HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/19/1985Wednesday, June 19, 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,
June 19, 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; L. S.
"Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Gary
Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners;
Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy
Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Assistant Pastor Larry Boan, Central Assembly of God,
gave the invocation, and Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Scurlock wished to add an item to the agenda
regarding a request for the Utility Department to do a study in
the Gifford Community re fire hydrants.
Commissioner Bowman asked that a discussion of a request for
an administrative hearing on the issuance of a DER permit to
River Run for a marina be added to the agenda, and Chairman Lyons
informed the Board that he had received a call about that item
and would like it to be scheduled for 11:45 A.M. time certain.
County Attorney Brandenburg requested that the two following
items be added to the agenda under his matters:
(1) Authorization for utility companies to enter Hobart Park to
survey the antenna site and also an indication that we will give
them easements where necessary.
(2) A Resolution authorizing the Polk County Housing Finance
Authority to operate within Indian River County.
Acr
JUN 19 1985 Boos. F,�
JUN
19
1995
BOCK
.`!
Fr4 Iref�9�
Commissioner Wodtke
informed the Board that he
would
like to
make a report on the Beach Committee's interviewing of
consultants.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
added the above described items to today's
agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bird requested that Item B be removed from the
Consent Agenda as he did not see any backup material on a pistol
permit for Edward Creed. He also felt it would be appropriate to
withdraw Item C - the Proclamation honoring Bamma Lawson on her
103rd birthday - as Mrs. Lawson passed away early this week
before her birthday. Chairman Lyons reported that a different
Proclamation has been prepared.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to remove Item E.
A. Budget Amendment - School Board Reimbursement
The Board reviewed the following memo from the OMB Director:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 12, 1985 FILE:
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton,
OMB Director
SUBJECT:
School Board Reimbursement
REFERENCES:
Due to the special election held for the Indian River County School Board, the
-Board of County Commissioners is to be reimbursed with credit going to the
following line items:
Account Number & Title -Increase
001-000-369-40.00 10,946
Reimbursement
001-103-519-11.13 8,281
Other Salaries & Wages
(Poll Workers)
001-103-519-36.74 2,665
Special.Election Expense
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment.
D. Closing of 14th Ave. between 2nd St. and 1st St. S.W. for 4th
of July Celebration
The Board reviewed memo and recommendation from the Public
Works Director, as follows:
BOOK 61r',�«2r°D,
'
JUN 19 1985
JUN 19 1995 BOOK F N F
252, -7
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: June 11, 1985 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY CMUSSIONERS
THROU(M:
Michael Wright,
County Administrator
SUBJECTRequest to Close 14th Avenue
between 2nd Street and 1st Street
S.W. for 4th of July Celebration
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES: Perry M. Pisani to Board
Public Works Directo of County Commissioners
dated June 5i-1985
Residents along 14th Avenue between 1st Street S.W. and 2nd Street have
requested permission to close a short section of 14th Avenue from 3:00 PM
to 9:30 PM for a July 4th Celebration. Staff has no objection to this
request, provided that:
1) Proper barricades as permitted•by the Traffic Engineering
Department are installed.
2) A block representative be listed as a contact person in charge of
the event in case the road needs to be opened.
3) Access to emergency vehicles be maintained.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the closing of 14th Ave. between 1st St. S.W and
2nd St. for a 4th of July celebration subject to
the conditions recommended by staff.
F. Release of Assessment Lien - (Jelemby)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Release of Assessment Lien on Lot 49, Kingswood
Estates owned by Carl and Mimmie Jelemby for one
ERU SR 60 water, and authorized the signature of
the Chairman.
4
State Road 60 Water Project
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
For and in consideration of the sum of $970.45
RECEIVED from CARL A. JELEMBY and MIMMIE K. JELEMBY, his wife,
in hand this day paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, (the "County") hereby releases
the property hereinafter described from a certain special
assessment lien recorded by the County in its Official Records,
Book 0691, Page 0298, for a special assessment in the amount of
$970.45, plus accrued interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per
annum, levied in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No.
83-46 of the County, as amended, and Resolution No. 84-47 of the
Board of County Commissioners of the County; and hereby declares
such special assessment lien fully satisfied. The property,
located in Indian River County, is more fully described --as
follows:
Lot 49 of KINGSWOOD ESTATES, according
to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat
Book 11, Page 86 of the public records
of Indian River County, Florida.
Executed by the
Chairman of the
Board of County
Commissioners
of Indian River
County, Florida,
and attested and
countersigned
by the Clerk of
such Board, all as
of this 19th day
of ' June
1985.
Attested and
countersigned:
BOARD OF UNTY COMMISSIONERS
•
INDIAN V R
COUNT FLORIDA
.
L_
c.ARTAhu,
Freda Wright,
Pierk
By
P
y s,
C airman
L_7JUN 191985
BOOK NA, ,:E k953
r JUN 19 1985
BOOK 1 1-tA-'--954 -7
G. Release of Assessment Lien - (Florida National Bank)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Release of Assessment Lien on property in Tract 8,
Section 5, T33S, R39E, Indian River Farms Co., owned
by Florida National Bank for one ERU SR 60 water, and
authorized the signature of the Chairman.
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
For and in consideration of the sum of $970.45
RECEIVED from FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK, in hand this day paid, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, (the "County") hereby releases the property hereinafter
described from a certain special assessment lien recorded by the
County in -its Official Records, Book 0691, Page 0298, for a special
assessment in the amount of $970.45, plus accrued interest at the
rate of ten percent (100) per annum, levied in accordance with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 83-46 of the County, as amended, and
Resolution No. 84-47 of the Board of County Commissioners of the
County; and hereby declares such special assessment lien fully
satisfied. The property, located in Indian River County, is more
fully described as follows:
The West 245 feet of the East 270 feet of Tract 8, in
Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, as on
Plat of Indian River Farms Company and recorded in
Plat Book 2, Page 25; public records of St. Lucie
_ County, Florida; LESS the North 899.71 feet thereof;
said land situated in Indian River County, Florida;
LESS and except right of way for State Highway 60 and
Kings Highway.
Executed by the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested and
countersigned by the Clerk of such Board, all as of this 19th day
June
1985.
Attested and countersigned : BOARD F OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
�j IND AN IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Freda Wright, i9lerk By o
6 L�atrick -B. Dp
s,
Chairman
B. Approval of Pistol Permit and Renewal of Permit
Commissioner Bird noted that staff now has located the
additional backup re issuance of a pistol permit to Edward Creed,
and the Board reviewed memos of the Administrator as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE. May 30, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners '
SUBJECT: pistol Permit - New
FROM: Michael REFERENCES:
County Administrator /
The following person has applied to the Clerk's Office for-
a new pistol permit:
Edward Merrill Creed
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in
order.
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 30, 1985 FILE:
the board of County Commissioners,
SUBJECT:pistol Permit - Renewal
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following named individual has applied to the Clerk's
Office for a pistol permit renewal:
James R. Rott
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in
order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the issuance of a permit to carry a
concealed firearm to Edward Merrill Creed and
approved a renewal permit for James R. Rott.
7
L�
;IUN 19 9�&3
BOOK
1 mu 255
JUN 19 1985
BOOK
C. Proclamation honoring Bamma Lawson
The Chairman read aloud the following Proclamation honoring
Mrs. Bamma Lawson and announced that Commissioner Wodtke has
volunteered to deliver the Proclamation to Mrs. Lawson's family.
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, June 16, 1985 marks the earthly death of MRS. BAMMA
LAWSON; and
WHEREAS, June 22, 1985 Would have marked the 103rd birthday
of MRS. BAMMA LAWSON; and
WHEREAS, MRS. BAMMA LAWSON moved from Hahira, Georgia in
1906 to the City of Sebastian; and
WHEREAS, MRS. BAMMA LAWSON devoted her life to the
enrichment of the Sebastian community; and
WHEREAS, MRS. BAMMA LAWSON began the first open library in
Sebastian, making her home and books available to the local
children:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OF: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, this 19th day of
June, 1985, that MRS. BAMMA LAWSON be honored in memory for her
devotion and contribution to the City of Sebastian, and to Indian
River County.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
8
s � �
E. Release of Easement - Sebastian Grove Est. (O'Neal, Jr.)
The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Davis:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 10, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keati44,&7CP
Planning & Development Director
RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST
BY THOMAS L. O'NEAL, JR.
SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 3,
4, 5, 11, AND 12, BLOCK 2
SEBASTIAN GROVE ESTATES
SUBDIVISION
FROM: Betty REFERENCES: RE/O'Neal
Code Enforcement Officer DIS:REMS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 19, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Thomas L. O'Neal, Jr. owner
of the subject property, for release of the side lot 3' ease-
ment of Lots 4, 5 and 12, Block 2, Sebastian Grove Estates;
together with the rear lot 5' easement of Lots 5 and 12 and 11,
Block 2, Sebastian Grove Estates and the westerly 45 feet of
the rear lot 5' easement of Lot 4, Block 2, Sebastian Grove
Estates; and the westerly 3' side lot easement of Lots 3 and
11, Block 2, Sebastian Grove Estates. These lots vary in size
from 60' in width to 110' in width with an average depth of
Approximately 85'. Mr. O'Neal's intention is to consolidate
the lots into two larger building sites meeting the criteria of
the M-1, zoning district for construction of warehouse
complexes on the sites. Further, the applicant has warranted
that if the Release of Easements is granted, he will grant a
10' wide easement along the easterly boundary of Lot 11,
continuing directly south through Lot 4, Block 2, Sebastian
Grove Estates for drainage of the subject property.
The current zoning classification is M-1, Restricted Industrial
District. The property is located within the Commercial
Industrial Node, just to the south of Sebastian City limits.
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolu-
tion, the release of the side lot 3' easement of Lots 4, 5 and
12, Block 2, Sebastian Grove Estates; together with the rear
9
BOOK 1 P,A F� 7
•
BOOK f'C;.95—S
lot 5' easement of Lots 5 and 12 and 11, Block 2, Sebastian
Grove Estates and the westerly 45 feet of the rear lot 5' ease-
ment of Lot 4, Block 2, Sebastian Grove Estates; and the
westerly 3' side lot easement of Lots 3 and 11, Block 2,
Sebastian Grove Estates; as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 85 of
the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the staff memo states that if
we do grant the release, the applicant will grant a 10' wide
drainage easement along the easterly boundary of Lot 11,
continuing directly south through Lot 4, Block 2, Sebastian Grove
Estates, and he would like the recommendation to read that we
will release the easements subject to the receiving of that 10'
drainage easement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 85-65, granting release of easements
in Block 2, Sebastian Grove Estates, as requested
by Thomas L. O'Neal, Jr., and as described above,
subject to the receiving of a 10' wide drainage
easement along the easterly boundary of Lot 11 and
south through Lot 4, Block 2, Sebastian Estates.
10
RESOLUTION NO. 85-65
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, have been requested to release the side
lot 3' easement of Lots 4, 5 and 12, Block 2, Sebastian Grove
Estates; together with the rear lot 5' easement of Lots 5 and 12
and 11, Block 2, Sebastian Grove Estates and the westerly 45 feet
of the rear lot 5' easement of Lot 4, Block 2, Sebastian Grove
Estates; and the westerly 3' side lot easement of Lots 3 and 11,
Block 2, Sebastian Grove Estates; as recorded in Plat Book 5,
Page 85 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the
Plat of Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision, for public utility
purposes, and will be released by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida subject to the
recording of a 10' wide easement along the easterly boundary of
Lot 11, continuing directly south through Lot 4, Block 2
Sebastian Grove Estates. 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 Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision, shall
be released, abandoned and vacated as follows:
The side lot 3' easement of Lots 4, 5 and 12, Block 2,
Sebastian Grove Estates; together with the rear lot 5'
easement of Lots 5 and 12 and 11, Block 2, Sebastian
Grove Estates and the westerly 45 feet of the rear lot
5' easement of Lot 4, Block 2, Sebastian Grove Estates;
and the westerly 3' side lot easement of Lots 3 and 11,
Block 2, Sebastian Grove Estates; as recorded.in Plat
Book 5, Page 85 of the Public Records 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.
ApprKed as Arm
and ea of nc4
8randenbur �
t�
Atq►"'g
ATTEST: '
1)", 1 '�
Freda Wright, gerk
JUN 19 19$,5
This 19th day of June 1985.
BOA6hairman
F UNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF AN IVE 0 Y,
FLO
BY:
>> trick B. on ,
BOOK PAGF��
JUN 19 1985
BOOK 61 F,��E 260 -7
PROCLAMATION - FIGHT DRUG ABUSE WEEK
Chairman Lyons read aloud the following Proclamation
proclaiming the week of June 24-30, 1985, as FIGHT DRUG ABUSE
WEEK in Indian River County and presented it to George Buono
urging that he continue the good work.
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, the citizens of Indian River County are subject to
become victims of drug abuse by adults and children; and
WHEREAS, the people of Indian River County are affected by
abuse of drugs; and
WHEREAS, serious problems such as burglaries, robberies and
other crimes against persons and property are a direct result of
drug abuse; and
WHEREAS, the illicit use of drugs ruin the lives of both
youths and adults; and _
WHEREAS, through knowledge and exposure to the harmful _
effects of drug abuse, education and law enforcement officials
can, through community awareness, reduce the use of illicit drugs
by youths and adults;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS of Indian River County, Florida, that the week of
JUNE 24 - 30, 1985 be observed as
FIGHT DRUG ABUSE WEEK
in Indian River County, and urge all citizens to give full
consideration to the past and future services of the FIGHT DRUG
ABUSE IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, INC. organization.
ATTEST:
3 o
A.
Freda Wright, Clerk
Dated: June 19, 1985
BOARD OF COU
INDI ER
�j
COMMISSIONERS
NTY, FLORIDA
atricx B. myons,
12
� � r
DISCUSSION RE FIRE HYDRANTS IN GIFFORD
Commissioner Scurlock noted that we have been implementing a
program throughout the South County with our water distribution
system to locate fire hydrants at appropriate distances, but the
Gifford community, being an older portion of the system, has not
met those same standards simply because of timing. Because of
recent fires in that area, Commissioner Scurlock requested that
the Utilities Department be authorized to look at a program to
implement appropriate fire hydrants on that utility system and
come back to the Board with a recommendation and estimated costs.
ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously directed
the Utilities Department to research the fire hydrant
situation in the Gifford community and bring a recom-
mendation back to the Board.
BID AWARD - WEST COUNTY REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT SITE WORK
The Board reviewed staff recommendation, as follows:
TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: JUNE.17, 1985
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT �, SUBJECT: WEST COUNTY REGIONAL
TREATMENT PLANT SITE WORK
BID AWARD RECOMMENDATION
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In response to a public notice, Indian River County received four bids for
the land clearing and site preparation work at the County's West Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant site. The bids were received on June 3, 1985,
and they are as follows: ==
Contractor
Collee Mechanical, Inc.
Dickerson,"Florida, Inc.
C.J. Langenfelder & Son, Inc.
Lanzo Construction Corp.
13
Bid
$479,243.50
$394,212.00
$409,096.00
$624,315.00
Boor,
o
ANALYSIS
I
BOOK 1 F',�F 262
The County's engineer of record for the West Regional Plant has reviewed
the bids and recommends (see Exhibit I) that the site work contract be
awarded to the lowest bidder, Dickerson Florida, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to award the West Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant site work contract to Dickerson Florida, Inc.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to award the bid for West
County Regional Treatment Plant site work to the
low bidder, Dickerson Florida, Inc., in the amount
of $394,212 and authorize the Utility Department
to proceed.
Commissioner Bird felt it is encouraging that we got a low
bid from a local firm that does a lot of work for us.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING TO C-2, EAST OF U.S.1 SOUTH OF 11TH Pb.
SE (HARE)
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:
14
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
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 weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a NO+i
in the matter of G%anQciCt ` a "PnS
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of30, al✓1C'
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as secgndtalass mpil matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for4' pterj'od of SoA& year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
;11�erpant; and 2friI ntfurther says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
,i',' torooration any oist:ia4elf,` rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publicati,bh irtithe said newspaper.
