HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/1984i � r
Wednesday, December 19, 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,
December 19, 1984, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman;
William C. Wodtke, Jr., Margaret C. Bowman, and Richard N. Bird.
Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary
Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; L.S.
"Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; and
Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
Chairman Scurlock called the meeting to order and
Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock requested that the following three
matters be added to today's Agenda:
1) A resolution required by the Department of Community
Affairs declaring the County's intent to develop a
traffic allocation plan with the Town of Orchid re the
Hutchinson Island Management Plan.
2) A EMS Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
for the Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance Service.
3) A resolution granting the Town of Indian River Shores a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for -
Emergency Transportation Services.
Administrator Wright requested the addition to today's
Agenda of a brief discussion re bids received on the hardware
ro
n BOOK
� DE
DEC 19 198 aooK �Ir2."I
for the new jail, He also requested deferment of Item #12 -
Contract in Software for Detention Department.
Commissioner Wodtke requested the addition to today's
Agenda under Item K on the Consent Agenda of authorization for
Commission members to attend the NACo Conference in Washington,
D. C.
Commissioner Bird requested the addition to today's Agenda
of the authorization to install two street lights at the County
Fairgrounds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added
the above items to today's Agenda.
RESOLUTION DECLARING IRC'S INTENT TO DEVELOP A TRAFFIC
ALLOCATION PLAN WITH THE TOWN OF ORCHID RE HUTCHINSON ISLAND
MANAGEMENT RESOURCE PLAN
Chairman Scurlock reported that he, Commissioner Wodtke,
Commissioner Bird, and Attorney Brandenburg flew up to
Tallahassee yesterday and he felt that they had been very
successful and the results were well worth the trip. The DCA is
requiring the County to pass a resolution by Thursday, December
20, 1984, declaring the County's intention to develop a traffic
allocation plan with the Town of Orchid. The State has
indicated that if we comply with this requirement, they would
stop the rule making process and the County would be excluded
from being designated an area of critical state concern in
regard to compliance with the Hutchinson Island Management
Resource Plan.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the resolution would
state the County's intent to work with the Town of Orchid to
develop an allocation plan consistent with the HIMP, and that
resolution will be sent to the DCA for review and to show the
County's intent to cooperate in this matter.
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 84-105, publicly declaring and documenting
Indian River County's intention to develop a traffic
allocation plan with the Town of Orchid.
3 BOOK 59 P9:,E 292
BOOK 59 F'GE�.,�
RESOLUTION NO. 84-105
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PUBLICLY DECLARING AND
DOCUMENTING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'S
INTENTION TO DEVELOP A TRAFFIC
ALLOCATION PLAN WITH THE TOWN
OF ORCHID.
WHEREAS, on October 8, 1982, Governor Bob Graham, as
Chief Planning Officer of the State of Florida, and in recognition
of the unique characteristics of Hutchinson Island and the growth
pattern prevalent along the Treasure Coast, appointed the
Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Committee,
pursuant to Florida Statutes §380.45, and
WHEREAS, the objectives of the Committee were to organize
a voluntary, cooperative resource planning and management program
to resolve existing and to prevent future problems, and
WHEREAS, the Committee developed the Hutchinson Island
Resource Management Plan and adopted the Plan on October 6, 1983,
and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Affairs analyzed the
requests of the Management Plan and identified certain
implementation deficiencies, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County, by the adoption of
Resolution No. 84-104, stated the County's intent to correct
certain implementation deficiencies and now desires to state and
document its intention with respect to the remaining implementation
deficiencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
that :
1. Indian River County now publicly states and documents
its intent to work with the Town of Orchid to prepare a traffic
allocation plan in accordance with the Hutchinson Island Resource
Planning and Management Committee's recommendations and to submit
such Plan to the Department of Community Affairs for their review
and comment.
dC
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Wodtke who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bird and, being put to a vote., the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman
thereupon
declared
Resolution No.
84-105
duly passed and adopted
this 19th
day of
December ,
1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By i G
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
Chairman
Attest:
Freda r t erk
APPROVED AS TO -FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENC
10
'Gar 7M. Brarkdenburg,
Cou ty Attorney
Commissioner Bird reported that Dale Patchett, Ed Schlitt,
Pat Corrigan and Ben. Bailey also made individual presentations
on this matter in Tallahassee yesterday.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the resolution imposing
a hold on review of projects and advertisements re the
moratorium ordinance remains in effect, and recommended that the
County wait to take action until after the designation matter is
thoroughly resolved.
®E C 19 1984 5 BOOK 59 PAGE 224
DEC 19 1984.
BOOR �,N29 P,{ -UF 2?5
Planning & Development Director Robert Keating advised that
the public hearing for the moratorium ordinance had been
advertised for tomorrow, December 20, 1984, and the Board
instructed him to postpone it.
Director Keating asked if the Board wanted to take any
action to keep development from just exploding on the island, or
should the Planning Department continue to accept any
applications that come in that are in conformance with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Chairman Scurlock felt the Governor and Cabinet are
receptive to the idea that -Indian River County is a good
neighbor and that we will progress in the manner we have said,
and he did not see any need for people to rush in here tomorrow
and vest a site plan on which they have no intention of moving
forward, as that would be just a waste of money. He believed
that the message was clear from the Governor and the Cabinet
that the whole process of designating areas of critical concern
became very shaky yesterday and that we are going to see some
dramatic movement by the State on that.
Commissioner Bird was still a little confused about where
we stand today after yesterday's trip to Tallahassee. He
thought that we still have the problem in regard to the
transportation element and that yesterday really did not do away
with the obligation on a local basis to conform and comply with
the HIMP. He did not know how we should proceed during this
interim period until the recommendations from the traffic study
are received and we know just what kind of capacity we have left
on the island.
Chairman Scurlock felt that the best direction we could
take was for this Commission to make an absolute commitment to
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and to make the necessary
improvements in the infrastructure so that the plan can be
carried out, such as adoption of the transportation study and
accepting and moving forward with the impact fee ordinance which
6
M - r
will result from the transportation study. He felt the
transportation element is really the key and hoped that the
developers would not be encouraged to run in and vest a site
plan that they have no intention of developing in the near
future. However, if they do attempt to vest a site plan, he
suggested that we develop a tool where we can keep a cautious
eye to see that they are moving forward into construction and
completion.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if a developer comes in tomorrow
and requests some of the 600 remaining units, can we approve it
with the understanding that they are going to participate in any
impact fee that would be imposed as a result of the
transportation analysis so that, in essence, they would not be
using up something that was free.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that whenever a barrier island
development is approved, the Board has to be mindful of the
traffic situation that currently exists and the limited amount
of capacity that currently exists on the bridges. If a
development comes in between now and the time the transportation
study is completed, it should be reviewed under those terms. If
the Board feels that they are taking up too large a chunk of the
remaining capacity, they also can require the developer to
implement certain mitigating factors such as construction of
turn lanes and other improvements. In addition, the impact fee
that the County will adopt ultimately will probably key in the
building permit or certificate of occupancy stage. He felt it
is unlikely that many units would be built even if a lot of
projects are approved in this interim period, and emphasized
that the impact fee, in any event, would be imposed on all the -
unbuilt units.
Commissioner Bird asked how we could collect revenue from
projects that are approved before an impact fee is in existence,
and Attorney Brandenburg advised that the revenue would come
from a building permit or a certificate of occupancy and that
DEC 19
I BOOK 59 PGE,��6
Fr -
DEG 19
1984
BOOK 9
r
MU 22 f
these
developments would not be grandfathered in to escape
the
impact fees.
Chairman Scurlock understood that the study will analyze
what impact new development will have on the traffic capacity,
but felt that the backlog still needs to be addressed.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that the backlog cannot be
taken care of with impact fees, and that other funding
mechanisms must be found for that, such as assessment districts,
ad valorem taxes, gas taxes, etc.
Commissioner Bird asked if we currently require a developer
to mitigate the traffic flow if his development fronts on AIA
and would generate significant traffic.
Director Keating stated that they do require that for
developers on that part of AIA that is in direct proximity to an
intersection, but we seldom ask developers to make any
improvements for projects built down a mile or so from an
intersection. He noted that at tomorrow's meeting, the Planning
& Zoning Commission is considering approving one development on
the north barrier island which is in excess of one unit per
acre, but Attorney Brandenburg stated that the resolution is
still in effect and that, unfortunately, the developer will have
to wait until this designation matter with the DCA is resolved.
Chairman Scurlock believed that we need to have an orderly
transition period between now and when this matter is resolved.
Attorney Brandenburg did not feel that the requirement for
roadway improvements should be tied in with the size of the
developments. In other words, if the road system is over
capacity, the project should not be approved until the roadway
system is corrected accordingly. The developer would have a
choice; he could either make the necessary improvements or wait
for the County or someone else to make the improvements.
Commissioner Wodtke asked how we would get money if we
don't accept a development, and Attorney Brandenburg explained
that we would then get the money through impact fees or whatever
8
the transportation study calls for, and the developer would be
allowed to build when the County received enough funds from
other people to put in the improvements to correct the roadway.
Commissioner Bird asked the status of the projects on the
south portion of the island in regard to the resolution.
Director Keating explained that only one unit per acre
would be allowed because we are over capacity on both the
bridges. He felt that we don't have a critical condition on the
Wabasso Bridge right now, but when Bay Tree and other
developments are all built out in perhaps 10 years, the bridge
would be close to capacity.
Director Keating felt that as long as the resolution is
still in effect, staff had sufficient direction as to how to
proceed. He asked if the Board wished them to bring this
matter back in one of the first meetings in January, and
Chairman Scurlock felt that staff should place it on the agenda
for just about every meeting in order to keep the Board updated.
J{{RESOLUTION GRANTING THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR EMERGENCY
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 84-106, granting the Town of Indian River
Shores a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity for Emergency Transportation Services.
9
E C ��� BOOK 59 Ft{ ,F 2ps
DEC IS 1984
Boob 59 pnuf 229
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -106
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, GRANTING THE TOWN
OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR EMERGENCY
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Town of Indian River
Shores, Florida is hereby granted a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to provide emergency transportation
services within Indian River County in accordance with all
applicable provisions and requirements of Chapter 401, Florida
Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder by the Department of
Health and Rehabilitative Services.
This Certificate shall be valid for the period of one year
from the date of a motion adopting same.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 19th day of December, 1984.
ATTEST:
...� K
APPROVED S O
AND LEG UFF
BY
I M. B
ty At
En
j-
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY G
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
EMS CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE
V INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE SERVICE
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously issued
an EMS Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
to the Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance
Service.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE.AND NECESSITY
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Volunteer Ambutance Service provided
quality emelcgency m a¢hvdcea a zenb o Indian River County;
and,
WHEREAS, there has been demon6t4ated .that there .ca a need Jon this ambulance seiivice
to operate in thi6 county to pnovtde easentiae. seAvieea to the aitizene o6 this
County; and,
WHEREAS, the above ambatance aenvice had .indicated that it wc.P.2 comply with alt the
negainementd o6 the Emengeney Medica Se1w.icea Act of 1973, the Board ob County ,
Commias.ionei os Indian River County hekeby .idaue6 a Centibicate ob Pubtie
Convenience andecea am 5znee company jot the yeah 1985
In .iaauing thio eent Jieate .it is undek4tood that the above named ambatanee service
wLU meet the negwitementa of State Leg.cdtation and provide emergency eenviced on
a buenty-Jour, hour bas.ia bon the botZowi ng area (b) :
Indian River County
1 1?, in, Slaf.o lont�llonell
J REJECTION OF BID ON HARDWARE FOR NEW JAIL
Administrator Wright reported that bids were opened last
Thursday and there was only one qualified bidder on the new jail
and that was for $1,155,000, which is slightly over the amount
that has been budgeted. He recommended that the Board reject
/ the bids and rebid the item.
11
BooK 5
DEC 19 1904 F�+GF 203
DEC 19 1994 Boa 5 9 P,jcF2:3
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously rejected
the bids received on the hardware for the new
jail and authorized the rebid of this item, as
recommended by Administrator Wright.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 11/21/84.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 11/21/84, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Several Commissioners requested that Items A, D, G and I
be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
,,r`A. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
General Development Utilities, Inc. Financial
Statements as of September 30, 1984 and Statement
of Earnings for Ten Months ended October 31, 1984.
OMB Director Jeff Barton felt this was an improper place
for these reports to be filed and recommended that in the future
these reports be filed in the Utility Dept. franchise area.
