Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/5/1983October 5, 1983 ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Lyons requested the addition to today's Agenda of a discussion re the library parking lot. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the above item to today's Agenda. Attorney Brandenburg requested the addition to today's Agenda of a discussion re the financing of a County water line to extend out SR #60. 5 . roc€ 824 OCT 1003 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, October 5,.1983, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., 'Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman. and Patrick B. Lyons. Chairman Richard Ii -."Bird and William _ C. Wodtke, Jr. were out of state on vaca'l-ion. Also present were L. S. "Tommy". Thomas, Community Services Director; Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. ' Barton, OMB Director; Lt. Kurt L. Kuehn, Bailiff; Barbara Bonnah and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerks. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Reverend Stan Sanford, First Baptist Church, Wabasso, gave the invocation and Commissioner Lyons led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Lyons requested the addition to today's Agenda of a discussion re the library parking lot. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the above item to today's Agenda. Attorney Brandenburg requested the addition to today's Agenda of a discussion re the financing of a County water line to extend out SR #60. 5 . roc€ 824 OCT 1003 QCT 1983 BOOK 1 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the above item to today's Agenda. Commissioner Lyons requested the addition to today's Agenda of a discussion re the impact of new population on jail, courtroom and Sheriff's Dept. requirements. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the above item to today's Agenda. Commissioner Lyons requested the addition to today's Agenda of a discussion re helping Harbor Branch Foundation dredge a channel. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the above item to today's Agenda. DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA Administrator Wright requested the postponement of Item 11A - Approval of Lease Agreement re County Parks Superintendent. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously postponed the above item until the Board meeting of October 19, 1893. E APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 9/7/83. Commissioner Bowman requested that the spelling of Mr. Fudge on Page 66 be corrected to read, "Mr. Futch". ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman., the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 9/7/83, as corrected. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 9/7/83. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 9/7/83, as written. CLERK TO THE BOARD A. Approval of New Applications for a Permit to Carry a Concealed Firearm The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/26/83: 3 OUT 1983 B. MK Pry OCT 5 1933 NVK TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: Sept. 26, 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: Arthur C. Jacobs Jack Carl Regan All requirements of Ordinance 82-27 have been met and are in order. It is therefore recommended a pistol permit be issued to the above. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the issuance of a concealed pistol permit for the following persons: Jack Carl Regan Arthur C. Jacobs CONSENT AGENDA A. Adoption of Resolution --Amending Res. 83-76, Health Dept. Fees The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/22/83: 4 TO. Members of the Board DATE: September 22, 1983 FILE: of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Resolution Amending Resolution No. 83-76 FROM: Christopher J. Paull REFERENCES: Assistant County Attorney At the request of Dr. Cindy Lookabaugh, the attached resolution is being requested to allow the Health Department to provide a flu vaccine service this winter. Local health units are having to supply this service out of their own budgets this year due to the absence of federal grant monies which were available in past years. The $5.00 charge is to cover the cost of supplies and vaccine. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED -by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-98 amending Res. 83-76, establishing a fee schedule for flu vaccination. 5 OCT 57 OCT 5 1983 RESOLUTION NO. 83- 98 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83-76, ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR FLU VACCINATION. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that Resolution No. 83-76 is hereby amended to include the following fee for a clinical service to be provided by the County Health Unit, which fee was inadvertently omitted from the fee schedule attached to the aforementioned resolution at the time of its adoption: Influenza Vaccination (flu shot) $5.00 This amendment is effective immediately and the remainder of Resolution No. 83-76 shall remain in full force and effect as originally approved. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Bowman 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 Absent Vice -Chairman -Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 5th J/�� Attest: � FREDA WRIGHT, C1k APPROVED A TO FORM AND L UF F CIENCY By CHRISTER J. PAULL Assistant County Attorney day of October , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By�G'A— Don C. Scurlock, J Vice Chairman 1.1 � r � B. Authorization for Chairman to sign South Beach Water System Improvements The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/26/83: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 26, 1983 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright SOUTH BEACH WATER SYSTEM County Administrator SUBJECT: IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I ENGINEER'S PROJECT NO. 7701 CHANGE ORDER #3 A) Description of changes FROM: Terrance G. Pinto REFERENCES:B) Justification for Utility Services Director change order #3 C) Line item description DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Sverdrup and Parcel, engineers for the South Beach Water System Impr=ovements Phase I, is recommending Change Order #3 be approved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with engineers and recommends the Board authorize the Chairman to sign Change Order #3. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign South Beach Water System improvements, Phase I, Engineer's Project No. 7701, Change Order #3. (Ortega Industrial Contractors) 7 OCT 5 198 OCT 5 1983 SECTION M CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FCR tax Contract No. Date September 21, 1983 Change Order No. 3 Location Indian River County, Florida To: (Contractor) —Ortega Industrial Contractors You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract drawings & specificatioi Item No. Description of Changes - Quantities, Units, Unit Prices, Change in Completion Schedule, Etc. 2 Decrease in Contract Price 3 Increase in Contract Nri. q �2) (3) (4) See Attachment "A" $359.00 $600.00 $952.00 (5) (6) $1250.00 $ 550.00 Change in contract price due to this Change Order: ' Total Decrease Total Increase Difference between Col. (3) and (4): Net Ximmmagec) (decrease) contract price $fir. xxxxxxxxxx: xxxxxxxxxxx7,911 �uu $ $ 310.00 $ 310.00 IS The sum of S 310.00 is hereby 199189W deducted from, the total contract price, a the total adjusted contract price to date thereby is S_ 681, 020.50 The time provided for completion in the contract is unchanged, xiiiiititMOi AWWWW , by -0- calendar days. This document shall become an amendment to the contract and all. provisions of t contract will apply herd Accepted by: i 6 ; b - cost of Recommended by: Requested by: NOTE: Work performed under this change order prior to risk. Date TDate —T� Dace Owner's concurrence is at the Contractc Approves :, .to and le uttofi B% ar randenburq :.,r� Attorney ����`� 14�¢�"xk s,,,.u.,a*•+ b��' �u.,� �, �"�.w;"'�s�,"��i{,����5/•'Y•'t'��r'�`�'�?3.«�y'+c�'�� °1�rr,,��,•�`nia��zcY.i x� �:4t' ».y r , -ATTACHMENT "A" Item No. Descriptions of changes, quantities Decrease i -n Increase it Unit Prices, changes in completion date,etc. _ Contra_ ct,Price Contract Pr - (1) Provide and install the following valves and pipe fittings at the Fire Booster Station tie-in $359.00 near AIA. (a) 14" M. J. Plug (1) (b) 16" M. J. Plug (1) (2) Install the following valves provided by the City of Vero Beach. $600.00 (a) 14" F1g. Butterfly Valve with Accessories (1) (b) 14" Uni-Flg. for Butterfly Valve (2) (c) 16" M.J. Butterfly Valve with Accessories (1) (3) Provide and install the following pipe fittings at $952.00 line work and miscellaneous tie-ins. (a) 10" M.J. Retainer Glands (6) (b) 12" M.J. Retainer Glands (5) (c) 14" M.J. Retainer Glands (6) (4) Delete the following valves and pipe fittings (stored on site) at the Fire.Booster Station tie-ins near AIA. (5) (6) (a) 10" M.J. Plug (2) (b) 14" x 10" P.E. P.E. Reducer (1) $1,421.00 (c) 16" x 10" P.E. P.E. Reducer (1) (d) 10" M.J. Gate Valve (2) (e) 12" M.J. Gate Valve (1) Delete painting floor in Potable Water $ 250.00 and fire Booster Stations Delete marblecrete finish on exterior of the $ 550.00 Fire Booster Station. TAC OCT 5 1983 OUT 5 1993 ATTACHMENT "B" JUSTIFICATION OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 South Beach Water System Improvements — Phase I Indian River County, F1 Item 1 - Pipe. Fittings for New Valves As a result of the deletion of pipe fittings and valves as descti-bed in Item 4, it is necessary to provide and install a 14" and 16" M,J. plug at the points of tie-in to the existing 12" waterline. Item 2 - Installation of New Valves The City of Vero Beach requested the installation of two (2) valves in the supply and discharge piping to and from the Fire Booster Station at the existing 12" waterline located in the AiA right-of-way. This request was made in an effort to isolate the Fire Booster Station system piping from the existing 12" waterline in case of a pipe line break in said system. The City of Vero Beach has supplied to the Contractor, the two valves required for installation. This Item represents the labor cost to install the -valves. Item 3 - Retainer Gland Installation The City of Vero Beach has requested the Contractor to provide and install retainer glands on new and existing valves and fittings in the system as preventative maintenance measures in case of emergency situations such as line breaks. The retainer glands purpose is to securethe valve or fitting to the line so that under a situation of replacing pipe in the system, there is less likely hood of a valve or fitting blowing off under system pressure. Item 4 - Deletion of Proposed Valves & Fittings - It has been determined that the proposed system can operate and function effectively with the deletion of valves and fittings originally intended for installation at the tie-ins at the Fire Booster Station. The deletion of two 10" and one 12" M.J. valve, as well as two reducers and two plugs is warranted in lieu of the 14" and 16" M.J. plugs provided in Item 1. Item 5 - Deletion of Painting Floors in Pumping Stations There are expected long term maintenance problems associated with the use of the portable crane in the buildings as to the effects of that traffic on the painted floor itself. It is recommended the floors not be painted to lessen future repainting which may occur. Item 6 - Deletion of Marblecrete Finish on Exterior of Fire Booster Station. As a result of discussions between the South County Fire District and Indian River County is has been determined the exterior of the Fire Booster Station would be surfaced with a wood finish rather than a stucco or marblecrete finish in an effort to match the exterior of the proposed fire station to be constructed on the same site. The exterior of the building will be surfaced by the contractor constructing the new fire station. T� hii).;y .,`} S 3 *�yY`"°a�A Y _. j �' `t° ' J �+ � G Mw}' •, _ - .✓�.�'�`. _ ? ,i :wi" :•'+S'i'l�i�}L ,�'* - , �i .�. e fb •" ��Q��pyy�(�� g®pj� � Y✓Y�w' . .. .. .. .. L'- t _ r.4 F_ ATTACHMENT "C" E No. C-0! 2_ DATE 9-16-83 BY JMK ,IOg SOUTH BEACH WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SH _1—OF3— CLIENT INDIAN RIVER MINTY A&E LOCATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COST COOK f1'tC. :ECT. OR owe0 ITEM DESCRIPTION - UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL SU •O. CONTRACT R OTHER TOTAL LABOR MAIL. LAGOR MATL. RECAP: SHEET #2 ILAJ 486 985 14 sn 1,821, SUBTOTAL: 25% LABOR TAXES/5% SALES TAX 122 49 — 17 SUBTOTAL: I,h AnR 1,014 OVERHEAD & PROFI 5 299 SUBTOTAL r I y ADDITIONAL BOND PREMIUM 23 SUBTOTAL RECAP: SHEET #3 CREDITS '.W TOTAL CHANGE ORDER: DEDUCTIVE aur'_ (310) rr• ILAJ 1� I,h r I y z� cn '.W aur'_ I k% - Russ mousTRW comcm E -No. C.O. NO. 3 DATE 9-16-83 By JMK ,loe SOUTH BEACH WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SH. 2 OF 3 CLIENT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY A&E ,SVERDRUP E PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES LOCATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY , COST COD[ S►[C. S[CT. OWGo ITEM O[SCRIPTION r.v QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL SUO. CONTRACT OR OTN[R TOTAL LASOR MATL. LAmom MATL. CHANGE ORDER PROPOSA MODIFICATIONS TO PIPING SYSTEM a FIRE BOOSTER STATION (TIE-INS NEAR A1A) 41 14" M.J. PLUG EA 1 30 93 30 93 — 123 16" M.J. PLUG EA 1 35 s� Nr�L rr 122 -- ,i " FLANGE BUTTERFLY VALVE 1A yr gir rur I 80 ea.} — } 63 '^ y4ti 14" UNI -FLANGE EA 2 45 -- 90 — — 90 C.P.- 90 9 — — 90 C.I. VALVE BOX EA 2 12 k% - Russ mousTRW comcm E -No. C.O. NO. 3 DATE 9-16-83 By JMK ,loe SOUTH BEACH WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SH. 2 OF 3 CLIENT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY A&E ,SVERDRUP E PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES LOCATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY , COST COD[ S►[C. S[CT. OWGo ITEM O[SCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL SUO. CONTRACT OR OTN[R TOTAL LASOR MATL. LAmom MATL. CHANGE ORDER PROPOSA MODIFICATIONS TO PIPING SYSTEM a FIRE BOOSTER STATION (TIE-INS NEAR A1A) 14" M.J. PLUG EA 1 30 93 30 93 — 123 16" M.J. PLUG EA 1 35 122 35 122 -- 157 " FLANGE BUTTERFLY VALVE EA 1 80 — 80 — — 80 14" UNI -FLANGE EA 2 45 -- 90 — — 90 6" M.J 90 9 — — 90 C.I. VALVE BOX EA 2 12 50 24 100 — 124 CONC. VALVE BOX PAD EA 2 12 12_ 24 24 -- 48 FREIGHT TO RETURN FITTINGS LBS '2940 -- — — — 350 350 10" M.J. RETAINER GLAND EA 6 5 26 30 156 — 186 12" M.J. RETAINER GLAND EA 5 7 38 35 190 — 225 14" M.J. RETAINER GLAND EA 6 8 50 48 300 -- 348 486 985 350 1821 1 E -NO. C`O_NO. 3-- DATE 9-16-83 By JMK JOB S01LTH 'REACH WATER SYSTEMS IMPRQUEMENIS SH _3_OF 3 CLIENT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY A&E SVFRnRIIP F P RM ANn ASSOC_ LOCATION IMIAN RIVER COUNTY COST- CODE SPEC. SECT. OWG0 ITEM E M D ESC R -IIT I O N UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL SUR. CONTRACT OR OTHER TOTAL LABOR MATL. LASOR MATL. CREDITS: 10" M.J. PLUG EA 2 20 25 40 93 a gn 1411 X 10" PE PE REDUCER EA 1 35 95 35 95 — 130 1611 X 1011 PE PE REDUCER EA 1 40 11,1 40 111 — 151 SUBTOTAL 115 256 371 15% LABOR TAXES15Z SALES, TAX 29 113 47ti 144 269 ^- 413 10" M.J.. GATE VALVE EA 2 100 344 200 688 — 888 12t1 M.J. GATE VALVE EA 1 110 413 110 413 523 PAINT POTABLE STATION•FLOOR 1 LS --- -- 100 1Q0 PAINT FIRE STATION FLOOR 1 LS — --150 150 MARBLECRETE O1 FIRE STATION 1 LS -- 454 1370 800 2624 F.9 m F -- U r1983 OCT 5 c: �7 . C. Approval to Expend Funds - Landfill The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/19/83: TO: Honorable Members of the Board DATE: September 19, 1983 FILE: of County Commissioners THRJ: Terrance G. Pinto' SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO EXPEND FUNDS Utilities Directo FROM: Jos h A. Baird REFERENCES: Administrative Manager The. Landfill's 'Borrow Pit Pump" requires major repairs at an estimate cost of $10,000 to $15,000. Before these funds can be expended from the Renewal and Replacment account, it is required in Section 15B(5) of the Landfill bond covenants that prior approval must be gotten from Post Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., and the Board of County Commissioners. Attached is a copy of Post Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan's letter of approval, and Section 15B(5) of the bond covenants. We recommend the Board follow the decision of the Landfill's administration and engineers, Post Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., in approving these funds to be expended. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the expenditure of funds from the Renewal and Replacement account for major repairs to the "Borrow Pit Pump" at the Indian River County Sanitary Landfill. ANNUAL REPORT-- URBAN FORESTER Paul Palmiotto, Urban Forester, presented his Annual Report to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Lyons felt that Mr. Palmiotto was a great asset to the County and expressed appreciation of his fine achievements. Vice Chairman Scurlock advised Mr. Palmiotto that if 9 W a problem does arise in re to the State funding his position for next year to let the Board know so that they can consider some additional funding. Commissioner Lyons hoped that the press will give good coverage of Mr. Palmiotto's report so that the public can fully appreciate the efforts of the Urban Forester. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously accepted the Annual Report of the Urban Forester. Mr. Palmiotto gave a short slidefilm presentation which consisted of slides of various County landscaping projects: Wabasso Beach Park Gifford Park Beach Accesses Intersection of SR 60 and U.S. #1 Blue Cypress Lake - boat ramp Protection of oak trees at Fellsmere School Student LEEP Program REPORT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK PROPOSED COUNTY WATER LINE OUT STATE ROAD 60 Attorney Brandenburg explained that potential developers out on SR 60 have approached the County to work with them to construct a water line to serve their future developments. County Administration has looked at three alternatives, has come up with three different routes, and is now looking for the most feasible way to share construction costs for a water line out SR 60 in such a manner that County rate payers will not suffer any increased f costs as a result of that line being constructed. One of the suggestions was that the developers form some sort of a 10 OCT 5 1983 54 PACE P38 0 C 5 1983 t k corporation and thereafter approach the County for the issuance of industrial revenue bonds or some other revenue bond type financing. Our bond counsel has been contacted and has indicated several feasible alternatives, one of which would be for the developers to form a corporation with each developer giving the corporation certain guarantees of revenues and other money sources. This then would be combined into a package by that corporation, and the source of revenue for the bonds would be the guarantee of that corporation only. There would be no rates or other sources of revenue pledged by the County and the bonds would be privately placed. Attorney Brandenburg felt that another potential to be considered would be for the developers who are interested in the initial construction of that line to voluntarily request assessment of their properties over the years as a source of revenue. He reported that the developers have approached the County in this regard; staff is working with them and wish to know if the Board has any suggestions as to how to proceed. Vice Chairman Scurlock agreed with the concept for service to .those areas and felt that all the vehicles mentioned by Attorney Brandenburg should be explored and brought back to the Board at the appropriate time for action. He pointed out that Phase VI at Village Green was not included in any franchise, which would add approximately 600 units to this water line, making it more economically feasible. Commissioner Lyons asked what could be put together the quickest and safest, as far as the County is concerned. Attorney Brandenburg felt that the easiest and quickest route to go would be the voluntary assessment route, and he suggested that we lay the various approaches out before the developers to see which way they want to go. Prior to the 11 County proceeding with any more effort in analyzing this or hiring consultants or bond counsel, he felt we need to require certain indemnification and agreement from the developers indicating they will pay all of our costs in the endeavor. Attorney Brandenburg noted that it is important that this matter go forward as quickly as possible as these developers have projects underway now; they need the line to be constructed and completed within a year, which is a'very tight timeframe for such a major line. Commissioner Lyons asked where we stand with the order of our priorities in regard to the subdivisions in the Oslo Road area. He wanted assurance that the County was following through on -the commitment made during that workshop meeting. Administrator Wright stated they were not ready with that matter, but would be bringing it back to the Board in the very near future. Vice. Chairman Scurlock felt that Attorney Brandenburg had been given enough direction to go ahead on this. Attorney Brandenburg advised that the most important thing here was to set the structure and work out the figures and noted that they will be needing someone with financial expertise to assist them so that when the figures are set, they will be correct and will be the same ones that will be used throughout the entire project and there will be no surprises. PUBLIC HEARING - ROSELAND PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER WATER & WASTEWATER FRANCHISE RATE INCREASE REQUEST 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: 12 OCT 5 19 3 w4 4 roc OCT 5 1983 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 in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of�/ 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. N0 Sworn to and subscribed beforeis Z ay of A.D. 19 _ y(� • (Bu ne6s Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit C -aft lndian RiverCourrty, Florida) (SEAL) 4 NOTICE OF KO IC HEARING A public hearing will be Roll! on October 5, 1963, at 9:00 a.m., In the Chambers of the In- dian River County Commission located at 1640 26th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 3296M The Purpose of this pubUo hearing will be to approve or disapprove of a requested rated Increase for THE ROSELAND PLAZA SHOP- PING HOPPING CENTER franchise. The following is a Ust at the proposed rotas WATER RATE — MONTHLY BASE FACILflY CHARGE 4G" mater $ 32.00 111 meter 75.00 1,A„ meter 9060.00 6 114" mater 2" motor GALLONAGE FEE All water usage will be billed at $1.50 per 1,000 gallons and sewage win be billed at 1.5 x the water charge. All Interested persons are Invited to This hearing. Sept 22,1983. The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/15/83: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 15, 1983 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Terrance G. Pinto .SUBJECT: ROSELAND PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER Utility Services Director WATER AND WASTEWATER FRANCHISE RATE INCREASE REQUEST 1) LOCATION MAP FROM: Joyce S. Hamilton REFERENCES: 2) PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE Administrative Assi tant 3) LETTER FROM STANLEY M. Utility Services SPITZER, C.P.A. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Roseland Plaza Shopping Center is a small water and wastewater franchise located in the northeast corner of U. S. Highway #1 and Roseland Road. Under Resolution 79-51, they are operating at the following rates: 13 WATER RATE 3/4" meter (min.) 1st 3,000 gal/water used $ 7.84 1" meter (min.) 1st 4,000 gal/water used 12" meter 12.12 11" meter (min.) 1st 8,000 gal/water used 16.40 la" meter (min.) 1st 12,000 gal/water used 31.36 2" meter (min.) 1st 16,000 gal/water used 39.20 All usage in excess of the aforementioned will be charged on a basis of $1.50 per 1,000 gallons. SEWER RATE 1.5 times the water charge. The proposed rates are: WATER RATE - MONTHLY BASE FACILITY CHARGE 5/8" meter $32.00 1" meter 75.00 _ 14" meter 100.00 12" meter 250.00 2" meter 300.00 GALLONAGE FEE All water usage will be billed at $1.50 per 1,000 gallons and sewage will be billed at 1.5 x the water charge. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES: Roseland Plaza Shopping Center will be operating at a deficit even with the increase in rates proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this request for a rate increase. Vice Chairman Scurlock explained the procedure to be followed for a Public Hearing and asked if anyone present had an objection to this matter being heard before only three commissioners. There were none. Mrs. Joyce Hamilton, Administrative Assistant - Utilities Department, presented staff recommendation to approve the rate increase as the present operating costs are not being met by the rate structure. Administrator Wright stated that the proposed rate increase will just recover their costs. This is a very small - franchise and his understanding of why they had a franchise was that it was not a continuous building and falls under the definition of needing a franchise. He recommended that 14 OCT -5 1993 bac 82 OCT 5 1993 K 4 PnE .43 beginning with the new year, they have a 6% franchise fee be required as discussed during the budget workshops. Vice Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard on this matter. Bill Lewis, representing Don Smith's Paint Store, felt the rate increase was too much because the quality of the water and the sewer plant is poor, and asked if a rate increase would assure quality water. He stated that in the past they have had to call the County Health Department about the water. Vice Chairman Scurlock explained that the County has a monitoring and evaluating program for water systems in the County, and if the system needs to be upgraded, the County makes the recommendation. Mrs. Hamilton stated that the plant has been inspected by their franchise engineer and she was not aware of the plant not meeting requirements. Mr. Lewis wondered why the Utility Department did not have the results of the inspection which was done by the Public Health Department during the last two weeks. Administrator Wright advised _that the County Health Department does not come under Utility Services. Vice Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Lewis if there had been a negative report on the system and Mr. Lewis replied that they were not told of the results of the inspection. Administrator Wright stated that the matter will be checked out. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. 15 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board adopt Resolution 83-99 approving the rate increase requested by Roseland Plaza Shopping Center Water and Wastewater Franchise, as recommended by staff, and increase the -County franchise fee to 6%. Under discussion, Commissioner Lyons wanted to be•sure that the users understand that_ they should come to the County and make their complaints to Utility Services, He felt that the only way the system could stay in operation was with a rate increase to cover expenses. Vice Chairman Scurlock stated that Utility Services will reinspect the system and check with the County Health Dept. to make sure that it meets all requirements. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE.QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. 16 wK 54 pbcGj 0 CT 5 1983 I pr ­ i CT 5 1993 54, racy.; RESOLUTIOr, NO. 83-99 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IND TAN RIVER COUNTY AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN RATES GRANTED IN RESOLUTION NO. 79-51 AND PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN MODIFICATION TO THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT GRANTED TO ROSELAND PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that Resolution No. 79-51, be amended to reflect the following rate schedule and approved with the franchise modified as follows: 1. Section 14 of Resolution No. 79-51, as amended, is hereby amended to.insert the following new rate schedule: SECTION 14 RATE,SCHEDULE Water Rate - Monthly Base Facility Charge 5/8" meter $ 32.00 1" meter - 75.00 1L" meter 100.00 12" meter 250.00 2" meter 300.00 Gallonage Fee All water usage will be billed at $1.50 per 1,000 gallons and sewage will be billed at 1.5 X the water charge. 2. Section 24 is hereby created and added to Resolution No. 79-51, as amended, to read as follows: SECTION 24 A) FRANCHISE FEE The Utility hereby agrees to pay to the County a franchise fee in the amount of six percent (6Z) of the Utility's annual gross F receipts, (or the sum of five hundred dollars ($500) whichever is greater), derived from monthly service charges to defray the cost of regulation and for use of County rights-of-way and public places. The Utility shall pay the 6% 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 account- ing of Utility shall be in accordance with the Uniform System of s Accounts of the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commis- sioners and general accepted accounting principles. Within ninety (90) days after close of fiscal year, the Utility shall submit finan- cial statements prepared by a CPA and in accordance with general accepted accounting standards and NARUC. 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 6% franchise fee and the two and one-half (22) percent renewal and replacement account } has been collected and disbursed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. M ® r B) RENEWAL & REPLACEMENT ACCOUNT Two and one half percent (2f'%) of the gross receipts of the Utility shall be placed in an interest bearing renewal and replacement account for the purposes of renewal and/or replacement of the capital assets of the.water and/or wastewater system of the Utility. Addi- tionally, the Utility shall initially fund said account with one hundred dollars ($100) which will also be reserved for capital main- tenance items. Interest shall accumulate in said account until the account reaches five thousand dollars ($5000); 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 water and/or wastewater system by the Utility as the need arises; the percentage required to be placed in the renewal and re- placement 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 th-e quality standards establsh- ed in Resolution 79-51. In the event the County exercises its rights under Section 7 and 21 of Resolution 79-51, said fund shall vest in the County. C) COUNTY RESERVES RIGHTS TO INCREASE FEES AND REGULATIONS The right is hereby reserved to the County to adopt, in addition to the provisions herein contained and in Resolution 79-51 and exist- ing 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, pro- vided 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. 3. 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. All portions of Resolution No. 79-51, as amended, that have not been specifically amended by this Resolution remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida has caused this Resolutrion amending the franchise to be executed in the name of the County of Indian River by the Chair- man of the Board of County Commissioners and its seal to be affixed and attested by its Clerk, all pursuant to the Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners adopted on the 5th day of October, 1983. Signed, sealed and delivered COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA in the presence of: i-t� tntL B Y : G Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vi -Chairman Board of �oun/Jty Comm ssioner -a L, AttestK�r�� a _ forn Clerk �-- 0T A t� • r ul..rariaenbw My Attorne QK OCT 5 1983 c5A rw 84 DISCUSSION RE DOCUMENT STAMP SURTAX LEGISLATION Attorney Brandenburg stated that this matter was placed on the Agenda today just as a matter of information. He explained that the surtax was only applicable to charter counties, which does not include Indian River County. However, several non -charter counties have banded together to have the act expanded to cover them.. The surtax would be used to establish and finance a Home Ownership Assistance Loan Trust Fund for low and moderate income families. Vice Chairman Scurlock asked if this might be a vehicle to repay the General Fund for an outstanding debt for the housing project up in the Gifford community and Attorney Brandenburg did not believe it would. Mr. Ed Regan, Executive Director the the Indian River County Housing Authority, did not feel it would provide for repayment directly, but indirectly it might. The Housing Authority is a non-profit operation and if they have funds that exceed their expenses, it is the intent of their Board to reimburse the Commission for the money it has put out. Their ability to do that would be enhanced if this bill was applicable to Indian River County: Mr. Regan reported that they had done a little study about what funds would be involved, and tax stamps account for $1,800,000 a year in this county; and the portion that would be taxed under this bill would be about $300,000. If it were not necessary for the Commission to pull this amount from ad valorem taxes, Mr. Regan believed it would put the Housing Authority on an even keel where they could meet the challenge of the times and pay the County back. He noted that there currently is a need for well over 1,000 dwelling units in the county. Vice Chairman Scurlock stated he did not plan to vote next year for any program that would pull from ad valorem 19 taxes and felt that the one project that we got into is a disaster as far as he is concerned. Mr. Regan reported that the State considered the Treasure Coast Village project as an example of what can be accomplished through coordinating federal, state, and local funds and are recommending.to their finance committee to set aside $1 million for Treasure Coast Village on a new bond, which is a $60 million bond issue, and that the interest would be only between 10-11% for loans on housing in that area under that program. Commissioner Lyons understood that Mr. Regan feels that it might be a good idea to get an arrangement to obtain some of this surtax money ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to include this matter as an item of request at the Legislative Delegation Meeting next January. RESOLUTION RE 17th STREET/U.S. #1 INTERSECTION PROJECT The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/28/83: 20 OCT 5 1983 OCT 5 1983 _ e WOKS racE F49 TO: Members of the Board DATE: September 28, 1983 FILE: of County Commissioners SUBJECT: 17th street/U.S. Highway #1 Intersection Project James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director by FROM: Christopher J. Paul] REFERENCES: Asst. County Attorney in Mr. Davis' absence. The Department of Transportation has indicated that it will readvertise the 17th Street/U. S. Highway #1 intersection project. The attached resolution is presented for consideration and approval by the County Commission if deemed appropriate. It provides an expression of intent by the County to assist with any additional funding necessary to make the U. S. Highway #1/17th Street intersection project a reality. The resolution itself does not. bind the County to do anything other than negotiate in the future, at which time an actual decision on whether to fund a portion of this project will be made. Public Works Director Jim Davis gave a brief recap of the overbids received twice before -by the Department of Transportation for this project, and reported that they plan on going out for rebid once more in January. If the DOT bids come in overbid for the third time, they have requested the Board to give a resolution of intent to assist with any additional funding necessary. The budgeted cost of the project was $160,000 and the most recent low bid received was $186,000. Commissioner Lyons hesitated over the word "any" in the language of the proposed resolution. He stated that he would be glad to let the.DOT know that we would consider it, but certainly did not want to leave it as a wide open deal. Vice Chairman Scurlock asked if there is a possibility of receiving a better bid this time out, and Director Davis explained that the lowest bidder had been Dickerson and now that his firm is mobilized in that area, he will, hopefully, 21 submit a lower bid -- perhaps even at the DOT budgeted amount. Attorney Brandenburg stated that all the resolution says is that we encourage the DOT to rebid it and that if it comes in over their budget, we will enter into negotiations with them to see if we can -reach an agreement. It does not say that we will pay any amount over the budget, or even that we will pay anything. Director Davis reported that he has talked with the DOT in re to the possibility of making this a joint project, but they have federal funds. involved and have indicated that they do not have the flexibility to do that with their funding. He assured the Board that staff will review the bids, and if they feel that the contractor is bidding too high, then they will indicate that. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-100, which expresses a "willingness" to support and assist the DOT with certain intersection improvements at U.S. #1 and 17th Street. 0 22 OCT 5 1 aK �. �rE J OCT 5 193 PAc6 RESOLUTION NO. 83-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA EXPRESSING ITS WILLINGNESS TO SUPPORT AND ASSIST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WITH CERTAIN INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT U. S. HIGHWAY #1 AND 17TH STREET. WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation has completed engineering drawings and has twice previously advertised for bids to construct paving and drainage intersection improve- ments at U. S. Highway #1/State Road 5 and 17th Street/State Road 656, Vero Beach, Indian River County, Mork Program Item No. 415349, State Project No. 88003-3502; and WHEREAS, all bids submitted previously exceeded the Florida D.O.T.'s engineering estimate and were therefore rejected; and p WHEREAS, the Florida D.O.T. will once again advertise for bids on this project in January, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners and the County's Transportation Planning Committee has determined that Project No. 88003-3502 is of vital importance to this area for the following reasons: - 1. The construction of distinct right, left, and through lanes for the west approach of 17th Street at U. S. Highway #1 will increase the traffic -handing capacity of the aforementioned approach and will bring it up to the design stan- dards of the north, south, and east approaches. 2. Physical separation of opposing traffic flows via construction of channelizing islands on the subject approach will increase traffic safety. Specifically, head-on and sideswipe collision patterns will be reduced. 3. This remaining segment of work is necessary to ensure that full benefit can be derived from the recent improve- ments east of U. S. Highway #1 along the 17th Street Causeway (including the Bridge and AlA improvements). 4. In concert with the already completed work, the DOT, upon request by the City and County in 1976, constructed facili- ties with additional drainage capacity to accommodate this project and 17th Street west to Dixie Highway. A Joint Project Agreement dated May 13, 1977 was executed for this drainage work. 5. The preliminary final draft of the City/County Master Drainage Plan, as completed recently by Reynolds, Smith, and Hills, requires that a forty-eight (48) inch drainage pipe be installed to serve this and adjacent drainage areas. Construction of the proposed DOT project will allow a proportionate reduction in the.necessary size of this drainage outfall, thereby decreasing the implementation costs of the Master Drainage Plan for this area. 6. Increased pedestrian safety and convenience will be derived -since handicapped and bicycle ramps will be constructed and sidewalks will be extended to the west away from the inter- section. 7. The Project will shorten existing time delays for the traffic turningsouthboundfrom the west of U. S. Highway#1. 8. The Project will provide a convenient connection to 17th Street improvements now under construction further west at a cost of $2.5 -million; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County supports construction of this project and desires to express its intent to assist in the funding of these improvements, if necessary, as an alternative to the Project's not being built at all as a result of an unsuccessful bid process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1) The foregoing recitals are acknowledged and ratified in their entirety. 2) The County hereby encourages the Florida D.O.T. to continue with bid advertisements for Project #88003-3502, and in the event all bids exceed the Project budget, the County expresses its willingness to negotiate with the Department of Transportation with respect to any additional appropriations, above and beyond the D.O.T. Project budget, which might be necessary to pay for the Project as awarded. 1 The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner OCT 51983 -2 µ, OCT 5 1993 Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as f of lows: Chairman Richard N. Bird - Absent Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. - Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman - Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons - Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. - Absent The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 5th day of October, 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. Vice Chairman Attest:`' j FREDA WRIGHT, Clk APPROKwkc;�_ AND LBy CHRISTOP R J. AULL Assistant County Attorney 7 STREET LIGHTING PETITIONS. - VERO HIGHLANDS, 79TH & 80TH AVENUES BETWEEN SR -60 & 22ND ST., and LUNDBERG RD. AT 58TH AVE, The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/22/83: TO: The Honorable mknbers of the DATE Septenber 22, 1983 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROU(RH: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: Street Lighting Petitions 1) Vero Highlands Subdivision 2) 79th and 80th Avenue between SR 60 and 22nd Street 3) Lundburg Road at 58th Avenue FROM: EREPC 1) George R. Kulczycki, Operations James W. Davis, P.E., ger, ero ch Highlands to Mike Wright, dated Public Works Director August 1, 1983; 2) Mr. Ann Chew to Michael Wright date th Macnn tp Mr _q -arld ch cy dated July 26, 1983 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The County Staff has received correspondence from representatives of three areas listed above requesting installation of street lighting. 1) The Vero Highlands area in questions is approximately 850 acres in size. At this time, the area is approximately 29% developed. The attached map delineates the area to be considered for lighting. A xesponse from 700 of the families in the area are in support of the street lighting district concept. 2) 79th And 80th Avenue between SR 60 and 22nd Street are �, mile in length, A petition has been received from 14 homeowners which represent 27% of the property owners on the street. 3) The County has received previous requests to street light the intersection of 58th Avenue and Lundburg Road. The last action by the Board of County Com u.ssioners was to direct staff to survey existing street lights presently installed in the County and to abandon one location in exchange for placing a light at.Lundburg Road and 58th Avenue. Staff can not recommend abandoning any particular light. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The following alternatives are presented 1) Vero Highlands la) Authorize the County staff to begin the necessary work to create a Special Street Light District for the Vero Highlands area. lb) Deny the request for Street Lighting. Since the Vero Highlands area is approximately 850 acres, such a large area warrants the establishment of a Street Light District. 2) 79th and 80th Avenue between SR 60 and 22nd Street_ 2a) Since the area.is very small (two -one quarter mile long streets), the establishment of a street light district is not warranted. If the County began a precedent of setting up many small special districts, the administration of them would be a burden to the County Staff. NR 0 O` 51983 BOOK FSA 0 CT 5 1983 5,4 roc€ 2b) To explore other alternatives, the Public Works Division wrote to FPL and the City of Vero Beach to pose the question of possible alternative methods whereby the residents of small areas could receive street light service without administration by the County. It appears that the only way this could be accon plished would require the requester to pay 100% of the cost of installation up front. The City recomriends that all unincorporated areas of the County, located within the City service area, be grouped into one street light district. 2c) Deny the request. 3) Lundburg Road at Kings Highway 3a) Abandon an existing street light on State Route 60 and Ranch Road and install a new light at Lundburg Road and Kings Highway. 3b) Install a new light at Kings Highway and Lundburg Road. 3c) Deny the request for a street light at this location. RECaNr,UMATIONS Staff recommends the following: 1) Vero Highlands Approve alternative #la whereby staff is authorized to begin the necessary work to create an NISTU Special Street Light District for.the Vero Highlands area. An implementing ordinance would be adopted prior to Jan. 1, 1984. Actual street light service would begin October 1, 1984. The first operating budget would6tdeveloped during the next budget process. 2) Approve antlernative # 2c whereby the County would deny the request to establish an MSTU Special Street Light District for 79th Avenue and 80th Avenue north of SR60. This is recommended due to the -large amount of time that is expended to set up such a district for such a small area. 3) Approve alternative # 3c whereby the County would not install a new light at Kings Highway and Lundburg Road. The cost of this service would be approximately $100 per year. It is felt that many intersections may warrant street lighting and that staff be instructed to establish a Street Light Evaluation Criteria Form for such requests. Staff recommends that street lighting be assessed to benefited areas as much as possible. It was decided that each item would be discussed separately. Vero Highlands ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED -by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved staff recommendation of Alternate 1A authorizing staff to begin the necessary work to create a Special Street Lighting District for the Vero Highlands area. 27 Mr. George R. Kulczycki, Operations Manager of Vero Beach Highlands, asked if there was a possibility of getting started before October 1, 1984 and Attorney Brandenburg that these would be special assessments. through a Municipal Service Taxing Unit, not an ad valorem tax levy. The Board pointed out a few items to consider in setting up a MSTU and advised Mr. Kulczycki to go up to Gifford to get an idea of light spacing, line, size, light size, etc. It was noted that the Gifford MSTU is assessing $15.00 per parcel acre this year. OMB Director Barton advised that another expense to consider is that if there is no existing pole system, then a pole would have to be erected for each light. Mr. Kulczycki asked what the next step would be in regard to setting up a meeting with Florida Power & Light and Administrator Wright stated that the County would coordinate it through Director Davis. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. Policy re StreetLighting Petitions for Short Streets Commissioner Lyons wanted to talk a little about policy. He did not believe people should be denied the opportunity to have street lights if they are willing to pay for them, but felt rather than have a multitude of very small street lighting districts, consideration should be given to setting up one very large district to include these small pockets. He suggested that a rate be set that is high enough to take care of these odds and ends and that the power companies advise us in re to a minimum size. OMB Director Barton anticipated several problems in that procedure: street light poles, legal descriptions on NKI OCT 5 1983 aw all FAu Kl) OCT 5 1983 ate: rac€: the boundaries, separating power districts, and tax coding on bills. Commissioner Lyons stated that we could set the district either under the City of Vero Beach district or the Florida Power & Light district. Vice Chairman Scurlock felt that staff should analyze this to see if there is a vehicle to get lights to people who wish to have lights and set up some standard costs. Mr. James B. Pollard of Castaway Cove felt that their problem was a typical example. They have requested a street light on AIA at the entrance to Castaway Cove. They have had several accidents at that location and are willing to pay for a street light. Vice Chairman Scurlock advised that the City of Vero Beach will contract with a homeowners association to put in a light and referred Mr. Pollard to John Kirby, Customer Service. However, if the City says "no", he did not know how the County could help as we don't have a franchise with them. Administrator Wright stated that they have already advised the City that they have no objection to the light being installed on County right-of-way. However, Director Davis advised that the City of Vero Beach recently issued a letter indicating that it plans to cease street lighting in many areas. Commissioner Lyons asked Mr. Pollard to come back to the County if he is not helped by the City as he felt that we should try to help him.. Commissioner Lyons wondered why the County was paying for all the lights listed on the backup material on Page 66, and Director Davis explained that these lights were mostly all in Laurelwood Street Lighting District. The other lights were ones that were installed previously at inter- sections and paid for by the County. He felt that we should 29 � � i M review our policy on this and when there is an entrance from a subdivision that enters into a County or State road, it should be the responsibility of the County to light it. Commissioner Bowman objected as she felt it should be paid for by the subdivision developer. Attorney Brandenburg explained that the new County subdivision ordinance requires the developer to put in the street lights and to establish a homeowners' association with assessment powers to forever foot those bills in the future. The problem is that the subdivisions that are in place will have to set up MSTUs. New Street Light at Lundburg Road-& Kings Highway Considerable discussion took place on whether the County is being consistent in its policy on intersection lights. Director Davis stated thatthereare a lot more intersections and did not want to open Pandora's Box where we might end up having to fund a tremendous amount of street lights in the County. Vice Chairman Scurlock felt that we should have a motion to authorize staff to work with the Transportation & Planning Committee on major intersections. ON 1,40TION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized staff to work with the Transportation Planning Committee to come up with a recommendation to be brought back to the Board for a consistent policy on major intersections, based on traffic counts. 30 OCT 5 1 83 amx 5 r��F 8 OCT 5 1983 Lighting of 79th & 80th Ave. Between SR 60 & 22nd Street Staff was also requested to go back and analyze all alternatives for providing some vehicle to light short streets. REQUEST FROM DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS TO MEET IN OLD WELFARE BUILDING Ester Rymer, City/County Building Director, reported that the building code states that the Welfare Building is not classified for use by a small assembly. She explained the difficulties in changing the use classification and noted that the DAV would have to spend a significant amount of money to bring the building up to code. Administrator Wright informed the Board that they have received several requests to use this facility, which actually is a 40 -year old barracks building, and the building code always prohibits its use. He felt strongly that it should be torn down. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board deny the request of the DAV on the basis that the building is unsuitable for their purposes. Commissioner Lyons asked that the vote on this Motion be deferred until Mr. John M. O'Neill, Commander of the DAV, arrives later this morning. VILLAGE GREEN OWNERSHIP TO CHANGE FROM FLORIDA ATLANTIC ASSOCIATES TO REALCOR COMPANY The Board reviewed the following letter dated 9/21/83: 31 LAW OFFiCES SAMUEL A. BLOCK 2140 10TH AVENUE VERB BEACH. FLORIDA 38960 SAMUEL A. BLOCK e� g,� 1J MARGARET E. MANN\©,,�li m i b a rq 3 m _ ice• L4 � m co 98 �I W V A September 21, 1983 Ms Al iii Board of County Commissioners County Administration Bldg. 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32950 Dear Ms. White: TELEPHONE (3051582-1 Goo This is to request placement on the agenda for the County Commissioners Meeting for October 5, 1983, concerning the transfer of Village Green from Florida Atlantic Associates to Realcor and Resolution 81-59 as it relates to the County's transfer to the benefit of Realcor. Please forward a copy of the final agenda prior to the October 5 meeting to my office. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Very truly yours, s�L� 4 __C4 • )9-4� Samuel A. Block Attorney Brandenburg explained that this was a change of ownership and the County has asked the new owners, the Realcor Company, to enter into a short term agreement with the County indicating that they will abide by all the requirements of all the approvals, County ordinances, etc. They have done so and it is included in the backup material. However, it has a slight error in it. It indicates that they owe us $40,000 for Civil Defense. That is incorrect, as they have paid us that money. What they do owe us is $35,000 for a fire station, and we have a signed agreement amendment to that effect. 