HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/1980WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 191 1980
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, MET IN REGULAR SESSION AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
1053 20TH PLACE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19,
1980, AT 8:30 O'CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE PATRICK B. LYONS, CHAIRMAN;
WILLIAM C. WODTKE, SJR., VICE CHAIRMAN; DICK BIRD; ALFRED GROVER
FLETCHER; AND DON C. SCURLOCK, .JR. ALSO PRESENT WERE NEIL A. NELSON,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; L. S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR!
GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS;
JEFFREY K. BARTON, FINANCE OFFICER; BAILIFF DAN FLEISCHMAN; AND
VIRGINIA HARGREAVES AND JANICE CALDWELL, DEPUTY CLERKS.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER.
COMMISSIONER BIRD LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG,
AND RABBI RICHARD AGLER GAVE THE INVOCATION.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS
TO THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 1980.
CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERENT
PROCEDURE WITH THE MINUTES SINCE HE AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE WERE THE
ONLY MEMBERS PRESENT DURING THE MEETINGS WHICH PRODUCED THE MINUTES.
HE ADDED THAT AFTER ASKING COMMISSIONER WODTKE IF THERE WERE ANY
ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS, HE WOULD ASK THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT
THE MINUTES FOR FILING.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT ON PAGE 11, LINE 23,
HUD BE CHANGED TO PUD,
COMMISSIONER BIRD SUGGESTED THAT ON PAGE 4, LINE 2, THE
NUMBER 3 SHOULD BE CHANGED TO 2.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT ON PAGE 15, LINE 26,
THE PHRASE "ACQUIRE, DEVELOP AND" BE INSERTED AFTER THE WORD "TO."
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REFERRED TO PAGE 23, LAST PARAGRAPH
REGARDING "ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT," AND ASKED
IF THERE HAD BEEN A VOTE TAKEN.
68DK 45 PAuE 2411
NOV 191990
NOV A 91900
BOOK 45 PAGE 247
CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT NO VOTE WAS TAKEN, BUT IT WAS
JUST A QUESTION OF DIRECTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO CONTINUE
WORKING ON DEVELOPING A PROCEDURE THAT WOULD BE A VIABLE TOOL TO BE
USEFUL IN THIS CONNECTION.
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT ON PAGE 6, LINE 30, THE WORD
"THAT" SHOULD BE OMITTED AND THE FOLLOWING PHRASE INSERTED IN ITS
PLACE; "THE VERO BEACH PARKS, PLANNING & ZONING."
THOSE CORRECTIONS HAVING BEEN MADE, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED
THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 1980, AS WRITTEN,
FOR FILING.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS
TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 1980.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT ON PAGE 17, FIRST LINE,
THE SENTENCE BE CHANGED TO READ "COMMISSIONER Loy INFORMED THE BOARD"
INSTEAD OF "COMMISSIONER Loy INFORMED THAT BOARD."
COMMISSIONER WODTKE REFERRED TO PAGE 48, PARAGRAPHS 5 AND 7,
REGARDING THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND ADVISED THAT COMMIS-
SIONER SCURLOCK IS GOING TO BE THE CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE. HE THEN
INQUIRED WHEN THE AUDIT WOULD BE COMPLETED.
FINANCE OFFICER BARTON ADVISED THAT THE TARGET DATE FOR
COMPLETION OF THE AUDIT REPORT IS DECEMBER 15, 1980,
THE CORRECTION HAVING BEEN MADE, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY
ACCEPTED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 1980,
AS WRITTEN, FOR FILING.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE INQUIRED ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE THE APPROVAL
OF THE MINUTES OF THE NORTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT, AND
THE SOUTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE FIRE
DISTRICT MINUTES SHOULD BE MADE A SEPARATE PACKET IN THE FUTURE, TO
BETTER ENABLE FORMAL ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON MATTERS CONCERNING THOSE
DISTRICTS.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS EXPRESSED CONCERN
ABOUT HAVING A CROSS REFERENCE, AND THIS WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
2
ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT AN INDEXING SYSTEM SIMILAR
TO THAT OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION MINUTES BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE FIRE
DISTRICTS.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NORTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
FIRE DISTRICT AND OF THE SOUTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT WILL
BE INCORPORATED IN THE MINUTES OF THOSE FIRE DISTRICTS.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS
TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS HELD NOVEMBER 5, 1980.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1980, AS WRITTEN, FOR FILING.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE HAD GONE OVER THE LAST
THREE SETS OF MINUTES AND NOTED THAT THERE WERE DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO
VARIOUS STAFF MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENTS, AND HE SUGGESTED THAT A SYSTEM
BE INCORPORATED TO MAKE SURE THESE DIRECTIONS WERE NOT LOST.
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THIS ITEM COULD BE DISCUSSED UNDER
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK`S ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA,
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON ADVISED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A LETTER
FROM REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS TOO LATE FOR IT TO BE INCORPORATED INTO
THE AGENDA. HE ADDED THAT THE LETTER WAS IN REGARD TO THE'INDIAN
RIVER BOULEVARD EXTENSION NORTH OF BARBER AVENUE, AND REQUESTED IT
BE ADDED AS AN EMERGENCY ITEM.
SUBJECT.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED AS TO THE NATURE OF THE
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED IT WOULD BE A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD,
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT UNLESS REYNOLDS, SMITH AND
HILLS ARE NOTIFIED, THEY EXPECT TO BEGIN THE FINAL DESIGN PHASE ON
THIS ROAD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CONTRACT.
NOV 191980 3 poi- 45 PAGE248-
NOV
19 1980 BOOK 45 PAGE 249
K
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT IT BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA
FOR INFORMATION - THEN IT CAN BE DECIDED WHETHER THE BOARD SHOULD
TAKE ANY ACTION. HE CONTINUED THAT THIS MATTER WAS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL
THING REGARDING COUNTRY CLUB POINTE, AND HE DID NOT WANT IT TO LOOK
AS THOUGH THE BOARD HAD GONE AHEAD WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT NOTICE
TO THE PUBLIC.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED HE WOULD APPROVE THE ADDITION
TO THE AGENDA, IF IT WAS FOR INFORMATION ONLY.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED HE WOULD ADD IT ONLY IF IT WAS
A DISCUSSION ITEM, BUT NOT FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE A DECISION.
CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED IT WAS PRETTY MUCH THE PRACTICE OF
THE BOARD THAT NOTHING IS ADDED TO THE AGENDA UNLESS THERE IS AN
EMERGENCY ITEM.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT, BASED ON THE DISCUSSION,
HE WOULD CALL REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS AND TELL THEM TO STOP ALL
ACTION ON THIS PROJECT UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MIGHT TELL
THEM THAT THEIR LETTER CAME IN TOO LATE FOR CONSIDERATION AT THIS
MEETING.
CHAIRMAN LYONS REQUESTED ADDING AN EMERGENCY ITEM IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BY FLORIDA LAND COMPANY ON
THE NORTH PART OF THE BARRIER ISLAND. HE CONTINUED THAT THERE WERE
SOME PROBLEMS THAT NEEDED CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD, AND SUGGESTED
ADDING THIS EMERGENCY ITEM AS ITEM SA, AFTER MR. SHANNON'S ITEM.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED WHAT THE NATURE OF THIS EMERGENCY
ITEM WOULD BE.
CHAIRMAN LYONS ADVISED THAT THE COUNTY WAS BEING THREATENED
WITH A LAW SUIT.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT WHETHER A REPRESENTATIVE OF
FLORIDA LAND COMPANY WOULD BE PRESENT, AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED
THAT IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE A VOTE TAKEN WITHOUT FLORIDA LAND COMPANY
BEING REPRESENTED, THEN HE WOULD VOTE IN OPPOSITION TO THE ADDITION
TO THE AGENDA; IF THE ITEM WOULD BE ADDED JUST FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES, HE WOULD AGREE TO IT.
4
CHAIRMAN LYONS ADVISED THAT IT IS AN INFORMATION ITEM - AND
IS PERTINENT. HE THOUGHT THAT WE HAVE TO BE FULLY AWARE OF THE
SITUATION; THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE ADDED FOR INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY.
ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT ATTORNEY SOVIERO WOULD
PRESENT THIS ITEM IN ORDER TO BRING THE BOARD UP TO DATE ON THE
MATTER.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK TO ADD THIS
EMERGENCY ITEM TO THE AGENDA, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT NO VOTE WILL
BE TAKEN.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT, PRIMARILY, HIS CONCERN
WITH ADDING ITEMS TO THE AGENDA IS THAT IT DOES NOT ALLOW THE BOARD
TIME TO FULLY EVALUATE BOTH SIDES OF THE QUESTION. HE CONTINUED THAT
HE WOULD HESITATE TO ADD ANY ITEM UNLESS HE WAS FULLY INFORMED; BUT
HE WOULD FAVOR ADDING ANY ITEM THAT WOULD EDUCATE AND INFORM THE BOARD,
CHAIRMAN LYONS INTERJECTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN UNDER-
STANDING OF HOW EVERYBODY WANTS TO WORK TOGETHER,
COMMISSIONER WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE REAL TRUE
EMERGENCIES THAT DO COME UP, AND THE STATUTES ALLOW THE BOARD TO
HAVE EMERGENCY ITEMS; AND IT WOULD BE TO THE BOARD'S ADVANTAGE TO
ADD THEM TO THE AGENDA, OTHERWISE A SPECIAL MEETING WOULD HAVE TO
BE CALLED.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT IF THE WORD "EMERGENCY"
IS USED FOR ADDING THE ITEM, THEN HE WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT.
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUMMARIZED THE EMERGENCY ITEMS DISCUSSED
ITEM NA - PRESENTATION BY ATTORNEY SOVIERO REGARDING FLORIDA LAND
COMPANY FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES; AND ITEM #14G - INDIAN RIVER
BOULEVARD EXTENSION FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
N
OV
9 19 90 5 Boat 45 FAGIE 250
NOV 191980 45 PAGE 251
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED HE DID NOT THINK THEY SHOULD
PUT THE ITEM REGARDING INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD ON THE AGENDA, IF
THE BOARD CANNOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON IT.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ADDING EMERGENCY ITEM #8A ON
THE AGENDA, WHICH IS A PRESENTATION BY ATTORNEY SOVIERO REGARDING
FLORIDA LAND COMPANY FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
CAROLYN EGGERT, 700 BEACH ROAD, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND
ASKED THE BOARD TO TAKE SPECIAL CARE WHEN ADDING ITEMS TO THE AGENDA.
SHE FELT THAT THE CAMPAIGN AND THIS ELECTION HAVE MADE PEOPLE MORE
AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE COUNTY; PEOPLE HAVE FELT THAT ITEMS HAVE
BEEN MOVED ON THE AGENDA, THEREFORE, THEY DID NOT HAVE TIME TO COME
AND HEAR THE DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM. MRS. EGGERT STATED THAT, ON
BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, SHE WOULD APPEAL TO THE BOARD THAT THEY
BE FAIR AND GIVE THE PUBLIC AS MUCH WARNING AS POSSIBLE ON AGENDA
ITEMS.
APPROVAL OF CLERK'S AGENDA
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR
A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR:
MICHAEL CHARLES GILLEN CLIFFORD V. FERGUSON
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED TAX SALE CERTIFICATE N0. 260
FOR DUANE SUDBROCK IN THE AMOUNT OF $13.18.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR
PETE SPYKE, AGRICULTURAL SPECIALIST (CITRUS):
DEC. 3-4 SARASOTA ANNUAL CITRUS AGENTS MEETING SON STATE
FUNDS). THIS TWO DAY MEETING IS
SPECIFICALLY DEVOTED TO THE EXTENSION
SERVICE'S CITRUS PROGRAMS
6
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED STATE WITNESS PAYROLLS,
SPRING TERM, 1980, AND FALL TERM, 1980, IN THE AMOUNTS OF $133.40,
$58.94, AND $178.16.
THE FOLLOWING REPORT WAS RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK:
REPORT OF CONVICTIONS, MONTH OF DFCEMBER, 1980
PROCLAMATION - HUMAN RIGHTS WEEK IN FLORIDA
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED A PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING
THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 7, 1980 As HUMAN RIGHTS WEEK IN FLORIDA, AND
AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN.
45
NOV 191980 � "
J
Nov x.91990
P R O C L A M A T I O N
mo 45 PbcE 253
WHEREAS, recognition of the inherent dignity and equal
and inalienable rights of all persons is the foundation of
freedom, justice and peace in the world; and
WHEREAS, our Nation is built upon this principle; and
WHEREAS, December 10, 1980 marks the 32nd anniversary
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United
Nations; and
WHEREAS, concerned Floridians have celebrated Human
Rights Week since 1974 to recognize the rights of all in-
dividuals; and
WHEREAS, this week will help to preserve, protect and
perpetuate the rights of each individual's freedom, dignity
and pride;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the week
of DECEMBER 7 - 13, 1980 be designated as
HUMAN RIGHTS WEEK
and urge all citizens to join in protecting the rights and
privileges of all individuals.
Done in regular session of the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida on the 19th
day of November, 1980,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Chairman
FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION OF ADMINISTRATION AND
THE BOARD NEXT REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING REPORT:
CONSTRUCTION PROTECT - ADMINISTRATION
& COURnIOUSE BUILDINGS
Thru 10/31/80
Construction Proceeds after expense of Issue
and reserve accounts
Interest on Investments (date of issue thru
10/28/80
Funds available for construction
Less:
Interest on outstanding bonds to 10/1/80
(all capitalized)
*Net construction draws to date
Balance available as of 10/28/80 to
complete construction project
Note*
Gross draw request less retaimage
$1,425,523.00 - $142,552.30 = $1,282,970.70
Change Order #8 (Administrative Building)
Change Order #2 (Courthouse Building)
Total (as amended)
Less: Payouts to Date
Balance Due on Present Contract
Less: Cash on Hand
Cushion for possible change orders
$3,677,010.57
225,052.01
3,902,062.58
(187,955.00)
(1,282,970.70)
2,431,136.88
2,82,781.35
697,647.86
3,520,429.21
(1,282,970.70)
2,237,458.51
(2,431,136.88)
& 193,678.37
9
i
mix 45 254
Fr- -7
NOV 19190 aoox 45 PAGE255
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS EXPLAINED THAT HE.AND
FINANCE OFFICER BARTON WERE TRYING TO SHOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
PROBLEMS REGARDING OVER -RUNS, AND THEY ARE TRYING TO KEEP IT UNDER
CONTROL. HE AND MR. BARTON FELT THAT THIS WAS AN ACCURATE REPORT.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INQUIRED WHO WAS INVOLVED IN
LOOKING OVER AND REVIEWING A CHANGE ORDER,
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EXPLAINED THAT A CHANGE PROPOSAL IS
WRITTEN UP, SENT TO THE ARCHITECT, AND THEN IT COMES BACK TO THE
CONTRACTOR FOR COSTING OUT. HE ADDED THAT IT IS SENT BACK TO THE
ARCHITECT FOR THEIR REVIEW, THEN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE
KONTOULAS CHECKS IT OUT, AND IT IS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL -
THEN THE CHANGE ORDER IS MADE.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES AND IT WAS DETERMINED
THAT THE FINANCE OFFICE REVIEWS IT AND RELATES IT TO THE AVAILABLE
FUNDS.
CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT REMODELING AN OLD BUILDING IS
FULL OF SURPRISES, NOT ONLY FOR THE OWNER BUT FOR THE ARCHITECT AND
THE BUILDER AS WELL. HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF
THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED THAT NOBODY HAD ANTICIPATED, SUCH AS A
HOLE ABOUT 3' X 4' IN ONE OF THE MAJOR BEAMS AT THE ADMINISTRATION
COMPLEX, OVER THE OPERATING ROOM, AND AS A RESULT, THEY HAVE A MAJOR
STRUCTURAL PROBLEM THERE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE INQUIRED ABOUT CHANGE ORDER #8 AND
WONDERED IF THE FIGURE LISTED WAS THE ORIGINAL BID PLUS THE CHANGE
ORDERS ALL ADDED TOGETHER.
FINANCE OFFICER BARTON RESPONDED AFFIRMATIVELY.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WANTED CLARIFICATION FOR THIS ITEM
AND WANTED TO KNOW IF IT WAS JUST A REVIEW, OR IF APPROVAL WAS NEEDED.
CHAIRMAN LYONS ADVISED THAT IT WAS JUST A STATUS REPORT;
THE BOARD WANTED TO KNOW HOW THEIR SITUATION WAS REGARDING MONEY.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE COMMENTED THAT THE BOARD SEEMS TO GET
A CHANGE ORDER AT EVERY MEETING, AND THE BOARD WANTS TO BE KEPT INFORMED
OF THEIR STATUS. HE CONTINUED THAT MR. THOMAS WAS INSTRUCTED TO
BRING BACK AN UPDATED STATUS REPORT AFTER A CHANGE ORDER HAD BEEN
ISSUED,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT
9:09 O'CLOCK A.M. IN ORDER TO RECONVENE AS THE DISTRICT BOARD OF
FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE NORTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT.
(MINUTES OF THE ABOVE MEETING PREPARED SEPARATELY.)
NOV 191980
11
56ox 45 PACE 66
NOV - 19 1980
BOOK 45 PAGE 257
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECONVENED AT
9:20 O'CLOCK A.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT.
RESOLUTION HONORING PAUL X. PARENT
CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED PAUL X. PARENT TO APPROACH THE BOARD
AND THE CHAIRMAN READ THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION 80-114 HONORING
MR. PARENT:
. OU -114
WHEREAS, PAUL X. PARENT was appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida; to serve as a member
of the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission for
District 5 on November 15, 1978; and
WHEREAS, PAUL,X. PARENT has worked diligently to serve the
people of Indian River County, Florida, during his tenure in office;
and <
WHEREAS, PAUL X. PARENT has been instrumental in the adoption
of legislation which has contributed to the orderly growth and
development of Indian River County, among them being:
Adoption of Site Plan Approval Ordinance and the Amendment
to Include Minor Site Plan Approval
Rezoning of State Road 510 and 512
Rezoning of Oslo Road
Adoption of Indian River County Energy Efficiency Building
Code
Adoption of the Standard Building Code, 1979 Edition
and
WHEREAS, PAUL X. PARENT has served the citizens of Indian
River County with understanding, lending his expertise where needed
and, through his efforts has helped make Indian River County a
better place in which to live; and
WHEREAS, PAUL X. PARENT has announced his resignation from
the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission to be
effective November 18, 1980;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board on
behalf of itself and the citizens of Indian River County, expresses
its gratitude and appreciation.to PAUL X. PARENT for a job well
done; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board wishes PAUL X. PARENT
ontinued success in his future endeavors.
Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 8th. day
f October , 1980.
