HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/9/1986Wednesday, April 9, 1986
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Cham-
bers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, April
9, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird;
Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were
Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; L.S. "Tommy"
Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Joseph Baird, OMB
Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock requested that Item I under the Consent
Agenda be deleted as no one is able to attend the Composting and
Waste Recycling Conference being held in Baltimore, Maryland,
during April 30 -May 2.
Commissioner Lyons requested the following two additions to
the Consent Agenda: As Item I, the appointment of Lee Johnston of
Orchid to replace Jeannette Lier on the Transportation Planning
Committee and the appointment of Councilman Robert McCarthy of
Sebastian as the municipal representative to the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council.
Commissioner Lyons also requested the addition under his
matters of a discussion re the possibility of receiving some
grant money for automation of the library system and under
APR 9 1986 Boa 6 pn- 7.3
FF' -
APR 9 19$6
BOOK 64 fr1GE 74
Committee Reports, a Summary of Actions of the Transportation
Planning Committee.
Attorney Vitunac requested the addition to the Consent
Agenda as Item K an agreement with Southern Bell re joint pole
use for two school zone flashing beacons.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
deleted and added the above items to today's
Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 19,
1986. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 19, 1986,
as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bird requested that Item H - Approval of Bid
for Caretaking of County Grove - be removed from the Consent
Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Wodtke asked that Item
H(a) - Resolution adopting an amended schedule of rates, fees,
and charges for the IRC Landfill, be removed also.
A. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Sewer and/or Water Utilities Annual Report of
Vero Beach Shores and Vero Highlands Division
For Year ended 1985
B. _Execution of Building Lease from School Board
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/27/86:
2
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 27, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
Thru: Michael Wright
County Administrator
H. T. "Sonny"an
FROM: Director
General Services
SUBJECT: Building Lease from
School Board
REFERENCES:
Our lease with the School Board on the building for Sheriff Dobeck
will expire in May of this year. It is anticipated that the
Sheriff's new building will be complete in the spring of 1987 at
which time he will vacate the subject building.
In order to accomodate the Sheriff, and as approved by the School
Board, staff recommends renewal of the present lease for another year
at the present rate.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
renewed the present lease with the School Board
for Sheriff Dobeck's office space for another
year at the present rate.
3
APR 9 1986 BOOK 64 FA,E 75
J/61 /but A—J)ULUk VK)
EXTENSION OF LEASE AGREEMVWT 64 uc-L 76
WHEREAS, THE SCHOOL BOARD OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY entered into a LEAS]
AGREEMENT on the 5th day of May, 1982, for a term of three
years, commencing on the 1st day of June, 1982, and terminating of
May 31, 1985; and
WHEREAS, the parties previously extended the lease terr,
for a one-year period from May 31, 1985, through May 31, 1986, an(
now. desire to extend the term of said LEASE AGREEMENT for ai
additional one-year period:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE SCHOOL BOARD OF INDIAN RIVEI
COUNTY, FLORIDA, a corporate body existing under the laws of the
State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "Landlord" an(
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State o
Florida, hereinafter called the "Tenant," in consideration of the
mutual promises and agreements set forth below hereby agree
pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the May 5, 1982, LEASE AGREEMENT, b
extend the term of the LEASE 'AGREEMENT for an additional one -yea:
period, commencing on May 31, 1986, and terminating on May 31
1987, for the total additional rental of $17,499.46, payable
monthly in advance on the first day of each month during the terr
of this LEASE EXTENSION at the rate of $1;458.33 per month, plu
sales tax if applicable.
All of the remaining terms and conditions of the May 5
1982, LEASE AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect fo
the term of this LEASE EXTENSION.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we the Landlord and Tenant hav
hereunto affixed our hands and seals at Vero Beach, Indian Rive
County, Florida, on the dates set forth next to the respective
signatures.
Dated:
Witness
1! Witness
�_N _ , i Approved
�_ i D ted: April 9, 1986
1 ss
Witn s
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF INDIAN
RIVyi,4 COUNTY, LORIDA
ByIAf
Dorot y A. Talbert, Chairman
Attest
James A. Burns, Supt.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER!
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORII
By '' G
f
Attest
P
C. IRC Bid #287_- Traffic' Signal Conduit
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/26/86;
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 26, 1986 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #287 -Traffic Signal Conduit
County Administrator
J
FROM: &L-t-dJ REFERENCES:
'Carolyn ,¢oodrich, Manager
Purchas Ong Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, March 25, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #287 -
Traffic Signal Conduit for the Traffic Engineering Department.
8 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 2 Bids received, 1 was a "No Bid".
2. Alternatives and Analysis
This bid is for installation of traffic signal conduit for the school
speed reduction beacon project. The only bid was received from Pan American
Engineering Co., in the amount of $2150.00.
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #287 be awarded to the only bidder, Pan American
Engineering in the amount of $2150.00.
Funds are budgeted in Account#111-245-541-66.44.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #287
to the only bidder, Pan American Engineering Co., in
the amount of $2,150.00 for installation of traffic
signal conduit for the school speed reduction beacon
project.
" uvHnu Ur VUUN I Y COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
�C11)
h
A
BID TABULATION
4�1� ^ .c
BID NO. DATE OF OPENING
IRC BID •#287 I March 25, 1986 0 o c o
BID TITLE �%Z� a ��
TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONDUIT
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PI
1. Traffic Signal Conduit
FDOT Pay Item 630-1-14 100 LF NR 2150 00
5
PR 9 1986 Bou 64 us 7
Boor, 64 rnbE 78
D. ,Final Plat Approval for Oslo Ridge Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/31/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 31, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
Robert M. Ke ing" AICP OSLO RIDGE SUBDIVISION
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling , 4,6- REFERENCES: Oslo Ridge S/D
Staff Planner IBMIRD
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on April 9, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Oslo Ridge Subdivision is a 26 lot subdivision of ±8.67 acres
located on the north side of 11th Lane S.W. just west of Old Dixie
Highway. The subdivision is zoned RS -6 (Single -Family
Residential, up to 6 units per acre) and has a LD -2 (Low Density
Residential, up to 6 units per acre) land use designation . The
proposed building density is ±3.0 units per acre. All road
rights-of-way and easements are to be dedicated to the County.
The owner/ applicant,, James and Charlotte Lawhon, are requesting
final plat approval.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The Oslo Ridge Subdivision, submitted and reviewed under the old
subdivision ordinance (75-3), received preliminary plat approval
from the Board of County Commissioners on April 3, 1985. The
preliminary plat was approved subject to the condition that the
developer pave or ensure the paving of 11th Lane S.W. prior to
final plat approval.
A valid paving petition for 11th Lane S.W. has been authorized by
the Board via Resolution 85-137. The paving process, including
engineering and roadway preparation, is substantially complete and
will be concluded shortly. Therefore, the paving of 11th Lane
S.W. has been ensured in accordance with the Board's preliminary
plat approval condition. Public Works has verified that required
subdivision improvements (all newly created roads and drainage
improvements) have been constructed and are acceptable.
The final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all
applicable County regulations concerning final plat approval have
been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to Oslo Ridge Subdivision.
6
r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
granted final plat approval for Oslo Ridge
Subdivision to James and Charlotte Lawhon.
E. Final Plat Approval for Wood Hollow Subdivison, Phase 2
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/31/86:
rQ: The Honorable Members DATE: March 31, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
Robert M. Ke ng; .ICP WOOD HOLLOW PHASE 2
Planning & Development Director SUBDIVISION
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling JCI• G. REFERENCES: wood Hollow S/D
Staff Planner IBMIRD
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on April 9, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Wood Hollow Phase 2 is the second phase of a ±20.7 acre project on
the south side of 5th Street, S.W. (Rebel Road) west of 27th
Avenue. Phase 2 is a 16 lot subdivision of ±10.4 acres of land.
The property is zoned RS -3 (Residential Single -Family up to 3
units/acre) and has a LD -1 (Low Density Residential up to 3
units/acre) land use designation. The building density is ±1.5
units/acre. All road rights-of-way and easements are to be
dedicated to. the public. The owner/applicant, Miraflores, Inc.,
Norman Hensick, Jr., Vice-president, is now requesting final plat
approval.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
.The Wood Hollow Phase 2 subdivision, submitted and reviewed under
the old subdivision ordinance (75-3), received preliminary plat
approval on May 4, 1983; approval was extended on August 8, 1984.
The submitted final plat is in conformance with the approved
preliminary plat. Public Works .has verified that all required
improvements have been constructed and are acceptable. All
applicable regulations concerning final plat approval have been
satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to Wood Hollow Phase 2 Subdivision.
7
'F •ii
BOOK 64 rac-C 79
APR 9 i 6BOOK 04 P 'A 80
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
granted final plat approval for Wood Hollow
Subdivision Phase 2.
F. Proclamation Designating Teacher Appreciation_ Week
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
designated the week of May 4 through May 10,
1986 as Teacher Appreciation Week.
P R O C L A M A T I O'N
WHEREAS, a strong, effective system of free public
education for all children and youth is essential to our
democratic system of government; and
WHEREAS, the Iridian River County School system has made -
considerable progress in the social, technological and scientific
fields due to our system of free and universal public education;
and
WHEREAS, much of this progress can be attributed to the
qualified and dedicated teachers entrusted with educational
development of our children and their full potentials; and
WHEREAS, teachers should be accorded high public
esteem, reflecting the value that the community places on public
education; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that teachers be recognized
for their dedication and commitment to educating their students;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of
May 4 through May 10, 1986 be 'designated as
TEACHER APPRECIATION WEEK
in Indian River County, Florida, and the Board urges all citizens
to pay tribute to our public school teachers.
ATTEST:
Freda Wright_, Clerk
Adopted April 9, 1986
8
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
1M G
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., C airman
G. Proclamation HonoringRotary Club
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
proclaimed that 1986 will mark the 60th
anniversary of the local Rotary Club.
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, the local ROTARY CLUB #2377 was formed in
June, 1926 during extremely difficult times of a national
depression; and
WHEREAS, a
banquet will
be held on
April
11,
1986 to
conmiemorate the 60th
Anniversary of
the local
ROTARY
CLUB;
and
WHEREAS, the spirit of ROTARY has burned brightly over
the years and has developed into a prestige service club that has
been influential in the progress of the community; and
WHEREAS, the ROTARY WEST CLUB was formed during the
1973-74 year due to the large enrollment of members; and
WHEREAS, ROTARY aided in the Special Olympic program
this year; and
WHEREAS, ROTARY assisted with the food concessions at
the annual Art Fair with their share of the profits going into
scholarships based on scholastic records, need, and service to
the community; and
WHEREAS, ROTARY sponsors a recognition program each
month for the outstanding teachers in high schools; and
WHEREAS, ROTARY has won; world recognition for our
crmununity, through the Homestay program by entertainit►y 15
District Governors from all over the world;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE I30ARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that 1986 will mark
the 60th Anniversary of the local ROTARY CLUB and urge all the
citizens of Indian River County to support the ROTARY CLUB in
their future endeavors.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
9 Chairman
APR 9 1986 Boa 64 F��cE �1
APR 9 1966 BOOK 64 raE 82
H.—Approval of Bid for Caretaking of County Grove
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/1/86:
FLORIDA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
I FAS
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
AO RICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
w
2001-9 Ave., #303
REPLY TO: Vero Beach, FL 32960-6414
April 1, 1986
TO: Board of County Commissioners n
FROM: Tommy Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations '
Steve Futch, County Extension Agent- Citrus .sar� 4IJ-A'
SUBJECT: Approval of Bid for Caretaking of County Grove
We recommend that the Board accept the low bid received.
This bid was submitted by Sexton Grove Service of Vero Beach.
