HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/20/1997MINUTE OKMACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, MAY 20,1997
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman (District 2)
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman (District 4)
Fran B. Adams (District 1)
Caroline D. Ginn (District 5
Kenneth R Macht (District 3)
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 BACKUP
PAGES
2. INVOCATION Rev. Randy Williams
Treasure Coast Assembly of God
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - James E. Chandler
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Item 11-E, Solid Waste Bond", Soria 1988, PayOff 18,270,000, will Also be heard as Item 14-B by the solid Wute
Disposal Diettiet Board
2 Add Item 13-61, FACo Legislative Briefing
3. Add Item 13-62, Report regarding Article V Legislation, Court Funding,
4. Add Item MA 3. Economic Development Program Committee and District proposed by Tcasure Coast Regional
Planning Coma
S. Add Item 13-A-4. Announcement regarding claim" review hearing
6. Move Item 11-G-3 to Item 9-B, Country Club Pointe Subdivision request for County to dredge boat canals.
7. Add Item 13 -D -Z Vao Beach Etwes, discwsion regarding ability to bum scows.
S. Add Item 10, Report regarding search for new Wines Director.
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Proclamation Designating May 25-31,
1997 as American Home Week in I.R.C. 1
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
-None
7. - -CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to
the Board: 1. R C. Hosp. Dist. Notice of Special
Meeting to Review Funding Requests Re: `97-98
Budget - Wed., May 14, 1997 - 5:30 p.m.; IRC
Hosp. Dist. Notice of Regular Monthly Meeting -
Thurs., May 15, 1997 at 6:15Am.
B. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated May 8, 1997) 2-10
C. Appointment to the Tourist Development Council
(memorandum dated May 13, 1997) 11-12
D. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #024
(memorandum dated May 14, 1997) 3-19
i
1'
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): PAGES
E. Computer Equipment for Economic Development
(memorandum dated May 14, 1997) 20-21
F. Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance
Waiver for Lot 6, Block 19, Vero Lake Est., Unit 4
(memorandum dated May 6, 1997) 22-25
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Proposed LDR Amendment: Modifying
Buffer Requirements Between New Resi-
dential Projects and Active Agricultural
Operations
(memorandum dated May 14, 1997)
2. Paving & Drainage Improvements to 60th
Ave. So. of 45th St. in Ponderosa Est. S/D
(memorandum dated April 22, 1997)
3. Paving & Drainage Improvements to 101 st
Ave. Between 79th St. & 87th St. in Vero
Lake Estates S/D
(memorandum dated April 24, 1997)
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Communily Development
Consideration of Proposed Changes to the
Jungle Trail Enhancement Project
(memorandum dated May 14, 1997)
2. Request for Authorization to Submit Trans-
portation Enhancement Project Application
(memorandum dated May 13, 1997)
3. Request for County Acceptance or Road
R -O -W and Conservation Land from Lost
Tree Village Corp. as Partial Mitigation for
Development of Two Single -Family Residences
on Wabasso Island
(memorandum dated May 12, 1997)
26-61
62-71
72-94
95-104
105-109
110-115
4. Review of Proposed Special Credit Requirements
for Habitat for Humanity Assisted SHIP Appli-
cants and Community Development Block Grant
Assisted SHIP Applicants
(memorandum dated May 13, 1997) 116-119
11. DEPARTMENTALA� '.RS (cont'd.): NKM
PAGES
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
None
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
Pay Off $8,240,000 Solid Waste Bonds, Series 1988
(memorandum dated May 14, 1997) 120-121
F. Personnel
Board's Request for Additional Information in
Regards to Out -of -State Health Benefit
(memorandum dated May 12, 1997) 122-124
G. Public Works
1. 26th St. Improvements Between 58th Ave.
and 66th Ave. Change Order No. 2 - Final
Payment & Release of Retainage
(memorandum dated May 9, 1997) 125-128
2. Rockridge Subdivision / 16th St. Drainage
Improvements
(memorandum dated May 9, 1997) 129-156
3. Request for County to Dredge Boat Canals
Country Club Pointe Subdivision - Richard
Bogosian, Representative
(memorandum dated May 14, 1997) 157-165
4. Revision to I.R.C. Procurement Policies and
Procedures for Community Development
Block Grant Project
(memorandum dated May 14, 1997) 166-201
H. Utilities
1. Proposed Developers Agreement with First
Baptist Church of Winter Beach, Florida
(memorandum dated March 31, 1997) 202-206
2. US 1 Water Main - East Side (39th St. to
Harbor Drive) - Preliminary Assessment -
Resolutions I and II
(memorandum dated May 9, 1997) 207-215
3. So. Co. Regional Wastewater Treatment
Facility - 2.0 MGD Expansion Construction
Bid Award #4039
(memorandum dated May 12, 1997) 216-230
4. So. Co. Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion to 2.0 MGD - Addendum No. 3
Additional Services Contract w/ Camp
Dresser and McKee, Inc.
(memorandum dated May 8, 1997) 231-242
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY `'' " ' `'
PAGES
Offer of Judgment - Blake -Torres Litigation
(memorandum dated May 13, 1997) 24J
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
B. Vice Chairman John W. Tinoin
t
C. Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Memorial to Deceased Employees 244
a
D. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Discussion of Consent Agenda and Workshop
Policies
(no backup provided)
E. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None ,
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
None
C. Environmental Control Board
None
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.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance
it meeting.
!fleeting broadcast lire on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast S: 00 p.m. Thursday through
S: 00 p. m. Friday
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
� � r
m
INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MAY 20,1997
1. CALL TO ORDER H..N..........N...............NNNN..N..N.N......N....NNNNN.....N....N..............1
2. INVOCATION N......N...............................................N..........N.NH«NH....N.N........N........1
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ............................... N..H....N.N...N.......H......... .............. I
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA................................N.......NN................. .............. I
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
.NNNH.NN.HN.H...NNH..N...NH.NN..N...N.2
PROcL"A2IoNDESIGNAnNGMAY25-31,1997ASAMEMC4NSOAM WEEK.............2
6. APPROVAL OF NIINUTES.................................. N. .... N ...... N ... ...N............................3
7. CONSENT AGENDA N ...... N ............................................ NH ...... ...NN...... .... NN ................. 3
7.A. REPORTS.................................................................................................................3
7.B. LIST OF WARRA NTs.................................................................................................3
7.0 TOURISTDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL APPOIN UFAT- SONYA DEESE...................... 9
7.D. MISC,r.LMNEOUSBUDGETAMFMmENT#024.....................................................10
7.E. ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT COMPUTER EQUIPMENT- CHAMBER OF
COr.OMCE .... . . . .. ... . . ......................... . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . ...... o... ........... . . ... . .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . .. .... . .12
7.F.,,,,, ... o,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, FLOODPLAINCVTANDFILLBALANCE WAIVER—LOT6, BLocx19,
VEROLASEESTATES, UNIT4 - TOZZOLOBROTHERS CONSTRUCTION,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - LDR AMENDMENT MODIFYING BUFFER
REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN NEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AND
ACTIVE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ... .................. ......NN ....... NN ....... NN............ 15
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - 607 AVENUE (SOUTH OF 45' STREET) —
PONDEROSA ESTATES SUBDIVISION — PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IM[PROVEM[ENT"�CC''........N..N.N.N..N....N.NN....N.....HH...NN.N.H..NN...NN.NNH..NN.N..N.N........ 28
9.A.3. IJBLIC HEARING -101s AVENUE (BETWEEN 79 ' STREET
AND 87 STREET)— VERO LAKE ESTATE SUBDIVISION — PAVING
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTSN.........N...........N.... N.............N............................. 38
MAY 20,1997
9.11. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - COUNTRY CLUB POINTE SUBDIVISION -
RICHARD BOGOSIAN, REPRESENTATIVE -REQUEST FOR COUNTY
TO DREDGE BOAT CANALS......... ............... „...N.NN...N........NN.....................N....... 59
10. S DIRECTOR - SEARCH UPDATE
63
11.A.1. JUNGLE TRAIL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.„„......................N............. 64
11.A.2. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
APPLICATION - AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT.......H.NN.....N..N........................N 69
11.A.3. LOST TREE VILLAGE CORP. - ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
CONSERVATION LAND AS PARTIAL MITIGATION FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES - WABASSO
ISLAND......N„HNNN...„.H.„.NN....„HH.H.„„H.H.N....„.H...NNN........„NN„........HH................. 72
11.A.4. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ASSISTED SHIP APPLICANTS
AND COADIUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ASSISTED SHIP
APPLICANTS - PROPOSED SPECIAL CREDIT REQUIREMENTS .................„. 74
11.E. SOLID WASTE $8,240,000 BONDS, SERIES 1988 - PAYOFF...........„........ 78
11.F. OUT-OF-STATE HEALTH BENEFITS - ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE BOARD..H................H....H.......................... 79
11.G.1. 46' STREET IMPROVEMENTS (BETWEEN 58' AVENUE
AND 66 AVENUE) - CHANGE ORDER #2 - FINAL PAYMENT &
RELEASE OF RETAINAGE - RANGER CONSTRUCTION ------------ -------- ----------- 82
11.G.2. ROCKRIDGE SUBDIVISION -16' STREET - DRAINAGE
I PPROVEMENTS - DAMES & MOORE - FL DOT..„N... N.....NNN..HN.NHH.............. 83
11.G.3. COUNTRY CLUB POINTE SUBDIVISION - RICHARD
BOGOSIAN BbAT C NA S ATIVE - REQUEST FOR COUNTY TO . N. . H....„..................................
H.„............................................ 85
11.G.4. PROCUREMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES - REVISIONS
- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECT ............. „.„........ 85
11.H.1. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF WINTER BEACH -
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT ------------------------------ --------------- 86
11.H.2. US#1 WATER MAIN - EAST SIDE (397' STREET TO HARBOR
D---)„.„......„N..„...N„.HH...N.N„H..N.H..N...N.H..H„.HN.N....H..N„N.„.N...N„„.N.N.„..H.NM.N.H. 87
11.H.3. SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACIMY - 2.0 MGD EXPANSION CONSTRUCTION - BID #4039 -
WHARTONSMITH...NH.N.N.NN..............................................N...N.......„........................... 96
11.11.4. SOUTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION TO 2.0 MGD - ADDENDUM NO.3 - CAMP DRESSER AND
MCKEE, INC..N.N...H......).H.N..N........N...N..H......NN.......N........1N.HHNN...NH....NH..H.H.HH..... 98
12. BLAIN-TORRES LITIGATION - OFFER OF JUDGMENT....„„ ................. 99
MAY 20, 1997
13.A.1. FACO LEGISLATIVE BRIEFING .............N..N...N...NNNN . ............N........ 100
13.A.2. REPORT REGARDING ARTICLE V LEGISLATION - COURT
FUNDING - HOUSE BILL 1319 NN............... NNN.N....NN.N..N..........NN....
.N.NN.N...N.N..N
13.A.3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CONIlVIPI'rEE AND
DISTRICT - TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL . .. . ...... 102
13.A.4. ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING CLAIMS REVIEW ,,,,,....... ...,,.,,,,,103
13.C. MEMORIAL TO DECEASED EMPLOYEES ......... ......... NN..N.N......
..N.......
103
13.D.1. CONSENT AGENDA AND WORKSHOP POLICIES
DISCUSSIONNN.NN.NNNNNN..N..NN.N..N.N.....N..NNNNN.N.......N.......................NN.......NNN. 104
13.11.2. VERO BEACH ESTATES - DISCUSSION REGARDING ABILITY
TO BUILD STATUS N.N..N........ ......... N ..............
........---.....v..-....�..-------------
----------------------
105
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ....................................... ..N ...... N.N.............. 108
MAY 20, 1997
M M M
May 20, 1997
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, May 20,
1997, at 9:00 am. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Kenneth R Macht;
and Caroline D. Ginn. John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman was absent due to illness. Also present were
James E. Chandler, County Administrator, Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney, and Patricia "PJ"
Jones, Deputy Clerk
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Eggert called the meeting to order.
2. INVOCATION
Reverend Randy Williams of Treasure Coast Assembly of God gave the Invocation,
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
County Administrator James Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Eggert requested six changes to today's Agenda:
1. Item 11 E, Solid Waste Bonds, Series 1988, PayOff $8,240,000, will also be heard as
Item 14-B by the Solid Waste Disposal District Board.
2. Add Item 13-A-1, FACo Legislative Briefing.
3. Add Item 13-A-2, Report regarding Article V Legislation, Court Funding.
4. Add Item 13-A-3, Economic Development Program Committee and District proposed
by Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
MAY 20, 1997
Tm J , r,� * .
.
nA
5. Add Item 13-A-4, Announcement regarding claims review hearing.
6. Move Item 11-G-3 to Item 9-B, County Club Pointe Subdivision request for County
to dredge boat canals.
Commissioner Ginn requested the addition of Item 13-D-2, Vero Beach Estates, discussion
regarding ability to build status.
County Administrator James Chandler requested the addition of Item 10, report regarding
search for new Utilities Director.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Tippin being absent) made the above changes
to the Agenda.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATIONDESIGNATINGMAY25 31,1997ASAMERICANHOME WEEK
Chairman Eggert presented the following Proclamation to Peter Annfield:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Americans enjoy the freedom to own private property and the right to use or transfer
it as they see fit: and
WHEREAS, with this ownership comes the need to protect our private property rights: and
WHEREAS, with these rights often comes the desire to improve property - whether homes, farms,
shopping centers, industrial parks or office buildings - and by so doing, enhance the value of such
property; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Indian River County should be mindful of this value, not only in a
monetary sense, but in the sense of the inherent worth of property as it pertains to the enjoyment of life
locally; and
WHEREAS, each year REALTORS - members of the local REALTORS Association- call
attention to the importance of private property rights by celebrating AMERICAN HOME WEEK; and
WHEREAS, this month the REALTORS Association of Indian River County will emphasize the
value of home ownership and other property ownership within the community; and
WHEREAS, the strength of our nation flows from the promise of individual equality and freedom
of choice; and
WHEREAS, we must, as individuals and as a people, take a stand to make equal opportunity for
all, including equal opportunity in housing, a reality in our community; and
WHEREAS, barriers that diminish private property rights and limit the options of any citizens will
ultimately diminish the rights and limit the options of all:
MAY 209 1997
IN
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of May 25 - 31, 1997 be
designated as
AMERICAN HOME WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board reminds the citizens of this county of their freedom to own private
property, the importance to protect the rights that accompany this ownership and their awareness of the
value of improving such property.
Dated this 20 day of May, 1997.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Carolyn K. ggert, Cha'
Peter Armfield thanked the Board on behalf of the Realtors Association and announced they
would be hosting a Landlord -Tenant Seminar during the next week. Mr. Armfield invited the public to
call for more information
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Eggert requested that Item 7-C be pulled for discussion, and Commissioner Adams
requested that Item 7-E be pulled for discussion.
7.A. REMRTS
Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board:
1. Indian River County Hospital District Notice of Special Meeting to Review Funding
Requests Re: 1997-98 Budget, Wednesday, May 14, 1997 at 5:30 p.m.
2. Indian River County Hospital District Notice of Regular Monthly Meeting, Thursday,
May 15, 1997 at 6:15 p.m.
7.A LIST OF WARRANTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 8, 1997:
MAY 20, 1997
'i 4 n 67)
3 UL
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MAY 8, 1997
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes. all warrants issued
by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk
to the Board. for the time period of April 30 to May 8. 1997.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously approved the list of Wan -ants as
issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period from April 30,
1997 through May 8, 1997, as recommended by staff.
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0018392
FRANK HULBERT ROOFING
4/30/97
2,250.00
0018393
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
4/30/97
100.00
0018394
BARTON, JEFFREY K _CLERK
4/30/97
240.00
0018395
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
4/30/97
255.00
0018396
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND
5/01/97
906.90
0018397
FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
5/01/97
329,181.20
0018398
KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE
5/01/97
138.50
0018399
BREVARD COUNTY CLERK OF THE
5/01/97
166.79
0018400
ORANGE COUNTY CLERK OF THE
5/01/97
135.20
0018401
ST LUCIE COUNTY CLERK OF THE
5/01/97
541.75
0018402
VELASQUEZ, MERIDA
5/01/97
200.00
0018403
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CLERK OF
5/01/97
2,979.08
0018404
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE-
5/01/97
175.00
0018405
VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC.
5/01/97
1,992.00
0018406
INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT
5/01/97
87,240.63
0018407
AMERICAN DENTAL PLAN (FLORIDA)
5/01/97
2,046.60
0018408
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
5/01/97
257.69
0018409
AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
5/01/97
232.96
0018410
NACO/SOUTHEAST
5/01/97
3,226.04
0018411
KEY TRUST COMPANY OF FLORIDA
5/01/97
989.18
0018412
JACKSON COUNTY CLERK OF THE
5/01/97
124.80
0018413
DOUGLAS COUNTY -CLERK OF COURT
5/01/97
23.08
0018414
TRANSOUTH_FINANCIAL CORP
5/01/97
155.72
0018415
AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
5/01/97
21.50
0018416
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY
5/01/97
40.00
0018417
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY
5/01/97
1,548.00
0018418
KING, RICHARD D
5/02/97
3,680.00
0018419
CAMPBELL, DAN
5/02/97
682.82
0018420
FRANK HULBERT ROOFING
5/05/97
2,500.00
0018421
BARTON, JEFFREY K _CLERK
5/05/97
15.00
0018422
HUNTER, SAMUAL A AND AUDREY B
5/05/97
16,658.40
0018423
POSTMASTER
5/05/97
2,000.00
0018424
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
5/05/97
418.85
0018425
BARTON, JEFFREY K, CLERK
5/05/97
191.10
0018426
TRANS GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE
5/06/97
3,196.20
0018427
IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE_
5/06/97
6,625.00
0018428
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
5/06/97
11150.00
MAY 209 1997
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0222066
AERO PRODUCTS CORP
5/08/97
562.92
0222067
ALPHA ACE HARDWARE
5/08/97
12.48
0222068
AMERICAN WATER WORKS
5/08/97
150.00
0222069
ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE
5/08/97
246.80
0222070
APPLE MACHINERY & SUPPLY
5/08/97
587.12
0222071
ATLAS PEN & PENCIL CORP
5/08/97
312.81
0222072
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
5/08/97
1,566.96
0222073
ATLANTIC REPORTING
5/08/97
60.00
0222074
ALL VERO VACUUM
5/08/97
13.00
0222075
AQUAGENIX LAND -WATER
5/08/97
276.00
0222076
ANCESTRY, INC
5/08/97
47.90
0222077
ALL SERVICE GRAPHICS, INC
5/08/97
2,344.00
0222078
ALL RITE WATER CONDITIONING
5/08/97
93.75
0222079
ANESTHESIA OF INDIAN RIVER,INC
5/08/97
515.40
0222080
A T & T LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES
5/08/97
259.90
0222081
ALLIED MEDICAL SERVICES
5/08/97
123.25
0222082
AMERIGAS-FT PIERCE
5/08/97
487.52
0222083
ARROW MAGNOLIA INTERNATIONAL
5/08/97
451.84
0222084
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
5/08/97
56.00
0222085
AUMA ACTUATORS, INC
5/08/97
671.19
0222086
ALL COUNTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY
5/08/97
141.72,
0222087
ANTHONY BAIL BONDS
5/08/97
1,910.00
0222088
ALLEN, CHERI
5/08/97
121.13
0222089
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
5/08/97
683.01
0222090
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
5/08/97
71125.30
0222091
AT&T
5/08/97
.77
0222092
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
5/08/97
392.00
0222093
ARTS & CRAFTS
5/08/97
20.00
0222094
ARCH PAGING
5/08/97
538.60
0222095
AMJ EQUIPMENT CORP
5/08/97
287.70
0222096
BAKER & TAYLOR, INC
5/08/97
1,851.51
0222097
BAKER BROTHERS, INC
5/08/97
68.02
0222098
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
5/08/97
2,064.35
0222099
BERNAN ASSOCIATES
5/08/97
40.00
0222100
BETTER BUSINESS FORMS, INC
5/08/97
924.27
0222101
BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
5/08/97
584.43
0222102
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
5/08/97
22.78
0222103
BARTON, JEFFREY K -MERK
5/08/97
1,940.75
0222104
BERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC
5/08/97
2,020.69
0222105
B & B INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.
5/08/97
5,372.31
0222106
BRIDGESTONE SPORTS, INC
5/08/97
726.69
0222107
BARNETT BAIL BONDS
5/08/97
1,266.00
0222108
BAKER & TAYLOR
5/08/97
5.60
0222109
BLAIS ELECTRIC, INC
5/08/97
80.33
0222110
B & B OFFICE EQUIPMENT, INC
5/08/97
460.00
0222111
BILLING SERVICE, INC
5/08/97
168.44
0222112
BURNSED, B KEITH
5/08/97
80.68
0222113
BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE
5/08/97
250.00
0222114
BOOKS ON TAPE
5/08/97
619.60
0222115
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
5/08/97
25.12
0222116
BELLSOUTH
5/08/97
720.40
0222117
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
5/08/97
17,116.00
0222118
BET -T
5/08/97
108.71
0222119
BROWN & CALDWELL
5/08/97
1,947.96
0222120
BILINGUAL PUBLICATIONS CO
5/08/97
136.70
0222121
CAMERON & BAR.KLEY COMPANY
5/08/97
137.98
0222122
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
5/08/97
3,941.10
0222123
CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC
5/08/97
473.66
0222124
CHILDREN'S PRESS
5/08/97
87.98
0222125
CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL
5/08/97
19.00
0222126
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
5/08/97
183.50
0222127
CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC SUPPLY
5/08/97
27.08
0222128
COOPERS & LYBRAND, L.L.P
5/08/97
12,165.00
0222129
CORBIN, SHIRLEY E
5/08/97
231.00
0222130
CHEMSEARCH
5/08/97
249.32
0222131
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
5/08/97
56,820.49
0222132
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
5/08/97
4,311.00
0222133
COASTAL FUELS MARKETING, INC
5/08/97
6,530.40
0222134
CLINIC PHARMACY
5/08/97
383.30
0222135
COPELAND, LINDA
5/08/97
108.50
0222136
CREST INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
5/08/97
714.00
0222137
CLINIC HOME.MEDICAL SUPPLIES
5/08/97
42.00
0222138
CITGO PETROLEUM CORP
5/08/97
1,776.52
0222139
CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC
5/08/97
532.66
0222140
COOGAN, MAUREEN AND
5/08/97
540.20
0222141
CALL ONE, INC
5/08/97
2,624.73
0222142
CARLSEN, ERIK M
5/08/97
440.00
0222143
CENTRAL FLORIDA LIBRARY
5/08/97
50.00
0222144
COASTAL REHABILITATION, INC
5/08/97
135.46
0222145
COASTAL AUTO EQUIPMENT
5/08/97
0222146
C4 IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC
5/08/97
211.83
0222147
CLIFFORD, MIKE
5/08/97
28.17
0222148
CORNERSTONE SELECT HOMES/
5/08/97
100.00
0222149
CALHOUN, TARA
5/08/97
15,770.25
0222150
CIT GROUP/COMMERCIAL SERVICES,
5/08/97
47.50
0222151
CENTRAL & SUPPLY INC
5/08/97
746.67
-PUMP
_
21.21
MAY 209 1997
MAY 209 1997
C
CHECK NAME
CHECK
�-
CHECK Cuv .N. u
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0222151
LUbTUM PUBLISHING SERVICES,INC
5/08/97
278.00
0222153
CANTU, MOSES
5/08/97
54.63
0222154
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
5/08/97
199.50
0222155
CH2M HILL INC
5/08/97
2,640.00
0222156
COPYCO, INC
5/08/97
350.00
0222157
CHASE MANHATTAN BANK
5/08/97
7,500.00
0222158
CRIMSCO, INC
-5/08/97
96.33
0222159
CQ STAFF DIRECTORIES INC
5/08/97
89.05
0222160
CARROLL JASON
5/08/97
21.38
0222161
CLARK, ROUMELIS & ASSOCIATES
5/08/97
4,341.67
0222162
CENTRAL A/C & REFRIG SUPPLY,
5/08/97
246.93
0222163
DAILY COURIER SERVICE
5/08/97
693.00
0222164
DAVCO
5/08/97
12.81
0222165
DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC
5/08/97
1,268.42
0222166
DICKEY SCALES, INC
5/08/97
400.00
0222167
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
5/08/97
164.03
0222168
DOCTOR'S CLINIC
5/08/97
4,845.55
0222169
DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC
5/08/97
568.80
0222170
DIGGS, JEFFREY P
5/08/97
103.25
0222171
DELRAY STAKES, INC
5/08/97
330.00
0222172
DADE PAPER COMPANY
5/08/97
337.46
0222173
DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC
5/08/97
70.55
0222174
E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
5/08/97
158.25
0222175
ECKERD DRUG COMPANY
5/08/97
392.46
0222176
ENVIROMETRICS, INC
5/08/97
6,611.50
0222177
EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
5/08/97
101.26
0222178
EAST COAST SOD
5/08/97
5,197.50
0222179
ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING
5/08/97
24,984.00
0222180
ESRI, INC
5/08/97
5,147.96
0222181
EASTCOAST MUSIC
5/08/97
399.00
0222182
ERICSSON, INC
5/08/97
2,498.56
0222183
ELLIOTT, JEFF
5/08/97
70.00
0222184
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
5/08/97
88.95
0222185
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
5/08/97
612.00
0222186
F P & L
5/08/97
18,824.73
0222187
FLORIDA RIBBON & CARBON
5/08/97
952.04
0222188
FLORIDA TODAY/USA TODAY
5/08/97
54.00
0222189
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT
5/08/97
972.11
0222190
FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF
5/08/97
250.00
0222191
FLETCHER'S TV & APPLIANCE
5/08/97
430.00
0222192
FLORIDA RECREATION AND PARKS
5/08/97
55.00
0222193
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
5/08/97
127.64
0222194
FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
5/08/97
679.80
0222195
FMC CORPORATION
5/08/97
4,440.00
0222196
FATHER & SON ELECTRONICS
5/08/97
40.00
0222197
FELSMERE, CITY OF
5/08/97
64.78
0222198
FALZONE, MATTHEW
5/08/97
33.25
0222199
FLORIDAFFINITY, INC
5/08/97
6,528.00
0222200
FALZONE, CHRISTOPHER
5/08/97
59.38
0222201
FORE COMMUNICATIONS, INC
5/08/97
127.00
0222202
FLORIDA TECH
5/08/97
26,972.20
0222203
FOOT & ANKLE ASSOC OF FLORIDA
5/08/97
17.85
0222204
FLORIDA CLASSICS LIBRARY
5/08/97
21.74
0222205
FLORIDA TOURISM ASSOCIATION
5/08/97
500.00
0222206
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF
5/08/97
25.00
0222207
GATOR LUMBER COMPANY
5/08/97
40.57
0222208
GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC
5/08/97
11.10
0222209
GENEALOGICAL PUBLISHING
5/08/97
47.70
0222210
GENE'S AUTO GLASS
5/08/97
98.26
0222211
GEORGE W FOWLER CO
5/08/97
308.69
0222212
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
5/08/97
7.74
0222213
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO, INC
5/08/97
221.70
0222214
GALLS, INC
5/08/97
439.81
0222215
GALE RESEARCH, INC
5/08/97
5/08/97
776.08
189.75
0222216
0222217
G P N
GEAC COMPUTERS, INC
5/08/97
514.19
0222218
GNB TECHNOLOGIES
5/08/97
104.66
0222219
GOLD STAR OF THE TREASURE
5/08/97
1,860.00
0222220
GRANGE, PAUL
5/08/97
582.90
0222221
H W WILSON CO
5/08/97
75.00
0222222
HARRIS SANITATION, INC
5/08/97
5/08/97
604.21
563.62
0222223
0222224
HARRISON UNIFORMS
HERE'S FRED GOLF CO, INC
5/08/97
31.73
0222225
HIGHSMITH, INC
5/08/97
209.95
0222226
HERITAGE BOOKS, INC
5/08/97
119.00
0222227
HILL MANUFACTURING CO. INC.
5/08/97
661.80
0222228
HIGHLANDS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
5/08/97
120.00
0222229
HEALTHSOUTH TREASURE COAST
5/08/97
421.50
0222230
HANDI PRO HOMEOWNER SERVICE
5/08/97
240.00
0222231
INDIAN RIVER ACE HARDWARE
5/08/97
562.37
0222232
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
5/08/97
1,215.92
0222233
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
5/08/97
2,333.25
0222234
INGRAM
5/08/97
1,916.75
0222235
INSURANCE SERVICING &
5/08/97
1,890.00
0222236
IRVINE MECHANICAL, INC
5/08/97
583.17
0222237
INTERNATIONAL CITY_CQUNTY
.--5/08/97
86.95
0222238
INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
5/08/97
121.40
0222239
INDEECO
5/08/97
78.09
0222240
IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE-
5/08/97
205,734.84
MAY 209 1997
C
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0222241
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
5/08/97
368.55
0222242
INTERNATIONAL E -Z UP, INC
5/08/97
477.04
0222243
HOMELAND IRRIGATION -IRRIGATION
5/08/97
696.14
0222244
INDIAN RIVER HAND
5/08/97
58.00
0222245
J A A F CONFERENCE
5/08/97
100.00
0222246
J HERBERT CORPORATION
5/08/97
1,200.00
0222247
JUDAH, KAREN E
5/08/97
152.00
0222248
JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA
5/08/97
310.79
0222249
JEWETT ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC
5/08/97
18.90
0222250
JOHNSON, DENISE
5/08/97
49.95
0222251
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
5/08/97
4,526.23
0222252
KEATING, ROBERT•M
5/08/97
65.00
0222253
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
5/08/97
160.69
0222254
KANE'S APPLIANCE SERVICE
5/08/97
175.00
0222255
KELLY TRACTOR
5/08/97
979.76
0222256
KLUCINEC, MONA
5/08/97
45.82
0222257
KIRBY AUTO_SUPPLY--
-
0222258
LUCAS WATERPROOFING CO, INC
5/08/97
135.00
0222259
. LALI$EL_HOMES- Tmr- .-.
