HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/12/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1991
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Gary. C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman
Carolyn K. Eggert
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
***************
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9:00 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION -
None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
NO ADDITIONS.
CHAIRMAN BIRD STAMD THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP ITEM 11G
BRFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and placed on file in the office of Clerk
to the Board:
Report of Convictions, Month of February, 1991
Public Facilities Report for year 1991 for Delta
Farms Water Control District.
Public Facilities Report for year 1991 for Fellsmere
Water Control District.
Public Facilities Report for year 1991 for Indian
River Farms Water Control District.
Public Facilities Report for year 1991 for Sebastian
River Water Control District
Annual Financial Report of Units of Local Government
1990 for the Indian River Mosquito Control Dis-
trict, and also:
Copy of Financial Statement Audit for FY ending 9/30/90
BAR 12 199
Lk Of [,.
***
1 AR 12 199
BOOK 82 PAGE Bi"
7. CONSENT AGENDA (continued) :
B. Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector - Occupational License
taxes collected during month of February, 1991
(memorandum dated March 1, 1991)
C. Principal Dale Klaus replacing Mrs. Jean Carter as
School Board's representative on the Recreation Comm.
(letter dated February 22, 1991)
D. Resignation of R. Grant Gilmore from Marine Advisory
Narrows Watershed Action Committee
(letter dated February 22, 1991)
E. Release of Utility Liens
(memorandum dated March 6, 1991)
F. IRC Bid #91-57 / Surplus Sale #1
(memorandum dated February 27, 1991)
G. Final Plat Approval for Indian Oaks Subdivision
(memorandum dated March 5, 1991)
H. Final Plat Approval for St. David's Island S/D, Phase I
(memorandum dated March 5, 1991)
I. Request from Forest Pk. Homeowner's Asso., Inc. to Close
Forest Cay St. on Fri., Apr. 5, 1991 for Block Party
(memorandum dated March 1, 1991)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
RECOMMENDED RATE ORDINANCE AND RATE RESOLUTION
(memorandum dated March 4, 1991)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Purchase of Lots 4 & 5, Block 44 for New Courthouse Site
(memorandum dated March 5, 1991)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Approval of Capital Equip. Purchase - E911 Central
Communications Equipment
(memorandum dated March 5, 1991)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (continued):
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
R -O -W Acquisition / I.R. Blvd. Phase IV
(memorandum dated March 4, 1991)
H. UTILITIES
Engineering Firm Selection - Engineering Design &
Construction Inspection Services for a 1 MGD Sewage
Treatment Plant Expansion for the North County
Wastewater Treatment Plant
(memorandum dated February 27, 1991)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
B. VICE CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER
C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
TMOK
AR 12 199
.d F
r AGE 367��
11AR 12 199
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
BOOK 82 F'AGE
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.
Tuesday, March 12, 1991
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 12, 1991,
at 9:00 a.m. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Carolyn K.
Eggert, Margaret C. Bowman and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Absent was
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler who was out of state on a family
emergency. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Virginia
Hargreaves and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerks.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Bird stated he would like to take up Item 11G before
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioner Wheeler
being absent, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the change to the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
The following were received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board:
Report of Convictions, Month of February, 1991
Public Facilities Report for Year 1991 for Delta Farms Water
Control District
Public Facilities Report for Year 1991 for Fellsmere Water
Control District
Public Facilities Report for Year 1991 for Indian River Farms
Water Control District.
Public Facilities Report for Year 1991 for Sebastian River
Water Control District
Annual Financial Report of Units of Local Government - 1990
for the Indian River Mosquito Control District
Copy of Financial Statement Audit for Year ending 9/30/90
F.1 JE 8D
1AR 12 1991
MAR 12 199
Boot( 82 fAi;E 8 G
B. Occupational License Taxes Collected During the Month of
February, 1991
The Board accepted for the record the following report from
Tax Collector Gene E. Morris:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: March 1, 1991
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $6,981.89 was collected in occupational license
taxes during the month of February 1991, representing the issuance
of 252 licenses.
C. Principal Dale Klaus Replacing Mrs. Jean Carter as School
Board's Representative on the Recreation Committee
The Board reviewed the following letter from Dr. Gary W.
Norris dated February 22, 1991:
Dr. Gary W. Norris
Superintendent
School Boar(
Gene Waddell
Chairman
Sandra Bowden
Vice -Chairman
Joe N. Idlette. Jr.
Member
Gary Lindsey
Member
William L. Marine, Jr
Member
School District of
Indian River Cou,
'A CommUNITY Partnership Toward Educational Excellence"
February 22, 1991
Mr. Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
BUTION LIST
Commissioners f. ►'% G
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community uev.
Utilities
Finance
Other
Dear Commissioner Bird:
Principal Dale Klaus of Thompson Elementary School will be
replacing Mrs. Jean Carter as the School District's representa-
tive on the Recreation Committee as of this date. Notice of
meetings and other mail should be sent to him at his school.
The address is:
1110 18th Avenue, S.W.
Vero Beach, Fl 32962
' /lam
W. Norris
Superintendent
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioner Wheeler being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the appointment of
Principal Dale Klaus to replace Mrs. Jean Carter as the
School District's representative on the Recreation
Committee, as appointed by Superintendent Gary Norris.
D. Resignation of R. Grant Gilmore from Marine Advisory Narrows
Watershed Action Committee
The Board reviewed the following letter from R. Grant Gilmore,
Ph.D. dated February 22, 1991:
HARBOR BRANCH
OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION, INC.
5600 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY
FORT PIERCE, FLORIOA 34946
(407) 465-2400
TELEX 52-2686
FAX (407) 465-2448
22 February 1991
Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman
Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed
Action Committee
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Gary:
I am very disappointed that I have not been able to attend recent
meetings of the Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed Action Committee.
Pressing obligations at Harbor Branch have precluded my participation. I,
therefore, think it best that I resign from the Committee. Dr. M. Dennis
Hanisak can represent Harbor Branch and should prove to be helpful.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve you and the people of Indian
River County.
Best rega
s,
R. Grant Gilmore, Ph.D.
Director, Division of
Coastal, Environmental &
Aquacultural Sciences
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioner Wheeler being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) accepted the resignation of
R. Grant Gilmore from Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed
Action Committee.
3
l . 2 1991
i'C ..:d Fi�uE.8 1 i
MAR 12 1991
BOOK 82 PAGE 8 i
E. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Lea Keller, CLA, dated March 6,
1991:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: March 6, 1991
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 3/12/91
RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
I have prepared the following lien related documents and request that
the Board authorize the Chairman to sign them:
1. Release of Water Liens - SUMMERPLACE
in the names of:
ZIMMERMAN and BROSCHA
2. Satisfaction of Impact Fee in the names of:
McKENZIE, McCORMACK and HESS
3. Release of Sewer Liens NORTH COUNTY
SEWER PROJECT in the names of:
SMITH
MAHALICK/ANDERSON
PORTER/MAKIE
FERRERI
GARETTO (2)
POTTER (3)
HARBOR FEDERAL (POTTER)
TEDORI
NEWHOUSE
GARHART
STANKOWSKI
US#1 NORTH (SYMONS)
DANNER
4. Release of State Road 60 Lien - Lot 42 of KINGSWOOD
5. Release of water lien in CITRUS GARDENS in the name of
MEGILL
6. Release of sewer liens for special assessment on Indian River
Boulevard in the names of:
WHITE, BEAL and SMELTZER
7. Release of water lien in RIVER SHORES in the name of:
LOCHREN (VERO BEACH SHORES) LA PIANA
Additional back-up information is on file in the County Attorney's
Office.
4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioner Wheeler being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the Chairman to
execute the above listed Satisfactions and Releases of
Utility Liens.
SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
F. IRC Bid #91-57 / Surplus Sale #1
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated February 27, 1991:
DATE: February 27, 1991
TO:
THRU:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: IRC Bid #91-57/Surplus Sale #1
BACKGROUND:
The following equipment has been declared surplus to the needs
of Indian River County:
1. Two (2) IBM Typewriters
2. Time Clock
3. RCA Television
4. Secretarial Desk
5. Mica Study Carrel
6. Xerox•D25 Printer
7. Fire Rescue Hale Pump
8. Two (2) Drafting Tables
9. Canon Copy Machine
10. Small'Drafting Table
11. Two (2) Secretarial Desks w/Returns
12. Two (2) Cabinet w/9 Drawers for Microfiche
13. Eleven (11) Cabinets 4 x 6
14. Ford Cab & Chassis 24,000 GVW -Fleet #183
15. Ford Cab & Chassis (Ambulance) -Fleet #704
16. Chevy 1 Ton -Fleet #98
17. International Fire Truck
18. 1981 Dodge Omni -Fleet #158
19. Ford 1/2 Ton Pick Up -Fleet #303
20. Chevy 1/2 Ton -Fleet #339
21. Chevy 1/2 Ton Pick Up -Fleet #341
ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends that authority be granted by the Board of County
Commissioners to declare the above surplus and authorize its sale.
FUNDING:
The monies received from this sale will be returned to the
appropriate accounts.
RECOMMENDATION:
This will be placed on the Surplus Property Sale open to the Public
as per State Statutes.
5
LMIR 12 1991'
Poc 8? FACE 873
t
MAR 12 199
BOOK 8 2 FAGS 8 74
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioner Wheeler being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) declared the above -listed
equipment surplus and authorized its sale.
G. Final Plat Approval for Indian Oaks Subdivision
The Board reviewed memo from Planning Director. Stan Boling
dated March 6, 1991:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
�.e7K,r , "// / • Lit.! A.►
Robert M. Keat g, P
Community Developme ����Diirector
THROUGH: Stan Boling;�AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Christopher D. Rison Gald
DATE: March 5, 1991
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR INDIAN OAKS SUBDIVISION
SD -90-05-05
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 12, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Indian Oaks is a proposed 39 lot residential subdivision of a ±14.4
acre parcel of land located in the 4600 block of 4th Street, north
of 4th Street and west of 43rd Avenue. The subject property is
zoned RS -3, Single Family Residential up to 3 units per acre and
has an L-1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units per acre) land
use designation. The proposed density for the project is 2.7 units
per acre; and all roads, drainage and utilities easements and
facilities are to be dedicated to the County.
At its regular meeting of March 8, 1990, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the subdivision.
A land development permit was subsequently issued and improvements
were constructed. The owners, Julin Construction Corporation and
Laird Construction and Development Corporationlare now requesting
final plat approval and have submitted the following:
1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat;
2. a copy of the project Certificate of Completion issued by the
Public Works Department;
3. a Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and Bill of Sale for the
performance of the completed, publicly dedicated improvements;
4. an engineer's certified cost estimate for the' constructed
required improvements (basis for figuring the security amount
for warranty/maintenance); and
5. a security instrument to guarantee the Warranty/Maintenance
Agreement, acceptable to the County Attorney's Office.
6
ANALYSIS:
The required improvements have been constructed by the developers.
The developers have submitted a Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and
suitable security approved by the County Attorney's Office to
guarantee the performance of the completed improvements. The
developers have effectively satisfied the requirements for final
plat approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for the Indian Oaks Subdivision and accept the
submitted Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and posted security.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioner Wheeler being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) granted Final Plat Approval
for Indian Oaks Subdivision and accepted the
Warranty/Maintenance Agreement as recommended by staff.
SAID DOCUMENTS WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
H. Final Plat Approval, St. David's Island Subdivision, Phase I
The Board reviewed memo from Planning Director Stan Boling
dated March 5, 1991:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM:
DATE:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
6 " •4K '
Robert -M. eatin, AIC
Community Developmenttirector
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
Christopher D. Rison
March 5, 1991
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR ST. DAVID'S ISLAND SUBDIVISION
(Phase I)
PRD -86-11-07
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 12, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
St. David's Island (Phase I) is a proposed 48 lot residential
subdivision of a ±6.1 acre parcel of land located in Pod "G" of the
Grand Harbor Development. The project phase is in conformance with
the approved Grand Harbor D.R.I. and conceptual PRD plan. The
subject property is zoned RM -6, Multi -Family Residential up to 6
units per acre and has an M-1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to
8 units per acre) land use designation. The proposed density for
the Phase I area is 8 units per acre, although the density of the,
overall project is ±4 units per acre. All roads, drainage and
utilities easements and facilities are to be dedicated to the St.
David's Island Property Owners' Association. This project is being
reviewed under the old LDRs as a part of the Grand Harbor Planned
Residential Development (PRD).
7
NAR 12 1991
voor 82 mE8 5
1
MAR 12 1991
BOOK 82 PEE 8;'6
At its regular meeting of September 24, 1987, the Planning and
Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the
subdivision. A land development permit was subsequently issued and
improvements were constructed. The owner, St. David's Island at
River Harbor, 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 copy of the project Certificate of Completion issued by the
Public'Works Department;
ANALYSIS:
The required improvements have been constructed by the developer.
