Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/29/1987Tuesday, September 29, 1987 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,_ Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, September 29, 1987, at 8:30 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; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order and announced that it was called because of the emergency ordinance needed to allow us to collect Bent Pine Utility's impact fees and because of the critical timing involved with the FmHA financing for the Gifford area sewer project. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS County Attorney Vitunac wished to add a contract for sale and reservation of road right-of-way with Ceiba -Geigy Corpora- tion, and explained the emergency is that they were planning for the building permits to be pulled as soon as this was done. They Federal Expressed the documents, but they came in just too late to make the last agenda deadline. Chairman Scurlock inquired why it can't wait until next week's meeting, and Attorney Vitunac advised that we are in negotiations now with Ceiba -Geigy on other matters where they are trying to be very helpful to the county, and they asked this small favor so it wouldn't hold up their project another week. Commissioner,Bird believed they are doing a$1.4 million SEP 2 � `ebb! 600K 69 PAcE'554 SEP 1957 - 860K 69 u555' addition to their plant here, and they have been waiting a long time trying to work out this R/W agreement with the county. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously added the above emergency matter to the agenda as requested by the County Attorney. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Eggert asked that item D be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. A. Giftord Area Sewer Project - Contract #1 The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: C les P. Balczun, County Administrator and errance G. Pinto, Utilities Director FROM: Joseph Baird, OMB Director and Ernestine Williams, - Project Administration Manager DATE: September 23, 1987 RE: GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJECT - CONTRACT #1 B.C.C. SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 29, 1987 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were opened on June 10, 1987, at 2:00 P.M. for the Gifford Area Sewer Project - Contract #1 to construct a 1.0 wastewater treatment p ant. These bids. were as -follows• 1. Specialty Maintenance 8 Const. Inc. $1,817,000.00 ` - 2. Widell Associates, Inc. $1,909,000.00 3. Metro Equipment & Construction $1,922,000.00 -- 4. Watkins Engineering $2,115,000.00 5. Roese Contracting $2,440,000.00 Farmers Home Administration and the consulting engineer, Masteller 8 Moler Associates, Inc., have reviewed the bids and recommend that the contract be awarded to Specialty Maintenance E Construction, Inc. for the amount of $1,817.000. 2 It RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners award Contract #1 of the Gifford Sewer Project to Specialty Maintenance Construction, Inc. in the amount of _ $1,817,000; such award to be contingent upon FmHA's final =- approval and interim financing being obtained. _ Staff requests authorization from the Board of County Commissioners for the Chairman to execute the contract. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Contract #1 of the Gifford Sewer Project to Specialty Maintenance & Construction, Inc., in the amount of $1,817,000 contin- gent upon FmHA final approval and interim financing being obtained. B. Gifford Area Sewer Project - Contract #2 The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: harles P. Balczun, County Administrator • and Terrance G. Pinto, Utilities Director FROM: Joseph Baird, OMB Director and r,, Ernestine Williams, - Project Administration Manager DATE: September 23, 1987 RE: GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJECT - CONTRACT #2 _ B.C.C. SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 29, 1987 _- DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were opened on June 10, 1987, at 2:00 PM. for the Gifford Area Sewer Project - Contract #2, Effluent Disposal System, i or rea Sewer Project. These bids were as follows: 1. A.O.B. Underground, Inc. $257,625.38 2. Schopke Constr. & Engr., Inca $284,568.16 3. Ric -Man International, Inc. $291,900.00 4. Ted Myers Contracting Co., Inc. $298,991.06 5. Coastline Utilities, Inc. $334,035.00 6. Jobear, Inc. $412,774.00 7. Watkins Engrs. 8 Constructors $675,300.00 3 SEP 2 9 1987 BOOK 69 MGE 556 SEP 2 9 1997 BOOK 69 PACE -557 Farmers Home Administration and the consulting engineer, Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc., have reviewed the bids and recommend that the contract be awarded to A.O.B. Underground, Inc. for the amount of $257,625.38. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners award Contract #2 of the Gifford Sewer Project to A.O.B. Underground, -I in the amount of $257,625.38; such award to be contingent upon FmHA's final approval and interim financing being obtained. Staff requests authorization from the Board of County Commissioners for the Chairman to execute the contract. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Contract #2 of the Gifford Sewer Project to A.O.B. Underground, Inc., in the amount of $257,625.38 contingent upon FmHA final approval and interim financing being obtained. C. GIFFORD Area Sewer Project - Contract #3 The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: Chart -es P. Balczun, County Administrator `--�"� and errance G. Pinto, Utilities Director, FROM: Joseph Baird, OMB Director and Ernestine Williams, Project Administration Manager DATE: September 23, 1987 RE: GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJECT - CONTRACT #3 B.C.C. SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 29, 1987 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were opened on June 10, 1987, at 2:00 P.M. for the - Gifford Area Sewer Project - Contract 43 Sewer Collection System, Pumping Stations 8 Force Main, Gifford Area Sewer Project. These bids were as follows: 1. Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. $5,261,430.00 2. Metric Constructors, Inc. $5,484,000.00 3. Roese Contracting Co., Inc. $5,656,316.00 4 4. Volusia Construction Co., Inc. $5;658,501.00 S. Lanzo Construction Co. $5,716,979.25 6. Rocco Ferrera 6 Co., Inc. $5,994-,740.00 7. W. Jackson & Sons Construction, Inc.$6,627,355.84 8. Coastline Utilities, Inc. $6,758,820.70 9. Ric -Man International, Inc. $6,794,068.25 Farmers Home Administration and the consulting engineer, Masteller 8 Moler Associates, Inc., have reviewed the bids and recommend that the contract be awarded to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. for the amount of $5,261,430. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners award Contract #3 of the Gifford Sewer Project to Douglas N. Higgins, Tnc. in the amount of $5,261,430; such award to be contingent upon FmHA's final approval and interim financing being obtained. Staff requests authorization from the Board of County Commissioners for the Chairman to execute the contract. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, unanimously awarded Contract #3 of the Gifford Sewer Project to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. in the amount of $5,261,430 contingent upon FmHA final approval and interim financing being obtained. D. Approval of Underwriter for Gifford Sewer Project The Board reviewed staff recommendation: TO: Members of the DATE: September 23, 1987 the Board of County Commissioners Through: Cha~ s Vitunac SUBJECT: GIFFORD.SEWER PROJECT County Attorney FROM: Joseph A Baird OMB Director Staff has reviewed the underwriter's agreement and recommends that Raymond James/A. G. Edwards be selected for the Gifford Sewer Project. Their fee is based on $7 per thousand dollars of bonds issued. Commissioner Eggert commented that her problem on this item is quite minor. She doesn't like to approve agreements that are scribbled all over when she doesn't really understand what is in 5 SEP 1987 - 800K 69 PACE558 BOOK 6 SEP ��� 9. Fa�E 559 them, and she, therefore, would like to approve the proposed agreement only if it is approved by Attorney Vitunac and Mr. Balczun before it is signed. Attorney Vitunac advised that the reason it wasn't redone was the underwriters were going to redo it according to our comments, and the version that will be signed will be retyped by them. Commissioner Eggert then referred to the question in the margin on Page 9 re "who will be clarified," commenting that she did not feel as if we have a final agreement here. Attorney Vitunac advised that the clarification actually was already done, and he just didn't cross his comment out. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the underwriter's agreement with Raymond James & Assoc., Inc., and A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., and authorized the signature of the Chairman upon the agreement being approved by County Attorney Vitunac for correct wording and legal sufficiency for protection of the county. (SAID AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.) E. Budget Amendment for FEMA Grant The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director: 6 0 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: September.23, 1987 SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FEMA GRANT _ FROM: JoseIDiector A. Baird OMB n - ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT TITLE INCREASE DECREASE Revenues 001-000-331-066.00 FEMA Grant $ 3,020 Expenses _ 001-211-564-037.09 FEMA Grant $ 3,020 Expenditures Recommendation Apropriate funds for the full amount of the FEMA grant. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment for the FEMA Grant. F._ Compensation Plan_ Adjustment The Board reviewed memo of Administrator ESalczun: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 21; 1987 FILE: SUBJECT: ANNUAL COMPENSATION SYSTEM ADJUSTMENT FROM: Charles P. Bal czun EFERENCES: County Administrator I recommend to the Board of County Commissioners a compensation system adjustment of 5% for the fiscal year beginning Octobe.r 1, 1987. Funds necessary to underwrite this adjustment were/are provided in General Fund Contingency. This recommendation is compatible with contract mandated adjustments as follows: CWA 5% effective 10/1/87 South IRC Fire District 6% effective 1/1/88 7 SEP 2 9 19987 BOOK 6 FACE 560 SEP 2 8 1987 Boa 69'pArx561 Please note that this recommendation provides for an 'across the board' adjustment as opposed to a two tiered proposal consisting of a Cost of Living Adjustment and an adjustment for 'merit'. Numerous questions have been raised during the year as to the uniformity of evaluative criteria utilized in the merit evaluation process. We have determined that for such a system to work, all evaluators must be fully trained and the system must be respected by managers and employees as well. Note that our current contract with the CWA provides for a 5% increase this year for those at the top merit level. Therefore, we are proposing a single 5% adjustment calculated upon a Cost of Living Adjustment of 4% and a uniform merit adjustment of 1%. This matter is scheduled for your Septemberix., 1987 meeting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the compensation system adjustment of 5% for FY 87-88 as recommended by the Administrator. G. Bid #368 - Elevator Service Maintenance Agreement The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 22, 1987 SUBJECT: BID NUMBER 368 - ELEVATOR SERVICE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FROM: Josepf Baird OMB Dtor Explanation The Elevator Service Maintenance Agreement bids were opened on Wednesday, August 26, 1987 at 2:00 p.m. Two (2) proposals were received. Vendor Bid Price _ Miami Elevator $400.00 per month Electro Mechanical Systems $618.00 per month Lynn Williams, the Building and Grounds Superintendent, has reviewed the low bid from Miami Elevator and finds it meets the required - _ specifications. Funding Sufficient funds were budgeted in the 1987/88 FY from account number 001-220-519-033.49 (Building and Grounds Department). 8 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners award the Elevator Service Maintenance Agreement to Miami Elevator at a cost of__._ $400.00 per month. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- _ missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #368 on the Elevator Service Maintenance Agreement to Miami Elevator ata cost of $400 per month. H. Bid #369 - Chiller - Full Service Maintenance Agreement The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: TO: Members of the DATE: September 22, 1987 Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: BID NUMBER 369 - CHILLER - FULL SERVICE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FROM: Josep A. Baird OMB Director _ Explanation The Chiller Full Service Maintenance Agreement bids were opened on Wednesday, August 26, 1987 at 2:00 p.m. Four (4) proposals were received. Vendor Servidyne Corporation Hazen -Trane Carrier Machinery and Systems Division Climatic Heating Bid Price No Bid $ 8,222.00 $ 7,548.00 $24,873.00 Lynn Williams, -the Building and Grounds Superintendent, has reviewed the low bid from Carrier Machinery and Systems Division and finds that it meets the required specifications. Funding Sufficient funds that were budgeted in the 1987/88 FY from account number 001-220-519-034.62 (Building and Grounds Department). Recommendation Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners award the Chiller Full Service Maintenance Agreement to Carrier Machinery and Systems Division at a cost of $7,548.00 per month. 9 SEP 2 9 ` S07 - BOOK �, 69 PAGE 562 BOOK 69 PAGE 561' ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #369 - the Chiller Full Service Maintenance Agreement - to Carrier Machinery and Systems Division at a cost of $7,548 per month. I. Bid #355 - Road Rock, Annual Contract The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: September 23, 1987 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird, Budget & Management D ector SUBJECT: Award of Bid #355 - Road and Charles P. Balczun, Bridge Dept. - Road Rock - County Administrator Annual Contract FRONT•James W. Davis, P.E., REFERENCES: Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were received Aug. 26, 1987, for the Road and Bridge Department's annual bid for road rock. The Bids were submitted as follows: E.R. Johna Industries, Inc. - Lake Wales, F1. Delivered to County - $15.85/ton Picked up by County - $3.85/ton Florida Rock Industries - Ocoee, FL. Delivered to County - $8.25/ton Picked up by County - $4.00/ton Global Paving - Vero Beach, F1. Delivered to County $7.40/ton Picked up by County - $5.00/ton _ Dickerson, Florida, Inc - Stuart, F1 Delivered to County - $10.30/ton Picked up by County - No Bid Black Hawk Quarries - Palm Bay, F1. Delivered to County - $7.30/ton Picked up by County - No Bid - RECCRvMDATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that the bid be awarded to Black Hawk Quarries, Palm Bay, FL., as the lowest and best bid. On an emergency basis, staff also recommends that the Road and Bridge Dept. be allowed to purchase road rock from Global Paving since the Global Paving mining operation is located in the County and is closer to most of the road projects. Funding to be from Petition Paving Fund 703 or Road and Bridge Dept. Fund 111-214 as needed. 