HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/1989BOA RID ACTION & 11V1PLEMENTATION
n
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 1989
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25th STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA .
COUNTY -COMMISSIONERS
Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman
Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman
Richard N. Bird
Margaret C. Bowman
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
* * *°* * * * * * * * * *
James. E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - none
3.
Presentation
made.
Approved.
Approved.
Approved.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -_,James E. Chandler
County Administrator
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
. 9E (1) Budget Ainendment changing Millage for West
:COUflty Fire, District.
4A. Presentation of Proclamation
to Ruth Stanbridge
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes of Regular
Meeting of 9/5/89
IOCT 101989
B. Received and Placed on File in
Office of Clerk to the Board:
Resolution - Indian River Mosquito
Control District Adopted at its
Regular Meeting on Sept. 14, 1989
Resolution No. 89-12, Adopting
the Tax Rate and Certifying the
Levy of .346 Mill for District -
wide Purposes - St. John's River -
Water Management District
Certified Copies of Resolutions
Adopted by the Board of Trustees
of the Indian River County Hospital
District on Sept. 21, 1989 - Four
Various Resolutions were Adopted
for FY 1989-90
C. Proclamation in Support of Red
Ribbon Week
'OCT 10"V'j29
BOOK6 FACE. 90
5. CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED
Res. 89-129
adopted.
Approved all but Clerks
Entry #3 for $60. 5/0
Approve clerks entry #3
for $60. 3/2 vote.
D.
E.
Approved. F.
Release of Easement Request by
Michael D. Mann, Agent for
Betty J. Wadsworth
(Memorandum dated 9/6/89)
Budget Amendment 001,
Miscellaneous Funds
(Memorandum dated 10/4/89)
Budget Amendment 002, Video
Equipment for Circuit Judges
in the Amount of $3,575.00
(Memorandum dated 10/4/89)
6. CLERK TO THE BOARD
none
9:05 AM 7. A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Issue permit to Mr. JJackson. Jackson Complaints regarding
A deed for 30'add I. r -o -w Right-of-way Dedication
will be prepared & put in Bob Requirements
Jackson's escrow acct. Law (Memorandum dated 10/3/891
suit to be filed within 60 days.
If County wins deed will B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
be turned over to Co.
immediately.
Approved staff's
recommendation.
Approved.
Approved.
none
8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Status of Sebastian and Fellsmere
Impact Fees - Memo 10/5/89 from Jim Davis.
9. .DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
none
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
none
C. GENERAL SERVICES
none
D. LEISURE SERVICES
none
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
1. Budget amendment 003 - West County Fire
Race( District 1989/90. Tax value decreasing 3.18%.
F. PERSONNEL
none
G. PUBLIC WORKS
Exchange of Right-of-way Deeds
Between Bailey and Bailey, General
Partnership and Indian River County
(Memorandum dated 10/2/89)
4)
.1
Approved.
Approved.
r_
Approved.
Approved.
Res. 89-130 and
89-131 adopted.
Approved.
Approved.
Approved.
9. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS - CONTINUED
H. UTILITIES
1. Change Order No. 2 and
Request for Final Payment,
Rockridge Area Sanitary
Sewer System
(Memorandum dated 9/25/89)
2. Change Order No. 4 and 4A
and Request for Final Payment
Sewage Collection/Transmission
System, Gifford Area Sewer
Project
(Memorandum dated 9/18/89)
3. Developer's Agreement, Sealdsweet
Growers, Inc.
(Memorandum dated 9/26/89)
4. Heron Cay Lift Station Electric
Service Agreement
(Memorandum dated 9/25/89)
5. Floral Park and Ranch Estates
Subdivision Water Distribution
System Assessment
(Memorandum dated 9/28/89)
10. COUNTY ATTORNEY
none
11. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS'
A. CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER
B. VICE CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
D. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
12. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
A. Approval of Minutes of 10/3/89
Meeting
B. Closure of Segment I Emergency
Survey Requirements
(Memorandum dated 9/5/89)
C. Purchase of Land - Nellie Waters
(Memorandum dated 10/3/89)
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS
MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF TIIE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL
BE BASED.
OCT 101989
ICT 1 C
989
BOOK(:
8 F°E 92
Tuesday, October 10, 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,
October 10, 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 E. 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, and Administrator
Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Wheeler advised that the OMB Director has requested
the addition to today's agenda of a Budget Amendment changing the
millage for the West County Fire District as Item 9E (1).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the addition of the above described item to the Agenda
as requested by the OMB Director.
PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION TO RUTH STANBRIDGE
Chairman Wheeler read the following Proclamation aloud and
presented it to Mrs. Stanbridge with thanks for a job well done.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, RUTH STANBRIDGE has submitted her resignation
'..from the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission
after serving on this Board for six (6) years; and
WHEREAS, RUTH STANBRIDGF has faithfully served the
interests of all of the citizens of Indian River County and
diligently performed her duties as a member of the Indian
'•.. River County Planning and Zoning Commission, taking into
consideration all of the _ facts and making objective
decisions; and
WHEREAS, during RUTH STANBRIDGE'S tenure on the Indian
rt4River County Planning and Zoning Commission, both as a
',A
-member and as Vice -Chairman, the population of Indian River
r> County has greatly increased but because of the diligence of
,.the Commission our community has retained its unique
-qualities; and
•
WHEREAS, .RUTH STANBRIDGE .has been instrumental in
:seeing many matters brought to a successful conclusion,
It -among them being: '
Adoption of Scenic Roads Ordinance
Adoption of Jungle Trail Management Plan
Adoption of Winter Beach Small Area Plan
.Adoption of Tree Protection Ordinance
Adoptionof the 1989 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
°.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIPMED BY THE BOARD OF•COUNTY
:COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, That the Board accepts
h•,RUTH STANBRIDGE'S resignation from the Indian River County
:��=,<;Planning and,Zoning.Commission with regret, and send their
r►_ -heartfelt gratitude on behalf of the Commission and the
citizens of Indian River County to RUTH STANBRIDGE for her
_diligent service to the community.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED That the Board wishes RUTH
4'-"STANBRIDGE success in her future endeavors.
Adopted: October 10, 1989
CT .1 0
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS`
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY �
� /re
Gary. Wheeler, Chairman
2
BOOK. 78 F iE
OCT
BOOK 18
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Scurlock requested that Item E be pulled from
the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Minutes of Regular Meeting of 9/5/89
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 5, 1989.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 5, 1989,
as written.
B. Reports
The following were received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board:
Resolution - Indian River Mosquito Control District,
adopted at its Regular Meeting 9/14/89.
Resolution No. 89-12 - St. John's River Water Management
District adopting the Tax Rate and Certifying the Levy
of .346 Mill for Districtwide Purposes.
Certified Copies of Four Resolutions adopted by the Board
of Trustees of the Indian River County Hospital District
on 9/21/89 for FY 1989/90.
C. Proclamation - Support of Red Ribbon Week
3
PROCLAMATION
in Support of Red Ribbon Week - October 23-27, 1989
and Red Ribbon Day - October 24, 1989
WHEREAS, the abuse of drugs and alcohol in this country
continues to pose a serious threat to the health, safety,
welfare, and well-being of children, youth and adults; and
WHEREAS, drug abuse among our children and youth touches
every segment of society. Not only is it present, but it is a
major problem of such gigantic proportions that families and
individuals from all walks of life are affected; and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the entire community to
become involved in the fight to combat drug and alcohol abuse;
and many groups have organized to assist .in helping others to
become aware of the extent and nature of this devastating
problem; and
WHEREAS, the "Just Say No" movement is a national campaign
which is intended to assist in preventing and reversing the use
of drugs in schools and communities. Similarly, Red Ribbon Day
is intended to be a day of awareness wherein all community
members, along with our students, are being asked to wear red
ribbons to highlight the need to prevent the abuse of drugs and
alcohol;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Board of County
Commissioners, Indian River County, Florida that the week of
October 23-27, 1989 be recognized as
RED RIBBON WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board further proclaims that the
day of October 24, 1989 be recognized as
RED RIBBON DAY
An Indian River County. The Board. urges all personnel, students,
" parents, citizens and residents of Indian River County to join in
..„- this campaign to combat the substance abuse problem which is
plaguing our county, state and nation.
Adopted October 10, 1989
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Gary Cheeler
Chair .n
4 POR
OCT 10 19dJ..
HOOK
D. Release of Easement - Tropical Park Subdv. (Betty Wadsworth)
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Heath:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keat ng .C.P.
Community Develop nt Director
10
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Charles W. HeathaMg
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: September 6, 1989
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY: MICHAEL D. MANN,
AGENT FOR BETTY J. WADSWORTH
It is requested that the data herein be given formal consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of
October 10, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
;,,,The' --County has been petitioned by Betty J. Wadsworth, through
Michael D. Mann, her agent, for the release of a five (5) foot
utility and drainage easement, being the easterly five (5) feet of
`.`Lots 10 &, 11, Block 2, Tropical Park Subdivision, Section 12,
{.Township 33, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida; accord -
to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 43, of
.3uthe.Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. It is the
petitioners' intention to construct a 10,000 square foot retail
..,,store on. Lots 8, 9, 10 & 11, Block 12, Tropical Park Subdivision,
Plat Book 1, Page 43.
The- current* zoning classification is CG, General Commercial
:District. The Land Use Designation is Commercial.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by the Southern Bell Telephone
Company, Florida Power and Light Company, Florida Cablevision
,Corporation, City of Vero Beach Utilities Department, and the
,;:Indian River County Utilities, Engineering Division, and the Road
'Bridge Division. Based upon their reviews the following con-
='•ditions were recommended:
1) Florida Cablevision Corporation requests a utility
easement along the easterly lot line of Lot 8, Block 2,
Tropical Park Subdivision (see. attached review sheet).
2) Indian River County Utilities Division recommendsthat
the existing water main be removed by the owner, in
coordination with the Utility Department's removal and
relocation of the water meter and backflow preventer
(see attached review sheet).
5
The applicant has since satisfied the above referenced conditions
by granting Florida Cablevision an easement along the easterly lot
line of Lot 8, and by coordinating with the Utility Department to
remove and relocate the water main and meter apparatus (see
attached agreements).' Subsequently, there are no agen-
cy/department objections to the proposed release of easements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a Resolu-
tion, the release of the rear lot five (5) foot utility and
drainage easements of Lots 10 & 11, Block 2, Tropical Park Subdi-
vision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 1,
Page 43, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-129 abandoning certain easements in
Tropical Park Subdv., Lots 10 & 11, Block 2, as
requested by Betty Wadsworth.
RESOLUTION NO.
89-129
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE TROPICAL PARK
SUBDIVISION, LOTS 10 & 11, Block 2, Plat Book 1,
Page 43, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER __
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described
below, and
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no
public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian River
County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida
32960, Grantor, to Betty J. Wadsworth, her successor in interest,.
heirs and assigns, whose mailing address is 660 82nd Avenue, Vero
Beach, Florida 32966 Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right,
title, and interest that it may have in the following described
easements:
ICT 10 1989
•
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
6
PUCK
INT + lSd
ROOK
PAGE �i8
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert
and adopted on the
following vote:
seconded by Commissioner
10th day of October , 1989, by the
Bird
Commissioner Wheeler
Commissioner Eggert
Commissioner Bird
Commissioner Bowman
Commissioner Scurlock
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 10th ,day of October , 1989.
