HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/13/1985Wednesday, February 13, 1985
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,
February 13, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C.
Wodtke, Jr. Absent were Chairman Patrick B. Lyons due to illness
and Commissioner Richard N. Bird, who was out of town. 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.
Vice Chairman Scurlock, who took over the meeting in the
Chairman's absence, called the meeting to order and led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Attorney Brandenburg wished to add as Item G under the
Consent Agenda the exchange of lights for the Junior College in
return for the receipt of a water line.
Vice Chairman Scurlock wished to add under his items a
report on the Transportation Planning Committee meeting of
February 12th and a report on the Finance Advisory Committee.
The Vice Chairman asked that Item 9 - Request from the
Taxpayers Association to -discuss the proposed Beach and Shore
Preservation Authority - be deleted from this meeting and re-
scheduled. He noted that this was Chairman Lyons item, and he
called in and asked that it be postponed to the March 27th
meeting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons and
Commissioner Bird being absent, the Board
k6_ FEB 13 1985
.k
BOOK D r#1Gc. 8 4c�
FEB 13 1995 aooK 9 FA F $44
unanimously (3-0) approved adding, deleting
and rescheduling of items as described above.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Vice Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 16,
1985. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(3-0) approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of January 16, 1985, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wodtke wished to remove Item B from the Consent
Agenda for discussion.
A. Execution of Application for HUD - Administered Rental Rehab -
IV
ilitation Program for Small Cities
The Board reviewed the following memo from the Executive
Director of the Housing Authority:
2
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
Through: Michael Wright
County Administrator
DATE: February 13, 1985 FILE:
SUBJECT: HUD Administered
Rental Rehabilitation
Program for Small
Cities (Non Formula)
FROM: Edward J. ganREFERENCES:
Executive Director
IRC Housing Authority
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the
County Commission.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has announced a competition and
availability of funds for a HUD -administered Rental Rehabilitation Program for Small Cities,
pursuant to Section 17 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 USC 14370) which was
enacted by Section 301 of the Housing and Urban -Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (Public Law
98-181), approved November 30, 1983. A total of $1,469,000 in Rental Rehabilitation Pro-
gram grant funds and approximately 294 Section 8 Fusing Vouchers are available for the
Rental Rehabilitation Program for Small Cities in the State of Florida. 'In HUD's Circular
Letter No. 85-01 dated January 11, 1985, Indian River County was included in the list of
eligible cities and counties. The deadline for submission is 4:30 P.M. February 25, 1985,
and must be received on that date in the DHUD Jacksonville office to be considered in this
year's competition.
The program is designed to assure an adequate supply of standard housing affordable
to lower-income tenants as it increases the supply of private market rental housing avail
able to lower-income tenants by providing government funds to rehabilitate existing units
and provide rental assistance to lower-income persons to help them afford the rent of these
units. One Section 8 Certificate and/or Voucher is provided for each $5,000 of grant funds
to help eligible lower-income tenants to pay the rent for rehabilitated units. In order to
leverage the maxirmn amount of private capital, rehabilitation subsidies are generally
limited to 50 per cent of the cost of rehabilitation, not to exceed $5,000 per unit adjusted
for high cost areas. Grant funds may only be used to correct substandard conditions, make
essential improvements, and repair major systems in danger of failure. 'Units will be rented
at market rents, and no special project rent controls or restrictions will be used. Within
the lower-income and neighborhood targeting requirements, the Rental Rehabilitation Program
leaves broad opportunities for local program design and flexibility. -
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
This is the first year Indian River County has been placed on the eligibility list to
enter the competition for funding, and this type of program parallels our existing
rehabilitation housing efforts.
RECOtMIENDATIONS :
We respectfully request the County Commission to authorize its Chairman to execute the
application for submission to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for this grant.
This program will rehabilitate twenty (20) substandard rental units in the neighbor-
hoods of Wabasso, Gifford and Old Oslo Park and will provide twenty (20) Certificates or
Vouchers to lower-income families from the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. Our total
request for Federal Assistance is One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.)
This program requires no additional County funds.
3
BOOK -59 PkU,.845
Pr -
FEB 13 1985
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(3-0) authorized the Chairman to execute the
application described above for submission to
the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
�
-,,
59 84
(Copy of said Application is on file in the Office of
the Clerk.)
°C. Budget Amendment, County Jail
The Board reviewed memo from the OMB Director, as follows:
TO:Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 30, 1985 FILE:
SUBJECT: County Jail
i
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director
The following budget amendment is to establish the budget for the County Jail Fund
Account Title
Account No.
Increase Decrease
Additional 14 Sales Tax 302-000-319-10.00 2,000,000
Engineering Services 302-906-523-33.13 500,000
All Travel 302-906-523-34.02 5,000
Legal Ads 302-906-523-34.91 1,500
Other Current Chrgs/Oblig. 302-906-523-34.99 1,493,500
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(3-0) approved the above budget amendment,
establishing the budget for the County Jail Fund.
JD. Budget Amendment, Sheriff's Department
The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Barton:
4
TOPoard of County Camnmi.ssioners DATE: February 5, 1985 FILE:
`i
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton,
OMs Director
SUBJECT: Sheriff Deparftmnt
Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund
REFERENCES:
Attached are Copies of invoices in the amount of $4,480.66, which the Sheriff
Paid in relation to the forfeiture of a Cessna 182 N47135. The Sheriff paid
these expenses and is now requesting reimbursement frau the Special Law Enforcement
Trust Fund: -
Account Title
Fgpense-Budget Office
Reserve for Contingencies
Account No.
112-600-521-99.93
112-600-581-99.91
Balance in Reserve/Special Law Enforcement
$$29,226 as of Jan. 31, 1985
Increase
4,481
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(3-0) approved the above budget amendment, re-
imbursing the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund.
V'E. Request for Site Plan Extension - Caprino's Restaurant
Decrease
4,481
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Boling, as follows:
5
FEB13 1995
BOOK 59 FAUC ®47
J
FEB 13 1995
I
BOOK 59,; r,C= 48
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 1, 1985FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
FROM:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
�..���_SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keat ng, AICP
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development Section
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL EXTENSION FOR
CAPRINO'S RESTAURANT
E. Stan Boling �- �j. REFERENCES: TM#85-109
Staff Planner Caprino/DIS:STAN
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of February 13, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On March 22, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
the site plan application submitted by John Schlitt, Jr.
(agent, for the owner, Ralph Capporino) to construct a 4,600
square foot restaurant located on the east side of 86th Avenue,
approximately 430 feet south of State Road 60.
On August 3, 1984, the applicant obtained administrative
approval to reduce the building's square footage to 4,050, and
to reduce the number of parking spaces from 74 to 62.
During the past year, the applicant spent a long period of time
in working out the details of providing water and sewer service
to the project. As a result, construction of the project has
not yet commenced.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 23(h)(1)(a)-Appendix A of
the County Code, Mr. Schlitt, on behalf of Mr. Capporino, is
requesting an extension of site plan approval, as administra-
tively amended, for 1 (one) year.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request made on behalf of Mr.
Ralph Capporino for a 1 (one) year extension of the site plan
approval to construct a 4,050 square foot restaurant on the
east side of 86th Avenue, south of State Road 60.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(3-0) granted a one year extension of site
plan for Ralph Capporino as requested.
� F. Request for Site Plan Extension - Ambersand & Round Island
Beach Parks
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Craver, as follows:
2
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 1, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'S
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
SUBJECT: SITE PLAN APPROVALS
Robert M. Keati g, CP
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development Section
FROM: REFERENCES:
Karen M. Craver SPA Ext.
Staff Planner DIS:KAREN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of February 13, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In February of 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission
approved two site plan applications submitted by Indian River
County. The applications proposed the construction of a dune
crossover at Ambersand Beach Park and a catamaran crossover at
Round Island Beach Park.
Although construction had begun at Ambersand, including the
crossover and dune revegetation, the Thanksgiving storm of this
past year destroyed_ all work that had been completed. In
addition, the Public Works Division does not have sufficient
funding to pave the parking area prior to the expiration of
site plan approval.
The development of Round Island Beach Park was also affected by
the Thanksgiving storm. Work crews that had originally been
assigned to Round Island were transferred to existing parks to _
repair destruction resulting from the storm. As a result, it
is not possible for construction to begin prior to the ex-
piration of site plan approval.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 23(h)(1)(a) Appendix A of
the Zoning Code, the County, through its agent Art Challacombe,
is requesting a 1 -year extension of site plan approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the County's request for a 1 year
extension of the site plan approvals of Ambersand and Round
Island Beach Parks.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(3-0) granted a one year extension of site plan
approval for Ambersand and Round Island Beach
Parks as requested by Environmental Planner
Challacombe.