5/08/97
50.00
0222260
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
5/08/97
237.82
0222261
L B SMITH, INC
5/08/97
2,995.31
0222262
LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
5/08/97
340.50
0222263
LFI VERO BEACH, INC
5/08/97
662.97
0222264
LOCKS CO
5/08/97
133.96
0222265
LAMBOA ELECTRONICS INC
5/08/97
1,653.23
0222266
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
5/08/97
8.80
0222267
L J RUFFIN & ASSOC
5/08/97
637.82
0222268
MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY
5/08/97
15.75
0222269
MAPLE LEAF PROPERTIES
5/08/97
43,750.00
0222270
MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORP
5/08/97
466.35
0222271
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
5/08/97
14.40
0222272
MAXWELL & SON, INC
5/08/97
44.64
0222273
MICKLER'S FLORIDIANA, INC
5/08/97
68.22
0222274
MID COAST TIRE SERVICE, INC
5/08/97
102.95
0222275
MISCO, INC
5/08/97
106.59
0222276
MOODY TIRE, INC
5/08/97
60.00
0222277
MORRIS, DANE
5/08/97
160.44
0222278
MACMILLAN BUCHANAN INSURANCE
5/08/97
692.25
0222279
MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC
5/08/97
32.47
0222280
MONROE, THEODORE
5/08/97
156.37
0222281
3M CUSTOMER SERVICE
5/08/97
1,253.00
0222282
MICHIE
5/08/97
46.53
0222283
M & R SPORTSWEAR
5/08/97
35.47
0222284
MARTIN COUNTY PETROLEUM
5/08/97
1,715.28
0222285
M C B COLLECTION SERVICES
5/08/97
18.55
0222286
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
5/08/97
371.00
0222287
MRI -NET, INC
5/08/97
900.00
0222288
MAIN STREET HARDWARE, INC
5/08/97
18.53
0222289
MARC INDUSTRIES
5/08/97
307.83
0222290
MANCINO, DANIELLE
5/08/97
121.13
0222291
MORRIS, AMANDA
5/08/97
14.25
0222292
MAXFLI GOLF DIVISION
5/08/97
865.90
0222293
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY
5/08/97
50.01
0222294
NEFF MACHINERY, INC
5/08/97
162.31
0222295
N A D A APPRAISAL GUIDES
5/08/97
48.15
0222296
NORMENT INDUSTRIES, WSA INC
5/08/97
5,115.00
0222297
NATIONAL PROPANE CORP
5/08/97
93.21
0222298
NOLEN, VICKIE L
5/08/97
20.00
0222299
NELSON, SCOTT
5/08/97
4,000.00
0222300
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
5/08/97
443.60
0222301
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
5/08/97
387.36
0222302
OSCEOLA HOME CARE SUPPLY
5/08/97
69.95
0222303
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
5/08/97
27.31
0222304
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
5/08/97
714.60
0222305
ODYSSEY GOLF
5/08/97
149.83
0222306
OCLC FOREST PRESS
5/08/97
60.00
0222307
O'NEIL, LEE & WEST
5/08/97
19,815.66
0222308
ONE HOUR PHOTO
5/08/97
67.62
0222309
PARKS RENTAL INC
5/08/97
45.50
0222310
PEPSI -COLA BOTTLING GROUP
5/08/97
37.75
0222311
PERKINS DRUG, INC
5/08/97
25.02
0222312
PETTY CASH
5/08/97
10.50
0222313
. -PETTY. -CASH ----
-5/08/97
--..._3.3,49
0222314
PHILLIPS, LINDA R
5/08/97
294.00
0222315
PIFER, INC
5/08/97
105.31
022231.6
.POSTMASTER ___-• - - _------5/QS,C97----
-- _
_ 21.00-..
0222317
POSTMASTER
5/08/97
15,000.00
0222318-
PUBLIC -DEFENDER 19TH-IUDICIAL---
5/08/97
1,151.15
0222319
PAVCO CONSTRUCTION, INC
5/08/97
12,101.87
0222320
PORT PETROLEUM, INC ---
5/08/97-- -
- 655.67
0222321
PRESS JOURNAL
5/08/97
455.29
0222322
POSTMASTER-- ----- --- - -
5/08/97
- 128.00
0222323
P C CONNECTION
5/08/97
200.86
0222324
PANGBURN, TERRI - -
5/08/97
30.00
0222325
PERSONAL HEALTH DEVELOPMENT
5/08/97
32.00
MAY 209 1997
y
MAY 20, 1997
CHECK NAME . __ - «- - -----
-CHECK-- -- -- - -- --
CHECTC
NUM33ER
DATE
AMOUNT
0222326 PALM 13r;ALm -SOIL '&-WATER- -_-__
---5/08r57` ---
56.00
0222327 QUALITY BOOKS, INC
5/08/97
52.07
0222328 RELIABLE SEPTIC• SERVICES-"'_._-
-'-5/08j97--
2,850.00
0222329 RIFKIN, SHELDON H PHD
5/08/97
500.00
0222330 ROSELAND VOLUNTEER FIRE -DEPT
5/08/97
13.00
0222331 RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC_
5/08/97
140.00
0222332 REEBOK INTERNATIONAL, LTD ---
- SM/57 -
56-00
0222333 RAY PACE'S WASTE EQUIBMENT,INC
5/08/97-_
546.56
0222334 REED REFERENCE PUBLISHING CO
5/08/97
224.65
0222335 RECORDED BOOKS
5/08/97
5.95
0222336 R & G SOD FARMS
5/08/97
65.00
0222337 RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS '-- `- ".�z.•_ _.-.._-5
j08797
- 68.05
0222338 RISSMAN,_WEISBERG,_BARRETT,_-.__
5/08/97_
860.85
0222339 ROSE, ROBERTA S, MD
0222340._ REISL= ART_
5/08/97
210.00
0222341 ROVELLA, MICHAEL
5/08/97 ,._._
5/08/97
6.00
23.75
0222342 SAFETY KLEEN CORP
5/08/97
151.50
0222343 SCHOPP, BARBARA G5/08/97
178.50
0222344 SCOTTY'S, INC - _ -
0222345 SEARS
5/08/97
4,543.58
0222346 SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC
5/08/97_ __-
5/08/97
614.69
67.46
0222347 _.SEBASTIAN VOLU E ZEE DEPT
_. 5/Q 97
43,Q(Z
0222348 SEWELt HARDWARE CO, -INC
5/08/97
-
80.82
0222349. SUFrs. OTT, �c�MpEtw ---
0222350 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
_. 5/08/92-
5/08/97
-- 2D
0222351 SOUTHERN CULVERT
5/08/97.
697.00
0222352 SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
5/08/97
934.20
0222353. SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
5/08/97 -
863.90
0222354 SOUTHERN TRUCK EQUIPMENT
5/08/97
288.92
0222355 ST LUCIE BATTERY & TI -RE; INC--
5/08/97
16.74
0222356 STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
5/08/97
319.80
0222357 SUN COAST CLEANING SUPPLIES,
5/08/97
83.80
0222358 SUNCOAST WELDING SUPPLIES, INC
5/08/97
404.66
0222359 SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY
5/08/97
15.00
0222360 S R SCHOLARLY RESOURCES, INC
5/08/97
140.74
0222361 STEIL, HOLLY
0222362 SIMON & SCHUSTER CONSUMER
5/08/97
5/08/97
65.25
0222363 SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY
5/08/97
49.38
516.52
0222364 SAFETY EQUIP COMPANY
5/08/97
1,534.00
0222365 SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES
5/08/97
119.44
0222366 SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL
0222367 SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY,
5/08/97
7,221.07
INC
0222368 SOLINET
5/08/97
5/08/97
410.80
429.16
022'2= -SUPERIOR PRTN --
5/08/976'732,.40
0222370 SMITH, DEBBIE
30.00
0222371 SYSCO FOOD SERVICE
-5L8/97
5/08/97 -
_ _
1,094.63
0222372 _STEWTJNpUS,TRIES._._ �__-5/08/37..._
0222373 SIMS, MATTHEW - _
_-1,_031_42_
0222374 STM COMPANY/SAVE_THE MOMENT_
5/08/97
5/08/97 -
175.45
45-_00
0222375 ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MGMT DIST
5/08/97
11500.00
0222376 SKALA, ERIC
5/08/97
100.00
0222377 SEBASTIAN RIVER AREA CHAMBER
5/08/97
640.00
0222378 SOUTHERN -SECURITY SYSTEMS OF - -
5/08/9--7 --
923.00
0222379 SUB ROSA INVESTIGATIONS
5/08/97
478.22
0222380 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLY
5/08/97 -
176.32
0222381 SEIFER, RONALD MD
5/08/97
71.00
0222382 TITLEIST-DRAWER-e9- -------- -•-5/08/97
1,189.92
0222383 TRODGLEN PAVING, INC
5/08/97
3,912.99
0222384 TREASURE COAST REFUSE CORP
5/08/97 -
30,954.64
0222385 TEXACO REFINING AND
5/08/97
546.65
0222386 TAW POWER SYSTEMS -" --
5/08/97-
956.00
0222387 TRANS -GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE
5/08/97
5,422.64
0222388 SMIM TERRY -Z ' - -. - '_ __ -_
0222389 UNIVERSITY PRESS OF FLA
= 5%08'97 __. __..._- ___--
20788
0222390 UNIVERSITY OF c'LSF21D-) -
5/08/97
5/08/97----_ - -"
42.60
130.00
0222391 U S FILTER DISTRIBUTION,INC
5/08/97
8,129.75
0222392 VELDE FORD, INC ---
5/08/97 --
-1,814.44
0222393 VERO BEACH VOLUNTEER FIRE
4.00
0222394 VERO BEACH, CITY'OF - -
_SLge/97 .-_
5/08/97
7,850.96
0222395 VERO_CfiEMICAL...DIST.UBUTORS, INC
.5/0.8/97
412.02
_y-
0222396 VERO LAKE ESTATES FIRE
_
5/08/97
_
45.00
0222397 VERO LAWNMQYER_CBNTER, IiC-__-..-_
S/OS/97
455.44.__.
0222398 VETROL DATA SYSTEMS, INC
_
5/08/97
561.50
0222399 VERO BEARING & BOLT
5/08/9.7
108.90
0222400 VERO ORTHOPAEDICS
5/08/97
24.00
0222401. -a S-"DARLEY--&--CO --•-•- --- -- -4/.08/9-7-
- ---- ---.
2, 040.00
0222402 WADSWORTH, DENNIS
5/08/97
26.16
0222403...-WOLS IgF ,__SXjpj.gy-•-
5T88¢87 ----
35.61
0222404 WOODYrS PAPER & PRINT
0222405-- -W - W-GRA!-N6E; _
5/08/97
440.18
0222406 WILLHOFF, PATSY
T
5/08/97
-- 175.54. .__.
130.00
0222407 WM THIES & SONS, INC
0222408 WEF MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
5/08/97
5/08/97
295.90
0222409 WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC
5/08/97
92.00
146.12
0222410 WILKES, TALI
0222411 YAVORSKY,S TRUCK SERVICE,INC
5/08/97
5/08/97
37.50
0222412 ZIMMERMANN, KARL
5/08/97
715.09
101.70
0222413 ZEPHYRHILLS SPRING WATER CO
5/08/97
9.50
0222414 WHITE, WAYNE J.
5/08/97
1,325.91
MAY 20, 1997
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0222415
ELKINS, HOLLY
5/08/97
163.27
0222416
REED, JAMES & LOIS
5/08/97
24.05
0222417
PICKERING, MR & MRS WARREN
5/08/97
53.75
0222416
ROSE, MATT & MISTY
5/08/97
52.57
0222419
STEVENS, DEIDRA
5/08/97
59.65
0222420
BARTHOLOMEW_ JR, ._LYLE .E
5./OB/_9.7 ..
_. 52.55
0222421
SPRINGER ,DEBORAH
5/08/97
54.75
0222422
PRESCOTT, RAY &.SANDRA
5 /08/97
52.57
0222423
STANSEL, CRESTIAL
5/08/97
58.16
0222424
COKER, HOLLY
5/08/97
55.62
0222425
LEE, JIN K
5/08/97
55.61
0222426
ESKEW, PEGGY
5/08/97
52.58
0222427
ANDERSSON, NILS J
5/08/97
52.54
0222428
SIRAVO, CATHERINE
5/08/97
52.56
0222429
BEDNARIK, JAMES
5/08/97
52.58
1,229,219.62
7C T0UxSTDfWL0PMENT COUNCILAPPOINTMENT— SONYA DEF4E
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 13, 1997:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Commissioner John W. Tippin
Date: May 13, 1997
Re: Appointment to the Tourist Development Council
Please approve the appointment of Sonya Deese, the general
manager of Disney's Vero Beach Resort, to the Tourist Development
Council. She will be replacing Jacque Steer, who has not as yet
submitted his resignation. Her resume is attached.
Chairman Eggert announced that Jacque Steer will remain on the Council and that Sonya
Deese will actually be replacing Kevin Crowe.
MAY 20, 1997
6C`i�; �n� - • ;
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously appointed Sonya Deese to the
Tourist Development Council to replace Kevin Crowe.
7.D. MISr'FMAArEOVSBUDGETAMENDMENT#024
The Board reviewed a Memorandum ofMay 14, 1997:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 14, 1997
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 024
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. The State of Florida, Department of Labor, has charged Indian River County for
Unemployment Compensation payments to former employees. A budget amendment is
required to reflect these payments. (Memo attached from Personnel Director, Ron Baker)
2. At the April 22, 1997 BCC meeting, the Board approved a request for funding for fireworks
for the Indian River County Firefighters and the Sebastian Fourth of July fireworks. The
attached entry appropriates the funds.
3. Postage and printing expenses are anticipated to be greater than budgeted for the Building
Dept. The additional costs should be covered by higher than estimated permit revenues. The
attached entry appropriates the revised revenue estimate.
4. Electric charges under the single street lighting district are estimated to exceed budget. The
attached entry appropriates additional revenues to cover this increase.
5. Insurance claims are estimated to exceed budget. The attached entry appropriates additional
revenues to cover this increase.
6. At the April 8, 1997 and May 13, 1997 BCC meetings, the Board approved increases to the
Sheriff's budget for Broward County inmate revenues for the months of March and April,
respectively. The attached entry appropriates the revenues.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment 024.
MAY 20, 1997
10
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously approved Miscellaneous Budget
Amendment #024, as recommended by staff.
TO: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMENT: 024
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
J
DATE: May 14. 1997
1 N
Funds/Dcpartment/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Recreation/
Unemployment Compensation
001-108-572-012.15
$375
$0
GI�.ERAL FUND/Clerk of Circuit Court/
Unemployment Compensation
001-300-516-012.15
$511
$0
GENERAL FUND/ Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$886
GOLF COURSE/ Clubhouse!
Unemployment Compensation
41&236-572-012.15
$88
$0
GOLF COURSE/ Clubhouse/
Cash Forward Expense
419-236-572-099.92
$0
$88
2
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/ Recreation/ Special Events
001-10&572-041.11
$5,000
$0
GENERAL FUND/ Reserve for Contmgencq
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$5,000
3
REVENUES
BUILDING DEPT/ Other Permits - County
441-000-322-040.00
$4,500
$0
EXPENSES
BUILDING DEPT/ Building DeptJ Postage
441-233-524-034.21
$1,600
$0
BUILDING DEPT! Building DeptJ
Outside Pig
441-233-524-034.72
$2,900
$0
4
REVENUES
SINGLE STREErLIGAm_-..
Other Contributions and Donations
187-000-366-090.00
$2,400
$0
SINGLE STREETL- CYHT3/Cash Forward Rev.
187-000-389-040.00
$5,600
$0
EXPENSE
SINGLE STREET LIGHTS/Electric Services
187-280-541-034.31
$8,000
$0
5
REVENUES
RISK MANAGEMENT/ Insurance Charges
502-000-395-020.00
$250,000
$0
EXPENSE
RISK MANAGEMENT/Worlm ComP. Claims
502-246-519-012.14
$100,000
$0
RISK MANAGEMENT/Auto Insurance Claims
502-246-519-034.51
$30,000
$0
MAY 20, 1997
11 500� 101 VAt 47
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 024
DATE: May 14. 1997
101 ext
Entry
REVENUES
Number
FundwDepartmcnt/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Demmeace
RISK MANAGEMENT/
001-000-341-052.00
$126,450
$p
Genes Liability insurance Claims
502-246-519-034.53
$20,000
$p
RISK MANAGEMENT/ Tangible Property
001-600-586-099.04
$169,503
$p
Insurance Claims
502-246-519-034.57
$30,000
$p
RISK MANAGEMENT/ Sheriff/
Workers Comp. Claims
502-600-521-012.14
$70.000
$p
6
REVENUES
GENERAL FUND/Sheriff-March Broward Rev.
001-000-341-052.00
$126,540
$p
GENERAL FUND/ Sheriff -April Broward Rev.
001-000-341-052.00
$126,450
$p
EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND/ Sheriff/
Law Enforcement
001-600-586-099.04
$169,503
$p
GENERAL FUND/ Sheriff/ Detention
001-600-586-099.14
$83,487
$0
7.E. ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT COMPUTER E UIPMENT— CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 14, 1997 and a letter of May 8, 1997:
TO: Members of the Board
Of County Commissioners
DATE: May 14, 1997
SUBJECT: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOMENT
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A Baird
OMB Director k
DESCRIPTION AND CONDPITONS
Indian River County had allocated $100,000 in the 1996/97 fiscal year for the Chamber of Commerce
to hire a Director of Economic Development. The Chamber recently hired a Director and would like
to use some of the money that was allocated for salary to purchase two computers, printers and
software at a total cost of $5,500.00.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve this request.
MAY 20, 1997
12
Indian River County
sea
Chamber of Commerce
May 8. 1997
Mr. Joseph A. Baird
Office of Management & Budget
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Joe:
As you know, we now have hired a Director of Economic Development and intend to hire
a support staff person during the next few weeks. In setting up the new offices we will need to
purchase two computers and some updated software. I am respectfully requesting that we have
permission from the County to use approximately $5,500 from the salary line item to make those
purchases.
Because we have had a part-time staff person until now, the salary line in the budget is
under what would have been used of those funds had there been full-time employees. As of the
end of March, of the $81,500 allocated in this line item only $14,400 or 17.67% of the salary
funding has been used. We do not anticipate using the full amount for salaries during the
remainder of this fiscal year.
I have priced computers, monitors and printers which would meet our hardware needs.
For total set-up we are looking in the range of $1,704 each or a total of approximately $3,408.
The equipment I looked at was on sale, but something is always on sale and I feel we can stay in
this general range to meet our needs. We are continuing to explore our software options and
believe we can find what we need in the neighborhood of $2,000.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. I look forward to hearing
from you soon.
Sincere ,
y
Penny er
Executive irector
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
1216 21st Street • P.O. Box 2947 • Vero Beach. FL 32961 • Tel 561.567.3491 • Fax 561.778.3181
http://www.ver07beach.fLus/chamber • e-mail: chamber@vero-beach.fUs
Commissioner Adams questioned the capital account balance, and Budget Director Joe Baird
explained that monies set aside for operating expenditures would be transferred to the capital account
to set up an office for the director.
Commissioner Adams was concerned about the change of direction in the use of the funds.
Penny Chandler of the Chamber of Commerce stated that no computer equipment was ever
purchased for these offices. The equipment currently in the office is owned by the Chamber of
Commerce and the Chamber needs the use of that equipment. There are additional monies left which
they would like to transfer to purchase the equipment.
MAY 20, 1997
13
GOOK 10i PAGE 470
lloUr, 479
A r
101 PAG
Commissioner Adams wanted to be sure that everyone understood the change in the
philosophy for the use of the funds, and Chairman Eggert agreed that under these circumstances the
funds should be used for this purpose.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously approved use of monies allocated
for salary to purchase two computers, printers and software at
a total cost of $5,500, as recommended by stafE
7.F. FLOODPLAnvCUTAND FELLBALANCE WAiyER-LoT6, BLocg19, VERoLAKE
ESTATES, UNIT 4 — TOZZOLO BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 6, 1997:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
and /
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
FROM: David B. Cox, P.E.4&G
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 6, Block 19, Vero
Lake Estates, Unit 4
REFERENCE: Project No. 97040133
DATE: May 6, 1997 CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Tozzolo Brothers Construction has submitted a building permit application for a single family
residence on the subject property. The site is located in an AE special flood hazard zone, base
flood elevation 22.6 ft. N.G.V.D. In the attached letter from the applicant's engineer dated April
29, 1997, a waiver of the cut and fill balance requirement is requested. The lot area is 1.06
acres. The volume of the 100 year floodplain displaced by the proposed grading plan is
estimated to be 1124 cubic yards.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The waiver request has been reviewed by staff and appears to meet the criteria of Section
930.07(2)(d)4. of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance for lots located
in the Vero Lake Estates Municipal Services Taxing Unit.
MAY'20, 1997
14
M
Alternative No. 1
Grant the cut and fill balance waiver based on the criteria of Section 930.07(2)(d)4.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the cut and fill waiver. Require an on site retention area be provided to compensate for
the proposed floodplain displacement.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously granted the cut and fill balance
waiver requested to Tozaolo Brothers Construction, as
recommended by staff
WAIVER WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
[2:MIM-1109141-101-17,1003: 0 ►I�r
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - LDR AMENDMENT MODIFYING BUFFER
REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN NEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AND
ACTIVE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS
MAY 20, 1997
15
6nr 101 PAGE480
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-23
Biro Proo Jourt�F
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl
Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal
daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River Cour
Florida; that
PYL l�l��umN G
billed to.
V
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
Anti ;.Y o A
Presid(
rnT..\UAR. PL3ldC,
•LiLC ofF7uridaMy Comm.Expires ir C m
to;E; z A::oasc 25. iia
August 25.1897 z Co rG""jet*r\iPP4°
No. CC31U845 Sign \
s : Q n FAL
%,9......
OP\ , my r' SAS rJR� A. PRF. St
(SEAL) O F F�
MAY 20, 1997
16
Goer, 101 PAGE 481
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS) AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE/
RESIDENTIAL BUFFER REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 911,
ZONING AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, CODIFICATIONS, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPOSES TO ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
DEVELOPERS OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS TO PROVIDE
BUFFERS BETWEEN NEW RESIDENCES AND ADJACENT ACTIVE
AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS.
A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1997 AT 9:05 A.M.
DURING A REGULAR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING. THE MEETING WILL BE HELD IN THE COMMISSION
CHAMBERS AT 1840 25th STREET, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA. A
COPY OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL BE AVAILABLE
FOR THE PUBLIC BEGINNING MAY 15, 1997 IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING LOCATED AT .1840 25th STREET, VERO BEACH,
FLORIDA. CITIZENS SHALL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, IF ADOPTED, WOULD BE
EFFECTIVE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, AS DEPICTED ON THE LOCATION MAP SHOWN
BELOW. r 4
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY— UNINCORPORATED AREA
Please direct planning -related questions to the current
development planning section at 567- 8000, ext. 242.
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 testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is
based.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS
MEETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X223 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY -s- Carolyn K Eggert, Chairman
"SIB
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 14, 1997:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D I ON HEAD CON CE:
ober M. Kea g, AI
Community Develop ent D' ector
FROM: Stan Boling ICP
Planning Director
DATE: May 14, 1997
SUBJECT: Proposed LDR Amendment: Modifying Buffer Requirements
Between New Residential Projects and Active Agricultural
Operations
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 20, 1997.
At its meeting of March 18, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners
considered a comprehensive plan amendment application that would
allow development of a mobile home park adjacent to an active
agricultural operation. In that case, the agricultural operation
was an agricultural research facility known as the "Kerr Center for
Sustainable Agriculture". In discussing this amendment, the Board
expressed concern that the County's required
agriculture/residential buffer was insufficient (see attachment
W.
The Board's concern related both to the agricultural use's impact
on the proposed residential development and the proposed
residential development's impact on the agricultural use. These
concerns are similar to the issues which caused the Board several
years ago to establish its current agriculture/residential buffer
requirements.
In the County's adopted comprehensive plan, exfsting agricultural
uses within the urban service area are encouraged to remain.
Increasingly. however, residential subdivisions are being developed
adjacent to active -citrus groves which are also located within the
urban service area. Generally, grove operations produce noise,
odors, and pesticide/fertilizer spray, all of which may adversely
affect residential developments
For those reasons, people residing proximate to groves may complain
about the impacts. As a result, grove owners may need to eliminate
aerial spraying, limit the hours of ground spraying, relocate
pumps, and reduce other impacts. Also, grove owners are more
subject to pilfering and vandalism when residential development
occurs nearby.
In conjunction with its approval of the referenced comprehensive
plan amendment, the Board directed staff to assess the County's
current agriculture/residential buffer requirement and to initiate
a land development regulation (LDR) amendment to increase the
minimum required buffer ..idth. To address residential projects
which may be submitted prior to adoption of the referenced LDR
amendment, the Board invoked the pending ordinance doctrine for a
120 foot agriculture/residential setback/buffer. According to that
doctrine, the proposed or pending ordinance requiring a minimum 120
foot buffer/setback for residential development projects abutting
active agricultural operations will apply to all residential
development project applications submitted after the date that the
pending ordinance doctrine was invoked (March 18, 1997).
MAY 20, 1997
17 BOOK 1-01 PAcE 002
6001( 101
The Board established the 120 foot buffer/setback based on the
depth of the property for which the comprehensive plan amendment
was approved. Since the referenced property had a depth of 1,320
feet, the Board considered 1,200 feet to be an adequate development
distance, and 120 feet to be a sufficient setback/buffer amount.
Consequently, the Board adopted 120 feet as the interim
setback/buffer distance and directed staff to determine if this was
appropriate.
In recent years, Indian River County has transitioned from a rural
area to an urban county. As one of the principal citrus producing
counties in the state, however, Indian River County still has many
producing groves within its urban service area. Recognizing that
conflicts occur when residential projects develop adjacent to
agricultural operations, the county established agriculture/
residential setback/buffer requirements several years ago. These
existing regulations apply to new development.
New Residential Development Adjacent to Active Agricultural Uses
Existing county regulations require newly created lots in
subdivisions to have either extra setbacks or special buffering
between new residences and active agricultural operations. "Active
agricultural operations-"- include citrus groves, orchards, field
crops, and truck farming. The developer or property owner creating
the new lots must provide a special separation distance or buffer
between new residential dwellings and the adjacent, active
agricultural operation; -as follows: - -" -
1. For projects zoned for 1 unit per acre or less, the
developer/owner shall establish a 50' building (residence)
setback and a Type "B" buffer with 6' opaque feature (see
attachment #2).
2. For projects zoned for more than 1 unit per acre, the
developer/owner shall:
a. Establish a 50' building (residence) setback with no
buffer required, or
b. Establish a 25' buffer yard with a Type "B" buffer and 6'
opaque feature (see attachment #2).
These setback and buffer requirements have been applied since the
late 198o's. Included among the subdivisions where these
requirements were applied are "Laurel Oaks," (north boundary) and
"Stonebridge" (east, south, and west boundaries). Staff has not
received any complaints from residents of those subdivisions.
New Agricultural Research Facilities
Existing county regulations allow new agricultural research
facilities only on property designated as agricultural or rural on
the county's land use plan map. The developer/owner of any such
new facility is required to provide:
1. A 50' setback from structures and test plots to residential
Property; or
2. A 30' bufferyard with a "Type A" buffer (see attachment #3),
between structures -and -test plots and residential property.
Host Plant Prohibition
Over the last two years, the-- County has applied to special
exception use projects a policy of requiring new developments near
agricultural areas to prohibit caribbean Emit fly host plants.
Examples of projects where such prohibitions were required by the
County are: Harvest Christian Ranch, Trails- End Planned
Development, and Stonebridge North Planned Development. That
Policy was recommended- -in --the- -approved- Eva-3xation--and --Appraisal
Report (EAR). In the near future, that policy will be -formally
adopted and incorporated --in- the--comprehensive--plan and land
development regulations (LDRs).
Summary
Current county regulations require residential developers to
provide special setbacks or -buffers between homes on new lots and
adjacent active.agr-.cultural---operations._ Such requirements apply
MAY 20, 1997
18
® M
regardless of zoning and with no guarantees that the agricultural
operation will not be converted to residential in the near future.
Also, new developments in or near agricultural areas are required
to prohibit caribbean fruit fly host plants. Conversely, new
agricultural research facilities are required to provide special
setbacks or buffers between structures and test plots and adjacent
residential property.
•F rent of Au - u t a w eeddential Interface
To determine the extent that active agricultural uses abut vacant
tracts having residential development potential and located within
the urban service area, staff reviewed aerial photographs of the
county. Based on that review, staff has developed a map depicting
active agricultural areas within the urban service area (attachment
W. Based on that map, staff determined that the interface between
agricultural and residential uses in the county is quite extensive.
Although active agriculture exists throughout the Urban Service
Area, it is most prevalent in the following areas (some of which
are among the fastest developing areas of the county):
1. The north side of CR 510, between 66th Avenue and 90th Avenue;
2. East of US 1, from The Main Relief Canal to the Brevard County
Line;
3. South of SR 60, between 43rd Avenue and 58th Avenue
4. Within the SR 60 Corridor;
5. The east side of 66th Avenue, between 26th Street and 49th
Street;
6. The southwest section of the urban service area near Oslo Road
and 82nd Avenue; and
7. The barrier island, north of the Town of Orchid.
*o=rison with Other Counties
As part of its analysis, staff surveyed three Florida counties that
are similar to Indian River County to determine their setback and
buffer requirements where agricultural and residential uses abut.
The table below compares those three counties with each other and
with Indian River County.
COMPARISONS OF SETBACKS/BUFFERS WSERE
AGRICULTURE AND RESIDENTIAL ABUT
COUNTY
ARE SPECIAL
SETBACKS/BUFFERS
WHICH LAND USE
PROVIDES THE
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL
SETBACKS/SUFFERS
REQUIRED?
SETBACKS/BUFFERS
MARTIN
YES
RESIDENTIAL
40' WIDE LANDSCAPED STRIP WITH
6' HIGH OPAQUE FENCE, WALL OR
BERM.
ST.
NO
NOT APPLICABLE
NOT APPLICABLE
LUCIE
CITRUS
YES
AGRICULTURE
20' TO 50' WIDE LANDSCAPED
STRIP; DEPTH DEPENDS ON
DENSITY OF PLANTINGS
INDIAN
YES
RESIDENTIAL
50' SETBACK OR 25' LANDSCAPED
RIVER
STRIP (TYPE B) WITH A 6' HIGH
OPAQUE FEATURE
As noted in the above table, only St. Lucie County does not require
special treatment of the residential/agricultural border. In the
other counties, the special buffer widths range from 20 feet to 50
feet wide and usually require plantings and/or an opaque feature.
Citrus county was the only one of the four counties surveyed
(including Indian River County) that requires the agricultural use,
rather than the residential use, to provide the buffer.
In terms of setback width and buffer requirements, Indian River
County's current regulations appear to be more stringent than those
in St. Lucie and Citrus Counties, but less stringent than Martin
County's.
MAY 20, 1997
19
BQO!; 101 PAGE 48
Roof, 101 FAA85
In the county's comprehensive plan, the Urban Service Area boundary
identifies the urban growth limits for the plan's 20 year horizon.
Generally, this boundary should provide a clear separation between
urban uses and rural/agricultural uses. For various reasons,
including the county's encouragement for agricultural uses within
the urban service area to remain, the boundary does not provide
that clear urban/rural separation. Nevertheless, there are
important differences between a residential development being
adjacent to an active agricultural operation within the Urban
Service Area and a similar situation outside of the Urban Service
Area.
The first difference concerns the long-range use of the properties.