I B. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund
Month of November, 1984 - $29.173.96
12
vC. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Traffic Fines by name, November, 1984
,V D. Budget Amendment, Building Department
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/12/84:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 12, 1984 FILE:
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton,
OMB Director
SUBJECT: Building Department
REFERENCES:
The following budget amendment is to allocate funds from cash forward, which was
greater than anticipated, for the purchase of a repeater system for the Building
Dpeartment to give them radio access in the whole county, which they do not have
at the present time.
Account Title Account No. "Increase Decrease
Cash Fwd. 10/1/84 441400-389-40,00 2,900
Comm Equip -All 441-233-524-66.45 2,900
J KB/dw
Commissioner Wodtke asked if this was a budgeted item, and
OMB Director Jeff Barton advised that, technically, it was
budgeted for last year.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the above budget amendment, as
recommended by OMB Director Barton.
JE. Budget Amendment, Inmate Trust Fund
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/7/84:
13
W'
BOOK 59
DEC IS IGB4 Boor 59 uu ?33
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 7, 1984 FILE:
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton,
OMB Director
SUBJECT: Inmate Trust Fund
REFERENCES:
The following budget amendment is to establish a budget for the Jail Inmate Trust Fund:
Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease
Inmate Trust Revenues 604-000-369-95.00 15,000
Food and Dietary 604-906-523-35.28 12,000
Other Operating Supplies 604-906-523-35.29 3,000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the above budget amendment, as
recommended by OMB Director Barton.
F. Budget Amendment, 512 Road Right-of-way Acquisition
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/10/84:
TO:Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 10, 1984 FILE:
SUBJECT: 512 Road Right-of-way Acquisition
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director
The following budget amendment is to allocate the funds for the 512 Road Right-of-way
acquisition.
Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease
Transfers Out 109-199-581-99.21 310,000
Reserve for Contingencies 109-199-581-99.91 310,000
Transfers In 111-000-381-21w 00 310,000
Acq. of R of flay 111-214-541-66.12 310,000
JKB/dw
Balance in Reserve fund 109
$500,000
14
v/G .
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the above budget amendment, as
recommended by OMB Director Barton.
Authorization to sell Old Treasure Coast Utilities
Water Plant
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/10/84:
TOL. S. "Tommy" Thomas DATE:December 10, 1984 FILE:
Inter -government 1 Coo i
D �lnator
SUBJECT: County Parcel 5208,
Old Treasure Coast Utilities
Water Plant
FROM J � es W lson REFERENCES:
As is ant County Attorney
r'
Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the title and contract
documents involving the County's purchase of the above -referenced parcel
and can find no restrictions which would prevent the County from selling
the property. If you have any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
JPW/am
cc: Terrance Pinto, Utilities Director
Request permission on behalf of Indian River County Utility
partment to sell lots 1 and 2, Whispering Palms Subdivision,
as is including equipment thereon.
De -
Commissioner Lyons asked if sewer is available now in that
parcel and Utilities Director Terry Pinto advised that it was.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
authorized the sale of Old Treasure Coast Utilities
Water Plant - County Parcel 5208.
15
BOOK
DEC 1'96 pm,F 234
-11
BOOK 59 PACEZ35
A. Final Plat Approval for Florence Acres Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/10/84:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 10, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
eg,,Z4,,J SUBJECT: FOR FLORENCE ACRES
Robert M. 1(e&Aing,gfAICP SUBDIVISION
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling 13` REFERENCES: Florence Acres
Staff Planner STAN
It is requested that the following information be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting on December 19, 1984.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Florence Acres is a 13 lot, 9 acre proposed subdivision.
The subdivision is located on the north side of 4th Street
west of 38th Avenue. The subject property is zoned R-1 (6.2
dwelling units/acre) and has a LD -2 land use designation (6
dwelling units/acre). The subdivision's proposed density is
1.4 dwelling units/acre.
Florence Acres received preliminary plat approval from the
Board of County Commissioners on May 5, 1982. The Board
granted a 6 month preliminary plat approval extension, with
conditions at their regular meeting on April 18, 1984. The
applicant has met all of the plat extension conditions, has
agreed to contract with the County to complete all required
improvements, and is now requesting final plat approval.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The applicant has now submitted a final plat, a cash deposit
and escrow agreement for 115% of the cost of improvements,
an approved cost estimate, and a contract committing him to
completing all the required improvements.
The application for final plat approval has been reviewed by
the appropriate County Departments, and is in conformance
with all applicable County ordinances and recommendations.
The use of individual wells and septic tanks has been
approved by the Environmental Health Division; the Public
Works Division has approved the paving and drainage plans.
The County Attorney's office has reviewed the contract for
constructing improvements, which commits the applicant to
completing all improvements as shown on his approved con-
struction drawings. The County Attorney's office has also
reviewed the cash deposit and escrow agreement which guaran-
tees with security the contract for construction improve-
ments. The contract and the agreement have been approved
subject to their being signed by the Chairman of the Board
of County Commissioners. The final plat is also in confor-
mance with the approved preliminary plat. Thus, all County
requirements concerning final plat approval have been
addressed.
16
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
grant final plat approval to Florence Acres subdivision, and
authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
to sign the Contract for Construction of Required Improve-
ments No. IRC-82-S/D-1 and the Cash Deposit and Escrow
Agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
granted final plat approval for Florence Acres,
and authorized the Chairman to sign the Contract
for Construction of Required Improvements No.
IRC-82-S/D-1 and the Cash Deposit and Escrow
Agreement.
SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Proposed Holiday Schedule - 1985
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/11/84:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 11, 1984 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PROPOSED HOLIDAY
SCHEDULE - 1985
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
Below is the proposed holiday schedule for 1985.
This schedule was sent to each of the Constitutional
Officers and Judges within the County for their comments.
All did not respond. The only objections were from the
Clerk and the Judges. Their comments are attached.
17
BOOK 59 pg'[2"36
BOOK 59 P,1cF"Z3
HOLIDAY DATES DATES OFFICES CLOSED
(New Years Day
1. Good Friday
2. Memorial Day
3. Independence Day
4. Labor Day
S. Veterans Day
6. Thanksgiving Day
7. Friday after
Thanksgiving
8. Christmas Day
9. New Years Day
Jan. 17 1985
Apr. 5, 1985
May 27, 1985
July 4, 1985
Sept. 2, 1985
Nov. 11, 1985
Nov. 28 1985
Nov. 2� 1985
Dec. 25, 1985
Jan., 1, 1986
approved 12/21/83)
Fri., April 5th
Mon., May 27th
Thurs., July 4th
Mon., Sept. 2nd
Mon., Nov. 11th
Thurs., Nov. 28th
Fri., Nov. 29th
Wed., Dec. 25th
Wed., Jan. 1st, 1986
Administrator Wright advised that most of the
constitutional officers' departments will be closed the day
before this Christmas and New Years and again appealed to the
Board to reconsider their decision to have the County employees
work those days.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that when you consider all the
vacation days, sick leave, and insurance benefits, he was
seriously concerned about the County adding two more days to the
existing nine holidays.
Chairman Scurlock agreed that the County currently has a
very generous employee benefit package, and agreed that the
employees should work those days.
In regard to the 1985 holiday schedule, Commissioner Bowman
felt the employees should only work a half day before Christmas.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, by a vote of 4-1, Commissioner
Bowman dissenting, approved the above holiday
schedule for 1985, as submitted.
,�J. Change Order 8433-2 and Final Payment - Water Main Extension
to New Jail Site and Road and Bridge Department - Owl and
Associates, Inc.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/11/84:
18
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 11, 1984 FILE:
The Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER 8433-2 AND FINAL
County Administrator PAYMENT - WATER MAIN EXTENSION
TO NEW JAIL SITE AND ROAD AND
BRIDGE DEPARTMENT - OWL AND
ASSOCIATES, INC.
1)Crange Order #8433-2
FROM: Jim Davis, P.E. REFERENCES: 2)Letter dated 12/05/84 from
Public Works Director O.W. Lampe to J. Davis
3)Final Pay Request
5)Letter of Guarantee 11/1/84
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: 6)Release of Lien from Owl
The water main construction has been completed in conformance with the
Contract dated August 3, 1984, between I.R.C. and Owl and Associates,
Inc. At this time, a reconciliation Change Order is required for adding
a valve at the jail site and extensions for hydrants. Also, the per-
formance bond to cover Change Order No. 1 was necessary. One 8"
valve was deleted. The result is a final Change Order to increase the
contract amount by $331.00 to a final cost of $74,291.75. The work
was substantially completed by November 2, 1984.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The Utility i,.epart:nent.has inspected the work, verified the quantities,
and issued partial payment in the amount of $73,960.75. The work is
complete. The Final Release of Lein and Final Payment Affidavits
have been submitted.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
It is recommended that the project be accepted as complete, and that the
following be authorized:
1. Execution of Change Order No. 8433-2 to increase the Contract by
$331.00 to a Final Contract price of $74,291.75
2. Final payment in the amount of $331.00 be issued.
3. Accept work as complete on October 22, 1984. The one year
warranty period will terminate October 21, 1985.
4. Accept Final Payment Affidavit and Release of Leins.
Funding to be from Utilities Department Impact Fee Account.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order NO. 8433-2 to increase the
Contract by $331.00 to a Final Contract price of
$74,291.75; approved final payment in the amount of
$331 to Owl and Associates, Inc.; accepted work as
complete on October 22, 1984; and accepted Final
Payment Affidavit and Release of Liens.
19
DEC 19 1984 BOOK ' N� t'iE 2338
J
DEC 19 ISM
BOOK p,�;r
CHANGE ITNtitlmlion
ORDER OWNIR U
ARClllTLC1 ❑
AIA 00CUMEN1 G, 01 (C)N1RAC10R D
nruT CI
C)IIIIR L1
PROJECI: 8433-S. Gifford Road Water Cf1ANC.E ()Rl)l.R NUMBER: 8433-2
(name. address) Main --
Jail. Site/Road & Bridge INITIATION DATE: December.7, 1984
TO (Contractor).
ENGINEER' S. PROJECT NO: 8433
William Lampe,.President
Owl and Associates, Inc. CC)NTKACI FOR: Water Main Extension
115 Springline Drive
Vero Beach, FL 32963 J CONIRACT DAIS: August 3, 1984
You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract:
Item 2.06 Delete 1-811 Gate Valve
Decrease Contract
Add Item 2.12 Furnish and install 1=12" Increase Contract
and 1-611 hydrant extension
at S. Gifford Road & 43rd.Ave
Add Item 2.13 Install 811 Gate Valve at
Jail Site
Item 2.11 Extend performance bond to
accomodate work in C.O. 1
Increase Contract
($480.00)
$359.00
$145.00
$307.00
TOTAL CONTRACT INCREASE -THIS CHANGE ORDER- - - - - - - - - - -$331.00
Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect.
Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum ar Contract rent•
The original (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) was ........................... $
Net change by pre%iously authorized Change Orders .................... .............. $
The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) prior to this Change Order wds .......... $
The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) will be (mcredsed) (decreased) (unchanged) $
by this Change Order • "'
The new (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) including this Change Order will be ... $
The Contract Time will be OF*MM (X(YcYcX* 0 (unchanged) by
43,182.00
30,778.75
73,96Q.75
331.00
74,291.75
(
The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is November 2, 1984
Authorized:
Days.
ARC_HITECiIn lan
River , CouIlt)rc0 TR. ( T R
� Associates, Inc.
OWNER
Indian River County
Ptib]iC,.-W�rkG
Address
n,v,s,oil_..�w
Addres, 115 Springline Dr.
Addre,s 1840
25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Vero
Beach, FL 3296
I
�-�
/ G
ey
—_-
---- I.t" illiam Lampe, �resident'Bo
C:ur 0c1c, airm:
Becember
DAIL
_ _ _ ;).ATt , ___n.AII
19, 1984_
AI/1 UOCUh/ENT G70t CHA!rl.t URUEI( APRII 14:P kAIA- 1 n
�W.
THE: AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARC:HIIEC15, Illi hEW 1URA ASE.A�HIhI.I()N, I) l :tr M�
Approved S
and leo
O�f�Etl ly7$
IefICV� .j
19a
r/X. NACo Legislative Conference
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved out -of -State travel for Board
members and staff to attend the NACo Legislative
Conference to be held in Washington, D.C. during
March 2-5, 1985.
WATER RESOURCES CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/10/84:
TO: The Honorable Members
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DATE: December 10, 1984 FELE:
WATER RESOURCES CONTRACT
SUBJECT: WITH USGS
FROM:Robert M. Keating, AICP REFERENCES: Water Res.