32 OCT 5 1983 54 pAct 86.0 OCT 5 1993 no 54 wF, 861 Vice Chairman Scurlock understood that Phase VI is not included in the water franchise area of the other Village Green projects. He wanted Realcor to be aware that the proposed water line discussed earlier this morning could serve Phase VI also, as 160 acres is a large development. Attorney Samuel Block, representing Realcor, informed the Board that Realcor had discussed with Tom Nason of the South County Fire District the matter of the District needing an additional. fifty feet for the fire station, and they are willing to deed that fifty feet over to the Fire District. Mr. Block assured the Commission that Realcor is willing to cooperate in.any way they can to help the fire district because it is an obvious benefit to them out there. They want to have a nice mobile home community; it is not their intent to condominiumize, and this is set out in the agreement. Vice Chairman Scurlock felt that Realcor has a fine reputation as being the developers of Heritage Village and would like to state for the record that what they have done, they have done well. Attorney Brandenburg advised that when the County runs the water line out SR 60, it is possible that they may need a small site for an elevated storage tank and would like to discuss that with Realcor. Mr. Block expressed his clients' willingness to cooperate, and noted that they would prefer , to be on the County system rather than on a franchise. Attorney Brandenburg emphasized that the $35,000 is due the County in one lump sum at the time the County goes to bid on the fire station, which he believes that will be in 60 to 90 days. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the transfer 33 of the site plan from Florida Atlantic Associates to Realcor Company, and authorized the execution of the agreement setting forth their responsibility to live by the development order and the site plan approval in every way. 34 OCT 5 1983 sK 5 qac 869 OCT,. 5 1 •AMUEL A. ®LOCK 1FQSSIONAL ASSOCIATION 2140 10TH AVENUE VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960 TELEPHONE (3051562-1600 ha - -54 pw 863' A G R E E M E N T THIS AGREEMENT made this 5th day of October 1983, by and between the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY", and REALCOR COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC.I hereinafter referred to as "REALCOR". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, REALCOR, a Florida Corporation, desires to purchase certain real property known as Village Green South, Phase 6, located in Indian River.County, State of Florida, more specifically described as an exhibit to Resolution No. 81-59 which is attached hereto and made a part of this agreement. WHEREAS, REALCOR desires the COUNTY to transfer or assign the site plan and Development of Regional Impact as set forth by the Florida Atlantic Associates in Resolution No. 81-59, to REALCOR. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. That REALCOR agrees to comply in every way with all require- ments set forth in the county ordinances, and as set forth in the site plan and Developmental Regional Impact Study set out in Resolution No. 81-59 issued by the COUNTY, a copy of which is attached hereto. 2. That REALCOR hereby represents that it is REALCOR'S intent that the property be either rented or sold, and that the property is not intended to be converted into condominium form of ownership. 3. That the $40,000.00 due from REALCOR to Indian River County for civil defense services has been paid and all parties acknow- ledge same. REALCOR understands that $35,000.00 is due Indian River County for a fire station and REALCOR agrees to have.said amount to be paid to the COUNTY under the same terms and conditions as the agreement by and between Village Green and the County. 4. That the parties hereto agree that no other obligations -1- 7-7 L are due the COUNTY from REALCOR. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: cc A.0 L9, -I"" 11 SAMUEL A. BLOCK PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 2140 10TH AVENUE — VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960 TELEPHONE 13031562.1600 OCT 5 L.._:- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. By: �—. C ftan IL ATTEST: 4GAJ tz= REALCO COMPANY OF �LQ INC. By: President (CORPORATE SEAL) ey9� � •1. l+ W f. y a•. rpt � r 1� '$OOK 5 PACE OCT 5 1993 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A VILLAGE GREEN SOUTH Tracts 1 and 2 less North 30' thereof, and Tracts 7 and 8 less South 60' thereof, Section 11, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, according to the Plat of INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25, containing more or less 160 acres; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida, LESS AND EXCEPT so much of the aforesaid described property to be dedicated for construction of fire station. PARCEL B VILLAGE GREEN SOUTH The North 608' of all that part of Tract 16, Section 10, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, according to the Plat of INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25, said property lying East of East right- of-way line of Interstate 95, LESS AND EXCEPTING East 40' thereof, for road and drainage purposes, containing more or less 11.1 acres, according to the survey dated 12-28-81, prepared by Carter & Associates. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 81-59 A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RENDERING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING THE VILLAGE GREEN WEST AND VILLAGE GREEN SOUTH APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT; CONSTI- TUTING THIS RESOLUTION AS A DEVELOPMENT ORDER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on or about March 27, 1981, Florida Atlantic Associates, II and III, filed a Development of Regional Impact application for development approval with the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, this Board, as the governing body of the local government having jurisdiction, pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is authorized and empowered to consider applications for development approval for Developments of Regional Impact; and WHEREAS, all public and governmental notice requirements have been satisfied; and WHEREAS, this Board has, on July 29th, 1981, held a duly noticed public hearing on the Development of Regional Impact' application for development approval and has heard and considered the testimony taken at that hearing; and THHEREAS, this Board has received and considered the report and reco:^,mendations of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposed development is not in an area of critical state concern designated pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. 2. T.he proposed development does not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of an adopted state land development plan applicable to the area. 3. The development is consistent with the local land development regulations. 4. The development is consistent with the report and recommendations of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. OCT 5 1983 Boa 54 wF; 866 OCT 5 1993 f. r a n 54 rAn 867 5. The application .for development approval and its supplemental information are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof and are on file with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and the Indian River County Planning Department. 6. The application.for development approval and supplemental information provided by the developer contain certain assurances and actions that will be undertaken during the development and life of this project. 7. These assurances and actions were expressly relied upon by this Board in approving this development with conditions. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Village Green West and Village Green South Develop- ment of Regional Impact is hereby approved and this Resolution shall constitute a development order, upon execution and recording, subject to the following conditions: (A) The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council assess- ment report regarding Village Green dated July, 1981, is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. All recommenda- tions contained in this report shall be fully complied with where not inconsistent with or superceded by specific requirements below. In addition, the applicant shall have 9.0 days from the date of execution of this order to comply with Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Recommendation No. 15 regarding energy efficient air conditioners. This recommendation shall apply to new customers only after the expiration of the above time period. (B) The information and assurances to be'found in the following documents shall be fully complied -with: (1) Florida Atlantic Associates, II and III, DRI/ADA dated March 27, 1981; (2) Letter and attachments dated May 15, 1981; from David K. Maltby to Howard fluise; (3) Letter and attachments dated July 6 1981, from David K. Maltby to Howard Muise; (4) Revised Drainage Plan dated July 17, 1981. (C) The County recommends and the applicant agrees that brine discharge from the proposed reverse osmosis water treatment i facility shall be discharged directly into the drainage canal rather than a retention pond if the appropriate agency permits can be obtained. (D) The applicant agrees to donate an unencumbered one-half acre site satisfactory to the County together with the sum of $35,00`0 for the purpose of constructing a fire station. In the event that the site is not utilized by the County for construction of a fire station, the property will revert to the applicant, and at such time an additional $15,000 payment by the applicant to the County will be made. If the donated site is ut3.lized by the County for the construction of a fire station, the applicant will,make available to the station water and sewer facilities at its normal rate. The initial site donation and cash contribution of $35,000 shall be made by the applicant upon 50% completion of the entire Village Green West and Village Green South development or upon commencement of construction of the said fire station, whichever shall be earlier. Commencement of con- struction shall be construed to mean the letting of bids for the fire station. The funds shall be held in an escrow account and utilized for fire station construction only. (E) The applicant shall donate to the County the sum of $40,000 to be utilized by the County for civil defense purposes. This sum shall. become payable upon 50% completion of both the Village Green West and Village Green South developments. The fund shall be held in an escrow account and utilized for civil defense.purposes only. If possible these funds will be utilized in the general area of the development, but this requirement is not mandatory. (F) If, pursuant to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Recommendation No. 11, the Department of Transportation determines that a traffic signal is not necessary at the project's main entrance and State Rbad 60 to maintain level of service C, the County may petition the Department of Transportation for a traffic signal at the intersection of Ranch Road and State Road 60. If a Department of Transportation permit for the Ranch Road and State Road 60 signal is obtained, the applicant will contribute an amount toward the cost of installation that it would have QCT 5 1983' 3 - Boa 5.4 m"ES,68 OCT -5 1993 incurred hada signal been required at the project's main entrance and State Road 60. In the event that the Department of Transporta- tion permit cannot be obtained for this signal, the applicant shall have no further obligation with regard to traffic signals. 2. The local official responsible for assuring this develop- ment's compliance with this development order shall be the County Administrator of Indian River County. monitoring procedures shall be agreed to between the parties hereto within 90 days after the execution of this order. 3. In the event that the developer fails to commence signifi- cant physical development within three years from the effective date of the development order, the development approval shall terminate and the development shall be subject to further consider- ation pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. Significant physical development shall mean site preparation work for any portion of Phase I. 4. The requirements for the annual report specified in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, shall be in accordance with rules adopted by the State Land Planning Agency. The applicant shall the State Land Planning Agency, submit the annual report to/the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Department of Environmental Regulation and the St. Johns River Water Management District within one week of the anniversary date of issuance of the development order, and continuing annually until project completion. The parties shall mutually agree upon the contents of the annual report within three months following the issuance of the development order. 5. The types of changes to the development which shall require submission for a substantial deviation determination will be as described in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. 6. The developer shall record notice of the adoption of this development order in the public records of Indian River County, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. 7. A legal description of the property is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. - 4 - This Resolution shall become effective immediately. BOARD OF COUNTY COIA14ISSIONERS OF INDIAN, RIVER COUNTY,. FLORIDA - GPatrick B. Ly Chairman ATTEST: { In 0)k, c1l/l.1 Freda Wright Clerk of Circui Court Adopted: 8-19-81 - 5 - 0 OT 5 1983 0 CT 5 1983 aux5A rhn P CONTINUATION OF DAV REQUEST Upon Mr. John O'Neill's arrival, Ester Rymer explained that the Building Inspector stated that the building was not suitable for the purpose of holding DAV meetings. Mr. O'Neill stressed that the DAV needs it for just one evening a month and they are presently storing equipment in the building. Mrs. Rymer repeated that the building code would not allow the building to be used for small assembly purposes. Commissioner Lyons advised Mr. o'Neill that he was going to make a motion to have the building disposed of, either torn down or sold and moved, because it really isn't suitable for anything. It is a maintenance expense and it is a hazard; eventually, that property is going to be used for expansion by the County Health Dept. Mr. O'Neill stated he understood and thanked them for considering the DAV's request. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board unanimously denied the request of the DAV and authorize the County Administrator to dispose of the building in the most practical manner. Under discussion, Administrator Wright felt that the building was only good for scrap and Vice Chairman Scurlock felt that if the DAV could use it in any way, fine. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. 36 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS CONTRACT ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman's signature on a letter to the Bureau of Disaster Preparedness terminating the contract between the Dept. of Administration and Indian River County in accordance with Section 7 of the contract. Administrator Wright explained that it has been suggested that the Civil Defense Department come under the auspices of the Sheriff's Department and reported that he would be going to Volusia County with the Sheriff and Commissioner Lyons to see what they are doing in that County in respect to their Civil Defense Dept., which is under the Sheriff's Dept. This was the reason he had not filled the, positions in the Civil Defense Department - one vacancy and one pending retirement. _ 7 d�K 54 fn 879 CT 5 198 �193 OCT 5 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER,5 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 567-6000 October 5, 1983 Suncom Telephone: 424-1011 Mr. Gordon Guthrie, Chief Bureau of Disaster Preparedness 1720 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dear Mr. Guthrie: This is to inform you that we have reviewed Annex B of CPG -13 (Standards for a Merit System of Pe-rsonnel Administration). We are in compliance with the Merit System Standards. It is requested that the contract between the Department of Administration and Indian River County be terminated in accordance with Section 7 of the contract. As recommended, a copy of this letter will be maintained in the files of the personnel manager. Sincerely, n �m Richard N. Bird W'.6 t %q° '!5t1tt` en Chairman By C.►y ; , rzindenburg ,o►+ "Y lttorpiey_- 38 APPROVAL OF OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL The Board reviewed the following report dated 8/1/83: Office of Federal Coastal Programs Summary Report August 1, 1983 _._ Coastal Management Conference Punned A three-day conference entitled "Florida's Coast -Charting Our Course" has been planned for October 16-18, 1983 at the Sundial Resort on Sanibel Island. The purpose of the conference is to examine issues significant to the future of coastal management in Florida. The conference will be part of Florida's efforts to celebrate National Coast Week The primary sponsors are the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), the Coastal Resources Advisory Committee, and the Center for Govern- mental Responsibility -University of Florida. Panel discussions will be presented on current coastal management and coastal energy impact program activities by federal, state, local and private representatives. The focus of the individual panels will deal with the use of waterfront areas, marine resource protection, current coastal development policy and offshore oil/gas activities. Additionally, a federal Department of Interior (DOI) spokesperson will be in attendance to discuss the upcoming Eastern Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Lease Offering scheduied'for November. An update of the Outer Continental Shelf revenue sharing legi.sla- tion and its impact on Florid-a's coastal programs will also be covered at this conference. Keynote speakers will include Dr. John Byrne, Administrator of the National. Oceanic and atmospheric administration CNOAA), Secretaries ,John DeGrove (DCA) and victoria Tschinkel (DER) and local repre- sentatives involved in coastal management. A complete agenda will be forthcoming in the nest four weeks._ For additional information on the tentative schedule for the.conference, please contact Jim Quinn or Jeff Kiss, Federal Coastal Programs, Department of 'Community Affairs,:(904) 488-92I0. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized Commissioners and.staff to attend the Coastal Management Conference on Sanibel Island, Oct. 16-18, 1983. LIBRARY PARKING LOT Commissioner Lyons explained that there are numerous large potholes in the library parking lot. Since the County does contribute to the Library Fund, he felt that the County should contribute to the repair of the parking lot. OCT 5 1983 39 Box 54 FA"r 874 OCT 5 1983 is 5. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the County Road & Bridge Dept. to fill the potholes as a contribution to the library. Under discussion, Vice Chairman Scurlock stated he would not even consider asking the City of Vero Beach for any assistance as the City has withdrawn their financial assistance from so many community projects. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. COUNTY TO ASSIST HARBOR BRANCH FOUNDATION IN MOSQUITO CONTROL PROJECT Commissioner Lyons stated that Harbor Branch Foundation has a research program going on with the Mosquito Control District in order to find a better way to manage the impoundments to increase -the productivity of Indian River. One of the areas they are studying is an impoundment down by Round Island Park and they need to open up a small channel between the impoundment and the river in order to sample the marine life that would be discharged during that process. He understood that it would be just a minimal job to open up a ditch with a grade -all, but Harbor Branch does not have the equipment. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize Community Services Director Thomas to determine and make any reasonable assistance available to Harbor Branch in re to the above 40 project, with the understanding that any permitting necessary will be handled by Harbor Branch; with the hope that this project may result in better fishing in Indian River County. Under discussion, Mr. Thomas stated that the dredging of the channel might take a half day and that the land was partly owned by the County and partly by the Mosquito Control District. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION OF IMPACT OF NEW POPULATION ON JAIL, COURTROOM AND SHERIFF'S REQUIREMENTS Commissioner Lyons requested this discussion be added to today's agenda just as a matter of information and distributed copies of a rough preliminary draft listing the impact costs which could be expected to be generated by the anticipated population growth in the county on jail require- ments, courtroom requirements, and the Sheriff's future requirements. 'Commissioner Lyons explained in detail a formula based on the space needed for the various facilities and assuming an average of 2.5 persons per dwelling which would result in an impact fee of $132 on each new dwelling to finance court needs and $184 for future jail requirements. This fee would be collected before a certificate of occupancy could be issued on any dwelling. It,was Commissioner Lyons' suggestion that we do further study to refine these figures and come up with an ordinance to authorize the collection of impact fees to finance these various costs at the time of issuing a certificate of occupancy. 41 OCT 5 X983 spox W 876 OCT 5 1983 ib 54 enc P77 Vice Chairman Scurlock noted that there was considerable discussion on this same issue at the last S.A.C.C. meeting and it was agreed that this is something that is long overdue and that the counties should address it with the developers and construction people before the State steps in with more controls. He also felt that we must find a way to provide for the challenges of -a new community, or we are not going to develop. t Commissioner Lyons suggested addressing this either through the Public Safety Committee or by setting up a second Ad Hoc Committee. He noted that as the Administrator pointed out we should have some real technical expertise involved in order to come up with something that is going to be defendable in court. Attorney Brandenburg advised that no one in Florida has yet adopted such impact fees, except for Palm Beach County which is awaiting a court decision on a roads and parks impact fee. What Commissioner Lyons is talking about is one step more sophisticated than anyone else has done so far. Vice Chairman Scurlock felt that Commissioner Lyons has highlighted the need of what has to be done. 42 M GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES WATER AGREEMENT The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/26/83: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 26, 1983 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES WATER AGREEMENT FROM: Terrance G. Pinto REFERENCES: Water Agreement between Utility Services Director General Development Utilities and Indian River County DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: General Development Utilities, Inc., in making an application for a rate increase, made it known that their intentions were to build a new water treatment plant. This plant is apparently required by other regulatory agencies 'to insure the water meets present Safe Water Drinking Act requirements. It became apparent to staff that if GDU was permitted to build this new water plant, it would drastically increase the rates of their existing customers. Staff believes that if GDU purchases water from the County, it would be a much more cost effective method for supplying the Vero. Highlands and Vero Shores area with water. The proposed agreement addresses all of the concerns that the County would have in protecting the interests of all other utility customers. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES: To not service this area with County water and to allow GDU to provide their customers with water by meeting whatever requirements are im- posed upon them by other regulatory agencies or to allow the County to provide water charging appropriate rates and impact fees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the County supply water to GDU.under terms of the attached agreement which we feel would be in the best interests of the residents within the GDU area and other County utility customers. Attorney- Brandenburg explained that there are two separate Public Hearings scheduled today: Item 15-A, General Development Utility $4,020,000 Variable Rate Demand Utility Revenue Bonds, which was postponed from the 9/21/83 meeting; and Item 15-C, General Development Utilities Amendments to Franchise. However, he recommended that Item 15B, General Development Utilities Water Agreement, be discussed first as its outcome would directly affect the other two items. He 43 OCT 5 1983 aux 54 PACE 878 OCT 5 1993 �'�sc ,4 also advised that the Water Agreement item was not a Public Hearing. Vice Chairman Scurlock announced that even though the water agreement did not require a public hearing, he would open the meeting up and everyone who wished to be heard on the matter would have the opportunity. He asked if there was any objection to having this matter heard before the Board today with only three members present. There were none. Administrator Wright stated that General Development is in a position where they must replace their water treatment plant and the County has been working with them for over a year now. Mr. Charles E. Fancher, Jr., Vice President of Finance, General Development Utilities, 1111 Bayshore Drive, Miami, FL 33131, stated that they began discussing this problem almost a year ago and the existing plant has provided service since the late 1950's or early 19601s. The process is an ion -exchange process; the plant has simply utilized its entire capacity and it is not technically feasible -to expand that particular treatment process when there are better processes available today to provide potable water. They had approached the County to request the issuance of industrial revenue bonds to construct a new facility and the County informed them .that they were building a water plant to serve the south area of the County. After comparing the cost to construct a new facility to purchasing water from the County, they had found that it would result in lower costs and thereby lower water rates if General Development purchased water from the County. Vice Chairman Scurlock wanted Mr. Fancher to state for the record that General Development is, in fact, required by regulatory agencies to meet present requirements of the Safe Water Drinking Act and to provide continuous service in the 44 area they serve in accordance with their present franchise with the County. Administrator Wright asked if the ion -treatment process would meet the new Safe Drinking Water requirements, and Mr. Fancher replied that they did not really know at this time, since the standards are proposed standards, but General Development is currently meeting requirements by reblending at the plant. Mr. Fancher stated that it is clear from their standpoint that they must. move ahead and build a new facility with updated treatment technology, resulting in the necessity of abandoning the old plant. Mr. Fancher assured Attorney Brandenburg that as soon as the line was built and hooked up with the County system, they would abandon processing water through the old plant and would not be drawing from the wells. However, it is undetermined at this point, what is going to happen to the underground storage. Vice Chairman Scurlock asked if there was any provision for multi -family development, and Mr. Faucher stated that they have not made a distinction between multi -family units or single homes. Vice Chairman Scurlock anticipated a mad rush for water when the line comes through and felt we need to look far enough ahead to provide all figures. Vice Chairman Scurlock wanted to make sure that when the line is there, General Development will phase their plant out and go on line with the minimum of 1200 erc's, (equivalent residential connections.) Mr. Fancher replied that he thought that would be addressed through the normal document used by the County, and would be worked out during the next 30 days. Attorney Brandenburg explained that the County is concerned that when the line is completed that they tie in all at once, and does not want GDU to continue supplying 45 OCT 5 1983 OCT 5 1993 .� PACE 881 water through its existing plant to individuals at their discretion. Vice Chairman Scurlock stated his main concern was not GDU's distribution system, but their source of water. Mr. Fancher thought the only concern there would be with the ground storage, and suggested that the water agreement read "the Utility agrees to retire its existing treatment." Attorney Brandenburg preferred that it read "retire its water production facility." Attorney Brandenburg wanted it made very clear that this agreement is in no way a guarantee to GDU of 1,482,000 gallons; all it says is that if they follow the required procedures and reserve water capacity, then they will have that that amount reserved and committed to them. He explained that what GDU is saying is that they are hoping the County will be able to supply all the water that is needed down there, which they anticipate to be at the most 1,400,000 gallons, and hope that when the need arises on the overall County system to expand the plant, that the County will consider them just like they would any other customer. Vice Chairman Scurlock asked Attorney Brandenburg if the contract was in order and Administrator Wright stated that this was not something that was done overnight but took almost a year. The Water Agreement would be a benefit to the County at large. and also to General Development residents because they will not have to bear the cost of GDU building a new facility. Mr. Fancher felt the only risk General Development sees is that at sometime way down the road the County might decide to end this contract. Administrator Wright stated there was not a buy-out provision, but felt that there should be a gift provision. Mr. Fancher felt he would have a problem with that. 46 Attorney Brandenburg repeated that this was not an official public hearing on rates and that a rate hearing will be scheduled sometime in the near future. Vice Chairman Scurlock invited input from those in attendance. Mr. Tim Myers, 224 4th Ave., SE, stated he has been a resident of Vero Shores for over 12 years, and past president of the homeowners association. He felt that, the cart is before the horse in this matter, and that the rate hearing should be held before a water agreement is signed. He reported that process that GDU is currently using is still being used all over Florida, and .felt that the existing plan should be allowed to continue serving its present` customers. Vice Chairman Scurlock explained that the plant has to be phased out and felt that fact had been established earlier in this meeting when Mr. Fancher stated point blank that the treatment plant had to be abandoned. Mr. Myers understood that General Development had assured them that they would have the capacity to serve any and all future development and urged the Commission to look into this to ensure that the existing customers will not be paying for General Development's expansion. Attorney Brandenburg explained that GDU is trying to find the least expensive way possible to provide water to their customers, and.whichever way is selected, will result in increased costs to the customers. However, purchasing water from the County will result in the lowest costs to the residents in Vero Shores and Vero Highlands. Helen Wright, resident of Vero Highlands, addressed the matter of rates and pleaded the case of young couples who have bought homes in the. Highlands who would suffer a hardship while trying to raise families. She has not heard 47 OCT 5 1993 BOOK 54 -. PAcc OCT 5 1993 that General Development is willing to reduce the salaries of some of their vice presidents in order to keep the costs down, and she did not feel the the cost increase was necessary. Mr. W. F. Shirley, 409 SE 21st St., Vero Shores, member of the homeowners association, stated that a representative of General Development attended their meeting two years ago and assured them that they had adequate facilities to provide water and sewer. He lulled them into complacency for 1-1/2 years during which time they could have been investigating this matter. Commissioner Wodtke had suggested they meet with Utilities Director Terry Pinto, who advised that the plant would have to be replaced because of the new requirements on sodium. Mr. Shirley asked him who makes these decisions, and Mr. Pinto had given very evasive answers, i.e., "they", "Tallahassee". It was hard for them to get basic information as to what is happening to them. He also objected to financing General Development's improvements through Indian River County issuing industrial revenue bonds. ` Attorney Brandenburg explained that when the County issues industrial revenue bonds, it does not incur any expense to the residents of the County. It just allows a company to obtain lower interest loans from a financial institution. Mr. Allen Reynolds, resident of Vero Shores, had two points: 1) As a general contractor who has been in construction most of his life, he objected to paying for what the developer promised and now cannot provide. At the homeowners' association meeting two years ago, General Development had stated they had capacity to serve and now they don't. 2) He felt that this matter should be considered only when all five commissioners are present. Mr. Dick Barton, past President of the Vero. Shores Homeowners' Association, stated that the present water system is supplemented by a gas -run generator in the event of a power failure during storms to allow Vero Shores to maintain water service. Now he understands that all of this equipment is going to be hauled out or mothballed, and Administrator Wright confirmed that the County has backup equipment. ' Mr. Nate Davies, owner of two homes in Vero Shores, stated that Vero Shores is a community of only 150. homes that is almost completely developed. He felt that Vero Shores should be considered as a single development and use the equipment in place. A gentlemen who did not give his name felt that the County should not sell the water to General Development Corporation. Dr. George Herrold, 224 6th Ave, S.E., explained that when he bought his lot 25 years ago, all the water and sewer lines were in and now they are being asked to finance a new line which will not benefit them any, but will benefit General Development's future development in Vero Highlands. He felt that it is difficult to discuss buying water from the County before knowing what the cost will be. He felt also that it would be a much better idea to revoke the franchise and had some doubt that General Development would keep their word. He urged the Board to consider these matters very carefully. Mr. Terry Christopher, a 17 -year resident of Vero Shores, confirmed that two years ago a representative of General Development had lulled them to sleep and made statements that they would never have rate increases, etc. He felt that General Development had known then that they would not have the capacity and. would have to expand. He recommended that GDU expand the whole system rather than building a new facility. He had not heard anything today in regard to that. He was very upset that his bill would now go to $70 a month, according.to the newspaper account. 