HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/1982Wednesday, December 15, 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 15, 1982, at 8:34 o'clock A.M.
Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Alfred Grover
Fletcher, Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; and William C. Wodtke,
Jr. Absent was Patrick B. Lyons, who was on vacation. 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. Fred W. McClellan, First Presbyterian Church, gave
the invocation, and Commissioner Bird .led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag..
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
The Chairman asked if there were any additions to the
Agenda.
Administrator Wright requested adding an item to close
a road in Sebastian, and a report concerning the water and
sewer bonds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
agreed to add the emergency items, as requested
by the Administrator.
The Chairman requested adding an item regarding the
bonds for the newly elected Hospital Trustees.
DEC 15 1982 .2 PA70E,306
DEC 15 1982
110KUt-52 rA- - 07-
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
agreed to add the emergency item, as requested
by the Chairman.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
November 3, 1982.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of November 3, 1982, as written.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
A. Approval of Budget Amendment — New Jail
The Board discussed the following memorandum from
Finance Director Barton:
December 1, 1982
54
To: Board of County Commissioners.
From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director
Re: Budget for New Jail
During the October 6, 1982 Board meeting, the administrator recommended
that a loan be made from the Secondary Roads Trust Fund to pay for the
architect's services on the new jail.
We request that the following budget amendment be adopted to provide
funds for the architect's services and other incidential costs of
the new jail.
Account Title
Inte;funds Loans
B�C-C. Contingencies
Debt Proceeds
Other Professional Services
Jail Construction
Account Number
Increase Decrease
101-199-581-99.22
50,000:
101-199-513-99.91
50,000.
302-000=384-10.00
50,000.
302-906-523-33.19
40,000.
302-906-523-66.22
10,000.
r
r
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the
Board approve the budget amendment regarding
the New Jail, with the understanding that
funds from the Jail Account would be used
expressly for the New Jail.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and carried unanimously.
B. Budget Amendment - Cady & Associates
The Board next discussed the following information from
Finance Director Barton:
December 3, 1982
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director
Subject: Cody & Associates
The following budget amendment is needed to correctly budget funds
to pay Cody & Associates. This study was approved at the July 21,
1982, Board of County Commissioners.meeting.
Account Title Account Number "Increase pecrease
Other Professional Services 001-203-513-33.19 4,500.
B.C:C. Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91 4,500.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
approved the budget amendment regarding Cody
& Associates, as recommended by the Finance
Director.
1992 .2 PAfit
DEC 15 3
DEC 15 1992 5.2 FAA 309
C. Budget Amendment - Civil Defense Truck Expenses
The Board discussed the following memorandum dated
December 6, 1982:
December 6, 1982
To: Board of County Commissioners
�^From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director
Subject: Expenses on Truck for Civil Defense Department
The following Budget Amendment is necessary to provide for the expenses
related to the pickup truck acquired by the 001 Defense Department.
'Account 'title Account'Number "Increase : Decrease
Fuel & Lubricants 001-208-525-35.21 400.
f� B.C.C. Contingencies 001--199-513-99.91 400.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the budget amendment regarding expenses
on the truck for Civil Defense, as recommended
by the Finance Director.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Report on File
The following report is on file in the Office of the
Clerk:
Report of Juveniles in Jail, October, 1982
B. Bike Path
The Board next reviewed the following memorandum from
Public Works Director, James Davis:
r
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
DATE: November 16, 1982 FILE:
Through: Michael Wright, County Administrator
SUBJECT: Request -for Acceptance of 20th Avenue
Bike Path South of 12th Street from
Vero -Treasure Coast Kiwanis Club
FROM: James W. -Davis, P.E.,�k REFERENCES: DeaneF.oLueth'e to Jim
Public Works Director J Davis
dated November 8, 1982
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Vero Treasure Coast Kiwanis Club and County Road and Bridge Department have
completed construction of the bike path along the west side of 20th Avenue between
8th Street and 12th Street. By copy of Mr. Dean Luethje's November 8, 1982, letter,
the County is being requested to accept ownership of the bike path and relieve the
Kiwanis Club from any liability.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Public Works Department has inspected the work and commends the Vero Treasure
Coast Kiwanis Club and the Road and Bridge Department on a job well done. -
RECOMMATIONS AND FUNDING
Recommend acceptance of the subject Bike Path. No additional funding is to be
considered.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
accepted the 20th Avenue Bike Path South of
12th Street from the Vero Treasure Coast
Kiwanis Club, as recommended by Public Works
Director Davis.
C. Parks & Recreation Committee Appointment
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the appointment of Philip Seitzer to
the Parks & Recreation Committee as an
alternate for Gary Scheidt.
in 5 PAbE310
DEC 15 1982 5 ...
DEC 15 1992 90 - Fhut 2_11
D. Release of Easement - Jaynes
The Board next discussed the following memorandum:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: November 22, 1982 FILE: ER -82-11-02-05
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
Z94v- 46�i�
Patrick Bruce King��
FROM: Charles L. Kindig
Zoning Department Inspector
RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY
SUBJECT: RANDY E. JAYNES
SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 22 AND 231
BLOCK G, UNIT #2, OSLO PARK S/D
REFERENCES:
This is in response to a Release of Easement request by Mr. Randy E. Jaynes,
owner of the subject property. It is recommended that the data -herein pre-
sented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Mr. Randy E. Jaynes to release the common
side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 22 and 23, Block G, Unit 2, Oslo Park Sub-
division.
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida 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 Charles Kindig, it is the Zoning
Department's opinion that to release the common side lot 5 foot easements of
lots 22 and 23, Block G, Unit 2, 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.
RECONMENDATION:
Staff recommends the release of -the common side lot 5 foot easements of lots
22 and 23, Block G, Unit 2, Oslo Park Subdivision.
ONtMOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 82-129 releasing the common
side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 22 and 23,
Block G, Unit 2, Oslo Park Subdivision, as
requested by Randy E. Jaynes.
RESOLUTION NO. 82-129
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 22 and 23, Block G. Unit 2, Oslo
Park Subdivision, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat
Book 4, Page 13 of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida; and
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat
of Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 2 for the public utility and drain-
age 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 COMMIS-
-_-
SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot
line easements in Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 2, shall be released,
abandoned and vacated as follows:
The common side lot 5 foot easements of lots 22
and 23, Block G, Unit 2, 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 13.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of
a.
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 15th
ATTEST:
j`
1r 1
Freda Wrigh Cle
day of December
, 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLO IDA
BY: C"
on C. Scurlock, C airman
r ,
Avpr i,vel, a,, (a lorra
py _ _
arIndenbur
Iny
DEC 15 19x 5.2 PAc 31
DEC 15 1982
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
This Release of Easement, executed this 15th 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. Randy E. Jaynes, whose mailing address
is 555 4th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960, second party;
WITNESSETH:
That the said party of the first part for and in consideration
of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable con-
sideration 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 22 and
23, Block G, Unit 2, Oslo Park Subdivision,. as. -re-
recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 13, 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 seal7ed-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: /
Don Scu ock, Jr_._L__Xhairman
Approved
and Eeg% �iic) , c,
G.8rande^C��..
ty A orney -
ATTEST:. _
Freda Wright, C
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 ac-
knowledgements personally appeared, Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
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 fore-
..going instrument and they acknowledged before me that they exe-
cuted the same for and on behalf of the said political sub-
division.
WITNESS by hand and seal in the County and State last
foresaid this d� day of_26� A , 1982.
(Notary Seal)
DEC 15 1992
My CommissY n Expires:
56fARY PUBLIC STATB OF h0R16W
BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UND .
MY CO.':1I,ISSION EXFI ES JULY S 1986
arge
I
1
,
DEC 15 1992
My CommissY n Expires:
56fARY PUBLIC STATB OF h0R16W
BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UND .
MY CO.':1I,ISSION EXFI ES JULY S 1986
arge
I
DEC 15 1982
E.
Release of Easement - South
The Board reviewed the following memorandum:
TO: .7he Honorable Members of the DATE: November 22, 1982 FILE: ER -82-11-02-06
Board -of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright
County Administrator RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST
SUBJECT: BY DOLORES FINIGAN SOUTH
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 11 AND 120
BLOCK W, UNIT 2, OSLO PARK S/D
Patrick Bruce King
FROM:.. Charles L. Kindig�,� REFERENCES:
Zoning Department Inspector
This is in response to a Release of Easement request by Dolores Finigan South,
owner of the subject property. It is recommended that the data herein pre-
sented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Dolores Finigan South to release the common
side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 11 and 12, Block W, Unit 2, Oslo Park Sub-
division.
The request has been reviewed by Southern Be11, Florida 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 Charles Kindig, it is the Zoning a
Department's opinion that to release the common side lot 5 foot easements of
lots 11 and 12, Block W, Unit 2, 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
11 and 12, Block W, Unit 2, Oslo Park Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 82-130 releasing the common
side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 11 and 12,
Block W, Unit 2, Oslo Park Subdivision, as
requested by Dolores Finigan South.
RESOLUTION NO. 82-130
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 11 and 12, Block W. Unit 2, Oslo Park
Subdivision, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 4,
Page 13, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of
Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 2 for the public utility and drainage
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the reque.st for such release of easements has been
submitted in proper form;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot
line easements in Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 2, shall be released,
abandoned and vacated as follows:
The common side lot 5 foot easements of lots 11 and 12,
Block W, Unit 2, 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 13.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby
are authorized and directed to execute•a release of said lot line
easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and
placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
This 15th
ATTEST:
l
Ajc�
Fre a Wrig t, e
DEC 15 1982
day of December , 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: / C Z_eZA
Don C. Scur ock, JK -7, Chairman
Apprw ed z� to form
and ley- ":cies
By — --
G P,I. trandenaurg
n + •,
C my ,t10 ,.ay
9 . 2 ME316
' ..r q,
DEC 15 1982 @AaK Aur. •:b� 7
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
This Release of Easement, executed this 15th 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; Dolores Finigan South, whose mail-
ing address is 712 Valley -View Road, Pittsburgh 20, Pennsylvania,
second party;_
WITNESSETH:
That the said party of the first part for and in considera-
tion of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable
consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby
remise, release, abandon, and quit claim unto the said second
party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand
which the said first party has in and to the following described
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 11 and
12, Block W, Unit 2, Oslo Park Subdivision, as re-
corded in Plat Book 4, Page 13, public records of
Indian River County, Florida.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all singular the appur-
tenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all
estate, right, title, interest, equity to the only proper use-,_ z
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, FLOR A
BY: 42,
Don C. SciFrlock, Jr airman
Approved as to form
aAM.
cie
enburg
ey
ATTEST:
reaa wrignt, UAer
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly
authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledge-
ments personally appeared, Don C. Scurlock, Jr., as Chairman of
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT,
as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to me known to be the persons duly
authorized by said County to execute the foregoing instrument and
they—acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and on
behalf of the said political subdivision.
WITNESS by hand and seal in the County and State last fore -
said this 1_!5 day of 1982.
(Notary Seal)
DEC 15 1992
a• •
Nota Pu c, State of Flor a a
My Commiss on Expires:
NOTARYPUBLIC'M AORD
LONQ.Q THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UN
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1986
arge
to 52 PApr
UC 1-8
I
DEC 15 1982
F. Release of Easement - Wild
The Board discussed the memorandum dated November 22,
1982 from Charles L. Kindig, Zoning Department Inspector, as
follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Pattick Bruce King
CR"aw x.
FROM: Charles L. King_ d^ god
Zoning Department Inspector
DATE: November 22, 1982 FILE: ER -82-11-03-07
SUBJECT: s L��ENO� EASEMENT REgUEST
SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 5 AND 6,
BLOCK W. UNIT 2, OSLO PARK S/D
REFERENCES:
This is in response to a Release of Easement request by Glenn and Kay Wild,
owners of the subject property. It is recommended that the data herein pre-
sented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Glenn and Kay Wild to "release the common
side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 5 and 6, Block W, Unit 2, Oslo Park Sub-
division.
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida 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 Charles Kindig, it is the Zoning
Department's opinion that to release the common side lot 5 foot easements of
lots 5 and 6, Block W, Unit 2, 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.
RECONMMATION:
Staff recommends the release of -the common side lot 5 foot easements of lots
5 and 6, Block W, Unit 2, Oslo Park Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 82-131 releasing the common
side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 5 and 6,
Block W, Unit 2, Oslo Park Subdivision, as
requested by Glenn and Kay Wild.
� � i
RESOLUTION NO. 82-131
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 5 and 6, Block W, Unit 2, Oslo Park
Subdivision, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book
4, Page 13 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida;
and
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of
Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 2 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 COMMIS-
SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot -
line easements in Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 2, shall be released,
abandoned and vacated as follows:
The common side lot 5 foot easements of lots 5 and 6,
Block W, Unit 2, 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 13
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners and the Clerk of the CircuittCourt 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 15th day of
ATTEST:
Freda Wright-, -C'Vllrk
DEC 15 1982
December
, 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: G
Don C. Sc rloc , Jr C airman
8.,
'141. E3m-udei-ii urg
-7
DEC 15 1982
e
BAflK tit =.
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
This Release of Easement, executed this 15th
day of December 1982, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision
of the State of Florida, first party; Glenn and Kay Wild, whose
mailing address is 4630 Rosewood Road, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960,
second party;
WITNESSETH:
That the said party of the first part for and in considera-
tion of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable
consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby
remise, release, abandon, and quit claim unto the said second
party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand
which the said first party has in and to the following described
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 5 and
6, Block W, Unit 2, Oslo Park Subdivision, as re-
corded in Plat Book 4, Page 13, public records of
Indian River County, Florida
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all singular the appur-
tenances 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:
r
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: / C
DorFC. Scurloc , J . Chair -man
ATTEST:
il
s ie;
/'ilJ::i •.. •. :! .:I %C
:i aii i ii gflcirn�i
Illy H„l iii
recta wright,_Gler
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly
authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledge-
ments personally appeared, Don C. Scurlock, Jr., as Chairman of
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a poli-
tical 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
thgy�acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and
on behalf of the said political subdivision.
WITNESS by hand and seal in the County and State last fore -
said this �� day of , 1982.
(Notary Seal)
otary lic, State o ori a
at Larg
My Commission Expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UNa .
MY CONVAISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1986
DEC 15 2 FA -E 329
'
I
otary lic, State o ori a
at Larg
My Commission Expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UNa .
MY CONVAISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1986
DEC 15 2 FA -E 329
0 E C 15 1982afloK :
G. Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity - Odom
Aviation, Inc, dba seAir
The Board discussed the following memorandum:
:;IV-"tA eRain�, (V -w 13eae�x dl/junlei ofts�ort
dl/jai�in9: (PLO. J3ox 241 'CVezo Beach, gd-1 4onc 305-562-1228
32960 —
Vecembex 6, 1982
M
Boa&d o'j County Comm iA4 i,oneus
Indian R.ivec County, Fton.ida.
Veno Beach, FZoAi&
Gentlemen:
This tetteL wilt constitute a &equeat to the Boa&d 6o)t a %ere=- Z
to the undm igned o6 Ce&ti6icate o6 Pubti.c Convenience and Nece6.6 ty
.in connection with the opeution o6 A.in Ambutanee 6o& Odom Aviation,
Inc., d/b/a 6cAAA, which I operate 6&om my hangar at the North Ramp a6
the Veno Beach Mun cci pad' Ai&poAt.
I am encloa.cng copies oL.
CUAXent FAA Pant 135 Ai,% Taxi, CvLt i,s i e a te;
State o6 P.2otida, Department of Health and Rehab.iZ.itative SeiLvieea
Ambu tanee Service L.i c ens a No. 290
Fo& your .cn6o&mation, these has been no' change .in our nates. bon A,uc
Ambutanee; the change .ca $1.45 pec male,. which..cnc2udes pUot aecv.ice,5,
medical equipment (except oxygen), cate/Ling se vice, and &2Zated ben:e6.its.
OuA
authauipment is -inspec ted and maintained under State and U. S. Goveument
Dun i.ng the past yea&, we have had 11 Aur. Ambulanee 6t ights, .cnctud ing
but not tZn ted to Shands Teaching Hoapeta.2 at Gai,nuvc te; Lake Buhler (inmate.
&wm Connect i.onat Inat:itution);New York City; Geneseo, Ittino"; wn ightsv.c,Pte,
PennsyZvan.ia; Toronto, Canada; and Teterbo&o, New Jeusey. We have a ata6i og
medical pecsonnet (R.N., L.P.N., F. M. T, and Pana-MedticaZ) on eaZZ 24 howus a
day,6o that we may meet any contingency.
I wit 4u&n ,6h any addi tionat ,i.n6onmation you may &equine and wound apphee i. -
ate you& a66i mative eon -6 decation o6 this request 6o& &enewaZ.
Since y
Patti iaizc :D a IVUA it ent
Vdom - Aviat~i on, Inc., d/bj-a aeAix
M _
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the renewal of the Certificate of
Public Convenience & Necessity for Odom
Aviation, Inc., dba seAir.
- •, 1. 'may. � "� f 5 t..
z UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION _
>- FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
f ,a
qtr (,antler ` `
rxx#ttt C�je tftxa#
,7%is cerlyles I�iaf
ODOM AVIATION, INC d/b/a
SeAIR
P. O. BOX 241
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
leas melllie re9uiremenfs of /lie -7e6(eral20'alion -7c1 o119.i8, as amendeo( i
and' Ike rules, reyulalions, armor standard prescri6e0' (Aereunoler lar Ifie
issuance o` l- s ceri'l."r'cale, ano( is liere6y aulliorizeo( to operate a$ an air
carrier in accorc(ance milli said( .Wc/ andlf e rules, reyulalions uno(slandards
presCHSedlhereuno(er, ano(llie terms, conoilions, andfinilalions conlainedin
pf.
/lie operations specylealions.
Nis cerl�'cale is no! lran Aera6le and, unless sooners urreno(ereo(, suspendear
or reuolreo! shall conlinue in effeel ino(elindely.
By Direct' the Administrator "
CerAlcalt- num6er• AT764-196
�i�fee/ioe dale•: AUGUST 7, 1981
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
•VAA, tCPU40430-11 CS -791
CHIEF, 60 FSDO 64
(Title) -
I) EC 15 199 19 K 2 PZE ?4
.1d
AM
Cc
�1PAID F1111 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
non -emergency flgh&,dth3;,, stomarily done in the past.
Appr.),„c;d as to form 1. ,
a nA 1-itia1 'i 14,1icianCy +
C
gy an, 0 0 countyAtone&A
o
December 15, 19$ y M. Brand�nhur n Scurlock, Jr.R
r
J111"
WHEREAS, the ODOM AVIATION, INC. d/b/a SEAIR AIRAmbutance Sehv.ice pnovcded
ty emergency m de�GviceA a Zeno 0 TNDTAN RTVFR County;
and,,i
,
WHEREAS, thence has been demonAtnated that there .us a need Jor th,ia ambulance aenvice
to operate in th z county to pnov.ide ezzent i•at senvicu to the allzenz o{t this .
County: and,
WHEREAS, the above ambutance b env ce has indicated that it w tt eompty with a t the
nequi %ement6 o6 the Emergency Med cat Senvcced Art off' 1973, the Board o6 County
Commis-s.ionem of INDIAN RIVER County hereby iAzueb a Ce4tili.cate o6 Pubt.ie
Convenience and NecesA y am ce company Jon theyea 12d3 .
I
In .,suing Chia ceAti j ieate it .us undeutood that the above named ambulance .aery ice
Witt meet the requivicementa o6 State Leg"tation and provide emergency aenvices on
a twenty-6oun hour basia bon the Jottowing akea(a):
in Indian River County. This CERTIFICATE is issued subject to the
right of Piper Aircraft Company continuing to provide emergency and
non -emergency flgh&,dth3;,, stomarily done in the past.
Appr.),„c;d as to form 1. ,
a nA 1-itia1 'i 14,1icianCy +
C
gy an, 0 0 countyAtone&A
o
December 15, 19$ y M. Brand�nhur n Scurlock, Jr.R
r
J111"
m
fir?
2,90
FLORIDA
STATE OF � �...-�
C;'3 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
sax EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES . '
AMBULANCE SERVICE LICENSE i
This is to Certify that SeAi r
g+ Nanw of E,ublitbu~
s has complied with Chapter -911 Section 2145 Florida Stacutrs, and is authnrircd to "mate an Ambulance
:i � service to IA'nIAtd RIVER (:hunt s
` Subicct to anv and all lima jn• %pecctied in applccablr C:crfiAca`te(%) Of Public ('untvrntrnrr and 1Vcrr.stt}•.'
_�✓ wt:i ��7'r 1
e
Sua iteaitb t]frWry C:o�erx Nesl�b s�?De". 31 '
Date Agri 1 19 a 1t1 82
NRS FORM M. F•b. It
]- & htwow sbM bw
in dw
F.xpirrsApril 18 19 83 ._
1
It
DEC 15 1982 20 In 52 Thr t6
DEC 15 1982 690K 52 Fa c:
H. Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity - C & J
Ambulance Service, Inc.
The Board reviewed the following letter from Joanne W.
Correll, C & J Ambulance Service, Inc.:
& J AMBULANCE SERVICEi D#4q
' -�► sf UTION LIST
o r ' P. O. Box 2213
Commissioners
STUART, FLORIDA 33494 Administrator
OD
Attorney
co'� o Personnel
December 1. 1982 public Works
Boar3—of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street,
Suite N-158
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Dear Commissioners,
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance '
Other
We are writing this letter requesting to be put on the agenda
for the December 15, 1982 meeting of the Board of County Commision-
ers regarding the renewal of our Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity in Indian River County.
C & J Ambulance Service is licensed by the sate of Florida as
a Non -Emergency Ambulance Service. We are also licensed as an Em-
ergency Service. During the past year we have made approximately
500 patient transports from Indian River County or to Indian River
County to various destinations. These transfers include routine
non -emergency trips and emergency transfers of Intensive Care and
Coronary Care patients to hospitals all over the state of Florida.
We also provide services for Baby teams arriving at the local air-
port and assist with infant transports. ._ 3
All of our employees are state licensed Emergency Medical
Technicians or Paramedics and we would like to continue serving
Indian River County with quality ambulance transfers of all types.
In regards to our rates we are pleased to say that there has
been no increase this year and at the present time do not forsee
any rate increases in the near future. As always our charges are
based on responding from Indian River County even though we are
based in St. Lucie County. The same rates apply in all counties.
For example it is a flat $60.00 base rate in Indian River County
as it is in St. Lucie, Martin and Okeechobee counties with no
charge for mileage.
Again, we would like to say that it has been a pleasure
serving Indian River County and would sincerely appreciate being
granted a certificate for the up and coming 1983 year. If there
are any questions you would like answered please call or write us
and we will answer them.
Sincerely,
9anne W. Correll
President
i
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the Renewal of Certificate of Public
Convenience & Necessity for C & J Ambulance
Service, Inc.
NON -EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
.hEREAS, the C & ►", AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICE provides qualyty
;.or.- e:aergency ambulance service to the citizens of Irdian Rivex
Coa-_ty; ana
w.,E�um, it has been demonstrated that there is a need for thi s
, bulance service to operate in the County and provide essential
servAces to the citizens of this County on a non-exclusive basis;
ara
W':�EREAS, the above ambulance service has indicated that it will
comply with ail the requirements of the Emergency Medical
Services Act of 1973, as amended; '•
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners of India- Rive.,-
County,
iveiCounty, Florida hereby issues a CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCII
AN NECESSITY to C & J AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICE from December
15, -982 to December 15, 1983 and that in issuing __ls
Certificate it is understood that the above named ambulance
service will meet the requirements of State Legis-ation ani:
provide non -emergency ambulance service f'or Indian River County.
ATTEF"':
Freda Wright, C .'Ark
Aaoptea:
DEC 15 1982
Decem ger 15, i98-
DEC
98-
BOARL OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Dori C. Scurlock, �r
Chairman
22
-:t.a�a�rr:.x:as^,axas�ru�z;J.�:�c�a+ra�;w r7
a��'tiQ',+• .',G form
,f &vunty Attorney
s K 52Fw?8
J
F,
DEC 15 1982 BOOK .2 FSE 329
I. Surplus Property -Procurement - Civil Defense
The Board discussed the following memorandum from
Civil Defense Director Nuzie:
TO:The Honorable Members of theDATE: December 8, 1982 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT:Authorization for Civil Defense
Director and His Alternate to
Procure Surplus Property - Florida
Division of Surplus Property
FROM: S. Le'e Nuzie REFERENCES:
Civil Defense Director
It is requested that the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners be authorized to sign the appropriate forms
(attached) allowing the Director of the Indian River County
Civil Defense and his designate the authority to procure surplus
property from the Florida Division of Surplus Property for•use
in Civil Defense endeavors.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
authorized the Civil Defense Director and his
Alternate to procure surplus property, and
authorized the Chairman to sign the appropriatL--
forms.
M M
ELIGIBILITY APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES
FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY UTILIZATION PROGRAM
Legal Name of Applicant Indian River County Civil_ Defense
Address Avenuge. Vero Beach Florida
County Indian River Area code 305
Date Agency began Operation Prior to 1965_
1. Check type of Agency: (See definitions onreverse side)
a.
Conservation ----
f.
State Agency ----
b.
Economic Development ----
g.
County Govt. ----
c.
Parks & Recreation
h.
City Government ----
d.
_
Public Safety
i.
Indian tribe, group, band,
e.
Museum ----
Pueblo (State Reser-
vation only) ----
J.
Other ----
2. Attach a narrative which describes the program and services offered.
Also attach evidence that the applicant is a public agency.
3. How is the activity funded: (Show percentages)
a. Tax -supported (other than by grant) 100%
b. By grant and/or contributions
c. Other (specify)
4. Attach completed Assurance of Compliance with GSA Regulations under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 606 of Title VI
of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949,
as amended, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
as amended.
t
5. Attach an Authorization Document completed by the Governing Board
or Body designating one or more representatives to act -for the
applicant acquiring property from the State Agency, to commit the
expenditure of funds, and to execute the State Agency's invoice/
issue sheet, including Terms, Conditions, Reservations, and Re-
strictions that the State Agency or GSA may -establish on the
property.
t -
SIGNATURE: G
ATE: December 15. 1882 Please print nameon this line: Don C. Scurlock, J .
s
TITLE: Chairman, Board of Coami.ssioners
Indian River County
FOR STATE AGENCY USE
Date Approved: Date Disapproved:
Conditional Eligibility Director:
23-A
Z mt- e3 0
I•
DEC 15 1982
:.'ondiscrimiaation Assurance
Assurance to be executed by authorized representative of
prior to receiving donations of surplus personal property
Surplus Property Agency on and after October 17, 1977:
B®OK52Fn�Ea�
donee activity
from the State
Assurance of Compliance with GSA
Regulations under Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 606
of Title VI of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, as
amended, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, as amended,
and Section 303 of the Age Discrimination„
Act of 1975.
Indian River County
Civil Defense Dunt , hereinafter called the "donee," hereby
(Name of donee)
agrees that the program for or in connection with which any property is
donated to the donee will be conducted in compliance with, and the donee
will comply with and will require any other person (any legal entity)
who through contractual or other arrangements with the donee is authorized
to provide services or benefits under said program to comply with, all
requirements imposed by or pursuant to the regulations of the General
Services Administration (41 CFR 191-6,2, or 101-85 issued under the provisions_ of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 606 of Title VI of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, and Section 303 of the Age Dis-
crimination Act of 1975, to the end that no person in the United States
shall on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, or age, or that no
otherwise qualified handicapped person shall solely by reason pf 'the handi-
cap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the
donee received Federal assistance from the General Services Administration;
And Hereby Gives Assurance That it will immediately take any eeasures
necessary to effectuate this agreement.
The donee further agrees that this agreement shall be subject in all 3
respects to the provisions of said regulations; that this agree=.snt shall
obligate the donee for the period during which it retains a—aership or
possession of any such property; that the United States shall have the
right to seek judicial enforce=ent of this agreement; and, this agreement
M
•
shall be binding upon arly successor in interest of the danee and the ---Ord
"donee" as used heiein includes any such successor in interest.
Dated December 15.. Tga2 Indian River Cou-n-ty Civil Defense Dept.
Donee
aE. 'to lorm
BY V
01
M. blimiideiibur tC i- a r -=s n of ty.'e/3-oard
tl.ty Allorpey
Administration Euildimcr
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Donee mailing address
0
DEC 15 1992
go 52 PA-G-tX01-2
v
C 15 1982. BOOK PA P .
II. Saecific Need!
T=dieate major items not ge-Ierajv7 available in the agency diztzibution-
Centers such as, but not limited to, ai=aaft and corsponents; vessels
and components; vehicles and components; construction equipment and cosaponeats;
heavy ccnstrsction materials; material handling equipment and components;
generators; compressors; musical instruments; machine tools and components;
scientific equipment; photographic equipment; printing equipment; refti"ratian
equipment; transportation equipment; shop equipment; computers and com-
ponents; reproduction equipment; major items of electronics; and other
specialized items of property.
Item Description narrative Justification (Purpose)
Tents 5 man or larger Emergency temporary shelter for
disaster victims.
Generators Electrical portable Emergency T=aer after disasters or
during -Dower failures.
Lighting Emergency portable Emergency lighting for emergency/
disaster situations.
Me -Ss equignent Field use To feed disaster victims
Kitchen equipment Portable field To prepare meals for disaster
victims.
- III. S'ninailA Iasi=ueticas .
Direct pick-up at federal holding agency ?ick -up at '.3 Cy
distribution cancer M Ship directly -by cor...san carrier
�\
Data December 15, 1982 Indian River County Civil Defense Dept.
I].igi3'_e Orgaai_atioa /
G t�G
s � Carti_: _ a
$aria' legal '':-
Chairman, Indian River County
-
Board of Commissioners
UYGal
Co k UV AU ney
M
• SURVEY OF PROPERTY NEMS, RESCURMS
AND OTTLIZ►TION CAPABILITUS
The Stats Agency for Federal Property Assistance, to more equitably
serve the needs of all participants, requests the below information and
stipulates that the data submitted will be used only for the purpose of
facilitating the fair and equitable distribution of property and for no
other purpose.,.- Public Law 94-519,.October 17, 1976, amends the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1944 and mandates that the
State lgency will provide for fair and equitable distribution of property
within the State based upon relative needs, resources and ability to utilize
available personal surplus property. This survey will be used to make those
` determinations. Your cooperation in supplying the requested data will be
appreciated.