.�, • i , ''., I I 3vne 1 q8S
Swori-to and 4ubscribet befor e t s ay of A.D.
fy t r
� ,t •
(Susi ger)
�t��v3111ed'u�'»`
.ti
NOTICE — PUBUC HEARING
NOTICE of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County ordinance rezoning land from: C-1,
Commercial District,. to C-2, Heavy Commercial,
District The subject property Is presently owned
by Thomas E. and Deanne J. Hare and is located
east of South U.S. Highway of 1 and % mile
south of Oslo Aced (9th Street/C.R. 606). _
The sub act property Is described as: ,
Lots 1, , 3, 4, 17, 18 and 19 of Block B.
as shown on the plat entitled GRANADA
GARDENS, UNIT'1t61, according to the
Plat thereof filed in the office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Indian River
County Florida, in Plat Book 3, Page. 91.. � 0,;
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
Ifany decides toappealany 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 County Commissioners.
K Cy s-Patrl4k 8! )'off. r ?ass s a,s < ii
hairman; ,
iu.v 3n. June 11.1985 4
Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 4, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County. Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENC
• UBJECT: TOMMY HARE REQUEST TO
REZONE 1.47 ACRES FROM
Robert M. Xe&tiAqJAICP C-1, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
Plannning & Development Director TO C-2, HEAVY COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT
FROM: Richard M. Shearer, AICFREFERENCES: T. Hare RZ
Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of June 19, 1985. _
DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS
Tommy and Deanne Hare, the owners, are requesting to rezone
seven lots (encompassing approximately 1..47 acres) located
15 -,
H
JUN 1 1985 BOOK F'tu . 263
r-JUN19 195
BOOK. I F"rF 264
east of U.S. 1, south of 11th Street SE, and north of 11th
Place SE, from C-1, Commercial District, to C-2, Heavy Commer-
cial District.
The applicants would like to further develop the property for
boat sales which are permitted in the C-2 district but not in
the C-1 district.
On May 9, 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 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 Tommy's Transmission Shop, two
mobile homes, and outdoor storage of various automobiles and
boats. North of the subject property is a vacant parcel of
land and the Rural Sanitation Service facilities which are
zoned C-1. Further north, is a mobile home park zoned RMH-8,
Mobile Home Residential District (up to 8 units/acre). East of
the subject property are four mobile homes and a flea market
zoned C-1. South of the subject property are J.B.'s Takeout,
Satellite T.V. Systems, and Newcomb Decorating zoned C-1. West
of the subject property, across U.S. 1, is undeveloped land
zoned M-1, Restricted Industrial District.
FUTURE LAND USE PATTERN
The Comprehensive Plan generally designates the subject
property and the land north, east, and south of it as LD -2,
Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land west
of the subject property , across U.S. 1, is designated as part
of the U.S. 1 MXD, Mixed -Use Corridor (up to 6 units/acre).
In addition, there is an 80 acre commercial node at the inter-
section of U.S. 1 and Oslo Road. During the public hearings on
the Comprehensive Plan, it was generally agreed that the
southern boundary of the node would be the drainage ditch
lying south of and parallel to 12th Place SE which corresponds
to the C-1 zoning district boundary. This would include the
subject property and the land around it in the node.
Based on the existing use of
immediately adjacent to it,
be more appropriate for the
C-1 zoning.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
the subject property and the land
the C-2 zoning district seems to
subject property than the existing
The subject property has direct access to U.S. 1 (classified
as an arterial street on the thoroughfare plan) and to 11th
Street SE and 11th Place SE (classified as local streets). The
maximum development of the subject property under C-2 zoning
could attract up to 223 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT).
ENVIRONMENT
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
16
UTILITIES
County water is available for the subject property. County
wastewater facilities are not available.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
Commissioner Bowman noted that a letter of objection has
been received from Mr. and Mrs . Lionel Pelletier, and Planner
Shearer stated that their letter was read into the Minutes of the
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
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 85-56, rezoning 1.47 acres east of U.S.1
south of 11th St. SE to C-2 as requested by Tommy
Hare.
17
JUN 19 1985 BOOK 1 N,, ,65
r__
JUN 19 1985
BOOK S F'a.,,r.96
ORDINA14CE NO. 85-56
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:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 1.7, 18 and 19 of.Block B, as shown
on the plat entitled GRANADA GARDENS, UNIT #1,
according to the Plat thereof filed in the office
j_ of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River
.County, Florida, in. -Plat Book 3, Page 91.
Be changed from C-1, Commercial District, to C-2,
Heavy Commercial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth
and described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 19th day of June
.1985.
BOARD OF UNTY.COMMISSIONERS
OF IN AN IVER;'COUNTY
BY.
P TR K B. YO , HAIRMAN
UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR ANTENNA SITE - HOBART PARK
Attorney Brandenburg explained that Florida Power & Light
and Southern Bell Utilities need permission to enter Hobart Park
to do a survey to determine the easements necessary for the power
poles, cables, etc., for the antenna to be built at this loca-
tion. We also need to sign a Letter Agreement indicating that we
intend to grant the necessary easements, the exact location of
which will not be known until the survey can be done.
18
Commissioner Bird stressed that he would like to work with
them to be sure the easements don't interfere with any of our
future plans for the area, and Administrator Wright assured him
that staff will coordinate with them on this.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the Letter Agreement with Florida Power
and Light Company and Southern Bell Utilities
as recommended by the County Attorney and authorized
the signature of the Chairman.
LETTER AGREEMENT
HOBART PARR WITH RESPECT
TO LOCATION OF ANTENNA
This letter is written for the benefit of Florida
Power and Light Company and Southern Bell Utilities for the
purpose of inducing said companies to come upon certain INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY lands for the purpose of the installation of power
poles, cables and anchors to service an antenna to be built on
County property.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY hereby agrees to grant to
said UTILITIES easements for the purposes of the installation,
construction and maintenance of power poles, cables and anchors to
be placed within ten feet of either side of the location of said
power poles, cables and anchors, as such may be determined from
further investigations to occur on the site. Furthermore, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY gives said UTILITIES the full power and authority to
enter upon said lands for the purposes of surveying, determining
the location, and installing the power poles, cables and anchors
necessary for the antenna.
The location of such power poles, cables and anchors
shall first be reviewed by the Public Works Department.
Dated June 19, 1985 BOA O COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IN ANS IXER CQU,*TY, FLORIDA
�La rAral
ick B. yo s,
C Chairman
m a n
'Wit;ness
Attest:
Wit ss
Freda Wright, Clerk
19
JUN 19 198 �ocK
•
BOOK 1" ��. M
RESOLUTION - POLK COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY
Commissioner Scurlock explained that this is an item worked
on by the Finance Advisory Committee, acting as the Finance
Housing Authority. It is an opportunity to try to bring a little
benefit to the first time home buyer in Indian River County by
reducing the interest rate using the state allocation of
approximately two million dollars for first time home mortgages.
He continued that Attorney Brandenburg worked with the committee,
and we have been able to enter into a relationship with Polk
County. Since it is difficult for a small county to carry the
issuance costs, it makes more sense to work with an additional
county for a larger issue, and that is what is before us today.
He further noted that some of our local banks are very
interested.
Commissioner Bird felt we need to get word out to borrowers
to take advantage of this issue as he believed the banks will be
committed for certain amounts of money.
Commissioner Scurlock reported that he has notified lending
institutions and mortgage companies, but also felt we should put
an advertisement in the newspaper so all are aware and have an
equal opportunity.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 85-66 approving the operation of the
Housing Finance Authority of Polk County within
the territorial boundaries of Indian River County
and directed staff to place appropriate notice of
same in the local newspaper.
20
RESOLUTION NO. 85-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, APPROVING THE OPERATION OF THE
HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF POLK COUNTY,
FLORIDA, WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL BOUN-
DARIES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PURCHASING FROM LENDING INSTI-
TUTIONS LOW-INTEREST RATE MORTGAGE LOANS
TO MODERATE, MIDDLE AND LESSER INCOME
FAMILIES WITHIN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WITH
THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF HOUSING
FINANCE AUTHORITY OF POLK COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE
BONDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida (the "Governing Body"), by
Ordinance No. 79-17, enacted on June 6th , 19 � 79, created the
Housing Finance Authority of Indian River County, Florida
(the "Indian River Authority"), to alleviate a shortage of
housing and capital for investment in housing in Indian
River County, Florida (the "County"); and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body by a Resolution,
adopted on May 9th, 1919, found and declared that a need
existed for the Indian River Authority to function to al-
leviate a shortage of housing and capital for investment in
housing within the County; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 103A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, the amount of mortgage
subsidy bonds which may be issued by any county in any year
is limited to an allocation amount which has been esta-
blished by the State of Florida (the "Allocation Amount");
and
WHEREAS, Sections 159.603; and 159.604, Florida
Statutes, authorize the Governing Body as the governing
,body of the County to approve the operation of the Housing
Finance Authority of Polk County, Florida (the "Polk
Authority") within its territorial boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the Polk Authority has .'authorized and
validated a sufficient amount of its single family mortgage
revenue bonds to fund the 1985 Allocation Amounts of both
Polk County, Florida, and the County, as well as certain
other counties which may also participate in a joint single
,family mortgage revenue bond program; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River Authority has requested
that the Governing Body approve the operation of the Polk
Authority within the territorial boundaries of the County
with respect to a joint single family mortgage revenue bond
program with the Indian River Authority; and
WHEREAS, by combining the Allocation Amounts of the
Polk Authority, the Indian River Authority and other issuers
desiring to participate in the issue, the Polk Authority
will be able to make available mortgage loans at rates below
the rates otherwise possible if the Indian River Authority
attempted a separate issue;
21
JUN 19 1985 BOOK 61 PnUF269
rJUN 19 1985
BOOK 61 270
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. It is hereby found, determined and de-
clared that:
(a) Within the County, there is a shortage of
housing available at prices or rentals which many
persons and families can afford and a shortage of
capital for investment in such housing. Thi -s shor-
tagie constitutes a threat to the health, safety,
morals and welfare of the residents of the County,
deprives the County of - an adequate tax base, and
causes the County to make excessive expenditures
for crime prevention and control, public health,
welfare and safety, fire and accident protection
and other public services and facilities;
(b) Such shortage of capital and housing can-
not be relieved except through the encourgagement
of investment by private enterprise and the stimu-
lation of construction and rehabilitation of
housing through the use of public financing;
(c) Because of economies of scale,: -:time con-
siderations and other factors, it is advantageous
economically and otherwise and thus, there is a
need for the Polk Authority to operate within the
territorial boundaries of the County with respect
to the issuance of its 1985 Single Family: Mortgage
Revenue Bonds, and the use of a portion of the
proceeds thereof to acquire mortgage loans from
persons and families of moderate, middle or lesser
income within the County (the "Single Family
Mortgage Loan Program").
SECTION 2. The operation of the Polk Authority
within the territorial boundaries of the County in regard to
the Single Family Mortgage Loan Program is hereby authorized
and approved.
SECTION 3. The Governing Body, on behalf of the
County, hereby covenants and agrees not to authorize the is-
suance of any single family mortgage revenue bonds prior to
the issuance of the Housing Finance Authority of Polk
County, Florida, Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds as
contemplated herein.
#85-66
SECTION 4. This Resolution/shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida this 19th day
of June , 1985.
BOARD
Of Iry
(SEAL) /
ATTESTED:
40",
22
Clerk of the rcuit Court
M Wright -
NTY COMMISSIONERS,
ver.County, Florida
rman -K Patrfckj B. Lyons
R/W ACQUISITION LINDSEY ROAD - WELLFORD HARDEE
Public Works Director Davis reviewed his memo, as follows:
TO: DATE: FILE:
THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF June 10, 1985
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH: SUBJECT:
Michael Wright, Rightrof�aay Acquisition Along
County Administrator Lindsey Road - High Ridge
Mobile Park - Wellford Hardee,
Owner
FROM: REFERENCES: Wellford Hardee to Jim
James W. Davis, P.E. Davis dated May 24, 1985
I Public Works Director
19 . N ; 1m • \ ., SIO ONIM
The Public Works Division has acquired all necessary right-of-way for the
paving of Lindsey Road right-of-way except a 30' wide by 1100 ft parcel
along the south of High Ridge Mobile Park. Since October of 1983, the
staff has been coamunicating with the owner, Wellford Hardee, regarding
this acquisition.
In early 1985, staff met with Mr. Hardee and discussed the County
performing engineering and filling a low area on the High Ridge Property in
return for transfer of the right-of-way. Engineering was completed, and
Mr. and Mrs. Hardee and staff met to discuss the filling. At that time,
the owner stated that the Project may have additional negative impact on
the Mobile Park, and then requested additional services by the County (see
May 2, 1985 letter from Wellford E. Hardee to Jim Davis). The compensation
requested involved approximately $50,000 in improvements to the Mobile
Park.
Staff considered the owners request, and comcrnnicated with the Property
Appraisers office to determine a fair value for the parcel. A letter was
then sent on May 9, 1985, offering monetary ccopensation which equalled
twice the appraised value or $5,304.
In response, Mr. Hardee's May 24, 1985 letter stated that this offer was
not acceptable.
In subsequent conversations with Mr. Hardee, there appears to be room for
negotiation, however, it is staff's opinion that the owner will request
substantial water, sewer, and paving improvements.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are
1) Continue to negotiate to purchase the approximately .7576 acres;
2) Condemn the property to accommodated the public road.
Staff requests direction.
23
SOCK � F'".�F 271
JUN 19 1985 BOOK 61 F,�GE 272
Director Davis informed the Board that he has been
communicating with the owner of this park for about two years
now. What Mr. Hardee is asking is that the County provide water
and sewer to 24 lots, provide stub -outs, water mains, and pave
roads, which involves considerably more than the true value of
the property as reflected by the Property Appraiser.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that first and foremost,
there is no way the utility system can give free service or
extend service at no cost. He felt we should proceed with
condemnation.
Administrator Wright suggested that we make the same offer
to Mr. Hardee one more time before going to condemnation.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to authorize staff to once again
make the offer to Wellford Hardee, and if this effort
is unsuccessful to start condemnation procedures.
Commissioner Bird expressed some concern about comments in
Mr. Hardee's letter relating to losing his income stream and
having to move people.
Director Davis informed the Board that there is a difference
of opinion on this situation. The land the County is requesting
does not encroach any of the lots. Mr. Hardee's site plan shows
that the County has a 40' right-of-way when, in effect, we have a
30' right-of-way. In addition to the 401, Mr. Hardee's plan
shows a 20' buffer to the north. That equals 60' of space before
you get into his lots, and that is all we are requesting for
right-of-way, not anything included in his lots. The homes are
very close to the lot lines, but there will be about 20' from the
lot lines to the edge of the road.
Commissioner Bird believed that we have been more than
cooperative, and although he does not feel that Mr. Hardee has
been, he did not want to hand him a lawsuit on a silver platter.
24
Attorney Brandenburg explained the quick -taking procedure
whereby the County has an appraisal and then escrows the amount
of the appraisal with the Clerk of Court; a short hearing is
then held with a judge; the judge awards us the land and hands
the money over to the owner, leaving open the question of what
was just compensation either to be settled at a later date or go
on to a jury trial.
Commissioner Bird inquired whether Mr. Hardee was aware that
this matter was to be on the agenda this morning, and staff
confirmed that he was.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would prefer to authorize
the Attorney just to proceed to issue the Order of Taking and
wished to know if this was similar to our condemnation process on
County Road 512.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the quick -taking process
is different than the condemnation process followed on County
Road 512.
Commissioners Scurlock and Bowman agreed to reword their
Motion as follows:
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously author-
ized the County Attorney to issue the Order of
Taking for the right-of-way needed for Lindsey
Road from High Ridge Mobile Park owned by Wellford
Hardee.
Director Davis wished the Board to be aware that although
his memo stated that we have all the right-of-way needed for the
paving of Lindsey Road except the Hardee piece, actually there
are a few parcels east of the canal where we may have to clear up
title, but we have taken care of 950.
25
BOOK FA'ue r. i J
q�
r_jukii 9 1985:
BOOK
PUBLIC HEARING - SOUTHEAST WATER & SEWER CO. FRANCHISE
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 Vc, icC.
in the matter of_C71ui`itec?,.A Orkr/52ax- '
in the
'T in said newspaper in the issues of ;TO' le
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 dally 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 corporationany discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Swom to and subscribed beta r met s /.7 y of ��eAA 19
yyi as M
GLS
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL) i
The Board reviewed the following staff memo:
26
TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: JUNE 12, 1985
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTSUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO BE KNOWN
AS SOUTHEAST WATER &
SEWER CO. FOR VERO GROVE
WASTEWATER SERVICE
FROM: JOANNE L. REIFF
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Southeast Water and Sewer Co. ("Franchisee"), formerly known as North
Hutchinson. Island Water Co., will be providing wastewater collection and
treatment to Vero Grove condominium on South U.S. Highway 1, located south
.of Oslo Road on the east side of U.S. Highway #1, between U.S. Highway #1
and the Indian River.
