HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/12/1987Tuesday, May 12, 1987
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, May
12, 1987, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock,
Jr., Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman; Richard N.
Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present were
Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; Charles P.'Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB
Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Attorney
Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock requested the addition to today's Agenda
of two recommendations of the Finance Advisory Committee
regarding the selection of a financial consultant and!the
acquisition of 78 -acres of wetlands owned by the Estate of Julian
Lowenstein.
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of an appointment
to the newly -formed Primaryllndigent Health Care Subcommittee and
a discussion re the Fellsmere Library.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added the
above items to today's Agenda.
MAS1997 BOOS
1
AY 12 N87
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOOK 68 o, E 272
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 21,
1987, There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 4/21/87, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert requested that Item H be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. _Approval_of Appointment of Deputy Sheriff by Sheriff Dobeck
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the appointment by Sheriff Dobeck of Deputy Sheriff
Ronald Sinclair.
B. Approval of Duplicate Tax Certificate
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Duplicate Tax Certificate No. 464, in the amount of
$75.47, to Eunice Goodemote.
DUPLICATE TAX CERTIFICATE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
C. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk.to
the Board:
General Development Utilities, Inc.. 1986 Annual Report
of Vero Beach Shores and Vero Highlands Division
for year ended 1986-
2
D. Approval of Out -of -State Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
out-of-state travel for Commissioners and appropriate
staff to attend the Philadelphia WPCF 187 Conference on
October 4-8, 1987.
E. Acceptance of Maureen Poole's Resignation from Board of
Zoning Adjustment
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 4/27/87:
P LE REAL ESTATE
"IN CITRUS & CATTLE COUNTRY"
P.O. Box 366
Fellsmere, Florida 32948 Telephone: (305) 571-1881
Fellsmere Office Complex
Corner C.R. 512 & Cypress St.
This letter is to inform you that you will need to find a replacement
for me on the Board of Adjustments, as we will be leaving this area
in the near future.
It has indeed been a learning experience for me to have served on this '
board, and I appreciate the confidence that you and the other Commissioners
have shown to me in appointing me to this position.
I will not be attending the May meeting, as I have to be out of town on that
date.
Please take care of this as early as possible.
Thank you again, and if I can help in any way, please so advise.
Very truly yours,
Ma een H. Poole
3
MAY 12 1987 BOOKE�
DISTRIBUTION LIST
April 27, 1987
Commissioners r�'I.(3•
y>jBoard
Administrator
of County Commissioners
��' --Attorney
L'
1840 25th Street
;;"'
Personnel
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
��
�;�' �Public
)T\4
Works
Mrs. Maggie Bowman
mac; Eq
�'40
Com,munity Dev.Attention:
Utilit;eS
�C,�'c' `FinanceDear
rlaggie:
l�Q%?G
MOther
}, n/l.
GotorJ c( A d:i
This letter is to inform you that you will need to find a replacement
for me on the Board of Adjustments, as we will be leaving this area
in the near future.
It has indeed been a learning experience for me to have served on this '
board, and I appreciate the confidence that you and the other Commissioners
have shown to me in appointing me to this position.
I will not be attending the May meeting, as I have to be out of town on that
date.
Please take care of this as early as possible.
Thank you again, and if I can help in any way, please so advise.
Very truly yours,
Ma een H. Poole
3
MAY 12 1987 BOOKE�
MAY 12 1997
Boni( 68 F � �
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted
Maureen Poole's resignation from the Board of Zoning
and Adjustment.
F. Appointment of Hoyt Howard to the Tourist Tax Development
Committee
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/29/87:
City of Vero Beach
1053 -20th PLACE - P. 0. BOX 1389
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32961-1389
Telephone. 567-5151
OFFICE OF TME
CITY CLERK
April 29, 1987
Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Chairman
Indian River County Commission
1840 25th Street'
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Chairman Scurlock:
APR 1987
Rip
WARD QOuM.y
COMMl3S10NERS
Mayor Acor has asked me to advise you that he has
appointed Councilman Hoyt Howard to serve on the
Tourist Tax Development Committee. Mr. Howard will
replace Bill Cochrane who is no longer on the City
-_ Council.
Sincerely,
='
(NO
Phyllis A. Neube ger��
City Clerk
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously confirmed
the City of Vero Beach appointment of Hoyt Howard to
the Tourist Tax Development Committee.
G. Permission to Close'100 Block of 14th Avenue on July 4th
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 5/5/87:
4
MAY 1907 ON
May 5th. 1987 ti RECEIVED c
�Df NERS
Board of County Commissioners �2�lf�Z026`��\'�
Indian River County, Florida
Dear Commissioners,
The residents of the 100 block of 14th. Ave. would like
to stage our 6th. annual Independence Day Celebration. As in the past, we
are asking your approval to close a small section of 14th. Ave. on July 4th.
1987. Our celebration will last from approximately 12:00noon until just after
dark. We would also like to include*a small class "C" fireworks display.
There is no permit required for this type of fireworks as they,Athe small type.
They would be set off by law enforcement*personel who live on 14th.. Ave: There -
are four law enforcement personel who live on 14th. Ave.
As in the past, we will provide the necessary access for emergency vehicles
and things of that nature. The residents of 14th. Ave. are proud to say that
we have brought a portion of our community closer together with this event the
last five years. We have gone without incident and never had an injury or
property damage. We are hopeful that the Commission will again grant us permission
to stage our Independence Day Celebration.
Thanking you in advance.
Perry M. Pisani
Representing the residents
of the 100 block of 14th. Ave.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the request by the residents to close the 100 block
of 14th Avenue on July 4th for the. purpose of an
Independence Day Celebration.
5 BOOK r.�'t
MAY 12 1997
BOOK 68 r,,�1 E 2 _� 6
H. Certificate of Need - Sebastian Volunteer Ambulance
Squad, Inc.
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 515187:
Sebastian Volunteer Ambulance Squad, Inc.
P.O. Box 685 Sebastian, FL 32958 (305) 589-5840
May 05, 1987
6789
MAY 1981
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Cn
N
na
Indian River County
ww),
ERS
1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, FL 32960f.,—__
nCoC
..ATTENTION: ALICE WHITE
Dear Ms. White:
It has come to my attention that this office inadvertently
overlooked a very important piece of paper in not renewing
our certificate of public convenience and necessity.
Please accept our sincere apology in that a period of trans-
ition has occurred and we are in the process of correcting
many such ommissions.
It is of the utmost importance to receive this certificate
as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration in
this matter.
Sincerely,
64omo�
Catherine M. Mitten, EMT, Secretary
Sebastian Volunteer Ambulance Squad
Commissioner Eggert explained that she asked the officers of
the Sebastian Volunteer Ambulance Squad to attend today's meeting
so that the Commissioners can learn first hand the current status
of the squad.
Mary DeChaine, Superintendent of the Sebastian Volunteer
Ambulance Squad, reported that the squad has been going through a
few changes recently, and felt very good about the way things are
shaping up. Primarily, they are working on the theory that all
of the crews will be composed of EMT drivers. They now have 23
EMTs active year around. Three are taking the State Board
6
examination and 4 more are entering EMT school in August, which
will give them 19 active EMTs by January of next year.
Commissioner Eggert asked if they have a problem keeping a
full quota, and Mrs. DeChaine answered "not so far." She noted
that the squad had some problems while she was on vacation in
California, but those problems have been resolved, and they are
in the process of reforming their board of directors.
Commissioner Eggert asked if they had any problem in
following the protocol put forward by Dr. Dudley Teel, Emergency
Services Medical Director, or any difficulty in participating in
the mutual aid pacts, and Mrs. DeChaine said they did not. This
has been a formative year for the squad, and the people who did
not agree with the SOP of the Squad or the Medical Director are
no longer there. She felt it is better to have a quality squad
than a quantity, slipshod operation.
Commissioner Eggert asked if they have enough people to
cover all shifts, and Mrs. DeChaine explained that there are 28
shifts per week; if each of their 12 active EMTs take 2 shifts,
that covers 24 shifts, and if a couple of them take 3 shifts, it
covers the entire 28 shifts. She stated that they are not having
any trouble with that.
Chairman Scurlock noted that doesn't cover vacation or sick
time, and felt that is where you run into budgeting problems,
because somebody has to pick up the slack.
Commissioner Eggert asked about the, morale of the squad, and
Mrs. DeChaine felt the morale is excellent now, especially with
the new job descriptions for officers. She believed that they
had to allow things to happen to get rid of the chaff, which is
now gone. The wind blew it away. The present board of
directors is willing and very capable of doing the work that a
tot of the old board members didn't do, which takes a lot of load
off of her and splits up the work load very nicely.
