Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/1984Wednesday, November 21, 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, November 21, 1984, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent was Patrick B. Lyons,. Vice Chairman, who was recuperating from surgery. Also present were H. T. "Sonny" Dean, General Services Director, in the absence of Michael J. Wright, County Administrator, who was ill; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commis- sioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. At 8:30 A.M. prior to the Commission meeting, Judge Hendry administered the Oath of Office to re-elected Commissioners Margaret C. Bowman, Richard N. Bird, and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Oaths and Bonds for the above Commissioners are on file in the Office of the Clerk. Chairman Scurlock called the meeting to order. Reverend Bruce Havens, Community Church, gave the invocation, and Chairman Scurlock led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATION FOR JAMES VOCELLE, ESQUIRE Attorney Brandenburg introduced to those present Indian River County's very first County Attorney, James T. Vocelle, who reminisced of the meeting when the County Commission was just being organized and it was being decided how to divide the spoils between St. Lucie County and Indian River County. He felt the present Commission is doing a great job and appreciated the honor being afforded him this morning. Commissioner Wodtke made note of the fact that Mr. Vocelle's son, Judge L. B. Buck" Vocelle, and grandson, Attorney L. B. NOV 211984 80O rau€ 77 p ��pp PIP— NO V''2 1 1984f BOOK 5 8 F,' �c. © 7 8 Vocelle, Jr., were present and paid tribute to Mr. Vocelle for his dedication not only to his community but to his family and church work. Chairman Scurlock read the following Proclamation aloud and presented it to Mr. Vocelle. P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, James T. Vocelle, Esquire has been active as an attorney and counselor at law in Florida since November of 1924, and on November 7, 1984 observed the sixtieth anniversary of his admission to the practice' of law in the State of Florida, and WHEREAS, James T. Vocelle, Esquire is known to the citizens of his community as one of the founding fathers of Indian River County due to his dedicated and courageous leadership in the formation of Indian River County, and WHEREAS, James T. Vocelle, Esquire served as the first County Attorney of Indian River County, Florida, and WHEREAS, James T. Vocelle, Esquire is the Dean of the Indian River County Bar Association, and WHEREAS, James T. Vocelle, Esquire -has unselfishly dedicated his entire life to the service of his country, his state, his community and his fellowman through his distinguished service to state and local political bodies and numerous religious and social causes, and WHEREAS, on November 13, 1984, the Governor and the Cabinet of the State of Florida paid public tribute to James T. Vocelle, Esquire for his years of distinguished service to the citizens of Florida, and WHEREAS, on November 29, 1984, the Indian River County Bar Association and the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar will pay public tribute to James T. Vocelle, Esquire, and WHEREAS, James T. Vocelle is well known as a gentleman, a statesman and a scholar, and 2 s � � WHEREAS, we the citizens of Indian River County are proud to call James T. Vocelle, Esquire one of our own. NOW, THEREFORE, on behalf of itself and all the citizens of Indian River County, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Board of County Commissioners hereby express their congratulations and sincere appreciation to James T. Vocelle, Esquire, for ,his sixty years of dedicated and exemplary service and leadership as an attorney and counselor of law; and BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that James T. Vocelle is hereby recognized and applauded for his countless achievements and service to the nation, the State of Florida and Indian River County, and BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that in recognition of the accomplishments of this remarkable person, the week of November 25th through December 1st shall be designated as "JAMES T. VOCELLE WEEK" in Indian River County. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DON C. SCUR OCK, JR., 'rman AGENDA_ ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Chairman Scurlock requested that Item 10. C - Authorization to Execute Master Water Plan Agreements - be removed from today's agenda. Commissioner Bird requested the addition under his matters of a report on his assignment to look into the possible purchase of the McKee Jungle Garden property. Commissioner Wodtke wished to add an item regarding sales tax on purchases related to the new Jail. Chairman Scurlock asked that a Resolution requested by the City of Vero Beach regarding water service to the South Beach area be added to the agenda under Emergency Items. 3 NOV 21 1984 NOV 211984 _l BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Lyons being absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) added and deleted the above items to today's agenda as requested. Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that action recently has been taken by the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Study Committee which would have a dramatic impact on the Barrier Island, and he would like this subject added under Emergency Items. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would be agreeable to adding it to the agenda, but for purposes of discussion only. Chairman Scurlock explained to those present that it re- quires a unanimous vote to add an item to the agenda. He noted that he frankly had anticipated some action being taken. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) added the emergency item re action taken by the Hutchinson Island Study Committee to today's agenda for discussion only. RESOLUTION REQUESTED BY CITY OF VERO BEACH RE SOUTH BEACH WATER SERVICE Attorney Brandenburg explained that there are two items involved, one of which is an agreement that the City wishes signed, and the other is a Resolution which he has drawn up. The basic difference between these relates to whether the County still would retain the right to issue franchises to private utilities in the South Beach area in the event the City did not provide service. The Agreement the City proposed would particularly prohibit that. The second difference relates to whether or not the County has or wants the authority to require 4 the City to obtain a franchise from the County for their water and sewer operations in the unincorporated area. We at one time had an opinion from the Attorney General, which, while it was not clear cut, seemed to suggest that the County does not have that authority. The Attorney noted that he, therefore, has included language in the Resolution so that any rights the County may have in this regard under current or future law would not be waived. This is not an assertion that we would ever want to or pressure the City to obtain a franchise. He believed the City objects to that language and also for the County to have the right to continue to issue private franchises. Chairman Scurlock felt we already have an agreement, and that a Resolution indicating our desires would be more appropri- ate than a new agreement. Attorney Brandenburg agreed that adoption of a Resolution would give the City the authority to go in and serve that area, but he believed the City is looking for more assurance in an agreement form that once they undertake this service, the County will never try to serve this area again. Commissioner Bird felt a certain responsibility to property owners in this area who might wish to develop their property at some point and would need utility service. If for some reason the City turned such a person down, he did not want to eliminate all their options. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the second page of the City's agreement says the Board of County Commissioners hereby grants the City the "permanent, exclusive and contractual right and duty to provide water service to the entire South Beach area from the south city limits to the south county line." He asked if that does not make it the duty of the City to provide this service in that area. City Manager Little confirmed that is the City's intent, but Attorney Brandenburg noted that it is an undefined duty and the question relates to the limits of that duty. 5 N 0 V 211984 I NOV 211984 BOOK a,F City Manager Little commented that it has taken ten years to get this matter to this point largely because of the City Council's reservations. At this point the City Council finally has reluctantly agreed they are the logical entity to serve this area and that they will accept the responsibility to serve all of South Beach to the County line. There isn't anything in it for the City except headaches, and they want no strings attached; they are asking for an agreement not a Resolution; and they are binding themselves to provide service. Chairman Scurlock asked if Mr. Little would be willing to include language that would indicate they are going to service the island to the South County line on a non-discriminatory basis. He emphasized that the County has no intent to encourage additional private franchises; the concern merely is that these individuals be served in a reasonable and cost effective way. Mr. Little noted that the way the proposed Resolution is written would give the County the right to issue utility franchises to private companies desiring to serve in South Beach where the City water service "is not available at the time of application,..." but there is always the possibility the City could be ready to serve in a few weeks' time. He stressed that the City wants the agreement to satisfy everyone; that is why it was stated that it is the city's duty and why they have tried to put it in a contractually enforceable agreement. Commissioner Bird stated that he did not see anything in the agreement before us today that completely closes the door on issuing franchises, but Attorney Brandenburg believed we would have to add some language with a more specific definition of "availability" or "financial feasibility." City Manager Little suggested adding language as follows: "provided that if the City ever is unable or unwilling to service any portion of the South Beach area, the County reserves the right to franchise others to provide that service." He believed this actually is redundant, but felt it could be included. 6 Attorney Brandenburg felt that would be fine, and the Board concurred . Discussion then ensued regarding the language in reference to a franchise with the City. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the problem is that we presently have no franchise nor any agree- ment with the City on electric service in the unincorporated area, but we are charging Florida Power & Light Co. customers a franchise fee; we, therefore, are taxing one portion of our residents and not another. The purpose of the language is simply not to close the door. We are not taking the position that we are going to require a franchise, but we don't want to jeopardize our position in regard to entering into an agreement with the City on electric. Mr. Little stated that as far as electric is concerned; he is not here to discuss that today. His personal opinion was that staff ought to try to work that out together next year. In the case of water, however, the City is not willing to talk about a franchise fee. Chairman Scurlock wished to find a vehicle not to give up any rights we might have in the future relating to a franchise fee, and Attorney Brandenburg suggested adding a fourth paragraph stating that neither party waives any rights they may have under Florida law with respect to items that are not specifically mentioned in the Agreement. City Manager Little did not see how we could do otherwise. City Attorney Vitunac believed the County's interest is in the pass-through franchise fee for the electric, and felt he could write some language that if the County ever established an electrical pass-through fee that the City probably wouldn't object to passing that through in the water also. He stressed that what the City does not want is another level of bureaucracy looking over their shoulder. Chairman Scurlock believed it would suffice to say that neither entity waives any of their rights under Florida law. 7 �a� N 0 V 211984 a N O V 211984 BOOK �S on 884 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to approve the agreement with the City of Vero Beach re water service to the South Beach area as amended and authorize the signature of the Chairman. Commissioner Wodtke commented that he has been working on this matter for ten years also, and although this area is not the City's responsibility, it is the only economical and logical answer and he does thank them for agreeing to take it over. Mr. Little expressed his pleasure in reaching an agreement by each entity agreeing to bend a little. In further discussion, Attorney Brandenburg noted that there are a few details still to be worked out re Spy Glass Lane, Seminole Shores, etc., and City Manager Little agreed there are some loose ends but that they are minute compared to the overall situation. He did wish the Commission to be aware, however, that there is a problem with the G&A charge transfers and the escrow fund, but believed this is negotiable. Mr. Little and Chairman Scurlock agreed all this should be kept at staff level and worked out as we get to it, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that he would be happy to work with Mr. Little on these matters. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0). 8 W AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, TRANSFERRING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVIDING WATER SERVICE TO THE SOUTH BEACH AREA FROM THE COUNTY TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA. THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 21st day of November 1984, by and between Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, address 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, and the City of Vero Beach, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, address P.O. Box 1389, Vero Beach, Florida 32961-1389, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Board • of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, at its October 17, 1984 regularly scheduled meeting reached the conclusion that it was not economically feasible to serve the South Beach area with the County's water supply, as envisioned by an agreement with the City dated September 16, 1981, and WHEREAS, the County by letter dated October 16, 1984, elected to return certain water provision responsibility to the City pursuant to paragraph 12 of the referenced agreement, and WHEREAS, the County in that letter also suggested that the City provide water service to the entire South Beach area, from the city limits to the south county line, and WHEREAS, the City Council of Vero Beach at a public meeting on November 7, 1984, offered to accept the entire South Beach area from the south city limits to the county line as the permanent and exclusive service territory of the City for the provision of water, and WHEREAS, the County by this Agreement accepts the offer of the City of November 7, 1984, as set forth above, and WHEREAS, it is recognized that this transfer of rights to the City will require the City to make substantial capital outlays, and WHEREAS, in consideration of these outlays the rights granted herein by the County are permanent, exclusive, and contractual, NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants of this agreement the County and City agree as follows: W NOV 21 1994 .A NOV 211984 BOX o -F'88-6 1. