Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/14/1987Tuesday, July 14, 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, July 14, 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 Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner Eggert led the Pledge of -Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Scurlock had three items he wished to be added to today's agenda: 1) An appearance by a representative of Agri-Serv, Inc., to discuss disposal of septage as Item 11 B. 2) A short report under the Chairman's matters re negotiations with the auditor. 3) A discussion re the Cappelen Lease as Item 12 A. 4) A North County Fire District meeting. Attorney Vitunac advised that he would like to make a brief report on the hearing yesterday re the Jail suit. Commissioner Bird requested the addition under his matters of a brief report on the Parks & Recreation meeting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the above described matters to the agenda. [JUL 14 1987 �` BOOK r- JUL 1 & 1987 APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOOK f'Ar 754 The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 23, 1987. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 23, 1987, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of June 24, 1987. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of June 24, 1987, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Wheeler requested that Items C, G, and 1, be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Eggert requested the removal of Item J. A. Out -of -County Travel ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved out -of -County travel for Chairman Scurlock to attend GRCDA's 25th Annual International Seminar (Equipment, Services and Systems Show), August 10-14, 1987, in St. Paul, Minnesota. 2 B. Reports The following were received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board: Financial Statements of Delta Farms Drainage District and Vero Lakes Drainage District, Sept. 30, 1985 Auditor's Report for FY 1985/86, as follows: a) Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. b) Indian River County Hospital District c) Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc., and Indian River County Hospital District combined Report of Convictions, Month of June, 1987 C. Accept Bid - Earman Park Construction Project The Board reviewed memo of County Engineer Ralph Brescia: TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: JULY 8, 1987 FILE: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun County Administrator SUBJECT: Earman Park Construction Project FROM: Ralph N. Brescia, P.E. REFERENCES: County Engineer DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The County Engineering staff prepared contract documents for the construction of Joe S. Earman Park. It should be noted that bids were received on July 8th as follows: 1) Glen Damon Construction - $40,050.00 2) Bennie Walker JB Walker Construction - $54,898.00 The Engineering estimate for this work is $44,000.00. This project is being funded by the Florida Inland Navigation District (F.I.N.D.) and Indian River County on a 50/50 basis. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the low bid of $40,050.00 be accepted and the award of contract be granted to Glen Damon Construction. JUL, 14 '687 3 BOOK 75b i BOOK JIM � � �9� Commissioner Wheeler had a question about the pricing of the project, and Public Works Director Davis advised that the actual construction cost will be the low bid of $40,050. Funding for 500 of that will come from F.I.N.D, and the other 500 ($20,025) will come partly from the Boating Improvement fund and the balance from a capital line item in the P&R budget. Commissioner Wheeler did not understand why on F.I.N.D. Exhibit A the project cost is shown as $90,000. Director Davis explained that we have the potential of doing up to $90,000 of work on our grant, but the project only came out to be $40,050, of which the County's share will be $20,025. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded the bid on the Earman Park Construction Project to the low bidder, Glen Damon Construction, in the amount of $40,050. D. Indian River Blvd. South - Joint Project Agreement w/DOT The Board reviewed memo of Public Works Director Davis: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: July 7, 1987 FILE: Board of County Conmissioners o THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator FROM:James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard south - Joint Project Agreement with Florida DOT - Local Government Cooperative Assistance Program REFERENCES: C.C. Barrett, DOT to Honorable Don C. Scurlock Attached is a copy of a Joint Project Agreement between the Dar and Indian River County which provides for state funding in the amount of not more than $286,000 for construction of Indian River Boulevard South. Staff applied for this grant last year, and we were apparently successful. P.4:wf ui Staff reccmTends that the Chairman be authorized to execute all five copies of the agreement' and that a resolution be approved authorizing said agreement. Funding to be by the State of Florida. 4 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Res. 87-64 approving a Joint Project Agreement with the FDOT for con- struction of I.R.Blvd. South between 16th St. and 4th St. RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 64 A RE50UMON OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMSSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUN'T'Y, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING A JOINT PFD= AGRFMONT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER CM%VY, FLORIDA AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTN>M OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE JOINT PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD (W.P.I. NO. 4125332) BE1WEEN SMUEENTH STREET AND FOURTH STREET, LYING WITHIN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation and Indian River County, Florida, is prepared to participate under the Local Government Cooperative Assistance Program pursuant to Section 335.20 F.S. for the Construction of Indian River Boulevard frau Sixteenth Street to Fourth Street (at US 1), hereinafter referred to as "PRQTFICT", and, WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) has prepared a Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida DOT and Indian River County, Florida, to provide for the DOT's participation in funding the "PR017EC'I'" at 20% of the estimated eligible cost; and WHnuzs, Indian River County, Florida, has reviewed the Joint Project Agreement for the Construction of Indian River Boulevard from Sixteenth Street to Fourth Street, and agrees with the conditions set forth in the agreement: NOW TFMPMMRE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF C=?T'Y CU44ISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: The following recitals are affirmed and ratified in their entirety: 1) The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, hereby authorizes its' Chairman to execute the Joint Project Agreement for Construction of Indian River Boulevard under the Local Government Cooperative Assistance Program (W.P.I. NO. 4125322) and agrees to ccoply with all conditions applicable to the "PROJECT" as provided for in the Joint Project Agreement and; 2) The Joint Project Agreement is hereby approved. The foregoing resolution was offered by Coninissioner Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Carmissioner Wheeler and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted the 14 day of July , 1987. BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COnCESSIONERS OF INDIAN RIM COUNTY, FLORIDA BY .. C DON C. SCURLMM, JR. COPY OF SAID AGPMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO TBE BOARD. �J U L 1A 1987 5 BOOK � ; �.�r 7' 1 UUL 14 1937 BOOK t E. Occupational License Taxes Report - June, 1987 mnRANm im TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector DATE: July 7, 1987 SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be informed that $1,344.25 was collected in occupational license taxes during the month of June 1987, representing the issuance of 113 licenses. Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector F. Release of Easement Roseland Gardens (Douberley) The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Davis: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 30, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD COCURRENCE RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY TOMMY R. DOUBERLEY & ALICE H. Rober M. Kea g, P SUBJECT: DOUBERLEY - SUBJECT Planning& Develop nt Director PROPERTY: LOTS 3 & 5, BLOCK 2 ROSELAND GARDENS THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois )b SUBDIVISION Code Enforcement Coordinator FROM: Betty Davis REFERENCES: DOUBERLEY Code Enforcement Officer DISK. BETTY It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 14, 1987. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Tommy R. Douberley and Alice H. Douberley, owners of the subject property, for the release of the (3) foot common side lot utility and drainage easements of lots 3 and 5, block 2, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, being further described as the westerly 3 feet of lot 3 and the easterly 3 feet of lot 5, block 2, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 8, page 25, of the public records'of Indian River County, Florida. It 6 t is the applicants' intention to combine the lots to create one large building parcel. The current zoning classification is RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District. The land use designation is LD -2, Low Density Residential, up to six (6) units per acre. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power & Light, Jones Intercable, and Indian River County Utility and Right -of -Way Departments. Based upon their review, there were no objections to the release of the easements. The zoning staff analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled on-site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolution, the release of the common side lot (3) foot easements on lots 3, and 5, block 2, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, as recorded in plat book 8, page 25 of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 87-65 releasing the common 3' side lot easements on Lots 3 and 5, Block 2, Roseland Gardens Subdivision as requested by Tommy and Alice Douberley. RESOLUTION NO. 87-65 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE ROSELAND GARDENS SUBDIVISION, LOTS 3 AND 5, BLOCK 2 WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as ' described below; and WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no public purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED -by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: This release of easement is. executed by Indian River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to Tommy -R. Douberley and Alice H. Douberley, whose mailing address is 7605 McKenzie, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantee, as follows: Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and interest that it may have in the following - described easements: 7 iJL 14 1987 BOOK r- -7 UUL 14 987 BOOK E4 E 760 SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner -1----------, seconded by Commissioner Wheeler ----------- , and adopted on the --14th__ day of -------- _July___ 1987, by the following vote: Commissioner Scurlock Aye Commissioner Bowman Aye Commissioner Bird Aye Commissioner Eggert Aye Commissioner Wheeler Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution 87-65 duly passed and adopted this 14Qh day of----ULY---, 1987 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, . ,. FLORIDA By G Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman EXHIBIT "A" The westerly (3) feet of lot 3 and the easterly (3) feet of lot 5, block 2, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 8, page 25, of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. G. Sheriff's Administration Bldg. - Change Order #IRC 3-6 _ The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JUNE 25, 1987 THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMIN S RATOR FROM: H. T. DEAN OWNER'S A R ZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CHANGE ORDER #IRC 3-6 At the present time, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) requires monitoring wells be installed around all underground storage tanks with a capacity of 500 gallons or more. These wells are contracted for the subject project to be located at the vehicle refueling station. 8 DER has indicated they are going to require some type of electronic metering system for all monitoring wells in the near future. There is no indication when this will take place or what exactly will be mandated by DER. Should an electronic system be required for the wells at a later date, we would need to remove paving at the well locations and along a route to a location of the required equipment. To eliminate this very expensive type installation, Change Order No. 6 is submitted to allow installation of conduit at this time that will accommodate wiring when the new law is passed. This work can be performed for a total cost of $1,673.00. Based on the above data, staff recommends approval. Funds are available in the Construction Contingency Fund. Commissioner Wheeler wished to know if they are familiar with what the electronic metering system might be or when this might occur. He did not like the idea of spending $1600, and then 10 years from now possibly have the government come up with another type device that would monitor the wells in some other way. Commissioner Eggert was also concerned that whatever type of monitoring system they may end up using could affect the placement of the conduit in some way. She did not like to have to face pulling up pavement, etc., but was not sure that we have enough information on what might occur to be able to preplan properly. Administrator Balczun felt that, in any event, $1,673 is a small expense for us to incur to insure that our gasoline storage tanks aren't leaking into wellfields or into some aquifer. Commissioner Wheeler noted that his question is whether it is going to insure that and what monitoring device - when - how? Chairman Scurlock believed that presently to monitor the wells, samples are taken and sent off to be analyzed. He did not fully understood how an electronic meter would be used. In further discussion, it was felt more information was needed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unani- mously agreed to table the above matter until the next meeting. 9 BOOK V FADE " I UL,I4g, ' El JULPIP- - -7 141997 BOOK H. Jail Project -Phase I, Change Order #IRC 1-7 The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H. T. DEAN OWNER IS AUT IZ D REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL PROJECT - PHASE I CHANGE ORDER NO. IRC 1-7 JUNE 27, 1987 The final change order for the subject project is submitted for approval. This brings the total cost of the construction contrct to $3,767,569.50. As you will notice, the architect has paid for $11,448 for revisions that were required. A11 the work described has been performed and the contractor is entitled to payment. Staff recommends approval and requests that the Board of County Commissioners authorize closing out the contract. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Change Order #7 for the County Jail, Phase 1, adding $114.00, and closing out the contract. FIIZZELC-ARCHITECTS OWNER O ir :. CHANGE ORDER ARCHITECT D CONTRACTOR 0 L: FIELD 0 OTHER PROJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL - CHANGE ORDER NO: Seven (7 ) (name, address) PHASE I OWNER: INDIAN RIVER BOARD -.OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO: (Contractor) RSH CONSTRUCTORS, INC. P. 0. Box 52149 Jacksonville, Fl. 32201 DATE: June 11, 1987 -71 ARCHITECTS PROJECT NO: 1766 CONTRACT FOR: General Construction %j CONTRACT DATED: March 21, 1985 YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE SUBJECT JOB: ;l. Revise Jocation of'smoke dampers serving Control F,,.Room 149 in'accordance with Contractor quotation dated. -l0/13/86. Delete sign along South Gifford Road.due to impact by adjacent project. q3.;" Relocate,Kitchen pre -rinse at Groen kettle in kitchen. 4. Furnish & install wrist handle faucet at kitchen _ toilet pet Health Dept. 10 e ADD DEDUCT s a 288.00 457.00 158.00 125.00 5.L Relocate prep -sink and drain - total cost $448.00 (Cost deferred and payment direct to Contractor by Architect). 6., Modify resident alarm monitor system to provide 3 -way switches (cost deferred and payment of $11,000.00 direct to ESI sub -contractor by Architect.) ;) t TOTAL no Contract Time will (unchanged) by — 0 — ( 0 ) Daye. The Date of Substantial Completion as of lira date of this Changs Order therefore Is Not valid until algned by both the Owner and Aroidtect. Signature of the Contractor Indicates ble agreement herewith, Including any adjustment In tin Contract Sum or Contract Time. ORIGINAL CONTRACT ................................... s 31,768 ',991-00 FORMER CHANGE ORDERS .1. tbru..6 . DEAUCT.. s 1 • S25 - 50 s 3,767,455.50 THIS CHANGE ORDER ..............................................................................(ADD•VFAb ....11 114.00 REVISED CONTRACT PRICE ... S – 3.767 , 569.50 SIONED. W. R. FR 'ARCHITECTS, INC.. - APPROVED. coraTR EV t c� DATE 2 PAW___1_ OF 1 PAGES ACCEPTED: BOARD OF COUNTY COrMUSSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FIDRIDA 1. Regional Sludge Facilities - Work Authorization #9 The Board reviewed memo of Utilities Engineering Operations Manager Boone: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI I ERS DATE: JULY 6, 1987 THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTe DIRECTOR OF UTILIT RVICES FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE ENGINEERING OPERATIONS MANAGER DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: REGIONAL SLUDGE FACILITIES - WORK AUTHORIZATION #9 BACKGROUND As you know, the expansion of the County's landfill into Phase II will necessitate alternate disposal of septage and sludge as a result of more stringent regulation by the Department of Environmental Regulation. It appears that the County will play a vital role in providing centralized treatment facilities for septage for all the wastewater being disposed by private septic tanks and sludge being generalized by County and private treatment facilities. 11 r"SBOOK `;AUL763 UL 14 'i�id 'JUL 1t 199 ANALYSIS BOOK 8 F1�GE '1 64 Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., (CDM) our consultants for wastewater and solid waste, have addressed the need for sludge and septage facilities in the Wastewater Master Plan. Attached for your review is correspondence from Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. indicating the County's probability of receiving Federal Grant Funding on the project. Also included in the correspondence is a proposal by CDM to pursue this funding on our behalf for engineering consulting fees, consistent with their ongoing agreement amounting to $10,000.00. This proposal was based on the anticipated activity necessary to obtain Federal funding. Should additional engineering services be necessary to accomplish this, further requests for engineering fees would be brought before you for approval prior to proceeding. RECOMMENDATION The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposal by CDM to pursue Federal Grant Funding for the regional sludge and septage facilities with engineering fees not to exceed $10,000.00, by executing the attached Work Authorization #9 . Commissioner Wheeler wished to know how much grant they are applying for and what the chances are for getting it. He felt he needed more explanation of the $10,000 engineering fees to pursue the grant. Utilities Director Pinto advised that we had submitted a preliminary application for the grant to the DER and EPA when we completed our septage and sludge master plan for the county. The award of the grant is based on a point system, and we received in excess of 300 points on the preliminary approval. In comparison, the grant for Rockledge was just elevated to 87 year funding based on some 250 points. Commissioner Eggert inquired if we are spending $10,000 to get a dollar grant or a million dollar grant. Director Pinto advised our septage sludge study showed the treatment facilities necessary to be built at the treatment plant are in the range of two million dollars, and the grant would be 55%. He did believe we have a pretty good chance of getting the grant. Chairman Scurlock asked where the funding for the $10,000 would come from, and Director Pinto advised from impact fees. 12 ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Work Authorization #9 authorizing Camp, Dresser McKee to pursue federal grant funding for the regional sludge and septage facilities, fees not to exceed $10,000. WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 9 PROJECT: REGIONAL SLUDGE FACILITY COORDINATION This Work Authorization is provided for in the Agreement for Profes- sional Services by and between Indian River County, Florida, and Camp, Dresser & McKee Inc., approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 5, 1985. Work Authorization No. 9 provides for services in accordance with Article 3 as more specifically described in the attached letter dated July 1, 1987. Payment for such services shall be in accordance with Articles 8a and 8d with an upper limit budget amount of $10,000. In accordance with Article lc, details of the budget are provided in the attached letter dated July 1, 1987. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS on cur oJr. Donald G. un T51, Chairman Vice President day of 1987 Approved as to form and legal ciency, Byu Bruce Barked Asst. County Attorney 13 JUL 1 J1 1987 L, day of 1987 APPROVES F i iL7-Y ` T BY 40M - ERRAS CE ;D:N70 D:a:c7C:� O:V. OF U77L: ; Y SERVICES Ic Ir 'JUL 1x-1987 BOOK bs r�ur 66 J. Bid #347 - Tractor with Loader and Backhoe The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISLAONERS DATE: JULY 2, 1987 THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO / DIRECTOR OF UTILITY/ R CES FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONEv ENGINEERING OPERAT O S MANAGER DIVISION OF UTILIT ERVICES SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID #347 TRACTOR WITH LOADER AND BACKHOE The Division of Utility Services has recently solicited bids for a tractor with loader and backhoe. Bids were received and opened on May 27, 1987. A copy of the bid tabulation is attached for your review. Prior to receiving the subject bid a new state contract was awarded for the Ford Model 555B backhoe -loader. ANALYSIS The total cost of the backhoe, if purchased through the state contract is less than that of the low bid of $31,345.00 submitted by Berggren Equipment Company. Following is a summary of the Ford 555B backhoe and features per the state contract. Ford Model 555B tractor loader backhoe $22,475.00 Multi-purpose (4 -in -1) loader bucket 2,306.00 Hydraulically - extending backhoe dipper 2,036.00 Front tires T1E ll.00x16,I1,10 ply NIC Rear tires T33 16.9x28R4, 8 ply 158.00 Self adjusting volume back-up alarm 82.00 Total $27,057.00 RECOMMENDATION The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioner's reject all bids submitted for Indian River County Bid #347. Furthermore, the Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the purchase of the Ford Model 555B tractor loader and backhoe from the state contract for the amount of $27,057.00 The subject backhoe will be purchased through fund 706. Commissioner Eggert had a general question relating to bidding procedure and policy. She noted that in this particular instance, there is a considerable separation between the bids and the state contract, but she wished to know what the policy is when the prices are relatively close. Chairman Scurlock believed the history has been that we like to do business with local people if at all possible, but at times -the state contract is so much less that we go with the state. He 14 t felt if it is just a few dollars difference we would be better off with county people as far as service is concerned. OMB Director Baird advised that we go low bidder even if it is within $1,000 or less if there are equal specifications. We look out for the tax dollars. County Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that state law says you can take the local consideration only when the bids are equal, but if the bids are designed so that some factors can be better served by a local bidder, than that's another story. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously rejected all bids submitted for Bid #347 and authorized the pur- chase of the FORD Model 555B tractor Loader and backhoe from state contract for the amount of $27,057.00 as recommended by staff. K. Gifford Area Sewer Pro The Board reviewed memo from the Utilities Director: L_ JUL 14 lb -87 (Rehab B00Kbd 15 TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: CHARLES P BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTV-7) DIRECTOR OF UTILIT SERVICES DATE: July 2, 1987 BOOK 68 r."l;E 768 SUBJECT: GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJECT --RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT BID FOR CONTRACT #4 --REHABILITATION OF PINEVIEW PARK & HIGH RIDGE MOBILE HOME PARK SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS. BACKGROUND As you are aware, bids were opened for ..the referenced project on June 10, 1987 at 2:00 p.m. local time. One bid was received from Ted Myers Contracting, Inc. for the amount of $98,007. This bid is $23,007 over the Engineer's estimate of $75,000 for this contract. As per the Engineer's recommendation, the Division of Utility Services has decided to divide the referenced project into two separate projects. The first phase would deal solely with the investigation of the existing sewage collection systems, which would determine exactly what repairs and rehabilitation are necessary for the proper function of the sewage collection systems. The second phase, bid under a separate contract, would then call for the repair and rehabilitation of the systems as required. RECOMMENDATION The engineering firm and staff request the Board of County Commissioners reject the bid for Contract #4 and recommend that contract #4 be re -bid as two separate contracts. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously rejected the bid for Contract #4 and authorized contract #4 to be re -bid as two separate contracts, as recommended by staff. REQUEST FOR PISTOL PERMIT - DAVID DI MARCO The Board reviewed memos from Administrator Balczun and Assistant County Attorney Brennan: 16 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: July 8, 1987 FILE: SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT - DAVID A. DIMARCO FROM: Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES: County Administrator The following person has applied for a gun permit through the Clerk's Office: David A. DiMarco The request was scheduled for the Board meeting of July 7, 1987 but action was withheld in order for, Mr. DiMarco to be present to provide additional informa- tion regarding a previous arrest record. This has been explained to Mr. DiMarco in the attached letter, in which we have asked him to be present at the Board meeting of July 14, 1987. TO: Margaret Gunter DATE: June 18, 1987 SUBJECT: Gun Permit Application, David DiMarco -.#87-6 FROM: Sharon Phillips Brennan x`25 Assistant County Attorney QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a prior conviction of a misdemeanor charge prevents an applicant from qualification for a gun permit under Chapter Eight, Firearms, of the Indian River County Code? ANSWER: No. However, a felony conviction within the past - two years would automatically preclude an applicant from obtaining a gun permit. Although Mr. DiMarco's arrest was in July, 1985, the felony charges against him were dropped, and he pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge. Such a record of prior conviction would not, of itself, prevent the applicant from obtaining a gun permit under the Indian River County Code. Mr. DiMarco stated that the only additional information he can offer is that he did make a mistake, and it is the only blemish on his record in 30 years. He was trespassing because he was trying to recover stolen property, and while he did have a gun, it was not on him; it was in his car. Mr. DiMarco JUL 14 ,1997 17 Boos Ea,,� JILL 141987" Bou 68 , 4,t UO continued that he is in the mobile home business and runs a park named New Horizons, which used to be known as the Lamplighter. The park has a rough reputation; he does get threats from his tenants when he asks them to comply with some regulations; and he does often carry cash with him. Commissioner Eggert commented that she wasn't aware that when a gun was in the car you could be charged with improper exhibition, and Mr. DiMarco explained that the gun was lying on the seat of the car, not locked in the glove compartment. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved issuance of a license to carry a concealed firearm to David A. DiMarco. PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PAVING 8 DRAINAGE IMP. PROGRAM - DIXIE HEIGHTS, PINEY OAKS & ABUTTING PROPERTIES The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 18 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beath, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a t)-Ofi ec in the matter of YGyv'nj; Aid Dr^Q 1/tg P In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of dune Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the past office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. . Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30 day of3o'h C A.D.JSP_ al 07 (Business Manager) Tract A, first replat In Vero Beach Highlands, Unit 1 as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 40 of the Public Records of Indian River County. Florida. . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IN- DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and rati- fied In their entirety. 2. A project providing for paving and drainage improvements to Dbde Heights S/D, Piney Deka S/D and abutting property In this area; hereto- fore designated as Public Works Projects No. 8616, Is hereby approved subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable requirements of Section 11-34, Indian River County. Code of Laws and Ordinances. The foregoing resolution was offered by Com- missioner who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler The Chairman thereupon declared the resolu- tion duly passed and adopted this day of 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Byy DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. Attu Chairman FREDA WRIGHT, Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By--s-Sharon Phillips Bunnar County Attomey's Office ' APPROVED BY: -s-lames W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that at the same public hearing, the Board of County Com- missioners shall also hear all interested persons regarding the proposed roll for the improve. ments described in the above resolution. The Preliminary Assessment Roll Is currently on file with the Public Works Division and is open for in- spection between the hours of 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Commission with respect to any matter considered at this hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim• record of the proceedings Is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the ap- peal Is to be based. Indian River County Charles P. Balczun. County Administrate June 30,1987 J U L 14 1987 68 7 mmuc NoTicE PUMM TAKH NOTICE ow the Board of County COMMIS"WO Of Indian River County. Mor" will hold a two at 9'05 AM on Tues - on Chambers ocst d a 1940275th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to consider adoption of the. following proposed resolution: �?+c�:,, :`� —`. �`,!!! "REsown0N NO. e7- ^ .' gA.44 'A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF`r'Y yro�r"COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN - y ;rpZRIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA. PROVIDING 4 .FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE. , yt,•sNVry Anu ABUTTING PROPERTY IN ;.-. ;i*+'DESCRIPTION OF THEAREA SPECIE!- "• ,-':-,j,jJ9ALLY BENEFITTED. WHEREAS.'on` January S. 1989 the Indian filler County Board of County Commissioners Instructed the Indian River County Public Works Department to ex lee the possibility of Imple. menting a Special - Assessment Paving and Dralnage Improvement Program for the streets In Dixie Heights Subdivision, Piney Oaks Subdtvi- elan and abutting properties in this area; and WHEREAS, the construction of paving and dtafnage Improvements by special assessment funding ts authorized by Section 11-23, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances; and .Cost estimates and preliminary assessment rolls have been completed by the Public Works De- ParMMtt; and gthe total estimated cost of the pro- ONE MILLION. NINETEFJdand gTHOUrovements is SAND, FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY: DOLLARS - ($1,019,460,00); and, -, .., '.:- r_ ....r;.. :... -„ WHEREAS. the special assessments pro. vlded hereunder, shall, for any given record owner of property within the area specialty bene• fited. be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-five percent (75%) of the total cost of the Croject and computed on the number or poten- tial number of buildable lots which are owned by the given owners In relation to the total number ofreels within the area specialty benefited, anP WHEREAS, the special easessment shag become due and payable at the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County ninety (90) days atter the final determination of the special as• sessment pursuant to Section 11-34, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances; and WHEREAS, Indian River Counttyy shall pay the remaining twenty-five panwnt (25%) of the total cost of the project and WHEREAS, any special assessment not Pald within said ninety (90) day period shall bear nterest beyond the due -date at a rate estab. Ilshed by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable M two (2) equal Install- ments, the first to be made twelve (12) months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-four (24) months from the due date; and WHEREAS, after examination of the na- ture and anticipated usage of the proposed im. provements, the Board of County Commission - era has determined that the following described propertles shall receive a direct and special benefit from these Improvements, to wit ALL OF DIXIE HEIGHTS, UNIT 1 as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 74 of Indian River Court ALL OF DiXIE HEiGH'I S. UNI I 1-A as reeoroec In Plat Bock 4, Page 85 of Indian River County. ALL OF DIXIE HEIGHTS, UNIT 2 as recorded In Plat Book 4, Page 83 of Indian River County. ALL OF DIXIE HEIGHTS, UNIT 3 as recorded in Plat Bock 4, Page 84 of Indian River County. Portions of DIXIE HEIGHTS, Unit 4 as decribed; Lots 1 thru 7. Lots 10 thru 17, Block L; Lots 1 thru 20, Block M; Lots 1 thru 21, Block N; Lots 1 thru 10, Block O; Lots 1 thru 10, Block P; Lots 1 thru'6, Block R as recorded In Plat Book 4, Page. 91. ' Portions of DIXIE HEIGHTS, Unit 5 as described; . Lots 1 thru 5 and Lots 7 thru 9, Block T; Lots 1 thru 4; and Lots 6 thru 8, Block U as recorded In Plat Book 5, Page 8 of Indian River County. ALL OF PINEY OAKS S/D as recorded in Plat Book 12, Page 15 of Indian River County. The East 100' of the West 200 feet of the South 440 ft. of the North 880 fL of the East % of the Southeast '/4 of the Northeast % of Section 25. Township 33 South, Range 39 East The East 100 ft. of the West 400 ft. of the South 440 ft. of the North 880 ft. of the East 1h of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 'A. 253349 as re- corded (OR Book 646, PP 2370). The East 100 feet of the West 300 feet of the South 440 ft. of the North 880 ft. of the East'h of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of 25-33-39 (OR Book 637, PP 738). The West 100 ft. of the South 440 ft. of the North 880 ft. of the East 'h of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast'/. of 25-33-39. The West 1h of the Southeast of the Northeast V. LESS the South 245 fL of the Fast 145 ft. of 25- 33-39 thereof. The East 5 acres of the West one-half of the Southeast one-quarter of the Southeast one- quarter of the East Lateral J as recorded in the OR Book 483, Page 148 and the OR Book 717, Page 2742 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. The South 1130 feet of that part of the Southeast one quarlei of the Southeast one-quarter lying East of Lateral "J" Canal, LESS right-of-ways as recorded In OR Book 668, Page 555 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. The Southeast one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter, LESS the North one-half, lying East of US Highway 1, and Highway and Railway right-of-way. The South 245 feet of the East 145 ft. of the West one-half of the Southeast one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter. The West one-half of the Southeast one-quarter LESS the South 245 ft. of the East 145 ft. thereof; being situated In Indian River County. Florida. The West three-quarter of the West one-half of the Northeast one-quarter of the Southeast one- quarter, LESS Lateral J Canal as recorded In.OR Book 598, Page 609 of the Public Records of In- dlan River County, Florida. Tiro North 106 feet of the South 266 feet of that part of the Southeast one-quarter of the South- east one-quarter lying East of the Lateral J C4" LESS right-of-way as recorded In OR Book 678. Page 953 of the Public Retards of Indian River County. Florida. _ . 'JUL 1 19�� aoo ' -72 �t�}�. Y Public Works Director Davis made the staff presentation recommending approval of the assessment roll: TO:THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: July 6, 107 FILE: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun Count �is for - Public Hearing to consider SUBJECT: resolution providing for the R Br sc a, P.E. paving Dixie Heights S/D, Piney County Engineer Oaks S/D and abutting properties in this area. Michelle A. Terry FROM: Civil Engineer REFERENCES: DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On January 8, 1986 the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners instructed the Indian River County Public Works Department to explore the possibility of implementing a Special Assessment Paving and Drainage Improvement Program for the streets in Dixie Heights Subdivision, Piney Oaks Subdivision and abutting properties in this area: Total L.F. Total # Parcels Total Cost Cost to Cost to Prop. Owner County 33,982 690 $1,019,460.00 $764,595.00 $254,865.00 A Preliminary assessment roll has been prepared for the paving and drainage improvements. The total cost of this project is approximately $1,019,460.00. There is approximately $112,003.92 as of July 2, 1987 in the FY86-87 budget for Petition Paving, Account No. 703-214-541-035.39. As money from other roads is replenished to the Petition Paving Account, these roads will be paved. Also, advertisement of the public hearing and notification to the property owners has been performed. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING After consideration of the public input provided at the public hearing, it is recommended that motions be made to: 1) Adopt resolution providing for the paving and drainage improvements for this project, subject to the terms outlined in the resolution. The applicable interest rate shall be 12% at the time the final assessment roll is approved. 2) Approve preliminary assessment roll including any changes made as a result of the public hearing. 3) Allocate $1,019,460.00 from the Petition Paving Acct. to fund this work. 4) Roads will be paved as surveys and plans are completed. Road & Bridge or an independent contractor will do paving. 20 Chairman Scurlock noted that some of these subdivision have a pretty high absentee ownership rate, and he wished to know what percentage of those who actually live in the area are desirous of the paving. We have received a letter opposing this from property owner, Salvador Aguila. Director Davis reported that out of the 36% of the residents who live in Indian River County, a majority were in favor of the paving. Out of the owners of approximately 690 parcels, they found very few dissenting. He noted that we had many requests in the past to have the County begin maintaining some other roads in Dixie Heights and that was referred to the petition paving program. Chairman Scurlock believed the Board directed staff to look into what to do about this area in regard to eliminating the cost of grading. Commissioner Bird asked how we stand with our revolving fund and whether we are likely to run out of money as we get into these bigger projects. Director Davis advised that we have $112,000 as of July 2nd, but there is quite a list of projects approved to date which have not been constructed. Staff anticipates doing some short term borrowing and have worked on that with OMB Director Baird and it will be in the budget packet. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Chris Goodney, 1535 3rd Ave. SW, informed the Board that he would like to see 3rd Ave. SW paved from 15th PI. SW to 15th Lane SW, which is the road that runs directly in front of his house. Director Davis advised that is on the paving schedule. Initially they did not have that road included in the project because staff felt the way the lots were platted in that subdivision, it could be abandoned, but since talking to the property owner, learned there has been a lot split in that area, which would result in that lot not having road frontage; so, they included it for paving. It is a very small segment. J U L , 1 1-11 - 21 BOOK d 7 �l . ��� �� fr°.ht e� JJU L 14'667 BOU 8 rvUE 774 Donald Clett, 13th PI. SW, wished to have their street paved also, but wondered how long it would take. Director Davis stated that road is included, and anticipated the paving would probably be within 18 months. They can't schedule it completely; they have done the surveying work, but the engineering work has not been completed. Chairman Scurlock asked if there was the possibility that we could consider contracting this work out because he believed the people want this expedited as fast as possible. Director Davis agreed contracting out was a possibility. A resident of the area had a question about how much each would have to pay, and the Chairman and Commissioner Bird explained just how the price is worked out in the final assessment. Arthur Adkins, 1630 3rd Ave. SW, wished it confirmed that 3rd Avenue is to be paved in front of his house, and Civil Engineer Michelle Terry confirmed that it would be. Cathleen Brinson, 1666 3rd Ave. SW, expressed concern about the bill having to be settled in two payments, and Chairman Scurlock noted that in the past we have been allowing a 3 year payment schedule, and he hoped the Motion to be made will include allowing a 5 year payment schedule. The interest is 12%. Mrs. Brinson wished to know what roads they might start out with, and Public Works Director Davis advised that they anticipate working from east to west. He would like to do the whole subdivision at once, and they plan on putting possibly two crews in there, but it will take some time. It is the biggest subdivision we have done this way - and it will probably take a year to complete. They will try to segment it. Chairman Scurlock assured those present that we will try to get this paved as soon as possible. It was determined that no one further wished to be heard, and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. 22 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 87-66 providing for the paving and drainage improvements for Dixie Heights SID, Piney Oaks SID, and abutting properties in the area; approved the preliminary assessment roll, and allocated $1,019,460 from the Petition Paving Account to fund this work. `(SAID RESOLUTION NOW ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD) REZONING - 230 ACRES TO RM -6, CG 6 CH (S of CR510 - N of HOBART RD. - W of FEC/RR The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: IJL 141987 23 Boa 715 r JUL 14 19V VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly i i Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekl newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy or advertisement, being in the matter of in the ' Court, was pub - I' 7 fished in said newspaper in the issues of I Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of %-0 A.D. (Business Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit C40t, Indian River County, Florida) Parcel "C" being oescnoeu as nimmu. A portion of the northwest quarter of Section 33, Township 31 south, Range 39 east, Indian River County Florida. Being more particularly described as tot - lows: Commence at the northwest comer of said section; thence north 89°59'51" east along the northerly line of said Sec- tion 33, for 547.38 feet thence south 01 °41'40 " west for 60.03 feet to the point of beginning; -thence north 89°59'51" east along a line 60.00 feet south of and parallel with the said north- erly line of Section 33, for 1142.94 feet to the westerly line of a parcel described In official record book 34 on page 366, Public records,, Indian River County, Florida; thence south 01128'05" west, along the westerly line of said parcel and Its southerly prolongation for 600.20 feet to a point 660.00 feet south of the north- erly line of said Section 33; thence south 89.59'51" west for 1145.31 feet, thence north 01 °41'40" east for 600.26. feet to the point of beginning and containing 15.759 acres more or less. All the above described parcels being contiguous and located south of C.R. 510, north of Hobart Road, and west of the FEC Railroad right-of-way. A public hearing at which parties in inten and citizens shall have an opportunity to heard, will be held by the Board of County Co missioners of Indian River County,, Florida, in t County Commission Chambers o1 the Cow Administration Building, located at 1840 2: Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, July' 1987, at 9:05 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decisi which may be made at this meeting will need ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedin is made, which includes testimony and eviden upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners BY:-B-Don man Scurlock. Jr. ChaiJune 23.1987 24 BOOK 68 F`,GET NOTICE : PUBUC HEARING) 1 Notice of hearing to consider the adoption a County ordinance rezoning the following W cel "A" from: A-1, Agricultural, IL, Light Indus) at. RS -6, Single -Family, and RMH-6, Mob Home Districts to RM -6, Multiple -Family Dlstrtcl Parcel "A" being described as follows::.:1 ".A portion .of Section 33, "Township 31:` south,' Range 39 south, Indian River' ' County, Florida, bang more. particularly J described as follows: -Commence at the northwest corner of said section 33; thence north 89°59151" ._.east, along the northerly line of said sec- - tlon 33 for 210.89 feet; thence south `. 