I, General Data
A. Type of agency:
•F7X Public Agency Q Private -Nonprofit Institution
3. Resources Available: er
1. Funding source
•
x Tax appropriated funds Q Federal or State Grant
X
Q Tuition or charges for service Donations or contributions
El
2. Statement of relative financial ability (budget limitations, inability
to purchase from commercial sources, ext=aordiniazy•economic problems.,
etc.): Budget Limitations
Note: Other factors may be considered in the distribution of available
property such as, per capita income at residents of area, assessed
property values, economic ranking, and other data as published in the
Statistical Revert of the Department of Revenue and other similar razor__
C. Population served: 63,000
D. Capability for repair and maint_nance of property: Can repair oro-erty,
ourselves or can be repaired on contract.
r.. Ability to utilize requested property (statement of ut:ii:zcion potential,
ongoing need, temporary need, reserve backup, etc): Property will be
utilized -for manmade or natural disasters and for training emergency
DEC 15 1982 response groups for emergencies or disasters. e
to 52 PAGE P�.'�.
Boa 52 FA�r35
�AMREAS , the Florida State Agency known as the Division of Surplus
Property, Department of General Services, by authority of. the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,
makes available federal surplus personal property to public agencies
for public purposes, and to nonprofit tax-exempt health and educa-
tional institutions, and
WHEREAS ,Indi_an River County Civil Defense Dept., hereafter referred to
(Applicant Organization)
as the applicant, is desirous of utilizing the se_—�ri.ces and
resources 0:1 this Agency, and
WHEREAS, the Applicant further certifies that property is
needed and will be used by the recipient for carrying out or
promoting for the residents of a given political area one or
• more public purposes and for no other purposes, and
• WHEREAS, the Applicant further certifies that property is needed
and will be used by he recipient for educational or health purposes
including research and for no other purpose, and
WEMSEAS, the Applicant agrees that all items of property shall
be placed in use for the purposes for which acquired within one
-year of receipt and shall be continued in use for such purposes
for one year from the date the property was placed in use, and
in the event the property is not so placed in use, or continued
in use, the donee shall immediately notify the State agency, and
ret= said property to the State agency as direct -ed, and
WSE:REAS, the Applicant further agrees to abide by all additional
periods of restriction placed on property by the State Agency,
that is, 18 months on all passenger motor vehicles and other items
of property with a unit acquisition cost of $3,000 or more, except
for such itams of major equipment on which the State agency desig-
nates a fur•.her period of restriction as indicated on the distri-
bution- document, and
WH£REaS, the Applicant further agrees that during the period of
restriction, it will not sell, trade, .lease, Lend, bail, encumber,
or otherwise dispose of such property without prior approval of
the General Services Administration or., the State agency, and in
the event property is so disposed of without prior approval of the
General Services Administration or the Stateagency, the Applicant
will be liable for the fair mar -tat value or the fair rental value
of such property as determined by the General Services Administra-
tion or the State Agency, and
MIMM, the Applicant further agrees to remit promptly to the State.
agency for all fees assessed an all property acquired !or service
and handling expenses,
2'SE2E?O RE , 3E I'r RESOLVED, that the ?app li cant requests that
eligibility be established to paxtiCipatr in the :ederal Surplus
Property Conation Program, and
DEC 15 1982
fox 52 PAGE 36
: DEC 15 1982
600tK 2' f, 7
BE IT r Q TSE SaI►VED, that the Tn i an RiverC linty 171 1 Def nse Dena�ent
(App1j cant Urtjanlzati0n)
hereby certifies that he has read and understands the above .
December 15, 1982
(Date)
Administration Building
ess s lip
1840 25th Street
� C
( Signature )
Chairman, Board of Commissioners
Indian River County
MEMO)
Indian River 22=
-
(Agency)
)
Vero Beach Florida 32960 305/567-8000-
Te epaone
Persons authorized to sign for and receive orope_'rty and c=4.t
the expenditure of. fluids:
(Print)
Drs.nt)
PREPARED BY Robert T. Cushman
please print
PHONE # 3051567-2154
Appym.i 1� r��'
and leoa �!fiti. Krx,j!
Y Mtumuy_
M
Civil Defense
J. Agreement - Florida Power & Light - Civil Defense
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the Agreement between the State of
Florida, Department of Community Affairs, and
the County regarding Florida Power & Light
local funding for Civil Defense; and authorized
the signature of the Chairman.
A copy of the Agreement will be on file in the Office
of the Clerk when received.
K. Hospital Trustees Bonds
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the Bonds for newly elected Hospital
Trustees: Eleanor Hrdina, Robert O. Reider,
Hugh K. McCrystal, and Paul Parent.
Said Bonds are on file in the Office of the Clerk.
r
DEC 15 1982 24 I �Ep'�
DEC 15 1982
CLEAN INDOOR AIR RESOLUTION - DISCUSSION
BOOK 5,2
nut
The Board reviewed the following material:
TO: Board of DATE: December 3, 1982 FILE:
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Agenda Item --Clean Indoor
Air Resolution
FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg REFERENCES:
County Attorney
The County Commission received and reviewed a proposal from the
Lung Association for the adoption of a Clean Indoor Air Ordinance
similar to the one in effect in Palm Beach County at the November
17, 1982, Commission meeting. At that time the Commission decided
to adopt a resolution calling for voluntary means to improve the
quality of indoor air in places members of the public frequently
visit. Subsequently, the Lung Association submitted a proposed
resolution (a copy attached for your review). I have taken the
liberty of redrafting the resolution with some minor modifications,
and it is presented for your review today. Representatives of the
Lung Association and Tobacco Institute have been given copies of
the attached proposal for review. As of the date of this cover
letter, I have not received any comment from either group.
Respectfully submitted,.
. B
A gentleman representing the U. S. Tobacco Institute,
approached the Board and asked that this item be deferred
until some time in January. He then reviewed the following
letter regarding the proposed Clean Indoor Air Ordinance:
217 SOUTH AOAMS STREET - ,
POST OFFICQ BOX 1366
TA%i_%xA"r.x. FLORIDA 8$809
WILSON W. VMIGHT
ATTORNEY •AT LAW
December 10, 1982
TELEPHONM
(904) 224.5169
CO
1zN
x32_,,
Honorable Mike Wright
County Administrator
dms��strator
��.
p
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street CCN
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 ,/In t���2
Re: Proposed Clean Indoor Air Ordinance - Indian River County.
Dear Mr. Wright:
This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this morning and
serve to acknowledge the County Attorney's correspondence to me
dated -November 30th relative to the above captioned subject.
As indicated, we here have reviewed the proposals of the County
Attorney and the Lung Association and find that we are not prepared
to put our stamp of approval on either. As indicated, we have been
advised that there is -a proposed resolution which- may serve as a
model for this situation and be more in keeping with the terms of
the motion as is stated in our transcript of the November 17th
Indian River County Commission meeting.
It does not appear that we will be able to obtain a copy of the
other proposal prior to the December 15th Commission meeting mentioned
in the County Attorney's letter. Accordingly, we would like to
request postponement of the date for which the Resolution is scheduled
for final approval.
According to our conversation this morning, your Commission meets on
the first and third Wednesday of each month which would place the
following meeting of January 5th, but as I brought to your attention,
the wee}; of January 5th is inaugural week here in Tallahassee and the
legislative committees will also be meeting here.
Although this may not affect a great number of your people, we do
anticip'tLe that same tniglit- want to be here for. ;the, inaugural fostivities
nricrlil. wi:;l1 t'-) "' On 11"(1 in t.hu C'nl�.i.l.c�7. t.o discuss local
w1:iL.11 IMly I)k- 1 "111' vU1:,iuu:; IfuuL;u and Senate
C0IIU11it LeL!L; ,
Accordingly, we would ask that the matter be postponed until the
third Wednesday in January, or January 19, 1983.
Trusting you can acquiesce to
to an early response, I remain
our request, and looking forward
Sincerely,
Wilson W. Wright
Florida Counsel
U.S. Tobacco Institute
DEC 15 1982 26 � cK .2 PA
I
DEC 15 1982 60K
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Fletcher,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the
Board postpone this item until the January
meeting.
2 PAUE 3 I
The Chairman stated that, he would not vote for a
postponement.
Terry Lehman, representing the Lung Association, asked
the Board not to postpone this item as several people,
including himself, came from out of town to attend the
meeting today. He continued that their purpose was to
promote good health and he hoped this would not be postponed
any longer.
Ellis Pender, Sabal Palm Bowl, referred to the
proposed resolution prepared by the County Attorney, and he
felt that before it was adopted, the people in the business
community should have an opportunity to offer their input
for the preparation of a resolution.
The Chairman reminded him that he was present at the
meeting when this item was previously discussed, and he knew
it was scheduled for this meeting.
Mr. Pender noted that he would have to put in special
ventilation at his bowling alley. He could see no harm in
postponing the matter until later.
Commissioner Fletcher referred to paragraph two of the
proposed resolution and noted that it read "voluntary"
measures would be taken. He wondered if it could read
"mandatory."
The Attorney responded that you could not make
something "mandatory" by resolution.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It
was voted on and failed with a vote of 2 to 2,
Commissioners Fletcher and Bird voting in favor,
and Chairman Scurlock and Commissioner Wodtke
voting in opposition.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, that the Board delay
this item until 11:00, to allow time for a proposed
resolution from the Tobacco Institute to arrive.
Denise Driscoll, a Vero Beach business woman, came
before the Board, and spoke in favor of the resolution. She
commented that she does have "no smoking" signs in her store
but some people tend to ignore them; cigarette smoke does
create an odor problem with the goods that she sells.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - PAVING & PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
16TH AVENUE
The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication,
to -wit:
DEC 15 IOU 28 Bea 5.2 PA-UE312
F C 15 1992 nox 52 w1343
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a /Z&AT - c'
in the matter ofAey; fj 4-4L.;t jo4 s
�v
DEC 1982
Court, was pub
-
fished in the
AKOL
^� C� ` tiiC ist6 ��t -•
fished in said newspaper in the issues of OL 0 % � p/
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, fora 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 subscribed bef re me is day of, A.D. 19
1A L, 7,1 (OWness Manager)
(SEAL) tuiem of the Circuit Court, int&n River County, Florida)
- 2= -
PU BLIC NOTiCS1
remlbt.en duly passed aiss adonted this day
,asolurion ou rp+asW dad demoted this a1
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that fin Bard a
a . 1112.
ot . oar
Board Camp COmm.ssio."
Copmry Commissioners of India River
Beardol Comity Canmiss"Wera
a Oliver Ceuritr.
Comnty, Florida' WUI hod A pieblie heerdhq at
a Indian Rhver C-11, Florid►
: Due S C&N,
By: Dal C: Jr. CAariman
9:00 A.M. a WeeneRlay, Decamher U. 19x2, a
By: Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairmad
Wright.Cla
ANBat: atlaform, CIM
tbe Co.."— Chambers located at lana 2Hh
Attest: Freda Wright Clark
it
Approved as Io form
Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to consider
S
Apprev. he to form
and legal sulhciencr
admptia of the t011.wnng proposed .01" —1
dad legal sufficiency
By: Christopher 1. Paull
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
BY: Christopher J. Pawl
Assistant County Attorney
ASS+itaf County Anoult y
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RESOLUTION NO. a•
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
RESOLUTION 0.82.
A RESOLUESO OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROVIDING
COUNTY GOMMIf310NE45 OF INDIAN
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROVIDING
FOR CERTAIN PAVING ANO DRAINAGE
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROVIDING
FQR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IN ANDI&TH
IMPROVEMENTS TO 41TH AVENUE,
FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS AVENUE,
BETWEEN STH STREET AND 9TH PLACE;
IMPROVEMENTS TO 1STH AVENUE.
BETWEEN IST STREET S.W. AND IND
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
BETWEEN 2ND AND 4TH STREBTSJ
STREET: PROVIDING THE TOTAL
COST. METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF
ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRJP•
ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS. AND LEGAL
TION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRI P•
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY
SENEFITEp.
TION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY
BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, fns County Public Works
BENEFITED.`
WHEREAS. file County Public Works
Oiiparich nes received a Public +m-
• WHEREAS, the County Public Works
Department nes reteiv. a public m
prevent, petition, signed by more than fw
Department has received a public int•
provemenl petition, supped more man Nrw
thirds of the awners a property in tae area to
prevement petif+on. Signed by mare than Ilro.
er
thpds o! tbe owners a PrePsrtY in til area b
,be specially be,mihfe0, raquestinq paving and
thirds of the owners a Property m the era fo
dr lsving ant'
IV benefited. raquto
.drainage improvements to 47th Avenue,
be specially benefited requesting wring a.
mage fa
drainage imerevemmts Ie lam AveroA,'
between am Street and 9th Placa; and
has been Wt M.4
drainage improvements to ISth Avenue,
Street;
tmiweenh lst Sheet S.W. 012,4S11a11and.?"d
WHEREAS, the petition
antl meats tha requirements et Ordinance el•
between Ind Street 8" am and
.WHEREAS, the petit" has been verified
V=,PAS. She petition ads been r
and the returemenri a Ordmrlea ".
127, and design work including cast estimates
end meets the requirement. of ordinance a.
and de work including test sliftil
and tles
has been completed by tae Public Works
37, and design work including cast estimates
has Complete by tee Poblk: Werl11
Ids o is We
Department, and
nae been completed by the Public Works
rban t, A
Department, and
WHEREAS, the Iota estimated Cost a the
Departmem; and
WHEREAS, fetal a the
WHEREAS, the total estimated Coss of fail
proposedimprovemariis ft0.48L00; and
tiro estimated cost
Preps=6d ltnprOvemants nf7/.Of].Og:and i
WHEREAS, tae special assessment
proposed lmprovemenN N WIA32.00;and
WHEREAS, special all
provided hereunder Shall for my given record
WHEREAS, the ipeclal assessment
for
er
pTCvido6lhefgwhdet Shall for any gives record
-record
a4ner of property within tae oma aPec"ItY
ai met
provided hereunder shell any given record
Dre era
to
owner a Properly within the ata specu llyl
benefited, be in amPYm eta/
owner Prep n witad
equal ro the
'' be l the
benefited, be In a amount equal to that I
proportion a mventf
ty Percent"0( tide
ed a
benefited,
a (73
pro hnrtlon of seventy-five percent (Is P.,)
the which
the total costa the protect
of the
frontage
ve Percent percent)
+. seventy-five percent
o v
total me fed
a the teal cost a the pre1M which me'
owned
number a lincal last a rad age c
n
by the given awmer beam to the total number of
a the costa
of the Protea . o
number a Illegal lest arced irontase owned
number of Imeal fee? a mad tram Owned
l
lineal feel of rad hostage within the area
by the given owner beam to the total number a
by ibe gives career banrotbe roam number of
Hneal leve a reed jimmag, _mm the
apeciallr b "all add shag become idle and
Ik ESI feet a read frontage within the area
specialty baefited, and San became ant
payable of fie Oilice a She Tax Collecto' a
specialty benefited, and Shell become dim and
a
Payable at Bid Odea a the Ta Collector a
Indlon River County napery (90) dars after tae
payable at the Office a She Tax Caeder
days Me
Indian River County lei Imo (Sal days altar the
final determination a tha spacial assessment
Indian River County nmety, (981 after
the $Defd assmmat
Sinal deturs
purauat to Ordinance $147, and
Hhai determination a the Special assessment
Pursuers to rein a
WHHREASI Indian River County Mall pay
pursuant to Ordinance 8l•27;and
River County
R-A;and
S, Indian
WHEREAS, ladian titter s44U pmy
the remaining lwMIY-five Percent (15 Percent)
WHEREAS, Indian shall pay
(25
cent(2
the eatnetmme twenty fire percept (elf tmrtali)
a Sha total cost of the protea; and
the remamingtwouty-five percent percent)
the total a the and
a trig totalcostathaproject, mad -
WHEREAS.anyapecm18SWIlsinenfllaead
wNhm said niaery (90) tlay peN00 snag bar
a cast probes;
WHEREAS, any apeelal easessment rot pad
WHEREAS. any speeialassesfinempm paid
interest beyond law due date at a rale
within aid ninety (901 day period Meg bear
within mid ninety (gal day Ported tory beer
established by tae Bard a County Cam-
Interest beyond the due data at a rate
mlem! beyond tris Ow daht at a rate
established by me Board a County Cpm.
miesimers at the time of preparation of the
final assessment roll, and $hall be payable m
established by file. Bard a' County Cam•
mifshoners m the time of preparation a the
en at me Tithed preparation a the
two C7) equal mstallmmlN, the first to be mai
final assessment raft, and shelf be payable m
fftmiMiss
/mel assessment rel, end Iden be wraba lo
Pay
two (2) equal installneems. the fIM to be made
ve 111) months tram the lone date and 1be
leeold ro be made twentV.foUr (24) months
two (2) equal ImIaRlltenN, the first to be in
twelve (12) months tram the the date ant elm
twelve (12) momlms from the due data and the
from the due date, and
second to be made (weeny -fop (24) month
� to xi meds twenty (tel aelnitts
WHBREAS.eHereaammen.ath ,mime
nd anticipated usage a the proposed im.
from the due natal and
WHEREAS. aHerexa"Him of the note
from the dyedate, and :..
WHEREAS,.afterexa inatimottbeeStn
provements, the Board of Cooney Core-
and anticipated use" a the proposed im•
nit ant+cipafed usage Boa a Om proposed kit.
prevematfa, elm board a Candy Coag
tmssimairs has determined that the following
provemeaH.. the Bard a County Cum.
missionary has determined 'hotfad following
I1limianem has determle d that She /0ltgpklgl
described properties Shell receive a direct and
special benefit from these Improvements, to
described properties shall receive a direct and
described properties shell receive A dim" and
wit:
speshal benefit tram these haproW mmlN, to
wit,
special benefit from from improver Irl
wits
Loft 10-19, Bleck L Lots 1•a, Black 4, as
Showa' an the Plot a Glaldale Lakes SUP LOU 1.12, Bloch A; Loft ". Wick S. snd
division . record m Plat Book L Page a of Tract A, Block B1 his Shown on the Plot a
PuWC Records a St. Lucie County, Florida. BamY VISte Acres SuldivNhd a rW. In
All a above lo11A IIOw lymg and being In Indian Plot Book a, Page Tot Public ge:dsalndlon
River county. River County, Plarida.
i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED MOW, THEREFORE, BB IT RESOLVED
j BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM BY THE BOARD 'OF COUNTY COM-
,MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA,a$fa]tMS:
1. Tha fe-equina recitals am atNrmed end
rofiHed m their a"".
2. A Protect Providing t paving the
drainage
improvements to 47th Avenue,
between Sth Street loss 9th Place, heragtma
designated es Public Works Protea NO, 11127,
is hereby approved sublet, to me farms
outlined above and all applicable
requpemmft a Ordinancont•Wa
The commissioner
resolution was eHaap by
The mtsU.er who moved Its issioner
The motion was gputto by Commissioner
hi '
and, up. being put to a vote, the vote was
AS
Chairman Doh C. Scurlock Jr.
Vice Chairman A. Grover Fetcher
Commimener Patrick 8: Lyon '
Contra ssiader William C. Wod/keJr.
COmmisslamr Dick Bird
The Chairman thereupon declared me
' IOWIUao duty pasmdand adopted this day
a ,1982.
Bardacoumy Cent bmWom 11
of Indian River County, Florida' -
Br Don C. Smrlpck Jr., Chapman
AO. Preda Wri.7M.perk
APprov.
.lateral
and -earl s nsh" ".W
get Chhstopaer J. Pall
AOittant County Aftoiwt
RESOLUTION NO. a2•
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA, PROVIDING
FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS TO 48TH AVENUE,
BETWEEN BTX AND 10TH STREETS;
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIP•
TION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY
BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works
DWartMOM has received a public Ra-
pmvament petition. Signed by more than Iwo
tiros a the owner a properly m th Area tO
beSPeciallY benefited, requeNlne Ad and
WnEREA5, the Petition has been verified
end meas the requiremmri a Ordinance 81-
21, And design Work Including cod estimates
has teen competo by the Public Works
WNEREAS, Ile teal mHoso ed cost a int
proposed +m ProvemenIs le s28.8esA0; end
WHEREAS, the special asfe$smant
provided h8reunder $hall for say given retard
owner of property within the area specialty
.benefited, be in an amount equal to that
propmfion of aevary•Hve perces} (75 percent)
of the rota cost of me protect Which the
number of lineal lea or rad frontage Owned
ay file given owner bean ro the total amber a
Ilneal fat of road Ironroge within th era
specially benefited end sha11 became low and
payable at the Office of the Tax Colnctar a
Indian River COunry ninety (90) days after ung
final emto rdlad a the spetrol attafsmat
Pursuant ref Ordlnanm Si•t7, ant
WHEREAS. Indian River County shelf Pay
the remaining tweaMlivepeream (25 percents
of the total costa the protect, and
W14EREAS, any Spatial assessment net Pad
Within said numry (901 day period Mall bear
Interest beyond til due data at a rase
established by the Board a Canty Com.
mbsiohn a1 the time a preparation a the
final asmasmaf roll, and Mal be payable m
film (2) Baal im/allmmts, til nw. be mina
twelve (12) maths from the due dote and iha
second to he made tWeay-tem (24) al.th
from the da date; arm -.,l
WHEREAS, after examutgrH ofmabalura
and anticipated usage of She Proposed tm-
Prevements, the Board of Courcy Com•
missioaers has determined Mat The following
described propenres shall receive a direct and
Special benefit from them lmproremants, to
.1
Las 1.14, Block 21 Lea 611, Block 4, Lail 6
10, Black 2; as shown on the Plan
ol Glendale
Lakes Subdivision a record in Of Bank 2,
Page 25 Of Poetic Redmds a St. Lucie County.
Florida. All of above land num, IYmg and being
,n Indin River County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM.
NISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, as foltows,
1. Ta lore9Oing recitals We eHirru d and
,atiNed m their entirety.
2. A prefect providing t paying and
$rat"" impravemems to Sam Avenue,
,ehYeen nth Street and fah Street, neretofPra
tesi9aated 45 Public Works Project Na. a12a,
I hereby epidoyetl suniect f0 the terms
Hrtlined ebaye antl all apps+Cab/e
•equtramanftal ordinlav<e Bt•27.
TM foregoing eenknim was offered BY
:Ommissiefler who moved its adoli lon.
rhe notion was seconded by Curnm+sl+omr
and, up" Heng Put to a vote, the you was
�� � r.
vice Chairman
Da C.S rarer is
DECVice Cit ike— A Grover Protcber
! Commrtsmtmr Patrick B. Lyons
ICmnmtsso ?Ickam Cao. eJr"-"
Comm,:Sumxr W1l e,• rd
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
F 1. The foramina
inn r i
. L The fareaoin9 reared are BNirto. add
2nd s
to a9
JOE er paying and
IS to, fifth Avenda.
4th Street, heretetore
still Prot Nm ML
abject to tbe terms
d all applicable
By, ChristapherJ. POOR
Assistant CoatttY Attorney
RESOLUTION AD. 82.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING
FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS TO 17TH AVENUE,
BETWEEN 2ND AND 4TH STREETS;
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST. METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIP.
TION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY
BENEFITED.
WHEREAS. the County ,Public Works
DePeftmed has received a public +m•
pravemml pmitkm, signed by mme than Mo-
thirds of the owners a property in me ami to
be specialty benefited, requesting paving add
drainage improvements to 17th Avenue.
between 2nd Street and 4th Street, And
WHEREAS, the petition has been verified
and tough The requirements a Ordinance at.
27, and design Work Including cost estimate
has been completed by the Public Works
Department, and
WHEREAS, tae total estimated teat atbe
Proposed IMPrgvmnalts N s27Af3.00; and
WHEREAS, the special a sessvim
provided hereunder $ha4 t aY girth record
choler of property witbln me era speCtafiY
benefited, be la a amount equal to that
proportion a seventy-five percent (75 percent)
Of the total Cost a the "00 which the total
"Inner a agnate fee a to arae owned by the
given Owner bears to fail total amber of
square feet for all lots co n d, lying within
fin Alen Specially ba fileOL and Gall become
due and payable of the Office a the Tax
Collect a ladfa River CPw)ry a/nery (90)
days after the anal deterome.4 m 011—
special
1mor
special asmss111at poROalt to 4Nd— al.
271 and
WHEREAS, Indian River Calm" silt. PAY
the remaining twent"ve percent 12S peri a)
a the total ora a tae protea; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not pad
within ad Wholy (90) day peri. sluff bear
Interest beyond Sae Dae date al a rill,
established by the Board a Catuty Com
missione,s at the Limo a preparation a th,
final assessment roll, and $half be Fatalist*
two (2) equal installments, the tint 10 be mad
twelve 1121 months from the Baa ate 4ed The
second 10 be Made Iwentyfam (24) montm
tram thaduedate; add
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed
radf ed in their entirety.
L A protect providing for permp
dramaan Improvements to I7th Ava
between 2nd Street and a8 Serest. harem
designated as Public Works Project Ne. a
Is hereby approved mbtect tO the fa
outlined above and all applica
repo+r tS a Ordinance 81.21.
The foregoing MSO41tfa0 Was offered
Cemmissaner who moved Its ~
The merlon was secaded by Comtoissk
and. Upon pima put to a vote. tbe Waft,
as felt—:
chat—an Dan C. Scurlock Jr.
Vice Chairman A. Grover Fe/cher
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyne
Cammisseferwilliam C. YJgdikAlr,
Canmesionel Dick Bird ^^' .__..__.
Loa i-41:
Block A, Left i std L Black O;
1 and 2, Bloch E: a shun 00 the
Moreland Subdivision on record m Put
Page 12 a Public Records a Indian
County, Florida, and Loft 1-1. Block A;
9, Block B: as shown an He ptof of i
-River Heights, Unit 4 Plot Scroll 4, Pa94
Public Records a Indian River t;?IAW
Plaride.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RES=
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY C
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUI
FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recital. are alHrmsO
vis"Hed m theirehi imry. •
2• A project prov6.9 far pa
drainage UnpNovemants ro 16th r paying
between 10 Streaf S.W. aid Lss S
hratbMra desi9afed es Publh Wort' PI
No. 8221, It heresy, approved sublect h
farms outlined a-- nr.a ... —
Loft
PN ot
9aek 4,
River
sal.
dated
4f 41
7 -
had
Commifsiotar —mm was after. by
who moved its adoption.
Th. Tmote" Way secieded by Commissioner
_end. opium being pm to a vete, the rota wee
Chairman Doe G fcerlOck Jr.
Vice Chafrma 4 Grover Lvhas
COMMIStlexuar$iMW William
B. LYas
Commissioner Williamd WedheJr.
Commissioner Dick Bird
The
Chalrmae thmuPm ditl and the
of .1982. less. and adopted this day
a ,1982.
Board of Cgary CcWuxox". Florida Of mtlleh River County, Florida
By: Da C. Scurlock Jr„ Chairman
for me improvements described in the abov
reamutio The preliminary, assessment roll
WE currently he file with tae Public work
Division and open for mepeafon between m
hours of 8:10 AJA, and 3:00 PA%. Marina
through Friday.
If a Person deckle$ to appeal my decisie
made by the Commission with rarisect a -
a record Of the PrgCeed1n966 and that. ler suC
Purpose. he may need to ensure mat a ver
bench record a the Proceedings is made
which record htd.es the testimony an
evidence upgp which the appeal is to be hosed.
N 30
2 PA -17E34_4
.DEC 15 1982
The Board reviewed the following memorandum from Public
Works Director Davis:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: November 29, 1982
Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright, County Administrator
FILE:
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution
Providing for the Paving of Portions
of 15th Avenue, 16th Avenue, 17th
Avenue, 47th Avenue and 48th Avenue
to Consider Preliminary Assessment
Rolls
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E5JY REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION
Valid petitions have been received from at least 66.7% of the property owners
of the following streets It
1) 15th Avenue between 2nd and 4th Street (Preliminary cost $27,053.00)
79% property owners.
2) 16th Avenue between 1st St. SW and 2nd Street (Preliminary Cost
$27,053.00), 67% property owners
3) 17th Avenue between 2nd and 4th Street (Preliminary Cost $27,053.00)
72% property owners
4) 47th Avenue between 8th Street and 9th Place (Preliminary Cost
$20,483.00) 70% property owners
5) 48th Avenue between 8th Street and 10th Street(Preliminary Cost
$28-,804.00) 68% property owners -
Preliminary assessment rolls have been prepared for the paving and drainage
improvements. The total costs of all -projects is approximately $130,446.
There is approximately $137,463 now set aside in FY 82-83 budget for
Petition Paving Account No. 703-214-541-35.39.
Also, advertisement of the Public Hearing and notification to the Property
Owners have been performed.
RECO MMATIONS AND FUNDING
After consideration of the public input provided at the Public Hear?ng, it
is recommended that motions be made to:
1) Adopt resolution, providing for the paving and drainage improvements
for each petition paving project, subject to the terns outlined in the
Resolutions.
2) Approve preliminary assessment rolls including any changes made as a
result of the Public Hearblg.
3) Allocate $130,446.00 from the Petition Paving account to fund this work.
4) The Road and Bridge Department be notified to begin construction,
The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who
wished to be heard.
Anna Rochowiak, 110 16th Avenue, came before the Board
and stated that she was concerned about the drainage and
wondered if it would be an extra expense to the homeowners
in the area.
Mr. Davis noted that they would survey the whole area
completely and incorporate the drainage improvements in
association with the paving. He felt they have an
obligation to improve the drainage, and 100% of the drainage
work would not be included in the petition paving program.
Ms. Rochowiak inquired if she was supposed to move the
mailbox.