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, hereby grants to the City of Vero Beach, Florida, the permanent, exclusive, and contractual right and duty to provide water service to the entire South Beach area from the south city limits to the south county line; provided that if the City ever is unable or unwilling to service any portion of the South Beach area, the County reserves the right to franchise others to provide that service. It is the intent of both parties that the South Beach area will become the permanent service territory of the City for water service. 2. The effective date of this service transfer shall be November 21, 1984. 3. All other agreements between the County and the City relating to water service to the South Beach area in conflict with this Agreement are repealed. 4. By executing this Agreement neither the City nor the County waives any rights under Florida law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this Agreement on the date first above written. ATTEST: Freda t, Clerk of the Board r� Mry Hnandenburg ',ou nti Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA �00004"A I-VADon C. Scurl ck, Jr. Chairman � r Mighael Wright County Administra r ATTEST: CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 2�aV ityr Vice— ayor U City Attorney ,ty Manager 10 DISCUSSION RE HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE STUDY FINDINGS It was noted this was added to the agenda for discussion only, and Chairman Scurlock stated he had hoped we could have some action, but if we are not, we could cancel this and call a special meeting. Attorney Brandenburg believed that staff is going to have to proceed as they have until the Commission tells them to do otherwise, and he felt that the longer the Board waits to make the decision, the more difficult it will be and possibly the worse the effects will be. Commissioner Wodtke noted that he did talk both to Attorney Brandenburg and Planning Director Keating and get some briefing on this item, but he did not feel comfortable with taking action without having it on the agenda and wished to be sure that when we make a decision, that we have the necessary facts to do it with. Discussion continued regarding the possible effects of a further delay and the problems involved with trying to come up with some equitable way to divide up the remaining units. Commissioner Bird felt we should hear this matter and then decide if we might want to change our minds and take action. The Chairman stated that there are more people on the way, and he suggested this discussion be set for a time certain. It was agreed to set a time certain of 11:00 A.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 24, 1984. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 24, 1984, as written. 11 NOV 211984 ROOK SS, 7 N 0 V 211984 CLERK TO THE BOARD A. Pistol Permits The Board reviewed the following memo: BOOKp- 8S8 °:c TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 7, 1984 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: REFERENCES: PISTOL PERMITS - NEW The following have applied to the Clerk's office for new pistol permits: Gary Lynn Beatty Mary Kathryn Beatty All requirements of Ordinance 82-27 have been met and are in order. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the applications for permits to carry a concealed firearm for Gary Lynn Beatty and Mary Kathryn Beatty. CONSENT AGENDA A. Report The following reports were received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund, October, 1984, $32,354.75 Traffic Violations by Name, October, 1984 B. Budget Amendment - Legal Services/Save Our Coast Program The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director, as follows: 12 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: November 13, 1984 FILE: SUBJECT: Legal Services/ Save Our Coast. Program FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES: OMB Director At the Board meeting of May 23, 1984, a request for retaining representatives in Tallahassee was approved and the funds allocated. These funds were -not expensed in FY 83-84 and went to cash forward. We have received invoices totaling $3,311.54 and expect to receive more invoices in the future. The following budget amendment is to re -appropriate these funds to cover the expenses: Account Title Legal Services Cash Fwd. -Oct. 1 Account No. Increase Decrease 001-101-511-33.11 5,000 001-000-389-40.00 5,000 ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the above budget amendment. C. Budget Amendment - Unemployment Compensation The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director, as follows: 13 BOOK. 8 FAU-E 8S9 NOV 211984 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director 800x U8 PnIC 890 DATE: November 9, 1984 FILE: SUBJECT: Unemployment Compensation REFERENCES: The following budget amendment is to allocate funds to pay the unemployment compensation for the quarter ending September 30, 1984 per the attached invoice: Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease Unemployment Comp. 001-220-519-12.15 Reserve for Contingencies 001-199-581-99.91 Unemployment Comp. 004-244541-12.15 Reserve for Contingencies 004=199-581-99.91 Unemployment Comp. 411-217-534-.12.15 Cash Fwd. -Oct. 1 411-217-534-99.92 Balance in Reserves Gen. Fund $319,025 MSTU Fund $141,400 301 301 274 274 339 339 STATE OF FLORIDA LES i, IREVF3/79)RM CT29 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ,. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY BUREAU OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 REIMBURSEMENT INVOICE THIS IS A STATEMENT OF CHARGES TO YOUR ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO YOUR FORMER EMPLOYEES. ACCOUNT NO. QUARTER ENDING i IND IAN RI V2.4 CUUNTY bUARD OF 97b03 7 7 SEP 309 1964 CCIUNTY COAMIS;IUNERS DATE LID FINANCE LFF ICER NUV 019 1964 PU d0X 1 02 $ THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE MUST BE PAID VERC BEACH FL,. 32960 WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE. LOCATION CODE AS SHOWN ON DETERMINATION NOTICE TO BASE PERIOD EMPLOYER OF VALID CLAIM FILED, I LES FORM UCB-12R 14 r CLAIMANT'S NAME SOC. SEC. NO. EXPIRATION DATE OF CLAIM NO. WEEKS OF BENEFITS PD. IN QTR. CHARGES TO YOUR ACCOUNT &O'l` .–EDWARD W MIMS 254-52–EB44 08/25/85 2 92.66 — ELBERT H DEAN 261-22-0719 06/16/85 12 238.40 . - JAMES E JUVIN5UN .301-26-7317 05/12/85 10 208.24 L:HA tLF-S is SULTZMAN 526-96-6334 12/24/611• 4 273.40 14 r ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the above budget amendment. D. Authorize Advertisement to Fill Vacancy on Mobile Home Advisory Board This item was taken care of at the meeting of November 7, 1984. E. Bid #223 - 2 New (1985) Cab & Chassis - Refuse Department The Board reviewed memo from the Purchasing Department: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Nov. 13, 1984 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #223- Two (2) New 1985 County Administrator Cab & Chassis FROM: CJ_z�' REFERENCES: Carolyn oodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Tuesday, November 13, 1984 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #223 - Two (2) New 1985 Cab & Chassis for the Refuse Department. These will replace the Cab & Chassis from 2 refuse container trucks currently in use. The hoists from these trucks will be used on the new cab & chassis. ' 28 Bids were sent out. Of the 8 bids received, 2 were "No Bids". 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Coastal Ford Truck Sales, Ft. Lauderdale, F1. in the amount of $47,727.98 each. The bid meets all specifications. Delivery time approximately 120 days. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #223 be awarded to the low bidder, Coastal Ford Truck Sales, Ft. Lauderdale, F1., in the amount of $95,455.96 for (2) 1985 Ford LT9000 Cab & Chassis. There is $110,000.00 budgeted in Acct. #001-209-534-66-49. 15 800 �, Via.; "€ �; Boor. U� e�1h� 8.92 TWO IKURJ ry 'L NLW I`.RSO 6AI3-I.nAJJ1J I. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE - UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS UNIT ITEM LT9000 U%k%1 10N UNIT PRICE NO. ` Two(2) New 1985 Cab -Chassis IH 2145 -14th Avenue FOR PETER IL h �� ry. Vero Beach, Florida 32960 cy 7m v LT90 0 ci, LT90 0 KS64 2 Each NB NB 50918 00 iy 51101 00 t 4 vr" o y p m BID TABULATION�o EA - im Fr EAEA BID NO. DATE OF OPENING 6 or �m �m �nm, a°" 4mm v am m IRC BID #223 Nov. 13, 1984 viy ^ ^ z y v c ^F to v 4 BID TITLE Z� �� c c �'� v° TWO IKURJ ry 'L NLW I`.RSO 6AI3-I.nAJJ1J I. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE - UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT ITEM LT9000 U%k%1 10N UNIT PRICE NO. 1. Two(2) New 1985 Cab -Chassis IH FORD FOR PETER IL FO D AUTO CAR Trucks Ford LT9000 or equal F-257 LT900 LT90 0 3498 LT90 0 KS64 2 Each NB NB 50918 00 47727 98 51101 00 52501 0 5542 13 53247 36 EA - EA EA EAEA EA �. I A4 L 2. Deliver days after receipt of 90-120 120 90-120 90-10 60-120 90-1 0 Das Da s Day Day Da s Day ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #223 for (2) 1985 Ford LT9000 Cab & Chassis to the low bidder, Coastal Ford Truck Sales, Fort Lauderdale, in the amount of $94,455.96, as recommended by staff. F. Bid #224 - Tractors for Parks Department The Board reviewed staff memo as follows: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Nov. 13, 1984 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #224 - Two (2) New County Administrator Compact Tractors with Mid -Mount Mowers FROM:�� ,� �Uo-� REFERENCES. Carolyn oodrich, Manager Purchasing Department I. Description and Conditions Bids were received Tuesday, November 13, 1984 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #224 - Two (2) New Compact Tractors with Mid Mount Mowers for the Parks Department. 14 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 7 Bid Proposals received, 1 was a "No Bid". 16 2. Alternatives and Anal sis The low bid was submitted by Sunrise Ford Tractor, Ft. Pierce, F1. in the amount of $6156.00 each for a Ford 1510 with a Ford 915 Mower. The bid meets all specifications Delivery time- 15 days 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #224 be awarded to the low bidder, Sunrise Ford Tractor in the amount of $12,312.00 for 2 Ford 1510 tractors with Ford 915 Mowers. There is $16,518.00 budgeted in Account #102-210-572-66-49. • iQ VO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS vo 0 2145 -14th Avenue o Vero Beach, Florida 32960 t w oo to o wo V F BID TABULATION BID NO. DATE OF OPENING �+d '�fi F y ko°' tow c127 oro moo` �' IRC BID #224 Nov. 13, 1984 'b �'^ o atr s°ioaq' m BID TITLE Two (2) New Compact Tractors 4� •��y ��,�,4 „��,; ���o Q>�o �r Q with Mid -Mount Mowers c o icy` ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UN 1. Two (2) New Compact Tractors with Mid -Mount Mowers 2 Each 7026 50 6300 00 6156 00 Each Fa b__ Far Fac Ea(h Eac John -Pr joh T210 John Alli 750 Deer eer 2. Days required for delivery after 850 7rn 5020 recei t of Purchase Order Days 30 Da 5 2 we ks 21 Da)s 7 Daws 1Oda s 15 d ys John Deere 750 169 00 ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #224 for (2) New Compact Ford 1510 Tractors and Mowers to the low bidder, Sunrise Ford Tractor, in the amount of $12,312.00, as recommended by staff. G. Bid #225 - Traffic Signal - U.S.1 and CR 510 The Board reviewed the following staff memo: 17 L- NOV 211984 500K pnr �NOV 211984 k js TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Nov. 13, 1984 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright SUBJ ECT:IRC BID #225- Traffic Signal County Administrator Improvements- Install Traffic Signal at US 1 and CR510. FROM: (�,a-ti s4� —"t-I`-e�—REFERENCES: Carolyn goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Tuesday, November 13, 1984 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #225 - Traffic Signal Improvements - Install Traffic Signal at US 1 and CR 510 for the Traffic Engineering Department. 5 Bid Proposals were sent out, 2 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Signal Construction, Jupiter, F1. in the amount of $9447.00. Signal Construction has performed this type of work for the County previously. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #225 be awarded to the low bidder, Signal Construction. There is $15,000 budgeted in Account #111-245-541-66.44 for this project. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 -14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION BID NO. DATE OF OPENING IRC BID 0225 Nov. 13, 1984 BID TITLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS tiro co c `�'oQ ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRI Install Traffic Signal at US 1 and CR510 1. 620-1-1 Grounding Electrode 2. 630-4-12 Conduit 3. 632-7-1 nal 4. 634-4-114 Span Wire Assembly 5. 635-1-11 Pull Box 6. 639-1-13 Electric Power Service 7. 641-34-36 Concrete Strain Pole 8 641-34-38 Concrete Strain Pole 9. 641-34-39 Concrete Strain Pole 10. 650-1-331 Traffic Signal Heads 11, 660-2-104 D Loop Assembly 12—Concrete ad for Controller Assembly Lump Sum Total 14332 00 9447 00 18 ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #225 for Traffic Signal Improvements at U.S.1 and CR 510 to the low bidder, Signal Construction, in the amount of $9,447.00, as recommended by staff. REZONING - B-1 to C -1A (DEAN) SR 60 & 86th AVE. 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: VERO REACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily ; `.NoTlcg - Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida a County o heart cel Planned Busfin t. DI r .nnrniel tuat't.k: 1 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA :iW4 Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath east of Tfn §°Be says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper ublished Y 9 YP at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a ��vGf/ 2si we �,nr riSr in the matter of �� wk' of rnrn sn/uwti�utn ttyn Oa fyfincFFG; NpYi in the Court, was pub- ' ° CdU of St, Lwcle;Cdcmty,Fldrl� '/ter' / P �� Book $ Page 25; said fond now `/%il"/Ilel ! �J, l7 �5� t ting ir+ tndiart Rivet County lished in said newspaper in the issues of �� 'ec r easeme� and ►lents• A puBtic bearing at which part ,an :pitizenashall ,have an::oppc heard, it be freld the Board of • missionera of Indian River County: 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 (SEAL) ,' ed fore th(s '�&_/_-3_d G :'�'b. 19 � usiness Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit CourLXndian River County, Florida) Street, 'Vero Beach, Florida on W.e November 21,1904, at 9:15 e m "• If any person decides to appear arty made on the above matter, he/She`wi record of the proceedings, and fors -poses; he/she may need. to insure that am record of the proceedings is made, cludes testimony and evidence upon.r appeal is based; ;' y Indian River County", Board of CountyComrrdssioners " By: -s-Don C Scurlock Chairman Nov.1.1.3,1984 Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation and recommendation for approval, as follows: 19 Boor' 895 NOV 211984 BOOK TO:' The Honorable Members DATE: November 8, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DEAN REQUEST TO REZONE DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: 1.97 ACRES FROM B-1, PLANNED BUSINESS DIS- SUBJECT: TRICT, TO C-lA, RE - Robert M. Keatin1piment AIC STRICTED COMMERCIAL Planning & Devel Director DISTRICT FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: ZC-095 Memo 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 November 21, 1984. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Frank and Jessie Dean, the owners, are requesting to rezone 1.97 acres located on the south side of State Road 60 and the east side of 86th Avenue from B-1, Planned Business District, to C-lA, Restricted Commercial District. The applicants intend to add a vegetable stand to their property facing 86th Avenue. Fruit and vegetable stands are not allowed in the B-1 district. In addition, the applicants would have trouble developing their property further because of the 75 foot front yard setback which is required in the B-1 district. The C -1A district requires a 10 foot front yard setback. A rezoning to C-lA would allow the applicants to develop to within 10 feet of the 86th Avenue right-of-way. However, they would still be required to setback 75 feet from State Road 60 because a separate County Ordinance regulates the front yard setback along S.R.60. On October 11, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. 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 includes a building facing State Road 60 containing a beauty shop and a gift shop, and a single-family residence which faces 86th Avenue. North of the subject property, across State Road 60, are single-family residences and vacant lots in Paradise Park Subdivision. East of the subject property is a truck brokerage firm, vacant land, and mobile homes. South of the subject property is a single-family residence, a restaurant under construction, vacant land zoned B-1, and a mobile home park zoned R-1MP, Mobile Home Park District. West of the subject property is undeveloped land. ME Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan generally designates the subject property and all of the land around it as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). In addition, the Plan designates a 300 acre commercial/industrial node at the intersection of I-95 and State Road 60. The subject property and the lands south and west of it have been included in this node. The C-lA zoning district is consistent with the commercial/industrial node designation of the subject property. The C-lA zoning district is appropriate for the subject property and additional commercial land south and west of the subject property should be rezoned from B-1 to C-lA in the future. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to State Road 60 (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan) and to 86th Avenue (classified as a local street). A rezoning from B-1 to C -1A should have little effect on the amount of traffic attracted to the subject property. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. T71-i1i+;cc County water and wastewater facilities are not currently available for the subject property. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 84-76 rezoning the subject property to C-lA as requested by Frank and Jessie Dean. 21 NOV 211984 BOOK U I� � 8.97 J NOV 211984 800F. 89 8 ORDINANCE NO. 84-76 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Beginning at the NW corner of Tract 10, Section 2, Town- ship 33 S, Range 38 E, thence run south a distance- of 330' along the west boundary line of said Tract 10; thence run east a distance of 260' along a line perpendicular to the west boundary line of Tract 10; thence run north 330' along a line parallel to and 260' east of the west boundary line of Tract 10 to a point 260' east of the point of beginning; thence run west a distance of 260' along the north boundary line of Tract 10 to the point of beginning; according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida, less all easements and rights-of- way of record. Be changed from B-1, Planned Business District, to C-lA, Restricted Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 21st day of November 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: DON C. SCURT OCK, JR. Chairman 22 r7 L� COUNTY—INITIATED REZONING — (1st ST. SW & 43RD AVE.) — TO R-1 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: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Afflant 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 subWibeobeforAir e /3 _ day of 19 (SEAL) (Business Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) Chief Planner Shearer made the following staff presentation: 23 �9 O V 21 1984 BOX �} I r NOV 211994 BOOK 5 �On'[ 900 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 8, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE 6.83 ACRES DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: FROM C-1, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO R-1, SUBJECT: SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT Robert M. Keating, AICP Planning & Development Director ?,S FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP FERENCES: Co. Init. /ZC-094 Chief, Long -Range Plannfi It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 21, 1984. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Indian River County is requesting to rezone 6.83 acres, located south of lst Street, SW and east of 43rd Avenue, from C-1, Commercial District, to R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre). This request is part of the administrative rezoning process to establish zoning districts consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. On October 11, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. 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 is undeveloped. North of the subject property is land being developed for commercial buildings which is zoned C-1. Further north, across 1st Street, SW, is undeveloped land and The Meadows, a single-family subdivision zoned C-1 and R-1. East of the subject property are two, single-family residences and undeveloped land zoned R-1. South of the subject property, across the South Relief Canal, is undeveloped land zoned C-1 and R-1. West of the subject property, across 43rd Avenue, is a single-family subdivision zoned R-1. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the land north, east, and west of it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land south of the subject property is designated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The R-1 district is the most appropriate zoning district for the subject property based on the LD -2 land use designation and surrounding land use pattern. 24 Transportation Svstem The subject property has direct access to 43rd Avenue (classified as a primary collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under the R-1 zoning would generate 351 average annual daily trips. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities The subject property is not currently served by County water nor wastewater facilities. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, particularly the land use designation, surrounding land use pattern, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Mr. Shearer noted that this proposed rezoning and the next on the agenda are contiguous except that the South Relief Canal separates them. Historically there has been a small strip along 43rd Avenue zoned commercial. There are some existing grand- fathered uses, and this basically will rezone the bulk of the undeveloped land into conformance with the Land Use Plan. R-1 is consistent with the land to the west and east. Commissioner Wodtke commented that when the County initiates a rezoning, he felt we need to fill out a form just as everyone else does and he would like to know the owner's names. Mr. Shearer stated that a list of the owners will be provided in the future. Commissioner Bowman inquired why this rezoning did not go further north, and Mr. Shearer explained that there are buildings under construction there right now or they would have proposed going further north. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. 25 NOV 211984 58 pm- dol ,BOOK 5-18 orE902, ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Ord. 84-77 rezoning 6.83 acres south of 1st St. SW and east of 43rd Ave. to R-1 as advertised. ORDINANCE NO. 84-77 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Beginning at the NW corner of Tract 10, Section 2, Town- ship 33 S, Range 38 E, thence run south a distance of 330' along the west boundary line of said Tract 10; thence run east a distance of 260' along a line perpendicullar to the west boundary line of Tract 10; thence run north 330' along a line parallel to and 260' east of the west boundary line of Tract 10 to a point 260' east of the point of beginning; thence run west a distance of 260' along the north boundary line of Tract 10 to the point of beginning; according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company filed in the Office'of the Clerk of the Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida, less all easements and rights-of- way of record. Be changed from C-1, Commercial District, to R-1, Single - Family District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 21st day of November 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: / C 26 DON C. SCURLOCK, JR Chairman COUNTY -INITIATED REZONING - (SOUTH RELIEF CANAL & 5th ST. SW) TO R-lAA 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: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of ,e_6eiz_ in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 'Z."'�/`/ 13r / 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 jjefore t day of D. 19 gel s n / „ 1. Business Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Cou(; Indian River County, Florida) NOTLCE --PUBLIC HEARINf3 Notice . of hearing Initiated by Indiar County, to consider the adoption of a Cot dinance `rezoning land from. C-1, ,Com District to . 1Z, Single-Familv bistrict. TI The; ubi - property is clescribbttas F The :.West 330' of rraof 5, Section 22. Townsfiip 835; Range 39E, LESS road, righta�f-Way. ,SAid land 1Snng and, beidg . in h)dian or County, Florida A'publ ahearing pI'Whioh parties in interest. and 'citI a,shelI ve an opportunity to be. heard, will, be hel y the,Board'of County Coma-` ml lone of Ih a . Iver County, Florida, in the: County .Comms Ion Chambers of the County Administration; Building, located at ,1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday,; November 21,1984; at 9;15 a.m . IF any person decides to appeal any decision made•on the above matter: he(she Will need a= record- pi! •.the: prbseedings,. and for -such pur, k poses, he/she may need to insure that a. verba tim record of the proceedings is mede, which In- cludes -testimony and evidence upon,which the appeal is based.,:,, 'Indlan RiveCounty Board of County Commissioners. Y By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Chairman y K 4r Nov 1, 13, '.. ,,,, Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation as follows: 27 BOOK 51' P°E 903 BOOK 5`8 uu.904 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 8, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: TO REZONE 6.2 ACRES FROM C-1, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SUBJECT: TO R-lAA, SINGLE-FAMILY Robert M. Xed1Efng67AICP DISTRICT Planning & Development Director FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Co.Init. /ZC-093 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 November 21, 1984. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Indian River County is requesting to rezone 6.2 acres located south of the South Relief Canal on the east side of 43rd Avenue from C-1, Commercial District, to R-lAA, Single -Family District (up to 2.6 units/acre). This request is part of the administrative rezoning process to establish zoning districts consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. On October 11, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. 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 i utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property contains a single-family residence and undeveloped land. North of the subject property, across the South Relief Canal, is undeveloped land zoned C-1. East of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre),. South of the subject property, across Rebel Road (5th Street SW), is the West Side Racquet Club, a single-family subdivision zoned R-1; west of the subject property, across 43rd Avenue, is undeveloped land zoned R-1. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the land east, south, and west of it as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The land north of the subject property is designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The R-lAA district is the most appropriate zoning district for the subject property, based on the LD -1 land use designation and surrounding land use pattern. 28 Transportation System The subject property has direct access to 43rd Avenue (classified as a primary collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan) and to Rebel Road (classified as a secondary collector street). The maximum development of the subject property under the R-lAA zoning would generate 126 average annual daily trips. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities ! County water and wastewater facilities are not currently available for the subject property. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, particularly the land use ! designation and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Mr. Shearer explained that this property has a different Land Use designation than that just rezoned, and staff, therefore, feels the most appropriate zoning for it would be R-lAA. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 84-78 rezoning 6.2 acres south of the South Relief Canal on the east side of 43rd Avenue to R-lAA as advertised. 29 NOV 211984 BOOK F'wr .90 I Pr - N 0 V 211984 B0Qi( 5,8 faA-r 0 ORDINANCE NO. 84-78 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The West 330' of Tract 5, Section 22, Township 33S, Range 39E, LESS road rights-of-way. Said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. - Be changed from C-1, Commercial District, to R-lAA, Single -Family District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 21st day of November 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: '2LnC. DON C. SC RLOCK, J Chairman PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, COUNTY CODE, "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES" Attorney Brandenburg announced that this ordinance has been improperly advertised and cannot be heard at this time. It will be readvertised and rescheduled. Blair Smith of Gifford expressed his displeasure and felt that his district was poorly represented since neither Commis- sioner Lyons nor Administrator Wright were present today. He 30 stated that this ordinance is very important to him, and he cannot return. He, therefore, is going to take this to the Justice Department and see if he is being denied the right to come before the Commission to get things modified. Attorney Brandenburg explained to Mr. Smith that this item was taken off the agenda at his request because the law requires that the title be advertised in full and this did not occur. There was a county staff error in the,way it was sent to the newspaper, and it certainly had nothing to do with either Commissioner Lyons or the Administrator. He further noted that Commissioner Lyons is not present because he has just had quadruple by-pass surgery, and the Administrator is ill. The Attorney further pointed out that actually all the Commissioners represent all the county residents, and Mr. Blair could come to any one of them. Mr. Smith continued to insist that he has talked to the Attorney and Commissioners before, and he did not feel he should have to get a high priced lawyer in order to represent his interests. He believed the Commission and staff were deliber- ately trying to kill this change in the ordinance by delay and insisted he was going to complain to the Justice Department. Mr. Blair was informed that this ordinance modification will be rescheduled for December 12th. REZONING - .4 ACRES TO C-2 (RICHARD ZORC) OLD DIXIE 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: 31 NOV 211984 I r N O V 211984 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, 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 subscr' ed b ore m hi day of 19 e _ pusiness Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Couft Andian River County, Florida) BOOK t5 8 P,�. ,A-08 NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING r n Notice of hearing to consider the adoptioh of County' ordinance rezoning land from C -1A, gestricted Commercial District to C-2, Heavy lommercial District. The subject property�is pre= sanity owned .by RICHARD J. ZORC and AR- _YNE' ZORC. The propertrtyy'is' located 1/4 mile mouth of 8th Street (Glendale Road), on the east side of Old Dixie Highway: The subject property Is d�ribed aC Commencing at the NE- comer of the SS% "of the NWy4 of Section 13; Town- ship 33S, Range 39E, run South along the East `line of aforesaid SE% ofU1ep ' NW Y4, 120.0' to the Point of Beginning. From the -Pointof Beginning, continue South on said East line 165.0% thence with a deflection angle W the right .o€,: 89055407, run 70.5'to the East right -of way of Old gixia',Highway:'thence run Northwesterly along said right-of-way z f .178.33' 'thence, run -Easterly.' 