Indian River County will supply water service to Franchisee. Franchisee
will construct such water lines as are necessary to a point determined by
Indian River County Utilities Department.
ANALYSIS
Franchisee has met the necessary requirements, and understands and agrees
to terms of franchise as attached hereto.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that this franchise resolution be granted.
Chairman Lyons referred to Section XVI and asked if we must
purchase in order to get the escrowed funds, or, in other words,
if we are going to take over the sewer plant, we have to buy the
sewer plant.
Commissioner Scurlock clarified that if we are going to
operate a county plant other than this, then we don't purchase
this plant. If, however, we are going to use this facility or
expand it, then we purchase it.
Utilities Director Pinto further explained that this
franchise is for wastewater; Vero Grove is going to be serviced
with county water. At the same time that they are planning to
build their wastewater plant, negotiation is on=going with - -
General Development for wastewater service. We are trying
diligently to make something happen to eliminate the need to
build another plant, but if the negotiations are not fruitful,
they will go on and be permitted and build this treatment plant.
27
BOOK
JUN 19 1985
JUN" 19 Ms BOOK 61 PAGE 276
Commissioner Bird wished to know who Southeast Water and
Sewer Co. is and who North Hutchinson Island Water Co. is as he
could not understand why anyone would use that name in this area.
Considerable discussion ensued wherein it was explained that
Southeast Water and Sewer Co. are the principles within this
franchise, and they are the developers of Vero Grove. The name,
North Hutchinson Island Water Company, has nothing to do with the
location. The developers had an existing utility company which
they established for a development on North Hutchinson Island.
They originally applied for this franchise in the name of that
company because they were going to do this project under the
umbrella of the existing corporation. Now they have modified
that and broken it out because the first project is completed.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we have a provision that says
if they put in a project in St. Lucie County, they should not run
that utility system out of this same company and co -mingle costs.
Director Pinto did not believe the Board would want to
prevent someone from utilizing their corporation, and he noted
that the makeup of this utility franchise requires that the rate
reflect the cost of this franchise and not anything else. For
instance, General Development Corp. is statewide, but the cost of
their operation here is specific to that rate structure. He
further noted that the financial statements and insurance
documents are part of the franchise.
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
Resolution 85-67 "SOUTHEAST WATER AND SEWER CO."
28
� � r
RESOLUTION NO.
85-67
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida;
CVrMTnM T
This Resolution shall be known and may be cited as the "SOUTHEAST
WATER AND SEWER CO.".
SECTION II
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this Resolution, the following terms, phrases,
words and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When
not inconsistent with the context, words using the present tense include
the future, words in the plural number include the singular and vice
versa. The word "shall" is always mandatory.
(a) "County" is Indian River County Utility Services Department, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida.
(b) "County Engineer" may be "County Administrator or County
Utilities Director".
(c) "Utility" is the Grantee of rights under this franchise, to wit:
SOUTHEAST WATER AND SEWER CO.
(d) "Board" is the Board of County Commissioners.
(e) "Person" is any person, firm, partnership, association,
corporation, company or organization of any kind.
(f) "Territory" means the area located in Indian River County,
Florida outside the corporate limits of any municipality as the same is
more particularly defined and described herein.
(g) "Water System" shall mean and include any real estate,
attachments, fixtures, impounded water, water mains, services, valves,
meters, wells, pipes, tanks, hydrants, pumps, reservoirs, systems,
facility or other property, real or personal, used or useful or having
the present capacity for future use in connection with the collection,
obtaining, treatment, supplying and distribution of water to the public
for human consumption, fire protection, irrigation, consumption by
residential, business -or industry, operation of sewage disposal plants
and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall embrace all
necessary appurtenances and equipment and shall include all property,
JUN i
L:
1 Book 1 F�,:-c217
F
.4 a ! 1985
BOOK 6 1 F'd F. 2 7 8
rights, easements, licenses and franchises relating to any such system
and deemed necessary or convenient for the operation thereof.
(h) "Wastewater System" shall mean and include any system, facility
or property used or useful or having the present capacity for the future
use in connection with the collection, treatment; purification or
_ disposal of wastewater effluent and residue for the public and without
limiting the generality of the foregoing definition shall embrace
treatment plants, pumping stations, intercepting sewers, pressure lines,
mains, laterals and all necessary appurtenances and equipment and shall
include all property rights, easements, and franchises relating to any
such system and deemed necessary or convenient for the operation thereof.
(i) "Service" means supplying to a user the distribution of water
and/or wastewater and the treatment thereof.
(j) "Hookup and/or Connection" is the connecting of potential user's
property to the water and/or wastewater system in order to utilize the
Utility's services.
SECTION III
GRANTING OF FRANCHISE
1. There is hereby granted by the County to the Utility the
non-exclusive franchise, right and privilege to erect, construct, operate
and maintain a wastewater system as herein defined within the described
territory as herein provided and for these purposes to operate and charge
for the use of a wastewater system 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, highway and other public places of the County; provided,
however, that the County reserves the right to permit the use of such
public places for and all other lawful purposes and subject always to the
paramount right of the public in and to such public places for a period
of fifteen (15) years.
2. Indian River County and franchisee recognize that franchisee
will not provide a water treatment plant on site, and franchisee has made
arrangements to obtain water from Indian River County and pay all costs
pursuant to the County Utility Ordinance and franchisee will be
responsible for the construction of distribution lines that will be
necessary to connect to Indian River County's water system at a point
determined by Indian River County Utilities Department.
3. Franchisee understands that the County is now considering the
extension of the County wastewater system to this franchise area. Should
the County extend the -County system, this shall be considered a temporary
wastewater franchise and upon the demand of the County, franchisee shall
discontinue its wastewater operation and immediately connect to the
2
M a M
County system and shall pay to the County all the sums due under the
County's standard schedule of rates and fees. The County shall not be
required but may at its option purchase the wastewater plant according to
Section XVIA.
4. The Utility shall supply the County with copies of its
Department of Environmental Regulation monthly operating reports and
trouble reports, if any.
5. The right is hereby reserved to the County to adopt, in
addition to the provisions herein contained and existing applicable
resolutions or laws, such additional regulations and increase fees and
charges as it shall find necessary in the exercise of the police power
and lawful authority vested in said County, provided that such
regulations shall be reasonable and not conflict with the rights herein
granted and not in conflict with the laws of the State of Florida. The
County shall have the right, but not the duty, to inspect all
construction or installation work performed.
6. The Utility shall, at all times during the life of this`
franchise, be subject to all lawful exercise of the police power and
regulatory authority of the County and to such regulation as the County
shall hereafter by resolution provide, provided however, such regulations
shall not be inconsistent with the terms hereof.
SECTION IV
TERRITORY/FRANCHISE AREA
The territory in which this franchise shall be applicable is all
that part of Indian River County, Florida, located within the following
described boundary lines, to wit:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION V
HOLD HARMLESS CLAUSE
It is expressly understood and agreed by and between the Utility and
the County that the Utility shall save the County and members of the
Board harmless from any loss sustained by the County on account of any
suit, judgment, execution, claim or demand whatsoever resulting from
negligence, or intentional wanton, willful and reckless acts on the part
of the Utility in the construction, operation or maintenance of the
wastewater system under the terms of this franchise. The parties agree
that in the construction of this section, the claim of any person
resulting from negligence on the part of the Utility maybe prosecuted _
directly by such person against the Utility. The County shall notify the
Utility promptly after presentation of any claim or demand.
- 3
sooK
JUN 19 1985 J�, &`'j
SECTION VI
BOOK F° F
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
1. The Utility shall maintain and operate its wastewater system
and render efficient service in accordance with the rules and regulations
as are or may be set forth by the Board from time to time, which shall
include but not be limited to "Construction Specification for Sewage
_ Treatment/Collection Facilities" promulgated by Indian River County
Utilities Department, July 1980, or as amended. The County shall require
the Utility to comply with the above standards. Prior to the issuance of
a construction permit, the Utility's project engineers shall certify to
the County that the design standards as set forth in said "Construction
Specifications" of Indian River Utilities Department, July, 1980, or as
amended, will be met by completion of the project as shown on the plans
submitted. The Utility shall cause said certification to be submitted to
the County along with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
applications and plans, for -County review. Submission to the County for
review may occur simultaneously with submission of said documents to the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Upon approval by the
County of the plant and system, a permit shall be issued to the Utility
for the construction thereof.
2. Upon the completion of all construction of the wastewater
systems, the project engi`heer for the Utility shall certify, under seal,
that they have been constructed substantially in accordance with the
plans and specifications previously approved and that they meet all of
the standards required by the County. The certification shall include
submission to the County of two sets of "as -built" (as defined by the
County) drawings, consisting of one set in reproducible mylar and one set
of regular blueline prints; and that the wastewater system meet all o.f
the standards required by the County, including pressure and leakage
tests, chlorination and bacteriological tests, infiltration and
exfiltration tests. Upon receipt of certification from the engineer, the
County will issue a letter acknowledging the construction of the
wastewater system. No service is to be provided to customers until such
time as the County issues a letter of acknowledgment. The issuance of
said letter shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Utility shall grant
necessary easements to the County without charge to connect the.
wastewater system to the County Master Wastewater System together with
such easements as are necessary to provide access to the wastewater
lines, where and if the County makes wastewater service available to the
project. The Utility shall pay a one thousand dollar ($1,000) franchise
application fee at the time of the submission of the franchise
application, and agrees to pay all other fees which may be applicable
during the operation of the system.
4
SECTION VII
CERTIFICATION OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
1. All of the facilities of the Utility shall be constructed in
accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Department
of Environmental Regulation of the State of Florida and Indian River
County Utilities Department. The manner of the manner of collection,
treatment and disposal of wastewater shall at all time be and remain not
inferior to the quality standards for public sewage collection and other
rules, regulations and standards now or hereafter adopted by the
Department of Environmental Regulation of the State of Florida, or other
governmental body having jurisdiction, including Indian River County.
2. The Utility shall supply the County with an annual report of
operations and maintenance certified by the Utility Engineer who must be
registered in the State of Florida.
SECTION VIII
UTILITY'S AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE NECESSARY PROCEDURES
1. The Utility shall have the authority to promulgate such rules,
regulations, terms and conditions covering the conduct of its business as
shall be reasonable necessary to enable the Utility to exercise its
rights and perform its obligations under this franchise and to issue an
uninterrupted service to each and'all of its consumers; provided,
however, that such rules, regulations, terms and conditions shall not be
in conflict with the provisions hereof or with the laws of the State of
Florida and all of the same shall be subject to the approval of the_
Board.
2. At all times herein where discretionary power is left with the
Board of County Commissioners, the Utility, before discretionary action
is taken by the Board of County Commissioners, can request said Board
that a group of arbitrators be appointed and such group shall consist of:
a) County Utilities Director
b) Utility Engineer
c) One person selected by the above two persons
and this Board of Arbitrators shall make recommendations to the Board of
County Commissioners, but such recommendations are not mandatory. Any
arbitration shall be in accordance with the Florida Arbitration Code.
3. Any final decision the arbitrators or Board may have with
respect to this franchise can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Indian
River County by either party. -
SECTION IX
DEDICATED EASEMENTS
All pipes, pumps, hydrants, mains, valves, blowoffs, sewer mains and
manholes and other fixtures laid or placed by the Utility for the
wastewater system shall be so located in the dedicated easements in the
JUN 9 9 1985
L�
5
BOOK
BOOK a pe`� P -7
JUN 19 1985
County after approval by the County Engineer so as not to obstruct or
interfere with other uses made of such public places already installed.
The Utility shall, whenever practicable, avoid interfering with the use
of any street, alley or other highway where the paving or surface of the
same would be disturbed. In case of any disturbance of county -owned
pavement, sidewalk, driveway or other surfacing, the Utility shall, at
its own cost and expense and in a manner approved by the County Engineer,
replace and restore all such surface so disturbed in as good condition as
before said work was commenced and shall maintain the restoration in an
approved condition for a period of one (1) year. In the event that any
time the County shall lawfully elect to alter or change the grade or to
relocate or widen or otherwise change any such County -owned right-of-way,
the Utility shall, upon reasonable notice by the County, remove, relay,
and relocate its fixtures at the Utility's expense. The Utility shall
not locate any of its facilities nor do any construction which would
create any obstructions or conditions which are or may become dangerous
to the traveling public. In the event any such public place under or
upon which the Utility shall have located its facilities shall be closed,
abandoned, vacated or discontinued, the Board may terminate such easement
or license of the Utility thereto; provided, however, in the event of
this termination of easement, the party requesting such termination shall
pay to the Utility in advance, its cost of removal and relocation of the
removed facilities in order to continue its service as theretofore
existing, or the County shall retain an easement not less than fifteen
(15) feet in width for the benefit of the Utility and its facilities.
SECTION X
SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
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.
SECTION XI
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
1. Subject to the provisions of Section XI (b) the Utility shall
furnish, supply, install and make available to any and all persons within
the franchise territory making demand therefor, its public wastewater
system, and shall provide such demanding person with its services and
facilities; provided, however, that the Board may, upon application of
the Utility extend time for providing such service to such demanding
person. In the event the Utility fails to provide its services and
facilities as a wastewater system to any area within the franchise
territory within the time specified by the Board, then in such .an event,
the County may, by resolution of the Board, limit, restrict and confine
the territory to that area then being serviced by wastewater by the
Utility or such greater area as the Board shall determine; and
6
- M
thereafter, the territory shall be only the area set forth, in the
resolution adopted by the Board.
2. The Utility shall not be required to furnish, supply, install
and make available its wastewater system to any person within the
franchise area unless the same may be done at such a cost to the Utility
as shall make the addition proposed financially feasible. Financially
feasible shall mean that a fair and reasonable rate of return shall be
realized by the Utility for all its services under this franchise; that
such rate of return on its rate base is under efficient and economical
management. The burden of showing that prospective service to the area
is not financially feasible shall be the burden of the Utility.
SECTION XII
TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP
The Utility or its shareholders shall not sell or transfer its
plants or systems or stock to another nor transfer any rights under this
franchise to another without the approval of the Board. No such sale or
transfer after such approval shall be effective until the vendee,
assignee or lessee has filed with the Board aH instrument in writing
reciting the fact of such transfer and accepting the terms.of this
franchise and agreeing to perform all of the conditions thereof. In any
event, this franchise shall not be transferable and assignable until
notice or request for transfer and assignment shall be given by the
Utility to the Board in writing accompanied by a.request from the
proposed transferee, which application shall contain information
concerning the financial status and other qualifications of the proposed
transferee and such other information as the Board shall require. A
public hearing may be held on such request, of which notice shall be
given by publication in a newspaper regularly published in the County at
least one time not more than one month or less than one week preceding
such hearing. Certified proof of publication of such notice shall be
filed with the Board. The Board shall act within ninety (90) days upon
such request. The consent by the Board to any assignment of this
franchise shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any sale or transfer by
the Utility or partners of the Utility taking place contrary to the terms
and conditions of this paragraph shall be considered by the Board to be a
default by the Utility under this franchise agreement and subject this
franchise to termination.
SECTION XIII
ADEQUATE CAPACITY -
Utility warrants adequate capacity to service existing or
anticipated customers and agrees not to provide wastewater service unless
adequate capacity is available at the time any new connection is made.
JUN 1 SP 1985 BOOK
r. .
'JUN �19 195
0
BOOK ,' �r 284
SECTION XIV
NOTICE OF ADJUSTMENT OF RATES
Upon the initial connection of any customer to the wastewater system
or.upon the reconnection of any new customer to the wastewater system,
the Utility shall furnish, by mail, a notice setting forth the rate
schedule then in effect and further containing the following statement:
"The wastewater rates set forth herein have been
authorized pursuant to Indian River County Wastewater Franchise
Resolution No. as amended. Said wastewater rates
are subject to adjustment pursuant to said Resolution upon
proper showing by the Utility. Said rates are also subject to
adjustment in the event the wastewater franchise is terminated
and Indian River County commences to furnish wastewater service
to your property."