0t°45'43" west of 40.00 feet to the point 3 of beginning and southerly right-of-way, for Wabasso Road as shown on Florida Department of Transportation plan' #88510.2601; thence north 89°5951 ; .,.east for 336.54 feet; thence'. south 01 °41'40" west for 62027 feet; thence south. 89°57'54" east for 1556.80 feet;,), thence south 01 °24'09 west for 60.32 ,. feet; thence south 22°08'04" east for 657.60 feet; thence south 88°50'44" east for 819.95 feet; thence south •25°07'52" east for 1834.83 feet; thence south ' " 01°30'59" west for 8.71 feet; thence -1, south , 89°10'06". east for 4.35 • feet.•'` thence south 25°07'52" east for 1110.14 .. feet; thence north 89°10'59" west for 322.27 feet; thence south 01 °31'00" west.." .:.for 1091.87 feet; thence north 89°1211 ;; west for 180.01 feet thence south 01 *3 west for 200.00 feet thence north 89°12'11"- west for 1339.54 feet, • ; thence north 01°20'31" east for 1292.36 feet thence south 89°10'59" east for 288.93 feet thence -north 01°19132" east fdr 1332.26 feet thence north 89°09'48" west for 288.93 feet thence 'north 89°19'36" west for 2246.81 feet thence north 18°42'15", west for 16.50 feet thence'north 25°3927" west for -826.54 feet; thence north 01°48'08" east for 647.87. feet to a point of curvature; thence northeasterly along a circular curve to the right, having a radius of 2824.93 feet, a central angle of 04°21'53" for an arc distance of 215.20 feet to a point of tangency; thence north . 06°10'01" east for 97.00 feet to a point of curvature; thence northeasterly along a circular curve to the left, having a radius of 2904.93 feet, a central angle of 04°21'53" for an are distance of 221.29 ' -feet to a point of tangency; thence north .01 °40'08" east for 278.43 feet; thence south. 89°55'04" east for 358.52 feet thence north 01 °40'05" east for 209.78 feet thence north 89°5736" west for 211.03 feet; thence north 01°4543" east for 169.61 feet; to the point of beginning - and containing 222.11 acres more or less. And to consider rezoning the following parcel B from A-1, Agricultural District to CH, Heavy Commercial District Parcel "B" being described as follows: A portion of the northwest quarter of Section 33, Township 31 south, Range 39 east, Indian River County, Florida, being more particularly described as fol - Commence at the northwest comer of said Section 33; thence north 89°59'51" I east, along the northerly line of said sec- )+ tion, for 1690.09' to the westerly line of a Parcel described in official record book 34 on page 366, public records, Indian River County, Florida;. thence south 01 °28'05" west, along said westerly line, . for 211.23 to the point of beginning; thence south 89157'36" east along the southerly line of said parcel and its east- erlypprolongation, for 410.99 feet; thence south 01 °24.09" west for 449.68 feet to a point 660.00 feet south of the northerly fine of said section; thence north 89°51141" west for 411.49 feet thence north 01°28'05" east for448.99 feet to the point of beginning and.containing- 4.241 acres more or less; And to consider rezoning the following described parcel C from A-1, Agricultural District to CG, General Commercial Dis- trict. Commissioner Bird announced that he has filed a Conflict of interest with the Clerk to the Board, as follows, and will leave the Commission Chambers during discussion and action on this matter. He thereupon left the meeting at 9:30 o'clock A.M. FORM 811 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAML—FIRST AME—MIDDLE NAME ! jw :.. I `L�?ftI.:t NAME OF HOARD COUNCIL, COMMISSION, A07551rry, OR COMMITTEE / � (©GGl tt t /,LS /C�i6t MAiLING ADDRESS 5J �aL't 6� f 2-U d J C (194K V` C Elh� THE BOARD. COUN It., COMMISSION, AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE ON w CITY ICH1 SERVECOUNTYIS ANIT OF- OTHER LOCAL AGENCY /tt'AA L . CITY FO COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCICURRW 9 / �c'j� MY POSITION IS: 1 ELECTIVE ! APPOINTIVE _ WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city. or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non -advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 992.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and tiling this form with the person responsible for recording the'minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special.gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. 0 A ropy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. 'i<' a form should be real publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. 25 UL 1 �� 1 987 & BQi1t F',4 C 7 9 �� BOOK 68 r' uE .17S JUL,1� IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION OR VOTE AT THE MEETING: • You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You should complete the form and rile it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF STATE OFFICER'S INTEREST 1. �G"� u✓'i2 , hereby disclose that on 9 (a))A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) L(inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: 724+L , 11,31A,7 Date Filed .uz��.' Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. Ct_ 1-okkl 88 11 •86 Staff Planner David Nearing made the following presentation, emphasizing that the area has been heavily mined in the past and very much altered: 26 PAGE 2 c TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 21, 1987 FILE: - of the Board of County Commissioners TOM LOCKWOOD REQUEST TO = REZONE 230 ACRES FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL DIST- DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:RICT, RMH-6, MOBILE HOME SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, RS -6, SINGLE-FAMILY RES - V4 ert M. Keat' g, P IDENTIAL DISTRICT AND Director, Community evelopment IL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Division DISTRICT TO RM -6, MULTIPLE -FAMILY r� RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FROM: David C. Nearing t�V a REFERENCES: CG, GENERAL COMMERCIAL Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning DISTRICT AND CH, HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT It is requested that the data herein presented. be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 14, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Tom Lockwood, acting on behalf of Hobart Ridge, Inc., Graves Bros. Co., and Anna Blake Morrison Ajax, has submitted a request to rezone 230 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), RMH-6, Mobile Home Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), and IL, Light Industrial District to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), CG, General Commercial District, and CH, Heavy Commercial District. Those portions of the subject property proposed for commercial zoning are located at the north end of the site along the south side of C.R. 510. The parcel proposed for CG zoning (Parcel B) is approximately 15.8 acres in size, and the parcel proposed for CH zoning (Parcel C) is approximately 4.2 acres in size. The remaining 210 acres proposed for RM -6 zoning (Parcel A) lie south of the aforementioned parcels east of Kings Highway, west of and adjacent to the FEC Railroad right-of-way, and north of Hobart Road (77th Street). The applicant intends to develop the residential property for use as a golf course with future residential development. On May 28, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli- cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip- tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur- rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ- mental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is currently undeveloped with a large portion having been sand mined. South of the subject property along the south side of Hobart Road lies a welding shop zoned IG, General Industrial, vacant property zoned RM -6, and part of the Kiwanis Hobart Park currently zoned A-1. To the west of the subject property is a portion of the Kiwanis Hobart Park zoned A-1, vacant property zoned RS -6 and across Kings Highway are single -Family homes and mobile homes zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). At the northwest corner of the subject property, in parcels not included in this rezoning, lie a church zoned A-1, and an old home and fruit stand zoned RM -6. North of the subject site is the Graves Bros. Packing House and storage facilities, and a mini -storage facility zoned CH; across and north of C.R. 510 are the Graves Bros. unit #2, an auto shop and single-family home zoned IL, and vacant JUL 14.1997 27 BOOK ' t" �E .:T I ! L 1 hs 19S 7 BOOK 6 f'.GE property and single-family homes zoned CL, Limited Commercial. East of the subject parcel are a packing house zoned IL; across the FEC Railroad and Old Dixie Highway are a mobile home park zoned RMH-6, a motel, single-family homes, a bar, mobile homes, and vacant property zoned CL, single-family homes zoned RS -6 and single-family homes and a woman's club zoned OCR, Office, Commercial and Residential District. Future Land Use Pattern That portion of the site proposed for commercial zoning lies within the C.R. 510/U.S. 1 Commerical/Industrial Node. The east 300 feet of that portion of the site proposed for RM -6 lies within the MXD, Mixed Land Use District, the remainder has a land use designation of LD -2, Low -Density Residential (allowing up to 6 units/acre). The property north across C.R. 510 also lies within the node. West across Kings Highway, the Land Use Designation is LD -1, Low -Density Residential (allowing up to 3 units/acre). South of the subject site, the land use is Park, Hobart Road/U.S. 1 Commercial/Industrial Node, and LD -2 and Park across Hobart Road. Transportation System Currently, the level of service for 77th Street (primary collector), C.R. 510 (arterial), and Kings Highway (arterial) is a level -of -service "A". The property as it is currently zoned has a potential of generating/ attracting 548 average daily trips (ADT). The possible trip rates which could be anticipated by that portion proposed for RM -6 is 9450 ADT, and the potential trip rates for that portion proposed for CG is 22,575 ADT. The proposed golf course is anticipated to generate/attract over 1000 ADT. The total anticipated daily trips for the entire 230 acres of property could be 33,025 ADT. The entire site can be anticipated to have an impact on the transportation system in this area; however, these impacts will be handled during site planning, subdivision or PRD reviews, with the necessary improvements being installed at those times. Environment The subject property does not lie within an area designated as flood prone. The majority of the site does, however, lie within .the area designated as coastal sand ridge. The application has been reviewed by the environmental planners. They believe that with the future availability of public sewer, and the ability to create a Planned Residential Development (PRD) as permitted in the RM -6 zoning district, impact upon the sandridge will be minimized. It is also expected that before any residential activity occurs, the County will have adopted the Coastal Sand Ridge Protection Ordinance. This will further mitigate any adverse impacts on the ridge. Utilities Currently no public utilities exist within the area. However, the Utilities Division intends to have a wastewater treatment plant in operation within approximately two years within the area of the proposed rezoning. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends approval. 28 The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Thomas Lockwood, President of Hobart Ridge, Inc., came before the Board, and Chairman Scurlock wished to know if the possibility of effluent disposal on the golf course been discussed with the Utilities Department. Mr. Lockwood confirmed that it has and it is agreeable. He advised that they concur with staff's recommendation of approval. It was determined that no one further wished to be heard, and the Chairman thereupon declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- - missioner Wheeler, Commissioner Bird having declared a Conflict of Interest, the Board by a 4-0 vote adopted Ordinance 87-48 rezoning the subject property to RM -6, CG and CH as requested by the applicant. ORDINANCE NO. 87- 48 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. „ WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a.public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and -_ WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of 29 Boar. 58;, UL 14 °66 r -7 JUL 141987 goo g�:c 1S)2 the following described parcels A, B, & C situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Parcel "A" being described as follows: A portion of Section 33, Township 31 south, Range 39 south, Indian River County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the northwest corner of said section 33; thence north 89059151" east, along the northerly line of said section 33 for 210.89 feet; thence south 01°45143" west for 40.00 feet to the point of beginning and southerly right-of-way for Wabasso Road as shown on Florida Department of Transportation plan #88510-2601; thence north 89059151" east for 336.54 feet; thence south 01041140" west for 620.27 feet; thence south 89°57154" east for 1556.80 feet; thence south 01°24109" west for 60.32 feet; thence south 22008104" east for 657.60 feet; thence south 88050144" east for 819.95 feet; thence south 25007152" east for 1834.83 feet; thence south 01030159" west for 8.71 feet; thence south 89°10106" east for 4.35 feet; thence south 25007152" east for 1110.14 feet; thence north -89°10'59" west for 322.27 feet; thence south 01031100" west for 1091.87 feet; thence north 89°12'11" west for 180.01 feet; thence south 01031100" west for 200.00 feet; thence north 89°12111" west for 1339.54 feet; thence north 01020131" east for 1292.36 feet; thence south 89010'59" east for 288.93 feet; thence north 01019132" east for 1332.26 feet; thence north 89009148" west for 288.93 feet; thence north 89°19136" west for 2246.81 feet; thence north 18042115" west for 16.50 feet; thence north 25°39127" west for 826.54 feet; thence north 01048108" east for 647..87 feet`to a point of curvature; thence northeasterly along' -a circular curve to the right, having a radius of 2824.93 feet, a central angle of 04021153" for an arc distance of 215.20 feet to a point of tangency; thence north 06010101" east for 97.00 feet to a point of curvature; thence northeasterly along a circular curve to the left, having a radius of 2904.93 feet, a central angle of 04021153" for an arc distance of 221.29 feet to a point of tangency; thence north 01048108" east for 278.43 feet; thence south 89055104" east for 358.52 _feet; thence north 01040105" east for 209.78 feet; thence north 89057136" west for 211.03 feet; thence north 01°45'43" east for 169.61 feet;I to the point --of beginning and containing 222.11 acres more or less. Be changed from A-1, Agricultural, IL, Light Industrial, RS -61 Single -Family, and RMH-6, Mobile Home pistricts to RM -61 Multiple -Family District; and Parcel "B" being described as follows: A portion of the northwest quarter of Section 33, Township 31 south, Range 39 east, Indian River County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the northwest corner of said Section 33; thence north 89°59'51" east, along the northerly line of said section, for 1690.09' to the westerly line of a 30 parcel described in official record book 34 on page 366, public records, Indian River County, Florida; thence south 01028105" west, along said westerly line, for 211.23 to the point of beginning; thence south 89057136" east along the southerly line of said parcel and its easterly prolongation, for 410.99 feet; thence south 01024109" west for 449.68 feet to a point 660.00 feet south of the northerly line of said section; thence north 89051141" west for 411.49 feet; thence north 01028105" east for 448.99 feet to the point of beginning and containing 4.241 acres more or less; Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District to CH, Heavy Commercial District; and Parcel "C" being described as follows: A portion of the northwest quarter of Section 33, Township 31 south, Range 39 east, Indian River County, Florida. Being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the northwest corner of said section; thence north 89° 59151" east along the northerly line of said Section 33, for 547.38 feet; thence south 01041140" west for 60.03 feet to the point of beginning; thence north 89°59151" east along a line 60.00 feet south of and parallel with the said northerly line of Section 33, for 1142.94 feet to the westerly line of a parcel described in official record book 34 on page 366, public records, Indian River County, Florida; thence south 01°28105" west, along the westerly line of said parcel and its southerly prolongation for 600.20 feet to a point 660.00 feet south of the northerly line of said Section 33; thence south 89°59'51" west for 1145.31 feet; thence north 01041140" east for 600.26 feet to the point of beginning and containing 15.759 acres more or less. Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District to CG, General Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 14th day of iJUL .14 .I97 July , 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By / C_ '.'� Don C. Scurlock, Jr., h- rman ATTEST BY: FREDA WRIG11T, C k 31 b�q BOOK F ��. `fs3 ti 'JUL 14 1997 BOOK t CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL - TREASURE RIDGE GOLF COURSE The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy o advertisement, being a In the matter of in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of 4/ Court, was pub - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a wspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said nepaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, week) and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indiaj� River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promisBd any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund forthe the purpose securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. I Sworn to and subscribed Nore Poe this (SEAu (Clerk of the Circuit A. D. I (� siness Manager) Indian River County, Florida) NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING Notice of public hearing to consider the grant Ing of conceptual speciat exception approval fol ..the proposed Treasure Ridge golf course. The subject property, approximately 222 acres tri area, is ppresently owned by Hobart Ridge, Inc., Graves Brothers Co., Anna Blake Ajax and is I sated between 77th Street (Hobart Road) and 85th Street (Wabasso Road), west of barl Park. The subject property is described as: A portion of Section 33, Township 31 south, Range 39 south, Indian River' C=Cty Florida, being more particularly l as follows: • Commence at the northwest comer of said section 33; thence north 89°59'51" east, along the northerly line of said sec - ;tion 33 for 210.89 feet; thence south 01'45'43" west for 40.00 feet to the point of beginning and southerly right-of-way for Wabasso Road as shown on Florida Department of Transportation plan #88510-2601; thence north 89°59'51" east for 336.54 feet, thence south 01 °41'40" west for 620.27 feet; thence south 89°57'54" east for 1556.80 feet; thence south 01 °24'09" west for 60.32 feet; thence south 22°08'04" east for 657.60 feet; thence south 88°50'44" east for 819.95 feet; thence south 25"07'52" east for 1834.83 feet; thence south 01 "30'59" west for 8.71 . feet; thence south 89°10'06" east for 4.35 feet; i thence south 25°07'52" east for 1110.14 feet; thence north 89"10'59" west for 322.27 feet; thence south 01 °3100" west for 1091.87 feet; thence north 89°1211 west for 180.01 feet; thence south 01 "31'00" west for 200.00 feet; thence north 89°12111" west for 1339.54 feet; thence.north 01'2031" east for 1292.36 feet; thence south 89°10'59" east for 288.93 feet; thence north 01 "19 32" east for 1332.26 feet; thence north 89"09'48" west for 288.93 feet; thence north 89"19'36" west for 2246.81 feet; thence north 18'42'15" west for 16.50 feet; thence north 25"3927" west for 826.54 feet; thence north 01 °48'08" east for 647.87 feet .to a point of curvature; thence northeasterly along a circular curve to the right, having a radius of 2824.93 feet, a central angle of 04°21'53" for an arc distance of 215.20 feet to a point of tangency; thence north 06"10'01" east for 97.00 feet of point of curvature; thence northeasterly along a circular curve to the left, having a radius of 2904.93 feet, a central angle of 04°21'53" for an arc distance of 221.29 feet to a point of tangency; thence north 01 °48'08" east for 278.43 feet; thence south 89°55'04" east for 358.52 feet; thence north 01°40'05" east for 209.78 feet; thence north 89°5736" west for 211.03 feet; thence north 01 °4543" east for 169.61 feet; to the point of beginning and containing 222.11" acres more or less. A public hearing at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the/ County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday. July 14, 1987, at 9:05 a.m. Anyone whom may wish to appeal any decl Sion which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pr eeedings is made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. Indian River County . -Board of County Commissioners s -Don C 'Chairman L 23,1987 `. .! The Conflict of Interest filed by Commissioner Bird relative to the previous rezoning applies to this matter also, and he remained out of the Chambers. �J 32 Planning Director Keating made the following presentation: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 6, 1987 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ` CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL Ro rt M. Kea n , A SUBJECT: EXCEPTION APPROVAL FOR Planning & Developme Director THE TREASURE RIDGE GOLF COURSE FROM: Stan Boling A-13. REFERENCES: treasure ridge Chief, Current Development STAN4 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 14, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: Section 25.3 of the Zoning Code, Regulation of Special Exception Uses, authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to decide all applications for Special Exception Uses subsequent to a recommen- dation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 25.3 also provides for Conceptual Special Exception Approval whereby the applicant may elect to submit a conceptual site.plan, rather than a complete site plan pursuant to the requirements of Section 23. If the applicant is granted conceptual special exception approval, the approval shall not be considered final until a complete site plan satisfying all conditions of special exception approval has been reviewed and approved pursuant to Section 23, "Site Plan Approval". Traffic design and circulation, drainage design, landscaping, utilities designs, and other aspects of site develop- ment will be more specifically addressed at the time of site plan approval. The subject property, located between 77th Street (Hobart Road) and 85th Street (Wabasso Road) east of Hobart Park, is a ±222 acre portion of the total ±265 acre proposed Treasure Ridge project which is currently being considered for residential and commercial rezoning. Thomas W. Lockwood, acting as applicant and agent for the owners, Graves .Brothers Company, Hobart Ridge, Inc., and Anna Blake Ajax, has submitted a complete conceptual -site plan special exception approval application for review and consideration. The applicant/agent has also submitted an application to rezone the ±222 acre golf course site to RM -6 (Residential Multi -Family up to 6 units/acre). A large portion of the existing site has been mined and is flat, being levelled=off at approximately elevation 24 feet. The site is located on the coastal sand ridge. At their regular meeting of June 11, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant conceptual special exception approval to the project subject to the following conditions: 1. That the subject site be rezoned to RM -6, Residential Multi -Family up to 6 units/acre. 2. Existing groupings of sand pines shall be preserved. 