130.4 situate' In Indian. River and containing 0.40 acre: A public hearing at whit I citizens' shall have an ity Commission Chambers of the County' nistrafloh Building: located at: 1840 25th 1;Vero, Beach, Florida on - Wednesday. mbar 21,1984: at my pergon' decide9 to appeal any d"16h i on the ;above matter, he/she will need a d of the proceeding's;; and for such: pur- s;'he/slie may need toinsure that a'verbs scord otthe proceedings is made; which In mi testimony and evidence upon" which the al is based ,:,'i � - , Indian River County Board of County Commissioners G�, W -s-Don C Scurlock. it Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation, as follows: 32 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 7, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Keatingk7AICP Planning & Development Director ,pS hard Shearer, AICP FROM: ROM: Chief , Long -Range PlanniAD-TEFERENCES: ZORC REQUEST TO REZONE .4 ACRES FROM C-lA, RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO C-2, HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ZC-090 P&Z RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 21, 1984. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Richard and Arlyne Zorc, the owners, are requesting to rezone .4 acres located on the east side of Old Dixie Highway and one-quarter mile north of 4th Street from C-lA, Restricted Commercial District, to C-2, Heavy Commercial District. The applicants intend to develop this property for heavy commercial uses. On October 11•, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. 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 and the land east and south of it are undeveloped and zoned C-lA. Further to the east, is undeveloped land zoned M-1, Restricted Industrial District. North of the subject property is a wrecker service and body shop zoned C-lA. West of the subject property is a single-family house in an R-1, Single -Family District. The dominant land use pattern along Old Dixie Highway, south of 10th Street and north of the South Relief Canal, includes single-family residences on the west side, zoned R-1, and heavy -commercial and light industrial uses on the east, zoned C-lA, C-2, and M-1. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of the land around it as part of the U.S.1 MXD, Mixed -Use Corridor (up to 6 units/acre). The U.S.#1 Mixed -Use Corridor allows residential, commercial or industrial uses based on the dominant land uses in the area. Based on the existing land use pattern in this area, the C-2 zoning district is consistent with the existing heavy commercial and light industrial uses. 33 BOOK 5j 8 P,AC€ `� r N 0 V 211984 During July of this year, the County rezoned 30.2 acres of land south of the subject property from C-lA and C-1, Commercial District, to C-2. The owner of one of the two properties between the subject property and the existing C-2 property to the south has also submitted a rezoning application requesting a rezoning to C-2. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to Old Dixie Highway (classified as a secondary collector on the Thoroughfare Plan). The development of the subject property for uses allowed in the C-2 district could attract up to 180 average annual daily trips (AADT) with 18 trips in the peak hour. Old Dixie Highway currently carries 10,000 AADT in this area with approximately 1,000 trips in the peak hour. The current and projected traffic level is at level -of -service "C". Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities A County water main runs along the west side of Old Dixie Highway across from the subject property. County wastewater facilities are not available. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, particularly the existing land use pattern, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Mr. Shearer pointed out the subject property and property in the same vicinity which was rezoned to C-2 in July. He stated that staff does feel C-2 will allow a more realistic use of the property, but were concerned about the small size of the subject property. They have had discussion with the owners of nearby property, and although unfortunately their application was not received in time to process with this one, it is anticipated that eventually all this area will be zoned C-2. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. 34 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Ordinance 84-79 rezoning .4 acre on the east side of Old Dixie north of 4th St. to C-2 as requested by Richard Zorc. ORDINANCE NO. 84-79 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Commencing at the NE corner of the SE4 of the NWh of Section 13, Township 33S, Range 39E, run South along the East line of aforesaid SE4 of the NA, 120.0' to. the Point of Beginning. From the Point of Beginning, continue South on said East line 165.01; thence with a deflection angle to the right of 89°55140", run 70.5' to the East right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway; thence run Northwesterly along said right-of-way 178.33'; thence run Easterly, 138.4' to the Point of Beginning. All of the above situate in Indian River County, Florida and containing 0.40 acres, more or less. Be changed from C-lA, Restricted Commercial District, to C-2, Heavy Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 21st day of November 1984: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: ��rr.. C_ - DON DON C. SCURILOCK, JR Chairman 35 N O V 211984 BOOK r N 0 V 211984 �4 Ba�K PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE A14ENDING ORD. 83-46 RE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS - SR 60 WATER LINE IMPACT FEES 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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a . ••_••vvty ``�y� In the matter of ��r� /L,� / In the '/Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper In the issues of �C� 3% 69lr7� 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, fine or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the//said newspaper. ge Sworn to and su crib bef) dt iss _ day /;� A.D. 19 97 (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Irtdt-an River County, (SEAL) ipflon of an on a BOARD OF COUNTY GOmmla3Ep DON C. SCURLOCK,CHAIRJR. —S—GOry A& County Atforni October 31, 1984 —. Attorney Brandenburg explained that the previous ordinance did not contemplate collection of actual impact fees; the pro- posed ordinance simply cleans up the language to cover this. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. 36 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Ordinance 84-80 amending Ordi- nance 83-46 re the issuance of revenue bonds payable by special assessments and authorizing the levy and collection of impact fees. ORDINANCE NO. 84-80 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 83-46 OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED: "AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ACQUISITON AND CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN LOCAL IMPROVE- MENTS IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO FINANCE THE COST THEREOF, PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED AGAINST PROPERTY SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS, AND, AT THE OPTION OF THE COUNTY, FROM OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE NON AD VALOREM FUNDS; AND PRO- VIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE." DULY ENACTED ON DECEMBER 21, 1983, AS AMENDED, BY AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESS- MENTS, FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES FOR THE PURPOSES EXPRESSED IN SUCH ORDI- NANCE, AND THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS SECURED WHOLLY OR IN PART BY SUCH IMPACT FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ENACTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS ORDINANCE. This ordi- nance is enacted pursuant to Article VIII, Section 1, Florida Constitution (1968), Chapter 125, Florida Statutes (1983), and other applicable provisions of law. SECTION 2. FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, deter- mined and declared that: A. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida (hereinafter called "Board"), on December 21, 1983, duly enacted Ordinance No. 83-46 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ACQUISITON AND CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN LOCAL IMPROVE- MENTS IN"INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO FINANCE 37 BOOK �i'of- U, �� NOV 21 1984 BOOU FH 914 THE COST THEREOF, PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED AGAINST PROPERTY SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS, AND, AT THE OPTION OF THE COUNTY, FROM OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE NON AD VALOREM FUNDS; AND PRO- VIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE." (hereinafter called "Ordinance"). B. It is necessary and desirable to amend the Ordinance by authorizing the use of the procedures with respect to the levy and collection of special assessments, for the levy and collec- tion of impact fees for the purposes expressed in the Ordinance; and by authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds secured wholly or in part by such impact fees. SECTION 3. AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE. The Ordinance is hereby amended in the following manner. A. Section 3 of the Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: "SECTION 3. SECURITY FOR BONDS. The principal of, interest on and redemption premiums, if any, for the Bonds shall be payable from the proceeds of the special assessments and/or impact fees, as applicable, to be levied against the property specially benefited by the acquisition and/or construction of the Improvements, and, at the option of the Board, may be addi- tionally payable from any other funds derived by the County from sources other than ad valorem taxation and legally available for such purpose. The provisions of this section, however, shall not be construed so as to impair or authorize the impairment of the security of the holders of any obligations previously issued by the County which are payable from such non ad valorem funds." B. Section 4 of the Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: "SECTION 4. INCORPORATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 170. The provisions of Chapter 170, Florida Statutes (1981), as amended (hereinafter collectively called 'Chapter 1701), to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, are hereby incorporated herein by reference and made 38 M M M applicable to the County the same as if it were a 'municipality' as defined therein. Appropriate changes to the provisions of Chapter 170, as incorporated herein, are hereby made to reflect the differences between municipal and county government. The Board, however, shall .not be required to let contracts for any Improvements before adoption of any resolution authorizing the issuance of Bonds. Furthermore, it shall not be necessary for the specially benefited property to connect to any water or sewer Improvements before assessments may be collected therefor, as long as connections are available from the County; the Clerk of the Board shall not be required to certify on any Bonds that the amount of assessment liens levied as security for the Bonds are equal to the amount of the Bonds; the assessments shall bear interest from the date of acceptance of the improvements or, if applicable, the date of any obligations payable from the assessments, whichever is earlier; and the interest rate borne by the assessments, after adequate provision has been made for payment of the principal of, interest on and redemption premium, if any, on any obligations payable from the assessments, may, at the option of the Board and to the extent permitted by law (other than Chapter 170 ) be increased to a rate per annum not to exceed 1% above the prime lending rate of an institution specified by the Board. All assessment plats, plans and specifications, -cost estimates and records of the names and addresses of the owners of property to be assessed shall be kept and maintained by the public works or other similar department of the County, or such other office or officer of the County as may be specified by the Board from time to time. Any special assessment liens upon real property, resulting from special assessments levied pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, shall be extinguished upon the recording by the Board in the Official Records of the County, an affidavit or affidavits executed by the Chairman of the Board to the effect that sufficient security has been deposited with the County in order to insure timely payment of the amounts of such special assessments or the installments thereof, as the case may 39 N OV 21 1984 HOOK � A r,r -1 BOOK 58 P,�GE 916 be. If notes are issued in anticipation of the issuance of Bonds, the special assessments shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed 1% above the rate of interest on the notes, as long as the notes are outstanding. Any special assessments that are pre- paid shall bear interest at the rate borne by the Bonds or the notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of the Bonds, whichever are outstanding, and, if necessary to pay additional expenses of redemption, shall include a prepayment fee not to exceed the applicable redemption premium, if any, for such notes or Bonds, if they were to be redeemed on the next available redemption date, plus any other expenses of the County in connec- tion with such redemption. The Board may, at its option, and to the extent per- mitted by law (other than Chapter 170), elect to use the provi- sions of this ordinance for the levy and collection of impact fees for the purposes expressed herein. In such event the County shall not be required to adjust such impact fees downward after acceptance of the improvements, if actual construction costs are less than originally estimated." SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY OF INVALID PROVISIONS. If any one or more of the provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable. from the remaining provisions and shall in no way affect the validity of any of the other provisions hereof. SECTION 5. REPEALING CLAUSE. All ordinances, resolu- tions or parts thereof of the Board in conflict with the provi- sions herein contained are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. A certified copy of this ordinance, as enacted, shall be filed in the office of the 40 M M M Department of State of the State of Florida by the Clerk of the Board within 10 days after its enactment, and this ordinance shall take effect upon receipt of official acknowledgment from that office that such ordinance has been filed. ENACTED this November 21 , 1984. (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Y fay, .