The low bid was for $492.50 per acre for the balance of 1986.
Sexton Grove Service will provide the total caretaking, management,
and materials necessary to continue to market the grapefruit in
the fresh fruit market. They also understand that the fruit will
be sold by the standard bid procedure as was conducted in 1985.
Sexton Grove Service has also recommended that the flapgate
on the pump be repaired and a small pump placed near the pumphouse
to further lower the water table in the grove.
Commissioner Bird felt they have given us an estimated cost
for the normal care of the grove, but it actually will be billed
on a time and material basis. Intergovernmental Relations
Director Tommy Thomas confirmed that we had the same type of
agreement last year.
Commissioner Bird questioned whether we need major service
or minimal service on the grove, and Director Thomas anticipated
that this grove would be in operation for a number of years and
we are looking for maximum production.
Stephen Futch, County Agricultural Extension Agent,
explained that the grove's drainage problems must be solved if
the County plans on having productive groves over a period of
years.
10
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded
the bid for caretaking of the County grove to
the low bidder, Sexton Grove Service of Vero Beach,
in the amount of $492.50 per acre for the balance of
1986.
H(a) Resolution Adopting an Amended Schedule of Rates, Fees, and
Charges for the IRC Landfill
Chairman Scurlock explained that a copy of the new rate
schedule is attached to the proposed resolution in today's backup
material. He pointed out that various rate changes were agreed
upon at the public hearing of March 19th and the increased rates
will be effective April 15, 1986.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 86-15 adopting an amended schedule
of rates, fees and charges for the Indian River
County Landfill.
Bernie Higgins of Florida Sludge Service explained that he
hauls septic sludge from all the County's plants, and he wished
to know what the new sludge rates would be.
Commissioner Bird advised that the new rates would be $7.50
for up to one ton or $11 per ton. Mr. Higgins understood then
that would increase his rates from $15 a truckload to $300
because there are 30 tons on a truck.
Commissioner Lyons believed -Mr. Higgins would have to charge
the County for the increase, and Chairman Scurlock felt the
bottom line is that the Landfill is not going to subsidize the
haulers any longer or the homes in the community that are on
septic tanks. They are going to have to pay the cost of the
improvements necessary to handle septage and sludge effectively.
11
APR 9 1986 BOOK 64 FI�GE 83
BOOK 64 8
Utilities Director Terry Pinto emphasized that if that is
what it costs, then that is what it will take.
Administrator Wright reported that presently we are working
with the City of Vero Beach to try to work out a plan to deposit
septage into their plant, but that won't be sludge.
Director Pinto pointed out that cost for handling treated
sludge and septage at the Landfill is the same.
Commissioner Wodtke asked how we determine how much the
County pays Mr. Higgins to haul sludge, and Director Pinto stated
that right now they have a negotiated charge with Mr. Higgins and
if he wants to charge the County more because of the Landfill
rate increase, then we will have to renegotiate his rate.
12
4/l/86(R--4)LEG(Vk)
RESOLUTION NO. 86-- 15
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ADOPTING AN AMENDED SCHEDULE OF RATES, FEES,
AND CHARGES FOR THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
LANDFILL.
WHEREAS, Indian River County passed Resolution No. 77-110
which provided for the issuance of not to exceed $1,815,000 of
Solid Waste Disposal System Revenue Bonds, Series 1977; and
WHEREAS, that resolution has a continuing requirement that
the rates, fees, and charges at the disposal site be sufficient to
meet the debt retirement requirements of the bonds; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County commissioned an engineering
report to be performed by Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. which
recommended that certain changes be made in the current rates,
fees, and charges; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to public notice, a public hearing was
held on March 19, 1986 at 9:15 A.M.; and
WHEREAS, . at that public hearing the Board of County
Commissioners suggested certain amendments to the rate schedule
prepared by Camp, Dresser & McKee;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that:
The following fixed fees and tonnage charges ire adopted to
be effective .April 15, 1986:
SEE EXHIBIT "A"
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Wodtke
and seconded by Commissioner Bird and, being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 9th day of April 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
DON C. SCU LOCK, J
Chairman
Attest By:
FREDA WRIGHT
Clerk �1'
f ircuit Court
'�
'�{
BOOK 64 prE
A; -,proved as to form
'y and Icgal sufficiency
4
Atl2rrey
'A
r ASR 9 196
64 Fn'; -L 86
Bou
EXHIBIT "A"
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE
SYSTEM
EXISTING
RATE
SCHEDULE
Effective
April
15, 1986
Load
Regular Fee Uncovered �1)
Type
Fee
FIXED FEES
Family Vehicles:
Automobiles, Station Wagons
A
$1.00 load
$2.00 load
Pickups, Family --type Vans,
$3.00 Min.
$6.100 Min.
Station Wagons w/o seats,
up to one
up to one
all trailers not exceeding
B
ton or
ton or
6 feet by 8 feet
$13.50/ton
$27/ton
Small Dead Animals
(dogs, cats, fowl, etc.) E $7.50 each $15 each
each
Septage H $7.50 Min.
up to one
ton or
$11/ton
TONNAGE CHARGES
Mixed Bulk Refuse:
Garbage, rubbish, trees,
and yard trash, incl.
bulky waste, large
animals and liquids or
any mixture of these
contituents which can
be handled and disposed
of without special landfill
procedures
C $13.50/ton(2) $27/ton(2)
Demolition and Construc-
tion Wastes:
Waste building materials,
packing and rubble resulting
from construction, remodeling,
repair, and demolition opera-
tions on pavements, houses,
commercial buildings, and
other structures D
$9/ton(2)
$18/ton(2)
Tires F $33/ton $66/ton
Tree stumps, logs, tree
limbs, and brush G 10.50/ton�2� $21/ton
�2�
(1) Uncovered loads, untied loads, or those causing littering will
be charged double rate for disposal.
(2) Minimum Charge: $3.00 (unless otherwise specified)
Approved
Utility matters:
dei re K rton
Asst. Direc
Div. of Util. Service
r � �
I. Appointment to Transportation Planning Council
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
appointed Lee Johnston from Orchid to replace
Jeannette Lier on the Transportation Planning
Committee and Councilman Robert McCarthy as the
municipal representative from Sebastian to the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
J. Joint Pole Use Agreement with Southern Bell
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/3/86:
TO: DATE:. FILE:
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., April 3, 1986 -
Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT:
JOINT POLE USE AGREEMENT
WITH SOUTHERN BELL
FROM:Bruce Barkett REFERENCES:
Assistant Coun y Attorney
Please execute the attached application and permit for use of
Southern Bell poles for two school zone flashing beacons. I will
then forward the application to Southern Bell for processing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the Application and Permit for use of Southern Bell
poles for two school zone flashing beacons and
authorized the Chairman's signature.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
L- APR 9198-11
:••-�
15
BOOK 64 FnE 87
BOOT( 64 rvF 88
DISCUSSION OF TOWN OF ORCHID CONTRACTION
Chairman Scurlock recalled that at last week's meeting
we had a discussion as to the future of the Town of Orchid, and
he had some pretty strong concerns re a municipality consisting
of only 8 individuals possibly impacting the infrastructure of
the county. He informed the Board that he and Attorney Vitunac
met with Mayor Lee Johnston, Darrell Fennell, Attorney for the
Town of Orchid, and Harold Melville, Attorney for Deerfield
Groves Partnership, which is the major property owner in the
Town. Their discussion revolved around the uncertainty of the
Town's future development, and they were assured by the Mayor and
the attorneys that while they had no immediate development plans,
they did think in terms of low density, high quality development
consistent with what is on the barrier island. Attorney Vitunac
wished to have more assurance than that, however, and it was
agreed to reduce to writing the various verbal agreements we have
with the Department of Community Affairs and revisit the more
formal agreements and strengthen those so that the County would
have a more secure feeling.
Attorney Fennell, who has represented the Town of Orchid for
20 years, confirmed that the Town as presently constituted has
every intention of fulfilling all of the obligations that any
prior Town Council has made and the Council and Deerfield Groves
also has assured him that they are well aware of the sensitive
nature of the barrier island. They want to continue to be good
neighbors and feel that when development does occur in the Town
of Orchid, it will be something that the County will be very
proud of.
The Commissioners each expressed their feelings with regard
to the continuing of the fine relationship between the County and
the Town, and Commissioner Wodtke noted that Cubit Engineering is
doing a $90,000 study of the entire barrier island and it would
be helpful if they could get through the gates at Deerfield
Groves to put down some control points.
16
The Board agreed that Attorney Vitunac should meet further
with Attorneys Melville and Fennell and go over all agreements to
make sure that they are enforceable and decide whether they may
need to be changed any in light of the possibility of a new
bridge going across the river since that would affect the
capacity available for densities on new units.
PUBLIC HEARING - PORPOISE POINT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT FOR
STREET LIGHTING
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO'
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF
C
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY ORDINANCE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County. Florida, will conduct a Public
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
Hearing on Wednesday, April 9, 1986 at 9:15
A.M. in the Commission Chambers at the County
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper
Administration Building, 1840 25th Street. Vero
published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, bein 9
Beach, Florida to consider the adoption of an
Ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
�r
�O
OF INIAN
a ""-Lf
RIVER COUNTYUNTY !SONERS FLORIDA. CREATING
THE -PORPOISE POINT MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING
_
In the matter of /`✓� ifJ''(�-�iy
FOR THE CREATION TAXING
. UNIT; PURPOSE; DETERER THEMINATION OF
COST OF STREET LIGHTING SERVICE
OR OTHER APPROVED SERVICE; LEVY
OF TAXES, ADOPTION OF BUDGET;
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OR AS-
SESSMENTS; DISPOSITION OF PRO-
CEEDS FROM THE DISTRICT FOR
in theCOUrt, W21S pub-
STREET LIGHTING OR OTHER PUR-
POSES; INCORPORATION IN CODE;
�y,�
lished 91y
SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
in said newspaper in the issues of/!/l_4. o7D
If any person decides to appeal a decision
made on the above matter, a record of the pr
ceedings will be required for such purposes, and,
he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record
includes the testimony and evidence on which
-Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
the appeal is based.
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
Indian River CountyBoard of County commissioners
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
Mar. 20.1986
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscri ; d bre,m/� _ day of�� A.D. 19 dC
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County,
Assistant County Attorney James Wi-lson reported that the
City of Vero Beach is phasing out this type of street lighting
17 BOOK 64 F>A,GE 89
APR 91996
APR 9 1966 BOOK 64 pv .90
service and the residents have requested that the County continue
the service. The lights are already in place and all we have to
do is set up the budget process and assess through a municipal
service taxing unit.
Commissioner Lyons noted that the City has stopped providing
electricity to poles for so much a month and they no longer have
a rate structure for it, and Chairman Scurlock pointed out that
they just did not want the nuisance of handling the service on
individual poles.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-25, creating the Porpoise Point Municipal
Service Taxing Unit for the purpose of street lighting.