3. The landscape plan shall include the planting of sand pines and other native scrub/shrub species. 33 Boa JUL1 W81 JUL 141987 BOCK Pd;c -JSB These conditions appear as conditions 1, 9, & 10 at the end of this report. ANALYSIS & ALTERNATIVES: . Analysis: The following is an analysis of the plan submitted for conceptual special exception approval. As the applicant will be required to submit a complete site plan application if the Board grants conceptual special exception approval, the site plan review process may necessitate changes or revisions. 1. Size of Property: ±222 acres (golf course area) Area previously mined: 124 acres Area unmined: 98 acres 2. Zoning Classification: Existing: A-1, RS -6, RMH-6, IL Proposed: RM -6 (Multiple Family) 3. Land Use Designation: LD -2 (Low Density Residential up to 6 units/acre) 4. Accessory Golf Facilities: Clubhouse, driving range, maintenance building. 5. Other Future Development: Currently, the owners plan to apply for PRD approval for residential development within the course site in the future. The future development of residential units is not affected by the conceptual special exception approval for the golf course, but is only noted here for informational purposes. 6. Transportation & Traffic Issues: The golf course site is to be accessed from 77th Street (Hobart Road), with emergency access onto 58th Avenue (King's Highway) near 85th Street. All required road right-of-way dedications will be obtained during the site plan approval process. The applicant/agent has agreed to pave 77th Street as part of the development of the golf course. 7. Irrigation: The conceptual plan proposes to utilize water from on-site lakes which are to be recharged from shallow wells. The applicant/agent has agreed to design for (and use when available) treated effluent for irrigation. 8. Lakes and Other Environmental Issues: The conceptual plan proposes approximately 33 acres of lakes distributed throughout the site. Staff has three basic areas of concern in regards to the proposed lakes: (a) penetration of the groundwater table allowing infiltration of pollutants into the shallow aquifer; (b) maintenance of the hydrostatic gradient (groundwater head/pressure that maintains the saltwater fresh -water interface); and (c) creation and maintenance of viable lakes that establish habitats. Items (a) and (b) are especially critical since the project is located on the coastal sand ridge. If lakes are to be allowed on the site, then several conditions should be added which will address potential problems or help to mitigate potential negative environmental impacts. These conditions are: 34 1. Penetration of the Groundwater Table: a) no lakes may be used as stormwater management areas or facilities; b) all lakes shall be bermed to prevent intrusion of stormwater run-off; c) a littoral shelf extending from the edge of water to a depth of 2.5 feet, around the entire shoreline of all lakes, shall be established and maintained*; d) the percent site coverage of lakes shall not exceed 6.3%, or 14 acres of the 222 acre site. [NOTE: the 6.3% lake coverage figure represents the approxi- mate average percentage of new lake coverage permitted by the County for other golf courses along the sand ridge, namely: Hawksnest, Sand Ridge, and the John's Island projects. All of these projects have been approved within the last two years]. 2. Maintenance of the Hydrostatic Gradient: a) to retain overburden on site, no excavation materials shall be transported off-site. 3. Creation and Maintenance of Viable Lakes: a) establish and maintain littoral zones as described above*. b) sides of lakes shall be sloped 6 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter*. c) lake depths shall adhere to the following standards:* Percent Area Depth in Feet less than 10 greater than 8 50-70 4-8 25-50 0-4 No depths shall exceed 12 feet *taken from design and performance standards for lakes and wet retention systems as used by the DER and St. John's River Water Management District. Existing areas of native vegetation exist on portions of the undisturbed areas of the site. All existing groupings of sand pines on the site should be preserved. As part of the landscape plantings, native vegetation should be used due to lower irrigation/maintenance requirements. Also, areas of sand pine should be planted on the site. These items are addressed in the conditions listed in staff's recommendation. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses: East: FEC Railroad/Industrial, Residential West: County Park/Vacant North: Industrial/Residential South: Industrial/Mining Operation . Alternatives: Because the Board is considering a special exception use, it can attach reasonable conditions to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and to mitigate potential negative impacts, such as the potential negative environmental impacts described by staff in the analysis section. Upon recognition of the environmental concerns regarding developing lakes and developing on the sandridge, two basic alternative ways of handling the conceptual special exception approval request emerge: JUL 14 1987 35 BOOK 68 X87 r -7 J U L 14 1997 BOOK F'A,u 7.8"s 1. acknowledge the concerns but apply no parameters relating to development, relying on the normal site plan process and codified County regulations to handle the concerns and mitigate potential negative impacts; or 2. acknowledge the concerns and apply reasonable development parameters now to ensure that such conditions along with the general codified regulations properly address environmental concerns. In a 3 to 2 vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission essentially recommended the first alternative: to acknowledge concerns and let existing and future codified regulations apply to the forthcoming Treasure Ridge site plan. County planning staff on the other hand, acknowledges the environmental concerns, acknowledges that existing general codified regulations do not adequately address lake or sandridge development, and recommends that parameters be set now to ensure that there will be adequate regulations of the proposed project that address the environmental concerns. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners grant con- ceptual special exception approval for the Treasure Ridge golf course, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the subject site be rezoned to RM -6, Residential Multi -Family up to 6 units/acre. 2. No lakes may be used as stormwater management areas or facilities. 3. All lakes shall be bermed to prevent intrusion of stormwater run-off. 4. A littoral shelf extending from the edge of water to a depth of 2.5 feet, around the entire shoreline of all lakes, shall be established and maintained*. 5. The percent site coverage of lakes shall not excee 6.3%, or 14 acres of the 222 acre site. 6. To retain overburden on site, no excavation mate ials shall be transported off-site. 7. Sides of lakes shall be sloped 6 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter*. B. Lake depths shall adhere to the following standards:* Percent Area Depth in Feet less than 10 greater than 8 50-70 4-8 25-50 0-4 No depths shall exceed 12 feet 9. Existing groupings of sand pines shall be preserved. 10. The landscape plan shall include the planting of sand pines and other native scrub/shrub species. [Conditions 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 to apply until such time that the County may adopt an ordinance(s) dealing with development of the sandridge, and lakes - at which time said ordinance(s) may be normally applied]. 36 � r � Chairman Scurlock had a problem when staff says existing codified regulations do not adequately address the situation. We are dealing with the current Code Book - not some future book we haven't even seen. He also did not see how we can keep referring to the sand ridge ordinance that hasn't even been to the Commis- sion yet. He felt we must work with what we have until we change it. Commissioner Eggert believed that was something dealt with back and forth at the P&Z level for a long time, and they usually ended up recommending rather than requiring things that are not actually in the ordinance, but it seems staff is requiring them. Director Keating clarified that staff is recommending the Board require these things as part of the Special Exception use. Chairman Scurlock felt there is another aspect that needs to be clarified. There is constant reference to the fact that our potable supply of water will be derived from the shallow aquifer, and that is untrue. He believed we intend -to use the deep aquifer and reverse osmosis and not develop the shallow aquifer as our source. There are many existing subdivisions that do depend on shallow wells and as a Commission, we certainly do not want to effect them negatively, but that statement about our source actually is not correct. Commissioner Bowman noted we are using the shallow aquifer now, and wished to know how many years it will be before the people who are using it for their potable water supply can expect to get off of it. She did not feel we can plan on taking people off that aquifer until we have our facilities in place. Chairman Scurlock believed those people can expect that an aggressive master plan is being pursued by the county to develop these facilities, and he felt in this particular area it will not be that long - we have the North County project under way as well as the Gifford expansion project. Commissioner Eggert also had a question about using the DER and St. John's River Water Management guidelines, and Chairman 37 ►AUL 141997 Bou 68 rAru-L 78S JUL 14 W BOOK Scurlock asked if we shouldn't limit ourselves to just what is in our book. Director Keating stated that if this were a site plan, we would be limited to that, but since it is a special exception use, it gives the county the opportunity to take a broader look into addressing issues. Staff has been working closely with St. John's on the issue of protection of the sand ridge. Chairman Scurlock felt this area has been mined to the point where it is not a sand ridge any more. Director Keating stated that it has been mined to elevation 24. In much of this area, the mining plans were just approved in the last few years and it was specifically to an elevation where it was believed there was sufficient overburden remaining to preserve the integrity of the aquifer, but that actually was an unknown and has not been qualified. Chairman Scurlock noted that at our golf course, we are pumping out of a canal into a lake and asked the Administrator what is happening that the lake was drawn down. Administrator Balczun advised that it results from lack of rainfall lowering the water table in the area and also a very high rate of percolation through the sand. We are recharging the lake from the main canal at the course at the rate of about 660,000 gpd, and we did get permission from the Water District. Commissioner Bowman felt it is a terrible thing to pump the water from the canal which is polluted with all the waste from the groves right into the water she drinks from the shallow aquifer, and she believed that is a perfect example of why we should not allow these lakes at this time. Every time you open up a lake, you are poking a hole into the aquifer and exposing it to pollutants, even exposing it to the possibility of a nuclear accident. She believed that these lakes are a frivolous matter in any event since it just concerns aesthetics, and believed it is just as beautiful on a golf course to create a forest rather than a lake. 38 M The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Mary Jane Goetzfried of CCL Consultants came before the Board representing that owners and developers of Treasure Ridge Golf Course. Their client's position is that attachment of conditions to this plan are premature, and they question the basis for those conditions. Mrs. Goetzfried stressed that pursuant to Sec. 25.3 of the County Code, which they are working within, today's issue is a determination as to the appropriateness of the use of the golf course, and its compatibility with the permitted uses within the RM -6 District. In the site plan process, they will be required to develop explicit.and very detailed engineering and vegetative surveys, etc. Mrs. Goetzfried continued that staff refers to design and performance standards for wet retention system, and the lakes designed now are for aesthetic and irrigation purposes only. As to the very specific criteria set out in staff's memo, she noted that while the Board may be familiar with the sand ridge draft ordinance, none of this has been workshopped or available to the public prior to this. She further noted that they will not be able to pull any permits to develop the course until they get St. John's and DER permits. With reaard to removing the overburden located on the site, Mrs. Goetzfried noted that about 60-650 of the site has been mined down to 241. The remaining overburden is within the 150' buffer area, and in all likelihood, that material will remain on there to be used in the contour grading on the site. They are working within the ordinance regarding sand mining, and until it is determined that material is not used, they would like to have the ability to remove it if necessary. Mrs. Goetzfried stated that they would like the Board to approve the special exception plan with no conditions. The Chairman determined that no one further wished to be heard and thereupon declared the public hearing closed. 39 BOOK � J U L 14 1987 �7 JUL I Ax 431, BOOK 66 A2 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to grant Conceptual Special Exception Approval to Treasure Ridge Golf Course with no conditions. Commissioner Wheeler's understanding was that we are doing this conceptually and it all will go back for site plan review. He believed these matters should be addressed specifically and individually at that time. He felt what we are addressing at this time is simply whether we want a golf course or a type of subdivision development, and conceptually he would prefer a golf course. Director Keating noted that staff has said a golf course is a good use that is generally compatible with the sand ridge, but felt there were more environmental issues that should be addressed. Commissioner Eggert believed the recommendations made by staff are fine, but she did not want to vote for any conditions which are not in an existing ordinance. Commissioner Bowman stated that she would like to have included in the Motion the condition that there would be no lakes until we are on the deep aquifer, but Commissioners Eggert and Wheeler did not wish to add this to their Motion. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION to approve the Conceptual Special Exception with no conditions. It was voted on and carried 3 to 1 with Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition and Commissioner Bird being out of the room due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Bird returned to the meeting at 10:10 o'clock A.M. 40 s � REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FRANCHISE - BENT PINE UTILITY CO. The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr, who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being r L io< e-wa /in the matter of in the A (jCourt, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of � Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the pIpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me day of_4id� A.D. 1T.G-- / �usil},ess Manager) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice Is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County Florida has cancelled the Bent Pine Utility public hear - Ing that was scheduled for Tuesday. July 7. 1987 at 9:05 A.M. Notice Is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida will hold a public hearing In the Commission Room, Indian River County Administration Build - Ing, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. FL 32960, on Tuesday, the 14th day of July. 1987, at 9:05 A.M., to consider the extension of Franchise for Bent Pine Utility Company Water and Sewerage System. All Interested parties will be heard. Dated this 29th day of June, 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA . Don C. Scurlock, Jr.. Chairman July 1, 2.3,1987 Utilities Director Pinto stated that he would have Franchise Manager Lisa Abernethy make the staff presentation and he would make comments. He advised that staff recommendations are based on information from our files and he would reserve the right to amend those recommendations if facts are bought up at the hearing which were not to their knowledge. County Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board should not let the fact that we are under a lawsuit filed by Bent Pine against the county, affect how we treat this at all, but should treat this franchisee the same as any other franchisee in the �JUL x.4.1987 419®GK r JUL 14 1987 BGGK. r:'�c �: county. He felt he should point out that it is not an opportunity for them'to question the Board other than as to how our policies affect their franchise. Commissioner Bird felt this will be a good opportunity to ask the Press to clarify better the relationship between Bent Pine Utility, the Bent Pine residential community, and the Bent Pine Country Club, because those living there feel they are being impacted negatively by this and we need to clarify that is an entirely separate community. Franchise Manager Abernethy made the following presentation: DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND JUNE 29, 1987 BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISS TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILI LISA M. ABERNETHY] FRANCHISE MANAGER EXTENSION OF FRANCHISE FOR BENT PINE UTILITY AND NONCOMPLIANCE OF FRANCHISE 79-111 On March 28, 1980, Indian River County granted a water and wastewater franchise to the Bent Pine Utility Company. The franchise, Resolution 79-111, carried stipulations regarding County purchase of the facilities within seven (7) years (March 28, 1987). The County elected option 3 of Section XIV, page 11, which states, "...and County shall grant to the Corporation an appropriate franchise." ANALYSIS Correspondence between the County and Bent Pine Utility have not been successful in resolving "an appropriate franchise". Bent Pine Utility has stated, see Exhibit "A", that they, "have no legal obligation nor other business reason to execute another franchise." Further, Resolution 79-111 does not contain the option for the agreement to be considered a permanent contract. During the seven years that Bent Pine Utility was under the regulation of the County and Resolution 79-111, a number of discrepancies were incurred and never resolved. These discrepancies are listed below along with the corresponding exhibit. 1. EXHIBIT "B". Section VI, pg 4 and 5, paragraph 2, states that, "...whereupon the County will issue a permit accepting the water and sewerage systems, and further, that the said water and sewerage systems and all easements, (excepting only the water and sewer plants, and wells without appurtenances, and the real property upon which it is situated), shall be conveyed, along with "as -built" plans, to the County at the time of acceptance by a customary means of conveyance. Corporation shall, in addition, grant necessary easements to County without charge to connect the water and/or sewerage systems to County's Master Water and/or Sewerage Systems and such easements as are necessary to provide access to the sewer systems and water systems." To date the Utility has not conveyed to the County water and sewer easements and the Utility has not provided as -built drawings. 42 2. EXHIBIT "C". Section XIV, Escrow Charges, pg 11, Item B, states that, "Ten percent (10%) of the gross rates charged and received shall be placed in a second County interest bearing account and accumulated until the balance reaches Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00). Said funds shall be used as a sinking fund and applied only for repairs and/or replacement of water and sewerage systems by the Corporation as the need arises." The Utility has not established this account since the enactment of the franchise (March 28, 1980). 3. EXHIBIT "D". Section XVI, pg 12, first paragraph states that, "The Corporation shall at all times maintain public liability and property damage insurance in such amounts as shall be required from time to time by the Board in accordance with good business practices...". The Utility was notified by letter on July 10, 1984 and again on March 26, 1986 requesting insurance certificate in the amount of $1,000,000.00 co -naming Indian River County as an additional insured. The Utility never responded. 