HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/19/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 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 -
MAR 19 199
Rev. John Harrington
Christ United Methodist By The Sea
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -
Comm. Carolyn K. Eggert
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
None.
Chairman Bird announced that Item 9A would be discussed
after the rest of the Agenda has been addressed.
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of 2/19/91
B. Regular:: Meeting of 2/26/91
C. Special Meeting of 2/27/91
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Appointment of Ernest Polverari as Alternate to the
Indian River County Transportation Committee
(letter dated February 21, 1991)
B. Reappointment on Housing Finance Authority
(memorandum dated March 7, 1991)
C. Reappointment on Code Enforcement Board
(memorandum dated March 7, 1991)
D. Release of Public Nuisance Lien; Alfred & Mary
McCracken
(memorandum dated March 8, 1991)
torjr. 82 i'AGL 92L
MAR 19 199
BOOK 82 PACE 927
7. CONSENT AGENDA (continued) :
E. Community Services Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation
Program Federal Fiscal Year 1991
(memorandum dated March 6, 1991)
F. IRC Bid #91-57/Surplus Sale #1: RE: Utilities Dept. -
No. Beach Plant
(memorandum dated March 11, 1991)
G. IRC Bid #91-57/Surplus Sale #1: RE: Utilities Dept. -
Breezy Village
(memorandum dated March 11, 1991)
H. IRC Bid #91-57/Surplus Sale #1: RE: Vero Beach Main
Library
(memorandum dated March 11, 1991)
I. Bid Award: IRC #91-61 - Shell Material / Road and
Bridge Dept.
(memorandum dated March 11, 1991)
J. Bid Award: IRC #91-63 - Telephone System for Health
Department
(memorandum dated March 6, 1991)
K. Request for Execution of Historic Preservation Grant
Award Agreement for Funding of Archaeological Survey
(memorandum dated March 7, 1991)
L. Resolution Accepting Certificate of the County
Canvassing Board
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9., PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Edson Nelson, representing Countryside North Home-
owners' Assoc., Inc. - Request to speak on utility
matters
(letter dated March 5, 1991)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Russell Concrete Request to Rezone Approximately
+/- 11 Acres from A-1 and RM -6 to IG
(memorandum dated March 11, 1991)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
FY 1991-92 Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Funding
(memorandum dated March 6, 1991)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Authorization for Change Order #6 and #7 - Funding
for Test & Balance of HVAC Phase III, IRC Jail
(memorandum dated March 12, 1991)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (continued) :
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
1. Underwriter Selection for Sludge Facility
(memorandum dated March 13, 1991)
2. Underwriter Selection for Golf Course Expansion
(memorandum dated March 13, 1991)
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
None
H. UTILITIES
1. South County R.O. Expansion
(memorandum dated March 11, 1991)
2. Indemnification Agreement Between Indian River
County Utilities Dept. & Windsor Polo Club
(memorandum dated March 1, 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.
82
BOOK PAGE 928
MAR 1 91991
MAR 19 1991
BOOK 82 FAGE 9j 9
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
1. Approval of Purchase of Capital Equipment from
Funds Donated by Volunteer Firefighters
(memorandum dated March 6, 1991)
2. Approval - Minutes of 2/5/91 Meeting
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Heavy Equipment Replacement Utilizing Renewal
and Replacement Funds
(memorandum dated February 19, 1991)
2. Approval - Minutes of 2/19/91 Meeting
3. Approval - Minutes of 2/26/91 Meeting
15. ADJOURNMENT
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 19, 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 19, 1991, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Richard N.
Bird, Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Margaret C.
Bowman; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present
were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB
Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend John Harrington of Christ United Methodist by the
Sea gave the invocation, and Commissioner Eggert led the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
There were none. Chairman Bird announced that the Board
would go ahead with the regular agenda and then come back to Item
9A - the discussion item.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of February 19,
1991 and February 26, 1991. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of 2/19/91 and
2/26/91, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 27,
1991. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 27,
1991, as written.
BOOK 82 PAGE '30
MAR 19 1991
AR i9 X99,
BOOK 82 PAGE 931
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Appointment to Transportation Planning Committee
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 2/21/91:
TOWN OF ORCHID
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Administration Building
1840 -25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Commissioner Bowman,
At the February 19, 1991 Town Council meeting of the
Town of Orchid, the Town Council approved the appointment
of Ernest Polverari, Town Manager as an alternate to the
Indian River County Transportation Committee.
Meeting notices should be mailed to the Town of Orchid, •
9300 Town Square, Vero Beach, FL 32963, to the attention
of E. Polverari.
ve questions regarding the appointment, please
to call.
R•••ert H. Haines I
Mayor
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the appointment of Ernest Polverari to the
Transportation Planning Committee as the alternate
representative of the Town of Orchid.
2
B. Reappointment to Housing Finance Authority
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/7/91:
TO: County Commission
DATE: March 7, 1991
FILE:
SUBJECT: Reappointment on
Housing Finance Authority
FROM: Alice E. White REFERENCES:
Exec. Sec.
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.'s term has expired on the Housing Finance
Authority. If it is your desire, please reappoint him for another
4 year term.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
reappointed Commissioner Scurlock to the Housing
Finance Authority for another 4 -year term.
C. Reappointment to Code Enforcement Board
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/7/91:
TO: County Commissioners DATE: March 7, 1991 FILE:
SUBJECT: Reappointment on
Code Enforcement
Board
FROM: Alice E. White REFERENCES:
Exec. Sec.
Joe Garone's appointment on the Code Enforcement Board expires
this month. If it is your desire, please reappoint him for
another three years.
3
MAR 1 9 1951
BOOK U.d F',1u•i.P
MAR 1 9 1991
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
reappointed Joe Garone to the Code Enforcement
Board for another 3 -year term.
PAGE
D. Release of Public Nuisance Lien - Alfred & Mary McCrackin II
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/8/91:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keats g,
Community Devel6pmen Director
FROM: Roland DeBloiss,AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: March 8, 1991
RE: Release of Public Nuisance Lien;
Alfred & Mary McCrackin II/Case No. CEB-08-186
c
It is requested that the data herein be given formal consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of
March 19, 1991.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
In accordance with the provisions of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance, on September 04, 1990 the Board of County Commissioners
adopted Resolution 90-101, assessing $706.84 in abatement costs for
the County's clearing of an overgrown lot owned by the McCrackins.
The abatement costs assessment has been recorded as a lien against
the subject property. The mortgage holders of the property, NCNB
Texas Mortgage Corporation, now wish to pay the assessment and have
the lien released.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The subject property is described as Lots 9 & 10, Block A, Vero
Beach Homesites Subdivision Unit No. 1. Subsequent to the Board's
adoption 'of Resolution 90-101, staff mailed a "Notice of
Assessment" to the McCrackins requesting payment of the assessment
within. thirty (30) days of notice receipt.
In that the assessment was not paid within thirty (30) days, in
accordance with Section 973.06 of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance staff recorded ,the assessment as a lien against the
subject property.
Section 973.06 of the ordinance specifies that, after the thirty
(30) days, "interest shall accrue at the rate of twelve (12) per
cent per annum on any unpaid portion" of the assessment.
On March 6, 1991, the County received a check in the amount of
$750.04 from the NCNB Texas Mortgage Corporation, paying the
assessment plus interest.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners release the
lien of Resolution 90-101 on Lots 9 & 10, Block A, Vero Beach
Homesites Subdivision Unit 1, as recorded in O.R. Book 874 Page
1855.
4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
released the lien of Resolution 90-101 on Lots 9 & 10,
Block A, Vero Beach Homesites Subdivision Unit 1, as
recommended by staff.
COPY OF RELEASE OF LIENS IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
E. Community Services Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program
- FY -1991
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/6/91:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: March 6, 1991 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: H. T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services
FROM: Guy L. Decker, Jr. ‘s,
Executive Director
I.R.C. Housing Authority
SUBJECT: Community Services Block Grant
Housing Rehabilitation Program
Federal Fiscal Year 1991
REFERENCES:
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the County Commission.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The State of Florida's Department of Community Affairs has once again
allocated $6,050 to Indian River County under their CSBG Program, and the
Housing Authority would like to utilize this grant to provide rehabilita-
tion housing consulting services which activates rehabilitation funding
from governmental sources., This program will run from April 1, 1991 to
September 30, 1991.
The Farmers Home Administration Section 504 Program provides housing
rehabilitation loans and grants to low-income and elderly persons who lack
the finances to make their homes decent, safe and sanitary and free of
health and safety defects.
This 1991 Program is targeted in the Gifford area of the County and
14 low-income and elderly owners will have their homes brought up to safe
and sanitary standards. It is also targeted in Wabasso and Old Oslo Park
areas.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
This is our ninth year of funding under legislation passed by the
Congress which consolidates various social programs into the block grant
categories.
5
MAR 19 1991
BOOK FAL
MAR 19 1991
RECOMMENDATION:
BOOK. 82 F;1Gc
We respectfully request the County Commission to authorize its Chair-
man to execute the Award:Agreement for submission to the Department of
Community Affairs for this CSBG grant.
This program will bring about improvements in safety and sanitation
for fourteen (14) homeowners with an average cost of $5,000 per unit. The
$6,050 Grant plus $2,697 in cash and in-kind contributions by the Housing
Authority will be supplemented with $72,000 in loans and grants from the
Farmers Home Administration.
This program requires no additional County funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to execute the Award
Agreement for submission to DCA, as recommended by
staff.
AWARD AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
F. IRC Bid 91-57 - Surplus Sale #1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/11/91:
DATE: March 11, 1991
TO:
THRU:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servic
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: IRC Bid #91-57/Surplus Sale #1
BACKGROUND:
The Utilities Department requests that you surplus and sell the
North Beach Plant .500 M.G.D. R.O. train. This train is no longer
of any value to the plant since this particular style of membrane
isn't available and the upcoming expansion will provide any needed
capacity in the foreseeable future.
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.
6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously declared
as surplus and authorized the sale of the North Beach
Plant .500 MGD R.O. train, as recommended by staff.
G. IRC Bid #91-57 - Surplus Sale #1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/11/91:
DATE: March 11, 1991
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director 0
Department of General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: IRC Bid #91-57/Surplus Sale #1
BACKGROUND:
The Utilities Department requests that you surplus and sell the
Breezy Village 0.015 MGD Extended Aeration Treatment Facility.
The plant consists of three 5,000 gallon aeration tanks, one clar-
ifier, chlorine contact chamber, and a small sludge holding tank.
