HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/20/1985Wednesday, March 20, 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,
March 20, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.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; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Russ Burns, Westminster Presbyterian, gave the
invocation, and Chairman Lyons led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Attorney Brandenburg wished to add three items:
1) A report on his trip to St. Johns Water Management District;
2) a report on a lawsuit his office has been handling; and
3) a request for a Motion to call down the bond on the Ryan -wood
Shopping Center.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to add a report on the Trans-
portation Planning Committee meeting.
Commissioner Bowman requested the addition under her matters
of a report on the North County Fire Advisory Committee meeting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
added the above matters to today's agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 27,
1985.
MAR 2 0 1985 aooK CO Fna 177
I
•
-I
BOOK F'',"� 1
Commissioner Bowman requested that in the first paragraph on
Page 12 "IMA apprisal" be corrected to "MAI appraisal," and in
the second and third paragraphs the word "defaults" be changed to
"faults."
These corrections having been made, ON MOTION by
Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner
Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of February 27, 1985, as
written.
CLERK TO THE BOARD - Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate No. 559 in the
amount of $155.11 for Mildred J. Long and authorized
the signature of the Chairman.
CONSENT AGENDA
A., B., and C. - Reports
The following Reports were received and placed on file in
the Office of the Clerk:
Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund -
Month of February, 1985 - $51,800.88
Traffic Violations by Name, February, 1985
Indian River Memorial Hospital FY 1983-84
Audit Report
D. Budget Amendment - Road and Bridge
The Board reviewed the following memo and attachment:
0
� r �
TO: Board of County CaYmissioners DATE: March 7, 1985 FILE:
�9D
06
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton,
OMB Director
SUBJECT: Pmad & Bridge
REFERENCES:
The following budget a mend zimt is to correctly record the revenue and expenses
for road improvements per the attached.
Account Title Acoount No. Increase Decrease
Reimbursements 111-000-369-40.00
Other Raod Mat/supplies 111-214-541-35.39
LLOYD and ASSOCIATES
1835 20th Street
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960
(305) 562.4112 I -
TO 21"!57^ YI�fU
GENTLEMEN: _
WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑
3,650
3,650.
ILIEUTEM OF UIU S vUYl1 D VQd
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below-
❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval
O For your use O Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution
❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections O Ret rn corrected _prints
W-/^
❑ For review and comment 11000n2l -J2_1 fJ lVl I�JIiJ
O FOR BIDS DUE 19 O PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS IDE29V- `! 4,. !L1A %10, A/ -
MAR 2 0 1985 3
J
BOOK bu PA-, ].IU
J
MAR 2 0 1995 BOOK 00 h�� 180
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment.
E. IRC Bids #233 & 234 - Roof Replacement, Purchasing Warehouse
and Courthouse Annex
The Board reviewed the recommendation of the Purchasing
Manager and Building and Grounds Superintendent, as follows:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 11, 1985 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC Bid #233 -Roof Replacement -
County Administrator IRC Purchasing Warehouse
IRC Bid #234 -Roof Replacement
IRC Courthouse Annex
FROM: REFERENCES:
Carolyn Podrich, Manager
1 Y1 VIIYJ IIIy ✓V1.IY1 Y
1. Description and Conditions_
Bids were received Tuesday, February 26, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #233 -
Roof Replacement -Purchasing Warehouse and IRC #234- Roof Replacement -
Courthouse Annex.
17 Bids were sent out, 3 Bids were received for IRC #233 and 2 Bids were
received for IRC #234.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
Alternatives are as stated in the attached memo from Building and Grounds
Superintendent, Lynn Williams.
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #233 & 234- Roof Replacement for the Purchasing
Warehouse and Courthouse Annex, respectively, be awarded to Lucas Water
Proofing. $5100.00 for IRC #233 and $14540:00 for IRC #234, Total $19,640.00.
There is $23,000.00 budgeted in Account #001-220-519-66.39 for both roofs.
4
TO: Carolyn Goodrich DATE: March 11, 1985 FILE:
Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Bids #233 & 234
Roofing
ROM: h Williams
uperintendent REFERENCES:
Buildings & Grounds
Upon careful review of bids #233 and #234 for reroofing the
Purchasing Warehouse and CourthousQ.,Annex respectively, I recommend
award of both bids to Lucas Water Proofing, as the best bid overall.
This recommendation is based on the following reasons:
1. Roof specified by Lucas far exceeds specifications.
2. Warranty period specified by Lucas is for 12 years and is
backed by U. S. Intec/Brai, the manufacturer, and bonded by
an insurance policy. Low bidder warranty meets bid specifi-
cations requiring two year workmanship guarantee.
3. Roof specified by Lucas has the flexibility of routine
maintenance, as opposed to standard built-up roofing.
4. Both bids are below amount budgeted and only differ in total
amount by $554.00. Taking both low bids, the difference is
$1499.00.
5. Actual low bidders on the projects would be different
companies which may cause problems in the future. Having
the same contractor perform both projects would avoid
confusion.
6. Examination of two similar roofs applied by Lucas showed
good workmanship and project quality.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2145 -14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960.��
o° ^c
k�
BID TABULATION
IK4�r,
mc, ou �o
B11NO. DATE OF OPENING 3 Q0 v� c m�
IRC BID 233 Feb. 26. 1985 eft o o timet°
BI TITLE
J
Roof Replacement, Purchasing Wareh se
IT
NO
DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE
1
Roof Replacement -Purchasing
Warehouse
5100
0
5980
00 5035 00
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2145 -14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
k�
0
BID TABULATION
o v row`^
BID NO. DATE OF OPENING v 3 y
JIRC BID #234 Feb. 26, 1985
Amo �rto
BROOFTREPLACEMENT
COURTHOUSE ANNEX
IT M
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE
1. Roof Replacement, Courthouse
— Annex. Total e
NIB
14540 00 13106 00
MAR 2 0 1995 5 BOOK 0 pj;F 181
J
BOOK 60 `,A";E 182
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
awarded Bids #233 and 234 - Roof Replacement
for the Purchasing Warehouse and Courthouse Annex
to Lucas Water Proofing, as the lowest and best
bidder, in the amounts of $5,100 and $14,540
respectively, as recommended by staff.
F. Fellsmere Appointment to Transportation Planning Committee
V The Board reviewed letter from Fellsmere Mayor Tyson:
- --- ----- - ---- - - _ -- ---- - --- Tt#y of Yr11,amrrk---- - - -
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE POST OFFICF, BOX 38 POLICE DEPARTMENT
PHONE 57"116 FELLSMERE, FLORIDA - 32948 PHONE 571-1360
March 07, 1985
Board of Coumty Commissioners
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Transportation Planning Committee
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
'Dear -Mr. -Scurlock:
I want to thank. you for the letter of congradulations.
I also look forward in working with you.
I would like to inform you that the Council has appointed,
Paul Cosner to represent the City of Fellsmere on the Indian
River County Transportation Planning Committee.
If we can be of any assistance, please feel free to con-
tact my office. I will be in the office, Monday thru Friday,
except Tuesday's from 1:00 P.M. to 5:00P.M.
Thanking you again
Respectfully,
Le7 __
o -ard R, Pe a rn, Mayor
City of Fellsmere
A
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
appointed Paul Cosner to the Transportation
Planning Committee as representative of the
City of Fellsmere.
G. Release of Easement - Pine Lake Estates-(Wallner)
The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Davis,
as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE. March 11, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST
SUBJECT: BY TODD P. & GAIL E. WALLNER
SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 1,
2, 3, 22, 23 & 24, BLOCK H,
Robert Ke ti g, CP PINE LAKE ESTATES, UNIT #1
Planning & Development Director
FROM: BettyD vis REFERENCES:
Code Enforcement Officer
R/E Lisle
DIS:REBDAD
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 20, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Todd P. and Gail E. Wallner,
owners of the subject property, for release of the rear lot 10
foot easement of lots 1, 2, 3, 22, 23, and 24, Block H, Unit
#1, Pine Lake Estates, being the easterly 10 feet of.Lots 1, 2,
and 3, Block H, Pine Lake Estates, Unit #1, and the westerly 10
feet of Lots 22, 23, and 24, Block H, Unit 1, Pine Lake Es-
tates. These lots are 70 feet in width and 130 feet in depth.
It is Mr. Wallner's intention to consolidate the lots into one
large building site meeting the criteria of the R -1E zoning
district and construct a single-family residence on the site.
The current zoning classification is R-lE, Country Estate
District. The land use designation is LD -1, Low Density
Residential, up to 3 units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power &
Light Company, Jones Intercable, and the Utility and Right-of-
way Departments. Based upon their review, there were no
objections to release of the easements. The zoning staff
analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage
would be adequately handled on-site.
7
MAR 20 1985 BOOK 60 P',GE.18
RECOMMENDATION:
BOOK 6 fl F'r„E 184
Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolu-
tion, the release of the rear lot 10' easement of Lots 1, 2, 3,
22, 23 and 24, Block H, Unit #1 Pine Lake Estates, being the
easterly 10' of Lots -1, 2, and 3, Block H, Unit #1, Pine Lake
Estates, and the westerly 10' of Lots 22, 23 and 24 Block H,
Pine Lakes Estates, Unit #1. Recorded in Record Book 123, Page
141 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 85-30 approving release of
the rear 10' easements for Lots 1, 2, 3, 22,
23, and 24, BLock H, Unit #1, Pine Lake Estates,
as requested by Todd Wallner.
0
RESOLUTION NO. 85-30
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
" River County, Florida, have been requested to release the rear
Lot 10' easement of Lots 1, 2, 3, 22, 23 and 24, Block H, Unit
#1, Pine Lake Estates, being the easterly 10' of Lots 1, 2 and 3,
Block H, Unit #1, Pine Lake Estates and the westerly 10' of Lots
22, 23 and 24, Block H, Pine Lake Estates, Unit #1, according to
the Plat thereof as recorded in Official Record Book 123, Page
141, of Indian River County, Florida.
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the
Pine Lake Estates Subdivision, Unit #1 for public utility pur-
poses, and
WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements have
been submitted in proper form;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following
lot line easements in Pine Lake Estates Subdivision, Unit #1
shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows:
The rear Lot 10' easement of Lots 1, 2, 3, 22, 23 and
24, Block H, Unit #1, Pine Lake Estates, being the
easterly 10' of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block H, Unit 1, Pine
Lake Estates and the westerly 101 of Lots 22, 23 and
24, Block H, Pine Lake Estates, Unit #1, according to
the Plat thereof as recorded in Official Record Book
123, Page 141, of Indian River County, Florida.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board
of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and
they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of
said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper
for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida.
TES 1
Freda Wright, lerk
MAR 2 0 1985
This 20th day of March , 1985.
BOARD OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IN A RIVER COUNTY,
FLO DA
BY:
ck B. Lyo ,
hairman
ApprovF!f; , t0 1i
BOOK 60 FACE 185
I
MAR 2 0 1985 BOOK 60 F 18
H. Final Plat Approval - Atlantis Subdivision
The Board reviewed staff memo as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 8, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
I FOR ATLANTIS SUBDIVI-
,� SUBJECT: SION
Robert Ke tg , P
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development Section:
FROM: E. Stan BolingREFERENCES: Atlantis S/D
Staff Planner E. $ DIS:STAN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 20, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Atlantis Subdivision is a 34 lot subdivision located on the
east side of S.R. A -1-A, south of Spyglass Lane. The subject
property is 13.08 acres in size. The land is zoned R-lA,
Single -Family Residential (to 4.3 dwelling units per acre).
Its land use designation is LD -1 (3 dwelling units per acre).
The proposed building density is 2.6 dwelling units per acre.
The applicant, Salama Development Corporation (Pradip Manek,
President), is requesting final plat approval.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The Atlantis subdivision received preliminary plat approval on
August 17, 1983. The submitted final plat is in conformance
with the approved preliminary plat.
1.
The subdivision will be served by public water from the City of
Vero Beach and will utilize individual septic tanks. The
subdivision's roads are to be private. Most of the on-site
construction has been completed and certified by the project
engineer, and approved by the Public Works Director. The
Public Works Director has also approved the project engineer's
cost estimate of the remaining required construction work.
The applicants have submitted an executed Contract for the
Construction of Required Improvements, commiting them to
completing the remaining grading, sodding, grassing, and
cleanup work within 5 (five) months. The applicants have also
submitted an executed three -party cash escrow agreement to
serve as surety for.the above referenced contract. The escrow
agreement is for $21,988.08, representing 115% of estimated
cost of remaining construction work.
The County Attorney's office has reviewed and approved the
submitted contract and escrow agreement, subject to their being
signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.
Thus, the Atlantis subdivision final plat application meets all
applicable County regulations and requirements.
10
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to Atlantis subdivision, and authorize the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the
Contract for Construction of Required Improvements and the
three -party cash escrow agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
granted Final Plat Approval to Atlantis Subdi-
vision and authorized the Chairman to sign the
Contract for Construction of Required Improve-
ments and the three -party escrow agreement.
(Fully Executed Agreements are on file in the
Office of the Clerk)
I. Rejection of Bid on Treasure Coast Waterplant Property
The Board reviewed memo of the Assistant Utility Director:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 8, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Terrance G. Pint BJECT:NOTICE OF SALE OF REAL
Utility Service Director ESTATE
FROM: Joseph . Baird REFERENCES: 1) Notice of Sale
Assistant Utility Director 2) Bid Tabulation
3) Coker Bid
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On March 5, 1985, we received the bids (Exhibit 1 & 2) on the
Old Treasure Coast Waterplant property with the legal description
of:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 10, WHISPERING PALMS SUBDIVISION
UNIT NO. 4 according to the plat thereof, recorded
in Plat Book 5, Page 11, Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida
NE 1/4 SECTION 24 TOWNSHIP 33S RANGE 39E
11
BOOK O F�.GES 1
MAR 2 0 1985
BOOK 6® P,aGE 188
The only bid was from Mr. Coker in the amount of $600.00
(Exhibit 3). The Utilities Department feels that the property
is worth more than $600.00.
i ALTERNATIVE:
1. Accept Mr. Coker's $600.00 offer for the Treasure Coast
Waterplant property.
2. Deny Mr. Coker's $600.00 offer for Treasure Coast Waterplant
property for sale.
RECOMMENDATION:
Utility Department recommends to the Honorable Board of County
Commissioners the denial of Mr. Coker's $600.00 offer and
requests -permission to readvertise the property for sale.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
rejected the $600 bid on the old Treasure Coast
Waterplant property as recommended by staff and
authorized re -advertisement of the property.
J. Approval Installment Payments of Water Impact Fees (Smith)
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of ATE. March 12, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Terrance G. PintAirtorUBJECT: MR. AND MRS. SMITH
Utility Service PAYING WATER IMPACT FEES
ON AN INSTALLMENT PLAN
FROM: Josep A. Baird REFERENCES: Attachment -
Assistant Utility Director Mr. Smith letter
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Smith have a small grocery store at 3206
45th Street and are requesting permission from the Honorable
Board of County Commissioners to pay water impact fees on an
installment plan. The Smith's total cost to receive County
water will be $1,481.50:
Impact Fee $1,140.00
Tapping Charge 186.50
Meter Installation 115.00
Deposit 40.00
Total $1,481.50
12
If the Board of County Commissioners deems that an installment
plan is appropriate, the Utility Department would like to
propose the following terms:
The impact fee of $1,140.00 be paid over a 60 month
installment period at an interest rate of 11j%. The
monthly payment will be $25.08 the first payment is
due immediately.
The customers entail cash outlay will be as follows:
Tapping Charge $ 186.50
Meter Installation 115.00
Deposit 40.00
First Installment Payment 25.08
Entail Cash Outlay $ 366.58
59 Monthly Installments at $25.08
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Honorable Board of County Commissioners allow Mr. and
Mrs. Robert Smith to pay impact fees on a 5 year installment
plan.
2. The Honorable Board of County Commissioners disallow
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Smith to pay impact fees on a 5�year install-
ment plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Utility Department recommends the Honorable Board of County
Commissioner allow Mr. and Mrs. Robert Smith to pay impact fees
on an installment basis under the terms stated above.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
agreed to allow Mr. and Mrs. Robert Smith to
pay impact fees on a 5 -year installment plan as
recommended by staff.
"T"
K. Approval Installment Payments of Water Impact"Fees (Russ)
The Board reviewed staff memo and recommendation:
13
MAR 20 1985
BOOK ® PACE
LIAR 2 01985 BOOK 60 P,�,[ Igo
TO: The Honorable Members of March 12, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commiss4AT
THRU: Terrance G. Pin tBJECT MERRILL A. RUSS PAYING
Utility Service Di Lector WATER IMPACT FEE ON THE
ra INSTALLMENT PLAN
FROM: Josep A. BairdAttachment-Mr. Russ
Assistant Utility DirectRor EFERENCES: Letter
DESCRIPTIONS:
Merrill A. Russ, whom has a pool room at 4586 1st Street, is
requesting permission from the Honorable Members of the Board of
County Commissioners to pay water impact fees on an installment
plan. The cost for Mr. Russ to receive County water will be
$1,295.00:
Impact Fee $1,140.00
Meter Installation 115.00
Deposit 40.00
Total $1,295.00
If the Board of County Commissioners deems that an installment
plan is appropriate, then the Utility Department would like to
propose the following terms:
The impact fee $1,140.00 be paid over a 60 month install-
ment period at an interest rate of 11}Z. The monthly
payment will be $25.08 and the first payment is due
immediately. The customers entail cash outlay will be as
follows:
Meter Installation $ 115.00
Deposit 40.00
First Installation 25.08
Entail Cash Outlay $ 180.08
59 Month Installments At 25.08
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Honorable Board of County Commissioners allow Mr. Russ
to pay impact fees on 5 year installment plan.
2. The Honorable Board of County Commissioners disallow
Mr. Russ to pay impact fees on a 5 year installment plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Utility Department recommends the Honorable Board of County
Commissioners allow Mr. Russ to pay impact fees on an installment
basis under the terms set for above.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
agreed to allow Merrill Russ to pay water
impact fees on a 5 -year installment plan as
recommended by staff.
14
DISCUSSION RE METERING OF WASTEWATER GOING INTO CITY OF VERO
BEACH PLANT
Utilities Director Pinto made the staff presentation, as
follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 12, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Terrance G. Pinto SUBJECT: METERING WASTEWATER
Utility Service Director GOING INTO THE CITY OF
VERO BEACH
FROM: Josep A a d. REFERENCES: Attachment -Lloyd &
Assistant U ility Director Associates Letter
DESCRIPTION:
The sewer meter measuring wastewater flow going into the City of
Vero Beach Treatment plant has never functioned properly and is
presently out of order. There has been numerous attempts to
make the existing Sonic meter operable and all have failed.
Since this is a concern of both the City of Vero Beach and
Indian River County, we have had Lloyd & Associates look at
alternative methods of metering the wastewater.
Our staff has received and concur with Lloyd & Associates
proposed solution of installing a Magnetic Meter. The cost of
the meter is estimated at $7,500.00 and the engineering is
$2,000.00.
ANALYSIS:
1. Approve Lloyd & Associates proposal for metering wastewater
going into City of Vero Beach Plant.
2. Disapprove Lloyd & Associates proposal for metering wastewater
going into the City of Vero Beach Treatment Plant.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Utilities Department recommends the Honorable Board of
County Commissioners approve Lloyd & Associates proposal for
metering wastewater going into the City of Vero Beach Treatment
Plant.
15
80OK 60 PAH 191
ITT
1 r: �' ;:
_I
BOOK 0 F'
LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS ROBERT F LLOYD
REPORTS
DESIGNS
SUPERVISION
APPRAISALS
CONSULTATIONS
February 22, 1985
Mr. Terry Pinto
Director
Utilities Department
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
HAND DELIVERED
re: Replacement of the Flow Meeter,
6th Avenue Sewer Line
Dear Terry,
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER 3538
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR 944
DARRELL E. MCIJUEEN
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER 21497
(305) 562-4112
1835 20TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
32960
In compliance with your request we have made an
analysis of the problem of quantifying the amount
of waste water being delivered to the City ioaste
water treatment plant.
The three (3) types of equipment investigated to
accomplish this were the utilization of:
1. Parshell Flume
2. Magnetic Meters
3. Sonic Meter
The utilization of a Parshell flume would require
extensive yard piping, the construction of an ele-
vated platform at the plant inflecent or the re -
pumping of all waste if the flume were constructed
at ground level. The price of equipment was approx-
imately the same as a magnetic meter.
The use of a Sonic meter was rejected on the basis of
the plant Sonic meter having never been satisfactory
or operable.
It is our recommendation that a magnetic meter be
utilized to determine the monthly flow for billinq
purposes. This recommendation is on the basis that
magnetic meters are being satisfactorily employed
at the City of Vero Beach waste water treatment plant,
and have a history of low maintenance. To secure the
greatest possible accuracy, we recommend that a Krohner
American Model M 950 3" Magnetic Flow meter be used.
This Company was the original manufacturer of the Magnetic
meter and have many years experience in this field.
The 3" meter is being used to produce higher velocity
at the point of measuerement. With flow producing
3-10 ft/sec. velocity, the meter will read and record
at an accuracy of 1/20. This system will also in-
clude a low flow cut-off switch and electric mechanical
totalizer. The latter item is necessary to prevent
the totalizer zeroing when wehave a power failure,
loosing all the data accumulated or the month.
16
With the Magnetic meter the present pit can be utilized.
The amount of piping required will be minimal and will
consist of reducing the 6" force main to a 3" 20' a-
head and beyond the pit. It is suggested that a by-
pass be provided so service can continue if the meter
needs to be pulled.
The price of the equipment has been quoted at less than
$6,000.00 complete. Installation should be about
$1,500.00 or $7,500.00 total.
The manufacturer representative has agreed on an annual
service contract of'$1,500.00 to service and calibrate
the meter four (4) times annually. Lloyd & Associates,
Inc. will provide the specifications, drawings, en-
gineering, installation supervision and start up on an
hourly basis with a not to exceed $2,000.00.
Your early response concerning the above will be
appreciated, and if you have any questions, please
feel free to contact me.
Sincer ,
e t' Lloy , .E.
President
Director Pinto stressed the importance of having an accurate
meter, particularly now that we have the Ixora and Treasure Coast
sewerage running into the City plant. He assured the Board that
the proposed meter will handle the maximum capacity of the Sixth
Avenue line.
Commissioner Bird asked if staff felt the engineering fees
were reasonable, and Director Pinto stated that one of the
problems is that while this is a small project, it has taken
considerable time. Staff requested that this be thoroughly
checked out because we did not want just to accept the word of
the vendor. He noted that the meter has a year's warranty and a
service contract as well as guaranties and further pointed out
that it is desirable to have the same type of meter the City
presently uses because of the servicing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the proposal of Lloyd & Assoc. for metering wastewater
going into the City of Vero Beach Treatment Plant per
their letter dated February 22, 1985.