10 r ti -I ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #355 on the annual Road Rock contract to Black Hawk Quarries, Palm Bay, as being the lowest and best bid in the amount of $7.301ton delivered. - J. Bid #353 - Soil Cement Base & Limerock Base Annual Contract The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: September 23, 1987 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH. r Joseph A. Baird, l• Budget & Management irector SUBJECT: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator Award of Bid #353 - Road and Bridge Dept. - Soil Cement Base and Limerock Base FROM: Janes W. Davis, P.E., REFERENCES: Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were received Aug. 26, 1987, for the Road and Bridge. Departments = annual contract for 6" Soil Cement and 6" Limerock Base. Three Bids were submitted as follows: Global Paving Systems - Vero Beach, F1. Soil Cement Base - No Bid Limerock Base - No Bid Dickerson, Florida, Inc - Stuart, F1 Soil Cement Base - $2.30/sy Limerock Base - $5.75/sy Pan American Engineering - Vero Beach, F1. Soil Cement Base - $2.30/sy Limerock Base - $5.40/sy RECOM MATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that the bid be awarded to Pan American Engineering, Vero Beach, as the lowest and best bid. Funding to be from Petition Paving Fund 703 or Road and Bridge Dept. Fund 111-214 as needed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #353 for 6" Soil Cement and 6" Limerock Base annual , Boa ` :1 69 pAcE564 L! S E P � � 1987 SEP 29 »87 BOOK 69 ` PACE 565 contract to Pan American Engineering, Vero Beach, as the lowest and best bid, at the prices set out in the above memo. K. Bid #359 - Ready Mix Concrete Annual Contract the Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: September 23, 1987 FILE: Board of County Canmissioners - THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird, Budget & Management ector SUBJECT: Award of Bid 0359 - Road and Charles P. Balczun, Bridge Dept. - Ready Mix County Administrator Concrete FROM:James W. Davis, P.E. , REFERENCES: Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were received Aug. 26, 1987, for the Road and Bridge Departments annual contract for Ready Mix Concrete. Three Bids were received as _ follows: Bidder' 2500psi Charles Redi Mix $41.00/yd Russell Concrete $38.70/yd Lone Star Florida No Bid RECOMMENIDATIONS AMID FUNDING Staff recommends awarding the bid to Russell concrete, Vero Beach, as the lowest and best bid. Funding to be from Road & Bridge Fund 111-214 as needed. 1* ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #359 on the annual Ready Mix Concrete contract to Russell Concrete, Vero Beach, at the prices set out in the above memo. 12 Min. Load 3000psi 4000psi Charge _ $42.50/yd $47.00/yd $50.00 $40.15/yd $43.25/yd $10.00 No Bid No Bid No Bid Staff recommends awarding the bid to Russell concrete, Vero Beach, as the lowest and best bid. Funding to be from Road & Bridge Fund 111-214 as needed. 1* ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #359 on the annual Ready Mix Concrete contract to Russell Concrete, Vero Beach, at the prices set out in the above memo. 12 EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - BENT PINE UTILITY (SPECIAL IMPACT FEE) The hour of 8:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: - VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily I Vero Reach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of _ Court, was pub- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before, ne thi�� day of _ A.D. 19 (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River CouflTy, Florida) `t NOTICE OF PUBLII Re: AN ORDINANCE OF PE- , EC - TO THE.FORMER TERRITORY Ur BENT PINE UTILITY COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT {OF $1 500 PER CONNED TION The Board of County Commissioners Of lndlar River County, Florida, will hold a Public Hearing at 8:30 A.M. on Tuesday. September 29, 1.987, a the Commission Chambers at 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida, to discuss the references ordinance. Any interested parties' -are invited ti attend the public hearing. For further Informs tion, please contact the Utilities -Department i 567-8000. Anyone who may 'wiet''to appeal any decisio which may be made at this meeting will need t ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which includes testimony and evidenc upon which the appeal Is based. i Sept. 24, 1987 .: . Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following memo: 13 n S E P 2S 19x7 BOOK 69 PAGE 566 SEP 2 9 607 BOOK 69 PAGE 56 7 TO: Board of County Commissioners C- "R ) 0—& � FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: September 23, 1987 RE: BENT PINE CLOSING SPECIAL B.C.C. MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 1987 Bent Pine Utility Company has obtained a title commitment such that the closing of the utility system can occur on - Wednesday, September 30, 1987. This will allow Indian,River County to own and operate the system effective October 1, 1987. Because of the expedited closing, it is necessary to adopt the attached ordinance on an emergency basis so that the County can collect the same $1,500 special impact fees which the Board authorized several weeks ago at the execution of the contract. Attorney Vitunac noted that the Board has entered into a contract to purchase Bent Pine Utility, and we have had a closing in escrow, but the utility is still owned by Bent Pine. They have been authorized