HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/7/1989Tuesday, February 7, 1989
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,
February 7, 1989, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Gary C.
Wheeler, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N.
Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Don. C. Scurlock, Jr. Also
present were James T. Chandler, 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.
Peter LaBarre, Pastor Emeritus, Trinity Episcopal Church,
gave the invocation, and Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Wheeler advised that the Administrator has asked
that an item discussing a date for a joint City/County meeting be
added to the Agenda under his matters as Item 8A.
The Chairman informed the Board Item 9B 2. (Bids - Power
Rescue Tool for Vero Lake Estates Fire Department) should be
pulled until next week's agenda and put under North County Fire.
Commissioner Scurlock requested the addition of a discussion
on the 14 Sales Tax referendum under his matters as 12E.
FEB 7 1989
�pnu
FEB 71989 BOOK 7C FALL 02
Administrator Chandler asked that Item G be removed from the
Consent Agenda and deferred until the next Commission meeting,
and Commissioner Eggert believed Item E should be deleted also as
it is a duplicate of action we have already taken.
Chairman Wheeler wished to add the presentation of a plaque
to A. D. Brown on his retirement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously added to,
deferred, and deleted items from today's Agenda as
described above.
PRESENTATION TO A. D. BROWN
Chairman Wheeler called forward A. D. Brown, congratulated
him on the quality of his work for the Road & Bridge Department
over the last 11 years, his cooperative attitude, and his
excellent attendance record, and presented him with a plaque
thanking him for his service to the county and wishing him well
in his retirement.
CONSENT AGENDA
It was noted that Items E and G have been deleted from the
Agenda, and Commissioner Eggert asked that Item A be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Minutes of Regular Meeting (1/17/89)
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 17, 1989.
Commissioner Eggert had one correction. On Page 43 where it
says Dr. .Phelps, it should be changed to read Dr. Nicosia.
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 17, 1989,
as amended.
B. Reports
The following Report was received and placed on file in the
Office of Clerk to the Board:
Report of Convictions, Month of December, 1988
C. Amended Resolution - E.O.C. Application for Block Grant Funds
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-15 authorizing the Economic Opportu-
nities Council to submit application to the DCA for
a Community Services Block Grant to assist low-
income families.
3
FEB 7 1989
VC�C` r O irl;L t�
FEB 7 1989
BOOK 76 f,,iL,E 0
RESOLUTION NO. 89-i5
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ,OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES COUNCIL OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, INC. TO EXrCUTE AN APPLICATION
FOR A COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME FAMILIES AS
ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County has reviewed this proposal and has
received the recommendation from the Executive Director of
the Indian River County Housing Authority;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that
the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Economic
Opportunities Council of Indian River County, Inc. is
authorized to execute the attached Application to the State
of Florida's Department of Community Affairs for a Community
Services Block Grant Program (CSBG).
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Eggert, and,
being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this7th day of February 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST:
4
r
mnai 1:1:1ei Ca
Admin
LE --.1A1
Ftndn� t
0eo1
Risk Mgr.
Apfroved Cale
D. Appointment to I.R.Council of Community Services
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously appointed
Commissioner Eggert to the Indian River County Council
of Community Services.
E. Appointment to E.O.C. Council
The above item was deleted from today's Agenda, having been
handled previously.
F. Bid 89-3 - Limerock for Road Base
The Board reviewed memo from the Director of General
Services:
DATE: JANUARY 19, 1989
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN
DIRECTOR OF GENE S •VICES
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - BID NUMBER 89-3;
LIMEROCK FOR ROAD BASE
BACKGROUND
In August of 1988 the subject bid was awarded to Global Paving since
it was low. In October 1988 a test was run on the material from
Global's pit. The results indicated the material did not meet
D.O.T. standards.
RECOMMENDATION
In accordance with the backup information submitted, staff
recommends that the next low bidder, Blackhawk Quarry Company be
awarded the contract for the remainder of this fiscal year.
5
FEB 7 1989
moK 76 FALL 05
FEB 71999
BOOK 76 f'ArGE 06
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded
Blackhawk Quarry Company the contract for supply of
limerock for road base for the remainder of this
fiscal year as recommended by staff.
G. Bid #89-36 (Automobiles & Light Trucks)
The above item was deleted from today's Agenda, and deferred
until next Tuesday's meeting as requested by the Administrator.
H. Budget Amendment #044 - S.T.E.P. Grant
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: February 1, 1989
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 044 -
S.T.E.P. GRANT
CONSENT AGENDA
Cif
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services awarded Indian River County a grant in the amount of
$34,260. This grant was issued for the purpose of (1) Improving
existing quality of the pre -hospital emergency services (EMS),
activities, services, or having a positive impact on patient
mortality and morbidity, and (2) expanding the extent, size or
number of existing pre -hospital EMS activities. These funds are
not be used to replace any other funds, or be used to fulfill any
matching grant program requirements. Further, the provider (the
county) is to designate a separate account into which the county
award funds are to be deposited, maintained and accounted for.
With this last statement in mind, a budget amendment is needed to
increase the revenue side of the general fund for the grant and
to increase the expense side for its designated use - the
purchase of other machinery and equipment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the budget amendment.
6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #044 re a DHRS Grant for EMS
activities.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
044
DATE: February 1, 1989
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND/STEP Grant
001-000-334-291.00
$ 34,260
$ 0
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Comm. Emerg. Srvs.
Other Contractual Services
001-107-526-033.49
$ 4,300
$ 0
Other Operating Supplies
001-107-526-035.29
$ 1,360
$ 0
Automotive
001-107-526-066.42
$ 12,000
$ 0
Communication Equipment - All
001-107-526-066.45
$ 9,000
$ 0
Other Machinery & Equipment
001-107-526-066.49
$ 7,600
$ 0
1. Industrial Development Bonds - Profold Corporation
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Vitunac:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE:
RE: B.C.C. MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 1989
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS
PROFOLD CORPORATION
February 1, 1989
In connection with the issuance by the County of industrial
development bonds on behalf of the Profold Corporation's
move to Indian River County, it is necessary for the
Chairman to execute the attached form so that Profold's
request for bond allocation can be placed on file in
Tallahassee.
The County authorized the issuance of these bonds in the
last calendar year, but the allocation was used up state
wide. New allocations this calendar year will be made April
1 and July 1, and it is hoped Profold will be able to
receive an allotment in the April 1 allocation.
7
FEB 71989
LOOK 76 FCL 07
Pr—
FEB 7 1989
BOOK i6 OGE 08
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute Notice of Intent Form as
described above.
Division Serial No.
Prior Division Serial No.
STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF BOND FINANCE
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE BONDS AND REQUEST FOR WRITTEN CONFIRMATION
PART I. (to be. completed by applicant) Datet January 24, 1989
. Name, address and phone number of person who prepared this Notice
(confirmation or rejection will be sent to this person unless
otherwise directed)s
Charles L. Sieck. Esquire • Phones (407) 395-5595
Address RHOADS & SINON. 1200 North Federal Hwy Suite 308, Boca Raton,
Florida 33432
Issuing Agency: Indian River County, Florida
Company (if applicable) : Profold, Inc.
Amounts $973,000.00
Is this a Supplementary -Notice? Yes No
Check one of the followings
Multifamily Single Family Other x
(if Other, specify) Manufacturing facility
Is this a Priority Project under State law? Yes No
x
Purposes Acquisition, construction and equipping a manufacturing facility
s. 147 (f) or similar IRC Approval Dates September 6, 1988
Contemplated Date (s) Of Issue:within ninety (90) days after written confirmation
• of allocation.
Approving Authority (Unit of Government) s . Indian River County, Florida
Agency Official and Title, Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
I hereby certify that the elected official or voter approval required
pursuant to 1411) of the Internal Revenue Code has been obtained on
the date indicated aboveL and .that the amount reasonably expected to
be required for the financing equals at least 90% of the amount
requested above,
Signature of Agency Officials
.ice C CcJI. �.�Y
PART II. (to be oomp�leted by Division o Bond Finance)
Date and Time Received' Received by:
Status' (confirmed or rejected)
Comments' •
Amount Confirmed: Confirmation Valid Through:
Category of Confirmations
TitlesDirector, Div. of Bond Finance
ISSUER IS HEREBY ADVISED THAT THIS CONFIRMATION IS CONDITIONAL AND
SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED FINAL UNTIL•AND UNLESS (1) THE DIVISION
RECEIVES TIMELY NOTIFICATION OF ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS PURSUANT TO
159.805(5)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES, AND (2) THE DIVISION HAS ISSUED ITS
• FINAL CONFIRMATION OF ALLOCATION (FORM BF 2007-B) WITH RESPECT TO THE
BONDS.
8
•
J. Release of County Liens
The Board reviewed memo from the County Attorney's Office:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Q• tle_ti
FROM: a R. Keller, County Attorney's Office
DATE: January 24, 1989
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 2/07/89
RELEASE COUNTY LIENS
I have prepared the following lien releases and request the
Board authorize the Chairman to execute them:
Lot#4 of RIVER SHORES ESTATES, UNIT #3, in the name of
Ronald B. & Manda Smith
Lot#19 of RIVER SHORES ESTATES, UNIT#2, in the name of
George & Margaret Fay Kulczycki
Lot#34 of RIVER SHORES ESTATES, UNIT#3, in the name of
Hedwig Neuhaus
Lot#25 of RIVER SHORES ESTATES, UNIT#3, in the name of
Joseph E. & Judith t. O'Rourke
Lot#11 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#35 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#39 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR1f-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#40 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#48 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#60 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#63 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#64 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#70 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#77 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#78 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
9
FES 7 1989
e00K 76 FV,I. 09
FEB d 1989
BOOK 76 o,E 10
Lot#82 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#96 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#99 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#122 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#131 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#135 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#141 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#164 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#166 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#167 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#168 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#169 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#171 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#205 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#229 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#231 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#233 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#240 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#248 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#251 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#261 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#263 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#265 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
10
Lot#275 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#278 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#279 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#13,BIk#3 of GLENDALE LAKES SUBDIVISION, in the
name of Elva Gillespie
Lot#23 of OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES, UNIT 4, in the
name of Ralph W. Sexton, Charles R Sexton, and
John R. Tripson, as Trustees of Trust "B" under
the will of Waldo E. Sexton
Lot 3 & Si of Lot 4 of SUNNYDALE ACRES in the name of
HELEN WILDER WILLIAMS
Lot 12 and Si of Lot 11 of LITTLE PORTION SUBD. in the
names of LORENZ A. and FRANCES T. MILLS
Lot 5 of BREEZEWOOD SUBD. in the names of ARTHUR K. and
MARIAN L. BROUGHMAN
Lot 13 of BREEZEWOOD SUBD. in the names of FRANK J. and
HEDWIG E. ROGEL
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Release of Liens listed
above.
COPIES OF SAID RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
PRESENTATION OF F.I.N.D. FUNDS FOR WABASSO CAUSEWAY
Joe Earman, representing the Florida Inland Navigation
District, came before the Board to make a presentation of
matching funds for the Wabasso Causeway. Mr. Earman advised that
Indian River County, being in such an endangered ecological area
and in the narrows of the Indian River, gets back from F.I.N.D.
about four times the money they pay in taxes. In the two last
years, the county paid a little over $300,000 in taxes and got
$1,200,000 back. Mr. Earman then listed various things F.I.N.D.
has done for Indian River County, i.e., given the County an extra
marine patrolman completely equipped with truck, car and boat;
11
FEB 71989
KOOK. 76 Pa 11
FEB 7 1999
BOOK 76 r GE 12
furnished radios to the bridge tenders on every bridge on the
Intracoastal Waterway; and given an 80% grant for the only Fire
and Rescue boat on the Waterway within 60 miles. F.I.N.D. also
gave a 50% grant for Joe S. Earman Park; they just gave some
$40,000 to the City of Vero Beach money for moorings at their
marina; and they are funding the Wabasso Causeway improvements
50%. Mr. Earman stressed that in outright grants, they have
given 100% money, or $450,000 to the Indian River in Martin, St.
Lucie and Indian River Counties, with some $200,000 going to
Indian River County. They bought a computer for $75,000 and gave
it to the DNR based in Fort Pierce; they also bought the DNR a
boat and equipment; and they have completely surveyed every
island in the river and put all the information into that
computer. They are also planting some natural trees and are
putting signs on each island as to whether it is suitable for
camping or recreation or should not be trespassed upon, and they
have cleaned up every island in St. Lucie and Indian River
Counties.
Mr. Earman stated that he would like the County to endorse,
organize and support an "Adopt an Island" Program. Under this
program any group or civic association would adopt a particular
island and would go out twice a year to pick up the litter that
accumulates. These islands will have a sign on them "Adopted by
Mr. Earman emphasized that the Indian River Intra-
coastal Waterway is the largest park in the world; over a million
people use it every weekend; and we must preserve this natural
resource.
