HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/18/1984Wednesday, January 18, 1984
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, January 18, 1984, at 8:30 o'clock A.M.
Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B.
Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; and William C.
Wodtke, Jr. Absent was Margaret C. Bowman due to illness.
Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator;
L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Community Services Director; Gary
Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners;
Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; Lt. Dean Longo, Bailiff;
and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Jack Diehl, Our Savior Lutheran Church, gave
the invocation, and Commissioner Wodtke led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Administrator Wright reported that the Sheriff has
requested an item be added to today's agenda in regard to
security -at the Courthouse.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) added the above item to today's agenda
as Item 11 C.
Attorney Brandenburg requested that approval of an
Interlocal Agreement between the County and the Town of
Indian River Shores in regard to a franchise operation
annexed into the Town be made a part of the Agenda.
JAN 18 1984 BOOK 55 408.05
JAN 18 1984 WK.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unani-
mously (4-0) added the above matter to
today's agenda as Item 11 D.
55 rAGE 896
Commissioner Lyons requested that approval of the
Chairman's signature to an Agreement for State Aid to
Libraries be added to the agenda.
The Administrator suggested this be made a part of the
Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unani-
mously (4-0) added the above item to the
Consent Agenda as Item 6 F.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of
December 15, 1983. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the Minutes of the Special
Meeting of December 15, 1983, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular .Meeting of
December 21, 1983. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
K
r � �
(4-0) approved the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of December 21, 1983, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wodtke requested that Item D be removed
from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Execution of Traffic Signal Maintenance & Operation Order
- SR 60 at 43rd Ave.
JAN 18 1984
L -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved DOT Traffic Signal Maintenance
& Operation Order 5-83, Sec. 88060, SR 60 &
43rd Ave. and authorized signature of the
appropriate county official.
3
BOOK55 Pu
JAN 18 194 55 80
A.
State of Florida Department of Transportation
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE & OPERATION
ORDER NO. 5-83
D.O.T. DISTRICT 4
PUBLIC BODY (MAINTAINING AGENCY)
Indian River County
COUNTY Indian River
B. 1. All signalized intersections and signal systems covered
by this order are referenced to an agreement of record
dated July 21, 1980 between the Department and
Public Body and no supplemental agreement is required.
2. The Public Body is hereby authorized and requested to
undertake the maintenance and operation of one (1)
signalized intersections on the State Highway System as
listed in part C of this order. The following previous-
ly numbered and dated orders shall remain in effect and
are not altered by this order.
C. Identification of Type of Equipment and Installations to
be Maintained.
(PART C I -S ATTACHED)
D.
PART C.
Approvals
ACKNOWLEDGED
AND APPROVED: 1-18-84 APPROVED:
Date Date
Traffic Engineer/Agent District Traffic Operations
Public Body Engineer
Section
Number
Street Names
Pre -Micro-
Timed
Nctuated
ProcessoiOther
Inter -
Connected
88060
SR -60 at 43 Ave.(CR-611
4
� � r
i
B. Deed of Easement to City of Vero Beach - Pebble Bay
On MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved Deed of Easement to the City
of Vero Beach for a sewer lift station in the
Pebble Bay area and authorized the signature
of the Chairman.
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT made this /," day of ,
1984, by Indian River County, a political subdivisio of t�Sate
of Florida, party of the first part, and the City of Vero Beach, a
municipal corporation of the State of Florida.
WITNESSETH:
That the said party of the first part, for and in
consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other valuable
consideration in hand paid by the party of the second part, the
receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, unto the
said party of the second part, and its successors and assigns
hereof forever, subject to termination as set forth herein, an
easement for the location, relocation, and maintenance of a
sewer lift station, under, over, across, and upon the following
described property located in Indian River County, Florida,
to -wit:
The North 2.14 feet of the East 4.65 feet of Lot 40,
Pebble Bay Estates as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 17,
17A, of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
and
The North 2.14 feet of the West 9.75 feet of Lot 41,
Pebble Bay Estates as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 17,
17A, of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
5
JAN 18 198 �.
JAN 18 1994 K 55
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same together with all rights
thereunto belonging, and all the estates, right, title, interest,
lien, equity and claim whatsoever of the said party of the first
part, either in law or equity to the only proper use and benefit
of the party of the second part, its successors and assigns
forever, as long as the same is used by the party of the second
part for the purposes of this conveyance, provided further that
this easement shall terminate if the party of the second part
abandons the use of the sewer lift station for which this easement
is granted.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said party of the first part
have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first
above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered
i the presence of:
elt.L,C'_
Wi ss
it ss
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY ITS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By: / C
z'4
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
Attest,
FREDA'WRIGHT, W rk
C. Appointment to Finance Advisory Board
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) appointed Edwin G. Lovell to the
Finance Advisory Board.
E. Endorsement of application for 1986 funding of Beach
Nourishment Project
ON MOTION by Commissioner.Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) endorsed making application to the DER
for 1986 funding of a County Beach Nourishment
L
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
January 6, 1984
Project and authorized Public Works Director
Davis to sign the following letter.
BOARD OF CO U1VTY COIATMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Mr. Al Bishop
Chief, Bureau of Water Management
Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, Fl. 32301
Subject: Fiscal Year 1986 Public Works Program -
Indian River County Beach Nourishment
Suncom Telephone: 424-1011
Ref. Letter: Al Bishop, Chief., D.E.R. Bureau of Water Management to the
Honorable Richard N. Bird dated December 15, 1983
Dear Mr. Bishop:
In accordance with Section 373.026(9), Florida Statutes, Indian River
County has in the past three years submitted applications for the Indian River
County Beach Nourishment Project to be included in the FY 83 and FY 84, Fy 85
Public Works Program budgets. It is noted that the Beach Nourishment Project was
recommended by the Florida D.E.R. to be included in the State's Public Works
Program for FY 83 in the amount of $130,000 and for FY 84 in the amount of
$2,170,000 (Estimated Federal Funding Requirements). Attached are excerpts
from the Preliminary Public Works Appropriations Program.
At this time, the Indian River County Beach Nourishment Project Corps of
Engineer's report is in the Washington office of the Chief of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers awaiting approval and .forrrarding to the Secretary of the
Army, Office of Management and Budget, Congress and the President. It is not
certain that approval will be forthcoming during FY 85. As a result, Indian
River County requests that the Bureau of Water Management act, on behalf of the
County, to insure the proper advancing or carry over of funds already approved
so that the County will remain in a proper financial posture for State and
Federal Funding. As requested on page 2 of your December 15, 1983, letter, this
letter is submitted to formally request inclusion in the 1986 FY Public Works
Budget Conference.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you need anv further
information, please contact Mr. James W. Davis, P.E., Indian River County
Public Works Director, at 305-567-8000, (Ext 245).
Sincerely,
JWD/ jm
'J
amen W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
7
JAN 18 1984 610 55 w6E 1
JAN 18 1984 990K 55 1,kU8
F. State Aid to Libraries
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(.4-0) approved the Agreement with the State
of Florida, Division of Library Services, for
State Aid to Libraries and authorized the
signature of the Chairman.
Agreement Between
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIVISION OF LIBRARY SERVICES
and the
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
of
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
This Agreement, made and entered into this day of
1984, by and between the State of
Florida, Department of State, Division of Library Services, hereinafter referred to
as the DIVISION, and the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the DIVISION is authorized pursuant to Sections 257.17, 257.172,
257.18, and 257.19, Florida Statutes, to administer operating, regional library
equalization and establishment grants for public library service; and,
WHEREAS, funds have been appropriated to the DIVISION under Sections
257.17, 257.172, 257.18, and 257.19, Florida Statutes; and,
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has made application and certified eligibility for
receipt of a grant as authorized under 257.17, Florida Statutes; and,
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has centrally expended for the operation of public
library service during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, the amount of.
$150,382, exclusive of federal and state grants;
NOW THEREFORE, WITNESSETH THAT the parties hereto mutually agree,
in execution of the Agreement, as follows:
C3
I
M M M
I
The COUNTY agrees to expend grant funds awarded pursuant to this
Agreement in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Chapter 257,
Florida Statutes, and Chapter 113-2, Florida Administrative Code, relating to free
public library service, and to provide access to financial records when an audit is
deemed necessary by the DIVISION.
H
The DIVISION, for and in
consideration of
the
COUNTY'S
performance
hereinunder, and contingent upon
the availability
and
release of
funds to the
DIVISION, awards an operating grant in the amount of fourteen thousand, and
twelve dollars ($14,012), to be released in quarterly allotments, in accordance
with the schedule set forth in ATTACHMENT A.
IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the parties hereto have agreed and executed
the Agreement the date and year first above written.
ATTEST:
4 Lxl�
Clerk of. the Circuit Crt
Indian River County
George Firestone
Secretary of State
State of Florida
� � C
Qhairman, Board of County
Commissioners of Indian Rive
County
59-600-674
Federal Employer's Identification Number=,,r,i;� ; i'�Ur^
Adopted: 1-18-84
9
JAN 18 1984 BROK 55 nk *
JAN 18 1984
October 1,-1983
January 1, 1984
April 1, 1984
July 1, 1984
ATTACHMENT A
Quarterly Allotments
$ 3,503
$ 3,503
$ 3,503
Payments
$ 7,006
$ 3,503 $ 7,006
The first payment will be made on receipt of the signed contract.
The third and fourth quarterly allotments will be processed for payment
in April, 1984.
D. Consideration of Resolution Opposing Florida Power &
Light Company's Request for a Rate Increase
Discussion ensued regarding the request made by
T Metropolitan Dade County that Indian River County adopt a
Resolution expressing opposition to the rate increase
requested by Florida Power & Light and send it to the Public
Service Commission. It was generally felt we do not have
sufficient backup facts to take a position on this.
Chairman Scurlock suggested tabling the matter for
staff to do further research, but Administrator Wright did
not feel staff would be capable of analyzing a rate increase
of this magnitude, which at the very least would involve
going through voluminous documents and require a great deal
of time.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) agreed to take no action re the above matter.
10
BUDGET OFFICE
A. Budget Amendment, West County Fire
The Board reviewed staff memo as follows:
` O: The Honorable Members of the DATE: January 4, 1984 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: West County Fire
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, Director REFERENCES:
Office of Management and Budget
The following budget amendment is to cover an over -budget amount in the
commissions and fees account. This account is over -budget as all bills
were not current and we were back -billed.
Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease
Commissiones & Fees 116-104-581-99.94 500
Reserve for Contingencies 116-104-522-99.91 500
Balance in Reserve
$724.00
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the above budget amendment for
West County Fire as recommended by OMB Director
Barton.
B. Budget Amendment, Emergency Medical System
The Board reviewed staff memo as follows:
11
JAN 18 1984 910 55 rA01-5
TO:Board of County Commissioners
OK r�
DATE: December 12, 1983 FILE:
SUBJECT: Emergency Medical System
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, Director REFERENCES:
Office of Management and Budget
The following budget amendment is to allocate funds to pay for invoices for the
County -wide Emergency Medical System for E.M.T. certificates, I.D. cards, stationary
and envelopes. This is for supplies received and supplies for balance of fiscal year.
Account Title Account No. IIncrease Decrease
Other Operating Supplies 001-107-52,6.35.29 1,500
Reserve for Contingencies
Balance in Reserve
$337,716. as of 12/28/83
001-199-513-99.91
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the above budget amendment for
the Emergency Medical System as recommended
by OMB Director Barton.
C. Budget Amendment, Indian River County Ambulance Squad
Radios
The Board reviewed staff memo as follows:
12
1,500
TO: The Honorabl a Members of the DATE: January 5, 1984 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Indian River County Ambulance
Squad Radios
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, Director, REFERENCES:
Office of Management and Budget
The ending cash balance was greater than anticipated in the budget process
since, the funds for the ambulance squad radios were budgeted and the invoice
was not received until December 29, 1983. This caused an excess of funds.
The following budget amendment is to re -appropriate the funds to cover the
cost of the radios.
Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease
Communication Equip. 001-107-526-66.45 7,000
Cash Fwd. - Oct 1st 001-000-389-40.00 7,000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the above budget amendment for
the Indian River County Ambulance Squad Radios
as recommended by OMB Director Barton.
HUMANE SOCIETY AGREEMENT
Attorney Wayne McDonough came before the Board repre-
senting the Humane Society to review their proposed lease of
County property and discussed their need for ten additional
parking spaces which are necessary for them to proceed with
site plan approval.
Attorney Brandenburg reported that he has worked on the
proposed agreement with Attorney McDonough, and all that is
needed is to make paragraph 4 more specific as to where the
water line is to be extended, i.e., "Indian River County
agrees to extend its current waterline 10' west of the Road
1.3
JAN 18 1984 6959K 55 FAWE 8` 7
JAN 18 1984 INK 55 fnE
& Bridge Department entrance on the north side of South
Gifford Road."
Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of the
Humane Society providing space to accommodate injured birds,
and Joan Carlson, Executive Director of the Humane Society,
stated that with the help of the Audubon Society, they hope
to be able to meet that need in the future. She continued
that they have not designated a specific area other than an
outdoor area for caging for birds, but they will have the
capability of keeping injured birds in their medical areas
within the facility as they are doing now.
Commissioner Lyons asked Administrator Wright if his
departments are in a position to meet the terms of this
agreement, and the Administrator confirmed that he has
discussed this with Public Works Director Davis, and they
have no objections.
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the Agreement with the Humane
Society with the wording in paragraph 4 being
changed to read "extend its current waterline
10' west of the Road & Bridge Department entrance
on the north side of South Gifford Road."
14
ti
;REEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN R
THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEA(
COUNTY
FLORIDA, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT made this 18th day of January, 1984, by
and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County," and the
HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, INC., a not-for-profit
corporation existing under the laws of the State of Florida,
hereinafter referred to as "Society,"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Society has requested the purchase of certain
property from the County for the purpose of construction of a
facility for the Society, and
WHEREAS, the Society and County have entered into a
sales and purchase agreement containing certain contingencies,
and
WHEREAS, in the event the contingencies are fulfilled
and the County and Society close on the transaction, the Society
desires certain assurances from the County with respect to the
availability of parking spaces, construction of a culvert and the
extension of a waterline.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
-I.: This entire agreement is contingent upon resolution
of the contingencies in the Contract for the Sale of Real Property
dated June 29, 1983 and the closing of the transaction. In the
event the transfer of the property described in said contract does
not occur for any reason, this agreement shall be null and void.