17
MAR 2 0 1995 600 ® Fa,ctq�
I
MAR 2 0 1985 BOOK 60 P,,Gr 104
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR VERO LAKE ESTATES MSTU
Public Works Director Davis made the staff presentation:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 12, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator SUBJECT: Vero Lake Estates MSTU
Advisory Committee
FROM: James W. Davis, P . E . ,' REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Resume"s and letters of interest have been received from inter-
ested property owners of the Vero Lake Estates areas requesting
appointment to the Advisory Committee of the Vero Lake Estates
MSTU. The following persons have submitted Resume"s:
1) Carl Y. Johnson
7995 92nd Avenue
Member-Property.Owners Assoc. of
Vero Lakes Estates
Co -Chairman, Road and Drainage Subcommittee
2) Charles H. Seifert
8435 93rd Avenue
President -Property Owners Assoc. of
Vero Lake Estates
Member -Road and Drainage Subcommittee
3) John Bradley
Property Owner of Vero Lakes Estates
Representative of Mr. Edmund Ansin
4) Howard Woodruff
7703 90th Ave.
Resident and Property Owner of
Vero Lake Estates since 1975
Active in Property Owners Assoc. of
Vero Lakes Estates
5) Steven W. Lino
9340 82nd St.
Property Owner in
since 1978
6) Janet V. Holmes
9285 81st St.
Property in Vero
since 1983
7) Agnes Kennedy
Vero Lake Estates
Lake Estates
879598th Ct.
Resident and Property Owner since 1978
Past Secretary of Property Owners Assoc. of
Vero Lake Estates
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the seven property owners listed above
be appointed to the Advisory Committee of the Vero Lake Estates
MSTU.
Director Davis reported that most of these resumes were
submitted in 1983; the most recent is Mr. Ansin's request that
John Bradley be appointed as his representative on the committee.
Mr. Davis felt the recommended appointees represent a good cross
section of the community.
Director Davis further informed the Board that a call has
been received from Gee & Jenson, Consulting Engineers for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is doing an extensive
flood plain study of the county to update the flood hazard maps.
He reported that he requested they consider doing a more detailed
study of the Vero Lakes Estates area in conjunction with their
flood plain analysis, and they indicated they could not go into
great detail, but perhaps some joint effort could be conducted,
i.e., they would look at the outfall to the Sebastian River and
the major facilities if we would look at the smaller secondary
facilities. Mr. Davis felt this is a great opportunity to end up
with a very good drainage study of this whole north part of the
county and recommended we take advantage of any opportunity we
can to work with the federal government on this.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if all the individuals listed
are still interested in being on the Advisory Committee, and Mr.
Davis stated that he has been able to contact all but two whose
letters came back - Mr. Bradley and Mr. Lino. He did know,
however, that Mr. Bradley is in town and believed he still would
be interested. He did not know Mr. Lino or whether he was still
in the area.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to appoint all those listed
above except Mr. Lino, pending his being contacted.
Commissioner Bird asked what exactly the function of this
committee is, and Director Davis -stated that its function will be
19
MAR 2 0 1985 Bou 1`0 195
MAR 2 4 1995 BOOK C@ Pk"U'F 196
to develop a scope of work for the MSTU and a yearly budget and
Staff will work with them to develop this.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know how many property owners
in this area belong to the Property Owners Association because if
Mr. Lino is approved, there will be four members from that
Association and only two from the other owners in the area,
besides John Bradley representing Mr. Ansin.
Director Davis stated that at one time the property owners
association had a fairly united group. Now, there are many new
people in this area, but he believed there still are about 40-50
active members.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Chairman Lyons asked if Director Davis needed any action
from the Commission in regard to working with the federal
government in connection with the flood maps.
Director Davis noted that he would like to commit some
survey time from his crew to help with this. The government
people have a certain budget, but if we can expand on the scope
of work and accomplish our goals by contributing manpower or
resources or funding, to accomplish a much more detailed project,
he believed we could have a much better situation in this area.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested a Motion to authorize the
Public Works Director to work with Gee & Jenson and come back
with a scope of service, but Administrator Wright believed this
could be handled within our resources and taken care of adminis-
tratively. If help is needed, staff will come back to the Board.
Chairman Lyons felt the Board just wished to indicate that
they would encourage joint participation in this project.
20
I
REZONING — 4.68 ACRES SEBASTIAN AREA TO RMH-8 (PHILLIPS)
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a A `
in the matter of
in the
lished in said newspaper in the issues
Court, was pub-
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, Flpriga, for q period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
adve�tisdment;-and ffiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
PY corporation' any d1scobpt, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for public'a9gn in the said newspaper.
� 1 /
} Sworn to and bubscribW before me this day D. 19
1
i a
'I►il f ; ;., , , , (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, rida)
` NOYICE'=PUBLIC HEARING -I x?I, ;
Notice of hearing to ognaider the adoptiar. of
a County ordinance rezoning land' from 13-1,
Commercial District and R-2, Multiple -Family Dts-
tract, to RMH-8. Mobile Home Residential Dlstrtct.
The subject propsrh+ la presenttY owner bjr Pmt
E. Phillipa, Jr. and C. PhPups arta Is to-
cated between Old Dixie Highway and ,Indian
River Drive and V4 mile north of the.Sebastian
City urnita
The subject property is described as;#
That part lying East of
Highway of the North 9819 feet of Lot.B: Y:
and the South 151.04 feet of Lot 5 of J�,pp,
Hudson Su n, according to plat Of
survey made by R. B Burchfield now of
record In Brevard County bT
Deed Bek EE, page 800 a= ,
A public hearing at which parkin �=
tared and citizens shall have.an OpDbtx;
tunny to be heard, will be field by ,titer
Board of CrWAmtyW Gommtssfot►era of."
than River CouMyrVWde. In -
Commission Chambers . the �1
Administration Building.,located d t�
25th Street Vero Beach ;Flori� oth a
Wednesday, March 20.1 at 93S a tif�
she wiQlYesd "a"record of the
Inge. + � such purposes, he
needid! teat a verbatim
•the pr"Wings to "do, whirl
�naun� nn
Board of l
By: -s- P
man
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation as
follows:
21
MAR 2 0 1985 BOOK
BOOK 60 F ".1-98
TO: DATE: FILE:
The Honorable Members
of the Board of
County Commissioners
March 5, 1985
DIVISION HEADCCONCURRENC§UBJECT:
4�215e,,P OV '
Robert M. KeatinV AICP
Planning & Development Director
FROM: R hard shearer, AICD REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
PHILLIPS REQUEST TO RE-
ZONE 4.68 ACRES FROM
C-1, COMMERCIAL DIS-
TRICT, AND R-2, MULTI-
PLE -FAMILY DISTRICT TO
RMH-8, MOBILE HOME
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
ZC-116
RICH2
It is requested that the data herein presented -be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 20, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Paul and Elisabeth. Phillips, the owners, are requesting to
rezone 4.68 acres located on the east side of Old Dixie
Highway, west of the Indian River, and north of Sebastian from
C-1, Commercial District, and R-2, Multiple -Family District (up
to 15 units/acre), to RMH-8, Mobile Home Residential District
(up to 8 units/acre) .
The applicants are proposing to rezone their mobile home park
to an appropriate zoning district.
On February 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend.approval of this rezoning request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the current and future land uses of the site and
surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property contains the El Capitan mobile home park.
North of the subject property are four single-family
residences, a duplex, and vacant land zoned C-1, R-2, and R -2B,
Multiple -Family District (up to 8.1 units/acre). East of the
subject property is.the Indian River. South and west of the
subject property is a mobile home subdivision zoned R-1PM.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and
all of the land around it as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1
(up to 8 units/acre). The MD -1 land use designation allows
single-family, multi -family, and mobile home residential
development at densities up to 8 units per acre which will be
regulated by the zoning ordinance. The proposed RMH-8 zoning
is in conformance with the MD -1 land use designation and is
consistent with the R-lPM zoning west and south of the subject
property; this R -IPM zoning will be changed to RMH-8 in the
near future when the existing zoning districts are converted to
the newly established residential districts. The existing C-1
and R-2 zoning districts are not in conformance with the MD -1
land use designation.
22
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to Old Dixie Highway and
North Indian River Drive (classified as local streets on the
Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development allowed by the
RMH-8 zoning would generate 188 average annual daily .trips.
Old Dixie Highway and North Indian River Drive both carry about
2,000 AADT at level -of -service "A".
Environment
-- - -The- subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive. However, about one-half of the subject property is
in a flood -prone area. According to FIRM map 120119-0013C, the
flood elevations on the subject property are:
1) Zone V12 (el 11) approximately 50' from the Indian River;
2) Zone A9 (el 9) approximately 250' from the west edge of
Zone V12;
3) Zone A9 (el 8) approximately 100' from the west edge of
Zone A9 (el 9).
The flood elevations indicate the height at which flooding
could occur. New buildings must be constructed to a height
equal to the flood elevation plus one foot above the existing
ground level. The total area subject to inundation by the 100
year flood constitutes approximately 400 feet, or about
one-half of the property.
r7+-4 1 4 i-4 cc
County water and wastewater facilities are not available for
the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, particularly the fact that this is
a down -zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recom-
mends approval.
Planner Shearer reported that this came about as part of a
staff initiated request to rezone this area of the county in
compliance with the Land Use Plan. When staff originally
initiated the request, however, they did not realize that the E1
Capitan mobile home park was not part of the existing mobile home
zoning in this area. They were removed from the original re-
quest, and they have submitted.a request to rezone their existing
park to RMH-8, which is in conformance with the Land Use Plan
and is consistent with the mobile home zoning to the west and
south of them. This park has been in existence since 1964, and
it is in good shape.
23
MAR 2 0 1995
BOOK F't�GE 19�
BOOK P,1it®
MAR 2 0 1985
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 85-24 rezoning the subject
property to RMH-8 Mobile Home Residential
District as requested by the Phillips.
24
L 1
ORDINANCE NO. 85-24
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County-, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of
Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map,
be amended as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in
Indian River'County, Florida, to -wit:
That part lying East of the Old Dixie Highway of the
North 98.96 feet of Lot 6, and the South 151.04 feet
of Lot 5, of J. A. Hudson Subdivision, according to
plat of survey made by R. B. Burchfield, now of
record in Brevard County, Florida, in Deed Book EE,
page 600.
Be changed from C-1, Commercial District, and R-2,
Multiple -Family District, to RMH-8, Mobile Home
Residential District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
,Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this 20 day of March
1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IN AN RIVER COUNTY
BY
ATRICK B. ONS
Chairman
25
•
BOOK 6 0 PAGE 201
J
MAR 2 0 1995
BOOK 6 0 FmijE 2 0 2
.
REZONING TO RS -3 WEST OF A -1—A & NORTH OF CR 510 (CENTRAL GROVES)
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a _Z—&—
In the matter of lx4/JJ?/ltii�2J
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues
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 la'gd-affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation ar)y,discpunt, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for'p6b1ication in the said newspaper.
r
t. Sworn to and subscribed' b0fore me this o A.D. 19 6'
r( A
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River of the Circuit Count , Florida)
NOTICE PUBLIC WARM
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County ordinance rezoning land from A, A ,ri-
euttural Distriot, and R-1. Single-FamUy District.
to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District The
subject property is presently owned by Central
own Corporation and Is located north of the
Town of orchid City Limits and vied of State
Road A-1-&
The m,bject is described ore:
Tire west 1 feet of Government Lot 2,
Section 14, Township 31S.Range 3913
` and ALL of Government Lot 7, Section;
G
16. Township 31S, Range 39E, accord ti
Manthe last general plat of lends of the
Indian River Far Comperny, filed In Odd
offic a of the Ctork of the circuit Court of
- , St Luce, County. Florida, in Plat Hook 2,
Page 26. said land now ging and being
In Iruiarh River county.
"A puhQo;hearing sit'which partes in interest
and( citizens shag have pan -opportunity to be.
heard; vrill be by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
AdMntstmtlon Bufldlion "Chambers X8400 25th
Street,. Vero Beach. Florida on, Wednesday,
(March 20;1996, at 9:15 am.
-if any person Geddes to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he/she will need a
record of the proceedings. and for such pur-
poses, he/she may cured to ensure that a verba-
tim
erbatlm record of the proceedings is made. which in-
dudes
seludes testimony and evidence upon Which the
appeal Is
based-
Indian River Countyr:
" � 'v;. '.Board of County Commiselorrere �
o -a- Patrick B. Lyons
Feb. 26. March 12,198tj
Chief Planner Planner Shearer reviewed the staff recommendation:
31
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 5, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
4"p SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keat ng, AICP
Planning & Development Director
FROM: R chard shearer, AICP REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
CENTRAL GROVES CORP.
REQUEST TO REZONE 41
ACRES FROM A, AGRICUL-
TURAL DISTRICT, & R-1,
SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT,
TO RS -3, SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
ZC-121 Memo
CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 20, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Central Groves Corporation, the owner, is requesting to rezone
41 acres located west of State Road A -1-A and 1.25 miles north
of County Road 510 from A, Agricultural District (up to .2
units/acre), and R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6.2
units/acre), to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to
3 units/acre) .
The applicant intends to develop the subject property as a
single-family subdivision.
On February 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -0, with one abstention, to recommend approval of this
request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the current and future land uses of the site and
surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property, and the land north, south, and west of
it, is being used for..citrus groves. The land to the north and
west is zoned A, Agricultural District, and the land to the
south, across Jungle Trail, is in the Town of Orchid. -The land
east of the subject property is undeveloped and zoned R-1.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the major part of the subject
property and all of the land north and west of the subject
property as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3
units/acre) . A 17 foot wide strip of land at the east end of
the subject property is designated LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land east of the
subject property is also designated as LD -2. The land south of
the subject property is in the Town of Orchid.
The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the LD -1 land use
designation and would be compatible with the R-1 zoning to the
east.
27
NEAR 2 0 1985 BOOK 60 P?;;E 203
ai
MAR 2 0 1995 Boos 60 NUnE?04
Transportation Svstem
The subject property has direct access to Jungle Trail
(classified as a Scenic Road on the Thoroughfare Plan). The
maximum development of the subject property under the RS -3
zoning would generate 683 average annual daily trips (AADT).
The County anticipates that this development will be connected
- - - to State Road A -1-A by a secondary collector road that will run
along the south end of the subject property.
Environment
The "subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive. However, the major part of the subject property is
in an A9 (Elevation 7) flood hazard zone. The A9 flood zone
includes areas within the 100 year flood plain. The northeast
corner of the subject property is in a B flood hazard zone
which includes areas between the 100 year flood plain and the
500 year flood plain.
Utilities
The subject property is not presently served by County water
nor wastewater facilities. However, the County Utilities
Division has stated that the subject property will receive
water from the North Beach Utilities Company franchise.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
Planner Shearer noted that all of the subject property is in
the LD -1 area, except for a small strip 17' wide, which is
designated LD -2 and zoned R-1; the rest being zoned Agricultural.
The proposed RS -3 is in conformance with the Land Use Plan desig-
nations; it is consistent with the moratorium; and the applicants
do intend to subdivide for a single family subdivision.
none.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
There were
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 85-25, rezoning the subject property
to RS -3 as requested by Central Groves Corp.
28
ORDINANCE NO.
85-25
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of
Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map,
be amended as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in
Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
The west 17 feet of Government Lot 2, Section 14, Township
31S, Range 39E and ALL of Government Lot 7, Section 15,
Township 31S, Range 39E, according to the last general
plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company, filed in
the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie
County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25, said land now
lying and being in Indian River County.
Be changed from A, Agricultural District, and R-1, Single -
Family District, to RS -3, Single Family Residential
District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this Z0 day of March
1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY.COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN -RIVER COUNTY
BY
We
RICK B. L
irman
AR 2.0 1985 Boor 4 F
MAR 2 0 1995 BOOK 60 FAF 206
PUBLIC HEARING — RE WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS (POWELL)
The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a�
in the matter of iaol'
in the
%% O Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of , /).tf�! 14
` NOTICE _= PUBUC HEIUtIN&
Notice of hearing to consider a watm from
Section 9 and all of Section 7, except for 7f-3
through 7f-11, of the subdivision ordinance (Ord.
No. 83-24) for the following subject Property de-
scribed as: -
That Part .ot the S.E. 'A of the S.E. 1/. of
the S.E., % king east of the Lateral " J"
cant in Section 25, Township: 33 South.
Range 3 �. tying wholly, in lndian;
The guard W County canmhssioners Vvill.
IUCI a public hearing regarding the. request for a
valvar from certew ►equirements-of the subdivi-
don ordinahce, for the Property described above,
fire. Public hearlrg• at which Parties In. interest
1840
need
- If E
a
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 da of Z&6 r11A. D. 19
(B s' Ma
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, orida)
(SEAL)
Planner Stan Boling reviewed staff memo, as follows:
30
Is based..
-I
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 7, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
REQUEST TO E THE
SUBJECT: APPLICATION WOFVCERTAIN
Robert M. Ke tin AICP SUBDIVISION REQUIRE -
Planning & Devel REQUIRE -
119 Director MENTS ON PROPERTY OWN-
ED BY DAN POWELL
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development Section
FROM: E. Stan Boling �� REFERENCES: Dann Powell
Staff Planner
It is requested that the following information be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting on March 20, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
At its regular meeting of January 2, 1985, the Board of
County Commissioners heard a request from Mr. Dan Powell to
allow him to continue to create and sell lots shown on an
unrecorded survey of his property. The Board determined that
the current subdivision ordinance had to be applied, and it
directed Mr. Powell to apply for variances or waivers if
conditions warranted deviation from specific portions of the
subdivision ordinance.
In March of 1983, Mr. Powell had the subject property,
located at the 16th Street S.W./4th Avenue intersection,
surveyed as eight lots by Carter Associates, Inc. At that
time, no survey or separate deeds were recorded, and no plat
was submitted for County approval.
Subsequently, three of the lots were sold off by metes and
bounds descriptions based on the survey. Two of these lots
were sold after adoption of the new subdivision ordinance
(83-24) on July 20, 1983. These two lots and the remaining
parent parcel constitute a subdivision (3 or more subdivided
parcels) according to ordinance 83-24.
In November of 1984, staff discovered that this three lot
subdivision had been illegally created, and that the owner
had a survey describing an eight lot subdivision. On
November 14, 1984, staff sent a letter to Mr. Powell ex-
plaining that he had created an illegal subdivision. The
letter stated that Mr. Powell would either have to
re -combine lots to fall below the three lot subdivision
"threshold" or plat the subdivided property.
Mr. Powell is now asking that the Board waive the require-
ments of Section 9 and Section 7 except 7f-3 through 7f-11
of the County's Subdivision and Platting ordinance. Thus,
the request is to waive the provision or construction of any
required subdivision improvements and all platting proce-
dures except those required for final plat. This would
enable Mr. Powell to plat the lots as surveyed without
provision for improvements, and it would resolve his subdi-
vision ordinance violation.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
According to Section 11 of the subdivision ordinance, the
Board may not waive requirements of the ordinance unless it
finds all of the following:
31
MAR 2 0 1985 BOOK 60 F,�E 207
LIAR 2 01995
-I
BOOB 0 Fk1,JF 20,S
"(1) The particular physical conditions, shape, or
topography of the specific property involved would
cause an undue hardship to the applicant if the
strict letter of the ordinance is carried out;
(2) The granting of the waiver will not cause injury
to adjacent property or any natural resource;
(3) The conditions upon which a request for waiver are
based are unique to the property for which the
waiver is sought and are not generally applicable
to other property in the adjacent areas and do not
result from actions of the applicant; and
(4) The waiver is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Indian River County Zoning Ordi-
nance, the Indian River County Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, and this ordinance."
Staff finds that none of. these conditions have been met.
The first condition has not been fulfilled because no
physical characteristic of the land would cause an undue
hardship on the applicant if the ordinance were strictly
applied. The property is physically similar to surrounding
properties. The fact that the property fronts on public
rights-of-way presents no hardship to legally subdividing
the land; rather, it facilitates legal and proper develop-
ment. "
The second condition may not be met. The Public Works
Division has commented that additional road work and paving
is needed, proper drainage needs to be constructed, and
utility and drainage easements should be established.
Failure to provide the necessary improvements could have an
adverse impact on surrounding properties.
The third condition has not been fulfilled because the
application of the new subdivision ordinance 83-24 was and
is not unique to the subject property. The ordinance
applies to all lands lying within the unincorporated areas
of Indian River County. The subdivision ordinance violation
is the direct result of the applicant's own action.
The forth condition has not been met because the waiver
request is not consistent with the subdivision ordinance.
If the waiver were granted, adequate provisions for addi-
tional road grading or paving would not be provided. The
requirements of the Stormwater Management and Flood Pro-
tection ordinance 82-28 would also be waived. Granting the
waivers would essentially allow the platting of, what is
currently a violation of the subdivision ordinance.
Granting this request would also set a dangerous precedent.
Persons claiming to have unrecorded plats and surveys
prepared prior td the adoption of the new ordinance could
also apply for a similar waiver. Thus, persons violating
the subdivision ordinance could possible rectify their
violations by merely having the Board waive_ requirements to
the extent that the ordinance's purpose and intent would be
circumvented.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny
the request to waive Section 9 and Section 7, except 7f-3
through 7f-11 of the subdivision ordinance on the subject
property.
32
PlalLner Boling reviewed the history of this property, noting
that Mr. Powell would only have to plat the top six lots in order
to confo He continued that at present the subdivision is
bounded by a County right-of-way. The north/south right-of-way,
4th Ave. SW, is maintained by the county and is graded; a portion
of the northernmost street running east and west along the
northern boundary of the property has been upgraded to some
extent, but as you get toward the canal, it is basically just two
-tire tracks across the grass. Planner Boling reviewed the
requirements that Mr. Powell would like to have waived; he stated
that he believed Mr. Powell is willing to do anything on paper
that is required, but that he is not willing to do any of the
improvements. It is staff's opinion that the required improve-
ments would be needed just as in any other subdivision, and staff
is recommending that Mr. Powell's request for waiver of these
requirements be denied.
Discussion arose about paving, and Director Keating
explained that staff is not saying Mr. Powell has to pave the
road to a connection to another road, but he has to make an
arrangement to have the roads that front on his subdivision
paved.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know how many lineal feet of
paving this would involve, and Director Davis stated about 700'
on one street and 450' on the other, at a cost of around $25-$30
a foot.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there ever was an offer made
saying that if he paved the roads, he didn't have to do the
drainage.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that when he was talking with
Mr. Rever, agent for Mr. Powell, he suggested the possibility
that if Mr. Powell agreed to plat and to do the drainage, the
requirement for the road might be one that could be waived. Mr.
Keating's department rejected that as a potential, however, and
Mr. Rever's client did also.
33
MAR 2 0 1985 BOOK 60 P,�rF N -
MAR 2 0 1995 BOOK 00 F.q E 210
Director Keating believed it is important to point out that
when the current Subivision Ordinance was approved, it eliminated
a loophole in the old ordinance whereby someone essentially could
create subdivisions by taking just one piece of property and
dividing it in two indefinitely. One of Mr. Powell's lots was
created prior to this ordinance coming into effect and subse-
quently when the land was divided in two again, those two lots
were legal. When he made another subdivision of his property,
that's when it became a subdivision according to our new
ordinance. Director Keating informed the Board of another
instance where something similar occurred; staff never got to
look at the property; consequently, there was only a 30' right-
of-way rather than 801; the power company could not get their
lines in; and there is a house there now with no power.
Attorney Brandenburg wished to remind the Board that this
particular individual was advised prior to the adoption of our
Subdivision Ordinance that the procedure he was following was a
legal procedure. As a result of that, Carter & Associates
prepared the map or survey, and Mr. Powell began dividing off the
parcels. The thing he was not advised of was that he had to put
all the deeds of record prior to the adoption of the new
ordinance. If he had done that, he would not fall within any of
the provisions of our new ordinance and he would not be here
today. Att. Brandenburg wished the Board to recognize that Mr.