The rear
10 and 1
five (5)
Block 2,
Page 43,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By r ,
Gary4e. Wheeler
Chairman
EXHIBIT "A"
lot five (5) foot utility and drainage easements of Lots
L, Block 2, Tropical Park Subdivision being the easterly
feet of Lot 10, and the easterly five (5) feet of Lot 11,
Tropical Park Subdivision, according to the Plat Book 1,
of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
E. Budget Amendment #001 - Miscellaneous Funds
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird:
7
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
October 4, 1989
BUDGET AMENDMENT 001
MISCELLANEOUS FUNDS
CONSENT AGENDA
Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment appropriates funding for the following:
1. The Board of County Commissioners < approved a budget
amendment on October 3, 1989 to purchase a single channel
dispatch system for all the county fire districts. The
allocation of the cost will be as follows:
North County Fire District
South County Fire District
911
TOTAL
$16,316.00
37,418.00
12.518.00
$66,252.00
A. North County Fire District will be eliminating the
Wabasso Fire Department which had a budget of $21,700 for
89/90 fiscal year. We will be utilizing $16,316.00 and
the remaining $4,384 will be put into contingencies.
B. SouthCounty Fire District will transfer $37,418.00 from
contingencies which has a balance of $77,695.00.
C. The consolidation of the dispatch system will mean we
will not have to purchase a $30,000 logging recorder
multi -channel. We will use $12,518.00 of the savings and
the remaining $17,482.00 will be transferred into
contingencies.
2. In the meeting of September 26, 1989, the Board of County
Commissioners approved funding of $24,526.00 from General
Fund Contingency for Substance Abuse for Pregnant Women.
At the meeting of October 3, 1989, the Board of County
Commissioners approved the purchase of a $350.00 answering
machine for the Clerk -of the Court with funding to be from
the Court Facilities Fund.
', JJECOMNENDATION
'Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve, budget
amendment 001.
Commis-sioner Scurlock commented that he voted against the
Budget Amendment for purchase of an answering machine for the
Clerk for $350 when it came before the Board before. Now we have
a corrected Budget Amendment reducing the $350 to $60 for the
same item; he felt that is asinine and he will not vote for that
'OCT 10 1989
8
Bov
gl
1 T 1
BOOK 8 rnE 100
portion of the Budget Amendment because he can't believe the
Clerk does not have that amount in his budget. Commissioner
Scurlock wished to make it clear for the Press that the reason he
voted against the Budget Amendment for such a small change
originally was not only because it is so close to the beginning
of the new budget year, but also because that answering machine
has had problems for the last six months and he, therefore,
didn't see why it wasn't taken care of in the normal budget
process. He advised that he will vote for everything in the
proposed Budget Amendment except for the $60.00 for the Clerk.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #001 with the exception of the
$60.00 item for the Clerk.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to approve the Clerk's Budget
Amendment request of $60 for the answering machine.
Chairman Wheeler stated that he will support the Motion
simply because he wants to see the problem corrected, but he does
agree absolutely with what Commissioner Scurlock has said.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that his point is that the
problem can be corrected within budgetary funds that are
available. He cannot believe that the Clerk does not have more
than a $60 line item transfer within that budget.
Commissioner Eggert commented that this is costing the Clerk
when people come in because they are not getting a message; so,
it is something they should be watching closely.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to put everyone on notice that
this year he will not be voting for anything going into contin-
gencies unless it is truly an unanticipated emergency.
9
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried on a 3 to 2 vote with
Commissioners Bowman and Scurlock voting in
opposition.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird, OMB Directo
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
DATE: October 10. 1989
001
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1A.
NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
Wabasso/Other Utility Services
115-125-522-034.39
$ 0
$ 1.000.00
Wabasso/Maintenance-Buildinq
115-125-522-034.61
$ 0
$ 700.00
Wabasso/Automobile
115-125-522-034.64
$ 0
$ 6,000.00
Wabasso/All Office Supplies
115-125-522-035.11
$ Q
$ 500.00
Wabasso/Fuel & Lubricants
115-125-522-035.21
$ 0
$ 1.500.00
Wabasso/Uniforms
115-125-522-035.24
$ 0
$ 4,000.00
Wabasso/Institutional Supplies
115-125-522-035.25
$ 0
$ 100.00
Wabasso/Expendable Tools
115-125-522-035.26
$ 0
$ 250.00
Wabasso/Other Oper. Supplies
115-125-522-035.29
$ 0
$ 2.050.00
Wabasso/Meetings_ and Seminars
115-125-522-035.43
$ 0
$ 2,000.00
Wabasso/Communication-Maint.
115-125-522-044.71_$
0
$ 1,500.00
Wabasso/Office Furniture
115-125-522-066.41
$ 0
$
Wabasso/Other Mach. & Equipment
115-125-522-066.49
$ 0
/600.00
$ 1,500.00
Fire
Control/Communications -
115-125-581-066.45
$16.316.00
$ 0
Fire
Control/Reserve for Contingency
115-104-581-099.91
$ 5,384.00
$ 0
1B
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
Reserve for Contingency
114-120-522-099.91
$ 0
$37.418.00
Communication Equipment
114-120-522-066.45
537.418.00
0
.$
iC
911 SURCHARGE
Communication Equipment
120-133-519-066.45
$ 0
$17.482.00
Reserve for Contingency
120-133-519-099.91
$17,482.00$
0
2
GENERAL FUND
HRS/Substance Abuse
001-106-562-088.81
$24,526.00
$ 0
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$ 0
$24,526.00
3 V
COURT FACILITY
Clerk/Other Operating Supplies
106-309-513-035.29
$ 60.00
$ 0
Reserve for Contingency
106-901-581-099.91
$ 0
$ 60.00
10
OCT 10 Oa
BOOK 78 101
LO ibs9
aooF 78 F'Aa1 2,
F. Budget Amendment #002 - Video Equipment for Circuit Judges
The Board reviewed memo from the OMB Director:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: October 4, 1989
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 002 -
VIDEO EQUIPMENT FOR
CIRCUIT JUDGES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3,575.00
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Judge Vocelle has requested the Board of County Commissioners
purchase a video system for Courtroom D at a cost of $3,575.00. The
video system will be used to do first appearances and will save
transporting prisoners from the jail to the courthouse. Currently we
have a video system which is used between Courtroom A and B. It is
not practical to transport the now existing video system to the
Courthouse annex where Courtroom D is located.
has been requested we used Court Facility contingencies to
purchase the video system. The contingency balance is $11,859.00.
$
1ECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve budget
=_amendment 002 and authorize the judges to purchase the video
-equipment from McMaster Antenna Systems.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Budget
Amendment #002 for the video equipment for the Circuit
Judges as recommended by staff.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird, OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 002
DATE: OCTOBER 4. 1989
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
COURT FACILITIES
Circuit Court/Furniture & Eauip
106-901-516-066.41
$ 3,575.00
$ 0
Reserve for Continciencies
106-909-581-099.91
$ 0
$ 3,575.00
11
JACKSON COMPLAINTS RE R/W DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, made the follow-
ing presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
R40Ree
obert M.
g.
Community Devel pme Director
FROM: Stan Boling
Chief, Current Development
• DATE:
October 3, 1989
SUBJECT: JACKSON COMPLAINTS REGARDING RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION
REQUIREMENTS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
•meeting of October 10, 1989.
BACKGROUND:
On September 29, 1989,, staff received a copy of a letter from
'^~Attorney Robert Jackson to the members of the Board of County
;:.Commissioners. The letter deals with the experiences and items
required of Attorney Jackson's son, Robert Neal Jackson, during
review of his single family building permit (see att. #1). [Neal
' Jackson's building permit is now on hold pending satisfaction of
the County's right-of-way dedication requirements.] The letter
''contains numerous complaints and accusations, and requests prompt
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
The development site is located on the north side of 8th Street
between 74th Avenue and 82nd Avenue (see att. #2). The parcel,
which consists of a t10 acre grove, is zoned A-1 (Agricultural)
and 'is designated under the new Comprehensive Plan as being
Rural -2 (1 unit/acre), and is within the urban service area.
ANALYSIS:
Attorney Jackson's stated concerns deal with two issues: the
development review process and the requirement to dedicate
-right-of-way up.to the County's minimum local road standard.
f714irDevelopment Review Is
ft.On August 29, 1989, Neal Jackson applied for a single-family
'-building permit. The Building Division Director, Ester Rymer,
" �,Pactually assisted Mr. Jackson in filling -out the application.
Through normal procedures, the permit plans were routed to various
`departments. This particular application had several items that
• required special review:
1. Although the application did not note it, a mobile home
existed on the site. Since the trailer and new house could
not both exist on the same parcel (2 or more dwelling units
cannot exist on the same single-family or agriculturally
OCT 10 r989
12
�:
BOOK '8 • PA:E.. 103
zoned lot or parcel), it
staff policy, that the
completion of the house -
move from the trailer into
BOOK .78 pA JE Dig
was determined, consistent with
trailer would be removed upon
allowing. for the resident(s) to
the new house.
2. Abandonment of the septic tank servicing the trailer had to
be addressed by the Environmental Health Department.
3. The development parcel is not a platted lot and its creation
date and status had to be reviewed to ensure compliance with
the subdivision ordinance.
4. Because the parcel is over 1 acre in size, compliance with
land clearing and tree protection requirements had to be
ensured.
5. Because the site is on a Thoroughfare Plan Road (8th Street),
right-of-way research by Public Works was required. Upon
receiving the right-of-way information from Public Works
(September 19th), the Planning department had to contact Mr.
Jackson to explain and ensure compliance with the applicable
right-of-way requirements.
By September 21, 1989, the application and all of the previously
cited issues had been reviewed and addressed, and all requirements
for building permit issuance had been satisfied save one: the
right-of-way requirement. The Planning department attempted for
2} days to contact the applicant by phone. Then, the applicant
contacted the planning department in person on September 21st.
The right-of-way situation and requirements were explained to him
`and a copy of the ordinance requirements and a form -letter (letter
of agreement to dedicate right-of-way prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy) were given out.
Right Of Way Requirement,
The second of the two major issues in attorney Jackson's letter
concerns the county's right-of-way dedication requirement. As
revised in January, 1988 through an ordinance amendment, (Section
25(f), see attachment #3), the county's right-of-way rule now
requires that an applicant for any type of development activity,
from a single-family building permit to a multi -lot subdivision,
dedicate to the county without compensation his share of
right-of-way needed to bring any abutting roadway up to minimum
local road standards (60 feet).
When the board adopted the present right-of-way policy in ordi-
nance form, the reasoning was that 60 feet is the minimum
right-of-way needed to serve single-family residences. To accom-
modate a paved road, drainage, utilities, and roadside recovery
area, the sixty feet is needed for a local road serving one
homesite or multiple homesites. For that reason, the board
determined that a sixty foot roadway should be the responsibility
of the residents fronting the road, while any needed right-of-way
over and above sixty feet would be the county's responsibility and
only be acquired when the county could compensate the landowner.