2. Indian River County hereby leases to the Humane
Society of Vero Beach, Florida, Inc. the following described prop-
erty to wit:
As described in Exhibit "A"
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD for a term of ninety-nine (99) years
and to be used exclusively for the provision of ten (10) parking
parking spaces for the Humane Society's facility under the
-1-
800K SS 819
JAN 181 984
JAN 18 1994 BOOK 55 x$20
following terms:
a) The Society shall appropriately mark the parking
area for use by its clients and shall repair and maintain the
parking surface and all markings thereon for the term of this
lease. All such markings shall be subject to the prior approval
of the County.
b) The Society shall not have the right to build any
improvements on or alter the existing paving on the subject site
without the prior written approval of County.
c) The Society may not sublet or assign this lease
without prior written approval of County.
d) The Society hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and
save Indian River County harmless from any and all claims, legal
proceedings, demands, judgments or liabilities of any kind whatso-
ever, excluding that caused by the negligence of the County or its
employees, arising from the use of the lease premises.
e) This lease shall terminate at such time the adjoin=
ing site is not used by the Society for Humane Society purposes.
3. Indian River County agrees to provide and install a
culvert of suitable size and design to enable access to the Humane
Society site, said culvert to be installed before commencement of
construction of the Society site.
4. Indian River County agrees to extend its current
waterline to a point ten (10) feet west.of the Road & Bridge
Department entrance on the north side of South Gifford Road which
is located directly across from the Society site. The Humane
Society shall bear the full cost of connecting to the waterline at
this point and shall pay all customary fees and charges under the
normal Indian River County utility policy.
5. This document contains the entire understanding of
the parties and may only be modified in writing by the mutual
consent of both parties.
6. This instrument shall not be recorded in the public
records of Indian River County and such recording shall constitute
a breach of this contract sufficient for either party to cancel
the agreement in whole.
�2- M
I
r
NOW, THEREFORE, the respective parties have authorized
the execution of this document in the spaces provided below on the
date set forth above.
Witness
LEGAL
By:Z
y A., BRANDENB
v Attornev
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By: C
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
AttestO
FREDA WRIGHT, Ck
HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH,
FLORIDA, INC.
By: k,,{.
CHRISTI E
Preside' t
Attest:
EXHIBIT "A"
Sefretary
The North 659.72 feet of the East 305.14 feet of Tract 10 and the
North 659.72 feet of the West 25.0 feet of Tract 9, both in
Section 28, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River Farms
Company Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25, St. Lucie
County, Florida, now Indian River County, Florida.
All the above situate in Indian River County, Florida and
containing 5.0 acres, more or less.
-3- 1300K 55 M66321
J�1N 18 198.4
JAN 18 1984 Book, 5 PAGE
S $22
Attorney McDonough then informed the Board that they
are attempting to redefine the legal description in the Sale
and Purchase Agreement, which goes hand in hand with their
obtaining the additional parking area.
Attorney_ Brandenburg believed that what they want is an
extra 25' along one of the boundaries, and he wished to know
if this adds to the acreage originally involved.
Architect Charles Block stated that it does not; it
just shifts the 25' from one side to the other.
Administrator Wright did not have any problem with this
and felt it can be worked out.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED -;--
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) authorized staff to -work with Attorney
McDonough to draw up the proper legal de-
scription redefining boundaries in the
Sales & Purchase Agreement with the Humane
Society, and take the necessary action -to
--close on the contract.
Commissioner Wodtke brought up the fact that all perti-
nent facts re adoption of a particular dog are not included
in the newspaper, and Mrs. Carlson explained that it is
difficult to include all the specifics as to whether or not
a dog should be allowed outside the house, etc. She pointed
out that when people come to them, they fill out adoption
forms and are given complete information at that time.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if our animal warden would be
able to enforce such restrictions, and Mrs. Carlson noted
that people who adopt animals, sign a contract with the
Humane Society, and it would be the Society's responsibility
to enforce this.
17
HUTCHINSON UTILITIES, INC., - 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:
VERA 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/'2_p�
in the matter of ,
in the
fished in said newspaper in the issues of �O
Court, was pub -
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. /y
Sworn to and subscribed before meati ^ / �-7 d
—LL=. day of_ A.D. 19 _
(SEAL)
(Cleik of the
Business Manager)
ndian River County, Florida)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners will hold a public hearing: on
January 18, 1984, 9:00 a.m., in the commission
chambers located 'at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida 32980, to consider a request for a
change in rates by Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. The
proposed rates areas follows:
Residential
Base Rate ---$15.00 per mos. covers sewer
service for a dwelling unit with a kitchen and (1)
bathroom. ,
Unit ---$7.75 per mos. for each additional
bathroom, laundry room or toilet In access of,
those Included in base rate.
Fractional Units -4%, of y2 etc.) common
laundry rooms shared by apartment dwelling
units are divided by the number of dwelling units
to determine fractional units.
Commercial
(1) Hotels, motels, or other facilities offering
transient or guest accommodations;
Base—$40.00 per mos. covers first (5)
bathrooms.
Unit ---$7.57 per mos. for each bathroom in
aces of (5).
(2) Restaurants, bars, clubs and other facili-
ties, providing food or drink as primary servicaa;
--$
Base40.00 per mos. covers (20) seats.
Unit -7.75 per mos. for each (20) sesta,
or fraction.thereof, in access of (20).
(3) All other commercial facilities;
Base ---$40.00 per mos. for up to (2) rooms
having connections to the corporations sewer
lines.
Unit -47.75 per mos. for each room in ac-
cess.of (2) having a connection to corporation
sewer line.
We trust that the above information will pro-
vide you with an understanding of our various
rate classifications.
All interested persons are invited to this meet-
ing. If any person decides to appeal any decision
made by the Board of County Commissioners
with respect to any matter considered at this
meeting, he/she will need a record of the pro-
ceedings, and that for such purpose he/she may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
ceedings is made, which record includes the
testimony and evidence upon which the apps•
is to be heard.
Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairman
Indian River County
Board of Commissioners S
Jan. 10, 1984.
Staff memo and recommendation is as follows:
18
JAN 18 1984 %1QK .55 3
I
55 mE824.
TO: The. Honorable Members of the DATE: January 9, 1984 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Terrance G. Pinto
Utility Services Director HUTCHINSON UTILITIES, INC.
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RATE CHANGE AND
MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
A) Resolution No. 81-58
B) Letter of Intent
C) Moorings/Hutchinson Agreemer
FROM• Joyce S. Hamilton REFERENCES: D) Commission Minutes 12/1/82
'Administrative Assi tantRate
Utility Services F) Rate Review Committee Report
G) Revised Resolution
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., is a wastewater franchise currently
operating under Resolution No. 81-58 (Exhibit "A") after a -transfer
of ownership from The Moorings Development Company (Exhibit "B" and
11C" )
The franchise territory includes all of The Moorings units 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, and 6; The Moorings Golf Course; Porpoise Bay Villas; and
St. Edward's Upper. School (pages 2 and 3 of Resolution No. 81-58).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES:
The Corporation has petitioned for a rate increase at the same time
The Moorings Property Owners Association has petitioned for an
adjustment in the existing rate structure (Exhibit The
property owners feelings are they have been overcharged. The rate
increase requested by the Corporation is based on the need to construct
a new facility and to vacate their existing facility.'Requested
rates and analysis are Exhibit "E".
The Rate Review Committee of Indian River County has submitted their
findings (Exhibit "F") and opinion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Although staff recommends approval of the modifications made to the
franchise agreement, they recommend denial of this request for an
increase in rates based upon the opinion of the Rate Review Committee
that depreciation of contributions in aid of construction was taken.
Chairman Scurlock explained the procedure to be
followed during the public hearing.
Attorney Samuel K. White, 123 Springline Drive, member
of the Florida Bar, asked that his appearance on behalf of
The Moorings of Vero Property Owners Association be entered.
He announced that he would act as Intervener, assisted by
Attorney Eben Cockley and Attorney Paul Stewart.
19
Utility Services Director Pinto made the staff
presentation, noting that the utility primarily serves The
Moorings area and St. Edward's School. The rates they are
requesting would not go into effect until the new plant goes
into service, and the reason the rates are requested prior
to construction is to acquire reasonable financing which
would eventually result in lower costs to the customer. Mr.
Pinto noted that with this particular utility, there are
many circumstances that become a concern in the rate
proposal, and staff is looking very hard at what should be
built there to protect the territory. Staff does not agree
with the manner in which Hutchinson Utilities has calculated
depreciation on contributions in aid of construction, and
there are also two minor expense items they question. In
view of these questions, staff is recommending the requested
rate increase not be granted. In addition, the Moorings
Homeowners have petitioned for relief on the existing rates.
Mr. Pinto believed we are looking at a test year of 1982
which indicates a concern over some salaries and other
expenses. He expressed concern that the way the franchise
is written, it is very unclear as to what allowable expenses
were, how the initial rate was based, and what it was based
on in regard to determining a fair rate of return, etc.;
therefore, what staff is recommending is that the County
bring in a consultant to audit the entire operation of the
utility, not only the financial part but the management
part, and report that back to the Commission so that a
determination can be made as to a rate base. Director Pinto
further noted that there is also a legal area not considered
yet, which involves what happens to this franchise if this
area is annexed into the City of Vero Beach.
Administrator Wright reported that he had a discussion
with some representatives of the City of Vero Beach in this
regard and he was asked to relay the message that if the new
N 1 2 r.
JA 1 994
JAN 18 1984 e
sewer plant is built at The Moorings, the City would not be
interested in annexation.
Utility Director Pinto noted that the franchise is
fairly specific as to the County's ability to take the
system if we needed to and it has some reference to what
would happen if someone annexed, but it does not have any
provision for franchise fees. The Utilities Department,
therefore, cannot recover any of their expenses for the work
they have put in on this franchise. In view of this, and
particularly if it is decided to retain a consultant,
Director Pinto recommended that the cost of the consultant
be funded through the County's franchise accounts and also
that the franchise be amended to allow for 60 of gross
receipts to be forwarded to the County as soon as possible
to help cover some of these expenses. With all these things
in mind, Mr. Pinto felt we should allow the utility company
to put their case in front of us and then have The Moorings
argue their case.
Chairman Scurlock asked Attorney Brandenburg if there
is any requirement that the Commission at this time grant a
rate based on future expansion or is there a possibility for
us not to address this request until we see exactly what
improvements are made since there apparently are questions
about the site, setback requirements, etc.
Attorney Brandenburg replied that different utility
authorities have different policies on this issue. The
Commission is required to give the utility a rate which
allows them to recover their operating expenses plus a fair
rate of return, and when the investment is made, we are
required to increase the rates in a proportionate amount.
Whether or not the Commission wishes to do this ahead of
time, however, is discretionary, and the County has not
established a definitive policy in this regard.
21
Discussion ensued, and it was noted there are many
questions to be addressed and a possibility that
alternatives could be pursued other than necessarily
building a new plant in a new location.
Attorney Brandenburg suggested that the Commission
listen to Mr. Micale on behalf of Hutchinson Utilities as we
do not know what he may suggest.
Commissioner Lyons pointed out that there was a request
by The Moorings to have the existing rates investigated.
Even if the City should annex The Moorings tomorrow, that
plant will be in existence for sometime, and he wondered why
that question couldn't be settled first so we can concen-
trate on one question at a time.
Chairman Scurlock felt that is an excellent suggestion
and stated that he would ask Hutchinson Utilities to address
the existing rate structure first and then we will go the
second phase.
PHASE I: Existing Rates
Attorney Frank J. Micale of the law firm of Williams,
Micale & Wells of Jensen Beach, Florida, appeared repre-
senting Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. He noted that some
issues have been raised which he did not believe they are
prepared to address - the issue of annexation by the City of
Vero Beach of which he was totally unaware until today, and
the issue raised with respect to existing rates. It -was
Attorney Micale's understanding that the purpose of today's
hearing was to address the request that Hutchinson Utilities
presented to the Board seeking rate relief, and their intent
today is to seek approval of rates designed to provide
sufficient revenue to enable the company to become financi-
ally viable and able to obtain the financing necessary to
implement a proposed construction project. Attorney Micale
stated that he will present witnesses whose evidence will
show that what Hutchinson Utilities is proposing is in the
22
JAN 18 1984 BOOK PhZE `.
I
-I
JAN 18 194INK
55
f,^,�L
public interest and the
rates proposed are fair
and
reasonable. Attorney Micale wished to draw the Commission's
attention to the fact that the revenue requirement that will
be presented by the company's witnesses is predicated on the
company obtaining the industrial revenue bond issue at an
assumed rate of 90. Bond Counsel has advised that Congress
has a pending revision intended to become retroactive to
1/1/84 which could affect the taxability of the income of
the proposed revenue bonds. If that is so and they have to
obtain financing from some other source, Attorney Micale
suggested that their rate would be considerably higher.
Chairman Scurlock requested that Attorney Micale
address the -issue of present rates, and Mr. Micale stated
that he was not prepared to address that issue.
Samuel K. White, speaking on behalf of The Moorings
Property Owners Association, informed the Board that they
are ready to proceed on either issue.
Chairman Scurlock called a five minute recess to give
a
Attorney Micale an opportunity to check with his clients in
regard to addressing present rates.
Chairman Scurlock reconvened the meeting with the same
members present and announced that he suggested to Attorney
Micale that if he does not have any testimony to present
regarding the existing rates, that Mr. White be allowed to
read his testimony into the record.