to collect a special impact fee of between $1200-1500 per unit, and when the county takes over the system, we want the same right to collect that fee. This is the public hearing to allow our rates to go up that same amount; a public hearing already was held to allow Bent Pine to collect this, and we discussed all the facts at that time. The emergency basis of this item was that it was suggested by Bent Pine that the closing be tomorrow morning; since then, however, we have had a call that they won't make it until next week. Chairman Scurlock's question was whether the impact fee was to be $1200 or $1500, and Commissioner Eggert also wished to know _ = why $1500 has been quoted in the proposed contract when it was -_ -_ supposed to be $1250 unless they could prove it should be $1500. Attorney Vitunac advised that Bent Pine has submitted justification by Federal Express for over $3,000 per connection, but we capped the fee at $1500. 14 If � � r Commissioner Eggert found it interesting that the proving of it is supposed all through this contract. Attorney Vitunac explained that it was supposed because all the experts agreed that since their impact fee was actually at least twice as much as that, there wouldn't be any problem justifying $1500. Commissioner Bird asked if this figure is applied to undeveloped lots, and Attorney Vitunac confirmed that it is and also with water and sewer in front of them on the day of closing. If there are any lots that don't have water and sewer, they will not pay until the time they request that service. Commissioner Eggert asked how this affects any other impact fees, and Attorney Vitunac noted that everyone including these people will pay the standard county impact fee for water -and sewer. Any other subdivision as a requirement for getting a building permit has to put in these improvements at their own expense; so these people aren't being penalized or given any benefit; they are just paying after the fact for improvements that are in the ground. Chairman Scurlock asked if the Board can take action next week after everyone has had a chance to read this contract, and Attorney Vitunac agreed that could be done, but he won't be here next Tuesday, and passing this today would allow us to have the closing as soon as the title work comes in, which may be this week. The Chairman asked it anyone present wished to be heard, and upon determining there were none, declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Ordinance 87-56 adopting a special impact fee for new connections to the former territory of Bent Pine Utility Company. 15 p S P 0 19J87 BOOK 69 PACE568 SEP 2b 1987 BOOK 69 FACE. 569 ORDINANCE NO. 87-56 ` AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, = FLORIDA, ADOPTING A SPECIAL IMPACT FEE FOR NEW CONNECTIONS TO THE FORMER TERRITORY OF BENT PINE UTILITY COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500 PER CONNECTION. WHEREAS, Indian River County has purchased the land and assets of Bent Pine._.,Utility Company under a contract which obligates the County to collect a special impact fee from new customers of the former territory of Bent Pine Utility Company who have platted lots with water and sewer available to them as a result of capital expenditures made by Bent Pine Utility Company; and WHEREAS,. this fee will be returned by the County to Bent Pine Utility Company for the next 15 years, pursuant to the terms of the contract; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, ACTING THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THAT: SECTION 1. SPECIAL IMPACT FEE There is hereby established a special impact fee of not to exceed $1,500 per equivalent residential connection to the County Utility System for lots within the former franchise territory of Bent Pine Utility Company, which lots have been platted and had existing, on the date the County took title to the Utility Company, available water and sewer lines. This fee may be adjusted by the County annually by the factors used by the most recent Engineering News Record. v SECTION 2. FEE TO BE IN ADDITION TO OTHER CHARGES This special impact fee shall be in addition to any other rates, fees, charges, and other County impact fees charged by Indian River County Utility Systems. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 29th day of September, 1987. 16 � � r This ordinance was advertised In the Vero Beach Press Journal on the 24th day of September, 1987, for a public hearing to be held on the 29th day of September, 1987, at which time it was moved for adoption by _ Commissioner Eggert seconded by Commissioner Bird and adopted by the following vote: 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 - - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By on curIoc -r. Chairman 16/ CIBA -GEIGY (CONTRACT FOR SALE 6 RESERVATION OF ROAD R/W) County Attorney Vitunac explained that -Ciba-Geigy is applying for a building permit, and as a part of our road R/W acquisition, we require that they give us certain R/W for King's Highway. With the new Supreme Court case, we would probably have to pay for that, and they have agreed to reserve it. the Chairman did not understand why we are entering into a contract for sale. Attorney Vitunac clarified that