7
BOOK F'G, 849
FEB 13 1985 Q
BOOK � F''GF 8510
V�G. Exchange with Community College - Lights for Water Line
Attorney Brandenburg explained that there is a need for some
lighting on Lundberg Rd., at the entrance to Meuller Center, a
branch of the Indian River Community College. There is a water
line that runs from the City of Vero Beach to the college, and
the Community College is willing to give their approval for
transfer of that line to the County in return for the County
putting up the lights at the Meuller Center entrance. He asked
that the Board approve providing the lighting in return for
transfer of the water line.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(3-0) approved providing lighting at the
college entrance in return for the transfer of
the water line as described by the County Attorney.
B. Budget Amendment, Unemployment Compensation
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO: Board of County c.,i.ssioners
FROM: Jeffrey K. Bartan,
OMB Director
DATE: February 6, 1985 FILE:
SUBJECT: Une 1oyment ocmpensatioen
REFERENCES:
The following budget ammAment is to allocate funds to pay the unemployment
czenpensation for the quarter ending Dece ibex 31, 1984.
Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease
Building/Grout-ids
Unemployment Camp. 001-220-519-12.15 556
Reserve for Contingencies 001-199-581-99.91 556
Landfill
Unewloyment Comp. 411-217-534-12.15 57
Cash Fwd. -Sept 30 411-217-534-99.92 57
Balance General Fund Coaiti ngencies Balance Cash Fwd- Landfill
$315,943 as of 1/31/85 $91,997 as of 1/31/85
8
.L
--i +, STAT IDA
LES FORM UCT29 1
(REV. 9re3 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR &EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
13UREAU OF TAX
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301
tr`
CLAIMANT'S NAME .�,,. Y7
<»
fi,,;;SOC. SEC NO �.;': �-
REIMBLIRSEMENT INVOICE
THIS IS A STATEMENT OF 64ARaESTo YOUR ACCOUNT OF UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO YOUR FORMER EMPLO EESCAUSE
CHARGES TO YOUR
ACCOUNT
-- ?9 iSs 1414w.0.5�4r►52o-16844.
... ELBERT N DEAN. u
.'e'81-22-0719
-0812S.��B5-.
06!15/85
ACCOUNT NO.
QUARTER ENDING
n
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD Of
978037 7
DEC 31. 1984
COUNTY COMMISS ICNEFS
DATE
C/O FI NAhICE OFFICER , -J,-
FE8 O 1 • 1985
PO Box 1028 -`ny
l
_
YE �G BEACH FL 3a 9b0
THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE MUST BE PAID
�
WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE.
A
RETURN ONE COPY WITH YOUR REMITTANCE
LOCATION CODE AS SHOWN ON DETERMINATION NOTICE TO BASE PERIOD EMPLOYER OF VALID CLAIM FILED,
LES FORM UCB-12R .. ..
OMB Director Barton explained that we don't budget anything
for Unemployment Compensation as we do not know where it will be
coming from. The proposed amendment is for the last quarter of
1984.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(3-0) approved the above budget amendment for
Unemployment Compensation as recommended by the
OMB Director.
r
J PROCLAMATION HONORING THE DODGERS
Vice Chairman Scurlock read aloud the following Proclamation
welcoming the DODGERS and reported that it will be forwarded to
the Dodger Organization.
0
FEB 13 1985 Boa 59 FvF851
tr`
CLAIMANT'S NAME .�,,. Y7
<»
fi,,;;SOC. SEC NO �.;': �-
EXPIRATION
DATE'
OF CLAIM
NO. WEEKS
OF BENEFITS
PO. IN QTR.
CHARGES TO YOUR
ACCOUNT
-- ?9 iSs 1414w.0.5�4r►52o-16844.
... ELBERT N DEAN. u
.'e'81-22-0719
-0812S.��B5-.
06!15/85
:,>l2
2
., ,•:..., r_. 555.96
56.40
n
MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO:
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $
612.3E
RETURN ONE COPY WITH YOUR REMITTANCE
OMB Director Barton explained that we don't budget anything
for Unemployment Compensation as we do not know where it will be
coming from. The proposed amendment is for the last quarter of
1984.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(3-0) approved the above budget amendment for
Unemployment Compensation as recommended by the
OMB Director.
r
J PROCLAMATION HONORING THE DODGERS
Vice Chairman Scurlock read aloud the following Proclamation
welcoming the DODGERS and reported that it will be forwarded to
the Dodger Organization.
0
FEB 13 1985 Boa 59 FvF851
FEB 13 1985
BOOK 59 `•,5Jr 850 7
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, on behalf of all the County citizens, extends a
warm welcome to the LOS ANGELES DODGERS and the VERO BEACH
DODGERS; and
WHEREAS; Indian River County is immensely proud of their "
DODGERS who train here everand"
<> , y spring;
WHEREAS, this year will mark the 38th anniversary of the
"0 °,:-DODGERS organization holding spring training in Indian River
r z7 County; and
b� r , yy� °J WHEREAS, this year will . also mark the sixth. anniversary of,
the VERO BEACH DODGERS 'being in Indian River County," who in 1983 rt
'
achieved the distinction of becoming the FLORIDA STATE LEAGUE
4
CHAMPION VERO BEACH DODGERS; and r r'
N WHEREAS, the 'facilities constructed by the DODGERS are of
Y
unparalleled quality; theplayers are true champions in every
respect; and the DODGER management is responsible for molding
}
dynamic, never -give -up team.
/ t : •.,.
1 _ ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY :'
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, -FLORIDA, hereby wish the
DODGERS every success in 1985.
r BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B 41
Patrick B. Lyons,(oCh rman
10
•J�GRASSBEDS AT SITE OF PROPOSED WABASSO CAUSEWAY BOAT RAMP �Y-0-
�i
Planner Challacombe reviewed his memo, as follows: `"C,eA
TO: Mike Wright DATE: January 25, 1985 FILE:
County Administrator
THROU,H: GRASSBEDS FOUND AT THE
SITE OF THE PROPOSED
/. SUBJECT: BOAT RAMP
S. "Tommy" Thomas
Intergovernment Relations
LIN
03
Art Challacombe Wright memo a°0a J
FROM: Chief, Environmental REFERENCES: IBMI`'
Planning
On January 22, 1985, I surveyed the proposed recreational pier
and boat ramp location for evidence of seagrass habitat as
stated by the National Marine Fisheries Service in their letter
of objection. Previous to this survey, I inspected the site on
June 14, 1983, and found no seagrass beds directly in the path
of the proposed ramp. There were some beds located to the east
of the site. In the period since the initial inspection, the
seagrass beds have proliferated in such a manner that they
presently cover the proposed ramp site.
On January 23, 1985, I discussed by findings with Mr. Michael
Slayton of the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Slayton explained
that obtaining the necessary dredge and fill permits would be
very difficult at the proposed site location, due to the -
presence of the grassbeds.
When asked if we could submit an alternative site which does
not contain marine grasses, ie. just west of the existing site,
Mr. Slayton stated that the County could do so without
jeopardizing the existing permit application. The County,
however, would have to submit revised drawings and obtain a
letter from the Fish &..Wildlife Service, documenting that the
alternate site would have no adverse impacts to the Indian
River.
It is my recommendation that even though we have the above
option that may be pursued, a more practical solution to this
issue may be for the County to accept a monetary contribution
from the Zaremba Corporation and renovate/expand the existing
boat ramp at the Wabasso Causeway. There are currently no
grassbeds in the area and this alternative would certainly
simplify the permitting process.
Planner Challacombe emphasized that obtaining a permit at
this site now would be difficult, if not impossible. It appears
the existing ramp could be added onto to the west, and after
talking to the various agencies involved, he felt upgrading our
existing ramp and asking Zaremba for a monetary contribution
would be the most practical solution.
11
FEB 13 1985 BOOK 59 F 853
L-
FEB 13 1985
Boor, 59 F Lai 854
Vice Chairman Scurlock pointed out that we originally moved
the boat ramp from the entranceway to the Zaremba Corporation
project as a help to them, as well as to the orchid Isle people,
and if Zaremba Corporation had acted in a timely manner, we would
have had the new ramp by now. Secondly, it was his personal
opinion that a side by side boat launching situation is a very
poor arrangement which can lead to problems. Thirdly, he wished
to know how we would establish the monetary contribution.
