HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/1989BOARD ACTION & 11V1PLEMENTATION
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
9:00 AM
James E. Chandler,County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
* * * * * * * * * * * * .* * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - none
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles P. Vitunac
County Attorney
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
a. Comm'r. Bird -requested the addition of a Parks &
Recreation Committee meeting report.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes of Regular
Meeting of October 10, 1989
B. Approval of Minutes of Regular
Meeting of October 17, 1989
C. Release of Easement, Rose A. Sipala
216 A Keen Terrace, Sebastian
(Memorandum dated 10/23/89)
D. Leased Space, 2001 Building
(Memorandum dated 11/2/89)
Approved
as_ amended.
Approved.
Res. 89-142 adopted.
. _t.
E. Leased Space, Washington Plaza,
Sebastian
(Memorandum dated 11/2/89)
F. Final Payment Request, North County
Community Library, Underground
Utility Relocation Work, Bid 89-79
(Memorandum dated 10/9/89)
6. CLERK TO THE BOARD
none
4F. 9I•T,j k,
NOV141989
Pr-
INOV i989
9:05 AM 7. A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
none
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Agreement between IRC and Aspen
Whispering Palms Limited
Partnership for Wastewater Service
(Memorandum dated 10/12/89)
Approved as
amended.
Approved.
•
• • 7. .0 �''• r
..Approved.
LOOK.
8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
none
9. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
none
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
none
C. GENERAL SERVICES
IRC Bid 90-7, Vista Royale Waste-
water System Improvements
(Memorandum dated 11/6/89)
D. LEISURE SERVICES
none
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
none
F. PERSONNEL
none
G. PUBLIC WORKS
Request for Extension of Meadowlark
Woods Subdivision Land Development
Permit
(Memorandum dated 10/31/89)
H. UTILITIES
Sod Farm Monitoring Wells
.Approved. (Memorandum dated 11/3/89) •
. 10. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Approved.
Estate of Nilda Pinto, 920 20th Ave.
Vero Beach, Compromise on Liens
(Memorandum dated 11/7/89)
FAC'L A•" �j Yb .J)
1
No action
taken.
Approved.
Approved.
Approved.
11. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER
B. VICE CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
Parks E Rec. Committee Summary Report
D. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
12. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
A. Approval of Minutes of Sept. 13, 1989
Meeting
B. Approval of Minutes of October 10, 1989
Meeting
C. CDM Invoice for Meetings, Solid
Waste Billing System
(Memorandum dated 10/6/89)
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS
MEETING WILL NEED TO. ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL
BE BASED.
NOV 1 1989
hh-
Tuesday, November 14, 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,
November 14, 1989, at 9:05 o'clock A.M. Present were Gary C.
Wheeler, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N.
Bird; and Margaret C. Bowman. Don C. Scurlock, Jr. was out of
the county on private business. Also present were James E.
Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to
the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director;
and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Attorney
Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Bird requested the addition of a Parks &
Recreation Committee meeting report.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) added the
above item to today's Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 10,
1989.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that on line 2 on Page 28 it
should read "extra 20 feet" instead of "extra 20 years".
NOV i4 1989
Foox. 78 FAiiE 357
NOV 1
339
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 10/10/89, as
corrected.
B. Approval of Minutes
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 17,
1989. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 10/17/89, as
written.
C. Release of Easement Request by Rose A. Sipala
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/23/89:
Lyu
TO: James E. Chandler DATE: October 23, 1989
County Administrator
FROM: Charles W. Heath e W.'
Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Release of Easement Request By:
Rose A. Sipala
216 A Keen Terrace
Sebastian, Florida 32958
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, A.I.C.P.4"(
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois ,A.I.C.P.
Chief, Environmental Planning
REFERENCES: Tax Parcel Control Number:21-31-38-00001-0010-00001.0
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 14, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Rose A. Sipala, owner of the
subject property, for the release of the ten (10) foot rear lot
2
utility and drainage easements of Lots 1,2,3,4,& 29, Block A, Pine
Lake Estates, an unrecorded plat, a copy of which said plat is
recorded for reference in Official Records Book 123, Page 141, of_
the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. Said property
and easements are more particularly described by metes and bounds
in "Exhibit A" (attached). It is Mrs. Rose A. Sipala's intention
to combine the five (5) lots into one parcel in the commercial
node for future development.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by the Southern Bell Telephone
Company, Florida Power and Light Company, Florida Cablevision
Corporation, and the Indian River County Utilities, Road and
Bridge, and Engineering Divisions. Based upon a recommendation
from the Indian River County Engineering Division, a ten (10) foot
utility and drainage easement should be established on the
southerly ten (10) feet of the combined parcel for future access
and use by all utility providers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a resolu-
tion, the release of the ten (10) foot utility and drainage
easements of Lots 1,2,3,4,& 29, Block A, Pine Lake Estates, an
unrecorded plat; said property and easements being more particu-
larly described by metes and bounds in "Exhibit A". Moreover,
staff recommends that the referenced release of easements be
conditioned upon the establishment of a ten (10) foot utility and
drainage easement along the southern boundary of the combined
lots.
NOV 141989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) adopted
Resolution 89-142, abandoning certain easements
in Pine Lake Estates.
3
E0o 78 mf.359 59
! NOV I 8989
RESOLUTION NO. 89-142
BOOK
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING
CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN PINE LAKE ESTATES AN UNRECORDED PLAT, A
COPY OP WHICH SAID PLAT IS RECORDED FOR REFERENCE IN O.R.
BOOK 123, PAGE 141, LOTS 1,2,3,4,81 29 BLOCK A, 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 Commis-
sioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
1) 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 Rose A. Sipala, her successors in
interest, heirs and assigns, whose mailing address is 216 A Keen
Terrace, Sebastian, Florida 32958, Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right,
title, and interest that it may have in the following
described easements.
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
2)' This release shall not be recorded until such time as a ten
(10) foot drainage and utility easement over the south ten (10)
feet of the property is executed and placed on record.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for. adoption by Commissioner
Eggert
, seconded by Commissioner Bird
and adopted on the 14 day of November , 1989, by the following
vote:
Commissioner Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Eggert Aye
Commissioner Bird Aye
Commissioner Bowman Aye
Commissioner Scurlock Absent
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 14 , day of November 1989.
4
,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By
ary GW1 eeler
Chair an
OU
RESOLUTION NO.
89-142
EXHIBIT "A"
Property Description:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 29 (as One), Block A, Pine Lake Estates
(unrecorded) as shown in Official Records Book 123, Page 141
and being more particularly described as follows: Commence at
the Northeast corner of the Southwest one-quarter of the
Southeast'one-quarter of Section 21, Township 31 South, Range
38 East, Indian River County, Florida, and run West along
the North line of said Southwest one-quarter of the Southeast
one-quarter, a distance of 2683.49 feet; thence run 5
00019,15".E a distance of 60.0 feet to the Southerly right of
way of State Road 512, as presently monumented, said point
being the Point of Beginning of the herein described parcel;
thence continue S 00°19'15" E along the West right of way of
104th Avenue, as presently posted, a distance of 170.0 feet;
thence run West a distance of 265.0 feet; thence run N
00019'15" W a distance of 170. feet to the Southerly right of
way of State Road 512; thence run East along said right of
way a distance of 265.0 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Easement's Description:
A 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement beginning 90
feet south of the northwest corner of the described property,
extending east 265 feet to a point 90 feet south of the
northeast corner of the described property; a 10 foot wide.
drainage and utilities easement beginning 120 feet east of
the southwest corner of the described property, extending 70
feet north from said point; and a 10 foot wide drainage and
utility easement beginning 125 feet west of the southeast
corner of the described property, extending .north 70 feet
from said point.