Powell is not deliberately trying to circumvent our regulations,
but was trying to make legal use of a loophole that existed.
Director Keating agreed with the Attorney, but also
emphasized that Mr. Powell could not have recorded the survey
itself because that would have consituted a subdivision under the
old laws.
Administrator Wright felt all this was reviewed at the last
meeting, and Mr. Powell was just instructed to go through the
process.
34
Attorney Brandenburg clarified that the Board said go
through that procedure so staff could determine what requirements
Mr. Powell could not meet and then allow him to apply for a
variance.
Commissioner Scurlock felt Mr. Powell should establish roads
for the area and that he should be required to do the appropriate
drainage. He continued that he personally could go along with
not having the actual paving, but felt strongly there should be
some kind of road available to all lots.
Commissioner Bowman inquired about utility easements, and
Attorney Brandenburg stated that if the subdivision was platted,
the plat would show all necessary utility easements and rights-
of-way.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
David Rever of Carter Associates came before the Board
representing Mr. Powell. He informed the Board that as far as
the road is concerned, the right-of-way is there, but it has not
been improved because there was no need. All of the roads in
this area are unpaved. As far as the drainage is concerned, Mr.
Rever stated that he checked with the Soil'Conservation Service,
and they indicated that the soil on these lots, which are 1/2
acre or larger, could accommodate that type of residential
drainage. Mr. Rever believed that the County Attorney pointed
out that this was done legally, and he stressed that the Minutes
show that the previous decision of the Board was to accept the
County Attorney's recommentation that the applicant come back
with the variance requests for waiver so he could plat the
property as indicated showing the necessary easements.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the Motion wanted staff to
specify what things we were going to allow him not to have to do
and then the decision was going to be made today whether or not
we wanted to waive all those requirements. He felt that the main
issue is whether Mr. Powell is willing to put in the roads, etc.,
because he personally will have a hard time approving something
35
MAR 2 0 1985 BnoK 60 P-111
-I
MAR 2 0 1995 BOOK 60 F,�,E212
where people don't have a road to get to their property or where
they will be under water.
Commissioner Bird stated that the concern he has is whether
the platting will cover the easements that will be required.
Dan Powell, owner of the subject property, noted that when
he first bought the property in 1972, the County didn't maintain
4th Ave. SW because there were no homes there. As soon as there
were homes built, they did haul in marl and keep the road graded,
There are no homes on 16th St. S.W., and there's no road main-
tained down to the canal.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that, but explained that
what he is saying is that if you have a subdivision there, you
need to go ahead and extend that road and bring it up to the same
standard as the existing portion of the road and then provide for
drainage.
Mr. Powell noted that the drainage runs down to the canal.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that staff will tell him what
the drainage plan should be and what is acceptable and continued
that he did not want to be in the position of approving a waiver
and then having someone come before the Board a year from now
saying that he can't get to his house or that it is flooded.
Chairman Lyons concurred and noted that he actually doesn't
like the idea of waiving anything, but he felt there are some
unusual circumstances involved in this particular situation.
Director Davis pointed out that some owners have a double
, frontage on these roads, which may make it difficult in the
future to get a sufficient number of people to sign a paving
petition. He further noted that it has been our experience in
this area that as soon as we cut in drainage swales, the sand
ridge clogs up the drainage. Director Davis, therefore, recom-
mended that the developer be required to contribute a fair share
to fund 37h% of the cost of paving the roads so we do not end up
with a marl situation and have continuing drainage problems.
36
Director Keating felt what the staff will have a difficult
time dealing with is when the next person comes in with unusual
circumstances and wants to get a variation. He supported the
Public Works Director's recommendation that the applicant be
required to pay his fair share of the paving and believed staff
needs some policy on this.
Commissioner Scurlock questioned about how much money this
would involve for Mr. Powell, and Director Davis believed about
$11,000.
Attorney Brandenburg felt some notation could be made on the
plat that should the County decide to do paving in that area, the
property owners would be required to pay their share.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bird asked if this situation arises often as he
did not remember many occasions over the last five years, and
Director Keating noted that since the new ordinance went into
effect about a year and a half ago, we have gotten much better at
catching people because of our link with the Property Appraiser.
Commissioner Bird did not believe the Board could give staff
specific guidelines for every case, and Commissioner Scurlock
felt that is what the ordinance does.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that in this particular
_ case, the people came in, and checked with the County Attorney,
were told they could do something, and now we tell them they
can't do it. He certainly hoped we don't have any more such
situations.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed and stressed that he would hope
we don't point out loopholes in our ordinances any more.
Attorney Darrell Fennell came before the Board representing
Mr. Powell. He noted that Mr. Powell had brought him in to
37
nn
MAR 2 0 1985 ®oox PAGE 913
hL
I
V
BAR 2 0
1985
Bm 60 PvrF
214
review
this situation, and his understanding from talking with
Mr. Powell, talking with Carter Associates, and reading the
Minutes of the Commission meeting was that the Commission already
had considered all the facts, found this to be a unique
situation, agreed that Mr. Powell deserved relief, and had given
him clearance to proceed. Attorney Fennell did not believe the
Board would be setting a dangerous precedent as Carter Associates
informed him they had no other such cases where they had gone to
the County and gotten approval to proceed as Mr. Powell did, nor
did Attorney Fennell believe there is any Iquestion of Mr.
Powell's good faith from the beginning.
Chairman Lyons stated that as far as he personally was
concerned, he did not feel we had enough facts at the last
meeting, and he wanted to get those facts and then determine
whether there should or should not be a waiver. He further
pointed out that what somebody was told back when an ordinance
was one way does not necessarily hold when an ordinance is
changed.
Commissioner Bowman noted that two of these lots were sold
after the new Subidivision Ordinance was enacted. She believed
Mr. Powell was poorly advised and felt the engineers should have
made him aware of the situation.
Commissioner Bird agreed that some lots were sold later, but
they were set out under the old set of rules and part of the
project got caught in the change -over. He did not believe Mr.
Powell flagrantly disregarded what he had to do.
Director Keating stated that even if that wasn't a violation
of the old ordinance, he believed it was a violation of the
intent of the ordinance. He -further noted that staff probably
told people two years ago that they could clear their land and
remove their trees, but we have a new tree protection ordinance
now which prohibits this. The rules and regulations do change
to protect the public, and we abide by the rules as they are now.
38
_I
Further discussion ensued regarding access and soil condi-
tions, and Commissioner Wodtke did not believe that we got a
direct answer from Mr. Powell as to what he would be willing to
do, i.e., file the necessary document to indicate the roadways,
address the drainage and utility easements, etc.
Mr. Powell noted that they were just told Monday about the
drainage and they have not had time to see how much all this
would cost. He pointed out that there are power lines in there
now, and Commissioner Scurlock stated that Mr. Power could give
the easements on the lots he still owns, but on those that are
sold, their owners would have to give the easements. He con-
tinued that he does not see this as a situation of asking Mr.
Powell what he is going to do, but felt the Board should tell him
what he is going to do fof the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, to grant Mr. Powell a variance
to the required improvement section of the Subdivision
Ordinance so that paving of the roadways will not be
required, the roads just to be consistent with others
in the area; the roadways will have to be indicated on the
plat, and Mr. Powell will have to go through the platting
process, showing all easements, etc.
Commissioner Bird noted that the net effect is that Mr.
Powell will have to go through the subdivision process minus the
paving requirement.
Commissioner Bowman asked why he would not be required to
pave, and Commissioner Scurlock believed it is a matter of
reasonableness. Even though he believed Mr. Powell was looking
for the loophole, he was led to believe it was there; he was
acting in good faith; and he did get caught in the middle.
39
600 F'P P°,�E 215
MAR
2 0
1985
BOOK
IKU.216
Commissioner Bowman
felt there should be some decision
to
require paving some time in the future and that Mr. Powell should
be financially responsible for some of it.
In further discussion, it was noted that the people who
purchase houses on these lots could be required to pay their fair
share and also that there is always the possibility of an MSTU
for the entire area.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 3 to 2 with Commissioner
Bowman and Chairman Lyons voting in opposition.
PETITION PAVING - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLLS - 7TH COURT SW;
8TH AVENUE SW; AND 16TH PLACE
The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notices with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
40
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 oatt
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach PrewJm
oual, a daily newspaper publishec
sl Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, bem(
r m the matter o/�C����
in the _ _ Court. was pub
fished in said newspaper In the issues of �444 s /a_ 19�'s
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach PressJoumal 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 Dean
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coua
ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
acivenisement:-and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any poison, firm
or corporal ion any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for Publication in the said newspaper. �7�.
Swam to and subscribed before me thi ay /' A.D. 19
^. (if -,
}�
f , , (Clerk of the Circuit Court. Indian River County, Florida)
MAR 2 01985
Minty Attorney's Office #77#
RESOLUTION NO. W
A RESOLUTION OF THE I
BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN
PAVING AND DRAINAGE IM-
PROVEMENTS TO 7TH
COURT S.W., BETWEEN 3RD
STREET S.W. and 4TH
PLACE S.W.; PROVIDING
THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST, METHOD OF PAY-
MENT OF ASSESSMENTS,
NUMBER OF ANNUAL IN-
STALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE
AREA SPECIALLY BENE-
FITED.
of
he petition has been
els the requirements
-27, and design work
estimates has been
to Public Works Divi.
the total estimated
used Improvements is
provided hereunder shall, for any
within tteeaarrea s owner beer►ioe Need,
be In an amount equal to that propor-
tion of seventy-five percent (75%) of
the total cost of the Protect which the
number of lineal feet of assessable
road frontage owned by the given
owner bears to the total number of
lineal feet of assessable rood front-
age within the area specially benefit.
ed, all as established In the Preliml-
nary assessment roll and shall be.
anon or mespecroI as-
uant to Ordhanee al.
Indian River County
remaining twenty-five
of the total cost of the
and
IrM, is hereby approved sublecf'to
the terms outlined above and all
I81 op-
lcable requirements of Ordinance
-Z7.
The foregoing resolution was of-
fered by Commissioner Who
moved Its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner --- and,
upon being Put to a vote, the Vote
was as follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons
Vice -Chairman Don C- Scur-
lock, Jr.
Commissioner Margaret C.
Bowman
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner William C. Wo-
dtke, Jr.
The Chairman thereupon declared
the resolution duly Passed and
a BOARD OFYCOUNTY9 COM-
MISSION E RS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By:
PATRICK B. LYONS
Chairman
persons
}or the
e above
file
with respect t0 any Tarter conslp-
ered at this hearing, he will Ixed.p
record of the Proceedings, and that,
for such Purpose, he mor need to en-
sure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings Is mad, which record
Includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal Is to be based.
Indian River Countv
41 Michael Wright,
County Administrator
Mardi S. 12, IMS. BOOK 60 RICE 17
MAR 2 01985
t
BOOK 60 `1","E
cowltlrys Ofrbe
�D OLUnON NO. ea•' q
# coURN vgnimMONIS ONeasRiNoi w•
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDWO
No Afro DRAINAGE
--
FOR CERTAIN PAVI
IMPROVEMENT TO 6TH AVENUE S.W.
1' BETWEEN 3RD STREET S.W. AND 47H
PLACE S.W.: PROVIDING THE TOTAL
R : ;ESTIMATED COST., METHOD OF PAY,
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
:' MENT OF ASSESSMENTS, %9W OF `.
ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS. AND' LEGAL
Published Daily
DESCRIPnON OF, THE AREA SP%
CIALLY BENEFITED.
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
i
WHEREAS. do C=* Pubile Wort Division
:. tlae nosttled a Ply bnPnt per.
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER' STATE OF FLORIDA
by rppye Snit O} 6w Owneye d Wapiti
Before the undersigned authority Personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath
In die tree t0 be epeCiaW . IIIed
says that he is Business Manager of fire Vero Beach Press.Journal, a daily newspaper Published
at Vero Beach in radian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
pWAV and dnblege bnP IOYR M1A tD SWOR
81w• beim 3d Strom &W.WW41h Pion B•w.j
/
WHEREAS, ft peWbn hu been v&"Ifd and
a
the frequitiMMitill en
of Ordktw= 81-27, d
��IrNtlb
wi ftWl V CM �� hn aM
In the matter of
0000Wn
------ ._
WHEREAS, V* MW MUMSM � to pro-
InIp"Welifflonle to wid
w4mm. #0 "MM asssefMrleM provided
in the _ court. was pub.
IwHlsldw shill. for any gfrsn real ewrw of
_
"""""�" �`�• 9g5"
properly W111M�Cul ani i`* VW=ba NO
IpV.
hsfietf In said newspaper in the issues of ✓�-
6va Perit (75%) of tm OW Awd of the F R! of
Of " 11981 of agoo@UM
road frontage the pgWm owner bens
to Uw total numbo of W" Ind of aseeeeabb
Affiant further says that the mid Vero Beach Press -journal is a newspaper published at
rWd f onlep WIlM l tiw ini speolally befle6ted.
Vero Beach. in said Indian River County, Florida. and that the said newspaper has heretofore
40 as eebWMW In ttw WNL" nesu mil
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
el ered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian Rwer Coun-
r MN. and aleft berme dile Old payable at ft
of _
OfltOs of Ilia Taft Colieata Indian River
ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first Publication of the attached copy of
aovertisemem; and atttant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
ninety (91M days &IW OW &W de la -
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this.
ilQn Of ft epedal assesmism pursuant to Of &
aoverumment for publication in the said newspaper.
nWM 61-27. end '
`WHEREAS, Indian River County
Sworn to and subscribed before me phi ayaD.,a_
-41
%shall.pay the remaining twenty-five
Percent
(and .) of the total cost of the
t
' let;
WHEREAS, any Special assess-
- - Icterk of the circuit Court. Indian River County. Ftondal
' metntpsQwithndnintyrir Sold
est beyond
the due date at a rate established by
f the Board of County Commissioners
at the time of preparation of -the final
L
as f
1.
mmination of
Red usage of
aments, the
Issioners has
allowing do -
receive a di•
I- -from •.!hese
k 15; Lots 15
shown on the
elms, Unit 4
r Plat Book 5
rds of Indian
BE IT RE-
BOARD_O
ERS OF If i*
, FLORIDA,
Itals are of -
823/, Is hereby aplprove4 subied to
the terms outlined above' avid all ap-
alicable •reaulremetnts' of Ordinance
The ' foregoing resolution was of-
fered by Commissioner ---•••• Who
moved its adoption The motion• was
seconded by Commissioner — and,
upon being put to a vote wat as fol-
iarl�- Chairman 'Pofrick B. Lyyon
Vice-Chalrman Dan C.cur-
lack, Jr.
Commissioner Margaret C.
Bowman
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner. William C. Wo-
dtke, Jr.
The Chairman thereupon declared
the resolution duly passed and
adopted this -;- day'of 1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS .
-OF
FLORIDA
W
ICK ,B Clr!O�
rani; � �
IAS TO FORM
.SUFFICIENCY
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 =/y
in the matter of
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of ;%� :5. %a?. 1'7�6
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 ay /040W*A.D. 19
ri
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
43
PUBLIC NOTICES
PUBLIC NDTIOt
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Mat the Board Of Caery
carrw.nmrr. at W~ Rewr County. Florift
wnu hole a publicst 1a AM r
Wednesday. March Oro. lee In fir cormw.lm
Chambers located at lea 25M Street. Vero
Beach, Florida. to consider adOpdm a are Ial-
bMlnp propoaad rseolobon:
RfiTION ON N0. 86•
A RESOLUTION OF CTHEOMMISSIONERS
OF IN OF
COUNTY COUNTY.
LORr OF VIDIAN
RIVE COUNTY. FLORIDA. PROVIDING
FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT TO ISM PLACE WEST
OF 9TH AVENUE•DEAO END: PROVIO-
DID THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST.
METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASUSS-
MENTS. NUMBER OF ANNUAL IN.
STALLMENTS. AND LEGAL DESCRIP•
TION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY BENfi-
FrMO.
VMEREA9. U1s County Public Wart 0Iv1aIa11
has received a pudica: briproverrient pof property
erllbn.
arrro bap=.rM=id.
paW1p ed drainage nnrrovWnrte b /11M
Pad, loth of eM AvN1uFOaad End; and
WHEREAS. On Wbeoh has bar anMd and
Mrte the requrrwrts a Ordinance $1.27, and
design Marr krekidnr
o cost dmatr has bar
adMpi.te. b/ the Publia Worry OIYWat; and
wHER aw rom estimated cora of the prd
Vaud impov.Mnrb Is $14.797.92; arrd
WHEREASOre ei
space- aaaaearrrent prord
hereunder ar.9, for any 9lan raddre own« a
propa rea within the aspecialty bwwltM. be
to err amount to and pra=01..m+01eswry-
IM percent p$1ci a M. =. e prq.n
wttkh Ura number a W de
norma /ronrpe awkwd °car u°i..t
to ries tom ricin$« a
rose frontage wlMn aw arca specialty twnanra.
W r setedhhad n 9w praietaku r rmaeear+wa
MO. and NW beoorbe due sn0 payabw at am
Oter a the Tek Cbfiedter d trrdten RNer
a.
wrsum roraF
nand 61.27; ad
WHEREAS. Ind" e
Rjver dlwl pry est
rsmalfft twcod of ow �ftr s) a Me m
and
WHEREA.% berry specla aesererierd net Paid
within said dewy (90) day Parts Nab bed r►
terM beydrW 00 des ate u e lar aam711drd
enr�ae w na6r a% bees =&t to
And atwu be payola$ In two (2) equal kwtee.
Monte. the
Ales to be mar tarda (12) m+a e
tram Me due data tete nes settee to inhe
route 2hMrM.roMM.ar.a*and
b w"""?i eREA§. Par ..amud.6r a the nab"
«car. the 60" anticipated m°coaraa�„ �M m«.
at«nwwd deal to following deed+Poed proper
less shag reI a area NO sPadN bernefa
Troll Masa rmaaanwnoL all situate In nmert
Macaca m at Southeast corner or Wes
.I run Nath 1110 tin to Porn
run North 176 ted, car, Waw les b
176 fork run EM 150 hat to Point
RlaCam�1°iy. F�°ww�Fad�°.pt nor rq�in a
W" rier
cthe Nath e0 lest a bees aboraE►
property oonvayed to the CRY a Vare
Beach far a what and.adapt cart rohtVik•ar
me In Official Regard Back 73. pop sae. Public
A at Record�Book RWw P
sae P.o0 FI
or. ertlA; r n
Lane N Dr. Richard E. Bulli gton's 8u00hhWn.
PIN Book (SL Lucca Cony) 2 Pape 6; berg a
of Wed K of Lot e; being a lot 106.72 IM
woaueewMr In
R Book 9P::rd
as nffid
Od Record Book 79, Pap M (block
MO.
H Dr. Richard IL BuenrAn's f )hail ieiaR
r(StrirLtanCeron)in 2 Page a
Items
Ka a a. 0.
ad by 308 feel Nath i SWM r N Deed
96. Page 124 and Dead Book 106. Page
los rod ripin.a�rey r N Official Rsoad
72. Page 2Ta: ler parol r be 0111eW
In Wad % of Lot 6 r in Dead Book 111111,
166 lane rod rignoFwey r N OfficOfficialc
l Bart 72. Page azo (Biodr 2x r
in OIM1
Mrae at southeast caner of Wed Is of Lot e
awns car North 1110 led to Pont of Beprkwrg
run North 176 hes, —Wed 1110 LOOK
ruM car 8WM
176 Int n E /60 feet to Pent a Originating
ler North 20 tin for rbe0 ripM-*Pn r n Cly.
dal RedrA Book 73 Prod 229 Block 2
NOW THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COWASSICAtERS OF ole.
DUN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA as tdlolre:.
1. Tbe fee-, wdtaM ars of In nd and Ml.
tied In Mair ener".
2. A project p ovWtrq fw $ end drrmnage
hlpraveinrte to ISM Plod west a eM Aarsrs,
Mrdofare designated as Public Works P eject
NO 8306. to hereby approved sublet, to the
tobees outlined above and all applicable repine..
awrw olOrdnance61-2l.
Tbe fors n reeeiubeen was ottsrd a cam.
Mlaeiarer —way
Paby
C fie dapnr. Tbe
nroberr r ..dada ear amrrrnorw —
•erw, upon being pd to a ate6 area ate Par r
fofiowe:
CharM.re Patrick B. Lynne
wd.cn.kM.n con C. sWrioak Jr.
eanml.ewrer Mer9aat c. Bawnrrr
Commuwarer Richard N. Bed
CommNYawr William C. Wod6W Jr.
The Cirintrr thorsupon deeWed vw make.
don dull passed scald eapsed Mr — ay of -
-.1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA
sr
B. LYONS
chairman
Asst
FREDl1 WR1G11T. Cleft
APPROVfiD A8 TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
By
16T" Pk
MAR 2 0 1985 BOOK 60 Pr?•q� 219
MAR 2 01985
BOOK 6,0 ''d:GT 2200
Public Works Director Davis reviewed staff memo, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 12, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator SUBJECT'
Public Hearing to Consider Resolution
J Providing for the Paving of Portions of
VIA: James W. Davis , P. . , 7th Court S.W., 8th Avenue S.W., 16th
Public Works Direct r Place and to Consider Preliminary
Assessment Rolls
FROM: Jeffrey A. Boone 514 REFERENCES:
Civil.Engineer
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION
Valid petitions have been received from at least 66.7 %
of the property owners of the following streets
1) 7th Court S.W. between 3rd Street S.W. and 4th Street
S.W. (preliminary cost $18,042.)
2) 8th Avenue S.W. between 3rd Street S.W. and 5th Street
S.W. (preliminary cost $22,008.)
3) 16th Place west of 6th Avenue - Dead End (preliminary
cost $14,797.92)
Preliminary assessment rolls have been prepared for the
paving and drainage improvements. The total costs of these
rojects is approximately $54,847.92. There is approximately
p$308,245.to be set aside.in FY84-85 budget for Petition
Paving Account No. 703-214-541-35.39.
These roads will be constructed as revenue is received from
already.paved roads.
Also, advertisement of the Public Hearing and notification
to the Property Owners has been performed.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
After consideration of the public input provided at the
Public Hearing, it is recommended that motions be made to:
1) Adopt resolutions, providing for the paving and drainage
improvements for each petition paving project, subject
to the terms outlined in the Resolutions.
2) Approve preliminary assessment rolls including any
changes made as a result of the Public Hearing.
3) Allocate $54,847.92 from the Petition Paving account
to fund this work.
4) The Road and Bridge Division be notified to begin
construction.
Director Davis informed the Board that all three of these
projects have been before the Board in the past and staff was
directed to look into some matters brought up during the public
hearing and bring this back before the Commission.
44
In the case of both 7th Court SW and 8th Avenue SW, Director
Davis reported that $15,000 has been provided by the East Coast
Self Help Program to subsidize some of the paving costs. These
funds have been deposited in the Petition Paving account, and the
assessments reflect that the $15,000 has been subtracted.
Director Davis continued that in the 7th Court SW project,
there is a lake located on the east side of the road. When we
went to public hearing a year ago, staff was asked to look at the
benefited area to determine the most equitable assessment for the
property to the east of 7th Court. Staff has communicated with
the owners of the property, and there are three platted lots
where houses could be built; the assessments have been adjusted
to account for those three buildable lots.