Attorney Micale wished to state for the record that
they have furnished to the interveners all information
requested, and further noted that he would have felt that
out of courtesy, they would have been apprised of the issue
re the existing rates to give them an opportunity to
prepare. Mr. Micale stated that he certainly did not object
to the Board calling another hearing at which time all
issues re the existing rates might be addressed.
23
Intervener White first wished to submit for the record,
as Intervener's Exhibit #1, an accounting report by the firm
of Stone, Marshall & Discenza, CPA, Syracuse, New York,
dated February 15, 1983, which is a statement of the
financial position of Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., as of
December 31, 1982.
(ALL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK)
Attorney White specifically called attention to the 4th page
of the above report, which indicates that Hutchinson Utili-
tiea had revenues of $224,000 and costs and expenses of
$213,000. The costs and expenses for plant operation, which
include maintenance, utilities, and supplies, add up to a
total of $31,000. General and administrative expenses
however, are shown as $181,582, and this includes executive
salaries of $64,344, which Mr. White felt is very out of
line for a small utility plant. In addition, there is an
item showing entertainment, business promotions and conven-
tions amounting to $8,931, which he seriously questioned, as
well as insurance amounting to $10,850, part of which was on
.the lives of the three principals. He did not see how that
applies to property used and useful.
Intervener White then called William Duynslager of
Greeley and Hansen, Tampa, Florida, consulting engineer, to
review the rates and talk about the cost of building a
plant. Court Reporter Dennis Zambataro swore in Mr.
Duynslager.
Mr. Duynslager gave the Board his qualifications,
stating that he is a professional engineer with a
considerable background as a utility director in various
Florida counties. He reviewed his report on the existing
rate structure and stated that his conclusions were that
24
JAN 18 1984 B90K 55 PAVE 829
•
BOOS n^,m
Hutchinson Utilities is operating the utility in a fine
operational manner and as far as the way it functions, re
equipment, etc., they comply with Section 7 of the franchise
agreement. Section 17 of the franchise has a paragraph
which requires the utility to put 100 of gross sales into a
reserve fund until they reach $20,000 for renewal and
replacement, and they did not comply with that requirement
in 1981 or 1982. Re Section 18, Mr. Duynslager stated that
while the provision for a connection charge is appropriate,
its purpose is not defined nor is the amount justified. He
submitted that a connection fee was not even justified at
that point in time or with the existing rate structure since
the plant was donated to them, and therefore, collecting
connection fees in advance for a facility in which they had
no investment was inappropriate. Mr. Duynslager discussed
Section 19, noting that while the provision for monthly
utility rates is necessary, there is a lack of verification
of customer equity. He suggested when rates are allowed
that some clearer definition be included so that those
following can better evaluate whether they are charging
equitable rates. Mr. Duynslager noted that the connection
fees collected have not been accounted for separately.
While he believed they have followed proper accounting
procedures based on the business accounting principles used
for tax purposes, he noted that within the normal process of
accounting for revenue collected by a water/sewer utility,
the collection fees would be set aside in a separate reserve
fund to be devoted to capital improvements or pay off debt
service. Since this was not required in the franchise, they
did not do this, but co -mingled those funds with the normal
bills and that accountability is lost as far as being
attributed to the plant. He believed current operating
costs exceeded those appropriate for a utility of this size
as did quite a few of the items listed under general and
25
administrative expenses also; for instance, executive salary
of $64,340, which in a utility with only 700 customers would
amount to roughly $100 per customer per year. Mr.
Duynslager continued that revenue collected, including
connection fees was about $179,000, and the expenses he
would consider appropriate would be about $143,000; so, the
existing rate should have provided a good profit for that
year. In regard to the insurance, Mr. Duynslager noted that
life insurance might be required as a buy-out situation if
one partner should pass away and that really is an
appropriate business expense, but it would come under the
balance sheet rather than the profit and loss statement.
Mr. Duynslager then reviewed the Greeley and Hansen
Report signed by Arthur Adams, the partner in charge of
their office, and explained that he did 90% of the work
involved. Mr. Duynslager stated that this report has been
provided to Hutchinson Utilities and their CPA's have
reviewed it and take a little exception to his statement
that the accounting processes they have used are fine for
tax purposes, but for rate making purposes, it would be
approached in a different manner. Mr. Duynslager then
wished to read into the record two short paragraphs from a
letter in which they responded to his remarks, as follows:
"We believe the deciding factor is the lack of
restriction by the franchise agreement placed upon the
connection charges collected. (Mr. Duynslager agreed with
this.) The owner's reserve for capital expenditures required
by the franchise agreement is 100 of the gross rates charged
by the utility up to a maximum of $20,000."
"It is important to note that the accounting treatment
as required by generally accepted accounting principles may
not necessarily be the same treatment as required for rate
making purposes."
26
1
JAN 18 1984
KXK 55
Commissioner Wodtke asked that Mr. Duynslager explain
the statement in his report on Page 3 which states that they
have not conducted a formal or complete utility rate study.
Mr. Duynslager explained that if they were to do a
formal rate study, which would be much more in depth, they
would have to have someone go through and verify all the
expenses and not just work from the CPA's annual reports.
Chairman Scurlock noted that Mr. Duynslager examined
the existing expenses and revenue sources and he wished to
know how the items such as salary, travel costs, etc.,
compare with the projected figures.
Mr. Duynslager stated that the proposal is greater. He
referred to Table 2 on Page 16 of his report and stated that
he has looked at the 1981 and 1982 years and he is suggest-
ing that appropriate expenses would be somewhere in the
range of $136,000 rather than $213,000.
Intervener White requested that the Greeley and Hansen
Report of September 1983 be marked and entered as
Intervener's Exhibit #2.
Attorney Micale asked if this report relates to the
second phase of today's hearing, and Intervener White stated
that he would like to submit it now and have it apply to
both phases. He continued that he wished to introduce
Intervener's Exhibit #1, which is the accounting report, and
Intervener's Exhibit #2, which is the report of the Greeley
and Hansen firm. Attorney Micale had no objection providing
they have an opportunity to cross examine.
Intervener White informed the Board that this concludes
their presentation on the existing rate issue.
Commissioner Lyons commented that he hates to see
anybody spend any more money than they have to to get the
question settled as to what the proper existing rate is, and
he would like to see everyone pool their assets to come up
27
with an answer that might be satisfactory without getting
down to every 10th of a cent.
Attorney White noted that he has a definite opinion on
this subject, and he would like to see Hutchinson Utilities
audited. He wished there was an easy way, but did not
believe there is.
Chairman Scurlock asked for an expression from the
Commission as to whether they would want to move ahead with
an audit.
Discussion arose as to hearing a presentation from
Hutchinson Utilities, and Commissioner Lyons pointed out
that the advertisement of this hearing addresses only the
second question or phase, and he, therefore, believedwe
really are not having a public hearing on the first question
re existing rates, but a discussion.
Attorney White did not agree with that because the
Property Owners Association filed a petition in 1982 to have
these rates reviewed and it was his understanding that this
matter would come up today.
Commissioner Lyons emphasized that we really don't have
a public hearing advertised for the subject of existing
rates, but felt possibly we can take action without further
public input which is really going to come on the part we
did advertise.
Attorney White believed that the Commission has
received the public input on the first phase since he is
representing all the property owners present.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the Commission is receptive
to authorizing staff to implement that portion of their
recommendation that deals with the existing rate structure,
and Commissioner Lyons stated that he is ready, but would
like an indication of cost..
Commissioner Wodtke did not believe that staff
indicated they necessarily wanted to look at existing rates.
28
JAN 18 1984
, A N
181994
*K 55
PACE 3
3
into the MSTU and all work
is performed by the Utility
Department which receives no compensation.
Commissioner Lyons stated that he would add to his
Motion that the funding will come from franchise fees in the
MSTU, and Commissioner Bird agreed.
Commissioner Bird asked if the Motion would satisfy the
Property Owner's Association as to the phase we are
discussing now and asked Attorney Brandenburg if we are on
good grounds legally.
Attorney White noted there are other issues raised in
the petition which he wished to reserve the right to
present, but as to the issue of substantiating existing
rates, he believed it would be very satisfactory.
Attorney Brandenburg felt the Commission is on good
legal footing. In this situation, a utility company has
requested a rate increase. Their customers have asked
whether the current rate is excessive or not, and the County
is now taking the position that they are declaring it an
interim rate and are going to look into it and determine
whether it is excessive. If it is so determined during that
study period, then you could require a refund.
Commissioner Bird stated if in amending the franchise
at some later point a franchise fee is collected, he would
hope we would repay the MSTU.
Attorney Micale requested the right,to address all
issues with respect to the existing rates as well as any
issue which may be disclosed by the audit Mr. Pinto is
suggesting.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION,
including the addition re funding from
the MSTU. It was voted on and carried
unanimously (4-0) .
30
Utilities Director Pinto felt staff is fairly well
satisfied that they are on the right track with the new rate
structure that is being proposed. We do not, however, have
the ability to go into the company and audit their existing
rate conditions, and if that is the recommendation, he
believed we should hire a consultant. We would have to
negotiate as to price, but he believed we should start with
a $5,000 maximum.
Commissioner Bird asked what he felt the scope of work
would be for the outside consultant.
Director Pinto felt it should be limited to the -test
year of 1982, but that they should go in and audit all the
costs they show in the financial statements and relate them
not only to the actual dollars that were spent, but as to
what they were spent for specifically, and'also look at the
management ability of the company, its assets, and make up a
depreciation chart to see if we agree or disagree. It would
be a full management audit - not just financial.
Commissioner Bird noted, in other words, the audit
would establish what an independent auditor would feel is
the fair rate for a customer to be paying.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to establish the existing
rate as an interim rate, authorize an expenditure
not to exceed $5,000 for the financial and
management audit, and proceed and authorize
staff to go through the selection process to
accomplish this.
Administrator Wright recommended funding come out of
the MSTU because all monies collected on franchises are put
29
JAN 18 1984 BacK 55 PAE 3
BOOK ,5 FA CE 835
Administrator Wright requested that the Commission
amend the budget now to allow OMB Director Barton to make
the appropriate entries in the MSTU so this does not have to
be brought back again.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) authorized the OMB Director to make the
appropriate line item transfer from the MSTU
for the study of Hutchinson Utilities, Inc.,
requested by staff, as follows:
Account Title
Res. for Contin-
gencies
Transfers Out
Transfers In
Other Prof.
Services
Account No. Increase Decrease
004-199-513-99.91 5,000
004-199-513-99.21 5,000
471-000-381-20.00 5,000
471-235-536-33.19 5,000
This concludes the first phase of the hearing.
PHASE II: Requested Rate Increase
Attorney Micale informed the Board that a substantial
portion of the company's utility plant in service represents
a plant contributed by its predecessor. In the determina-
tion of the company's revenue requirement, depreciation on
the contributed plant is treated as an operating expense.
In their opinion, the inclusion of the depreciation in this
rate making process is in accord with a decision by the
Court of Appeals of Florida in the case of Sarasota County
vs. Tamaron Utilities, Inc. Attorney Micale believed the
decision of the District Court of Appeals is on point with
the present situation and he has a copy of the Court's
decision which he would like entered into the record of this
hearing.
31
M M M
Attorney Micale submitted Petitioner's Exhibit A as
described above.
In regard to a possible denial of Hutchinson's applica-
tion for a rate increase, Attorney Micale pointed out that
while the Commission has regulatory powers, he believed it
would be entirely unfair to reject their application solely
on the basis that they considered depreciation of the plant.
That is an element that can be excluded, and they have the
right to modify'their application.
For his first witness, Attorney Micale called Louis
Aiello, President of Hutchinson Utilities, who was sworn in
by Court Reporter Zambataro and made the following
presentation:
My name is Louis P. Aiello, President of Hutchinson
Utilities, Inc.
�..On August 19,1981, our Corporation was granted by the
Board of Commissioners of Indian River County an exclusive
Franchise, which gave us the right and privilege to erect,
construct, operate and maintain a sewer system within the
prescribed territory provided in our Franchise.
With these rights there also is a mandated obligation to
provide reasonably sufficient, adequate and efficient service
to each person applying for sewer services within our Franchise
area.
32
JAN 18 1984 �IQK 55 ME- 3`
pp�-194
JAN 18
BOOK z)� rha 838
We have to date complied with the terms of our Franchise
as to supplying service to those customers who.have requested
sewer services. f
We feel our service to the customer has been good. There
have been very few complaints as to service or quality of serv-
ice. When there have been problems we feel they have been hand-
led properly and in a timely fashion.
There are some deficiencies in service, as they relate
to D.E.R. Regulations. Our plant does not meet current D.E.R.
Standards.
Filters and retention time, polishing pond capacity are
a few of these deficiencies. They will be described in more
detail by our engineer later in the hearing.
While we have met obligations to our customers we find
we will not be able to do so in the near future.
Reasons: In addition to meeting D.E.R. Regulations, we
must expand our facilities to meet demand of future customers
within our Franchised Area as imposed by the terms of our
Franchise.
According to our calculations, we will not have sufficient
capacity in our plants to serve future customers.
33
iEfiEES
We have two treatment plants in operation which were design-
ed for a capacity of 160,000 gpd. One of our plants has a'capac-
ity of 60,000 gpd. This plant has deteriorated to a point that it
could collapse completely in the next few months. Elimination.. -of
this 60,000 gpd plant would obviously affect our service to exist,dN
In order to comply with our Franchise and to provide
service to existing customers, let alone providing service to
new customers, who are entitled to come on line for sewer
service, we must expand and update our existing facilities.
In order to meet our obligations, we have developed a
construction program involving.
i
(A) Construction of a 250,000 gpd plant and associated
equipment and facilities to be located on a new site which
we have acquired from Moorings Development Company.
This new site lies in the N.E. corner of the Moorings
property west of AlA at the easterly end of the golf driving
range.
34
JAN 18 1984 Disc 55 rinf 839
The new site was necessary because:
(A) The land where the plant presently exists is not
ours and we are contractually obligated to remove said plant.