NOV .4; 1989
5
BOOK d C' [.GE 61
Fr -
OVA
BOOK
D. Leased Space - 2001 Building
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/2/89:
10 PA..cE jQ
DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1989
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: LEASED SPACE - 2001 BUILDING
BACKGROUND:
As you are aware, the County is currently leasing approximately 5,877
square feet of space in the 2001 office building from Ed Schlitt,
Inc., Realtors. This lease agreement will expire on December 31,
1989.
ANALYSIS:
The current annual lease is $35,306.28 or $6.00 per square foot. Mr.
Schlitt has requested an increase to $36,731 annually or $6.25 per
square foot. This amounts to approximately 4.4% increase in cost.
It is anticipated there are monies in the budget to cover this
increase.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the cost of leased office space in the county, staff feels
this increase is reasonable and recommends approval by the Board and
authorization for their Chairman to execute a one year lease
amendment to the original contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved a
one-year lease amendment to the original contract,
as set out in the above staff recommendation.
LEASE AMENDMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
6
E. Leased Space - Washington Plaza, Sebastian
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/2/89:
DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1989
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERV
SUBJECT: LEASED SPACE - WASHINGTON PLAZA, SEBASTIAN
BACKGROUND:
As you are aware, we are currently leasing 1,125 square feet of
office space from Ed Schlitt, Inc., Realtors, for the Sheriff at
Washington Plaza in Sebastian. The present lease which will expire
November 30, 1989, is at an annual rate of $5,906.25 or $5.25 per
square foot.
ANALYSIS:
Mr. Schlitt has requested an increase in
of $6,187.50 or $5.50 per square foot.
of approximately 4.76%.
It is staff's opinion that this increase
cost is well below what is being paid for
It is anticipated there are monies in
increase.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
the lease at an annual rate
This represents an increase
is justified and the annual
other leased office space.
the budget to cover this
Staff recommends Board approval of the proposed price increase for
the subject space and request authorization for the Chairman to
execute a one year lease amendment to the original contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved a one-
year lease amendment to the original contract, as set
out in the above staff recommendation.
LEASE AMENDMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
NOV 14 T989
7
r=, �
BOOK i° C) FF. J6 •J
®v 4 1989
BOOK % PAGE 00
F. Final Payment Request - North County Library - Underground
Utility Relocation Work
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/9/89:
DATE: OCTOBER 9, 1989
TO: JAMES CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR i%
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
FROM: LYNN WILLIAMS, SUPT.
BUILDING AND GR"""
SUBJECT: FINAL PAYMENT REQUE£T - NORTH COUNTY COMMUNITY LIBRARY
UNDERGROUND UTILITZY RELOCATION WORK BID #89-79
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Board of County Commissioners, approved award of the above
referenced contract at its regular meeting of August 1, 1989.
The total amount of the awarded contract is $22,645.70.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
One partial payment has been made on the contract in the amount
of $18,021.96, for work completed.
This request is for final payment for the remainder of the
contract $4,623.74. All work has been completed as per the
contract documents.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
Staff recommends approval of this payment request. Funding is
from account 322-112-571-066.51.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved final
payment request by Ted Myers Contracting Co., Inc.,
as set out in the above staff recommendation.
PARTIAL PAYMENT ESTIMATE
(NUMBER 2 Final)
Name of Contractor: Ted Myers Contracting Co., Inc.
Name of Owner
(Association): INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Date of Completion: Amount of Contract:
Original
Revised
Description of,Job:
Original $ 22.645.70
Revised $
Indian River County
NORTH COUNTY COMMUNITY LIBRARY SITE
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES RELOCATION WORK
Indian River County, Florida
Dates of Estimate:
From September 1, 1989
To September 27, 1989
Item
Contract Items , This Period
Quantity , Unit Unit Price , Quan. , Amount
1. 250
2. 1
3. S 1
4. 1
5. , 1
6. 2
7. 260
8. 1
9. 2
10. 1
11. 3
12. 4
13. 1
14. 1
15. 1
16. 190
17. ; 1
18. ' .1
19. 2
20. •1
21. 1
22. 1
55VVVVVVVVVVVVqVVVVVq
$ 12.87
187.00
233.20
156.20
260.70
407.00
10.23
134.20
134.20
140.80
220.00
244.20
2,090.00
1,512.50
544.50
10.89
440.00
616.00
1,639.00
297.00
1,100.00
990.00
1..11.8. Partial Payment Form (Con't)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
$
, Total to Date
Quan. Amount
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
660.00
976.80
0.00
0.00
544.50
0.00
440.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$ 2,621.30
250
1
1
1
1
2
260
1
2
1
3
4
1
1
1
190
1
1
2
1
1
1
$
3,217.50
187.00
233.20
156.20
260.70
814.00
2,659.80
134.20
268.40
140.80
660.00
976.80
2,090.00
1,512.50
544.50
2,069.10
440.00
616.00
3,278.00
297.00
1,100.00
990.00
22,645.70
Amount
This Period Total to Date
I I
Amount Earned Is 2,621.30 Is 22,645.70
I I
Amount Retained Is -0- Is
2,002.44
Previous Payments
1 1
I XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX "'1s
18,021.96
Amount Due
Is
Is
4,623.74
Estimated Percentage of Job Complete 10X
Is Contractor's Construction Progress on Schedule? IX_ Yes No.
I hereby.certify that I have carefully inspected the work and, as
a result of my inspection and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the
quantities shown in this estimate are correct and have not been shown in
previous estimates and the work has been performed in accordance with the
contract documents.
Ted Myers Contracting Co., Inc.
(Name of Contractor)
By:
Ted Myers, President
Date
September 27, 1989
(Engineer Firm)
By:
Date
Approved by Indian River County
November 14, 1989
BY:
N O V 14 1989
9
j.12-Ita-Sil-044..r/
F.- r r ,
BOOK / F�GE, O �
IWV 14
29
BOOK ib PAGE •, tjt
PUBLIC HEARING - AGREEMENT BETWEEN. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND ASPEN
WHISPERING PALMS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority *personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal. a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a t
in the matter of
4)
in the de;a44
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in sajd Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. ��/,
7
/
Sworn to and subscribed before me this aLr _ .: of _. �.� D 19 9
(SEAL)
1.1" (Business Manager)
( n� i?y rC Onty7Florida}-_.
410twyDStuo1cricio
ecatssigilati iravem Jona 39, 1993
10
PUBLIC NOTICE
•
On Tuesday, November 14. 1989, at 9:05 A.M.,
the Board of County Commissioners 'of Indian
River County, Florida, will meet in the County
Administration Building at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, FL, to consider acquisition of an existing.1
wastewater treatment and collection system pre-
sently owned by ASPEN -WHISPERING PALMS,
LTD. PARTNERSHIP, including certain real 1
property and equipment. Prior to this public
hearing, information about the proposed acqui-
sition will be available for public Inspection from
Harry E. Asher, Assistant Director of the Depart-
ment of Utility Services. The public is invited to 1
attend the public hearing, at which time • the
County will make a presentation pursuant to
125.3401, Florida Statutes, regarding the ad-
visability of thlssacquisition.: --`
•
i. .�.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed-
ings is made, which Includes testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is based.
October 26, 1989 623228
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/12189:
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR0
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
HARRY E. ASHER
ASSISTANT DIRECToffOF UTILITY SERVICES
ERVICES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND ASPEN
WHISPERING PALMS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR WASTEWATER
SERVICE
BACKGROUND
Aspen Whispering Palms currently operates a water and wastewater
facility serving approximately 324 mobile home sites and 260 RV
sites with water and wastewater service within the Whispering Palms
Mobile Home Park. Indian River County, with the construction of the
North County Wastewater System, will provide wastewater service to
the area.