H
Chairman,County Commissioners
NOV 19-1-9.80
FF,-
-1
NOV 19 1980 Box 45 PAGE 259
SECTION 8 --EXISTING HOUSING PROGRAM - APPROVAL OF REQUISITION
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER WODTKE, TO APPROVE THE REQUISITION FOR QUARTERLY PAYMENT
OF ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT - SECTION S EXISTING HOUSING
PROGRAM, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS A REQUEST FOR
FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR A QUARTERLY DRAW -DOWN, AND WHEN
APPROVED, IS PASSED THROUGH TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. HE CONTINUED
THAT THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE FOR THE SECTION S ASSISTANCE RENTAL
PROGRAM FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE QUALIFIED UNDER THIS PROGRAM.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REGAN INTERJECTED THAT
AS OF THIS DATE, THERE ARE 79 UNITS UNDER LEASE TO ELIGIBLE FAMILIES.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON 4
TO I AND PASSED, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
1/Lf0-52663
5-7St
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AN DC-:VEL.OPMENT HUD USE ONLY
REQUISITION FOR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF ANNUAL CONTRiBUTiONS
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM voucher Number
SECTION 23 L_.a SECTIONS
Date of Requisition 11/5/80 Fiscal Year Ending Date 10/30/81 For Quart3r Ending 3131_.181
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY (Inciudinq sip Code)
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
ACC Contract Number _A, . hnq
Project Number FL -29—E132-001
800 20th Place Suite 3 Vero Bea Fla. 0
No. of Months in Fiscal Year 12
Type of Project:
DEPOSITARY BANK (Nome, Addrese and Account Number)
First Citrus Bank
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 Acct. (x'98-04000-1
® EXISTING NEW REHAB.
a. Number of Units Under Lease to Eligible Families as of Date of Requisition 78
b. Estimated Number of Units to be under Lease at End of Requested Quarter 120
c. Average Monthly Housing Assistance Payment Per Unit as of Date of Requisition 154
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE OF
REQUIRED
ANNUAL
CONTRIBUTIONS
TOTAL COST
INCURRED
TO DATE
ESTIMATED
ADDITIONAL
COST TO END
OF REQUESTED
QUARTER
CUMULATIVE
TOTAL
FUNDS
REQUIRED
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
PRELIMINARY ADMIPHSTRATIVE EXPENSE
1. Preliminary Administrative Expense—Prior to ACC (Account 4010).
0
0
0
0 1
0
2. Preliminary Administrative Expense—After ACC (Account 4012)
0
0
0
0
0
3. Total Preliminary Administrative Expense (Lines 1 & 2)
".">
° ' '
0
0
0
NONEXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
4. Replacement of Nonexpendable Equipment (Account 7520):
5. Property Betterments and Additions (Account 7540)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6. Total Nonexpendable Equipment (Lines 4 & 5)
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
7. Housing Assistance Payments (Account 4715)
265,476
23,688
55,440
79,128
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
8. Total Administrative Fee Approved for Fiscal Year
31,212
9. Monthly Rate of Administrative Fee (Line 8 divided by number of months
in fiscal year)
2,601
10. Amount Previously Requisitioned for fiscal year
6,611
6,611
11. Estimated Additional Amount Required to end of Requested Quarter
13.922
12. Total Administrative Fee (Lines 10 & 11)
INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUPITANT AUDIT COSTS (Section 8 only)
13. Total Independent Public Accountant Audit Costs
0
0
SECURITY AND UTILITY DEPOSITS (Section 23 only)
14. Total Allowance Approved for Security and Utility Deposits
0
15. Amount Previously Requisitioned for Fiscal Year
0
0
16. Estimated Additional Amount Requirod to End of Requested Quarter
0
17. Total Security and Utility Deposits (Lines 15 & 16)
AMOUNT OF THIS REQUISITION
X
18. Total Funds Required to End of Requested Quarter (Lines 3, 6, 7, 12.
13& 17)
19. Total Partial Payments Received for Fiscal Year to Date
92,350
64,305
28,045
20. Partial Payment Requested (Line 18 minus Line 19)
IST
INSTALLMENT
2ND
INSTALLMENT
3RD
INSTALLMENT
TOTAL
METHOD OF PAYMENT
21. Requested Installment Payments
9-148
9,349,
9,148
99,045
1 CERTIFY that housing assistance paymonts have been or will be made only with respect to units which: (1) are under lease by Families at the time such
housing assistance payments are made except as otherwise provided in the blousing Assistance Payments Contracts and (2) the Housing Agency has withirl
one year prior to the mating of such housing assistance payments, adequately inspected or coused to be inspected (including inspection of grounds, facilities,
and areas for the benefit and use of the Families) to assure that decent, safe and sanitary housing accommodations are being provident; that all applicable pro-
visions of the above numbered Contract have been complied with by the Housing Agency; and that this requisition for annual contributions has been exam-
ined by me and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct and complete. Indian River County
Board ofoCounty
11/19/80 (Na of Public Housing Agency)
a C
(Date) ignatur file of Offici Authorized to Certify)
HUD FIELD OFFICE APPROVAL
(Signature and Title of Official Authorized to Approve) (Date)
REGIONAL ACCOUNTING DIVISION
PrevelidatBd by:
PAYMENT
FOR
MONTH OF
AMOUNT
PAID
DATE
CERTIFIED FOR
PAYMENT
CERTIFIED
BY
(Initials)
(Signature)
(Date)
TOTAL
Replaces
Nov I
Form HUD -52663 dated June 197!1.
HUD -52663
mot 45 w fo
J
NOV 191980
Boa 45 pb,t 261
SAM SHANNON, OF THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING LETTER:
t�-...7isr✓
6.ic�y 04i
Dear Chairman Siebert:
c U r
During the Council's October meeting, Commissioner Lyons presented
a request from Indian River County that the staff investigate the
v • _
potential for providing technical assistance in preparing a study/
`` (J a
plan for the County's barrier island. Council accepted the request
,
1�♦:�?���j�R`p�Q..{�•jg��f T: ..
� _��w�
../j(j f1 •+ �7/�/11�'\+y .,1'/��.AI��j/
��
.. .� .___�.—_�._-.
_— __ - _ .........s.
a._-�mw�wr�.ewt7T1!1•A+'.
t t%
October 31, 1980
44
The Honorable W.111. Siebert, Jr., Chairman
Indian River County Board of Coranissioners
2145 14th Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32960
?" Subject: Barrier Island Study -Indian River County
;
The second approach would relate more to the.identification of a
reasonable "carrying capacity" potential for future development
on the barrier island. This approach would be substantially more
limited in its scope but Would focus on key functional areas and
provide basic assumptions that could then guide the development
of the County's comprehensive plan for the island. The "carrying
capacity approach would analyze and recommend reasonable limits
to development activities, given the current abilities of public
facilities and service delivery capabilities, This approach would
SO i.indrzd st.
p.o. box 2395
stucrt, V cried-?3-r's.:.. .
paUick b. Mons
choirmcn
thcmos j. h�gcins
IICC:cry �;r_awr:r
16
normai 9rcgory
NCC C�C;rmm
:am shcr.no
ax;, cL•c:v
Dear Chairman Siebert:
*'
During the Council's October meeting, Commissioner Lyons presented
a request from Indian River County that the staff investigate the
potential for providing technical assistance in preparing a study/
f;
plan for the County's barrier island. Council accepted the request
and directed staff to begin discussions with the County as to an
appropriate scope of activities for the study, as well as estimates
of the cost for participating.
In reviewing this request, it is suggested that two appropriate
alternatives may be available to the County. The first would be
based on a comprehensive approach to the development of the barrier
island. The approach would be comparable to the Local Government
Comprehensive Plan concept. This effort would review all issues
that relate to future development on a barrier island and provide
recommendations and policies that the County could consider and
adopt to manage development in this area. The enclosed graphic
represents this alternative and is intended to identify the potential
data needs, possible issues and opportunities to be addressed, and
a listing of resource agencies and interest groups that should be
involved in such an effort.
The second approach would relate more to the.identification of a
reasonable "carrying capacity" potential for future development
on the barrier island. This approach would be substantially more
limited in its scope but Would focus on key functional areas and
provide basic assumptions that could then guide the development
of the County's comprehensive plan for the island. The "carrying
capacity approach would analyze and recommend reasonable limits
to development activities, given the current abilities of public
facilities and service delivery capabilities, This approach would
SO i.indrzd st.
p.o. box 2395
stucrt, V cried-?3-r's.:.. .
paUick b. Mons
choirmcn
thcmos j. h�gcins
IICC:cry �;r_awr:r
16
normai 9rcgory
NCC C�C;rmm
:am shcr.no
ax;, cL•c:v
The Honorable 14-W. Siebert, Jr., Chairman
Indian River County Board of Commissioners
October 31, 1980
Page Two
concentrate on transportation, public safety (evacuation) and
certain natural resource concerns. Certain considerations may
also relate to water supply and water treatment issues.
It is suggested that the Commission review the two approaches that
have been recommended and that staff meet with the Commission to
discuss the direction that should be further defined and evaluated.
Obviously, the cost for preparing a study will depend on the approach
taken and, more specifically, the extent of the scope of activities.
In either case, it is Council's policy to charge local government
only the cost required to perform the work.
I look forward to hearing from you on this matter and meeting with
either the Commission or your staff. Should you have any questions,
or wish additional information, please contact meat your earliest
convenience.
Yours tru)y,
Sam Shannon
Executive Director
SS:cs
Enclosure
cc: Patrick B. Lyons
Dave Rever
MR. SHANNON EXPLAINED THE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH USING
THE FOLLOWING GRAPHIC:
NOV x.91980 17 80 45 262-
r
NOV 191900 45 PACES
� ''� jir r• ti -. {E�is-��''S:' � d. ! ,:, � +. Yt r ; �. c 'k � r. " r {! ,y, ....
.+mss, lr J4�y. i. H+�✓�' yt, l 1t, �; j s•' i � „ � s tee.. b �' � _ ..^Cb �! �Y t�x � ~
AA
QF
NOV 191990 19 fwaK 45 picE 264
--A
NOV 191990
MVTTLTSIT""����
BOOK 45 kGE*265
MR. SHANNON EXPLAINED THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH WOULD BE A
FAIRLY DETAILED STUDY, AND THEIR STAFF HAS ATTEMPTED TO IDENTIFY THE
BROAD RANGE OF ISSUES INVOLVED. HE CONTINUED THAT THE SECOND APPROACH
TO THE BARRIER ISLAND STUDY, WHICH IS A MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE KIND
OF STUDY, HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE CARRYING CAPACITY APPROACH.
MR. SHANNON STATED THAT THIS APPROACH WOULD FOCUS ON KEY FUNCTIONAL
AREAS THAT WOULD HAVE A LIMITING AFFECT ON THE ABILITY OF THE ISLAND
TO DEVELOP. HE OUTLINED THE ISSUES TO BE STUDIED, SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES; PUBLIC SAFETY - LIMITED TO STRESS SITUATIONS SUCH AS
HURRICANES AND MAJOR STORM EVENTS; NATURAL RESOURCE CONDITIONS; AS
WELL AS OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES THAT MAY HAVE A LIMITING AFFECT ON
DEVELOPMENT ON THE ISLAND. MR. SHANNOW FELT THE TWO AREAS THAT
POSSIBLY COULD PLAY A MAJOR ROLE IN THIS STUDY WOULD BE WATER SUPPLY
AND WASTE WATER TREATMENT. HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THIS APPROACH WOULD
ATTEMPT TO ANALYZE AND PROVIDE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND FOR THE COMMISSIONS CONSIDERATION FOR REASON-
ABLE LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ON THE ISLAND. MR. SHANNON
NOTED THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH, WHICH WOULD BE A MORE INTENSIVE
STUDY WITH MORE DETAIL, WOULD CERTAINLY BE COORDINATED WITH THE COUNTY�S
OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - BUT IT IS A SEPARATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
OF THE ISLAND. HE ADDED THAT THE SECOND STUDY WOULD JUST GIVE SPECIAL
GUIDELINES AND SPECIAL CRITERIA THAT THE COUNTY WOULD THEN INCORPORATE
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HE STATED THAT IN THE
PREPARATION OF THE STUDIES, THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE.
MR. SHANNON REPORTED THAT THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, BOTH BY LAW
AND BY ITS RULES, HAS A REQUIREMENT THAT FOR SPECIAL WORK PERFORMED
FOR ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE REGION, THE COUNCIL DOES THAT ACTIVITY
JUST FOR WHAT IT COSTS THE COUNCIL TO DO IT, AS THE COUNCIL DOES NOT
WANT TO MAKE ANY PROFIT. HE STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP A FINAL
PROPOSAL ON EITHER OF THESE APPROACHES, AS THE COUNCIL CANNOT BEGIN
WITHOUT THE BOARDS APPROVAL. MR. SHANNON ADVISED THAT THE COUNCIL`S
NEXT MEETING IS IN THE MIDDLE OF DECEMBER, SO HOPEFULLY, THEY CAN BEGIN
THE STUDY SHORTLY.
.
21
NOV 191980 W PAcE 6.
NOV 191980
an 45 �mu 267
COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED FOR A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE
COST OF THE TWO APPROACHES, AND THE TIME ELEMENT INVOLVED.
MR. SHANNON ADVISED THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH WOULD
COST APPROXIMATELY $40,000 TO $45,000 AND TAKE NEARLY NINE MONTHS.
HE ADDED THAT THE SECOND APPROACH COULD BE DONE IN THREE TO FOUR
MONTHS AND WOULD COST SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $12,000 TO
$14,000 - THIS COULD BE ADJUSTED, DEPENDING ON INFORMATION PROVIDED
TO THEM BY THE COUNTY,
DISCUSSION ENSUED ALONG THOSE LINES.
CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED IF MR. SHANNON HAD ANY EXPERIENCE IN
BARRIER ISLAND STUDIES.
MR. SHANNON ADVISED HE WAS PAST DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FOR
SANIBEL ISLAND, WHICH HAS' 3,000 PEOPLE IN AN AREA 2 MILES BY 12 MILES.
HE STATED HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN AT SANIBEL WHICH
WAS SUCCESSFUL, BUT VERY EXPENSIVE - THE COST WAS $125,000 FOR THE
PLAN ITSELF; $80,000 FOR THE CONSULTANTS, PLUS 1,000 HOURS OF FREE
TIME FROM THE CITIZENS. MR. SHANNON NOTED THAT THE PLAN HAS WITHSTOOD
THE TEST OF TIME FAIRLY WELL. HE ADVISED THAT THE BARRIER ISLANDS HAVE
TO HAVE A SPECIAL KIND OF TREATMENT AND THE PLANNING APPROACHES MUST
BE TUNED TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ADVISED HE HAD SOME PROBLEMS WITH
THE CARRYING CAPACITY APPROACH AND FELT.SOME.UPFRONT DECISIONS HAD
TO BE MADE BEFORE THE STUDY COULD BEGIN.
MR. SHANNON COMMENTED THAT THERE HAVE TO BE SOME INITIAL
ASSUMPTIONS ON WHAT KIND OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES CAN BE
EXPECTED FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND THE 201 STUDY MUST BE CONSIDERED.
CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF
ROADS WOULD BE ONE OF THE PROBLEMS ALSO.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS
WOULD BE COMING IN ONE AT A TIME, AND NO ONE INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT
WOULD DESTROY THE BARRIER ISLAND, BUT THE TOTAL COMBINATION OF INDIVIDUAL
DEVELOPMENTS IS OF GREAT CONCERN.
22
CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT THE BOARD HAS TO HAVE SOME IDEA OF WHAT
THE COUNTY WANTS TO LOOK LIKE, TO KNOW WHAT CHANGES MIGHT BE REQUIRED,
AND TO KNOW WHO PAYS FOR THE CHANGES - THE TIME HAS COME TO DECIDE THIS,
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT THE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH WOULD
BE MORE COMPLETE,
MR. SHANNON AGREED AND WENT ON THAT IT WOULD IDENTIFY ALL
THE POLICIES THAT COULD AND PERHAPS SHOULD BE ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY
FOR ADDRESSING ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD COME IN. HE ADDED
THAT IT WOULD ALSO LOOK AT WATER AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES,
BEACH ACCESS CONCERNS AND THE PROTECTION OF CLASS TWO WATERS.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT HE HAS BEEN READING A
LOT OF MATERIAL, SUCH AS THE 1980 FEASIBILITY REPORT WHICH IS FILLED
WITH POTENTIAL NEEDS OF THE COUNTY. HE WONDERS IF WE ARE TAKING DATA
FROM ONE PLACE, RECYCLING IT AND PUTTING IT INTO ANOTHER REPORT,
CAUSING A DUPLICATION.
MR. SHANNON NOTED THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE FEASIBILITY
REPORT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE REPORT AS IT WOULD
ENHANCE IT. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY WOULD NEED NEW DATA FOR TRAFFIC
AND TRANSPORTATION ON THE ISLAND,
COMMISSIONER WODTKE ENVISIONED THE STUDY WOULD COVER THE
NUMEROUS REQUESTS THAT COME IN FOR DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING OF
PROPERTIES ON THE BARRIER ISLAND. HE FELT THE CARRYING CAPACITY APPROACH
WOULD COVER TRANSPORTATION, NATURAL RESOURCES, WATER, SEWER SUPPLY,
THE ENVIRONMENT, AND BASICALLY MAKE REASONABLE LIMITS TO THE DEVELOP-
MENT BASED UPON THE CURRENT AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES. COMMISSIONER
WODTKE ADVISED THEY HAVE HAD CONFLICTING INFORMATION INDICATING THAT
THE CARRYING CAPACITY IS PRETTY CLOSE TO THE LIMIT ON A -1-A. HE FELT
THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL TO THE BOARD AND THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR MAKING DECISIONS ON REZONING AND DEVELOPMENTS.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE DID NOT THINK THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL WAS
THE PLACE FOR MINUTE DECISIONS TO BE MADE - THOSE ISSUES SHOULD BE
DECIDED LOCALLY.
CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT IT ALL GETS BACK TO A VERY
BASIC THING - THEY ARE LOOKING AT WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE GENERAL
NOV 191980 23
6
NOV. 19 19 80 803. 45 PAGE 269
QUALITY OF THE BARRIER ISLAND WHEN THE STUDY IS COMPLETE.
HE FELT
THIS STUDY REALLY WOULD BE A GOOD SUPPLEMENT FOR THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT,
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS BARRIER
ISLAND STUDY WOULD BE LIMITED TO CERTAIN ASPECTS, AND IT WAS DETERMINED
THAT THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL WOULD PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND WOULD DO THE KIND OF STUDY THE BOARD WANTS.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INTERJECTED THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE
THE BARRIER ISLAND COULD RELY ON WELL FIELDS AND WATER AVAILABILITY;
EVENTUALLY THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RELY ON THE MAINLAND. HE ALSO
EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT HAVING PACKAGE PLANTS THAT DO NOT FUNCTION
PROPERLY AFTER THE DEVELOPER LEAVES THE AREA, AND THEN THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT -HAS TO PICK UP THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR SERVICE.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THERE
IS ANYONE LIVING ON THE BARRIER ISLAND TODAY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE
A -1-A BECOME A FOUR LANE ROAD, AND IF THIS STUDY HELPS JUSTIFY THAT,
HE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM. HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS STUDY WOULD PROVIDE
AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE TRAFFIC SITUATION, AND MR. SHANNON ADVISED THAT
WAS THE INTENT.
JOHN MORRISON, REPRESENTATIVE OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES,
COMMENTED ON THE GRAPHIC PREPARED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND THAT
IT APPEARED WE SHOULD GO WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH FOR THE
BARRIER ISLAND STUDY. HE FELT THE COUNTY HAS BEEN SADLY DELINQUENT
IN THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, AND EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT
THE BACKWARDS WAY THE COUNTY WAS GOING ABOUT IT. MR. MORRISON STATED
THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES ARE GREATLY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE DETERIORATION OF THE ENTIRE BARRIER ISLAND, AND
BELIEVED THE TOWN WOULD BE RECEPTIVE TO PARTICIPATING IN THE COST OF
THIS BARRIER ISLAND STUDY. HE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL DOING THIS STUDY AND UTILIZING THE DATA THAT THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS HAS PROVIDED - THIS COULD CONSIDERABLY REDUCE THE COST.
MR. MORRISON FELT THE COUNTY OWED IT TO THIS AREA TO SPEND CONSIDERABLY
MORE THAN $45,000 TO MAINTAIN THE DESIRABILITY OF WHAT THEY ALREADY
HAVE.
24
PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER APPROACHED THE BOARD AND STATED IT
SEEMED THE FACT WAS IGNORED THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
WAS BEING DEVELOPED BY THE LOCAL STAFF. HE ADDED THAT THE REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL'S STAFF COULD USE ALL THAT INFORMATION, WHICH WOULD
ESTABLISH A BASIC PARAMETER, AND THEY,IN TURN,000LD GIVE THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT A VERY SHARP, LIMITED FOCUS ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED. MR. REVER ADVISED HIS STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED DOING THE
SMALLER, SHARPER -FOCUS STUDY TO SUPPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND
USE PLAN, HE ADDED THAT IT IS CHEAPER, THE TIME CONSIDERATION WAS
VERY IMPORTANT, AND HE WAS HOPEFUL THAT THEIR PLAN WOULD BE READY
BY THE END OF MARCH IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. MR, REVER FELT THIS KIND OF
WORK COULD GENERATE THE SHARPER FOCUS INFORMATION TO ALLOW THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT TO DO A BETTER PLAN. HE COMMENTED THAT THE DECEMBER 4,
1980 PUBLIC HEARING IS JUST THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE
LANE USE PLAN; THERE WILL BE SEVERAL MORE IN WHICH DISCUSSIONS WILL BE
ONGOING, AND CHANGES WILL BE MADE. MR. REVER CONTINUED THAT ALL OF
THESE PLANS ARE A COMPROMISE OF IDEAS AND SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD
GO FORTH WITH THE SHARPER FOCUSED PLAN. HE ADDED THAT THEY HAVE
POLICIES NOW THAT MAINLY SUGGEST THAT THE NORTH BEACH AREA IS THE
LOWEST, PRIORITY -WISE, ON THE TOTEM POLE FOR RECEIVING FUTURE SEWER
AND WATER ALLOCATIONS OF A PUBLIC NATURE. MR, REVER STATED THAT
THEY HAVE NOT FULLY DEVELOPED THE TRANSPORTATION DATA, JUST ON A PIECE
MEAL BASIS, AND THEY WANT A BROAD DATA BASE TO GIVE THEM THE NEEDED
BACKGROUND IN ORDER TO MAKE A DECISION. HE ADDED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN
GRANTED A $20,000 STATE PLANNING GRANT, AND SUGGESTED THEY UTILIZE
A PORTION OF THIS GRANT FOR THE STUDY, AND USE A PORTION OF IT FOR -
THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, MR. REVER THOUGHT THE CARRYING
CAPACITY APPROACH WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL, AND THE THREE MONTHS COMPLETION
TIME WOULD BE VERY MUCH IN LINE AND WOULD COINCIDE WITH THEIR DESIRE
TO FINISH THEIR PLAN ELEMENTS BY THE END OF MARCH.
CAROLYN EGGERT, OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, SUPPORTED
WHAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAD SAID, AS THE MEMBERS ON THE PLANNING
& ZONING COMMISSION HAVE FELT THE LACK OF UP-TO-DATE STUDIES AND WOULD
Nov 19 1980 25 800
NOV 191990 Bdox 45 pAcE 271
LIKE TO HAVE INFORMATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO
BETTER JUDGE DEVELOPERS REQUESTS FOR REZONING. SHE HOPED THAT THEY
WOULD HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO PREVENT THEM FROM MAKING A DISASTROUS
MISTAKE ON THE BARRIER ISLAND.
ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL SHOULD
NOT DISREGARD THE 201 STUDY IN WORKING ON THEIR PLAN.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL SHOULD
BE GIVEN A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY, AS HE DID NOT WANT TO RESTRICT THEM
IN ANY WAY. HE THEN INQUIRED ABOUT POSSIBLE FUNDING FOR THE BARRIER
ISLAND STUDY.
MR. SHANNON STATED HE WAS NOT AWARE OF AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR
THIS PROJECT.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE
A POSSIBILITY OF AVAILABLE FOUNDATION FUNDS.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT MR. THOMAS PURSUE THAT
AVENUE REGARDING FOUNDATION FUNDS.
COMMISSIONER BIRD COMMENTED THAT PERHAPS OUR IMMEDIATE NEED
IS FOR THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL TO DEVELOP INFORMATION BASED
ON PRESENT RESOURCES, PRESENT SERVICES AVAILABLE TO THIS AREA, AND
PRESENT ROAD SYSTEMS; THE COUNTY NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO DEAL WITH
REQUESTS MADE AT THIS TIME. HE FELT THEY SHOULD ALSO LOOK AT THE
201 STUDY.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD REQUEST THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL TO
PREPARE A PROPOSAL FOR CONTRACT WITH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FOR A BARRIER
ISLAND STUDY BASED UPON THE LETTER DATED OCTOBER 31, 1980 FROM SAM
SHANNON, ON HIS SECOND APPROACH OF A REASONABLE CARRYING CAPACITY
POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
MR. MORRISON STATED THAT THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES
WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN A JOINT VENTURE WITH THE COUNTY. HE
ADDED THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS, AND HE ASKED
THAT THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES BE RECOGNIZED IN THE MOTION AS
A JOINT VENTURE IN THIS STUDY.
26
ATTORNEY COLLINS INTERJECTED THAT THIS COULD BE ADEQUATELY
ADDRESSED BY AN ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT. HE ADDED THAT THEY ARE
GOING TO COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL THAT THE COUNTY WILL SIGN; AND A
SUBSEQUENT PROPOSAL, CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY'S, COULD BE SIGNED
BY THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, BUT IT DOES TAKE A SEPARATE ACTION.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES
SHOULD HAVE A SEPARATE CONTRACT, AND HOPEFULLY THE CITY OF VERO BEACH
WOULD DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY, SO THAT THE REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL WOULD KNOW THEIR SCOPE OF WORK.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK THEN ASKED THE CHAIRMAN TO CORRESPOND
BOTH WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES
SUGGESTING THAT MATTER.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND IT WAS DECIDED THAT THIS STUDY
WOULD INVOLVE ALL THREE PARTIES, AND THE SCOPE OF SERVICES WOULD ALL
BE THE SAME.
THE CHAIRMAN NOTED THAT THIS ITEM WOULD BE PUT ON THE AGENDA
FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETING.
FLORIDA LAND COMPANY - PRESENTATION BY ATTORNEY SOVIERO
ATTORNEY SOVIERO APPROACHED THE BOARD TO ADVISE THEM OF THE
STATUS CONCERNING THE MATTER WITH FLORIDA LAND COMPANY. THE DEVELOPMENTS
INVOLVED ARE JUST SOUTH OF THE WABASSO BEACH BRIDGE: RIVERBEND HAS
672 UNITS, AND BEACH COLONY HAS 702 UNITS, AND IT WAS FELT THERE WOULD
BE A POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, AND ATTORNEY SOV I ERO' S
OPINION WAS THAT A BINDING LETTER FROM THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY
WOULD BE NECESSARY TO CONFIRM THIS FACT. ATTORNEY SOVIERO EXPLAINED
THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS FOR THESE TWO DEVELOPMENTS APPROACHED
1400 UNITS, AND 750 UNITS IS THE THRESHOLD. HE ADDED THAT VARIOUS
MEETINGS WERE HELD TO DISCUSS THE PROJECTS AND THERE WAS A PROPOSAL
TO DROP THE BEACH COLONY PROJECT. ATTORNEY SOVIERO, AT THAT TIME,
NOV 191980
27 moK f%.0 272
.. .....f- ,.. .._ _,._._ tT. _. �. _.� ...`_... __-...._�.��....� .._ :_...� __ _ ,4 •ePCTA�s.-� �. � F - a3kffic'+v. _
NOV 19 19 80 am 45 PAGE 273
INDICATED TO FLORIDA LAND COMPANY THAT ONE PROJECT STANDING ALONE
WOULD REQUIRE A BINDING LETTER TO SEE WHETHER A DRI APPLIES - THE
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL FELT THIS WAS A REASONABLE REQUEST, HE
CONTINUED THAT HE INSTRUCTED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOT TO PROCESS
THE APPLICATION; THE MATTER THEN WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND
THE RESULT OF THAT HEARING WAS TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S
DECISION TO REFUSE TO PROCESS THE APPLICATION BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE
OF THE DEVELOPER TO SUBMIT A BINDING LETTER OF INTERPRETATION.
ATTORNEY SOVIERO ADVISED THAT THE AGENTS FOR FLORIDA LAND COMPANY STATED
THEY WOULD .INSTITUTE AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT TO HAVE THE DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS'OVERTURNED. HE ADDED THAT ATTORNEY
HENDERSON, REPRESENTING FLORIDA LAND COMPANY, INDICATED AN OFFER BY
THE DEVELOPER TO SECURE AN OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ATTORNEY HENDERSON CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND COMMENTED
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION, HOPEFULLY, WOULD ADDRESS WHETHER
OR NOT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WOULD HAVE THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO
DENY LOCAL PROCESS OF THE APPLICATION, BUT ALSO WHETHER THE ZONING
BOARD AND/OR THE COUNTY COMMISSION WOULD HAVE THAT POWER, WITHOUT AN
ORDINANCE OR STATE LAW GIVING THEM THAT AUTHORITY.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES.
ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD
TAKE A REQUEST FOR AN OPINION FROM AN INDIVIDUAL.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED WHAT DOES FLORIDA LAND COMPANY
WANT TO DO THAT THE COUNTY D0ES INOT WANT? , THEM TO DO?
ATTORNEY SOVIERO RESPONDED,STATING FLORIDA LAND COMPANY
WANTS TO HAVE TWO DEVELOPMENTS WHEN ONE PROJECT ALONE RAISES A QUESTION
OF DRI, AND THE BOARD WANTS THE DEVELOPER TO OBTAIN A BINDING LETTER
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS, IN FACT, A DRI.
ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT ATTORNEY SOVIERO WAS JUST
GIVING THE BOARD A SUMMARY FOR THEIR INFORMATION. HE ADDED THAT
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN A POSITION, AND THE DEVELOPER HAS
TAKEN THE MATTER TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS. THE ATTORNEY COMMENTED THAT THE DEVELOPER
WOULD LIKE TO AVOID OBTAINING A BINDING LETTER REGARDING THE DRI.
HE ADDED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENTS POSITION IS THAT THIS
INFORMATION IS NECESSARY CONCERNING THE DRI, AS IT WOULD BE VERY
HELPFUL TO THE COUNTY AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT IT WENT EVEN FURTHER THAN THAT,AS THE
DRI PROCESS IS SUCH THAT WE GET GREATER DEPTH OF REVIEW THAN WE ARE
ABLE TO GET ON A LOCAL BASIS.
MR. SHANNON EXPLAINED THAT IF THE BINDING LETTER APPLICATION
IS SUBMITTED, IT IS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THEY MUST MAKE A DETERMINATION IN 30 DAYS. HE CONTINUED THAT INFORMA-
TION IS SENT TO THE COUNTY AND THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL IN ORDER
TO ALLOW THEM TO COMMENT AND TO ASSIST THE STATE IN MAKING THEIR
DETERMINATION. MR. SHANNON COMMENTED THAT IF THE STATE MAKES THEIR
DETERMINATION AND THE COUNTY HAS A DISAGREEMENT, THEN IT CAN BE TAKEN
TO CIRCUIT COURT TO OVERTURN THEIR DECISION.
ATTORNEY HENDERSON AGAIN EXPLAINED THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD
LIKE TO AVOID THE TIME-CONSUMING, EXPENSIVE DRI BINDING LETTER, BUT
WOULD LIKE AN OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. HE REITERATED THAT
THE COUNTY HAS NO ORDINANCE OR LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE
DEVELOPER TO GET A BINDING LETTER.
DISCUSSION ENSUED, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THIS MATTER
BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT THE ATTORNEY PREPARE AN
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THRESHOLDS, AND THE ATTORNEY ADVISED THAT THEY
WERE INTO THAT PROCESS AT THIS POINT.
SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM - STATUS REPORT
UTILITIES DIRECTOR LINER APPROACHED THE BOARD TO DISCUSS
ITEM #1 IN THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM FROM JOHN ROBBINS:
29
ma. 45 FACE 274 .
NOV 191980
I
1 '1
November 18, 1980
SVERDRUP & PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
AND
BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
(A JOINT VENTURE)
MFMnPaNnIIM
Project No.
ROOK 45 PAGE 275
TO: George Liner, Utilities Dept.
Indian River County
FROM: John A. Robbin�oz_
SUBJECT: Status Report of Projects by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
and Beindorf and Associates, Inc. (A Joint Venture)
ITEM rl - SOUTH COUNTY TAX DISTRICT
Engineer's Project No. 6858
6674
Status of the South County Water System is as follows:
--Production Well #1 is currently under construction and is estimated
to be completed the first week of December, 1980. Alsay-Pippin will
be mobilizing a second drill rig for construction of Production Well
#2 on or about November 19, 1980. This activity should insure comple-
tion of the test well program within the allotted time requirements for
that contract. Water quality information should be available during the
second week of December, 1980.
--The Transmission Distribution System final design is on schedule, and
we hope to advertise for bidding on or about the third week of December,
1980.
--The process specification is being completed and the availability of
water quality data from the test well program will determine the exact
bid date for the process equipment. We are hoping to advertise for bid
on or about the end of December, 1980.
kf PLY Tn
I X� 3885 207H STRI:.ET
,'U`, I- Of- f ICI Iii X 84V
VFRO BEACH, f LORIUA J291,0
REPLY TO:
] 2002 N.W. 13TH STREET
SUITE 201
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32601
George Liner, Utilities Dept.
Indian River County
-2-
ITEM #2 - GIFFORD AREA SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENTS
November 18, 1980
Engineer's Project No. 5675-G
Status of Gifford Area Sewerage Improvements is as follows:
--Mr. Thomas Hoskins with FmHA in Gainesville, Florida, has verbally
given authorization to execute the original Contract Documents with
Driveways, Inc. We anticipate formal communication with FmHA by the
end of this week.
In any event, we will begin negotiating changes in scope.of work to
the original contract plans and specifications on Friday, November 21,
1980. The intention of these negotiations is to determine what modifi-
cations to unit prices and scope of work are necessary, due to the
delay in this project and relocation of the treatment facility. After
receiving revised cost figures from the Contractor, we will prepare a
change order to incorporate cost changes and adopt the revised techni-
cal specifications and construction drawings. Again, this procedure
has been approved by FmHA, State Offices in Gainesville.
We have received initial review comments on plans and specifications
submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation. These comments
will be incorporated into the plans and specifications prior to negotiat-
ing with Driveways, Inc. In addition, we have submitted a request to DER
for a 10 week extension of the construction schedule required by the
original permit for this project.
ITEM #3 - PEBBLE BAY AREA SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Engineer's Project No. 6765
Status of Pebble Bay Area Sewerage Improvements is as follows:
--We are continuing to work with the Utilities Department and the Town of
Indian River Shores to determine the overall system design for implementing
this project. We have been requested by the Town of Indian River Shores
to submit a proposal to them to perform engineering services to connect
the Town's system to the City of Vero Beach. As this project could be
viewed as a combined project, it has been noted one overall system design
would be in the best interest of the County, City and Town. We will be
presenting a basic overall system approach to the Town on Thursday,
November 20.
In addition, we will be working with the Utilities Department in the mean-
time for overall system design. After development of an overall system
approach with concurrence by the Town and County, we then would propose
to submit the system approach to the City of Vero Beach for their concur-
rence. Then, we would be in the position to proceed with final plans
and specifications.
NOV
191980 31 BOOK 45 PACE275
George Liner, Utilities Dept.
Indian River County
ITEM 7#4 - 201 FACILITIES PLAN
K
Boar 45. PAGE 277.
-3- November 18, 1980
Engineer's Project No. 6383-C
Status of the 201 Facilities Plan is as follows:
--On November 12, 1980, a meeting with County staff and Commissioner
Lyons was held in Mr. Jake Varnes' office, Secretary of the Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation, to discuss the 201 Facilities
Plan. At that meeting, it was concluded by all parties present the
County would not be required to file for an exemption petition.
Therefore, Step 1 approval of the 201 Plan could be given by Florida
DER. However, at that meeting it was noted that some resistance to
this plan may occur with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
We will address that potential problem when it occurs. In subsequent
telephone conversations with DER, Tallahassee on November 14, 1980,
it was learned several items must be submitted to DER before final
Step 1 approval is given. These items included submittal of public
hearing transcripts which the County has on file, submittal of resolu-
tions from participating municipalities approving the 201*P1an, and
any outstanding interlocal agreements. We recommend submitting a
sample resolution to the City of Vero Beach, Indian River Shores,
Sebastian and Fellsmere immediately. We also recommend these resolu-
tions be submitted by the Board of County Commissioners with a request
these resolutions be adopted as soon as possible. We are attempting
to resolve all of these items within the next two weeks.
The only outstanding interlocal agreement we are aware of is the
Wastewater Agreement between the Town of Indian River Shores, City of
Vero Beach and Indian River County. However, we understand this
agreement has been executed by all parties and may now be submitted
to DER. We will coordinate any and all submittals.
--We are currently compiling the necessary information for the Step 2
Grant Application submittal to EPA. Status on this activity will be
provided at a later date.
ITEM _#5 - THE LEGAL AGREEMENT REVIEW FOR Engineer's Project No. 6383-A
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Status of the Legal Agreement Review for the Utilities Department is
as follows:
--We have completed review of all interlocal Utilities Agreements and
are on standby for any further activity.
ITEM #6 - SOUTH BEACH WATER LINE EXTENSION Engineer's Project No. 6383-A
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
Status of the South Beach Water Line Extension Preliminary Cost
Estimates is as follows:
--We are still waiting on technical data on the City of Vero Beach's
system. We will proceed with preliminary design and cost estimates
as soon as the City's data is available to us.
ITEMS 2 THROUGH 6 WERE DISCUSSED LATER IN THE DAY.
32
MR. LINER ADVISED THAT THE SOUTH COUNTY SYSTEM PRODUCTION
WELL #1 WAS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND ON SCHEDULE, AND
CONSTRUCTION ON THE SECOND WELL WOULD BE STARTING THIS WEEK. HE
CONTINUED THAT THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM WAS IN ITS FINAL DESIGN AND
ON SCHEDULE, AND READY TO BE ADVERTISED FOR BIDDING THE THIRD WEEK
OF DECEMBER. MR. LINER COMMENTED THAT PROCESS SPECIFICATIONS WERE
BEING COMPLETED. AND THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER QUALITY DATA WILL DETERMINE
THE EXACT BID DATE OF THE PROCESS EQUIPMENT. HE WAS HOPEFUL THEY
WOULD ADVERTISE FOR THIS ABOUT THE END OF DECEMBER.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REFERRED TO THE PROJECTION FIGURES
FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY SYSTEM WHICH INDICATED 200 TO 300 GALLONS A
MINUTE FOR THE SHALLOW WELL AQUIFER, AND WONDERED IF TEST WELLS WERE
DONE TO DETERMINE THOSE FIGURES.
JOHN BOBBINS, ENGINEERING CONSULTANT, STATED THAT DETERMINA-
TION OF THE WELL YIELD FOR THE SHALLOW AQUIFER IN THE AREA WAS BASED
ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY GERAGHTY & MILLER. IN ADDITION, HE NOTED
THERE WAS INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ST. JOHNS WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, AND BY LOCAL WELL DRILLERS - THIS DATA WAS COLLECTED OVER
12 MONTHS, MR. BOBBINS ADVISED THAT THE TEST WELLS CONSTRUCTED IN
THE HOBART PARK AREA WERE DETERMINED TO YIELD 200 TO 400 GALLONS PER
MINUTE; IN ADDITION, PREDICTIONS ON DRAW DOWNS WERE ALSO MADE A PART
OF THE REPORT ON THE HOBART WELL FIELD.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT GERAGHTY & MILLER MADE
CERTAIN STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY WELL FIELD AND THEIR
PROJECTIONS WERE CONSIDERABLY BELOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE WELL
FIELD AREA.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT TEST WELLS.
MR. BOBBINS ADVISED THAT THE COUNTY DID NOT SPECIFICALLY
CONSTRUCT A TEST WELL IN THE SOUTH COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT.
CHAIRMAN LYONS INTERJECTED THAT THIS WAS NOT DONE BY THE
COUNTY; HOWEVER, THERE WAS DATA AVAILABLE ON OTHER WELLS IN THAT
AREA, FOR EXAMPLE, VISTA ROYALE.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK QUESTIONED THE ADVISABILITY OF CHANGING
FROM THE LIME TREATMENT PROCESS USED BY THE CITY TO THE COUNTY'S
COMMITMENT TO THE REVERSE OSMOSIS PROCESS AT THIS TIME.
33
Nov 191980
� J
mom 45, pArx 2i-91
MR. ROBBINS NOTED THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO BACK
UP AT THIS POINT, AND HE DID NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO PURSUE ANOTHER SOURCE OF DATER
AT THIS POINT, OTHER THAN THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER, WITHIN THE NEXT 20
YEARS. MR. ROBBINS COMMENTED THAT THE OVERALL APPROACH OF THE PROJECT
WAS TO LOOK AT THE LONG TERM EFFECT, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION BOTH
THE CAPITAL COST AND THE OVERALL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST FOR
THE SYSTEMS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, HE STATED THEY HAVE TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND- WELFARE, AND TO GIVE CONSIDERATION
AS TO THE SECURITY OF THE WATER RESOURCE. MR. ROBBINS STATED THEY
MUST CONSIDER THE ULTIMATE DRAWDOWN AND THE OVERALL NET EFFECT OF A
VERY LARGE SCALE WITHDRAWAL FROM A PARTICULAR AQUIFER THAT MAY, ACCORDING
TO DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, LEAD TO THE INTRUSION OF SEA WATER WITHIN THE
AQUIFER OF THE WHOLE AREA. HE STATED THAT THOSE WERE THE TYPES OF
CONSIDERATIONS THAT WERE MADE IN RECOMMENDING REVERSE OSMOSIS FROM THE
FLORIDAN AQUIFER. ALTHOUGH THE ECONOMICS ARE VERY CLOSE, AND THEY
LOOKED AT THEM FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE MAKING THIS RECOMMENDA—
TION, THE OVERALL NET EFFECT OF THE SECURED RESOURCE AND UNINTERRUPTED
SUPPLY OF WATER AND THE LONGEVITY OF THAT SUPPLY WAS PARAMOUNT IN
MAKING THEIR DECISION.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED HE WAS HAVING A PROBLEM BECAUSE
HE WAS LOOKING AT A 1.3 MILLION DOLLAR DIFFERENTIAL IN CAPITAL, AND
AN OPERATING COST OF $77,000 A YEAR. HE FELT THEY MAY HAVE SOME NEW
PROCESSES IN THE FUTURE.