Mr. Earman then presented the Chairman with a $29,934 check
from F.I.N.D. towards improvements on the Wabasso Causeway and
congratulated staff for the project coming in under budget.
EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT FOR AERIAL PHOTOS OF I.R. LAGOON
The Board reviewed letter from Dr. Virnstein, as follows:
12
EW ADDRESS:
C
kf1iin'SsJoners iST
S.4. , Rt 5, Sox 4316; Pabtt-ka, P1. 32077' t tot,leytrator
January 3, 1989
Pubi17,17:1Corn: Works
Utiii jnit
F, ties �' dev,
OthanCe
et
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
1
Dear Commissioners:
I am extremely pleased that on 1/19/88 the commission voted to invest
$4,000 in seagrass beds in Martin County, which directly support the
majority of a fishing industry worth over $50,000,000 a year to Indian
River County. Two developments have taken place since then. First, we did
not have suitable conditions for aerial photography in 1988 after the money
was awarded. Secondly, the additional money needed for photointerpretation
and extensive ground—truthing (field verification) will now be provided by
the water management districts through the SWIM program. I will therefore
bill the county only for the aerial photography of seagrasses in Indian
River County.
Thus, for the total sum of one thousand four -hundred dollars
($1,400.00), Seagrass Ecosystems Analysts will provide aerial photos of
all of Indian River lagoon in Indian River County, from Round Island to .
Sebastian Inlet. This price includes the photography plus my cost of
obtaining that photography for the county: Film format will be 9" x 9"
aerial color infra—red exposed to give a film scale of 1:24,000 (1" = 2,000
ft, the same as quadrangle—scale topographic maps). They could be printed
at any scale to match planning maps. This film would thus also be useful
for other purposes, such as determining wetlands and detecting land
clearing. The film would belong to. Indian River County, but would be
available for examination at any time by SEA.
I hope there is no problem in extending our contract past the original
1988 expiration date. Please let me know if there is any problem with
this. I thank you for your consideration of this badly needed project and
appreciate your care and concern in spending county funds.
Again, thank you.
Sincerely,
1 .a)(„).
Robert W. Virnstein, Ph.D.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
extension of the 1988 contract with Seagrass Ecosystems
Analysts past the original expiration date per the
above letter from Dr. Virnstein.
EXTENSION OF CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
13
FB 71989
BOND 6 osE 13'
BOARD
FEB 7 1989
BOOK
76oGE 147
PUBLIC HEARING - ACQUISITION OF BREEZY VILLAGE WATER & SEWER
UTILITIES
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 Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of
in the
Court, was pub-
/ft",
ub-
/ �U
fished 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, 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 me this ol / day of .D. 19 let__
tjites 1Vfal a et?71-y(_.
(SEAL)
•
(Cle
Notary Public, State of Florida
My Commission Expires June 29, 198?
bonded Thru Troy Fain - Insurance, Int
PUBLIC NOTICE
On Tuesday, February 7, 1989, at 9:05 A.M., the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, will meet In the County Adminis-
tration Building at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
FL, to consider the purchase by the County of
the Breezy Village Utility System, including cer-
tain real property and equipment, • for a total
price of -.S65.004: A linterested-party are invited..
to attend a public hearing concerning thls pur-
chase, at which time the County will make a pre-
sentation pursuant to .125.3401, Florida Stat-
utes, regarding the advisability of thls purchase.
It is contemplated that a surcharge of $15.00 per.
month, per customer on the residents of Breezy
Village will be used to fund this purchase. •
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed-
ings is made which includes testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is based.
January 13, 27, 1989
Utilities Director Pinto made the following presentation:
14
DATE: JANUARY 31, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
THRU: TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT
FROM: HARRY E. ASHER
ASSISTANT DIREC'OOF ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF BREEZY VILLAGE WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES
BACKGROUND:
The Breezy Village Water and Sewer Utilities serves approximately
ninety customers within the Breezy Village Mobile Home Park.
The Wastewater Treatment Plant is an 0.015 million gallons per day
(MGD) extended air treatment process wastewater plant.
The Water Treatment Plant is an 0.015 MGD water plant; it is an
aeration/chlorination type plant with a raw water feed.
The utility wishes to sell the system and, as a result, the County
has been negotiating its purchase. The negotiated price at this
time is $65,000.00.
ANALYSIS:
The County's policy has been to acquire such privately held
utilities and to expand its regional and subregional water and
wastewater facilities. Acquisition of this system will assist us in
implementing this policy.
Acquisition costs are to be financed through the Impact Fee Fund and
repaid through a surcharge of approximately $11.99 per customer per
month. Based upon an average usage of 3,000 gallons per month per
customer paying current Indian River county rates plus the estimated
$11.99 per customer per month surcharge, the customers would realize
an estimated reduction of $3.71 in their monthly charges.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners conceptually approves the proposed
purchase agreement based upon the outcome of the Public Hearing.
Director Pinto reviewed the history of the on-going problems
with the Breezy Village utilities that have existed for the last
5 years and noted that the last time this came before the Board,
a complaint was filed by the residents of Breezy Village about
the quality of the water and the quality of the service. Mr.
Pinto advised that these are specific problems that occur when
you have small utilities with only 100 customers. Those few
customers have to support the total operation of the system, and
it becomes a burden. As directed by the Board last year, the
15
FE 'd 1989
BOOK 76 f',JL 1J
FEB 7 1989
Bog 76 PAGE lb
Utilities Department has been talking to as many of the private
utilities as possible to negotiate some method of taking them out
of service and incorporating them into the County utility system.
Director Pinto explained that there are certain requirements
under State Stat. 125.340 that we must meet when doing a negoti-
ated purchase of a utility. In this particular case, we started
at a sum of $150,000 and negotiated down to $65,000 but some
terms of the contract are still under negotiation. If the Board
approves the purchase at $65,000, staff will then finalize the
agreements and bring them back to the next regular meeting.
Director Pinto then proceeded to review in detail the
information required by statute, all of which has been provided;
i.e., most recent available income expense statement from the
utility; most recent available balance sheet; a statement of the
existing rate base of the utility; and an inspection of the
system, which was done by staff. Information regarding the
reasonableness of the purchase, the sale price and the terms,
what is required to improve the system, what the assets are,
etc., is also required, and Director Pinto advised that all that
information is available, and staff believes the $65,000 purchase
price is reasonable for both the owners and the county. In
regard to the impact of the sale on existing customers, they did
not see any negative impact, but rather feel it is positive in
just about every way. There will be a surcharge of approximately
$11.99 to cover the purchase price, which still will mean a $3.71
monthly reduction in the rates, and at the same time, the
purchase will improve the quality and dependability of service
immensely. As to the ability and willingness of the investor to
make any additional investment required, Mr. Pinto noted that
once the County takes over, it becomes a county liability; the
system, therefore, necessarily will be repaired as required, and
we will be working from a customer base of some 15,000 rather
than just 100. Director Pinto informed the Board that we will
have to spend approximately $35,000 immediately to make some
16
repairs that not only will benefit the customers, but when the
system gets tied into a county regional system, these are things
that would have to be taken care of anyway.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that not only does this take
another package system out from under private control, it also
eliminates the potential for additional package systems. Mr.
Fischer's industrial property has been denied any septic tank
permits, and this would be an interim plant that could service
that property, as well as the other mobile home park in that
area, until connection to the county system is available.
Utilities Director Pinto confirmed that we are trying to tie
adjacent developments in the area together. As we move along and
take these facilities out, it is a value not only to the
customers of that facility, but environmentally to the entire
county. He further noted that if the County did not take over
and those improvements were required of the present owner, that
$35,000 would be passed on to the customers in the rate base, and
also the utility would be able to earn a rate of return based on
that. Director Pinto continued his review, stressing that the
county will provide quality service and the purchase of this
system is definitely in the interest of the public. He advised
that all the different aspects of the negotiations have been
outlined in the backup material provided to the Board and further
noted that after approval of the system, he will have to come
back immediately with an amendment to the county rate structure
to provide for the purchase of this utility and the rates as we
have set forth.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if it would be possible to
provide some kind of written statement to the residents as to the
actual cost impact to them.
Director Pinto stated that staff will do that and further
advised that they did have a meeting with the residents which was
very well attended and our proposal very well received.
FEB ` 1989
17
r
E+cuK 76 mc 17
FEB 7 1989
BOOK 76 FACE 18
Director Pinto next informed the Board that the water plant
site itself is a land locked piece of ground adjoining the
recreation area, with its only access being the utility easement.
When the County utility eventually abandons that system to
connect into the regional system, it is the intent that property
then would become the property of the Home Owners Association,
the reason being that it does not have any practical application
or value to the county, mainly because of the access problem.
When the site of the wastewater treatment plant is abandoned, the
present owner of the utility has asked for the right to purchase
that back at a fair market value, and the contract sets out that
is to be determined by 3 appraisers. If he does not purchase the
property, we will surplus it and sell it.
Commissioner Bird commented that rather than have three
appraisals on that small wastewater site, he would hope that we
could mutually agree on one appraiser, and Director Pinto
explained that it was set up that we would agree mutually on the
appraisers, and then if there was some dispute, we would get into
three. There are some things built in the contract where we will
share the price of the appraisal.
Commissioner Scurlock clarified that the concept basically
is to be able to reach a. purchase price in an easy way, and if
that cannot be accomplished, provide a formal process to
establish the price.
Commissioner Bowman asked if the mobile home owners own the
land their units sit on, and if so, wished to know what Mr.
Wilson's interest is in this 2 acre site.
Director Pinto explained that Mr. Wilson owns it and the
assets on it, and possibly he might wish to develop it whenever
we move off the. property. Any use of that property would have to
meet all zoning regulations.
Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Eric Pollard, 6153 95th St., Breezy Village, wished to thank
the Board, and particularly Mr. Scurlock and Mr. Pinto, for
18
months of effort. He wished to clarify that the residents do own
their own property and have a non-profit corporation which owns
all the roads and common areas within the subdivision. When we
are talking about surplus property, we are talking about the
landlocked property that no one can use without access, and the
homeowners own that property. Mr. Pollard did not believe that
anyone in the park has expressed any objections to the concept
and formula proposed by Mr. Pinto and Mr. Asher.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and
the Chairman thereupon declared the public hearing closed.
Attorney Vitunac asked that if the Board has a Motion to
give conceptual approval, that the Motion include authorization
to prepare a rate ordinance for the surcharge.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to complete negotiations and bring the agreement
back to the Board for final approval, and also to
prepare a rate ordinance for the surcharge.
ORCHID ISLE ASSOCIATES REQUEST FOR R/W ABANDONMENT
Chairman Wheeler reviewed the following and announced that
the Attorney for Orchid Isle Associates has requested this item
be removed from the Agenda indefinitely.
19
FE 7 1989
DooK 76 P'J,E. 19
;FEB 1989
•
BOOK 6 PAGE 20
TO:
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: John W. McCoy4a
Staff Planner, urrent Development
DATE: January 30, 1989
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
1 r�
Robert M. Kea ' ng, CP
Community Developml'nt Director
THROUGH: Stan Boli4VAICP
Chief, Current Development
SUBJECT: ORCHID ISLE ASSOCIATES REQUEST FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY
ABANDONMENT
Please find attached a copy of a letter from the applicant asking
that the above referenced application be postponed. While the
item was not put on the agenda, it was advertised in the paper for
this Board of County Commission meeting. As a public courtesy,
the Board of County Commission may want to announce this item will
not be considered at this meeting.
Collins, Brown & Caldwell
CHARTERED
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
744 BEACHLAND BOULEVAR
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
FAX 0 407.2348213 I
Januarr2.5 1-989
Mr. Robert M. Keating
Community Development Director
Planning and Development' Dept.
County Administration Building
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Res Orchid Island Associates Petition of Abandonment 'of
Right -of -Way.
Dear Bob:
As we discussed earlier today, please pull the above -
referenced Petition for Abandonment from the Board of County
Commissioners' Agenda for consideration on February 7. The
petitioner would like to continue consideration of the petition
indefinitely. We will comply with whatever notice requirements
the County might have to reactivate the petition at a future
date. If anything in addition to this letter is required, please
contact me immediately.
Very truly yours,
BRUCE BARKETT
FOR THE FIRM
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously removed the
above item from the Agenda indefinitely as requested
by Attorney Barkett.
20
TASHKEDE PROPERTIES REQUEST FOR RIW ABANDONMENT
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 Daily
Vero Beach. I,ndion 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 matter of fe... -lize !% a.v/ /
in the
fished In said newspaper in the issues of
Court, was pub -
i' If if
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 me this
(SEAL)
FEB 7 1989
, Thence. continue North 00°24'42" bast
along the centerline of County Road 512
pavement a distance 012251.75 feet,
Thence. run South 89°32'51" East a dis- '
lance df 147.89 feet of a point on the
East right-of-way of Lateral "U" canal .
