HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/20/1990ACT 1ON IMPLEMENTATION
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
'� REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 20, 1990
f�-���0
���C,o%icT :00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
(;UN'• iC1
<< ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
'3 ' 1840 25th STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - Pastor David Mulford
First Presbyterian
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
A. Comm'r. Bird requested travel authorization as
Item 61 '(added to Consent Agenda) '
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approved. Approval of Minutes of Regular
pp Meeting of 2/13/90
6. CONSENT AGENDA _
Approved. A. Recommendation for Reappointment
of Dr. Frederick P. Hobin as
District 19 Medical Examiner
(Letter dated 3/2/90)
B. State Legalization Impact
Approved. Assistance Grant
(Memorandum dated 3/7/90)
C. Final Plat Approval for Country
Approved. Meadows Subdivision
(Memorandum dated 3/8/90)
Approved. D. Appointment of.Eleanor Kay Van Os
to Environmental Control Hearing
Board
(Memorandum dated 3/5/90)
Approved. E. Approval of Out -of -County Travel
for Commissioners to attend Solid
Waste Seminar on April 6, Tampa
F. Budget Amendment 045,'Unemployment
Approved. Compensation
(Memorandum dated 3/5/90)
LIAR 2 01990 BooK
MAR 2 01990
BOOK
6.
CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED
G. Release of County Utility Liens
Approved.
(Memorandum dated 3/14/90)
Approved.
H. Interlocal Agreement - Process
Servers.Certification Fee
(Memorandum dated 3/13/90)
Approved.
I. Final Plat Approval for Walker's
Glen Subdivision, Unit I
(Memorandum dated 3/7/90)
Approved.
J. Comm. Bird to attend meeting of Private
Industrial Council in Washington
7.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
None
9:05 AM 8.
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Have survey done in-
house. Adm. to
public Nuisance Abatement Appeal
re-
view the charges &
Malcolm S. Levy, Lot 1, Block 10
come back w/rec.
Whispering Palms Subdivision Unit 4
in two weeks.
(Deferred from 3/13/90 Meeting)-
(Memorandum dated 2/28/90)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
9.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSOLNNEL
Request for Board Consideration;
Approved. - Actuarial Study
(Memorandum dated 3/1.2/90)
``IAC ,F,y1� }}
1li 401 :1c'
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS - CONTINUED ._-
Approved the final G. PUBLIC WORKS
alignment of I.R.
Blvd. Ph. III & mitigation plan prepared wa 1) Right-of-way
ht-of-Acquisition -
-
by Boyle Eng. 6 Co. staff Indian River Blvd. phase 3
Parcel 104, Ralph Pletcher,
Approved. rec. Trustee
(Memorandum dated 3/13/90)
2) Right-of-way Acquisition
Approved rec.
Indian River Blvd. Phase 3 -
Parcels 106 & 107
(Memorandum dated 3/13/90) - -
Approved Res. 90-36
31) Authorizing Resolutions to
File Eminent Domain Proceedings
Indian River Blvd. Phase 3 -
Right-of-way.- Parcel 109
Approved Res. 90-37
Res. 90-38
4) Authorizing Resolutions to
File Eminent Domain Proceedings
Indian River Blvd. Phase 3 -
Right-of-way - parcel 103,
Property Owner, I.R. West, Inc.
(Memorandum dated 3/12/90) -
Approved.
5) Right-of-way Acquisition -.
Indian River Blvd. Phase 3 -
Parcel 105, Estate of Hazel A.
Hopkins
(Memorandum dated 3/13/90)
H. UTILITIES
Approved.
1) Surveying Services for Easements
to Install a Sewer Collection
System on the West Side of US#1
Between 10th and 4th Streets
(Memorandum dated 3/7/90)
Approved.
2) Agreement, IRC and Charles H. Harvey
Temporary Water Service
(Memorandum dated 3/12/90) -
3) Final Payment for the Developer's
Approved.
Agreement with the 1400 Development
Corporation (Grove Isle)
(Memorandum dated 3/9/90)
4) Request for Public Hearing Regarding
Approved.
Harris Sanitation Residential Rate
Increase and Increase in Franchise
Fees from One Percent to Six Percent
Annually
(Memorandum dated 3/13/90)
11.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
12.
COtfMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
This request should
Fluoridation Ordinance
be run thru City of Seb. (Memorandum dated 3/5/90)
Write letter to Richard
Votapka.
BOOK 79 PAGE.'72�'
LIAR 2 91990
BOOK PAU r 4
12. COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS - CONTINUED
B.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICHARD
N.
BIRD
C.
COMMISSIONER MARGARET
C.
BOWMAN
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
Approved as
recommended. Drug Abuse Act
(Memorandum dated 3/14/90)
13. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Approved. A. Approval of Minutes of March 6,
1990 meeting
B. Acceptance of Five Aluminum
Approved. Buildings for Solid Waste
Disposal District
(Memorandum dated 3/14/90)
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.
ii
Tuesday, March 20, 1990
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,
March 20, 1990, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K.
Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C.
Bowman; and Gary C. Wheeler. Absent was Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
who was attending the NACo Conference in Washington, D.C.
Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator;
William G. Collins, Il, Assistant County Attorney to the Board of
County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Pastor David Mulford of First Presbyterian Church gave the
invocation, and Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Bird requested the addition, as Item J on the
Consent Agenda, of authorization to travel to Washington, D.C. as
guest of the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council to attend an
award presentation.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13,
1990.
BOOK l f'AU a 1 J
BOOK 19 PAGE i
Chairman Eggert made the following change in the first
paragraph on page 36: Instead of "it should be under the
definition of upland", it should read: ...and Chairman Eggert
believed in both cases it should be found in the Conservation
Element (8A - Ecological Communities Flora and Fauna).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 2/13/90, as amended.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bowman requested that Items C and I be removed
from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Recommendation for reappointment of District 19 Medical
Examiner
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 3/2/90:
FELE
Florida Department of Medical Examiners Commission
Law Enforcement
James T. "Tim" Moore
h 4 `.
Commissioner (Cci,p,
o
RECEIVED
March 2, 1990 BOARD COUtM
' COMMISSIONERS
Honorable Carolyn Eggert
Chairman, Indian River County Commission
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Ms. Eggert:
P.O. Box 1489
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
(904)488-8090
�ISTRIBUT.10 j WT
C-0-Amissiuners ��
Administrator
Attorney --------------
Pu.,tc Wur1t;
Ccrne,A.y Lev. --- -
Ut1is ut'.8
r1riance
tither
Pursuant to Section 406.06 (1)(a), Florida Statutes, the teen of Frederick
P. Hobin, M.D., District Medical Examiner in District 19 will expire on July
1, 1990. For this reason, the Commission is considering recommending to the
Governor the reappointment of Dr. Hobin. In order for the Commission to
recommend a candidate who is acceptable to all concerned, your
recommendation concerning this issue is important.
This topic is scheduled for discussion at the April, 1990 meeting of the
Commission. As such, it would be appreciated if your office would complete
the enclosed form and send it back to this office by March 31, 1990,
-indicating your concurrence or non -concurrence with the recommendation for
2
® � s
Dr. Hobin'S reappointment. If you have additional comments, please feel
free to include these on the form also. For your convenience, we have
included a self-addressed, stamped envelope to return the form to this
office.
If you need any further information or wish to discuss the matter with me,
please feel.free to contact me.
Sincerely,
James T. Moore
Commissioner
Dale H. Heideman
Program Administrator
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent), concurred with the
-recommendation for Dr. Hobin's reappointment as
District Medical Examiner in District 19,
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REAPPOINTMENT FORM IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
B. State Legalization Impact Assistance Grant
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 3/7/90:
TO: Jim Chandler DATE: March 7, 1990 FILE:
County Administrator
.:;w :... SUBJECT: State Legalization
Impact Assistance Grant
tie+.1��:--;• ..
FROM: pirector of Welf Johns on REFERENCES:
The amended Indian River County SLIAG Grant is attached and needs
approval and signature of the Chairman of the Board of County -
Commissioners. The amendment provides an increase in total money allowed
for reimbursement to Indian River County for services provided from October
1, 1987 through September 30, 1989.
When the Cost Documentation System tape was submitted, the actual
expenditure exceeded original allocations. Please add this item to Consent
Agenda at the earliest date available.__.__ _.
Bou P,�Uc
MAR 22d 01990 3
R 2 61990 BOOK '
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent), approved the
amended SLIAG Grant, as recommended by staff.
AMENDMENT #2 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
C. Final Plat Approval for Country Meadows Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/8/90:
SUBJECT: Final Plat Approval for Country Meadows Subdivision
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 20, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Country Meadows Subdivision is a proposed 35 lot subdivision of a
±13.27 acre parcel of land located at 3005 1st Street S.W.,
immediately east of Pinewood Lane Subdivision. The subject
property is zoned RS -6, Single Family Residential (up to 6 units
per acre) and has an L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units
per acre) land use designation. The proposed building density is
±2.64 units per acre. All roads, drainage and utilities easements
and facilities are to be dedicated to the county.
At its regular meeting of July 27, 1989, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the subdivision.
The owner's agent, Carter and Associates, Inc., is now requesting
final plat approval and has submitted the following:
1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat;
2. a cost estimate for construction of remaining improvements,
certified by the project engineer;
3. a contract for construction of required improvements; and
4. a letter of credit securing the construction contract.
4
TO:
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kcatin ,
Community Developmeif� Director
,...
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM:
Cheryl A. Twore
Staff Planner
DATE:
March 8, 1990
SUBJECT: Final Plat Approval for Country Meadows Subdivision
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 20, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Country Meadows Subdivision is a proposed 35 lot subdivision of a
±13.27 acre parcel of land located at 3005 1st Street S.W.,
immediately east of Pinewood Lane Subdivision. The subject
property is zoned RS -6, Single Family Residential (up to 6 units
per acre) and has an L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units
per acre) land use designation. The proposed building density is
±2.64 units per acre. All roads, drainage and utilities easements
and facilities are to be dedicated to the county.
At its regular meeting of July 27, 1989, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the subdivision.
The owner's agent, Carter and Associates, Inc., is now requesting
final plat approval and has submitted the following:
1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat;
2. a cost estimate for construction of remaining improvements,
certified by the project engineer;
3. a contract for construction of required improvements; and
4. a letter of credit securing the construction contract.
4
,'., `-:-.'.ANALYSIS
A substantial portion of the required improvements have been
Y- constructed by the developer. Remaining improvements have yet to
be constructed. A contract for the construction of the required
remaining improvements has been submitted, as well as a letter of
credit to secure the construction contract. The County Attorney's
Office has reviewed and approved the submitted contract for
construction and letter of credit, and the Public Works and
Utilities departments have inspected the completed portion of the
improvements and have reviewed the certified cost estimate and
have deemed it acceptable. It should be noted that once all
improvements have been completed and deemed acceptable, the
developer will then submit a warranty -maintenance agreement and
will post security to guarantee the performance of the completed
improvements that are dedicated to the county.
All applicable requirements regarding final plat approval have
been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for the Country Meadows Subdivision, authorize
the Chairman to execute the submitted contract for construction of
required improvements, and accept the letter of credit which
guarantees the construction contract.
Commissioner Bowman understood that this plat has only one
exit, and Community Development Director Robert Keating confirmed
that it does have one exit, but it is a small enough subdivision
where that was determined. Commissioner Bowman asked if it butts
up to the south end of the canal without any road, and Director
Keating explained that there is not a dedicated roadway along
this canal.
Commissioner Bowman believed we are asking for trouble, and
Director Keating advised that more and more with plats, we are
trying to get inter -connections where there is an established
grid system in the area, particularly in the larger plats, making
sure that there is an alternate connection point and not just one
access.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent), granted final
plat approval for Country Meadows Subdivision, as
recommended by staff.
da 00
BOOK f F ;ic
BOOK PtiGG 5SO,
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIREMENT IMPROVEMENTS IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
D. Appointment to Environmental Control Hearing Board
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/5/90:
March 5 1990
Utilities
MEMO Fi n an ce
TO: Honorable Carolyn Eggert, Chairmagtta,; _j,-11
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County, Florida
FROM: J al nis, M. P. H.
Envi o mental Control Officer
Indian River County, Florida
SUBJECT: Vacancy on the Environmental Control Hearing
Board = - • -
As you probably know; Leonard Craven has resigned from the
Environmental Control Hearing Board and as such, we have been
contacted by a proposed replacement.
Chapter 85-427, Special Act, Laws of Florida, sets out the
requirements for service on the Environmental Control Hearing
Board and mandates they be appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners. Miss Eleanor Kay Van Os has contacted me
relative to service on the board and has expressed an
interest and willingness to serve.
Ms. Van Os has spent several years working with the US Fish
and Wildlife service in environmental areas and has been
active in local environmental affairs.
We would like to express our recommendation relative to her
appointment and have attached a recent resume for your
information.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent, appointed
Eleanor K.'Van Os to the Environmental Control
Hearing Board.
6
E. Authorization for Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock bging absent), approved
out -of -county travel for Commissioners to attend Solid
Waste Seminar in Tampa on April 6.
F. Budget Amendment 045 - Unemployment Compensation
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/5/90:
,. TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 5, 1990
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 045 —
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
CONSENT AGENDA
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM: Leila Beth Miller
Budget Analyst31toy�
Description and Conditions
The State of Florida, Department of Labor has charged Indian River
County for Unemployment Compensation payments to former employees. A
budget amendment is required to reflect these payments.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve budget
amendment 045 to refund Unemployment Compensation payments, funding
to come from contingencies.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent), approved budget
amendment 045, as recommended by staff.