The developer has effectively satisfied the requirements for final
plat approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for the St. David's Island Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioner Wheeler being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) granted Final Plat Approval
for St. David's Island Subdivision (Phase I) as
recommended by staff.
I. Request From Forest Park Homeowners' Association, Inc., to
Close Forest Cay Street for Block Party
The Board reviewed memo from Public works Director James Davis
'dated March 1, 1991:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Request from Forest Park Homeowner's Association
Inc. to close Forest Cay Street on Friday,
April 5, 1991 for Block Party
REF. LETTER: C.B. Keck, to Board of County Commissioners
dated February 26, 1991
DATE: March 1, 1991 FILE: forest.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Residents in Forest Park Subdivision have requested
permission to close a portion of the Forest Cay Street for
their annual block party. The party is scheduled to
commence at 4:00 PM and end at approximately 9:00 PM. Staff
has not objection to this request, provided that:
8
1) Proper barricades as permitted by the Traffic
Engineering Division are installed.
2) A block representative be listed as a contact person in
charge of the event in case the road needs to be
opened.
3) Access to emergency vehicles be maintained.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff has considered this request and has no objections.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval. No funding is applicable.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioner Wheeler being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) granted permission to close
Forest Cay Street on Friday, April 5, 1991 with the
conditions recommended by staff.
PURCHASE OF LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 44, FOR NEW COURTHOUSE SITE
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Administrator
Randy Dowling dated March 5, 1991:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 5, 1991 FILE:
THRU: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
Purchase of Lots 4 & 5,
SUBJECT: Block 44 for New
Courthouse Site
Randy Dowling
FROM: Asst. to County AdministratoiEFERENCES:
BACKGROUND
The Board, during its December 18, 1990 regular meeting, approved the new
courthouse site and authorized staff to proceed with land acquisition. The
Board approved and executed Bernice Meyer's (Lots 12 & 13, Block 44), Dave
Whitfield's (Lot 3, Block 414), and Janice Diggs' (Lot 10, Block 45) Option
Agreements during its February 19, 1991 regular meeting. The Board also
approved and executed Ed Schlitt's (Lots 1 & 2, Block 45), Ennis & Gay
Proctor's (Lot 3.1, B lock 45) , and Bernard & Norma Tedeson's (Lot 13.1,
Block 45) Option Agreements during its March 5, 1991 regular meeting. The
proposed courthouse site consists of 15 parcels and 13 property owners.
9
'MAR 12 1991 _
[lOOK F E j 1 6
MR 12 199
BOOK 8, FALJE
CURRENT
James & William Harshbarger, owners of Lots 4 & 5, Block 44, have signed an
Option Agreement to sell their property for $120,000. This price is
consistent with the acquisition budget. This property is being acquired
according to Chapter 73 F.S. and the Resolution of Condemnation.
Therefore, a notice and public hearing are not required. However, the
property owners have requested a "like -kind" exchange as an IRS tax benefit
to them. The County Attorney's Office has indicated that the County would
not incur any expense concerning this request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board approve JamesandWilliam Harshbarger's Option
Agreement and authorize the Board Chairman to execute the agreement and all
other necessary related documents.
Administrator Chandler explained that the price of $120,000
for acquisition of this property is over appraisal but well within
our budget.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
James and William Harshbarger's Option Agreement and
authorized the Chairman to execute the agreement and all
other necessary related documents as recommended by
staff .
SAID DOCUMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
APPROVAL OF CAPITAL EOUIPMENT PURCHASE - E911 CENTRAL COMMUNICA-
TIONS EOUIPMENT
The Board reviewed memo from Deputy Director John King dated
March 5, 1991:
TO: Board of Daunty,Commissioners
THROUGH: Doug Wright; Director
Department of Emergency Services
FROM: John. King, Deputy Director
Department of Emergency Services
DATE: March 5, 1991
SUBJECT: Approval of Capital Equipment Purchase -
E911 Central Communications Equipment
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next scheduled meeting.
10
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Staff has received information from Southern Bell that a telephone
communications upgrade for Indian River County is presently being
implemented. This upgrade uses a new digital technology in which
the transmission medium uses digital pulses rather that analog
electrical signals. Present communications technology in this
county incorporates electrical impulses (DC continuity) over
metallic communications lines. The Southern Bell upgrade will use
optic -fiber lines, which will not effectuate DC electrical
impulses.
While the emergency services agencies have tried to gradually
upgrade emergency communications as needed, Southern Bell has
advised staff that their program will interrupt our current DC
communications links as soon as April 1, 1991. I1uch of our newer
communication systems will not be affected. But, one primary
notification system located between the.911 Center and the Vero
Beach Airport that will be totally non-functional when the transfer
to optic -fiber communications occurs.
To preclude any interruption in E911 service, the following
equipment needs to be purchased per GSA Contract to replace the
Direct Current (DC) lines now in service:
QUANTITY EQUIPMENT PRICE TOTAL
1 Ranger Wall Mount Station $3,345.25
with Battery Backup
1 Antenna System 446.00
1 Tone Remote w/Encoder 968.00
1 Decoder - Station #3 169.00
1 .Decoder - Communications Center 169.00
1 Labor (Airport) 645.00
2 St Blocks 2.80 5.60
1 Labor - Install & Adapt Station #3 157.50
l..___._____.__ _Labor Install at Comm Center 210.00
1 Display & Parts at Comm Center 80.00
GRAND TOTAL .. $6,195.35
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The communications link between the 911 Center and the Vero Beach
Tower is a system that is more than fifteen (15) years old and does
not have the potential to be modified as does newer communications
equipment.
Existing agreements and Airport funding bind the emergency services
agencies to provide immediate response onto the Airport in a manner
more timely than can be accomplished if the Vero Beach Tower staff
were to communicate by telephone to the two 911 PSAP's. The
emergency response crews, which are tested by the FAA annually,
must reach the mid -point of the airfield in less than three (3)
minutes from the time of a declared emergency event.
11
Pulr 12 1991
s
P00K PGE 8 /�
Pr-
V'AR 12 199,
BOOK 0 F'AGE
Staff has researched possible replacement communications equipment
and is recommending reusing all reconfigurable existing equipment.
Staff recognizes that non -budgeted capital expenditures are
necessary to reinstate the communications link. Staff proposes to
keep all existing transceivers and encoders in place. The expense
stated above will provide the necessary equipment needed to
transmit the emergency notifications between the E911 Center, the
communication repeaters, and the Vero Beach Tower. Generally
speaking, those emergency transmissions that are presently being
sent over dedicated metallic communication lines will now be
transmitted over radio frequencies through directional antennae.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the
purchase of the necessary communications equipment in the amount of
$6,195.35. The funding for the equipment is available in the E911
Communications budget in account #133. Given the advance notice
from Southern Bell occurred after the start of the current fiscal
year, the immediate purchase and installation of equipment that can
interface with digital pulses is required to preclude interrupted
service prior to April 1, 1991.
Staff also recommends approval of the necessary budget amendment as
well as purchase and installation of the communications equipment
from Communications International, Inc., at existing GSA prices.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
the purchase and installation of the necessary
communications equipment in the amount of $6,195.35, and
approved Budget Amendment Number 030.
l;-.
TO: Members of the Board SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
NUMBER: 030
DATE: March 6, 1991
Entry ;
Number; Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
911 SURCHARGE
Communication Equipment
120-133-519-066.45
$
6,196
Reserve for Contingencies
L
120-133-581-099.91,$ 0
$ 6,196
ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION - ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTION SERVICES FOR A ONE -MGD SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated February 27, 1991:
12
DATE:
TO:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FEBRUARY 27, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILI YJ SERVICES
STAFFED AND HARRY E. ASHER41
PREPARED BY: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION
ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
SERVICES FOR A 1 MGD SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Utility Services received eleven (11) responses
to its request for Proposal to provide engineering services for the
above -referenced project. The selection committee reviewed the 11
(11) responses and selected four'(4) firms to be interviewed for the
project.
ANALYSIS:
On February. 27, 1991, the selection committee interviewed the four
(4) firms and, as a result of the interviews, ranked the firms as
follows:
1. Masteller, & Moler Associates, Inc.
2. Professional Engineering Consultants
3. HNTB
4. BCM Engineers, Inc.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the Department of Utility Services to
conduct negotiations and to proceed with an agreement with the first
choice firm of Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc., based upon the
outcome of the negotiations. The Department also requests approval
to proceed with negotiations with the subsequent ranked firms if
negotiations fail with the No. 1 ranked firm.
Commissioner Scurlock questioned Utility Department Director
Pinto as to whether we want to proceed with an engineering firm
selection in light of the fact that Sebastian may or may not opt
out of the North County; if we do get a negative response we would
not expand that facility, we would just use current capacity.
13
MAR 12 1991
L.
ROOK 82 F'ta 881
MAR 121991
nc `,
BOOK
PACE C9j
Director Pinto suggested we proceed and even negotiate the
contract but not give any award to proceed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
the Utility Department's request to proceed with
negotiations but made it explicitly clear that funds
would not be spent until the decision is made about
whether Sebastian is to be included in the North County
Wastewater plan.
RIGHT OF WAY ACOUISITION / INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PHASE IV
Public Works Director James Davis, with the aid of aerial
photographs, made the following presentation:
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.,C
Public Works Director .per
Terry B. Thompson, P.E. --�f-r✓�
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition
Indian River Boulevard Phase IV
Parcel 111
DATE: March 4, 1991
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
County Staff extended an offer to Martin A. Gregory and Richard
B. Wiggins as Trustees for the purchase of Parcel 111 on December
17, 1990. Compensation was offered in the amount of $22,000 for
2.41 acres based on a recent appraisal.
Parcel 111.consisting of 2.09 acres of right-of-way and a .32
acre remainder west of the right-of-way, is located just north of
Barber Avenue (37th Street). This parcel is needed for the Phase
IV extension of Indian River Boulevard from Barber Avenue to 53rd
Street. The remainder to the west is necessary to provide a safe
intersection at Barber Avenue and Indian River Boulevard
unimpacted by driveway access to the small remaining parcel (.32
acres) and also for stormwater management purposes.
Parcel 111. is the only parcel remaining to be acquired within the
Boulevard Right -of -Way between SR 60 and 53rd Street. The
alignment of the Boulevard through this parcel was controlled by
the geometric design required to link Phase III and Phase IV
construction and was recommended by County Consultants Lloyd and
Associates,. Inc. and Glace and Radcliff, Inc. after considering
alternative alignments.
The final alignment of the Phase III extension of Indian River
Boulevard from SR 60 to Barber Avenue (37th Street) was approved
by the Board of County Commissioners on March 20, 1990 for the
following reasons:
14
1. Least environmentally damaging
2. Requires least amount of mitigation
3. Most cost effective
4. Geometrically adequate
5. Availability of alternate routes
6. Long range plans for the area
7. Safety considerations
The north end of Phase III construction just south of Barber
Avenue, was located as far west as possible to an upland
alignment to minimize filling of environmentally sensitive lands.
The western limit was controlled by an existing Medical Center
and by good geometric design.
The County has met the requirements of all the regulatory
agencies and all of the permits required for Phase III and Phase
IV construction have been issued or are forthcoming.
More than thirty days has elapsed since Martin A. Gregory and
Richard B. Wiggins received the County's offer to purchase Parcel
111. As of this date the County has not received a written
response from them or their attorney, Michael O'Haire, Esq.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that motions be made to:
1. Approve the Phase IV Indian River Boulevard roadway
alignment and 200 foot wide right-of-way width through the
parent tract of Parcel 111 as shown on the official boundary
survey (copy attached).
2. Adopt the attached resolution and file Eminent Domain
proceedings for a quick take of Parcel 111 including
right-of-way and necessary remainder. Funding is from
Indian River Boulevard North Right -of -Way,. account
41309-214-541-066.12.
SCALE I'• SO'
tom. QESCeIPTK;Ij
PARCEL 9111
U...., WI...... • Ivo 04 M h ..1 . '144
.I tN.l•w fP. •f ••,...ywl. l '1. ' ..•.s. M I At..Y ...
• ••..•J0 -I •141440 I* ..44144 11.71 • 41ot144o. 40 •40.4••••1 14 •
Mewl. 4.....a
•
..00.01 M-.. 9...11.1 ..r' 4.. .t.\ Y 4. t•w tt. .1
/.44.44 43. • . ..1. et 10.00 0.0 N a.. NMI* Isom 041400
saw\ 4. 001.410/011*1110.