Commissioner Eggert advised that she discussed this with
Mrs. DeChaine, Attorney Vitunac, OMB Director Joe Baird, and
7
MAY 12
1987 BOOK.�,,� f'J
MAY 12 1987
BOOK
Emergency Management Director Doug Wright, and they all agree
that there is a very great need in this county to create an
ordinance to go along with these Certificates of Need, stating
exactly what the responsibilities are. Commissioner Eggert
recommended that the Board issue the Sebastian squad a 90 -day
certificate with the knowledge that during that interim, such an
ordinance would be prepared, and stated that she could not see
any reason why a certificate for a longer period of time would
not be issued at that time.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously issued
a 90 -day Certificate of Need to the Sebastian Volunteer
Ambulance Squad, with the understanding that an
ordinance will be prepared and brought back to the
Board in 90 days.
Commissioner Eggert assured Mrs. DeChaine that the squad
will be able to have input in the preparation of the ordinance.
- 8
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
WHEREAS, the Sebastian volunteer Ambulance Sewtee pnovideb
quaefty emergency m deAvcceb a zend 0 Indian River County;
and,
theAe had been demondtnated .that there .id a need bon thio ambulance aeirvice
to opeaate in tW county to provide eadenttat 6ekviced to .the citizen ob th 6
a County; and,
WHEREAS, the above ambulance deAvice had .indicated that at uttU compZy with ale the
%equ kementA ob the EmeAgency Medicat SeAviced Act ob 1973, the Boated ob County
Commiad.ioneu ob Indian River County hereby .Laduu a Centibicate ob PabUc
Convenience and Neceuam&a-&nce company bon 90 days - August 10, 1987.
In .i,edwing thio centi.p ate .it .id undenatood that the above named ambutance denvi.c.e
ti wtU meet the Aequihementa ob State Legi6tation and pnovcde emergency deAviceA on
a tum -jour houA baais bon the bottowing wcea(d):
North Indian River County from the Brevard County line following the
'Indian River South to Hobart Road, West to 82nd Avenue (CR -609)
North to the intersection of CR -510 and CR -512, continuing North to
the Brevard County line. This area will -Nle consis ent ri xisting
fou C --
Emergency
Emergency sectors. fin, k5oakd Dd Counr#d.cOneU
Approved: May 12, 1987
s
I-
1.
I. North County Area Subregional_Sewer Project Work
Authorization #15
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/1/87:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSAIONERS DATE: MAY 1, 1987
VIA: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO II�� l
DIRECTOR OF UTI LI BRYIP1%ES
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY AREA SUBREGIONAL SEWER PROJECT
WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 15
Due to the proposed location of the North County Area Subregional
Sewer Treatment Plant the Utility.Department asked Masteller and
Moler, Inc., to preform a study which will help in determining the
feasibility of extending the wastewater line from Pelican Pointe to
Hobart Park.
9
AY J ,�, BOOP( 68 F�,H 28
RECOMMENDATION
The Utility Staff asks that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Work Authorization thus
allowing Masteller and Moler to complete the additional study which
will not exceed $3,200.00. These funds are to be paid out of the
North County Sewer Study, account number 471-000-169-006.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization #15 allowing Masteller and Moler
to complete the additional study on the North County
Area Subregional Sewer Project for an amount not to
exceed $3,200, and authorized the Chairman's signature,
as recommended by staff; funding to be paid out of
Account 471-000-169-006.00.
10
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Date: April 20, 1987
Work Authorization No. 15 For Consulting Services (Wastewater)
Project No. 15 (County) * 86004 (Masteller & Moler Associates,
Inc.-)
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Title. North County Area Subregional Sewer Project
For additional engineering services for expansion of study and report services
consisting of research and development of project assessment roll and
related illustrative maps for use in the asssessment of properties in
connection with capital financing for the referenced project. Expanded
area to go from Pelican Point to Hobart Park.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LUMP SUM FEE FOR SERVICES
Reference is made to the "Agreement for Professional Services" dated -
July 2, 1986 and specific Article numbers and paragraph numbers which
are listed hereinafter to describe the scope of services included on this
project;
A. Study and Report Services per Article 3.
B. Payment for Services per Article 8, paragraph 8b. for "A" above
shall be the lump sum fee of $3,200.00 Payment shall be per
paragraph -8d.
APPROVED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY / G.
Don -'U. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
A,lil
Charles Vitunac
County Attorney
SUBMITTED BY:
MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
BY Alaw:d ordA���
arl H. Masteller, P.E.
President
Date Zoe 1z (9
APPROV 0 U liY Wi i
8Y
TERRANCE P;y ; 0
D{RECTOR
DIV. OF UTILITY SERVICES
V1 AY 12 1001 0 71
M AY 1 '1987
BOOK 68 PAGE 282
J. Budget Amendment - Law Enforcement Trust Fund
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/6/87:
P. O. BOX 608
PHONE 569.6700
May 6, 1987
Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Doug:
R. T."T I M' DO B E C K - INDIAN RIVED COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VEitO I3EAC1I, FLORIDA 329GI-0608
MAY 1987
res is red f n.
RECEIVE®
BOARD COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
This letter is a request for the Board's approval to expend Law
Enforcement Trust Fund monies totaling $23,921 detailed as follows to
better equip the Crack Team and the Emergency Response Team
previously authorized.
ITEM
AMOUNT
Bartec Dialed -Number Recorder
,695
Bartec Loop Extender Transmitter
750
Marantz Cassette Tape Recorders (2)
480
Radio Shack Cassette Tape Recorder
50
Panasonic T.V. Camera w/Tape Deck
3,500
T70 Cannon Camera & Flash
300
_ "Body Bug° Voice Transmitter
1,295
Prewired Shoulder Transmitter for "Body Bug"
245
Model 326 S & W Sure -Fire Lights (10)
720
3/4" VCR Recorder/Player with Monitor
3,700
VHF - Format Video Camera
2,700
Startron 303A Camera Lens
2,886
Gyro -Binoculars
3,600
$ 23.92
The addition of this equipment will greatly assist
and enhance the
continued effort by this Department to combat the
drug problems in
Indian River County.
Thank you for your consideration of this requestion.
Sincer
R T. Tim Dobeck, Sheriff
Indian River County
RTD:ccd
12
i
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved the following budget amendment in the
amount of $23,921, as requested by Sheriff Dobeck.
TO: Honorable Members of DATE: May 12, 1987
the Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Jose h A. Baird
OMB Director
ACCOUNT NUMBER
112-600-521-034.99
112-600-521-099.91
EXPLANATION
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
SPECIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
TRUST FUND
ACCOUNT TITLE
Other Current Chgs./Oblig.
Reserve for Contingency
INCREASE
23,921
See attached memo from Sheriff Dobeck dated May 6, 1987.
FLORIDA RETIREMENT UPGRADE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/6/87:
TO: DATE: of County Commissioners May May 6, 1987 FELE:
Indian River County
n1m r, MIM T 0 Im
23,921
SUBJECT: Florida Retirement Upgrade
FROM: Freda Wright, Clerk REFERENCES:
Pursuant to Chapter 86-180, I am requesting that the Board pay
one-half of the amount of $15,894.72 to upgrade my retirement.
This amount should be paid on or before June 30th, 1987, in order
to save interest on same.
Attached is copy of letter from the Department of Administration,
which is self-explanatory.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
ki 13 BOOK '
IWAY 12' all
FF"_ I
MAY 12 1987 BOOK 68 rA-'A 4
Chairman Scurlock advised that a research of the Minutes
shows there have been two other potential requests by former
Commissioners Pat Lyons and Bill Wodtke. The Board approved
$2700 for Pat Lyons, which was half of his $5400 contribution.
Commissioner Wodtke's contribution was in the same range as Freda
Wright's, but Bill decided not to participate because he felt
there would not be any benefit derived by his paying that much to
pay out half of that amount, and also because he did not feel it
was appropriate for him to ask the Board to fund it at that
level. In Freda's case, we are talking one-half of almost
$16,000. The Chairman personally felt the Board should
establish a policy in these matters and set a cap on the amount
paid by the Commission. He understood that this retirement
upgrading is applicable to only one other constitutional officer,
Tax Collector Gene Morris. All the other constitutional officers
took office since 1980, and this covers only the 4 -year period
from 1977-81.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the Clerk would be able to fund
the rest of it through her own personal funds if the Board
decided to pay only $2700, and Chairman Scurlock confirmed that
she could, as the ruling on this is very specific. It allows the
Commission to participate up to one-half; it does not state..
one-half.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board set a cap of $2700
for all constitutional officers who wish to upgrade
their retirement funds, and that they look within their
own funds if they wish to participate to a greater
extent.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler asked if this would
come out of the Clerk's budget or the Board's general
14
_ M
contingencies, and OMB Director Joe Baird advised that it could
be done either way.