7 BOOK ( F'A"It
WR 2 01990
MAR 2 1990BOOK Fg�E58
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Leila Beth Miller
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 045
DATE: March 5. 1990
Entry
Number
Funds De artment Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
M.S.T.U./Planning
UnemDlovment Compensation-
004-205-515-012.15
141.00
0
Reserve for Contingency -004-199-581-099.91
0
141.00
UTILITIES/General
UnemDloyment Compensation
471-235-536-012.15
1.001-00
0
UTILITIES/Sewer
Unemployment Com ensation
471-218-536-012.15
328.00
0
Cash Forward
471-218-536-099.91
9 0
S 1,329.00
SOLID WASTE/Landfill
Unemployment compensation
411-217-534-012.15
S 223.00
0
Cash Forward
411-217-534-099.92
S 0
223.00
GOLF COURSE/Pro Shop
UnemDloyment Compensation
418-236-572-012.15
S 845.00
0
Overtime
418-236-572-011.14
0
845.00
G. Release of County Utility Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/14/90:
TO: Board of Count Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac - County Attorney
DATE: March 14, 1990
SUBJECT: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 3/2.0/90
RELEASE COUNTY UTILITY LIENS
1 have prepared the following routine lien -related documents
and request the Board authorize the Chairman to execute
them:
Release of Special Assessment Lien
ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT
in the name of EARL LANG, JR. & JUANITA LANG
8
- Release of Special Assnt Lien
ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT
in the name of ANTHONY ABBATIELLO S MATTIE ABBATIELLO
Release of Special Assessment Lien
ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT
in the name of.MILTON H. PENNEY
Release of Special Assessment Lien
ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT
in the name of SOPHIE BRZOZOWSKI
Release of Special Assessment Lien
ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT
in the names of STEVE ZALAGENAS 8 ANN ZALANDENAS
Release of Special Assessment Lien
Release Assessment Lien
RIVERSHORES ESTATES, LOT 27, UNIT #2
in the name of DENNIS SIMS and CAROLYN SIMS
Release of Special Assessment Lien
NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT
in the name of BLAKE FLORIDA DEVELOPMENT CORP. 5 DAVID
ZALPH
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) released the
lien -related documents as listed above.
RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
H. l nterlocai Agreement -_Process Servers Certification Fee
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3113/90:
9
MAR 2 01990
rte+
Bou 9 583
ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT
in the names=of JAMES -B. HOLDGRUN-8 JOAN M. HOLDGRUN
Release of Special Assessment Lien
ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT
in the name of STEPHANIE VAN WYCK
Release of Assessment Lien
RIVER SHORES ESTATES WATER
in the names of JIM REDMAN E VICKY M. REDMAN
Release of Assessment Lien
SEMINOLE SHORES WATER E WASTEWATER
in the names of WINFRED R. ERVIN 8 VIRGINIA R. ERVIN
Partial Release of Assessment Lien
OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES
in the names of SEXTON/SHERRY
Partial Release of Assessment Lien
LOTS 12,-30, 179, 5-184 OF COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH
in the name of REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES- -- -
- --
Satification of Impact Fee Lien -Agreement
Tax I.D.# 26-32-39-00005-0080-00003.0
in the name of ANGELA LAMPKIN
Release Assessment Lien
RIVERSHORES ESTATES, LOT 27, UNIT #2
in the name of DENNIS SIMS and CAROLYN SIMS
Release of Special Assessment Lien
NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT
in the name of BLAKE FLORIDA DEVELOPMENT CORP. 5 DAVID
ZALPH
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) released the
lien -related documents as listed above.
RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
H. l nterlocai Agreement -_Process Servers Certification Fee
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3113/90:
9
MAR 2 01990
rte+
Bou 9 583
MAR 2 01990 BOOK F'
(l� ,AGE584
TO: Boary4lnty Commissioners
FROM: Sharennan - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: March 13, 1990
SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - PROCESS SERVERS
CERTIFICATION FEE
Presented today for your approval is the attached Interlocal
Agreement, drafted pursuant to Administrative Order 89-6
(see attached) for which was entered October 6, 1989, by
Chief Judge Dwight Geiger. The Agreement deals with the
collection of certification fees for all civil process
servers within the Circuit, disbursement of the collected
fees to the four counties, miscellaneous provisions, and
notice. The Agreement is currently being routed among the
four counties for signatures and has already been approved
by St. Lucie County. This Agreement provides that the funds
collected will be distributed at the end of the Counties'
fiscal year to the individual counties of this Nineteenth
Circuit based upon each counties population as a percentage
of the total Circuit population.
SPB/sb
Attachments
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved the
Interlocal Agreement Process Servers Certification Fee.
COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
1. Final Plat Approval for Walker's Glen Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/7/90:
10
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
r
Rober M.eat n , A
Community Develo men Dijrector
THROUGH: Stan BolingJ, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Chris Rison C�
Staff Planner
DATE: March 7, 1990
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR WALKER'S GLEN SUBDIVISION,
UNIT 1 SD -88-06-08
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March'20, 1990.
DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION:
Walker's Glen Subdivision Unit 1 is a 36 lot subdivision of a
±11.41 acre parcel of land located west of 44th Avenue and south
of 26th Street. A second unit, comprised of 25 lots on ±7.80
acres is to be constructed and platted in the future. The subject
property is zoned RS -6, Single Family Residential (6 units per
acre) and has an LD -2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units per acre) land
use designation. The proposed building density is 3.16 units per
acre.
At its regular ,meeting of May 25, 1989, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the entire
subdivision, including the Unit 1 and Unit 2 areas.. The owner,
Vista Properties, Inc.,=•is now requesting final plat approval and
has submitted the following:
1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat;
2. two cost estimates for remaining required improvements
certified by the project engineer:
y., a. a cost estimate for internal sidewalks;
b. a cost estimate for remaining required improvements;
3. two contracts for construction of remaining required improve-
-
='' = ments
a. a 2 year contract to construct internal sidewalks;
b. a 6 month contract for all other remaining improvements;
and
4. two letters of credit securing the construction contracts.
ANALYSIS:
Most of the required improvements have been constructed by the
developer. Remaining improvements have yet to be constructed. A
contract for the construction of required sidewalk improvements
iMA
R 2 01990 " BOOK "! raUE i�
FBay 05861'
and a contract for construction of other remaining required
improvements have been submitted, as well as two letters of
credit, one to secure eacn construction contract. The County
Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the submitted
contracts for construction and letters of credit, and the Public
Works Department has inspected the completed- portion of the
improvements and have reviewed the certified cost estimates and
deemed them acceptable. The Utilities Department has no objection
to final plat approval. It should be noted that once all
improvements have been completed and deemed acceptable, the
developer will then submit a warranty -maintenance agreement and
will post security to guarantee the performance of the completed
improvements that are dedicated to the county.
All applicable requirements regarding final plat approval have
been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for Walker's Glenn Subdivision Unit 1, author-
ize the Chairman to execute the submitted contracts for con-
struction of the required improvements, and accept the letters of
credit which guarantee the construction contracts.
Commissioner Bowman was bothered by these dead ends at
canals and what not, and Director Keating advised that this plat
does have a road connection over to the east from 24th Street.
He noted that there is a subsequent phase, and there is an
east/west roadway that runs to the very south of this.
Commissioner Bowman understood then that we are not ending
up with half a road along a canal, and Director Keating advised
that half streets are no longer allowed to be platted.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) granted final plat
approval for Walker's Glen. Subdivision Unit 1, as set
out in the above staff recommendation.
CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
12
J. Approval of Out -of -State Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,.
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved out-of-
state travel for Commissioner Bird to attend special
award presentation in Washington as guest of the
Treasure Coast Private Industry Council.
PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT APPEAL - MALCOMB LEVY (Deferred from
3/13/90 Meeting)
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 3/12/90:
Telephone: (407) 587-8000
March 12, 1990
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Veru Beach, Florida 32960
Mr. Malcolm S. Levy
1601 Marina Isle Way #302
Jupiter, Florida 33477
Dear Mr. Levy:
Suncom Telephone: 224-1011
_ As per your request, I have contacted Charles Heath in our Code
Enforcement Office, and he has rescheduled your appeal before
the County Commission. Your hearing is now set for 9:05 A.M. on
Tuesday, March 20, 1990 in the County Commission Chambers, County
Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
I hope you are feeling'better and will be able to attend the
March 20 meeting.
Sincerely,
Alice E. White
Administrative Secretary
~. cc: Charles heath
MAR 2 01990
13
BOOK�
MAR 2 0 1990
BOOK ,F1 f'A 1u
Roland DeBlois, Chief of Code Enforcementy, presented the
following map and staff recommendation dated 2/28/90 and the
breakdown of the costs incurred:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
Rert M._eain AICP
Community Dev to ent Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois-AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Charles W. Heath4f;.A.,.�
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: February 28, 1990
SUBJECT: Public Nuisance Abatement Appeal
Malcolm S. Levy
Lot 1, Block 10, Whispering Palms Subdivision Unit 4
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 13, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Malcolm S. Levy, part owner of the subject property, has made a
written request to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
for a hearing to appeal a finding of fact for the public nuisance
abatement costs as set forth in Indian River County Commission
Resolution #89-156, adopted December 19, 1989.
On January 24, 1990, staff issued a Notice of Public Nuisance
Abatement and Assessment to the property owner(s), in accordance
with Section 13-21(c), Public Nuisance Ordinance, by certified
mail under number P-167-076-000. Staff received return receipt
for this certified mail on January 31, 1990. On February 01, 1990
county staff receiv"ed:a written appeal for a hearing before the
Board of County Commissioners, for the respondent to contest the
amount of assessment.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
On September 01, 1989, Code Enforcement staff sent a Notice of
Public Nuisance to Malcolm S. Levy (1/3)(ET AL 711/955), con-
cerning the overgrown weed condition, the accumulation of concrete
• rubble, discarded steel rods and pipes, paper, plastic, and woody
plants (ie: Brazilian pepper bushes). The mailed Notice of Public
Nuisance was sent to the respondent's address as listed in county
:64:;::_ property appraiser records. The mailed notice was "returned to
sender, forwarding order expired."
However, the subject property was also posted as set forth in
Section 13-23 of the County Code, giving the respondent(s) thirty
(30) days to abate the weed, trash and debris nuisance.
14
The weed, trash and debris nuisance was not abated within the
thirty day time period. Therefore, in accordance with Section
13-19(b), County Code, county personnel (ie: Road and Bridge
Division) cleared the property of the weeds, trash and debris,
with costs to be assessed against the property owners. The matter
was brought before the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on December 19, 1989 whereby the Board approved
the assessment of $9,873.06 in abatement costs. Attached are
documents from the Road and Bridge Department which itemize the
assessed costs.
t�'-Subsequent to the Board's assessment of abatement costs, staff
learned of an accurate mailing address for the respondent by
nforcement casef
reviewing a previous code eforwardede tos thenew-
TheNotice of Abatement and Assessment was
eal.
found address, whereby Mr. Levy filed the app
While the original mailed Notice of Public Nuisance did not reach
Mr. Levy, the property was posted for 30 days in accordance with
Sec. 13-23 of the Public Nuisance Ordinance. Moreover, it is
andowner to
staff's position that it is the re�aoserbs loffice) of of a any address
notify the county (ie- property app
changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board of County Commissioners behas all
the
abatement costs assessed against the propertyupheld,
the criteria for notification and abatement of the public nuisance
were followed in accordance with Public Nuisance Ordinance, of the
Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River,County, Florida.
Cost for equipment use and labor, as indicated by the Road and
Bridge Division, plus the $75.00 administrative cost, calculates
to be:
Labor: $2,417.79
Equipment: '5,970.30
Landfill: 1,409.97
Administrative Fee: 75.00
15
MAR 2 0'1990
V
d
L
0
0
3RD PL. SW
125 20' T
�,. 3 O ,
.n Je•O,'
Io
�► ,� 6
13._ a
,7
1� ,17
I o
Iz,
0
tj84'1�
3
= i8
I1
75
70'
R -•�2
70'
0 19
10
20
9 N
7
5
9
~ 101'101`
C 21
12
O D
► �8
L1
�-
N
x'22
7„ g
Q
76.5
7T'
77'
=
�
f-
N
NP24
~
5�F
6 25
4Z' P.
26
3
ties 27
2; Z • I�
3RD PL. SW
125 20' T
�,. 3 O ,
.n Je•O,'
Io
s
8
,7
a&u
s ,
010
0
tj84'1�
3
��
?� mss.
`
75
70'
R -•�2
70'
112-6_ 1
2-7--5,4,
. 8
CO C
9; m;sr �..1 u =�-IJ �� a 6' a141' k,96 -0-3i 70' 1 « 1 ° 1" 1 70' f Il l
100 100 1035 10342
P
c�= , 4 T PLACE SW
C'*._� ,
a a u w a
80'
3
O
77'
a
pi m
tL
«I ,
0
tj84'1�
3
0 13
101'
101
1 0
R -•�2
� l �1
4
3
2
1-
7
5
9
~ 101'101`
l i
12
O D
► �8
L1
�-
CARIBBEAN
2-7--5,4,
. 8
CO C
9; m;sr �..1 u =�-IJ �� a 6' a141' k,96 -0-3i 70' 1 « 1 ° 1" 1 70' f Il l
100 100 1035 10342
P
c�= , 4 T PLACE SW
C'*._� ,
a a u w a
80'
76.5•
77'
a
76.3'
79.94'
o1r��
7C
0 13
t"77'7'
v
(D
1 0
- 6
5
4
3
2
1-
7
5
9
10
l i
12
O D
► �8
L1
r0
CO)
1 t
14
_ 80'
76.5
7T'
77'
76•$
80'
74
a
a
n ;
»
7C
0 13
G
2
3
4
5 6
.�
'7•-4�'
� o
8
7
6
5
4
3-
12
9
10
11
12
Z
13
14
15
I6.o
^74'
w
u
a
a
»
+�
74-
�. ".- IC 2. J_ i fl L—�7 1 R G G i J TY
-- _DRAINAGE R/ I �D �D ��► r.
° J 6-�
P. B. 1. 6 67 P. B. I. 5 it \
1
J
70
70
(
7C
0c
- 1
2
3
4
5 6
7
19
18
17
16
15 1 14
13
12
�04
8a C
70'
�. ".- IC 2. J_ i fl L—�7 1 R G G i J TY
-- _DRAINAGE R/ I �D �D ��► r.