The aeration tanks have all aeration piping. The clarifier also
has all return sludge lines, which are air lift. There is no
blower with this treatment plant.
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.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously declared
as surplus and authorized the sale of the Breezy
Village 0.015 MGD Extended Aeration Treatment Facility,
as recommended by staff.
7
MAR 191991
RooK q
Pr -
MAR 19 199
BOOK 82 PACE
H. IRC Bid #91-57 - Surplus Sale #1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/11/91:
DATE: March 11, 1991
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servic
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: IRC Bid #91-57/Surplus Sale #1
BACKGROUND:
The following attached list of items from the old facility of
Vero Beach Main Library has been declared surplus:
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.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MAIN LIBRARY SURPLUS LIST
8 DESKS • (1 TAGGED 00857)
1 TYPEWRITER (TAG #7670)
6 SECRETARIAL CHAIRS
13 CHILDREN'S CHAIRS
35 MISCELLANEOUS CHAIRS
4 TYPEWRITING TABLES
2 DICTIONARY STANDS ON WHEELS
1 RECORD BROWSER
5 TRASH CANS
1 SMALL FILE CABINET
3 COAT RACKS
12 KIK STOOLS
3 TELEPHONES
5 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS
1 FAN (BROKEN)
2 WIRE RACKS
1 CIRCULATION DESK
1 CHECK OUT DESK ...
2 FLAGS ON STANDS
1 SET OF SECURITY GATES
5 WOODEN REFERENCE TABLES
2 DOUBLE FACED INDEX TABLES
2 ' DOUBLE FACED STUDY CARRELS
• 3 MISCELLANEOUS BOOK TRUCKS
2 RECORD BINS ON WHEELS
1 POSTAL SCALE
1 TIME CLOCK
1 CHILDREN'S TABLE
1 WATER FOUNTAIN
4 PAPERBACK RACKS
1 ROUND TABLE
4 DICTIONARY STANDS
1 2 MICROFICHE READERS
8
1 CHILDREN'S GAME AREA RUG
1 OLD WOODEN BOOKCASE
1 WIRE MAGAZINE RACK
3 WALL UNIT MAGAZINE RACKS
4 READING ROOM CHAIRS (LOUNGE)
2 _ SOFAS --1, 2 SEAT; 1, 3 SEAT
1 NEWSPAPER RACK
1 SMALL COFFEE TABLE WITH LAMP
1 COFFEE TABLE
1 LECTERN (OVERSIZE)
33 STACK CHAIRS
2 FOLDING CHAIRS
1 BOOK DROP CART
MISCELLANEOUS: PLANS. END PANELS,LIGHT BULBS, STUFFED
ANIMALS, PICTURES
1 100 DRAWER, 4 UNIT CARD CATALOG (MATCHES
CIRCULATION DESK)
SHELVING
45 SECTIONS 90" DOUBLE FACED GRAY
7 SECTIONS 90" SINGLE FACED YELLOW
11 SECTIONS 60" DOUBLE FACED GRAY
10 SECTIONS 42" DOUBLE FACED 4 YELLOW, 6 GRAY
5 SECTIONS 42" SINGLE FACED YELLOW
30 SECTIONS 84" SINGLE FACED GRAY
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously declared
as surplus and authorized the sale of the items listed
above from the old Vero Beach Main Library.
I. IRC Bid #91-61 -- Shell Material, Road & Bridge Dept.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/11/91:
DATE: March 11, 1991
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director J
Department of General Servic
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager,»
SUBJ: Bid Award: IRC 91-61
Shell Material/Road and Bridge Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: February 27, 1991
Specifications mailed to: Five ( 5) Vendors
Replies: One (1)
9
MAR 19 1991
BOOK 82 FA;,r
ViN1 19 199
BID TABULATION DELIVERED TO COUNTY
Dennis L. Smith
Vero Beach
806K 6'2 Ffr,GE
PICKED UP BY COUNTY
4.75 Per Ton 2.35 Per Ton
ESTIMATED USAGE: 4,286 Tons
PROJECTED TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $30,500.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
Monies for this project will come from Budget Road & Bridge Accounts
for paving material.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Dennis L. Smith
aq the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting spec-
ifications.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #91-61 to Dennis L. Smith for the amounts set out
in the above staff recommendation.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
18x0 25th Street Veo Beach, Florida 329 BID TABULATION
!�
/,!.
////////
BID NO. DATE OF OPENINGC
4/-G/ a/»/41
BID TITLE
REM
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE
UNIT
SWiZe: /7)F,%if.Pi.?L
1
.7e4i✓e2. A "1' Site_ -C
-Till
%caro c� .4., den Tie ���s!rri
.
I
,q-Azak .4 J'�lii/:i (. .•
///;Zf'"K
10
J. IRC Bid #91-63 -- Telephone System for Health Department
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/6/91:
DATE: March 6, 1991
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Bid Award: IRC 91-63
Telephone System for Health Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: February 27, 1991
Specifications mailed to: Nineteen (19) Vendors
Replies: Six (6)
BID TABULATION
Sun Telephone
Vero Beach
LUMP SUM PRICE
$ 37,335.00
Communications International $ 43,260.00
.. Vero Beach --- -
44,300.00
---7.:,-17-Star Communications
Vero Beach
Tel Plus $ 50,910.00
Melbourne.
ACI Communications $ 51,339.00
Boca Raton
AT&T $ 101,640.00
Melbourne
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $37,335.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
Health Department Construction Funds
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Sun Telephone
as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting spec-
ifications.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #91-63 in the amount of $37,335 to Sun Telephone
of Vero Beach, as recommended by staff.
11
R 19 199•
82.949
MAR 19 1991
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1e40 25th Street
r,rV Beath. FIoh�32660
.
BID TABULATION
BID NO.
4/- G 3
BID TITLE
�r'LEpmw r .5Y. 7&17
DATE OF O ENING
.2/a7 f 91
rear
NO. •
DESCRIPTION
BOOK
UNTT PRICE UNIT PRICE
IRIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRIM
UNIT
r, ads ,A/TC
A0
£-r-RP Com mu.v/Ci9-7'iox's
SOX
14a30o
00
Sun/ Tct_c'Ale-eW5
.1.'7rc0
, .SPx
AC" Onmm.
00
.SOG/p .,570-7�
SEC /Lus
Sc 9.0 0e)
5/6nTEn/s #c ,ra0,0
5` e44.5 des' - CrO,n/r1 ua//C.
A4 -$c T
Nus sm mer ,r—rs.
K. Historic Preservation Grant Award Agreement for Funding of
Archaeological Survey
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/7/91:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
0 -elLei
obert M. Keatin , AICP/
Devel mentiirector
THROUGH: Roland DeBlois,r AAICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Christine Panicod
Environmental Planner
DATE: March 7, 1991
RE:
Request for execution of Historic Preservation
Grant Award Agreement for funding of Archaeological
Survey
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 19, 1991.
12
■
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On August 14, 1990,the Board of County Commissioners approved the
submittal of a grant application to the Florida Department of
State, Division of Historical Resources to receive matching funds
to prepare an archaeological survey for Indian River County.
This proposal was approved by the State with a total project budget
of $17,000 on a 50/50 matching basis; $8,500 State match and $8,500
County match. The County match includes $6,000 in cash and $2,500
in-kind support services. The attached Historic Preservation Award
Agreement was supplied by the Florida Department of State for
execution.
Funds will be expended for the services of a competent historical
/archaeological consultant to perform the survey. County matching
funds are available in the Planning Division 1990-91 budget for
consulting services.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
A generalized archaeological survey is needed for the
unincorporated area to meet several of the County Comprehensive
Plan policies and to provide necessary planning data for review of
impacts on the archaeological resources of the County.
Such a survey must be done by individuals with archaeological
expertise; the activity cannot be done with existing staff. This
is an opportunity to apply State funding towards the cost of the
survey.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute
the Historic Preservation Grant Award Agreement between the
Florida, Department of State, Division of Historical Resources and
the Indian River Board of County Commissioners.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the Historic Preservation Grant Award
Agreement and authorized the Chairman's signature, as
recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
L. Resolution Accepting Certificate of the County
Canvassing Board
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 91-32, accepting the Certificate of the
County Canvassing Board.
MAR 19 1991
13
,7f
a00K
r -
MAR 19 199
BOOK
82PACE 943
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 32
A RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD.
WHEREAS, on March 12, 1991, the County held two bond referenda
of the qualified electors residing in the county on the questions of
whether or not Indian River County should consolidate its emergency
services into one district and whether or not, in the interim, the North
Indian River County Fire District could increase its authorized millage
to three and one-half mills; and
WHEREAS, after the ballots were counted, the results were
certified by the County Canvassing Board, which consisted of County
Judge James B. Balsiger, Board of County Commissioners' Chairman
Richard N. Bird, and Supervisor of Elections Ann Robinson, and the
Certificate, which shows that the referenda did pass, was turned over
to the Board of County Commissioners,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board
hereby officially acknowledges receipt of the Certificate of the County
Canvassing Board in connection with the above referenda.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert
, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
ScurlockI
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 19
Attest:
034)K. Baton Cle k
day of
March
, 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
Attachment: CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD
14
APPROVED AS TO FORM
/." EGAL SUFFICIENCY:
Charles P. \iitunac
County Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING - RUSSELL CONCRETE REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. ±11
ACRES FROM A-1 AND RM -6 TO IG (Continued from 3/5/91
County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that because this
item was continued from the March 15, 1991 meeting, no readver-
tisement was needed. The published notice for the March 5, 1991
meeting is sufficient:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a V.>)eatveili/
in the matter of
L2 -/A
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
e/yj/
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
(SEAL)
dayo .D. 19 e9
(Business ManaCer)
(Clerk•oi-the-Gireuit -Court; Indian-fliver Bet ty,- Florida)—
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a county ordinance rezoning land from: RM -6,
Multiple -Family Residential District, and A-1,
ADis-
trict. The subject property sicultural District to 10, General owned by RussIndustrial ell
Concrete,
eand
locto ated
F.E.C.F RR.R/W north of 73rd Stee.The sub-
ject property containing approximately 11
+-acres is lying In the northwest quarter of Seb-
don 3, Township 32S, Range 39E, lying and
being In Indian River County.
A public hearing at which partie`uni interest
and citizens shall have an opp opportunity
e
heard, will be held by the Board o1 County Com -
County ers of Indian River of Florida
Commission Chambersthe County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, March
5, 1991 at 9:05 a.m.