In regard to the 16th Place project, Director Davis reported
that phone calls have been received from owners indicating that
they wish staff to move ahead and advertise for the second
hearing, and that has been done.
The Chairman opened the hearing on 7th Court SW, 8th Ave.
SW, and 16th Place, and asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Mike Ellison, 359 8th Ave. SW, stated that at last year's
hearing, question arose about taxes paid and the fact that there
was no maintenance done on that road whatever. He believed the
tax monies that should have been spent on that maintenance should
be credited against the assessment for paving the road at this
time.
Director Davis stated that he did not know the complete
history of this area, but pointed out that there are hundreds of
roads in the County that have been platted where the County has
not assumed any maintenance. He knew that this area developed
fairly quickly when the East Coast Program became active, but he
believed there were only three or four homes there for seven or
eight years, and the roads were not graded.
45
MAR 20 1985 BOOK 60 F& GE 291
BAR
2 0
1985BOOK
22 7
60 P, U� 1-2
Chairman Lyons confirmed that we
only have so much
money to
put into road maintenance, and we spread it around the best way
we can. Many places are in the same situation.
Don Reams, 621 16th Place, informed the Board that when this
came up two years ago, many were opposed, not so much to the
paving, but because they do not have adequate drainage. Water in
this area runs into the street; it doesn't get to the canal. Mr.
Reams continued that since he owns almost 250 of the frontage on
this street, the financial impact is a bit heavy, but drainage is
the major problem.
Director Davis reported that about a month ago Road & Bridge
addressed a complaint in the area and found part of the problem
was due to the low road elevation. Our asphalt contractor was
sent in and has now placed an overlay on 6th Avenue to crown it
properly. He felt confident this will help drain 6th Avenue and
get the water off the pavement. Director Davis further reported
that staff has been working with the home owners in the area and
trying to address their concerns. He believed the extension of
Indian River Boulevard to the south will assist to some extent,
but noted that the Rockridge drainage problem has existed ever
since it was built.
Commissioner Bird asked whether paving 16th St. wouldn't
help elevate the road, and Director Davis confirmed that it will
be a 1h" gradient, which he felt should help.
Mr. Reams, who has lived in this area over 50 years,
continued to discuss the drainage problems which result in the
road flooding whenever there is a steady rain. He stated that
his problem is with putting asphalt on top of soil that is not
stable. One inch of asphalt -will break up, and when the soil
gets wet, it turns to clay and doesn't drain.
Director Davis informed Mr. Reams that the County prepares
the base of the road and does not simply put asphalt on top of
unstable soil, and Commissioner Wodtke further noted that if a
road which is done on the Petition Paving Program ever does
develop a problem, then it is the County's responsibility to
correct it.
Considerable discussion ensued in regard to the drainage
problems, and Director Davis reported on improvements that
already have been carried out in the Sixth Avenue area.
Commissioner Wodtke had questions regarding how the lake at
7th Court SW was handled, and Director Davis explained that the
lake goes from the right-of-way line on one side to the
right-of-way line on the other and there is no land whatsoever
between the two roads that can developed. Staff took this into
consideration and worked out an equitable arrangement.
Staff Engineer Jeff Boone explained that Mr. Nickerson has a
higher rate of assessment because he is not a member of the East
Coast Self Help Program.
Chairman Lyons had a question regarding Lot 38 on 8th Ave.,
owned by Brenda West. He noted that the net assessment shows
that Ms. West received escrow money from the East Coast Program,
but it -is not indicated that this is an East Coast lot.
Director Davis believed this may be a typographical error.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearings.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 85-31 providing for certain paving and
drainage improvements to 7th Court S.W., between
3rd Street S.W. and 4th Place S.W.; approved the
preliminary assessment roll with the adjustments
discussed; allocated $18,042, from the Petition
Paving account to fund this work; and notified the
Road & Bridge Division to begin construction.
47 BOOK 60 PAGE223
BAR 2 0198.5
J
MAR 2 0 1995 BOOK 60 FACE 224
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 85-32 providing for certain paving and
drainage improvements to 8th Avenue S.W., between
3rd Street S.W. and 4th Place S.W.; approved the
preliminary assessment roll with the adjustments
discussed; allocated $22,008 from the Petition
Paving account to fund this work; and notified the
Road & Bridge Division to begin construction.
ON MOTION by Commissioner S urlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 85-33 providing for certain paving and
drainage improvements to 16th Place west of 6th
Avenue -dead end; approved the preliminary assessment
roll with the adjustments discussed; allocated
$14,797.92 from the Petition Paving account to fund
this work; and notified the Road & Bridge Division
to begin construction.
48
RESOLUTION NO. 85- 31
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CERMAIlIN PAVING
AMID DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 7TH COURT
S.W., BETWEEN 31;D STREET S.W. and 4TH
PLACE S.W.; PROVIDING THE TOTAL
ES MVJATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF NRUkL INSTALL-
NENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
AREA SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
W HUMS, the County Public Works Department has received
a public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the owners of
property in the area to be specially benefited, requesting paving and
drainage improvements to 7th Court S.W., between 3rd Street S.W. and 4th
Place S.W.; and
WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and meets the
requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost esti-
mates has been ccopleted by the Public Works Division; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed im-
provements is $18,042.00; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall,
for any given record owner of property within the area specially bene-
fited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-five percent
(750) of the total cost of the project which the number of lineal feet
of assessable road frontage owned by the given owner bears to the total
number of lineal feet of assessable road frontage within the area
specially benefited, all as established in the preliminary assessment
roll and shall become due and payable at the Office of the Tax Collector
of Indian River County ninety (90) days after the final determination of
the special assessment pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the remaining
twenty-five percent(25o) of the total cost of the project; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said
ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at a rate
established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of
preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable in two
(2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12) months from the
due date and the second to be made twenty-four(24) months from the due
date; and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated
usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County Commissioners
has determined that the following described properties shall receive a
direct and special benefit from these improvements, to wit:
49
MAR 2 0 1985 BOOK 60 P, U22
BOOK 60 IUCE2;6
Lots 1 through 14, Block 14; The Southwest 34- of the
Northeast 4 less Whispering Palms Unit 4 and less
Whispering Palms Unit 5; as shown on the Plat of
Whispering Palms Unit 4 Subdivision on record in Plat
Book 5 Page 11 of Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
C 4VUSSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirm and ratified in
their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve-
ments to 7th Court S.W. between 3rd Street S.W. and 4th Place S,W,
heretofore designated as Public Works Project No.8233, is hereby approved
subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable requirements of
Ordinance 81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Scurlock Who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commis-
sioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 20th day of March , 1985.
Attest: cakl� MA,
FREDA WRIGHT, Clerk
... Zi
A Ili •1
Q
's
50
BOARD OF COUNTY CMMSSICNERS
OF INDIAN E' a• •' It'
M
M
RESOLUTION NO. 85-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF IRIDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING •• OMUN PAVIN
AND DRAINAGE IMPRCRMENT TO M
S.W. BEIWEEDT 3RD STREET S.W. AND 4TH
PLACE S.W.; PROVIDING THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
ASSESSMENTS, NZMM OF AMUAL
INSTAT TMF'NTS, AMID LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
THE AREA SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Division has received a
public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the owners of
property in the area to be specially benefited, requesting paving and
drainage improvements to 8th Street S.W. between 3rd Street S.W. and
4th Place S.W.; and.
WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and meets the
requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost esti-
mates has been completed by the Public Works Division; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed im-
provements is $22,008.00; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall,
for any given record owner of property within the area specially bene-
fited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-five
percent(75%) of the total cost of the project which the number of lineal
feet of assessable road frontage owned by the given owner bears to the
total number of lineal feet of assessable road frontage within the area
specially benefited, all as established in the preliminary assessment
roll, and shall become due and payable at the Office of the Tax
Collector of Indian River County ninety (90) days after the final
determination of the special assessment pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and
%iEREAS-, Indian River County shall pay the remaining
twenty-five percent(25o) of the total cost of the project; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said
ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at a rate
established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of
preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable in two
(2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12) months from the
due date and the second to be made twenty-four(24) months from the due
date; and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated
usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County Commissioners
has determined that the following described properties shall receive a
direct and special benefit from these improvements, to wit:
51
MAR 2 0198 Bax 0 PAGE 29
J
MAR 2 0 1985 BOOK 60 P IUT.298
Lots 26 through 39, Block 15; Lots 15 through 28, Block
14; as shown on the Plat of Whispering Palms, Unit 4
Subdivision on record in Plat Book5 Page 11 of Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
OF IRIDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve-
ments to 8th Avenue S.W. between 3rd Street S.W. and 4th Place S.W.,
heretofore designated as Public Works Project No. 8234, is hereby
approved subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable require-
ments of Ordinance 81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Scurlock Who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Cmrds-
sioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Ave
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 20th day of March , 1985.
Attest: L`
FREDA WRIGHT, Cl rk
Attorney's
52
is•, -i� • ••
B.
**',$) � 0 *AIS
M M M
RESOLUTION NO. 85- 3 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR ['Ft m PAVING
AND DRAINAM IMPROVEMENT TO 16TH PLACE
WEST OF 6TH AVENUE -DEAD END; PROVIDING
THE TOTAL FSTDMTED COST, METHOD OF
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMMM, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
THE AREA SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has received
a public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the owners of
property in the area to be specially benefited, requesting paving and
drainage improvements to 16th Place, west of 6th Avenue -Dead End; and
WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and meets the
requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost esti-
mates has been completed by the Public Works Division; and
WfS, the total estimated cost of the proposed im-
provements is $14,797.92; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall,
for any given record owner of property within the area specially bene-
fited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-five
percent(75%) of the total cost of the project which the number of lineal
feet of assessable road frontage owned by the given owner bears to the
total number of lineal feet of assessable road frontage within the area
specially benefited, all as established in the preliminary assessment
roll, and shall become due and payable at the Office of the Tax Col-
lector of Indian River County ninety (90) days after the final deter-
mination of the special assessment pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the remaining
twenty-five percent(25%) of the total cost of the project;.and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said
ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at a rate
established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of pre-
paration of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable in two (2)
equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12) months frau the due
date and the second to be made twenty-four(24) months from the due date;
and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated
usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County Commissioners
has determined that the following described properties shall receive a
direct and special benefit frau these improvements, all situate in
Indian River County, Florida, to wit:
53
LIAR 2 01985 BOOK �0 FiUE ���
A
MAR 0 19 5 Booz C0 Fa1�1:230
Land in Dr. Richard E. Bullington's Subdivision, Plat
Book (St. Lucie County) 2 Page 5; being the East 75 feet
of following described land; commence at Southeast
corner of West 1/2 of Lot 6, thence run North 150 feet
to Point of Beginning; run North 175 feet, run West 150
feet, run South 175 feet, run East 150 feet to Point of
Beginning; less North 20 feet for road right-of-way as
in Official Record Book 73, Page 226, (Block 2).
Land in Dr. Richard E. Bullington's Subdivision, Plat
Book (St. Lucie County) 2 Page 5; being the South 1/2 of
East 1/2 of Lot 6, less West 100 feet thereof, less road
right-of-way.
The North half of the East half of Lot 6 of Block 2 of
Dr. Richard E. Bullington's Subdivision, which plat was
filed May 25, 1912, and recorded in Plat Book 2, page 5,
public records of St. Lucie County, Florida; said land
now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida.
Except the right-of-way over the North 50 feet of the
above-described property conveyed to the City of Vero
Beach for a street; and except street right-of-way as in
Official Record Book 73, page 226, Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida; as in Official Record Book
434 Page 67.
Land in Dr. Richard E. Bullington's Subdivision, Plat
Book (St. Lucie County) 2 Page 5; being a part of West
1/2 of Lot 6; being a lot 105.72 feet East & West by 140
feet North & South as in Record Book 9 Page 296; less
road right-of-way as in Offical Record Book 73, Page 226
(Block 2).
Land in Dr. Richard E. Bullington's Subdivision, Plat
Book (St. Lucie County) 2 Page 5; being a part of West
1/2 of Lot 6, being a lot 149.75 feet East & West by 165
feet North & South as in Deed Book 104 Page 89; less
road right-of-way as in Official Record Book 73, Page
226 less East 75 feet of Block 2.
Land in Dr. Richard E. Bullington's Subdivision, Plat
Book (St. Lucie County) 2 Page 5; Part of Lot 6, Being a
lot 81 feet East & West by 140 feet North & South as in
Official Record Book 72, Page 155 and Official Record
Book 241, Page 162 (Block 2).
Land in Dr. Richard E. Bullington's Subdivision, Plat
Book (St. Lucie County) 2 Page 5; being a lot in
Northwest corner of West 1/2 of Lot 6, 100 feet East by
308 feet North & South as in Deed Book 95, Page 124 and
Deed Book 105, Page 181; less road right-of-way as in
Official Record Book 73, Page 226; less parcel as in
Official Record Book 354, Page 369 (Block 2).
Land in Dr. Richard E. Bullington's Subdivision, Plat
Book (St. Lucie County) 2 Page 5; being a lot 75 feet
East & West by 175 feet North & South, in West 1/2 of
Lot 6 as in Deed Book 105, Page 355 less road
right-of-way as in Official Record Book 73, Page 228
(Block 2); as in Official Record Book 486 Page 676.
Land in Dr. Richard E. Bullington's Subdivision, Plat
Book (St. Lucie County) 2 Page 5; being the West 75 feet
of following described land; commence at Southeast
corner of West 1/2 of Lot 6 thence run North 150 feet to
Point of Beginning run North 175 feet, run West 150
feet, run South 175 feet, run East 150_ feet to Point of
Beginning less North 20 feet for road right-of-way as in
Official Record Book 73 Page 226 Block 2.
54
NOW `MWORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
CO*USSIONERS OF IRIDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve-
ments to 16th Place west of 6th Avenue, heretofore designated as Public
Works Project No.8308, is hereby approved subject to the terms outlined
above and all applicable requirements of Ordinance 81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Scurlock Who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commis-
sioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bawman Aye
Comnissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Cammissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 20th day of March , 1985.
• A �� �1• ••11 41 • . 1b
• � RICK B. LYONS
Chairman
Attest:
=A WRIGHT, Clerk
ft!10110"
�� • s•
By
's Office
55
NEAR 2 0 1985 Boa 60 PnE231
MAR 2 0 1985 BOOK 60U.
REZONING - E. OF U.S.1 & N. OF 4TH ST. TO C-1 AND RM -10 (SCHLITT)
The hour of 10:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of
in the
lished in said newspaper in the issues
Court, was pub -
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 newsoaner_
Sworn to and subsc
(SEAL)
56
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING , w
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption'of
'County
ordinance rezoning land from R-2, Mul-
ipie-Family District, to C-1, Commercial District.
rhe subject property is presently owned by
Edgar L Schlitt, Trustee, and Is located east of
J.S. Highway #1 and 'h mile south of 6th Street
Glendale Road/C.R. 612)).
The subject property Is described as:
The East 5 acres of the S% of the NVs of
the SE'A'of the NE'A; a portion of the ,
south A of the SEV4 of the NE'A all lying -
east of US. Highway #1 and being In
Section 13, Township 33S, Range 39E all
being more particularly described as tot-
Commencing
obCommencing at the BE comer of the
NEIA, of Section 13, Townshipp 33S
;y Range 395; thence north 0047'28 Ease
along range line's distance of 995.84' to
r !'
the NE;.comerof said east 5 acres;
thence north -89016'22:' west along north
line of said east 5 acres a distance of
150' to the west Nghtof-way line of pro-
ppoossed� Indian Rim Boulevard and also
being the true Point of Beginning; thence
south 004r.W' ; west along said pro-
,f- posed west:right-of-way:a distance of
tion:haVM I a radius of 497.96'. a delta of
'93°24'sr...and,an acre length of 724.97'
to' a point,`drr the past property line of
".
'Zippy Mart Inb ; thence north 15045'48"
west along said east property line a dis-,;
tante of 203.07' to the comer of `. .
Zippy Mart Inc.; thence north 8901938"
west along said north properly, line a dis-
tance of 87.W; thence north 014/'08"
east a distance of 150' to a`polnt; thence'
north 89017'02" west a distance of
252.13' to the `east fight-ot-way'line of
U.S Highway, *11,- thence thence north
27059'10" west •aiong "sald east right -W: -
way line a distance of 205.64' to the NW
comer of the South Yr of, the SETA of tip)
NEV4 lying east, ,of U.S,'-Highway #1,;
thence along north line of said S'A a dis-
tance of 430.83' to the SW comer of said , .
East 5 acres; thence north 0°43'21" east
along west line of '.said East 5,acres;4l
distance of 331.37" to the NW corse of
said East 5 acres; .:thence, south
89016'22" east a" north line of said
East 5 acre a distance of 507.01' back
4o said true Point of Beginning. LESS,,
AND EXCEPT; the west 600' running par
aliel to the east'tlght-of-way of U.S. Higt1-
way #1. Ali lands now lying and,being;,trt,
Indian River County, Florida.,.':
AND to consider the adoption of a
County ordinance rezoning' land from
R-1 TM, Transient Mobile, Home District; ; ',
R-2, Multiple-Famlly, District;', and, C-1
Commercial District, to RM-10,'Mui ipi i
':t', Family Residential District `.
The subject property is presently owned
by Edgar L. Schlitt, Trustee, and is lo-
cated east of U.S. Highway #1 and 'h
mile south of 8th Street (Glendale
Road/C.R.612).
t The subject property Is described as:.
Lying in the S'A of the SE'/4 of the NEIL
all lying east of U.S. Highway *I, and
being in Section 13, Township 33S,
Range 39E, all being more particularly
described as follows: .
All that property lying south and east of
the proposed Indian River Boulevard and
that property lying in the S% of the SW%
of the NW'A of Section 18, Township
33S,,,Pangs 40E, as recorded on Official
Record Book 477, Page 978, Public
yr Records of Indian River County, Florida.
All -property now lying and, Being in in- _
than River County, Florida.
•r
A public hearing at which parties In Interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday,
March 20; 1985, at 10:30 a.m.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he/she will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedings Is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal' Is based., `' .
Indian River County
Board of Counttyy Commissioners .
By -s- Patrick B. Lyons
Chairman ,
Feb. -28, March 12, 1985.
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation:
TO: The Honorable Members
DATE: March
5, 1985
FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
ED SCHLITT
REQUEST TO
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
REZONE 4 ACRES FROM R-2
/
SUBJECT:
TO C-1 AND
6 ACRES FROM
i4p:
C-1, R-lTM
AND R-2 TO
Robert M. Keating, 6TICP
RM -10
Planning & Development
Director
FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: ZC-119 Memo
Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2
Itis requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 20, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Mr. Ed Schlitt, trustee, is requesting to rezone approximately
4 acres from R-21 Multiple -Family District (up to 15 units/
acre), to C-1, Commercial District, and to rezone approximately
6 acres from C-1, R-2, and R-1TM, Transient Mobile Home
District, to RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to
10 units/acre). The subject property is located 600 feet east
of U.S.#1 and north of 4th Street.
This request was prompted by the County's attempts to acquire
right-of-way for the Indian River Boulevard extension. The
applicant is requesting to have his property located west of
the Indian River Boulevard zoned commercial and the property
located east of the Boulevard extension zoned residential.
On February 21, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the
application will be presented. The
description of the current and futur
surrounding areas, potential impacts
utility systems, and any significant
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
reasonableness of the
analysis will include a
e land uses of the site and
on the transportation and
adverse impacts on
The subject property contains an old citrus grove, an old
mobile home park site, and undeveloped land. North and east of
the subject property is undeveloped land zoned R-2 and R -2C,
Multiple -Family District (up to 12.1 units/acre). South of the
subject property is Vista Royale Gardens zoned R -2C and C-1.
West of the subject property is a convenience store, a radiator
repair facility and vacant land zoned C-1.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates most of the subject property
as MD -2, Medium -Density Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre). A
small part of the subject property is included in the 600 foot
deep U.S.1 commercial corridor located on the east side of
U.S.1 between the Vero Beach city limits and 4th Street. The
MAR 2 01985 57
BOOK 6 0 PA;E 2P33
I
MAR 2 0 1981
I
BOOK 6 0 `', - 2.34
land north and east of the subject property is designated as
MD -2; the land to the west is in the U.S.1 Commercial Corridor;
and the land to the south was redesignated as commercial in
1983.
The proposed rezoning of the part of the subject property east
of the proposed Indian River Boulevard from R-2 and R-1TM to
RM -10 is in conformance with the MD -2 land use designation.
The rezoning from C-1 to RM -10 is not generally in conformance
with the plan because this property is designated as commercial
on the Plan. Moreover, the proposed rezoning from R-2 to C-1
is not in conformance with the MD -2 land use designation.
----------------- --However, this property is in a- unique situation because of - -
several factors. First, the proposed alignment of the Indian
,River Boulevard right-of-way will create arterial roadways on
two sides of the parcel, three sides if its U.S.#1 frontage is
considered. Second, the property is in an area characterized
and planned for nonresidential uses. Finally, the County is
requesting that this property owner donate approximately five
acres of land for this right-of-way.
There is a provision in the Comprehensive Plan that states:
"Certain parcels of land which do not conform to the
policies for nodal development, but can be demon-
strated to be suitable for commercial or industrial
development and otherwise meet the performance
standards in this element, may receive consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners for commercial
or industrial zoning classification."
Based on the location of the subject property between U.S.1
and the extension of Indian River Boulevard, this provision of
the Plan should be used.
Transportation System
The subject property has access to U.S. Highway 1 and will have
access to Indian River. Boulevard when it is extended (both
roads are classified as arterial streets on the Thoroughfare
Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under
the proposed C-1 and RM -10 zoning would generate approximately
360 average annual daily trips (AADT) and attract up to 3,783
AADT. This additional traffic could increase the amount of
traffic on U.S.1 to the upper limit of Level -of -Service "C".
However, the construction of Indian..River.Boulevard would
significantly lessen the traffic impact on U.S.1.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive. However, most of the subject property is in a
flood -prone area. This area has a designation of A10 on the
Flood Insurance Rate Map, which indicates an area subject to
100 year floods.
Utilities
County water is available for the subject property. County
wastewater facilities are not available.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, particularly the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation, staff recommends anoroval_
58
Planner Shearer displayed colored slides showing the 4 acres
west of Indian River Boulevard extension and the 6 acres east of
the extension and reported that the applicant had informed him
that the property in between the four acre and six acre parcel
has been donated to the County for right-of-way for Indian River
Boulevard. It is an 150' strip that would represent approxi-
mately five acres of land.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Don Driscoll, 20 Vista Gardens Trail, informed the Board
that he is here to speak in behalf of the concerned residents of
Vista Royale Gardens. He stressed that this Commission is con-
stituted and expected to perform for the general welfare of the
residents and property owners in their jurisdiction and their
decision should not be based on benefits that accrue to a very
few individuals at the very real expense of the larger number of
resident taxpayers.
