HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/2/1984Wednesday, May 2, 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, May 2, 1984, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present
were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice
Chairman; William C. Wodtke, Jr., and Richard N. Bird.
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman was absent due to illness.
Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator;
Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County
Commissioners; L.S. "Tommy" Thomas, General Services
Director; Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; Barbara Bonnah
and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerks.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Stan Sanford, First Baptist Church, Wabasso,
gave the invocation and Chairman Scurlock led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock requested the addition to today's
agenda of a discussion re the possibility of Commissioner
Wodtke taking a more active role in the North County Fire
District during Commissioner Bowman's absence due to
illness, and also having Commissioner Lyons serve in her
stead on the Regional Planning Council.
MAY a 1984
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board
unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Bowman being
absent due to illness), added the above item
to today's Agenda.
BOOK 95
MAY 2 1984
Bdoi 56 PAGE 796
Attorney Brandenburg requested the addition to today's
Agenda of a discussion re an amendment to the Interlocal
Agreement Creating the Treasure Coast Job Training
Consortium and Treasure Coast Private Industry Council.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) added the above item to
today's Agenda.
Commissioner Wodtke requested the addition to today's
Agenda of a discussion re the Beach Preservation and
Restoration Committee.
L
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) added the above item to _
today's Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Scurlock asked if there were.any corrections
or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
April 4, 1984. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board
unanimously (4-0) approved the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of 4/4/84, as written.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any corrections
or additions to the Minutes of the Special Aieeting of
April 10, 1984. There were none.
la
I h;
z
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,.
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) approved the Minutes of the
Special Meeting of 4/10/84, as written.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any corrections
or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
April 11, 1984. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) approved the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of 4/11/84, as written.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
A. Approval of New Application for a Permit to Carry a
Concealed Firearm
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/17/84:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 17, 1984 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT - NEW
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
MAY 2 ?984
The following named person has applied for anew
pistol permit through the Clerk's Office:
Nicholas Piumelli
.All requirements of Ordinance 82-27 have been met
and are in order.
OA
BOOK 56 PAGE 797
MAY 2 1984 BOOK 56 PAGE 770 `
i_
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board
unanimously (4-0) approved issuance of a permit
to carry concealed firearm to Nicholas Piumelli.
B. Approval of Renewal Application for a Permit to Carry a
Concealed Firearm
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/17/84:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 17, 1984 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT -E� N
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following named person has applied for a pistol
permit renewal:
Bernard Paz, Jr.
All requirements of Ordinance 82-27 have been met
and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) approved the renewal
application for a permit to carry a concealed
firearm for Bernard Paz, Jr.
C. Request for Permit to Carry a Concealed Firearm from
Edward Lee Ayers
1984:
The Board reviewed the following memo dated April 25,
3
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 25, 1984 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR NEW
PISTOL PERMIT
FROM: Michael Wright
County Administrator REFERENCES:
The following named person has applied through the
Clerk's Office for a pistol permit. The clerk
forwarded the application to this office for
consideration in a memorandum dated April 16, 1984:
Edward Lee Ayers
It is my recommendation that this application be
denied.
Administrator Wright noted that Mr. Ayers is in
attendance today, and Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Ayers if
he wished to make a statement.
Edward Ayers addressed the Board and stated that the
information he supplied to Administrator Wright and also the
letter submitted to the Board correctly states his reasons
for wanting a gun permit. He has been issued a County
permit in this county before, and has in his possession
copies of these permits which were issued by Sam Joyce and
Ralph Harris. Even considering the recent newspaper
coverage, he saw no reason why his permit should be denied.
Commissioner Wodtke explained that the Board does not
get a copy of the application and asked Administrator Wright
what reasons were given by the applicant for wanting a
pistol permit to carry a concealed weapon. Administrator
Wright advised that the application stated that the reason
was for personal and family protection. He pointed out that
the basis of his recommendation for denial wa,s not the
4
MAY 2 1984 gooK 56 FACE X799
SAY 2 1984 BOOK 56 PAGE 890 ` s
infractions by themselves, but because the infractions were
not admitted. He did not believe they warranted denial as
they were misdemeanors. In consistence with our past policy
of recommending denial where people have either erroneously
or inadvertently left off information regarding arrests, he
has recommended denial in this case also.
Commissioner Lyons was concerned that the questions on;.
the application were not answered fully.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board
deny Edward Lee Ayers a permit to carry a
concealed weapon, with the understanding that
reapplication with full facts can be made within
the next -six months.
Under discussion, Chairman Scurlock felt that
consistency in answering the questions on the application
form is very important, as the County went through a process
where we have tightened up and tried to provide a little
safer way for individuals to carry a concealed weapon. He
believed that all of the Commissioners feel uncomfortable in
the process of issuing pistol permits, and he personally
finds it very difficult to sign the permits as Chairman. He
believed if Mr. Ayers would fill out all the lines in the
application with the correct information, there might be a
different outcome, but the Motion at this point is for
denial and reapplication within six months. He asked Mr.
Ayers if he understood the Motion and Mr. Ayers indicated he
did.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion was voted on and carried
unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Bowman
being absent due to illness.)
5
Chairman Scurlock advised Mr. Ayers that he could pick
up another application form and resubmit it.
;i
CONSENT AGENDA
Attorney Brandenburg requested that Items B & D be
removed from the Consent Agenda at this time, and
Commissioner Wodtke requested Items H and J be removed also.
A. Approval of Deputy Sheriff Appointments
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) approved the appointments
of the following Deputy Sheriffs and authorized
the Chairman's signature:
Paul M. Smith
James F. Powers
Andrew J. Bradley
11
MAY 2 1984
BOOK 56 PAGE 80,E
MAY 2 1984 600K 56 PAcE 80
C. Approval for AT&T (Information System) to act as Agent
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/11/84:
TO: Michael Wright DATE: April 11, 1984 FILE:
County Administrator
THRU.: L. S. "Tommy' Thomas SUBJECT: Letter of Agency
General Services Director ATT - IS
ROM: ..�
L n4 Williams' REFERENCES:
uilding & Grounds Superintendent
Attached is an authorization form which would allow ATT-IS`Lb-='
act as our agent with regards to installation, repair and
rearrangements of telephone equipment. Since the divesture of
the Bell Network we along with the majority of the public, have
been made an intermediary between the local operating company
and our equipment supplier. In order to handle some of our
telephone needs we must contact both companies, attempt to
explain effectively in "tele-gargon" the problem or need and
then coordinate the two independent companies actions to
complete the project.
I feel allowing ATT -IS to act as agent, at no cost to the
County, will simplify and streamline telephone requests. They
will in effect take our place as far as coordination and
arrangements go. It will also insure we are calling the right
person the first time.
I recommend your approval of the attached and will provide
additional information upon request.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) approved the Letter of
Authorization for AT&T to act as communications
representative for Indian River County.
AT&T
Information Systems
LEITER OF ALM J0 P'.I_ATIO.N - „(Z\7
ate
-Ing
-
Southern Bell
Aa:,e oz en or
4000 N. Andrews Ave.
ya�ress
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. 33309
Llty, Jtate 1.1p
Dear Sirs;
This is to advise you that we have retained the services of AT&T Information
Syste:r:s (AT&T -IS) to act as our commanicat ions representative until further
ndtice.
We authorize AT&T -IS to obtain copies of all network service, equipment and
billing records, order and handle negotiations for the installation of net-
work services and equipment and coordinate the installation of the telephone
systeMs. This includes arranging for disconnections or rearrangements of
service and equipment as appropriate.
All recurring and nonrecurring charges ma4.e by your company for service orders
on our behalf are to be paid by us directly and are not the responsibility of
AT&T -IS.
We will not hold AT&T -IS responsible for any delays on the part of your
company in providing the services and equipment by the specified date. please
notify AT&T -IS if any jeopardy situations occur.
The authorization shall remain in effect until cancelled by us in writing. It
does not preclude our ability to act in our own behalf tihen we deem it
necessary. The AT&T -IS contact nuanber is 1-800-432-0401
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
acne of Customer
I4tt) Sth St Suite N 158
A^ -cress ..
Vero Reach, Florida 32960
1ty, state 1
305-567-8000 Lip
e:eptione ,Nu=er w
By (s�gjd)
t e:Don C. Scurlock, r.
Chairman
E7
MAY 2 1984
County, Florida
(Attach Business Card
__ if available.) (loot required
ur
BOOK 56 PAGE 803
MAY 21994 sooK
E. Surplus Property - Vehicles
56 PAGE80
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/13/84:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 13, 1984 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: Surplus Property
County Administrator
FROM: REFERENCES:
Carolyn!Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Recently 4 new automobiles were.purchased for the Building Department. There
are (6) 1978 Dodge Aspens no longer being used by the Building Department. The
2 vehicles in the best overall condition are being repaired and re -conditioned
by the Fleet Management Department. The intention at this time is to assign 1
vehicle as a pool vehicle and assign the other vehicle to Building & Grounds/
Safety.
Attached is a list of the other 4 vehicles. Three of the vehicles have 100,000+
miles. The other vehicle has 85,000. A copy of an estimate for repairs prepared
by Jack McCorkle is also attached.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
Under Florida State Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners must declare
these vehicles as surplus before they can be disposed of by selling to the best
bidder.
3. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners declare these vehicles
as surplus, so they can be sold.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) declared the above mentioned
vehicles as surplus in order that they may be
sold, as recommended by Purchasing Manager
Carolyn Goodrich.
9
F. Surplus Property - Fuel Pumps and Tanks
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/10/84:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 10, 1984 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: Surplus Property
County Administrator
FROM: 'REFERENCES:
Carolyn Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Because of the installation of the new 10,000 gallon underground fuel tanks and
g fuel pumps at Fleet Management, the following equipment is no longer in use:
Asset u Description PurpFj?jn�lice
1b?_1 Diesel ue Pump 5719.56
1628 Diesel Fuel Pump $719.55
2892 2000 gal. underground fuel tank $488.00
2893 2000 gal. underground fuel tank $488.00
3192 2000 gal underground fuel tank $558.00
The diesel fuel pumps were purchased in 1969, are rusted and the computers do
not work.
The three underground fuel tanks were purchased in 1977 and 1978`. They are pre-
sently underground, filled with water and have no salvage value. The cost to dig
them up and repair the asphalt over them does not warrant their removal.
2. Alternatives and Analysts
As it is not feasible to dig up the 3 underground tanks, the alternative would
be to re-classify them as Junked/Abandoned.
The diesel fuel pumps could be sold to the best bidder or as scrap metal, therefore,
the alternative would be to declare the pumps as surplus property.
3. Recommendations
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners declare the diesel fuel
pumps as surplus property so they can be sold to the best bidder or sold as scrap
metal.
Also, it is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to
re-classify the underground tanks as Junked/Abandoned.
10 .BOOK 56 PAGE 805
Y= MAY 2 1984
MAY 2 1984
BOOK 56 PAGE �O� ` 4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) declared the diesel fuel
pumps as surplus property so they can be sold to
the best bidder or sold as scrap metal and
authorized staff to re—classify the underground
tanks as Junked/Abandoned, as recommended by
Purchasing Manager Carolyn Goodrich.
G Surplus Property — Container Boxes
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/17/84:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 17, 1984 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: Surplus Property
County Administrator
FROM: REFERENCES:
IIS Carolyn Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Attached is a list of equipment no longer being used by the Refuse Department.
The 170 Gallon Container boxes have been replaced in the County Parks by barrels
with plastic liners.
The 8-10 yd garbage packer with power unit is no longer needed, as the plastic
I liners are picked up by a smaller pickup truck. The Cab & Chassis that the
garbage packer was mounted on is being used to clean the portable toilets.
2. -Alternatives and Analysis
The container boxes and garbage packer must be declared as surplus property, so
they can be advertised and sold to the best bidder.
3. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners declare the 170 gallon
container boxes and the 8-10 yd garbage packer as surplus property, so they may
be sold to the best bidder.
' Asset #
2660
8-10 yd.
Garbage Packer
2664
170
Gal.
Container
3663
170
Gal.
Container
3664
170
gal.
container
3665
170
gal.
container
3666
170
gal.
container
3667
170
gal.
container
3668
170
gal.
container
3669
170
gal.
container
3670
170
gal.
container
8
3671
170
gal.
container
3672
170
gal.
container
3673
170
gal.
container
3674
170
gal.
container
4410
170
gal.
container
4411
170
gal.
container
4412
170
gal.
container
4413
170
gal.
container
4414
170
gal.
container
4415
170
gal.
container
4417
170
gal.
container
lla
Purchase Price
$12,760.00
220.00
219.65
219.65
219.65
219.65
219.65
219.65
219.65
219.65
219.65
219.65
219.65
219.65
295.00
295.00
295.00
295.00
295.00
295.00
$17,680.80
MAY 2 1984 BOOK 56' PAGE 807
MAY 2 1984
BOOK 56 PAGE 808 r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) declared the 170 gallon
container boxes and the 8-10 yd. garbage
packer as surplus property so they may be
sold to the best bidder, as recommended by
Purchasing Manager Carolyn Goodrich.
I. Cancellation of May 9 County Commission Meeting
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/25/84:
TO: Board of County DATE: April 25, 1984 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: County Commission
Meeting, May 9
FROM: Alice White REFERENCES:
Admin. Secretary
No items have been scheduled for the May 9 agenda. This
matter was discussed in the staff pre -agenda meeting on
April 24.
It is requested that the May 9 meeting of the County
Commission be cancelled. The following meeting date
will be May 16.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) cancelled the Board of
County Commission meeting scheduled for
May 9, 1984.
12
K. Paving and Drainage Improvements at 714 14th Avenue
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/25/84:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 25, 1984 FILE:
SUBJECT: Paving & Drainage Improvements
714 -14th Avenue
(--
FROM: Jeffrey' Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director
Through a discussion with Ms. Elizabeth L. Newcombe on this date, due to her ,
financial status, she is unable to make the payments called for per the attached '
Promissory Note,
Ms. Newcombe feels that she can make monthly payments of $121.90 for 1 2 years,
with the first installment due May 10, 1984 and on or before the 10th of each
month thereafter until paid in full.
It is my recommendation that we rewrite the Promissory Note with the above
terms.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) authorized staff to rewrite
the Promissory Note by Elizabeth L. Newcombe
with the above terms, as recommended by OMB
Director Jeff Barton.
13
MA 2 �9 BOOK 55 PAGE 809
Y 84
MAY 21984
BOOK 56 PAGE 810
L. Final Plat Approval for Rose Haven Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/23/84:
TO: DATE: FILE:
The Honorable Members April 23, 1984
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE- FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
8URJECT: FOR ROSE HAVEN S/D
Robert M. Kea-Cing, AICP
Planning & Development Director
FROM: Clare Z. Poupard REFERENCES: Rose Haven
Staff Planner CHIEF
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on May. 2, 1984.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Rose Haven isan 8 lot, ± 4.8 acre, subdivision located near
the northwest corner of 80th Avenue and 126th Street, north of
Sebastian. The property is zoned R -2A, Multi -Family
Residential (4 units/acre) and has an LD -2, Low -Density
Residential (6 units/acre) land use designation. The
development's actual density is 1.67 units/acre.
The subdivision received preliminary plat approval on April 7,
1983. A one year extension of plat approval was granted on
October 7, 1983. Thus, the preliminary plat is scheduled to
expire on October 7, 1984. The applicant is requesting final
plat approval at this time.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed its review of the applicant's request. The
County Engineer has performed a final site inspection and found
all on-site construction to have been completed according to
County's specifications. The final plat has been reviewed for
legal sufficiency by the County Attorney's Office. All lot and
right-of-way dimensions on the final plat are in conformance
with the approved preliminary plat. Thus, all requirements of
the County's Subdivision Ordinance 75-3 concerning final plat
approval have been addressed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Ccmmissioners grant
final plat approval to Rose Haven Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) granted final plat approval
for Rose Haven Subdivision.
14
B. Renewal of Antenna Site Lease at Hobart Park by Indian
River School Board
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 4/3/84:
Telepb^ne (305) 567-7165 SUNC No. 465 1011
SChCCa- DISTEICT CF I>+Cis� r E'ER CCU%Ily
1990 25th Street - Vero Beach, Florida 32960
JAMES A. BURNS, Superintendent
April 3, 1984
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Attention: County Administrator Michael Wright
Dear Sirs:
SCHOOL BOAR
RICHARD A. BOLIN
Chairman
RUTH R. BARNE
Vice -Chairman
JUDSON P. BARKER
JOE N. IDLETTE,.
DOROTHY A. TALE
t
Please be advised that the School Board is interested
in exercising our option to renew the individual site lease
for space on the antenna tower which was entered into on
the 28th day of April, 1983 between the Indian River County
School Board and Indian River County.
It is our desire to see all provisions of the lease
as constituted in the original document.
Sincerely,
Samuel A. Hunhe
Assistant Superintendent
Administrative Services
Attorney Brandenburg recommended that the lease be
amended so that the lease will be renewed automatically each
year unless terminated.
MAY 2 1984
15 pqq
BOOK PAGE 81
MAY 21984 BOOK 56 ME 812
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) renewed the Antenna Site
Lease at Hobart Park by Indian River School
Board with the change as noted by Attorney
Brandenburg that the lease will be renewed
automatically from year to year unless
terminated otherwise.
16
ANTENNA SITE LEASE
THIS LEASE, AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 25 day
of April , 1984, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD, hereinafter referred to as "Lessee" and INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida_,
hereinafter referred to as "Lessor":
WHEREAS, Lessor owns and operates a communication tower site
in Hobart Park, Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, Lessee desires to rent a portion of Lessor's
property for the purpose of installing and operating an antenna
system.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises
contained herein, it is agreed as follows:
1. Lessor does hereby lease to Lessee sufficient space on
the communication tower located at Hobart Park, Florida, to
install a TDD 6482 antenna with cable, together with a right to
use a control building for the installation of a Motorola Model
No. C73RCB6106 unit to comprise a system utilizing a frequency of
155.265 MHz. Lessee takes the facilities "as -is", and Lessor
does not warrant that the facility is sufficient for the use
intended by Lessee. Any modifications necessary to make the
facility usable by the Lessee may only be made after approval by
the Lessor and shall be made at the sole expense of Lessee.
2. The term of this lease is one (1) year, twelve (12)
calendar months. This lease shall be renewed automatically from
year to year thereafter under the same terms, covenants and
conditions as the parties have agreed hereto. Either party may
terminate this lease at the end of any calendar year upon
delivery of sixty (60) days written notice to the other party at
their administrative offices.
3. Lessee agrees to pay Lessor the sum of SEVENTY—FIVE
DOLLARS ($75.00) per month during the term of this lease and
renewals thereof..
p:
s
MAY 21984
BOOK. 56 PAGE S13 ,�.
`. MAY 21984AA
BOOK 56:_PAGE 814
4-. All personal property placed or moved onto the leased
premises by the Lessee shall be at the risk of Lessee and -Lessor
shall not be liable for any damage to said personal property no
matter what the cause.
S. Lessor shall pay all electric charges which may become
payable during the term of this lease for electricity used by
Lessee on the leased premises.
6. In the event that Lessee abandons the premises or uses
the premises for an unauthorized purpose, then the Lessor may
terminate this lease upon sixty (60) days written notice to
Lessee. If the leased site becomes unfit or undesirable for use
for Lessee's purposes, Lessee may terminate this lease upon sixty
(60) days written notice to Lessor.
7. This lease shall bind the respective parties, assigns or
successors.
8. This lease constitutes the entire agreement of the
parties hereto and shall supersede all prior offers, negotiations
and agreements. No revisions of this lease shall be valid unless
executed in writing by both parties.
9. The Lessee warrants that it is insured and shall remain
so insured during the term of this lease in accordance with
Section 768.26, Florida Statutes.
10. Lessee shall comply with all applicable state, federal
and local rules and regulations and laws for the type of activity
involved. Lessee also agrees that its use of the communication
tower is limited to use that does not interfere in any way with
the tower's current occupant's use and further agrees that the
signal broadcast.by Lessee shall not interfere or degrade signals
produced by the other tower users. Lessee shall bear the entire
cost of compliance with this section of the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
lease for the purposes expressed herein, on the day and year
written above.
-2-
Witness: /f ,
APPROVED WTO F
LEGAL SU IEXC
By: Z. L./
Gary r n en
Couxty Attorney
MAY 2 ?984
9 J
-3-
BOARD OF' COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By - + -. G /Z
Don C. Scurlock., airman
Attest �t,.
Freda Wrier
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT
By
Rig ar o i.nger, i:rman
Attest:
James A. urns, Secretary
BOOK 56 PAGE 815
r
MAY 2 1984 BOOK 56. RAN
D. Amended Consent Order re Removal of Dixie Gardens and
Ixora Utilities Sewage Treatment Systems from Service
Attorney Brandenburg explained that Item D needs to be
removed or deleted from today's Agenda as the matter is
incorrect and needs work.
The Commissioners agreed to remove Item D from today's
Agenda.
H. Budget Amendment, Reclassification and Salary
Adjustments of B.C.C. Operations Employees
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/18/84:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 18, 1984 FILE:.
F=ROM:Jeffrey K. Barton
UMB Director
SUBJECT: Reclassification
REFERENCES:
The following budget amendment is to allocate the needed salaries and benefits
for the balance of this fiscal year for the reclassification of B.C.C. Operations
employees:
Account Titie
Regular Salaries
Soc Sec. Matching
Retirement
Workman's Comp.
Reserve for Contingency
Account N6.
001-101,511-11.12
001101-511-12.11
Out -101-511-12.12
001-101-511-12.14
001-199-513-99.91
20
,Increase
876
62
98
5
Decrease
1,u41
Liz Forlani, Administrative Aide to the Board of County
Commissioners, explained that the classifications have
already been done by Cody and Personnel Manager Lois Hoder
had informed her there would be no difficulty in fitting
them into the plan. She added that the job description in
the Cody Report was done for the Clerk to the Board.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the
Board approve the above budget amendment.
Under discussion, Chairman Scurlock explained that he
has learned from Mrs. Forlani that these individuals had
incorrect or insufficient classifications, and she pointed
out that reclassifications were not unique as Personnel has
done this in other situations this past budget year.
Administrator Wright confirmed that Personnel is also
looking at some other job classifications which need to be
upgraded or decreased.
Commissioner Bird had a problem with reclassifications
at mid -year, and while Chairman Scurlock agreed, he thought
this should be addressed now due to the problem that arises
when these individuals apply for new job positions. Not
only do they feel they must apply because of the higher
compensation offered, there is the problem of finding
replacements because the present salaries are not
competitive.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that these reclassifications
should be done at budget time and stated he would vote
against the Motion.
Commissioner Lyons stressed that if these individuals
are working out of grade, as apparently is the case, it
becomes incumbent upon the Board to either change the job or
change the salary.
21
MAY 2 1984
BOOK. 56 PAGE817:
MAY 2 1984
BOOK 56 PACE 810
Commissioner Bird asked if we could change the grade
but wait to give a salary increase at budget time.
Commissioner Lyons did not feel you could change the grade
without approving the salary increase at the same time.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion was voted on and carried by
a vote of 3-1, Commissioner Wodtke dissenting.