As a result of the construction of the North County Wastewater
System, Whispering Palms and Indian River County Department of
Utility Services have negotiated•an agreement under which wastewater
service will be provided to the Whispering Palms Mobile Home Park.
The agreement also provides for the connection of Whispering Palms
to the Indian River County water system within six years.
ANALYSIS
The County's policy has been to acquire and/or connect such
privately held utilities and to expand its regional and subregional
wastewater facilities. Service to this system will assist us in
implementing thispolicy, in addition to expanding the customer base
of the County's wastewater system.
Whispering Palms agrees to connect to the North County Wastewater
System under the agreement, as follows:
(a) Indian River County will construct approximately 340' of
sewer line from the north lift station to the sewer main,
(b) Whispering Palms will construct approximately 720' of
sewer line from the south lift station to the sewer main.
Funding for this project will be from Account No.
472-000-169-071.00. Wastewater services to the Whispering Palms
Mobile Home Park can be provided without any significant effect on
the operating costs of the County facilities, and with no effect on
the rates and charges of the existing County customers.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached agreement for
wastewater service and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement.
NOV 14 kJLi9
11
BOOK 78 F46.E •J5
OV 1
7V7) 9
BOOK 18 PAGE 368
Attorney Vitunac explained that this is a public hearing
required by state law whenever the County undertakes to buy or
take over a utility system. The factors required in state law
are listed in the backup material and the public hearing is for
the people of the mobile home park or utility system to give
their concerns.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the $625 impact fee was the
normal fee, and Attorney Vitunac explained that the lower fee was
just for the RVs, not the mobile homes.
Commissioner Eggert asked the cost of constructing the 340
feet of sewer line, and Utilities Director Terry Pinto estimated
the cost would be around $26,000.
Attorney Vitunac explained that this agreement talks about
the big issue of who is going to pay these impact fees to the
County -- the owner of the mobile home park or the tenants who
own the individual units. There is some language in the
agreement which some people think requires the tenants to pay,
but actually, the County's position is that we don't care who
pays. All the County wants is someone to pay for each site.
Therefore, the agreement states that each site must pay an impact
fee. It doesn't say whether it is the owner who pays or the
tenant who pays. If it is the tenants, there is a financing
mechanism in this agreement to make it easier for them to pay.
Commissioner Eggert understood that the financing mechanism
wasn't for the owner, but Director Pinto advised that the owner
would have the same ability. However, there seems to be a
question of whether the owner can pass the charges through to the
tenant, and the questions extends even further of whether the
charges can be passed through to certain tenants and not to other
tenants due to certain agreements with the park owner.
Therefore, we have structured this agreement the same way we
structured agreements with other mobile home parks where the
impact fee comes due at the time of a sale of a unit. The impact
fees are due at that time whether or not the owner of the park has
12
the ability within his agreement with the tenants to pass the
charges through to them. We couldn't differentiate between which
tenants can get the pass through and which can't, because it
really isn't our business to be involved in the leases.
Commissioner Bowman asked how the impact fees would be
applied to the current vacant sites and undeveloped sites, and
Director Pinto explained that the park owner will have to pay
those impact fees at the time a unit is put on the lot. The park
owner owns the lot and rents the sites to the tenants who own
mobile homes or RVs.
Director Pinto noted that there are two treatment plants
within the park at the present time, and had to admit that for
the type of plants they are, the park has done a fairly good job
in upkeep. However, the plants are old and the percolation ponds
are really within the lake system of the park and could be a
future problem, if not an existing problem. He felt this is a
good agreement, and recommended approval.
There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Wheeler
opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter.
Richard Negley, regional manager of Aspen Whispering Palms
Limited Partnership, wished to clarify a couple of things that
Mr. Pin -to has referenced. First, there are both mobile home
sites and RV sites in the park. The RV sites, through the
dialogue they had with the County, were set at a lesser rate than
the mobile home sites. Secondly, the owners have no doubt that
the impact fees can be passed through to the owners of the mobile
homes, and he wished to make that fact clear to the people who
are in attendance this morning who own mobile homes in Whispering
Palm Mobile Village. It is the opinion of the park owners'
attorneys and the opinion of the Department of Business
Regulation that the impact fees can be passed through to the
owners of those mobile homes.
NN O V 689
13
�P ,
BOOK! F4,E
NOV 14 11'b89.
BOOK
r 66 FACE 370
Risti Chuhaloff, 160 Richard Street in Whispering Palm,
realized there is a question as to whether all of the tenants
will have to pay these impact fees, but stressed that is a matter
between the tenants and the park owners, and not the County.
There are State laws to govern whether or not the owners of the
units will have to pay. She wished to question the price of the
impact fees per unit, and emphasized that this adult mobile home
park is for residents 55 years and older and allows only two
people per unit. Due to that fact, she believed that their
impact fees should be at least half of that of a regular single-
family residence with 4, 5 or 6 people. Most of the people in
the park are 65-85 years of age and are living on a set income,
and they will not be able to afford these impact fees. Some
people in there are barely making it from month to month now.
Mrs. Chuhaloff noted that Marion County and Pope County have put
through impact fees on mobile homes at rates of 48%-55%,
regardless of whether they are in a mobile home park or on
private property. Marion County also issues a certificate of
payment of the impact fee which stays with the mobile home,
rather than with the homesite. If they move their unit out of
the park and take up residency in another part of the county,
they are not charged again for an impact fee. In other words, if
the people in the park are forced to pay this impact fee, they
would get a certificate that says they paid it and not the park
owner. She would like to see Indian River County do the same,
and Chairman Wheeler felt that could be done here.
Director Pinto explained that one of the problems with that
is that impact fees are not supposed to be transferred from
property to property. An additional problem would be the
difficulty in estimating capacities for the south county and
north county treatment plants. He wasn't sure what Marion County
is doing, but we are presently going through interviews to do a
study of our entire rate schedule, and that is something we could
look at.
14
The impact fee for a mobile home represents usage of 0-250
gallons per day, which is the same usage for a single-family
home. In many cases we have found that many of our smaller homes
in the county use Tess than mobile homes. Director Pinto felt
very comfortable, statistically, that we are on very good ground
in estimating the gallons used in a mobile home.
Commissioner Eggert understood that the impact fees for a
regular single-family home are over $1,000, but Director Pinto
advised that the $1,366 impact fee for a mobile home is the same
as a single-family home. The impact fee for an RV is $625, or
half a unit. He didn't know why we call them mobile homes any
longer since they certainly are not mobile, but the usage of a
mobile home or manufactured home is equal to that of a single-
family home.
Returning to the matter of when the impact fees are due,
Director Pinto explained that the reason they set the policy that
the impact fees are not due until the unit is sold is because we
recognized that this would place a burden on some of the very old
people living there, and this way they would not have to pay
until their unit is sold.
Commissioner Eggert felt that people do not understand that
the impact fee doesn't have to be paid for any unit that is on a
lot now or that the impact fee
tenant sells his mobile home.
Director Pinto pointed out that there is a limit of 12
years. If the impact fees are not all paid within 12 years, the
County will send a bill to the park owner.