18
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 86-25
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING
THE PORPOISE POINT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT;
PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF THE TAXING UNIT; PURPOSE;
DETERMINATION OF COST OF STREET LIGHTING SERVICE OR
OTHER APPROVED SERVICE; LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS, ADOPTION OF
BUDGET; EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OR ASSESSMENTS;
DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM THE DISTRICT FOR STREET
LIGHTING OR OTHER PURPOSES; INCORPORATION IN CODE;
SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the residents of Porpoise Point Subdivision
have requested that the County establish a mechanism for providing
street lighting service at crucial locations throughout the
subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that creation of a municipal
service taxing unit to raise funds through the equitable
assessment of property owners throughout the subdivision is the
best available means of accomplishing the desired goal; and
WHEREAS, provision of street lighting of the area will
further the safety, health, and well-being of all those residing
and owning property within the boundaries of the district;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, that:
SECTION 1
CREATION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT
There is hereby established in Indian River County
the Porpoise Point Municipal Service Taxing Unit under the
authority of, and with all those powers conferred by, the
Constitution of the State of Florida, §125.01(q), and §125.01(r),
Florida Statutes. The real property included within the
boundaries of this Municipal Service Taxing Unit and subject to
all provision hereof is described as follows:
The South 660 feet of Government Lot 4 (lying east of
State Road A -1-A) of Section 21, Township 33 South,
Range 40 East, and that part of Government Lot 1 of
Section 22, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, lying
East of the South 660 feet of said Government Lot 4
of Section 21, said property now being known as
Porpoise Point Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 3,
Page 57, of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
19
APR 9 1986 BOOK 6PAIG E 91
APR. 9 1966 BOOS( 64 PA -UE �2
SECTION 2
PURPOSE
A. This Municipal Service Taxing Unit is created
for the purpose of providing street lighting at all reasonable,
efficient, and proper locations, within the boundaries of the unit,
including the cost of engineering, construction, maintenance,
easement acquisition, and any necessary supporting service or
function related thereto, all as may be determined by the Board of
County Commissioners, and for the provision of such further
services as may be lawfully authorized and determined by the Board
from time to time.
B. This Municipal Service Taxing Unit may fund all
or any of the aforementioned services or improvements through
either current year funding, tax anticipation or multi-year notes
or bonds, provided any debt instrument or obligation made must be
repayable solely from the revenues collected by the Municipal
Service Taxing Unit pursuant to the authority and means provided by
this ordinance.
SECTION 3
DETERMINATION OF COST OF SERVICE
The Board of County Commissioners shall determine
each year the estimated cost of providing street lighting and such
other services as the County Commission may provide, including
capital and equipment improvements, rentals and acquisitions, and
operating and maintenance costs and expenses, for the ensuing
County fiscal year for that area which is or shall be receiving
street lighting or other benefits provided by this unit within the
boundaries of the unit.
SECTION 4
LEVY OF ASSESSMENT, ADOPTION OF BUDGET
The Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes
the levy of an assessment upon each tract, parcel, or unit, whether
owned in conjunction with land or not, otherwise subject to
taxation, within that area which is or shall be receiving street
20
lighting services or benefits within the Municipal Service Taxing
Unit created hereby, with such exceptions as are set forth in
Section 5 below. The assessment shall be equal and uniform upon
each platted lot in the Porpoise Point Subdivision. The assessment
shall be levied and a budget prepared and adopted by the Board at
the same time and in the same manner as the Board prepares and
adopts its County annual budget and levies taxes as provided by
law. Said assessments shall be levied, collected, remitted to and
accounted for at the time and manner as for the assessment, levy,
collection, remittance and accounting of taxes by the Board as
provided by law. The budget shall contain all or such portion of
the estimated cost of providing street lighting and other services
within the boundaries of the unit, as determined under the
provisions of Section 3 hereof, as the Board shall determine to be
necessary to provide such services.
SECTION 5
EXEMPTIONS FROM ASSESSMENT
The following lands are exempted from the provisions
of this Article for the purposes of assessments for street lighting
benefits:
A. Those parts of any platted and recorded
subdivision which lie within the corporate limits of any
municipality existing or hereafter created.
B. All lands within the district owned by any church
or church denomination that are held and used for the holding of
church services.
C. All lands owned and occupied by buildings owned
and operated by the Indian River County School District for the
purposes of operating a school for the education of the citizens of
Indian River County.
CL+nmTnm G
DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM LEVY OF TAXES
Those funds obtained from the levy of an assessment
on all the taxable real property within the boundary of said unit
21
APR 9 1996 BOOK b4 Face 93
L-
APR 1986 BOOK 64 PAGE 94
shall be maintained in a separate account and used solely for the
purpose of providing street lighting and such other benefits as
determined by the Board of County commissioners within the
boundaries of said unit only. "
CL+nmTnM 7
INCORPORATION IN CODE
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of
Ordinances of Indian River County and the word "ordinance" may be
changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word and the
sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to
accomplish such purposes.
0V,-MTnM Q
SEVERABILITY
If any Section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase,
or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not
affect the remaining portions of this ordinance; and it shall be
construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the
ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative
part.
CVtr MTnM O
EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from
the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 9th day
of April , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By -:z� G
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., MaIrTkan
22
L ' i
PUBLIC HEARING - LAUREL COURT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT FOR
STREET LIGHTING
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
NOTICE OFPUBLIC HEARING To ;
Before the UnderSl ned aUthOrit
9 y personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF
COUNTY ORDINANCE
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, bein 9
River County. Florida, will conduct a Public
-at
Hearing on Wednesday. April 9, 1986 9:15
A.M. nthe Commission Chambers at the County
a � P
Administration Building, 1840 25th Street. Vero
Beach, Florida to consider the adoption of an:
Ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
In the matter oflv(.c�i�
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING.
THE LAUREL COURT MUNICIPAL SER-
VICE TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING FOR
THE CREATION OF THE TAXING UNIT:
'PURPOSE; DETERMINATION OF COST
OF STREET LIGHTING SERVICE OR
in the
OTHER APPROVED SERVICE; LEVY OF
Court, was pub-
TAXES, ADOPTION OF BUDGET; EX-
EMPTION FROM TAXATION OR AS-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of7kL"'7
SESSMENTS: DISPOSITION OF PRO-
CEEDS FROM THE DISTRICT FOR
i
STREET LIGHTING OR OTHER PUR-
POSES; INCORPORATION IN CODE;
SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
If any person decides to appeal a decision
Afflant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
made on the above matter, a record of the pro-
ceedings will be required for such purposes, and
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, daily has
he or
record of the may
roceed to ensure
s mrade that
hich regio d
includes the testimony
each and been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
and evidence on which
the appeal is based.
t y, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
'Mar. 20.1986
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed be re mday of �1 �C
e/gis
, A.D. 19
tzC4
V 1— (Bu- Mana, 1
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, F60/Ida)
Assistant Attorney James Wilson advised that this is a
little different situation because it is a newly platted
subdivision and the developer wishes to install street lights.
All of the costs will be borne by the developer and the residents
of the subdivision.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
23
BOOK - 64 Ff,, t
I
cc
APR 1986 8001( F'AJE 96
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-26, creating the Laurel Court Municipal
Service Taxing Unit for the purpose of street lighting."
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 86-26
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING -
THE LAUREL COURT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING
FOR THE CREATION OF THE TAXING UNIT; PURPOSE;
DETERMINATION OF COST OF STREET LIGHTING SERVICE OR OTHER
APPROVED SERVICE; LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS, ADOPTION OF
BUDGET; EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OR ASSESSMENTS;
DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM THE DISTRICT FOR STREET
LIGHTING OR OTHER PURPOSES; INCORPORATION IN CODE;
SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the residents of Laurel Court Subdivision,
together with the developer, Laurel Builders Corporation, have
requested that the County establish a mechanism for providing
street lighting service at crucial locations throughout the
subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that creation of a municipal
service taxing unit to raise funds through the equitable assessment
of property owners throughout the subdivision is the best available
means of accomplishing the desired goal; and
WHEREAS, provision of street lighting of the area
will further the safety, health, and well-being of all those
residing and owning property within the boundaries of the
district;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that:
SECTION 1
CREATION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT
There is hereby established in Indian River County
the Laurel Court Municipal Service Taxing Unit under the authority
of, and with all those powers conferred by, the Constitution of the
State of Florida, §125.01(q), and 5125.01(r), Florida Statutes.
The real property included within the boundaries of this Municipal
Service Taxing Unit and subject to all provisions hereof is
described as follows:
24
The West 10 acres of the East 20 acres of Tract 5,
Section 10, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, as the same
as designated on the last general plat of the lands of
Indian River Farms Company, filed in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida
in Plat Book 2, Page 25, said land now situate in
Indian River County, Florida. Also known as and being
a replat of "Ravina Gardens," filed in Plat Book 1,
Page 66, Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida, (vacated by County Resolution Number 83-6 as
recorded in O.R. Book 656, Pages 740-741), said
property now being known as Laurel Court Subdivision,
as recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 99, Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida.
SECTION 2
PURPOSE
A. This Municipal Service Taxing Unit is created for
the purpose of providing street lighting at all reasonable,.
efficient, and proper locations, within the boundaries of the unit,
including the cost of engineering, construction, maintenance,
easement acquisition, and any necessary supporting service or
function related thereto, all as may be determined by the Board of
County Commissioners, and for the provision of such further
services as may be lawfully authorized and determined by the Board
from time to time.
B. This Municipal Service Taxing Unit may fund all
or any of the aforementioned services or improvements through
either current year funding, tax anticipation or multi-year notes
or bonds, provided any debt instrument or obligation made must be
repayable solely from the revenues collected by the Municipal
Service Taxing Unit pursuant to the authority and means provided by
this ordinance.
SECTION 3
DETERMINATION OF COST OF SERVICE
The Board of County Commissioners shall determine
each year the estimated cost of providing street lighting and such
other services as the County Commission may provide, including
capital and equipment improvements, rentals and acquisitions, and
operating and maintenance costs and expenses, for the ensuing
County fiscal year for that area which is or shall be receiving
street lighting or other benefits provided by this unit within the
boundaries of the unit.
`V
APP 9 1986 Boor. 64 F,1GE 97
FF -
APR 9 1986
Boa 64 F�,cr 198
SECTION 4
LEVY OF ASSESSMENT, ADOPTION OF BUDGET
The Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes
the levy of an assessment upon each tract, parcel, or unit, whether
owned in conjunction with land or not, otherwise subject to
taxation, within that area which is or shall be receiving street
lighting services or benefits within the Municipal Service Taxing
Unit created hereby, with such exceptions as are set forth in
6
Section 5 below. The assessment shall be equal and uniform upon
.each platted lot in the Laurel Court subdivision. The assessment
shall be levied and a budget prepared and adopted by the Board at
the same time and in the same manner as the Board prepares and
adopts its County annual budget and levies taxes as provided by
law. Said assessment shall be levied, collected, remitted to and
accounted for at the time and manner as for the assessment, levy,
collection, remittance and accounting of taxes by the Board as
provided by law. The budget shall contain all or such portion of
the estimated cost of providing street lighting and other services
within the boundaries of the unit, as determined under the
provisions of Section 3 hereof, as the Board shall determine to be
necessary to provide such services.
OV#V MTnM M
EXEMPTIONS FROM ASSESSMENT
The following lands are exempted from the provisions
of this Article for the purposes of assessments for street lighting
benefits:
A. Those parts of any platted and recorded
subdivision which lie within the corporate limits of any
municipality existing or hereafter created.
B. All lands within the district owned by any church
or church denomination that are held and used for the holding of
church services.
C. All lands owned and occupied by buildings owned
and operated by the Indian River County School District for the
purposes of operating a school for the education of the citizens of
Indian River County.
26
SECTION 6
DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM LEVY OF TAXES
Those funds obtained from the levy of an assessment
on all the taxable real property within the boundary of said unit
shall be maintained in a separate account and used solely for the
purpose of providing street lighting and such other benefits as
determined by the Board of County commissioners within the
boundaries of said unit only.
SECTION 7
INCORPORATION IN CODE
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of
Ordinances of Indian River County and the word "ordinance" may be
changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word and the
sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to
accomplish such purposes.