J. Addition of a Fourth Lane along 16th Street from Old
Dixie Highway to loth Avenue
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/23/84:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 23, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Addition of 4th Lane Along 16th
Street from Old Dixie Highway
to 1.0th Avenue
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
The FEC has estimated that the additional cost to provide a 4th
lane along 16th Street from Old Dixie Highway to 10th Avenue
will be $46,376 in addition to the approximate $20,000 change
order cost. At this time, staff recommends proceeding with the
change order preparation. The construction of the new Main Fire
Station on Old Dixie and a new $1.7 million recreation complex
in the area will justify the need for this additional lane.
It appears that the cost of the box culverts constructed beneath
20th Avenue at 12th Street and 16th Street will cost substantially
less than the bid cost and will offset the total cost of this
addition.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the fourth lane is costing
$20,000 more than estimated, and Public Works Director Jim
Davis explained that when the first change order was
discussed by the Board, it was indicated that we could add
the fourth lane for an additional $20,000, which did not
include the railroad crossing adjustments. It is now going
to cost $46,000 plus the $20,000 construction costs from
22
Dickerson, making the total cost of adding the fourth lane
approximately $66,000. Director Davis stated they were very
surprised at the FEC charges because usually the bill comes
in lower than the conservative estimate. Originally, the
FEC wanted $86,000 to make the crossing.three lanes, and now
they want another $46,000 to make it four lanes.
Chairman Scurlock thought it seems like a disportionate
increase to add one additional lane, but Administrator
Wright felt it was necessary in order to avoid a bottleneck
with four lanes emerging.into three. The Administrator
noted that we are significantly under budget on this project
and that the additional cost was rather an inexpensive price
to pay for the additional lane. He pointed out that the
County does not have a choice and must deal with the FEC to
do this work.
The Board compared the old estimated costs for three
lanes to the new estimates for four lanes and found it is
very difficulttocompare because of the type of equipment
necessary to put in a fourth lane. The Commissioners agreed
there were some inconsistencies in the FEC estimates and
Administrator Wright recommended that the Board approve the
fourth lane with,the understanding that the. FEC charges will
be audited after the project is closed out.
MAY 2 1984
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board
unanimously (4-0) approved the addition of
a fourth lane along 16th Street from"Old Dixie
Highway to 10th Avenue; the project not to
exceed the maximum cost as shown in the figures
today; and with the understanding that the County
Administrator will double check for duplicate
charges in the list of FEC charges.
23
Boy 56 PAGE 819
MAY 21984 Boa 56 PAGE 820
PROCLAMATION - BETTER HEARING AND SPEECH MONTH
Chairman Scurlock read the following proclamation aloud
and presented it to Suzanne McDavid and David Nelson from
the Sunshine Physical Therapy Clinic, who gave a brief
history of their 30 years of service in Indian River County.
Ms. McDavid announced that there will be free hearing tests
available during May.
24
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, •speech, language and hearing disorders constitute
this nation's most prevalent handicapping conditions; and
WHEREAS, some 22.6 million. Americans, about 10 percent of
the population, an estimated seven thousand in Indian River
County, Florida have speech, language or hearing impairments
which effect their educational, vocational, personal and social
functions; and
WHEREAS, most people with communicative disorders can be
helped by speech-language pathologists and audiologists, but need
to be made aware of the profession and of how to obtain
services; and
WHEREAS, Better Hearing and Speech Month is an annual
national campaign to inform the public about communicative
disorders and how and where to get help, and to encourage early
detection proper treatment and prevention of these disorders,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
CO1.01ISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that'the month of
=� May be designated as
M
BETTER HEARING AND SPEECH MONTH
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that Better Hearing
and Speech Month will facilitate greater awareness of speech,
language and hearing disorders and their treatment, and to honor
the professionals in the field of speech-language pathology and
audiology for their outstanding work in•Indian River County.
ATTEST: !.
BY ��c �r;r4At?
e -r_T--
J
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY4CS—az—ock,
C
DoJr. -
Chairman
25
MAY 21984
BOOK 56 FACE 82.01
M AY 2 1984 BOOK 56= PAGE 822
PROCLAMATION - AMERICAN BUSINESS WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION
EDUCATION MONTH IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Chairman Scurlock read the following proclamation aloud
and presented it to Mary Helseth, representing the Citrus
Charter Chapter of the American Business Womens'
Association.
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, the AMERICAN BUSINESS WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION has been
building a tradition over the past thirty-five years based on its
continuing efforts to provide opportunities for educational
advancement to women; and
WHEREAS, business, economic, and social analyses indicated
that as women .continue to enter the work force and attain
increasingly responsible positions, they will contribute to the
betterment of business and communities; and
WHEREAS, the members of the AMERICAN BUSINESS WOMEN'S
ASSOCIATION recognize that education and skilled training are
crucial in today's technological society; and
WHEREAS, last year, AMERICAN BUSINESS WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION's
more than 2,000 local chapters awarded over $2,000,000 in
scholarships to women; and
WHEREAS, the AMERICAN BUSINESS WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION's
national scholarship fund has awarded scholarships surpassing
$2,500,000 since its inception in 1953.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the month of
May, 1984 be observed as
AMERICAN BUSINESS WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION
EDUCATION MONTH IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED, that the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida ask the residents
of the surrounding communities to salute the more than 110,000
AMERICAN BUSINESS WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION members for their
supportive efforts in helping women advance through education,
and for developing an informed and responsible citizenry.
ATTEST:
Q
- al 61.�
F EDA ,WRIGHT, C RK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DON . SCURLOCK, JR., H IRNIAN
27
MAY 2 190
BOOK 6 PAG83
MAY
2
1984
Book
56
PACE 824
REQUEST LEGISLATION
TO CHANGE SCORING METHODOLOGY
FOR
FLORIDA SMALL CITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
.�,
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 4/6/84:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
]� 1840 25th Street, Suite SQA 319
`91� Vero Beach, Florida
y� 32960
9 c�
gF '9 w
a°�ti.FC c J. B. Egan, III, Chairman
(305)W.7- 8
Charles E. Block
Tim Bradley, Jr.
Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Doug:
Godfrey E. Gipson
Daphne K. Strickland
—
Con miss:o,ners _
Admnistra-.or ✓
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community bev.
Utilities _—
Finance
Other
This has been the first year the Department of Community
Affairs has administrated the Florida Small Cities Community
Development Block Grant Program. 'As you know, the two appli-
cations submitted, one for a Block Grant Job Impact Program
and the other for a Community Development Block Grant, have
not been funded.
A short time prior to the submission of the applications,
the D.C.A. released a list ranking counties and cities as to
their community needs from a statistical standpoint. Indian
River County was 54th in the C.D.B.G. combined county and city
listings. The criteria used to determine community -wide needs
used an index consisting of ten factors. The statistics used
were generally county -wide which puts the truly needy at a
disadvantage since the county is not economically homogeneous.
Portions of.the county have serious poverty problems which
must be addressed while other sections are affluent. We be-
lieve that the county's median income of $23,100 wei-ghted the
criteria substantially to the disadvantage of the poorer
individuals in our county.
We have raised objections with the D.C.A. which have
brought some clarifications of the scoring methodology. A way
to address the problem more fairly is to use census tract data
to evaluate levels of poverty. This is particularly true since
there are limited funds available and the grants are awarded on
a competitive basis. The D.C.A. in their memorandum of March
19th, 1984, states, "revisions to the program are envisioned
subsequent to this legislative session..."
28
�9
Without revisions to the criteria used in the ranking of
community -wide needs, it is virtually impossible for Indian
River County to get Community Development Block Grant funding.
We recommend that resolution of this problem be sought by the
county through the D.C.A. and the state legislature.
Sincerely,
J. B. Egan, III
Chairman
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) authorized staff to draft
a Resolution embodying the request contained in
Mr. Egan's letter of April 6, 1984.
PUBLIC HEARING - ST. PIERRE REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 4.6 ACRES
FROM LD -1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1, TO COMMERCIAL
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
Z9
J
MAY 2 1984
BOOK 56 PAGE 825
MAY 2 1984
VERO BELCH PRESS -JOURNAL
rrublished Daily
Vero Reach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero
Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of .3 d
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 Rlver 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 4efore me tfoe) 5 day of A.D. 19
(SEAL)
TO:
FROM:
The
of
Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Cotfrt, IncAayl River County, Florida)
BOOK 56'"PAGE 826
NOTICE — PUBLIC NEARING
TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A COUNTY
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County Ordinance amending the Land Use Ele-
ment of the Comprehensive Plan by redesignat
ingland from:
LD -1, "Low Density Residential 1" (up to
3 units/acre) to "Commercial." The sub-
ject property presently owned by Ber-
nard C. St. Pierre and Jeanette M. St.
h Pierre, Is located on the west side of 27th
Avenue S.W. (State Road 607) approxi-
mately % mile south of 8th Street S.W.
(Oslo Road}
The subject property is described as:
Th. East 10 acres of Tract 8, Section 27,
Township 33 South. Range 39 East, as
the same is designated on the Last Gen-
eral Plat of Lands of the Indian River
Farms Company, filed in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie
County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25,
less and except the South 662 feet and
right-of-way of S.R. 607 (27th Avenue) as
It now exists. Said land now lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at t840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, May
2.1984, at 9:15 A.M.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he/she will need 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-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
Cy. � C. Scurlock Jr.
Apr. 13 25, 1954.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/23/84:'
Honorable Members DATE: -March 23, 1984 FICE:
the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ST. PIERRE REQUEST TO
REDESIGNATE 4.6 ACRES
SUBJECT: FROM LD -1, LOW-DENSITY
Robert M. Keat ng, AICP RESIDENTIAL 1, TO
Planning.& Development Director COMMERCIAL
Richard M. Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: St. Pierre/P&Z
Chief, Long -Range Planning CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 2, 1984.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The applicants, Bernard C. and Jeanette M. St. Pierre, are
requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating
approximately 4.6 acres located on the west side of 27th
(Emerson) Avenue and one-fourth mile south of -Oslo Road from
LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre), to
Commercial. The subject property is currently zoned C-1,
Commercial District.
WE
s
.r
The applicants propose to develop this property as a bowling
alley and mini -mall.
On March 22, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -0 to recommend that this request be denied. The
Commission stated that they concurred with the staff analysis
and recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the current and future land uses of the site and
surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on en-
vironmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is undeveloped pasture land. North of the
subject property is vacant land, a single-family residence on a
one-third acre lot, a single-family residence on a one-half
acre lot, and more vacant land. East of the subject property,
across 27th Avenue, is Tanglewood Mobile Home Park and vacant
land. South of the subject property is a mobile home park and
vacant land. The land west of the subject property is undevel-
oped and zoned R-1, Single -Family District.
Future Land Use Plan
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the
land north, south, and west of it as LD -1, Low -Density Residen-
tial 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The land east of the subject
property is designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up
to 6 units/acre). There are no commercial nodes in this area.
However, there is a convenience grocery store at the corner of
Oslo Road and 27th Avenue, one-fourth mile north of the subject
property, and the west part of the Oslo Road Mixed Use District
is located one-fourth mile west of 27th Avenue along Oslo Road.
Additional commercial uses could locate in this Mixed Use
District area based on the existing'C-1 and C-2, Heavy Commer-
cial District, zoning.
The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan discourages
strip commercial development along major streets such as 27th
Avenue, but encourages compact commercial development in
identified commercial nodes. The land along 27th Avenue from
the South Relief Canal to the County line (a distance of 2 3/4
miles) has been strip zoned C-1 for many years. There is
scattered commercial development along 27th Avenue, but most of
it is located in a three-fourths mile long area between the
South Relief Canal and Oslo Road or at the extreme south end of
27th Avenue at the County line. Redesignating the subject
property from LD -1 to Commercial would encourage further strip
commercial development along 27th Avenue contrary to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to 27th Avenue
(classified as a primary collector street on the County's
Thoroughfare Plan). Utilizing the maximum development allowed
under a plan amendment and current zoning, the, development of
the property would attract approximately 3,955 average annual
daily trips (AADT). Under the LD -1 land use designation, the
subject property would generate 138 AADT.
31
MAY 2
1984 BOOK 56 PAGE 827
MAY 2 1984
Environment
BOOK 511
The subject property is not environmentally sensitive nor is it
in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
County water and wastewater facilities are.not available for
the subject property. County water is scheduled to be avail-
able in August if the owners pay to extend an 8 inch main from
the Oslo Road and 27th Avenue intersection.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above analysis, including the commercial node
policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning and zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that this request
be denied.
Richard Shearer, Chief, Long -Range Planning, presented
staff's recommendation for denial of this redesignation
request and showed a slide of the land use map and an aerial
photograph of the area. Staff is recommending denial of
-this request because they feel it would encourage further
strip commercial development on 27th Avenue. He explained
that most of the existing commercial uses on 27th Avenue are
located at intersections. The area has been zoned
commercial for years during which there was limited demand.
Based on the MXD areas along Oslo Road and the commercial
node at US #1, staff does not feel there is a need for more
commercial land.
Commissioner Bird asked how we treat the intersection
at 27th Avenue and Oslo Road, and Mr. Shearer explained
that, as far as he knew, there never has been a designated
node at that intersection. Originally, the Planning &
Zoning Commission looked at the possibility of a general
commercial node at that intersection, but that was two and a
half years ago. Instead., they recommended that there be
two MXD areas along Oslo Road to encompass the existing
commercial uses.
Commissioner Bird wondered if we are not being rather
naive in trying to keep that area residential, and felt
perhaps there should be a node. Mr. Shearer again explained
32
that strip commercial should be avoided in that three and a
half mile stretch in keeping with the policy of the Comp
Plan, but Commissioner Bird took the position that
designating that intersection as a neighborhood node would
actually discourage strip commercial along the remainder and
encourage concentrated commercial instead.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development,
thought that the criteria discussed at the last node
workshop would make this area acceptable as a neighborhood
commercial node sometime in the future. It has sufficient
distance from any existing general or other commercial node
and it is on an arterial street. He further noted that the
node could jump across 27th Avenue to the west side and
across Oslo Road to the south side.
Commissioner Lyons thought that when water becomes
available to that area in the near future, pressure will
increase for commercial development.
The Commissioners agreed that it is the only place west
of U.S. #1 and south,,of SR -60 where there is going to be any
concentration of commercial activity.
Chairman Scurlock noted there was no one in attendance
to represent the applicant.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked
if anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Catherine Walton Rider of Miami, one of three property
owners adjacent to the subject property, stated that she,
Alice Bradford and Alice Wills Knight are very much opposed
to this redesignation as they are trying to sell their 30
acres as residential and no one wants a bowling alley in
their backyard. They are very much against this and fear
that they would not have access to 27th Avenue from their
property.
William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, recalled that he
attended most of the meetings on Comprehensive Land Use
33
2 1984 Boa 56 PACE '829
�.. MAY , . ..
MAY
21984
BOOK
56 PACE 830
Plan,
and he is very much against strip zoning. He
felt
that we should go along with the neighborhood node as soon
as possible.
Chairman Scurlock reported that there have been
workshops for the last two months trying to modify our node
concept, and some inconsistencies have been identified.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board
unanimously (4-0) closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the
Board deny the request to redesignate the
subject property on 27th Avenue from Low
Density Residential 1 to Commercial.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke felt that the
Motion should be made with the understanding that the
intersection will be taken under consideration for
designation as a neighborhood node with no assurance that
this property would be within it.
Attorney Brandenburg clarified that the Motion was to
deny the adoption of an ordinance redesignating the land use
in that area.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion was voted on.and carried
unanimously (4-0).
34
PUBLIC HEARING - PRANGE/RICE/CASON REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 7
ACRES FROM LD -1, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1, TO COMMERCIAL
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read aloud the following Notice with Proof of
Publication attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
1
in the matter of .'uviJ
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. ,
Sworn to and subscribed
(SEAL)
MAY
day of A.D. 19
siness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit CourttJ,ridian River County, Florida)
35
NOTICE — PUBLIC NEARING
TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A COUNTY
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County Ordinance amending the Land Use Ele-
ment of the Comprehensive Wan by redesignat-
Ing land from:
LD -1, "Low Density Residential 1" (up to
3 units/acre) to "Commercial." The Sub-
Ject property presently owned by Mr. and
Mre. Edwin Prange, Mr. and Mrs. William
E. Rice, and Mr. and Mrs. Raymond
Cason Is located at the northwest comer
of 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road) and 27th
Avenue S.W.
The subject property Is described as:
1) RAYMOND AND MONA LEE CASON
Beginning at the Northeast comer of
Tract 16 in Section 22, Township 33
South, Range 39 East, and running
South 728 feet, thence running West 330
feet, thence running North 726 feet to the
North line of said Tract 16, thence run-
ning East 330 feet to point of baglnning,
according to the last general plat of
lands of the Indian River Farms Com-
pany recorded in the office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County,
Florida.
Len and excepting those portion con-
veyed and described In O.R. Book 665,
Page 1715 and O.R. Book 661, Page
2581, Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida; subject to rights-of-way
and easements of record.
2) EDWIN AND PEGGY B. PRANGE
Commencing at the Southeast comer of
Tract 16, Section 22, Township 33 South,
Range 39 East, according to plat of In-
dian River Faris Company, which said
plat was filed March 23, 1915, and re-
corded in Plat Book 2, Page 26, Public
Reocrda of St Lucie County, Florida
thence) run North on the East boundary
line of said Tract 16, 297 feet to point of
beginning, thence run North on the East I
boundary line of said Tract 16, 297 feet,
thence run west parallel to the South
boundary line of said Tract 16, 330 feet,
thence run South parallel to East bound-
ary line of said Tract 16, 297 feet, thence
run East 330 feet to point of beginning.
WILLIAM E. AND EDITH RICE
Beginning at the Southeset corner.ol
Tract 16, Section 22. Township 33 South,
Range 39 East, and run North on the
East line of said Tract 16, a distance of
594 feet, thence run West a distance of
330 feet, thence South on a line parallel
to the East line of said Tract 18 to the
South line of said Tract 18, thence East
on SouthUne of said Tract 18 to the point
Of beginning, according to.tast
general
Plat of lands of the Indian Rive Farm
Company filed in the otfioe of the Clerk
Of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie Corm,
Florida, in Fiat Book 2, Page 25; said
land now lying and being In Indian River
County, Ficrfda.
Less and excepting thatportion con.
vsyed an described in O.R. Book 214,
Page 82. Public Records of indian Rives
Subject o
ect toRighta-of-Way and Easement
of Record.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners 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, May
2, 1984, at 9:15 A.M.
If any Person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he/she will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he/She may need to that a verba -I
tim record of the proceedings is made, which in.1
eludes testimony and evidence upon which thel
appeal Is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
Sy: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman
Apr. 13, 25, 1984.
BOOK 56 .PAGE 831
J
MAY 2 1984
w L.
BOOK 56 PAGE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/6/84:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 6, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of
County Conmissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: PRANGE/RICE/CASON
- , SUBJECT: REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE
7 ACRES FROM LD -1,
Robert M. Keatiig,,CP LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Planning & Development 1, TO COMMERCIAL
Director
FROM: Richard M. Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Prange/Rice/Cason
Chief, Long -Range Planning CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 2, 1984.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The applicants, Edwin and Peggy Prange, William and Edith Rice,
and Raymond and Mona Lee Cason, are requesting to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by redesignating approximately 7.0 acres
located at the northwest corner of Oslo Road -and 27th Avenue
(Emerson Avenue) from LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3
units/acre) , to Commercial.
The applicants propose to develop this property fora restau-
rant or some other commercial use allowed under the current
C-1, Commercial District, zoning of the property.
On March 22, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted.
3 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. While the
Commission generally agreed with the Planning Department's
analysis, they felt that the existing commercial uses north of
the subject property and the fact that the subject property is
located at a major intersection was justification for amending
the plan.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the current and future land uses of the site and
.surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on en-
vironmental quality.
Existinq Land Use Pattern
The subject property consists of three lots, each containing a
single-family house. East of the subject property, across 27th
Avenue, is vacant land and a Cumberland Farms convenience
store and a sandwich shop. South of the subject property,
across Oslo Road, is vacant land on the west side of 27th
Avenue and a mobile home park on the east side of 27th Avenue.
West of the subject property is vacant land and two.single-
family homes. North of the subject property is a retail
facility and other commercial establishments.
36
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the
lards north, south, and west of it as LD -1, Low -Density Res-
idential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The area east of the subject
property, across 27th Avenue, is designated as LD -2,
Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). Approximately
800 feet west of the subject property is the west area of the
Oslo Road Mixed Use District (MXD) which extends 600 feet north
of Oslo Road from 32nd Avenue to 43rd Avenue (Clemann Avenue).
The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan discourages
strip commercial development along major streets such as Oslo
Road and 27th Avenue, but encourages compact commercial devel-
opment in identified commercial nodes. The subject property
has 1,000 feet of frontage on 27th Avenue. Presently, there is
scattered commercial development along 27th Avenue between the
South Relief Canal and the County line. Redesignating the
subject property to Commercial would encourage further strip
commercial development along 27th Avenue. In addition, the
subject property has 300 feet of frontage on Oslo Road. Along
Oslo Road, between U.S.#1 and 43rd (Clemann) Avenue, there is a
large amount of property designated as MXD, Mixed -Use District,
and zoned C-1, Commercial District. Redesignating the subject
property Commercial would encourage further strip commercial
development along Oslo Road.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to Oslo Road (classified
as an Arterial Street on the Thoroughfare Plan) and to 27th
Avenue (classified as a Primary Collector Street). Utilizing
the maximum development allowed under a plan amendment and
current zoning, the development of the property would attract
approximately 5,537 average annual daily trips (AADT). With
77% of the trips assigned to 27th Avenue and the remainder to
Oslo Road, the level -of -service would diminish on 27th Avenue
from "B" to "C" and from "A" to "B" on Oslo Road.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it.in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
The subject property is not presently served by County water
nor wastewater facilities. However, County water is scheduled
to be available in August.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval
of this request for the reasons stated in the Description and
Conditions section of this memorandum. The Planning Department
feels that these are valid reasons. However, because
redesignating these properties to Commercial would further
encourage strip commercial development along both Oslo Road and
27th Avenue, which is contrary to the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends that this request be
denied.