(same point being on the West tine of
Tract 2108, 144.57 feel South of the
Northwest corner of said Tract 2108);
• Thence, run South 89°32'51" East.
along the South toe of existing levee e
, distance o1 1867.81 feet to a point on the •
West line o1 Tract 2110. said point being I
140.70 feet South of the Northwest cot-
. ner of said Tract 2110; '
? Thence, run South' 89°30'37° East, •
11 along the South toe o1 existing levee. a
distance 012724.58 feet to a point on the
' East line of Tract 2111, said point being
136.83 feet South of the Northeast cor-•
ner of said Tract 2111;
Thence,. run South 89°28'10" East,
along the South toe of existing levee. a
distance of 2754.61 feet to a point on the
• West line al Tract 2114. said point being
136.48 feet South of the Northwest cor-
ner of said Tract 2114;
• Thence. run South 89°3215" East.
?'along the South toe of existing levee. a
distance of 2784.61 feet to a point on the
West line of Tract 2118, said point being
132.67 feet South of the Northwest cor-,
ner of Bald Tract 2116;
Thence, run South 89°37'13" East,
along the South toe of existing levee, a
distance 012724.81 feet to a point on the
• • West line of Tract 2118, said point being
128.37 feet South, of the Northwest cor-
ner of said Tract 2118;
• Thence, run South 89°34.24" East.'i
•
along the South toe of existito apnog int levee, a•;
which
s distance2 30 feet southf eet and 15 feet East 01
the Northeast corner of Tract 2119;
- Thence, run South 00°27'54" West :
along the centerline of a right-of-way 30
` feet in width, said centerline being parol-
1 lel to and 15 feet East o1 Tracts 2119
2219. 2319 and 2419, a distance of •
5303.67 feel to a point on the North fine
of said Section 2; •
Notary Public, State of Florida
My Commission Expires June 29, 1989
bonded TMu Troy Fain - Insurance. Ins.
Thence, run bourn er"35'19" tam along
the North line of Section 2, a distance o1
85.65 feet to the North East *corner of
said Section 2;
Thence, run South 00°14.40" West
along the East line of said Section 2 a
• distance of 2545.22. feet to they North
right-of-way of State Road 00;: •
Thence. run North 89.32'25" West along
the North rightol-way of State Road 60
(said right-of-way .being 100 feet North
e1 the centerline of State Road 60) a dos.
tante of 5385.40 Met to West Ibro of Bald
Section 2:
- Thence. continue North 89°32'58" West
along the North right-of-way 01 State
Road 60 a distance of 5392.24 feet to the
West line of Section 3; ,
Thence. continue North 89°33'20" West
along the North right-of-way of State
Road 60 in Section 4, a distance of
.5053.09 feet to the point -of -beginning.
LESS AND EXCEPT that portion of the
'above-described progery described as
Lateral "U", secordin9 to the Plat o1 the
FELLSMERE FARMS COMPANY SUB.
DIVISION. recorded In Plat Book 2. Page
8, Public Records o1 SL Lucie County,
Florida. is
A public hearing at which parties in Interest
and citizens shall have en opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board o1 County Com-
missioners of Indian River County. Florida in the
County Commission Chambers. of the County
Administration Building, located a1 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, Febru-
ary 7, 1989 at 9:05 a.m. •.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
M made which Includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which Inc appeal will be based.
• INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
yIi BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By -s -Gary WhesIs1
Chairman
January 18, 1989
21
f %▪ Noi'ice OF hueUC 14EARINO
Notice of hearing to consider a petition for the
' dosing. abandonment, and vacation of a portion
of the canal and road rights-of-way as shown on
the plat of the FELLSMERE FARMS COMPANY
'SUBDIVISION recorded in Plat Book 2. Page 8,
Public Records o1 St. Lucie County, said lands
•Floflowrida. lying and being In Indian River County,
Lying and being In Indian River County. Floe:
Ida. more particularly described as lollowsc'•' • •
.The subject property Is described as: •
1y, Canal and road rights-of-way, shown on
. the Piet o1 the FELLSMERE FARMS
bel COMPANY SUBDIVISION recorded In rI
is! Plat Book 2, Page 8. Public Records o1 '
St. Lucre County, Fiends, lying within •i
the boundaries of That certain real prop-.
ery • located in Indian River County de- 'r1
s• • All
scribed
ool a lands within
on Exhibit
ath Dched e to Farms
Water Cohtrol District Including that par- I
lion of Sections 2, 3, and 4. Township 33
South, Range 37 East. tying North of
State Road 60 and East of County Road •j
'" 512; and, including that portion o1 Tracts
2108 through 2119, bpIh Inclusive, lying :7
South of the South toe of an existing f!
East-West levee across the North end of
said Lots 2108 through 2119, and, all of r.
• the following Tracts: 2208through 2219.
both Inclusive. tracts 2308 through 2319, !I
p both inclusive, 2408 through 2419• both
• Inclusive, including all canal and/or
. road rights-of-way lying within or adja-
o... cent to above described Tracts. and, .
strip of land 200 feet In width lying South
of tracts 2048 through 2419, both lnclu-
b' sive, and North o1 the, North line of Sec- •
.dons 2, 3.4. Township 33 South, Range ;
a 37 East. all as shown on Plat of Fells •
-
mere Farms Company SubdMislon of
Unsurveyed Township 32 South. Range
C 37 East, according to Plat thereof as re-
• corded in Plat Book 2, page 8, Public
, Records o1 St. Lucie County, Florida,
and not lying and being 1n Indian River .
• County, Florida and being more particu-
larly described as follows:
" From the Intersection of the centerline of
State Road 80 and the centerline of
County Road 512 (formerly State Road
—512), run North 00°224'08" East along the '
centerline of County Road 512 pavement 1,
a distance of 100 feel t0 the point of
• beginning (on the North right-of-way of
-Stale Road 60):
•
' Thence. continue North 00°24'08" East
along the centerline of County Road 512 '
. • pavement a distance of 5500 feel;
BOOK.
Al b1 ti,:uF
21
FEB 7 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE. 22
Chief Planner Stan Boling made the staff presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert M. Keatin;
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Stan Boleng, AICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy d,191v
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: January 27, 1989
SUBJECT: TASHKEDE PROPERTIES REQUEST FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of February 7, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Steve Henderson, Esq., on behalf of Tashkede Properties, Ltd., has
submitted a petition for abandonment of a portion of the canal and
road rights-of-way as shown on a plat of the Fellsmere Farms
Company Subdivision. The applicant's agent has stated that the
County has little legal interest in these rights-of-way (the plat
does not specifically dedicate road right-of-way to the County).
The purpose of this abandonment is to have the County release what
interest it may have to "clear title" for the surrounding,
assembled property.
These rights-of-way have provided drainage ways for agricultural
operations. The present owner wants to have the rights-of-way
abandoned in order to establish an agricultural operation which
uses a new design, which could not otherwise be accommodated with
the existing platted drainage/roadway grid layout.
Per guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners,
the petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility
providers having jurisdiction or potential interests within the
right-of-way. All reviewing agencies and departments have
recommended approval of the abandonment. These right-of-ways are
not part of the roadway system as noted on the County Thoroughfare
Plan, and are not needed for the thoroughfare system. The County
Attorney's office has reviewed and approved the attached abandon-
ment regulation for legal form and sufficiency.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County abandon its rights to the right-
of-way as described in the resolution and that the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners be authorized to execute the at-
tached resolution (Attachment #3).
22
0
----
-
--- a
--------------
.::
gm
_
-
_•
-
-.
_ '.,
i -.
-
-
-
_.
..
I -
-
-
_.
_ r
_
•
�
it
. T .-..
:.h:
.
yr+w
i -
fit" `-.
-
.'.'....a..
__
} •_
..:.�. �.i,"`t•:^'
w
.
1 . r
-
�..u.. or
-
a -
-
Y -.xr
--
,xi,..
it W
II F
Vh
$ State Road 60-
o ��
•
-
,r-
0 — SUBJECT R -O -W
Planner Boling clarified that this is a request to abandon a
series of drainage and road R/Ws that were created on an old
Fellsmere Farms plat, and all the affected owners have concurred
with the request. He informed the Board that there is one
correction on the graphic included in the backup material - the
portion of a R/W shown adjacent to CR 512 is not included in this
request and will not be abandoned.
Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and he thereupon declared the public hearing
closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-16 abandoning a portion of the canal
and road RIWs in Fellsmere Farms Company Subdv.
23
FEB ? 1989
EooK .1
F�S,,L 23
FEB 7 1989
QooK �,`r
. 6 6 FA6E 24
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 16
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN •RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
CLOSING, ABANDONMENT AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF
THE CANAL AND ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON THE
PLAT OF THE FELLSMERE FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 8 PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, on November 28, 1988, the County received a duly
executed and documented petition from Steve Henderson, Esquire of
Vero Beach, Florida, requesting the County to close, vacate,
abandon and disclaim any right, title and interest of the County
and the public in and to a portion of the canal and road
rights-of-way as shown on the plant of the Fellsmere Farms Company
Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 8 Public Records of
St. Lucie County, said lands now lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §336.10, notice
of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly
published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting
documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the Board finds that said
right-of-way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within
any municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for
continuity of the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor
access to any given private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All right, title and interest of the County and the public in
and to that certain right-of-way being known more particularly
described as:
Exhibit "A"
is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered,
discontinued, remissed and released.
2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be forthwith
published once within THIRTY (30) days from the date of adoption
hereof; and
3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statues §336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River
County without undue delay.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Fggp,-t•_,
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
'Scurlock , and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 7th day of February , 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST:
BY:
IF-
�� '' ' ey • . Barton, Clerk'
State of Florida
County of Indian R' er` . e .
Gary C heeler, Chairman
Board County Commissioners
24
EXHIBIT A
All of the lands within the Delta Farms Water Control District
including that portion of Sections 2, 3 and 4, Township 32 South,
Range 37 East, lying North of State Road 60 and East of County
Road 512; and, including that portion of Tracts 2108 through 2119,
both inclusive, lying South of the South toe of an existing East-
West levee across the North end of said Lots 2108 through 2119,
and, all of the following Tracts: 2208 through 2219, both
inclusive, tracts 2308 through 2319, both inclusive, 2408 through
2419, both inclusive, including all canal and/or road rights-of-
way
ights-of-way lying within or adjacent to above described Tracts, and, strip
of land 200 feet in width lying South of tracts 2408 through 2419,
both inclusive, and North of the North line of Sections 2, 3, 4,
Township 32 South, Range 37 East, all as shown on Plat of
Fellsmere Farms Company Subdivision of Unsurveyed Township 32
South, Range 37 East, according to Plat thereof as recorded in
Plat Book 2, page 8, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida,
and now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida and being
more particularly described as follows:
From the intersection of the centerline of State Road 60 and
the centerline of County Road 512 (formerly State Road
512), run North 00°24'06" East along the centerline of
County Road 512 pavement a distance of 100 feet to the
point of beginning (on the North right-of-way of State
Road 60);
Thence, continue North 00°24'06" East along the centerline of
County Road 512 pavement a distance of 5600 feet;
Thence, continue North 00°24'42" East along the centerline of
County Road 512 pavement a distance of 2251.75 feet;
Thence, run South 89°32'51" East a distance of 147.89 feet to a
point on the East right-of-way of Lateral "U" canal
(same point being on the West line of Tract 2108, 144.57
feet South of the Northwest corner of said Tract 2108);
25
FEB 71989
9
DOOK U F"A6L
FEB `989
f
BOCK 7
6 fa.,E u
Thence, run South 89°32'51" East, along the South toe of
existing levee a distance of 1867.81 feet to a point on
the West line of Tract 2110, said point being 140.70
feet South of the Northwest corner of said Tract 2110;
Thence, run South 89°30'37" East, along the South toe .of
existing levee, a distance of 2724.58 feet to a point on
the East line of Tract 2111, said point being 136.83
feet South of the Northeast corner of said Tract 2111;
Thence, run South 89°26'10" East, along the South toe of
existing levee, a distance of 2754.61 feet to a point on
the West line of Tract 2114, said point being 136.48
feet South of the Northwest corner of said Tract 2114;
Thence, run South 89°32'15" East, along the South toe of
existing levee, a distance of 2784.61 feet to a point on
(the West line of Tract 2116, said point being 132.67
feet South of the Northwest corner of said Tract 2116;
Thence,. run South 89°37'13" East, along the South toe of
existing levee, a distance of 2724.61 feet to a point on
the West line of Tract 2118, said point being 126.37
feet South of the Northwest corner of said Tract 2118;
Thence, run South 89°34'24" East, along the South toe of
existing levee, a distance of 2739.59 feet to, a point
which is 122.30 feet south and 15 feet East of the
Northeast corner of Tract 2119;
Thence, run South 00°27'54" West along the centerline of a
right-of-way 30 feet in width, said centerline being
parall6to and 15 feet East of Ti is 2119, 2219, 2319
and 2419, a distance of 5303.67 feet to a point on the
North line of said Section 2;
26
Thence, run South 89°35'19" East along the North line of Section
2, a distance of 85.65 feet to the North East corner of
said Section 2;
Thence, run South 00°14'40" West along the East line of said
Section 2 a distance of 2545.22 feet to the North right-
of-way of State Road 60;
Thence, run North 89°32'25" West along the North right-of-way of
State Road 60 (said right-of-way being 100 feet North of
the centerline of State Road 60) a distance of 5385.40
feet to West line of said Section 2;
Thence, continue North 89°32'56" West along the North right-of-
way
ight-of-way of State Road 60 a distance of 5392.24 feet to the
West line of Section 3;
Thence, continue North 89°33'20" West along the North right-of-
way of State Road 60 in Section 4, a distance of 5053.09
feet to the point -of -beginning.