Although the comprehensive plan and county LDRs recognize the
economic and open space benefits of agriculture within the Urban
Service Area, that land is eventually expected to be converted to
urban uses,. usually -residential. The county bases its long-range
planning (including planning for infrastructure, capital
improvements, hurricane evacuation, and future budgets) on the
assumption that such conversion of land will ult1mately occur.
Because many owners of active agricultural land within the Urban
Service Area eventually plan to develop that land, they often
oppose additional development regulations, even when the purpose of
those regulations is to protect active agricultural operations.
Another difference is_ the equitable treatment of land owners.
There is a question regarding to what extent the county should
require a property owner. whose. property is -within the Urban Service
Area to buffer his land from active agricultural uses when it is
anticipated, as reflected in the comprehensive plan, that
agricultural land eventually will be converted to a more compatible
use.
*Analysis of Imvacts
As noted in the Descriptions and Conditions section of this staff
report, the major adverse impacts on residential development from
adjacent agricultural operations involve noise, odors, and
spraying. That section also noted that residential development
adversely impacts agriculture by increasing incidences of
trespassing, vandalism, and caribbean fruit fly host plants.
Spraying
Spraying is used to apply pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer.
As long as the spray remains in the agricultural area, it does not
cause incompatibilities with residential uses. When the spray
drifts over residential areas, however, several problems often
result. The first problem concerns the adverse impacts of the
spray on the health of people that are sensitive or allergic to the
spray. Another problem is that the spray drift often settles on
cars in residential areas. That is a problem because chemicals in
the drift sometimes-.damage_car-paint.
Both aerial and ground sprayings occur in Indian River County.
Aerial spraying is used for applications to extremely large areas
or when a pesticide must be applied as soon as possible. Because
most groves within the urban service area are too small to warrant
it, aerial spraying rarely occurs within the Urban Service Area.
Ground sprayings usually involve a motorized sprayer pulled through
a grove by a tractor. Most groves are sprayed 1-6 times/year.
Most spraying is done during daytime hours. To prevent drift,
however, spraying is sometimes done during early morning or
nighttime hours. Wind and rain are - less frequent, particularly
during the Summer, at those hours.
The distance drift can travel is affected by climate conditions,
type of sprayer, and the presence of physical barriers. Ground
spray drift that is observable with the naked eye can travel
approximately 80 feet over an open area. Unobservable drift
travels somewhat farther. Knowing that drift will cover trees at
the perimeter of groves, most grove operators concentrate spraying
in the interior of groves.
The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
regulates spraying. To prevent drift, state law prohibits most
spraying in Indian River County when the wind speed is over eight
miles/hour.
MAY 20, 1997
20
M
Noise
Noise complaints associated with agricultural
r c lnirht ores n re searly
related to activities taking place
morning. Such activities include operating tractors and spraying.
Also, irrigation pumps, which often operate 24 hours a day,
generate noise complaints.
When possible, agricultural operations generally try to carry out
their activities during the day. Unplanned events such as freezes,
storms, and pests, however, often require nighttime or early
morning activity.
A noise related problem with irrigation pumps relates to their
location on the agricultural property. Within the urban service
area, irrigation pumps are usually located along the edge of
r than near the interior of the site.
agricultural property, rathe
The reason pumps are located near the edge of agricultural property
is that the pumps must be near a source of water. In the Urban
Service Area, that source is usually a drainage canal located at
the edge of the property.
Within residential zoning districts, county land development
regulations begin to restrict noise levels at 55 decibels. Noises
that are incidental to the activities of bona fide agricultural
operations, however, are exempt from noise regulations.
Odor
offensive odors from agricultural operations can be caused by
several sources. These include animals and exhaust fumes from
tractors and pumps. In the Urban Service Area, however, the usual
sources are fertilizer and pesticides. Consistent with chapter
386, Florida Statutes, the county's Environmental Health Department
regulates odors.
Trespassing and Vandalism
While the actual loss of property due to vandalism on agricultural
land is small, owners of agricultural land go to great expense to
prevent trespassing. Because land owners are often liable for
injuries occurring on their property, trespassing is considered a
major problem. The Indian River County Sheriff office reports that
such trespassing occurs more often near residential areas.
Although fences can be expensive and difficult to maintain,
installing fences reduces this problem. Fences around groves,
however, also restrict the access of grove workers and grove
equipment.
Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants
To sell their fruit in certain foreign countries, citrus grove
owners must certify that certain conditions are met. These
conditions are that no Caribbean fruit fly host plants exist within
300 feet of the grove or that special pesticides were applied to
the grove. Because the special pesticides are expensive, it is
often less expensive for grove operators to pay nearby land owners
to remove their host plants.
Although much of this staff report addresses negative impacts of
agriculture on residential uses, there are several benefits to
living near agricultural areas. These benefits include large areas
of open and green space, increased privacy, lack of traffic
congestion, and an overall increase in "peace and quiet".
Additionally, the above referenced impacts do not affect everyone
equally. Houses at the perimeter of residential developments are
more impacted than those located near the interior of the
development. Also, as mentioned above, some people are not
affected by spray drift.
Finally, it is important to note that impacts such as noise odor
and spraying often occurbn an intermittent basis and for a short
duration.
MAY 20, 1997
M
016
BCGr, 10.1 PAGE 481)
21
•Alternatives
600f'101 3'
Because of its land use permitting responsibilities, the county has
an interest in preventing or minimizing land use incompatibilities.
Additionally, the county is charged with protecting the general
health and welfare of its citizens. For these reasons, the county
has an interest in mitigating impacts along agricultural/
residential borders.
To mitigate those impacts, staff has identified the following
alternatives:
• Physical Separation;
• Physical Barrier; and
• Restricting Agricultural Activity.
Physical Separation
In Indian River County, the burden ofproviding physical separation
currently falls mainly on residential development. Through
required setbacks and the site plan approval process, the county
encourages the physical separation of residential and agricultural
uses. To meet those requirements, residential developers often
design living areas away from agriculture, while providing required
open space and stormwater retention areas where residential
development abuts agriculture.
- Effectiveness
Clearly, impacts on adjacent uses decrease as separation distances
increase. That relationship in terms of amount of decrease in
impacts per increase in separation distance, however, is difficult
to quantify. Part of the reason for that is that several factors
influence the decrease in impacts. Those factors include
topography, climate, wind conditions, and the presence or lack of
physical barriers.
With respect to mitigating the impacts of agricultural activities
on residential uses, there is little difference between a 25 foot
and a 150 foot separation distance. Noticeable differences
generally begin to occur when separation distances reach 300 feet.
Overall, increasing -separation distance is m derat�ffecttve' at -
mitigating the impacts of noise and spraying, but has little effect
on odors. Additionally, this alternative has little effect_o._the
impacts -of -residential uses on agricultural operations.
- Costs
Because of design and market factors, the costs of the physical
separation alternative can only be estimated. This alternative,
however, appears to be the most expensive, particularly when
applied to single family type of development. Most of that expense
is related to the loss of developable land.
When the setback is increased to the approximate depth of an
average lot or greater, the number of developable lots is usually
reduced. The number of lots lost is related to the density of the
development and to the percentage of -the --perimeter -of the
development bordering active agriculture.
For example, the ±46 acre Stonebridge North Subdivision, which
borders active. agriculture._ on SO %- of its -.perimeter (two sides),
would probably have been reduced" by' 18 lots --(from 108 to 90 ) if
residences had to have been -setback 150 feet, rather than 25 feet,
from active agriculture.
Physical Barrier
Walls, fences, berms, and plantings are all used to provide a
physical barrier between residential and agricultural areas. The
burden of providing the physical barrier could be imposed on either
the agricultural operation, the residential project, or both.
- Effectiveness
Clearly, as the height, width, and density of the physical barrier
increase, impacts tend to decrease. .As with separation distance,
however, quantifying that relationship is difficult. With respect
to mitigating the impacts of agricultural activities on residential
uses, experience has shown that this alternative is usually
effective at mitigating the impacts of noise, spraying, and odors.
In terms of residential impacts on agricultural operations, this
method can be fairly effective at reducing trespassing and
vandalism. Physical barriers, however, have no mitigating effect
on the impacts of caribbean fruit fly host plants.
MAY 20, 1997
22
_ M M
- Costs
Compared to other physical barriers, plantings are less expensive.
Overall, plantings are an extremely small portion of site
development costs.
Restricting Agricultural Activities within the Urban Service Area
This alternative could include prohibiting aerial spraying,
restricting the hours of aerial spraying, and regulating the
location of irrigation pumps. Agricultural operations would assume
the burden of providing this alternative. The justification for
imposing these restrictions on agricultural uses would be that land
in the Urban Service Area is intended for urban, rather than
agricultural uses.
A problem with this alternative involves the State of Florida's
Right to Farm Act, Chapter 823.14, Florida Statutes. This
provision of state law ensures that existing agricultural
operations that conform to generally accepted agricultural and
management practices may continue. One means of addressing this
problem would be for the residential developer to pay for some or
all of the additional costs incurred by the agricultural use.
- Effectiveness
All of the benefit of this method is received by the residential
property. With respect to agricultural impacts on residential
uses, this method effectively mitigates noise and spraying, and
moderately mitigates odor. With respect to residential
development's impact on agricultural uses, however, this method
does nothing to reduce trespassing, vandalism, or caribbear. fruit
fly host plants.
- Costs
The cost of this alternative cannot be reliably assessed, because
costs depend upon site conditions. Costs could be minimal, if they
relate only to enclosing a pump motor or restricting hours of
spraying. In some cases, however, costs could be higher.
LPIFT-, Ar -3 0 Y = T�
The following matrix describes the effectiveness of various
alternatives used to mitigate the referenced impacts.
•Property Rights
Government must carefully consider any action that may reduce the
value of property. Although the argument could be made that each
of the these alternatives could reduce property values, adding
physical barriers is clearly the most defensible. That alternative
does not actually restrict or limit the use of property.
- - -
While reviewing current planning literature on conflicts at
agricultural/residential borders, staff determined that some
jurisdictions use nuisance disclaimers. Similar to the county's
existing avigation easement provisions for new residences being
located near existing airports, nuisance disclaimers notify
potential owners of non -agriculture property that abuts
agricultural areas of possible adverse impacts associated with
normal agricultural practices. Usually, nuisance disclaimers,
which should be in the form of recorded easements, notify
homeowners that formal nuisance complaint charges against standard
MAY 202 1997
23
PHYSICAL SEPARATION
PHYSICAL BARRIER
RESTRICT AG.
ACTIVITIES in the USA
EFFECTIVENESS @ MITIGATING
INEFFECTIVE
USUALLY EFFECTIVE
MODERATELY EFFECTIVE
ODOR
EFFECTIVENESS @ MITIGATING
MODERATELY EFFECTIVE
USUALLY EFFECTIVE
VERY EFFECTIVE
SPRAY
EFFECTIVENESS @ MITIGATING
MODERATELY EFFECTIVE
USUALLY EFFECTIVE
VERY EFFECTIVE
NOISE
EFFECTIVENESS @ MITIGATING
INEFFECTIVE
INEFFECTIVE
INEFFECTIVE
HOST PLANTS
EFFECTIVENESS @ MITIGATING
INEFFECTIVE
MODERATELY EFFECTIVE
INEFFECTIVE
TRESPASSING d VANDALISM
BURDEN OF MITIGATION FALLS
RESIDENTIAL OR
RESIDENTIAL OR
AGRICULTURAL OR
ON RES. OR AG.
AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL
RESIDENTIAL
COST
VERY EXPENSIVE
INEXPENSIVE
VARIABLE
•Property Rights
Government must carefully consider any action that may reduce the
value of property. Although the argument could be made that each
of the these alternatives could reduce property values, adding
physical barriers is clearly the most defensible. That alternative
does not actually restrict or limit the use of property.
- - -
While reviewing current planning literature on conflicts at
agricultural/residential borders, staff determined that some
jurisdictions use nuisance disclaimers. Similar to the county's
existing avigation easement provisions for new residences being
located near existing airports, nuisance disclaimers notify
potential owners of non -agriculture property that abuts
agricultural areas of possible adverse impacts associated with
normal agricultural practices. Usually, nuisance disclaimers,
which should be in the form of recorded easements, notify
homeowners that formal nuisance complaint charges against standard
MAY 202 1997
23
869r 101 PAGEX89
farming operations may not stand in court. While written
disclosure does not eliminate complaints from non -agriculture
residents, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; Napa County, California;
and Fremont County, Idaho all report fewer agriculture/residential
conflicts after requiring some type of nuisance disclaimer.
A nuisance disclaimer is an acknowledgment or the granting of a
right by a property owner or newcomer resident. By executing such
a disclaimer the owner of residential property acknowledges that
active agricultural operations exist nearby, and that those
operations may cause adverse impacts on residential property.
Furthermore, by executing a nuisance disclaimer, the residential
property owner reduces the likelihood of prevailing if he takes
legal action to restrict the agricultural operation and that action
is based on adverse impacts caused by the continuance of normal
agricultural activities. As noted in the attached memorandum from
the Deputy County Attorney, there is a question regarding the
legality of certain types of nuisance disclaimers.
In planning staff's opinion, the following nuisance disclaimer
alternatives should be considered by the county in addition to a
physical buffer requirement:
Option 1 The developer of a residential subdivision, in the
Certificate of Dedication of the plat, could be required
to grant an easement over the platted property to the use
and benefit of owners of adjoining agricultural
operations (with a legal description of the agricultural
properties benefitted). Such an easement would subject
the platted property to continued noise, odor, spray
drift, etc. affects from adjacent active agricultural
operations.
Option 2 There could be a plat note reflecting an easement
recorded off plat of the same nature.
Option 3 An acknowledgement could be required to be referenced in
a plat note or in private covenant documents, and could
also be required from residential building permit
applicants. A similar type of process has been in place
since 1993 in relation to new residences built in airport
noise impact zones.
In regard to legal concerns about nuisance disclaimers, please find
attached a memo from Deputy County Attorney Will Collins (see
attachment #5).
As Indian River County continues to grow, land use conflicts will
inevitably occur. Most troublesome are uses characterized as
NIMBY's (not in my back yard) or LULU's (locally undesirable land
uses). Generally, these are landfills, jails, sewage treatment
plants, and other similar uses.
Besides NIMBY's and LULU's, other uses can create land use
conflicts. Industrial facilities or commercial establishments
adjacent to single-family residential uses are examples. Even
agricultural uses can be incompatible with adjacent single-family
residential uses.
Compared to some other incompatible land use combinations, the
residential/agricultural combination is less of a problem. Unlike
other land use conflicts, agricultural use impacts on adjacent
residences are often less problematic in terms of extent,
frequency, and duration. In fact, many agricultural impacts are
seasonal and associated with infrequent activities such as grove
spraying. Even more unusual is that agriculture can be an amenity
for adjacent residential developments.
As with most potential land use conflicts, the principal means of
mitigating impacts is through a combination of setbacks and
buffering/screening. Given the nature of potential agricultural
impacts on adjacent residential uses, the principal issue is
whether a residential developer should incur significant costs by
setting aside land and planting buffers to mitigate possibly
infrequent impacts from property that itself may be converted to
residential use in the near future.
Based upon how other local governments address the
residential/agriculture issue and recognition that land use
regulations cannot completely eliminate land use compatibility
MAY 20, 1997
24
impacts, staff's position is that a 120 foot setback/buffer is
excessive but that existing regulations may be insufficient. By
providing developers with an option of providing more separation
and less buffering or more buffering with less separation, existing
regulations-give—developers flexibility, impose reasonable -costs,
and provide at least minimum protection for residents adjacent to
active agricultural operations; however, current regulations do not
mandate a physical barrier, the most effective mechanism to address
agricultural/residential conflicts. For that reason, modifying
existing regulations to require a 25 foot setback with a Type B
buffer and six foot opaque feature for new residential projects
locating next to active agricultural operations would better meet
all the county's objectives.
PSAC & Agriculture Advisory Committee Recommendations: At its
joint meeting of April 3rd, members of the PSAC and the Agriculture
Advisory Committee (AAC) agreed that a buffer with trees is the
most effective buffer between agricultural and residential uses.
However, the committees differed on their opinion of the type of
buffer that should be required— at. --the time of planting, during
completion of subdivision improvements (see attachment #6).
PSAC Recommendation: Require a Type "B" buffer (25' wide) with 6'
opaque feature; landscaping material to be native.
Agriculture Committee Recommendation: Modified (25' wide) Type "A"
buffer with 6' opaque feature; landscaping material to be native.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: At its April 24,
1997 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission considered various
buffer and nuisance disclaimer options (see attachment #7).
Ultimately, the Planning and Zoning Commission followed staff's
recommendation, unanimously voting to recommend that the Board
adopt a requirement for a 25' Type "B" buffer with 6' opaque
feature.
Please see attached buffer type graphics which show that the Type
"A" buffer is the most intense buffer type, reserved for separating
the most incompatible uses where conflicts are continual rather
than intermittent (e.g. industrial adjacent to single family). In
staff's opinion, the Type "A" buffer is not warranted for
separating agricultural and residential uses and that the Type "B"
buffer is Sufficient, since such a buffer has seemed to work over
the years where new projects abut active groves. Although nuisance
disclaimers could possibly help an agricultural owner refute future
claims from adjacent residences, it could also arouse unwarranted
concerns. Therefore, staff is not recommending a nuisance
disclaimer requirement.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
proposed ordinance that requires a 25' Type "B" buffer with 6'
opaque feature between new residential projects within the Urban
Service Area and adjacent, active agricultural operations.
MAY 20, 1997
25 6t70K �� PAGAOU
Type A Buffer
Type B Buffer
6' Opaque Feature
Extra Setback
Nuisance Disclaimer
(min. 25' wide)
(min. 25' wide)
"Pending
—
_
_
Yes; 120' setback
Ordinance"
in all cases
_
Existing LDRS
_
Yes
Yes
Yes; 50' setback
in lieu of buffer
_
Staff
_
Yes
Yes
Recommendation
_
PSAC
_
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recommendation
_
AAC
Yes
_
Yes
Yes
Recommendation
_
PZC
Yes_
Yes
Recommendation
_
MAY 20, 1997
25 6t70K �� PAGAOU
Note: In the case of the "Hammond" comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning, that property was rezoned to RMH-8 (Residential
Mobile Home up to 8 unitstacre). Under the existing RMH-8 district development requirements, where that site abuts the Kerr Center,
a 40' wide Type "B" buffer with G opaque feature will be required. Therefore, where the Hammond and Kerr Center properties
interface, the stricter RMH-8 buffer requirement will apply.
Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that this revision came about due to
the Hammond Comp Plan amendment involving the mobile home property with an agricultural
research facility to the north
The Commissioners discussed various types of buffers and the landscaping to be required.
Commissioner Adams recommended extra requirements for buffers to protect the quality of
agriculture in our County.
Chairman Eggert wanted to know what the Commissioners thought about the nuisance
disclaimer.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins advised that the Planning & Zoning Commission
discussed the Florida Right to Farm Act, which protects against nuisance suits from neighbors who
build after the fact and they felt it would be an unreasonable requirement. He felt that requiring private
parties to go beyond the minimum requirements for zoning would be an unlawful delegation of the
Board's authority to regulate zoning.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Debb Robinson, of Laurel Homes, felt she could speak on both sides of the issue as the
regulations would impact her not only as a developer but also as a citrus farmer. She cited a
development, Laurel Oaks, where she would have lost the entire rear line of lots with a 50 -foot buffer
and felt that a 6 -foot landscape buffer or a fence would be an adequate regulation She also cited a
lack of available irrigation when first developing a subdivision The existing agricultural districts in
urban service areas will all eventually be residential. She asked the Board to stick with a Type B buffer
and a 25 -foot setback.
Robert Adair, Director of Kerr Center, stated that it is ironic that the Center works with
growers in trying to mitigate nuisances and he is now in a position of trying to defend the station The
noise levels on their sprayer were tested at 98 decibels from 40 feet away which is equivalent to a
jackhammer. He felt that a barrier between homes and agricultural uses is a great idea due to spray
MAY 20, 1997
drA noise and odor, and would recommend an increase in distance. He also felt a disclaimer would be
fair to new residents who should have knowledge of surrounding operations. He believed that 25 feet
is a very small area and that a landscaping buffer would take approximately 3 years to reach the
required heights.
Mr. Adair felt that a minimum 30 -foot Type A buffer would be appreciated for agriculture and
that a 50 -foot setback sounds like a good starting point. He asked the Board to please consider
protecting and ensuring the quality lifestyle which now exists in the County.
Glenn Legwen, 5900 51h Street SW, American Farmland Trost, stated he had done extensive
research when he first came to Indian River County and found quite a lot of agricultural property. He
questioned how much agricultural land we want to maintain in Indian River County as a great deal has
already been lost.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she
closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn for discussion, that the
Board adopt the Ordinance, requiring a 30 -foot Type A buffer
with a nuisance disclaimer and a 50 -foot budding setback
After general discussion, Commissioner Adams stated that she would be willing to AMEND
THE MOTION to include a 30 -foot Type A buffer with a 6 -foot opaque feature and a building setback
of 30 feet, with a nuisance disclaimer.
MAY 20, 1997
THE AMENDED MOTION died for lack of a second.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, that the
Board approve staff's recommendation.
THE MOTION died for lack of a second.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, that the Board approve a
Type A buffer with a 6 -foot opaque feature, a 40 -foot setback,
and a nuisance disclaimer.
ECO!( t1�
27 FACE 4���,
boor, 101 PALE W
MOTION FAIIM due to a tie vote (Commissioners Adams
and Ginn for and Commissioner Macht and Chairman Eggert
against)..
Commissioner Macht felt that would be an unnecessary burden on developers.
Commissioner Adams advised she would be willing to withdraw the nuisance disclaimer
portion of the motion if Commissioner Ginn would agree.
Staff was directed to revise the proposed amendment to include a 30 -foot Type A buffer with a
6 -foot opaque feature and a 40 -foot building setback
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Tippin being absent) tabled this item until May
27, 1997.
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - 66M AVENUE (SOUTH OF 45' STREET) —
PONDEROSA ESTATES SUBDIVISION — PAVING AND DRAINAGE
EM PROVEMENTS
MAY 20, 1997
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the underBigrwd authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on
oath says that he is President of the Press,loumal, a deity newspaper ptibl6shed at Vero Beach
In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisem�ht being
aR.tLLc. l'i CHC- c C.,
In the matter of — ` `-1
In the court, was pub -
fished In said newspaper in the issues of (Ylej� 1 clq
r
Affiant further says that to said Press.lournal 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 Comity, Florida, each daily and has been entered as
second Gass mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in Beid Indian River County. Florida,
for a period of Oahe year next preceding the That publication of the attached copy of
adverrtlpsoerrn�ht; arhd affiant further says that h e has r paid nor promised any person, firm
rebateadv f pubiicatbn In said newspaper. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
Sworn to and subscribed before me thla—l� day D._ 1
�� SHEILA N. TUTTLE. NOTARY PUBLIC
nl . 11. 1 997 997 t �o d State of Florida. My Commiasloo E:P. 10 11/9'
1
( 1,# Comadasi� Number. CC311063
i _ 'r .
OF 'FVFV 0� Nota: smn� Ak Turns
28
M
PUBLIC NOTICE
PAVING & DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS TO 60TH
AVENUE SOUTH OF 45TH
STREET IN PONDEROSA
ESTATES SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION NO. 97-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CER.
TAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS TO 60TH AVE.
NUE SOUTH OF 45TH STREET IN
PONDEROSA ESTATES, PROVID-
ING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT
OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF
ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND
MAY 20, 1997
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE I WHEREAS, after examination of
AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITED. the nature and anticipated usage
WHEREAS, the County Public of the proposed improvements, the
Works Deportment has been peti- Board of County Commissioners
tioned for Road Paving and Drain- has determined that the following
age Improvement for 60th Avenue described properties shall receive a
south of 45th Street. in Ponderosa direct and special benefit from
Estates.
WHEREAS, the construction a
paging and drainage improvement
by special assessment funding is
authorized by Chapter 206, Sec
tion 206.01 through 206.09, Indiar
River County Code; and the cos
estimates and preliminary assess.
ment rolls have been completed by
the Public Works Department; and
the total estimated cost of the pro.
posed paving and drainage
improvements is SIXTY SEVEN
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
AND NINE DOLLARS and
NINETY ONE CENTS
(x67,909.91); and
WHEREAS, the special assess-
ment provided hereunder shall, for
any given record owner of prop-
erty within the area specially bene.
fit, be in an amount equal to that
Proportion of seventy-five percent
(75°/6) of the total cost of the
project (x50,932.43) which the
number of lineal feet of road front.
age owned by the given owner
bears to the total number of lineal
feet of road frontage within the
areas specially benefited and
twenty-five percent (25%) of the
total cost of the project
(+16,977.48) will come from Peti.
tion Paving Account. Assessments
are to be levied against all lots
and lands adjoining and contigu.
ous or bounding and abutting
upon the improvements or specially
benefited thereby and further des-
ignated by the assessment plat with
respect to the special assessment;
and
WHEREAS, the special assess.
merit shall become due and pay.
able at the Office of the Tax Col.
lector of Indian River County ninety
(90) days after the final determina-
tion of the special assessment pur-
suant to Section 206.08, Indian
River County Code and
WHEREAS, any special assess-
ment not paid within said ninety
(90) day period shall bear interest J
beyond the due date at a rate:
established by the Board of County
Commissioners at the time of prep-
aration of the final assessment roll,
and shall be payable in two (2)
equal installments, the first to be
made twelve (12) months from the
I date and subsequent payments
to be de due yearly; and
29
these improvement, to wit:
Lots 1 thru 25 and that lot shown
as "NOT INCLUDED" on the plat
of Ponderosa Estates, Unit 1 as
recorded in Plot Book 6, Page 81
in the Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORI.
DA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are
affirmed and ratified in their
entirety.
2. A project providing for pov.
Ing and drainage improvements to
6% Avenue south of 45th Street in
POnderosa Estates; heretofore des-
ignated as Public Works Project
No. 9536 is hereby approved sub.
lett to the twins outlined above
and all applicable requirements of
Chapter 206, et. seq. Indian River
County Code.
The foregoing resolution was
offered by Commissioner Adams,
who moved its adoption. The
motion was seconded by Commis-
sioner Ginn, and, upon being put
to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman
Carolyn IC. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman
John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner
Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner
Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Comnmissloner
Cenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon
teclared the resolution passed and
adopted this 15 day of April,
997.
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
By -s -Carolyn K. Eggert
Chairman
West.
effrey K. Barton, Clerk
By -s -PAC Ridgely, D.C.
May 6, 1997
1081486r
BOOK 101 FADE 40A
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersl[grmd authority personally, appeared Darryl K Hicks who on
oath says that he Is President of the Press -Journal, a daffy newspaper published at Vero Beach
in Indian River Canty. Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, bekhg
i, the matterat
In the Court, was pub -
Hatted In said newspaper In the Issues of mCi .l—� Lp of %
Af lant further says that the said Press,loumal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In
said Indian River Coady, Florida, and that the said newspaper hes heretofore been
contlm ously pubristed in said Iridian River County. Florida, each daffy and has been entered as
secarid class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County. Florida,
adverds l and affiaof one nt further preceding the ftrst saypublication of the attached copy of
or crorporatfon Paid nor P any pin, firth
adver stl err>erit for publd icor unborn to or refund for the purpose of securing fhb
Sworn
PUBLIC NOTICE
PAVING & DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS TO 60TH
AVENUE SOUTH OF 45TH
STREET IN PONDEROSA
ESTATES SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION NO. 97.31
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SET-
TING A TIME AND PLACE AT
WHICH THE OWNERS OF PROP-
ERTY ON 60TH AVENUE SOUTH*
OF 45TH STREET IN. PONDE-
'ROSA ESTATES AND OTHER
INTERESTED PERSONS 'MAY
APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND BE HEARD AS TO THE PRO=
PRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF.
.MAKING PAVING AND DRAIN-
AGF-WARQVEMENTS TO SAID
PROPERTY . A$,0 THE COST
THkReOF, AS TO THE MANNER
OF PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND
AS TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF
TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED
AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BEN-
EFITED THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian--aiver
County, has, by Resclu qR.- No.
97-30 determhrod that it is, neces-
sary for tiro public welfare of the
citzem of the county, and porfhcu-
larly as to those living, working
and, awning property within the
area described herein that paving
and drainage improvements , las
made to said. property) and.
WHEREAS, the Board of County
Commissioners --has. caused an
assnsemat roll to be completed
and filed with the Clerk to, the
Board, and f; "r
WHEREAS, Section 2Q6.06,
Indian River County Code, requires
that the Board of County Commis -
slows shall fix a time and place at
which the owners of the proper"
to be assessed or any otter -,peri
=sons interested therein may-gppeor;.
Wonr'".Board of G 'Can-
missloners incl be heard atil#*6.0
priety and advisability all-l"img
MAY 20, 1997
Sbefore rye file I day An 19q`7
;: NpT qq y ..- a DAM1 tor.
My comm. EMM : _ (President)
OCT. 11, 1997 S SHED 1 AL TUTTLE. NOTARY PUBLIC
No. CC311
Co r. CC311063
OFQi1,��
.w, SIP
Notary: SWWA IL Turns
Ipaving and drainage improvemarMs
to said property, as to the cost
thereof, as to the manner of pay-
ment therefor, and as to the amount
}hereof to be assessed against
each property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, -BE IT
RESOLVED BY THE BOARD -OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SOF.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,! FORM
DA, as follows:
1. The County Commission shall
meet at the County Commission
chambers In the County Adminis-
tration Building at the hour of 9:05
AAt on Tuesday, May 20;=1997,
at which time the owners''of"the
properties to be osseslied and -any
other interested persons, may,
appear before said Commission
and 'be heard in regard to .said
property. The area to be improved -
and the properties to be specially
benefited are more partltu7arly
described upon the assessmenfiplat
and the assessment roll with regard
to the spedal assessmerMa .
2. All persons interested in the corn'
struction of said improvemetns and
the special auersemenb agahnk
the properties to be spedally bew
filed may review the osks.sment•
plat showing the area .-;fo= be.,
assessed, the assessment roll, 'the.
plans and specification for said,
improvements, and an estimate of
the cost thereof at the offioj'of the
Clerk. to fire Board any weekday
from 8:30 A.M. until 540 Pte';
3. Notice of the time and place of.
this public hearing shall be"Olven
by the Deportment of Public:Works
by two publication in - the Vero
Beach Press Jamul Newspaper a
week apart. The last pub4c.4i ign
shall be at least one week prior to
the date of the hearing. The Indian
River County Department of.Publia
Works shall give the owner of.each
property to be specially assessed
at least ten days notice in writing
OF such time and place, which'.1hall,
be served by mailing a copy of
such notice to each of suchr.Wop-
erty owners at his last (<rtown
'address.