37
MAY 21984 BOOK 56 PACE 833
MAY 2 1984
BOOK 56 PAGE 834
Richard Shearer, Chief, Long -Range Planning, presented
staff's recommendation for denial of this redesignation
request and showed slides of the site and a map of the land
uses in the area. He again referred to the aerial
photograph of the area and explained that the Planning &
Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of this
request for the reasons stated in the Description and
Conditions section of the above memo, but it was staff's
recommendation to deny the redesignation because it would
further encourage strip commercial development along both
Oslo Road and 27th Avenue, which is contrary to the policies
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Edmond Prange, one of the three applicants, spoke in
behalf of the Casons, who asked that he represent them here
this morning. The Casons assumed that because of the
approval of the Planning & Zoning Commission their property
was commercial, and as a result, they had a buyer for part
of their property until they checked and found that the
process had not been completed and their property was still
designated as residential. Mr. Prange felt that when staff
pointed out that the properties to the north are commercial,
they neglected to mention that south of 7th Street there is
Emerson Plaza and another business establishment. Staff
also neglected to mention that on the south side of Oslo
Road, adjacent to the vacant property, is a well drilling
and repair company which is definitely heavy commercial,
perhaps even industrial. Mr. Prange pointed out that
property from the canal to Oslo Road is historically
commercial, and it had been moving that way swiftly until it
was stopped 3 or 4 years because of the Comp Plan
designation; and now property that is designated as
residential cannot be used because it is zoned commercial,
which puts property owners in a very difficult position. He
further pointed out that with the loitering at the local
38
Cumberland Farms store causing problems in the neighborhood,
it is ridiculous to think of trying to keep the area
residential. Mr. Prange felt that for staff to blatantly
override the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendations
is both capricious and without merit.
William Rice, long time resident of the area, agreed
whole heartedly with Mr. Prange and hoped the Board could
see the need for this property to be designated as
commercial.
Frank Wilmoth, 2726 6th Place, owner of one acre of
property that immediately abuts the Casons property, spoke
in favor of that area being designated commercial. He felt
the tremendous sales activities at the Cumberland Store
indicate the very great need for more commercial property
out that way.
Director Keating recalled that several months ago the
Commission directed staff to bring their own professional
opinion to this body regardless of the decision of the
Planning & Zoning Commission, and noted that is what staff
is attempting to do here. Staff has looked at the
situation, done their analysis, and came up with the
recommendation for denial based on their analysis.
Commissioner Lyons instructed staff to continue in the
same manner as the Board appreciated their professional
advice.
Gene Wilmoth, resident of 440 28th Court SW and owner
of business property in the area, also agreed with the
Planning & Zoning Commission that the area should be
Commercial.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) closed the Public Hearing.
39
MAY 1954 .
BOOK 56 PAGE 835
MAY 21984
BOOK 56 PAGE 8.36
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we could not simply
designate this as a neighborhood node and Attorney
Brandenburg advised that it could be done.
Commissioner Bird felt we should be looking beyond the
10 acres of a neighborhood node and consider the area as a
full-fledged commercial node for sometime in the future. He
asked if there was a way of changing this to a neighborhood
node at this time and then request staff to study expanding
it into a full-fledged commercial node, as he hated to put
the applicants through a 3-6 month waiting period while
staff researched the matter. Attorney Brandenburg suggested
the wording for the following Motion.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the
Board deny the applicants' request to have this
property redesignated to Commercial; amend the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan by designating the
northwest corner of Oslo Road and 27th Avenue
(Emerson Avenue) as a neighborhood node; and
instruct staff to study the possibility of this
intersection being expanded into a larger,
commercial node in the future.
Under discussion, Attorney Brandenburg advised that if
the Motion passes, it will accomplish the applicants'
purpose of immediate commercial use of their property, and
pointed out that they will have to complete a site plan just
like everyone else.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion was voted on and carried
unanimously (4-0).
40
Commissioner Bird felt that Mr. Prange brought up a
good point that all of the property that is presently zoned
commercial up and down Oslo Road and 27th Avenue cannot be
used for residential purposes as set by the Comp Plan. He
felt that the Commission and the Planning Department does
not really intend to have that property used as commercial,
and wondered if we should not take the bull by the horns and
initiate County rezoning back to residential. He realized
that would cause a lot of hue and cry, but felt that
something has to be done in that area to enable owners to
use their land.
Director Keating reported that Planning has been doing
a lot of rezoning on a piece by piece basis, but the primary
reason they have been holding off on a lot of it is because
the new Zoning Code does not have a zoning classification
that fits well with the land use designation right now. He
felt it would really facilitate the administrative rezoning
process if we could have the new Zoning Code in place before
proceeding any further.
Commissioner Bird asked if there wasn't a time limit
set to rezone all property into compliance with the Comp
Plan, and Attorney Brandenburg advised that they had set an
18 -month limit.
PUBLIC HEARING - FLEISCHMAN REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 1 ACRE
FROM LD -2, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2, TO COMMERCIAL
Attorney Brandenburg announced that this Public Hearing
was postponed from the meeting of 4/18/84.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/12/84:
41
MAY 2 1994 BOOK 56 PAGE 8.37
MAY 2 1984
BOOK
56 PACE -838
TO: The Honorable Members DATE:March 12, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
hs�•c- � � �r�' .1
Robert M. Keating,, AICP
Planning & Development Director
FROM: Ri hard M. Shearer, AICP REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FLEISCHMAN REQUEST TO
REDESIGNATE ONE ACRE
FROM LD -2, LOW-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL 2, TO
COMMERCIAL
Fleischman/BCC
RICH
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 18, 1984.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The applicants/owners, Isaiah and Catharine Fleischman, are
requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating
approximately one acre located on the south side of Oslo Road
and 350 feet west of Old Dixie Highway from LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), to Commercial.
The applicants propose to develop this property foi commercial
uses including an auto repair service.
On March 8, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend denial of this request. The Commission
based their recommendation on the fact that there are
single-family residences adjacent to the subject property.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the current and future land uses of the site and
surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property currently contains a single-family
residence and is zoned C-1, Commercial District. West of the
subject property is vacant land, Father and Son Appliances, a
single-family residence, the Knights of Columbus clubhouse,
vacant land, and single-family residences. North of the
subject property, across Osla Road, is vacant land. To the
northwest of this vacant land is the Tennis Ranch which will be
developed primarily as a multiple -family development. East of
the subject property is a single-family residence which fronts
on Old Dixie Highway. North of this residence, across Oslo
Road, are two, single-family homes. All of these residences
are in an R-1, Single -Family District. East of these residences,
across Old Dixie Highway, is vacant land zoned M-1, Restricted
Industrial District. South of the subject property is vacant
land.
42
land north, south, and west of it as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land east of the
subject property is part of the U.S. Highway #1 Mixed Use
Corridor which extends 300 feet west of Old Dixie Highway. In
addition, there is an 80 acre commercial node at the
intersection of Oslo Road and U.S.#1.
The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive. Plan discourages
strip commercial development along arterial streets such as
Oslo Road, but encourages compact commercial development in
identified commercial nodes. The -subject property cannot
logically be included in the commercial node at U.S.#1 and Oslo
Road. At the present time, all of the existing commercial
zoning and commercial uses around this node are located on the
east side of U.S.#1 except for the PVC furniture center which
is at the southwest corner of U.S.#1 and Oslo Road. The
subject property is approximately 1200 feet west of these
commercial uses and zoning districts. The area between U.S.#1
and Old Dixie Highway is undeveloped (except for the PVC
furniture center), zoned M--1, Restricted Industrial District,
and has a land use designation of MXD, Mixed Use. District (up
to 6 units/acre). West of Old Dixie and east of the subject
property is an area zoned R-1, Single -Family District (up to
6.2 units/acre), which contains single-family residences. While
this area is -also designated as MXD, it has traditionally been
a. single-family residential area and does not -seem to be
appropriate for commercial uses at this time. Redesignating
the subject property from LD -2 to Commercial would encourage
strip commercial development along Oslo Road, contrary to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to Oslo Road (classified
as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan).
Utilizing the maximum development allowed under a plan amend-
ment and current zoning, the development of the property would
attract approximately 1500 average annual daily trips (AADT).
Environment
The subject property is not environmentally sensitive nor is it
in a flood, -prone area.
Utilities
County water and wastewater facilities are not available for
the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above analysis, including the commercial node
policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners deny the applicants' request.
Michael O'Haire, attorney representing the applicants,
advised that the Fleischmans are requesting this redesignation
because the property was zoned commercial when they purchased
43
�MAY 2-1984
BOOK `56 PAGE 839
MAY 2
X954 BOOK 56. PAGE 840 ., 1
it; it has been zoned commercial for many years; and it
fronts on Oslo Road, which is the truck route to I-95. To
the west of it is the Father & Son Appliance warehouse and
retail outlet, which is within 50 feet of the MXD area. He,
therefore, felt to permit the Fleischmans to develop the
property commercially would not extend the existing commercial
development. Considering the location and the surrounding
uses, Attorney O'Haire felt that restricting the Fleischmans
to residential development would be tantamount to denying
them the use of their property. He agreed that there is a
find old house east of their property, but pointed out that
it is located right in the middle of the MXD corridor. He
did not believe granting the Fleischman's request would hurt
anyone; rather it would just protect the Fleischman's vested
interests.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked
if anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Hiram Manning, attorney representing the Helseths,
informed the Board that Albert Helseth owns the property on
the northwest corner of Oslo Road and Old Dixie Highway; Dr.
Inga Helseth owns the property directly across Oslo Road to
the north; and Philip Helseth owns the property which abuts
the property on the eastern edge of the Fleischman property.
Mrs. Helseth has lived in her home for 66 years, and Mr.
Philip Helseth has lived in his home for over 30 years. The
objection the Helseth family has is that they have been told
by Mr. Fleischman that there might be an auto repair shop
built on the subject property. They object to any type of
commercial use on that property as they believe such usage
would diminish their property values. They are also concerned
that any further commercial activity in that area would only
increase traffic.
Dan Fleischman, applicant, pointed out that the property
separating his property from the Helseth house was used for
44
storage of grove equipment until just recently when the
matter of this redesignation came up, and believed the
property was mowed and cleaned up specifically in anticipation
of a visit by the Planning Dept. staff. He wondered what
Mr. Helseth intended to use that property for when the time
comes that he inherits it. Mr. Fleischman also pointed out
that his small one -acre property would not increase traffic
to any extent, and he urged the Board to allow his property
to remain commercial.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board
unanimously (4-0) closed the Public Hearing.
Chairman Scurlock was concerned about the commercial
use already in place in that area, and had to admit that the
area is a mixed bag.
Commissioner Bird agreed this was going to be a difficult
decision. The Helseths were pioneers in this County; their
homes are some of the nicest old homes in the County; and it
is unfortunate that their residences are suffering from the
increasing development in that area. He did feel, however,
that at some point in time this area would not be a desired
location for residential. On the other hand., he hoped there
was some way for Mr. Fleischman to use his property for
commercial purposes since he had bought and paid for property
that had been zoned Commercial.
Commissioner Lyons asked if the commercial node at U.S.
#1 and Oslo Road was large enough to extend to the Fleischman
property and Mr. Shearer thought it might be possible to
include that property in the node. Director Keating
believed that would be setting a precedent in that it would
be the first time that a commercial node would jump over
land that was designated differently.
y MAY 2.1984
45
BOOK DID PAGE 841
MAY 21984
BOOK 56 PAGE 042 E
Commissioner Wodtke thought it was going to be very
difficult to consider anything different than MXD along
there, and Director Keating explained that according to the
Comp Plan, property in MXDs should be zoned so it is in
conformance with the use of the property immediately around
it. He thought that if the MXD is extended along the entire
corridor, it would just prolong the necessity of making a
decision at the time of the Comp Plan amendment requests.
Attorney O'Haire pointed out that people east of the
Fleischman property have been told that they are in the
node, but up until this point Mr. and Mrs. Fleischman are
the first to ask that their property be included in the
node.
Commissioner Bird repeated his feelings that this area
will not be used for residential after the intersection at
U.S. #1 and Oslo Road is further developed.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the
Board designate the Fleischman property
as part of the commercial node at U.S. #1 and
Oslo Road and instruct the Planning staff to
rework that nodal area to include it.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke urged that the
MXD designation be considered for sometime in the future as
a possible alternative that would afford us more flexibility.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion was voted on and carried
unanimously (4-0).
46
PUBLIC HEARING - NORTH BEACH ASSOCIATES PETITION FOR
RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT
The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the
Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of
Publication attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of�
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and -has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
l
Sworn to and subscribed bef re me his Ldayf L� A.D. 19 d
siness Manager;
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, In an River County, Florida)
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A PET[ -
TION FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT AND .
VACATION OF A 35 -FOOT WIDE COUNTY I
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON THE I
WEST SIDE OF STATE ROAD AIA, ya MILE
NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD'510, TOGETHER'
WITH ANY RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST THE
PUBLIC MAY HAVE IN AND TO THE ACTUAL
EXISTING SOIL ROAD LOCATED PARTIALLY
WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE COUNTY RIGHT-
OF-WAY. SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS:
The South 35 feet of Government Lot 1,
Section 23, Township 31 South, Range
39 East, which lies West of the centerline
of AIA, as filed in the office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, in Plat Book 4, Page 62, and
the terminating at the East right-of-way
line of Jungle Trail.
A public hearing at which parties in Interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, In the
Commission Chambers of the County Adminis-
tration Building, located at 1840 25th Street,'
Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, May 2,
1984, at 9:30 A.M.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he will need a record
of the proceedings, and for such purposes,.he
may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which includes testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman
Apr. 14, 1984.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked
if anyone wished to be heard. There were none.
Administrator Wright recommended this Public Hearing be
continued until, May 23, 1984 at 10:00 o'clock A.M., as
requested by the applicant.
47
MAY 2 1984 BOOK .56 PACE 843
I
MAV 2 M4
BOOK 56 PAGE` 8,44;
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the
Board unanimously (4-0) continued the Public
Hearing until 10:00 o'clock A.M. on May 23, 1984.
PRESENTATION BY JAIL ARCHITECTS
The Board reviewed the following Project Cost Summary
dated 5/1/84:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JUSTICE COMPLEX
Project Cost Summary
(1984 Dollars)
Construction:
Jail Administration, Housing and
Mechanical Support
Site Work
Off Site Improvements:
Equipment and Furnishings:
Quality Control:
Material Testing
Soil Borings
Fees and Permits:
Land:
Architect's Fee:
Total Project Cost
Construction Cost/BED
Including cost of construction, kitchen
and laundry equipment, and all other
fixed equipment
*Includes inflation
48
May 1, 1984
Frizzell
$3,600,000
250,000
16,000
45,-000
136,800
244,800
$4,292,600
PDR
$3,991,000
250,000
16,000
45,000
136,800
2549400
$4,693,200
$ 25, 175/BED $ 272715/BED
PDR
Male
Maximum Security
Medium Security
Minimum (Dorm)
Isolation
Female:
Maximum Security
Medium Security
Minimum (Dorm)
Fri 77n1 1
Male:
30 Maximum Security 18
40 Medium Security 72
56 Minimum Security 36
4 Isolation/Holding 8
Female:
4 Maximum Security 2
6 Med-Minimum Sec. 6
4 Isolation 1
144 143
Commissioner Lyons reported that the architects had
made a full presentation yesterday to the Jail Committee and
referred to the above comparison of cost estimates of the
jail designed by Frizzell Architects and the one designed by
PDR.
George Bail, President of Frizzell Architects reported
that they have held a series of meetings with Capt. Baird
for the purpose of determining how the functions of the jail
design would interact with the functions of the Sheriff's
Dept.
Ray Stroud, Project Architect, referring to a drawing
of the jail site; pointed out ingress and egress to the
20 -acre jail location at South Gifford Road and 43rd Avenue.
Commissioner Bird felt it was important that traffic be
encouraged to come in from the south rather than to go
through the 43rd Avenue and Gifford Road entrance. He asked
if this site plan meets Indian River County standards and
Administrator Wright advised that it has not been before the
Planning Department as yet, but assured the Board that
Planning would apply the same site plan rules for this
project as they do to all the others.
-9
. y 2 19 4 Boa 56 PnE 845
N1A
MAY 21984
BOOK 56 PAGE 846
Tom Pinkerton, Principal Designer, stated that their
primary emphasis has been focused on staffing, and explained
that the Department of Corrections will not give their final
approval for staffing requirements until the Board formally
approves this plan.
Mr. Pinkerton reviewed the interior design of the
housing pod, pointing out that its octagonal design breaks
the pod down into eight areas where inmates can be housed
according to their level of danger or risk to assure other
prisoners' rights. The eight areas are broken down into
nine, 2 -man cells, with shower facilities. Under the
second -story tower are the corridors. Inside the second
story tower, which is much like an airport controllers'
tower, is one-way bulletproof glass. There is intercom
throughout so that even though the inmates cannot see the
officer in the control room, there is voice control. The
officer in the control room can see every cell and can
unlock the doors when prisoners are moving here and there
for their daily activities. There are four officers on the
ground floor and one in the control tower at all times.
There is an area which can isolate two prisoners, such as a
highly dangerous inmate, or to protect juveniles from
hardcore criminals. Female inmates will be housed in a
secure section of the support building, and guarded by
matrons in the main control room. Fewer employees could be
hired by doubling the duty of those guards. Besides watching
over women prisoners, the female guards would man the main
control room in the support building, eliminating the need
to hire five people to sit in the control room, three shifts
a day, seven days a week.
Explaining the functions of the Administration Building,
Air. Pinkerton noted the advantages of having the first
appearance courtroom next to the booking area on the second
floor, eliminating the need for prisoners to be transported
50
across town. The kitchen is such that 1200 meals a day
could be served, which is sufficient to serve the inmates in
the housing pod, and the kitchen has the capacity for
equipment to be added to serve an additional housing pod.
Commissioner Lyons reported that after the presentation
yesterday, the Jail Committee made the recommendation that
the Board approve the design and give approval for the next
step. He pointed out that the estimate is nearly $400,000
less than the previous estimate, and there is more
administrative space than before. He hoped that we could
cut the cost of the jail down a little further, but
emphasized that the main savings is in staff payroll over
the 25 -year life of the jail.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the
Board approve the design and authorize the
architect to begin the design development
phase.
Discussion followed regarding the possible savings of
not building anything over one half of the second story of
the Administration Building at this time, and Mr. Pinkerton
again pointed out the advantage of having the first appearance
mini -courtroom next to the booking room, and also noted that
the mini -courtroom can serve as a chapel, which is a
requirement of the DOC.
Chairman Scurlock hoped that the jail could be
constructed by using a one -cent additional sales tax for one
year, instead of having to go to a bond issue.
51
MAY 2 1984 BOOK 56 PAGE 847
MAY
BOOK
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion was voted on and carried
unanimously (4-0).
5& P:'A 848
Commissioner Lyons suggested that we ask for proposals
from construction management firms to see if we can obtain a
guaranteed cost and perhaps squeeze a little more out of
that $3.6 million figure.
Chairman Scurlock wished to see a variety of options
and had some concerns about going with a construction
management firm. He felt very strongly that there is no way
we can build a jail without experiencing any problems.
Commissioner Lyons felt that if we are going to go with
a construction management firm, then we should go with them
right away because that's where the advantage is.
Commissioner Bird agreed with going ahead with soliciting
proposals, and was assured by Chairman Scurlock that the
Finance Advisory Committee will study all financing alternatives.
Mr. Bail urged the Commission to go to the construction
management firm as soon as possible because that is when
they are most helpful. Administrator Wright felt it would
take 45 days to get somebody on board and Commissioner Lyons
reported that it was the recommendation of the Jail Committee
to explore the possibility of hiring a construction management
firm. He felt we should go ahead and get proposals.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the
Board authorize staff to advertise for proposals
from construction management firms, evaluate the
proposals and come back to the Commission with a
report as soon as possible.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke asked if we had
any other way of getting a consultant on the job without a
52
45 -day delay by going out for bids, and Chairman Scurlock
suggested that we could select one construction management
firm just to take us through the process of final design and
construction materials and then bid the remainder out.
Mr. Bail advised that while they have a lot of information
available on cost of materials, labor costs are constantly
changing, as is the availability of materials. Commissioner
Bird noted that we have several contractors here who are
going to end up bidding on this project and he felt they
would be happy to sit down with the architects to answer
questions re materials. Mr. Bail appreciated all the input
they could get.
Mr. Pinkerton advised that, as part of their service,
they would like to offer to become involved with the County
as an advisor during the process of selecting a construction
management firm.
Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern about the archi-
tectural fees being based on construction costs, and stated
he would rather see the architect receive a flat fee.
Administrator Wright felt in that case we would have to
change the entire contract, and suggested that they might
want to go with a flat fee for a construction management
firm. Mr. Bail stated that he would have no hesitation
after design development to have the contract refined and
have the fee set at a lump sum.
Attorney Brandenburg suggested that when staff solicits
proposals from construction management firms, the wording
should be flexible enough to allow consideration of several
alternatives.
53
MAY 2 1984 ROOK U PAGE 84-9
MAY 2 1984 BOOK
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion was voted on and carried
unanimously (4-0).
56 `PAGE $5G
HUTCHINSON UTILITIES, INC. - FINAL ORDER RE RATE INCREASE
REQUEST
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/30/84:
TO: The Honorable Members of thpATE: April 30, 1984 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
FROM:
1GHT,
INISTRATOR
TerrIA40W)
Utility Services
SUBJECT: FINAL ORDER —
HUTCHINSON UTILITIES, INC.
°, REFERENCES' A) Consultant's Opinion
Director B) Final Order
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Board instructed the Utility Staff to hire a consultant to
evaluate the request for a change in rates requested by Hutchinson
Utilities, Inc., on January 18, 1984.
This consultant, Mr. Warren E. Silverman, has evaluated and reviewed
the books and records of Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. His findings
are attached as Exhibit "A".
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES:
Consultant is of the opinion that the requested rates are fair
and reasonable; the rate of return shall be 12.44% which includes
an unweighted return on equity capital of 15.7%; that the
authorized rate of return be applied to the net rate base of
$217,368; that the Utility is authorized to design tariffs so as
to generate $222,652 in gross wastewater revenues from customers
enrolled as of December 31, 1983; and that the Utility be permitted
to include in its allowable costs rate case expense deferred in the
current case amounting to $17,835.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the consultant's opinion and final order
be accepted by the Board and that the Board authorize the Chairman
to sign the attached final order(Exhibit "B").
54
-r
Chairman Scurlock swore in Warren E. Silverman,
consultant hired by the County to review and evaluate the
books and records of Hutchinson Utilities, Inc.
i
Mr. Silverman gave the following -report: (EXHIBIT "A")
(Awu Coca 300) 061_74ae
WARREN E. SILVERMAN
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
A/ t�sce �o a 7069, .7G ooa! �ar�cda X302.2
April 12, 1984
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
Vero Beach, Florida
In accordance with your request, I have reviewed the
books and records of Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. in order to
ascertain whether the regulated company is entitled to rate
relief currently and to further ascertain whether the company's
past rates provided the applicant with a reasonable rate of
return.
In order to acomplish the assigned task, I met with
representatives of the County's Utility Department, Hutchinson
Utilities, Inc, its counsel and accountants and a representative
of the intervenor. Discussions were held with the above
representatives together with the County Attorney.
The results of my work effort and my findings and
conclusions are as follows:
MAY 2 1964
1. The information presented to the Board of County
Commissioners, Indian River County by the applicant
was an accurate reflection of the financial
information contained in the audited financial
statements of the applicant.
2. Adjustments were made.by me to the submitted
information. The test year base used by me was the
audited financial data for the year ended December
31,1983.
3. The ten adjustments made by me are as follows:
a. Connection fee charges collected from
customers were offset against job costs
incurred. (Adjustment 1 - $ 15,840,.)
b. Professional fees were increased by the cost
of lodging expenses incurred during the audit.