„, C__ 'd� ATTEST: Chairman LZ By 4091hrtvdJ,- Ll, - Clerk Ll ORDINANCE CREATING VERO LAKES MSTU The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO 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 _ .fA 0 in the matter in the Court, was pub - __0 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 subs 'bed efore 1 tF Y da of#t",6. 19 z_ �j _ (Bu mess Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit (SEAL) River County, Florida) 41 PUBLIC NOTICi OF ¢ INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE The Board of. County. Commissioners.of,. 25th Vero Beach, FL, 32950,,19,092$Y? of an ordinance entitled:+,�,, AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF FO�R1nA ONERS OF CREATING INDTHE VERORIVE UNIT; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF THE - MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PURPbSE-, DETERMINATION OF COST .OF ' SE CE;'t PROPERTY OWNER ADVISORY GROUP;: VILEVY OF TAXES; ADOPTION OF BUDGET; DISPOSI- TION OF PROCEEDS FROM THE LEVY OF TAXES. IN CORPORATION IN. CODE; SEVER ABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE." If any -person decides to, appeal arty decision made on the above matter, he. will need a record .of the proceedings and for such purposes, he.; may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony In. evidence on which. the appeal is. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. ».x Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Nov. 2.1984. � N 0 V 211984 BOOK i .1. -917 r NOV E 11984 8000 58 F'A'F �l Public Works Director James Davis made the staff presenta- tion, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 14, 1984 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: Establishment of Vero Lakes Estate! 1 MSTU for Road and Drainage Improvements FROM: James W. Davis, P. E. REFERENCES: Public Works Directo DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On July 11, 1984, during a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, staff was instructed to proceed with advertising for a Public Hearing to establish an MSTU for Vero i Lake Estates. Attached is a draft of the subject memo, along with copies of past Board action and staff memos: j ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Staff has communicated with Pat Corrigan, owner of approximately 10,000 acres which drains into the canal east of CR510, and Mr. Ansin. Mr. Corrigan is in favor of participating in yearly maintenance of the Canal System and establishing a regular maintenance schedule, however, he feels that action to manage the watershed area should remain on a local County level. Correspondence with Mr. Ansin indicates that paving collector roads is a priority. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the MSTU be established and that staff work with concerned property owners to.recommend a work program and budget prior to April 1, 1985. Director Davis noted that this was brought before the Board before and staff was instructed to advertise for the establish- ment of an MSTU for this area. Mr. Davis felt there is some confusion as to the exact boundaries of the MSTU and explained that it is to include four major areas - all Vero Lakes Estates; Pine Lake Estate, an unrecorded subdivision; 60 unplatted acres which have been divided into 5 acre tracts; and the recreation vehicle park which received site plan approval several months ago. This represents a total of about 3,000 acres, and that does 42 � s � not include the Corrigan property or the Ansin property to the west and south, but we are working them them. Commissioner Wodtke noted there is a piece left out along CR 512, and he asked if their drainage is not tied in. Mr. Davis explained that is unimproved pasture land. It is staff's feeling that if it ever is platted and improved, it then should be made part of the MSTU. Commissioner Wodtke asked if Mr. Ansin did not wish to be involved, and Mr. Davis stated that he got the impression from speaking with him on some occasions that he did not wish to be included. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Carl Johnson, Vice President of the Property Owners Association of Vero Lakes Estates, informed the Board that he was speaking for the Association and had a series of questions. 1) How can drainage be accomplished at the exit of the 510 canal into the Sebastian River estuary when he believed there is a blockage on the Davis property? Public Works Director Davis believed the real problem in the canal is upstream of the Davis property and felt a survey will have to be done of the whole system. Mr. Johnson felt there would have to be more clearance provided to permit a freer flow to the estuary, and Director Davis concurred, but did not know if we can do this without DER approval. He reported that he has talked with Mr. Corrigan and some of the others who have riparian rights to that drainage system and use that outfall, and they are willing to come up with a yearly maintenance schedule. They have contributed to cleaning out the canal in the past. 2) Can the original topographical study performed by Mr. Beindorf be used? Director Davis felt this study, which was performed in the 501s, might be of some benefit but on a very small scale. He 43 NOV 211984 aoox Ffa:G� N O V 211984 BOOK PACS 0 00 stated that he has spoken with Mr. Beindorf who has indicated he would be willing to cooperate. 3) Assuming a $10.00 appropriation is approved by each of the property owners, what would be assessed to the major property owners contiguous to Vero Lakes Estates? Mr. Davis explained that the RV park which will be included in the district contains most of their water on site and will only use the drainage system as overflow if needed. The flow from the property owners further west and south will mostly get to the system after the flow from Vero Lake Estates, which has the advantage of being closer to the canal that takes the water to the system. Much of the other land is pasture and unimproved, and he believed it would be hard to come up with a formula to assess them equitably as opposed to the developed community. It is anticipated the larger part of the improvements will be expended in the Vero Lakes Estates area, and Mr. Davis stressed that no money from the MSTU will be used outside the MSTU area. Assistant County Attorney Paull confirmed that the ordinance provides you can only spend the dollars to benefit those in the MSTU. Mr. Johnson continued to argue that improvements made in the MSTU area will provide a benefit and make the other land more valuable; he assumed there will be development there some time. Mr. Davis stated that if there are benefited owners outside of the area, they should contribute, and staff will recommend that. 4) Would there be an additional assessment beyond the $10.00 being discussed? Director Davis explained that the $10.00 per parcel figure was just thrown out as a reasonable type assessment. The ordinance says nothing of a minimum or maximum budget, and any budget would have to be approved at budgettime each year just as for any other district. 44 -7 L Commissioner Bowman felt there is a cap of two mills, and Chairman Scurlock commented that this all has been initiated to solve some problems that we don't have the ability to fund. The group that was formed will decide how much they want to do, and the County will look to the group's advisory committee to be advised of what is desired. Mr. Johnson asked how the property owners whose homes are assessed at $25,000 or less contribute, and Chairman Scurlock noted that is why it is advisable to assess using the per parcel formula. 5) What is the County's responsibility on clearing the assessments at the rear of the properties? Mr. Johnson felt these easements are County -owned. There are fallen pine trees in many of them, and he believed cleaning the easements would help water dispersal. He stated that he has not seen this done in this area in five years. Director Davis pointed out that there are many miles of drainage easements probably put in in the 1501s, and many of those the County has not maintained primarily because we have not had the manpower or equipment. In the future we anticipate establishing an upgrading plan which will require the contractor who is building a house to clear and clean the easement that serves his property; also hopefully in the future we can get back lot easements that are easier to maintain and will not be ditches but more of a gentle swale. 6) Have the names submitted for the proposed committee been agreed to by the Board? Director Davis explained the Committee is not being estab- lished at this time. It can be either a 5 or 7 member committee, and staff would make recommendations after the MSTU is established. All these resumes will be submitted to the Commission and they will choose that committee. Mr. Johnson commented that right now the committee which has been set up with tacit approval of the Board consists only of 45 NOV 211984 Boot '5 0 f N O V 21 199 members of the Property Owners Association, and he would like to see others on the committee. Chairman Scurlock agreed there should be representatives from all of the community. 7) How much of the cost of the MSTU is defrayed by the County? Mr. Davis stated that the County has not provided any direct contribution to any MSTU in the county. Indirectly, he felt there will be a great contribution involving a lot of staff time, and maintenance will continue. The Chairman emphasized that we need to be absolutely sure that we keep the level of service we are providing uniform, and we are not providing this vehicle to abolish any service we are providing now. 8) When is it envisioned that 101st Ave. and 87th St. would be paved and what type of roads? Director Davis felt instead of waiting until the revenue has been received to do the total length of these roads, we should break it into sections beginning at CR 510 and 512 and do a section a year - 1/2 a mile or so. At that rate, it could be finished in six or seven years. Chairman Scurlock noted that there is the option of bonding this project, but pointed out that it would be necessary to look at the total cost of the property and how many years they would want to fund it over. Mr. Johnson personally felt the entire thing should be done. In regard to the type of road for this area, Mr. Davis felt "double surface" treatment wearing surface would be adequate. It is less expensive; it has been used in the County before; and it is holding up quite well. It would be a basically 22' wide road with swale drainage. Joe McBride, 9225 87th St., inquired about the two mill cap and wished to know who will decide this. 46 Director Davis explained that the Advisory Committee will recommend a budget to the Commission every year. Mr. McBride asked about those who don't belong to this committee or the association; he felt a lot of people don't even believe in the MSTU. Mr. Davis stated that if there are people in the area who wish to be represented, they should select a representative to be considered for the Advisory Committee. Mr. McBride then spoke of his problems with the ditch behind his home and complained that the work he has requested has not been done and what has been done in the area has been done incorrectly. He claimed that the road was cut lower than the drainage ditch beside it, and felt the County should look into replacing some of their personnel if they cannot even shoot a grade and then fill so it will drain. Chairman Scurlock agreed we will have to look into these complaints, and Mr. Davis can handle this internally within his department. George Gross, interested citizen, raised a question of how required off-site improvements would be handled, and also asked about the parcel assessment. Attorney Paull stated that off-site improvements would be an authorized expenditure, and noted that the per lot assessment is done without respect to the assessed value. Mr. Gross questioned how much money is anticipated per year from the MSTU, and Mr. Davis stated that it is premature to establish a budget and revenue and work program. This should be done prior to April. He believed there are about 3700 parcels which are taxable, and at $10 per parcel, this would be $37,000. Mr. Gross noted that we need to study drainage and asked what is anticipated re cost and length of time of such a study. Mr. Davis stated that his feeling is a drainage study, depending on how detailed, could take a year or two, but we could 47 NO V 2" 11984 NOV 211984 BOOK `8 probably come up with something within six months if we only looked at the subdivision internally and nothing offsite. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that there would be no funds collected until probably around December of 1985. Mr. Gross stated that he just wished the people to be aware that next year will not see this all accomplished. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the cost if the roads were done all at one time, and Director Davis believed the two roads in question would be about $206,000. He felt that is a conservative figure and that with double surface, we could probably knock off $20,000. Discussion continued re the fact that this could be a slow process unless they went to another option. Chairman Scurlock envisioned that as the area grows, we will see an acceleration of the program. Mr. Davis noted that when and if the traffic impact fee ordinance is adopted, some revenue can be used to support new growth. It should be used for new growth and not to remedy an existing deficiency; however, this is a unique area and maybe it can help. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Ordinance 84-81 creating an MSTU for the Vero Lake Estates area. 48 ORDINANCE NO. 84- 81 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA CREATING THE VERO LAKE ESTATES AREA MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PURPOSE; DETERMINATION OF COST OF SERVICE; PROPERTY OWNER ADVISORY GROUP; LEVY OF TAXES, ADOPTION OF BUDGET; DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM THE LEVY OF TAXES; INCORPORATION IN CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Vero Lake Estates Area of the County is comprised of thousands of platted homesites for which adequate roadway and drainage improvements have never existed and for which substantial upgrading is vitally necessary; and WHEREAS, the level of services required to upgrade existing conditions to an acceptable state and to provide continual maintenance thereof greatly exceeds the ability of County forces to provide such services, when considered against general County ad valorm dollars presently generated by the properties in the area; and WHEREAS, many residents of the Vero Lake Estates area have expressed a willingness to fund the necessary improvements through a specially established MSTU; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that establishment of a Municipal Service Taxing Unit to fund the desired additional improvements will further the interest of the public, and property owners and residents of the Vero Lake Estates Area. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION 1 CREATION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT There is hereby established in Indian River County the Vero Lake Estates Area Municipal Service Taxing Unit under the authority of, and with all those powers conferred by, the Constitution of the State of Florida and Florida Statutes 5125.01 (Q), (r). The real property included within the boundaries of this Municipal Service Taxing Unit and subject to all provisions hereof is described as follows: A. All that certain property lying within the following 49 BOOK Ft4 ! rdVOV 211984 8 t' .OUf_ 996 subdivision plats on file in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida at the Plat Book and Page Numbers indicated: 1. Vero Lake Estates Unit 1 Plat Book 4 page 41 2. Vero Lake Estates Unit 2 Plat Book 4 Page 52 3. Vero Lake Estates Unit 3 Plat Book 4 Page 59 4. Vero Lake Estates Unit 4 Plat Book 4 Page 88 5. Vero Lake Estates Unit 5A Plat Book 5 Page 3 6. Vero Lakes Estates Unit 5G Plat Book 5 Page 71 7. Vero Lake Estates Unit A Plat Book 4 Page 70 8. Vero Lake Estates Unit A, Replat-Lots 5 to 6G Plat Book 5 Page 88 9. Vero Lake Estates Unit B Plat Book 4 page 93 10. Vero Lake Estates Unit C Plat Book 5 Page 31 11. Vero Lake Estates Unit D Plat Book 5 Page 38 12. Vero Lake Estates Unit E Plat Book 5 Page 51 13. Vero Lake Estates Unit F Plat Book 5 Page -55 14. Vero Lake Estates Unit G Plat Book 5 Page 59 15. Vero Lake Estates Unit H Plat Book 5 Page 68 16. Vero Lake Estates Unit H-1 Plat Book 5 Page 92 17. Vero Lake Estates Unit H-2 Plat Book 6 Page 4 18. Vero Lake Estates Unit H-3 Plat Book 6 Page 18 19. Vero Lake Estates Unit H-4 Plat Book 6 Page 31 20. Vero Lake Estates Unit I Plat Book 5 Page 69 21. Vero Lake Estates Unit J Plat Book 5 Page 76 22. Vero Lake Estates Unit,K Plat Book 5 Page 83 23. Vero Lake Estates Unit L Plat Book 5 Page 86 24. Vero Lake Estates Unit M Plat Book 5 Page 87 25. Vero Lake Estates Unit N Plat Book 6 Page 19 26. Vero Lake Estates Unit O Plat Book 6 Page 22 27. Vero Lake Estates Unit P Plat Book 6 Page 30 28. Vero Lake Estates Unit Q Plat Book 6 Page 40 29. Vero Lake Estates Unit R Plat Book 6 Page 51 30. Vero Lake Estates -Oak Lake Addition Plat Book 7 Page - 26; B. Together with all land lying in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, together with the North 1/2 50 � ® a of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28, all located in Township 31 South, Range 38 East, Indian River County, Florida; C. The South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28, Township 31 South, Range 38 East, Indian River County, Florida. D. Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 38 East, run South 00 32' 37" West, along the East line of aforesaid Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, 299.15 feet to the Point of Beginning. From the Point of Beginning, continue South 00 32' 37" West, 1032.86 feet to the Northeast corner of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast quarter of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 38 East; thence run South 00 39' 37" West, along the East line of aforesaid Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, 641.11 feet; thence North 890 15' 23" West. 932.47 feet to the East right of, way of Interstate Highway 95; thence following said East right of way, run North 02° 59' 28" East, 405.84 feet; thence North 08° 33' 06" East, 709.02 feet;,thence North 10° 46' 50" East, 574.76 feet; thence leaving aforementioned East right of way, run South 890 15' 23"` East, 715.52 feet to the Point of Beginning. All of the above situate in Indian River County, Florida and containing 32.55 acres, more or less. Less and except, however, from the above-described properties any and all road right of way existing of record for County Roads 510 and 512. SECTION 2 PURPOSE A. This Municipal Service Taxing Unit is created for the purposes of funding an analysis of the existing drainage and transportation system within the boundaries of the unit; identifi- i 51 NOV 1 1984 B r bill -7 Ij - `'ac9 6dn�: �� r,. E cation of improvements necessary to provide optimum drainage of all rights of way and of the properties within the unit; identification of thoroughfares and streets requiring improvement, both to compliment drainage improvements and to promote efficiency in transportation and roadway maintenance; funding the acquisition of easements, rights of way, or other properties necessary for the required improvements; funding the engineering, construction, and maintenance of those improvements deemed necessary or desirable; and to fund all reasonable expenses and services related to any of the foregoing activities. B. This Municipal Service Taxing Unit may fund all or any of the aforementioned services or improvements through either current year funding, tax anticipation or multi-year notes or bonds, provided any debt instrument or obligation made must be repayable solely from revenues collected by the Municipal Service Taxing Unit pursuant to the authority and means provided by this ordinance. SECTION 3 DETERMINATION OF COST OF SERVICE --PROPERTY OWNER ADVISORY GROUP A. The Board of County Commissioners shall determine each year the estimated cost of providing those services or improvements contemplated within the unit boundaries for the ensuing County fiscal year. B. In determining both the level and cost of services for any given year, the Board . shall consider the recommendations of an advisory group composed of seven (7) persons who are the owners of property within the boundaries of the unit. The advisory group members shall be appointed at large upon motion of the Board of County Commissioners from a list of interested individuals or nominees. Advisory group members shall serve at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners. The advisory group shall adopt its own procedures for operation, but in any event, all official action taken or recommendations made shall be by affirmative vote of no less than a majority of the full member- ship of the group. The advisory group shall offer it recommenda- 52 tions in writing to the Board from time to time through the office of the Public Works Director. All advisory group activities shall be subject to the Florida Sunshine Law, Florida Statutes §286.001. The Board of County Commissioners shall have sole discretion to determine the final level of funding or services for any given fiscal year. LEVY OF TAXES, ADOPTION OF BUDGET A. The Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes a levy .of ad valorem taxes under the authority of the second sentence of Section 9 (b) Article VII of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Florida Statutes 5125.01 (q) in an amount not to exceed 2.0 mills on all real and tangible property within the Vero Lake Estates Area Municipal Service Taxing Unit as defined under this ordinance for any or all of those purposes above described. B. Pursuant to said authority, the Board hereby further authorizes the levying and collection of service charges or special assessments in a uniform manner for those Municipal Service Taxing Unit expenditures which are determined to provide a reasonably uniform special benefit to all those properties within the taxing unit against which such service charge or special assessment is made. C. Service charges, special assessments, and ad valorem taxes authorized by this section shall be levied and a budget prepared and adopted by the County Commission at the same time and in the same manner as the Board prepares and adopts its annual budget and levies taxes as provided by law. D. All service charges, special assessments, and ad valorem taxes authorized under this section shall be assessed, levied, collected, remitted to and accounted for at the same time and in the same manner as the assessments, levies, collection, and remittance of taxes to the General Fund, by the County Commission as provided by law. The budget for this taxing unit in each year shall contain that portion of the estimated cost of providing services hereunder, including debt service, for which costs will be incurred in the given year. 53 NOV 2 11984 BOOK "A Boof 58 rn-r 930 SECTION 5 DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM LEVY OF TAXES All funds obtained by the levy of a tax on the real and tangible property within the boundaries of the Vero Lake Estates Municipal Service Taxing Unit shall be maintained in a separate account and used solely for the purpose of providing those services set forth above. SECTION 6 INCORPORATION IN CODE The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County 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 purpose. SECTION 7 SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, part thereof, "T paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative 1 EFFECTIVE DATE r 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 Depart- ment of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 21st day of November , 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. Chairman 54 REPORT ON MCKEE JUNGLE GARDENS Commissioner Bird requested that his report on McKee Jungle Gardens be deferred until the next meeting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) deferred the above report as requested by Commissioner Bird. DISCUSSION RE ACTION TAKEN BY HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STUDY COMMITTEE (Continued) Planning Director Keating reported that the Hutchinson Island Committee met last Thursday to evaluate how well governments in the study area have done since the Resource Management Plan was adopted. Basically, the committee had three alternatives, i.e., they could find all the local governments were in complete compliance; that they were partially in compliance; or that there was no compliance. The Committee determined each local government had made progress in implementing the Resource Management Plan, but that none were in full compliance and identified for each government the area where they were deficient. The Committee then passed a Motion which specifically stated that they felt it would not be necessary to designate any as areas of critical concern, but because of the time restraints involved, they suggested that the state initiate the process of designation with the provision that this process would be stopped for each local government when that government had complied with the specific items correcting their specific deficiencies. To avoid designation, Indian River County must take certain action, which involves two major steps. First, by January 11th, the Commission must pass a Resolution assuring the State that it will comply with all the Plan policies; will rectify all areas of deficiency; specify steps that will be taken; and have a time 55 NOV 211984 8100Kc€ I N O V 211984 86OX schedule to comply. Mr. Keating did not feel that is a major item. Secondly, by March 15th, the Commission must comply with policies relating to environmental resources and water and wastewater, which we have not yet complied with, and also must comply with the transportation policy, which presents the most difficulties and also was one of the most controversial parts of the plan. We must take three specific actions to comply with the Transportation Plan policies, i.e., limit development on the South Barrier Island to one dwelling unit per acre; develop a plan for Traffic Zone #1 allocating the excess capacity between the County and the Town of Orchid; and limit development on the North Barrier Island to the number of units that can be accommo- dated by the transportation system. Mr. Keating continued that basically staff has identified three alternatives, all of which relate to about a 7 month period until a traffic study can be completed. 1) Enact a moratorium which would effectively put all development on the island in excess of one dwelling unit per acre on hold, which would take about 45 days. 2) Amend our Comprehensive Plan and rezone those areas which do conform to the requirements of one unit per acre, which would take about 90 days. 3) Do nothing and let the process of designation move along. Chairman Scurlock felt the statement made in the Indian River County Evaluation, Attachment B, that "No additional residential development shall be approved at a density in excess of one residential dwelling unit per buildable acre until such local government receives approval of its local transportation plan from the DCA..." in effect, already has placed a moratorium on us. Commissioner Bird asked if Attorney Brandenburg agreed that anything the Hutchinson Island Committee does has an immediate binding effect on this county, and the Attorney stated that it 56 doesn't have the effect of a moratorium at a local level, but if the County continues to review and approve projects in violation of what is indicated in the plan, the Committee will use that as an example of the County flagrantly violating their plan in an effort to get us designated as an area of critical concern, at which point the State takes over. At this point County staff is looking for direction from this Board as to how they handle these things without being in direct violation and giving DCA an excuse to designate this county. Mr. Keating briefly reviewed the transportation element of the Hutchinson Island Plan, showing slides of the bridge capacities, trip generations, peak season, etc. He noted the performance standard is that there shouldn't be any more development than can be accommodated and provided with a certain level of service. In Indian River County we are dealing with four traffic zones - the first zone served by Wabasso bridge, and the remaining zones being served by the two southern bridges, as set out on the following pages from the Compliance Evaluation. 57 �I OV 21 1984 Boob CJS P�C,E 3 NOV 211984 A Bge Ca}t►►��jj\\jj���F]]JJS�, 2,,Re,aJ Sarnson"Erip Glans' tjon ZONE 1 12,266 ADT W;;h;;-zrn Bridge UKLHIU LOS D-19,100 INDIAN R I V E R COUNTY Merrill Barber Bridge LOS D-17,600 VERO BEACH 17th Street Bridge LOS D-35,000 U 800K 58 pn,9'34 At.tachment A ZONE 2 9,860 ADT INDIAN RIVER SHORES ZONE 3 29,296 ADT LO ZONE 4 14,018 ADT North Island Causeway LOS 0-17,200 FT. PIERCE 10 Peter P. Cobb Bridge Los D-17,600 ST. LUCRE COUNTY ZONE 5 15,108 ADT LONE 6 15.639 ADT ZONE -7 10.097 ADT 00 00 Ir ZONE 8 6,147 ADT Jensen Beach Bridge g LOS D -17,60G- - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - M A R T I N STUART Stuart Causeway C 0 U N T Y LOS D-10,600 58 ZONE 9 24,810 ADT E 10A 10,452 ADT ZONE 1OB 14,225 A' Attachment B HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE PLANNING AND MlANAGEMENT PLAN Zone-bv-Zone Traffic Analvsis Mr. Keating noted that according to the numbers shown, it appears we are over capacity in the South Beach area right now. We are under constraint to limit development in the south beach area to one unit per acre and in the north beach area to share trips between the County and the Town of Orchid. These numbers are preliminary estimates and each local government must 59 N O V Ci 1984 Boor Pr€ 915 LOCAL GOVT PEAK SEASON ZONE UNIT TRIPS BRIDGE LOS D CAPACITY EXCESS/EXCEEDED 1 INDIAN RIVE COUNTY & ORCHID 12,266 Wabasso 19,100 Excess 2 INDIAN RIVE. COUNTY & INDIAN RIVE SHORES 9,860 Exceeded Merrill 3 INDIAN RIVET Barber 17,600 COUNTY & VERO BEACH 29,296 Exceeded 17th 35,000 4 INDIAN RIVEJ Street Exceeded COUNTY 14,018 Total: Total: 53,174 * 52,600 5 ST. LIICIE COUNTY 15,108 North Islane 17,200 Excess 6 FT. PIERCE •15,639 Exceeded 7 FT. PIERCE 10,097 Peter 17,600 Exceeded Cobb 8 ST. LUCIE COUNTY 6,147 Exceeded Total: --' 31,883 9 ST. LIICIE COUNTY 24,810 Exceeded Jensen 17,600 10A MARTIN Beach COUNTY 10,452 Exceeded Total: 35,262 10B MARTIN Stuart COUNTY 14,225 Causeway 10,600 Exceeded Mr. Keating noted that according to the numbers shown, it appears we are over capacity in the South Beach area right now. We are under constraint to limit development in the south beach area to one unit per acre and in the north beach area to share trips between the County and the Town of Orchid. These numbers are preliminary estimates and each local government must 59 N O V Ci 1984 Boor Pr€ 915 N 0 V 211984 BooF:CF' undertake a traffic study, which we have a consultant working on right now. This study could change these numbers completely or it might say that the numbers are okay, but there are improve- ments that could be made to increase the capacity of the system and, therefore, provide for more development. On the north bar- rier island there are about 2,000 undeveloped buildable acres - 1500 in the county and about 430 in the Town of Orchid - and Mr. Keating believed it would be possible to add another 4,600 trips per day. He stated that if the north barrier island were to be developed at the Comprehensive Plan density, we would be talking about 58,000 trips, and with an estimated capacity of 19,000, the Wabasso Bridge would be overburdened at about three times its capacity. Mr. Keating then went on to discuss in detail proposed development, committed development, and development actually under construction, in both the south and north barrier island areas, pointing out that the status of some of these developments is unclear, i.e., site plans may have expired; there is a question of whether a good faith effort has been made to maintain construction, etc. All this represents trips which possibly could be added back in. Commissioner Bird asked where the figures used by the Com- mittee came from, and Mr. Keating reported that they came from a traffic study done in the St. Lucie County area and it was recognized they may not be standard in the entire study area. He noted that all the local municipalities have agreed to the traffic study and are working with us. Director Keating continued that even though there is excess capacity in the Traffic Zone I and the excess capacity is depending on the status of unclear development, if we accept the Committee figures that there are about 6,400 trips remaining and allocate those trips among all the developable land in Traffic Zone I, we come up with a figure of less than one unit per acre - closer to one unit per 22 acres. The Committee says you can .m � � a allow development at one unit per acre, and staff, therefore, would recommend one unit per developable acre in Traffic Zone I the same as in Zones 2, 3 and 4. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that is the Committee's position with respect to the interim allocation until the local governments come up with their own traffic studies, and after that, there is the possibility it would be only one unit per five acres. Mr. Keating disagreed and stated that it can always be one unit per acre. Discussion continued as to how to direct staff, and Chairman Scurlock noted that the Comprehensive Plan was developed after intensive study and was something we could be comfortable with. He felt we must find a mechanism to improve our road system which will indicate we can make improvements per our Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keating believed the traffic study will show some improvements that can be made in the three southern traffic zones which will increase the capacity of the island/mainland transportation system. The 17th Street Bridge itself has a significant amount of capacity (about 70,000 trips), but is constrained to 35,000 because of the intersection on the east side. Discussion ensued at length as to the fact that we were included in this study against our wishes and as to whether we have exhausted all our options in regard to being withdrawn from the study area. Attorney Brandenburg noted that the county always can attempt to meet with the Governor and Cabinet and try to be excluded, but he did not feel that will be successful since it has not been in the past. In his opinion, they are heading down a clear path to designate us as an area of critical concern if we do not move ahead as required by the Management Plan. The Attorney continued that even though the County and some of the 61 Ba0K NOV 211984 �4 NOV 211984 BOOK 5 �,Aq = j land owners were successful in getting the Governor and Cabinet to adopt a Motion saying that all we had to do was the transpor- tation plan, and we could ignore the things the other counties are doing, the DCA wasn't there arguing against it when it was adopted; the Attorney was not sure how knowledgeable the Cabinet members were of the situation when they adopted that Motion, and he could not advise the Commission to rely on it at this point. Questions continued as to why the State is recommending specific performance standards for the barrier island and not the mainland, and Mr. Keating believed this relates to the fact that the island already is beset by pressures and both the state and federal government have decided there will be no more federally funded improvements to the barrier islands. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the State built SR AlA. He then talked about density on the island in Brevard County, which is 18-24 units per acre; yet we are to be limited to one unit per acre when all of the high density population from Brevard County can come down and over our bridges. We are a victim of problems from counties to the south, and the north, and we have not had any support from Tallahassee on this. He supposed somebody can cite the authority the Management Study Committee has to put this restriction on us. Attorney Brandenburg explained what the study committee did last Thursday was evaluate our County's compliance with the original plan that was adopted, and what they have said is that we have not complied with the transportation aspect of it and we must do certain things by a certain date or they are going to recommend that the island be designated. The difficulty with this is that when a recommendation goes to the Governor and Cabinet, it probably will not be just for our County alone so that when we go up there to fight the designation, it will be difficult for the Governor to pull just our county out. Commissioner Wodtke felt that the Committee's recommendation completely ignores the Motion of the Governor and Cabinet, and 62 Attorney Brandenburg read the Motion made by Mr. Gunter: "That the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Administration Commission acknowledge the Resolution adopted by Indian River County and the voluntary compliance and cooperation of local government in implementing the applicable portions of the Plan. Further, the Governor and Cabinet concur that no development restrictions beyond those currently existing on the approved local Comprehensive Plans are imposed by virtue of the voluntary compliance by Indian River County with the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning Management Plan." The Attorney believed that what is going to happen when that is brought up to the DCA is that they will say that they agree there would not have been any more development restrictions if you had complied with the Plan, but you haven't, and the thing you have not done was the reduc- tion of densities required until the transportation study had been completed, which was a specific part of the original plan. Chairman Scurlock felt we could talk about this all day, and it isn't going to accomplish anything. He agreed with Attorney Brandenburg that we probably should go ahead and seek an audience with the Governor and try to exert some pressure, but felt it will be very difficult to accomplish. Land owner Pat Corrigan noted that he was at the meeting and heard the Resolution being discussed. He did not feel under the agreement the Governor and Cabinet made that day, that we could be accused of non-compliance, and he did feel the Committee ignored the Resolution. Attorney Brandenburg agreed, but felt we need to get an assurance from the Governor and Cabinet that we can rely on what they said. Discussion continued regarding having to comply, and the Chairman felt we have to comply, but noted that it will be very difficult to come up with something that will be fair to everybody; so, we do need to call a halt until we can figure out a formula. 63 N 0 V 211984 BOOK 58 FnE r�0V 21 1 984 BOOK Attorney Brandenburg believed the transportation study will show there is more capacity, but between now and the time that occurs, all the developments that are approved will be eating into the capacity, and even under that study, if there isn't capacity left, they will suggest it go down to one unit per acre. Commissioner Bowman asked why the Attorney felt the transportation study will show added capacity, and Attorney Brandenburg stated because it will analyze the assumptions made by the Committee more carefully and find a more applicable generation rate for our county based on actual counts to be made during our peak season in February when people will be inter- viewed as to their destinations. Property owner, Nancy McLarty, brought up the question of ad valorem taxes and felt perhaps consideration should be given to a tax credit. If the density goes down to one unit per acre, Miss McLarty could not believe that anyone would not expect their land assessment to be lowered. She noted this would result in lowering the County's tax base. Chairman Scurlock felt that is true and further noted that it will also limit things such as the North County Water Company if there is not enough customer base. Miss McLarty commented that it appears it will require at least 45 days or more to enact a moratorium, and she wished to know if that means anyone who can submit a site plan in that time period would then be ahead of rest. Chairman Scurlock felt that is exactly what you would see. Miss McLarty asked if there is any other way whereby the county could say the state was imposing unfair restrictions and taxing restrictions. Attorney Brandenburg noted that we have adopted a Resolution exactly to that effect, but the difficulty is that the Statute gives the Administration very broad powers in this regard. In fact, these powers are so broad no one has bothered to attack them. He felt this is borne out by the fact that some very 64 � � r highly valuable areas of the state have been designated areas of critical concern. Realtor Ed Schlitt felt hopeful that when a good logical traffic study is completed and perhaps some improvements made, the number of units may be substantially higher than what is being suggested. He believed there are some benefiting factors as we don't want to become another south Florida type growth situation and this does help keep things in check, but there must be some degree of fairness. One area Mr. Schlitt did feel would be substantially unfair, as related to the moratorium, is that there are developers who have gone to substantial expense in developing plans and even put funds towards a water system to make some of the growth possible. He believed plans in position must be given some kind of consideration and that people who have made substantial commitments must be recognized. Jeannette Lier made the point that our traffic study has to be approved by the Department of Community Affairs, and Director Keating stated that they already have approved the scope of services and our consultant; so, he believed they would be hard pressed to deny his conclusions unless they felt they were completely unreasonable. Tom Collins, developer, noted that problems from below are spilling over on our county. He did agree we must make some plans, but noted that for people like himself, who have been through the planning stage and spent considerable sums of money, to be cut off at this stage would be unfair. He agreed we should expand our efforts and try to influence the Governor to either exclude us or realize we are working and give us some consideration. Miss McLarty realized Mr. Collins has a valid point, but pointed out that if all these developers rush in and take up all the available units, there are a lot of citizens who have been holding property for a very long time waiting for the right kind 65 L NOV 211984 N 0 V 21 1984BOOK 8 Ftp �, 942 of development and those people will be zero based. It is important to be fair to both. Chairman Scurlock quoted wording which states that "no additional development shall be approved until the affected local governments have submitted a plan to DCA for allocation of the remaining units and until the DCA has reviewed and commented upon said plan." He felt this clearly demonstrates that the DCA is mandating an allocation plan. Nancy Offutt, representing the Board of Realtors and the Chamber of Commerce, felt we must all agree we are not getting a fair shake and have not been dealt with in good faith. She stated that the position of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors is that we should lobby as extensively as we can. We do want to preserve our local juris- diction, and both organizations would support whatever action the County would take not to turn control of development on the barrier island over to the state. Attorney William Caldwell stated that it seems that what is happening is that the Board is changing their commitments. The original intent was to do whatever we had to do to the transpor- tation element so it would match our Land Use Plan, not change the Land Use Plan to match the restrictive road system. As of last Thursday, however, this has all changed, and the Board is now thinking in terms of a moratorium followed with allocation of the so-called "pie." In his mind, he felt the Land Use density we had was the pie, and the Board's commitment was to do something to the transportation element so those densities and services that were always anticipated would take place. Chairman Scurlock believed we are happy with our Comprehen- sive Plan and the anticipated density, but the bottom line is there will have to be significant road improvements made and the state has moved in and is telling us that we have to do certain things in the interim. :. M Attorney Caldwell stated that he is suggesting that the staff should be directed, during whatever period of time there is left, to do whatever they need to do to come up with suggestions to the Commission to implement improvements to the transportation system. He felt what the Board is talking about doing here is really devastating to millions of dollars of real estate. The Chairman noted that staff already has been directed to work with our consultant to develop an overall plan to allow us to achieve these densities; this is already in the process. He did not believe anyone on the Commission has a desire to reduce the density to one unit per acre. Attorney Caldwell emphasized that what he is saying is that he did not feel there should be a hold up even for 45 days. If there is a plan to improve the transportation system that can be submitted to the Management Committee and the DCA, etc., that should be sufficient and staff can move ahead. Commissioner Bird did not feel we had the expertise on staff to do that and that is why we went to the consultant. He asked about the timing on that consultant's report, and Mr. Keating stated six to eight months and it started about 1h months ago. Mr. Keating felt staff could do something like Attorney Caldwell suggested on a generalized basis, but pointed out that until we get the information from our traffic study, we would have to rely on the estimates and assumptions made in the Hutchinson Island study. What staff would be doing would be planning for a new bridge and showing where that funding would be coming from, which would amount to many millions. Attorney Caldwell stated that is one of the things he would hope would be happening now, but Mr. Keating felt it would be a duplication of effort if staff started working on a traffic plan based on assumptions that very likely will be changed in six months time. Attorney Caldwell noted that if a new bridge is needed or four lanes are needed on AlA, they will be needed five years from 67 1P C r FF ,•,•,,r.