Commissioner Bird understood then that the owner of this
park will not get billed right away for every unit in the park,
and Director Pinto confirmed that to be correct. The owner will
get a notice that upon sale of a unit or a transfer of title of a
unit, the impact fee becomes due. That is the same agreement the
County has with other mobile home parks.
doesn't have to be paid until a
NOV 14 i969
15
I;OOF ( FAJF Tel
0V 1 L
BOOK I ci FAE'. (4,
Eric John, resident of Whispering Palm, disagreed with
Director Pinto about this being a good agreement, because one of
the whereas clauses states that the sites have to pay the money
for the impact fee. He was sure that everyone understands that
sites do not have any money; the owner of the park has the money,
and he is the one that has to pay. Mr. John suggested that the
language was purposely set up to mislead some of the people. He
didn't think it was a question of misunderstanding, as he felt
the residents understand very well that the whole issue here is
who is going to pay the impact fees. When the language in the
agreement states that the site pays, it befuddles the issue.
Further in the agreement, it says that the park and the County
agree that the owner has to pay. In the 4th paragraph it says
that the park must pay direct costs, impact, and hookup fees, but
later in the agreement, it turns around and says that those
people who are renting are going to have to pay. Mr. John didn't
feel that made any sense at all, because it has to be either one
way or another. He suggested that if the County gets involved,
it should not obligate the people who are renting. If someone
should sell his mobile home one year after this is in force, he
would have to pay the entire impact fee at that time. On the
other hand, these impact fees can be stretched out over a 12 year
period, and if someone should sell his mobile home then, he would
have had the use of the sewer for all those years. He also
wished to point out to the Commission that there are a lot of
mobile homes for sale in that park and the reason for that is
that a lot of people are leery of what is going to happen with
that park. Mr. John just did not believe that the County and the
park owners can negotiate for a third party (the tenants) and
obligate them to pay. He pointed out that in a case of somebody
selling a single-family home, the impact fee would not be charged
to the renter, it would be charged to the owner of that home.
Why should it be any different in a mobile home park?
16
Attorney Vitunac explained that the agreement says that each
site has to pay an impact fee, but Commissioner Eggert asked why
it can't say "the owner of each site" or "the owner of the land
under the mobile home".
Attorney Vitunac emphasized that this is between the owner
of the park and the County. It is not between the tenants of the
mobile home park, and it is up to the owner to pay for each site.
How the owner does that is really up to him, his law and his
Leases.
Commissioner Eggert asked why it doesn't say that the impact
fee for each site must be paid, instead of "each site will pay",
because she felt that makes a difference.
Attorney Vitunac stated that we could do that, but it is a
matter of semantics. It doesn't change what we really are
saying, which is that the site has to pay.
Commissioners Bird and Eggert understood then that the
County wants an impact fee for each site and it goes with the
land, not the mobile home.
Attorney Vitunac suggested taking out the word "pay" in the
first whereas clause on page 2 and inserting "shall have a
current impact fee paid to the county."
Commissioner Bowman noted that the agreement goes on to say
that the park is the customer, and Director Pinto explained that
it is a matter of collection.
Commissioner Eggert believed that what the owner chooses to
put in his rent or whatever is his business and is between him
and the tenants. As far as she could see in our contract, the
agreement is between the County and the owner of the park.
However, she could see where the owner of the park perhaps could
feel that we have opened up something that allows a pass through,
and she didn't feel it was any of our business to talk about
that.
Commissioner Bird felt that the word "site" is very self-
explanatory.
NOV 1
17
�3
.ter,
BOOK 78FM E 7
NOV 14
BOOK 7 8 FACE 3 j x
Director Pinto pointed out that the enforcement of our
agreement and the collection of the fees is a matter of how the
Board wants to proceed, but in no way, shape or form are we going
to be taking any action of collection against a tenant in that
mobile home park. If it isn't paid, our action would be against
the park owner.
Commissioner Bird asked where in the agreement it says that
we are dragging in a third party, and Mr. John pointed out that
under Item 5 of the agreement it says that any impact fee for
water or sewer may be paid as follows: a) in cash at the time of
connection to the county system, b) over ten years beginning at
the time of connection to the county system pursuant to the
standard payment plan then in effect, or c) pursuant to the
deferral method set forth in this paragraph and paragraph 7. Mr.
John believed that wording in item (a) raises the question of who
would be paying the cash, the park owner or the people who are
renting, and that Item (b) seems to indicate that it is not the
park owner who is going to pay it. He felt that Item (c) means
that when you sell your mobile home, then you have to pay the
impact fee, and it is the park owner who has the right to pursue
the matter with those that are there already. Mr. John suggested
that all of that language be deleted from the agreement, because
the County has an agreement with the park owner and the County
cannot obligate the renters to pay for anything. That is a
matter for the park owner to discuss with those people who are
renting. He wondered what happens if at sometime in the future
the park owner sells the land after all the impact fees are paid.
Would the owner pocket the profit? He felt the agreement that
the County has negotiated is faulty in more ways than one.
Commissioner Eggert noted that Item #5 does mention
"occupants", and Director Pinto explained that the County has to
recognize that there are occupants there.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the land owner on the sale of
his land would have to pay all the impact fees, and Director
18
Pinto said no, if they sell the whole park, the agreement can
transfer.
Chairman Wheeler asked what happens if they sell it and they
want to build a shopping plaza there. What happens to all the
impact fees for all the connections that no longer would be
needed with a change from residential to commercial use?,
Commissioner Eggert understood that the owner would get
credit. This comment was followed by much clapping from the 30
or more residents from Whispering Palm Mobile Village who were in
attendance this morning.
Director Pinto explained that there again the connections,
as we see them, the impact fees are going to be paid for by the
landowner. The landowner is responsible to the County. If he
can collect it through rent or whatever, that is strictly a
matter of law on that site. If he sells it for a shopping
center, he has a credit for 256 units.
Commissioner Bird understood then that if the day after this
agreement is signed, Mr. John sells his vehicle, it triggers this
paragraph that Mr. John is going to pay the impact fee, if it
hasn't already been paid.
Director Pinto stated that it doesn't trigger anything other
than the park owner has to pay the County an amount of money.
The County cannot obligate the renters to pay anything. He
emphasized again that the enforcement of the agreement is the
County's responsibility. Impact fees are paid only once. It is
a matter of mobile home park law as to whether or not the owners
can pass it through to the tenants as a capital improvement. The
whole idea of setting up that law was to protect the mobile home
park owners. The County cannot say to the park owner. that he
doesn't have to pay, and that his tenants have to pay. Neither
can the County say to the tenants that they don't have to pay,
only the park owner has to pay. The only thing the County can
say is that we will charge the landowner.
NOV Y4 1989
19
78
NOV
�
BOOK 78 FADE37 E
Commissioner Bird asked why the sale of a mobile home has to
automatically trigger the payment of the impact fee, and Director
Pinto said that it doesn't have to. What the County was looking
for is a method to have the impact fees paid to us. We can't
waive any impact fees. There are a couple of things we could_
have done. We could have said to the park owner that under his
franchise he was going to connect to the system and would be
paying the impact fees immediately upon connection. However,
there is a question in the tenants' minds of whether or not the
park owner can pass it through, but there isn't any question in
the park owner's mind that he can pass it through. If the County
had said that the park owner has to pay up front, he would pass
it through to the people. So, the only thing the County did was
say that we understand the impact this may have on the people in
the park. The other way we could have done it was to say that we
would finance it over a 10 -year period with the owner paying so
much per month plus interest. By doing that, however, there was
still a possibility that it would have been passed directly
through to the tenants. Director Pinto explained that we felt
the best way for the mobile home owner, the tenant, is to say
that nothing has to be paid until the unit is sold and at that
point the impact fee has to be paid -to the County. That says to
the park owner that he has to pay it to the County. If he has
the ability to pass it through, it gives the tenant a couple of
benefits. First, they are not burdened with the expense during
the time they are living there; and secondly, there is some
financing that takes place at the time of the sale of the unit
and that cost can be plugged in there.