(B) Even if we could acquire or have title where our
present plant exists, it is our judgement based upon studies
we have made that the land upon which the present plant is
situated is not of a large -enough size to allow necessary plant
expansion and meet D.E.R. Regulations.
The project which we propose to undertake and which we
believe to be in the public interest will cost approximately
$900,000.00. The details of those costs will be presented by
our engineer.
The Indian River county Utility Department has made several
inspections of our facilities in the past few months. Their
reports presented to me verifies and concurs with the statements
I have made concerning deficiencies in meeting D.E.R. Requirements.
In order to implement our proposed construction program,
it is necessary for our company to seek external financing. We
can obtain financing through Industrial Revenue Bond financing.
On September 7,1983, the B oard of Indian River County
adopted a Inducement -Resolution as a first step towards
assisting us in obtaining Industrial Revenue Bond financing.
35
However, in order to attract investors of IR B's to
finance our project, or to attract investors of conventional
financing, we must have revenues sufficient to attract investors,
assuring them that we have the financial ability to meet debt
service.
Our present rates under the terms of our present Franchise,
are totally inadequate to generate the revenues required to
finance the proposed construction project.
I would also like to point out that our present rates
are inadequate to provide revenues to carry the cost of,
operations and that portion of our construction program which
relates to meeting D.E.R. Requirements.
It is for all of our foregoing reasons I have given,
which has compelled us to seek rate relief and to request this
Board for approval of the rates we have petitioned for.
We ask that the rates which we are seeking be put into
effect following completion of our construction program. We
seek approval now because it is essential that we display to
our lenders for an interim construction loan, our financial
ability to attract long-term financing, to pay off the short-
term debt. Of course, investors of the long-term debt
whether in the form of IRB's or conventional debt, will require
36
JAN 18 1984
BOOK 55 Inc, 8541
J A N 18 1984
too 55 r, , 842
assurances that our company will have sufficient revenues to
meet debt service.
Without the proposed rates, I believe that our company
will be unable to obtain the necessary financing and thus, we
will be unable to go forward with meeting D.E.R. Requirements
and meeting the service requirements of present and future
customers. In the end we will be deprived of carrying out
our service system operations and fulfilling the terms of our
franchise.
Substantiation of our revenue requirements are reflected -
in financial statements which will be presented by Myron Olstein,
a management consultant with the firm of Main-Hurdman, who
specializes in utility rate consulting.
Intervener White submitted Intervener's Exhibit #3 - a
layout of the present plant. He reported that this is a
sketch he got out of the back of the agreement between
Hutchinson Utility and The Moorings Development Company
dated February of 1983. He then questioned Mr. Aiello
regarding various symbols shown on the sketch and what they
depicted.
Mr. Aiello identified the various structures noting
that the circular tank to the north is the clarifier, but
stated that he did not wish to get into the details of plant
operation. Mr. Aiello identified the 50' x 12' rectangle as
the 60,000 gpd plant, which he claimed is deteriorated to
the point that it could collapse in the next few months, and
37
stated that this is borne out by a report of the County
Utility inspector as well as experts on their own staff.
Intervener White next questioned Mr. Aiello regarding
the polishing pond located east of the maintenance building
and had him confirm that whatever treatment is done, the
liquid goes into the polishing pond. The Intervener then
questioned Mr. Aiello as to the,date of the contract
Hutchinson Utility Company entered into with The Moorings
where it was agreed that the existing plant would be moved,
and Mr. Aiello was not certain of the exact date. Intervener
White stated that the contract was as of September 25, 1980.
Intervener White submitted Intervener's Exhibit #4 -
Letter of Intent between Hutchinson Utility Company and The
Moorings Development Company, and asked that Mr. Aiello tell
a bit of the background as to how this happened to be
entered into.
Mr. Aiello explained that The Moorings wanted to be
very sure that Hutchinson had the capabilities of operating
the system, and he believed the intent was to protect
themselves and the property owners; they wanted certain
assurances that certain things would happen.
Intervener White asked what discussion was held at that
time about removing the treatment plant to another location,
and Mr. Aiello stated there was very little at that time as
far as he knew; possibly his partner may have had other
discussions.
Intervener White referred to the Addendum to the Letter
of Intent dated 9/25/80, Item 12, and noted that it states
"Hutchinson Utilities will move existing plant during summer
of 1981.• Monies supplied from escrow account." He
believed this demonstrates that they did have an agreement
at the time the Letter of Intent was entered into to move
that plant.
W
1 � epi
No 55 rtiL 843
I
JAN 18 1984
Mr. Aiello reiterated that he did not know the exact
date and was not sure if that agreement was at the same time
as the other.
Intervener White noted that it certainly was prior to
the hearing on the franchise being transferred, and Mr.
Aiello pointed out that it was not dated and he felt this
was an assumption.
Intervener White then asked if there was a disclosure
to the Commission in July of 1981 about plans to move the
plant.
Mr. Aiello did not understand the question, and
Intervener White stated that there was a disclosure of plans
to move the plant, but there was no disclosure that The
Moorings was requiring them to move the plant and that they
had no right to keep it at that location. Mr. Aiello stated
that he was not sure what their intent was at that time and
felt that Intervener White was making an assumption.
Intervener White submitted Intervener's Exhibit #5 -
Agreement dated February 25, 1983, between The Moorings
Development Company, Inc., and Hutchinson Utilities, Inc.
Intervener White asked Mr. Aiello whether this
agreement was not dated about 1�2- years after Hutchinson
received their franchise and whether it provides that they
are getting a bill of sale for the underground facilities
and the treatment plant.
Attorney Micale suggested that Mr. White inform the
Commission that it is clear the purpose of the said agree-
ment was to effectuate the rights and obligations of the
parties contained in the Letter of Intent he referred to.
Intervener White continued to discuss the document,
noting that one of the provisions was that no later than
1/31/84 Hutchinson Utilities shall remove the treatment
plant, and all related facilities, including the St.
39
Edward's lift station, and shall have vacated said premises.
This was confirmed by Mr. Aiello.
Intervener White emphasized that this agreement was
entered into after the Moorings Property Owners filed for a
rate review.
Intervener White submitted Intervener's Exhibit #6 - A
transcript of the transfer of Moorings Sewer System
Franchise discussion taken from a tape of the Board meeting -
of July 15, 1981. He quoted portions of Mr. Aiello's
testimony taken from that tape, as follows:
"I would like to give you just a little bit of what we
plan to do. First of all, I don't think there's a question
of our ability to operate, because apparently the County
felt and so did the judges because we are receivers of
Treasure Coast and operating that one in the interim period
also. And, secondly, we have purchased a plant (It is in
Jacksonville) with our monies -- not the Moorings money. We
are prepared -- we have plans to show the expansion at The
Moorings facility. This expansion to be made this Fall --
right now -- is the total build out, no additions to be made
from this point on. It's being done two, three years in
advance, and that's to demonstrate what our abilities are --
our capabilities - or what our intent is in this
county...............it's going to be complete this year for
the future."
Intervener White asked Mr. Aiello to confirm that he
was referring to total build -out, and Mr. Aiello stated that
he was at that time.
Intervener White noted that this dis-cussion at the time
of the transfer referred to an expenditure of $100,000, and
now they are talking about a cost of $900,000.
Mr. Aiello stated that the $100,000 related just to the
cost of the plant in Jacksonville, not the whole project.
40
JAN 18 1984
Bax 55 n.Z-z' 845
RMEEM44g]
BOOK .55 FACLE' 8
Intervener White argued that they did not make a full
representation, and Mr. Aiello was not sure if they meant
that Fall or the following Fall, but contended that the
intent at the time is exactly as they stated - the purchase
of an additional plant to coincide with the one that existed
to meet the build -out needs of The Moorings at that time.
He continued that they did not get the plant in Jackson-
ville, which was a 100,000 gpd plant.
Attorney Micale asked Mr. Aiello to clarify his
position at the time of the hearing for acquisition of the
franchise in relation to the conditions that existed then
and the conditions that existed after the acquisition of the
franchise.
Mr. Aiello was confused with the statements made re the
$100,000 and wished to clarify that the September agreement
stated that as soon as they had received $100,000 in tap -in
fees, they would begin to build the plant - not that the
plant expansion would cost $100,000.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the dialogue which
suggested they were looking at total build -out anticipated
the purchase of a 100,000 gpd plant, and he assumed that
that was based on the existing 160,000 gpd plants being
utilized.
Mr. Aiello agreed, but noted it was based on a totally
different design done by a partner who is now deceased.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there was ever any
management decision not to effectively maintain the 60,000
gpd plant based on the fact that they were going to move the
plant.
Mr. Aiello stated that they have always properly
maintained that plant; it was an integral part of the
design.
Commissioner Lyons asked if conditions have changed
with the DER as to what plant they would keep or not keep.
41
0
77
Mr. Aiello stated that DER regulations would have a
severe effect, and those have all been changed after the
franchise.
Chairman Scurlock inquired about the plant they now
have put money down on, and Mr. Aiello informed him they
have purchased it. It is not a new plant, but it has never
been used. It is ready to be shipped.
Attorney Micale asked what savings would be implemented
by the purchase of that plant.
Mr. Aiello preferred that Mr. Mendez, their engineering
consultant, make their presentation re the plant.
Intervener White referred to Page 10 of the transcript,
Intervener's Exhibit #6, and noted that Commissioner Bird
stated "They would like to spend one hundred thousand
dollars," and Attorney Hudson stated "They are willing to do
it and they are going to do it." This is referring to
Hutchinson Utilities. He asked Mr. Aiello if he had talked
to The Moorings about the possibility of staying where they
are.
Mr. Aiello felt that is a hypothetical question because
there is no way they can stay there and meet the DER
regulations.
Intervener White believed the present polishing pond is
not adequate for the DER and noted when they move to the
northeast part of the Moorings Golf Course along A1A, as he
understands it, they are going to use a lake on the golf
course on the 1.3 acres they have acquired. He wished to
know why they couldn't just run pipe from the present
location to that same pond.
Attorney Micale and Mr. Aiello both felt that should
properly be answered by an engineer, but Mr. Aiello
commented that you can run pipe almost anywhere, but he did
not know if it is feasible or if it would work.
42
Sax 55 PnE8 -
J
r
BOOK
Intervener White wished to know what the rates were at
the time Hutchinson Utilities acquired the franchise, and
Mr. Aiello did not know but stated he would get the
information.
Intervener White informed the Board that Attorney
Micale has some out of town witnesses whom he would like to
have present their testimony now.
Attorney Micale called Myron Olstein, Director of
Municipal Financial Services for Main Hurdman KMG, who was
sworn in by Court Reporter Zambataro. Mr. Olstein explained
that this particular rate study was initiated while he was
Director of Environmental and Municipal Services for Coopers
& Lybrand, and he has been retained by them to complete the
study in their behalf. Mr. Olstein then outlined his
background and qualifications, noting that he has performed
more than 30 rate studies mostly involving municipal
utilities, i.e., Boston, Detroit, San Francisco, Boca Raton,
Naples, Pensacola, etc.
Mr. Olstein stated that the rate analysis was prepared
based on data and assumptions provided by the management of
Hutchinson Utilities, and if events do not occur as assumed,
actual results may vary substantially from the projected
results.
Attorney Micale entered Petitioner's Exhibit B - Rate
Analysis prepared by Mr. Olstein.
Mr. Olstein explained that he used an end of year rate
base and stated that if plant costs should turn out
different than their assumptions, a re -computation of the
rate base will be necessary. He continued that he applied
the used and useful rule allowing 20o for growth; this
assumes the plant is fully useful when operating at 80% of
design capacity. The calculation of depreciation is in
accordance with the procedures utilized by the utilities
auditors and their procedures, in turn, were based on NARUC
L—
43
guidelines. Mr. Olstein stated that he has used the
conventional approach - the Hunt curve more used in Florida,
and noted he could have used other methods to show a much
higher rate of return.
Commissioner Lyons pointed out that if the projected
costs should not turn out as anticipated now, and this has
to be recomputed, it may require another rate hearing. He
did not see why we must go through all this now when we
don't even know if they are going to expand.
Chairman Scurlock agreed that to go through a whole
involved process when the assumptions this is based on may
be incorrect is very time consuming. He hoped this could be
narrowed down, and noted that he had two issues he wished to
discuss:
(1) whether the impact fee is at the maximum justifiable
level, and
(2) the actual treatment of the contributions in aid of
construction.
Mr. Olstein reviewed Schedule 6 of his rate analysis,
explaining in detail how he used Hunt Curves, the methodol-
ogy preferred by the PSC, to arrive at a rate of return of
10.751%, which is a relatively low rate of return. He noted
that Schedule 5 presents the computation of the rate base
and explained that when completed, the new plant will be
operating at 68% of capacity; so, utilizing the guidelines
that it is essentially used and useful at 80% of capacity,
68% corresponds to 85%, and he, therefore, is identifying
15% as the net utility plant held for future use. Mr.
Olstein stated that the Contributions in Aid of Construction
.(CIRC) were calculated on estimated new customers for the
year as projected by management, and in arriving at that
specific number, they utilized a connection fee of $780.00.
Mr. Olstein then reviewed Schedule 4 - Annual Depreciation,
reporting that what they did was use a percentage provided
44 �j
JAN 18 1984 BROK 5 949
J
FF-
r7
JAN 18-1994 BwK 5 Piiz
by management that computed the cost for the four major
components of the new plant.
Intervener white wished to know what "Miscellaneous
Plant" is, and Mr. Olstein stated that he would defer to the
engineer. It is simply a variety of things they could not
fit into any other category.
Mr. Olstein then reviewed Schedule 1, the Revenue
Requirement calculation, explaining that it is simply the
sum of operating costs, the depreciation of the new plant,
and the estimated depreciation on the old plant that will be
in service when the new plant is built. It also includes
depreciation on CIAC only for those portions that will still
be in use.
Chairman Scurlock commented that in Schedule 3 -
General and Administrative Services salaries have been
significantly reduced, the president's salary being $10,000
as opposed to $64,000 previously.