Commissioner Eggert felt she would like the Clerk to find
the $2700 within her budget, and pay the approximate balance of
$13,000 out of.her personal funds if she wished to participate to
that extent.
Commissioner Bird asked how long Freda Wright has been a
county employee, and Commissioner Wheeler believed it has been
somewhere in the area of 42 years.
Chairman Scurlock emphasized that we are not talking about
Freda's entire retirement period, we are talking about upgrading
a specific period, 1977-81. In 1977 the State Retirement Program
established an official category for elected public officials,
whereby elected officials could contribute 17% of their gross
income to the retirement fund,,which is a much higher level than
that of general employees. In fact, he believed that only judges
and state legislators are at a higher level.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if they had the option at that
time to participate, and Chairman Scurlock explained that is the
option that is being made available, to upgrade that specific
4 -year period.
Commissioner Eggert felt that $2700 was a nice amount to set
a cap at, and pointed out that Pat Lyons worked as an elected
public official for 8 years.
Commissioner Bird asked how long Freda has been an elected
official, and Chairman Scurlock believed it has been 12 years.
Director Baird explained that elected public officials have
had the option right along to switch to the program, but they
would have had to pay for it themselves. The idea here is that
if the Board so authorizes, it can pay half of the contribution
for the 1977-81 period.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the Board did not have
the authority in the past to fund the upgrading, but now the law
15
MAY 1'r2 B-101-1
AA,
A
MY 12 'U7
BOOK
8�
-,F �� r
allows
the Commission to provide up to half the upgrade;
of
course, that is a local decision.
Director Baird pointed out that this option is open only for
one year, this year.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION ON FEES FOR SOUTH SIDE OF SEBASTIAN INLET PARK
The Board reviewed the following letters dated 4113/87 and
State of Florida
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
DR. ELTON J. GISSENDANNER 1��`9•t�21��?�
Executive Director
.� pPR 1987
N BOAIip �;pUi11'I
COMM1PrS{0��
Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman .
Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners
1840.25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960.
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
April 13, 1987
BOB MARTINEZ
Governor
GEORGE FIRESTONE
Secretary of State
BOB BUTTERWORTH
Attorney General
GERALD LEWIS
State Comptroller
BILL GUNTER . .
State Treasurer
DOYLE CONNER
Commissioner of Agriculture
BETTY CASTOR
Commissioner of Education
PLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO:
Thank you very much for your letter of March 30:and the invitation
to make a presentation to your Board of County Commissioners on the
Sebastian Inlet entrance -fee issue: By all means, I want to take advan-
tage*of your invitation and will call your office to arrange a suitable
date.
As you may know, the Governor and Cabinet have postponted consid-
eration of.the Sebastian Inlet entrance.fee until their meeting of
June 16. I would hope that.we might have -a chance to discuss the matter
as it pertains to Indian River County well in advance of that date.
Thank you:again-.for your interest.
you and your Board soon.
Ney C. Landrum -
Director
T Division of Recreation and Parks
16
I look forward to meeting with
Sebastian Inlet
T. i
Tac District Commission
.'•,�CpD N'E t4�• ...p4..�-..�..sr+eyr�«•�..-.yy...,s.7a-!^.,a+rv-ts+•.t••.+�u•..rP':.^.<.—.-....,.,.r+ �
+1""'il1.n..yjp � •y... ..u, .ww.-....«...k.: +'L.fii~.wr�at:..t 1.u'.I.rivLut'.,• ., ....«..... .•.J-'_�:... ..»_ : .��_.s—L'•... .... -. .. ., .. ...
DISTRIBUTION UST
20212 Cos' missioners
?���c� Administrator
Attorney
April 15, 1987 h APR i3 Personnel
Public Works n7i Da, ;s
a�'.; Community Dev.
WAR
Indian River County Board COMMiss►Oc�E�s `�'� Utilities
Finance
of County Commissioners6'8 c2��
1840 25th Street, N-158 X99 '' Other -1!�
Vero Beach, F1 32960
The Honorable County Commissioners:
In response to your letter dated March 30, 1987 regarding entrance
fees at Sebastian Inlet Park, the Sebastian Inlet Tax District
Commission would very much like to attend a meeting with the Vero
Beach County Commission and the DNR, Division of Recreation & Parks.
Mr. Ney Landrum, Director of DNR Recreation and Parks, is coming to
Melbourne on May 11, 1987, at 1:00 p.m. to meet with the SITD Comm-
ission, at the Greater South Brevard Area Chamber of Commerce building
to discuss same and other matters relating to the Sebastian Inlet and
the State Park. We would welcome your attendance at this meeting.
Please keep us informed of any progress on this matter. If we could
be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
SEBASTIAN INLET TAX DISTRICT COMMISSION
J
Carol Ann Senne
Chairwoman
1900 South Harbor City Boulevard Suite #105 Melbourne, Florida 32901 (3051724-5175
Assistant Attorney Bruce Barkett introduced Ney Landrum,
Director of Recreation and Parks for the Department of Natural
Resources, who was invited by Chairman Scurlock to attend today's
meeting to make a presentation on the concept of charging fees at
the Sebastian Inlet State Park. He noted that Mr. Landrum
addressed the Sebastian Inlet Taxing District Commission
yesterday.
Mr. Landrum explained that he really was not prepared to
make a presentation this morning because he wasn't sure just what
r
��`` 17 (}UGC C,t ? 7
MAY
12 1987
BOOP(
68
j�: ?88
issue the Commission wished to focus on.
He recalled
that
back
in 1970, the County deeded the property on the south side back to
the State of Florida for park and recreational purposes with the
restriction that the use of the shore line, the dock, and the
jetty be free of charge and available 24 -hours a day, and the
State has honored that restriction. However, the State feels
that in order to be consistent with most of the other State
parks, it is necessary to charge admission fees to help pay for
the operational costs of the State's park system. He noted that
tht Sebastian Inlet Park is the most used park in the State park
system, and it is the most expensive facility to run at $500,000
a year. The State park system has grown so rapidly in the last
15 years that they have had difficulty in keeping up with
maintenance and operational costs. As a rule of thumb, the State
prefers to have state taxpayers fund half of the park costs and
the actual park users pay the other half. Mr. Landrum noted that
the Sebastian Inlet recreational area is the only major park in
the Florida State Park System where it is feasible -to collect a
fee that a fee is not being collected, and the State wants to be
consistent and have a uniform, statewide system. They do collect
some miscellaneous revenue from camping, concession stands, etc.
Mr. Landrum explained that although they would like to
collect fees on both sides of the park, they are concentrating on
the northern side of the park at the present time, where there
are no restrictions other than the one imposed by the Governor
and Cabinet back in 1975 when the admission issue first arose.
Many of the residents within the Inlet Taxing District objected
to paying an admission fee because they were paying for the
maintenance of the Inlet through their taxes. The State
disagreed with that position, because they are not charging
anyone to get to the inlet or use the inlet. The State has
developed the park and are now providing paved parking spaces,
modern restrooms, security, and other services that cost the
18
general taxpayers money to operate, and the State feels that the
users of this park should bear part of that cost. Nevertheless,
the•Governor and Cabinet decided that there was some equity
involved in the position of the Inlet taxpayers and adopted a
policy that there would not be a charge for either admission or
parking at the Sebastian Inlet State Park. That policy is still
in effect and it is up for review with a strong recommendation
that it be rescinded to allow a standard admission fee on the
north side of the park.
Mr. Landrum advised that should the Governor and Cabinet
okay the fee at the north side at its June 16th meeting, the DNR
plans to ask the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County to remove the language in the deed restriction that
prohibits the charging of admission fees on the south side. They
feel that an admission fee should be charged for both sides of
the inlet. That has been the State's position from the very
outset, but they realize that it is up to the County Commission
to decide whether or not to remove the language in the deed
restriction.
Chairman Scurlock asked about the possibility of having a
admission fee structure that differentiates between Indian River
and Brevard County residents and those people who come from all
over the state and country.
Mr. Landrum advised that the Attorney General has said that
would not be legal and is contrary to their policy, but Chairman
Scurlock did not feel it would be unfair because we pay taxes
here and they don't.
Mr. Landrum pointed out that no other counties have
benefited more from State local assistance programs and grants
than Indian River and Brevard.