SECTION XV
RATE SCHEDULE
1. The rates charged by the Utility for its service hereunder
shall at all times be compensatory and shall be fair and reasonable and
designed to meet all necessary costs of the service, including a fair
rate of return on the Utilities' investment under efficient and
economical management. The Utility agrees that the County has the
authority to enter into this Franchise Agreement and the regulation of
said Utility. Utility agrees that it shall be subject to all authority
now or hereafter possessed by the County or any other regulatory body
having competent jurisdiction to fix just, reasonable and compensatory .
rates. When this franchise takes effect, the Utility shall have
authority to charge and collect, but not to exceed, the schedule of rates
and rate of return approved by the Board of County Commissioners at a
public hearing. In setting said rates, the County shall be guided by the
standards set forth in Florida Statute 367.081 relating to the
establishment of rates and charges. In any event, the Utility shall
always be responsible for justifying its proposed rates and charges by
the submission of accounting and engineering data to the County Utilities
Director. Rates and charges may be amended, upon proper justification by
the Utility. Other provisions of this Ordinance deal with the mechanisms
of the setting of rates and charges.
2. The approved rates of any utility which is subject to an
increase or decrease in the rates that it is charged for electric power
or the amount of ad valorem taxes assessed against its property shall be
increased and decreased by the utility, without action by the Board, upon
verified notice to the Board 30 days prior to its implementation of the
increase or decrease that the rates charged by the supplier of the
electric power or the taxes imposed by the governmental body have
changed. The new rates authorized shall reflect the amount of the change
of the ad valorem taxes or rates imposed upon the utility by the
governmental agency, other utility or supplier of electric power.
8
Provisions of the subsection shall not prevent a utility from seeking
changes in rates pursuant to the provisions of subsection.
(a) If, within 24 months of an adjustment in the rates as
authorized by this subsection, the Board shall find that a utility did
thereby exceed the range of its last authorized rate of return, it may
order the utility to refund the difference to the rate payers. This
provision shall not be construed to require a bond or corporate
undertaking not otherwise required.
(b) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no
utility may adjust its rates under this subsection more than two times in
any 12 month period.
CONNECTION CHARGE/CAPACITY DEMAND FEE
Connection charges shall be established by public hearing prior to
system going into operation.
FRANCHISE FEE
1. The Utility hereby agrees to pay to the County a franchise fee
in the amount of six percent (6a) of the Utility's annual gross receipts,
(or the sum of five hundred dollars ($500), whichever is greater),
derived from monthly service charges to defray the cost of regulation and
for use of County rights-of-way and public places. The Utility shall pay
the 6% franchise fee quarterly. Said fee shall be shown as a separate
additional charge on utility bills.
2. The Utility shall supply the County with a copy of the
Utility's annual report and financial statements. All records and all
accounting of Utility shall be in accordance with the Uniform System of
Accounts of the National Association of Regulatory Utilities
Commissioners and general accepted accounting principles. Within ninety
(90) days after close of fiscal year, the Utility shall submit financial
statements prepared by a CPA and in accordance with general accepting
accounting standards and NARUC. Upon demand by the Board the Utility
will submit audited financial statements certified by a CPA. Also, a
letter from a CPA certifying that the six percent (60) franchise fee and
the two and one-half percent (2-1/2%) renewal and replacement account has
been collected and disbursed in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement.
SECTION XVI
ESCROW CHARGES
1. The Utility agrees to pay a fee in the amount of the currently
imposed impact fee for each unit in effect at the time of the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy, as a contribution in aid of construction
charge for future connection to County wastewater collection systems
2. The County will establish separate interest bearing passbook
for the wastewater system and will deposit all escrow charges paid for
9
SUN 19 1985BOOK 04
r ;,,,r
BOOK 61 F''.,F 286
any and all connections in this franchise. The fees referenced in this
section are subject to the escalation by the County.
3. Throughout the term of this franchise, the Utility shall,be
entitled to any and all interest which shall be paid annually on or
before September 30th of each year to the Utility. The Utility shall be
entitled to an accounting of the interest bearing account on
September 30th of each year.
4. Should the County at any time provide a wastewater collection
system and furnish wastewater services to individual customers within the
franchise territory, the sums of money remaining in said account
consisting of impact fees shall become the absolute property of the
County and the Utility shall have no rights thereto.
a) The County shall have the right to purchase the
Utility's wastewater plant at Utility's original construction cost, land
cost, plus costs associated with capital additions and expansions to the
system less three and one-half percent (3-1/2%) depreciation per year.
Depreciation on the system shall be calculated to start at the time the
wastewater treatment plant is issued a permit for operation. Upon
acquisition of the wastewater plant and appurtenant real estate, the
County would then own the entire wastewater system and would terminate
this franchise and provide wastewater utility service to the franchise
territory. All accumulated escrow fees would vest in the County.
b) In the event of an acquisition by the County, or the
utilization of the County's own plants, the County shall receive the
wastewater collection system free of cost and in good repair, wear and
tear excepted. The Utility agrees to grant to the County any easements
necessary to connect the wastewater system to the County's wastewater
systems without charge. The Utility shall pay all escrowed impact fees
and any deficiencies upon acquisition or upon connection to County's own
plants.
c) If in the event the County determines that it will
not exercise its option to purchase the system under item #4(a) within
seven (7) -years, escrowed impact fees shall become part of the renewal
and replacement fund and may be used as described within Section XVII,
RENEWAL & REPLACEMENT ACCOUNT. If at any time thereafter the County
takes possession or makes use of the utility systems, all escrowed funds
collected will vest to the County and those funds which have been
expended or an equal amount would be deducted from any purchase price.
SECTION XVII
RENEWAL & REPLACEMENT ACCOUNT
Two and one half percent (2-1/2%) of the gross receipts of the
Utility shall be placed in an interest bearing renewal and replacement
account for purposes of renewal and/or replacement of the capital assets
of the wastewater system of the Utility. Additionally, the Utility shall.
initially fund said account with two thousand dollars ($2,000) which will
also be reserved for capital maintenance items. Interest shall
10
accumulate in said account until the account reaches ten thousand dollars
($10,000); thereafter interest shall be paid to the Utility annually.
Said funds shall be used as a sinking fund and applied only for renewal
and/or replacement of the wastewater system by the Utility as the need
arises; the percentage required to be placed in the renewal and
replacement account may be amended after review by the County as
necessary to maintain a sufficient account balance taking into account
the general condition of the system. The County is granted the right to
make necessary repairs using said funds in the event of default on the
part of the Utility in maintaining the quality standards established
herein. In the event the County exercises its rights under (2) or (3)
above, said fund shall vest in the County. In the event that the County
purchases the corporation's utility system pursuant to the provisions of
this franchise as stated above, then any funds in said renewal and
replacement account shall vest in the County.
SECTION XVIII
TMCTTV AMOV
1. The Utility shall at all times maintain public liability and
property damage insurance in such amounts as set forth in, to wit:
Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
2. The Utility shall cause the County to be duly notified by the
insurer in the event of any modifications or deletions of the insurance
as set forth in said Exhibit "B". Said amounts shall be adjusted by the
Utility, as shall be required from time to time by the Board in
accordance with good business practices as determined by safe business
standards as established by the Board for the protection of the County
and the general public and for any liability which may result from any
action of the Utility.
SECTION XIX
CONSUMER COMPLAINTS
If any written complaint is filed with the Board by any persons
serviced by the Utility under this franchise, the Board shall first
determine whether reasonable cause exists with respect to said complaint.
If the Board finds reasonable cause does exist, the Board shall so notify
the Utility and request the Utility to satisfy or remedy such complaint.
If the Utility fails, within a reasonable time, to satisfy or remedy such.
complaint or objection, the Board may review same according to the
provisions hereof. If the Board enters its order pursuant to such
hearing and the Utility feels it is aggrieved by such order, the Utility
may seek review of the Board's action by petition for Writ of Certiorari
filed in the Circuit Court of the County; otherwise the Utility shall
promptly comply with the order of the Board.
11 BOOK F'APF
JUN 19 1985 287
� J
JEAN •19 1985
BOOK 6,1-
SECTION XX
CHANGE IN RATE SCHEDULE
Should the Utility desire to establish rates and charges or should
the Utility desire to increase any charges heretofore established and
approved by the Board, then the Utility shall notify the Board in
writing, setting forth the schedule of rates and charges which it
proposes. The Utility shall pay any rate structure review fee as the
County may then have in effect and shall furnish the County with all
information requested by the County that is pertinent to the proposed new
rate schedule. A,public hearing shall then be held on such request, of
which notice shall be given by publication in a newspaper regularly
published in said County at least one time not more than one month or
less than one week preceding such hearing. Certified proof of
publication of such notice shall be filed with the Board. Said hearing
may thereafter be continued for a reasonable time as determined by the
Board. If the Board enters an order pursuant to such hearing and the
Utility feels aggrieved by such order, then Utility may seek review of
the Board's action by filing a petition for Writ of Certiorari in the
Circuit Court of the County. The Board shall act on the rate request
within ninety (90) days following the public hearing.
SECTION XXI
CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
Prior to the Utility placing any of its facilities in any of the
public places as herein authorized, the Utility shall make application to
and obtain any required permits from the County authorizing said
construction in the same manner as permits are authorized in the County
for the use of the public roads as shall now or hereafter be established
by regulations of the County. The County shall have the right when
special circumstances exist to determine the time during which such
construction shall be done.
SECTION XXII
DEFAULT OF FRANCHISE
If the Utility fails or refuses to promptly faithfully keep, perform
and abide by each and all of the terms and conditions of this franchise,
then the Board shall give the Utility written notice of such deficiencies
or defaults and a reasonable time within which the Utility shall remedy
the same, which notice shall specify the deficiency or default. If the
Utility fails to remedy such deficiency or default within a reasonable
time, the Board may thereafter schedule a hearing concerning the same
with reasonable notice thereof to the Utility, and after such hearing at
which all interested parties shall be heard, the Board may levy
liquidated damages of no less than fifty dollars ($50) per day that said
deficiency or default exists from the date of said hearing held by the
Board; and the Board may further limit or restrict this franchise or
franchise territory or may terminate and cancel the same in whole or in
12
part if proper reasons thereby are found by the Board.
If the Board
enters an order pursuant to such hearing and the Utility feels aggrieved
by any such order, the Utility may seek review of the Board's action by
filing a petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court of the
County.
SECTION XXIII
RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS
Nothing in this franchise shall prevent landowners from exercising
their vested rights or privileges as set forth and contained in any
license issued to any utility heretofore granted by the Board pursuant to
Section 125.42, Florida Statutes.
SECTION XXIV
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
It is specifically agreed by and between the parties hereto that
this franchise shall be considered a franchise agreement between the
Utility and the County and as such a contractural instrument recognized
under the Statutes and Laws of the State of Florida. This franchise
agreement is not intended to create rights or actions running in favor of
third parties, except as herein specifically provided.
SECTION XXV
NON-PERFORMANCE
Provisions herein to the contrary notwithstanding, the Utility shall
not be liable for the non-performance or delay in performance of any of
its obligations undertaken pursuant to the terms of this franchise where
said failure or delay is due to causes beyond the Utility's control,
including, without limitation, causes such as "Acts of God", unavoidable
casualties, labor disputes, etc.
SECTION XXVI
EXECUTION OF FRANCHISE
If any word, sections, clause or part of this resolution is held
invalid, such portion shall be deemed a separate and independent part and
the same shall not invalidate the remainder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida has caused this franchise to be executed in the
name of the County of Indian River by the Chairman.of the Board of County
Commissioners and its seal to be affixed and attested by its Clerk, all
13 BOOK F�w,
17JON19 185
BOOK C,I
pursuant to the resolution of the Board of County Commissioners adopted
on the 19th day of June , 1985.
Signed, sealed and delivered COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA
in the presence of:
&7_7
�Lt t L BY
ATRICK B. -'LYONS,
Chairman, Board of Unty
Commissioners
Attest:��.
Clerk
f
o m
end a Sutf' n
ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE Qar M. Brandenburg
my Attor
SOUTHEAST WATER AND SEWER CO., does hereby accept the foregoing
franchise, and for their successors and assigns does hereby covenant and
agree to comply with and abide by all of the terms, conditions and
provisions therein set forth and contained.
DATED at Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, this Lard day
of May , 1985.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
By
AND SEWER CO.
Jorg Dorta-Duque
AS• Sr. Executive Vice -President
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly
authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements,
personally appeared Jorge Dorta-Duque, Sr. Exec. Vice- xam President of
Southeast Water & Sewer Co. , a Florida corporation, and he
14
M e r
acknowledged before me that he executed the foregoing instrument for the
uses and purposes therein expressed.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the State and County aforesaid
this Lard day of May , 1985.
L- JUN 19 1985
My Commission expires: 5//�/
15
61
BOOK '�r 2
r-, �
U 1 85 1 B00 61PAGE 2,P
-- CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENG.INFAMRS AND LAND S1)'RN EYOItS
MARVIN E CARTER, R S. 1708 ?1�1 :TFCFT
I.Af1A IU rN AI�I ., R 1 '.
Id Afl 1 1111 tll ll, 1'l
Vl HU I31 A4.11, Fl J2'I64
111'. SA7 4141
August 23, 1983
VERO GROVE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ATTACHMENT "All
Government Lot 2, in Section 29, containing 26.26 acres, together with parcel
of submerged land adjacent to said Government Lot 2, as described in Official
Record Book 193 at Page 340, containing 7 acres, more or less and,
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30,
lying East of U.S. Highway #1 and containing 13.66 acres, the Northwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and the Northeast Quarter of,the
Southeast Quarter of Section 30, containing 80 acres, more or less.
All being in Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida,
and comprising a total area of 126.92 acres, more or less.
As recorded in Official Record Book 334 - page 384.
EXHIBIT "All
- M M
)` �' ,'� 1
PLY i 1
f
O s $ �
S rooAWN �
llly =s
".. 1/ N PL
tt,
1/r- � ` loo SAACN
tlt I VISO "ACM
<G
�Iz
LN
K f.lS.
Niuscus
1 `Cil
AMMAN -
1
• � Gr
STN PL U
STH LN v
l�
sr
LN
UAJA-0 $10
*vuP w
STS_" :'1 jllf(lfino0f ..._. ' !E CA S MlY aoL0Ls}'
_ cAtntwr \ `
yD oLvo r1i
I NMiBOR
PL
cgrtLr;
Jt / `� y, •��', r lig' \ L J,N -
1.+
n f r ja.•. ,NC I D/
ST IT
y 1 �1 I •. lUa '.� ` `
LT
1 14
ft LLA
P — _ 7.1/r•r� 'r]� t.• •.ten:. ,tom—j11'v�
MA
X
Ir
w / \
jrA tOf +'
� YANO •\
ix. 77 cl
ARI N 3 • , y
c• i E
P 1 "� •
y s 1 co
� '�� ° :''"� � ►' .fi`1r
u
rTN�
i sTsW. < 1
OSLO a -
_ _ ♦L'
O r,• t L
1 1 • s
71ST PL S.W.
UN 19 19
ST S.Yf,]7RD tT S.W. ._... _.
t i �
=�JF�bRM4Tow1 '6w-amK 5►.ow/N6 .�i/df.1^GCNT /qco,-eogp-mEb
wITN 1 Al ,o0 Fes'. �GRO C.aovE �'-o�vt�OMIN IVMS
S
WI
PRODUCER
Y R I
844 BiscayneBlvd
A M map Florida 33132
squamastFns, The
500 If.W. 165 St
bd aani-, FImida 33169
,J r'�% T •, xf p. a .. '4.. .�
,1 ISSUE DATE (S1M/DDNY)
�
3%7/85
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS
i !,NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICA-IE DOES NOT AMEND,
I` �XTENO OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
} COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
CO-APAN`
LETTER Old
Ol:d P4mtli' C lm=anm CmVmy
COMPANJ
LETTERY Zl:f3djch Mwara 1Oe omgmy
COMPANY
LETTER C
COMPANY
LETTER
COMPANY
LE7rER
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES CF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED A3OVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED.
'OT:VITHSTANDIfIG
ANY REGUIREMENT, TZ.IM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT CR OTHER DO';U:,LENT WITH RE SP^CT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY �
BE ISSUED 09 MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SLI13JECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
TONS CF SUCH POLICIES. EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDI-
COI
LTRs TYPE OF INSURANCE
POLICY NUMBER
F010 e°FE'CT'A 'JiICY EXP!CtT1ON
LIABILITY LIMITS IN THOUSANDS
1
DATE t.'.'40WfY) DATE !0Af1;0D,,YY1
I
I
`'Cc
`
c'
c
CCL'R 4_`:C_
AGGREGATE
GENERAL LIABILITY
'
' C:Yta✓REk_
A X =Ns�;E FORM
Z 43443.
i/�/$5
18/86
SODILY
I I•:URY
I s
x P=PAISE3:0PERAT10?S
I
I
I!!JOERGRQti!JD
I
PPCPERTY
12
E`;PLUSION 3 COLLAPSE HAZARD
DAMAGE
y
:
?aQOUCTa•CQ5.1?LET.EM. O?ERA7IChS
I
I
--,
L , 'CONTRACTUAL.rRAcruAL
!