Mr. Olstein pointed out that the previous number
included other than just the president's salary. He stated
that he did not take a detailed look at the previous costs,
but he did not feel it is a secret that a lot of costs were
mislabeled.
Mr. Olstein then went into their rationale for the
inclusion of depreciation on CIRC, citing Sarasota County
vs. Tamaron Utilities. He explained that basically it is a
fairly common practice in Florida for developers to turn
over a utility to someone else to operate - as was the case
here - and also you will find developers putting some money
up front to assist in the building of the necessary _
infrastructure that is required to be able to build houses,
and that also falls under the category CIRC. In addition
the State of Florida is very specific that what they term an
impact fee, which is a payment that is made solely for the
right to join a system, is also considered to be a CIAC, and
45
they did treat impact fees as CIRC throughout the rate
study. Mr. Olstein continued that there have been a number
of court decisions re this and there are tax consequences.
He pointed out that Sarasota is a non -Chapter 367 County,
the same as Indian River County, i.e., a county that has
elected to regulate the utilities in its county. In the
case cited, the court determined in very similar circum-
stances that it was improper to allow the regulatory body to
completely eliminate the depreciation of CIAO in the rate-
making process. In addition, the court determined that the
entire section of the county ordinance which prohibited this
was confiscatory and violative of the due process laws. Mr.
Olstein contended that if the rates were calculated without
the CIRC depreciation, Hutchinson Utilities would be
operating at a loss. Therefore, this is a true cost - it is
an erosion of a useful asset.
In regard to the rate study itself, Mr. Olstein
stressed that the County staff has reviewed it and concurred
with the methodology with the one exception, and furthermore
staff agreed with all of the costs with the exception of two
items which are less than 3% of the total. They just
thought those particular costs were high, not that they
should not have been included. Mr. Olstein emphasized that
he did everything possible to keep the proposed rates as low
as possible, and he believed they are at the lowest end of
the range of the zone of reasonableness.
Mr. Olstein next discussed impact fees, how they were
calculated, and the different methodologies that could be
used. He explained that essentially the Dunedin Decision
says you cannot charge more than the cost of capacity in an
impact fee. The PSC uses a somewhat different methodology
where basically they look at the entire assets attributable
to give a new connection. Mr. Olstein reported that he
utilized the Dunedin approach in calculating the impact
46
JAN 18 1984 999K 55 re,,dL 854
JAN 19 1984 BOOK
fees, which given the numbers and the estimates they have,
are as high as they can make them.
Chairman Scurlock asked how much of the total cost of
distribution and plant capacity is being recovered in impact
fees vs. rate structure..
Mr. Olstein replied that he took the cost of the new
plant and the number of dwelling units to be served by the
new plant and calculated the cost of capacity per new unit,
and that basically is the impact fee.
Chairman Scurlock noted that, in other words, that is
excess capacity above what would be required to serve the
existing resident, and Mr. Olstein agreed.
Utilities Director Pinto wished the Board to know that
distribution is being contributed; so, in essence, you have
an impact fee for distribution.
Commissioner Lyons asked if the way Mr. Olstein figured
the impact fee was to the advantage of the present user, and
Mr. Olstein stated that it was as much as possible.
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he has
looked at the cases the Petitioner has presented and has
come to a contrary conclusion. He did not believe under
that case law they are Constitutionally or any other way
entitled to expense accumulated depreciation. This also
seems to be the current position of the Public Service
Commission according to letter written by them to Assistant
Utilities Director Joseph Baird, as follows:
47
r
r State of Florida
P
wry pe
Commissioners: o
GERALD L. (JERRY) GUNTER, CHAIRMAN
JOSEPH P. CRESSE ` r
SUSAN WAGNER LEISNER •'+
_JOHN R. MARKS, III a00�`1,11)
KATIE NICHOLS
Pub[M`6erbice
January 12, 1984
Mr. Joseph Baird
Assistant Utilities Director
Indian River County
P.O. Box 1750
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
DALE A. KNAPP, C.P.A.
Director
Water and Sewer Department
(904) 488-8482
RE: INVESTOR UTILITY RATE REGULATION - DEPRECIATION OF CONTRIBUTED
ASSETS
Dear Mr. Baird:
This is to confirm our telephone conversation wherein I stated
the Florida Publiz Service Commission -does not allow the inclusion
of depreciation on contributed assets as an operating expense for
rate making purposes. This is specifically prohibited by statute
367.081, a copy of which is enclosed.
The above statute has been in effect for some 3� years. Prior
to that time, the Commission disallowed such depreciation expense as
a matter of policy from mid -1978 up until the time of the effective
date of the statute. Prior to their action in 1978, the Commission
did as a matter of policy allow depreciation on contributed assets.
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
/�_ 1/v L,- ' V
Dale A. Knapp, .P.A.
Director
Water and Sewer Department
Assistant Intervener Eben Cockley asked that a letter
to Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., from Coopers & Lybrand signed
by Myron Olstein and dated December 5, 1983, be entered as
Intervener's Exhibit #7, attached to letter of Testone,
Marshall & Discenza and accompanying Statement of Financial
Position of Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., as of December 31,
1981, marked Intervener's Exhibit #8.
48
BacK 55 ��,c1-953,.
JAN 1. R _19R
BEAK 6L�
Mr. Olstein confirmed that the letter in question
(Intervener's Exhibit #7) was his cover letter to the rate
study done for Hutchinson Utilities.
Intervener Cockley cross examined Mr. Olstein in detail
trying to establish that Mr. Olstein relied on figures
supplied by management and the firm of Testone, Marshall &
Discenza, which firm had stated that they could not express
an opinion as to the veracity of these figures. Intervener
Cockley noted that, in other words, Mr. Olstein did not make
an independent rate study.
Mr. Olstein felt you have to define what an independent
rate study is. He noted that he has performed many rate
studies and he never has come up with all these numbers by
himself. He pointed out that he has identified where he got
these numbers, and each number is discussed with the person
providing it.
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at
12:00 Noon for lunch and reconvened at 1:30 o'clock P.M.
with the same members present, Commissioner Bowman being
absent.
Chairman Scurlock understood the position of the
Intervener and the Petitioner in regard to wanting all the
testimony written into the record, but requested that they
move ahead as quickly as possible.
Commissioner Lyons stated that he would like at the
earliest possible moment to make a motion to cancel the
public hearing. He felt he has heard enough testimony
presented to indicate that we do not have sufficient
information to set a rate. He stated that he also planned
to move that the only promise we can make to Hutchinson
Utilities is that as long as we are operating under a
49
franchise, we will carry out the terms of the franchise.
felt anything else is redundant.
Attorney Brandenburg believed the Commission should
have Hutchinson Utilities present its full case and then
make a determination.
Intervener White again called William Duynslager of
Greeley and Hansen, Engineers, who was sworn in by Court
Reporter Zambataro.
Intervener White asked that Mr. Duynslager supply
information on what it would cost to improve the existing
plant with filters and what it would cost to build a new
plant with filters.
He
Mr. Duynslager reported that he evaluated the existing
plant and in a report dated September 22, 1983 to Mr. White
(Intervener's Exhibit #2), he outlined some construction
costs built around the existing plant staying in service and
expanding it by 100,000 gpd. Page 8 of that report shows a
total project cost of $547,000.
Intervener White noted that the report states that
"Sufficient area exists at or adjacent to the existing plant
site for the expansion." and asked Mr. Duynslager if that
was his opinion. Mr. Duynslager confirmed that it was.
Mr. Duynslager stated that he has continued to refine
the numbers since the report was done, and there is a
company in Miami that will build a complete package plant in
place for $250,000 - that does not include filters or
landscaping or roadways. He has a second quote from a
company in Clearwater stating they will build a 250,000 gpd
plant complete in place with filters for $302,000. He,
therefore, believed a safe number to build everything
required would be half a million. This is versus the
$900,000 suggested earlier in the hearing. Mr. Duynslager
commented that while the Board was supportive of using
industrial revenue bonds, the cost of selling bonds on an
50
JAN 18 1984 600 55 rr,�Cc$55
BOOK .55
issue of half a million or less gets increasingly expensive,
and it might be cheaper just to go to the bank and borrow
the money. He further noted that since government grants
seem to be slowly drying up, engineering firms are getting
into the business called "privatization," i.e., they put
together a package where a plant can be constructed and find
people for whom it would be a tax advantage to make a
contribution to the project.
Intervener White asked what it would cost to install
the filters and additional capacity in the existing plant.
Mr. Duynslager stated that he had a cost estimate from
Moroff Company to construct a 100,.000 gpd plant and then
filter 250,000 gpd, excluding site work, landscaping, etc.,
for $197,000. He believed there is another $50-60,000 that
would be involved for site work,
Intervener White felt it has been established that
there are other ways of financing this proposal and of
building the plant.
Mr. Duynslager noted that building a new plant really
doesn't solve any problems since all you would do would be
accommodate the growth that would occur within this existing
franchise. He felt if the county were to pursue building
the whole new plant, it would be to their advantage to build
one to serve the region rather than having a multitude of
plants.
Chairman Scurlock stated that it has been the
Commission's policy to consolidate these package systems.
He further noted the possibility of annexation has arisen
and asked if any cost estimating was done in terms of
refurbishing the present plant and extending a line down to
the lift station at Seagrove. The Chairman believed even
without annexation there is a possibility of looking to the
City for some capacity.
51
� � r
Mr. Duynslager stated that -he did not look at that, but
noted that you would expect to build pipelines for about
$20-25 a foot.
Intervener White noted that there has been some
testimony stating that the existing 60,000 gpd plant will
collapse shortly. He asked Mr. Duynslager for his opinion
on this after inspecting the structure.
Mr. Duynslager replied that the tank has deteriorated
some, but it does not appear to be on the verge of collapse.
He believed the existing plant is sufficient until a
regional plant could be built.
Attorney Micale wished to point out that his clients do
not have the right to expand outside their franchise area.
Commissioner Lyons noted that we keep talking about the
alternatives of moving and not moving; there is an existing
agreement between Hutchinson Utilities and The Moorings in
this regard, and he wondered if this is really a matter for
the Commission to become involved in.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that this Board has no
authority to require The Moorings to renegotiate that
contract; so, we have to accept that as a "given" at this
point. He believed they now are talking about the efficient
economic management of the system which would result in
lower rates, and that is the issue the Board should key in
on.
Intervener White informed the Board that he is building
a record in this case because he is going to request that
this franchise be rescinded based on the evidence from the
prior hearing in July of 1981 and the lack of information
supplied at that hearing. Intervener White continued that
the Agreement between The Moorings and Hutchinson Utilities,
which is in evidence here, provides that if the franchise
were not granted to Hutchinson Utilities, The Moorings would
use Hutchinson Utilities to operate the facility, and he
52
'JAN 18 1984 BOOK .5' 5
I
JAN
18
1984
BOOK
55
PAgE 5
felt that
is something that should be germane to
what
the
Commission is thinking about.
Commissioner Bird commented that he sees the Commission
reaching a point where the Hutchinson Utility experts are
going to tell us that they have the most cost effective way
of handling the system, and Mr. White and his experts are
going to give us some differing opinions. He finds himself
caught in the middle and wished to know just what the
Commission's legal, moral and ethical responsibility is.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the utility has the
burden of showing and proving its rate increase, and then
the interveners have the burden of showing the rate increase
is not warranted. In this case, they are saying there is a
more economical way of doing it, but they have not addressed
whether the plant can stay where it is.
Commissioner Bird continued to discuss the problem he
has with listening and determining a reasonable rate of
return, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that a contract has
been presented that shows the plant has to be moved. The
interveners have showed that if you kept it where it is, it
might be a cost savings, but he did not believe they have
showed anything to the effect that you don't, in fact, have
to move that plant pursuant to that contract.
Intervener White did not agree and felt they have shown
that there was a failure to disclose material information.
Attorney Micale believed the first thing the Board must
decide is whether the proposed construction presented by
Hutchinson Utilities is in the .public interest, and then if
it is, the Board is charged with the responsibility to
provide Hutchinson Utilities with the means to pursue its
obligations under the franchise.
Commissioner Lyons agreed that as long as Hutchinson
Utilities remains a franchise operator, we have certain
obligations under the franchise and felt the Commission will
53
simply follow those obligations, which should be enough
insurance as far as their lenders are concerned. He did not
see why we have to go out on a limb with some proposed rate.
Attorney Micale then cross examined Mr. Duynslager as
to his qualifications for designing a wastewater treatment
plant and as to whether the plant he proposed would conform
to County and DER requirements.
Mr. Duynslager stated that the plant proposed would
meet all county, state and federal requirements, and gave
his background in detail, noting that he -has a civil
engineering degree and has been responsible for building
over 300 million dollars worth of wastewater plants although
he has not actually signed the plans.
Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Duynslager if he felt the
proposed plant could fit on the property and meet setback
requirements at the present site.
Mr. Duynslager stated that it has been his experience
that the setback requirements are a requirement of the
development and not necessarily the requirement of every
individual ownership within that development. He noted that
if you have a condo complex, one doesn't have side yards
from another. In addition, you will find package treatment
plants in many condo projects on their properties, and the
plant itself was generally considered part of the
development and not a separate entity. He, therefore, did
believe the plants would comply with any setbacks.
Intervener White asked Mr. Duynslager what are normal
rates for a wastewater plant to charge its users.
Attorney Micale stated that he would have to object
because rates differ as to geographical areas and different
types of operations.
Intervener White believed the point is that the rates
proposed are far in excess of anything this state has
experienced so far.
54
JAN 18 1984 BOOK 55 mrL--859
r
61K 55 P ,aL 810
Attorney Micale stated that is irrelevant, and
Intervener White noted that it is not irrelevant to them.
Intervener White then questioned Mr. Aiello regarding
the rates prior to the franchise, and Mr. Aiello was not
certain but felt they may have been somewhere around a $7.75
base figure.
Intervener White stated that the rate for a two
bathroom, kitchen, laundry unit was $13.50 at that time.
