Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/5/1985Tuesday, February 5, 1985 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, February 5, 1985, at 1:30 o'clock P.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Scurlock reported that it has come to his attention that the Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee has requested both the Clerk's Office and the Board's office to supply them with all the Minutes of the The Board of County Commissioners and of the Planning & Zoning Commission, as well as their agendas. He believed that staff needs some guidance as to how we are going to handle this. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the above matter to the agenda. Attorney Brandenburg did not wish to add anything to today's agenda, but wanted to make the Board aware that at tomorrow's regular meeting, he intends to ask that discussion be added regarding the proposed moratorium holding development to three units per acre on the barrier island. He noted that we now are in the process of sending out notices to landowners, but he has FEB 51985 BOOK 9�-njE.73 FEB 5 1985 BooK 59 FAGE736 reason to believe the State is going to drop the designation of an area of critical concern for all the counties involved for this year at least. We have had requests to drop the moratorium altogether, and if the Board wishes to do so, he felt it should be done before we send out notices to all the property owners. DISCUSS REQUEST OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR MINUTES Commissioner Scurlock stated that apparently the DCA intends to monitor all our actions, and he found this aggravating since we have been cooperating all along as requested regarding development on the barrier island and the DCA's attitude seems to indicate that we are trying to slip something by them. Discussion ensued as to the cost involved in mailing all these Minutes weekly as the Minutes generally run between 60 to 90 or even 100 pages. Commissioner Scurlock believed this would amount.to several dollars a week, and OMB Director Barton noted that by Statute, the Clerk can charge a dollar a page. Chairman Lyons suggested that we make an estimate of the cost to copy these Minutes and mail them and say we would be happy to supply them on receipt of their order. Commissioner Bird felt we should determine what we actually are talking about moneywise first, and Administrative Aide to the Board, Liz Forlani, reported that the usual practice on requests for agendas is to ask the people to supply us with stamped self- addressed envelopes. Full sets of minutes have been supplied only to local government officials, such as City Manager Little and Representative Patchett, and this does not involve mailing. The Chairman directed that Mrs. Forlani determine as nearly as possible the costs involved and write the DCA informing them of our usual practice and giving them an approximate cost. CONTRACT FOR TREATMENT PLANT SITE (ROUTE 60 AREA) - CONSIDERATION OF MONROE AND CATRON PROPERTIES Chairman Lyons believed what the Board is interested in learning is the actual cost for each site after considering all the various factors, what has to be done to each site, etc. 2 Utilities Director Pinto informed the Board that the consulting engineers estimate that it would cost $7,000 per acre more to utilize the Monroe site than the Catron site due to the fact that,the preparation for percolation ponds would cost $14,000 per acre for the Monroe property and $7,000 per acre for the Catron property. Also, they are skeptical whether the Monroe site could be developed out for the maximum size of the treatment plant. The collection cost is basically the same for each. Chairman Lyons wished to refresh his memory as to the size of the properties, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that the Catron site contains 78.9 acres and the Monroe site 57.9 acres. Commissioner Scurlock believed at the Catron site we have the ability to lease back the portion of the grove not required for wastewater treatment, and he asked if this would be true for the Monroe property also. Director Pinto did not believe the groves there are in the same condition, and Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that half the grove on the Monroe property is good and half is not; he further noted that it may not be possible to utilize the groves on the Catron property anyway, depending on the location of the plant and the percolation ponds, which might be right in the middle of the grove. Chairman Lyons asked if we can utilize the 79 acres fully; or, in other words, is there actually more capacity on the bigger lot? Mr. Pinto confirmed that there is; he pointed out that the Catron property could be utilized at once for the initial stage of one million gallons without the necessity of going into an additional expense for any particular enhancement to the ground; so, for the cost of $7,000 per acre, you can go right into operation. On the Monroe property, on the other hand, you immediately would have to spend $14,000 per acre just to accept the one million gallons. 