The Board of County Commissioners may ap-
prove a less intense zoning district than the dis-
trict requested provided it Is'within the same
general use category.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed-
ings Is made, which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By -s -Dick Bird, Chairman
Feb. 8.19B1
767653
Robert Keating, Director of Community Planning, presented
the following staff recommendation for approval of the rezoning
request:
15
MAR 10 1991
BOOK
F'AGE
1
MAR 19 1991
BOOK
82 F'AGE 945
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE: March 11, 1991
DIVISION HEAD
CONCURRENCE:
obert M. Keatin AICP
Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
Cheryl A. Tworek,}ri
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
RE: Russell Concrete Request to Rezone Approximately ±11
acres from A-1 and RM -6 to IG
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 19, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This request was originally scheduled for consideration by the
Board at its meeting of March 5, 1991. At that time, the staff
requested that the public hearing be postponed to a time certain,
and the Board rescheduled the hearing for March 19, 1991.
This is a request to rezone approximately ±11 acres of an overall
21.35 acre parcel from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5
acres) and RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6
units/acre) to IG, General Industrial District. The property is
located to the west of the F.E.C. Railroad R/W, north of 73rd
Street. The property is owned by Russell Concrete, Inc. The
applicant intends to expand an existing concrete plant on the
subject property:
On January 10, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to
0 to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the approval of
this request.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The entire 21.35 acre parcel lies within the Hobart Road and U.S.
#1 Commercial/Industrial Node. The eastern three hundred (300)
feet of the parcel is zoned IG, General Industrial District. The
subject ±11 acres are zoned RM -6, with the exception of two small
portions in the south -westernmost corner of the parcel, which are
zoned A-1. The eastern 10 acres of industrially zoned land contain
an active concrete production facility; the area to be rezoned is
vacant land. Properties to the north and south of subject property
share the same IG/RM-6 zoning pattern. The property to the north
is vacant land. Property to the south contains an active citrus
operation and a single-family residence. West of subject property
is vacant land zoned A-1. The parcel is bounded to the east by the
FEC Railroad R/W and Old Dixie Highway.
Future Land Use Pattern
The entire parcel lies within the Hobart Road and U.S. #1
Commercial/Industrial Node. This designation permits various types
of commercial and industrial zoning categories. The properties
north, east and south also share this land use designation.
Property to the west lies within the L-2 land use designation.
16
Transportation System
The subject property has access from 71st Street (Cemetery Road)
through a recorded easement. Within the easement is a paved area
for ingress and egress to the site. Cemetery Road, a two-lane
paved local road, is directly connected to Old Dixie Highway.
Environment
The eastern 10 acres of the parcel are developed with an existing
concrete plant; environmental planning staff have identified areas
on the subject 11 acres containing "environmentally important"
upland habitat communities and isolated wetlands. The property is
not located within a floodplain as identified by the Flood
Insurance Rating Maps (FIRM).
Utilities and Services
The site is within the urban service area of the county; however,
water and sewer lines do not extend to the site.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the potential impacts on surrounding areas,
potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and
any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality.
Compatibility with Existing Services and Facilities
The site is located within the county Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive
plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Waste Water, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan
also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
- Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service would be maintained. The maximum buildout permitted by the
existing zoning is 60 residential units; that amount of development
would generate approximately 368 average daily trips. The proposed
industrial zoning would generate only ±177 average daily trips. A
standard two-lane road can accommodate approximately 13,000 trips
per day. Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that
Cemetery Road and other roadways serving the project can
accommodate the trips without decreasing their existing levels of
service. A more detailed review of transportation impacts will be
required as part of the development review process.
- Utilities
The site is within the urban service area; however, the area is not
currently serviced by water and wastewater. At present, capacity
for these services is not available for this portion of the county.
Since no ERUs for water and wastewater have been reserved as of the
present time, the applicant has entered into a developer's
agreement with the county which states that the developer agrees to
17
BOOK 82 wurc- 94[.
MAR 19 1991
BOOK 82 PA6E 947'
expand county facilities or pay for their expansion to meet the
needs of his development. With these conditions, the utility
concurrency test has been met for the subject request.
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. The active segment of the
landfill has a 5 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion
capacity beyond 2010.
- Drainage
All development is reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of flood
plain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition,
development proposals will have to meet the discharge requirements
of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Any development on
the property will be required to maintain its pre-existing
discharge rate for the design storm, as well as provide for
stormwater treatment and flood attenuation. Together, these
regulations limit the potential for on-site and off-site flooding
and damage. As with all development, a more detailed review will
be conducted during development approval.
- Recreation
Recreation levels of service apply only to residential
developments. Since the rezoning request is to change the zoning
designation to industrial, recreation levels of service would not
apply.
Environment
Staff suspects that the location of the proposed zoning may contain
environmentally important upland habitats and isolated wetlands.
As part of land development regulation requirements, staff will
review environmental impacts at the time of development review. At
that time, staff will require an environmental survey showing all
upland communities on-site. Among other requirements, the county
land development regulations require a 15% set-aside preservation
area of native vegetation. Moreover, if the site harbors listed
rare or endangered species, the applicant will be required to
coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect such species to
the extent feasible.
ANALYSIS
The proposed zoning represents a change in use from multi -family
residential to industrial. In assessing this request, three major
issues must be addressed: compatibility with the surrounding area,
consistency with the comprehensive plan and concurrency of the
public facilities.
Compatibility is not a major concern for this property. The area
is predominately overgrown land, and the subject property is a part
of an overall 21.35 acre parcel which already contains a small
concrete plant. The owner is planning to expand his plant in order
to move his Vero Beach plant to this location. The area west and
south contains active citrus groves and a single-family residence.
The proposed zoning is consistent with property to the north and
east of subject property. In addition, the proposed zoning will
allow the owner to "square -off" his industrially zoned property in
order to expand his existing business. The IG District contains
buffer requirements applicable to development abutting multi -family
zoning.
A review of this rezoning with the Future Land Use Map and
policies, as well as the policies of other plan elements, does not
reveal any inconsistency. Among the policies applicable to this
18
request is Future Land Use Policy 1.19 which permits commercial and
industrial uses only in commercial/industrial corridors and nodes.
The proposed request is consistent with the commercial/industrial
corridor policy.
The Future Land Use Map adopted in February, 1990, adjusted the
boundaries of the Hobart Road and US#1 Commercial/Industrial
Corridor in this area. Previously, the commercial/industrial
boundary extended 300 feet west of Old Dixie Highway without regard
to existing lot lines, uses or streets. While this provided a
clear line of land use delineation, it resulted in other problems.
Individual lots and parcels with split zoning are not as likely to
develop unless the configuration permits the reasonable development
of the property. The new comprehensive plan recognized these
shortcomings and adopted commercial boundaries along streets and
lot lines. For the subject property, the original delineation
bisected the property between residential and industrial land uses.
The proposed request will change the zoning to make it consistent
with the county's established land use designation.
Concurrency for drainage, roads, solid waste and parks has been met
with the proposed zoning. Since capacity for water and wastewater
service is not available, the applicant has signed a developer's
agreement to ensure that these facilities are provided. This is
consistent with Future Land Use Policy 2.7, which requires
development projects to maintain established levels of service.
CONCLUSION
The rezoning is part of the Hobart Road and US#1 Commercial/
Industrial Corridor and is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The subject property is currently bisected by two incompatible land
uses; the east side contains an existing concrete plant and is
industrially zoned, while the west side contains vacant, overgrown
land and is residentially zoned. This situation restricts
development of the property. Not only would rezoning the subject
property unify the site under one zoning category; it would also
serve to implement the comprehensive plan by making the subject
property's zoning consistent with its land use designation. For
these reasons, as well as the fact that the proposed request
satisfies applicable compatibility, consistency and concurrency
criteria, the staff support the subject request.
RECOMMENDATION '
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this request to rezone property to IG.
Attachment
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Unapproved minutes of January 10, 1991 Planning and Zoning
Commission
4. Ordinance
u\v\c\russ.agn
19
MAR 19 1991
BOOK 82 F r L 948
AR19199t
BOOK 62 FAH 949
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Donald Lynn, 7445 Old Dixie Highway, was opposed to the
rezoning because he believed it would result in a conflict of
property values in the immediate area.
There being no others who wish to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 91-10, amending the future land use element
and land use map from A-1 and RM -6 to IG for the
property generally located to the west of the F.E.C.
Railroad R/W, north of 73rd Street.
ORDINANCE NO. 91- 10
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND LAND USE MAP FROM A-1,
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, AND RM -6, MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, TO IG, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE F.E.C. RAILROAD R/W,
NORTH OF 73RD STREET, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County` Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
20
That certain parcel of land being the southwest one-quarter of
the northwest one-quarter of Section 3, Township 32 South,
Range 39 East, except that part lying east of the westerly
right-of-way of the Florida East Coast Railroad, and less 300
feet measured normal to the said westerly right-of-way lying
west of the westerly right-of-way of the Florida East Coast
Railroad, and less a parcel being a portion of the southwest
quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 3, Township 32
South, Range 39 East, being more particularly described as
follows:
Begin at the northwest corner of the said southwest quarter of
the northwest quarter, thence north, along the west line of
the said southwest quarter of the northwest quarter 400.00
feet; thence east, parallel with the south line of the said
southwest quarter of the northwest quarter 350.00 feet; thence
south, parallel with the said west line 400.00 feet to the
said south line; thence west, along the said south line 350.00
feet to the point of beginning. All of the above described
lands situate in Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres)
and RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre)
to IG, General Industrial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 19 day of March , 1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 8 day of February , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 5 day of March , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by
Commissioner wheeler , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner CarolynkEggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
1 AR19A99
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
„IZZZVe:4%2
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
*
ATTEST BY:.....
Jef K. $arty, ler]
SCJ
/continued
until 3-
19-91 at
9:00 A.M.
At which
time it
was
21
BOOK FACE 50
MAR 19 1991 BOOK 82 F,,UE J5
ANTI -DRUG ABUSE GRANT FUNDING - FY 1991-92
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/6/91:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 6, 1991 FILE:
THRU: James E. Chandler <-7/c^
County Administratq?
FROM: Randy Dowling
Asst to the County Admin. REFERENCES:
FY 1991-92 Anti -Drug
SUBJECT: Abuse Grant Funding
BACKGROUND
Indian River County was allocated $128,506 in grant funds from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) to fund local Anti -Drug Abuse
projects for FY 1990-91. The projects the Board approved and their
corresponding funding levels are:
1) Indian River County Jail Substance Abuse Program - Administered
by New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc.