Mr. Davis advised that they would try to select a
location that would be easy for the people on the street and
the mailman to reach.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
agreed to close the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 82-132 providing for
paving and drainage improvements to 16th
Avenue, between 1st St. SW, and 2nd St.,
at a preliminary cost of $27,053.
DEC 15 1982 32 �2 PE
DEC 15 1992
Eau
RESOLUTION NO. 82- 132
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO
16TH AVENUE, BETWEEN 1ST STREET S.W. AND 2ND STREET;
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has received
a public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the
owners of property in the area to be specially benefited, request-
ing paving and drainage improvements to 16th Avenue, between 1st
Street S. W. and 2nd Street; and
WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and meets the
requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost
estimates has been completed by the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed
improvements is $27,053.00; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall
for any given record owner of property within the area specially
benefited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-
five percent (75%) of the total cost of the project which the
number of lineal feet of road frontage owned by the given owner
bears to the total number of lineal feet of road frontage within
the area specially benefited, and shall become due and payable at
the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County ninety (90)
days after the final determination of the special assessment
pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the remaining
twenty-five percent (25%) of the total cost of the project; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said
ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at
a rate established by the Board of County Commissioners at the
time of preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be
payable in two (2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve
(12) months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-
four (24) months from the due date; and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated
-1-
usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County
Commissioners has determined that the following described
properties shall receive a direct and special benefit from these
improvements, to wit:
Lots 1 - 4, Block A; Lots 1 and 2, Block D; Lots 1 and 2,
Block E; as shown on the Plat of Moreland Subdivision on
record in Plat Book 4 Page 12 of Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida and Lots 1 - 5, Block A; Lots 1 - 9,
Block B; as shown on the Plat of Indian River Heights, Unit 4
Plat Book 6 Page 86 of Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve-
ments to 16th Avenue, between lst Street S. W. and 2nd Street,
`_Wtatofore designated as Public Works Project No. 8223, is hereby
approved subject to the terms outlined. above and all applicable
requirements of Ordinance 81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Wodtke and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, 'Jr. `° Aye
Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Aye
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Absent
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Dick Bird Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 15th day of December , 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By ! C 2zae 1::604
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
Attest:
.A�
FREDA WRIGHT, Cle
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEG UFC ENCY
By
CHRISTPHER t. PAULL
Assistant County Attorney
D
E C 15 1982 -2- �X PA -348
DEC 15 1992
I
PUBLIC HEARING - PAVING & PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
17TH AVENUE
The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who
wished to be heard.
Ms. Garbers, 335 17th Avenue, came before the Board,
and inquired about the curve in the road between 16th and
17th Avenues.
Mr. Davis advised that he had received a petition from
the people that live in the area concerning the curve, and
his department would be considering it shortly, and it would
be brought before the Board.
Kenneth Durant, 660 15th Avenue, asked the Board if the
$27,053 figure would be the total cost for the project.
Mr. Davis emplained his department felt the project
would not exceed that cost, unless something unforeseeable
would occur.
The Chairman interjected that this figure was an
estimate and the estimates were generally high. He added
that there would be two years to pay for his portion of the
project.
The Attorney stated that interest would only have -to -be
paid on the unpaid balance.
Discussion followed, and it was determined that this
matter would come before the Board again for its approval of
the final assessment roll for the petition paving.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
agreed to close the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 82-133 providing for
paving and drainage improvements to 17th
Avenue, between 2nd and 4th Streets, at a
preliminary cost of $27,053.
36
_ 1982
BAR.
DEC '15 1982 610K 5.2 a '1
RESOLUTION NO. 82-133
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO
17TH AVENUE, BETWEEN 2ND AND 4TH STREETS;
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has received
a public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the
owners of property in the area to be specially benefited, request-
ing paving and drainage improvements to 17th Avenue, between 2nd
Street and 4th Street; and
WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and meets the
requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost
estimates has been completed by the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed
improvements is $27,053.00; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall
for any given record owner of property within the area specially
benefited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-
five percent (75%) of the total cost of the project which the
total number of square feet of lot area owned by the given owner
bears to the total number of square feet for all lots combined
lying within the area specially benefited, and shall become ---due
and payable at the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River
County ninety (90) days after the final determination of the
special assessment pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the remaining
twenty-five percent (25%) of the total cost of the project; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said
ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at
a rate established.by the Board of County Commissioners at the
time of preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be
payable in two (2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve
(12) months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-
four (24) months from the due date; and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated
-1-
usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County
Commissioners has determined that the following described
properties shall receive a direct and special benefit from these
improvements, to wit:
Lots 17 - 31, Block A; Lots 1 - 9, Block B; Lots 2 - 6, Block
C; as shown on the Plat of Indian River Heights Unit 3
Subdivision on record in Plat Book 6 Page 49 of Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve-
ments to 17th Avenue, between 2nd Street and 4th Street,
heretofore designated as Public Works Project No. 8221, is hereby
approved subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable
requirements of Ordinance 81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Wodtke and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Aye
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Absent
Commissioner William C. Wodtke; Jr. Aye
Commissioner Dick Bird Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 15th
Attest:
FREDA WRIGHT, CUTrk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEE UFF ENCY
By t ;f
CHRiSTRPHER J. PAULL
Assistant County Attorney
day of December , 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
DEC 15 1982 -2- Bic52 P,?Gc 352
DEC 15 1982 nox 52, PA.Gc ` '5�3
PUBLIC HEARING - PAVING & PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
15TH AVENUE
Mr. Davis stated that they had a petition from the
property owners to not do any drainage work; the County
would do just the paving work.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who
wished to be heard.
Grace Schneider, 356 15th Avenue, came before the
Board, and discussed the open ditch near her home. She
wondered if this ditch could be covered.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the ditch could not be
covered as it served as a ditch for drainage for the
neighbors. He continued that if she would like to purchase
a culvert, the County -crews would be happy to install it for
her at approximately $6 a foot. He asked Ms. Schneider to
meet with him on the culvert matter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
agreed to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Fletcher asked for clarification regarding
culverts, and whether this work should be done only when the
County crews were doing the paving work in the neighborhood.
Mr. Davis responded that staff would have to determine
the circumstances and then make a judgment on the matter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 82-134 providing for
paving and drainage improvements to 15th
Avenue, between 2nd and 4th Streets, at a
preliminary cost of $27,053.
RESOLUTION NO. 82134
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO
15TH AVENUE, BETWEEN 2ND AND 4TH STREETS;
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has received
a public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the
owners of property in the area to be specially benefited, request-
ing paving and drainage improvements to 15th Avenue, between 2nd
Street and 4th Street; and
WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and meets the
requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost
estimates has been completed by the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed
improvements is $27,053.00; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall
for any given record owner of property within the area specially
benefited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-
five percent (75%) of the total cost of the project which the
number of lineal feet of road frontage owned by the given owner
bears to the total number of lineal feet of road frontage within
the area specially benefited, and shall become due and payable at
the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County ninety (90)
days after the final determination of the special assessment
pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the remaining
twenty-five percent (25%) of the total cost of the project; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said
ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at
a rate established by the Board of County Commissioners at the
time of preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be
payable in two (2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve
(12) months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-
four (24) months from the due date; and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated
-1-
DEC 15 1992
BOOK 5.2 Fn iC 355
usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County
Commissioners has determined that the following described
properties shall receive a direct and special benefit from these
improvements, to wit:
Lots 1 - 12, Block A; Lots 1 - 9, Block B, and Tract A, Block
B; as shown on the Plat of Bonny Vista Acres Subdivision on
record in Plat Book 6 Page 7 of Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve-
ments to 15th Avenue, between 2nd Street and 4th Street,
heretofore designated as Public Works Project No. 8228, is hereby
approved subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable
requirements of Ordinance'81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Fletcher 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 Absent
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Dick Bird Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 15th day of December , 1982•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By C
DON C. SC LOCK, JR.
Chairman
Attest: �� I i
FREDA WRIGHT, erk
APPROVED IhIc TO FORM
AND LEG UFF IENCY
BY
_ TV&� I.4
CHRISTOWSR J/ PAULL
Assistant County Attorney
PUBLIC
- PAVING & PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
48TH AVENUE
The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who
wished to belheard.
Warren ichards, 881 48th Avenue, approached the Board,
and referred to an area near Lot 7 on Block 4 that has never
been include in the petition - it would consist of 170'
additional f et. He advised that the following names should
be added to the petition: Mr. and Mrs. Cole, and Mr. and
Mrs. Rattray. They were not on the original petition but
now they are in favor of it.
` ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
agreed to close the public hearing.
Discussion followed about the petition paving on 47th
Avenue, and it was determine not to take any action on 48th
Avenue until the public hearing concerning 47th Avenue was
held.
PUBLIC HEARING - PAVING & PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
47TH AVENUE
The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who
wished to be heard.
Kent Merrill, 916 47th Avenue, came before the Board,
and stated that they do have a valid petition for their
street. He added that they had been trying for five years
to get 47th Avenue paved and he urged the Board to do the
project.
Mary Askew, 4721 9th Place, came before the Board and
stated
that
she had
met with
Mr.
Davis on
December 3,
1982,
and at
that
time he
had not
had
a valid
petition.
She
continued
that on December 13th,
another name was
received
DEC 15
1982
42
2 ?A TGE 356
K
DEC 15 1992
B�aK 2 P'AUE,357
to be added in favor of the petition. She felt this hearing
should be postponed. Ms. Askew stated there were no
completed engineering plans on the project; she also felt it
would be a financial burden.
Len Spangler, 936 47th Avenue, approached the Board,
and commented it was his understanding that the petition was
valid; then became invalid when one person withdrew. He
stated that he presented a letter from Mrs. Fuller to Mr.
Davis, voting affirmatively for the project.
Bill Hanson, 886 47th Avenue, came before the Board and
inquired if the County would have initiated this project
without the homeowners' petition.
Mr. Davis responded that the County probably would not
have; it was the County's position that when there is an
unpaved road between two paved roads, it would be desirable
to pave that one also.
Mr. Hanson discussed the drainage, swales and
cut-throughs to the back ditches; he also felt the road the
County planned to construct, with an inverted crown, would
be an experimental road. He felt the petition was invalid,
and was against the paving on that principle. •--
Discussion followed regarding whether the petition was
based on 2/3 or more of the land owners being in favor, or
if were based on 2/3 or more of the lands involved.
Mr. Davis stated it could be either way, but he figured
the lineal feet amounted to 70.10%, which was enough. He
commented that staff had not developed detailed engineering
projects on the other four roads at this time; they were
trying to prioritize their work. Mr. Davis noted that as
far as an inverted crown road being experimental, it was
not; they would have to study the area to determine which
method to use.
Mary Perrotta, 4760 8th Place, approached the Board,
and briefly discussed the bad drainage in the area.
L71
Margery Merrill, 916 47th Avenue, commented to the
Board that Vista Royale had done the inverted crown and it
worked well.
Ms. Calmes, 936 47th Avenue, stated that she wished to
inject a little humor into the discussion. Because of the
bad drainage in her driveway, she would love to vacate the
turtle that resides at the end of her driveway.
Mr. Davis talked about the surveyors preparing a
detailed topographic survey of the area; staff would then
study the options, and meet with the people to discuss the
results of their study. He pointed out that they were not
trying to force a particular type of system for the roads,
but would like to advise the people of their options.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
agreed to close the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 82-135 providing for paving
and drainage improvements to 48th Avenue,
between 8th and 10th Streets, at a
preliminary cost of $28,804.
DEC 15 1982 44 610K .2 PAVE 38
DEC 15 1982
�
B {IK .2 Fryutnr 359
RESOLUTION NO. 82- 135
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO
48TH AVENUE, BETWEEN 8TH AND 10TH STREETS;
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has received
a public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the
owners of property in the area to be specially benefited, request-
ing paving and drainage improvements to 48th Avenue, between 8th
Street and 10th Street; and
WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and meets the
requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost
estimates has been completed by the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed
improvements is $28,8-04.00; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall
for any given record owner of property within the area specially
benefited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-
five percent (75%) of the total cost of the project which the
number of lineal feet of road frontage owned by the given owner
bears to the total number of lineal feet of road frontage within
the area specially benefited, and shall become due and payable at
the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County ninety (90)
days after the final determination of the special assessment
pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the remaining
twenty-five percent (25%) of the total cost of the project; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said
ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at
a rate established by the Board of County Commissioners at the
time of preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be
payable in two (2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve
(12) months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-
four (24) months from the due date; and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated
-1-
usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County
Commissioners has determined that the following described
properties shall receive a direct and special benefit from these
improvements, to wit:
Lots 1 - 14, Block 3; Lots 6 - 11, Block 4; Lots 6 - 10,
Block 2; as shown on the Plat of Glendale Lakes Subdivision
on record in Plat Book 2 Page 25 of Public Records of St.
Lucie County, Florida. All of above land now lying and being
in Indian River County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve-
ments to 48th Avenue, between 8th Street and 10th Street,
heretofore designated as Public Works Project No. 8128, is hereby
—approved subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable
requirements of Ordinance 81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Fletcher 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 Absent
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Dick Bird Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 15th day of December , 1982.
Attestr�--9""
FREDA WRIGHT, C rk
APPROVED TO FORM
AND LEG $UF I ENCY
By
CHRIST ER J PAULL
Assistant County Attorney
0 E C 15 1982
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By__`: C
DON C. SC RLOCR,
Chairman
-2-
tic' E360
DEC 15 1982
52 pp6r- 361
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 82-136 providing for paving
and drainage improvements to 47th Avenue,
between 8th Street and 9th Place, at a
preliminary cost of $20,483.
RESOLUTION NO. 82-136
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO
47TH AVENUE, BETWEEN 8TH STREET AND 9TH PLACE;
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has received
a public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the
owners of property in the area to be specially benefited, request-
ing paving and drainage improvements to 47th Avenue, between 8th
Street and 9th Place; and
WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and meets the
requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost
estimates has been completed by the Public Works Department; and
_ y WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed
improvements is $20,483.00; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall
for any given record owner of property within the area specially
benefited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-
five percent (75%) of the total cost of the project which the
number of lineal feet of road frontage owned by the given owner
bears to the total number of lineal feet Cl of road frontage within
the area specially benefited, and shall become due and payable at
the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County ninety (90)
days after the final determination of the special assessment
pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the remaining
twenty-five percent (25%) of the total cost of the project; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said
ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at
a rate established by the Board of County Commissioners at the
time of preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be
payable in two (2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve
(12)
months from
the
due
date
and the.second to be made twenty-
four
(24) months
from
the
due
date; and
W
WHEREAS, after examination
of the nature and
anticipated
DEC, 5
W
DEC 15 1982 5.2 F��.0
usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County
Commissioners has determined that the following described
properties shall receive a direct and special benefit from these
improvements, to wit:
Lots 10 - 19, Block 5, Lots 1 - 6, Block 4, as shown on the
Plat of Glendale Lakes Subdivision on record in Plat Book 2
Page 25 of Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. All
of above land now lying and being in Indian River
County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve -
meets to 47th Avenue, between 8th Street and 9th Place, heretofore
designated as Public Works Project No. 8127, is hereby approved
subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable
requirements of Ordinance 81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Fletcher and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr.
Commissioner Dick Bird
Aye
Aye
Absent
Aye — 3
Aye
The Chairman
thereupon
declared the resolution
duly
passed and adopted this
15th
day of December
, 1982.
Attest:
FREDA WRIGHT, Colerk
APPROVED c TO FORM
AND LE 9UFF,TC"ENCY
By
CHRIS R J. �PAULL
Assist t County Attorney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
-2-
DON -C. SCU LOCK, JR
Chairman
INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEE
Administrator Wright then introduced a new employee,
who would be working in the Engineering Department, Keith
McCully.
PUBLIC HEARING - TERMINATION OF IXORA UTILITIES FRANCHTRF
AND ASSESSMENT OF COUAITY RATES
The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the
Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of
Publication attached, to -wit:
VERO REACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
-Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach
in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of �.Y )re/7
in the ss Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of �P� •^/ 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 su
(SEAL)
A.D. 19
Manager)
County, Florida)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Public Hearing for Ixora Utilities ter-
mination of franchise and assessment of
standard county rates shall be heard 10:00
a.m., Wednesday, December 15, 1982, at the
County Commission Chambers at the Indian
River County Administration Building, 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960.
All interested parties are invited to attend
and will be given an opportunity to be heard at
that time. The service area is the tract of land
including Ixora Park and Eastview Gardens.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matters, he -she will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he -she may need to ensure that a ver-
batim record of the, proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony in
evidence on which the appeal is based.
Dec. 6, 1982_1 _
DEC 15 1982 50 BOOK Z PAVE
�
0 "
,,
Z 0 C ccoo
N
Co
mmzM
<
DEC 15 1982 50 BOOK Z PAVE
DEC 15 1982, BOK 52 Pr,.�r 365
TO:
THROUGH:
The Board reviewed the following memorandum from
Terrance G. Pinto, Utilities Director:
Honorable Board of County DATE: November 29, 1982 FILE:
Commissioners
Michael Wright
County Administrator
Perrance G. Pinto
Utilities Director
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
SUBJECT: ECTT: Ixora Utilities Rate Hearing,
Termination of Franchise
� eEFEREI a` ES:
The Utilities Department hasbeenadvised by the County Attorney that until
the County Commission holds a Public Hearing for the purpose of terminating
the Ixora Utilities franchise and passes a resolution terminating the
franchise, we cannot charge the rates under the current county rate
schedule.
For an average customer who uses 5,000 gallons per month at Ixora, the
rate difference would be:
Amended
Ixora Rate Ordinance Rate
Water (for 5,000 gal. min.) $ 6.00 $15.7 -_
Sewer 7.00 15.75
TOTAL $13.00 $31.50
ANALYSIS:
Services for the Ixora residences have been improved. The new trunk line
connecting their system to South County Water System is under construction
with a completion date in approximately 60 days.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Following the Public Hearing, it is recommended that the Ixora Franchise be
terminated and the Utility Division be authorized to change the rates and
charge in accordance with the county rate ordinance. The effective date of this
authorization shall be the First bill rendered following the approval of
the resolution.
Mr. Pinto discussed the system at Ixora Utilities,
which had been up -graded, and the customers would be
receiving improved service.
Commissioner Bird inquired when this system would be
put into the County's system.
Mr. Pinto felt that within 45 days, the County would
have water to Ixora. He also explained about the sewer
plant which should be completed in about a year.
Brief discussion followed.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who
wished to be heard. There were none.
- ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
agreed to close the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board
adopt Resolution 82-137 terminating the Ixora
Utilities Water & Sewer Franchise, incorporating
the system into the County system, and
authorizing the County rates.
Mr. Pinto reiterated that the entire service was
greatly improved, and the amount of complaints have been
reduced. He added that there are approximately 273
customers on the Ixora system, and the lines there are about
20 years old.
Discussion followed about notifying the residents that
there would be some discoloration of their water when the
major flushing of the lines would occur.
Administrator Wright advised that the Ixora system was
billed on December 14th at the old rate; therefore, the next
billing would be on the new rate.
E 15 1902 52 94t7K 2 FA -LIE 366
DEC 15 1982 600K 52 w
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and carried with a vote of 3 to 1,
with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition.
M
RESOLUTION NO. 82-137
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TERMINATING THE
IXORA UTILITIES WATER AND SEWER FRANCHISE,
INCORPORATING THE SYSTEM INTO THE OVERALL COUNTY
WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING THE
IMPOSITION OF STANDARD COUNTY RATES.
WHEREAS, Indian River County adopted a resolution on
January 19, 1960, granting a water and sewer franchise to Ixora
Utilities, and
WHEREAS, through the years the system has degraded to
the point where it was no longer able to meet the standards for
water and sewer systems promulgated by the Department of
Environmental Regulation of the State of Florida, and
WHEREAS, the utility was involved in extensive
litigation with respect to the quality of service provided, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County decided to purchase the -
utility and incorporate it into the overall County system
providing improved service to the residents in the area and in
effect alleviating the problem that has existed for many years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. the franchise originally issued to.Ixora Utilities
on January 19, 1960, and recorded in Official Records Book 92 Page
533 as subsequently amended from time to time is hereby
terminated, and
2. the franchise area is hereby incorporated into the
overall County water and sewer system, and
3. the County Administrator and staff are authorized
and directed to impose standard County rates on all customers
within the former franchise area.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Wodtke who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Nay
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Absent
Commissioner William C. Wod.tke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Dick Bird Aye
DEC 1.5 192 -1-
PA 368.
Fr
®EC 15 1992-89
e52 FACE
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 15th day of -December, 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By A.
DON C. SCURL CK, JR.
Chairman
Attest: &J)4,
i
FREDA WRIGHT, Clerk -
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGM9SUFrTC rW
By,
Y,,. BRAND ENB
dty Attornev
-2-
ADOPTION OF CLEAN INDOOR AIR RESOLUTION
The Board reviewed the proposed resolution just
received by a representative of the Tobacco Institute.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Fletcher,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the
Board adopt Resolution 82-138, as prepared
by the County Attorney, urging the citizens
of the County to take voluntary actions
to improve the quality of indoor air and
preserve the health of County residents.
Commissioner Bird referredto the proposed resolution
and discussed paragraphs f and g, which referred to
restaurants and public meetings.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that a resolution on a
voluntary basis should be basically enough.
The Chairman felt the Board should encourage no smoking
and believed it was a positive step,for the Board.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke,
seconded by Commissioner Bird, that the
original Motion be amended to remove items
f and g from the proposed resolution.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE
AMENDED MOTION. It was voted on and failed
with a vote of 2 to 2; Commissioners Bird
and Wodtke voting in favor, and Chairman
Scurlock and Commissioner Fletcher voting in
opposition.
DEC 15 1982 56 � K 2 PArUE 70
DEC 15 199 �K �ryr
Ellis Pender, Sabal Palm Bowl, discussed the resolution
presented by the Tobacco Institute; he did not think it
would hurt to postpone this item until later. He asked the
Chairman to set up a committee, review the two resolutions
with the County Attorney, and the committee could prepare a
composite resolution. Mr. Pender then volunteered to sit on
the committee.
A resident of the County came before the Board and
advised them she had tobacco smoke allergy. She then gave
several examples of situations regarding the effects of
tobacco smoke and her problem; she was very much in favor of
the resolution as it was voluntary.
Mac Craig, 3rd Court, advised the Board that he had
about 400 signatures on a petition against no smoking in
public places. He was in favor of the resolution; he felt
it was a shame that citizens have to fight for clean air.
Terry Lehman, of the American Lung Association, felt
the Board had a good resolution. He suggested having a
small committee appointed to implement this resolution by
making signs available, etc.
Lengthy discussion followed; the Board did not want -to
present a hardship for the business people in the community.
Mr. Pender interjected that by adopting this
resolution, it would be the first step to having it become
mandatory.
Denise Driscoll, local businesswoman, came before the
Board and believed that a great many people, who were not
able to be present, were in favor of this resolution.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE
ORIGINAL MOTION. It was voted on and carried
unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 82- 138
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, URGING THE CITIZENS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO TAKE VOLUNTARY ACTIONS TO
IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF INDOOR AIR AND PRESERVE THE
HEALTH OF COUNTY RESIDENTS.
WHEREAS, the American Lung Association presented and
urged the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a Clean Indoor
Air Ordinance making it mandatory for proprietors of public places
to establish smoking and no smoking areas, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of the proposal,
the Indian River County Commission determined that it would be in
the best interest of the citizens of the County to adopt a resolu-
tion urging voluntary measures be taken to improve the quality of
indoor air in public places, and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Commission finds that
smoTte from cigarettes, pipes and cigars in indoor places can
aggravate the health of people who have heart disease, chronic
bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, allergies, or other respiratory
diseases, and
WHEREAS, the elderly whose lung capacity is gradually
decreasing as part of the normal aging process can be adversely
affected by smoke-filled environments, and
WHEREAS, children whose ltings'Are developing can be
impacted by second-hand smoke from cigarettes, pipes and cigars,
and
WHEREAS, the New England Journal of Medicine reported
decreased lung function among non-smokers chronically exposed to
cigarette smoke in their work environment, and Dr. Edward Brandt,
Jr., Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, set forth
his opinion that prudence dictates that nonsmokers avoid exposure
to second-hand tobacco smoke to the extent possible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Indian
River County Commission asks the citizens of Indian River County
to voluntarily pick one or more of the following actions to
improve and preserve the health of the residents of Indian River
County;
D E C 1519�� -1- � x 2 PAGE 3,72
�UEC 15 1982 BOOK 2 FA,j�
Q � .
(a) If you are a smoker, stop smoking, for your own
health and the health of others.
(b) If you are a smoker, refrain from smoking
indoors or smoke indoors only in areas designed for smoking where
the ventilation has been increased.
(c) If you are a nori-smoker, out of concern for
others, positively encourage your friends and members of your
family who smoke to stop smoking.
(d) If you are the proprietor or manager of a
building such as a retail store, grocery store, bank, hospital or
other type of business where customers or visitors enter your
building for relatively short periods of time, place a message at
the entrance to discourage smoking.
(e) If you are the proprietor or manager of a
business where customers or workers remain in the building for
long periods of time, set aside special areas or lounges for
smoking and non-smoking areas.
(f) If you are the proprietor or manager of a busi-
ness such as a restaurant, set up smoking and non-smoking areas
and ask or offer customers their choice of seating. Those who
prefer smoking can be seated on one side and those who prefer non-
smoking on the other. The size of the two sections could be
flexible and based on customer demand at any given time.
(g) If you are responsible for conducting a meet-
ing, request that there be no smoking and see that all ashtrays
are removed from the area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator for
Indian River County is directed to establish smoking and non-
smoking areas in all County operated buildings and is further
authorized to provide and distribute copies of this resolution to
the general public in Indian River County.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Fletcher who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
-2-
M M
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Aye
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Absent
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Dick Bird Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 15th
Attest:
FREDA WRIGHT, Cletk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEG FF CI CY
By
G M. B ANDEN G
G_
ty Attorn
day of December , 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
-3- - geox
3-
eox 5.2 FAQ t 374
DEC 15 1982
APPROVAL OF FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - PETITION PAVING
The Board discussed the following memorandum dated
November 22, 1982:
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
TROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION k,M CONDITIONS
DATE: November 22, 1982 FILE:
SUBJECT: Final Assessment Roll - Petition Paving
44th Avenue —22nd Street to 26th Street
36th Avenue - 12th Street to 14th Street
13th Place - East of 27th Avenue
REFERENCES:
The paving of 44th Avenue, 36th Avenue, and 13th Place is complete. The
final cost for the work was:
44th Avenue
36th Avenue
13th Place
$21,283.15
$20,607.93
$ 5,544.24
All are under the original estimates. The Final Assessment Polls have been
prepared and are ready to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments
are to be paid within 90 days or in two equal installments, the first to be
made twelve months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-four
months from the due date at the rate of interest established by the Board of
County Commissioners. The due date is 90 days after the final determination 3
of the special assessment. The interest rate shall be 12% per annum.
ALTER_IIATIVE ArT) ANALYSIS
Since the final assessment to the benefitted owners will be less than
computed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only alternative presented
is to approve the final assessment rolls.
RECO,%MaMATIONS AND FU10ING
It is recommended that the Final Assessment Rolls for the paving of
44th Avenue, 36th Avenue, and 13th Place be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners and that they be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk to the
Burd for collection.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
approved the Final Assessment Rolls for the
paving of 44th Avenue for $21,283.15;
36th Avenue for $20,607.93; and 13th Place
for $5,544.24, as recommended in the memo
dated November 22, 1982 from Mr. Davis.
SIGNALIZATION STUDY - 17TH ST./6TH AVE.
The Board reviewed the following material from
Michael L. Orr, Traffic Engineer:
TO: Transportation Planning DATE: October 28, 1982 FILE:
Committee
SUBJECT:Signalization Study -
17th Street/6th Avenue
Project # T82-03-01
FROM: Michael L. Orr,4kD REFERENCES.
Traffic Engineer
The subject study was conducted as requested by the Transpor-'- _
tation Planning Committee in :March, 1982. Adequacy of existing.
traffic signal phasing and pavement markings were investigated
by the Indian River County/City of Vero Beach Traffic Section
during August,- September and October, 1982.
DESCRIPTION OF CONDITIONS
1. Approach Traffic Volume:
The table below summarizes existing intersection approach
volumes. Approach volumes are low to normal for the respec-
tive roadway classifications (i.e, secondary collector -
6th Avenue, arterial -17th Street) and operate well below
practical capacity (approximately 25% to 50% -service volume
11C91) .
Existing Intersection Volume and Capacity
Approach
ADTSPeak
Hour Volume (�)
Capacity (SVc)
6th Ave.northbound
5100
350
650
6th Ave. southbound
3600
300
600
17th St, eastbound
4400
300
1200
17th St. westbound
6300
600
1300
DEC 15 198262 BOOK 52 PAUL
— 376
r
C E C 15 1992
2. Accident History:
Collision diagrams which illustrate the frequency,type,
and pattern of accidents are attached for the years 198!
and 1982. As shown in the tabular summary below, left turn
and right-angle type collision patterns predominate. All
left -turn collisions involve vehicles turning from Seven-
teenth Street. Accident seriousness is relatively low with
an injury rate of 22%.
Collision Summary
Collision Tyne 1981 1982 Total
Right -Angle
1
2
3
Left -Turn
3
1
4
Rear End
1
0
1
Sideswipe
0
1
1
(Injuries)
1
'1
2
The accident frequency rate (per million entering vehicles)
has increased slightly from 0.71 to 0.94 during 1981 and 1982,
respectively.
It
3. Traffic Control:
The present traffic signal is operated through fully actuated,
8 -phase capacity, controller approximately 3 years old.
No operational or design deficiencies exist.
Current signalization utilizes 5 of the 8 available phases:
4l Seventeenth Street left turns
02 Seventeenth Street through
03 Sixth Avenue left turn(southbound)
�4 Sixth Avenue through (southbound)
�5 Sixth Avenue through (northbound)
Phasing skipping (resulting from lack of vehicular actuation)
and overlap (combination of phases) features operate properly.