Planning & Development Director DIS:RMK
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting on December 19, 1984.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Two years ago, Indian River County entered into a three year
contract with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to
conduct a water resources study of the County. This project
has proceeded on schedule with field data having already been
collected and data analysis currently being undertaken. Since
the project was initiated, the USGS has worked closely with the
County staff and provided the staff with useful data and
information derived from its field studies.
Recently, the USGS sent a copy of the joint funding agreement
for execution by the County. This agreement covers the period
from October 1, 1984 to September 30, 1985. Prior to receipt
of this agreement, the County had paid its share of the project
cost; these funds were budgeted for the current fiscal year
under account number 102-110-537-33.49. Now it is necessary
for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
execute the current fiscal year's joint funding agreement.
W
DEC 19 1984 BOOK 59 PA uF 24U
DEC 1 1984 BooK 59 pt.0 2 .
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize the chairman to sign the joint funding agreement
between the County and the USGS for the October 1, 1984 to
September 30, 1985 period for the water resources study.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the Water Resources Contract with the U.S.G.S. for a
water resources study for the period of October 1,
1984 to September 30, 1985; and authorized the
Chairman's signature.
21
Form 9-1366 Department of the Interior
(Rev. .8-82) Geological Survey
Joint Funding Agreement
FOR
WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATION -
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 1st day of October IS84 by the GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, party of the first pan, and the Indian River, Board of County
Commissioners
party of the second part.
1. The parties hereto agree that subject to the availability of appropriations and in accordance with their respective authorities there shall be
maintained in cooperation an investigation of water resources
hereinafter called the program.
2. The following amounts shall be contributed to cover all of the cost of the necessary field and office work directly related to this program,
but excluding any general administrative or accounting work in the office of either party.
(a) S 33,500.00 by the party of the first part during the period
October 1, 1984 to September 30, 1985
(b) S 33,500.00 by the party of the second part during the period
October 1, 1984 to September 30, 1985
(c) Additional amounts by each party during the above period or succeeding periods as may be determined by mutual agree-
ment and set forth in an exchange of letters between the parties.
3. Expenses incurred in the performance of this program may be paid by either party in conformity with the laws and regulations respectively
governing each party, provided that so far as may be mutually agreeable all expenses shall be paid in the first instance by the party of the first
part with appropriate reimbursement thereafter by the party of the second part. Each party shall furnish to the other party such statements or
reports of expenditures as may be needed to satisfy fiscal requirements.
4. The field and office work pertaining to this program shall be under the direction of or subject to periodic review by an authorized
representative of the party of the first part.
5. The areas to be included in the program shall be determined by mutual agreement between the parties hereto or their authorized represent-
atives. The methods employed in the field and office shall be those adopted by the party of the first part to insure the required standards of
accuracy subject to modification by mutual agreement.
6. During the progress of the work all operations of either party pertaining to this program shall be open to the inspection of the other party,
and if the work is not being carried on in a mutually satisfactory manner, either party may terminate this agreement upon 60 days written
notice to the other party.
7. The original records resulting from this program shall be deposited ultimately in the office of the party of the first part and shall become
part of the records of that office. Copies shall be furnished to the party of the second part upon request.
8. The maps, records or reports resulting from this program shall be made available to the public as promptly as possible. The maps, records
or reports normally will be published by the party of the first part. Howeve , the party of the second part reserves the right to publish the
results of this program and, if already published by the party of the firs 1, upon request, be furnished by the party of the first part, at
cost, impressions suitable for purposes of reproduction similar t for whic he original copy was prepared. The maps, records or reports
published by either party shall contain a.statement of th p�r�b4�lr�la)�ton tween the parties.
By
It
Jed •
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY r+ P �e� Uro, Chairman
UNITED STATES �,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ,� bta� �e nature & Tit U4'
(SIGNATURE & TITLE)
Subdistrict Chief
By
By
Signature & Title
Signature & Title
(USE REVERSE SIDE IF ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED)
,2�UBLIC HEARING — SR -60 WASTEWATER PROJECT EQUALIZATION HEARING
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
4�11 Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
22
DE , 19 19 BOOK 5� F,E�`��
DEC 19 1984
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
in the Court,, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of Z4d"
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 subscr?ed beRoremr�{1hi/Yyvlday oofc _ D. 19 _
(SEAL)
ness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, bdian River County, Florida)
BOOK F''G� 243
NOTICE of SPeCU1L ASSESSIiAENT :'
eOtfIlLl7�Tif}N b1EARINO
INDIAN AIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA `
To: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
minty Cornmfasitnners of Indian RWer County.
Florida (hereinafter catied "Board" and "Coun-
ty:' respectively) wtil meet on December sith.
1984, at 9:15 o'clockCounty Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, at Vero Beach. Flor-
Ida, to hear objections of an owners of .property
to be assessed and all Interested persons to the
following assessable Improvements in the Court
ty, the cost of such Improvements, the,manner of
nt for such Improvements and the amount
to be essessed against each parcel of
properly specialty benefited. Such assessable
sewage collection and treatment Improvements
con" of A sewage collection and treatment
plant adjacent to State Road do in an unincorpo-
rated area of the Cocmty (heu`Wneftar caped
The Property will be constructed In the follow-
Ing
ollowing unincorporated area of the CourdY
r cted
idong then sttaM Koad1180 corrtdorr.. 9erl-
': enelly between Kings Highway and t-95
ca of expanding in, alldi-
;hvith-tine. pebltitY .
reCtitirte. - a `' , h �,�t�
roll
The Board has exem�nned the e[sof the Cot O
and has determined that a portion of the cast of
the Project astimated at $5,o0o,000 shall be as-
sessed aaggaInst the properties spate ��It>en �
thereby.%. m Board has aPP►�M
asseasnmd roll as required by law. The dsscrip-
ton of each property to: beassessedand the
amodnt-tc be assassed'to each Parcel Of P630'
arty may be ascertained at the Office of the rCis*
40
of the Board, ecial
The spa• Impact fees to ba
levied against the proppeertles.specialty benefited
from the Project may be Paid in c atilt in not mt
needing 1D equal yearly. ichsteilmenta wit► Intens
et a rate sotto exceed 196 above the W tareaf rats
,on the boissued to tX
tondfinence of or as the ' t if to
special aesessmerhis for Impact fees are not Pak
when.due, tiara shati the added a penalty at to
e erntt►at such ass�ments untilmaypbe prepaid a
any dee within 30 days after the Project is txhm
e Sam he
pbted and a resolution �t such prepald,ae
been adopted by the
eesannwhts-tor impacitees shall bear Interest c
the rate borne by the bonds or the.not89, 88 th
case .mey be, described above,:' �� It
clude. if deemed nary by
prepayment fee not to exceed the applicable n
demption premWM.X any, for such notes. h
bonds, as the case may be, n they were obos
dt
deemed on the next available redempt a
The Impact tees shall be levied aaggainst sdt
e..eata.f e►eoeities on an avallabl9 sewet
flied properties, reswung nw...... I-.....�-
In accordance with the proviNons of'tds
ton, shall ish
be extingued upon the recur
the Boatel in the Official Records of the:
an man of the Board tto;la� effect thatecuted �sh�c
curly, has been deposited With theaCrtcc
order to insure timely to
such impact fees -or, a kisMllman
the case may be
At the above named time and place, fib
will receive r'oblectOne of interested I
10
IAh erested�parsorisd the Board sfutu at su
Ing or. -thereafter, -thereafter- ..,annul otvau
modify in whole or v the preitminart
C menta as indicated ;on eugh; _# all,
r
firming the prellllsflaI gag�asah�rtte.
or ail lots",cy Parte
COMAW mcreasm or .R,.. which ire p
Iinchd� to the benefits;.
cI&t each such lot or parcel has recew
receive on account of the Proldet
Dated this 28th day of Novemb�.198
BOARD OF•COUNTY COMMISSI
�.,J�tNDtAN RIVER COUNTY FLORII
By: FREDAWRIGHT,_
Clerk w.
_Dec.Strt$11984-y�,.
Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the series of resolutions
that have been adopted to put in place the preliminary
assessment roll for the SR -60 wastewater project, and advised
that the Commission is meeting today as an equalization board on
the assessment roll. He noted that there are three additional
properties on the assessment roll which were not included in the
original assessment and he recommended that they be added today.
23
ASSESSMENT ROLL
STATE ROAD 60 WASTEWATER PROJECT
PARCEL NO.
ON MAP
PROPERTY
OWNER
NO.
ERU's
ASSESSMENT
1
CAVANNA
1
$ 1,250.00
2
ROCKE
1
1,250.00
3
ELLISON
150
187,500.00
4
LOWENSTEIN
1
0
1,250.00
5
KIM -KERRY
1
1,250.00
6
WALKER
10
12,500.00
7
PICKEL
10
12,500.00
8
UNION OIL
28
35,000.00
9
PAUL AUSTIN
59
73,750.00
10(a)
KINGS HIGHWAY PLAZA
65
81,250.00
(b)
BEN BAILEY
60
75,000.00
11
TOTAL CARE SYSTEMS INC.
800
1,000,000.00
13
J. SUTHERLAND
215
268,750.00
14
60 OAKS
60
75,000.00
15
LYNN LEE
52
65,000.00
16
CENTRAL ASSEMBLY OF GOD
3
3,750.00
17
STRAZZULLA BROTHERS
40
50,000.00
18
BEACH BANK AT VERO BEACH
150
187,500.00
19
FLA. NATIONAL BANK
1
1,250.00
20
SAM MOON
25
31,250.00
21
BAILEY & BAILEY
12
15,000.00
22
VISTA PROPERTIES
601
751,250.00
23
IND. RIVER CITRUS
3
3,750.00
24
CAPRINO'S
15
18,750.00
25
STEER & REGER
56
70,000.00
26
BRIGGS
100
125,000.00
27
J. COFFEY
5
6,250.00
28
RALPH EVANS (trustee)
6
7,500.00
29
GEO. LAMBERTH
60
75,000.00
31
RALPH EVANS (trustee)
40
50,000.00
32
RALPH EVANS (trustee)
50
62,500.00
33
RALPH EVANS (trustee)
56
70,000.00
34
RALPH EVANS (trustee)
8
10,000.00
35
DALE SORENSON
204
255,000.00
36
ADAM MCGAVIN
109
136,250.00
37
PAYN
1
1,250.00
38
NO. 14 CORP.
32
40,000.00
39
MAPLE LEAF PROPERTIES, INC.
125
156,250.00
40
HERON CAY
632
790,000.00
41
COUNTRYSIDE
285
356,250.00
4,132
TOTAL $5,165,000.00
Utility Director Pinto presented the above assessment roll
with the additional properties listed on the bottom of the page:
Maple Leaf Properties, Inc., with 125 ERUs; Heron Cay, with 632
ERUs; and Countryside with 285 ERUs. These three additional
properties plus 100 additional ERUs for Beach Bank at Vero
Beach, brings the total number of ERUs to 4,132. With each ERU
24
DEC I 1984 RooK
DEC 10 1984
BooK 59 c'ArF?45
being assessed at $250, this brings the total assessment to
$5,165,000. Director Pinto explained that these assessments are
for their impact fees. Contrary to our previous assessments,
the impact fee remains the same. The reason for this is that
the consultant, Arthur Young, has recommended a uniform impact
fee for the entire county.
Chairman Scurlock felt that the impact fee will be looked
at from time to time and will probably increase rather than
decrease and that is why there is such a dramatic interest right
now in this wastewater project.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that this assessment will
work essentially the same as the assessment roll for the SR -60
water project. The voluntary assessments will be in place for
10 years, but individuals will have the ability to pay them off
in advance. The interest rate on the assessments will be set at
such time as the County enters into an arrangement with a
financial institution to buy the bonds.
Commissioner Bird asked what percentage of the utility
system will this pay for, and Director Pinto explained that the
impact fee is based on the 85% of the capital cost, according to
Arthur Young. The remaining 15% will be recovered through
actual rate revenues.
Chairman Scurlock explained that this is consistent with
the policy set by the County when General Development Utilities
were considering having existing customers pay for future
expansion.
Director Pinto explained that we will also have a base
facility charge that will generate revenue, and when this system
is ready to go, these 4,132 units will be paying a base facility
charge whether or not they are connected.
Chairman Scurlock felt that we should clarify that they
would be paying the base facility charge at the time service
becomes available.
25
_I
Commissioner Wodtke asked if many of these ERUs were
reserved by the same people as with the water system, and
Director Pinto explained that the water system was 3000 units
and the wastewater has grown to over 4000 units, most of which
are all the same people.