Administrator Wright stated it would be based primarily on
construction costs.
Vice Chairman Scurlock suggested that we take the original
design and equate the cost to that, and the Administrator
believed actual construction of the ramp as originally proposed
was somewhat less than $15,000, and this would be in excess of
what it would cost us to expand the ramp.
Vice Chairman Scurlock was not in favor of extending the old
ramp as he felt the whole point was to have an additional
facility. He emphasized that he was looking for a solution where
we end up with an additional ramp somewhere on that causeway, and
whatever it costs is Zaremba's problem for causing the delay.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know why the north side of the
causeway was overlooked as a site for a launching ramp.
Engineer Don Finney informed the Board that staff did look
at different locations all along the causeway, and it was found
that the north side is very shallow and has oyster beds and grass
beds. They also looked underneath the bridge, and that was not
feasible because of parking requirements and the fact that it is
a cable crossing. Mr. Finney believed the only possible site,
other than the existing ramp was the subect site, which the Board
approved at a time when there were no grass beds there.
Administrator Wright felt what we are looking at is
expanding the existing site into a dual launching facility and
dividing it in the middle.
12
- M M
The Vice Chairman continued to emphasize that he wanted to
associate a dollar figure with this and send Zaremba Corporation
a bill, as he believed they had about $40,000 in their budget for
this activity, but he did not want to set an amount until we have
a final design; he felt we could, at this time, just direct
Zaremba to design it.
Administrator Wright stated that he would prefer to design
this in-house if we are going to expand the existing facility.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we could have another ramp just
west of the existing ramp, but it was explained that there is a
bend right there that would create a bad situation with cars
pulling out and backing into each other.
After further discussion, Vice Chairman Scurlock stated that
it would be his recommendation that staff go back and work with
Zaremba Corporation to come up with an acceptable plan, with the
understanding that the total cost is to be borne by them, and if
staff wishes to design it, they will be charged for staff time.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (3-0)
authorized staff to work with Zaremba Corp. as
per the Vice Chairman's recommendation.
APPEAL OF SHERATON, PROCTOR AND HODGES SITE PLAN APPROVAL
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
13
FEB 13 1995 Boor 59 F�0U 855
J
F_
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of Jr
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 4o and subscribed before me this day .�. . 19
�- el
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River
(SEAL)
NOTICE OF PUBL
REQMINQ API
SITE PLAN APF
On January10,188s, the
Commission of Indian Rivet
Ung as the local planning a
River
outs a
the In
located at 1840 25th Street,
on Wednesday, February 13
If any person decides W
.made on the above matter.
Aure that a verbatim retard
.hits N.eanneal tdodes uba
Jan. 25.
Vice Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone present preferred to
have this hearing delayed and carried over to another meeting
since only three Commission members are present today. No one
did.
Staff Planner Karen Craver reviewed staff's recommendation,
as follows:
I—
J
14
to en=
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 4, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: APPEAL OF SHERATON
tDONALD PROCTOR, AND
SUBJECT: AUGUST HODGES SITE
Robert M. KeatlingC7AICP APPROVAL
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
J Chief, Current Development Section
FROM: Karen M. Craver REFERENCES: Sheraton
Staff Planner DIS:KAREN
U.S.A.,
W
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of February 13, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On January 10, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission ap-
proved a major site plan application submitted by Sheraton,
U.S.A., Donald Proctor, and August Hodges. Approval was given
to construct 67,250 square feet of contractor's trades build-
ings and/or warehouses at the northwest corner of U.S. Highway
#1 and Hobart toad. Situated to the immediate north and west
of Proctor Plaza, the 5.6 acre parcel has frontage on both U.S.
#1 and Hobart Road.
As approved, the site plan depicts the 3 -phased construction of
6 buildings ranging in size from 5,000 to 14,400 square feet.
The plan also includes a 24 foot wide, two-way access drive
onto U.S. #1, as part of phase,l, and an identical drive onto
Hobart Road, as part of phase 3. Conditions of site plan
approval, agreed to by the applicant and illustrated on the
approved plan, include the dedication of the southern 5 feet of
property as Hobart Road right-of-way prior to the issuance of a
building permit, and the construction of left turn and decel-
eration lanes and a bike path within said right-of-way, upon
completion of phase 2 and 3, respectively.
The stormwater management system, the utilities plan, and the
landscape plan, designed in conformance with County regu-
lations, have been approved. Surrounding land uses include a
grove to the west, single-family residential and commercial to
the south, and vacant land to the north and east.
The Planning and Development Division and the Public Works
Division are appealing the approval of this site plan applica-
tion.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
During the review process, the Technical Review Committee
identified a site access problem relating to the proposed U.S.
#1 median cut and the 24 foot access onto U.S. #1. Taking into
consideration the proximity of the proposed median cut and
access point to the U.S. #1/Hobart Road intersection, the fact
that the cut is not an existing one, and the dual frontage of
the parcel, the Technical Review Committee determined that
access to the site from U.S. #1 should not be allowed; and, if
allowed, the U.S. #1 access should be restricted to right turn
in and right turn out only. The applicants were made aware of
the committee's position in discrepancy letters dated October
31, 1984 and December 20, 1984; however, they chose not to
modify the plan accordingly.
15
FEB 1 1 60015 59.
j 64
BOOK 9 ;',��. 858
The location of the U.S. #1 median cut and access point was
approved at approximately 650' north of the U.S. #1/Hobart Road
intersection, which the Traffic Engineering Department plans to
signalize in the future. It is the opinion of the Public Works
Director that the approved location is too close to the inter-
section and that stacking maneuvers will be inhibited when the
signal is installed. The site plan was also approved with the
condition that left turns from the site through the median and
into the northbound lane of U.S. #1 be prohibited; however,
unless strictly enforced, the potential for such maneuvers
still exists. Mr. Davis believes that this one movement, a
northbound left turn from the site, is the most hazardous
movement in egressing the site and _that the median cut should
not be allowed.
The County Thoroughfare Plan, adopted by the County Commission,
designates U.S. #1 as an arterial onto which access is to be
well controlled. As per the Functional Road Classification
Summary chart, developments which are allowed access onto
arterials are to be limited to major collectors and major
generators. Commercial and industrial developments which are
included in these categories are regional shopping centers and
regional industrial parks. Hobart Road is designated as a
secondary collector onto which access is to be partially
controlled. Commercial and industrial developments which are
to access onto secondary collectors include community commer-
cial centers and local industrial parks.
Recently, the Planning Department has received a number of
applications for development of property having dual frontage.
In each case in which the roads were of different classifica-
tions, the Technical Review Committee required that the access
be from the road with the lower functional classification, a
requirement that was consistently upheld by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. In three instances, namely Davidson
Tiretown, Jimmy Turner's Tire Store, and K & M Investments, the
subject parcels had frontage on Old Dixie, a secondary collec-
tor, and on,a local road. All received site plan approval with
access restricted to the local road. An application was
submitted by Bill Law to develop a parcel extending from U.S.
#1 to Old Dixie. Although the site plan depicted the access
from U.S. #1, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the
plan with the condition that it be amended to reflect access
only from Old Dixie.
The Planning Department staff believes that it has received a
specific directive regarding site access from the County
Commission, both through its adoption of the Thoroughfare Plan
and through past action; namely, the repeal of the Summerplace
Partnership site plan approval. While reviewing the subject
application, it was staff opinion that the proposed project was
not the type or size of development that the Commission was
considering when it determined that certain projects should be
allowed controlled access onto arterials. In addition, because
of the nature of the development, accessibility from U.S. #1
should not be essential for the project. Due to the C-2, Heavy
Commercial zoning, retail sales operations will not be allowed
in the facility; therefore, the occupants will be relying upon
established clientele rather than attracting motorists through
accessibility and visibility.
16
It is the position of the Planning and Development Division and
the Public Works Division that the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion deviated from County Commission policy, and its own
established precedent, in approving this site plan application.
The staff's appeal of the decision is an effort to uphold
County policy and maintain the public's health, safety and
general welfare.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board grant the appeal of the
Planning and Development Division and the Public Works Division
and reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission
in approving the subject site plan.