}.44 twt..M •�..•Ol 70.2 1.4.10 foot •0 . M..: .1 t.. oast
..N.• t4Y1•o 41M .I.If:....
• 14.0 *est..* N.0•w7'b 4 M3..0 •wt ......to ••••
Itw .1 None. Pt.. .4w1..f.. M1... *ow
(td a1..4 .w..... 4.4t .... 144.0. a A .0*....wt •. • moot
\ �tT •NO to w to
two soot Ant w.. Now. row
•
\•• 137.01.474 'r..9 I*to 0w..w « of N
o. sow .
\ i N �s 0•..44 saw.. •wow •.w
\\t il 9 N.•.. 9A....... ow.*294•710 N.:.aP: .
e` WNy soil . 1...1 .w I.e.. now •: A..
` 1 \ 0 �. 11...44.
w q
is 141 • .
\�. •(av
."♦
Pl a•
9\.. \ a.
a1 \, _ �_�,, \ JJ'.
�tjl - 2.09 As.... - X. ct..
•072 A.�`�OJ 4.
qa.?s t•
rJ,
1
3 7 1 A
666 49'
1 .1 . •.4
11,4
SJRVFIYOR'S CERTIFICATION_
COerl.i A .o.no.. a.ree, 41.41,13 IMM 1047 17t.Ri 4011
4.141 an lt.0 ., 03nd .oder 11 .G44d.et0 s.0+.:1•}'M. •0
Itcswd4rcs ors 'to pme\1a1/ 0 Cm:4w 2:1.•..6 al
0114 Porto* 44mn..t•d11w Ce.h, p4nwdet t6 CEdPlIf
iT2 M toe inns. Etd.t.t
:•mr4ss i C•..... P I.5 U 444.1
•144 .:M [. `Iry 6•eel. at i?.A.1
•1,. as ... O.
•
MAR 12 1991
104.9111090 Sq PI
a
• r••:r .:T,i.
STREET
44' JO" w
26176'
499.46'
20.36' $626.
39. .10"
•
MITE-
Sraroeps are Jass4 or Ala n,M.0/•447
Sures 01 Andres River lieal.rero esteems*
Aware(' !T Carter O 411000111 oat 4 lI.1.10
DI:RYEY!0 444 AND CERTIFIED *YO:
THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EOAR0 OF COMNISSIONERS
ATTO1r.E71 TITLE cj$194ANCt FIRO
RI Af'M71rlt. MAI AER. FAir EI.t. AND MOON . L6f. ;•1-rs,: m
15
• It1�1T � ..... ar
SURVEY _ •
AhS/I: -Cf' 144.. 7..113
944C(L .* ; •
0714k pIYf7 Bt`:•L.:-' L. .-4.11...x..
'° tai
POOK FADE 8.Seu
IIAR 12 1991
BOOK 82 FADE 8 4
Director Davis added that in addition to the County
considering alternate routes, the State of Florida DOT and Corps of
Engineers have considered alternate routes but it has been
determined that the route before the Board today is the recommended
route and meets the objectives of the project. In developing
alignment, Staff also considered long-range planning, environmental
impacts, and land uses through the corridor as well as safety.
This route has met the requirements of all regulatory agencies, and
the mitigation plan of Phase III is also associated with Phase IV.
Director Davis believed that until yesterday there had been no
counteroffer from the owners but noted that the attorney for the
owners, Michael O'Haire, was present to speak to the Board.
Staff is also recommending the additional acquisition of an
area to the west of the two hundred foot corridor that we are
considering today for a number of reasons: (1) improve stormwater
management in that area; (2) we can use that area for the location
of a traffic signal control in the future when traffic warrants
signalization; (3) it is such a small triangular parcel and we want
to avoid a demand for access at that location since it is an
intersection of an arterial route and a collector route, so there
is a safety consideration.
Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board and stated he
represents the owners of Parcel 111 who also own two hundred fifty
acres of land on the riverfront adjacent to Parcel 111. Mr.
O'Haire noted that his letter had an attachment, a letter from
Indian River County Board of Realtors, which was two years old, in
which that agency offered a price of $100,000 per acre for the same
land that the County now is offering something less than $11,000
per acre. Mr. O'Haire stressed that this is not a counteroffer to
the County's offer but merely to bring to the Board's attention the
fact that an offer from the Board of Realtors is not something off
the wall. Mr. O'Haire also reminded the Board that the taking of
forty acres to the south of this parcel, which he believed is
called Parcel 110, is now on appeal based on the issue of
necessity. He requested that before the Board adopts the proposed
resolution his clients be afforded the opportunity to talk about
possible alternatives both north and south of Barber Street because
he felt nothing would be lost but a little time and since staff
works within constraints and the ultimate decisions are made by the
Board, his clients urged him to appear before the Board and ask for
a meeting to go over the possibility of some alternatives.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if anything had changed; is there
a new proposal on the property or is it the same old rehash.
16
Attorney O'Haire indicated that rather than alternates to the
alignment, the discussion would be regarding alternates to the
mitigation that has been recommended for dredge and fill activities
because his clients own so much land and mitigation is as important
to the property owners in the future as it is for the County.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested Director Davis should address
the issue.
Director Davis believed there had been some communication
regarding Mr. O'Haire's clients' counteroffer to, perhaps, make
available some alternate mitigation site and he asked if that would
mean total abandonment of the original plan proposed for
impoundment Number Two.
Mr. O'Haire indicated it might be partial or total
abandonment. His clients have an open mind, but they don't think
all of the property in the original plan is needed because the
parcel in question is high and dry riverfront and is very valuable
property whereas there is 250 acres to the north that is a little
bit damper.
Director Davis felt there would be lengthy delays involved
with such a change, possibly a year or more, since in the
permitting of the project the County has gone through a laborious
program with Florida DER, the Army Corp of Engineers and many other
permitting agencies that have review status on those permits. The
project is very close to going to bid and a change of this
magnitude would certainly set the schedule for implementing the
Phase III section of the Boulevard into the future. It would be
very difficult to judge whether that would be six months or a year.
In addition, the County has already purchased and filed
condemnation on Parcel 103, which is the parcel south of the parcel
under discussion, and we are in the midst of entering into a
management plan with the Indian River Development Mosquito Control
District, with permits in hand that have been very difficult to
acquire. It would also change the design of the project.
Commissioner Scurlock asked whether the permits that we
currently have would still be valid.
Director Davis replied they would have to be modified.
Attorney O'Haire requested an opportunity to discuss the
timing issue.
Commissioner Eggert asked why Mr. O'Haire is addressing this
issue now, when we have been going through this for what seems like
seven ages.
Attorney O'Haire replied dialogue has been ongoing and the
different aims of the property owners involved have impeded
tremendously the resolution of the problem. However, in terms of
17
MAR 12 199
POOK FACE 885
Pr -
MAR i2 1991
BOOK: 82 FAGE 886
time, the granting of permits for his clients' property by the DER,
the lead agency, before the County acquired the property, is now on
appeal in the First District Court of Appeal and with the appeal
pending as to whether his clients' property is required and the
extent to which it may be or may not be required, together with the
permit issue, he thought it would take a fair amount of courage on
the County's part to go in and start tearing up his client's
property when the issue is still in the Courts. He thought that
the timing is not going to be radically different in revisiting the
lead permitting agency, namely, the DER, as in going through the
judicial process. He asked what is there to lose except an hour or
two in terms of discussing alternatives.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that an hour or two is
different than one or two years.
Attorney O'Haire stated we will be in the Courts for one or
two years.
Assistant County Attorney Collins stated that discussion or
negotiation can go on whether there is a Resolution to go with
eminent domain or not. Whatever discussions Mr. O'Haire wants to
have with any member of the Board would have to come back to the
full Board and it would probably require Staff review to see what
impact it would have on permits of whatever we already have. He
doesn't think that we gain anything by delaying this Resolution
today, other than if these negotiations should fall apart we've
just lost that much time. Negotiations can go on while the order
of taking is being filed by the Court Proceedings. They can always
be settled. In fact, Mr. O'Haire has just suggested that even
though another parcel is in the District Court of Appeal there's
still potential for settlement. Attorney Collins urged the Board
to go ahead today with the Resolution and, if they wish, begin
these negotiations. Part of our problem is we have never had any
written counterproposal to deal with or to give the Board
recommendations.
Commissioner Eggert asked how the status of the actual
building of the road is affected by any or all of that.
Director Davis replied it is affected in both Phase III and
Phase IV of the project in that the Corps has requested that we
merge the two phases together for the Corps' permit so we have one
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit issued for both Phase III and
Phase IV Boulevard Extension Project
understanding that perhaps the DER is not
and
the
it's been
lead agency.
his
It
appears that the Corps of Engineers takes a much more aggressive
stance on some of the wetland
particularly the EPA.
18
mitigation opportunities,
Commissioner Eggert asked, if the Resolution was approved
today, can you or can you not go ahead and build the road with what
is going on in the Court.
Attorney Collins answered you can. He went on further to say
there was a hearing several weeks ago where one of the other
property owners, Mr. Hoffman, appealed to the Judge for a stay on
any proceedings with respect to the Boulevard while that was under
appeal. The stay was denied, primarily because of the case put
forth by the County on the need for the Boulevard. We fully intend
that, if we go out for construction bid on Phase III, that there
will be minimal disturbance to any of those lands under appeal
until we get a final determination from the District Court of
Appeals.
Commissioner Eggert wanted to clarify this is not a right-of-
way problem but rather a mitigation issue.
Attorney O'Haire responded that's exactly right. We are not
involved with right-of-way issues.
Chairman Bird asked if the Resolution passes and if we were to
agree to have another meeting with Mr. O'Haire and his clients, who
would be the proper cast of characters to have at that meeting and
Chairman Bird specifically asked Mr. O'Haire if his clients have a
specific alternative proposal to make that would be presented at
that meeting with the right authority there to make decisions.
Attorney O'Haire advised that he can make the right people
from the property owner's perspective to be present at any meeting.
Chairman Bird asked who from the permitting agencies or
consultants would need to be there in order to make decisions.
Director Davis indicated that to resolve an alternate
mitigation plan, it would be necessary to include all permitting
agencies that participate in the Governor's Subcommittees on
Managing Marshes in addition to the Corps of Engineers' review
agencies. They all were originally involved to try to adopt a plan
that is amenable to them plus meets the objectives of the County.
Attorney O'Haire commented he has a problem because there are
twelve federal and state agencies and to have them all represented
not only would be physically impossible, it would be
counterproductive and he felt there is no point in his talking to
the Board anymore if that's the obstructive approach that's going
to be taken.
Chairman Bird noted that he would be happy to sit down and
meet with Mr. O'Haire but it wouldn't do any good to have his
planning people say the plan is fine because unless it is
approvable by the various permitting agencies and our engineers and
our staff, the Chairman's opinion would not be worth anything.
19
MAR 12 199
(OOK 8 2 PAGE',
MAR 12 1991
GOOK 82 PAH 88
Attorney O'Haire stated that what is needed would be
consulting engineers there to give you an opinion as to what may or
may not be possible in terms of modifications, and that's all.
County Administrator Chandler stressed all we have had to go
through to get to this point and that in any modification we would
have to go through each of those twelve agencies again. It is a
question of timing and the Commission would have to face the
question of what effect that would have on Phase III. Are we
looking at six months, or a year? We would have to go back and see
the impact as to time.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that could jeopardize the entire
project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board (4-0) unanimously approved
the Phase IV alignment and 200 feet right-of-way through
Parcel 111 as recommended by staff and adopted Resolution
91-30, Declaring the Acquisition of a Right -of -Way for
the extension of Indian River Boulevard a public
necessity.
20
RESOLUTION NO. 91-30.
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 (37TH
STREET) TO 53RD STREET, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE A PUBLIC NECESSITY;
AND DECLARING THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST TO LIMIT THE RISING COSTS TO
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY ACQUIRING A
NECESSARY REMAINDER; AND AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND A
NECESSARY REMAINDER.
WHEREAS, for the purposes of relieving traffic
congestion and providing alternate roadway routes within
Indian River County; and
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 (37th Street) to 53rd Street; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid acquisitionis 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 (37th Street) to 53rd Street; 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 real property that Indian River County
requires for the needed right-of-way is described in Exhibit
One (1) A and a necessary remainder is described in Exhibit
One (1) B attached hereto and by reference incorporated
herein; and
WHEREAS, limiting the rising costs to Indian River
County is a public purpose and without that limitation the
viability of many public projects will be threatened; and
21
MAS 12 1991 _
rAck
ci
• MAR 12 1991
BOOK
FADE bb
WHEREAS, based in part upon an initial offering
appraisal and other information available, the cost to Indian
River County in acquiring the property described in Exhibits
One (1) A and One (1) B may be equal to or less than the cost
of acquiring the property described in Exhibit One (1) A; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of Indian River
County to acquire the property described in Exhibits One (1)
A and One • (1) B if, based in part upon an initial offering
appraisal and other information available, the cost of
acquiring the property described in Exhibits One (1) A and One
(1) B will be equal to or less than acquiring the property
described in Exhibit One (1) A; and
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. The acquisition of the fee simple absolute
title in the parcels of real property described in Exhibits
One (1) A and One (1) B is hereby found and determined to be
necessary for the aforesaid reasons, uses, and purposes.