Chairman Scurlock noted that some people coming in for
sewer are now requesting to have water also and are willing to
pay the higher impact fees due to the fact that they had not
participated in the original assessment roll for the water project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously added
the four properties noted above to the assessment
roll for the SR -60 wastewater project.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 84-107, approving certain sewage collection
and treatment improvements for the SR -60 wastewater
project; equalizing certain special assessments for
impact fees and levying the same as special
assessments against benefited property; directing the
Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners to record
special assessments in the improvement lien book;
establishing priority of lien and payment of principal
and interest on such special assessments; and
providing an effective date.
DEC 19 1994 Boor 5 9 Fa.U'F 246
BOOK 59 PAGE 247
RESOLUTION NO. 84-107
A RESOLUTION APPROVING CERTAIN SEWAGE
COLLECTION AND TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; EQUALIZING
CERTAIN SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPACT
FEES AND LEVYING THE SAME AS SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS AGAINST BENEFITED PROPERTY IN
SUCH COUNTY; DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO RECORD
SUCH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN THE IMPROVE-
MENT LIEN BOOK; ESTABLISHING PRIORITY OF
LIEN AND PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST
ON SUCH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereinafter called "Board" and
"County," respectively) that:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION. This resolution
is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 83-46 of
the County, as amended, applicable provisions of Chapter 170,
Florida Statutes (1983), and other applicable provisions of law
(hereinafter collectively called "County Assessment Law").
SECTION 2. FINDINGS. It is hereby found and determined
as follows that:
A. On November 28, 1984, the Board adopted Resolution
No. 84- 100 approving the assessment roll prepared by the con-
sulting engineers for the County and directing notice to be given
by publication and by mail to the owners of the property
described in such Resolution No. 84-100 to be assessed, or any
other persons interested therein, and advising that the Board
would meet as an equalizing board on December 19 , 1984, at 9.-15
A.M. to consider complaints as to the assessments appearing on
the assessment roll, subject to incidental changes, additions,
substitutions and modifications as shall be deemed advisable by
the Board.
B. Such such notice both by publication and by mail was
duly had and given as required by law.
C. Such hearing was duly and regularly held on December
19, 1984, at 9;15 A.M.
SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS. The Board, having
heard property owners and other interested persons appearing
before the Board as to the propriety and advisability of making
the improvements described in Resolution No. 84- 100of the Board,
as to the cost thereof, as to the manner of payment of such cost,
as to the amount to be assessed against each parcel of property
to be benefited by such improvements, as to equalization of such
assessments on a basis of justice and right; hereby determines
and resolves to proceed with the improvements according to the
plans, specifications, assessment plats and estimates of costs�on
file.
SECTION 4. PAYMENT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENTS. The cost
of such improvements shall be paid as provided in Resolution No.
84-100 of the Board, which resolution is incorporated herein by
reference as though copied in full herein.
SECTION 5. CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENTS. The amount of
assessments for impact fees as equalized and adjusted and as now
apearing on such assessment roll, are hereby confirmed as legal,
valid and binding first liens, until paid, upon property against
which such assessments are made; provided, however, that upon
completion of the improvements, each assessment shall be adjusted
as required by the County Assessment Law. The assessments for
impact fees shall be co -equal with the lien of nthPr tAypc _
superior to all other liens, titles and claims, until paid. Such
assessments are found and determined to be levied in direct pro-
portion to the special and positive benefits to be received by
each parcel of property listed in such assessment roll, from the
acquisition and construction of the improvements.
SECTION 6. RECORDATION OF ASSESSMENTS. The Clerk of
the Board is hereby directed to record such assessments in a spe-
cial book to be known as the "Improvement Lien Book" and in the
Official Records of the County.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall
become effective immediately upon its adoption.
-2-
BooK 59 F,nUF248
The foregoing resolution was
Lyons who moved its adoption.
by C:ommissicner Wodtke and,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr.
BOOP( 59 PAGF.249.
offered by Commissioner
The motion was seconded
upon being put to a vote,
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 19thday of December, 1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
DON C. SC RLOCK, ,
Chairman
Attest:
FRE WRI T, C ,erk
APPROVED AS 0/'FORM AND
LEGAL SUFF CCY.w
By
'Y'. 13RA90EN RG
nt Attorney -- -
27
I
`i
PUBLIC HEARING — MODIFICATION OF FRANCHISE & RATE REQUEST,
ANGLER'S COVE <�,j
The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of
in the o. l /Count,, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. A If
Sworn to and subscribed
(SEAL)
this5) /d day
(Clerk of the
W
9004/D. 19
2�
Business Manager)
River County, Florida)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINti
The Indian River County Board of County Qom
missioners will hold a public hearing on Ciec 19,
1884, at 930 a.m., in the Commission Chambers
located at 1840 25th street, Vero Beach, Florida,
to consider a change In ram for Angler's Cove
sewer franchise and. twin modifications of
franchise agreement (see proposed rates below)
PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
Per unit - flat rate $48.85 .
Impact fee - new connections $1250.00
All Interested persons are invited to this meeting. ,
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made by the Board Of County Commissioners
with respect to arty matter considered idered at this --
meeting, he/she will need a record of the pro-
ceedings. and that for such purpose he/she may ,
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro.
oesdings is made, which record includes the -'
testimony and evidence upon the appeal Iq to be
heard.
Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairmen
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
De0.12,.1984.
II
tl Gi `l t,P
L!Ir�J
DCC Iq 1984 BOOK 59 Fa,E250
-I
BOOK 59
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/10/84:
TO: The Honorable Members of theDATE: December 10, 1984 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Terrance G. Pinto
Utility Services Director MODIFICATION OF FRANCHISE &
SUBJECT: RATE REQUEST -ANGLER'S COVE
A) Location Map
B)
Resolution #73-83
FROM: Joyce S. Hamilto� REFERENCES: C) Proposed Resolution
Franchise Adminis ator D) Rate Review Comm. Report
Utility Services E) Field Inspection
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Angler's Cove is located on South A -1-A across from the Moorings
(Exhibit "A"). This is a small sewer plant serving a 17 lot
subdivision with 13 existing homes. The Board approved this
resolution in 1973 (Exhibit "B").
The franchisee is requesting a change in rates in order to eliminate
an annual loss in past years.
Existing rates are as follows:
Sanitary Suver Service Charges -
3 / 4" & 5 18" ?.Feter 1linimum
1" Meter Minimum
1
1/4" & 11/2" Aleter Minimum
2" Meter Minimum
3" & 4" Meter Minimum
6" Meter Minimum
Sewer Quantity Charges:
First 3, 000 Gallons
Next 12, 000 Gallons
Next 25, 000 Gallons
Next 35, 000 Gallons
Next 75, 000 Gallons
Sewer Connection Charges:
Within 75 days of availability
Thereafter
Newly improved properties
Proposed rates are as follows:
Flat fee per unit $ 48.65
Impact fee (new customers) $1250.00
$ 6.76
11.70
22.50
30.76
54.00
75.00
6.76 minimum
1. 06 per thousand gal.
. 90 per thousand gal.
.78 per thousand gal.
.66 per thousand gal.
$300.00
375.00
375.00
Staff has taken this opportunity to modify the franchise resolution
to have it meet current requirements of the County (Exhibit "C").
29
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES:
The Rate Review Committee report is attached as Exhibit "D". The
Committee found all expenses to be justified and has no problems
with the rate schedule requested.
A physical inspection of the facility was made on December 7, 1984,
,(Exhibit "E"). This inspection disclosed several deficiencies
which franchisee is making an attempt to correct.
(EXHIBITS "A" - "E" listed above are on file in Clerk's. Office)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board authorize its Chairman to execute
the revised resolution and approve the rate schedule as requested
provided improvements are made as noted by the physical inspection.
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto explained that the
rate requested is taken from the exact dollars spent to operate
the system, plus the depreciated value of the treatment plant,
which staff has depreciated out for 25 years; this is somewhat
longer than most treatment plants of that type, but they felt
that with only 12 customers, depreciation should be allowed in
order to benefit the customers. If the County requests major
improvements to be made, the cost would be split amongst only 12
customers. Director Pinto felt, frankly, that the County has
let the plant limp along, as long as there wasn't any real
health problem, until such time that the subdivision could be
incorporated into the City sewer system. If this cannot be
accomplished, then staff's recommendation is that the area go to
septic tanks, at which time the franchise would be dissolved.
Director Pinto understood, however, that there are two
homeowners who do not want septic tanks, and that the plant must
be kept in operation as long as even one resident wants service.
He felt it is most important that we address the system as a
temporary system, and as soon as other facilities are available,
to require that the franchise be dissolved.
Director Pinto explained that there would be a flat rate of
$48.65 per unit, and the only dollars that will be going
directly to the owners of the system are the dollars for
depreciation.
30
DEC 1 � 1984
BOOK F9rF 250
E c
1
BOOK
5 lh
`Ar� ! +Dli
The other dollars
are for the actual operational costs
of
the
system.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
John McHugh, attorney representing the majority of the
property owners in Angler's Cove, expressed his clients shock
and outrage at the proposed rate increase. He explained that
the first two homes were built in 1977 and the majority of the
other ten in 1978. At that time, the inducement to purchase
this property from the Evelyn F. Neville, Inc. Real Estate firm
was that City water would be provided and that within the period
of one year they could hook up to the city sewer facilities;
this, however, never occurred. Up until 1981, the residents did
not pay any sewer charges. A letter was sent to the property
owners at that time from Neville Realtors indicating that they
felt it was necessary to begin charging each homeowner a nominal
fee of $12.00 a month in order to make the plant self-supporting
until such time as they could begin to turn the system over to a
homeowners' association. Apparently, at the time these homes
were built, a homeowners' association was supposed to be
created, but one never was. Attorney McHugh felt that in
addition, there has been a lot of inconsistencies in the
operation of the plant. He again expressed his clients' outrage
and concern that the proposed high increase might impair the
ability of some to continue to live there.
Chairman Scurlock advised that there is a possibility that
Angler's Cove could hook up to the Moorings franchised sewer
plant; the Moorings currently is negotiating with the City for
hookup to their sewage system, but there has not been a firm
commitment as yet. He suggested that perhaps the home owners
involve themselves in that process through Sam White, the
attorney for the Moorings Property Owners Association. Another
alternative would be to septic tanks, and he personally felt
that would be the best solution as the subdivision sits on very
31
sandy soil. Whether or not they could get all the residents to
agree is another question.
Director Pinto explained that the average septic tank would
cost approximately $1200, but stressed that the plant would
still have to be kept in operation for the two customers who
don't want septic tanks and the expense still would have to be
split amongst the 12 residents.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we had the ability to dissolve
the franchise and allow people to go to septic tanks, because he
really had never seen a case where people agreed 100%.
Attorney Brandenburg advised that a public hearing would be
required and the County would have to demonstrate valid grounds
to cancel the franchise. If that were done, the County then
could require septic tank hookups.
Director Pinto believed that the impact fee for hooking up
to the City wastewater system would be somewhere around $1,000.
He continued that the owners are here today and are very willing
to turn this facility over to a property owners' association.
The franchise has a deed restriction that states that the land
under the treatment plant reverts back to the development, but
he pointed out that the property is actually an unbuildable lot.
Director Pinto felt there is a strong possibility that the
residents can hook up to the City, but until that can be
accomplished, he recommended that the property owners run the
system rather than the present owner.
Commissioner Bird felt that the Commission would be
supportive in solving this problem, but he emphasized that this
is a rate hearing and the increase must be addressed today.
Apparently, staff feels these operational cost figures are fair
because, obviously, the system needs to be maintained better
than it has been.
Director Pinto advised that there has not been a real jump
in the historical operating cost figures, but that is not really
relative to what the owners have been charging.
32
BOOR 59 FACE254
_I
DEC 19 1994
BOOK 59 255
Commissioner Bird asked Director Pinto if under this new
franchise we can give the residents the assurance that the
system will be maintained in a safe and sanitary manner, and
Director Pinto felt that we could, but it has to be understood
that we are trying to get the maximum out of a minimum cost.
Chairman Scurlock objected to allowing depreciation on the
proposed rate increase.
Attorney McHugh believed that the primary concern of the
residents is that the system has not been working properly, and
they really do not want to take over or continue on a system
that is not operating effectively.
Chairman Scurlock felt that the Board would support either
going to septic tanks or hooking up with the City, but stressed
that the Commission is bound into approving a rate increase
today, and again recommended that the depreciation be taken out.