131 PD
COMBINED
540
500
$ .`MEPEIMENT CONTRACTORSS
S
I
,�[ �RQAD FCR!d PROPER'Y O:�d1AtiE
_
_X ?ERSOYAL NBURY
PERSONAL INJURY
s
540
p
A L1C �2L.
Y
9UTOMOBILE LIABILITY j
:Y AIJ70
I
^}Bar_%DC7
I
I S
I ,LL C'N%FO AUTOS .. - ?Ass.: I
ALL O1ti5ED AUTOS G•:,';=R TPA%)
•:l. PnSy I
{r�E�A.�4.:.•rr
y•
c: i1ERED AUTOS
It
I
NON-OVO.ED AUTOS
IPROPERTY
(
DAMAGE
t GARAGE LIABiLlTY
---i
'• I
COMBINED
I
S I
EXCESS LIABILITY
B jMBRELLA FOPIA
;< OTHER TH4'4 Ur:4RFII m�!a
WORKERS' COMPENSATICN
AND
EMPLCYFRS' LIAOILITY
�vincn
I
CU 309 51 96 01 IW85
IA/86 ECOMSNEDIJ5,000, I Sr(X0�
E:$k.
STATUTCRY
I I S ._ACH a:CSE"r) `,•.1Ra
I I S='•SE:SF-POUCY',1;111)
S':1-
E
-
I
DE�Ca.oT�r,.'J CP C?EP.aT,•_:v�.::•::.'^"',z,.•.,,:;.'[.'�.'.::-�,,; 1" � --' --•---�d�-
A&Utkmal. named:Southeast LTater &Seer c� BOOK
A�3d,itiona7. Insured -
Wig t4 P
att Wco
River Comty, EXHIBIT ' ► B' I
�.....�:.., PS
'-,��u.���� �-sar..•i.:a•cc:L.�,`£.a.� -1 YF a .:� •..i' -r. Y. `t,4."+n'r` .�p'T1:epy:�se. vs..q+�r..+�
�: i4...:�::s.:-.:.,�.rrit::b•i. i��.s'•�id+•'1u . eJ.'rm : S ;. R.: al.:.. � ,.
•ds..riicrJ -.:mss%>1a�+1r..•urt-i•..;�3'1�- .3-t_ 4%^L, :4tt3'i�:'1.•.��ri �-' t:•.-�`��+
C�iael O�Na;m SHOULD ANY CF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFCRE THE EX-
P!„ATIC:d GATE THEREOF, TdE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO
11 Cardin_ al Drive MAIL 10 DAYS WRIT-E,y NOTICE O THE CERWICATE HOLDER NAME EX-
Michael
THE
�%Lb' 1 Florida 32963 L`'?' "" -A U,.iE TO ! : • UCH NO" c' SHALL/t nOLIGATION IgB1UTy
JUN 1 ® f CF ANY X1i;D !:?CtJ TI,
C: _iPANY _ _ Z REr —_ dF•-
�� � AUTi".Ci:ZEA _
��` - '�.'`"`p�p'*•�.F-e'"'••ti`t �yrs..'�i,.�•`$�?,' E. Ee .i .x:xa �.:1' ...:uiF� � �a �.=�„ti �•'%`ii�'l'gt�.'lE°'"2�n.Tji. td i'�.,1•. ,o ,•r
"-•+-�C� � _ \..0 -A•'.]C►Il•1LGtTN'�C�y-�i1•�.'r31�`.,s�':�.�:,. .;.���_...`,d���..�.. �a.:«� ..� ._ .,r..a.:�>.s x+c`a�wc� •�"P4i�.'.*`�� ...
JUN 19 1985
BOOK 61 FACE 2,96
REPORT ON MEETING OF BEACH PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
Commissioner Wodtke informed the Board that the Beach
Committee met yesterday for seven hours and reviewed five
applicants for consultants to do the Beach Management Plan. The
Committee would like to pursue and negotiate with one of the
applicants and have a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, kind of an application out
of those five. He noted that the top applicant chosen was Cubit
Engineering which has an office in West Palm Beach and a very
large home base in South Carolina. They were basically the only
company that.had done such a complete management plan, and, in
fact, they did one for the entire coast of New Jersey.
Commissioner Wodtke then discussed the presentations made by
the various firms and commented on the great range of dollars the
Committee was presented with - from the high 40,000's to 120,000.
Cubit's estimate was between $80,000 to $120,000 to be done
within 8 months. Some presented 5 months total framework. The
Committee made a selection based both on a written test and
verbal presentation as to the firm most qualified, but did not
zero in on cost. All of the five,presentations were excellent.
Commissioner Wodtke stressed that the scope of work needs to be
fine tuned, and we need to think about funding.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he would like to authorize
the Committee and staff to begin negotiations and would like to
consider payment of the cost split over not only this budget year
but also our next budget year.
Chairman Lyons commented that he would like to have the con-
sultant make a presentation for the Board and the public before
we spend money as this is a major expenditure.
Administrator Wright asked if the presentation should be
before or after staff negotiates, and Commissioner Scurlock felt
it should be after negotiations are completed. If negotiations
with the first firm named are not successful, then negotiations
would be commenced with the next, etc.
30
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously author-
ized Commissioner Wodtke, the Beach Preservation
Committee, and staff to negotiate with the consulting
firms on a 1-2-3 priority; giving consideration to
payment possibly split over this budget year and the
next; and bring the top firm to the Commission for a
presentation.
COUNTY OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT_ PLAN
The hour of 9:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
r
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath No
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published River
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being tteeraesl
a
in the matter of $ U 6 � ►,C Flear i n$
In the ICourt, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second C;assimail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a,pe((rod lof one year, next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tise ri entl 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 adver-
tisernent for publication in "the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed h0liore this day of A. D.
(B a an ger)
r
31
JUN 19 1985
-Pian
tf any person de,
_made on the aboVl
record of the pros
poses, he/she may
tim record of the pr,
eludes testimony ar
appeal is based.
Indian River,
oard of County Wmmissloners ;ta
By: -s -Patrick B..Lyons,.Chairmane ;
�.
matter,, fie/She will needs
BOOK 61 P° jE 297
V_
'JUN 19 1995
BOOK 61 F�,, C,998
Planning Director Keating made the following staff
presentation:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 10, 1985 FILE:
of the Board
of County Commissioners
OF
SUBJECT: THEUEST INDIANRRIVEROVAL COUNTY
OVERALL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AIAFERENCES:
Planning & Development Director
It is requested that the information herein presented be
given formal consideration by the Board of County -Commission-
ers at their regular meeting on June 19, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
For the past several years, the federal Economic Development
Administration has notified Indian River County of its
eligibility for designation as a redevelopment area. Such
eligibility is based upon an area's unemployment rate, with
those jurisdictions having higher unemployment rates being
eligible for redevelopment area designation. Although the
County has been notified of its eligibility several times in
the past few years, this is the first time that the County
has taken the initiative to pursue the redevelopment area
designation.
To obtain designation as a redevelopment area, it is neces-
sary for an eligible jurisdiction to prepare an Overall
Economic Development Plan (OEDP), consistent with applicable
EDA regulations. The OEDP must be developed by a committee
comprised of representatives of all major segments of the
community. Once prepared by this committee, the plan must be
adopted by the local governing body and then sent to the EDA
for approval. After approval of the OEDP by the Economic
Development Administration, the County will be eligible to
apply for and receive various economic development related
loans and/or grants administered by the EDA.
On July 18, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners formed an
OEDP Committee and appointed members to it. Since then, the
committee and the staff have worked on preparing the draft
plan. During this period, the committee met eleven times,
structuring a draft Overall Economic Development Plan which
meets applicable EDA criteria.
The draft OEDP, which has been transmitted under separate
cover, contains an overview of the County, including a
description of the County's population, economic, and demo-
graphic characteristics; an identification of the County's
potentials and constraints to economic development; a listing
of the County's economic development objectives;' and recom-
32
mended strategies for economic development. In addition, the
proposed plan contains an implementation matrix; identifying
which agencies have the responsibility for implementing each
of the specific economic development strategies.
On April 17, 1985, at a joint meeting of the County's Econom-
ic Development Committee and the Overall Economic Development
Plan Committee, the Economic Development Committee
unanimously endorsed the draft plan. At its final meeting on
May 29, 1985, the OEDP Committee formally adopted the draft
OEDP with minor changes and unanimously recommended it to the
Board of -County Commissioners for adoption. At that meeting,
the Committee also approved a motion requesting that the
Board of County Commissioners retain the OEDP Committee,
either in its present form or combined with the County's
Economic Development Committee, for purposes of promoting
economic development, preparing OEDP annual updates, and
undertaking such other functions as may be necessary. On
June 4, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners held.a public
workshop meeting on the draft OEDP, reviewed the document,
made several minor changes, and directed the staff to
schedule a public hearing on adoption of the plan.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The draft Overall Economic Development Plan provides a policy
guide for the County in relation to economic development. In
preparing the draft plan, the committee analyzed existing
County plans and policies as well as the County's current
regulations and requirements. Based upon these consid-
erations and the committee's varying interests and areas of _
expertise, the committee identified various alternatives for
the proposed economic development objectives and strategies.
The committee then assessed the alternatives and developed
the final plan.
In analyzing the OEDP, it should be noted that the plan
provides the County with both objectives and strategies for
economic development. For the first time then, the County
will have adopted a statement of where it wants to go and how
it intends to get there in relation to economic development.
By proposing an overall plan designed to address the County's
existing unemployment problems, maintain its current quality
of life, and encourage limited, desirable, and compatible
economic growth, the draft plan establishes a framework
through which the County can pursue economic development
activities. As the County's first comprehensive effort to
address economic development, the draft plan has the advan-
tage of identifying problems and issues as well as setting
policies and strategies. This will ensure that the County
and the various other local agencies involved with economic
development work toward achieving common objectives by
pursuing consistent strategies.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
formally adopt the OEDP and authorize the staff to transmit
copies of the plan to the Economic Development Administration
to obtain approval.
Director Keating noted that members of the OEDP Committee
are in the audience. They worked very hard almost a year putting
this together and feel the plan is very good and meets all the
requirements.
He further noted that there is a Resolution
33
BOOKf?,;E ?9
JUN 19 1985
BOOK
attached,
which staff recommends that the Board adopt,
which
specifies that the Board is affirming and adopting this plan and
requesting that the Economic Development Administration designate
the county as a redevelopment area.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the Committee and staff have
done an excellent job, but he believed that some of his comments
about vocational education were taken the wrong way by the Press
and he would like to clarify this. The way his remarks were
interpreted by the Press seemed to indicate that he criticized
the vocational education program while actually he believed the
existing program is good considering what resources they have to
work with, but that it in no way meets the requirements of a
really good vocational education program. Commissioner Scurlock
stressed that he is very supportive of vocational education in
this community and feels we need to be much more aggressive and
broaden our programs, not lessen them.
Commissioner Bowman wished to reiterate her comments at the
workshop that when industry looks at an area, they look for
infrastructure. She did not see much reference in this report to
our lack of infrastructure and wished it would state not only
that the county has allocated land for commercial/industrial
development, but also note that there is no infrastructure.
Commissioner Bowman felt it should be the thrust to develop
infrastructure in one particular area which perhaps could be
referred to as an industrial park, and she believed that would
give the report much more clout.
Commissioner Bird felt we now are in the process of
providing water to our biggest industrial node at 1-95, and
Commissioner Scurlock believed that this will be much clearer
when our consultants come back with our Master Plan for sewer and
water and for extending service to nodes, especially Fellsmere
which he felt is a key area.
34
Commissioner Bowman noted that we are close to 1-95 and SR
60 with these services and also close to Oslo, and Commissioner
Scurlock stated that we already have the lines to the 1-95 and SR
60 interchange.
Commissioner Bowman felt this report should reflect that.
Planner Keating wished to point out that the Plan partially
addresses this under Potentials and Constraints, as well as
Objectives and Strategies, identifying problems with water and
wastewater and recognizing it is not adequate. In this
transitional period, however, it is difficult for the committee
to get an actual handle on this, and he recommended the County
adopt the Plan.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, to adopt the Overall Economic
Development Plan and authorize staff to submit it to
the Economic Development Administration and to adopt
Resolution 85-68 affirming the Board's adoption of
said Plan.
Commissioner Wodkte brought up Page 77 Strategies: which
addresses establishing an Economic Development Council or Public
Relations Body and designating the OEDP Committee as the nucleus
for such group. He noted that the Board asked Gary Rhinehart,
Chairman of the Overall Economic Development Committee, and
himself to get together and combine the groups. Gary has 13
people, and he has 8, or a total of 21, which he felt was too
large, and they will come up with a joint recommendation.
Mr. Rhinehart agreed that if the committees are combined as
a whole, there would be way too many people. He felt possibly
there should be an expanded committee that meets once a year or
so to meet the requirements of this Plan which requires a yearly
report. He confirmed they will probably come back with a nucleus
35
BOOK 1 P':GE 3JJ
JUN 19 1985
BOOK 61 u'u'E 300
and then recommend other members on the expanded committee that
will meet on a less frequent basis.
Commissioner Scurlock felt one of the integral parts of this
will be the paid person who will come on and work on our staff as
the anchor to the committee. He felt we should proceed with this
as far as possible and get it in the budget.
Commissioner Wodtke agreed and noted that at budget time we
need to determine what kind of person we need, i.e., whether it
should be a public relations or planning position. He wished to
know if we need to retain OEDP Committee in a structural status
on a regular basis so they could do the required annual reevalu-
ation.
Director Keating confirmed that there is a need to evaluate
and update the plan on an annual basis, but he did not know
whether this requires action by the OEDP Committee per se.
Commissioner Wodtke continued to discuss the advisability of
keeping the OEDP committee structured to support and evaluate the
progress of the plan.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
I.
36
RESOLUTION NO. 85-68
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, REQUESTING DESIGNATION OF
THE COUNTY AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AREA.
WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Labor has determined
that Indian River County is stgtistically qualified for designa-
tion as a redevelopment area under Section 401(a)(8) of the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended; and
WHEREAS, upon designation pursuant to this qualifica-
tion, the County will be eligible for the full range of financial
assistance available for all economic development administration
redevelopment areas; and
WHEREAS, the County will be so designated only if it
submits to EDA an official request for such designation and takes
appropriate action thereafter to adopt an acceptable overall
economic development program.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
that:
1. The attached plan is hereby affirmed and adopted as
the County's overall economic dgvelopment plan; and
2. The staff is authorized to request on behalf of the
County that Indian River County be designated by the Economic
Development Administration as an EDA redevelopment area.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Wodtke 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 Richard N. Bird Ave
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 85-68
which was duly passed and adopted this 19th day of June
1985.
BOARD OF NTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDI RI ER COUNTY, ONE
B
T H B. L 3
hairman
DA WRIGHT
(
Clerk p,% V. 1`rWjQ(S2attX•o,�.� .
The Overall Economic Development Plan is on file in the
Office of the Clerk.
37
JUN 19 19851 F�
BOOK 6�
VERO LAKE ESTATES MSTU - PROGRAM & BUDGET RECOMMENDATION
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following memo:
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMERS of DATE: June 11, 1985 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY CO%MSSIONERS
THROUGH:
Michael Wright,
County Administrator Vero Lake Estates MSTU -
SUBJECT: Advisory Commi_ttee's
Recommendation
�'
FROM: Js W-PPuubblic Works1Director REFERENCES:
On June 10, 1985, the Vero Lake Estates MSTU Advisory Committee met to
recommend a work program and budget for FY 85/86. The Cca- m_ittee members in
attendance unanimously recommended a per parcel/acre assessment of $100 per
parcel/acre or part thereof and a work program to include the paving of -_
87th Street from CR 510 to 101st Avenue, and 101st Avenue from 87th Street
to CR 512. This assessment on the approximately 3,632 parcels would
generate in excess of $363,200 and would be more than adequate to fund the
21 mile section of road. Remaining funds could be used to pave 94th Avenue
south of 87th Street to the new Fire Station being constructed.