(Adjustment 2 $ 892.)
C. Rent expense was decreased by the amount of
rent charged to an affiliated company that
shares the company's general offices.
(Adjustment 3 - $ 9,000.)
d. Depreciation claimed by the applicant was
reduced to bring the includible amount into
agreement with allowable utility depreciation in
accordance with the provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code as amended. (Adjustment 4 -
$17,616.)
55
BOOK 56 PAGE'81
MAY 21984
p_
BooK 56 PAGE 852 lj�
e. Professional fees were reduced for amounts
incorrectly included in this category but more
correctly belong as rate case expense.
(Adjustment 5 - $ 10,142.)
f. Travel expenses were adjusted to remove
those credit card charges more properly
classified as rate case expense, construction
work in progress, personal expenditures and
non-utility business [non-regulated activities].
(Adjustment 6 - $ 3.331.)
g. Rate case expenses were incurred by the
applicant but were incorrectly posted to various
accounts. I have accumulated such costs and
amortized them over two years. The resultant
dollar amount appears in Schedule attached
hereto. (Adjustment 7 - $ 17,835.)
h. Officer's salary was reduced by an amount in
excess of 55% of the amount claimed by the
applicant. This adjustment was necessitated by
the finding of the claimed salary as --excessive
under the circumstances. The salary as claimed
was not necessarily unreasonable per se but
rather a finding of excessive cost under the
circumstances was made because I could not find
justification for adjustment other than
comparable costs. (Adjustment 8 - $ 31,020.)
i. Payroll taxes were adjusted as a result of
the previous adjustment to Officer's Salary.
(Adjustment 9 - $ 31969.)
j. Wastewater revenues
the amount needed
requirement calculated
$ 16,722.)
were adjusted to reflect
to meet the revenue
by me. (Adjustment 10 -
The rate of return calculated by me for use in this case
was 12.44%. I arrived at the overall rate of return by averaging
the weighted cost rate of money as follows:
Type
Total Common Stock Equity
Long Term Debt:
Florida National Bank
AVCO Financial Services
Totals -
Weighted
Cost Cost
Ratio Rate Rate
15.19 15.7 2.38
4.87 18.0 0.87
79.94 11.5 9.19
100.00 12.44
The calculated rate (12.44%) was the applied to a rate
basecalculatedbymetobe$217,368.exclusiveof depreciation,
contributions in aid of construction (CIRC) and depreciation
calculated on CIRC but inclusive of a working capital allowance
of $ 21,206. based upon the industry accepted 145 day
convention".
The information set out
my findings based upon my review
purposes of reporting to you.
56
M
above constitutes a summary of
and concludes my analysis for
Respectfully submitted,
Warren E. Silverman
Certified Public
Accountant
Consultant to Indiar�-
River Count
HUTCHINSON UTILITIES, INC.
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,1983
PER CONSULTANT'S AS
APPLICANT ADJUSTMENTS ADJUSTED
REVENUE
Wastewater revenue $205.930.
EXPENSES
Operation and
888.
Maintenance:
888.
Engineering
492.
Payroll -plant
15,010
Equipment rental
2,257.
Utilities -plant
15,022.
Chemicals
6,353.
Plant supplies
3,387.
Maintenance -lines
4,372.
.Maintenance -
3,947.
lift stations
4,601.
Maintenance -plant
10,872.
Repairs
2,065.
Job costs
1.378.
651809.
General and
Administrative:
Computer services
Bad debts
Advertising
Office salaries
Payroll taxes
Officer salary
Office supplies
Vehicle expense
Telephone
Dues
Licenses
Electric
Mobile telephone
Professional fees
Bank charge
Training
Director fees
Vehicle insurance
Life insurance
Other insurance
Travel
Entertainment
MAY 219814
S S 16,722, (10) 5222.6.52_:
15.840. (1)
15.840.
492.
15,010
2,257.
15,022.
6,353.
3,387.
4,372.
41601.
10,872.
2,065.
-t-14,462.1
49.969,
1,596.
1,596.
888.
888.
91.
91.
9,718.
9,718.
8,411.
3,969•(9)
4,442.
561020.
31,020.(8)
25,000.
3,984.
3,984.
3,947.
3,947.
71,968.
7,968.
490.
490.
626.
626.
1,325.
1025.
2,560.
2,560.
25,281.
892.(2) 10,142.(5)
16,031.
134.
134.
133.
133.
200.
200.
1,645.
1,645.
4,388.
4,388.
3,493.
vp 3,493.
3,799.
3,331.(6)
468.
11899.
1.899.
1
57 BOOK
56 FAGS 853
MAY 2 1984 BOOK 56 PACE 854
HUTCHINSON UTILITIES, INC.
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1983
(CONTINUED)
Rate case expense -0- 17,835.(7) 17.8
$18.727. ,S 90.918.
TOTAL EXPENSES 261.358.
OPERATING INCOME
OR (LOSS)
BEFORE INCOME
TAXES (S 55,428.) S 33,4a5.
2
58
PER
APPLICANT
CONSULTANT'S AS
ADJUSTMENTS ADJUSTED
Miscellaneous
496.
496.
Vehicle repair
3,980.
3,980.
Rent
9,973.
9,000.(3) 973.
Equipment repairs
363.
363.
Taxes - other
4,973.
158,381,
4.973,
892, 57.462, 101,811.
Depreciation: -
Lift station
1,171.
1,171
Office equipment
719.
719.
Vehicles
6,674.
6,674.
Utility plant
28.604.
�J�1�(4) 10,9$g.
Rate case expense -0- 17,835.(7) 17.8
$18.727. ,S 90.918.
TOTAL EXPENSES 261.358.
OPERATING INCOME
OR (LOSS)
BEFORE INCOME
TAXES (S 55,428.) S 33,4a5.
2
58
Commissioner Wodtke asked what effect refinancing of
the. 180..debt would have, and Mr. Silverman explained that it
would have two effects. one would be -the cost of the
refinancing, which would be an allowable expense. The
second effect would be the lowering of the effective rate or
effective cost of that debt. He added that the 18% debt
will be paid off in the current fiscal year which ends early
in 1985.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked
if anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Eben Cockley, a resident of the Moorings,
stated he was pinch hitting for Attorney Samuel White, who
had to leave to keep another engagement He noted that
Paragraph 7 of the proposed order presently states that
Hutchinson Utilities shall be permitted and the Board of
County Commissioners shall grant tariffs in a subsequent
rate hearing so that Hutchinson Utilities will be able to
meet debt servicing requirements of the long term financing
necessary to allow the company to construct a new wastewater
treatment facility. The primary objection of the Moorings
Property Owners is that they don't want to foreclose the
possibility of being able to obtain wastewater treatment
through the City of Vero Beach in some fashion, and would
like very much to see that language modified.
Chairman Scurlock fully agreed and thought the County
Attorney might suggest some language.
Attorney Brandenburg suggested the following language:
"Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. shall be permitted to apply to
the Board of County Commissioners for an amended tariff in a
subsequent rate hearing and the Board shall approve a tariff
which will allow Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. under efficient
and economical management to meet debt servicing requirements
of long term financing needed to allow the utility to make
necessary improvements to its system."
59
MAY 21984 Bou 56 PnE- 855
MAY 2 1984?
BOOK 56 PAGE 856; _.
Chairman Scurlock asked if this would then allow the
possibility of an inter -connect and wholesale service from
the City.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that it leaves open the
question of what improvements are necessary to the system
under efficient and economical management, which is the
question that would be addressed on whether to build a new
plant or to tie into the City line.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if at the end of paragraph 7,
could we not simply put a comma instead of a period and say
"if necessary."
Attorney Cockley thought he would like to see that
added.
Attorney Brandenburg preferred his recommended
language, and Chairman Scurlock and Commissioner Lyons also
preferred the County Attorney's language.
Mr. Silverman stated that the language which Attorney r
Brandenburg recommended was something that he has not heard
before. While he thought that Commissioner Wodtke's suggested
language would accomplish the same objective, he preferred
the full statement as recommended by Attorney Brandenburg.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that whatever language is
used, the question of whether they have to build a new
facility or not is going to be dependent upon the possibility
of something being worked out in conjunction with the City
of Vero Beach. He felt that it must be understood that if
they do have to build a new facility that it is going to be
mandatory for the Board to grant a rate that is sufficient
for them to capitalize and to make improvements. He understood
the question that the Moorings residents have is whether it
is necessary to build an additional plant.
M
Attorney Cockley commented that perhaps the Board will
recall that one of the issues the Moorings raised in the
proceeding was recision of the permit on the ground that
Hutchinson Utilities had failed to make disclosures, and, in
fact, misrepresented material facts in the case. As there
is nothing in this order pertaining to that, it appears that
this Board has in effect rejected that issue and it would be
a matter for further appeal if it is to be pursued.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the order speaks in
the affirmative only and everything that is not addressed
affirmatively in the order, there is no action taken on; the
County is going on the premise that their franchise is valid
and will continue to be valid. He confirmed that the
subject of whether it is invalid could be the subject of
another action. Attorney Cockley felt that answered his
question.
Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone else wished to be
heard.
Burt Hamilton, 1896 Mooring Line Drive, wanted to quote
two comments made by Mr. Aiello of Hutchinson Utilities,
Inc., during the hearing in March, but Attorney Brandenburg
advised that portion of the hearing has already been closed
out along with the Moorings Property Owners Association's
petition of December, 1982 requesting a review of the rates
then in effect. The rates have been reviewed and are a
subject of this Final Order.
Mr.. Hamilton next objected to the delay in receiving
the Hutchinson Utilities 1983 statement which was being
prepared by some high-priced consultants from Syracuse, New
York. His biggest objection, however, was the purchase by
the utility of a ditch digger for a cost of $118,000, and he
hoped the residents of the Moorings were aware of this
because they are going to pay $25,000 a year for this piece
of equipment. Mr. Hamilton believed that all of the tap -ins
61
BOOK PAGE 857
MAY 21984 .
MAY 21984 BOOK 56 ; PACE 558 `
were completed and did not understand why this back hoe was
needed at this stage. He found it interesting that the
construction company is renting it.
Mr. Silverman explained that it was the utility's
prerogative to purchase this type of equipment and it is a
permissible type of expenditure. He noted that they do keep
a log of the daily use of this equipment and he would
ascertain that $5,000 of rent was collected from the
construction company.
Attorney Eben Cockley was not aware of a back hoe being
purchased for $118,000 and thought that the construction
company should have purchased the equipment and rented it
out to Hutchinson Utilities, Inc.
Louis P. Aiello, President of Hutchinson Utilities,
Inc. explained that the piece of equipment was purchased by
Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., and it did not have anything to
do with the construction company. The construction company
has its own back hoes and does not need to buy another back
hoe. The purchase was really based on the premise that
construction was to begin last June and they planned to use
it at the new plant and also in the relocation of the force
mains. He felt that the Moorings people were not aware of
the fact that there is going to be extensive work done in
the existing mains, which, very probably are going to have
to be re -excavated and laid out again. That is something
they inherited. The only reason the utility company rents
the back hoe is simply to keep it from just sitting there
idle and to generate some income to Hutchinson Utilities
which reduces the operating cost for the customer.
Chairman Scurlock noted that basically the construction
company paid $5,000 in rent and asked if Hutchinson Utilities
uses this piece of equipment more or less than the
construction company. Mr. Aiello had to say that the
construction company probably used more of it during the
62
actual time of payments, and so thought the rental figure
was more than the $5,000 noted by Mr. Silverman. They are
anticipating using it for the new plant for relocation of
all the force mains related to the new plant and for the
renovation of the lines. The older lines prior to 1978 need
extensive repairs. Mr. Aiello felt the rental figure was a
competitive figure used in the industry and stated that
there are no special benefits to the construction company
and they can substantiate that. He also stated that he did
not set the rental rate.
Chairman Scurlock asked if this piece of equipment
would be available for rental to some other entity and Mr.
Aiello stated, "absolutely".
Chairman Scurlock asked if there was anyone else with a
comment, and Commissioner Bird suggested that Hutchinson
Utilities provide a copy of the rental log for staff's
comparison of rental figures to the rental fees charged in
the open market. Utilities Director Terry Pinto advised
that staff has reviewed those figures and found that the
rental figure is equivalent to what the construction company
would have paid for rental of a back hoe from a third party.
Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Aiello if there was any
further comments in reference to the final order.
Frank J. Micale, attorney representing Hutchinson
Utilities, Inc., stated that Hutchinson Utilities accepts
completely the report of Mr. Silverman, in spite of the fact
that depreciation on contributive plant is not included in
this report. That will be taken up at some future time;
hopefully, the Supreme Court of the State of Florida will
decide that issue.
Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Brandenburg how the
adoption of this final order would affect the foregoing
litigation proceedings and other rate hearings.
AKI
MAY 2 1984
BOOK 56 PAGE S59
MAY 2 1984 BOOK 56 PAGE 860
Attorney Brandenburg stated that all the materials that
have been submitted, including the briefs by both sides,
have been reviewed in this process and this order is a final
order on all those items, and puts to an end all the pending
items that the County has with respect to Hutchinson
Utilities, Inc. at this point in time.
Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Brandenburg to briefly
summarize the order again regarding the effect on past rates
and possible future rates.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that:
1) The order determines that the past rate of the utility
to the customers has been fair and reasonable. In fact, it
may have been low, causing the utility to lose money which
they cannot now recoup in future rates.
2) The order determines there is no positive action taken
in this order with respect to the recision of the contract
issue; meaning that the County continues to believe that the
franchise issued to Hutchinson Utilities is a proper,
correct franchise which was transferred properly.
3) The order determines that, taking into account all other
financial information, including their request to build a
future plant if necessary, they should be entitled to adjust
their tariff and to increase it by an adequate amount.
Commissioner Wodtke asked how the actual rate will be
determined. Attorney Brandenburg explained that
Hutchinson Utilities will submit a tariff and in that tariff
they will lay out how they want to distribute the increase
amongst the various charges that they impose on their
customers to raise the specific amount of money.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if that will be the next
public hearing and Attorney Brandenburg stated that we will
have to take a look at whether or not that will have to be a
public hearing. It will be reviewed by the Utilities
Department and it may come to the Board in the form of a
64
future order. The next important item in this is that it
resolves the issue of building the future plant by saying,
"in the event that under efficient and economical
management,. it becomes necessary for them to relocate that
plant and build a new one," then they can, and apply for a
new tariff based on the financing necessary at that time.
The County will review it, and, under standard rate -making
practices, approve a tariff that will include those
necessary costs. The key word there is "necessary". In
other words, if it is shown that it is much more
economically sound and feasible to have an alternate
treatment scheme imposed, as opposed to building a new
plant, then the County Commission would take a close look at
whether or not that operation is being run economically and
efficiently when that new tariff came in.
Commissioner Bird asked if we have received any input
from the Moorings Property Owners Association as to whether
or not they accept the development order.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that his discussions with
Attorney Samuel White and Attorney Eben Cockley have
indicated that their group is satisfied with the Final Order
with the exception of the rewording of paragraph 7 so that
it does not imply that Hutchinson Utilities, automatically
and under all conditions, is going to build a new plant and
that the Board will approve a tariff allowing for whatever
financing that is involved there. When asked by Attorney
Brandenburg if the above was correct, Attorney Cockley
wanted to be sure that everybody understands that they are
not waiving any right to an appeal from the decision of this
Board. Their primary criticism of the order itself is in
respect to paragraph 7 and they appreciate the modification
of that paragraph.
Chairman Scurlock thanked Attorney Cockley.
65 p
MAY 2 1984 BOOK 56 PAGE 861
MAY 21984
BOOK 56 PAGE 862,
Commissioner Bird felt that, basically, everyone is
pretty much in agreement and commended Mr. Silverman on the
most thorough job he has ever seen by a consultant hired in
any category during his 3, years on the Commission.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the Utilities Dept.
recommendation is for approval of the final order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 84-30,
approving the Final Order for Hutchinson
Utilities, Inc. as recommended by staff;
with the modification in Paragraph 7 as
P
suggested by the County Attorney.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto noted that after
reviewing the franchise again, they found that in this
specific franchise there is no requirement to submit
financial statements to the County.
EXHIBIT "A" OF RESOLUTION 84-30 WAS INSERTED AT THE
BEGINNING OF THIS DISCUSSION.
66
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
RESOLUTION NO. 84-30
ORDER
This matter comes before the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County during a duly notified and published hearing
and the Commission having heard testimony of all interested parties
and having thoroughly reviewed and analyzed the recommendation of
the County's rate consultant; now adopts the findings and conclusions
as set for the in the consultant's recommendation dated April 12,
1984, and attached hereto as Exhibit"A".
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED:
1. That Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., has had tariffs in effect
that are fair and reasonable.
2. That the current application for relief is hereby terminated
and marked closed.
3. That the authorized rate of return or opportunity cost shall
be 12.44% which includes an unweighed return on Equity Capital of
15.7%.
4. That the authorized rate of return be applied to the net
rate base of $217,368. Net rate base is that rate base calculated
exclusive of accumulated depreciation, contributions in aid of
construction and accumulated depreciation on contributions in aid of
construction but inclusive of a working capital allowance..
5. That Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., is authorized to design
tariffs so as to generate $222,652 in gross wastewater revenues from
customers enrolled as of December 31, 1983.
6. That Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., shall be permitted to
include in its allowable costs rate case expense deferred in the
current case amounting to $17, 535.
7. That Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., shall be permitted to
apply to the Board of County Commissioners for an amended tariff in a
subsequent rate hearing and the Board shall approve a tariff which
will allow Hutchinson Utilities, Inc., under efficient and economical
management to meet debt servicing requirements of long term financing
needed to allow the Utility to make necessary improvements to its
system.
ORDER ADOPTED: 5/2/84
ORDER ENTERED: 5/2/84
BY THE COMMISSION,
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Ch rman
LII! J is 4e %
ct�ry R .. 8raiidenbu
Cuu y Attorney
MAY 2 1984 BOOK .56 PACE 863
r .
MAY 2 1984BOOK 56` PAGE864
STATUS REPORT - JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT
Pat Bowen, Economical Development Coordinator and Nan
Griggs, Director of JTPA presented an update on the program
which has replaced the CETA program. Ms. Bowen explained
that the County entered into an agreement with three other
counties and named members of the council representing
Indian River County. She summarized the status and results
of the federally funded program which will be in effect for
the next five years.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMISSION
PRESENTATION 5/2/84
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) becomes effective Oct. 1,
1983. Designed to help low-income, unemployed people learn
skills that will lead to full-time employment and to help
small business obtain trained workers at minimum cost. The Act
is effective for five years.
B. The Treasure Coast Job Training Center
The Job Training Center is funded under the JTPA to provide
employment and training services in the 3 -county SDA of Indian
River, St.Lucie, and Martin counties. The Center is administered
by the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council.
II. "PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVE - THE BIG DIFFERENCE IN JTPA"
A. The Treasure Coast Private Industry Council
The Treasure Coast PIC is comprised of a group of local, public
and private leaders - mostly private business people. PIC members
from Indian River County include:
PIC Chairman: Gary Lindsey of Quik Snack
Peter Robinson - Laurel Homes
Chris Hubbard- WGYL
Mary Ellen Ballough - MGB Homes
Sam Hunter - IRC School Board
Evelyn Byron - IRC COA
The PIC maintains local control over our funds and our programs
ensuring that our activities meet the labor needs of LOCAL BUSINESS
AND INDUSTRY. This new program is a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY for local
employers to put their expertise to work by helping to prepare workers
for new jobs.In the initial planning stages, the PIC chose MCSB
to carry out this program because the MCSB won the award for the
best run small program in the state.
B. Private Sector - Permanent Employment
Three out of every four job openings occur in the private sector,
therefore, the majority of our programs are designed to secure permanent
employment in the private sector. This a departure from CETA programs
which placed most of the trainees in temporary work situations that
provided skills and experience with no guarantee of employment at the
end of the training period.
C. Classroom Training
Under CETA, participants were placed in one and two year educational
programs and were paid minimum wage for attending classes. We do not
pay people to go to class. We are assisting only individuals who have
a committment of employment from an employer, Example: SECRETARY.
These people have the initiative to attend class on their own time.
We pay only tuition and materials.
WE ARE NOT SUBSIDIZING ANYONE ANYMORE. ALL PARTICIPANTS UNDER THIS
PROGRAM ARE BEING PAID FOR HOURS THEY ARE WORKING.
D. 70 - 15 - 15
Under JTPA, our funds are spent according to a 70 - 15 -15 percent
formula.
707 Training,
157 ServicesEmployment generating act.
157 Admin. Job Search Assist.
Health care -Enhance Employ.
E. Agency Linkages
We are developing a.strong referral network with all community
agencies to ensure services to eligible individuals. (Job Service,
HRS, Vocational Institutions).
F. Economic Development
This component of the program is aimed at increasing job opportunities
in our SDA and enhancing the local economy. Our staff works closely
with the Chambers of Commerce to inform employers of JTPA benefits
to them, and to assist Chambers in attracting new businesses and
industry to the area through staff and financial aid.
III. Programs
A. ADULT - Out of School
On -The -Job -Training (OJT)
Unemployed workers are placed in full-time private sector jobs for
on-the-job training. Employers are reimbursed approximately 507
of the wages paid during the training period. (One month to one year)
We are limited in the amount of OJT we can do in the public sector,
so we have a work experience component in the Public Sector for
agencies such as yours. In OJT, we reimburse the employer for
training costs. In Work Experience. we pay the total cost of employ-
ment for a period of time with perm. employment being the objective
in both programs. With OJT the trainee is hired up front- with WE
they're hired at the end of the training period.
Adult Work Experience
Out-of-school adults, age 16 and up
Public sector jobs
Approximate first 6 months wages paid by TCJTC (20 hr./wk.)
Approximate first 3 months wages paid by TCJTC (40 hr./wk.)
Total 500 hours paid by TCJTC
B. YOUTH
Youth: Try -out Employment Experience
In -school, non -college bound youth, ages
Private sector jobs
Approximate first 3 months wages (limited
16-21
to 20 hrs./wk.) paid by TCJTC
69
MAY 2 1984 Boa 56 PACE 865
F,
MAY 21984
BOOK 56 PACE S66
Youth: Entry Employment Experience
In -school, non -college bound youth, ages 16-21
Public sector jobs
Approximate first 6 months wages (limited to 20 hrs./wk.)wages paid
by TCJTC
IV. Eligibility
A. Income 70% of Lower Living Standard
B. Food Stamps or Poverty Level (9,900 - 4)
C. AFDC
D. General Assistance
E. Residency - 30 days
V. Outreach & Recruitment
Ongoing effort to reach applicants and employers.
We use media: Radio, TV, Newspapers
High School papers
Chamber of Commerce publications
VI. "The Program of the Hour"
Summer Youth Employment and Training
We will be able to fund approx. 600 jobs this summer in the three
counties we serve. We will be placing disadvantaged youth in jobs
in public sector as we always have. And, due to the PIC's imput,
we will be using a portion of our federal dollars to benefit private
employers who hire disadvantaged youth for the summer. For those
employers, the JTC will pay the teenager for the first 250 hours of
employment - the employer pays the wages for the rest of the summer.