Commissioner Bird realized that while there is an impact on
the County's road system by the people using the park, there is
also an economic benefit to the county because many people come
19 Bua
MAY 12 `907
MAY 12 M7
68i)K 68 F'.UL. �tiJ
to this area primarily to use the park and spend a great deal of
money while they are here.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if the Inlet Taxing District
contributes anything to the operation, maintenance, or any
improvements in the park, and Mr. Landrum stressed that they do
not; they just pay for the maintenance of the inlet and the
jetty.
The facilities and the services provided by the park are paid for
entirely out of the State Park System budget.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if there are any areas other than
the lots provided by the park to park your car if you are only
going to fish off the jetty, and Mr. Landrum advised that there
is no area in the immediate vicinity other than those that are
provided as part of the park.
Chairman Scurlock suggested putting in parking meters, but
Mr. Landrum advised that the present policy of Governor and
Cabinet is not to charge a parking fee or an admission fee on the
north side of the park, but that policy will be coming up for a
vote at the June 16th meeting.
Chairman Scurlock felt that one of the main concerns is that
if the State is successful in charging a fee for the north side,
those people who do not wish to pay a fee will use the south side
of the park.
Mr. Landrum did not feel that a $1.00 fee for car and driver
would deter people from parking on the north side if they wished
to fish on the north jetty.
Commissioner Bird noted that there is a growing trend to go
to user fees for many services in this county, and pointed out
that Mr. Landrum and his department have been very cooperative in
working with Indian River County in helping us acquire beachfront
property through the "Save Our Coasts" program and providing
grant monies for the development of some oceanfront parks that we
already own. They have been a good friend to us and we
20
� � r
appreciate that, and he hoped that we will be as open --minded and
as sympathetic to the State's position on this issue at the
Sebastian Inlet.
Mr. Landrum maintained that the people who use the rest of
the State park system should not be carrying the load for this
park. If the State is successful in instituting the fee system
at the park, they can take over the liability, which has become a
serious concern for the Inlet Taxing District because of the many
accidents that have occurred on the jetty. He wanted to make it
clear that the State would not be taking over the structural
maintenance of the jetty, just the recreational maintenance.
Commissioner Bowman did not like the State's track record up
at the Inlet. First, they built the museum right on the dune;
then they breached the dune in 2 places, and eventually had to
take remedial measures there. Further, contrary to the
recommendations of a scientific advisory board, they built the
bathhouse where they were told it wasn't safe to swim, and the
bathhouse had to be converted into something else. Their most
recent boo boo has been to put an edifice right on the inlet's
easement, which she believed had to be moved. She felt that
either the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing,
or there is an abysmal ignorance about the environment.
Mr. Landrum explained that the bathhouse and museum were
constructed in the late 60's before he was with the Park System
and he could not take the responsibility for those matters. With
respect to the latter, the Inlet Taxing District has subsequently
allowed the building to remain in the original location as it
will not interfere with the maintenance of the inlet.
Chairman Scurlock did not feel there is any question that
Mr. Landrum and his department have given tremendous assistance
to Indian River County, and he did not want to give Mr,. Landrum
the impression that we are not appreciative.
�� 21 BOGIES �', 1
MAY 11,2Ji fes&
r�_ 'I
MAY 12 1987 BOOK 68 o') -E6120
Commissioner Bird pointed out that the State has made
improvements on the south side of the inlet to the tune of well
over $300,000 with the knowledge that no fees can be collected.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board thank Mr. Landrum
for updating us and bringing us this information and
that the Commission take no action on this fee matter
at this time.
Under discussion, Bob Ryon of the Sebastian Inlet Taxing
District Commission, stated that they have taken a stand against
admission fees on the north side of the inlet, even though they
realize that many improvements have been made by the State. The
Commission hopes that the Indian River County Board of
Commissioners will support them in this stand on this issue
because people from Indian River County use both sides of the
inlet, and if they can beat them again it will negate Mr. Landrum
coming back down here and proposing the removal of the deed
restriction- Mr. Ryon stated that the Inlet Commission has shown
Mr. Landrum and the DNR a willingness to cooperate and has lifted
the lawsuit regarding the bathhouse. The Inlet Commission has
also indicated their willingness to go 250, or $375,000, for
erosion control on the south shore. Mr. Ryon advised that while
they are working in that direction, everything is on hold until
the user fee is finalized.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the District is opposed to any
fee being charged of Indian River and Brevard County residents,
and Mr. Ryon advised that they made a proposal to Mr. Landrum
yesterday that they would not be opposed to taxpayers within the
District being able to obtain a family permit for an annual fee
of $10 for one car with up to 6 passengers, but apparently Mr.
Landrum believes that cannot be done. Mr. Ryon felt we should
try it, because 800 of the taxing revenues come from Brevard and
22
20% from Indian River County, and emphasized that the percentage
of use of the park by the people living within the inlet taxing
district is very low, somewhere in the neighborhood of 20.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that if fees were charged on
the north side, people still have the option of using the south
side for free, even though more improvements are available on the
north side. At Least they would have that option, and he would
be the first one to argue the point if the State wanted to start
charging a fee on the south side.
Commissioner Wheeler understood that the Inlet Taxing
District was originally set up to maintain the inlet for
navigational purposes only, and Mr. Ryon confirmed that the
Sebastian Inlet Taxing District is not in the fishing or
recreational business; however, when they built the jetty, it
seemed that they were immediately in the fishing business. In
fact, they have several lawsuits pending against them, any one of
which could put them completely out of business.
Mr. Ryon expressed his surprise that Indian River County is
not willing to take a stand on this issue one way or another, and
again asked the Board for their support in opposing a fee on the
north side of the inlet.
Commissioner Bird felt that if this were an isolated case,
he would agree with Mr. Ryon, but he has a difficult time
opposing a nominal fee on the north side when the State is
consistently charging fees at other parks. In addition, he
pointed out that Indian River County is leaning toward user fees
in many of our recreational facilities.
Commissioner Bowman wished to take a position against the
charging of fees.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried by a 4-1 vote, Commissioner
Bowman dissenting.
MAY 1
MAY 12 1987
Boos 68 Ft �
George Gross, speaking as a private citizen and not as a
member of the Beach Preservation and Restoration Committee,
pointed out that the study of the erosion problem along the
County's entire coast line shows that a major portion of the
northern shore is eroded because of the inlet, and we would not
be facing the cost that is necessary to correct that erosion
problem, if it were not for the inlet. Mr. Gross felt we must
cover that erosion cost somehow, either through a special taxing
district, ad valorem taxes, admission fees, or some other fee.
He"advised that the District is looking into several innovative
methods in trying to prevent that sand from going into the Inlet,
but they cannot proceed under their present budget. They will
need some assistance, and felt Indian River County should help
the District in some way.
Dick Schuler, representing the AARP, advised that the
association took an interest in this matter sometime ago after
reading in the newspaper about incidents of violence and
vandalism at the Inlet. They are concerned to the point that
they are afraid to go to the Inlet. He reported that he attended
the meeting,in Melbourne yesterday, and can understand the Taxing
District being opposed to an admission charge for taxpayers in
the District. However, there is no protection for people, except
to wait for the Sheriffs of either Indian River or Brevard County
or the Marine Patrol to respond to a call. If something happens
on park property, the park rangers have some authority, but they
do not have any authority to protect people beyond a certain
point on the jetty. Mr. Schuler believed a good way to resolve
the admission fee question is to change the language from
readmission fee" to "parking fee" for those people paying taxes to
the Inlet Taxing District. In addition, Mr. Schuler was very
disturbed about the newspapers saying that the State first gave
the south side property to the County, because for years he has
always understood that the land was given to the County by the
r
McLarty family, not the State. He pointed out that during
yesterday's meeting in Melbourne, it was clear that nobody knows
who owns what up at the inlet.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the Board would be taking this
matter into consideration, and thanked everyone for coming this
morning.
REQUEST FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD FOR DIRECTION ON THE
PROBLEM OF ILLEGALLY LOCATED MOBILE HOMES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/1/87:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 1, 1987 FILE: _
of The Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD.CONCURRENCE:
` SUBJECT:CODE REQUEST FFOREMENT DIRECTOIOND
Robert M. Kea ng ICP FROM BOARD OF COUNTY
Director Plan ing & Development COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller
Chief Environmental Planner
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois t'�D REFERENCES: TM #87-403
Staff Environment Planner
_ode Enforcement Coordinator
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on May 12, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Since being established four years ago, the Indian River County
Code Enforcement Board has conducted approximately 200 eviden-
tiary hearings and issued a substantial number of orders. The
Board has never had a problem enforcing the County's codes in
the past. One type of violation, however, has affected the
Board differently. This is the type of violation where the
violator, because of his economic circumstances, is more of a
victim than a violator. Because of this type of case, the Code
Enforcement Board wishes to obtain direction from the Board of
County Commissioners.