49 OCT 5 1983 Boa 4 PAcr. 1 OCT 5 1983 Vice Chairman Scurlock explained that GDU does have a request in for a rate increase. If nothing is done and the County refuses to sell water to General Development, they can go back and develop or expand their own system and come back before us for a rate increase hearing. Then customers will be faced with a higher rate than if General Development had bought water from the County. Administrator Wright suggested that everyone in Vero Shores and Vero Highlands attend the rate hearing when it is scheduled and be prepared to spend some time. Vice Chairman Scurlock explained the charges under the proposed rates on Page 89 of the backup material: Meter Size Present Rates 5/8 x 3/4" 1" Water: Minimum (3,000 gallons) $ 5.00 $ 5.00 Usage (2,000 gallons) 2.00 2.00 Total (5,000 gallons) $ 7.00 $ 7.00 Sewer: Flat Rate 6.00 6.00 Present total combined water & sewer bill: $13.00 $13.00 Proposed Rates Water: Base Facility Charge $ 7.86 $14.92 Usage (5,000 gallons) 9.50 9.50 Total $17.36 $24.42, Sewer: Base Facility Charge $ 8.46 $ 8.46 Usage (5,000 gallons) 9.40 9.40' Total $17.86 $17.86 Proposed total combined water & sewer bill $35.22 $42.28 Dr. George Herrold came forward again to suggest that Vero Shores be allowed to continue being served from the existing plant under the old rate structure as the development only consists of 125-150 units. Mr. Otto Pisani, Vero Highlands, explained that most of the people in Vero Highlands did not know of the meeting being held today and the telephones were really buzzing last night to urge people to attend the meeting today. As a result, many people are here today. A Mr. Albert Visca, resident of Vero Shores, asked if GDU has committed themselves as to when they will actually buy water from the County and Administrator Wright felt it would be in approximately six months to a year. Mr. Visca stated that up till now he has been satisfied with the rate increases, but a 170% increase is something else again. He also asked why GDU was asking for financing when they had updated equipment last year. The residents do not want to be paying for a profit which will be made by the County and another profit which will be made by GDU by being charged a high rate on capital which never will be spent -- most of it is already charged off. He urged the Commission to consider this very carefully because GDU did not go broke with the rate increases they have received in the past. Vice Chairman Scurlock felt that the misunderstanding here was that the rate structure is based on 1982 figures, and that they are actually losing money right now with the existing system. Commissioner Lyons felt that the Board should defer action on these matters until everyone in Vero Shores and Vero Highlands thoroughly understands the matter; there seems to be much misunderstanding and there have been many questions raised today that he would like to review further. However, he did not feel that it will change the action one bit, but he is hesitant to take action until everyone understands and until all five commissioners are present. Vice Chairman Scurlock asked Administrator Wright if there is a possibility of setting up an educational program to explain to the residents of Vero Shores and Vero Highlands that in the long.run the residents will save money by GDU buying water from the County. Administrator Wright asked Mr. Fancher if a postponement would pose any problem and Mr. Fancher explained that it was necessary to move ahead on the bond resolution as GDU had it tied in with several other developments in Florida. OCT 5 1983 . 51 ox 54 pAvC '8 8 F""-- 5 1983 OCT P S87 Mr. Tim Myers asked if there was a great deal of money spent in 1982, but Mr. Fancher did not have any figures on hand. Mr. Myers then asked if General Development did not build another house, would the existing facilities meet the existing needs. Mr. Fancher stated that if everything remained static and they were not any changes in regulations, or anything else, then the -answer would be yes. Mr. Myers felt then that this whole new facility is so that General Development can build more houses. He realized that the County is trying to save them money, but felt that the existing plant should be kept in use for those homes in existence. Commissioner Lyons suggested that items B & C be deferred until a special call meeting can be held to discuss the rate hearings. He felt that the meeting should be held sometime in early November in the evening when more people can attend. This would allow more time for GDU to give educational presentations to the homeowners' associations. Mr. Fancher suggested the use of a large facility in Vero Highlands. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously deferred action on the General Development.Utilities Water Agreement and authorized a Special Meeting to be held on Wednesday, November 9, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. in Vero Highlands to discuss rate increases, the water agreement and the franchise agreement. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES — AMENDMENTS TO FRANCHISE The hour of 10:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the, following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: 52 E- I COU4,t OF04DIAa --Beforg Ills uric S0 Bret he is Burne at fifer, BRach,in.lndi, VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily i&Iieach, Indian River County, Florida TE OF FLORIDA lhonty personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr, who on oath bf the Vero Beach Press -Journal• a daily newspaper pubtlshed my. Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, paing in thematter of in the Cuart. :: is c,io fished ,n said newspaper in the issues of / 93 Affiant further says that file said Vero Beach Press•Journal is a newspal, r pub'- h+id jt Vero Beach in said Indian Rivor Gnunly, Florida. and that the said newspaper has P titre been rentmuously uubinhed in said Indian River County. Florida each daily aw.l n,. r_n antered as second class mail matter it the post office in Veru Beach, in said Indian Fivi.r L;yu'J. ly. Florida• for a period of one year next precedmq the first publication of the attacned ,rny of advertisement, and alliant further says that he has neither pard not promised any pe•s..1. t . or corpoiann, any discount, reh.it, commission Of refund fcr the purpose b! ;� a advertisement for publrcabnn in Ihn said newspaper Sworn to and subscr•hed bet i mn ay,I A.D. 19 n` iCinr4 .., mu i : ul CGurt, piNan Rwer Cdunty. Fl•.in :-- CiEALI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Indian River Board of County Commis- sioners will hold, a public hearing. October 5, 1983, at 10:30 a.m., in the Commission Cham- bers located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to consider adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER$ OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AMENDING THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC., WATER AND SEWER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE "PASS-THROUGH" OF INCREASES IN THE COUNTY WHOLESALE WATER RATE AND PROVIDING FOR THE IM- POSITION OF A FRANCHISE FEE AND PROVIDING FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE FRANCHISE AREA. WHEREAS, General Development Utilities, Inc. (Utility) has proposed certain amend- ments to their water and sewer franchise; and WHEREAS, the Utility's franchise dated May 5, 1960, allows it to provide water and sewer service In a portion of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Utility desires to clarity the procedures for the processing of general rate increase applications and to simplify the procedures for the "pass-through" to its cus- tomers of rate changes imposed ch it by the County under an agreement to purchase wholesale water utility service from the Coun- ty,and WHEREAS, the Utility desires to revise Its franchised territory; and WHEREAS, the County consistent with cur- rent policy desires to impose a franchise fee on the provision of walnr and sewer aervires by the Utility; and WHEREAS, the County desitss to reserve the right to adopt, in addition to the provisions herein contained and existing applicable resolutions or laws, such lees and Charges as it shall find necessary in the eyerciss of the pollee power and lawful authortly veered rn said County. and W1fERFAS, affsr public heating the Board finds It is in the public Interest to amend the franchise to accomplish each of the foregoing purposes, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED by the Board of County Cornmissioners of Indian River County, Florida; that the Resolution dated April 5, 1960, between Indian River County; Florida, and General Development Utilities, Inc., as, subsequently amended by Resolution 77.95, Resolution 80-15. and 4'in-,r.hir,ri� A! 1^1 la I.r :, , n -, n nt ,. 1., bounded on the East by the Indian River West Shoreline in Township 33 South, Range 40' East. 2. Section 17 of the original resolution is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 17 a. Except as provided in paragraph b of this section, should the Utility desire to adjust any charges heretofore established and approved by the Board, then the Utility shall notify and make application to the Board in writing, set- ting forth a schedule of rates and charges which It proposes. Within ninety (90) days after notice as aforesaid, the Board shall hold a public hearing on such request, notice of which shall be given by publication in a news- paper regularly published in said County, at least one time not more than one month nor less than one week preceding such hearing. Certified proof of publication of such notice shall be filed with the Board. The Board will approve or disapprove said increase in rates within sixty (60) days after said public hear- ing. If the Board has not acted within one hundred twenty (120) days after the initial no- tice by the Utility,theh the Utility may forthwith put such amended schedule of rates and charges into effect: If the Utility should raise rates or charges as hereinabove staled prior to action by the Board, the difference between the Implemented rates and the previously au- thorized rates she" be collected under bond and subject to refund for a period of one hun- dred twenty (120) days Upon the expiration of said one hundred twenty (120) day period, if no action has been taken by the Board, there shall be no further obligation on the part of the Utibty to to -fund any montes, and the bond with nn longer be in force: and the increase In rales or charges shall continue as if the re- quest of the utility had been granted 11 the Board onto,% an order approvirg cur dlow proving the rate im:.resse prior to the time. the req,irrst is dt•r•meif to have been granted, and the Utility or any person fools aggrinved by such order, then the Utility or such person may seek to -view of the Board`9 action by pro ce9rlings m We Circuit Court of the County b It at any time life Utility is purchasing all or any portion of Its.UNity services from Indian River County and redistributing such services to its customers, the Utility's rates to Its cus- tomers shall be automatically Increased or do - tressed without hearing, upon verified notice to the Board thirty (30) days prior to the Uiil- ity's implemenlation of the increase or de- creaso that therates. charged to the Utility by Ind -an p„nr rritinty nr iia *-,n sary of the effective date of this sec- tion, the Utility, Its successors or as- signs, shall pay to the County or its successors an amount which, when added to the amount of all county taxes, licenses and other Impositions levied or Imposed upon the Utility's Property, business or operations for the preceding tax Year, will equal six percent (6%) of gross company reve- nues (excluding coniributions-in-aid- of-construction and connection charges) from the sale of water and sewer service to residential and com- mercial customSECTiON 23 Within thirty (30) days after the first anniversary of the effective date of this section and within thirty (30) days after each succeeding anniver- sary of the effective date of this sec- tion, the Utility, Its successors or as- signs, shall pay to the County or Its successors an amount which, when added to the amount of all county taxes, licenses and other Impositions levied or Imposed upon the Utility's Property, business or operations for the preceding tax Year, will equal six percent (6%) of Bross company reve- nues (excluding contributions -in -aid - of -construction and connection charges) from the sale of water and sewer service to residential and com- mercial customers served by the Utility's systems In Vero Shores and Vere Beach Highlands within the unincorporated area of the County for the twelve fiscal months preced• Ing the applicable anniversary date. The franchise fee Shnli be collected from, and shrill he shown ot, a sena- rate Item on tilt UNlttv's bills to its customers. The County reserves the rtoht to adopt, In addition to the provisions herein contained and existing appli- cable resolutions or laws, such fees and charges as it shall find neces- sary in the exercise of the police Power and lawful authority vested in said County, -4. A new Section 24 Is added to the original resolution, as amended, to read as follows: SECTION 24 If any word, sections, clause or part of this resolution is held Invalid, such portion shall be deemed a Sepa- rate and independent part and the some shalt not invalidate the remain- der. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, has caused this franchise to be executed In the name of the County of Indian River by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and its seal to be affixed and attested by its Clerk, all pursuant to the resolution of the Board of County Commission- ers adopted on the day of -- --, 1983. Signed, 'sealed and delivered in the presence of: COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA BY Richard N. Bird, Chairman Board of County Commis- sioners Attest: Clerk ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC., does hereby ac- cept the foregoing franchise, and for their successors and assigns does hereby covenant and agree to.com- ply with and abide by all of the terms, conditions and provisions therein set forth and contained. DATED at Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, this day of , 1983: WITNESS: GENFRAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC. BY Senior Vlce-Pre sirliont STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY Or iNDi•04 RIVER f1ERE:BY Cf R f lf-Y thaf on this day, before me, on officer duly ou- thorited In the Stott and County -aforesaid to take acknowledgments Personally appeared —, as of Gen- eral Development Utilities, Inc., and he acknowledged before me that he executed the foregoing instrument for the uses and purposes therein ex- pressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the State and County afore- said this day of , 1983. Notary Public, State of Flor- ida at Large MV Commission Expires: All interested persons are Invitec to this meeting. If any person de• tides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Corrmmissionert with respect to any matter consid ered at this meeting, he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and that for such purpose he mai need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. which record includes' the testimony and evidence upon which the appeo Is to be based. Richard N. Bird, Chairman Board of County Commission• ers Sept. 28, 1983. r* m1..r M In OCT 5 1983. rAf 89 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/26/83: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 26, 1983 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Terrance G. Pinto 'COIL, Utility Services DirecSULQr ' BJECT'GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES AMENDMENTS TO FRANCHISE FROM: Joyce S. Hamilton REFERENCES: 1) Water Agreement Administrative Aid 2) Location Map DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: General Development Utilities, Inc., has proposed certain amend- ments to their water and sewer franchise. The Utility desires to clarify the procedures for the processing of general rate increase applications and to simplify the procedures for the "pass-through" to its customers of rate charges imposed on it by the County under an agreement to purchase wholesale water utility service from the County. The Utility also desires to revise its franchised territory. Consistent with current policy, the County desires to impose a franchise fee on the provision of water and sewer services by the Utility. The County also desires to reserve the right to adopt, in addition to the provisions herein contained and existing appli- cable resolutions or laws, such fees and charges as it shall find necessary in the exercise of the police power and lawful authority vested in said County. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES: Amending this franchise agreement would allow for the collection of franchise fees to the County which was not part of the original agreement and we have limited their franchise area to what we think is more suitable for them to serve. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board amend the original Resolution dated April 5, 1960 subsequently amended by Resolution 77-95, Resolution 80-15 and Resolution 81-101. 54 The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously deferred action on amendments to franchise until the Special Meeting of November 9, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. in a facility at Vero Highlands. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITY REVENUE BONDS Attorney Brandenburg explained that this Public Hearing had been postponed from the September 21, 1983 meeting. The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/12/83: TO: Members of the DATE: September 12, 1983 FILE: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: General Development Utilities $4,020,000 Variable Rate Demand Utility Revenue Bonds FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg REFERENCES: County Attorney. With regard to the capital improvements being made by General Development Utilities, please find attached to this memorandum the proposed resolution authorizing the issuance of $4,020,000 Variable Rate Demand Utility Revenue Bonds which is being submitted for your approval. The remainder of the financing documents, Trust Indenture, Loan Agreement and Guarantee Agreement referred to as Exhibits "A", "B", and "C", are available in my office for your review, as they were too voluminous to include in your backup. 