Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/28/1981WEDNESDAY, .JANUARY 28, 1981 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, .JANUARY 281 19811 AT 8:30 O'CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE PATRICK B. LYONS, CHAIRMAN; WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN; DICK BIRD, ALFRED GROVER FLETCHER; AND DON C. SCURLOCK, SJR. 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 DIRECTOR; NEAL BIRD, BAILIFF; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES AND JANICE CALDWELL, DEPUTY CLERKS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON GAVE THE INVOCATION. ADDITIONS To AGENDA ATTORNEY COLLINS REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM CONCERNING FACSIMILE SIGNATURES. COMMISSIONER WODTKE REQUESTED, TIME PERMITTING, ADDING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: A PROPOSED MANAGEMENT TOOL; AN ITEM REGARDING THE 1981-1982 BUDGET; AND CONSIDERATION FOR NO PARKING SIGNS AT THE FLEA MARKET ON SOUTH US #1. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ADDING THE EMERGENCY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA. CHAIRMAN LYONS THOUGHT IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO DEVIATE SLIGHTLY FROM THE ORDER OF BUSINESS REGARDING THE AGENDA AND PROPOSED THAT MAYBE SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE PRESENTLY ON THE AGENDA THAT ARE "NON -ACTION" OR "DISCUSSION" ITEMS BE MOVED TO A WORKSHOP MEETING. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER AGREED AND REQUESTED DELETING ITEM 14 REGARDING THE DISCUSSION FOR THE REAR WALL IN THE NEW COMMISSION CHAMBER. JAN 28 1981 466K 46 PAGE COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT THE BOARD MUST HAVE MORE MEETINGS AND THOUGHT IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO HAVE ONE OR TWO ADDITIONAL EVENING MEETINGS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER THOUGHT IT WOULD BE WORTH A TRY INSTEAD OF THE MARATHON THE BOARD HAS BEEN GOING THROUGH. COMMISSIONER BIRD SUGGESTED A COMPROMISE OF HAVING DAY AND EVENING MEETINGS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE WAS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT THAT SOMETHING MUST BE DONE TO SHORTEN THE LONG AGENDAS BUT HE WAS NOT IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH EVENING MEETINGS.BUT FELT THEY SHOULD BE HELD ONLY FOR SPECIFIC ZONING ITEMS. HE THOUGHT THE BOARD HAD TO ADDRESS WHAT IT WOULD COST TO HAVE THE EVENING MEETINGS AS THE BOARD COULD NOT EXPECT BOARD SECRETARY FORLANI AND THE RECORDING SECRETARIES TO BE ABLE TO DO THE FULL DAY S WORK AND COME BACK FOR EVENING MEETINGS. COMMIS- SIONER WODTKE AGREED WITH CHAIRMAN LYONS THAT "DISCUSSION" ITEMS BE HANDLED AT A WORKSHOP SESSION. HE THEN REVIEWED ST, LUCIE COUNTY'S AGENDA PROCEDURE, AND THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF RICHARD KELTON, CONSULTANT, COULD REVIEW THIS PROBLEM AND GIVE THE BOARD HIS CONSIDERATION. COMMISSIONER WODTKE THEN PROPOSED THAT THE BOARD MEET EVERY OTHER WEDNESDAY DURING THE DAY, AND SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP SESSION THE MONDAY AFTERNOON BEFORE THE WEDNESDAY MEETING. HE CONTINUED THAT ON THE DAY AFTER THE WORKSHOP SESSION, THE STAFF COULD PREPARE THE AGENDA ITEMS IN TIME FOR THE WEDNESDAY MORNING MEETINGS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ALSO FELT THAT THE WORKSHOP SESSIONS COULD BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND BE RECORDED ON TAPE. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD ESTABLISH DAY MEETINGS FOR THE FIRST AND THIRD WEDNESDAY; AN EVENING MEETING FOR THE SECOND WEDNESDAY; AND IF THERE IS A FIFTH WEDNESDAY IN THE MONTH, HAVE AN EVENING MEETING. COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT HE HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE STAFF AND OVERTIME AND SUGGESTED CONSIDERING A WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON MEETING STARTING AT 1:00 P.M. INSTEAD OF HAVING IT AT NIGHT. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK EXPLAINED THAT HE IS STILL WORKING AND COULD SCHEDULE THE AFTERNOON MEETING, BUT FELT THERE WOULD BE MORE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IF MEETINGS WERE HELD IN THE EVENING. HE ADDED THAT THE BOARD IS GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THE WORK LOAD IN BOARD SECRETARY FORLANI'S OFFICE - ADDITIONAL STAFF IS NEEDED. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON AGREED THAT HE DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH MR. KELTON REGARDING THIS OVERWHELMING TASK, AND ANY ADDITIONAL MEETINGS, WORKSHOPS, OR SCHEDULED MEETINGS WILL NECESSITATE AN INCREASE IN PERSONNEL. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER AGREED. MORE DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. CHAIRMAN LYONS AMENDED HIS PROPOSAL TO STATE THAT THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE THE EVENING MEETING, PARTICULARLY FOR ZONING MATTERS, AND THAT A WORKSHOP SESSION BE HELD IN THE DAY WITH A TAPE RECORDER, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED HE WOULD AMEND HIS MOTION. COMMISSIONER BIRD INTERJECTED THAT THE BOARD SHOULD FIRST DISCUSS THIS MATTER WITH MR. KELTON BEFORE MAKING A DECISION. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WITHDREW HIS MOTION AND COMMISSIONER BIRD WITHDREW HIS SECOND. APPROVAL OF MINUTES THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 31, 1980, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 31, 1980, AS WRITTEN. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF .JANUARY 14, 1981. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REFERRED TO PAGE 61 REGARDING THE CHANGE ORDER FOR THE GIFFORD WATER SYSTEM, HE POINTED OUT THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED AND SUGGESTED THAT, IN THE -FUTURE, THEY SHOULD ,COME BEFORE THE BOARD ALREADY SIGNED AND READY TO BE IMPLEMENTED. � 3 AN 28 1981 9 r ---- _ JAN 281981 - Bcox . 5 RACE 70 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF .JANUARY 14, 1981, AS WRITTEN. CLERKS AGENDA ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE FOR THE FOLLOWING DEPUTIES APPOINTED BY SHERIFF DOBECK: NEIL G. BEVIS DONALD BROWN, JR. HUGH CORRTGAN, III JOSEPH S. CULPEPPER BRIAN D. WOOD MARK C. .JOHNSON PHILLIP W. BOBET JUAN P. LORETO BERTRAM A. BACH .JAMES W. THOMAS C. BRUCE EDWARDS DAVID A. GORE DONALD E. MCCALL ,JOSEPH P. BOBROWSKAS THOMAS E. JENKINS RICK MATTHEWS GENE E. MORRIS CHUCK JUSTICE JOSEPH R. HARVEY, III GEORGE T. STUBBS JOHN R. HILL JESSE SELPH FREDRICK W. BAKER ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED STATE WITNESS PAYROLL, CIRCUIT COURT, FALL TERM, 1980, IN THE AMOUNT OF $64.71. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO A. G. HOLLEY STATE HOSPITAL FOR ALPHONSO N. COLEMAN. THE FOLLOWING REPORTS WERE RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK: TRAFFIC VIOLATION BUREAU - SPECIAL TRUST FUND MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1980 - $34,408.02 TRAFFIC VIOLATION FINES BY NAME - DECEMBER, 1980 ON LOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY AS SCOUTING ANNIVERSARY MONTH. CHAIRMAN LYONS CALLED RAY REDSTONE BEFORE THE BOARD AND READ ALOUD THE PROCLAMATION; THEN PRESENTED IT TO HIM. MR. REDSTONE EXPRESSED HIS THANKS TO THE BOARD, PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the success of Scouting for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Explorers depends on our community organi- zations; and WHEREAS, there are churches and synagogues, schools and parent -teacher associations, service and fraternal clubs, and other community organizations that have been chartered in our area by the Boy Scouts of America to use the Scouting program; and WHEREAS, the volunteer leaders selected by these chartered organizations are performing an outstand- ing service for boys and young men and women; and WHEREAS, the Indian River District of the Boy Scouts of America and its corps of dedicated volunteer leaders are providing necessary support to the leaders in the 5 Cub Scout packs, 9 Coy Scout troops,, and 5 Exulorer posts, with a total membership of 577: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, extend sincere appreciation to our community organizations that use the Scouting program and to their volunteer leaders; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County proclaim the month of February, 1981, as Scouting Anniversary Month and urge our citizens to join with them in expressing appreciation to the community organizations and their volunteer Scouting leaders for bringing the Wonderful World of Scouting to our young people. B L YD tJ S Chairman Board of County Com iss oners Indian River County JAN 281981 5 _: 45c 7 JAN 28 1981 �Qo -�� �45` P 672 PUBLIC HEARING — REZONING REQUESTED BY DR. HENRY FISCHER — ORDINANCE N0. 81-3 THE HOUR OF 9:00 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO—WIT: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero �jBeach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a I /t_e in the matter of 9 _e 1-,2 2!n ._1 n in the Court, was pub - fished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed bet e mt1his l ! day of A.D. (SEAL) Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, IhAian River County, Florida) NOTICE (Amended) { �. NOTICE IS HEREBY. GIVEN that the Planning and- Zoning, Comission of Indian River County, Florida, Is reviewing the feasibility of making the following changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of In- . dian River County, Florida, which changes and additions are substantially as follows: . 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the.following described property situated south of S.R. 512, contiguous to the City Limits of Sebastian, in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: That part of'the Southwest 1/4 of the Nor- theast r/4 of Section 23, Township 31 South, Range 38` East, : lying southerly' of the Fellsmere-Sebastian Road (S.R. 512) Indian River County, Florida.. Be 'chanced from A -Agricultural to R -1k Country Estate District. A public hearing in relation thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by said Planning and. Zoning Commission in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday, December 11, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. after which said public hearing in relation thereto at which panties in interest aril citizens shalt have an opportunity. to be heard -will be held by the Board Of County Commissioners of.,Indian River County,.. Florida, in the Council Chambers of the City. Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday,, : Januarry� 28,1981, at 9:00 A.M. Bold bf County Commissioners' Indian River County By: W.W. Siebert, Jr.. Chairman Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission By: Harold Winkler, Chairman Nov. 12,14, 1980. NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO DR, HENRY FISCHER AND ERIC FISCHER BY THE CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT AS REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE 125.66, REPORT. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING STAFF ZONING CHANGE - STAFF REPORT Dr. HenryFischer Owner Agent P.O. Box 68 Address Sebastian, FL 32958 October 7 1980 Date of Application ZC 80-17-446 Application Number Rezoning from A to R -1 E (District) (District Preliminary Final X Hearing PROPOSED USE AND LOCATION: Applicant proposes to subdivide this 37 -acre site into 1 acre lakefront lots. Subject property is located on the south side of Fellsmere Road, one-half mile northeast of the inter- section of State Roads 512 and 510. 