SECTION 8
SEVERABILITY
If any Section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase,
or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not
affect the remaining portions of this ordinance; and it shall be
construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the
ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative
part.
avr9mrnw o
EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from
the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian -River County, Florida, on this 9th day
April of, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By C
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., C a'rman
27
APR 9 1988 Boa 64 F',E 99
APR - 9 1986 BOOK 1 PAGF.®�
DISCUSSION RE NEED FOR NEW ZONING DISTRICT IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Fred Mensing, who requested that this matter be placed on
today's Agenda, pointed out that while he is not speaking as a
representative of the Roseland Property Owners Association this
morning, a few people in the area would like to have the County
create a new zoning district for the area in question.
Before pursuing that request, however, Mr. Mensing wished to
question the policy of the Code Enforcement Board on its
acceptance of anonymous complaints. He stressed that as a result
of these complaints, residents are often forced to retain legal
counsel and pay stiff fines, and he felt people should be man
enough to come forward and give their name when they have a
complaint. Mr. Mensing asked if someone from another area in the
county can file a complaint on a specific neighborhood because he
felt complaints to the Code Enforcement Board should be limited
to those living within one-eighth of a mile from the location of
the complaint.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that anyone has that right
because this county is governed by one set of ordinances that
affect all the residents. He felt that if Mr. Mensing believes
there are portions of our Zoning Code that are unreasonable, he
should bring it to the Board's attention,;and if the Board
agrees, then we will change them. However, we cannot have a
separate set of codes or ordinances for each little pod in the
county.
With regard to the creation of a new zoning district for the
area, Mr. Mensing pointed out that many people have placed mobile
homes on their properties with the hope of building a single-
family house later on. That option, however, was done away with
in the recent rezoning of residential districts, and a number of
property owners would like to see a return to the original joint
classification that would permit both single-family houses and
mobile homes. Staff has advised that it will cost $500 for an
application to develop a new zoning district, but he felt the
28
County should bear that cost. Mr. Mensing believed this area
needs to have the zoning that it deserves and urged the Board to
direct staff to hold night meetings in the area to get the input
of those property owners.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Mr. Mensing had a petition to
present because he had not heard anything from anyone else on
this issue, and Mr. Mensing stated that a petition was currently
being circulated and the last time he saw it, there were 42
signatures on it. There are 72 property owners indicated on the
tax map in this area.
Chairman Scurlock suggested Mr. Mensing look into rezoning
to single family which would grandfather in the existing homes.
Commissioner Lyons felt there was too much conjecture here
and pointed out that the Board did not have a zoning map to refer
to this morning. He suggested considering this matter at a later
time when we have all the facts.
Chairman Scurlock believed that all Mr. Mensing is asking
today is to waive the $500 application fee and have a County -
initiated rezoning, but Commissioner Wodtke suggested we request
staff to set up a night workshop in the area.
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, advised that
there have been two night workshops held already and a draft of
the Roseland Small Area Plan is going to the Planning 6 Zoning
Commission on May 8, 1986 for a public hearing. The property
owners association in that area has had a copy of this for over a
month and staff has received two comments they are looking at
right now. Basically, it seems they are very happy with the
plan.
Chief Planner Shearer advised that the area Mr. Mensing is
discussing is currently zoned RMH-6, which allows up to 6 mobile
homes per acre. The issue is that there are over 100 mobile
homes in this area and there are 6 single family homes. The
people who have single family homes don't want their uses to be
29
BOOK 6 4 F'1GE 101
ROOK 64
non -conforming, and the mobile home owners would like to be able
to build single family homes in the future. Staff is recommend-
ing that we do some further study in this area and come back with
a county -initiated request to rezone all or part of this area to
single family. There are particular areas where staff feels we
can go that way, but there are some areas where it is predomi-
nantly mobile homes.
Commissioner Lyons requested that a copy of the proposed
Roseland Small Area Plan be given to Mr. Mensing.
Commissioner Bowman asked for clarification of the area in
question, and Mr. Mensing stated that the boundaries are south
from Helen Hanson Park at Orr Avenue (80th St.) to the City of
Sebastian and from the railroad tracks west to 150' west of Haven
View, which is 126th St.
Commissioner Bowman noted that she has been waiting for
years to have the newspaper advertisements specifically identify
the area, but the legal notices are still giving descriptions
according to the section.
Planner Shearer informed her that staff tries to include a
map of the area in these advertisements even though it is
expensive to do so.
ARCHITECT'S REPORT ON PHASE II OF THE JAIL
George Bail of Frizzell Architects reviewed the following
letter dated 4/3/86:
30
M
April 3, 1986 AM198 1
CftF if � C HM
4�.
r
Mr. Sonny Dean, Director of General Services ZGi���'`
Indian River County 1878
1849 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL, PHASE II
Dear Mr. Dean:
We have received and reviewed the three estimates of construction
cost prepared by RSH Constructors, and'the two independent cost
estimating firms, Construction Cost Systems and Hanscomb Associates,
Inc. All estimates were based on construction documents which at
that time, were approximate 90% complete. Their estimates were:
Hanscomb
$1,751,930
... 78.45
per
sq.
ft.
Construction Cost Systems
$2,284,050
... 102.28
per
sq.
ft.
RSH Constructors
$2,477,573
... 110.94
per
sq.
ft.
To compare these costs with the costs of the Phase I construction,
we must take into consideration the fact that the bid submitted by
RSH was substantially below the other bids, so a fair comparison
should be based upon the average of the bids received at that time,
or $4,242,000. $4,242,000 divided by the Phase I area of 47,470 sq.
ft. equals $89.00 per sq. ft. times 1.04 for a years inflation
equals $93.00 per sq. ft.
$93.00 X Phase II area of 22,332 sq, ft. _ $2,076,876
However, on a proportionate basis, the addition contains substan-
tially less security equipment and includes no kitchen equipment, no
windows, no elevator and cheaper plumbing fixtures.
In our opinion the cost should be well under $2,000,000. Though it
is probable, that working with the now completed plans and taking
more competitive sub -bids, RSH could bring their guaranteed maximum
figure down substantially, we are now convinced by the wide spread
of these estimates,.that the County should seek competitive bids
from general contractors.
If the project goes out for general bids and RSH should not be
successful in submitting the lowest bid, the General Conditions
Article 6 of their contract allows the Owner to have two general
contractors working on the same site.
To prepare for competitive bidding:
.1. It will take one or two weeks to revise the documents
for general contract bids.
2. We will prepare a change order to be issued to RSH to cover
Phase II work that is in Area A including provisions of fenc-
ing, laundry/storage,control room.
3. The documents will be revised to show construction limits,
indicate staging areas for each general contractor, and ex-
plain the coordination required between general contractors.
4. The project must be advertised by the County for general
contract bids.
5. Three to three and one-half weeks will be needed for bidding.
6. One week will be needed for preparation of the contract and
permitting. Construction would not begin before the middle of
May, and at best the pod would not be completed until late
winter or early spring of 187.
Very truly yours,
W. R. FRI L ARCRI-T4CTS, INC.
George Hail, AIA
Vice President I
31
BOOK 64 103
BOOK 64 `' G;JU4
Mr. Bail advised that he questioned the figure on masonry
received in the low estimate from Hanscomb Associates because
their quantities were quite a bit lower than the others. They
rechecked and found that they figured a number of partitions as
drywall rather than masonry and submitted a revised figure of
$1,823,680. Construction Cost Systems estimated $2,284,050, and
RSH Constructors quoted a guaranteed maximum of $2,477,573, and
since he could not account for those variations, Mr. Bail
recommended that the job be put out for public bids.
Chairman Scurlock reported that he went over the bid from
RSH Constructors item by item. He agreed the estimates were too
far apart and concurred with the recommendation to go to bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized
the Architect to go out for public bid on the con-
struction of the second phase of the new Jail.
TRI -PARTY AGREEMENT - HRS/SHERIFF/IRC - CHILD SUPPORT ACTIONS
Attorney Vitunac explained that this is a standard form
contract and it provides for reimbursement to the Sheriff of a
portion of the money he spends on service of child support
actions.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the Tri -Party Agreement with the Dept, of Health and
Rehabilitative Services/ the Sheriff's Department and
Indian River County and authorized the Chairman's
signature.
SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
32
PRESENTATION OF 1985 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Duke Landorf, partner in May Zima, explained that the
Finance Department under the direction of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court is responsible for the preparation and content of
this report. They use May Zima to actually prepare this finan-
cial document and also to perform a financial and compliance
audit for the year ending September 30, 1985. The financial
report itself is essentially unchanged in its format from the
prior year and is presented in accordance with the governmental
accounting guidelines. Mr. Landorf then proceeded to highlight
some of the information in the report, as follows.
Page 23 is the accountants' report on the combined
statements. In essence, they are are giving an unqualified
opinion that the statements are fairly presented in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles.
Pages 26 and 27 show the combined balance sheets of all the
various fund types and account groups in the county. Mr.
Landorf pointed out that the General Fund, for instance, includes
the consolidated funds of the Constitutional Officers and the
Board of County Commissioners, and the general fixed assets
.include both the fixed assets of the Board of County Commissioner
and those fixed assets the Sheriff is responsible for. Mr.
Landorf cautioned that the general fixed assets of the county do
not reflect any depreciation and also specifically exclude
infrastructural type assets. He stated that the total assets at
the end of the year are shown as approximately 87 million, which
is up some 17 million, and the main increases in assets this year
were attributed to cash and special assessment fund activity,
particularly in connection with the SR60 utilities project. The
total liability was approximately 40 million, up approximately 10
million, and again, this is primarily attributable to the
Special assessment funds, essentially a net increase in bonds
payable and also due to some rather large collections of prepaid
impact fees.
33
BOOK D"" 4
APR * 9 1996 BOOK 64 FA,J06
Overall, the County's fund equity rose about 14%.
Pages 28 8 29 show the Combined Statement of Revenue
Expenditures and changes in fund balance for all your governmen-
tal fund types, which does not include the enterprise operations.
Total revenues were about 271 million, up about 18%, and
expenditures were about 28 million, up about 15%. The County
about broke even last year and has a relatively good fund
balance. The General Fund is also in relatively good shape as
far as fund balance as a percentage of expenditures is concerned.
Chairman Scurlock noted the General Revenue Funds were
increased over the previous year by $4,356,000, but if you look
at the total revenues compared with the increase in expenditures,
it looks as if what we have done is invaded cash carry forward
and contingency funds again the second year in a row. He
emphasized that is a dangerous habit and we need to be cautious
about continuing this practice.
Mr. Landorf agreed with, but noted the Board did not go into
it very much.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the fund balances at the end of
the year were approximately the same as last year, and Mr.
Landorf stated that they were pretty much -the same; they actually
were down about $60,000.
Chairman Scurlock brought up the fact that we actually are a
year ahead of this report, and he felt, especially in regard to
bond coverage, this can be a little misleading as to what current
conditions are. He referred to page 5 of the Letter of Trans-
mittal which shows 1.53 bond coverage in 1983 which increased to
1.81 and then again this year to 1.91, and believed the question
that arises is why we are having rate increases if our bond
coverage is increasing by those amounts.
Mr. Landorf agreed this can be misleading, but noted that
you have to be careful when you look at bond coverage because it
does not include factors for replacing the plant and equipment;
34
therefore, your rates have to be designed to replace those
things. Right now we actually have a small cash flow problem
with water and sewer.
Page 32 essentially shows the last page of the budget
comparison for all your governmental fund types, and Mr. Landorf
wanted to point out that generally the County was spending in
accordance with the budget and there were no significant budget
problems for that year.
Commissioner Wodtke had a question on Page 32. He wished to
know if we actually budgeted a deficit, and Mr. Landorf confirmed
we did. He explained if the county had accomplished spending all
the money that was originally in the budget, we would have
budgeted a deficit of about 2.2 million, and this gets back to
what the Chairman was indicating as a budgetary trend.