Director Pinto emphasized that we have tried to structure an
agreement in favor of the tenant, not the park owner, and
Commissioner Bird felt they have done that with the agreement.
Mr. John suggested the deletion of all references to the
people who are renting and just have the agreement specifically
20
between the County and the park owner. Let the park owner talk
to the tenants about how he wants to collect the money for the
impact fee.
Commissioner Bird said that we can do that, but the bottom
line effect could be that if we send him a bill to him for all
the units tomorrow, the owner may send a bill to the residents
the very next day for immediate payment of their impact fees.
Director Pinto didn't believe we are placing a liability on
the people from the county, but Mr. John disagreed.
Attorney Vitunac stated that we absolutely are not, and
asked Mr. John to read any sentence or paragraph in the agreement
to that effect.
Mr. John read from Item #5: " in accordance with
legally enacted ordinances of Indian River County, Florida, shall
be due and payable". Mr. John felt that statement makes Indian
River County responsible.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the only alternative to
that is to have all the fees paid now. This agreement allows a
delayed payment until most of the people who are in there now
sell their units.
Mr. John urged the Board to delete any language in the
agreement that says the people will pay. He didn't think that we
are going to resolve this today, and suggested that the
Commissioners read over the agreement and note the loopholes such
as the park owner getting a credit for the water/sewer that is
being supplied.
Director Pinto reiterated that if we were to eliminate the
portion that says that this money would be collected at the
transfer of the title, we would not be helping the people that
are there. We would be damaging their ability to pay this at a
more convenient time. Some people will live there all their
lives and will never have to pay until the unit is sold or their
heirs will have to pay at the time the title is transferred.
Director Pinto recommended that the agreement be approved as
NOV 14 `0$9
21
BOOK 10 FacE 377
NOV
BOOK /8 r[375
written, except for the change in the first whereas clause on
page 2.
Mr. John asked how they are going to meter the water use for
the recreation hall and other public buildings on the property,
and Director Pinto explained that the intent is to have
individual meters for everyone in there, but in the absence of
that, there will be a master meter on the system and the park
owner will be billed based on the total gallons that are used in
the system.
Putting it in dollars rather than gallons, Commissioner Bird
explained that if the water usage off the master meter indicates
that there is a monthly bill due for $1,000, the County is going
to add up all the bills that are paid by the residents, and if it
comes to $500, the park owner will get a bill for the $500
difference.
In conclusion, Mr. John expressed his doubts that we can
come to any agreement today, and again suggested that this
agreement is not valid because the County has negotiated for a
third party. He thanked the Commissioners for their time, and
asked if he could have a copy of the Minutes of this meeting when
they are completed and approved, and Chairman Wheeler assured him
that he could obtain a copy of the Minutes.
William Ramsey, president of the Whispering Palms Homeowners
Association, felt he could not.say anything better than what has
been expressed by other people here this morning. He felt the
Commission now realizes that a problem exists and the problem is
that there is a flaw in the wording of the agreement that has
been drawn up. In order to better present the tenants' side of
this issue, he wished to leave with the Commission a copy of the
4 -year rental agreement that the owner has pushed for them to
sign. This rental agreement states that the tenants will pay the
impact fees, but the tenants' feel that if they are obligated to
pay these fees by law, there would be no necessity to have this
22
put into a rental agreement. Mr. Ramsey expressed his
appreciation for the Commission's response to the public's
questions on this document.
Commissioner Eggert understood that this agreement states
that the park owner is obligated to pay these impact fees for the
benefit of each site and that the sale of a unit triggers his
requirement to pay, and he gets the money to pay. In other
words, this is not triggering the tenant to pay, but is
triggering the owner to pay.
Attorney Vitunac stated that is correct. The owner has 3
choices. He may pay in cash; he may sign each site up for a
10 -year payment plan; or he may do nothing until the unit turns
over and then he owes the whole thing at once.
Commissioner Bird asked about the RV sites, and Attorney
Vitunac explained that the options would be either cash or a
10 -year payment plan, because there isn't going to be anything to
trigger a sale because there are no units on there to sell.
Commissioner Eggert asked what happens if an owner of a
mobile home sold his unit and just moved away. Would the owners
of the park be obligated to pay that impact fee whether or not
they have gotten any money from the owner of the mobile home at
the time of the sale?
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that would be the case, but noted
that the word "tenant" is not used in the agreement.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the agreement does
refer to the occupants and taking them on as customers.
Attorney Vitunac suggested that if it would make the Board
feel better, we can add a paragraph at the end of this agreement
that says by signing this agreement the County in no way makes a
decision on whether the park owner or the tenants have to pay any
impact fees.
Commissioner Eggert felt that we have made a decision and
that decision is that the owner has to pay, but how he gets that
money is his business.
NOV IL1989
23
989
BOOK .78 PAGE 380
Chairman Wheeler wanted that made very clear so that it
cannot be construed in anyway that the tenant has to pay. Based
on what he is hearing here this morning, he felt that the concern
is that this contract gives some leverage to the landlord to
extract the impact fees from them, and that is something we
shouldn't be involved in. The Chairman stressed that the County
wants to protect its interests, as far as collecting the
wastewater impact fees, but also wants to protect the interests
of the users of that system, and he believed the agreement, as he
understood it, does protect the residents' interests. However,
what he is hearing today is that to some degree the residents do
not agree with that, and would like the agreement to be Tess
protective. He didn't feel that would be in the residents' best
interests, however, and suggested that staff meet with the
residents up there in an evening meeting when most everyone can
attend and explain to them in detail so that they will have a
full understanding of where the County stands on this. It is his
understanding that it is the intent of the County and our legal
staff that this agreement is in the residents' best interests,
not the landlord's best interests. The lease agreement is
between the tenants and the landlord, and the people do not have
to sign that lease if they do not agree with the lease. What the
County is trying to do is protect our interests in selling
water/wastewater service while protecting the tenants interests
as our customers. It just so happens that the residents are the
County customers through a third party, and our agreement here is
solely with that third party and not with the tenants. The only
agreement we have with the tenants, which the park owners has to
more or less co-sign for use, is that the tenants will be our
customers and will have to pay their utility bills. If the
tenants do not pay their bills in 60 days, the owner has to
Chairman Wheeler really believed this agreement is in the
County's best interests and the tenants' best interests.
24
pay.
Director Pinto asked who the County would take legal action
against if we don't get the money for the impact fees at the sale
of a unit, and Attorney Vitunac advised that we will sue the park
owner.
Commissioner Bird wished to know how long a time after the
signing of this agreement the park owner has to reach an
agreement with the County as to whether or not the impact fees on
the vacant sites and the RV sites will be paid in a lump sum or
over a period of time.
Director Pinto advised that it all must be be resolved prior
to connection to the system, which we are building now, and
Commissioner Bird stressed that at some point we would want to
have an assurance that the money is going to be forthcoming
before we go out and spend money to connect them to the system.
Mr. Negley wished to point out a few more things on the part
of the owners. First, we are tending to refer to water here, but
we really are talking sewage. We are talking about water meters
being installed for the purpose of metering the volume of sewage
used by the mobile home residents, who would then be billed
individually by the County for the sewage that they use, and then
through the master meter, the park would pay the balance, which
would cover the RVs, the laundries, the showers, and the
clubhouses. Some of the residents have indicated to him that
they believe those charges are going to be passed back to them,
but that is not correct. Like Mr. Pinto said, if it is a million
gallons a month, and if the mobile homes use 500 gallons.a month,
the residents will pay for 500 gallons and the park owners will
pay for the other 500 gallons.
Chairman Wheeler felt sure that the landlord will find a way
to pass that back, and ultimately the residents would pay it.