Although not at the June 10, 1985 meeting, staff spoke with Mr. Ansin's
representative, John Bradley, and Mr. Bradley indicated that there may be
the possibility that a rock or shell pit on Mr. Ansin's property could be
used for road base material. The road .construction, would require
approximately 8,000 cubic yards (10,800 tons) of rock at an estimated cost
of $100,000. If this could be worked out, Mr. Ansin could possibly be
given a credit for supplying this base material. µ j
RECOMMENDATION
It is reccmmended that staff prepare the FY84/85 budget as recommended by
the Advisory Committee and that the Property Appraisers Office be
authorized to plan for a parcel/acre assessmment.
Director Davis reported that the Advisory Committee is
getting ready to prepare something for budget sessions. Mr.
Ansin, who owns about 2500 parcels and would have a substantial
assessment, is out of the country, but his representative, John
Bradley, is here today. Staff needs to be advised whether to go
ahead and prepare the budget as recommended by the Advisory
Committee at $100 per parcel/acre or whether the Board would like
to communicate further with Mr. Ansin re the options discussed.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if it is the Committee's feeling
that a representative sample of the residents are in support of
this assessment.
38
Director Davis stated that it is very difficult to feel out
the people who live in that area. The members of the Advisory
Committee agreed with this recommendation - both those who belong
to the Property Owners Association and those who don't, but there
was not good attendance at the meetings.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to authorize staff to prepare
the information necessary to enable us to identify to
each of the property owners an appropriate time during
budget sessions when we will discuss this item and
then decide what level of assessment is appropriate.
Commissioner Scurlock's personal feeling was that we should
support what the majority of the residents wish, and this will
give staff an opportunity to prepare information and contact all
owners.
Discussion ensued regarding ownership of the property in
question, and Director Davis informed the Board that Vero Lakes
Estates is made up of about 3600 parcels, about 2500 of which are
owned by Mr. Ansin. This leaves about 1100 parcels, many having
out-of-state owners.
Commissioner Scurlock felt regardless of the particular
ownership, we still have to serve the needs of the community.
Administrator Wright suggested that we advertise in a publi-
cation rather than mailing to 1100 people.
Commissioner Scurlock just wished to be sure we have good
notice, and Commissioner Bowman wished to be sure that meeting is
held in the evening.
Commissioner Bird inquired whether it is anticipated by the - -
community that the annual assessment would approximate this
amount each year for a few years or if this is a one-time deal.
Director Davis reported that there was talk of about three
or four years at the $100 per parcel/acre assessment to get the
39
JUN 19 1985 BOOK 6 p� jJ
JUN
19 1985
BOOK
PAGE=�
main roads paved;
then after that it would probably
fall
off. In
any event, the budget would be set every year.
Chairman Lyons asked if Mr. Bradley had any statement to
make for Mr. Ansin, and Director Davis believed the indications
right now is that we are looking at the possibility of using that
fill if the assessment goes to $100 per parcel/acre. The
question is whether we have a source that is suitable, and Mr.
Bradley feels that we do.
John Bradley had no comment except to state that they will
pursue this after Mr. Ansin returns to town.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
GOLF COURSE FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Commissioner Bird introduced the members of the Golf Course
Study Committee present, noting that the Committee feels
comfortable with the report and is ready to make the final
presentation.
Committee member Ron Fanaro read the final presentation
aloud, as follows:
TO:Dodr r County 1985
Commissioners DATE: u ullu FILE:
SUBJECT: Golf Course Feasibility
Study Committee Report
FROM: Golf Course Feasibilit)NEFERENCES:
Study Committee
Since its appointment over one year ago, the Golf Course
Feasibility Study Committee has worked effectively in research
and investigation of various aspects of public golf' course
development and operation. It has been especially active through
subcommittee groups in collecting information regarding pertinent
cost data, and various component elements that we felt should be
considered. After preliminary research and investigation, it was
our opinion that such a project would be feasible for Indian
River County, and whereupon we recommended a formal feasibility
study to be conducted by the National Golf Foundation, who is
considered to be extremely knowledgeable and objective in this
area.
40
M
Funds were collected from interested citizens and turned over to
the County Commissioners, who authorized the feasibility study to
be performed by the National Golf Foundation. This feasibility
study was subsequently completed and delivered to the Golf Course
Feasibility Study Committee and the County Commission in January,
1985.
The findings of the National Golf Foundation study coincided with
additional research done by Committee members and information
derived from studying other feasibility studies and similar
public golf course operations throughout south Florida. Based on
the feasibility study and this additional information, it is the
Committee's unanimous opinion that it would cost not more than
$2,500,000 to build and equip a regulation 18 -hole public golf
course to be constructed at Kiwanis-Hobart Park. This figure
would include golf course construction, maintenance equipment and
building, electric cart storage facility, a modest club house,
parking areas and access roads.
Our research, along with findings of the National Golf
Foundation, would indicate that the annual operating expenses of
such a facility is estimated to be $521,975 annually. This
figure would include all maintenance and administrative wages,
supplies, and other expenses relative to the operation of an
18 -hole golf course.
Revenues are projected at approximately $855,263 for the first
full year of operation of the course. This figure is based on
the estimates contained within the National Golf Foundation
feasibility report as modified by the Golf Course Feasibility
Study Committee in keeping with area rates presently being
charged at comparable golf courses. This annual revenue, when
compared with anticipated annual expenses, would indicate to this
Committee that the golf course is feasible from a profitability
standpoint beginning with its first full year of operation, with
a projected surplus of approximately $333,000 to be applied
toward debt service incurred by the financing of the golf course
project.
It has been recommended by M. G. Lewis and Co., Inc. that we
consider a $2,300,000 revenue bond issue for twenty years secured
by a co -equal pledge of the net revenues of the golf course and
the County's portion of the race track -jai alai funds. The
annual debt service as indicated by this type of financing would
be approximately $265,000 per year, further indicating to this
Com ittee that the golf course appears to be financially feasible
from a standpoint of meeting its operating expenses with
sufficient funds remaining to adequately cover the debt service,
thereby making the golf course operation totally self-supporting.
No requirement for use of ad valorem taxes for this project is
anticipated at any time. The additional $200,000 required -for
the purchase of maintenance equipment will be generated through a
combination of donations and local short term financing.
The proposed County golf course would provide a facility for many
local golfers who cannot afford the expensive membership costs of
private clubs, and would be of direct benefit to the ever
increasing thousands of players residing or vacationing in the
County. Non -golfing citizens would also benefit because the
County could offer a public facility which would help improve
real estate values, offer more attractive vacationing, and be a
tangible self-supporting asset to the County.
In conclusion, it is the opinion of the Golf
Study Committee that a County golf course a
would be successful, would be competitively
41
Course Feasibility
s outlined herein
priced, and would
BOOK F,{,UEeJ.��
r
BOOK 61 FA,,E.30
more than meet its financial obligations. At -the present time,
the financial market appears to be favorable, as are our present
construction costs. Our County population projections further
indicate the increasing need for more public golf facilities in
the County.
We believe a public golf course would have considerable
additional economic, social, as well as recreational benefits to
the residents of the County and would certainly be a major
portion of a well rounded County recreational program.
Based on our report, and other information and data collected to
date, we urge you to accept our recommendation and proceed
immediately toward planning and construction of this much needed
public golf course in Indian River County.
The members of the Committee appreciate the confidence placed in
them by their appointments to this Committee, and appreciate the
opportunity to be of service to the County Commission.
Respectfully submitted by the
Golf Course Feasibility Study Committee
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Richard Schuler
Gerald Ashcraft
Remsen Walker
Harold Djorup
Ronald Fanaro
Charles Block
Ruth Mead
Vic Lunka
Clyde "Bud" Morrison
Mr. Fanaro stressed that there is a lot of support from
around the community as evidenced by the amount of people present
at the meeting today. Many other individuals and organizations
wrote letters of support, including Dr. Burns, Superintendent of
the School District, Charles Ranson, President of the Kiwanis
Club, and Tom Buchanan, President of the Vero Beach Chapter of
the AARP. Mr. Fanaro spoke of his belief in the need for a
County golf course, not only for the retirees but for the young
people of the county, and also stressed that after being dubious,
he was now comfortable that the statistics prove it is feasible.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, that the County proceed immedi-
ately with the planning and development of an 18 hole
regulation golf course at Kiwanis-Hobart Park, and that
staff be instructed to continue to develop financing
options and bring back recommendations to the Board for
42
_ M M
final approval, as well as authorize staff to adver-
tise immediately for proposals from golf course
architects for design and supervision of the con-
struction of the golf course.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that he was very skeptical
of this project at first, but he felt the Committee has done an
outstanding job with the assistance of the financial group, and
they now have convinced him that this can be done as proposed.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that we will be in big trouble,
however, if we don't pursue the ability of the golf course to
continue to fund itself and stressed the need to have a rate
structure that can be reviewed each year to keep this on a
self-sustaining basis. In addition, although he realized there
may be a need for some subsidizing in the beginning, he wanted a
commitment to paying back any monies used for such subsidization
as soon as it is appropriate to do so. Finally, he wanted a
commitment that the course will be designed and dedicated for
true public use and that it will not grow into something other
than that.
Commissioner Bowman noted that $200,000 is designated for
purchase of maintenance equipment, and she assumed that this is
mainly a one-time cost. She pointed out that if you factor this
into $521,000, you come up with a first year cost of over
$700,000, and the debt service is $265,000, which would leave us
about $132,000 in the hole the first year. Another thing that
concerned her is depending on Race Track and Jai Alai funds,
which leaves us at the mercy of the Legislature.
Administrator Wright explained that the Jai Alai Funds are
actually pari-mutuel wagering funds, and once they are committed
to a bond issue, the State cannot take them away without
replacing them with another revenue source. Every county in the
State receives just under $500,000 apiece, and the Statewide
collections are in the neighborhood of 80 million; it is such a
43
JUN 19 19 BOOF'AGE 3.09
5 K
JUN 19 1985 BOOK
secure source of pledge for bond issues that it does not even
require a debt service in most markets. Secondly, the
Administrator noted that the financing will be structured in a
manner to accommodate the concerns pointed out in Commissioner
Bowman's first statement re a deficit position in the first year,
which actually is a common occurrence with any type of revenue
and construction project, such as the Landfill, for instance.
Commissioner Scurlock believed there is still some addi-
tional work from M. G. Lewis to put this together; we have to
have this building refinanced; the rate structure may have to be
jiggled some, etc. He felt we must realize, however, when we
give up the pari-mutuel funds, the net cost to the ad valorem tax
base is about $25,000 a year.
Commissioner Bowman inquired how the Jai Alai funds are
spent now in this county.
Administrator Wright stated that they are a General Fund
revenue which is pledged to the financing of this building and
the Courthouse, and Commissioner Scurlock explained how we
negotiated with the School District for use of their Jai Alai
funds as a pledge in return for providing them space in this
building.
Commissioner Bowman stated that she did agree there is a
great need for this facility, but she wanted to be sure we are
doing it the right way.
Commissioner Bird noted that when in future years this
pledge was deemed unnecessary, the Jai Alai funds could be
released.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to congratulate Commissioner Bird
and his committee for their thorough work and had no doubt in his
mind that this facility will attract people to the county. He
agreed that the course must remain 100% a public golf course and
not let the operation end up in some type of membership, and felt
this is assured by the restrictions we have on the land on which
we are building the course. Commissioner Wodtke did have some
44
® M
- W W
concern about using Racetrack Funds as a pledge for a special
type facility. He urged that M.G.Lewis and our financial people
explore every possible avenue other than using entitlement funds
and stated that he would like, as far as possible, to escrow
enough money to release this pledge, even if it might cost more,
and see what we can do not to use this entitlement money which he
felt should be used for necessities. Commissioner Wodtke con-
tinued to discuss the advisability of the county keeping control
of the course, its operation, etc., and stated that he would like
the existing committee to continue to be an advisory committee
and have a positive relationship between the committee and the
Commission. He emphasized his support of a public golf course
and believed we can have a really superior golf course.
Commissioner Bird personally thanked the members of the
committee for their efforts and stated that he was happy to hear
the Commission say they might keep this committee as an advisory
type committee.
Chairman Lyons commented that he has been very conservative
about this project, and he hoped that the maintenance figures and
income projections are sufficiently conservative so there is no
question this is going to be an enterprise that supports itself.
Commissioner Bird stated that he also had personal reserva-
tions about revenues at first, but feels much more comfortable
with this today than he did a year ago before having the National
Golf Foundation figures.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
it was voted on and carried unanimously.
Gerald Ashcraft, on behalf of the Golf Study Committee and
the golfers in Indian River County thanked the Commission for the
decision made today and then presented all the Commissioners with
golf hats.
45
BOOK I P' I1 9
JUN 19 1995
BOOK 6
REQUEST FROM WABASSO CIVIC CLUB FOR USE OF CAFETERIA OF DOUGLAS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Reverend Ervin Cartwright came before the Board to present a
petition signed by citizens of Wabasso requesting the use of the
old Douglas Elementary School cafeteria for community affairs,
copy of which petition is on file in the Office of the Clerk.
Reverend Cartwright believed that the Board is aware that
the building was almost condemned for over two years before
anything was even done on the property; so, it seems definite the
Commissioners have no interest in the building. The School Board
after using the building for over 17 years just left it desti-
tute. No one had any interest in the building or the grounds,
and the community had to pitch in and clean up the grounds.
Reverend Cartwright stated that the property was originally
donated by poor sharecroppers, and there was no stipulation that
it would go back to the rightful owners if the school was ever
condemned. He, therefore, felt it would only seem fair that the
community should be able to use the cafeteria. He emphasized
they are not asking the county to move out, but they would like
to be able to use the cafeteria permanently.
Reverend Cartwright thanked General Services Director Dean
for letting them use the building to the end of this month until
they could come before the Board to get permission to use the
building as they have been doing. He also thanked the Florida
Community Health Center who let the electricity stay on till the
end of the month. The Reverend reported that they have a meeting
scheduled for the 20th of this month.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to allow the Wabasso Civic
Club to use the Douglas School cafeteria as requested
and request that they coordinate with the County
Attorney's office to make sure we have proper
insurance coverage.
46
D
Chairman Lyons felt the Board had been unjustly accused by
Reverend Cartwright for taking no action over the years. He
pointed out that we had an arrangement with the Florida Health
Care people to put a facility in this area, make a place
available to the citizens of the community, and have someone
maintain the facility and pay the insurance to keep the facility
there for the purposes of the citizens of the Wabasso area.
Commissioner Wodtke confirmed that he brought this issue to
the Commission two or three times and that we have been trying to
get the Florida Health people to do what they said they would do.
In fact, he believed the Florida Health Care people came back to
the Board with the support of the Wabasso community to ask for an
extension of time, and he also believed an agreement about the
community utilizing the cafeteria was included in this agreement.
Commissioner Wodtke did agree we have gone on too long with the
Florida Health people, but also noted that there are problems
with the electrical wiring, etc..
Attorney Brandenburg reported that our agreement with them
has been revoked, and the Douglas School facility is totally back
in the hands of the County again.
Chairman Lyons emphasized that if the Reverend felt we were
moving too slowly, he should have come to us sooner, but Reverend
Cartwright stated that he has been coming here for many years,
but it was always said there was no money available.
Commissioner Bird asked about maintenance, and Administrator
Wright felt that first the Board must realize that we have no
sewer and the permit has lapsed. We will need a septic tank; we
will have to meet Health Department standards on water and have
to make sure the building is safe for assembly occupancy; it will
have to be rewired and go through the Planning Department for a -
change of use. If the Board assigns this to the Civic Associa-
tion, these questions must be addressed, minimum standards must
be met, and the funding considered.
47
JUN 19 1985 Booty U Faj '913
JUN 19 1995 Booty 1
Chairman Lyons did not believe we are supplying a clubhouse
to others in the county, but Commissioner Bowman felt we are in
Rockridae and Roseland.
Administrator Wright noted that those facilities are leased
out and the associations maintain them.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that his main concern is proper
insurance coverage, and Chairman Lyons brought up the question of
a sewer system.
Reverend Cartwright stated that they are prepared to put in
their own septic tank and wells.
Commissioner Bird believed that staff can help inform the
Civic Association what is needed and provide them with some
figures, but Reverend Cartwright stated they don't want the
County's figures on costs which they do not feel are realistic.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested that we make a determination
through the Building Department of just what has to be done,
supply that information to the Reverend, and then we can
determine what costs might be and advise him as soon as possible.