LESS AND EXCEPT that portion of the above-described property described as
Lateral "U", :according to the Plat of the FELLSMERE FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION,
recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 8, Public Records ofSt. Lucie County, Florida.
•
REQUEST FOR R/W ABANDONMENT IN ROSELAND (MARVIN HALL)
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:
27
FEB 7 1989
FA r 2'i
FEB 7 1999
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a i www
in the matter of
7, .d
in the
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 1/4—,1/%4
Court, was pub-
/f? ,' 99
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in sajd 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 farther 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 me this .1." _-_ / _ df7 19 ' afy
(SEAL)
ess Manager)
BOOK 76 FAGE 28
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider a petition for the
closing, abandonment, and vacation of a portion
of 79th Court between 134th Street and 135th
Street in Roseland, said lands Tying and being in
Indian River County, Florida.
Lying and being in Indian River County, Fior-
Ida, more particularly described as follows: - •
The subject property is described as:
ALL THAT PORTION OF LIME STREET -•
(79TH COURT) LYING . BETWEEN
BLOCK 46 AND BLOCK 49 RUNNING
FROM THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BRE-
VARD AVENUE (134TH STREP, TO--=�-j
• THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WAUREGAN
AVENUE (135TH STREET)AS SHOWN '
ON THE PLAT OF THTOWN OF
WAUREGAN RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 1, PAGE 178 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY. THE
SAID LANDS NOW LYING IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
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, Febru-
ary 7, 1989 at 9:05 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made which includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By -s -Gary Wheeler
Chairman
January 18, 1989
(CI ePli of the Circuit • . �~ -i-60ufty1 NotaryNotary Public, State of Florida
My Commission Expires June 29, 1989
Btir1.4 n_..._• .
Chief Planner Boling made the staff presentation, noting
that actually this street does not exist; it is only a paper
street:
28
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
1`bert M. Keatin
Community Develdpme• Director
4/5
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy/%P%
Staff Planner, Current Development
0
DATE: January 6, 1989
SUBJECT: MARVIN HALL'S REQUEST FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF 79TH COURT
BETWEEN 134TH STREET AND 135TH STREET IN ROSELAND
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its
regular meeting of February 7, 1989.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
Marvin Hall has submitted a petition for abandonment of 79th Court
between 134th Street and 135th Street. Currently, this
right-of-way property is wooded. The petitioner proposed to use
the abandoned right-of-way property to enhance the use of his
adjacent property.
Per guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners,
the petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility
providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way. All
reviewing agencies and departments have recommended approval of
the abandonment, with the provision that a 40' drainage and
utilities easement be retained.
This portion of 79th Court is not part of the roadway system as
noted on the County Thoroughfare Plan, and is not needed for the
thoroughfare system. Abandonment of the subject right-of-way
would not deny convenient access to any adjacent property. The
County Attorneys office has reviewed and approved the attached
resolution for legal form and sufficiency.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County abandon its rights to that
portion of 79th Court described in the attached resolution, and
that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners be
authorized to execute the attached resolution (Attachment #3),
with the following condition:
1. A 40' drainage and utilities easement be retained as
described in Exhibit "A".
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were
none, and he thereupon declared the public hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Comissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
29
FEL 7 1989
lkOOK 76 F' GL 29
FEB 7 1989
sou 76 F', F 30
Resolution 89-17 abandoning 79th Court between
134th and 135th Street, Roseland, as requested by
Marvin Hall.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 17
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT, AND VACATION OF 79TH
COURT BETWEEN 134TH STREET AND 135TH STREET, SAID
LANDS LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, on November 9, 1988 the County received a duly
executed and documented petition from MARVIN HALL, 4950 134st
Street, Roseland, Florida, requesting the County to close, vacate,
abandon and disclaim any right, title and interest of the County
and the public in and to 79TH COURT BETWEEN 134TH STREET AND 135TH
STREET, said lands lying in Indian River County, Florida.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §336.10, notice
of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly
published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting
documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the Board finds that said
right-of-way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within
any municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for
continuity of the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor
access to any given private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All right, title and interest of the County and the public in
and to that certain right-of-way being known more particularly
described as:
ALL THAT PORTION OF LIME STREET (79TH COURT) LYING
BETWEEN BLOCK 46 AND BLOCK 49 RUNNING FROM THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF BREVARD AVENUE (134TH STREET) TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF WAUREGAN AVENUE RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 1, PAGE 178 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY. THE SAID LANDS NOW LYING IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered,
discontinued, remissed and released, with the exception that a 40'
wide drainage and utilities easement be retained (as described in
Exhibit A) and this easement is reserved in perpetuity unto the
County and the Public and shall not be deemed to have been closed
or abandoned in any way by this resolution.
2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be forthwith
published once within thirty (30) days from the date of adoption
hereof.; and
3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statues §336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River
County without undue delay.
30
NMI
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Bowman
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Scurlock , and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 7th day ofFebruary , 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Gary- Wheeler, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
EASEMENT
EXHIBIT "A"
A 40 -foot strip of land lying 20 feet on each side of the
following described line:
Begin on the centerline of Lime Street (79th Court) at its
intersection with the North line of Brevard Avenue (134th Street)
as shown on the plat of the Town of Wauregan recorded in Plat
Book 1 Page 178 in the Public Records of St. Lucie County and run
North along the said centerline to its intersection with the
South line of Wauregan Avenue and the end of the easement. The
said lands now lying in Indian River County, Florida.
ORDINANCE AMENDING REQUIRED BOND AMOUNT FOR VACANT LOT DOCKS
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: -
31
FEB 7 1989
HOF 76 31
FEB r 1989
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of 4'm!/�._!�l'L.„.
in the _ Court, was pub -
4
Iished in said newspaper in the issues of
/5-, /ref
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in sajd 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 me this / f
(SEAL)
BOOK 76 PAGE 32
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida. shall hold a public hearing at which par-
ties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
tunity to be heard, In the County Commission
Chambers of the County Administration Build-
ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
9, Beach,t a
Florida. on Tuesday, February
a.m. to consider recommending the adoption of
an Ordinance entitled: .
AN ORDINANCE 'OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SEC •
-
TION 25.1, REGULATIONS FOR • SPE- ;.'1.•
CIFIC'LAND USES, OF APPENDIX A..'. a
ZONING. OF THE. CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; .AMENDING SECTION ;-
25.01(c)(7) TO ' REDUCE THE RE-
QUIRED BOND AMOUNT FROM A
A$5,000
D PROVIDING BOND TO ORTH CASH BOND
REPEAL OF.
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODI- ..
FICATION DATE, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE. •
A copy •of the proposed Ordinance will be
available at the Planning Department office on
he second floorof the County Administration
iuilding after December 9, 1988.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
insure that a verbatim record of the proceeding
s made which includes the testimony and evi-
ience upon which the appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS y
CHAIRMAN C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Jan. 18, 1989
Notary Public, State of Florlda
My Commission Fxr;rat t„„ en tenet
Chief Planner Boling reviewed the following and explained
the history of the proposed amendment:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISIOON HEADD CONCURRENCE:
-0444P
Robert M. Keats r g, v' P
Community Devel.pme• Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, §ICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy
Staff Planner, Development
DATE: January 27, 1989
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25.1(c)(7) SPECIFIC LAND
USE CRITERIA: RESIDENTIAL USES, SINGLE FAMILY DOCKS
N,0\
urrent
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of February 7, 1989.
32
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
At its regular meeting of November 15, 1988, the Board of County
Commissioners directed staff to initiate changes to the County's
vacant single-family lot dock regulations. The recommendation was
based upon a memo to the Board of County Commissioners from the
County Attorney's office, which raised concerns over the amount of
County resources expended versus the amount of public benefit
derived from:
a. allowing construction of docks on vacant lots while
prohibiting their use until a residence is constructed;
and
b. requiring a $5,000 bond to guarantee that docks are not
used until a residence is constructed.
The Board indicated that dock use should not occur prior to
construction of a residence and stated that some guarantee
(security) is needed to enforce the use prohibition. The Board
suggested that a $1,500.00 cash deposit with the County be requir-
ed in lieu of the posting of a bond.
Staff is proposing to implement the Board's directive by amending
Section 25.1(c)(7) of the zoning code. This section of the code
is that portion of the regulations for specific land uses which
addresses single-family docks constructed prior to construction of
a principal single-family dwelling unit. As proposed, this
amendment would require one form of posted security: a $1,500.00
cash escrow deposit with the County.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the proposed
amendment and has voted unanimously to modify the staff's proposed
ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the
applicant be given the option of posting a $1,500 cash escrow
deposit or posting a letter of credit in a format predetermined by
the County Attorney's office. The Commission's full motion is
reflected in the attached minutes.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES:
. Security Requirements
The main reason for the suggested ordinance change is the need for
greater administrative efficiency: administering the presentbond
requirement is cumbersome. Presently there are four County
departments which are involved in the review, approval and
tracking of bonds (Planning, Legal, Budget, and Building).
Furthermore, because the posted security needs to be "open-ended"
(no expiration date), banks have been reluctant and slow to comply
with the County Attorney's office formats and standards.
The proposed change from a $5,000 cash bond to a $1,500 cash
escrow deposit would still require staff review and coordination,
but would reduce the amount of staff review and tracking time
(time spent ensuring bonds are either renewed or "pulled"). This
proposal would give the County easy and ample enforcement powers
should any violations occur with regard to the premature use of
docks, and would reduce the amount of staff review and adminis-
tration time.
The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation would not
resolve the current problems; the staff would still need to obtain
open-ended security instruments or keep track of revolving letter
of credit renewals. In staff's opinion, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation would merely reduce the dollar amount of
the required security and would not address the biggest problem:
33
FEB 7 1989
c�
BOOK FAH 33
FEB 1989
BOOK .76 HUE 34
efficient administration of open-ended security instruments or
deposits. Therefore, staff's proposed ordinance requires payment
of a $1,500 cash escrow but does not incorporate the Planning and
Zoning Commission's recommendation of allowing an applicant the
option of providing the $1,500 security in the form of a bond or
letter of credit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and adopt staff's proposed ordinance amendment and authorize the
Chairman to sign the attached ordinance amendment.
Commissioner Eggert wished to -be assured that $1,500 is
sufficient to remove any dock, and Planner Boling confirmed that
this has been checked out and it is an adequate amount.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and he thereupon declared the public hearing
closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 89-7 amending the Code relating to posting
bond for construction of single-family docks prior
to the principal residence.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 89-7
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING SECTION 25.1 REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND
USES, OF APPENDIX A, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; AMENDING SECTION 25.1(c)(7) RELATING TO
SINGLE-FAMILY DOCKS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE
PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, TO REDUCE REQUIRED SECURITY
FROM A $5,000 BOND TO A $1,500 CASH ESCROW DEPOSIT,
AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION DATE, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT:
PART 1
Subsection 25.1(c)(7) of the Regulations of Specific Land Uses of
Appendix A, Zoning, of the Indian River County Code of Laws and
Ordinances is hereby amended as follows:
(7) Single-family docks constructed prior to the construction of
a principal single-family dwelling unit (Administrative
permit) .
a. The construction of a single-family dock on a lot prior
to the construction of a principal single-family dwel-
34
ling unit on the same lot shall be permitted for the
purpose of providing waterfront property owners vested
riparian rights of access to the adjacent waterbody.
The aforementioned dock, however, shall continue to be
construed as an accessory structure, and its use prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
principal structure shall not be considered consistent
with the appropriate zoning district regulations.
b. Districts requiring administrative permit: Single-
family docks may be allowed in the A-1, RFD, RS -3, RS -6,
RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8, RM -10 and RM -14 Districts
prior to construction of a principal single-family
dwelling use upon receiving approval for an administra-
tive permit as provided in Section 25.2 and after
meeting the requirements defined below.
c. Additional information requirements:
1. A site plan showing the dimensions, elevations, and
location of the dock structure.
