
event, this franchise shall not be transferable and assignable
until notice or request for transfer and assignment shall be given
by the Corporation to the Board in writing accompanied by a
,request from the proposed transferee, which application shall
contain information concerning the financial status and other
qualifications of the proposed transferee and such other
information as the Board may require. A public hearing shall be
held on such request, of which notice shall be given
by publication in a newspaper regularly published in the County at
least one time not more than one month or less than one week
preceding such hearing. Certified proof of publication of such
notice shall be filed with the Board. The Board shall act within
ninety (90) days upon such request. The consent by the Board to
any assignment of this franchise shall not be unreasonably
withheld. Any sale or transfer by the Corporation or Shareholders
of the Corporation taking place contrary to the terms and
conditions of this paragraph shall be considered by the Board to
be a default by the Corporation under this franchise agreement and
subject this franchise to termination.
SECTION XIII
Corporation warrants adequate capacity to service
existing or anticipated customers and agrees not to provide
sewerage,service unless adequate capacity is available at the time
any new connection is made.
SECTION XIV
The rates charged by the Corporation for its service
_g_
D E C 1- X99 enc 5.2 PAGE 2,98
DEC
hereunder shall be fair and reasonable and designed to meet all
necessary costs of the service, including a fair.rate of return on
the net valuation of its properties devoted thereto under
efficient and economical management. The Corporation agrees that
the County has the authority to enter into this franchise
agreement and the regulation of said corporation. Corporation
agrees that it shall be subject to all authority now or hereafter
possessed by the County or any other regulatory body having
competent jurisdiction to fix just, reasonable and compensatory
rates. When this franchise takes effect, the Corporation shall
have authority to charge and collect but not to exceed the
following schedule of rates;
SEWER
RATE
RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL $10.00 per month per each
residential or commercial unit
CONNECTION CHARGES/Capacity Demand Fee
Connection charges for Sewer service is $350.00 per
Equivalent Resident Connection (ERC). For the purposes of this
rate schedule, one Equivalent Residential Connection is equal to
350 gallons per day of water consumption or wastewater to be
treated. One condominium unit is equal to 250/350 of an ERC or
71.43% of an ERC.
The Corporation hereby agrees to pay to the C°ountX a
franchise fee in the amount of 3% of the Corporation's annual
gross receipts, derived from monthly service charges to defray the
cost of regulation and for use of County rights-of-way and public
places. The Corporation shall pay the 3% franchise fee
quarterly.
The Corporation shall supply the County with a copy of
the Corporation's Annual Report and financial statements. Also, a
letter from a CPA certifying that the 3 percent franchise fee and
the 2-1/2 percent renewal and replacement account has been
collected and disbursed in accordance with the terms of this
agreement.
4
SECTION XV
Maintenance Escrow Charges and County Takeover
(A) Ten percent (10%) of the gross rates charged and
-9-
0
received shall be placed in a second County interest bearing
account and accumulated until the balance reaches FIVE THOUSAND
($5,000.00) DOLLARS for a maintenance account. The balance of the
account may be adjusted by the Board of County Commissioners at
such time as. the need arises due to inflationary repair or
replacement costs or other unforeseen costs. Said funds shall be
used as a sinking fund and applied only for repairs and/or
replacement of the sewerage system by the Partnership as the need
arises. County is granted the right to make necessary repairs
using said funds in the event of default on the part of
Partnership in maintaining the quality standards established
herein.
(B) At any time Indian River County is in the position
to service the franchise area, the Corporation shall, upon the
—demand of County, convey all of its collection and treatment
system to the County by customary and sufficient means of
conveyance without charge or cost to the County. Partnership
shall, in addition, grant all necessary easements to County
without charge to connect the sewerage system to the County's
sewerage system and such easements as are necessary to provide
access to and use of'the sewer system. It is understood that
County, in addition to other options, may combine the system
franchised by this resolution with other package plants in the
area and to do so may utilize some or all of the facilities
provided by Corporation after making the demand to turn the system
over under this paragraph. Corporation agrees that the initial
deed conveying title from developer to reflect owner of each unit
shall contain language to the effect that the sewerage system may
become part of the County system in the future and unit owners may
become subject to standard County rates and impact fees.
SECTION XVI
The Corporation shall at all times maintain public
liability and property damage insurance in such amounts as set
forth in,Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. The Corporation shall cause County to be duly notified
-lo-
DEC 11982 to 5:�' PAU31 00
MK
by the Insuror in the event of any modifications or deletions of
the insurance as set forth in said Exhibit A. Said amounts shall
be required from time to time by the Board in accordance with good
business practices as determined by safe business standards as
established -by the Board for the protection of the County and the
general public and for any liability which may result from any
action of the Corporation. If any person serviced by the
Corporation under this franchise complains to the Board concerning
the rates, charges and/or operations of such utility and the
Corporation, after request is made upon it by the Board, fails to
satisfy or remedy such complaint or objections as not proper, the
Board may thereupon, after due notice to such utility, schedule a
hearing concerning such complaint or objection and the Board may
review same according to the provisions -herein. If the Board
enters its order pursuant to such hearing and the Corporation
feels it is aggrieved by such order, the Corporation may seek
review of the Board's action by proceedings in the Circuit Court
of the County; otherwise, the Corporation shall promptly comply
with the order of the Board.