Most of the teenagers are eligible for TJTC which allows employers
to save 50-85% of the wages they pay the teenager. With this
program, everyone benefits:
The teenager: job skills, work habits
The employer: fill-in for vacationing personnel
short term projects
The community: expanded income base
sense of pride
70
I
Commissioner Bird thanked Mmes. Bowen and Griggs for
the great job they have.done in getting the program started.
AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CREATING THE TREASURE
COAST JOB TRAINING CONSORTIUM AND TREASURE COAST PRIVATE
INDUSTRY COUNCIL
Commissioner Bird reported that at the meeting of April
10th, the Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the Amendment to
Interlocal Agreement Creating the Treasure Coast Job
Training Consortium and Treasure Coast Private Industry
Council.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board
unanimously (4-0) adopted the Amendment to
Interlocal Agreement Creating the Treasure
Coast Job Training Consortium and Treasure
Coast Private Industry Council.
Z1
MAY - 2 1984 �ooK 56 pmuE 867
,KAY- "2.1984 BOOK 56 PACE 868 5
AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
CREATING THE TREASURE'COAST JOB TRAINING CONSORTIUM
AND TREASURE COAST PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
This amendment to the agreement made and entered into by the
Counties of Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River, of the State of
Florida, pursuant to the authority of Section 163.01, Florida
Statutes.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS in May, 1983, Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River
Counties entered into an Interlocal Agreement creating the Treasure
Coast Job Training Consortium and Treasure Coast Private Industry
Council, in order to effectuate the provisions of the Job Training
Partnership Act in the service delivery area composed of the above
three counties, and
WHEREAS Section 8'of said Interlocal Agreement provides for
the Establishment, Composition and Appointment of the Treasure Coast
Private Industry Council in accordance with the Job Training Partner-
ship Act, and
WHEREAS the parties -wish to amend Section 8 of the.Interlocal
Agreement as it -pertains to nominations and selections .of any Private
I
•Industry Council members to fill Private Industry Council seats which
become vacant by reason of resignation, removal or by termination of
a member's term.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 8 of the Interlocal Agreement is amended as follows:
1. The fourth sentence of the second paragraph, which reads
as follows:
Any vacancy in the membership of the Treasure Coast
Private Industry Council shall be filled in the same
manner as the original appointment.
is deleted.
2. At the end of Section 8, the following provisions are
added:
Any vacancy of a private sector representative seat
on the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council shall
be filled in the same manner as the original appoint-
ment with the nominations being solicited from the
county for which the vacancy occurs.
Vacancies of any public sector representatives'
seats on the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council
shall be filled as follows:
1. The higher education/vocational education
representative on the Treasure Coast Private Industry
Council shall be selected by the Treasure Coast Job
Training Consortium from individuals nominated by
institutions of higher education and vocational
education within the service delivery area.
2. A local school representative on the Treasure
Coast Private Industry Council shall be selected by the
Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium from individuals
nominated by the county school district for the county
for which the vacancy exists and from private and pro-
prietary schools or general organizations of such
schools within such county.
3. The labor representative on the Treasure Coast
L
Private Industry Council shall be selecited by the Trea-
sure Coast Job Training Consortium from individuals
recommended by recognized state and local labor organiza-
tions or appropriate building trades councils within the
service delivery area.
4. The rehabilitation agency representative on
the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council shall be
selected by the Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium
from individuals recommended by rehabilitation agencies
within the service delivery area.
5. The community-based organizations representa-
tive on the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council
shall be selected by.the Treasure Coast Job Training
Consortium from individuals recommended by community-
based organizations (as that term is defined in the Job
Training Partnership Act) within the service delivery
area.
6. The economic development agency representative
on the Treasure -Coast Private Industry Council shall_be
selected from individuals.recommended by the economic
MAY 2 1984
6w 56 mm869
2, �J84
MAY.
took 56 PAGE S?o 7
development agencies (as that term is defined in the _
Job Training Partnership Act) within the service
delivery area.
7. The public employment service representative
on the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council shall
be selected by the.Treasure Coast Job Training Consor-
tium from individuals recommended by the Florida State
Employment Service offices in the service delivery area.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed
this agreement.
Appr ved as to form and
le s141ficier14-y
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
M rtin County, lorida
By
Chairman
Date
ouA Atm •.
f•
f'. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
r
ie County, Florida
�.� By
n y er jDat
-�
�e
Appro s to orm and
leg s f' 'ency
IT ty Attorney9
Date
ounty i.lerx J
.s=a-8xl
ate
Approved as to form and
legal//suf- icieZcy
i
'Caun�t�' Attorney
1.��1 `� I C Y
Date
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Indian River County , -Florida
By i G
'hairman (/
V
ate
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED MEDICAL DISTRICT ORDINANCE
The hour of 9:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
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 --7% .
in the matter of 6a",-, 4e
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, fora period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed
(SEAL)
1 n
� /
day of A.D. 19
1/1rC�. f
Manager)
Circuit Court,(19fiian River County, Florida)
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF
COUNTY ORDINANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Indian
River County Board of County Commissioners,
shall hold a public hearing at which parties i
n in-
terest and citizens shall have an opportunity to
be heard, on May 2, 1984, in the County Com-
mission Chambers, located in the County Admin-
istration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
at 9:45 A.M. or as soon thereafter as may be
heard, to consider adoptirig an ordinance to be
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISH-
ING A NEW ZONING DISTRICT TO BE '
KNOWN AS THE MED, MEDICAL DIS-
TRICT, CREATING SECTION 18.1 OF
APPENDIX A TO THE CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE
COUNTY'S ZONING CODE; PROVIDING,
FOR PERMITTED USES; SPECIAL EX-
CEPTION USES; BUILDING HEIGHT
LIMITS, MINIMUM LOT SIZES, LOT
COVERAGE AND YARD SETBACK RE-
QUIREMENTS: PROVIDING FOR RE-
PEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES;
CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND
E=FFECTIVE DATE.
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 -i
ceedings and for such purposes, he/she may.
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
ceedings is made, which record includes the
testimony in evidence on which the appeal is:
based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman
Apr. 11. 24. 1984.
The Board reviewed memo and recommendation of Chief
Planner Richard Shearer, as follows:
72
__ MAY � 1994 BOOK 5`6 PAGE
--
MAY 21984
BOOK 56 'PAGE 872
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 11, 1984 FILE: r
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
K .42LLi� 5�17-
SUBJECT:
Robert M,. Keati g, AaCP
Planning & Development Director
FROM: RKS ichard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
PROPOSED MEDICAL
DISTRICT AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE
P&Z/Med
CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 2, 1984.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department has prepared a draft of a proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would create a PIED,
Medical District. The purpose of the Medical District is to
implement the Comprehensive Plan policies for --managing the
development of the major portions of lands designated as part
of a hospital/commercial-node and to provide for compatible
land use patterns around the major medical facilities in the
County. While other zoning districts might be appropriate for
the hospital/commercial nodes, the MED District provides for a
commercial/residential/institutional mix of land uses as
described in the definition of hospital/commercial nodes in the
Comprehensive Plan.
On February 9, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a
public hearing on the proposed Medical District. At that time
it was determined that the proposed district required more
discussion and should be scheduled for a workshop meeting
involving the public. On February 22, a workshop was held to
discuss the proposed Medical District. Based on input from
that workshop, the Planning Department revised the draft of the
MED, Medical District.
On April 5, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a
public hearing on the revised draft of the Medical District.
After the public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted 3 -to -0 to recommend approval of the PIED, Medical District
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The proposed MED district is in a format similar to the
existing zoning districts. One area where the Medical District
deviates from most other districts is in permitted uses and
special exception uses. While both sets of uses require site
plan approval, the MED district has a long list of permitted
uses not normally found in the County's other zoning districts.
In addition, the MED district lists general criteria to be
considered before a special exception use can be granted
by the Planning and Zoning Commission. These criteria are in
addition to the standards used to review other site plans, and
their inclusion is to allow the imposition of appropriate site
plan conditions and safeguards to ensure compatible development.
73
I
Another area in which the MED district differs from other
zoning districts is the use of a floor area ratio (FAR) to
control hospital height limits. While the building height
limit in the district is 35 feet (as in most other zoning
districts), buildings used as hospitals may exceed this limit
if they can meet a strict floor area ratio (FAR). The FAR
relates building bulk to lot area while giving some freedom
from traditional controls over height. The FAR ensures that
the higher a building is, the more land area that will be
required. The FAR was proposed because of the necessity for
hospitals to expand vertically instead of horizontally in
two-level buildings.
RECOr-21ENDATION
Based on the preceding analysis, including the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff recommends that
the Board of County Commissioners adopt the MED, Medical
District, as an amendment to the County's Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Lyons expressed his displeasure with the
height they are talking about at the present hospital, and
he did not want to be a party to making it easy for somebody
to have a high building.
Commissioner Wodtke did not have any problem with the
hospital height since it is a public building and intended
for public service; further he did not believe it would be
feasible for them to have 100-150 rooms and limit the
building to three stories.
Chairman Scurlock's main concern was with making the
definition tight enough to_prevent every structure in the
node calling itself a hospital.
Planning Director Keating believed staff can provide a
satisfactory definition and noted the reason they took this
tack was that we have the given of Indian River Hospital
being constructed to accommodate the additional stories they
are planning.
Commissioner Lyons continued to stress that he wanted
some height limitation, and Chairman Scurlock inquired how
this would apply to private nursing facilities.
Planning Director Keating explained that they will tie
the -definition of hospital to the state accreditation so
that only a facility with the state certificate of
MAY 2 1984
74 cc�
ROOK 56'. PAGE 873
MAY 2 1984 BOOK ` 56 PAGE 674
accreditation would be able to qualify for the height
exception.
Commissioner Lyons felt there should be some actual
limitation besides the proposed floor area ratio (FAR).
Mr. Keating noted that a major concern was that they
did not want one hospital in the County to have considera-
tion over the others, and they have found that it appears to
be necessary for a hospital to go up rather than out.
Discussion followed re the current height allowed for
the Indian River Memorial Hospital, and it was noted that
the Board of Variance some time ago gave them a waiver to go
to 137' which would accommodate nine (9) stories and
elevator towers.
Commissioner Lyons felt that just because the Hospital
wants to go up nine stories is not any reason to believe
everyone else has got to go that high. He agreed there may
be some economic point or factor which would enter into
this, but what is proposed in the ordinance is carte
blanche, and he was opposed to it.
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that if the Board is
going to allow one particular type of facility to exceed the
County height limit and require every other facility in the
County to abide by it, it will be necessary to be able to
distinguish on some basis why we are justified in allowing a
hospital to go higher than any other type building - a
manufacturing plant or office building, for instance. If
there is no rational basis for that distinction to be made,
the Board could have an equal protection argument problem
with the Code.
Commissioner Bird commented that his first rationaliza-
tion was that it is okay to make an exception because we are
talking about health care costs; it is a tax supported.
institution; and we are saving money by allowing them to go
up higher. However, the question.arises as to how you can
75
differentiate betweena public non-profit hospital and a
private for-profit hospital?
Chairman Scurlock noted that the existing hospital is
grandfathered in with a variance so it wouldn't impact them
negatively if we set a lower height limitation. He wondered
if there might be any case at all where we would want to
consider a higher height limitation for certain districts..
Commissioner Lyons believed it is possible that it
eventually may be considered for all districts as the
character of the county changes over the years, but he does
not feel it is appropriate at this time.
Commissioner Bird asked if,.for the time being, we can
adopt the ordinance and set up the district, but retain the
present height limitation.
that.
Commissioner Lyons stated that he would go along with
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Michael O'Grady, Assistant Administrator, Indian River
Memorial Hospital, informed the Board that he did work with
staff in bringing this ordinance to the Board, and they were
most helpful. He noted that the Hospital tried to accommo-
date staff's desire, which was to identify with the Hospital
node and build some cohesiveness, and he does recommend this
for consideration.
Commissioner Lyons agreed that they did a good job, but
noted that his only problem is the height.
Hospital Board member, William Koolage, expressed
confusion re the height limitation. He did understand
Commissioner Lyons' concern, but he felt that the existing
hospital was always meant to have been nine stories high and
was specifically constructed with that in mind.
76
MAY 2 1984 BOOK 56 PAGE 875
MAY 2 1984
BOOK 5 PAGE 816 _
Chairman Scurlock explained that when the Hospital was
built, they had a current height limitation, which they
circumvented by going before the Variance Board and
obtaining a variance to go to 137', which variance is still
in effect.
Commissioner Wodtke raised the question as to whether,
under our present laws, the Variance Board has the right to
give a variance for height, and Attorney Brandenburg felt
that was a real close issue.
Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern about possibly
opening ourselves up to problems if it was found that the
variance for nine floors was granted in error, and
Commissioner Lyons felt there are other ways than a variance
to go about this, i -.e., a special exception category, etc.
It was determined that no one further wished to be
heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
(4-0) closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bird suggested ending Paragraph (d) on
Building Height Limit after the word "ordinance" and
striking everything else in that paragraph. Attorney
Brandenburg stated that would be satisfactory.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
(4-0) adopted Ordinance 84-24 establishing
a new zoning district to be known as the MED,
Medical District, with the amendment that
all the wording in Paragraph (d) Building Height
Limit, after the word "ordinance be stricken.
77
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 81_24
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING A NEW ZONING DISTRICT TO
BE KNOWN AS THE MED, MEDICAL DISTRICT; CREATING SECTION
18.1 OF APPENDIX A TO THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE COUNTY'S ZONING
CODE; PROVIDING FOR PERMITTED USES; SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES;
BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS, MINIMUM LOT SIZES, LOT COVERAGE
AND YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND
EFFECTIVE DATE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1
Section 18.1 of Appendix A to the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida, known as the Zoning
Code, is hereby created to read as follows:
Section 18..1•- MED, Medical District:
(a) The MED, Medical District is intended to implement the
Comprehensive Plan policies for managing the development of the
major portions.of lands designated as part of a hospital/commer-
cial node, to provide a variety of uses which support a major
medical facility, and to protect such major medical facility
from encroachment by land uses which may have an adverse effect
on the operation and potential expansion of the facility. Land
uses that could cause an adverse effect would generally include
those uses that are likely to be objectionable to neighboring
properties because of noise, vibration, odors, smoke, amount of
traffic attracted or generated, or other physical manifestations.
These Medical District Regulations are intended to protect,
promote, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, order,
appearance, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants
of this district and its environs. Because of the nature of
this district, review and approval of a site plan, in accordance
with Section 23 of this ordinance, will be required for permitted
and special exception uses.
(b) Permitted Uses. In this district a building or premises
may be used for the following purposes:
(1) General and specialty hospitals.
-I-
AY 2 1984 BOOK 56 PAGE 877
r
MAY 2 1984
BOOK 56 PAGE 878
(2) Medical or dental clinics.
(3) Medical -related offices, -.including, but not limited
to, offices for physicians, surgeons, dentists, home
health care agencies, blood banks, and psychiatrists
and psychologists.
(4) Nursing homes, rest homes, convalescent homes,
homes for the aged, total care facilities, and similar
type facilities.
(5) Medical educational institutions, medical research,
experimental and testing laboratories.
(6) Medical, surgical, and dental supply houses.
(7) Apothecaries and prescription shops.
(8) Ambulance services.
(9) Residential facilities incidental to a permitted use.
(10) Artificial limb and brace establishments, and thera-
peutic establishments.
(11) Florist shops.
(12) Optical firms.
(13) Greeting card shops. `
(14) Book stores.
(15) Daycare facilities for both adults or juveniles.
(16) Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental
to those principally permitted uses herein.
(c) Special Exceptions. The following uses may be
permitted by the County Planning and zoning Commission after
site plan approval according to Section 23. Permission from the
Planning and Zoning Commission will be based on their determina-
tion that the proposed use, with such conditions and safeguards
as are appropriate, will be compatible with the surrounding land
uses, that the proposed use enhances the quality of the Medical
District, and that the proposed ,use is in general harmony with
the overall character of the district.
(1) Restaurants but expressly excluding any "curb service",
"drive-in", "drive-thru", or similar type
establishments.
(2) General office uses and office buildings.
(3) Public buildings and uses.
(4) Multiple -Family Dwellings.
(5) Retail sales facilities customarily incidental to
medical -related uses.
(d) Building Height Limit. No building or structure
shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height, exclusive of
elevator shafts and/or air conditioning condensing units and/or
cooling towers, except as provided in Section 25, paragraphs (a)
and (p) of this ordinance.
(e) Minimum Lot Size and Floor Area. The minimum lot area
shall be 20,000 square feet. The minimum lot width shall be 100
feet. Additionally, every lot or parcel of land on which living
quarters are located shall provide the following:
-2-
Type of Dwelling
Multiple -Family
Units without cooking
facilities
Minimum Floor
Area per Unit.
600 sq. ft.
300 sq. ft.
Minimum Land
Area per Unit
5,400 sq. ft.
2,000 sq. ft.
(f) Lot Coverage. The total site shall not be covered by
buildings and structures, except for parking lots, to an extent
of more than forty percent (40%) of the lot.
(g) Front Yard. Every lot shall have a front yard or
street yard of not less than twenty-five (25) feet.
(h) Rear Yard. Every lot shall have a rear yard of
not less.than twenty (20) feet.
(i) Side Yard. A side yard shall be provided on each side
of every lot not -less than twenty (20) feet in width.
(j) Parking Regulations. Off-street parking spaces shall
be provided in accordance with the requirements for specific
uses as set forth in Section 24 of this ordinance.
SECTION 2
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of
the legislature applying only to the unincorporated,portion of
Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such
conflict.
SECTION 3
INCORPORATION IN CODE
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the
sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to
accomplish such intentions.
-3-
MAY_ 2 19 4 BOOK 6 PAGE 87
MAY + 1984BOOK 56' PAGE880
SECTION 4
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitu-
tional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the
remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been
the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such
unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 5
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective
upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this 2nd day of May
1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By .�s�
DON C. SCURLOCK
Chairman
Acknowledgment of the Department of State of the State of
Florida this 10th day of Mav , 1984.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 14th day of Mav , 1984, at
10:30 A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida.
APPROVED AS
LEGAL SUF�II
By:
FORM AND
ME
�'
RECObLMENDATION FOR JOINT CITY/COUNTY STUDY OF CABLE TV RATE
INCREASE
Administrator Wright believed that the proposal made by
Thomas Alexander & Associates is self-explanatory. He
reported that he met with the City Manager, and the City did
accept this proposal last night.
Commissioner Lyons raised the question with the County
Attorney as to whether we could be considered to be in
restraint of trade if, between the County and the City, we
completely manage the income of this utility.
Administrator Wright noted that what we are looking for
is an analysis and a recommendation, and at no point do we
say the rates have to be the same.
Chairman Scurlock felt the rates should be based on the
cost of delivering the service, and that could identify
certain areas as being more costly and warrant having a
higher rate structure. Administrator Wright agreed that,
serving South Beach, for instance, might be more expensive
than the south mainland.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that he will look at this,
but he would recommend the Board approve the joint study.
Administrator Wright noted that there will be funding
from the franchise fees and basically a 50/50 split.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to authorize the joint
City/County study of Cable TV rates as set out in the
proposal by Thomas Alexander & Associates, Inc.
Chairman Scurlock commented that it is not an exact
50/50 split, and the Administrator explained that each
entity has an additional item they want that is unrelated to
the others.
MAY 2 1984 BOOK 56 PAGE Ott
MAY 21984Q
BOOK 56 PAGE 8
Commissioner Bird believed we are all tiring of hearing
these complaints about Jones Intercable, and possibly this
consulting firm could be used to do some research in the
Sebastian area and we could share some expenses with
Sebastian.
Administrator Wright noted that is part of the
proposal.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0).
Summary of the proposed project fees is as follows, and
the remainder of said proposal of Thomas Alexander &
Associates, Inc., is on file in the Office of the Clerk.
Summary of Project Fees
Shared
Rate study, public hearings and
consultations
Technical, operations, rebuilt
and new services study
Master ordinance, license agreement
and negotiations
Rate and service comparisons
Extraordinary production costs
Total
Jones -Sebastian
Pole Rental Agreement
Shared costs (50%)
Total -
$10,000
9,000
7,60
1,500
2,80(Y
$30,900
County Citv
$4,000.
$4,300
15,450 15,450
$19,450 $19,750
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS/, LE. '_%1D & OCIATES , INC.
.; Stra4y_ford' sm.-f;::z
Public ector Coordinator
83
II
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ANTI-TRUST LAWS, HB -3361
MAY 21984`
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) adopted Resolution 84-28 urging the
United States Congress to adopt legislation
clarifying local government's immunity from
the Sherman Anti -Trust Laws.
Resolution 84-28 is hereby made a part of the Minutes.
BOOK 56 PAGE 883
MAY 2 1984
BOOK 5& PAGE 834 _ -
RESOLUTION NO. 84- 28
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA REQUESTING THE
UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO ADDRESS THE SHERMAN
ANTI-TRUST ACT AND CLARIFY THE LAWS APPLICATION
TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
WHEREAS the Sherman Anti -Trust Act was originally
enacted by Congressto prevent the large "trusts" from striking at
the heart of the American Free Enterprise system, and
WHEREAS the Act was not originally intended to apply
to local governments while performing their functins, and
WHEREAS local governments have enjoyed what they
thought to be immunity from anti-trust actions under the premise
that local governments are instrumentalities of the state
performing state functions and therefore immune from anti-trust
violations under the State Immunity Doctrine, and,
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of United States in the
case of Community Commurrication Corporation vs. The City of
Boulder interpreted the Sherman Anti -Trust Laws and indicated that
for a local government to enjoy such "state immunity" the local
government must be acting pursuant to a "clearly articulated and
affirmatively expressed" state policy. Despite a County's broad
"Home Rule" authority they are not entitled to anti-trust immunity
in all cases and,
WHEREAS because state laws have been written over
the years without consideration of this new requirement local
governments find themselves completely unprotected from anti-trust
liability while performing essential governmental functions.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that
1. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County urges the United States Congress to adopt legislation
clarifying local government's immunity from the Sherman Anti -Trust
Laws and
2. That the Clerk is directed to send a copy of this
Resolution to the Congressman representing our County in
Washington asking for their support in this effort.
-1-
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Absent
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 2nd
Attest:
FREDA WRIGHT
Clerk '
day of May , 1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
CLARIFICATION OF EARMARKED FUNDS FOR PARK ACQUISITION, ETC.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that the Board in the past
indicated that the sale of the small park parcels, as well
as the sale of other various small lots around the County,
should be put into a fund and set aside for the development
of the new park parcels along the ocean and elsewhere. The
Clerk's Office wanted a clarification of that because they
felt that the Board's Motion was only relating to the one
little piece of property that was sold for $1,000 late in
1983. The Attorney suggested that the Board adopt a Motion
indicating the sale of County property excess park parcels,
as well as other excess lots, be placed in a fund to be
earmarked exclusively for the development and acquisition of
parks in the future.