we are promising to buy the land at this price if we decide we need it in the future for road R/W, and they are promising to keep it unbuilt on so we don't have to move any structures and pay a higher price in the future. Commissioner Bird believed it is a good deal 'for us because we are reserving it at today's land values. Chairman Scurlock asked if we wouldn't normally accomplish this by setting sufficient setbacks as we did on Route 60, as opposed to having all these individual agreements. Attorney Vitunac advised that the problem is that there is a new court ruling which says the minute we deny them use of the property within the setback that is a "taking" of the property. SEP 2 0 1937 i7 BOOK I69 PACE'SO F S EP 29 1957 BOOK 69 FAGE 571 Chairman Scurlock felt we are not denying the use since they can still compute their density based on the total area. Attorney Vitunac noted there are two types of setback - one for public safety, which is normally 25' or so off the road, and then if you add an extra 5011, for instance, for widening, that extra 50' becomes a "taking" immediately. Ciba -Geigy has agreed to waive the payment for the taking in return for a promise to pay in the future. Chairman Scurlock noted we set the setback on SR60, and Attorney Vitunac stated that we established a setback on certain types of roads for public safety, not for acquiring road right-of-way. Chairman Scurlock's point was that on King's Highway, which will be a major north/south corridor, possibly we could at this point appropriately adopt the setback on the basis that it should be considerably larger for public safety. He felt we are taking a major step today if this is the document we are going to be using from now on. Commissioner Eggert wished to know how a figure of $3,000 was determined, and Assistant County Attorney Barkett informed the Board that based on an appraisal, he, Public Works Director Davis, and R/W Agent Don Finney, divided out the square footage and all agreed that $3000 would be a nominal value for that strip. Discussion arose as to the 40 acres Ciba-Geigy has on the other side of Kings Highway, and Attorney Barkett advised that we are getting 5' on the same side as the 40 acres and 15' on the opposite side. Chairman Scurlock asked if the attorneys are saying the new Supreme Court cases don't allow us to provide sufficient R/W for our roads. Attorney Vitunac explained that you are allowed to make roadway maps determining what the ultimate right-of-way is going to be, but when a property owner wants the use of that and we 18 deny it, that is the "taking." That is what has occurred here. Although we don't actually want the property now, we want it reserved; so, we promise to pay in the future -when we actually get title to the property. Chairman Scurlock still did not see how it is a taking when they can use that property to calculate density. We did set setbacks on SR 60, and people were impacted, and he asked if the attorneys are saying those people can file now and receive compensation. Attorney Vitunac advised that a setback is a valid police power function and that setback we do not have to pay for, but if you then make them setback in addition to that setback, it becomes a taking. Chairman Scurlock noted that if he were to determine a setback for King's Highway for public safety, it would be a significant setback, and he would rather do that for the entire length than work with each property owner as we go through. Attorney Vitunac felt in that case what you are really trying to do is protect your road R/W by making the setback very large so that some day when you come through, you can put your road in, and the law now says any denial of a proper use is a "taking." The Chairman again argued that you are not denying the use if they can use it to calculate density, and Attorney Vitunac noted that we are not ruling out paying for the land by transfer of density credits,but that is a separate topic and in any event, when you do that you are paying for the land. He noted that staff has spent many hours on this reviewing the Supreme Court cases and the Florida law, but he will be happy to set up a workshop with the Board. Commissioner Eggert was still blank as to what the differ- ence is in getting a sufficient roadway easement for safety and a 10' setback in the back of that, and why we have to pay for L_ SEP 2 2� 1937 19 BOOK 69 FACE 572 J SEP 1987 BOOK 69 FACE573 one and not the other when they still can use that land overall to figure out how big a house they can put on it, etc. Attorney Barkett explained when you have the setback and can justify it for safety, it is a valid police power measure, but if it is much larger, i.e., 50' on a 50' road, someone can come in and testify that is ridiculous and that the real purpose is simply to hold them from developing their property so that it can be acquired more cheaply in the future. Commissioner Eggert asked what about the case where you know that a road is not going to remain at 50' but that it is going to get wider and that it has to be wider to be safe, and you need that setback plus a proper setback from the side of the road. Attorney Barkett clarified that the first part, the part that you can justify as an actual