Consequently, a tiered system of right-of-way acquisition has
developed. When a building permit or development project is
submitted where adjacent roadways have deficient right-of-way, the
.applicant must dedicate without compensation his share of
e right-of-way.to bring the roadway up to the sixty foot local road
`minimum. On thoroughfare plan ro'a'ds, requiring up to 120 feet of
right-of-way, the county will purchase or provide impact fee
ms..
i::credits for the amount of right-of-way over and above the 60 foot
minimum local road standard. When no development activity occurs
yet the county needs right-of-way for a road project (such as
13
-Indian River Boulevard), the county will purchase all needed
'-right-of-way.. So timing is an issue. Where an applicant proposes
=even one single-family house, the county has determined that 60
feet of right-of-way is needed to accommodate it, and his share of
any deficiency must be dedicated. Yet, if an individual never
develops his property, the county will purchase the entire
right-of-way, when needed for roadway improvements.
In the subject case, Neal Jackson's parcel abuts 8th Street which
has only 30' of existing right-of-way and is bounded to the south
by an Indian river Farms Drainage District canal. To accommodate
minimum local road standards, 30' of right-of-way is required (see
att. #4). Mr. Jackson proposes a residence on his 10 acre grove
parcel which would set back over 100' from the existing 8th Street
right-of-way. Thus, there is no building setback or potential
encroachment problem; the dedication requirement does not affect
the proposed house plans.
Furthermore, the County Attorney's Office has tried to work with
the applicant and has proposed legal arrangements whereby Mr.
Jackson could continue to farm and use the citrus trees in the 30'
dedicated area until the County needs it for the actual road
construction project. Thus, interim use of the dedicated area is
not at issue. The County Attorney's office also informed Mr.
Jackson that his permit need not be held up; he was informed that
he could dedicate the land in question under protest and proceed
with his appeal after securing his permit.
STAFF POSITION:
It is staff's position that Mr. Jackson's September 28, 1989
letter is incorrect. The purpose of the right-of-way dedication
requirement is not as Mr. Jackson indicates in his letter "to
require access from property to a main arterial road." Instead,
it is to ensure that new construction pays for itsproject related
impacts by dedicating the land required for minimum local road
standards. These are the standards required for local roads in
new subdivisions, and they are standards which are technically and
legally defensible.
In that existing residents may not have to dedicate property
without compensation, the requirements may not be equitable.
However, when the county needs to expand Glendale, it will be
acquiring right-of-way, whether there are houses along the
right-of-way or not. Consequently, some people may be compensated
for their right-of-way, but they may lose their front yard or even
their house.
There are many roads in the county like Glendale with only a 30
foot right-of-way and a drainage district canal precluding expan-
sion on one side. For the county to go and acquire all of the
needed right-of-way at this time would be financially infeasible.
Therefore, the policy of requiring dedication without compensation
for the "project related" right-of-way needs makes sense.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners uphold
the staff's position.
1O C T i i989
14 ROOK 8 F. f.105
lQ I1cX989
-111111.10..,....1 .....11
,...,11 1 -
•
/I
ITfliR12 - - •••• am.— rR.1 e1= 381) =R" = =•U,� I= a•= _ - - -,.•t
I ir.i.-
ws.a i .
I I � I-
I
IJ I.
Iint(
I ' _ �-. ! I
>IIll p I
ali 1 s
•
=1I 11 •
Alpi 2.
11� 1
11= tl key'.+ i
l u` r W i =T-
I° s
11. ;I .
BOOK
a..l
SUBJECT SITE
.•
— ••�= -- Ill — — —
tf.-i3.! 471
Ill r«•••
III J
L7Rb
N..
TR2
_ •8thctST
h
4
TR6 • w.
•.,
0
111
11
qA
1
`t
m
•w�. TRB v"�.g3,' awl .•
F•+.9,9L„h•'1• iA '�'•+�d ire) rl
7I 1
PROPOSED HOUSE
•
NOT* r• ::::
TO
SCALE
I. 2
*UltiUltimate Collector Road 13-0-W 20' (lo be purchased at future date) __
mate
snows ,......mmoo.unnnnmm.. mn
mnnmmnmmmnnnf...mm...nnmmn •
Required for min. standard
8th Street
;gip
•T ' I.R.F.D.O. Canal R -0 -IN
30' R -O -W ' (to be dedicated
1R
3e' R -0-10V (existing)
•
15
F9cc IOU
•
Commissioner Scurlock noted that we have a number of canals
in Vero Beach, and there is this dilemma of saying the road
happens to be on one side of the canal or the other. This occurs
all over the county, and when we are looking for the minimum R/W,
it seems we end up assigning the donation to the property that is
on the wrong side of the canal. He asked why we could not come
up with a program where we acquire R/W along those canals because
we need to do this for long range planning, and then draw up a
special assessment district program so the property owner on the
other side of the canal pays his fair share because he is access-
ing the same road.
Commissioner Eggert noted that this problem has been dis-
cussed at Planning & Zoning for a long time, and it has been a
big frustration for her.
Chief Planner Boling pointed out that the person on the
other side of the canal has to pay for a culvert - they have the
culvert problem, and the person on the other side has the R/W
problem.
Commissioner Scurlock noted the R/W is for the road, and how
you get across the ditch to your property is your problem.
Chairman Wheeler believed the price of the property should
reflect that drawback.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding the likelihood that
more than one owner probably would participate in building such a
culvert and also the fact that owners near 74th Ave. or 82nd Ave.
with large acreage might not even access 8th Street but could be
assessed.
Discussion continued, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that
while we want to be fair and equitable, possibly the cure he is
suggesting may be worse than the disease.
Chief Planner Boling felt two things were brought out in Mr.
Jackson's letter - the timing involved with the building permit
process and the R/W acquisition. He noted that Neal Jackson is
16
OCT le 089
BOOK 7g' ��,.C.107
OCT 1C) JtZ
BOOK 78 uu[ 108
an owner/builder. This is probably the first house he has built,
and a lot of these things are new to him.
Chairman Wheeler wished to know if someone is currently
living on a R/W of Tess than 60' and they add on, are they
required to give the 30' R/W.
Chief Planner -Boling advised that they are not; our
requirement deals with a single family building permit which
would be for a new residence.
Chairman Wheeler noted that looking at this particular
situation, a single family resident was living there currently
in a mobile home. He is only expanding or improving his living
conditions; the use of the property hasn't changed; and it is
not creating an additional burden on that road.
Planner Boling felt one way the equity situation is
addressed is that when you have an existing residence there, such
as that trailer, you are not assessed a traffic impact fee.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that you have to triggerthe
mechanism where you have to come up to current standards with
something. What we have chosen in this county is a new construc-
tion permit, and he asked if staff feels comfortable with that
triggering mechanism.
Public Works Director David advised that there has been
discussion about some equitable revenue sources to solve some of
our R/W acquisition problems, and one had to do with taking our
existing impact fee district program and superimposing on top of
the districts, a special assessment district for road R/W
acquisition, which would solve some immediate timing problems on
situations such as these.
Discussion continued as to various alternatives, such as
having one impact fee for the whole county, but Director Davis
noted that we were advised by our consultant that it was better.
to have districts.
Commissioner Scurlock clarified that what he is suggesting
is that we take each zone, get a master plan, identify and
17
acquire all the R/W needed for that area for the future, and then
do a special assessment by zone to all the benefitting property
based on a formula that equitably assigns the value back to that
property.
Director Davis commented that Commissioner Scurlock took the
words right out of his mouth!
Attorney Vitunac noted that this was talked about a year ago
with the DOT, and we determined that first 60' would not be
bought. That is the problem with Mr. Jackson's property. We
wanted to set up an MSTU for the R/W over the minimum 60'. Mr.
Jackson's 60' minimum happens to be on a collector road, and he
thinks that should make it different from any other 60'.
Commissioner Scurlock believed his issue is why does the 60'
all have to be taken from him and not the owner across the canal.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that even if he was the only
house there, he would have to give 60'. The first development
anywhere in the "jungle" has to give 60' minimum, and Mr. Jackson
is not being treated differently than anyone in any other part of
the county.
. Commissioner Bird wished to know if, for instance, a house
was on a half acre lot rather than 10 acres, is that owner
required to give up 30' off his half acre, and then someone who
wants to subdivide all the remaining acreage only has to give up
30', and this was confirmed.
Commissioner Scurlock contended that is why a special
assessment district makes sense. He noted the bottom line is
that we don't have sufficient dollars to fund the acquisition of
R/W, and we play all these tricks to acquire it. He continued to
stress the need for a fair share assessment method if we can do
it. Possibly it is too complicated.
Public Works Director Davis believed the district concept
described earlier, superimposing another layer on the impact fee
districting program and levying an assessment in each zone, would
be very equitable. He felt further down the road the Sales Tax
18
OCT 10 1989
BOOK
OCT'
BOOK 78 FA:GE 110
program can buffer the assessments, but we are going to have
cases like this coming in rapidly in the next 5 years, and we
need a short term instrument to handle it.
Commissioner Bird asked if we could take just one district
and work out the numbers on it for the R/W we need and have staff
bring that back.
Administrator Chandler asked for some clarification. He
believed a key element is timing, and pointed out that we may not
need some R/W for many years.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that we are never going to
acquire R/W cheaper than present day dollars. He explained that
in District 5, for instance, you would go in and identify all the
R/W needed in that district; you then would immediately draw up
an acquisition amount it would take to fund that; and that would
be your special assessment back to the benefitting property.
Attorney Vitunac felt it would be far too complicated to do
assessments by benefit. He thought we were talking about a
taxing district where there is just an additional special tax
every year to fund the budget to acquire R/W for that year.
Commissioner Bird stressed that he would like to see us look
at this in just one district, and Director Davis noted the intent
was not to look at all the R/W in one district and try to buy
that in 7 or 8 years. The intent was to establish a budget for
each district each year, and as these cases came in, only buy the
R/W for those particular cases.
Commissioner Eggert felt that may not be the most cost
effective way for the County to proceed when the price of land
keeps moving up.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he also would like to get
a study going on this so we can get some numbers and kick around
some philosophies because until we find a funding mechanism, we
will continue to have the inequities and not the R/W.
Chairman Wheeler stressed the need to be consistent and
wished to know where we draw the line, especially in regard to
19
adding on and improving your living conditions in opposition to
building a new house, and Planner Boling explained that the
ordinance requires this dedication when you come in for a new
building permit - that is what trips it, and this particular
situation is for a new residence. He further noted that the
mobile home is non -conforming, and it couldn't be upgraded
itself.
Director Keating again pointed out that there is no traffic
impact fee because there is no increase in traffic that necessi-
tates capacity improvements.