Planner Craver summarized that the main problem with the
site plan is the traffic hazard involved with access to U.S.I,
which problem relates to the project's dual frontage. In former
applications where dual frontage was involved, it always has been
required that access be to the lower class roadway; staff,
therefore, is requesting reversal of the site plan approval.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired where access to U.S.I would be
allowed, and Public Works Director Davis explained that there is
established criteria in the Land Use Plan allowing access in 1/4
mile increments.
Vice Chairman Scurlock had problems with reversing the site
plan approval. He pointed out that, for one thing, Mr. Proctor
and Mr. Hodges don't own the one parcel located at the south of
this property, and if that property were to be considered
separately, it would have.to have an access on U.S.I. Next,
obviously if you have that access, what people are going to do,
unless you have some structure there to prevent it, is make their
own median cut as they have all along and sometimes even go down
the wrong side on U.S.I to get to a certain place or go to the
next cut and make a "U" turn. This property extends almost 5001-
600' from the intersection, which is a good distance. Another
complication is the property across the street, which had
objections in regard to access through an existing subdivision.
The Vice Chairman felt that possibly a better approach might be
to work out an access to both properties with a common entrance -
17
BOOK 59 F,1 -UF 8,99
FEB 13 1985 a
way point. He felt this is a significantly different situation
than we had at CR 510, where the distance from the intersection
was only 1191, and it appears that Mr. Proctor is willing to
agree to certain conditions.
Planning Director Keating wished to make several points. He
noted that now when site plans on U.S.I don't have access to a
lower class roadway, staff encourages them to provide their
access drive laterally along the front and establish a common
access easement so we can eventually establish a marginal
frontage road system as adjacent properties develop. This has
been pretty successful, and the overall objective is to reduce
the number of curb cuts. Staff further does not feel the median
cut should be allowed because the left turn restriction has been
found to be unworkable because people ignore it. In addition,
staff anticipates the traffic attracted to this site will be
mainly truck traffic and those who are going there for a specific
purpose.
Vice Chairman Scurlock believed the developer has agreed to
allow access to the property to the north through their property,
and he did not see how you can just allow access to the back of a
project and not have a negative impact on a developer.
Director Keating felt this development will be made up of
contractor's offices or warehouses, but the Vice Chairman noted
that there are other acceptable uses that could end up there.
Public Works Director Davis asked if the Board wishes staff
to adhere strictly to the 1/4 mile access spacing required by the
Comprehensive Plan or possibly put in a temporary curb cut for
temporary access?
Vice Chairman Scurlock felt you just use common sense and
address the existing situation and then look at the area as it
develops and try to plan for common entrances.
Director Davis believed if this can be worded so it is clear
this is a temporary cut and that, in the future, as the marginal
access road becomes connected up, we would have the flexibility
18
to close that cut and connect them up further along, that could
be workable, but unless staff comes in at the site plan level and
gets that temporary condition set out, it would be very difficult
to get the median cut closed at some future time.
Commissioner Wodkte noted that one of the big problems in
this area is that U.S.I and the property lines are not parallel
and you get very odd shaped pieces of property. He continued to
discuss distance between curb cuts, and asked Director Davis if
there were a traffic light at Hobert intersection, which would
allow for a change in the traffic pattern, if he felt the
distance of 600' feet from the light would be a problem.
Director Davis did not feel 600' would be such a problem,
but he noted that the DOT green book addresses access control and
curb cuts, and they have many problems with this access, being
that there is no road lighting and at night it is a very dark
corridor. He did concur there should be some median cut not too
far from Hobart Road; 79th St. is about 1/4 mile north, and he
believed that would be the most logical median cut.
Dale Sorensen came before the Board representing the owners
of the property in question. He wished to have it clarified what
"temporary" refers to - the median cut or the access to U.S.I?
The Vice Chairman stated basically the access to U.S.I; he
noted that from a traffic standpoint, it may be a benefit later
on to have an entrance on the property to the north to access the
subject property.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that they still would have
access on U.S.I at all times, but the question would be where it
would be located; and the access they would have on U.S.I would
probably be where the median cut was, but it quite probably would
be further to the north. He emphasized that the subject project
would not be deprived of access to U.S.I at any time.
Mr. Sorensen inquired whose expense this would be, and
Director Davis stated that it would be the expense of the
19
L- FEB 13 1985
BOOK
r
FEB
'1
1985
BOOK 59 F;F
862
developers
further to the north if that median cut could be
located along their frontage.
Mr. Sorensen stated that the main issue is that they have a
direct access to U.S.I. He pointed out that it is 625' up to
79th St. from the north boundary of their property, and he felt
they are in the most logical place to put the access; they are
willing to move their access further north if that would be
better for the people across the street, but he did not feel they
can agree to anything in terms of temporary access to U.S.I. Mr.
Sorensen also believed they could agree, to the median cut being
a temporary thing and felt the DOT actually controls that in any
event.
Vice Chairman Scurlock commented that Mr. Sorensen
apparently is saying he would still have his entranceway and he
is willing to move it further north, and then at some point in
time if we want to take the median cut away, he agrees we would
have the ability to do it.
Public Works Director Davis felt our ability there is not
clear. Possibly something could be included in the site plan as
a condition stating that the median cut could be closed if one
were provided to the north and if the marginal access connection
could be made, but there still would have to be some changes to
the site plan, such as the marginal access easement.
Mr. Sorensen raised objections to staff's presentation
noting that his group agreed at the Planning & Zoning hearing to
do away with any left turns onto U.S.I. He felt, as a practical
solution to this problem, they could put a little median actually
within their exit to U.S.I which would force the people to turn
right, and they are willing to do this.
Mr. Sorensen next took issue with staff's remarks about the
type and size of the proposed project. He felt that a 65,000 sq.
ft. project is a major project, not just some "rinky-dink"
warehouses. The buildings that front U.S.I will be approximately
24,000 sq. ft. Mr. Sorensen pointed out that part of this
20
property is in the Industrial Node and noted that when they first
came to the Board, they wanted part of the property zoned
Industrial and the other part up front zoned Commercial; however,
the people from Hobart Landing presented their objections and
concerns about what happened on U.S.I, and so they finally agreed
to the C-2 designation because they wanted to do a nice project.
It now appears that that willingness to compromise on the zoning
has backfired on them.
Mr. Sorensen then explained to the Board that the proposed
warehouses are not just plain warehouses; they are "office"
warehouses and present a nice appearance facing the highway.
This type building allows the tradesman to have a small office
and displayroom in the front and to use the remaining area for
warehousing his goods. This has worked well in other parts of
the state, but if they can only have access off Hobart Road, Mr.
Sorensen felt they would have to turn the buildings around and
have their backs facing U.S.I, which is exactly what the people
at Hobart Landing did not want. He noted that staff has compared
this development to Tiretown and some other one -user type of
operations, and this definitely is not a one -user operation. Mr.
Sorensen continued to emphasize that, in their opinion, access to
U.S.I is essential. He also felt the fact that the Planning &
Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to approve their site plan, was
significant. He then reiterated that while they can agree to the
median cut being a temporary thing, they cannot agree to a
temporary situation in regard to access to U.S.I.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the marginal access road,
and Director Keating explained that staff did not ask for a
common access easement because they were recommending against
access on U.S.I. If there is such access, they would ask the
applicant to dedicate a common access easement to run parallel to
U.S.I so properties to the north and south can connect.
Mr. Sorensen stated that they have agreed to that, and he
believed their plan shows a marginal access street.
21
FEBB 1L 69 �ggy''y� 1985 BOOK. 863
r
FEB 13 198
Bou 5g, r'-o-r: 'I
Commissioner Bowman asked if staff would be agreeable to
having the median access line up with York street, which is up
near the end of the subject property, and which she felt would
allow for better traffic flow.
Public Works Director Davis stated that staff would agree to
work with the properties along the corridor in an effort to
develop the most appropriate point for the median cut, and Mr.
Sorensen stated that they would have no problem with relocating
the entrance anywhere along their frontage as long as it worked.
Vice Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone present wished to be
heard. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(3-0) closed the public hearing.
In further discussion, Attorney Brandenburg explained that
if the Board wished to change the site plan, they first would
have to approve the appeal and vacate the approval at the
Planning & Zoning Commission level; then make the desired
modifications to the site plan and approve it as modified.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, to grant the appeal as filed by staff
and approve the site plan based upon a relocation, if
necessary, of the U.S.I curb cut with the understanding
that the median cut is to be considered a temporary cut
and if it is necessary in the future to close that cut,
additional access will be provided by a new median cut
and the use of a marginal access road; the applicant to
dedicate the marginal access road easement and to do every-
thing possible to restrict a lefthand turn onto U.S.I.,
including constructing curbing to make such a turn less
feasible.