Attorney McHugh explained that his clients were uncertain
as to why these operational costs have increased so drastically
in the last few years when inflation has been on the decline.
Chairman Scurlock explained that most of these wastewater
systems were put in by developers who were not really in the
utility business and subsidized the systems in order to sell
lots. When all the lots are sold, the developers walk away and
the plants become the problem of the property owners. This
results in the County Commission having to face disgruntled
citizens time after time because appropriate rate structures
were not set in the initial stages.
Thomas Steinruck, Jr., 1956 Angler's Cove, pointed out that
when he moved into his brand new home, they charged him a
connection fee of $350 besides the regular monthly rate. He
felt that the developer has already benefited by selling the
lots in the development, and objected to the developer receiving
a 300% increase. He pointed out that the franchise is actually
a monopoly that the County allows, and, therefore, he felt the
County must protect the customers from such a drastic rate
33
increase. Further, he believed that there are actually four
home owners who do not want septic tanks.
Mrs. Walker, who lives adjacent to the facility, stated she
pays the water bill to run the facility because the plant does
not have its own meter, and she would like the Board to take
that into consideration.
Director Pinto advised that she didn't have to do that and
suggested she work that out with the owners.
Cecil Richardson, one of the owners, pointed out that since
the facility was first operated, there never has been a day that
the plant was down; although he agreed the service may not
always have been the best. He explained that over the years
they have used the figures that were allowed them, and the
owners used $1000 of their own money just to pay the operating
bills. He did admit that they were negligent in not raising the
rates through the years. Mr. Richardson informed the Board that
he is willing to give the facility away and he has a quit claim
here with him today. He confirmed that he owns the two parcels
of land on which the plant is located; however, these lots
cannot be developed because they had to donate some right-of-way
for AIA. Mr. Richardson further stressed that working in a
sewer plant is not his field. He felt that the owners were
entitled to sufficient monies to run the plant and believed that
the figures were very modest, including the depreciation.
Chairman Scurlock thought that the figures would speak for
themselves, and he personally recommended that the property
owners not take over the plant.
Bruce Andress, 1916 Angler's Cove, reported that the sewage
plant was not processing sewage for four weeks during this past
summer, and that at one point effluent actually ran into Mr.
Walker's lot and ruined his outdoor pump. In addition, he noted
several hazardous conditions for which he felt the owners were
responsible. He stressed that there has not been any effort to
34
1984 �ooK 59 P.a, 256
I
DEC 19 1984
BOOK 59 F,9GF 2 5 7
maintain the plant during the seven years that he has lived
there, and urged the Board to be fair in this matter.
Commissioner Bird asked what rate he would consider to be
fair, and Mr. Andress suggested that some things could be marked
off the list to save money, and pointed out that the electrical
bill is too high because the pump runs constantly. He also
pointed out that in other subdivisions, all property owners must
pay their share. He believed that when Angler's Cove is fully
developed and everyone connects, the plant's capacity would be
overtaxed.
Director Pinto agreed with everything Mr. Andress said, but
pointed out that if the County enforces all these improvements,
the 12 customers would end up paying for them. He still
recommended that they go with a temporary franchise and give the
owners the increase until such time when an alternative can be
found and the plant can be dissolved. He reported that the
Health Dept. has taken a position that all residents must go on
septic tanks if the plant is to be eliminated; one home there
already is on a septic tank.
Another owner of the wastewater facility, Clark A. DePue,
III, stated that even though there has been a minimum charge to
date, they have had trouble collecting the water fees from a few
of the residents. He pointed out that Page 4, Section 12, of
the franchise, it states that the owners are entitled to a "fair
rate of return". Mr. DePue corroborated that they have a quit
claim deed with them today and would be glad to turn the plant
over to anyone who would be willing to operate it.
Commissioner Wodtke hoped that during the 30-60 days the
Board will take to consider this rate request, perhaps they can
hook up to the Moorings system or some decision will be made by
the City. Meanwhile, this is a franchise and the plant has to
operate and provide service for all the people. He felt the
modified franchise would give the County better control over the
35
1973 language in the original franchise because now we are
classifying it as a temporary plant.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to issue an order on Angler's Cove within the
next 30-60 days.
,PUBLIC HEARING - MODIFICATION AND TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE -
PELICAN POINTE UTILITIES
The hour of 10:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
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 Z4/
in the matter
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of A?. /7/ I
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. A
Sworn to and subscribed
(SEAL)
GiT'
4
(Clerk of the Circuit
day
�oA0`lJ WAW.19 y
ynV"/vim r
C�usiness Manager)
)UrVndian River County, Florida)
36
.NOTICE OR Pubud NEARING
The Indian River CountyCngaCom-":
missioners will hold -a pubBngon
1984, at 10:30 am., in the Commission Cham-
bers located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach.
Florida, to consider trar►aferringg the Follow
Pointe 1.18111111119% Inc. franchise 10 P a P tttilities.
Inc. & modifications to franchise agreement: .
All Interested persons are Invited to this meet
Ing. If any persondecides to appeal eny decmton
madeby the .Board of • County Commissioners
with respect tq_any: -matter considered at thm`;,
mewing, he/she wilt need a record of the,pro,
ceedings, and that for such purpose he/she may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
cmedings Is made, which record Includes the
testimony and evidence upon the appwafis to be
heard:
Don C. f3curio(iK Jr., Chairman
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
Dec. 14 19",
�•shG,�,P i
DEC 19 199 aov 9 �,acF258
DEC 19 1 f
BOOK 59 pnF, 259
i
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/10/84:
TO: The Honorable Members of theDATE: December 10, 1984 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Terrance G. Pinto ,
Utility Services Director MODIFICATION AND
SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE -
PELICAN POINTE UTILITIES
FROM: Joyce S. Hamilto REFERENCES' A) Request for transfer
Franchise Administfor B) Revised resolution
Utility Services
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Pelican Pointe Utilities, Inc., was granted a water and wastewater
franchise on September 7, 1983. Mr. Vernon Foster, president,
has formed a new corporation -P & P Utilities, Inc. -and has requested
the County to transfer its franchise to P & P Utilities, Inc.,
(Exhibit "A").
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES: 4
P & P Utilities, Inc., has met all requirements of the County to
transfer this.fr.anchise.
This department has taken this opportunity to make one update
in the resolution which is to co -name Indian River County as an
additional insured on the liability policies. P & P Utilities
does not have any objectives to this modification (Exhibit "B").
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board authorize its chairman to execute
the attached resolution granting this transfer -and modification
of franchise.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the rate structure is sufficient
to operate this plant, and Utility Services Director Terry Pinto
felt that there is an adequate rate structure, but noted that it
is difficult to estimate because this plant is not in operation
as yet.
Chairman Scurlock felt we need a vehicle to evaluate these
rates to see if they are sufficient.
Commissioner Wodtke understood, basically, the only thing
we are being asked is to allow the formation of a new
corporation, and Director Pinto explained that the owner is just
37
taking this out of the development corporation and putting it
into a utility corporation.
Commissioner Wodtke was concerned that the language in this
new franchise might give the owner some figures which would
enable him to come in for a rate increase in the near future.
Director Pinto explained the controls the County has in
place to ensure fair rates.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 84-108, authorizing a transfer of ownership
and a change of franchise name granted in Resolution
83-66, and providing for certain modification to the
franchise agreement granted to Pelican Pointe
Utilities, Inc., water and wastewater franchise; with
the requirement that the franchisee reapply within one
year to substantiate their rate structure.
OR
DEC 19 1984 BOCK 59 ul"F 260
� J
DEC0 1984
RESOLUTION N0. 8 4 -10 8
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
BOOK 5'9 f't C F?61
*4
IRIDIAN RIVER COUNTY AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP,
AMID A CHANGE OF FRANCHISE NAME GRANTED IN RESOLUTION
NO. 83-66, AND PROVIDING FOR CERTAM MODIFICATION TO
THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT GRANTED TO PELICAN POINTE
UTILITIES, INC., WATER & WASTEWATER FRANCHISE.
1. Section I of Resolution 83-66 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
SECTION I
WHEREAS Indian River County granted PELICAN POINTE UTILITIES, INC.,
a non-exclusive franchise on September 7, 1983. This utility has sold
its system and premises to P. & P. UTILITIES, INC., and has requested
the transfer of this franchise. Transferee accepts the terms of
Resolution No. 83-66 as amended herein and agrees to perform all of the
conditions thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOENRS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that Resolution No. 83-66 be amended as follows:
2. Section XV of Resolution 83-66 is hereby amended by adding the
following paragraph;
tisC 'dUi 7i `i'4U
One year from the date Utility is permitted for operation, it shall
file with the County its actual construction and operating costs in
order that the rate structure might be adjusted to reflect same.
3. Section XVIII of Resolution 83-66 is hereby amended by adding
the following paragraphs;
SECTION XVIII
The Utility shall co -name Indian River County as an additional
insured on said public liability and property damage insurance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian -
River County, Florida has caused this franchise to be executed in the
name of the County of Indian River by the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, and its seal to be affixed and attested by its
Clerk, all pursuant to the resoluton of the Board of County
Commissioners adopted on the �1.06 day of , 1984.
Signed, sealed and delivered COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
in the presence of:
By: L/ G
(� Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
Board of County Commissioners
Approve as to Attest:
and le i Clerk vd/
ary i. bra , enbu ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE
Count Attormey
& P. UTILITIES, INC., a Florida. Corporation, does 'hereby accept
the foregoing franchise, and for their successors and"assigns does
hereby covenant and agree to comply with and abide by all of the terms,
conditions and provisions therein set forth and contained.
DATED at Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, this s� day
of pip �, 1984.
WITNESS:
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
P. & P. UTILITIES, INC.
By:LAI
Vernon Fos resident
I BEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly
authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements,
personally, appeared VERNON FOSTER, as President of P. & P. UTILITIES,
INC., a Florida corporation, and he acknowledged before me that he
executed the foregoing instrument for the uses and purposes therein
expressed.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the State and County aforesaid
this 2 j Sr day of IbtctmA 1984.
Notary Public, Sof Florida
at Large
My commission expires:
�okaa
2 ate of A, v
St ceQt' 1,
ccnda �" c1Yts
^d
B nK 59 FY;F ?��
_I
DEC 19 1984 BOOK 59 pnUF 263
NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENCY F'
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGES
Stroud Miller Insurance Service, Inc.
e Street LETTER COMPANY
103 South Bridge The Travelers
Wilkesboro, NC 28697
COMPANY
LETTER
NAME AND ADDRESS OF INSURED
COMPANY
Pelican Pointe, Inc. and P & P Utilities IncLETTER
.
9600 Highway #1 COMPANY
6.0
Sebastian, Florida 32958 LETTER
COMPANY
LETTER
This is to certify that policies of insurance listed below have been Issued to the insured named above and are in force at this time. Notwithstanding any requirement, term or condition
of any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate may be issued or may pertain, the insurance afforded by the policies described herein is subject to all the
terms, exclusions and conditions of such policies.
COMPANYPOLICY
Limits of Liability
in Thousands (0 0)
EACH
AGGREGATE
LETTER
TYPE OF INSURANCE
POLICY NUMBER
EXPIRATION DATE
OCCURRENCE
GENERAL LIABILITY
A
®COMPREHENSIVE FORM
650 -224G826 -4 -IND -84
4/15/85
BODILY INJURY
$
$
❑ PREMISES—OPERATIONS
PRQPERTY DAMAGE
$
$
❑ EXPLOSION AND COLLAPSE
HAZARD
❑
UNDERGROUND HAZARD
❑ PRODUCTS/COMPLETED
OPERATIONS HAZARD
BODILY INJURY AND
❑ CONTRACTUAL INSURANCE
❑ BROAD FORM PROPERTY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
COMBINED
$
I, OOO,
$
1, OOO,
DAMAGE
❑
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
❑ PERSONAL INJURY
PERSONAL INJURY
$
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
BODILY IN JURY
❑
(EACH PERSON)
$
COMPREHENSIVE FORM
BODILY INJURY
$
❑ 0WNED
(EACH ACCIDENT)
❑ HIRED
PROPERTY DAMAGE
$
❑ NC":•OtiVNEO
-
BODILY INJURY AND
PROPERTY DAMAGE
$
COMBINED
EXCESS LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY AND
_
❑ UMBRELLA FORM
$
$
-
❑ OTHER THAN UMBRELLA
PROPERTY DAMAGE
FORM
COMBINED
COMPENSATION1
(WORKERS'
STATUTORY
and
i
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
i
F ACI4 ACCIDENT)
_
OTHER
' }
Includes Pollution Liability Insurance on a
sudden and.laccidental basis
10"- e
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES
Condominium Developer
Additional Insured: Indian River Co., Florida
Cancellation: Should any of the above descrice- colicies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing com-
pany will endeavor to mail --10 --ays written notice to the below named certificate holder, but failure to
mall such notice shall impose no cz- ration or liability of any kind upon the company.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF CERTIFICATE HOLDER
Indian River County, Utilities Dept.