° J 6-�
P. B. 1. 6 67 P. B. I. 5 it \
1
J
Malcomb Levy of Jupiter, Florida, one-third owner of the
subject property, contended that not only did the County
overcharge for the work but charged him for clearing part of a
neighbor's lot. He and his two partners bought the property for
$4,000 after the County declared it surplus and then spent
another $7,000 to remove the tank from the property. The
property is the wastewater treatment site for the old Treasure
Coast Utilities package plant and is enclosed by a fence that
surrounds it and part of his neighbor's property.
Mr. Levy explained that they purchased this property back in
1985 after responding to an ad in the newspaper in Indian River
County requesting bids on lots #1 and #Z in Whispering Palms,
Unit #4. After being notified that they were the successful
bidders on this property, a closing date was set up by the County
Attorney's office. When they attended the closing, the County
Attorney had prepared an addendum agreement for purchase which
was not part of the advertisement, and they were informed that if
they didn't sign the addendum agreement, they would forfeit their
10% deposit. They thought at the time that was highly unlikely,
so they didn't press it and proceeded to sign the agreement. The
name on the agreement is Christopher Paul, who was the Assistant
County Attorney at the time.
Commissioner Bird was a little confused as to why we are
talking about the purchase of the property, but Mr. Levy
emphasized that it is relevant since the County is assessing them
for a clearing a portion of someone else's property in this
matter. He distributed copies of the following sketch:
17
Boor 79 v,4"IE 5,9'
MAR 2 01990
314
BOOK .79 9 F'AGE 592
Mr. Levy emphasized that the addendum to the agreement is
the main part of this matter. He recalled that when Mr. Pinto
took them out and showed them the property they had purchased, he
had a key to the gate, and showed them the fenced -in property,
and said, "this is Lot #111. Then he showed them the second lot
on Antigua, which is also called 6th Road, and that Lot #2 would
be the vacant lot behind the fenced lot. He and his partners
assumed they were not dealing with caveat emptor (let the buyer
beware) in this matter, and felt they had a right to rely on what
a County department head told them, which was that the fenced -in
area was Lot #1. For several years, in fact, up until last week,
they assumed that everything that was in that fenced -in area was
Lot #1, and according to the addendum agreement they had one year
to remove the water tank and maintain the building up to code.
They agreed to that when they signed the addendum in 1985.
Included in the addendum was the condition that the existing
chain link fence must be maintained and in good repair so as to
reasonably preclude unlawful entry and trespassing on the
property. So, they assumed they had all the responsibility
within that chain link fence. When they saw the 12 x 14 -ft.
building for the first time, the windows were broken out, the
doors were missing, the walls were sprayed with graffiti and
there was broken glass all over the floor along with old drug
needles. Mr. Levy understood that there had been complaints for
many, many years, even before the County purchased the franchised
utility from an attorney in Atlanta. Since Mr. Pinto told them
the County was going into the water business, it was their
thinking that the County had the power to condemn this property.
Mr. Pinto told them that they paid the attorney from Atlanta
$100,000 for this franchise and that they were going to purchase
another 15 franchises throughout the county. So the County paid
$100,000, sold a bond issue, and sold this lot to them for
$4,000. The 25 -ft. water tank on the lot was completely rusted,
and the neighbors said they have been complaining about it for 15
years, but yet the County had never cited the former owner.
There were weeds and it was completely wild. Children were in
there getting into trouble and there were a lot of police reports
over the years. Back then the County had liability because
children were playing inside the building and all you could see
were the roof trusses. There was no roof. In that one-year
period of time, he and his partners had a difficult time finding
anyone to cut down the water tank with an acetylene torch. The
property was valued at $8,000 for both lots, and they spent an
extra $7000 to remove the tank, so they were into the property
for $11,000 at that point. The point he was making is that the
former owner had a dangerous situation for about 20 years, but as
soon as he and his partners took over the property, the County
suddenly noticed the water tank and debris. Charles Heath of
Code Enforcement had told them at the time that it was because
the County had only two code enforcement people for the entire
i
19 BOOK A
iA�c �s
as
MAR 2 01990
MAR 2 0
BOOK Fk U
county and it was totally impossible to enforce. So, they
cleaned up the property and satisfied the County at great
expense. This became a very bad investment, but they didn't want
children or anyone else to get hurt. At that same time, they
noticed that there was a steel grate on the property with a pipe
going underground, under the county road, and coming out above
ground and going into the lake that is shown in the sketch he
handed out. So, for all these years they had an easement under
the road with this pipe which apparently is an over spill if the
water tank ever broke. Mr. Heath had told them that the
maintenance of the building was up to them, and they decided to
have the building bulldozed in order not to have any problems
with the County.
Mr. Levy next addressed the matter of notices being sent to
the wrong address. During that 3 -month period in 1987, Mr. Heath
had his correct address in Jupiter, and also the correct
addresses of his two partners, who lived in Pompano Beach and
West Palm Beach, and he has copies of the certified letters
mailed to them in .1987. However, of the 3 letters that were sent
to him for this time, two were sent to 812 8th Court in Palm
Beach Gardens, but the last letter he received, which was sent
out after the property was liened, was sent to his correct home
address in Jupiter stating that the amount of the abatement costs
was $9870. He would like to mention that during that 3 -month
period, he and Mr. Heath were on friendly terms because Mr. Heath
could see he and his partners were cooperating in this matter.
They had the property cleaned up, and everyone was satisfied, and
when he asked Mr. Heath if they should have the slab removed
while the guys were out there with the bulldozer, Mr. Heath told
him it was not necessary and that no one could get hurt on the
slab. He stacked 12 concrete blocks that were left over from
bulldozing the building on top of the grate where the over -spill
pipe goes under the road so that children couldn't lift the grate
20
and get stuck under there. Well, that was cited in the County's
claim against them, and all of a sudden the slab became rubble,
and Mr. Heath's report stated that the Brazilian pepper trees
encroached on county right-of-way. When he visited the site this
morning, he measured it and found that the fence is 24 ft. in
from the road itself, so the Brazilian pepper trees did not
encroach on county right-of-way.
Returning to the matter of the notices of abatement, Mr.
Levy noted that Mr. Heath's report also said that he sent out a
certified letter to him on September 1, 1989 to 812 8th Court,
Palm Beach Gardens, and that it was returned on September 11,
1989. Mr. Heath mentions that he checked the property in October
and found there had not been any abatement of nuisance. Of
course there had not been any abatement, since the letter of
notice had not been received, and Mr. Heath knew that. In fact,
the certified letter was stamped September 20, 1989 by the Post
Office, not September 11, which is a 9 -day difference from what
Mr. Heath said.
Mr. Levy explained that when he reviewed the cost of this
abatement, he began to research the boundaries of the property
and it turned out that Lot #14 is approximately 35-40o inside of
the fenced -in area, which they had been told was all Lot #1. So
the water tank that they had removed at great expense was partly
located on Lot #14. He would have liked to ask Mr. Heath if he
knew that there was another lot between Lot #1 and Lot #13, but
he doesn't see him here this morning. The notice of nuisance
abatement was posted on Lot #14 on the chain link fence and not
on Lot 12, and the neighbors will verify that. The County's
ordinance is fine, and he has no argument with that, but the
County posted the wrong property. In fact, he found that Lot #14
is owned by Mr. Charles Coker, who apparently purchased that land
at a tax sale for approximately $1,000 from the same attorney who
owned 'the franchised utility. Apparently, the attorney would
BOOK
+ 21
MAR 2 0199
AR 2 0 1990
Boos .� f��i:5
have lost all the land eventually for back taxes if the County
had not jumped in and offered $100,000 for it. Mr. Levy thought
that Mr. Pinto or the County Attorney would have checked the
boundaries of that utility property and found out that the fence
is over Lot #14 and Lot #2 and then checked further on the
boundaries of Lot #1. Mr. Coker claims that the fence is halfway
into his property and that his property has 88 feet frontage on
7th Avenue, SW. Mr. Coker claims he owns 50% inside the fenced
area, so he and his partners were forced to maintain someone
else's property all the while believing it was their property.
Therefore, the agreement they have with the County Attorney to
maintain the fence is not legal. The bottom line is that they
have approximately $11,000 into this property, which is worth
approximately $8,000. However, they have taken losses before and
they would like to solve this problem by selling it back to the
County for $4,000 and take a $7,000 loss. The County could turn
it into a neighborhood park where the children have a safe place
to play. He would be willing to contribute a basketball
backbboard and maybe a dozen basketballs.
Returning to the costs incurred in clearing the lot, Mr.
Levy pointed out that someone in the County doesn't know how to
add because he was sent a packet of invoices which don't total
correctly. The total for the Landfill was shown as $1,409.87,
but when he added these same invoices, he came up with $1,077.94.
They are off $321.93 unless they didn't include all of the
invoices in the packet. Mr. Levy felt that someone should have
double checked their figures before they sent out the packet. He
wished to point out that the permit numbers are for different
jobs, and when he called and asked what a permit number was, the
girl told him the permit number is for different jobs. If that
is the case, he is being billed for 4 separate jobs, and he
didn't feel that was fair. He also asked for an explanation of
"carrier and load", and they said they would give him that
22
information before he came up here today, but it didn't arrive.
All he knows now is that the work schedule shows the names of the
people from Road & Bridge who supposedly cleared the lot, but the
people who drove the trucks are not the same people he was being
charged for. In fact they claim that 4 workers brought 5 trucks
and that's pretty good if'you can do it. Mr. Levy felt the $5900
charge for equipment is unreasonable, especially since the County
is not allowed to make a profit off of taxpayers. The work
schedule also shows that they were out there 8 days cutting back
the growth and taking all the debris to the Landfill. However,
if you look at all 4 permits, there are only 5 days where debris
was taken to the Landfill. The only debris that was taken to the
Landfill was the concrete slab and the Brazilian pepper trees,
which Mr. Heath said were encroaching on county right-of-way.
Commissioner Bird asked Mr. Levy if he would have any
objection to the County removing the chain fence from that lot
and the other lots.
Mr. Levy stated that he wouldn't object if the County was
going to buy back the property.
would begin to dump debris there.
If the fence was removed, people
Commissioner Bird, who handles recreation matters for the
Commission, stated that the County was more interested in
developing large regional parks rather than small neighborhood
parks which are hard to maintain and serve only a few.
Mr. Levy stated that they will not pay the taxes on that
property, and when the Tax Collector puts up the tax certificates
on June 1st, an investor might buy this certificate because when
these certificates are advertised, there is no indication that
there is a county lien on the property. However, two years later
when the Clerk calls out the certificate number at the final sale
for back taxes, the file will show the lien, and it will remain
unsold and the deed will go to the original investor who will not
want that property when he finds out that he has to pay the $9800
r- --� ray
23 BOOK i° F,jb;� %�J 7
0 XNU
MAR 2 0 199
BOOK 79 PAEE
lien. Mr. Levy highly recommended that the County take the
property back for $4,000 and make a neighborhood park out of it.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to hear staff's side of the
story on this matter, and Community Development Director Robert
Keating advised that Albert Van Auken of Road & Bridge is here to
to address some of the issues pertaining to the labor and
equipment and what was cleared and what was charged. We are
mixing up code enforcement activity with public nuisance
abatement. Director Keating didn't know when the utility plant
stopped functioning, but he did know that the County established
its Code Enforcement ordinance in 1983, that there was a transfer
of property in 1985, and that we took code enforcement action in
1987 after receiving complaints that the building was a safety
hazard. The Code Enforcement Board was successful in getting the
safety hazard removed. In 1987 the County adopted the Public
Nuisance Abatement Ordinance, which has worked very well. In
this case, we got a number of complaints and went through all the
procedures. We checked the Property Appraiser's records for the
address and that is where we sent the notice, and the property
was posted at that time as well. It is obvious from what Mr.
Levy has said that a fence appears to have been erected in the
wrong place, which means part of the wrong lot was cleared. He
felt the only way to keep that from happening is to go out and do
a survey.
Roland DeBlois, Chief of Code Enforcement, advised that the
Code Enforcement staff assumed that the fence was the perimeter
of the property and did not do an official survey to determine
whether or not that was, in fact, the case. In 1987 when this
same property was cited and cleared, there was no reference on
Mr. Levy's part of Lot #14 being partially within the fenced
boundaries. Mr. DeBlois wished to ask Mr. Levy why Lot #14 was
not brought up in 1987 when it came before the Code Enforcement
Board from the standpoint of removing the plant.
24
Mr. Levy answered that he didn't know about Lot #14 until he
started checking into the $9800 lien. He wished to reiterate
that when Mr. Pinto showed them the property they purchased, he
opened up the gate and said, "this is the property you bought."
Utilities Director Terry Pinto wished to state for the
record that he never took Mr. Levy to see the subject property.
Secondly, the County did not pay $100,000 for a lot. We paid
$100,000 for the entire utility system, and after it was
determined that the lot had no value to our facility, it was
declared surplus property. We put the lot up for sale through
the normal surplus property process and sold it to Mr. Levy and
his partners sight unseen for $4,000. Sometime later, Joe Baird,
Assistant Director of Utilities at that time, took Mr. Levy out
to see the property and Mr. Levy was'quite surprised to find that
there was an abandoned water tank that would have to be removed
at their expense. Director Pinto emphasized that we had no
responsibility to tell Mr. Levy which lot was which. He had the
legal description, and it was his responsibility to get the
property surveyed. So, it was a case of let the buyer beware.
In fact, we had another piece of property off of Oslo Road that
was up for sale and that needed to be completely cleared.
Commissioner Bird asked why the County didn't have it
surveyed at the time we bought the property for the utility
system, and Director Pinto advised that we bought the utility
prior to his coming to the County, but he understood that it was
a very complicated matter and that former County Attorney Joe
Collins handled -that entire purchase for the County.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if we have a survey of it now and
whether anyone knows for sure where the property lines are.
Chairman Eggert felt that if Lot #14 is partially within the
fenced -in area, the line for nuisance abatement should be split.