State share 75% $38,771
County share 25% $12,924
Total $51,695
2) Intervention/Aftercare Program - Administered by New Horizons of
the Treasure Coast, Inc.
State share 75% $38,771
County share 25% $12,924
Total $51,695
3) First Start Program - Administered by the Indian River County
School Board
State share 75% $21,516
County share 25% $ 7,172
Total $28,688
4) Just Say No Program - Administered by the Just Say No Council
of Indian River County, Inc.
State share 75% $17,447
County share 25% $ 5,816
Total $23,263
5) Substance Abuse Advisory Council Administrative Expenses -
Administered by the::Substance Abuse Council of Indian River
County.
State share 75% $12,000
County share 25% $ 4,000
Total $16,000
State share totaled $128,506, County share totaled $42,836, and the grand
total of all five projects is $171,342. All projects are in their sixth month of
operation and will terminate on September 30, 1991.
CURRENT
This office received a letter dated February 28, 1991 from the FDCA stating
that Indian River County has been allocated $140,414 in grant funds for FY
1991-92 to fund local Anti -Drug Abuse projects. The letter also requested
22
the Board to serve as the coordinating unit of government in applying for the
funds. The Substance Abuse Advisory Council will be preparing their
recommendation to the Board regarding what projects to fund and their
corresponding funding levels. This recommendation will brought to the Board
at a later date. The grant's secondyear will continue to be funded 75% from
the state and 25% from the County. The budgetary impact on the County will
be approximately $50,000.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board accept the invitation to serve as the coordinating
unit of government in the FDCA Anti -Drug Abuse Act Formula Grant Program
and authorize the Board Chairman to sign the Certification of Participation
naming Randy Dowling as the contact person.
Commissioner Wheeler introduced Cheryl Ann Burke, Executive
Director of the Substance Abuse Council of Indian River County,
who announced that the Council meets the fourth Monday of every
month at the Vero Beach Police Station and would welcome anyone
wishing to volunteer their time to help in this effort.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted
the invitation to serve as the coordinating unit of
government in the FDCA Anti -Drug Abuse Act Formula
Grant Program, and authorized the Chairman to sign the
Certification of Participation naming Randy Dowling as
the contact person.
CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
CHANGE ORDERS #6 and #7 - HVAC SYSTEM - IRC JAIL, PHASE III
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/12/91:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Board of County Commissioners
Doug Wright, Director
Department of Emergency Services
March 12, 1991
Authorization for Change Order #6 and #7
Funding for Test & Balance of HVAC Phase
Indian River County Jail
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Construction Manager has submitted information concerning
Change Order #6 and 7 which requires consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners.
Information pertaining to Change Order #6 is as follows:
IAR 19 1991
23
LOOK
MAR 19 199
BOCK F uE 53.
Proposal Request #22 - Roof Scupper. This PR is needed to properly
drain the Administration Building due to an omission by the
architect. $484.00 and no time is recommended.
Proposal Request #23 - Provide louver screen. This PR is needed to
provide the required mesh screen around the H.V.A.C. equipment due
to an error by the architect. $1,870 and no time.
Claim Item #1 - Kitchen Wall Angle Clips. Omitted from drawings by
architect. $277 and no time.
Claim Item #2 - Granular surface membrane. This claim was denied.
Claim Item #3 - Condensate Drains at Kitchen. Error by architect
in drawings per code for plumbing. $376 and no time.
Claim Item #4 - Fire Stopping. Omission by architect. Not shown
on drawings. $1,418 and no time.
Claim Item #5 - Room A-162 Towel Dispenser and Waste Receptacle.
Would not work as shown on drawings, error by architect. $99 and
no time.
Claim Item 6 - Relocation of Kitchen Door A-168. Error in
drawings by architect which conflicts with equipment. $219 and no
time.
Claim Item #7 - Black out shades. This claim was denied.
Claim Item #8 - Kitchen headers. This claim was denied.
Claim Item #9 - Loading dock ramp footing. Required due to
existing elevation. Error by architect. $610 and no time.
Claim Item #10 - Ten inch channel and hand rail. Claim denied.
Claim Item #11 - Relocate door in corridor and raise frame. Hidden
condition of roof drain line in wall and uneven floor heights of
existing slab due to inaccurate as -built drawings. $1,011 and no
time.
Claim Item #12 - Trap in plumbing line not identified. Claim
denied by staff.
Claim Item #13 - Slab for LP gas tank. Required for tank but
omitted by architect in drawings. $444 and no time.
Claim Item #14 - Soap and towel dispensers in kitchen. Required by
Health Department. $93.00 and no time.
Credit Item- Symmons shower packages. Tubs replaced showers which
resulted in further credit from Proposal Request #2 approved
earlier. Additional credit of $1,680 and no time involved.
TOTAL PR'S AND CLAIM ITEMS $6,901
TOTAL CREDIT 1,680
TOTAL ADDITIONAL DAYS -0-
TOTAL CHANGE ORDER #6 $5,221
24
Information pertaining to the Proposal Request and Claim Items in
Change Order #7 are as follows:
Claim Item #1 - Revisions to Rooms A-109 and A-113. Rooms reversed
due to mechanical and fire piping conflicts. $1,952 and no time.
Error by architect.
Claim Item #2 - Revisions in walls in Rooms A-122 and A-123
(Infirmary) due to block and duct conflict. Change block to steel
mesh. $420 and no time.
Claim Item #3 - Prebooking access panel which was requested by
Building and Grounds Division which will provide access to ceiling
for personnel. $84.00 and no time.
Claim Item #4 - Shower curbs (2) in showers for Rooms A-122 and A-
125. Needed for excess water spill over. Not shown on drawings by
architect. $143 and no time.
Claim Item #5 - Guard tower footing and slab relocation due to
unsuitable soil conditions and existing electrical line. Not -to -
exceed price of $3,875 and four (4) days with general conditions.
Claim Item #6 - Additional paving at sallyport to access solid
waste container requested by Building and Grounds Division. $1,505
and two (2) days without general conditions.
Claim Item #7 - Cable conduit relocated due to administrative
building was over top of entrance box due to omission by architect.
Needed for television cable to enter building. $450 and one (1)
day with general conditions.
Proposal Request #24 - Test and Balance of HVAC. PR to be deleted
since HVAC test and balance is recommended to be accomplished by
the owner and the issue is addressed further in this agenda item.
Proposal Request #25 - Site electrical changes. Change pole
parking lot lighting and bury existing conduit. $363 and no time.
Proposal Request #26 - Vinyl flooring deletion and posi-tread
application on Hubbelite to make flooring waterproof. Received
credit for existing floor covering. Credit of $250.
Credit Item - Credit on grouting at fire wall. Additional credit
from Proposal Request #5 previously approved. Additional credit of
$2,835 and no time involved.
Claim Item #8 - Installation of four inch (4") conduit for
electrical use. Conduit was not existing as shown. Time and
material not -to -exceed $750 plus one day with general conditions.
TOTAL PROPOSAL REQUEST AND CLAIM ITEMS
TOTAL CREDIT
TOTAL I+AYS Eight w/6 at General Conditions
@ $850 per day
TOTAL FOR CHANGE ORDER #7
GRAND TOTAL FOR CHANGE ORDER #6 AND #7
$9,542
3,085
5,100
$11,557
$16,778
The position taken by the County Administrator is that any
additional funding caused by errors or omissions on the part of the
architect will be reviewed for submittal to the architect for
payment as the County deems appropriate.
25 ROOK
Mph 191991
F'AGE
MAR 19 199
FUNDING FOR TEST AND BALANCE OF HVAC
BOOK 82
PAUL 955
The Construction Manager and Project Manager have considered the
test and balance of the HVAC for the new facility with the
exception of the kitchen area which was previously tested. Staff
recommends the Board approve waiving bids and contracting directly
with Associated Air Balance to test, balance, and certify the HVAC
system in lieu of a change order for the General Contractor to do
the work. The specifications state that this is the owner's
responsibility and not a requirement for the General Contractor.
If the County requests the General Contractor to do the work
through the process of a change order, a minimum of 10 days would
be requested. Staff recommends the Board waive bids and authorize
staff to negotiate with Air Balance Associates, Inc., for a price
not -to -exceed $9,960. Air Balance Associates completed the test
and balance of the kitchen area previously and they are familiar
with the system now installed. Time is of the essence for this
work to be completed so we do not delay the General Contractor in
obtaining substantial completion which would give cause for general
conditions to be incurred by the county.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Construction Manager and Project Manager have considered all
the options available to the County in an effort to preclude
adversely impacting the General Contractor's critical path schedule
for the project to be completed on time. Staff feels approval of
the above actions will be a benefit in terms of completing the
project within budget and on schedule.
If the Board approves the above change orders and funds for the
test and balance of the HVAC, the total cost of the project will be
$5,156,457, up $53,457 from the original bid of $5,103,000.
The date of completion for Phase III of the Indian River County
Jail, as of the date of the approved change orders, will be March
26, 1991.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Change Order #6, Change Order #7, and
waiving of bids for staff to negotiate with Air Balance Associates,
Inc., to complete the test and balance of the HVAC system for the
not -to exceed price of $9,960.
i1:$^ -Ivrf Ca I r.(crov; :
`I
Date
a ; l , s'0:
I3—i_;
. L _> ai -'
; 3. t 3 .
budget
I' -/S?/
Dept.
15-i2. 'CH
RIs Mgr.
. APPROVED AGENDA ITEM
FOR: .7-.?- /1 ---q,
26
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Change Orders #6 and #7, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
CHANGE ORDERS #6 AND #7 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
UNDERWRITER SELECTION FOR SLUDGE FACILITY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/13/91:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DATE: March 13, 1991
SUBJECT: UNDERWRITER SELECTION FOR SLUDGE FACILITY
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
!,
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On January 22, 1991 the Board of County Commissioners established a short list of four
companies to be used whenever underwriting services were required:
A. G. Edwards
William R. Hough and Company
Raymond James and Company
Prudential-Bache
The selection committee reviewed the underwriters' proposals, ranking Raymond James and
William R. Hough and Company as equally suitable candidates. The committee then utilized
an extensive ratings process developed by Art Diamond, the county's Financial Advisor, to
aid them in deciding between the two firms. The committee concluded that Raymond James
was the better candidate by a slight margin.
The Financial Advisory committee met on February 28, 1991 and approved the selection
committee's recommendation. Raymond James has agreed to underwrite the bonds for a
gross spread (including legal counsel) not to exceed $13.00 per bond ($000).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Raymond James as
underwriter for the Sludge Facility at a gross spread not to exceed $13.00 per bond ($000).