Ms. Joyce Hamilton, Francaise Admin.
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
ACORD 25 (1.79)
41
DATE
AUTHORIZED
yDISCUSSION RE PETITION PAVING OF 10th COURT, SW
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/10/84:
TO: DATE: FILE:
The Board of County December 10, 1984
Commissioners
FRO J sP•
. Wi lson
tant County Attorney
SUBJECT: 10th Court SW Petition
Paving
REFERENCES:
Recently, Jim Davis and I met with the residents of 10th Court SW on the
above -referenced matter. Prior to that meeting, Dave Jones and the
County surveying crew had staked out the boundary of the proposed road
right of way in order for the residents to visualize exactly how the
right of way acquisition and paving would affect each individual parcel.
The residents who attended the meeting expressed no opposition to the
proposed placement of the road and right of way.
Most residents wanted to know the total cost of the road and what the
assessment to each property owner would be. At that time, we had no
estimates of the total construction costs or how much the Commission
would assess against the individual property owners.
I have attached Jim Davis' estimate of the paving costs. Jim Davis will
appear before you on December 19th and advise how he arrived at that
estimate. The Board must determine what the total paving costs should
be and what percentage of that cost should be assessed against the
property owners.
If the residents decide, after being advised of the costs, to continue
with the project, it will take less than two weeks to prepare and
execute most of the deeds to acquire the right of way. If you have any
questions or comments regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
42
DEC 19 1994 BOOK 59 PAGE 264
J
D E C 19 11984
BOOK
10th Court - 9th St. SW (Oslo Rd) to 11th St. SW
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Project Length - Approx. 1350 L.F.
Item
Clearing & Grubbing
Earthwork
Road Construction
1" Asphalt (181wide)
Base 6" (19' wide)
Subgrade Prep (20' wide)
Drainage Pipes
Grassing (81wide)
Engineering
Survey
Design
Stake Out
Administration 3%
ENGINEERING EsTD A,TF.
Unit
5,9
Quantity Price Cost
L.S.
$1000
L.S.
$1000
2700 s.y. $2.25
$6075
2850 s.y. $2.50
$7125*
3000 s.y. $ .50
$1500 v-
8
8 $150. $1200
10,800 s.f. $ .06 $ 648
16 hours $20.00 $ 320,1
32 hours $10.00 $ 3202,,
8 hours $20.00 $ 160;
$19,348
$ 580
$19,928
Attorney Brandenburg recalled that the property owners
appeared before the Board sometime ago and reported how bad the
road was. At that time the Board authorized the road crew to
make temporary repairs and there had been some discussion about
accepting it for maintenance. As a result, Director Davis
became involved with the property owners who now want to know
how much this would cost.
Public Works Director Jim Davis pointed out that none of
this property is owned by the County and most of the property
owners have agreed to donate the right-of-way, but he has not
had a chance to contact a few of the property owners. There has
been some special consideration given to this situation already,
due to the nature of the metes and bounds and that it is an
awkward place to work. In addition, people have expressed their
inability to pay this amount if it was treated as a normal
assessment type procedure. All the lots are of different sizes
-- it is not a platted subdivision.
Chairman Scurlock personally felt that we should consider a
special payment policy spreading the payment over a longer
period of time and also consider a lower interest rate than
43
prime rate plus one. However, he felt that was the only
consideration that the County could give.
Commissioner Bird agreed that we could extend the time
period, but felt that we have a very successful paving program
and should not juggle it around.
Administrator Wright urged the Board not to change interest
rates because everyone will be coming in and asking for a better
interest rate.
Joe Wiggins, President of the Oslo Concerned Citizens
League, stated that they have been trying to get this road paved
for a long time. He had talked with Attorney Brandenburg about
the inability of most of these people to pay the normal paving
assessment due to most of them being on either Social Security
or welfare. Attorney Brandenburg had thought there might be a
possibility of the County paying approximately 750 of the paving
cost due to these special circumstances. Mr. Wiggins believed
the road was definitely needed and the residents realize they
will have to pay something. He felt that the County should
absorb most of the cost because they had not received any
service from the County for over 37 years and theywant to get
something for their tax dollars. He stressed that 95% of the
people will not be able to obtain a loan to pay for the
assessment, and asked what dollar figure they would have to pay
and in how many years.
Commissioner Lyons pointed out that up to now there was no
County road right-of-way and the County was not obligated to
maintain the road. Now, however, there will be right-of-way if
the property is donated, but he took objection to Mr. Wiggins'
statement about not receiving any County service as the County
has been providing services such as police and fire protection.
He explained that if the average tax bill for a 100 ft. lot in
that area is approximately $100, the paving cost would be
roughly $600 a lot with the payment spread out over 5 years. He
asked Mr. Wiggins if that would be a possibility, and Mr.
44
DEC 1 `� BOOP( 59 P,�rF 966
_I
DEC 19
1984
BooF
59
F,'GF,67
Wiggins
stated that in some cases it would be, but in
some
the
County might end up with a lien on the property.
Administrator Wright urged the Board to simply subsidize
this particular project rather than alter the petition paving
program which has been so successful.
Commissioner Wodtke asked Mr. Wiggins to go back into the
area and advise the residents that this will be a 18 -foot paved
road which will increase the value of the homes, and ask the
residents if they could come up with $4.50 a front foot if the
County would pay the balance of the cost. In essence, the
County would be paying $6 a front foot and the residents would
be paying $4.50 a foot, which works out to approximately 75a/25%
split.
Attorney Brandenburg believed that there some some roads in
this County that never would be developed unless the County
helps and suggested that the County budget money to do two or
three roads a year in these special circumstances, and develop a
procedure for doing this. He pointed out that the County has
tried to get some State funds for road improvements in the Oslo
area, but because the median income is so high in this county
due to the affluence of people in Johns Island, the State will
not approve any community block grant funds for the area..
Commissioner Wodtke recalled that at the beginning of the
petition paving program, the County took $25,000 from the
paving account and put it into the petition paving account in
order to get the program started, and he suggested that the
Board consider budgeting funds during the next budget period for
the paving of certain roads in specific areas with the under-
standing that the County might go 50/50 on paving costs with
those dollars coming from the funds set aside in the petition
paving. In order words, we would be saying that those dollars
would be used in a different percentage relationship.
Chairman Scurlock felt that was a great suggestion because
it would not be a handout; it would just be helping those people
45
who want to improve their community and are willing to pay
according to their limited ability.
Mr. Wiggins repeated that the residents don't want the
County to give them something free, they just want the County to
make it affordable.
Director Davis stated that there is $50,000 set aside for
road materials and another amount for asphalt materials, but
they usually wait until the last quarter or half of the fiscal
year to recommend to the Board where that money is to be spent.
He felt that this project would probably cost about $20,000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
agreed to keep the petition paving program intact
as far as funding that program and the program being
self-sufficient; and approved the petition paving of
10th Court SW with the residents paying 25% and the
County paying 25%, with the remaining 50% of the costs
(approx. $10,000) coming out of the road paving fund
and being transferred to the petition paving account.
Administrator Wright understood then that the Board has
decreased the number of roads that would be resurfaced this
year, causing the paving program to fall behind. He felt
certain that more money would be needed before the end of the
fiscal year.
Director Davis recommended that they use an alternate base,
rather than go with the soft concrete, in order to keep the
project at $20,000. The property owners would then pay approxi-
mately $2.50 a front foot, with the payments spread out over 3
years at the current prime interest rate plus one. The standard
special assessment procedure would be followed.
Virginia Butler, 956 SW 10th Court, was concerned that
survey stakes were right outside her living room window, and
46
DEC 19 1984 BOOK FAUF268
_I
DEC I
1984
BOOK
59 DGE
269
Director
Davis explained that the road will be 8-1/2
ft. away
from the stakes.
Chairman Scurlock felt these things could be handled
administratively.
Reverend Cooper advised that if they had to move part of
the church, they would just to get the road down there, and he
took this opportunity to thank the Board for their
consideration.
DISCUSSION RE PETITION PAVING REQUEST FOR LATERAL H CANAL ROAD
t
NORTH OF LINDSEY ROAD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/11/84:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE:December 11, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
Request for Paving of
SUBJECT: Lateral "H" Canal Road
Michael Wright, North of Lindsey Road
County Admininstrator
Charles P. Price, Global
FROAA• Paving Systems Inc., to
'".lames W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES;7im Davis and Bob
Public Works Director Keating dated 11/30/84
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Charles P. Price, President of Gloval Paving Systems, and
John Trodglen, President of Trodglen Paving, Inc. are petitioning
the County for the paving of Lateral "H" Canal road North of
Lindsey Road. At the present time, the County Road and Bridge
Department grades the road on the route system. The road,
however, serves industrial areas and requires more frequent
grading than the County provide. Trodglen Paving, therefore, has
also been grading the road.
Whereas the petitioners do not own land fronting the road,
they must use the road for access. The petitioners are agreeing
to fund 75% of the cost of materials and are willing to supply
labor and equipment.
The County is being requested to fund 250 of the cost of
material only (approximately $2,500) from the petition paving
fund and supply engineering, supervision, inspection, and survey
work. There is an existing 25' right-of-way. The County will
request the Drainage District and/or abutting owners to supply
additional right-of-way.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the County approve the petitioner's
request, subject to acquisition of necessary right-of-way.
Funding to be from the Petition Paving Account.
47
Public Works Director Jim Davis presented staff's recommen-
dation that the County approve the petitioner's request, subject
to acquisition of necessary right-of-way.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the paving of Lateral "H" Canal Road
North of Lindsey Road, subject to acquisition
of necessary right-of-way.
Charles P. Price, President of Global Paving Systems,
pointed out that Director Davis had stated in his presentation
that the County was paying for 25% of the material. However, he
and Mr. Trodglen had based their petition on the County paying
25% of the current paving cost based on $22 a square foot, so
what they would be putting into the road would be all of the
labor, supplying all the material to complete the road; the
County's cost would run approximately $80415 to pave 1540 linear
feet of road. That is what the petition reads, and he asked
Director Davis if he agreed.
Director Davis felt that was basically the agreement, but
after reviewing the petition, he agreed the petition does read a
little differently. He felt there would not be a problem as
long as we could work very closely with these contractors to
control the cost, and Mr. Price interjected that the cost is
basically fixed now as the County's road construction cost is
approximately $22 a linear ft. and paving 1540 linear feet would
cost the County approximately $33,660, if the County paid to
have the road paved.
Mr. Price stated that he and Mr. Trodglen agreed to fund
the construction of the road as long as they were allowed to do
the construction, and all they are asking for from the County is
25% of that amount which would be $8415, and they feel that is a
terrific deal for the County and for themselves.
DEC 19 1984 BooK5191,11C E 0
-1
BOOK 5 9 ur,F.21,
Commissioner Wodtke felt we should talk it out because in
that $22 figure there is a lot of culvert, drainage, and grass
work other than just the asphalt and the base cost.
Director Davis agreed and explained that the asphalt and
base cost the County about $4.60 a square yard, and if you
figure it at 2.2 square yards, it comes to $9 or $10 a linear
foot for the roadway itself - the other $10 is for earthwork,
sodding, etc.
Commissioner Wodtke thought that we had to consider all the
work in the $10 figure.
Administrator Wright felt that the County is getting a
significantly better deal than we do in most petitions and
suggested that Director Davis work with Trodglen and bring it
back to the Board in two weeks.
Director Davis suggested he do the design of the road and
the cost estimate and then take a look at the County's 25%
share.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that if we are considering going
out there and putting in culverts, seed and grass, then perhaps
we should decide that some things don't need to be done at $22 a
linear foot and the cost could be cut to perhaps 250 of $18 a
linear foot.
Mr. Price explained that this road does not front either
his or Mr. Trodglen's property, and they are only building the
road for access to an easement that is already paved that leads
into their yards. He reported that they have done a cost
analysis on materials alone. and it would be just slightly over
$10,000 out of pocket money for asphalt and the cement. So,
even if the County pays $8415 along with doing all of the labor
to construct the road, they are still going to have to come up
with approximately $1,000 each regardless of how the road is
designed. In order words, some costs are not going to change.
