Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/7/1983September 7, 1983 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, September 7,. 1983, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present were Richard v.. Bird, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Margaret C. Bowman, and William C-Wodtke, Jr. Also present were L.S. "Tommy" Thomas, Community Services Director; Michael J. Wright, T. County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the r Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey Re Barton, OMB Director; Barbara Bonnah and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerks. Ed Lovelace, Minister of Youth and Music, First Church of God, gave the invocation and Commissioner Wodtke led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Administrator Wright reported that Public Health. Director, Dr.. Cindy Lookabaugh, has requested the addition to today's Agenda of a brief discussion re the reinstatement and funding of a pre -natal program. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the above item to today's Agenda. SEP 7 1983 600wrAc09 SEP 7 1983 Administrator Wright requested the addition to today's Agenda of a discussion regarding an increase in a grant award that would allow additional landscaping in Gifford Park, Hobart-Kiwanis Park, and along Jungle Trail. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously added the above item to today's Agenda. Commissioner Wodtke suggested that a Resolution be prepared to honor the memory of Mr. Joseph Earman, a leader in the community who recently passed away. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously instructed the County Attorney to prepare a Resolution honoring Mr. Earman, that would be presented to the family at a later date. DELETIONS IN THE AGENDA Attorney Brandenburg requested the deletion from today's Agenda of Item #14, Florida Health Facilities Project, Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, and Item 21-B, Discussion re Surtax on Certain Documents. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously deleted the above items from today's Agenda. 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 8/17/83. There were none.- ON one. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,. SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 8/17/83, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 8/29/83. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 8/29/83, as written. CLERK TO THE BOARD A. Approval of Renewal Applications for a Permit to Carry a Concealed Firearm The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/30/83: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 30, 1983 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT RENEWALS FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES: County Administrator The following individuals have applied for pistol permit renewals through the Clerk's office: James C. Knapp Robert A. Weems, Sr. All requirements of Ordinance 8.2-27 have been met and are in order. It is therefore recommended pistol permits be renewed for the above. 3 BOOK SEP 71983 SEP 71983 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the renewal of a concealed pistol permit for the following persons: James C. Knapp Robert A. Weems, Sr. B. Approval of New Applications for a Permit to Carry a Concealed Firearm The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/30/83: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 30, 1983 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMITS.- NEW FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES: County Administrator The following individuals have applied for pistol permits through the Clerk's Office: Michael P. Riggio Leona G. Taft Velma W. Gore All requirements of Ordinance 82-27 have been met and are in order. It is therefore recommended pistol permits be issued to the above. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the issuance of a concealed pistol permit for the following persons: Michael P. Riggio Leona G. Taft Velma W. Gore 4 'CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Grant Application for Traffic Engineering Technician ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED.by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman's signature on the Grant Application for the Traffic Engineering Technician. FOR SETS USE ONLY FYojeue Number o Program Module SUBGRANT MMOD - STATE OF FLORIDA to DEPARIUEN? OF COMMUMT'Y AFEU RS Allocation Approved Date Approved DIVISION- OF PUBLIC SAFETY A:. - PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE Initial Year Project No. Subsequent Project No. BUREAU OF HIGHWAY SAFErY Subsequent Project No. __.._.. DCA Document No. Subgrant Application For Riahway Safety Funds .._._..._ _._ PAHO' 1: General Administra'tiv'e Information (Refer to instructions for Subgrant Application) 1. Project Title: Traffic Engineering Technician/ Indian River County 2. Type of Application: ( I Initial ()W Continuation 8. Requested Subgrant Period: October 1. 1983 to September 30. 1984 4. Support Sought:$ 10.000.00 Matching Shares$ 16.959.00 Total Budget:$_26,95g 00 S. Applicants 6. Implementing Agency: Board of Cotusty Commissioners Public Works Division Indian River County 1840 25th Street 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Vero Beach, FL 32960 Honorable Richard Bird, Chairman 3OS-567-8000 7. Chief Financial Officers Jeff K. Barton 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 305-567-8000 8. Project Director: James W. Davis, P.E. 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Telephones 305-567-8000 _ Telephone: 9. Project Summary - Briefly describe the problem and the proposed solution: This project activity provides for the continuing services of a traffic engineering technicians to work under the supervision of the Indian River County Public Works Director, who is a professional engineer. Indian River County needs this traffic engineering expertise available on a full-time basis to perform the many tasks necessary to better assure a safer environment on County-flaintained roadways. The technician will work in close concert with the City of Vero Beach engineering personnel on mutual problems. L s. DOCUMENT, IN ITS ENTIRETY, IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK SEP 7 1983 5 6AOK �AIE��� I SEP '71983 �►o�K + r u1, 4 BUDGET OFFICE A. Budget Amendment, Laurelwood Street Lighting District The Board reviewed the following budget amendment dated 8/12/83: TO:Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 12, 1983 FILE: SUBJECT: Laurelwood Street Lighting District FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton,)�39 REFERENCES: Director of Office o Management & Budget S The following budget amendment is to increase revenues and decrease budget line items in order to have enough funds to pay the electric services which are higher than was anticipated at budget preparations. Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease Cash Forward -Oct 1st 782-000-389-40.00 192 Interest -Investments 782-000-361-10.00 56 Reserve for Contingency 782-280-541-99.91 100 Legal Ads 782-280-541-34.91 150 Electirc Services 782-280-541-34.31 498 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. 0 r B. Budget Amendment, State Aid to Libraries The Board reviewed the following budget amendment dated 8/12/83: 1y TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 12, 1983 FILE: SUBJECT: State Aid to Libraries �L� FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton 6 REFERENCES: Director, Office of Management and Budget The following budget amendment is to increase the budget for State Aid to Libraries as the grant funds were greater that originally budgeted. Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease State Aid to Libraries 001-000-334-71.00 2,061 IRC Library 001-109-571-88.36 2,061 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. C. Budget Amendment, Pistol Permits Fund The Board reviewed the following budget amendment dated 8/4/83: 7 193 SEP 7 80 PAH J SEP 71983 54 41 TO. Board of County Commis s ionersDATE: August 4, 1983 FILE: 'I=ROweff Dire Mana SUBJECT: Pistol Permits Fund K. Barton, `' REFERENCES: of Office of nt and Budget The following budget amendment is to establish the budget for the Pistol Permits Fund Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease Pistol Permits 104-000-329-0.00 1,736 Legal Ads 104-114-521-34.91 200 Sheriff 104- jay --521-99.14 1,536 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. D. Budget Amendment, Workmen's Compensation - Over -budget The Board reviewed the following budget amendment dated 8/18/83: 8 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 18, 1983 FILE: SUBJECT: Workmen's Compensation - Over -Budget Jeffrey K. Barton, Director FROM: Office of Management & Budget REFERENCES: The following budget amendments are to allocate funds to cover the over -budget amounts for workmen's compensation. These accounts are over -budget due to.our experience factor. At the time of budget preparations we did not know the factor. Account Title Account No., Increase Decrease orkmen's Compensation 001-101-511-12.14 25 Workmen's Compensation 001-102-514-12.14 22 Workmen's Compensation 001- 201-7512-_12 13 Workmen's Compensation 001-206-553-12.14 7 Workmen's Compensation 001-208-525-12.14 18 Workmen's Compensation 001-212-537-12.14 3 pp Workmen's Compensation 001-213-523-12.14 8 P' Workmen's Compensation 001-216-519-12.14 311 $10 Workmen's Compensation 001-220-519-12.14 936 4`1 Workmen's Compensation 001-251-519-12.14 16 Workmen's Compensation 001-252-513-12.14 3 -Oyu Workmen's Compensation 001-309-516-12.14 66 Workmen's Compensation 001-400-513-12.14 74 .� Workmen's Compensation 001-500-513-12.1.4 2,906 Workmen's Compensation 001-600-521-12.14 5,743 Workmen's Compensation 001-700-519-12.14 15 Reserve for Contingency 001-199-513-99.91 10,166 Workmen's Compensation 004-108-572-12.14 29 Workmen's Compensation 004-204-515-12.14 3 Workmen's Compensation 004-205-515-12.14 846 Workmen's Compensation 004-207-524-12.14 1,374 Workmen's Compensation 004-209-534-12.14 132 Workmen's Compensation 004-214-541-12.14 13,933 Workmen's Compensation 004-243-519-12.14 17 Workmen's Compensation 004-244-541-12.14 11 Workmen's Compensation 004-600-521-12,14 3,540 Reserve for Contingency 004-199-513-99.91 — 192885 Workmen's Compensation 471-228-536-12.14 299 Reserve for Contingency 471-228-536-99.91 299 Workmen's Compensation 471-235-536-12.14 1,402 Reserve for Contingency 471-_235-536-99.91 1,402. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the above budget.amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. 9 PACE SEP '71983 S E P 7 1983 ,54 E. Budget Amendment, Dept. of Community Aff_ai'rs, Sheltered Workshop & Council on Aging Grant The Board reviewed the following budget amendment dated 8/11/83: TO:Board of County Commissioner®ATE: August 11, 1983 FELE: SUBJECT: Dept. of Community Affairs Sheltered Workshop & Council on Aging Grant FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, � REFERENCES: Director, Office of Management & Budget The following budget amendment is to record the receipt and disbursement of the last quarter's grant funds for FY 81-82, that were not received until October 29, 1982 and were therefore recorded in FY 82-83. Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease Human Services 001-000-334-60.00 11,538 Sheltered Workshop 001-106-564-88.37 - 769 Council on Aging 001-211-564-88.32 769 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. F. Budget Amendment, Civil Defense Disaster Preparedness The Board reviewed the following budget amendment dated 8/22/83: 10 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 22, 1983 FILE:- SUBJECT: ILE: SUBJECT: Civil Defense - Disaster Preparedness FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton%� REFERENCES: Director, Office of Management & Budget The following budget amendment is to correctly record the revenues and expenses of participating in the 5t. Lucie County Nuclear Power Plant's Annual exercises.. Account Title Account No. Disaster Preparedness 001-000-342441.00 Other Prof. Srvcs. 001-208-525-33.19 All Travel 001-208-525-34.02 Maint- Office Equip. 001-208-525-34.63 Maint-Automotive 001-208-525-34.64 Other Promotional exp. 001-208-525-34.82 Comm. Equip. - all 001-208-525-66.45 Telephone 001-251=519-34.11 Increase "Decrease 2,856 500 300 200 281 80 1,200 295 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. G. Budget Amendment, IRC Ambulance Squad - Dash Mounted Mobile Transceivers The Board reviewed the following budget amendment dated 8/23/83: SEP 7 1983 SEP 7 1983 54 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 23, 1983 FILE: SUBJECT: IRC Ambulance Squad - Dash mounted Mobile Transceivers FROM: Jbffrey K. Barton; Director REFERENCES: Office of Management and Budget The following budget amendment is to allocate funds for the purchase of the mobile transceivers. The bid from Canaveral Communications, Inc., was approved at the August 17, 1983, meeting. Account Title Account No. Increase Communications Equip. - All 001-107-526-66.45 6,448 Reserve for Contingency 001-199-513-99.91 Balance in Contingency as of August 23, 1983 $192,806 ON -MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. ..Decrease 6,448 H. Budget Amendment, Florida Boating Improvement Fund Grant for Oslo Daybeacon Project The Board reviewed the following budget amendment dated 8/24/83: 12 t August 24, 1983 To: Board of County Coissioners Thru: Budget Office 0h From: Ed Fry, Finance Director The following budget amendment is recommended due to Florida Boating Improvement Fund Grant for the Oslo Daybeacon Project. Account Title Account Number Increase Decrease Boating Facilities 001-000-334-72.00 $7800. Other Prof. Services 001-108-572-33.19 7800. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by Finance Director Ed Fry. I. Budget Amendment, FEC Railway Crossing Payments The Board reviewed the following budget amendment dated 8/24/83: SEP 7 1983 13 ; �' ` 00 ra SEP 7 1983 . TG Board of County Commissioners WE: August 24, 1983 FILE: SUBJECT; -F. E. C.- ,Rai Tway Crossing Payments FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, Director REFERENCES: Office of Management. Budget At the March 16, 1983- meeting, a motion was made to transfer $79,200, from the Secondary Road Trust Fund to Public Works - F.E.C. Payments. This transfer was not done as the project completion date and the payment dates were unknown. The following budget amendment is only for the funds that will be needed in this fiscal year. Account Title Account No. F.E.C. Payemnts 004-243-519-34.46 Transfers -In 004-000-381-20.00 Fund Transfers 101-199-581-99.21 Reserve for Contingency 101-199-513-99.91 Reserve balance as of 8/24/83 $50,000 Increase Decrease 14,000 14,000 14,000 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. 14,000 J. Budget Amendment, Re -surfacing Gifford Park Courts The Board reviewed the following budget amendment dated 8/29/83: 14 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 29, 1983 FILE: SUBJECT: Re -surfacing Gifford Park Courts FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, Director REFERENCES: Office of Management & Budget The following budget amendment is to allocate funds to cover the costs of re -surfacing the Gifford Park Courts. Account Title Account No. Other Imprv-Except Bldgs. 001-210-572-66.39 Reserve for Contingency 001-199-513-99.91 Balance in Reserve $192,806 as of 8/18/83 Increase `'Decrease 5,834 ON MOTION by Commissioner_Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. 5,834 K. Budget Amendment, Emergency Food and Shelter Program Grant, Indian River Count Council on Aging The Board reviewed the following budget amendment dated 8/30/83: TO: Board of Y Count Commissioners DATE: August 30, 1983 FILE: + SUBJECT: Emergency Food and Shelter Program Grant Indian River County Council on Aging FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, Director REFERENCES: Office of Management and Budget The following budget amendment is to correctly record the revenues and expenses associated with the above referenced grant ( see attached) Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease Human Services 001-000-334-60.00 7,122 IRC Council on Aging SEP 7 1983 001-211-564-88.32 7,122 S E P 7 1983 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. L. Budget Amendment, TRIM Notices tac The Board reviewed the following budget amendment dated 8/30/83: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 30, 1983 FILE: SUBJECT: TRIM Notices FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, Director REFERENCES: Office of Management and Budget The following budget amendment is to allocate funds to cover the over -budget amounts relating to the preparation and mailing of the TRIM Notices. Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease Postage 001-500-513-34.21 2,450 Other Operating Supplies 001-500-513-35.29 6,767 Reserve for Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91 9,217 Commissioner Wodtke questioned the postage and other operating charges involved in sending out the TRIM notices, and OMB Director Barton explained that the other operating expenses include the charges of an outside computer firm over in Clearwater which did all of the printing on the forms that were furnished by the State. The total TRIM costs were approximately $15,000 and.only $6,000 had been budgeted. The $9,217 was the increased amount. 16 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. M. Budget Amendment, Community Services Block Grant The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/30/83: TO:Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 30, 1983 FILE: Indian River County " THROUGH: Jeffrey K. Barton Office of'Management Budget SUBJECT: Budget Amendment Community Services Block Grant FROM: Edwin M. Fry, Jr. REFERENCES: Finance Director The following budget amendment is recommended due to the .State of Florida- Community Services Block Grant received by the Indian River County Housing _ Authority, acting as sub -grantee. Because of this Grant, the loan necessary from the Board of County Commissioners to the Housing Authority for FY 82-83 will not have to be as great as was originally budgeted Increase 107-000-334-54.00 Community Services Block Grant $7,1597. 107-226-554-34.02 Travel 337. 107-226-554-35.11 All Office Supplies 280. 107-226-554-35.29 Other Operating Supplies 450. 107-226-554-11.12 107-226-554.12.11 107-226-554-12.12 107-226-554-12.13 Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Contribution Insurance ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by Finance Director Ed Fry. 17 SEP 1 1983 fox 4,922. 341. 556. 272. S E P 7 1983�ac N. Budget Amendment, Supplies for Clerk of the Court The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/31/83: August 31, 1983 TO:Board of County Commissioners r THROUGH.'CJeffrey K. Barton, Office of.Management & Budget FROM: Edwin M. Fry, Finance Director Al Three years ago, supplies were received and paid for to last three years. These supplies were depleted during the current year and were replaced as was needed. Unfortunately, the purchase of these has caused us to exceed our budget. I request that the following budget amendment be adopted to provide us with sufficient funds for the balance of the fiscal year. ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE 001-309-586-99.02 Budget Transfer $5,000. Clerk of Courts 001-199-513-99.91 Reserve for Contingency $5,000. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by Finance Director Ed Fry. INCREASED GRANT AWARD FROM DEPT. OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LANDSCAPING OF GIFFORD AND HOBART-KIWANIS PARKS Community Services Director Thomas explained that his office had received a letter just yesterday from the Florida Department of Community Affairs regarding a Modification to Agreement on Contract No. 84BG-47-10-40-01-074 between the Florida Department of Community Affairs and Indian River County, Florida. The modification is to increase the original grant award from $22,161 to $26,565, an increase of $4,404. He explained that the grant comes under the Small 18 Business Administration Parks & Recreational Area - Development Program. Director Thomas explained the urgency of the matter is that the Modification to Agreement must be signed by the Chairman and returned in three days He stressed that the State has required that these monies must be expended by September 30, 1983. Due to the short timeframe, he requested that he be given the authority to enter into a contract with the people who are going to do this work and that all permits be subject to the approval of the Attorney's office. Administrator Wright stated that they were.deviating from normal bidding procedures due to the short timeframe. Urban Forester Paul Palmiotto stated that they chose the low bidder on the 17th Street median project to do the landscaping in Gifford Park and Kiwanis-Hobart Park. Forester Palmiotto listed the four locations to benefit from the grant: 1)'Gifford Park - additional shade trees, and extension of the proposed irrigation system. 2) Hobart-Kiwanis Park - sod around restrooms and sod, mulch and trees around the park office. 3) Jungle Trail - salt -tolerant grasses, shrubs and trees to stabilize erosion caused by boat traffic. 4) 17th Street Median - planting -of drought and freeze tolerant plants and change in irrigation systema ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner.Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman's signature on the Modification to Agreement as described above. 19 SEP '7 13 SEP 7 1983 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize the short bid procedure and authorize the Chairman. to enter into contracts on behalf of the County to expend these funds by September 30, 1983 for landscaping projects in the County parks previously designated by the Board. Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock was assured that the short bid procedure was necessary in order to meet the State's requirement that all grant monies must be expended by September 30, 1983 or they would be turned back to the State. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. 20 _ CONTRACT N0. 84BG-47-1=1-074= MODIFICATION NO. 1 DATE: September 7, 1983 MODIFICATION TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND Indian River County GRANTEE The agreement for the period August 24. 1983 to September 30, 1983 between the Department of Com— munity Affairs and the Indian River County bearing the above contract number is modified by mutual agreement of the parties as follows: Increase grant award from $22,161 to $26,565. .. ,i s� 1 si All other provisions of the contract not in conflict re- main in full force and effect. Entered this 7th day of SeDtember 1983. FOR GRANTEE FOR DEPARTMENT by: authorized signature Chairman Board of County Commissioners _ Title 7IYA? NOTARY:' 3.nP.a.'j SEP '71983 bySecretary ATTEST: 49 tAGE S E P 7 1983 PROCLAMATION - CONSTITUTION WEEK Chairman Bird read aloud the proclamation designating the week of September 17 through September 23, 1983 as Constitution Week and presented the proclamation to Mrs. Georgia Scurlock, representing the Florida State Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. 22 P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States of America is the basic governing body of our great country; and WHEREAS, September 17, 1983, marks the one hundred ninety-sixth anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional convention; and WHEREAS, to accord official recognition to this memorable anniversary, and to the patriotic exercise that will form a noteworthy feature of the occasion, seems fitting and proper; and WHEREAS, Public Law- No. 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the -President of the United States of America designating. September 17 through September 23 as Constitution Week, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the week of September 17 through September 23, 1983 be designated as CONSTITUTION WEER and urge all our citizens to pay special attention during that week to our Federal Constitution and the advantages of American Citizenship. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the County of Indian River to be affixed at Vero 14 Beach, Florida this 7th day of September, 1983, and the 207th year of the Independence of the United States of America. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By�7 . Richard N.Biir�d�, Chairman — a. 4 . . n Attest:3�• r� Freda Wright, Clerk 23 SEP '7 1983 SEP 7 1983 4 rAc, UTILITY SERVICE AREA DECLARATION FOR LAUREL BUILDERS, INC., SEAGLE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., CARWASH WEST, AND ALBERTSON'S Attorney Brandenburg explained that the Resolution would authorize the City of Vero Beach to provide these four particular developments with sewer service, as they are located outside the city limits and are in areas that the County cannot service at this time. Administrator Wright confirmed that the County cannot realistically serve these areas at this time. Staff has looked into the matter thoroughly and in one instance, Albertson's, the City surrounds them but doesn't serve them. Commissioner Scurlock felt that the City of Vero Beach should have a franchise agreement to serve any areas into which the County is going to expand. Unfortunately, that puts the burden on people in the process of developing it, but he felt the County should always have the ability to annex. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioner Wodtke voting in opposition, the Board by a 4-1 vote, tabled this item until the next meeting pending discussion by the Administrative Dept. seeking a franchise agreement with the City of Vero Beach. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL, C-2 DISTRICT The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 24 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 in the matter of :� Z ijo-�c in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of ft U U (of .0 3 1 . 19 8 3 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 subscribe bef# me ! day of U A.D.. 19 1 1?Buss Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indid"lver County, Florida) (SEAL) 25 SEP '7 19'83 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF COUNTY ORDINANCE The Board of County Commissioners of In- dian River County, Florida, will conduct a l, public, hearing at which parties in interest and i citizens shall have an opportunity to to rd, on September, 7;' 1983, at 9:00 A. M_ in the County Commission Chambers at the ounty i Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, i Vero Beach, Florida, to consider the adoption j of an ordinance entitled: . : __1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY C.OMMISSIONERS OF IN- DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ES- TABLISHING ASW. ZONING DIS- TRICT TO BE"kNOWN AS THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL, C-2 , . DISTRICT; CREATING SECTION 20.1' OF.APPEN- DIX A TO THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE COUNTY'S ZONINQa .CODE• PROVID- ING FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES; BUILDING HEIGHT: -LIMITS, LOT COVERAGE AND YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDI- NANCES; CODIFICATION; SEVER- ABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. If any person decides to appeal any deci- sion made on the above maths, he -she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he -she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the apeal is basad. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: s -Richard N. Bird Chairman Aug. 19, 31, 1983. - SEP 7 1983 The Board reviewed the following memo 8/24/83: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 24, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAP CONCURRENCE: CREATION OF A C-2, HEAVY RCI SUBJECT: ZON NGCDISTRICTL, Patrick Bruce King, AICP Community Development Div. Director THROUGH: Bob Keating, AICP Planning & Zoning Dept. Manager FROM: REFERENCES: Clare Z. Poupard,&1" DW:MON Planner I C-2 Z District It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on September 7, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS This proposed ordinance has been prepared as an addition to Appendix A of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County. The existing Zoning Code provides for C-1, Commer- cial, and C -1A, Restricted Commercial, zoning districts. However, it does not provide for a Heavy Commercial District, .. wherein large scale or highly intensive commercial land uses may be located. The proposed ordinance addresses this need. The draft ordinance has been written to complement the existing commercial zoning classifications, rather than as an element of a new zoning code. This is to allow its immediate implementation, as per the direction given to the staff by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular meeting on May 26, 1983. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS To determine what uses were suitable for location in a C-2, Heavy Commercial District, the Planning Department considered the following questions: 1. Does the use involve outdoor storage as the principal means of storage on site? 2. Will the use generate a heavy volume of traffic, especially truck traffic? 3. Is the use a particularly intense use of the land? In addition to addressing these considerations, staff re- viewed other jurisdictions' ordinances to determine what uses have historically been allowed in Heavy Commere1-al Zoning Districts. 26 The uses allowed by this draft ordinance are based on both of these activities. At their July 28, 1983 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that this draft ordinance be approved. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the ordinance establishing a new zoning district to be known as the Heavy Commercial, C-2 District. Robert Keating, Planning & Zoning Dept. Manager, explained that the proposed ordinance was prepared as an addition to the County's zoning codes to provide for a heavy commercial district where large scale or.highly intensive commercial land uses may be located. Some of the types of uses in the ordinance will include drive-in businesses, service stations, warehouses, car washes, truck terminals, and other types of highway businesses. He advised that the Planning & Zoning Commission at its meeting of July 28th recommended that the Board adopt this ordinance. Chairman Bird.opened the Public Hearing and -asked if anyone wished to be heard. George C. Collins, attorney representing Mr. & Mrs. _. Ralph Shaft, owners of a mini -warehouse complex on Oslo Road, explained that his clients wished to expand and cannot because of the current zoning requirements, and they are proponents of changing this ordinance. L_ SEP 7,1983 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. r SEP 7 1993 rc' ON MOTION BY Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-25, establishing a new zoning district to be known as the Heavy Commercial, C-2 District. ORDINANCE 83-25 WILL BE MADE PART OF MINUTES WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED. NORTH BEACH WATER LINE - LOST TREE DEVELOPMENT CO. The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/29/83 and letter dated 8/1/83: TO: Honorable Members of the DATE: August 29, 1983 FILE: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: NORTH BEACH WATER LINE - LOST TREE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FROM: Terfa ce G. PintoREFERENCES. . Aug_ust 1, 1983 letter from Utility Services Direct Greeley & Hansen . DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The Utility Services Division has received correspondence from the Lost Tree Development Company saying that they would like to discuss the sale of their water system which encompasses well fields and wells in Wabasso and a water line which runs from the well field to John's Island. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: We want to insure that if the County acquires such a system, it would not have any impact on existing water customers and the benefits would be to relieve use of the.zhallow aquifer in the Wabasso area which is currently being used for irrigation purposes on John's Island golf courses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends retaining the services of Greeley and Hansen per the attached proposal submitted to us dated August 1, 1983. 28 DONALD NEWTON CARL W. REH M. D.0. RIDDELL RICHARD E FOERSTER ELMER F. SALLOTTI ROBERT M. ZIMMERMAN PAUL E LANGDON. JR. ALLAN IL EDWARDS PAUL A. KUHN ARTHUR N. ADAMS WALLACE A. AMBROSE RONALD E. SIZZARRI THOMAS J. SULLIVAN ASSOCIATE& WARREN W. SADLER JACK W. CORMACK ROBERT DEL RE JOHN M.SKACH RICHARD P. MILNE JOHN C. VOGEL GLENN R. WENTINK THOMAS E. WILSON EDWARD T. KNUDSEN. JR. EARL L HECKMAN WILLIAM C. KRAMER TERRY L. WALSH THOMAL. W. BURKE RONALD F. MARTIN JERRY C. FISH JOHN R. TROMP RICHARD S. ERHARDT JOHN D. ULLINSKEY KENNETH V. JOHNSON HAROLD 0. GILMAN R. SRINIVASARAGHAVAN MELVIN C. LANE ROGER J. CRONIN JOHN F. SEIDENSTICKER CARL M. KOCH EDWARD M. GERULAT. JR. FEDERICO E. MAISCH CLYDE WILBER GREELIEY ANO HANSEN E N G I N E E R S 121 T NORTH WEST SHORE BLVD.. TAMPA. FLORIDA 33807 • (813) 879.3750 Mr. Terrance G. Pinto Utilities Director Indian River County P. 0. Box 1750 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Proposed Acquisition of the Lost Tree Development Company Irrigation Supply System Dear Mr. Pinto: August 1, 1983 THOMASM.NIL With regard to our recent discussions pertaining to County THOMAS M. NILES SAMUEL M. CLARKEAI JOHN F. KAUSAL AA acquisition of subject system, Greeley and Hansen will be pleased - HENRY M. ZUKOWSM to assist you In its evaluation. J. BENJAMIN VER140EK T. RUSSELL ALMOALE JOHN W. HARDIE Utility, evaluations can usually be done using two sets of PHILLIP S. DENT criteria: First is the value based upon establishing the depre- ciated replacement cost. You cannot pay more than this amount because it would become less expensive to build it yourself. This excludes values for franchises and an ongoing business. Both would be included if you choose to condemn the system. The second and preferred method of evaluation is based upon cash flow. Regardless of construction cost, the system must pay for itself. Otherwise, the impact on the rest of the County utilities customers is for them to underwrite the newly purchased utility and that could mean rate increases. Generally, theCountyshould seek to purchase utilities based' upon the cash flow method. The system must pay for itself and stand alone financially. This requires.an analysis of the financial records for the 12 months immediately prior to the study period. Such records need to show all incomes from various sales or fees plus expenses including labor, equipment repairs, utilities, chemicals, other sup- plies and any other expenses associated with the financial operation of the utility. SEP 7 1983 F0UNOEO 1 N 1914 Bou 54 PAw-4-, Mr. Terrance G. Pinto -2- August 1, 1983 Our Mr. William A. Duynslager has been involved in many such evaluations. Most involvements have ended in reaching successful purchase arrangements by the municipality. In some cases, the seller did not agree to sell and the municipality did not agree to purchase because the system simply would not pay its own way. We recently concluded a successful similar assignment in Citrus County as a representative of the seller. In that case, we had to demon- strate to the seller that the County only pay what the system it- self would financially support. We propose to conduct a cash flow evaluation, furnish ten copies of our report and join you in one meeting with the sellers to review our report for purposes of reaching a successful con- clusion in acquiring the utility. We would accomplish this in three weeks for a fee, based on actual time and expenses, that would not exceed $3,800. If you would like us simply to perform a routine evaluation of the system's depreciated replacement cost, our fee would not exceed $1,000, and the work would be completed in about one week. We are looking forward to assisting you with this acquisition and helping to develop the County's water resources plan. Sincerely yours, GREELEY AND HANSEN Robert Del Re RDR:bh Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that the proposal is to evaluate the value of the cost of the water line that runs from Wabasso over to the north beach area and actually to Indian River Shores. The interest the Utility Department has in this line is twofold: 1) Presently the water is being withdrawn from the shallow aquifer in Wabasso for irrigation purposes over on the beach side. They want to try to eliminate the withdrawal as the water is drinkable as it comes out of the ground and is being used just for irrigational purposes. 