Attorney Micale objected to that line of questioning
and quoted from the franchise: "The County expressly agrees
that the rates are what is necessary for them to earn a fair
rate of return."
Intervener White believed this record has to show what
the rates were at the time the franchise came into
existence.
Chairman Scurlock explained that why the original
franchise rates were established was because The Moorings
apparently was subsidizing the system. Since The Moorings
were the developers, it was difficult to ascertain just how
much they were carrying as applied to the utility.
Mr. Aiello commented that at the time they were talking
about acquiring the franchise, they had not anticipated any
rate increase whatsoever, and it was at Mr. Scurlock's
insistence as an advisor to the Board that the rate was
increased to make sure the operation was profitable. The
Board did, in fact, grant their present rate and said it is
a minimum they must charge.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he has sat through many
rate cases, but he has never sat here trying to conduct a
court hearing. He would like to stick to what was
advertised and to allow the utility company to make a
presentation and would hope that we don't get involved with
a lot of irrelevant facts that do not address a rate
hearing.
55
I
Chairman Scurlock noted that he has been trying to take
some guidance from Attorney Brandenburg and ask him whether
he is allowing enough testimony or too much. He did believe
the.Commission is ready to hear the Hutchinson Utilities
side and make a determination although he realized that
Intervener White wishes to read all this into the record.
Mr. Aiello emphasized that eight months ago he supplied
everything the Property Owners Association had asked for re
expenses they questioned, as well as everything the County
asked for. He continued that he made several attempts to
have Mr. White contact him so that he could sit with his
group. Mr. White would not do so until he felt he was
ready. Mr. Aiello did not feel today is the day to do that
and pointed out that they have been here since 9:00 A.M. and
they still aren't even 50o through their presentation nor
been allowed to do so and that is all he is asking.
Intervener White wished the record to show that he has
met with Mr. Aiello on two occasions.
Chairman Scurlock asked the County Attorney how much
testimony he should continue to allow.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that the issue in front of
the Commission now is the rate increase that was advertised.
Earlier the Board dealt with the current rate structure and
indicated the current rates would be interim rates from this
day forward, agreed that a study would be made and then a
hearing held with regard to those rates. Therefore, all
issues relating to the current rate structure are really
irrelevant at this point and discussion now should be
limited to the proposed rate structure.
Intervener White wanted an exception noted on the
record that his question was denied.
Attorney Micale called John Testone, CPA, who was sworn
in by Court Reporter Zambataro.
JAN 18 1984
L-
BOOK 55 rAV 101
JAN 18 1984 *K 55 PAS 862
Mr. Testone gave a brief resume of his education,
stating that he is a CPA licensed by the State of New York
and has been in practice 18 years, during a portion of which
time he worked with Price Waterhouse.
Attorney Micale presented Mr. Testone with Intervener's
Exhibit #8, letter from Testone, Marshall & Discenza in
regard to their review of the accompanying Statement of
Financial Position of Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., as of
December 31, 1981, and asked Mr. Testone why he disclaimed a
financial statement regarding 1981.
Mr. Testone stated that basically their report followed
their engagement to prepare a report under what is known as
a review, which is a non -audited statement. The Exhibit
referred to is their report under that scope of service.
Chairman Scurlock noted that they are not testifying to
the actual veracity of the figures.
Mr. Testone explained that they took management figures
and put them into proper form for a presentation. A review
does involve some analytical procedures, but does not
involve confirming accounts; it is not an audit. If they
become aware under the scope of this engagement of any
material departures from any generally accepted accounting
principles, it is their obligation to report such
disclosure.
Attorney Micale then showed Mr. Testone Intervener's
Exhibit #1, a copy of the financial statement of Hutchinson
Utilities for the year ended December 31, 1982, and cover
letter of Testone, Marshall & Dicenza giving their report on
the financial statement. He asked Mr. Testone whether they
express an opinion in that report and whether it is an
unqualified opinion and also requested that he clarify their
statement re generally accepted accounting principles.
Mr. Testone explained the scope of their examination
and reiterated that they would be obligated to explain any
57
I
C-
material departure from generally accepted accounting
principles.
Attorney Micale asked that Mr. Testone.explain their
,,assignment to the rate study.
Mr. Testone informed him that it was decided by their
client and the Utility Director that an independent
consultant should be hired. They, in fact, did play some
part in the selection process by interviewing a utility rate
expert from Price Waterhouse and also Mr. Olstein who was
with Cooper & Lybrand at the time. Their role in the rate
study was to assist in the preparation of calculations and
review certain data for submission to Mr. Olstein for his
review.
Attorney Micale then brought up Petitioner's Exhibit B,
the rate analysis submitted by Mr. Olstein, and noted that
in this Exhibit, Mr. Olstein presents cost of services which
he stated were obtained from management and from Testone,
Marshall & Discenza. He asked that Mr. Testone explain the
source of those amounts appearing on Schedules 2 and 3 of
this Exhibit and how they were computed.
Mr. Testone reported that Schedule 2 is a list of
projected operating expenses and all of these were developed
by management - their best judgment as to what they expect
these expenses would be for 1984. Mr. Testone stated that
his firm reviewed these figures for what they considered to
be reasonableness and submitted them to Mr. Olstein. They
did the same with Schedule 3 - General and Administrative
Expenses. It was felt that $10,000 was what could reason-
ably be included as salary - the previous $63,000 was for
two or three officers.
Attorney Micale asked if Mr. Testone would characterize
the cost of services presented on Schedules 2 and 3 as
constructed costs, and Mr. Testone confirmed that he would
M
JAN 18 1984 Now 55 onE863
JAN 1 .1984 gal C, 8
and stated they did refer to them as estimated or projected
costs.
Attorney Micale asked if Mr. Testone found something
wrong with testimony given by the engineering witness
presented by the Intervener re a balance sheet and income
statement items.
Mr. Testone noted that in the Hansen & Greeley report
there was mention made about tax basis of accounting. There
definitely is such a thing as tax basis of accounting, and
it would be the obligation of the representing accountant to
identify that basis. He pointed out that he mentioned
earlier the basis that Hutchinson Utilities reports on and
that they examined in 1982 was in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles, not regulatory or rate
making purposes. So, tax basis was, in fact, incorrect.
Also, there was mention made of insurance expense as a
balance sheet expense. There is no such thing as a balance
sheet expense; expenses are elements of an income statement.
Intervener White noted that Mr. Testone said the
figures in Schedule 2 were developed by management and
reviewed by his firm for reasonableness. He then compared
them to the 1982 figures for operations and maintenance.
Mr. Testone believed that Mr. Olstein touched on that,
noting that the breakdown of expenses on 1982 did not really
fall under 0 & M and G & A; some items were included in the
general & administrative category that should have been in
operations and maintenance. This was not prepared for rate
making purposes.
Intervener White believed that Mr. Testone is not
licensed as a CPA in Florida, and Mr. Testone stated that he
is licensed in New York and has applied for a temporary
permit for Florida which he has not yet received.
Attorney Micale next called Louis Mendez, professional
engineer, who was sworn in by Court Reporter Zambataro.
59
Mr. Mendez, president of LAM Engineering, Inc., Coconut
Grove, informed the Board that he is a registered engineer
in the State of Florida and qualified as an expert witness
on water and wastewater. He gave his qualifications in
detail. Mr. Mendez then went to charts that were displayed
showing the location of the present plant, and described it
as consisting of one 100,000 gpd and one 60,000 gpd
stabilization plant which work together with the treated
effluents combined and pumped into a 330,000 gallon
reservoir from which it is further treated by means of spray
irrigation utilizing 40 acres of a 70 acre golf course. Mr.
Mendez stressed that the problem of utilizing the existing
site is aggravated by the fact that the DER revised Chapter
17-6 in 1982. The major changes since the plant was
originally permitted were that effluent could not contain
over 5 milligrams per liter of suspended solids, and, as a
result, a minimum of 3 days storage would be required unless
alternative methods of effluent disposal were available. In
order to comply with the new regulations, it would require a
plant to be 97.5% efficient. The 100,000 gpd plant requires
refurbishing, and the 60,000 gpd plant would require a major
overhaul or replacement.
Mr. Mendez stated that taking into consideration the
poor condition of the existing equipment; the fact that
additional treatment would be required even without
considering future customers; and that this could better be
accomplished elsewhere; also that the existing site would
not pass the County requirements on setbacks, landscaping,
on site drainage retention, etc.; the fact that no addi-
tional land was immediately available in the immediate area;
and finally, the fact that the site did not belong to
Hutchinson Utilities in the first place, his firm, after
evaluating several alternatives, recommended that,the
present site be abandoned and a site on the northeast corner
60
JAN 18 194 BOOK 57 5 PACE 805
JAN 18 1984 9Wx 55 PAA 8 6
of The Moorings be utilized. He was then engaged to prepare
drawings and specifications for the proposed plant.
Mr. Mendez displayed a chart of a basic plant and
explained that a standard plant cannot always be dewatered.
You could get a cheaper plant, but if you have to dewater
one of the units, you have to put the whole plant out of
service. He then displayed a chart of the site plan and
described tertiary filters which,provide a highly polished
effluent. He explained that when there is a plant upset and
the conventional filters cannot handle it, it goes to these
backup filters and the plant can still deliver a highly
polished effluent. Mr. Mendez next described the
chlorination process and noted that the sludge will be
removed from the plant by truck.
Chairman Scurlock requested that the technicalities be
limited and that Mr. Mendez just tell us whether this is the
most cost efficient operation.
Mr. Mendez further explained the operation and stated
that his opinion is that it is impossible to bring the
existing plant into compliance to meet the DER regulations
and still comply with the strict requirements of the
planning and zoning requirements at the old site. He
described what they are doing on the proposed site which he
did not believe could be done on the existing site. He then
explained.in detail how he arrived at his figures for the
proposed plant, noting that the low bid for the 250,000 gpd
plant as designed was a lump sum of $698,000. This was
based on actual working drawings. In order to comply with
zoning requirements, Mr. Mendez reported that he has made
some changes and eliminated some items which reduced the bid
$33,800, down to $652,070. Sixty percent, which is the
figure in the Greeley & Hansen Report for the portion of the
new plant that would apply to the new customers, would be
$391,240, which is very close to the estimate of $400,000 to
61
recondition the plant on that site, if it were possible to
do so. Mr. Mendez noted that neither of these estimates
include the irrigation pumphouse, off site parking,
contingencies, cost of financing, and other things that
would apply to both plants. Neither has anything been
qualified as to the advantages of operating one plant over
three plants. Mr. Mendez continued to review costs of the
proposed plant, adding to the bid price of the costs for a
25 h.p. bore, an irrigation pumphouse, lift station
modifications, etc., which came up to a total cost of
$900,000. Mr. Mendez emphasized that this plant will meet
DER requirements and meet the needs of The Moorings in an
environmentally sound and fiscally responsible manner.
Commissioner Lyons wished to know if the existing plant
is designed so it can be repaired without shutting down, and
Mr. Mendez noted that the only advantage of having two
plants is that you can divert flows so even if you are
running more than design flow through a plant, you can still
treat it.
Commissioner Bird stated that he is confused because
one very reputable engineer states that it is possible to
modify the plant on site and meet all requirements and
another reputable engineer has just stated the opposite. He
asked Utilities Director Pinto for his opinion as to whether
the existing plant can be remodeled and meet state and
federal requirements.
Mr. Pinto did not believe there is any question that
the plant can be renovated; it is a question of cost which
he is not in any position to estimate. He emphasized,
however, that you have to consider the full scenario, i.e.,
whether the property is available and whether the renovation
could be accomplished under its present zoning requirements,
62
JAN 18 1984 BOCK r,c
OVA 55 rmf 868
setbacks, etc., Mr. Pinto could not speak for Planning &
Zoning, but felt they would have to have some kind of
variance.
Chairman Scurlock again noted that apparently .there has
been no discussion with The Moorings as to using the present
site for a continuing time.
Mr. Aiello stated that he has suggested that, but not
formally requested it because they do not believe the site
is adequate. He did not believe The Moorings wants to
destroy any of their buildings to provide more room and
noted that even the pond area wasn't sufficient.
Intervener White believed there is a possibility there
could be relief from the setback requirements if adjoining
property owners were to waive any claims they might have re
infringement on their rights, and Mr. Mendez stated that he
would agree with that statement.
Intervener White asked if a backup filter is required
by the DER. Mr. Mendez stated that it is not; it is a plus;
you only need one when you have a breakdown.
Intervener White noted that material would be moved by
pipe back to the polishing pond and asked when it no longer
goes back, if it will go from the lake right onto the golf
course.
Mr. Mendez stated that would be a temporary measure
until a new irrigation pumphouse is built near the lake. It
would then become part of the golf course irrigation system.
Intervener White inquired about the statement re using
"40 acres" of the golf course, and Mr. Mendez believed the
irrigation system is limited to the fairways and greens.
Intervener White noted that Mr. Mendez talked about a
bid of $752,000 and 600, which was $340,000, which he
presumed is what Mr. Mendez is saying would be the basic
plant needed for existing customers. He wished to know'if
$340,000 was what the present property owners would pay.
63
77
Mr. Mendez did not consider that an engineering
question.
Attorney Micale announced that concludes the
presentation for Hutchinson Utilities. He then stated that
he would like to go back to Phase I that was presented this
morning and clarify that there is no legal basis for any
retroactive adjustment of rates which have been previously
put in place and approved by this Board; any adjustment
would have to be an adjustment from today on. He noted that
this Board would be powerless to make a retroactive
adjustment increasing rates to present customers and
conversely, it would work the other way also.
Intervener White wished to submit for the record
Intervener's Exhibit #9 - a copy of the Minutes of the
hearing in August of 1981 where the franchise was
transferred to Hutchinson Utilities. He noted that a tape
of this meeting is also available. He stated that this will
show that at the time the franchise was granted and the rate
increase, there was not proper information to grant the rate
increase that was given.
Attorney Micale believed he presented an objection
earlier and noted that if there are any misgivings as to the
franchise and the rates in it, he believed that rests with
the Board.