30
The resolufbn was moved For
adoption by Commbdoner Adana,
and the motion was seconded by
Commbsio nor Ghm, and, upon
being put to o vote, the Moos was
as follows:
Chairman
Carolyn K. EgW Aye
Vice Chairman
John W. Tippin Aye
Fran B. Adams Aye
Comminhmer
Cardin D. Ginn Aye
Kenntin R. Mach Aye
The Chairman thereupon
declared the reschdbon duly posed,
and adopted this 15 day of April,
1997. BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
By -Carolyn K. E9W
chairman
Amesh= Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk .
By-0At Ridgely, D.C.
May 6,13,1997 1081432r
Boor 101 PAi,E 41-15
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 22, 1997:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E
Public Works Director
and f
Roger D. Cain, P.E. i
County Engineer
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, C.E.T. 4t, d&
Civil Engineer �l
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Paving & Drainage Improvements to 60th Avenue south
of 45th Street in Ponderosa Estates Subdivision
DATE: April 22, 1997
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On April 15, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 97-30 providing
for certain paving and drainage improvements to 60th Avenue south of 45th Street in
Ponderosa Estates Subdivision. A petition was received from the property owners on this road.
Thirteen out of eighteen property owners signed the petition making it 72% in favor of having
this road paved.
On April 15, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution 97-31 setting the
date and time for a Public Hearing to discuss the advisability, cost and amount of the assessment
against each property owner. This hearing is scheduled for May 20, 1997 at 9:05 AM in the
Board of County Commissioners chamber.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners move to approve the assessment roll, and
confirming resolution with changes, if any, made after input at the May 20, 1997, Public Hearing.
Revised confirming resolution and assessment roll will be forwarded to Chairman of the Board
for signature. The Assessment Roll and assessment plat are available for viewing in the Board
of County Commissioner's office.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
There being none, she closed the public hearing.
MAY 20, 1997
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously adopted Resolution 97-055,
confirming the assessment roll for certain paving and drainage
improvements to 60" Avenue South of 45* Street in Ponderosa
Estates Subdivision.
,.. N.0.PAU
31
BOK 10i rACE EJF
Confirming (Third Reso.) 3/25/97(ENG)RES3.MAG\gfk
RESOLUTION NO. 97- 55
A RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING
THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 60TH AVENUE SOUTH OF
45TH STREET IN PONDEROSA ESTATES SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County adopted Resolution No. 97-30, providing for certain
paving and drainage improvements to 60th Avenue south of 45th
Street in Ponderosa Estates Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which the
special assessments are to be made and how the special
assessments are to be paid; and
WHEREAS, the resolution was published as required by
Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County passed Resolution No. 97-31, on April 15, 1997, which
set a time and place for a public hearing at which the owners
of the properties to be assessed and other interested persons
would have the chance to be heard as to any and all complaints
as to said project and said special assessments, and for the
Board to act as required by Section 206.07, Indian River
County Code; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public
hearing was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal
Newspaper on May 6, 1997, and May 13, 1997, (twice one week
apart, and the last being at least one week prior to the
hearing), as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County
Code; and
WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at
least ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section
206.06, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County on Tuesday, May 20, 1997 9:05 A.M. conducted the public
hearing with regard to the special assessments,
MAY 20, 1997
32
RESOLUTION NO. 97- 55
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in their
entirety.
2. The Board finds that the properties assessed by this
resolution will receive special benefits equal to or
greater than the cost of the assessment.
3. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment
roll are hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain
legal, valid, and binding first liens against the
properties assessed until paid in full.
4. The County will record the special assessments and this
resolution, which describes the properties assessed and
the amounts of the special assessments, on the public
records, which shall constitute prima facie evidence of
the validity of the special assessments.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Macht , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye..
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Absent
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 20 day of May , 1997.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN BJVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
CAROLYN . EGGE
Chairm
Je f,7 ar on, Clerk
47,
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
60avconf.res
MAY 20, 1997
33
2
Ldmn River coag
Approved
Delo
Administration
S e
Budget
Iegai
Risk Management
Public Works
Engineering
Jr
7/
t
B.00K 01 FACE 'fD�B
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO:
60TH AVENUE SOUTH OF 45TH STREET IN PONDEROSA ESTATES
CD
an TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 2520.16
PROJECT N0.9536
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS... $50,932.43
COST PER FRONT FOOT .... $ $20.21
NAME & ADDRESS
I. John C. & Elizabeth T. Bishop
4457 60th Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32967
2. Juliana C. Haney
4455 60th Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32967
3. Anthony H. & Donna L. Labarre
4476 60th Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32967
4. Jose G. Quinones
P.O. Box 2124
Vero Beach, FL 32961-2124
5. Ruth E. Jaynes
4456 60th Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32967
60avpre.wkl
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
29 32 39 00001 0040 00002.0
Indian RIver Farms Company Subdivision
PBS 2} 12 N 304.46 Ft of W 130.57 Ft
of Tract 4 in N 1/2. Less Canal Less
S 101 Ft
29 32 39 00001 0040 00003.0
Indian River Farms Company Subdivision
PBS 2} 12 S 131 Ft of N 334.46 Ft of W
130.57 Ft of Tract 4 in N 1 /2
29 32 39 00003 0000 00001.0
Ponderosa Estates Unit I PBI 6181
Lot I & N 22 Ft of Lot 2 (OR Bk 448
PP 777)
29 32 39 00003 0000 00002.0
Ponderosa Estates Unit I PBI 6)81
Lot 2, Less N 22 Ft, & N 1/2 of Lot 3
(OR Bk 42 PP 453)
29 32 39 00003 0000 00003.0
Ponderosa Estates Unit 1 PBI 6}81
S 1/2 of Lot 3 & All of Lot 4
FRONT
FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST
173.46 $20.21 $3,505.62
131.00 $20.21
112.18 $20.21
112.70 $20.21
134.70 $20.21
$2,647.51
$2,267.16
$2,277.67
$2,722.29
TOTAL
ASSESSMENT COST
$3,505.62
$2,647.51
$2,267.16
$2,277.67
$2,722.29
Cr
N
Nr
M
1
[]I
11
Cr
N
60avpre.wkl
t/'1
M
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO:
60TH AVENUE SOUTH OF 45TH STREET IN PONDEROSA ESTATES
TOTAL FRONT FEET..........
2520.16
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS...
$50,9 2.43
PROTECT N0.9536
COST PER FRONT FOOT .... $
$;0.21!
FRONT
TOTAL
NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST
ASSESSMENT COST
6. Robert M. & Patricia A. Carlton 29 32 39 00003 0000 00005.0 134.70 $20.21 $2,722.29
$2,722.29
4450 60th Avenue Ponderosa Estates Unit 1 PHI 6}81
Vero Beach, FL 32967 Lot 5 & N 1/2 of Lot 6 (OR Bk 438
PP 697)
7. Daniel C. & Deborah F. Robinson 29 32 39 00003 0000 00006.0 134.70 $20.21 $2,722.29
$2,722.29
4426 60th Avenue Ponderosa Estates Unit I PBI 6181
Vero Beach, FL 32967 S 1/2 of Lot 6 & all of Lot 7
8. Richard B. & Elizabeth J. Steele 29 32 39 00003 0000 00008.0 119.80 $20.21 $2,421.16
4366 60th Avenue Ponderosa Estates Unit 1 PBI 6}81
$2,421.16
Vero Beach, FL 32967 Lot 8 & N 30 Ft of Lot 9
9. Christopher & Jodi Simon 29 32 39 00003 0000 00009.0 119.60 $20.21 $2,417.11
$2,417.11
4356 60th Avenue Ponderosa Estates Unit I PBI 6181
Vero Beach, FL 32967 Lot 9 Less N 30 Ft & Lot 10 Less S 30
Ft (OR Bk 454 PP 602)
10. Thomas M. & Teresa H. Giles 29 32 39 00003 0000 00010.0 119.80 $20.21 $2,421.16
$2,421.16
P.O. Box 1391 Ponderosa Estates Unit I PBI 6}81
Vero Beach, FL 3296 1-1 39 1 S 30 Ft of Lot 10 & Lot I 1 (OR Bk
503 PP 608)
ON
01
Cr
N
60avpre.wkl
t/'1
M
LO
r,
J
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO:
60TH AVENUE SOUTH OF 45TH STREET IN PONDEROSA ESTATES
TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 2520.16
Qn COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS... $50,932.43
PROJECT NO.9536 COST PER FRONT FOOT .... $ $20.21
FRONT TOTAL
NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST ASSESSMENT COST
11. Robert E. & Virginia Hickerson 29 32 39 00003 0000 00012.0 135.60 $20.21 $2,740.47 $2,740.47
60avpre.wkl
0
133.80 $20.21 $2,704.10 $2,704.10
179.60
4316 60th Avenue
Ponderosa Estates Unit I PBI 6181
$3,629.71
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Lot 12 & N 45.8 Ft of Lot 13
$2,722.29
$2,722.29
(OR Bk 456 PP 564)
12.
Timothy A. & Carolyn C. Hendren
29 32 39 00003 0000 00013.0
4308 60th Avenue
Pondeross Estates Unit I PBI 6181
Vero Beach, FL 32967
S 44 Ft of Lot 13 & All Lot 14 (OR
Bk 494 PP 205)
13.
Joseph C. & Catherine Rossmell
29 32 39 00003 0000 00015.0
4315 60th Avenue
Ponderosa Estates Unit I PBI 6181
Veto Beach, FL 32967
Lots 15 & 16
14.
Luke N. & Luise Martin
29 32 39 00003 0000 00017.0
4325 60th Avenue
Ponderosa Estates Unit 1 PBI 6}81
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Lot 17 & S 1/2 of Lot 18 (OR Bk 496
PP 692)
15.
Vincent A. Novakowski
29 32 39 00003 0000 00018.0
4345 60th Avenue
Ponderosa Estates Unit 1 PBI 6}81
Vero Beach, FL 32967
N 1/2 of Lot 18, All Lot 19 & S 20 Ft
of Lot 20
60avpre.wkl
0
133.80 $20.21 $2,704.10 $2,704.10
179.60
$20.21
$3,629.71
$3,629.71
134.70
$20.21
$2,722.29
$2,722.29
154.70 $20.21 $3,126.49 $3,126.49
O
N
29 -Apr -97 ►J
0 •a
1
2520.16 $20.21 $50,932.43 $50,932.43
TOTAL FRONT COST PER F. F. TOTAL COST TOTAL ASSESSMENT
FOOTAGE
O
N
60avpre.wkl P9_p,
6 �N'�
a�
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO:
60TH AVENUE SOUTH OF 45TH STREET IN PONDEROSA ESTATES-�
TOTAL FRONT FEET..........
2520.16
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS...
$50,932.43
PROJECT NO.9536 COST PER FRONT FOOT .... S
$20.21
FRONT
TOTAL
NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST
ASSESSMENT COST
16. Jeffrey Craig & Kimberly Morgan 29 32 39 00003 0000 00020.0 124.70 $20.21 $2,520.19
$2.520.19
4365 60th Avenue Ponderosa Estates Unit I PBI 6181
Vero Beach, FL 32967 Lot 20 Less S 20 Ft & S 54.9 Ft of Lot
21 (OR Bk 443 PP 814)
17. Gary Farless 29 32 39 00003 0000 00021.0 214.50 $20.21 $4,335.04
$4,335.04
4445 60th Avenue Ponderosa Estates Unit I PBI 6)81
Vero Beach, FL 32967 N 34.90 Ft of Lot 21 & All of Lots 22
& 23 (OR Bk 484 PP 873)
18. Bruce G. & Valerie Kennison 29 32 39 00003 0000 00024.0 149.92 $20.21 $3,029.88
$3,029.88
4451 601h Avenue Ponderosa Estates Unit 1 PBI 6181
Vero Beach, FL 32967 Lot 24 & S 60.4 Ft of Lot 25 (OR Bk
399 PP 664)
M
2520.16 $20.21 $50,932.43 $50,932.43
TOTAL FRONT COST PER F. F. TOTAL COST TOTAL ASSESSMENT
FOOTAGE
O
N
60avpre.wkl P9_p,
BOOK 101 FMGE 5J13
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING -101'' AVENUE BETWEEN 79' STREET
AND 87' STREET) - VERO LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION - PAVING
AND DRAINAGE EMPROVEMENTS
PRESS -JOURNAL
PUBLIC NOTICE
PAVING & DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS TO 101ST
AVENUE BETWEEN 79TH
STREET & 87TH STREET
IN VERO LAKE ESTATES
SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION NO. 97-28 .
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CER-
TAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS TO 101ST AVE-
NUE BETWEEN 79TH STREET
AND 87TH STREET IN VERO LAKE
ESTATES, PROVIDING THE
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST,
METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF
ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITED. .
WHEREAS, the County Public
Works Department has been peti-
tioned for Road Paving and Drain-
age Improvement for 101 st Avenue
between 79th Sheet and 87th
Street in Vero Lake Estates
Subdivision.
WHEREAS, the construction of
paving and drainage improvements
by special assessment funding is
authorized by Chapter 206, Sec,
tion 206.01 through 206.09, Indian
River County Code; and the cost
estimates and preliminary assess-
ment rolls have been completed by:
the Public Works Department; and -
the total estimated cost of the pro-,
posed paving and drainage;
improvements is TWO HUNDRElY.
FiFTY ONE THOUSAND SIZE;
HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT D04-
'LARS cnd THIRTY'7HREr CENTS:
('251,688.33); and
WHEREAS, the special assess-
ment provided hereunder shall, for
any given record owner of prop-
erty within the area specially bene,
fited, be assessed to the owner at.-
the
t=the rate of '2.00 per front foot.
The amount to be assessed under
the Special Asssessment is:
'19,334.74 which is approximately'
7.68% of the total estimated cost.
of the project and the balance of:
$232,35359 shall come from other:
revenue sources; and
WHEREAS, the special assess.:.
ment shall become due and pay
able at the Office of the Tax Col-�
lector of Indian River County ninety:
(90) days after the final determine-:
tion of the special assessment pik-
suant to Section 206.08, Indian=
Rim County Code and .
WHEREAS, any special assess-
ment not paid within said ninety.,
(90) day period shall bear interest:•
beyond the due date -at a rate:
established by the Board of County:
Commissioners at the time of prep=
oration of the final assessment roll,
and shall be payable in two (2)
equal installments, the first to be
made twelve (12) months from the
due date and subsequent payments
to be due yearly; and
MAY 20, 1997
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on
oath says that he is President of the Press,loumal, a dally newspaper publlsl ed at Vero Beach
in Uailan Rlvr County. Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
In the matter of RP_ S - q7 -Q9
In the �n,/� Court, was pub -
fished In said rmwspaper in the Issues of m �"o l , 1—1 "l
Affiant further says that the said 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 Rive County, Florida, each daily Kuri has been entered as
second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, 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 error promised any person, firm
or Corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisemrnt for publication in said newspaper.
.,§�1prr q d subscribed before me this day oT�.D.19 `1
T I .
Trasklafn
Aly.Vat
dl
OCCT 111 1997 1 NOTARY PUBLIC
No..FCAC�311063 ; State of Florida. ply Commission rap. to/ 11/07
%S$FjA��\(�.P�p�a Commissioo oipber. CC31
+t OYYF�a �'bia'�,�
s tot
re. Turr18
WHEREAS, aha examination of
the nature and anticipated usage
of the proposed improvements, the
Board of County Commissioners
has determined that the following
described properties shall receive a
direct and special benefit from
these improvement, to wit:
Vero Lake Estates, Unit L; Block F,
Lot 17 through Lot 32; Block G, Lot
1 through Lot 16;
Vero Lake Estate, Unit K, Block F,
Lot 17 through Lot 32; Bbd' G, Lot
1 through Lot 16;
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J, Block K,
Lot 1 through 8; Block 4 Lot i
through Lot 7; Block N, Lot 1
trough Lot 8; Block M, Lot 1
through Lot 7;
Vero Lakes Estates, Unit I, Block K,
Lot 9 through lot 16; Block L, Lot 9
through Lot 16; Block M, Lot 1
through Lot 8; Black N, Lot 1
through Lot 8.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORI-
DA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are
affirmed and ratified in their
entirety.
2. A project providing for pav-
ing and drainage improvements to
101 it Avenue between 79th Street
and 87th Street in Vero Lake
Estate; heretofore designated as
Public Works Project No. 9309 is
hereby approved subled to the
tams outlined above and all appli-
cable requirements of Chapter 206,
at. seq. Indian River Courtly Code.
38
The foregoing resolution was
offered by Commissioner Adams,
who moved its -adoption. The
motion was seconded by Commis-
sioner Tippin, and, upon being put
to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman
Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman
John W. Tippin Aye
Commissions
Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner. -
Carolina D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner
Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon
declared the resolution passed and
adopted this 15 day of April,
1997.
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
By -s -Carolyn K. Eggert
Chairman
Attest:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
By -s -P.M. Ridgely, D.C.
May 6,1997 1081441r
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 24, 1997:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
i
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
ana
Roger D. Cain, P.E. 4/
County Engineer ,
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, C.E.T.
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Paving & Drainage Improvements to 101st Avenue
between 79th Street & 87th Street in Vero Lake Estates Subdivision
DATE: April 24, 1997
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On April 15, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 97-28
providing for certain paving and drainage improvements to 101st Avenue between 79th
Street & 87th Street in Vero Lake Estates Subdivision.
This was a Public Works Department initiated public improvement assessment in
cooperation with the Vero Lake Estates Property Owners Association and Drainage
Committee.
On April 15, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution 97-29 setting
the date and time for a Public Hearing to discuss the advisability, cost and amount of the
assessment against each property owner. This hearing is scheduled for May 20, 1997 at 9:05
AM in the Board of County Commissioners chamber.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners move to approve the assessment roll,
and confirming resolution with changes. if any, made after input at the May 20, 1997, Public
Hearing. Revised confirming resolution and assessment roll will be forwarded to Chairman
of the Board for signature. The Assessment Roll and assessment plat are available for
viewing in the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioner's office.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
There being none, she closed the public hearing.
MAY 20, 1997
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously adopted Resolution 97-056
confirming the assessment roll for certain paving and drainage
improvements to 1018' Avenue between 79" Street and 87*
Street in Vero Lake Estates Subdivision.
39
600Y 101 FACE A
boo,v, 101 PAGE Jb
Confirming (Third Reso.) 3/25/97(ENG)RES3.MAG\gfk
RESOLUTION NO. 97- 56
A RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING
THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 101ST AVENUE BETWEEN
79TH STREET & 87TH STREET 'IN VERO LAKE
ESTATES SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County adopted Resolution No. 97-28, providing for certain
paving and drainage improvements to 101st Avenue between 79th
Street & 87th Street in Vero Lake Estates Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which the
special assessments are to be made and how the special
assessments are to be paid; and
WHEREAS, the resolution was published as required by
Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County passed Resolution No. 97-29, on April 15, 1997, which
set a time and place for a public hearing at which the owners
of the properties to be assessed and other interested persons
would have the chance to be heard as to any and all complaints
as to said project and said special assessments, and for the
Board to act as required by Section 206.07, Indian River
County Code; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public
hearing was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal
Newspaper on May 6, 1997, and May 13, 1997, (twice one week
apart, and the last being at least one week prior to the
hearing), as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County
Code; and
WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at
least ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section
206.06, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County on Tuesday, May 20 1997 9.05 A.M. conducted the
public hearing with regard to the special assessments,
MAY 20, 1997
11V
RESOLUTION NO. 97 - _IL
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in their
entirety.
2. The Board finds that the properties assessed by this
resolution will receive special benefits equal to or
greater than the cost of the assessment.
3. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment
roll are hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain
legal, valid, and binding first liens against the
properties assessed until paid in full.
4. The County will record the special assessments and this
resolution, which describes the properties assessed and
the amounts of the special assessments, on the public
records, which shall constitute prima facie evidence of
the validity of the special assessments.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Adams and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Macht , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Absent
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon
declared the resolution
duly
passed and adopted this 20
day of May
_
,
1997,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN IVER COUNTY, LORIDA
By
rJ
CAROLY K. EGG T
Chair an
Jeffr on, Clerk
i
Attachment: ASSESS NT ROLL
Ldian Rimer cm dy Approved
hate
l0laconf.res
Administration S(
2
Budget
L -W
. ss -9
Risk Management
Public Works
fingineering
MAY 20, 1997
M
41 BOCK I U r r:,AM
IT
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101 ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 9,667.37
PROJECT NO. 9309 COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $19,334.74
COST PER FRONT FOOT ............... $2.00
NAME & ADDRESS
1. Coolidge Corp.
Box 610727
N. Miami, FL 33160
2. Coolidge Corp.
Box 610727
N. Miami, FL 33160
3. Coolidge Corp.
Box 610727
N. Miami, FL 33160
4. Coolidge Corp.
Box 610727
N. Miami, FL 33160
101 AVPRE.WK1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
33-31-38-00003-0070-00001.0
Lots I to 4, Block G,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit L
(OR BK 467 PP 534)
33-31-38-00003-0070-00005.0
Lots 5 to 8, Block G,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit L
(OR BK 467 PP 534)
33-31-38-00003-0070-00009.0
Lots 9 to 12, Block G,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit L
(OR BK 467 PP 534)
33-31-38-00003-0070-00013.0
Lots 13 to 16, Block G,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit L
(OR BK 467 PP 534)
FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F.
349.09 $2.Q0
300.00
300.00
300.00
$2.00
$2.00
$2.00
TOTAL COST
$698.18
$600.00
$600.00
$600.00
29 -Apr -97
Eh -
as
C
N
q
1
1
1
1
1
1
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101 ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............... $2.00
NAME & ADDRESS
5. Raymond H. & Ruth Mary Burg
15701 Minnetonka Blvd.
Minnetonka, MN 55343
6. Coolidge Corp.
Box 610727
N. Miami, FL 33160
7. Coolidge Corp.
Box 610727
N. Miami, FL 33160
8. Coolidge Corp.
Box 610727
N. Miami, FL 33160
101AVPRE.WK1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
33-31-38-00003-0060-00017.0
Lot 17, Block F,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit L
33-31-38-00003-0060-00018.0
Lots 18, 19, 20, Block F,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit L
(OR BK 467 PP 534)
33-31-38-00003-0060-00021.0
Lots 21 to 24, Block F,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit L
(OR BK 467 PP 534)
33-31-38-00003-0060-00025.0
Lots 25 to 28, Block F,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit L
(OR BK 467 PP 534)
FRONT FOOTAGE
75.00
225.00
300.00
300.00
COST/F.F.
$2.00
$2.00
$2.00
$2.00
TOTAL COST
$150.00
$450.00
$600.00
$600.00
29 -Apr -97
M
q
M
Ln
I
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $19,334.74
PROTECT NO. 9309 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............... $2,00
NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGF. COST/F F TnTer r'nc-r
9. Coolidge Corp.
33-31-38-00003-0060-00029.0
Box 610727
Lots 29 to 32, Block F,
N. Miami, FL 33160
Vero Lake Estates, Unit L
(OR BK 467 PP 534)
10. Lawrence W. & Brenda Young
33-31-38-00002-0070-00001.0
8295 101st Avenue
Lot 1, Block G,
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
11. Timothy J. & Cynthia A. Sherman
33-31-38-00002-0070-00002.0
8293 101 st Avenue
Lot 2, Block G,
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
(OR BK 634 PP 2142)
12. Eric S. & Melinda W. Fisher
33-31-38-00002-0070-00003.0
2071 Misty Meadow Rd.
Lot 3, Block G,
Finksburg, MD 21048
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
101AVPRE.WK1
349.04
88.86
75.00
75.00
$2.00
$2.00
$2.00
$2.00
$698.08
$177.72
$150.00
$150.00
29 -Apr -97
Cr
N
EIJ
1
1
11
II
101AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
9
\m
LO
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101 ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET..........
9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS ..............
$19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309 COST PER FRONT FOOT ...............
$2.00
NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F.
TOTAL COST
13. Bloomfield Construction Co. 33-31-38-00002-0070-00004.0 225.00 $2.00
$450.00
338 Cedarville Street Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block G,
Pittsburg, PA 15224 Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
14. Kerry A. & Loraine Heider 33-31-38-00002-0070-00007.0 75.00 $2.00
$150.00
3902 Dowling Avenue Lot 7, Block G,
Wilkins Township, PA 15221 Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
(OR BK 478 PP 32)
15. Michael E.& Lynn M.Baumgartner 33-31-38-00002-0070-00008.0 150.00 $2.00
$300.00
8205 101st Avenue Lots 8 & 9, Block G,
Vero Beach, FL 32967 Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
16. Nick & Jeanne Gazzola 33-31-38-00002-0070-00010.0 75.00 $2.00
$150.00
342 S Pacific Avenue Lot 10, Block G,
Pittsburg, PA 15224 Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
II
101AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
9
\m
w
4
0
te=a
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101 ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
101AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
C,
1
1
1
TOTAL FRONT FEET..........
9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS ..............
$19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309
COST PER FRONT FOOT ...............
$2.00
NAME & ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F.
TOTAL COST
17.
Michael & Linda M. Galley
33-31-38-00002-0070-00011.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
8165 101st Avenue
Lot 11, Block G,
Sebastian, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
18.
Ann E. Brack
33-31-38-00002-0070-00012.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
117 Royal Palm Street
Lot 12, Block G,
Sebastian, FL 32958
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
19.
Coolidge Corp.
33-31-38-00002-0070-00013.0
150.00
$2.00
$300.00
Box 610727
Lots 13 & 14, Block G,
N. Miami, FL 33160
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
(OR BK 467 PP 534)
20.
William W. & April A. Moolenaar
33-31-38-00002-0070-00015.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
8115 101st Avenue
Lot 15, Block G,
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
21.
William W. & April A. Moolenaar
33-31-38-00002-0070-00016.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
8115 101st Avenue
Lot 16, Block G,
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
101AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
C,
1
1
1
1
1
1
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............... $2.00
101AVPRE.WK1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
NAME & ADDRESS
22.
Nicholas & Gilda Addesa
33-31-38-00002-0060-00017.0
370 S Waverly Place, Apt. 4-C
$2.00
Vero Beach, FL 32960
23.
Sanfra Lynn Key
8136 101st Avenue
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
Vero Beach, FL 32967
24.
Harry & Lillian Greenberg
33-31-38-00002-0060-00019.0
11734 Folkstone Lane
$2.00
Los Angeles, CA 90077
25.
Coolidge Corp.
Box 610727
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
N. Miami, FL 33160
26.
Coolidge Corp.
33-31-38-00002-0060-00020.0
Box 610727
$2.00
N. Miami, FL 33160
101AVPRE.WK1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FRONT FOOTAGE
COST/F.F.
TOTAL COST
33-31-38-00002-0060-00017.0
150.00
$2.00
$300.00
Lots 17 & 18, Block F,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
33-31-38-00002-0060-00019.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
Lot 19, Block F,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
33-31-38-00002-0060-00020.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
Lot 20, Block F,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
33-31-38-00002-0060-00021.0
300.00
$2.00
$600.00
Lots 21 to 24, Block F,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
33-31-38-00002-0060-00025.0 300.00 $2.00 $600.00
Lots 25 to 28, Block F,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
29 -Apr -97
n
It
101 AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
rn
Cr
N
R
r
00
1
1
�-I
LO
7,
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO:
101 ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO
87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET..........
9,667.37
c:;
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS ..............
$19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309
COST PER FRONT FOOT ...............
$2.00
NAME & ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F.
TOTAL COST
27.
Joseph & Julia D. Kosich
33-31-38-00002-0060-00029.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
6715 Tuxedo Road
Lot 29, Block F,
San Diego, CA 92119
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
28.
Glenn E. & Dorothy L. Ferrall
33-31-38-00002-0060-00030.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
2509 Bordeaux Way
Lot 30, Block F,
Lutz, FL 33549
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
29.
Mary Ann Rannou
33-31-38-00002-0060-00031.0
163.93
$2.00
$327.86
8276 101st Avenue
Lots 31 & 32, Block F,
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
Plat Book 5, Page 83
30.
Coolidge Corp.
33-31-38-00001-0140-00001.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
Box 610727
Lot 1, Block N,
N. Miami, FL 33160
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
(OR BK 467 PP 534)
31.
Ann Vignovich
33-31-38-00001-0140-00002.0
150.00
$2.00
$300.00
2311 West Wade Street
Lots 2 & 3, Block N,
Aliquippa, PA 15001
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
101 AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
rn
Cr
N
R
r
00
1
1
29 -Apr -97
n
v�
rn
Cr
N
4-4
X3
W
C -D
-KC
ON
'qt
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101 ST AVENUE FROM
79TH STREET TO
87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET..........
9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS ..............
$19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309
COST PER FRONT FOOT ...............
$2.00
NAME & ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F.
TOTAL COST
32. Arthur & Bertie Dibble
33-31-38-00001-0140-00004.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
RR 1 Box 1059
Lot 4, Block N,
Three Springs, PA 17264
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
33. Regis H. & Margaret E. Ryan
P.O. Box 614
33-31-38-00001-0140-00005.0
Lots 5 & 6, Block N,
150.00
$2.00
$300.00
Rockledge, FL 32956-0
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
34. Nellie C. Walker
33-31-38-00001-0140-00007.0
150.00
$2.00
$300.00
8306 93rd Avenue
Lots 7 & 8, Block N,
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
35. Collidge Corp.
33-31-38-00001-0130-00001.0
131.74
$2.00
$263.48
Box 610727
Lot 1, Block M,
N. Miami, FL 33160
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
(OR BK 467 PP 534)
36. W. Ray & Anne G. Laseter
33-31-38-00001-0130-00002.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
1038 Ray Wyatt Road
Lot 2, Block M,
Ashville, AL 35953
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
101AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
n
v�
rn
Cr
N
4-4
X3
W
C -D
-KC
ON
'qt
I
w. s�
�I
W
C-13
7E
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101 ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............... $2.00
NAME & ADDRESS
37. Charlotte A. & John D. Cole, Jr.
8455 101st Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32967
38. Joseph Sortino
c/o Florence Wolfling
475 Center Street
East Aurora, NY 14052
39. Raymond C. & Julia C. Raub
1501 SW Edinburg Drive
Pt. St. Lucie, FL 34953
40. Madeline Nistico
552 Third Street
Clairton, PA 15025
101AVPRE.WK1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
33-31-38-00001-0130-00003.0
Lot 3, Block M,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
33-31-38-00001-0130-00004.0
Lot 4, Block M,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
33-31-38-00001-0130-00005.0
Lot 5, Block M,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
(OR BK 153 PP 384)
33-31-38-00001-0130-00006.0
Lots 6 & 7, Block M,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST
75.00 $2.00 $150.00
75.00 $2.00 $150.00
75.00 $2.00 $150.00
150.00 $2.00 $300.00
29 -Apr -97
1
1
29 -Apr -97
0
CD
1-1
tn
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101 ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO
87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET..........
9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS ..............
$19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309
COST PER FRONT FOOT ...............
$2.00
NAME & ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F.