2. All applicable local, state and federal permits,
leases or consent of use agreements shall be
submitted to the Planning and Development Division
prior to release of the dock site plan.
d. Criteria for single family docks constructed prior to
the construction of a principal single dwelling unit:
1. The owner shall submit and record in the public
records of Indian River County an agreement that
the dock will not be used until such time as a
certificate of occupancy for the principal single
family unit is issued by the County.
2. To secure the agreement, the owner shall post with
the County a $%1000/t0111036'AX/$gS/u4 $1,500 cash escrow
deposit which may be utilized by the County for
removing the dock upon the determination of the
Code Enforcement Board that the dock has been used
with the owner's knowledge. Said escrow funds
shall be released to the owner providing the dock
is removed within 30 days by the owner to the
satisfaction of the County.
3. Upon determination by the Code Enforcement Board
that a violation has occurred, the Board shall
order the owner to remove the dock and shall
prohibit the building of a structure riparian to
the land in question for a period of not less than
two nor more than five years. The order of the
Board shall be recorded in the public records of
Indian River County.
4. The dock shall be constructed on pilings so as not
to involve filling or dredging other than that
necessary to install the pilings.
5. The dock shall not substantially impede the flow of
water or create a navigational hazard.
NOTE: See Section 25(W) for other criteria.
CODING: Words in WidOXitIVOtOK type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
35
FIB 7 1989
DOCK ( .FiL 3
FEB ~d 1989
PART 2
BOOK 76FA,F 0)
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, Which
conflict with the provision of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provision of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
PART 3
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "sec-
tion", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of
this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
PART 4
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not
affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to
have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without
such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
PART 5
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknow-
ledgement that this ordinance has been filed _with the Department
of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County on this 7th day of February , 1989.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 18thday of ,7ant1ary , 1989 for a public hearing to be
held on the 7th day of Fphr.,,ary , 1989, at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , and
seconded by Commissioner
following vote:
Bowman , and adopted by the
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Vice Chairman Carolyn R. Eggert
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Aye
Aye
A4e
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY
l Lw f -t e1L
Gary C. heeler, Chairman
36
DISCUSS DATE FOR JOINT CITY/COUNTY MEETING
Administrator Chandler informed the Board that a joint
meeting has been scheduled for February 16th, but he understands
that two Commissioners have a conflict with that date. He noted
that he sent the Board a memo indicating items the City would
like to discuss, and felt we should add what we want to discuss.
The National Guard has requested that they be allowed to make a
presentation about their new unit in this area.
Commissioner Bird advised that his conflict is that he has a
Recreational Advisory Committee meeting in Melbourne the morning
of that same day, which is quite an important meeting and one
that he would like to be able to attend.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he will not be at the
meeting, but he had no objection to the Board going ahead and
having the meeting that day, and Commissioner Eggert suggested
that possibly it could be held later in the day.
Commissioner Bird felt it might be interesting to have the
City show the plans they have developed for renovation of the old
Jail site as they are quite unique.
Commissioner Eggert commented that the County is trying to
attract light industry and, therefore, felt it might be wise to
have some accurate information so we can have some understanding
of the situation between the City and Flight Safety.
Commissioner Bird agreed that it would be good to hear both
sides of that situation. It is the City's jurisdiction, but we
are certainly interested.
After further discussion on a date for the joint meeting, it
was proposed it be held at 1:30 P.M. on Thursday, February 16th.
Administrator Chandler will check this out.
37
FEB 71989
BOOK 76 F E 37
• �'� E B 7 1989
BOOK 76 f'�rF ,38
FCC REQUEST TO CANCEL EXISTING LEASE & PURCHASE SPACE ON HOBART
TOWER
The Board reviewed memo from the Director of Emergency
Management Services:
TO: James Chandler DATE: January 30, 1989 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Federal Communications Com-
mission Request to Purchase
Antenna Space on Hobart Tower
and Cancel Existing Lease
FROM: Doug Wright, Director REFERENCES:
Emergency Management Services
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On June 14, 1988, a Tower Space Lease was executed between the Federal
Communications Commission and Indian River County wherein the Fed-
eral Communications leased antenna space on the County owned Hobart
Tower at the 390' level for the monthly rental rate of $180.00 or
$2,160 dollars per year. The term of the lease was from year to
year with termination available with notice.
The Federal Communications Commission advised in writing on December
7, 1988, that federal budget cuts had effected the agency drastic-
ally. The County was advised that for the FCC to meet the reduced
level of funding, the Antenna Lease executed on June 14, 1988 with
Indian River County would have to be cancelled.
The FCC has also advised that although the federal budget allocation
for the agency does not allow for tower rental, some funds were
available under another separate relocation account to purchase
long term space on the tower. Some informal negotiations have taken
place wherein Bob McKinney of the FCC has tentatively agreed to pay
$8,500 for space on the tower for a period of five years at which
time the issue would be revisited and renegotiated. At the current
monthly rate, this figure would represent a savings of $2,300 to
the FCC since $180 per month would generate $10,800 in revenue for
the County.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
While the price of $8,500 appears favorable to the FCC, there is
also some benefit to the County in that a portion of the funds paid
by the FCC in a one time payment could be utilized to improve the
grounding system at the tower. The tower was struck at least three
times in 1988 causing repairs in excess of $4,000 to equipment.
Significant improvements need to be made to the grounding system
to prevent the continued expenditure of funds for repairs that could
be avoided with state of the art grounding technology. While light-
ning cannot be prevented from striking the tower, the damage can
be minimized from that natural phenomena and these funds would assist
in that regard.
38
It appears the alternatives that are available to Indian River
County are as follows:
1. Accept the notice of termination of the existing antenna
lease from the FCC wherein the antenna, coax, and repeater
would be removed from the site.
2. Approve the FCC making a one time payment in the amount
of $8,500 for antenna space on Hobart Tower for a period
of five years at which time negotiations would again occur.
3. Deny the request for a one time payment for antenna space
for $8,500 and require additional funding.
4. Deny the request for a one time payment for antenna space
on Hobart Tower.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
a combination of Alternative 2 and that portion of Alternative 1
alluding to termination of the existing antenna lease executed by
the County and the FCC on June 14, 1988.
The funding could be utilized as referenced above for improvements
to the grounding system and reduce the maintenance costs associated
with lightning damage at the tower. It appears the $2,300 reduction
in revenue to the County might well be an increase in revenue if
costs associated with lightning damage continued at the same level
over the next five years could be mitigated with these funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted staff
recommendation, which approved a combination of
Alternative 2 and that portion of Alternative 1 al-
luding to termination of the existing antenna lease.
ALUMINUM PIPE ARCH CULVERT - 2ND ST. AT LATERAL E CANAL
The Board reviewed memo from the Public Works Director:
39
FEB 71989
E001(:
39 rt.�C.
FEB 7 1989
BOOK
c.,, G{ 40
TO:
FROM:
James Chandler
Cou min' for
a
ph escia, P.E.
County Engineer
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Aluminum Pipe Arch Culvert
2nd Street at Lateral E Canal
IRC Project #8714
DATE: January 12, 1988
Description and Conditions
The contracting firm of J.H. McGregan & Sons, Inc. have
properly completed the above project in accordance with
Indian River County plans and specifications as of December
3, 1988.
At this time the contractor is requesting final payment in
the amount of $5,148.48 which represents 10% of the original
contract price. This amount was withheld until release of
liens from subcontractors and other appropriate paperwork
was received by the County. This information has been
properly submitted as of January 11, 1989.
Recommendation
It is staffs recommendation that the balance of $5,184.48 be
remitted to J.H. McGregan & Sons. Payment to be taken from
account #111-214-541-66.31.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board authorized the payment of
the balance of $5,184.48 to J.H.McGregan & Sons as
recommended by staff.
1.R.BOULEVARD PHASE IV - SUPPLEMENT WORK ORDER NO. 1
The Board reviewed memo from Director Davis:
40
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: James D. White, P.E.
Capital Project Manager/?
SUBJECT: Phase IV Indian River Boulevard
Supplement Work Order No. 1
DATE: January 25, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION
During the preliminary design of this project surveyors
discovered an alignment problem with the project at the
matchpoint with Phase III. Additional survey and design efforts
are required to resolve this problem. The cost of this relative
to Phase IV is $2,456.80
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternative to this work is to allow a 240' ± offset at 37th
Street between the northbound and southbound parts of the
Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Chairman to execute the contract amendment. Staff believes
the alternative is an unacceptable compromise in the quality,
safety and capacity of the Boulevard.
Funding for this Amendment would be from Zone 4 Traffic Impact
Fee in Account 309.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, to authorize the Chairman
to execute the contract amendment (Work Order No. 1)
to the agreement w/Glace & Radcliffe, Inc., to re-
solve the alignment problem as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know why we have a 240' error.
Public Works Director reviewed the history of the Boulevard
expansion and believed that the error in alignment is due to the
fact that we have had four different consultants working on two
phases of this project over the last 8 years, plus the fact that
we made a change on Phase IV due to the environmentally sensitive
shift. He noted that it is all coming together now, and he felt
FEB 1989
41
BOOK. 6
FEE `d 1989
BOOK X76P GE e'
we are getting the least environmentally sensitive alignment
possible with all the constraints we have. He went on to review
the present status of the various phases, advising that the Board
authorized the final changes in engineering for Phase 111, which
will be done in about three weeks and we will have the legal
description taken to the appraisers and will be wrapping up the
permitting simultaneously. He was optimistic that everything
will be put together this summer. The initial plans for Phase IV
have been reviewed and the plan and profile sheets completed.
Director Davis hoped to begin construction on Phase III in the
late summer and on Phase IV possibly sometime the next year.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD NORTH EXTENSION (PHASE IV)
WORK ORDER NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEERING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN GLACE & RADCLIFFE, INC., DATED
JULY 12, 1988 AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Pursuance to the Professional Civil Engineering Services
agreement dated July 12, 1988, by and between Indian River
County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, and Glace & Radcliffe
Inc., Orlando, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the ENGINEER,
this Work Order No. 1 is an extension of and hereby becomes a
part of the original agreement(dated July 12, 1988 and
hereinafter referred to as the MASTER AGREEMENT) as follows:
Section I - Project Limits
1) Indian River Boulevard at 37th Street (Barber Avenue) and
1350' north and south from the intersection and Barber Avenue
approaches within 500' of each side of Indian River
Boulevard.
Section II - County Obligations
142
The COUNTY agrees to:
A. Provide the ENGINEER with all available drawings,
surveys, right-of-way maps, and other documents pertinent to the
project which are in the possession of the COUNTY; however, all
information requiring research shall be the responsibility of the
ENGINEER.
Section III - Scope of Services
A. The ENGINEER will perform all necessary engineering and
design, inspection, approach roadway modifications, and
incidental work to evaluate the proposed intersection, correct an
alignment problem, and coordinate the final design to accommodate
require adjustments resulting from the alignment at this
location. Detailed plans, specifications and bidding documents
shall be prepared so that the construction can be properly bid,
as part of the original overall project.
B. After issuance of a work order and written
authorization to proceed, the ENGINEER shall consult with the
COUNTY to clarify and define the COUNTY'S requirements and
objectives for the project, and review all available data.
C. The ENGINEER will strive to complete his work on the
project within the time allowed by maintaining an adequate staff
draftsmen and other employees on the
of registered surveyors,
work at all times.
D. The ENGINEER shall report the status of this project to
the Director of Public Works Department upon request and hold all
drawings, calculations and related work open to the inspection of
the Director or his authorized agent at any time, upon reasonable
request.
1. All original documents, survey notes, field books,
tracings and the like including all items furnished to the
ENGINEER by the COUNTY pursuance to this agreement are, and will
remain, the property of the COUNTY.
Section IV - Time for Completion
A. After issuance of written authorization to proceed,
thirty (30) working days will be allowed to delivery of the
plans, specifications, and permit applications. This time shall
run concurrently with the MASTER Contract and shall not grant
additional time for completion of the MASTER Contract.
43
FEB 21989
BOOK 76 6
r''GE 43
r
Q 12:9
Section V - Compensation
BOOK .76 [AU 44
The COUNTY agrees to pay, and the ENGINEER agrees to accept
for services rendered pursuant to this agreement, fees in
accordance with the following:
Costs for the proposed engineering and alignment adjustment
shall be a lump sum fee of $2,456.80. This fee is based on
estimated engineering and drafting hours. This fee will be
payable upon completion of the services and in accordance with
the MASTER Contract.
Section VI - Additional Work
In the event additional changes are requested by the COUNTY
or extra work is imposed on the COUNTY by the demands of certain
regulatory agencies after the approval by the COUNTY of this
agreement, and upon the issuance of a subsequent work order by
the Director of Public Works Department, said extra work may
commence in accordance with the fee schedule in Section VI of
the MASTER Contract.