OMB Director Joe Baird confirmed that he took three
gentlemen out to see the property that they purchased sight
unseen simply because they asked him how to get there. When they
25MM 2
01990 BOOK d ZJ E UL 599
MAR 2 01990
BOOK . l � FnE 60
got there, he had to open the fence and open the one door that
was left in the building.
Assistant County Attorney Will Collins felt that Mr. Levy
has raised some good points as to whether the lien was properly
assessed to the right lot, but from a legal standpoint, the
appeal is not timely. The appeal should have been brought within
30 days after the notice of nuisance to abate was mailed or
posted. He could appreciate that it was mailed to the wrong
address, but our Code provides that the notice be mailed to the
address on record with the County Property Appraiser. So, the
County has properly followed its notice and procedures. This
appeal is far beyond the expiration of 30 days provided in the
notice to abate. As a matter of law, the appeal is not even a
right. However, if the Board feels that out of a sense of
fairness there are some issues here that should be readdressed,
they have that authority to hold a further hearing. If after a
further hearing, they determine that the assessment is fair,
reasonable and warranted, then the lien stands. If the Board
determines today that the charges are unwarranted or excessive
under the Code, they can direct the County Administrator to
recompute the charges and the Board shall hold a further hearing
after notice to the owner upon the recomputed charges.
Attorney Collins felt the issues that have been raised today
are 1) Are the charges correct, 2) Should they be fully assessed
against Lot #1; or 3) Should they be partially assessed against
Lot #14 and possibly Lot #2. Legally, the Board doesn't have to
do anything because the appeal period has terminated, but if the
Board feels it is the fair thing to do, they can direct staff to
recompute the assessments and determine which lot or lots should
be assessed. Then we could record a partial release of lien
against Lot #1 for whatever amount was improperly assessed and
hold a hearing to assess additional amounts against Lot #14.
Commissioner Wheeler asked who would pay for the survey ,
and Commissioner Bird felt the County should pay for the survey.
26
� ® r
He admitted this is like closing the barn door after the horse is
gone, but he believed there is a lesson to be learned here, which
is that in the future if we are going to go out and clear lots
and demolish buildings, and that sort of thing, we need to survey
the property prior to that taking place, and then pass that cost
on as part of the lien on the property. Otherwise, sometime,
somewhere, we are going to go out and clear the wrong piece of
property or tear down the wrong building. He felt it should be
standard procedure in the future to get the property properly
surveyed.
Attorney Collins advised that we would have to amend the
ordinance to include the survey costs within the lien, but that
could be done.
Mr. Levy felt perhaps that something good has come out of
this meeting today if the County decides to survey property
before they sell or purchase it. He reiterated his offer to have
the County buy the property back for $4,000 and make a park out
of it, and stated that he does not want to go to litigation, nor
do his partners. They just want to end this on a friendly basis.
They would like to sell it back to the County for $4,000 and take
a $7,000 loss.
Administrator Chandler agreed that when we acquire property
we should survey the property we are getting.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird that the Board
request that a survey be done, and after the survey is
done, have the County Administrator review it along
with the testimony today and the charges that have
been placed against the property as to what charges are
felt to be reasonable and where they should be
MAR
2 01990 2 7 BUCK % � f AGE ���.
eooK l9 rAGE 92
assessed, and then bring a recommendation back to
the Board after notifying Mr. Levy of when that will
occur. (COMMISSIONER BOWMAN SECONDED THIS MOTION
FURTHER ON IN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION)
Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler could support the
Motion if the cost of the survey were to be assessed to the lot,
but Commissioner Bird felt that the County was wrong also in
buying the property without having it surveyed. He believed
there was a certain assumption there that day when Mr. Levy was
shown the property within the fenced -in area.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that you have a public
nuisance here and a very negligent landowner who paid no
attention to the property whatever, and she saw no reason why the
County should eat $10,000.
William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, recommended that whenever
the County does a survey or hires a survey done, they pay the
additional minimal cost for concrete monuments.
Mr. DeBlois advised that we have pictures from the 1987
cleanup, but we don't have pictures of this latest abatement.
Commissioner Bird felt that was another lesson to be learned
today, that if we are going to demolish structures and clear
property, we take before and after pictures so that we build our
case. He noted that his Motion still stands to have the survey
done and have the County Administrator come back with a recommen-
dation on how the charges are to be assessed.
Attorney Collins advised that we could not assess the owner
of Lot #14 at this point since the nuisance has been abated and
the owner of Lot #14 wasn't notified and didn't have an
opportunity to be heard or contest the matter.
Commissioner Bird felt we may have to eat that part that is
attributable to Lot #14.
Commissioner Wheeler was in favor of tabling this to give
Mr. Levy an opportunity to get a survey done and find out whether
28
or not his statements here today about the boundaries of his
property are accurate. He didn't feel it was our responsibility
at this point in time to decide where those property lines are.
Mr. Levy emphasized that he came up here today to try to
settle this in a friendly manner, but if they have to go through °
an additional expense of $300-$500 for a survey that proves they
are right, then they are going to try to recover the $7,000
assessment from 1987 when they were pressured by the County and
the Code Enforcement Board to remove the water tank that was
shown to be on Lot #14. If they have to spend additional money
for a survey, then there is going to be litigation, but they do
not want that. He did not feel the County wants that either. He
was sure that it is going to cost the County a lot of money, and
stated that he and his partners were going to be looking for
damages because he was embarrassed to be before the public here
today trying to defend something the County should have had done
properly in the beginning.
Chairman Eggert wanted to see us go ahead and do this
in-house quickly and get this resolved. as she felt that we had a
responsibility to know what it was that we had for sale, and it
does seem that everybody made some assumptions because of a
fence.
Commissioner Bird wanted to go out to the site after the
survey stakes are in place and see for himself how everything
lies in relationship to the abatement. He didn't think we are
talking about that much time or expense on the County's behalf.
COMMISSIONER BOWMAN SECONDED COMMISSIONER BIRD'S
MOTION STILL ON THE FLOOR.
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that it would take a
day or two to do the survey in-house. If it is a platted lot in
a platted subdivision, which it appears to be, it may be only a
AAR20WO 29
i)'�IS
day's work.
BOOK F AU lJ _i
If we do it in-house, our direct charges would be
less than the $500 an outside firm would charge.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that he could support this if we
table it, and it comes back next week, but Commissioner Bird
noted that his Motion calls for Administrator Chandler to bring
it back after the survey has been done and the testimony and
charges reviewed.
Administrator Chandler felt we could bring it back -at the
meeting of April 3rd as there are a whole host of questions that
spin off of this matter-.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION which included the
provision that the County will do the survey in-house.'
The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent).
REQUEST FOR ACTUARIAL STUDY OF THE SELF INSURANCE FUND
Administrator Chandler reviewed the following memo dated
3/12/90:
TO: MN James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THRU: Jack Price, Personnel Director
FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Managerp�
DATE: March 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Request for Board Consideration; Actuarial Study
This is to request Board consideration for approval of the 1989-
90 actuarial study of the self-insurance fund.
Background
Upon the recommendation of Siver Insurance Management Consultants,
the Board in 1988-89 authorized Coopers & Lybrand to conduct the
first actuarial study of the self-insurance program. Their report
was the basis for properly funding the program, and was
instrumental to the County's auditors in their annual review of the
County's budget.
The Risk Management Manual, adopted by the Board on March 6, 1990,
contains a provision for an annual actuarial update.
30
s s r�r
Analysis
The actuarial study should be conducted at a time to coincide with
the County's annual budget preparation process to assure adequate,
though not excessive, funding of the self-insurance program.
Because Coopers & Lybrand conducted the first such report, they
maintain the background data required for the update. County staff
will be responsible for providing updated information on losses and
exposures since the last study, but much of the data collection has
already been accomplished.
At this time, Siver as well as County staff recommends that we
proceed with Coopers & Lybrand for the 1989-90 update without a
formal request for proposal (RFP) process. The time required for
an RFP would extend until mid-June the County's receipt of the
actuarial report. Such a timeframe would make early budget
planning most difficult. As referenced in the attached Coopers &
Lybrand letter, they can have a draft report available within four
to six weeks of receipt of our updated data, making that schedule
more realistic for budget purposes.
As for costs, Coopers & Lybrand's proposed fee of $8,000 to $10,000
represents the current costs for actuarial updates, according to
Siver staff. At the time the initial study was done, renewal costs
were estimated at no more than $5,000. Since that time, however,
actuarial firms have raised their fees and without a renewal
provision in the initial agreement, the County is now faced with
the higher than expected costs. While the County might find through
an RFP process some actuarial firms who would propose higher fees,
it is doubtful that any would be lower. Coupled with the
additional time to assemble anew all the data Coopers & Lybrand
already has on file, and the RFP timeframe itself, it is most
advantageous to work with Coopers & Lybrand once again.
While staff recommends a one-time renewal with Coopers & Lybrand
as a continuation of previous work, we also recommend that the
county -prepare an RFP'for the upcoming fiscal year. By doing so
well in advance of the actual need, we can be prepared to begin the
annual update well in advance, and we can include in the RFP the
annual renewal rates in order to lock -in costs on a three-year
basis.
Recommendation
Because of the critical timing involved, staff recommends the Board
::. authorize Coopers & Lybrand to prepare the actuarial update for
the self-insurance fund at a cost not to exceed $10,600.00, with
:;,i;-;;; ...* the understanding that a request for proposals will be issued for
upcoming fiscal year.
Administrator Chandler explained that since last year was
our first year being self insured, there are some distinct
advantages to us by having Coopers -Lybrand do the second
actuarial study, but Chairman Eggert pointed out tha.t it would.be
at twice the cost.
31 BOOK
®���
MAR 2 1 _
MAR 2 01990
BOOK i9 PAGE 6OFU
Commissioner Bowman wondered how much we would save if we
went out to bid, and Administrator Chandler advised that all
indications are that it would be about the same amount as we are
talking here. If there had been a renewal clause in the base
agreement, it probably would have been less.
Chairman Eggert noted that it mentions the professionals'
fees at $8,000-$10,000, but later on it says at a cost not to
exceed $10,600.
Administrator Chandler explained that $60D is included for
one visit to Indian River County, and the balance is the time and
hours that will be required. It is based on an hourly rate,
which is the reason for the range of $8,000 to $10,000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) authorized Coopers
& Lybrand to prepare the actuarial update for the
self-insurance fund at a cost not to exceed $10,600
with the understanding that a request for proposals
will be issued for the upcoming fiscal year, as
recommended by staff.
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD_ PHASE 3 -
ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL ALIGNMENT AND FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Chairman Eggert announced that before we get into the
individual parcels of right-of-way acquisition, Public Works
Director Jim Davis needs to present us with some facts that must
go on the official record.
Director Davis introduced Attorney Robert Sechen from the
law firm of Blackwell, Walker, Fascell, and Hoehl in Miami, who
is representing the County in some of the work on the Indian
River Boulevard project. Director Davis pointed out two
exhibits, one to his right and one to his left, that he would be
32
referring to this morning. He wished to begin with a brief
history of the project.
Project_ History & Identification
In the early 1960s the Florida D.O.T. established the
preliminary alignment for the Indian River Boulevard corridor
from Oslo Road to 85th Street or Wabasso Road, which traverses in
a north/south direction through Indian River County. This
alignment actually traversed environmentally sensitive lands, and
at that time in the mid 1970s the only implementation of the
Indian River Boulevard project was a one -mile section of the
roadway, which was a 4 -lane divided roadway between 17th Street
and the Main Relief Canal.
In 1980 the County contracted with Reynolds, Smith and
Hills, Engineers, to design a roadway, now known as Phase III of
the Indian River Boulevard, from the Main Relief Canal to 37th
Street (Barber Avenue). This was actually the second phase of
the Boulevard project, but it was delayed later on due to higher
priorities for other roadways in the County, and it wasn't
implemented.in the early 1980s. However, at that time, there
were many permitting agencies involved in changing the alignment
for Indian River Boulevard. Basically, in 1980 the Florida
D.E.R. and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as many
other agencies which had review status for the Corps permit in
the early 1980s, became concerned that the roadway would
adversely impact. -the environmentally sensitive lands located
, within Impoundment #22 east of the roadway. Biologists employed
by many agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
U.S. E.P.A., the National Marine Fisheries, the Florida Fresh
Water Fish & Game Commission, and the Florida D.E.R. worked with
the County in the early 1980s to develop the least environ-
mentally damaging alignment for the roadway. This alignment, as
shown on this aerial photograph, which lies just east of the Vero
Beach Country Club and is a northerly projection of the existing
33 BOOK i i'N"'Eau j
MAR 2 01990
BooK
.79 PAGE
roadway, was
the alignment that was recommended by the
permitting
agencies in the early 1980s. The reason why this alignment was
the most desirable at that time, and still is today, is due to
the fact that it utilizes an existing dike on the west perimeter
of Impoundment No. 22. It was determined that the least amount
of fill could be accomplished by utilizing the existing dike that
has been there for many years. There has been a small change in
alignment at the very north of the project to accommodate a
future extension of the Boulevard and to move the alignment as
far away as possible from environmentally sensitive lands._ So,
the basic alignment that is being recommended to the Board today
is the alignment developed in the early 1980s in working with the
permitting agencies with the exception of the very north 800 feet
or so, which is a little further west.
In 1981 the project was abandoned for higher priority
roadways.
In 1987 Phase II of the Boulevard was completed from 17th
Street to 4th Street and opened to traffic in September, 1987.
In 1986 the County Public Works staff initiated the "U.S. #1
Corridor Study" to determine alternative methods to relieve
congestion and expand capacity along the U.S. #1 corridor in
north Vero Beach. The study recommended construction of a 4 -lane
roadway along the north extension of Indian River Boulevard from
SR -60 to 53rd Street. The County Transportation Planning
Committee and the Board of County Commissioners approved the
study in 1986. Shortly thereafter, the D.O.T. contracted with
H.R. Lochner, Inc., Consulting Engineers, to perform a 3 -county
study of the U.S. #1 corridor. The final report and the 1989
Florida Strategic Transportation Plan all recognized the need for
the Indian River Boulevard northerly extension from SR -60 to 53rd
Street.