NMAY 21994
86 MK 56` PAGE885
M AY 2 1984 BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
(4-0) authorized the Finance Department to
56 FACE 886
set aside funds from the sale of surplus County
lands in a special account for the purposes
described above.
RESIGNATION OF J.B.NORTON FROM DISTRICT IX HEALTH COUNCIL
The Board reviewed letter of resignation from J. B.
Norton, as follows:
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
VERO BEACH • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1216 21ST STREET - P. O. BOX 2947
VERO BEACH. FLORiDA 32960
( 305 ) 567.34-01
April 24, 1984
Honorable Doug Scurlock,Chairman
Indian River County Commission
1840 -25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
For the past two years I have served as the County. Commission
representative on the District 9 Health Council, office located
in West Palm Beach, F1.
Prior to serving on the District 9 Health Council, I served 5 and
a half years on the board of the old Health System Agency.
My current term on District 9 Health Council will expire on July
1, 1984.
Please be advised that on July 1, 1984, I will resign that
appointment, and please accept this letter as my official
notification to you and the commission.
I have enjoyed serving on the District 9 Health Council, but
after 7 and a half years, and other pressing matters, I feel I
must allow someone else to serve.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity. to serve the commission,
and represent Indian River County.
If I can be of service to the commission, please let me know.
Cordially, °
� '�V No ton, r
' Execut ve Vice President
87
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to accept
with regret the resignation of Mr. Norton
and send him a letter of appreciation.
Commissioner Bird requested that the media emphasize
that we are looking for a representative to replace Mr.
Norton.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested we ask the Attorney to
draft a Resolution or Proclamation of thanks, and Attorney
Brandenburg reported that he has it in the works.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0).
TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF COMMISSIONER BOWMAN'S DUTIES
Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that until
Commissioner Bowman is able to resume actively representing
the Board in various capacities, he would like Commissioner
Wodtke to be authorized to take a more active role in the
North County Fire District and temporarily assume the
Chairmanship. He further requested that Commissioner Lyons
assume Commissioner Bowman's position on the Regional
Planning Council until she is able to return.
Commissioners Wodtke and Lyons agreed as did the other
Board members.
COMMITTEE REPORTS - PARKS & RECREATION,.COUNTYWIDE
RECREATION STUDY, GOLF COURSE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Commissioner Bird informed the Board that since his
reports are quite lengthy and the hour is late, he would
write memos on the above committee activities and supply
them to the Board members.
MAY 2 1984
MOK 56 qac€887
MAY 2 1984
BEACH PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION COMMITTEE
BOOK 56PAGE 888.
Commissioner Wodtke reported that since the Army Corps
of Engineers is supposed to be here in May starting some
engineering work, he would like to reactivate the above
committee and suggest that we accept some replacement of
committee members as follows. He noted that we had a
representative on this committee from the City of Vero
Beach, and Gary Parris now has.been appointed to represent
the City. Dr. Jones, an engineer and research person with
Harbor Branch Foundation, resigned, and Mr. Parris has
informed him that George Gross has expressed an interest in
serving; Mr. Gross has worked as an engineer with the Army
Corps of Engineers and has considerable expertise in this
field. Commissioner Wodtke continued that OMB Director Jeff
Barton had worked with him on this previously and he would
like Mr. Barton to continue to be involved with this issue
when they get into talking about numbers and dollars.
Administrator Wright felt that Mr. Barton's involvement
should be in a staff capacity, not a voting capacity, and
the Board agreed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) accepted the recommendation for reactiva-
tion of the Beach Preservation and Restoration
Committee and appointment of members as above.
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at
2:00 o'clock P.M. for lunch and reconvened at Sebastian City
Hall Council Chambers at 2:35 o'clock P.M. with the same
members present, Commissioner Bowman being absent due to
illness, and Deputy Clerk Virginia Hargreaves acting as
Recording Secretary.
NOTE - The recorder malfunctioned and tape of the following hearing
is not available.
PUBLIC HEARING - BREEZY VILLAGE WATER & SEWER FRANCHISE
TRANSFER AND RATE INCREASE
The Chairman called the meeting to order and announced
that the purpose of the hearing was both to consider
transfer of the Breezy Village Water and Sewer franchise and
to consider the.request for a rate increase. He then
informed those present of the procedure that would be
followed.
The hour of 2:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Baily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schpmann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Journai, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
n the matter of /LZ iC V
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners will
iGhalmberrss
hold a -
on In the FloridSebastian
consideCouncil
tA7� Maiinn.Strepet, Sebasf an, to
located a
a re-
quest for a change in rates for BREEZY VILLAGE, INC. The
proposed
rates areas follows:
j
BREEZY VILLAGE WATER 8 SEWER CO., INC.
93.36
PRESENT AND PROPOSED RATES
166,72
WATER
SEWER
Present Rates:
* 291.75
Quantity Charges:
'563.50
0.3,000 gallons - minimum bill
master metered, Per unit
$4" x fid' meter 6.76
6.76
1" meter 11.70
11.70
22.56
11A" & 11h" meter 22.50
30.78
30.76
2" meter
3" & 4" meter 5.00
54.00
6" meter 75.00
75.00
Next 12000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons 7.�
1.06
Next 25,000 gallons, per 1.000 gallons --
I11v meter
Next 35,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons ��. .�
as
.�
Next 75,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons J
•66
Connection Charges 375.00
375.06
Proposed Rates:
Installed by the customer. Meter type. design
Quantity Charges•
-
Service Availability Charge - no consumption
approved by the Utility.
allowance, to be paid every month regardless
Miscellaneous Charges:
of consumption (even if meter is temporarily
Water turn on - during regular hours for new
in the I . Court. was pub. turned off)
414" x 3'11" mete
/1a� t" meter
lished in said newspaper in the issues of OT 1W meter
T' meter
3" meter
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 subschbetl before
nne Mr. ""6 clay of A.D. 19FZ
-
1
usiness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Cour dian River County. Florida)
(SEAL)
r
77.67
11.67
29.76
29.18
. that sewer customers will not be billed
58.3s
58.35
93.36
93.36
owed the utility, including the turn off and turn an charge, have been Paid.
166,72
186.72
Proposed Rates:
291.75
* 291.75
500.00
'563.50
583.511
master metered, Per unit
11.67
11.67
rge:
ms
5.06
5.06•
;Sewir will not be billed on residential
metered water consumption above 12,000
gallons. This "ca P" is established so .
. that sewer customers will not be billed
for water not returned to the sewer..
All utility bills must be Paid in full within 20 days of the date of the bill or
service may be terminated. Service will not be restored until all amounts
owed the utility, including the turn off and turn an charge, have been Paid.
WATER SEWER ..
Proposed Rates:
Connection Charges:
500.00
IA" x 6,e" meter
1" meter
11=00500.00
1,250.00
meter
2500.00
4=00 2,500.00
r meter
2"
8.000.0 8,000.00
3" meter
4" meter
12.500.00 12,500.00
25,000.00
6" meter
25,000.0000
Meter Installation Fee:
3k" x 4s," meter
129.00
1" meter
180.00
I11v meter
370.00
2" meter
460.00
Over 21
'
•Meters larger t71an 2" shall be provided and
Installed by the customer. Meter type. design
and installation shall beprescribedand
-
approved by the Utility.
Miscellaneous Charges:
Water turn on - during regular hours for new
Customers or re-establishment of service at
customer's request or for non-payment
10.00
Water turn off - during regular hours for non-
payment, at request of customer or for
customer closing account
10.00
Water turn an - during other than regular hours
30.00
Customer tampering with meter - Including turning
on own meter after turned off by the utility
for non-oayment
25.00
Returned check - Florida Statute
Damage to utility property or any item not covered
above - time, materials and administrative charge
(administrative charge to be 815.00 or 15% of
time and materials, whichever is greater)
Indian River County Charges:
Franchise fee - As set by the County and shown separately on the bill.
Renewal and Replacement Fund - As set by the County and shown
separately on the bill.
CIAC - As set by the County under Ordinances 80-21 and 80.22 and will
apply to all new utility customers.
A request for a transfer of ownership, of the BREEZY VILLAGE utility
franchise will alsobe considered of this hearing.
All Interested persons are invited to this meeting. if any Person de-
cides to appeal any decision made by the. Board of County Commissioners
with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, he/she will needs t
record of the proceedings, and that for such Purpose he/she may need to I
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record,
Includes the testimony and evidence upon which the aPP9al is to be heard.
Don C. Scurlock Jr.. Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River CouMV -i
Apr. 216 19AL
MAY 21984 90
BOOK �6 PAGE S89
MAY 21994
BOOK 56 `PAGE 890
The Chairman asked Utility Service Director Pinto to
make the staff presentation.
Director Pinto commented that the testimony that would
be presented today would be sworn testimony and stated that
what he would prefer to do is first hear the applicant and
his wishes, and after that staff will review their findings.
Attorney Steve Henderson came before the Board
representing Breezy Village Water & Sewer Company and Dr.
James Wilson, the applicant. Attorney Henderson noted that
what they have asked the Commission to do is go ahead and
hear the matter re transfer of the franchise, which is not
necessarily evidentiary, and to grant a continuance of the
rate hearing for 30 days on the grounds that although their
application was filed in September of 1983, they only
received the report of the Utility Department one week ago,
at which time his firm was retained and consequently they
have had very little opportunity to analyze the report and
prepare a presentation. He further informed the Board that
both he and the accountant find themselves pretty much in
agreement with the report of the staff and would like to
make amendments to their application and rate request to
conform to the recommendations of staff to the extent that
they are in agreement with them.
Attorney Henderson then referred to the Memo of
Assistant Utility Director Joseph Baird, dated April 29,
1984, giving the Rate Review Committee Report, which is as
follows:
91
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 19, 1984 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: �€raA-6r-�-3n 3a--� SUBJECT. BREEZY VILLAGE WATER AND
Utility Service Director SEWER, INC., REQUEST FOR
RATE INCREASE
RATE REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
FROM: Joseph A. Baird REFERENCES:
Assistant Utility Director
The staff recommends the denial
Village Water and Sewer Company,
furnished below.
RATE BASE:
of the rate increase by Breezy
Inc., based on the information
The staff has the following exceptions as to the calculation of
rate base:
1. "Contributions in Aid of Construction":
Connections charges which compose the "Contributions
in Aid of Construction" were collected at the owners dis-
cretion from some customers but not from others. This
policy was followed by both the prior owner and Dr. Wilson,
the current owner. Both owners function under Franchise
Resolution 73-76 that had under Section XIV a minimum con-
nection charge of $300.00 for water and $300.00 for sewer.
The Resolution under Section XI also states "The Company
shall not as to rates, charges, service facilities, rules,
regulations or in any other respect make or grant any pre-
ference or advantage to any person nor subject any persoa
to any pre'u ice or disadvantage." Since the Utility
Company did notcharge arge some customers connection fees, they
forced more of the "Utility Plant Service" to be absorbed
through monthly water and sewer rates.
In the staff's opinion, this was preferential treat-
ment by the owners and they should absorb the difference
between what was collected and what should have been col-
lected in connection fees. By the staff's calculations,
this will increase Contributions in Aid of Construction
for water and sewer to a minimum of $49,200.
2. Used and Useful:
The used and useful adjustment percentage of 11.70
calculated by Breezy Village was based on buildable lots,
not daily flows and plant capacity. The staff did a cal-
culation based on the highest daily sewer flow and plant
capacity and found the percentage of plant reserved for
future customers to be 26%.
It is the staff's feeling that the Used and Useful
adjustment percentage be 26 for the following reasons:
1. Highest daily flows and plant capacity is the most
commonly accepted method of computing the percentage of
plant capacity being used.
2. It also is felt
plant that he should
since this would be
the customer..
that if the developer oversizes his
absorb those costs, not the customer,
an oversight or fault of his and not
MAY 2 1984 92 BOOK 56 PAGE 891
MpY 2 1984 BOOK
3. Net Operating Income:
56 ` PA' GE 892
The staff concurred with everything with the
following exceptions:
1. Dr. Wilson is requesting a fee of $2,600.00
yearly for performing daily management. It is
believed that this should be denied since.he is
already requesting $200.00 per month,.$2,400.00
yearly for checking mechanical equipment daily.
2. Dr. Wilson has requested $2,400.00 yearly for
daily checking and maintaining mechanical equipment
daily. However, there are complaints by residents
that the equipment is not checked daily. If the
Board of County Commission, after the public input,
feels this is true, this $2,400.00 figure could be
reduced to a justifiable amount.
RATE OF RETURN:
The staff feels a justifiable rate of return for a utility
under prudent and economical management is 10%, not 13.70
as requested. If after public input the Board of County
Commissioners feels that Breezy Village is not being run with
prudent and economicdl management, then the rate of return can
be reduced accordingly.
Attorney Henderson noted that Mr. Baird raises three
areas of concern. He stated that they are in agreement with
his recommendation for treatment of connection fees and as
to what the rate of return should be. As to the question of
the used and useful adjustment to the rate base, they are
agreeable in theory. There are a few other items related to
expenses, etc., they will need to discuss, and some other
things Mr. Baird has mentioned that are not contained in his
report, but Attorney Henderson did not believe they will
have much problem coming to agreement on these. He
emphasized, however, they are not prepared to submit
evidence at the rate schedule hearing. He, therefore,
suggested that the Board go ahead and deny the rate schedule
requested, subject to a review being requested and a second
hearing within 30 days. Attorney.Henderson pointed out that
they are losing money on this utility and cannot afford to
wait too long.
Considerable discussion ensued wherein the Chairman and
Board members stressed that the Commission has purposely
93
evolved a policy of holding rate hearings at a time when as
many members of the public as possible can be present to
give their input.
Attorney Henderson emphasized that he is not here to
cut off the public input and he had no objection to the
Commission taking testimony from the people present today.
He did not feel, however, that the present rate request is
relevant and believed it would be more fitting to allow them
to amend their request and then take all the testimony.
Discussion continued as to what would be a good time to
hold another hearing if it were to be continued, and members
of the audience indicated there shouldn't be another hearing
until next January.
Eric Pollard, representing Breezy Village Property
Owners Association, pointed out that not only do they not
agree with Attorney Henderson's proposal, they do not agree
entirely with staff's proposals. They contend that the rate
schedule is ballooned way out of proportion; they have the
numbers and information to back up their contention; and
this should be presented to the Board and taken into
consideration before a proposed rate schedule is amended and
brought back to the Board. Mr. Pollard noted that if
Attorney Henderson wishes to put this off until next
December, that would be fine, but he did not see why the
Attorney could not go ahead with the hearing the same as
they are willing to since they also received the Utility
Department report only five days ago.
Attorney Henderson noted that he could simply cut off
public input by withdrawing the rate increase request, but
he did not want to do that. He stated that if the people
wish to make a presentation, they can be sworn in and he
will cross examine; however, he felt that putting off a
final hearing until December would be a denial of due
process to the applicant.
94
MAY 2 1984
BOOK M PAGE 893
MAY 2 1984 BOOK W PAGE 8.9
The Board continued to discuss a way to both provide
the applicant with a timely hearing and also let the public
be heard, and it was noted that in the case of Hutchinson
Utilities in The Moorings, the Board held the hearing,
received testimony and took it under advisement for staff
and a consultant to analyze, and then several months later
issued the final order. Commissioner Wodtke explained in
detail the entire procedure involved in reaching the final
order.
Commissioner Bird believed that we will have to lean
heavily on staff to analyze and come up with a fair and
reasonable rate and rate of return that hopefully will
represent a good compromise that both the property owners
and applicant can live with.
Utility Director Pinto expressed his feeling that we
should proceed with the hearing and take all the testimony,
which will be sworn testimony, from the applicant and the
homeowners
association.
He explained
that staff's review
will be to
determine what
they feel is
an adequate revenue
requirement for the utility. The Order to establish the
rates would then come to the Commission for action, and at
that point the applicant has the ability to agree with the
order or disagree with it.
Commissioner Bird elaborated to those present on how
this would work - how the necessary revenue would be
determined and what rate structure is needed to generate it.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we will do this in-house and
then staff will solicit expert advice if needed; Director
Pinto did not feel in this case an outside consultant would
be needed.
Commissioner Lyons emphasized that he does want to hear
what these people have to say, but he still wondered what
our position is if Mr. Henderson says he will withdraw his
request.
95
M
L�
Attorney Henderson stated that he is not withdrawing
the request; he is saying that they are not going to present
testimony in support of the present rate request which needs
amending. Instead of thinking in terms of reapplying, his
recommendation was that we continue the process of submit-
ting a revised rate schedule to staff and proceed to a final
order and final hearing. He stressed, however, that his
client is not willing to wait until December for a final
hearing.
The audience reacted loudly to this statement.
Attorney Brandenburg recommended that the Commission
proceed according to the Utility Director's outline and then
have staff do an analysis and present an order.
Attorney Henderson reiterated that they have no
testimony in support of the present rate request.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the information previously
received from Breezy Village Water & Sewer Company can be
received in evidence. Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that
it could.
Attorney Henderson asked that their application be
admitted into the record.
Staff memo re the above application is as follows, and
the Exhibits listed are on file in the Office of the Clerk:
M
MaY 21984 _
BOOK 56 FACE 895
MAY 21984
BOOK 56 PAGE 896 r
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THDATE: April 23, 1984 FILE:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH: Michael Wright UTILITY FRANCHISE -
County Administrator SUBJ ECT:BREEZY VILLAGE, INC.:
TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP
REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN RATES
A) 7/1/81 BCC Minutes
,AB) Rate Justification Report
FROM: Joyce S. Hamilto u� C) Rate Review Committee Repor
Franchise Administ for REFERENCES: D) inspection Report
Utility Services E) Seller's Letter
F) Resolution
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Breezy Village, Inc., appeared before the Board July 1, 1981,
requesting a transfer of ownership and a change in rates. The
Board instructed Breezy Village, Inc., to provide them with
additional financial information from the point of the actual
sale of the assets in October, 1978, including any pertinent
information that may be required by staff and upon receipt of
this information, another public hearing for the franchise
transfer and rate increase would be held (Exhibit "A").
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES:
Rate Change: The owner has submitted a rate justification report
(Exhibit "B"). The Rate Review Committee has recommended the
requested rate be denied (Exhibit "C").
The present and proposed rates are as follows:
WATER
SEWER
Present rates:
Quantity charges:
0 - 3,000 gallons - minimum bill
3/4" x 5/8" meter
6.76
6.76
1" meter
11.70
11.70
1 1/4" & 1 1/2" meter
22.50
22.50
2" meter
30.76
30.76
3" & 4" meter
54.00
54.00
6" meter
75.00
75.00
Next 12,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons
1.06
1..06
Next 25,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons
.90
.90
Next 35,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons
.78
.78
Next 75,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons
.66
.66
Connection charges
375.00
375.00
Proposed rates:
Quantity charges:
Service Availability Charge - no consumption
allowance, to be paid every month regardless
of consumption ( even if meter is temporarily
turned off)
3/4" x 5/8" meter
11.67
11.67
1" meter
29.18
29.18
1 1/2" meter
58.35
58.35
2" meter
93.36
93.36
3" meter
186.72
186.72
4" meter
291.75
291.75
6" meter
583.50
583.50
Multi -family, master metered, per unit
11.67
11.67
Consumption Charge:
Per 1,000 gallons
5.06
5.06
* Sewer will not be billed on residential
metered water consumption above 12,000
gallons. This "cap" is established so
that sewer customers will not be billed
for water not returned to the sewer.
W7
MAY
All utility bills must be paid in full within 20 days of the dare of
the bill or service may be terminated. Service will not be restored
until all amounts owed the utility, including the turn off and turn
on charge, have been paid.
Proposed rates:
Connection charges:
3/4" x 5/8" meter
1" meter
1 1/2" meter
2" meter
3" meter
4" meter
6" meter
Meter installation fee:
3/4" x 5/8" meter
1" meter
1 1/2" meter
2" meter
Over 2".
* Meters larger than 2" shall be provided and
installed by the customer. Meter type, design
and installation shall be prescribed and
approved by the Utility.
Miscclleneous charges:
Water turn on - during regular hours for new
customers or re-establishment of service at
customer's request or for non-payment
Water turn off - during regular hours for non-
payment, at request of customer or for
customer closing account
Water turn on — during other than regular hours
Customer tampering with meter - including turning
on own meter after turned off by the utility
for non-payment
Returned check - Florida Statute
Damage to utility property or any item not covered
above - time, materials and administrative charge
(administrative charge to be $15.00 or 15% of
time and materials,.whichever is greater)
WATER SEWER
500.00 500.00
1,250.00 1,250.00
2,500.00 2,500.00
4,000.00 4,000.00
8,000.00 8,000.00
12,500.00 12,500.00
25,000.00 25,000.00
125.00
180.00
370.00
460.00
10.00
10.00
30.00
25.00
Indian River County charges:
Franchise fee - As set by the County and shown separately on the bill
Renewal and Replacement Fund - As set by the County and shown sep&vately
on the bill
CIAC - As set by the County under Ordinances 80-21 and 80-22 and will
apply to all new utility customer's
This system has been inspected recently by this division's
environmental engineering specialist (Exhibit "D"). This
report states the wastewater treatment plant was operating
satisfactorily at time of inspection and the water plant
was in need of minor repairs and painting.
Transfer of Ownership: Applicant and seller have met the
minimum requirements to transfer ownership of this utility
franchise (Exhibit "E").
REMO IMENDATION:
Rate Change: Staff recommends that repairs be made per the
specialist's report and that rates be adjusted per the rate
review committee's report.
Transfer of Ownership: Staff recommends the transfer of owner-
ship of this utility franchise be completed at this time.
98
2 1984 BOOK 56 PACE Qn
897
MAY 21994 BOOK 56 PACE 898
Chairman Scurlock questioned how anyone can comment
intelligently on a proposal that is going to be amended and
come back to the Board in a different form.
Mr. Pollard stated that he had no objections to the
procedure staff is proposing; the numbers they will present
today will not change and the homeowners just want them
taken and put into the record and reviewed by staff before a
recommendation is made.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the homeowners would not
have an objection to an order taken in their absence as he
felt there would be a recommendation as to rates within a 90
day period.
Mr. Pollard stated that they would not as long as their
numbers are entered and taken into consideration. He
continued that he would however, object to the transfer of
the franchise at this time because there are numbers which
are going to come up today where there is a dual responsi-
bility between the seller and buyer of the assets, and until
these numbers are put in the right place and it can be
determined who is responsible, he did not feel the assets
should be transferred. He stated that he is primarily
referring to CIAO.
Attorney Brandenburg asked if Attorney Henderson would
be willing to stipulate for all Mr. Pollard's material to be
received into the record right now so it does not need to be
read out and gone over individually.
Attorney Henderson believed he would if he could ask
Mr. Pollard some questions.
Chairman Scurlock swore in Eric Pollard.
Attorney Henderson asked Mr. Pollard if the numbers he
is referring to relate to CIRC.
Mr. Pollard stated that they relate to CIAO, to capital
equipment, insurance, taxes, expenses, etc., and he did not
feel he could hand all this in without reviewing it first.