At their regular meeting held on March 23, 1987, the Code
Enforcement Board asked that the staff approach the Board of
County Commissioners, to request that the Commission give the
Code Enforcement Board direction as to how to handle the
problem of illegally located mobile homes, when those homes are
occupied by people who cannot economically afford to move
them, and/or cannot find other affordable housing. The area of
specific concern is off Oslo Road, in the vicinity of the 800
to 1200 block range.
MAY 12 1987 25 gaor r, 0,
I' -
MAY 12 19-8%
BOOK 8 F�, `66
The Code Enforcement Board's concern is exemplified by a code
enforcement case that was reviewed by the Board at their March
meeting. Lorenzo Lattimore, residing off of 8th Court S.W.,
was cited in May 1986 as having an illegal mobile home on his
property. The subject property is zoned RS -6, Single Family -
Residential District. Mr. Lattimore was originally ordered by
the Board to remove the mobile home by June 20, 1986. The
compliance date. was subsequently extended on three occasions,
and Respondent Lattimore is presently under order to remove the
mobile home by June 19, 1987 (see attached minutes).
At his appearances before the Code Enforcement Board, Mr.
Lattimore admitted that the mobile home was placed on the site
illegally, without permits being obtained. He testified that
he and his family have nowhere else to go, and that he was
unsuccessful in finding another affordable place to live. He
explained that he had gone to the Housing Authority, which said
it could not help him. He also indicated that there are other
trailers in the Oslo area, and that his situation is not
unique. The staff's position and recommendation to the Code
Enforcement Board has been to enforce County ordinances,
informing violators of possible assistance from other sources.
As directed last September by the Code Enforcement Board, staff
reviewed the Lattimore situation and performed an existing
land -use analysis in the Oslo area. The land use inventory
revealed that there are approximately thirteen (13) mobile
homes in the vicinity, some of which were established prior to
enactment of present ordinances.
Code Enforcement staff policy has been to initiate code enforce-
ment action primarily as a response to zoning complaints about
illegal mobile homes. Staff also acts only after it can be
verified that the mobile home is not a permitted "grandfathered"
use and therefore is in fact illegal.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
There are presently three (3) zoning classifications in the
- area of concern off Oslo Road: RS -6, Single -Family Residen-
tial; RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential; and CL, Limited
Commercial.
North of Oslo Road, a CL District extends to a depth of approxi-
mately 300 feet, followed by an RM -6 District (approx. 300 feet
in depth). The RS -6 District extends throughout the rest of
the surrounding area, beginning approximately 600 feet north of
Oslo Road (see attach map).
South of Oslo Road, an RM -6 District extends to a depth of
approximately 600 feet, becoming RS -6. The Comprehensive Land
Use designations for the area are MXD (directly along Oslo
Road) and LD -2.
In an effort to assess options for addressing the issue of
mobile homes in the Oslo area, three (3) alternatives are
presented:
- 1) Enforce present zoning district regulations, coordi-
nating with the Housing Authority.
2) Maintain existing zoning classifications, but allow
all existing mobile homes to remain as permitted
nonconformities; or
�3) Rezone the Oslo area tb allow mobile homes as a
permitted use.
26
Alternative #1: Enforce present zoning districts, coordinating
with the Housing Authority.
ADVANTAGES: The present zoning classifications serve a function
of .encouraging redevelopment in an area characterized by
deteriorating residential structures. The present zoning
districts are compatible and in conformance with the County's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Housing Authority has indicated
that they would extend their full cooperation in providing
assistance to residents in need.
DISADVANTAGES: Many existing residents in the area cannot
afford to renovate their homes to preferred housing standards.
The present zoning does not allow the low-income housing
alternative of mobile homes. Although the Housing Authority
has indicated to staff that they will cooperate fully in
proving assistance to residents in need of housing, the Housing
Authority is limited by budget, specific guidlines, and a
backlog of assistance requests.
Alternative .#2: Maintain existing zoning classifications, but
allow all existing mobile homes to remain as permitted noncon-
formities.
ADVANTAGES: This alternative would allow residents presently
in mobile homes to maintain them, regardless of when they were
established on site. -
However, no more mobile homes could be established in the
future, and the present zoning would remain intact in all other
respects. Redevelopment would be encouraged under present
zoning, and existing residents would not be burdened with the
task of finding affordable housing elsewhere.
DISADVANTAGES: To allow all existing mobile homes to stay
would be to give preferential treatment to those who violated
zoning codes, and would penalize those who wanted mobile homes,
but adhered to zoning requirements.
ALTERNATIVE #3: Rezone the Oslo area to allow mobile homes as
permitted use.
ADVANTAGES: The allowance of mobile homes would offer an
affordable option for low-income residents in the Oslo area.
In some instances, the use of mobile homes would be an upgrade
in living standards to deteriorated structures presently being
used.
DISADVANTAGES: Allowance of mobile homes would result in a
mixture of residential uses which have traditionally been
separated through zoning regulations. The allowance of mobile
homes would also be in conflict with the County's Comprehensive
Land Use Plan, and could result in the establishment of incom-
patible adjacent land uses.
The staff's position is that existing County ordinances should
be enforced. Otherwise, the integrity of the entire code is
threatened. As to specific respondents, their cases can be
reviewed individually with staff assisting the respondents in
obtaining help from appropriate social service agencies.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners concur
with staff and endorse Alternative #1, which represents a
continuation of present policy.
27
MAY 1.2 '19187 BOOK s
Fr-
MAY 14
X 9 8 %
BOOP( 68 rr"!''u,208
-7
DeBlois,
Code Enforcement Coordinator, presented
staff's recommendation of Alternative #1 for enforcing the
present zoning regulations since the Housing Authority has
indicated they will extend their full cooperation in providing
assistance to residents in need and try to give them a priority
status even though they are limited because of guidelines and a
backlog of assistance requests. He noted that Lorenzo Lattimore,
who owns a mobile that is in violation of the codes, is here this
morning if the Board wishes to ask him any questions.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the Planning & Zoning
Commission had recommended Alternative #1, and Robert Keating,
Director of Planning & Development, advised that this matter was
not brought to that Board. Basically, it is staff's position
that the zoning ordinance be enforced in order to preserve the
integrity of the entire code as it exists. Staff is requesting
that the Board authorize them to work with the respondent in
trying to obtain assistance from the Housing Authority.
Commissioner Bowman asked if Alternative #1 means that these
families would be uprooted from their neighborhood, and Mr.
DeBlois stated that would depend on the specific circumstances.
In this particular case, it was verified that Mr. Lattimore
established a mobile home after ordinances were adopted
prohibiting mobile homes in that area. In these cases, the
residents are encouraged to develop some sort of single-family
housing if they can afford it.
Commissioner Bird preferred to work with Alternative #2 if
possible. He did not know how enforceable it might be, but he
understood that some of these people may have a difficult time
finding other suitable, immediate housing even with the
assistance of the Housing Authority. His thought was that maybe
we could grandfather in these structures with the understanding
that the Housing Authority will be helpful in trying to find them
other housing; or, if the existing mobile homes become unoccupied
28
by the present tenants, then the grandfathered clause would cease
to be in effect. Commissioner Bird stated he is not in favor of
evicting any family which is presently there and cannot qualify
or find other housing.
Commissioner Eggert wondered at what point this would stop
because this is happening all over the County, and Chairman
Scurlock felt the social issue of whether to provide appropriate
housing and fund that housing is a separate issue from the Zoning
Code. If assistance needs to take place for needy families, that
is not a planning and zoning issue; that is a welfare human
resources type of issue.
Commissioner Eggert felt this could trigger a review of how
housing is being handled in the County, and perhaps there is a
point where the private sector could come in and give some real
help to the people in the community. However, we must maintain
the validity of our code enforcement rules.
Attorney Vitunac advised that under Alternative #2, we will
be unable to prevent mobile homes being installed in there in the
future.
Commissioner Wheeler asked how many mobile homes in that
area were not in compliance at present, and Director Keating
believed there are approximately 12, but pointed out how
difficult it is to determine if they are in compliance.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the burden of proof is on the
homeowner, not the Planning Department.