4 EXISTING SITUATION: Mining activities have been discontinued and the mining permit has been terminated. The property has a lake near the center, with moderately dense pine trees on the periphery. Agri- -culturally zoned acreage adjacent to the north boundary is used pri- marily fo-r grazing. The eastern and southern adjacent areas are part of the Sebastian Highlands and are occupied by scattered residences. The area on the western side of Fellsmere Road is vacant and contains the preliminarily -approved San Sebastian Springs Subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed single family (R-lE Country Estate) zoning is in compliance with both the existing Land Use Plan and the pro- posed Comprehensive Plan. , David M. ever, Planning and Zoning Director DR:mr CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO BE HEARD. THERE WERE NONE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD ADOPT ORDINANCE 81-3 REZONING PROPERTY FROM A -AGRICULTURAL DTSTRICT TO R -1E COUNTRY ESTATE DISTRICT, AS REQUESTED BY DR. HENRY FISCHER. JAN 28 1981 N JAN 2 81981 5 pacE 674 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER QUESTIONED WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS IN RELATION TO THE ANNEXED PROPERTY. HENRY FISCHER, DR. FISCHER'S SON, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND STATED THAT THE PROPERTY USED TO BELONG TO HEWEY SMITH. ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THE FISCHER PROPERTY WAS LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SECTION AND THE ANNEXED PROPERTY WAS IN THE SOUTHEAST SECTION. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT DENSITIES CANNOT BE INCREASED ON ANNEXED LAND WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE BOARD. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED MR. FISCHER IF HE WAS AWARE OF ANY INTENTION TO REQUEST ANNEXATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, AND HE RESPONDED THAT IT WAS NOT, TO HIS KNOWLEDGE, TO BE REQUESTED. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 0 8 ORDINANCE NO. 81-3 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to -rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citi- zens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the JAN 2 1981 following described property situated in Indian=River County, Florida, to -wit: That part of the Southwest 4 of the Northeast 4 of Section 23, Township 31 South, Range 38 East, lying southerly of the Fellsmere-Sebastian Road (S. R. 512) Be changed from A -Agricultural District to R -1E Country Estate District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. This Ordinance shall take effect February 2, 1981. WG x;. 45 PAIS475 JAN 28 1981 ao�K 5 PaPjE 676 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MOBILE HOME AD HOC COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION 80-138 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION AND NOTED THE CHANGES HE IS RECOMMENDING, SUCH AS: ADDING A -PHRASE TO ELECT A CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY WHERE APPROPRIATE; CHANGING THE FIGURES FROM 60 TO 180 DAYS FOR FILING A PRELIMINARY REPORT; AND CHANGING 30 TO 60 DAYS FOR FILING A FINAL REPORT. LENGTHY DISCUSSION ENSUED. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS - STONER FLETCHER,THAT THE "WHEREAS" CLAUSES BE STRICKEN FROM THE RESOLUTION. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 4 TO 1, WITH CHAIRMAN LYONS VOTING IN OPPOSITION. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING HAVING A CLERK PRESENT FOR THE FOUR MEETINGS, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE COUNTY WOULD MAKE AVAILABLE THE TAPE RECORDING EQUIPMENT IN ORDER FOR THE MEETINGS TO BE TAPED, AND A MEMBER OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE COULD MAKE AN OUTLINE OF THE MEETING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TAPE. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS OFFERED HIS SERVICES FOR TAKING THE MINUTES OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETINGS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT HE ACCEPTED THE OFFER FOR USE OF THE TAPE RECORDING EQUIPMENT, AND THAT THEY WOULD FIND A WAY TO PUT IT ON PAPER THEREAFTER. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED THE CHANGES JUST DISCUSSED ANDAGREED THAT THEY BE INCORPORATED IN PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 80-138. RESOLUTION NO. 80-138 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that in order to facilitate improved rela- tionships between mobile home residents and mobile home park owners; and to improve unsafe or deteriorated conditions within mobile home parks, the Board hereby establishes an ad hoc committee to be known as the "INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MOBILE HOME AD HOC COMMITTEE", to be made up of members from the following designated areas: Two (2) members shall have no interest or affiliation with mobile home parks; Two (2) members shall be mobile home park owners or their representatives; Three (3) members shall be residents of mobile home parks, none of which shall come from the same mobile home park; as to the three (3) categories above, the members shall be permanent residents and electors of Indian River County and possess a reputa- tion for integrity, civic accomplishment and professional or business ability; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, after the appointments have been made by the Board of County Commissioners, the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MOBILE HOME AD HOC COMMITTEE shall elect a Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary and meet publicly after notice as often as the COMMITTEE determines, filing a preliminary report with the Board of County Commissioners within approximately one hundred eighty (180) days after appointment. All meetings shall be tape recorded, and the COMMITTEE shall meet no less than four (4) times prior to filing the preliminary report. During the initial one hundred eighty (180) day phase, the' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MOBILE HOME AD HOC COMMITTEE shall meet and discuss common problems that exist between mobile home park residents and owners and provide a public forum for public participation. Approximately sixty (60) days subsequent to the preliminary report and after input from the Board of County Commissioners, the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MOBILE HOME AD HOC COMMITTEE shall file a final report, which report shall include suggestions as to any additional legisla- tion that may be necessary and a review of the effectiveness of the existing statutory authority; and Bao�c 5 FArc�617 JAN 2 � �98� ,., 'J A N 28 1981 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon the filing of the final report, the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MOBILE HOME AD HOC COMMITTEE shall automatic- ally dissolve and this Resolution shall be of no further effect. Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 28th -day of January , 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Attest: Freda Wright, Ca_er.w famallogilimasmaml wisom0 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO PREPARE A PACKET OF RESUMES FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION, AND THAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS BE APPOINTED AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING, DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CUT-OFF DATE FOR RESUMES WOULD BE FEBRUARY 4, 1981, PRESENTATION OF ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW BY RICHARD --- KELTON RICHARD KELTON, PRESIDENT OF SOUTHERN-KELTON & ASSOCIATES, INC., CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND REVIEWED THE INTERIM REPORT FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS. HE CONTINUED THAT THE COUNTY HAS GROWN RAPIDLY AND NOW WAS THE TIME TO LOOK AT THE PRESENT ORGANIZATION. MR. KELTON STATED THAT HIS RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO CENTRALIZE AND HAVE A PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AS INDICATED ON THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION CHART: j INDL.\N iii 1'Uf>LIC 11 )RKS D l i' ECT.?R ENGINEERING! ` FOUIP`1E:I` T DIVISION l ;�'AiVT. DIV. SOLID WA: -ITE ROMA, AIN � � I"TiLIT LES DIVISION PII I DG ?S L)IV. DI%,ISION JAN 28 1981 13 BE�ox 5 iA' Q G79 JAN 2 8 1991 Boa 45. PA480 MR. KELTON ALSO SUGGESTED HAVING A BUILDING MAINTENANCE DIVISION, BUT THAT WILL COME LATER WHEN THE BALANCE.OF THE STUDY IS DONE. HE FELT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN MOVING AHEAD, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED - SOME FORM OF PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED, AS WELL AS RADIO COMMUNICATION IN THE FIELD. MR. KELTON THEN SPOKE ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT IT WILL BE TO DOCUMENT AND RECORD THE ACTIVITIES IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHAT THE COSTS ARE; -FROM THE DATA OBTAINED, THE BUDGET CAN BE PREPARED. HE THEN REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING CHART OF THE ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT: f �y-� .��.��� .:e"'� d°�"H Cf �,� � �,-fi, � � s;�. t -, �a'3� � s t ti x�_�[�'�� n '� R,` a z-��m. � t �' � � .,. MR. KELTON STATED THAT .WITH THE STUDY THERE ARE FIVE OR=h x.w R u�r� # �yw i L-�''.• 'v'�.. SIX ALTERNATE APPROACHES THAT CAN BE TAKEN AND HE PREFERRED AND�t. 4 � Sw� ya F E h• +� ,, !r �� R RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: r Y�r ''"'s -; i � -. x. � � � a ,,� r ^' % � 's l ,k S } :. m" i�.,�3,�t f �}1� � �� ns _ At�""�" � 7t . _ �si�... t `� c- ✓ `��h� ' u°°�'. Z' ` ORGANIZATION CHART N0: 4 yx c XF rz+ kT INDIAN `RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA r f 5 4 r tt 7'�f e tLV Mo" ROAD & BRIDGE DIVISION�"I� e ice• °: z _ 'P� it Z�,<� ° `� �` y'7 ''� 'Iy f a��F'. a. .I ,wN i fps, qi 1 ROAD & BRIDGE n a tj f SUPERINTENDENT�3Yr. R fi s 4 P SECRETARY t ' ASST. ROAD r `��'n & BRIDGE SUPT. } FOREMAN FOREMAN ` { MOWING CREW DITCH CR):ttJ DITCH CREW MOWING: CREG� (TRANSFER} t r PESTICIDE. CREW DITCH CREW HEAVY EQUIP OI (7) (GRADALL) R a FOREMANSIGN CREW FOREMAN f (1) (3) F % � BRIDGE CREW DRAGLINE CRE14 TRUCK CREW GRADk.RS (2) (3) (7) T ;f IIEAVY EQUIP OP M DIUM EQI�IP (Z) LIGHT EQUIP OP F � (3)� ;0 15, 16 Y q, r`x DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES. MR. KELTON REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING; EQUIPMENT SAFETY; COMMUNICATIONS; DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY; CHAIN OF COMMAND AND MANAGEMENT; AND THE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PARTS ROOM, HE SUGGESTED PUTTING THE ENTIRE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM ON THE COMPUTER. FINALLY, MR. KELTON RECOMMENDED A 4 DAY, 40 HOUR WORK WEEK FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE OPERATIONS. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT THE 4 DAY, 40 HOUR WORK WEEK HAD GOOD MERIT IF IT COULD BE DEVELOPED WITH THE PROPER SUPERVISORS. DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT THE 4 DAY, 40 HOUR WORK WEEK POSSIBILITIES. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON HOPED TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE REORGANIZATION PRIOR TO BUDGET HEARINGS, AND MAKE THE TRANSITION WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL OR EQUIPMENT. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE INTERIM REPORT - PUBLIC WORKS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD BE THE ONE TO CONTACT WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE DONE; OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE INTERFERING WITH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. MR. KELTON NEXT WILL BE WORKING ON THE AUTHORITY FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR, AND REFERRED TO A "NON-INTERFERENCE CLAUSE" IN THE STATE STATUTES WHICH COVERS THIS. ATTORNEY COLLINS INTERJECTED THAT AN ORDINANCE OUTLINING THE DUTIES OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IS NEEDED PRESENTLY. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN. THE DISCUSSION THEN TURNED TO THE PROBLEM OF REDUCING THE MEETING TIME FOR THE BOARD, AND OF THE AGENDA PREPARATION. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT MR. KELTON WILL WORK ON THIS MATTER AND COME BACK TO JAN 28 1981 17 JAN 28 1981 THE BOARD WITH AN INTERIM REPORT. atox ' 45acF 84 THE BOARD DECIDED TO HAVE A WORK— SHOP MEETING ON FEBRUARY 4, 1981 AT 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TO DISCUSS THIS PROBLEM. THE INTERIM REPORT — PUBLIC WORKS IN ITS ENTIRETY IS Old FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING THE RESALE OF PRECIOUS THE HOUR of 11:00 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO—WIT: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero BeachinIndian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a��! in the matter of in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of `„J -te 1 i Court, was pub- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose ofsecuring this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before m this day of 7 1-7ZL usiness Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court ilndian River County, Florida) Na 0 ,- Jn ` / s e.� NOTICE t NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners . of Indian River County, Florida, will hold`a public hearing on January 28, 1981, at 11:00 A.M. in the City Council Chambers in the Vero Beach City Hall to consider the adoption of an r - Ordinance amending Chapter 17 of the Code .-of Ordinances. for Indian River*, County, Florida, entitled "Offenses and Mtscellaneous Provisions," to add a new Section thereto to be numbered Section 17-4, to require persons dealing in precious metals, jewels and stones, such as gold, silver, platinum, diamonds, rubies; emeralds, sapphires, turquoise, jade, opals, amethyst, and pearls, to keep a'record.- of all purchases; providing guidelines for said records providing that said records shall be made available to law enforcement officers upon request; providing for a penalty; providing for an effective date. •. -a Board Of County Commissioners of.., Indian River County, Florida By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons' Chairman Jan. 8, 1981.. ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND THE COUNTY SHOULD HAVE UNIFIED ORDINANCES ON THIS MATTER AND AT THE PRESENT TIME THERE IS A DRAFT AVAILABLE BUT IT IS NOT IN ITS FINAL FORM. HE FELT THIS MATTER SHOULD BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 11, 1981 AT WHICH TIME THE CITY`S ORDINANCE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THE BOARDS CONSIDERATION. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO BE HEARD. AN INTERESTED CITIZEN CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND DISCUSSED THE PROBLEMS OF MELTED DOWN GOLD AND SILVER, AND THE FACT THAT MOST PEOPLE OBJECT TO GIVING THEIR NAMES ON THE POLICE REPORT THAT WILL BE REQUIRED. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL FEBRUARY 11, 1981 AT 11:00 O'CLOCK A.M. REPORT ON INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE GIFFORD SEWER SYSTEM - ORDINANCE 81-6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS STATED IT WAS NECESSARY TO ARRANGE FOR INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE GIFFORD SEWER SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $236,000. HE ADVISED THAT THE LOWEST RATE AVAILABLE WAS FROM FIRST CITRUS BANK AT 9.5% MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD,TO APPROVE THE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $236,000. ATTORNEY COLLINS DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF BORROWING ONLY $210,000 AND THEN THERE WOULD BE BOND PROCEEDS TO PAY BOTH THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK AMENDED HIS MOTION TO $210,0001 AND COMMISSIONER BIRD SECONDED HIS MOTION. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. CHAIRMAN LYONS INQUIRED'WHY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION. 19 45 ott M5 JAN 28 1991 1 aoox ` 45'PnF 6$6 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT THIS MOTION CONSTITUTES AN ACTION WHICH IS DEFICIT SPENDING, AND IN HIS OPINION, THIS BOARD NEEDS TO REFRAIN FROM, ESPECIALLY IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES, BORROWING FROM TOMORROW TO PAY FOR YESTERDAY. CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT HE DID NOT QUITE UNDERSTAND HIS STATEMENT AND ASKED HIM TO BE MORE SPECIFIC. HE DID NOT THINK THE BOARD INVOLVED ITSELF IN DEFICIT SPENDING. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS A WORD GAME, BUT WHEN YOU BORROW MONEY FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES THAT YOU DON'T HAVE, HE CALLED IT SPENDING MONEY THAT YOU DON T HAVE, ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THIS MONEY WAS REVENUE BOND ISSUES SECURED BY THE FUTURE REVENUES OF THE NORTH COUNTY WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM. THE CHAIRMAN REITREATED THAT, IN OTHER WORDS, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WOULD NOT SPEND ANY MONEY BASED ON FUTURE REVENUES. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE WOULD SPEND NO MONEY BASED ON THAT, UNLESS THEY HAD THE MONEY IN HAND. A DISCUSSION CONTINUED ABOUT COMMISSIONER FLETCHER'S PHILOSOPHY AS OPPOSED TO COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICE. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER DID NOT BELIEVE THOSE PEOPLE ARE AWARE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE PAYING, OR THEY WERE AWARE OF THE SIZE AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY ARE PAYING FOR. HE DID NOT BELIEVE THEY WERE AWARE THEY WERE JUMPING ON A TOLL ROAD THAT WILL NEVER BE PAID FOR. CHAIRMAN LYONS WANTED TO GET THE MATTER STRAIGHT - THIS WAS A COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICE. HE THEN ASKED HOW HE THOUGHT THE AVERAGE BUSINESS PUTS TOGETHER ITS CAPITAL ITEMS - BY STOCKS AND BOND ISSUES AND BY BORROWING MONEY AGAINST ITS FUTURE INCOME. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT IT WAS'HIS OPINION THAT THIS WAS A COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICE THAT WOULD BRING THIS ECONOMY TO ITS KNEES.' CHAIRMAN LYONS REITERATED THAT, IN OTHER WORDS, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER DID NOT FEEL THAT BUSINESS SHOULD BUY ANY CAPITAL GOODS UNLESS IT PAYS CASH IN ADVANCE OUT OF ITS EARNINGS OR ITS SAVINGS. HE CONCLUDED THAT COMMISSIONER FLETCHER DID NOT AGREE WITH NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ADVISED THAT HE DID NOT SAY THAT - HE HOPED THE MINUTES WOULD REFLECT HIS THOUGHTS, AND PERHAPS THE BOARD COULD TAKE IT FROM THERE. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD ADOPT RESOLUTION 8I-6 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE, AND AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRI.ED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. JAN 28 1981 21 8 . 4 -pm, � 7 a JAN 28 1981 PAGE*1$ RESOLUTION NO. 81-6 A RESOLUTION AUTIIORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $236,000 WATER AND SEWER. REVENUE BONDS, SECOND SERIES 1979, ANTICIPATION NOTES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF AND ENTERING INTO CERTAIN COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS WITI1 THE 110LDrRS THEREOF. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (the "Issuer"), as follows: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION. This resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 215.431, Florida Statutes (1980), and other applicable provisions of law. A. On January 4, 1979, the Issuer adopted a resolution (the "Enabling Instrument") authorizing the issuance of $236,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Second Series 1979, of the Issuer (the "Bonds"), for the purpose of paying a part of the cost of acquiring water distribution and sewage collection and treatment facilities and constructing extensions and improvements thereto (the "Project"). B. The Bonds and the coupons appertaining thereto will be payable solely from and secured by a prior lien -upon and pledge of the gross revenues to be derived by the Issuer from the operation of - such facilities (the "Pledged Funcls"). Reference is made to the Enabling Instrument for a more complete description of the covenants, liens and pledge securing paN7ment of the Bonds and the coupons appertaining thereto. C. It is necessary and urgent that funds be made immediately available in order to provide money for the commencement of the Project at this time. The Issuer must, therefore, anticipate the receipt by it of the proceeds to be derived from the sale of the Bonds, and the Issuer has determined it to be in the best interest of the Issuer and its residents and inhabitants that interest bearing notes of the Issuer (the "Notes") }.::e issued pursuzint to this resolution in anticipation of the rece-nt } the I suer of tbr, proceeds from the sale of the Bonds. "1,-- principa-1 of ary interest cn t; -e Notes will be payable solely from � � s and secured by a lien upon and pledge of the proceeds to be derivo(I from the sale of the Bonds and, ; r" necessary, the Pledged Funds. SECTION 2. RESOLU''I::_': 'i":, CONSTITt'TL; CCN'1NLNCT. In consideration of the acceptance cif the Notes uy triose who shall hol'i the same from time to time, this rc:'solution shall be deemed to be and shall constitute a contract between the Issuor and such Holders. The covenants and agreements herein set forth to be performed by the Issuer shall be for the equal benefit, protection and security of the legal holders of the Notes, all. of which shall. he of equal rank and without preference, priority or distinction of: any of the Notes over any other thereof, except as expressly provided therein and herein. SECTION 3. AUTHORIZATION OF NOTES. Tho re are hereby authorized to be issued Water and Sewer Revonue Bonds, Second Series 1979, Anticipation Notes of the Tssuer in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding Two Itundred Thirty -Six Thousand Dollars ($236,000). The Notes shall be dated as of the dates of their respective deliveries to the initial purchasers thereof, shall mature on or prior to January 30, 1932, and �:ay be in such denomina- tion or denominations as shall be acceptable to such purchasers. They Notes shall be payable at such bang or banks, shall bear such rate or rates of interest not exceeding the legal rate and shall be in substantially the following form, with only such omissions, inser- tions and variations as may he necessary and desiral)le Land approv(2d by the Chairman of the Board of County Conmissioners of the Issuer prior to the issuance.. the=moi- (whish approval mzy ho presumed by leis execution of the Notes and the delivery of the Notes to the purchaser thereof): -2- jA N 2 81981 1981 JAN 28 0i1F 8f�01( 45 WAGE 690 $210,000.00 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF' FLORIDA COUNTY Or INDIAN RIVER WATER AND SEWER REVENUE FONDS, SECOND SERIES 1979 ANTICIPATION NOTE z FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the county