4. EXHIBIT "E". Section XVII, pg 12, first paragraph states that, "Should the Corporation desire to establish rates and charges or should the Corporation desire to increase any charges heretofore established and approved by the Board, then the Corporation shall notify the Board in writing, setting forth the schedule of rates and charges it proposes. A public hearing shall then be held on such a request...". Bent Pine Utility increased the connection charge in the amount of $244.46 and implemented the increase effective January 20, 1987. A copy of a complaint by Mr. Paul E. Koehler is attached along with our request for Bent Pine to reimburse Mr. Koehler. Bent Pine submitted their response through letters dated March 4, 1987 and March 6, 1987. 5. EXHIBIT "F". Resolution 84-63 was executed by the Board of County Commissioners for the purpose of all water and sewer franchises to provide a, "uniform reporting system so that the County can accurately review the accounting and financial position of the County water and sewer franchises." The Utility was notified by letter on September 19, 1984 and March 26, 1986 to submit the annual report. The Utility responded and stated that they would submit the report during January and February 1985; however, to date, the annual report has not been filed. The Utility did not respond to the letter dated March 26, 1986. 6. EXHIBIT "G". franchisee to explain h money that exceeds the resolution. The Utility 17, 1987. RECOMMENDATION Letter dated February 17, 1987 requesting the ow they intend to rebate "the customers the authorized rates outlined in the franchise did not respond to the letter dated February Utility staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners to take the following action: 1. At the close of this public hearing, the franchisee- shall be "on notice" of all deficiencies and these deficiencies shall be brought up to date to satisfy the franchise requirements on or before September 14, 1987. 2. Extend the current franchise for a period of 7 years and require the passing of an approved resolution or by putting in the existing franchise itself that a 6% franchise fee be added to the utility bill to appear as a separate item. This is a pass-thru increase to their existing rate structure and will bring the franchise in line with all other franchises currently being issued by the County, with the 6% franchise fee that the County imposes on its own customers and City customers within County limits. 3. Interest shall be paid on the Repairs and/or Replacement account for the past 7 years that it would have earned if the account had been established, as required in Section XIV, Escrow Charges. JUL 14 1937 43 BUCK 68 PAGE 795 J U L 1 r, 796 Boot PAuL 4. Amend the existing franchise as follows: A. Section VI - reference to "Construction Specifications for Water Distribution and Sewage Collection Facilities' promulgated by the City of Vero Beach, Water and Sewer Department, November 1, 1977, or as amended "shall be changed to "Current County Construction Specifications as amended"...; and B. Section XIV - Under "ESCROW CHARGES" delete all of Paragraph A and the last sentence of Paragraph B and renumber Paragraphs B and C; and C. Section XX reference to "s125.43, Florida Statutes," should be changed to "s125.42, Florida Statutes"; and D. Section XXII - should be deleted and replaced by the following: FRANCHISE FEE A. The Utility hereby agrees to pay to the County a franchise fee in the amount of 6% of the Utility's annual gross receipt or operating costs (which includes the rate of return), whichever is greater. If Utility does not have a rate schedule, then it shall pay 6% of its gross operating costs or the sum of $500.00, whichever is greater. The Utility shall pay the 6% franchise fee quarterly. This fee shall be shown as a separate additional charge on the utility bills. B. The Utility shall supply the County with a copy of an annual report in a form prescribed by Indian River County and financial statements. All records and all accounting of the Utility shall be in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts of the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners and generally accepted accounting principles. Within 90 days after the close of the fiscal year, the Utility shall submit financial statements certified by a CPA and also a letter from a CPA certifying that the 6% franchise fee and any other requested fees have been collected and disbursed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Commissioner Eggert asked if the amendments recommended in part 4 bring the franchise to what the franchise would read if they wanted to get it today new. Chairman Scurlock stated they would not and he wished to know why is staff recommending seven years rather than the current franchise we are issuing in a non-discriminatory manner to those coming into the county for the first time. Utilities Director Pinto explained that the present franchise does not have a specific date of expiration other than the 7 year option time stated in the franchise, and, therefore, staff is reading that as an extension of the existing franchise and going another seven years, and then felt we would have met our obligation. 44 M Chairman Scurlock asked if you could construe the term "appropriate franchise" to mean possibly the current franchise which we issue to anyone wanting to do business in the county. Attorney Vitunac stated that the problem was that the 179 Resolution was really a franchise without a term. It offered the county certain options for 7 years, after which there was going to be a new franchise, an extension, or an appropriate one, but there was nothing discussed in the original about the term. The Commission could give a standard 30 year franchise, but the utility has been so insistent on not having changes to its original Resolution, that we gave them seven years instead of 30. Commissioner Eggert inquired what the difference is between the amended and the current franchise we issue today. Mrs. Abernethy clarified that the current franchise we issue, they must escrow the water and sewer impact fees at the county's rates now. Commissioner Eggert wanted to know if we approved the recommendation, what the difference would be then, and Mrs. Abernethy advised the difference would be they would no longer escrow the impact money because of the option of a buy-out. Chairman Scurlock asked if there is a specific buy-out formula in the new franchise, and Director Pinto advised there is a specific formula as well as specific terms spelling out the relationship to the county system - who serves who, when and how. Chairman Scurlock asked if it still is a non-exclusive franchise, and Director Pinto confirmed that it is and the existing franchise is non-exclusive. This is our policy with all franchises. Commissioner Bird asked if the item before the Board today was initiated by the Utility Department to bring the franchise more in line, and Director Pinto stated that this was brought to the Board at the request of the Utility Department because of expiration of their existing franchise and also because of non compliance. 45 BOOK 68 PAGEA,( i JUL 14.1967 BOOK 6 No, 7 ,j Chairman Scurlock noted that back when staff recommended we not purchase Bent Pine water and wastewater system, the Board directed that staff negotiate a new franchise, and over a period of time and several meetings, staff has been unable until today to come up with a recommendation to the Board. Board members wished to see a copy of the Minutes directing staff to negotiate a new franchise and were advised that it would be supplied. Commissioner Eggert asked the County Attorney what options, if any, we have other than approval of staff's recommendations. Attorney Vitunac advised that the Commission has the option of giving them a different franchise than that recommended by the Utility staff or the option of terminating the franchise altogether for non=compliance in the past and poor prospects of compliance in the future. Commissioner Eggert inquired about the process required for termination, and Attorney Vitunac stated that we would have to schedule a public hearing and give them an opportunity to respond to the specific charges against them. That actually is what this is today; although our staff recommendation was to give them a new franchise and allow them until September to comply. Commissioner Wheeler asked why staff did not recommend terminating the franchise. Director Pinto explained that staff believed it would be advisable to give Bent Pine the opportunity to abide by the contract that we agreed to, and then if they don't wish to do that, staff will make a further recommendation. Commissioner Eggert believed we gave them that opportunity in 1986, and Director Pinto felt staff is asking to give them another opportunity. Commissioner Eggert wished a more complete answer from Attorney Vitunac re the Board's options. Attorney Vitunac clarified that the first option is that the county could take over the system by purchase or donation or some 46 other method, and failing that we either have to put them out of business and offer the territory to someone else or issue them a new franchise which they may not accept or the amended franchise which we are giving. Considering the history of this franchise, staff does not see any benefit in fighting the issue of giving them our new standard franchise. It doesn't work in this situation because of their contractual rights from the past. This utility has claimed a property right in its assets and wants to make money on the deal unlike our normal developer utility, which generally is happy to get out of the business and turn it over to us. Commissioner Eggert asked if we grant this recommendation and on September 14th, everything isn't satisfied, are we then into termination. Attorney Vitunac confirmed we would be, but then they would have had every opportunity to comply and could not say we were unfair to them. Commissioner Bird felt we all agreed the original franchise was poorly worded as far as term is concerned, but it seems there is no question there are provisions in that franchise they have failed to comply with. Director Pinto agreed and noted that when we look at the severity of the violations of a franchise, the very first thing we are concerned about is the health and welfare of the people in the service area. Lack of compliance with the administrative type thing is secondary. He felt it would be too severe to remove the franchise based on this hearing without giving them another opportunity to bring everything in line administratively. If they are not going to do that or feel they do not have to, then we will address that as a pure violation of the contract and go on from there. Chairman Scurlock quoted from the Board Minutes of August 6, 1986, as follows: 47 BOOK 0 FAGS 799 JUL 141 1907 s ,JUL 1,&,,. 198 goo r 4 r n MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to approve the proposed letter notifying Bent Pine Utility Company that the County does not intend to pursue its purchase option and asking that they enter -into a new franchise agreement. Commissioner Wodtke asked about Impact fees, and Assistant Utilities Director Barton advised that Bent Pine collects them from the people developing the lots. However, those fees do not come to the county, and that -is why the franchise is being brought up to date. The Chairman stated he had questions about a "new" franchise not being an "appropriate" franchise. He felt a "new" franchise would mean the one we are offering to everyone wishing to do business in the county. In the ensuing discussion, Director Pinto noted that the Board must keep in mind that at the conclusion of this meeting, they do not have to make a decision, but just take all the information presented at the public hearing and then establish what their order is going to be. He noted that the Board has the ability within that order to say whatever they think is best for the franchise area, and that very well may be that the franchise is extended or granted only after the utility has complied. All of those things come from the authority of the regulator, which the Board is. Chairman Scurlock asked if we don't want to send a message today that we are saying they are in non-compliance and that they have a certain amount of time to come into compliance, and Director Pinto stated that the Board has the ability to place them on notice that they are now not in compliance. v THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. uuG 6 1986 it was voted on and carried unanimously.*' 800Y 65 tt;.345 The Chairman stated he had questions about a "new" franchise not being an "appropriate" franchise. He felt a "new" franchise would mean the one we are offering to everyone wishing to do business in the county. In the ensuing discussion, Director Pinto noted that the Board must keep in mind that at the conclusion of this meeting, they do not have to make a decision, but just take all the information presented at the public hearing and then establish what their order is going to be. He noted that the Board has the ability within that order to say whatever they think is best for the franchise area, and that very well may be that the franchise is extended or granted only after the utility has complied. All of those things come from the authority of the regulator, which the Board is. Chairman Scurlock asked if we don't want to send a message today that we are saying they are in non-compliance and that they have a certain amount of time to come into compliance, and Director Pinto stated that the Board has the ability to place them on notice that they are now not in compliance. v Commissioner Bowman felt they have had two notices already, but Franchise Manager Abernethy pointed out that public hearings are required. Attorney Vitunac noted that the notice of today's public hearing stated that we would consider extension of the franchise; we did not put them on notice that we would consider termination of the franchise. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak. Attorney William Sundstrom, came before the Board represent- ing Bent Pine Utility Company, and advised that Vice President Gerald Chancellor was present also. Attorney Sundstrom stated that they did not have any notice that they would be here answering charges today, and he did not feel it is appropriate. This is a matter of litigation, but there are some things he would like to answer in general. Chairman Scurlock asked if Attorney Sundstrom was familiar with Special Act, CH.59-1380, §5, which is where this county gets the authority to.regulate the utility, and Attorney Sundstrom stated that he and his firm represent many privately held utility companies around the state and he does understand the generic law, but he is not familiar enough with this particular Special Act to discuss it at this point. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that this county operates under that Special Act, and all the routine we follow is set out in it. Attorney Sundstrom stated that he has read the Act and he wished to comment that whatever the county does, whatever ordinance they pass, any act of the state Legislature or of the U.S. Congress - all of that is subject to the Constitution of the United States, and what makes our country different than others is that we have a right to defend and protect property. His client has 1.2 million dollars invested in this utility, and it appears to his client that staff is trying to foster upon them a document that constitutes a taking. This may be an unfortunate )JUL 14,1987 49 BOOK 68) FAGS 801 ►JUL 1419 7 BOOK 6 8 Fs Ii c 80 020 document, but they didn't write it, and it says that at the end of 7 years "either the document will become permanent or the county will acquire the system." Reference has been made to a Motion made not to acquire, and now the county want to take, and that is not going to happen. Attorney Sundstrom then reviewed the history of the situa- tion, noting that when Florida Land, the parent corporation of Bent Pine, sold most of the ground that compromises Hawk's Nest development, there was an agreement that property would become part of the Bent Pine service area. County staff was approached about their serving Hawk's Nest, and they said only if you agree in advance to give us your property for no consideration. Chairman Scurlock noted we are not talking about an expan- sion of franchise today; that was not advertised; and Attorney Sundstrom replied that he is talking about a recommendation by county staff that Bent Pine be given an opportunity to come and speak to the Board. He noted that his client does not have "horns and tails" but they have 1.2 million invested in some property, and they are trying to protect it. Attorney Sundstrom continued that his client is not a litig- ious kind of client and they don't like doing this, but they have got themselves in a heck of a mess. The County Commission has been sued for injunction to stop the closing of the bond issue to service Gifford. A declaratory statement action has been filed in Circuit Court to see what their rights and responsibilities are. That's what Chapter 86 is.all about. Apparently, there are some people in this room who seem to believe that his client has some obligation to come to the Commission hat -in -hand and taken whatever is given them, and that is not an act of regulation; that is an act of taking. And the matter is worse than that because the county has said we are going to own and control all the utilities in the county. Many of the counties have done that, and that is fine. Go ahead. We really don't want to be in your way. However, he believed the County is going to spend 50 $150,000 defending the first Division of Administrative hearings; and probably spending another such amount defending the second. The county has just filed a lawsuit against Bent Pine in the St. John's River Water Management District to stop them from building a well which his client says it needs to build in order to provide service to the people at Bent Pine. Now we have Circuit Court litigation going on, and the lawyers are going to make a lot of money, and that's silly. Attorney Sundstrom stressed that Bent Pine is regulated by the DER, regulated by St. John's, regulated by good business practice, and the county should let them serve Hawk's Nest and let them alone. Chairman Scurlock inquired where the Commission has ever denied Bent Pine anything. Attorney Sundstrom stated that his client applied to this Commission through its staff for authority to extend that service area geographically in order to provide service and carry out its contractual conditions with Hawk's Nest - a property right - and his client was advised there was no way that matter would ever get before this Board unless they agreed to accept a franchise that was unacceptable. Chairman Scurlock asked the Commission's Administrative Assistant, Mrs. Forlani, if anyone has ever, for any reason, been denied the opportunity to be placed on the Commission agenda, and Mrs. Forlani confirmed that no one ever has. The Chairman asked Mr. Sundstrom if he had ever talked to Administrator Balczun to appeal Director Pinto's decision or ever asked Mrs. Forlani to go ahead and schedule them for an appear- ance before the full Board of Commissioners. Attorney Sundstrom stated that he was not aware of that ever taking place. Chairman Scurlock asked if Attorney Sundstrom was aware of administrative procedure, and Attorney Sundstrom noted that it is a matter of law that you don't have to proceed and follow a futile effort. ► L 1 . 51 BOOK 68 F-, , O3 BOOK 'JUL 141987 The Chairman again asked if they have sought administrative relief. Attorney Sundstrom stated for the record that Bent Pine right now seeks an extension of the franchise in order to serve Hawk's Nest and asked what the Board wants them to do. Chairman Scurlock noted that is not advertised for today and a public hearing will•,have to be scheduled. Attorney Sundstrom agreed. Attorney Vitunac confirmed that any issue as to geographical expansion is not on the agenda, but Bent Pine may file with Mrs. Forlani-to have that scheduled. He further noted that there is a letter from him to Attorney Sundstrom dated June 4th, as follows: Bill Sundstrom, Esq. Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Dear Bill: June 4, 1987 Re: Extension of Franchise for Bent Pine Utility The Department of Utility Services of Indian River County will hold a public hearing on July 7, 1987, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commissioner Chambers at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to consider the extension of Bent Pine Utilities Co.'s'nonexclusive franchise given originally by Resolution No. 79-111. The new franchise will be basically the same franchise with the following additions or deletions: Section II=I - after the phrase "There is hereby granted 5ythe County to the Corporation" add the words "for a period of'30 years from the date of this agreement"... Section VI - reference to "'Construction Specifica- tions for Water Distribution and Sewage Collection Facilities' promulgated by the City of Vero Beach, Water and Sewer Department, November 1, 1977, or as amended" a shall be changed to "Current County Constructsion Specifications" 52 Section XIV - Under "Escrow Charges" delete all of Paragraph A and the last sentence of Paragraph B and renumber Paragraphs B and C. Section XX - reference to "§125.43, Florida Statutes," sho,,ula-6e—changed to "§125.42, Florida Statutes." Section XX11 - should be deleted and replaced by the fol lowing: FRANCHISE FEE A.: The Utility hereby agrees to pay to the County a franchise fee in the amount of 6% of the Utility's annual gross receipts or operating costs (which includes the rate of return), whichever is greater. If Utility does not have a rate schedule, then it shall pay 6% of its gross operating costs or the sum of $500.00, whichever is greater. The Utility shall pay the 6% franchise fee quarterly. This fee shall be shown as.a separate additional charge on utility bills. B. The Utility shall supply the County with a copy of an annual report in a form prescribed by Indian River County and financial statements. Ali records and all accounting of the Utility shall be in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts of the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners and generally accepted accounting principles. Within 90 days after the close of the fiscal year, the Utility shall submit financial statements prepared by a CPA. Upon demand by the County, the Utility shall submit audited financial statements certified by a CPA and also a letter from a CPA certifying that the 6% franchise fee and any other requested fees have been collected and disbursed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 1 believe these changes are the minimum necessary to put into effect the continuation provisions of Resolution No. 79-111. The County will also hear evidence concerning your compliance to date with the franchise given by Resolution No. 79-111. In particular, there are allegations of deficiencies in your compliance with the 1979 franchise, e.g., your utility has failed to provide annual reports; has failed to set up and maintain a sinking fund for the purposes of repairs (see Paragraph B, Page 11); and has charged rates in excess of those set out in Section XIV, Page.9. Your compliance history will be one of the factors to be considered on your extension request. Sincerely, Charles P. Vitunac County Attorney J U L 14.1987 53 BOOK �� PAGE 805 JUL 14 1987 BOOK Attorney Sundstrom agreed he did receive that letter, and the position of his client is that the operative effect of the 1979 contract was that upon expiration of 7 years the county would either acquire the system pursuant to a pre-set formula in that contract or make the consent permanent. Statues provide that where a private company is ready, willing and able to provide service to an area, the law is biased toward the private company over the county or city, and his client wants to take advantage of that bias. As to the allegations contained in Attorney Vitunac's correspondence re non-compliance, rates charged in excess, etc., that letter says those will be factors to be considered in their extension request, and he can ask his client to respond to those if that is the Board's pleasure. Chairman Scurlock asked if the existing franchise is exclusive or non-exclusive. Attorney Sundstrom claimed that doesn't matter as a matter of law. He believed Florida law provides there shall not be duplication of utility facilities except in particular instances where there is proof of inability to service, etc. Chairman Scurlock wished to know why, if it doesn't matter, you put such things in contracts. Attorney Sundstrom stated that all such contracts are subject to the reserved and implied police power of the state. What seems not to be getting through here is that regulation is classically designed as a substitution for competition. The bias In the law is in favor of competition, and that is why we have the Sherman Anti -Trust Act. Actually for utilities, the best thing is a monopoly, and as a consequence, the law recognizes that monopoly and all he is asserting is that this county's attempt to regulate while at the same time competing is an act of taking. As to charging rates in excess of those set out in the franchise, Attorney Sundstrom agreed that is true. Attorney Sundstrom stated that when Congress adopted the Internal Revenue 54 M s Code of 1986, it, in effect, eliminated the Section of the prior Revenue Code, which provided that receipt of donations to the capital of a utility, whether they be money or property, was a tax free event, and in most situations that tax free event was recognized, as it is seen in the Florida Public Service Commission idea of regulation, as a below -the -line item, i.e., a rate of return was not allowed on the receipt of contributions made in aid of construction. When Congress "grossed up" or eliminated that, Bent Pine took the position that failing to "gross up" connection charges to make up the tax deficiency that would be created otherwise would be a taking, and they put that in a letter to the county. Chairman Scurlock inquired whether they wrote the Commission or staff about this, and Attorney Sundstrom noted that they believed what went to staff would get to the Commission. They can't help it if the staff doesn't tell the Commission what is going on. Attorney Vitunac asked if they ever asked for a public hearing to increase their rates as they just discussed. Attorney Sundstrom stated they did not. They took the position that failure to take that action would be a unilateral rate reduction. He noted that the Florida Public Service Commission passed an order allowing utilities to do it retroactively. Attorney Vitunac asked if they ever got a letter from staff or the Commission stating that if they had applied for a public hearing asking for a rate increase, it would have been denied, and Attorney Sundstrom stated that they were told this by staff member Lisa Abernethy. They do not have it in writing, however. Attorney Vitunac noted that in spite of that comment, they unilaterally raised their rates without a public hearing. Attorney Sundstrom confirmed that they did, and stated it is also true that none of those fees inure to the benefit of the utility - they inure to the benefit of the federal government. JUL 14.1981 55 BOOK D FA;c 891 JUL 141987 BOOK l" r,;, t ljs He then introduced Gerald Chancellor, Vice President/Manager of Bent Pine Utility Company, and an officer in Florida Land, which owns 1000 of Bent Pine Utility, to answer to the charges in regard to failing to provide annual reports. Mr. Chancellor commented that staff's memo refers to a request made in 1984 for an annual report. That year staff provided the report form, and at that time he was still with Florida Land, and he believed he wrote to staff that they would file. Shortly after that he left the employ of Florida Land and Bent Pine Utility and did not rejoin them until July 1st of this year. During that time unfortunately, the people who were handling the accounting, etc., did not respond to the annual report. He stated that they do, however, maintain their books and records in accordance with NAARUC chart of accounts. Attorney Vitunac asked if they are presently working on complying with the county's annual report form. Mr. Chancellor noted that staff references a letter of March, 1986 requesting the report for 1985, and until he walked in here, he never had any knowledge this was sent. He can question the people at the company in this regard. In 1987, to his knowledge, he has never received a letter from the county or an annual report form, and he believed the form has been revised. He noted that he is also a representative of Florida Land in its interest in North Beach Water Company, and the first time he saw the new annual report form was earlier this year when a request was made to that company. To his knowledge, he believed it is the first year North Beach ever furnished an annual report. He noted that he is saying that they stand prepared to provide the county the report once they receive the form from the county. Attorney Vitunac inquired about insurance, and'Mr. Chancellor stated that the last time he can recall furnishing an insurance certificate was in late 184 or 185, which did name the county as an additional insured. He was not aware of the March 56 26th letter or the request for a new certificate of insurance. Attorney Vitunac asked if Mr. Chancellor is saying that when he left the company, the company was derelict in meeting its responsibilities, and Mr. Chancellor stated he was not. Attorney Vitunac asked if someone was hired to replace Mr. Chancellor when he left and if he turned over his books and records, and he said no. He was retained on a retainer basis as needed for the utility operations, and he had no books and records of the company. They have their own books. Attorney Vitunac then asked what steps he did take to see the franchise was complied with after he left. Mr. Chancellor_ stated that he did discuss this with the staff in house, and Attorney Vitunac inquired about the particular staff. Attorney Sundstrom interjected that the question was whether there was insurance or not, and he did not want to get into other details. Mr. Chancellor confirmed that they do have the insurance; although, he does not have the certificate with him today. Attorney Vitunac then asked if Mr. Chancellor was in charge of creating a sinking fund as required by the franchise. Mr. Chancellor noted that the franchise contains language that appears to require a sinking fund. However, he did not believe in seven years they have been operating there has ever been an instance when the company has failed to perform as needed, to make repairs, do necessary maintenance, etc., and the utility company itself is supported financially by the parent company. Attorney Vitunac asked if they have a $30,000 sinking fund right now, and Mr. Chancellor stated no. Attorney Vitunac felt if they ever did have one, Mr. Chancellor would have known about it, and apparently he does not know about one. He asked if they ever got anything in writing exempting them from this requirement. UL 57 BOOK SSS JUL 1419G7 BOOK Mr. Chancellor stated they did not, and they also never got a letter advising them of any deficiency whatsoever in the past seven years until this last week. Attorney Vitunac asked if they have any plans of providing such a sinking fund if the franchise is extended. Mr. Chancellor did not know what the county is really intending to give them since he has not seen a document purporting to be the new proposed Bent Pine franchise other than the recommendations which he just saw this morning. Attorney Vitunac wished to know, if, in fact, the Board extended the exact same franchise they are already operating under, would Bent Pine then be prepared to furnish a $30,000 sinking fund. Attorney Sundstrom stated that he was not sure he would be advising his client to sign the same franchise as that might be construed as giving away $800,000 worth of pipe that they own today, and they are going to Circuit Court because they are in doubt about their rights and obligations and want the court to construe them. He, therefore, felt he would be derelict if he advised his client to sign the same document-, which, in effect, would be a taking. Attorney Vitunac felt Attorney Sundstrom had said at the beginning that there were two options - 1) for the county to buy them out or 2) for the franchise to become permanent. Attorney Sundstrom commented that, as Mr. Scurlock apparently felt earlier, the language is somewhat ambiguous. Obviously he feels the word permanent is "permanent," and the County's action to fail to exercise an option to acquire amounted to a statement to Bent Pine that all the restrictions contained in the old franchise are "bye-bye." Attorney Vitunac wished clarification as to what Attorney Sundstrom is saying. Is he saying they are not going along with the statement of the original two options and they would not take this.franchise if we extended it as they requested? 58 M M Attorney Sundstrom advised that he is saying that he has not really formulated his recommendation to his client, and that is why they have asked the Circuit Court for guidance. Commissioner Bird noted that we have a wastewater project that is badly needed in our county that is being delayed and we don't need to be spending thousands of dollars in court. He wished to know if there is some way that we can get together between Attorney Sundstrom and his client and the county and our staff and resolve these differences where they are suing and we are counter -suing. Possibly this is an oversimplification of a complex matter, but he wished to know if Attorney Sundstrom could come to the county with a document saying this is what they think should happen. Is there some room for negotiation? Attorney Sundstrom stated that the answer is emphatically yes. His client does not want to be here. Florida Land's position is that it simply wants to do what is in its best business interests and carry out its obligation to its investors. They do not want to be in the middle of a scrimmage that is going out of control. want. Commissioner Eggert asked exactly what Florida Land does Attorney Sundstrom stated they either want to be left alone to provide service to Hawk's Nest and carry on their utility business or recover their mortgage and get out. Florida Land is involved in hundreds of million dollar deals around the state, and it really can't support all the expenses involved with fighting this, i.e., lawyers, hydrologists, etc. They would like to end this. Attorney Vitunac commented that they say they want to be left alone. He would assume that they want a franchise to continue operating their utility in this county. Attorney Sundstrom did not believe they need it. Attorney Vitunac stressed that he needed to know precisely JUL 1 .i9�7 59 BOOK 811 JUL 14-1987, Boor �E what action they want from this Board. Are they asking for an extension of their old franchise or not? Attorney Sundstrom stated they have never requested it. They are here because they were asked to be here and address this Board, and they are grateful for the opportunity to do so. Commissioner Eggert wished to know what is "left alone" - does it mean continued non-compliance with the current franchise, and they are out there with nothing? Attorney Sundstrom reiterated that he was not sure they need a franchise and did not believe they have one. He felt all parties agree that none exists today. Commissioner Bird asked Director Pinto if they were to comply with the old franchise, is that something we could live with and allow them to continue to operate. Director Pinto believed staff has made a recommendation based on what they feel the needs of the county are to protect the interests of the people they are serving. He did not quite understand Attorney Sundstrom saying they want to be unregulated or they don't need a franchise. Mr. Pinto believed they have to be regulated under the Special Act for this county to regulate franchises. Commissioner Wheeler believed what he is.hearing is that Bent Pine actually needs a franchise and they are going to go to court to determine if they need one or not. He is trying to understand, but he could not foresee any settlement if they do not want a franchise and we are not willing to have a utility without a franchise. Attorney Sundstrom explained that they are in doubt, and if this Board would meet with his client in a non -emotion charged atmosphere and work out how they can live together, they are willing to do that, but not if staff's position is that "we are going to get this system for nothing." Attorney Vitunac emphasized that we are here today to extend the franchise under the same conditions.they have had for seven Y 60 years. There has been no talk of "taking" the system. He believed we are prepared to give Bent Pine the new franchise today and wished to know if they will operate according to the franchise after that and live up to the terms of the '79 franchise by September of 1987. Attorney Sundstrom felt in all fairness his client needs to talk to its various consultants and determine what is in their best interests. One of the provisions of the franchise was a condition that kind of said if the county wanted to acquire at the end of the term, it could and not have to pay for the fair market value of all the pipes in the ground and certain related appurtenances. He believed that provision is now out the window and accepting the franchise could represent giving away $600- $800,000 worth of pipes which might not be too smart. Attorney Vitunac asked if Attorney Sundstrom believed the company is under an obligation to accept the 179 franchise. Attorney Sundstrom did not know. Commissioner Bird again stressed that he liked the "roll up the sleeves and get down to the basics" approach. This is a monster that is growing daily; he would like to see the situation diffused and felt we should allow some time to table the matter. Commissioner Wheeler was not in favor of tabling. He noted that we keep hearing from their counsel that they do not know that we have the ability to have a franchise, and he felt that is something that can only be answered in court. Attorney Sundstrom felt Commissioner Bird's comment is well taken. Here we have two tough protagonists, and (are stalemated) unless we can roll up sleeves and work for everyone's best interests. He felt actually the ultimate mutual best interest probably is for Florida Land to save face and leave Indian River County with good grace, but he felt even if they went in that way, there would be further fights. Commissioner Bird continued to urge working together to come L ,14 198 61 soon � �acr 81 'JUL 141997 BOOKS up with a reasonable solution. Possibly Florida Land can give us a figure we can live with. Attorney Sundstrom felt that was a positive note. He noted that the company did send a letter to the county indicating if the county elected purchase, what the price would be; they then received a letter saying the county declined that offer. There was never a roll -up -the -sleeves discussion - just two pieces of paper back and forth. Lawsuits have been filed back and forth and this is getting out of control. He advised that Florida Land speaking for Bent Pine Utility Co. has instructed him that if at any time the county is willing to talk and there is a way out that is mutually fair and acceptable, they will take it. Attorney Vitunac at this point raised a point about impact fees that were returned to Bent Pine Utilities and asked whether Bent Pine returned those monies to the customers. Attorney Sundstrom did not know, and felt that Attorney Vitunac should counsel the Board and he should counsel his client that these proceedings have gone about as far as they should go. Attorney Vitunac advised that he had one more question he has to ask because it relates to quality of service and in turn to the people who drink the water. complaints about the water. It seems we have a history of Attorney Sundstrom stated that one of the wells has a periodic high iron count, and a permit has been filed with the District to dig another well to clear up that problem. Attorney Vitunac asked if they have had letters of complaint. Mr. Chancellor stated that they had not received any written complaints or verbal complaints to his knowledge until the last two months, and now they have received two complaints re yellow water. They have the system under the care of a contract operation service from Fort Pierce and have given them instruc- tions to do whatever is necessary. Their consultants are saying they -should put in another well. 62 Attorney Vitunac asked if they have responded to the com- plaints, and Mr. Chancellor advised they have had people go out in the field and investigate them. Attorney Vitunac then asked about fire flow, and Mr. Chancellor believed it is whatever it was supposed to be. Attorney Vitunac asked if there has been a transfer of stock, and Mr. Chancellor said there has not. Attorney Vitunac asked staff if there have been any other letters of complaint, and Franchise Manager Abernethy reported that we have had one letter from the Home Owners Association. Attorney Vitunac, as a final closing remark, stated that he felt it is important for the record to show that this county is ready, willing and able to pass an order extending or modifying or issuing a new franchise to that utility today as we think we are required to do under the 179 Resolution, but the people who we thought wanted that action taken are saying today that they are not even sure they want a franchise and would prefer to be unregulated. He felt it is incumbent on the County to issue them some franchise anyway or put them out of business - they do not have the option of operating without regulation from this county. Attorney Bird was still in favor of keeping the olive branch out and tabling to give them an opportunity to meet with their principals and come back to the Commission as quickly as possible. Commissioner Eggert was confused as to what good their response would do. Attorney Vitunac believed the Board has to make the first step and say here is your new franchise, and then in September 1987, if they have not complied, revoke their entire operating permit at that time. Attorney Eggert stated that she would like to formally request that this be what they should consider as the franchise, and she would be happy to move the staff recommendation. It was pointed out that the public hearing is not over. JUL 14198 s3 BOOK MAUL 141997 BOOK 68fr�'J i. 816 Chairman Scurlock asked Director Pinto when the Commission directed him to write the letter saying we were not going to exercise the option to purchase, what the purchase price was upon which the decision was based. Attorney Sundstrom stated it was about $580,000, and that was confirmed by Director Pinto. Chairman Scurlock asked Director Pinto on what he based his decision the price was too much. Director Pinto advised that if the County made the purchase at that time for that amount of money, it would be detrimental to the other customers within the county system as that utility will not support itself and will not support itself in the near future. Staff, therefore, felt it would not be a cost effective I thing to do to the customers within the system. The other factor is that the facilities that are presently there for treatment have no value to Indian River County Utilities. We would be faced with eliminating those facilities and connecting them into our regional system. Director Pinto continued that Bent Pine supplied information based on the value of their system, and possibly it is a true value, but we could not afford to purchase the system under those conditions. Director Pinto then wished to comment on.the letter informing us Bent Pine was going to increase their rates. He emphasized that at no time has staff told them or anyone else what the Board may do regarding a request for an increase in rates. What was said was that we objected to them increasing rates without going -through a public hearing process, and we still do, and under the Special Act, by which we are regulated, that is a violation of law. Staff did not look at the rates at all as to whether they would or would not recommend them. In regard to filing the annual report, Director Pinto pointed out that much of the compliance we are talking about is based on what we read in that report; so, the failure to file the report leaves us in the dark as to how that utility is operating. 64 M M M He noted that we had the exact same problem with North Beach Water Company, possibly because it is the same people. Chairman Scurlock asked if Director Pinto ever indicated to the Bent Pine people that the final decision is made at staff level and there is no appeal process. Director Pinto stated that it is staff policy to make sure everyone understands that they are only a rung in the ladder, and the applicant or franchisee has the ability to object to their recommendation. He advised that he told them that he would not recommend the county purchase the system, and then it goes to the Board. Chairman Scurlock asked if any Commissioner has ever dictated to Director Pinto a specific action that he had to take, and Director Pinto said absolutely not. He then asked the Board for clarification as to where they want staff to go from this point on. Chairman Scurlock felt the mood of the Commission is to move on to give Bent Pine a franchise and a period of time to come into compliance, and also Commissioner Bird is suggesting that Mr. Sundstrom go back to Florida Land and come back to the Commission with a purchase price or an outline of those items that would satisfy Bent Pine Utility. Commissioner Bird agreed he would like to see such an out- line, but Commissioner Eggert noted that what she hears Attorney Vitunac saying is that because we are required to regulate, we are required to pass this recommendation or something similar to it; so, she is still waiting for the public hearing to close so a Motion can be made. Attorney Vitunac noted that the Board has the option of postponing this hearing or continuing it to a time certain if they want to give them time to come back, but at some time the Board has to make an Order based on this franchise requirement. Commissioner Bird stressed his desire to leave the lines of communication open and get their response before we mandate 65 800 JUL'� 1 �� . 