27
MAR 19 1991
BOOK 82 FADE 95c
MAR 19 9991 l�
BOOK FAGE of /
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved Raymond James as underwriter for the Sludge
Facility at a gross spread not to exceed $13.00 per
bond ($000), as recommended by staff.
UNDERWRITER SELECTION FOR GOLF COURSE EXPANSION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/13/91:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DATE: March 13, 1991
SUBJECT: UNDERWRITER SELECTION FOR GOLF COURSE EXPANSION
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On January 22, 1991 the Board of County Commissioners established a short list of four
companies to be used whenever underwriting services were required:
A. G. Edwards
William R. Hough and Company
Raymond James
Prudential-Bache
The selection committee reviewed the underwriters' proposals, ranking Raymond James and
William R. Hough and Company as equally suitable candidates. The committee then utilized
an extensive ratings process developed by Art Diamond, the county's Financial Advisor, to
aid them in deciding between the two firms. The committee concluded that William R.
Hough and Company was the better candidate by a slight margin.
The Financial Advisory committee met on February 28, 1991 and approved the selection
committee's recommendation. William R. Hough and Company has agreed to underwrite
the bonds for a gross spread (including legal counsel) not to exceed $12.00 per bond ($000).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve William R. Hough and
Company as underwriter for the Golf Course at a gross spread not to exceed $12.00 per
bond ($000).
28
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved William R. Hough and Company as underwriter
for the Golf Course at a gross spread not to exceed
$12.00 per bond ($000), as recommended by staff.
SOUTH COUNTY WATER PLANT EXPANSION - INSCHO-KIRLIN RETAINAGE
REDUCTION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/11/91:
DATE: MARCH 11, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTOR OF UY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. M. AIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJ���,f' G ► ER
BY: DEPARTMENT =` '""" TY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
SOUTH COUNTY R. 0. EXPANSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW-89-09-WCHC
RETAINAGE REDUCTION
BACKGROUND
The South County Water Plant Expansion is moving along since the
signing of the contract with Inscho-Kirlin on June 5, 1990. To
date, one of the 1.5 MGD treatment skids is on line; the second will
be coming on line in the middle of March.
ANALYSIS
Per our contract with Inscho-Kirlin (see attached, Page 00500-3), at
the sole discretion of the owner and after 50% of the work is
complete, no additional retainage will be withheld. We are
requesting, at the recommendation of the Engineer (Camp Dresser &
McKee), a reduction in the retainage to 5% of the total construction
cost and furthermore request that no additional retainage be held
out of any future pay request. We will be rebating $66,121.20 of
currently -held retainage, to set total retainage at $160,500.00,
which equates to 5% of the total project cost.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board approve the above action and the payment as presented through
the attached pay request.
MAR 19 1991
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo.
29
BOOK FAL if
MAR 19 1991
To
APPLICATION FOR PAVMIENT NO.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOOK 82 FAGE j5
Lth/i 114vl e;!=moi
6
Contract for SOUTH OCUNTY R . 0 . TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
(OWNER)
OWW'NER%Project No. 41-05-012529-53Q ENGINEER'S Project No. 6706-023
For Work accomplished through the date of TAUUA R Y 24- 1991
ITEM
CONTRACTOR'. Schedule of Values
Work Completed
end Price
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
•
e
*SEE ATTACHED SCH'
OF VALUES
•
s
DULE
,
S
•
S
Total
(Orig. Contract)
C.O. No. 1
C.O. No. 2
S
S
p�5o �D u L E mO F uV A LUES
2.) STORED MATERIAL BACKUP
CONTRACTOR'S Certification:
The undersigned CONTRACTOR certifies that (1) ail previous progress payments received from OWNER on account of
Work done under the Contract referred to above have been applied to discharge in full all obligations of CONTRACTOR
incurred in connection with Work covered by prior Applications for Payment numbered 1 through J ---inclusive; and
(2) title to all materials and equipment incorporated in said Work or otherwise listed in or covered by this Application for
Payment will pass to OWNER at time of payment free and clear of all liens. clause, security interests and encumbrances
(except such as covered by Bond acceptable to OWNER). •
INSCHO-KIRLIN,
Dated " 30 .•19 (7/ A DIVISION OF )YC,HN J. KIRLIN, INC.
InennRwer Cl A eLi '' /(]1113
lllDire c1nrAss I. pine .
En (ins W-!
LESS % RETAINAGE
MOUNT DUE TO DATE
LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS
•
GROSSAMOUNTDUE 52,705,793.00
S 160.5n0.Q0
5z.„54.29340
c9.01q.590.80
AMOUNT DUE THIS • P ICATION S 505,7(0 2 0
4f —DDO— /. T_ o4'-'
Other
/ CONTRA OR
11,II
FRANK H. INSCHO, JR .1i) VICE PRESIDENT
Payment of the above AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION is recommended.
Dated 2- 1 9 —" , 19 9,
By
EJCDC No. 19104-E (1983 Edition)
Prepared by the EA cen• Jo'yet Contract Documcvu Committee and eodorscd by The Associated Coast Cootractors o(Att.erias.
OOROf1_ r n
29a
i
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN IRC UTILITIES AND WINDSOR
POLO CLUB
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/1/91:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
MARCH 1, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UTI
Y SERVICES
WILLIAM . McCAIN
CAPITAL ikkk ^ T ENGINEER
DEPARTME TILITY SERVICES
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WINDSOR POLO CLUB
INDIAN
AND
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Windsor has requested to
differently than what was
County. The new location
existing sewer system. Due
Windsor Properties, Inc., to
with Indian River County,
attached agreement.)
RECOMMENDATION
locate their entrance guardhouses
originally approved by Indian River
sets the buildings directly over an
to this relocation, we have required
enter into an Indemnification Agreement
to hold the County harmless. (See
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached agreement with
Windsor Properties, Inc.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve the
Indemnification Agreement between IRC Utilities and
Windsor Polo Club and authorize the Chairman's
signature, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman expressed her concern
over why we allowed them to build over a utility easement, and
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that this line only
serves the guard shack; it is not the main line for the
development.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
MAS 19199A
30
BOOK PAGE 960
MAR 19 1991
,
BOOK 82 PAGE i61
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - COUNTRYSIDE NORTH HOMEOWNERS' ASSOC. REQUEST
TO SPEAK ON UTILITY MATTERS
The Board reviewed the following memo from the County
Attorney dated 3/5/91:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: March 13, 1991
RE: COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK
In anticipation of the presentation by Ed Nelson from Countryside
Mobile Home Park, this memo will attempt to give the Board a brief
history of the County's involvement with the Park.
In 1980 the County, by Resolution #80-88, gave Florida Atlantic
Associates, the developer of Countryside Mobile Home Park (then Village
Green), a nonexclusive franchise for water and sewer service. The
developer had to provide temporary water and sewer services for the
tenants since there was no County utility service available but agreed
to deposit money into an escrow account to purchase capacity in a
future County utility system.
The franchise was issued under the authority of Ordinances #80-21 and
22, adopted May, 1980. These ordinances adopted an impact fee charge
of $227 per unit, which was composed of a plant capacity charge of $157
per unit, plus a $35 per unit line charge for water and a $35 per unit
line charge for sewer. Thus, for the total amount of $227 a unit would
get water lines and sewer lines and a plant. Resolution #80-88 also
stated that utility service would be extended by the County only when
financially feasible.
Under this arrangement, the developer deposited into escrow $227 for
each of 509 units, plus $27,424 for a reserve and replacement account.
This amount of $-142,967 was in the escrow account when Florida
Atlantic decided to sell the company to Realcor Corp. in 1985. By then
the County had a Utilities Department and the Director explained to the
principals involved that at $227 impact fee per unit for water and
sewer, there would never be public water and sewer, since the service
would never be financially feasible. (It should be noted here that at
no time did the County ever accept impact fees from mobile home
tenants or in anyway indicate that certain mobile homes were vested as
to utility service in a future County water or sewer program.) On
June 5, 1985, Florida Atlantic, Realcor, and the County entered into a
new franchise arrangement under which the escrow of $142,967 was
given to the County, and Realcor agreed to pay the County the
County's current impact fee ($1,250 per unit) as follows: The
developer had to pay for 100 mobile home units within 18 months and all
the rest within ten years with a payment being due as each unit
changed ownership and with a minimum payment every year.
In return for giving $143,000 to the County, the developer (Realcor)
bought the right not to pay base facility charges for units on which
impact fees would be paid between 1985 and the date the County sewer
service actually became available. Service became available in 1990.
31
At Chairman Bird's suggestion, Commissioner Scurlock gave a
detailed summary of events leading up to today's discussion.
There were significant problems with both developments, but the
emphasis was on the failure of the wastewater package plant in
Village Green East, the original development on the north side of
SR -60. In addition, Florida -Atlantic was not fulfilling all the
requirements shown on the site plan for Village Green, Phase IV,
on the south side of SR -60, which is now called Countryside
North. A small group of residents from both developments met
with him for almost 9 months to resolve these problems. Ed
Nelson representing Village Green Phase IV and Wayne Gerhold of
Village Green East were in that small group, and the result of
that little committee was that in 1985 we finally had a
recommendation to bring to the County Commission. Part of that
recommendation was that Realcor, the new owner of Village Green
Phase IV, enter into an agreement resolving the wastewater/water
dispute and resolving the on-going litigation regarding the
gazebo and other improvements. Commissioner Scurlock referred
several times to a transcript of the meeting of June 5, 1985 when
the County Commission adopted Resolution 85-61, amending
Resolution 80-88, Water and Sewer Franchise for Village Green
Phase IV West. He announced that anyone wishing to listen to the
tape of that meeting may do so.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that our contractual
agreements always have been with the owners of both parks, and
today our program is still looking to the park owners. This
agreement was done with the full consent and advisement of that
small committee and the park owners. Those are the events
leading up to today's meeting.