55 0 CT 5 1983 Respect-,fmlly submit ed; randeab rg BQ l5, 4 PACE J OCT 5 1993 six Pka 891 Vice Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard on this matter. Mr. Charles E. Fancher, Jr., Vice President of Finance, General Development Utilities explained that the purpose of General Development's request for the issuance of $4,020,000 Variable Rate Demand Utility Revenue Bonds is to finance construction of facilities. Mr. Allen Reynolds, resident of Vero Shores, was afraid that it would be another nail in their coffin if the bonds were issued before the rate increase hearings and before the water agreement was discussed. Commissioner Lyons explained that this just allows General Development to continue their process of getting the bonds, but that the Board still holds the reins and they will have to come back before the Board once more. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board adopt Resolution 83-101 providing for issuance of $4,020,000 variable rate demand utility bonds to General Development Utilities; with the understanding that General Development is proceeding on its own and there is still one more step to be taken to assure how this money is to be used. Attorney Brandenburg advised that they would clarify the language in the resolution and file for bond validation. During that time, the matter would be resolved, and if the 56 County does not sell water to GDU, they would have to delete that from the _scope of their project. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. i OCT57 On 51983 � J OCT 5 1983 ft M ou 893 RESOLUTION NO. 83-101 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE FINANCING OF THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CONSTITUTING INDUSTRIAL FACILI- TIES FOR THE FURNISHING OF WATER OR FOR THE COL- LECTION, STORAGE, TREATMENT, AND FINAL DISPOSITION OF SEWAGE, OR BOTH, TO BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC.; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $4,020,000 VARIABLE RATE DEMAND UTILITY REVENUE BONDS (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC. PROJECT); PROVIDING FOR THE LOAN OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS TO THE BORROWER TO PAY THE COST OF THE PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF SUCH BONDS; PROVID- ING FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF; MAKING CERTAIN OTHER COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH BONDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This resolution, here- inafter called "instrument," is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 159, Part Il, Florida Statutes (the "Act"), and other applicable provisions of law. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms used in this resolution shall have the meanings specified in the Trust Indenture (the "Indenture"), the Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement"), the Guarantee Agreement (the "Guarantee"), and the Remarketing Agreement (the "Remarketing Agreement"), attached hereto as Exhibits "ATM, "B", "C", and "D", respectively. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared as follows: 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 equipping 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 Issuer may be able to promote the economic growth of the State of Florida, increase opportunities for gainful employment and otherwise contribute to the welfare of the State of Florida and its inhabitants, and to finance the cost of such projects by the issuance of its revenue bonds. B. General Development Utilities, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Bor- rower") wishes to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of certain capital ^nrstituting industrial facilities for the furnishing of water or for the collection, storage, treatment, and final disposition of sewage, or both (the "Project"). LK L-9 /06/83-# 218B Rev.9 /15/8 3 Rev.9/16/83 -1- 58 M ® M C. The location of the Project in the Issuer's area of operation shall make a significant contribution to the economic growth of the area of operation of the Issuer, and shall provide gainful employment. The Project will constitute an "industrial or manufac- turing plant" within the meaning of the Act. D. The appropriate governmental entities and utility providers are capable of providing when needed all the necessary public facilities, utilities and services that will be necessary for the construction, operation, repair and maintenance of the Project and on account of any - increase in population or other circumstances resulting from the Project. E. Adequate provision is made under the provisions of the Loan Agreement for the operation, repair and maintenance of the Project at the expense of the Borrower, and for the payment of the principal and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. F. The principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and all payments required under the Loan Agreement and the Indenture shall be payable solely from the Trust Estate as defined in the Indenture, including the Guarantee, and the Issuer shall never be required to (i) levy ad valorem taxes on any property within its territorial limits to pay the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds or to make any other payments provided for under the Loan Agreement and the Indenture; (ii) pay the same from any funds of the Issuer other than the Trust Estate, including the Guarantee; or (iii) require or enforce any payment or performance by the Borrower as provided by the Indenture or the Loan .Agreement unless the Issuer's expenses in respect thereof shall be paid from moneys derived under the Loan Agreement or shall be advanced to the Issuer for such purpose, and the Issuer shall receive indemnity to its satisfaction. -Such Bonds shall not constitute a lien upon any property owned by or situated within the territorial limits of the Issuer except the Trust Estate in the manner provided in the Loan Agreement and the Indenture. G. Giving due regard to the ratio of the Guarantor's and Borrower's current assets to their current liabilities, net worth, earning trends, ,coverage of all fixed charges, the nature of their business and the industry in which they are involved, their inherent stability, the guarantee of the Bonds by another financially responsible corporation, and all other factors determinative of the Guarantor's and Borrower's capabilities, financial and otherwise, of fulfilling its obligations consistently with the purposes of the Act, the Borrower is financially responsible and fully capable and willing to fulfill its obligations under the Loan Agreement, including the obligation to make payments thereunder in the amounts and at the times required pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement and the obligation to operate, repair and maintain the Project at its own expense, and the Borrower is desirous of serving the purposes of the Act and is willing and capable of fully performing all other obligations and responsibilities imposed upon it pursuant to the provisions of the Loan Agreement. H. The payments to be made by the Borrower to the Trustee under the Loan Agreement will be sufficient to pay all principal of and interest on and premium, if any, for the Bonds, as the same shall become due, and to make all other payments required by the Loan Agreement and the Indenture. LKL-9/15/83-## 218BA -2- 59 OCT 5:1983 OCT 5 1993 Bw S4 na 895 I. The costs to be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds will be costs of a project within the meaning of the Act. J. The interest on the Bonds will be exempt from federal income taxation under existing laws of the United States. SECTION 4. FINANCING OF THE PROJECT AUTHORIZED. The financing of the cost of the Project in the manner provided in the Loan Agreement is hereby authorized. SECTION 5. AUTHORIZATION OF BONDS. Obligations of the Issuer to be known as "Variable Rate Demand Utility Revenue Bonds (General Development Utilities, Inc. Project)" (the 'Bonds"), are hereby authorized to be issued in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding Pour Thousand Twenty Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,020,000), in the form and manner described in the Indenture. The Bonds shall be dated such date and mature in such years and amounts, will contain such redemption provisions, will bear interest at such rates (not exceeding the maximum interest rate permitted by the Act or by other applicable provision of law), and will be payable on such dates, as provided in the Indenture or by . subsequent resolution of the Issuer adopted prior to the sale of each installment of the Bonds. The Issuer hereby declares its intent to issue and sell the Bonds all at one time or in installments from time to time. SECTION 6. AUTHORIZATION OF EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF LOAN AGREEMENT. The Loan Agreement, in substantially the form thereof attached hereto as Exhibit B, with such changes, alterations and corrections as may be recommended by counsel to the Issuer and as may be approved by the Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") of the Issuer, such approval to be presumed by their execution thereof, is hereby approved by the Issuer, and the Issuer hereby authorizes and directs said Chairman to execute and said Clerk to attest under the seal of the Issuer the Loan Agreement- and to deliver to the Borrower the Loan Agreement, all of the provisions of which, when executed and delivered by the Issuer as authorized herein and by the Borrower duly authorized, shall be deemed to be a part of this instrument as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein. SECTION 7. TRUSTEE, REGISTRAR AND PAYING AGENT. The Trustee, Registrar and Paying Agent with respect to the Bonds herein authorized to be issued shall be BankAmerica Trust Company of New York, New York, New York. SECTION 8. AUTHORIZATION OF EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF IN- DENTURE. As security for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, pro rata and without preference of any one of the Bonds over any other thereof, the Indenture, in substantially the form thereof attached hereto as Exhibit A, with such changes, alterations and corrections as may be recommended by counsel to the Issuer and as may be approved by the Chairman and Clerk of the Board of the Issuer, such approval to be presumed by their execution thereof, is hereby approved by the Issuer, and the Issuer hereby authorizes and directs said Chairman to execute and said Clerk to attest under the seal of the Issuer the Indenture and. to deliver to the Trustee the Indenture, all of the provisions of which, when executed and delivered by the Issuer as `lV^rein and by the Trustee duly authorized, shall be deemed to be a part of this •I instrument as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein. LKL-9/16/83-#218BA -3- e The Issuer does hereby provide in the Indenture the terms, conditions, covenants, rights, obligations, duties and agreements to and for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds, the Issuer, the Borrower and the Trustee. SECTION 9. APPROVAL OF GUARANTEE, REMARKETING AGREEMENT AND LETTER OF CREDIT. The form of Guarantee Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit C, by the Borrower and General Development Corporation, jointly and severally, as Guarantors, to the Trustee and the Issuer, and the form of Remarketing Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, naming Citibank, N.A., New York, New York as Remarket- ing Agent, each to be dated of even date with the Loan Agreement and the Indenture, are hereby accepted, and the Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of the Issuer are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Guarantee Agreement and Remarket- ing Agreement, substantially in such form, with such changes, alterations and corrections as may be recommended by counsel to the Issuer and approved by the Chairman and Clerk of the Board, their approval to be evidenced by their execution thereof. As additional security for such Bonds the Borrower and General Development Corporation shall obtain a Letter of Credit as described in the Indenture. A form of such Letter of Credit is attached hereto as Exhibit E, and is hereby approved, and the Trustee is requested to accept delivery of the Letter of Credit and to take action thereunder as provided therein and in the Indenture. SECTION 10. NO PERSONAL LIABILITY. No covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement herein contained or contained in the Loan Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement, the Guarantee or the Indenture shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement of any member-, agent or employee of the Issuer or its governing body in his individual capacity, and neither the members of the governing body of the Issuer nor any official executing the Bonds shall be liable personally thereon or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof. SECTION 11. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. Except as herein or in the Loan Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement, the Guarantee or the Indenture otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this instrument or in the Loan Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement,, the Guarantee or the Indenture, expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person or firm or corporation other than the Issuer, the Borrower, the owners of the Bonds and the Trustee any right, remedy or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this instrument or any provision thereof or of the Loan Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement, the Guarantee or the Indenture; this instrument, the Loan Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement, the Guarantee and the Indenture intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Issuer, the Borrower, the owners from time to time of the, Bonds and the Trustee. SECTION 12. PREREQUISITES PERFORMED. All acts, conditions and things relating to the adoption of this instrument, to the issuance of the Bonds, and to the execution of the Loan Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement, the Guarantee and the Indenture, required of the Issuer by the Constitution or laws of the State of Florida to happen, exist and be performed precedent to the adoption hereof, and precedent to the issuance of the Bonds, and to the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement, the Guarantee and the Indenture, have happened, exist and have noon norfnrmptl As so required. LKL-9/ 15/83-# 218BA -4- 61 0 CT 5 1983 Fr - OCT 5 1983 54 rcL 8 SECTION 13. GENERAL AUTHORITY. The members of the governing body of the Issuer and its officers, attorneys, engineers or other agents or employees are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by this instrument, the Loan Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement, the Guarantee or the Indenture, or desirable or consistent with the requirements hereof or such Loan Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement, the Guarantee or Indenture, for the full, punctual and complete performance of all the terms, covenants and agreements contained in the.Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement, the Guarantee, the Indenture, and this instrument. SECTION 14. SALE OF BONDS. The Bonds shall be issued and sold at one time or in installments from time to time to such persons and upon such terms as shall be set forth and approved by subsequent resolution of the Issuer adopted prior to the sale of the applicable installment of the Bonds. SECTION 15. ARBITRAGE. The Issuer covenants that it will not direct the Trustee to make any investments pursuant to or under the Loan Agreement or the Indenture which could cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 103(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the applicable regulations issued thereunder. SECTION 16. THIS INSTRUMENT CONSTITUTES A CONTRACT. The Issuer covenants and agrees that this instrument shall constitute a contract between the Issuer and the owners from time to time of any of the Bonds then outstanding and that all covenants and agreements set forth herein and in the Loan Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement, the Guarantee and the Indenture to be performed by the Issuer shall be for the equal and ratable benefit and security of all owners of the Bonds without privilege, priority or distinction as to lien or otherwise of any of the Bonds over any other of the Bonds. — - SECTION 17. SEVERABILITY OF INVALID PROVISIONS. If any one or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provisions of law or contrary to the policy of express law, through not expressly prohibited, or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions and shall in no way affect the validity of any of the other provisions hereof or of the Bonds issued hereunder. SECTION 18. REPEALING CLAUSE. All resolutions or parts thereof of the Issuer in conflict with the provisions herein contained are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 19. EFFECTIVE DATE. This instrument shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. LKL-9/15/83-# 218BA -5- 62 The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Bowman who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by C=nissioner Lyons and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird - Absent Vice -Chairman Don. C. Scurlock, Jr. - Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman - Aye Camnissioner Patrick B. Lyons - Aye Ccmmissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. - Absent PASSED AND APPROVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, this 5th day of October, 1983. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FIDRIDA, By Z.2, C DON C. S , JR. Vice -Chairman Board of County Commissioners AttestL'k'- FREDA WRIGHT, Clerk � ty m 63 n CT 5 1983 Boa 5.4 FAa 898 I OCT 51983 �� lAG6 899 WELCOMING BACK MR. SENKEVICH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION The Board welcomed Mr. Alex Senkevich back to Vero Beach in his capacity as District Manager of the Department of Environmental Regulations. Mr. Senkevich advised of certain plans DER has scheduled for the future. He stated he would like to be present at the Special Meeting that was just scheduled for November 9th at General Development to answer any questions in regard to Tallahassee mandates. 