22
Mr. Sorensen commented that they would prefer to make this
even more concrete, and if it can be decided to make the cut at
York Street now, he felt it will save a lot of time and money.
Director Davis reported that there is a problem with York
Street in that it apparently does not even connect to U.S.I.
The Vice Chairman felt the Motion is flexible enough.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (3-0).
ORDINANCE AMENDING SWIMMING POOL CODE
The hour of 9:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a - 71U�
in the matter CW
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this a da 19
l (Bus' ets �Vlana
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
23
FEB 13 1985
NOTICE OP PUBf1.4,CfM �O
CONSIDER ADOP'nON OF '
COUNTY ORDINANCE .. .,
The Board of County Commialonere of Indian
River Courcy Florida, WM 'conduct a!PubUo
8H46 A M M Wtlre Co .FF'e Cu �
flan of an
v!,'. RIVER
MIMS r -U." WyE; PROVIDING FOR IN-
4CORPORATION IN CODE; SEVERABIL '.';
ITtt; AND EFFECTIVE, DATE.. -'.i
If any person decides 16 ePPeal a deWstonmadi
on the above matter. a record of the proceedirg
will be required for such purposes, and he or sh,
may need to erwure that a verbatim record of Bn
Proceedings Is made, which record includes.th
ony and evldenco on which the appeal t
Indian River Courcy
Board of County Commissioners
Petrick B. Lyons, Chairman a
Jan. 26,1885
B o o K 591,j.e;.865
FEB 13 1995
Boa 5 fa;r
Building Director Ester Rymer came before the Board to
explain the need for this amendment, which will require, among
other things that swimming pools be surrounded either by a fence
at least 4' high or a screened enclosure. She informed the Board
that the code we are using now does not have proper specifics to
address construction, and that is why they want Standard Swimming
Pool Code adopted. The adoption of this code would standardize
this aspect of our code with all our other codes, i.e.,
electrical, plumbing, etc. Mrs. Rymer noted that the Building
Department is a County/City Building Department, and this
already has been adopted in the City -of Vero Beach.
Commissioner Bowman agreed that this is necessary, and Vice
Chairman Scurlock believed this would not affect existing pools.
This was confirmed.
Building Director Rymer reported that there has been great
controversy about swimming pool enclosures. People are very
concerned, and we are the only County she knows of that does not
require a swimming pool enclosure. She noted that at one time
there was an effort to have this made a state law, but it failed
to pass.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that his first thought is that
this would include every area of the county, even the
agricultural areas, and Director Rymer noted that if you use
agricultural property for residential use, it still has to be
safe for you to occupy.
Administrator Wright asked if this applies to commercial
structures such as motels and Director Rymer confirmed that it
applies to all swimming pools wherever located.
The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(3-0) closed the public hearing.
24
� � r
a
Commissioner Bowman questioned how this requirement would
relate to above ground pools, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that
the purpose of the enclosure is to prevent access to the pool and
a fence around an above ground pool would prevent access to the
ladder leading to the pool.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know how this would be handled
in the case of motels where the pool may be located in the center
of the complex with rooms all around.
Director Rymer believed this would require using common
sense and taking a reasonable approach. This requirement is
aimed at preventing the pool from being used by unauthorized
personnel. A pool such as Commissioner Wodtke is discussing
would be enclosed from people on the public street and this would
keep people other than those residing there out of that compound.
The Vice Chairman concurred that the main purpose is to
control the access.
Attorney Brandenburg believed the major point of the code
relates to specific construction of the pool, and he felt the
fencing requirement is one of the minor issues.
Commissioner Wodtke asked about eliminating the fencing
requirement, and a member of the audience talked about having a
railing around the pool rather than a fence.
Director Rymer cautioned against adopting the Standard Code
and taking away part of the requirements as she doubted this
could be done without assuming some liability. She felt strongly
that the Code should not -be watered down.
Vice Chairman Scurlock inquired about the economic effect of
the Code, and Director Rymer felt if someone can afford a
swimming pool, they can afford to fence it in.
Commissioner Wodtke brought up the case where someone has a
home built on either the river or ocean, and a fence around the
pool would block their view.
Mrs. Rymer pointed out that all of the Codes have appeals
built in them.
Pd;F �7
FEB 13 1985 25 BOOK 59
� J
FEB I q 1995
BOCK 5 9 I Aur. 868
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board adopted
Ordinance 85-11, amending the Swimming Pool
Code, by a 2 to 1 vote with Commissioner
Wodtke voting in opposition.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 85- 11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE
X; ADOPTING THE STANDARD SWIMMING POOL CODE, 1982
EDITION; AMENDING THE STANDARD SWIMMING POOL CODE;
PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION IN CODE; SEVERABILITY;
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION 1.
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter
4, Article X is hereby created to read as follows:
The Standard Swimming Pool Code, 1982 Edition, as
published by the Southern Building Code Congress
International, Incorporated, is hereby adopted by
Indian River County as the Swimming Pool Code for
Indian River County, Florida, with such modifi-
cations as may be set. forth hereinafter or by
further County ordinance.
SECTION 2.
AMENDMENT TO STANDARD SWIMMING POOL CODE.
COST OF PERMIT. The schedule of fees as contained
within Section 105.4 is hereby deleted and the following language
shall be substituted:
The County Commission shall, by resolution, set all
fees to be charged for permits obtained under this
ordinance.
26
�I
SECTION 3.
INCORPORATION IN CODE.
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of
Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County and the word
"ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other
appropriate word and the sections of this ordinance may be
renumbered or relettered to accomplish such purposes.
SECTION 4.
SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase,
or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holdings shall not
affect°the remaining portions of this ordinance; and it shall be
construed to be the legislative intent to pass the ordinance
without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
�ranmTn�t G
EFFECTIVE DATE.
-The provisons_of this -section shall.become effective
upon receipt from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida
of official acknowledgment that this.ordinance has been filed with
the Department of State.
y BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIV]31, COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
,j BREEZY VILLAGE RATE TARIFF
B. LYONS%Cijairman
Utilities Director Pinto confirmed that staff has reviewed
and concurs with the rates and method of computation of same as
set out in the Exhibit "A" attached to the following memo. He
noted that the utility company has worked with the residents and
customers in the area to come up with an agreeable methodology of
forming the tariff, and staff agrees with what has been
recommended.
It was noted that this is not a public hearing.
27
FEB 13 1985 Boa 59 F,Ac, 869
r
r
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE:
The Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Terrance G. Pinto
Utility Service D r o
FROM: Josep A. Baird
Assistant Utility
'BOOK 59 Fvu 870
January 29, 1985 FILE:
SUBJECT: BREEZY VILLAGE RATE TARIFF
REFERENCES: Exhibit "A":
Director Rate Tariff
Description and Conditions:.
The Utilities Department has reviewed the Rate Tariff submitted by
Breezy Village Utilities and find therates generate the $27,504 and
$37,094.revenue requirement. In addition to the Tariff, the Utility
requests that the bill be prorated in January at 1/3 of the old rate
and 2/3 of the proposed new rate. We feel this is a reasonable
request.
Alternatives:
1. Approve the Rate Tariff.
2. Disapprove the Rate Tariff.
Recommendation:
- {
The Utility Department recommends the Honorable Members of the Board
of County Commiss-ion approve the Rate Tariff as submitted.
28
I
EXHIBIT "A"
LORNE W. HUNSBERGER, C.P.A. WILLIAM C. WALSH. C.P.A.
LEWIS H. BOWER, C.P.A. (Retired 1983)
WILLIAM D. HUGHES, C.P.A.
HUNSBERGER, BOWER & WALSH, P.A.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
8411 CIVIC ROAD
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33615
(813) 886-3895
January 14, 1985
Mr. Terrance Pinto
Utility Director
Indian River County Utilities
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Breezy Village Water & Sewer Co., Inc.
Dear Terry:
Enclosed are the following:
1. Schedule of rates to be charged from January 10, 1985 to January 9, 1986.
2. Schedule of rates to be charged effective January 10, 1986.
3. Schedule of computation of rates to be charged from January 10, 1985 to
January 9, 1986.