3 FEB 5 1985 5U PtCE737 FEB 5 log BOOK �'f�: r Chairman Lyons noted at the previous meeting there was some discussion as to whether the price could be somewhat closer to the appraisal. Attorney Brandenburg believed both land owners have representatives here today, and stated that he has asked them to consider their prices very carefully. Neil Nelson, associated with Paul Koehler Real Estate Investment, came before the Board as agent for the Catron property. He pointed out that there is only a difference of only $436.18 an acre from the highest appraisal for this particular property. This appraisal was made in December of 1984; the closing will not take place until July of 1985; and Mr. Nelson believed this property will reach the appraised price by that time. Taking into consideration the magnitude of the property, he felt this is a very close appraisal. Mr. Nelson informed the Board that he had contacted all of the three property owners involved, and they all felt that $9,000 per acre was the going price and did not wish to reduce it. At this time, it was noted that the representative for the Monroe property apparently had left the meeting. Attorney Brandenburg reported that he talked with the Monroe representative over the phone this morning, and he had indicated that the last word from the children involved in the estate was that they would settle for no less than $7,400 per acre net to them, or a total of $428,000. When you add the commission, which would be $42,000, and then add add on top of that the land development cost associated with the site as compared with the Catron site, it brings that parcel substantially higher per acre in the overall cost. Commissioner Wodtke asked, in regard to paying higher than the appraisal, if we could look at it from the perspective that we really are getting the property for the appraisal price plus closing costs and commission. 4 Attorney Brandenburg noted that there are many ways to look at appraisals; it is not an exact science, and he did not have any difficulty at all with the Board voting to accept the Catron property based on the current appraisal. He pointed out that there is a provision in the contract that we don't have to close for six months down the line, and a lot can happen in that time; so, we actually are paying a little premium for that six month period. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to authorize the Chairman to execute a contract for the purchase of the Catron property as discussed, based on the three following contingencies - 1) Proceeding with the SR 60 wastewater project; 2) Obtaining DER permitting; and 3) Obtaining suitable financing - With the proviso that if any of these three contin- gencies are not satisfied, the County does not have to close on the property, but will pay the owners $30.00 per acre for each month from the date we sign the contract until the date we notify them we will not proceed with the closing, or about a $15,000 potential liability. Commissioner Scurlock clarified that the reason he made the above Motion was based on his belief that the Catron property is best not only in size, but also soil conditions and will result in less developmental cost than the Monroe property. He had some question with the appraisal figures, and felt certain with the recent freeze, that prices for such grove property will escalate in six months time. He, therefore, felt comfortable with paying a price above appraisal. Commissioner Bird inquired where the money for the purchase will come from, and Administrator Wright replied that it will be 5 FEB 5 1985 Boob _I FE E 5 1985 BOOK 59 Fa JE 740 from the impact fees that are being pledged on the SR 60 sewer assessment. Chairman Lyons pointed out that if we don't have the financing, we don't go ahead with the purchase, and Commis- sioner Scurlock felt that the $30 per acre penalty for not going ahead with the deal is well worth it as he felt strongly the property will escalate in value. Commissioner Bowman felt that the.staff has made a good and thorough search and did not believe we have much choice. Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that the six month date was negotiated to conform with when we feel all our contingencies will be satisfied. Chairman Lyons expressed concern about our timetable with DER, and Administrator Wright reported that staff is planning on submitting for permitting tomorrow, and he believed it should not take more than 90 days. Commissioner Scurlock reported that one of the companies interested in building the plant stated they would need 90 days, and 90 days on top of 90 days is six months. Administrator Wright felt we have enough slack. Commissioner Wodtke asked about maintenance of the groves in the meantime if we get to a six month period as he was concerned about having a value we don't maintain. Attorney Brandenburg believed the Catrons will want to maintain the grove, and we will coordinate with them. Director Pinto felt if we proceed today with authorization to do the engineering, we will have the whole thing designed in 45 days and hopefully permitted in 90 days, at which time we would know exactly how this would affect the groves. He believed that the Catrons will want to see that the grove is maintained to preserve its value. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. N CONTRACT FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY NOTE: THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, IF NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD, SEEK LEGAL ADVICE. LARRY G. CATRON and PATRICIA E. CATRON, his wife; DR. JAMES G. PUNCHES and BETTY A. PUNCHES, his wife; DR. HUGH K. McCRYSTAL and ANN MARIE McCRYSTAL, his wife; hereinafter called "Seller," and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter called the "Buyer," hereby agree that the respective Seller shall sell and the respective Buyer shall buy from Seller the following described property upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, which shall include the standards for real estate transactions set forth as Exhibit "A" to this contract. 1. Legal description of real estate located in Indian River County, Florida; SEE EXHIBIT "A" TO OPTION CONTRACT, DATED October 24, 1984 2. Purchase Price. Buyer shall pay to Seller at closing the sum of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00) per acre or such greater or lesser amount as may be necessary to complete payment of the purchase price after credits, adjustments and prorations, said payment to be paid 'by County Warrant at closing. Buyer shall have the responsibility of providing a certified survey of the property prior to closing. 3. Time for Acceptance. This contract must be executed by Buyer prior to February 6, 1985. 4. Special Condition. This contract is subject to Indian River County proceeding with the State Road 60 wastewater project and obtaining financing suitable to the County, either through a wastewater special assessment revenue bond issue or other means; and obtaining the applicable permits from the State of Florida for the placement on this site of a wastewater treatment plant in accordance with the County Master Plan, within six (6) months of the date of this contract. In the event Indian River County enters into this contract and then fails to proceed with the State Road 60 wastewater project, the County will be relieved of any and all obligations pursuant to this Sales and Purchase Agreement, upon payment to Seller of Thirty Dollars FEB 51985 -1- BOOK 59 F�Mvt741 FE B 1 5'1985 BOOK 59 Fr u ($30.00 per acre per month from the date of execution of this contract to the date of notification by Indian River County that the County will no longer proceed with the project. 5. Closing Date. This contract shall be closed and the deed in possession shall be delivered on or before 30 days after the special conditions set forth in Paragraph 4 are fulfilled; unless extended by other provisions of this contract. 6. Prorations. Taxes, rents and other expenses and revenues of said property shall be prorated as of the date of closing. 7. Evidence of Title. Within fifteen (15) days from the date Indian River County announces its intent to proceed to close on this project, the Seller shall at its expense, deliver to Buyer in accordance with the provisions for title insurance in Standard A of Exhibit "A" attached hereto a title guaranty commitment. 8. Conveyance. Seller shall convey title to the aforesaid property to Buyer by warranty deed subject to matters contained in this contract and taxes for the year of closing. 9. Restrictions and Easements. The Buyer shall take title subject to: (a) zoning and/or restrictions and prohibitions imposed by governmental authority, (b) restrictions and matters appearing on the plat and/or common to the subdivision, and (c) public utility easements of record, provided said easements are located adjacent to the boundary lines of the property and are not more than ten (109 feet in width. 10. Assignability. This contract is not assignable. 11. Contract Recordable. The parties agree that this agreement may be recorded in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, at the expense of the recording party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed in their respective names, -2- _ M the date set forth above their signatures. Date: _ r� —� O BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IND��RIVE R COUNTY, FLORIDA \9 e 404 jwW(ess 14. /% itness Date: Witness 1� Witness Date: I Z. — -- 0-tol James G. Punches a. Witne tty Punches Witness , B y : 1'Il/t���.Y� atrick B .yon , Chairman \ Attest: skt-,-L "JA r,reaa wrig4Z. Clerk Date: I pprya'rvef icsxo/f I ffic'e y: uag/m. Branaennurg Co my Attorney STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER r.,tK. McCry tal %IA; wet�—� nn Marie McCrystal I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer duly authorized to take acknowledgments, personally appeared Patrick B. Lyons and Freda Wright, to me known to be the Chairman and Clerk respectively of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, and to me known to be the individuals, who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same. , x•,,17 ` 1 WITNESS my hand and offici 1 eal in the County and;. htate last aforesaid this day of - 19 85. My Commission Expires: N o t a r Pu 1' Stat f• ori at _ _— _ L rg e TY PUBLIC STATS OF FLORID BONDED THRU GENERAL II"�"�. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES. JULY. 19861' -3- FEB 5 1985 BOOK 59 r BOOK 59, F'A,UE 74 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer duly authorized to take acknowledgments, personally appeared Larry G. Catron and Patricia E. Catron, his wife; Dr. James G. Punches and Betty A. Punches, his wife; and Dr. Hugh K. Mc Crystal and Ann Marie Mc Crystal, his wife; to me known to be the individuals, who executed the foregoing instrument and they all acknowledged before me that they executed the same. WITNESS my hanand offic 1 eal in the County and State last aforesaid this '01 day of u , 1985. My Commission Expires: Notary Public, State of Florida at/, Large Notary Public, State of Florida at Laron MY UU1111111641ull 90M13ED THRU AC=jr NOT4RY DROKERAGE -4- R 14 33 38 00001 0020 00001.0 - 78.82 ACRES INDIAN RIVER FARMS CO SUB PBS 2/25 TRACTS 2 AND 7 EXHIBIT "A" FEB 5 1985 Boos 5 ,,.,c- 74 I r FEB 5 1985 BOOK 59 FvXH 746 DISCUSSION RE ENGINEERING CONTRACT FOR DESIGN OF PLANT It was noted that this item had not been included on the agenda as had been intended. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added to the agenda consideration on engineering consulting service from Williams., Hatfield, Stoner/Carter. Director Pinto stated that staff would ask .the Board to authorize a work order under the existing contract with the consulting firm mentioned in an amount not to exceed $60,000 for the design and permitting of the wastewater plant for the SR 60 area, and before the numbers exceed $60,000, staff would come back to the Board. Commissioner Scurlock reported that Williams, Hatfield came up with an initial price of $115,000, which was entirely unsatisfactory; we then negotiated them down to $80,000, at which time we contacted two other firms who said they would be willing to render this service for $60,OOOif it did not require extensive redesign from the standard basic system. Williams, Hatfield then came down to $60,000. Director Pinto pointed out that this price was based on taking treatment plants that have already been built with a tested type of treatment and utilizing those plans. When we get further into the site itself, if there are any changes that have to be made, or if the DER asks for changes in the treatment process that would inflate that cost, staff would come back to the Board for direction. He felt this should take us all the way through design, permitting and construction. Administrator Wright wished to make it plain that this is not a package plant per se; it is a permanent sewer plant that will be with us from now on. 7 77 Commissioner Scurlock agreed that it should not be referred to as a package plant, which has a different connotation. He noted that there is a Marloff system, which is portable and less costly than the more permanent poured -in-place plant, and Director Pinto emphasized that one of the most important parts of the project is stability and a system that is built in modular fashion so it can be expanded readily. Director Pinto further noted that if we get to a point where it is necessary to do some redesign to make the bidding a competitive situation rather than being locked into one vendor, it may be necessary to expand the contract, and staff would come back to the Board for direction. He continued that we are looking initially at constructing a plant for one million gpd, but they can start up at half a million gallons. With minor changes in piping, the plant automatically goes to a one million mode, and then we can add modules up to five million gallons or even more in increments of 500,000 gallons. Commissioner Scurlock noted that without advanced methods of percolation, the site will not handle over one million gpd. Administrator Wright did not anticipate being up to one million for sometime to come, but we have sold the one million capacity and it is possible we may have to look for expansion to meet the permitting requirements of the DER in the very near future. Director Pinto emphasized that when we get the plant built for one million gallons,- we will try diligently to take existing package plants off line and bring that flow directly into the system. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted staff's recommendation to authorize a change order under the existing contract with consultants, Williams, Hatfield, Stoner/Carter in an amount not to exceed FEB 5 1985 BOOK 59 P,.CE 747 L FEB5 1985 BOOK 59 F,„�r748 $60,000 for the design of a one million gpd facility and percolation ponds on the site just purchased. There being.no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 2:05 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 9 Chai CaJn I