037� f'�q.,r �� J U L 1 4� 198T BOOK 68, f,", 81jV anything, but Commissioner Eggert noted that it is her under- standing their response is that they don't need to be franchised. Commissioner Bowman believed that was what she was hearing also. She noted that the franchise is for protection of the consumer, and she could not see how anyone can operate a public utility without a franchise. Commissioner Wheeler agreed and felt all we can do is offer them a franchise. They have the deadline for compliance, and they can either negotiate a sale price or come to the determina- tion of whether they think they need a franchise or not. Director Pinto noted that the only reason we would even discuss the sale price is because it is part of the franchise. The other thing to be considered is that we have a specific request from a customer that challenges the charges that were made to him based on the connection fee, and we have the obligation to protect that man's interest and say whether or not that utility has the right to charge the new rate structure they came up with. Staff's position, which has been related to the utility, is that a public hearing re a rate increase must be held and the Board must make a decision on it, and this has not been done. The Chairman determined that no one further wished to be heard and thereupon declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation as set out in memo of Franchise Manager Abernethy dated June 29, 1987. Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that staff will draft a formal Resolution which will be the new franchise and put it on the agenda, and Bent Pine Utility must either live up to it or we terminate it. (RESOLUTICN 66-A, per staff reccamendation approved above, WAS - RME= AND PUT ON FILE IN CFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.) 66 M M AGRI-SERV, INC. - RE SLUDGE DISPOSAL (Added Item) John Willis, of Agri-Serv, Inc., came before the Board to discuss the proposal set out in his letter, as follows: We have developed a plan jot this jaciti.ty and thi-s p.t'an has been xev. ewed and drawn by a competent engineering 4 irm. We have further presented the proposat to the Department o6 Fnv.inomentat Regueat.ion and they q.iven tenattve. approvat. It has further been discussed with couft4 zohing. The ptant watt be constructed totaP,t'y with 6 inane ing by the devetop.ing company. There wilt be no cost to on tuponsib.itity on the pant oA Indian Rtvex County and/or its taxpayers. The company Witt $uhther expect to bean att coat oA permt.tt.ing and/or quat i. y.ing nequ.ined by at't govermentat bodt.0 on agencies. An operaVona.t cast projection ha -6 been developed and thoroughty .studied. Thi -6 study proves the Seas.ib.i.ei.ty of the pro�eet and e-stabtishu a ba�s.ie .in.itia.t' cost that w.itt be roughty $35.00 for each one thou-6and gat'.-t'.on s og mater.iat placed .in the treatment Jac..itity. This co -6t is the Iotat cast to the user .inetud.ing both treatment and animate d.isposat o� the treated product. The fee proposed i.6 more than 30% .less than the cast eu4Aentty being paid by the �sept.ic hauter s . Our company hays been .in the buz inesz of hauUng .6tu.dge and appty.ing the same to citru6 groves gon more than eight years. We have developed many innovations .in th.iz bu�s.ine z to better use the mate &t with both a .t?oweA cost to the genereator and with .les s .impact to the. enviAon&eftt. We Deet that our propozat warrants 6er.iou6 eon-s.iderat.ion by your eomm.iuton. Pteue tet ups know what further .inSotmat.ion .shoutd be provided bon your eonz ideration. It witt be our ptea-sune to promptty respond with whatever t6 needed on requested. *nc WILLIS 67 AGRI-SERV INC. `\ MW am 8'titEE'P. B.W. \ VM BEACH, MRM& 32982 308-882-2112 Jut y 1, 1987 DISTRIBUTION LIST 3A,5 6 7 Commissioners 2 4 9�p� Administrator wol Don C. Scu tock, JA. Chairman JUL 1987 j Attorney Personnel Board o� County Comm-izz ionerA o R ye w _— Public Works - Indian River County r afto ew County Adm.in� ztration Wtding COAMISsIoNM — Community uev. Vero Beach, FL 32960 ti Utilities Finance Other Decvc Sir Our company .i.6.intehe�sted .in constructing a time .stabti.-izat.ion plant .in on near Indian R.ivex County. The purpose ob tht.z plant witt be to provide a proper and 1egR method of di.6posat o4 6eptage. The 6eptage .ins generated by va&. ou6 companies .in this county who pump out septic tank.6. We have developed a plan jot this jaciti.ty and thi-s p.t'an has been xev. ewed and drawn by a competent engineering 4 irm. We have further presented the proposat to the Department o6 Fnv.inomentat Regueat.ion and they q.iven tenattve. approvat. It has further been discussed with couft4 zohing. The ptant watt be constructed totaP,t'y with 6 inane ing by the devetop.ing company. There wilt be no cost to on tuponsib.itity on the pant oA Indian Rtvex County and/or its taxpayers. The company Witt $uhther expect to bean att coat oA permt.tt.ing and/or quat i. y.ing nequ.ined by at't govermentat bodt.0 on agencies. An operaVona.t cast projection ha -6 been developed and thoroughty .studied. Thi -6 study proves the Seas.ib.i.ei.ty of the pro�eet and e-stabtishu a ba�s.ie .in.itia.t' cost that w.itt be roughty $35.00 for each one thou-6and gat'.-t'.on s og mater.iat placed .in the treatment Jac..itity. This co -6t is the Iotat cast to the user .inetud.ing both treatment and animate d.isposat o� the treated product. The fee proposed i.6 more than 30% .less than the cast eu4Aentty being paid by the �sept.ic hauter s . Our company hays been .in the buz inesz of hauUng .6tu.dge and appty.ing the same to citru6 groves gon more than eight years. We have developed many innovations .in th.iz bu�s.ine z to better use the mate &t with both a .t?oweA cost to the genereator and with .les s .impact to the. enviAon&eftt. We Deet that our propozat warrants 6er.iou6 eon-s.iderat.ion by your eomm.iuton. Pteue tet ups know what further .inSotmat.ion .shoutd be provided bon your eonz ideration. It witt be our ptea-sune to promptty respond with whatever t6 needed on requested. *nc WILLIS 67 JUL 14.1987 BOOK 68 F',MGE 82G Chairman Scurlock noted that this is an emergency item simply because he wanted to get some things cleared up because he felt there was a lot of misinformation in terms of what contracts we do or don't have for sludge hauling and how we bid or do not bid. The fact is that we have not awarded a bid or two year contract to anyone for sludge hauling, and he believed he had cleared some of these allegations up in a telephone conversation with Mr. Willis. Mr. Willis emphasized that the purpose of coming before the Board this morning is to address the issue of the need for a lime stabilization facility to serve the county, and it has nothing to do with his inquiries - not allegations - re contracts and bidding. The Chairman did respond to his inquiries, and he believed that has been resolved. He now would like to find out what the Commission would like to know about their suggestion re a solution to the county's septage problem. Commissioner Eggert wished to know if staff has seen any of Agri-Serv's plans or proposal, and Mr. Willis advised that the plan has been drawn by an environmental engineering firm in Winter Haven but he has not presented that. They did approach the Utility Department some time ago as to whether or not this might be allowed, and the possibility of a franchise was suggested. They did not pursue it further at the time, because they had and still have as much as they really want to do, but this is something they would like to do to help solve a local problem. Mr. Willis continued that lime stabilization is one of the processes approved by the DER as a method whereby septage may be converted to a product that can be handled in the same manner as sludge and disposed of subject to the same permitting require- ments and regulations. They are proposing to build an acceptable DER approved lime stabilization facility to serve the septage pump -out people and haulers in the county at a fee that they and the haulers agree is reasonable. 68 They.believe this facility can be constructed in the private sector and operated more efficiently that what is being considered by other governmental bodies. Mr. Willis stated that he had understood the purpose of this meeting this morning was aimed toward determining whether the County Commission and any of their departments were inter- ested in -doing business with the private sector or whether they wanted to retain this within their own bailiwick. Commissioner Eggert stated that she would be very inter- ested in knowing the possibilities of this proposal, but felt we need to refer it to staff for analysis. ON MOTION by -.Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed staff to work with Agri-Serv, Inc., to analyze their proposal and plan and bring back a recommendation for the Board to evaluate. Mr. Willis explained that the only reason he requested this as an emergency situation is that the DER put the county on notice on the 6th of March this year that they were not going to renew their permit. The county is now at a point where in approximately 60 days there will no longer be a place in Indian River, St. Lucie or Okeechobee Counties, for the people who pump out the septic tanks to take the waste. Mr. Willis felt this is an emergency, and believed they can cure the problem according to the DER and Health Department standards within 60 days, but they can't do it if they have to spend 58 days going through red tape. Commissioner Bird asked if the Board can have a recommenda- tion back from staff next week. Director Pinto stated that staff can look at it right away, but the Department of Health has the authority in this area. Only because it says sewerage or septage are we involved in it. Acting Health Director Michael Galanis confirmed that Environmental Health is the permitting agency and would have to 69 BOOK J U L 14 1987 F'JrUL 1410-87 BOOK i8 f IL 822 approve the plans, and he will take responsibility for some of the delay. Actually the problem relates in some degree, 'to the county's future plans to build a septage holding facility. We do have a problem beginning September 30th in that there then will be no place to dump this material and it will get dumped; so, we do need to act with all due speed. Mr. Galanis continued that he does support the concept, and what Mr. Willis proposes to do is legal and is usually approved by DER, and it allows you to treat a product and sell a product that heretofore we have been dumping in a pit at the Landfill. Mr. Galanis stated that he wants to be involved heavily in.the formation of this, and he would be willing to get about it immediately. A gentleman in the audience wished to go on record that Reliable Service is interested in this same type system, and another gentleman indicated that Florida Sludge, Inc., is also interested. Mr. Galanis advised that he will meet with all three, and all three could go in this operation, but he felt they have a concern about the county's future plans in that they do not want to invest a considerable amount of capital in a plant and then be regulated out of business by the county. Director Pinto noted that this is a very serious matter which has been kicking around for a long time, and we hired a _ consultant to do a very elaborate septage and grease feasibility management study because we are talking about ultimately 3 to 4 six million gpd treatment plants necessary to dispose of sludge. Sludge and septage treatment can be done together; so we have looked at them together, and we have also looked at servicing every other treatment plant, including the City of Vero Beach, for long term permanent sludge disposal. Commissioner Eggert believed that so far we have not considered anyone but the County to do this, and Mr. Galanis pointed out that the period between September 30th and when the county is ready to do this is an important period. 70 Commissioner Bird believed we have always encouraged private enterprise in the county, and he would encourage them to make their proposals to be evaluated. DISCUSSION PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PROGRAM Commissioner Eggert reviewed the following: TO: Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Board of County Commissioners FROM: Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert . -4A DATE: July 10, 1987 SUBJECT: Primary Health Care Program, Mandated by House Bill 1384 Effective July 1, 1987, the Indigent/Primary Health Care Act, House Bill 1384, became law. In pertinent part, H.B. 1384 (a) requires each county to establish a primary health care program, (b) permits each county to establish a primary care service panel to review and make recommendations concerning the primary care program, and (c) permits each county to establish a dependent or independent indigent health care district to provide indigent health care in the county. Taxing authority, not to exceed 5 mills and subject to referendum, is available to an independent indigent health care district. In anticipation of such legislation, the staff of the Indian River County Health Department has been working to develop a community based primary care program, which requires additional facilities and personnel. The staff proposes to fund this mandated program through revenues, state and - federal funding, and local funding. Staff projects a first year local funding requirement of $168,000; and, the staff proposes that these local funds be provided 50% by the County and 50% by the Indian River County Hospital District. The staff believes that the following steps will be necessary to establish the funding "partnership" with the Hospital District, and to place the County in a position to seek additional state and federal funding: (1) A proposed primary care program should be developed by the staff of the Indian River County Health Department; (2) The County should establish a primary care service panel, with representation on said panel by members of the Indian River County Hospital District; or, alternatively, the County and the Hospitai District should establish a joint committee. The panel or committee, as the case may be, should then review and approve a primary care program, and thereafter make recommendations concerning the operation of the program; )JUL 1 . W " BOOS. os Fact JUL 141987 BOOK 6 8 F-,� ccj,. 8 20 4 (3) The County and the Hospital District should provide funding of $84,000 apiece for the 1987/88 fiscal year; and (4). Based upon the above funding "partnership" between the County and Hospital District, the County should elect not to establish a dependent or independent indigent health care district, as permitted by H.B. 1384. Based on the time constraints of the current budget process, and the time required to implement 1 through 4 above, it is requested that the Board of County Commissioners and the Indian River County Hospital District include these funds in their 1987/88 budgets, and direct their respective staffs to proceed toward implementation of the mandated primary health care program as set forth above. The Indian River County Hospital District will consider this matter at its July 23, 1987 monthly meeting. Commissioner Eggert noted that the state has said we will do more in Primary Care, and since this is being required, she wished to know what avenue the Board felt we should take to accomplish that. Acting Health Director Galanis reported that the Health Department has been looking into this for some time as they had some indication that it eventually would be required. They have been doing some primary care, but they aren't funded for this activity and it gets to be pretty expensive. The major problem was lack of facilities - the Health Department was originally built providing for about 10 employees, and they now have over 40. Dr. Tucker's death set them back for some time, but they did go ahead and made a proposal for Primary Care in which they proposed a partnership consisting of the Board of County Commissioners, the County Health Department, HRS, and the Hospital Taxing District, which they felt would be a good use of all resources available. They had committee meetings and drew up a plan which they felt would give them a unique opportunity to combine the forces and abilities of the four different groups and put them all together in one package that would cover indigent care, as well as people who need health care on a sliding fee schedule, and fund it from the various sources. He has gone to - the Hospital District informally with this, but because of the 72 M enactment of recent legislation, some questions have arisen that they want answered by the County Commission. Commissioner Eggert noted that her recommendation is that we go ahead as set out in her memo, work with the Hospital District jointly and not have an independent indigent health care district. Mr. Galanis has said he will be able to put a Primary Care program together in about two weeks. Mr. Galanis agreed he can put the program together, but noted that it is the concept we need to decide on. He noted they will be pursuing further funds through the grant process and have a very high priority for this. He believed if we are in operation with a plan, we will have an even higher priority. Commissioner Eggert noted there was discussion re the loca- tion of a main clinic or possibly individual clinics, etc., and the suggestion is that we start out with a rental set up. Chairman Scurlock noted that is why he felt it was important not to move ahead too fast with the Health Building. Commissioner Wheeler commented that he saw a figure showing about $172 per visit to the Hospital emergency room, and his understanding is that this will eliminate a lot of emergency room calls. He asked what the projected savings might be by going with the Primary Care project. Mr. Galanis stated that they do not have any hard fast figures, but a concept that will work in the sense that primary care at a clinic is more cost effect. This already has been proven with the nurse/mid-wife plan. Chairman Scurlock inquired if Mr. Galanis felt the cost of going to a primary care facility as opposed to the emergency room might be something less than half, and he felt it easily could be. Commissioner Bird asked if the Health Building we planned included this type of facility, and Mr. Galanis advised that the initial phase did not include primary care. 73 BOOS JUL 14 1987 1� BOOK C� 82,6 Question arose as to where this might be set up and Mr. Galanis felt that Hospital, Inc., has an option to purchase a building that they could lease back to him as part of the operation. That is the way they are proceeding now. but if that fails, they will find some space. He stated that the Hospital Board has not voted to fund this yet, but it is in their budget. Alan Polackwich, legal counsel to the Hospital District, informed the Board that Mr. Galanis has been discussing a Primary Care program with them for some time, and it was always presented to the District as a shared funding situation, to be funded in part from revenues, in part from state funds, in part from federal funds, and then there would be a shortfall which would be shared between the County Commission and the Hospital District. He believed the Hospital Trustees felt this was a good idea, but they were concerned about the option the County Commission now has under the new legislation to create a special taxing district dealing with indigent care. Secondly, the Trustees wanted to make sure if they were going to fund the program in part, they would have some representative on either the panel or a joint committee which watched.the overall operation of the program. This same matter before the Board today will come before the District Trustees a week from Thursday. Commissioner Eggert noted that the Program is mandated and felt we have no alternative but to move ahead. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously agreed that the Primary Care Program should be developed; that we estab- lish a Primary Care Service Panel with the alternative that this be Hospital District and County shared; that the County and the Hospital District each provide $84,000 apiece for this program in the 1987/88 FY; and that we will not have an independent or dependent health care district. >_ 74 DISCUSSION RE OPERATION OF SEBASTIAN INLET STATE PARK The Board reviewed memo from Administrator Baiczun: Board of County Commissioners t;es Finance --her FROM: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator DATE: July 2, 1987 RE: SEBASTIAN INLET STATE PARK -PROPOSAL TO ACQUIRE/ OPERATE Attached you will find a report prepared by David C. Nearing of the Planning Department with respect to operating revenues and expenses of the Indian River County portion of Sebastian Inlet State Park. As you will note, that portion of the park currently operates at an annual deficit of approximately $165,875. While we have not performed an analysis of costs which would arise from acquisition or operation by Indian River County based on relative wage rates of personnel, more/less park staffing, overhead and other expenses it seems likely that we would suffer similar net losses. In the event Indian River County elected to acquire or operate the park, it would be necessary for us to fund the operation so as to 'break even' at a minimum. Other than underwriting net costs with ad valorem taxes, several alternatives are available for your consideration: Entrance Fees Daily Annual .. Increase in use fees . Daily camp fees State Financial support during transition period. Several alternatives are available such as agreement whereby the state would cover our losses fully in the first year, two thirds in the second year and one third in the third year. Please note that this information should be considered as a starting point for our discussion. 