The County, however, ended up not going that deep into its
reserves as a result of collecting more than had been budgeted
and spending some 2 million less than anticipated.
Chairman Scurlock felt the point is that this will catch up
with us, and the Administrator stated that it already has.
Com. Wodtke was concerned about the games -that are played
with cash carry forward which we don't ever get a chance to look
at in this kind of report, and the Chairman pointed out that if
we can't invade those funds again, it means we have to look to ad
valorem taxes or other revenue sources, which is why we were
pointing out additional options for additional revenue this
coming year.
Mr. #Landorf noted that you also have the federal revenue
crunch and agreed it is important to maintain those reserves if
at all possible because the alternative is pure taxes.
Page 101 Mr. Landorf pointed out on debt service funds, we
did refund the 1980-81 bonds; so those, in essence, will wash out
during this year, and there is a new bond issue coming on. Re
water and sewer, there is no major concern, but the county did
have to use some of its cash this year as compared to the 1983
35
AFr%R 9 1986
BOOK
APS
BOOK 6 4
year and did use some of the impact fee money to do some
improvements. He continued that in general the balance sheets
are in relatively good shape. Almost 2 million of impact fees
were paid up in advance, and those are sitting there as
liabilities, but as those projects come on line, that will flow
down into the contributions to the system and that money will be
available to spend on those facilities, and only those
facilities.
Page 102 is the operating statement for enterprise funds.
The water and sewer fund did reflect a net loss of about $82,000.
However, some major system improvements and expansion will be
showing as well as picking up additional customers, and that
should not be a major concern at this point. The solid waste
system ended the year with a net income of $98,000, which is up
from roughly $21,000 the previous years. That seems to be
functioning okay, but you do have to look to the future
expenditures of closing out the Landfill cells and there is a
definite need to build some cash in that fund. The County
Building Fund did well with a net income of about $202,000.
Page 175 This audit was done in compliance with the regula-
tions of the Federal Single Audit Act requirements as well as the
State's audit requirements.
Page 177 This is the Accountant's report on compliance with
the requirements of the law as it relates to major and non -major
federal programs. Any major program is one where you receive
$300,000 or more in cash, and the County has about three major
programs to deal with.
Page 177 & 179 is a very technical report, which, in a
nutshell, is saying that the accountants found no major problems
with the administration, etc., associated with major and
non -major programs.
Page 180 & 181 Includes 2 comments - one dealing with
Federal Revenue Sharing where several of the required notifica-
36
M
tions were omitted. This is essentially a technical non-
compliance, and he would not be concerned with any financial
impact. It also refers to the Radiology Emergency Preparedness
Grants procedures on which the state is performing their audit
procedures.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we are in compliance with all
the bond requirements and bond covenants, and Mr. Landorf
confirmed that we are both for water and sewer and the landfill.
Mr. Landorf then noted that the back of the report starting
with Page 190 contains the reports on internal control and
management comments for the Board and Constitutional Officers.
Essentially the objectives of the internal accounting control are
to reasonably assure that the financial records reflect actual
transactions that took place, and he was pleased to report that
in the review of the internal accounting controls they found no
material weakness in that system, although they cannot express an
opinion on that. He felt that could be credited to the staff.
Chairman Scurlock had a question about procedures of the
Constitutional Officers. He believed that the Commission can
appeal a budget of a Constitutional Officer to the Governor and
Cabinet when there is a question about the line item transfers
that happen after the budget is in place. For instance, this
year we budgeted $60,000 of capital for the Property Appraiser,
and he then bought a computer at $75,000 which obviously
necessitated a line item change somewhere. The Chairman wished
to know if the procedure is that the Property Appraiser just gets
approval"from the Department of Revenue for this with no input
back to the Commission.
Mr. Landorf confirmed that the Appraiser can move line items
within certain categories with approval from the DOR and this
does not have to be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners, but if for some reason his total budget had
increased, however, it then would have had to come back before
the Board.
37
9 1966 BOOK F` �E 1U
BOOK U-1-
Commissioner Lyons asked if we are in compliance with the
bond covenants for all of our bond issues as he believed Mr.
Landorf spoke mainly about utility bonds.
Mr. Landorf assured him the county is in compliance on all
issues or it would have been specifically set out in this report.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the periodic reports we
were supposed to be receiving from the Sheriff's Department on
the status of confiscated property as he did not remember seeing
one in quite a while.
OMB Director Joe Baird advised that the Sheriff's Depart-
ment has had a change -over of staff and hasn't submitted these
reports the last two months, but they have been submitting them
and will catch up on the ones they missed. He stated that he
will forward them to the Board.
Mr. Landorf confirmed that the Sheriff was submitting these
reports. He noted that they do have a comment that this
procedure needed to be tightened up a little, and the Sheriff's
accounting people have assured them this will be taken care of so
this comment will not appear next year.
Mr. Landorf concluded his presentation and expressed his
opinion that this report will receive a certificate of
achievement again this year. He felt it is a good report.
- Chairman Scurlock and Commissioner Lyons expressed the
Board's appreciation of the work done by the Clerk's people and
the excellent report by May Zima.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted
the 1985 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report by
May Zima, Inc.
FINANCIAL REPORT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
38
F__ J
L_
PROPOSAL FROM_BOYLE ENGINEERING ON CITY/COUNTY UTILITY SERVICE
BOUNDARIES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/2/86:
TO:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: APRIL
2, 1986
THRU:
MICHAEL WRIGHT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
1� 3031
l�
VIA:
TERRANCE G. PINTO
qpR�`�'
DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVICES
FROM:
JEFFREY A. BOONE, ENGINEERING OPERATIONS MANAGE�.►
�,� R4�
v�ry
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES C?4
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR REFINING
CITY/COUNTY UTILITY SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
BACKGROUND
The County Utilities Division is presently meeting with the City.of Vero
Beach in order to refine the City/County utility service area boundary.
The prime objective is to determine how to best serve utilities at the
City/County interface, with respect to the existing utility facilities and
the County's Water System Master Plan as prepared by Boyle Engineering
Corporation. Technical assistance by Boyle Engineering is needed to
properly delineate the City/County interface and to insure conformance to
the Master Plan.
ANALYSIS
Any alteration of the existing service area boundary will be accomplished
in negotiations with the City of Vero Beach, consequently it is not pos-
sible to define the scope of work for the modifications. Therefore, Boyle
Engineering, in submitting a proposal for the necessary technical assist-
ance, has done so on an hourly rate basis consistent with the December 12,
1984 Agreement for Engineering services.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposal
for technical assistance for refining City/County utility service area bound-
ary by Boyle Engineering Corporation.
39
SPR 91986 BOOK 64 FAGF..9.J l
-7
BOOK 64 P, 112
Utilities staff member Jeff Boone reported that staff is
currently negotiating with the City on refining boundaries, and a"
major issue is refining those along the southern boundary of 12th
Street at U.S. #1 so that the County's elevated storage tank
remains in our boundaries, as well as one of our prime consumers,
the Vero Mall. We are also looking to utilize the services of
Boyle Engineering to examine any potential trade-offs in areas
such as Tropic Colony and the Rockridge area.
Chairman Scurlock asked the estimated cost of the scope of
services, and Director Pinto stated the total cost was not known,
but Commissioners Lyons and Scurlock felt strongly there should
be a dollar limit as they did not like these open ended
contracts. Director Pinto suggested a $5,000 limit on Boyle's
services.
Commissioner Bird asked what the justification is for hiring
an outside consultant and why we can't negotiate this and work it
out in-house.
Director Pinto explained that it goes beyond the negotia-
tion; it also concerns hydraulics. We actually have to look at
where the cuts are going to be made and have to have the
consultants look and see what physical construction has to be
done to make those changes.
Commissioner Bird asked if the trade-off will be of mutual
benefit to the City and the County, and if so, should the City
share in the cost of paying for Boyle's services.
Director Pinto stated that it is not actually a matter of
mutual benefit to anyone other than the customers being served.
For instance, on 12th Street we do not know if we are going to
40
r—�
end up putting a dual line there, and it is a matter of
determining the area of service to see where we cut that line.
The City has their consultant to look at their side, and we have
to have our consultant to look at our side; so each should bear
the cost of their own consultant.
Chairman Scurlock noted there are three elements in this:
the engineering portion of what you physically can do - the
economic impact of specific service areas and cash flow - and the
third element of just rendering efficient service to everyone.
Director Pinto explained the reason that we use Boyle
Engineering is because our computer program for hydraulics is in
the Boyle master plan program.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the contract for additional engineering services with
Boyle Engineering for refining City/County utility
service area boundaries, with a limit of $5,000 and
authorized the Chairman's signature.
41
P 9 19 6 Bou 64 ray x.13
APR
Boa 64 P'-JF114
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT
VERO BEACH WATER SERVICE BOUNDARIES
THIS document, executed this 9th day of April
1986 is Addendum No. 2 to the Agreement dated December 12, 1984 (hereinafter
called "AGREEMENT") between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (hereinafter called
"OWNER") and BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, a California Corporation; -
(hereinafter called "ENGINEER") with an office located at 320 East South Street,
Orlando, Florida 32801.
WHEREAS, Section 2.1 of the AGREEMENT provides that the OWNER, by
means of an addendum to the AGREEMENT, may authorize the ENGINEER to
provide services other than those described in the AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the OWNER desires to have the ENGINEER. provide other services
related to the water system.
WHEREAS, the ENGINEER is willing and able to perform additional pro-
fessional services for the OWNER within the basic terms and conditions of Sections
2 through 6 of the AGREEMENT, which are incorporated herein by reference as
though set forth in full, and this Addendum No. 2.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants
herein contained, it is hereby agreed that the ENGINEER shall provide the services.
related to the Project for which this Addendum No. 2 applies under the terms and
conditions set forth herein.
PART A - SCOPE OF SERVICES
The ENGINEER shall provide the OWNER technical assistance related to the
OWNER's negotiations with the City of Vero Beach regarding the establishment of
water service area boundaries (hereinafter referred to as Project). As the extent of
services related to the Project cannot be defined at present, OWNER will notify
ENGINEER as services are required. OWNER agrees that ENGINEER's services have
been satisfactory by payment of ENGINEER's invoices.
PART B - PERIOD OF SERVICE
The ENGINEER shall provide services to the OWNER under this Addendum No. 2 for
a period not to exceed twelve (12) months. The period of service may be extended
by mutual agreement of the OWNER and ENGINEER.
42
l �ti
PART C - PAYMENTS TO ENGINEER
For services rendered, the OWNER shall pay the ENGINEER an amount based on the
number of hours that personnel are engaged on the Project plus reimbursable
not Lo
expenses^ThBolieg Corporation schedule entitled "Fees for Pro-
fessional Services" in effect at the time invoices are prepared will be used as the
basis for those invoices. The fee schedule in effect through April 30, 1986 is
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
After April 30, 1986, ENGINEER will notify OWNER of the Fee Schedule applicable
to it's services hereunder. ENGINEER will invoice OWNER monthly.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum No. 2, consisting of three (3) pages plus
Exhibit A inclusive, has been fully executed on behalf of the ENGINEER by its duly
authorized officers, and the OWNER has caused the same to be duly executed in its
name and in its behalf, effective as of the date hereinabove written.
Richard J. Cole n, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
Clerk
Board of County Commissioners
43
FNr,TNFFR
BOYLE ENGINEERING
CORPORATION
Kermit L. Prime, Jr., F6E.