safety police power measure, is the actual traditional setback, but to get to that second part, you also have to prevent them from using the first part. Commissioner Eggert asked why you can't use the expanded road plus a logical buffer as a justified safety setback, and Attorney Barkett explained you can't because you don't have the expanded road; you are just contemplating it in the future, and the Statues now say if you want to do that, you have to record a R/W map notifying people of where you intend to put the road, and then the Statutes say if they come in and challenge that or want to use part of that, that is when you have to pay for it. Discussion continued at length as to size of setbacks, etc., and Director Keating pointed out that you have to set the setbacks by zoning districts and on a lot of different roadways, we have different R/W widths; the setback has to be consistent for all properties similarly situated. He noted that Public Works Director Davis has done various cross sections to show how much R/W we need, and he believes our R/W width requirements are, if anything less than the optimal amounts. Attorney Vitunac stressed that there is a Supreme Court case from Flor_Jda that says you cannot increase your R/W requirements 20 under the guise of public safety when what you are really trying to do is save it for road R/Ws; you have to pay for that part, and that issue is closed. Discussion on various alternatives continued at length, and _ Attorney Vitunac noted that staff's answer to paying prematurely when we are not ready to build the road but we want to save the R/W is the proposed document. Commissioner Bird commented that the price set was $3,000 with a Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment. He felt rather than just locking ourselves into the CPI, it might make sense to have an additional provision and make it subject either to the CPI adjustment or another appraisal, whichever is less to the county, because things can happen in the neighborhood that could have an unusual effect on the property value and be entirely unrelated to the CPI. The attorneys and Board members generally agreed that was a good idea. Chairman Scurlock inquired which departments have staffed this basic document as he believed this is a very complex issue and there is the potential for setting a great deal of precedent. Attorney Vitunac advised that Attorney Barkett has handled this and conferred with Planning Director Keating and Public Works Director Davis. Attorney Barkett noted that we have been trying to address this for two years and only recently the court decisions came down; this document is an interim measure until we get our ordinances in compliance with current law. Director Keating informed the Board that the Planning staff drafted a revision to the section of the Site Plan ordinance referring to R/W several weeks ago and because of this issue, went over it with the Public Works Director and Attorney's office for several days considering the implications of the recent court cases. They now are putting all the data together and redrafting it, and trying to see, with the impact fee credits, with the `SEP 1987 21` Book 6� F��cE571 'SEP 2 � 1987 Boa 6.9 mf 575 transfer density provisions, and then allowing for the reserva- tion in certain areas where there isn't adequate compensation given, whether an ordinance can be structured that does meet all the requirements. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that another fact that must be considered is that, in light of all the recent court rulings, the impact fees will not be sufficient to build the capital improve- ments on our master plan because we did not compute them on the basis of acquiring all this R/W. He believed we will have to go back and revisit impact fees very quickly to make the necessary adjustments. Director Keating stated that is another thing staff is doing. Commissioner Bird felt we actually may have to adjust impact fees annually. Commissioner Bird asked if James Councilman, representing Ciba - Geigy understood what he was suggesting in Paragraph 4, in regard to having the price adjusted by either CPI or a real estate appraisal at that time. Mr. Councilman felt there would be no problem with that provision. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the Contract for Sale and Reservation of Road Right -of -Way with Ciba-Geigy Corporation as amended. 22 V CONTRACT FOR SALE AND RESERVATION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this aZq mac.day of September, 1987, by and between Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter "Grantee") and CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION, a New York Corporation, its successors, and assigns (hereinafter "Grantor"); WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain property within Indian River County located on land more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, Grantor wishes to further develop said property in accordance with a site plan approved by the Grantee Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission on August 29, 1986; and WHEREAS, as a condition of the site plan approval, Indian River County has indicated its willingness to accept certain