Attorney Robert Jackson came before the Board
the complaints set
BOARD CERTIFIED
ESTATE PLANNING AND
PROBATE ATTORNEY
•
MEMORANDUM
in regard to
out in his memo to the Board, as follows:
ROBERT JACKSON, P. A.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2165 15TM AVENUE
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
1407) 567-4355
TO: Mr. Gary Wheeler, Chairman
Mrs. -Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice
Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Z' is . Margaret Bowman
Mr. Richard M. Bird
• FROM:
Robert Jackson
BOARD CERTIFIED
REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
September 28, 1989
Refusal by Planning Department to deliver building
permit to Robert Neal Jackson unless property conveyed
to County
,.Over the past month, my son, Robert Neal Jackson, has been
•'completing the requirements to replace his mobile home with a
-;.regular residence on Glendale Road east of Rebel Road. He
^completed everything and was told everything was fine, except for
a question by the Health Department. He removed the existing
-Amobile home; destroyed the existing septic tank; and commenced
=::}= filling and starting his new ipme. He was belatedly called to
4 ;:the Planning Department, where he was told they had his permit
''i?but he could not get it unless he involuntarily gave away 30 feet
``_ y of his, property to the County for future expansion of Glendale
" 'f.:Road. The property is a citrus grove. Enclosed is the list of
"4'`requirements he received and the form giving the property, which
he received from Stan Bolling.
To start with, this is no way for our government to treat a
citizen - waiting until the last second and after he thought he
had completed the requirements - to extort over $5,000 in land
from my son. The ordinance in question was obviously enacted to
require access from property to a main arterial road. Why should
he "give" 30 feet, while his neighbors, some of whom -have houses,
are not required to do so?
20
OCT 1 a9U9
BOOK
OCT 6b9
BOOK 78 FAA.12
I can understand requiring a 60 feet right-of-way on streets that
are off a thoroughfare, so there would be a uniformroad and.
access. But here the 30 -foot grant does not provide for a 60
feet street along Glendale. It forces a person to give
right-of-way free to the County, even though other owners do not
have to do so, for future county expansion merely because that
person is trying to upgrade his living conditions. Needless to
say, he will be damaged if he cannot get the permit now, as his
former home is gone.
Private property is important to our way of life, so much so, if
you sue a person for a million dollars, you get a 6 -person jury.
If the state wants to take your life or your property, you get a
12 -person jury. There is no relationship to any public need to
extort this right-of-way from my son. Incidentally, this is a 10
acre grove, from which he earns his income.
Your consideration as promptly as possible would be appreciated,
since my son‘ cannot proceed further without the, permit.
If
necessary, please put this matter on the next agenda, and, in the
',interim, I would be glad to meet with Jim Chandler if it would do
any good.
V - truly yours
Attorney Jackson advised that he would explain the problems,
and then he would like his son to explain what happened to him.
Number one is that at the last minute, his son went up to get his
permit which was already issued and heard for the first time that
we will give you the permit, but we have to take 30' of your land
without just compensation. Fortunately, his son did not sign
that document. Attorney Jackson noted that the first problem is
giving up the land, and the second is that his son is out there -
he has done everything he supposed to except this, and he can't
finish building. He has already spent a lot of money out there,
and he has destroyed his mobile home removing it. The County
Attorney wants him to deed the land and then fight the County in
court. Attorney Jackson was agreeable to fighting the County in
court but wanted his son to be able to finish moving ahead with
his property and get on with his life.
21
Chairman Wheeler pointed out that Mr. Jackson's son was told
he would have to remove the mobile home before he could get an
occupancy permit; he was not told that he had to remove it before
the house was built.
Attorney Jackson noted that his son was doing this on his
own, and he is not used to handling these things. Attorney
'Jackson contended that the county ordinance pure and simple is
saying that if you build on a lot out there, we are not going to
pay you just compensation for a main thoroughfare like everybody
else does. Everyone is supposed to get equal protection under
the law, and that is not happening here. His son is going to
have to give away his property, or actually have it extorted from
him, because he is not giving it away free. His neighbors will
be paid for theirs when the road comes through, and the law says
you have to pay just compensation when you take R/W. Attorney
Jackson felt the County has to pay and that they can't use a
permit to fund and take property to save the county money. He
also felt staff's position is interesting in relation to the law
of Florida. The memo says that staff's position is to insure
that new construction pays for its project- related impact by
dedicating land required for minimum road standards. His son has
lived there, and he is still going to live there; so, he hasn't
increased the use of the road and he was led to believe he would
have to pay a $1,200 impact fee.
It was noted that is not correct.
Attorney Jackson submitted that this is the wrong way to
charge an impact fee, and staff admits in writing that this is
not fair or equal - his neighbor is not going to have to donate
and he is. They say that it is financially unfeasible for the
county to go ahead and acquire all the R/W, but that doesn't give
the county the right to take property without just compensation.
The County can't condemn this property because they don't need it
now, and they can't take the property without just compensation.
22
t)CT 10
SCR
i, n' 1Yi E1!
BOOK 78
Commissioner Scurlock noted that we could modify our ordi-
nances to reflect that there will be no construction where the
infra -structure isn't in place.
Attorney Jackson continued to emphasize that we must treat
everyone the same and fairly. His son has lost his mobile home
and his septic tank now; the work he has done has cost him over
$5,000; and he has lost the use of his property until he gets the
permit. Attorney Jackson believed there was a similar case on
4th Avenue last April where Attorney Peterson claimed the County
forced the Brady's to sign a reservation of their property, and
the County ended up paying his client $8,500 and Attorney
Peterson got $3,400 in fees.
Attorney Vitunac advised that we are willing to pay Mr.
Jackson for anything over the 60', and that is what Attorney
Peterson's client was paid on. That case is not a valid
precedent because it involved 30' beyond the original 60'.
Attorney Jackson just felt there was a problem with the way
his son's application was handled and argued that the County
should give his son his permit.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that we have already offered to
give him a permit and we will give him one right now if he will
give us that deed on the condition that we will hold the deed in
escrow, and if he sues and wins, we will give it back to him. He
could give us the deed this afternoon, and he will be in there.
We could agree to hold the deed without recording it for a
certain length of time.
Neal Jackson then took the floor and explained in detail the
whole procedure he followed in trying to get the permit, empha-
sizing that he thought everything was done and that he could go
on ahead, but then when he went to pick the permit up, he was
told he would have to pay a $1,200 impact fee and at the last
minute was told he couldn't have the permit until the County got
the 30'.
23
Commissioner Eggert believed when Mr. Jackson filled out the
application, he didn't note there was a mobile home on the
property. Staff apparently found that out later, and that would
make a difference in whether or not he paid the impact fee.
Community Development Director Keating noted that we have a
very complicated single family building permit process because of
all the things we have to look at and all the different
departments and agencies that are involved, i.e., Environmental
Health, Utilities, Engineering which has to look at the R/W,
driveway permits, drainage, etc. We have tried to put everything
on the application form to notify people all that has to be
looked at and about the impact fees, R/W considerations, etc.
On lots over 1 acre, for instance, you need a permit to remove
trees or do any land clearing. If someone goes ahead and removes
the mobile home before hand, that is at their own risk.
Commissioner Bowman believed the application process actu-
ally only took about 3 weeks, which she felt is pretty good.
Discussion returned to the fact that Mr. Jackson is
requesting we issue his son a building permit and that we have
offered to give him a permit if he will give us a deed which
could be held in escrow while he goes to court.
Attorney Vitunac noted that he would prefer to record the
deed because if we just hold it, the property possibly could be
sold off, but he would be willing to hold the deed since we know
the Jacksons.
Commissioner Bird asked if we have the ability to instruct
staff to issue the building permit without requiring the R/W, and
Attorney Vitunac advised that we do not; the ordinance would have
to be changed.
Attorney Jackson did not see where the County doesn't have
the authority to issue this permit pending this based on this
situation, and Commissioner Scurlock felt the County Attorney is
saying put the deed in escrow, go ahead and issue the permit, and
set a time limit for the Jacksons to file their action.
24
JOCT 10 1989
BOOK
Pr-
IOCT
BOOK . 7 F', G[ 116
Attorney Jackson stated that he would consider that if he
can be the escrow agent.
Attorney Vitunac agreed that either Attorney can hold the
deed in escrow, and asked Attorney Jackson if he is willing to
keep the deed under an escrow position.
Attorney Jackson was not sure because he was not sure if his
son should continue building or not under this situation, which
is basically unfair, and Commissioner Scurlock felt the only
other option is to move denial of the request.
Chairman Wheeler agreed with Attorney Jackson's position
that this isn't fair. You are taking somebody's property on an
existing road, and they should be compensated for it. It is a
collector road, and it benefits everybody in the County; it is
not like someone building a subdivision with streets only the
residents drive on.
Commissioner Bird believed we have identified 8th Street as
a main collector in this county for years and years and sat there
with a 30' R/W knowing that it would never be adequate; so, we
probably are remiss to some extent.
Commissioner Eggert noted that she can't quite separate
subdivision roads out from other roads because anyone in the
county can drive on any road at any time.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird that Neal Jackson
be issued a building permit and allowed to continue
construction and that the deed for the 30' R/W dedica-
tion be prepared in the name of the County and held in
Attorney Jackson's escrow account.
Discussion arose as to adding a time element to the Motion,
and Attorney Vitunac suggested allowing him 60 days in which to
file a lawsuit or otherwise turn the deed over to the county, and
if he does file a lawsuit, the deed stays with Attorney Jackson
until the suit is over.
25
Attorney Scurlock wished to add that in the interim we have
directed staff to prepare some approach to the alternatives that
were discussed today.
Commissioner Bird agreed to the above additions, and
the MOTION WAS THEN SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if we end up taking that
property without compensation and later do some assessment across
the board to acquire all the additional R/W and pay for it, then
how do we go back and repay Neal Jackson.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the answer is that Mr. Jackson
can choose not to go ahead with his project and then hope to be
compensated in the future. -
Staff asked for clarification in regard to taking a test
district and looking at all the R/W acquisition needed for the
future and costing that out.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested doing it in 5 year phases,
and Director Davis noted that he was thinking of a 20 year plan.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we need to have some phasing,
and Administrator Chandler did not think we can make that kind of
determination today because there are many things that we will
have to look at.
Commissioner Bird reiterated that the Motion is for staff to
issue Mr. Jackson a building permit. He will prepare a deed to
the 30' in the name of the County to be held in his escrow
account; he has 60 days to file a lawsuit; and we will see what
happens in court.
At this point Attorney Vitunac brought up the fact that we
actually need 50', but we will buy the other 20'. He pointed
out that our ordinance requires the deficiency to be brought up
26
EO T 10 X9 9
J
BOOK /0 P' 1 1
F
1L CT ib
BOOK 78 FA r 1Th
now - the deficiency is 50". The issue was whether we would pay
for the first 30' and that is to be decided in court; it is
understood we would pay for the 20'.
The Jacksons indicated they did not wish to sell the 20'.
Asst. County Attorney Collins expressed some confusion.
Looking at the sketch staff prepared, it says the 20' is "to be
purchased at a future date." Do we want it now or don't we? We
can always buy it at a future date.
Director Davis stated that the main thing is that it not be
encumbered by setbacks or structures, and Commissioner Bird felt
we are just putting Mr. Jackson on notice today that he should
`not do anything in that 20' because we are going to buy it.
Attorney Collins commented that normally people want us to
buy it now because they get a traffic impact fee credit.