TOTAL COST
41. Coolidge Corp.
33-31-38-00001-0110-00009.0
150.00
$2.00
$300.00
Box 610727
Lots 9 & 12, Block K,
N. Miami, FL 33160
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
(OK BK 467 PP 534)
42. Sally & George E. Petticrew, Jr.
33-31-38-00001-0110-00010.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
8326 101st Avenue
Lot 10, Block K,
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit K
43. Mary Agnes Martin
33-31-38-00001-0110-00011.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
c/o Eleanor Schachern, Executor
Lot 11, Block K,
2421 Front Street
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
Monica, PA 15061
44. Rita Hudmon
33-31-38-00001-0110-00013.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
8360 101st Avenue
Lot 13, Block K,
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
45. Rita F. Hudmon
33-31-38-00001-0110-00014.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
8360 101st Avenue
Lot 14, Block K,
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
101 AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
0
CD
1-1
tn
Lo
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............... $2.00
NAME & ADDRESS
46. Collidge Corp.
Box 610727'
N. Miami, FL 33160
47. Collidge Corp.
Box 610727
N. Miami, FL 33160
48. Marvin & Gayle Reaume
13520 NW 41h Manor
Plantation, FL 33325
49. Tommy J. & Jean Runion
1713 Linwood Avenue
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
101AVPRE.WK1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
33-31-38-00001-0110-00015.0
Lots 15 & 16, Block K,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
(OK BK 467 PP 534)
33-31-38-00001-0120-00008.0
Lots 8 to 10, Block L,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
(OK BK 467 PP 53)
33-31-38-00001-0130-00011.0
Lot 11, Block L,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
33-31-38-00001-0120-00012.0
Lot 12, Block L,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit J
FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST
150.00 $2.00 $300.00
225.00 $2.00 $450.00
75.00 $2.00 $150.00
75.00 $2.00 $150.00
29 -Apr -97
a
Fil
P�
1
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............... $2.00
NAME & ADDRESS
50.
Tommy J. & Jean Runion
$2.00
1713 Linwood Avenue
Lot 13, Block L,
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
51.
Michael K. & Nina E. Neady
Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
3902 741h Avenue
Hyattsville, MD 20784
52.
Kathleen L. Craig
$2.00
4250 Sardis Road
Lot 14, Block L,
Murrysville, PA 15668
53.
Ernest G.& Christin Gerber,111
Vero Lake Esates, Unit J
8575 101st Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32967
54.
John Lloyd
$2.00
9432 U.S. Highway I
Lot 1, Block N,
Sebastian, FL 32958
101AVPRE.WK1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST
33-31-38-00001-0120-00013.0
75.00
$2.00
$ DUMU
Lot 13, Block L,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
33-31-38-00001-0120-00014.0
131.56
$2.00
$263.12
Lot 14, Block L,
Vero Lake Esates, Unit J
28-31-38-00006-0140-00001.0
71.00
$2.00
$142.00
Lot 1, Block N,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
28-31-38-00006-0140-00002.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
Lots 2, Block N
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
28-31-38-00006-0140-00006.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
Lots 3, Block N
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
29 -Apr -97
7
Cr
N
Y
c
0
C-0
M
to
101AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
Cr
N
V*
W)
1
1
1
W
u
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO:
101ST AVENUE FROM
79TH STREET TO
87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET..........
9,667.37
c�
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS ..............
$19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309
COST PER FRONT FOOT ...............
$2.00
NAME & ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F.
TOTAL COST_
55.
Fred Anderson
28-31-38-00006-0140-00004.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
1001 Foster Road
Lot 4, Block N,
Sebastian, FL 32958
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
56.
Joseph & Gertrude Blood
28-31-38-00006-0140-00005.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
8545 101st Avenue
Lot 5, Block N,
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
57.
Southern Bell T & T Co.
28-31-38-00006-0140-00006.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
0o Bellsouth Telecomm Tax
Lot 6, Block N,
Rm. 5E03 Campanile
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
Atlanta, FL 30367-6
(OR BK 721 PP 1444)
58.
David W. & Delia Badders
28-31-38-00006-0140-00007.0
146.00
$2.00
$292.00
11146 Del Rio Road
Lots 7 & 8, Block N,
Spring Valley, CA 91978
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
(OR BK 495 PP 747)
59.
Stuart E. & Lucille Glover
28-31-38-00006-0130-00001.0
77.07
$2.00
$154.14
10101 87th Street
Lot 1, Block M,
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
101AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
Cr
N
V*
W)
1
1
1
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............... $2.00
NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST
1. 101AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
r�
LO
v.
Cn
kn
60.
Patricia L. Carey
28-31-38-00006-0130-00002.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
8675 101st Avenue
Lot 2, Block 7,
Vero Beach, FL 32967
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
(OR BK 484 PP 706)
61.
Virginia & Raymond Taylor, Jr.
28-31-38-00006-0130-00003.0
150.00
j $2.00
$300.00
1076 Great Road
Lots 3 & 4, Block M,
Lincoln, RI 02865
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
62.
Edmund N. Ansin, Trustee
28-31-38-0006-130-00005.0
225.00
$2.00
$450.00
1401 79th Street Causeway
Lots 5 to 7, Block M,
Miami, FL 33141
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
(OR BK 467 PP 485)
63.
Alexandra A. & Anasta Alexander
w
28-31-39-00006-0130-00008.0
70.00
$2.00
$140.00
328 Granada Parkway
Lots 8 &'9, Block M,
Lindenhurst, NY 11757
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
1. 101AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
r�
LO
v.
Cn
kn
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101 ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
101AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
ko
kn
1
1
TOTAL FRONT FEET..........
9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS ..............
$19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309
COST PER FRONT FOOT ...............
$2,00
NAME & ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F.
TOTAL COST
64.
Donald Paul & Maria Ricc Zappa
28-31-38-00006-0110-00009.0
71.00
$2.00
$142.00
224 S Evaline Street
Lot 9, Block K,
Pittsburg; PA 15224
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
65.
Frank S.& Susan Ernst
28-31-38-00006-0110-00010.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
15713 Davis Cup Lane
Lot 10, Block K,
Ramona, CA 92065
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
66.
Karol Poderski
28-31-38-00006-0110-00011.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
1625 Martin Hwy. /1714
Lot 11, Block K,
Palm City, FL 34990
Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
67.
Edmund N. Ansin, Trustee
28-31-38-00006-0110-00012.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
1401 791h Street Causeway
Lot 12, Block K,
Miami, FL 33141
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
(OR BK 467 PP 485)
68.
Mary A. Secola
28-31-38-00006-0110-00013.0
150.00
$2.00
$300.00
521 Dorseyville Road
Lots 13 & 14, Block K,
Pittsburg, PA 15238
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
101AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
ko
kn
1
1
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............... $2.00
NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST
29 -Apr -97
n
tn
69.
John H. Francisco
28-31-38-00006-0110-00015.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
Houston Paving Co.
Lot 15, Block K,
80 Houston Road
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
Little Falls, NJ 07424
i
70.
Wanda Lepien
28-31-38-00006-0110-00016.0
71.00
$2.00
$142.00
107 McGregor Street
Lot 16, Block K,
Harligen, TX 78550
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
(OR BK 414 PP 240)
71.
George Lins
28-31-38-00006-0120-00009.0
145.00
$2.00
$290.00
P.O. Box 266
Lots 9 & 10, Block L,
Brielle, NJ 08730
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
72.
Ronald & Joan Ciccozzi
28-31-38-00006-0120-00011.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
120 Heather Drive
Lot 11, Block L,
Monaca, PA 15061
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
73.
Orval B. & Marjorie O. Archer
28-31-38-00006-0120-00012.0
75.00
$2.00
$150.00
2799 Wright Avenue SE
Lot 12, Block L,
Palm Bay, FL 32909
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
101 AVPRE.WK1
29 -Apr -97
n
tn
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 101 ST AVENUE FROM 79TH STREET TO 87TH STREET
TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 9,667.37
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $19,334.74
PROJECT NO. 9309 i COST PER FRONT FOOT ............... $2.00
NAME & ADDRESS
74. Maggie L. McDaniel
8666 101st. Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32967 t
f
i
i
75. Thomas H. & Donna S. Sherro,d
Rt. I Box 107-N
Lake City, FL 32055
i
I
I
1 �
V
i I
101 AVPRE.WK1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
28-31-38-00006-0120-00013.0
Lots 13 & 14, Block L,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
(OK BK 440 PP 913)
28-31-38-00006-0120-00015.0
Lots 15 & 16, Block L,
Varn I alrp Fetatae 11nit i
FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F.
150.00 $2.00
152.08 $2.00
TOTAL COST
I
$300.00
$304.16
TOTAL 9,667.37 $2.00 $19,334.74
FRONT FOOTAGE COST PER F.F. TOTAL COST
29 -Apr -97
r�
C
N
00
4n
1
1
11
9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - COUNTRY CLUB POINTE SUBDIVISION -
RICHARD BOGOSIAN, REPRESENTATIVE - REQUEST FOR COUNTY
TO DREDGE BOAT CANALS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 14, 1997, a letter of February 3, 1997, and a
drawing submitted by Mr. Bogosian:
TO: James Chandler
County Admini or
FROM: James W. Davis, P.
Public Works Direct
SUBJECT: Request for County to Dredge Boat Canals
Country Club Pointe Subdivision
Richard Bogosian, Representative
DATE: May 14, 1997
In the late 19Ws, the plat of Country Club Pointe Subdivision established two canal right-
of-ways which are currently being used by Country Club Pointe property owners for
drainage and boat access. The canals conned to the 300' wide Main Relief Canal right-af-
way owned by the Indian River Farms Water Control District Over the past several years,
sediment and sift has been deposited in the mouth of the canals causing a narrowing and
shallow depth. Richard Bogosian, resident of Country Club Pointe, is requesting the
County or the Indian River Farms Water Control District to dredge and restore the canal
cross-section.
The primary siltation is at the mouth of the two canals which lies within the 300' wide Main
Relief Canal right-of-way. The Drainage District has not dredged the Main Canal for
several years and does not maintain the mouth of tributaries that are not a part of their
canal system. To staffs knowledge, the County has not dredged these two tidal canals
in the past 16 years. The County did dredge the 14th Street Canal in 1989, but that canal
served a large drainage water shed consisting of all of the land east of Old Dixie Highway
in the south Vero Beach area.
A very similar request was recently made by the Vero Shores Property Owners in south
county. The County helped with permitting, but the canal dredging was funded by the
property owners through their Property Owner's Association.
Alternative No. 1
Approve the request and authorize staff to apply for dredging permits. Once
permits are obtained, land clearing of portions of the Main Relief Canal right-of-way
must take place. After the clearing, the mouth of the two canals could probably be
dredged from land by using a drag -line. The County's drag -line has limited boom
to reach the centerline of the canal, but work could take place from each side.
Costs should be assessed to the benefitted property owners.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the request. Several similar situations exist in the County such as River
Shores, Hobart Landing, etc.
Staff is reluctant to approve the request since many similar project requests may follow and
a precedent would be established.
MAY 20, 1997
59
GO�� PAGE ��'
FFd
GCCS, I I PAGE �Ij
s���Q LiL 11
. •.chi
LAW OFFICES OF
BOG
OSIAN & POWEFt--, '
CHARTERED �'.. I ,! - •.
2041 FOURTEENTH AVENUE
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32980
February 3, 1997
Mrs. Carolyn Eggert and Members
of the Board of County Commissioners
County Administratiow Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Re: Country Club Pointe Subdivision
Ladies & Gentlemen:
•'� . • ..•—"�."•TELI ZONE: (56U 587.3400
..... ..... _......._..: 9581) 778.2848
WE
Ciict
OF COUNSEL
DEBRA M. SMITH
I am writing on behalf of the County Club Pointe Property Owner's Association, Inc. and the
residents of this subdivision in which I also reside.
There are at least 60 property owners in this subdivision and 30 or more of them reside on
two boat canals in the subdivision which provide access to the Intracoastal Waterway. The
problems with the complete lack of maintenance in this subdivision are many. The end of
each canal has silted over and narrowed so much so that even small boats cannot get into the
main canal. The banks of the canals have eroded so that the depth in the center of the
canals is not sufficient for any larger boat. The banks of the canal along Calcutta Drive have
become nearly impassable because of the growth of pepper trees and other bushes. There are
derelict boats and trees sunk in our canal along Par Drive. Dead trees have fallen
downstream into the main relief canal.
All of this is not new to your Public Works Department Over a year ago I wrote to Mr.
Davis, informed him of these problems, and was told that it was necessary to obtain
environmental permits to do any work. I doubt that normal maintenance such as this
requires special permits but in any case nothing has been done about obtaining permits.
Thereafter, I wrote to Mr. John Amos at the Drainage District and was informed by its
attorney that they do not do any maintenance on the main canal After all of that, itis quite
obvious that our subdivision has been receiving nothing except "benign neglect".
Historically, the County had been maintaining our canals and roads reasonably well. '
Recently, this has not been the case. Weare all heavy taxpayers in the subdivision and
many are being assessed for water -front lots and some owners who do not live on the canals
are being charged $100.00 by the County as a fee for installing docks along Calcutta Drive.
For example, years ago, and whenever there was a threat of a serious hurricane, Vero Marine
would shelter its larger boats in our canals. That wouldmever be possible now.
All of the above deficiencies diminish the value and use of their property, and the residents
request a public hearing before the Board at the earliest possible time.
Very truly )yours,
16 J
Rich P. Bogosian
MAY 20, 1997
M
rn
M
N
Ni
�o
Gol
Course
ots
$1,065LOWONE
—7>r—
10
11
12
' 13
14
Ib
!6 !.1
/s
l0 lI
22
1
ilife
Bad
Nip
met 1W
Mr
°low&
as
GOLF VIEW DRIVE
.r.Ve OOLf V/E
PC
Country Club Pointe S/0 .
-
Tit
Mal 19W
_
ate_ _ fip•
fir
nag
$1 012
°
°
Highlight9d numbers afe
land taxes paid by each lot.
�
mile
783
1 $827
005
$1,005
I
1,005
559
Property appraiserit land
T
u
10
1
$
2
O b
41
'
�?- a
appraiser advises that wate
file
land values average $550.00
per front foot and lots not
6
6
1 It
t
1 1
!!
f
on water frontage average.
$300.00 front footOIL—
I
t
!!
per
I
�•
1
�
a
-
°
i 12
.
3
..n.
M"
4•
4
ji 13
1~
.I
i
Q
I
p
• A
�
6
l
118-
1
1
t
e
1
r
d
3
3
14
r
!1 �
v
•
1
2
2
1
l i 1°
�
I
1
b
Q
Q;
�
t
1
1
1
16
Se
r
a" Lac
,a
f
.
%MLL"j
.. —
COUNTRY
CLUB:
"
MAC)
,r .s
`"
,r
MDO
Y
.�
_ ..a
..— .���
_
•
_
_tele s•w
e�re+
_
—
rn
M
N
Ni
�o
Richard Bogosian gave a brief overview of the history of the subdivision and stated that in
1955 the plats had been dedicated to the County. He felt that the owners of property on the canals are
paying much higher taxes for their waterfront property without -being able to use the canals for
navigation He also believed that, lef -untreated, the canals will become more polluted and pose a
health hazard. Mr. Bogoshm stated that the County had maintained the canals about 20 years ago and
he believes the County should resume maintenance of these canals.
Mr. Bogosian believed there are appellate court cases which support his contention that the
County is responsible for the maintenance of these canals.
Public Works Director Tim Davis explained that the County would have to clear land and
remove landscaping to get to the canals in order to dredge them with a dragline. The canals would
more properly be the province of Indian River Farms Water Control District as the mouth of the two
canals in question lies within IRFWCD's main relief canal right-of-way. Director Davis expressed his
concern that, should the County attempt the maintenance of these canals, a precedent would be set for
other subdivisions, such as Vero Shores and Hobart's Landing,
County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that, as far as is known, no dedication of these roads
was ever accepted by the County. However, even if such an acceptance of dedication were proven, the
County could still abandon them, as this is strictly a policy decision
Commissioner Adams commented that waterfront property is always charged a higher ad
valorem tax, even if there is just a view of the water. She did not believe this is a County problem, but
rather an MFWCD responsibility. Commissioner Adams did offer the assistance of County staff in the
permitting process should the residents decide to attempt a cleanup themselves.
Director Davis stated that the plat does not include the 300 -foot canal right-of-way. This is
1RFWCD land and their procedures do not include the maintenance of tributaries.
1VIr. Bogosian then requested that:the.County abandon any right-of-way m order that the
property owners might retain the right-of-way as a private ownership.
Director Davis stated that the County could abandon the right-of-way while retaining a
drainage easement.
1VIr. Bogosian then questioned why Calcutta Drive residents were being charged $100 to use
their docks and why the County requires them to obtain liability insurance.
MAY 20, 1997
62
M
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins explained that these residents did not own property
fronting the canal. However, when they requested permits for docks, the County issued permits on this
dedicated land and entered into license agreements with the residents. The residents were also required
to obtain liability insurance in order_ to indemnify the County_ The $ 100 fee is for preparation of the
license agreements, recording, risk management, and transfer of the agreements when ownership of the
property is transferred. This is an attempt by the County to assist residents in that subdivision to utilize
the waterfront by allowing them to build a dock off a County road.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, that the Board direct
staff to research returning ownership of the canals to the
property owners involved and to negotiate such transfer of
ownership with Indian River Fauns Water Control District and
the property owners.
Marvin Carter, Carter & Associates, engineers for IRFWCD, believed that IRFWCD
assumed no part of any maintenance of these canals as they are not a part of any reclamation plan and
do not affect discharge through the main canal. The position of the District Board is the same as the
County has taken, to assume no liability for maintenance for navigation purposes.
Commissioner Adams questioned whether, if an additional assessment were paid, the District
would be willing to maintain the canals, and Mr. Carter felt that was an option which could be
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
Motion passed unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Tippin being
absent).
10. MUMS DIRECTOR - SEARCH UPDATE
County Administrator James Chandler advised that he has given strong consideration to using a
search firm to assist in locating the most qualified individual for the new Utilities Director in a timely
fashion He has asked for proposals and will bring back a recommendation.
MAY 20, 1997
63
BUCK 1 01 CAGE 5
11.2.1. REVISION OF JUNGLE TRAIL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum ofMay 14,1997:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP "/V( K
Community Development Director
DATE: May 14,1997
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE
JUNGLE TRAIL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 20, 1997.
One of the major initiatives of the Internodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) was establishment of the transportation enhancement program. As adopted, ISTEA
requires that ten percent of the money allocated to the Surface Transportation Program (STP), the
principal fund established by ISTEA, be used for enhancements to the transportation system.
In Florida, enhancement funds are allocated to FDOT district offices which then distribute these
funds to projects within MPO areas, based on MPO prioritization. Once approved, enhancement
projects are programmed on FDOT's five year work program, just like roadway projects.
Jungle Trail Application
During the first enhancement program project cycle, in 1993, Indian River County and the Indian
River County Historical Society submitted an enhancement project application for Jungle Trail. As
submitted, the Jungle Trail enhancement project application proposed a number of enhancement
activities, including provision of bicycle/pedestrian facilities, acquisition of scenic/historic sites,
landscaping, historic preservation, archeological planning, and water pollution mitigation.
Funded at $2.8 million, the Jungle Trail enhancement project was the most costly enhancement
project approved in FDOT district 4. In fact, the $2.8 million accounted for 50 percent of the
enhancement funds available in the five county (Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and
Broward) district during the first enhancement cycle.
Project Design
Because of the scope of the proposed enhancement project, FDOT retained a consultant to undertake
the necessary environmental studies and project design. Most of this work involved survey activities
along the Trail. Other activities included identification of design alternatives, coordination with
environmental agencies, and coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
As a result of the consultant's work and detailed coordination with county and MPO staff, it was
determined that the enhancement project, as proposed, could not be constructed. With respect to
hard surfacing the Trail for bicycle/pedestrian improvements, inadequate right-of-way along with
minimum FDOT design requirements precluded that activity. As to pollution mitigation through
shoreline stabilization on the south Trial, that was found to be infeasible because the shoreline is
privately owned and environmental agencies had concerns.
Alteratives
Working with FDOT, county planning and public works staff tried to identify alternative designs
for the proposed enhancement application activities. With respect to hard surfacing the Trail and
providing for bicycle/pedestrian access, the only feasible option identified involved the north
segment of the Trail and entailed closing the north Trail to vehicular traffic and allowing use of the
Trail exclusively by bicyclists and pedestrians.
MAY 20, 1997
0
Not only was this alternative unacceptable to the Historical Society, the co -applicant for the project,
but it was also unacceptable to SHPO. Consequently, that alterative was discarded.
Recently, FDOT notified the County that the Jungle Trail enhancement project was programmed for
construction in fiscal year 98-99. According to FDOT, the Jungle Trail application would need to
be revised to reflect activities that could be done, or the enhancement funds would be withdrawn
from the project. FDOT, however, did indicate that, if the County could not revise the application
to use all of the enhancement funds programmed for Jungle Trail, then the County could use the
balance of the Jungle Trail fiords for other approvable enhancement projects in the County.
In mid-April, County Commissioner Fran Adams, Historical Society representative Ruth Stanbridge,
county planning staff, and county public works staff met with FDOT representatives to identify
acceptable enhancement activities which could be incorporated in a revised Jungle Trail application.
Several activities were identified. These were:
• Provision of pedestrian facilities
Three publicly owned sites along Jungle Trail will be improved with paved parking and
restroom facilities to enhance access to Jungle Trail scenic and historic sites for pedestrians.
The three sites are the Cairns property, the Old Bridgetenders site, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (USFWS's) Surman Tract.
• Archeological_ Planning and Research
A qualified archeologist will be retained to undertake a literature search and pedestrian
survey to identify the location, extent, and significance of archeological sites (primarily shell
middens) on publicly owned sites along Jungle Trail. The purpose of the archeological work
will be to establish a Jungle Trail archeological district.
• Historic Road Signage
A series of signs identifying Jungle Trail as an historic road will be designed, constructed,
and installed along the Trail.
Subsequent to that meeting, planning staff revised the Jungle Trail enhancement project application
to reflect these new activities. A copy of the revised application is attached.
• Cost
Staff estimates that the cost of the project, as revised, will be $460,000. Most of this amount is
programmed for the proposed parking lot and restroom improvements. If approved by FDOT, the
project will be managed by FDOT, with FDOT responsible for selection of consultants and
contractors, design of the improvements, and construction. County staff will have a coordinating
role.
As approved, the Jungle Trail enhancement project had a budget of approximately $2.8 million.
While some of those funds were used for consultant work related to the original application, a
significant amount remains. Since the proposed revised Jungle Trail enhancement project is
estimated to cost only $460,000, there will probably be at least $1 million remaining from the
amount programmed for Jungle Trail.
Because FDOT has indicated that unused Jungle Trail enhancement fiords may be used for other
acceptable enhancement projects in the County, staff has identified several other possible projects.
These are as follows:
• Roseland Bikepath* $134,160
• Royal Paha Pointe Project $520,000
• Fellsmere Road (CR512) Bikepath* $183,750
*described in separate staff report -
In identifying alternative projects, several factors were considered. First, it was necessary that
adequate right -off -way be in place for any proposed project. This criterion eliminated a number of
possible projects. Second, the project must not have major design problems. Finally, the project
must have community support.
• ftiect Revision
As the applicant and project sponsor for the Jungle Trail enhancement project, the Board of County
Commissioners is responsible for the scope of the project. As such, the Board may revise the focus
of the application. Any major revision to the application, however, must be approved by the MPO
prior to acceptance by FDOT.
MAY 20, 1997
65
1
BOOK 101 PAGE 53U
Since the activities reflected in the original Jungle Trail application cannot be undertaken, it is
necessary to either revise the application or lose the enhancement funds programmed for the project.
As proposed, the revisions to the project will result in several improvements to the Trail. The
parking areas, restrooms, signage, and archeological work will all benefit the Trail.
While the amount of money focussed on the Trail will be reduced with the proposed project
revisions, the balance of the currently programmed enhancement funds can be used for other needed
projects in the County. Staff recommends that the Board approve using excess Jungle Trail
enhancement funds for the projects referenced above. Although other eligible enhancement projects
could be approved, those identi'iied-above iiieet necessary requirements, particularly the requirement
that adequate right-of-way is available to construct the project
For those reasons, staff recommends that the Board approve revisions to the Jungle Trail
enhancement project application and identify other eligible enhancement projects to be funded with
unused Jungle Trail enhancement project funds.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached revised Jungle
Trail enhancement project application and authorize staff to transmit the revised application to the
MPO. Staff also recommends that the Board of County Commissioners designate the Roseland
Bikepath project, the Royal Palm Pointe project, and the Fellsmere Road (CR512) Bikepath project
as enhancement projects to be funded with unused Jungle Trail enhancement project funds.
A V_-
/VentA UNOLE-IM
P ,I. y
�HANCEMENI -PROMO
(res5 PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS SITES
PUBLIC ACCESS
t
'.:T
,
C
BRIOCE TENDERS SITE
PUBLIC ACCESS ~---
MAY 20, 1997
i
,
� � r
The Board also reviewed a letter of May 20, 1997:
Indian Rivur County
Historicalsociety 911C.
'
2336 14th Avenue
Vero Deacll, Florida 32961
A C. ��
Vero` Station
P. O. [fox 6535
407!778.3435
Estsblished 100
Honorary DiNCtOrt
Dr. Eugene Lyon
Charlotte Lockwood May 2t). 199
John J. Schumann. Jr.
Chairman Carolyn Eggert
and Members of the Indian Rivcr County Coaunission
1840 25t11 Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mrs. T;ggert and Commissioners:
The Indian River County I historical Society would like to thank you for the opportunity to address this
Commission on the revised application for enhancement fronds for the Junglc 'frail project.
In mid-April, the Society was incited to attend a meeting with lie FDOT to discuss enhancement activities that
could be incorporated into a revised application. As representative of the Society, l had discussed several pedestrian
facilities with Bob Keating that would lie constructed on publicly owned land. Other activities that were: eligible for this
enitancenleru funds were archaeological planning and research and landmark signs. On May 12, I received a copy of the
county's drag revised application with a map of the pedestrian facilities and a description of the research and signage.
On May 13, clarification and comments on this draft were submitted to cotuny staff
Today, the Historical Society wishes to offreially request that these clarifications and additions be added to the
revised application,
Bieycic/Pedcstrian Facilities:
To maintain the scenic and historic Jungle Trail, the Society believes that small public facilities as proposed
are the proper tray to protection, preserve, and restore this greenway
The Society would like the area adjacent to the koratlgv Site and owned by the USFWS to be added to the
three sites on the proposed application. This site was idanified in the meeting with iDOT and has also been
identified by the Pelican Island Working Group as an area that would provide access to the Jungle Trail
Greenway from the north. Some additional funding should be added to the total construction and landscape
amounts.
!_Archaeological Research; The Society would like to clarify the description of lite archaeological research by
adding a statement that says "This activity should seek to establish a Jungle Trail archaeological district
and multiple property submission for the National Register." Also the mcthnds used to complete the
above goal should be tell to the professional archaeological consultant and not limit these professionals to
surveys or methods described in this application. The cost for this research activity will not he increased with
these suggestions
Historic Road IdcJtlificalictt Sietns: This activity will protide ftmds for signage along the length of Jungle
"frail. The Society suggests that additional funds be added for smaller information sihmage in the
bioyelc/pedartrian facilities. The estimatcd additionnl funds nct:ded wotild be 510,000.
During the past few years, the Society has provided a successful historic marker program in the count}'. This
program follows guidelines set by the Florida Department of State, Bureau of I iistoric Preservation. The
Society would be happy to provide the proper research and inscription for all of file signs used oil Jungle Trail
and in the public facilities.
Of course, we are disappointed that the entire amount originally requested for Jungle Trail can not be use to
address the very real problems that exist along Jungle Trail such as the stabilization of the shoreline, the retention of the
runnfl', or the restoration and landscaping of the entire length of this greenway, but we are glad that the unused monies
will be available to complete other bieyelelpedestrian projects in our county.
Thank you for the consideration of these additions to the revised Jungle frail application.
MAY 20, 1997
67
Sincerely,
(e.Xt
Ruth Stanbridge
Chairman, Junglc Trail Committee
`` 9
BOOK -01 PAGE 5J�
501 K 101 f'A,UE 533
Community Development Director Bob Keating stated that this item and the next item both
relate to the enhancement program, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA). Staff is requesting that the Board approve the revised Jungle Trail enhancement project
application and designate the Roseland Bikepath project, the Royal Palm Pointe project, and the
Fellsmere Road (CR -512) Bikepath project as enhancement projects to be funded with the unused
Jungle Trail funds of approximately $3,000,000 which DOT has approved using for other County
projects.
Director Keating continued that there are several other projects which will benefit from these
funds; Indian River Boulevard paved shoulders; the causeway connector shortfall; the Gifford medical
connector, and the AlA bikepath.
Ruth Stanbridge of the Historical Society advised that the activities for the archaeological
district will be only on publicly owned land.
Chairman Eggert requested that "district made up of publicly owned land only" be added to the
description of the proposed Jungle Trail archaeological district.
Ruth Stanbridge added that the Korangy Site needs to be an added activity as the signs are
large and miles apart.
MAY 20, 1997
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously approved the revised Jungle Trail
enhancement project application; authorized staff to transmit
the revised application to the MPO; designated the Roseland
Bilcepath project, the Royal Palm Pointe project, and the
Fellsmere Road (CR512) Bikepath project as enhancement
projects to be funded with unused Jungle Trail enhancement
project funds; and authorized additional signs as deemed
necessary, pursuant to staffs recommendations.
APPLICATION WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MMMO-W418910-1-M &13003
68
M
� � r
11.).2. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
APPLICATION - AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 13, 1997:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE WTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
i�
Robert M. Keating, P
Community Developme Director
FROM: Keith Burnsed, AICP
MPO Planner
DATE: May 13, 1997
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT TRANSPORTATION
ENHANCEMENT PROJECT APPLICATIONS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of May 20, 1997.
The federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA) mandates that 10% of all Surface Transportation
Program (STP) funds allocated under the provisions of the act be
available for transportation enhancements. Funding for enhancement
projects is distributed through the FDOT District Offices.
Enhancement projects are projects which go beyond traditional
transportation projects, yet enhance the transportation system. To
be eligible for funding, proposed enhancement projects must have a
direct relationship to the intermodal transportation system, and
this relationship must be one of either function, proximity, or
impact ."
Qualifying activities which can be funded with enhancement funds
are limited to the following:'
a) Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles
b) Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites
c) Scenic or historic highway programs
d) Landscaping and other scenic beautification
e) Historic preservation
f) Rehabilitation and operation of historic tra.*:sportation
buildings, structures or facilities (including historic
railroad facilities and canals)
g) Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the
conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails)
h) Control and removal of outdoor advertising
i) Archaeological planning and research
j) Mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff
MAY 20, 1997
4
BOOK 101 PAGE 5J`-,`i`
E �i
b02"K "10i PAUL 53u1
Applicants for enhancement projects may be local governments, state
agencies, state or national interest groups, or local interest
groups. In areas with MPOs, the MPO must receive and formally
submit the applications to FDOT. Each enhancement project
application must have a project sponsor. The project sponsor must
be a local, state, or federal agency which will provide the
required funding match and undertake necessary actions to implement
the proposed project. The project applicant and project sponsor
may be the same.