Section VII - Partial Payments
Due to the short-term nature of the work, only one payment
will be made according to the conditions stated in Section V.
Section VIII - Extra Work
See Section VI
Section IX - All conditions set forth in the MASTER Contract
shall control unless otherwise specified in this WORK ORDER.
This WORK ORDER, regardless of where executed, shall be
governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of
Florida.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed these
presents this 7th day of February 1989.
GLACE & RADCLIFFE, INC.
P.O. BOX 1180
800 S. ORLANDO AVENUE
MAITLAND, FL 32751
BY:
Attes
Wiliam H. Palm P
President
4
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
coLet,
Gary . Wheeler,
Chaff an
Attest
44Q:4;111/19*(4.7.
Clerk
. Ba ton
WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - PERCOLATION PONDS
MAINTENANCE
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
DATE:
JANUARY 26, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI 'VICES
FROM: JOHN F. LANG
ENVIRONMENTALSPECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF TILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
PERCOLATION PONDS MAINTENANCE
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Utility Services has a three -cell percolation pond
at the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is the
existing permitted effluent disposal for this facility. In
accordance with the DER permit for this plant, a reevaluation of the
pond has to be completed once the plant has reached 250,000 gallons
per day. The plant has reached a hydraulic flow capacity of 250,000
gallons per day as of the month of December, 1988. In order to
maximize the disposal capacity of the pond for the reevaluation,
each cell needs to be cleaned of the sedimentation and biomass that
has accumulated on the bottom. This sedimentation and biomass is
sealing the bottom of each cell.
ANALYSIS:
In order to clean the cells, the plant effluent must be diverted.
The Department's sod farm, adjacent to the plant, is an appropriate
site for effluent reuse. We propose to install a temporary gravity
line from the plant's 16" discharge to the sod farm's eastern
irrigation holding pond. We then propose to spray irrigate the sod
farm with a 150,000 gpd (8 hours) spray irrigation system. This
spray irrigation system could then be used to supplement the
percolation pond capacity until additional permanent reuse areas can
be permitted. Two additional items would need to be addressed prior
to effluent reuse at the sod farm. These are capping of an artesian
well adjacent to the holding pond and purchase of a complete
portable irrigation unit suitable for sod application.
The capping of the well should be accomplished for under $2,500.00,
and conducted by purchase order. The gravity line connection to the
16" discharge line, installation of two valves, a valve pit and 90'
of line could be installed by Utilities personnel. Surveying costs
should run under $2,500.00, and would be accomplished by purchase
order. A hauling contractor would also be utilized to bring in
clean, coarse sand and spread same up to the surveyed markers.
Irrigation proposals have been received from two local firms. A
two-year-old IrriFrance traveling irrigation system composed of a
diesel engine, pump, hose reel, and mounted spray gun is available
from a franchise utility for $18,000.00, to include eight hours of
instruction time. This unit was previously utilized for sod
operations by Sun Ag, Inc.
45
J'E `989
45
°7 1989
RECOMMENDATION:
BOOK 76 F4,:E 46
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the following items:
1. The spending of funds for capping the artesian well,
surveying the ponds to determine the optimum pond bottom,
and the purchase of 900' of 8" gravity pipe and fittings.
2. Purchase of the IrriFrance irrigation unit.
3. Bidding out of the cleaning and restoration of the ponds.
4. Bidding out and construction of the valve pit, valves and
connection to the 16" discharge line.
The account to be charged is No. 471-218-536-044.69.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know if we resolved the
matter in regard to the original design of the percolation ponds.
The west plant was designed by Carter & Associates in a joint
venture with Williams, Hatfield, and they subcontracted out the
design of the hydraulics of the perc pond. He believed at one
time we authorized the Utility Department to contract for
professional services to take a look at that because we felt
there may have been a problem with the original design. That
report is in house, and at this point he would like an update as
to whether we are accepting the original design and not going to
litigate or whether we are talking about going back to the sub-
contractor, Dames & Moore, to ask them to provide additional
design services at their cost.
Utilities Director Pinto confirmed that we have had some
question about the calculations that were used in the design and
have had continued discussion about this. Unfortunately with
hydrological work, it is a "pie in the sky" guess as to what is
going to happen. He advised that we are not yet satisfied that
they should be released from any liability, but stressed that
under any circumstances there are certain maintenance things that
have to be done in the operation of the ponds. If we do not
proceed with what staff is recommending, he felt it would be
detrimental to our position because the designers then could take
the stance that the system has blinded off because of sedimenta-
tion and growth.
46
Commissioner Scurlock felt, on the other hand, they could
say the ponds were all right as they designed them until we
fooled around with them.
Director Pinto stressed that the maintenance we are pro-
posing is something they suggested should be done from the very
beginning, and he felt we are in a good position because what we
wilt do to the ponds is customary maintenance and what we
normally should be doing.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to express concern as to
what we should do to bring the situation regarding the design of
the ponds to a head; he felt we should take a position one way or
the other as to whether we think there is some liability.
Director Pinto explained that, as part of our DER permit,
when we reach a flow of 250,000 gallons, which we have reached,
we are required to have another study, and we will use that, plus
the information we already have, to come up with the final deter-
mination of whether this situation is worth pursuing.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that Fred Merkel, the new
Assistant Director of Operations for the Utility Department, had
what he believed was a good idea in regard to solving the perc
pond situation by raising the head of the pond by a foot. He
felt that approach makes a lot of sense and wondered if we could
get the engineers to sign off and put their seal on that approach
rather than getting into litigation.
Director Pinto felt the suggestion to increase the head
could be run by the engineers, but noted there are still a lot of
questions about what that will do to the system. He strongly
urged, however, that we move ahead with the recommendation
because even though the treatment plant is designed for 1 million
gallons, the effluent disposal is the limiting factor of our
capacity.
Commissioner Bowman commented that it says the tapping of
the well would be accomplished by purchase order, and she asked
47
FEB `? 1989
EOOK
47
F E B `i 1989
BOOK .76 FADE 48
if only certain firms are licensed by the state to do this. That
was confirmed.
Utilities Director Pinto further emphasized that all these
things must be scheduled to be done in a certain sequence to meet
the operation needs.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board -unanimously approved staff
recommendation and also set a 30 -day period
for the Utilities Director to come back and report to
the Board on the status of possible litigation against
Dames & Moore, or at least advise how we can get that
issue resolved one way or the other.
EFFLUENT REUSE MASTER PLAN - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
Director Pinto reviewed the following, stressing that the
limiting factor in a treatment plant is effluent disposal:
DATE: JANUARY 19, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTQ' *
DIRECTOR OF UTILYT'y RVICES
FROM: WILLIAM F. McCAI ��
PROJECTS ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: EFFLUENT REUSE MASTER PLAN
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT BY POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH AND
JERNIGAN, INC.
BACKGROUND:
On November 15, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners approved a
contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J).
Prior to this contract approval, PBS&J was shortlisted as our
primary consultant for Wastewater Effluent Disposal. In keeping
with this action, we are now requesting that PBS&J provide us with
an Effluent Reuse Master Plan.
ANALYSIS:
Due to the large volume of independent effluent disposal reports
which exist throughout the County and the difficulty in arriving at
48
an appropriate scope of work for the Master Plan, we have decided to
have PBS&J do a preliminary assessment report.
To this end, we have negotiated a contract for a "Preliminary
Assessment" Effluent Disposal Master Plan. The scope of service for
this project is attached and the total cost for this preliminary
study is $11,000.00. The funding for this project will come from
the County Utilities impact fee fund. The assessment will be
completed within six weeks of commencement of the work
authorization.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached scope of services and sign
the forthcoming work authorization for the aforementioned project.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that even the Corps project with
St. John's River Water Management on drainage of the marshes
would have some impact.
Director Pinto agreed it would and advised that to compli-
cate matters, the federal EPA now requires a non -discharge permit
for all of our treatment plants. They used to require a permit
for discharge into state or federal waters; now there is a permit
for discharge anywhere, and a fairly comprehensive application
will have to be prepared. What staff is asking for today is the
first phase of the master plan study, which will involve taking
all the information we have and putting that into what we think
will be the necessary scope of services for the master plan.
Commissioner Eggert wished to know with the new staff added
in the Utilities Department, if there is no expertise available
to do this in-house.
Director Pinto advised that probably only three firms in the
State of Florida have the expertise in the effluent work. Also,
what becomes very important is who has the connection with the
DER and has earned a reputation with them.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he would like to have it
on the record that there is no reason the action we took earlier
relating to effluent disposal should not happen until we do #2.
In other words, that first action authorizes temporary measures
to keep us on the road, and #2 would be an overall plan that
49
FEB d 1989
B Vd 1989
BOOK lb
FACE 5
would provide the ultimate solution to effluent disposal
throughout the county.
Director Pinto agreed and noted that right now we have a
permit pending for 1/2 million gallons of effluent spray to
irrigate the golf course and that will all be included in the
Post, Buckley plan.
Commissioner Scurlock believed that the effluent master plan
will have to happen pretty quickly -because he understood we have
about 1 million gpd committed for the West County plant; we are
presently at 238,000 gpd; and we are out of effluent disposal
capacity, which means we will have to get moving quickly. He
asked if Director Pinto is putting us in a position to pursue
additional effluent disposal aggressively, and Director Pinto
confirmed that he is and agreed that we are quickly approaching a
crisis situation. He noted that unfortunately we do not have any
golf courses in the South County.
Commissioner Scurlock felt it should be noted that the City
of Vero Beach discharges into the river. The only discharge the
county has that ends up in the river is the brine discharge into
the main relief canal. We had studies done on that and dis-
covered it raises the salinity and actually benefits the shrimp.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
proposed scope of services and authorized the Chairman
to sign the Work Authorization No. 2 w/Post, Buckley
for the above project.
50
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL MASTER PLAN
PHASE I
SCOPE OF SERVICES
INTRODUCTION
Indian River County is in the process of regionalizing wastewater treatment
plants to handle anticipated growth. A critical issue related to providing
wastewater treatment is to first identify effluent disposal means, since the
selected means will dictate the treatment plant design and level of treatment
required. PBS&J has recommended an effluent disposal master plan for the County
to assess the viability of various disposal options and recommend a County -wide
reuse plan. A two -phased approach is proposed for developing the Master Plan.
The Phase I scope of services is described herein. A draft of the Phase II
scope of services, which will be refined as part of Phase I, is included in the
Appendix.
The first step in a master plan study is to collect and assess existing data.
The scope of work described herein is for Phase I of the Effluent Disposal
Master Plan: collection and preliminary review of existing reports, plans, and
other data provided by Indian River County in order to prepare a detailed scope
of services for Phase II. A list of tasks involved in this preliminary assess-
ment are listed in Table 1.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for each task listed in Table 1 is described as follows:
TASK 1 DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW
Objective
Collect data to perform preliminary assessment of Indian River County's effluent
disposal needs.
51
FEB 71999
MN( i F',i,C 51
Prr-
FEB 7 1989
BOOK 76 FADE 52
Scope
This task will involve collection of existing reports, plans, and other data
necessary to determine the present status of effluent disposal in Indian River
County. The data collected and reviewed will include:
o Previous reports analyzing effluent disposal for various treatment
facilities in Indian River County.
o Permit applications, engineering reports, issued permits and con-
struction plans for current and proposed effluent disposal projects.
o Review of projects in progress.
In addition to the data listed above, reports and studies previously collected
by PBS&J will be reviewed including the Wastewater Master Plan. A meeting will
be held at completion of this task to review the findings with the County.
Input
The County will provide the reports and other data needed to conduct this task.
PBS&J will identify areas of additional information needed and items which may
be missing from information already supplied. The preliminary report shall
identify items used for the basis of the report.
Output
The data collected and reviewed will be used as the basis of the Preliminary
Assessment report described in later tasks and as groundwork for developing the
Effluent Disposal Master Plan scope of services.
TASK 2 DRAFT PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Objective
To prepare a draft Preliminary Assessment Report.
Scope
A draft Preliminary Assessment Report will be prepared which will summarize the
findings in Task 1. As part of this report, a draft Phase II scope of services,
including a schedule and budget, will be developed for the Effluent Disposal
Master Plan.
52
Output
Five (5) copies of the draft report will be provided to the County.
TASK 3 REPORT REVIEW
Objective
To obtain the County's comments on the draft report.
Scope
A meeting will be held in Indian River County between County utilities personnel
and PBS&J to review the County's comments on the draft Preliminary Assessment
Report and Master Plan scope of services.
Input
The County will return one copy of the draft report with review comments.
Output
A list will be developed from this meeting of required changes that will be
needed to finalize the report.
TASK 4 FINALIZE REPORT AND CONTRACT PREPARATION
Objective
To finalize the Preliminary Assessment report and prepare contracts for the
Effluent Disposal Master Plan scope of services.