MR. ROBBINS NOTED THE 'ONE THI,NG.THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED, 'THAT
WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THEY PREPARED THEIR REPORT,WAS THE
PENDING REGULATIONS BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ON WATER
QUALITY,. HE ADDED THAT CURRENTLY THE CITY OF VERO BEACH WAS OPERATING
UNDER A SPECIFIC GUIDELINE OF WATER QUALITY AND AS OF JANUARY 19, 1981,
THE EPA SECONDARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS WILL BE ADOPTED, MR,
ROBBINS NOTED, WITH THAT IN MIND, THERE IS AN UPPER LIMITATION FOR THE LIME
SOFTENING PROCESS THAT CAN BE USED TO TREAT THE SHALLOW AQUIFER HE STATED THAT
34
THE PROCESS ITSELF HAS LIMITATIONS AND ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME
SHORT TERM ECONOMIC GAINS, THEY CAN SEE RIGHT NOW THE NET EFFECT
WOULD BE COMPLETELY UPDATING THE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY WITHIN JUST A
FEW YEARS AS THE AQUIFER CONTINUES TO DEGRADE. IN ADDITION TO THAT,
HE STATED THAT A NEW FACILITY, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, WOULD HAVE TO
HAVE WATER RECLAMATION EQUIPMENT WHICH THE CITY OF SERO BEACH DOES
NOT HAVE CURRENTLY, MR. ROBBINS ADVISED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION WILL NO LONGER ALLOW YOU TO DISCHARGE LIME
SLUDGE INTO THE SHALLOW AQUIFERa THAT WOULD ALSO ADD TO THE OVERALL
DEGRADATION OF THE WATER QUALITY IN THE AREA. HE CONTINUED THAT THERE
IS AN OVERLAP OF THE WELL FIELD — THE ZONE OF INFLUENCE OF THE DRAW
DOWN OF THE WELL FIELD — IN THE CITY OF VERO BEACH WHICH EXTENDS INTO
THE SOUTH COUNTY TAX DISTRICT. MR. ROBBINS REITERATED THAT FOR THE
OVERALL WELL FIELD — THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REQUIRED UNDER THE SHALLOW
AQUIFER SCHEME FOR THE SOUTH TAX DISTRICT, WILL ALSO OVERLAP INTO THE
CITY OF VERO BEACH WELL FIELD — IT THEN BECOMES A MATTER OF APPLYING
FOR ISSUANCE OF A WATER USE PERMIT. HE ADDED THAT IT WOULD THEN
BE TWO ENTITIES COMPETING FOR THE SAME RESOURCE, AND WITH THE PRESENT
INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, IT IS FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED, MR. ROBBINS
COMMENTED THE COUNTY WOULD BASICALLY BE IN THE POSITION OF NOT
NECESSARILY HAVING THEIR RESOURCE SECURED FOREVER, AND THIS ALSO HAD
TO BE CONSIDERED IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION. MR. ROBBINS THEN STATED
THAT HE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO SIT DOWN WITH ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS
AND GO OVER THE ENTIRE REPORT'IWITH HIS DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE. HE
WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THIS EITHER AT A SPECIAL HEARING, OR ON A ONE
TO ONE BASIS, IN ORDER FOR THE BOARD TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE
18 MONTHS THAT THEY DID SPEND ON THE REPORT. MR. ROBBINS FELT THAT
THIS SHOULD BE DONE VERY QUICKLY, SO THEN CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT THEY WILL CONTINUE ON THEIR PRESENT SCHEME, HE ADVISED THAT THEY
ARE IN THE PROCESS OF OUTLINING ALL OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
FMHA TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT, AND GETTING VERY CLOSE TO ISSUING THE
BONDS TO FUND THE PROJECT. MR, ROBBINS THEN RECOMMENDED THAT THEY
DO THIS QUICKLY, IF THAT WAS THEIR WISH.
NOV 191990
35
NOVA 91980
900K 4.5 pAcE 281
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED ON THE REVERSE OSMOSIS
PROCESS, AND ASKED IF MR. ROBBINS ANT11CIPATED MORE SALT WATER INTRUSION
INTO -THE AQUIFER.
MR. ROBBINS NOTED THAT THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER IS A DEEP
AQUIFER LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 400' BELOW GROUND SURFACE.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF THEY ARE GOING TO THE DEEP
AQUIFER AND USING REVERSE OSMOSIS, AND ENGINEER ROBBINS RESPONDED
AFFIRMATIVELY.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT THERE WAS SALT WATER INTRUSION
IN THE DEEP AQUIFER RIGHT NOW, AND ASKED MR, ROBBINS IF THAT WAS
CORRECT.
MR. ROBBINS RESPONDED THAT IN CERTAIN AREAS, THERE WAS SALT
WATER INTRUSION. HE CONTINUED THAT WHEN YOU TALK OF SALT WATER INTRUSION,
YOU ARE TALKING IN TERMS OF 10,000 TO 12,000 PARTS PER MILLION, NOT
800 OR 900, MR. ROBBINS REPORTED THAT THE EPA AND THE DER FIGURES
FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IS 500 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER FOR COMMUNITY
DRINKING, AFTER TREATMENT.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT HE DID NOT FEEL A LOT OF
PEOPLE KNEW THAT THE DEEP AQUIFER WAS BEING IMPREGNATED WITH SALT
WATER RIGHT NOW TODAY, AND IT WAS GETTING WORSE. HE THEN ASKED IF
THAT WAS A CORRECT STATEMENT.
MR. ROBBINS COMMENTED THAT IT WAS, PARTIALLY. HE CONTINUED
THAT THERE IS A HYDRAULIC INTERFACE BETWEEN THE OCEAN AND THE FLORIDAN
AQUIFER SEVERAL MILES OFFSHORE. HE ADDED THAT THERE IS A LEAKAGE FROM
THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER INTO THE OCEAN SEVERAL MILES OFFSHORE. MR.
ROBBINS POINTED OUT THAT IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT
THERE IS NOT SOME FORM OF DIFFUSION OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN BACK INTO
THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER, HOWEVER, THE DEPTHS OF ZONE EOR PRODUCTION OF
TREATABLE WATER ARE ON THE RANGE FROM 0 TO APPROXIMATELY 1,000' BELOW
GRADE. HE CONTINUED THAT THE HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF CHLORIDES, AS
A RESULT OF SEA WATER INTRUSION, ARE IN THE AREAS OF 1500' TO 2000'.
MR. ROBBINS ADVISED THE ENTIRE FORMATION OF THE AQUIFER IS MADE UP
OF VARIOUS TYPES OF STONE, SHELL FRAGMENTS, SAND, MINERAL DEPOSITS -
A MAJORITY OF THAT SEA WATER WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE AQUIFER DURING
THE FORMATION OF THE LAND MASS WE CALL FLORIDA. MR. ROBBINS REPORTED
THAT IT WAS TRAPPED AS THE WATERS RECEDED, AS FAR AS THEY CAN
DETERMINE. SO, HE CONTINUED, THERE HAS BEEN AN INTERFACE OF SEA
WATER INTO THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER, AND THIS COULD HAVE OCCURRED AS A
GEOLOGIC PRECEDENCE TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA OR IT ALSO COULD OCCUR
BY METHODOLOGY OF DIFFUSION BETWEEN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN AND THE FLORIDAN
AQUIFER AS WE KNOW IT NOW, MR, ROBBINS SUMMARIZED BY STATING THAT
YES, IN ONE RESPECT THERE IS SOME SEA WATER INTRUSION IN THE FLORIDAN
AQUIFER, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, N0, WE DO NOT FEEL IT TO BE A THREAT
TO THIS PARTICULAR WATER RESOURCE AND THE TREATMENT METHODOLOGY
THAT WE HAVE PREDICTED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REFERRED TO THE QUALITY OF STANDARDS
THAT ARE PROPOSED TO TAKE EFFECT AND ASKED WHY THE CITY OF VERO BEACH
WAS GOING WITH AN EXPANSION OF 4.5 MILLION GALLONS A DAY.
MR. ROBBINS RESPONDED THAT HE COULD NOT ANSWER THAT,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECESSED AT 12:18 O'CLOCK
P.M. FOR LUNCH AND RECONVENED AT 1:45 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME
MEMBERS PRESENT. DEPUTY CLERK VIRGINIA HARGREAVES TOOK OVER FOR
DEPUTY CLERK .JANICE CALDWELL FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING.
NOV 191980 37 Boo 4& PAu 282
I
NOV 191980
.�, .off i,� G _VToiv goo
bom 45 PACF'283
CHAIRMAN LYONS EXPLAINED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEW COMMIS—
SIONERS THAT THE GIFFORD SEWER SYSTEM COLLECTS ALL THE SEWAGE AND
THEN DUMPS IT UNTREATED INTO A DITCH, WE., THEREFORE, ARE UNDER CITA—
TION BY THE DER AND HAVE INDICATED TO THEM THAT WE ARE BUSY PUTTING
IN A SEWER SYSTEM THAT WILL TREAT THE SEWAGE. HE NOTED THAT THE
SEWER PLANT WAS A GIFT TO THE COUNTY FROM A DEVELOPER; WE HAVE TO
SUPPLY THE PROPERTY FOR THE SITE OF THE PLANT AND RUN THE LINES.
UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER SUPPLIED MORE BACKGROUND, NOTING
THAT FOR VARIOUS REASONS WE HAVE FOUND IT EXPEDIENT TO MOVE FROM
A PREVIOUS SITE TO A NEWLY SELECTED SITE. HE NOTED THAT OUR ORIGINAL
DER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT STILL APPLIES WITH THE ORIGINAL DEADLINE.
HE CONTINUED THAT THE COMMISSION HAD ASKED, BECAUSE OF THE TIME
REQUIREMENTS, THAT THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONTRACT BE RENEGOTIATED
WITH THE BIDDER, AND HIS REPORT PICKS UP FROM THAT POINT. MR. LINER
EXPLAINED THAT WE WERE CAUGHT BETWEEN FMHA AND THE DFR AS TO CON—
FLICTING REQUIREMENTS, BUT WE BELIEVE. WE NOW HAVE THEM WORKED OUT
SO WE CAN NEGOTIATE AND STILL STAY WITHIN SCHEDULE. HE REPORTED
THAT BECAUSE OF THE LEAD TIME NEEDED ON THE LIFT STATION PUMPS, WE
HAVE ASKED FOR A TEN WEEK EXTENSION, AND IT IS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT
THE DER HAS GRANTED THIS,
ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT WE NOW OWN THE
PROPERTY ON WHICH WE WILL LOCATE THE PLANT; IT WAS PURCHASED LAST
THURSDAY.
CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THESE
ITEMS APPEAR ON THE AGENDA ON A REGULAR BASIS AND HAVE A BRIEF UPDATING
AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH IN ORDER TO KEEP ON TOP OF THIS PROJECT.
wilsET-dWOR =1013
UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THERE HAS BEEN
A BREAKTHROUGH IN THE BOTTLENECK TYPING UP THE 201 PLAN.
CHAIRMAN LYONS EXPLAINED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEW MEMBERS
THAT SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT THE DER WAS GOING TO
CONTINUE TO CHANGE ITS REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING
PROCEDURES WE HOPED TO EMPLOY IN PROVING OUT THE USE OF THE MOSQUITO
CONTROL IMPOUNDMENTS FOR THE EFFLUENT. WE PREVIOUSLY WERE GOING TO
USE THE VISTA ROYALE PROJECT FOR A TEST GROUND; THERE WAS A THREE-
MONTH TEST PERIOD; AND THE COST WAS MINIMAL. THE TEST REQUIREMENTS,
HOWEVER, BEGAN TO GROW AND GROW UNTIL IT WOULD TAKE A YEAR TO COMPLETE
THEM. CHAIRMAN LYONS REPORTED THAT WE TOOK THIS PROBLEM TO REPRE-
SENTATIVE DALE PATCHETT, WHO IS THE NATURAL RESOURCES SUB -COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN FOR THE STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND HE ARRANGED
A MEETING WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DER AND ALL OF THE OTHER
PEOPLE WHO HAD HAD SOMETHING TO SAY IN THE DER IN CONNECTION WITH
THE 201 PLAN. THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT HE, ATTORNEY COLLINS, FNGINEER
.JOHN ROBBINS, AND BRIAN BARNETT OF THE GAME & FRESH WATER FISH COM-
MISSION WENT TO THIS MEETING IN TALLAHASSEE, AT WHICH TIME IT WAS
PRETTY WELL DETERMINED THAT THEY WERE ASKING US FOR A LOT OF THING
WE PROBABLY DID NOT NEED, AND THEY AGREED TO GO BACK AND CHANGE A
LOT OF THE REQUIREMENTS.
UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER STATED THAT HE UNDERSTANDS FROM
ENGINEER JOHN ROBBINS THAT THE DER WILL ACCEPT OUR DESIGN, AND WE CAN
PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT AS IT HAS BEEN PRESENTED.
ENGINEER ROBBINS DISCUSSED THE STEPS WE STILL NEED TO
COMPLETE, NOTING THAT HE HAD BEEN TOLD ALL THAT WAS NEEDED WAS CERTIFI-
CATION OF THE 201 PUBLIC HEARING, BUT HE NOW HAS BEEN FURTHER INFORMED
THAT WE NEED TO SEND A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT HEARING AND COPIES OF
THE MUNICIPALITIES SUPPORTING RESOLUTIONS. MR. ROBBINS FELT IF
WE CAN GET THIS MATERIAL TO THE DER QUICKLY, WE WILL GET AN IMMEDIATE
RESPONSE ON STEP 1 APPROVAL, HE STATED THAT HE HAS A COPY OF THE
RESOLUTION WHICH THE COUNTY ADOPTED IN THIS REGARD AND RECOMMENDED
THAT THE BOARD CONTACT OR DESIGNATE HIM TO CONTACT THE MUNICIPALITIES
IN ORDER TO GET THEIR RESOLUTIONS QUICKLY.
NOV 191980 39 Bmx 45 FAc.E284
NOV 191990 Baas 45 *E 2$5
CHAIRMAN LYONS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT REPRESENTATIVE PATCHETT
FELT VERY STRONGLY THAT IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THE 201 PLAN, WE SHOULD
GET EVERYTHING COMPLETED AND TO ATLANTA BEFORE THE FIRST OF THE YEAR.
ENGINEER ROBBINS CONTINUED THAT IN ORDER TO GO FOR THE EPA
FUNDING, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SUBMIT A STEP 2 GRANT APPLICATION,
AND HIS FIRM IS PREPARED TO DO THIS VERY QUICKLY AND WILL SUBMIT A
PROPOSAL.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED ABOUT THE RESOLUTION BEING
DISCUSSED, AND ENGINEER ROBBINS PRESENTED HIM WITH A COPY OF THE
COUNTY RESOLUTION TO REVIEW.
ENGINEER ROBBINS EXPLAINED THAT THE MUNICIPALITIES WERE
SUPPOSED TO HAVE INDICATED THEIR SUPPORT OF THE 201 PLAN THROUFH
THEIR TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER AND WERE TO ISSUE THEIR
RESOLUTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD. SINCE THE TECHNICAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISSIPATED, HOWEVER, THEY HAVE TAKEN NO FURTHER
ACTION.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON SETTING UP A MEETING WITH THE MUNICI-
PALITIES TO BRING THEM UP TO DATE ON THE 201 PLAN AND POSSIBLY REACTI-
VATING THE 201 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK POINTED OUT THAT THE CITY OF VERO
BEACH IS INVOLVED IN ELECTIONS AT THIS TIME AND PRESENTLY HAS ONLY
A THREE MAN COUNCIL, HE EMPHASIZED THERE WOULD NOT BE TIME BEFORE
.JANUARY TO GO THROUGH THE TAC AND THEN HAVE THE MUNICIPALITIES TAKE
ACTION.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON SUGGESTED THAT IT MIGHT BE PREFERABLE
TO SEND A LETTER TO THE VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES WITH A COPY OF THE
RESOLUTION AND EXPLAIN THE SITUATION.
ENGINEER ROBBINS AGREED WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR'S SUGGESTION
AND OFFERED TO FOLLOW UP SUCH A LETTER WITH A PHONE CALL OR PERSONALLY
DELIVER THE LETTER AND CO OVER THE SITUATION WITH THEM. HE FELT THAT
THE WINDOW FOR APPROVAL IN TALLAHASSEE MAY BE VERY NARROW.
THE BOARD AGREED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD WRITE SUCH
A LETTER FOR THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE TO BE DELIVERED BY ENGINEER
ROBBINS AS DISCUSSED.
40 :m
-\
ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF ENGINEER ROBBINS NEEDED AUTHORITY
TO MOVE ON STEP 2. MR. ROBBINS STATED THAT THEY DO NEED AUTHORIZATION
TO PREPARE THE STEP 2 APPLICATION; THERE WILL BE SOME FEES; AND HE
WOULD HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR SUBMITTING THE STEP 2 APPLICATION READY
BY THE NEXT AGENDA.
CHANGE ORDERS - RENOVATION OF COURTHOUSE
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE HERCULES KONTOULAS
APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD TO DISCUSS CHANGE ORDER #4 FOR THE COUNTY
COURTHOUSE. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,569.73, AND
MR. KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT A PARAGRAPH WAS ADDED TO THE EFFECT THAT
THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE WORK MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL TIME BEING
REQUIRED BEYOND THE CONTRACT COMPLETIONIAND THE OWNER AT A LATER
TIME WILL CONSIDER THE TIME EXTENSIONS WHICH THE CONTRACT MAY ASK FOR.
MR. KONTOULAS NOTED THAT HE MET WITH THE CONTRACTOR, AND IT WAS DE-
CIDED TO HAVE THIS PARAGRAPH ON EACH CHANGE ORDER IN ORDER NOT TO
CAUSE A DELAY NOW DICKERING ABOUT THE LENGTH OF TIME NEEDED.
CHANGE ORDER #4 DEALS WITH CHANGES TO THE CIRCUIT COURTROOMS
AND LOBBY WALLS. MR, KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT, IN THE COURSE OF RE-
MODELING, WINDOWS WERE ELIMINATED WHICH LEFT A VOID IN THE PANELING,
AND, THEREFORE, THE CHANGE ORDER WAS RECOMMENDED BY HIM TO THE
ARCHITECTS AS A NECESSITY FOR THE SAKE OF APPEARANCE. HE INFORMED
THE BOARD THAT WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT CEILING HEIGHTS IN THE COURTROOMS
9:'!3" "AND 11'4" - AND HAVE TWO WALLS THAT ARE DRYWALL. MR. KONTOULAS
STATED THAT THESE PROBLEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH ON THE CON-
STRUCTION PLANS, BUT THIS IS ANOTHER ERROR BY THE ARCHITECTS.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE INQUIRED ABOUT THE PROBABLE COST AND
WHETHER IT WOULD BE SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $13,000.
MR. KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT ON THE CONTRACTORS COST SHEET,
THEY WANTED 20 EXTRA DAYS AT THE RATE OF $300.00 A DAY; SO, RATHER
THAN GIVE THEM A BLANK OKAY RIGHT NOW WITH MATERIAL AND LABOR PLUS
DAYS, HE ASKED THE CONTRACTOR TO HOLD THIS IN ABEYANCE TO SEE IF IT
ACTUALLY WILL REQUIRE 20 DAYS ADDITIONAL.
NOV 191980 41 BOOK 45 FAuE•286
NOV 191980
BOOK 45 PnE 287
COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF HE IS TRYING TO SAY THAT THE
CONTRACTOR FEELS TO PUT THE PANELING UP WILL REQUIRE 20 DAYS TIME,
AND MR. KONTOULAS NOTED THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS SAYING THAT IT COULD,
BUT NOT THAT IT NECESSARILY WILL.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED WHAT THE NET RESULT WOULD BE
IF THIS CHANGE ORDER WERE NOT APPROVED, AND MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT
THE COURTROOMS WOULD BE A COMBINATION OF DRYWALL AND PANELING WHICH
WOULD BE VERY UNSIGHTLY. HE WENT ON TO EXPLAIN IN DETAIL THAT WHERE
THE WINDOWS WERE TAKEN OUT, THERE IS JUST DRYWALL INTERMITTENTLY
AMID PANELING.
COMMISSIONER BIRD WISHED TO KNOW THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS TAKEN
OUT WHICH LEFT VOIDS THAT MUST BE FILLED IN. MR. KONTOULAS STATED
THAT THERE WAS ONE WINDOW REMOVED IN EACH COURTROOM; SEVEN WINDOWS
ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT AND ONE BECOMES A DOOR OPENING.
COMMISSIONER BIRD THEN ASKED IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT $13,000
TO FILL THOSE INDENTATIONS, AND MR. KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT WAS THE
AMOUNT REQUIRED TO DO THE WHOLE ROOM; THE PANELING WILL BE LAMINATED
OVER THE DRYWALL.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE DISCUSSED THE ACTUAL COSTS OF MATERIAL
AND LABOR INVOLVED, PLUS 26% ALLOWED FOR OVERHEAD AND A POSSIBILITY OF
20 EXTRA DAYS, HE FELT THIS WORK MUST BE DONE, BUT NOTED THAT IT IS
A VERY EXPENSIVE ITEM AND AN EXPENSIVE MISTAKE FOR US TO HAVE TO
SWALLOW.
MR. KONTOULAS POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE COMPLETION WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE ARCHITECT, DISCUSS THESE
MISTAKES, AND POSSIBLY GET SOME REBATE OR PERHAPS EVEN END UP IN
COURT.
ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED ON THE ADDED PARAGRAPH ON THE
CHANGE ORDER ABOUT EXTRA TIME, WHICH HE FELT AMOUNTS TO ACQUIESCENCE
ON THE PART OF THE BOARD THAT WE MIGHT END UP WITH 20 DAYS ADDITIONAL,
AND WE, THEREFORE, WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO DENY'THE 20 DAYS AT THE
END OF THE JOB.
42
MR. KONTOULAS REITERATED THAT WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED THE
CHANGE ORDERS, THE CONTRACTOR WANTED A BLANK OKAY ON ANY EXTRA DAYS
THEY WOULD REQUEST. THIS WAS REFUSED, AND THE PARAGRAPH IN QUESTION
WAS WORKED OUT AS A COMPROMISE. MR, KONTOULAS FELT THIS WILL BECOME
A BATTLE LATER ON, BUT HE WOULD RATHER NOT GET INTO IT RIGHT NOW.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED IF WE HAVE PUT THE CONTRACTOR
ON NOTICE THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A BATTLE AND WAS INFORMED THAT THEY
ARE AWARE OF IT, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE FORMALLY. COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER FELT IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO HANDLE THESE EXTENSIONS ONE AT
A TIME INSTEAD OF ALL AT ONCE.
ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED CHANGING THE AMOUNT OF DAYS SET
OUT ON THE CHANGE ORDER, BUT MR. KONTOULAS AND THE ADMINISTRATOR
STATED THAT IS NOT OUR OPTION AND FURTHER THAT IT WOULD DELAY THINGS
IF THE CHANGE ORDER WERE TO BE CHANGED AT THIS POINT.
CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT MR. KONTOULAS HAS HAD CONSIDERABLE
EXPERIENCE IN THESE SITUATIONS AND ASKED WHAT HIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN
IN THE PAST.
MR. KONTOULAS COMMENTED THAT ON THE LAST TWO JOBS HE WAS ON,
THIS WAS HANDLED AT SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION.
DISCUSSION AROSE AS TO HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT PROVING WHETHER
THE CONTRACTOR ACTUALLY TOOK 20 EXTRA DAYS FOR THE WORK AS ESTIMATED
AND WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL DAYS REQUESTED FOR DIFFERENT ITEMS ARE
ADDED PROGRESSIVELY TO THE END OF THE CONTRACT.
MR. KONTOULAS REPORTED THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK HIS DAILY
REPORTS IN REGARD TO THE WORK BEING DONE, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON
CONFIRMED THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS TO JUSTIFY GETTING THE ADDITIONAL
DAYS REQUESTED. MR. KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS A GRAPHED TIME
SCHEDULE WHICH THE CONTRACTOR HAS SUBMITTED. ON THIS GRAPH, CERTAIN
AMOUNTS OF WORK ARE SCHEDULED FOR CERTAIN PERIODS OF TIME. TO
DETERMINE THIS ZO DAYS, THE CONTRACTOR HAS LOOKED BACK AT THE GRAPH
AND DETERMINED THAT TO GO BACK IN THIS AREA AND DO THIS PARTICULAR
WORK, IT MAY REQUIRE ZO MORE DAYS TO FINISH OTHER WORK THAT THIS HAS
TAKEN TIME FROM. HE CONTINUED THAT WE ALSO HAVE A COMPUTER COST -OUT
OF EACH ITEM, WHICH IS RELATED BACK TO THIS GRAPH,
NOV 19 19 80 43 45 m r88
r -1
NOV 191980 am 45 PAUF?S9
COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED HOW LONG THE CHANGE PROPOSAL
HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER, AND MR. KONTOULAS STATED
THAT HE SENT THE ORIGINAL SKETCH TO THE ARCHITECT BACK IN JUNE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE HAS VISITED THE COURTROOM
AREA, AND IT LOOKED AS IF THE DRYWALL WORK WAS PRETTY WELL DONE. HE
ASKED WHAT THE HOLD-UP WAS ON THIS CHANGE ORDER.
MR. KONTOULAS REPLIED THAT THE ARCHITECT DID NOT GET THIS
BACK TO US. HE STATED THAT BASICALLY THEY ARE FINISHED UPSTAIRS WITH
THE DRYWALL EXCEPT FOR TWO WALLS IN THE TWO COURTROOMS.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK AGAIN EMPHASIZED THAT HE FELT THE
CONTRACTOR AND ARCHITECT SHOULD BE FORMALLY ADVISED OF THE PROBLEM.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT HE HAS WRITTEN LETTERS ABOUT
THIS AND EVEN ARRANGED TO HAVE A RESIDENT ARCHITECT UP HERE TO TRY TO
SPEED UP THE SITUATION, WHICH HAS HELPED SOME; HAVING AN ARCHITECT
IN MIAMI, HOWEVER, CAUSES A SITUATION THAT JUST TAKES TIME, AND, IN
ADDITION, SINCE WE HIRED THE FIRM, THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE OF ARCHI-
TECTS WITHIN THE FIRM.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE BROUGHT UP THE WORDING ON THE PROPOSED
CHANGE ORDER, NOTING THAT IT SAYS THE PROPOSED CHANGES MAY RESULT IN
ADDITIONAL TIME AND THEN GOES ON IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH TO SAY THAT
ADDITIONAL TIME WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONTRACT. HE FELT THE `WILL"
SHOULD BE CHANGED TO It MAY. It
ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT MR. KONTOULAS SHOULD TELL US WHAT
TIME GENERALLY SHOULD BE EXPENDED, HE STATED THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM
WITH CHANGING ItWILL If TO It MAY HOWEVER, HE BELIEVED THIS IS OPENING
THE DOOR FOR THE CONTRACTOR TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL TIME.
MR. KONTOULAS EMPHASIZED THAT IN ORDER TO MEET OUR TIME
SCHEDULE,.HE WOULD RATHER NOT DICKER ABOUT ADDITIONAL DAYS RIGHT NOW.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF MR. KONTOULAS ANTICIPATED
THAT THIS JOB WILL GO OVER CONTRACT, AND MR. KONTOULAS ANSWERED THAT
ON THE COURTHOUSE PROJECT, IF THIS CHANGE ORDER WERE APPROVED, WE
WOULD BE $231)665 OVER THE CONTRACT SUM, AND ON THE ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING, WE ARE $118,000 OVER. HE BELIEVED THIS IS DUE TO LACK OF
INFORMATION, INCOMPLETENESS OF DRAWINGS, ETC.
CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED FOR THE COMMISSION'S WISH IN CONNECTION
WITH CHANGE ORDER #4 ON THE COURTHOUSE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT, IN HIS OPINION, THIS REALLY
IS NOT A CHANGE ORDER - IT IS WORK THAT WAS NOT INSTRUCTED TO BE DONE,
AND WE REALLY DON'T HAVE AN OPTION.
MR. KONTOULAS AGREED THAT WHAT THE SPECIFICATIONS CALL FOR
IS A "MISMATCH," AND THAT IS WHAT WE WILL GET IF THIS WORK IS NOT DONE.
COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED WHAT IT WOULD DO TO THE TIME SCHEDULE
IF THE BOARD DID NOT APPROVE THIS CHANGE ORDER.
MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE WITHDRAWN
AND THE DAYS EXTENDED, AND IT WOULD COST MORE MONEY. HE NOTED THEY
ARE READY TO GO AHEAD ON THIS RIGHT NOW.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON CONFIRMED THAT IT IS THEIR STRONG
RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS CHANGE ORDER BE ACCEPTED. HE NOTED THAT THEY
SET THE STAGE TO HAVE SOME RECOURSE TO GO BACK BECAUSE THE CONTRACTOR
ORIGINALLY WANTED TO HAVE THE 20 DAYS GUARANTEED, BUT THIS WAS NEGOTI-
ATED AND COMPROMISED WITH THE WORDING ON THE CHANGE ORDER.
DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT CHANGING THE WORDING ON THE CHANGE
ORDER AS SUGGESTED EARLIER, AND MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT HE WOULD
GET THE "WILL" CHANGED TO "MAY" ON THE NEXT CHANGE ORDER. THE BOARD
GENERALLY FELT THEY WISHED TO HAVE IT CHANGED ON THIS CHANGE ORDER
AND SUGGESTED THAT IT BE CHANGED AND INITIALED AND SENT TO THE
CONTRACTOR THAT WAY.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK BELIEVED WE HAVE TO RELY ON THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT NOTED THAT HE WILL BE LOOKING
AT THIS CLOSELY IN THE FUTURE.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD ACCEPTED
CHANGE ORDER #4 FOR THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE WITH THE
CHANGING OF THE WORD "WILL" TO "MAY" AND AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE OF
THE CHAIRMAN.
45 80015 ����290
NOV 19 190
C- HANGkOV 19 1980 OLti'NER ❑
ARCHITECT
ORDER CONTRACTOR H Boa , 45 PACE 291
FIELD ❑
t' AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER
PROJECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 4 (four)
(name, address) County Courthouse
TO (Contractor)
Reinhold Construction
ARCHITECT'S PROTECT NO:
� .
P.O, Box 666 CONTRACT FOR.Additions and
Cocoa, Florida 32922 Renovations
L CONTRACT DATE: 4-2-80
You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract:
Changes to the courtrooms and lobby at the request of the owner,
see attached Change Proposal No. 16A, $7,569.73
The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time
kelated
•equired beyond the contract completion date. Additional time
be added to the contract, not to exceed 20 days, that is directly to this change order. The contractor will be paid for the
additional required days at the rate of $300,00 (three hundred) per
day for fixed overhead costs.
The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 689,000,00
Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 16,096, 17
The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 705,o96.17
The Contract Sum will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by this Change Order . . . S 7,569-73
The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . $ 712,665.90
The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( 201 ) Days.
The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is N/A
CONNELL METCALF & EDDY REINHOLD_C_O_NSTRUC_TION _ INDIAN -RIVER COUNTY COMMISSION
C i TE T ONTRACTC) ti"�E
b__out_h Dixie Highway P BOX
2� 5 4th Avenue
Address Ad Address
Coral Gables, FloridaA3134 ocoa, F1 ¢� 32 Vero Beach-, Florida 32960
WrA
ENO 6W06'A a-
• �/M V ff--M
AIA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER ° APRIL 1970 EDITION ^ AIAS ° 0 1970 ° THE ONE PAGE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
MR. KONTOULAS NEXT DISCUSSED CHANGE ORDER PROPOSAL IFR,
NOTING THAT HE NORMALLY DOES NOT PRESENT CHANGE ORDER PROPOSALS TO THE
BOARD, BUT SINCE THIS ONE INVOLVES APPROXIMATELY $30,000, HE FELT HE
SHOULD HAVE THE BOARD'S APPROVAL BEFORE ASKING THAT THE CHANGE ORDER
BE WRITTEN. MR. KONTOULAS NOTED THAT THERE ARE ERRORS IN SOME OF THE
FIGURES ON THE BREAKDOWN, AND THIS WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF IF WE PROCEED
WITH THE CHANGE ORDER, HE THEN WENT TO THE EASEL TO POINT OUT ON A
CHART, THE ROOMS INVOLVED, I.E., JURY ROOM, HEARING ROOMS, ANTEROOM,
SECRETARIAL AREA, FOUR CIRCUIT COURT .JUDGES' OFFICES, AND COURTROOMS.
HE STATED THAT EVERYTHING IN THIS AREA IS PROPOSED TO BE DONE IN
VARIOUS GRADES OF PANELING AS PER JUDGE SMITH'S REQUEST. HE PASSED
OUT SAMPLES OF MATERIALS AND NOTED THAT A VENEER WITH A BACKING ON IT
WOULD GO IN THE COURTROOMS OVER THE DRYWALL BECAUSE OF THE THICKNESS
OF THE WALL. THE OTHER ROOMS WOULD GO TO REAL PANELING - THE JURY
ROOMS AND HEARING ROOMS TO BE DONE IN A LOW GRADE WOOD PANELING -
THE SECRETARIAL AREA AND THE .JUDGES' WAITING ROOMS TO BE DONE IN A
MEDIUM GRADE PANELING, AND THE .JUDGES' OFFICES TO BE DONE IN A GOOD
GRADE OF PANELING. MR, KONTOULAS STATED THAT IT WOULD COST $17,000
TO INSTALL THE PROPOSED MATERIAL IN THE COURTROOMS AND $9,438 FOR
THE REMAINING ROOMS.
COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED WHAT THE SPECIFICATIONS CALL FOR
PRESENTLY, AND MR. KONTOULAS REPORTED THAT THEY CALL FOR NO FINISH
OTHER THAN EXISTING WALLS AND SOME PAINT.
COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY POSSIBILITY OF
HAVING AN AREA LIKE THIS DONE BY LOCAL CONTRACTORS.
MR, KONTOULAS STATED THAT LEG -ALL`! t'!E COULD ASK FOR THE WORK
TO BE DONE BY LOCAL CONTRACTORS AS LONG AS IT DID NOT INTERFERE WITH
THE MAIN CONTRACTOR, AND WE COULD AT A LATER DATE ACCEPT BIDS FOR
DOING THIS PARTICULAR WORK.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT WHEN THESE SPECIFICATION!
ORIGINALLY WERE REVIEWED BY THE JUDGES, THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE
FINISH AND NO OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED.
NOV 19190Q
L
A
47 4GI29
NOV 19 1980
Boos 45 PAcF 293
MR. KONTOULAS FELT THAT EVIDENTLY THE JUDGES DID NOT REALIZE
JUST WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT AND POSSIBLY DID NOT STUDY THIS IN
ENOUGH DETAIL BEFORE THEY SIGNED OFF ON THE ORIGINAL PLANS.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT AS MORE WORK CETS DONE,
THINGS COME MORE INTO FOCUS AND IT BECOMES MORE AND MORE APPARENT
WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
COMMISSIONER BIRD AGAIN ASKED IF IT MAKES SENSE TO ASK
FOR A LOCAL BID, AND CHAIRMAN LYONS DID NOT FEEL WE SHOULD CET TWO
SETS OF CONTRACTORS WORKING ON THE JOB, WHICH HE FELT WOULD CAUSE
NOTHING BUT PROBLEMS.
MR. KONTOULAS POINTED OUT THAT HERE AGAIN WE ARE LOOKING AT
A POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF TIME.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO PAINTING, DRYWALL, PANEL-
ING, ETC., AND MR. KONTOULAS NOTED THAT WE WOULD BE ALLOWED A CREDIT
FOR ELIMINATING SOME OF THE PAINTING WHEN WE WENT TO PANELING.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE COMMENTED THAT WHAT THE CONTRACTOR
WOULD CHARGE FOR PAINTING IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT HE WOULD
GIVE CREDIT FOR WHEN ELIMINATING THE PAINTING.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK EMPHASIZED THAT THE FIGURES ON THE
BREAKDOWN SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD DO NOT EVEN ADD UP AND WISHED TO
KNOW WHO CHECKS THESE OVER,
MR, KONTOULAS STATED THAT -THE ARCHITECT SHOULD CHECK THESE
OVER, AND MR. SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT THIS SAME ARCHITECT APPARENTLY
HAS MADE MANY OTHER MISTAKES.
MR. KONTOULAS ASKED THE BOARD IF THEY WISHED TO GO WITH THE
MATERIAL HE HAS SHOWN THEM AND PANEL IN SOME OF THE AREAS OR ALL OF
THE AREAS OR HOW EXACTLY THEY DID WISH TO PROCEED.
INTERESTED CITIZEN WILLIAM KOOLAGE NOTED THAT THE JUDGES
HAD SIGNED OFF ON THE ORIGINAL PLANS, AND HE WONDERED IF THE QUALITY
OF JUSTICE WILL BE BETTER FOR PUTTING IN THE PANELING.
ATTORNEY GORDON MOSS ADDRESSED THE BOARD AS A MEMBER OF THE
BAR ASSOCIATION AND ALSO AS A TAXPAYER, AS TO THEIR SIGNING OFF ON
THE PLANS, HE NOTED THAT WHEN THEY SAW THE PLANS, THEY WERE ADVISED
THIS WAS THE WAY IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF
SPACE; JUDGE SMITH THEN WROTE A LETTER ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE COURT-
ROOMS AND THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED, AND VARIOUS CHANCES WERE MADE TO
TRY TO REMEDY THE SITUATION. MR. MOSS AGREED THAT THE PANELING DOES
SEEM EXPENSIVE, BUT POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS A HIGH USE AREA, AND
IF THE WALLS ARE PAINTED, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO REPAINT THEM FRE-
QUENTLY. HE STATED THAT HE WAS NOT HERE TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY IN
FAVOR OF THIS CHANGE ORDER, BUT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF FIXING UP THIS
AREA SO IT CAN BE SOMETHING OF WHICH WE CAN BE PROUD AND SOMETHING
THAT WILL BE SERVICEABLE. HE AGREED THAT IT IS LATE TO ASK FOR
CHANGES, BUT NOTED THAT EVEN WHEN THEY GET EVERYTHING THAT IS SPECI-
FIED NOW, IT WILL BE INADEQUATE FOR THE FUTURE.
ATTORNEY SULLIVAN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE WAS REQUESTED
TO COME TO THIS MEETING BY .JUDGE CHARLES SMITH. HE ALSO STATED THAT
WHEN THE JUDGES AND LAWYERS FOUND OUT ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE COURTROOMS,
IT WAS TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. HE FELT IT WAS OBVIOUS
FROM THE COMMENTS MADE TODAY THAT THERE ARE THINGS WHICH EVEN THE
COMMISSIONERS AND THE ARCHITECT OVERLOOKED. MR. SULLIVAN REITERATED
THAT THIS IS A HIGH USE AREA AND INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IN TRAVELING
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA, HE HAS NEVER SEEN ANY COURTROOMS
THAT ARE NOT PANELED, HE FELT THAT WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH THE
RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME ELEMENT OF APPEARANCE THAT
IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SYSTEM WITH WHICH WE ARE DEALING. HE STATED
THAT HE OBJECTED TO TAXES AS MUCH AS ANYONE, BUT FELT WE SHOULD
SPEND THEM IN AN AREA SUCH AS THIS WHERE WE CONSTANTLY ARE GOING TO
BE ON PUBLIC VIEW. MR. SULLIVAN CONTINUED THAT HE ALSO WAS AMAZED
AT THE PRICE QUOTED AND WOULD MERELY SAY THAT THE LAWYERS AND JUDGES
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS DONE AT THE MOST MINIMAL COST POSSIBLE TO
COVER THE AREAS MENTIONED IN THE PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER.
.JUDGE SHARP CAME BEFORE THE BOARD, NOTING THAT HE WILL BE
A RESIDENT OF THE COURTHOUSE, HE STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE COMMIS-
SION TO THINK IN TERMS OF PANELING RATHER THAN HAVING PAINTED WALLS
THAT CONTINUALLY HAVE TO BE REPAINTED. HE STATED THAT AS A TAXPAYER,
HE WAS SHOCKED AT THE PROPOSED COST, AND FELT PERHAPS COMMISSIONER
NOV 191990 49 45 PUE294
_ A
NOV 191980
Boox 45 PnE 295
BIRD'S SUGGESTION IN REGARD TO OBTAINING LOCAL BIDS SHOULD BE INVESTI—
GATED. HE EMPHASIZED THAT IF THE COMMISSION MERELY CAN THINK IN TERMS
OF PANELING VERSUS A PAINTED WALL, HE BELIEVED THE DETAILS CAN BE
WORKED OUT.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE AGREED THAT OUR COURTROOMS AND JUSTICE
FACILITIES SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE THROUGHOUT THE STATE; HE
STATED THAT HE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS AREA PANELED, WHICH HE
BELIEVED IS GOOD FOR MAINTENANCE, BUT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE
POSSIBLE EMERGENCY STRUCTURAL THINGS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO DO WITH
THESE DOLLARS. HE, THEREFORE, WOULD LIKE TO GET THE STRUCTURAL WORK
AND CEILING WORK DONE WITHOUT TOO MANY CHANGE ORDERS AND THEN ADDRESS
THE PANELING AFTER THE CONTRACTOR IS THROUGH WITH THAT AREA. COMMIS—
SIONER WODTKE CONTINUED THAT IN THE EVENT THERE ARE NO DOLLARS LEFT
OVER AT COMPLETION, HE FELT THIS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED EITHER OUT OF
THE BUDGET OR REVENUE SHARING. HE THEN POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD
JUST APPROVED A CHANGE ORDER FOR PUTTING GYPSUM BOARD OVER THE EXISTING
PANELING IN THE COURTROOMS AND ASKED IF WANT TO COVER THE EXISTING
PANELING WITH GYPSUM BOARD AND THEN PANEL OVER THAT.
GENERAL DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO ALTERNATIVES FOR
PANELING THE COURTROOMS WITHOUT USING THE GYPSUM BOARD, FILLING IN
THE SPACES BETWEEN THE EXISTING PANELING, ETC., AND COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER BROUGHT UP THE POSSIBILITY OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION HAVINC-
SOME FUNDS TO DEAL WITH THE EXPENSE OF PANELING.
MR. KONTOULAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD THE VARIOUS
PROBLEMS INVOLVED, THE HEIGHT OF THE PANELING, THE RECESSED AREA, ETC.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF THIS IS AN EMERGENCY ITEM,
AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT IT IS AN EMERGENCY TO THE EXTENT
THAT WE HAVE APPROVED A CHANGE ORDER AUTHORIZING DRYWALL. HE CON—
TINUED THAT HE IS TRYING TO SAY IF WE LEAVE OUT THE DRYWALL AND SUB—
STITUTE PANELING NOW RATHER THAN GOING BACK IN SIX MONTHS OR SO AND
PANEL OVER THE DRYWALL, IT MIGHT SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN EVEN
THOUGH IT WOULD COST A FEW DOLLARS MORE NOW.
k
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT THERE IS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE -
WE COULD DRYWALL THE COURTROOMS, GET A CREDIT.FOR THE PAINTIN(=, AND
THEN GO IN LATER AND PANEL OURSELVES. DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN DETAIL
ABOUT THE VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES.
CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED IF WE COULD SAVE MONEY BY DOING AS
COMMISSIONER WODTKE HAS SUGGESTED, AND MR. KONTOULAS NOTED THAT THERE
WOULD BE A DELAY IN GETTING THE PANELING AND WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY
FOR THE DELAY. THE BOARD CONTINUED TO DISCUSS COSTS, AND IT WAS
NOTED THAT LABOR MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.
MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE NEW
BOARD MEMBERS PERSONALLY COME AND INSPECT THE CONDITION OF THE WALLS
AND THEN BRING THIS CHANGE ORDER BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO INSPECT THE CONDITION OF THE
COURTROOM AREA WALLS AND HAVE THIS CHANGE ORDER BROUGHT BACK TO THE
NEXT MEETING.
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT ANY TIME THERE IS A CHANGE
ORDER TO BE TAKEN UP AT A BOARD MEETING, THAT THE MONDAY BEFORE THE
MEETING, A TOUR BE SET UP FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW THE AREA IN QUESTION
SO THAT WE DON IT HAVE THIS SITUATION ARISE AGAIN.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON SUGGESTED THAT THEY WOULD NOTIFY THE
BOARD MEMBERS OF ANY CHANGE ORDER AND THEN THEY COULD VISIT THE SITE AT
THEIR LESIURE BECAUSE IF THE BOARD SHOULD VISIT THE SITE IN A GROUP,
ARRANGEMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE FOR THE PRESS TO BE PRESENT, ETC.
ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT TIME
THIS AFTERNOON, THE MEETING COULD BE RECESSED AND THE BOARD COULD
VISIT THE SITE AT THAT TIME BEFORE TAKING ANY FURTHER ACTION ON THE
CHANGE ORDERS, IT WAS AGREED THIS SHOULD BE DONE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE REQUESTED THAT AN EMERGENCY ITEM BE
ADDED TO THE AGENDA IN CONNECTION WITH AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES ON
CHECKS, DEPOSITORIES, ETC.
NOV 191990 51 45 e
J
_-I
moo 45 PAGE 29 t
ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS A STANDARD RESOLU-
TION THAT HAS BEEN PASSED EVERY YEAR AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE OFFICER
TO OPEN ACCOUNTS, ETC.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK,* THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADDED THE ABOVE EMERGENCY ITEM TO
TODAY IS AGENDA.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED RESOLUTION 80-126 AUTHORIZING
SIGNATURES ON DEPOSITORIES, ETC.
RESOLUTION NO. 80-126
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
on November 18, 1980, did select, nominate and unanimously elect as their Chairman,
Patrick B. Lyons, and did select, nominate and elect as their Vice Chairman,
William C. Wodtke, Jr., and
WHEREAS, Freda Wright was elected Clerk of Circuit Court of Indian River
County effective January 4, 1977, AND is also the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners as provided by Florida Statute 125.16:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners do
hereby designate the following banking institutions as official depositories:
(1) First Citrus Bank of Indian River County
(2) Florida First National Bank of Vero Beach
(3) Commercial Bank of Vero Beach
(4) Beach Bank of Vero Beach
(5) Southeast Bank of Sebastian
(6) Indian River Federal Savings and Loan Association
(7) Security Federal Savings and Loan Association of Indian River County
(8) First Federal Savings and Loan Association of St. Lucie County
(9) Southern Federal Savings and Loan Association of Broward County
(10) Home Federal Savings and Loan Association
(11) Citizens Federal Savings and Loan Association of St. Lucie County
(12) Vero Beach National Bank
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that each designated depository of the Commission be,
and it is hereby requested, authorized, and directed to honor check warrants or
other orders for the payment of money drawn in the Commission's name, including
those payable to the individual order of any person or persons whose name or names
appear thereon, when bearing the signature of the Clerk, Freda Wright, and one
signature of either the Chairman or the Vice Chairman. Of the two signatures, one
must be an actual signature and one may be a facsimile signature. Said actual and
facsimile signatures appearing below:
(1) Freda Wright
(Clerk)
(2) Patrick B. Lyons
(Chairman)
(3) William C. Wodtke, Jr.
(Vice Chairman)
NOV 191990
tual
Facsimile
Actual
Facsimile
1
Nov 191980
BQQK ti
5 PAGE .299
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above named signatories are hereby authorized
to execute any and all signature cards and agreements as requested by the respective
banking institutions to effectuate the intent of this resolution.
We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that there is no provision of said
Commission limiting the power of the Board of County Commissioners to pass this
resolution, and that the same was adopted by this Commission on November 19, 1980,
and is in conformity with the provisions of said Commission.
Attest: 1
(. rreda Wright
Clerk
r,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By /
P-SV:ick/1r) Lyons
Chairm
Board of County Commissioners
P.O.Box 1028
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone (305) 562-7927
Federal I.D. Number 59-6000674
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED HIS FOLLOWING MEMO RE OCEAN -
RIDGE SUBDIVISION:
November 14, 1980
MEMORANDUM
T0: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: County Administrator
SUBJECT: Final Plat Approval of Oceanridge Subdivision
ENCLOSURES: #1 - James Fowler's Letter to County Administrator
dated November 3, 1980
_ #2 - Dave Marsh's Memo Dated November 13, 1980
#3 - Oceanridge Consulting Engineer's Certification
of Water Distribution System
#4 - Consulting Eng. Cert. of Paving & Drainage Fac.
Enclosure 1 is a request from Musick and Fowler to County
for final plat approval of Oceanridge Subdivision.
Dave Marsh, Senior Planner made a field inspection of this
subdivision on November 12, 1980. His report is at enclosure 2.
Based upon Dave Marsh's inspection, I inspected this subdi-
vision with the Road and Bridge Superintendent the afternoon of
November 13, 1980. At this time, the walkover was complete.
The seeding and mulching had not been accomplished because
there were no means to irrigate. The contractor plans to seed
and mulch when they connect to the City's water line.
The paving of the roads, although not a quality smooth
finish, was done to county specifications; i.e. soil cement base
with 1" asphalt mat.
This subdivision meets all other requirements of our regu-
lations.
Enclosure 3 and 4 are certification statements from Walter H.
Kuhrt, Jr., P.E. on the Water distribution facility, paving and
drainage facilities.
It is recommended that:
1. A cash bond in the amount of $3,000 be deposited with
the County to insure the performance of the seeding and mulching
requirement.
2. Oceanridge Subdivision final plat be approved.
NOV 191990 55 BOOK
I
21
NOV 91��0
Boos 45 PAcE 301
MR. NELSON REPORTED THAT HE HAS JUST RECEIVED A COMPACTION
TEST OF THE ROAD AND ALSO HAS A SEALED CERTIFICATION FROM KUHRT &
ASSOCIATES STATING THAT THE PAVING DOES MEET SPECIFICATIONS; IN ADDI-
TION, HE HAS A CHECK IN HAND MADE OUT TO THE COMMISSION FOR $3,000
TO COVER THE SEEDING AND MULCHING. THE ADMINISTRATOR NOTED THAT THE
REASON THE DEVELOPER DOES NOT WANT TO SEED AND MULCH RIGHT NOW IS
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO WAY TO IRRIGATE. HE NOTED THAT THE QUALITY OF
PAVING IN THE ROAD IS NOT A GOOD QUALITY; IT APPEARS THAT IT DOES
MEET COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS, BUT IT IS NOT SMOOTH. HE COMMENTED THAT
EVEN THOUGH IT IS A PRIVATE ROAD, WE INVARIABLY GET COMPLAINTS.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED IF APPROVAL WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
A SATISFACTORY TEST, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AGREED THAT IT WOULD.
ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF OUR RECENT
AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, WHEN THE ENGINEERING STUDIES
ARE FINISHED AND WE KNOW WHAT THE COSTS ARE TO PUT IN THE LINE TO
THE SOUTH BEACH AREA, THE NON -VESTED PROPERTY OWNERS WILL PAY THEIR
PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE COST OF THE LINE, PROBABLY BASED ON AN
ACREAGE FIGURE. HE STATED THAT HE WAS CONCERNED THAT IF THE LOTS
ARE SOLD RIGHT AWAY, THE COUNTY COULD HAVE TROUBLE COLLECTING THIS
MONEY, AND HE, THEREFORE, WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE BOARD GET AN AGREE-
MENT FROM THE DEVELOPER MAKING HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT FOR ALL
THE LOTS. HE NOTED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS INDICATED THAT HE WILL DO
THIS. ATTORNEY COLLINS CONTINUED THAT ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS AGO, THE
COUNTY ACCEPTED OCEANSIDE SUBDIVISION FOR RECORDING AND PUT A STATEMENT
ON THAT PLAT THAT THERE WAS NO FRESH WATER AVAILABLE TO THE SUBDIVISION
AT THE TIME OF RECORDING. THIS WAS TO PUT THE PUBLIC ON NOTICE. THE
MOTION TO GIVE TENTATIVE APPROVAL TO THIS PLAT WAS SUBJECT TO WATER
BEING AVAILABLE, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT IF THE BOARD
DOES APPROVE THE PLAT TODAY, THEY WILL BE OVERRIDING THAT ONE CONDITION.
HE FELT THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO WATER
AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF FUTURE OWNERS OF THAT
PROPERTY WILL KNOW VIA THE ANNOUNCEMENT ON THE PLAT THAT THE WATER
CONDITIONS ARE AS WE STATE.
ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE BOARD CAN DO ONLY SO MUCH,
AND BY PUTTING A STATEMENT ON PUBLIC RECORD, YOU ARE PUTTING THE
PUBLIC ON NOTICE.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT THE BOARD IS BEIN(= ASKED
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF OCEANRIDGE SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS: $3,000 IN ESCROW FOR SEEDING AND MULCHING;
SATISFACTORY SOIL COMPACTION TEST RESULTS;
DEVELOPER TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WATER
IMPACT FEES; AND
A STATEMENT ON THE PLAT THAT NO WATER IS AVAILABLE
AT THIS TIME.
ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THE NEXT TO LAST CONDITION RE THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE IMPACT FEES SHOULD BE IN A CONTRACT FORM
BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE COUNTY.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED IF IT WOULD BE BETTER TO DELAY
ACTION UNTIL WE HAVE THE CONTRACT, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT APPROVAL
COULD BE AUTHORIZED SUBJECT TO RECEIVING THE CONTRACT. HE SUGGESTED
A SIMPLE CONTRACT, I.E., "I HEREBY AGREE I WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
PAYING THE PRO RATA ACREAGE SHARE OF THE NEW WATER LINE COMING DOWN
SOUTH BEACH."
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS -
STONER FLETCHER, TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF OCEANRIDGE SUBDIVISION
SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE STATED CONDITIONS.
CHAIRMAN LYONS QUESTIONED THE $3,000 DEPOSIT. HE ASSUMED
THIS SEEDING, MULCHING, ETC., IS WHAT IS IN THE DRAINAGE SWALE AND
WONDERED IF A PROBLEM COULD ARISE IF THERE SHOULD BE A LONG DELAY AND
THE SWALES WOULD HAVE TO BE CLEANED OUT BEFORE RESEEDING.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT THIS IS A QUALITY DEVELOPER
WHO HE DID NOT BELIEVE WOULD GO OUT AND SEED WITHOUT REWORKING THE
57
NOV 191990 b a-
Nov -191990 $aox 45 PAGE,.3o3
SWALES. HE NOTED THERE IS DRIFTING SAND IN THE AREA AND THERE WILL
HAVE TO BE SOME SHOULDER RESHAPING, BUT HE WAS SURE THAT THE $3,000
WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL THIS.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MEETING OF GOVERNING BOARD OF SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT
3;30 O'CLOCK P.M. AND RECONVENED ACTING AS THE DISTRICT BOARD OF
FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT.
(MINUTES OF THE ABOVE MEETING PREPARED SEPARATELY.)
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECONVENED
WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT AT 3;35 O'CLOCK P.M.
DISCUSSION RE PLANS FOR CONNECTION OF SEWER IN INDIAN RIVER SHORES
WITH VERO BEACH
CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT WE HAVE SIGNED JUST RECENTLY AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER
SHORES IN WHICH WE SAID THAT WE WILL TELL EACH OTHER COMPLETELY ANY
PLANS WE HAVE IN CONNECTION WITH OUR SEWER OPERATION. 'HE CONTINUED
THAT WE WILL BE TAKING UP THE REQUEST OF LAMER FOR CONNECTION TO OUR
EXISTING PLANT AT PEBBLE BAY, AND HE WISHED TO BE SURE THAT THIS FITS
INTO THE GENERAL PLANS OF THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES AS TO HOW
THEY ARE GOING TO RUN THEIR LINES. HE EMPHASIZED THAT ANY KIND OF
CHANGES WE MAKE FROM NOW ON REGARDING THAT SEWER PLANT IN INDIAN
RIVER SHORES OR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA THAT IS COVERED BY THAT AGREE-
MENT SHOULD ONLY BE DONE SUBJECT TO THE FULL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT
OF ALL THREE PARTIES, OR WE COULD BE CREATING A PROBLEM. THE BOARD
AGREED.
RESOLUTION 80-127 RE ACQUISITION OF LATT-MAXCY PROPERTY BY STATE
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REPORTED THAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE
R. DALE PATCHETT IS REQUESTING A RESOLUTION FROM THE COUNTY IN SUPPORT
OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE LATT-MAXCY PROPERTY BY THE STATE, A PIECE
OF THAT PROPERTY LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND OSCEOLA COUNTY IS
ON THEIR PRIORITY LIST, AND REPRESENTATIVE PATCHETT IS ASKING THAT
THE BOARD SUPPORT THIS ACQUISITION.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD ADOPTED
RESOLUTION 80-127 IN SUPPORT OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE LATT-MAXCY
PROPERTY BY THE STATE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE.
NOV 19 19 80 59 soox 45. PAtE.30
NOV 19 19 80
BOOK 45 ?AGE 305
RESOLUTION NO. 80 - 127
WHEREAS, the Governor and Cabinet for the State of
Florida are considering the acquisition of certain private
property within the State of Florida, protecting said
property for the public's interest, and
WHEREAS, within Indian River County, there lies
the Latt-Maxcy Tract, which is presently eighth on the
priority list, and
WHEREAS, the Latt-Maxcy property represents the top
priority of the Florida Fish and Game Commission and its
purchase will serve the environmental and water needs within
the Indian River County region, and
WHEREAS, there is a scarcity of public hunting and
fishing lands within this region, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County favors the state budget-
ing approach of spending no more than $5,000,000.00 on each
project within the priority list,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Governor
and Cabinet of the State of Florida are urged to:
(a) reinstate the Latt-Maxcy property to Number 3
on the priority list.
(b) to limit spending per project to $5,000,000.00,
thereby providing for a greater number of acquisitions.
(c) recognize the needs of Indian River County and
the surrounding region as to the environmental, hunting
and fishing interests that would be served by said
acquisition.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Governor and Cabinet of
the State of Florida give priority to the recommendations of the
Florida Fish and Game Commission and St. John's Water District
regarding the acquisition of the Latt Maxcy property.
This Resolution shall become effective as of the 19th
day of November , 1980.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
- Patrick B. Lyons,Ch an
ATTEST:
Freda Wright, C rk
9®v 191980 - 2 - am 45 PAGES05
NOY 191980 acox 45' PAGE 307
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REVIEWS LIST OF ON-GOING ACTIONS TO BE HANDLED
BY STAFF
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REPORTED THAT HE HAD MADE A LIST OF
SOME ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE LAST SEVERAL AGENDAS IN-
STRUCTING THE STAFF TO DO A NUMBER OF THINGS, AND HE WOULD LIKE TO
ENUMERATE THESE TO BE SURE THEY ARE CARRIED OUT AND DO NOT "FALL
THROUGH THE CRACKS" WITH THE CHANGE TO THE NEW BOARD. HE LISTED
THE FOLLOWING:
1) VILLAGE GREEN - STREET PAVING OF WALKER AVENUE - THIS WAS TO BE
EXPLORED;
Z) 70' BEACH ACCESS NORTH OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE WABASSO BEACH DEVELOPMENT;
3) CEMETERY REPORT FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION;
4) INVESTIGATION OF WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY FOR REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION
TO PAY 4% SALES TAX ON MATERIALS FOR RENOVATION OF THE COUNTY
BUILDINGS BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAS A SALES TAX NUMBER; AND
5) PRIORITY FOR 6TH AVENUE WATER.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON ASSURED HIM THAT THESE MATTERS ARE
BEING ATTENDED TO.
COMMISSIONER BIRD INQUIRED ABOUT THE STATUS ON THE 6TH
AVENUE, U.S. #1 INTERSECTION WHERE THE COUNTY WAS WORKING ON REALIGN-
MENT, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
IS WORKING ON PLANS: FOR OPENING UP 8TH STREET AND WE HAVE TO OBTAIN
SOME RIGHT-OF-WAY.
REQUEST FOR CONNECTION OF LAMER TO COUNTY WASTE WATER PLANT
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAD RECEIVED
A LETTER FROM MAYOR NOLAN OF THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, WHICH
HE READ INTO THE RECORD AS FOLLOWS:
'JoRTH A 1-A
�? INDIANFiiVt fl :SII( hUi , (I ONDA Fri
( 1-11ophime AC 305-562-1736
2-1136,
Cound! Members
LIDWARD J. NOLAN, Mayor
. -A?- NF M F -DEN, Vicc-k1ayor
GLORGE P. BUNNELL
F RIT7 ' GIERHART
THAD D. %VILKINS
November 13, 1980
Mr. Neil Nelson, County Administrator
Indian River County Court House
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Subject: Force Main for LeMer
Dear Neil:
Pursuant to our conversation, it is
urgently recommended that the proposed
temporary force main from LeMer to the
County Waste Water Plant be engineered
and installed so that it may be utilized
as part of the permanent force main that
will be subsequently installed.
Yours very truly,
`E w� J. Nolan, Mayor
TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES
EJN:em
CHESTER E. CLEM
Town Attorney
VIRGINIA L. GILBERT
Town Clcrk
JOHN F. CURTIN
Town Engineer
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT BASICALLY HE WOULD HAVE
NO OBJECTION TO HOOKING THE LAMER CONDOMINIUM GROUP INTO OUR SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT TEMPORARILY TO PREVENT AN ADDITIONAL TREATMENT PLANT
FROM BEING. PUT ON THE BARRIER ISLAND. HE NOTED THAT UTILITY DIRECTOR
LINER HAS TOLD HIM THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM ON HOOKING IN LAMER OR
MODIFYING OUR PLANT, AND THE MODIFICATION WOULD PROVIDE THE CAPACITY.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED IF THIS AGREEMENT ALREADY HAS
BEEN SIGNED BY THE UTILITY DIRECTOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED
HIM THAT THE AGREEMENT IS BEING BROUGHT TO THE BOARD TODAY - NOTHING
NOV 191990 63 nox 452,PkE308
NOV 19 19 80 eooK 45. pAcE 309
HAS BEEN SIGNED, AND THE AGREEMENT WOULD NOT BE WORKED OUT UNTIL THE
BOARD APPROVED IT. HE NOTED THAT LAMER ALREADY HAS SENT THE COUNTY
A CHECK.
ENGINEER ROBERT "FLIP" LLOYD, REPRESENTING THE LAMER PROJECT,
INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE MET WITH UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER, AND
EXPLAINED THAT LAMER, WHICH HAS PURCHASED A PLANT AND CAN INSTALL IT
IF NECESSARY, WISHED TO CONNECT TO THE COUNTY TREATMENT PLANT AT SEA
WATCH. HE NOTED THAT THEY WOULD TIE INTO THE EXISTING FORCE MAIN,
AND THE LENGTH OF THE TEMPORARY FORCE MAIN WOULD JUST BE THAT PART
THAT CROSSES IN FRONT OF VISTA DEL MAR, OR A DISTANCE OF ABOUT
500-600'.
CHAIRMAN LYONS DID NOT FEEL WE ARE CONCERNED SO MUCH ABOUT
THE SPECIFICS, BUT JUST WISH EVERYBODY TO BE IN CONCURRENCE, HE
ASKED IF THERE IS ENOUGH CAPACITY FOR VISTA DEL MAR ALSO,
WOULD BE.
UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS
ENGINEER LLOYD REPORTED THAT THEY HAVE SUBMITTED ALL THE
REQUESTED MATERIAL TO UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER.
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE US GET
AWAY FROM THIS PARTICULAR AGREEMENT FORM, THE REASON BEING THAT THIS
AGREEMENT ANTICIPATES THAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO TAKE OVER OWNERSHIP
RIGHTS TO THE LINE, AND WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IN THIS INSTANCE IS
A TEMPORARY CONNECTION. HE CONTINUED THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
THE IMPACT THAT LAMER IS GOING TO HAVE ON OUR OTHER ENGINEERING COSTS
WHEN WE PAY THE COUNTY'S COSTS TO HOOK INTO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH,
AND HE FELT THAT LAMER SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL IMPACT
TO THE COUNTY. HE ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT LAMER STILL BEING
RESPONSIBLE TO THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES TO PAY VARIOUS FEES
AND COSTS THAT THE TOWN IS GOING TO WANT TO PASS ON TO THEM IN THE
WAY OF THE $187.50 PER CONNECTION CHARGE. THE ATTORNEY WENT ON TO
EXPRESS CONCERN ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE LINE TO SEA WATCH AND TO BE
SURE THAT IF WE INTEND TO INCORPORATE IT IN THE OVERAL SYSTEM THAT
IT MEETS THE REQUIRED ENGINEERING STANDARDS.