Mr. Driscoll believed we are discussing a significant change
to the Comprehensive Plan, and the proponent of this is owner
Edgar Schlitt, who was quoted in the March 14th issue of the
PRESS JOURNAL, as follows: "People bought property relying on the
Comprehensive Plan said Edgar Schlitt. You have to be fair to
them." Mr. Driscoll stated that if this extension in depth of
commercial is granted, obviously the adjacent property owners
will ask that their residential property also be rezoned to
commercial back to Indian River Boulevard, and what was supposed
to be a limited access arterial highway will become another U.S.1
with Vista residents looking out of their picture windows at
parking lots, dumpsters, loading docks, etc. Property values
will decrease. In addition the residents of Vista Gardens will
have their beautiful entrance closed to traffic by the state due
to the construction of a deceleration lane on U.S.1 which will be
needed for the turn onto Indian River Boulevard. He submitted
that if this Board doesn't function for the general welfare of
59
MAR 2 01985 BOOK 60 Frac, 2035
� J
MAR 2 0 1985
BOOK
60
N�,E
the taxpayers,
it is a disservice to the entire county,
and,
therefore, this application for rezoning should be denied.
Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Driscoll was saying the
rezoning should be denied on both parcels, and Mr. Driscoll
stated that he was not arguing against the residential rezoning
as he felt that what Mr. Schlitt is doing there would be a slight
improvement over the current zoning for a trailer park. He was
arguing against the extension in depth of the commercial to abut
Indian River Boulevard.
Administrator Wright asked the Public Works Director to
clarify any plans of ours or the DOT affecting the entrance of
Vista Gardens off of Route 1.
Public Works Director Davis reported that staff was working
with the Vista Gardens people in regard to providing a connection
to the new Boulevard from the Vista Gardens access road, but is
still waiting for them to indicate whether they want us to
proceed with this or not. Director Davis believed it would be a
much better and safer situation for the Vista residents if they
could egress by a traffic signal at the Boulevard and U.S.1 as
opposed to trying to get out onto U.S.1 now. He continued that,
as it stands now, we won't really be affecting their connection
onto U.S.1 except for possibly accommodating a deceleration lane
on U.S.1 to get traffic onto the Boulevard, which lane would be
within the existing DOT right-of-way.
Mr. Driscoll stated that the residents were told at the
meeting with Mr. Davis and the DOT that once Indian River Blvd.
was put in, the decel lane would start to the south of their
current entrance so that they would not be able to exit that
front entrance and would not be able to come in if they were
coming from the north, and he believed 900 of the traffic is
coming in from the north. Mr. Driscoll continued that the
residents have made some of their requests known to Mr. Davis and
Traffic Engineer Orr - i.e., they asked for elimination of the
"hot" right; for the elimination of the acceleration lane off of
.e
U.S.1 because they never would be able to get out that side
entrance and that would be their only exit from Vista Gardens;
for a deceleration lane for themselves; and for some plantings
along the perimeter of their property as well as some fencing.
Director Davis stated that every one of the items just
mentioned have been incorporated into the design of the
Boulevard. He thought we had communicated that, but stated he
will be glad to write a formal letter stating that all those
conditions are agreeable and that we are anxious to stub in a
connection to their access road. He further reported that we
have included a fence along the property line; we were to provide
the fence and were under the impression they would provide some
plantings.
The Board directed that this be put into writing.
Commissioner Bird agreed it would be best to try to tie into
the Boulevard if possible, and emphasized that we certainly do
not want to destroy Vista Gardens' beautiful entrance.
Ellis Duncan, Vista Royale resident, informed the Board that
he was authorized by the Vista Royale Property Owners Association
to indicate their support of the Vista Gardens residents com-
plaints. Mr. Duncan believed that many years ago when Indian
River Boulevard was first proposed, it was considered a by-pass
around the City, but with the changing times, he now believed the
main use of the Boulevard would be to get the traffic from the
western portion of the City to the beach area. He emphasized
that 8th St. as extended -now goes west to 27th Avenue and 43rd
Avenue, and he, therefore, felt that bringing the Boulevard in at
8th St. would be preferable to trying to by-pass and go to 4th
Street. Mr. Duncan recommended the Board request a further study
on the use of 8th St.
Commissioner Scurlock informed Mr. Duncan that there is a
plan for 4th Street, 8th Street, and 12th Street, all to connect
to the Boulevard,
61
MAR 2 0 1985
�
�Q� ��_'
MAR 2 0 1985 BOOK 60 F''"'r 23
Ed Gentilly, 41 Vista Garden Trail, wished to go on record,
as a member of the Board of Directors of Vista Gardens that'the
majority of the residents are against the proposed Indian River
Boulevard since the roadway, as shown to them, will be approxi-
mately 55' from two story apartment buildings, which will have to
overlook it and any commercial development that may take place
there. As far as the property to be rezoned adjacent to their
entrance is concerned, Mr. Gentilly stated that they are neither
for nor against it because they do not know what the builder's
plan might be, but they want to be assured that they have
protection from encroachment on their property and adequate
screening. They feel the property to be rezoned to commercial
will have a detrimental affect on the entire Vista Gardens area,
which is a 20 million dollar development that brings in a
tremendous amount of taxes to the County. Approximately 25% of
the buildings in Vista Gardens are adjacent to the proposed
Boulevard extension, and many apartments already are for sale at
values lower than their original purchase price.
Mr. Gentilly continued that they are not against the
proposed roadbed if it is put in the proper position to serve the
county in a more feasible means. He believed the original intent
was to terminate the Boulevard at 12th or 8th Street, and the
Vista residents strongly support this as Mr. Davis was made aware
at a previous meeting with the residents. Mr. Gentilly further
stated that they strongly oppose an entranceway being cut from
their present roadbed shutting off their entrance to U.S.1 and
giving them access to the Indian River Blvd. section, and if such
a road were cut, he could not see any value over what they now
have as they still would be exiting on a four lane highway.
Mr. Gentilly again emphasized they are definitely against
rezoning to commercial and recommended that any decision on the
rezoning be postponed so further study can be done. He then
noted that the Planning Department is required to post on the
property to be rezoned a conspicuous notice with a map of the
area to.be rezoned. He has not seen one and wished to know if
this was done.
Chief Planner Shearer assured Mr. Gentilly that the Planning
Department did post such notice at the south property line on
U.S.1 so it would be visible from the highway. Sometimes,
however, these notices are knocked down or -removed.
Ed Schlitt, Trustee for the subject property, spoke in
detail of their efforts to work out a development plan compatible
with the Planning Department's overall planning for the area
along the proposed Indian River Boulevard extension, noting that
they gave up their original plans for a six -place Cobb Theatre.
He further noted that when the Planning Department made a request
of property owners along this route for right-of-way, his group
indicated they had no objection to giving half the right-of-way
if the other half was given by adjoining property owners on the
other side of the Boulevard. They were advised this would not
work because of the apartments that had been built by Vista
Gardens, and they, therefore, agreed to give all the 150'
right-of-way needed for this project. In view of the fact that a
substantial portion of the value of their property was the
commercially zoned land fronting on U.S.1 south of Zippy Mart and
because the requirement that the total right-of-way come from
them consumed all of their U.S.1 frontage in that area, they felt
the giving of that commercial property was, in effect, part of
the entire overall Comprehensive Plan in that area.
Mr. Schlitt then addressed his statement quoted by Mr.
Driscoll earlier about the importance of being able to rely on
the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed that the Board does have an
obligation to uphold the Comprehensive Plan, but noted that he
was advised that a reallocation of some of the commercial land,
particularly as it related to this area, did not violate the
Comprehensive Plan. In regard to the references made regarding
residents having to view loading docks, etc., Mr. Schlitt noted
that although they still have frontage on U.S.1 to the north of
63
MAR 2 0 198�� `' p6c
I
MAR 2 0 1995 Bou 60 -�'&,F"240
the Zippy Mart and south of Kennedy Groves, they were advised
that there was not a great deal of enthusiasm on the County's
part for having the development they would place on their
commercial property ingress and egress from U.S.1. The WallMart
people, therefore, are contemplating building to front on Indian
River Blvd. Mr. Schlitt further noted that the property owners
immediately to the north, whom they feel are the affected
property owners, Mrs. Fultz and her family who have been there
some fifty years, are not in opposition to what they want to do.
In regard to the distance between the proposed WallMart and
Vista Gardens property, Mr. Schlitt pointed out that although
there is only about 55' between the buildings and Indian River
Boulevard, that does not mean the paving will be within 55' of
the Vista property because there is substantially more
right-of-way being given for the Boulevard than will be paved.
Mr. Schlitt again stressed that they have tried their best to
work with everybody concerned, and he believed the Vista people
appreciate that his group is not continuing a mobile home park
there on this property.
Commissioner Bird wished staff to verify that they do prefer
that access to the proposed WallMart be from Indian River
Boulevard, and Director Keating felt that is most likely, but
stated that they will look at this when the site plan comes in.
Mr. Schlitt commented that there is a possibility of ingress
from U.S.1, but not egress.
Commissioner Bird stated that he did not have any trouble
with the bottom piece going to the multiple family designation,
and while he did have some concerns about starting to violate our
600' depth of commercial on U.S.1 and encroaching back into the
residential area, he did feel that there are some unique
situations where we may allow the commercial beyond that 600'.
Director Keating did feel that this is a unique case for
several reasons, i.e., the way Indian River Blvd. will change the
64
situation; the squaring off of the commercial area; and the
general characteristics of the area.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the -Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bird wished to know at what point we are going
to address where Indian Boulevard will connect, and Commissioner
Scurlock stated that this is going to be addressed very quickly
in the Transportation Planning Committee. Access is contemplated
at 4th, 8th and 12th Sts.
Chairman Lyons believed.the design is done, and the
Administrator confirmed that the Board authorized the engineering
for Indian River Blvd. south; the design calls for the terminus
at 4th Street; we have the plan here; and people have come in and
looked at it.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 85-26
rezoning the subject property to C-1 and RM -10 as
requested by Ed Schlitt.
Chairman Lyons believed time makes it such that we have to
open up this additional roadway; we will do our very best to
accommodate people in Vista Royale and Vista Gardens, but he did
not think we can get by without having this road.
Commissioner Scurlock°did not believe the Commission ever
voted not to do Indian River Boulevard; it was its priority and
actual design that was in question. He felt this always has been
considered as a parallel to U.S.1 and a by-pass of the city.
Commissioner Bird noted that we have a further opportunity
to address how this affects Vista Royale people when staff
reviews the site plan for WallMart.
65
MAR 2 01995 Book 60
BOOK0 PnE 242
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 85-26
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of
Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map,
be amended as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in -
Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
The East 5 acres of the S'h of the A of the SEh of .the
NE4; a portion of the south h of the SE4 of the NEh all
lying east of U.S. Highway #1 and being in Section 13,
Township 33S, Range 39E all being more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the SE corner -of the NE'h of Section 13,
Township 33S, Range 39E; thence north 0047128" East along
range line a distance of 995.84' to the NE corner of said
east 5 acres; thence north 89°16122" west along north line
of said east 5 acres a distance of 150' to the west
right-of-way line of proposed Indian River Boulevard and
also being the true Point of Beginning; thence south
0°47128" west along said proposed west right-of-way a
distance of 362.63' to the point of tangency; thence along
a curve in a southwesterly direction having a radius of.
497.961, a delta of 83024157" and an arc length of 724.97'
to a point on the east property line of Zippy Mart Inc.;
thence north 15045148" west along said east property line
a distance of 203.07' to the NE corner of Zippy Mart Inc.;,
thence north 89019138" west along said north property line
a distance of 87.021; thence north 0041108" east a
distance of 150' to a point; thence north 89°17102" west a
distance of 252.13' to the east right-of-way line of U.S.
Highway #1; thence north 27°59110" west along said east
right-of-way line a distance of 205.84' to the NW corner
of the South h of the SE4 of the NE4 lying east of U.S.
Highway #1; thence along north line of said Sh a distance
of 430.631to the SW corner of said East 5 acres; thence
north 0143121" east along west line of said East 5 acres a
distance of 331.37' to the NW corner of said East 5 acres;
thence south 89016122" east along north line of said East
5 acres a distance of 507.01' back to said true Point of
Beginning.
LESS AND EXCEPT, the west 600' running parallel to the
east right-of-way of U.S. Highway #1. All lands now lying
and being in Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from R-2, Multiple -Family District, to C-1,
Commercial District.
"�14AN
2. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in Indian
River County, Florida, to -wit:
Lying in the S'h of the SE4 of the NEk all lying east of
U.S. Highway #1 and being in Section 13, Township 33S,
Range 39E, all being more particularly described as
follows:
All that property lying south and east of the proposed
Indian River Boulevard and that property lying in the Sh
of the SWh of the SWh of the NWh of Section 18, Township
33S, Range 40E, as recorded on Official Record Book 477,
Page 978, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
All property now lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida.
Be changed from R-1TM, Transient Mobile Home District;
R-2, Multiple -Family District; and C-1, Commercial
District, to RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this 20thday of March
1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
67
MAR 2 0 1985
BOCK CA, 0 P8OF 43
C
BOOK 60 F'' jE 244
Commissioner Wodtke left the Commission Chambers at 11:40
o'clock A.M.
MODIFICATION OF FRANCHISE AND FINAL ORDER RE RATES - ANGLERS COVE
Utilities Director Pinto made the staff presentation, noting
that everything has been reviewed and found to be in line:
TO. The Honorable Members o'
the Board of County Comi
THROUGH: Terrance G. Pin
Utility Service
March 11, 1985
ECT:
FILE:
MODIFICATION OF FRANCHISE
& FINAL ORDER FOR RATE
SCHEDULE -ANGLER'S COVE
IT
Joyce S. Ham to
Franchise Administr' or
FROM: Utility Services REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
1) Final Order
2) Co./City
Agreement
3) Resolution
The Board held a public hearing December 19, 1984, to hear a
request for an increase in rates by the Angler's Cove utility
owners (EVELYN F. NEVILLE, INC., SEWER FRANCHISE).
The Board instructed the utility staff to render a proposed final
order within sixty days of the hearing. It was the Board's
intention that within this sixty day period, the Angler's Cove
wastewater treatment plant could possibly hook up to either the
Hutchinson Utilities or the City of Vero Beach system or, provided
all property owners agreed, install individual septic tanks and
abandon the plant.
At the December 19, 1984 public hearing, the utility staff also
requested the Board to approved a modified resolution updating the
existing resolution. This matter was excluded from the Board's
motion.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES:
The utility staff received a petition on January 3, 1985, signed
by seven property owners stating they were not in favor of in-
stalling individual septic tanks on their property. Therefore,
this concept is no longer an option.
On February 27, 1985, the County and the City signed an agreement
which provides for the City to furnish wastewater service in this
area of the County. Angler's Cove is included in the service area
and customers of this system will not be required to pay the
county wastewater impact charge (Exhibit "2", item #4) in the
event the City of Vero Beach provides wastewater service to their
homes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board approve and authorize its Chairman to:
1. Execute the attached modified resolution (Exhibit "3")
2. Execute the final order and tariff (Exhibits "1")
68
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily
absent from the Chambers, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved Resolution 85-34, Final Order re the Evelyn F.
Neville, Inc., Sewer Franchise rate schedule.
FINAL ORDER
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
RESOLUTION NO. 85-34
This matter comes before the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County following
a duly notified and published hearing and the
Commission having heard testimony of all
interested parties and having thoroughly
reviewed and analyzed the recommendation of
the county staff; now adopts the findings and
conclusions as set forth in the staff's
recommendation dated March 11, 1985, and
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED:
1. That EVELYN F. NEVILLE, INC., SEWER FRANCHISE
(Angler's Cove) current application for relief is hereby
terminated and marked closed.
2. That EVELYN F. NEVILLE, INC., SEWER FRANCHISE
(Angler's Cove) is authorized to design tariffs so as to
generate $7,589 in gross wastewater revenues from customers
enrolled as of December 31, 1984.
3. That EVELYN F. NEVILLE, INC., SEWER FRANCHISE
(Angler's Cove) is authorized to collect rates not to exceed
the attached rate schedule (Exhibit "B").
ORDER ADOPTED: March 20th. 1985
Flat fee per unit
BY THE COMMISSION
6Pari.k "BLyin '
Chairman
ATTEST:
Freda Wright, C erk
PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
Impact fee (new customers)
%a
$48.65
$1250.00
69
Exhibit "B"
BOOK
® wu-L 245
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being
temporarily absent from the Chambers, the Board
unanimously (4-0) approved Resolution 85-37, pro-
viding for certain modification to the Evelyn F.
Neville, Inc., Sewer Franchise Agreement.
RESOLUTION N0.8 S - 3 7
6,0 F',fl] E 246
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COrM ISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN RATES
GRANTED IN RESOLUTION NO. 73-83 AND PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN MODIFICATION TO T11E FRA=SE AGREEMENT IMM
AS THE "EVELYN F. NEVIL E, INC., SEWER FRANCHISE".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF (RUNTY coviSSIOEIQRS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that Resolution No. 73-83 be amended to reflect
the following revisions.
Section I. Section 3 of Resolution No. 73-83 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
SECTION 3
There is hereby granted by the County to the Conpany the
non-exclusive franchise, right and privilege to erect, construct,
operate and maintain a sewer system within the prescribed territory as
herein provided and for these purposes to sell and distribute sewer
services within the territory and for these purposes to establish the
necessary facilities and equipment and to lay and maintain the necessary
lines, pipes, mains and other appurtenances necessary therefore in;
along, under and across the public alleys, streets, roads, highways and
other public places of the County; provided, however, that the County
reserves the right to permit the use of usch public places for any and
all other lawful purposes and subject always to the paramount right of
the public in and to such public places. The franchise hereby granted
shall not be interpreted so as to require any individual property owner
within the franchise area to connect to the sewer facilities of the
any.
Section II. Section 4 of Resolution No. 73-83 is hereby amended
to by adding the following paragraph:
SECTION 4
SERVICE REWIPMMM
The Utility shall provide service within the franchise territory on
a non-discriminatory basis as if it were regulated under Florida Statute
Chapter 367 (1980), except to the extent that said provisions are in
conflict with the provisions of the franchise.
Resolution 85-37 in its entirety is on file in the Office
of the Clerk.
70
PRESENTATION OF COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR
1984
Ron Moats, partner of May Zima & Co., Auditors, came before
the Board to present their opinion on the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report and referred to the following statement:
Mayzmtam
Cel P&&W- Accoa imn
To the Honorable County Commissioners
and Constitutional Officers
Indian River County, Florida
ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT
We have examined the combined financial statements of Indian River County,
Florida as of and for the year ended September 30, 1984, as listed in the
table of contents. Our examination was made in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards and, accordingly, included such tests of the
accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances.
In our opinion, the combined financial statements referred to above present
fairly the financial position of Indian River County, Florida at
September 30, 1984, and the results of its operations and changes in
financial position of its Proprietary Fund Types for the year then ended,
in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a
basis consistent with that of the preceding year.
Our examination was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the
combined financial statements taken as a whole. The financial statements
and schedules listed in the table of contents on Pages 72 through 158 are
presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part
of the combined financial statements of Indian River County, Florida. The
information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the
examination of the combined financial statements and, in our opinion, is
fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the combined
financial statements taken as a whole. The information listed as
statistical information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures
applied in the examination of the combined financial statements and,
accordingly, we express no opinion.
jw�w
Daytona Beach, Florida +
January 4, 1985 71 BOOK 0 mn 247
MAR 2 0 1995 BOOK 60 F'q, - 248
Mr. Moats emphasized that although theirs is a short
opinion, it is an unqualified opinion, which is good news.
He stated that since these statements are very involved and there
is a wealth of information contained in them, he would like to
give the Board just some high lights and an overall impression.
He first addressed the Combined Balance Sheet, Pages 28 & 29:
72
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
COPIDINED BALANCE SHEET
ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS
- - -
-- —
SEPTEMBER 30. 1984
GOVERNMENTAL '?UXV
FIDUCIARY
TYPES
PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES
FUND TYPES
ACCOUNT GROUPS
G~
SPECIAL
DEBT
GENERAL
TOTALS=
GENERAL
REVENUE
SERVICE CAPITAL
SPECIAL
INTERNAL
TRUST AND
GENERAL LONG-TERM
(MEMORANDWJ
PROJECTS
ASSESSMENT
ENTERPRISE
SERVICE
AGENCY
FIXED ASSETS DEBT
ONLY)
ASSETS
-
Equity in pooled cash and investments
; 3,174,755
; 6,006,733 $
242
1.107,865
- ; 267,320
; 2,225.907
; 2,880, 065
; -
; 1.281, 535
8 - $ -
o
165,591
$ 16,944, 1
Accounts receivable - net
Special assessments receivable:
5.098
-
170.409
1.248
-
'
342,588
Current
Deferred
-
-
-
-
- -
36.415
-
-
-
- -
36,415
Due from other funds (Note 12)
545,497
285,616
2,807 -
2,081.349
11,796
1,796
481
-
49,869
- -
2,081,349
Due From other governments
Accrued interest receivable
359
1.965
245.032
25.861
- _
10,414
-
2.547
343
- -
- -
896.066
248,281
Inventories
Prepaid expenditures
50,766
2,804
275,828
44,433
- -
-
_
53,985
200,898
11,096
- -
- -
38,240
592,573
Restricted cash and investments:
-
47,237
Sinking Funds (Nota 3)
Renewal and replacement and capital projects
-
-
-
_
522,768
-
-
- -
522,768
Customer deposits
-
-
-
- -
-
554.571
80,317
-
-
-
- -
554,571
Escrow deposits
Property, plant and equipment (Note 2)
-
-
-
-
- _
_
585,826
-
-
-
- -
- -
80.317
585.826
Accumulated depreciation
-
-
- -
-
15.170,102
(1.455.763)
137,981
(46,127)
-
-
24,176,470
-
39,484.553
(1.501.890)
Unamortized bond costs
-
- -
-
35,677
_
__'
35.677
Amount available in debt service funds
Amount to be provided for retirement of general
-
-
-
-
-
1,089,715
1.089,715
long-term debt
"--
9,072.139
9,072,139
-_
TOTAL ASSETS
S 3.941.737
E 6.883.745 3
1.:21.087 S ,x,418
S 4,345.467
S 18.598.438
S 296.547
S 1.342,843
S 24,175.470 3 10.261.854
3 71.150.606
LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
LIABILITIES
'
; $
-
Dein pooled cash and investments
; -
; -
; -
; 207,847
;
Accounts payable
362.419
26,529
134,899
321
31.372
- 296,851
533,331
�
182,+09
35,832
-
78.229
; ; -
- -
; 207,847
1.655,342
Deferred revenues
Accrued liabilities
-
72.625
- -
2,081.349
-
-
-
- -
2.108.199
Due ca ocher foods (Note I2)
50.018
35.407
-
280,000
-
-
51999
239.479
-
-
-
291,162
- -
- -
78.624
896,066
Payable from restricted assets:
Accrued interest payable
- -
-
-
127,499
-
-
- -
127,499
Current maturities of revenue bonds
-
- -
107.000
Customer deposits
-
_
107,000
_
89,-38
_
=
-
89,238
Escrow deposits
Due to other governments
28.543
19.783
- -
-
519.047
-
-
- -
58,047
Other deposits bald in escrow
23,239
60.750
- -
-
-
-
-
-
336.276
630,752
'
3844,602
Contracts payable
-
2'789
-
-
-
-
714,74I�
Accrued compensated absences (Note 4)
-
-
-
-
- _ -
35.376
10.458
-
- -
- 321.714
1.789 Co
367,548
Natal payable (Notes 4 fi 8)
Capital lasses (Notes 4 S 8)
-
- -425,928
-
-
-
-
'
425.918 v—
Bonds payable (Notes 3, 4, 5 b 6)
- -
2,050.000
10.472.400
-
-
-
- 359.222
- 9.055,000
359.222
21,577.400
Unamortizad bond discount
-
-
(26,906)
-
-
-
(26,906
TOTAL LIABILITIES
; 490,748
$ 323.785 ;
31,372
; 576.351
S 4,666,469
S 11,751.541
; 254,137
$ 1,336,419
S - ; 10,161.854
S 29.59317 6
28
29
MAR
2 0
1985
BooK
60
FnE 250
Mr.