4. Schedule of computation of rates to be charged effective January 10,
1986.
Water meters are read on the first of each month. The computation of the
bills for water and sewer service for the month of January, 1985 will be as
follows:
1. The bill will be computed using the rates in effect before January 10,
1985.
2. The bill will be computed using the rates in effect after January 9,
1985.
3. One-third (1/3) of the bill computed in 1) above will be added to two-
thirds (2/3) of the bill computed in 2) above to arrive at the customer's
bill for the month of January, 1985.
4. The Indian River County franchise fee and renewal and replacement fund
charges should be added to the total January, 1985 bill.
The computation of the bills for water and sewer service for the month of
January, 1986 will be as follows:
1. The bill will be computed using the rates in effect before January 10,
1986.
2. The bill will be computed using the rates in effect after January 9,
1986.
3. One-third (1/3) of the bill computed in 1) above will be added to two-
thirds (2/3) of the bill computed in 2) above to arrive at the customer's
bill for the month of January, 1986.
4. The Indian River County franchise fee and renewal and replacement fund
charges should be added to the total January, 1986 bill.,
Terry, if you have any questions on any of the above, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
HUNSBERGER, BOWER & WALSH, P.A.
Lorne W. Hunsberger
29
FEB 13 1985 aoo� F, . 81
I
BREEZY VILLAGE WATER & SEWER CO., INC.
RATES TO BE CHARGED FROM
JANUARY 10, 1985 TO JANUARY 9, 1986
Quantity charges:
Service Availability Charge - no consumption
allowance, to be paid every month regardless
of consumption (even if meter is temporarily
turned off)
3/4" x 5/8" meter
1" meter
1 1/2" meter
2" meter
3" meter
4" meter
6" meter
Multi -family, master metered, per unit
Consumption Charge:
Per 1,000 gallons
* Sewer will not be billed on residential
metered water consumption above 12,000
gallons. This "cap" is established so
that sewer customers will not be billed
for water not returned to the sewer.
BOCK
WATER
9.81
24.53
49.05
78.48
156.96
245.25
490.50
9.81
1.75
9 �,U, 872
SEWER
.9.81
24.53
49.05
78.48
15 6.. 9.6
245..25
490.50
.9.81
1.75*
All utility bills must be paid in full within 15 days of the date of
the bill or a penalty of $1.50 or 1 1/2% of the bill, whichever is
greater, will be added to the bill. All utility bills must be paid in
full within 20 days of the date of the bill or service may be
terminated. Service will not be restored until all amounts owed the
utility, including the penalty and turn off and turn on charge, have
been paid.
Connection charges:
3/4" x 5/8" meter
500.00
500.00
1" meter
1,250.00
1,250.00
1 1/2" meter
2,500.00
2,500.00
2" meter
4,000.00
4,000:00
3" meter
8,000.00
8,000.00
4" meter
12,500.00
12,500.00
6" meter
25,000.00
25,000.00
30
BREEZY VILLAGE WATER & SEWER CO., INC.
RATES TO BE CHARGED FROM
JANUARY 10, 1985 TO JANUARY 9, 1986
WATER
Meter installation fee:
3/4" x 5/8" meter 125.00
1" meter 180.00
1 1/2" meter 370.00
2" meter 460.00
Over 2"
* Meters larger than 2" shall be provided and
installed by the customer. Meter type, design
and installation shall be prescribed and
approved by the utility.
Miscellaneous charges:
Water turn on - during regular hours.for new
customers or re-establishment of service at
customer's request or for non-payment
10.00
Water turn off - during regular hours for non-
payment, at request of customer or for
customer closing account
10.00
Water turn on - during other than regular hours
30.00
Customer tampering with meter - including turning
on own meter after turned off by the utility
for non-payment
25.00
Returned check - Florida Statute
Damage to utility property or any item not covered
above - time, materials and administrative charge
(administrative charge to be $15.00 or 15% of
time and materials, whichever is greater)
SEWER
Indian River County charges:
Franchise fee - As set by the County and shown separately on the bill.
Renewal and Replacement Fund - As set by the County and shown separately
on the bill.
CIAC - As set by the County under Ordinances 80-21 and 80-22 and will
apply to all new utility customers.
31
FEB 13 1985 BOOK 5 �3
FEB 13 1995
BOCK
BREEZY VILLAGE WATER & SEWER CO., INC.
RATES TO BE CHARGED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 10, 1986
Quantity charges:
Service Availability Charge - no consumption
allowance, to be paid every month regardless
of consumption (even if meter is temporarily
turned off)
3/4" x 5/8" meter
1" meter
1 1/2" meter
2" meter
3" meter
4" meter
6" meter
Multi -family, master metered, per unit
Consumption Charge:
Per 1,000 gallons
* Sewer will not be billed on residential
metered water consumption above 12,000
gallons. This "cap" is established so
that sewer customers will not be billed
for water not returned to the sewer.
WATER
13.07
32.68
.65.35
104.56
209.12
326.75
653.50
13.07
2.44
D O F ^r 874
SEWER
13.07
32.68
65.35
104.56
209:12
326.75
653.50
13,07
2;44*
All utility bills must be paid in full within 15 days of the date of
the bill or a penalty of $1.50 or 1 1/2% of the bill, whichever is
greater, will be added to the bill. All utility bills must be paid in
full within 20 days of the date of the bill or service may be
terminated. Service will not be restored until all amounts owed the
utility, including the penalty and turn off and turn on charge, have
been paid.
Connection charges:
•3/4" x 5/8" meter
500.00
500.00
1" meter
1,250.00
1,250.00
1 1/2" meter
2,500.00
2,500.00
2" meter
4,000.00
4,000.00
3" meter
8,000.00
8,000.00
4" meter
12,500.00
12,500.00
6" meter
25,000.00
25,000.00
32
BREEZY VILLAGE WATER & SEWER CO., INC.
RATES TO BE CHARGED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 10, 1986
Meter installation fee:
3/4" x 5/8" meter
1" meter
1 1/2" meter
2" meter
Over 2"
* Meters larger than 2" shall be provided and
installed by the customer. Meter type, design
and installation shall be prescribed and
approved by the utility.
Miscellaneous charges:
Water turn on - during regular hours for new
customers or re-establishment of service at
customer's request or for non-payment
Water turn off - during regular hours, for non-
payment, at request of customer or for
customer closing account
Water turn on - during other than regular hours
Customer tampering with meter - including turning
on own meter after turned off by the utility
for non-payment
Returned check - Florida Statute
Damage to utility property or any item not covered
above - time, materials and administrative charge
(administrative charge to be $15.00 or 15% of
time and materials, whichever is greater)
WATER
125.00
180.00
370.00
460.00
*
10.00
10.00
30.00
25.00
SEWER
Indian River County charges:
Franchise fee - As set by the County and shown separately on the bill.
Renewal and Replacement Fund - As set by the County and shown separately
on the bill.
CIAC - As set by the County under Ordinances 80-21 and 80-22 and will
apply to all new utility customers.
33
FEB i BOOK WA 875
Boa 5 9 876
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(3-0) accepted the Rate Tariff as submitted by
Breezy Village Utilities.
!/REQUEST FOR HELP IN LIGHTING SEBASTIAN AREA LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD
Jeff Horne, recent County resident and President of the
Board of Directors of the Sebastian Area Little League, came
before the Board, noting that even though Commissioner Bird was
not present today, he wished to make his presentation because of
a pressing time schedule. He informed the Board in detail of his
considerable background and involvement with youth and safety in
sports, which resulted in his becoming President of the Sebastian
Area Little League.
Mr. Horne reported that the Sebastian Little League will
have between 200-225 youngsters this year, and they now are in
the process of considering sanctioning a Senior League. Mr.
Horne reported that his first action as President of the Little
League Association was to take control of the field which he
accomplished by getting the City of Sebastian to agree to a 20
year lease. The League now has exclusive control of that field
and can lease it back to the City under certain conditions.
Their primary goal is getting this control was in order to
develop the field, which has now almost totally deteriorated,
into a regulation safe Little League field for the youngsters in
North Indian River County.