Lorenzo Lattimore, Code Enforcement Board Case #86-088,
stated that his mobile home is his residence and he pays taxes on
it. He admitted that he does not like the mobile home and would
like to have a new house, but he does not. He told the
Commission to do whatever they have to do, but cautioned that if
he is kicked out of his mobile home, he intends to puta tent on
the property and live in it. Mr. Lattimore explained 'that his
piece of property is for sale, and if it sells, he would move far
MAY 12 1987
29
BOOK AE��
MAY 12 1987BOOK P�Gr 3'.J10
away from here. He would appreciate any help he could get, but
pointed out that the $25 a day fine imposed by the Code
Enforcement Board has run up to $1500 and his property is not
worth that. He pointed out that if he is unable to sell his
property because of the lien, there will be no new development
there. Mr. Lattimore advised that he lives there with 4 children
and two other gentlemen who have nowhere else to live. If he is
kicked out, they will need another place to live also.
Mr. Lattimore wondered why the County wants to mess with him
in'the first place since he is way out in the boon docks and
doesn't bother anyone. He sells a few collard greens, etc, and
it is actually good, old-time living. He suggested that if he is
forced to remove the mobile from his property that the State
build him a house on the same site. Mr. Lattimore wished to know
what the County is going to do to him.
Chairman Scurlock stated that right now the County is going
to kick him out and try to find him assistance in getting him
reasonable housing.
Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Lattimore's case is on
extension right now, and Mr. DeBlois explained that this case
came before the Code Enforcement Board back in May, 1986, and the
deadline is currently June 19, 1987. Staff will make a recommen-
dation to the Board based on the Housing Authority's ability to
assist him by that deadline.
Commissioner Bird understood the position of the Code
Enforcement Board, but felt that we will have to be consistent in
dealing with the other 12 units in the area that might be in
non-conformance with our codes.
Mr. Lattimore believed there are at least 25 mobiles with
families living in them, not just one person to a mobile.
Commissioner Bowman asked if we have some Section 8 money
for Oslo, and Director Keating stated that this is what the
30
l
I
Housing Authority is looking at and it is conceivable that Mr.
Lattimore could be relocated in the same area.
Mr. Lattimore stated that he is in the process of filling
out the papers for the Housing Authority and is sending away for
birth certificates, social security numbers, etc.
Chairman Scurlock felt that the direction of the Board was
going to be that staff proceed to check on all of the 25 trailers
in the area to see whether they are grandfathered in.
Mr. Lattimore said he didn't want to move to Gifford,
because he promised his mother that he would never move there.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board endorse
Alternative #1 and ask the Housing Authority to work
with these people with due speed; and at the same time,
appeal to the private sector to encourage redevelopment
of affordable housing in this area so that these
people can remain in their neighborhood.
Under discussion, Chairman Scurlock requested that staff
bring back a status report on the assistance given to Mr.
Lattimore by the Housing Authority.
Commissioner Bowman asked if Mr. Lattimore would have to
take another day off of work to appear before the Code
Enforcement Board on June 19th, and Director Keating said he
would not.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
Director Keating advised that staff will be reporting back
to the Board sometime after the June 19th meeting.
AY 1 �J8i 31 Boos
KQV
MA, 12 1987eoo�
��,�
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION --
5TH STREET SW--_CARMELA
GROVE
PARCEL
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/1187:
TO:THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: May 1, 1987 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
SUBJECT: R/W Acquisition -5th Street SW
n Carmela Grove Parcel
James W. Davis, P
Public Works Dire
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA REFERENCES:
Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent
DESCRIPTION AND -CONDITIONS
Required 20' R/W x 1331' length=26,620 square feet with one row of
citrus trees.
The county's offer to purchase at the Property Appraisers Just
Valuation of $2,985.00 previously approved by the Board is not.
acceptable to the property owners.
The property was purchased December 1985 at .25t per square foot or
$880,000. ($10,600. per acre)
The property owner contends that $6,655 is an equitable settlement
for the .61 acre r/w acquisition.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
In lieu of condemnation and additional fees for attorneys,
appraisers and court costs, staff recommends the purchase of the
201x1331' r/w for $6,655.00 which equates to the property owners
purchase price for the part taken.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board, In lieu of
condemnation and additional fees for attorneys,
appraisers and court costs, the Board unanimously
authorized the purchase of the 20' x 1331' right-of-way
for $6,655, which equates to the property owners'
purchase price for the part taken, as recommended.by
staff.
32
PARTIAL PAYMENT FOR APPRAISALS - NORTH GIFFORD ROAD PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5111871:
TO:THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: May 1, 1987 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Partial payment for appraisals
North Gifford Road Project
James W. Davis, P.E. _
Public Works Directo
FROM: Donald G. Finney, REFERENCES:
Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board on February 10, 1987 authorized Napier Appraisal Services -
to appraise 17 parcels along North Gifford Road at $550.00 each parcel
or $9,350. The right-of-way needs were reassessed and revised causing a
savings of right-of-way having to be purchased. Because of the changes
made by staff only 14 parcels are now having to be appraised, saving
$1,175.00 in appraisal fees and unknown land costs.
The Appraiser is requesting payment of $5,500 for 10 appraisals
completed and delivered to date and an additional $475.00 for work
progress on three parcels now not requiring a completed report.
Four reports outstanding will be delayed because of title work
difficulties. Payment of $2,200.00 ($550 per parcel) at completion of
appraisal reports.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that staff be authorized to pay Napier Appraiser
$5,975.00 for work accomplished and delivered to date.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board approve
staff's recommendation and authorize payment in the
amount of $5,975 to Napier Appraiser for work
accomplished and delivered to date.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird asked if we are required
to go out to bid on outside appraisers when the cost starts
running up into this amount of money.
33
-WiAy 1 P 4 37
BOOK 8 F� j E 30
Attorney Vitunac advised that we are doing this legally, but
the Board can, as a policy matter, make additional requirements
for obtaining proposals. He noted that many counties use a
rotating list of appraisers.
Commissioner Bird felt that if we are negotiating with them
directly, he was depending on staff to make sure that the prices
are competitive; otherwise, he felt we need to go with an open
bidding type process.
Administrator Balczun suggested that a good alternative
method would be to request annual proposals for service and rank
them in order of the respondents.
Commissioners Bird and Wheeler felt we should proceed with
that approach and comprise a list of prequalified appraisers,
giving their prices, availability, and expertise in certain
areas.
Chairman Scurlock felt that it would be nice to hire our own
appraiser because these appraisals begin to add up when we spend
$5,000-$10,000 at a time.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that we have our own
-- appraiser now, but there are times when we get into court
challenges.
Chairman Scurlock believed that staff understood the Board's
direction in this matter.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SOLID WASTE BILLING SYSTEM
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/22/87:
34
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: APRIL, 22, 1987 _
VIA: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO IqIIN"`/
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
i
FROM: H. T. "SONNY" DEAN
MANAGER OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF SOLID WASTE BILLING SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
In conjunction with the Indian River County Solid Waste Master Plan, a
rate study was made. The recommendation for financing the solid waste
activities was to be accomplished with a user charge carried on the
property tax bill.
ANALYSIS -
The Indian River County Division of Utilities Services requested our
consultants, Camp Dresser and mcKee, Inc., to submit a proposal to
perform the subject service. Attached information is the result of
that request. The scope of work is clearly defined along with
anticipated tasks. As you can see from the submitted information,
there is an enormous amount of work to be performed.
RECOMMENDATION °
The Division of Utility Services recommends approval and requests the
Board of County Commissioners to authorize CDM to perform this work
under our existing agreement at a price not to exceed $159,000.00 as
per attached submittal.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto understood that these are
some questions pertaining to these charges, and suggested that we
invite the consultant to next week's meeting to explain the
charges.
Chairman Scurlock questioned the associate's hours listed in
the Project Budget. He felt 492 hours was a significant amount
of time allotted to the associate, and that perhaps a lot of this
would be just clerical hours.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned about spending that much
money for time spent on what she considers scut work, and wished
to have a fuller explanation of who is spending what amount of,
time on what types of work.
3 5
MAY 12 1937 BOOKypy L�py
r� 4d' �.l�
MAY 12 1997
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
68 f�,,t awl
tabled this matter until the consultants can visit
and explain the project costs.
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
Chairman Scurlock reported that he, OMB Director Joe Baird,
and Administrator Charles Balczun reviewed 12 proposals from
finance consultants and culled those down to a short list of 3
firms that appeared before the Finance Advisory Committee:
Arch Roberts
M. G. Lewis
Huff & Co.
Chairman Scurlock advised that after presentations by the
above three firms, the first vote ended in a virtual tie between
M. G. Lewis and Arch Roberts. The point spread was extremely
close; however, Huff trailed by a significant amount. In talking
with staff after the meeting, it was staff's position that M. G.
Lewis be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners as
financial consultant for the County.
Chairman Scurlock requested that Administrator Balczun be
authorized to negotiate with M. G. Lewis, and if unsuccessful in
negotiating with them, go to Arch Roberts, and then to Huff 6 Co.