of Indian River, Florida, (the "Issuer"), hereby promises to pay to the order of FIRST CITRUS BANK OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, at its principal office in the City of Vero Beach, Florida, on or before January 30, 1982, solely from the special funds hereinafter mentioned, in lawful money of the United States of America, the principal sum of W6O HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($210,000.00) and, quarterly from the date hereof, solely from such funds, interest on such principal sum from the date hereof at the rate of nine and one-half per centum (9.5%) per annum, until such principal sum shall be paid. This note is issued pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida, particularly Section 215.431, Florida Statutes (1990), and a resolution duly adopted by the Issuer on January 4, 1979, (the Resolution), in anticipation of the receipt by the Issuer of the proceeds from the sale of not exceeding $236,000 principal amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Second Series 1979, of the -Issuer (the Bonds). This Note and the interest due thereon are payable solely from and secured by a.prior lien upon and a pledge of the proceeds to be derived fromthesale of the Bonds and, if necessary, from and secured by a prior lien upon and a pledge of the gross revenues to be derived from the operation of the Issuer's water and sewer system, all in the manner provided in the Resolution. This Note shall not constitute a general obligation of the Issuer, and the holder thereof_ shall never have the right to require or compel the exercise of the powor of the Issuer to levy ad valorem taxes for payment of the principal of and interest on this Note. It is hereby certified, recited and declared that all acts, conditions and things required to exist, to happen and to be performed precedent to and in conncct.ion with the issuance of this Note, exist, haul lrappene i and });ivc' L-wcr; j,crformed in regular and due form and time a. -3- required by the laws and Const-Ltat1-0n of t':e Mate of Florida anplic.abl._, thereto; and that the issuance of t_jl i c; ',4ote and of the is sue of Which this Note is one does not ',"; Iato an,,' ,-"nt?s-ti tutional ur t 1} ; ,r•. limitations or provisions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the- County of Indian River, Florida, ?as issued this Note and has caused the same to he sicaned by the Chairman of its Board of County Commissioners and its corporate seal to be impressed hereon and attested and countersigned by the Clerk of such Board, all as of this 30th clay of ,r�-Mu,iry, 19,31. CO['t1TY OF RIVER, FLORIDA 13y ` Chhi.rms n, Board of _y Commissioners (SEAL) ATTESTED AND COUNTERSIGNED: vuao- Clerk, Board o 'ounty Commissioners -4- JAN 281981 5 691 JAN 28 1981 SECTION 4. SALE OF NOTES. The Notes shall be sold at public or private sale, at prices not less than the par value thereof and accrued interest, either at one time or from time to time, as the Chairman and Clerk shall determine, who are hereby.authorized to award the Notes, execute and deliver the same, receive the purchase price therefor and apply the proceeds thereof as hereinafter provided, without further authority from this Board of County Commissioners. SECTION 5. NOTES NOT GENERAL INDEBTEDNESS. The Notes shall not be or constitute a general obligation of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional, statutory or other limitation of indebtedness, but shall be payable solely from the proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds and, if necessary, from the Pledged Funds. No holder or holders of the Notes shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of the ad valorem taxing power of the Issuer or taxation in any form of any real property therein to pay the Notes or the interest due thereon. SECTION b. SECURITY OF NOTES. The payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes shall be secured forthwith, equally and ratably, by E,. prior lien on and pledge of the proceeds to be derived from the sale of the Bonds and, if necessary, by a prior lien on and pledge of the Pledged Funds. The Issuer does hereby irrevocably pledge the funds to the payment into the Sinking Fund and Reserve Account created pursuant to the Enabling Instrument, at the times provided, of the sums required to secure to holders of the Notes the payment of the principal thereof and the interest thereon when due. SECTION 7. APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS. The money received from the delivery of the Notes shall be deposited into the Construc- tion Fund created pursuant to the Enabling Instrument and applied as provided therein. The holders of the Notes shall have a lien upon all the proceeds thereof until the same have been applied as provided in the Enabling Instrument. SECTION 8. COVENANTS OF TIiF ISSUER. For so long as the principal of and interest on the Notes shall be outstanding and unpaid or until there shall have Lcen irrevocably set apart a sum sufficient to nay, ,:hen duc . ;, � r.ti rr pYi nci; ,.1 Of tbo Notes remaining unpaid, -5- together with interest accrued and to accrue thereon, the Issuer covenants with each of the molder.'; ct the as follows: A. PROCEEDS FROM of the Bonds, excluding accrue(' i i,: -or( -1-t, .! , U;sLier shall apuly such proceeds as follows: (1) To pay forthv:itti the principal of the outstand- ing Notes and the interest accrued thereon to such date of payment. (2) .For deposit and application of the balance of such proceeds pursuant to the provisions of the Enabling Instrument. B. APPLICATION OF PRIOR COVFNANT`=. The covenants and pledges contained in the Enabling Instrument for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds to the extent that the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be deemed to be for the benefit, protection and security for the payment of the Notcs and for the holders thereof in like manner as applic :ihie to the Bonds for th`, benefit of the holders thereof. The Sinking I-'und and Reserve Account created and established.pursuant to the Enabling Instrument, to.tho extent necessary, shall be maintained for the henefit of the Notes and the holders thereof. C. SALE OF BONDS. From time to time the Issuer. shall in good faith endeavor to sell a sufficient principal amount of the Bonds in order to have funds available to pay the Notes and the interest thereon as the same become due. SECTION 9. SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUMENTS. The Issuer shall, as necessary, from time to time and at any time, and/or ordinances as shall not be inconsistent. vrith the tc rlr,s and conditions of this resolution: A. To cure any ambiguity, dcfc�ct, or ;emission herein; ane?/or B. To secure, extend or renew to the holders of the Notes the pledges made herein for the payment of the Notes and the interest to accrue thereon. SECTION 10. MODIFICATION AND AMENDMENT. No material modification or amendment of this resolution or of any resolution amendatory hereof or supplemental hereto may be made without the consent in writing of the holders of the Notes. -6- JAN 28 1981 L ._ Fr- - " I »JAN 281981 SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY. If any one or more of the covenants, agreements or provision§ of this resolution should be held contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the Policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separate from the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions, and in no way affect the validity of all the other provisions of this resolution or of the Notes. SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 1981. ( SEAL) ATTEST l� t V� Fre t9rigtlt Clerk r a BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 7 - rick B. Lyons irman TRAFFIC ENGINEER - DISCUSSION m CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT THERE WAS AN OVERLAP IN THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY - THE CITY HAS APPLIED FOR A GRANT FOR A TRAFFIC ENGINEER THAT COULD BE A JOINT EFFORT. TERRY GOFF, MAYOR, EXPLAINED THAT THE CITY FILED A GRANT FOR $14,000 IN DECEMBER OF 1980, BUT IF THE COUNTY WANTED TO JOIN IN, THE GRANT FUNDS WOULD BE INCREASED TO $24,000. HE ADDED THAT ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE THAT A CONSULTANT COULD FIND GRANTS TO STUDY THESE PARTICULAR PROBLEMS AND THEY COULD THEN GET THE WORK DONE FOR NOTHING. MAYOR GOFF THOUGHT IT WOULD BE IN =THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND THE COUNTY TO APPLY FOR THE GRANT FOR A TRAFFIC ENGINEER - EVERY -PROBLEM THE CITY HAS IS ALSO A COUNTY PROBLEM/ AND THERE MUST BE COOPERATION IN THIS AREA. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK THOUGHT THAT THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEEDED THAT TYPE OF PERSON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. HARRY B. .JOHNSTONE, PERSONNEL DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND SUGGESTED THAT WE TRY TO OBTAIN A CONSULTANT BY FINDING A GRANT TO COVER HIS SERVICES, WHICH WOULD BE AT NO COST TO THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT WHEN HE HEARS THAT A GRANT WILL NOT COST ANYONE ANYTHING, THAT IS, THE CITY OR THE COUNTY, HE ASSUMED THAT MR. JOHNSTONE WAS SAYING fOOUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND." HE FELT THAT A GRANT IS TAXED MONEY AND IT DOES COME OUT OF SOMEBODY'S HIDE. MR. .JOHNSTONE COMMENTED THAT AS POLITICAL ENTITIES, NEITHER THE CITY OR THE COUNTY WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE GRANT HE WAS PROPOSING. LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO APPLY FOR A GRANT TO GET A FULL TIME TRAFFIC ENGINEER FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND MAKE HIS SERVICES AVAILABLE ON A CONTRACTUAL BASIS TO THE CITY. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER SUGGESTED TAKING FROM THE CURRENT BUDGET THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO PURCHASE BACKGROUND MATERIAL OF STUDIES ALREADY DONE, COORDINATE WITH THE HIGH SCHOOL,AND HAVE THEM DO A STUDY FOR THE COUNTY AS A HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT, 29 J JAN 28 1981 45- CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT HE WAS GLAD THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC ENGINEER IN THE AUDIENCE AS COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WOULD BE DULY THREATENED, AND RIGHTLY SO. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT IN THE 19505 THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WERE VERY HELPFUL IN OBSERVATION DATA TYPE OF MATERIAL, BUT HE DID NOT THINK THE STUDENTS WOULD HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO UNDERTAKE THIS MATTER. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS TO INVESTIGATE WHAT TYPE OF ELIGIBILITY THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE, AND IF THERE WERE GRANT FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR A TRAFFIC ENGINEER. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER SHOULD WORK OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE AND IN RELATION WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD AS WELL AS THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. MORE DISCUSSION ENSUED. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER BIRD, FOR THE COUNTY TO PREPARE A GRANT APPLICATION, WITH MR. THOMAS' ASSISTANCE, FOR A FULL TIME TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AND ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE DOLLAR FIGURES BEFORE APPROVAL. MAYOR GOFF POINTED OUT THAT DECEMBER 15TH WAS THE DEADLINE FOR THIS GRANT AND IF THE COUNTY WANTED TO JOIN IN THE INITIAL GRANT APPLICATION THE CITY HAS ALREADY FILED, IT CAN DO S0, AND THE GRANT AMOUNT WILL BE RAISED TO $24,000. OFFER, MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER TO DECLINE THIS DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS A MOTION ALREADY ON THE FLOOR. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WITHDREW HIS MOTION, AND COMMISSIONER BIRD WITHDREW HIS SECOND. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE COUNTY STAFF WORK WITH THE CITY TO JOIN IN ON THEIR APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FOR A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, WHO WILL BE A COUNTY EMPLOYEE, AND THAT THE COUNTY WOULD CONTRACT WITH THE CITY AND OTHER MUNICIPALITIES FOR HIS SERVICES. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, TO AUTHORIZE WORKING WITH.THE CITY OF VERO BEACH TO CONTACT A CONSULTANT TO PREPARE A GRANT TO DO A JOINT CITY -COUNTY TRAFFIC STUDY, WITH NO MONIES TO BE EXPENDED BY THE COUNTY, THE GRANT MONIES TO BE FOUND; AND TO INCLUDE THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE MOTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. JAN 28 1981 31 B° z- , JAN 28 1991 � anox 45 PWE 98 THE BOARD OF COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT 12:15 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 FROM DEPUTY CLERK JANICE CALDWELL FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING, PAT FLOOD, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, CAME BEFORE THE BAORD TO DISCUSS THEIR REQUEST FOR AN ACCESS ROAD FROM THE HYATT PROPERTY TO U,S,1, HE NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR THIS AREA TO HAVE MORE ACCESS ROADS INTO U.S.1 AND WITH THE SCHOOL BEING CONSTRUCTED IN THIS AREA AND THE ANTICIPATED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, IT IS EVEN MORE NECESSARY FOR FIRE PROTECTION, SAFETY PURPOSES, ETC, HE STATED THAT THEY HAVE AN ESCROW IN SEBASTIAN TO HELP BUILD THIS ROAD, AND THEY WOULD LIKE THE COUNTY'S HELP WITH OB- TAINING THE RAILROAD CROSSING AND THE CLEARING OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO U.S. 1 FROM THE RAILROAD TRACKS EAST. MAYOR FLOOD STATED THAT HE DID NOT EXPECT ANY ACTION AT THIS TIME, BUT WISHED THE BOARD TO BE THINKING ABOUT IT BEFORE BUDGET TIME. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF THERE IS CLEAR ACCESS FROM BRISTOL STREET TO U.S.1, AND MR. FLOOD BELIEVED THAT MR, HYATT HAS MOST OF THIS TIED UP AND IS IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING THE REST. HE STATED THAT THEY WILL HAVE THEIR CITY ENGINEER LAYOUT THE RIGHT-OF- WAY AND AS SOON AS THIS IS LAID OUT, MR. HYATT WILL DEED TO THE CITY AND THE COUNTY THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED ROAD IS SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING PLAT: Pollr�4• SEE 'ENLARGED t n-' o M5 ZI (a :u 1/4 SEC. ?j�, h---- rl-- _r N a BARBER m f U F1�-02 ` GO�. LC C. _ I 000 ° HIGHLANDS s7s M UNIT 17 -' I ` - - -- - —742.12_ _ \ • '4'', ,i .576 N I 1 574 DRIVE co 579 r,.l► 577 W DOUGLASS AVENUE Ar- DRIVE GDRIVEFtl. �I: TY LIMITS i1 578 y o TR. H CITY : -is .:-:1T•.T;:•:-"................--t: ATHENSrq BO m 570 ` 570 3cx 0 cQ i1 F DRAINAGE R/M 572 ~ AC: I^_ -iC,C O; �Y �� S E o c 569 - �I lm 00 \\\ GOW. LOT 6 573 GARDEN F �� DRAINAGE R W m- Ip - I `I 1 3 2 1 Q0 565 573 Y I I QW ER STRATTON AVENUE GA D NS i 6 5 4 8 571567 567 ��IV TERRACE - I , B - --- CITY LIMITS— r-9 366 I i /I i 567 a 567 0 568 I J b DIA c SEBASTIAN HIGHLAND 1 T. ,$ 454 UNIT I Rlv V \ Cl j I P 454 CITY 451 LIMITS ? I CT 450 DUNCAN STREETi --� 453DURAN a ET 449 In 1 . vi 452 I - CD _ E NLARGED 1/4 SEC. LHAMBRA AVE. _ ALHAMBRA AVENU CITY LI M ITS r cx SEE ENLARG 1/4 SEC.. o . c �T Y —TS— --1 y�:Y - JAN 28 1981 45 PAC IE1 00 , COMMISSIONER BIRD QUESTIONED THE REASON FOR THE DOUBLE DOG- LEG IN THE PROPOSED ROAD, AND MR. FLOOD STATED THAT THIS IS CAUSED BY THE NEED TO GO AROUND THE SAND MINES LOCATED ON THE HYATT PROPERTY. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY HAVE TALKED TO MR. HYATT ABOUT REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE SAND MINE AND POSSIBLY WHEN HE FILLS THE AREA IN, A DOGLEG CAN BE TAKEN OUT. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO THE PROCEDURES AND PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN GETTING THE RAILROAD TO CONSENT TO AN ADDITIONAL CROSSING. MAYOR FLOOD FELT THE RAILROAD'S MAIN OBJECTION TO ADDITIONAL CROSSINGS RELATES TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CROSSING. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE COUNTY NEVER HAS BEEN IN- VOLVED IN OPENING UP A CROSSING; ALTHOUGH, WE HAVE IMPROVED EXISTING CROSSINGS AND HAVE ABOUT 15 MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS WITH THE RAILROAD NOW, HE FELT HEARINGS ARE INVOLVED TO ESTABLISH THE NEED FOR THE CROSSING, AND HE ALSO FELT THE RAILROAD WOULD OPPOSE IT, BUT DID NOT KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT, ATTORNEY COLLINS CONTINUED THAT COST ESTIMATES WOULD BE NEEDED IN REGARD TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CROSSING AND THE SIGNALIZATION THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY, AND THESE ARE SUBSTANTIAL COSTS, MAYOR FLOOD FELT THERE IS FEDERAL MONEY AVAILABLE FOR THIS PURPOSE. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY WOULD PROCEED AND DO ANY LEGWORK THE BOARD DESIRED AND REPORT BACK. HE EMPHASIZED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PROPOSED ROAD IS NEEDED AS PART a OF THE OVERALL PLAN TO TIE OUR ROAD SYSTEM TOGETHER. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE ACCESS ROUTES AND BUILDING STANDARDS WERE DISCUSSED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCHOOL WOULD HELP GET PAST THE RAILROAD'S NEGA- TIVE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE CROSSING AND HE ALSO BELIEVED WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOME GRANT FUNDS. HE WAS IN FAVOR OF WORKING OUT A SOLUTION WITH THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MAYOR FLOOD PROCEED IN THE DIRECTION HE IS HEADING AND COME BACK WITH FURTHER INFORMATION. THE BOARD CONCURRED. MAYOR FLOOD COMMENTED THAT HE BELIEVED HE COULD SPEAK FOR THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN IN STATING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN PROCURING A COUNTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROBLEMS THAT MUST BE FACED. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT 2:12 O'CLOCK P.M. SO THAT THE DISTRICT BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE NORTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MIGHT CONVENE. MINUTES OF THAT MEETING WILL BE PREPARED SEPARATELY. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECONVENED AT 2:22 O:CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT AND IMMEDIATELY RECESSED IN ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT BOARD'OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MIGHT CONVENE. MINUTES OF THAT MEETING WILL BE PREPARED SEPARATELY. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECONVENED WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT EXCEPT COMMISSIONER WODTKE, WHO HAD LEFT THE MEETING TEMPORARILY AT 2:25 O'CLOCK P.M. LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO OUT -GOING MEMBERS OF NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO WRITE A LETTER OF THANKS TO THE OUT -GOING MEMBERS OF THE NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE WOULD APPRECIATE THIS GREATLY. CHANGE ORDER #8 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE HERCULES KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT CHANGE ORDER #8 DEALS WITH THE NEED FOR AN ELECTRIC RECEPTACLE FOR THE EXISTING AIR CONDITIONING UNIT IN THE EAST WALL OF THE SECOND FLOOR LOBBY, THE EXISTING OUTLET FOR THAT UNIT WAS DEMOLISHED AND NOT REPLACED BY THE ARCHITECT. TO RUN FROM THE RECEPTACLE TO THE ELECTRIC PANEL WILL REQUIRE ABOUT 50' OF CONDUIT. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE $248.06 FIGURE ON THE CHANGE ORDER WAS IN- CORRECT AND THE FIGURES SHOULD BE REVERSED TO READ $284.06. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, THE BOARD APPROVED CHANGE ORDER #8 FOR THE COURTHOUSE IN THE AMOUNT OF $284.06, INCLUDING THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER, THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REA- SONS THAT MAY ARISE. 35 ma 7QJ J AN 28 1981 JAN 28 1981 CHANGE ORDER It I DOCUAIIN7 G701 o 45-egf,702 �A' � PKOILCT: Indian Rivor County CHAN(A ()R[)[R NUMBER: 8 (Eight} Address) County Courtliouse It ) ;Ctintwtor) F 7, ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9364 Reinhold Construction, Inc. 11.0. Box 666 CONTRACT FOR Additions & Renovations Cocoa, Florida 32922 L -J CON] KAC'1 DATE: 4-2-80 are cIrectod to make the follov.-Ing, changes in this Contract 1. I — C T4 —2 7 1 t-:, c c I $248.06 --'ttacned Cliarig - - _,e 'Proj-)osal) 111.• rm5inal Co,ii,ict Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 689,000.00 N't- (h.!nee by wvviou,., Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 127,072.75 I tit, I ontract Surf prior to this Change Ord( -r was $ 816,072.75 I h, - Cunlra(t Sum v, ill be Oncreased� b)• this Change Order . . . $ �`,,.A.6 T f,r nt,u Contract -Sum including thj,. Change Order will be $ I )Dad's. i; v Contract Time will be 1 J� !u. chars ged) )v 1i Dale of Completion a,, of the d'Ov (if 1111> 01311 ;c Otdef "herefort. is Oct. 30, 1981 & ruc Co4.. f-ima, Inc.. -Indial. - awer- County 7 v A T C) OWNER 17, Di%ic 0;". -214 5-14, th - LV L Addiv�, Address T -12 2 V "or T 33134 C Cw-- qqli,—Eke 2960 % A DATE A14, b0(L*-A1%T G701 - CiJANC.1 CAM ' APi.'!; 1Q'C [L11110% ' AIA4 ' T 197�, * THE AN Of ARCHIJJCIS, 1',i Nf%% NcoicK AL2., NV.', MA,5HINC70N, DC, 20006 ONE PACE M M - ARCH111(l CONIRAXAOR FIELD U W I H K PKOILCT: Indian Rivor County CHAN(A ()R[)[R NUMBER: 8 (Eight} Address) County Courtliouse It ) ;Ctintwtor) F 7, ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9364 Reinhold Construction, Inc. 11.0. Box 666 CONTRACT FOR Additions & Renovations Cocoa, Florida 32922 L -J CON] KAC'1 DATE: 4-2-80 are cIrectod to make the follov.-Ing, changes in this Contract 1. I — C T4 —2 7 1 t-:, c c I $248.06 --'ttacned Cliarig - - _,e 'Proj-)osal) 111.• rm5inal Co,ii,ict Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 689,000.00 N't- (h.!nee by wvviou,., Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 127,072.75 I tit, I ontract Surf prior to this Change Ord( -r was $ 816,072.75 I h, - Cunlra(t Sum v, ill be Oncreased� b)• this Change Order . . . $ �`,,.A.6 T f,r nt,u Contract -Sum including thj,. Change Order will be $ I )Dad's. i; v Contract Time will be 1 J� !u. chars ged) )v 1i Dale of Completion a,, of the d'Ov (if 1111> 01311 ;c Otdef "herefort. is Oct. 30, 1981 & ruc Co4.. f-ima, Inc.. -Indial. - awer- County 7 v A T C) OWNER 17, Di%ic 0;". -214 5-14, th - LV L Addiv�, Address T -12 2 V "or T 33134 C Cw-- qqli,—Eke 2960 % A DATE A14, b0(L*-A1%T G701 - CiJANC.1 CAM ' APi.'!; 1Q'C [L11110% ' AIA4 ' T 197�, * THE AN Of ARCHIJJCIS, 1',i Nf%% NcoicK AL2., NV.', MA,5HINC70N, DC, 20006 ONE PACE M M - � r � CHANGE ORDER #13 MR. KONTOULAS REVIEWED CHANGE ORDER #13, WHICH INCLUDES FIVE CHANGE PROPOSALS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED IN RE THE CONTRACTOR REFLECTING ADDITIONAL DAYS OVERHEAD COSTS AT $400 PER DAY WHILE WE STILL HAVE NOT ACCEPTED ANYTHING BEYOND $300 PER DAY AND ALSO ABOUT THE LETTER FROM THE CONTRACTOR RE LAPSED TIME WHERE INSTEAD OF CHANGING THE FIGURE PROPOSED, HE WOULD SEEK THE DIFFERENCE IN ADDITIONAL DAYS. ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT SEE THAT THIS WAS A REAL PROBLEM BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE GIVEN THE CONTRACTOR 30 OR SO ADDITIONAL DAYS, AND HE FELT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CONCURRENT TIME FRAMES WHICH ALREADY HAVE BEEN GRANTED. CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT WE WILL HAVE TO ARGUE ABOUT F CRITICAL PATHS WHEN WE GET TO THE END AND CAN LOOK AT THE OVERALL PICTURE., COMMISSIONER FLETCHER NOTED THAT ON ONE SHEET ATTACHED TO THE CHANGE ORDER, THE ARCHITECT HAS MADE THE COMMENT THAT 5 ADDITIONAL DAYS TO ACCOMPLISH THE WORK ON CP #39 IS "PREPOSTEROUS." MR. KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT THE DOOR COVERED IN THIS ITEM IS IN THE COMPUTER ROOM OFF THE FINANCE DIRECTOR'S AREA. THE ORIGINAL PLAN SHOWED AN EXISTING DOOR WHERE THERE ACTUALLY WAS NONE, WHICH IS THE ARCHITECT'S ERROR, AND IT NOW WILL ENTAIL CUTTING THE MASONRY OUT TO PROVIDE THIS DOOR. HE AGREED THAT 5 ADDITIONAL DAYS IS TOO MUCH. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER NOTED THAT MR. KONTOULAS IS RECOM- MENDING THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THIS WHEN OBVIOUSLY THE ARCHITECT DOESN'T APPROVE THE ADDITIONAL TIME, AND MR. KONTOULAS POINTED OUT THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE THE DOOR. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER CONTINUED TO QUESTION THE ARCHITECT'S COSTS AND THE CONTRACTOR'S COSTS AND NOTED THAT THERE IS AN ITEM OF PANELING REPAIR ON CP #39 WHICH IS EXCLUDED WITH THE NOTE THAT IT CANNOT BE PRICED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL DIRECTION. MR, KONTOULAS FELT THIS REFERS TO AN EXISTING PANEL IN THE COMPUTER ROOM WHICH HE BELIEVED WAS COVERED IN ANOTHER CHANGE ORDER. MR. FLETCHER STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO RELY ON HIS FAITH IN MR, KONTOULAS' ABILITY TO KEEP ON TOP OF ALL OF THIS. JAN 2 8 1981 37 ..PAS CD3 JAN 28 1981 % 45 PAGE704 ITEM 1 - CP #35 RELATES TO THE ROOMS IN THE. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WHERE THERE WAS WATER DAMAGE TO THE WALLS CAUSED BY LEAKS IN THE ROOF. ITEM 2 - CP #38 RELATES TO INSTALLATION OF SOFFITS OVER THE ENTRANCE DOOR TO THE NEW COMMISSION ROOM AND THE PATIO DOOR. ITEM 3 - CP #39 IS THE DOOR WHICH WAS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ITEM 4 - CP #41 CONCERNS THE INSIDE OF THE VAULT IN THE TAX COLLECTOR'S AREA. THE EXISTING WALLS WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS A FINISH, AND NOW WE WILL END UP WITH A DRYWALL FINISH. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IF MR. KONTOULAS COULD REFER TO THE SAME PAGE NUMBERS PUT ON THEIR COPIES OF THE CHANGE ORDERS BY MRS. FORLANI, AND THE CHAIRMAN CONCURRED. ITEM 5 - CP #42 IS IN THE AREA OF THE WELFARE DEPARTMENT, WHICH ROOMS WERE THE OLD EXISTING WALK-IN REFRIGERATORS. AND FREEZERS. IT IS NECESSARY TO FINISH THESE ROOMS; ALSO, THE REFRIGERATOR DOORS ARE ONLY 6'6", AND WE NEED 7'2" OPENING. THE LAST ITEM CONCERNS THE DRIVER'S LICENSING AREA, WHICH IS RENTABLE AREA. THEY ARE PROVID- ING THEIR OWN COUNTERS AND WILL HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT; THE JUNCTION BOX IS NEEDED FOR THIS EQUIPMENT. ISR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT THIS JUNCTION BOX IS AGAIN AN OMISSION OF THE ARCHITECTS AS THEY WERE AWARE OF THE EQUIPMENT ON THE COUNTERS. MR. KONTOULAS RECOMMENDED THAT CHANGE ORDER #13 BE APPROVED IN ITS ENTIRETY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, THE BOARD APPROVED CHANGE ORDER #13 FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, INCLUDING THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER, THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRAC- TOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. i CHANGE ALK' T -SRC �'�EC T - ORDER FIELD (� AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTFi;R PROJECT: Indian liver County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER. 13 (T�hirteen) (name, address) County Administration Building TO (Contractor) F Reinhold Construction, P.O. Box 666 Cocoa, Florida 32922 _ ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9263 Inc. CONTRACT FOR: Additions & Renovations CO'-.TP,ACT DATE: r 1 You are directed to make the folloveing charzes in this Contract Item 1 — CP 35 — Interior Finishes & Hard -are Item 2 - CP 38 - Install Soffits Over Door X133 & =134 & eccr =132. 2,016.93 Itein 3 - CP 35 - Prc%?ice Dcc-- & 1 game `or i:co - 211.5 ? 3 8, 9 , Item 4 — CP 41.— Laminate Va_,lt & Remove Insulation. 472.50 Item 5 — CP 42 — Repair CSG & H2•I Frames— Provide Junction Bo:: (See attached Change Proposa's) CC 6D-2.32 y L': , 993. 3 i The proposed changes in the rrork, may result in additional time required beyond the contract completicn date. Additional time will be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The con- tractor will be paid for the additional required days at the rate of $300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are reflected in CP -35, 33, 39 41 and 42. The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S —2,748,000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s 176,716.90 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order xa; . . . . . . . . S -2,924,716.95 The Contract Sum will be (increased) (d ekiXi%itdX4i � by this Change Order . . . S 24,993.37 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . S 2,949,710.30 The Contract Time will be by The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Connell Metcalf & Eddy__ Reinhold Cons_ truction�I���Indian Ri�e_r Ct1>��t�• Ct1>��t�•5T HITECT OQ RACT61 OWNER 20 S. Dixie 13wy. P. _ 0�;2 145__JAth_Atie__ Address Address Address Coral Gables, FL 33.134 Cocoa, FL 32922 +Beach. FL 32960 By, t c s.`BY DATE �t4�.J• jf� DATE �'' 3 �.� DATE��"�� AIA DOCUMENT 0701 - CHANGE O;ZDtR - APRIL 1970 EDITION - AIA$: - 0 1970 - THE ONE PACE AMERICAN InSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 JAN, 2 1981 8 © PxE 705 JAN 28 1981 ego 45 P 7706 SOUTH COUNTY WATER TAXING DISTRICT — STATUS OF HYDROGEOLOGIC TESTING PROGRAM AND CHANGE ORDER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TEST—PRODUCTION WELL AND ASSOCIATED WORK — GERAGHTY & MILLER a TOM TESSIER OF GERAGHTY & MILLER MADE A PRESENTATION AND REVIEWED. THE FOLLOWING LETTERS: Forum III it Suite 404 Geraghty & Miller, nc. 1West Palm Beach, 33401d Iakes CONSULTING GROUND -WATER GEOLOGISTS AND HYDROLOGISTS Telephone: 305/683-3033 .C••� c 20 January 1981 P225SC2 2 Indian River County Commissioners 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach Florida 32960 Subject: Status of Hydrogeologic Testing Program, South County Taxing District, Indian River County, FL Dear Commissioners: We wish to inform you of the present status of Geraghty & Miller's contract of January 7, 1980, for hydrogeologic ser- vices related to construction and testing of wells in the South'County Taxing District. Three wells were constructed at the site of the County's planned water plant in the South County Taxing District. A two -inch -diameter Deep -Zone Monitoring Well was completed to 950 feet below land surface near the northeastern corner of the site. With a screen from 900 to 950 feet, this well was constructed to allow the County to monitor water quality below the zone from which future system withdrawals are planned. Then, a 12 -inch -diameter Test -Production Well was constructed within 75 feet of the Deep -Zone Monitoring Well. This well was cased to 383 feet below land surface and drilled to 700 feet. The 12 -inch -diameter Observation -Production Well was installed at a location about 1000 feet southwest of the Test - Production Well. It was cased to 383 feet below land surface and drilled to 740 feet below land surface. After completing all wells, pumping tests were conducted on both production wells. While water levels were measured in all three wells, the Test -Production Well was pumped at 1666 gpm (gallons per minute) for 69 hours. After recovery, the Observation -Production Well was pumped at 1666 gpm for two hours. Later, it was pumped at rates of 1034 and 1500 gpm for SYOSSET, NY ANNAPOLIS, MD WEST PALM BEACH, FL TAMPA, FL HARTFORD, CT Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Indian River County - 2 - 20 Jan 81 Commissioners P225SC2 one-hour intervals and 1846 gpm for 20 minutes. These pumping rates are higher than those anticipated in our March 1979 report to the County. Preliminary analysis of the test data indicates that aquifer parameters are slightly more favorable than those assumed in the predictive model that we discussed in our March 1979 report. As a result, impacts of the proposed withdrawals will be slightly less than those predicted. We have not received results on water -quality analyses as yet. John Robbins of the Joint Venture will be better able to dis- cuss them with the County when they become available. Geraghty & Miller has completed three of the five tasks defined in its January 7, 1980, contract. The status of these tasks is as follows: Task 1:- Preparation of Specifications and Contractor's Proposal Form Under this task, we proposed and budgeted for the preparation of the Technical Specifications to be incorporated into the contract documents for bidding the drilling and testing program. At the request of the Joint Venture, the scope of this task was expanded to include the preparation of the contract documents. At the timQ of the request, a set of FmHA guidelines to be followed in the preparation of the contract documents was for- warded to Geraghty & Miller. On April 15, 1980, a draft copy of the specifications and contract documents was submitted to the Joint Venture. After the Joint Venture reviewed the docu- ments with its FmHA expert, it was discovered that the guide- lines were not the proper ones for a contract of this dollar amount and we were asked to rework the documents. The rework was extensive, as it required changes in both the form and sub- stance of the contract. In addition, Geraghty & Miller, Inc., administered the contract between the County and Alsay-Pippin Corporation during the course of the program.* Geraghty & Miller has completed 100 percent of the work in Task 1 at a cost of $13,703.82. This figure represents $8,703.82 over the amount budgeted in our proposal. 