2) The growth of.the north county is such that the County should consider purchasing this line to supply water to the north beach area from the deep aquifer. Administrator Wright advised that St. Johns Water Management District has endorsed this concept. Commissioner Scurlock reported that he had visited St. Johns Water Management District with Administrator Wright and Director Pinto to see if St. Johns would give additional allocations from the deep aquifer. They also discussed a well capping program. It, appears that Lost Tree Corporation owns the line and has a lease with Mr. Lockwood, and that this facility is located totally in the public right-of-way. Lost Tree has indicated that they are willing to cooperate and are willing to consider the sale of their system; they have done their own analysis in regard to replacement cost and they are, basically, waiting for the County to make an offer on a contractual form. However, before we do that, Commissioner Scurlock emphasized we should know all the numbers. Director Pinto stated that an analysis, which would be financed by the Utilities Dept., would look at the cash flow, notparticularlythe value of the line but what the 29 S E P 7 1983 ti 1490K ~�A( S E P 7 1983 value worth is when you are talking about revenues being recovered. The line would have to more than pay for itself or staff would not recommend the purchase. Chairman Bird asked Director Pinto if the proposed study by Greeley & Hasen would establish the proper value of the line and come up with a formula to show where the money would be generated to pay for that acquisition. Director Pinto assured Chairman Bird that the system would be set up on a pay as you go basis right from the` beginning, and that we were not looking at breaking even somewhere down the road. He explained that in determining the value of the line, the amount of revenue the line can return is much more important than the actual construction value of the line. However, the starting point for the people who are going to sell is the replacement value. Chairman Bird asked what effect Sawmill Ridge's lease will have on the line, and Commissioner Scurlock explained that Sawmill Ridge has indicated that they are willing to terminate the lease agreement. The Town of Indian River Shores supports the program and are basically looking for wholesale water and will handle their internal distribution. Also, the North Beach Water Company has an interest in it as an alternate source of high quality water in case of an emergency. Commissioner Scurlock advised that St. Johns Water Management District wants very much to phase out the shallow wells in the Wabasso area. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, that the Board authorize the Utilities Dept. to enter into a contract with Greeley & Hansen for their evaluation of acquiring the water line in the amount of $3,800. 30 - Commissioner Scurlock felt that the Town of Indian River Shores may eventually contract with the County for water, depending upon what the County does re north county water. The town is interested in a continuous, long-term operation. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT - 17th STREET BETWEEN 43rd & 44th AVENUES - ROBERT L. PEGG The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beath, 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—���—''JG` in the % Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of e ��� 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 bef a me t 's _day of - � " i A.D. 19 (Business Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court. IndirAn River County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AOTICE OF PETITION FORTHEHE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT AND VACATION OF THAT PORTION OF 17TH STREET LYING BETWEEN 43RD AVENUE AND 44TH AVENUE. c zlic hearing havewhichan parties In interest and heard, will be held Opportunity to bel Commissioners of Indian hRivler County, Florof r. l ida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located ati 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, September 7, 1983, at 9:30 A.M. If any person decides to appeal any decl. slon made on the above matter, he will need ai 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 -Richard N. Bird Chairman Aug. 19, 1989. 31 SEP 7-1983 r . SEP 7 1983 rae. The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/9/83: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 9, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE 'SUBJECT: RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT REQUEST SUBMITTED BY Robert Keating, AIC ROBERT L. PEGG FR M: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried Staff Planner REFERENCES: DW : CDD1 R. L. Pegg It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on September 7, 1933. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS On January 17, 1983, Attorney Robert Pegg submitted a right-of-way abandonment petition on behalf of tenants-in- common Dena Lysne Rockey, Lynn Ann Lysne, William E. Orth, Jr., and James Orth. (See Attachment #1) The application requests the County to abandon its rights to that portion of. 17th Street lying between 43rd and 44th Avenues. (See Attachment #2) In accordance with the administrative guidelines approved by the. Board of County Commissioners for the processing of right-of-way abandonment applications, the request was reviewed by all County departments and utility providers having jurisdiction within the roadway. The 50 foot right-of-way is never been maintained by the location of a major feeder 1 from the City of Vero Beach. not a through street and has County; however, it is the ine providing electrical service The Comprehensive Plan designates.43rd Avenue as a primary collector, where access should be well controlled and limited to secondary and major generators. The elimination of this potential access point would be in keeping with the intent of the Plan. The applicant is encouraged to create anon -access easement along 43rd Avenue, thereby designating 44th Avenue as the only means of access for any new construction. In May of 1983, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the aforementioned request. At that time, staff was directed to investigate the feasibility of relocating the electrical service line or reducing the size of the encumbered property. 32 ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The City of Vero Beach has estimated that it would cost the applicant approximately $4,500.00 to relocate the existing electrical feeder line. Taking this into consideration the applicant concluded that this was not a feasible alternative. However, a sketch of survey has been submitted which pin- points the exact location of the -transmission line. With this information available, staff determined a 30 foot easement would be adequate to handle the drainage and utility needs of the area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County abandon its road rights to that portion of 17th Street lying between 43rd and 44th Avenues with the following conditions: 1. The document reserving a 30 foot drainage and utility easement be executed and recorded. 2. A declaration of restriction shall be placed upon the property stipulating that access shall not be established onto 43rd Avenue. Mary Jane V. Goetzfried, Staff Planner, presented staff's recommendation that the County abandon its road rights subject to the following conditions: 1) That a document reserving a 30 -foot drainage and utility easement be executed and recorded. 2) That a declaration of restriction shall be placed upon the property stipulating that access shall not be established onto 43rd Avenue. Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. Attorney Brandenburg advised that the City of Vero Beach did agree to the 30 -ft. right of way for their line. 33 AG 1983 ` SSP SEP 71983 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-64 providing for the closing, abandonment, and vacation of 17th Street between 43rd and 44th Avenues, subject to the two conditions recommended by staff, as described above. 34 SEP RESOLUTION 83-64 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT, AND VACATION OF 17TH STREET BETWEEN 43RD AND 44TH AVENUES, AND RESERVING UNTO THE COUNTY AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PURPOSES. WHEREAS, on January 17, 1983, the County received a duly executed and documented petition from Dena Lysne Rockey of P.O. Box 2103, Valdosta, Georgia: Lynn Ann Lysne, of P.O. Box 2701, Vero Beach, Florida; William E. Orth, Jr., of 1650 44th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida; and James N. Orth, of 6815 49th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, requesting the County to close, vacate, abandon, and disclaim any right, title and interest of the County and the public in and to all that portion of -17th Street lying between 43rd and 44th Avenues as dedicated by Margaret Clemann in Deed Book 74, Page 178. WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes S 336.10, notice of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly published; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all those interested and present, the Board finds that said -right-of-way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within any municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity of the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to any given private property; with the sole exception that said right-of-way is deemed necessary for drainage and utility purposes as reserved below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: . 1. All right, title and interest of the County and the public in and to that certain right-of-way known as 17th Street, which lies between 43rd Avenue and 44th Avenue as recorded in Deed Book 74, Page 178, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered, discontinued,.remised and released with the exception that the following described drainage and utility easement is hereby reserved in perpetuity unto the County and the public and shall not be deemed to have been closed or abandoned in any way by this resolution: An easement being 30' in width being 15' on either side of the center line of the extension of the 17th Street right-of-way, described as follows: From the Southeast corner of Tract 16, same being the Southeast corner of Section 4, Township 33 South, Range 39 East as shown on the last General Plat of Lands of the Indian River Farms Company and recorded in Plat Book 2, page 25, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, run West along the South line of said Tract 16 a distance of 40 feet; Thence run North and along the West right-of-way of 43rd Avenue a distance of 635.43 feet to the point of beginning;.Thence run West a distance of 285.5 feet to a point on the West line of the East 10 acres of said Tract 16, said point lying 630.51 feet North of the Southwest corner of said East 10 acres; Thence run North along the West line of said 10 Acres a distance of 30 feet; Thence run East a distance of 285.5 feet to the West right-of-way of 43rd Avenue; Thence run South along said right-of-way a distance of 30 feet to the point of beginning. 7 1983., r 5 I 5. Fit' Said lands now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. 2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the date of adoption hereof; and 3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution together with the proofs of publication required by Florida Statutes 5336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River County without undue delay. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyons put to a vote, the vote was as follows: and, upon being Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Maggy Bowman Aye ON, The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 7th day of September . 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Q OOd j� BY: 0 R CHARD N. BIRD, Chairman Attest: a�A4 FREDA WRIGHT, gerk STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in this State and County to take acknowledgments, personally appeared RICHARD N. BIRD and FREDA WRIGHT, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and Clerk, respectively, to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official State last aforesaid this f— day of APPROVED A TO SUFFICIEN By: G M. BRANDEN URG, my Attor 1 in the County and A:D., 1983. NOTARY PUBLIC STYE b� k jND:D THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UIQ' h• COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY. a 1986 ,� REQUEST BY A. GROVER FLETCHER FOR REDESIGNATION OF 2.55 ACRES AS INDUSTRIAL LAND The hour of 9:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily ch, Vero Beach, Indian River County . Plorido NOTICE OF PIJBUC NEARING CONCERNING INTERPRETATION OF COMPRENENSRIE PLAN Notice of hearing to consider to following COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA industrial land use designation request for the subject Property- which is Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath proposed to be designated as industrial land in a,cordanca says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published with to Land Use Element of the Comprehen- siveTheFsubecof River County at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being FI°rida t pro 1 R �erlIIs descxibed a. Lot 17, of A.A. BE RY'S �� jj1/ a G SUBDIVISION of Section 21 of the Fleming Grant. re. vised from the Garter's Survey, < ac- cording to plat thereof recorded In Plat i - S/IC�r/ Hook 2, page 14, o} SL in the matter of=4 b17 Florida;records AND Lucie County, rida; feet CEPT the West 100 feet thereof and and LESS AND EXCEPT that certain land described in O.R. Book 430. page gg2 public records of Indian River County, Florida; said land now lying and. being - in the Court, was pub- in Indian River County, Florida. A Public hearing at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an oppprtunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County %moi � ,L�% j> /f fished in said newspaper in the issues of �i ti Commissioners of Indian River County. F1or. Ida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, tccated at 1840 25th Street,. Vero Beach. Florida., on Wednesday. September 7,1983, at 9:45 A.M. ' If any person derides to appeal any deal. Sion made on the above matter, he will need a Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at record of the proceedings, and for such Our., Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore yes, he may need to ensure that a verbatim• record of the proceedings been continuous) published in said Indian River County, each dell and has been Y P Y Y is made, which in_' eludes testimony and evidence upon which entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- the appeal is based. ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of Indian River County advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm Board of County Corn,mssioT,.{<^ s By. ch�rdN.Bird or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this Chairh Chairman advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Aug. 19, 31.1983. Sworn to and subscribe efor me thy' day of A.D. 19 ��_ i 1 � -- V ,(J(gpiness Manager) (Clerk o the Circuit !Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) SEP 7 1983 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/26/8.3: TO: DATE: FILE: The Honorable Members August 26, 1983 of the Board of County Commissioners A. GROVER FLETCHER RE- QUEST TO HAVE 2.55 ACRES DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENGSUBJECT: DESIGNATED AS INDUSTRIAL / LAND Robert M. Keatift§, AWCP Planning & Zoning Manager FROM: REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP Grover Fletcher Principal Planner RICH It is requested that the data herein presented be_given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 7, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicant, A. Grover Fletcher, is requesting to redesignate approximately 2.55 acres located on Gibson Street approximately 1/2 mile south of Roseland Road from MD -1, Medium -Density Residential (up to 8 units/acre), to Industrial. The applicant proposes to erect a fence around this property, so that he can continue to store his house moving equipment on this site. On August 25, 1983, the Planning and*Zoning Commission voted to approve the applicant's request to have his property designated as industrial. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the.existing land use pattern will be presented as well as a discussion of the future land use as established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is zoned M-1, Restricted Industrial, and is currently vacant. This site has been used as storage for house -moving equipment and vehicles and other related materials from February, 1980 until about one month ago. At that time, the subject property was cleared so that a security fence could be constructed around its perimeter. Before 1980, this site was a County land -fill. The property south of the subject property is occupied by a General Development Corporation warehouse. West of the subject property is a County dump (Roseland station). The land north of this site is also zoned M-1 and is vacant. The eastern boundary of the subject property is the right-of-way of the Florida East Coast Railroad 38 Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential (maximum of 8 dwelling units/acre). All of the property surrounding this site is also designated as MD -1 except for the land to the south which is in the City of Sebastian. While the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as MD -1, existing land use in this area as well as other conditions indicate that the appropriate land use designation for the site should be industrial. Although it is surrounded on three sides by the railroad tracks,_a warehouse, and a dump, the subject property is not in or near an Industrial Node, as designated on the future land use map. However, there is a provision in the Comprehensive Plan that states: "Certain parcels of land which do not conform to the policies for nodal development, but can be demonstrated to be suitable for commercial or industrial development and otherwise -meet the performance standards described in this element, may receive consideration by the Board of County Commissioners for commercial or industrial zoning classification." This parcel of land does meet the performance standards for industrial land which are listed in the Comprehensive Plan. Generally, there are only two circumstances which -justify a change in the CLUP designation of a parcel of land. The first is a change in conditions affecting the land in question. The second is the identification of factors not considered when the plan was initially prepared which would warrant a change in the land use designation of the parcel in question. Since this parcel of land was not considered separately during the process of preparing the Plan, the specific factors affecting the future use of this land were not considered at that time. In assessing whether or not the land use plan designation for this site is appropriate,'the staff has found that specific conditions, not generally applicable to the other land designated MD -1 in this area, apply to this site. In the past, the subject property has been used as a County dump. Any future development of this property should occur in the eastern 1/2 . Since the western 1/2 was used as a landfill, it is not suitable for buildings. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the industrial location provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the existing land uses in this area., and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Richard Shearer, Planner, presented staff's recommendation for approval of the request by A. Grover Fletcher to have 2.55 acres, Lot 17, of A. A. Berry's Subdivision, redesignated from MD -1, Medium -Density Residential to Industrial. He also informed the Board that the Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended approval. Mr. Fletcher stated he was in attendance today to answer any questions re the property involved. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. SEP '� 193 There were none. 39 vr yyAt. A�+y S E P 7 1983 PAGE ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to redesignate 2.55 acres , Lot 17, A. A. Berry Subdivision,` to Industrial, as requested by A. Grover Fletcher. DISCUSSION RE ABANDONMENT OF ROAD IN AMBERSAND SUBDIVISION Due to the fact that Gordon B. Johnston, attorney representing the owner of the property in question, was not aware that this item was on today's Agenda, it was agreed to table the item until the next meeting of September 21. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously tabled the above item until the Regular Meeting of 9/21/83.. DISCUSSION RE CONTRACTORS LICENSING & TESTING, AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES Commissioner Wodtke reported on the matter of contractors' licensing and testing, and occupational licensing. He recommended that the licensing process be reviewed and asked Administrator Wright to prepare a file on what is being done in St. Lucie and other surrounding counties. As it stands now, contractors are able to say they are air conditioning contractors, or heating contractors, etc., by just taking out a license and paying a fee. He felt that these contractors should come under the 40 same requirements as other trades which require competency testing. Commissioner Wodtke urged that this matter be addressed and that after proper review, an ordinance be adopted to require testing and licensing in order to protect the consumers. Commissioner Scurlock felt that was an excellent recommendation and would be tremendous asset to the County. Unfortunately, there are consumers out there who assume that a $6 license makes a contractor an expert. Administrator Wright stated they would be glad to come back with something on this on two different levels: 1) Licensing and competency testing. 2) Occupational licensing. Commissioner Wodtke reported that apparently the State requires only that the contractors register with the State, and competency requirements are left up to local government. Commissioner Lyons stated he would like to see this include swimming pool contractors. He felt that the County has some very responsible people on the variance boards for construction, etc., and perhaps they could give us some guidance and suggestions in setting up the competency tests. It was noted that plumbers and electricians are required to take competency tests. IRC BID NO. 185 - APPLICATION OF ALL-WEATHER SURFACE, GIFFORD PARR The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/29/83: S EP 7 1983 41 .. qac►54 PAUL 49 SEP 7 1983 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 29, 1983 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: IRC Bid #185 - Application of All Weather Surface - Gifford. Park GENERAL SERVICE DIVISION FROM: REFERENCES: Carolyn Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department Description and. Conditions At the Budget Workshop for FY83-84, funds were requested by the Parks Department for application of an all weather surface to the existing playing surface at Gifford Park. The Board of County,Commissioners advised the Parks Department to proceed with the work during FY82-83. Bids were received August 23, 1983 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #185 - Application of All Weather Surface — Gifford Park. 10 Bid.Rroposals were sent out, 1 Bid Proposal was received. Alternatives and Analysis The only bid received was from .the Nidy Company, Winter Park, Fl., -in the amount of $6300.00. However, Mr. Nidy made an error in calculating his bid. The actual bid total should be $5834.00 (see attached follow-up letter from Mr. Nidy). Time required to complete work after receipt of Purchase Order - 10 days. Recommendation and Funding. It is recommended that IRC 0185'be awarded to the only bidder, The Nidy Company in the amount of. $5834.00. Funds to be transferred from Contingency Funds. Purchasing Dept. Manager, Carolyn Goodrich explained that the one bid received contained an error and that the actual bid total should read $5834. She explained that 10 bid proposals were sent out and only 1 bid was received due to the highly specialized field. Commissioner Bowman asked if the asphalt company up on north U.S. #1 had an opportunity to bid and was advised that the surfacing was not asphalt. 42 SEP 71883 \_ . Mrs. Goodrich advised that this bidder had submitted a list of other jobs he had done in the State which included projects for the City of Vero Beach. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner.Lyons, that the Board award IRC Bid #185 to The Nidy Company in the amount of $5,834, for the all-weather surfacing to the existing playing surface at Gifford Park, subject to Mrs. Goodrich's check of references. Under discussion, it was pointed out that this all-weather surfacing is a green substance that seals the surface so that water does not get through. Mrs. Goodrich explained that two basketball courts and one volleyball court would be surfaced. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR -THE QUESTION. The Motion passed unanimously. ! MnAMn nC G.N[- 1/\91 r-,. / I- 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 - vo BID TABULATION BID NO. DATE OF OPENING In #185 Aug.23 1983 „G BID TITLE Application'of All Weather Sit - Gifford k ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE 1. Application of an all-weather SUrface At Gifford Park, a Tn a7 Rirl :6300 0o 2. Das required for completion I -of Work d s 0 43 a SEP 7 1983c 4 REQUEST FOR LEASE -PURCHASE OF NEW COPIER IN MAILROOM The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/31/83: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 31, 1983 FILE: Agenda the Board of County Sept. 7, 198 Commissioners THRU : C. B. Hard' Jr . , Ph. D SUBJECT' Assistant the County • Request for Lease -Purchase Administrator of New Copier GENERAL SERVICES DIVISION FROM: Lynn Williams REFERENCES: Building & `� ds Superintendent DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION Presently the Central Copy Room serving the Administration Building is equipped with an IBM Model 20 Copier. This copier was purchased on a 60 month purchase agreement with IBM in 1979. The Model 20 is designed to handle an average of 25,000 copies per month. We presently average 45,000 copies per month on our IBM Model 20. Over the last two years we have experienced considerable difficulty with our present machine, mainly attributed to the very heavy load. All repair work and normal maintenance is covered by a service agreement with IBM.**' However, the charges for monthly service are based on a set copy volume of 10,000 copies and escalate as usage rises above this point. All copies above the 10,000 level now cost $.015 per copy. IBM has notified staff of several changes in the pricing structure of their service agreement covering the Model 20 Copier. At our present average volume of 45,000 copies per month we can expect, effective October 1, 1983, our service agreement to cost approximately $895 per month. OLD FEES $239 base cost 10,000 copies 48 Collater 525 35,000 copies $812 TOTAL NEW FEES $147 base cost no copies. 48 20 bin collator 200 20,000 copies @ .01 500 25,000 copies @ .02 $895 TOTAL The new service rate will penalize users who exceed 20,000 copies per month. For each copy over 20,000 the user will be charged an additional .02� per copy. Staff projects with the addition of the Building Department and increased efforts by Code Enforcement Board along with usual growth, we can predict a monthly average of 55,000 copies within this next year. This would add another $200 per month to our service cosi. The present purchase agreement payment is $502.95 per month and is scheduled to be paid off in July, 1984. Remaining balance of $6,570 as of September 1, 1983. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS As an alternative to the above situation IBM has introduced a new Copier, Model 60, designed to handle an average of 60,000 copies per month. The new copier has all the features of the Model 20 plus additional speed and reliability. The service costs on the Model 60 will be significantly lower than our existing fee. Our present volume of 45,000 copies monthly would cost $461 per month for service, a savings of $434 over our existing fee. $112 base cost no copies 48 collate 31 reduction feature 270 45,000 @ .006 $461 TOTAL IBM has. special government pricing available through October 31, 1983, this would enable.the County to trade-in the present machine and purchase a new Model 60 at a reduced price of $28,917. With the purchase of an IBM Model 60, and producing copies at our present level, we can purchase the new machine and maintain it for slightly more than the maintenance fee on our present machine. This is based on a purchase payment of approximately $550 per month and maintenance cost of $461 a total of $1,011. Staff contacted other copier manufactures for demonstrations and pricing of equivalent machines. Xerox and Canon made demontrations of equipment, however, neither had all features which staff feels are necessary for our needs. The Xerox 8300 Copier had equivalent speed and copy quality but did not have a built-in two-sided copying feature. It also lacked built-in bins for the two different paper sizes. The Xerox was also considerably more"expensive. Canon does not market a copier of comparable speed or functions. Their proposal was for two copiers to make up for the lack of speed. Staff felt this would not be practical and could cause problems in coordination of copies.. Staff also contacted Eastern Kodak Company for pricing, however, they do not market copies in this area of the state. Approximately one-third of the copies made on the present machine are two-sided for use in agenda packets, minutes and contract documents which reduce the size of the package and saves paper. Approximately 500 of the copies are legal and.50% letter sized. Both features are widely used and are essential to our operation. Staff feels that of the copiers available in this area the. IBM Model 60 best fits the needs of Indian River County at this time. Since the new copier service costs were introduced after staff submitted preliminary budgets, we expect to exceed requested levels of funding in the maintenance of office equipment account of General Services Division Budget, if we continue with the present machine and volume. 45 Arfr P 1983 L 8 I SEP 71983 ' Fh�Cr t Alternative A Negotiate trade-in of present IBM Copier Model 20 with purchase of new Model 60 at a price of $28,917. Authorize staff to negotitate interest rates and terms of purchase agreement. Return to the Board for final approval and funding. Alternative B Continue purchase agreement of present Model 20. Request Budget Director make necessary projection to adjust Maintenance Account. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of Alternative A. No funding required at this time. Staff will return with proposal for final approval. Lynn Williams, Building & Grounds Superintendent, presented a request for a new IBM copier in the Central Copy Room serving the Administration Building. This request is due to the increase in service costs with the existing copier. The present copier machine was purchased 5 years ago and the County has outgrown it due to the heavy volume, roughly 60,000 copies monthly for the last couple of months. IBM has restructured the service contract and it will actually penalize us for copies above a certain level on the present copier. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board approve staff recommendation of Alternate A, to negotiate trade-in of present IBM Copier Model 20 on purchase of new Model 60 with no funding required at this time, and return to the Board for final approval and funding. 46 Under discussion, Administrator Wright reported that they have looked at Xerox, Canon and other manufacturers products. However, staff's recommendation is that the IBM Model 60 best fits the needs of Indian River County at this time. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. REQUEST BY RALPH CAPORRINO TO HAVE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE. I-95 & S.R. 60 COMMERCIAWINDUSTRIAL NODE 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: VERA BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING' CONCERNING INTERPRETATION OF . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Vero Beath, Indian River County. Florida Notice of hearing to consider the following commercial node designation request for the subject property which is proposed to be I - cluded in:the.1795 and S.R. 60 commercial -in - COUNT( OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA dustrial-node;asdeaignatedonthetutureiand Element the Com Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath use, map in the Land use of prehenstve: Plan of Indian River County, Fi says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published ida.. This notice supersedes all prior. concerning this matter. at Vero Beach in Indian River Count Florida; that the attached co of advertisement, being Y, Py 9 The subject property Is described as: The South 390 feet of the North 820 feet- of the west 260 feet of Tract 10, a Section 2, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, according to the last general +�n^ �= . plat of rm .lands of Indian River Fas Company Subdivision filed In. the Of- . in the matter of .tw�.ri� MAK- fice of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of "St. Lucie County in Dead Book 110, Pages 39 and 85. Said lend now lying and being in Indian River County, Flor- ida. A public hearing at which parties in ingest in the Court, was pub- and citizens shall have an opportunity to to heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 3A -U G- . 1+ 1 11 83 P ida; in'the Cof6nty Commission Cluunbers of the County Administration Building. located 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, September 7,1983, at 10:00 A M. if any person decides to appeal any deci sion made on the above matter; he willneed record of the proceedings, and • for .such pur Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at poses; he may need to ensure that a verbati Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore record°ot the proceedinge is made. which i,- testimony and evidence,upowwhic been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been the appeal is based. the app entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- *-Indian River County, ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of • . ,Board of County Commissioners advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm ` By: -s -Richard N. Biro Chairman or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this 31,1983 Aug - advertisement. for publication in the said newspaper. 5� Sworn to and subscribe befor me thi l day of ll U A.D. 19 4 3 ,, 6 inless Manager) q (Clerk of the Circuit Court, fndian River County, Florida) (SEAL) SEP' .7 1983 47 , K -'PAC SEP 7 1983 !'AGS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/26/83: TO: DATE: FILE: y - The Honorable Members August 26, 1983 f theBoard of County Co issioners RALPH CAPORRINO REQUEST TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SUBJECT: I-95 & S.R. 60 COM - DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE. Robert M. Ke t ng,,;ICP Planning & Zoning Manager FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Ralph Caporrino Principal Planner RICH It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County -Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 7, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicant, Ralph Caporrino, is requesting that his property be ins -luded in the Interstate 95 and State Road 60 Commercial/Industrial Node, as -designated on the future land use map of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The 'subject property is approximately 2.33 acres located 400 feet south of S.R. 60 on the east side of 86th Avenue. The applicant proposes to develop this property as a restaurant. On August 25, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 -to -1 to include the applicant's property in the I-95 and S.R. 60 Commercial/Industrial Node. The Commission gave as their reasons for recommending approval of this request that the nodal concept was intended to be flexible, that the nodes should be developed on a first come, first served basis, and that vacant land included in other parts of the proposed node boundary could be deleted from the node in order to include the subject property in the node. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the existing land use pattern will be presented as well as a discussion of the future land use as established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is zoned B-1, Planned Business District, and is currently vacant. The land south and east of it is also vacant. There are single-family residences north of the subject property with a beauty shop and gift shop north of these residences facing S.R. 60., West of the subject -property is Village Green West mobile home park. 48 - Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential (maximum of 8 units/acre). All of the property surrounding this site is also designated as MD -1. Farther west of the subject property is the 230 acre I-95 and S.R. 60 commercial/industrial node. Under the General Land Use Policies Section of the Comprehensive Plan, there is a statement concerning commercial and industrial development. It states that, "...commercial/industrial development shall be located in a compact manner to discourage strip development patterns which negatively affect the aesthetic qualityr.safety, land use patterns and traffic handling capacity of.the transportation system." This compact development is to occur in commercial and industrial nodes designated on -the future land use map. At the present time, the area between 82nd Avenue and 100th Avenue, and within 1/2, mile north and south of S.R. 60 contains more than 600 acres of contiguous land which is zoned C-1, Commercial District; B-1, Planned Business District; or LM -1, Light Manufacturing District. Less than 1/2 of this property can be included in the 230 acre commercial/industrial node at I-95 and S.R. 60. A map of the I-95 and S.R. 60 commercial/industrial node was prepared to show the proposed boundaries of the node based on accommodating 230 acres of commercial and industrial property. This map is included as Attachment #2 and reflects the staff's initial attempt to designate the node's boundaries based upon established criteria. The -center of the node is the I -95/S.1,.60 interchange. Using the center of the node, the size constraint of this particular - node, and the existing commercial and industrial development, a perimeter was established. The boundaries were drawn based on the existing commercial and industrial land uses around the center of the node, the infill property which can naturally be expected to develop in commercial or industrial uses in the near future, and the current pattern of residential development in this area. The proposed node boundaries include approximately 230 acres. More than '105 acres (almost 1/2) of this node is currently developed in commercial and industrial uses. The existing commercial and industrial nodes designated on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan were planned to provide adequate commercial and industrial land for the twenty year life of the plan. In the future, if it is found that the existing nodes do not provide enough space for necessary commercial and industrial land uses, the nodes can be enlarged. If it becomes necessary to enlarge the I-95/S.R. 60 node, the staff feels that future expansion should include the 55 acre tract of land east of the airport and additional land on the north side of S.R. 60. The subject property is 788 feet east of the initial node boundaries delineated by the staff. Including the subject property in the node as initially delineated would add 15 acres to the existing 230 acres already in the node and further stretch the node linearly as strip commercial and industrial development, contrary to the nodal policies of tie plan. 49 SEP 7 19,$ 3fi PAG a 'r SEP 7 1983 Based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation that the subject property be included in the node, a new map was prepared with modified boundaries which would include the subject property in the node but not exceed the 230 acre size of the node. Attachment #3 contains a map showing the boundaries redrawn to reflect the Planning and.Zoning Commission's action. Roads/Traffic This property has no access to a dedicated street. All of the traffic attracted to this restaurant can be expected to use S.R. 60 (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). Utilizing the maximum density allowed in developing the subject property as a restaurant, this site would generate 282 average daily trips (ADT) with 28 trips in the peak hour. Under the, existing land use designation, this site would generate 45 ADT. State Road 60 currently carries 12,000 ADT with a capacity of 24,000. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood prone area. Utilities The subject property is not served by County water nor wastewater facilities. However, the applicant has contacted Village Green about providing these facilities, and they have responded favorably. RECOMMENDATION During the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of August 25, 1983, the Commission approved the applicant's request to be included in the I-95/S.R. 60 Commercial/Industrial Node for those reasons cited in the description and conditions section of this memorandum. It is the staff's opinion that these reasons are valid. It is the staff's recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners give due consideration to the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation as well as the information provided by this memorandum. Richard Shearer, Planner, explained that based on the 230 acre size constraint and using the intersection of I-95 and S.R.-60 as the center of the industrial/commercial node, staff had initially tried to establish boundaries around the existing land uses. He advised that the Planning &Zoning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend inclusion of the property in the node. Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Mr. Ralph Caporrino, 1616 6th Street, addressed the Board and stated that he had been a resident and restaurant owner here in the county for many years and felt that the property at 86th Avenue and S.R. 60 would be an ideal 50 location for a restaurant and urged the Board to approve his request to have it included in the I-95 & S.R. 60 commer- cial/industrial node. Mrs. Carolyn Eggert, member of the Planning & Zoning Commission, addressed the Board and stated her vote was the one vote cast in opposition to the approval by that commission. She expressed concern with the node's boundaries being changed from time to time in order to accognodate these frequent requests and felt that there is not enough land in the node to take care of people who are already there. She would like to see this problem readdressed. Commissioner Scurlock agreed with Mrs. Eggert that the issue should be readdressed as we have both designation and size problems. Chairman Bird thanked Mrs. Eggert for her interest and concern in this matter. He felt the Commission also agreed that the matter should be readdressed and would request staff to come up with a solution to present to the Planning & Zoning Commission for their recommendation. Perhaps it should be done after a review has been made of the Comprehensive Plan in January. Mr. Keating explained that there was a lot of confusion regarding the impact of the Comprehensive Plan, and felt that the matter should be readdressed after the new zoning ordinance comes into effect. The Board requested Administrator Wright to look into the matter, using his discretion in determining priorities. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. 51 SEP 7 1983 SEP ..7 .1983 Fier� MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board approve Mr. Caporrino's request that his property be included in the I-95 & S.R. 60 commercial/industrial node, as recommended by staff. Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke recalled that when a request was received for a mobile home park in that area, staff had presented a map of the industrial/commercial node that was considerably different than this one where the node had extended to 82nd Avenue. It was very obvious at that time that if these particular areas were to be included, there would not be enough land. He agreed with Mrs. Eggert that the matter should be readdressed and was also concerned about the legal liabilities involved. Mr. Keating explained that the previous conceptual plan relating to that node was considered by staff before they drew up the map presented earlier. The previous plan had - allocated between 600-1000 acres for industrial and commercial uses. However, that plan was prepared before the final Comprehensive Plan was adopted which designated the size of the node as 230 acres. Administrator Wright stated that these are the things they will be looking at before coming back to the Board with a recommendation. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. 52 ACCEPTANCE OF MAINTENANCE OF DEDICATED STREETS IN FOREST PARR SUBDIVISION UNIT I and UNIT II —VISTA PROPERTIES The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/26/83: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: August 26, 1983 FILE: Board of County Commissioners TBROUGHNichael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: Request by Vista Properties for County to Accept Maintenance of Dedicated Streets within Forest Park Subdivision Unit I and Unit II FROM: James W. Davis, P.. , REFERENCES: Robert L. Gaskill, Vice President Public Works Director Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Ir to James W Davis dated August 9,: DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS As stated in the above referenced letter, Vista Properties is formally requesting the County to accept for maintenance the streets within Forest park Subdivision Units 1 and 2 located south of Vista Royale and east of U.S. 1. The streets were dedicated on the plat for Unit 1 in 1977 and Unit 2 in 1980. ALlUMTIVES AND ANALYSIS Since actual Dedication on the Plat does not obligate the County to perform maintenance, this acceptance procedure is recommended by the Public Works Division and County Attorney's Office. The County Attorney's office has prepared the appropriate Acceptance Resolution. The Public Works Division has inspected the Road and Right-of-ways. Two small potholes in the road were found and at the County's request, have been patched by Vista Properties. RECOM MATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners accept the maintenance of the dedicated streets in Forest Park Subdivision Unit 1 and Unit 2, and that the attached Acceptance Resolution be adopted. Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that Forest Park is ready to develop Unit III and before the County accepts any dedication on the roads in Unit III which connect Units I and II, they have requested that Vista Properties come before the Board for the County's acceptance of maintenance on dedicated roads in Units I and II. He reported that they have inspected the roads and the roads are suitable for acceptance. Commissioner Scurlock reported that there seems to be some question now as to whether the roads are adequate 53 E P 7 10083 PACE 7 1983 - SEP ?A462, throughout Vista Properties. Director Davis explained that the roads Mr. Scurlock was referring to were those in the condominium development and not really in any dedicated right-of-ways. Chairman Bird asked if we had some past precedent for we are accepting the maintenance and Attorney Brandenburg explained that in the past it has been on a case by case basis. The new Subdivision Ordinance allows that at the time the subdivision is platted, the determination can be made as to whether the County is going to take over that right-of-way in the future or whether they will require the establishment of a homeowners' association with necessary assessment powers to maintain the road. Commissioner Wodtke stated that if there is no public park back in that area, and after the roads are accepted for maintenance, they will not be allowed to put up a sign saying "Private Property". Director Davis stated that there was not a park back in there and that the road actually dead ends. Chairman Bird wondered what public benefit would be derived from taking over roads like these, and Director Davis agreed that there would not be any public benefit. However, he explained that at the time the preliminary plat was presented, they had said that they were dedicating the roads to the public and now we are just here to -formalize this dedication and to accept maintenance responsibility. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-65 accepting maintenance responsibility for certain dedicated streets and rights -of -ways within the Forest Park Subdivisions, Units I and II. 54 RESOLUTION NO. 83-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ACCEPTING MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CERTAIN DEDICATED STREETS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY WITHIN THE FOREST PARR SUBDIVISIONS, UNITS I AND II. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida approved for recordation the plats of Forest Park Subdivision, Units I and II, on February 11, 1977, and -May 21, 1980, respectively; and WHEREAS, each plat dedicated certain streets and rights-of-way to the perpetual use of the public; and "WHEREAS, the developer of the subdivision, Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc., has requested that the County formally accept the dedications and accept the maintenance responsibility for the rights-of-way dedicated; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has inspected the rights-of-way and streets therein and has determined that they are in good condition and comply with County standards; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of Indian River County to formally accept all dedications of right-of-way and streets made in the above mentioned plats and to acknowledge maintenance responsibility for those rights-of-way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The foregoing recitals are ratified in their entirety; and 2. All those rights-of-way and streets dedicated to the public by the respective plats for Forest Park Subdivision, Unit I, as recorded in Plat Book 9 Page 50 of the Public Records of Indian River County, and Unit II, as recorded in Plat Book 10 Page ,66, of said Public Records, are hereby accepted and shall hereafter be a part of the County road system of Indian River County, Florida until such time as said roads are closed, abandoned, or vacated in accordance with law; and 3. The County hereby accepts and acknowledges the maintenance responsibility for the aforementioned rights-of-way and .streets, in accordance with applicable County standards. -1- EP 7 1983 rA ..1983 SEP 7 4 �A-w 4 The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyons and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 7th Attest:s��/C r FREDA WRIGHT, C140k APPROVED TO FORM AND L SUF ICIE CY By CHRIST HE . PAULL Assistant County Attorney SOUTH BOUNTY' FIRE' DISTRICT day of September , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 11:15 o'clock A.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 11:17 o'clock A.M. with the same members present. APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT - OSLO DAYBEACONS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/26/83: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright, County Administrator VIA: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Directo DATE: August 26, 1983 FILE: �- SUBJECT: Oslo Daybeacons Approval of Final Payme FROM: Donald G. Finney l: -r REFERENCES: Engineering Technician DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Public Works Project #8218, the installation of 12 daybeacons marking the channel from the Oslo Boat Ramp to the Intracoastal Waterway, has been completed. The completed project was inspected by staff August 24, 1983 and constructed according to.the terms of the contract and sound Engineering practices. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Board of County Commissioners awarded the contract to Florida Marine Contractors for $7SOO.and approved a Florida Boating Improvement Fund DNR contract for $8940. Public Works Engineering Department initiated a change order to straighten the channel which created a more direct route to the inland waterway and a deeper channel in most places than. the original channel route. This action was also taken to provide better protection to the area grass beds. This engineering change necessitated moving of pilings in rock and an additional 9 hours work at $50 per hour at a cost of $450 by Florida Marine Contractors. RECQ*ENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the final payment to Florida Marine Contractors and extra charge of $450 be approved. Following is the cost breakdown of the project: -Estimated cost and FBIP obligated fiords $8940 Florida Marine Contractors Contract $7800 Florida Marine Contractors 9 hours extra work $ 450 DER Permit Fee $ 100 Total Project Cost $8350 $590 below estimated cost Public Works Director Davis stated that construction of the project was completed and recommended approval of final payment to Florida Marine Contractors. He reported that after consulting with Community Services Director Thomas and other people in the area, and also taking some soundings, 56 SLP '71993 I F17 - SEP 7 1983 `Ac 4 . they had initiated a change order to provide a better channel, which resulted in an additional cost of $450. He felt the benefits derived from the change far outweighed the additional cost. The water was very shallow at low tide, especially near the boat ramps. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved final payment in the amount of $8350 to Florida Marine Contractors for the Oslo Daybeacons, Project #8218, as recommended by staff. REVISION to 1983 ROAD PROGRAM- PAVING OF JOSIE STREET IN RO.gP..T.&NT) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/26/83: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: August 26, 1983 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: Revision to 1983 Road Program - Paving of Josie Street in Roseland FROM: James W. Davis; P.E. , REFERENCES: Public Works Directo DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS During the February 16, 1983 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, the attached 1983 Road Improvement Program was approved. As of this writing, all projects have been constructed or are being finalized with the exception of the following: 1 b. Resurfacing of Gibson Street in Roseland Cost = $24,600 It has been determined that this road is not in critical need of resurfacing at this time. l*d. Resurfacing Kings Highway from 4th Street to 12th Street (cost $48,380) Due to the close proximity of a Grove canal to the West between 8th Street and 4th Street, resurfacing has only been constructed between 12th Street and 8th Street. Plans are currently -being made to include the remaining work in FY 1984. 57 - As a result of the Gibson Street Project being eliminated and the Kings Highway resurfacing being -delayed until Fiscal Year 184, there is approximately $44,000 available for an additional project. After all planned work is finalized, the Road and Bridge Department Road Material Account (Line item 35.39) should have an unused balance surplus of approximately $74,000. At this time, the Roseland Volunteer Fire Department and other residents in Roseland have verbally requested that the County consider the paving of Josie Street from Roseland Road to Elaine Street (see attached map). Since the Fire Station and Public Park are both located on this road, the road serves other functions than simple access to abutting property. The Roseland Station -Fire truck has recently suffered damage due to the condition of the road. Cost to pave the approximately 2000 Z.F. of road with Double Surface Treatment and a Soil Cement base would be approximately $23,000. The cost to pave Josie Street with the smoother D.Or.T. Type III asphalt is approximately $28,000. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The following alternatives are presented: 1) Approve paving 2000 L.F. of Josie Street with D.O.T. Type III asphalt at a cost of approximately $28,000. 2) Approve paving 2000 L.F. of -Josie Street with Double Surface Treatment at a cost of approximately $23,000. 3) Approve paving of Josie Street from the Fire Station and Park to Roseland Road - Approximately 1000 lineal feet - cost = $14,000. 4) Additional unspent funds would be unencumbered and no additional projects be approved. RECO*fMATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that Alternative No. 1 be approved and that Josie Street be paved between Elaine Street and Roseland Road at a cost of $28,000. Funding to be from 004-214-541-35.39, uncommitted balance is $118,000. The unencumbered balance as of August 18,.1983 is $233,500. Public Works Director Davis explained that the original approved FY 1983 Road Improvement Program was completed, except for the resurfacing of Gibson Street in Roseland, and the widening of Rings Highway from 4th Street to 12th Street. Due to these two projects being deleted from this year's budget, there is approximately $44,00 available for an additional project, the paving of Josie Street in Roseland. He reported that.Rpseland had requested that Josie Street be paved as there is a fire station and a park located on the street. 58 SER 7 1983 SEP 7 1983 - . 5A OR MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board approve Alternate #1 of staff recom- mendation to pave.200'OL.F. of Josie Street in Roseland with Type III asphalt at a cost of $28,000. Under discussion, Director Davis explained that because of the emergency vehicles using Josie Street, he recommended paving the road with double surface paving for the extra cost of $5,000, Type III asphalt. Commissioner Wodtke questioned the roughness of the new double surface treatment, and Jim Davis explained that the condition will wear off after traffic wears down the aggregate. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TRACKING STATION RECREATIONAL AREA, AWARD OF BIDS - DIVISION III - LANDSCAPING The Board.reviewed the following memo dated 8/26/83 TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: August 26, 1983 F1 Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: Indian River County Tracking Station Recreational Area, Award of Bids - Division III - Landscaping. FROM: James w. Davis, P.. , REFERENCES: Public Works Direct0 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were readvertised and received August 15, 1982, for Division III —Landscaping, for the Tracking Station Park. The Bid tabulation sheets are attached. A total of five bids were received. 59 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The bids received for Division III - Landscaping are summarized in Table I. Me County,Urbsm.Forester and the Public Works Division Staff have reviewed the bids and recommend award to the low bidder, Glenn and Mikes Landscaping of Vero Beach, Florida. RECON40DATIONS AND FUMING It is recommended that the low bidder for Division III, Glenn and Mikes Landscaping be awarded the Bid with the deduction of 25 tree hibiscus for a total bid amount of $31,793.25. Funding to be from the Tracking Station Fund of $277,500. The uncommitted finds total approximately $55,000. Award is subject to DNR approval. Public Works Director Davis explained that they had an earlier bid of $40,000 and after specifications were changed to be more specific on the plantings, they had received a low bid of $31,793.25 from Glenn and Mikes Landscaping. Director Davis pointed out that the funding for the project is 2/3's from the DNR grant and 1/3 matching County funds; there is approximately $55,000 of uncommitted funds at this point. Chairman Bird asked about the alternate bid received from Riverside and Director Davis explained that the alternate bid was submitted based on an alternate plan Riverside thought would work in that area. It was their idea, not ours. Commissioner Wodtke wanted assurance that all plants or trees being used would be salt or freeze tolerant, and Director Davis offered to have Urban. Forester Palmiotto check into the matter. Commissioner Scurlock suggested that we might want to take advantage of Bay Tree and Sea Oak's offer of cabbage palms, as they had an excess abundance of them up in the north county developments. Considerable discussion took place regarding the irrigation system needed and Director Davis explained that the County had gone out for bids for a shallow well system 60 �. SER 7 1983 Fr - SEP 7 1983 . again after they realized that a 2 -inch meter would cost $6000 in the City as opposed to $2000 for a one -inch meter. Unfortunately, they had not received any bids by the deadline yesterday. Commissioner Scurlock felt that we are going to have trouble getting local contractors to bid on a well because an out-of-town contractor was awarded the bid for the irrigation course. Chairman Bird asked what our options are for irrigating this area and Director Davis stated it was to irrigate with City potable water, which is very expensive, or to try to go out to bid again. Also, we might go out and negotiate verbally with local contractors. Administrator Wright suggested that staff be authorized to go out and negotiate in the best interests of the County for a change order on this project. Commissioner Bowman objected to any sod or plants that have to be cut and watered after the initial planting. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board approve staff's recommendation to award the low bid of $31,793.25 to Glenn & Mikes Landscaping for the landscaping of Tracking Station Recreational Area,_ Division III, with the understanding that staff will check into the matter of salt and freeze tolerant plants and the offer of free cabbage palms from Bay Tree or Sea Oaks. Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke requested that planting be delayed until there is a source of water and that the proper planting times be used. He also requested that we receive guarantee of survival of at least 60-90 61 days. Administrator Wright assured Commissioner Wodtke that Director Davis would coordinate all of that for us. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. IiVARL7 Ur UUUMI T a,vmm1 #01V-1 .v y$ y Vero Beach, Florida 32960 $ao (7 oro . 'Q�y „o•� 4 ,�'" •sem BID TABULATION b 60b0i �fi Ym qty~ a, ty Cota►ty Project N DATE OF OPENING August 15, 1983 2145 -14th Avenue 8102 m q q �� BID TITLE Tracking Station -Landscaping ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE y UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PR Vero Beach, Florida 32960 2SO4 70 2300 00 2070 00 2000 00 230000 2875 0011 20 Sod9300 00 7800 00 v; 7500 500 7800 00 9000 00 21 Topsoil 2673 00 1912 50 2700 00 1350 00 3375 00 22 Milorganite n 672 00 576 00 384 00 '� � •'� a, am q Over � -off 1275 00 4050 00 BID TABULATOON 2250 00 1725 00 „ti�'',C 24 Miscellaneous Items �G• ,b 2500 00 600M7, _0 750 00 Op 25 PerfonikInce Bond County Project No. DATE OF OPENING 8102 701 00 456 �� S� by fi -0 450 00 .s August 12, 1983 10699 tip 35793 25 379900 --- BID TITLE Tracking Station - LartbcapinfIr ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE IT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE 1 Mahogany Trees $0-2S .1 60 .1440 00 1920 00 1500 00 1980 00 5720 00 Sabal Pa 2 Live Oaks " 2059 20 910 00 2080 00 1625 00 2275 00 320 00 Reloc to Sabals 3 Tree Hibiscus 1722 60 4640 00 S800 DO 3625 00 4350 00 2280 00 10' MD 4 Beach Acacia Trees 831 60 350 00 350 60 560 00 770 00 3465 00 SEAGRkPE 5 Carrotwood Trees 1267 20 1 400 00 440 00 640 00 880 00 1050 00 PINK )LF1 DER 6 Jerusalem Thorn Trees 1425 60 1 4S0 00 495 00 720 00 1080 00 1635 00 VIBURUI 3DORATISSIM 7 Pitch Apple Trees 475 .20 450 00 60 00 7SO 00 900 00 1 225 00 VIRBU W SUSPE 611. 8 Cabba Palms 2772 00 1680 00 1820 00 2800 00 00 1050 00 NO IIA Gree9 Coconut alm Cocom t Palm 1514 70 1215 00 2'70 00 900 00 1200 00 240 00 FLEA 'US 10 Sea Grapes 1691 00 1520 00 1520 00 1710 00 1900 00 30 00 WHITE OLI 4TMER 11 Scaevda 2439 36 2156100 2156 00 2772 00 3080 00 1485 00 SCAL.- A 12 Pittospo um 1045 44 858 00 924 00 1188 00 1320 00 200 00 NW10E 13 Pampas Grass 300 96 247 00 266 00 342 00 4S6 00 360 00 CAL. JANCEOLATA 14 Nata Plum 445 00 350 00 3SO 0 450 00 500 00 220 00 L•'W SCRPI - 15 Dwarf Oleander 1108 80 1120 00 980 00 1260 00 1400 00 16 CDcoplum 261 36 297 00 297 00 297 00 396 00 17 1 b -'P tf -era 1308 30 477 7S 373. 38 S88 00 SS1 25 18 raniperus " E-nmensis 427 20 168.00 134 40 192 00 180 00 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145.14th Avenue y$ y Vero Beach, Florida 32960 $ao (7 oro . 'Q�y „o•� 4 ,�'" •sem BID TABULATION b 60b0i �fi Ym qty~ a, Cota►ty Project N DATE OF OPENING August 15, 1983 w~ b`' SID 8102 m q q �� BID TITLE Tracking Station -Landscaping ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PR 19 Mulch 2SO4 70 2300 00 2070 00 2000 00 230000 2875 0011 20 Sod9300 00 7800 00 7500 00 7500 500 7800 00 9000 00 21 Topsoil 2673 00 1912 50 2700 00 1350 00 3375 00 22 Milorganite n 672 00 576 00 384 00 320 00 640 00 23 Peat Moss 2079 00 1275 00 4050 00 2250 00 1725 00 24 Miscellaneous Items 950 001 2500 00 600M7, _0 750 00 25 PerfonikInce Bond 40699 00 701 00 456 -0 450 00 10699 tip 35793 25 379900 3S939 00 45173 25 --- PyrAI. BID SEP 71983 62 Bd�OK IAC SEP 7 1983 4'AGF, DISCUSSION RE APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE FOR PAT FLOOD ON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE Commissioner Scurlock explained Sebastian Mayor Pat I Flood has requested that the Board appoint an alternate voting member for him as he is experiencing great difficulty in attending the Transportation Planning Committee meetings. Mayor Flood has recommended that Robert R. Fitzmaurice be appointed as his alternate on the committee. Discussion was held in regard to the Board's policy on voting members of the committee, and it was felt a letter should be written to Mayor Flood stating that it is not the Board's policy to appoint an alternate voting member, but will appoint a replacement if he wishes. Chairman Bird asked if Commissioner Scurlock would like to write the letter to Mayor Flood stating the Board's policy on this matter, and Commissioner Scurlock agreed to write Mayor Flood. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized Commissioner Scurlock to write a letter informing Mayor Flood that it is not the Board's policy to have alternates and that if he wishes to make a recommendation for Mr. Fitzmaurice,-the Board would be glad to appoint him as his replacement on the Transportation Planning Committee. APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR WATER AND WASTE WATER SYSTEM FRANCHISE FOR PELICAN POINTE UTILITIES, INC. The hour of 11:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication, to -wit: 63 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 it VerrAo� Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being 3 in the matter of4 in the _ Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of AU(__ i S3 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published all 'ero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida., and that the said newspaper has heretofore een continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been ntered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- /, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of dvertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm r corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this dvertisement for publication in the said newspaper. worn to and subscribed bet?)e me TT nday of SC -Pi A.D. 19 •8 3 /j (, v ,(Bust -is Manager) -�.IL:} SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, India iver County, Florida) Tuaaday. August 23. 1983 ,Vero Beach. Fla.t,Press Jpuma� ..Public Notices. " NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ` The Public Hearin 9 for Pelican Pointe Utilities, Inc., franchise applicatiol F scheduled for 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, September 7, 1983, at the County Commis! Chambers at the Indian River County Administration Building, 1840 25th Str Vero Beach, Florida 32960. s , _'• All interested parties are invited to attend and will be given an opportunit, o. \ be heard at that time. The franchise is dedicated to providing water and waste �KgNCH1_ E ter service to Pelican Pointe, a multi -family residential development. The sen area is the tract of land shown on the accompanying map. The rate schedule for. this water and wastewater service is as follows: Water wastewater Connection $250.00 -unit ' Connection $300.00-t ' Base Rate 11.50 month Base Rate 11.00 -mo tnd:o�n Gallon Rate 1.S0-1,000 gal. Galion Rate 1.50-1,000 c Irrigation 0.505 -unit -month R'y� • The minimum base rate charge per month per unit: $30.50; If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matters, he - will need a record of the proceeding, and for such purposes, he -she may need to �\ sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record Includes testimony on which the apeal Is based. \ Aug. 23, 1983. • r r� f.. i 64 SEP 7 1983�c?► 1JVJ SEP 7- The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/11/83: 10: The Honorable Members of thDATE: August 11, 1983 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Terrance G. Pinto Utility Services Direcor SUBJECT: PRIVATE COMMUNITY WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM FRANCHISE APPLICATION FOR PELICAN POINTE UTILITIES, INC. FROM: Joyce S. HamiltonlREFERENCES: Administrative Assistant' Utility Services DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Pelican Pointe Utilities, Inc., is a private community water/wastewater system dedicated to providing water and wastewater service to the Pelican Pointe condomimium development. Pelican Pointe is located, on the east side of U. S. Highway 1, west of the Indian River, north of 53rd Avenue and south of Tropicana Homesites. - This project will total three hundred thirty (330) units. There will be eighteen (18) single family units, two hundred four (204) cluster units (6 per building), and one hundred eight (108) beach units -(18 per -building). Equivalent residential connection - (ERC) will be two hundred fifty - (250) gallons per day, domestic flow. Building landscaping and golf course irrigation is supplied from a -different well. One condominum unit is equal to one unit/one ERC. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The rate analysis has been examined.and staff finds it adquate to cover operating expenses and it limits the rate of return on the rate base to a maximum of twelve (12) percent. The public hearing.has been properly advertised and the background data has been reviewed as being complete and satisfactory. RECOMMENDATION: -• "Staff recommends the approval of the subject franchise application. Approval of this franchise however should not be construed as a permit to construct. All plans and specifications must be submitted to the Utilities Department for approval prior to a permit to con- struct being issued. Commissioner Scurlock questioned if the 6% fee would be handled separately and Utilities Director Pinto stated that it is staff's view that if we change the franchise fee, it should be changed unilaterally for all franchises and handled in a separate ordinance. 65 Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Attorney Rene VanDeVoorde, representing Pelican Pointe Utilities, stated he was here today to answer any questions. Mr. Lawrence Futch, 95th St. at U.S. #1, expressed concern about the effect it would have on his water supply as he now has a shallow well with good water. Director Pinto stated that the water is coming from a deep,well, the Florida aquifer, and will be treated.by a reverse osmosis plant. He did not feel that it would have an effect on Mr. Futch'`s shallow well. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that the franchise fee sets the fee at 3% and does not make any mention of being able to amend it by ordinance or otherwise. Administrator Wright recommended that since this question just arose, we adopt this with the understanding that proper language be included to allow the franchise fee to be increased by subsequent action of the Board. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-66 for approval of franchise application by Pelican Pointe, with the understanding that proper language be included to allow the franchise fee to be increased by subsequent action of the Board. 