Moats noted that the total assets of the County
as
of
September 30, 1984, were approximately 71 million as compared to
64 million last year, or about a 10% increase, which is indica-
tive of growth. He also pointed out that County Administration
decided to put Fleet Management into an internal service fund
operation to be able to see better how that fund is doing.
Mr. Moats next reviewed Pages 30 & 31:
74
Ln
Ckl
L"
1�
30
31
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
'L
U
COMBINED BALANCE SHEET
o
ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS
SEPTEMBER 30.198/A
FIDUCIARY
GOVERNMENTAL FUND
TYPES
PROPRIETARY
FUND TYPES
FUND TYPES
ACCOUNT GROUPS
GENERAL
TOTALS
SPECIAL
DEBT
CAPITAL
SPECIAL
INTERNAL
TRUST AND
GENERAL LONG-TERM
(MEMORANDUM
ONLY)
GENERAL
REVENUE
SERVICE
PROJECTS
ASSESSMENT ENTERPRISE
SERVICE
AGENCY
FIXED ASSETS DEBT
FM EQUITY_
$
$
$
$ -
$ - S _
;
;
; 24,176,470 S -
; 24,17b,410
In escment in general fixed assets
-
- 4,951,637
311,120
-
-
5,262,757
Contributions
Retained earnings:
Reserved for debt service (Note 3)
-
_
-
- 583,
_
_
- -
-
583,130
369,571
Reserved for renewal and replacement (Note 3)
_
-
- 369,557171
- 468,482
-
-
-
- _
468,482
Reserved for capital projects (Note 3)
-
-
- 474,077
(268,710)
_
- -
205,367
Unreserved - (deficit) (Note 15)
-
Fund balances:
Reserved for emergency management (Nota 13)
40,000
-
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
- -
40,000
2,405
Reserved for encumbrances (Note 13)
2.405
-
-
-
-
_
_ -
148,050
Reserved for capital projects (Note 13)
-
1,089,715
148,050
- _
-
-
-
-
- _
1,016,715
Reserved for debt service (Note 13)
12,856
-
-
-
- -
-
4,096
- _
16,952
Reserved for inventory (Note 13)
2,804
44,433
-
-
_ _
-
_ -
47,237
Reserved for prepaid expenditures (Note 13)
Unreserved - (deficit) (Notes 12 b I5)
3,395,329
6,513,122
—�—=--
_
(452,483)
(�311�002) �_
�_
2,328
!�—
_ -
---- -----
9.147,294
TOTAL FUND EQUITY - (deficit)
; 3,450,989
S 6,559.960
$ 1,089,715
$ (304,433)
$ (311,002) ; 6,646.897
$ 42,410
$ 6,424
S 24,176,470 $ -�-
S 41.557,430
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
3941737
588.745
S 4355• 8857
96.54
S .
24.176.470�
�
�SS 7115�060
1�
30
31
MAR 2 0 1935�
BOOK`ice °+uE 252
Mr. Moats stated that this represents the General Fund,
the basic operating fund of the County, and the fund balance in
reserve is approximately 3.3 million which represents about 210
of the operating budget. Mr. Moats emphasized the importance of
having the General Fund in a sound position, especially with the
possibility of a change in Federal Revenue Sharing.
Commissioner Wodtke returned to the meeting at 11:48 o'clock
A.M.
OMB Director Barton wished to clarify that what Mr. Moats is
referring to as the General Fund is what we think of as the
General Fund and the MSTU; they have been put together for
statement purposes.
Mr. Moats next wished to go over Page 34 - Budget and Actual
- All Governmental Fund Types.
76
_I
LYDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CON B== STATEMENT OF REVENUES, LXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
Q
ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30. 1984
REVL*NUES
Takes
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for services
Fines and forfeitures
Miscellaneous
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPEQDITCRE3
Current:
General Goverment
Public Safety
Physical Environment
Transportation
Economic Environment
Human Services
Culture/Recreation
Debt Service:
Principal
Interest
Capital Projects
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
-EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES
OTHER FINANCIIG SOURCES (USES)
Operating transfers in
Operating transfers out
Lease -purchase proceeds
Proceeds from long-term borrowing
TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
EXCESS OF REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES OVER
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES
FUND BALANCES AT 3EGMII+NG OF YEAR - (deficit)
Increase (decrease) in reserve for inventory
Residual equity transfers in (out) (:Note 14)
FUND 3AL4NCES AT M OF `!EAR - (deficit) (Notes 12 S 15)
34
GENERAL
VARLWCE
FAVORABLE
BUDGET ACTUAL (UNFAVORABLE)
$ 8,981,109
$ 9,321,303 $
340,194
181,600
193,143
11,543
2,629,304
3,039,677
410,373
1,145,365
1,306,830
161,465
7101244
360,316
(349,928)
850,546
959,197
108,651
$ 14,498,168
S 15,180,466 $
682,298
SPECIAL REVENUE
VARIANCE
FAVORABLE
BUDGET ACTUAL (UNFAVORABLE)
$ 2,639,491
$ 2,683,055 S
43,564
11500
1,184
(316)
2,081,832
2,202,204
120,372
57,702
103,443
45,741
108,500
168,463
59,963
338,770
817,118
478,348
$ 5,227_795 $ 5,975,467 $ 747,672
$ 1,950.892 S 1.962,636 S 11,744
i 5,651,944
$ 5,257,201 $
394,743
$ 192,961
$ 101,567 $
Ln
4,822,460
4,643,037
CIQ
C
3,721.488
3,256,462
465,026 _ - _
399.683
DEBT SERVICE
14,794
100,130
705
VARIANCE
3,314,393
3,038.038
FAVORABLE
BUDGET
ACTUAL
(UNFAVORABLE)
66,194
65,911
0
0
m
i 1,389,442
S 1,340,143
S (49,299)
446,500
4469500
-
114,950
175,993
61,043
$ 1,950.892 S 1.962,636 S 11,744
i 5,651,944
$ 5,257,201 $
394,743
$ 192,961
$ 101,567 $
91,394 $ 27,325 S 27,116 $ 209
4,822,460
4,643,037
179,423
3,721.488
3,256,462
465,026 _ - _
399.683
384,889
14,794
100,130
705
42,425
3,314,393
3,038.038
276,355
48,905
42,929
5,976
66,194
65,911
283
658,141
545,860
112.281
608.383
642,432
(34,049)
748,949
678,674
70,275
190,978
173.566
17,412
$ 15,661,764 S 14,613,610 S 1,048,154
S (1,163,596) S 566.856 S 1,730,452
$ 1,251,427 $ 903,597 $ (347,830)
(206,019) (313,903) (107,884)
30,711 30,711
S 1,045,408 S 620,405 S (425,003)
$ (118,188) $ 1,187,261 $ 1,305,449
2,320,578 2,320,578 -
(60.851) (60.851)
41001 4.001
5 2.145 . _a40 S 3 S 1305.44®9
$ 4_ 862 _845 $ 4,274,661 $ 588,184
$$ 354.950 S 1,700,806 $ 1,335,856
S 210,015 $ 207,875 $ (2,140)
(4,255,611) (3,035,663) 1,219,948
384,900 384,900
S (4.045,596) S (2.442.888) S 1,602,708
$ (3,680,646) $ (742,082) S 2,938,564
7,302,042 7,302,042
S 3S 3�1®0� 4 54 5.559 960 S 2S 2
35
990,000 990,000
780,874 744,397 38,477
$ 1,798,199 S 1,761,513 S 36,686
S 152,693 S 201,123 S 48,430
S S S
$ 152,693 S 201,123 i 48,430
co
1,072,156 1,072,156 -
(183,564) (183,564) O
Cel
S_S 1 SS 1,099,711 3 &8,430
i.F-
etc
M
V -
BOOK GO F' -E 254
Mr. Moats reported that looking from the overall standpoint,
the General Fund had a budget of approximately 14.4 million and
15.6 million was actually collected, leaving a favorable variance
of approximately $68,000. Under expenditures, the County had
anticipated spending 15.6 million but actually spent 14.6, or
approximately one million favorable variance. In other words,
the County had anticipated going into their existing fund balance
in the Other Sources account, which was, approximately $118,000,
but because of the variances just mentioned there was an excess
of revenues in Other Sources of approximately 1.1 million.
Administrator Wright wished to point out that if it is
budgeted, we don't necessarily spend it.
Mr. Moats then referred to Pages 110 & 111:
78
_I
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
ALL ENTERPRISE FUNDS
SEPTEM3ER 30. 1984
nni ram
AND SEWER SOLID WASTE COUNTY
SYSTEM SYSTEM BUILDING TOTAL
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS
Equity in pooled cash and investments $ 2,643,436 $ 35,837
Accounts receivable - net 118,254 50,747
Due from other funds (Note 12) 481 -
Inventories 53,985 -
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS $ 2,816.156 S 86,584
RESTRICTED ASSETS
Cash and investments:
Sinking Fund (Note 3)
Renewal and replacement and capital'
projects (:tote 3)
Customer deposits
Escrow deposits (impact fees)
$ 149,263
1 169,571
80,317
585,826
S 984,977
$ 200,792 $ 2,880,065
1,408 170,409
- 481
53,985
S 202.200 $ 3,104,940
$ 373,505 S -
385,000 -
S 75 ,505 S -
$ 522,768
554,571
80,317
585,826
S 1,743,482
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EOUIP'.XNT
Land
$ 404,845
$ 553,988
S
-
$ 958,833
Buildings and distribution systems
11,963,614
558,101
-
12,521,715
Equipment
181,623
942,838
66,698
11191,159
Construction in progress
498,395
S 13,048,477
-
$S 2,054,927
-
4989395
$ 15,170,102
$
66,698
less: accumulated depreciation
8219635
610,839
23,89
1,455,763
S 12,226,842
$ 1.444,088
7-77-3,-409
S 13,714,339
THER ASSETSASSETSd
Unambond costs
S 21,061
$ 14,616
$
-
S 35.677
TOTAL ASSETSSS
16�069.C�36
$2�303�793
S5
2'�5 509509
S T889A '138
110
If)
1n
w
c�
r
0
WATER
AND SEWER SOLID WASTE COUNTY
SYSTEM SYSTEM BUILDING TOTAL ;
LIABILZTIES AND FUND EOUITY m
CURRENT LIABILITIES (PAYABLE
r.OM CURRENT ASSETS)
Accounts payable
Accrued liabilities
Due to other funds (Note 12)
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
(PAYABLE FROM CURRENT ASSETS)
CURRENT LIABILITIES (PAYABLE
FROM RESTRICTED ASSETS)
Accrued interest payable
Current maturities of revenue
bonds (Note 3)
Customer deposits
Escrow deposits (impact fees)
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
(PAYABLE FROM RESTRICTED ASSETS)
OTHER'LIABILITIES
Accrued compensated absences
Revenue bonds payable (Note 3)
less: unamortized bond discount
TOTAL LIABILITIES
FUND EQUITY
Contributions
Retained earnings:
Reserved for debt service
Reserved for renewal and replacement
Reserved for capital projects
Unreserved
TOTAL FUND EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
$ 170,651 $ 10,354 $ 1,404 $ 182,409
5,999 - - 5,999
100,111 62,995 76,373 239,479
$ 276,761 $ 73,349 S 77,777 $ 427,887
$ 121,382 $ 6,117 $ - $ 127,499
7,000 100,000 - 107,000
80,638 8,600 - 89,238
519,047 - 519,047
S 728,067 S 114,717 $ - $ 842,784
$ 12,503 $ 8,636 $ 14,237 $ 35,376
9,187,400 1,285,000 - 10,472,400
(12,031) (14,875) - (26,906)
9,187,872 S 1,2787761 S 14,237 S 109480,870
S 10,192,700 $ 1,466,827 S 92,014 S 11,751,541
$ 4,796,677 $ 10,000
215,742 367,388
169,571 200,000
283,482 185,000
390,864 74,578
$ 5,856,336 S 8361966
S 16
$ 2.303.793
111
$ 144,960 $ 4,951,637
- 583,130
369,571
- 468,482
8,635 474,077
$ 153,595 S 6,846,897 00
S 945,609 S 18,521.4
cz
M
' ASR 2 0 1995 BOOK FACE 6
Mr. Moats noted that this involves the enterprise funds
which are user charge oriented. There are three enterprise funds
- water and sewer system; solid waste system; and county
building, which is a new account this year after being
transferred from the City to the County; and the financial
position of each is good.
Commissioner Scurlock had some comments re our water and
sewer system, and referred to the following data which was set
out on Page 5 of the transmitting letter.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water and Sewer System Fund - The County Water and Sewer Fund was
established to account for the operations of the water and sewer system.
The water and sewer system continues to increase the number of customers
served and when the water and sewer transmission lines going West along
Route 60 are completed, there will be a substantial increase in the number
of customers. Comparative data for the past two years are presented in the
following table:
Total operating revenues
Total operating expenses
Net income (loss)
Income available for debt
service
Annual debt service
Coverage (income available for
debt service divided by
debt service)
Customers
1984 1983 INCREASE
$ 1,846,466 $ 1,419,655 $ 426,811
$ 1,104,741 $ 953,500 $ 151,241
$ 76,129 $ (35,102) $ 111,231
$ 1,043,780 $ 514,807 $ 528,973
$ 575,997 $ 3359403 $ 240,594
1.81 1.53
5,913 5,089 824
Commissioner Scurlock noted that he had questioned the
coverage of 1.81 for this fund in 1984 and asked if we had made a
significant improvement or whether this coverage was getting a
bit fat. Utilities Director Pinto explained that we have a 2.7
million issue coming this year, which is the reason for this
coverage. Commissioner Scurlock felt the only negative note re
solid waste is that we have some significant problems we have to
address this year - closing the first Landfill cell and getting
into the second which will require us to generate a large amount
of capital. He reported that he did meet with City Manager
Little on resource recovery, and Mr. Little indicated the City
WN
wants to cooperate in a joint effort on this. Commissioner
Scurlock believed that Director Pinto and Administrator Wright
have done an outstanding job in water and sewer; he felt we are
in good shape and was proud of how we have moved along.
Mr. Moats felt those are timely comments relating to Pages
110 and 111, especially when we talk about revenue bonds payable
because about 6.4 million of this is at 5% and that is the best
money in town. Mr. Moats then addressed Page 112:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF RE7WUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
ALL ENTERPRISE FUNDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30. 1984
OPERATING REVENUES
Charges for services
Miscellaneous
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personal services
Contractual services
Maintenance
Other
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
OPERATING INCOME BEFORE
DEPRECIATION
LESS: DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
OPERATING INCOME
IONOPERATING REVENUES (EVP -LASES)
Interest income
Interest and amortization expense
Other debt service expense
Gain on disposal of equipment
TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES
(EXPENSES)
INCOME BEFORE OPERATING TRANSFERS
OPERATING TRANSFERS
Operating transfers in
Operating transfers out
TOTAL OPERATING TRANSFERS
YET INCOME
RETAINED EA.RNIN7GS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR
RETAINED EARNINGS AT END OF TEAR
WATER
AND SEWER SOLID WASTE COUNTY
SYSTEM SYSTEM BUILDING TOTAL
$ 1,803,581 $
723,836 $
468,738
$ 2,996,155
42,885
236
6,926
50,047
$ 1,846,466 $
724,072 $
475,664
$ 3,046,202
$ 444,923 $
286,339 $
347,151
$ 1,078,413
399,380
133,910
78,591
611,881
100,103
61,647
12,792
174,542
160,333
78,439
12,841
251,615
$ 1.104,741 $ 560,335 $ 451,375 $ 2,116,451
$
741,725
$
163,737
$
24,289
$
929,751
372,801
139,662
22,355
534,818
$
368,924
$
24,075
$
1,934
S
394,933
#
302,055
$
88,544
$
6,701
$
397,300
(569,997)
(78,263)
-
(648,260)
(952)
(4,134)
-
(51086)
'
597
597
$
(268,894)
$
6,744
$
6,701
$
(255,449)
$
100,030
3
30,819
S
8,635
1
139,484
#
64,168
$
-
$
-
$
64,168
(88,069)
(10,000)
(98,069)
$
(23,901)
S
(10,000)
$
-
(33,901)
$
76,129
$
20,819
$
8,635
$
105,583
983,530
806,147
-
1,789,677
S t
s .16
s ta9560
BOOK 60 Fni..25
J
MAR 2 0 1995 aooK 60 F 258
Mr. Moats noted that in 1983, the water and sewer system had
a loss of about $35,000, and this year, there is about $76,000
net income. Even more important is the fact that the County has
met all their covenants on their bond issue and has 1.8 coverage,
which is above what is needed, and that is good when you go to
the bond market and look for ratings. The solid waste income
statement also is in a good position; the rate covenant there is
also important; and the County has 1.42 coverage. The income was
approximately $14,000 last year and it is $20,000 this year, and
if the County is planning to move in the area of resource
recovery, that also is good. County Building also is doing very
well. Mr. Moats asked if anyone had any question re the
enterprise funds.
Commissioner Scurlock had a question of Director Pinto,
which related to the quite substantial coverage as we always are
concerned about rate structure, and if we have too much coverage,
it may reflect in rates being too high. He believed he got his
answer about things that will happen this year that are not
reflected and that will shrink that coverage.
Director Pinto noted that with the new debt service that
will be due, if we didn't have 1.8'coverage, FHA would be looking
at a rate increase prior to closing on the next issue.
Mr. Moats continued that in regard to compliance with the
solid waste revenue bonds, series 1977, they have reviewed those
and the County is in compliance in all material respects. In the
report of Federal Revenue Sharing, there was one small item of
non-compliance, which only had to do with a publication notice of
the budget - all else was in conformity with the regulations.
Mr. Moats then emphasized the importance of the fact that
this Annual Report received a Certificate of Conformance in
Financial Reporting from the GFOA (Government Finance Officers
Association), especially since the underwriters and rating
agencies like to see this. He stressed that this certificate
M
definitely is worth having, and felt the County should be proud
of their Finance Department.
Commissioner Scurlock believed Finance Director Fry and his
department, as well as May Zima, have done a very good job. His
only other comment was that he did want to look at our G&A
charges next year as he believed we may have been a little heavy
on some departments in this area. He noted that it is most
important to know where costs are generated and have them
properly charged back.
Chairman Lyons expressed his pleasure with the financial
report and having such a clean audit. He complimented Director
Fry and his organization for putting us in this position.
DISCUSSION RE PURCHASE OF SOUTHERN BELL BUILDING
Administrator Wright informed the Board that he had talked
with one of the owners of the Southern Bell building, and it
appears they are not amenable to a lower offer. He, therefore,
would suggest we proceed with the selection of architects and
build the Sheriff a building.
Commissioner Bird reported that he had talked to the other
owner, and he does not agree this sale is necessarily dead. The
owner feels the reputation of the building has been damaged, and
he would like the opportunity to come back with some further
testimony to refute the.engineering report we got on the roof.
Administrator Wright agreed that is certainly the Board's
prerogative, and he felt the roof undoubtedly can be brought to
Code. To meet Code, however, the roof only has to withstand 110
mph winds, and if we are going to put the 911 system in a
structure, he believed we are going to need something that
exceeds Code. The Administrator felt that the Bell Building is
fine for normal office space, and if we were going to move the
Planning Department, for instance, that would be different, but
with the valuable technical equipment involved with the Sheriff's
Department, we need something more substantial.
83
BOOK 6 0 FADE ?59
MAR 2 0 1985
_I
MAR 2 0 1985 Boor. 00 Fa,F 26.0
Commissioner Bird stressed that if our standards require
more than Code, it should be so stated and made plain that we are
not necessarily saying the building is unsafe.
Commissioner Scurlock believed his position has been
established that we should get on about it, bite the bullet, as
the Administrator suggested, retain the services of an architect,
and plan for the long range.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded
by Commissioner Bowman, to retain an architect as
discussed above to design a building to house the
Sheriff's Department, possibly at the jail site, which
building should have the ability to expand.
Chairman Lyons noted that if this building is to be at the
jail site, the design must be architecturally compatible.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that this does not mean we
will move everything from the downtown area; he believed the
State Attorney and Public Defender will be there for some time.
In further discussion, Commissioner Bowman pointed out that
we are not talking about a justice -building; we are talking about
a Sheriff's building; and it was generally agreed that what we
actually are talking about is office space.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would go along with the
Motion because he felt there are several other factors relative
to the Southern Bell building that probably make it unsuitable
for the particular needs of the Sheriff, but he did wish to
clarify that the roof of the Southern Bell building may be fine
for normal purposes.
Commissioner Wodtke concurred.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
84
ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR COURTHOUSE
Administrator Wright noted that, if we are not going to
purchase the Bell building, it appears the Sheriff will be
remaining in the Annex for sometime, and it is urgent to find
more space. He reported that staff has been checking around, and
there is a possibility of acquiring the Title and Trust Building,
adjacent to and southwest of the existing Courthouse. This
building has 6,000 sq. feet of space, and a dozen or so parking
spaces. If we should buy it, we will not be changing the use as
we would probably move the States Attorney in it or some similar
type office. The Administrator stated that staff would like to
be authorized to pursue the acquisition of this building as part
of the expansion of the Courthouse.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that Commissioner Wodtke already
is authorized to work with staff on acquiring space, and he would
just suggest that we request the City of Vero Beach to give us a
letter that this would not be considered a change of use.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that there are four lots
adjacent to this that might be available. The City, however,
recently passed a new parking ordinance, and he believed it is
very important to make a full evaluation of that ordinance to
determine just how it will affect our parking and our future
plans as to how we can expand. He believed the City's ordinance
will affect the Administration Building also.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would like Commissioner
Wodtke to continue to work with staff on the acquisition of
additional office space for the Courthouse. The Board concurred.
Administrator Wright noted that the City may revisit and
change their parking ordinance.
George Gross, interested citizen, informed the Board that
the new ordinance does not apply to C -2A, which was excepted.
However, a new study is being performed and is looking at all of
the downtown properties.
W
MAR 2 01985 F""261
_I
BOOK 6 0 F1,GE 282
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously author-
ized Commission Wodtke to continue to work with
staff on the acquisition of additional office space
for the Courthouse, to consider the purchase of the
Title & Trust Building, obtain appraisals, etc.
JAIL OVERCROWDING AND STAFFING NEEDS
The Board reviewed memo of the Administrator, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 12, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Jail overcrowding
and Staffing Needs
FROM: Michael Wri
County Admi
REFERENCES:
Several weeks ago, the Department of Corrections inspect-
ed the County Jail and found deficiencies in both the autho-
rized level of staffing and the average daily population
of inmates. Their comments are attached in summary form
as are the staff responses.
` The situation has not improved in the recent weeks.
-In fact, the average inmate population has steadily increased
to more than 90 persons per day during March. As many as
102 were incarcerated over the weekend.
As late as March 11th, the Department of --Corrections
strongly indicated if the jail continues to be overcrowded
and additional staff .are not immediately hired, the State
will seek immediate legal remedies.