3. Upon determination of the County Administrator
that the cost in acquiring the property described in Exhibits
One (1) A and One (1) B is equal to or less than the cost of
acquiring the property described in Exhibit One (1) A, the
County Attorney, his assistant, or designee is authorized to
acquire property described in Exhibits One (1) A and One
(1) B.
4. 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
22
described in Exhibits One (1) A and One (1) B. In acquiring
the property described in Exhibits One (1) A and One (1) B,
the County Attorney, his assistant, or designee is authorized
and directedto 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.
5. 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 Scurlock 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 Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Absent
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted at public meeting this 12 day of
March , 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
23
MAR 1 2 1991
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Indian Hirer Ca
Approved
Dale
Admin.
}ffc
3/ i /7//
Legal
it.; --"'e C
iaj it}
Budget
�C'` )�
? c.�`
'
Dept
(''7'J�'G✓ '
Citil
Risk Mgr.
�L
i6/yj
ROOK' F°wt 8
MAR 12 1991
EXHIBIT "1-A"
Legal Description
RIGHT-OF-WAY •
BOOK 82 FADE 892
Commence at a railroad spike reported to be the South 1
corner of Section 25, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, and
run along the section line N89°44'30"E 906.87 feet to a
concrete monument. Then run
N44°56'05"W 77.35 feet to a point in the North line of
Barber Street and POINT OF BEGINNING. Then run
N44°56'05"W 234.99 feet to a point Tying 686.49 feet East of
the West line of the SE* of Section 25. Then run
N00°03'30"W, parallel with the said West line of the SE* of
Section 25, 283.48 feet to a point. Then run
S44°56'05"E 408.64 feet to a point. Then run
S53°01'45"E 264.45 feet to a point in the North line of
Barber Street. Then run
S89°44'30"W 333.65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 2.09 acres, lying in Indian River County,
Florida.
EXHIBIT "1-B"
Legal Description
REMAINDER
Commence at a railroad spike reported to be the South
corner of Section 25, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, and
run along the section line N89°44'30"E 686.49 feet to a
point. Then run
N00°03'30"W, parallel with the West line of the SEk of said
section, 55.00 feet to the North line of Barber Street and
the POINT OF BEGINNING. Then run
N00°03'30"W 167.10 feet to a point. Then run
S44°56'05"E 234.99 feet to a point in the North line of
Barber Street. Then run
Along the North line S89°44'30"W 165.81 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Containing 0.32 acres, lying in Indian River County,
Florida.
24
RECOMMENDED RATE ORDINANCE AND RATE RESOLUTION
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to
wit:
•
•
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Pubiishyed Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a yit
in the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
/9f/
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this �/J day of � . 19 91
(SEAL)
•
(Business Manager)
(Gt@rk of the Circuit Court. Indian_Bfver_County -Florida) _._
C — NOTICE .—
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
• River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of
a Public Hearing scheduled for 9:05 A.M. on
• Tuesday, March 12, 1991, to discuss a proposed
ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 24-31
THROUGH SECTION 24-67 OF THE CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR DEFINI-
TIONS; CONNECTION WITH WATER SYSTEM
REQUIRED; CONNECTION WITH SEWER SYS-
TEM REQUIRED; SEWER CONNECTIONS RE-
QUIRE COUNTY WATER;TO
CONNECTIONS; CONNECTIONS EXCEPTIONS MAY BE
MADE BY COUNTY; EQUIVALENT RESIDEN-
TIAL UNITS; RATES AND CHARGES; IMPACT
FEES; EXTENSION OF WATER AND SEWER
SERVICES WITHIN DEVELOPMENTS; EXTEN-
SION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWER
SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTS; EXISTING
AGREEMENTS;
AAWFULL CONSTRUCTION; CONNECTING EX-
ISTING PLUMBING: MAINTENANCE OF PLUMB-
ING SYSTEM; PAYMENT OF FEES AND BILLS
REQUIRED; COLLECTION OF SEWER FEES;
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PLUMBING SYSTEM;
, NO SERVICE FREE; SEPARATE
FOR EACH SEPARATE UNIT; WATERE/SEWER
FEES -COUNTY MAY BILL
TILOLPRO
WNERS-
TENANT;WATER
CHARGES ON NEW CONSTRUCTION AC-
COUNTS; DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE FOR
NON-PAYMENT, FEE FOR RESTORING SER-
VICES, PENALTY FOR TAMPERING WITH
WATER VVITH
FUNDS; PERM METER, CHECREQUIRED TO DFl WFICIENT WAT R
FROM FIRE HYDRANTS; PROHIBITION
AGAINST IPMENT; REQUIRED
INSTALLATION AOF BACK GING UFLOW PREVENTION
DEVICES; POWER AND AUTHORITY OF IN-
SPECTORS; DISCHARGE OF WATER IN
SEWERS; PROHIBITING DISCHARGE OF
WASTE AND WATERSTHE
COUNTY SEWERAGE SYSTEM;INTO WATER
SHORTAGE CONDITIONS; WELLS. AND LAWN
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS; AREAS IN WHICH OR-
DINANCE TO BE EFFECTIVE; PENALTIES AND
ENFORCEMENT; REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; INCORPORATION IN CODE; SEV-
ERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure made, which that a I Includes testimm record of ony e proceed-
ings d evi-
dence upon which the appeal Is based.
Feb. 20, 1991 771097
Chairman Bird announced that staff would make their
presentation and then he would open the public hearing.
25
MAS 12 1991
R001(
2 Q (�� v
r''VL 8 it.)
i2 1991
BOOK PAGE 80
DATE: MARCH 4, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES
STAFFED AND HARRY E. ASHER
PREPARED BY: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED RATE ORDINANCE AND RATE RESOLUTION
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Utility Services' previous revision of rates was in
1984. The Department believes it has operated very efficiently to be
able to keep rates at the same level for seven years.
On January 2, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
Department's implementation of study and review of the County Utility
rates and charges. On April 3, 1990, the Board approved the
Department's proposed Agreement with CH2M Hill to Furnish Economic and
Financial Services to perform a complete study and review of the
Utility Ordinance and Rates and Charges.
ANALYSIS:
On May 14, 1990, a public workshop was held to solicit input from the
public sector concerning the current Utility Ordinance and Rates and
Charges. CH2M Hill, along with Department Staff, reviewed and
considered each of the concerns expressed at the public workshop as it
related to the existing Rate Ordinance and/or policy of the Department.
A subsequent public workshop was held on February 12, 1991, at which a
report was given as to how each of the concerns was addressed or the
reason why it was not addressed in the Proposed Rate Ordinance and Rate
Resolution.
CH2M Hill reviewed in depth all aspects of the utilities historical,
current and forecasted records, financial data, flow data, and all
other pertinent records required in the completion of their study.
Each of the provisions of Ordinance 84-18, which govern most of the
policies of the administration of the County's water and wastewater
utility, as well as the rate and fee schedules, were reviewed in
detail. CH2M Hill, in cooperation with County Staff, has prepared a
recommended Ordinance and Rate Resolution that would together replace
Ordinance 84-18. Both the recommended Ordinance and Resolution contain
elements reflecting conclusions from the public workshops on rates and
fees. The recommended Ordinance includes many of the policies
established in the 1984 Ordinance, as well as provisions designed to
improve the Utility's operation. The Rate Resolution includes the
recommended schedule of rates and fees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval and
adoption of the recommended Rate Ordinance and Rate Resolution as
submitted, subject to any further information received at the public
hearing, with an effective date of April 1, 1991.
26
Utilities Director Terry Pinto reported that last April, 1990,
the Board authorized staff to hire the firm of CH2M Hill to make a
comprehensive analysis of the utilities rate structure and the
ordinance that is used in the operation of utilities. We had two
public hearings on staff level and we received a lot of input from
concerned citizens and customers of the utility system and we hope
we have addressed all those concerns with the ordinance and the
rate structure. Director Pinto introduced Mr. Bill Hutchinson and
Ms. Isabel Jettinghoff, the representatives from the consulting
firm CH2M Hill, and indicated Mr. Hutchinson was prepared to get as
detailed as the Board wishes.
Bill Hutchinson indicated his presentation would be aided by
visuals, a smaller version of which was handed to each
Commissioner. Mr. Hutchinson began by explaining that the analysis
was conducted taking into consideration impact fees and rates and
miscellaneous charges for the County utilities system as well as
addressing the County's ordinance under which the County policies
are spelled out for the administration of the utilities system.
The project also involved conducting two public workshops with
input from a number of residents of Indian River County and during
which we were able to learn quite a bit about the concerns and
special interests of customers of Indian River County Utilities.
The need to revise the County fees and rate structure was
brought about by a number of factors. The County has not
increased water or sewer rates since 1985 and a comprehensive
analysis of the rate structure has not been conducted since 1984.
Meanwhile, costs of operation have increased substantially. There
have been increases in the cost of providing capacity to meet new
growth during the period since 1984. While rates have not been
increased, impact fees for water and sewer services have increased
in proportion to the cost of construction. Recently new
regulations at the state and federal level have necessitated
considerably more complex and costly systems of providing for water
and wastewater services. Mr. Hutchinson explained past methods of
funding the utilities and the processes used in reaching his
recommended rates and charges. Following is a list of recommended
impact fees to be effective April 1, 1991:
27
MR 12 1991
BOOK 87 FACE. 805
AR 12 199
RECOMMENDED WATER AND
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
WATER
IMPACT FEE
COUNTY FISCAL YEAR
CURRENT 1991 1992 1993
Water Treatment and Storage $ 818 $ 893 $ 973
Water Transmission $ 502 $ 548 $ 597
Total $1,294 $1,320 $1,441 $1,570
WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEE
COUNTY FISCAL YEAR
CURRENT 1991 1992 1993
Wastewater Treatment and $ 979 $1,048 $1,159
Sludge Management
Effluent Disposal $ 604 $ 647 $ 716
Wastewater Transmission $ 580 $ 626 $ 676
Total $1,417 $2,163 $2,321 $2,551
c
Chairman Bird asked for an explanation of how Mr. Hutchinson
justified the increase in the 1993 impact fees.
Mr. Hutchinson explained it was based on the County's master
plan for water, wastewater and effluent disposal along with plans
for constructing a new sludge management facility, with the
additional factor of the state and federal requirements regarding
effluent disposal.
Commissioner Scurlock wanted assurance that the seven million
dollar sludge facility, along with the increased costs caused by
the new state and federal requirements, will be distributed fairly
between new customers and existing customers so that neither is
overburdened. He also noted that future increased costs in meeting
state and federal requirements could be covered by increases in
rates and fees.
28
Mr. Hutchinson explained we allocated the cost of the sludge
disposal facility whereby only a portion of that capacity would be
allocated to new customers that would be on line during the next
three years. The remaining cost of the capacity will be allocated
either to new customers beyond this time frame who will pay impact
fees at some future time or to existing customers who will benefit
almost immediately from the development of that project. Future
customers that come on line after 1993 will be paying the County's
cost of maintaining that facility during that period of time.
Mr. Hutchinson made the point that they did consider mobile
home parks in the light of being in a different category, for
example, being counted as less than a full ERU, but rejected the
idea because that could begin a series of special cases of sub-
classes, plus the fact that any reduction of impact fees for
special classes would call for increases in impact fees in other
classes.
RECOMMENDED WATER
AND WASTEWATER RATES
WATER
COUNTY FISCAL YEAR
CURRENT 1991 1992 1993
Billing Charge
Base Facilities Charge
Volume Charge per 1,000 gallons
0 - 3,000
3,001- 7,000
7,001 -
Excess Volume Surcharge -
Greater than 13,000 gallons
per month per ERU
SEWER
$1.82
$5.34
$1.99
$1.99
$1.99
$2.00 $2.00 $2.00
$5.35 $7.85 $8.35
$1.60 $1.60 $1.60
$2.00 $2.00 $2.00
$2.40 $2.40 $2.40
0.00 $1.95 $2.10 $2.30
Billing Charge •
Base Facilities Charge.