66 SEPI 1983 PACE` ry SEP, a7 PW'476 RESOLUTION No. 83-66 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida; SECTION I This Resolution shall be ]mown and may be cited as the "PELICAN • G t uy MIA M In M ky Ir �� i� ���� x• « t For the purpose of this Resolution, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not inconsistent with the context, words using the present tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular and vice versa. The word "shall" is always mandatory. (a) "County" is Indian River County Utility Services Department, a political subdivision of the state of Florida. (b) "County Engineer" may be "County Administrator or County Utilities Director". (c) "Utility" is the Grantee of rights under this franchise, to wit: PELICAN POINTE UrILI G, INC., a Florida Corporation. (d) "Board" is the Board of County Commissioners. (e) "Person" is any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or organization of any kind. (f) "Territory" means the area located in Indian River County, Florida. outside the corporate limits of any municipality -as the same is more particularly defined and described herein. (g) "Water System" shall mean and include any real estate, attachments, fixtures, impounded water, water mains, services, valves, meters, plant, wells, pipes, tanks, hydrants, pumps, reservoirs, systems, facility or other property, real or personal, used or useful or having the present capacity for future use in connection with the collection, obtaining, treatment, supplying and distribution of water to the public for human consumption, fire protection, irrigation, consumption by residential, business or industry, operation of sewage disposal plants and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, 1 - shall embrace all necessary appurtenances and equipment and shall include all property, rights, easements, licenses and franchises relating to any such system and deemed necessary or convenient for the operation thereof. (h) 'Wastewater System" shall mean and include any plant, system, facility or property used or useful or having the present capacity for the future use in connection with the collection, treatment, purification or disposal of wastewater effluent and residue for the public and without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition shall embrace treatment plants, pumping stations, intercepting sewers, pressure lines, mains, laterals and all necessary appurtenances and equipment and shall include all property rights, easements, and franchises relating to any such system and deemed necessary or convenient for the operation thereof. (i) "Service" means supplying to a user the distribution of water and/or wastewater and the treatment thereof. (j) "Hookup and/or Connection" is the connecting of potential user's property to the water and/or wastewater system in order to utilize the Utility's services. SECTION III GRANTING OF FRANCEESE There is hereby granted by the County to the Utility the non-exclusive franchise, right and privilege to erect, construct, operate and maintain a water and/or wastewater system as herein defined within the described territory as herein provided and for these purposes to sell and distribute treated water and/or wastewater within the territory, and for these purposes to establish the necessary facilities and equipment and to lay and maintain the necessary lines, pipes, mains and other appurtenances necessary therefore in, along, under and across the public alleys, streets, roads, highway and other public places of the County; provided, however, that the County reserves the right to permit the use of such public places for and all other lawful purposes and subject always to the paramount right of the public in and to such public places. The Utility shall, at all times during the life of this franchise, be subject.to all lawful exercise of the police power and regulatory authority of the County and to such regulation as the County shall hereafter by resolution provide, provided however, such regulations shall not be inconsistent with the terms hereof. SEP 7 1983 a 77 I 'SEP- •7 1983 The Utility shall supply the County with copies of its Department of Environmental Regulation monthly operating reports and trouble reports, if any. The right is hereby reserved to the County to adopt, in addition to the provisions herein contained and existing applicable resolutions or laws, such additional regulations and increase fees and charges as it shall find necessary in the exercise of the police power and lawful authority vested in said County, provided that such regulations shall be reasonable and not conflict with the rights herein granted and not in conflict with the laws of the State of Florida. The County shall have the right, but not the duty, to inspect all construction or installation work performed. tiDwuMM L TERRITORY/FRANCHISE AREA The territory in which this franchise shall be applicable is all that part of Indian River County, Florida, located within the following described boundary lines, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION V HOLD HA44LESS CLAUSE It is expressly understood and agreed by and between the Utility and the County that the Utility shall save the County and menbers of the Board harmless from any loss sustained by the County on account of any suit, judgment, execution, claim or demand whatsoever resulting from negligence, or intentional wanton, willful and reckless acts on the part of the Utility in the construction, operation or maintenance of the water and/or wastewater system under the terms of this franchise. The parties agree that in the construction of this section, the claim of any person resulting from negligence on the part of the Utility may be Prosecuted directly by such person against the Utility. The County shall notify the Utility praTptly after presentation of any claim or demand. SECTTION VI «ONLAr v • • W �� w The Utility shall maintain and operate its water/wastewater plant and system and render efficient service in accordance with the rules and regulations as are or may be forth by the Board from time to time, which shall include but not be limited to "Construction Specification for Water Treatment/Distribution and Sewage Treatment/Collection Facilities" promulgated by Indian River County Utilities Department, July 1980, or as amended. The County shall require the Utility to M comply with the above standards. Prior to the issuance of a construction permit, the Utility's project engineers shall certify to the County that the design standards as set forth in said "Constriction Specifications" of Indian River Utilities Department, July, 1980, or as amended, will be met by completion of the project as shown on the pians submitted. The Utility shall cause said certification to be submitted to the County along with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation applications and pians, for County review. Submission to the county for review may occur simai]taneously with submission of said - documents to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Upon approval by the County of the plant and system, a permit shall be issued to the Utility for the construction thereof. -Prior to the issuance of a construction permit, certification from the Indian River County Fire Department mast be obtained certifying fire flow requirements have been met. Upon the completion of all construction of the water and wastewater treatment plants and distribution and collection systems, the project engineer for the Utility shall certify, under seal, that the system has been constructed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications previously approved and that the systems meet all of the standards required by the County. The certification shall include submission to the County of two sets of "as -built" (as defined by the County) drawings, consisting of one set in reproducible vellums and one set of regular blueline prints; and that the systems meet all of the standards required by the County, including pressure and leakage tests, chlorination and bacteriological tests, infiltration and exfiltration tests. Upon receipt of certification from the engineer, the County will issue a letter acknowledging the construction of the water and/or wastewater systems. No service is to be provided to customers until such time as the County issues a letter of acknowledgment. The issuance of said letter shall not be unreasonable withheld. The Utility shall grant necessary easements to the County without charge to connect the water and/or Wastewater system to the County Master Water and/or Wastewater System together with such easements as are necessary to provide access to the water and/or wastewater system, where and if the County makes water and/or wastewater service available to the project. The Utility shall pay a one thousand dollar ($1,000) franchise application fee at the time of the submission of the franchise application, and agrees to pay all other fees which may be applicable during the operation of the system. SECTION VII CEla'IFICATION OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE All of the facilities of the Utility shall be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Department of Environmental Regulation of the State of Florida and Indian River County Utilities Department. The manner of treatment and distribution of water and the manner of collection and disposal of wastewater shall aP 7 X983` 4 SE - � _:�- . ,. , . iAc�.' SEP 7 1983 54 48 at all time be and remain not inferior to the quality standards for public water distribution and public sewage collection and other rules, regulations and standards now or hereafter adopted by the Department of Environmental Regulation of the State of Florida, or other govenmiental body having jurisdiction, including Indian River County. The Utility shall supply the County with an annual report of operations and maintenance certified by the Utility Engineer who must be registered in the State of Florida. SECTION VIII UTI:='S AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE NECESSARY PROCEDURES (a) The Utility shall have the authority to promulgate such rules, regulations, terms and conditions covering the conduct of its business as shall be reasonable necessary to enable the Utility to exercise its rights and perfom its obligations under this franchise and to issue an uninterrupted service to each and all of its consumers; provided, however, that such rules, regulations, terms and conditions shall not be in conflict with the provisions hereof or with the laws of the State of Florida and all of the same shall be subject to the approval of the Board. (b) At all times herein where discretionary power is left with the Board of County Commissioners, the Utility, before discretionary action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners, can request said Board that a group of arbitrators be appointed and such group shall consist of 1. County Utilities Director 2. Utility Engineer 3. One person selected by the above two persons and this Board of Arbitrators shall make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, but such -recommendations are not mandatory. Any arbitration shall be in accordance with the Florida Arbitration Code. Any final decision the arbitrators or Board may have with respect to this franchise can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Indian River County by either party. SECTION IX DEDICATEE] E.G All pipes, punps, hydrants, mains, valves, blowoffs, sewer mains and manholes and other fixtures laid or placed by the Utility for the water and/or wastewater system shall be so located in the dedicated easements in the County after approval by the County Engineer so as not to obstruct or interfere with other uses made of such public places already installed. The Utility shall, whenever practicable, avoid interfering with the use of any street, alley or other highway where the paving or surface of the sante would be disturbed. In case of any 5 - M M M disturbance of county -owned pavement, sidewalk, driveway or other surfacing, the Utility shall, at its own cost and expense and in a manner approved by the County Engineer, replace and restore all such surface so disturbed in as good condition as before said work was commenced and shall. maintain the restoration in an approved condition for a period of one (1) year. In the event that any time the County shall lawfully elect to alter or change the grade or to relocate or widen or otherwise change any such County -owned right-of-way, the Utility shall, upon reasonable notice by the County, remove, relay; and relocate its fixtures at the Utility's expense. The Utility shall not locate any of its facilities nor do any construction which would create any obstructions or conditions which are or may become dangerous to the traveling public. In the event any such public place under or upon which the Utility shall have located its facilities shall be closed, abandoned, vacated or discontinued, the Board may terminate such easement or license of the Utility thereto; provided,'however, in the event of this termination of easement, the party requesting such termination shall pay to the Utility in advance, its cost of removal and relocation of the removed facilities in order to continue its service as theretofore existing, or the County shall retain an easement not less than fifteen (15) feet in width for the benefit of the Utility and its facilities. SECTION X SERVICE R WMME ]TS The Utility shall provide service within the franchise territory on a non-discriminatory basis as if it were regulated under Florida Statute Chapter 367 (1980), except to the extent that said provisions are in conflict with the provisions of the franchise. (a) Subject to the provisions of Section XI (b) the Utility shall furnish, supply, install and make available to any and all persons within the franchise territory making demand therefor, its public water and./or wastewater system, and shall provide such demanding person with its services and facilities; provided, however, that the Board may, upon application of the Utility extend time for providing such service to such demanding person. In the event the Utility fails to provide its services and facilities as a water and/or wastewater system to any area within the franchise territory within the time specified by the Board, then in such an event, the County may, by resolution of the Board, limit, restrict and confine the territory to that area then being serviced by water and/or wastewater by the Utility or such greater area as the Board shall determine; and thereafter, the territory shall be only the area set forth, in the resolution adopted by the Board. 6 SEP 7 1983 ti SEP 7 1983 (b) The Utility shall not be r �to furnish, anPPlY, install and make available its public water and/or wastewater system to any person within the franchise area unless the same may be done at such a cost to the Utility as shall make the addition proposed financially feasible. Financially feasible shall mean that a fair and reasonable rate of return shall be realized by the Utility for all its services under this franchise; that such rate of return on the net valuation of its property devoted thereto under efficient and economical management. The burden of showing that prospective service to the area is not financially feasible shall be the burden of the Utility. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP The Utility or its shareholders shall not sell or transfer its plants or systems or stock to another nor transfer any rights under this franchise to another without the approval of the Board. No such sale or transfer after such approval shall be effective until the vendee, assignee or lessee has filed with the Board an instrument in writing reciting the fact of such transfer and accepting the terms of this franchise and agreeing to perform all of the conditions thereof. In any event, this franchise shall not be transferable and assignable until notice or request for transfer and assignment shall be given by the Utility to the Board in writing accompanied by a request from the proposed transferee, which application shall contain information concerning the financial status and other qualifications of the proposed transferee and such other information as the Board shall require. A public hearing may be held on such request, of which notice shall be given by publication in a newspaper regularly published in the County at least one time not more than one month or less than one week preceding such hearing. Certified proof of publication of such notice shall be filed with the Board. The Board shall act within ninety (90) days upon such request. The consent by the Board to any assigrmient of this franchise shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any sale or transfer by the Utility or partners of the Utility taking place contrary to the terms and.cond.iticns of this paragraph shall be consider by the Board to be a default by the Utility under this franchise agreement and subject this franchise to termination. SECTION XIII ADEQUATE CAPACITY Utility warrants adequate capacity to service existing or anticipated customers and agrees not to provide water and/or wastewater service unless adequate capacity is available at the time any new connection is made. 7 M - M M M AMY •.► �l NOTICE OF ADJUSTMENT OF RATES Upon the initial connection of any custerner to the water/wastewater system or upon the reconnection of any new customer to the water/wastewater system, the Utility shall furnish, by mail, a notice setting forth the rate schedule then in effect and further containing the following statement: "The water/wastewater rates set forth herein have been authorized pursuant to Indian. River County Water/Wastewater Franchise Resolution No. as amended. Said water/wastewater rates are subject to adjustment pursuant to said Resolution upon proper shoring by the. Utility. Said rates are also subject to adjustment in the event the water/wastewater franchise is terminated and Indian River County commences to furnish water/wastewater service to your property. " SECTION XV RATE SCFWULE The rates charged by the Utility for its service hereunder shall at all times be compensatory and shall be fair and reasonable and designed to meet all necessary costs of the service, including a fair rate of return on the fair valuation of its properties devoted thereto under efficient and economical management. The Utility agrees that the County has the authority to enter into this Franchise Agreement and the regulation of said Utility. Utility agrees that it shall be subject to all authority now or hereafter possessed by the County or any other regulatory body having competent jurisdiction to fix just, reasonable and compensatory rates. When this franchise takes effect, the Utility shall have authority to charge and collect, but not. to exceed, the following schedule of rates and rate of return, as contained in "Exhibit B" attached hereto, which shall remain effective until changed or modified as herein provided. In setting said rates, the County shall be guided by the standards set forth in Florida Statute 367.081 relating to the establishment of rates and charges. In any event, the Utility shall always be responsible for justifying its proposed.rates and charges by the submission of accounting and engineering data to the County Utilities Director. The,County shall grant rates to the Utility which are just, reasonable and compensatory, which allow the Utility a fair rate of return on its property, systems and additions thereto. Rates and charges may be amended, upon proper justification by the Utility. Other provisions of this Ordinance deal with the mechanisms of the setting of rates and charges. 8 SEP '� 1983 483 S E P . 7 1983 K� ?Acf The rates to be charged can reflect a reasonable rate of return on a rate base that is inclusive of these items. The rate of return shall not exceed twelve percent (120) of the rate base. The Utility shall at any time, when requested by a consumer, make a test of the accuracy of any meter; prior, however, to any test being made by the Utility, the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) shall be deposited with the Utility by the party requesting such test. Such sum shall be returned if the test shows the meter to be inaccurate in its delivery. If the meter is inaccurate, the meter will be repaired or changed, and should the meter reading calibrate too high, a billing adjustment will be made for no more than the past six month's actual readings. Whenever it is necessary to shut off or interrupt service for the purpose of making repairs or installations, the Utility shall do so at such times as will cause the least amount of inconvenience to its consumers and, unless such repairs are unforeseen and immediately necessary, it shall give not less than five (5) days' notice thereof to its consumers for Win -emergencies. CONNECTION CHARGE/CAPACITY DE4AM FEE Connection charge is $500 per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) for water and/or wastewater service. For the purpose of this rate schedule, an ERC is equal to 350 gallons per day of water and/or wastewater consumption to be treated. One condominium unit is equal to one ERC. The basis for the connection charges and main extension charges as set forth herein has been structured by the Utility with regard to two major but variable factors; first, the present level of construction costs of distribution and treatment facilities; and second, their degree of treatment sophistication as prescribed by the Department of Environmental Regulation or body having jurisdiction over the matter. Without County approval, the schedule of connection charges set forth herein may be escalated based upon increases in utility construction costs as evidenced by the quarterly construction index published in Engineering New Record Magazine, "Construction Cost Index, 20 Cities". Utility shall adjust the connection charges set forth hemin semi. -annually, with- the first such adjustment to be not earlier than January 1, 1984. Any escalation shall not exceed the percentage difference between said construction cost index for the base period ending September 30, 1981, as compared with the period of comparison. Escrow charges and fees as contain in Section XV below shall be included in the respective connection charges listed above and incorporated therein. FRANCHISE FEE The Utility hereby agrees to pay to the County a franchise fee in the amount of three percent (3a) of the Utility's annual gross receipts, (or the sum of five hundred dollars ($500), whichever is greater), derived from monthly service charges to defray the cost of regulation 0 M and for use of County rights-of-way and public places. The Utility shall pay the 3% franchise fee quarterly. Said fee shall be shown as a separate additional charge on utility bills. The Utility shall supply the County with a copy of the Utility's annual report and financial statements. All records and all accounting of Utility shall be in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts of the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners and general accepted accounting principles. Within ninety (90) days after close of fiscal year, the Utility shall submit financial statements- prepared tatementsprepared by a CPA and in accordance with general accepting accounting standards and MUM. Upon demand by the Board the Utility Will submit audited financial statements certified by a CPA. Also, a letter from a CPA certifying that the three percent (3%) franchise fee and the two and one-hdlf percent (2h%) renewal and replacement account has been collected and disbursed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. SECTION XVI Escrow Charges The Utility agrees to pay a fee in the amount of the currently imposed contribution in aid of construction for each unit in effect at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, as a contribution in aid of construction charge (for future 'connection to County water distributions mains) as provided for in Ordinance 80-21, Section 3, Part B. Utility further agrees to pay a sum per ERC for water and wastewater plant capacity charge, as each unit is completed as the future plant capacity charges as provided for in Ordinance 80-22, Section 1 or according to the Ordinances in effect at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The County will establish separate interest bearing passbook for the water and wastewater system and will deposit all escrow charges paid for any and all connections in this franchise. The fees referenced in this section are subject to the escalation provisions of Section XIV contained herein, using the County factor established in Ordinance 80-21 .and 80-22. The fees referenced in this Section shall always be reasonable. Throughout the term of this franchise, the Utility shall be entitled to any and all interest which shall be paid annually on or before September 30th of each year to the Utility. The Utility shall be 10 SEP 7-1983 5A�ae5 SEP- -7 1983 PACE �1 entitled to an accounting of said interest bearing account at any time upon request made by it to the County. (A) Should the County at any time within the ensuing seven (7) years provide a water distribution system and/or wastewater collection system and furnish water and/or wastewater services to individual custcuers within the franchise territory, the sums of money remaining in said account consisting of plant capacity charges and contributions in aid of construction charges shall become the absolute property of the County and the Utility shall have no rights thereto. In such event, the Utility shall be absolved fra3n the obligation of payment of further connection charges to the County. In the event the above condition is not met by the County within seven (7) years from the date of this franchise agreement, the County shall have the following options: (1) Extend the franchise with all escrowed monies paid to the Utility and further escrows discontinued. (2) The County shall have the right to purchase the Utility's water and/or wastewater plant at Utility's original construction costs plus costs associated with capital additions and expansions to the system less three and one-half percent (3h%) depreciation per year. Depreciation on the system shall be calculated to start at the time the County issues a letter acknowledging the construction of the water and/or wastewater system as provided in Section VI. In conjunction with the water and/or wastewater plants' purchase, the County shall also purchase necessary land areas upon which the plant is located at the then fair market value of the real estate. Upon acquisition of the water and/or wastewater plant and appurtenant real estate, County would then own the entire water and/or wastewater system and would terminate this franchise and provide water and/or wastewater utility service to the franchise territory. All accumulated escrow fees would vest in the County. In regards to the purchase of the necessary land areas upon which the plant is located, the County shall first tender its offer to the Utility. In the event the Utility finds the offer inadequate, the County and the Utility shall each select an appraiser to advise the respective parties as to the value of said land areas. Sn the event, after appraisal, the County and the Utility area still are unable to agree, said appraisers shall select a third appraiser to arbitrate the matter. The matter shall then be resolved in accordance with the Florida Arbitration Code. The decision reached in the arbitration process shall be final and binding on the respective parties. (3) In the event that the above condition (2) is not exercised by the County within seven (7) years from the date of this franchise agreement, any sums of money remaining in the escrow account shall became the absolute property of the Utility and the County shall allow the Utility to continue operations in accordance with this franchise agreement. 11 - M M (4) The County shall have the following option to purchase the utility 'system after the end of the said seven (7) year period, the County shall purchase according to the same formula in this sub -paragraph (2) above except that the County shall be entitled to a credit against the net purchase price payable by the County to the Utility for the Utility in the amount of the total escrow charges that would have been available to the County, pursuant to the provisions of sub -paragraph (2) stated directly above, together with a credit for any fees which would have accrued pursuant to said section after the seventh year, should the seven (7) year period referenced therein not have lapsed. (5) In the event of an acquisition by the County, or the utilization of -the County's own plants, the County shall receive the water'clistribution and/or wastewater collection system free of cost and in good repair, wear and tear excepted. The Utility agrees to grant to the County any easements necessary to connect the water and/or wastewater system to the County's water/wastewater systems without charge. The Utility shall pay all necessary fees upon acquisition or upon connection to County's own plants. SECTION XVII • � is r � �+� .• «� i� ��• Two and one half percent (2h%) of the gross receipts of the Utility shall be placed in an interest bearing renewal and replacement account for purposes of renewal and/or replacement of the capital assets of the water and/or wastewater system of the Utility. Additionally, the Utility shall initially fund said account with two thousand dollars ($2,000) which will also be reserved for capital maintenance items. Interest shall accumulate in said account until the account reaches twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000); thereafter interest shall be paid to the Utility annually. Said funds shall be used as a sinking fund and applied only for renewal and/or replacement of the grater and/or wastewater system by the Utility as the need arises; the percentage required to be placed in the renewal and replacement account may be amended after review by the County as necessary to maintain a sufficient account balance taking into account the general condition of the system. The County is granted the right to make necessary repairs using said funds in the event of default on the part of the. Utility in maintaining the quality standards established herein. In the event the County exercises.its rights under (2), (4) or (5) above, said fund shall vest in the County. In the event that the County purchases the corporation's utility system pursuant to the provisions of this franchise as stated above, then any funds in said renewal and replacement account shall vest in the County. 12 SEP 7 1983 SEP 7 1983 SECTION XVIII K`AC 488 INSURANCE The Utility shall at all times maintain public liability and property damage insurance in such amounts as set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Utility shall cause the County to be duly notified by the insurer in the event of any modifications or deletions of the insurance as set forth in said Exhibit "C". Said amounts shall be adjusted by the Utility, as shall be required from time to time by the Board in accordance with good business practices as determined by safe business standards as established by the Board for the protection of the County and the general public and for any liability which may result from any action of the Utility. MOMMIM11 CONSUMER COMPIAINTS If any written complaint is filed with the Board by any persons serviced by the Utility under this franchise, the Board shall first determine whether reasonable cause exists with respect to said complaint. If the Board finds reasonable cause does exist, the Board shall so notify the Utility and request the Utility to satisfy or remedy such complaint. If the Utility fails, within a reasonable time, to satisfy or remedy such complaint or objection, the Board may review same according to the provisions hereof. If the Board enters its order pursuant to such hearing and the Utility feels it is aggrieved by such order, the Utility may seek review of the Board's action by petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the Circuit Court of the County; otherwise the Utility shall pranptly comply with the order of the Board. SECTION XX CHANGE IN RATE SCHEDULE Should the Utility desire to establish rates and charges or should the Utility desire to increase any charges heretofore established and approved by the Board, then the Utility shall notify the Board in writing, setting forth the schedule of rates and charges which it proposes. The Utility shall pay any rate structure review. fee as the County may then have in effect and shall furnish the County with all information requested by the County that is pertinent to the proposed new rate schedule. A public hearing shall then be held on such request, of which notice shall be given by publication in a newspaper regularly published in said County at least one time not more than one month or less than one week preceding such hearing. Certified proof of publication of such notice shall be filed with the Board. Said hearing may thereafter be continued for a reasonable time as detexmned by the Board. If the Board enters an order pursuant to such hearing and the Utility feels aggrieved by such order, then Utility may seek review of the Board's action by filing a petition for Writ of Certiorari in the 13 Circuit Court of the County. The Board shall act on the rate request within ninety (90) days following the public hearing. OONSTFd=ON PERMITS Prior to the Utility placing any of its facilities in any of the public places as herein authorized, the Utility shall make application to and obtain any required permits ficin the County authorizing said construction in the same manner as permits are authorized in the County for the use of the public roads as shall now or hereafter be established by regulations of the County. The County shall have the right when special circumstances exist to determine the time during which such construction shall be done. SECTION XXII DEFAULT OF FRANCHISE If the Utility fails or refuses to praq:)tly faithfully keep, perform and abide by each and all of the terms and conditions of this franchise, then. the Board shall give the Utility written notice of such deficiencies or defaults and a reasonable time within which the Utility shall remedy the same, which notice shall specify the deficiency or default. If the Utility fails to remedy such deficiency or default. If the Utility fails to remedy such deficiency or default within a reasonable time, the Board may thereafter schedule a hearing concerning the same With reasonable notice thereof to the Utility, and after such hearing at which all interested parties shall be heard, the Board may levy liquidated damages of no less than fifty dollars ($50) per day that said deficiency or default exists from the date of said hearing held by the Board; and the Board may further limit or restrict this franchise or franchise territory or may terminate and cancel the same in whole or in part if proper reasons thereby are found by the Board. If the Board enters an order pursuant to such hearing and the Utility feels aggrieved by any such order, the Utility may seek review of the Board's action by filing a petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court of the County. SBMON XXIII RIGHTS OF 1ANDOWNERS Nothing in this franchise shall prevent landowners from exercising their vested rights or privileges as set forth and contained in any license issued to any utility heretofore granted by the Board pursuant to Section 125.42, Florida Statutes. 14 SEP 7 1983 QAC ASO SEP - 7 1983 rAe� SEC` CN XXIV ,CONTRACTUAL AGREEiVMgr It is specifically agreed by and between the parties hereto that this franchise shall be considered a franchise agreement between the Utility and the County and as such a contractural instrument recognized under the Statutes and Laws of the State of Florida. This franchise agreement is not intended to create rights or actions running in favor of third parties, except as herein specifically provided. • NON-PERFOMMNCE Provisions herein to the contrary notwithstanding, the Utility shall not be liable for the non-performance or delay in performance of any of its obligations undertaken pursuant to the terms of this franchise where said failure or delay is due to causes beyond the Utility's control, including, without limitation, causes such as "Acts of God", unavoidable casualties, labor disputes, etc. y�.M• INTENT OF FRANCHISE AREA The franchise area is intended to be developed as a condominum- development with a condominum association organized pursuant to chapter 718, Florida Statutes. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, the Board agrees that the Utility may assign this franchise to such association at any tine after its formation, subject to such association agreeing to the terms and conditions hereof and pursuant to the public hearing rests set forth under Section XII hereof. SECTION XXVII EKECUrION OF FRANCHISE If any word, sections, clause or part of this resolution is held invalid, such portion shall be deemed a separate and independent part and the same shall not invalidate the remainder. IN WITNESS WMREOF, The Board of County Contnissioners of Indian River County, Florida has caused this franchise to be executed in the name of the County of Indian River by the Chairman of the Board of County Ca ndssioners and its seal to be affixed and attested by its Clerk, all pursuant to the resolution of the Board of County Commissioners adopted on the 7th day ofSpptember , 1983. Signed, sealed and delivered COUN'T'Y OF IRIDIAN RIVER, FIARIDA in the presence of: s By Richard N. Bird, Chairman Board[`7andlegal r ;j P a j 15 Bra Attor Attest: Clerk ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE PELICAN POINTE UTnX=, INC., a Florida Corporation, does hereby accept the foregoing franchise, and for their successors and assigns does hereby covenant and agree to comply with and abide by all of the tenrts, conditions and provisions therein set forth and contained. DATED at veno Beach, Indian River County, Florida, this A 7 day of 5' phoi s e.2 , 1983. 