That is business, though. The landlord just isn't going to pay
it; he is in business for a profit.
NOV 14 '[98
25
BOOK
Lig_
BOOK .78 F'„E 3S ,
Mr. Negley couldn't dispute that, but noted that the
residents seem to have it in their minds that somehow or other
they are also going to pay for those gallons.
Commissioner Eggert felt that the residents believe that
whatever fee or rent they pay may be increased, but that is
human. However, that cost is not going to be passed directly to
them in a utility bill. The cost may go to them in some other
way, but that is the way it is with every business.
Mr. Negley continued that secondly, the park owners do not
want this agreement as they have two good wastewater treatment
plants that have been in operation up there for 18 years, and
they would love to leave it just like it is. However, they have
spent two years and thousands of dollars fighting the issue with
Mr. Pinto and Mr. Vitunac, and the bottom line is that the park
owners were going to lose, because legally the County has the
right. He wished they could go merrily on their way, but that is
not reality. Reality is that the County is building a north
county plant and the mobile home park must connect.
Mr. Negley continued that thirdly, there seems to be a
concern about the fact that if the residents pay the impact fees
that the park owners will turn around and turn it into a shopping
mall. Under Chapter 23 of the Mobile Home Act, it specifically
defines changes in land use. That park is not zoned for shopping
malls; it is zoned for an RV and mobile home park. Mr. Negley
stated that the park owners have not considered a shopping mall
and have never done that with the 29 properties that they own in
the 18 years they have been in the business. He didn't believe
the Board of County Commissioners would ever rezone that property
for a shopping center with 320 people living there in mobile
homes. He didn't feel that would ever happen; moreover, the park
owners do not want to do that.
Chairman Wheeler pointed out that it has happened in the
past in other communities, and it depends on who is sitting on
the Board at the time they make a decision.
26
Mr. Negley didn't feel that was reality. First of all, they
don't want to do it, and secondly, if they did, they could not
get it done. So, the park is going to continue to be operated as
a mobile home and RV park.
Mr. Negley next addressed the fact that although there has
not been a mobile home removed from that park since they
purchased it on September 1, 1982, if a person were to move a
home out of that park now, next year, or four or 7 years from
now, they have the right to do that, and the park owners would
pay the impact fee on the site. That is spelled out pretty well
in the agreement, as well as in their lease agreement. As Mr.
Pinto explained earlier, the whole idea of the deferral was to
take the burden off the people who are presently in the park, and
say that at sometime within a 12 -year period when the units is
sold, the impact fee must be paid.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that it also takes the
burden off of the park owners in paying it immediately, and Mr.
Negley admitted that it does, but pointed out that the burden
rolls right back over to the residents.
Commissioner Eggert emphasized that is exactly the
residents' main problem.
Mr. Negley felt the residents' problem is that they don't
want to pay the impact fee, period. The park owners' problem is
that the total impact fees are $780,000, and as Chairman Wheeler
pointed out, when you have expenses, they have to be offset by
income, and there is no way the park owners can take a $780,000
hit and not have somebody else pay it.
Commissioner Bowman understood there was a law passed
several years ago as a result of lobbying by the Florida Mobile
Homeowners that says you can't put people out any more. It can't
be done, and Attorney Vitunac interjected that it makes it very
difficult.
NOV 14 199
27
BOOK.
(0 F{GE
NOV 141'9S
BOOK 78 FAa 384
Mr. Ramsey wished to address some of the things Mr. Negley
said about facing reality. He felt a lot of that can be
discovered in the proposed lease agreement that was given to the
tenants to sign. For one thing, the park owners were ready to
fight the County about hooking up to this sewer system, but they
wanted the tenants to foot the bill. However, after the
agreement was reached with the County, the owners wanted the
tenants to pay the bill that they had generated in their fight
against the County. That is their explanation for the cost of
the lease going higher than what it normally would just based on
the cost of living. With regard to the residents' concerns about
a rezoning, the zoning is presently commercial/recreational
vehicle, but there are references in the lease agreement that if
they give the tenants 6 months notice, they must get out. As far
as being realistic is concerned, the last mobile home was
installed in that park in 1980, and what other mobile home park
would accept homes that old? Mr. Ramsey urged the Commissioners
to take a look at the lease agreement because he felt it tells a
lot about the people the County are dealing with here.
Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Ramsey had a problem with the
agreement that the Board is about to enter into with the park
owners, and Mr. Ramsey felt the way it is written is very
ambiguous and throws the tenants to the mercy of the park owner.
Commissioner Bird and Chairman Wheeler both felt that staff
has it worded to serve the best interests of the residents, not
the park owners.
Mr. Ramsey believed that some unnecessary language in the
agreement gives the owners the feeling that they have the legal
right to pass the impact fee charges through to the tenants. He
felt there was a lot that could be left out of the agreement.
Commissioner Eggert felt that with the change that Attorney
Vitunac suggested in Item #2, it does make it clear that the park
owner has to pay the impact fees and that the only thing that
28
NMI
triggers this payment is a sale. After reading the agreement
again, she didn't see that this agreement itself is putting it
back on the park tenants, except for that one paragraph that we
felt was a little loose. How this gets back on the tenants is a
problem with the leases that the tenants are being asked to sign
with the park owners. She agreed with Commissioner Bird that the
agreement very definitely puts it on the back of the owners of
the park.
Mr. Ramsey felt that the tenants do understand that the
bottom line is that it always is the owner of the park, but -in
dealing with these people, they find that they hang on every
period that is in a contract, and if it isn't spelled out
clearly, it becomes a dispute.
Commissioner Bird advised that if there is any misunder-
standing in the future, the records of this meeting are all
transcribed, and Commissioner Eggert noted that we can add a
paragraph making our intent very clear.
Mr. Ramsey pointed out that all these people showed up here
this morning because they realize that this would be their
opportunity to at Least express their views.
Mrs. Chuhaloff urged the Commission to indicate clearly that
it is the park owners' responsibility. She objected to the
language in Item #7 where it says that "the Park shall pay or
cause to be paid out the then -current water impact fees for the
mobile home sites which have not had their impact fees paid",
because she interpreted that to mean that the owner could pass
the impact fees through to the tenants, but Director Pinto
stressed that particular language had to be included.
Chairman Wheeler explained that we are going to add a
paragraph that makes it very clear that the intent of this whole
contract is that it is the landlord who has the sole
responsibility for the impact fees.
N O V 1 4 11989
29
BOOK 78 PAGE 335
N O J 1.4: `m` a 9
BOOK .78 PAGE 386
Mrs. Chuhaloff understood then that if the park owners are
legally allowed to pass it through to the tenants, it is a matter
between the tenants, the landlord, State law and the judges.
Attorney Vitunac suggested the following language for the
added paragraph, which would be Item #10: "Whether any
obligation on the part of the Park can be passed to the park
tenants or not is a matter between the Park and the park
tenants." He asked Mr. Negley if he would have any problem in
initialling a change like that, and Mr. Negley said he would have
a problem in initialling the change because they have spent two
years working out this agreement with the County. He stated he
would not sign off on anything before it goes through to the park
owners and their attorneys.
Chairman Wheeler felt the Board could approve it as amended,
and then wait for the park owners' attorneys to approve it.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the County Administrator is
suggesting a change in the language in the third whereas clause
on page two where it says "upon the mobile home park owners who
are required to pay such governmentally -mandated fees and
charges" to "who may be required to pay".
After some brief discussion, Attorney Vitunac suggested
deleting the entire third whereas clause on page 2 of the
agreement. The Board indicated that they would approve the
agreement with the following three changes:
1) The change in the last part of the first whereas on page 2 of
the contract, stating that "each mobile home site and each
recreational vehicle site located within the Park shall have
the current impact fee paid to the County,; and"
2) The deletion of the entire third whereas on page 2 of the
contract.