Volume Charge -
85% of water use
beginning 1991
Excess Volume Surcharge -
Greater than 11,000 gallons
per month per ERU
29
$1.84 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
$1.53 $7.60 $13.00 $13.50
$2.86 $3.35 $3.35 $3.35
0.00 $3.70 $4.05 $4.45
BOOK 82 FAGE 807
1 2 1991 - J
MAR 12 199
BOOK 82 PAGE EM
Mr. Hutchinson next focused on the recommended water and
wastewater rates chart, emphasizing the avoidance of rapid
increases and encouraging conservation.
REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
• Fiscal Year 1990 - $5.6 million
• Fiscal Year 1991 - $6.8 million
• Fiscal Year 1992 - $11.0 million
• Fiscal Year 1993 - $11.6 million
• Increases from Fiscal Year 1991 to 1993
- Operating Expenses - $1.0 million
- Sludge Management Facility Debt
Service - $0.8 milliion
- Debt Service for Other Capital
Improvements - $0.6 million
- Increased Contributions to Renewal
and Replacement Fund - $0.4 million
▪ Contributions to Construction Fund- $2.0
million in 1992 and $1.5 million in 1993
Mr. Hutchinson noted that revenue requirements will nearly
double from 1990 to 1993 and recommended higher contributions to
the Renewal and Replacement Fund. He pointed out that each
customer actually will pay less for the first 3,000 gallons but
higher as consumption moves over 3,000 gallons and higher still for
consumption over 7,000 gallons per month.
It was noted that the increase in charges for higher water
usage is intended to promote and reward conservation.
30
1
F
+ � 12 i99
EFFECTS OF
RECOMMENDED RATES
ON TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL
WATER AND SEWER BILLS
• • Water Bill -
Current - $17.11
- Remainder of Fiscal Year 1991
-$16.15
• Wastewater Bill
- . Current - $34.78
- Remainder of Fiscal Year 1991
- $39.99
• Total Water and Wastewater Bill
- Current - $51.89
▪ Remainder of Fiscal Year 1991
- $56.14
A :MULTI -FAMILY WATER
4 RATE ALTERNATIVE
4A -
at,
•
.e':
.1. •
Proposed Approach
- Increasing Block Rate per Meter
Alternative Approach
Increasing Block Rate per ERU
•
Effect of Alternative Approach on
Average Multi -Family Water Bill
per ERU - $1.65 per Month Lower
- Rate Increase with Alternative
Approach
- Base Charge
- $0.50 per ERU per Month, or
- Volume Charge
- $0.15 per 1,000 Gallons in
Each Block 131
POOK 82 ME
MAR12 1991
BUUK
MULTI -FAMILY WATER
AND GDU WATER RATE.
ALTERNATIVE
• Apply Multi -Family Alternative
Approach to Also Include GDU
Customers
• Effect of Alternative Approach
on Average Multi -Family and GDU
Customer Water Bill per ERU
- $1.30 per Month Lower
• Rate Increase with Alternative
Approach -
- Base Charge
- $0.85 per ERU per Month, or
- Volume Charge
- $0.25 per 1,000 Gallons in
Each Block
MULTI -FAMILY, GDU,
AND COMMERCIAL WATER
RATE ALTERNATIVE •
• Apply Multi -Family Alternative Approach
to Also Include GDU and Commercial.
Customers
Effect of Alternative Approach on Average
Multi -Family and GDU Customer Water
Bill per ERU
- $0.70 per Month Lower
Rate Increase with Alternative Approach
- Base Charge
- $1.45 per ERU per Month, or
▪ Volume Charge
- $0.35 per 1,000 Gallons In Each
Block, or
- Combination $0.85 Base Charge-..
and $0.15 Volume Charge in Each Block
32
s fr�!i7t
Mr. Hutchinson explained the effects of each of the multi-
family water rate alternatives. Because of the desire to reward
conservation and also because any decrease in rates for any one of
the categories would of necessity increase rates for every other
customer, the following schedule of rates and charges is being
recommended.
SCHEDULE OF WATER AND SEWER RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
1991, 1992, AND 1993
1991 1992 1993
RATES
Water
Billing Charge - Per Account
Base Facilities Charge Where
Unes Are Available - Per ERU
Base Facilities Charge Where
Capacity is Reserved But Lines
Are Not Available - Per ERU
Volume Charge
0 to 3,000 Gallons Per Month
Per ERU Except Irrigation
Only - Per 1,000 Gallons Per
Month
3,001 to 7,000 Gallons Per
Month Per ERU and Irrigation
Only 0 - 7,000 Gallons Per
Month - Per 1,000 Gallons
Over 7,000 Gallons Per Month
Per ERU - Per 1,000 Gallons
Excess Volume Surcharge For
Use Greater than 13,000
Gallons Per Month Per ERU -
Per 1,000 Gallons
$2.00
$2.00 $2.00
$6.20 $8.70 59.20
$3.10
$1.75
$4.35 54.60
51.75 51.75
$2.15 $2.15 52.15
$2.55 $2.55 52.55
51.95 52.10 52.30
Sewer
Billing Charge - Per Account 52.00 $2.00 $2.00
Base Facilities Charge Where
Lines Are Available - Per ERU 57.60 $13.00 $13.50
Base Facilities Charge Where
Capacity Is Reserved But Lines
Are Not Available - Per ERU
AAR 12 1991
53.80
33
$6.50 $6.75
El,(j'.
EAE 91
MAR 12 199
LOC! 82 FADE 902
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned that in situations where
a number of units are being served by one meter, they would not be
penalized by being moved through the blocks of higher usage too
quickly and Mr. Hutchinson explained, in the recommended schedule,
multi -family, single -meter customers would be charged
incrementally; for example, a three -unit single -meter customer
would be allowed a 9,000 -gallon threshold before being accelerated
into the next volume block.
Mr. Hutchinson concluded by introducing Isabel Jettinghoff who
would present the recommendations on the ordinance and resolution.
Ms. Jettinghoff explained that policies and rate structures
are now combined into one document. The consultant's
recommendation is to isolate the policies from the rate and fee
structure because, in the future, if there is a need to adjust
rates the County would be able to address just those changes
without having to deal with the policies.
Ms. Jettinghoff further noted that the consultant's policy is
that if something is stipulated in the state or federal law, we
would not repeat it in the ordinance.
Commissioner Eggert suggested that a person should not have to
go to several sets of books to find out what an ordinance says and
she personally would prefer an ordinance that has everything in it.
Commissioner Scurlock asked for an explanation of the concept
of mandatory hookup.
Director Pinto stated that our ordinance does not say
"mandatory" anywhere in the ordinance; the word "mandatory" is not
used. However, it does say that upon notification by the Utility
or by the County you may be required to connect. What that means
is that if you, at a previous time, by contract, have agreed to
connect -- an example would be a developer in Indian River County
who, in order to build a temporary facility, signed a contract with
,the County saying when the facility became available they will
connect, or someone who has reserved capacity -- they would be
notified and be required to connect to the system. There is
another area where, if there is a problem or a threat to the health
and welfare of the community, then, through the Health Department,
those causing the violation may be required to remedy the problem
by connecting to the system. It is very important, however, to
understand that even though the Health Department may require you
to hook up to the system, you must reserve capacity, because
capacity may not always be available.
Director Pinto continued that Indian River County operates
somewhat differently than most other systems in that we do not
build capacity other than what is requested; it's on a voluntary
34
basis. We only build based on the capacity people want and
request.
Commissioner Scurlock posed the following hypothetical
question: I am up in Roseland; I haven't reserved capacity; my
neighborhood hasn't petitioned for the service, we don't want it.
Are you going to come out there and make me hook up? And Director
Pinto stated, "No."
Commissioner Scurlock then asked for and received affirmation
from the other Commissioners and the Chairman that Indian River
County has not ever had the policy of mandating people to hook up
willy nilly. Our intent is and our future procedures, the same as
our past, will be that only those who have reserved capacity in the
system or have contractually entered into an agreement with the
County requiring connection will be forced to connect.
Ms. Jettinghoff mentioned one other area of concern brought
out at the workshops was the turnoff time after notification. The
original recommendation was 15 days; it then increased to 20 days
but now it is 30 days; and Director Pinto explained the reason is
that a lot of our residents are out-of-town residents and it gives
an opportunity to get the proper notification through the mail.
Ms. Jettinghoff stated another concern raised at the workshop
was the automatic rate increase which would take effect if the
Water Management District declares an emergency and issues an order
to reduce consumption. This is necessary because if water
consumption is reduced by 20%, our revenue also drops 20%;
therefore, you build an automatic rate increase into the system to
cover the lost revenue.
Commissioner Scurlock stated he would not want any rate to be
imposed on the citizens without a public hearing.
Director Pinto suggested we leave the provision in the
ordinance but with the implementation requiring a vote of the Board
of County Commissioners.
County Attorney Vitunac at this point advised the audience
that state law does require mandatory hookup when the line is in
front of a house and there is capacity available; so, if it weren't
for the County Utility's policy of building a plant only for those
people who paid in advance for the reserve capacity, there would be
mandatory hookup for people who do not want to connect to the
system. Because this County built the plant only for those who
paid in advance, however, there is no capacity available, even when
the line comes right in front of your house, and, therefore, there
is no forced, mandatory connection in this County. This is a very
unusual county.
35
MAR 12 1991
8
PORK 2 FAC
VlAR 2 199
BOOK 82 AGE 904
The Chairman called a recess in the proceedings at 10:30 a.m.
and the Board reconvened at 10:45 a.m. with the same members
present.
Chairman Bird regretfully announced City Councilman Mike
Wodtke passed away and stated he had served on a lot of committees
in the County and was liaison between the City and the County. We
have lost a good friend. The Chairman asked for a moment of
silence in memory of Mike Wodtke.
Continuing with the presentation on the rate ordinance and
rate resolution, Director Pinto requested that before the hearing
is opened to the public the consultants be allowed to go over the
rates. Ms. Jettinghoff distributed revised Tables 3-2 and 3-3 as
follows:
REVISED
TABLE 3-2
TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL WATER AND WASTEWATER BILL*
Current 1991 1992 1993
WATER
Billing Charge Per Month $1.82 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
Base Facility Charge $5.34 $6.20 $8.70 $9.20
Consumption Charge - Average
Consumption 5,000 gallons
$9.95 $9.55 $9.55 $9.55
Total Water $17.11 $17.75 $20.25 $20.75
Change from Previous Year $0.64 $2.50 $0.50
WASTEWATER
Billing Charge Per Month $1.84 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
Base Facility Charge $1.53 $7.60 $13.00 $13.50
Volume Charge $14.30 $14.24 $14.24 $14.24
Total Wastewater $17.67 $23.84 $29.24 $29.74
Change from Previous Year $6.17 $5.40 $0.50
Total Water and Wastewater $34.78 $41.59 $49.49 $50.49
Change From Previous Year $6.81 $7.90 $1.00
*Using Proposed Rate Alternative.
36
(3-3)
REVISED
TABLE 3-3
TYPICAL COMMERCIAL WATER AND WASTEWATER BILL*
Current 1991 1992 1993
WATER
Billing Charge Per Month $1.82 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
Base Facility Charge $26.17 $30.38 $42.63 $45.08
-4.9 ERUs
Consumption Charge - Average
-5840 gallons use per ERU $56.95 $55.64 $55.64 $55.64
Total Water $84.94 $88.02 $100.27 $102.72
Change from Previous Year $3.08 $12.25 $2.45
WASTEWATER
Billing Charge Per Month $1.84 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
Base Facility Charge $7.50 $37.24 $63.70 $66.15
-4.9 ERUs
Volume Charge $81.84 $81.48 $81.48 $81.48
Total Wastewater $91.18 $120.72 $147.18 $149.63
Change from Previous Year $29.55 $26.46 $2.45
Total Water.and Wastewater $176.12 $208.75 $247.46 $252.36
Change From Previous Year $32.63 $38.71 $4.90
*Using Proposed Rate Alternative.
Mr. Hutchinson briefly pointed out the changes reflected in
the Comparison Chart, giving typical examples of residential and
commercial customers' current bills versus proposed 1991
alternative utility rates.
Chairman Bird opened the public hearing.
Charles Norton, Heron Cay, member of Board of Directors and
the legal committee, came before the Board and stated that he likes
the water better than what was provided previously. His comments
concerned paying one time for the developer's package plant
facilities and, five years later, paying again the County's impact
fees for a modern sewage treatment plant and he feels that he is
paying twice. He felt the explanation regarding mandatory hookup
with franchise agreements was helpful but still is of the opinion
the park residents are being hit twice.
Director Pinto briefly commented that the agreement, of
course, was the choice of the developer who fully understood that
when the County system was in place he would hook up to it.