Mr. Horne then described the condition of the field, noting
that the concession stand is not approved by Public Health;
seventeen of the lights are out and twelve of the sockets are
unusable; and the irrigation system is gone. Their
reconstruction program includes such things as removing a solid
wall around the field and installing a plastic temporary fence
and an outfield chain link fence; installing a new irrigation
system; repairing the concession stand and the field itself; and
34
providing proper lighting. The total cost of this refurbishing
would be $26,000, with the lighting being the single most
expensive item. Mr. Horne reported that thus far the League has
raised monies for most of these things, but they do not have time
to raise $14,000 for the lighting. Although this could be
financed through the lighting company, the newly created Board,
did not have the self confidence to commit for the total $14,000
bill based on being able to raise the money.
Mr. Horne then informed the Board that they have presented
their plan to North Indian River County Recreation, but unfor-
tunately it is the middle of their budget year, and although
North County Recreation has endorsed the concept, they do not
have additional funds and are not willing to rechannel funds from
other projects. The City of Sebastian does not have money
available for the lights either, but they have agreed to continue
to pay for all electricity used at the field during the year, and
also have agreed to share in the maintenance cost of operating
the field when the League has completed 7/12 of the reconstruc-
tion. In addition, the City has consigned use of the concession
stand to the Little League all during the year so they can raise
funds, and they also have been offered the concession stand at
Barber Street field. This, however, all takes time which they do
not have, and he, therefore, is asking the Commission if there is
a way, through grant, loan or whatever, to put together this
money today so they can install the lighting system and have the
field ready to play on March 19th, which is the beginning of
their season.
Vice Chairman Scurlock noted that this is a complicated
situation. First of all, we rely on North County Recreation to
advise us of their priorities, and we address their total needs
each year at budget time. Secondly, we also have emergencies
arise, and our own contingency fund is extremely low at this
point, and thirdly, Mr. Horne is asking for a capital improvement
on a non -County owned piece of property. He asked if there is
35
BOOK FEE 13 1985
I
FEB 13 1985 BOOK 59 F',�cr 8 i8
some ability to approach the Commission through the North County
Recreation Committee as they establish the budget, and he is not
about to set a precedent by doing something different than their
budget provides for the year.
Mr. Horne stated that he had expected they would have
contacted the County Commission as it is in their minutes that
they approve the League's concept and support his appearance
before the Commission to try to raise the money. He continued to
stress that twelve of the lights are non-functional which creates
a very hazardous situation as the ball can disappear into an area
where the children cannot see it. Mr. Horne wished to know if
there was not some way to work out some kind of loan situation as
they are working on a very tight schedule.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that Mr. Horne has indicated that
the Little League has raised sufficient funds to do the fencing
and quite a few other repairs, and he felt that represents quite
a considerable amount.
Mr. Horne explained that what they actually have raised is
mainly non-cash items; the only cash is for the outfield fence.
They have obtained a commitment for $2,500 in labor and materials
for the irrigation system.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that it is up to the Little League
to decide what is the most important priority; that is not the
Board's decision. He asked if a request was made to North County
Recreation for lights during their last budget year, and Mr.
Horne explained the Association was not formed then. Commis-
sioner Wodtke stated that he was extremely impressed with Mr.
Horne's attitude and the direction he is taking, and he felt it
was unfair of North County Recreation to ask him to come before
the County Commission alone. He continued that if North County
Recreation does feel this lighting is a priority and will
indicate they want to borrow some money because it is in their
budget plans for next year, he then would be willing to see if
there is some legal way we could approach this.
36
r
Vice Chairman Scurlock also felt we are fortunate to have
someone of Mr. Horne's caliber taking an interest in the North
County sports program, but it seems there are several problems
involved in the fact that North County Recreation was not
approached last year for these lights - there was disagreement
about this ballfield; there was a rift with Fellsmerp; and it is
a complicated situation. He agreed with Commissioner Wodtke that
the County Commission cannot get involved unless North County
Recreation is willing to set some priorities. He felt the
Commission is recommending that Mr. Horne go back to North County
Recreation and see if he can establish this request as one of
their priorities for the coming year, and if he can establish
that with a certain dollar framework, then possibly the County
Commission can work out some sort of loan situation.
Mr. Horne noted that he really is caught between two groups
and everyone is competing for funds. He would like to get these
two groups together, and asked if Commissioner Bird might be able
to attend the next meeting of North County Recreation with him.
Vice Chairman Scurlock believed that Commissioner Bird had
told him that North County Recreation does not have this request
as a priority, but would address it next year.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that time is of the essence
and to put the quietus on.this whole next Little League season
could result in the whole thing falling apart. Mr. Horne
confirmed that if they cannot have this field ready on March
19th, they do not have the facilities for their next season
because the Fellsmere and Sebastian fields are not available and
the Roseland field is not ready.
Vice Chairman Scurlock noted that Commissioner Bird will be
back in town at the end of the week, and he would suggest that
Mr. Horne request a special meeting of the North County
Recreation group and have a representative from the City of
Sebastian at the meeting also. Based on the results of such a
meeting, Mr. Horne then could come back to the County Commission.
. 37 BOOK �;� �'fa�� 8�
E 13 1985
I
FEB 13 1985
BOOK R59 C''r. 880
vADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR VERO LAKES ESTATES MSTU
Public Works Director Davis reported that basically staff
has been charged with the task of putting together a work program
and a budget for the next budget year to get the Vero Lakes
Estates MSTU into action. At this point staff mainly wishes some
direction as to how to set up the advisory committee. The Vero
Lakes Estates Homeowners Association is comprised of about 200
homes in the area, and Mr. Ansin owns a.majority of the lots in
the undeveloped area. They have received five or six resumes
from members of the property owners association, and Mx. Ansin
wants representation, but that leaves -out people who are not
members of the Homeowners Association. Staff, therefore, felt
possibly they should place an ad soliciting further resumes and
give those who are not organized a chance to respond. Mr. Davis
noted that they hope to have a seven person committee.
The Commission agreed there should be representation for all
those mentioned and that we should have'a broad cross section
from which to choose.
Discussion continued in regard to placing an ad, possibly
the press writing an article, or posting public notice, and
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would like to see an article
regarding this in the Sebastian Sun or the Press Journal rather
than an ad.
Administrator Wright reported that we have been getting
pressure to start grading roads in this area that we have not
been grading in the past. Staff's position is that we have an
approved route and -until the Board directs otherwise, we are not
going to deviate or do additional work.
PAVING OF LATERAL "H" ROAD NORTH OF LINDSEY ROAD
Public Works Director Davis reviewed his memo, as follows:
EN
TO: ]Mnorable Members of them February 5, 1985 F14M
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright, SUBJECT: Paving of Lateral "H" Road North
County Administrator of Lindsey Road
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES:
Public Works Directo
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the December 19, 1985 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, the Board instructed the County staff to meet
.with Global Paving and John Trodglen to agree on the County's
contribution of paving Lateral "H" Road north of Lindsey Raod
(a County maintained road). On Feb. 4, 1985, the Public Works
Director met with Mr. Trodglen and Mr. Price to resolve this
issue.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Based on a design performed by the County Engineering
Department and typical petition paving costs, the County's
share should be as follows:
($22.00/lineal foot),x (1540 lineal feet) x 25% = $8470
All work will be performed by Trodglen Paving and Global
Paving. The County will pay for materials in the amount of
$8470.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that $8470 be allocated from fund 703-
214-541-35.39, Petition Paving Fund, for paving of Lateral
"H" road North of Lindsey Road. There are sufficient funds inl
fund 703 to perform the work.,
Director Davis noted that when this came before the Board in
December, there was confusion as to what dollar amount the County
should contribute to this paving, but basically the Board agreed
it would be beneficial both to the County and the property
owners. He, therefore, again met with Mr. Price and Mr. Trodglen
to resolve the design of the roadway and agree on cost, which
came out to $22.00 a lineal foot. This price is a little less
than some of our petition paving jobs because of the nature of
the roadway, i.e., there are not a lot of driveways and the
drainage is simple. Our contribution of $8,470 will be mainly
for the asphalt which is invoiced to the county.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if this is what it would cost if
the County were to do it, and that was confirmed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (3-0) authorized the
allocation of $8470 from #703-214-541-35.39, Petition Pav-
ing Fund, for paving of Lateral "H" north of Lindsey Road.
39
FEB 13 1985
BOOK 5 9 fAGr.881
J
FEB 13 1985
■I
5 F, 8j�p
r
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTAIN SIGNATURES ON COUNTY WARRANTS
It was explained that this had been done previously, but the
Clerk wished to add the signature of her Chief Deputy Clerk,
Janice Randall.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (3-0)
adopted Resolution 85-20 directing county deposi-
tories to honor certain authorized signatures.