64 The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed for lunch at 1:0.0 o'clock P.M. and reconvened at 2:30 O'clock P.M. with the same members present, Commissioner Wodtke and Chairman Bird being out of state on vacation. PRESENTATION RE PROPOSED CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMPLEX Commissioner Lyons reviewed his memo of September 28, 1983, as follows: MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners— FROM: Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman Facility Committee DATE: September 28, 1983 SUBJECT: Justice Complex At the meeting held on September 23, 1983 with - representatives of the Public Safety Advisory Committee, the Facility Committee, Administrator, Attorney, Architects and representatives of nearly all the organizations involved in the court system, it became clear that we "should not refer to the new complex, which includes the jail, as the "Criminal Justice Complex". Probably the best name is the "Justice Complex". It was the majority opinion at the meeting that until it became necessary to move all the courts to a new location, the County Court function could best be separated for a move to an interim or new location. However, everyone was in agreement to immediately provide a first appearance courtroom at the new jail. Ideally, all courts should be at one location as we should plan to ultimately provide space for all of them at the jail site. As a result of the reports and discussion, the joint membership of the Facility Committee and Public Safety Advisory Committee made certain recommendations which are reproduced elsewhere in this.packet. I would like to make recommendations which are somewhat more specific than theirs and are believed consistent with theirs. The architects be authorized to master plan the jail site to provide a jail with first appearance court, sheriff's offices and a court facility with 2h county courtrooms for immediate occupancy and a court facility for all courts in the year 2000. The architects be authorized to proceed with the schematic design phase of the contract for the jail, the sheriff's office and a 2h courtroom county court facility. 65 0 CT 5198 �e K w s90 OCT 5 1993 d o ° 54 PACE 90 The Administrator be authorized to rent space to provide the necessary additional courtrooms needed now. The Court Administrator and the Judges were very vehement in their pleas for relief now. It is my opinion that converting the space in the Annex to a fourth courtroom will be a waste of money. First, it will not convert to a desirable courtroom. Second, it will be expensive. Third, we will still be short of space and need additional space elsewhere. And, if we have space elsewhere, all the county court system should move, which means we would have temporarily provided more courts than we need at the annex. Further, we will have the cost of converting it to office space when we move all of the courts to the new location. We need space for 2h county courtrooms and support space now and I believe we should rent space and provide minimum alterations to carry us through until the new court space is constructed. September 23, 1983 SUMMARY OF MOTIONS FACILITY/PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEES 1. ON MOTION by Judge D.C. Smith, SECONDED by Mr. Scheeren, the Committees unanimously agreed to recommend to move from the Courthouse the County judge's courtroom, his office and the offices for the necessary support staff, into temporary quarters until permanent facilities can be built. 2. ON MOTION by Mr. Scheeren, SECONDED by Judge D.C. Smith, the Committees. recommended that as soon as possible the County courts be moved from their temporary location to their permanent location at the new Justice Complex site. 3. ON MOTION by Judge D.C. Smith, SECONDED by Mr. Scheeren, the Committees unanimously agreed to direct Frizzell Architects to move ahead to the next phase of planning for the Justice Complex. 4, ON MOTION by Mr. Wheeler, SECONDED by Judge D.C. Smith, the Committees unanimously agreed to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they authorize Frizzell Architects to provide a master plan and schematic design of the correction's -facility, the limited -scope court facility, and the sheriff's administration building. E7 Commissioner Lyons noted that James Dorsey of Frizzell Architects is present to answer any questions. He then summarized that, in essence, the Facilities Committee is recommending that the County embark on a capital construction program involving three different facilities, as described in the architect's report: Corrections Facility: This facility will contain 55,924 square feet and adequately meet all jail functions. This is an average of 349.5 square feet per inmate. Areas to be provided include: administration, intake and re- ception, infirmary, kitchen and dining, recreation, cam missary, laundry, and maintenance. County Courts: This facility will contain 12,500 square feet if two courtrooms are provided, 16,400 square feet if three courtrooms are provided. Support areas to be provided include: a Clerk of the Court Administrator, 16 staff personnel, reception and counter area, and file space. Sheriffs Administrative Building: This facility will contain 47,220 square feet and include: administration, uniform patrol, detective bureau, organized crime. bu- reau, and civil. and warrants division. Commissioner Lyons recommended that we proceed with a master plan to do all three of these particular items as well as site the entire courts' complex as originally envisioned. In addition to that, in order to refine our costs, he recommended that we embark on the schematic design stage of the Corrections Facility and Sheriff's Administra- tive Building. Commissioner Lyons then proceeded to review the follow- ing Project Cost Summary: OCT 5 1993 67 ,_BOOK 54 pnk 902 rl"--193 OCT 5 Project Cost Summary (1983Dollars) Construction: Corrections Facility $5,872,000 Courts Facility* 1,088,000 Sheriffs Administrative Building 2,696,000 Off -Site Improvements: Water $ 90,000 Sewer 105,000 Communications Tower 90,000 Equipment and Furnishings Quality Control Tests: Materials Testing $ 12,000 Soil Borings 8,000 Survey 5,000 Fees and Permits (Sewer and Water Impact, DER) Land (20 Acre Tract) 4 PACS 903 $9,656,000 $ 285,000 $1,200,000 $ 25,000 $ 45,000 $ 140,000 Architect's Fee 6.4% of Construction and off-site sewer and water,only $ 630,000 Contingency $ 500,000 TOTAL $12,481,000 Inflation at 0.6 o/month to mid -point of contruction (9/1/83) for construction, off-site improvements, and equipment and furnishings, only $1,573,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $14,054,000 * Add $391,000 for third courtroom and office support space Commissioner Lyons reported that since meeting with the people involved in the court system, it has become very apparent that they need that fourth courtroom now. The original plan was to put it in the Annex, but he stated that he personally cannot go along with the proposed project cost for a temporary courtroom which would be both unsatis- factory and insufficient for our needs and would later have to be reconverted back to office space. Commissioner Lyons continued that the unanimous opinion of the people in the court system is that, if we are going to make any separation of the courts, we should locate the County Court somewhere M else. Again the problem is that they need that courtroom now. Commissioner Lyons, therefore, felt we should see if we can't lease enough space to put in 22 courtrooms and whatever minor support is needed to get that court situation going and solve the need for the fourth courtroom in the courthouse. This also would take the pressure off of constructing a new set of courtrooms at the new site. Commissioner Lyons noted that the Jail obviously is our first concern, and if it comes to a question of having to leave out the Sheriff's offices in order to have the project, he was for the project. His recommendation, how- ever, was that we still go ahead with the master plan and site the complex. Commissioner Lyons asked Mr. Dorsey how much detail we have to get into besides the Jail and possibly the Sheriff's office to have a plan that is going to give us what we need to have a master plan. Mr. Dorsey stated that they do not have to get into a whole lot of detail - that will come with the schematic design stage. Vice Chairman Scurlock reported that the Finance Advisory Committee is now looking at funding on the basis of a 6-8 million dollar bond issue wrapped around with the Beach Bonds and spread over a 10 year term. He noted that extending this an additional 5 years would have the advantage of spreading the cost out over more people and also reduce interest costs considerably. Vice Chairman Scurlock stressed the absolutely vital importance of developing a package that will be acceptable to the community. He concurred that obviously the number one priority is the Jail, and while the Sheriff and the Court system also have urgent needs, we have been uncomfortable in the past and have had to make do with rented space. He then discussed the possibility of presenting the public with information on three options, but felt that would just serve 69 Off 51983 a 54 pgrgo_ J 0 CT 5 1983 54 905 to cause confusion and people would have the tendency to vote No. Mr. Scurlock believed it will be difficult to present a package that the public will be comfortable with under any circumstances when it will mean 1/2 mill on their tax bills for 10 years, but stressed that the public must be made to realize that we are skating on very thin ice right now and shortly will be faced with releasing hardened felons on the streets due to lack of space. Commissioner Lyons believed that the Corrections Facility would be under 8 million and felt that if we don't move ahead to formulate a viable plan, we really are not doing our job. The question then arose as to what vehicle we will use ten years down the road to fund the balance of the complex, and Commissioner Lyons commented that he had presented his feelings this morning in regard to requiring impact fees. Vice Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the type of impact fee Commissioner Lyons is talking about has never been done before, and he believed just to go through all the steps necessary to support it in a court of law would involve years. Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that an attorney in Palm Beach spent quite a few years on trying to develop road impact fees, and even now any money that is being collected for such fees still is being placed in escrow. Commissioner Lyons stressed that whether we like it or not, we must realize this is a situation the county has to face, and we must find a way to finance it. Sheriff Dobeck stated that although he had anticipated getting more for our dollars, he realized the cost figures will necessarily vary. He assured the Board that the Sheriff's office will live anywhere the Commission puts them and that they have no problem with the Commission voting some type of reduction in the entire complex at this time. 70 M He did point out, however, that the primary advantage to having everything done at one time is that it is, of course, more economical and also there is the disadvantage of having an absentee administration. Commissioner Lyons thanked him for his cooperative attitude. He noted that possibly if we don't use the space in the Courthouse Annex for the fourth courtroom, it might be feasible to expand the Sheriff's office into that area and bring his people together. Vice Chairman Scurlock agreed that we want to consolidate the Sheriff's Department. Sheriff Dobeck commented that another point is that he does not want to get into a posture where we have to utilize this facility as a minimum security facility - he did not want to keep two jails. Vice Chairman Scurlock inquired about having some portable structures on the same site as the jail, and Sheriff Dobeck felt this would be defeating our purpose since we are trying to design a jail that can be minimally staffed and having people in other buildings would require additional staff. Commissioner Lyons pointed out that the capital cost of the jail is only 15-20% of the total - the main cost is in the people to operate it, and we must make a balance between spending capital and needing more personnel. Mr. Dorsey asked if there is a way we could phase the Sheriff's facility. Commissioner Lyons believed it is possible, but noted that we must have information that is good enough to use on a bond issue by sometime in December, and there is a limit to how much can be done in that time. We want to be sure we - have the master plan for the ultimate package and the fine detail on what we are going to build right now. OCT 5 1983 hk 71 earn 54 PAu..906 OCT 5 1983 A ?Ac,e 490' Vice Chairman Scurlock noted that the Corrections Facility itself is estimated at 5.8 million and the off-site improvements will, of course, apply to the Courts and the Sheriff's administrative facilities also. Commissioner Lyons assumed the architect's fee would be somewhat lower and that we could put in a lesser figure for inflation. He asked about the figure for equipment and furnishings. Mr. Dorsey stated that a good bit of that is attributable to the Sheriff's offices; probably less than half is attributable to the jail. The Board continued to mull over figures, and Mr. Dorsey noted that the whole point of moving into schematic design for the entire complex was to fine tune those numbers. He stated that the architect's fee on seven million would be 6.5%. As the Board continued to review costs and figures, Vice Chairman Scurlock talked about having the communica- tions tower off site. Mr. Dorsey confirmed that they had been talking about putting it on other County property and thereby avoiding height limitations. Commissioner Lyons commented that we have a tower at Hobart Park and also the WGYL tower, and Sheriff Dobeck stated that if we are just planning on building the jail, they would not need the tower which is for the administra- tive portion. Commissioner Lyons discussed proceeding with a Motion on a tighter set of numbers on the jail.. Vice Chairman Scurlock expressed concern about two members of the Commission being on vacation, but Commissioner Lyons felt comfortable with taking this step since everyone realizes that we have a time problem and must keep on moving. 72 Mr. Dorsey confirmed that the architects need every day they can get to put something together between now and the first of the year, and in fact, they should have started two months ago. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to author- ize the architects to provide a Master Plan for the Jail, the ultimate court facility and the Sheriff's Administrative Building, to proceed with the schematic phase of the Corrections Facility, and to provide the minimum additional information needed to make these Facilities all work together; that they also give us as quickly as possible a new cost estimate on the Corrections Facility with the understanding that we probably are going to proceed with construction only on the Corrections Facility at this time, which will, of course, include water and sewer improvements; the architect to provide de- tailed architectural services cost for this work. Attorney Brandenburg asked if there is a firm figure on the master plan, and Mr. Dorsey stated that the master plan is included in the contract. THE VICE CHAIRMAN called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously 3-0 with Commissioner Wodtke and Chairman Bird being absent. 73 OCT...- 51983 . PAGE 908 J PIP— O CT 5 1993 ei racy9 Administrator Wright asked for direction from the Board in regard to finding space for courtrooms. Vice Chairman Scurlock stated that he personally felt we should start hunting space and one of the areas he felt we should consider is the church located near the Administration Building. Administrator Wright reported that.he already had architect John Calmer provide a rough idea of what would be required to use the church for this purpose, and he felt it would amount to about $400,000. In further discussion as to space for a fourth courtroom, Commissioner Lyons noted that the 2001 Building was satisfactory for quite a while. He also discussed the possibility of someone building us the space and leasing it back. Vice Chairman Scurlock brought up the possibility of using the Commission Chambers, which are empty quite frequently, and Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that court has been held in the City chambers. Administrator Wright noted that they are looking for a semi-permanent type facility as this space will be needed for at least two years. Discussion ensued as to the parking requirements if another function were added to this building, and the Administrator felt we must get a permanent arrangement on the parking lot we don't own. He noted in the event we ever are prohibited from parking on the canal bank, we will have to develop the lot we just cleared across the canal and build a bridge. He stated that he will accelerate the development of the parking lot across the street. The Administrator reminded the Board that the County Judge never has had any input on this problem of relocating the courtroom, and he felt the Chairman should negotiate with him on this. The Board agreed. Commissioner Lyons noted that the Circuit Judges were vehement about their need for space. Administrator Wright assured the Board that staff will find all the space that's available and reasonable and bring this information back to the Board, but reiterated that he felt strongly that Judge Stikelether should be contacted. DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES DOT Stipulation and FEC License Agreement re grade• crossing at 4th Street-, as authorized by Resolution 83-62 at the Regular Meeting of August 17, 1983, having been fully executed and received, were placed on file in the Office of the Clerk. 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. 88057 - 88354 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 3:25 o'clock P.M. Attest: CXJ Clerk 75 Chairman OCT 5 1983 I ?AcL -IL0