He advised that M. G. Lewis has agreed to give up all of their
underwriting activity for Indian River County, which is a
requirement of the proposal that a consultant cannot act as both
underwriter and advisor. He explained that we do not have a
financial advisor/consultant at this point, but the County has
used all three firms from time to time as financial advisors or
underwriters on various bond issues.
Commissioner Bird asked if the financial advisor would get
involved in the day-to-day investment of funds, and Chairman
Scurlock explained that the consultants would advise on specific
issues at our request, such as the selection of an underwriter,
36
or structuring a financial deal, review discount rates, and act
in the best interests of the county. Generally, an underwriter
looks at the ability to market the product, the ability to sell
those bonds, and is not necessarily always looking at the best
interests of the county. Director Baird has the responsibility
of day-to-day investment of funds, but brings only overall policy
matters to the Finance Advisory Committee from time to time.
Commissioner Bird wondered if Director Baird feels he needs
any additional expertise in this area, but Director Baird stated
that he feels secure in handling that by himself and did not
believe that a financial advisory committee or an outside firm
should be involved with the day-to-day investment of funds. He
explained that he looks at the highest rates possible on 30,60,
or 90 day terms, depending on what direction the market is --
taking, but the number one item he considers is safety.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the County Administrator to negotiate with M. G. Lewis
and bring it back to the Board.
DISCUSSION RE UNDEVELOPED RIVERFRONT AND OCEANFRONT PROPERTIES IN
THE ESTATE OF JULIAN LOWENSTEIN, DECEASED
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 3/30/87:
i
VP
BILL F. STEGKEMPER, G.R.I.
��®�� 1 11011011 GRADUATE OF REALTOR INSTITUTE
DESIGNATED APPRAISER
LIL3 LICENSED BROKER — SALESMAN
Since 1960 REAL ION` MEMBER OF MILLION DOLLAR SALES CLUB
OFFICE (305) 567-3900
RES. (305) 569-3458
Post Office Box 699 �Z8�93n3j
Vero Beach, Florida 32961-0699
March 30, 1987 APR 11187
p� COMMRO CO�Nn, BOO
Mr. Tommy Thomas ftn
18402County
5th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Undeveloped Riverfront and Oceanfront Properties in the
Estate of Julian W. Lowenstein, deceased.
37
MAY 12 1907 BOOK
r-WAY12 W7
Dear Tommy:
BOOK 68 PAGE 30
I would like to call your attention to, and present to our county, the
Opportunity to acquire 78+ acres of riverfront property. This parcel is
located on the west bank of the Indian River, and extends south 1,900+ feet
from the boat launching area at the east end of Oslo Road. The site is an
undeveloped aqua -marine area with many mangroves.
- Enclosed is information about the property from estate appraisals. The
property is marked out in red. The asking price is $216,700 ($114 per front
foot or $2,278 per acre).
Also, I would like to recall your attention to a December 1, 1986, letter
- from Mrs. Lowenstein's attorney. This letter concerned 1.86 acres of undeveloped
oceanfront property extending to A -1-A with 157 feet frontage. This particular
parcel adjoins property already purchased by our county on the north barrier
island and would be an -asset to what we already own.
Tommy, I know you are aware and, I am sure all of our Commissiopers are
aware, that undeveloped waterfront property is irreplaceable. Once it is
developed - it is lost forever.
Please present a copy of this to each Commissioner. I do believe they
will be interested. Perhaps both parcels could be purchased together, and
terms are negotiable.
Thank you Sir, for your attention to this letter, and to my request.
Respectfully,
Bill F. Stegkemper
Chairman Scurlock reported that the Finance Advisory
Committee, after discussing the matter with Utilities Director
Terry Pinto, indicated that they would like to go ahead and
pursue the negotiation for the acquisition of the 78 acres of
wetlands held in the estate of Julian Lowenstein. Mr. Putnam of
the FAC wished to expand that scope to consider additional
wetlands, but the Committee felt that the only item to be
discussed at this time is the specifics of the Lowenstein
property, which is about 1900 feet of river frontage. The
Chairman advised that Director Pinto indicates that we have
sufficient funds in the Utilities Department to reserve that
property for effluent disposal capability. The question arose
that we may get to the point where that is not the best use, but
that would be determined by this Commission or by time. If it is
determined that effluent disposal would not be something that we'
would pursue, there would be an ability by the Utilities Dept. to
38
M M M
sell those rights back to the Board of County Commissioners to
use in any way they see fit. There is no intent by the Utilities
Department to do anything that is environmentally insensitive.
At this point we have every indication that our current effluent
disposal at Vista Gardens and Vista Royale is very effective, and
staff would like to pursue additional capability.
Commissioner Bird suggested that if the primary purpose of
acquiring these wetlands is for effluent disposal, it would be
prudent to put a contingency clause in the contract that the
contract is subject to the County receiving the various
governmental approvals and permits necessary to use it for that
purpose, as he did not want to see the Utilities Department end
up owning a $216,000 piece of property that cannot be used for
that purpose.
Commissioner Eggert felt that we should own these wetlands
in any case.
Director Pinto stressed that the problem is that we are not
ready to permit and will not be in that position for sometime in
the future. It is no different than purchasing land for a golf
course or some other purpose, and until we get to that time, we
don't know the permitting requirements that will be in effect at
that time.
Commissioner Bird felt he could buy the argument Lif Director
Pinto is saying that he needs that property to make the system
function, but he was not sure that he is ready to take the
position that the County is going to go out and start acquiring
wetlands just to preserve wetlands. He felt the Commission has a
tremendous responsibility to generate money to develop park lands
and oceanfront property that we presently own. As much as he
would like to be aggressive in acquiring wetlands whenever
possible, he wondered if we have other options rather than just
running out and paying cash for them, such as density transfers
for the upland portions and access to the river for fishing, etc.
39
L— MAY 1 22 'd
BOOK ga r
MAY 12 1997 BOOK 6 8 F - .3 1
Commissioner Bowman advised that there was some upland
property associated with this that could be developed into parks.
She stressed that our primary purpose is to get the effluent out
of the river.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board by a vote of 4-1,
Commissioner Bird dissenting, authorized appropriate
staff members to negotiate with the Lowenstein estate
for acquisition of the 78 acres of wetlands and bring
it back to the Board.
Commissioner Wheeler just wanted to be sure that every
effort is made to determine the real market value of the
property, because the property really is unbuildable.
Chairman Scurlock explained the Motion only authorizes the
negotiations for acquiring the property, which means that we
would also look at gifts, taxes, etc.
Commissioner Bowman stressed that we have been told that
this is negotiable.
Commissioner Bird explained that he misunderstood the intent
of the Motion and wished to change his negative vote.
CHAIRMAN SCURLOCK ASKED THAT THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
appropriate staff members to negotiate for the property
located on north AIA, as described in the above memo,
and bring it back to the Board.
40
DISCUSSION RE FELLSMERE LIBRARY
Commissioner Eggert advised that the Board has already given
conceptual approval to the assistance plan, and pointed out that
it will not cost any more money than was budgeted for this year.
It looks like the City of Fellsmere will provide grounds and
building maintenance. The Historical Society is going to apply
for a grant for roof improvements and that type of thing. The
Women's Club will lease the building to the County at a very
nominal fee such as $1, and the County will be responsible for
utilities, insurance, and the hiring of one person whoiis already
in the Sebastian budget. Marion Turner has given us a reverse
cycle air conditioner.
Administrator Balczun wished to have it made clear that
utilities do not include water or sewer.
Commissioner Eggert wished to have the Board's permission to
have a lease prepared and proceed in this project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized Commissioner Eggert to have a lease
prepared and proceed in this project.
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE TASK FORCE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 516187:
41
MAY 12 1987 BOOA
.N
kjAY 12 1987
BOOK 6 8 IF'AGE 1?,
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT
5 14TH AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
177 o BEACH. FL 32960 1840 25TH STREET -SUITE N-1 18
IV PHONE (305) 567.1 101 VERO BEACH, FL 32960
OM 451.5302 TELEPHONE (305) 567.8000 EXT. 229
�l�oo�S SUN COM 424.1229
���`SSo 1�
-4. May 6, 1987
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
At the May 4, 1987 meeting on Indian River County's
Primary/Indigent Health Care, it was decided to form a sub-
committee. The goal of the committee is to revise or improve
a plan to set in motion a Primary/Indigent Care Center for
Indian River County to better provide for the health care
needs of the citizens of the community.