Discussion ensued regarding it being pointless to enter into
Reservation Agreements because they can't be enforced, and
Director Davis reiterated that we are happy with the 60' as long
as the other 20' are not encumbered by structures or setbacks.
Attorney Collins stated that he personally would like to
refer to it as "enlightened self-interest" that they don't build
so close to the road and believed we are just warning him what
could happen in the future when we expand the road.
Administrator Chandler stressed what we must base every-
thing on is what the local ordinance says. That is the
controlling factor.
Debate continued among Attorneys Vitunac, Collins and
Jackson, as to whether we need 50' or 30', and Chairman Wheeler
recessed the meeting briefly to give the attorneys an opportunity
to resolve the problem.
When the meeting resumed, County Attorney Vitunac advised
that during the recess, staff had a discussion and decided that
since the additional 20' was not on the County's 20 year (CIP)
Capital Improvement Plan, the County would not be in a position
to require it t� be bought or is not willing to buy it and will
27
be content with the 30' to bring the road up to the local minimum
standard.
but it is
The ultimate road R/W does show an extra 20 feet,
not within the 20 year building program. Sooner or
later, the county will have to come to buy that 20';
Mr. Jackson will not build on that 20' or within the
the 20'.
so, we hope
setbacks of
STATUS REPORT ON COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM WITHIN CITIES
OF SEBASTIAN AND FELLSMERE
The Board reviewed the following memo from the Public Works
Director:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Status Report on Indian River County Traffic
Impact Fee Program within the City of Sebastian
and City of Fellsmere
DATE:
October 5, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
enacted the Indian River County Fair Share Roadway
Improvement Ordinance No. 86-14 (effective date Feb. 28,
1986) on January'22, 1986, after numerous workshops and
public hearings, the dates of which were properly advertised
in the local media. The Board's direction to staff during
the impact fee program development was to meet individually
with the staff and governing bodies of all cities or towns
within the County, as well the Transportation Planning
Committee and local interest groups, to receive thorough
public input. In regards to the City of Sebastian, the
County staff met with the following persons/city council
representatives on the dates noted:
Meeting Dates
June 5, 1985
June 19, 1985
August 21, 1985
Meeting Attended By
Transportation Planning Committee
(Technical Complement)(Ken Roth, COS
Transportation Planing Committee
(Ken Roth, COS attended)
City of Sebastian Staff
Harold Eisenbarth,City P&Z Board
Mike Brown, Consultant for IRC
October 30, 1985 Board of County Commissioners
Public Workshop
28
.%1- 13439
Purpose
Program Development
attended)
Program Development
Program Development
Add City's desired
road projects
Public Input
BOOK �/8 119
OC 10 lib`J
November 6, 1985
November 20, 1985
November 27, 1985
January 8, 1986
January 22, 1986
County Staff
Sebastian City Council
County Staff
Sebastian City Council
Transportation Planning Committee
Board of County Commissioner
Public Hearing
Board of County Commissioner
Public Hearing
Since the program was implemented, the City of Sebastian has
faithfully and consistently supported collecting Impact Fees. On
Feb. 24, 1988, the Sebastian City Council, during a regular
meeting, instructed the City Attorney to look into the possibility
of the City withdrawing from its agreement with the County to
collect traffic impact fees and the City institute a City impact
fee. This action prompted staff to communicate with the newly
appointed City staff and City Council by informing the City
Attorney Tom Palmer that the County staff is available to discuss
the program and the consequences of the City opting out (see
attached letter from William Collins, Asst. County Attorney to
City Attorney Thomas Palmer dated Mar. 14, 1988 and letter dated
March 31, 1988 from James Davis to Mayor Richard Votapka). At
that time, the City of Sebastian tabled action to cease
collecting impact fees.
On September 13, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners approved
a revised Traffic Impact Fee schedule to reflect current road
construction costs. At approximately the same time period, the
County staff and Consultant, Lloyd and Associates, Inc. were in
the process of designing widening improvements to CR512. In the
initial road design stages, the County staff and City staff
recognized the need to perform a Traffic Study of the City and
County collector road system so that proper phasing and planning
of CR512-widening could occur. The County, with close liaison
with the City, commissioned Reith and Schnars, Inc., Consulting
Engineers, to perform a traffic study of the City of Sebastian to
determine future roadway capacity needs. This study was
completed, in Nov., 1988, and on December 5, 1988, the County
Public Works Director presented the study to the City Council for
city approval. On January 25, 1989, the City Council adopted
Resolution R-88-77 approving the Keith and Schnars Traffic Study
with four conditions that the County was requested to consider.
On August 8, 1989, the County staff appeared before the City
Council to present a letter addressing the City's four conditions
in a favorable response.
Despite the numerous meetings and past communications, the City
of Sebastian City Council, on Sept. 6, 1989, again expressed
interest to opt out of the County's Traffic Impact Fee Program.
To discuss this issue, the County Administrator, County Attorney,
and County Public Works Director met in Sebastian with the City
staff on September 21, 1989. The Citystaff expressed a concern
that the County's program does not set aside a portion of the
impact fee revenue for capacity expansion of City collector
streets. The County staff explained that the 20 -Year Road
Improvement Program does include funding of a City collector
street through Sebastian, and that capacity expansion projects
are included based upon their technical merit, and that the City
has not conducted a City Traffic Study other than the County/City
:Reith and Schnar Traffic Study which the City recently has
BOOK
Ff
F"F 124
Explain Impact
Fee Program
Answer Council
Questions on
Impact Fees
Program Development
Take Public Comment
Adopted Ordinance
29
accepted. The next step of the established process is for the
City staff to recommend to the County Transportation Planning
Committee that those projects that have technical merit and are
included in the study be added to the County 20 -Year Road
Improvement Program. The County staff was of the opinion that an
established procedure exists for projects with merit to be
included.- The County staff did stress the opinion that the
Traffic Impact Fee Program was developed on a County -wide
consistent basis, and that that revenue source is necessary to
fund future roadway needs in the Sebastian area.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the County staff and City staff
felt that some agreement should be proposed to resolve the issues
presented.
On Sept. 28, 1989, the City Manager, Robert McClary responded to
the County Administrator suggesting that the City enter into an
Interlocal Agreement with the County to allocate 50% of all
.revenues collected within District 3 be transferred to the City
for capacity expansion projects on City collector roads. In
addition, fee increases should first be approved by the City
Council.
In June, 1987, the City of Fellsmere stopped collecting Traffic
Impact Fees. At that time, the County staff attended a City
Council meeting to discuss this issue. On October 4, 1989, the
County staff met with Mayor Frank Hurst to again disduss this
issue. Mayor Hurst agreed to agenda this item before the City
Council in November to determine the City Council's position on
reinstating the fee.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The County staff is of the opinion that the Traffic Impact Fee
Program is a vital revenue source to provide for the orderly
expansion of the arterial and collector road system in Indian
River County, which is demanded by new growth in the County.
Since transportation is not confined to political boundaries, the
program should be consistently implemented. The City of
Sebastian's proposal requesting 50% of all of the District 3
Traffic Impact Fee Revenue is not supported by technical data and
appears arbitrary.
The County staff is also anxiously awaiting the outcome of
discussions at the City of Fellsmere regarding reinstating the
Impact Fee in Fellsmere.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the County Commission reaffirm the County's
position that a County -wide Traffic Impact Fee Program be
implemented and that roadway capacity improvements be selected
based upon their technical merit through the Transportation
Planning Committee.
Administrator Chandler noted that Sebastian at varying
points has discussed opting out of the Impact Fee Program
altogether. Our attorneys feel we are on solid ground about
their ability or inability to do so
Davis has outlined very well in the
where we are headed. We do need to
roadway requirements and how we are
LOCA' a
L.
, and he believed Director
memo where we have been and
provide for our future
going to fund them, and he
30.
BOOK 8 t a, i21
OCT 10
BOOR F F'���r .2'
personally believed the Impact Fee Program is fair and equitable
and does provide for input of all parties concerned, including
the City, through our Transportation Advisory Board.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Sebastian representative,
Councilman McCarthy, has raised any objections or questions or
tried to add anything to our capital improvement program through
that process, and staff was not aware of anything.
Administrator Chandler continued that our county has
initiated and done traffic studies in that area, and he is not
aware of any studies the City of Sebastian has done on their
traffic needs. He believed we have an equitable system now that
can work if given an opportunity to work, and he wished to point
out that just on CR 512 alone, that segment that rests within the
municipal boundaries, we are looking at an overall expenditure of
close to 8 million dollars. In regard to the City of Fellsmere
dropping out of the program about 2 years ago, the Administrator
reported that just last week he met and discussed this with new
Fellsmere Mayor Frank Hurst, and he was going to take this back
to the Fellsmere City Council for reconsideration. We should
know within about a month what we are facing within the City of
Fellsmere.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if Fellsmere understands that
impact fees have a limited use and that they cannot be used for
maintenance.
Administrator Chandler assured him that he and Public Works
Director Davis have had many meetings with them and explained
this, and he believed that at least the Fellsmere administration
understands.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that one thing he takes
great exception to is that Mr. Rondeau has again surfaced with
the accusation that the County Commission was not interested in
the North County. He finds that to be unbelievable, and for the
record he would like to outline some of the things we are doing
in the North County:
31
1) The North County Library
2) Our contribution to the Recreation Complex
3) A 6.3 million dollar wastewater program which will be going
out to bond probably the first of November.
Those are three very significant elements that he sees the
County participating in heavily. In addition, Commissioner
Scurlock believed we have made ourselves available at every
opportunity to try to improve and work with the North County.
Another thing is that we asked the Administration to move ahead
in establishing additional office space, beyond the Sheriff's
office which we have already funded, to have additional facili-
ties in the North County. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that
he sees a lot of caring and improvement over the last 91 years
and felt possibly the City should get their act together.
Commissioner Bowman noted that she has found that every time
someone new comes on, there is a general misperception of what
impact fees are to be used for. We cannot use them just to patch
holes in the road, and while staff may understand that, she did
not believe the Councilmen understand it.
Commissioner Bird believed our Impact Fee Program in theory
and actuality is as fair and equitable as we can make it. It
does have some limitations, and they do need to understand what
those limitations are. They do have representation from that
area; they have input in the process; and they can help us set
priorities; and that is what they need to do.
Administrator Chandler advised that we have asked the City
staff what it is that they are looking for specifically beyond
what we are doing now, and we got no specific response.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if there is enough money in the
Impact Fee fund right now to do the improvements that are
scheduled, and Administrator Chandler noted that 512 alone is 8
million dollars, and since we started the program, we have
.collected $1,123,000 within the corporate limits of Sebastian.
He believed that is in addition to the funds the County put in
32
OCT1O
BOO
CT 1C 1969
BOOK � � %��jj CC//�� �vOOK 8 Fr i�C_ 1 3
before we did the Impact Fee Program where we spent about 1/4
million on R/W acquisition.
Commissioner Bowman asked how Fellsmere managed to wiggle
through the fence as she felt that was a bad precedent.
Attorney Collins advised that at the time Fellsmere opted
out, we were relying on the Florida Constitution that says
municipalities can opt out of countywide ordinances, but since
that time a case law came down that said they could only opt out
if it serves some valid public purpose.