1 -4. liu" /).0 VO4-t a4 V, 4 • i' to t• • 1 IS WI• I HEREBY CEIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements, personally appeared f/ekelvo o -Fos—,e& , as President of PELICAN POINTE UTILITIES, INC., a Florida Corporation, and he acknowledged before me that he executed the foregoing instrument for the uses and purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the State and County.aforesa.id this 7 day of -km ere. , 1983. Notary Public, State of Florida at Large My Cormission expires: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAR 19 1988 BONDED THRU GENERAL INS. UNO. 16 SEP 71983. ATTACHMENT A ,Legal Description 7bat part of the Northeast quarter of the Southeiast quarter of Section 20, Ibwnship 31 South, Range 39 East. lying East hof U.S. Highway No. I and that part of Governxmnt lots 3 and 4. Section 21,. Township 31 South, Range 39 East.. lying East of U.S. Highway No. 1, less the South 215 feet thereof AND ALSO That part of the South one half of Government Lot 2, Section 21, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, described as follows, to wit: Commence at a point on the South line of said Government Lot 2 where the same is Intersected by the East boundary line of Falvietto Avenue, a dedicated street in T'ropicana Homesites, a subdivision of Indian River County. Florida, as per plat thereof in Flat Book 4. page 20, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; said point being the Southeast co X, of the subdivision as set forth in said plat; thence run Easterly along the South boundary line of said Government Lot distance of 210 feet to the Point of Beginning: From said Point of Beginning, thence run Northerly parallel to the West Id noundary line of said Government lot 2 a distance of 460 feet; thence Easterly and parallel to the South boundary line of said Cjcvernment Lot 2 a distance of 140 feet,- thence Northerly and parallel to the West boundary line of Government ict 2 Yt a distance of 200 feet, more or less, to the North boundary line of the South half of Covernment, Lot 2, Section 21, Town- ship 31 South, -Range 39 East; thence Easterly and parallel to the South boundary line of said Government Lot 2 to the West shore of the Indian River; thence Southeasterly meandering to the West shore of the Indian River- to its point of Intersec- tion with the South boundary line of said Government Lot 21 thence Westerly along the South boundary line of Government Lot 2 to the point of beginning. •L 'SS the North 10 feet thereof previously conveyed to the State of Florida in Official Record Book r., page ?4, Indian River County, Florida, .records. TX.FHT,­,R WITH afi, easement for ingress and egress to and fror, the ab,_-ve described property to and from Palmetto Avenue, the dedicated street In Tropicana Homesites described In this instru- a e:-: on and over that part of the South half of Government Lot 2, Section 21, Township 31 South, Range 39 Fast, which would it be a r. extension Easterly of the two other dedicated streets In said subdivision entitled North Tropicana Drive and South icana Drive on said plat of said subdivision, all as shown in Plat Book 4. page 20. Said easements extending ster! rom lalmetto Avenue to the property herein conveyed..qtr AN D A LS(_% "That part of the :South half of Government'Lot 2, Sectio6 21. rownship 31 South, Range 39 East, described as follows: ?egirLnirqr ata point on the South line of said Government Lct 2 where the same is intersected by the !Ast boundary line of . Palmetto- Avenue, a dedicated street in Tropicana Homesites, according to plat thereof recorded in Etat Book 4, page 20. P-iblic Records of Indian River County, Florida, said point also being the Southeast cor-ner*of the subdivision as set forth ;'t, mor. sa.1 plat; thence run Easterly along the South boundary of said Government lot 2 a distance of 210 feet-, thence Northerly - ocpLnd Parallel to the West boundary of said Government Lot 2 a distance of 460 feet; thence Easterly and parallel tc the South ,C7)br,tzndan- of Government Lot 2 a distance of 140 feet; thence Northerly and parallel to the Test boundary of Government Lot 2 a distance of 200 feet, more or less, to the North boundary of the South half of Government 14t 2; thence Westerly and EN! parallel to the South boundary of Government lot 2 a distance of 50 feet= thence Southerly and parallel to the West boundary of ;over-nment Lot 2 a distance of 130 feet; thence Westerly and parallel to the South boundary of Government Lot 2 a distancf,:., or ')00 feet to the Fast boundary of Palimetto Avenue; thence Southerly along the East boundary of Palmetto Avenue and para - 4r)llel to the Oat bwdadaxT of Government lot 2 a distance of 530 foot, nor* or loss, to -the Point of.Beginnimg, 1�_3S the Nortl,'* feet ther*af. Ni .4. RR sl "t, SEP' ­ i EXHIBIT "B" Table 10 Explanation of Rates Type of Charge Description Connection Charges Payable at time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a unit and prior to any service being provided. Base Charge Monthly cost of service payable by all units which have received a Certificate of Occupancy, regardless if service is provided. Wastewater Gallonage Rate Monthly cost of wastewater treatment, payable by all units which are • serviced each month. The cost is based on the gallonage used, expressed in loads of gallons times the rate (minimum of 25Q0 gallons per month). Irrigation Gallonage Rate Monthly cost of irrigation water which will be paid by all units which have been closed, regardless if service is provided. Water Gallonage Rate Monthly cost of water treatment, payable by all units which are serviced each month. The cost is based on the gallonage used, expressed by load of gallons times the rate (minimum of 2500 gallons per month). SEP' ­ i rt = SEP 7 1983 EXHIBIT "B" Table 3 PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE WATER Connection Flat Rate Gal. Rate Irrigation WASTE14ATER Connection Flat Rate Gal. Rate Table 4 $250.00 / Unit $11.50 / Mth. $1.50 / 1000 Gal. $0.505/ Unit / Mth. $300.00 / Unit $11.00 / Mth. $1.50 / 1000 Gal. TYPICAL COST PER UNIT AVERAGE BILL Flat Rate W & WW (7500/1000) Irrigation MINIMUM BILL Flat Rate W&WW (2.5X$) Irrigation $22.50 $22.50 .50 $45.50 / Mth. $22.50 $7.50 .50 $30.50 / Mth. Nf xsaEl;+ .' '"^'...Jw �. ta+'nr �, , �•.i* .� _ EXHIBIT "B" Table 3 PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE WATER Connection Flat Rate Gal. Rate Irrigation WASTE14ATER Connection Flat Rate Gal. Rate Table 4 $250.00 / Unit $11.50 / Mth. $1.50 / 1000 Gal. $0.505/ Unit / Mth. $300.00 / Unit $11.00 / Mth. $1.50 / 1000 Gal. TYPICAL COST PER UNIT AVERAGE BILL Flat Rate W & WW (7500/1000) Irrigation MINIMUM BILL Flat Rate W&WW (2.5X$) Irrigation $22.50 $22.50 .50 $45.50 / Mth. $22.50 $7.50 .50 $30.50 / Mth. .. u ► ► o► :.; a a xd '► a r i Limits of Liability In Thousandr, (000) IBM V NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENCY EXHIBIT_ tEt( `FCOMPANIES I _ f A('! I AGGREGATE AFFORDING COVERAGES Whitley & Associates, INc. ►= '7 GENERAL LIABILITY P. 0. Box 10626 OTAPAIv The Home Indemnity Company Winston—Salem, N. C. 27108 1 BODILY INJURY II,1F S Stonewall Insurance Company - NAML AND ADDRESS OF INSURI! - - 51 FORM ,x COMPREHENSIVE FORM l C;,MNIt, N Pelican Pointe, Inc.r Binder # RW8283 7-8-84 C/O Vernon Foster E.oM[e:r F PREMISES --OPERATION; 3890 Old Vineyard Road PROPERTY DAMAGE $ t�F A Winston—Salem, N. C. 27103 { COMPANY - j LETTEr HAZARD U UNDERGROUND HAZARD This is to certify that policies Ot insurance fistr.;; beinw hav? been Issued to the insured n?.med above F ne are in farce at ttiis tlma. Notwithstanding any requirement, term or condition of any Contract or other docurneni vvWi respect Jr, wh,,h this certificate may De issued or may Dertain, the insurance attcrde' hb t�.e policies descrioe-i herein is sunject to all the terms, exclusions and conditions of such pokcle_ �`- DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSNEHICLES Cancellation: Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing com- pany will endeavor to mail30 days written notice to the below named certificate holder, but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CERTIFICATE HOLDER: Indian River County, Florida C/0 Joyce Hamilton Utilities Division 25th Street Vero Beach) Florida 32960 25(1-79) i Limits of Liability In Thousandr, (000) CLrTTERM TYPE OF INSURANCE C` i Ic Y POLICYNUMBf F i (xol�;Al ION ill OTi I _ f A('! I AGGREGATE ►= '7 GENERAL LIABILITY 1 BODILY INJURY I $ $ 51 FORM ,x COMPREHENSIVE FORM I Binder # RW8283 7-8-84 F PREMISES --OPERATION; _ PROPERTY DAMAGE $ $ A EXPLOSION AND COLLAPSE - HAZARD U UNDERGROUND HAZARD ®-PRODUCTS COMPLETED i _ �] OPERATIONS HAZARD BODILY INJURY AND U CONTRACTUAL INSURANCE I PROPERTY DAMAGE gg77 O Q $ �y 1) v o F1 BROAD FORM PROPERTY COMBINED + I 7 ! DAMAGE ® r INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS $1 PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY , 0 0 ©.,. ! AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY BODILY INJURY $ 1 (EACH PERSON) AFX_ COMPREHENSIVE FORM BODILY INJURY $ j rR OWNED Binder # RW7883 7-8-84 (EACHACCIDENT) i ( FR PROPERTY DAMAGE $ HIRED BODILY INJURY AND ®NON•OWNEO PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000, COMBINED EXCESS LIABILITY BODILY INJURY AND ❑X UMBRELLA FORM Binder # 5612466 8-3-84 s1,000, $ B PROPERTY DAMAGE THAN OTHER UMBRELLA COMBINED FORM WORKERS' COMPENSATION STATUTORY and EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY $ (EACH ACCIDENTI OTHER Additional Ins red: Indian River Cou ty, Flori a i �`- DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSNEHICLES Cancellation: Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing com- pany will endeavor to mail30 days written notice to the below named certificate holder, but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CERTIFICATE HOLDER: Indian River County, Florida C/0 Joyce Hamilton Utilities Division 25th Street Vero Beach) Florida 32960 25(1-79) DATE REPRESENT y Pixy£ y� , y c r�i� �sr ��ri�iirissx L - k 'u ri :fir Yak+ c :r, -,•fir , `�' "�n, ys.,w.r � F' rt,.t � " t :vr .a . ..•.�. . ;'e .^.,. � .•��,..uarse_.�. �x... w.-t,HsA, f� . . �_._ xy�L+ro � r.J., .,6 ... .. .. ... . .... , . : _ } '�b"` � , al... :... x: �t"ye7."_< ..>kF� r »a�usC�:tP' .. 94�� :: ►= '7 1953 DATE REPRESENT y Pixy£ y� , y c r�i� �sr ��ri�iirissx L - k 'u ri :fir Yak+ c :r, -,•fir , `�' "�n, ys.,w.r � F' rt,.t � " t :vr .a . ..•.�. . ;'e .^.,. � .•��,..uarse_.�. �x... w.-t,HsA, f� . . �_._ xy�L+ro � r.J., .,6 ... .. .. ... . .... , . : _ } '�b"` � , al... :... x: �t"ye7."_< ..>kF� r »a�usC�:tP' .. 94�� :: SEP 7 1983 .. PW UTILITY SERVICE AREA DECLARATION FOR LAUREL BUILDERS, INC., SEAGLE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., CARWASH WEST, AND ALBERTSON'S Commissioner Scurlock explained that earlier in the meeting the Board had voted to table this item, but he had noticed that Mr. Robinson is now in attendance and perhaps this item could be discussed now. Mr. Robinson, representing Laurel Builders, summarized the problem that Laurel Builders and Seagle Development Co. have.had in obtaining water and sewer service. He explained that Laurel Builders want to go ahead with the development, but are in limbo because of the sewer service. They are surrounded on both sides by City sewer in that location and he felt that if the County wants a franchise on that property, it might be opening a can of worms. Commissioner Scurlock explained that we have asked for the Attorney General's opinion as to the legal ability to have an unincorporated area of the County served by the City of Vero Beach. Commissioner Wodtke felt that if we are going to discuss this matter now, we should have a motion to take it off the table. He explained that he had voted against tabling it earlier because he wanted some discussion to take place. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously replaced this item on today's agenda. After considerable discussion, Attorney Brandenburg advised the Board that they could go ahead and approve these declarations today and add some language that the County is not waiving any rights to place a franchise fee on areas in the County being served by the City of Vero Beach. 67 SEP 71993 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-67, approving the Utility Service Area Declaration for Laurel Builders, Inc. and authorized the County Attorney to write a letter to the City of Vero Beach indicating the Board's concerns ,in regard to a franchise. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-68, approving the Utility Service Area Declaration for Seagle Development Co., Inc., and authorized the County Attorney to write a letter to the City of Vero Beach indicating the Board's concerns in regard to a franchise. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-69, approving the Utility Service Area Declaration for Carwash West, and authorized the County Attorney to write a letter to the City of Vero Beach indicating the Board's concerns -in regard to a franchise. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-70, approving the Utility Service Area Declaration for Albertson's, and authorized the County Attorney to write a letter- to the City of Vero Beach indicating the Board's concerns in regard to a franchi.se. 68 - 1h, 54 983 RESOLUTIO_d NO. 83-67 8/30/83 (8) LC:A UTILITY SERVICE AREA DECLARATION FOR LAUREL BUILDERS, INC. THIS DECLARATION made this 7 day of September 1983, by Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, telephone: 567-8000 ("County'), in favor of the City of Vero Beach, - Florida, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, 1053 20th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, telephone: 567-5151 ("City"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has tentatively agreed with Laurel Builders, Inc., P.O. Box 2062, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, telephone: 569-5061, that the City will provide water and sewer service for certain property located in the unincorporated area of Indian River County, the legal description of which is shown on attachment "A', and WHEREAS, the City's approval Is subject to the County's execution of a declaration that the County has no objection to the provision of such service by the City, and WHEREAS, this declaration is such an indication of no objection by the County, WHEREAS, this declaration shall not act to reduce any City allocation of wastewater service or water service to Indian River County in the unincorporated area, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises the County certifies to the City that the City may provide the requisite utility service to the property shown in the attached agreement, which property from the date of this declaration shall be considered to be in the service territory of the City for such service. IN WITNESS 'WHEREOF, the undersigned Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, after being duly authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, has executed this document on the date first above written. ATTEST: 68a BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: c e 4—d—�,r RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman CHARLES P. VITUNAC City Attorney - ATTACHMENT "A"— WARRANTY OECD I9,101VID. ToINO.VIo p of JR#1830 ksb 10 'his Wlarranty Deed .\lath• lite % r- 1, `'` ATTACHMENT "A" - part 2 of 2.� ' ^P • 7 1983 (�. .PACE Signed, sealed and delivered in presence; L.S. GLUT— S TATE OF KANSAS COUNTY OF JOHNSON I HMMY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to take acknowledgments# personally appeared WILLIAM GLUT, as to an undivided 2/5 interest, to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged before me that he executed the same. �. r4 Xapress ��... Baal J• .... ....� ..ire STS »: PN S 1.IL t, 61 WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 5 ay ofz� A:D. 1982 My commission expires 'K MVAPMftMW4&#ft*#Mtft 68c s•- H l t RESOLUTION NO. 83-68 UTILITY SERVICE AREA DECLARATION FOR SEAGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 8130/8 -)"to) -As THIS DECLARATION made this 7th day of September1983, by Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, telephone: 567-8000. ("County"), in favor of the City of Vero Beach, Florida, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, 1053 20th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, telephone: 567-5151 (*City"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has tentatively agreed with Seagle Development Company, Inc., 1010 Crescent Beach Road, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, telephone: 231-4059, that the City will provide water and sewer service for certain property located in the unincorporated area of Indian River County, the legal description of which is shown on attachment "A", and WHEREAS, the City's approval is subject to the County's execution of a declaration that the County has no objection to the provision of such service by the City, and WHEREAS, this declaration is such an indication of no objection by the County, WHEREAS, this declaration shall not act to reduce any City allocation of wastewater service or water service to Indian River County in the unincorporated area, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises the County certifies to the City that the City may provide the requisite utility service to the property shown in the attached agreement, which property from the date of this declaration shall be considered to be In the service territory of the City for such service. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, after being duly authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, has executed this document on the date first above written. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman SEP . -7-1983 69 CHARLES P. VITUNAC City Attorney -SEP 7 1983. ® r. a".- .-. _::�w'"t�.`��mi3-4ria "'�"�,er"••s"•_ .�A":.:bv.... .. _ ..�r.L•':<-:-•':-•h, � �. '^"> Y_ ,,.^'gyp ..-'=•�m_�,;Ti::.. �� _ I �� :J:-•tiTJ!3,�i�•�.\. _ � n. - .. _ -. -, - .. _ . y,P 311'1._ ..g: r�r$na.,.L.�'.,: s.,J-�_+;a -d . r-' :: { i - u •,. ;t._Lv �„a- J ., .. _' �•�i�SSLT�•"?:'• ,. ,�'...-.., �7.r°�Ga"" t+vts'�'' ,ews� . �a� �v , . � �x^f ' 3'�'ylYs _q.,� �'`•.-+.•-- , t -- " _ r.. ATTACHMENT "All — 1 o 2 a ! '� .,� O♦ ''•{. sir y k 1'-t - �l p!.i+,�. t�J. ��td(`�' t(7 i'fr♦1 w,'11' y -� 1i1. .-��►tIF .}t +k, e.ty3Ya� ,, r: C,S r writ i3+:+ 3 i if•1 ` iyi ' < ��t 1 -i• SCHEDULE •A' t. '�' r,ii1 t.1,t ! . of • r ..1 Beginning at the Northwest corner of Tract 6 t�;""'.:;.,•.hc.rE;s:.; Section 10 Township 33 Sou rr�i`,6 (si .,`:%`':,..•woi ":•��`,.r':'';i:.'' � P th,- Range 39 East. .�... •"_' ;;',i:' , { run East, a distanct cf 130 feet to the point o! cZr.Y' =_' beginning on the cantarline of 14th Streets thence "Y% t" z `. ;' *-'•„ r%:,'..'` ,' `" continue East along said canterlins, a distance of 197.07 feet to a point; thence run South, a distance +,:; ,1;:• � ;i'�t '-� of 929.54 feet, more or less, to a point 402.46 feet :_~'•! ' �._: y•.•:'y'<}`. '"� a North and at right angles from .the Section lines F' 'at thence run Nest to the vest line of Tract 60 a distance i:, `�'.';�., • If. t a • .i,' •Yy4• • `1 ''t '''r ; ' of 327.07 feet, snore or lass, to a point on the vast line of Tract 6, 40246 feet ;r's�. ;• ;``1;' ".'"'x �' 1i"' e C North o! the Southeast � .;'i�r-•:: •• : �"; •' corner of Tract 61 thence run North along the wont line of Tract 6, a distance of 599 feat; thence run east, a :y:j<l?)'r`+::°•�•;: ;':.'t.F::,;;•, distance of 130 facts thence run North, a distance of •330 feet to the point of beginning, said land iing and beim g n Indian River. County, Florida.Plprid.,�� :.�:+' _:;;; '• 6'':• ''' t , :t Sub fact to easement and. right-ofand rights of public :, �� •�" �:�rfc:.' ,•,r'�i. t for ro4dway purposes over the North 35 feet of said parcel, r;'�r1 i?:�'r' ' "'t`t(!';':•' •r� ; C: +�'�; and those portions lying within 14th Street. •..c �:' ••' -'' a=*'.�t t• �.,."- .�u.': i Subject to easements, rights, rights-of-way, assessments, �' y(E?I�st..i;t:., , is -.c.-' -}• i ` • +•ir':1=rr': • I;. f'., •...,.. `Y..,•,,! :,c;:.,u reaatroations, conditions, covenants and restrictions of �' •�•��'�?:• ,'': �';•�'�•r;e;. •' �•' record -or enforceable in law or equity. Also subject to • �•' .``+�';`' f ••'+r't'1-�1.:' °; :'' ': } :'' any road, ditch or canal rights S —Of—Vey. ;r•' 'a'.i�'.I�ir'f,�'` :'�..��"'. .; • � ;�.' `' ..� � r .• r Iii lir. .. :I.l ,'• '• .. •}...' .I. .!T111a:♦' — y .. Y.f ,•:I . t ,�'� '�' sr� y t ttj.:'..;� �tw. of Ar CAM -777 7 r; ` + .. , � . •E r 'I � , i �. . � •.... 71 �'� ,, ... r ' �� ,.1•' .�:�' "'tT� 2+ ,',1,� ytP''?!f!rr"�� 7 :" �.:,M+. � j!8r 3 � � �'�?,L!� ` :i.y+a` r• , t � . � ' A r+ /" ; .l orb'♦ •a ,tt :'! .. .IV fi ..iy}=1 y ; it fi�; 'it ' t i.a 1 n .t.1 f *.cih£§n1r�31a�L.:.11"a44....liiin.i....::..7:�.a•:`?1s.ir.� J 'O rinted for Lawyers' Title Guaranty Fund, Orlando, Florida 1. rrB.& ted STATUTORY FORM—SECTION 689.02• F.S. Mli8 Atlritturr. Made this 22nd • day of April C>rLSO PEREZ and AURELIA PEREZ, his wife ATTACHMENT "A" part 2 of 2 This instrument was prepared by, I11RAM MANNING du....y ., L- 1'.0. Itux 3752 6•1-S deed aluad ltG►uledrrd VEHO HEACII, 1'LORIDA .t2960 19 83 , Urtuirptt of the County of , State of New Jersey grantor$, and Tennessee SEAGLE ENTERPRISES, INC., a Y-IxOC]x corporation whose post office address is 1010 Crescent Beach Poad, Vero Beach, Florida of the County of Iridian River State of Florida grantee"'. 1ttntro 1rtll. That said grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS AND N0/100 ($10.0011—-- — -- M Dollars, and other good and valuable. considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The North 330 feet of the West 130 feet of Tract 6, Section 10, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, as shown on the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company, in Plat Book 2, Page 25, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida; now a part of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. Subject to easements and restrictions of public record. w —3 i•'�:•.0 �- -=,ant "c, t�T m C.D1 � tee. ET. -AMT. 3 N �h'l;rl' FREDA WRIGHT, Clark of Circuit Court � �.�,"`•,: h0an River County. kY r �� _ �:•, -G" LTJ -11:L ="; ( raw'.:: C.) .� and said grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the some against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. " "Grantor" and "grantee" are used for singular or plural, as context requires. 31ti IT11tursu ITf. fierrtif. Grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the doy and year first above written. AURELIA PEREZ (Seal) (Seal) (Soot) (Seal) STATE OF New Jersey COUNTY OFU, IL4_' ,, ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer duly qualified to take acknowledgments, personally appeared vaso P)mZ and AURrJ IA PMMM, 1Ls Wife to me known to be the person S described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged before me that t heY executed the some. I, WITNESS my hand and official seal in the Ccunty and State lust aforesaid this /'y day of 19 My lcpmmission expirgs. �7 Notary Public t• . • EILEEN QUINLAN. NOTARY HULIC OF NEW JERSF'Y My Omission Expires Oct. 4,1984 olio h �l�,u�� r 11 �f F 7 1983 _ .w� 69Al � �•�: x.` FP ( 1983 8(30/83 {8) C.A.. RESOLUTION 83-69 UTILITY SERVICE AREA DECLARATION FOR CAR WASH WEST, INC. THIS DECLARATION made this 71-h day of �c;p r _ , 1983, by lndian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, telephone: 567-8000 ("County"), in favor of the City of Vero Beach, Florida, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, 1053 20th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, telephoner 567-5151 (°City°), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has tentatively agreed with Car Wash West, Inc., 5324 Rosewood Blvd., Vero Beach, Florida 32960, telephone: 562-5542, that the City will provide water and sewer service for certain property located in the unincorporated area of Indian River County, the legal description of which is shown on attachment °A", and WHEREAS, the City's approval is subject to the County's execution of a declaration that the County has no objection to the provision of such service by the City, and WHEREAS, this declaration is such an indication of no objection by the County, WHEREAS, this declaration shall not act to reduce any City allocation of wastewater service or water service to Indian River County in the unincorporated area, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises the County certifies to the City that the City may provide the requisite utility service to the property shown In the attached agreement, which property from the date of this declaration shall be considered to be in the service territory of the City for such service. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, after being duly authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, has executed this document on the date first above written. ATTEST: 0 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Z1.0 - RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman CHARLES P. VITUNAC City Attorney SSP -171983 MAMACMIENT "A'' _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 3 & 22 of Pinewood S/D, as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 89 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. Also known as being located on the West side of 43rd Avenue and approximately 1/2 block South of Highway 60 71 SAGE 595 P f SE �. 198 RESOLUTION NO. 83-70 8/30/83 (8)C.A. UTILITY SERVICE AREA DECLARATION FOR ALBERTSON'S, INC. THIS DECLARATION made this 7th day of September1983, by Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, telephone: 567-8000 ("County"), in favor of the City of Vero Beach, Florida, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, 1053 20th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, telephone: 567-5151 ("City"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has tentatively agreed with Albertson's, Inc., P.O. Box 7100, Orlando-, Florida 32854, telephone: 305/628-5858, that the City will provide water and sewer. service for certain property located in the unincorporated area of Indian River County, the legal description of which is shown on attachment °A°, and WHEREAS, the City's approval is subject to the County's execution of a declaration that the County has no objection to the provision of such service by the City, and WHEREAS, this declaration is such an indication of no objection by the County, WHEREAS, this declaration shall not act to reduce any City allocation of wastewater service or water service to Indian River County in the unincorporated area, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises the County certifies to the City that the City may provide the requisite utility service to the property shown In the attached agreement, which property from the date of this declaration shall be considered to be in the service territory of the City for such service. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, after being duly authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, has executed this document on the date first above written. ATTEST: FREDA WRKHT Clerk ty Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By:- '1141le, RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman CHARLES P. V ITU NAC City Attorney .: ANT "A„ _ SCHEDULE I LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1 A portion of Lot 4, Block 2, Dr. Richard D. Bullington's Subdivision, according to a plat recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 5, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, lying in Section 1, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: The North 460.00 feet of said Lot 4, less the Vest 40.00 feet thereof (U.S. Al right-of-way); also, less the North 35.00 feet thereof (18th Street richt-of-way); also, less the South 215.60 feet of the North 250.60 feet of the East 340.50 feet of the West 380.50 feet thereof; AND - The East 200.00 feet of the South 205.00 feet of said Lot 4, less the South 50..00 feet thereof (17th Street right-of-way). Said parcels of land contain 5.09 acres, more or..less, and lie wholly in Indian River County, Florida. The said parcels are conticuous. ALSO KNOWN AS •A rortion of Lot 4, Block 2, Dr. Richard D. Builington's Subdivision, according to a plat recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 5, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, lying in Section 1, Township 33 South, Range 39* East, Indian River County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows= Commence at the Southeast corner of said Lot 4, thence, run N 00°06'14" W, along the East line of said Lot 4, 50.00 feet to a point.on the North right-of-way line of 17th Street, said point being -the Point of Beginning of the herein described parcel; thence, run. S 89053'45" tib, along the North right-of-way line of 17th* Street, 199.95 feet;. thence,run T: 00'07'23" V.,.154.30 feet; thence, run S 89*46'32" W, 42:0.95 feet, to a point on the. East right-of-way'line of U.S. tl; thence, run North along the East right-of-way line of U.S. Al 209.21 feet; thence, run N 89045100" E, 340.52 feet; " thence, run N 00009140" P:, 215.57 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of 18th Street; thence, run N 8944142" E, along the South right-of-way line of 18th Street, 282,37 feet to a point on the East lire of said Lot 4; thence, run S 00*06114" 11, along the East line of said Lot 4,' 579.80 feet to the voint of Beginning. 72a SCP ( 190 .t SEP' 7 1983 `? 5, , PAs; 5 The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at 11:30 o'clock A.M. and reconvened at 1:30 o'clock P.M. with the same members present except Commissioner Wodtke who was temporarily delayed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING REQUEST (DEWEY REAMS) 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 in the matter in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues 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 riewsoaoer. Sworn to and subscribed bef_ orm pot4aygl/" A.D. 19 (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) 73 0 NOTICE - PusUC.I WUN0, kl9otice of •heaving°to consider OW, 64.�Aking pr6posal to rezonelandd from. M-1 "Restricte&.Industrial District i and R4, "Single -Family Residential District" t0 M-1, "Restricted Industrial District" The subject „ property,pre- sently owned by Dewey Reams is Io- - sated on the east side of Old Dixte - Highway north of 9th Street. The subject property is described as: Being a part of the southeast quarter . of the southwest quarter. of Section 12,. Township 33 south, Range 39 east, In- dian River, County, Florida, being more fully described as, follows: the north 543.57 feat .of the west 516.78 feet lying east of the Old Dixie Highway. Less and except the north 139.25 feet therefrom- Containing. 1.963 acres more or less A public hearing at which parties in hiteresi and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor- ida, in the County Commission Chambers of .� the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida, on 1:30 Wednesday, September 7, 1983, at P.M. If any person decides to appeal any deci- sion made on the above matter, he -she will need a record of the proceedings, • and for I such purposes,. he -she may need- ;;to. ensure. I that a .verbatim record of the. proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Richard N. Bird Chairman Aug. 19; 31, 1983. Richard Flinn, Realtor, appeared as agent for Dewey Reams and emphasized that practically everything surrounding the subject property is presently used as M-1, and it would not be practical to utilize thepropertyas residential. He further felt there would be less traffic with M-1 zoning than with R-1 and noted that staff has voiced approval of the requested zoning change. Planner Richard Shearer then reviewed staff memo as follows, confirming that both staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 22, 1.983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DEWEY REAMS REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. 2 DIVISION H CONCURRENCE: ACRES FROM R-1, SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL & SUBJECT: M-1, RESTRICTED IND. TO Patrick Br ce King,.AICP ALL M-1 RESTRICTED IND. Community Development Director THROUGH: Robert M. Keatin , AMP Planning & zoning FROM: ?S h'ffNCES: Richard Shearer, AICP Richard Flinn Principal Planner WORKB It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 7, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Y The applicant, Richard Flinn, an agent for.Dewey Reams, is requesting to rezone approximately two acres located on the east side of South Old Dixie Highway just north of 9th Street from -R-1, Single -Family Residential District, and M-1, Restricted Industrial District, to all M-1, Restricted Industrial District. The applicant proposes to store construction equipment on the site on a temporary basis and construct a warehouse for storing construction material. On July 28, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved this rezoning request. ALTERNATIVES &ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the existing land use pattern will be presented as well, as a discussion of the future land use as established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 74 E P 7 1983 - roc Ac SEP 7 1983m: Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is currently vacant. Directly south of the site is Knight & Mathis Steel Fabricators. South of Knight & Mathis on the north side of Glendale Road (8th Street) is a mobile home park. To the west of the property, across Old Dixie Highway, are single-family residences located in an R-1 zoning district. The area east of this site is zoned M-1 and'is currently vacant to the F.E.C. railroad track. North of the subject property is Bain Underground Utilities and an auto body shop. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as MXD, Mixed Use District (maximum of 6 dwelling units/acre). The MXD also allows commercial and industrial uses where such development will be consistent with the dominant land uses of the area. The subject property is bordered predominantly by land zoned M-1 which will probably be developed for industrial uses. — Roads/Traffic This property has direct access to Old Dixie Highway which is classified as a secondary collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan. Utilizing the maximum density allowed in warehouse use of the site under the proposed rezoning, the development of the property would generate 124 average daily trips (ADT) with 12 trips in the peak hour. These additional trips added. to Old Dixie Highway could cause some concern since this facility is currently close to capacity (10,000 ADT with capacity of 10-12,000). However, under the existing zoning, this site would produce 221 ADTs if developed to potential. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive. There do not appear to be any environmental problems associated with the development of the property.-. Utilities The subject property is currently served by County water, but there are no wastewater facilities. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, particularly the facts that the area is predominantly developed in light industrial uses, the proposed rezoning would result in less traffic than the traffic generated by the maximum development allowed under existing zoning, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner Wodtke being absent, the Board by a 4-0 vote, closed the public hearing. 75 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner Wodtke being absent, the Board by a 4 to -0 vote adopted Ordinance 83-26 rezoning property from R-1 and M-1 to all M-1 as requested by Dewey Reams. ORDINANCE NO. 83-26 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: Being a part of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 33 south, Range 39 east, Indian River County, Florida being more fully described as follows: the north 543.57 feet of the west 516.78 feet lying east of the Old Dixie Highway. Less and -except the north 139.25 feet therefrom. Containing 1.963 acres more or less. Be changed from M-1, Restricted Industrial District and R-1, Single -Family Residential District, to all M-1, Restricted Industrial District'. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 7th day of September , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN.RIVER COUNTY Y:SEBY:— SEP 003 76 RICHARD N. P;%RD Chairman 5 E P 7 198 _ Commissioner Wodtke entered the meeting at 1:40 o'clock P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING REQUEST (THOMAS WAGNER) The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publicatiorr- 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-Journai, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of O_Z in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of A U G_ • 19 . 3 ►, 1 9 $ 3 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. S' Sworn to and subscribed, before me this 3—,1 day of 19 U G A.D. 19 & 3 (SEAL) ness Manager) iver County, Florida) i -, ,NOTICE PUBLIC HE Nto- , Notice of hearing to consider the following proposal to rezone land from: c-1, ..Commercial Districr' to R-1AA. "Single-FamilyDistnbysu Alice, property presently owned Thomas and Theresa Wagner, is lo- cated on the east side of 80th Avenue, north of 143rd Street's descried as: The subject property Lots 1 through 8, Block B. Ercildoune Heights Subdivision No. 1, according to the plats thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 74 and Plat Book 108, Page 522, Indian River County Records; said land lying and being in { Indian River County, Florida. Lots 7 through 11, Block B, Ercildoune Heights Subdivision No. 2. according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 5, Indian River County records; said land lying and being. in Indian River County, Florida.- A public hearing sit which parties m interest and citizens shall have an:opportu tY to be heard, will be held by the Board of County m Comissioners of Indian. River .County, Flor• ida, .in the County Commission Chambers o! the -County Administration Building, located a 1840, 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, or Wednesday, September 7,1983, at 1:30 P.M. It any person decides to appeal any deci sion made on the above matter, he -she wil need a record of the proceedings. and fo such purposes, he -she may need to ensur that a verbatim record of the proceedings I. made, which includes testimony and evidenc upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: s -Richard N. Bird Chairman Aug. 19. 31, 1983, Maureen Poole of Lambert Real Estate was present acting as agent for Alice, Thomas and Teresa Wagner. Planner Richard Shearer reviewed staff memo, which recommended approval, as follows: 77 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 22, 1983 FILE of the Board of County ZC-83-06-025 Commissioners WAGNER REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. 