In late 1986, the County contracted with Boyle Engineering
Corporation to design the Phase III extension of Indian River
Boulevard between SR -60 and 37th Street (Barber Avenue).
34
s � �
In early 1987 an extensive environmental coordination study
was performed by Boyle Engineering Corporation, which basically
identified and communicated with numerous regulatory agencies
regarding the best implementation plan for the roadway
construction. The following 12 agencies were contacted at that
time regarding the best alignment and implementation plan for the
roadway: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; Florida Dept. of Environmental
Regulation; Florida Dept. of Natural Resources; Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Services; Indian River County Mosquito Control
District; St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District; and Harbor
Branch Foundation. The study is titled, Indian River County
Indian River Boulevard North Extension Environmental Coordination
Final Report Dated February, 1987
The Environmental Coordination Report was approved by the
Board of County Commissioners, who authorized a second report
which was titled, Indian River County Indian River Boulevard
North Extension Mitiqation_Site Review Report Dated September,
1987. The mitigation report, performed by Boyle Engineering
Corporation, looked at the best mitigation plan to be recommended
to offset and mitigate the filling of approximately 16 acres of
environmentally sensitive land along the project right-of-way.
Three sites were evaluated, and the final recommended plan
included the acquisition of approximately 100 acres of Indian
River County Impoundment No. 22, which is known as the Golf
Course Impoundment east of the Vero Beach Country Club. The
report recommended an implementation of a Rotational Impoundment
Management Plan (RIM) for that area be conducted as mitigation
for filling of the right-of-way of Indian River Boulevard, Phase
III. That plan was submitted to the various regulatory agencies
which particate in the Florida Governor's Subcommittee on Managed
Marshes. The plan was approved by the committee in May, 1989
35
BOOK
MAR 2 0 1990 BOOK'S Facc 6
with some recommended changes, which since have been incorporated
in a revised report. During this process, an affected property
owner proposed an alternative alignment which was considered by
the County staff. After meetings with the E.P.A. and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the alternate alignment was determined
to require more fill than the original alignment that was adopted
in 1981. Thus, it was found to be more damaging to the
environment.
Based upon this past evaluation process, staff is requesting
the following approvals at this time:
1) Approval of the Final Alignment as shown on the official
right-of-way map prepared by Boyle Engineering Corp. dated
3/20/89. It is the official right-of-way map for Indian River
Boulevard Phase III from SR -60 to 37th Street (Barber Avenue).
It has been determined by the County staff and is being
recommended that this alignment be approved as the least damaging
alignment to the environment, the most cost effective alignment,
and an alignment which utilizes good geometric standards in
design of the roadway.
2) Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan for Indian River
Boulevard, Phase 111, prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation.
This Mitigation Plan had input from numerous biologists employed
by both the consultant and the regulatory agencies. It will
provide direct mitigation along the project frontage, and
mitigates any damage to the environment caused by the roadway.
It involves the purchase of approximately 100 acres of
Impoundment No. 22 and implementation of what is called a
Rotational Impoundment Management Plan (RIM). The safety of the
roadway would be enhanced, mainly due to the lack of ingress and
egress from this land to the roadway. The roadway could act as a
limited access roadway, which will enhance the safety of the
roadway. It is best suited also due to the long-range planning
of this area along the project frontage.
36
This area has been
determined by the Florida D.E.R. to be a jurisdictional area. It
is an isolated mosquito control impoundment, which, prior to the
implementation of the mosquito control dike system, was open to
the Indian River and provided a habitat for aquatic vegetation
and wildlife in that area.
Commissioner Bird asked what the effect would be if the
alignment was shifted slightly to the east thereby avoiding the
Hopkins lot and the two Sullivan lots, and Director Davis
explained that by shifting the alignment to the east, you are
reducing the availability of the use of the existing dike which
serves as the west perimeter of Impoundment No. 22. In addition,
if the dike was taken out of the alignment, it would require
approximately 7% more fill to be put in the right-of-way to
construct the roadway. In reviewing this alignment, the
environmental agencies indicated that this alignment requires the
least amount of fill in the right-of-way and is thereby the least
damaging to the environment.
Commissioner Bird just felt he needed some justification for
paying what we are going to have to pay for those three lots
because there is some question in his mind as to whether or not
those lots are buildable without the Boulevard going in there.
Director Davis explained that up until just the end of 1989,
the D.E.R. had taken the position that we were not offering
enough mitigation for the project, and we had to do extensive
vegetation surveys in the impoundment area to show that what we
were proposing was a viable plan.
Commissioner Bird stated that with that explanation on why
we need to encroach on those 3 pieces of property, he could
support the alignment.
MAR 2 0 1990 37
BOOK - E�1E �'
MAR 2 01990 � PA ,
BOOK l� GE
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved the Final
Alignment as shown on the official right-of-way map
prepared by Boyle Engineering Corp., dated 3/20/89, and
the Final Mitigation Plan prepared by staff and Boyle
Engineering Corp., as recommended by Public Works
Director Davis.
Director Davis advised that the engineering for the Phase
III extension of Indian River Boulevard is substantially
complete. The County has applied for 6 permits that are
pertinent to the project, and the following 3 permits have been
obtained: 1) St. Johns River Water Management District
management and storage of surface water permit; 2) Florida
D.O.T. connection permit to SR -60; and, 3) Indian River Farms
Water Control District permit.
Director Davis advised that the Florida D.E.R. has reviewed
the County's application, and they have issued a "notice of
intent to issue a permit" to the county for the project.
However, there have been complaints filed against the County's
permit application, whereby the application will go into an
administrative #120 hearing with a hearing officer appointed by
the State, and that permit will not be issued until the #120
hearing process is complete.
Director Davis advised that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has indicated to the County that they will not issue a permit
until all the property is acquired by the County to allow
implementation of the plan and the project as it has been
proposed. He will be meeting with them this Thursday in
Jacksonville to discuss the project. Numerous agencies have a
review status on the Corps' permit, including many of the
environmental agencies that worked with the County in
38
� � i
establishing the proposed alignment both in 1981 and recently in
1989.
Director Davis advised that the U.S. Coast Guard must issue
a permit to construct a bridge over the Main Relief Canal. That
permit application is complete except for a water quality
certificate that must be issued by the Florida D.E.R. prior to
the Coast Guard issuing its permit. Therefore, the Coast Guard
permit is not obtainable until the D.E.R. #120 hearing is
completed and the D.E.R. issues a final permit. Basically, the
permitting for the project is moving forward; however, the County
must secure the land for the project.
Commissioner Wheeler inquired about the timeframe on the
administrative #120 hearing, and Attorney Sechen advised that we
have requested a date as soon as possible, either in late April
or early May, and the other side has requested a date sometime in
May. We have not heard from the hearing examiner as of this
morning, but we have pointed out in our pleading the importance
of this major capital improvement to the county and asked for an
expedited hearing date.
Director Davis advised that County staff and the consultants
have proceeded with vigor to obtain the best approval from the
various agencies, and we are of the opinion that all necessary
permits for the project are readily obtainable. We basically
feel that we have met all the requirements of the permitting
agencies, and that the project is an implementable project.
Right-of-way Acquisition
Director Davis advised that the County staff has secured the
services of appraisers to appraise the right-of-way and the
mitigation area. The appraisers that have been used are
qualified Florida D.O.T. appraisers and MAI certified appraisers.
After the appraisal process was completed, County Right-of-way
Agent Don Finney extended offers to all property owners within
BOOK ( �
MAR G 0 1990' 39
BOOK A PAGE611
the right-of-way and the mitigation area. The offers were
mailed, and we have received some response. Some property owners
have agreed to sell the right-of-way in the mitigation area to
the County, but some have not agreed and have not made a counter-
offer to the County. We do feel that the action that is being
recommended this morning, whether it be purchase of the
right-of-way or condemnation, will not result in irreparable
damage to the environment along the project.
At this point, staff recommends that the Board review the
individual parcels of right-of-way acquisition.
40
PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
w
00
• Ipeaj scoo
G 001.1 AL .• '\
I t000
C.
O O 7 O
.0
=. -
AC- ►r 9 4.33
R�
44
o0 1.a.
PAt4L %io FF1040*�
AE -
to
GOLF \`•,1
COURSE
r 011
LloOa 04�0�
4. AN ti
tofu *1�o GOV.
o 'PAUL f•�oFFM "
MA MN
lr
�•�H.Sv�u�w 107
n
H. su«Iroo :10(0-00
liil•; 1-10 le,►+l •:,:IN IV. RM,
s:• :•. ....:1::•......ii:.:i..•'i:. IRF. DRAINAGE
10 II 12 13 14" I3 16 17 18 19 20 21' 2" 105 " ,�.:..•1.
GOLF VIEW OR. �� �•% '•
e
- a » e 9 rl e 9 EE LARGED N
0 NT CL P 1 TE to I SECTION (l �`' °? j IF14V/A~ R'VAE&
6 6 11 I 6 11 8 I I T1+ o
S b 12 I 3 12 5 123 14 WEn-•,+ �G t ;:,,�.1. / 1('
3 14
G OV 2 I5 1 2 a s 2 a /1
= 1 I I S -j 10 I JJ
1 1 16 - o. 4-
I
3 r I 1 16 I 1 16
- MA/N CAh L
\ /\l ... 1 MAIN CANAL
27 a
GOLF IS
OURSE C01
PAR
c
"'29TH ST, I _
_1 2 34 S6
19
s I O+trOW
- 4 3 P '-A
7
9 I/
10 9
9 Z �•lol
701
C' of
sT. 70`
41
TOS
7o4
GOV. LOT,
N
70W`
YACHT BASIN
ROYAL
20 19 19
E 23 22 21 �t
• w
BOOK�� FA"� 1�j
MAR 2 U-199
BOOK NAGE 61
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - PHASE 3 -
PARCEL #104 - RALPH PLETCHER, TRUSTEE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/13/90:
TO: .lames Chandler DATE: March 13, 1990 FILE:
County Administrator
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISI-
SUBJECT: TION - INDIAN RIVER
BLVD. PHASE 3=PARCEL
#104 - RALPH PLETCHER,
TRUSTEE
FR • James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES: Robert Nall to William
Director of Public Works G. Collins dated
3/13/90
Description and Conditions
The County staff has extended an offer to purchase a 4.96 acre parcel
(labeled parcel 104) for Indian River Blvd. Phase 3 from Ralph
Pletcher, Trustee, for $33,500.00 based upon recent county appraisals.
Robert Nall, attorney, is representing the property owner. The owner is
requesting that the county purchase the entire parent tract which is
approximately 11.91 acres for the appraised value of $162,320.00.
Alternatives and Analysis
Alternative #1 - Accept the property owners request and purchase the entire
11.91 +/- acre parcel for $162,320.00. Since the parcel is large enough to be
subdivided, this alternative would eliminate potential driveway connections
from Indian River Blvd.
Alternative #2 - File Eminent Domain proceedings to only acquire the
right-of-way parcel needed for $33,500.00 The attached authorizing
resolution would require approval.
Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that Alternative #1 be approved whereby the county accept
the property owners _request _ to sell the entire 11.91 acre parcel for
$162,320.00. Funding to be from Fund 309, Indian River Blvd. North Project
Fund.
42
Director Davis advised that Robert Nall, attorney for the
property owner, is requesting that the County purchase the entire
parent tract, which is approximately 11.91 acres for the
appraised value of $162,320. County staff considered the
counteroffer and found that there are some advantages to
acquiring the entire parent tract. Those advantages would
include the elimination of potential driveway connections along
the west side of Indian River Boulevard. In addition, that
property is fairly low in nature and it could serve to enhance
the overall drainage ability of that section of the county. It
is recommended that the County accept the property owner's
request to sell the entire 11.91 acre tract for $162,320. The
funding would be from Fund #309 Indian River Boulevard North
Project account. Revenue sources for that account include
traffic impact fee revenue from District #5 in addition to gas
tax revenue.
Commissioner Bird asked if this section of the Boulevard
would be on pilings, and Director Davis explained that the Main
Relief Canal would be bridged in its entirety. There would be a
fill section to the north of the bridge that would traverse the
alignment along this property. It would not be up on pilings; it
would be a filled section in that area. With regard to the water
flow, there is a connection from that area to the Main Relief
Canal.
Commissioner Bowman asked if there would be a road
connection under the road between that 6 acres on the west side
of the road and the mitigated area (Impoundment No. 22) on the
east side of the road.
Director Davis explained that there is a dike around the
impoundment that we would maintain access to and we would have to
provide some kind of driveway connectors and roadways so that we
could utilize the dike in managing the impoundment. There are
certain operational things that need to be done, and access
A F,�
MAR
,2 01990 43 BOOK UW v
r— I
MAR -2 01990
BOOP( F"AU, L 61 E
around the impoundment would have to be maintained in its present
state.
Commissioner Bowman explained that she was asking if there
would be a water connection between the west side and the east
side of the road, and Director Davis advised that there will be a
large drainage culvert beneath the roadway. It is a very large
box culvert, which he believed was 7 feet wide by 4 or 5 feet
tall.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved
Alternate #1, as set out in the above staff
recommendat ion.`'
r _f
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - PHASE III -
PARCELS 106 AND 107
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/13/90;
TO: James Chandler DATE: March 13, 1990 FILE:
County Administrator
RIGHT-OF-WAY
SUBJECT: ACQUISITION - INDIAN
RIVER BLVD. PHASE 3 -
PARCELS 106 AND 107
James W. Davis, P. E .\' Charles A. Sullivan,
FROM: Director of Public Work REFERENCES: Sr. to James W. Davis
dated 3-11-90
Description and Conditions
The county staff has extended an offer to Charles and Henrietta Sullivan for
the purchase of Parcels 106 and 107, portions of which are needed for the
Phase 3 extension of Indian River Blvd. The compensation offered to the
Sullivans is $55,000 based upon recent county appraisals. The Sullivans have
counter -offered to sell both parcels containing one acre for $79,207.00. The
county staff attempted to negotiate the requested amount down to $67,103.50,
however, this request was declined.