Managing Engineer
OWNER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
d #.&
C►
Chairman
Board of County Commissi s
BOOK 64 115
APR 9 1986
$ 0.50
per
minute
BOOK
Actual
Cost
+ 10%
Survey Monuments (4"x4"x24" concrete)
$ 5.00
each
EXHIBIT A
Travel - Automobile/Truck - Out of Town
$ 0.35
per mile
BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Actual
Cost
+ 10%
Orlando, Florida
Actual
Cost
+ 10%
FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Actual
Cost
Standard Hourly Rates
Soils Investigation and Field Tests
Actual
-
November 1, 1985 thru April 30,
1986
Engineers, Planners, Landscape Architects, Geologists,
Scientists:
Principal
$74.00'per
hour
Senior II
$67.00
per
hour
Senior I
$57.00
per
hour
Associate
$47.00,
per
hour
Assistant II
$39.00
per
hour.
Assistant I.
$35.00
per
hour
Construction Administration Personnel:
Resident Engineer
$57.00
per
hour
Senior Resident Project Representative
$47.00
per
hour
Resident Project Representative
$39.00
per
hour
Technical Support Staff:
Designer Supervisor
$51.00
per
hour
Senior Technician/Senior Designer
$45.00
per
hour
Certified Engineering Technician/Designer
$37.00
per
hour
Senior Drafter
$31.00
per
hour
Drafter
$25.00
per
hour
Technical Typist (incl. Word Process Equip.)
$25.00
per
hour
Clerical
$20.00
per
hour
Surveying Staff: -
Senior Land Surveyor (Registered)
$55.00
per
hour
Associate Land Surveyor (Registered)
$40.00'
per
hour
Survey Technician
$31.00
per
hour
Three -Man Survey Party(includes local travel
$68.00
per
hour
Two -Man Survey Party and all basic equipment)
$55.00
per
hour
Electronic Distance Measuring Equipment
$ 8.00
per
hour
Direct Project Expenses:
Long Distance Telephone
$ 0.50
per
minute
Printing and Blueprinting
Actual
Cost
+ 10%
Survey Monuments (4"x4"x24" concrete)
$ 5.00
each
Travel - Automobile/Truck - Out of Town
$ 0.35
per mile
Travel - Other than Automobile
Actual
Cost
+ 10%
Materials Testing and In -Plant Inspection
Actual
Cost
+ 10%
Aerial Photogrammetry Service and Surveys
Actual
Cost
+ 10%
Soils Investigation and Field Tests
Actual
Cost
+ 10%
Computer Services and Computer Aided Design 'See Reverse Side
Rates will be adjusted twice per year. New personnel classifications
or new equipment may be added at any time at appropriate rates.
44
r r �
STANDARD RATES FOB COMPUTER SERVICES
Intergraph Computer -Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) System
Our Intergraph CADD system utilizes a Digital Equipment Corporation VAX 11/751 computer
with 4 megabytes of main memory, 244 megabytes of disk memory, floating point
accelerator, cache memory, magnetic tape, and a high-speed pen plotter. Graphics
workstations have dual 19 -inch high-resolution screens, digitizer table, and menu
tablet. Unit charges for equipment are as follows:
Graphic Workstation
per
hour
$14.94
Pen Plotter
$20.00
per
hour
Terminal (CRT or Printer)
$20.00
per
hour
Central Processing Unit
$ 5.00
per
hour
per
$ 5.00
per
minute
Microcomputers and AutoCADD Systems .
Microcomputers include the IBM PC/XT, IBM PC/AT, and other similar equipment. Charges
are based on an hourly rate for the computer and standard software plus a resource
charge for special applications software, and special equipment such as plotters and
high-resolution monitors.
Basic Computer System and Standard Software
Resource Charge:
AutoCADD Computer Aided Design & Drafing
DAPPER - Electrical Design Program
CAPTOR - Overcurrent Protection Analysis
RandMicas - Structural Analysis & Design
Trane TRACE - HVAC System Design
Carrier HVAC System Design
ROUTE IV - Drainage Design
GWFM - Groundwater Modeling System
HP 3000 Computer System
$20.00 per hour
$ 7.16
per
hour
$14.94
per
hour
$ 3.00
per
hour
$10.50
per
hour
$ 5.81
per
hour
$ 4.65
per
hour.
$ 4.50
per
hour
$14.50
-per-
hour
The Hewlett Packard HP 3000 computer has 2 megabytes of main memory, 480 megabytes of
disk memory, a 600 card -per -minute reader, a 600 line -per -minute upper -lowercase
printer, magnetic tape and four drum plotters. Sixty-four terminals are connected
directly or via telephone lines. Unit charges are as follows:
Central Processing Unit
Elapsed Time
Lines Printed
Plot Records
Bruning CADD Systems
$5.60 per minute of computer time
$8.70 per hour of terminal connect time
$0.20 per hundred lines printed
$2.35 per hundred records plotted
Our Bruning CADD systems utilize Hewlett Packard computers and plotters with high-
resolution color display and special software for design of buildings. The system
charge includes software, hardware, and plotting.
Bruning CADD System
Outside Computer Services
$20.00 per hour
Charges for outside computer services will be billed at invoice cost plus twenty-five
percent.
Rev 10-4-85
1N
45
Boa. 64 uur11"7
ASR - 9 1986 - aoolc 64
RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING INCREASED SEWER RATE STRUCTURE FOR
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES_- VERO HIGHLANDS AND VERO SHORES
The Board reviewed the followinq memo dated 4/2/86:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVICES
DATE: APRIL 2, 1986—n4.--
FROM:
98614;•-
FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON, ASSISTANT DIRECTO ,
UTILITY SERVICES DIVISION �-�^'L
BACKGROUND
The sewer rate increase for General Development Utilities - Vero Highlands
was heard by the Board of County Commissioners in a public hearing on the
evening of March 19, 1986 and at that time the board agreed to that increase
after all public input.
RECOMMENDATION
It is staffs recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the attached resolution to implement the rate structure for sewer at General
Development Utilities - Vero Highlands effective for bills rendered by the
utility after May 1, 1986.
Director Pinto noted that this makes the rate granted a
legal rate and further pointed out that when we say Vero
Highlands, it includes Vero Shores also. He also noted that the
May 1st date may be deceiving; it is actually the first full
billing cycle after the date of the hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, that the Board adopt Resolution
86-16 implementing the increased sewer rate structure
for General Development Utilities in Vero Highlands and
Vero Shores.
Commissioner Wodtke was under the impression that the Board
adopted a resolution the night of the public hearing on March 19,
1986, but Director Pinto explained that the Board only adopted
the rate structure that night. This proposed resolution is the
formal order implementing the rate structure.
Discussion continued at length regarding the date when the
rate actually becomes effective, and Chairman Scurlock explained
46
4{��
7
:•
� •
Ct i
c fss/n
f_
The sewer rate increase for General Development Utilities - Vero Highlands
was heard by the Board of County Commissioners in a public hearing on the
evening of March 19, 1986 and at that time the board agreed to that increase
after all public input.
RECOMMENDATION
It is staffs recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the attached resolution to implement the rate structure for sewer at General
Development Utilities - Vero Highlands effective for bills rendered by the
utility after May 1, 1986.
Director Pinto noted that this makes the rate granted a
legal rate and further pointed out that when we say Vero
Highlands, it includes Vero Shores also. He also noted that the
May 1st date may be deceiving; it is actually the first full
billing cycle after the date of the hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, that the Board adopt Resolution
86-16 implementing the increased sewer rate structure
for General Development Utilities in Vero Highlands and
Vero Shores.
Commissioner Wodtke was under the impression that the Board
adopted a resolution the night of the public hearing on March 19,
1986, but Director Pinto explained that the Board only adopted
the rate structure that night. This proposed resolution is the
formal order implementing the rate structure.
Discussion continued at length regarding the date when the
rate actually becomes effective, and Chairman Scurlock explained
46
that basically GDU can make the rate effective immediately after
it has been approved, but it would be.very difficult to do this
in mid cycle between meter readings so they wait until the next
billing cycle.
Director Pinto advised that they read meters on the 25th of
the month so the first full cycle after the hearing is when they
will receive a new bill.
Commissioner Wodtke was concerned about being sure the rate
was not carried over from the March meter reading, and Attorney
Vitunac explained that the utility customers had notice of the
increase on March 19th and had an opportunity to adjust their
consumption Immediately so he did not feel there is any legal.
problem.
Administrator Wright clarified that the March 25th reading
will
be
at the
old
rate
so the bill
they get
in
April
is under
the
old
rate.
The
bill
they get in
May will
be
under
the new
rate.
Jeff Barton, Assistant Director of Utilities, explained the
procedure is that we first approve the rate structure and then it
is brought back to the Board to issue the formal order.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to be assured that.we did not
adopt a Resolution on March 19th, and staff confirmed that we did
not.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on carried by a vote of 4-1, Commissioner
Wodtke dissenting.
n
47
APR 9 1986 BOOK 6
I
r 4/2/86(R-4)LEG(Vk)
APR 9 '1986
RESOLUTION NO. 86- 16 BOOK 64 P'GF 1910
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING A WASTEWATER RATE INCREASE FOR
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, AMENDING THE
ORIGINAL RESOLUTION DATED 4/5/60, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, on the 19th day of March, 1986, General
Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) pursuant to a properly filed
and noticed request for rate relief, appeared at a public hearing.
before the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida (Board) ; and
WHEREAS, the Board received and reviewed documentary
exhibits as filed on behalf of General Development Utilities,
Inc. and had the opportunity to
question
GDU and, in
addition,
allowed for comment from citizens
of Indian
River County
residing
within the franchise area; and
WHEREAS, the Board found that GDU was entitled to receive
the rate relief requested; and
WHEREAS, the Board approved the required changes in GDU's
approved tariffs to reflect the rate relief requested, changes in
rate structures, deposits and connection charges;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that the Resolution dated
April 5, 1960, between Indian River County, Florida, and
General Development Utilities, Inc., as subsequently amended
by Resolutions Nos. 77-95, 80-15, 81-101, and 83-122, is hereby
amended as follows:
S-ECTION' '14
The rates charged by GDU for its service hereunder shall be
fair and reasonable and designed to meet all necessary costs of
the service, including a fair rate of return on the net valuation
of its properties devoted thereto under efficient and economical
management. GDU 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, GDU shall
have authority to charge and collect not to exceed the following
schedule of rates, which shall remain effective until changed or
modified as herein provided, to -wit:
-1-
RESO. NO. 86-16
SEWER
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE RATE SCHEDULE
Availability - Available throughout the area served by GDU.
Applicability - For sewer service in private residences and
individually metered apartment units.
Limitations - Subject to all of the Rules and Regulations of this
Tariff.
Monthly Rates -
Base Facility
Meter Size Charge
5/8 x 3/4 $8.46
l" $8.46
1-1/2" $8.46
2" $8.46
Usaae Charge
$1.88
per 1,000 gallons
up to
10,000 gal. maximum
$1.88
per 1,000 gallons
up to
10,000 gal. maximum
$1.88
per 1,000 gallons
up to
10,000 gallons maximum
$1.88
per 1,000 gallons
up to
10,000 gallons maximum
Maximum Charge - $27.26 per month.
Base Facility Charge - Any customer who requests that service be
interrupted for any length of time will pay the Base Facility
Charge during that period of interruption. Any customer who
attempts to circumvent this charge by closing his account (and
requesting deposit refund) at time of temporary departure and then
returning several months later as a new customer, will be held
liable for the Base Facility Charge during the disconnected
months. The payment of the Base Facility Charge will be made
monthly.
Terms of Payment - Bills are due and payable when rendered and
become delinquent if not paid within 20 days, and service may,
after five days written notice, be discontinued.