Steven Pitiak, Park Place Mobile Home Park, came before the
Board speaking on behalf of the Florida Mobile Home Owners
Association and the problems of this ordinance as associated with
37
MAR 12 1991
8
PUCK. ,? F',1C JUG
MAR 12 199
BOOK 8 PAGE.
mobile homes. He noted that there was a meeting on February 11 and
certain problems were brought up. It was his understanding then
that certain language was to be changed regarding mobile homes.
The mobile home industry in the State of Florida is governed by a
certain law, 723, which supersedes anything adopted by the County.
He felt the present ordinance is an imposition on that law. Page
20, Section 12 of the existing ordinance says existing agreements
will be adopted. There have been a lot of existing agreements made
between these package plants and the County regarding these mobile
homes, and no two of them are alike. The residents' concern about
this particular section is that this is being used against them by
the park owner, forcing them to pay an impact fee upon the sale of
their homes. That is putting over 4,000 people in this County at
a disadvantage because there is no way they could sell their home
and take on such a fee. In the Park, it is mandatory, on the sale
of their homes, to pay the impact fee. They are not owners of the
property; they are renters. Mr. Pitiak contended that this
agreement stipulates that anything government -mandated can be
passed on to the mobile home owners.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that we do not have the power
to change valid agreements by this ordinance adopted later. He
believed that on Page 17 of the proposed ordinance we did change
some of the language in response to Mr. Pitiak's concern to state
that, "An impact fee shall be imposed on each ERU." We did not
take sides on who paid it. In none of our agreements does the
County require the tenant to pay the fee. If the tenants'
agreement with the developer requires it, that is between them and
the developer. All the County is concerned with is that the ERU is
paid for. The only connection between the tenants and the County
is that the agreement says at the time of the sale that fee shall
be paid.
Commissioner Scurlock asked why we even bring up the subject
and Attorney Vitunac noted that some tenants thought our agreement
required them to pay the impact fee. He explained that this is
from contract law. We do not take a position on who has the
obligation to pay this money.
Mr. Pitiak pointed out that under Section 201.09, Paragraph A,
that ordinance states very specifically, "The obligation to pay the
impact fee shall occur at the earliest of the following dates:
when the capacity is reserved, when a water or sewer permit is
granted, or when a building permit is issued." He then read from
the Developer's Agreement about Park Place, "Whereas Seller has
agreed to this purchase by County, provided that he will have five
years within which to finish his development without paying impact
38
fees, and for those units sold before the end of the fifth year
impact fees will be paid only as those units are resold." He noted
this agreement is only for Park Place but he felt this is contrary
to the County's ordinance and stressed that these developers are
using these agreements in violation of the County's own ordinance
which stipulates that you get the money when the permits are
issued.
Commissioner Eggert believed it just says that it has to be
paid by the land owner, not by the owner of the mobile home, but
Mr. Pitiak noted that if they sell, the new owner cannot get a
certificate of occupancy until the impact fee is paid.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that it says at the time of the
sale of his unit the developer owes us one impact fee.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that the public hearing is not for
the purpose of a specific contractual dispute. Our ordinance does
not speak to requiring the tenant to pay anything.
Mr. Pitiak noted at the meeting of February 11 they insisted
the clause about the property owner paying be put back in, and
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that it now simply says that for each
ERU we are due a certain amount of money.
Discussion continued about where this is all set out and it
was pointed out to Mr. Pitiak that on Page 2, Paragraph F, under
DEFINITIONS it defines Impact Fee as, "The fee charged to real
property owners to fund the capital cost incurred by the water and
wastewater utility to provide capacity to serve new utility
customers."
Mr. Pitiak argued that we still have that Developer Agreement
that is binding him.
It was again pointed out that it is an entirely separate
agreement and Commissioner Scurlock stressed that our Developer
Agreements do not state that the tenant pays.
Mr. Pitiak again quoted from the Developer Agreement, "Seller
has agreed to this purchase by the County. . . and the fee for
those units will be paid only as those units are resold."
It was explained that "Seller" in the context of this
agreement is not the tenant. It means the developer.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that "Seller" is defined in the
preamble of that agreement and it will show that it is not the
seller of the mobile home to whom they are referring. The "Seller"
in that agreement is the owner of Park Place Mobile Home Park, and
he is apparently trying to pass through that cost. He is saying
that the mandatory charge is a pass-through.
Director Pinto noted that we amended this language
specifically to say that the impact fee is charged to the "real
39
IIAR 12 199
F',R,,[ 6:
MAR 12 11991
EorK O iC
OIL Fr�VL
08
property owner," but his ability to pass it through is strictly out
of our control.
Mr. Pitiak wished it to be stated FOR THE RECORD that this
agreement is saying that a mobile home owner who does not own his
property is not subject to the fee.
Attorney Vitunac agreed he is not subject to the fee by this
ordinance, but we do not know what is said in his lease with the
park owner.
Mr. Pitiak continued that prior to 1985 the agreements do not
contain that language; yet, because of this ordinance, the park
owners are passing through the impact fee to the tenants. He would
like the Commissioners to study this. There is no need for haste
in adopting this ordinance.
Mr. Pitiak wished to have a statement made for the record as
to just who owes this fee, and Commissioner Scurlock stated FOR THE
RECORD that there is nothing in this ordinance that requires anyone
other than the real property owner to pay the impact fees.
Mr. Pitiak felt, in regard to rate increases, the figures just
don't jibe. He wished he could agree with the consultant who said
it would only cost $1.00 per month more in water and a couple for
sewer. He calculated that his water and sewer bill, if this
ordinance is adopted, will go up nearly 50% to 60%; on 7,000 gallon
consumption, water and sewer will come out to over $105 per month.
He also felt the impact fees are too high. What is shown will be
over 100% increase, and construction costs, et cetera, have not
increased that much. Mr. Pitiak suggested the Board take a hard
look at these rates because he felt a lot of people eventually will
not be able to afford these rates, especially those people in
mobile home parks. If they are forced to go ahead and pay these
impact fees, they will just walk away from their homes and leave
them for the County to clean them up. Mr. Pitiak asked the Board
to review his comments and not adopt the rate schedule or this
ordinance until all these questions are answered.
Michael Radell of Steel, Hector and Davis, City of Miami,
representing American Retirement Communities, owner of Heritage
Village Mobile Home Park located at 1101 Ranch Road, expressed
concerns, not as to the size of the impact fee, but rather to the
fairness and equity in how that impact fee is distributed among
different users, in particular mobile home park users. He said he
had three basic issues to present for the Board's consideration.
One is that the ordinance as currently proposed does not make a
distinction between new mobile home parks and existing mobile home
parks and it charges one ERU for a mobile home regardless of
whether there is a long-term history of precisely what the impact
40
of that existing mobile home park is on the County's water and
sewage system. The second issue for discussion has to do with the
simple fact that mobile homes use less water and generate less
sewage than the standard residential user. Last, but not least, he
wanted to address a provision in the proposed ordinance which
involves a look back, 24 months after connecting to the system, to
see if, in fact, the use that is being generated by that project is
the volume of use on a peak -load capacity that was estimated when
the project originally connected. Mr. Radell informed the Board
that Heritage Village Mobile Home Park has 430 units, has been in
existence for approximately 17 years and has had its own on-site
water and sewer system during that time; so, with regard to the
historical data approach, the records for more than ten years are
available. He felt this is not a situation where you have to use
a crystal ball as you would with a new development. Staff has used
the argument that when a family of two leaves a mobile home and is
replaced by a family of six, water use and sewage generation
increases three -fold. The historical information from Heritage
Village shows that the impact has been even and consistent over the
years. Mr. Radell made another point in connection with capacity
used by mobile home owners. He said there are two times when
capacity for water and sewer use is allocated. First, is when it
is charged to the mobile home park owner, and in the case of
Heritage Village it is for 250 gallons per day per ERU for water
and sewer per unit. The other time is in the agency reporting
process when Indian River County reports the commitment of capacity
for a mobile home to DER as 200 gallons per day, which is 80% of
allocated capacity. There is a discrepancy and it seems capacity
is being sold twice and the County realizes that mobile homes, in
fact, do use less than an average single family residential unit.
We recommend the Board do the following to correct what we perceive
to be a gross inequity and an unfair situation: under Section 7,
Paragraph 27 of your proposed ordinance, in the case of large
mobile home communities, look at the historical records, evaluate
the historical records on the basis of peak demands of that park
and base capacity commitments on that peak demand.
Chairman Bird asked if his point is the data would indicate
the proper allocation may be less than one ERU per mobile home.
Mr. Radell said, absolutely, that was his point, and would
pertain to large parks with recorded historical data. In fact, he
quoted from Section 27, indicating the County can make exceptions
to correct inequities by adjusting the impact fee. He also would
recommend the County recognize that, in fact, mobile homes use
water and generate sewage in the amounts that the County currently
41
AR 121991
ROOK
F, E JIE
BAR 12 1991
f OC!{
FAGEW
reports to DER, because he felt the County is opening the door to
over -committing capacity by charging impact fees for 250 gallons
per day and reporting 200 gallons to the DER. Mr. Radell reminded
the Board that Section 9, Paragraph E, collects an estimated impact
fee and watches for 24 months to see how the project operates and
if use is less than anticipated a fee will be refunded. He
believed that kind of provision should also be applicable to large
residential communities, mobile homes, et cetera, that would be
applicable to apartments and condominiums on a master meter where
when one family moves out and someone else moves in it does not
change the general mix of the community in that system. He felt
that type of provision would be fair and equitable and make sure
you collect your impact fee, not more and not less. He recalled
the discussion earlier in the meeting regarding a penalty provision
for users of the system who pay an impact fee for a certain number
of ERUs and then use more capacity. He felt the County should
encourage people to conserve water by simply lowering the impact
fee in cases where they use less than the original commitment.
Chairman Bird indicated Section 17 provides for that but it
says in no case will it be reduced to less than one ERU per
customer.
Mr. Radell estimated that the difference between what the
County is charging and what the County is reporting to DER could be
on the order of two hundred or two hundred fifty thousand dollars.
He reminded the Board that the costs are passed on to the tenants
in the park so the real benefit would not be to American Retirement
Communities but rather to the tenants and the County would not lose
out because they would have the extra capacity for more users.
Chairman Bird cautioned that when we start making exceptions
we must decide where to draw the line. He felt the consultants had
developed a rate structure that, across the board, is fair and
equitable.
Mr. Radell described as galling the fact that an impact fee is
charged for 250 gallons per day and the report to DER is 200
gallons per day.
Chairman Bird suggested, rather than get into a debate, Mr.
Hutchinson should address the three points made by Mr. Radell.
Mr. Hutchinson addressed the first point relating to using
historical data by stating that this same exact argument can be
made for a neighborhood that does not happen to be on a master
meter but which generally uses less water and they also would want
to be placed in a separate sub -class or sub -category. He advised
that we do have a master meter on this particular development.
These are the same customers that wanted to be treated as
42
individuals through their conservation rate program; they wanted to
be treated on an ERU basis in that case. So, we don't see any
reason to treat them any differently when it comes to setting up
some separate class for assigning ERUs.
On the point of using different figures for reporting
wastewater capacity to DER, that is because DER has chosen that
standard and that doesn't mean we must use the same standard.
As to the third point, relating to use of impact fee refunds
for residential customers, as ownership of residences change, flows
change, and the same case can be made by virtually any customer on
the system.
Director Pinto commented one of the problems all utilities
have is, really, the definition of community; we consider Indian
River County as one community. When we try to derive specific
rates to reflect specific areas, there are some parts of the County
which would increase substantially and there are areas that would
decrease substantially. Within the present rate structure he was
very sure that 50% of the people are using more and 50% using less
and we have to look at the demographics of the entire County to
come up with a mean. Director Pinto also pointed out that
treating existing units differently than new units was judged
discriminatory by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Mr. Radell wanted to respond regarding the figures reported to
DER, that there is no requirement to commit the rate that is
published by DER. He further commented that there are other fairer
ways of setting rates and a single rate schedule is
administratively convenient.
Bob Strang, from Shady Rest Mobile Home Park in Sebastian,
came before the Board and said he had a piece of paper which the
owner of the park gave to him on February 19 at a meeting at which
time the owner told the tenants how much they have to pay. His
question concerned whether the park owner should send the tax money
to California.
Attorney Vitunac advised him that it is not tax money, it is
a rent payment from the tenant to the property owner. He also said
that if it is not proper charge the tenants should not pay it,
and should get proper legal counsel and fight it. However, the
owner contracted with the County to connect when the sewer lines
were put in. Now the lines are in and the park must connect and no
matter how much the County is concerned, the County cannot legally
become involved in agreements between the owner and the tenants.
Mr. Strang questioned Mr. Pinto as to a pump and lift station
costing $35,000; if the tenants pay for it, who owns it.