SECTION XVII
Should the Corporation desire to establish rates and
charges or should the Corporation desire to increase any charges
heretofore established and approved by the Board, then the
Corporation shall notify the Board in writing, setting forth the
schedule of rates and charges which it proposes. A public hearing
shall then be held on such request, of which notice shall be given
by publication in a newspaper regularly published in said County
at least one time not more than one month or less than one week
preceding such hearing. Certified proof of publication of such
notice shall be filed with the Board. Said hearing may thereafter
be continued from time to time as determined by the Board. If the
Board enters an order pursuant to such hearing and the
Corporation or any person feels aggrieved by such order, then the
Corporation or such person may seek review of the Board's action
by proceeding in the Circuit Court of the County. The Board shall
act on the rate request within ninety (90) days.
-11-
SECTION XVIII
Prior to the Corporation placing any of its facilities
in any of the public places as herein authorized, the Corporation
shall make application to and obtain a permit from the County
Engineer authorizing said construction in the same manner as
permits are authorized in the County for the use of the public
roads as shall now or hereafter be established by regulations of
the County. The County shall have the right when special circum-
stances exist to determine the time in which such construction
shall be done.
SECTION XIX
If the Corporation fails or refuses to promptly and
faithfully keep, perform and abide by the terms and conditions of
this franchise, then the Board shall give the Corporation written
noticye of such deficiencies or defaults and a reasonable tinne
within which the Corporation shall remedy the same, which notice
shall specify the deficiency or default. If the Corporation fails
to remedy such deficiency or default within the time required by
the notice from the Board, the Board may thereafter schedule a
hearing concerning the same with reasonable notice thereof to the
Corporation, and after such hearing at which all interested
parties shall be heard, the Board may levy liquidated damages of
$50.00 per day that said deficiency or default exists from the
date of said hearing held by the Board; and the Board may further
limit or restrict this franchise or may terminate and cancel the
same in whole or in part if Proper reasons thereby are found by
the Board. If the Board enters an order pursuant to such hearing
and the Corporation or any other person feels aggrieved by such
order, the utility or such other person may seek review of the
Board's action by proceedings in the Circuit Court of the County.
SECTION XX
County shall have the right, but not the duty to make
necessary inspections during construction and quarterly thereafter
at the cost of TWENTY ($20.00) DOLLARS per unit as covered by the
permit fee herein to be paid by the Corporation. The utility or
corporation, as the case may be, shall pay the said inspection fee
-12-
D E C 11982 5 FAGF 3.02
^+A
'o E c 11982
according to the number of units in each phase of its development
at the time of the completion of the utility lines and facilities
which will be utilizied to provide service to said phase. This
provision is subject to the escalation provisions contained above
as regards the amount of inspection fees which the County shall be
entitled to receive from the Corporation.
Approved
and Iegg
my
SECTION XXI
It is specifically agreed by and between the parties
hereto that this franchise shall be considered a franchise
agreement and as such a contractural instrument recognized under
the Statutes and Laws of the State of Florida.
SECTION XXII
If any word, sections, clause or part of this resolution
is held invalid, such portion shall be deemed a separate and
independent part and the same shall not invalidate the remainder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida has caused this franchise to be
executed in the name of the County of Indian River by the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners and its seal to be affixed
and attested by its Clerk, all pursuant to the resolution of the
Board of County Commissioners adopted on the 20th day of
October 1982.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FL RIDA
By / C
DON C. SCURSOCKi Jr C firman
Attest:.tj
FREDA WRIGHT, C14rk
/ ZkACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE
Brarder,b�; y ST PARTNERSHIP does hereby accept the foregoing
lttor
��'and for their successors and assigns does hereby
covenant and agree to comply with and abide by all of the terms,
conditions and provisions therein set forth and contained.
DATED at Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, this
� f
v day ofAtcle.k�,- 1982.
.r
WITNESS: FST PARTNERSHIP
M
-13-
fir.
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
acknowledgements, personally appeared
as.general partner of FST PARTNERSHIP and he acknowledged before
me that he executed the foregoing instrument for the uses and
purposes therein expressed.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in he State and
County aforesaid this �'� day of ` .,.���. 1982.
Notary PLIUiC, SWe Of Fbrida ,Qt large
My Commission Expires N'ar. ,'g, iggo No,. ary Public
9onocd 8y SnFEC� Insurance �,opy of Arena
M
DEC 1.19 82 -14- RaoK 2 � ;r 0
DEC 11982
'WR 52
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. 83450 - 83651 inclusive. Such
bills and accounts being on file in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court, the warrants so issued from the
respective bonds being listed in the Supplemental Minute
Book as provided by the rules of the Legislative Auditor,
reference to such record and list so recorded being made a
part of these Minutes.
There being no further business, on Motion made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 6:00 o'clock
P.M.
Attest: °e
Clerk
9
M-PRO-wo-