2.7 ACRES FROM DIVISION HE CONCURRENCE: C-1, COMMERCIAL TO R-lAA, W- SUBJECT: SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Patrick Bruce King, AICP Community Development Director THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, ; CP FROM: RS Planning & zoni RE CES: Richard Shearer, AICP tl-tti Wagner Rezoning Principal Planner WORKB It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 7, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicant, Maureen Poole, an agent for Alice, Tom and Theresa Wagner, is requesting to rezone approximately 2.7 acres located one block west of U.S. Highway #1 and north of 143rd Street in Block "B" of Ercildoune Heights Subdivision from C-1, Commercial District, to R-lAA, Single -Family Residential Dis- trict. The applicants propose to sell five lots of record in this subdivision to be developed as single-family housing sites. On July 28, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this,rezoning request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the existing land use pattern will be presented as well as a discussion of the future land use as established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Land Use Pattern The north one-half (approximately) of this property has been developed as single-family housing consisting of two structures. The south one-half (approximately) of the property is. vacant and consists of five (5) platted lots. East of the property there is a bowling -alley, a Chevron service station, and a body shop, all of which front on U.S. Highway 1. The area south of the property is vacant and zoned C-1, Commercial District, and R-1, Single -Family District. To the west of the property there are single-family residences adjacent to the Sebastian River in an area presently zoned R-1. North of the subject property, the area is zoned R-1 and is presently vacant. East -of this vacant property is a motel which fronts on U.S.1. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as LD -1, Low -Density Residential (maximum of 3 units/acre). The R-lAA zoning district allows 2.6 units per acre. The property is situated between and adjacent to two commercial nodes in the Sebastian/Roseland area. A 70 acre hospital commercial node is located south of the property and a 25 acre tourist commercial node is located to'the north. The five platted do not conform to the minimum size minimum lot size lots on the south part of the subject property R-lAA zoning district regulations governing of lots. The R-lAA zoning district requires a of 16,500 square feet and a minimum floor area 78 SEP 719831 ?AU51-3 -3 EP 7 1983 .514 of 1600 square feet. The lots on the subject property are in the 11,000 to 13,000 square foot range, making it difficult in some cases to meet the setback requirements of the R-lAA district while constructing a house having at least 1600 square feet of floor area. However, no other zoning district is appropriate under the LD -1 land use designation. The lots could be developed under the R-lAA zoning but may require variances on the size of houses or on setbacks. Roads/Traffic The subject property is located one block from U.S.1, and most trips are expected to use this arterial street. Development of the property would generate 61 average daily trips and six peak hour trips. These additional trips will have relatively little impact on this section of U.S. Highway l.which carries 10,000 daily trips at Level of Service "A". Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive. There do not appear to be any environmental problems associated with the development of the property for residential uses. Utilities The subject property is not currently served by County water nor wastewater facilities. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above analysis including the fact that the R-lAA zoning district regulations most closely conform to the .LD -1 land use designation, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lyons was glad to see the more restricted residential zoning but wished to know whether there might be a problem getting a variance for this use. Planning Manager Keating did not anticipate that there would be any problems getting a variance. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously adopted Ordinance 83-27 rezoning the advertised property from C-1 to R-lAA as requested by the Wagners. ORDINANCE NO. 83-27 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 through 6, Block B, Ercildoune Heights Subdivision No. 1, according to the plats thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 74 and Plat Book 108, Page 522, Indian River County Records; said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. AND ALSO Lots 7 through 11, Block B, Ercildoune Heights Subdivision No. 2, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 5, Indian River County records; said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from C-1, Commercial District to R-lAA, Single - Family Residential District. All with the meaning,and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 7 day of September , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER' OUNTY By: RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 1STday ofSEPMA10Cf, 1983. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this2tYVI day ofSZ#T 8fA, 1983, at 11 A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED LEGAL SUF BY: SEP. 71983 eI0 FORM D EN 151MDf!TRG, Coun ttorney A'A a5 r SEP 7 1983 REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (GUSTAFSON & DAVIS) 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 in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of i t /f 4 11 -fl z ,24 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Journa( 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 subscri (SEAL) me I>�-(q-w— day of A—a A.D. 19 Manager) (Clerk of the Ctrc6FIMburi;'lndian"River`G`ountFlorida)Y . NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Notice of hearing to consider the following proposal to redesignate land from: LO -1, -Low Density Residential" to C; "Commercial D-isb'ict." The subject property -presently owned by Edward Gustafson and Robert Davis is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 1, north of 71st Street. The subject property is described as: That part of the South % of the NE //4 of the SIN 1/4 of Section 3, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, lying East of present U.S. Highway No. 1, LESS AND EXCEPT that land described in Official Record.Book 92, Page 93 and Official Record.Book 124, Page 540, Public Records oflndian.River County, Florida. Containing 6.28 acres more or . less. . A public hearing at which-pariies in interest. and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor- ida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located.st 1840 25th Street, Vero :Beach, Florida,. on Wednesday, September 7,1983, at 1:30 P.M. If any person decides to appeal any deci-. cion made on the above matter,-he-shd will need a record of the proceedings, and- for such purposes he -she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testlmI and. evidence upon which the appeal is based. - Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By--s-Richard N. Bird Chairman Aug. 19,.31, 1983.: The Board reviewed the following staff memo: 81 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 22, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners EDWARD GUHTAFSON IN ROBERT DAVIS REQUEST TO DIVISION HEADO URRENCE: AMEND THE COMP PLAN ON 6.3 ACRES FROM LD -1, SUBJECT: LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, Patrick Bruce Xing, AICP TO COMMERCIAL Community Development Director THROUGH: 2_.,c� w Robert M. Keati g r CZY CP FROM: Rc) Planning & ZonirEFEREN�CES: Richard Shearer, AICP Gustafson & Davis Principal Planner CLARE It is requested that the data herein presented be -given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting -of September 7, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicants, Edward Gustafson and Robert Davis, are requesting to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Their request is to redesignate approximately 6.3 acres located on the east side of U.S. Highway 1 and north of Winter Beach from LD -1 (low-density residential), to Commercial. The applicants propose to develop the property into retail, showroom, office and warehouse uses. The property is currently zoned C-lA which does not allow warehouse uses. On July 28, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny the applicants' request for the following reasons: 1. Redesignation of the applicants' property would detract from the character of the area. 2. If this property is designated commercial, it could result in a domino effect with requests to designate adjacent properties as commercial. 3. The commercial node concept was adopted after many hours of discussion, meetings, and public hearings, and the node concept should be given a fair try. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an -analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the -site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on schools or environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is currently vacant. Moveover, all land surrounding this property is either vacant or contains groves. The subject property fronts U.S. Highway l on the west, and there is vacant land west of the highway which is also zoned C-lA. A Department of Transportation outfall ditch borders the property to the north,.and the land north of the ditch is vacant and has been included in another comprehensive plan amendment application. There are groves to the east of the site. The land south of the subject property is also vacant. 82 SEP . 7 1983' etc-. w517 SEP '71983 Future Land Use Pattern PA Q The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as LD -1, Low -Density Residential (maximum of 3 units/acre). All of the property surrounding this site is also designated as LD -1 except for the property west of U.S. Highway l which is in an MXD, Mixed Use Development, area. The MXD area west of this site could be developed as commercial in the future based on its land use designation and current zoning. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan discourages strip commercial development along arterial streets such as U.S. 1, but encourages compact commercial development in identified commercial nodes. The nodes were planned to provide sufficient land area for the County's commercial needs for the twenty year life of the Plan. The subject property is not in or near a commercial node. Moveover, there has not been any significant increase in the County's rate of growth since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan which would indicate a need to add more commercial nodes. Transportation System This property has direct access to U.S. Highway 1 (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan) with no access to any other public road. Utilizing the maximum density allowed under a plan amendment and current zoning, the development of the property would generate 4,583 average daily trips (ADT) with 688 trips in the peak hour. These additional trips added to U.S.1 would raise -its traffic volume from 12,000 ADT to more than 16,500 ADT. This additional traffic would require a deceleration lane on U.S. 1. Under the existing land use designation, LD -1, this site would generate 195 ADT if developed to maximum density. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive. The easternmost part of this property is in a "B" zone on the flood insurance rate map. However, this is not a major factor, since the "B" zone delineates areas between the limits of the 100 -year flood and 500 -year flood. Utilities The subject property is not currently served by County water and wastewater facilities. The developer could, however, apply for a franchise from the County to provide his own water and wastewater facilities. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above analysis including the commercial node policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and the negative recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the applicants' request. Attorney Richard Bogosian came before the Board representing the applicants, whose property falls in between two nodes. He noted that this request has been denied unanimously up to this point and he anticipates it will be again today, but even so, he would like to open up some discussion about the node concept of commercial planning with which his clients obviously do not 83 � a agree. He noted that at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing, he asked if they had any precedent for this nodal concept of commercial development, and it does not appear that anyone else in Florida that they know of has developed this same concept.' This gives him considerable concern as it appears that we are simply experimenting with a planning proposition that may or may not work and considerable harm is being done to the owners of property along U.S.I in the meantime. Mr. Bogosian felt that while the concept is viable in certain.areas, it is an impossible situation along U.S.I. He believed that the City of Vero Beach tried to establish the same nodal policy on Route 60 from 43rd Avenue east, and there was so much pressure for commercial property that they could not maintain that concept. Attorney Bogosian believed the same pressure is there on U.S.I. Although the subject property is designated LD -1, he felt it is incon- ceivable anyone would think of developing it for residential, and, therefore, what do you do with it? You certainly cannot sell it for residential. Attorney Bogosian urged the Board to. delve into this matter more carefully and work with the Planning Department to determine if the commercial -node concept is a viable plan of development for U.S.I. Considerable discussion followed as to the fact that the Board earlier today asked staff to take another look at this concept, and it was emphasized that while the Commission does not feel the nodal concept is the perfect answer, they do not want the eyesore of strip commercial along U.S.I from county line to county line. Traffic problems, curb cuts, and service roads were also discussed, as well as the double standard of land being assessed and taxes paid based on commercial usage when that usage is not allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Bogosian confirmed that his client is confronted by that very dilemma, and it seems the Property Appraiser's staff are doing their best to evaluate commercial property which falls between two nodes; however, they must take into consideration the 84 SER 1983 - _ a.,5 9 SEP 7 1993 5. Pace`` possibility that the node may be expanded, and they do not feel they have enough information to assess the land properly. Planning Manager Keating agreed there is a lot of confusion, but felt that happens when you adopt a plan and then have to go back later and make the zoning conform to it. He stated that the Community Development Department is willing to work with the Property Appraiser if there is any problem assessing the land. Mr. Keating believed whether or not the nodal concept is being used in other places, it is a valid concept to cluster commercial development in certain areas, and the Plan specifically reflects that strip commercial development is viewed as a problem and should be actively discouraged. Planner Shearer reviewed the reasons the Planning & Zoning Commission denied the request: s 1) it would detract from the area; 2) it would create a domino effect; and 3) the commercial node concept should be given a fair try. The Chairman asked if -anyone present wished to be heard. Edward Gustafson, one of the co-owners of the subject property, appeared before the Board and reported that at the meetings the County Commission held to explain the Comprehensive Plan to the public, it was stated that when individual cases came up, they would be given fair consideration. He noted that only this morning he was asked to sign a petition asking that the Comprehensive Plan be changed so that a large company can utilize a parcel of property near I-95 in the Fellsmere area. As to remarks that warehouses will not be allowed on his property, apparently there is some misunderstanding; the property was to have been developed for a retail showroom, and any warehouse which would be on the property would be only to support that and local deliveries. Mr. Gustafson continued that he has just received a notice that the property has been raised in value to $96,000 and the taxes will be doubled. Because of lack of depth on the south side, there is no way it can be developed into 85 residential, and as far as he sees it now, the property is worthless. Commissioner Lyons pointed out that there are occasions when we do change the Plan; in fact, just this morning a commercial node was expanded to take in a proposed business. The subject property, however, is right in the middle of two nodes, and the Commission this morning directed staff to readdress this problem. Commissioner Lyons agreed we have to find a way to be fair, and also set a policy. Leonard Hatala informed the Board that he owns property on the north side of 73rd Street, zoned C-lA. This property does not front on U.S.I, and it is designated LD -1. Mr. Hatala felt this is a good little area for residential, which is why he bought his property, and he was not in favor of the request to amend the Plan. Flaverous Hamilton informed the Board that his property. adjoins Mr. Hatala's property, and he has lived there all his life. The property under discussion is 20 acres to the south of his, and if it is going to be commercial, he hoped it would be something nice - not a tin building, but something that will last. He agreed -.that Mr. Gustafson has an odd -shaped piece of property, and if Mr. Gustafson wants to build a nice business, he would be for it. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Chairman Bird agreed that the commercial node concept does pose some problems and possibly there may be more people in the county we are not treating correctly, but he believed we will have to have an in-depth study. He noted that U.S.I travels .the whole east coast of Florida, and he has not seen too good an example of how development along this highway should be handled. E� S EP -'719.93 k 4 �A�' SEP 7 1983 5A, It was generally agreed that we need to keep looking for a better answer, and also that we can't continue to keep people in a state of limbo. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, that the request by Edward Gustafson and Robert Davis for an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan be denied. Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern that this property is not only right in the middle of two nodes, but the problem is further accentuated by the fact that U.S.I. was put in diagonally and it is an odd -shaped piece of land. Planning Manager Keating stated that staff's philosophy is that when the Commission adopted this plan, they had specific ideas as to what they wanted to achieve, but it must be realized they couldn't consider every small piece which didn't fit in. Staff's general philosophy, therefore, has been that if conditions have not changed, the original documentation should stay the same unless there are reasons to believe there were characteristics of the parcel that weren't taken into the Board's consideration when the Comprehensive Plan was developed. Commissioner Wodtke asked what happened to the "first come first served" basis of consideration for being included in a node. He felt people cannot wait a year to determine whether or not they can be part of a node. Mr. Keating reported that staff is in process of developing a set of procedures to determine if someone is in a node or not. He pointed out that if someone thinks he is in a node, he can come to the Community Development Department and have an analysis done, and if he does not agree, he can appeal to the Board. The only way someone would have to wait until the first of the year would be if his situation required the node to be expanded. 87 The Board continued to discuss the need to restudy the U.S.I corridor, and Attorney Bogosian stressed that residential does not represent the highest and best use of this property. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION to deny the amendment. It was voted on and carried unanimously. REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (KLINE & HARRIS) 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; NOTICE—PUBLbC HEAhtNti`. at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being ►oaMENANDUWPLAN-.D T14E Et�811-i LAND USE PLAN. - '':`. , � `Notice of hearing to consider the fioltowing proposal to redesignate land from: ' a LD -1, "Low Density Residential" to MXD, "Mixed Use Dist►lcL"- The sub- •. . �J� in the matter of � � fact properly Presently owned by Charles Kline. and W.R. Harris is to- cated on the east side of U.S. Highway 1, south of'y3rd Street The subject proper* is described as:.,. ,� . f All land lying east of U.S. H�ltway No 1 in the north•half•of the NE +l. of'the 5 SW 'b of Section .3. Township 32, In the Court, was pub- south Range 19 east; `Indy River County, Florida, LESS AND EXCEPT lished to said newspaper in the issues of H U 6 ' 19 31, , 19B3 road and ditch rightsof-way. Contain- y; .'ng e•3acrea more or less v ex ; / �A public hearing at wbtch pards brim , a7id: titizene shad fiave'an.3o be' heard,. held by r ,will Ise the Coutkry Con►missionerg of Indian River. F[prr: Ida, in the County Commission,or. the County Administration Buliti ft at5th` Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at 1840,2Street, Vero, t3eaclik Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore Wed�day,SoOmiberT IM.att.3QP.M! ,. been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been �'Af any person decides to appeal any'dec�• : cion entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- made on.. the above mattar, he efle'Vd9 .. need a record of the proceedings, and for ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of such purposes, he -she will need to enswe advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm that a verbatim record of � proceedings Is or corporation.any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this made, which includes testimony Arid evidence advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. upon which the appeal iabased. Indian Rtver County Sworn to and subscribed befow me t 3l S/ day of A UO • A.D. 19 8-3 Board of County Commissictners By:-s-RichardN Bird . Chairman Aug.'19,.311,1983 E0, 03' (` 4 cn . / ;1Bu ss Manager) 1 i � •tea' Jl i..<r-�':_. -TC]erk of the Circuit Court, Indi •River County, Florida) (SEAL) 88 SEP 71%%03 ' ` Jr.raG 3 SEP 7 1983 The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 24, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION H NCURRENCE: • SUBJECT: Patrick Bruc& King, AICP Community Development Director CHARLES KLINE & W. R. HARRIS REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN ON 8.3 ACRES FROM LD -1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MXD, MIXED -USE -DISTRICT A THROUGH: Robert M. Keatiig, CP FROM: Planning & Zoninchmar�a� CES: Richard Shearer, AICP ttiitt��tt Kline & Harris Principal Planner WORKB It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 7, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicants, Charles Kline and W. R. Harris, are requesting to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Their request is to redesignate approximately 8.3 acres located on the east side of U.S. Highway #1 and the south side of 73rd Street from LD -1 (low-density residential), to MXD (mixed --use district) . The applicants propose to develop the property as commercial property. The property is currently zoned R-2, Multiple -Family District, which allows up.to 15 units/acre. On July 28, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny the applicants' request for the following reasons: 1. The applicants property is unspoiled and should retain its LD -1 designation; 2. If this property is designated MXD (which allows commercial development), then this would result in a domino effect with other individuals wanting their adjacent properties designated MXD or commercial; 3. If approved, this amendment could produce strip commercial development in the area. 4. The commercial -node for this area has already been designated. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses -s-- the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utilities systems; and any significant adverse impacts on schools or environmental quality. 89 Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is currently vacant. The area south of this property is vacant and included in another Comprehensive Plan amendment request. The land west of this site, across U.S. Highway 1, is also vacant, zoned R-2, and located in an MXD area. North of the subject property is another vacant parcel which contains considerable vegetation. There are groves east of this site. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as LD -1, Low -Density Residential (maximum of 3 units/acre). All of the property surrounding this site is also designated as LD -1 except for the property west of U.S. Highway Z which is in an MXD, Mixed Use Development, area. The MXD area west of this site could be developed at a density of up to 6 units/acre based on its land use designation and current zoning (R-2). The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan clearly states the purpose of MXD areas as providing for redevelopment of areas which have traditionally possessed a broad mixture of incompatible land use patterns. The MXD designation was designed to provide effective transition buffers between these incompatible land uses in developed areas. Furthermore, the MXD areas have distinct boundaries and were not meant to be created for or extended to undeveloped areas outside of those boundaries. Transportation System This property has direct access to U.S. Highway 1 (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan) and 73rd Street (classified as a secondary collector street). Utilizing the.. —s maximum density allowed under a plan amendment and current zoning, the development of the property would generate 398 average daily trips (ADT) with 40 in the peak hour. However, if this property is redesignated as MXD and rezoned for commercial use, much h,gher traffic volumes would be expected. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive. The easternmost part of this property is in a "B" zone on the.flood insurance rate map. However, this is not a major factor because the "B" zone delineates areas between the limits of the 100 -year flood and 500 -year flood. Utilities The subject property is not currently served by County water nor wastewater.facilities. However, the developer could apply for a franchise from the.County to provide his own water and wastewater facilities. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the purpose and.limits of the MXD areas as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the applicants' request. 90 S EP 7 1983 SEP 7 1983 PACE Charles Kline came before the Board and stated that while he realizes that years were spent on the development of the Comprehen- sive Plan and now people want to change it, he did believe there are unusual cases and that some property is being designated for a use that is not appropriate or workable. He further felt that the time to consider a problem is when it comes up, especially as he just paid a $250 fee for this purpose. Discussion arose in regard to the location of Mr. Kline Is property,_aLnd Planner Shearer stated that there is an MXD area about 1/4-1/2 mile to the south on the east side of U.S.I, which was added to accommodate some mixed uses that were already developed. The 50 acre Winter Beach node is about 1/2 mile north of the subject property. Discussion continued at length as to the fact that the Commission wishes to be consistent and really does. not want a strip of commercial from one county line to the other, but may have to lookat some other possible uses. The Chairman asked if anyone further wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, to deny the request for amendment of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan made by Messrs. Kline and Harris based on the analysis furnished by the Planning Department staff. Commissioner Wodtke noted that this is a request for an MXD District., and while he felt a Mixed Use District is more palatable than the present situation with MXD across the highway 91 from the lowest density, he would support the Motion because we are going to try to develop some new plan. He continued that it would help if we had an ordinance that would allow us to do some contractual zoning where they could come in with a site plan and we could see if it would be a feasible use under the Plan. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. Itwasvoted on and carried unanimously. ADDITION TO AGENDA - SBA CONTRACT (PARKS & RECREATIONAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Administrator Wright informed the Board that it is necessary to bring the above grant back for further Board discussion, and Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that the work listed under the Jungle Trail portion of the grant will require permitting by -the DER, and this cannot be accomplished within the grant time -frame. The Jungle Trail project, therefore, will be dropped out of the scope of the grant and these funds will be switched to the 17th Street median project unless the Board elects otherwise. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously added the above emergency matter to today's agenda. Commissioner Scurlock commented that he was unhappy that there had not been formal bidding process through our Purchasing Department, and Chairman Bird wished to know if we have time to rebid 17th Street. Urban Forester Paul Palmiotto reported that he has three bids with him. Discussion ensued as to what will be allowed by the DOT, and Mr. Palmiotto confirmed that he has the DOT permit in hand to do the work that is listed in the specifications. 92 SEP 7 1983 aux . PACE SEP 7 1983 �� E SE ... Commissioner Scurlock continued to express concern about not following normal bidding processes - being allowed to bid alternates, etc., but stated he would not vote against it this time because of the time frame. Commissioner Bowman asked if some work could be done on the upland on Jungle Trail which would not involve DER permitting, but it was felt that there is not much upland to work with. The Chairman wished to know how we had decided to apportion the grant if we didn't include Jungle Trail. Urban Forester Palmiotto reviewed the following breakdown: Original Gifford Park $ 8,000 Kiwanis-Hobart Park 2,000 17th Street Median 11,053 Administrative Cost (5%) 11108 TOTAL....... $22,161 Additional Revised $1,498 $ 9,498 2,000 2,686 13,739 220 1,328 $4,404 $26,565 Commissioner Lyons wished to know whether it would be possible to do a job in Kiwanis-Hobart Park equal to the funds in the 17th Street project if the 17th Street project were to be eliminated. Forester Palmiotto felt the need is there, but the time necessary to develop landscaping plans and go to bid, etc. would prohibit this. Chairman Bird brought up the question of maintenance on the 17th Street median project, and Forester Palmiotto stated that since it is going to be planted with maintenance free shrubbery, totally mulched and leaky pipe installed, maintenance will be minimal. The grass in the median is maintained by the DOT. Commissioner Lyonsquestioned why we should beautify that median when the City storage area looks like a junkyard, and Mr. Palmiotto stated that the City will be beautifying the area also; he felt this project will have great public impact. s 93 Chairman Bird agreed although he believed the City will get all the credit for it. Administrator Wright confirmed that staff recommended we go with the priorities set out in the above breakdown. He agreed this was not bid in the normal manner because of the time frame, and assured the Board that in the future every effort will be made to work through Purchasing. Community -Services Director Thomas wished to emphasize that the permitting was the problem with Jungle Trail, and they will continue ,to make every effort to get some substantial grant money for Jungle Trail. Commissioner Scurlock suggested that, in the future, it might be well to keep a few projects in various categories sitting on the shelf for situations such as this where grants suddenly become available. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously accepted the recommendation.of staff to do the projects under the SBA contract as outlined by the Urban Forester. DISCUSSION RE NEED FOR MATERNAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM Health Director Dr. Lookabaugh informed the Board that there is no maternal health care program in this county nar has one been"funded for this year. She then explained the importance of such a program as set out in her memo: 94 SEP -,7-1983 tacv' SEP 7 1983 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPT 2525 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Funding a Maternal Health Care Program in Indian River County Maternal Health Programs were first established in local and state health departments in the early 1900's. Their goal has been the health and well=being of mothers and newborn children through proper preventive care during pregnancy. Because of these programs maternal and infant mortality rates have declined; these programs have become an essential component of Public Health Services. The Indian River County Health Unit does not have a Maternal Health Program, nor has it been funded for such a program. Until the fall of 1982 a program had been operating intermittently with volunteer contributions. The potential conse- quences of no'prenatal care are medical complications to the mother, low -birth weight infants who have chronic respiratory illness or neurological deficits, and even death. Preventive services like maternal care can avert suffering and costly high-technology medical -care and institutionalization. z l0'. Lookabaugh, M.D., M.P.H. 9/6/83 Dr. Lookabaugh noted that what has happened is that the voluntary program fell apart last fall with the result that there have been stillborns and children with prenatal defects. Dr. Lookabaugh did not feel the County can allow that kind of health care to continue and noted that when she accepted the position of Health Director for the county, she did not realize there was no maternal health care program. She then reviewed a grant for which she had applied and stated that she would like the County to put up $30,000 in matching funds. Dr. Lookabaugh emphasized that she could not run the program on $30,000 alone. The Board had various questions about the grant funds and what they would cover. Commissioner Wodtke inquiredabout the $50,000 for the physician for delivery. Dr. Lookabaugh explained that figure represents about half of the private fees physicians are getting now. The doctors were offering this service on a voluntary basis for years, but because their malpractice insurance has risen so tremendously; and this is a high risk situation, they do not want to continue; they feel it is a community responsibility. 95 Dr. Lookabaugh went on to explain that this budget was written up for the state, not the county, and it does not show the county matching funds. She asked for nearly $70,000 from the state out of $100,000 that was to be split up six ways. She did not expect to get that amount, but felt we will probably get somewhere between $30,000 and $60,000. What isn't shown are the county's support costs, which include her nursing time, additional clerical time, supplies, etc. Dr. Lookabaugh explained that she did not have time to prepare a separate county budget. Chairman Bird asked Dr. Lookabaugh if she could prepare a more comprehensive budget to present at the budget hearing tonight. Commissioner Lyons informed the Board that when he learned of this situation, he pushed Dr. Lookabaugh into presenting her request to the Board today as the last opportunity before finalizing the budget. It appears she also has other problems in the Health Department (they are overcrowded, undermanned and undersupplied), and we will be called on for other expenditures, possibly this year, but certainly next year. Commissioner Lyons stated that whether or not the state comes through for the full grant requested, he would recommend that we add $30,000 to the Health Department budget. It seems there are a lot of problems that have not come to light. Administrator Wright noted that he has visited—the County health facility and was surprised at the conditions; he felt they have a real need. Discussion ensued re deferring action until tonight's budget meeting, but Commissioner Lyons stated that he would like to have it in the budget to be considered tonight. Commissioner Scurlock commented that former Health Director Dr. Flood did increase some of his fees recently, and Dr. Lookabaugh reported that she does have her fund allocation for the year and she does have a shortfall. As far as. the fees are 96 S E P ' 7 1933IPA ad SEP 7X983 . ?n t.:,.: 2 . concerned, she felt the Board must realize that represents a very small drawing power - only about $2,000-$5,000. She emphasized that she is looking at every possible source for funds and believed that preventive medicine will save expenses in the long run. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to add $30,000 to the Health Department budget for fiscal year 1983-84 in view of the fact that the Maternal Health Care Program was inadvertently omitted and lost during the change in management. Chairman Bird asked if the Motion was contingent on getting matching funds from the state, and Commissioner Lyons stated that it was not. Commissioner Wodtke felt Dr. Lookabaugh had stated that if she did not get the matching funds from the state, she could not carry out the program. Dr. Lookabaugh stated that she would not be able to carry out a full maternal health care program; she would have to screen and just take the neediest mothers, but she would provide whatever services she could with whatever funds she could obtain. She explained about competing for state funds and noted that she is coordinating with Florida Community Health Services on this. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. WORKSHOP ON NEW SEPTIC TANK LAW Commissioner Lyons brought up the new septic tank legislation and reported that Dr. Lookabaugh has a program that would be helpful to both the Commissioners and the developers as 97 i to the reason behind this change in the law and would like us to have a workshop session at which a presentation could be made. Discussion ensued, and it was decided to have the proposed workshop session on Monday, September 19, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF PROPOSED FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND BUDGET The hour -of 3:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 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 in the matter of 96VI G -v l in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues ofQ/ 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. tL Sworn to and subscribed befcyte me tis nl day of A.D. 19 4 3 Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Couri, Indi diver County, Florida) W L_ SEP 71983 NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING OF' �' ' NOTICEIp GPUSUC HEARING STRATIY6 REVIEW f ^_ latrativs Review Of Proposed Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Budget for .tlscal yga, 1. 1984 with the Indian River County Commiselonere, on Wednesday. Sap tember T, 1983, at 3:00 p.M, in the Commle sion Ghambere In the lndtan lifrer County Ad. ►nBSPLtr2 3 4,B8�&Mi(ng, '. � , : �, SEP 7 1983 racy 5147 OMB Director Barton reviewed the proposed Federal Revenue Sharing Budget, as follows: FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING - PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 83-84 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS & BALANCES Federal Sources Local Sources Sub total Less 5% per F.S. 129.01(2)(b) Net Cash Forward October 1, 1983 TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS & BALANCES APPROPRIATIONS & RESERVES Legislative Financial & Administrative Comprehensive Planning Emergency & Disaster Relief Parks & Recreation Conservation/Resource Management Other Health Judicial Law Enforcement Detention - Correction Fund Transfers TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS Reserve for Contingencies Cash Forward September 30, 1984 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS & RESERVES 99 400,000 19,750 419,750 (20,988) 398,762 89,000 487,762 7,185 91,127 100,000 1,450 73,957 64,520 21,350 2,000 24,773 41,060 17,000 22,500 466 �972 15,000 5,840 78T, T62� Chairman Bird asked if the appropriations represent any major shift in funding appropriation over the way it was done last year. Mr. Barton reported that Federal Revenue Sharing always has been used for capital expenditures of given departments, and this is consistent with how it has been spent in the past. The Chairman asked i.f anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously gave tentative approval of the proposed Federal Revenue Sharing Budget for 1983-84. REQUEST RE HOSI'ESCHUMAN PARK Chairman Bird reported that he received a call from Mrs. Walter Jackson of the Gifford Progressive Civic League discussing the possibility of buying an old`home and having it moved to a piece of undeveloped land the County owns in Geoffrey Subdivision to be used as an additional recreational facility for the Gifford community. It seems that Mrs. Jackson was not successful in acquiring the house, but her request still is that the County consider clearing that property to make it available for recreational use. Chairman Bird reported that Mrs. Jackson assured him that the County would not be asked to provide any type of facility or equipment on the property at this time, and he asked Public Works Director Davis to do some estimating re the costs involved in clearing this property. He then noted that Attorney Brandenburg has researched the history of this property, and it appears that it was a gift from Gulf & Western Industries 100 SE p 7 1983 - rAc r SEP ? 1983 with provisions that it be used for park and recreational purposes. The two acre property which is on 39th St. east of U.S.I. was donated to the County in the name of Hosie_Schuman. Mrs. Jackson was not present, but Mr. Jackson confirmed that the Chairman had outlined her plans correctly. Public Works Director Davis reported on the costs, both direct and indirect and stated that landfill fees alone would be approximately $8,000. Mr. Davis estimated that all the costs involved would total about $20,000, but noted they have now determined that the cleared material can be burned on the site which would reduce the landfill fees substantially. Chairman Bird noted that Mr. Davis has indicated if he were given the latitude of clearing this site as the time and equipment is available, it could be worked into the schedule of the Road & Bridge Department. He informed the Board that this property is being used partially used as a neighborhood dump, and he believed we have some obligation to at least underbrush it, if not completely clear it. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to author- ize the Public Works Director to work clearing the above property into his department's schedule and reduce landfill fees, etc., as much as possible. Commissioner Wodtke questioned a cost of $20,000, and Mr. Davis explained that represents a full scale cost estimate, which would include rental of equipment, landfill fees, etc. He noted these two acres are heavily vegetated; we do not, however, have to rent the equipment and that is the majority of the cost. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 101 REQUEST BY HELENE HOLDING COMPANY RE POSSIBLE AMENDMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Board considered the following request from Helene Holding Company: HELENE HOLDING COMPANY 915 South Riverside Drive Indialantic, Florida 32903 August 24, 1983 Mr. Dick Bird, Chairman Indian River County Commission 1840 - 25th Street _ Vero Beach, FL 32960 - Dear Commissioner Bird: The Helene Holding Company has contracted to purchase 100 acres of land located the northeast corner of I-95 and SR 512. We hereby request you consider a re -designation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and re -zoning of this property in order for us to construct a 50,000 square foot electronics manufacturing facility. Your special consideration is appreciated as we were not aware of ceuY ent existing deadline -on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We plan to proceed on the construction of the facility as soon as possible. Respectfully yours, vG� Robert J. Byer Planning Manager Keating informed the Board that there is an existing 150 acre commercial node in this location. Until staff has an opportunity to do a complete analysis, it is not known whether the node would have to be enlarged, but it would have to go through the amendment process to be redesignated commercial/ industrial and the subject property would have to be rezoned to M-1 to allow for the anticipated use. The Comprehensive Plan now states that requests will only be considered once a year, which was done in June. This is an unusual year, however, in that it 102 �Ep 71983 :, 8� SEP 7 19 -- 5 : fACE is the first time Comprehensive Plan amendments have been considered; the Commission already has waived the deadline once, and staff recommends that the Board waive the time limitation in this case also. Commissioner Lyons inquired about the time that would be required for this consideration, and Mr. Keating believed it would be a minimum of two months. He noted that the request for rezoning could be considered within the same period. David -Martin of the Vero Beach Chamber of Commerce requested that the Commission grant the waiver to allow Helene Holding Company to file for a redesignation of the Comprehensive Plan. Robert Byer of Helene Holding Company informed the Board that they intend to put up a plant of about 50,000 sq. ft. to manufacture computers and computer support systems. As these systems are fairly large and they probably only make 8 or 10 a month, they would only require a truck every week or so. He emphasized that their product is used primarily by the federal government and larger companies in the United States; they do not manufacture home computers. Mr. Byer continued that they have a long range plan which has them virtually doubling in size every year for five years and they have a commitment for working capital. The key problem is having a place to put it all together and having a body of people they can hire and train. Mr. Byer stated that.should the rezoning be granted, they will begin to put the plant up immediately. He further explained that they buy the electric components, make their own structural parts, and test for quality control, etc. They do not etch the circuit boards; they only assemble and test. Discussion ensued re the type of service force needed, and Mr. Byers stated they are looking for several types of people, but mainly the work does not take any particular amount of training or experience. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he fully supports granting a waiver of the deadline as requested. He believed this presents 103 a very positive approach for taking care of some of our economic problems and believed it is in line with the type of industry we are trying to attract. Commissioner Wodtke had some concern about the need for 100 acres, and Mr. Byers stated that they anticipate considerable growth. Ray Scent, Realtor, emphasized that this node.was developed after years of work and vociferous input from residents in Fellsmere who did not want their agricultural area reduced.' He believed the node in question was reduced; that it is not 150 acres; and that the subject property is well outside of it. Mr. Scent felt it is ridiculous that the Commission would even consider changing the plan they took so many years to develop. He recognized that we need jobs in Indian Rlver County, but saw no justification for even entertaining a thought about going 3/4 of a mile east of the node and redesignating that area. Chairman Bird did not feel Mr. Scent would deny anyone the right to request an opportunity to ask for an amendment if they feel it is justified, and that is all we are considering today. - Alvin Thomas, Mayor of Fellsmere, came -before the Board and spoke eloquently in support of industry coming to the Fellsmere area. He felt Mr. Scent was opposed because the company did not want the land he owned in this area. Mayor Thomas did not feel the proposed industry would have an adverse impact on traffic in Fellsmere as it would mainly impact the major highway; he did believe it would benefit Fellsmere by encouraging growth. Mayor Thomas noted that Fellsmere has budget problems; the $25,000 Homestead Exemption has cut their tax base severely. He further felt that more pollution is caused by many small homes on septic tanks than by industrial plants. Mayor Thomas stated that he could not overemphasize the need to provide jobs for young people. He felt strongly that people should be able to work and provide a meaningful life for themselves rather than be dependent on welfare. 104 S E p -7 1983 a PACU SEP 7 1983 11 `, 5. FAcr 540 - Mr. Scent wished to state for the record that he owns no property within eight miles of the intersection under discussion. Chester Schmalz of 166 71st Avenue wished to know the steps and length of time involved in the amendment process and also whether the fact that the County does not at present have a Planning & Zoning Director would have any effect. Administrator Wright stated that it would not. Planning Manager Keating explained the steps which would be involved jn the amendment and rezoning process. Pat Flood, Mayor of Sebastian, pointed out that the legislation setting up the Comprehensive Plan provides the right to take a second look at it. He stated that the City of Sebastian already has looked at nodes they have put in and just because we have something for years doesn't mean we can't change it. He appreciated the Commission's receptive attitude and stated that the City of Sebastian will be glad to help the County Commi s s ion . Gary Dumar of 163 South Oleander, Sebastian, informed the Board that Mayor Thomas had asked the people sitting in the audience to take time off from work and come here today to show their support for industry in the Fellsmere area. He asked those who came here today for this purpose to stand. Approximately 40-50 people stood up and indicated their support. Commissioner Scurlock believed that through all the process of developing the Comprehensive Plan, the one thought he had constantly was that this was not a perfect document, and the; Commission would continue to have an open mind. He felt it would be disaster if we ever get to the point where due process and public opinion is not considered by the Commission. Commissioner Lyons objected to hearing the County Commission characterized as "anti -business." When you check the record, he did not feel that anything can be found that says a legitimate request that fits into the overall scheme of things is not approved. 105 Commissioner Scurlock concurred, noting that we have passed two.industrial bond resolutions and brought Rampmaster to town. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously agreed to waive the deadline for considera- tion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as -requested by Helene Holding Company and to give their request due consideration on an expedited basis. BOND INDUCEMENT_ RESOLUTION - HUTCHINSON UTILITIES Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the history of the application of Hutchinson Utilities for an industrial bond issue, noting that there was concern by the people in the Moorings area about this as related to the request for a rate increase. As a result, Attorney Brandenburg stated that he has worded the inducement resolution so that it does not make any findings re financial feasibility of the project, and this will be withheld until the rate hearing can take place. It is also specified that the rate hearing will not -occur prior to October 15th, which will give residents in The Moorings a chance to analyze the proposed rate increase. The action to be taken by the Board today would be to approve the Resolution and authorize the. Chairman to sign the letter of inducement. Hutchinson Utilities must understand that if it proceeds at this point, it is doing so at its own risk and .later if the rate determined is insufficient for the bonds to be self-supporting, they will have to look elsewhere for financing. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the rates include impact fees, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that the rate structure includes all fees. Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that there is one minor change under paragraph B on the second page; to be consistent with the Statute, instead of "industrial facilities," 106 C.F P- 71983 FACE 5411 L...:_- SEP 7 1983 ... 554Z the wording should read "pollution control facilities consisting of a sewage treatment plant." ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-71 and authorized the Chairman to sign the letter of inducement. 107 r � � a RESOLUTION NO. 83-71 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, OF.A LETTER OF INTENT AND INDUCEMENT TO HUTCHINSON UTILITIES, INC., WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE BY THE COUNTY OF NOT EXCEEDING $1,100,000 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT OF SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES OF SUCH CORPORA- TION IN THE COUNTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This resolu- tion is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 159, Part II, Florida Statutes (1981), as amended (collectively, the "Act"), and other applicable provisions of law. SECTION 2. FINDINGS. mined and declared as follows: It is hereby ascertained, deter - A. Indian River County, Florida (the "Issuer"), is authorized by the Act to make and execute financing agreements, contracts, deeds and other instruments necessary or convenient for the purpose of facilitating the financing of the acquisition, construction and equipment of projects, as defined in the Act, including machinery, equipment, land, rights in land and other appurtenances and facilities related thereto, to the end that the -1- _ ^r�:iM1 i ✓xH'4 aF4 'Xiti .. �. '1.+ �y, �.}.• .aL. �b "y ? •-j "' M _ .;y Min? 44 . = {W _ -at c t:L...,, �+b<- � fw+3�a�}s .Y.�a� QM= F c � � - "�" .o,�a '' `� "� "�^• �I �FP 4�3 Issuer may be able to promote the ecomomic growth of the State of Florida, increase opportunities for gainful employment and other- wise contribute to the welfare of such State and its inhabitants; and to finance the cost of such projects and related facilities, by the issuance of its revenue bonds. B. Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Borrower"), wishes to acquire, construct and equip pollu- tion control facilities consisting of a sewage treatment plant (the "Project") within the corporate territorial limits of the Issuer, and to have the Issuer issue its revenue bonds to finance the Project; and the Borrower has requested that the Issuer further indicate to the Borrower its intentions in this respect, in order to further induce the Borrower to proceed with the Project and incur expenses for its financing. C. The location of the Project in the area of the Issuer shall make a significant contribution to the economic growth of the Issuer, shall provide gainful employment and shall serve a public purpose by advancing the economic prosperity and the general welfare of the State of Florida and its people. D. The Issuer is able to cope satisfactorily with the impact of the Project, and all the necessary public facilities, Utilities and services that will be necessary for the construc- tion, operation, repair and maintenance of the Project and on account of any increase in population or other circumstances -2- -S 7 1 83 °3����'atFNr. '�.ede�6a.'�'aa. } i 8.�`'�.c�i .,"'�� t na,lw'aY° s+•: �,. t "- t.Y•" �'7•� '�� P �..�.. ' + "�iY,S'� a4 a"�+kV, �,g,>�,fi+„".yq' yr �, ..i.�'C� .M";• ' r =`{G�iia'G�."�c� ?�+F.«,` 4 L '•l �i Y.�ru'3xFc._��la•"'S" - _ {. ' � A4I'p�GM d ay i2-�.!T ' ��.�y /.N�LIN"[^ •� vd9• E� J��Cr GN 'aa.'M- 1. t �N.' .,may - 5 � ����f�•.rf..�B�,rR=;�E@�11 •� :;'1'j' � � 4�.�'�i^,���+;U1���i�M: .a'� 3�d. '4, T"�ily �. � �I yOY �?a 1. �F v _ , i-..-•.r..� ....n �o. 4:'Sk�'r'.: �. . ".: .. Y.. t-.: K -J � � .�'�a.'! � .,1F:.. _ v. •:..u•Y+d .'irVr .rS�� .. .. .. ... .. .....z .. .... Issuer may be able to promote the ecomomic growth of the State of Florida, increase opportunities for gainful employment and other- wise contribute to the welfare of such State and its inhabitants; and to finance the cost of such projects and related facilities, by the issuance of its revenue bonds. B. Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Borrower"), wishes to acquire, construct and equip pollu- tion control facilities consisting of a sewage treatment plant (the "Project") within the corporate territorial limits of the Issuer, and to have the Issuer issue its revenue bonds to finance the Project; and the Borrower has requested that the Issuer further indicate to the Borrower its intentions in this respect, in order to further induce the Borrower to proceed with the Project and incur expenses for its financing. C. The location of the Project in the area of the Issuer shall make a significant contribution to the economic growth of the Issuer, shall provide gainful employment and shall serve a public purpose by advancing the economic prosperity and the general welfare of the State of Florida and its people. D. The Issuer is able to cope satisfactorily with the impact of the Project, and all the necessary public facilities, Utilities and services that will be necessary for the construc- tion, operation, repair and maintenance of the Project and on account of any increase in population or other circumstances -2- resulting by reason of the location of the Project within the territorial limits of the Issuer, will be provided by the Borrower when needed. E. Adequate provision will be made under the provisions' of the proposed loan agreement, mortgage and security agreement (the "Agreement") for the operation, repair and maintenance of the Project at the expense of the Borrower, and for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the bonds. F.. The Issuer will not make any findings regarding the financial responsibility of the Borrower, as required by Section 159.29, Florida Statutes (1981), until after the utility rate hearing with respect to the Project, scheduled no earlier than October 15, 1983, has been duly held. G. The principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the bonds and all payments required under the proposed Agreement and the promissory note (the "Note") secured by the Agreement, and the trust indenture, if any, securing payment of the bonds shall be payable solely from the proceeds derived by the Issuer under the proposed Agreement and Note, and any guaranty of such payment obligations by third parties, and the Issuer shall never be required to levy ad valorem taxes on any property within its territorial limits to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the bonds or to make any other payments provided under the proposed Agreement, Note or trust _indenture, if any, or -3- _... ;-,. ... .,ca � �r �. t� ... � w.. - � - .. F -.may ,-•� � Via... -a - R --.max i"�h4S''i���.�fffjjj�`1:ub.. ? ! �'�i f -w, by C`� 4 .i E� l kL.i'�u '! } • 6 i -' ail R«�aof'R i`e`i? !G/^ - ` EP, f+ 8DKr pay the same from any funds of the Issuer other than those derived by the Issuer under the proposed Agreement and Note, or any guaranty agreement by third parties; and such bonds shall not constitute a lien upon any property owned by or situated within the territorial limits of the Issuer, except the Project. H. The interest on the bonds, when duly authorized and issued, will be exempt from federal income taxation under existing laws of the United States. SECTION 3. AUTHORIZATION OF EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF INDUCEMENT LETTER. The Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of the Issuer are hereby authorized to exe- cute and deliver the letter of the Issuer addressed to the Borrower, in substantially the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein, with such changes therein, whether made prior to the execution thereof or thereafter, as shall be approved from time to time by such offi- cers executing the same, such approval to be conclusively evi- denced by their execution thereof. SECTION 4. AUTHORIZATION OF NECESSARY ACTION. The Chairman and Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of the Issuer and all other officers and employees of the Issuer are hereby authorized to execute such further agreements and take such further action as shall be necessary to carry out the intent and purposes expressed in such letter attached hereto as Exhibit -4- EP 7 1983 - y , .-�' � "a ".t.J •1 Nota :_ i_ 'amu.. n.a.:. -�-'" .. e. .... .... e ima,..un`*a�ttrm-t9c�-,�•��.`&� �,,}��* + ,3�"s £ i ! +d'T�; ... ?:a(l�i _ _ pay the same from any funds of the Issuer other than those derived by the Issuer under the proposed Agreement and Note, or any guaranty agreement by third parties; and such bonds shall not constitute a lien upon any property owned by or situated within the territorial limits of the Issuer, except the Project. H. The interest on the bonds, when duly authorized and issued, will be exempt from federal income taxation under existing laws of the United States. SECTION 3. AUTHORIZATION OF EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF INDUCEMENT LETTER. The Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of the Issuer are hereby authorized to exe- cute and deliver the letter of the Issuer addressed to the Borrower, in substantially the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein, with such changes therein, whether made prior to the execution thereof or thereafter, as shall be approved from time to time by such offi- cers executing the same, such approval to be conclusively evi- denced by their execution thereof. SECTION 4. AUTHORIZATION OF NECESSARY ACTION. The Chairman and Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of the Issuer and all other officers and employees of the Issuer are hereby authorized to execute such further agreements and take such further action as shall be necessary to carry out the intent and purposes expressed in such letter attached hereto as Exhibit -4- A, upon its becoming an agreement on its execution by the Borrower, and are further authorized to take such other steps and actions as may be required and necessary -in order to issue such bonds. SECTION S. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion -.was seconded y Commissioner Scurlock and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock,Jr. Aye Maggy C. Bowman Aye William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Patrick B. Lyons Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 7th day of September, 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By ` RICHAD N. BIRD Chairman -5- . 5- x ''''�v y1 r 's,.�es.. if - a '•12r� _-. a a??' ty r` � '",y�y� N �'�-,�`�t"�a.�a'�a`��*'� ��� fi��•���,a, �°�`a �; y. x ;fin t , a _ 1 h ?sem M vy H { t,}� N•w. vim• 6i^' f h t �ad6c}~"`.^}.. b +a.^Cs' Qp a yxis�r Fr f s 7,�, !b x• x' a - �'`+� !","y``x8,^��```»�2*�r.[��s�-r,�*r•�m4�"s"�'r"�.'ys�, �'sw.�"�' ` Attest: FREDA jIIRIGHT, C rk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUF E CY By iii. B DEN URG ¢o my Atto g: Y mm Telephone: (305) 567-8000 BOARD OF CO UAW MMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. 2001 Ninth Avenue Suite 305 Vero Beach, Florida 329.60 Gentlemen EXHIBIT A Suncom Telephoner (305) 424-1012 September 7, 1983 Re: Proposed Acquisition, Construction and Equipment of Sewage Treatment Plant Based upon recent discussions with you, it is the under- standing of the Board of County Commissioners (the "Governing Body") and the officials and representatives of Indian River County, Florida (the "Issuer"), that you are currently considering the acquisition, construction and equipment of a sewage treatment plant within the territorial limits of the Issuer (the "Project"); that the costs of the Project will not exceed $1,100,000; that the Project will provide employment in the area of the Issuer for approximately 7 people; and that the willingness of the Issuer to issue and sell its industrial development revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction and equipment of the Project is an important fact under consideration by you in determining the extent of the development feasibility of the Project. The Governing Body has determined that -the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds by the Issuer to assist you by financing such Project in the area of the Issuer will result in an increase of employment in such area,,and that the issuance of such bonds will serve a public purpose by advancing the economic prosperity and the general welfare of the State of Florida and its people. Accordingly, in order to induce you to incur expenses for the initiation of such Project and its financing, the Issuer hereby makes the following proposal: l.' The Issuer will issue its industrial development revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1,100,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of the acquisition, construction and equipment of the Project,,pursuant to prelimi- S �9 I PACS a �-�����s �—�t gra ..3=:: �.c+F. s+�•'f . �'•� - - - • - .. �- - _ .. - ; . _ - as'..LL �w'.�'"�•���+� �„r'+�'L,4.,�¢,ec�• ~'.i"'� "k ss�'�t .�.., 4 . w9= � � e, .u. "s - { +S±ceS ,� a Ysn sy s.�.y �''�,as.��"S3',4�hvfu�'RSl.Rt��id�'����rc�"�,�, °'3• +.J, D,,J �'" aXQS`s vpl t. )r4. i.f. ?+ r�'••4 i r \ �i3s.k7'.'.ut+?:o��' a Aa. N �t �=5.�"`:�..> ,r d"�!"�+.�t�4w'."i7,�`�f� .•�isa,.3::3'+��':''x:�'`:?�Ak�Sz�'"r.^q:'.y tw..o.,'.5= ... ... ....,.. .-.'!�S. �....< "' .,;..G�3�z�. ..,.. ,... ...:. .... ........ .... Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. September 7. 1983 Page Two nary general plans and specifications relating to such facilities which are on file in the office of the Clerk of the Governing Body. The bonds will be issued -in such aggregate principal amount, mature at such times, bear interest at suchrates and be subject to such other terms as shall be agreed upon among you and the Issuer and the bondholders. 2. You and the Issuer will enter into a Loan Agreement, Mortgage and Security Agreement (the "Agreement") which shall provide for a loan of bond proceeds by the Issuer to you for the purpose of the acquisition, construction and equipment of the Project, and you will execute and deliver a promissory note (the "Note") evidencing the loan. The Agreement shall be assigned either to a bank trustee for the benefit and protection of the bondholders, or to the bondholders. The installment payments to be made by you pursuant to the Agreement and Note shall be pledged to the payment of the principal of, interest on and redemption premium, if any, applicable to the bonds and the fees and expenses of the trustee, if any. The aggregate principal amount of the bonds shall only be fully sufficient to•pay the cost of the Project, the cost and expenses of financing the same and the expenses of you, the trustee, if any, and the Issuer related thereto. 3. The Issuer will cooperate in the preparation of the Agreement, the Note, the trust indenture, if any, and the necessary resolutions for the authorization and sale of the bonds. 4. Upon delivery of the bonds, the provisions of this proposal and the agreement resulting from its acceptance by you shall have no further effect, and in the event of any incon- sistency between the terms of this proposal and the terms of the Agreement and the Note in the form in which they shall be finally approved by resolution of the Governing Body, the provisions of the Agreement and Note as so approved shall control. 5. Upon acceptance by you of this proposal, the Issuer shall keep open and outstanding this commitment and inducement to you for a reasonable time so long as you shall be proceeding with appropriate efforts toward conclusion of any arrangements necessary to the Project, and (after finding the Borrower finan- cially responsible as described in paragraph 8 hereof) so long as Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. September 7, 1983 Page Three there shall be no material adverse change in your financial condition; provided, however, if for any reason (other than that which shall be the fault of the Issuer) the bonds are not deli- vered to the purchaser or purchasers thereof within one year from the date hereof, then the provisions of this proposal and the agreement resulting from its acceptance by you will be deemed cancelled. In such event, or in the event of its earlier can- cellation by agreement between you ,and the Issuer, neither party shall have any rights against the other and no third party shall have any rights against either party except: (a) You will pay to the Issuer the amount of all expen- ses which shall have been incurred by the Issuer in connection with the Project, and any administrative fees of the Issuer in reviewing and processing your bond issuance application. (b) You will assume and be responsible for all contracts entered into by the Issuer at your request in connec- tion with the Project; and (c) You will pay the out-of-pocket expenses of offi- cials and representatives of the Issuer incurred in connection with the Project -and will pay counsel for the Issuer and the firm of Freeman, Richardson, Watson & Kelly, P.A., bond counsel, legal fees for legal services related to the Project or the financing thereof. 6. The Issuer shall not be obligated to pay any of the bonds or the interest thereon from any funds of the Issuer derived from any source other than the Agreement and Note, or any guaranty agreement by third parties, and in no event may the taxing power or other revenues of the Issuer be pledged to pay any of the bonds or the interest thereon. Each bond shall con- tain a statement substantially to that effect upon its face. The Issuer shall not be required to incur any expense with respect to the Project or the bonds unless requested to do so by you, in which event you hereby agree to reimburse the full amount of such expense to the Issuer; and the Issuer may require payment to it of such amount as a prerequisite -to its incurring any such expense. In accepting this proposal, you thereby agree to indem- nify and defend the Issuer and hold the Issuer harmless against any and all claims, losses, liabilities or damages to property or any injury or death of any person or persons occurring in connec- Y , t 4w Y c 4 � ,*d .µy.M � .fi��"•F- a�.r s^Y.�,�. •aM'4 e!..`n/t'++� � Ie ' � �+� T"^ilk ��.��" t•+� -r... .. •',u-a..e. a .. -/®lir p�Ylyf$;5 f• Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. September 7, 1983 Page Four tion with the construction, equipment and operation of the Project, or in any way growing out of or resulting from this pro- posal (upon its becoming an agreement, if accepted) including, without limitation, all costs and expenses of the Issuer, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in the enforcement of any of your agreements herein contained. This indemnity shall be superseded by a similar indemnity in the Agreement and, in the event the bonds are not delivered, this indemnity shall survive the termination of the agreement resulting from your acceptance of this proposal. 7. If it becomes evident at any time, in the opinion of bond counsel to the Issuer, that the interest on the bonds will not be exempt from federal income taxation on the proposed date of delivery of the bonds, and/or that you are or will be inca- pable of or unwilling to perform your obligations under the Agreement and Note, when executed and delivered, this proposal, if accepted by you, may be terminated at the option of the Issuer, and neither party shall have any rights against the other and no third party shall have any rights against either party except as provided in paragraphs 5(a), (b) and (c) of this proposal. 8. The Issuer has not undertaken any definitive review of your financial statements, nor has it received from you a com- mitment from a lending institution in regard to the financing for the Project. The Issuer expressly reserves the right to review such statements and/or commitment and to decline to issue the bonds unless the Issuer finds that you are financially responsible and fully capable and willing to fulfill your obligations under the proposed Agreement and Note. If this proposal shall be satisfactory to you, please. execute and date the acceptance statement below, and provide an accepted copy to the Issuer, whereupon this proposal will consti- tute an agreement in principle with respect to the matters herein contained. Yours very truly, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Chairman, Board of County Commissioners (SEAL) t it ' and legal orr aM t3randenbur unt - Y Att ?Ari '55 - I w V r "�`�-.���t'S�1{°��•ii Si^.s�-i t'A, i �.�fy -' " � 5�� .�.1�" Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. September 7, 1983 Page Four tion with the construction, equipment and operation of the Project, or in any way growing out of or resulting from this pro- posal (upon its becoming an agreement, if accepted) including, without limitation, all costs and expenses of the Issuer, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in the enforcement of any of your agreements herein contained. This indemnity shall be superseded by a similar indemnity in the Agreement and, in the event the bonds are not delivered, this indemnity shall survive the termination of the agreement resulting from your acceptance of this proposal. 7. If it becomes evident at any time, in the opinion of bond counsel to the Issuer, that the interest on the bonds will not be exempt from federal income taxation on the proposed date of delivery of the bonds, and/or that you are or will be inca- pable of or unwilling to perform your obligations under the Agreement and Note, when executed and delivered, this proposal, if accepted by you, may be terminated at the option of the Issuer, and neither party shall have any rights against the other and no third party shall have any rights against either party except as provided in paragraphs 5(a), (b) and (c) of this proposal. 