49
l
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
rescinded the previous Motion and instructed
staff to work with Trodglen and Global and come back
at the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Price explained that he also has a parcel in the area
that is for sale and that the Planning & Zoning Department had
told him that they would like to see this road paved before they
issue a site plan, and now they are saying that they will issue
a site plan based on this petition paving, but they would not
issue a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Price wanted some
assurance that Planning will work with them on this project so
they could move ahead with their site plan process. In other
words, they are sort of in limbo on this thing.
Administrator Wright asked when their site plan was due for
review and Mr. Price explained that it has not even been
submitted yet. Administrator Wright assured him that by the
time their site plan is ready to go before the Planning & Zoning
Commission, this matter will be settled.
Commissioner Lyons felt there was no question that the
general consensus of the Board was that they would work with him
on this matter.
YRESOLUTION RELATING TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY SALES TAX
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board
adopt Resolution 84-109, relating to the criminal
justice facility sales tax.
Under discussion, Commissioner Lyons asked if this would
affect any expenses that were incurred prior to this time, and
Attorney Brandenburg advised that all those issues were
resolved.
50
979
DEC 19 1984
DEC 19 1984 BOOK 59 pAfjE 27
Commissioner Wodtke asked when the notices were going to be
mailed to the businesses which would be collecting the sales tax
notifying them of the effective date, and Administrator Wright
stated he would find out when the notices were going to be sent
out.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
51
RESOLUTION NO. 84- 109
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE FACILITY SALES TAX.
WHEREAS, Indian River County voters approved, during the
general election on November 6, 1984, the imposition of a one-year,
one -percent sales tax, as authorized by Chapter 83-355, Laws of
Florida, as amended, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Revenue has been notified of
the results of that election and has also been given a copy of the
Ordinance adopted by Indian River County levying the tax, and
WHEREAS, it the intent and purpose of Indian River County
to utilize the proceeds of the tax only for the purposes enumerated
in Chapter 83-355, Laws of Florida, as amended, and
WHEREAS, Section 4 of Chapter 83-355 requires the
governing authority of Indian River County to certify to the
Department of Revenue that it has entered into a contract for the
purposes enumerated in that law and to include therewith a schedule
of disbursements to satisfy the contractural agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
as follows:
1. That this Resolution be considered the certification by
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
to the Florida Department of Revenue of the facts enumerated
herein, and
2. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, as the governing authority, has entered into its first
contract for the purposes enumerated in Chapter 83-355, Laws of
Florida.
3. Attached hereto, as Exhibit "A," is a copy of the
contract with the County's architect, calling for the design and
construction of the criminal justice facility together with the bid
schedule for the project.
(EXHIBIT "A" REFERRED TO ABOVE, IS
ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK)
-1-
B00K( 5, ,'I,;E 274
DEC 19 1994 BOOK 5 9 FrcE 275
4. The attached Exhibit "B" constitutes the schedule of
disbursements to satisfy the design and construction of the County
criminal justice facility.
5. The County Budget Officer and the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County are directed to
establish and set aside a separate account within the framework of
the laws pertaining to county funds. Said account to be a trust
account known as The Indian River County Criminal Justice
Facility's Tax Trust Fund and shall deposit therein all proceeds
received from the Department of Revenue from the one percent, one-
year sales tax adopted at the referendum on November 6, 1984, and
shall be allowed only to expend therefrom funds for the purposes
enumerated in Chapter 83-355, Laws of Florida.
6. The County
Administrator is
directed
to
provide the
Florida Department of
Revenue with such
amended
and
supplemental
certificates of contract and disbursement schedules as the criminal
justice facility proceeds, as a further implementation of the
purpose and intent of Chapter 83-355.
7. The County Administrator shall send a certified copy of
this Resolution and attachments "A" and "B" to the Honorable Randy
Miller, Executive Director, Department of Revenue, 102 Carlton
Building, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301, prior to December 31, 1984.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bird and, being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
-2-
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 84-109
duly passed and adopted this 19th day of December , 1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By / C
Don C. Scurlock,: Jr
Chairman
Attest:
re a Wright, lerk
APPROVED 'TO FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIE CYI
By
Uery me n ranae urg,
Cou ty Attorney
RECOMMENDATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RE TRILLIUM
TOOL TECHNICS, INC.
Chairman Scurlock reported that the EDC was in favor of
bringing Trillium Tool Technics to this county and felt it would
bring the County many benefits.
Charles Parry, Vice President of Trillium Tool Technics,
Inc., explained that their firm, which is a tool and die
business, hopes to be in business by April lst. They will be
located on the old Gulfstream Lumber Co. site and will start out
with about 30 employees, with the expectation of having 180 to
200 employees within three years, and up to 1,000 within 8 to 10
years. The firm produces a plastic injection molding used by
computer and electronic firms. Trillium would train new
employees, and training programs will be instituted through the
Indian River Community College, the Florida Bureau of
Apprenticeship and Job Service of Florida. Mr. Parry explained
that one reason Trillium considered Indian River County was that
54
DEC 19 1984 BOOK F' ?76
DEC 19
1984
BOOK
59 P,a,E 2! 7
it was central to the types of business
activities the
company
could support.
Chairman Scurlock explained that the EDC is recommending
approval of a $2 -million industrial development revenue bond to
help Trillium fund their project, and to start the process,
authorization is needed from the Board to prepare a resolution
of inducement.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that Indian River County
currently has a $5-6 million allocation for industrial
development revenue bonds, and this project would use up the
first $2 -million of that allocation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
authorized the County Attorney to draw up
a resolution of inducement for a $2 -million
industrial development revenue bonds for Trillium
Tool Technics, Inc.
J'PISTOL RANGE SUB -COMMITTEE
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 12/7/84:
55
a'4IT
-&-RZ7'n1W0 P�Q��Zj
Richard Bird, Commissioner
Indian River County
1840 -25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Dick:
OFFICE (305) 567-3900
RES. (305) 569-3458
Post Office Box 699
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
December 7, 1984
R ,r
NSTRMUTION LIST _
Coolimi,suners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance
Other t e-7- (�Z e o ►ti., .
During our last conversation covering the range, we discussed the
formation of a range committee to function as a sub -committee of the Parks
Committee, which you chair.
Subsequently, after careful consideration, I am proud to submit the
names of five local citizens of excellent community reputation; these
individuals are intimately familiar with firearms, several are instructors
and all agree to serve at the pleasure of your committee and the County
Commision,
1. Major Roy Raymond, Indian River County Sheriff's Department.
2. Sonny Dean, Indian River County Director of General Services.
3. John S. Amos, 11 Seahorse Lane, Director of the Indian River Famrs
Water Management District.
4. Russell Peterson, Attorney at Law.
5. Alexander M. Smith, 24444 S.W. 1st Place. 1984 Florida Silhouette
Rifle Champion.
and if it would please the board...
6. Bill F. Stegkemper
As an official advisor to this range committee I. would recommend
David A. Luke, P. 0. Box 541, Port Richey, Florida 33568. Dave
Luke is the National Rifle Association Field Representative for Florida,
South Carolina and Georgia.
And finally Dick, if you could possibly afford any more time, it would
be appreciated by all if you could chair this car ittee also.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service, and the courtesy extended
to me.
Respectfully,
Bill F. Stegkemper
56
BOOK N, U'E 278
d
7- -40-BILL
F. STEGKEMPER, G.R.I.
GRADUATE OF REALTOR INSTITUTE
REGISTERED APPRAISER
LICENSED BROKER - SALESMAN
OFFICE (305) 567-3900
RES. (305) 569-3458
Post Office Box 699
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
December 7, 1984
R ,r
NSTRMUTION LIST _
Coolimi,suners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance
Other t e-7- (�Z e o ►ti., .
During our last conversation covering the range, we discussed the
formation of a range committee to function as a sub -committee of the Parks
Committee, which you chair.
Subsequently, after careful consideration, I am proud to submit the
names of five local citizens of excellent community reputation; these
individuals are intimately familiar with firearms, several are instructors
and all agree to serve at the pleasure of your committee and the County
Commision,
1. Major Roy Raymond, Indian River County Sheriff's Department.
2. Sonny Dean, Indian River County Director of General Services.
3. John S. Amos, 11 Seahorse Lane, Director of the Indian River Famrs
Water Management District.
4. Russell Peterson, Attorney at Law.
5. Alexander M. Smith, 24444 S.W. 1st Place. 1984 Florida Silhouette
Rifle Champion.
and if it would please the board...
6. Bill F. Stegkemper
As an official advisor to this range committee I. would recommend
David A. Luke, P. 0. Box 541, Port Richey, Florida 33568. Dave
Luke is the National Rifle Association Field Representative for Florida,
South Carolina and Georgia.
And finally Dick, if you could possibly afford any more time, it would
be appreciated by all if you could chair this car ittee also.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service, and the courtesy extended
to me.
Respectfully,
Bill F. Stegkemper
56
BOOK N, U'E 278
DEC 19 194
BOOK 59 FAGE279-
Commissioner Bird recalled the past history of the
Sheriff's request for developing a qualification range and
making it available to the public on some type of supervised,
limited basis. He stated that he has received a lot of input
from local people who are interested in this possibility and
mentioned that Bill Stegkemper has suggested that the County
form a sub -committee of the Parks & Recreation Committee to work
with staff and the Board on this matter. Commissioner Bird
recommended the formation of such a committee with himself
acting as chairman, and the appointment of the six individuals
listed in the above letter. In addition, he wished to recommend
the appointment of Fritz Gierhart and Reed Knight, Jr.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
established a sub -committee and appointed
the individuals as recommended by Commissioner Bird;
`COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS
Commissioner Bird reported that Don Finney of Planning had
suggested the installation of two street lights while
construction is still under way. One light would be installed
at the corner of Kings Highway and Hobart Road and the other
would be at the entrance to the Fairgrounds.
ON'MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
authorized the installation by Florida Power &
Light of two street lights at the County Fairgrounds;
the cost to come out of of the Parks &
Recreation budget.
57
The Board thereupon recessed for lunch at 12:05 o'clock
P.M. and reconvened at 2:30 o'clock P.M. in a Joint Meeting with
the City Council of Vero Beach, with the same members present
except for Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons, who did not return.
Present from the City of Vero Beach were Mayor David Gregg,
Councilman John Acor, Councilman Gary Parris, and Councilman
Terry Goff. Absent was Councilman William H. Cochrane. Also
present were Charles Vitunac, City Attorney; and Phyllis
Neuberger, City Clerk.
DISCUSSION - BEACH RESTORATION AND ASSOCIATED SUBJECTS
Chairman Scurlock called the meeting to order and noted
that though there has been much dialogue and discussion re beach
renourishment over the years, it seems the recent storm has
brought a much greater awareness of the problem throughout the
community.
Chairman Scurlock announced that public discussion today
will be limited to a total of 30 minutes on each side of the
issue. He felt one of the key elements to be addressed, aside
from beach renourishment itself, is a coastal management plan on
a long term basis. He advised that there has been considerable
cooperation between the City and the County to come up with a
equitable funding formula.
Chairman Scurlock turned the meeting over to Mayor David
Gregg, who called to order a Special Meeting of the City Council
of Vero Beach, and then requested Commissioner Wodtke to present
his report on the activities of the Beach Preservation &
Restoration Committee.
Commissioner Wodtke reported that at last week's meeting
the Committee agreed to recommend a modification of Plan A, by
which modification the private property owners would pay 50%,
the County 30%, and the City 20% of the beach renourishment
funding.
110 F1 IIITI'1111
falam
BOOK 59 �'!.uc 280
BOOK 5 , ." c 281
Commissioner Wodtke explained that today we are here mainly
to address a letter dated October 31, 1984 from the Dept of the
Army which asks for a response from the local sponsor, the
County; that response to be in the form of a letter that must be
received no later than December, 1984. Currently, the City and
the County have endorsed the project and agreed to a 60/40 split
with the County funding 60% and the City 40%. However, neither
the City nor the County made a determination as to how those
dollars would be raised or how much of the 60/40 split would be
the responsibility of private property owners. As a result of
the decision to conduct a straw ballot after the results are in
from the study being conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers,
the Department of the Army has informed us that a commitment
from the City and County to actually do the project has to be
received before they can spend more than $50,000 of the $171,000
grant monies budgeted for the study.
George Gross, member of the Beach Preservation and
Restoration Committee, pointed out the different funding plans
on a chart while Commissioner Wodtke explained the differences.