�i����� OV 211984 Nov 211984 now, and not in 1985 or 1986, and there should be some way for the county to commit that those facilities will be built in the future and there will be a financial mechanism. If site plans are approved for the remaining capacity of the bridge, they will not be built out for five to six years so the capacity will be there during that time. Chairman Scurlock felt that is easy to say but commented that there are some developers who already have 500-600 units vested while you have individuals with hundreds of agricultural acres who don't have the first unit available if this all goes through. Some developers already have a big piece of the pie. Attorney Brandenburg felt we should pursue Mr. Caldwell's suggestion and try to get a commitment from the Governor and Cabinet that this will suffice under the Management plan. If it does, he did not see any difficulty in proceeding with the applications. The difficulty, however, is that the Management Plan says you have to do something else and the fear is if you don't do the something else, it will give them the opportunity to say we are not voluntarily complying. We need an assurance that won't occur, and with that assurance he would feel it would be reasonable to proceed on the basis outlined by Mr. Caldwell. Commissioner Bird suggested presenting the argument that our Comprehensive Plan is a model in the State of Florida, and represents probably the lowest density to be found on the barrier islands anywhere in the state. Attorney Brandenburg agreed we could present that argument, and the DCA would agree we are a model, but would say unless you can build roads to handle those densities, you don't comply. If we can present a plan to get money to build the transportation improvements, and say we have met the requirement to comply with roads meeting density, he believed that would be reasonable and they should let us out, but whether they will do that and look at Martin and St. Lucie Counties differently is dubious. We need assurances. Frank Weed noted that apparently it is necessary to submit a plan by March 15th, but the results of the study won't be ready for six to eight months; so, how do we meet the deadline? Planning Director Keating explained that by March 15th, we have to have a mechanism in place that will not allow development on the south barrier island in excess of one unit per acre and in the north island allot excess traffic capacity between the county and Town of Orchid and not exceed the capacity of the bridge. Mr. Weed believed they are assuming maximum Comprehensive Plan densities even though those densities may not come about for years. Mr. Keating confirmed that the Comprehensive Plan recognized that development will not come all at once; however, things are proceeding faster than expected. The Hutchinson Island Plan says if you are going to show those densities, you must have a plan for the improvements to be made, particularly since the federal government will not provide any money for the improvements. Mr. Weed asked about a figure for absorption of units in the county over the next years, and Mr. Keating did not know, but stated this will be addressed by the consultant in five year increments; we need this information for the basis of traffic impact fees. Dorothy Hudson, attorney for The Moorings, expressed concern about what the Commission is going to do in the interim period and wished to know if The Moorings can pull a permit. She noted that she has a lot of specific questions to ask. The Chairman did not feel the Board will take any specific action today, but believed there are three options for us to go as presented by Director Keating. Ms. Hudson noted that moratorium seems to be the most discussed option and this can be a lot of different animals. Planning Manager Keating stated that staff's recommendation would be a moratorium on approval of developments which exceed one unit per acre; they would not recommend that there be a 69 BOOK 9 NOV 21 1984 �¢� NOV 211984 BOOK 15 IS 0G building moratorium because the Hutchinson Island Plan doesn't put constraints on anything that is already vested. Attorney Brandenburg emphasized that his office's recommen- dation is that the county immediately move to meet the Governor and Cabinet and try to change the plan so it coincides with what we have discussed today and to get an assurance that, if we do, we will not be designated. If we cannot get that assurance, he felt we must take a position in the interim that nothing will be done that will jeopardize us in re being designated. Discussion followed as to getting on the Cabinet agenda and contacting our representative in Tallahassee, Mr. Nabors, in regard to trying to get some assurances from the Governor and Cabinet. Mr. Bailey felt we have a lot of rhetoric to back up the action on their Motion, and if we can't depend on the word of the Governor and Cabinet, we all have some serious difficulties. Attorney Brandenburg asked if Mr. Bailey is willing to depend on that Motion at this point, as he was not sure that he could recommend that the Commission do so. Discussion followed re having Attorney Brandenburg approach Mr. Nabors and come back to the Board, and the Attorney stated he would have no problem with a recommendation from his office working in conjunction with Mr. Nabors; however, this cannot be accomplished over the Thanksgiving holidays because no one will be in Tallahassee. Pat Corrigan wished to know why it is that the state won't fund the bridges and roads on the barrier island, and Chairman Scurlock felt they basically decided the barrier islands are something they do have want to have developed. Attorney Brandenburg explained that the Governor adopted an Administrative Order at the recommendation of the then Department of Transportation not to fund any more improvements on the barrier islands of Florida. 70 � � r M Mrs. Offutt felt that eventually this will be decided on a judicial level and asked if we can't take a really aggressive point of view and challenge this Order. Mr. Bailey suggested, because of the apparent concern about people rushing in to get vested, that the Commission put in a very temporary moratorium on any new plans from this point until whatever time it takes to get an assurance from the Governor and Cabinet that what they said is still valid. Attorney Brandenburg.felt the Commission could take the position with respect to all pending applications, and any others they did receive at this point, that there is such a lack of information regarding the transportation element that they could not hold any hearings or consider any more development until those assurances have been granted. He felt that would be a legal position the County could take, and one which would be very difficult for any land owners to challenge. Mr. Weed asked about proceeding with review of applications that are in, with respect to everything except the traffic element. Attorney Brandenburg stated that if he were working with the DCA and trying to get this County designated, he would argue that the county is continuing to approve applications that can be developed above densities that can be handled, and they, therefore, are not abiding by the plan. Discussion continued at length re the dangers involved in continuing to review applications and possibly being considered in violation; re the fact that the municipalities are just about platted out; re the traffic figures and how they were generated, etc. Commissioner Wodtke asked if the 19,000 trips allotted to the Wabasso Bridge includes tourists, and Mr. Keating stated that 2,000 were estimated from the mainland to island and the rest were generated from dwelling units on the island. 71 Be% 947 I ,NOV 211984 BOOK t58 PA.cr 94 Commissioner Wodtk e brought up the traffic to Sebastian Inlet Park which is a state park and also the fact the we have to maintain the bridge. He asked if the impact of the state park will be eliminated from our traffic study. Engineer Darrell McQueen felt the county's traffic study may very well show there are 8,000 trips coming from the mainland to the park, and the county's traffic study should, by all rights, take into account all traffic, not just development traffic. He did not believe, however, that after this study is completed that we are guaranteed one unit per acre. If we should be designated an area of critical concern, he believed we might not be allowed anything - zero. Attorney Brandenburg stated that was his impression also. Miss McLarty believed she understood that we are in a position right now that if we approve any more permits or appli- cations or proceed on, we would then be considered in defiance and, therefore, might be declared an area of critical concern. She felt that is the crux of the matter today - that the Board decide whether they are going to continue to approve four people's projects and thereby put the County in defiance or not approve anybody for a while, and she would feel that is the decision that needs to be made today. Attorney Brandenburg agreed that is a correct analysis. The language in those two paragraphs is pretty specific - it says "no more until you approve an allocation plan." If you don't do it and are lucky enough to get some assurances from the Governor, you are off the hook, but on the other hand, you could be on the hook even further. Chairman Scurlock felt the only option we have is to stop right now; get authorization for the appropriate people to meet with the Governor to clarify the issue of what the Motion was and identify hopefully to the Hutchinson Island Committee that is the direction that should be taken which would give us enough time to implement the rest of it. 72 Mr. McQueen stated that there is no more Study Committee; it is now the DCA. He asked about getting the DCA to come to the meeting with the Governor, and Attorney Brandenburg concurred that we need to have representatives of DCA there when we get any assurances from the Governor and Cabinet. Mr. Bailey suggested that if the Commission chooses to go to Tallahassee, that all members go to make as big an impact as possible. Further discussion ensued re calling a Special Meeting for Monday morning, but Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that he could not promise to bring the Board back a report by 9:00 A.M. Monday in view of the Thanksgiving holidays. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board agreed to bring this matter back the afternoon of the next Regular Meeting, 1:30 P.M. Wednesday, November 28, 1984. AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES RE R.O. R " The Board reviewed staff memo as follows: 73 9 OV 21 11984 BOOK r 4 L--- -- N 0 V 211984 aoor 5� F�cr ��1 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 14, 1984 FILE: The Board of County Commissioners THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: "CONTINUING CONTRACT" FOR County Administrator PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER PLANT FROM: Terran . Pinto REFERENCES: Utility Service Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County's Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant is a sophisticated and very sensitive facility. The contractors warranty is now expired i and with approximately 1 1/2 years of operational experience with the facility, it has become apparent that the continuing services of an j engineering firm, well qualified in the design and operations 'of reverse osmosis facilities, would be invaluable in the normal operations of the facility as well as in the handling of unexpected electrical and equipment malfunctions. In addition, there are disagreements between the County and the plant contractor in regards to the conditions and adequacy of various aspects of the water plant and the services of a qualified engineering firm are extremely important in insuring the County's interests are protected. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES: There are several engineering firms in Florida whose staff are very knowledgeable in the design and operation of reverse osmosis plants. Continuing contract arrangements can be entered into with these firms, in accordance with the "Consultant's Competitive Negotiation Act," for provision of consulting services in the normal operations of the water plant as well as in response to malfunctions and emergencies. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Division of Utility Services to advertise for bids and negotiate a continuing contract for provision of consulting services in the operation and maintenance of the County's Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant. Chairman Scurlock noted that neither the Utility Director nor the Administrator are present, but basically this concerns the fact that the warranty on our Reverse Osmosis Plant has now expired and we need to protect our investment. Commissioner Bowman noted that we may be going into more reverse osmosis and possibly we should think about hiring an expert on reverse osmosis. 74 ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the Utility staff to advertise for bids and negotiate a continuing contract for provision of consulting services in the operation and maintenance of the County's Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant. AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS FOR ENGINEERING FIRM TO DESIGN SUBREGIONAL WASTEWATER FACILITY, SR 60 CORRIDOR The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 13, 1984 FILE: The Board of County Commissioners THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: SUBREGIONAL WASTEWATER FACILITY County Administrator STATE ROAD 60 CORRIDOR Terrance G. Pinto Utility Services Dir/c t FROM: Ronald R. Brooks REFERENCES: Environmental Engineering Specialist/Utility Services DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: There is substantial interest and financial support .for construction of a subregional wastewater treatment facility serving the State Road 60 corridor and surrounding area. We are now at the stage I where the facility needs to be designed and all required construction permits obtained. ANALYSIS: The Board of County Commissioners must approve any expenditure of funds for the design of the proposed wastewater facility. Since the proposed subregional facility appears to be a feasible endeavor, the County needs to actively proceed towards construction of the facility to accomodate the rapid growth along the State Road 60 corridor. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Division of Utility Services to advertise for bids and obtain the services of an engineering firm to design a subregional wastewater treatment facility for the State Road 60 corridor and obtain all required construction permits. 75 N O V 21 1984 BODY 15)8 T_ 9 2 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the Utility staff to advertise for bids and obtain the services of an engineer- ing firm to design a subregional wastewater treatment facility for the SR 60 corridor and obtain all required construction permits. DISCUSSION RE JAIL SALES TAX Commissioner Wodtke reported that the state has indicated they will prepare a mailing to those who collect sales tax. He noted that the state will start collecting January 1st, and they anticipate the mailing to go out sometime in December. Busi- nesses that are involved in Christmas activities will need to make changes in cash registers and forms, etc. and this cannot be done either quickly or easily. Commissioner Wodtke wished to find out about these instructions and when they are going to be mailed out. He requested that the Attorney see what he can find out about this. Attorney Brandenburg stated that he will inquire again and ask for a deadline when this information will be available. Commissioner Wodtke requested that the Attorney coordinate this through the Chamber of Commerce. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:35 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk i 76 1