40
RESOLUTION NO. 85-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, DIRECTING COUNTY DEPOSITORIES
TO HONOR CERTAIN AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES
ON COUNTY WARRANTS AND OTHER ORDERS
FOR PAYMENT.
WHEREAS, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY on January 2, 1985, held an election
for the office of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the County Commission did nominate and
select PATRICK B. LYONS, as CHAIRMAN and DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., as
VICE CHAIRMAN, and
WHEREAS, FREDA WRIGHT was elected CLERK OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY effective January 4, 1977,
and has been reelected, and also serves as a CLERK TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, pursuant to Florida Statutes §125.167,
and JANICE RANDALL was appointed Deputy Clerk on January 1,
1973, and
WHEREAS, it
is now
necessary
to reinstruct the
County's depositories as
to the
signatures
necessary to honor
County warrants, checks
or other
orders for
the payment of money
drawn in the Commission's name.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
sitting in regular session that:
1. The
County Commission has
in the past
designated
certain banking
institutions as official
depositories
of County
funds, such designations are hereby ratified and affirmed, and
2. That each designated depository of the Commission is
hereby requested, authorized and directed to honor checks,
warrants or
other
orders for
the
payment
of
money drawn
in the
Commission's
name,
including
those
payable
to
the individual
order
of any person or persons whose name or names appear thereon, when
bearing the facsimile signature of the Chairman of the County
Commission and the facsimile signature of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court, when said check, warrants or other orders for the payment
of money equals or does not exceed the sum of Three Thousand
Dollars ($3,000.00).
�p 41
FEB 1 I9 BOOK �a, r 8: 3
I
\I
BOOK 5- F',�� 88
3. That if a check, warrant or other order for the
payment of money drawn in the Commission's name exceeds the sum of
three thousand dollars ($3,000.00), said designated depositories
are authorized and directed to honor checks, warrants or other
orders for the payment of money drawn in the Commission's name,
only when such check, warrant or other order for the payment of
money bears the facsimile signature of the Chairman and .Clerk of
the Circuit Court and further bears the original signature of
either the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Clerk of the Circuit Court, or
Deputy Clerk, listed below. Said actual and facsimile signatures
appear below:
(1) Freda Wright
Clerk of the Circuit Court
(2) Janice Randall,
Deputy Clerk `
(3) Patrick B. Lyons
Chairman
(4) Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Vice Chairman
Actual
1 �
Facsimile
P� Actual
Facsimile
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above-named
signatories are hereby authorized to execute any and all signature
- cards and agreements as requested by the respective banking
institutions designated as official depositories by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the use of
facsimile signatures is as authorized by Florida Statutes Chapter
116.34, the "Uniform Facsimile Signature of Public Officials
Act."
42
M
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Wodtke who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Absent
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Absent
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 13th
Attest:�hF'�z.j-(,(,i
FREDA' WRIGH,
Clerk
Attest U�
Deputy--4plerk
AP,PROVE17 &W TOFO
AND LEG SUFFI Y
By /
G AN E BURG
County Attorney
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
day of February , 1985.
BOARD QPCOUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IN N RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B
A ICK B. LYO(f/
Chairman
By
DON C. SCURLOCK,
Vice Chairman
Before me
personally
appeared
PATRICK B. LYONS,
DON C. SCURLOCK,
JR., FREDA
WRIGHT
and JANICE RANDALL,
to me known and known to me to be the persons who executed the
foregoing instrument and having been placed under oath have
indicated that the foregoing La their actual and/or facsimile
signatures, this day o 1985.
Notary gublic
43
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
,,ONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE iJNU e
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 8. 1986
BOOK Ft' -' 8's 5,
FEB 13 1995
BOOK
�/REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
Vice Chairman Scurlock reviewed the following summary:
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
February 12, 1985
1. Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance Study:
5 '��8
Frf„ �J
TPC accepted verbal status report. Consultants
are done with data collection and roadway analyses
with Report #2 scheduled for the 3/19/85 meeting.
2. Intersection Study - U.S. #1 at 1st Street:
TPC accepted staff's preliminary report and recom-
mends close monitoring of accidents as well as an
appeal to FDOT to reduce the speed limit on U.S. #1
in front of Vista Royale.
3. Street Light - U.S. #1 at Quay Dock Road:
TPC recommended that the County and Winter Beach
Progressive League agree to install a light with
the League assessed the costs until the full street
light study is completed.
4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
TPC recommended to add the following secondary
collector road to the Thoroughfare Plan:
a. North Barrier Island internal subdivision roads,
b. First Street between U.S. #1 and Old Dixie.
These will be processed through the Planning & Zoning
Commission, and as a formal agenda item.
5. Hobart Road Paving:
TPC recommended this request from the Parks & Recreation
Committee for paving Hobart Road through Hobart Park and
to the fairgrounds go back to the requestor for
financing due to lack of road improvement program funds.
6. Fellsmere Grade:
TPC recommends not to abandon any part of this roadway.
The Vice Chairman noted that the consultants doing the
Traffic Impact Fee Study have not come up with actual dollars
yet, but they have done traffic counts, etc.
In regard to Item 2. Intersection Study - U.S.1 at lst
Street, he felt basically what they are talking about is moving
the 45 mph sign by the Main Relief Canal to some point south of
the Vista Project.
The Vice Chairman explained that they had a request for
lighting on Quay Dock Road from the Winter Beach Progressive
League. Under the recommendation, the League basically would
44
contract with us and then we would contract with FP&L. They are
working with the OMB Director to come up with figures, and after
the entire street lighting study is completed, if it is indicated
this is a key intersection and among those we would light
countywide, we then would pick up the cost.
The Vice Chairman continued that there were two thoughts
with regard to paving Hobart Road - possibly a portion of the
road would come in through the financing of the golf course, if
that happens, and also possibly some dollars from the Fairground
Authority that will be established. He further reported that the
Committee recommended we not abandon any part of Fellsmere Grade
and maintain any possible vested interest.
The Vice Chairman then requested Board approval or concur-
rence with the above recommendations.
Commissioner Bowman and Commissioner Wodtke had questions
about reclassification of lst St., etc., and Attorney Brandenburg
noted this would be considered at a public hearing.
Commissioner Wodtke did not believe the Board ever has been
asked to approve these items by Motion, but felt it was just a
report.
Vice Chairman Scurlock explained that Item #4 re a
Comprehensive Plan amendment will be processed and come back as a
formal agenda item. Item._#1 is just a report; Item #2 a recom-
mendation to appeal to reduce a speed limit. On Item #3, he
would suggest the Board authorize staff to work with the Winter
Beach Progressive League, and on Item #4 allow staff to agenda
this item for formal consideration. Items #5 and #6 are simply a
referral back to the Parks & Recreation Committee and a recommen-
dation not to abandon any part of Fellsmere Grade.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (3-0)
approved the above items as recommended by the
Transportation Planning Committee.
45
r: a
BOOK 59 F,,GE ®O7
I
FEB 13 1985 BooK 59 Ft uC 888
',/FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
Vice Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that the Finance
Advisory Committee has asked OMB Director Barton and Administra-
tor Wright to identify to the underwriters that we have a number
of possible funding considerations before us and need to receive
input re the various possibilities.
The Finance Advisory Committee also recommended that the
Commission be requested to send a letter to Hough & Co. indicat-
ing that we no longer desire them to act as our Financial Advisor
since the Committee now feels itself of sufficient size and
qualifications to eliminate the 1% fee that would be carried. At
such time as we need special consulting services on finance, then
we would solicit proposals. The Vice Chairman, therefore,
requested that the Board authorize the Chairman to write William
R. Hough & Company advising that their services as Financial
Advisor are no longer required and that if we need such services
in the future, we will advertise for them.
Commissioner Bowman asked if we have a contract with Hough &
Company, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that he will put the
necessary language in the letter to terminate the contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(3-0) authorized the Chairman to write William R.
Hough & Company as recommended by the Finance
Advisory Committee.
The several bills and accounts against the County having
been audited were examined and found to be correct were approved
,/and warrants issued in settlement of same as follows: Treasury
Fund Nos. 15406 - 15833 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
46
Legislative Auditor, reference to such record and list so
recorded being made a part of these Minutes.
There being no further business, on Motion made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:40 o'clock A.M.
Attest:
e
Clerk
47
FEB 13 1995 BOOK 59 F�,:GE 889
� i