44
® r
Alternatives and Analysis
Alternative #1 - Accept the property owner's price of $79,207.00.
Alternative #2 - Instead of purchasing both lots, only purchase the needed
right-of-way (0.11 acres) and grant two driveway accesses to Indian River
Blvd. The remaining lots would be less than 1/2 acre each, and it is
possible that vehicles would back into Indian River Blvd. The cost to the
County would be $5,900.00.
Alternative #3 - Reject the property owners purchase price of $79,207.00 and
file Eminent Domain proceedings. The attached resolution would require
approval. It is anticipated that the total cost of the proceedings including
legal fees for both parties, expert witness fees, updated appraisal fees, etc.
would result in total compensation similar to the $79,207.00 offer to sell.
Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that Alternative #1 be approved whereby the county
accepts the property owner's offer to sell Parcels 106 and 107 for $79,207.00.
Funding to be from Fund 309, Indian River Blvd. North Project account.
... _ . JMJ /mg
Director Davis pointed out that parcels #106 and #107 are
located to the north of the Pletcher parcel and along the west
side of the Indian River Boulevard alignment.
Chairman Eggert asked if Alternate #2 would involve a cost
to the County to provide access, and Director Davis felt there
probably would be some engineering costs to allow for the access,
but the actual access itself would be provided by the property
owner at the time the lot is developed.
Commissioner Bird asked how much consideration is given to
access or lack of access in the appraisal of properties such as
these, because to him there is a definite question on each of
the properties as to whether they would be usable in the future
if Phase III of the Boulevard was not to be built through there.
r
County Right-of-way Agent Don Finney explained that the
appraisers had to look at the subject parcel at the value today,
with no consideration that a road would be put in there. They
looked at these as buildable lots in their as -is condition today
without access.
Commissioner Bird believed that if a lot doesn't have any
legal access, it really'wasn,'t buildable, and Mr. Finney felt
r
9 N
45 800. �FAQ;E 6.
AR 2 0199
MAR 2 "990
BOOK
Fet a
that maybe he wasn't°using the proper term as
far as
you
might
see with our ordinances and our zoning. What he is saying is
that the lots are buildable as to size and zoning of R -1A; it is
not a useless remainder. When the appraisals were made of the
parent tract, the appraisers looked at the value of the
right-of-way taking and determined whether or not the remainder
was large enough to be buildable. We do have some that we will
be getting into where there is an uneconomic remainder of not
buildable size.
Mr. Finney advised that the appraiser has considered the
access issue and it is a plus or minus issue as to the cost of
obtaining access.
Commissioner Bird always had thought that location would be
a beautiful place to have a house if you could figure out how to
get to it. He just hoped that the appraiser has taken that into
consideration in arriving at the value on these lots, because if
there isn't a legal ability to have access to these properties,
it definitely has an effect on the value.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that they would have to get an
easement over parcel #105, and Commissioner Bird stressed that
you would have to come out on Country Club Pointe in some way.
He understood then that our counsel is saying that they have
taken that into consideration as part of the appraisal process,
and Attorney Sechen confirmed for the record that they have taken
that into consideration.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved
Alternative #1, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
CONTRACTS TO PURCHASE ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
46
Commissioner Wheeler noted that his primary reason for
supporting Alternate #1 is to not have access to the Boulevard.
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION TO FILE EMINENT DOMAIN_ PROCEEDINGS -
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PHASE III RIGHT-OF-WAY - PARCEL #109
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/12/90:
TO: James Chandler DATE: March 12, 1990 FILE:
County Administrator
James W. Davis, PE
FROM: Public Works Director
Description and Conditions
AUTHORIZING
RESOLUTIONS TO FILE
SUBJECT: EMINENT DOMAIN PRO-
CEEDINGS - I.R. BLVD.
PHASE 3 RIGHT-OF-WAY
PARCEL #109
REFERENCES: Donald G. Finney, IRC
to Property Owners
dated Jan. 24, 1990
The County Public Works Department has offered to purchase 2.135+/- acres
from Donald L. Ames, James G. Copeland, John T. Dayton, Hugh K.
McCrystal, and Ferdinand P. Becker for the Indian River Blvd. Phase III
right-of-way ( 2.066 acres) and an uneconomic. remainder ( 0.69 acres) . . The
property owners have refused the county's offer of $20,900.00, which was
based on the average value established in two current appraisals obtained by
the County. The property owner has not indicated his desired compensation
for the property.
%Alternatives and Analysis
f The following alternatives are presented:
Alternative #1
Attached is a Resolution authorizing the acquisition of the subject
property by Eminent Domain proceedings. The first alternative is to
approve the Resolution and authorize staff and legal consultants to
proceed with Eminent Domain action. The recommended action will
require the deposit of $20,900.00 with the court at the time of the
judicial hearing on an Order Taking at a subsequent date. A jury trial
will be held to determine fair market value. The Board previously
authorized the retention of outside legal services with Blackwell, Walker,
Fascell, and Hoehl, attorneys in_ Miami, FL. _to represent the County.
Legal fees for this alternative are included in staff's request.
Also, for purposes of necessity, staff is recommending approval of the
right-of-way alignment map for the project.
Alternative #2
Deny approval of the attached resolution and abandon the project.
a �•
47
MAR 2 0'990
MAR 2 01990 BOOK I g PAGE 622'
Recommendations and Funding
Alternative No. 1 is recommended including:
1) Approve the Resolution authorizing the acquisition of the road
right-of-way.
2) Authorize staff and outside legal consultants to proceed with
Eminent Domain action to acquire Indian River Blvd. Phase 3 Parcel
#109.
3) At this time, authorize funding of $20,900.00 to be the good faith
estimate of compensation placed with the court.
4) Authorize expending funds for consultant legal fees, appraisal
updates, and miscellaneous expenses involved with the Eminent
Domain action.
5 ) Approve the right-of-way map for the project.
Funding in the amount of $20,900.00 plus legal and miscellaneous fees to be
from Fund 309, Indian River Blvd. North. Revenue shall be from District 4
Traffic Impact Fees ($250,000) and Secondary Road Trust Fund ($3.8. million).
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board adopt Resolution
90-36, declaring the acquisition of a right-of-way for
the extension of Indian River Boulevard from Barber
Avenue to Royal Palm Boulevard to be a public necessity
and authorizing the acquisition of Parcel 109, and
approving the balance of staff's recommendation as set
out in the above memo.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird understood that this
piece of property is fronting on 37th Street, and asked whether
it was basically dry property or wetlands.
Director Davis advised that it is not basically completely
dry. It is transitional wetlands. A certain portion of it has
been declared as wetlands by the biologists.
Commissioner Bird asked if it was comparable in character to
the Ralph Pletcher piece, and Director Davis stated that there
are certain differences in the properties.
Commissioner Bird guessed the point he was making is that we
offered $15,000 an acre for the Pletcher piece that has no access
and is basically all wetlands, and now we are offering to this
group of owners what appears to be $10,000 an acre for a piece
that appears to have frontage on 37th Street and is part of a
major medical node in the county.
48
Director Davis advised that the current zoning/land use
designation on that piece is RM -3, and Attorney Collins wished to
state for the record that the Pletcher tract does have some
frontage on the extension of Country Club Drive. There is an
extension there between lot #105 and the Pletcher piece.
Director Davis added that much of the Pletcher piece is in
oak hammock and has some areas that are not declared as wetlands.
There are distinct differences in the properties.
Commissioner Bird understood then that was the justification
for the differences in the appraisals.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0, Commissioner
Scurlock being absent).
`MAP R 2 01990 49 Boa F., t
� � J
3/90(BLVD)LEGAL(WGC/nhm)
a "
MAR 2 T1990
BOOK i F,%E
RESOLUTION NO. 9 0 —N_3fa_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, DECLARING THE ACQUISITION OF A
RIGHT—OF—WAY FOR THE EXTENSION OF INDIAN
RIVER BOULEVARD FROM BARBER AVENUE TO
ROYAL PALM BOULEVARD, INDIAN RIVER
CUUN Y, FLOR i DA, TO BE A PUBLIC
NECESSITY; AND AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Director, after
reviewing possible alternatives, has recommended that Indian
River County acquire certain parcels of real property -in fee
simple absolute title for providing a road right-of-way
essential for construction of Indian River Boulevard from
Barber Avenue to Royal Palm Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid acquisition is in the best
interest of the people of Indian River County and is for a
county and public purpose, to wit: for providing a
right-of-way essential for the construction of Indian River
Boulevard from Barber Avenue to Royal Palm Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, for the aforesaid reasons and purposes,
Indian River County's acquisition of the fee simple absolute
title in certain parcels of real property is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the specific parcels of real property
that Indian River County needs to acquire for providing the
needed right-of-way are described in Exhibit One (1)
attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. This Board hereby adopts and ratifies those
matters set forth in the foregoing recitals.
2, Indian River County's acquisition of the fee
simple absolute title in the parcels of real property
described in Exhibit One (1) is hereby found and determined
to be necessary for the aforesaid reasons, uses, and
purposes.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 90- =
3, The County Attorney, his assistant, or
designee is hereby authorized and directed to take whatever
steps are necessary for Indian River County to acquire in
its own name, by donation, purchase, or Eminent Domain
Proceedings, the feesimple absolute title in the parcels of
real property described in Exhibit One (1). In acquiring
the parcels described in Exhibit One (1), the County
Attorney, his assistant, or designee is authorized and
directed to prepare, An the name of Indian River County, a
declaration of taking, any and all papers or pleadings, or
any other instrument or instruments. In acquiring these
parcels the County Attorney, his assistant, or designee is
further authorized and directed to prosecute any lawsuit or
lawsuits to final judgment, and to defend or prosecute, if
necessary, any appeal, either interlocutory or final.
4. The County attorney, his assistant, or
designee is hereby authorized and directed to take such
further action or actions as are reasonably necessary to
fully and completely accomplish the purposes hereinabove
authorized and directed.
Commissioner Wheeler offered the foregoing
resolution, and moved for its adoption. Commissioner
Bowman seconded the motion, and upon being put to a
vote, the vote was -as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Ave
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Absent
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Afire _
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted at pubs is meeting this 20th day of
March 1990,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B ,C C�
y
Caro lyn'K.—Egg e Chairman
ATT- - --- ----------------� �
By 101
ey to CI rk _ice fC'' !3-/ -.7a
'MA 46
M 2 0 *9 or "A#4o"
I
►MAR 2 0 1990 BOOK
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - PHASE III
PARCEL NO. 109
RIGHT-OF-WAY
That portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast
quarter of Section 36, Township 32 South, Range 39 East,
less the Northerly 75.00 feet thereof, and less the
Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast
quarter of said Section 36; said land lying in Indian River
County, Florida; described as follows:
Commence at the Northwest corner of the Northeast
quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 36; thence
S0000214711W along the East line of the Northwest quarter of
the Northeast quarter of said Section 36, 167.95 feet to the
Point of Beginning; thence continue S0000214711W along said
East line, 565.59 feet to a point on the arc of a
non -tangent curve, said curve having a radius of 1312.39
feet, concave to the West with a chord bearing of
N2900710511W, and a chord distance of 752.72 feet; thence
departing said East line, Northwesterly along said curve
through a central angle of 3301914711, a distance of 763.44
feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of Barber
Avenue, thence departing said curve; N89051103"E, along said
south Right -of -Way, 300.24 feet to a point on the arc of a
non -tangent curve, said curve having a radius of 1537.39
feet, with a chord bearing of S3503714811E, and a chord
distance of 114.15 feet, thence departing said right-of-way
line, Southeasterly along said curve through a central angle
of 0401511911, a distance of 114.18 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Containing 2.066 acres.
Together with all right, title, interest, claim or demand,
if any, in and to any adjacent public or private road or
alleyway, and drainage rights-of-way, or vacated
rights-of-way, and any littoral or riparian rights.
EXHIBIT ONE
page 1 of 2
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - PHASE III
PARCEL NO. 109
UNECONOMIC REMAINDER
Commence at the NW corner of the NE4 of the NE-,', of
Section 36, Township 32 South, Range 39 East and run
S000214711W a distance of 75 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING. Then run
Still S000214711W a distance of 92.•95 feet to a point.
Then run
Northwesterly along a 1537.39 -foot radius curve concave
to the Southwest with a chord direction of N3503714811W,
through a central angle of 4015'19", an arc distance of
114.18 feet to a point. Then run
N8905110311E a distance of 66.57 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Containing 3,013.64 square feet (0.069 acres), and
lying in Indian River County, Florida.
Together with all right, title, interest, claim or demand,
If any, In and to any adjacent public or private road or
alleyway, and drainage rights-of-way, or vacated
rights-of-way, and any littoral or riparian rights.
EXHIBIT ONE
page 2 of 2
i
BOOK I r'U 04 d
MAR 2 ®1990 �,
r',
. BOOK . � P�1GE 65�
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTIONS TO FILE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS -
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PHASE III RIGHT-OF-WAY - PARCEL #103
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/12/90:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DATE: March 12, 1990 FILE:
AUTHORIZING
RESOLUTIONS TO FILE
SUBJECT: EMINENT DOMAIN PRO-
CEEDINGS - I.R. BLVD.
PHASE 3 RIGHT-OF-WAY
PARCEL #103 - PROP.
OWNER I.R. WEST, INC.
FROM: James W. Davis, PE REFERENCES: Donald G. Finney, IRC
Public Works Directo to I.R. West, Inc.
dated Jan. 18, 1990
Description and Conditions
The County Public Works Department has offered to purchase 54.26+/- acres
from Indian River West, Inc. for the Indian River Blvd. Phase III
right-of-way (.87 acres) and wetlands mitigation area ( 53.39 acres) . The
property owner has refused the county's offer of $343,000.00, which was
based on the average value established in two current appraisals obtained by
the County. The property owner has not indicated his desired compensation
for the property.