30
3) The addition of Item #10: "Whether any obligation on the
part of the Park can be passed to the park tenants or not is
a matter between the Park and the park tenants."
Chairman Wheeler asked what would be the harm in adding
that there is no intent by the County in this agreement to
indicate that the tenants are responsible for the impact fee,
because there is no intent. We are not going to go against the
tenants; there is absolutely no intent.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that it doesn't give them any
real protection, and it would make it Tess likely that Mr.
Negley's people will sign the contract, and we have been trying
to get them to sign for two years.
Commissioner Eggert didn't feel it was necessary, and might
even be a hindrance.
Attorney Vitunac noted that Commissioner Bird already has
stated that the Minutes are available as to the intent here
today.
Chairman Wheeler suggested that during the time we are
renegotiating this with the park owners, the residents get with
Director Pinto and set up a meeting with the residents of the
park to make this clear so that, hopefully, everyone will feel
more comfortable with it.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent), approved the
Agreement Between Indian River County and Aspen -
Whispering Palms Limited Partnership Re: Wastewater
Service to Whispering Palm Mobile Village, with the
three amendments as set out in the above discussion.
AGREEMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
NOV i 4 19B9
31
BOOK.oBOOK./ o pa, L 387
NOV 14
BOOK . 78 FAH 3
IRC BID 90-7, Vista Royale Wastewater System Improvements
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/89:
DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1989
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID#90-7
'=- VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for Vista Royale Wastewater System Improvements was
properly advertised and Fourteen (14) Invitations to Bid were sent
out. On October 29, 1989, bids were received. Two (2) vendors
submitted proposals for the commodity.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Allen's Environmental Equipment was the low bidder
that met all requirements.
FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come from Budget Utilities Account. (=m psC-r EsJ
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $134,360.00 to the
low bidder Allen's Environmental Equipment for the subject commodity,
and authorize their Chairman to execute the contract when prepared.
32
Commissioner Bowman asked if the $13,000 is the typical
depreciation that is figured in each year for a system that has
been in operation for this long, and Utilities Director Terry
Pinto believed it was typical, although there are some things
that we are doing in the plant that are more or Tess an upgrading
of what was there.
Commissioner Bird believed that particular plant has been in
operation for 15 years or longer.
Commissioner Bowman wondered why there were only two
bidders, and Director Pinto explained that while there are quite
a few firms who will come in and build a new plant, there are
only a few firms that specialize in the reworking of plants.
Administrator Chandler noted that the two bids were very
competitive as they were within $51 of each other.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) awarded IRC Bid
90-7 on a fixed contract for $134,360 to the low
bidder, Allen's Environmental Equipment, for the
subject commodity, as recommended by staff in`the above
memo.
•
BOARD OF
184075th
T.....n spam.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Street. Vero Bosch. Raids 32980
s..... r......
•
Date .10/25/89
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION
Submitted By Dominick L Mascots
PURCHASING MANAGER
Bid No90-7 Date Of Opening 10/25/89
Sid TIF. VISTA ROYALE WASTEtIATER
STEM INPROVEr4ENTS
,sive?C`
r �.
O -'�',,
2 •,
* 4*•
'c•R101'
non
•
Recommended Award
ALLEN'S ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT
a.u„
. $ 134 360.80
1. ALLEN'S ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT
' $134,360.00
'
. 710 COMN.ERCE CIRCLE
LONGWOOC, FL 32750
2.• TW DIVERSIFIED INC
$134,411.00
7233 SOUTHERN BLVD.
WEST PALM BEACH. PL 33413
•
NOV 141989
33
BOOK 78 PAGE 38C
NOV 89
BOOK
/,
. I 66 F rj.l.' 390 C
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF MEADOWLARK WOODS SUBDIVISION LAND
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/31/89:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis ---S-
, P.E. ,--
Public Works Director U
FROM: David B. Cox, P.E.VB
Acting Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Extension of Meadowlark Woods Subdivision
„ Land Development Permit
DATE: October 31, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
A Land Development Permit was issued on May 20, 1988 to Charles
Price to construct Meadowlark Woods, a 9.6 acre, 18 lot
subdivision. Meadowlark Woods is located one third of a mile
west of 58th Avenue on the north side of 41st Street. Mr. Price
is now requesting a six month extension of the permit in order to
complete the project. At this time land clearing and rough
grading of the roadway and drainage swales has been done.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Appendix B, Section 7(e)(9)(a) of the County Code requires that a
Land Development Permit expires 18 months after issuance whether
or not construction is finished, unless an extension is granted
by the Board of County Commissioners. The expiration date of the
existing permit is November 20, 1989. The Utilities Services
Department did not have county water available at the time the
Land Development Permit was issued. Since that time water
service has become available. In the attached memo of 10-25-89,
Utilities Services has stated that the subdivision will need to
connect to county water if an extension is not granted and a new
Land Development Permit is required.
The subdivision drainage is designed to drain to the I.R.F.W.C.D.
canal right-of-way on the south side of 41st Street. Since the
time the project was approved I.R.F.W.C.D. began issuing permits
for such connections to the district's canal system.
The Community Development staff has indicated in the attached
memo of 10-19-89 that no preliminary plat extension would be
required if the Land Development Permit extension were granted.
The existing land clearing and tree removal permits would also
remain concurrent with the Land Development Permit.
Alternate No. 1
Grant the six month extension of the Meadowlark Woods Land
Development Permit to May 20, 1990 as requested by the developer
with the condition that the necessary I.R.F.W.C.D. permits be
obtained prior to construction of the stormwater overflow.
34
r
Alternate No. 2 .1
Allow the existing Land Development Permit to expire and require
the developer to submit applications and review fees for a
Utility Construction Permit and a new Land Development Permit.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
Alternative No. 1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner. Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved Alternate
#1, as set out in the above staff recommendation.
SOD FARM MONITORING WELLS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/3/89:
DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOD FARM MONITORING WELLS
IRC PROJECT NO. US -89 -14 -ED
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: JOHN FREDERICK LANG X.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The Board of County Commissioners approved a contract with Post,
Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., on November 15, 1988. This firm
is currently shortlisted as our primary consultant for wastewater
effluent disposal.
The Sod Farm is receiving reclaimed water from the West Regional
Wastewater Plant and is accepting approximately 40% of the plant's
total effluent five days per week.
Pursuant to the FDER Permit No. DC31-151803, the County must
construct (3) three monitoring wells at the Sod Farm to monitor
groundwater quality.
The construction of the wells is. being conducted as an open bid to
open November 22, 1989. PBS&J, Inc., will provide the hydrogeologic
report for regulatory use and inspection services.
NOV 14 98
35
ROOK
noir
w10V14i89
BOOK he F`.GE Uti
ANALYSIS
The project's hydrogeologic services has a maximum cost of
$3,500.00. The work authorization conforms to the master agreement
for services.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve and execute the attached Work
Authorization No. 4, for hydrogeologic services relating to
monitoring wells at the Sod Farm.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved Work
Authorization No. 4 with Post, Buckley, Schuh and
Jernigan, Inc., for hydrogeologic services relating
to monitoring wells at the Sod Farm.
36
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES WORK AUTHORIZATION
DATE: 10/30/89 WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 4 FOR CONSULTING SERVICES.