Discussion continued at length about the general misunder-
standing of what impact fees can be used for, and Director Davis
believed that they now understand they cannot be used to do any
maintenance activity. He believed they now are interested in
some internal city collector streets that do not traverse the
county unincorporated area, and they are looking at expansion to
their own city network.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that those could be added to the
CIP through the formal process of going through the Transporta-
tion Planning Committee on which they have a representative, and
it would accomplish -exactly what they don't want to accomplish -
the impact fee would have to go up.
Administrator Chandler informed the Board that we have
already indicated to them that we have no adversity to looking at
these additions because it is within our scope to look at those
type of things.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we have a$6 million shortfall
just to do CR 512.
Director Davis advised that is for the ultimate project; the
immediate phase is about$5 million, and Commissioner Scurlock
noted that we still have possibly a$3 million shortfall in the
existing impact fee escrowed monies to support that.
Director Davis explained that now our attack is to expend
impact fees in segments and do incremental phases of improve-
ments. He noted that back when we were communicating with Mayor
33
Gallagher, Sebastian indicated they wanted some internal city
collector streets included on the program, and we included what
is called the Sebastian Highlands loop connector in the program.
Then Mayor Harris came on board, and there were some other road
priorities we included. Now that Mayor Votapka is on board, it
seems some of the consistency is changing on the Council, and
'they apparently are looking at projects we can't pin down yet.
Administrator Chandler reiterated his belief that it is a
good program and can work, but they are not giving it that oppor-
tunity.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDEILby Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously accepted staff's
recommendation and reaffirmed the County's position
that a County -wide Traffic Impact Fee Program be
implemented and that roadway capacity improvements be
selected based upon their technical merit through the
Transportation Planning Committee.
BUDGET AMENDMENT #003 - DECREASING TAX VALUE WEST CO. FIRE DIST.
OMB Director Baird reviewed the following, stressing that it
is better to reduce the budget rather than change the millage:
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
October 9, 1989
BUDGET AMENDMENT 003 - WEST
COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 1989/90
TAX VALUE DECREASING 3.18%
Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Property Appraiser has notified the Board of County Commissioners
that the final taxable value of the West County Fire District is
3.18% less than was certified on June 22, 1989. The original
certified value for West County Fire District was $221,146,954 and
the final certified value is $214,110,579.
34
OCT' 1 0 0089
I OCT 1 � Jt7`i
Pursuant
variance
authority
without a
ANALYSIS
to Florida Statutes, Chapter
by more than 3% of taxable
may adjust administratively
public hearing.
EOOK f M,E
200.065(5), if there is a
value the affected taxing
the adopted millage rate
The Board of County Commissioners had anticipated levying a millage
of .3169 for West County Fire District which would generate $70,079
in ad valorem tax. To compensate for the reduced taxable value, we
would have to increase the millage to .3273 to generate the same
$70,079. Since TRIM notices have already gone out to the public and
the difference in ad valorem tax revenue will only be $2,228 (net
$2,117), staff feels it would be best to reduce the budget rather
than confuse the public with a tax bill for West County Fire District
that is higher than their TRIM notice.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners reduce West County
Fire District's budget rather than increasing millage and approve
budget amendment 003.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Budget
Amendment #003 reducing the West County Fire District
budget as recommended by the OMB Director.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird, OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
003
DATE: OCTOBER 9, 1989
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUE
West County Fire District
Current Ad Valorem Tax
116-000-311-010.00
$ 0
$ 2,228.00
Less 5%
116-000-389-030.00
$ 111.00
$ 0
EXPENSE
West County Fire District
Cash Forward - September 30
116-104-522-099.92
$ 0
$ 2,117.00
35
EXCHANGE OF R/W DEEDS BETWEEN BAILEY & BAILEY, GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP & COUNTY - (74TH AVE. R/W)
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT: Exchange of Right -of -Way Deeds Between
Bailey & Bailey, General Partnership
and Indian River County
REFERENCED LETTER: Steve L. Henderson to Jim Davis
dated September 26, 1989
DATE: October 2, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In researching the adequacy of the 74th Avenue right-of-way south
of Oslo Road, staff and Attorney Steve Henderson have discovered
a misalignment of a 30' wide section of the right-of-way (Sketch
attached). To correct the misalignment, the abutting property
owners, Bailey and Bailey, A General Partnership, have agreed to
exchange deeds with the County.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The correction of the alignment is mutually beneficial to both
parties. To correct past errors, the exchange of deeds is the
only alternative.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Board Chairman and Clerk be authorized
to execute the attached deed in exchange for the County receiving
a deed for the proper alignment of 74th Avenue.
OCT 1Q 19
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute deed as described above.
9
36
800K
OCT 10 19&
5
b6d
w
U
i:�
Oz4.r
t^p The East 30 feet of Tract 16, Section 25, Township 33
South, Range 38 East, according to the last general
r a'y-a.., plat of lands of INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY filed in
Ocd:� the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court Of St.
o !. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25, said
4p°D.( lands now lying and being in Indian River County,
Z Florida.
'O
t) DOC. ST. - AMT. 4 • 3-S--
JX.
S—JK BARTON. Clerk of Chcu11 Crrdt
1 Indian River County - by
J-
OUIT.CLAIM DUO
FROM CORFO*ATION
BOOK
618893
' RAMCO FORM 42
This Quit -Claim Deed, Executed this
BAILEY & BAILEY
general partnership I
a c 9$5l,(lm,t xtst rep tett a the mos 4
26th day of SEPTEMBER
F_,F12'
, A. D. 1989 .4
Florida , and r ••Ing its principal place of
business at P.O. Box 660836, Miami Springs, Florida
first party. lo .
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision,
whose posloffice address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Ileac) /�
tat:•
second party: te
(Wherever used herein the teras "lint party' and '•woad party" shdl Mend.
representatives. and sales of iodiridaah, and the soreeonn sad ...5m of rorpu..
sn admits or requires.)
9lWltnesseth,T int Ilse sold first party. for and In consideration of the sum of 2
in hand paid by the said second party. the receipt whereof Is hereby acknowledged. does bets., se. re-
lease and gait-clntm unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demmtd whirls
the said first party has in and to the following described lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being
in the County of Indian River Stale of Florida'
34
To Eau and to Moldthe same together revile all and slnptllar the appurtenances thereunto
belonging or in anywise appprtnl dng, and all the estate. right. title. interest. lien. equity and claim whnl-
-.soever•of the said first party, either in latae or equity, to the only proper use. benefit and behoof of the said
second party forever.
larnsoaETIiIFat1
In Witness Whereof the said first party has caused these pres-
eats to he executed In its HomeoorniM enenPrnf11'jnlaSMtkkmfitEllbitri4ft7['
by its proper officers thereunto duly authorized, the day and year first aboue
written.
ATTEST.
Secretary
Signed. sealed a (1,4 ivered In the presence of:
• STEPH. M. BAILEY,
Gen-ral Partner
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
BAILEY & BAILER
F
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that en this day before me, an officer duly wthoriaed in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments,
personalty appeared STEPHEN M. BAILEY
well known to tax to he the _
general partner of the partnership th kq, named as first art
Spry •r7nr�ln'enTnnt party
In thp.tomprolan deed. and that they morally rkw.,ledeed eseratioa the same in the presence of h.o Ieh.riidne witnesses freely and voluntarily
'.. ,roam jothepity duly voted in Mmes—sakFta.p.ayiw,raad••.kat-eery.sat-afUaed-ehwvtsi—dart e—mmPe ts—mas.d. —'.ted_-�=arbn.
• "•..3%11 'F,4 my feed sad ,nidal ted in the OMNI, and state Int aforesaid this 26th day el Septe be . A. D. 1989
'
.a. k ..y T
r .•1 a ;" � Fotarial Seal)
K� " -fir.,! NOTARY PUBLIC, S • to of Florida
.,,t:!llir•ir('ryateni ftrgwrr•d by:STEVE L. HENDERSON, Esquire Commission . pires
ser;;.infiif((it' 041, P.O. Box 3406, Vero Beach, Florida 32964-3406• ' VOTARY PUBLIC STATE SE FLORID?:
11Y CGPINTSSION EXP. NAR.16,1992
COROEO iNRU GENERRL INS. ENO.
37
0OT 1 1989
r>p5ritlS011011 a.jtlu UIW., I../JrUJr./caua7JLLU/1L10NjJIJ
74th Avenue (Ocean Spray) t 2
2
61889
•
•
COUNTY DEED
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
THIS DEED, made this 10th day of October ,
1989, by • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY," LORIDA, a 5oTTTTcaI
subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, FL 32960, party of the first part, and BAILEY fs
BAILEY, a general partnership existing under the laws of
Florida,' whose address is Post Office Box 660836, Mianii
Springs, FL 33166, party of the second part,
W I T N E S S E T H:
That the said party of the first part, for and In
consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR to it in hand paid by
the party of the second part, receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the party
of the second part, her heirs and assigns forever, the
following described land lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida:
The West 30 feet of the East 80 feet of Tract 16,
Section 25, Township 33 South, Range 38 East,
according to the last general plat of land of
INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, filed in the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie
County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25, said
lands now lying and being In Indian River, County,
Florida.
WITNESS WHEREOF the said party of the first part has
caused these presents to be executed in its name by its
Board of County Commissioners, acting by the Chairman of
said Board, the day and year aforesaid.
(Seal)
Attest.:
J'. r.
Clear
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By its Board of County
Commissioners
By
iT WRee e
'Cha 1rman
00C.:• T. / M r. $ , 5-C.-
J.K.
SJ.K. t !,h rt`,l. (2•::.t ni cnt.'jtl Crim
Indian Rttrxr Co�.rly - !-�•
HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an
officer duly authorized In the State and County aforesaid to
take acknowledgments, personally appeared GARY C. WiHEELER
and JEFFREY K. BARTON, well known to me to be the Chairman
and Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, named as the grantor in the foregoing deed,
and that they severally acknowledged execut(ng the same
under the• authority vested in them by said Board and that
the seal affixed thereto is thetrueseal of said Board.
WI __ES -ES my hand and official seal this _.600Aday':,of
, 1989.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
(4 l•• ', ! .
• Charles P. Vilunac
County Attorney
•
;'J :I .,)
38
tmranr mute srnrr rr tiaras
tlr CiPX:S;rON•r,r. Jur 4,1910
URN 11 vm: rlRrnu ton. tun.
0. R. 844 PG 2909
Eaor 78
F�'
BOOK 78 Fuf-13[
ROCKRIDGE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM (CHANGE ORDER #2 & FINAL PAYMENT)
The Board reviewed memo from Ernestine Williams, Manager of
Project Administration:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SEPTEMBER 25, 1989
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL P'ERVICES
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND REQUEST FOR FINAL
PAYMENT, ROCKRIDGE AREA SANITARY SEWER
Am -67 -06 -ms
- IRC PROJECT #-87-08-CCS
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: ERNESTINE W. WILLIAMS,Z..4%
MANAGER OF PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
On August 12, 1988, Roese Contracting, Inc., contracted to install a
sanitary sewer system in the Rockridge area. Included in this
contract is the abandonment of 413 existing septic tanks and
disposal fields, the installation of 413 grinder pumps with basins,
413 service connections, approximately 38,570 linear feet of force
main, 9 wet taps to existing force main and associated restoration.