The committee would consist of one representative from
the following groups:
Indian River Memorial Hospital
Indian River County Hospital District
Indian River County Public Health Unit
Indian River County Medical Society
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
Please appoint a representative or designate a person to
act as a member of this committee and let us know your deci-
sion by May 15 if possible. You may call 567-1101 extension
35. As soon as we have this information, we will begin mak-
ing arrangements for another meeting.
Qjacquel ne Chesney, R.N., M.N.
Acting dm' istrative Director
Commissioner Eggert advised that she has been serving on the
Indigent Care Task Force, but there has been a recommendation
that a new committee be formed. She wished to have the Board's
permission to serve on that committee.
42
i
LIST
FROM: Indian
River County Public Health Unit
DISTRlgUT10N
-
;�.
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Public
Health and Indigent Primary Care
Administrator _----�
Attorney
TO: Michael
O'Grady, President,_---��
Personnel
Indian
River Memorial Hospital
Public Works -------
Com�:�unity Gev. __,--
Hugh K.
McCrystal, M.D. , Chairman
Indian
River County Hospital District
Uti':it:es
I=.iri«nLe
Cynthia
Peterson, Executive Director
Indian
River County Medical Society
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
At the May 4, 1987 meeting on Indian River County's
Primary/Indigent Health Care, it was decided to form a sub-
committee. The goal of the committee is to revise or improve
a plan to set in motion a Primary/Indigent Care Center for
Indian River County to better provide for the health care
needs of the citizens of the community.
The committee would consist of one representative from
the following groups:
Indian River Memorial Hospital
Indian River County Hospital District
Indian River County Public Health Unit
Indian River County Medical Society
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
Please appoint a representative or designate a person to
act as a member of this committee and let us know your deci-
sion by May 15 if possible. You may call 567-1101 extension
35. As soon as we have this information, we will begin mak-
ing arrangements for another meeting.
Qjacquel ne Chesney, R.N., M.N.
Acting dm' istrative Director
Commissioner Eggert advised that she has been serving on the
Indigent Care Task Force, but there has been a recommendation
that a new committee be formed. She wished to have the Board's
permission to serve on that committee.
42
i
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
appointed Commissioner Eggert to serve on the
Primary/Indigent Health Care Sub -Committee.
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 11:40 o'clock
A.M. in order that the District Board of the South County Fire
District might convene. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 11:45
o'clock A.M. with the same members present.
PRESENTATION ON NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT BY MASTELLER AND
MOLER, INC.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/4/87:
DATE: MAY 4, 1987
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI SIS NERS
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL ICES
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY MASTELLER AND MOLER, INC., REGARDING THE NORTH
COUNTY SEWER PROJECT
BACKGROUND
Early 1986, Masteller and Moler, Inc., was authorized by the Board of
County Commissioners to begin engineering studies relating to the
North County Sewer Projedt. A considerable amount of time has been
devoted to several feasibility studies associated with the project.
Due to the large service area, response time has been very slow but
rewarding. Masteller and Moler would like to take this opportunity
and share this information with the Board of County Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information that Masteller and Moler has provided, the
Utility Department asks that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize the Department to proceed immediately with the necessary
steps associated with the design, implementation and completion of
the project.
43
MAY 12'Q7 BGGK rr�r,r n��P�
MAY 12 1987
BOOK
Utilities Director Terry Pinto reported that the County has
negotiated agreements with the City of Sebastian to take over
their service area. To fund this project we are looking at the
method used on the SR -60 sewer project, that being an assessment
for each ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) Wastewater
Reservation. We started out with less than 1000 interested
people, and we are over 7000 units, which is why we feel it is
time to ask the Board's permission to proceed with the project.
Earl Masteller provided the Commissioners a Feasibility
Report (under blue cover) and an assessment Report (under cream
cover), along with a large blueprint of the project. (This
material is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.) He
reported that what started out as a wastewater plan for the
Roseland area snowballed into a project that will extend from the
north county line down to Hobart Road. The pieces of the sewer
plan started to fall in place once Sebastian city officials
decided to join the effort, as they have been seeking public
sewer for the past several years. Commercial development in
downtown Sebastian is limited because of the septic system, and
this system will provide for much more orderly growth. In
addition, the sewer system will eliminate 18 of the 19 package
sewer plants in the north county area, which is a goal of county
officials. The project will also do a great deal to clean up the
Indian River and the Sebastian River since many of the package
plants are dumping either directly or indirectly into the rivers,
and other leakage is coming from the septic tanks of residential
homes located near the rivers. Mr. Masteller advised that the
project will be paid for with the County's standard wastewater
impact fee of $1250 for each unit hooking up to County sewer.
Those who have voluntarily committed to the project's first phase
will pay through a 10 -year special assessment program.
Mr. Masteller felt this is a very exciting project in that
it is an indication of partnership between the private and public
sectors.
44
Chairman Scurlock emphasized that Sebastian's participation
was the key to organizing a regional wastewater system for the
area, and felt that Sebastian deserves a lot of credit.
Rather than going through the Feasibility Report page by
page, Mr. Masteller said he would just point out that pages 25
and 26 of the Feasibility Report list line items, quantities, and
descriptions relative to the construction of the project.
Chairman Scurlock noted that no mention is made of the
interest during construction, and Mr. Masteller confirmed that
two things are missing in that respect. The estimate does not
include any funds to cover interest during construction or
financing expense. In order to add those elements to the study,
as it moves toward more detailed finalization, they would have to
coordinate that with Director Baird.
Director Pinto wished to comment on the interest during
construction. This is a unique project and we devised a unique
way to fund the project. The assessment is based on the impact
fee times the number of units, plus the amount of interest that
the borrowing has caused; thus, the actual interest is,built into
the assessment, not into the project.
Chairman Scurlock felt it should be made clear that this
assessment is for the core system and there are additional costs
for the internal system, which is not a part of this project.
Commissioner Eggert asked just how far west this system
would ultimately go, and Mr. Masteller advised that this is the
first phase and the system can be expanded to serve further
north, south and west.
Mr. Masteller apologized for only hitting the high points
today, and suggested that possibly the Board might wish them to
come back after they have had a chance to review these reports in
detail. However, he was glad that Chairman Scurlock raised the
point about the core system, and explained that this system is
basically the same system that was used on the SR -60 project,
45
MAY 12 987 Boas
L—
MAY 1
which was so successful. It is basically what we call an
arterial or core system, consisting primarily of pumping stations
and force mains. The project components are sized for the
ultimate flows at buildout in this area. The initial facilities
include a 1 -million gallon treatment plant, but they expect that
the ultimate flow will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to 6
million gallons daily, which is consistent with some of the other
subregional plants the County is constructing. it will be the
requirement of the connectors, whether they are abandoned package
plants, future project developers, or individual customers, to
provide for construction and financing of their own collection
and conveyance system to get to the County's lines, where it will
be taken, pumped, treated, and reused.
Chairman Scurlock said that this time we are going to be
doing it a little differently than the assessment on SR -60 in
that if any developer is participating at 50 or more, we would
require a letter of credit so that if that developer goes under,
the County's cash flow would not be interrupted.
Mr. Masteller introduced engineer Rowena Sommer who was
responsible for putting together the assessment roll for this
project.
Ms. Sommer reported that Masteller and Moler has estimated
the cost of the project at $7 -million, and 7500 reserved ERUs
translates into revenues of approximately $9 -million, which
leaves an excess of $2 -million. Should any commitments to this
system fail, this surplus amount can aid in financing the
project. To organize all of these commitments, they adopted the
system that is currently in use by the Property Appraiser's
Office, whereby a tax identification number is assigned to each
property. This I.D. number is marked on tax maps and can be
computerized. Referring to blown -up maps of the area, she
pointed out that the properties shown in yellow represent the
ones that wish to participate in this project. Unfortunately,
some people had to be notified that their properties were not in
46
r
the area that could be serviced during the first phase. However,
many of these people wrote back saying that they would be
Interested in particiipating in the expansion of the system. She
stressed that all the lines are sized to handle service at
buildout.
Director Pinto felt it was important that everyone
understands that this is a core system, and where it is necessary
to install lines down specific streets, it will be necessary to
do a separate assessment for the cost of those lines. The $1250
impact fee only pays for the plant, which means capacity, and
included in the plant is the core system and certain lift
stations. When we break off and start serving specific little
streets, that is internal and the cost is charged to the property
owner that is benefiting from the service. Property owners on
these specific streets will be faced with the cost of house to
street connection and street to County lines connection.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the Utilities Department to proceed immediately with
necessary steps associated with the design,
implementation, and completion of the North County
Sewer Project, as recommended by Director Pinto.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:10 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Z -Z J
Clerk Chairman
MAY 1 1987 47 BOOK'17