Alternatives and Analysis
The following alternatives are presented:
Alternative #1
Attached are two Resolutions authorizing the acquisition of the Indian
River West, Inc. property by Eminent Domain proceedings. The first
Resolution is for the area needed for road right-of-way, and the second
is for the mitigation area. The first alternative is to approve the
Resolutions and authorize staff and legal consultants to proceed with
Eminent Domain action. The recommended action will require the deposit
of $343,000.00 with the court at the time of the judicial hearing on an
OrderdTaking at a subsequent date. A jury trial will be held to
determine fair market value. _The Board. _previously authorized the
retention of outside legal services with Blackwell, Walker, Fascell, and
Hoehl, attorneys in Miami, FL. to represent the County. Legal fees for
this alternative are included in staff's request.
Also, for purposes of necessity, staff is recommending approval of the
right-of-way alignment map for the project and approval of the mitigation
plan which requires purchasing approximately 100 acres of Golf Course
Impoundment No. 22.
Alternative #2
Deny approval of the attached resolutions and abandon the project.
54
Recommendations and Funding
Alternative No. 1 is recommended including:
1 j Approve both Resolutions for the road right-of-way and mitigation
area.
2) Authorize staff and outside legal consultants to proceed with
Eminent Domain action to acquire the Indian River West, Inc.
property.
3) At this time, authorize funding of $343,000.00 to be the good faith
=�m:e . • estimate of compensation placed with the court.
4) Authorize expending funds for consultant legal fees, appraisal
updates, dates
and
miscellaneousCellan
eous expenses involved with the Eminent
Domain action.
5) Approve the right-of-way map and mitigation plan for the project.
Funding in the amount of $343,000.00 plus legal and miscellaneous fees to be
from Fund 309, Indian River Blvd. North. Revenue shall be from District 4
Traffic Impact Fees ($250,000) and Secondary Road Trust Fund ($3.8 million).
JWD/mg
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board adopt
Resolution 90-37 for the road right-of-way acquisition
of Parcel #103 and Resolution 90-38 regarding the
mitigation area, and approve the balance of staff's
recommendation as set out in the above memo.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird felt it was strange that
with all the controversy and potential litigation on these
parcels that we have no one here other than the court reporter to
represent any of these property owners.
Attorney Sechen believed we would see them in court.
Commissioner Bird didn't want to see them in court. He
preferred to see them ahead of time and get these things worked
out before we go to court. He asked if the owners of these
properties had been notified that this action was going to be
taken today on these properties.
Director Davis explained that only two parcels are being
recommended for eminent domain this morning. Staff is
5 5 f�UUK (�
MAR 2'0 1990 .
MAR 2 Cr1990
BOOK
19 FacE
65
recommending
that we settle and purchase the other
parcels.
He
believed that one property owner in the eminent domain
proceedings is represented this morning. He was contacted and he
was notified that we would be recommending to the Board this
morning that we file eminent domain proceedings on Parcel #103.
With regard to Parcel #109, there are numerous property owners
and we have received a letter written by their attorney after
reviewing the County's offer. We have not communicated with them
individually regarding this action here this morning. It was
placed on the Agenda, and the normal agenda process has been
followed.
Attorney Collins advised that it is not a requirement to
notify the owners of this meeting. Before we take property, they
have to be fully compensated and that involves due process, but
the due process comes from a judicial forum. We made the offer
to purchase based on appraisals, and the people are well aware
that if they don't accept our offer, the project will go forward
and that condemnation is the alternative. They will have an
opportunity to put on a case before a jury for what they think is
the fair market value.
Commissioner Bird just hated to force something into the
court system that might have the potential of costing us more
money or delaying the project, if there is any way of negotiating
it out amicably ahead of time. He just hoped we have exhausted
all of those opportunities.
Attorney Collins advised that this resolution would not
involve any delay to the project because we are proposing a quick
taking. The title of the property would pass at the time of the
hearing on the order of taking and the deposit of money into the
court. The actual amount that ultimately would be paid is
determined by a jury.
56
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, which is the
approval of Alternative #1 as set out in the above
staff recommendation. The Motion carried 4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent).
57
BOOK rcI F�GE illc�
MAR 2 01990 T_
MAR 2 0 1990
3/90(BLVD)LEGAL(WGC/nhm)
BOOK 7 9 FAGS 6,3'
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 37
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, DECLARING THE ACQUISITION OF A
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE EXTENSION OF INDIAN
RIVER BOULEVARD FROM BARBER AVENUE TO
ROYAL PALM BOULEVARD, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE A t-UbL i C
NECESSITY; AND AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Director, after
reviewing possible alternatives, has recommended that Indian
River County acquire certain parcels of real property -in fee
simple absolute title for providing a road right-of-way
essential for construction of Indian River Boulevard from
Barber Avenue to Royal Palm Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid acquisition is in the best
interest of the people of Indian River County and is for a
county and public purpose, to wit: for providing a
right-of-way essential for the construction of Indian River
Boulevard from Barber Avenue to Royal Palm Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, for the aforesaid reasons and purposes,
Indian River County's acquisition of the fee simple absolute
title in certain parcels of real property is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the specific parcels of real property
that Indian River County needs to acquire for providing the
needed right-of-way are described in Exhibit One (1)
attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. This Board hereby adopts and ratifies those
matters set forth in the foregoing recitals.
2. Indian River County's acquisition of the fee
simple absolute ,title in the parcels of real property
described in Exhibit One (1) is hereby found and determined
to be necessary for the aforesaid reasons, uses, and
purposes.
1
— RESOLUTION NO. 90-r
3. The County Attorney, his assistant, or
designee is hereby authorized and directed to take whatever
steps are necessary for Indian River County to acquire in
its own name, by donation, purchase, or Eminent Domain
Proceedings, the feesimple absolute title in the parcels of
real property described in Exhibit One (1). In acquiring
the parcels described in Exhibit One (1), the County
Attorney, his assistant, or designee is authorized and
directed to prepare, in the name of Indian River County, a
declaration of taking, any and all papers or pleadings, or
any other instrument or instruments. In acquiring these
parcels the County Attorney, his assistant, or designee is
further authorized and directed to prosecute any lawsuit or
lawsuits to final judgment, and to defend or prosecute, if
necessary, any appeal, either interlocutory or final.
4. The County attorney, his assistant, or
designee is hereby authorized and directed to take such
further action or actions as are reasonably necessary to
fully and completely accomplish the purposes hereinabove
authorized and directed.
Commissioner Wheeler offered the foregoing
resolution, and moved for its adoption. Commissioner
Bowman seconded the motion, and upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert ,dye
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye,
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ab-sPnt
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Ay -e,
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted at public meeting this 20th day of
March 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY.COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By_:—
aro lye K. Egger "Chairman
ATTEBy r f on I e r
AR 2 01040
BOOK FAGE
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - PHASE III
PARCEL NO. 103
RIGHT-OF-WAY
That part of the NE4 of the SE4 of Section 36, Township
32 South, Range 39 East, described as follows:
Commence at the NE corner of the said SE4 and run
S89156'24"W along the North line of the said SE4 a distance
of 922.75 feet to a point of POINT OF BEGINNING. Then run
Southeasterly along a non -tangent curve concave to the
East, having a radius of 1809.86 feet, with a chord bearing
S1003713411E, through a central angle of 03047139", an arc
distance of 119.85 feet to a point. Then run
Radially, N77128'37"E 40.00 feet to a point on the arc
of a 1769.86 -foot radius curve concave to the East, having a
chord bearing S15038113"E. Then run
Southeasterly, along the curve through a central angle
of 0601314111, an arc distance of 192.38 feet to a point.
Then run
S18045104"E 581.06 feet to a point. Then, continue
S1804510411E 198.37 feet to a point in the North right-of-way
line of the Main Canal. Then run
Along the said North line S89057'15"W 63.79 feet to a
point lying 683.30 feet East of the East line of Country
Club Pointe. Then run
N0000012511E, parallel with the East line of Country
Club Pointe, 135.17 feet to a point. Then run
N2402312211W 240.15 feet to a point. Then run
N18040144"W 529.23 feet to a point. Then run
Along a curve to the right with a radius of 813.47 feet
and a chord bearing N1201710611W, through a central angle of
1204711611, an arc distance of 181.56 feet to a point in the
North line of the said SE4. Then run
N8915612411E along the line, 7.45 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Contains 37,787.29 square feet or 0.87 acres.
Lying in Indian River County, Florida.
Together with all right, title, interest, claim or demand,
if any, in and to any adjacent public or private road or
alleyway, and drainage rights-of-way, or vacated
rights-of-way, and any littoral or riparian rights.
EXHIBIT ONE
- 3/90(BLVD)LEGAL(WGC/M
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 3$�_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, DECLARING THE ACQUISITION OF A
MITIGATION AREA, SO AS TO MITIGATE
DAMAGE TO WETLANDS CAUSED BY INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY'S EXTENSION OF INDIAN RIVER
BOULEVARD FROM BARBER AVENUE TO ROYAL
PALM BOULEVARD, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, TO BE A PUBLIC NECESSITY; AND
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF A
MITIGATION AREA.
WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 90-37 this Board
resolved to acquire the fee simple absolute title in certain
parcels of real property for providing a right-of-way
essential for the extension of Indian River Boulevard from
Barber Avenue to Royal Palm Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, in order to extend Indian River Boulevard
as resolved, Indian River County must fill certain wetlands;
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation and various other agencies require that Indian
River County mitigate damage it causes to wetlands by
creating a mitigation area; and
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Director, after
reviewing possible alternatives, has recommended that Indian
River County acquire fee simple absolute title in certain
parcels of real property for creating a mitigation area so
as to mitigate damage to wetlands caused by Indian River
County's resolved improvement of Indian River Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid acquisition is in the best
interest of the people of Indian River County and is for a
county and public purpose, to wit: for creating a
mitigation area so as to mitigate damage to wetlands caused
by Indian River County's resolved extension of Indian River
Boulevard; and
MAR 2 01990 BQOK. F,4}L tlj�;
FF-- I
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -
MAR 2 0 1990 BooK `79 F,,a 636
WHEREAS, for the aforesaid reasons and purposes,
Indian River County's acquisition of the fee simple absolute
title in certain parcels of real property is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the specific parcels of real property
that Indian River County needs in fee simple absolute title
for creating the above-described. mitigation area are
described in Exhibit One (1) attached hereto and by
reference incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. This Board hereby adopts and ratifies. those
matters set forth in the foregoing recitals.
2. Indian River County's acquisition of the fee
simple absolute title in the parcels of real property
described in Exhibit One (1) is hereby found and determined
to be necessary for the aforesaid reasons, uses, and
purposes.
3. The County Attorney, his assistant, or
designee is hereby authorized and directed to take whatever
steps are necessary for Indian River County to acquire in
its own name, by donation, purchase, or Eminent Domain
Proceedings, the fee simple absolute title in the parcels of
real property described in Exhibit One (1). In acquiring
the parcels described in Exhibit One (1), the County
Attorney, his assistant, or designee is authorized and
directed to prepare, in the name of Indian River County, a
declaration of taking, any and all papers or any other
instrument or instruments. In acquiring these parcels the
County Attorney, his assistant, or designee is further
authorized and directed to prosecute any lawsuit or lawsuits
to final judgment, and to defend or prosecute, if necessary,
any appeal, either interlocutory or final.
4. The County Attorney, his assistant, or
designee is hereby authorized and directed to take such
further action or actions as are reasonably necessary to
2
It
II
L
RESOLUTION NO. 90
fully and completely accomplish the purposes hereinabove
authorized and directed.
Commissioner Wheeler offered the foregoing
resolution, and moved for its adoption. Commissioner
Bowman seconded the motion, and upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Rye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Ave --
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Absent
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Ave
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted at public meeting this 20th day of
March , 1990,
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Carolyn gger ,-y hairman
VY
Indiaq R!ver Cn
Approved
Date
Admin.
�Gr,
X40
Legal
i3Udge1
1 l
4fo
Dept
Risk Myr.
o
3 E�,
BOOK l F`�E
MAR 2 01990
BOOK CIA
�� FADE IA
"n
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - PHASE III
PARCEL NO. 103
MITIGATION AREA
1. All of the NE4 of the SE4 of Section 36, Township 32
South, Range 39 East, lying North of the Main Canal and
East of the following described fine:
Commence at the NE corner of the SE4 of the said
section and run S8905612411W 922.75 feet to a POINT OF
BEGINNING. Then run
Along a non -tangent curve concave to the East having a
radius of 1809.06 feet and a chord bearing S10037'34"E,
through a central angle of 3147'49", an arc distance of
119.85 feet to a point. Then run
N7702813711E 40.00 feet to a point.
Then run on a 1769.86 foot radius curve concave to the
East with a chord bearing S1503811311E, through a
central angle of 601412111, an arc distance of 192.38
feet to a point.
Then run S1804510411E a distance of 779.43 feet to a
po i nt 1 n the North 1 1 ne of the Ma i n Cana I and the end
of the described line, containing 17.52 acres.
2. All of Government Lot 5, Section 31, Township 32 South,
Range 40 East, containing 35.87 acres.
All lying in Indian River County, Florida.
Together with all right, title, interest, claim or demand,
if any, in and to any adjacent public or private road or
alleyway, and drainage rights-of-way, or vacated
rights-of-way, and any littoral or riparian rights.
EXHIBIT ONE
RIGHT-OF-WAY_ ACQUISITION - INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD_ PHASE_ III__
PARCEL #105
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/13/90:
TO: James Chandler DATE: March 13, 1990 FILE:
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. 9
Director of Public Work
Description and Conditions
SUBJECT: TIONT-OF- INDIAN C RIVER
BLVD. PHASE 3 -PARCEL
#105 - ESTATE OF HAZEL
A. HOPKINS
REFERENCES: Robert Nall to William
G. Collins dated 3/1/90
The County staff has extended an offer to purchase a 5,327 square foot
parcel (labeled parcel 105) for Indian River Blvd. Phase 3 from the estate of
Hazel A. Hopkins for $13,500.00 based upon recent county appraisals.