Chairman Bird asked Attorney Vitunac if the 1985 agreement
is the only agreement presently in effect between the County and
the park owners, and Attorney Vitunac advised that the County
entered into an agreement in 1985 which repealed the 1980
agreement. The agreement was always with the owner of the mobile
home park, not with any tenants. The County has never indicated
that the mobile home tenants have to pay the impact fees.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto recalled that both he and
Commissioner Scurlock started on this project at about the same
time. When he arrived on the scene as Utilities Director, there
were about 120 individual franchised package plants in the
county. The franchise agreement that was written specifically
for the Florida -Atlantic utility at Village Green was somewhat
complicated and difficult to understand. In the absence of a
proven method to follow on the payment of monies escrowed to the
MAR 19 191
32
BOOK 82 rAa c52
MAR 19 1991
BOOK
PAGE 363
county, it was somewhat confusing on what this mobile home park
had in regard to escrowed funds. The franchise tried to
recognize all possible future conditions, and very wisely said
that it had to be financially feasible for the connection to take
place to the County system. Although the franchise set up
numbers that were to be regarded as impact fees, it obviously did
not see a possibility in the future that those fees would not
represent the actual costs or the needed costs to accommodate the
services. The customers of the Village Green utility were very
unhappy with the service and came to the County on many occasions
asking for some type of relief. In 1985 when Realcor purchased
Village Green West -Phase IV, now Countryside North, and wanted to
expand the franchise, it was somewhat involved and everyone was
concerned about the impact fees and the ability of the owner to
pass through those fees to the individual owners of the
residences. Staff's assignment was to come up with a method of
payment of the impact fees so that if it ever happened that the
park owners were allowed to pass through the impact charges to
the tenants, it would somewhat relieve the burden so that people
would not have to come up with the money all at one time. That
resulted in the idea that the impact fees would not have to be
paid until a specific mobile home was resold, meaning that the
people living there could live there for 10 years without having
to pay the impact fee if they did not sell their unit by then or
if the park owner was allowed to pass through the impact fees.
At the time of the resale of that unit, the owner of the mobile
home park had to remit to the County whatever the current impact
fee was at the time of the resale. It was a one-time charge that
would be charged only when the resale took place, and then they
would be totally vested as far as their impact fees were
concerned on that specific mobile home lot. Director Pinto
emphasized that the impact fees always were paid by the mobile
home park owner, and it wasn't even that important to us which
units it represented other than for us to keep track that we were
getting paid in a timely manner when we were supposed to get
paid. If they didn't pay it, the action would be against the
park owner. The agreements are with the park owner, and if there
were any liens or foreclosures to take place, it would be against
the real property or the park owner. The lien would be placed on
the entire property, and the obligation would be a cloud on the
mortgage on that property and would have nothing to do with the
individual mobile homes.
Director Pinto noted that while all this was going on, the
County was in the process of building the west county wastewater
33
treatment plant that had been totally obligated as far as
capacity, and the total cost of that plant was being funded by
those who were paying impact fees. What the agreement meant to
the Utility Department and the County was that the minute we
entered into the agreement, we had to obligate for the total
capacity required for that entire mobile home park. Addressing
that during the negotiations, the agreement was struck that
$143,000 would be turned over to the County in lieu of the
responsibility of paying base facility charges up until the time
of connection to the County system. Of course, all the fees
would be required to be paid on a monthly basis at the time they
did connect. Since the $143,000 was not money that came from any
specific mobile home owner or from the new owner of the mobile
home park, everyone, including the residents, felt it the very
best thing to turn that money over to the County because someone
else would be paying the base facility charges which may be
required to be paid in the future.
Commissioner Eggert asked what amounts we are talking about
for base facility charges from the time of that ordinance until
now, and Attorney Vitunac advised that a rough calculation shows
it would be around $300,000, but certainly more than $143,000.
Director Pinto confirmed that it was an extensive amount.
Another aspect was that when a resident sold their unit and paid
their impact fee, that impact fee was locked in and could never
increase again even though they were not connected to the system
yet. We had to be very careful not to run into the same problem
that they ran into with the original agreement regarding those
impact fees. The agreement contained a carefully structured
arrangement, and staff felt it was a good agreement and the
County Attorney and County Commission agreed.
Continuing, Director Pinto explained that after the west
county wastewater treatment plant was completed, the County put
the present park owner on notice to connect. He is currently in
violation of that notice, and if he doesn't connect in a short
amount of time, that specific issue will have to come before the
Board in a public hearing where the Board will have to take some
formal action on whether or not to go to litigation. However,
the park owner has hired engineers, who are doing the design of
the internal connection system.
Director Pinto emphasized that the County has always tried
to avoid litigation in these matters because of the cost that
would be borne by the users of the system, and Commissioner
Scurlock added that another reason has been because of the fear
34
MAR 19 1991
BOOK 82 [4E954 954
Virg 19 199
8001( FAGE 535
that a judgement might be made that it would be mandatory to hook
up. If a park owner doesn't live up to this commitment and we
call him on it, it would force him into court and he might be
forced into bankruptcy which might dissolve a lot of previous
agreements.
Chairman Bird understood that the agreement says that upon
the resale of a unit, the prevalent impact fee at the time would
then be due and payable to the County, and Attorney Vitunac
confirmed that the agreement did not freeze the impact fees at
the level they were at in 1985.
Chairman Bird asked how we keep track of the individual home
ownerships out there so that we collect the proper amounts from
the mobile home park owner, and Director Pinto explained that the
park owner is supposed to notify us of the resale, but they
forget to tell us. The only way we have to track that is through
the Tax Collector's Office, which handles transfers of vehicle
titles. The Tax Collector's Office gives us a printout of the
mobile home transfers on a regular basis, and if we see there are
more transfers than what the park owner has accounted for, then
we notify them and reconcile the number.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that the County is guaranteed to
get paid for at least one tenth of the units each year, not to
exceed the 10 years. So the County would get paid for all of
them by the tenth year.
Director Pinto advised that when we first entered into this
agreement and combined these two franchise areas, the park was
required to pay the County impact charges for a minimum of 100
units within 18 months. There was a dispute on this because the
park owner came back and said they did not have 100 empty lots,
but the County's position was that we were really not concerned
about how many empty lots there were, we just wanted payment of
impact fees for 100 within the first 18 months. We allowed them
to use the other side of Countryside, and they paid in excess of
100 in that first 18 months.
Chairman Bird returned to the resale of a mobile home, and
Commissioner Scurlock strongly believed the mobile home park
owner would not give a lease on the lot to a new buyer until he
received the impact fee. However, we still maintained that the
park owner is the one that owes us; we didn't want to get
involved in the relationship between the resident and the lessor..
Commissioner Scurlock personally felt the impact fee is a benefit
forever to that property. The Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU)
runs with the land, and he believed the park owner has the
benefit since those ERUs could be used if the park was sold in
the future and the land was used for another purpose.
35
Director Pinto advised that the park owner had the option of
paying all the impact fees up front at $1250 per unit and then
worry about how he was going to pass it through.
In conclusion of staff's recommendation, Director Pinto
reiterated that staff does not recommend crediting anyone with
the $143,000 unless we go back and recalculate what the base
facility charges would have been at that time.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if it would be illegal if the
Board chose to give a credit, and Attorney Vitunac advised that
the other users of the utility system would have to make up the
shortfall. To the extent that the system cannot give away free
service, he would say there is some issue out there. However,
without that type of argument being presented today by someone
with more facts, he would say that the Board has that option.
Director Pinto pointed out that amount of money was divided
equally between water and wastewater and represented something
for water and for wastewater, and Commissioner Scurlock
interjected that if it is determined that the park owner can pass
through the charges, he can only pass on through what he paid.
Attorney Vitunac felt that both park owners have washed
their hands of the money and given it to the County. It is now a
County asset, but if the County wanted to give it back on a
credit basis for each of the 509 units which was the basis for
which the money was collected, they could do so.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if the County would have the
right to return the $143,000 to the tenants since the developer
was the one that paid it to the County, and Attorney Vitunac felt
that if the Board wants to credit the money back, it should go as
a credit towards the units from which the money was first
derived. There were 509 units times $227 plus $27,000 R&R fund,
and the County did give the mobile home park a credit that could
be used only against those paid units. He felt the Board could
do that by virtue of this Targe audience here today, who believe
they have a legitimate complaint. Arguably, they have an issue
in court that we could say that this is a means of settling the
issue. There is no real utility logic for giving it back. He
felt Director Pinto's argument for keeping it is legally correct,
but in view of the legitimate concerns of a lot of people here
who thought they were vested, they have the right to settle the
issue by compromising on $143,000.
Chairman Bird thanked those in attendance for their
courtesy, patience and cooperation in listening to staff's
recommendation.
Ed Nelson, president of Countryside North Homeowners'
Association, Inc., representing 1050 residents or 100 eligible
36
MAR 191991
BOOK o '
MBAR 19
991
BOOK 82 FAH 967
voters in their mobile home park at 8775 20th Street, Vero Beach,
wished to ask a few questions before starting his dialogue on the
Association's position on this issue. Would an agreement that
has been signed by both parties, properly witnessed, attested to
by the County Clerk, and properly notarized be considered a legal
document, and Chairman Bird stated that he believed it would be
unless it is superseded by something else.
Mr. Nelson then asked if both parties are bound by that
legal agreement, and Attorney Vitunac and Chairman Bird indicated
that they would be.
Mr. Nelson also wished to know when Terry Pinto was hired in
as the Utilities Director, and Director Pinto advised that he was
hired in January, 1983.
Mr. Nelson began his presentation by clarifying that Village
Green East, as it was called at that time, is north of SR -60 and
Village Green West -Phase IV is south of SR -60 and is now called
Countryside North. Village Green West did not have the utility
related health hazard problems that Village Green East had back
then, but the residents were very upset about the lack of
amenities promised by the park owners. He also has a copy of the
tape of the June 5, 1985 meeting that Commissioner Scurlock
referred to earlier, and after listening to it a number of times,
feels there is a gray area with respect to utilities. He didn't
remember anything in the discussions about the $143,000.
Commissioner Scurlock advised that the residents were never
involved in any of the discussions on the $143,000.
Mr. Nelson pointed out that 6 years ago he stood here at the
meeting under different circumstances. At that time he had the
support of the Planning staff, but today he finds himself in
dispute with the Utilities Department. The subject of impact
fees have been a subject of prime concern to park residents for a
long time, and they are alluding to deviations from the
provisions of ordinances and franchise agreements which equate
monetarily to well over $1 -million. Regardless of which way the
conflict is settled, it must be accomplished posthaste because
the park is for sale and the Association's board of directors is
working with a St. Petersburg firm to ascertain whether or not
the park residents can buy it and convert it to a resident -owned
community (ROC). The impact situation is a serious encumbrance
and must be revealed to any prospective buyer. It must be
settled before any deal is consummated.