Scope
Using the County's comments obtained as part of Task 3, the Preliminary Assess-
ment Report wil be finalized and the Master Plan scope of services for Phase II
refined. A contract will be prepared for Phase II detailing PBS&J's services
for developing the Effluent Disposal Master Plan.
Input
Additional changes in the master plan scope of services by the County shall be
incorporated in the Master Plan contract and in the Preliminary Report text.
Compensation for these additional services will be covered under Phase II.
53
FEB 7 1989 ROOK ' Fn E 53
FEB ' 1989
BOOK
76 FFUE 54
Output
Five (5) copies of a final Preliminary Assessment Report will be provided to the
County.
SCHEDULE
PBS&J can begin work on the services described herein within two weeks of execu-
tion of a contract. The work effort can be completed within six weeks of
receipt of data needed to begin Task 1.
COMPENSATION
Compensation for services described herein is proposed on the following basis:
o Time Charges - PBS&J will invoice the County on the basis of actual
salaries of employees working directly on the project times a multi-
plier of 3.0.
o Expenses - Expenses shall be billed at actual cost to PBS&J, plus a 10
percent administrative fee.
The budget proposed for the work effort defined herein is $11,000 and will not
be exceeded without the County's prior authorization. A detailed cost breakdown
is presented in Table 2.
Table 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
SUMMARY OF TASKS
TO COMPLETE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL MASTER PLAN
Task Title
1 Data Collection and Review
2 Draft Preliminary.Assessment Report
3 Report Review
4 Finalize Report and Phase II - Scope of Work
54
Table 2
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PHASE I SCOPE OF SERVICES
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT BUDGET
Category
Dan Click
JoAnn Jackson
Clerical
Labor Subtotal
Direct Costs*
Total Labor and Direct
Hours Cost
8 $ 814
177 9,410
16 480
164 $10,704
$ 296
* Includes telephone, printing and travel.
$11,000
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES WORK AUTHORIZATION
DATE: 2/7/89 WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 2 FOR CONSULTING SERVICES.
IRC PROJECT NO. US -88 -12 -ED PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
MASTER PLAN
CONSULTANT: POST. BUCKLEY. SCHUH AND JERNIGAN, INC.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan is to perform a preliminary
Assessment Effluent Disposal Master Plan. The object of this
preliminary Assessment is outlined in the attached document (Scope of
service Task 1 through 4 inclusive).
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LUMP SUM FEE FOR SERVICES
Reference is
dated November .15,
numbers which are
with the attached
attached Scope of
made to the "Master Agreement for Utilities Service"
1988, and specific article numbers and paragraph
listed hereunder to describe the project scope along
Scope of Tasks specifically Tasks 1 through 4 (see
Services) included on this project:
A. Project Desictn Services, Persection I, II, per Master
Agreement Project Scope III, A, 1, 3, a, b, d, and G; also
see Section IV.
B. Consultant Engineer Insurance Requirements
1. Workers Compensation Insurance in accordance with Florida
Statutes.
2. Comprehensive and Automotive Liability with a minimum
coverage of $100,000/$300,00 per occurrence for bodily
injury or accidental death.
3. Comprehensive General Liability with a minimum limit of
$100,000/$300,000 covering property damage.
4. Liability for Property Damage, while operating
motor vehicle, with minimum limits of $100,000 per
occurrence.
5. Contractual Liability including. limits established for
Items B, 2, 3, and 4.
55
FEB 7 1989
ROCK 76 F,�u� 55
J 7 1989
BOOK 76 FACE 56
C. Compensation for Services
1. Payment for cost element #1 may be billed for actual hours
on a monthly basis. The County shall make payment within
45 days of receipt of invoice.
Cost Element #1: $11,000.00
SUBMITTED BY: \\
e 9� �" c�,� �h�� �- z-rr ti� go�vJ kwc
CONSULTANT
APPROVED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By Ualicz-he/ire.--7
Title Sr, V kc e � 4-rs� Gary maw
Approved February 7, 1989
DATE: 'al' /egg
INTRODUCTION OF NEW ASSISTANT UTILITIES DIRECTOR
Director Pinto introduced Fred Merkel, the new Assistant
Utilities Director in Charge of Operations, commenting that Mr.
Merkel has been here about two months and we are very happy to
have him.
TEMPORARY SEPTAGE FACILITY
The Board reviewed the following memo from Director Pinto:
56
DATE: JANUARY 17, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL1!Y) SERVICES
FROM: JOHN F. LANGt
ENVIRONMENTAL, CIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: TEMPORARY •£ FACILITY
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Utility Services has a 100,000 gallon wastewater
treatment plant sitting idle at the Gifford plant site. The
Utilities Department proposes to utilize this facility and assorted
surplus materials to provide a sludge and septage treatment facility
that is greatly needed by the community. The landfill's sludge and
septage facility has been ordered to cease operations by the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation.
The project is proposed as a change order to the Glendale Park
project and would use the same contractors to save bidding costs and
time. The prime contractor, Ted Myers Contracting Co., would
provide the labor and equipment to complete the tasks as assigned in
the scope of services, except for electrical work, which would be
performed by Paragon Electric. New pipe and fittings would be sold
directly to Indian River County by Southeastern Municipal Supply.
The costs involved
$1,785.00 lump sum
Municipal Supply.
contingency of 10%,
ANALYSIS:
are $4,400.
to Paragon
The grand
is $7,767.
00 lump sum to Ted Myers
Electric, and $876.80 to
total for the project,
98.
Contracting,
Southeastern
including a
The County desperately needs a disposal site for sludge and septage,
and with the start-up of the new Gifford Wastewater Treatment
facility, a plant and a method of ultimate disposal becomes
available. The cost associated with the project is minimal and the
facility will be taken off-line when the new sludge and septage
facility is built.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize a change order to the Glendale Park
contract and execute the proposals from Ted Myers Contracting and
Paragon Electric. The funding for this project will be transferred
from the Landfill's 411-217-534-099.92 account.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized a
change order to the Glendale Park contract, authorized
the Chairman to execute the proposals from Ted Myers
Contracting and Paragon Electric and approved Budget
Amendment #039, as follows:
57
FEB d 1989
ger ( ,ALE 57
V 1989
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. BairdL
OMB Director
BOOK .iG FAH 58
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
039
DATE: January 24, 1989
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
LANDFILL WASTE DISPOSAL/
Sanitary Landfill/Cash Forward
411-217-534-099.92
$ 0
$ 7,768.00
Sanitary Landfill/Other Improv.
411-217-534-066.39
$ 7,768.00
$ 0
Except Buildings
INDIAN RIVER OOIINTY TREATMENT PLANT
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Receiving Tank Portion
Base Tank Dimensions L 12'4", W 8'9" H 4'4".
1. Base tank is to be buried to the lip of the tank.
2. The tank will be grouted to repair cracks and chips.
3. The top slab will be installed with ramneck joint compound
the entire width of the upper lip.
4. The top slab will have a 4" wide cinder block wall
installed on the perimeter of the slab. The inside of the
wall will be taper grouted in.
5. The new surge tank's bar rack box shall be cut loose and
will set on the top slab and made integral to the
perimeter wall. The box shall discharge to the center of
the tank.
6. Existing pumps, floats, and panel will be utilized for the
existing tank from the Gifford Wastewater Treatment Plant
Old Surge Tank.
7. The existing pumps will be plumbed with individual check
valves and a shared wheel -type gate valve, all pipe and
fittings to be SCH 80 PVC. They shall be installed 18"
off to bottom of the tank.
• 8. Washdown water will be supplied by Indian River County via
plant hoses.
New Surge Tank Portion
1. The discharge line from the receiving tank will be run
overground to the up leg of the force main. Attachment
shall be by a brass double -strap tapping saddle.
2. The 6" line going into the bar rack must be cut and
extended into the new surge tank with SCH 40 PVC pipe and
fittings.
3. The g" over flow line will be replaced with a 4" line with
a 90 elbow plumbed into the old splitter box's north
baffle.
4. The bottom line from the splitter box will be cut loose.
5. The Contractor will construct a cover for the splitter box
constructed of 1/2" marine grade plywood.
. 6. The Contractor will plumb the line from: the new surge
tank's splitter box to the north baffle of the old
splitter box with SCH 40 PVC pipe and fittings.
Chlorine Contact Chamber Portion
1. The Contractor will cap off existing discharge pipe to
percolation ponds.
2. The Contractor will cut the concrete top slab to enlarge
the hole in order to place the 2nd pump in the chamber.
3. The County will supply pumps, floats, bracket, and the
panel.
4. .The Contractor will install pumps, floats, bracket, and
the panel; pumps are Hydromatic 3 phase, 230v, 1.5HP, 6
AMP units.
5. The Contractor will plumb using SCH 80 PVC, individual
check valves and a shared 3" wheel -type gate valve to the
force main on the south side of the old plant.
58
i
TED MYERS CONTRACTING CO.
P.O. BOX 229
WINTER BEACH, FLORIDA 32971
567-8390
PROPOSAL
To: Indian River County Utilities Department
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
DATE: January 13, 1989
Attn: Mr. John Lang
Project: Indian River County.Treatment Plant - Temporary Sludge Facility
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL
Labor and machinery to complete the attached Scope of
Services. Electrical work to be done by the County.
ACCEPTED:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY • 1- ... • -
Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
xfte7 e.
February 7. 1989
DATE
FEB7198
LUMP SUM: $4,400.00
Sincerely,
TED MYERS CONTRACTING CO., INC.
?-1-1
ed Myers,
President
IneNU Rives CI.Admin.
Legal
Budget
UnrflIS
-RFsk--Mgc•
Approve d
Dale
-31
59 BOOK 76 ME 59
,FEL3 "(1 1989
Proposal
al
PARAGON ELECTRIC of Vero Beach, Inc.
6480 -65th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Page No
BOOK 76 pgE 60
Of Pages
(305) 569-8961
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO John Lang
Indian River County - Utilities De
PHONE
pt.
DATE
1-18-89
STREET
P.O. Box 1750
JOB NAMF.
Gifford Treatment Plant
CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE
Vero Beach, F1. 32961
JOB LOCATION & NO.
We hereby subndt specifications and estimates for:
Provide and install electrical wiring to include:
1) Reworking existing control cabinet to be used to control
two 1 0 pumps in concrete tank
2) Hook up control box (provided by others) to control two
3 0 pumps at existing treatment plant
3) Hook up, pumps and float switches (provided by others)
including all conduit and wiring required
We propose hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications. for the sum of:
One thousand seven hundred eighty-five
dollars 01,785 .00
Payment to be made as follows:
rnaie
Mash Rim Co
Approved-
D
Admin.
. e
2=t"-9
Legal '
►i,
1. ,2f
budge
{.•
r1 1.,'71
3,
. FiltstoilFr
,;
4.7
`
Authorized
Signatu
reJA,C1-1YNA:v:-
Note: This proposal may be 10
withdrawn by us if not accepted within
days
ACCEPTANCE'OF PROPOSAL—The above prices, specifications
and conditions are satisfactory -and are hereby] accepted. You are
'-'huthorized to db the work as specified. Payment will be made as
outlinedabnve.� I 1
Date of Acceptance: 2/7 / 8 9
Signature )CY C
Gary Co Wheeler, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian RivcrCounty, FluLidd
Signature
60
PROPOSED AGREEMENT W/DNR TO VACATE DEED RESTRICTIONS AT SEBASTIAN
INLET PARK
Commissioner Bird reviewed his letter to the DNR and memo
from Assistant County Attorney Brennan:
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
October 17, 1988
BOARD OF .COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Mr. Tom Gardner
Executive Director
Department of Natural Resources -
State of Florida
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
RE: SEBASTIAN INLET PARK - ENTRANCE FEES
Dear Mr. Gardner:
Suncom Telephone: 424-1011
Thank you for sending your Director of Communications, Mr. Randy Lewis to
the public hearing held in Indian River County on October 11th regarding
entrance fees at Sebastian Inlet Park. Mr. Lewis' presence was most helpful
and instructive to all present. There was a split of opinion among the public
as to whether Indian River County should release the deed restriction
prohibiting entrance fees on the south side of the Sebastian Inlet.
The County Commission designated me to negotiate with the Department of
Natural Resources about the terms and conditions of any lifting of the deed
restriction. As the Commission sees it we have four options, and they are
listed below in order of preference:
1. Continue to allow Indian River County residents as well as all others to
access the southside of the Sebastian Inlet State Park with no fee being
imposed. Of course, given the best of all worlds this would be our
preference, however, we recognize that with the maintenance
expenditures at the park as pointed out by Mr. Lewis, this alternative
will be difficult for the State.
2. Lifting the deed restriction in exchange for yearly free passes to the
Sebastian Inlet State Park for all Indian River County residents. This
might be accomplished through decals or otherwise.