43
BAR 121991
F'AGE J
POriS11,
MAR 12 19911
800K 82 F4CE :471,
Mr. Pinto said the location and who it serves determines
whether the County itself will take over the operation of that
facility, if it is needed.
When questioned regarding who should pay for it, Mr. Pinto
said the County's deal is with the owner and whether the owner
looks on it as an improvement is his determination, not the
County's.
Mr. Strang asked to see correspondence between the County and
the park owner and Mr. Pinto offered him an opportunity to look in
the file.
Ruth Sullivan, President of the Indian River Property Owners'
Association, came before the Board and stated she had looked at the
proposed ordinance and rate schedule and was concerned about the
establishment of a minimum monthly bill. Looking at the rates two
years down the line)anyone that has a line and reserved ERUs will
be paying a monthly minimum bill of $25.85 whether they use a drop
of anything or not. If there are no lines in front of their
residence but they reserved an ERU they will be paying a minimum
bill of $14.93 a month and that is with no usage at all in the
system. She felt, in establishing these rates, the County
developed a two-edged sword against the low-income people in the
community in this County because of the minimum bill and the twenty
percent charge over actual usage. It says it is to control water
use but she considers it hogwash; dollars are being collected for
water that people are not using.
The theory is if people reduce their use by 20% they won't get
a boost of 20% but people living in mobile homes and small homes,
because they want to save money in their day to day lives, they
have already reduced their usage. They cannot reduce further and
they are going to receive a 20% charge over actual usage. They
cannot avoid it. She then brought up a situation in her area where
the County is assessing by the square foot for installation of
sewer and water, not the running front foot of the property, and
there is a lady who faces $20,000 assessment. Ms. Sullivan
understood the reason for square footage assessment for drainage
because you look at the overall piece of property and they have to
drain a given volume of land, but when it is sewer or water it
entails excavation to the property and the pipe and whatever the
labor costs are for installation, and that is what we should be
charging. She has heard the argument that a large piece of
property must have large impact fees to cover development but these
people are going to be hit that way even if they don't develop. In
this case, it is a single widow lady who is sitting on a large
piece of property but she doesn't intend to develop it. It's her
44
home. Ms. Sullivan felt there are many inequities in this
particular ordinance and that rate schedule needs a serious looking
at by the Commission. She commented on one thing that struck her
that was mentioned this afternoon and that is when you build
capacity and you hold that capacity for future use)you will later
charge a higher impact fee for people who will hook up later. If
the capacity is built today at today's costs, she did not see how
it can be justified that a higher impact fee will be charged at a
later date.
Director Pinto addressed first the twenty percent conservation
increase by stating the Board has already directed an increase
would only be done at a public hearing when a water shortage has
been declared by the Water Management District so that the
automatic increase is taken out of the ordinance.
Discussion continued about assessment and the type of
assessments used and it was explained that those things are taken
up not in this ordinance but at specific assessment hearings at the
time of planning any improvements or lines that are built in the
streets. They have nothing to do with impact fees that pay for
capacity. Assessment is used to fairly distribute the cost of the
lines in the street for the benefit of the users, and that does not
take place unless an assessment hearing is held.
Commissioner Scurlock also stated that the square footage
numbers were only given as an example. He confirmed that
assessments are only done after public hearings and the particular
method of assessment is decided on and agreed to by the people
receiving the assessment.
Mr. Hutchinson wished to address the point raised by Ms.
Sullivan in regard to the high minimum charges. Basically these
charges are at the level needed in order to meet the utility
system's mostly fixed costs of operation. Of course, the County
always can institute some sort of lifeline rate system whereby low-
income residents would be subsidized by other customers. The point
is, however, that if we provide a subsidy to one group of
customers, somebody else has to pay; so in the absence of some sort
of formal policy by the Commission to provide lifeline rates, we
suggest the rates be based as close as possible on the cost -to -
service basis and one that reflects the conservative objective that
the Commission has endorsed.
Mr. Hutchinson said the final point Ms. Sullivan raised was
about the need for increasing impact fees where capacity was to be
held for future customers. This is no different from any situation
where you have to make an investment in any development and you
have to make the investment today. It costs you interest lost on
45
MAR 12 i i
RCICIK aC PAGE L%IR.9
NAR 12 X99
BOOK 82 PGE
money you could have left in the bank, and consequently this is a
real cost to the County; it needs to be covered someplace; and we
are suggesting it be done through impact fees as opposed to rates.
Romeo Dorsey from Heron Cay came before the Board and revealed
that Florida sets their impact fees much different than up north.
He asked Mr. Hutchinson whether he made a cost study of these
services on county water and sewer. Mr. Hutchinson said,
"Yes, sir."
Mr. Dorsey asked if a specific line was put out to a big
development, how would it be handled and why couldn't they be given
a deferred charge and when the property is developed, then collect
the money. He also questioned why the County wants impact fees.
He assumed that the County goes to bonding for a facility or to
enlarge a sewer plant or water treatment plant. If something is
going to last 25 or 50 years1he did not see why one person should
have to pay if they use it for only five years. He felt the cost
should be covered by the rates.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed we could do that but the rate
would be a hundred dollars a month.
Mr. Dorsey still felt that rates would cover what is used, not
something they are not going to use. He then questioned the
increase in the impact fee from the current fee, $1,294, to the
1993 fee of $1,570. He agreed he should pay interest to the
County, perhaps six percent, or five percent, but he felt the
increase was too steep.
Mr. Dorsey asked about ownership of the meter and if he paid
for the meter, when he leaves, can he pick it up and take it.
Commissioner Scurlock said he would get his deposit back.
Director Pinto explained after the homeowner pays for the
meter it becomes an asset of the property; however, maintenance and
replacement is the responsibility of the County.
Mr. Dorsey thought the cost of the meter could also be covered
in the rates.
Mr. Hutchinson addressed the points raised by Mr. Dorsey. He
explained the increase in impact fees is because construction costs
are rising and the cost of providing capacity is going up every
year. In addition, the County's costs for carrying the capacity
over a period of time need to be collected.
Mr. Hutchinson further explained that the impact fee is a one-
time fee to cover the useful life of the facility, which is,
perhaps, 25 years or, in some cases, 50 years and even though you
may not use the facility for that length of time the fact that it
is paid, it becomes an asset of the property.
46
In regard to putting in lines to undeveloped areas, it is the
developer's responsibility to provide lines and the developer does
have the ability to be reimbursed as the area is filled in during
the ensuing five years but the developer is obliged to develop the
area in accordance with the County Master Plan.
Mr. Dorsey asked if it would not be better to get the cost of
plants that would last 25 years out of the rate?
Mr. Hutchinson cited the County's policy that existing
customers should not pay the cost associated with providing service
to new customers. We do not want to ask existing rate payers to
pay for something to be used in the future.
Mr. Dorsey was under the impression that he would pay an
impact fee of $1,294 now and if he sells his home in 1993 he would
have to pay again, but Commissioner Scurlock said the impact fee is
paid just once.
Bruce Barkett came before the Board representing Vista Civic
Association which is comprised of Vista Gardens and Vista Royale.
Attorney Barkett advised that after discussing their concerns with
Director Pinto and Commissioner Scurlock, they are convinced that
if the Board adopts the rate increase, the appropriate alternative
is the one presented today, the Multi -Family, GDU and Commercial
Water Rate alternative. He then asked if they would be charged 14
times the billing fee each month and 14 times the base rate.
Director Pinto explained the billing fee represents per meter and
the base rate represents per unit.
Thomas Allen, 7420 132nd Street, came before the Board to
express his concern regarding his area at the north end of the
County. He felt people are not interested in the sewer project
between US 1 and Old Dixie Highway because they feel they are on
high ground. This area has, more or less, half -acre lots with one
bathroom, mobile homes and small houses, and he handed the Board a
petition with the names of. 136 people who are not interested in the
sewer project.
SAID PETITION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
Director Pinto thought this is a district where a number of
people signed up and requested service, and he stressed the intent
off the Utility Department is to service only those who are
requesting service.
Chairman Bird told Mr. Allen that if a sewer project is ever
contemplated for that area, there would be a public hearing and he
and his neighbors would have an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Allen asked how large the affected area would be, and
Commissioner Scurlock said it could be broken down as small as
street by street.
47
P1AR 12 191
BOOK PAGE 315
R 12 1991
BOOK 82 PAGE 91C
Mr. Allen felt Section 201.06 seemed to indicate that if the
line goes past his place he would have to hook up. When
Commissioner Scurlock said he would not have to hook up, Mr. Allen
indicated he was confused.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed there is confusion and he felt we
may never be able to explain it. He again explained it is
mandatory only if you paid and reserved capacity. If you have not
reserved capacity and if you have not volunteered there is nothing
there for you to hook into. The line is there but there is no
capacity at the plant.
Mr. Allen asked what about if there is capacity.
Commissioner Scurlock explained the only way there will be
capacity is if you come in and pay and then we can expand the plant
and you hook up. Commissioner Scurlock assured Mr. Allen that if
he did not desire service he would not be forced to hook up.
Mr. Allen stated he had attended the City of Sebastian Council
meetings where they had discussed 55% grants for small communities,
such as Sebastian and wondered why the County cannot do something
like that. Commissioner Scurlock assured him that the County
pursues every bit of federal and state funds, if it's available;
it's just that there isn't much out there.
Mr. Allen asked, if the City of Sebastian decided to withdraw
from the project, eliminating approximately 2,000 customers, how
the County would cover that.
Commissioner Scurlock explained that would only mean the new
million -gallon -a -day expansion would not be necessary and we would
simply use the existing plant and reallocate the capacity.
Mr. Allen was provided a copy of all impact fees, rates and
charges and he expressed concern for the senior citizens who will
not be able to afford the fees and charges, let alone the monthly
bill.
Scott Nerling (phonetic) came before the Board and expressed
his confusion, and he thought a lot of people are confused about
mandatory hookup. He quoted from Section 201.02, Connection with
Water System Required, "The owner of every lot or parcel within the
County shall connect, or cause the plumbing of any mobile home, or
trailer thereon, to be connected with the Water System of the
County or franchised private utility system, upon the approval of
the Department, and use such facility within 60 days following
notification to do so by the Department. All such connections
shall be made in accordance with the rules and regulations which
shall be adopted from time to time by the County." That sounds to
him as if it is mandatory and maybe he is misconstruing something
here.
48
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that he would not receive
notification unless he paid for and reserved the capacity.
Mr. Nerling noted it does not say that and suggested it should
be rewritten to say that if you have committed then you will
connect.
Attorney Vitunac advised that state law requires you to be
connected if there is a line in front of your house and if the
sewer is available. We have to be consistent with state law but
the way we protect you is that we do not have sewer available
unless you bought it in advance; so, you don't have to hook up just
because there is a line in front of your house.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the question is how do we make this
clear.
Director Pinto said he is not recommending changing that
because there are also some very severe financing problems
associated.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that, but emphasized we
wanted to make it clear that the only way anyone is going to have
to hook up to the system is if there are health problems and they
are forced to do so from a health standpoint, or if a neighborhood
petitions for the service and a majority of them sign it and are
desirous of getting it.
Chairman Bird asked, hypothetically, if one street wants the
sewer system and we ran the sewer down the street because 70% of
them want it, then the other 30% have to hook up also.
Attorney Vitunac said all hundred percent would have to pay
for the distribution line but the only ones who could hook up are
the ones who paid the impact fee.
Mr. Nerling had more questions and discussion followed at
length as to how the petition method works, the difference between
main lines, which are paid for by impact fees, and the distribution
lines which feed off the main line, and are paid for separately;
and the fact that through a neighborhood petition program you might
be assessed $300 to $400 just to run a distribution line down your
street but if you actually want to hook up to that distribution
line, then you have to pay the impact fee to reserve capacity and
all the other charges associated with getting the service from the
distribution line to your house.
After further discussion about the wording required by state
law and the bond covenants, Attorney Vitunac suggested inserting in
Sections 2 and 3, the words: "Connection shall not be mandatory
unless capacity is available." The Board members agreed.
Mr. Nerling expressed his belief that the public at large is
very much against this sewer system.
49
MAR 121991
BOOP(
['AGE 6
2191
BOOK
82 PAGE 9,113
Director Pinto pointed out that is an opinion that the overall
public has to voice and not an individual and further advised that
we already have two thousand units within the Sebastian area and a
total of five thousand units in the North County system that are
requesting sewer service.
Mr. Nerling wanted to call up a scenario to help to clarify a
point for the people in the audience: "What if I just bought a
brand new house and I have an existing septic tank and well, am I
going to have to hook up a meter on my well and pay the costs when
I've already incurred those costs to build the house?"