99
4
a4
Attorney Henderson stated that he would stipulate that
the package Mr.Pollard has reference to can be submitted
into evidence subject to the Board's determination as to its
creditability and substance.
Mr. Pollard requested that the Chairman call those
named in the following list to make statements representing
Breezy Village Home Owners Association:
3 " BREEZY VILLAGE
140NIE OWNERS A SS'N. EVC.
P. 0. Box 565
`-- `— SEBASTIAN. FLORIDA 32958
Breezy Village Home Owners Assoc'n Inc.
Before
The Indian�River County Board of Commissioners
FORMAT
Sam Romano. Mater Conditions & Service
Vince Peltier Comparison of 1981 Rate Request to
proposed 1983
Jim Sanders Area Rate Comparisons
Bob Wilson Possible increase of Water Consumption
Silverster Strang Rate Structure
Eric Pollard Credability,
Errors in Finar_cil Exhibit,
Meter Reading over -charge,
Request for Denial
I j MAY _ 2 1984
.. ��.
100
BOOK 56 PACE 899
AY 2 1984
Chairman Scurlock called Sam Romano and swore him in.
Mr. Romano, 61st Parkway, Breezy Village, dished to
state for the record that the water is unfit for normal
household consumption. He then read an exerpt from the
Minutes of the Breezy Village Home Owners Association
meeting of June 25, 1980, which indicated that when the
water is used for cooking, an oily film forms on the surface
of the water. The Minutes further indicated that while both
the E.P.A. and Breezy Village Water & Sewer Company have
agreed that this is an aggravation but not a contamination,
they do recognize there is a film of some sort. Mr. Romano
continued that today the water is no better; fixtures are
stained as well as laundry; and many people will not use
the water for drinking or cooking. Service simply does not
exist, and the proposed rate increase is not warranted.
The Chairman next swore in Vincent Peltier.
Mr. Peltier, 9870 61st Terrace, Breezy Village, made -a
comparison of the 1981 rate request to the proposed 1983
rate request, noting that in July of 1981, the Breeze
Village Sewer & Water Co. requested authority to increase
their rates as follows:
Present Proposed
Ownership Edward T. Karr, Partner James L. Wilson, Partner
Name of Franchise Breezy Village, Ltd. Sewer Breezy Village Sewer and
and Water Franchise Water Co., Inc.
Rates
Water
First 3,000
gallons
Next 12,000
gallons
First 2,000
gallons
all over 2,000 gals.
Sewer
First 3,000
gallons
Next 12,000
gallons
First 2,000
gallons
All over 2,000 gallons
$6.76
1.06 per 1,000 gals.
6.76
1.06 per 1,000 gals.
Turnoff (for intermittent user)
Reconnect (for intermittent user)
$7.10
1.50 per 1,000 gals.
$7.10
87; of $1.50 per 1,000
gals. up to 10,000
additional gallons,
-ma x i ,tum
No charge
530.00
Mr. Peltier stated that this increase wa`s denied primarily
based on bookkeeping problems. He pointed out that the cost
of living index in 1982 was 3.9% and in 1983, it was 3.8%
for a total of 7.9%. With this in mind and the fact that no
actual changes have been made in operation, he did not see
how anyone could justify a 402% increase.
The Chairman swore in Jim Sanders, 6165 98th Lane,
Breezy Village. Mr. Sanders spoke on area rate comparisons
and stated that the proposed rates are obviously irrational.
He referred to a cost comparison chart based on 3,000
gallons of water and 3,000 gallons of sewer, pointing out
the cost at Bent Pine, the City of Vero Beach, and other
subdivisions, which is in the vicinity of $15.00 while
Breezy Village would be $53.70. Mr. Sanders requested that
the Board look at these numbers and render a rational
decision.
The Chairman next swore in Bob Wilson, 6150 98th Lane,
Breezy Village. Mr. Wilson discussed the problem that has
developed in Breezy Village as a result of sand mining
operations next to them. It seems this operation has
depleted some of their surface wells and threatens to
deplete even more. The loss of this supplemental irrigation
would necessitate their drawing additional water from the
Breezy Village Company, but the added cost would prohibit
residents from watering their yards and cause ruin of their
green belts.
Chairman Scurlock swore in Sylvester Strang, 9750 61st
Place, Breezy Village. Mr. Strang addressed the rate
structure and stated that there are several items in the
Breezy Village Co. financial statement they are in
contention with. He referred to Page 2 of their Exhibit
"B", which is as follows:
102
BOOK X5'6 PACE .901
�►� 2 1504
MAY 21984 BOOK
BREEZY VILLAGE WATER b SEWER Co., INC.
RATE BASE
Land
Wells
Water and sewer plants
Generator
Improvements to sewage plant lines
Deep well turbine (submersible) pump
Accumulated depreciation
Net utility plant, at original cost
Used and useful adjustment (11.7%)
Contributions in aid of construction (CIRC)
Amortization of CZAC
Net utility plant used and useful
Working capital allowance
Rate base
56 PAGE 96
DECEMBER 31,
1982
1983
$ 7,000
$ 7,000
11,162
11,162
141,717
141,717
4,075
4,075
8,640
8,640
98
6,422 (1)
(44,826)
(51,038)
127,768
127,978
(14,949)(2)
(14,973)(2)
(11,250)
(12,750)
.882
1,377
102,451
101,632
2,989
2,981
INUM �, 6
(1) Deep well turbine (submersible) pump in well must be replaced.
Per McCullers & Howard Well Drilling, the cost will be $6,422.
(2) Present customers _
87
Vacant lots
24
Total potential customers
111
Excess capacity percentage
10%
Excess capacity allowance
11
Present customers
S7
Used and useful
98
Reserve for future customers
13
Total
M
Mr. Strang referred to the figure of $14,973 under the
heading of Used and useful adjustment for 1983, noting that
figure represents monies expected to be received from
customers as they tie in. Under this new proposal, they are
requesting $1,000 per hookup, and Mr. Strang claimed that
since there are 24 lots left, this figure should read
$24,000. Mr. Strang further noted that the homeowners
disagree with both staff and the Breezy Village Co. on CIAC
103
2
since each and everyone of them has paid $750 per hookup,
and he has written statements attesting to this. Therefore,
87 units at $750 each would amount to $65,250 and not
$12,750 as shown on the exhibit. He believed staff is using
a base figure of $300.
Mr. Pinto and Mr. Baird pointed out that it would be
$600 for sewer and for water, and Mr. Baird noted that in
his memo he stated that the $300 for water and $300 for
sewer was a "minimum" connection charge.
Mr. Strang informed the Board that they could have all
his statements if they desired. He continued that he was
sure other figures will be challenged, but pointed out that
just the ones presented so far result in dropping the base
rate down to $43,086.
Mr. Strang then requested that the Board turn to Page 5
of the Breezy Village Co. Exhibit "B", which is as follows:
104
MAY 21984
BOOK 56 PAGE 903
.MAY 2 1984
RFVI:T+'UE
Water
Sever
Connection fees
Total
BREEZY VILLAGE WATER 6 SEWER. CO., INC.
STATEMENT OF INCO`X
PROFORMA YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1983
BOOK 59" PAGE 994
M
PRESENT RATES 1983
111/83 - 6/30/63 7/1/83 - PROFORMA
PER ADJUSIMENTS 12/31/83 1983 RATE AT PROPOSED
BOOKS DR. CR. ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROFORMA ADJUSTMENTS RATES
$ 3,785 $ 3,785 $ 3,145 (8) $ 6,930 4 16,188 (12) $ 23,116
3,785 3,785 3,145 (8) 6,930 16,188 (12) 23,118
1.500 1.50 (1) -0-
9.070 1.500 7.570 6,290 13.860 32.375 .46,236
OPERATING EXPE%SES
Depreciation
3,180
$ 642 (2)
2,538
3,180
(9)
5,718
5,718
Electricity
1,575
1,575
1,575
3,150
3,150
Contract services
1,490
380 (3)
1,110
1,110
2.220
2,220
Operator
1,200
1,200
1,200
2,400
2,400
Bookkeeping 6 office
supplies, 883
883
883
1,766
1,766
Repairs
607
380 (4)
987
2,867
(10)
3,854
3,854
Miscellaneous
432
432
432
864
664
Ground maintenance
418
418
582
(11)
1,000
I-0ODO
Sludge removal
250
250
250
500
500
Telephone
170
170
170
340
'340
Chemicals
120
120
120
240
240
Professional fees
1,500
1,500
1;500
Insurance
323
323
323
Taxes
450
450
450
Rate case expense
$ 1.500 (13)
1,500
Management fee
1,300 (5)
1;300
1,300
2.600
2,600
Auto expense
520 (6)
520
520
1,040
1.040
Payroll taxes
43 (7)
43
59
(7)
102
102
Total
9
10.325
2.243
1,022
11,546
16,521
28.047
1.500
24.567
I1NCO (LOSS))
S (}S�
1 022
$fes) 10 ?3)
(14,207)
30,876
26,669
PRnvISION FOR INCOME TAXES
2,996 (14)
2.996
NET 7NCrn••SE1�ZZU)I_Zlj
1$An
RAT. BASE
O 61
RETURN ON RATE BASE
�
5;
Mr. Strang stated that the above exhibit is ambiguous
and very misleading since the first six columns are based
upon usage at a 3,000 gallon minimum rate while in the last
column under the proposed rates, they switch to a 2,000
gallon minimum in order to show a lower profit. In
addition, the pro forma figure of $13,860 for total sewer
and water revenue for 1983 does not include any overages for
those who use 4,000 or 5,000 gallons. Mr. Strang believed
if these figures were corrected to represent 3,000 gallons
throughout the exhibit, the anticipated income at proposed
rates should be considerably higher than the $46,000 shown.
He further felt the operating expenditure figure of $29,567,
in the sixth column was very questionable, and if this
105
MAY
inflated figure were subtracted from the true revenue figure
of $56,652, the net income would be accordingly higher and
the actual return on rate base would be a lower percentage.
Mr. Strang then noted that the federal government has
now ruled that a 3.7% cost of living increase would be
harmful to the economy so it was postponed to January of
1985. If the government thinks 3.7% is too much, he
wondered what the Board thought the people should feel about
a 402% increase in rates. Mr. Strang strongly requested
that the Commissioners make no decision, send this back for
correction, and talk about it again in 1985.
Attorney Henderson stated that he would like to have
the figures Mr. Strang cited submitted in writing to his
client's CPA and he would like to meet with staff and review
all this. Mr. Strang stated that he would like to be
included in such a meeting and he would have these figures
with him.
Eric Pollard took the floor representing the Homeowners
Association and noted that they recognize the rights of
utility companies, but they are here to protest a proposed
rate increase whiQh is nothing more than a sham. He noted
that on September 22, 1983, the Florida Supreme Court made a
decision that use of estimated future financial data in a
projected test year could be used in deciding a utility
rate, but the High Court also stated the utility company
must support the accuracy of its estimate. Mr. Pollard
continued that they have and will -prove today that the
Breezy Village Water & Sewer Company fails to meet this
criteria. Historically their bookkeeping has been less than
substandard. He then cited Case No. 88-1131 Circuit Court
of Indian River County, Breezy Village Management, defen-
dant, Breezy Village Homeowners, Plantiffs, and reported
that the Breezy Village management was denied an increase in
their maintenance fee because their accounting records
106
21984 BOOK 56 PAGE 905
M Ay 21984 BOOK 56 PACE 996
failed to ascertain with any degree of certainty the true
expenses incurred.
Attorney Henderson wished to enter a continuing
objection to this testimony.
Mr. Pollard then quoted from the letter written by
Lorne Hunsberger, CPA, which states that he would express no
opinion on the accuracy of the projections in the financial
report or the validity of the assumptions on which they are
based. Said letter is as follows:
LOUIE U1 HUNSBEMER FIR
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
2117 S. DALE MABRY
TAMPA. FLORIDA 33609
(813) 253-6oFi5
Breezy Village Water & Sewer Co., Inc.
Vero Beach, Florida
The accompanying Indian River County Rate Case Financial Exhibit of Breezy
Village Water &.Sewer Co., Inc. for the proforma year ended December 31, 1983
and the year ended December 31, 1982 was compiled by me based on assumptions
as to future transactions and events and other information provided to me by
management. This compilation was limited to preparing the appropriate schedules
for a rate increase application from the Company's records. Because the scope
of my engagement and the uncertainty inherent in any projection of future events,
I express no opinion on this Financial Exhibit, the accuracy of the projections,
or on the validity of the assumptions on which they are based.
This report is intended solely for filing with Indian River County and is nut
intended for any other purpose. Accordingly, it does not include all the dis-
closures required for a fair presentation in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.
January 10, 1984
107
Mr. Pollard believed the above letter introduced the
element of credibility, and stated that they will show a
pattern of improprieties and failure of management to
support the accuracy of its estimates in the proforma year
as well as other irregularities. Mr. Pollard then referred
to Exhibits "L-1" and "L-2", which he had passed out, as
follows:
108
MAY
2 84
BOOK 56' PACE 90 7
MAY 21994
PAF PACE a
Loup
wEt1.8
W.47m � sfwm pi l7Nrs
G61vrRAToA
Z'�+ r O V CP.v e.l t To
SIZAAe PdBN'T b1/vis
D"p WA4 Turpb. puM{
Gvgfcv
A �.
#-* TOTAL
BOOK 56 PAGE 996
AEC. 1983
, TAN. 198+1
C 0 M PAISO
/St.
Oe. Sa b.; Me
Is 1 ?" A
faa►+cia i
inan?Iiq 1
�iif<inCi4
.r.y t
�xJ,;b;t
®rY ;;g f
I
SAME
96 7/9.
y 1, 7/ 7.
+ x'?98
/b%
44'a 7r.
t 3908
0•
I
S,Go• i+
S6"io
0.
6,��a.
+ 44.21
13,99fe.
0•
— 131'9y
13 F,22
0.
- t 3 8-2-a
�34,�aa. � 1 %9,01 �• �+ �$ �/�
kUrIM41e� be reC • /s; 8a.�
Net at:.l;� pf4H f
a'6 Gosfi1
��A✓ti�ctio^ wf'CI A C. j 13a.
L4T I L1Try►� PLANT
gL,�su.
&- t; l d Allow.
KATE
C 12, 7sa.)+� 9, 7-0)
h 377. 't /, a *r
+
/Dy, G is t '� 7SA
S'ner�ase�l ff ccca,�u%f�� �Q Yet; qf• an -�- (35' SSL
P
l4SE� � GISEFH� A4�kaTM��IT � /, Dag)
70 1 .�� �reQs �
e � Co1H�� too. C2
109
BREEZY VILLAGE WATER & SEWER CO.. --INC.
RATE BASE
Land
Water plant
Sewer plant
Water plant equipment
Sewer plant equipment
Generator
Accumulated depreciation
Net utility plant, at cost
Used and useful adjustment (13.9%) (2)
Contributions in aid of construction (CIRC)
Amortization of CIAC
Net utility plant used and useful
Working capital allowance
Rate base
DECEMBER 31,
1982 1983
$ 7,00 $7,000
8,9 1 55,363 (1)
0,3 6 40,356
1 94 13,894
1 ,�22 13,822
167 167
8 480) (,15,482)
115;,700 115,120
(16, 82) (16,002)
(�, 00) (3,000)
3 132
�A99
96,250
3,611
�099 6
(1) Deep well turbine (submersible) pump in well must be replaced.
Per McCullers & Howard Well Drilling, the cost will be $6,422.
(2) Present customers
87
Vacant lots
28
Total potential customers
115
Excess capacity percentage
10%
Excess capacity allowance
12
Present customers
87
Used and useful allowance
99
Reserve for future customers
16
Total
Mr. Pollard noted that"L-211, which actually is a copy
of Page 2 of the Breezy Village Financial Report, Exhibit
"B", verifies that his numbers in the three columns on
Exhibit "L-1"are correct. Mr. Pollard went on to review the
columns, noting that the first column shows a total of
$130,602 while Column 2 shows a total of $179,016, which
apparently indicates that from December of 1983 to January
of 1984, the capital investment increased by $48,000.
110
MAY 21984
ROOK P";r 9
MAY 2 1984
BOOK 56 PAGE 910 -
Question arises as to which figure is correct, and his
belief that the first column is correct is based on the
income tax records of Jim Wilson.
Mr. Pollard next discussed a figure of $6,422 for a
pump which has not yet been purchased or installed and also
the use of a figure in 1983 of $167 for a generator, which
jumped in one month to around $4,000. Mr. Pollard contended
that the reason these figures were inflated on the January
report was because in November the Home Owners Association
challenged the accumulated depreciation, which was shown as
$15,000 on the first exhibit; so, they jumped it up to
$51,000, and this, of course, had to be offset in order not
to lower the rate base. Mr. Pollard did not question the
figure for the used and useful, which decreased, as the lots
available decreased from 28 to 24, but he noted that in
December of 1983, CIAC was shown as ($3,000) and when this
figure was challenged, it was increased to ($12,750.)
Mr. Pollard then reviewed the figures set out at the
bottom of Exhibit "L-1", emphasizing that the used and
useful, (which staff figures on the basis of capacity and he
figures on lots) and the CIAC which he claims should be
$65,250, are way out of proportion.
Mr. Pollard then referred to Page 3 of the Breezy
Village Co. Finance Statement noting that this is very
similar to Page 5, the pro forma year.
Page 3, Exhibit "B", is as follows:
111
BRrE:.": VILT-AGE WATER &
SEWER Co.,
INC.
ST-!LT-r"ZNT SOF
INCA
PRESENT RATE$
YMAR
E.A DED DEC----f9ER
31 1982
PER
ADJus
;m-pF TTs
REVENUEREVENUEBOOKS
DR
CR.
ADJ` USiED
Water
$ 5,970
$ 5,970-
Sewer
5,970
5,970
Connection fees
1,500 S 1,500
(1)
-0-
Tot
Total
�,i
13,-i0
1.500
1_ 1_ a40:
OPEFUTi G EX?E'tiSES
Depreciation
6,360
$ 1,202 (2)
5,158
Repairs
6,107
6,107
Electricity
3 860
Contract services
,
2,405
3,$60 2,405
Office and administrative
1,833
Professional fees
1;750.
1,833
Miscellaneous
795
1,7501
Taxes
563
155 (3)
795
408
Insurance
323
Telephone
111
229
(4)
323
34
Operator
2,400
(5)
20
Management fee
2,600
(6}
,340
2,600
Auto expense
1,040
(7)
1,040,
Payroll taxes
47
(8)
47
Total
24,107
6,316
1,357
29,066
I:+COQ (LOSS)
0 667) S
—
(7,816 )
c 1.357
0
3
Mr. Pollard referred to the last column on Page 3 -
Revenue as Adjusted, which shows $5,970 for water and $5,970
for sewer, a total of $11,940. and stated this is absolutely
incorrect. Just at the minimum rate this should be $13,926,
plus what was collected for water which was consumed over
the 3,000 gallon minimum.
Mr. Pollard then claimed that the amount of $1,833 for
Office and Administrative Expense is a double dip.because
Mr. Wilson charges BVA for bookkeeping and administration,
and they are a separate entity. This is also true in regard
7'A 2 1984112 BOOK 6 PAGE.91r1
MAY 2 1994n
BOOK .56.1 ME 912
to the amount shown for monthly maintenance of the
recreation area, roads and common ground. In regard to
Miscellaneous, Mr. Pollard reported that he has documenta-
tion showing, that miscellaneous consists of cash checks made
out to Jim Wilson for everything under the sun, including a
six-pack and lunch. Taxes are shown as $563 with a credit
of $155, or $408 in 1982, and Mr. Pollard stated that
records show that Mr. Wilson paid $142, not $408.
Mr. Pollard then informed the Board that the water and
sewer plant never paid insurance in 1981, 1982, or 1983.
This was paid by Breezy Village Association, a separate
entity, and he has the insurance policy and the cancelled
check signed by James Wilson, marked Exhibit "M", as
follows:
rHR�.�.mj�/�■���
BREEZY VILLAGE
63-857
670
PAY
2
171-6 DOLLARS
CHECK NO
PATE
GROSSAMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT
!DISCOUNT
GY 3 G G
+- =i l
^
,THEA)RIMR
OF
, .
BREEZY VILLAGE
t
COMMERCIAL BANK OF VERO BEACH
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
i
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
1120
000455 II• 1:06 7008 5 791: II'00
00 k l 2
.1100000 3 2 300.1'
7
0 Z
Mr. Pollard felt Mr. Wilson's figure of $111 for
telephone expense was realistic, but noted that Mr.
Hunsberger came up with $340. Mr. Pollard then argued the
figure of $2400 for an operator, noting that Jim 11ilson is
the operator and it says he has to check the equipment
daily. Mr. Pollard stated that Mr. Wilson is there two days
a month, at the most three; so the $2,400 should be -reduced
to $240, paying him at the same rate they are requesting but
at the number of days he is there. He has a contractor who
113
comes in twice a week to check on the water*and sewer plant,
which he pays $2400. Mr. Pollard contended that the
management fee also should be figured on the same basis,
i.e., two days a month, and should be $260 not $2600.
Mr. Pollard then challenged auto expense, noting that
BVA pays for the gasoline from Miami and Fort Lauderdale and
Mr. Wilson charges mileage on top of that, and then he
charges $1,040 to the water and sewer plant for mileage.
When Mr.Wilson is in the subdivision, the time is divided
between water and sewer and BVA, and Mr. Pollard felt there
is a double dip there.
Mr. Pollard next stated that the residents know that
Mr. Wilson doesn't pay payroll taxes; he has said so; and
while the amount shown for payroll taxes is only $47.00,
there is a principle involved and the figure should be zero.
Mr. Pollard claimed that the statement of income for 1982 is
false, and he felt it should be disqualified from the
exhibit. Mr. Pollard then summed up his earlier comments on
Page 5, Exhibit B, stating that they would not accept many
of these figures unless they were audited.
Chairman Scurlock asked that a copy of the Court Order
referred to earlier be made a part of the record.
Mr. Pollard stated that he will make it available, but
he felt Attorney Henderson had objected to this.
The Chairman and Commissioner Wodtke believed that what
Attorney Henderson had objected to was the editorializing by
Mr. Pollard.
Mr. Pollard then went on to discuss discrepancies in
meter readings and overcharges, claiming that the
overcharges were made by Mr. Wilson with forethought as
proved by two letters written in 1979 to Phil Tumolo giving
instruction on how to read the meters and how to price them.
To demonstrate his claim of incorrect billing, Mr. Pollard
submitted Exhibit "N", Page 1 and 2, as follows:
114
MAY 2 1984 BOOK 56 PAGE 913
F,
SERVICE n
NT PAST DUE
UTILITY
water UTILITY
PAST DUE b �
sewer � BVA
BVA 11 7Y
CurrBill antTOTAL I
BILL
Broery Vipege Aesa<srnent;
meintenence of Public area & ACCOUNT NUMBER
meintenenee and operation
of recreation facilities .2
Pon date:
-7
J /
DUE DATE J / N
SERVICE ADORES BILLING DATE
EMERGENCY PHONE NO 5894054 $67
G a
l'jg nv�
r�
11�- BREEZY Y VILLAGE UTILITIES &
PAYMENT BREEZY VILLAGE ASSOC'N INC.