Commissioner Bowman suggested that the Reverend make an
estimate also; she believed he is planning on a lot of in-kind
labor, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that his Motion will include
authorizing staff to work with Reverend Cartwright.
Reverend Cartwright inquired whether the Civic Club can
continue using the facility for their meetings as they have been
for over a year.
Administrator Wright informed the Board that he was not
aware of this, and he would be very careful about allowing this
since we have a substandard building involved with public
assembly and limited liability insurance.
Chairman Lyons did not want any meetings held in that
building until we can get all these problems cleared up and can
be sure that the sanitary facilities and the safety facilities
are adequate.
Chairman Lyons asked that the Motion on the floor be
clarified, and it was restated as follows:
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to authorize staff to work
with Rev. Cartwright and the Wabasso Civic Club to
determine what repairs, etc., are required to make
the Douglas School building available to the Civic
Club for assembly purposes and bring a recommenda-
tion back to the Commission.
Discussion continued at length about the costs involved and
the condition of the building, which Commissioner Bird could not
believe could be that bad, but staff noted that there has
vandalism and the wiring has been ripped out.
Reverend Cartwright agreed that some of the wiring has been
pulled out, but he stated that School Board officials removed
some things from the building a year later and people are
accusing the youth of the area unfairly. He continued to stress
that the County makes unreal estimates and felt it would be
possible to spend $1,000 and put some of the classrooms back in
shape. He urged the Commission to look at this with common
sense.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT W/CITY OF_VERO_BEACH RE LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX
Mayor Terry Goff informed the Board that the Vero Beach City
Council met last night and adopted the proposed Interlocal - -
Agreement re Local Option Gas Tax. They did not address a
funding limit, but are thinking 2�.
Administrator Wright referred to the backup information
supplied by Public Works Director Davis:
49BOOK
JUN 19 1985
FF-_ _
JUN 9
1 1985
BOOK � F''Gr
TO: Michael Wright DATE: June 19, 1985 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Local Option Gas Tax
FROM: Jim Davis, P.E. REFERENCES:
Public Works Department
The Public Works Division has researched the adoption
or proposed adoption of a -Local Option Gas Tax by Florida
counties... The attached map indicates the number of cents
various counties have adopted.
In conversations with Mark Spitzer, staff member of
the State Association of County Commissioners, he stated
that past local option gas tax adoption has apparently not
resulted in a difference in a county's gasoline consumption.
For instance, Hillsborough County has a 4,,4 local option gas
tax and Pinellas County has no local option gs tax. Consump-
tion levels for both counties have shown no change in pat-
terns.
Martin County and St. Lucie County are now considering
and have support for adoptin of a local option gas tax.
The Martin County Commission favors adoption of a gas tax
(four members supporting) and will consider as much as a
4� tax on June 25, 1985.
Conversations with Russ Goff's office (Brevard County
Administrator)., reveal it is anticipated that Brevard County
will probably not consider a local option gas tax.
18 s!..
yes
- 11
] r Jam•
III- (— !aOSDEN • I e'f NASSAU
—'� '� 1• �..fl[ON r tY , MAMIUON 1"�r•
..WAGISoN Is-
4•- eeRTT' ♦ L`J y,,� DUVAL
1 wARutuTATWO-
1 NIA; ilunr { f rJ�
I Local Gas Tax Option
4 - Gas Tax Adopted
t43- Gas Tax Being Considered
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
50
Dale Y -1-i— 3w
1 rot>,uw
tM
2 J AIARIoN
VCLUS,A
a t6
4 1 .� I tArt{� ..r. �* a
xl
--r•� i 4 6 ] 4 .:
/ASCO • '+'L.—` 4 -� ii 'r
4 +sly roa ,? cScsflu f
71., ut
AIANAree NAtOUT �;1
.- i
—4.
4' L4 +Ilalwycs14 I woe
GUDeS.�—•-
��ohA,�v rJ
Administrator Wright stressed that a two year projection on
road improvements shows that we will be one million dollars in
the hole by 1987 if we do not pursue other revenue.
Considerable discussion followed regarding which counties
have adopted the gas tax and in what amounts, and Director Davis
stated that research done does not indicate any shift in gas
consumption when one county adopts a gas tax and a neighboring
county doesn't.
Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that he has had discussion
with officials of other counties who have indicated their county
did not suffer adverse effects when they imposed a tax and
neighboring counties did not. He also wished to point out that
our engineering department has identified an unfunded area of
road improvements that will need to be funded, and if our County
doesn't exercise its option to impose a gas tax, then this
unfunded portion of the road system will have to be addressed
with impact fees, which affect a much smaller segment of people
than a gas tax. The County Attorney further pointed out that for
2 or 3 years our County has adopted a Resolution each year urging
the State Legislature not to adopt any more programs mandating
funding without providing a source of funding; -the State now has
provided that source, for jails, roads, etc., and the people seem
to be willing to impose this on themselves. This year the State
went even one step further and said that the counties now can ask
the state to build a road earlier if they use the 5th and 6th
cent gas tax to pay 800 of that road.
Commissioner Bird asked for how long a period the proposed
tax would be imposed, and Assistant County Attorney Wilson stated
that the ordinance is set up for five years, and it can be
amended later either to increase this tax or lower it.
Commissioner Bird asked if counties that have not adopted it
will still have the option in the following years.
Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that they will, and there was
no question in his mind that all counties will either move ahead
51Gov ,,c,F. , 3�I 7
JUN 121 1985
BOOK 6-1 P�A-;E321
to impose this tax or they won't have any money for roads.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that each year more and more
counties are going this way and will just not be able to address
their needs if they don't. He pointed out that at least it
doesn't go into ad valorem taxes and you share the burden among a
large amount of people.
Walter. Smith, owner of the Union 76 truckstop at 1-95 and
Route 60, informed the Board that he happens to be in the unique
position that 95% of his sales are to the over -the -road trucker
traveling 1-95 and he believed the tax the Board is discussing
would be raised about 1/3 from his business, which pumped eight
million gallons last year. He did not agree with the research
quoted by staff regarding the effect of the tax on revenue and
sales and believed that in Wakulla County, sales dropped 33%.
Mr. Smith stressed that his main concern is whether the
other counties on the 1-95 corridor are going to be instituting
this tax because he has competition in St. Lucie, St. Johns, and
Flagler County, not to mention Brevard. His average sale to a
truck driver is 100 gallons and they can go 500 or more miles on
that - all the way to Savannah, Georgia, actually. Because of
that, Mr. Smith informed the Boa.rd that in 1980 he presented a
Bill to the Legislature to require that all trucks driving
highways in Florida pay the proportionate tax on a mandatory
basis by either purchasing the fuel in the state or having the
option to pay the tax directly to the Department of Revenue, and
this Bill was passed. Mr. Smith stated that he would like the
Commission to give strong consideration to passing no tax and see
how much business will increase. The other option would be to
consider a 1t tax at this time instead of 2t and gradually work
it in. He did agree that most counties eventually will go this
way.
Discussion continued at length regarding what counties have
imposed this tax and what effect it has had on them, and also as
to how far trucks can travel without having to refuel.
52
Mr. Smith did agree that from Indian River County south he
did not have a problem, but continued to urge that the Board
consider a 14 tax or consider delaying it one year. He felt that
about 1/2 the production is sold out at his location and gas is
not the most important to his business; it is the diesel fuel for
the truckers. He further noted that it also will hurt other
areas of his truckstop business, i.e., the restaurant, and this
could cost about 25 jobs.
Commissioner Bowman believed Mr. Smith offers excellent
facilities at his truckstop, and this must be attractive to the
truckers.
Administrator Wright stressed that we do have countywide
transportation needs; he personally felt we need a 41 tax, but
would urge the Board to go with at least the 21 tax.
Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern over the way the
state will react if we don't impose the tax and felt it will have
an effect on how they set up their paving priorities on Route 60,
etc.
Mike Lee, owner of the Exxon station next to MacDonalds,
asked if it was possible for the County Commissions of St. Lucie,
Martin and Indian River Counties to get together and get this
passed all at the same time. He did not want one county to
change its mind as he felt it would definitely affect his sales.
Commissioner Scurlock felt gas is cheaper in St. Lucie
County already, and Administrator Wright believed the three
counties are all considering this tax at the same time and have
to act within the next ten days.
Commissioner Bird felt that each Board has to make their own
decision, but indications are that it seems very likely St. Lucie
and Martin Counties will adopt a 4� tax, and we are talking 24. -
Gene Kraus, Hill Oil, informed the Board that they have a
minitruck stop on SR 62 and also in Hillsborough County, which
presently has a 51$ tax; people did stop trading with them and
about 30% of their business went to adjoining counties. This
53
JUN 19 195 Boor
J
JUN 19 1985 BOOK 61 FnU VO
does not affect just diesel business, but the gas business also.
Mr. Kraus, therefore, disagreed with the figures quoted and was
opposed to the tax.
Administrator Wright noted that Mr. Kraus was talking
individual stations, and we are talking countywide and basing it
on D.O.R. figures as supplied by the State Assoc. of County
Commissioners.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that all we have on our
agenda today is the interlocal agreement with the city, and he
believed we will have a public hearing on the gas tax itself.
The Administrator confirmed that public hearing is set for
next week.
Commissioner Scurlock felt there is not much sense in
passing the agreement if we are not considering the tax, but
Attorney Brandenburg noted that we must have the agreement by
July 1st. He understood Sebastian will agree also. The
Attorney continued that the Board has the option of postponing
the meeting on the ordinance to the end of July. The critical
thing is to enter into these agreements prior to July.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Vero
Vero Beach re the Local Option Gas Tax and
authorized the signature of the Chairman on
this agreement as well as on similar agreements
with the remaining municipalities in the County
when received.
54
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
ti
This Interlocal Agreement, entered into this _jt�' day of
'T
Q& , 1985, between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its Board of
County Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the
City of Vero Beach hereinafter referred to as "CITY," for the
purpose of providing for the division and distribution of the
proceeds of the local option gas tax imposed by the COUNTY pur-
suant to Florida Statutes 5336.025.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes §336.025 grants the COUNTY the
authority to levy, in addition to other taxes allowed by law, a
local option gas tax upon every gallon of motor fuel and special
fuel sold in the COUNTY and taxed under the provisions of Chapter
206, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said enactment, the COUNTY, in
anticipation of the levy of the local option gas tax, may estab-
lish by interlocal agreement with one or more of the munici-
palities located within Indian River County representing a
majority of the incorporated area population within the COUNTY, a
distribution formula for dividing the proceeds of the local option
gas tax among the COUNTY government and all eligible munici-
palities within Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the CITY is a municipality located within
Indian River County, Florida, and the CITY represents that the
CITY is eligible to receive a portion of the local option gas tax
as imposed by the Indian River County Local Option Gas Tax
Ordinance, and desires to jointly establish with the COUNTY a
distribution formula pursuant to Florida Statutes
§336.025(3)(a)(1).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms,
conditions, promises, covenants and premises hereinafter set forth
and pursuant to the statutory authority set forth herein, the
COUNTY and the CITY agree as follows:
1. Upon its levy by the COUNTY, the proceeds of the
local option gas tax shall be divided among, and distributed to
the COUNTY and the eligible municipalities within the COUNTY as
follows:
RECIPIENT
Indian River County
City of Vero Beach
City of Sebastian
City of Fellsmere
Town of Indian River Shores
City of Orchid
SHARE OF PROCEEDS
67.5567%
19.4200%
9.9033%
1.9567%
1.1433%
.02%
2. The division and distribution of tax proceeds as
stated in Paragraph 1 above shall be amended yearly based upon
the following formula:
The percentage of total revenue allocated to
entity equals 1/3 of the entity's percent
equivalent lane miles of road plus 1/3 of
percentage of transportation expenditures over
five years plus 1/3 of the entity's total
population residing in the area based upon the
from the Florida Bureau of Economic and Busines
55
each eligible
age of total
the entity's
the previous
percentage of
1984 estimate
s Research.
Jul 19 198 BOOK F' ,,E ?I
JUN 1 .9 1985
BOOK 61 F'A F 3?2
3. This agreement shall take effect on September 1,
1985, and shall terminate on either August 31, 1990, or, if the
local option gas tax is levied for less than five years, on August
31 of the year in which the levy terminates. This agreement shall
also govern the division and distribution of proceeds of the local
option gas tax imposed through August 31st but not collected or
otherwise available for distribution until after August 31st of
the year the agreement terminates.
4. If, during the term of this agreement, any party
hereto becomes ineligible to receive a share of the local option
gas tax for any reason, any funds otherwise undistributed because
of ineligibility shall be distributed to eligible governments
within COUNTY in proportion to other monies distributed pursuant
to Paragraph l herein and the share shall be calculated pursuant
to the formula contained within Paragraph 2 herein.
5. By execution of this agreement, neither the COUNTY
nor the CITY will be deemed to have waived any rights or remedies
they may have available under the laws of the State of Florida.
6. This agreement shall be executed in duplicate and
each fully executed contract shall be deemed an original -
instrument.
7. Upon adoption of an ordinance levying the local
option gas tax by the COUNTY, the COUNTY shall provide the State
of Florida Department of Revenue the distribution proportions
established by this agreement prior to September 1, 1985.
8. A copy of this agreement and all subsequent
amendments hereto shall be recorded in the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida, upon its execution by all parties
hereto.
9. This agreement may be amended only in writing
approved by all parties executing this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
interlocal agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
officials on the day and year first above written.
Approved form
and le s cie INDIA5
B y iXs
'Brandenburg..
Attorney,.; r
Attest: k,e
Clerk of Circuit S ourt
COUNTY, FLORIDA
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
. LYON)r, Fhairman
CITY OF VERO BEACH � , , , .. /
By
r
MAYOR TWRY GO _ F-
Attest:
City Clerk
56
APPROVAL OF CONDEMNATION OF HAZARDOUS STRUCTURES
Building Director Ester Rymer came before the Board to
discuss the condemnation of hazardous structures as set out
in the following memo:
TO: Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Ester L. Rymer
Building Director
DATE: June 11, 1985 FILE:
SUBJECT: Hazardous Structures
REFERENCES:
Please find attached correspondence relative to the above subject
matter. -
I have followed condemnation proceedings pursuant to Chapter 4, Code
of Ordinances, Indian River County for the repair or demolition of
these unsafe structures.
The owners have refused to comply with notices to abate nuisances by
repair or demolition; therefore, I am requesting the Board to proceed
with condemnation as set forth in Section 4-21, Code of Ordinances,
Indian River County.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Ester L. Rymer
Building Director
Early & Dora Frazier- Lot 19, Blk. 3, Smith Plaza S/D
2232-39-07-0030-018.0
Arkell & Odessa Clark - Lot 19, Blk. 3, Smith Plaza S/D
2232-30-07-0030-019.0
Claude F Catherine Ausby, Jr. - 3556 43rd Street
27-32-39-00-1000-052.2
Willie Bell Davis - Lot 20, Espys Subdv.
26-32-39-08-0000-020.0
John Lincoln - 8665 63rd Ave.
29-31-39-00000-5000-00096.0
Rober Lee $ Mary Belle Green - Lows Park S/D, Unit 1, Lot 29
29-31-39-02-0000-29.0
57
B 61
BOOK — Pr„E 24
Commissioner Bird wished to know what the next step would
be, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that the Building Director
will post the building and then will move ahead with action to
proceed with demolition. These individuals all have been
notified as required.
Commissioner Bird believed our notification procedures are
extensive and that they have been followed out.
Attorney Brandenburg understood there is a special
circumstance with one of these cases because of arson, and
Building Director Rymer informed the Board that the arson case
involves the structure owned by Rober Lee 8 Mary Belle Green,
Lows Park SID, Unit 1, Lot 29, and she would like to postpone
this. There has been a court order on the building, and she is
waiting for the owner to bring her a construction schedule.
Commissioner Bird inquired how long a period of time the
Building Director felt would be involved, and Director Rymer
believed the information should be available in the next thirty
days.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed
to postpone action on the structure owned by
Rober Lee 8 Mary Belle Green for 30 days.
Building Director Rymer next brought up the case of John
Lincoln, which she reported involved a structure in the Wabasso
area which she has been working on since 1983.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard in
regard to any of the structures under discussion today. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
58
authorized the Building Department to give 30
days notice to John Lincoln and then proceed with
demolition of the structure at 8665 63rd Ave.