Continuing, Mr. Nelson advised that in October of 1990 they
met many times with Mr. Pinto and Mr. Asher, and on one occasion
in January of this year, with Attorney Vitunac. However,
37
communications became deadlocked, and they were forced to come
before the Board in this public discussion. They wish to make it
clearly understood that they want to avoid litigation if at all
possible. Before starting his presentation, Mr. Nelson asked if
the Commissioners have copies of all the pertinent documents that
he referred to in his memo, and Attorney Vitunac advised that
only Administrator Chandler has copies of all the documents at
this time, but additional copies could be made if the Board
wished.
Mr. Nelson couldn't understand why copies were not made
available to the Board members prior to this meeting. Proceeding
with his presentation, Mr. Nelson read aloud the following memo
sent to the County Commission on 3/5/91:
DATE: March 5, 1991
FROM: Edson Nelson
NORTH
Homeowners' Association, Inc.
8775 20th Street #1000
Vero Beach, Florida 32966
(phone: 562-8949)
•
,,,c••e
RE: Agenda for our requested hearing before the Indian River Coun
Commissioners on date to be scheduled.
The following documents will be referenced:
1. Ordinances:
80-21 Effective
80-22 Effective
84-18 Effective
85-3 Effective
May 12, 1980
May 12, 1980
April 27, 1984
January 21, 1985
2. Resolutions:
80-88 Signed September 17, 1980
85-61 Signed May 31, 1985
3. Agreement Relating to Provisions of Wastewater Treatment Services to
Village Green, Phase IV (West) by Indian River County, Florida --
Dated June 5, 1985
4. (CSIDE.WK1) Countryside Impact Fees Paid Prior to June 5, 1985 (as
recorded and submitted by the Utilities Department).
5. Countryside North Impact Fee Payments -
Impact Fees Paid After June 5, 1985 Agreement" (as recorded and
submitted by the Utilities Department).
38
MAR 19 199
BOOK 82 FAC
ly
p V'
MAR 19 199
BOOK 82 PAGE 96
6. Summary list of impact fees paid prior to June 5, 1985, according to
date and blocks.
7. Correspondence between Countryside North Homeowners' Association and
Indian River County Utilities Department.
Our main objective is to reveal and prove that the utilities impact fee(s)
have been paid on 509 pods in our development and that the fee(s) are being
collected for the second time on these pods.
In our dialogue we shall point out the failure of the park owners, to -wit:
Florida -Atlantic Associates (as the original owner/developer) and Realcor-
Vero Beach Associates (as the succeeding and present owner/developer) to
conform monetarily to the franchises as agreed upon and signed, notarized,
and sealed. We will, in conjunction therewith, reveal the failure of the
County to recognize such failure, to conform themselves to the ordinances,
and to enforce the terms of the ordinances and agreement. We shall debate
the stand taken on the issues by the utilities directors, a commission member,
and the county attorney.
Mr. Nelson wished to make several comments on the above
documents, and pointed out that page 3 of the franchise
agreement, Resolution 80-88, sets out the territory applicable to
this franchise and is proof that Village Green West - Phase IV is
the same and only territory now known as Countryside North. Page
11 of the franchise agreement addresses impact charges, and
Florida -Atlantic agreed to pay $500 per month up to a total of
$27,424. In other words, they should have started paying that
$500 a month in October, 1980, so why was the first payment not
received until October 31, 1983, two years and two months after
they bought the park? Let's assume that along the way they paid
the $27,424 at $500 a month, but in order to have paid that
entire amount, they would have had to own that park for 55
months.
Attorney Vitunac interjected that none of those facts are an
issue. The money is in the pot in the escrow account; the County
is admitting that, and there is no need to prove it.
Continuing, Mr. Nelson noted that Florida -Atlantic also
agreed to pay $70 per unit, $35 for water and $35 for sewer, as
each unit was completed as a future hookup impact charge, along
with $157 per unit, as completed, as a future impact charge for
plant capacity. Those charges came to a total of $227 per unit
as of September 10, 1980. Page 11 of the franchise agreement
states that these monies were to be deposited into an interest
bearing account, but Mr. Asher didn't think that money, except
for the R&R fund, was in an interest bearing account. He then
39
asked Mr. Asher who in the world would put that kind of money
into a non interest bearing account. However, the Association
knows that all the monies collected were put into an interest
bearing account.
Mr. Nelson next raised the question of the interest the
County was to have paid the developer from that money as of
September 30th of each year. Apparently that was never done
according to the financial reports that they have seen. The
developer also agreed to pay impact fees according to an
escalation of charges as provided by Ordinance 80-21. The
developer further agreed to pay $500 per month into a maintenance
account up to a sum of $30,000. In order to have paid the full
$30,000, Florida -Atlantic would have had to own that park for 60
months. They owned it for 57 months, and should have paid
$28,500 into that account. Had someone collected what was due
the County, they would have had $28,500. Why didn't they pay
that, and if they did, where is the account that shows it? They
cannot find anything in the Finance Department here in the
County. The are also concerned about the records showing the
collection of the R&R funds. He pointed out that the Resolution
states that the cost of the meter at such time as the County
provides water service to the franchise area may be taken out of
this fund. Therefore, that money should be in there in case a
meter was ever installed. Resolution 80-88 states that the
developer was required to pay a permit fee of $12,960 at the time
the franchise was approved. Where is the accounting of this
$12,960? The Association has many questions such as this one
that County staff is currently researching and hasn't had time to
answer. He wished to commend Mr. Asher, who has been very
helpful.
Mr. Nelson stressed that the first impact fees should have
been paid in August, 1980, when the first mobile home unit was
erected for Mr. 6 Mrs. Forest, who are in attendance today. Why
was payment of that impact fee not paid until April 29, 1985,
five years later? Why was it paid just shortly before Florida -
Atlantic sold the park to Realcor? The County didn't receive the
first check from Florida -Atlantic until November 16, 1983, and
that was on unit 263. Why wasn't the County getting this money?
Evidentally, it seems that all ordinances and resolutions were
signed, shoved in a drawer, and never taken out and looked at
again.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the reason for that is that we
went through three county administrators as well as a utility
director, and there was a lot of controversy during that time.
MAR 19 199!
40
BOOK 8. FAf,E 9 7 1
Pr -
MAR 10 199/
1
BOOK 82 PAGE 971
Continuing with his argument for proper accounting by the
County, Mr. Nelson noted that in the County's accounting of the
$143,000, one place shows a figure of $142,967 and in another
place it shows a total of $142,707, a deficiency of $260. Impact
fees were paid for at least 509 units, but last December they
received two lists from the County Utilities Dept. One showed
that impact fees were paid for 501 units. Where are the other 8?
Those 8 units are important and must be accounted for. In
addition, the printout from the Finance Dept. listed the cash
receipt numbers and when these monies were deposited, but the
list that he handed out to the Commission members earlier doesn't
show the cash receipts for the first couple of payments. What
did they do with the rest of them? Referring to an inter -office
memo written by Joseph Baird on February 13, 1986, he noted that
the summary of payments came out to $148,293.08. There was a
cover sheet with that memo that showed the $148,293.08, but
somebody had put a line through that and crossed it out, reducing
it to $146,023.08. What did they do with the $2,270 that they
crossed out? That again represents 10 homes at $227; thus, when
he refers to a minimum of 509 homes, there could be more! The
bookkeeping must have been atrocious back at that time, but that
is not their problem. They should not have to suffer because
someone didn't do the proper bookkeeping, collect the proper
amount of impact fees, nor require the owner to pay the proper
fees.
Mr. Nelson next addressed the interest paid by the County on
these accounts. Utilities' records show $142,707 as the balance
as of June 5, 1985, the day Realcor purchased the park from
Florida -Atlantic. It shows the interest of $3,316.07 up to
September 30, 1985, and they kept that interest. He stressed
that it doesn't add up. Why didn't the County pay interest on
the Florida -Atlantic account at least up until September, 1984?
Starting in October of 1980, they should have paid an interest
amount to Florida -Atlantic by September 30th each year. Who has
those accounts? Where did the interest go? Mr. Nelson also
wished to know what happened to the $69,020 contribution in aid
of construction.
Mr. Nelson went back to the $227 figure that was collected,
and they agree that no court in the land would move that $227 was
feasible for water and sewer, but if the money had been
collected, it would have been there. They intend to point out
the failures to collect the proper amounts. It is an oversight,
but they don't intend to pay for the oversight.
Mr. Nelson returned to the franchise agreement made with
Realcor dated 6/5/85, which states that there are approximately
41
100 vacant lots in the park. However, there were more than that,
something like 145. The franchise agreement, Resolution 85-61,
reads that Realcor agrees whether or not there is a home on those
pods within 18 months, to pay the impact fees on all of those
pods. The proof is that they didn't pay it, and they haven't
paid it to this day. There are still 50 vacant lots in the park.
The printout that was given to him by Harry Asher shows all these
vacant lots with no impact fees paid. Why weren't they paid?
Item #7 in that franchise agreement states, "Failure to pay any
impact fee installments within 90 days of when such installment
is due, shall without notice or other proceeding cause the impact
fee installments for the entire project to be forewith due and
payable with interest at the rate of 10% per annum." When they
met with Mr. Pinto and Mr. Asher on December 10, 1990 and read
that clause in Item #7, it brought Mr. Pinto right out of his
chair saying, "We better contact the County Attorney tonight."
Mr. Nelson stated that he and Glenn Baldwin didn't really expect
them to contact Mr. Vitunac until the next day, but did ask for a
copy of the letter that would be going to the County Attorney on
this matter. Mr. Pinto and Mr. Asher agreed to furnish them with
a copy of that letter. That was December 10th, and in January
they received a phone call saying that the County Attorney needed
more time to study the documents. He did not receive the letter
from the Utilities Department until January 7th. They were
frustrated by the delays, but finally Attorney Vitunac listened
to them and understood where they were coming from. They had a
good meeting that day in January, but the Association didn't buy
staff's excuse, which was that upon looking it over, they decided
that paying for 100 lots within 18 months wasn't feasible. So,
here they are with the situation that the impact fees were not
paid within 18 months and almost 6 years later there are still 50
vacant lots in the park. Mr. Nelson argued that it was feasible
to fill up Phase IV, which is now called Countryside North, but
the developer chose to fill up the southern complex first (Phase
V). The agreement with Realcor was with Phase IV, and their
answer to that was that they were given permission to take credit
for homes that were put into Countryside South because it is all
one complex with the same owner. The Association doesn't buy
that. The agreement was with Phase IV, and the County cannot
give credit for units being built in another park that wasn't
covered under that agreement. If the County goes back to Realcor
and demands that they abide by Item #7 in the franchise agreement
and pay for all those vacant lots, they now would have to say
that the 501 units are wiped off the slate and start over, and
Realcor would have to pay impact fees on all of those to comply
42
MAR 1.9 1991
BOOK f',{E972
MAP 19 11991
BOOK 82 F,1GE 9-141
with the statement in Item #7 which refers to "every lot in the
entire project". On the other hand, if the County doesn't make
them pay for 501 units, then they are admitting that the impact
fees have been paid. It would be one against the other. This is
a very bad, complicated situation that has gone untreated for too
long. Not until 1985 were the errors and oversights discovered,
and it appears that the County's only solution was to sweep it
all under the rug and then start over.