Signalization warrant analysis based on provisions in the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices confirm the need
for intersection signal control. Left -turn exclusive phase
warrants were also investigated, supporting the need for
such phasing on 17th Street only.
Pavement markings are in poor condition for the 6th Avenue
approaches. Centerlines and turn lane lines are undefined.
4. Alternatives:
A. Refurbish all pavement markings on the 6th Avenue approaches
as follows:
1. Refurbish double yellow centerline;
2. Define left -turn lanes, including turn arrows
as required;
3. Refurbish white stop bars. and crosswalks. .,
B. Revise signal phasing by deleting the 6th Avenue left -
turn phase (change to 3¢).
C. Maintain existing signal phasing.
D. Revise signal phasing by adding a left -turn phase to
6th Avenue northbound (change to 66). This alternative
will involve purchase of an additional phase module ($
conversion/addition of two five -section signal heads '
($700.00), and addition of one loop detector ($150.00).
S. Recommendation:
Alternatives A and B are recommended.
Traffic counts taken in September and October, 1982 do not
justify the need for left -turn phasing for 6th Avenue.
Accident history reveals no problems with 6th Avenue left -
turning traffic. Also a small capacity improvement will
result with the removal of a phase. However, it is rec-
commended to tentatively approve Alternative B until winter
season counts can be taken during January, 1983 to confirm
signal phase removal.
In addition, it is anticipated that traffic demand for 6th
Avenue will remain stable in the long run as Indian River
Boulevard is extended southward to.connect with eastward
extensions of Twelvth, Eighth, and Fourth Streets.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the recommendation of Mr. Orr
-� concerning the Signalization Study for the
17th St./6th Ave. Project.
INTERSECTION STUDY - OSLO RD. & 82ND AVE.
The Board next discussed the following memorandum from
Michael Orr dated October 28, 1982:
TO: Transportation Planning DATE: October 28, 1982 FILE:
Committee
SUBJECT: Intersection Study -
Oslo Road (CR606) at
82nd Avenue (CR609)
Project.#T82-07-01
FROM: Michael L. Orr, REFERENCES:
Traffic Engineer
In response to citizen requests to remove multi -way STOP at
the subject intersection and from mutual opinion of the City
of Vero Beach/Indian River County Traffic Section, the following
study is submitted for formal consideration.
DESCRIPTION OF CONDITIONS
1. History:
82nd Avenue and Oslo Road were designated and improved during
1969-1970 as a Truck Route bypass around the urbanized Vero
Beach area from I-95 to the Florida Turnpike. The subject
intersection is the north-south/east--west turning point
for the former bypass route.
64
B�t?K 2 PAUGE 3�
I
DEC 15 1992
BQUK52F Ur
2. Traffic Volume:
Approach volumes at the subject intersection are presented
below. Volumes are low for roadway classification (Oslo
Road -arterial, 82nd Avenue -primary ccllector). _
Existing Intersection Volume
Approach ADT7 Peak Hour Volume (K-)
82nd Ave. southbound 350 38
Oslo Rd. eastbound 100 5
Oslo Rd. westbound 450 49
Turning movements primarily (650 of entering volume) involve
southbound left -turning and westbound right -turning (see
attached Turning Movement count).
3: Accident History:
Research into traffic accident files revealed no collisions
occuring during the past 21 months (January 1, 1981 -
September 30, 1982).
4. Traffic Control:
The subject intersection is controlled by multi -way STOP
signs with an aerial flashing beacon supplemented by hazard
identification beacons on the southbound and westbound
approaches. Justification for these devices was investigated.
Multi -way STOP analysis based on provisions in the Manual
On Uniform Traffic Control Devices revealed that such control
is not warranted. Existing traffic volumes are approximately
10% of volumes required to satisfy the multi -way STOP warrant.
The aerial flashing beacon does not meet current indication
display standards with a single, instead of dual, lens display
per approach. The hazard identification beacons do not _
-appear to be warranted due to the lack of accident history -`
and presence of an aerial beacon.
Alternatives
A. Maintain existing intersection traffic control. This
alternative is not warranted.
B. Revise intersection control to stop the 82nd Avenue approach
only.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to insufficient traffic volume and lack of accident history,
Alternative B is recommended. In addition,the following activ-
ities are recommended:
1. Upgrade the aerial: flashing beacon to include to lens
displays per approach;
2. Remove the hazard identification beacons;
3. Upgrade pavement markings, warning and guidance signage
as required to implement Alternative B and to current
standards;
4. Abandon maintenance of the "rumble strips" on 82nd Avenue
due to their non -official traffic control device desig-
nation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
approved the recommendation, as indicated in
the memorandum dated October 28th from Mr.
Orr regarding the Intersection Study at Oslo
Rd. and 82nd Ave.
STABILIZATION OF SHORELINE - JUNGLE TRAIL
The Board discussed the following information from
Public Works Director Davis:
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
n1RU: Michael Wright,
County Administrator
DATE: December 6, 1982 FILE:
SUBJECT: Stabilization of the Indian River Shorelb
along Jungle Trail at River Bend
Mrs. Ruth Stanbridge,
Chairman, Scenic Trails C i t
FROM: Chairman,
W. Davis, P.E., REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
The Scenic Trails Committee (Mrs. Ruth Stanbridge, Chairman), the Public Works
Division staff, and Richard Van Slyke, Florida Land Co. have recently investigated
alternative methods for stablizing the east bank of the Indian River along
Jungle Trail, most specifically at the River Bend area south of CR 510. Since
severe erosion due to boat wake has occurred at this location, corrective
action needs to be considered immediately.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Investigation of the shoreline stabilization methods have produced the following
alternatives:
Alternative No. 1
Authorize the Engineering Department to apply for DER/Corps. of Engineers
dredge and fill permits to stabilize a 150 ft. to 250 ft. long test section
of shoreline with an erosion control product of the Armorflex, Terrafix, or
similar such brand. In communications with Engineered Systems and Services,
Inc.(ESS) of Boca Raton, Florida, the Scenic Trails Committee and Public Works
Division have determined that such a method would probably be the most effective,
environmentally safe for plant and animal species, and cost effective. The
cost of the project should be approximately $4.00 per square foot. It is
anticipated that a 200 lineal foot section be constructed for approximately
$10,000. Funding can be considered at a later date after permits are obtained,
probably from Road and Bridge Division currently budgeted funds such as the
Road and Bridge Materials account.
9x 52 ��b�
D E C 15 1982 66
DEC 15 1982
Alternative No. 2
,..'
POCK r �r?UC
Attempt to stabilize the shoreline with mangrove and spartina or other
method as recommended by DER in a preapplication conference.
RECO —ENDATIONS AND ELUDING
It is recommended by the Scenic Trails Committee and Public Works Director
that the Engineering Department be authorized to seek permits from the Regulatory
Agencies for installing a 200 lineal foot test section of Armorflex (precast
concrete erosion control product). At the same time, the Engineering Department
will investigate alternatives with these agencies. There is no funding to
be considered at this time except for permit application fees. Funding to
be from budgeted Engineering and Road and Bridge Department funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the recommendation of the Public
Works Director re the Stabilization of the
Indian River Shoreline along Jungle Trail
at River Bend.
CONTRACT RE SERVICES OF FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO COUNTY
The Board discussed the following material from
William R. Hough & Co.
William R. Hough & Co.
ELEVEN FOURTH STREET NORTH
P.O. DRAWER 1051
ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 33731
18131 823-8100
November 22, 1982
Chairman and Members of the
Indian River County Commission
2145 14th Avenue,
County Courthouse
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Chairman and Members of the
Board of County Commissioners;
The following shall constitute the agreement between William R. Hough &
Co. ("Hough") and Indian River County ("County") relative to services to be per-
formed by Hough for the County as its Financial Advisor.
1. SERVICES - TO BE PERFORMED UPON REQUEST OF COUNTY Ll_�
A. Hough will assist the County in developing a Financing Plan or Plans
for consideration of, and approval by, the County.
B. Upon acceptance of a Financing Plan by the County, Hough, after con-
sultation with appropriate County Officials, will prepare and submit
to the County Attorney and the Bond Counsel for the County, all of the
information and details_ necessary for preparation of the Authorizing
Resolution, Validation Papers, and other documents required for the
successful issuance and sale of the Bonds or Notes.
C. Assist the County Attorney with the validation proceedings, and at-
tend the validation hearing if requested to testify for the County.
D. In cooperation with the appropriate County Officials, Hough will pre-
pare Official Statement(s) fully describing the proposed Bonds or
Notes, in conformance with the Standards of Performance for Chartered
Municipal Financial Consultants. Hough and the County agree to use
due diligence to determine and disclose all material facts affecting
the Bond or Note Issues in the Official Statement(s). -
E. Supply the necessary information and consult with the two major bond
rating agencies to obtain the best possible rating on the Bonds or
Notes.
F. After the validation of the Bonds and the expiration of the appeal
period, Hough will assist the County in the sale of its Bonds or Notes
either by public sale or by negotiated sale. Unless specifically re-
quested by the County, Hough will not submit a bid for the purchase of
the Bonds or Notes.
STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL BONDS .�.�.��.
680K 2 FACE 9. 2
William R. Hough & Co.
Chai rman and Members of the
Indian River County Commission
November 22, 1982
Page Two
G. Upon the sale of the Bonds or Notes, Hough will:
BOOK pj�'3
(1) Arrange for the printing, signing, and delivery of the Bonds or
Notes.
(2) Provide the County with a final amortization schedule for the
Bonds or Notes.
(3) Prepare an annual report on the Bonds or Notes which will be made
available to institutional holders of the Bonds or Notes and other
interested parties.
H. In the event the Bonds or Notes are offered for public sale, Hough
will:
(1) Arrange for insertion of necessary advertisements of the Notice
of Sale in the Daily Bond Buyer.
(2) In cooperation with the County Attorney and Bond Counsel, prepare
the Notice of Sale for the Bonds or Notes.
(3) Assist the County at the time of the sale in checking all bids as
to compliance with bid specifications, and make a recommendation
as to the award of the Bonds or Notes in the best interest of the
County.
2. - COMPENSATION
A. With respect to the County's $5,000,000 General Obligation Bond Is-
sue, Hough' shall be paid a fee, at the time and if the Bonds are is-
sued, of $10,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses.
whi�h Hough is directed
B. With respect to all other financings of the County, Hough shall be by count
paid a fee of $2.00 per $1,000 of par amount of any Bonds or Notes to assist
which are issued in an amount equal to or less than $5,000,000 and in,
$1.50 per $1,000 of par amount of any Bonds or Notes issued in excess
of $5,000,000. In addition to the foregoing fee, Hough shall be reim-
bursed for out-of-pocket expenses.
C. At the request of the County, Hough shall undertake a complete evalua-
tion of the County's present financial needs, capabilities and present
debt structure and make, based upon its findings, recommendations to
the County relative to a long range comprehensive financing plan. If
Hough performs such services at the request of the County, Hough shall
be paid a fee of $7,500, plus out-of-pocket expenses.
� � r
William R Hough & Co.
Chairman and Members of the
Indian River County Commission
November 22, 1982
Page Three
3. DURATION OF THIS AGREEMENT
A. This Agreement will remain in effect until terminated by the County,
or may be terminated by either party for cause, upon 60 days prior
written notice.
—B. Any party failing to meet the terms of this Agreement wi l l pay all ex-
penses and attorney's fees incurred by the other party as a result of
any defaults.
WTB/l me
ACCEPTED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMISSION
By:
ATTEST:
� r1
DEC 15 1992
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM R. HOUGH & CO.
WORTH T. BLACKWELL
VICE PRESIDENT
69—A
to 52 Fn -t384
DEC
gK52
P��uE
The Board discussed, at length, item 2-C concerning
compensation.
Commissioner Bird was concerned that the item regarding
compensation might be a duplication.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the intent was to
have Hough & Co. assist the County when requested to do so
by the County.
Discussion ensued regarding the bond underwriter and
bond counsel, and whether it was necessary to have a third
party involved at an expense of $10,000.
Administrator Wright commented that what the Board was
doing was buying a second opinion. He pointed out that the
Board had a complicated issue coming up, and it would have
to decide if it wanted to have another expert.
Community Services Director Thomas explained that Hough
& Co. would try to find the best sale, with a number of
firms, and advise the Board. He continued that when you
negotiate with a firm, you go on the reputation of their
best performance - you negotiate the best purchase and
resale of that bond.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that at some point i- the.
possibility is that they would advise you one way so that
they could make more money. What the Board would be doing
with this contract is separating the underwriting function.
He continued that Hough & Co. would do only the financing
plans and work-up, if the Board so directs.
The Chairman commented the Board indicated that it
wanted Hough & Co. to look out for the best interest of the
County, and for Hough & Co. not to participate in the sale
of bonds.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding refunding and
refinancing.
� � r
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the
contract regarding services of William R. Hough
& Co. as Financial Advisor to the County;
authorize the signature of the Chairman; with
no commitment of funds.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that if the County
would decide that it did not want to go with Hough & Co.'s
advice, he would suggest adding that language as an option.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that if the Board
would ask them for their advice, it would be obligating
itself to the payment of $2 per $1,000 for any bonds that
were issued.
The Board agreed.
Attorney Brandenburg stated he would call Hough & Co.
to discuss this option.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It
was voted on and carried unanimously.
D E C 15 1982 71 om 52 PACE F 6
_.
q C 1 � BOOK
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at
12:00 Noon for lunch and reconvened at 1:45 o'clock P.M.
with the same members present, Commissioner Lyons being out
of town.
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED REZONING - PINSON
SUBDIVISION
The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Dgily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero
/Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a`'
in the matter of
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of ` -P,-0)���f;. /qy-o
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.
NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARIM9
Notice
proposal al of hearing to consider the following
initiated by the Indian River County
IAC-)A,"Restricted Commercial District-, to
R-1, "Single Family Restdentiel." The subject is locafed on fh9 east side of U.S.
Highway 1, north of 42nd Street.
The subject property is described ass
Lots 1 through 2O a114146 through 52, PINSON
SUBDIVISION, accordiilg to the plat thereof,
.as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 94, of the
,Public Records of Indian River County,
'Florida.
A Public hearing at which Parties In .Interest
'and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
:heard, will be held by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, in the County Commission Chambers
Of the County Administration Building, located
at 1840 25th -Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Wednesday, December 15, 1982, at 1:30 P.AL
If any person decides
!Madef0 appeal any decision
on the above matter,. he win need a
;record of the proceedings, and for such Pur.
Poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim
(record of the proceedings is made, which in.
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
lappeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of Counflr-Cdj*mI&Oners
By:-s-Deug C. Scurlock Jr.
Nov. 24, Dec. 8, 1982.
Sworn to and subscribe efore a A day of � A.D. 19 � � (47—
(Bu ne anager) �'�y 0 "..�? /�fl(Cie o the i ui ourt,In ian R' County, Florida)'� �'cs,➢'ty
(SEAL) An
72
Staff Planner Janis Johnson reviewed the following
memo:
TO: The Honorable Members
of the Board of County
Commissioners
THROUGH: Art Challacombe
Planning Dept. Mgr.
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
atricc Bruce King, AI P
FROM: Janis Johns
Staff Planner
DATE: October 28, 1982 FILE:
IRC,82-ZC-15,#460
COUNTY INITIATED REZONING OF
27 LOTS IN PINSON SUBDIVISION.
SUBJECT: LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S.
#1, FROM C-lA, RESTRICTED COM-
MERCIAL TO R-lA, SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
REFERENCES:
�t is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on December 15, 1982,
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On June 16, 1982, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously
voted to initiate the rezoning of the portion of Pinson Sub-
division lying east of U.S.#l, excepting Lot 10, from C-lA,
Restricted Commercial to R-1, Single Family District (maximum
6 units/acre). The 27 lots which comprise the subject property
are located on the east side of U.S.#l, north of 42nd Street.
The internal circulation is provided by 42nd Place and 20th
Place. On October 14, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the rezoning request.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The Land Use designation of the subject property is MD --1
(maximum 8 units/acre). A fifty acre industrial/commercial
node is located in the vicinity of North Gifford Road and
South Gifford Road, west of U.S.#l. It is recognized that
Lots 11 through 20, which form a triangular parcel, fronting
on U.S.#1 are under single ownership and might become a part
of that node. The acceptability of commercial development
of these ten lots is dependant upon the specific use proposed,
the design of the buffer area adjacent to the residential
development, and the access and traffic circulation of the
site plan.
Grove equipment is stored and maintained at Knight's Grove
Care to the south. East of the site are groves and wooded
acreage. Several single family homes are located to the west,
across U.S.#l, in the remainder of Pinson Subdivision.
The homes within the subject property are presently nonconform-
ing uses in the C-lA, Restricted Commercial District. Non-
conforming uses may not be expanded. The R-1, Single Family
Residential zoning complies with the MD -1 (up to 8 units/acre)
Land Use designation of the subject property.
73 K 2 PAARS
D E C 15 1982 CE-
DEC 1.5 1982
SOK,. 2 F�Uc g9
The proposed rezoning to R-1, Single Family (tnaximum 6.2 units/
acre) will bring the zonin- district into conformance with the
existing; land use and the C.ouiprehensive Plan.
REMZIENDATION :
Based on the foregoing discussion, staff recommends approval of
the proposed rezoning to F:-1, Single Family Residential.
Planner Johnson informed the Board that this
subdivision was in existence before U. S. I was built, which
accounts for the triangular shape of some of the lots. She
did not believe the owner of the 10 lot triangular parcel
fronting on U. S. I, has any use for commercial at the
present time and noted that he could have it rezoned to
commercial in the future if he so desired.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Dan Richey came before the Board representing his
father-in-law, Victor Knight, sole owner of the triangular
piece of commercial, (Lots 11 through 20). Mr. Richey was
of the opinion that the Planning & Zoning Commission did not
realize this parcel was under sole ownership when they
recommended the rezoning to R-1 and felt this should be
further studied. He agreed there are some existing -n- -
structures in the subdivision that should be protected, but
felt the undeveloped triangular parcel is suitable for
warehouses and other commercial development such as that
located across the highway.
Ernest Barnwell, owner of Lots 3 and 4 in Pinson
Subdivision, informed the Board that he does not want
commercial.
Alfred Evans, 43rd St., stated that he is the owner of
Lots 45 and 46, which are right on U. S. I. Lot 46, on
which he lives, is included in the rezoning but Lot 45 is
not, and if the proposed rezoning goes through, he will be
stuck with two 50, lots, one of which will be commercial and
the other residential. Mr. Evans suggested that all the
74
L_ __J
property bordering on U. S. I be allowed to remain
commercial.
Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that the legal
advertisement includes only Lots 46 through 52, and it would
be necessary to readvertise in order to include Lot 45;
however, it would be possible to delete Lot 46, leaving it
commercial.
Discussion followed re the fact that those residences
which are non -conforming cannot be expanded or rebuilt if
burned down, etc., and Mr. Evans stated that he wished to
use his residential structure for commercial in the future.
Mr. Richey informed the Board that he would like to
_ -have the triangular parcel containing Lots 11 through 20 -
left out of the rezoning, along with Mr. Evans' Lot 46.
Ms. Ella Hunter of 4270 Old Dixie Highway was
represented by her daughter, who wished to know how the
proposed rezoning would affect her property. It was
explained that everyone located within 300' of the subject
property is notified of a rezoning, but it would not change
their zoning in any way.
Ms. Lily Adkin of 4269 20th Avenue informed the Board
that she lives on Lot 1 in Pinson Subdivision and owns Lot
20 and 21 on the north end of the subject property.
In the ensuing discussion, it was explained that Lot 20
which Ms. Adkin owns, became a half lot when the highway
went through, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that Lot 21 is
not included in the rezoning, and, therefore, Ms. Adkins
also would have half residential and half commercial.
It was felt all this should go back to staff and
possibly to Planning & Zoning who did not have sufficient
information. Mrs. Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning
Commission.stated that they were aware of the sole ownership
mentioned by Mr. Richey.
75
DEC 15 1982 WK 52 PAGE
DEC 15 1982
Commissioner Bird asked Ms. Adkin if she wanted her
half Lot #20 commercial or residential, and Ms. Adkin stated
that she would like it commercial, but she would like Lot 1,
where she lives, zoned residential.
Mrs. Eggert felt this is new information.
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 82-31 rezoning the subject
property from C -1A to R-1, minus Lots 11 through
20 and Lot 46, which would remain commercial.
UR
ORDINANCE NO. 82-31
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:
Lots 1-9 and 47-52, PINSON SUBDIVISION, according
to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2,
Page 94, of the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida.
Be changed from C-lA, Restricted Commercial to R-1,
Single -Family Residential.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect January 3, 198J.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this.15th day of December , 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY C 01"YlISSIONERS
OF INDI)kN RIVER COUNTY
By
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR,
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 30th day of December , 1982.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received
on this 3rd day of January , 1983, at 3:15 /P.M. and filed in
the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED
LEGAL Sid
STA
TO FORM AND
IENCY . r1 /%
, County
77
DEC 15 1982 tor 52 pnt- 392
A
DEC
15
BOOK
5.2
ff9�E
PUBLIC HEAPING
- COUNTY INITIATED REZONING IN OSLO
PARK
AND
ON 12TH AVE., S.W.
The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of /O
in the
Court, was pub -
e"
lished in said newspaper in the issues of `14/1 CI!�r Z �y- )i
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 subscribed
(SEAL)
mejtiis,� day of( A.D. 19 La
Manager)
of the Circuit Court, Indian filter County, Florida)
1
NOTICE— PUBLIC NEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the following
Proposal Initiated by the Indian River County
Commission.to rezone land from:
C-1, "Commercial District' to M-1,
"Restricted Industrial District.' The subject
property is bated on the north side of 9th
Street, S.W., west of 11th Avenue, S.W.
The subject property is described as:
Blocks A, B and C. Oslo Park, Unit No. 1,
according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat
Book 3, Page 96, public records of Indian River
County, Florida
AND ALSO.
The south 5 acres of the east 10 acres, less
the south .480 feet of the west 155 feet and less
road right-of-way, of Tract 16, Section 23,
Township 33 South, Range 39 East.
A public hearing at which parties In interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
'heard, will be held by the Board of County
;Commissioners of Indian River County,
;Florida, in the County Commission* Chambers
of the County Administration Building, located
lat 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Wednesday, December 15, 19M at 1:30 PAL
(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 ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which in.
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal Is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
BY: -s -Doug C. Scurlock Jr.
Nov. 24, Dec. 8, 192L
Planner Johnson reviewed the staff memo, as follows:
e
W
I
L—
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 23, 1982 FIL..E:of the Board of County
Commissioners IRC-82-ZC-26;#464
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT:
Patrick Bruce King, AIC
FROM: Janis Johnson_
Staff Planner V
COUNTY INITIATED REZONING OF
BLOCKS A,B, AND C OF OSLO
PARK SUBDIVISION AND A PARCEL
WEST OF BLOCK A ON 12TH AVE.,
S.W. FROM C-1, COMMERCIAL
TO M-1, RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL
REFERENCES:
It is requested that the data
consideration by the Board of
meeting on December 15, 1982.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
herein presented be given formal
'Commissioners at their regular
On August 18, 1982, the Board of County Commission initiated
this rezoning action after approval of a request to rezone Lots
17, 18, and 19 to M-1, Restricted Industrial. Subsequently,
on November 10, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission
unanimously voted to recommend approval of the County initiated
-rezoning of Blocks A, B, and C of Oslo Park Subdivision and a-
3 acre parcel west of Block A, on the west side of 12th Avenue,
.S.W. All lots and parcels are located between 8th Street, S.W.
and Oslo Road. The present zoning is C-1, Commercial and the
land use designation is Mixed Use District (MXD). The proposed
zoning is M-1, Restricted Industrial.
ALTER:JATIVE AND ANALYSIS:
Environment - The subject property is not within a designated
flood hazard area., It contains no Environmentally Sensitive
areas. The vegetation consists of scattered Florida Slash
Pines and scrub vegetation.
Land Use - This portion of the subject property lying between
Oslo Road and 8th Street, in Oslo Park Subdivision contains
64 lots which are typically 8,000 square feet. The parcel lying
on the west side of 12th Avenue, S.W. contains approximately
3 acres. The subject property is approximately 50% developed.
The existing uses are auto trim, repair, salvage, and storage
facilities, as well as a wholesale distributor/storage facility.
Outdoor storage without visual screening is common. These
existing uses are more appropriate to the permitted uses in the
M-1, Restricted Industrial District. In addition to the
uses described above, there are four single family residences.
.The area north of 8th Street, S.W. contains an established single
family residential area. Twenty-two of the 94 lots in Block
F, north of 8th Street, contain occupied residences.
The parcel of land east of Oslo Park Subdivision is vacant.
Approximately 2,200 feet east of the subdivision is neighborhood
commercial uses. A nursery is located just west of the subject
property. The Oslo Road Fire Station is approximately 1,000
feet wbst of the subject property. The County water plant is
located directly north of. the Fire Station. There are another
four (4) single family residences on the south side of Oslo Road.
There is a citrus processing facility on the south side of Oslo,
opposite Block E.
The Plan encourages redevelopment of the mixed use areas in land
use similar"to and compatible with existing 'land uses. The
majority of the land uses within the subject property are re-
stricted industrial, warehousing and repair, activities. It is
DEC 15 1982 79 c 2 PA-uL 394
DEC 15 19K
BOK
52 F� 395
anticipated that the subject property and the two blocks east
of it in Oslo Park Subdivision will continue to develop in a
manner similar to the existing land use patterns. The vacant
parcel east of Oslo Park Subdivision should be encouraged to
develop in general commercial or offices to provide an inter-
mediate area between the industrial uses in Oslo Park and to
provide a buffer to the residential area on the south of Oslo
Road.
Utilities - The subject property presently receives municipal
water services. When the South County Water Plant is on-line,
it will serve the area. Individual septic systems are required
in this area. The County's Environmental Health Unit reviews
all septic tanks for industrial facilities and refers the permit
to the State Department of Environmental Regulation, if determined
necessary. These reviews will limit the uses which may occur
on the lots in Oslo Park and will serve to eliminate the possi-
bility of obnoxious wastes affecting nearby residents.
Traffic - The Public Works Division, Traffic Engineer, developed
traffic projections based on the assumption the future develop-
ment would be similar to the existing warehousing and auto
repairs. The capacity of Oslo Road along the subject property
is approximately 12,000 ADT's with a volume/capacity ratio of
.42 or 420 of existing capacity is utilized. The increased
traffic generated by the infill development of the site is pro-
jected to be approximately 560 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 180
Peak Hour Trips. Based on maximum development of the site under
the M-1, Restricted Industrial District, the projected ADT on
Oslo Road will be 5,500 and Peak Hour Trips will be 680. This
would result in a volume/capacity ratio of .46 or 460 of capacity.
The subject property has access to a major arterial, Oslo Road.
The streets within the site are unpaved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the foregoing discussion, staff recommends approval.
Ms. Johnson stated that staff recommends rezoning to -x
M-1 to make the existing structures conforming and noted
that you can redevelop in MXD according to uses already
established. She confirmed that there are a large number of
houses north of 8th St., which is where they are recommend-
ing the line be drawn. The roads are dirt roads, and there
are four houses already in the subject property, but Ms.
Johnson felt the character of this area is established.
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.
Wo
Chairman Scurlock's one concern was that the single
family residences would become non -conforming and could not
be rebuilt.
Ms. Johnson noted that they already are non -conforming,
and by going from C-1 to M-1, we are not altering their
status.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 82-32 rezoning the subject
property from C-1 to m-1.
81
C 1519�� K 52 PAE396
.DEC 15 1982
BQbK
2
ORDINANCE NO. 82-32
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:
Blocks A,B and C, Oslo Park, Unit #1, according to
the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 96,
public records of Indian River County, Florida
And Also
The south 5 acres of the east 10 acres, less the
south 480 feet of the west 155 feet and less road
right-of-way, of Tract 16, Section 23, Township 33
South, Range 39 East.
Be changed from C-1, Commercial District to M-1,
Restricted Industrial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth
and described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect January 3, 1983.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this 15th day of DeCr , 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER FIUNTY ,
By G
DON C. SCURLOCK., JR. LoF
Chairman -
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 30th day of December , 1982.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 3rd day of January , 1983 , at 3:15 xxxwP.M.
and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVEDf TO FO
LEGAL S _FiCIE1§tY
By
BRANDENBURG
county Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FIRST BANKERS ON SR60
The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof Of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a�l/�� C 6
-/v C" —//t%
in the matter of/
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of d/O,f4 / % 7� 0
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and
(SEAL)
NOTICE— PUBLIC NEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the following
Proposal to rezone land from:
A,. "Agricultural District' to C -IA,
'
Restricted Commercial.,, The subject
Property Presently owned by the First Bankers
of Indian River County is located on the south
side of State Road 60, east of 82nd Avenue.
The subject property is described as:
The South 2.76 acres of the west S acres of
the East IS acres of Tract 12, Section 1,
Township 33 South, Range 38 East, according'
to the Iast general plat of lands of the Indian
River Farms Company filed in the office of thei
Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County,1
Florida, in Plat Book 2 at page 25t said land
now situate, lying and being in Indian River
l
County, Florida.
A Public hearing at which parties in interest'
and citizens sball have an opportunity to bei
heard, will be held by the Board of County.
Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, in the County Commission Chambersi
of the County Administration Building, located
at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Wednesday, December 15,148$ at I.30 P.M. .i
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he will n=al
record of the Proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which in.
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
Indian River County
Planning and Zoning Commission
BY: -s -Doug C. Scurlock Jr. .
Nov. 24, Dec. 8,1"2.