IRC Project No. US -89 -14 -DC West Regional WWTP Groundwater Monitoring Plan Implementation
CONSULTANT: POST. BUCKLEY SCHUH AND JERNIGAN INC.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan is to conduct hydrogeological
services during the installation of three gorundwater monitoring wells at the West
Regional WWTP sod farm disposal site.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND DIUMPXMCSE FEE FOR SERVICES
Reference is
dated November 15
numbers which are
with the attached
attached Scope of
made to the "Master Agreement for Utilities Service"
, 1988, and specific article numbers and paragraph
listed hereunder to describe the project scope along
Scope of Tasks specifically Tasks 1 through 2 (see
Services) included on this project:
A. Proiect Design Services. Persection I. II, per Master
Agreement Project Scope III, A, 1, 3, a, b, d, and G; also
see Section IV.
B. Consultant Engineer Insurance Requirements
1. 'Workers Compensation Insurance in accordance with Florida
Statutes.
2. Comprehensive and Automotive -Liability with a minimum
coverage of $100,000/$300,000 per occurrence for bodily
injury or.accidental death.
3. Comprehensive General Liability with a minimum limit of
$100,000/$300,000 covering property damage.
4. Liability for Property Damage, while operating
motor vehicle, with minimum limits of $100,000 per
occurrence.
5. Contractual Liability including limits established for
Items B, 2, 3, and 4.
C. Compensation for Services
1. Payment for cost element #1 may be billed for actual hours
on a monthly basis. The County shall make payment within
45 days of receipt of invoice.
Cost Element #1: $3,500
SUBMITTED BY:
Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.
Consultant
DATE: October 30, 1989
37
NOV 14'999
APPROVED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By
Gary C.fheeler, Chairman
Approved: 11-14-89
B00F 78 f'AGE 393
gBg
BOOK
394
I OD PAGE
COMPROMISE ON LIENS - DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE - ESTATE OF NILDA
PINTO
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/7/89:
TO:The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: v)( -William G. Collins 11 - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: November 7, 1989
SUBJECT: Estate of Nilda Pinto - 920 20th Avenue, Vero
Beach - Compromise on Liens
In early 1988 a fire destroyed a residence at 920 20th
Avenue In Vero Beach owned by Nilda Pinto. Mrs. Pinto
perished in the fire.
The County recorded a lien on June 7, 1988 in the amount of
$1,736.71 plus interest, for the demolition of the fire
destroyed structure and removal of rubble.
The County filed a second lien dated January 10, 1989 and
recorded January 23, 1989 for mowing weeds and grass and
removing trash and debris. This Tien was in the amount of
$1,169.97 plus interest.
This property has been an on-going nuisance which the County
on a periodic basis has cleaned up, charging the cost back
against the property. Further liens may be recorded in the
near future.
Finally, the estate is being resolved and the property being
taken over. A Ms. -Williams, represented by Richard Saliba,
Esq. has: been assigned the mortgage on the property by the
bank. Mr. Saliba has notified me that they intend to
foreclose the mortgage in order to eradicate the liens. The
only way for the County to preserve its liens which
currently amount to $3,318.03 (as of November 7, 1989) would
be to pay off the existing mortgage on the property. This
is :.because the foreclosure of a prior lien against the
property extinguishes all later filed liens unless the
person holding the later filed liens pays off the first
lien.
Mr. Saliba has told me that the mortgage in question was
recorded on May 27, 1983 at O.R. Book 664, Page 1465 in the
principalamount of $20,295.04. The outstanding balance on
the mortgage is currently $13,000. -
Mr. Saliba has proposed paying the County $1,000 in full
settlement for a release of all County liens against the
property. The only way for the County to preserve the full
amounts of its liens is to pay off the $13,000 balance on
the mortgage, take over ownership of the property, and have
it as a continuing maintenance obligation. Since it is more
desirable to get the property back under private ownership
and maintenance, taking over the property and paying off the
mortgage balance does not appear to be a good alternative.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept Mr. Saliba's proposed settlement. Authorize the
Chairman to execute releases of any liens against the
property at 920 20th Avenue in exchange for tender of $1,000
to Indian River County to defray the costs of trash removal
and yard maintenance incurred.
WGC/nhm
38
Commissioner Bowman asked if there was any insurance here,
and Assistant County Attorney Will Collins explained that there
wasn't, and that was the problem. Normally, when there is a
mortgage on the property, there is insurance, but through neglect
or whatever, the bank didn't renew their insurance premium. The
bank's lawyer has advised that the reason they had to sign the
mortgage is because the insurance didn't cover it. They were
trying to cut their losses and sold the mortgage at a discount.
Attorney Collins believed they sold it to a neighbor who is
trying to clear up all the encumbrances on the property so that
they can add it to their lot.
Commissioner Bird understood that our options are either to
accept their settlement of $1,000 or foreclose. He wondered if a
third option would be to just leave the lien in place.
Attorney Collins explained that would not be an option,
because what they are trying to do is avoid the cost of
foreclosure, which could run a few thousand dollars. They are
offering to pay off about one third of the liens that we have and
save themselves the cost of foreclosure. If we don't agree to
this settlement, they will then institute foreclosure
proceedings, and because their mortgage was prior in time to our
liens, the only way we could preserve our liens would be to pay
off the first mortgage; in other words, bid to take over the
property ourselves in the amount of the first mortgage that is
still outstanding. He pointed out that it is a pretty unusual
situation, and that he didn't see any advantage in the County
taking it over as it has been just a nuisance to us to maintain
it.
Nov 14 1989
39
BOOK 78 F;. E. 395
Li
BOOK rf r -u
8 FACE •J9IC;
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) accepted Mr.
Saliba's proposed settlement, and authorized the
Chairman to execute releases of any liens against
the property at 920 20th Avenue in exchange for tender
of $1,000 to Indian River County to defray the costs of
trash removal and yard maintenance incurred.
(COPY OF RELEASE OF LIEN NOW ON FILE IN CLERK'S OFFICE)
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Bird reviewed the following summary of the
meeting held on November 9, 1989:
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
SUMMARY
November 9, 1989
The following is a summary of the Parks and Recreation Committee
meeting held on November 9, 1989:
1) South County Regional Park, Phase I
Mr. Davis showed the Committee Phase I of the proposed
master plan for the South County Park. Costs estimates
should be ready by the December meeting, and then the
Committee will set priorities they think should be completed
in Phase I with the available funds.
2) Treasure Shores Park Master Plan
Brad Smith, Landscape Architect Consultant, showed the
Committee the conceptual design of the Treasure Shores Park.
The Committee unanimously approved the master plan and
scheduled the item to come before the County Commission on
November 21.
3) Florida Boating Improvement Program Fund Allocations
Mr. Davis said the County is being encouraged to use some of
the available boating improvement funds. Three -projects
were proposed: Round Island improvements; Boat dock or ramp
with parking along south Jungle Trail; and expansion of the
boat ramp and parking at the Oslo Road boat ramp site. The
Committee unanimously recommended that staff be directed to
obtain cost estimates for expansion and improvements to the
Oslo Road boat ramp site.
40
4) SJRWMD Upper Basin Recreation Program - Firing Range
Mr. Bird reported that a tentative lease agreement between
IRC and SJRWMD has been drafted. He is waiting for
information to come from St. Johns on how the site will be
affected by long range plans of the district; what would be
the potential of flooding on the site.
5) North County Recreation Bus Tour
Mr. Bird reported on the bus tour that most of the Committee
members took around the north county recreation sites.
6) Dale Wimbrow Park - SWIM Demonstration Project
Mr. Davis asked the Committee if they had any problems with
a portion of the park being used for construction of
retention/detention facilities with transitional and wetland
vegetation along the point of discharge and along segments
of the shoreline at the park. The Committee did not voice
any objections.
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 10:37 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
NOV 14 i989
Clerk Chairman -
41
BOOK. 110 i't,11E.OU d