While the MPO must submit the enhancement applications to FDOT, the
County and municipalities, as project sponsors, play the largest
role in the enhancement application process. It is the local
governments that decide which projects to submit for enhancement
funding.
In the four years since applications for enhancement funding have
been accepted by FDOT, several projects within the MPO area have
been funded through placement in FDOT's Five -Year Work Program.
These projects include the Jungle Trail project, Sebastian
Riverfront project, North County Recreation Route project, South
County Recreation Route project, and Causeway Connector project.
This is the first year since 1995 that enhancement project
applications are being solicited by FDOT. In 1996, existing
approved enhancement projects required all enhancement funding
available, so FDOT opted not to add any enhancement projects to the
current work program last year. While new enhancement applications
were not submitted in 1996, FDOT did complete development
activities for existing applications, including the Indian River
County projects listed in Attachment 1.
This year, FDOT has informed all MPOs of the estimated amount of
enhancement funding available in the upcoming Work Program cycle.
The amount allotted to the Indian River County MPO area will be
approximately $290,000, to be programmed in the new fourth year of
FDOT's upcoming Five -Year Work Program, state Fiscal Year
2001/2002.
There is no required match for this cycle of enhancement funds, but
the project sponsor must commit to maintain the project. While
this year's applications will exceed available funding,_._revisions
to the county's Jungle Trail application may make available
additional enhancement funds. FDOT has informed the MPO that any
excess funds from revisions to the Jungle Trail project will be
spent on enhancement applications in Indian River County.
In choosing potential enhancement projects, staff used as inputs
the county's current 1988 bikepath and sidewalk plan, School Board
staff's sidewalk priorities, and coordination with local government
staff and citizens.
The current bikepath and sidewalk plan is now in the final stage of
being revised. The current plan as well as the new revised plan
consider the provision of travelways to schools as one of the
primary criteria in deciding the location of sidewalks and
bikepaths. As such, the sidewalks and bikepaths near schools are
given priority. This priority is being implemented through
sidewalk and bikepath construction projects, including several
recent enhancement projects.
Because enhancement project right-of-way purchases must be made in
accordance with federal right-of-way purchase regulations, the
right-of-way component for enhancement projects can be cost
prohibitive. For that reason, FDOT has discouraged applicants from
including projects which may need right-of-way.
As proposed, none of the potential 1997 enhancement applications
require right-of-way. In addition to staff's proposed enhancement
projects, there are several areas in need of sidewalks and
bikepaths. Since enhancement projects should not include right-of-
way purchase, the county is unable to use enhancement funds for all
needed projects. Therefore, staff has selected the most needed
projects which have right-of-way available for enhancement funds.
Working together, the County Public Works and Community Development
Departments have developed five potential enhancement projects.
These are briefly described below:
MAY 20, 1997
70
M
Approximately one mile in length, the Roseland Bikepath would be
placed along Roseland Road from 126th Street to US 1. This project
would connect the Roseland Community to shopping and other
amenities at the Roseland Road/US 1 intersection. Approximate
cost: $134,160
This project would extend the recreation path adjacent to State
Road AIA from CR 510 northward to the Indian River/Brevard County
line. The project is 7 miles in length, and the approximate cost
is $1,231,400.
To provide pedestrians and bicyclists a safer place to walk along
CR 512 in Fellsmere, this project would place an eight -foot wide
separated path along CR 512 from Willow Street to Myrtle Street.
The project would connect City Hall, city parks, churches, and the
CR 512 commercial district in Fellsmere. Approximate cost:
$183,750.
This project would provide a sidewalk along US 1 to help connect
the Gifford Community to commercial and medical facilities. The
sidewalk along US 1 would connect 37th Street to 45th Street. The
estimated cost for this project is $186,625.
The segment of Indian River Boulevard between the 17th Street
bridge and the new Merrill Barber bridge does not have a paved
shoulder, causing cyclists to join with traffic in this busy area.
This project would add paved shoulders to the roadway. The
estimated cost for this project is $141,000.
As in previous enhancement cycles, the MPO is responsible for
prioritizing the projects for funding consideration by FDOT. This
prioritization will occur in August/September 1997, when the MPO
develops its annual lists of project priorities.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
staff to submit the above referenced transportation enhancement
project applications, agree to be the project sponsor for the
applications, and authorize the chairman to execute a project
sponsor certification statement for each application.
Attachment 1
Examples of Current Indian River County ISTEA Enhancement Projects
Jungle Trail A locally designated scenic and historic roadway, Jungle Trail is an unpaved
scenic drive which runs along the Indian River for much of its length, which
extends from Old Winter Beach Road on the south to SR AIA north of the Town
of Orchid. This project was approved for funding in 1993, the initial
enhancement project application cycle. While the scope of the project is not yet
final, it will likely include markers for historically significant sites, research
concerning archaeological sites along the Trail, and parking/restroom
improvements on publicly owned sites along the Trail to accommodate
bicycle/pedestrian access.
Sebastian This project was proposed to provide a scenic path for bicyclists and pedestrians
Riverfront adjacent to Indian River Drive in the City of Sebastian. Local officials and
interest groups are currently discussing alternatives for the location and design of
the facility. Approximately $600,000 in enhancement funding is currently
budgeted for this project. _
MAY 20, 1997
71
North County
A connected series of bikepaths and sidewalks will be built when this project is
Recreation Route
complete. A separated recreation path along SR AIA will be built, extending the
present path from its terminus at Indian River Shores northward to County Road
510. The path would then extend along CR 510 to 66th Avenue. A sidewalk
along 66th Avenue is also proposed from Barber Street to 77th Street. Presently,
the SR AIA path is under design.
Approximately $1,300,000 in enhancement funding is currently budgeted for this
project.
Vero Beach
This project proposes a separated path along Indian River Boulevard connecting
Causeway
the 17th Street bridge to the new Merrill Barber Bridge. Sidewalks would also
Connector
be built along Royal Palm Boulevard, Royal Paha Place, and 23rd Street to
connect to existing sidewalks. Approximately $200,000 in enhancement funding
is currently budgeted for this project.
South County
The South County Recreation Route will provide pedestrian and bicycle access
Recreation Route
to the South County Regional Park, the Vero Beach Highlands and J.A.
Thompson Elementary Schools, Oslo Middle School, and the US 1 commercial
area. Separated paths or sidewalks will be built along 27th Avenue south of the
South Relief Canal to 14th Street SW, 4th Street to connect to US 1, Oslo Road
to connect to US 1, South US 1 to complete the sidewalk between the South Vero
Square shopping center and 10th Street, and Highlands Drive between the B-10
Canal and US 1. Approximately $200,000 in enhancement funding is currently
budgeted for this project, with Indian River County providing additional funds to
complete the project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board (40, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously authorized staff to submit the
transportation enhancement project applications, agreed to be
the project sponsor for the applications, and authorized the
Chairman to execute a project sponsor certification statement
for each application, pursuant to staffs recommendations.
DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
V WON 10 V�
11.A.3. LOST TREE VIU AGE CORP. - ROAD RIGHT -OF WAY AND
CONSERVATION LAND AS PARTIAL MMGATION FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SINGLE-FAMELY RESIDENCES - WABASSO
ISLAND
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 12, 1997:
MAY 20, 1997
72
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPAR T HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert .Keating, CP /
a4
Community Development Director
11WD
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois; AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: May 12, 1997
SUBJECT: Request for County Acceptance of Road Right -of -Way and Conservation Land
from Lost Tree Village Corporation as Partial Mitigation for Development of
Two Single -Family Residences on Wabasso Island
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 20, 1997.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Lost Tree Village Corporation ("Lost Tree") owns approximately 7.64 acres of land bisected by Live
Oak Drive on wabasso Island, southeast of the Environmental Learning Center (ELC) (see attached
map). The subject property consists of uplands and wetlands, and is zoned RS -I, single-family
residential, and Cont,_Estuarine_Wetlattds_Conservation.
Lost Tree proposes to create two single-family parcels out of the subject property, and fill
approximately 0. 17 acres of wetlands to allow for access and development of existing upland areas.
Lost Tree has obtained wetland alteration permits from the St. Johns River Water Management
District (SJRWMD) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS) for the work, with wetland impact
mitigation proposed as follows:
Donation of $18,050 to the ELC for upland plantings and the removal
of exotic -vegetation. from ±1.45 acres along the Indian River Lagoon
shoreline near the existing ELC dock;
Deeding of 1.45 wetland acres west -of -Live Oak Drive to the County
(for incorporation into ELC leased land); and
Deeding of a 60' wide right-of-way to the County for Live Oak Drive,
where Live Oak Drive bisects the subject property. (Although the
County maintains that portion of Live Oak Drive, which is a paved
road, the County does not officially own the right-of-way.)
This memorandum is presented for the Board to consider acceptance of deeds for the described
conservation land and right-of-way.
ANALYSIS
General Sub&wsion & Zoning Requirements
The subject Lost Tree property has not been subdivided since at least 1983. Therefore, the property
qualifies for a "one-time split" for the creation of two parcels, without need for formal platting. As
proposed, each of the two parcels would satisfy the minimum parcel size and road frontage
requirements of the RS -1 zoning district.
Minimum yard setback requirements for the RS -I zoning district are 30 feet for front and rear yards,
and 20 feet for side yards. Moreover, County Code Section 929.07 requires a 50 foot building
setback from the Lagoon mean high water line for unplatted parcels adjacent to an aquatic preserve
of the Indian River Lagoon. That requirement applies in this case. This setback may be reduced to
20% of the parcel depth perpendicular to the Lagoon waterway, whichever distance is less. Staff has
reviewed the proposed parcel split and setback requirements, and has determined that development
on the two proposed parcels could feasibly satisfy these requirements.
County Wetland Protection Requirements
County Code Chapter 928, Wetland Protection, requires a county wetland permit for proposed
wetland alteration. Environmental planning staff has reviewed the proposal as permitted by the
MAY 20, 1997
73 6CCK 102L MU �c��
BOOK FAGS 50�
SJRWMD and the ACOE, and finds that the proposal satisfies county wetland protection criteria.
Therefore, a county wetland permit will be forthcoming, contingent upon the Board's approval of the
proposed deeding of right-of-way and conservation land.
Acceptance of RDW & Conservation Land
The County Public Works Director has reviewed the proposed deeding of Live Oak Drive right-of-
way to the County, and has indicated that County acceptance of the right-of-way would be in the
public interest from a maintenance control standpoint.
The 1.45 acres west of Live Oak Drive proposed to be deeded to the County would round -out the
County's ownership on Wabasso Island, and would be a logical addition to the land currently under
long-term lease to the ELC. County ownership of the 1.45 acres would allow for overall, consistent
wetland restoration and management on southern Wabasso Island in conjunction with ongoing ELC
restoration projects.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners accept the proposed donations (described
herein) of a 60' wide Live Oak Drive right -of --way and 1.45 acre conservation area from Lost Tree
Village Corporation. Moreover, staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to take the necessary
actions for the County to obtain legally sufficient title to the described property.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously accepted the proposed donations of
a 60 -foot wide Live Oak Drive right-of-way and 1.45 acres
conservation area from Lost Tree Village Corporation and
authorized staff to take the necessary actions for the County to
obtain legally sufficient title to the descnbed property, pursuant
to staffs recommendations.
DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
W-4 n;1 • r. : •7 ;
HAA HABITAT FOR Y ASSISTED SHIP APPLICANTS
AND COADIUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ASSISTED SHIP
APPLICANTS — PROPOSED SPECIAL CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 13, 1997:
MAY 20, 1997
74
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP /
Community Development Diredr
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP C—::; - /C
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 13, 1997
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PROPOSED SPECIAL CREDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR HABITAT
FOR HUMANITY ASSISTED SHIP APPLICANTS AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ASSISTED SHIP APPLICANTS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 20, 1997.
As adopted, the county's Local Housing Assistance plan requires that eligible persons applying for
assistance through the Local Housing Assistance Program must have bad a valid, satisfactory credit
rating for a minimum of one (1) year prior to receiving approval for any application.
For applicants applying for both SHIP funds and a loan from a financial institution, the applicable
financial institution determines whether each applicant's credit is satisfactory based upon the
applicable financial institution's credit standards. For all other applicants, county staff assesses the
applicant's credit based upon the information provided in a credit report from one of the three national
credit reporting agencies. For all SHIP loans except rehabilitation loans, an applicant will be deemed
to have satisfactory credit if the applicable credit report shows that, in the previous 12 months, the
applicant had:
- No more than (4) 30 day late payments
- No more than (1) 60 day late payment
No 90 day late payments
- No more than 2 collections
- No collection or combination of collections more than $500.00
Judgment liens for medical expenses may be acceptable if a repayment plan is established and
payments have been made for at least the previous 12 months.
Regardless of an applicant's credit history for the previous 12 months, an applicant's credit
will NOT be considered satisfactory if the applicant's credit history shows:
- Any charge offs that were not subsequently paid or discharged in a bankruptcy
- Active judgments against the applicant
- Repossessions with a remaining balance payable by the applicant
- Bankruptcies that have not been fully discharged for two years with no new negative
credit history
Recently, the issue of whether to treat Habitat for Humanity assisted SHIP loan applicants and
Community Development Block Grant assisted SHIP loan applicants differently has arisen. This
report addresses that issue.
Although the state imposes a number of requirements on SHIP program administration, those
requirements do not involve credit standards. Instead, establishment of credit standards is a county
requirement, and the county can revise its credit standards as appropriate. Two situations, in
particular, warrant consideration for establishing special credit requirements. One involves SHIP
loans to Habitat for Humanity applicants, while the other involves SHIP loans to applicants
participating in the CDBG program.
MAY 20, 1997
75
6C'K 2lJ rA�t
LOCK 1 UAE.
• Habitat for Humanity
Cutrently, the county is working with Habitat for Humanity to provide decent housing for very low
income households. On occasions, Habitat for Humanity applicants have credit problems which, in
turn, do not satisfy the above referenced credit requirements established by the county for SHIP
applicants. In most cases, however, both county staff and Habitat for Humanity staff believe that
less stringent requirements should apply to Habitat for Humanity assisted SHIP applicants.
Thefollowing$re reasons to apply different, less stringent requirements to Habitat for Humanity
applicants.
Credit verification is a county requirement, not a state requirement. Therefore, the county
has the ability to modify it as appropriate.
Besides assisting very low income households with the purchase of housing, Habitat for
Humanity assists those households with lifestyle changes. In many instances, these
households have credit problems and cannot satisfy conventional lending/credit requirements.
The major reason for requiring satisfactory credit is to ensure that mortgage payments are
made on time, thereby reducing the chance of foreclosure and loss of loaned funds. With
SHIP loans, this is of less concern smce.no monthly payments are required; SHIP loans are
`due on sale'. In addition, Habitat for Humanity's loans are usually in the amount of $30,000
to $35,000, while the county's loans are in the amount of $15,000. Habitat for Humanity
houses, however, are generally appraised between $50,000 to $60,000. Therefore, there is
approximately $5,000 to $15,000 of equity built in the homes; so if there is a foreclosure, the
county's loan is secure.
Habitat for Humanity works with applicants prior to closing and at least two years after
closing to ensure that credit problems are fixed, mortgage payments are paid on time, and
the applicant is assisted in overcoming any unexpected problems that they may encounter.
The applicant must have clean credit or establish a payment schedule to pay down any
chargeoffs, judgments, and other debts.
Habitat for Humanity's nationwide foreclosure rate is 0.8%.
A Florida appellate court has held that lenders (Board of County Commissioners through
SHIP) who loan purchase money in exchange for a, mortgage on property to be acquired
have a priority in the proceeds of sale, superior even to pre-existing judgments of record.
Given the reasons stated above, staff feels that the county could establish the following special credit
requirements for Habitat for Humanity assisted SHIP applicants and still ensure that county loans are
secure.
Proposed Special Credit requirements for Habitat for Humanity Assisted SHIP applicants:
MAY 20, 1997
Habitat for Humanity applicants will be deemed to have satisfactory credit and the
county loan will be deemed to be secure if applicants meet the normal established
SHIP program credit requirements or if the appraisal of the home indicates that at
least $5,000 in equity, above Habitat for Humanity's first mortgage and the county's
subordinate mortgage, exists and if:
* The applicant has no chargeoffs; or if undisputed chargeoffs exist, a payment
plan has been established for paying down any existing chargeoffs and at least
12 consecutive payments have been made by the time of closing.
* There are no active judgments against the applicant; or if undisputed active
judgments exist, a payment plan has been established for paying down the
judgments and at least 12 consecutive payments have been made by the time
of closing.
* There are no motor vehicle repossessions with a remaining balance payable by
the applicant; or if undisputed repossessions with a remaining balance exist a
payment plan has been established to pay down the remaining balance of any
existing repossessions and at least 12 consecutive payments have been made
by the time of closing.
* For any chargeoff, judgment, or repossession less than one year old or any
judgment lien for medical expenses, a payment plan has been established for
paying down the chargeof% judgment, repossession, or medical judgment and
the applicant is current with the payment schedule.
T
M M
Bankruptcies have been fully discharged for at least one year with no negative
credit history.
If there are any disputed chargeoffs, judgments, or repossessions, the
applicant must submit a written reason(s) for the dispute, and Habitat for
Humanity as a first lender must provide a written document to the county that
states that Habitat for Humanity believes that the dispute is justifiable and it
stands ready to make the first loan.
Community Development Block Grant
In August 1996, Indian River County's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application
was approved by the State Department of Community Affairs. Thepurposeof the grant is to provide
for street and drainage improvements, water line extensions, and water connections to the Colored
School and Whitfield subdivisions in the Wabasso area. To assist very low and low income
households of both subdivisions with the cost of connecting to the county water system, the county
pledged $200,000 of SHIP funds as part of the CDBG application. By pledging county SHIP funds,
the county acquired more points, and the CDBG application was approved.
The cost of the street and drainage improvements, the water line extensions, and the water
connections in the Whitfield and Colored School subdivisions are being paid using CDBG funds
totaling $750,000. Without the CDBG funds, the cost of the infrastructure improvements would fall
on the residents that benefit from the improvements.
Although CDBG funds will pay for all of the improvements listed above, there are some costs
associated with connecting to county water that cannot be paid with CDBG funds. These include
impact fees, and any required plumbing improvement costs. These costs, however, can be paid with
county SHIP funds for qualifying -families. Per CDBG requirements, all residents must connect to
county water to be considered benefiting recipients.
According to the county's Local Housing Assistance Plan, applicants for rehabilitation and impact
fee loans will be deemed to have satisfactory credit if the applicable credit report shows that there are
no active chargeoffs or judgments against the applicant. With CDBG assisted applicants, there is
a concern that some residents in the target area may not meet the county's credit requirements. If
that is the case and target area residents have insufficient funds to connect to the water system, the
county's CDBG grant may be jeopardized.
To connect to the county water system, an impact fee of $1,300 is required. In some cases a
rehabilitation loan to repair plumbing facilities may be needed. Where required, rehabilitation loans
should not exceed $200. For eligible households, these costs can be paid by SHIP loans. Although
credit requirements may make some target area residents ineligible for SHIP loans, staff feels that the
county's interest will be secured by a lien on the household's real property that is recorded with the
SHIP loans. Since reducing credit requirements for CDBG assisted applicants will ensure that CDBG
requirements will be met, staff feels that it would be appropriate to waive SHIP credit requirements
for CDBG assisted SHIP applicants.
On May 8,1997, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) reviewed these special credit
requirements for Habitat for Humanity and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) assisted
SHIP loans and recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve these special credit
requirements as proposed
The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) and staff recommend that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the proposed special credit requirements for Habitat for Humanity
assisted SHIP loans. Also, AHAC and staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
waive the local housing assistance plan credit requirements for CDBG assisted applicants only.
MAY 20, 1997
77
1
"101PACE 5 ij
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously approved the proposed special
credit requirements for Habitat for Humanity assisted SHIP
loans and waived the local housing assistance plan credit
requirements for CDBG assisted applicants only, pursuant to
staffs recommendations. -
11.E. SOLID WASTE $89240,000 BONDS, SERIES 1988 - PAYOFF
(CLERK'S NOTE: SEE ALSO "SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT MINUTES"
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 14, 1997:
TO:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE:
May 14, 1997
SUBJECT:
PAY-OFF $8,240,000 SOLID WASTE BONDS, SERIES 1988
FROM:
Joseph A. Baird
Office of Management and Budget, Directo .
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In the meeting of November 5, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners approved paying off the
Solid Waste $8,240,000 Bonds, Series 1988.
58,240.000 Solid Waste Disposal Bond Issue, Series 1988
The $8,240,000 Solid Waste Disposal Bond Issue, Series 1988 has 6.960/6 average interest rate,
$3,820,000 in principal balance (after June 1, 1996 payment), and an anmiai payment for the 1997/98
fiscal year of $920,175.00. Over three years ago staff looked at refinancing the Solid Waste bonds
when interest rates were at their lowest point, but we were unable to do so because these bonds
mature in the year 2002 and there was not sufficient time to capture issuance cost and have a present
value savings. The Solid Waste Disposal District has sufficient cash to pay-off the bonds and I feel
this would be in the best interest of the County. We have firture capital needs, but those could be
accomplished by utilizing remaimng cash in the Solid Waste Disposal District or mterfund borrowing
and if absolutely necessary a firture bond issue. By paying off the bond issue we will reduce the
1997/98 debts of $920,175.00 and will also reduce the budget. This will assist in offsetting
an increase in the Solid Waste assessment.
The chart below shows the Sources and Uses of the fiords.
USES:
Principal Amount $3,820,000.00
Premium (1.01%) $38,200.00
Estimated Interest thru July 1, 1997 $23,000.00
Estimated Defeasance Cost $15,000.00
TOTAL USES $3,896,200.00
MAY 20, 1997
78
SOURCES:
Solid Waste District Fund 411:
Sinldng Fund Reserve Cash $939,750.00
Sinking Fund Cash $1,003,745.00
Capital Construction Cash $318,792.00
Renewal and Replacement Cash $1,633,913.00
TOTAL SOURCES $3,896,200.00
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board authorizes staff to proceed in paying off the above bond issue
utilizing the funds as set forth.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously authorized staff to prod in
paying off the bond issue utilizing the funds as setforth in
stafrs memorandum, pursuant to staffs recommendations.
11A OUT-OF-STATE HEALTH BENEFITS - ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 12, 1997:
TO: James
,,(� E. Chandler, County Administrator
FROM:__ Ron4.?Baker, . Personnel Director
DATE: May 12, 1997
RE: Board's Request"%r`-Additional information in Regards to
Out -of -State Health Benefit
BACKGROUND:
At the Board meeting of May 6, 1997, the Board of County
Commissioners requested additional information regarding the
out-of-state benefit,__which is attached.
In addition, Mackie Branham with. O'Neil, Lee & West will be
available to discuss the out-of-state benefit and to answer
questions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the overall cost exposure to the health plan, staff
recommends the benefit for out-of-state members remain at the 80/20
co-insurance with a $200.00 deductible.
MAY 20, 1997
79
GG ?I( 10i FAGE 5'
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
IN FLORIDAIOUT-0F FLORIDA
OPTIONS AVilk] T E
L ADD - 815 Offlce visit Co -pay for 16 Out -of -Florida Retirees Participants
(Current Benefits - 8200 deductible, 80% Co-insurance, no balance
billing for PPC Providers)
• Members treated differently by location by omitting deductible to
Out-ot=State PPC Providers
• Florida Retirees and Employees will not have the same benefits
Non -PPC Providers - subject to $300 deductible, 60016 Co-insumce
• Inascaso Exposuro is $118S.00 per Member x 16 participants — $18,960
Annual Exposure
IL ADD - $15 Office visit for all Ont -of -Florida PPC Providers
• All Members treated equally by locations
• i3ighent coat to County (Iadamnity typo plan)
- 3% increase is Aggregate Liability factor
- (293.28 to 302.08) Claims
8.80 x 1295 m $11.396 x 12 - mon tbly exposures
or 136,752 amwal exposure
• Underwriter's Consideration
- 4500 Par i4ants
- Students away at school
- Separate Faadly Members Outside -of -Florida
- COBRA recipients Outside -of -Florida
- Employee Traveling Ouuid"f-Florida
111. LEAVE BENEFITS AS THEY WERE QUOTED
• All Members treated equally as far as a deductible exposure
• Benefits determined by Point of Service Coat=
• Benefits matched previous Acordia Plan per A.F.P.
• Lowest cost to County
MAY 20, 1997
80
W
bcnv 10 PAGE blu
Cross
A BENEFIT- COMPARISON ;'; BlueShhWW
for Employees of Indian River County _�.u�.... n cy mn4-Rr _u.
BENEFIT Indian River Countv's BCBSF's Preferred Patient Care'"
1995 Benefit Plan I (PPCI - Effective 10/01/%
PPO PROVIDER NON -PPO PPC PROVIDER NON -PPC
Deductible - Per Person t_ per tatn[iv, 5200 5300 5200 I 5300
ri.rn:r r -; •:,,> r d: r to i o ' uuimrdtmis m rmnrUr (la c to smsru f Amt M-1. numbers darns go toward
irnoanRr.'rt6+nornu aoorormarednimuhle I satlsj*g2dedadibles(gprgaw
Coinsurance 80% 609 809 609c
Out-ot-Pocket Maximum (2 per tamily) 52.000 I 54.000
52A()0 54,000
Cw+runietrucni it d!n> not a[griv ttrturd ? indmiduals nt rami!u ime to satrsry
tilemit-f-w Act nlarllrrlrm I appropriate marnmtm
Anytanubj member's down go toward
satisftmg2 na> laggregatt)
Per Admission Deductible (PAD)
Wnridlrvr.•rces m"Idediv 5200
55005200
l 5500
lndwv Rl: rr adc rnornrl
B. Inpatient
80% I 60`i0
Lifetime Maximum 51.000.000 51.000.000
1. Phvs[c[an Sen -ices
31 Inpatient dausrrtsns per Person
3I Inpatient dausmis[ts per person
A. Office Visit
I 515 copav
I 60% I 515 copay
60%
B. Other Services Provided in Dr's Office
1 80% 60% 100% 60%
C. Other Services
80% I 60% j 80% I 60%
11. Hospital
I I
, I
A. Outpatient Hospital & Surgical Centers
80% 609
80% 609
B. Inpatient
80% 60% 80% 60%
C. Emergencv Room for Accident
$50 copay $50 copay 100% 100%
WSW baiance subiect to normal
V1. Pre--cnrnon Druz reta[i and maii order
deductible/eonumanee
II1. Other
1
1 Partrapanng vnarmacv I
58 copay 510 copay I
58 copay i $16cD y
A. Preventive
i 609
1. Annual Health Assessment
I n/a
nia
S15copay Non -covered
EnrPdouee oniv, deductible war,
I
S?00 maximum per calendar vein
_. Well Child (limitations apply)
i 809 609 I 515 copay j 60%
80% - 510.000 maximum per person 80% - S10A00 maxurtunt per person
per calendar vear per mlendar uear
B. Skilled Nursing Facility
80% - S23W maximum per person I 8017o - S2a00 maximum per person
per calendar uear per calendar year
C. Home Health Care
I. n/a 1 809 n/a 1 80%
D. Senices Outside Service Area
R'. Mental Health
515 copay I
A. Outpanent
(Ist 10 visits) � 6007c i
I
S15copay 6090
f
-limitation ;
55.000 mxr m im per person i
55.000 mrnmunt per person
per calendar veer
per calendar utar
B. Inpatient
80% I 60`i0
800/c I 609
-unrtnrtion
31 Inpatient dausrrtsns per Person
3I Inpatient dausmis[ts per person
per calendar vear
per calendar near
C. Partial Hospital
i
80% 60%
80% 1 609
iinrn noir
Not to exceed cost of 31 invattent daysmisits
Uot to exceed cost of 31 intmttent dausivisus
Per calendar ucar
Per calendar Year
j V. Alcohol and Druz Abuse
i
809 60%
809 - 6007c
brraaevrr. c urtxrne [a. ar f
S10A00lifetime maximum per member j
S10,000 Iifct»nc [naxmtun: pct member
• : onrrnrnnmr n* ; •�•
c tris
V1. Pre--cnrnon Druz reta[i and maii order
i
1
1 Partrapanng vnarmacv I
58 copay 510 copay I
58 copay i $16cD y
Non-Parnarannz harmacv
i 609
MAY 20, 1997
81
K21K 191 FAGS 517
Personnel Director Ron Baker advised that the cost to the County for 16 retired employees
living out-of-state would be $18,960 annually, or $1,185 per participant, for increased benefits.
Ron McCall of The McCall Agency advised that premium increase would allow the out-of-
state retirees, together with any covered dependent children attending school out-of-state or employees
traveling out-of-state, to be reimbursed at a higher co -pay level.
General discussion of the costs and benefits involved ensued
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippm
being absent) unanimously approved not malting any changes
to the health care plan, pursuant to stars recommendations.
11.G.1. 26' STREET EMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN 58' AVENUE
AND 66' AVENUE) - CHANGE ORDER #2 - FINAL PAYMENT &
RELEASE OF RETAINAGE - RANGER CONSTRUCTION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 1997:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis; P.
Public Works Direct E
9�1
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E „{.,'r
Capital Projects Manage _
SUBJECT:._ 26'h -Street Improvements
Between W Avenue and 66'" Avenue
Change Order No. 2
Final Payment and Release of Retainage
DATE: May 9, 1997
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Construction of roadway and intersection improvements for 261" Street is now complete
and final quantities have been computed. Attached is Change Order No. 2 and the Final
Application for Payment.
Change Order No. 2 includes increases in the amount of $53,818.70 and deducts in the
amount of (-$66,468.43) that adjust contract quantities to the actual quantities of work
Performed. The total net change in the contract price for this change order is a decrease
in the amount of (-$12,649.73), this deducted from the current contract amount of
$1,252,573.33 results in a new contract amount of $1,239,923.60.
MAY 20, 1997
82
Staff recommends the following actions be taken:
1. Approve Change Order No. 2.
2. Release final payment in the amount of $148,439.29 which includes the
10% retainage.
Funding for the road improvements is from Account #315-214-541-066.51.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Gmn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously approved Change Order #2 and
release of the final payment in the amount of $148,439.29 to
Ranger Construction, pursuant to stafs recommendations.
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.2. ROCKRIDGE SUBDIVISION -16' STREET -DRAINAGE
EM PROVEMENTS - DAMES & MOORE - DOT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 1997:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis P.E., s
Public Works Director Vim.