Billing - The billing month dates shall coincide with the billing
month for water service. Bills rendered for less than 50% of the
normal billing period will be billed in accordance with Rule
25-10.111(2), Florida Administrative Code: "Whenever, for any
reason, the period of service for which a bill is rendered is less
than 50% of the normal billing period, the charges applicable to
such service, including minimum charges, shall be prorated in the
proportion that the actual number of service days bears to a
30 -day month; except that:
(a) Opening bills need not be rendered but may be carried
over to and included in the next regular monthly billing.
(b) For service taken under flat rate schedules, 50% of the
normal charges may be applied.
(c) The practices employed by the utility in this regard
shall have uniform application to all customers.
COMMERCIAL SERVICE RATE SCHEDULE
Availability - Available throughout the area served by GDU.
Applicability - For sewer service to Commercial Customers.
-2-
BOOK 64 Fkuv. VI
I
RESO. NO. RF, -1F, BOOK 64 rk-. 1`2
Limitations - Subject to all of the Rules and Regulations of this
Tariff.
Terms of Payment - Bills are due and payable when rendered and
become delinquent if not paid within 20 days, and service may,
after five days written notice, be discontinued.
COMMERCIAL
Monthly Rates -
Base Facility
Meter Size Charge
5/8 x 3/4 $ 8.46
1" $17.37
1--1/2" $35.86
2" $56.41
3" $111.21
4" $172.86
6" $344.11
8" $549.61
Usage Charge
$1.88
per
1,000
gallons
$1.88
per
1,000
gallons
$1.88
per
1,000
gallons
$1.88
per
1,000
gallons
$1.88
per
1,000
gallons
$1.88
per
1,000
gallons
$1.88
per
1,000
gallons
$1.88
per
1,000
gallons
Base Facility Charge -- Any customer who requests that service be
interrupted for any length of time will pay the Base Facility
Charge during that period of interruption. Any customer who
attempts to circumvent this charge by closing his account (and
requesting deposit refund) at time of temporary departure and then
returning several months later as a new customer, will be held
liable for the Base Facility Charge during the disconnected
months. The payment of the Base Facility Charge will be made
monthly.
Billing -- The billing month dates shall coincide with the billing
month for water service. Bills rendered for less than 50% of the
normal billing period will be billed in accordance with Rule
25-10.111(2), Florida Administrative Code: "Whenever, for any
reason, the period of service for which a bill is rendered is less
than 50% of the normal billing period, the charges applicable to
such service, including minimum charges, shall be prorated in the
proportion that the actual number of service days bears to a
30 -day month; except that:
(a) Opening bills need not be rendered but may be carried
over to and included in the next regular monthly billing.
(b) For service taken under flat rate schedules, 50% of the
normal charges may be applied.
(c) The practices employed by the utility in this regard
shall have uniform application to all customers.
MULTIPLE UNIT SERVICE RATE SCHEDULE
Availability -- Available throughout the area served by GDU.
Applicability - For sewer service to any customer or customers
where a single sewer service line supplies more than one dwelling
unit, such as apartments or duplexes.
-3--
M M i
_ 86-16
RESO. NO.
Limitations - Subject to all of the Rules and Regulations of this
Tarif--
Monthly Rates, All Meter Sizes -
Base Facility Customer Usage
Charge Charge Charge
3.43/Unit 1.61/Meter $1.88 per 1,000 gal.
Base Facility Charge - Any customer who requests that service be
interrupted for any length of time will pay the Base Facility
Charge during that period of interruption. Any customer who
attempts to circumvent this charge by closing his account (and
requesting deposit refund) at time of temporary departure and then
returning several months later as a new customer, will be held
liable for the Base Facility Charge during the disconnected
months. The payment of the Base Facility Charge will be made
monthly.
Terms of Payment - Bills are due and payable when rendered and
become delinquent if not paid within twenty days, and service may,
after five days written notice; be discontinued.
Billing - The billing month dates shall coincide with the billing
month for water service. Bills rendered for less than 500 of the
normal billing period will be billed in accordance with Rule
25-10.111(2), Florida Administrative Code: "Whenever, for any
reason, the period of service for which a bill is rendered is less
than fifty percent (50%) of the normal billing period, the charges
applicable to such service, including minimum charges, shall be
prorated in the proportion that the actual number of service days
bears to a thirty (30) day month; except that:
(a) Opening bills need not be rendered but may be
carried over to and included in the next regular monthly billing.
(b) For service taken under flat rate schedules, fifty
percent (500) of the normal charges may be applied.
(c) The practices employed by the utility in this regard
shall have uniform application to all customers."
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Lyons and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Vice -Chairman Patrick B. Lyons A e
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Nay
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 86-16
hereby passed and adopted this 9th day of April ,
1986.
Attest:
FREDWRICyi�T�
Approved as to form and—
legal sufficiency:
Q.20Ml
Charles P. Vitunac
County Attorney
-4-
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By , G
DON C. SCURLOCK, LR
Chairman
Boos b �Nr 1�
r
APS 9 X96'
BOOK 64 PA,F 194
HOWELL/CHAPMAN_CONDEMNATION FEASIBILITY REVIEW
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/11/86:
TO:Indian River County Board DATE: FILE:
of County Commissioners March 11, 1986
SUBJECT:
Charles P. Vitunac, HOWELL/CHAPMAN CONDEMNA-
County Attorney TION FEASIBILITY REVIEW
FROM*Bruceasarkett,� REFERENCES:
Assistant Coul!-,;.y Attorney
CONFIDENTIAL WORK PRODUCT IN ANTICIPATION OF TRIAL
This document is intended as a very brief review of
considerations relevant to the feasibility of condemnation
proceedings against the "Howell/Chapman" beachfront parcel of
property.
First, the February 18, 1986 correspondence from Butch
Horne, Senior Acquisition Review Agent, Department of Natural
Resources, indicates that if Indian River County commits to
acquire the Howell/Chapman parcel, the Department of Natural
Resources will commit to reserve the appraised value of the
property from the Save Our Coast fund for use in the acquisition
of the property. The actual amount DNR will commit to is
confidential, however I have asked Butch Horne to report to
Charlie Vitunac an approximate or "ballpark" figure upon which the
County can rely.
It is my opinion that based upon my conversations with
Butch Horne and his letter, the County can enter into a written
agreement with the Department to commit to spend up to the amount
of funds available according to the appraisals.
Section 127.01(2), Florida Statutes (1985), authorizes the
County to acquire by eminent domain lands for parks and other
recreational purposes; however, the party whose lands are sought
has the right to present an issue before the court as to the
necessity for the proposed taking, and the amount of land required
for the purpose soua t. Prior to having the County commit to
initiate eminent domain proceedings against the Howell/Chapman
parcel, reference should be made to the "Beach Access and
Development Plan" prepared by staff for the Board of County
Commissioners in 1982. That plan recommended purchase of
approximately 33.61 acres with 2,070 feet of ocean frontage 4
miles north of State Road 510 along Highway A -1-A, which is the
approximate location of the Howell/Chapman parcel. Subsequent to
the issuance of the report, purchases have been made by the County
and by the State pursuant to the Save Our Coast program. A Court
faced with determining the issue of necessity in a condemnation
proceeding would be likely to compare the recommendations in the
1982 report with the subsequent acquisitions to determine, in
part, whether further acquisitions were necessary.
Finally, regardless of the findings of the 1982 report and
of the subsequent parcel acquisitions, a current update might
indicate necessity for additional ocean frontage. * Also, the
Howell/Chapman parcel lies between other.parcels already purchased
for beach recreation areas, a factor weighing toward granting a
taking.
6VIA
M M
Attorney Vitunac explained that in order to move this matter
forward, it is necessary for the Board of County Commissioners to
determine to go to condemnation. If the Board makes that deter-
mination today, he would have Attorney Bruce Barkett draft an
agreement with the State which would obligate them to fund up to
their appraised value if we are successful in the condemnation.
The agreement cannot be drawn up before the Board makes a deter-
mination to go forward. Attorney Vitunac recommended that if the
Board does decide to go to condemnation to get this property,
that the Board authorize staff to update the acquisition report
on beach properties that we used in 1981 and make sure that is
still a valid report to be used in court on the Howell/Chapman
parcel. If at anytime that report shows otherwise, the County
can stop the condemnation process because that will not be
formally started in court before this Board passes a formal
resolution of condemnation. The Commission will get to see this
issue again after the agreement is entered into between the State
and the County at which time the County still can back out.
Commissioner Bird expressed his reluctance to taking a man's
property, but felt this property is unique because it sits
between two parcels of beachfront properties that we already have
acquired and it would give us a sizable piece of contiguous
beachfront. He questioned what our legal fees might amount to
for the condemnation proceedings.
Assistant County Attorney Bruce Barkett anticipated the
costs would be upwards of $30,000 and noted that the County would
have to pay for both sides whether we win or lose.
Attorney Vitunac felt the total cost of the fees depends on
what issues they contest. It may be substantially less, but if
the owner is serious about contesting this and fights it all the
way, the costs could be substantial.
Attorney Barkett emphasized that while the State is willing
to commit funds to purchase the property for the appraisal value
as determined by the Court, they might not be willing to commit
53
Boas 64 FE 1�?'
APR .9
1986
BOOK 64 F 1?6
that money if we are not willing to commit to following through
on the condemnation proceedings.
Chairman Scurlock noted the Board has to consider a source
of funding for any shortfall as well as the legal fees, and we
could be looking at some sort of beach bond extension or some
other bond issue, which would require a referendum.
Administrator Wright felt we could use some other source
besides ad valorem taxes and noted we have the option of
borrowing from the approved $20 -million bond issue, but Chairman
Scurlock emphasized that he was not looking to a GOB on it.
Attorney Vitunac advised that there 1° a good chance of some
legislation being passed early this summer which would relieve us
of having to pay for the legal fees. He again clarified that the
County could back out any time they want to, but they would lose
the committed funds from the State.
Commissioner Bird believed the only risk we are taking is
losing up to $30,000 in legal fees and felt that was a reasonable
gamble when you consider we would be acquiring a piece of
property valued at 3 million dollars.
Attorney Barkett did not feel it was accurate for the Board
to proceed thinking that the condemnation price would be
determined by the appraisals because the attorneys for the other
side will argue that the law requires that the condemnation price
be set at the highest and best use of the property.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there was any question about -our
ability to condemn property for public beaches, and Attorney
Barkett recalled that a study done in 1982 recommended that we
acquire 2070 feet of ocean frontage 4 miles north of SR -510 on
AIA. To date, we have acquired 2800 feet, and, therefore, have
exceeded that amount of frontage. Attorney Barkett stressed that
unless the report is updated to reflect that our growth has gone
beyond what we anticipated and that we have more recreational
needs than we did at the time of the report, this report might be
used against us to prove that this condemnation is not necessary.
54
® ® r
Commissioner Bird pointed out that the needs were based on
population projections, and Chairman Scurlock wondered if we
should update the report first before committing ourselves to the
condemnation.
Attorney Vitunac believed we should go ahead with the letter
to the State right now and do the report and all the backup
later, because the Board can decide to back out at some future
time.
Chairman Scurlock asked when the court costs would begin,
and Attorney Vitunac explained that would not happen until we
file a resolution of taking.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board authorize
staff to update the beachfront acquisition report
and bring those findings back to the Board at the
earliest opportunity and make the determination to
acquire the Howell/Chapman property through purchase,
trade, or condemnation if required.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke expressed his doubts
about our chances of winning a condemnation action and suggested
that we divert this money into another piece of beachfront
property where our chances would be better for condemnation, but
Commissioner Bird pointed out that this property is a key parcel
because it lies between two other county -owned parcels. He
really didn't know of any other parcel in that area to submit to
the State.