Charge entrance fees at the park, with all fees received segregated for
use in improvements and maintenance at the Sebastian Inlet State Park.
61
FEB 1989
L
500K
i6 F� L 61
FEB '669 BOOK .76 FAH 62
4. Allow entrance fees at the park with those revenues being thrown into a
general statewide Revenue Fund for use in any park within the state
system.
There may be other options which did not arise at our public hearing. I look
forward to the opportunity to meet with you and discuss further the options
available to the State and County in resolving the entrance fee question .at
Sebastian Inlet Park.
Yours truly,
Richard N. Bird
County Commissioner
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sharon P. Brennan - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: February 1, 1989
SUBJECT: Proposed Agreement with Department of Natural
Resources to Vacate Deed Restrictions at Sebastian
Inlet
The Department of Natural Resources has sent us the attached
proposed Agreement concerning the property at Sebastian
Inlet. The Agreement provides that:
1. The County will remove all deed restrictions on the
property within sixty days.
2. DNR will seek full appropriation from the Legislature of
all entrance fees to go toward the maintenance and
improvement of the Sebastian Inlet Park.
3. DNR will work with the County's Legislative Delegation
to seek funding for the Sebastian Inlet Park.
This office has worked with Randy Lewis of DNR to come up
with an equitable and workable agreement. Staff
recommendation is for approval of this Agreement.
62
Commissioner Bird referred to a map showing the portion of
the property deeded to the county on the south side of the Inlet,
and pointed out that we basically are land locked since the State
owns land completely encircling our property. He informed the
Board that the state said no to the first two options proposed in
his letter, which were first to allow County residents to access
the southside of Sebastian Inlet Park with no fee, or second, to
lift the deed restriction in exchange for yearly free passes for
County residents. In regard to the third option, which was to
charge fees with all those fees to be used only for operation and.
maintenance of that park, they agreed they would lobby the
Legislature to accomplish that. We wanted to know what assur-
rance we have if that doesn't come about and in the meantime we
have waived our deed restrictions, and the DER stressed that
while they would make every attempt to convince the Legislature
this should be done, they cannot control the Legislature. The
agreement they have sent us asks us to waive our deed restric-
tions in return for the DNR making every attempt to see that all
fees collected at the Park stay there. We were not real com-
fortable with that agreement, and Attorney Brennan asked the DNR
if we could possibly agree to waive the deed restrictions on an
interim basis to see how it goes over the next year or two. At
that point, it appeared they would not be agreeable to that
proposal, but after more urging, it seems that Attorney Collins
got a somewhat different reaction.
Attorney Collins reported that the general feeling he got
from the Board is that in the agreement proposed, we are just
giving away what the County has and there must be a better way
than just relying on the DNR to try to follow through. He
discussed this with Randy Lewis, a Director of the DNR, who got
concurrence from Tom Gardner, Executive Director, that we
essentially could modify the language in Paragraph 1 of the
proposed agreement to state that the County shall, within 60 days
of the date of this Agreement, prepare and record the documents
63
FEB 7 '989
BOOK 6 PAGE 63
FEB d 1989
BOOK76 FA;E 64
necessary to waive the deed restrictions for a period of 5 years
and during that time, give the DNR an opportunity to prove their
intent was to keep the funds for the improvement and maintenance
of that park.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that, after viewing the map
which shows that our property is landlocked, it seems there may
be a potential for the DNR to charge a fee on the non-
dedicated county land. Obviously they would have to provide some
access to our property, but it seems very likely they can charge
a fee with or without our concurrence.
Attorney Collins advised that they have indicated they could
charge a fee on the main body of the park, and they control the
access. The county land is just a narrow strip running right
along the inlet, and it does not include the jetty on the east
side of A -1-A.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that our options continue to be
whittled away. His feeling at this time is that the DNR has been
good to us on a lot of programs, and it behooves us to be
cooperative with them. He believed we all realize there is a
need for additional revenue to support and improve our public
land, and he felt what has been proposed is the best shot that
Commissioner Bird can give. He personally believed our best
approach onan interim basis would be to go ahead and allow a fee
to be charged for a period of time, which he felt would keep
pressure on the DNR to do the right thing by the County, and we
still would not have given away our restriction totally.
Attorney Collins suggested that the agreement have a
provision that would trigger review after the 5 year period,
i.e., a provision for automatic renewal of the waiver unless we
determined the money was not kept at the park for maintenance,
etc., and another provision that if the DNR doesn't report
revenues to us that would be a reason to revoke the agreement.
This would allow them to go forward getting more money for the
park system and also allow the County to retain some interest.
64
Commissioner Bird felt we should have their figures
annually, but Attorney Collins believed their budgeting is on a
bi-annual basis and suggested every 2 years might be more
appropriate.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, to authorize
the legal staff to go ahead and bring back a formal
document for final action, the concept being to agree
to doing this in a legal way on a temporary basis
to see how it goes, but not give it away forever.
Commissioner Scurlock personally felt the park will be a
high priority with the state because it is one of the most used
in the state.
Commissioner Bird also spoke in support of the DNR.
Considering our budgetary constraints, he believed that if this
had not become a part of the state park, it is very unlikely this
county ever would have had the money to put forth for maintenance
and improvement of the area as the state has done, and if we had,
it would have been only through some kind of entrance fee. He
believed their proposed fees are $1.00 per vehicle for state
residents and 50¢ per occupant. The fees for out of state
visitors would be $2.00 per vehicle and $1.00 per occupant.
Commissioner Bowman expressed her belief that we would not
have done as good a job with the park as the state has, and she
believed they have been spending at least $300,000 a year up
there.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that it was more like $750,000
a year. About $200,000 a year is generated from the campsites;
so, they had a shortfall of over $500,000 which was covered by
the Trust Fund.
Commissioner Bird expressed his support of a 5 year
agreement, but stressed he would like to review the financial
records on some basis shorter than a 5 year period.
65
FEB 7 1989
DOC! F.AH
U
Ir"
FEB d 1939
BOOK
76FE66
Board members generally favored reviewing the financial
records every two years, or twice during the 5 year period.
COMMISSIONER EGGERT SECONDED Commissioner Scurlock's
Motion for staff to redraft the agreement as discussed
and bring it back to the Board.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Richard Schuler, Whippoorwill Lane, wished to comment. He
complimented each Board member on what they have accomplished for
the county in their particular area, but wished to know with all
that in the background, what respect we are giving the folks who
originally gave that park land to the county. The County
accepted their terms; those terms were passed on to the state;
and now the Commission is going to break that trust. He felt if
push comes to shove, the Board could ask if the state can get the
permission of the people who originally gave the land.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that first of all, we
haven't given anything to the state. We are only indicating that
we will waive a deed restriction for a certain period of time to
see their good faith effort.
Mr. Schuler stated that he would like to have on record the
County Attorney's professional word that the Board has the legal
right to transfer the deeds the way in which they were received
and guaranty there would be no future suits or class action he
could not defend.
Commissioner Scurlock did not believe Mr. Schuler understood
the Motion. He explained that we are not transferring any deeds;
we are simply giving them the ability to charge an entrance fee
for a period of 5 years; we are not giving away the land.
Attorney Collins informed Mr. Schuler that when the DNR
first brought up this proposal, we had a title search done. If,
66
in fact, the county had received the property subject to the
condition that no fee would ever be charged, we would have had no
power to make any modification to that provision. However, the
giving of the land simply provided that it be used forever for
recreational purposes. The County imposed the provision that
there be no entrance fee for county residents; so, this is no
breach of the trust.
The Board members agreed there has been a misconception that
we received the land with that provision, and it was further
noted that actually most of the land in question has been dredged
out of the Inlet and is reclaimed land.
William Ramsey, Edward Drive, Sebastian, felt that the
people should be consulted on this action and there should be
some kind of vote on how they feel. Whether this action makes
sense moneywise or not, it makes the same people charging the fee
answer to the voters, and Mr. Ramsey wanted to have an opportu-
nity to determine how the people feel about it.
William Koolage, 815 26th Ave., had a question as to what
happens in five years if the DNR does live up to what they have
presented - would the Board then give them the land?
Commissioner Scurlock believed the concept would be to
continue the agreement on a 5 year basis, and Mr. Koolage stated
he would like to see that included in the agreement.
Commissioners Scurlock and Bird both expressed their
appreciation of what the DNR has done for the County, and
Commissioner Bird felt that $_1.00 is a very nominal charge for
the services and facilities provided, which also offer the public
better protection and safety.
Mr. Schuler wished to know if a person pays to go in the
Park on the north side whether that entitles him to go in the
south side also, and the Board members believed it does.
Bill Nelson of Rockridge wished to know if residents who use
the Park frequently can get some kind of monthly pass, and it was
noted that there would be an annual pass available for $25.00.
67
L FEB 6 198S
BOOK 76 [AGE 67
FEB 1989
PRESENTATION of 1988/89 BUDGET BOOK
BOOK"6 68
OMB Director Baird presented the Commission with the first
bound Budget for the County, which was compiled by his staff and
represents many hours work. He advised that it does not reflect
any changes after September, 1988; that is how it has to be
presented if we are to get any awards.
Director Baird very briefly reviewed the information
included in the Budget Book, which_includes a map, information
about the County's incorporation, its size, population, tax
tables, taxing districts, statistical information as to expendi-
tures for the last 10 years, and other pertinent information
about such things as citrus production, bank deposits, etc.
Director Baird noted that the Budget Book is set up for the
public, and he believed it answers most questions. Staff defi-
nitely will try to improve it in the future, but he hoped the
Commissioners and the public both will find this an informative
and helpful document. He informed the Board that he is two weeks
late to submit for an award this year, but hopes to be able to
make it next year. It is a very tedious and time consuming task.
The Commissioners complimented the OMB Director and staff
for doing a very nice job in putting the Budget Book together.
COPY OF SAID BUDGET BOOK IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
DISCUSSION OF 14 SALES TAX REFERENDUM
Commissioner Scurlock wished to discuss items to be included
on a "cheat sheet" for Commissioners to refer to when on speaking
engagements to educate the public regarding the proposed 14 Sales
Tax. He felt additional facts that should be included are that
this tax is not applicable to food and medicine and also that the
68
tax is only applicable to the first $5000 for a maximum of $50
tax on a single purchase.
Commissioner Eggert commented that some clubs were totally
scheduled with speaking engagements but wanted information to
pass out to their members, and the intent was to arrive at
something that could be read and understood easily.
Commissioner Bird asked if we have anything scheduled for TV
on "Vero Live" or on the radio, and Chairman Wheeler advised that
we are trying to set that up. We have already made arrangements
with most of the civic clubs. He believed Commissioner Eggert
spoke at the Exchange Club and that Commissioner Scurlock spoke
at Village Green and Countryside. He further advised that we
have asked the City of Sebastian if we could have a Town Meeting
in their Council Chambers or Community Center, and we have also
talked with Mayor Macht about using the Vero Beach Community
Center on March 6th for a presentation.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the Chairman has some
objections to putting on a promotiontype sales campaign, but he
felt we could have a fact sheet published in the Press Journal so
that people will know that there will be an election on March
14th and learn some of the advantages we feel are available if
the tax is implemented.
Commissioner Bowman reported that she has talked to the
Fellsmere Exchange Club about this and also wrote an article in
the Audubon Letter which goes out to about 900 members.
Discussion ensued regarding what the ballot will look like
and the fact that if you are not a resident of a municipality ,
the 14 Sales Tax would be the only item you would vote on, which
could cause voter apathy.
It was agreed the big problem is the unincorporated area
voter turn out, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that is why he
felt it is important to have a fact sheet in the Press Journal.
He also felt we should make an effort towards the absentee
ballots and have someone visit the rest homes, etc.
69
1989
roov 76 FAu 69
r FEB 1989
BOOK Pl L FAL,- i
Chairman Wheeler advised that Director Baird has established
a calendar of speaking engagements for the Commissioners. The
Chairman informed the Board that he has a philosophical problem
with a campaign using public funds to promote this tax.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that we are simply providing
the public information; it is an education process.
Chairman Wheeler felt if it can be done in a way where it is
strictly educational and not an advertisement in favor of it, he
would not have as much problem with it, but he still had
concerns about using the public's money for this purpose.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, Chairman Wheeler voting in opposition,
the Board by a 4 to 1 vote authorized the Adminis-
trator to coordinate the effort to educate the public
regarding the proposed 14 Sales Tax and to allocate
some funds for informational items to be published in
the local newspaper.
Nancy Offutt came before the Board representing the Board of
Realtors and advised that the Indian River County/Vero Beach
Board of Realtors took a position in favor of the 14 Sales Tax
and will recommend their members support it.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES
Agreement for Transportation Planning Consulting Services
with Wilbur Smith Assoc., as approved at the Regular Meeting of
December 6, 1988, having been fully executed and received, has
been put on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board.
70
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:20 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk Chairman
71
FEB 7 1989 eoor. 76 f 71