J
SUBJECT: Rockridge Subdivision/16th Street Drainage Improvements
REF. LETTER: Michael Mills, Dames and Moore, Inc. to James Davis dated May 1, 1997
DATE: May 9, 1997
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Florida DOT is currently under contract with Dames and Moore, Inc. to design the
installation of a large drainage culvert along the 16'h Street ditch through the Rockridge
Subdivision. The preliminary design is complete, and the project includes connection of
fourteen existing lateral storm sewer pipes within the Rockridge Subdivision to the
proposed 16'" Street box culvert. This connection is proposed by replacing only one 8'
MAY 20, 1997
83 60�R 101. PAGE
GN" 10i PAGE 5,19
length of pipe connecting to the box culvert and joining existing metal pipe in the 161'
Street right-of-way. The Public Works Department staff is of the opinion that the entire
length of all fourteen storm sewer laterals should be replaced and not simply the last
downstream section. In addition, the laterals should be enlarged to improve Rockridge
drainage.
Staff has communicated with the DOT and consultant, Dames. and Moore, Inc., regarding
the County joining into the project to replace the entire length of all fourteen laterals. The
Consultant originally proposed a fee of $29,000 to revise the design. The Public Works
Department objected to this cost. Recent negotiations have resulted in a fee of
$18,482.74.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS =
The entire length of all fourteen laterals including new terminating structures (catch basins)
are needed. There are numerous advantages and some disadvantages to the County
entering into a joint project agreement with the DOT. The construction cost should be less
since the Contractor will already be mobilized and lesser unit costs are usually attributable
to large cost projects. The attached engineering scope of services has been prepared by
the Public Works staff, DOT and Consultant (Dames and Moore, Inc.). The engineering
and permitting cost is $18,482.74 and the construction cost is estimated to be $40,000.
The alternatives presented are:
Alternative No. 1 -
Authorize staff to prepare an agreement with -Dames and Moore including
the attached scope of work and agenda it for future Board action. In
addition, request DOT to prepare a Joint Project Agreement to replace the
entire length of all fourteen laterals and terminating structures.
Alternative No. 2 -
Do not replace the entire length of the fourteen laterals and allow the DOT
work to proceed as originally proposed.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends-Attemative No.1 whereby staff is authorized to prepare the agreements
for future Board action. Funding to be from 10 Local Option Sales Tax ($1,100,000
budgeted in FY98199 for Drainage purposes).
MAY 20, 1997
84
Commissioner Macht advised he owns a dwelling in Rockndge and County Attorney V tunac
advised that this item would result in no financial gain to Commissioner Macht, thus he could vote on
the item
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously authorized staff to prepare an
agreement with Dames and Moore including the scope of work
stated in staff s Memorandum and authorized staff to request
that Florida Department of Transportation prepare a Joint
Project Agreement to replace the entire length of all fourteen
laterals and terminating structures, pursuant to staffs
recommendations.
11.G.3. COUNTRY CLUB POINTE SUBDIVISION - RICHARD
BOGOSIAN, REPRESENTATIVE - REQUEST FOR COUNTY TO
DREDGE BOAT CANALS
Moved to Item 9.B.
11.GA PROCUREMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES - REVISIONS
- CONEWUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 14, 1997:
MAY 20, 1997
85 6G�K 101 FADE 550
60�1i 10i PAGE 55.L
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Revision to Indian River County Procurement Policies and Procedures for
Community Development Block Grant Project
DATE: May 14, 1997
- •) 71 M-Well"5111 •
The Florida Department of Community Affairs has recently monitored the Wabasso Area
Community Development Block Grant Project and has informed staff that the Procurement
Policy and Procedures must be updated and revised. These policies were originally approved
by the Board on March 14, 1995.
The revisions to the policy are shown as underlined in the attached copy. The major revision
is shown on page 120 and provides that the selection of a consultant for design services
under C.C.N.A. not consider design fee in proposals. This revision is basically the same as
our existing procedure. The only alternative presented is to approve the revised Indian River
County Procurement Policies and Procedures for Community Development Block Grant
Programs and Projects.
• L l 1 L • l • •
Staff recommends approval of the Indian River County Procurement Policies and Procedures
for Community Development Block Grant Programs and Projects as attached.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously approved the Procurement Policies
and Procedures for Community Development Block Grant
Programs and Projects, pursuant to staffs recommendations.
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MILL FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF WINTER BEACH -
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 31, 1997:
MAY 20, 1997
86
DATE:
MARCH 31, 1997
TO:
JAAIES•E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMU41STRATOR
FROM:
TERRANCE G. P
DIRECTOR OF SERVICES
STAFFED & PREPARED BY:
WILLIAM F. M , P.
CAPITAL P NGINEER
SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT WITH
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF WINTER BEACH,
FLORIDA
The First Baptist Church is in the process of expanding its facilities on wmer Beach Road. As a
result of this expansion they wish to connect to the county's water system. The church is located
approximately 1,200 L.F. east of Kings ffighway on 65th Street. The expansion of the facility
necessitates connection to the county water system (Please see the attached location map).
A Master Planned water main is planned on 65th Street from Kings Mghway to U.S. Highway
One in the future. The Utilities Department is proposing to enter into a developers agreement for
the construction of 1,200 ± linear feet of the Master Planned water line on 65th Street. The total
proposed project cost is $72,800.00. The developer would pay $3,712.50 of this cost based on
the County's line extension fee, setting the County's estimated contribution to construction at
$69,087.50.(For details, of the proposed Developer's Agreement, please see the attached).
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the Developers Agreement as presented and authorize signature of same.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (40, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously approved the Developer's
Agreement with First Baptist Church of Winter Beach, Inc. and
authorized the Chairman to execute same, pursuant to staffs
recommendations.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.1.2. US#1 WATER MAIN - EAST SIDE (39 STREET TO HARBOR
DRIVE) - RESOLUTIONS I AND H
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 1997:
MAY 20, 1997
87
55-2
b02K 10i F'AGE 553
DATE: MAY 9, 1997
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI S CES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS S PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF U ILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: IIS 1 WATER MAIN - EAST SIDE (39TH STREET TO
HARBOR DRIVE)
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT - RESOLUTIONS I AND II
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -96 -18 -DS
BACKGROUND
On July 31, 1996, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved temporary water service for Alan R.
Schommer. Service was to be installed for property on the east
side of US 1 from the water line on the west side of IIS 1 prior to
an agreement and understanding that said property would be subject
to an assessment for installation of a permanent water main on the
east side of US 1 from 39th Street north to the entrance of Grand
Harbor. At the same meeting, the Board of County Commissioners
authorized the Utilities Department to begin the process of
engineering, permitting, and assessment of the area between 39th
Street and Harbor Drive.
On September 10, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the project survey and construction of an 8 -inch jack and bore
under US 1 in lieu of the 2 -inch temporary water line service and
Proceeding with the project as outlined. (See attached agenda
items and minutes.) Design has been completed by the Department of
Utility Services staff, and we are ready to begin the assessment
process associated with this project.
ANALYSIS
Within the project area, there are 35 commercial parcels, including
14 improved and 21 unimproved, to benefit from this project --19
properties are .50 acre or less, 3 are greater than .50 acre and
less than 1 acre, and 13 are greater than 1 acre. The attached map
displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. This
project is to be paid through the assessment of property owners
along the proposed water line route. In the interim, financing
will be through the use of the assessment fund. Design services
have been completed by the Department of Utility Services.
Attached are Resolutions I and II for the assessment project. The
total estimated project cost to be assessed is $223,299.89. The
estimated cost per square foot is $0.176227 (rounded).
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached resolutions,
which approve the preliminary assessment roll and establish the
public hearing date.
MAY 202 1997
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously adopted Resolution 97-057
providing for water service to the east side of US. Highway #1
(39th Street to Harbor Drive); providing the total estimated
cost, method of payment of assessments, number of annual
installments, and legal description of the area specifically
served.
88
Providing (First Reso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 97- 57
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
WATER SERVICE TO THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1 (39th
STREET TO HARBOR DRIVE); PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF
ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIFICALLY SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has determined
that the improvements herein described are necessary to promote the public welfare of the
county and has determined to defray the cost thereof by special assessments against certain
properties to be serviced by a water main extension to the East side of U.S. Highway #1 (39th
Street to Harbor Drive), hereinafter referred to as Project No. UW -96-1 8 -DS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County does hereby determine that a water line shall be installed to benefit 35 parcels
on the East side of U.S. Highway #1 (39th Street to Harbor Drive), and that the cost thereof
shall be specially assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 206.01 through
206.09 of the Code of Indian River County.
2. The total estimated cost to be assessed is $223,299.89 or $0.176227 per square foot to be
paid by the property specially benefited as shown on the assessment plat on file with the
Department of Utility Services. Assessments are to be levied against all lots and lands
adjoining and contiguous or bounding and abutting upon the improvements or specially
benefited thereby and further designated by the assessment plat with respect to the special
assessments.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.176227 per square foot shall be assessed
against each of the properties designated on the assessment plat. This assessment may
be raised or lowered by action of the Board of County Commissioners after the public
hearing, at the same meeting, as required by the referenced County Code.
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable and may be paid in full within 90 days
after the date of the resolution of the Board with respect to credits against the special
assessments after completion of the improvements (the "Credit Date") without interest. If
not paid in full, the special assessments may be paid in ten equal yearly installments of
principal plus interest. If not paid when due, there shall be added a penalty of 1-1/2% of the
principal not paid when due. The unpaid balance of the special assessments shall bear
interest until paid at a rate to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners when
the project is completed.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of Utility Services a plat showing the area to
be assessed, plans and specifications, and an estimate of the cost of the proposed
improvements. All of these are open to inspection by the public at the Department of Utllity
Services.
6. An assessment roll with respect to the special assessments shall promptly be prepared in
connection with the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian River County Utility Services Department
shall cause this resolution (along with a map showing the areas to be served) to be
published at least one time in the Vero Beach Press Journal before the public hearing
required by Section 206.04.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams . and the motion was
seconded by Commissioner Ginn and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
Absent
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner Fran S. Adams
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 20
day of May 1997.
Attest_._
Jeffrey e
MAY 20, 1997
89
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: rJtl zQlUtr
Caroly . Eggert
Chairman
MAY 20, 1997
GOC'" 101 FA6L i'35
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously adopted Resolution 97-058 setting a
time and place at which the owners of properties located on the
east side ofU.S. I3ighway #1(39' Street to Harbor Drive); and
other interested persons, may appear before the Board of
County Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and
advisability of constructing the water main extension, as to the
cost thereof as to the manner of payment therefor, and as to
the amount thereof to be specially assessed against each
property benefited thereby.
Time and Place (Second Reso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 97- 58
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME
AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1 (39TH STREET TO HARBOR
DRIVE) AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY APPEAR BEFORE
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BE HEARD AS TO THE
PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF CONSTRUCTING THE WATER MAIN
EXTENSION, AS TO THE COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF
PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE
SPECIALLY ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED
THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has, by
Resolution No. 97-_5 7 , determined that it is necessary for the public welfare of the citizens of
the county, and particularly as to those living, working, and owning property within the area
described hereafter, that a waterline be installed to serve 35 parcels on the east side of U.S.
Highway #1 (39th Street to Harbor Drive); and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially assessed with respect
thereto shall be $0.176227 per square foot; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an assessment roll to be
completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 208.08, Indian River County Code, requires that the Board of
County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at which the owners of the properties to be
assessed or any other persons interested therein may appear before the Board of County
Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of constructing such water
main extension, as to the cost thereof, as to the manner of payment therefor, and as to the
amount thereof to be assessed against each property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission Chambers in the County
Administration Building at the hour of 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, June 10, 1997, at which time
the owners of the properties to be assessed and any other interested persons may appear
before said Commission and be heard in regard thereto. The area to be improved and the
properties to be specially benefited are more particularly described upon the assessment
plat and the assessment roll with regard to the special assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and the special
assessments against the properties to be specially benefited may review the assessment
plat showing the area to be assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for
said improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the office of the Department of
Utility Services any week day from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
90
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given by two publications in the
Press Journal Newspaper one week apart. The last publication shall be at least one week
prior to the date of the hearing.
4. The Indian River County Department of Utility Services shall give the owner of each
property to be specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such time and place,
which shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice to each of such property owners at
his last known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner A d a m s and the motion
was seconded by Commissioner G i n n and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
Absent
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 20
day of May 1997.
.7.K. Barton r,
MAY 20, 1997
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By�,h�
CarolygW. Eggert
Chairman
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -96 -18 -DS
U S 1 WATER MAIN - EAST SIDE (39 TH ST
TO HARBOR DR.)
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
SQUARE
PARCEL NO
OWNER (AC)ACRES
FOOTAGE
ASSESSMENT
23 32 39 00000 5000 00022.0
CRYSTAL BLUE
128
55,757
$9,825.88
23 32 39 00000 5000 00024.0
HIERS, BOBBY
1.14
49,658
$8,751.08
23 32 39 00000 5000 00026.0
FNB PROP INC (2.65)
2.00
87,120
$15,352.89
23 32 39 00000 5000 00027.0
SMITH (4.7.
2.00
87,120
$15,352.89
23 32 39 00000 5000 00027.1
MIDWAY OIL
1.75
76,230
$13,433.78
23 32 39 00000 5000 00028.0
ROBERTSON
1.10
47,916
$8,444,09
26 32 39 00000 1000 00007.0
SCHWERIN (29.72)
2.00
87,120
$15,352.89
26 32 39 00000 3000 00002.0
SELIGSON
1.81
78,844
$13,894.44
26 32 39 00000 3000 00012.0
SCHOMMER
0.70
30,492
$5,373.51
26 32 39 00000 3000 000122
SCHOMMER
1.98
86,249
$15,199.40
26 32 39 00000 3000 00012.3
SCHOMMER
0.74
32,234
$5,680,50
26 32 39 00000 3000 00012A
SCHOMMER
0.40
17,424
$3,070.57
26 32 39 00000 3000 00012.5
SCHOMMER
0.42
18,295
$3,224.07
26 32 39 00000 3000 00013.0
SCHOMMER (2.71
2.00
87,120
$15,352.89
26 32 39 00000 3000 00013.1
LABADIE
1.16
50,530
$8,904.75
26 32 39 00000 3000 00013.4
STORK
1.72
74,923
$13203.45
26 32 39 00000 3000 00065.0
SCHWERIN REALTY
0.38
16,553
$2,917.08
26 32 39 00000 3000 00066.0
SCHWERIN REALTY
0.77
33,541
$5,910.82
26 32 39 00000 7000 00013.0
HUNTER
0.11
4,792
$844.47
26 32 39 00000 7000 00014.0
BORLAND (2.51
2.51
109,336
$19,267.95
26 32 39 00000 7000 00014.1
HUNTER
0.05
2,303
$405.85
26 32 39 00006 0000 00011.0
CRAZY WOMAN
0.37
16,117
$2,84025
26 32 39 00006 0000 00014.0
CRAZY WOMAN
0.13
5,653
$997.97
26 32 39 00006 0000 00015.0
CRAZY WOMAN
0.15
6,534
$1,151.46
26 32 39 00006 0000 00016.0
CRAZY WOMAN
0.15
6,534
$1,151.46
25 32 39 OWN 0000 00017.0
CRAZY WOMAN
0.18
7,841
$1,381.79
26 32 39 OWN 0000 00018.0
CRAZY WOMAN
0.20
8,712
$1,53528
26 32 39 OWN 0000 00019.0
CRAZY WOMAN
022
9,583
$1,688.78
26 32 39 00006 0000 00020.0
KEMP
023
9,825
$1,731.43
26 32 39 00006 0000 00025.0
CRAZY WOMAN
0.01
436
$76.83
26 32 39 00006 0000 00045.0
EVANS
020
8,712
$1,53528
26 32 39 00009 0000 00003.0
KNIGHT, C. REED
0.15
6,750
$1,189.53
26 32 39 00009 0000 00005.0
PAN AMERICAN
022
9,675
$1,704.99
26 32 39 00009 0000 00007.0
KNIGHT, C. REED
0.48
20,809
$3,684.73
26 32 39 00009 0000 00016.0
KNIGHT, C. REED
0,n
16
$2,866.86
TOTAL
29.08
1,267,116
$223299.89
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST INCLUDING
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION
$223.299.89
NET SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE ASSESSED
1,267,116
ASSESSMENT COST PER SQUARE FOOT
$0.17622695948
ROUNDED
$0.176227
US1 H2OE2.WK4
MAY 5, 1997
J. D. C.
91
bOt"1 --u-L rAGL Uo. -
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW - 96 -18 - DS
U S 1 WATER MAIN - EAST SIDE (39 TH ST TO HARBOR DRIVE)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
•Xmu*xx•A6•IFxx••x•%•KiFiFx-Kxx•IP#•KdF%xiP•Kx-Kif-w if x***-x-K•Kih*x-" fK•x••K•K•1M(-K!F•1Hfx xxiFx x•�K!(9f-tf•KIFIFifiFKKx•9(KiC•9t ]EiFx^x•
PARCEL 0 23 32 39 00000 5000 00024.0 SOFT. Limen ASSESSMENT 9,825.8£.
OWNER CRYSTAL BLUE H13LDINGS INC,
840 ELEVENTH ST > 4676 US HIGHWAY i
VERO BEACH FL 32760
LEGAL N 275.01 FT OF SEI/4 OF SWI/4 E OF NEW U S NO 1, LESS E 720
FT & LESS N 25 FT 6 20 FT THEREOF AS IN OR IrtK 379, PP 315
Kxx xxxxxxx x x•�ax•+naex•eaae�rxx �t x••x`x• x -K nxx•� x xx••�e+ex••xaexx••�+e•K�exxx•x•+e+c•xtexxxie+e•�x••x-x �ex•�ex+e� K K•x sex-�eeex-xx••x•
PARCEL 0 23 32 39 00000 5000 00024.0 SOFT. 49658 ASSESSMENT 8,75i.OE
OWNER HIERS,BOBBY J
686 3RD PL > 4650 US HIGHWAY 1
VERO BEACH FL 32962
LEGAL S 100 FT OF N 375.01 FT OF SES/4 OF SWI/4 LYING E OF Ir-
R/W OF NEW US NO 1 EXCEPT E 505 FT 6 ALSO S 20 FT OF N
275.01 FT OF BE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING E OUS HWY 1 EXCEPT E 50
5 FT THEREOF AS IN OR BK 379, PP 314 COR BK 418 PP 597)
K•xit�xxoexxxxxat•xetkxaexeex•�txxaex•+c��r+ex�xxxxx•�nxxxx•+exx••�xaHaxxaoatxatxxMrx�sx•x•+e9eiax�mx-ae•xxenxx•xae
PARCEL 23 32 39 00000 5000 00026.0 SOFT. 87i20 ASSESS14EENT 15,352.89
OWNER FNB PROPERTIES INC,
PO BOX 1000) 4646 US HIGHWAY 1
ORLANDO FL 32802
LEGAL FROM NE CDR OF SEI/4 OF SWI/4 RUN S 375.01 FT; THENCE N
89 DEC 58 MIN W A DIST OF 70 FT TO W R/W OF STATE LATERAL
DITCH SAID PT BEING P.O.B. THENCE S 30 FT; THENCE S 75 DEG
28 MIN 59 SEC W 819.89 FT TO E R/W LINE OF US NO i
THENCE N 12 DEG 49 MIN W ALONG THE E R/W A DIST OF 242.30 FT
THENCE S 89 DEG 58 MIN E 849.2 FT TO P.D.B. AS IN R BK 175
PP 398
IE•%iHHf3499FPx•+1FjfiFiEx^7Hfx•IExxltif•�HEifiFii•#iF3f•KiF)fiFxx•Afdf••kdf^IFkiHFYrxdFx-0EiFiH@df •K3F KM^7f�HIFiFK^IfxiEx•
PARCEL 0 23 32 39 00000 5000 00027.0 SOFT. 87120 ASSESSMENT 15,352.89
OWNER SMITH,ELSON R JR (TR) &
PO BOX 716 4580 US HIGHWAY i
VERO BEACH FL 32961-0716
OWNER JOHNSDN,CECIL (TR)
LEGAL FROM BE COR OF SEi/4 OF SWi/4 RUN N 210 FT TO P.O.B. THENCE
RUN WLY 754.20 FT TE R/W OF US NO 1; THENCE N 11 DEG 53 MIN
30 SEC W ALONG THE E R/W OF US NO 1, 522.65 FT TO N SIDE
OF A 40 FT DITCH THENCE N 75 DEG 28 MIN 59 SEC E 892.20
FT TO E BOUND OF SEI/4 OF SWI/4, THENCE RUN 8 736.03 FT TO
P.O.B. LESS E 70 FT N 40 FT FOR DITCH R/WS AS IN R BK 175 PP
421 6 LESS PAR DESC IN OR BK 528 PP 235
�IN�Fit�i@xiEiHFi6iPx•IFIFxi6•IFxiFxxx•Kx#xiE#i4iHFi416APAH63fxiHF•KxitiF�t•1t^KiFa4iFiHFIHFit•1fiE#X•!Ex•1HE�iiF�t•Kiiif i6iH6xiEiFiF
PARCEL 0 23 32 39 00000 5000 00027.1 SOFT. 76230 ASSESSMENT 13,433.75
OWNER MIDWAY OIL CO INC,
8508 COQUINA AV ----> 4560 US HIGHWAY i
FT PIERCE FL 34951
LEGAL FROM SE COR OF SEi/4 OF SWI/4 RUN N 210 FT; RUN W 754.20 FT
TO E R/W OF U S I & POB; RUN N i1 DEG 53 MIN 30 SEC W ALONG
R/W 232 FT; RUN N 77 DEG 06 MIN 30 SEC E 141.96 FT; RUN N 8
3 DEG 04 MIN 30 SEC E 169.95 FT; RUN S 04 DEG 14 MIN 30 SEL'
E 281.23 FT MORE OR LESS TO PT ON N I.INEOF S 210 FT OF SEi/4
OF SWI/4, RUN N 89 DEG 44 MIN 30 SEC W 280.09 FT TO POB A8
OR BK 528 PP 235
x•xd mw*m***x•K***.X****^K•x iF KifdFlf•KiOx•If•Ifxx^lFx••Kx^IfdF•1f iGiFR K•Ki6•K•I6iE Kx•xx^K#if iex iE/f•74ih16•It x-K•x^Kx•K•KJP16•IG** m **
PARCEL '- 23 32 39 00000 5000 00028.0 SOFT. 47916
OWNER ROBERTSON,ETTA OQUILLA *
5550 13TH ST > 2190 45TH ST
VERO BEACH FL 32962
LEGAL BEG AT SW CDR OF 'iE 1/4 OF SW 1/4, RUN N 209 FT, E
EC LINE, S 209 FT, WTO BEG, LESS ARNOLD ET AL, LESS
AS IN OR BK 92 PG 83, LESS PORT LYING W OF W R/W OF
0 1 AS DESC IN OR BK909 PG 2325 & ALSO LESS ADD R/W
OR BK 959 PG 2768
MAY 20, 1997
ASSESSMENT 8,444.0
TO 1/4 S
HWY R/W
US HWY N
AS IN
PARCEL T 26 32 39 00000 1000 00007.0 SOFT. 87120 ASSESSMENT 15,352.8
OWNER SCHWERIN REALTY CORP,
3770 7TH TERR US HIGHWAY I
VERO BEACH FL 32960
LEGAL BEG AT THE SW CDR Or SWi/4 OF NEI/4, RUINN ON 1/4 SEC LINE 24
2.1 FT TO AN IRON PIPE, THENCE RUN W PARALLEL WITH THE S
LINE OF NWi/4 113.7 FT TO E R/W LINE OF THE PROPOSED US HWY
I. SEC NO 88010 1957TO A PIPE RUN NLY ALONG SAID E R/W LIN
114.76 FT TO A PIPE RUN N 82 DEC 50 MIN E ALONG THE CENTER L
INE OF A DIRT DRIVE 349.92 FT TO A PIPE IN THE CENTERLINE OF
A N & S DRIVE RUN NLY 267.8 FT TO A PT WHICH 15 660 FT N OF
THE S LINE OF NEL/4& 191.24 FT E OF THE N & S 1/4 SEC LINE
RUN E & PARALLEL TO & 660 FT FROM THE S LINE OF NEi/4 1834.-5
6 FT TO A PIPE RUN S 5 DEC 15 MIN E 661.1 FT TO A PIPE IN
THE CENTER OF S GIFFORD RD, ON THE S LIKE OF NE 1/4 RUN W
2073.0 FT TO P.O.B.AS IN R BK 103 PP 376, LESS FOLL
DESC PROP; COM AT SW CDR OF SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF SEC 26, m
N 00 DEG 10 MIN 33 SEC W 50.0 FT TO N R/W OF 41ST ST, TH S
99 DEG 50 MIN 34 SEC E ALONG SAID R/W 6=11. 30 FT TO POB; TH
CONT S 89 DEG 50 MIN 34 SEC E 1447.06 FT, TH N 04 DEG IS
MIN 21 SEC W 611.73 FT, TH N 89 DEG 50 11IN 34 SEC W 1409.55
FT, TH S 00 DEG 45 MIN 00 SEC E 610.0 FT TO POB
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00000 3000 00002.0 SOFT. 78844 ASSESSI"-T 13,894.4•
OWNER SELIGSON,MILDRED L
5601 N AIA STE 30tN 4490 US HIGHWAY I
VERO BEACH FL 32963
LEGAL FROM A POB LYING 420 FT W & 387.38 FT S OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4,
RUN W & PARALLEL TON LINE SEC 26 A DIST 208.53 FT TO E R/W
US HWY 01, TH N It DEG 57 MIN 44 SEC W ALONG SAID R/W 314.1
5 FT TO A PT OF RADIAL TURN ON N GIFFORD RD, TH ALONG
ARC OF CURVE HAVING A RADIUS 25 FT & CONCAVE TO E A DIST
44.557 FT TO END OF SAID RADIAL RETURN ARC, TH N 25 FT TO S
R/W OF 50 FT R/W N GIFFORD RD, TH S 89 DEG 49 MIN 44 SEC E
248.37 FT, TH S 362.38 FT TO POB, LESS PORT FOR ADD RD
R/W AS IN OR BK 986 PC 831
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00000-3660 00012.0 SOFT. 30492 ASSESSMENT 5,373.5'
OWNER SCHOMMER,ALAN R
1460 56TH SO W => 4300 US HIGHWAY I
VERO BEACH FL 32966
LEGAL S 76 FT OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4, LYING E OF HWY US 01
mum
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00000 3000 00012.2 SOFT. 86249 ASSESSMENT i5,i99.4(
OWNER SCHOMMER,ALAN R
1460 56TH SO W 4344 US HIGHWAY I
VERO BEACH FL 32966
LEGAL N 178 FT OF S 420 FT OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4LYING E OF HWY US 01
X -X- x X*******
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00000 3000 00012.75 SOFT. 3-'"34 ASSESSMENT 5,680.5(
OWNER SCHOMMER,ALAN R
1460 56TH SO W 4320 US HIGHWAY I
VERO BEACH - FL 32760 . I
LEGAL N 76 FT Or -9 152 FT OF NEi/4 OF NWL/4 LYING E OF HWY US '%It
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00000 3000 00012.4 SOFT. 17424 ASSESS14ENT 3,070.5'
OWNER SCHOMMER,ALAN R
1460 56TH SO W> 4330 LIS HIGHWAY I
VERO BEACH FL 32966
LEGAL N 50 FT OF S 202 FT OF NEI/4 OF NWi/4, LYING E OF HWY US Ot
PARCEL 4 26 32 39 00000 3000 00012.5 SOFT. i8295 ASSESSMENT 3,224.0'
OWNER SCHOMMER,ALAN R
1460 56TH SO W> 4340 US HIGHWAY I
VERO BEACH FL 32962
LEGAL N 40 FT OF S 242 FT OF NEI/4 OF NWL/4,- LYING E OF HWY US �,-1
PARCEL # 26 32 39 00000 3000 00013.0 SOFT. 87120 ASSESSMENT 15,3522.W
OWNER SCHOMMER,ALAN R
1460 56TH SQUARE W 4410 US HIGHWAY I
VERO BEACH FL 32966
LEGAL S 19.56 FT OF N 547.78 FT OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4, LYING E OF li
WY US 01 & ALSO INC S 190.0 FT OF N 737.78 FT OF NEi/4 OF NW
1/4 LYING E OF HWY US HWY 01
MAY 20, 1997
93
bo� 53bops,10'_1 AGE
�xx•�,�;�H�x-�+��x•�xx•��x.��-�x�•�•���x���•x�•�x•x•�►x•����x•x•�*
PARCEL 4 26 32"39 00000 3000 00013.i SOFT. 50530 ASSESSMENT 8,904.7:
OWNER LASADIE,LAWRENCE r & MAUREEN A
4388 US 41 —=> 4388 US HIGHWAY i
VERO BEACH FL: 32967 -
LEGAL THAT PART OF NEI/4 OF NWi/4 LYING E OF E R/W OF US HWY NO i
MORE PART DESC AS_ FOLL; DEG AT A F'T.737.6: FT S OF NE COR
OF NEI/4 OF NWI/4, TH CONT S 164 FT, TH N S9 DEG 56 MIN 04 S
EC W 510.89 FT TO INTERSECTION OF A CURVE, SAID CURVE
BEING E R/W OF US HWY NO 1,. TH NWLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAV
ING AN INTERIOR ANGLE OF 00 DEG 34 MIN 07 SEC & A RAD
OF 17, 128.75 FT & BEING CONCAVE TO NE AN ARC DIST OF 170.0
2 FT, TH S 89 DEG 47 MIN 14 SEC E 550.28 FT TO P.O.B.
LESS E 221.84 FT THEREOF
__ __ ._m _ atxarae•�xi��•p'�.x••ic•x�a%ee�r`�*rz=x�xxx�xx-wxx•xaex�c�r��x�•xxx•�xa�x-x•xxatxxx•xxx•xxx-xx-�xxxx
PARCEL 4 26 32 39 00000 3000 00013.4 SOFT. 74923 ASSESSMENT 13,203.4:
OWNER STORK,ROBERT W & CARMEN N
2900 59TH AV 4450 US HIGHWAY i
VERO BEACH FL 32966
LEGAL S 140.84 FT OF N :,28.-2'2 FT OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SEC 26-32-
39 LYING E OF E R/W LINE OF US HWY 01, LESS N 32.62 FT OF t_
420.0 FT THEREOF
+�x�acxx�x•r��uxeNx-�x��ara�txae��dtatae��rxaE�xxa�•aF,�•�x•*���ax••xaE>tx•x•Ka��x•�x•�xaa•�aFx r��x•�x••�xx•��rxacx
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00000 3000 00065.0 SOFT. 16553 ASSESSMENT 2,917.0,
OWNER SCHWERIN REALTY CORP,
3770 7TH TERR W: ) US HIGHWAY i
VERO BEACH FL 32960
LEGAL PART OF S 2 A OF SEi/4 OF NWi/4 E OF FECRY, LESS J T GRAYS 13
/D OF TOWN OF GIFFORD, AS D BK 43, PP 37, D BK 33 PP
370 & D BK 33 PP :.,59, LESS HWY R/W AS R BK 82 PP 542, R BK 8
4, FT' 98 & R BK 102,PP 474, LESS RD R/W AS IN OR BK 1002 PG
795
xx•�•wxx•xac•�xaaxxae�x•ac-�x•�cxacx�x�acaFxxx�acxaHex�x �x-x•�•xaEx••�x•�caF�•xaExauxx�cxarx••�x-xa��taFxae•���c-w•�xac-xatxet•
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00000 3000 00066.0 SOFT. 33541 ASSESSMENT 5,910.8:
OWNER SCHWERIN REALTY CORP,
3770 7TH TERR> US HIGHWAY i
VERO DEACH FL 32960
LEGAL BEG AT SE COR 13F LOT 9 IN GRAYS TOWN OF GIFFORD SUB RUN E 5
20.7 FT TO 1/2 SEC LINE, S ON SAID LINE 450 FT, W 41:, FT 'f0
SE COR OF LOT 16 GRAYS TOWN OF GIFFORD NLY TO BEG EXCEPT TH
AT PORTION LYING N OF CO RD 1N D SK Z2 PP 149 LESS HWY R/W
AS R SK 95 PP 246 & PARCEL- AS 11 R- BK '103 Pr^' 376 & EXCEPT
THAT PART W OF NEW US NO i AS IN R BK 18S PP 742 (OR BK 49-5
PP 36)
xif'k'IF#9tK x'9l+•1Fx•il'IP•x'Mx•#�'DFdF'II'9Fx"Y%�C' IPx"II'de9F'!tx'x^IC•iF'hex'x•'I6'SPx'x'x'dEx"x'3bx'ii'iv'SEx'x•'INJEiQ'x•!t'x'x'x�F'Si"Svx"1F9i•#9vx•dFli•di'x•Ii'Yrii iF'IF3t'
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00000 7000 00013.0 SOFT. 4792 ASSESSMENT 844.4•
OWNER HUNTER,JANICE
4026 RIVERMIST CTUS HIGHWAY i
LITHONIA GA 30058
LEGAL FROM SE COR OF W1/2 OF SW1/4 OF NWi/4 OF SE1/4, RUN N 107 FT
TO P.O.B. THENCE RUN 50 FT, THENCE RUN W PARALLEL TO S LINE
OF SAID NWi/4 OF SES/4 TO E R/W OF US HWY NO i, THENCE RUN
SLY ALONG SAID R/W TO PT OF INTERSECTION WITH A LINE
RUNNING PARALLEL 'TO S LINE OF SAID NWi/4 OF SES/4 AND THROUG
H THE P.O.B., THENCERUN E ALONG SAID LINE TO THE P.O.B. AS
IN R BK 336 PP 472
x arx-U K"N•x x*xxmxx aux**m *axwae�xxx�xxxx �x��exiE tFx x
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00000 7000 00014.0 SOFT. 109336 ASSESSMENT 19,267.9`
OWNER BORLAND,W C & JOSEPHINE M
3918 PROSPECT ST > US HIGHWAY i
KENSINGTON MD 20895
LEGAL W1/2 OF SWI/4 OF NWi/4 OF SE1/4, LESS S 132 FT THEREOF & LES
S HWY R/W
x -x -x rum9rx w9naeiex x k x x x aex �rce+e x uMrae x �x x+en x
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00000 7000 00014.1 SOFT. 2303 ASSESSMENT 405.8:
OWNER HUNTER,JANICE
4026 RIVERMIST CT _> US HIGHWAY i
LITHONIA GA 30058
LEGAL ALL THAT PART CF 3 107 FT OF Wi/2 OF SWI/4 OF NW1/4 OF SE
1/4 OF SEC 26-32-39 LYING E OF US HWY NO i, LESS & EXCEPT
THAT POR PREVIOUSLY CONVEYED TO T.C. GILBERT IN OR BK 56
PP 410 (OR BK 677 PP 776)
ac•�cx•�cxx•�tx+e�x-�afcitxaesex•�tx+exec-xarxx•a�ataa�a�ex•�txxxtitx•�cieaax�ax•x••�uuxxx a�xx•+tx•�tx•��eat+rx•�arx•�mxxxx•�exxx•�e
PARCEL C 26 32 39 00006 0000 00011.0 SOFT. 16117 ASSESSMENT 2,840.2:
OWNER CRAZY WOMAN PROPERTIES INC,
PO BOX 1148®> 4201 20TH AV
VERO BEACH FL 32961-1148
LEGAL PINSON SUB
LOTS ti,12 & 13 FBI 2-94
MAY 20, 1997
94
FA GL
PARCEL 6 26 32 39 00006 0000 00014.0 SOFT. 5663 ASSESSMENT 997.97
OWNER CRAZY WOMAN PROPERTIES INC,
PO BOX 1148 —) 4215 20TH AV
VERO BEACH FL 32961-1148
LEGAL PINSON SUB
LOTS 14 & 27 LESS HWY R/W PBI 2-94
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00006 0000 00015.0 SOFT. 6534 ASSESS14EW 1,151.46
OWNER CRAZY WOMAN PROPERTIES INC,
PO BOX 1148 —=> 4221 '20TH AV
VERO BEACH FL 32961-1148
LEGAL PINSON SUB
LOTS 12 & 26 LESS HWY R/W PBX 2-94
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00006 0000 00016.0 SOFT. 6534 ASSESSMENT i,i51.46
OWNER CRAZY WOMAN PROPERTIES INC,
PO BOX 1148 — > 4=5 20TH AV
VERO BEACH FL 32961-1148
LEGAL PINS -ON SUB
LOT 16 PBI 2--74
PARCEL 26 32 39 00006 0000 00017.0 SOFT. 7841 ASSESSMENT 1,381.79
OWNER CRAZY WOMAN PROPERTIES INC,
PO BOX 114e —=> 4231 20TH AV
VERO BEACH FL 32761-1148
LEGAL PINSON SUB
LOTS 17 & 24 LESS HWY R/W PBI 2-94
PARCEL. 0 26 32 39 00006 0000 OOOi8.0 SOFT. 8712 ASSESSMENT i,5355.2�
OWNER CRAZY WOMAN PROPERTIES INC,
PO BOX 1148> 4235 20TH AV
VERO BEACH - FL 32961-1148
LEGAL PINSON SUB
LOTS 18 & 23 LESS HWY R/W PBX 2-94
PARCEL t 26 32 39 00006 0000 00019.0 SOFT. 1-01583 ASSESSMENT 1,688.7'
OWNER CRAZY WOMAN PROPERTIES INC,
PO BOX 1148 —==) 4241 20TH AV
VERO LEACH FL 32961-I148
LEGAL PINSON SUB
LOTS 19 & 22 LESS HWY R/W PBI 2-94
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00006 0000 00020.0 SOFT. 9825 ASSESSMENT 1,731.4:
OWNER KEMP,ERMA C
4131 32ND AV > 4245 20TH AV
VERO BEACH FL 32967
LEGAL PINSON SUB
LOTS 20 & 21 LESS HWY R/W PBX 2-74
PARCEL # 26 32 39 00006 0000 00025.0 SOFT, 436 AssEssmr%N,r 76.8.
OWNER CRAZY WOMAN PROPERTIES INC,
PO BOX 1148
VERO BEACH FL 32961-1148
LEGAL PINSON SUB
LOT 25 LESS HWY R/W PBI 2-94
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00006 0000 00045.0 SOFT. 8712 ASSESSMENT 1,535.0
OWNER EVANS,ALFRED
3116 43RD ST 2096 42ND PL
VERO BEACH FL 32960
LEGAL PINSON SUB PBX 2)94 LOT 45, LESS HWY R/W AS IN R BK 103, PP
Sib & LOT 46 (OR BK 503 PP 306)
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00009 0000 00003.0 SOFT. 6750 ASSESSMENT l,ie9.5.-
OWNER KNrGHT,C REED (TR)
5740 13TH ST SW —> 197.15 41ST ST
VERO BEACH FL 32968
LEGAL JACKSON BROTHERS S/D
LOTS 3 & 4 LESS RD R/W PBX 2-71
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00009 0000 00005.0 SOFT. 9675 AssEssmENr i,704.9�
OWNER PAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING CO,
825 8TH ST 4056 US HIGHWAY i
VERO BEACH FL 32960
LEGAL JACKSON BROTHERS S/D
LOTS 5 & 6 PBI 2-71
MAY 20,1997
95
M -L., FAUE5621.
�xxxxx,xx•x.***•mx•X*x•,�x,�xx,� xxxx
PARCEL 4 26 32 39 00009 0000 00007.0 SOFT. 20909 ASSESSMENT 3,684.7:
OWNER KNIGHT,C REED (TR)
5740 13TH ST SW 4036 US HIGHWAY i
VERO PEACH FL 32968
LEGAL JACKSON BROTHERS S/D
LOTS 7, 8, 9, 10, Si, 12 & 13PBI 2-71
tt xtiex x x xet aeoex wex+ex atik �e tt x,rx x arx x »xic aaexx eeirx MIX x•+exxx w tt x x x x eaxx xxireexarxx 9earrex se x x xx x xx x sex
PARCEL 0 26 32 39 00009 0000 00016.0 SOFT. 16268 ASSESSMENT 2,866.Be
OWNER KNIGHT,C REED
5740 13TH ST SW > 4005 19TH CT
VERO REACH FL 32968
LEGAL JACKSON BROTHERS SUB PBI 2-71 LOTS 16, t7 & 18, LESS HWY R/
W AS IN R PK 95 FG 246 & INC LOTS 19, 20,-21, 22, 23 6 24
xxaoxxxxieoc�e,exx•�r+we�eac•�c,En�i�i��rr,�•xaeai-x•�e%�eie,e+eae+exuxaix•�r•ie�x�xx-�e�rxeraox,e•iex•+rx•�r«xx+ewxyeu •x•m•��x xxx••�ar•�ie
TOTAL SO FEET IS 1267116 TOTAL ASSESSMENT IS r�..3,299.89
11.1.3. SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY - 2.0 MGD- EXPANSION CONSTRUCTION - BID #4039 -
0 M 1 N O I N"
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 12, 1997:
DATE: MAY 12, 1997
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR .
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES
SONNY DEAN
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
PREPARED AND
STAFF BY: ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINE R
SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
2.0 MGD EXPANSION CONSTRUCTION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID NO. 4039 - BID AWARD
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -90 -20 -DC.
On September 20, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners approved and authorized Camp
Dresser & McKee, Inc., engineer, to design, permit, and advertise for bid, etc. The project was
advertised, with all permits being acquired except for Environmental Resource Permit which will be
issued shortly. Bids were received from 5 contractors on April 2, 1997.
ANALYSIS
The Department of Utility Services Staff received bids that range from $8,347,000.00 to
$8,754,000.00. The lowest bid of $8,347,000.00 that was received from Wharton -Smith, Inc is
11.3% above the engineer's estimated cost (see attached tabulation) of $7,500,000.00. The County
and the engineer have investigated and spoken with the City of Orlando and Daytona Beach. Their
Wastewater Treatment Plants costs were 15-25% higher than estimated in the past two (2) years.
This is the result of a high demand for Wastewater Treatment Plant contractors.
The base bid includes construction of the plant expansion to 2.0 MGD, removal and replacement of
headworks screen, installation of a telemetry system, allowances for independent testing laboratory
services, roof replacement, renovating of the existing generator room into instrumentation and control
room and the operation building, allowance for electrical wire and performance/payment bonds.
MAY 20, 1997
GV
M
The Department ofUtility Services Staff and engineer have discussed and negotiated with Wharton -
Smith, the lowest bidder, several ideas to reduce the cost without down -grading the quality of the
delivered product. It was concluded that the contractor upon award of this project will let the County
pay directly for the cost of the materials. This potentially could save the County over $170,000.00
in sales tax. However, the contractor has also asked the County's cooperation in processing the
purchase order and payment in the most expedient way in order not to delay the project progress .
ALTERNATIVE BID is is an addition of a chlorine containment with a scrubber system for
evacuation of a hazardous gas. This is to eliminate the problem in the event of a chlorine gas leak.
Presently the state does not regulate this issue, however we think it would be prudent to enclose the
building. The Department of Utility Services Staff has considered the safety issues, and has asked the
engineer (CDM) to specify a design to be included in the bid for the Board of County Commissioners
to approve. The cost for chlorine containment (modify the existing open building) with a Scrubber
System is $160,000.00.
ALTERNATIVE BID IT: relates to the upgrade in the existing laboratory and office plant building.
The existing window air conditioning unit is insufficient for the computer and electronic monitoring
instrumentation that are going to be located in the building. The level of moisture in the building
exceeds the allowable level for electronic instrumentation. Therefore, this upgrade, including central
air condition installation, air duct distribution system is to protect the County's investment. The cost
for alternative No. 2 is $20,000.00.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval and award of the contract to Wharton -Smith in the amount of
$8,527,000.00 which includes the base bid, alternative bid no. I and alternative bid no. 2. Also, the
staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached agreement in form
and authorize the chairman to execute the agreement after all requirements are submitted and
approved by the County Attorney's office. In addition the staff asks the Board of County
Commissioners to approve the direct purchase through the contractor by providing issuance of a
purchase order and payment .
Commissioner Adams questioned the 2 items back-to-back dealing with the South County
Wastewater Treatment Plant, and SWDD Director Terry Pinto advised that the first item is for the
award of the bid for the South County project,- constructiomafthe-plant, and the second item is for
additional work performed by the consultant.
Commissioner Adams wanted to know whether any equipment in this bid was single -sourced,
and Director Pinto advised that the same process was used as with other treatment plants, the process
is single -sourced but bidders bid based on construction costs. The process chosen lowered the cost
because the costs are less than building a normal aeration process, the design took into consideration
total construction and operating costs. There are substantial performance guarantees, as in the West
County operation.
Chairman Eggert commented that the process was previously agreed upon and wondered what
the source of discomfort was.
Commissioner Adams was uncomfortable due to the $8,000,000 involved and did not believe
enough time had been spent reviewing the voluminous backup. She believed that perhaps her level of
confidence had been eroded.
County Administrator Chandler emphasized that the proposal is in accordance with the master
plan.
MAY 20, 1997
E �u
97
E,02K !W". FAGS 3`3
ON MOnON.by Commissioner Ginn;=SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board (3-1, Chairman Eggert
opposed and Commissioner Tippin being absent) tabled this
item for- 2 weeks.
11.1.4. SOUTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION TO 2.0 MGD — ADDENDUM NO.3 — CAMP DRESSER AND
MCKEL INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum ofMay 9, 1997:
DATE: MAY 8, 1997
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SE
PREPARED ROBERT 0. WISEMEN, P.E�e,�-
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER D&)
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY..WgS.TEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION TO 2-.0 MGD
ADDENDUM NO. 3 - ADDITIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
WITH CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE, INC.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -90 -20 -DC
BACKGROUND
On September 20, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Addendum No. 2, the agreement with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. for
the South County Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion to 2.0 MGD
for design, -permitting, bidding services, resident engineering
services, and inspection. During design of the said -project, the
engineer proposed several ideas to the County to save in
operational costs. These items were not included in the original
agreement with the County since they were not considered in the
basic scope of work.
ANALYSIS
The following proposals were given to the County for consideration
during the design period (see attachment). A summary of the
proposal is as follows:
1. Design of a rotary drum thickener to reduce the number of
trucks hauling sludge to the Central Sludge Treatment
facility. The rotary drum thickener installation would save
the County an approximate operational cost of $164,000.00 in
a period of ten years according to the engineer's report or
approximately $215,000.00 based on the bid.
2. Design of a chlorine containment scrubber system per
performance specification. This was initiated due to the
concern regarding the County's liability in the event of a
chlorine cylinder leak.
3. Design of a monitoring and control instrumentation telemetry
system. This would give the County the ability to operate its
plant more efficiently (reduce costs) by reducing the required
operator's presence at the plant from 16 hours to 6 hours as
per FDEP permit Class I reliability reuse system.
MAY 20, 1997
T-3
4. Design of a climate control system for the laboratory and
instrumentation and control building. The existing window air
conditioning system is inadequate for this sensitive
electronic monitoring and control instrumentation. This is
needed to protect the County's investment.
Additional permitting and design services. FDEP, during its
completion of the environmental resource permit, requires our
County to mitigate the impacted onsite wetland with similar acreage
creation in proportion to the size of the wetland.
These additional services were recently proposed based upon the
exact cost of spending. Staff has negotiated reasonable and fair
compensation in the amount of $27,206.00 for Items 1 through 4, and
$31,906.00 for additional design and permitting services, for a
total of $59,112.00. This will increase the total contract to
$581,613.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of Addendum No. 3 to the contract with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.
in the amount of $59,112.00 for the additional services and
authorization of the chairman to execute same.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board (40, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously tabled this item for 2 weeks.
12. BLAKE-TORRES I[MGATION - OFFER OF JUDGMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 13, 1997:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attomeyc��o
DATE: May 13, 1997
SUBJECT: Offer of Judgment - Blake -Torres Litigation
The County has been sued for a count in inverse condemnation by Blake -Tones,
owners of property at Oslo and Old Dixie formerly owned by Helseth.
The gist of the complaint is that the County, in making the improvements, has
encroached into Blake -Tones property and has cut off access to the garage and
several other allegations of damage. The County has always stood ready to, in
effect, make them whole; however, they have not cooperated and appear to
prefer litigation.
Engineering has calculated the total cost to correct everything that is County's
responsibility at $; � ) a • -' In order to establish a bench mark for damages, it
is recommended that an offer of judgment in the amount of $_-*' be
authorized.
" These figures will be provided at the Commission meeting. It is estimated
that the amounts will be less than $25,000.
Assistant County Attorney Terrence P. O'Brien suggested an offer of judgment of $20,000
based on attorney fees and costs.
MAY 20, 1997
99
EG;'r 101 PAA -'
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board (4-0, Commissioner Tippin
being absent) unanimously approved an offer of judgment in
the amount of $20,000, pursuant to staffs recommendations.
B.A.I. FACO LEGISLATIVE BRIEFING
The Board reviewed a letter ofMay 19, 1997:
11111008008
r
FZOR �i
AS_SOC/A �r P.O. Rom 349 /Tallahassee, Florida 32302
ar COii.w� MOW: 904/224-3148 rax: 904/222-5839
no
MEMORANDUM VIA FACSMME M �ttrtU�
�'orimission��rs
1;dminis�rt�x '
To: County Commissioners Attarrwy
County Administrators "emanWl __�
County Attorneys Puhiic Wur�z
Interested County StaffPersonnel comm"ty LV'j.
Utilities
From: Mary Kay Cariseo Faance
OMB
Date: May 19, 1997 EMM. Surv.
Risk IAbt.
Other waz
Re: AMENDED -FAC 1997 Post -Session Legislative Briefing - Okaloosa County
The Florida Association of Counties will be conducting Legislative Briefings to share with you
our insights on what was accomplished during the 1997 Legislative Session.
You and your county staff members are invited to attend the Legislative Briefing of your choice.
A Legislative Briefing Schedule has been mailed to you, however, please be advised that we have
scheduled an additional briefing that was omitted from the mailing. Please share this additional
information with any of your county staff members who may benefit from this briefing.
If you should need additional information please contact Desinda Carper of the Florida
Association of Counties at 904/224-3148.
Additional Legislative Briefing
Thursday, June 12 Okaloosa 1.3 p.m. CST Okaloosa Co. Water & Sewer Building
1894 Lewis Turner Blvd, 3rd FL
Fort Walton Beach, FL
We strongly encourage bosh county commissiorcrs ad sta to attcT.u. vw c -WII PIV Viuc
information on new legislation which will impact county government. Again, feel free to call the
FAC office should you have any questions.
All of the Commissioners had conflicts with their schedules and would not be able to attend the
June 12 Legislative Briefing.
MAY 20, 1997
m
r rr
13.A.2. REPORT REGARDING ARTTCLE V LEGISLATION - COURT
FUNDING -HOUSE BILL 1319
The Board reviewed a Legislative Alert of May 19, 1997:
■1.i■
FLORIDA �sit
ASSOCIATION pa/��1EGISLATIVE ALERT
OF COUNTIES IMME �/
gym:/
URGENT... PLEASE DISTRIBUTE IMMEDIATELY... URGENT
TO: All County Commission Chairs
FROM: Mary Kay Cariseo, FAC Deputy Executive Director
DATE: May 19, 1997
RE: Article V Legislation
FAC's Article V bill is now in the Governor's Office!
Your assistance is needed in assuring the Governor signs
House Bill 1319 into law.
HB 1319 by Representative John Thrasher (R -Clay) now awaits the Governor's signature. If you have
not done so already, PLEASE HAVE YOUR COUNTY ADOPT A RESOLUTION
SUPPORTING HOUSE BILL 1319 AND URGING THE GOVERNOR TO SIGN THE BILL
INTO LAW. THE DEADLINE FOR THE GOVERNOR TO SIGN THE BILL IS MAY 29, 1997
Please have forward a copy of the resolution to the Governor, Lt. Governor, and FAC.
If your county cannot adopt a resolution before the Nfay 29, signing deadline, we ask that your county
please write a letter of support to both the Governor and Lt. Governor asking that the bill be signed into
law.
The main provisions of the bill include the following:
1) Provides a revenue source for the trust fund created by S8 901 by establishing a four-year phase-in
of the state's portion of the General Revenue dollars received from civil tragic infractions, which is
expected to generate $50 million over four years:
2) Establishes a committee of 15 people: six judges, six county commissioners, and three clerks, to
develop an allocation and disbursement plan for the trust fund: and.
3) Includes the Court Improvement Fund legislation we have ban supporting for several years. This
provision will allow additional fines of up to 5150 to be assessed against certain criminals, the fiords of
which would remain local for court improvements.
Thank you to those counties that have already sent resolutions and letters to the Governor. He needs to
know of counties support for the W.
cc: Executive committee
County Lobbyists
P.Q. EIOX 549 a TALLAHASSEE. FL 32302 a (904) 224.3148 a FAX (904) 222-5839
MAY 20, 1997 �p
60'�?K � J�. FADE 53' 6
101
No action was taken as Resolution 97-054 in support of this House Bill was adopted at the
May 13t 1997 meeting. -
13.A.3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM COA!Il UME AND
DISTRICT — TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
The Board reviewed a letter of May 13, 1997:
F 7
indicn river
` • �I 1
May 13, 1997
Mr. Robert Keating
Community Development Director
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Subject: Appointments to Regional Overall Economic Development Program (OEDP)
Committee
Dear Mr. Keating:
As we discussed at a recent meeting in your office, the Board of the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council has instructed the Council staff to proceed with the initial
steps to develop an OEDP and to form an Economic Development District. The
Guidelines provided by the Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the U.S.
Department of Commerce indicate that an OEDP Committee must be formed to oversee
the process. The Committee will set the goals and objectives of the program, identify
actions and set priorities to foster economic development and determine appropriate
programs and projects to be implemented.
The appointment of members to the OEDP Committee is to be done by the counties
(Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin and Palm Beach) who will be members of the Economic
Development District.. The Guidelines provided by the EDA -also -indicate that the OEDP
Committee "must represent diverse interests to ensure that viewpoints of all components
of the community are considered and to take advantage of local skills in program
formulation and implementation." It should include representatives of:
• local governments
• business
• industry
• finance
• agriculture
• the professions
• organized labor
• utilities
MAY -20,1997
322! S.W. martin downs blvd.
suit• 206 • P.G. box 1529
palm city. "arida 3+900
phone (561) 2211060
u 269.1060 tax )561) 221.1067
102
Chairman Eggert expressed her concern with a District which includes Palm Beach County and
her desire to present this to the Economic Development Committee and come back with a
recommendation.
No action was taken.
13.AA ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING CLAIMS REVIEW
Chairman Eggert announced that a claims review will be held immediately following next
week's Board meeting.
No action taken
B.C. MEMORIAL TO DECEASED EMPLOYEES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 14, 1997:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Commissioner Fran B. Adams
®ate: May 14, 1997
Subject: Memorial to deceased employees
I have received a request to set up some type of memorial board to honor
deceased employees, such as brass name plates. Would this be something
the Commission would be willing to support and set up in the main entrance
hall where the 10 year old Employee of the Year plaques are posted..
Commissioner Adams brought up a discussion regarding some possible memorial to deceased
employees of the County, possibly an errtryway nameplate.
After discussion, CONSENSUS was reached to leave the policy as is.
MAY 20, 1997
103
602K 101 mLd-b'9
DAL CONSENT AGENDA AND WORKSHOP POLICIES
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Ginn stated that some residents feel insufficient notice is being given of items of
importance coming before the Board and suggested some additional notice prior to publication in the
newspaper. She felt an additional item should be added to the Agenda incorporating these upcoming
Commissioner Macht noted that the City had an item called "first public reading" which he felt
was very helpful.
Chairman Eggert reminded the Board that public hearing information is available for the public
in advance of the date of the meeting and citizens are expected to take the responsibility of keeping
themselves informed.
Discussion followed regarding voting procedures at workshops and special meetings.
Commissioner Adams felt the Board has made responsible decisions based on all information
presented, not just at the various meetings held on public items. She believed that some citizens will
always think there should have been another notice and/or another meeting, regardless of how many
newspaper publications, public meetings and workshops are offered.
Items.
County Attorney Vitunac suggested an addition to the Agenda under Item 9, Public Notice
BM Koolage was recognized by the Chairman and expressed his feeling that the Children's
Advisory Council was passed without an overall plan to implement and that the public did not support
this.
Jun Granse expressed his support for Commissioner Ginn's suggestion of an additional item
on the agenda
Tom Buchanan expressed his disappointment with the Children's Advisory Council.
CONSENSUS was reached to place Public Notice Items on the Agenda under Item 9-C.
MAY 20, 1997
104
13.D.2. VERO BEACH ESTATES — DISCUSSION REGARDING ABILITY
TO BUILD STATUS — VERO BEACH ESTATES LOTS DECLARED
SURPLUS PROPERTY
The Board reviewed a letter ofMay 13, 1997 with attachments:
4
Karlin Daniel & Associates, Inc.
Licensed Red! Estate Brokers
DELIVERED VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MNL
May 13, 1997
Mr. Dennis Ragsdale, AICP
Director of Planning
City of Vero Beach
PO Box 1389
Vcro Beach, FL 32961-1389
Re: Lot 11, Block 8, Vero Beach Estates (Cypress Road -Eagle Drive)
Lot 28, Block 7, Vern Reach Rstatm (Acacia Road-Ragle chive)
Dear Dewls:
1213 74 —j,
HAY 1991
To follow-up our Thursday tnornmg conversation, I would like to request a letter,
regarding the ability to build status of both of the above referenced sites.
Enclosed plea find cupid of surveys of the properties for your information.
As these properties are to be auctioned June 4, 1997, I would kindly appreciate your
prompt attention to this natter at yaw earnest convenienee.
Very UWY yob
KARLIN DANIEL & ASSO TES, INC.
F.W. "Rick" B
MAY 20, 1997
105
CYPRESS ROAD --.O'
w iE. R
LIT 10 t I LOT II I LOT 12
9
a 0.I
JOC.LL Fit.D ad Illlnt _
PALMS R PEPPERS M. iFd,
O.OS
L O T 26
�' ► `fix►�W a�*i4...w .9-'f�+►�
MEN' No record search was Trade for encumbrances.
BOUNDARY SURVEY
LEGALDESCRIPTION
I of 11, Mock 4, Vitro Btaoh Eeloloe to roamrded in' Plat
Book 5. Pogo e, Public Records Of St. Luale County, naw lying
and being in Indian River County, Florida.
SU Y= R I ST 1 lSZd
1. Char las A. Cramer. hereby —lily that this Survey me mode oe
tnt tlrt.1iI under my Ww"diels wporvil{On. in accordance with W0rOv16wn6 rd Cnoptor 211114-e of Ina Ftwide ,ru"nigirodw coda, pur.
wont i, Chepa► 472 of the Florida Statutes. Thera are aa, en-
croachments either way 'ecrou boundaries, except as shown.
_ 1 noliaI
Charas A.' Cramer ' P L.S. Rea t 4094 I840 250 ST
Indioa Fiver County Surveyor Ware amok, FI. 32980
1401 F Be?. 8000
MA -Y20,1997
106
r, N Cl CAGE 571
_
/O'
I•R FD.
SG12o�'t.M.
4 Coaa.
•
s wale
rjp'.e
O.OBS.0.32
7W"'-°6*'
0 23'w
e
`o. -P PALMB
q PEPPERS
IV
R
�! X
Cftwo
SCALE.' / ` • 20'
C
rFALM4
y
et
kPEP
q
LIT 10 t I LOT II I LOT 12
9
a 0.I
JOC.LL Fit.D ad Illlnt _
PALMS R PEPPERS M. iFd,
O.OS
L O T 26
�' ► `fix►�W a�*i4...w .9-'f�+►�
MEN' No record search was Trade for encumbrances.
BOUNDARY SURVEY
LEGALDESCRIPTION
I of 11, Mock 4, Vitro Btaoh Eeloloe to roamrded in' Plat
Book 5. Pogo e, Public Records Of St. Luale County, naw lying
and being in Indian River County, Florida.
SU Y= R I ST 1 lSZd
1. Char las A. Cramer. hereby —lily that this Survey me mode oe
tnt tlrt.1iI under my Ww"diels wporvil{On. in accordance with W0rOv16wn6 rd Cnoptor 211114-e of Ina Ftwide ,ru"nigirodw coda, pur.
wont i, Chepa► 472 of the Florida Statutes. Thera are aa, en-
croachments either way 'ecrou boundaries, except as shown.
_ 1 noliaI
Charas A.' Cramer ' P L.S. Rea t 4094 I840 250 ST
Indioa Fiver County Surveyor Ware amok, FI. 32980
1401 F Be?. 8000
MA -Y20,1997
106
r, N Cl CAGE 571
DATE 5/6!97 SHWT 1
SCALE -WS OF 7
DW BY TW SWAN
MAY 20, 1997
107
F
�C 101
0 - , 5,1,3
Commissioner Ginn stated that she had received calls from citizens on Acacia Road asking her
to investigate their concerns regarding the 50 -foot lots involved The City only allows development on
a 75 foot lot and most of the homes in that area are built on 2 lot parcels.
General Services Director Sonny Dean advised that these lots had been declared surplus
property. He checked with the City and was advised these were buildable lots. The sale has already
been advertised and we have a contract.
County Attorney vtunac advised this problem goes back to the 1950's when the minimum lot
size changed.
No action taken.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board will reconvene sitting
as the Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
There being no fin Cher business, on Motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the Board
adjourned at 12:42 p.m.
ATTEST:
Minutes Approved:
MAY 20, 1997
108
Carolyn Kyggert ChaiggalO