Director Rymer informed the Board that Mr. Ausby has
obtained a demolition permit, but she would like the Board to
take action on this structure anyway in case he does not move
forward with the demolition.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
authorized the Building Department to give 30
days notice to Claude Ausby, Jr., and then pro-
ceed with demolition of the structure at
3556 43rd Street.
Director Rymer next discussed the structure owned by Arkell
and Odessa Clark, 4795 33rd Avenue and stated that she would like
to further describe that for the record because there is some
controversy over this location - it is Lot 19, Blk. 3, Smith
Plaza Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
authorized the Building Department to give 30
days notice to Arkell and Odessa Clark and then
proceed with demolition of the structure at
Lot 19, Blk. 3, Smith Plaza S/D.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the address where the notice
was sent to Odessa Clark was different. Mrs. Rymer confirmed
that it was and explained this was because the notice was sent to
the previous owners, Early and Dora Frazier. They have notified
her that Mrs. Clark purchased that property. There was some
59
A As
ll1 ZY IJOU BOOK 61 PP.GF 325
JUN 19 1985 c�
BOOK 6 1 Pf�GE Y.�2 6
confusion, and that is the reason the Building Director wished to
make it specific to Lot 19, Blk. 3, Smith Plaza. There are two
structures on that particular site, and the next notice is also
to Arkell and Odessa Clark, again on Lot 19, Blk, 3, Smith Plaza
Subdv.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
authorized the Building Department to give 30
days notice to Arkell & Odessa Clark and then
proceed with demolition of the structure at
Lot 19, Blk. 3, Smith Plaza S/D
Building Director Rymer reported that the structure owned by
Willie Bell Davis is unoccupied.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
authorized the Building Department to give 30
days notice to Willie Bell Davis and then pro-
ceed with demolition of the structure at Lot
20, Espys Subdv.
DISCUSS PETITION FOR LEGISLATIVE HEARING - RIVER RUN (MULLER)
Commissioner Bowman requested that the Board give
consideration to the request made by the Pelican Island Audubon
Society and the Civic Association, as set out in the following
letter:
60
PELICAN ISLAND AUDUBON
P. O. Box 1833
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
Mr. Pat Lyons, Chairman
Indian River Board -of County Commissioners
County Administration Building
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Muller, Indian River County
DER 310930994
Dear Mr. Lyons:
SOCIETY
June 17, 1985
Pelican Island Audubon Society and the Civic Association of Vero Beach
and Indian River County would like to make a joint request that the County
Commission petition the State for a legislative hearing (persuant to Section
120.57, Florida Statutes) on the issuance of permit number 310930994 for
Henry J. Muller in our county of Indian River.
There are a number of issues that make the issuance of this permit a
serious matter worthy of the discussion and action of this commission:
1) The consideration that the Indian River from the Sebastian Inlet to the
north city limits of Vero Beach, including the river bottom affected by this
permit, was recently given aquatic preserve status and as such may'. be
included in the management plan to be finalized in July for the Indian River.
2)The direct loss of seagrass and shallow water habitat for the sole purpose
of providing private access to the Intracoastal Waterway, a habitat so
important to the county that they esta blished a Seagrass Preservation and Restor
ation Committee.
3)The establishment of a marina with 44 boatslips in designated Critical
Habitat of the West Indian Manatee, without a sound plan for marina sitinq in the
county.
4)The ramifications of allowing the precedent to be set permitting a project that
environmental agencies including the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have
recommended be denied and/or modified to. provide for less damaging alternatives. In
addition to this there is strong evidence of local opposition to this as addressed
in letterg from the Civic Association and the Pelican Island Audubon Society.
5)We believe it would be inconsistent with the Indian River County Comprehensive
Plan which states (p.88):
"10. The County shall not permit activities within or adjacent to the Indian River which
threaten to degrade or result in the closing of open shell -fishing waters."
This is a matter of serious consideration in the issuance of this permit.
For your part, the petition would involve a request 6o later than June 25, 1985
for a formal hearing. In this petition, you and your staff would need to include the
name and address of the agency involved, the Dept.:of Environmental Regulitidn; your
name and address as the petitioning body and the substantial interests that would be
affected by the agency determination; a statement of when and how you received notice
of the DER decision, and ; a statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there
are none of these which we suspect there are not since the issue here is not whether
we agree that the environmental damage will occur but rather whether the precedent should
be set that it can, "the petition must also indicate a concise statement of the
ultimate facts, as well as the rules and statutes which entitle the petitioner to
relief; a demand for relief which the county deems itself to be entitled to,and; any
other information.
Once again, we are pleased that the Civic Association recognizes the importance
of this action and has chosen to support us in our request to you at this time.
The seriousness and the cumulative impact of this precedent setting permit issuance
will be reflected in your decision today should you decide to pass a resolution renuestino
a legislative hearing on this permit.
Thank -you for your time and trouble.
Sincerely yours,
r "'v"�
C
6 ,) Frank Johnso , Vice President
Pelican Island Audubon Society
BOOK
1 eilUC °.i'.+
r I
JUN 19 1985 BOOK 61- F,AIJE 3?8
Administrator Wright wished the Board to be aware there is a
new administrative policy whereby every time one of these type of
requests is received for comment, the staff reply will be brought
directly to the Board instead of to the P&Z Commission.
Art Challacombe, Chief of Environmental Planning, informed
the Board that when we originally received this application, we
had several concerns dealing with water quality and the dredging
of habitat in the Indian River. Staff inspected this site and
found significant habitat in the form of grass beds, etc. They
took this to Planning & Zoning Commission, and the Commission
authorized staff to transmit those concerns to the DER. Mr.
Muller then revised the application, and it again came to staff
for review and comment. Several issues originally addressed were
taken care of with the amended application. In regard to water
quality, the basin mouth was enlarged and the basin itself taken
to a shallower depth. The marina also was reduced from 64 slips
to 44. The continuing concern, however, was in the dredging of
the Indian River. Mr. Muller and Mr. Moler did modify the dredge
area, and in all fairness, if staff had to choose an area to be
dredged, they would choose that area. They do believe, however,
that important habitat would be destroyed by the permit being
accepted and construction continued.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what was meant by "important"
habitat, and Planner Challacombe explained the grass beds which
have a significant importance for juvenile species and for
feeding adult species; they have a function similar to an ocean
reef and are a part of the structure of the overall eco system.
Another factor is increasing turbidity over an area much larger
than the actual project itself. He informed the Board that the
Planning & Zoning Commission authorized staff to recommend that
the DER and the applicant continue to discuss and explore
alternative access techniques, including the possibility of
connecting the existing lake with a basin to the north, the
Sembler basin, so the existing channel could be reached that way.
62
Planner Challacombe believed that was rejected by the DER for
water quality reasons. The other alternative was to extend the
pier to deeper water, which staff prefers rather than the channel
dredging.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired who has the ability to object
to this - Fish 6 Game as well as the County - the Audubon
Society, etc.?
Planner Challacombe confirmed that all of those agencies
would have that ability, plus the adjacent property owners.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the Regional Planning Council
is very much involved, and he had a problem with this being
brought to the Board since he felt it is the responsibility of
the Regional Planning Council and the state agencies to work with
these type problems.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that this situation did not
come directly to the Board; apparently, Commissioner Bowman found
out that this situation existed and felt it should be brought to
the Board's attention before the time period expires.
Commissioner Bowman emphasized that time is of the essence
in this particular situation and that is the reason for the
petition for an administrative hearing.
Commissioner Wodtke continued to argue the Regional Planning
Council's responsibility, but Chairman Lyons noted that the
Regional Planning Council is simply a recommending agency; they
do not issue permits.
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that if you don't have any
input into the permitting process when you have the opportunity
to do so, then when the site plan comes through for approval, you
are going to be in a more difficult position in regard to
requiring changes to the site plan, the site plan obviously be,ing -
based on the permit.
Question arose as to what comments were made by the Regional
Planning Council, and Planner Challacombe reported that the RPC
explained that this project was in conflict with their coastal
63
JUN19 1985 BOOK Fa:cr
r
JUN 1 � ,��� BOOK -1 MGE 3 3O
zone policy plan and their wetlands policy and recommended the
permit not be issued.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the RPC did not look at this from
the local perspective but more from a regional standpoint.
Planning Director Keating explained to the Board that when
an application is submitted to the DER or the Corps, the
permitting agencies contact a number of local jurisdictions and
interest groups and ask for comments from all of them. Ideally,
they all look at it from different perspectives with different
concerns and different policies. The bottom line is the
permitting agency, DER, took all these recommendations and
apparently discounted a lot of them, and they have issued the
permit without conditions. There is a 14 day period in which to
appeal the permit.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that it seems we have
identified that there are certain channels to get us to the
Intracoastal Waterway and basically they are perpendicular to the
shore. As a policy decision, where does it place us if we
suddenly have a channel parallel to the entire shoreline of the
Indian River. If you set such a policy, what is the overall
picture going to be? He further wished to know if we have
sufficiently identified that this specific area is unique in its
general characteristics in regard to getting from their project
to the nearest channel or does this same situation exist all
along the shoreline.
Planner Challacombe stated that most grassbeds in the county
are along the shallow area of the shoreline. The criteria staff
uses to review various projects is identical, but they look at
the actual resources on a site by site basis.
Commissioner Bird inquired as to the effect an administra-
tive hearing has over the permit the DER issues, and Attorney
Brandenburg explained that the DER presides over such a hearing
and you go through the 120 process; then if you still are not
satisfied, you take it to the District Court of Appeals.
64
_ M M
Commissioner Bird asked what they will take into considera-
tion at such a hearing that they haven't already considered, and
Attorney Brandenburg stated that the purpose of this hearing is
to give the DER a chance to reconsider all the evidence.
Chairman Lyons felt all this hinges on the character of the
grass beds and oyster beds involved and whether they are
significant
Discussion continued at length in regard to who determines
whether these grass beds are significant or not.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Henry Muller, developer of River
Run, how serious the delay for such a hearing is.
Mr. Muller stated that it is quite serious. There could be a
6 month delay and with that kind of a delay, he did not know that
they would be able to proceed. There are about ten agencies
involved in the development of this project, and this is the
first that has issued a permit. Mr. Muller believed what they
are facing here is a bit of a "bug -a -boo," and he felt possibly
they could clear up some questions today.
Ellie Van Os came before the Board on her lunch hour, sneaking
as a citizen of the County and as Conservation Chairman of the Pelican
Island Audubon Society. She felt what everyone is overlooking is that
this stretch of the river was included in the aquatic preserve
status, and she believed there is a section in the County's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan that prohibits dredging in any
aquatic preserves.
Planner Challacombe confirmed this and read aloud the
applicable section in the Coastal Zone Element.
Question arose as to whether the Governor has signed the
Bill which would make this an aquatic preserve as yet, and
Director Keating noted that at the time staff made comment, we
were not in an aquatic preserve.
Chairman Lyons asked why the Audubon Society doesn't make
this comment since they apparently have the standing to do so,
65
JUN 1 BOOK P':GF 9�oaa,
985
and Commissioner Bowman felt it was simply because the Commission
has more clout.
Further discussion ensued as to whether the Aquatic Preserve
Bill has been signed and is in effect, and the Administrator
noted that even if it is in effect, the application was in prior
to the law and it could involve a question of being
"grandfathered."
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that the Bill has
been on the Governor's desk for seven days; so, it is now in
effect. Re the question of "grandfathering," the Comp Plan does
not specify anything as to state changes in law; so, the law is
effective when it comes into effect.
Administrator Wright believed that Mr. Muller has a permit
for this project already; so, all we are arguing today is whether
we are going to appeal it.
Commissioner Bowman felt the permit should be appealed on
the basis that the DER issued this permit in the face of findings
of our local biologists, etc., and she would like to have the
evidence reviewed.
Administrator Wright was not sure we can give credence to
what a biologist has said as opposed to what the DER has said.
Discussion continued at length re the use of an existing
channel, the habitat, the length of time for a hearing, etc.
Mr. Muller felt if could just clearly identify the remaining
problem, it could be solved. He emphasized that they are trying
to act responsibly and have responded to every problem; they do
not want to create a disaster to the river. He informed the
Board that the DER has allowed them to relocate the oyster beds,
and he believed it gets down to the grass in the area where the
channel will be dredged and the possible turbidity from using the
channel. Mr. Muller emphasized that the DER is a responsive and
competent agency, and they did come out in force and study this
particular area before issuing the permit.
66
He further noted
that practically every agency of the many they have had to work
with has caused them to modify their plan in some respect.
Mr. Muller also stressed that this project is a dock
facility for the residents to maintain their own private boats;
it is not a commercial marina and has none of the facilities
associated with a marina. He emphasized that if the Commission
is determined to stop them, they cannot fight it, but he felt
they can work together to work out a solution. Mr. Muller asked
what specifically it would take for them to make Commissioner
Bowman and the others happy. The dredging appears to be the main
concern, and he believed this is in jeopardy from the new law.
Chairman Lyons stated that he had no problem with trying to
find out the best way to do this project.
Commissioner Bowman asked the biologists if the main concern
is dredging.
Mrs. Van Oss agreed that the dredging is a major concern,
but we also have the manatee in this county. In addition, in
regard to a marina siting plan for the county, this is a marina,
and all this will have to be addressed. Dredging, however, is
the major concern.
Planner Keating asked if it was being said that there are no
problems with water quality in the basin, and Mr. Muller felt the
question of water quality should be left up to Atlanta at the
federal level and the DER, and they both agree it is not a
problem. He stated that he would resent someone else coming
along and saying these agencies don't know what they are doing.
Commissioner Bowman did not think we are saying they don't
know what they are doing, but that the people of the area are
more familiar with this estuary and know more about it.
Mr. Muller informed the Board that if we could identify the -
sea grass beds that may or may not exist and limit the problem to
the dredging, they have another alternative. They may be able to
dig a channel, not as originally suggested by Planner Challacombe
and turned down by the DER, but a channel on their own land - not
67
JUN 19 19,115 BOOK P",CF �9 e�
JUN 10 1985 BOOKS rlrCo�
in the river - between the mouth of the lake and the existing
channel and not impact the river bed whatsoever. In other words,
they would create a canal to an existing channel; they could do
this by shifting a building back a little; and they would have to
redesign the site plan slightly. Mr. Muller again emphasized
that he has a dredge and fill permit from the DER, and he would
like the Commission to put some confidence in the authority of
the state and federal governments and not get into this endless
hash of all the other societies. He believed this would take the
burden of the problem off everyone; he would have to address this
with the DNR and get their approval and then he still has to come
back to the county with the modified plan before he can do
anything. Mr. Muller further pointed out that no adjoining
property owner has objected to what they want to do, but rather
he believed they feel it is beneficial to them. He would have to
get an agreement with the Semblers, but did not expect that would
be a problem. '
Chairman Lyons stated he would be happier with the
alternative Mr. Muller suggested than with the dredging of the
channel, but he did not know the effect on the water quality.
Commissioner Bowman noted that Sembler has a dead end canal,
and Mr. Muller pointed out that his alternative would open up the
dead end canal.
Chairman Lyons noted that he would like to bring this
discussion to a close and asked what action the Board would
suggest.
Commissioner Bowman stated that she would like to put it to
a vote.
Chairman Lyons believed that Mr. Muller is a man of his
word, and if Mr. Muller says he will abandon the channel and try
to go this way, he would be inclined to believe him.
Commissioner Wodtke realized we have a 14 day deadline, but
asked if it would meet the concerns of our staff and Commissioner
Bowman if Mr. Muller agreed that he will apply to DER with this
68
suggested alternate route and actively pursue this as an
alternative to the permit that has been issued. Commissioner
Wodtke personally believed we should take the best course
available, and if this alternative should prove to have a water
quality problem, which is a biological question, then you make a
determination of whether this alternative or the permitted one
will be best. The permit will be altered if that is a viable
alternative and will satisfy our concerns re dredging.
Commissioner Bowman stated that she would like to ask Mr.
Muller to request the DER to rescind the current permit, but
Commissioner Bird felt the permit should be amended not
rescinded.
Mr. Muller confirmed that he will apply to the DER for an
amended permit and send a copy of his letter to the Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed
they would take no further action today on the
basis that Mr. Muller would apply to DER for
an amended permit as discussed above.
There being no further business, the Board on Motion duly
made, seconded and carried, adjourned at 12:45 o'clock P.M.
Attest:
/-P) Jj
CLERK CHAT N
69
JUN 19 1985 BOOK 61 r,,,E 335