Commissioner Lyons was of the impression that the Motion
only instructs staff to take another look at the beach study, but
Attorney Vitunac emphasized that he needs an indication from the
Board by formal Motion that we can send a letter to the State
saying that the Board of County Commissioners has determined to
acquire this piece of property by any legal means. Based on that
55
BQQI! 6`7C
qum
APR ''9 198 Boos
commitment, the State will sign an agreement with us that they
also will commit money which otherwise would go somewhere else in
the state. We would not be forced to go through with it, but we
have to make a good faith effort.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that if we don't go through
with this commitment action, then the State might not be happy
with us because they would like to be able to free up that money
for other projects in other counties.
Attorney Barkett believed that while the State would fund
the cost of the property, the County would own the land. The
State does not have condemnation abilities.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the Motion was saying that we
are willing to go to condemnation, and Attorney Vitunac confirmed
that it does.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would like to keep the
effort to acquire the property going, but he is not convinced
that we would be able to succeed in condemnation and he would not
vote for going to condemnation.
Commissioner Bird stressed that while we are saying to the
state
that we would
go to
condemnation if we have to, we always
have
the ability to
back
out.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Lyons reviewed the following Summary of Actions
dated 4/8/86:
56
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
April 8, 1986
w
1. Traffic Control - 19th Avenue SW at 15th Street SW (Oslo
Park)
Due to the request of neighborhood residents for additional
traffic control to stop speeding, the Committee directed
staff to install "slow" signs on 19th Avenue, S.W.
2. Thoroughfare Plan Amendments
Committee unanimously recommends that the following secondary
collector roadways be deleted from the Thoroughfare Plan
as follows:
a.
81st
STreet
between
Old
Dixie
and
58th
Avenue,
b.
73rd
Street
between
Old
Dixie
and
58th
Avenue; and,
C.
61st
Street
between
Old
Dixie
and
43rd
Avenue.
3. Local Traffic Issues
Committee discussed various local traffic problems and
directed staff to report back on (a) conditions at County
Road 510 curve and (b) improvements to increase the effic-
iency of traffic signals in the 16th Street corridor.
Commissioner Bird asked if we have resolved the question of
right-of-way for the extension of CR 510 with Mr. Fischer, and
Administrator Wright informed the Board that we have a deed for
the land that came in a week or so ago, but what we have not
resolved yet is the east driveway connection. Public Works
Director Davis is working on that now.
Commissioner Bird noted that we have to be able to get to
the cemetery and there was a question of whether the road was
going to be public or private from that point on further north to
Mr. Fischer's development.
Administrator Wright stated that we are going to own it, and
it will be public to wherever the northern extreme of Mr.
Fischer's development is.
APPOINTMENT TO INDIAN RIVER COUNCIL OF THE GOVERNOR'S
CONSTITUENCY FOR CHILDREN
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 3/31/86:
APR 9 1986
57 Bou 64 Pa,c 1 9 �
BOOK
n
INDIAN RIVER COUNCIL OF THE GOVERNOR'S CONSTITUENCY
FOR CHILDREN
P.O.Box 2461
Vero Beach, Florida, 32961-2461
APR 1986
aoru o E uar-'6
Cori, i;,lSSi£ii3'
fi;,,,: Don C...."S ' rlock, Jr.
Z.burity,o fission Chairman
1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
March 31, 1986
The Indian River Council of the Governors Constituency for
Children has been holding meetings monthly since January. The council
is made up of many concerned citizens of Indian River County,
It has been suggested that we invite a member of the County
Commission to participate in the Council We feel that our organization
can be a tremendous help in our county by lobbying for our children.
If you are unable to attend the next meeting please feel free to
send a representative from the County Commission.
Enclosed you will find some information concerning the Governor's
Constituency and the minutes from our January and February meetings.
We all look forward to seeing you at our next meeting which will
be.on April 17th, at 7:00 P.M., at the County School Board office.
Sincerely, j
Kathy Beezley, R.N.
Membership Committee
Chairman
Commissioner Bird reported that when he was first asked to
serve on this council, he was caught completely by surprise and
had hoped to attend their next meeting before giving them his
decision. Unfortunately, he was unable to attend that meeting,
but if the Board wishes to have a representative on the council,
he would be glad to serve.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
appointed Commissioner Bird to the Indian River
Council of the Governor's Constituency.
58
GRANT FUNDING FOR LIBRARY AUTOMATION PLANNING
Commissioner Lyons distributed the following Mellichamp
letter dated March 7, 1986 with attachments:
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OFSTATE
George Firestone
Secretary of State
STATE LIBRARY OF FLORIDA
R. A. Gray Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8021
(904) 487-2651 0 SAN: 303-2051
March 7, 1986
Ms. Mary Kiser, Director
Indian River County Library
1018 Twentieth Place
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mary:
As discussed in our telephone coversation today, I am sending
you several documents that are a packet prepared to use with the
automation planning grant and local responsibilities, a list of
automation planning consultants with library backgrounds, a sample
Consultant Assignment and a sample contract., After reading through
them, please call if any parts are unclear. This packet is still
new and hearing from'the librarians to whom it is sent is Quite
helpful.
Indian River is scheduled for funding with 1986 LSCA funds.
Those funds can be drawn on now. I think you need to look over
the grant process and see if we will be answering your immediate
needs for the county bdget process. If you can send a copy of
the documentation that went into the county's selection of Tom Foss,
et al, for automation consulting throughout the county, I will
discuss that issue with Barratt and Virginia when we are all back
in town late next week.
Sincerely,
Freddie Ann Mellichamp
Chief, Bureau of Interlibrary
Cooperation
59
Boor 64 FnUE131
PR 9 1986BOOK F4.1�3
Commissioner Lyons reported that it looks like we have an
opportunity to receive some grant funds for automation planning
of the County library system without matching any funds, and he
recommended that the Chairman be authorized to sign an agreement
for such a grant provided that Intergovernmental Relations
Director Tommy Thomas feels we could qualify and that it is
something we want to do. He stressed that time is of the essence
here, but, unfortunately, Librarian Mary Kiser, who isathe most
familiar with this matter, is not always in town because her
father is quite ill at the moment.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize the
Chairman to sign the application for a State grant
for automation planning of the County library system.
Commissioner Lyons noted that a Sebastian school library has
installed a computer system very much like a checkout counter in
the supermarkets, which is relatively inexpensive. He felt that
a is the kind of thing we would want to explore, because, in the
long run, we want to bring the library system on to an automated
basis where
we
can keep track
of
all
the books, what we have on
the shelf,
and
where they are
at
all
times.
Commissioner Wodtke hoped that whatever computer system we
go with would continue to be functional, and Commissioner Lyons
stated he would be looking for that also.
Chairman Scurlock suggested using the computer in the
Property Appraiser's office that is available if it does not cost
too much.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
59
ARCHITECT SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR GOLF COURSE CLUB HOUSE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/2/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 2, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County _
Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright
County Administrator
H. T. "Sonn ' Dean
FROM: Director
General Servic s
SUBJECT: Golf Course Club House
Architect Selection Committee
REFERENCES:
As requested by County Administrator, Michael Wright, the subject
Committee met on Wednesday, April 2, 1986. In evaluating the five
applicants, the Committee felt that due to the size project, C. E.
Block Architect, Inc. would be the number one priority. It is a
local firm with proven experience.
The Committee recommends they be authorized to negotiate with the
following Architects as prioritized to design the Sandridge Golf
Course Club House and applicable facilities:
1. C. E. Block, Architects, Inc.
Vero Beach, Florida
2. Peacock & Lewis
West Palm Beach, Florida
3. Darby & Way, Inc.
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
General Services Director Sonny Dean asked for authorization
to proceed with the negotiations for an architect for the
Sandridge club house.
Director Dean advised that he, Commissioner Bird, Director
Thomas, and Director Wright served on the Selection Committee,
and Administrator Wright explained that the members of these
selection committees vary from project to project and situation
to situation according to the particular expertise needed.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board approve the
recommendation of the Selection Committee and
60
BOOK 64 F',1;C 133
Boa 64 u,u, 13 4
authorize the negotiations with C. E. Block,
Architects, for the design of the Sandridge Golf
Course Club House, and if this is not successful,
negotiate with architects in the order selected.
Under discussion, Commissioner Lyons felt that perhaps one
of the questions that has not been settled is the scope of
activities at this clubhouse - is it going to be run by the -
County, have a restaurant, etc.
Discussion ensued re the necessity of deciding what we are
going to design before we get into designing it, and Administra-
tor Wright noted that so far all that is approved is the amount
of money that is going to be spent on this. He felt what we want
from the architect is an idea of what our costs would be under
various alternatives so we know what our options are, and staff
will bring this back to the Board when they bring back a fee and
a scope of work.
Commissioner Bird informed the Board that $250,000 has been
allocated for the club house, $75,000 for the electric cart
storage building, and $100,000 for a maintenance building. He
envisioned the clubhouse to contain just an adequate sized pro
shop, restroom facilities, and minimal size locker rooms. The
major part of it will be a dining room area with just a breakfast
and lunch type menu, not one on a scale for banquets or
receptions, etc.
Administrator Wright felt that this design should be one
that could be expanded so that we don't lock ourselves into a
corner.
Commissioner Wodtke talked about economics and the
possibility of club storage to bring in some revenue. He also
noted that if we decide to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages,
we will have to amend our present ordinance which prohibits this
on county property.
M
61
M
Chairman Scurlock noted that at this point we are simply
authorizing negotiations with Mr. Block, and the Golf Course
Committee will look at the revenue factor and the whole picture,
and then they will make a recommendation as to what kind of
facility should be built.
Administrator Wright felt that in the next few weeks or so
those decisions will be made.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE 9 ACRES FROM A-1 to RS -6 -
FOPASCLO DEVELOPMENT
Chairman Scurlock announced a conflict of interest as he is
one quarter owner of Fopasclo Development. He turned the gavel
over to Vice Chairman Lyons and left the room.
Vice Chairman Lyons explained that he asked for this to be
placed on the agenda because he believed there was some confusion
about the Board's instructions to staff last week when this was
heard at a public hearing. His understanding was that the Board
had instructed staff to proceed with a County -initiated request
to rezone the 9 acres from A-1 to RS -6, and he did not feel this
related to whether we had a further study out there or not. He
asked if that was the understanding of the other Commissioners.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that he had hoped we could
accomplish this at that hearing since it was consistent with what
the people in the area had and desired. He agreed that we had
instructed staff to initiate such a rezoning and that it did not
have to wait until we revisited the area.
Commissioner Bird concurred that this merely keeps the 9
acres consistent with the surrounding property.
Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning 6 Zoning Commis-
sion, did not feel that it would take long to revisit this
matter, and she stated that she did encourage staff to move the
62
APR 9 1986 BOOK 64 F,�rn 135
APR 9 198&, Boa 64
plan as close to this as possible. Mrs. Eggert was of the
opinion that what we have is a communication problem in this area
rather than a plan problem.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to see us go
ahead with the rezoning to RS -6 and at the same time proceed as
expeditiously as we can with revisiting the Small Area Plan.
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, understood
d.
that the Board had indicated that this should be RS -6, and he
advised that staff had talked to the developer about paying for
the readvertisement but did not expect him to pay the standard
fee for the rezoning.
Vice Chairman Lyons asked for a Motion to reconfirm the
Board's approach to this matter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, Chairman Scurlock being
out of the room, the Board by a 4-0 vote
reaffirmed their instructions to staff to
initiate a County rezoning of the 9 acres to RS -6.
Commissioner Bowman asked how this would be revisited and
how soon, and Mr. Shearer advised that staff could start work
immediately and there probably would be at least one workshop and
then a public hearing before the Planning 6 Zoning Commission
meeting.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:40 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
r
Clerk Chairman
63