assurances regarding the reservation of a portion of the aforementioned property, more particularly described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein, for future right-of-way purposes in lieu of an immediate dedication of a portion of Grantor's property, WHEREAS, Grantor recognizes that the County will purchase said property as described in Exhibit "B" when such acquisition becomes necessary for roadway expansion or improvements incidental to roadway expansion; and WHEREAS, Grantor, desiring that this Reservation of Right -of -Way resolve certain questions pertaining to said property, is willing to commit to the convenants, conditions, and terms further described herein; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of $10.00 and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and in an effort to accomplish the above -stated objectives, Grantor expressly represents and agrees on behalf of itself, its successors, its legal representatives and assigns, as follows: 1. Grantor will not construct or cause to be constructed, built or placed upon the reserved parcel of land described herein, any improvement which would increase the value of said parcel or of the remaining property described in Exhibit "A" herein or any site -related improvement which is required by law to serve the principal use on the property except as shown on existing and approved Site Plan SP -MA -85-10-128. All future structures shall be set back from the reserved parcel in conformance with setbacks established in the zoning code as if the reserved parcel were part of the right-of-way. 2. Grantor acknowledges and agrees with Indian River County that the purpose of this agreement is to prevent improvements or encroachments into the property reserved for future right-of-way, and Grantor further agrees to forego and waive any and all damages or compensation for the value of any intentional or incidental improvements which are made to the reserved property, except as described herein. 3. Indian River County recognizes that Grantor may continue to make such use of the reserved property as will not cause an increase in the value of the reserved property or of the remaining site, until such time as the County acquires the reserved property for right-of-way improvements. 23 SEP 2 0 198 - BOOK 69 PACE576 BOOK fig FACE 577 1 4. Indian River County reserves the right to purchase the entire Td parcel described in Exhibit "B" and not a part thereof, and the purchase rice including any intentional or incidental improvements or fixtures, 04 shall be Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000), subject to adjustment from September 1, 1987 to the date of purchase, which adjustment shall be equal to increases in the Consumer Price Index for the same period of time. 0 5. Grantor agrees and understands that when Grantee does purchase the property, Grantor will convey marketable title to Grantee and will provide o title insurance in the amount of the purchase price. A 6. The conditions, restrictions and all other terms in this document are hereby declared to be and constitute,, covenants running to and for the benefit of every purchaser of any property described in Exhibit "A", and such -mss—. covenents shall run with the land and be binding on the undersigned owners, and all future owners and their heirs and assigns of any interest in any part of said property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused this Agreement to be executed this 21st day of September, 1987 by the below authorized representatives. Witness Y l Witness ATTEST: CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION f BY 0,- ��,� 2m- r (Seal) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By e BY Don C. Scu ock, Jr. Cl erk� �l � . �'. Chairman EXHIBIT "A" IThe East 391.00 feet of the North 650.00 feet of Tract 9, Section 5, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, according to the plat of Indian River Farms Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 2 Page 25 of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, LESS road right-of-way and canal right-of-vay. Said lands now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Prepared par Charles A. Crzuer, County Surveyor 24 � _ r • WkD• 4 r: «a1 The West 15 feet of the East 55 feet of the following described tract: The East 391.00 feet of the North 650.00 feet of Tract 91, Section 5, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, according to the plat of Indian River Farms - Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 2 Page 25 of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, LESS the North 30 feet thereof. Said lands now lying in Indian River County, Florida. The East 5 feet of the West 45 feet of the North 650 feet of the Northwest one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 4, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, LESS the North 30 feet thereof. Said lands lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. S� Prepared iGG�tt G.. �!!�'J/�4�.✓ Charles A. Cramer, County Surveyor There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 9:05 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: Clerk ___y_� -_C-7, Chairman S E P 29 1987 - --- z 5 Boa' 69 FacF. 578'