Robert Nall, attorney for the estate, is representing the property owners. -
The estate has accepted the county's offer, and has signed a Contract for
Sale (copy attached). In addition, the estate is requesting that the county
purchase the entire parent tract which is approximately .61 acres for the
appraised value of $65,000.00. There is an existing easement through the
property which the property owner refuses to obtain a release.
Alternatives and Analysis
Alternative #1 - Accept the property owners request and purchase the entire
.62+/- acre parcel for $65,000.00. Since the parcel , is large enough for two
lots to be subdivided, this alternative would eliminate two potential driveway
connections from Indian River Blvd. or from Golf View Drive.
Alternative #2 - Accept only the property owners offer to purchase the
needed right-of-way for $13,500.00 The remaining lot or lots could access
Golf View Drive extended.
Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that Alternative #1 be approved whereby the county accept
the property owners request to sell the 5,327 S.F. right-of-way parcel for
$13,500.00 and also the remainder for an additional $51,500.00. Funding to
be from Fund 309, Indian River Blvd. North Project Fund.
JWD/mg
Boos
MAR 2 01990 65
,MAR 2 0 1990.
BOOK ��'
9 PAGE 640
Commissioner Bird asked for further explanation of the
existing easement through the property.
Attorney Collins explained that when we sent out the
contract, we listed any easements that were on the property
because if land is not free and clear, the value might have to be
reduced by the value of that easement. We would have to allocate
the purchase price to the easement holder in part. That easement
runs to Indian River West, Inc., and since we just authorized
condemnation of their interest, we would be the successor of all
right, title and interest to that easement, we no longer really
require the release.
Commissioner Bird asked if there was an easement across
parcel #105 to get to parcels #106 and #107, and Attorney Collins
said there was not. Parcel #105 granted an easement to Parcel
#103 owned by Indian River West, Inc. but since we are condemning
that parcel, we don't have to worry about that easement anymore.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved staff's
recommendation of Alternative #1 as set out in the
above memo.
Attorney Sechen wished to answer Commissioner Bird's
concerns about exhausting all opportunities to settle without
having to go to court. He advised that now that the Board has
authorized us to proceed with the eminent domain proceedings, we
would be contacting the property owners again to try and work out
something prior to the filing of the action if that is at all
possible. Sometimes it is possible to do it this way, and they
will try and do that.
Commissioner Bird asked the status of Parcels #108 and #110,
and Director Davis advised that those owners have filed for an
66
� s �
administrative #120 hearing before the Florida D.E.R. on the
issuance of a permit to the County for the project. At this
point in time, our counsel is recommending that we not take
action on those two properties until after the initial hearing
date, which will be sometime in late April or early May.
Attorney Sechen explained that the County has applied for a
permit from the D.E.R. The D.E.R. has issued a notice of intent
to issue a permit to Indian River County. After the D.E.R.
issues a notice of intent to issue a permit, any affected party,
according to the Statute, has a right to appeal that issuance,
and they can file for a Chapter #120 administrative hearing
procedure in which they essentially challenge the Dept.'s right
and the necessity to issue such a permit. The Department of
Administration appoints a hearing examiner, who essentially is a
State employee out of Tallahassee, who comes down here to Indian
River County and hears testimony from the Dept., the protesting
parties, and the County. The hearing officer will then consider
the findings. Various legal documents will have to be submitted
'to the hearing officer, and the hearing officer will then issue a
proposed order. The proposed order will tell us pretty much
where we stand with the hearing officer. The parties then have
the ability to comment on that proposed order and have some other
say in that, and finally, it goes back to the Dept. itself, at
which time the head of the Dept., Mr. Twatchman, will make the
determination on whether or not he is going to issue the permit.
That process can be appealed directly to the District Court of
Appeals, and it is something that can be extended out if one
wants to do that. In conjunction with County Attorney Vitunac,
he did not feel it was their recommendation that we extend this
out forever. We will wait until the hearing officer makes a
ruling sometime in May, and then bring a recommendation back to
the Board on these parcels. Attorney Sechen wanted to make it
clear that the property owners initiated the action. We would
BOOK "Yo F�1GE 641
MAR 1990 67
MAR 2 � 1990
BOOK �6
1
642
not have the appeal but for the actions of the property owners.
It was not something that was necessary, nor was it something
that we engaged in.
Commissioner Bird thanked Attorney Sechen for a very
thorough review of the appeal process on the D.E.R. permit.
SURVEYING SERVICES FOR EASEMENTS - INSTALLATION OF A SEWER
COLLECTION SYSTEM ON THE WEST SIDE OF U.S. #1 BETWEEN 10TH AND
4TH STREETS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/7/90:
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
MARCH 7, 1990
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL S RVICES
WILLIAM F. McCAI
CAPITAL.PROJECTS'
DEPARTMENT OF UTI SERVICES
SUBJECT: SURVEYING SERVICES FOR EASEMENTS
TO INSTALL A SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
ON THE WEST SIDE OF U.S. #1 BETWEEN
10TH AND 4TH STREETS. IRC PROJECT
NO. US -88 -22 -CCS
BACKGROUND
In the first week of May 1989, the Board of County Commissioners
signed a work authorization with Masteller, Moler and Reed for
engineering services on the above -listed job. On January 30, 1990,
we held a meeting with the affected property owners along the route
of the project. This meeting was held to discuss the owners'
willingness to provide necessary easements as the route of the line
is very tight. As a result of this meeting, some redesign of the
route had to be done. This redesign work has been accomplished, and
we are now ready to have easements prepared for this project.
ANALYSIS
We have negotiated the easement surveys with Masteller, Moler and
Reed at $375.00 per easement survey. As soon as easements are
acquired from the property owners, we can bid the job. Funds for
this job will come from Account No. 472-000-169-067.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached proposal.
68
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved the
proposal from Masteller, Moler and Reed, as set ou.t in
the above staff recommendation, and gave authorization
I to proceed.
COST ESTIMATE FOR EASEMENTS (WHICH INCLUDES AUTHORIZATION TO
PROCEED) IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT_- CHARLES H. HARVEY AND IRC
The Board reviewed the fo_Ilowing memo dated 3/12/90:
DATE: MARCH 12, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL RVICES
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND CHARLES H. HARVEY
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
PREPARED AND WILLIAM F. MCCA
STAFFED BY: CAPITAL PROJECTS E EER
DEPARTMENT OF UT SE VICES
BACKGROUND
Charles Harvey has requested that a temporary service be installed
from the water line on 5th Street, S.W.,. to service his property at
385 38th Square, S.W., Vero Beach, Florida 32968, prior to the
installation of a water main in the Courtside Subdivision.
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide temporary water service to
385 38th Square, S.W., until such time that a water line is
constructed in the Courtside Subdivision. Charles Harvey agrees to
pay all fees required to make this connection. He further agrees to
participate in the assessment and to reconnect to this water line as
required by IRCDUS.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Util-ity Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Charles H.
Harvey on the Consent Agenda.
.MAR 2 0199® s 9 Boa � F,1�� 6 4
MAR 2 0 1990,
BOOK i PAGE
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved the
temporary water service agreement between IRC and
Charles H. Harvey.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
FINAL PAYMENT FOR DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH THE 1400 DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (GROVE ISLE)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/9/90:
DATE: MARCH 9, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA
;��
THRU: TERRANCE G. PIN O
DIRECTOR OF UTI I SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F.c N
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PRO ENGINEER
BY:
SUBJECT: FINAL PAYMENT R THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
WITH THE 1400 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(GROVE ISLE) - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT
NO. CCS -320.
BACKGROUND
On December 12, 1988, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a Developer's Agreement with the 1400
Development Corporation. The Agreement was for the construction of
a sewer force main on U.S. #1 from Grove Isle to Indian River
Boulevard (Phase I), then from U.S. #1 up Indian River Boulevard to
the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant (Phase II). Phase I has been
completed, and we are ready to make final payment to the contractor.
ANALYSIS
The original joint account between the County and the Developer was
set up in the amount of $652,180.35. This amount was for
engineering fees, construction, and a 5% contingency. The original
account amount was based upon the first bid that was received for
the job. The job�-had to be -re -bid; the final bid cost was
$596,953.25. There were two change orders which affected the joint
portion of the job. Change Order No. 1 was for $12,465.00 and was
to cover a jack and bore at Vista Gardens as was required by the
Public Works Department. Change Order No. 2 was for a final
quantity adjustment in the amount of $6,268.88 as a deduct. The
70
r � �
final joint project cost for construction is $603,149.37, making the
final payment from the joint account $82,184.34.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends payment
the amount of $82,184.34 to close out the project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) approved payment
in the amount of $82,184.34 to close out the project,
as recommended by staff.
SCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING - HARRIS SANITATION'S REQUEST FOR
RESIDENTIAL RATE INCREASE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/13/90:
DATE: MARCH 131 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO ` Q,F
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: CINDY E. WHITE
FRANCHISE COORDINATOR
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING HARRIS SANITATION
RESIDENTIAL RATE INCREASE AND INCREASE IN FRANCHISE
FEES FROM ONE PERCENT TO SIX PERCENT ANNUALLY
BACKGROUND:
Harris Sanitation, Inc., is currently seeking a residential rate
increase, in order to offset rising costs and insure a high quality of
service for their customers. In addition, the Department of Utility
Services deems it necessary to increase their franchise fees from a
rate of to to a rate of 6% annually.
ANALYSIS:
In accordance with Section 14 of Resolution No. 82-50 between Indian
River County and Harris Sanitation, any request for a rate increase by
Harris Sanitation must be accompanied by a written justification and
proposed schedule of rates to be charged. A public hearing must also
be held in conjunction with the request.
MAR 2 0199fl 1 600K i9 F11GE 6
_I
BOOK .79 PACE 646
Therefore, a committee made up_ of..Budget- -Director Joseph A. Baird,
Assistant Director of Utility Services Harry E. Asher, and Franchise
Coordinator. Cindy E. White was formed to review all
documentation/ justification submitted by Harris Sanitation in regard
to a rate increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
"T Based upon a careful review of all documentation submitted by Harris
Sanitation, the committee would like to request that the attached
Notice of Public Hearing be published, setting a public hearing date
_-
,;._ of Tuesday, April 3, 1990, at which time all supporting documentation
will be presented for review by the Board of County Commissioners.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) scheduled a
public hearing on Tuesday, April 3, 1990, at 9:05
o'clock A.M. to consider Harris Sanitation's request
for a residential rate increase, as recommended by
staff..
DISCUSSION OF FLUORIDATION ORDINANCE PROPOSED BY THE CITY OF
CFRACTIAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/5/90:
TO: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: March 5, 1990
RE: FLUORIDATION ORDINANCE
The Department of Utility Services and the County Attorney's
Office have reviewed - the - proposed ordinance requested by
Mayor Votapka of the City of Sebastian relating to
fluoridation of all water systems within Indian River
County. The Utility Services Department can propose this
ordinance itself or we can request that Mayor Votapka ask
the County to pass such an ordinance, or the County
Commissioners may initiate it themselves.
Would you please let us know how you wish to proceed?
ua� .
Thank you.
72
Chairman Eggert explained that she put this on the agenda
after Mayor Votapka came to see her about having a county -wide
fluoridation ordinance. Since the County and the City of Vero
Beach already add fluoride to their water systems, it would be a
question of asking General Development Utilities and the other
small water plants to purchase the necessary equipment and go
into fluoridation.
Commissioner Bird recalled the controversy about
fluoridation back when the County began fluoridating the water,
and Utilities Director Terry Pinto didn't know if it was still a
raging matter, but it always seems to be controversial. The
County felt it was the right thing to do, and we implemented it
over a year ago. The City of Vero Beach did it two years before
that. We have not been able to substantiate any claims of health
problems made by the people who have been against it. He
strongly suggested that if we do a county -wide fluoridation, we
limit it to those systems that have over 500 customers.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if we could make them put it in
after the fact, and Director Pinto advised that we do have that
ability and we would not have to go into their franchise
agreement to do it. It is only the Sebastian system that we are
talking about. It does require special equipment and there is
some expense to it, but to a utility the size of GDU or the
County's, it is not a major cost.
Commissioner Bird just wanted to make sure that it wasn't
enough of a cost to make a basis for a rate increase request.
Commissioner Wheeler felt that since the only area that
would be affected is the Sebastian area, then the City of
Sebastian should pass an ordinance requesting GDU to fluoridate.
Director Pinto emphasized that he didn't bring this to the
Board. He is just saying that he agrees that fluoride is the
right thing to do and that is what we are doing. The City of
Sebastian regulates the GDU utility, not the County.
7 3 BOOK � (9
MAR 01990 T
MAR 2 01990
�oo� FF 6L 61-
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent) authorized the
Chairman to write a letter to Mayor Votapka saying
that the County Commission feels that this should be
run through the City of Sebastian.
DRUG ABUSE ACT - SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL OF IRC NAMED AS
DESIGNATED COORDINATOR
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/14/90:
TO: Board of County DATE: March 14, 1990 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Drug Abuse Act
FROM: County commissioner REFERENCES:
I am on the Interim Board of Directors of the Substance
Abuse Council of Indian River County and this group has agreed to
be the coordinating committee for the Anti -Drug Abuse Act which
will recommend the disbursement of $128,506 in Indian River
County.
There is a great deal of public interest and expertise that
exists in the prevention of alcohol and other drug abuses, -as you
can see from the attached membership list, and I would like to
recommend that the Substance Abuse Council of Indian River County
be the designated coordinator.
GCW:jwc
74
� s
_I
Commissioner Wheeler advised that the Sheriff has applied
for the available grant funds for a program at the Jail and the
Clerk has asked for the fiber optics. He is simply recommending
that we name the Substance Abuse Council as the designated
coordinator for the Anti -Drug Abuse Act.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Scurlock being absent), named the
Substance Abuse Council of Indian River County as the
designated coordinator for the Anti -Drug Abuse Act.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT MEETING
--- The Chairman -announced -that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would meet as the 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 11:40 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
el� /, z
Cha i rma
;Vd
AR 01990 � 5 BOOK :` ' F.�,�� 64