#Upon completion, the contract came in less than estimated.
..-:Therefore, we are requesting a decrease in contract price in the •
,;'amount of $11,155.33, as indicated in attached Change Order No 1.
We also asking for final payment of $310,719.65, copy attached.
The revised contract price becomes $1,990,157.67.
ANALYSIS
E;The staff of the Department of Utility Services has reviewed the
figures and finds them to be in order. The work performed has been
completed in substantial conformance to the plans and
YY specifications.
1 RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of -Utility Services recommends that
Change Order No. 2 for a reduction in contract price of $11,155.33
be approved, and that final payment of $310,719.65 be paid to the
:contractor.
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 2 (Roese Contracting) and authorized
Final Payment of $310,719.65 be paid to the contractor.
39
CHANGE ORDER
(Instructions on reverse side)•
No Two (2) Final
PROJECT: Rockridge Area
Sanitary Sewer. System
Indian River County
Division of Utilities Services
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
CONTRACTOR:
Roese Contracting Co., Inc.
PO Box 780
Ellenton, FL 34222
CONTRACT FOR:
OWNER:
(Name.
• _Address)
Rockridge Area Sewer System
DATE OF ISSUANCE: July, 1989
OWNER's Project No US -87 -08 -CCS
EPA Project No. C 120 502 060
ENGINEER: Camp Dresser &McKee Inc.
ENGINEER's Project No 6706-07
You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents.
Description:
S.S. tapping sleeve 18th Street, add 1-1/2" ball valves
quantities.
Purpose of Change Order:
Contract closeout - final change order
Attachments: (List documents supporting change) See attached
reconciliation of
Admin.
Budget
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:
Original Contract Price
S 2,411,780.25 : -
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME:
Original Contract Time , ,
270
da,sor date
Previous Change Orders No 1 to No
Net change from previous Change Orders
90
S (410,467.25) .
G}e
Contract Price prior to this Change Order
S 2,001,313.00*
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order
360
dart or date
NetXI(d-)1Wdecrease) of this Change Order
S ) (11,155.33
Net Increase (decrease) of this Change Orde-
0
dart
Contract Price with all approved Change Orders
s 1,990,157.67
Contract Time with all approved Change Orders
360
da„ or date
RECOMMENDED:
CDM, Inc./ .`
by 44: L ,4,
&viewer
EJCDC No. 1910-8-8 (1983 Edition!
oc-wi
9
9 ,rl
APPROVED:
by
APPROVED:
/to -- f9
40
BOOKF Ida
4
:OCT 1O
BOOK ( _F'i GE 137,
GIFFORD SEWER SYSTEM PROJ. (CHANGE ORDERS 4 & 4A & FINAL PAYMENT)
The Board reviewed memo from Ernestine Williams, Manager of
Project Administration:
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SER CES
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NOS. 4 & 4A AND REQUEST FOR
FINAL PAYMENT
SEWAGE COLLECTION/TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJECT - CONTRACT #3
IRC PROJECT #US -85 -07 -CCS
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: ERNESTINE W. WILLIAMS
MANAGER OF PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Contract #3, Sewage Collection and Transmission System of the
Gifford Area Sewer Project has been completed. This contract
-includes construction of approximately 106,000 linear feet of force
main sizes 6" to 18" in diameter, service laterals, valves, four
'road borings, one canal crossing, appurtenances, complete
restoration, and general site work. Contract #3 also includes
paving unpaved county roads where sewer lines were installed.
Upon completion, Contract #3 came in less than estimated.
Therefore, we are requesting a decrease in the contract price in the..
zamount of $444,789.87 for the sewage collection/transmission lines,
and $39,053.50 for the paving of unpaved county roads, as indicated
in attached Change Order Nos. 4 &4A. Final payment for the sewage
collection/transmission system is $249,271.37. Final payment for
the paving is $15,718.63. Copies of final pay requests are attached.
This amounts to a net decrease of $483,843.37 for Contract #3.
,ANALYSIS
The staff of the Department of Utility Services has reviewed the
figures and finds them to be in order. The work performed has been
completed in substantial conformance to the plans and
specifications.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that
Change Order Nos. 4 & 4A for a reduction in contract price of
$444,789.87 and $39,053.50 respectively, be approved and that final
payment of $249,271.37 and $15,718.63 respectively, be paid to the
contractor and subcontractor.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved.
Change Orders No. 4 and 4A for a reduction in contract
price and authorized final payment of $249,271.37 and
41
1(1
$15,718.63 respectively to the contractor and sub-
contractor, Douglas N. Higgins, Inc.
Form FmilA 424-1
(Rev. 6-11-80)
au6 30 1989
'-FmHA Funding Only
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER .
ORDER NO.
4
DAT E
8/18/89
STATE
Florida
CONTRACT FOR
Gifford Area Sewer Project, Contract 113
COUNTY
Indain River
OWNER
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
To...130VJ.tgla3e...JI._.Higgins.,_.ltic..
(Contractor)
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plans and specifications: .
INCREASE
in Contract Price
Description of Changes
(Supplemental Plans and Specifications Attached)
DECREASE
in Contract Price
See Attached Item Numbers 1-13, 15-18,
20-24, 34-37, 39-44, 54-56, 61-70, 83-86,
89 8 97
Indian Rite► Go
Approved
Dalt
Admin
(et
/7 '3-$f.
Legal
01'1-1Budget
10--a-di
Utilities
9 7.-7-1Y)
Flick Mgr.
TOTALS
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE
JUSTIFICATION:. I
,a
Contract Price Adjusted to Reflect Final Quantities
•
$ 444,789.87.
$ y0,789.81.
��-
The amount of the Contract will be (Decreased) (Iid1 By The Sum Of:
Thousand. Seven Hundred Eighty Nine & 87/100
The Contract Total Including this and -previous Change Orders Will Be:
Six Thousand. One Hundred & 17/100
Four Hundred Forty Four
Dollars ($ 444.789.87
).
Four Million. Six Hundred Thirty
'Dollars ($
4.636.100.17 ).
The Contract Period Provided for Completion Will Be (Increased) (Decreased) (Unchanged): Days
This document will :become a supplement to the contract and all provisions will apply hereto.
Requested
(Owner) (Dots)
Recommended e i- e-71.61 1 %l.O l- r i, - .%l, 147
Accepted -Arch tact/En/Inea►) t.)
'/z(/4V 9
(Contractor) .- (Data)
Approved By FmHA
(Name and Titt i (Dale)
This Information will be used es record of any
changes to the original construction contract.
•U.S.OPO:1IS14)-5K/ 011570
Number copies required. 4
Time to complete. 30 min.
No furthl►r monies or other benefits may be paid out under this
program unless this report Is completed and flied as required by
exlstInj law and regulations (7 C.F.R. part 1924). •
I 1
Pe.atlion 6
42
( 1 FmHA 4247 (Rey. 6-11-80)
•
.
Foran FmHA 424-7
(Rev. 6-11-80)
AUG 30 1989
BOOK 19 8 f'AGE 131
U1i 1 1$.0 S IA l 1.S UTYAN I MI.0 I Uf• AURICUL'1 URL
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
Indian River County Funding Only
CONTRACT FOR
Gifford Area Sewer Project, Contract N3
OWNER
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
I Ullta l IIU r i.0 U6sd IIu. uda 0•uu
ORDER NO.
4A
DATE
8/18/89
STAT E
COUNTY
Florida
Indian River
To __.Douglas N. Higgins, Inc.
(Confr.e or)
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plans and specifications: .
Description of Changes
(Supplemental Plans and Specifications Attached)
DECREASE
in Contract Price
INCREASE
in Contract Price
See Attached Item Numbers 57-60 & 92-95
Indian River Co
Applovcd
Dale
Admin.
— (' jU-3--g4
Legal
q • al -
Budget
-,1
/4)-.� •.t;jj
utilities
/
ej •"l.'7' `:1.,.I
Flick. Mgr.
v
•
TOTALS
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE
S
s w39ro53_50
$ . 39,053.50__,
$
JUSTIFICATION:. e • ;•+'
Contract Price Adjusted to Reflect Final Quantities ,•
The amount of the Contract will be (Decreased) (1 By The Sum Of: Thirty Nine Thousand, '
Fifty Three & 50/100
The Contract Total Including this and previous Change Orders Will Be:
Eight Hundred Fifty Nine & 00/100
Dollars(S 39,053.50
Three Hundred Two Thousand,
).
'Dol !ars (S 302 , 859 ..00
).
The Contract Period Provided for Completion Will Be (Increased) (Decreased) (Unchanged): Days.
This document will become a supplement to the contract and all provisions will apply hereto.
Requested Ci e.L3/ /0 -- /D - V 7
(Owner) (Dal.)
Recommended a•1✓ pTi ,7,+ 9AQ9
- _ wrest aEhlse E 2.)pii:••; neer)
l
Accepted "�� "`Z
07
(Confraclorl (Dat.) '
Approved By FmHA
(Name and Title)
(Dat.)
This Information will be used as record of any I Number copies required: 4
changes to the original construction contract.
Time to completes 30 min.
* U.11.¢PO: ta61-0.464-00al1670
No further monies or other benefits may be paid out under tl
program unless this report Is completed and flied as required I
existing law and regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 1024). •
Position 6
43
FmHA 424-7 (Rev. 6-1140)
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT (SEALDSWEET GROWERS, INC.)
The Board reviewed memo from Engineer Doscher:
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL TY SERVICES
PREPARED AND
STAFFED BY:
SCOTT C.DOSCHER SC,Q
PRIVATE PROJECTS ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT - SEALDSWEET GROWERS, INC.
IRC PROJECT NO. CDS-323
'BACKGROUND
Sealdsweet Growers, Inc. have planned to oversize water lines on
State Road 60 from the west side of 74th Avenue to the- existing
,.connection point 2,020 feet to the west, and on 74th Avenue on the
south side of State Road 60 to their south property line, a distance
of 400 feet.
ANALYSIS
Sealdsweet Growers, Inc., requires a total of 2,420 feet of 8 -inch
<line to serve this facility. The. County requires 12 -inch line per
„line
Master Plan. The County wishes to compensate Sealdsweet
!Growers, Inc., for oversizing of the line in the standard amount of
2.00 per inch of oversizing, per foot of line, which is calculated
as follows:
2,420' x 4" of oversizing x $2.00/inch = $19,360.00
'Compensation shall be by collection of future impact fees paid by
connectors to the line.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Developer's Agreement with
Sealdsweet Growers, Inc
Commissioner Scurlock stated that his only question is
whether this is our standard Developer's Agreement, and Asst.
Utilities Director Harry Asher confirmed that it is.
QC.1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Developer's Agreement with Sealdsweet Growers, Inc.,
as recommended by staff.
411
BOOK .78 AGE r
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
and
SEALDSWEET GROWERS, INC.