"'.9
CW
in
2
The Board reviewed staff memo and recommendation as
follows:
W
am 2 PAcE,98
Fr -
DEC 151982
TO: The Ilonorabl c Members of the DATE: November 24, 1982
Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION RE -0 CONCUPU NCE:
Patrick B Bruce King,, I7
FROM: Janis Jolri
Staff Planner
�QOK Ft+uE 99
FILA..: IRC-82-ZC-274464
FIRST BANKERS REQUEST TO REZOI TE
± 2.76 ACRE PARCEL LOCKrED
DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE FIRST
SUBJECT: BANKERS FACILITY ON STATE ROAD 603,
EAST OF 80th AVENUE FROM A, AGRI-
CULTURE TO C-lA RESTRICTED CavDI EI:-
CIAL
REFERENCES:
It is requested the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the
Board of County CoiTdTdssioners at their regular meeting of December 15, 1952.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At a Public Hearing on November 10, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission
unanimously recormlended approval of the request to rezone a ±2.76 acre parcel
located directly south of the existing First Bankers' drive-in facility on
SR#60 from A, Agriculture to C-lA, Restricted Commercial. The applicant pro-
poses to add a non-public office facility for bookkeeping and other clerical
banking activities. These offices are anticipated to provide working areas
for approximately 40 additional employees.
ALTFMiATIZ'ES AND ANALYSIS
Land Use
The subject property is located directly south of the First Bankers drive-in
facility on the south side of SR#60. The areas directly east, south and west
of the subject property are vacant and are zonedA-Agriculture. The subject
property is a proposed expansion of the First Bankers facility. The Bank and
the subject property are within the MD -1, Medium Density area. The site is
a part of the I-95/State Road 60 Commercial/Industrial Node. Staff has deve—
loped a small area plan for the future development of that node. The analysis
evaluates the existing Land Uses, approved site plans and plats, roadway capa-
cities, Major Thoroughfare Plan, and the Performance Standards in the Compre-
hensive Plan. This analysis indicates that the western end of the Highway
Commercial area is located 1/8 mile from the I-95/State Road 60 Interchange
and extends approximately 1.25 miles east to the First Bankers' facility.
There is a convenience market located on the southeast corner of 82nd Avenue
and State Road 60 Intersection. The northwest corner of that intersection ccn-
tains a mobile home park. The northeast corner of the 82nd Avenue/State Road
60. intersection contains a productive grove. A single family residence is
located on the west side of the First Bankers' property. The parcel directly
adjacent to the single family home has recently been rezoned C -1A, Restricted
Commercial.
Utilities - The subject property is not presently served by municipal sewer or
water services, however, the site is of a sufficient size to accommodate a well
and septic system. The 43rd Avenue Fire Station #3 serves the area with an
estimated five minute response time. The proposed Village Green Station will
serve the area after its completion in 1982-1983.
Traffic - The Public WorRs Division and the Community Development Division made
an analysis of potential traffic impacts from the proposed offices. Those
offices are estimated to provide only 40 Peak (lour Trips onto State Road 60.
This is not anticipated to'generate enough additional traffic to significantly
impact the existing capacity of State Road 60.
ENVIRONMENT
The subject property is not located within a flood hazard area nor
does it contain Environmentally Sensitive areas.
RECOT24ENDATION :
Based on the foregoing discussion, staff recommends approval of the
request to rezone +2.76 acres from A -Agricultural to C-lA-Restricted
Commercial.
Attorney Robert Jackson came before the Board
representing First Bankers in requesting rezoning from
Agricultural to C-lA for 2.76 acres south of the present
drive-in facility near Range Road and SR 60, which they
intend to use for clerical banking. He noted that staff
recommends approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani-
mously closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani-
mously adopted Ordinance 82-33 rezoning the
subject property to C -1A as requested by
First Bankers.
85 6t?KDIZPE0
DEC 15 1992
10
DEC 15 1982
#00K � FryuF
ORDINANCE NO. 82-33
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 ORDAIIUM by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of
Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map,
be amended as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in Indian
River County, Florida, to -wit:
The South 2.76 acres of the West 5 acres of the
East 15 acres of Tract 12, Section 1, Township 33
South, Range 38 East, according to the last general
plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company
filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of St. Lucie County, Florida in Plat Book 2
at page 25; said land now situate, lying and being
in Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from A, Agricultural District to C-lA,
Restricted Commercial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth
and described in said Zoning Regulations. �.
This Ordinance shall take effect January 3, 1983.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this 15th day of December 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By `
DON C. SCURTOCK, JR.
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 30th day of December , 1982.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 3rd day of January , 198 3, at 3:15
baftoO.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 S EZICIENCY ./%
M
. bRaNVBNBU/RG, County Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING THE DE JOIA PROPERTY IN A.A.BERRY
SUBDIVISION TO R -2A
The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.P. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Heath, tndion River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
��AR
in the matter ofCJP.
R L//
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of �/1 c��r, i✓�C , chi %% �J
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 subscribed b,ifore m,� th' „ day of.C-_,i_C_� A.D. 19
(SEAL) (Cle"rot`the Cirbuit-Court, Indian Ri PWCounty, Florida)
NOTICE—PUBLIC NEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the following
proposal to rezone land from:
R-3, "Multiple Dwelling District" to R -2A,
"Multiple Family District." The'. subject
property presently owned by Frank DeJola is
located on the west side of 80th Avenue, ap-,
proximately 120 feet north of 126th Street.
The subject property is described as:
Lot 38, A. A. Berry Subdivision, according tol
the plat filed in the office of the Clerk of thel
Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, InI
Plat Book 2, Page 14, said land now lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County!
Commissioners of Indian River County,!
Florida, in the County Commission Chambers
of the County Administration Building, located
at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, and
Wednesday, December 15,1982, 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 ensure that a verbatimi
record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and e9idence upon which the
appeal Is based.
Indian River county
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Doug C. Scurlock Jr.
Nov. 24, Dec. 8, 1982.
Frank DeJoia, resident of Roseland and owner of the
subject property, came before the Board and reviewed the
history of his two-year attempt to rezone his 5 acre parcel
in order to build duplexes. He noted that at the time the
Board approved the change of the Land Use designation on his
property to LD -2, he made a commitment that, upon this
change being granted, he immediately would petition to
87
DEC 15 1982x52PAF 402
DEC
15 1�� �aox FAUN
change his zoning from R-3 to R -2A to assure that he would
not be able to construct triplexes on this property. He is
here today following up on that commitment.
Staff Planner Janis Johnson reviewed her memo as
follows:
TO:. The Honorable Members DATE: November 29, 1982 FILE:
of the Board of County IRC-82-ZC-18,#461
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
- , .e .
atri.ck Bruce King,
FROM: Janis Johnsdnr
Staff Planner
FRANK DEJOIA'S REQUEST TO
REZONE 5 ACRES LOCATED ON
SUBJECT: THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF BOTH
AVENUE FROM R-3, MULTIPLE
FAMILY TO R -2A, MULTIPLE
FAMILY
REFERS-N:.rES:
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on December 15, 1982.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
On October 14, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission recom-
mended approval of the applicant's request to rezone a ± 5 acre
parcel located on the northvTestside of 80th Avenue, approximately
500 feet southwest of the 128th Street and 80th Avenue inter-
section. The applicant wishes to rezone from R-3, Multiple
Family (maximum density 6.2 units/acre for single family., 8.7
units/acre for duplexes and 15 units/acre multi -family develop-
ment) to R -2A, Multiple Family (maximum density 4.0 units/acre).
On April 7, 1982, the applicant received approval of a preliminary
plat for Rose Haven Subdivision which contains 8 lots. The lot
sizes exceeded zoning requireme-ts; however, the applicant pro-
posed to construct 8 duplex structures. These structures would
constitute 16 dwelling units with a density of 3.3 units/acre.
The Land Use Element designated the area as LD -1, Low Density
(maximum 3 units/acre). The applicant then sought an amendment
to the Land Use Element to accommodate the proposed duplex
development.
During the workshop sessions and Public Hearings for the adoption
of the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant requested that the
subject property and a surrounding L-shaped segirent be designated
LD -2, Low Density (maximum 6 unit/acre). On July 13, 1982,
the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of that
request. Subsequently, on July 27, 1982, the Board of County
Commissioners voted 4 -to -1 to grant the request to designate
the area as LD -2, Low Density (maximum 6 units/acre).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Environment - The subject property is not within a Flood Hazard
Area and contains no Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The area
contains scattered Florida slash pines and palmetto underbrush.
W
� � r
The slope of the property does require swales and other drainage
measures. These issues were addressed by the. Technical Review
Committee and specific development requirements are conditions
of the plat approval.
Land Use - The subject property is vacant. The parcel northeast
of the subject property and fronting on 80th Avenue is vacant.
The: Maven View Subdivision located southwest of the subject
property is developed in single family units, mobile homes and
a duplex unit. The Gervais Mobile 11ome Subdivision is located
opposite the subject propertyl-L-tween 80th Avenue and 128th Street.
The Haven View Subdivision contains 24 mobile homes, 4 single
family units and 4 vacant parcels located on 126th Street between
82nd Avenue and 80th Avenue. This results in a density of 3.1
units/acre. The Gervais Subdivision contains 8 mobile home
units at a density of one unit acre; however, the platted
density is 1.5 units/acre. The density of the proposed de-
velopment of the subject property is 3.2 units/acre.
The proposed rezoning would reduce the maximum allowable gross
density from 8.7 (duplex) units/acre in the R-3 District to
4.0 (duplex) units/acre in the R -2A District. This represents
a 45.9% reduction in density. Both the present and proposed
zoning districts allow multiple family development. The
proposed rezoning would lower existing allowab]e;;density. It
would also establish a 4.0 units/acre maximum density for
development, thus, bringing the zoning classification into
compliance with requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed rezoning and duplex development would provide an
intermediate level of residential development between the LD -1,
Low Density areas to the south and the MD -2, Medium Density
areas to the north of the subject property.
Utilities - The area is not served by county or municipal water/
sewer services, however, the subject property is of a sufficient
size to accommodate individual wells/septic systems. The
subject property is served by the Roseland Fire Station
located on Barber Avenue. The estimated response is one-two
minutes.
Traffic - The proposed 16 units in the subdivision would generate
approximately 100 ADT's with 10 afternoon Peak Hour Trips.
The existing traffic on SR #505/Roseland Road, is approximately
1200 afternoon Peak Hour Trips. An additional 10 trips consti-
tutes only a .008% increase.
The proposed Rose Haven Subdivision fronts on 80th Avenue.
As a condition of plat approval, the applicant will be
required to pave 80th Avenue from the Southeast corner
of the subject property to 126th Street. The County does
not maintain 128th Street; however, it is unlikely this
road would be used as a secondary collector for the subject
property.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed rezoning conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and
allows development compatible with the surrounding areas.
Therefore, staff reconsnends approval.
Ms. Johnson confirmed that this basically is a
downzoning and that Mr. DeJoia could go ahead and develop
under his current zoning as he has pointed out. She
89
DEC 15 -1992 .52 404
DEC 15 1992 saaK '52 P�cr.405
l
F.
continued that since the memo'`w.4,!`''written, we have adopted
the Flood and Stormwaters Ordinance and we now have more
thorough environmental information. Although the Flood
Ordinance exempts duplexes from having to present a master
plan, Ms. Johnson noted that everything except single family
still will have to receive site plan approval, at which time
reasonable constraints can be required. There apparently is
some concern that Lot 5 slopes rather steeply.
Environmental Planner Challacombe then reported on his
visit to the site, noting that the lots are predominantly
high and dry with well percolated soil. In the very back of
the site, there is a severe drop of about 15' down to an
intermittent stream, which is located within the unbuildable
setback lines.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Leslie Klauka, resident of a trailer on Havenview
Drive, stated that he would like to see the subject property
stay as it is. It was pointed out that this property
currently is zoned R-3, which is multiple family at 15 units
per acre, and the proposed rezoning would change it te-4 a
units per acre, multiple family.
Mr. Klauka stated that he wished it to be developed
single family.
Maria Bowen came before the Board representing her son
who owns a lot next to Mr. DeJoia's property, and wished to
have clarification as to what Mr. DeJoia can do with his
property and what her son can do with his lot in the future.
Ms. Johnson explained the present zoning and proposed
zoning, noting that both would allow Mr. DeJoia to build
duplex units; the proposed zoning would merely decrease the
density allowed. She noted that Mr. Bowen was notified as
an adjacent owner and this will not affect what he can do
with his property.
.o
Mrs. Klauka wished further clarification as to the
difference between R-3 zoning and R -2A, and this was
provided by Ms. Johnson. Mrs. Klauka emphasized that she
and her husband do not wish to have condos adjoining them;
they prefer single family, and a home does not have four or
five families in it.
Commissioner Fletcher announced that he wished to make
comment on the proposed rezoning, speaking as a private
citizen and adjacent property owner, and he has discussed
this with the County Attorney, who has advised that he
should file a memo of voting conflict, which he believed
would allow him to make comment and also to vote.
Considerable discussion ensued on Board policy whereby
any member declaring a conflict of interest leaves the
Commission chambers during discussion of that particular
item.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that, in his view, he does
not -stand to profit from the proposed rezoning.
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that there is a
question as to whether the wording in the Statutes ("enures
to his special, private gain") specifically means a monetary
gain or whether it can relate to something aesthetic. He,
therefore, advised Mr. Fletcher to file a memo of voting
conflict. As to former Board policy, he stated that any
policy of that nature would have to be agreed to by each
member of the Commission, and if one member does not agree,
he cannot be deprived of his Constitutional right to vote.
Commissioner Fletcher filed the following statement for
the record and took the floor to make his presentation:
91
DEC 15 1982 Sao �C 416
8®
DEC 15 1982 aK h
TO: Clerk of the Board DATE: January 3, 1983 FILE:
of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: December 15, 1982 Board of
County Commissioners'
Meeting Item #11 D.
FROM: Commissioner REFERENCES:
A. Grover Fletcher
This memorandum is being filed to comply with the intent of Florida
Statutes 5112.3143. I currently reside at Berry Road in Roseland,
Florida which is in close proximity to the .project proposed by
Frank DeJoia (i.e. rezone 5 acres located on the northwest side of
80th Avenue from R-3, multi–family to R -2A, multi–family). I will
not receive any direct monetary benefit from the approval of this
project or the disallowance of this project. However, I wish to
disclose the fact that the project is to be located near our
current residence and may affect my surrounding neighborhood.
AGF/mg
Respectfully submitted,
A. Grover Fletcher
Commissioner Fletcher referred to the following letter
written by his wife, Nancy Fletcher, pointing out the– — 3.
mistake which had been corrected to read "one unit per one
acre" rather than one unit per 2.5 acres.
December 9, 1982
Dear County Commissioner,
On December 15th, the County Commission will consider a rezoning
request from Frank De )oia for property he owns in Roseland. The
Planning and Zoning Commission on October 6, 1982, approved a change
from R-3, Multiple -Dwelling District, to R -2A, Multiple Family District.
As an adjoining property owner, I would request that the County Com-
mission restrict this property even further with a zoning category of R-1 AA
and gross density of 2.6 units. My reasons for this request are as follows:
1) The Comprehensive Land Use Plan states that "The Zoning Code
shall incorporate performance standards for important natural functions
and features of the site and the surrounding area." De joia's property,
as well as another undeveloped 5 acre tract to the east, has a free-flowing
natural creek running through it. This creek was listed as "environmentally'
sensitive" on the original land use map of 1976 and it is still environ-
mentally sensitive (the recently adopted Land Use Plan recognizes that
not all environmentally sensitive areas are shown on the current map).
99
Under the current Plan, "environmentally sensitive areas east of
1-95 shall have the same maximum residential density Macres.
ation as the v(2
Rural/Residential-2 land use district" or one unit per While I
personally would be pleased to have De Joia's 5 acres and the adjoining
5 acres restricted to a gross density of 2 residences each, I think the R-1 AA
classification allowing 2.6 units per acre is much more realistic than
De Joia's requested 4.0 units per acre.
I believe concurrent application to the Corps of Engineers, the
Department of Environmental Regulation, and the St. Johns River Water
Management District is required as well.
2) The creek which runs through this property provides natural
drainage for a watershed area extending back to the Sebastian city limits.
I believe the Public Works Department will verify that this area already has
drainage and road problems which they cannot readily correct. It would
not seem prudent to further impact this area until these problems are
resolved.
A few weeks ago the County Commission had before it a drainage
problem further west on Roseland Road with a correction cost climbing
into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Another area to the east, through
Mrs. Hanson's property, is similarly demanding the County's attention.
3) Over 25 people along Havenview (126th Street) and surrounding
streets, signed a petition for the Planning and Zoning Commission,
specifically objecting to duplexes on this property. While I don't com-
pletely share their fears of a transient neighborhood, I do know that,
historically, multi -family units are not the nature of the Roseland com-
munity. With the exceptions of the Sandrift Motel on U.S. 1 and the
�- - Roseland Gardens Apartments 2 miles west, the only multi -family units
that I know of in all of Roseland are the two duplexes at the corner of
Havenview and Roseland Road. The fact that the residents on Havenview
don't wish to have more duplexes may be experience speaking.
We have many rental units already in Roseland but they are in the
form of single family residences.
4) The density which_De J.Qia cur rently_proposes f� his nr�p
4 units per acre is double that of the ropert to the south (2 units
t, s bei
acre) and_ qudru
aple that of the prope no
to the rth (1 unit per acre). He
`points to Havenview Street to the west as a bellwether of greater ensity
but in fact, many people on this street own more than one lot (as has been
the trend in the Roseland Townsite since it was established in 1903). The
fact that a developer cuts the land into small lots does not mean that
people want to live on small lots. ►..
5) 1 believe the County Commission's decision to change the land
use designation on this property from LD -1 to LD -2 was based on in-
complete information from the current planning staff which in turn may
have relied too heavily on De Joia's research and data. At this point, a
restrictive zoning classification would give swifter correction of that error
than advertising for a change in the land use designation.
6) At the last Land Use Hearing it was stated that De Joia's duplex
development would "improve" the area. "Improvement" is a very sub-
jective thing — it's in the eyes of the beholder — and one cannot improve
another's property, one can only improve his own. A real neighborhood
is a cohesive unit that evolves over the years, gradually, and an outsider
cannot come in and "improve" it against the present residents' wishes with-
out changing the neighborhood's character and subsequently destroying it.
Quite simply, I sympathize with De Joia's need to make top dollar on
his investment but I also feel that 8 - 10 quality units on this property
would give him an excellent return on his money without overloading the
surrounding area. Please vote to restrict the density on this property to
2 units (or less!) per acre by changing the zoning to R-1 AA.
ilm_ O "
Sincerely,
Nancy C. Fletcher
Post Office Box 276
Roseland, FL 32957
93
BOOK
Commissioner Fletcher then contended that there are
several mistakes in the staff memo which should be pointed
out. He questioned the statement that the subject property
is not within a flood hazard or environmentally sensitive
area, pointing out that, according to the 1975 Land Use Map,
it is. He further noted that Page 2 of the staff memo
states that "The proposed rezoning and duplex development
would provide an intermediate level of residential
development between the LD -1, Low Density areas to the south
and the MD -2, Medium Density areas to the north of the
subject property." North and south should be reversed in
this statement. In addition, the Utilities statement
incorrectly indicated that the Roseland Fire Station is on
Barber Avenue. In regard to the applicant being required to
pave 80th Avenue from the southeast corner of the subject
property to 126th St., Mr. Fletcher emphasized that the
County does not maintain either of these streets as they
have not been formally accepted for maintenance.
Mr. Fletcher next disputed staff's contention that a
duplex type development would supply an excellent buffer
between LD -1 and MD -1, stressing that while this may be -fine
in concept, it does not address the actualities, which are
that the land which is zoned capable of 15 units an acre has
not been developed to its full capabilities. There are 8
houses on a total of 12 lots; so, when you look at reality,
no buffer is needed. He felt the Board has been led to
believe that this area is covered with trailers and existing
duplexes, which is not the case. Mr. Fletcher continued
that the Minutes indicate that a petition signed by 32
persons was submitted opposing the rezoning, but actually
this petition opposed not the rezoning, but the building of
duplexes on these lots. He believed that this neighborhood
would be compatible for single family homes and submitted
that Mr. DeJoia could enjoy the use of his property and
94
recognize a good return from his investment if the Board
would.consider rezoning this property to RR -2 in keeping
with this environmentally sensitive area, which would allow
him to build one unit per acre. Commissioner Fletcher
further disputed the statement that Mr. DeJoia can build to
a density of 15 units per acre now since he actually would
not be able to do so without a sewer plant or.water system
and emphasized that we must address what is, not what might
be.
Commissioner Bird asked what zoning Mr. Fletcher would
be comfortable with and felt would coincide with that area.
Mr. Fletcher stated he would recommend one unit per i
- _ acre, which would be R-lAA.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
Environmental Planner Challacombe agreed that, as
Commissioner Fletcher stated, the 1?75 Plan does show this
as an environmentally sensitive area. What is environ-
mentally sensitive however, is the stream itself which is
approximately 5-7' wide and possibly its bank which is
another 20' at the most, all of which falls in the setback
requirements and cannot be built on.
Commissioner Wodtke emphasized that under the
multi -family zoning,.each individual owner would have to go
through site plan approval. He stated that if he lived in a
mobile home, he believed he would rather see a duplex built
than another mobile home moved in.
Commissioner Fletcher emphasized that this area is not
a mobile home park. The trailers being discussed are
individually owned. Duplex living, however, is usually a
95
DEG 15 1982 Boof 52 Fn6E 410
Lj
DEC 15 1982
Box FAA -
rental situation and changes the character of the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the zoning to the
south and the west, and Mr. Challacombe believed Gervais
Subdivision is R-1RM, which is a mix of mobile homes and
single family up to 8 units per acre. There is also R-1 and
R-3 in the area.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the fact that some
of these mobile homes are on several lots, does not
eliminate the possibility of those lots being sold. He
noted that if Mr. DeJoia wished to, he could go out and
build his duplexes with his present zoning.
Commissioner Bird concurred that if we refuse this
rezoning requestfMr.•DeJoia is still compatible with the
Land Use Plan and can build his duplexes unless we want to
initiate rezoning to R-lA to take this away from him.
Mr. Fletcher continued to argue that Mr. DeJoia can't
do this because of sewer and water requirements, and Mr.
King stated that according to the Environmental Health
Department, a septic tank and well for a duplex can be put
on h acre lots. _
Mr.Fletcher again argued that duplexes are not
compatible with the existing land use and the nature of the
neighborhood.
Chairman Scurlock commented that he would prefer a
duplex to a mobile home and noted that the Planning & Zoning
Commission recommended approval.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Lyons being
absent, and Commissioner Fletcher voting in
opposition, the Board by a 3 to 1 vote adopted
Ordinance 82-34 rezoning from R-3 to R -2A as
requested by Mr. DeJoia.
W.,
ORDINANCE NO. 82-34
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian
River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended
as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in Indian
River County, Florida, to -wit:
Lot 38, A. A. Berry Subdivision, according to the -
plat filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2,
Page 14, said land now lying and being in Indian
River County, Florida.
Be changed from R-3, Multiple Dwelling District to
R -2A, Multiple Family District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect Janes 3, 1983.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this 15th day of'''December 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 30th day of December , 1982.
r
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received
on this 3rd day of January, 1983., at 3:15 VAqW/p,M. and filed in
the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED A�--ATO FORM AND
LEGAL SUF I,EIFNrV _ _ /J
By
torney
x X512 px,,112
C E C 1 1982
5
1rJr .m.
REQUEST FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL -
RIVERGROVE SUBDIVISION
The Board reviewed the following staff memo:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 30, 1982 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners SD -80-1G--239
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Patrick Bruce King, AICD
0
FROM: Clare Zimmerman (1-1
Staff Planner
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SECOND EX11I;NSION
OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
OF. RIVEF.GROVE SUBDIVISI-ON
REFERENCES: Letter from Kenneth E.
Padgett dated 11/21/82.
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on December 15, 1982.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Rivergr_ove Subdivision received Preliminary Plat Approval on
December 23, 1980. The approval for the subdivision would have
expired on June 23, 1982. Due to.a delay caused by problems
with water in the South Beach area, the developer requested,
and was granted, a six month extension of preliminary plat
approval. This extension will expire on December 23, 1982. The
applicant is requesting a second extension of preliminar-y.plat
approval. This requested extension is for 18 months. The
reasons for this request are that the developer is beginning
construction of improvements for Seagrove South Subdivision and
would like to finish that project's improvements before begin-
ning construction of Rivergrove's improvements. Also, the
current lack of available utilities for the South Beach Area was
cited as a factor in the request.
Section 3, Subparagraph 3(g) of the County's Subdivision Ordinance
refering to preliminary plat approval, states that,..."The approval
of the Board shall have full force and effect for a period of
18 months from the date of approval. An extension may be granted
by the Board." It has been the policy of the Indian River County
Board of* County Commissioners to grant one, 18 month, extension
of preliminary plat approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the applicant; Kenneth E. Padgett, be granted
a 12 month extension of preliminary plat approval.
97
� r �
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, to accept staff
recommendation and grant a second extension of
preliminary plat approval of Rivergrove
Subdivision.
Discussion ensued as to whether work was in progress,
and Mr. King did not believe so. It was noted that this was
the first request for extension after the Land Use Plan was
adopted, and a 12 month extension would add up to 18 months
normally allowed.
Commissioner Fletcher pointed out that this subdivision
t — was platted prior to adoption of our Drainage Ordinance,
which would require information on the plat as well as the
deed stating that this is in a flood hazard area.
Discussion followed in regard to adding that
requirement to the Motion.
Community Development Director King did not feel we
should try to make a preliminary plat conform to an
ordinance which was adopted after its approval without
revising that plat, and the only way we can require that
they amend the preliminary plat is to turn down the request
for extension.
Commissioner Wodtke believed this is an overall
extension of the entire development and asked if we could
not grant the extension subject to putting stipulations on
the final plat and deed that it is in a flood plain area.
Mr. King believed that could be done, but noted it
would not mean they are in compliance with the Storm Water
Ordinance.
David Kabboord informed the Board that his father just
purchased this property from Mr. Padgett, and they would
like to see this extended 12 months. He did not object to
9.9
Z p�;t 41.4
0
I
DEC 15
1982
� x4:_
stipulations
on the final plat and deed regarding the
flood
plain area.
Commissioner Bird and Wodtke agreed to add this
requirement to their Motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the
Motion to grant the extension, including the
stipulations discussed.
carried unanimously.
It was voted on and
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - SEAGROVE SOUTH SUBDIVISION, UNIT ONE
Community Development Director King reviewed the
following memo:
TO. The Honorable Members DATE: November 30, 1982 FILE:
of the Board of '
County Commissioners IRC -82 -SD -04,#237
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF SEAGROVE
SOUTH SUBDIVISION - UNIT ONE
Patrick Bruce King, AICP
FROM Clare Zimmerman 6�k.
Staff Planner
REFERENCES:
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
meeting on December 15, 1982.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
Preliminary plat approval of Seagrove South Subdivision was
granted on August 11, 19082. The 67 lot subdivision is bounded
by the Atlantic Ocean on the east, State Road A -1-A on the
west, and Seagrove Subdivision on the north. The land to the
south of the subdivision is unplatted. The subdivision is in
an area.with a R-lA, Single Family District zoning classifica-
tion with a maximum of 4 units/acre land use and a LD -1, Low
Density (maximum 3 units/acre) land use classification.
The applicant is requesting final plat approval for Unit I of
the Seagrove South Subdivision, which has 32 of the subdivision's
67 proposed lots within its boundaries.
ANAT,YS T S
The applicant is requesting Final Plat -approval without having
finished all improvements. Rather, the applicant has furnished
an irrevocable letter of credit from Haven Federal Savings and
Loan Association for the cost of the required improvements.
The Public Works Division has reviewed the letter of credit as
well as the proposed improvements and contracts for construction
of these improvements. Revisions to these were required. The
applicant has made the revisions as requested.
The subdivision's utilities will be provided by the City of
Vero Beach. The applicant has provided letters from the city
confirming that they will receixe these utilities. The County
Utilities Department had reviewed the actual utilities con-
struction drawings and found them to be sufficient.
Staff has reviewed the Final Plat and found it to be correct and
complete.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the final plat of the Seagrove South Subdivision - Unit I,
contingent upon the applicant signing a contract binding him
to completing the improvements for Seagrove South Subdivision
- Unit I in accordance with the plans the applicant has submitted
to the County. In addition, the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners needs to be authorized to execute the contract in
Attachment 7 on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to grant
Final Approval of Seagrove South Subdi-
vision - Unit One, per staff recommenda-
tion.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that the property has
recently changed hands, and wished to ascertain that we
still are in proper title.
Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that we are.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
100 10K 52 PtiuE 416
aEC 15 1982
Q E C 15 1982
Ir .4. N
DEC 1982
OF COU .1 r :� }
r;V;,,,,.iISS,ONERS "a
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 1
To: Indian River Board of County Commissioners
Gentlemen:
#00K 52 P��Uz-
By order of Corporate Investment Company Haven Federal Savings and.Loan Asso-
ciation hereby establishes an Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 1 in your favor in
the amount of $300,000 effective as of December 15, 1982, and expiring at our of-
fice at the close of business on February 15, 1984.
This letter of credit is provided to you as required under the contract for
required improvements between Corporate Investment Company and Indian River County,
relating to the Seagrove Subdivision Unit I which contract is numbered CRI No. 1,
dated December 15, 1982.
Haven Federal Savings and Loan Association shall make funds available under
this credit to you not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of this credit against
your signed draft to us mentioned in this Letter of Credit No. 1, accompanied by
a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners to the effect that Corporate In-
vestment Company has defaulted under the terms of the aforementioned contract for
required improvements in that the amount of the draft represents the amount required
by the county to fulfill the performance of said contract for the required improve-
ments. Drafts represented for payment under the credit shall be marked, "Drawn on
Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 1 of Corporate Investment Company".
This letter of credit sets forth in full the terms of our undertaking. Such
undertaking shall not in any way be modified, amended, or amplified by reference
to any document, instrument, or contract referred to herein or in which this letter
of credit is referred to or to which this letter of credit related and any such
reference shall not be deemed to incorporate herein by reference to any document,
instrument, or contract.
Haven Federal hereby agrees that your signed draft and resolution as mentioned
above shall be duly honored and payment made upon due presentation to our office•
located at: 250 Second Street S.W., Winter Haven, Florida; on or before February
15, 1984.