Since one visit is worth a series of memos, I would
encourage each of you to take time to visit the jail and
see first hand the problems we're experiencing. •I agree
with the State that additional staff are needed and I will
be requesting formal action on the matter by the Commission
during it's March 20th meeting. In addition, the staff will
be preparing information on housing alternatives.
If I can provide additional information or arrange for
a visit to the jail, please contact me at your convenience.
� r �
The Administrator stressed that we are at a critical point,
and we need six additional personnel, plus a nurse, to meet the
minimum needs.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized the hiring of additional personnel
for the Jail staff, as requested by the Adminis-
trator.
Commissioner Bird wished to point out that six additional
people are needed to staff one post 24 hours a day.
General Services Director Dean felt the Board should be
aware that we still are not up to the complement the new Jail
will be requiring, and we soon will have to start hiring people
in order to train them and have them ready.
EXTENSION OF MEETING.
It was noted there still are quite a few agenda items to be
dealt with.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
agreed to extend the meeting until 1:00 P.M.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING DER TO SUPPORT SR 60 PROJECT
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the proposed Resolution
is to ask the DER to cooperate with the County on the SR 60
wastewater project. Our intent is to prevent a proliferation of
package plants, and in order to do so, we want the DER to go
along with permitting "dry line" systems until the County's
wastewater plan is completed. He reported that he has talked
with Mr. Alexander of the DER, who has indicated that his
department is conceptually in favor of this proposal, but said
87
MAR 2 01985 BOOK 0 FACE 26�
MAR 2 0
1985
Booz CO
264
since
there is a certain amount of risk involved relating
to the
possibility of a permit for our wastewater not being received,
then all the development that has proceeded with the dry line
permitting would have to come to an end until other permitted DER
systems became'available and secondly, only dry line permits up
to the capacity of the plant being permitted would be considered.
Commissioner Scurlock clarified that the risk is that if
for some reason the plant was not permitted, we could not issue a
Certificate of Occupancy for a development until some alternate
wastewater system was made available. He believed the developers
are well aware of this situation.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that a policy already has been
established that in order for the developer to obtain the dry
line system, they have to show a capability of providing an
alternate site and bond it off.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 85-35 as described above.
88
W W W
RESOLUTION NO. 85- 35
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ENCOURAGING THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
TO ASSIST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFIED STATE ROAD 60
CORRIDOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT,
ELIMINATING CURRENT MARGINAL PACKAGE
TREATMENT PLANTS AND PREVENTING A
PROLIFERATION OF FUTURE PACKAGE
TREATMENT PLANTS.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is experiencing a period
of rapid growth along the State Road 60 corridor, and
WHEREAS, as a result of this growth, there has been a
proliferation of small package wastewater treatment plants, and
WHEREAS, many of these package plants are functioning at a
"marginal" treatment efficiency creating a concern for the
environment in Indian River County, and
WHEREAS, without County participation there will be
constructed in the near future several additional package wastewater
treatment plants in the area, and
WHEREAS, to prevent the construction of additional package
plants to eliminate existing package plants, to enhance the level of
treatment efficiency of wastewater protecting the environment in
Indian River County's water supply, the Board of County
Commissioners has undertaken a complex project to provide a central
wastewater treatment plant tying in many existing and future
developments, and
WHEREAS, to further enhance the benefits of a consolidated
system, it
is necessary for
the Florida Department of
Environmental
Regulation
and Indian River
County to work together in
permitting of
wastewater systems for projects that are now underway; allowing the
projects to permit "dry line" systems designed to connect to the
County's system thereby eliminating the necessity for such
developments to permit and construct package systems, and
WHEREAS, this agreement has been reached as a matter of
comity between two governmental entities, and
WHEREAS, County
has
developed a
procedure requiring
developers requesting "dry
line"
permitting
to conceptually site
AM
BAR 2 0 1985 BOOK CAO PAGE 285
MAR 2 0 1985 BOOK 60 PA -UF 266
plan and bond a wastewater treatment plant or approved septic
system to be utilized in the event the County system does not
materialize, and the County agrees not to issue a Certificate of
Occupancy for any such developments until the County system is fully
permitted and operational or other fully permitted systems are in
place
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The foregoing recitals are adopted in full, and
2. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
encourages the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to
cooperate in this necessary endeavor and agrees to hold the
Department harmless from responsibility for this process.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke and, being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ave
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C..Wodtk.e, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 20th day of March , 1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ISN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B�J
t�Ic'dk B . Lyo s
Chairman
Attest: 4
Freda Wrigh4, Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENCX-.r--%
By c
G 'y Brandenburg,
ounty) Attorney
90
1
6
r � �
AGREEMENT AND WORK AUTHORIZATION - CONSULTING SERVICES FOR
REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that this is the
general consulting contract, with scope of services attached,
with DSS Engineering for consulting services and an independent
analysis of our existing R.O. plant.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to approve the Agreement
for Professional Services with DSS Engineering, Inc.,
and authorize the signature of the Chairman.
Commissioner Wodtke referred to the monthly fee set out and
wished to know how many months are involved.
Utilities Director Pinto stated it probably will be monthly
for a full year and then reduced to less than every month.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that mainly under this contract,
we contract with them on a use -them -as -we -need -them basis under
work authorizations the Board issues from time to time.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
(Said Agreement for Professional Services is set out
as follows)
91
MAR 2 0 1995 BOOK CA 0 PAGE 267
MAR 2;-0 1985 BOOK 60 c,,,,,F ��� -7
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 20th day of
March , 1985, by and between DSS ENGINEERING, INC., a
Florida corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"
and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of
the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY."
W I T N E S S E T H:
1
WHEREAS, the COUNTY desires to engage a consulting
engineering firm to provide professional services relating to the
Indian River County reverse osmosis water plant and relating
systems; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has followed the selection and
negotiation process, in accordance with the Florida Consultants
Competitive Negotiation Act of 1973 (Chapter 287.055, Florida
Statutes, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY desires to enter into a
professional services agreement with the consulting engineer to
provide general consulting and engineering services as may be
needed and authorized from time to time by the COUNTY.
NOW, THEREFORE, AND IN CONSIDERATION OF the
premises and mutal covenants hereinafter recited and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. AUTHORIZATION OF WORK:
la. All work to be performed by the Consultant under this
agreement shall be authorized in writing by the Board of
County Commissioners through the County's representative
appointed in accordance with Article 7b below.
lb. The authorization shall contain a description of
the
work to be undertaken, reference to the appropriate
section of this Agreement for the performance of
the
work and reference to the appropriate section of
this
Agreement for payment of the work. Further,
the
authorization shall contain a budget amount of the
fee
to be paid based upon the applicable method
for
calculating the fee, and such budget amount shall not
be
exceeded unless prior written approval and an increase
in funds available are provided by the County. In
the
event the County does not approve a revised budget
and
additional funding, and the need for such action is
not
shown to be the fault of the Consultant, then
the
authorization shall be terminated and the Consultant
shall be paid in full for all work performed to
that
point.
s
lc. The form and format of the budget described in Article
lb above shall be_ in sufficient detail so as to identify
the various elements of cost and shall be subject to the
approval of the County.
Id. The authorization may contain additional provisions
specific to the authorized work for the purpose of
expanding upon certain aspects of this agreement
pertinent to the work to be undertaken. Such
supplemental instruction or provision shall not be
construed as a modification of this agreement.
le. Authorizations shall be dated and serially numbered.
ARTICLE 2. CONSULTING SERVICES:
The Consultant agrees to provide continuing consulting,
review and advisory services.
ARTICLE 3. STUDY AND REPORT SERVICES:
The Consultant agrees to conduct engineering
investigations and studies and to prepare engineering
reports and cost estimates pertaining to specific
assignments as may be authorized by the County from time
to time, all in accordance with sound engineering
practices.
ARTICLE 4. PROJECT DESIGN SERVICES:
4a. The Consultant agrees to prepare detailed construction
drawings, specifications and contract documents suitable
for inviting construction bids for such projects as may
be authorized by the County.
4b. The work shall include the preparation of an estimate of
probable cost of construction based upon completed
construction plans.
ARTICLE 5. GENERAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION:
5a. The Consultant hereby agrees to furnish general
engineering services during construction of projects for
which drawings, specfications and contract documents
have been previously prepared by the Consultant. The
services shall include advice and assistance to the
County in the receipt and analysis of bids and the award
of construction contracts, advice during construction,
preparation of such sketches as are needed to resolve
actual field conditions, the review of shop drawings and
working drawings submitted by the contractors, visits to
the site at intervals appropriate to the various stages
of construction to observe as an experienced and
qualified design professional and the progress and
quality of the executed work of contractors and to
determine in general if such work is proceeding in
accordinace with the contract documents, review of cost
estimates for payments to the contractors during the
progress of and upon completion of the contracts, and to
oversee the final testing and final inspection of
completed works.
5b. The Consultant shall not be required to make exhaustive
or continuous
on-site inspections to check the quality
or quantity
of such work. The Consultant shall not be
responsible
for the means, methods, techniques,
sequences
or procedures of construction selected by
contractors
or the safety precautions and programs
incident to
the work of contractors. During such visits
and on the
basis of on-site observations, the Consultant
shall keep
the County informed of the progress of the
work, shall
endeavor to guard the County against defects
and deficiencies
in such work and will disapprove or
reject work
failing to conform to the contract
documents.
-2-
MAR 2 0 1g 5 BOOK 60 PACE
� J
60oK +� L,1KF ? i
5c. If requested by the County or recommended by the
Consultant and agreed to in writing by the County, a
resident project representative mutually acceptable to
both parties will be furnished and will act as directed
by the Consultant in order to assist the Consultant in
observing performance of the work of contractors.
(1) The duties and responsibilities and the limitations
on the authority of the resident project representative
and assistants will be set forth in a work
authorization.
(2) Through the more extensive on-site observations of
the work in progress and field checks of materials and
equipment by the resident project representative (if
furnished) and assistants, the Consultant shall endeavor
to provide further protection for the County against
defects and deficiencies in the work of contractors; but
the furnishing of such resident project representative
will not make the Consultant responsible for
construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or
procedures or for safety or programs or for contractors'
failure to perform their work in accordance with the
contract documents.
ARTICLE 6. SUPPLEMENTARY AND SPECIAL SERVICES.
The Consultant agrees to furnish the following
supplmentary and special services as may be authorized
from time to time.
6a. To make, or to have made by others under the direction
of the Consultant, necessary field surveys (including
easement plans and descriptions) not otherwise provided
by the County, traffic surveys, subsurface explorations
including the analysis thereof required for construction
plans, laboratory testing and inspection of samples or
materials, and other special studies and consultations.
6b. To prepare necessary State and Federal grant
applications forms, provide additional engineering
services, special plans and descriptions, as required,
to assist the County in obtaining various permits and
approvals for construction and operation, and to prepare
for and attend public meetings and hearings as
requested.
6c. To furnish extra copies of drawings, specifications,
contract documents, special drawings and reports as
requested by the County.
6d. To review and report on materials and equipment
submittals tendered by bidders and contractors when such
submittals are alternatives to those specified or
previously approved.
6e. To review and report on claims for extras submitted by
contractors.
6f. To prepare and submit proposed contract change orders
when requested by the County.
6g. To prepare a set of reproducible record drawings of the
completed work based upon marked -up prints, drawings and
other data furnished by the Contractor to the Consultant
showing those changes made during the construction
process and which the Consultant considers significant.
6h. To revise previously approved studies, reports, design
documents, drawings and specifications.
6i. To prepare detailed renderings, exhibits or scale models
or projects.
-3-
ARTICLE 7. COVENANTS BY THE COUNTY:
The County hereby covenants and agrees:
7a. To promptly pay the fees to the Consultant in the
amounts and at the times specified herein.
7b. To appoint a single representative with respect to work
to be performed under this agreement. This
representative shall have authority to transmit
instructions, receive information, interpret and define
the County's policy and decisions pertinent to the work
covered by this agreement.
ARTICLE 8. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES:
The County agrees to pay the Consultant for all services
authorized and performed in accordance with the
following schedule subject to the upper limit set out in
each authorization as described in Article 1:
8a. For the consultations, review and advisory services as
described in Article 2, the investigations, studies and
reports as described in Article 3, project design
services described in Article 4, construction described
in Article 5, and the supplementary and special services
described in Article 6, the fee shall be the following
Items (1) and (2) unless the method of payment is as
described in 8b or 8c:
(1)
A list of
hourly
rates (schedule of hourly rates) is
set
forth as
Exhibit
"A" which is identified, attached
to,
and made
a part
of this agreement.
(2) Out-of-pocket travel and subsistence expenses when
authorized by the County. Out of Indian River County
travel when authorized shall be at the mileage rate
currently in effect for County personnel. Payment for
in -county travel is not authorized except when
authorized in conjection with resident project
representation for specific construction projects. In
such case the amount of payment shall be at the mileage
rate currently in effect for County personnel.
8b. For the detailed construction drawings, specifications
and contract documents and all work described in Article
4, a lump sum fee to be mutally agreeable at the time
when the authorization is considered.
8c. Such other method or methods for calculating the fee as
may be mutually agreed by the parties hereto.
8d. All fees shall be due and payable monthly. The amount
due shall be deteremined as the costs are incurred for
services performed under Article 8a above and in
proportion to the work completed to the total work for
services performed under Article 8b and 8c above,
subject to the upper limit set out in the authorization
as described in Article 1.
ARTICLE 9. TERMINATION:
9a. This agreement may be terminated by either party by
thirty (30) days written notice. If terminated, the
Consultant shall be paid in accordance with Article 8
herein for all work previously completed as authorized
under this agreement, to the date of Notice of
Termination.
MMIC
M'R 20 1985 Bo x. Uhl mu, 271
r I
f AR : 198BOOK f'' U. 279'
9b. Consultant shall furnish reproducible copies of all
reports, drawings and specifications developed pursuant
to this agreement; however, all documents including
drawings and specifications furnished by Consultant
purusant to this agreement are instruments of- his
services in respect to the Project. They are not
intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by
County or others on extensions of the project or on any
other project. Any reuse without specific written
verification or adaption by Consultant will be at
County's sole risk and without liability or legal
exposure to Consultant.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed
their hands and seal the day and year first above written.
County Administrato
Attest:
COUNTY
INDIAN
BOARIY
Im
ER COUNTY
OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONSULTANT
DSS ENGINEERING, INC.
r
By
C. D. Hornburg
President
(corporate seal)
M+'fl
SCHEDULE OF FEES
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1s 1985
======a= --_
HOURLY RATES FOR TECHNICAL PERSONNEL
1. PRINCIPAL ENGINEERS = $75.00/HR
2. PROJECT ENGINEER $55.00/HR
3. PROJECT ENGINEER = $50.00/HR
4. STAFF ENGINEERS = $45.00/HR
5. DRAFTSMEN - $26.00/HR
` REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
1. TRAVEL OUTSIDE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - At Cost
2. MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES At Cost
a. long distance telephone or telex
b. unusually large zeros productions
c. unusually large blue print quantities
d. special printing
3. SUBCONSULTANTS At Cost
a. specialized engineering testing fires
b. specialized laboratories
c. electronic & instrumentation technician
d. surveyors
o
r' r
EXHIBIT "A"
BOOK 60 PAGE. 2"13)
MAR 2 0 1985
MAR .199
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOOK 0 FACE 2 74
Date 221,j
Work Aut orization No. for Consulting Services
Project No. _. (County) C20 /,ZO (DSS)
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Title: Continuing: Consulting Services in the General
Operation -and Maintenance Evaluation of the
Reverse Osmosis Plant
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR SERVICES
SECTION ONE
CONTINUING CONSULTING SERVICES IN IHE.GENERAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE EVALUATION OF THE REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT
TASK A. INITIAL PLANT INSPECTION AND EVALUATION
I COORDINATION MEETING WITH COUNTY
a. identify county project members & organization
b. develop project procedures for communications, reporting
format, invoicing procedures, access to desal plant,
access to plant design & cost information
c. develop project schedules .
d. agree on county's scope of.participation in project
2 REVIEW HISTORY OF PLANT CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND WARRANTEES
a. review design reports & correspondence
b. review construction specifications & tender
d. review construction documents & correspondence on warrantee items
C. review operational history from start-up to date
d. interview operating staff about operating history
f. determine exact usage of chemicals and electricity .
g. collect plant operating data from start-up to present
h. collect past history of membrane fouling problem
i. determine and review past equipment problems and failures.
_ 3 INSPECT AND EVALUATE EQUIPMENT AND 0&M PROCEDURES
a. conduct external visual inspection of all equipment
b. inspect and evaluate equipment with possible warrantee claims
any special tests or analysis will be provided by the county
c. conduct a membrane profile and analysis
b. review maintenance procedures for all major equipment
c. record maintenance logs
' d. review operating procedures
e. record operating data
f. review lab sampling procedures
g. review lab practices
h. inpect and review health and safety of plant & operations
4 PROCESS ANALYSIS
a. prepare process flow sheet, reduce, reproduce
b. analyze process flow data on computer
c. analyze degasifier performance
d. analyze product blending and storage
e. analyze brine discharge system
f. analyze pretreatment system & chemical additives
g. analyze plant performance and compare with original design
h. develop new operating baseline values
i. analyze membrane performance degradation I mortality
5 COST ANALYSIS
a. collect capital costs and charges
b. collect operating cost information
c. develop cost of water to county
d. I ft cost sensitivity to production factors
t
M.
6 EVALUATE OPERATING STAFF TRAINING
a. deterimine training & certification levels
b. recommend training plan & schedule
7 PLANT EVALUATION REPORT
a. executive summary
b. introduction _
C. plant history
d. technical discussions
1. present operating methods
2. pretreatment system
3. lab practices
4. membrane maintenance & life
5., plant maintenance
6. product treatment & storage
7. plant safety
8. plant performance
9. warrantee items
e. cost analysis
f. technical opinion and recommendations on warrantee items
g. recommendations and conclusions
page 2
f
t
8 REVIEW MEETING WITH COUNTY
a. review the warrantee items with the county legal and technical staff f
b. review the plant evaluation report with the county +
c. assist county with plan to.resolve warrantee problems with contractors{
d. present recommendations on plant operations & maintenance f
e. present recommendations on plant modifications and improvements +
TASK A BUDGET ESTIMATE ......... 25806
TASK B. PERIODIC VISITS AND CONTINUING CONSULTING SERVICES
I MONTHLY INSPECTIONS OF REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT
(TO BEGIN AFTER PLANT EVALUATION REPORT IS COMPLETED)
a. one plant inspection each month by Project Manager
b. inspect plant equipment
c. review and record plant operating data
d. record maintenance records
e. review operations & maintenance procedures
2 PREPARE MONTHLY SUMMARY REPORT
a. water production, on stream factors, capacity factors
b. production costs, electricity & chemical costs
c. plant performance, recovery rates, salt passage, pressures
d. plant maintenance
e. potential problems and recommendations
TASK, B MONTHLY FEE ............. $1138.50
TASK C. MAJOR MODIFICATIONS & IMPROVEMENTS
a. design
b. cost estimates
c. procurement documents
d. construction supervision
e. special reports
SECTION TWO
CONTINUING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR POSSIBLE DESIGN EXPANSION
AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATORY AGENCIES
TASK I PROJECT DEFINITION
a. review county expansion plan
b. define expansion in terms of capacity, budget, schedule
c. prepare written project scope
TASK 2 PROCESS DESIGN AR 2 0 1995
a. examine various concepts -for expansion
b. examine existing plant in terms of expansion capability
ce prepare process flow sheet
per diem rates
BOOR 60 pnE 275
MAR 2 0 1985
TASK -3 PERMIT APPLICATION
a. prepare all necessary permit applications for expansion Page 3
b. meet with appropriate agencies to expedite permits
TASK 4 EQUIPMENT AND PIPING DESIGN
a. prepare preliminary equipment and piping sites
b. prepare preliminary technical specifications per flowsheet
c. prepare preliminary bill of materials -
TASK S COST ESTIMATE AND DESIGN REPORT
a. prepare detailed cost estimate
b. prepare design report, with cost estimate 6.schedules
c. meet with county for review and modification if required
d. obtain county approval
TASK 6 PREPARE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
a. prepare tender documents and technical specifications
b. review general and special contract conditions with county
c. review membrane and equipment.warrantee clauses
d. issue tender documents k addendums if necessary
e. conduct bidders meeting
TASK 7 EVALUATE BIDS
a. attend bid opening
b. discuss deviations with bidders
c. prepare detailed bid analysis and report
TASK.B SUPERVISE INSTALLATION AND START-UP
a. meetings with contractors
b. procedure manuals
c. design review and drawing approval
d. review functional testing program with contractor
e. witness all functional tests and acceptance testing
f. maintain as built drawings and construction documents
g., witness shop tests if necessary
h. prepare payment certificates
i. prepare handing over documents and punch list
BOOK 0 P,j;E 276
TASK 9 WARRANTEE ENGINEERING FOR TASKS 1 THROUGH 9, A LUMP SUM PRICE WILL BE
a. monitor plant during commercial operation DEVELOPED AFTER THE COUNTY DEFINES THE SCOPE
b. coordinate warrantee repairs and adjustments OF THE EXPANSION.
C. assist county in evaluating and enforcing warrantees
d. conduct final acceptance tests and reports
SECTION THREE
CONTINUING CONSULTING SERVICES
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
TASK 1 MEETINGS KITH CONTRACTORS IN REGARD TO WARRANTEE COMPLIANCE
A* attend meetings with contractors and suppliers
b. assist county in presenting their claims to contractors
C. act as expert witness or spokesman
d. evaluate counter-offers by contractors
TASK 2 ALL OTHER SERVICES NOT SPECIFIED IN THE SCOPE OF WORK PER DIEM RATES
Approved by: Submitted by:
INDI VER COUNTY DSS ENGINEERVNG, INC.
BCj O COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
�1
iftrick B."Lfo
hairman r,
Date: 3-20-85
Approv to form and legal
suffic' Cy.
Bran d a g,
Attornev
Date: 3- 20 —9';—
-I
BOND RESOLUTION - $5,165,000 - SR 60 SEWERS
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 85-36 authorizing the issuance of not
exceeding $5,165,000 Improvement Bonds to finance
SR 60 sewage collection and treatment improvements.
RESOLUTION NO. 85-36
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT
EXCEEDING $5,165,000 IMPROVEMENT BONDS,
SERIES NO. 2, 'OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, TO FINANCE THE COST OF THE ACQUI-
SITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN SEWAGE
COLLECTION AND TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM OF THE.
COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE
HOLDERS THEREOF AND PLEDGING FOR THE PAY-
MENT THEREOF THE PROCEEDS FROM SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPACT FEES LEVIED AGAINST
PROPERTY SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY SUCH
IMPROVEMENTS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This resolu-
tion is adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 83-46 of the County, as
amended, applicable provisions of Chapter 170, Florida Statutes
(1983), and other applicable provisions of law.
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall have
the following meanings in this resolution unless the text other-
wise expressly requires:
A. "Act" shall mean, collectively, Ordinance No. 83-46
of the County, as amended, applicable provisions of Chapter 170,
Florida Statutes (1983), and other applicable provisions of law.
Resolution 85-36 in its entirety is on file in the Office
of the Clerk.