Intervener White offered as Intervener's Exhibit #10 a
document showing that the Public Service Commission of the
State of Florida has taken a position in regard to contribu-
tions in aid of construction.
Intervener White then wished to call to the attention
of the members of the Commission the historical rate
situation encountered in The Moorings. In 1981 a two
bathroom, kitchen, laundry unit was paying $13.50.
64
•
11,169
DICK �� FACE 6
J
I
JAN 19 1984 K R 55 pw-87
Attorney Micale once again objected and stated he did
not know what the relevancy is of any historical rates. He
noted you could go back to 1925.
Commissioner Lyons felt we covered this part of the
case this morning and we are on another phase now.
Intervener White stated that what the rates were is a
part of the public record. He wished to introduce into the
record a copy of the complaint filed by the DER in 1981 as
Intervener's Exhibit 11.
Chairman Scurlock believed that already is in the
record as a part of the Board's backup material.
Intervener White wished to sum up his presentation. He
noted that when this franchise was granted, there were two
serious problems: they were going to complete a basic unit
by the fall of 1981 which included buying a 100,000 gpd
plant in Jacksonville for $100,000, and there was no
disclosure to the Commission of the fact that they were
going to have to get out of the property in The Moorings.
On that basis, Intervener White stated that he is seeking a
recision of the franchise, and if this is not granted, it is
his intention to make an appeal. He continued that he is
not sure the Commission wants to make such a decision at
this point since there is a study of.the possibility of
annexation into the City and he would hope the Commission
would not take action while this is taking place. Inter-
vener White further requested that the Board give him about
two weeks to prepare a brief summing up their position in
this case, which he would file with the Commission.
Attorney Micale wished to respond with respect to the
request for recision of the franchise based on a techni-
cality that he did not know whether or not actually occurred
and also based on the fact that his client does not own the
land. He noted there are many utilities in surrounding.
areas where a plant is situated on leased property. With
65
respect to filing briefs, Attorney Micale stated that he
likewise wished to have the opportunity to file a brief
following receipt of the record.
The Chairman asked if any member of the public wished
to be heard.
Arthur Broadhurst, Business Manager for St. Edward's
School, came before the Board to make a brief statement. He
noted that St. Edward's happens to have the unique position
of being the only non -Moorings customer, -of Hutchinson
Utilities. Unfortunately the rate structure, as it applies
to St. Edward's is exorbitant and excessive. This is due to
the fact that there is no rate category for schools and,
therefore, St. Edward's was listed as a commercial enter-
prise. Mr. Broadhurst continued that he has discussed this
with Hutchinson Utilities, and Mr. Aiello agreed it was a
matter that should be reviewed and discussed. The school is
asking that a rate classification be found for schools and
churches that differs substantially from commercial, and
requests that this be referred to staff for study. In
regard to any problem with setbacks, Mr. Broadhurst stated
that their counsel did suggest that issue might arise and
indicated it would be discussable.
Director Pinto believed that when the Commission
reaches a final order, we can incorporate what Mr.
Broadhurst is requesting.
Vic Lunka, Mooringline Drive, developer of Harborside
Condominium complex, stated that they support the
presentation made by The Moorings Property Owners
Association. He continued that if the rate requested by
Hutchinson Utilities or the new plant had been adopted
tonight, they at Harborside would probably ask to get out of
The Moorings sewer franchise district. Mr. Lunka pointed
out that their complex could put in a 12,500 gpd plant for
about $30,000, and the cost to operate it would be offset by
66
JAN 18 1984"' 55 PAGE 871
j
the irrigation effluent.
960K 55 ms,, 872
If the rate proposed were adopted,
their complex would be paying about $60,000 a year.
Although he felt Hutchinson Utilities has done a fine job,
Mr. Lunka did not agree with their contention that the rates
paid previously or paid elsewhere are irrelevant. He felt
the people had already paid for this service in their
property costs and then they got charged additional for
connection charges. Now they want a third addition. Mr.
Lunka felt we must be careful in the future and look at
other options.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be
heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
(4-0) closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bird stated that he felt that he needs
time to digest what has been presented and more legal
coaching.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that both the parties want
the opportunity to submit briefs. He suggested the Board
should close the hearing today, take the matter under
advisement, and give one party time to submit a brief and
the other party time to submit a response.
Considerable discussion followed as to the time periods
to be allowed for all concerned - the attorneys, staff, etc.
It was generally agreed that a ninety day period, allowing
30 days each for submission, response and staff analysis,
would be sufficient.
Commissioner Bird felt if there were some way these two
entities could get together and somehow agree on what is the
most cost effective facility and come to an agreement as to
what it would be and what it would cost, then determining a
67
proper rate structure would be much easier. Listening to
two -experts give 1800 opinions makes it very difficult.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the Commission chose
to retain the decision-making process rather than convey
this over to the Public Service Commission because of what
it would cost a small utility to go through the process to
get a rate increase approved. He did agree that it is very
difficult for a lay Commission to address all these
accounting and technical questions.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that Mid Florida Utilities
did appeal to the Circuit Court, and in their defense, they
substantiated it cost them $42,000 to bring their case to
the Commission. He also felt if some compromise could be
reached, it would benefit all as hopefully we are all trying
to reach the same position. Commissioner Wodtke stated that
he was going to have to lean very heavily on our staff to
help reach a decision.
Attorney Micale and Mr. Aiello agreed they will try to
pursue this, but noted that they have already formally
submitted plans and working drawings of a proposed plant.
They would like to have the Property Owners Association
submit the same instead of just saying they can make it work
on the present site. Mr. Aiello emphasized he has no
problem with trying to work this out, but they need
something tangible to work with.
Intervener White noted that their Property Owners
Association has a budget for the year of about $35,000 and
they had to scrimp to hire the experts which they have. To
come in with an alternate set of plans would be very
difficult.
Chairman Scurlock believed it is up to the Commission
to analyze and evaluate and make a decision.
JAN 18 1984
ow 55 P111u 8'
JAN 18 1994
60K 55 pnc 874
Commissioner Bird stated that he is not looking for the
Property Owners Association to supply actual drawings, but
felt perhaps their experts could give them some ideas.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
(4-0) set a 90 day period to allow the
attorneys to file their briefs and the Board
to issue the final order.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING C -1A to C-1 (NU -WEST FLORIDA)
The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
1
a
in the matter of -
13
in the p 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.
Sworn to and subscribed before me thi I f day of Q_.�A. D. 19 iff Z:
— A ^ A t�
(Clerk of the Circuit
(SEAL)
Manager)
River County, Florida)
69
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County ordinance rezoning land from:
C-1 A, "Restricted Commercial District'
to C-1, "Commercial District" The sub-
ject property presently owned by Nu -
West Florida, Inc., is located at the north
east comer of U.S.Highway #t and Oslo
Road.
1 The subject property is described as:
A portion of the Southwest 'A of Section
19,Townshhp 33 South, Range 40 East,
Indian River County, Florida, dying east -
I erly of the easterly right-of-way of U.S.
Highway No. 1, being more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing et.a polnt bf intersectionof
the Srouuth line of the Paul Goodridge
rd
Book (O.R.D) describedas 4, Page 383, Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida,
with the new East rioht-of-way of U.S.
Highway No. 1; thence South 12° 05'58"
East (assumed datum) along said right-
of-way 302.35 feet to the Point of Begin-
ning, thence continue South 12° 05' 58"•
East along said right-of-way 319.73 feet;
i thence North 77° .54' 02" East 183.80
feet; thence North 12° 05'W" West par-
atlal to said right-of-way 280.26 feet; "
thence North 89° 57' 40" West 187.69
feet to the Point of Beginning. Contain-
ing 1.26 acres more or less.
Together with: the following described
parcel:
Commencing at a point of Intersection of
the South tine of the Paul Goodridge
property as described In Official Record
Book 24, Page 363, Public Records of In..
than River County, Florida, with the new
East right-of-way- of U.S. Highway No. 1;'
thence South 12° 05' S8" East (assumed
datum) along said right-of-way, 72 08
fast to the Point of Beginning; thegrs '
continue South 12° 05' S6" East along
said right-of-way 600.76 feet to the
-
line of the property conveyed to Waldo
E. Sexton and ElsebethM. Sexton by
Oslo Hammock Corporation on may 2,
.1952, and described in Deed Book 67:
Page 93, Public Records of Indian Rijver::
County, Florida; thence North 68' 48'" .
02" East (North 68° 46' 00" East DeedY.`,
along said line 185.83 feet; thence North
12° 05.68" West parallel to said dght-of a.; ,
way 671.37 feet; thence South 77° 54'
02" West 183.50 feet to the Point Oil -
Beginning.
Containing 2.47 acres more or less.
An subject to easements, raetricdons,
reservations or rights -d -way of record.
i Total parcels contain 3.73 acres more or
less.
A public heating at which parties In Interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
(heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
; missionere of Indian River County, Florida, In the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach: Florida, on Wednesday,
January 18, 1984, at 1:30 R.M.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above math, he/she will creed a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-•
poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedings Is made, which In -
dudes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
Indian
• Board of rr8setonere
By: 8-Ri
Chairman
Dec. 30. 1983: Jan. 11. 1984,
Planner Shearer made the staff presentation and
reviewed the following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 9, 1983 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: NU -WEST FLORIDA, INC.,
REQUEST TO REZONE 3.73
SUBJECT: ACRES FROM C -1A, RESTRIC-
TED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,_
TO C-1, COMMERCIAL DIS -
Robert M. Keat ngAICP TRICT
Planning & Development Director
R5
FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Nu -west FL
Principal Planner DIS:RICH
It is requested that the data herein presented by given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of January 18, 1984.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The applicant, Leland Starkey, an agent for the owner, Nu -West
Florida, Inc., is requesting to rezone approximately 3.73 acres
located north of Oslo Road and on the east side of U.S. Highway
1 from C-lA, Restricted Commercial District, to C-1, Commercial
District.
The applicant's clients own additional land in this area and
plan to construct a 170,000 square foot shopping center at the
northeast corner of the Oslo Road/U.S. Highway 1 intersection.
On December 8, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the existing land use pattern
will be presented as well as a discussion of the future land
use as established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is currently vacant. Between the two
parcels which make up the subject property is the Florigold -
Sealed Sweet sales office. Immediately north of the subject
property is the Driftwood Fruit Company fruit stand. All of
the above land is zoned C -1A. Farther north is a vacant parcel
of land zoned C-1 with Vista Royale north of the vacant parcel.
West of the subject property, across U.S. Highway 1, is the
Oslo Citrus Growers Association packing house. South of the
packing house is vacant land to Oslo Road. South of Oslo Road
is the PVC Furniture Center and a flea market. South of the
subject property is vacant land, also owned by Nu -West Florida,
which is zoned C-1 and runs south to Oslo Road. South of Oslo
Road is Mecca Convalescent Home, a surplus outlet store, and a
mobile home park. East of the subject property is vacant land
and the University of Florida Entomology Laboratory.
70
5 r ,Ec
JAN 1.8 1984 BOOK 5
JAS! 18 1994 9 55 P c 87
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the land north of Oslo Road
and east of U.S. 1 as MD -2, Medium -Density Residential (up to
10 units/acre). However, the Plan also designates an eighty -
acre commercial node at the intersection of U.S. 1 and Oslo
Road. The subject property and the lands immediately north,
south, and east of it can be included in this node. West of
the subject property is the U.S. Highway 1 Mixed -Use District
corridor. South of the subject property, across Oslo Road, the
land is designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6
units/acre). Based on the existing land use pattern in this
area and the commercial land use designation for the Oslo Road
and U.S. 1 intersection, the C-1 zoning district appears to be
the most appropriate zoning for the subject property.
Roads/Traffic
The subject property has direct access to U.S. Highway #1
(classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan).
Commercial development of the subject property would attract
4,053 average daily trips (ADT) to this site. However, the
subject property is part of a larger tract of land which is
proposed for development as a 170,000 square foot shopping
center. This type of shopping center can be expected to
attract 8,500 ADTs. This additional traffic (added to the
existing 20,000 ADT on -U.S. 1) would increase the traffic on
U.S. 1 to the upper limit of level -of -service "C". Traffic
signalization at Oslo Road and U.S. 1 will be necessary to
handle this additional traffic. The developer should
contribute to the cost of this signalization.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
UtiIit-imc
County water is available for the subject property, but County
wastewater facilities are not available.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, particularly the existing land use
pattern, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommenda-
tion, staff recommends approval.
Planner Shearer stated that the only problem staff saw
was there would be two small parcels contiguous that would
remain in C-lA. However, at the Planning & Zoning meeting
of December 8, 1983, the Planning & Zoning Commission
instructed staff to bring those to C-1; so, they would all
be C-1. The four parcels now are C-lA. Both staff and the
Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the
rezoning.
Commissioner Bird inquired why C-1 rather than C-lA,
and Mr. Shearer stated that C -1A does not necessarily cover
71
I
0
r
all the activities you might find in a major shopping
center. C-1 allows a broader variety of permitted uses.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the owners of the other
parcels are in favor of this, and Mr. Shearer confirmed they
are.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Harold Putnam, member of the Florida Bar and Director
of Vista Royale, came before the Board. He noted that three
fellow Directors are also present, and they represent 1,500
property owners who live north of the subject property.
They are about 500' away so it was not required that they be
notified. Mr. Putnam expressed concern about the land owned
by Nu -West located east of Vista Royale and noted the
residents of Vista Royale are very much concerned with
future relations with this particular owner. He felt the
County should be also because the County owns a sewage plant
back there. Mr. Putnam believed this property was
previously owned by Oslo Square Associates, although he
could never determine who they were, but he did know they
were delinquent on their 1981 and 1982 back taxes and also
never answered their mail. He was delighted that Nu -West
answers their mail, but noted that their letter stated that
only about 90 acres of their property are classified as
wetlands and 60 acres are developable. Mr. Putnam stated
that he would like to ascertain the intentions of this owner
as to the future for the wetlands.