Sincerely,
L. C. Parrott
President
LCP:mc
cc: Irving Wheeler
ATTEST:
Post Office Box 858 ❑ 250 Second Street, S.W. ❑ Winter Haven, Florida53880 ❑ Phone: (813) 194-7511
M M
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
( CRI No. 82---1)
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this 15th day of
December, 1982, by and between CORPORATE INVESTMENT COMPANY,
hereinafter referred to as "Developer", and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its
Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as
"County".
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, Developer is commencing proceedings to effect a
subdivision of land within Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, a final plat of the subdivision within the
unincorporated area of Indian River County shall not be recorded
until the Developer has installed the required improvements or has
guaranteed to 'the satisfaction of the County thr.t such improve-
ments will be installed; and
WHEREAS, Developer requests the approval and recordation
of a certain plat to be known as the Seagrove South Subdivision -
Unit One; and • _
WHEREAS, the required improvements are to be installed
after recordation of this plat under guarantees posted with the
County.
..NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS
AND PROMISES HEREIN CONTAINED, the parties agree as follows:
1. Developer agrees to construct on or before August -T
15, 1983, in a good and workmanlike manner, those improvemeats
described as follows: sewer and water lines and related
appurtenances, drainage improvements, grading and paving
improvements, and all other improvements depicted on the plat of
Seagrove Subdivision -• Unit One or otherwise required by the Code
of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County in connection with
the approval of sa.yd plat. A copy of the plat shall be recorded
in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida upon the
final approval of the Board of County Commissioners and made a
part hereof for all purposes.
PAuE 41,-8
5
DEC 1 1982
tj :� . 1992
BOOS.b,.�
Ur.
2. Developer agrees to construct said improvements
strictly in accordance with the most recent set of plans and
specifications for this subdivision approved by the County and on
file in the Community Development Division, which plans are hereby
incorporated by this reference and shall be a part hereof for all
purposes.
3. In order to guarantee performance, Developer shall
furnish an Irrevocable Letter of Credit, in a form and from a
banking institution to be approved by the County, in.an amount no
less than $300,000.00 simultaneously with the execution of this
contract. It is understood that the full amount of the Letter of
Credit shall remain available to the County and shall not be
reduced during the course of construction without an express
written modification thereof executed by all parties.
4. The County agrees to approve the plat for recorda-
tion in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida upon
execution hereof and shall accept those areas specifically
dedicated to the County for the purposes indicated on the plat at
such time as the improvements are satisfactorily completed.
Satisfactory completion in accordance with the plans, -
specifications, and ordinance requirements of Indian River County
shall be determined by the County and shall be indicated by
written approval of the Public Works Director or his designated
agent,
5. In the event the Developer shall fail or neglect to
fulfill his obligations under this contract and as required by the
Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida, the
Developer, as principal, and the guarantee or surety shall be
jointly and severally liable to pay for the cost of construction
and installment of the required improvements to the final total
cost, including but not limited to engineering, construction,
legal and contingent costs together with any damages, either
direct or consequential, which the County may sustain as a result
of the failure of Developer to carry out and execute all provi-
sions of this contract and applicable ordinances of the County.
6. The parties agree that the County at its option
-2-
shall have the right to construct and install or, pursuant.to
receipt of competitive.bids, cause to be constructed and installed
the required improvements in the event Developer shall fail or
refuse to do so in accordance with the terms of this contract.
Developer expressly agrees that the County may dema:.d and draw
upon said Letter of Credit for the final total cost thereof.
7. Any guarantee or surety provided to the County by
Developer with respect to this contract shall exist solely for the
use and benefit of the County and shall not be construed or
intended in any way to benefit or secure payment to any
subcontractor, laborer, materialman or other party providing
labor, material, supplies, or services for construction of the
required improvements, unless the County shall agree otherwise in
writing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their
hands and seals on the day and year first above written.
CORPORATE INVESTMENT`COMPANY
By �e
G
HN J. Rz�BBOO- D, President
ATTEST: GC%
(CorporGtP,', Leak; r'
ATTEST:
FREDA WRIGHT, Clerk
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
DO".S URLCCK, J �4�
Chairman, Board of
County Commissioners
Approved as to form
A
' rtc,
nbu g
—3—
DEC
3—
DEC 15 1982 t oX 5 r 2 FADE
B9cw Fa T
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - DALE'S LANDING SUBDIVISION
Mr. King reviewed staff memo.as follows, noting that a
check for $600 has been received:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 24, 1982 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners IRC -82 -SD -02,x}236
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
atrick Bruce King, AICD
FRO lk,11: Clare Zimmerman R L�
Staff Planner
SUj QCT:
RFEE ERE N10ES:
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF DALE'S
LANDING SUBDIVISION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of Commissioners at their regular
meeting on December 15, 1982.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
The applicant received preliminary plat approval for a 4.8 acre,
seven (7) lot subdivision on September 15, 1982. The subdivision
is located between U.S. #1 and the Indian River, south of
Floravon Shores and directly adjacent to the northern boundary
of Reflections on the River. The subdivision is located directly
south of the FDOT drainage ditch. The subject property is zoned
Rl-AA, a single family classification allowing a maximum density
of 2.6 units/acre. The land use classification is LD -2, Low
Density Residential, allowing a maximum density of 6 units/acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANP.LYSIS:
The conditions for preliminary plat approval were that:
1) A note should be placed on the final plat stating that the
subdivision is within the 100 Year Floodplain and that the
swales would probably be inundated during extremely wet
periods.
2) Appropriate traffic control and street signs would be a part of
the final improvements.
A site inspection has been done- of the subject property and staff
found all improvements constructed on the site to be adequate and
in accordance with County regulations, with one exception, seeding
germination on the site was only approximately 50o complete. It
was requested of the applicant that he post a cash seeding
maintenance bond. The amount of the bond should be equal to 50%
of a contractor's quotation for reseeding all right-of-ways,
easements, etc.
P.ECOMIIET RLWION :
It is recommended that the County
plat of Dale's Landing Subdivision
a $600 seeding maintenance bond.
101
Commission approve the final
subject to the owner posting
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
granted Final Plat Approval of Dale's Landing
Subdivision as recommended by staff.
ADDITION TO AGENDA - EAST COAST TILE & TERRAZZO EXTENSION
Administrator Wright requested that consideration of a
6 month extension of site plan approval for East Coast Tile
& Terrazzo be added to the agenda as an emergency matter
since their time expires Friday.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
agreed to add to today's agenda the emergency
item requested by the Administrator as above.
PROPOSED A4ENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RE 5 ACRE
AGRICULTURAL SUBDIVISION.
memo:
Community Development Director King read the following
102 pa 52 PAU-t 422
I
D E C 15 1992 r;6423
TO: The Honorable Members CRATE: December 6, :1 82 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
TO
SU,r3jE7�`�'PROPOSED REGULATION SRE: 5DMIM,TC ?
AErUPDIVISION AGRICULTURT.
SUBDIVISION
R�' //p.
PO: Bruce King, ����% R IE: FERIE KI%C; S:
Community Development
Division Director
It is requested that the information provided herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
during their regular meeting of December 15, 1982.
DESCRIPTION* AND COTyD:I'�`TOl�S
On October 5, 1982, the County received a letter from
Mr. Dan Richardson of Gracewood, Inc. requesting that the
current subdivision ordinance be amended to allow
agricultural property to be subdivided into 5 acre
lots without the installation of paved streets.
The specific piece of property involved in Mr. Richardson's
proposal is an 880 acre grove on the corner of Ranch Road
and North Winter Beach Road. This grove has been on the
market for sale and has received interest from a number of
people in buying part of this property in small acreages.
It is Mr. Richardson's intention that this particular grove
lends itself very readily to being divided into parcels of
5 acre groves and larger due to the adequate provision for
drainage on all grove parcels and adequate ingress and egress
upon all of the established dirt roads.
However, according to the current requirements of the
County's subdivision ordinance, wherever any land within
the County i.s platted into lots and such platting provides
for the establishment or extension of streets, alleys or
other rights-of-way, a plat thereof shall be recorded in- —.
the public records of Indian River County. Furthermore after
such provision, all of the lots shall border upon an existing
street or public road with a minimum lot width conforming to
the requirements of the specific zoning district. In addition,
the current subdivision regulations require the installation
of paved streets with a minimum pavement width of 20' exclusive
of curbs.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
In Mr. Richardson's letter dated October 4, 1982, he presented
his intent to create a private subdivision and the establishment
of a Property Owners' Association to be responsible for the
maintenance of private roads and canals. Such a private street
network encompassing 880 acres could create a physical barrier
within the co,amunit_y.to obstruct public traffic and efficient
traffic flows. It is important that all subdivisions, both
public"and private, conform to the transportation element of
the County's Comprehensive Plan and provide the necessary public
right -of: -way.
Historically, one of the pri.mnry purposes of the subdivision
Platting process was to ensure that adequate infrastructure
was installed prior to the actutal utilization of the land for
urban uses. Final ,plat approval without the necessary infra --
structure may result: in future demand for such improvements.
As you may recall, Lhore have recently been several articles
103
M M
in the Press Journal concerning the extent of unpaved streets
within the County and their associated maintenance problems.
An amendment to the subdivision requlations establishing 5
acre subdivisions without the requirement of paved streets
or proper maintenance of improved roads may exacerbate the
problem.
The establishment of 5 acre agricultural subdivisions may
place additional development pressure on prime agricultural
lands within the County. With the adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan, the Board of County Commissioners established a land use
policy towards agricultural lands that shall not permit encroach-
ment by other land uses upon agricultural lands except where
demonstrated that those lands are no longer valuable for
agricultural purposes. This issue would have to be addressed
on a specific case by case basis during the review process
for preliminary plat approval.
Within the County's current subdivision regulations, the
definition of "Subdivision" is based upon that definition
contained in Section 177.031, Florida Statutes. Chapter 177
establishes the minimum requirements to regulate and control
the platting of lands. However, under Section 163.170, Florida
Statutes; the definition of "Subdivision" is as follows:
"The division of a parcel of land, whether improved or
unimproved, into 3 or more contiguous lots or parcels
of land, designated by reference to the number or
r -- symbol of the lot or parcel contained in the plat of
such subdivision, for the purpose, whether immediate
or future, of transfer of ownership or, if the
establishment of a new street is involved, any division
of such parcel. However, the division of land into
parcels of more than 5 acres not involving any change
in street lines or public easements of whatsoever kind
is not to be deemed a subdivision within the meaning of
this act. The term includes a resubdivision and, when
appropriate to the context, relates to the process of
subdividing or to the land subdivided."
As noted in the above definition, the division of land into
parcels of more than 5 acres not involving a change in rights-
of-way or public easements are not•deeraed a subdivision and
would not be required to conform to the minimum design and
standards established in the County's subdivision regulations.
This provision is included in the definition of "Subdivision"
within the Brevard County subdivision regulations.
On November 18, 1982 this subdivision proposal was submitted
to the Planning and Zoning Commission for discussion and their
recommendation. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
that the subdivision regulations should be consistent with the
development guidelines established in the agricultural land
use desianation of the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore,
residential development within the area designated as
agricultural with minimum lot sizes of 5 acres should be
required to install paved streets.
The Planning and Zoning Commission
ordinance be amended to include an
that paved roads not be required at
RECOMMENDATION:
recommends the subdivision
agricultural subdivision and
the time of platting.
It is the recommendation of the Community Development Division
staff that the County's current subdivision regulations be
amended in reqards to the definition of "Subdivision" as stipulated
in Section 163.170, I'.lorida Stn tutes. It is further recommended
that adequate provisions -be made in the amendment to ensure the
conformance of all subdivision plats with- the transportation
el emcnt of l -.he Comprehensive Plan and that adequate. maintenance
:.r�a-car.a.ic�.ns for nr.i��ate >treets lac 1:E'c�uired for the approval of
preliminary plats.
DEC 15 1982
DEC 1 1992
BOK 52 F,�6F ?5
Mr. King stated that basically staff is recommending
that a change be made to the current subdivision regulations
to conform to the definition in F. S. Chapter 163.170, which
states that in platted areas where the minimum lot size is
more than 5 acres, it would not be deemed a subdivision and,
therefore, would not necessarily have to comply with,the
specific minimum design standards of the subdivision
regulation.
4,
Attorney Brandenburg hoped that if the Boar did wish
to move in this direction, they would give him ome guide-
lines as to what they would like to see in th ordinance.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he ba ically liked
the concept, but felt there should be deed restrictions or
covenants that would run with the land tolprevent a future
buyer from subdividing and developing that acreage. -
Dan Richardson, the applicant requesting the proposed
amendment, believed that the present Agricultural zoning
would take care of that. He urged that the Board consider
the proposed amendment favorably, which he believed would be
beneficial in promoting low density. Mr. Richardson noted
that he is not necessarily selling this property all rn�5-;
acre parcels, some will be considerably larger, and if he is
not allowed to sell these parcels without having to pave the
roads, etc., it puts.him in a very difficult position.
Discussion continued regarding the need for deed
restrictions, and Engineer James Beindorf emphasized the
reason they wanted to leave this zoned agricultural was
because this will only allow building one single family
house on a five acre lot without having to come back to the
Board.
It was pointed out that it would be preferable to keep
this from coming back to the Board, if possible. Mr.
Richardson commented that this is a new thought to him, but
105
he believed he would be in agreement with some type of deed
restriction, which would protect the other buyers.
Commissioner Wodtke believed that Mr. Richardson's idea
was excellent, and agreed that we should not insist on
requiring roads paved to county standards way out in the
citrus area.
Discussion continued as to the need for thoroughfare
roads in the future, and Mr. King felt we could require that
subdivision plats of this nature would have to adhere to our
Thoroughfare Plan.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that what he hears is that
the Board likes this concept, and they would like to have a
— restrictive covenant requirement and would like to think
about whether there should be a mandatory requirement for an
association to take care of streets, etc.
Mr. Richardson felt they could not sell the land
without such a requirement for all the canals, roads, etc.,
Attorney Brandenburg believed we can require language
on the plat indicating the streets are privately owned and
will be maintained by the association; the same language can
be included in a deed restriction, and this would apply to
drainage also.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
authorized the Attorney to work in' cooperation
with Mr. Richardson and Mr. Beindorf to draft
an ordinance as discussed and advertise same
for public hearing.
Attorney Brandenburg commented that he is hoping to
give the Commission an entirely new Subdivision Ordinance in
the same time frame and hopefully this can all be considered
in one package.
106 426,
DEC 15 192
DEC 15 1982
COMPLAINT BY MRS. COLLINS RE UTILITY DEPOSIT
The Board reviewed staff memo as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph Baird
Assistant Manager
1
800K 52 427
DATE: December 8, 1982 FILE:
SUBJECT: Mrs. Blanche V. Collins
$20.00 security deposit.
REFERENCES:
Mrs. Blanche V. Collins recently aired her complaint with Indian River
County Utilities Department about having to pay a $20.00 water deposit.
Mrs.'Collins spends her winters here in Vero Beach and returns to the North
for the summer. She feels that having to pay a 520.00 water deposit when
she is reconnected after returning from up North is not fair. firs. Collins has
checked with a few of her neighbors who live here all year around and
they have never had to pay a deposit.
We have explained to Mrs. Collins that when Indian River County Utilities
took over the Mid -Florida water system, which was the system that furnished
her area, they did not require that existing customers pay a $20.00
deposit unless they had to be turned off and reconnected. 14e also showed
Mrs. Collins our ordinance 80-13 which states that a refundable deposit
will be required of all new customers and reconnected units. Mrs. Collins
still remains unsatisfied, however, if we were -not to require her to pay
a $20.00 water deposit, we would violate our ordinance 80-13 which promulgates
-our requirements for security deposit.
I have attached a copy of the page in the ordinance 80-13 that addresses
security deposits.
.B. DEPOSITS AND SERVICE CIIARGES
Security Deposit - A refundable deposit will be required of
all new customers and reconnected units per the following table:
Water Service:
5/8 X 3/4" Mctcr $ 20.00
1" Meter 30.00
1 1/2" Meter 40.00
2" Meter 70.00
3" Meter 120.00
Sewer Service - Equal to water deposit; a water and sewer
customer will be 2 times t)le above table. Sewer only service
to franchised water ,service areas will pay a deposit of 1 1/2
times the above figure. The deposits will ensure final payment
of any bill. Accrued interest of the escrowed deposits will be
applied to Operation and Maintenance Revenues, to hold down
general service charges.
Mrs. Collins came before the Board and stated that she
felt there is a discrepancy in the use of the word
"reconnect." She noted that the Utility Department does not
physically use wrenches to disconnect the service, and she
felt the ordinance should read "resume after interruption."
Mrs. Collins continued to insist that she is being
discriminated against since her neighbors have no deposits.
She noted that it is not stated what the interest rate is on
the deposit or how many years it will be kept.
Utility Director Terry Pinto explained the policy
established after take over of the old Mid Florida system.
He agreed the term "disconnect" may be somewhat confusing,
noting that although your connection may not be physically -
turned off, you are discontinued on the billing system.
Whenever this has taken place, when the customer returned,
they were required to put up the $20.00 deposit the same as
a new customer. Existing customers with continuous service
were not required to put up a deposit.
Mrs. Collins continued to argue that she paid $20.00 a
year ago, which the Utility Department has had the use of,
and until such time as every person in the county is
assessed a $20.00 deposit, it is discrimination.
Mr. Pinto pointed out that the system we are using is
uniform and we, therefore, are not discriminating against
anyone. He noted that we do not pay interest on deposits.
Mrs. Collins noted that the word discriminate means
"distinguish between" and the county is discriminating
according to the dictionary.
Administrator Wright submitted that we are doing the best
we can with an unfortunate situation, and he would recommend
that we do not change the policy.
DEC 15 1982 108 to 52 PA6e V8
Fr, --
0 E C 15 1992
In further conversation, the Board generally agreed
that the Utility Department is correct in what they are
doing, and they are being consistent.
RESOLUTION 82-139 - RE BUILDING PERMIT FEES
The Board reviewed Attorney Brandenburg's memo and
attached analysis by City of Vero Beach Finance Director
Nason:
TO: Members of the LATE. December 8, 1982 FILE.
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT": Agenda Item -- Building
Permit Fees
FROM: Gary m. Brandenburg REF,E-'REN�E3:
County Attorney
Attached to this memorandum please find a copy of Mr. Nason's
analysis of the fee situation in the Building Department together
with the proposed resolution establishing new permit fees for the
department. To implement the change,'the adoption of an ordinance
(proposed ordinance attached for your review) will have to be
adopted after the usual notice for a public hearing. This is
necessary because the current ordinance provides that one-half of
the permit fee be paid at the time of application and the remainder
paid when the building permit is issued.. This provision would be
in conflict with the proposal as presented by Mr. Nason.
MIB/mg
Respectfully submitted,
ra y ,-�. Brandenburg , j
109
A
The Honorable Chairman And Members
of the Indian River City. Commission
T. R. Na son
Building fees
JECT
DEPT.
pt;fE November 24, 1982
Finance ;director
DEPT _
As requested during previous sessions, Mrs. Rymer and myself have
reviewed the entire revenue and expenses associated with the
City -County Building Department. The results of this
investigation have culminated in a revision to the attached
resolution outlining fees recommended for county building
projects. This resolution is followed by an analysis of building
department expenses of operation and revenue sources associated
with the inconne from county sources.
The anal psis was made based upon the actual•fees collected from
construction within the county area during fiscal year 1982.
These fees were converted from the old fee schedule of the county
to the schedule used by the City of Vero Beach and the Southern
Standard Building Congress. Based upon the actual fee income for
the county during this period the plans examining fee would have
brought in $67,328. The revenue from the plumbing, electrical-,
insulation and air conditioning permits would have brought in
$90,109. if charged on the city fee schedule. The balance of
funds necessary to meet the obligations of this department were
based upon -the building permit fee that is used by the city when
measured against the county sales. This revenue based upon 1982
data would have brought in $142,852. worth of revenue. Inasmuch
as the balance needed from new construction ,fees was $107,743.
this resulted in a ratio of .75 or 75% of the total fee required.
It should be noted that this determination has been based upon an
already curtailed department that has 2 members less and is
based upon sales of the previous year. Therefore any changes in
these estimating parameters can have a positive or negative
effect on the amount of people required and the amount of revenue
obtained. In my opinion the fee schedule presented represents the
absolute minimum that must be derived from county sources in order
to keep the Building and Zoning Department operating at a break
even point and yet provide $25,000 income in transfers to the
county.
It should be.noted that the operating expenses of the department
totaled $389,005. This amount was adjusted for the transfers to
Indian River County and the City transfer of funds into the
department. Through this method we can determine the shared
expenses which are outlined in the attached analysis.
I respectfully request the commission consider this matter at its
next meeting.
110 61MK :z P'cI C of
DEC 15 19'0102
DEC 15 1982
h3;VI:1dU13 �OUI:rVC
Plans Examining, Fee. Income (Based on FY1982)
Plumbing, Electrical, Insulation, Air Conditioning
Permits (Based on FY1.982)
$ 67,328
90,109
157,437
Total'Required County -Share 265,160
Less Fee Income above 157,437
Balance to be obtained from Building Permits for
New Construction $ L07,723
If City Building Permit Fee used (estimated revenue based
on 1982 actual business data) $142,852
Percentage of Building Permit Fee necessary to
obtain required income 75/
ANALYSIS OF BUILDING DEPARTMENT EXPENSES
OF OPE1W7'ION
Operating Expenses (Total)
$
389,005
Less Transfer to Indian River County
-
25.,000 -`
City Transfer
28;765
Vet Operating Expenses to be shared
$
335,240
Plus Capital. required
25;000 -
TOTAL EXPENSES
$
360,240
City share (1/3)
r
$
120,0 0
County share -(2/3)
$
240•,160
County Sbare
$
-240,160
Plus Direct- Transfer to County
255000
TOTAL REVENUE REQUIRED FROM COUNTY
$
265,160
111
Commissioner Fletcher asked the County Attorney about
the State Statute which says that the amount of the building
fee shall not exceed 20 of the cost of the building, and
Attorney Brandenburg stated that he has not checked the
figures, but he believed that section of the law can be
narrowly construed as pertaining to only a portion of the
fees in the proposed resolution.
Mr. Nason informed the Board that the Treasure Coast
Builders Association is not opposed to the proposed
Resolution.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding clarification of
the City's share in the figures presented by Mr. Nason. Mr.
Nason explained in detail how he handled the two transfer
amounts, the deductions made to get to a common base, and
the need to generate $50,000 to replace five cars over the
next two years.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if we are going to continue
the practice of using excess funds for this purpose, and
Chairman Scurlock did not believe the money generated by the
new fees should be considered excess funds since it actually
is payment for services rendered.
It was noted that at budgettime, it was generally felt
that $25,000 was a reasonable chargeback for the adminis-
trative overhead involved in administering this program.
Mr. Nason concurred that the rationale was that there
were certain portions of the County Planning function which
were not revenue producing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Laodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Lyons
being absent and Commissioner Fletcher voting
in opposition, the Board by a 3 to 1 vote
adopted Resolution 82-139 revising the schedule
of Building Permit Fees and Charges.
112
DEC 15 1982
D 15 1982
B�?K 52 Fh,Ur V;
Attorney Brandenburg stated that the rates can be made
effective immediately, he just wished to correct an
inconsistency in the Ordinance by striking the provision
which indicates half of the fees shall be paid at time of
application and the remainder when the building permit is
issued.
Resolution 82-139 is hereby made a part of the Minutes.
113
RESOLUTION NO. 82- 139
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REVISING THE
SCHEDULE OF BUILDING PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES.
WHEREAS, Indian River County currently shares with the
City of Vero Beach a joint Building Department, and
WHEREAS, the Department is established to operate as an
enterprise fund to distribute the cost of operation to those
individuals that use the services instead of imposing the burden
of such costs upon the general taxpayers, and
WHEREAS, it has now been determined that fees and
charges must be increased to provide sufficient revenue for the
continuation of the Department as an enterprise fund, and
WHEREAS, the adoption of a fee schedule that parallels
the City's will eliminate confusion and reduce administrative
-ove-rhead expenses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that;
1. The County Commission finds and determines that
adoption of the following schedule of rates and charges is
necessary and in the best interest of the residents of Indian
River County, and
2. The following schedule is+hereby adopted and shall
become effective for all construction occurring in the
unincorporated areas of Indian River County on >Z.S�F ,
1982.
BUILDING FEES
The following fees are based on total valuation (New
construction, repairs or alterations). All references to
"Standard Building Code" mean the Standard Building Code as
modified and adopted by Indian River County which appears in
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
Appendix A is the Southern Standard Building Code
Congress Data used to establish the minimum value associated with
the construction cost for which a permit is being requested. The
actual valuation used in determining the building fee will be the
valuation submitted by the requestor of the permit or the Southern
Standard Building Code Congress calculation, whichever is higher.
This valuation will be adjusted to reflect seventy-five percent
(75%) of the total. valuation of the building and improvements for
purposes of assessing the fee outlined below:
$100.00 or less:
Minimum Fee - $5.00
DEC 15 1982 -1- a K 2 PA9 X34
I
FF,-- --
DEC 15 1982
BOOK 2
$101.00 - $2,000.00:
$5.00/$1,000 or fraction thereof.
$2,001.00 - $15,000.00:
$10.00 for the first $2,000 plus $3.00 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $15,000.00.
$15,001.00 - $50,000.00:
$49.00 for the first $15,000 plus $2.50 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof to and
including $50,000.00.
$50,001.00 - $100,000.00:
$136.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $2.00 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to
and including $100,000.00.
$100,001.00 - $500,000.00:
$236.50 for the first $100,000.00 plus $1.50 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to
and including $500,000.00.
$500,001.00 and up:
$836.50 for the first $500,000.00 plus $1.00
for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
FEE
GAS TANKS:
6.00
0 - 550 gallons
$ 5.00
550 - 1,000 gallons
7.00
Each additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof
7.00
SEA WALLS:
4.00
First 50 feet
15.00
Over 50 feet/foot
.20
DOCKS:
First 20 feet
10.00
Each additional 10 feet
3.00
DEMOLITION:
500 - 1,000 square feet 12.00
Each additional 1,000 sq. ft. or fraction
thereof 8.00
UP TO $60.00 MAXIMUM
FENCES:
1 - 150 linear feet
6.00
Each additional 100 linear feet or
fraction thereof.
2.00
ELEVATORS:
Each (three stories or less)
12.00
Each additional floor
4.00
SWIMMING POOLS:
Up to 20,000 gallons
25.00
Each additional 1,000 gallons or
fraction thereof
1.00
SCREEN ENCLOSURES:
.03 /square foot/minimum $3.00
3.00
ROOFS:
0 - 1,000 square feet
10.00
1,000 - 2,000 square feet
12.00
Over 2,000 square feet each 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof
3.00
-2-
ALL PAVING:
First 1,000 square feet 7.00
Each 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof to 10,000 square feet 2.50
Each 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof 1.50
MOVING BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES:
Each alteration thereto/Building Permit
Fees 50.00
PLAN CHECKING FEES:
When the valuation of the proposed construction exceeds $1,000.00
and a plan is required to be submitted by Section 105.3 of the
Standard Building Code, a plan checking fee shall be paid to the
building official at the time of submitting plans and
specifications for checking. Said plan checking fee shall be
one-half of the building permit fee as set forth in this
resolution.
Where work for which a permit is required by the Standard Building
Code is started, or proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit,
the fee herein shall be doubled, but payment of said double fee
shall not relieve any persons from fully complying with the
requirements of applicable County ordinances in the execution of
the work. Nor shall the payment of a double fee relieve any
persons from penalties as defined elsewhere in the ordinances of
Indian River County.
A re -inspection fee, in the amount of $6.00, shall be charged for
each trip in cases where:
(a) Previous repairs or corrections were not satisfactorily and
properly made prior to such inspection.
(b) The work was not ready when the inspector was requested.
(c) Wrong address or improper directions were given for location
of the property.
Before additional permits will be issued, payment must be made for
re -inspection.
INSULATION:
See Building Permit Fees on valuation (New construction, repairs
and alterations).
PLUMBING FEES
When an application for permit is approved and before a
permit is issued, a fee therefore shall be paid based on the
following schedule of rates:
-3- on 2 PA6c 43u
DEC 15 1982.
FEE
(a)
For each fixture roughed in and
installed on new or reconstructed
plumbing, or each fixture outlet
roughed in
$ 2.75
(b)
For each water heater
2.75
(c)
For each septic tank to 1,200 gallons
5.00
For each septic tank -over 1,200 gallons
6.00
(d)
For each grease trap
4.00
(e)
For each sewer connection
6.00
(f)
For inspection of remodeling or repairs
on waste, soil, vent, drain or sewer
pipes
6.00
-3- on 2 PA6c 43u
DEC 15 1982.
DEC 15 1982
(g) For each lawn sprinkler system, air
conditioning, refrigeration, or cooling
unit, connected to the city water and
sewer
(h) For each re -inspection made due to the
work being condemned or not being ready
at the time specified
(i) For each roof drain
(j) For each area drain
(k) For each water service connection to a
municipal or private multiple water
supply system:
First meter on each lot (within
municipality)
First meter on each lot (outside
municipality to City water system)
For each additional meter on same lot
(1) Water Connection to or outlets for an
appliance or installation not covered
by fixture permit
(m) Water Connection to outlets for hose or
lawn faucets:
First Connection
Each additional
FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM: (Dry Chemical System)
Each hose cabinet assembly
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM:
Minimum permit fee for
each installation
Plus .25t/sprinkler
head
SWIMMING POOL CONNECTIONS TO WATER SYSTEM
GAS: (The following shall include
bottle gas)
For the first outlet and/or
appliance
For each additional outlet and/or
appliance
For change from a master to an
individual meter
For multiple meters at one location:
For first meter
For each additional meter
For major repairs to gas pipe where
no fixture or appliance
installation is involved
BOILERS: Minimum permit fee for installations
not to exceed $100
Each $500 or fraction thereafter
FURNACES AND HEATING EQUIPMENT/UNIT
INSTALLED:
For the first 100,000 B.T.U./hour or
fractional part
Each additional 100,000 B.T.U./hour
or fractional part
-4-
3.50
8.00
2.50
2.50
$ 2.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.50
5.00
5.00
.25
6.00
4.50
1.50
2.00
2.50
1.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
7.00
3.00
I
2 P, -F437
-
Note: The rating of furnace and heating
equipment shall be based on the
B.T.U. input of fuel used/hour.