In conclusion, Mr. Nelson felt he could go on all day about
this issue, but just wished to point out that the residents of
their park chose this mode of living as an affordable lifestyle,
which it was 10 years ago until the question arose on the payment
of these impact fees.
Mr. Nelson's presentation was followed by a standing ovation
from the standing room only audience.
Chairman Bird felt some new information came out this
morning that staff perhaps is not prepared to respond to. He
knew it was the Board's intention to have all funds accounted for
and credited in the proper places, and if there have been errors
in the past, such as sloppy bookkeeping, it is not going to be
swept under the rug. It is not our intention to do that. We
will try to work with our staff to have as complete and accurate
accounting as possible of the funds that have been or should have
been collected, of who should have paid what and when, and of who
now should be receiving credit for those funds. He would like to
give staff a chance to digest what has been said here this
morning, and prepare a proper response to Mr. Nelson's points and
then reschedule another meeting to discuss the matter.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that all the accounting at
that time was done on the IBM -38 in Data Processing, which is
under the auspices of the County Clerk's Office. Subsequent to
that, Utilities transferred to the System 400, which interfaces
with the IBM -38, so he wasn't sure whether the current staff
would be able to document and go through the process adequately
without involvement of the other entities. All the records are
finally kept with the Clerk's Office, although much of that
information is entered into the program at the Utilities
Department. He felt it is absolutely clear that sometime in
1984-1985 it came to the attention of the Board of County
Commissioners that their franchise administration was in arrears
on many of the impact fees, not only for this development, but on
Pelican Pointe and a couple of other developments also, and that
43
for whatever reason they owed us money and we did not have those
monies conveyed. What occurred at that time was direction to
staff to clean up the act and to come up with a program with the
County Clerk to put a new program on the IBM -38 to track all this
information. The bottom line is that there was an admitted
problem with franchise administration and the non-payment of fees
to the County. That did occur, and that goes all the way back to
when Lisa Abernathy was the franchise administrator.
Administrator Chandler anticipated a great deal of
difficulty in going back through the records before 1985 and
bringing it back to the Board with any degree of accuracy. He
felt that even if we spent months doing that, there still would
be a substantial question on what we brought back to the Board.
He didn't feel there would be any problem with bringing back the
records after 1985, however.
Commissioner Eggert stated that when this comes back, she
would like to know what the amount would have been had the County
made Realcor pay in 1985, along with clarification on the credits
given for vacant units in the southern part of the complex.
Glenn Baldwin, vice president of Countryside North
Homeowners' Association, wished to point out that Realcor
required them to make the checks out to Indian River County. He
pointed out that if they had been fully recorded, the records
should show that impact fees were paid in full for at least 501
units.
Going back to 1984, Commissioner Scurlock could not honestly
remember any specific discussion with the park residents and
their representatives during the 8 or 9 months he worked with
that small committee. They debated for months the very fact of
not forcing the owner to come up with all the money at one time.
Right or wrong, that committee wanted this program and there were
some other issues they were trying to avoid. They wanted to stay
away from any mandatory language, because they felt the owner
would have gone right into court and passed the impact charges on
immediately. That discussion occurred over and over again, and
the depositions he made in favor of the other phase of Village
Green, reflect that. There was a concerted effort and an
absolute agreement to replace all the old with the new 1985
agreement. That occurred, right or wrong, good or bad, and we
agreed collectively to recommend it to the County Commission.
At that meeting, these Chambers were filled just like today, but
not one person responded when it was asked if anyone in the
audience objected. He recalled that Wayne Gerhold came up and
shook his hand, and there was hope they soon would be getting rid
44
MAS 19 1991
82 FA� r 9
uE 974
MAR 19 199
PUCK
F4 E' i5
of Florida -Atlantic and getting a new owner that would treat the
residents right. At that time both phases were under one
operation and one owner, and we had to address the impact fees in
order to solve all the issues with the one owner.
Commissioner Scurlock felt there was no question in his mind
that in 1985 when he brought the committee's recommendation to
the Board, it was a new agreement to wipe out the old. The
entire committee concurred with the recommendation and no one
raised an objection. Maybe it was a bad decision, maybe we
should have taken a different approach, but it was an effort to
solve the issue.
Mr. Nelson asked if the County assumes that all the money
came from the tenants, and Attorney Vitunac stated that we do not
assume that. Our agreement was with the property owner, the
mobile home park owner, who was obligated to pay the money, and
that is all we know.
Commissioner Scurlock advised that during this morning's
break, a gentleman in the audience had shown him cancelled checks
written by individual owners in Village Green that were made out
to Indian River County. That was the first time he had ever seen
any checks made out directly to Indian River County, and, quite
frankly, if he had known that then, he would have said to send
them back and have the park owner convey the money over to the
County. That was the first time he had ever seen any
documentation that we ever received any money directly from the
individual home owners, and he was surprised that we accepted it.
However, those checks were written after 1985.
Director Pinto pointed out that the park owner sent them
over to give us the money.
After almost three hours of discussion on this issue,
Chairman Bird asked for some direction from the Board as to where
we need to go with this, and Commissioner Eggert felt that this
should be brought back after a full accounting because we are all
starting to repeat ourselves.
Chairman Bird asked Mr. Nelson if he and his people would be
satisfied with as full an accounting as we can possibly make from
the 1985 agreement and the funds that were transferred and
collected since that date, if we can document and produce that
information. In a way, he guessed it is an embarrassment to us
that our accounting system and our turn -over in personnel prior
to 1985 probably wasn't what it should have been and there may be
some discrepancies in some accounts prior to that time.
Mr. Nelson stated that they didn't expect any decision at
this time, and admitted he should have asked for a full
45
accounting prior to this meeting. He realized it would take a
long time, but the only thing they really would settle for is
credit for at least 509 homes, fully vested, with the impact fees
paid back with interest.
Chairman Bird explained that in order to do that we would
have to go back prior to 1985, and Mr. Nelson agreed it would
have to be pre -1985, because as he has said over and over again,
had the County done the job, collected the proper amounts and
enforced the terms of its provisions, the money would have been
there. They feel this should have been taken care of at the time
the park was being sold. Had the County been up on their
accounting, all they would have had to do was tell
Florida -Atlantic how much they owed the County. They then could
have taken that amount of money and invested it, and the interest
on that amount of money over these past 6 years would have put a
whopping amount of money in that account. They are willing to
wait for a proper accounting, but they would like an extension on
the April 1st or April 12th date until this is ironed out for
their park, because their park is unique.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that if there is a dispute about
whether the park owner can pass through the impact fees to the
residents, that dispute is between the owner and the residents
because that is their contractual arrangement, and if we do
anything less, we are going to get ourselves into more legal
problems, not less. He believed the bottom line is that every
other customer of the system would have to make up whatever
shortfall there is. It would not be paid for by the taxpayers,
but by the customers of the system. We could play some little
game and adjust rates and recover them in the rate structure
versus the impact fee, but that would be dishonest, in his
opinion. He believed the 1985 agreement was entered into in good
faith and with the concurrence of the property owners' represen-
tatives, and that is the point where we should begin. He knew
that is not pleasant and that nobody will be happy about that,
but felt that is the only responsible thing we can do.
MAR 1.919
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, that the Board abide by the
1985 agreement; give an accounting from 1985 to date;
and maintain the Commission's position to enforce the
1985 agreement and those impact fees, but take no
position on whether the park owner can pass on those
fees and charges to the residents.
46
ROT! 82 F'AiGC 7 C
MAP 19 994
BOOK
�-�
t.J[ 1
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert noted that she
seconded the Motion for discussion with no comment on the credit.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he was not going to make
that part of the Motion, although he still felt sympathetic to
crediting the $143,000.
Commissioner Eggert did not want to deal with credit until
we get an accounting. She understood that the Motion is just
saying that the 1985 agreement is valid and we are going to start
there and see what happens. We are going to assume the $143,000
was passed over in good faith.
In addition, but not as part of his Motion, Commissioner
Scurlock hoped that the County Attorney and the County
Administrator would interface with Mr. Nelson and his people on
any settlement or court action that has to be weighed. He
stressed that we need to move on. The impact fee is extended for
30 days from March 12, 1991, the date we passed the increases in
impact fees and utility rates. The 30 days is just for them to
give us notice of their intent to participate, which freezes them
at the current impact fee.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the new ordinance puts the new
rates into effect on April 1, 1991, and believed that is when the
30 days was chosen.
Commissioner Scurlock recalled that he made the Motion at
the rate hearing, and in that Motion he wanted 30 days for them
to identify to us that they wish to participate in an extended
program where the County Attorney would work out the developer's
agreement to accomplish that purpose. That may be done outside
the 30 days, but their letter of intent to participate needs to
be in here, and his Motion was 30 days from that public hearing,
which is April 12th.
Attorney Vitunac advised that we would have to give that
same 30 -day option to anyone who wants to get in on the system,
but Commissioner Scurlock stated that it only would be for those
people who had a valid franchise with the County. It is a
different group, a different classification of customers. It is
not an individual unit; this is a much more complex issue because
it is a franchise agreement and what goes to it, in his mind,
sets it separate and different.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
47
Arthur Ackers of Countryside North suggested that until this
is settled, Director Pinto should be instructed to lift the
requirement that impact fees have to be paid at the time of sale.
Wayne Gerhold recalled the committee meetings they had with
Commissioner Scurlock, and believed that 98% of the residents in
Village Green East were happy with what they were able to work
out back then.
Chairman Bird announced that Administrator Chandler has said
that staff needs 30-60 days to prepare adequate response and that
copies of the response would be sent to Mr. Nelson previous to
the next meeting.
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT MEETINGS
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would reconvene sitting first as District Board of Fire
Commissioners of the South Indian River County Fire District and
following that meeting, sitting as the Commissioners of the Solid
Waste Disposal District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:30 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
MAR 19 1991
Clerk Chairman
48
POOK