Director Pinto answered that, in that situation, if you want
to connect to the sewer system and you pay the impact fees, then a
meter has to be installed on your well. You are not charged for
the water. The meter is just measuring your water consumption so
we can fairly bill for the sewer service. If there is no hookup to
the sewer system then no meter is installed.
Mr. Nerling asked for further explanation regarding the
ownership of lift stations.
Director Pinto advised that when the decision is made to build
a lift station, it has to be determined whether that lift station
will serve the purposes of the entire system and benefit others or
whether it's only benefitting that development that is installing
it. If it's only benefitting the development that's installing it,
they're the ones that pay for it. If it benefits the system as a
whole and becomes an integral part of the utility system, the
County will take over responsibility of ownership. In some cases
the development has the option to maintain ownership, which
requires them to be responsible for maintenance and operation.
Mr. Nerling felt the Commission has a big responsibility to
act in the interest of the people here and to go over these
numbers, and some valid points have been brought up here that need
to be reassessed before a vote.
Kenneth Roberts, Lakewood Village on 90th Avenue, came before
the Board .and complimented the Board on the work that is being
done. He said he had been involved in this for four years and is
concerned for everyone but particularly mobile home owners. He
applauded Commissioner Scurlock's concern over the hardship this is
causing some home owners, and his suggestion to stretch payments
over ten years. Mr. Roberts spoke of prohibitive costs for usage,
not to mention impact fees. He said the park owner produced graphs
and explained that with the in-house package system the cost was
only a dollar and a half for water and sewage prior to hookup but
now people are getting bills from $20 to $30 per month for sewage
only. Under the proposed rates, and with the addition of water
50
service, the bills are going to go up to $50. He said his
neighbors asked why is the sewage and water so high in this County,
and proposed to go much higher, when it used to cost only a few
pennies a month.
Director Pinto pointed out that the wastewater treatment plant
at that specific park was antiquated and inefficient to the point
they were under state order because the treatment was not meeting
the required standards.
Mr. Roberts stated they had a certificate of quality on that
system.
Director Pinto stated that certificate was a directive to get
off the old system and connect into the County system, and
Commissioner Scurlock confirmed that old facility would not be
allowed to operate under current DER standards and they had a
choice either to upgrade that facility and spread the cost among
the customers or connect to the County system.
Mr. Roberts spoke of people moving out of the park because
they are scared stiff of having to pay $50 a month for water and
sewer.
Bill Ramsey, 141 Edward Drive in Aspen Whispering Palms, came
before the Board to express his concern over the word "mandate."
He knows everyone is tired of hearing that word, but when they met
with the park owners, the park owners insisted on it being in their
agreements and they insist it means we pay. Mobile home owners are
contemplating Court action; it has divided the tenants in the park,
and those who would not agree to pay impact fees have an additional
$16 per month to pay over what the others are paying who signed the
leases and agreed to pay the impact fees. The advice residents
have gotten from attorneys is that it would be nice if the County
Commissioners would have put in the ordinance that this is not a
government mandate. It has been stated that you do not say the
homeowner has to pay the charge) but the park owners take the
attitude that, because they are being forced to hook up, it is a
mandate and, therefore, indirectly, we residents are being forced
to pay the bill. Mr. Ramsey reported, as a matter of fact, several
people in his park have paid the impact fee even though it is not
connected yet, and it is because of this discrepancy in the wording
over the buyer or the seller. He gave the example of a friend who
wanted to sell his home, the park owner offered to sell it for him
but wanted the impact fee up front; they would have to leave a
check for the County before the park owner would approve the sale.
And that's an example of the importance of the word "mandate."
Frank Widmer, 7440 North 132nd Street, came before the Board
to explain that in his neighborhood, which is at the northern part
51
MAR 121991
i
BOOK PAGE.
MAR 12 199
BOOK
82 FAGE 920
of the proposed district, there are elderly people living on Social
Security who are frightened that if the sewer system is forced on
them/they will not be able to afford it and will lose their homes
and are looking for an answer to that situation.
Director Pinto said it is very clearly stated, and
Commissioner Eggert concurred, that we have tried to clarify, there
will be no forced hookup.
Commissioner Scurlock explained that some residents from North
County came to us and wanted the service; a feasibility study was
done, which showed we could not do it cost-effectively. There are
scare tactics out there about the County running out and mandating
everybody to hook up but that is not the way it happens. He then
gave the example of the Route 60 situation where both water and
sewer are in the right of way of Paradise Park, and they are not
hooked up. He also listed Stevens Park, Oslo Park, and others
where thewater and sewer lines are right on their front step and
they are not hooked up and will not be hooked up until they come in
with a petition and request it and even after the petition is
submitted there is a waiting period of up to two and a half years.
Mr. Widmer suggested, then, that he could tell these people
that they will not be forced into the system unless there is a
majority vote.
Commissioner Scurlock confirmed that in the petition process
a request comes before the Commission and the public may be heard,
and there is a five-year payment plan and we are even looking at a
ten-year payment plan so there should be no cause to worry about
losing your homes.
Mr. Widmer asked whether the ten-year plan has been
established and Commissioner Scurlock explained that if a
particular petition came before the Board it would be up to the
residents to explain their situation and the Commission would
decide whether there is a need for five or ten years.
Mr. Pitiak wished to speak again regarding a small point that
he felt was important, which is that Section 4 of the old ordinance
gives all the jurisdiction under this form of government to the
County Administrator, and he felt the word "department" in this
section is going to be in conflict because under the duties of the
County Administrator, he has the jurisdiction over all departments.
This little point to him means that some of the Commissioners are
abrogating their duties by giving powers to a department or to one
Commissioner as a liaison to establish a separate entity. He felt
that should be changed to give the powers back to the County
Administrator as it was in the old ordinance.
52
Attorney Vitunac assured him that the Administrator is the
head over all County departments and he has the authority over all
the departments and, ultimately, so does the Board of County
Commissioners. This wording was intended as a point of
clarification so that people would know who to go to in the first
instance rather than thinking they always had to go to the Board.
Title I gives Mr. Chandler supreme authority over those departments
if there is any kind of dispute. He keeps a daily watch over all
departments and if anyone feels there is something improper going
on, on the side, he can still go to the Administrator.
A gentleman from the audience asked if there is any way for
people who are here only six months of the year to save money and
avoid the monthly billing charge by paying six months at a time.
Director Pinto explained the problem with that is, even though
the customer is away, the process still has to be maintained; the
meter reader still has to travel the same route, et cetera.
In many cases it is an insurance policy to be sure that water is
not being illegally used after it's been turned off, or a waterline
break has taken place and water is being lost. The cost is
incurred whether the customer is here or not.
Commissioner Bowman encouraged mobile home park residents who
have legitimate complaints to contact the Florida Mobile Home
organization for help in working out their problems. She indicated
it was started years ago when people were being imposed on and were
losing their sites and some of the problems could be solved by that
state organization because they have a strong lobby.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this
matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
Chairman Bird felt we have a two-edged sword, or a Catch 22
situation: as heard this morning, a certain segment do not want it
mandatory and yet a lot of people feel that rates are too high.
Actually, by making it voluntary and hopscotching all over the
County as we do with our system, covering only those areas that
want it and skipping the others, it is less cost-effective than it
would be if we consolidated the system and forced everybody to
connect to the core system.,
Commissioner Scurlock felt compelled to focus on the positive
side, which is that almost 80 package plants that were polluting
the environment are no longer in existence in the County and in the
North County 16 more package plants, which were going directly into
the river, are being eliminated. He further pointed out that
another cost people are seeing is from the result of treating our
waste products in an environmentally sound way. The days of
dumping it, flushing it, and thinking it just goes away are over.
53
MAR 12 1991
BOOK. f'AH b JL
PEAR 12 1991
BOOK
R2
Motion was suggested by Commissioner Scurlock to adopt
Ordinance 91-9 as recommended by staff based on going to the Multi -
Family, GDU and Commercial Water Rate alternative as proposed by
our consultant. He also wished the Utility Department to have
authority to contact the franchised mobile home parks and identify
that if they wish to make arrangements to vest at the current
impact fee to be paid over a ten-year period, they be allowed a
reasonable period of time to do so.
After discussion, it was felt 30 days was a reasonable time
limit.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the language explaining that
"Connection shall not be mandatory unless capacity is available,"
should be added, and Attorney Vitunac asked that the Ordinance be
amended to state that the old rates will remain in effect until
April 1st.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner
Eggert, Commissioner Wheeler being absent, the Board
unanimously (4-0) adopted Ordinance 91-9 as recommended by
staff based on going to the Multi -Family, GDU and Commercial
Water Rate alternative as proposed by our consultants; with
the inclusion in the wording that "Connection shall not be
mandatory unless capacity is available;" the old rates to
stay in effect until April 1, 1991; and also authorized
staff to contact the franchised mobile home parks and advise
that if they wish to make arrangements with the County to
enter into an agreement to vest at the current impact fee to
be paid over a ten-year period, that they may do so within
a thirty -day time period.
54
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 91- 9
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
ESTABLISHING A NEW CHAPTER 201, COUNTY WATER AND
SEWER SERVICES OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; CONNECTION WITH WATER
SYSTEM REQUIRED; CONNECTION WITH SEWER SYSTEM
REQUIRED; SEWER CONNECTIONS REQUIRE COUNTY
WATER; EXCEPTIONS TO CONNECTIONS; CONNECTIONS
MAY BE MADE BY COUNTY; EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL
UNITS; RATES AND CHARGES; IMPACT FEES; EXTENSION OF
WATER AND SEWER SERVICES WITHIN DEVELOPMENTS;
EXTENSION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWER
SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTS; EXISTING AGREEMENTS;
UNLAWFUL CONNECTION; UNLAWFUL CONSTRUCTION;
CONNECTING EXISTING PLUMBING; MAINTENANCE OF
PLUMBING SYSTEM; PAYMENT OF FEES AND BILLS
REQUIRED; COLLECTION OF SEWER FEES; FAILURE TO
MAINTAIN PLUMBING SYSTEM; NO SERVICE FREE; .
SEPARATE CONNECTIONS FOR EACH SEPARATE UNIT;
WATER/SEWER FEES CHARGEABLE TO PROPERTY OWNERS-
-COUNTY.MAY BILL TENANT; WATER CHARGES ON NEW
CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNTS; DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE
FOR NON-PAYMENT, FEE FOR RESTORING SERVICES,
PENALTY FOR TAMPERING WITH WATER METER, CHECKS
WITH INSUFFICIENT FUNDS; PERMIT REQUIRED TO DRAW
WATER FROM FIRE HYDRANTS; PROHIBITION AGAINST
DAMAGING EQUIPMENT; REQUIRED INSTALLATION OF
BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICES; POWER AND
AUTHORITY OF INSPECTORS; DISCHARGE OF WATER IN
SEWERS; PROHIBITING DISCHARGE OF SPECIFIED WASTE
AND WATERS INTO THE COUNTY SEWERAGE SYSTEM;
WATER SHORTAGE CONDITIONS; WELLS AND LAWN
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS; AREAS IN WHICH ORDINANCE TO BE
EFFECTIVE; PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT; REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; INCORPORATION IN CODE;
SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE
ORDINANCE 91-9, IN ITS ENTIRETY, IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, Commissioner Wheeler being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 91-31
55
MAR i2 1991
BOOK PGE. 92t:';
1111tR e 2 1991
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 31
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ADOPTING RATES, FEES, AND
CHARGES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY
SERVICES, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY
OF ORDINANCE NO. 91-9
BOOK �'�, � PAGE 924
WHEREAS, Indian River County operates a Department of Utility Services,
which is funded without contribution from the ad valorem tax fund of the County and
is required to support itself from rates, fees, and charges paid by the customers of the
utility system, and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 91-9 authorizes the imposition by the Department
of Utility Services of certain rates, fees, and charges to support the operation of the
Department in a fair and equitable manner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following
schedule of rates, fees, and charges is hereby adopted by use by the Department of
Utility Services effective April 1, 1991. Rates, fees, and charges shown for 1992 will
become effective October 1, 1991. Rates, fees, and charges shown for 1993 will
become effective October 1, 1992.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Ay e
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Absent
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ay e
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
day of March , 1991.
Attest: r.
Jeffrex K.
Barton �.�.
dbt075I046.51
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
^
Ind;an River Ca
Approved
Date —.
Admin.~s.6
3 —o?! 4
{
Legal
�:
3 JOg1
Budget
(41
3-a I-91
Dept.
U
3-20-V
Risk Mgr.
RESOLUTION 91-31, IN ITS ENTIRETY, IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
56
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:10 o'clock p.m.
ATTEST:
MAR 121991
Clerk Chairman
57
ETU