WELLS: (Drilling or Digging) 5.00
Sprinkler Systems 4.00
WATER STORAGE TANKS: (Up to 1,000 gal.) 6.00
Each additional
1,000 gal. or
fraction 1.50
SOLAR WATER HEATER SYSTEM 7.50
ELECTRIC FEES
When application for permit is, approved and before a
permit is issued, a fee therefore shall be paid on the following
schedule or rates:
FEE
LIGHT OUTLETS: 1-8 outlets, inclusive
(minimum)
$ 5.00
Over 8 outlets, the
minimum charge of $5.00 for
the first 8 outlets plus -
each additional outlet
.10
SERVICES: Temporary for construction
6.00
400 ampere or less
8.00
For each additional 100 ampere
(over 400)
4.00
SERVICE CHANGES: 400 ampere or less
8.00
Over 400 ampere - each
additional 100 ampere
4.00
SWITCHBOARDS OR PANELS: By amperes, same
as "Services"
(Not exceeding
400 amp) each panel
4.00
EQUIPMENT: Drop in range
2.50
Range Top
1.50
Oven
1.50
Sign Outlet
1.00
and all other appliance
outlets inspected in
conjunction with rough wiring,
including room space heaters,
ceiling heat, etc. (each)
1.00
MOTORS: Up to 1 H.P.
1.50
1-3 H.P.
3.00
3-5 H.P.
4.00
Over 5 H.P. up to 10 H.P.
(per additional H.P.)
1.00
10 H.P.
9.00
Over 10 H.P. (per additional H.P.)
.50
MACHINES: X -Ray - Portable - dentist
3.00
X -Ray - Stationary - doctor
5.50
Diathermic and Electronic Outlet
3.00
GENERATORS & TRANSFORMERS: Each up to 5 RVA
2.50
Each generator or transformer over 5 KVA
thru 10 KVA
5.00
Each generator or transformer over 10 KVA
thru 15 RVA
7.00
Each generator or transformer over 15 KVA
thru 20 RVA
8.50
-5-
DEC 15 1992
s�
an 43
F��f 43
r .
b � C 15 1982
Each generator or transformer over 20 KVA
thru 25 KVA
Each generator or transformer over 25 KVA
thru 30 KVA
Each generator or transformer over 30 RVA
Generators and transformers, where located
on same floor, fee for largest, plus $1.00
for each additional.
WELDING MACHINES: Up to 25 amperes
Over 25-50 amperes
Over 50 amperes - plus
$2.00 for each additional
25 amperes or fractional
part thereof
8c7V11 5
10.00
15.00
17.50
3.00
5.00
TRAILER PARKS: Main Service and
Sub -Services as per "Services" $ 8.00
All other equipment same fees as set forth in all other items.
SPECIAL PURPOSE OUTLETS: (Commercial)
Popcorn, doughnut, drink machines, coin
music machines, toaster, coffee urn,
deep fryer, refrigerator, display cases,
and other electrical coin operated machines:
Fee each time installed
Permit No. to beidisplayed on each machine.
AUTO PAINTING: Bake Ovens
AIR CONDITIONING HEAT STRIPS:
1-5 K.W.
Each additional 5 K.W. thereafter
HANGING OF FIXTURES: (Not included in
original permit)
Lights - 1-10 bulbs of fluorescent tubes
Each additional fixture
COMBINATION: Light fixtures and outlets
up thru 10
One inspection
Streamers or festoon lights:
First 10 lights
Each additional 10 or fraction
PLUGMOLD: First 25 feet
Each 5 feet thereafter
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS: Temporary work or
general repairs to radio or television,
transmitting or receiving stations, picture
shows, carnivals, circuses, road shows, or
similar organizations; a permit fee from
$8.00 to $50.00 shall be paid dpending upon the
complexity of the work, said fee to be
determined by the electrical inspector, and
approved by the director.
No permit will be issued for a fee of less
than $5.00. The said fees shall include
payment for the permit and for inspection
of work, after the same shall have been
completed. If the electrical inspector
shall, upon his inspection after completion
of the work or apparatus, find that the same
-6-
1.50
8.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
.20
2.00
2.00
.50
1.50
.25
8.00
5.00
does not conform to and comply with the
requirements established by the County,
he shall notify the master electrician, indicating
the corrections required; and when the inspector
is notified that the corrections have been made,
he will again inspect the work or apparatus
without further charge; but, when extra
inspection trips are necessary, due to any of
the following reasons, a charge of $8.00 shall
be made for each trip - payable prior to
reinspection. 8.00
(aa) Wrong address
(bb) Condemned work, resulting from
faulty construction
(cc) Repairs or corrections not
made when inspection is called
(dd) Work not ready for inspection
when called.
The payment of re -inspection fee shall be made before
any further permits will be issued to the person owing same.
WORK STARTED BEFORE PERMIT IS ISSUED - THE FEE SHALL BE DOUBLED
MECHANICAL FEES
When applicant for permit is approved and before a
-pe-rmit is issued, a fee therefore shall be paid based on the
following schedule of rates.
*AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION:
For the purpose of charging fees - 1 ton
of refrigeration will equal 12,000
B.T.U.'s/hour or 1 H.P. total connected
load.
The first 5 tons or fractional part
The next 5 tons up to and including
10 tons - per ton
Over 10 tons - per ton additional
All major repairs or replacements,
same fees as above.
WINDOW UNITS OR WALL UNITS: (Where no
construction work is involved in the
building or duct work attached)
For the first 5 units - each
For each additional unit
FEE
$ 8.00
1.50
2.00
3.50
2.00
WORK STARTED BEFORE A PERMIT IS ISSUED - THE FEE SHALL BE DOUBLED
* MECHANICAL PERMIT FEE - See Plumbing
Permit Fees for Furnaces and Heating Equipment.
TRAILER PARK FEE SCHEDULE - AUGUST,
INDIVIDUAL TRAILERS - OTHER ALUM
Tie -down Permit
Carport Roof - Screen Room
(To be charged by cubic area -
Residential)
Utility storage is included in
carport ,roof permit
Patio Slab (No Cover)
DEC 15 1992 - 7 -
1976 REVISION
WORK
FEE
$ 8.00
7.00
910K 52 POSE 4
e
r- -
DEC 15 '1982
Electrical:
See Electrical Permit
Fee Schedule
Septic Tank Permit: See Plumbing Permit
Fee Schedule
PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE FOR MODULAR HOMES
FEE
Plans Examination $15.00
Footing Inspection 8.00
Tie -Down Inspection $ 8.00
Electricl Connection 8.00
Air Conditioning Connection 8.00
Sanitary Sewer (if applicable) 6.00
Septic Tank (if applicable) 5.00
3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the intent of the Board
of County Commissioners is to revise the schedule of fees and
charges to produce sufficient revenues that will allow the
department after considering all expenses and administrative
costs to break even; and to promote this goal, the County shall
review the financial status of the department each year during the
budget workshop sessions to determine whether further rate
modifications are necessary.
4. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall be
incorporated into the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River
County, Florida, and for this purpose section heads may be
renumbered or relettered.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Wodtk.e who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Nay
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Absent
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Dick Bird Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 15th day of December , 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest:,JAa,_�(// < /� By C
FREDA WRIGHT, Verk DON C. SCUR OCK, JR.
Chairman
APPROVE AS TO gORM
AND L SUF CI
By.
GAY BRANDENBURG, County Attorney
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
extended the meeting to 5:30 o'clock P.M.
MEETING OF SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT AND NORTH COUNTY FIRE
DISTRICT BOARDS
The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 4:52
o'clock P.M. in order that the District Board of Fire
Commissioners of the South Indian River County Fire District
might convene. Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 5:10
— o'clock P.M. and recessed immediately in order that the -
District Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Indian
River Fire District might convene. Those Minutes are being
prepared separately.
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon reconvened
at 5:22 o'clock P.M. with the same members present,
Commissioner Lyons being absent.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL - EAST COAST
TILE & TERRAZZO
The Board reviewed staff memo as follows:
114
DEC 15 1982 wK 52 Pkbc
rr�
DEC 15 1982
BOOK 52 F,�40.3 1
TOi HE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE DATE. Dec. 14, 1982 FILE.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH: Michael Wright SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
County Administrator SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM
EAST COAST TILE & TERRAZZO
SUPPLIES, INC.
�P
FROM: Patrick Bruce King,AlI P'REFERENCES. East Coast Tile &
Community Development Terrazzo Supplies,Inc.
Director Letter of Dec. 13, 1982
On December 17, 1981, the Planning & Zoning Commission,
unanimously.approv,ed the site plan application submitted
by Samuel Adams to construct a retail sales and related
storage facility. The proposed location for the expansion
of East Coast Tile & Terrazzo is a .85 acre parcel situated
on the northeast corner of Old Dixie Highway and 4th Place.
Construction has not begun due to monetary constraints
caused by the current recession.
The Board of County Commissioners may at their discretion
grant an extension of the site plan approval expiration date
as provided in Section 23(h) of the Zoning Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Mr. Samuel Adams, acting on behalf of East
Coast Tile & Terrazzo, Inc. be granted a six-month extension
of the site plan approval for the construction of a retail
sales and storage facility at 450 Old Dixie Highway.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
granted a six-month extension of site plan
approval for East Coast Tile & Terrazzo, Inc.
CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL PHASE 1, JOE S. EARMAN ISLAND PARK
Engineering Technician Don Finney reviewed his memo, as
follows:
115
-I O: The
Honorable
Members of
DATE:
November 10, 1982 FILE:
the
Board of
County Commissioners
TIIRU: Michael Wright,
County Administr or
VIA: James W. Davis, P. E. ,C>, SUBJECT: Earman Island Park Site Plan
Public Works Director Phase I Construction
FROIM: Donald G. Finney -q-, REFERENICES:
Engineer Technician
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The project proposal is to develop the park in three
phases. Phase I in 1982-1983 to consist of clearing native
trails, installing signs, six picnic tables, six charcoal
gr 11z,,four benchs, and a playground tire swing.
A large wood "park" sign and flagpole to be placed on
the Inland Waterway side of the island and a portable toilet
on each side of the island. One permanent wood boat dock 51x20'
on each side of the island.
This phase of construction will increase the publics
use and access to the park. See attached narrative and site
plan.
Construction shall not begin until all necessary permits
and site plan approvals are obtained from F.I.N.D., D.E.R.,
Indian River Shores and D.N.R.
Estimated cost of Phase I-$9,020.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
1. County Road and Bridge Department clear nature trails,
erect and build boat docks.
2. Contractor hired to do Item 1 above on an hourly
basis.
3. Let out for bids entire Phase I construction.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Recommend Alternative No. 1 construction take place
as time permits, Road and Bridge Special Projects Department
to do the work, and as various materials such as signs,
flagpole, etc. are purchased and received.
Approve use of existing $3,500 in Florida Navigation
District Fund and request an additional $3,800 from F.I.N.D.
to start the initial construction Phase I.
Apply to Boating Improvement Trust Program for $1,800+
to fund the two boat docks.
116
DEC 15 1982
6X 52 .PAGE 40:4
I
DEC 15 198
Air. Finney noted that the memo should state that it
would be $1,800 for each dock, or $3,600. He reported that
the Angler's Club and the Vero Beach Yacht Club group are
showing some interest in taking this on as a project.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, to proceed as recommended
by Engineering Technician Finney in his memo of
November 10, 1982.
Discussion ensued on the location of the island, which
is where the old channel meets the Intracoastal Waterway,
and Commissioner Fletcher did not feel that a dock is really
needed on the channel side as there is a natural beach
there.
Community Services Director Thomas felt there is
justification since you have a large number of people from
the Yacht Club group and others who are fairly elderly and
the main purpose of the dock is to facilitate getting on and
off the island; it is not for fishing, etc. He further
noted that the idea of this is mainly conceptual and Fie-
believed we can get the funds on that basis but that no
final plans would be adopted until they are further
reviewed.
Commissioner Fletcher continued to discuss the need for
a boat to pick up trash, etc., and felt it will impact our
current recreational crew.
Mr. Thomas again emphasized that all we are addressing
at this time is conceptual approval so that we can get the
funds. There is no point going into these items in greater
depth if we can't get the money.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
117
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
extended the meeting to 6:00 o'clock P.M.
DISCUSSION RE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DOUGLAS SCHOOL PROPERTY DEED
Mrs. Ingram, President of the West Wabasso Progressive
Civic League, came before the Board re the old Douglas
School property as set out in the following letter:
i
118
DEC 15 1982 oem 52 l
DEC 15 1982
BASK 2 pi%f � 447
Mrs. Ingram stated that it is their goal to establish a
community resource center, to provide social services for
the community, and to improve community involvement. In
regard to methods of financing, they are hoping to sublease
portions of the property and to obtain bank loans on the
basis of projected income. They will also have community
projects to raise funds and their estimated budget is
$20-23,000. Mrs. Ingram stated that Attorney [Wayne
McDonough will help them with legal matters.
Discussion followed, and it was noted that the
Commission had indicated that the West Wabasso Civic League
was the entity the Board was going to deal through, and it
was further felt that we had authorized them to proceed to
work out a package in -regard to financing, sub -leasing,
etc., so that we could turn the property over to the League
at the same time we accepted it from the School Board.
Mrs. Ingram stated that they do not know if the
property is going to be leased or deeded to them, and until
they have something concrete to work with, they can't do
anything.
Commissioner Bird asked if a Motion was passed today=
agreeing to lease this property to the League for $1.00 a
year for 20 years, would the League want that lease to
commence immediately. He emphasized that the day that lease
starts, the League's expenses start, and he believed that
insurance requirements must be made a part of the lease
because once we accept that property, we have a
responsibility to protect it.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he would prefer deeding
the property with a reverter clause as he felt this would
provide the League more flexibility in their finances.
Attorney Brandenburg noted if the property were used as
collateral, it is possible that we could end up getting it
back mortgaged.
119
Com. Wodtke felt a lending institution would have
trouble with a restriction that would not allow them to ever
sell the property,and he did not believe we can deed it
without a restriction that it can't be sold and must be used
for a public purpose.
Chairman Scurlock informed Mrs. Ingram that the
Commission is indicating that the League is the only entity
they are considering and that they should go ahead and
proceed to get everything firmed up.
Mrs. Ingram noted that the school is not in a workable
state and this presents a problem when people want to come
and see it. She wished to know if they are permitted to go
in the building and get to work.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if we need to get the
School Board to give us a release so the League can proceed
to get the place in working order.
Administrator Wright suggested that staff work with
Mrs. Ingram to come up with the answers and come back to the
Board with a finished product.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, to
authorize the Administrator and the Attorney
to work with Mrs. Ingram and Attorney McDonough
and come back with a proposed deed at the first
meeting in January.
Discussion continued as to the main potential for
leasing being the Health group, and the importance of
cleaning up the property up as soon as possible.
Commissioner Fletcher asked Mrs. Ingram if the League
is ready to accept the building as it is, and Mrs. Ingram
agreed they are, if that is all the School Board is going to
120
r
52 P6E
I
DEC 15 1982 BOOK 5.2 Frk �C 4
do. She noted that she has already talked to Dr. Burns and
Mr. Hunter.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
PURCHASE OF IBM DISPLAYWRITER SYSTEM FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPI- ENT DEPT.
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DA-rE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
November 29, 1982 FILE:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: IBM Displaywriter System
Patrick Bruce King, AI
P. Joyce Hamilton
REFERENCES: Assistant
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners a` their regular meeting on December
15, 1982. 3
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Community Development Division has a continual backlog of typing and deadlineE
are not being met.due largely to the high volume of typing drafts of rezon=
ings, site plans, subdivision plat approvals; ordinances; resolutions;
repetitive zoning notices to property ownors; repetitive notices to local
engineers and architects, -in addition to special projects. Additional
time is consumed, revising and correcting -these drafts to produce the
final copy. These revisions result in the document being retyped, adding
further to the existing backlog of typing.
Currently, Community Development has one clerk --typist, two secretaries,
and one administrative assistant using three IBM Selectric II typewriters
and one older IBM typewriter. These four employees do the typing for
eleven other employees in addition to other duties.
fiLTERP3ATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The T13111 Displaywriter System is a mouular, dis'r;ette-based word processing
syste?ti, capable of creating and editincr text. Using the text processing
functions, an operator can create, revise, and electronically store documents
on a diskette. The operator can alsc use a spelling verification aid to
compare the words in a document to two stored dictionaries. The Logicalc
function allows the operator to enter text and numeric data to produce
reports using the built-in regression capability.
121
Each work station has a display station (a display module, a keyboard
module, and an electronics module) and a diskette unit for reading and
recording information on data diskettes.
Documents are printed on an attached IBM Printwheel Printer capable of
playing out one page of a document while a typist is working on another
page. The printer is also capable of roducing proportionately spaced
type, as well as'10, 12, and 15 pitch.' In 10 pitch, up to 60 characters
per second are primed in high quality bidirectional printing. With
an additional hardware feature, up to three work stations can share one
printer.
The Sheep. -Feed Paper Handler is attached to the Printer and is capable
of sheet -feeding paper of various sizes and weights into the printer
and stacking paper in printed sequence.
The IBM Displaywriter System allows the operator to perform at drafting
speed; highlights misspelled words; allows correction, revision, and
pagination of document to be performed in a swift, efficient manner
resulting in a high quality, neat, and error -free end product.
The Community Development Division proposes to utilize one printer,
one work station, and one operator to be used for drafting Division's
paperwork.. The Division also proposes to add one work station to the -
main work station, utilizing the one printer, for all revision and
correction of the Division's documents.
One 60 characters per second printer with the sheet -feed attachment, two
work stations each equipped with Textpack-4.and one.equipped with Logicalc
software totals $19,099. Broken down into'the 60 month government
timepayment plan, the first year cost totals $7336.80. The 24 month
lease plan totals $10,440 for the first year.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Division staff recommends the purchase of
one 60 characters per second printer with tree sheet -feed attachment,
two work stations, both equipped with TextpackT4 and one equipped with
Logicalc software.
FUNDING:
$17,000 has been funded for automotive capital outlay for the current
fiscal year. Vehicle transfers to the Community. Development Division
basically uncommitted the funds as approved. Community Development
proposes to transfer.$17,000(from 004-207-524-66.42) for this purchase.
A deficit of $2,099 will be funded by transferring that amount into
the capital outlay expense account for office furniture and equipment
(004-20.4-515-66.41) from the operating expense account for outside
printing (004-205-515-34.72). These funds have been freed due to the
Board of County Commissioners' decision not to print copies of the Com-
prehensive Plan as originally budgeted.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
authorized the purchase of the IBM Display -
writer System for the Community Development
Department as recommended by staff.
Ic 1 1982 122 ssox 52 pAgF 450
DEC 1 S 1982 BOOK 52 Fr�UF fy 3
TABLE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION RE RAMPMASTER INDUSTRIAL BONDS
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
agreed to table adoption of a Resolution re-
garding the Rampmaster Industrial Bond Issue
to a later meeting.
DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION CONCERNING MELBOURNE REGIONAL
AIRPORT
The Board considered the following letter from the City
of Melbourne:
(3015') 7P7- _Q-900
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
November 29, 1982
The Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner - Indian River County
P.O. Box 1028
Vero Beach, FL 32960
900&'Z/
�%f�r.1%�lt11C. �/<ltllil.
Subject: Resolution No. 791, adopted November 23, 1952
by the City Council of the City of Melbourne,
Florida
Dear Commissioner Scurlock:.
En,clos.ed• rind q. certified copy of the above subject
Resolution opposing the proposed revocation_, by the
United States Customs Service, of the landing rights
designation for the ,Melbourne -Regional Airport.
The loss of the landing rights designation for the
Ylelbournc Regional Airport would adversely impact on
the ability of the Airport to provide full services for
the residents of both Brevard and Indian River Counties.
123
0
Tie strongly urge you to contact the U.S. Customs Service.
Att: Regulation Control Branch, 1301 Constitution Ave-
nue, N.T'., Room 2420, iashington, D.C. 20229, and voice
your opposition to their proposal.
knyo,rely,
. Gaston, CSC
282 1? erk
11ELBOUR.NE
Commissioner Bird asked if anyone had checked with our
local airport, and the Administrator stated they have not.
In further discussion, the Board had several questions
which could not be answered, and it was generally agreed
that there was not enough information available to take
_action at this time.
The Administrator and Commissioner Bird will come back
with more detailed information at a later meeting.
BID #149 - ROTARY 14OWERS
The Board reviewed the following recommendation of the
Purchasing Department Manager:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: November 29, 1982 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright
County Administrator
SUBJECT: IRC #149 - Rotary Mowers -
10 ft. offset
FIROM: Carolyn Goodrich REFERENCES:
.Purchasing Department Manager
I. Description and Conditions
Bids were received November 1E, 1902 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #149 - Rotary
Moviers - 10 ft. offset.
11 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the G bids received, 3 were "No Bids".
124
BOOK, P��E
n C 15 1982
BOOK .2 F�.�F 453
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by Sunrise Ford Tractor Co., Inc. in tha amount
of $4010.00 ez<ch for a Woods Full Type 10 ft. offset mower. Allowance for
trade-in is $1500.00 each. Total bid price for 2 mowers, less trade-in
is $5020.00. Delivery time of 30 days. The bid meets all specifications.
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC 7#149 be awarded to the low bidder, Sunrise Ford
Tractor Co., Inc. in the amount of S5020.00.
There is $11,400 budgeted in Account x004-214-541-66.49 for the purchase of
2 mowers.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #149 for two rotary mowers'to the
low bidder, Sunrise Ford Tractor Co., Inc., as
recommended by the Bid Committee.
1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2145 -14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
6!D TABUU:TIOH
31D y0.
IRC #149
16jD TITLE
l2} Rotary Mowers
DATE OF OPENING 1982
i:ov. 16,
- i0 ft. offset`
Ly
- fft-
�o
IWO
3a,
C
VO
31D y0.
IRC #149
16jD TITLE
l2} Rotary Mowers
DATE OF OPENING 1982
i:ov. 16,
- i0 ft. offset`
h
(ITEM
NO.
DESCRIP QN
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT
Price
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UN:
1.
(2) Rotary Mowers - 10 ft. offset
Woods
FMC
Wood
:2 ea.
NB
NB
10000
00
8300
00
8020 100
NB
-Dei
9274
00
fi
. d
�r
Less Trade-in
1300
00
3000
00
3000 00
1250
00
1_
Total
8700
00
5300
00
5020 00
8024
00
2.
Days recuired
for deliver
after receipt
of Purchase Order
45
5
30
15
125
M a M
REQUEST FOR ONE-TIME SPECIAL SERVICE FEE FOR NACo
The Board reviewed the following letter:
-1 ^ Works
,ri 17� iJ ��. l:J(1i-nU:lily Dev.
Litlli'L,iCS
Novemaer 27_, 902 r } ' finance
_rOV
Mr. Don C. Scurlock
Indian River County Carnissioner
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Commissioner Scurlock:
ACfl�
We are writing to you in our capacity as Florida's members on the "
Board (2- Directors of the National Association of Counties. As you know from
reading the County Neias, IeACo has short-term financial problems of major
proportion (in the neighborhood of $2 million). This financial dilemma has
developed primarily due to extreme mismanagement in the building of the new
wo Headquarters Building in vYashington.
President Pill Murphy and the officers last week called a meeting of
the Board of Directors in Washington. For several hours, we were led, detail
by detail, through the methods by which the organization reached its current
state. It was mind boggling. The result has, been the termination of those
employees responsible for the mismanagement, including Executive Director
Bernie Hillenbrand. A new private sector fiscal management team has been at
work for a couple of months to ascertain -the depth of the problems, both
management and fiscal. The question before all county officials today is,
where do we go from here?
The Board unanimously agreed that it is. essential to have a strong
voice for county government in Washington. We cannot afford to just close the
doors. Several actions have been taken: The staff has been reduced from 116
to 55 members. One-third of the I=o office space has been released and the
officers have negotiated loans frcm t.,qo banks. What lies ahead is the payback
of the loans as well as keeping alive a vital lobbying effort.
In order to achieve this, two steps have been taken. One, each
roamb-er county will lee asked immediately to make a one-time special service fee
to NACo in the amount of 50% of their annual dues. (You will be given credit
for this amount in the future.) Second, a dues increase of 15% has been voted
126
DE C 19, 1982 PACF 454
DEC 15 1"'62
POOK 52 PA6f 455 7
in by the Board to take effect with each member renewal. While none of us
were anxious to talk about increased membership nr_ney during these hard times,
neither was the alternative acceptable. eve are, therefore, urging you to ab
what you can to support NACU at this tire. Florida's support is vital to a
national effort. We have dei-nanstrated that fact time and again.
In the next few days, you will receive a supplemental bill from
NACo. Please give it careful consideration. It is time for Florida counties
to carte through once more.
Sincerely,
kraldThi, n
fi
-c. Simmers
Board Menuer
Polk County Ccmnissioner
Chairman Scurlock noted that he does not attend the
National meetings and feels the State meetings are where the
relevant action takes place.
Administrator Wright noted that that NACo is our lobby
in Washington and that is the only reason to keep them.
In further discussion, Commissioner Wodtke expressed
his belief that NACo is quite effective at the Washington
level in relation to the state association, but he wished to
know what kind of dollars we are talking about. The Board
agreed.
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
agreed to defer discussion on the request
of support for NACo until the next meeting.
REQUEST FROM SEBASTIAN TO APPROVE CLOSING OF PORTION OF SR
512 TEMPORARILY
The Board reviewed letter from the Sebastian Chief of
Police, as follows:
127
POLIC
P.O. Box
589.5233
JOHN MELTON. POLICE CHIEF
MICHAEL SHETLER. EXEC. OFFICER
Board of County Commissioners
CoThfy Administration Building
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Gentlemen,
TENT
32958
589-5251
DAVID PUSCHER. CHIEF INVESTIGATOR
SGT. L. D. PRIMAVERA, O.I.C. UNIFORM DIV
December 10, 1982
I must apologize for the short notice on this request for street
blockage but the circumstances allow no other course of action.
I respectfully request oe.rmission to close County road 512 '7rom
the L'<=st side of the intersection with US#1 and County road 5i2 to
`•:e ..c.el-section of County roue; 512 and Indian River Drive.
This is done to afford protection for pedestrian traffic from a
parking area located North of CR512 and to afford safety & security
for persons and vehicles in the area. This move is a necessity due
to a fund raising project sponsored by the Sebastian Volunteer Fire
Department.
All barricades and support equipment will be furnished by the.
City of Sebastian and no cost will accrue to the county. carr-'eacies
41 I N =:c:ed =rom sund.ow- tr-, 11.00,)m and will be -used o--. -1 y 1 "
traffic conditlons become a threat to public safety and welfare.
ii. wa. om DeCeni er 10th to I -;pro,' . lately
u,: which time all barricades will be removed.
Again I must apologize for the short notice and my thanks to
Mr. Oar the Traffic Engineer for his guidance and assistance.
Respectfully itted,
John G. Melton
Chief of Police
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the placing of barricades on SR 512
from US#1 to Indian River Drive as requested
in letter dated December 10, 1982 above.
128
DEC 15 KJ � ►� 2 pku-
r
POLIC
P.O. Box
589.5233
JOHN MELTON. POLICE CHIEF
MICHAEL SHETLER. EXEC. OFFICER
Board of County Commissioners
CoThfy Administration Building
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Gentlemen,
TENT
32958
589-5251
DAVID PUSCHER. CHIEF INVESTIGATOR
SGT. L. D. PRIMAVERA, O.I.C. UNIFORM DIV
December 10, 1982
I must apologize for the short notice on this request for street
blockage but the circumstances allow no other course of action.
I respectfully request oe.rmission to close County road 512 '7rom
the L'<=st side of the intersection with US#1 and County road 5i2 to
`•:e ..c.el-section of County roue; 512 and Indian River Drive.
This is done to afford protection for pedestrian traffic from a
parking area located North of CR512 and to afford safety & security
for persons and vehicles in the area. This move is a necessity due
to a fund raising project sponsored by the Sebastian Volunteer Fire
Department.
All barricades and support equipment will be furnished by the.
City of Sebastian and no cost will accrue to the county. carr-'eacies
41 I N =:c:ed =rom sund.ow- tr-, 11.00,)m and will be -used o--. -1 y 1 "
traffic conditlons become a threat to public safety and welfare.
ii. wa. om DeCeni er 10th to I -;pro,' . lately
u,: which time all barricades will be removed.
Again I must apologize for the short notice and my thanks to
Mr. Oar the Traffic Engineer for his guidance and assistance.
Respectfully itted,
John G. Melton
Chief of Police
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the placing of barricades on SR 512
from US#1 to Indian River Drive as requested
in letter dated December 10, 1982 above.
128
DEC 15 KJ � ►� 2 pku-
DEG15 128 `
I
PROPOSAL RE SALE OF 19ATER & SUTER BANs
Administrator Wright informed the Board that the law
regarding tax free securities is due to change in two weeks.
Staff, therefore, feels we can get a better price on our
water and sewer bond anticipation notes if we get into the
market before December 30th, and is requesting that the
Board consider authorizing a special meeting on December
22nd or 23rd to consider a proposal by the underwriters.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
a
authorized the Chairman to call a Special
Meeting regarding the Water & Sewer BANs as
requested by the Administrator.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
'by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
extended the meeting to 6:15 o'clock P.M.
BEACH ACQUISITION COM11ITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Bird reported that yesterday the Parks &
Recreation subcommittee on Beach Acquisition held their
first meeting, and Community Services Director Thomas
explained to them what we need to do to be considered in the
initial 50 million dollar funding. It was generally agreed
that it is important to try to be included in the initial
allocation of funds, which will go before the Cabinet on
January 11th, 1983, and the committee is recommending that
we attempt to purchase two parcels - one immediately
adjoining Wabasso Beach and the Walker tract just south of
Seagrove. It also was recommended that we would commit
ourselves to pay up to 50a of the amount of money required
to purchase these lands. Commissioner Bird continued that
there still are a lot of questions that need to be asked of
129
Tallahassee, and they are having a difficult time getting
answers by telephone.