HE STATED THAT HE WOULD
r o �
NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A MOTION APPROVING THE CONCEPT SUBJECT TO
AN AGREEMENT WITH A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME AND INCORPORATION OF
IMPACT FEES, STATING THAT THE COUNTY WILL ACCEPT THOSE TWO BUILDINGS
FOR SERVICE CONDITIONED UPON LAMER PAYING ALL EXPENSES TO THE COUNTY
THAT THEIR IMPACT MAY BRING AND ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE TOWN AND
CITY FOR THEIR OTHER CHARGES. HE WOULD NOT EXPECT THAT THE COUNTY
WILL OWN THAT LINE.
CHAIRMAN LYONS DID NOT FEEL WE WOULD WANT IT.
ENGINEER LLOYD FELT THE AGREEMENT SHOULD STATE THAT IT IS
A TEMPORARY CONNECTION AND WILL BE TREATED AS SUCH. HE NOTED THAT
WHEN PERMANENT CONNECTIONS ARE AVAILABLE, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE
DIVORCED AND PUT BACK IN THE OTHER CATEGORY, AND HE AGREED THAT ANY
COSTS TO THE COUNTY DUE TO THIS TEMPORARY CONNECTION SHOULD BE BORNE
BY LAMER.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO APPROVING THE AGREEMENT SUBJECT
TO THE CHAIRMAN'S APPROVAL, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE
WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE AGREEMENT COME BACK TO THE BOARD BECAUSE THERE
ARE THREE ENTITIES INVOLVED, AND COMMISSIONER FLETCHER AGREED THAT HE
WOULD LIKE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENT.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE DID NOT FEEL IT SHOULD BE THE COUNTY'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO DRAW THE AGREEMENT, AND SUGGESTED THAT THE DEVELOPER
SHOULD HAVE IT DRAWN UP FOR OUR ATTORNEY TO REVIEW.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM-
MISSIONER WODTKE, FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT
WITH LAMER FOR TEMPORARY SEWER CONNECTION) THE AGREEMENT TO COME BACK
TO THE BOARD AT THE NEXT MEETING FOR FINAL AUTHORIZATION.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WISHED TO HAVE "CONCEPTUAL" APPROVAL
DEFINED, AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT THE BOARD IS SAYING WE
APPROVE THE IDEA OF THEIR MAKING A TEMPORARY CONNECTION TO OUR SEWER
SYSTEM BASED ON THE GENERAL DISCUSSION WE HAVE HAD TODAY AND BASED
ON AN AGREEMENT TO BE REVIEWED BY OUR ATTORNEY AND BROUGHT BACK TO
THIS BOARD FOR APPROVAL.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� NOV 19198Q 65
Mox 45 PAGE X11
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON DISCUSSED HIS FOLLOWING MEMO TO THE
November 12, 1980
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: County Administrator
SUBJECT: Illegal Driving on Beaches
Mr. Ross Witham's letter to the Board of September
22, 1980 concerning illegal driving on the beaches was forwarded
to the Sheriff's Department for their review and comment.
Captain Stroud's answer is enclosed.
Ordinance 74-10 relates to dune protection and is adequate.
We have alerted our Parks Department and Litter Officer to the
problem of illegal driving and should receive some support from
them. With the concentrated efforts of the Sheriff's Department
and the Parks Department, enforcement action should increase.
It is recommended that a letter be sent to Mr. Witham
informing him of our actions in this regard.
Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator
CHAIRMAN LYONS INSTRUCTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR PREPARE
A LETTER AS RECOMMENDED.
ATTORNEY COLLINS WISHED THE BOARD TO BE AWARE THAT INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY ACTUALLY HAS A POLICY RIGHT NOW WHICH PERMITS MOTOR
VEHICLES ON THE BEACH, BUT LIMITED TO CERTAIN AREAS. THE AUTHORITY
FOR THAT IS OTHER THAN WHAT WAS SENT OUT IN THE INFORMATION PACKET.
HE NOTED THAT HISTORICALLY, THERE HAS NOT BEEN THAT MUCH PRESSURE; S0,
PERMISSION WAS GRANTED IN CERTAIN AREAS, AND IT IS WITHIN THE BOARD'S
DISCRETION TO REVIEW AND CHANGE THIS SITUATION IF DESIRED. HE
BELIEVED THE AREAS WHERE RIDING ON THE BEACH IS ALLOWED ARE NORTH OF
WABASSO BEACH AND POSSIBLY SOUTH OF ROUND ISLAND PARK JUST NORTH OF
THE SOUTH COUNTY LINE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE INQUIRED ABOUT ORDINANCE 74-10 WHICH
RELATES TO DUNE PROTECTION, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THIS
ORDINANCE WAS PASSED TO PUT IN A SAFEGUARD PRIOR TO ESTABLISHMENT OF
OUR COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE. A TEMPORARY 50' SETBACK LINE
WAS ESTABLISHED AT THAT TIME; NOW IT IS 100'.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT THE PROBLEM MAINLY INVOLVES
THE CROSSING OVER THE DUNES, AND CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT IT
ALSO DISTURBS THE TURTLE NESTING.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF IT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW
ORDINANCE TO KEEP DUNE BUGGIES OFF THE BEACH.
ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION IS
GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THIS SITUATION BY A SPECIAL ACT PASSED
IN THE 1950'S, BUT HE FELT WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING
BECAUSE THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER AGREED THAT WE SHOULD HOLD A PUBLIC
HEARING IN ORDER TO GET INPUT FROM BOTH SIDES.
DISCUSSION THEN AROSE AS TO WHETHER TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION
PRIOR TO OR AFTER THE HEARING. ATTORNEY COLLINS FAVORED HAVING THE
HEARING FIRST, BUT CHAIRMAN LYONS BELIEVED WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE
GOING TO BE ARGUING ABOUT. IT WAS NOTED THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY
TO PERMIT EMERGENCY VEHICLES ACCESS TO THE BEACH AND ALSO THAT FISHER-
MEN WOULD NEED A WAY TO GET THEIR BOATS IN AND OUT OF THE OCEAN.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THERE PROBABLY SHOULD BE SOME
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION IN REGARD TO THE AREA NEAR SEBASTIAN INLET.
HE NOTED THAT IF WE HAVE A RESOLUTION WHICH JUST TOTALLY RESTRICTS
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, WE WILL GET A LOT OF INPUT AND WE ALWAYS CAN PULL
BACK A LITTLE.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED ADVERTISING A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD PROHIBIT VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON
THE BEACHES.
NOV 191980 67 j
NOV 191980 goux 45 PAGE 3,13
DISCUSSION RE DIMENSION TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
COMPLEX
THE BOARD REVIEWED ADMINISTRATOR NELSONS MEMO OF NOVEMBER
14TH, AS FOLLOWS:
November 14, 1980
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: County Administrator
SUBJECT: Dimension Telephone System, Administration Building
ENCLOSURES: #1 - Southern Bell's Estimate of Charges for Dimension
400 dated June 25, 1980
#2 - Assistant Administrator's Memo of November
13, 1980, Same Subject
Enclosure 1 is an estimate of charges for the Dimension
System that will provide for a central telephone system serving
the County and associated offices. This system was approved by
the Board on October 10, 1979 and a letter of intent was signed
on the same date.
Enclosure 2 is an un -official notice of a possible increase
in costs. If we request installation prior to April 20, 1981, the
charges specified in enclosure 1 will stand. If we do not begin
installation this date.and the Public Service Commission grants
Southern Bell the tariff rate increase, our costs would increase
appreciably.
It is recommended that:
1. The County request installation of the Dimension 400
System that was approved by the Board on October 10, 1979.
2. A budget amendment of $5,000 be approved to increase
the amount previously budgeted for this system.
Neil A. Nelson, County Administra
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT SOUTHERN
BELL HAS APPLIED TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR A RATE INCREASE,
AND IF THIS IS APPROVED, IT THEN WOULD CHANGE THE COMPLETE COMPLEXION
OF THE AGREEMENT THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY MADE WITH SOUTHERN BELL IN
OCTOBER OF 1979.
BASICALLY, WE WOULD HAVE TO NOTIFY SOUTHERN BELL
PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 28TH TO INSTALL THIS SYSTEM BY APRIL 20, 1981; THIS
WOULD REQUIRE A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $5,000 TO PAY FOR COSTS THAT WE
WOULD NOT INCUR UNTIL AFTER JULY,
CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED HOW MUCH THIS WOULD SAVE THE COUNTY,
AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT IF WE DID NOT APPROVE THE
INSTALLATION AS RECOMMENDED, IT WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF 115%
ON THE INITIAL INSTALLATION AND A MONTHLY RATE INCREASE OF 36%.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK BROUGHT UP A POSSIBLE DUPLICATION OF
COSTS IF THERE WERE A DELAY OF THREE MONTHS OR SO IN MOVING INTO THE
NEW OFFICES, BUT AFTER REVIEWING THE POSSIBILITIES, AGREED TO GO WITH
THE ADMINISTRATORS RECOMMENDATION.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE
ADMINISTRATOR°S MEMO OF NOVEMBER 141 19801 IN REGARD TO INSTALLATION
OF THE DIMENSION 400 SYSTEM AND APPROVED A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $5,000
AS FOLLOWS:
ACCOUNT NAME . ACCOUNT N0, INCREASE CREASE
TELEPHONE ACCOUNT 001-201-512-34,11 $5,000
RES. FOR CONTINGENCY 001-199-513-99,91 $5,000
APPROVAL TO PURCHASE VEHICLE FOR COUNTY ENGINEER
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUMS FROM THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR:
NOV 191980 69 ;arc45 F?
NOV 191900 Boor 45 PACE 315
November 13, 1980
MEMORANDUM
T0: Neil A/ County A inist ator
. '0 c
FROM: Harold M. McCormick, Assistant County Administrator
SUBJECT: Purchase of County Engineer Vehicle
I have just received confirmation that James W. Davis, P.E., has accepted
our offer for employment as the County Engineer, From the discussion, I anticipate
his coming onto the staff in mid - December.
Because of a high mobility requirement, I ask that the funds for the sign
machine for Road & Bridge be transferred into an account to allow the purchase
of a new compact type vehicle with two-way radio. The funds available for this
purchase would be the $5,500.00 budgeted for the Road & Bridge sign machine. As
you requested, Jim Flynn made a study to compare the sign machine costs and, as
you know, found the machine, material, and labor costs to be higher than the costs
of the finished signs.
I anticipate the County Engineer to have a great need for high mobility for
the following purposes:
I. Advice to Planning and Zoning, Utilities, and the Technical Review
Committee on all areas of engineer knowledge.
2. Continuous monitoring of sub -divisions at the steps of preliminary plat,
site plan, final plat, and drainage monitoring during construction. .
3. Constant monitoring of our road network to include:
A. Traffic count and other procedure to advise road and drainage
upgrading, reconstruction, or new construction.
B. Field inspection of road engineering projects.
C. Inspections of bridges per D.O.T. requirement.
4. Inspection of county construction projects of all types where an
engineer function is needed.
5. DNR required engineer certification of boat ramps, docks, and other
marine construction using boat license trust funds. According to
Tommy Thomas, there is approximately $40,000.00 available at this time
for such purposes and two projects are ready to go, awaiting engineer
certification.
November 14, 1980
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: County Administrator
SUBJECT: Vehicle Purchase
ENCLOSURE: Assistant Administrator's Memo of November 13, 1980,
Subject - Purchase of County Engineer Vehicle
The County established a requirement for a registered
engineer. Mr. James W. Davis, P.E. has accepted this position.
The enclosure outlines the needs for mobility of this person.
Our decentralization precludes pooling.
This vehicle was not budgeted because our needs were not
fully identified at budget time.
It is recommended that:
1. The Road and Bridge Sign Machine not be purchased at
this time based on the Purchasing Agent's study and the funds
be applied to the purchase of a vehicle.
2. The County Administrator be authorized to advertise for
bids on a new compact car for the County Engineer's use.
a
ka . LAem.O���
Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THE ENGINEER`S DUTIES
WOULD REQUIRE COMPLETE MOBILIZATION AS SET OUT IN MR. MCCORMICK'S
MEMO. HE STATED THAT THEY HAVE LOOKED AT THEIR VEHICLE FLEET, AND
IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO PULL A VEHICLE FROM ANOTHER POSITION. THEY,
THEREFORE, RECOMMEND THAT A COMPACT TYPE VEHICLE BE PURCHASED TO
PROVIDE THE COUNTY ENGINEER A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IN PURSUING
HIS VARIED DUTIES. THE ADMINISTRATOR NOTED THAT COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK
REQUESTED THAT HE LOOK INTO LEASE VERSUS PURCHASE. HE CONTINUED THAT
IN LOOKING BACK AT THE COUNTY'S HISTORY, HE FOUND WE NEVER HAD HAD
A VEHICLE LESS THAN 3 YEARS AND MANY ARE MUCH OLDER THAN THAT. THE
ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTED THAT IF WE TRADED EVERY 3 YEARS, A LEASE
MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE, BUT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN OUR POLICY. HE INFORMED
THE BOARD THAT HE CHECKED WITH VELDE FORD AND THE PURCHASE PRICE OF
A 1981 FORD FAIRMONT, UNDER THE FLORIDA STATE CONTRACT, WOULD BE
NOV 191980 71 45 im3lbi
NOV 191980 Booz 45 PACE31 7
$6,622. A LEASE FROM FORD FOR 36 MONTHS AT $195 PER MONTH WOULD AMOUNT
TO $7,020. A LEASE FROM HERTZ WOULD BE $165 PER MONTH FOR 36 MONTHS,
OR $5,940. WE WOULD SAVE THERE, BUT THE ADMINISTRATOR NOTED THAT THE
SALVAGE VALUE AFTER THREE YEARS IS APPROXIMATELY $1,800 SO THE NET
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO WOULD BE $1,118, OR THE NET COST PURCHASE
LESS WHAT THE SALVAGE VALUE WOULD BE THREE YEARS LATER. THE
ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT IF THE COUNTY COULD GET A TAX BREAK IN
WRITING OFF THE VEHICLE, HE BELIEVED A LEASE WOULD BE THE WAY TO G0,
BUT WE DON T GET THAT AND OUR POLICY OVER THE YEARS HAS BEEN TO DRIVE
A CAR UNTIL IT DROPS APART.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK POINTED OUT THAT MAINTENANCE.COSTS
RISE AS A VEHICLE GETS OLDER. HE AGREED THAT WHEN YOU HAVE ONE MAN
TO A CAR THEY DO LAST MUCH BETTER THAN IF YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
DRIVING THE SAME CAR.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE SIZE OF THE CAR, AND THE
ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT IT WOULD BE A SMALL VEHICLE, POSSIBLY A
CHEVETTE OR SOMETHING SMALLER.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW THE
PERSONNEL IN HIS DEPARTMENT WHO HAVE CARS ASSIGNED TO THEM.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT HE AND THE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR AND THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, ROBERT DONLON, HAVE CARS
ASSIGNED. HE NOTED THAT MR. DONLON AT THIS TIME IS UTILIZING HIS CAR
AS SAFETY INSPECTOR FOR THE COUNTY. HE ALSO DOES HAVE RIGHT-OF-WAY
INSPECTIONS, BUT THAT MAY DISAPPEAR, PLUS HIS VEHICLE IS USED FOR
INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION BY OTHER PEOPLE. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HAS A CAR AND THE ZONING DEPARTMENT HAS ONE; THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT
HAS ABOUT SIX.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CARS
IN THE ADMINISTRATORS COMPLEX. HE NOTED THAT WE HAVE HAD SOME
PROBLEMS IN THE PAST WITH STATE AUDITORS IN REGARD TO UTILIZATION
OF THE CARS AND HE LOOKED FORWARD IN THE FUTURE TO CREATING SOME TYPE
OF MOTOR POOL WHERE COUNTY PERSONNEL WOULD BRING THEIR OWN VEHICLE
TO WORK AND USE THE COUNTY VEHICLES ONLY DURING THE WORK DAY. HE
72
REALIZED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR AND ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR ARE ON
24 HOUR CALL AND NEED TO TAKE THEIR CARS HOME, BUT HE WOULD LIKE
TO CONTROL THE USE OF THE OTHER VEHICLES MORE CLOSELY.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT THE ONLY PROBLEM HE HAS
WITH THE PROPOSED PURCHASE IS THAT IN ORDER TO GET THIS PARTICULAR
VEHICLE WE ARE PROPOSING TO GET RID OF THE SIGN MACHINE THAT WAS
BUDGETED ORIGINALLY. HE NOTED THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE
WHO NEED STREET SIGNS, AND THE AMBULANCE SQUADS AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS
HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING ABLE TO LOCATE PEOPLE. COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTRACTING WITH THE CITY OF
VERO BEACH.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT THEY ORIGINALLY THOUGHT THE
SIGN MACHINE WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO G0, BUT THEY NOW FIND THAT THE
CAPITAL EXPENSE PLUS MATERIALS, ETC., WOULD BE OVER $12,000; IN
ADDITION, THEY DO HAVE BIDS OUT FOR SIGNS AND HAVE FOUND IT WOULD BE
CHEAPER TO BUY THEM. HE AGREED WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER THAT THERE
ARE MANY SIGNS THAT ARE NEEDED, AND WE NEED TO GET THESE ON ORDER
AND ESTABLISH A POLICY AND PROGRAM. HE NOTED THAT POSSIBLY WE CAN
IDENTIFY SOMETHING ELSE TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE BUDGET, BUT BASED ON
INFORMATION THEY HAD RECEIVED, THEY TOOK A MUCH, MUCH CLOSER LOOK
AT THE SIGN MACHINE.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE REALIZED THERE ARE
SOME SIGNS ON STATE ROADS THAT HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS,
AND HE HAD BELIEVED THIS MACHINE WOULD HAVE THAT CAPABILITY. HE
CONTINUED THAT IT SEEMS THE REASON, SIGNS HAVE NOT BEEN PLACED ON
STREETS IN THE PAST IS THAT THE PROCESS FOR GETTING THE SIGN, THE
WORDING, ETC., HAS BEEN SO LONG AND DRAWN OUT THAT PEOPLE GIVE UP.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT THAT BASICALLY IN THE LONG RUN, SIGN
MAKING CAN BE DONE IN THE COUNTY AND MONEY CAN BE SAVED. HE AGREED
THAT THE CAR IS GOING TO BE NEEDED, BUT WAS WONDERING IF WE ARE
SHOVING THE SIGN MACHINE OFF AGAIN IN THE BACK CORNER.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS COMMENTED THAT THE
ENGINEER WILL BE A GENERAL FUND EMPLOYEE AND WE HAVE AMPLE FUNDS IN
THE CONTINGENCY FUND IF THE BOARD WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS IN THAT
MANNER,
NOV 19 1980 73 �
NOV 19 19 90 Boas 45 PAGE 319
CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT HE AGREED WITH COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER ABOUT THE SIGN MACHINE.
THE ADMINISTRATOR DISCUSSED PERSONNEL THAT WOULD BE NEEDED
TO MAKE THE SIGNS, AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT THE ADMINISTRA-
TOR S ANALYSIS WAS NOT THE MACHINE VERSUS THE CAR; HIS ANALYSIS SAYS
IT WOULD BE CHEAPER TO BUY THE SIGNS.
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT WE BUY THE CAR AND TEMPORARILY
PAY FOR IT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY AND LOOK AT THE SIGN
SITUATION LATER.
THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE SIGN MACHINE IS ON HOLD
AT THIS TIME, AND THE CHAIRMAN REQUESTED COMMISSIONER FLETCHER TO
CHECK ON THE SIGN SITUATION.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK TO AUTHORIZE THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO PROCEED TO GO TO BID FOR A CAR FOR THE COUNTY ENGINEER
WITHOUT REMOVING THE SIGN MACHINE MONEY FROM THE BUDGET AND TO TAKE
THE NECESSARY FUNDS OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND,
COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF WE CAN JUST AUTHORIZE THE
ADVERTISEMENT TO PURCHASE THE VEHICLE AND THEN DETERMINE WHERE THE
MONEY IS COMING FROM. HE STATED THAT HE HAD A LITTLE PROBLEM IN THAT
WHILE THE ENGINEER WILL BE WORKING FOR MANY FUNDS, HE WILL BE MAINLY
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT.
THE COORDINATOR NOTED THAT IN THAT EVENT THE CAR COULD BE
PURCHASED OUT OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK AGREED THAT HE WOULD REWORD HIS MOTION.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO PROCEED
TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR A CAR FOR THE COUNTY'ENGINEER.
DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO THE TYPE OF VEHICLE THAT WOULD BE
MOST SUITABLE - A SMALL TRUCK, COMPACT CAR, VAN, STATION WAGON, ETC.,
AND IT WAS AGREED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WILL WORK THIS OUT.
OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORD-INATOR
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER FLETCHER, TO APPROVE OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATOR THOMAS TO ATTEND AN ENERGY MANAGEMENT SEMINAR SPONSORED
BY THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND OTHERS IN TAMPA
ON DECEMBER 11-12, 1980,
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WISHED TO KNOW IF THIS IS A BUDGETED
ITEM AND IF S0, WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO COME TO THE COMMISSION
ON EACH REQUEST,
IT WAS NOTED THAT IT IS COVERED IN THE BUDGET AND THAT SOME-
TIMES WE DO HAVE RETROACTIVE APPROVAL FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS,
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE
FUNDING ACCOUNT NUMBERS WERE LISTED SO HE COULD SEE WHERE THE FUNDING
COMES FROM,
COORDINATOR THOMAS COMMENTED THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE
HE COMES UNDER THE COMMISSIONER`S BUDGET AND STATED THAT SUPPLYING
THE ACCOUNT NUMBERS WOULD NOT BE ANY PROBLEM,
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY,
SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT WITH SPOUSE ABUSE PROGRAM
ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT THE FINANCE OFFICER PUT THIS
UNDER THE ATTORNEYS MATTERS ON THE AGENDA AND HE HURRIED UP AND DID
THE CONTRACTS, BUT HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE TO PROOF READ THEM YET. HE
ASKED THAT THEY BE CARRIED OVER UNTIL THE NEXT AGENDA.
MODEL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE
ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT THIS IS A REQUEST FOR
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE THE NEW CODE, THE STATE HAS REQUESTED THAT
WE ADOPT THIS, AND IT WILL BE BY ORDINANCE.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE A
PUBLIC HEARING ON A MODEL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE,
NOV 191980 75 Boa -45 PSE 20
BOOK 45 PAGE 321,
STATUS REPORT - SOUTH COUNTY WATER DISTRICT SALE OF BOND
ANTICIPATION NOTES
ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THIS ITEM REPRESENTS A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF FRUSTRATION BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL. THE COUNTY
BY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED SMITH BARNEY TO LOOK INTO THE POSSIBILITY
OF OBTAINING BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES (BANS) ON THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
SYSTEM, THE CONCEPT BEING THAT YOU COULD SELL THE NOTES AND THEN
INVEST THE MONEY FROM THE SALE; THERE IS AN OVERRIDE THAT OCCURS
DURING THE PERIOD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION; AND THERE IS INTEREST INCOME
TO BE MADE. HE STATED THAT WE HAVE BEEN GOING ROUND AND ROUND WITH
SMITH BARNEY IN EXCESS OF SIX MONTHS, AND NOW HAVE RECEIVED A COMMIT-
MENT OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AS PER THEIR FOLLOWING LETTER DATED
NOVEMBER 51 1980:
SMITH J AW,,iL` , 11ARRIS U!l 1A.A4 C'_.
1`1CORPORAT'f D
�^ ,•'700 PEACHTREE HARRIS le"'%i:R
n C3. l= 233 PEACHTREPSTREET P
~ �• ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30013
(rr1' (404! 588-3000
November 5, 1980
Mr. L. S. Thomas
Indian River County Courthouse
2415 14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: $5,825,000 (approximately) Indian River County, Florida
South Water System Bond Anticipation Notes
Dear Tommy:
Indian River County intends to let three separate contracts
for construction of the above referenced project. They
would be:
1) the transmission line contract;
2) the reverse osmosis equipment contract; and
3) the reverse osmosis support facilities contract.
The•county had originally planned to let the entire project
as one contract, but found it necessary to revise their
plans in order to meet other demands. Contract three (3)
above is not scheduled to be awarded until August 31, 1981.
Due to inflation, the long time period between bid letting
on contract one (1) and scheduled construction begin date
on contract three (3), and because the engineers cannot
design the reverse osmosis support facilities until the
'reverse osmosis equipment has been selected, the county
is currently unable to secure bids on contract three (3),
as a separate contract.
Per conversations on Thursday and Friday, October 30th and
31st with Bill Weathers of the FmHA state office in Gainesville,
the FmHA will not issue its permanent take out letter providing
for its purchase of the bonds for this project until bids
have been let on the third phase of the project, i.e. the
reverse osmosis support facilities.
Our original intent had been to issue Bond Anticipation
Notes (BANs) in the full amount of the proposed bonds
($5,825,840.00), escrow the net BAIis proceeds and require
the trustee to invest the funds in U.S. govern'iient guaranteed
m or collateralized securities until receipt by the trustee
of a take out committment letter from the FmHA. The FmHA
would thereby commit to purchase the bonds, subject to certain
conditions.
In June 1980, the county borrowed $450,000 from First Citrus
Bank for the following purposes:
1) to acquire a 40 acre site for the reverse osmosis
plant; and
2) to finance a test well drilling program.
NOV x.91980
77
nox 45 PAGE 323
Bond counsel and underwriters counsel have advised against
issuing BANs inclusive of that $450,000.00. Further, we
cannot allow release of any of the BANS proceeds for con-
struction drawdown or for engineers' fees until such time
as contract three (3) is let and the FmHA take out letter
is in hand. It will, therefore, be necessary for the county
to provide separately for the requisite funds ($454,000.00)
to meet drawdowns on contracts one (1) and two (2) during
the period from first scheduled draw (March 1, 1981) through
receipt of the FmHA takeout letter (August 31, 1981). Funds
for payment of engineers' fees will also be released from
escrowed BANs proceeds at the time of receipt of the FmHA
take out letter.
We, therefore, propose to issue BANs in the amount of
$4,921,000.00 with net BANs proceeds escrowed and invested
until receipt by the Trustee of the FmHA take out letter.
We are presently preparing the form of a Note Purchase Agree-
ment which we will provide to Bond Counsel so that he can
prepare the BANs resolution.
Since el
ll r'
Edward G. Lyons, Jr.'
EGLJr/nb
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT SMITH
BARNEY'S PROPOSAL PROVIDES AN ATTRACTIVE PACKAGE TO THE COUNTY NOR
DOES IT MEET OUR NEEDS FOR THE INITIAL FUNDING FOR PHASES #1 AND #2.
THE ATTORNEY STATED THAT AT A MEETING WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR, THEY
CONCLUDED HE WOULD WRITE SMITH BARNEY AND TELL THEM NOT TO INCUR ANY
ADDITIONAL COSTS BEFORE THIS PROPOSAL COMES TO THE BOARD. THEY THEN
MET WITH MR. BLAND OF HOUGH & COMPANY, WITH WHICH FIRM THE COUNTY HAS
DONE A GREAT DEAL OF FINANCIAL BUSINESS, AND ASKED THEM IF THERE WAS
SOME OTHER WAY OF STRUCTURING THE PACKAGE SO WE COULD GET ALL THE
MONEY UP FRONT INSTEAD OF HAVING TO FINANCE PHASES #1 AND #2
INDEPENDENTLY AS SET OUT IN SMITH BARNEY'S PROPOSAL. ATTORNEY COLLINS
STATED THAT HE AND THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR WOULD LIKE TO
RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER HIRING HOUGH & COMPANY TO
REVIEW THE SMITH BARNEY PROPOSAL AND TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS
ANOTHER WAY OF DOING THIS THAT WILL MEET THE CRITERIA THIS BOARD HAS
SET FORTH. IF THE BOARD CONCURS WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION, HE AND
COORDINATOR THOMAS WILL CONTACT HOUGH & COMPANY AND ASK THEM TO COME
UP WITH A PROPOSAL TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD AND INDICATIONS ARE
THAT THE COST WILL BE MINIMAL. HE CONTINUED THAT RIGHT NOW THEY
WOULD RECOMMEND REJECTION OF THE SMITH BARNEY PROPOSAL,
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED IF WE HAVE A CONTRACTUAL AGREE-
MENT WITH SMITH BARNEY AND IF WE HAVE INCURRED COSTS,
ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THE COUNTY PASSED A RESOLUTION
INDICATING THEY WOULD WORK WITH SMITH BARNEY. THEY SUBSEQUENTLY
WITHIN THE LAST MONTH AND A HALF PRESENTED A PROPOSAL, THAT PROPOSAL
WAS PASSED BY THE -COMMISSION SUBJECT TO DELETION OF THE TRUSTEE
REQUIREMENT. WE MET WITH SMITH BARNEY AND THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH
THE DELETION. AT THE LAST MEETING, IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD
RESCIND THEIR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL. THE ATTORNEY FELT THE ONLY
COMMITMENT WE HAVE WITH SMITH BARNEY IS THAT WE GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY
TO BID IF WE ISSUE BANS.
COORDINATOR THOMAS REPORTED THAT HE DID DISCUSS THIS SITUATION
IN DETAIL WITH FINANCE OFFICER BARTON, AND HE CONCURS WITH THE ATTORNEY
AND THE COORDINATOR. HE THEN DISCUSSED THE FMHA REQUIREMENTS AND
THE DIVIDING OF CONTRACTS, WHICH HE NOTED GAVE US AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
POSITION IN THE MARKET.
ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT THERE ARE SOME EXPENSES
INCURRED, PRIMARILY FOR BOND COUNSEL. HE STATED THEY ARE JUST SAYING
THAT THIS PROPOSAL DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT AND THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVES.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
CONTACT HOUGH & COMPANY AND HAVE THEM COME BACK WITH ANOTHER PROPOSAL
AS DISCUSSED.
CHAIRMAN LYONS RECESSED THE MEETING AT 4:35 O'CLOCK P.M.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTING THE COURTROOMS AND OFFICES ON THE
SECOND FLOOR OF THE COURTHOUSE.
INSPECTION OF COURTROOMS AND COURT OFFICES - CHANGE PROPOSAL #16B
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECONVENED AT 4:45 O'CLOCK
P.M. ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 2145
14TH AVENUE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT.
Nov 191980
79
NOV 191980 BON
5 PArE' 325
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE HERCULES KONTOULAS
LED THE BOARD MEMBERS ON A TOUR OF THE COURTROOMS, JURY ROOMS,
HEARING ROOMS, SECRETARIAL AREA AND JUDGES' OFFICES. THE BOARD
FIRST VIEWED THE PROGRESS OF THE RENOVATION WORK IN THE CIRCUIT
COURTROOMS, AND MR. KONTOULAS REVIEWED CHANGE ORDER #4 AND CHANGE
PROPOSAL #16B. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE ARCHITECTS RECOMMEND
THAT WE GO WITH THE DRY WALL WHETHER WE GO AHEAD WITH THE PANELING
OR NOT. MR. KONTOULAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD GO WITH CHANGE
ORDER #4, BUT LEFT THE QUESTION OF THE PANELING TO THE BOARD'S
DISCRETION.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT WE SHOULD PUT THE DRYWALL IN AND
NOT PAINT IT. MR. KONTOULAS NOTED THAT WE WOULD GET CREDIT FOR
ELIMINATING THE PAINTING.
IT WAS NOTED THAT THE BOARD ALREADY HAS APPROVED CHANGE
ORDER #4, AND CHAIRMAN LYONS POINTED OUT THAT THIS VISIT WAS MADE
BECAUSE THE BOARD WANTED TO BE SURE WHETHER THEY WANTED TO RETRACT ON
CHANGE ORDER #4. HE STATED THAT UNLESS HE HEARS SOMETHING TO THE
CONTRARY, HE WOULD GO ALONG WITH CHANGE ORDER #4.
ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF CHANGE ORDER #4 INCLUDED PAINTING,
AND MR. KONTOULAS STATED IT DOES, BUT NOTED THAT CHANGE ORDER PROPOSAL
#16B GIVES CREDIT FOR NOT PAINTING. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE IS
DROPPED CEILING TO BE PUT IN AND THE CEILING MAN IS WORKING.NOW AND
ABOUT READY TO START IN THIS AREA.
CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO PAINT, THEN WE
OUGHT TO MAKE IT A CONDITION OF THE CHANGE ORDER #4, WHICH WAS JUST
APPROVED BECAUSE IN THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IT CAN T COME BACK TO
THE BOARD AGAIN BEFORE THEY MAKE THEIR NEXT MOVE. HE ASKED MR.
KONTOULAS IF THERE WILL BE PAINT ON THE WALLS WHEN THEY ARE THROUGH
WITH CHANGE ORDER #4, AND MR. KONTOULAS CONFIRMED THAT THERE WOULD.
CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED THE BOARD IF THEY WISHED TO EXCLUDE
PAINT AT THIS TIME OR JUST LET THEM FINISH THE JOB AND REMAIN WITH
THE PAINT.
80
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER NOTED THAT THE PAINT WILL LAST FOR A
YEAR. HE FELT THE CREDIT FOR NOT PAINTING IS MINIMAL AND WE COULD
GET THE USE OF THE PAINT FOR A YEAR OR SO AND THEN COME BACK AND PUT
THE PANELING UP.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THE
PAINT IN AT THIS TIME AND POSSIBLY WHEN WE GET TO THE FINISHING STAGE,
WE COULD PUT IN A CHANGE ORDER TO DELETE THE PAINTING AND THEN DO
THE PANELING.
IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED TO STAY WITH
CHANGE ORDER #4 AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
THE BOARD THEN PROCEEDED TO INSPECT THE JURY ROOMS, HEARING
ROOMS, .JUDGES' OFFICES, ETC. THE SPECIFICATIONS CALL FOR THE FINISH
IS TO BE LEFT AS IS; THE CONTRACTOR ACTUALLY WOULD NOT EVEN BE
REQUIRED TO PATCH THE HOLES IN THE PLASTER.
ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE JURY ROOM WILL
BE USED BY SIX PEOPLE POSSIBLY TWICE OR THREE TIMES A WEEK - THERE
WILL BE VERY MINIMAL PUBLIC CONTACT.
MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT HE WOULD RECOMMEND, IN ORDER TO
KEEP THE JUDGES HAPPY, THAT THE COURTROOMS BE PANELED AT THIS TIME,
BUT NOT THE OFFICES, SECRETARIAL AREA, ETC.
COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT A
CHANGE ORDER SHOWING WHAT IT WOULD COST TO DO THE COURTROOMS AND THE
.JUDGES' OFFICES. HE INQUIRED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF USING SOME
KIND OF VINYL WALLPAPER IN THE SECRETARIAL AREA AS AN ALTERNATIVE.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE
THE ARCHITECTS WENT ALONG WITH THE BOARD'S INSTRUCTIONS AND TRIED TO
KEEP COSTS DOWN.
MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT DROPPED CEILINGS AND CARPET WILL
HELP ELIMINATE NOISE, BUT NOTED THAT IF WE GO WITH THE APPROVED
CEILINGS IN THE JUDGES' OFFICES, THEY WILL HAVE PLASTER CEILINGS AND
THE OLD EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURES, WHICH ARE DISCOLORED WITH AGE. HE
EXPLAINED TO THE NEW BOARD MEMBERS THAT HE SPENT A YEAR REVIEWING THE
NOV 191980 81 K
NOV 191980 800A 45 PAGE327
ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS AND MADE 2,200 COMMENTS. THEY DID HAVE SOME
ADDENDUMS, BUT MANY OF THE ITEMS HE BROUGHT UP WERE NEVER COVERED.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED,.AND CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT WE HAVE
AGREED WE ARE GOING TO STAY WITH CHANGE ORDER #4 AND POSSIBLY HAVE
SOME ALTERNATES ON CHANGE PROPOSAL 16B.
MR. KONTOULAS ASKED IF THE BOARD WISHED HIM TO PURSUE DOING
THE TWO COURTROOMS AND THE FOUR JUDGES' OFFICES WITH THE PANELING.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF THE BOARD HAD ANY OBJECTION
TO FOLLOWING UP ON GETTING LOCAL ESTIMATES ON PANELING, AND CHAIRMAN
LYONS STATED HE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THAT BUT NOT WHILE THE CONTRACTOR
IS ON THE JOB.
FURTHER DISCUSSION CONTINUED REGARDING MATERIALS AND PRICES
AND THE POSSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING S' HIGH WOOD PANELING. THE BOARD
AGREED THEY WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE THE IDEA OF 8' HIGH PANELING WITH
MOLDING AND THEN PAINT ABOVE THAT, AND MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT HE
COULD VOID CHANGE PROPOSAL 16B AND HAVE ANOTHER PROPOSAL WRITTEN.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE COMMENTED THAT HE HAS SEEN A LETTER FROM
JUDGE SMITH REQUESTING BOOKCASES, WALL TO WALL, FOR THE JUDGES'
OFFICES, AND HE HOPED THAT WE WOULDN'T BE PUTTING BOOKCASES OVER
EXPENSIVE PANELING.
MR. KONTOULAS ASKED IF THE BOARD WISHED HIM TO VOID CHANGE
PROPOSAL 16B AND GET A PRICE ON S' PANELING JUST IN THE COURTROOMS
AND THE BOARD AGREED.
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE WOULD RATHER SEE THE MONEY
SPENT IN THE COURTROOMS AND THE JUDGES' OFFICES.
THE BOARD AGREED ON PAINTING THE JURY ROOMS, THE HEARING
ROOMS, ETC., FOR THE TIME BEING.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED NOT TO ACCEPT CHANGE PROPOSAL 16B
AND INSTEAD REQUEST THAT A CHANGE PROPOSAL BE WRITTEN FOR USING 1/4"
MEDIUM GRADE WOOD PANELING AT S' HEIGHTS FOR THE TWO CIRCUIT COURTROOMS.
PRIORITY SYSTEM FOR CONNECTION TO COUNTY WATER SYSTEM
A PRIORITY SYSTEM FOR CONNECTIONS TO THE COUNTY WATER
SYSTEM IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1980,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Neil Nelson, County Administrator
FROM: George Liner, Utilities Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Priority System for Connections to County Water System.
DATE: November 5:, 1980
From now until the initial rush of connections are satisfied, there
will be a problem determining who should have a connection and when can
it be made. The following procedure is offered as a logical plan which
requires a minimum of confusion or judicious decisions for the South
County System.
The following priority is proposed until the system reaches a design
demand of 80% of the maximum capacity of the system. When this point is
approached or reached, a limited rate of connection will be imposed while
the next phase of growth is completed. To do this, the developer will
be limited with a schedule of units vs. connection date (not to be exceeded)
set as part of the service agreement. To be considered for connection,the
customer must be contiguous to existing water mains. Priority levels
will be assigned only after service agreements are fully executed and
all applicable fees are paid.*
The priority for connections to be made to the system should be:
1. Where conditions are certified to be an emergency by the Health Depart-
ment officials, these cases shall receive top priority; ie. all later
priorities will be interrupted for this installation or connection.
IA. Existing individual single family residences who apply by signing
a service agreement and paying the appropriate fees.* These
connections will be made without waiting three months for advertizing.
2. Chronologically according to the following cases for:
2A. Existing residential or commercial projects which require or
already have connection on the County 6th Avenue Force Main
with completed agreement and fees* for sewer and water service.
2B. Existing residential or commercial projects which require "water
only" service. This covers all other existing projects after
completing agreements and paying fees.*
3. Chronologically according to the following cases of proposed projects:
3A. Proposed individual homes (to be built) with agreement'and fees* paid.
3B. Proposed residential or commercial projects for both water and
sewer service, after completing agreements and paying fees.*
Boof 45�
NOV 191990 S3 -
NOV i990 BOOK 45 PAGE -329
-2-
3C. Proposed residential or commercial projects for water only service,
after completing agreements and paying fees.*
Upon initiating this priority system, a three month period will be
used to advertize with legal notices and press releases that we are
entertaining applications to be connected to the water system limited to
the provisions of this priority system and the peak loading agreement
with the City of Vero Beach or peak loading of the plant capacity.
Upon completion of the advertisement interval, connections shall be
permitted in the sequence of their priority. This will be evidenced by
County execution of the above mentioned agreements. No water agreements
will be offered beyond the allocated capacity to serve the customer.
When these priorities are all satisfied, if there is plant capacity
remaining, the same priority schedule shall apply for non-contiguous
connections that are economically feasible. The feasibility pertains to
extending the water mains according to the Master Utility Plan.
George Li er, Utilities Director
GL/kh
cc: John Robbins
Joe Collins
file
Approved by Indian River County Board of Commissioners on
November 5, 1980
Date
Y, . I !
W. . Siebe t, hairmam
*If the fees are escalated during the period the connection is contracted
for, the customer will be required to pay the escalated fee prior to
making the connection. When a project is developed in phases, the County
responsibility shall be limited to servicing only those connections paid
in advance.
84
.r do
r
THE SEVERAL BILLS AND ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE COUNTY, HAVING
BEEN AUDITED, WERE EXAMINED AND FOUND TO BE CORRECT, WERE APPROVED
AND WARRANTS ISSUED IN SETTLEMENT OF SAME AS FOLLOWS: TREASURY FUND
NOS, 68248 - 68F76 INCLUSIVE. SUCH BILLS AND ACCOUNTS BEING ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE WARRANTS SO
ISSUED FROM THE RESPECTIVE BONDS BEING LISTED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL
MINUTE BOOK AS PROVIDED BY THE RULES OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR,
REFERENCE TO SUCH RECORD AND LIST SO RECORDED BEING MADE A PART OF
THESE MINUTES.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED
AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 5:35 O'CLOCK P.M.
ATTEST:
CLERK
NOV 191980 85
BOOK