BOOK CO PAG. ?77
MAR 2, 0 1985
SETTLEMENT - SEMINOLE SHORES LITIGATION
BOOK CEJ FADE? 78
Attorney Brandenburg reviewed memo of Assistant County
Attorney Paull, as follows:
TO: DATE: FILE:
The Board of County
Commissioners
March 13, 1985
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING
SETTLEMENT OF SEMINOLE
SHORES LITIGATION
Chri opher J. Paull
FROWAssistant County Attorney REFERENCES:
BACKGROUND
For the past year this office has been litigating a contract for
installation of a water treatment plant and system within the old
Seminole Shores Subdivision. You will recall that the original
developers, Mr. and Mrs. Irving Silverman and Lowell Lohman, had
committed to installation of a reverse osmosis plant to service the
subdivision at the time of final plat approval, however they did not
do so and eventually sold the remaining lots together with assign-
ment of the obligation to install the plant to Mr. Allen W. McCain.
To date, McCain has not performed on the agreement and the subdivi-
sion presently exists without water, with the exception of two
developed lots which tied into the County line running down A -1-A.
A third owner has purchased capacity in this line but is unable to
obtain service to his lot in order to build a home because of the
failure and deterioration of the originally installed water lines.
Mr. McCain still owns a number of lots within the subdivision
and has agreed in principal to settle this matter in accordance with
the attached settlement agreement.
The settlement may be summarized as follows:
McCain admits liability with respect to the issues in the law-
suit and places in escrow with the County a sum of money equal to
125% of the cost of installing a new waterline to service the entire
subdivision, in accordance with City of Vero Beach specifications.
McCain would then let a contract to do the job and payment for the
work would be made from the escrow fund as it proceeds, with the
approval of the County. Completion date for the work is June 18,
1985, after which the County would then take ownership of any
remaining funds in order to complete the job. In the event there is
a deficiency in the escrow desposit, McCain will be confessing to
entry of a judgment by the court for the amount of the deficiency.
The objective of this litigation has been to provide a potable
water source to the platted lots and the installation of a new
waterline to tie into the City's A -1-A service is felt to be a more
economical and better long term solution, rather than installing the
reverse osmosis plant originally contemplated.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The proposed settlement meets with the approval of both the
County Administrator and the Utilities Director and it is recommend-
ed that the Board favorably accept this settlement offer, subject to
receipt of the executed settlement agreement and the establishment
of the required escrow account from the defendant, Mr. McCain.
93
� r i
Attorney Brandenburg believed Attorney Paull has reached a
good compromise and wished to compliment him on his handling of
this matter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
agreed to accept the settlement offer with
Mr. McCain as described, subject to receipt of
the executed settlement agreement and the estab-
lishment of the required escrow account, and
expressed their appreciation of Attorney Paull's
work in reaching this compromise.
(Copy of the above Agreement will be made a part of the Minu es
when fullyexecuted and received)..��+ �F4
SUBSTITUTION OF SECURITY FOR COMPLETION OF SEAGROVE WESTf�= 1
�a
The Board reviewed -memo of Attorney Paull, as follows: :
TOThe Board of County DATE:March 13, 1985 FILE:
Commissioners
Christopher J. Paull
Assistant County Attorney
FROM:
BACKGROUND
SUBJECT: SUBSTITUTION OF SECURITY
BY HARBOR FEDERAL SAVINGS
AND LOAN FOR COMPLETION OF
SEAGROVE WEST SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS
REFERENCES:
On February 21, 1985, the Board approved the assumption of a
Contract for Construction of Required Subdivision Improvements by
Harbor Federal Savings and Loan in place of the original developer,
Corporate Investment Company. To secure performance of the con-
tract, Harbor Federal had provided a Letter of Credit issued by Sun
Bank in the amount of $503,191.24. Mr. Donald E. Hughes, Vice -
President for Harbor Federal desires to substitute a different form
of -security at this time in order to save the fee for carrying the
Letter of Credit during the contract term. By the attached
94
MAR 2 0 1985
BOOK 0 PAGE ~l 9
BOOK 60 PAGE SO
proposal, Harbor Federal proposes to issue a check in the amount of
$503,191.24 to Indian River County, with the understanding that a
cash deposit and trust agreement would be executed by the parties
whereby the County would deposit the check in a non-interest bearing
account with Harbor Federal subject to the control of a trustee
appointed by the County Commission. The proposed cash deposit and
trust agreement is essentially identical to the cash deposit and
escrow agreement approved for use under the Subdivision Ordinance
and this office has no objection to approval of this alternate
security arrangement. This office would suggest, however, that Mr.
Jeff Barton, Director of Office of Management and Budget be appoint-
ed as the trustee, as is done on other similar County accounts,
rather than the County Attorney.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the Board favorably consider this
request, approve substitution of the proposed cash deposit and trust
agreement, naming the Director of Office of Management and Budget as
Trustee, and releasing the present Letter of Credit from Sun Bank.
This substitution would have no effect on the completion date for
the improvements nor would there be any lost revenue to the County.
Commissioner Bowman had a question about this transfer, and
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the original developer backed
out, the Bank took it over, and banks don't like to pay another
bank for a letter of credit. We, therefore, are working out an
arrangement to save them the amount on the irrevocable letter of
credit. Attorney Brandenburg believed that Commissioner Wodtke
has a question regarding interest and normally we don't receive
interest on a letter of credit.
Commissioner Bowman asked why'this calls for a cash deposit
and trust agreement rather than an escrow agreement, and OMB
Director Barton explained it is because a third party is handling
it.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that although he realizes the
owner is a bank, his question is are we going to allow an
individual to do this same thing. He felt this could open us up
to future problems. In addition, if we are going to deposit this
in a non-interest savings and loan account, how much is that
account insured for; there is $500,000 involved here.
Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that our ordinance provides
that an individual can do this also.
OMB Director Barton stated that we have done this on a
couple of the mining bonds, but the interest rate was negotiated
95
for the benefit of the person who put up the bond and they are
getting the interest direct. In this scenario, it was negotiated
to be zero interest. There is a question about insurance of the
account because of its size, and Mr. Barton felt they will have
to collateralize the amount over the insured part of the account.
We must have full coverage of the amount deposited because we are
receiving this and depositing it in our name.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to approve the substitution of
security by Harbor Federal Savings & Loan for comple-
tion of Seagrove West improvements, per the irrevocable
letter of Credit from Sun Bank for $503,191.24, with
the contingency that the County Attorney work out the
proper insurance coverage.
Attorney Brandenburg commented that under this arrangement
we probably have more protection than on other cases approved in
the past re irrevocable letters of credit since they are not
insured.
Commissioner Wodtke still did not feel this is a good thing
to get into and that it will bring up problems down the line.
Chairman Lyons asked what kind of time frame we are looking
at for completion of the required improvements, and it was felt
it may be a year.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4-1 with Commissioner
Wodtke voting in opposition.
(CASH DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT ON FILE IN CLERK'S
OFFICE)
W.
�
MAR 2 0 19.-6 BOOK
Ll
Sun Bank of St. Lucie County
February 18, 1985
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 1985-11
Amount: $503,191.24
Effective Date: February 18, 1985
Expiration Date: February 18, 1986
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
Vero Beach, F1. 32960
Gentlemen:
BOOK 60 FAGF �
We hereby authorize you to draw on us, by order of Indian River County Board
of County Commissioners and for the account of Harbor Federal Savings and
Loan Association, up to an aggregate amount of Five Hundred Three Thousand
One Hundred Ninety One and 24/100 U.S. Dollars ($503,191.24).
This Letter of Credit is provided to you as required under the Contract for
Required Improvements between Harbor Federal Savings and Loan Association and
Indian River County, relating to the Seagrove West Subdivision, which contract
is numbered No. SD 80-16-229.
It is hereby agreed by all parties hereto that the reference to Contract No.
SD 80-16-229.is for identification purposes only and such reference shall not
be constured in any manner to required Sun Bank of St. Lucie County to inquire
into its terms and conditions.
These funds will be available by your drafts at sight accompanied by a resolu-
tion of the Board of County Commissioners to the effect that Harbor Federal
Savings and Loan Association has defaulted under the terms of the aforementioned
contract for required improvements, and that the amount of the draft represents
the ariount required by the County to fulfill the performance of said contract
for the required improvements. Drafts presented to this office for payment
under this Letter of Credit must bear the clause "Drawn under Irrevocable Letter
of Credit No. 1985-11 of Sun Bank of St. Lucie County dated February 18, 1985".
The original Letter of Credit must also accompany any drawings and the date and
amount of each drawing must be endorsed on the reverse of the Letter of Credit
by an authorized representative of the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners and the endorsement guaranteed by the negotiating bank.
We engage with you that all drafts drawn under and in c m pliance with the
terms of this credit will be duly honored upon presentation of the required
documents by the drawee at this office on or before February 18, 1986.
Except so far as otherwise expressly stated, this documentary credit is
subject to the "Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits",
(1983 Revision) International Chamber of Commerce Publication 400.
Very
bun Bank of St. Lucie County
John K. Gates
Senior Vice President
M
M M M
MEETING WITH ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RE
FELLSMERE GRADE
Attorney Brandenburg reported that he flew up and had a talk
with individuals from St. Johns River Water Management District,
and he was surprised how receptive.they were to our desires.
They were under the impression they had communicated with the
County, but he felt their misconception was due to the fact that
they had been working with large property owners in the County
over the years. As a result, they have indicated that they would
like to come down here and have a full workshop, 7:00 P.M.,
Monday, May 13th, at which time they will have their staff pre-
sent their entire plans and explain how this will affect our
county. On the 14th and 15th, they will establish their
governing board's meeting here in Vero Beach so that anything
arising from the workshop can be presented to that board.
With regard to Fellsmere Grade Road, they seem amenable to
designing their plan so that right-of-way can be used in the
future as an east -west corridor for the county and have suggested
a meeting between their staff, the DOT, the Army Corps of
Engineers, etc., and other agencies to try to coordinate this.
The Attorney felt the County may have to acquire some consulting
services to help in that coordination process.
LAWSUIT - GARY ANTHONY
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that Mr. Anthony
sued the County after his request for rezoning at the corner of
43rd Ave. and N. Gifford Rd. from residential to commercial was
denied. This was presented to Judge Vocelle last week, and he
dismissed the suit on all counts with prejudice. The County
Attorney did not believe it will be appealed.
RYANWOOD SHOPPING CENTER
Attorney Brandenburg next informed the Board that Ryanwood
Shopping Center, which is located at the corner of 58th Avenue
98
FF
BOOK, 60 FAGS 2,84
(King's Highway) and SR 60, is one of those projects which fell
in the category of those that did not have wastewater service
available; so, in order to obtain a C.O., they had to supply a
Irrevocable Letter of Credit for $76,000 to bond off a wastewater
package plant. This letter of credit will expire on April 1st.
We have asked that this be replaced, but it has not been replaced
to date, the Attorney, therefore, requested that the Board direct
his office to inform them that their Letter of Credit will be
called on April 1st in the event that it is not replaced by that
time.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
directed the Attorney's office to take action
as set out above.
14TH STREET SEWER PROJECT
Administrator Wright reviewed the following letter written
to the U.S.1 Sewer Group by Engineer Bill Meager:
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
U.S. 1 Sewer Group
1500 U.S. 1
Vero Beach, Florida
Attn: Walt Wilke
Subject: Rax/Barnett Sewer Line Project
Ref: Right -of -Way Permit # 37-564
Dear Mr. Wilke:
Suncom Telephone: 424-1011
March 12, 1985
On March 8, 1985, an inspection was performed by the
County Engineering Department in the area -of the subject
project.
The following list has been made of items that have not
yet' been :completed:
99
M M M
1.
All swales are to be finish graded, and sod is to
be placed from the edge of road to the invert of
the swale. That portion from the invert of the swale
to the property.line must be seeded and mulched or
sodded, whichever you prefer.
2.
All driveway.aprons that have been removed must be
replaced in equal to or better condition.
3.
All sand -bag headwalls that have been damaged or
removed are to be replaced.
4.
The drainage swale along the north side of 14th
Street is to be dug out and re -graded to the inverts
of the existing driveway.culverts.
S.
An 8" PVC pipe that has.been installed in the 15th
Street right-of-way approximately 100' west from
the end of paving is to be removed and replaced with
a 15" ACCMP to meet'County Standards.
6.
All of the debris and excess fill that has been
pushed to the north and south sides of 15th Street
right of way is to be removed and dressed off.
7.
Sand -bags or sod are required to be placed around
the culvert crossing 6th Court at 15th Street.
8.
The area of construction west of the Senior Center
beyond the end ofpaving is to be restored with seed
and mulch or sod, whichever you prefer.
9.
A remittance'of $574.46 to the Indian River County
Commission to cover the cost of the repair work performed
by the County Road and Bridge Department at 13th Place.
and 6th Avenue..
Please be advised that.the above list of items must be
completed before the County.can accept this project for its
final approval. .>-
If-.you*have
any.further questions in this matter, please
..contact
me at 567-8000 Ext. 280..
Sincerely,
Bill Meager
Engineering Inspector
100
MAR 2 0 1985 Boor 60 i- F 285
MAR
2 0
1985
BOOK
The Administrator
informed the Board that the U.S.1 Sewer
Group posted a $25,000 bond to cover the cost of repairing the
road on 14th St. They have done the majority of the work, but
the bond expires tomorrow. The Administrator stated that he
would like to reduce the bond to $5,000 and give them another 30
days.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to reduce the bond posted by
the U.S.1 Sewer Group to $5,000 and allow them an
additional 30 days as recommended by the Adminis-
trator.
Commissioner Bird wished to be sure that $5,000 is suffici-
ent to cover the unfinished items, and Utilities Director Pinto
reported that he and Public Works Director Davis looked at the
project yesterday and believed it can be covered well within
$5,000.
Administrator Wright wished to recommend that the developer
be allowed to substitute a $5,000 bond, and in the event they
don't substitute it before the present bond expires, staff would
like to be authorized to pull down $5,000 out of the existing
bond.
Commissioner Scurlock and Bird agreed to amend their Motion
per the Administrator's recommendation.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the
Motion as amended. It was voted on and carried
unanimously.
BEACH PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Wodtke informed the Board that at the March
12th meeting of the Beach Preservation and Restoration Committee,
they came up with the following proposed objectives:
101
PROPOSED BEACH EROSION CONTROL & MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES
1) Protect and stabilize the beach/dune system from erosion.
2) Promote a recreational (sandy) beach.
3) Provide suggested methods of wave and flood protection to
upland public and private properties.
4) Provide a mechanism for active participation by the public
and local governments in approving financing of erosion
control projects.
5) Promote coastal and marine environment protection.
6) Provide for public access to beach areas.
7) Insure positive benefit/cost ratio for all erosion
control projects.
8) Implement a management plan that provides cost effective-
ness as well as equitable cost distribution.
9) Provide uniform regulations for coastal construction
projects.
10) Develop a public awareness program emphasizing the need for
coastal erosion control and management.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that they would like some
determination re meeting these goals and objectives and need more
guidance from the Commission re selecting proper consultants to
do the necessary study and research. He then proceeded to review
the ten objectives listed.
1) In regard to protecting and stablizing the beach/dune
system, Commissioner Wodtke reported that since the beach dune
system is what protects the overall barrier island, the committee
feels any study should cover from A -1-A to the ocean from inlet
to inlet, as well as off -shore shoals, reefs, etc.
2) The committee feels that it is important to maintain and
have a recreational sandy beach and wished to know if that is
acceptable as an objective.
Commissioner Scurlock stated he had no problem with any of
the objectives listed except the first one, but he would want to
include some language in there not to include armoring.
Commissioner Wodtke agreed this is a concern, but felt it is
hard to define "armoring," i.e., does "armoring" include a
protective device that is covered with sand?
102
MAR 2 0 1985 Bou60d.; `
LIAR 2 0 1995
BOOK ?0 P,gCE z�
Commissioner Bird did not feel there is any problem with any
of these as far as general objectives that the Commission and the
Committee would work towards. He concurred that he also did not
want jetties and rock revetments, but felt it does reach a point
when the buildings themselves may need some type of final
protection; he did want to be sure, however, if that point is
reached, that there is some protection of the beach so that there
is some sand.
George Gross, committee member, noted that objective number
two is a recreational sandy beach. He believed we need to make
sure we do have a recreational sandy beach and we certainly,
therefore, are not going to do that which is going to destroy it.
However, if some combination of factors should result in a
situation where there is nothing to do but to put in something
rigid and the beach cannot be retained, possibly a plan can be
worked out providing for an impact fee to be paid by the person
who puts in that revetment, the fee to be used to develop other
beaches.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the problem is that we will have
people who say they have to armor right now, and he emphasized
that it must be made plain that if�they are going to put in a
rock revetment, they also are going to have to reestablish the
beach, and this must be addressed right up front.
Commissioner Wodtke felt possibly the committee could add
another objective that might address the concern that armoring is
a last resort. He agreed that we don't want to have such things
as a vertical exposed seawall, but he could see some circum-
stances where that could be a protective device both public or
private with the addition of.a required amount of sand.
Commissioner Scurlock stated the thing that he would be most
concerned about that is where you have a situation such as the
City of Vero Beach where they are concerned about buildings
falling in the ocean, and they run in and put in a seawall from
end to end and without the sand, and then goodby beaches.
103
Commissioner Bowman felt if revetments are put in, you can
depend on having to pump in a few years.
Frank Zorc, interested citizen, suggested the Committee call
the DNR to define armoring, which he felt pretty well covers
every hard surface that goes on the beach. Mr. Zorc questioned
the make-up of the Beach Preservation and Restoration Committee,
how it is functioning, and who make the appointments, as he felt
it is too one-sided. It was his belief that when members of the
Committee went to Tallahassee to object to the Governor's
opposition to revetments, they were not representing everybody in
the county.
Commissioner Scurlock informed him that the County
Commission makes the appointments, and Commissioner Bowman
pointed out that the Committee includes two people from Harbor
Branch Foundation.
Mr. Zorc still felt it is totally one-sided, and was happy
that the State did not listen to the Committee's objections but
adopted their proposed guidelines restricting the use of
revetments, etc. He further noted that Mr. Gross has been to
Tallahassee and wished to know whom he represents and if he is
supported by a group which pays his expenses.
Mr. Gross stated that everywhere he goes, he always speaks
as an individual representing only himself; he has no financial
interests in any piece of property; and he pays his own expenses.
He felt if Mr. Zorc had more such questions, they could be
answered outside the Commission meeting.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if ACT pays Mr. Zorc's expenses,
and Mr. Zorc stated that they do not.
Mr. Zorc felt what the Committee eventually will conclude is
that the only solution is sand pumping. He commented that in a
sand pumping project approved in Miami, the 13 seafront property
owners are putting up $963,000 towards the renourishment and the
county is only putting up $108,000, or about 9-1.
104
He felt the
BOOK Co f' E 2r,9
MAR 9 0 1985
BOOK
60
FIFO
taxpayers
should have representation as to what they want
to
spend and did not believe they are in favor of pumping sand.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the committee meetings
are open to the public, and Mr. Zorc has only attended one.
Anyone who wants to be on the committee's agenda, can be, and
they always have a spot for public comment.
Commissioner Wodtke continued that he brought this back to
the Commission because he did not want to hire consultants until
the goals and objectives had been established, and he wanted the
Commission, the various municipalities, and the City of Vero
Beach to agree. The next question is where the money will come
from and he did not feel the Committee can make a decision on
that.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the objectives are good, but
would like language to clarify no armoring without the sand. He
believed the County Commission will have to make a decision about
a consultant as well as how we pay for this, but first we will
have to talk to the City and the property owners. He felt we are
on the right track and noted that once an overall plan is
devised, he felt we will have to go to the public for approval in
any event.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if a consultant is the next
step whether the Committee could come up with some suggestions re
scope of service, who is qualified, etc., and Commissioner Wodtke
noted that Environmental Planner Challacombe has been working
very hard on this.
REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING
Commissioner Scurlock reviewed the following summary:
105
W
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
March 19, 1985
1. Vero Isles Drive
Committee reconsidered the original report, dated March 1982,
as well as an updated report. Approved recommendations are:
(1) to maintain access through Vero Isles Drive between
commercial and residential areas due to negative impacts of
access onto SR 60, (2) enforce the speed limit, and (3) widen
SR 60 when Indian River Boulevard is extended.
2. Access to Gifford Park
Committee recommended to approve the Parks and Recreation
Committee's request to extend and pave 43rd Avenue between
45th and 49th Streets. (Funding and a schedule were not set
for this $40,000.00 project).
3. Tabled Projects for Future Consideration
a. Request to delete 49th Street from the Thoroughfare Plan;
b. Temporary closure of the pedestrian bridge on 20th Avenue
at 18th Street; and
C. North U.S. #1 Corridor Study
Commissioner Scurlock commented that 3 b. proposes a
temporary barricading of the pedestrian bridge to see just what
negative impact it does have, and he felt 3.c. could be quite
controversial as they are talking about closing a railroad
crossing by Scotty's.
DISCUSSION RE ADDITIONAL REVENUE FOR COUNTY PROGRAMS MANDATED BY
STATE
Chairman Lyons reviewed the following memo received from
Osceola County:
106
NEAR 0 1985 800x u f F 2191
BOOK GO `'AGE 292
C O U -- - N -- - T Y
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PHONE 305/847-1200
DATE: February 2.7, 1985
17 SOUTH VERNON AVENUE, ROO 1 �ISSIMMEE, FLORIDA 32741
V
TO: All Florida Counties
FROM: Osceola County Commission
riichael D. Bast, Chairman
SUBJ: Amendment for Additional Revenue for County Programs
The Legislature is constantly mandating new or expanded programs
to county government with no revenue to carry -out-these requirements.
Attached please find a copy of a resolution unanimously.adopted
by the Osceola County Board of Commissioners requesting an amendment
to Section 201.02, Florida Statutes, increasing the tax on deeds
and other instruments relating to realty or interests in realty
from forty-five cents (454.') to fifty cents (50�) *for each one
hundred dollars ($100.00) or fractional part of such transaction
and the additional five cents (5�) per one hundred dollars ($100.00)
would,be paid to the County from which received. That additional
revenue would be expended on capital outlay or other needs as
determined by the Board of County Commissioners.
We strongly urge you to consider the adoption of a similar resolution
and contact your legislative delegation to consider such amendment
during the 1985 Legislative Session.
Thank you for your consideration.
MDB/btm
Commissioner Scurlock believed we will have to pursue every
ultimate source of revenue available. The Board agreed, but felt
more information is needed.
REPORT ON NORTH COUNTY FIRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Commissioner Bowman informed the Board that the Wabasso Fire
Company now has been chartered, and they have their eye on the
south part of Douglas School for a station - about 3 acres in
that area. She continued that they have talked with Mr. Brown of
Florida Health Care Group, which presently has a long term lease
on the school, which she believed has been extended. The Wabasso
107
� � r
Fire Company wants to pursue this right now, and wants to know if
they should deal with this body directly.
It was pointed out that the North County Fire District would
be the entity who would be involved with this, not the Wabasso
Company as a separate group.
Commissioner Bowman agreed, but wished to know who talks to
whom, and Attorney Brandenburg felt the District should come to
the Commission about this.
Commissioner Bird noted that three acres is a lot of
property for a substation, and Chairman Lyons agreed.
It was emphasized that this property could be leased only to
the North County Fire District.
There being no further business, on Motion made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:15 o'clock P.M.
Attest:
'J" Z2)�b
Clerk
EM
MAR 9 0 1985 Boor Co LVA,I)F?9