Administrator Wright concurred that the main concern is
that we have unanswered questions, and there is a lot of
money involved. He, therefore, proposed that he,
Commissioner Bird, Attorney Brandenburg and Community
Services Director Thomas, be authorized to go to Tallahassee
tomorrow to try to get these questions answered.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani-
mously authorized out -of -County travel for
Commissioner Bird, Administrator Wright,
Attorney Brandenburg and Community Services
Director Thomas to go to Tallahassee on
December 16, 1982, to confer with the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources re the above
matter.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE REgQRD
Agreement re update of Telecommunications Services is
hereby made a part of the Minutes as authorized at the
Regular Meeting of December 1, 1982.
DEC 15 1982 130 a � 2 pw 458
DEC 1.5
;,
- BQt1K F.�,�
,� 459
04639
Section 1
AGREEMENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
In consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the undersigned customer ("Customer') and American Bell ;
Inc. Company ("Telco"), in connection with an order for products and services ("Services"), described in
Section 2. agree as follows:
1. A pplicahiliq' q/ Tarif js
i elco .hall ,mh hm\ ide t he Services described in Section 2 (Customer Order) pursuant to effective tariffs filed with aphropri: ie regulatory
Commissions at the rates and on the terms and conditions set forth in such tariffs during the'term that the Services are provided. I*elco
represents that for those Services described in Section 2 which are currently offered by effective tariffs, Scction 2 is consistent with those tariff-.
For those Services, if any, described in Section 2 which are not currently offered by tariff, Telco will not provide the Scrviccs unless and until
tariffs are effective in the event Telco is (permitted by law to offer the services under tariff at. the time of service establishment. in case of any
conflict between Section 2 and an effective tariff, the tariff•shall control.
2. Assignment
i n lieu of providing the Services as stated in paragraph 1. Telco mai! at its sole discretion, at any time and without Customer's further consent
assign this Agreement to any affiliated company ("Company") authorized by law to provide the Scrviccs. The term "affiliated company" or
"Company" shall mean American 'Telephone and Telegraph Company or one or -more of its direct or iddiecct subsidiaries. Customer wus
thereafter recognve Company as succc%sor of Telco for the purpose of providing the assigned Services, and Telco shall have no further
responsibility or liability with respect to such Services. If such assignment shall be to a Company authorized to provide the Services on a
detariffed basis. such assignment will obligate Company to provide the assigned Services at the rates and for the term, or any unexpired
portion of the term, specified in Section a: and the terms and conditions set forth in Attachment A. ratherthan tariff, will govern provision of
the Services. Section 2 and Attachment A are incorporated herein by reference.:
3. Rights to Terminate
if at titre time of scheduled service establishment. Telco is prevented from furnishing the Services in accordance with paragraph 1 by any
circumstance beyond its reasonable control. -and if assicnment of this Agreement to an affiliated Company as permitted in paragraph 2 is not
possible b ' reason of any applicable law, re ulation,- udicial decree or other circumstance be
P ) PP and Telco's control. then in such event, either g .� Y
party may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other, and neither party shall have anyfurther obligation or liability to the other.
Dated:
Accepted:__---
,A(th, riml }sr l ilehrescntative)
American Bell, Inc_
('fe o)
6855 Red Road, Coral Gables, FL
(Address)
(Authorized Customer Representati cj
Indian River County
(Name of Firm)
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida
0MUNRAL COPY
(Address)
',��ii.�'.'iY.Ti:i:>'::�?Yt'i�',Md7JSGY�"i.�Sii.:.,•�f:•i �. w..�
Approvind a • to fl;i t l
Sry 11
and ;oy�' s..;,ei�c,�
G'�tt i,'i. l.'�.ruliutilOil
fi
P. e. rt(l
4Y � !i►� Alil'rllt�i��
tr
M
t.L Sa�llilt�s2iii7hF1:�Yw�C:d:kkiT.iF'':da•�5L':G.Yai�yt
CUSTOMER COPY
OFF= copy.-
T_
orpY'
'j
t '
,
.":::t1YrtS
®
, t
AN�'�MONS
I he following terms and conditions shall apply
Upon expiration or,,tennination - of this
Any and all programs and other materials
mly as specified in paragraph 2 of the Agreement
Agreement or any' extension or. renewal
provided to Customer by Company in con -
or Telecommunications Services.
thereof, Customer will make the Products ' ' r
nection with the Services shall remain the
1. Rights and Obligations of Customer
• available for removal, which shall bcaccom-
exclusive and confidential property of Com-
plishcd in a careful, workmanlike, and
pany, are licensed to Customer solely for use
Company shall provide for Customers use
reasonably expeditious fashion. Company
in connection with the Services provided.
the products and services ("Services") spcci-
shall not be obligated to restore the premises
shall not be reproduced or copied, except as
fied in Section 2 (which term shall include
to their original condition.
required for the authorized use of the
any supplementary schedules later appended
Company shall bear the risk of loss or
Services, and shall, if in tangible form, be
by mutual agreement) at the rates and for the
's
damage to. the. Products, except that Cus-p
returned -upon Com an 's request.,Custom-
y
term(s) specified therein. Com an Pay-
P p y y
tomer shall be liable for any loss or damage
er agrees it wilr not disclose or otherwise
intent Plan, attached hereto as an Appendix
the Products arising from Customer's
make an such materials available, in an
y y
and incorporated herein h this reference,
p y
negligence, intentional act, unauthorized
n
form, to persons other than employees or
describes certain options available to Com-
maintenance other cause within the yeas
agents of the Customer who are notified by
party's customers. Sul.iect to the restrictions
sortable controolf Customer, its employees
Customer of this restriction ant chose work
and limitaonsconiamed therein. Custontc
u
mac elm auy of those upuons during the
or agents. in the event of any loss or damage
w
in connection with the Services makesch
disclosure necessary. 'rhe requirements for
term of this Agreement. (Whenever used
to the products for which Customer is liable,
Customer shall reimburse Company for the. • . :.
confidentiality set out in this Section shat
nercin, the term "Agreement" refers to the
•, ,
reasonable cost of repair or replacement.
not..apply to materials or inf ormation which
Agreement for Telecommunications Scrv-
b
are, or become, available to the public by act
ices to which this Attachment A is appended
Z.•
Rights and Obligations of Company
not attributable to Customer, or can be
and all subordinate documents.)
shown to have been known previously by
Any eyuipmcnt or other products specified
Company will install, maintain and repair
Customer, or are independently developed
in Section 2 (the "Products") shall remain
�
the Products and will provide to users of the
by Customer outside this Agreement or are
the sole and exclusive property of Company
Servicessuch training, instructional material
rightfully obtained by Customer from other
or its assigns, and nothing contained herein
and other support' services as Company
parties without restriction.
shall give or convey to Customer an •
b ) right.
deems appropriate. Customer will pay addi-
clonal charges established by Company For 3.
Payment
title or interest whatever in the Products;
st
support services in addition to those
,
Recurring charges to be paid by Customer
which shall all times be and remain
personal property. l times the an that they
ordinarily provided by Company.
will be billed monthly in advance. All charges
may be or become attached to or embedded
Company will make every reasonable effort
(recurring or nonrecurring) are due and
payable upon receipt of Company's invoice -
in realty. Company shall be entitled, at any
to complete installation of the Services by
time, to affix to the Products a label indi-
the service establishment date specified in
Upon reasonable notice to Customer, Com•
catingtheinterestofCompanyoranyassign-
Sectione2, and will notify Customer as soon
pany may initiate at any time during theterrn
cc of Company
as practicable of any delay. Company shall
of this Agreement (but only with respect to
If Customer should terminate any of thehave
no )iabilityto Customer asa result of its
invoices rendered after such notice) a late
Services prior to the end of the applicable
' failure.to complete installation by thesched•
payment charge on amounts not paid within
term specified in Section 2, Customer shall
�.
tiled service establishment date,
thirty (30) days of the invoicedatc. Anysuch
be liable to Company for the applicable
Company is authorized by Customer to
charge shall not exceed the charge generally
applicable to customers obtaining similar
termination charges d i%tribcd in Section 2.
cause this Agreement, or any statement or
services from Company.
If, prior to service c iablishment, Customer
other instrument in respect to this Agree-
should cancel its order for.ome or all of the
>
ment showing the interest of Company or • 4,
Taxes
Services. Customer siuill be liable to
others in the Products, to be legally filed or
Sales, use and all other taxes determined to
Company for the coat onclud+ng common
recorded at Company's expense. Customer
he due to Federal• state or local taxing
costs and overhead) incurred by Company in
agrees to execute and deliver, at Company's
jurisdictions on the provision of the Services
installing Products or preparing to provid:
expense, any instrument reasonably re-
to Customer shall be separately itemized on
the Scrciccs cancelled.
quested by Company for such purpose.
Customers bill and paid by Customer.
Customer will use the Protfucis in it rueful
Company will defend or settle, at its own
Should any Federal, state, or local juris-
and proper manner and in accordance with
expense, tiny action brought against Cus-
diction determine that additional sales, use
manuals or instructions, if a ny. urns sled by
tomer io iiie extent that it is based on a claim
or other taxes and interest, surcharges and
Company. The Piodurt..haii nr uscti hs
that any products provided by Company
penalties thereonareducontheprovisionof
Customer only at the lovalwn(sl speeificd it,
pursuant to this Agreement infringe any
the Services to Customer. Company will so
Section 2 and shall not h,• n: w.tived it
U.S. copyright or patent. Company will pay
advise Customer and Customer shall be
relocated by Customer excret as c�pirssla
those cosis, damage.. arni attorney's fees
liable for any such tax, interest, surcharge
authorized in wiiiine b, Compao+ 11poi,
finally awarded against Customer in any
and penalty. However, if Customer disagrees
expir,tionortcrntiu:+tioo•al chis,\. rceuicnc
Stich action attributahle to any such claim,
with the assessment of any such additional
Customer shall .urrc+.dvi the i'Muucts it.
bill such dcferu and paynicuts are condi-
tax, penalty, surcharge and interest.
Companyinthesamecundiuon:+songina)h
cloned on the foilosvntpl (1) that Company
Customer shall, at its option and expense,
installed, ordinary %%var ,unl te.ic ccceh+cd
shall be'•:;otified promptly in writing by .
".•
have the right to protest the assessment and
Cuoershall not PCrtor•nt, ill permit other.
stm
Customer ofany such Cl:,im; (2j that Coin - '
participate in any legal challenge to such
to perform• maintenance and rcp air of the
panyshali have sole control ofthe defense of
assessment, but shall be liable for any tax,
Products except as ecpres.l\ authori/ed ha
anyaction on such claim and of all regotia-
penalty, surcharge and interest the validity
Company in writing. and ,viii Pad the cost o.
tions for its or compromise.
of which has been upheld in final adjudica-
repairs necessitated by un:iutlnuired uotk
cr Alai; c m-
that Cust,�mcr shall cooperate U'llh Com-
i '
r
tion by a court o, competent jurisdiction.
If a service interruption or other detect o:
pan} in every reasonable way to facilitate rile
settlement or defense of such claim; and (4) S.
Expiration or Termination
malfunction attributable to egn:pntent of
should such product(s) become, or in Com-
The provision of Services under this Agree -
services not provided by ConlPany results it.
pane's opinion he likely to become, the
ment shall terminate upon the expiration of
a maintenance or rrpair visit be or on hchai:
Claim
subject of such claim ill iulrinitcntcnt, that
'Beet o
the specified term, if any, set out in Section 2,
of Compam. 01%lonntr uill be Chail,ed •+'
t shall out i'unigene at its
or, it' nu such terns is specified, upon thirty
Cumpauy'scslai,ilow.ir.it:..
opuoita10cxpci..:.ell herto(a)pfocwcfor
(til)days'nuliccofterminati�ninwritingby
Outing the term of this Agreement. Cus-
Customer the right to continue using the
either party to the other. Customer is liable
tonicr shalf at all times permit outpany
product(s). or(b) rcplaccor modify the sante
for applicable termination charges as speci-
fied Section 2; if termination precedes
reasonable access to the Products to enable
so that it becomes non -infringing and func-
normal term expiration.
Company to perform any necessary inspec-
tionally equivalent, or (c) upon failure of (a)
tion, testing, maintenance, repair or
and (b) above, terminate without penalty
1f, upon such expiration or termination.
marking.
Customers use of the product(s).
Customer shall fail or refuse to make the
OFFICE COPY
CUSTOMER COPY
ORIGINAL COPY
T- .....
J.
t
•
i
D E 0 1.5 19t'32
P�;r A2610
r__
DEC 15 1982
Products available for removal by Company,
then in addition to all other remedies at law
or equity available to Company all the
obligations of Customer under this Agree-
ment shall remain in force and effect until
remora, is accomplished. The charges paid
b. Customer for the Services during such
period shalt he Company's then current
ch rge, l,. the Scrvices whctt provided on a
it h:.ms in lieu of any oti.e:
b. Erenr,� of Default an.1 Remedicc
ne foliouaif •nail constitute events it;
default by Customer:
(a) Customers failure to pax .,it% charge•
hereunder when due ur failure to per-
form or obsenc any other terns,
,onditum or covetutnt of this Agree.
Wren., tf such failure shall continue
unremedied for a period of ten (10).
.aa% s after Customer's receipt of notice:
,nercot from Compam
(b) 1'he institution again., Customer of
ruroceedings undr at.,., bankruptcy
nsolvency or simoa. dation, or the
appointment for Cu.st:c: (or any of
its property, of a receiver or similar
officer, if such proccediri;s or appoint.
;hent, shall not be vacs:ed, or fuliy
,..ye;:. wit ca,. twenty (2ty days after
:he .r-titutior. or.vcurrence thereof.
. i L t. ,mer s making, an assignment for
:he benefit of creditors,., bull: transfer
of :csn;tire. ...rna):i,gs, fixture>,
eoi..pmem or •r+ca;ori.,:rCastome;'s
admisshul in'A:itijig of its inability is
pay .rF. debts generaiiv a•. they become
a ue.
;d) Customer's attempt, v anout Cor+.-
pa,w'+ writic. ,:i)nscnt, to remove, sell,
::ansfer, encumber. pari with posses-
sion. or ;ease any ilerti of IAC Products.
te) An actual or threate;.ed 1.v% o: zxec..-
tion upon the Products.
ion the occurrence ofany event ofdefaui;.
Co.npany may exercise any or all rights ,;.
re:necaes a-va:lablc to it, including, but not
GA::ted to. n•rminaiion o: ii:_ services.
case Customer :hail he ohii*atc.i tri
pa. ;epi.ciihicu•rill nation charkcs(as spec.-
l.cu ir. Sectioit 2) as lhciu,n C „stoner h..,.
,erminated uric of the Serb icc>.
in :he event airy action a nroutht .:
Company for the breach of, or to enforce -
;i.% Agrer:acni or to 'protect Compam'.
.ille:2�l in :he Prcxf IieLs, i�t:cl,)tik:r a1:reC. ; •,
p:., the c.:st thereof: re.isunab.:
attorney's tees at trial or on appeal, costs an,i
expenses. Company's decision not t•:
exercise any orali of its rights o: remedies it,
the even: of Customers default sisal: not
,ons,itute a waivei of any of Compaii'll
rigntseithci ge1wrally or with respcc. to 111—
,.elault.
No Warranties
r X(*FPT 41 SPE:C'IFIC'ALI.Y MADt.
lit ,Ri.*iN,t OMPANY MAKFSNOWAk
JxAN'Tli WHATEVER, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, AND SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AS
TO THE SERVICES AND PRODUCTS
WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED TO CUS-
TOMER BY COMPANYUNDER THIS
AGREEMENT OR THE USE OF THOSE
SERVICES AND PRODUCTS IN CON-
JUNCTION WITH EQUIPMENT, PRO-
GRAMS OR OTHER MATERIAL
PROVIDF,D BY CUSTOMER
8. Limitalions of Liability, Exclusive Remedy
In the event Customer espe ncnces a partial
or total lailure, malfunction of defect in any
of the Services provided pursuant to this- `•
Agreement, Customer shall, as a condition- :
to any claim for refund or recovery of
damages, immediately notify Company by '
telephone call to the designated service
office. Customers account shall then be
credited in an amount equal to any usage or
recurring charge applicable to any such ,
defective Services for the period of such
failure, malfunction or defect.
Customers sole and exclusive remedy for
any such partial ortotal failure, malfunction
or defect of Services, whether resulting from
breach ofsontract; tort including negligence,
fault or other breach of duty,, or.from `any
other cause whatever, shall be limited to such
credit and, where proven, general money
damages to the extent provided in the
following paragraph. Customer shall have
no remedy hereunder for any failure, mal-
function or defect attributable to any service
or equipment provided by, or to the actions
of, any person other than Company.
Company's liability for damages sustained
by Customer for any partial or total failure,
malfunction or defect c_ Sc. -vice, whether
caused by breach of contract, negligence,
fault or other breach of duty. or by any other
cause whatgyer, and regardless of the form of
action, whether in equity, contract, ton, or
otherwise, shalt be limited to an amount not
exceeding the lesser of the amount of actual
direct damages which are proven or one.
month's charges appiicable to the Services
directly involved in the failure, malfunction
or defcc:.
ivny legal action arising out of or involving
anv partial or total failure, malfunction or
defect in any of the Services provided to
Custotuer must be brought within one year
of the occurrence.
Neither Company, affiliates or subsidiaries
ofCompany its parent corporation, nor any
of as parent's alfli c; or subsidiaries shall
lil ,i,y way be iiahie for any indirect,
incidental, con,eyuentiai or puniiive
dartagessustaine_ orincarred in cornecuon
*-to la, use or operatior. of the :,ervices
,,^.rovide., undc- Ag;-cc:rent, whether
trial: daGlare:. arihai. ori) hr.:,,Cit Jf a,nera.,.
negliernrc, laiuli ai other orcacil ,if.luty, or
Prot„ am; other cause whsteveruad whether
or not such damages were foreseen or
unforeseen.
9. Miscellaneous
Neither Company, affiliates or subsidiaries
of Company, its parent corporation, norany
of its parent's affiliates or subsidiaries shall
BOOK �, Fr���r •
be liable in any way for losses or damages of
Customer due to events beyond Company's
control, including but not limited to fires,
power failures or surges, strikes, riots, war,
governmental regulation or appropriation,
failure to perform of suppliers or vendors,
acts of God or similar causes.
Except as provided in paragraph 2 of the
Agreement, nen het Customer nor( smpany
may assign its ,v%pect;ve rigiits.an,. ,,buga-
lions under this Ap-villem w.thout the prior
wntici eonsen. .,, the other: provided,
ho(vrver, that Company may, without C'us-
tomer's consent. assign its rights to receiv,
payments hereunder to another party.
Any notice required to be given under the
terms of this Agreement (except notices of
tauure. malfunction ordefect in the Services)
shall he considered to have been given whet.
such notice is mailed or personally delivered
to such address as may be designated from
time fp time by Company or Customer,
provided that notices relating to termination
of service or default shall be given by
registered or certified mail return receipt
requested or, if personally delivered, a
receipt for delivery shall be obtained.
THIS AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES
THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE PARTIES AND, EXCEPT TO THE
EXTENT THE TERMS HEREOF PRO-
VIDE FOR SEPARATE AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN THE PARTIES, SUPER-
SEDES ALL PRIOR AGREEMENTS,
PROPOSALS OR UNDERSTANDINGS,
WHETHER WRITTEN OR ORAL. AND
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
COMPANY IS AUTHORIZED TO
AMEND THE TERMS HEREOF
EXCFPT AS PROVIDFD IN THE
FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH.
No amendment or waiver of any provision of
this Agreement, nor consent to any depar-
ture by the Customer or Company there-
from, shall be effective unless the same shall
be to writing and signed by authorized agents
of both parties. Only officers or assistant
officers of the Company will be authorized
to amend or waive provisions of this
Agreement.
If any term or provision of this Agreement
shall be held invalid o"negtorceable, the
remainder of this Agreement shat, not be
affected thereby and each term and provision
hereof shall be valid and enforced to the
fullest extent permitted by law.
This Agreement ;hal: be construed in ac-
cordance with and governed by the laws of
the State of New Jersey.
Receipt of ,opy of Attachment 4 Terms and
Conditions ACKnowledgew
Authorized Customer NtgatattA`—
Date:
_- .
Sew
CUSTOMER ORDER
%dna „1 t ustomer. Indian River County
ustomer hereby requests provision of the products/services described below at:
tAedtiOn 1840 25th Street '
Vero Beach, Florida
for the terms shown below.
Product Scnsce Description
Item
Code
Term
(Months)
Quantity
SMDR Common Equipment
63.00
74.50
149.00
20Q+x
48
I
SMDR Direct. Ou t,nut
2DW
48
1
ivlerlory C-;rcii-4'LPk-lcks
2E3'
48
2
Attendant-. i me ^race
i rou i . aaCK
2FJM
48
1
Quay aatii Cnannei
Ci rcu i t. Pack
2FN
48
1
Feature Package Rate
PRM+f
N/A
1
Subtotal from attached ( 1 ) additional pages
Monthly
Charge
Monthly
Per Unit
Charges
158.00
158.00
63.00
63.00
74.50
149.00
7.00
7.00
18.50
18.50
105.00
105.00
-0-
Total:
04639
Installation
(Non-recurring)
Charges
2603.50
171.00
46.00
23.00
23'.00
0.0
2520.00
Total:
1. -•vW f JJOU uu
❑ ( ustomcr elects the Deferred Payment Option, subject to the approval of Telco (or Company). The amount eligible for deferral and
the interest rate to be charged on the deferred amount will be determined as of service establishment.
\ote "The schedule lists customer prpmises equipment only. The amounts shown do not Include charges for access lines and other
basic transmission facilities which arp quoted separately
Iermination Charges
..sumer .hdU pay termination harges for services terminated prior to the expiration of the applicable term. Termination charges will be calculated separately
cog cacti product or service I .. _ ternunatiori charge applicable to d product or service is equal to either a fixed number of monthly payments, or it fixed
percentage of the .ani of a . remaining monthly Payments. whichever is less. The formula used to calculate the termination charge applicable to a product or
service depends on the term selected for that product or service, as follows:
TERN: TERMINATION CHARGE
Month-to-month None
— 48 _ months A
Months
Scheduled Service Eswbli.hm. ni , s;ii,.. JViui ch 28 z 1 9 83
MontWy payments; or .
----20_. percent of the sum of all remaining monthly
payments, whichever is less.
monthly Payments: or
percent of Ute sum of all remaining monthly
Payments. whichever is less.
This schedule dna the prod,,, i. .ersicv.k to r, pr. .cide.; .ire •itblect t o the Agreement for Telecommunications Services executed by Customer and accepted by
f ileo. As descriiscu in t lie A,.i'.rcinent, tui P"-% 1%11-11os the proaucts service, will h.• in accordance with either Telcos lawful tariffs or Attachment A (Terms and
Conditions) to the Agreemr.,r .n the even, ,,; c -tines. i cico's tariCfs'or Atuichmunt A. whichever is applicable, shall take precedence over this schedule.
nathorized Customer Signam,
0
�'•)`if
Y1 U llt
U.,00ty Atto. nn 4r
WJ�'�`^r'GSCiT.'LL`T,•P..ti�iiiJa-'� +�wii�'��►4
Ddie
Atimorired Roll Signature:
Q*444.116UL coiaY
CUSTG."ca2 Copy
Sheet of
cctpy
• i
DEC 15 1982 K 2• PnE 4D,
r_�C E C 1 S 1982
• i lf•l..l� • ' LAIN
DEFINITIONS
1. Upgrade. An upgrade is an enhance-
ment to an installed system involving a
major equipment or software addition
or substitution.
I Addition. An addition is the provision
of additional or supplementary equip-
ment to an installed system, not
classified as an upgrade.
3 Payment Ped od. The payment period
is the term selected by the customer,
from those offered by the Company,
during which a product or service is to
be provided by -the Company at speci-
fied rates.
UPGRADES
1_ The Company will determine, by the
application of standard rules, whether
a requested service modification con-
stitutes an upgrade or an addition, and
whether the modification is
permissible.
2- An upgrade (if permissible) may be
requested at any time prior to expira-
tion of the payment period in effect at
the time of the requested upgrade.
3. An upgrade results in termination of
the previously installed service, and
applicable termination charges (if any)
must be paid by the customer for any
equipment removed to effect the
upgrade.
4. The customer must enter into a new
agreement with the Company covering
both the newly installed equipment and
any equipment remaining from the
original system.
5. The terms and conditions of the new
agreement (including available
payment periods and the rates and
charges) will be those then currently
offered by the Company, except that
the new agreement must have a pay-
ment period longer than one month.
The customer will not be required to
pay installation charges on any equip-
ment remaining from the original
system.
ADDITIONS
1. The Company will determine, by the
application of standard rules, whether
a requested -service modification consti-
tutes an upgrade or an addition, and
whether the modification is permissible.
2. Equipment can be added to an existing
system at the customer's option. The
Company's then current rates and
charges will apply to the addition(s).
3. If at least thirty (30) days remain in the
existing system's payment period, the
customer may elect to include the
addition(s) on the existing agreement
to pay for the additions) over the
remainder of the existing system's
payment period. The Company's then
current rates and charges for the
addition(s) for that payment period
will he imposed: if the Company does
not then offer that payment period for
the addition(s), the rates and charges
for the addition(s) will be those for the
longest available payment period that
is shorter than the existing system's
payment period.
4. If less than thirty (30) days remain in
she existing ,system's payment period,
the addition(s) must be placed on the
one-month payment period at the then
current rates and charges for that
payment period.
S. Alternatively; a customer may select,
from those then made available by the
Company, a payment period equal to
or shorter than the time remaining in
the existing system's payment period. If
the payment period selected for the
addition(s) is shorter than the existing
system's payment period, the customer
must, upon expiration of that shorter.
payment period, either have the
addition(s) removed or select a new
payment period, in accordance with
paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 herein.
6. Except in the case of the one-month
payment period, termination charges
will apply in the event of disconnection
of an addition prior to expiration of its
selected payment period.
D. REMOVALS
Removal of equipment that is not unique or
identifiable by a code, where two or more units of
the same type are on the customer's premises, will
be subject to the folldwing rules:
1. The specific unit(s) no longer desired
by the customer will be removed.
2. Termination charges will apply as
though the unit(s) with the lowest
termination charge had been removed,
regardless of which units are actually
removed.
X, CHANGES IN PAYMENT PERIOD
1. Subsequent to the establishment of
service for an item of equipment or a
system, a customer may request that
the existing payment period be replaced
by any other payment period then
offered by the Company for the item or
system for which the request is made.
The Company's then current rates for
the payment period selected will apply.
2. No credit will be given for payments
made during the original payment
period, but nonrecurring charges will
not be reapplied.
3. Termination charges for the original
payment period will apply if the new
payment period is shorter than the
remainder of the original payment
period.
4. In the case of a payment period change
for an item of equipment, the new
payment period must be shorter than
the time remaining in the payment
period for the system as a whole.
F. DEFERRED PAYMENT OPTION
1. Customers who select a payment period
longer than one (1) month may pay
nonrecurring charges plus interest in
monthly installments over the length of
the selected payment period or over a
shorter period specified in 12 -month
multiples. This option is subject to
Company approval.
2. The charges eligible to be deferred are:
(a) Installation
(b) Service Establishment
(c) Feature Package Installations
(excluding subsequent activity)
(1) Activation
(2) Information/Translation . .
BUK F�4i�c 41.73
(d) System Feature
(1) Activation
(2) Design
3. The, I
minimum amount deferrable is
$3,000.00. Interest on deferred amounts
will be calculated at the rate set forth in
the Deferred Payment Agreement exe-
cuted by the customer at the time of
service provision and will be included
in the monthly installments.
4. The interest rate to be charged on de-
ferred payments will be revised periodi-
cally by the Company. If, in the
judgment of the Company, the maxi-
mum interest rate allowed by law is
insufficient to cover the costs of pro-
viding the deferred payment option,
the Company will suspend the availa-
bility of this option until such time as
the costs of providing it can be
recovered through the application of a
lawful interest rate. Suspension or
revision of the deferred payment option
will not affect customers who have
executed a Deferred Payment Agree-
ment prior to the effective date of such
suspension or revision.
S. All remaining installments (less a credit
for unearned interest) must be paid in
full upon the Company's demand when
the customer:
(a) Upgrades the system for which
the charges were deferred;
(b) Selects a payment period with an
expiration date prior to the expira-
tion date of the deferral period;
(c) Terminates the system prior to
expiration of the deferral period;
or
(d) Fails to pay a monthly installment
within thirty (30) days of its due
date.
6. A customer may prepay not less than
the total outstanding deferred charges
at any time during the selected deferral
period. In such cases, the customer will
be given a credit for the amount of any
unearned interest.
G. PREPAYMENT
1. At any time, a customer may prepay
the total outstanding recurring charges
to become due under the customer's
Agreement with the Company. Prepay-
ment of less than the total outstanding
is not permitted.
2. For prepayment of-six�46) months or
more, the amount due will be reduced
by an amount equal to the total of the
recurring charges multiplied by the
product of the number of months pre-
paid and 0.00375: (total charges)
[(months prepaid) (0.00375)]
reduction.
3. Customers who change the length of a
prepaid payment period will be credited
any unused portion of the prepayment,
subject to applicable termination
charges, if any, as specified in para-
graph E.3., above.
4. Customers who terminate service prior
to the expiration of a prepaid payment
period will have termination charges
deducted from the unused portion of
the prepayment; any balance will be
credited to the customas.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he has enjoyed being
Chairman for this last year and appreciated the cooperation
that he has been given by everyone.
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. 83652 - 83791 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,
4 .,,,r_ reference to such record and list so recorded being made a-
part of these Minutes.
There being no further business, on Motion made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 6:10 o'clock
P.M.
Attest:
---sem
Clerk Chairman
131
DEC 15 1982 POD�
I