GRANTING REIMBURSEMENTS FOR OVERSIZING CERTAIN
WATER UTILITIES REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 10th day of October , 1989, by and
between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State
of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, (County),
and SealdSweet Growers, Inc., 110 East Oak Avenue, Tampa, Florida
33602 (Developer),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Developer, in conjunction with the construction of
an office building for SealdSweet Growers, Inc., is constructing an
off-site water main extension to serve the subject project; and
WHEREAS, the County has required the Developer to oversize the
off-site water main extension to serve the regional area and has
agreed to reimburse the Developer for the cost of oversizing these
utilities;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and
other good and valuable consideration, the County and Developer
agree as follows:
1. The Developer shall construct water main as permitted by
the Indian. River County Utilities Department, including oversizing
necessary to serve the subject project and surrounding area. The
County agrees to reimburse the Developer for the oversizing of
utilities as outlined below:
A. ITEM
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT
Water Distribution System: $19,360,00
2020 feet of 12 inch diameter
water main along the south right-
of-way of State Road 60 from the
existing water main located at the
east property line of Tamara Gardens
to 40 feet east of proposed pavement for
74th Avenue, plus 400 feet of 12 inch
diameter water main along the west
right-of-way of 74th Avenue south of
State Road 60. Reimbursement shall be
according to the standard rate of
$2/inch of oversizing/foot of line,
calculated as follows:
4" of oversizing ($2/inch of oversizing) 2420 feet=
45
$:19,360.00
B. The County shall reimburse the Developer with water
impact fees collected as follows:
1. One hundred percent of all water impact fees
collected from the SealdSweet Growers, Inc. office
building.
2. Fifty percent of all water impact fees collected from
properties having frontage on the section of road in
which the water line is placed which connect to it
within the first five years after acceptance. This
shall not include impact fees paid by properties
extending said water line.
C. No further reimbursement shall be provided to Developer
from impact fees collected after 5 years subsequent to
acceptance of the waterline by Indian River County Department
of Utility Services. Maximum reimbursement shall not exceed
$19,360.00 .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Developer have caused
these presents to be exbcuted in their name the day and year first
above written.
//iM// /i%4i%
WITNESS
ITNESS
(SEAL)
OCT 9B9
SEALDSWEET GROWERS, INC.
Title eL'o
46
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Gary Wheeler
Chaff an
Indian River Co.
Approved
Date
Admin.
l(2
Iv -3-41
Legel
1' II
Budget
'A
(O
Utilities'
/
Cr- a7_$1"
Rick Mg
1
_
BOOK (0 FA
BOOK 7 8 F. E 138
HERON CAY LIFT STATION ELECTRIC SERVICE AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed memo from Engineer Scott Doscher:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SEPTEMBER 25, 1989
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL
SERVICES
SCOTT C. DOSCHER
PRIVATE PROJECTS ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: HERON CAY LIFT STATION ELECTRIC SERVICE AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. CDS/CS-304
BACKGROUND
The Heron Cay Corporation is constructing a private sewage
collection/transmission system. The lift station requires an
,.electric service. This service shall run from the -existing pool
:'clubhouse near the lift station.
,ANALYSIS
The agreement states that the Heron Cay Corporation shall operate
and maintain the electric service, shall pay the monthly electric
service charges, and shall continue to do so even after the system
is dedicated to Indian River County.
If ownership of the clubhouse is transferred, the Heron Cay
Corporation shall provide a separate three-phase electric service to
the -lift station.
"'RECOMMENDATION
'The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the above -outlined action on
the consent agenda.
Asst. Utilities Director Asher explained that we looked at
the long term where the County would own this at some point in
time, and by this agreement Heron Cay agrees that if the County
receives this lift station in the future, they will continue to
assume the electric bills so that at a later date we do not have
to install electricity at our cost.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Agree-
ment with The Heron Cay Corporation for electric
service as recommended by staff.
47
•
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA
and
THE HERON CAY CORPORATION
1440 ?OTH AVENUE
VERO BEACH. L 32966
FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE TO
THE HERON CAY PHASE III LIFT STATION
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 10th day of October, 1989, by and
between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (COUNTY), and
THE HERON cAY• CORPORATION, 1440 90th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida
32966 (OWNER)..
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Owner desires to have electric service made
available to the lift station located in Heron•Cay Phase III in
Indian River County, Florida, described below.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and
other good 'and valuable consideration, the County and the Owner
agree as follows: .
1. The Heron Cay Corporation agrees to pay for
electricity to operate the lift station located in Phase III,
northeast corner of Lot 468.
2. If the Heron Cay Corporation dedicates the sewage
collection system located in Heron Cay to Indian River County, the
Heron Cay Corporation will continue to pay the electric bill for
Phase III lift..station only. The County will maintain and service
the lift station,
3. After the Heron Cay Corporation dedicates the lift
station to the County, a key to the control panel of the Phase III
lift station will be kept at the Heron Cay Guard House to allow
Heron Cay to monitor the pump meters and to maintain records of
electrical costs.
4. If Heron Cay Corporation terminates or transfers
ownership of the pool clubhouse, Heron Cay corporation shall provide
three-phase power to the lift station in accordance with county
standards.
r
5. The Heron Cay Corporation shall .maintain the power
cable and service to the lift station.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the owner have caused these
presents to be executed in their names the day and year first above
written.
I 1 0 #�`
RoBerIves
President
Heron .Cay Corporation
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
48 GARY C1 WHEELER, CII j AN
BOOK d8 F4 140
FLORAL PARK & RANCH ESTATES SUBDV. WATER SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer
William McCain:
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
WILLIAM F. McCAIN \,
CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
FLORAL PARK AND RANCH ESTATES SUBDIVISION
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -89 -04 -DS
BACKGROUND
On August 8, 1989, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the start of project UW -89 -04 -DS. The
project will ultimately serve approximately 55 homes in the
above-mentioned subdivisions. The design of this project has been
completed and is ready to go out for bid.
ANALYSIS
This project has been set up as an Assessment District, and will
assess the property owners along the route of the proposed
distribution system. To this end, we have prepared the first two of
four resolutions necessary for an assessment project and are now
bringing them to the Board of County Commissioners for approval.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached resolutions so
that we may set a hearing date for the preliminary assessment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
Resolutions 89-130 and 89-131 in order to set a
hearing date for the preliminary assessment as
described above.
149
LocT
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 130
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROVIDING FOR:
CERTAIN WATER IMPROVEMENTS TO FLORAL
PARR--ANIT-RANCR--ESTATES--SUBBTVISTORST
PRO TMATED COST;
METHOD OF PAYMENT—Or—ASSESSMENTS; NUMETER
OF ANNUAC'INSTALLMENTS ; AND LEGAL
DESCR I PT 1 ON or—ART-Ks— SPEC 1 F T CALL4
SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has determined that the improvements herein
described are necessary to promote the public welfare of
the county and has determined to defray the cost thereof by
special assessments against the properties specially
benefited thereby, all of which improvements hereinafter
referred to as to Project No. UW 89 -04 -DS,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County does hereby determine that a potable
water distribution system shall be installed in Floral Park
and Ranch Estates Subdivisions, and the cost thereof and in
connection therewith shall be specially assessed in
accordance with the provisions of §11-42 through §11-47 of
the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County.
2. The total estimated cost of the above-described
improvements is shown to be $111,500 (or $0.1159303 per
square foot) to be paid by the property specially benefited
as shown on the assessment plat on file with the Department
of Utility Services.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.1159303
per square foot shall be assessed against each of the
properties designated on the assessment plat.
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable
and may be paid in full within 90 days
after the date of the resolution of the Board with respect
to credits against the special assessments after completion
of the improvements (the "Credit Date") without interest.
50
BOO
F•3,s.F.141
BOOK
Io ar:4E,
If not paid in full the special assessments may be paid in
five equal yearly installments of principal plus interest.
If not paid when due, there shall be added a penalty of 11%
of the principal not paid when due. The unpaid balance of
the special assessments shall bear interest at a rate of 12%
from the Credit Date until paid.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of
Utility Services a plat showing the area to be assessed,
plans and specifications, and an estimate of the cost of the
proposed improvements. All of these are open to inspection
by the public at the Department of Utility Services.
6. An assessment roll with respect to the special
assessments shall promptly be prepared in connection with
the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian
River County Utilities Services Department shall cause this
resolution to be published at least one time in the Vero
Beach Press Journal before the public hearing required by
§11-46.
-The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Bird , and 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 Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 10th day of October , 1989.
Attest
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Gary ', eeler
Cha iman
By
51
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 131
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SETTING A TIME
ANO-FIAORS OF-Pk-05E1M
FLORAL RIND RANCH ESTATES SUB
OTAERPERSONS-TNTERESTED THEREIN MAY APPEAR -BEFORE
TM -BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND GE HEARD AS
• : OF CONSTRUCTTNG
A POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, AS TO THE
CO a THE MANNER OF PAYMENT
THEREFOR, A D AS T5 1'Fi U E EU' TO BE
SPECIALLY ASSESSED ASSESSE5-ACATNST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED
THEREBB4.
..•••
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has, by Resolution No. 89-130, determined that
it is necessary for the public welfare of the citizens of
the county, and particularly as to those living, working,
and owning property within the area described hereafter,
that a potable water distribut-ion system be installed in
approximately 63 properties hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be
specially assessed with respect thereto shall be
$0.1159303 per square foot; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused
an assessment roll to be completed and filed in the Utility
Services Department; and
WHEREAS, §11-46, Indian River County Code, requires
that the Board of County Commissioners shall fix a time and
place at which the owners of the properties to be assessed
or any other persons interested therein may appear before
the Board of County Commissioners and be heard as to the
propriety and advisability of constructing such system, as
to the cost thereof, as to the manner of payment therefor,
and as to the amount thereof to be assessed against each
property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
CT 1 izkiti
BOOK 78
OCT 1(`1989...
BOOK 78FAGF
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County
Commission chambers in the County Administration Building at
the hour of 9:05 A.M. on November 7, 1989, at which time the
owners of the properties to be assessed and any other
persons interested therein may appear before said Commission
and be heard in regard thereto, the area to be improved and
the properties to be specially benefited by the construction
of such system are more particularly described upon the
assessment plat and the assessment roll, with regard to the
special assessments.
2. That all persons interested in the construction of
said system and the special assessments against the
properties to be specially benefited may review the
assessment plat showing the area to be assessed, the
assessment roll, the plans and specifications for said
system, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the
Department of Utility Services any week day from 8:30 A.M.
until 5:00 P.M.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing
shall be given by the Department of Utility Services by two
publf-cations in the Press Journal Newspaper a week apart.
The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the
date of the hearing. The Indian River County Utilities
Services Department shall give the owner of each property to
be specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of
such time and place, which shall be served by mailing a copy
of such notice to each of such property owners at his last
known address.
The
Bird
Scurlock
follows:
resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. AYe
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
53
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 10th day of October, 1989.
Attest
arton, CTerk`
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By 4►.�..f (. tA.)4.A_ _
heeler
ary
Cha iman
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would reconvene sitting as the District Board of
Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:40 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
OCT lo 69
Clerk V Chairman
54
floor tit. 14b