T0: P.O. Box 1285 . VERO BEACH D O:tl.
FLORIDA 32960
PM
Prey. read A.2 7.22 / 8 Curt. read 0 9/
CONSUMPTION 41N THOUSANDS .�1G
3c+P @ SERVICE AMOUNT
9 it' e
6167 �W
y
PAST DILE
UTILITY
TOTAL
UTILITY
PAST DUE Q, rO
BVA v
BVA 16
% 73
6, b % — I ,ewer I 7 F
3
Current �� J
Bill TOTAL
BILL�L
Breezy Village Aesesfinent;
maintenance of Public area & ACCOUNT NUMBER.
meintenanee and operation
Of recreation facilities. 7, f 44..)-,?//
OVA
KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS KEEP THIS PORTION FOR
BREEZY VILLAGE UTILITIES &
water
PAYMENT
BREEZY VILLAGE ASSOC'N 1
sewer
TO:
P.O. Box 1285 . VERO B iI C.v
FLORIDA
32960 4
�•
f
KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS KEEP THIS PORTION FOR
BREEZY VILLAGE UTILITIES &
water
PAYMENT
BREEZY VILLAGE ASSOC'N 1
sewer
TO:
P.O. Box 1285 . VERO B iI C.v
FLORIDA
32960 4
�•
Prov. read
Curr.
T _
CONSUMPTION (IN THOUSANDS ,iP�Aca
,�s1
SERVICE
AMOUNT PAST DUE
r
UTILITY
water
TOTAL
7 73 UTILITY
severer
PAST DUE
% 73 BVA �Z
OO
BVA �/
�♦
NG DATE '
EMERGENCY PHONE N0. 589.1054 '
nn
BOOK 56 PAGE 914
�x����
DIRECT
BREEZY VILLAGE UTILITIES &
water
PAYMENT
BREEZY VILLAGE ASSOC'N 1
sewer
TO:
P.O. Box 1285 . VERO B iI C.v
FLORIDA
32960 4
�•
Prov. read
Curr.
T _
CONSUMPTION (IN THOUSANDS ,iP�Aca
,�s1
SERVICE
AMOUNT PAST DUE
r
UTILITY
water
TOTAL
7 73 UTILITY
severer
PAST DUE
% 73 BVA �Z
OO
BVA �/
�♦
!d -}r Lien dace
DUE DATE
SERVICE AD RESS BILLING DATE t
EMERGENCY PHONE NO. 589.4054 t
#" Current (Zeo TOTAL i,t O �l r
-�o b pe: M BinIi
� ♦ � Breezy Y'rMa9e Aeaetasment; ACCOUNT NUMBER
rneintenence of Public eras Et i
maintertenee. and operation
Of recreation facilities. •.7
EL
DUE DATE C:1
SERVICE AD RESS BILLI
YOUR RECORDS
�� � � C. � e � r �+ C sir i4. ✓ � ` tiff Q � A/7 Q
DIRECT BREEZY VILLAGE UTILITIES &
PAYMENT BREEZY VILLAGE ASSOC'N INC.
T0: P.O. Box 1285 . VERO BEACH
FLORIDA 32960
Prev. read C.2 Curr. read a, ->J 02,0%
CONSUMPTION (IN THOUSANDS &.%?
%
.ib 9�, X -�, �,3s 7
SERVICE
AMOUNT
water
%
73
sewer
7
3
Current
.Bill
( f
PAST DUE I I
UTILITY
®'T Sealcv d kiea �t®
DIRECT - BREEZY VILLAGE UTILITIES &
PAYMENT BREEZY VILLAGE ASSOC'N INC. .
, TO: P.O. Box 1285 . VERO BEACH
FLORIDA 32960
,
Prov' f08d G'a c.L cc o JS' Curr.
I CONSUMPTION (IN THOUSANDS)
read 74
.?
r
TOTAL �-
UTILITY
�a ,
PAST DUE
BVA i
,
BVA 12 ,j i
TOTAL .e)O I 111
BILL 8
Breezy Village Assessment; ACCOUNT NUMBER
mmaintenance of Public area &
aintenance and operation
of recreation facilities
BVA �a JJ to. r
DUE DATE
'"/ 7� �� t,La,�., a? / �2
SERVICE ADDRESS BILLING DATE
EMERGENCY PHONE NO 589.40554 567.1763
KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
115
MAY 2 1984
.1763
KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
f
DIRECT BREEZY VILLAGE UTILITIES
PAYMENT BREEZY VILLAGE ASSOC'N INC.
TO: P.O. Box 1285 VERO BEACH ,\
FLORIDA 32960
Prov read via? 8`J� la O Curr. read j
/i
CONSUMPTION (IN THOUSANDS!4a*�
-- Z
SERVICE AMOUNT
water 9 �9
sewer 0 7C1
PAST DUE
UTILITY
TOTALp pp
UTILITY `? �O
PAST DUE ;.z 40
BVA
BVA f I( I7y
Current + 8 TOTAL /
Bill BILL (� .
Breezy Village Assessment; ACCCUNT NUMBER
maintenance of Public area Er
maintenance and operation .7 -1') S
of recreation facilities
BVA Li
on date*
v i 3a. 15
DUE DATE Q9��� 'i i 1`7 % � � , l � • cam-% 6,JSERVICE ADDRESS NG DATE
EMERGENCY PHONE NO. 589-4054
KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
_II C , hi;- w: rrul Sed-LYhC4,
foe, �a#® )P1 t -
3 �
DIRECT BREEZY VILLAGE UTILITIES Ef L
PAYMENT BREEZY VILLAGE ASSOC'N IN,jb.
TO: P.O. Box 1285 VERO BEACH'r iJ i
FLORIDA 32960 +
Prov read f :3 C.)7e 5j1 Curr. road Q
CONSUMPTION IIN THOUSANDS)
SERVICE
AMOUNT
water
'7 7s
I>aiiiiar
7
PAST DUE
UTILITY
TOTAL
UTILITY
PAST DUE
BVA
BVA
Current TOTAL is,
Bill T' BILL T 1✓
Breezy V,%,94 Asaessme„ t- ACCCUNT NUMBER
mnntenance of Public area Er
maintenance and operation 7 � tl 3 /
at recreation facihnes
c k
DUE DATE _50
SERVICE AD ORE55 BILLING DATE
EMERGENCY PHONE NO 589 4054
KEEk'
IS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
L03l )'00 '0e sews✓
r1 w art-vee9
116
MAY 2 19&_"ffL
'gx �'G to Al '� O 4 -2-
DIRECT BREEZY VILLAGE UTILITIES Er
PAYMENT BREEZY VILLAGE ASSOC'N INC.
TO: P.O. Box 1285 VERO BEACH
FLORIDA 32960
Prev. read C-1,7_3611 Cun- road
CONSUMPTION (IN THOUSANDS) IC 3 /S o
SERVICE
AMOUNT
water
7)
3
sewer
%
7`
C
BVA
_ t
PAST DUE
UTILITY
TOTAL
Bill
/S
�/ /
-! C7
UTILITY
Breezy Village Assessment;
ACCOUNT NUMBER
PAST DUE
7`
C
BVA
_ t
Lien date*
BVA
DUE DATE s i i6 , g
3 C,1 1
CurrentTOTi L`
AL
BILL
wale)'
7.
Breezy Village Assessment;
ACCOUNT NUMBER
maintenance of Public area Er
1
maintenance and operation
of recreation facilities
7,�; 3 `/ 1
i
BVA
Lien date*
"3
DUE DATE s i i6 , g
3 C,1 1
�l � /f/•
C�5
CLL. .J � �� i
SERVICE ADDRESS BILLING DATE
EMERGENCY PHONE NO 589-4064
KEEP THISRTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
cLA/ �) cra✓ Jia?vo �' �•
ZLON-r
DIRECT BREEZY VILLAGE UTILITIES &
PAYMENT BREEZY VILLAGE ASSOC'N INC.
TO: P.O. Box 1285. VERO BEACH
FLORIDA 32960
Prev. read C.296-2&1 Curr. read 030 c r (4,f
CONSUMPTION (1N THOUSANDS) 3 S 7
SERVICE
AMOUNT
wale)'
7.
7J ?
sewer
7
73
Current
4
/_
BIH
PAST DUE
UTILITY
TOTAL
UTILITY
�Ft�
PAST DUE
BVA
BVA
/_
_�
LTOT!ILAL as
r
Breezy Village Asses=sment•, ACCOUNT NUMBER
maintenance of Public area Er
maintenance and operation S
of recreation facilities.
i
BVA �J Lien teC `�23 f i
411�/ 41-
DUE
DUE DATE e193
7/ S flE SERVICE ADDRESS BILLING DAT
EMERGENCY PHONE NO. 5894054
KEEP THIS PORTIONtOR YOUR RECORDS /s
Gk a. v0 f 'e ra ll,
SCwe✓ 4 W&a ev-
BDOK 56 PAGE 915
F,
MAY 21984 aom 56 PACE
Mr. Pollard referred to the bill on the upper left of
Page 1 for 3,600 gallons, emphasizing that the rate for the
first 3,000 gallons was $6.67 for water and $6.67 for sewer
as confirmed in a letter from Jim Wilson dated December 1,
1981. The above bill shows a charge of $7.73 for water and
$7.73 for sewer, or a total of $15.46. Mr. Pollard
contended that the correct charge should be $13.68 and that
there is an overcharge of $1.78. Mr. Pollard's reasoning
was that 1,000 gallons of water and sewer at $1.06 per
thousand amounts to .00106 per gallon. The correct billing,
therefore, would be $13.34 for the first 3,000 gallons, and
for the 160 gallons over the minimum, the charge should be
an additional 34�, or a total of $13.68.
Mr. Baird pointed out that the correct rate for the
first 3,000 gallons should have been $6.76,. not $6.67.
Mr. Pollard agreed, but noted that the franchise states
that Mr. Wilson could charge "no more than," and he chose to
charge "less than." Mr. Pollard believed it was a mistake.
Mr. Pollard then summed up by stating that he wished
the record to show that they firmly believe the numbers used
in the Financial Exhibit by Breezy Village Water & Sewer Co.
to be deceptive, inaccurate and fraudulent; that they do not
show the true value of revenue received; that the rate base
has been calculated on a profit rather than true fact; and
they do not agree with the methodology used by the water and
sewer company. Mr. Pollard recapped that the rate increase
is unreasonable and unwarranted, and they are asking the
Board of County Commissioners, not only to deny it, but to
go ahead and compile figures and come up with a reasonable
rate increase with which they can agree.
Mr. Pollard congratulated the Board on having such an
efficient utilities staff, who were very patient when the
homeowners did not understand a lot of items.
117
Attorney Henderson cross-examined Mr. Pollard re the
basis of his knowledge that Mr. Wilson was only out at
Breezy Village two or three times a month and whether he was
absolutely certain that if Mr. Wilson was there more often,
he would know about it.
Mr. Pollard stated that basis of his knowledge was
observation by people in Breezy Village who monitor Mr.
Wilson's visits, record them and pass the information on to
him as President of the Homeowners' Association.
Attorney Henderson asked if they have a check-in
arrangement at the gate, and Mr. Pollard stated they do not.
Attorney Henderson commented that Mr. Pollard keeps
referring to Mr. Wilson's records.
Mr. Pollard stated that he does have them and received
them under the court order. The court ruled that prior to
April 15th of each year, Mr. Wilson will turn over his
accounting records to the BVA so that the books can be
audited.
Attorney Henderson asked if Mr. Wilson is still in
control of their Association.
Mr. Pollard stated that he is not whatsoever - he does,
however, collect their money and expend their money so the
Judge ruled they have a right to know where their money is
being spent.
Attorney Henderson noted that Mr. Pollard said the
insurance purchased by BVA is the same insurance purchased
by the utility, and asked if Mr. Pollard would mind putting
that into evidence with the Commission along with all the
exhibits referred to.
Mr. Pollard gave his exhibits and documents to Joyce
Hamilton of the Utilities staff, and Attorney Henderson
stated that he is reserving all rights of rebuttal and the
right to question the accuracy of Mr. Pollard's statements.
(Said exhibits and documents are on file in the
Office of the Clerk.)
11'8
MAY 2 198,41
BOOK 56 PACE 91 l
MAY 21984 aooK 56 PAGE 90
The Chairman asked if anyone else from the audience
wished to be heard. There were none.
Attorney Henderson wished to respond to a couple of Mr.
Pollard's statements and assured him that these statements
will be scrutinized and examined closely. Attorney
Henderson noted that Mr. Pollard specifically mentioned the
concept of used and useful, and Attorney Henderson pointed
out that the figure that shows up is not just simply a
matter of taking unconnected lots and multiplying by the
connection fee; a different computation is used.
Attorney Henderson wished to remind the County
Commission that his client inherited this sewer and water
system, and a lot of these problems have carried over from
the previous owner. He believed Mr. Wilson has done what he
can to improve it, and it is his opinion that the rates were
low in the first place. Attorney Henderson assured those
present that they do recognize this is a substantial
increase; and after they have a chance to conform, it will
be lower; however, it still will be significantly higher
than what the people are used to, and it has to be to
provide a fair and reasonable rate of return.
Attorney Henderson wished to submit into the record a
letter from Glenn Schuessler of the Department of Health
written in January, which indicated that no complaints have
been filed with the Health Department regarding the water
quality. He assured those present that the owner is very
willing to look into any quality problems that might arise.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) closed the public hearing.
The,Chairman complimented the audience on their
behavior and on the way the presentation was organized.
119
Discussion followed in regard to the Motions needed for
the transfer of the franchise and the rate increase, and
Commissioner Bird noted that he did not want the transfer to
cloud the issue of responsibility and he would prefer to get
this all resolved under the old franchise holder.
Attorney Henderson felt the Board has to recognize -them
as the franchise holder in order to give validity to the
rate request, and if they wish to deny the rate request, he
believed they would have to approve the transfer first.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that the franchise the
County currently has is in the former owner's name. If the
Commission is going to take it into consideration under the
new owner, he suggested they consider the transfer. He
asked if Mr. Henderson had any objection to any of the
amendments to the franchise.
Attorney Henderson felt the amendments seem consistent
and he had no objection. He believed, in any case, that he
had no choice.
Chairman Scurlock explained to the public about
evolving the process as to how utilities operate. Many
years ago there was almost a blanket ability to operate, but
we now have developed a very good policy for not only the
owners, but to protect the users, i.e., we require money in
escrow for maintenance and repairs, etc., and our current
franchise has many more requirements to ensure the on-going
operation. Discussion followed as to the proper Motions.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) adopted Resolution 84-29, approving
transfer of the Breezy Village Water & Sewer
Franchise to the new owner with the old rate
structure.
120
MAY 21984 BOOK 56 PACE 919
MAY 2 1984
BOOK 56 PAGE 920
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -2 9
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF C=?rY CO MJ:SSIC HERS OF Ilv'DIAN
RIVER COU M AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP, ArID A CHANGE
OF FRANCHISE NAME GRANTED IN RESOLUTION NO. 73-76, AND
PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN MODIFICATION TO THE FRANCHISE AGRMv=
GRANTED TO BREEZY VILLAGE, LTD., SEWER AND WATER FRANCHISE.
1. Section I of Resolution 73-76 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
SECTION I
WHRREAS Indian River County granted Breezy Village, Ltd., a
non-exclusive franchise on November 30, 1973. Breeze Village Ltd., sold
its system and premises to Breezy Village Sewer and Water Company, Inc.,
in 1978. Breezy Village Sewer and Water Conpany, Inc., has requested
the transfer of this franchise Breezy Village Sewer and Water cmpany,
Inc. Transferee accepts the terms of Resolution No. 73-76'as amended
herein and agrees to perform all of the conditions thereof.
NOW► THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUN'Iy CCIMISSIOENRS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that Resolution No. 73-76 be amended as follows:
2. Section VII of Resolution 73-76 is hereby amended by adding
the following paragraphs;
SECTION VII
The Ccnpany shall supply the County with copies of its Department
of Environmental Regulation monthly operating reports and trouble
reports, if any.
The Company shall supply the County with an annual report of
operations and maintenance certified by the Canpany's engineer, who must
be registered in the State of Florida.
7- l
1
3. Section VIII of Resolution 73-76 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
SECTION VIII
All the facilities of the Company shall be constructed only in
accordance with plans and specifications approved by the State Board of
Health of the State of Florida and theti
quan ty and quality of water
delivered and sold and the manner of collection and disposal of sewage
shall at all time be and remain not inferior to the rules, regulations
and standards now or hereafter adopted by the State Board of Health.
The Company shall maintain sufficient water pressure and mains of
sufficient size with fire hydrants and other facilities necessary to
furnish fire protection at any and all areas within the territory
serviced by the Company. The Company may also supply all water through
meters which shall accurately measure the amount of water supplied to
any consumer.
The Utility shall at any time, when requested by a consumer, make a
test of the accuracy of any meter; prior, however, to any test being
made by the Utility, the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) shall be deposited
with the Utility by the party requesting such test. Such sum shall be
returned if the test shows the meter to be inaccurate in its delivery.
If the meter is inaccurate, the meter will be repaired or changed, and
should the meter reading calibrate too high, a billing adjustment will
be made for no more than the past six month's actual readings. Whenever
it is necessary to shut off or interrupt service for the purpose of
making repairs or installations, the Utility shall do so at such times
as will cause the least amount of inconvenience to its consumers and,
unless such repairs are unforeseen and immediately necessary, it shall
give not less than five (5) days notice thereof to its consumers for
non -emergencies.
4. Section IX (b) clauses 1, 2, and 3 of Resolution 73-76 is
hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION IX
(b) At all times herein where discretionary power is left with the
Board. of County Commissioners, the Company, before discretionary action
is taken by the 'Board of County Commissioners, can request said Board
that a group of arbitrators be appointed, and such group shall consist
of:
1. County Utility Services Director
2. Company Engineer
2
MAY 2 1984
BOOK ;56 PAGE 921
F,
IM
1984 BOOK 56 PAGE922.
3. One person selected by the above two persons
and this Board of Arbitrators shall nmke recontions to the Board of
County Commissioners, but such recommendations are not mandatory.
Any final decision the arbitrators or Board may have, with respect
to this franchise, can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Indian River
County by either party.
5. Section XV of Resolution 73-76 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
FRANCHISE FEE
1. The Utility hereby agrees to pay to the County a franchise fee
in the amount of six percent (60) of the Utility's annual gross
receipts, (or the sum of five hundred dollars ($500), whichever is
greater), derived from monthly service charges to defray the cost of
regulation and for use of County rights -of --way and public places. The
Utility shall pay the 6% franchise fee quarterly. Said fee shall be
shoran as a separate additional charge on utility bills.
2. The Utility shall supply the County with a copy of the
Utility's annual report and financial statements. All records and all
accounting of Utility shall be in accordance with the Uniform System of
Accounts of the National Association of Regulatory Utilities
Commissioners and general accepted accounting principles. Within ninety
(90) days after close of fiscal year, the Utility shall submit financial
statements prepared by a CPA and in accordance with general accepting
accounting standards and NARUC. Upon demand by the Board the Utility
will submit audited financial statements certified by a CPA. Also, a
letter from a CPA certifying that the six percent (6%) franchise fee and
the two and one-half percent (212-o) renewal and replacement account has
been collected and disbursed in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement.
RENEML & REPLACEMENT ACCOUNT
Two and one half percent (22%) of the gross receipts of the Utility
shall be placed in an"interest bearing renewal and replacement account
for purposes of renewal and/or replacement of the capital assets of the
water and/or wastewater system of the Utility. Additionally, the
Utility shall initially fund said account with five hundred dollars
($500) which will also be reserved for capital maintenance items.
Interest shall accumulate in said account until the account reaches five
M
3
__
thousand dollars ($5,000); thereafter interest shall be paid to the
Utility annually. Said funds shall be used as a sinking fund and
applied only for renewal and/or replacement of the water and/or
wastewater system by the Utility as the need arises; the percentage
required to be placed in the renewal and replacement account may be
amended after review by the County.as necessary to maintain a sufficient
account balance taking into account the general condition of the system.
The County is granted the right to make necessary repairs using said
funds in the event of default on the part of the Utility in maintaining
the quality standards established herein. In the event the County
exercises its rights under (2) or (3) above, said fund shall vest in the
County. In the event that the County purchases the corporation's
utility system pursuant to the provisions of this franchise as stated
above, then any funds in said renewal and replacement account shall vest
in the County.
IN -WITNESS F,•;,the Board of County.Commissioners of. Indian
River County, Florida has caused this franchise to be executed in the
name of the County of Indian River by the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, and its seal to be affixed and attested by its
Clerk, all pursuant to the resoluton of the Board of County
Commissioners adopted on t -e 2nd day of May , 1984.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
Approved
and leg; tfic�
COUN'T'Y OF IRIDIAN RIVER
By: C
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
Board of County Commissioners,
Attest:,
Clerk '
i. Srandenbu�g ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE
fY tforney
BREEZY VILLAGE SEWER AMID MTER COMPANY, INC., a Florida
Corporation, does hereby accept the foregoing franchise, and for their
successors and assigns does hereby covenant and agree to comply with and
abide by all of the terms, conditions and provisions therein set forth
and contained.
DATED at Vero Beach, Indian River. County,,,Florida, this _ day
Of ��, 1984.
in
MAY 2 1984
8001 56 X923
It
MAY- 21984
noax 56 rfa9Z.4.
WITNESS: BREEZY VILLAGE SEWER ASID ITER COMPANY, INC.
O
By: 1
. L. Wilson, President
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUlTY OF ST. LUCIE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly
authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements,
personally, appeared J. L. Wilson, as President of Breezy Village Sewer
and Water Company, Inc., a Florida corporation, and he acknowledged
before me that he executed the foregoing instrument for the uses and
purposes therein expressed. .
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the State and County aforesaid
this �r day of , 1984.
'13
Notary Public, State of Florida
at Targe
My ccn fission expires:
Notary public. State of Florida
My Commission Expires Aprd 23, W
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to put it under advisement
for staff to make the necessary investigation of
the information presented and come back with a
proposed Order re the rate structure for the Breezy
Village Water & Sewer franchise.
Chairman Scurlock noted that Attorney Henderson and the
Breezy Village Property Owners Association are to have input
to the process, and Commissioner Wodtke concurred that it is
important to have the involvement of both.
F1
MAY
0
Commissioner Lyons felt 95% of the questions should be
thrashed out before this ever gets back to the Board as an
Order.
Utilities Director Pinto urged that it be kept in mind
that in the past we have used specific formulas for used and
useful and CIAO, and we want to stay consistent. The used
and useful concept based on lots is correct, but it can
penalize the customer, i.e., if a developer builds a plant
larger than necessary, and he builds out 100%, that doesn't
necessarily mean he should recover 100% of that cost.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
.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. 91764 - 92272 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 4:30 o'clock
P.M.
Attest:
Clerk
Chairman
126 BOOK 56 PACE 925