75 JUL 14.1987 BOOK bs r'AUr SZ�! UL 14 T�,7 BOOK 68f r?U In the event you wish to seriously pursue this matter, substantial additional data must be researched. Some of this data includes costs attributable to the park allocated/underwritten directly or indirectly to other state agencies or funds, the true potential net impact on our long-term financial health, and, our ability as an organization to effectively manage the park and successfully integrate it into our system. It is my opinion that your decision as to whether we should proceed to further analyze this proposal should be based solely on whether we fully intend to develop new or increase existing revenue sources at the park to insure that the operation at least 'breaks even' and hopefully becomes profitable. It does not appear that we would be able to achieve such a financial objective(s) unless you develop new or enhance existing park revenue sources. Chairman Scurlock advised that we have received another letter requesting we take a position re the park. On August 4th there will be another Cabinet meeting, and he believed Attorney Barkett will be going to Tallahassee, as well as Commissioner Bird, in regard to acquisition of the Howell -Chapman property. Commissioner Wheeler wished to add that the beach restora- tion of the North Beach area is a responsibility of the state because of their property up there. They haven't spelled out how they were going to handle it, but have accepted the responsi- bility for costs of a feeder beach, and we are looking at a potential 5 million plus for that situation. He felt this must be considered along with the other costs. Commissioner Bird stated that he personally felt that as long as the state continues to operate, improve and maintain that facility consistent with the way they have over the past years, they should continue to operate it. It is a state park; it has been operating fine under their supervision; and the improvements they have made have been outstanding. Commissioner Bird did not see any point in disrupting that, and he did not think we can 76 afford to take over the park, in any event, based on the financial figures we have seen. Chairman Scurlock asked about fee structure, and Commis- sioner Bird noted that the state asked us at one time to take a position on fees on the north side of the inlet, but they haven't asked about fees on the south side so far. Chairman Scurlock noted that they are generating fees through the campgrounds. Commissioner Bird felt it is obvious that if we take the park over, we would have to charge fees; so, he did not see how we can tell them not to charge fees on the north side when he knew full well if we were operating the south side we would have to charge fees. Chairman Scurlock felt what he is saying is to take no position as far as the fees on the north side are concerned and convey to them that we wish the state to continue to operate the park as they have in the past. MOTION WAS MADE By Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to compliment the state on the way they have operated the park in the past and ask them to continue to operate it. Commissioner Eggert felt to split that park in two and have one county run half of it and another county run the other half would present endless problems. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER EFFLUENT DISPOSAL SYSTEM Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following: 77 �lL ii i BOOK 606 F. ,k "o JUL 14,1987 BOOK c =' TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI S 0RS DATE: JULY 2, 1987 THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO )AES DIRECTOR OF UTIL TY FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE ENGINEERING OPERATIONS MANAGER DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER EFFLUENT DISPOSAL SYSTEM BACKGROUND Attached for your review is a proposal by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM) for the engineering study and design of an effluent disposal system for the County's West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WRWWTP). The proposal was prepared in accordance with the existing agreement with (CDM), who acts as the County's engineering consultant for wastewater and solid waste. The proposal includes a scope of work, project labor break down, and project budget for Phase I - hydrogeologic study, and Phase II - design activities for the construction of an effluent disposal system for the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. ANALYSIS Phase I of the existing WRWWTP, consisting of a treatment facility for 1 million gallons per day (MGD) is limited by the original effluent disposal capacity of the 0.33 MGD, per the original Department of Environmental Regulation construction permit. With the rapid growth along the State Route 60 corridor, the Division of Utility Services has already initiated design of Phase II of the WRWWTP facility, to increase the plant capacity to a total of 2 -MGD. The urgent need to expand the effluent disposal capacity is obvious. Cost for the proposal by CDM is as follows: Phase I - Hydrogeologic study $28,000 Phase II - Effluent Disposal System Design $49,000 Total $77,000 The resulting effluent disposal system will facilitate disposal of 2 MGD of effluent on an average annual flow basis. Funding of the effluent disposal Utility impact fee fund. RECOMMENDATION project will be provided by the The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioner's approve the subject proposal by Camp Dresser and McKee, totaling $77,000 by executing the attached work authorization. Director Pinto noted that the plant was built with limited capacity in its percolation ponds, and we are looking in the area for land to get further capacity for effluent disposal; there is more than enough area there to build whatever treatment facility we need. The Board has already approved expansion of the treat- ment plant itself, and we are looking at two pieces of property - 78 one for possible purchase - another for possible effluent disposal agreement with the owners - but before we can draw any conclusions, we need rather sophisticated hydro -geological studies done. That would be the first Phase of the project, which is $28,000, which would tell us how much, if any, the land can take. In Phase II, if the land can handle that amount of effluent, we would then design a system to distribute the effluent. Commissioner Bowman asked if the study is mostly test boring, and Director Pinto stated it is, and they have to set up some test wells to determine direction -of the underground flow. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Work Authorization #8a with Camp, Dresser & McKee for hydrogeologic study and report services in the amount of $28,000 and Work Authorization #8b, also with Camp, Dresser & McKee for effluent disposal system design in the amount of $49,000. JUL 14- 1987 79 BOOK 68.Ft,cc IPJ a JUL 14�2� 1 BOOK _h� °;; t� WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 8a PROJECT: WEST REGIONAL EFFLUENT DISPOSAL - HYDROGEOLOGICAL This Work Authorization is provided sional Services by and between Indian Dresser & McKee Inc., approved by the June 5, 1985. for in the Agreement for Profes- River County, Florida, and Camp, Board of County Commissioners on Work Authorization No. 8a provides for study and report services in accordance with Article 3 as more specifically described in the attached Scope of Work. Payment for such services shall be in accordance with Articles 8a and 8d with an upper limit budget amount of $28,000. In accordance with Article lc, details of the budget are provided in the attached Project Budget. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS hob. G Don G. Scurlo", Jr. Chairman 14th day of July CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. Donald G. Munksgaard Vice President 1987 day of 1987 WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 8b PROJECT: WEST REGIONAL EFFLUENT DISPOSAL - DESIGN This Work Authorization is provided for in the Agreement for Profes- sional Services by and between Indian River County, Florida, and Camp, Dresser & McKee Inc., approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 5, 1985. Work Authorization No. 8B provides for design services in accordance with Article 3 as more specifically described in the attached Scope of Work. Payment for such services shall be in accordance with Articles 8a and 8d with an upper limit budget amount of $49,000. In accordance with Article lc, details of the budget are provided in the attached Project Budget. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS G Don C. Sc:u_rTo__cT,_r. Chairman . 14th day of July , 1987 80 CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. " �1_ &% C_ Donald un sgaar Vice President �� day of T, , 1987 CAPPELEN LEASE FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT Administrator Balczun reviewed the following memo: TO: Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun County Administrator FROM: Joseph*. Baird OMB, Director DESCRIPTION OF CONDITION DATE: July 14, 1987 SUBJECT: CAPPELIN LEASE Indian River County is leasing property located at 2455 14th Avenue for the County Health Department. The property is leased from Russell G. Cappelen at a cost of $375.10 a month until June 15, 1987. After June 15, 1987 the County has an option to renew the lease for eighteen (18) months at $715.00 per month. The initial lease amount of $375.10 was negotiated because of leasehold improvements that needed to be done. According to Lynn Williams it was understood that after eighteen (18) months the lease amount would increase to the fair marked value of $750.00/month. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners extend the current lease with Russell G. Cappelin for eighteen (18) months. Commissioner Bird wished to know how many square feet are involved, and Commissioner Eggert inquired about $715 per month as opposed to $750 a month. OMB Baird noted that since the Commission has not authorized extension of the lease, Mr. Cappelen has not been paid since June. Discussion continued regard the actual amount the lease would increase to per month and the square footage involved. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unani- mously tabled the above matter until later in the meeting when staff can provide more information. 81 'JUL 141X97 J r- A-7 BOOK OMB Director Baird returned later in the meeting and reported that the lease involves 1,320 sq. feet and it would increase to $715 per month; the $750 figure was a typo. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously agreed to extend the current lease with Russell G. Cappelen for eighteen (18) months. LEASE EXTENSION Pursuant to Section VIII of the LEASE AGREEMENT between RUSSELL G. CAPPELEN and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, dated December 15, 1985, the COUNTY hereby accepts the Option to Extend the term of the lease period by an additional 18 months (from June 15, 1987, through December 15, 1989) at an agreed rental fee of $715.00 per month. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto executed this instrument for the purposes herein expressed on the dates set forth next to their names. Dated: July 14, 1987 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attest: By /c9 •C.�. ^' �• o� cur ock, J r. We • da ri ht Clerk Chairman 9 Commissioner Bird wished to know if the old School Board Building which the School Board had been renting to the Sheriff for his detective division will be available after the Sheriff moves to his new complex and whether there has been any contact with the School Board in this regard. this. Administrator Balczun confirmed that he would look into 82 ACQUISITION OF LOWENSTEIN BEACHFRONT PARCEL County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following memo: TO: The Board of County Commissioners DATE: July 7, 1987 SUBJECT: Acquisition of Lowenstein Beachfront Parcel FROM: Bruce Barkett - Assistant County Attorney Staff has been involved_ in negotiations to determine a purchase price for the Lowenstein beachfront parcel. A map is attached to show the location of the 157 front foot parcel. The seller has agreed to a purchase price of $1,600.00 per front foot. The total purchase price would be approximately. $251,200.00, subject, of course, to approval by this Board. Charles Vitunac, Charles Balczun and I had considered recommending acquisition of the parcel in three separate purchases to spread the payments over three years; however, division of the property in that manner would result in an illegal subdivision. This matter is put before the Board for guidance as to how to structure payments for the property. It is recommended that the County enter into a contract with the seller to acquire the property for the price mentioned with a closing date which falls after the new fiscal year begins. The purchase price could be budgeted from anticipated ad valorem tax revenues and there would be only one closing for the entire tract. S. 6 Al Secr. /D , Twp 3/S., RN4- 31 E. IND/RN )i/✓ER COUNTY, FLORIAV GOVT \ \ LOT 6 z � / //o PAOCE C,0V . LOT // a BOOK 83 r `J � F] t epi BOOK4ldD JUL I As Chairman Scurlock stated that he did not want to buy anything unless we sell our lots in Indian River Shores. Commissioner Wheeler expressed interest in purchase of the Lowenstein property. He felt it is a prime piece of property and that we should move on it while we continue to work on selling the other property. Commissioner Bird was all in favor of acquiring all the beachfront we can afford, but noted that the absolute top priority of the Parks & Recreation Committee is to acquire the 80 acres on Oslo Road. If we have funds to do that and still purchase this property, that would be fine. Commissioner Eggert felt possibly we should table until we have the cost of the 80 acres. Commissioner Wheeler continued to stress that this is a prime piece of property that completes a lengthy piece of property along the beach, and he felt it would be a big mistake not to acquire it. County Attorney Vitunac advised that this is budgeted in next year's budget, and he believed it is substantially under the market price. Commissioner Bird agreed it is unquestionably a good price, but just did not want it to negatively affect our ability to _ purchase the Oslo property. Chairman Scurlock noted that if we can dispose of our property by the Tracking Station Park, that will raise some funds. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved pro- ceeding on to buy the Lowenstein property in the next budget year on or after October 1, 1987. 84 REPORT ON HEARING ON JAIL SUIT Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that he, Commissioner Wheeler, the Administrator and four jail personnel, went to Okeechobee and entered into a stipulated settlement with the DOC. We have 60 days to come into compliance with the cap on prison- ers. Failing that, the Chief Judge, the State's Attorney and the Public Defender, will become a new Fast Track Committee and will be empowered to let prisoners go who are not dangerous, or fail- ing that, we will have to rent space in some jail. TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF ACTIONS ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the following TPC Summary of Actions for the record. i TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF ACTIONS July 8, 1987 MEETING 1. Indian River Boulevard James Davis informed the Committee that an application for joint funding of Phase II with the FDOT has been approved in the amount of $286,000. Phase II should be opened in August, 1987. 2. 49th Street Truck Traffic Walter Jackson discussed problems with heavy truck traffic on 49th Street and requested a sidewalk between 35th Avenue and 43rd Avenue. 3. 41st Street and 45th Street sidewalks Walter Jackson asked about the status of sidewalks approved as part of the Gifford Road Improvement project. 4. Intersection study - 8th Street at 20th Avenue The Committee recommended approval of a report submitted by staff for the construction of left -turn lanes and a traffic signal. 5. Joint -use Canal and Roadway Right-of-way Staff informed the Committee of a July 2, 1987 meeting with the Indian River Farms Water Management District concerning the use of canal right-of-way for road purposes. Current policy of no joint -use was confirmed at the meeting. AL 14 85 I}0u f',9uc 83 WL '1p BOOK 6` Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that we have received $286,000 based on Public Works Director Davis' diligent efforts to pursue a grant, and there was only about one million available in the whole state for that grant. He felt Director Davis is to be commended. REPORT ON AUDIT NEGOTIATIONS Chairman Scurlock reported that Attorney Vitunac will be receiving the documents discussed yesterday in negotiation with Coopers Lybrand, the number one selection in the short list for auditors. The first year of the contract would be at $80,000 with them providing 40 hours of consulting services in addition to their scope of services at no cost; the second year increases to $85,000, and the third year to $90,000. There will be some language providing flexibility re using some of their other services, and all this will come back to the Board for approval. REPORT ON PARKS & RECREATION MEETING Commissioner Bird advised that at the P&R meeting of July 9th, it was recommended that the Transportation Planning Committee give consideration to the following: 1) Installing a bike path on Lindsey Road. 2) Adding a bike path to the 43rd Avenue road improvement project. 3) Installing a caution light and a crosswalk in the vicinity of the new Gifford Park entrance. Further recommendations were: 1) That the County employ a full time Recreation Director as soon as possible; this will be brought up at budget time. 2) That Public Works give consideration to installing speed bumps at Gifford Park to slow down traffic going through the park. 3) That staff look into the Soccer League's request for construc- tion of three soccer fields, possibly at Kiwanis-Hobart Park. 4) That efforts to obtain a tree spade be continued. 5) That installation of restroom facilities at Dale Wimbrow Park be pursued in this budget year. 86 l M OPPOSE INCREASE IN FEDERAL MOTOR FUEL TAXES FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION Commissioner Wheeler reviewed the following letter: FLORIDA ASSOCIATION i F COUNTIES P.D. Box 549 / Ulahamee, Florida 32302 Phone: 904/224-3148 July 1, 1987 Honorable Don Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Commissioner Scurlock: DISTRIaUTIDN_ UST Commissioners ►v_ Adm in.istratot Attovney =r=-- PeJ onnei Public Works COMT. 01clity Dev. Utilities ---- Finance Other Enclosed is a resolution, adopted by The Florida Association of Counties at the Board of Directors meeting in Rey West, June 19, 1987, expressing our opposition to an increase in federal motor fuel taxes for deficit reduction purposes. This resolution has been presented to the Florida Congressional Delegation and Senator Lloyd Bentsen (Texas), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance. The use of motor fuel taxes to reduce the federal deficit would violate the public trust, effectively deprive counties of future gas tax revenues and seriously damage Florida's tourist -based economy. I urge you to contact your Congressmen as soon as possible urging them to vigorously oppose any increase in federal motor fuel taxes for deficit reduction purposes. If you need additional information, do not hesitate to contact Association staff. Sincerely, A Barbara Sheen Todd President Chairman Scurlock stated that he did not fully understand the implications of this or its impact. Commissioner Wheeler's understanding was that the federal . government is proposing to use the proposed increase in motor fuel taxes to reduce the federal deficit. He was opposed to this. His personal opinion was that the federal level is probably the biggest offender in creating the deficit and that they need to cut spending and not increase taxes in other areas. He expressed the hope that the Board would adopt a Resolution opposing this as proposed by the Florida Association of Counties. 87 BOOK �, . ► JU L 14 1987 BOOK Commissioner Bowman asked if the federal government is saying that if they do this, it would preclude the states from raising their fuel tax, and Chairman Scurlock said no, but the effect of it is that the more you allow the federal government to do this, the less ability the state has to do the same. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Reso- lution 87-67 expressing opposition to an increase in federal motor fuel taxes for deficit reduction purposes. RESOLUTION NO. 87-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO AN INCREASE IN FEDERAL MOTOR FUEL TAXES' FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION PURPOSES. WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States is proposing to increase motor fuel taxes for the purpose of reducing the federal deficit; and WHEREAS, motor fuel taxes are, in fact, user fees which should be dedicated to the- maintenance and expansion of the public infrastructure from the use of which such revenues are derived; and WHEREAS, the rebuilding of public infrastructure is of paramount importance to continued economic and social development; and WHEREAS, Florida's high growth rate will require the state and local governments to use additional motor fuel tax revenue to fund $52 billion of infrastructure projects during the next ten years; and WHEREAS, additional federal motor fuel taxes would effectively preempt a desperately needed source of revenue for infrastructure within Florida; and WHEREAS, tourism, the largest industry in Florida, would be severely and unfairly impacted by additional federal motor fuel taxes; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Congress of the United States develop alternative policies to reduce the federal deficit in lieu of an increase in the federal tax on motor fuels. _Y 88 L The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Wheeler who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 14th day of July, 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY '/1, C_ XA _ DO . SCU CK, JR. CHAIRMAN LIBRARY BUILDING PROGRAM CONSULTANT Commissioner Eggert brought the following memo to the Board's attention: TO: Comm. arolyn Eggert DATE: July 9, 1987 FILE: SUBJECT: LIBRARYBTANTING PROGRAM CONS FROM: Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES: County Administrator �7 Attached you will find the following documents: Correspondence July 6, 1987 HBW, Inc. (Waters) to Charles P. Balczun Transmittal of a draft agreement and proposed fees and indirect costs of three additional days 'in -County'. Please note that HBW estimates additional costs arising from three additional days of some $2,418.50 which results in a not -to -exceed $20,939.20 for the building program portion of engagement. Memorandum July 9, 1987 Charles P. Balczun to Charles P. Vitunac Request to review proposed agreement. I think you and I should discuss the contents of Mr. Waters' July 16, 1987 letter. 89 BOOK 841 JILL 14A987 BOOK 68 E�iUc 842 -Commissioner Eggert noted that at the July 7th meeting the Motion approving the firm of HBW, Dallas, Texas, as the consultant for the Library building program included fees for an additional three days but did not spell out an amount for those days. She would like that amount to be set out specifically. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved costs for three additional days for the Library consultant, not to exceed $2,500. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would reconvene acting as the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Indian River County Fire District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. There being no further business, the Board upon Motion duly made, seconded and.carried, adjourned at 1:00 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 90 W �% Chairman