Mr. Starkey commented that he was not sure who Oslo
Square Associates are himself but believed they predate the
involvement of Nu -West. He explained that he is here
representing Commercial Center Developers, who are contract
purchasers of the commercial property from Nu -West. Mr.
Starkey explained the research they did on the other
property, noting that they met with the Audubon Society, the
72 7
JAN 18 1994 $?
II
rr-
JAN
18 1994
690K
55 P� :E
'I
878 .
DER,
etc., and stated the only reason that nothing
has
progressed further is that Nu -West is on a hold with all of
their development.
Chairman Scurlock commented that all he knows about
Oslo Square Associates is that they took down one of the
nicest oak trees in the county.
The Chairman asked if anyone further wished to be
heard. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to adopt Ordinance 84-1,
granting the rezoning to C-1 of the property
advertised as requested by Nu -West Florida, Inc.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the difference
between C-1 and C-lA is very minor, and Commissioner Lyons
stated that he was glad to hear that Nu -West did some study
of the wetlands.
Commissioner Bird wished to convey to Nu -West that we
have environmental concerns and would encourage them to work
closely with the Commission and the residents of the area on
any future development plans.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously
73
ORDINANCE NO. 84-1
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send,its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of
Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map,
be amended as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in
Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
A portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 19, Township
33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida,
lying easterly of the easterly right-of-way line of U.S.
Highway No. 1 being more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at a point of intersection of the South line of
the Paul Goodridge property as described in Official
Record Book (O.R.D.) 24, Page 363, Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida, with the new East right-of-
way of U.S. Highway No. 1; thence South 12°05158" East
(assumed datum) along said right-of-way 302.35 feet to the
Point of Beginning, thence continue South 12005158" East
along said right-of-way 319.73 feet; thence North
77°54102" East 183.50 feet; thence North 12005158" West
parallel to said right-of-way 280.26 feet; thence North
89°57140" West 187.69 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 1.26 acres more or less.
Together with: the following described parcel:
Commencing at a point of intersection of the South line of
the Paul Goodridge property as described in Official
Record Book 24, Page 363 Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida with the new East right-of-way of U.S.
Highway No. 1; thence South 12105158" East (assumed datum)
along said right-of-way 722.08 feet to the Point of
Beginning; thence continue South 12°05158" East along said
right-of-way 600.76 feet to the South line of the property
conveyed to Waldo E. Sexton and Elsebeth M. Sexton by Oslo
Hammock Corporation on May 2, 1952 and described in Deed
Book 67, Page 93, Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida; thence North 68°48102" East (North 68046'00"- East
Deed) along said line 185.83 feet; thence North 12005158"
West parallel to said right-of-way 571.37 feet; thence
South 77°54102" West 183.50 feet to the Point of Begin-
ning. Containing 2.47 acres more or less.
Be changed from C-lA Restricted Commercial District to
C-1, Commercial District.
74
JAN 18 1984 698K 55 P,qU 879
I
WX 55
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this 18 day of January ,
1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
le
BY
DON C. SCURL CK, Jr.
Chairman
CLOSING OF 4TH PLACE - FEC R/R CROSSING
The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
1 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 c�iri,nvr.c� �v
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 aftiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed beWre meJ,jlisl" � day of A.D. 19
(Clerk of the Circuit Cburt, I
(SEAL)
(6siness Manager)
14
River County, Morioa)
75
/ NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARIl+it3
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A I
PETITION FOR THE CLOSING OF THE 4TH
PLACE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY
COMPANY CROSSING.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shalt have an opportunity to be .
heard, will be held by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor-
ida, In the County Commission Chambers of j
the County Administration Building, located at
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Wednesday, January 18, 1984, at 1:30 P.M.
If any person decides to appeal any deci-
sion made on the above matter, he will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By:s-Richard N. Bird
Chairman
Dec. 3o, 1983.
Staff memo and recommendation is as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 9, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
CLOSING OF 4TH PLACE
SUBJECT: F.E.C. RAILWAY CROSSING
Robert M. Keatiin , P
Planning and Development Director
Karen M. Crave,
rave 4th Place
FROM: Staff Planner REFERENCES: DIS:KAREN
It is recommended that the information herein presented be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at their regular meeting of January 18, 1984.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Indian River County has entered into an agreement with the
Florida East Coast Railway Company regarding the closing of the
4th Place crossing and the construction of a new crossing at
4th Street. The closing of the 4th Place crossing necessitates
a public hearing and the adoption of a resolution similar to
that required for the abandonment of County right-of-way. All
reviewing agencies contacted approved of the closing.
A Stipulation of Parties was filed by the Department of
Transportation, the F.E.C. Railway Company, and Indian River
County. As per said document, the Railway shall remove.the 4th
Place crossing structure, at the County's expense, and relocate
the device at 4th Street at its own expense. Prior to the
removal of the 4th Place structure, the County will be required
to install and maintain barricades at 4th Place. Construction
of the new crossing will then commence.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County close the F.E.C. Railway
Company crossing at 4th Place and execute the attached Resolu-
tion.
Public Works Director Davis noted that it was
previously discussed and agreed that sometime in the future
4th Place would be abandoned and moved 150' south to the 4th
Street Location, and we now are at the point of implementing
that project.
Discussion ensued as to whether there will be any jog
in 4th Street, and Public Works Director Davis reported that
the design has been revised and it will line up the utility
pole will be moved and they have written property owners
76
,JAN 18 1994 KA
I
r
JAN 18 1994
requesting some right-of-way, but the intersections can be
lined up even without it:
Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Samuel Adams of East Coast Tile & Terrazzo, located on
the corner of 4th Place and Old Dixie, came before the Board
and noted that he had heard someone say that it was properly
advertised.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that there was an adver-
tisement put in the local section of the local newspaper.
There is no requirement for any personal notice.
Mr. Adams stressed that the main reason he bought his
property was because it had direct access to U.S.l, and at
the time the realtor had assured him that 4th Place would
not be closed off. He further noted that his property is
now assessed as having access to U.S.1 and Old Dixie, but he
was told the closing would have no effect on the assessed
value of his property, which he did not understand.
Chairman Scurlock explained the County Commission does
not assess property; the opinion he gave was merely what he
thought would happen. He doubted this change would affect
the property to any degree.
Mr. Adams did not see why there is a public hearing at
all since everything is already going to be done. He wished
to know if there is going to be a light at 4th Street and
Old Dixie.
Public Works Director Davis informed him that once 4th
Street is established, there are plans to do an intersection
study to see if it warrants a signal. If the traffic counts
warrant it, it will be recommended to the Transportation
Planning Committee and considered at that time.
Mr. Adams argued that closing 4th Place will throw all
the traffic onto 4th Street.
77
� s �
Commissioner Lyons believed that 4th Place was a real
hazard. He felt that 4th Street is the main traffic carrier
and that it is in the best interests of everyone to make 4th
Street a better through street by making it a straight shot.
Commissioner Wodtke also believed that this will be a
safer railroad crossing than the one at 4th Place, and
Chairman Scurlock explained that the Transportation Com-
mittee does a real in-depth analysis to try to develop a
plan to move traffic through the whole county.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to
be heard.
JAN 18 1984
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) closed the public hearing.
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
(4-0) adopted Resolution 84-3 abandoning and
closing the 4th Place Florida East Coast
Railway Company crossing and authorized staff
to proceed with the project as outlined.
78 - Boo 55 Poc 883
JAN 18 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 84-3
BOOK 55r�oL �:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING OF. THE 4TH PLACE
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY CROSSING.
WHEREAS, on December 28, 1983, the County received a duly
executed and documented petition from James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director of Indian River County, Florida,
requesting the County to close the 4th Place Florida East Coast
Railway Company crossing.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §
336.10, notice of a public hearing to consider said petition
has been duly published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition,
supporting documents, staff investigation and report, and
testimony of all those interested and present, the Board finds
that said crossing is not a state or federal highway, nor
located within any municipality, nor is said crossing necessary
for continuity of the County's street and thoroughfare network,
nor access to any given private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. A parcel of land with uniform width of 70
feet northerly and southerly, extending
easterly and westerly across the
right-of-way and main track of 'the RAILWAY
at Vero Beach, Florida, with the
longitudinal centerline of said ,parcel
being located 3,982 feet more or less
southerly from RAILWAY's Mile Post No. 229
from Jacksonville, Florida, said
right-of-way of the RAILWAY having a total
width of_100 feet at this location, being
50 feet each side of the center line of the
RAILWAY's main track,
is hereby forever closed.
2. Notice of adoption of this resolution shall
be forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the
date of adoption hereof; and
3. The Clerk'is hereby directed to record this
resolution together with the proofs of publication required by
Florida Statutes §336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian
River County without undue delay.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner Bird who moved its adoption. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Lyons and, upon being put to
a vote, the vote was as follows:
1
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Patrick B. Lvons Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr -Aye
Commissioner Maggy Bowman Absent
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
79
I
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 18 day of January 1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: G1 ,t/
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., Ctorman
ATTEST :
,FREDA WRIGHT, qerk
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT AND NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
.The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at
4:25 o'clock P.M. in order that they might convene as the
District Board of Fire Commissioners of the South Indian River
County Fire District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 5:38 o'clock
P.M. with the same members present.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
agreed to continue the meeting no later than
6:00 P.M.
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed in order
that'they might convene as the District Board of Fire Commissioners
of the North Indian River County Fire District. Those Minutes are
being prepared separately.
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon reconvened
at 6:10 o'clock P.M. with the same members present,
Commissioner Bowman being absent.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY AND TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER
SHORES
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he
reviewed the draft of this agreement with Attorney William
Caldwell, who represents North Beach Water Company, and both
North Beach Water Company and Bayside Utilities are in
agreement with it.
M.
JAN 18 1984 e9ex 55 PKK 88
L
I
JAN 18 1984 ANN
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unani-
mously (4-0) approved the Interlocal Agree-
ment with the Town of Indian River Shores
re the North Beach Water Company and Bayside
Utilities water and wastewater franchises.
55 PAL -L-886
Said Agreement will be made a part of the Minutes when
fully executed and received.
WITHDRAWAL OF ITEMS FROM AGENDA
Administrator Wright announced that he would withdraw
his added item in regard to Courthouse security from today's
agenda and take it up at the next meeting.
Chairman Scurlock withdrew his Finance Advisory
Committee report and Transportation Planning Committee
report from today's agenda.
JAIL COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Lyons briefly reported that as it now
stands, the Jail Committee has communicated their concerns
to the architects re the high cost of their design and has
suggested modification of our plan; they are waiting for a
response. Since we did not have a solid figure, it was the
recommendation of the Jail Committee that the bond issue be
delayed for a September ballot.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT (MEETING AND OUT -OF- COUNTY TRAVEL)
Commissioner Lyons informed the Board that he has been
requested by State Representative Patchett to attend a --
public meeting January 27th in Fort Pierce in connection
with the activities of the County in regard to the Barrier
Island Planning. He continued that Mr. Patchett is on
the Community Affairs Committee and he is holding
hearings to indicate what the counties are doing to help
themselves.
Commissioner Lyons stated that he gets the
go
feeling that Mr. DeGrove is very strongly in favor of the
state helping themselves at the expense of the counties, and
he is perfectly willing to make an appearance at this
meeting, but believed that he might need some help from
staff. He further noted that it is quite likely that he
will have to go to Tallahassee in February or March on the
same matter, and he would like the Board's permission to
attend both hearings and have assistance from staff.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved out -of -county travel for
Commissioner Lyons as above and authorized
him to obtain assistance from staff.
REPORT ON "SAVE OUR COAST" MEETING AND RETROACTIVE
OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved retroactive out -of -county
travel for Commissioner Bird to attend a
meeting in regard to the "Save Our Coast"
Program in Tallahassee on January 16-17,
1984.
Commissioner Bird reported that what,has happened is
that our projects have gotten ranked so high that we are
ahead of other,counties who have made more preparations than
we have. We, therefore, are pushing hard to get appraisals
done and work with property owners to obtain options. We
need to get this completed so we are on a par with the
others.
82
JAN 18 1984 m00% -5 KKE00007
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT
A. Tracking Station Park
Boa 5 rA.'�- 888
Commissioner Bird informed the Board that residents of
the Pebble Beach Condominium complex had some concerns about
the Tracking Station Park. They sent their representative,
Mr. Peace, to the Parks & Recreation Committee meeting, and
they are now satisfied that the County is addressing this
situation.
B. Hosie Schumann Park
Commissioner Bird reported that we have gone in and
cleared this park and he believed we will plant some grass
seed. He continued that they have been working with Mrs.
Jackson about what else could be done to make that facility
usable, and it has been explained that there is no money in
the budget this year for any capital improvements so that
any improvements will have to be done through community
effort. Commissioner Bird further noted that he advised
Mrs. Jackson that any improvements should be done under some
kind of development plan, and all he is asking the
Commission to do is allow our staff to with work with
Charlie Parks, who is on'the Parks & Recreations Committee,
to draw up a conceptual plan.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
(4-0) authorized staff to work with Mr. Parks
of the Parks & Recreation Committee to draw
up a conceptual development plan of Hosie
Schumann Park.
C. Small Park Parcels
Commissioner Bird reported that hopefully in February
the Parks & Recreation Committee will finalize some
recommendations in regard to the various small park parcels
83
located throughout the county.
They have now gone through
about 25 parcels on site and are ready to start coming back
with some recommendations.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD
Resolution No. 83-107, "Citrus Utilities, Inc., water
and Wastewater System Franchise," as approved at the meeting
of November 2,1983, having been fully executed and received,
has been put 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. 89842 - 90147 inclusive. Such
bills and accounts being on file in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court, the warrants so issued from the
respective bonds being listed in the Supplemental Minute
Book as provided by the rules of the Legislative Auditor,
reference to such record and list so recorded being made a
part of these Minutes.
There being no further business, on Motion made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 6:20 o'clock
P.M.
Attest:
UL�
Clerk
Chairman
84
JAN 18 1984 8XX 55 mor" 889,