59
I
I
I
---VERO BEAC 14 ru mD tw r, P -v to N s
WMN LFY-AMPLO OSWri AD VALCIZEtt OIZ rlZOr4T FOOT
tjr!j
TRI OAT-e—
Coo20 t3G voo to
cl-ry
TD7AL.
k"
t r�r
ot
fLA4
IV
ReW eEWr
O�VO444tzjf
PaivAra
4,x A
-7. 2rmil.
Co4
-?1. 77 5 C)O 0 OfJ6
A�,�ki eo 6 /_ M AAL)
tj V sv X
row
lo
11
/&10
tjr!j
TRI OAT-e—
Coo20 t3G voo to
cl-ry
" Iq Iq
04(
J,i eec l0_3_
T -X L
r -X 97f e, -Z,1$72 `j1&2
0 44r 103 1)
nv.Ir _pO
TD7AL.
k"
t r�r
ot
elf
IM
PaivAra
14mg
-7. 2rmil.
Co4
1 4_ _YP
em
tj V sv X
4,
_ _1
Q,utiry.-
C vrc _.
rovil_
6b, 000
" Iq Iq
04(
J,i eec l0_3_
T -X L
r -X 97f e, -Z,1$72 `j1&2
0 44r 103 1)
nv.Ir _pO
7Assess
t r�r
ot
elf
IM
7
lG f?
-7. 2rmil.
?ze %F
tj V sv X
r&TAC. L A 4
0&0
6-1211-0�q
_jtiry A"
514 pop
46 IM
- I rypoanotu
1,6?nyo wo fir 1;,2
.,f �jqol__51 - "
Oei
'I
el"I
on_
c"
L,,
c D
cl�
Lf=j
F0
'A
-DEC 19 1984
BOOK 5 r',E 283
Mr. Gross explained that it was felt that the property
owners who abut the ocean should in some way pay a greater
share. He referred to a map of the erosion control line which
is going to be approximately 10 feet from the top of the scarp
and explained that the areas of sand renourishment which will be
pumped in will be public land. The abutting property owners
only own up to that construction line, and thus only about 80 of
the sand pumped in is going to be replenishing private property.
He felt that was the main issue that has been misunderstood. He
continued that under Plan A the private property owner would pay
50% of the total project and thus would actually be paying 75%
of the cost of the renourishment in front of his own property.
Mr. Gross then reviewed proposed Plan B and modified Plan
A, noting that the property owners have indicated their
willingness to participate in a direct funding of the project.
He reported that the Committee recommended Plan A with Gary
Parris dissenting, and then they proposed modified Plan A, which
reversed the percentages so that the County would pay 30% and
the City 20%.
Mr. Gross then explained that since the County is the local
sponsor in this case, the Committee strongly felt that we should
look into management of the entire coastline. He noted that the
University of Florida and the Army Corps of Engineers are
studying erosion problems over an 800 -mile stretch of coastline
over an 8 -year period at a cost of $10-15 million, and a wave
machine which they use in their computations is located right
off of Vero Beach. He mentioned the damage done to the property
purchased in the Save Our Coast program,'and believed a study is
very important to see that the best thing is done for the entire
coastline of the County. The Committee's recommendation is that
such a study must include a recommendation as to how to maintain
the beaches and fund this on an equitable basis.
Mayor Gregg asked Commissioner Wodtke to explain the
similar project proposed for the Sebastian area, which is tied
61
in with the Vero Beach project. That project is state parks and
there are no local dollars involved and he stressed the
tremendous need for that area to be renourished.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he would be willing to
support a beach renourishment plan for Indian River County based
on Plan A as originally proposed with the City paying 30% and
the County 20%, with the City and County making a joint
commitment to the Corps, and based on a commitment to expand the
beach committee and directing our goals at being self sufficient
as he felt if we depend on state or federal monies, we could
still be sitting here years from now with even less beach.
Commissioner Wodtke stressed that private property owners
will do everything they can in order to protect their property.
Many of them are paying much more than Plan A on a front foot
basis just to fill in where the storm took away and when they do
that it helps the whole shoreline and the public beaches. He
stated he was in favor of Plan A as submitted.
Commissioner Bird had no problem with Plan A, except he
thought that they should consider a tourist tax to add to the
formula which would supplement the cost equitably amongst those
who benefit the most.
Commissioner Bowman stated she was in favor of Plan A.
Councilman Parris clarified why he voted against the
recommendation of the Beach Preservation and Restoration
Committee, and why he endorsed Plan B was because he felt the
abutting property owners should carry 680 of the burden.
However, he felt that he represented all the people in the City
and the County, and he would go along with what the County and
City agree on.
Councilman Acor stated that if we are talking about the
sand pumping project proposed by the Corps of Engineers, he was
not in favor of Plans A, B, or C, but if other alternatives are
considered, then he will listen and felt we need to consider the
public's feelings.
62
DEC 1 1984 BOOK 59 [-�, �C ?84
BOOK 5 9 P':1 -C 28 .
Chairman Scurlock believed that everyone realizes that sand
pumping is not the sole answer, but felt that this community
will support a beach management plan.
Councilman Goff favored the private property owners funding
50% with the City and County funding the balance and also
favored proceeding with a coastal plan in regard to vegetation.
Because of the emergency situation, he felt it is necessary to
make a decision as to what direction we are going at this time.
Chairman Scurlock asked Mayor Gregg if they see any problem
with making a joint commitment to the Corps, and the Mayor noted
that over the years he has not heard a solution to the problem,
and now we just are talking about a temporary solution in the
Corps project; he felt he could support.
Chairman Scurlock stressed that the joint commitment must
be made directly to the Corps.
City Attorney Charles Vitunac thought it should be made at
the federal level, and Chairman Scurlock felt that in any case,
we need to make it jointly. Mayor Gregg expressed concern about
who would give the commitment for the private property owners.
Discussion ensued re assessment without referendum, and
Councilman Parris stated that he would endorse Plan A to show
that there is a 3-1 vote by the City.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Meeting and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
For Beach Renourishment
George Collins, Attorney representing Save Our Shores, an
organization made up of people residing throughout the County,
felt that what was happening today was very significant in that
the City and County were meeting jointly to°solve a problem that
affects the entire county. He listed the many organizations in
support of beach renourishment. Attorney Collins pointed out
out how uninformed the community was of the seriousness of the
situation before the storm and reported that "Save Our Shores"
63
has attempted to educate the public as a whole. They feel we
cannot allow December to go by without giving the Corps a letter
of commitment so that the project can move ahead. He noted that
"Save Our Shores" appreciates the attitudes of the Board and the
Council as to Plan A, and they are in accord with the statements
which they have made. He pointed out that after the beach
renourishment project is completed, it will affect the ownership
of the land involved. He emphasized that "Save Our Shores"
feels that we must attempt to deal with the long term needs and
accept the idea that another task force should be established to
report as to how to accomplish beach restoration whether or not
the Corps project gets done.
Against Beach Renourishment
Carr-oll Palmer, Chairman of the Taxpayers Committee of
Indian River County, stated he has consistently felt that this
project should not be paid for with taxpayers funds, and
questioned the legality of either Plan A or Plan B as related to
Chapter 161, which provides that such assessments must be in
proportion to the benefits derived. He did not see how this
could be determined without having addressed a final restoration
program.
A gentleman in the audience asked if the property owners
further south would be involved, and he was assured that it
would be just the owners in the defined areas
Against Beach Renourishment
Frank Zorc stated that he is not against sand pumping, but
he is concerned about whose responsibility it is to pay for it.
He pointed out that the $650,000 figure for the project has most
certainly increased and felt it would be closer to $1 -million
now.
Mayor Gregg felt that was why we are just working with
percentages today.
64
DEC 19 1984 I
DEC 19 1994 BOOK 59 P,aGE 2
87
Mr. Zorc continued that if we were really solving the
problem, it would be a different matter. He repeated that he
supports the sand pumping 100% and he is not indifferent to the
private owners position, but he really felt that we need a beach
management plan now. Mr. Zorc felt that if the Commission and
the Council approve this position today, it is mainly because of
private property owners concerns, and he believed that our share
would really be 85% because we are paying federal taxes also.
For Beach Renourishment
Bill Priestly stated he was in favor of what was happening
today because of the positive approach. He pointed out that
people settled in this area because of the water and beaches,
and the County without our beaches would be like Orlando without
Mickey Mouse. He also pointed out that even though his house is
not on the ocean, its value increases because of the beaches,
and his business also benefits through tourism. He felt that it
is much less expensive to pay for sacrificial sand, as it was
referred to at one time, rather than to pay for the lost
business and buildings. In response to Mr. Zorc's remark about
accepting federal money, he felt that if we don't, some other
shoreline community certainly will. Much clapping followed.
Against Beach Renourishment
George Bachman, 501 Camelia Lane, stressed that since this
was not declared a disaster area, he felt that we should get the
money first and then do the work because when a man buys -a
house, he gets a mortgage first.
For Beach Renourishment
Ron Rideman of the Downtown Merchants and Business
Association, stated that after personally polling the downtown
merchants, he found their opinions were heavily weighted in
favor of the project, and there was only one dissenting opinion.
65
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
Mayor Gregg asked Attorney Brandenburg to address our
ability to establish a taxing district so that there is surety
that the general taxpayer will not be saddled with the share of
the cost that is designated to the abutting private property
owner.
Attorney Brandenburg advised that the County has the
authority to set up a special district under Chapter 125, which
is a separate and distinct source of authority from that of
Chapter 161. He pointed out that Chapter 161 was adopted in
1965 and is out of date. When the State Constitution was
revised in 1968, it requires a referendum for the establishment
of any special district, and the counties can only set up
districts now that include lands that are in both the
unincorporated area of the county and the municipal area. In
other words, there would have to be lands in the unincorporated
area and municipal area along the beach front that were to be
put in this special district in which the County, as the
governing board of that district, could then levy a tax to raise
monies for the purposes of beach renourishment. He assured
Mayor Gregg that we have the legal ability to establish the
taxing district, but whether it will be done is up to the County
Commission.
Mayor Gregg understood then that the County will have to
draft the assurance to the Corps project.
Attorney Brandenburg advised that the one catch to that is
that the City has to adopt an ordinance setting up the special
district along with the County. Therefore, he felt that the
responsibility for the establishment of that special district is
going to be jointly shared by the City Council and the County
Commission. He assured Mayor Gregg that the people to be taxed
66
DEC 19 1984 BUOY F,3+� I
� I
DEC 19
1984
.1
5
can be put
in the project area, assuming there is some
project
area that includes unincorporated areas.
Mayor Gregg believed the City Council is willing to
re -endorse the Corps project, endorse the payment of 30% of the
local share, and endorse the establishment of a coastal
management group. If that is what the County is asking for, he
believed that could be done this afternoon.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0),
Commissioner Lyons being absent), authorized the
the County, acting as the local sponsor of the Corps
of Engineers project, to write a letter of response
to the letter received from the Corps dated October
31, 1984, confirming the Board of County Commission's
ability and willingness to share in the cost of the
project and asking the Corps to expedite this project
and to consider extending this area to the north with
the understanding that it would not jeopardize or
delay the project; and confirmed, in concurrence with
the City of Vero Beach, the agreement to use funding
formula Plan A, as outlined on the chart.
Chairman Scurlock noted that Commissioner Lyons had
indicated that he is supportive of this concept.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
endorsed the recommendation of the Beach Restoration
and Prevention Committee to move forward towards
developing a coastal management plan for the entire
coastline of Indian River County and asking the
cooperation of the municipalities involved; and
requested the Committee to come back with some
recommendations.
67
ON MOTION by Councilman Parris, SECONDED by Councilman
Goff, the Council by a vote of 3-1, Councilman Acor
opposed, reaffirmed the City's endorsement of the
Corps of Engineers project and affirmed the agreement
to a 30% share of the local cost.
ON MOTION by Councilman Parris, SECONDED by Councilman
Acor, the Council unanimously (4-0) endorsed the
establishment of a county -wide coastal management
committee.
ON MOTION by Councilman Goff, SECONDED by Councilman
Acor, the Council unanimously adjourned at 4:00
o'clock P.M.
The several bills and accounts against the County having
been audited were examined and found to be correct were approved
wand Warrants, -issued in settlement of same as follows: Treasury
Fungi s. 14653 - 14875 inclusive. Such bills and accounts
being on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court,
the warrants so issued from the respective bonds being listed in
the Supplemental Minute Book as provided by the rules of the
Legislative Auditor, reference to such record and list so
recorded being made a part of these Minutes.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 4:00 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
/ C
Chairman
68
EC 1 9 1984 BOOKP,;�2�®