8. The Issuer has not undertaken any definitive review of your financial statements, nor has it received from you a com- mitment from a lending institution in regard to the financing for the Project. The Issuer expressly reserves the right to review such statements and/or commitment and to decline to issue the bonds unless the Issuer finds that you are financially responsible and fully capable and willing to fulfill your obligations under the proposed Agreement and Note. If this proposal shall be satisfactory to you, please. execute and date the acceptance statement below, and provide an accepted copy to the Issuer, whereupon this proposal will consti- tute an agreement in principle with respect to the matters herein contained. Yours very truly, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Chairman, Board of County Commissioners (SEAL) t it ' and legal orr aM t3randenbur unt - Y Att Chairman Bird asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Bill Stegkemper, real estate professional and certified property appraiser, informed the Board that he submitted 20 acres of improved property on Kings's Highway to the original site selection committee for consideration, but when the two present sites surfaced, he felt they were the best sites. He does not now feel that they are since the City does not wish to jeopardize its federal funds and there are many "ifs" involved. In addition, the total site is not contiguous, but is divided by a road right-of-way. Mr. Stegkemper then proceeded to present the advantages of the Tillis property, which is 1'h miles west of the sewer and water plant located on Lindsey Road. He pointed out that if county utilities were extended west, it would facilitate development and extend the county's tax base. He continued that the Tillis site, which is improved property with a home, barn and artesian well, plus fenced pasture, has the added advantage of being adjacent to 20 acres of undeveloped County -owned property and thus offers the possibility of a contiguous 40 acre site. Mr. Stegkemper noted that the Graves property is $7,000 per acre., the Barnes property $12,500 per acre, and the Tillis 20 acres at a price of $240,000 would be $12,000.per acre. If you consider, however, that the adjacent 20'acres is already owned by the County, Mr. Stegkemper noted you would have 40 acres for $240,000, or $6,000 per acre overall. He then brought up the 150' radio tower, which would present a problem at the site by the airport and stressed the problems and dangers connected with a remotely located radio tower. He also pointed out that if the property is leased, the County will not own it, and by law the payments must always come out of the General Revenue fund. Joseph Steinitz, county resident and taxpayer for 30 years, believed that Mr. Stegkemper's presentation has merit, especially since the property is adjacent to 20 acres of county -owned property; it is reasonably priced; and it eliminates the "ifs" 113 SEP 198 P�. SEP 7 1983 inherent with the property near the airport. Mr. Steinitz urged the Commission to give this proposal serious consideration. Commissioner Lyons noted that Mr. Stegkemper did not give any value in his presentation to the County -owned property, and both he and Chairman Bird pointed out that the parcel Mr. Stegkemper is proposing is on the edge of property that is developing into a very nice residential area. Also with the Graves property, the problem which could be created by moving the jail and the Sheriff away from the County seat would be avoided. Commissioner Lyons further noted that the architects and engineers looked at all the properties offered for consideration and came up with the Graves piece as the most desirable MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, to pur- chase the Graves property and ask the City of Vero Beach for the first right of refusal on the ten acres and continue negotiations with the Barnes family for the ten acres on the east along with arranging for a right-of- way on 43rd Avenue. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would support the Motion, but he personally would feel much better if we had 30 acres outside of the City's jurisdiction. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that if we were to purchase both pieces of property today, and then the bond referendum failed, we would have to come up with the money. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Executed contract with W.C.Graves, Jr., is hereby made a part of the Minutes. 114 3. With respect to the suggested thirty (30) acres of airport property west of and fronting on 43rd Avenue: (a) Will the City sell this property to the County at fair market value? (b) Will the City lease twenty (20) acres of this property to the County now at ten (10%) percent or less of fair market value per year under FAA guidelines and extend to the County a first right of refusal on the remaining ten (10) acres? Your cooperation -in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincere1-7,) .� Attorney Brandenburg then di right-of-way which runs to the sou properties. He informed the Board perpetual easement given to the Mi which the City retained the right purposes. There is a question whet ty Attorney ussed use of the 60' of the Graves and Barnes t this is an exclusive s industrial property, in ,o use it for municipal r the county's use of this easement for access to the jail siteis included within the term "municipal services," but it was Att rney Brandenburg's opinion that it would be. Comment ensued re the fact tha- placed on the City's agenda were Commissioner Scurlock wished to know participating -in a workshop meeting believed they did. Discrission followed on several Brandenburg reported that he had cal would be interested in any.other pos was going into the hospital that c interested in any other terms. repeated requests to be repeatedly refused. if the City approved us and Attorney Brandenburg lternatives, and Attorney ;d Mr. Barnes to see if he ible terms, but Mr. Barnes y and was not really Commissioner Lyons reported that the following i recommendations were made by members of the Public Safety Committee and the Facilities Committee when they reviewed all proposals. 111 SEP 7 1983 - � � ' SAF 57. SEP 7 1993 54 PACE 1) to purchase the Graves property; 2) to continue to negotiate with Mr. Barnes and see if a more desirable arrangement to purchase his property could be found; and 3) to negotiate for a right-of-way from 43rd Ave. and ask the City for a ten year right of first refusal on the ten acres immediately south of the Graves and Barnes properties. Commissioner Lyons continued that there was a strong feeling that they_ would prefer the property not to be in the Airport. They also felt that when you are looking for long-time use of the property, a lease on an escalating basis such as proposed was neither economical nor desirable. They would.prefer to solve the problem of additional property some other way, but felt we should keep a foot on the base by asking for first right of refusal. Commissioner Scurlock brought up his suggestion about lease/purchase where the payments could be spread out, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that the City's position has been constant that they do not want to consider a sale at all and that it would still offset funds they would receive from the federal government. Commissioner Lyons noted that we still would be subject to restrictions by the FAA if we leased the property on the airport, which restrictions could change over the years. Commissioner Wodtke commented that they are talking about a value on Airport West of $50,000 an acre, and even if we were to get 30 acres at half of that value, it would be $75,000 a year for a lease, which adds up to a very large amount over the years. He asked about some kind of an option with Mr. Barnes, possibly a 10 year option with an escalation. Commissioner Lyons confirmed that fits in with the Committee's suggestion that we go back to continue to negotiate with Mr. Barnes. We do have the option of taking the property by condemnation as a last resort, but he believed that we can get along well with 20 acres for quite some time. 112 M meet any legal considerations. In -order to avoid any problems associated with well recharge, we would respectfully ask that the County design the ultimate facility similar to -the design of Airport West, i.e., on-site retention ponds for storm water control, rather than drainage facilities designed to carry such water to an external discharge point thereby diminishing well recharge and polluting the receiving stream. 2. (a) No. (b) Yes., subject to FAA approval and a ten per cent/annum amortization rate. Also, subject to a study of the effect on and/or relocation of two water supply wells and associated raw water mains that are located in this parcel. 3. ( a) No. — (b) Yes, subject to FAA approval and a ten per cent/annum amortization rate. Also, subject to a recharge study and the relocation of any leachate monitoring wells. In response to the Council's concern regarding a future municipal golf course in this area, it appears that we could meet both County and Dodger requests and still be able to accommodate a reasonable quality municipal course. The following points apply to all sites mentioned: I. We do not propose to expend any further effort and/or expense until we have more definition of the final parcel selection. We d© not intend to proceed with MAI appraisals, well relocation or recharge studies due to the time and cost involved until further advice from the County. 2. If you elect to proceed with 1 (b-), please plan to provide your own water and sewer service. It is my understanding that this is your preference in any event. 3. If you elect to proceed with any of the other listed alternatives, under our bond covenants, we will provide water and sewer service. Both in -tract and off -tract costs would be borne by the County and our retail rate schedules would apply. 4. In all the alternatives, the usual and customary FAA approvals, rules, regulations, restrictions and reservations would apply, such as clear zone, building height and radio antennae height limitations. A complete list can be furnished by the Airport Director. Based on our telecon this morning (8/29/83), it is nw understanding that the County desires to proceed with Alternate 1 (b). I suggest that you meet -with our Attorney and the Airport Director to draft an appropriate document granting a right of first refusal. If I may be of further service, please advise. J. V. Li ttic��f City Manager 109 SEP 7 -193 .r5 w. SEP 7 138 �AcS Y w�a BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GARY M. BRANDENBURG County Attorney 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (305) 567-8000 + • CHRISTOPHER J. PAULL Asst. County Attorney (305) 567-6000 August 25, 1983 John Little City Manager City Hall a 1053 20th Place Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Placement on the City Council Agenda for September 6, 1983 or Earlier --Jail Location Dear John: Pursuant to our earlier conversation, I would formally request that this item be placed on -the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council; and if the City should have a Special Call meeting prior to September 6th, we would appreciate it if this item could be considered at that time. The County Commission has for some time debated the location of the new Criminal Justice Complex. It has been determined that twenty (20) acres will be needed immediately for the project. The site chosen must be capable of being expanded to an additional ten (10) -acres in approximately ten (10) years. The County has negotiated options on thirty (30) acres of property that fronts on South Gifford Road known as the-Graves/Barnes tract. Because these options expire on September 8, 1983, it is necessary to obtain firm responses from the City Council on several possibilities that have been suggested to the County Commission. I would respect- fully request the City Council give us firm indications on the following options: 1. With respect to the ten (10) acres of property that fronts on 43rd Avenue and is located directly to the south of the Graves property: (a) Will the City sell the property to the County at $8,000.00 per acre (i.e. valuation based on Floyd Wilkes' recent appraisal)? (b) Will the City extend to the County the "first right of refusal" on the ten (10) acre parcel thereby assuring that it would be available for expansion needs of the County after the Graves property has been fully utilized? 2. With respect to thirty (30) acres of airport property located generally between the clear zones of the two runways and which fronts on 43rd Avenue: (a) Will the City sell the property to the County at fair market value to be determined under FAA standards by a competent MAI appraiser? (b) Will the City lease twenty (20) acres now to the County for 99 years at ten (10%)' percent of fair market value or less per year under the FAA guidelines and give the County a first right of refusal on the adjoining ten - (10) acres? 110 Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. September 7, 1983 Page Five Attested and Countersigned: G�i Cler.ek, Board of aunty Commissioners Accepted by Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., on4�26- 1983. s —. President '. '�n" d tom. 1 ��`q'�r`�r��� � Ya'µ?.; r„(. t ' ; m gpfj � 'ic �'�$s"ki�^}"•'+S.A'� ,q ^h '� )t .R t s+� "V':a$AS y�,"+„dr�,gh . ..r"'S.ir ��+..,.r':g�+`+�s'y,m't ,� ,, ,} r ; �.,ta % •M t w W x ,>�. 54,ht' w sy FC �. R,. aJ s"M::•- ..�' mn yt e -'+;*i +s�',o� w*. A v , Rir �r�•x �� �'yaa- 1K s "�".� , TT .c §�S.aa s rr t3.i• =fi' C "v..T,r`,�+" �•r't -=h }�+dr+il Ta+. 'esa'c'?' At'.'^T".'9, P ,��`�4��[�sffM .rJ�•t. A""�'z' t.,; ',". ,+—�s,. 'tc'3' xs 'a"�-,"�.. ''�'a.� "�x%.a'+�i yta *—�� L 7 �y 8 �1 * SEP 7 1993 0 DISCUSSION RE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMPLEX Attorney Brandenburg noted that the County has options on the Graves and Barnes property which expire tomorrow so that it is necessary to make a determination today. The Attorney continued that he has had considerable correspondence with the City of Vero Beach, and he has now received a letter from City Manager Little answering the questions posed in his letter of August 25th. It is his understanding that the City Council has formally jipproved Mr. Little's comments. Said letters are as follows: City of Vero Beach P. 0. BOX 1389 - 1033 - 20th PLACE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32960 Tekphow 367-5151 OFF= Or THe CITY MANAGER Gary M. Brandenburg County Attorney 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Your letter of August 25, 1983 Sale vs Lease of Airport Land for Justice Complex August 29, 1983 u v - •, ^ cacti"'�. pose Dear Gary: I am grateful for your letter. It is time something was reduced to writing. In* order to provide clarity and continuity, I am enclosing the following documents: 1. Your letter of August 25, 1983 2. My memo to Council of August 26, 1983 3. A copy of the Agreement the City would have to execute to gain FAA approval for the sale of airport land. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication and confirming Council action of August 26, 1983, I will respond to your letter in the same format as presented. 1. (a) No. (b) Yes, subject to FAA approval and for a term of at least ten years at no cost or a minimum cost of say Ten Dollars/annum in order to 108 P'a 1R� I E, and �INDIAN �] j o as "Seller me 5U 2182 ). )F FLf)RI nA . as "Buyer'.. of 1 null ) I H .> 1 HF F i i V t - Kr) rstaCMIP LC1R I DA )Lyt-)J I _ (PhoneL��- �a�+�_ ). hereby agree that the Seller shell sell and Buyer shall buy the following property upon the following terms and conditions WHICH INCLUDE the Standards For Real Estate Transactions on the reverse hereof or attached hereto, hereinafter referred to as "3tandard(s)". I. DESCRIPTION: r� (a) Legal description of real estate ("Property") located in IND 1 aN R T VER County. Florida: SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED AND MADE A PART THEREOF (b) Street address, if any, of the Property being conveyed is NONE (c) Personal property included: PONE - PROPERTY IS VACANT, EXCEPT FOR WELLS II. PURCHASEPRICE:..SEE..SPEC.I•AL. CLAUSE W. -ON. FXHIB•IT •"Af`• • • • $ i4niLi o. nn PAYMENT: (a) Deposit(s) to be held in escrow by in the amount of . . .$ (b) Subject to AND assumption of Mortgage in favor of bearing interest at % per annum' and payable as to principal and interest $ per month, having an approximate present principal balance of . . . . $ (c) Purchase money mortgage and note bearing interest at % on terms set forth herein below, in the principal amount of ... ............ .. . ... . . . ... .. . .. . ........ .... ......$ (d) Other $ (e) Balance to close, (U.S. cash, certified or cashier's check) subject to adjustments and prorations . . . . . . . . .$ TOTAL .....$ _i 4n, 4go . no III. FINANCING: 1f the purchase price or any part thereof is to be financed by a third party loan, this Contract for Sale and Purchase; ("Contract"), is con- ditioned upon the Buyer obtaining a firm commitment for said loan within n( i n days from date hereof, at an interest rate not to exceed %; term of years; and in the principal amount of $ I +t �i �r+l Buyer agrees to make application for, and to use reasonable dill- gence to obtain said loan. Should Buyer fail to obtain same or to waive Buyer's rights hereunder within said time, either party may cancel Contract. IV. TITLE EVIDENCE: Within iL s- days from date of Contract, Seller shall, at his expense, deliver to Buyer or his attorney, in accordance with Standard A., either (CHECK) 0(1) or ®(2): (1) abstract, or (2) title insurance commitment with fee owner's title policy premium to ba paid b Seiler at closing. V. TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE AND EFFECTIVE DATE: If this offer is not executed by both of the parties hereto on or before #q�;F()W the aforesaid deposit(s) shall be, at the option of Buyer, returned to him and this offer shall thereafter be null and J void.l., he date of Contract ("Effective Date") shall be the date when the last one of the Seller and Buyer has signed this offer. L15 S (� F THE, VI. CLOSING DATE: This transaction shall be closed and the deed and other closing papers delivered H I N Y ` 19 _,,unless extended by other provisions of Contract. F F ECT I VE DATE V1 I. RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, LIMITATIONS: The Buyer shall take title subject to: Zoning, restrictions, prohibitions and -other requirements imposed by governmental authority; Restrictions and matters appearing on the plat or otherwise common to the subdivision; Public utility easements of record, (provided said easements are located contiguous throughout the property lines and are not more than 10 feet in width as to the rear or front lines and 7% feet in width as to the side lines. unless otherwise specified herein); Taxes for year of closing and subsequent years, assumed mortgages end purchase money mortgages, Ifany; other: - NINF N F provided, however, that none of the foregoing shall prevent use of the Property for the purpose of A C RI.M MAL bLUS LCE—E' AC i L 1 TY . . Vlll. OCCUPANCY: Seiler represents that there are no parties in occupancy other than Seller, but if Property Is intended to be rented or occupied beyond closing, the fact and terms thereof shall be stated herein, and the tenant(s) shall be disclosed pursuant to Standard G. Seiler agrees to deliver occupancy of Property at time of closing unless otherwise specified below. if occupancy. Is to be delivered prior to closing, Buyer assumes all risk of loss to Property from date of occu- pancy, shall be responsible and liable for maintenance thereof from said date, and shall be deemed to have accepted the Property, real and personal, in its existing condition as of time of taking occupancy unless otherwise noted in writing. IX. ASSIGNABILITY: (CHECK ONE) Buyer ❑may assign] may not assign, Contract. X. TYPEWRITTEN OR HANDWRITTEN PROVISIONS: Typewritten or handwritten provisions inserted herein or attached hereto as Addenda shall control ail printed provisions in conflict therewith. XI. INSULATION RIDER: If Contract is used for the sale of a new residence, the Insulation Rider shall be attached hereto and made a part hereof. XII. SPECIALCLAUSES: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO 30 DAYS FOLLOWING EXECUTION BY SELLER ----------------�- i THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. IF NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD, SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO SIGNING. THIS FORM HAS SEEN APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA ASSOCIAT)ON OF REALTORS AND TAC FLORIDA BAR Copyright 1981 by The Florida Bar and the Florida Association of -REALTORS WITNES • (Two recommended but N required) 7 WITNESSES: (Two recommended but NOT required) Deposits) under I (a) received; if check, subject to vearanca. Executed by I ";P, I A"d l (SEAL) RICHARD N, BIRD (Buyer' CHAIRMAN (SEAL) f (Buyer) Executed by Seller on r>Pi_ W.Lr 6RAVC ,JR,(�„ (Seer) n61 J1 /� 1 A "Q 1 ",-4,, (SEAL) AUDREY GRAVL (Seiler) By; .(Escrow Agent) BROKERAGE FEE; Seller agrees pay the registered real estate Broker name ' alo ti f closing, from the disbursements of the proceeds of sale, com- pensation In the amount of �_% of gross purchase price or $ _�% , for his services in effectinWQ�h sale by finding a Buyer, ready, willing and able to purchase pursuant to the foregoing Contract. In the event Buyer fails to perform and deposit(s) is retained,JSo thereof, but not exceeding the Broker's fee above computed, shall be paid to the Broker, as full consideration for Breker's services Including costs expended by Broker, and the balance shall be paid to Seller. If the transaction shall not be closed because of refusal or failure of Seiler to perform, the Seller shall pay said fee in full to Broker on demand. p Al T)4(SEAL) 1✓ir'+ f r (SEAL) 7 (Name of Broker) SER - (SEAL) 0 SEP 7 1983 562 EXHIBIT "A" (a) Final purchase price shall be calculated at a rate of $7,000 per acre of fee simple property actually conveyed, and adjustments shall be made to reflect total acreage conveyed following survey of property to be prepared at Buyer's expense. (b) This offer is extended to Buyer as an exclusive offer to sell for the period described in Clause V, and Seller agrees not to negotiate or accept other contracts or offers on the property during such period without Buyer's written consent. EXHIBIT '"B" THE WEST 10.07 ACRES OF THE EAST 20.07 ACRES OF -TRACT 12 AND THE EAST 10 ACRES OF THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 12; SECTION 27, TOWMSHIP-32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LAND OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS CO., FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25. EXCEPTING THEREFROM R/W FOR DRAINAGE CANALS AND PUBLIC ROADS, THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. EXTENSION OF CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE W. C. GRAVES, JR. and AUDREY GRAVES, his wife, hereby xil extend Paragraph VM Spy#cial Clauses so that it may be executed on or before September 8, 1983, by INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. All other provisions of the attached Contract for Sale and Purchase remain of festive s ness xce s ecifically modified herein. W. C. GRA S, JR. AUDREY GRAV 116 TRANSFER OF SITE PLAN APPROVALS Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the following memo: TO: Members of the Board of DATE: August 31, 1983 FILE: County Commissioners SUBJECT: Transfer of Site Plan Approvals FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg REFERENCES: County Attorney Recently the County has been approached by three different devel- opers requesting the approval to transfer site plans on properties to new owners of their projects. The Zoning Code provides: "In the event the property receiving site plan approval shall be sold, transferred, leased or the ownership thereof changed in any way, the site plan approval shall become null and void." I have checked County files, the staff's recollection as well as the recollection of the current and past Planning and Zoning Chairpersons on the application of this section. I have not been abie'to find any projects where site plans have been rendered void. by its operation although we know some approved projects have changed ownerships. This leads to the conclusion that either the provision has not been literally applied or enforced or that legal - devices such as the use of the corporate form of ownership has been used to avoid the.provision. This, of course, defeats the intent -,o the provision, which appears to have been to allow the County to keep a running tab on who owns and who is developing the various projects and to assure that new owners are aware of and agree to comply with all site plan provisions. Therefore, I have interpreted the provision to mean that site plans are voidable if the new owner does not receive the approval of the Board of County Commissioners prior to the transfer...At the time of such approval the County can review the ability of the new applicant to meet requirements of the site plan as well as to require a written agreement to that effect. It should be noted that this interpretation is consistent with the Board of County Commissioners' position as set forth for transfers of preliminary plat approvals in the new subdivision ordinance. I would recommend that the Board approve and adopt the interpreta- tion set forth in this memorandum and, secondly, instruct staff to prepare an ordinance revision clarifying this section and elimi- nating any future ambiguity. 117 SEP '7193 Respely 't d, �7_ y Brandenbur r4- n,563 I EP 7 1983 Commissioner Wodtke believed we should follow the procedure we seem to have fallen into and make the necessary change in the ordinance so that the site plan approval can be transferred if approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Attorney Steve Henderson felt there should be some time limit provision also. He felt the wording is a bit vague as many developments are done in phases, and he had a problem seeing how this could be applied after construction has commenced. Attorney Brandenburg felt the provision could be worded so that it would void only the parts of the site plan that had not started construction. Henry Muller, developer, confirmed that most developers do not build an entire project all in one piece. He. pointed out that if there were even one sale to a condominium purchaser, for instance, a cancellation of site plan approval would affect the title. Attorney Brandenburg agreed that this section of the ordinance is very ambiguous and that is why he is suggesting it be rewritten. He felt that we do need, however, to determine if the transfer is to a responsible person and also to keep track of what is happening to the property. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted the interpretation set forth in the Attorney's memo of August 31st and instructed the Attorney to prepare the appropriate ordinance revision. TRANSFER OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL - DORAN The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: 118 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 26, 1983 FILE: ._ of the Board of County Commissioners TRANSFER OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT HEAD`CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Renta g,,CP Planning & zoning Ma ager FROM: ,'T,I REFERENCES: ne V.Goetzfried Transfer of S/P Staff Planner CLARE It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on September 7, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS In February of 1982, the Planning and zoning Commission approved the site plan application submitted by Donald Doran to construct Sebastian Bay Condominiums. The approved development plan for the 17 acre tract, located between U.S. Highway #1 and the IncTian River south of Floravon Shores,"depicts a 136 unit multi -family residential complex centered around recreational amenities. A one year extension of the site plan was granted in February of this year. Presently, Mr. Doran's attorney is negotiating a contract with a. second party for a purchase of the site with Mr. Doran retaining a participating interest therein. Under Section 23 of the Zoning Ordinance a transfer of title to property renders approval of a site plan for.that property null and void. However, the County Commission does have the authority to waive the nullification of site plan approval, provided the Commission approves the.transfer of the property and obtains such assurances as it deems necessary that the new owner will proceed to develop the site and assume the obligations of the owner under the original site plan. It is the request of Mr. Doran that such a waiver be granted,by the Commission. ANALYSIS The site plan application was considered to be a transition petition under the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and as such does'.not conform to the maximum allowable den"ty'as specified by the 1982 Plan. The subject property is designated LD -2 (up to 6 dwelling units/acre), while the application proposes the construction of 8 dwelling units/acre. The subject property is located within the 100 Year Flood Plain and' therefore the site plan depicts an established grade of 8h feet as approved by the Public Works Director under the provisions of Section 23K, the previously effective Drainage Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Taking into consideration the previous dredge and fill activities and the proposed land improvements, it would be in the County's best interest to approve the transfer of title and grant the waiver of site plan approval nullification with the following conditions that the -new owner shall be required to apply for a Type "B" Stormwater Permit under the provisions of the recently adopted County Stormwater Drainage Ordinance 82-8. 119 F P -7 1983 d K 54 Itnui I SEP 7 1983 Commissioner Scurlock was surprised that none of the adjoining property owners were present as they had been quite vocal in raising objections at an earlier meeting; he asked if they had been notified. Attorney Brandenburg stated that the ordinance has no requirement for such notification on a transfer of site plan approval. Attorney Henderson pointed out that they are not asking for an extension of site plan approval, just a transfer. He explained the financial problems enzountered by the Dorans in obtaining development money, noting that they now have a contract with Mr. Muller for mortgage money and will transfer title to Mr. Muller. It appears that staff recomm:nds approval of the transfer of site plan approval subject to the condition that a Type "B" Stormwater Permit be applied for. Mr. Henderson expressed concern that if such a permit is required, it would appear the property could not be developed under the site plan due to the on-site storage requirements. Mr. HE.nderson noted that they only had notice of this new condition today and did not have time to analyze it. Commissioner Scurlock felt we should give the applicant time to analyze this, and in the meantime give the adjacent owners an opportunity to be present. Attorney Henderson believed the sole issue for the Board to consider is whether the buyer is going to perform under the site plan under the conditions placed on .him by the county. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he has made it clear for the record that while he believed it was only fair that situations which got caught in the transition period should be granted a one year extension, he did not feel they should be granted any further extensions because the densities are higher than under the existing plan. On top of that he has a problem with the adjacent owners not being present. 120 Commissioner Lyons stated that on a transfer of a site plan, he could not go along with changing the rules in the middle of the game. Commissioner Scurlock felt the developer has changed the rules. He has already gotten the one extension which has allowed him to develop at the higher density. Commissioner Lyons pointed out that the extension is still in force until-next`February. Chairman Bird felt the issue before us today is whether or not we are going to approve the transfer of this plan to Mr. Muller, and if so, whether we are going to impose new requirements that weren't a part of the existing site plan. It was generally agreed that is the issue. Henry Muller informed the Board that he has never had a problem with development in this county and he has already spoken to the people in Floravon Shores; it seems their primary concern is that their wells will be depleted. He reported that the proposed development will be getting its water from General Development and will, therefore, not deplete the neighbor's wells. This will, in fact, probably give them an opportunity to get sewer service. Mr. Muller stressed that all he wants to do is step in Mr. Doran's shoes and'carry through his project with no further'extensions,or changes in the site plan. He is able to do this financially. The only problem is the new stormwater drainage requirement, and Mr. Muller felt if that is made a condition, that site will never be developed. He stated that he will live up to everything that was called for in the approved site plan and promised that he would not come back to the Board and ask for an extension. The only change he proposed is to make the buildings more attractive. Mr. Muller believed the subject site is one of the best on the west side of the Indian River and also believed that there will be no more such developments along the Indian River with the new stormwater drainage requirements. 121 SEP 7 1983 e - J S E P 7 1983 54 racF � Chairman Bird asked if Public Works Director Davis had any problem with the drainage of this property, and Mr. Davis stated he had no problem with the drainage. The problem is with the 100 year flood plain requirements, i.e., the water you displace must go elsewhere and any fill you place in the flood plain must be offset by a like amount of storage area. The 10 year flood plain is less restrictive. Mr. Davis pointed out that Pelican Point handled the ordinance and he disagreed that no more projects could be .carried out along the Indian River because of this requirement. Chairman Bird also had a problem with changing the rules in the middle of the game. Mr. Muller stated that if the provision is required, he will have to bow out of -the project. He emphasized that he always designs to take care of drainage and the site has a two acre lake in the center with steep sides. He believed the fill requirements of the site are such that to comply with the new provision of the ordinance would be physically impossible. Mr. Muller pointed out that, in any event, only 600' of the riverbank will be developed this way as all new plans will have to meet the new requirement. Debate continued with Commissioner Scurlock objecting to extending plans and vesting in higher densities, and Mr. Muller stressing that the neighbors are being satisfied and he will comply with the plan as approved. Some discussion ensued regarding the exact person or entity to which the transfer would be made, and Mr. Muller stated that the transfer would be Henry J. Muller in a corporate form. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner Scurlock voted in opposition,'the Board by a 4 to 1 vote approved the transfer of the Doran site plan approval to Henry Muller, eliminating 122 the provision requiring application for a Type "B" Stormwater Drainage Permit, and with the understanding that there will be no further extension of the site plan approval when it expires in February of 1984. Letter re transfer of title is made a part of the Minutes as follows: ROBERT F. JAFFE ,�' "fti� ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 3339 CARDINAL DRIVE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32963 TELEPHONE (305) 231-9790 ;fes _•• �; 3 0:� r September 8, 1983 VZI.7.�� . Gary Brandenburg, Esq. ! ' .. _ Indian River County Attorney f ' County Administration Building`"=`'' 1840 25th- Street `,._ _.... __ - .: .-, • Vero Beach, Florida 32960 RE. County Commission Meeting 9/7/83 ` _.•;carr Agenda Item No. 21E Dear Mr. Brandenburg: With reference to the above -stated agenda item, relating to the transfer of site plan approval from Donald Doran.to Henry J. Muller, please be advised that Mr. Muller intends to take title j through a Florida corporation named Muller Enterprises, Inc., the sole shareholders of which, with their percentages of owner- } ship, are as_follows: Henry J. Muller 50% Jack Schleifer 50% Mr. Muller will be the President and Chief Executive Officer of the corporation and will have complete responsibility for the design and construction of the project to be built pursuant to the site plan. If there is any further information about this matter with which I can furnish you, please do not hesitate to let me know. Yo s very truly, \ oma• Robert F Jaff Attorney #mor H rTMuller S EP 7 -1883 123 n �',t?OK SEP 7 1983 5. Pa:I 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. 87550 - 87813 inclusive. Such bills and accounts being on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the warrants so issued from the respective bonds being listed'in the Supplemental Minute Book as provided by the rules of the Legislative Auditor, reference to such record and list so recorded being made a part of these Minutes. There being no further business, on Motion made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 5:40 o'clock P.M. Attest: C�4- ki-a- 46U id - Clerk 124 Chairman