5 PAVE 70T, JAN 28 1981 -- JAN 2 8 1981 Geraghty & Miller, Inc BOOK 45 PSE 708 Indian River County - 3 - 20 Jan 81 Commissioners P2258C2 Task 2: Compilation of Well, Permit, and User Inventory The work completed under this task consisted of obtaining in- formation from the St. Johns River Water Management District, South Florida Water Management District, U. S. Geological Survey, Florida Department of Natural Resources, and local drillers. More time than anticipated was needed to obtain the data from St. Johns River Water Management District files. Also, additional time was spent in an attempt to locate any nearby well that could be used as an observation well during the program per the County Commissioners' request. Geraghty & Miller has completed 100 percent of the work under Task 2 at a cost of $4,556.73. This figure represents $856.73 over the amount budgeted in our proposal. Task 3: Drilling of Two Production Wells and Associated Testing The work completed under this task consisted of on-site inspec- tion of the well construction and data collection during drilling and testing. As of December 31, 1980, the task was 100 percent completed. Total costs of this work have been $28,605.45, which is $105.45 over the amount budgeted in our proposal. During the 16 -day overrun of the drilling contractor, Geraghty & Miller incurred approximately $9,000 in charges related to Task 3. Most of these charges were for services anticipated in Task 3 and would have been incurred even if the drilling contractor had_ completed his work by the specified completion date. However, some additional field -inspection duties were necessary. If this overrun had not occurred, Geraghty & Miller would have been under budget on this task by approximately $3,000. Task 4: Reduction of Data and Preparation of Reports As of December 31, 1980, no costs had been incurred under this task. Preliminary technical data analyses performed in preparing this status report have not yet been charged. Task 5: Project Meeting, Conferences, and Related Work As of December 31, 1980, no costs have been incurred under this task. 21 Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Indian River County - 4 - 20 Jan 81 Commissioners P225SC2 Additional Costs: At the request of the 'Joint Venture, Geraghty & Miller contrac- ted for Water Quality Analyses of samples collected during the pump test of the test wells. The charge for these analyses is $2,300 and represents an addition to our contract. Recap of Budget and Costs as of December 31, 1980 Budget Actual Cost Task Amount To Date Amount Necessary For Completion 1 $ 5,000 $13,703.82 $ 0 2 3,700 4,556.73 0 3 28,500 28,605.45 10 4 7,700 0 7,700 5 2,900 0 2,900 Addi- tional 0 934.00 1,366 $47,800 $47,800.00 $11,966.00 At this time we would like to ask the Commission to increase our contract amount by $11,966.00. If this requested change and the Change Order for the Alsay-Pippin contract are approved, the total contract amounts for well construction and associated hydrogeologic services will be $169,458, or $4,856 over the original contract amounts. As in the past, actual Geraghty & Miller, Inc., charges for professional services are based upon hourly rates for work performed, plus associated expenses. Monthly invoices will continue to be submitted to Indian River County in accordance with our January 7, 1980 contract. We enjoy our working relationship with Indian River County and appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Thomas L. Tessier Senior Scientist TLT/k cc: N. Nelson G. Liner J. Beindorf J. Robbins 8 1981 800x 45 PA,E JAN 2 JAN 28 1981 Forum III Suite 404 - aes Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1West Palm Bea h675 Palm Beach,Florida 33401d CONSULTING GROUND -WATER GEOLOGISTS AND HYDROLOGISTS Telephone: 305/ 683-3033 20 January 1981 �, S f 111.,:1 r ttill �oT 5 pitice Indian River County Commissioners �" ��" Indian River County Courthouse 2145 14th Avenue J���%1Q^ Vero Beach, FL 32960 aL�� Subject: Change Order for Construction of Test -Production Well and Associated Work, South Taxing District, Indian River County Dear Commissioners: We would like to present the following status report on the County's contract for the construction of a Floridan Aquifer Test -Production Well and Associated Work. As you are aware, Alsay-Pippin Corporation (APCO) of Lake Worth, Florida, was awarded the drilling contract at a con- tract price of $116,802.00 for the construction.and testing of one Floridan Aquifer Test -Production Well, one Floridan Aquifer Qbservati.on-Production Well, and one Deep Zone Moni- toring Well. The contract called for the project to be completed within 90 consecutive calendar days. APCO moved its.'equipment on to the drilling location and started work on September 9, 1980, Completion should have occurred on December 14, 1980. However, APCO was unable to complete the project according to specifications until December 30, 1980, resulting in a 16 -day overage. Attached is a Change Order which would, with your approval, decrease the contract by the amount of $7,106.00. This change results from adjustments in the contract price, based on unit prices submitted by the contractor in his bid for quantities SYOSSET, NY ANNAPOLIS, MD WEST PALM BEACH, FL TAMPA, FL HARTFORD, CT Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Commissioners - 2 - 81 Jan actually installed as opposed to those estimated in the technical specifications. The final contract price will be $109,696.00. As of December 30, 1980, Alsay-Pippin Corporation has com- pleted all work as specified by this contract. The general conditions of the contract allow for an assessment of liquid- ated damages of $100 per calendar day beyond December 14, 1980. A total of $1600 may be assessed against the total amount due to APCO. This figure has not been included in the Change Order, and could be assessed at .the County's dis- cretion. However, APCO was most cooperative in proceeding with this program, and despite encountering unexpected drill- ing conditions, made every effort to complete the work on schedule. We recommend that liquidated damages not be assessed in this case. We recommend approval of the attached Change Order as it represents actual quantities installed or used during con- struction. If the Change Order is approved, Alsay-Pippin will submit an invoice for payment of the balance on their contract, to a total of $109,696.00. TLT/jw cc: Neal Nelson James Beindorf John Robbins Attachment: Change Order JAN 28 1981 Respectfully submitted, GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Thomas L. Tessier BooK . :45 PA.GE 711 JAIL 2 81981 -3 I-ornt FIIA 424-7 ._•a (Rev. 8-22-69) MOK , 45 - PAU- .712. UNITED STATES DFPARTNIENT OF Ar:RIC'UI.TURF: FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION OkDLR NO. CON'flz 1('T Clt 1NGI; ORDER DATE STATE CONTRACT FOR I COUNTY OWNER Vero Beach, Fl Indian River County, Road & Bridge Dept., Rm.115, Courthouse To ........Al.s.ay .P-i.ppin.-.Corporation, P.O. lox 6650, Lake worth, Fl 33461 -- You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes lrom the contract plans and specifications: Description of Changes DECREASE INCREASE (Supplemental Plans and Specifications Attached) in Contract Price in Contract Price S $ Adjustments: SEE ATTACHED SHEET TOTALS 5 ....7., 8 21....E 4....------ ._......_.-7.15-.- -0., ..........__. NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE_ S -7,10.6-00 _..-_. ._.. ----- JUSTIFICATION> Normal adjustments to estimated quantities in bid schedule A r.-xx. Seven thousand one hundred The amount of the Contract will be (Decreased) (1-mwx By The Sum Of: six dollars and no/100 cents Dollars (.S 7� 106.00 s ) . The Contract Total Including this and precious Change Order- 8111 Be. One hundred nine thousand I.."`� six hundred ninety six and no/100 cents Dollar, (S 109,696.00 ). `r The Contract Period Pr6vided for Completion Will Be (Increased) (Decreased) (Unchanged): I This document will become a supplement to the contract and. all provisions will apply hereto. 2 k=; Requested I row nrt, rnare� --may Recommended _ 1 A ` -••�,�j It A![h+lrc(: £n g+n et-r)r n e r Accepted Alsay- i i Corp. , Roger T. Gresh, Acv-V,.r-;Pres. (Date) r Approved $y MA .\ante arrrl Title! "Date) usGr1o19rso-7&t> ,)3; 17 FHA 424.7 !Rc%. 8-22-69) Days flg INRa 14, 255.00 open hole +17 ft. 4 developmen -14 hrs. J700 00)' 21 025. 2.6 gravel 2.8 an Aquifer 01��ervation Production Well. 17 ft. (680.00 3.12 112 open hole +17 ft. 3.5 put h 3 a db 280 00 A C311 N Item No.. 3.0 Adjustment, kli mz 105 vz Ek 1% - VIn 188_ MR. TESSIER WENT INTO A DETAILED DISCUSSION OF HOW THEY: CONDUCTED THEIR TESTING AND HOW THEY DETERMINED THE PRODUCTION ZONE THEY WANT TO TAP. MR. TESSIER THEN DESCRIBED_ THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEST -PRODUCTION WELL AND AN OBSERVATION -PRODUCTION WELL TO DIFFERENT DEPTHS TO ESSENTIALLY CAP THE PRODUCTION ZONE, AND THE SUBSEQUENT PUMPING TESTS WHICH GOT RATES UP TO ABOVE 1800 GPM, CONSIDERABLY r ABOVE WHAT WAS PREDICTED IN THEIR ANALYSIS. HE CONTINUED THAT SINCE HE HAD WRITTEN THE STATUS REPORT, HE HAD RECEIVED REPORTS OF WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS, AND IT LOOKS A BIT BETTER THAN PREDICTED AND IS SOMETHING WE CAN WORK WITH. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INQUIRED IF THE LONG RANGE IMPACT OF THE INCREASED PRODUCTION WOULD RESULT IN NEEDING LESS WELLS. MR. TESSIER STATED THAT THESE WERE DESIGNED AS 12" DIAMETER AND THE LONG RANGE CAPACITY WILL BE BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE PUMP. THEY ANTICIPATED ONE AT LEAST FOR 1200 GPM, AND THIS WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU COULD GO TO A LARGER DIAMETER WELL AND PUMP MORE WATER AND HAVE LESS WELLS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING TIMING OF THE PUMPING TESTS AND DRAWDOWN, AND MR. TESSIER REPORTED THAT THEY PUMPED AND MEASURED FOR 69 HOURS, AND THE DRAWDOWN WAS 4'; THEY NEVER GOT BELOW LAND SURFACE. HE STATED THAT THEY EXPECTED THE WATER LEVEL TO CONTINUE TO DROP, BUT AT A STEADILY DECREASING RATE AS THEY -PUMP; THE TEST INDICATED THAT IN 30750 DAYS YOU WILL GET STABILIZATION BECAUSE YOU ARE GETTING,RECHARGE FROM SOMEWHERE, HE THEN EXPLAINED ABOUT THE i DEEP AQUIFER LEAKING SLOWLY UP INTO THE SHALLOW AQUIFER SO THAT WHEN YOU LOWER THE DEEP AQUIFER, THE SHALLOW AQUIFER WOULD HAVE A TENDENCY TO RECHARGE; I.E., YOU ARE DECREASING THE AMOUNT YOU ARE LOSING UPWARD. MR. TESSIER STATED THAT THE EFFECT ON THE SHALLOW AQUIFER WILL BE NOTHING MEASURABLE. CHAIRMAN LYONS INQUIRED ABOUT THE LONG TERM EFFECT ON OTHER USERS OF THE AQUIFER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SUCH AS THE EGGERTS WHO HAVE A NURSERY ADJACENT TO THIS AREA. MR. TESSIER COMMENTED THAT BECAUSE THE FACTORS THEY DEVELOPED MATHMATICALLY FROM THE TESTS INDICATE THAT THE TESTS ARE MORE FAVORABLE THAN ANTICIPATED, THE IMPACTS WILL BE LESS THAN PREDICTED EARLIER. HE NOTED THAT THE EGGERTS ARE GETTING WATER NOT ONLY FROM THE ZONE WE ARE TAPPING, BUT FROM SOMETHING BELOW IT; S0, THE EFFECT ON THOSE WELLS WILL NOT BE AS GREAT AS ON SOMEONE WHO IS JUST TAPPING THE SAME ZONES, HE FELT THE WAY THE EGGERTS PUMP NOW MAY HAVE TO BE CHANGED, BUT IT SHOULD NOT CAUSE THEM ANY GREAT DIFFICULTY OR CAUSE THEM TO LOSE ANY WATER. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED ABOUT HOW THE WATER QUALITY SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED. MR. TESSIER NOTED THAT THEY DRILLED WITH AIR SO THE WATER COMING OUT WAS REPRESENTATIVE. IN THE PRODUCTION WELLS, THEY TOOK SAMPLES AND GOT EXTENSIVE ANALYSES. CHAIRMAN LYONS INQUIRED ABOUT CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITS, AND ENGINEER JOHN ROBBINS REPORTED THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR REPORT IN INCOMPLETE FORM TO ST. JOHNS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND THE INFORMATION MR. TESSIER IS NOW COLLECTING IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE REVIEW, WHEN THE FINAL INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE DISTRICT HAS NINETY DAYS TO ACT ON IT. - MR, TESSIER BELIEVED THE INFORMATION THEY HAVE DEVELOPED NOW IS SUFFICIENT, AND IT WAS FELT THE REPORT WILL BE READY BY THE END OF FEBRUARY TO SUBMIT FOR THE FIRST OF MARCH, HOPEFULLY TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY JUNE, HE DID NOT FEEL THERE IS ANY REASON TO THINK WE WOULD NOT GET A PERMIT, IN REGARD TO THE CHANGE ORDER WITH ALSAY-PIPPIN RE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEST -PRODUCTION WELL AND ASSOCIATED WORK, MR, TESSIER POINTED our THAT THIS IS A DEDUCT BASICALLY DUE TO THE USE OF LESS MATERIALS THAN ANTICIPATED. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, TO APPROVE THE CHANGE ORDER FOR ALSAY-PIPPIN FOR A REDUCTION IN THE CONTRACT PRICE OF $7,106.00, RESULTING IN A TOTAL CONTRACT OF $109,696, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WISHED TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS AN OVERRUN IN TERMS OF TIME, BUT THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION NOT TO ASSESS FOR LIQUIDATED DMAAGES WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO $1,600, HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH APPROVING THIS, BUT WANTED TO MAKE IT A MATTER OF RECORD. 49 JAN 2 8 1981 4 FnE-71 JAN 28 1981 BOOK PA a' COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED WHY WE SHOULD NOT ASSESS THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK BELIEVED THE TIME OVER- RUN WAS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES NOT THE FAULT OF THE CONTRACTOR AND THAT HE DID MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4-0, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WISHED TO QUALIFY HIS AYE. HE STATED THAT HE BELIEVED IN HONORING OUR COMMITMENT; ALTHOUGH, HE DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE OVERALL CONCEPT OF THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM. MR. TESSIER NEXT REPORTED THAT GERAGHTY & MILLER ARE ASKING FOR AN INCREASE IN THEIR CONTRACT AMOUNT BECAUSE OF AN INCREASE IN TASK 2, WHICH REPRESENTS ADDITIONAL TIME AND EXPENSE INCURRED IN SUPERVISING AND INSPECTING THE PROJECT WHICH HAD AN OVERRUN OF 16 DAYS. HE NOTED THAT ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM IS THE EXTENSIVE WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS NECESSARY. THE ONLY LABORATORY CAPABLE OF HANDLING SUCH AN EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS WAS LOCATED IN WEST PALM BEACH, AND THE SAMPLES HAD TO BE TAKEN THERE WITHIN 24 HOURS. HE STATED THAT GERAGHTY & MILLER DID ALL THE SAMPLE COLLECTING, ETC., IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LABORATORY; THE LABORATORY WILL INVOICE GERAGHTY & MILLER $2,000, AND THEY IN TURN WILL ADD THIS TO THEIR CONTRACT, PLUS THEIR CHARGES. ENGINEER ROBBINS EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTEN- TION OF THE .JOINT VENTURE TO TAKE CARE OF THE LAB WORK, BUT IT WORKED OUT BETTER FOR GERAGHTY & MILLER TO HANDLE THIS; S0, THERE NOW WILL BE NO INVOICE FROM THE .JOINT VENTURE RE THIS WATER ANALYSIS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT FMHA REQUIRING DIFFERENT CONTRACT FORMS WHICH MEANT ADDITIONAL WORK. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONR BIRD, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING,ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, THE BOARD APPROVED 4 - O AN INCREASE IN OUR CONTRACT WITH GERAGHTY & MILLER DATED DECEMBER 19, 1979, OR $11,966, MAKING A TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE OF $59,766. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENDED GERAGHTY & MILLER FOR A BEAUTIFUL PRESENTATION AND FOR THEIR THOROUGHNESS. REAP . PO . INTMENTS TO THE ECONOMIC OpPoRTuNny COUNCIL CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT IT APPEARS EACH APPOINTEE MUST BE APPOINTED AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A PARTICULAR COMMISSIONER, AND COMMISSIONER BIRD COMMENTED THAT THE APPOINTMENTS RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE COMMISSIONERS' TERMS, CHAIRMAN LYONS REPORTED THAT HE STILL IS TRYING TO FIND AN APPOINTEE. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE HAS REVIEWED THE FEDERAL REGISTER AS TO SELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE E.O.C. BOARD, AND IT STATED THAT IF THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS NOT WILLING TO NAME ANYONE AS THEIR APPOINTEE, THAT SEAT SHOULD REMAIN VACANT UNTIL THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS WILLING TO DESIGNATE SOMEONE. HE ANNOUNCED THAT HIS POSITION IS THAT HE DOES NOT CHOOSE TO ENCOURAGE A FEDERAL AGENCY SUCH AS E.O.C. BY MAKING ANY APPOINTMENT BECAUSE THIS IS CONTRARY TO HIS PHILOSOPHY. COMMISSIONER BIRD APPOINTED DOUGLAS KING AS HIS REPRESENTA— TIVE ON THE E.O.C. BOARD, AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK APPOINT WILLIE ADAMS AS HIS REPRESENTATIVE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THIS TIME. I CONODII;IC OPPORTU.NITIL'c. )UNCIL 4F', INDIAN RIVER COJP1 i'. INNC P -- O. PDX 1766 VERO REACHr 1'd CR1 i Bf�F RP. Ot' (':tk CCiMtI.IOIr BOOK "i pkv dr Douglas King I ><:I;RE!"'Y APP01:1T ru _ REPRESENT :fir, A14D C'. di"i (�N I'iiE BOARD C E. O. C. AND TO TAKE :: A lc ,;i�. 4OTI�,_ ", BOARD MEMBBR. t: M IS UNDE:RST00D '!HIT I :,1AY RE%l0 I$J`EmE'NT AT ANY TIME, WITH A'r'T'fi.!':i ;AI':: N'01')CF, A'Nfr TT 6JIiL BF: t' d C x4CE,;i.,Ld:D IN AZ4Y i.luliLD I LI*A1;1-, 10 lit , At4 ELEC,` ED COUNTY OFFICIAL. i Bf�F RP. Ot' (':tk CCiMtI.IOIr BOOK "i pkv dr JAN 28 1981 Knox 45 PA018 ECO1`iOMIC OPPORTUNITI1:t; COUNCIL OF INDIAN RIVER CCUNTI, INC. P. 0. BOX 2766 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA I HEREBY APPOINT Willie Adams TO REPRESENT ,IE AND INDIAN FIVER COUNT' ON THE BOARD OF E. 0. C. AND TO TAIL: F'701 -,T AS A PULL -FLEDGED, VOTING, BOARD i iEMBER . IT I:' UNDLI-:STC OL) T !•iiia THIS "PF'OINTMENT A1` Ai:. J' .;P. P:.; :! i.i'i .. :1Ti; I:'�'.'�'I;, AND IT ['TILL BF 1IJ r`,!.i' �.. �l'I.l� J To Id, AN I.i):lI'..D Or C01IN'r] CU^1tiI IOI AWARDING OF BIDS ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED FIVE BIDS AND WILL MAKE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS, THE BIDS ON THE ROAD GRADER (CASH PURCHASE) AND ROAD GRADER (TOTAL COST PURCHASE), THEY WOULD LIKE TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE UNTIL THEY HAVE A FULL ANALYSIS. ON BID #67 FOR THE 14' FLAT BED DUMP TRUCK, MR. NELSON REPORTED THAT THIS IS THE SECOND TIME BID HAS BEEN SENT OUT, AND WE STILL HAVE ONLY ONE BIDDER. THEY ARE RECOMMENDING THIS BE AWARDED TO BARRIE REED'S AUTO PLAZA, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, THE BOARD ACCEPTED THE BID OF BARRIE REEDS AUTO PLAZA FOR A 14' FLAT BED DUMP TRUCK, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICA— TIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,004.31; TO BE CHARGED TO ACCT. #411-217= 534-66.42, 52 71 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 -14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION N� "o ° Q/ BID NO. IRC #67 —1january DATE OF OPENING 22 1981 BID TITLE 141 Flat Bed Dump Truck ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE l t Flat Red nump BID TITLE Refuse Container Truck i Truck ' ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE New 1980 No Bi 1. One 1 Refuse Container Truck New 198122004 31 ' New 1980 No Bi No Bi 2. Delivery: days after 120 New 1981 51091 00 -1-9n- receipt of P ■ ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT ON BID #68, THIS ALSO WAS SENT OUT FOR THE SECOND TIME; NO LOCAL FIRMS BID; BUT THEY HAVE RE- CEIVED TWO BIDS AND ARE RECOMMENDING THE LOW BIDDER. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, THE BOARD ACCEPTED THE BID OF TRANSTAT EQUIPMENT FOR ONE REFUSE CONTAINER TRUCK AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,726.50; TO BE CHARGED TO ACCT. #102-209-534-66.42. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 -14th Avenue v° Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION ° °a � w ro �� CO BID NO. IRC #68 DATE OF OPENING January 22 1981 BID TITLE Refuse Container Truck ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE U 1. One 1 Refuse Container Truck ' New 1980 No Bi No Bi New 1981 51091 00 48726 50 2. Delivery: after receipt 90 90-120 of Purchase Order. JAN .28198.1 53 800( 45 ;fAt J.t9'.. JAN 28 1981 s 4oi< 5 PAg320 BIDS #69 AND #70 WILL BE CARRIED OVER TO THE NEXT MEETING, MR. NELSON RECOMMENDED THAT BID #71, WHICH IS FOR PUMPS FOR THE PEBBLE BAY SEWER SYSTEM, BE AWARDED TO THE LOW BIDDER. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, THE BOARD ACCEPTED THE BID OF JACOBS ELECTRIC FOR TWO HYDROMATIC SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,073.30; TO BE CHARGED TO ACCT.# 461-218-536-66,49. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 -14th Avenue 4 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 4y tiyC BID TABULATION ��O � 4VCO � � a a� BID NO. DATE OF -OPENING ORC 471 January 22, 1981 0 �y b BID TITLE (2) Hydromatic Submersible Pumps ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UN 1. (2) Hydromatic Model SLL-75 1036 65 1236 00 No Bi 1529 50 1938 50 Submersible Pumps or equal x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 2 each 2073 30 2472 00 3059 00 3877 00 2 Das required for delivery after receipt of Purchase Days 14 10-14 42-63 42 PROPOSED RESOLUT I ON OPPOSING NEW INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE RULING CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT THIS ITEM HAS TAKEN CARE OF ITSELF BECAUSE SO FAR THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE RULING HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. BLANKET OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL TO S.A.C.C. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR CHAIRMAN CHAIRMAN LYONS REPORTED THAT HE HAD INDICATED TO THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED MEETINGS AND VOLUNTEER FOR THE COMMITTEE. HE HAD ASKED THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME IF THEY WOULD APPROVE BLANKET OUT -OF - COUNTY TRAVEL FOR HIM TO ATTEND THESE MEETINGS, AND HE NOW WOULD LIKE THE NEW COMMISSION TO KNOW ABOUT THIS. m mi ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER BIRD, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, THE BOARD APPROVED BLANKET OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO ATTEND S.A.C.C. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETINGS. CONSIDERATION OF FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN FIREWORKS DISPLAY NOW FINANCED BY WGYL CHAIRMAN LYONS REPORTED THAT MAYOR GOFF OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH WISHED TO KNOW IF THE COUNTY WOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE FIREWORKS DISPLAY FINANCED BY WGYL, AND HE HAD TOLD THE MAYOR THAT IF THE COM- MISSION WISHED, WE COULD CONSIDER IT AT BUDGETTIME. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT THIS IS A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, AND IF WE JOINED IN, WE MIGHT HAVE TO JOIN IN WITH THE SEBASTIAN FIREWORKS, ETC. COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE. -TO SEE MORE INPUT,AND HE WOULD NOT MIND DISCUSSING THIS AT BUDGETTIME. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF GETTING INVOLVED IN BUYING FIREWORKS. CHAIRMAN LYONS ALSO FELT THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT BE IN- VOLVED, BUT WAS WILLING TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN DURING BUDGET SESSIONS. REPORT RE PROPOSED GIFFORD INCORPORATION CHAIRMAN LYONS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE ATTENDED THE MEETING OF OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGRATION AND HEARD THE PRESENTATION MADE BY ATTORNEY BLAYNE JENNINGS IN REGARD TO INCORPORATION OF GIFFORD. THE CHAIRMAN REPORTED THAT HE EMPHASIZED THAT, WHILE HE WAS TAKING NO POSITION AS FAR AS THE INCORPORATION WAS CONCERNED, THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION WAS ONE OF ASSISTANCE, PRIMARILY IN THE DIRECTION OF BEING SURE EVERYONE HAS POSSESSION OF ALL OF THE FACTS AND THEN AFTER THAT, HELPING THEM OBTAIN THE ADDI- TIONAL SERVICES WHICH THEY FEEL THEY SHOULD HAVE AND ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR. ATTORNEY COLLINS CONFIRMED THAT THE COUNTY DOES HAVE THE ABILITY THROUGH MUNICIPAL TAXING DISTRICTS TO DEFINE CERTAIN AREAS AND ESTABLISH THE TAXING DISTRICTS TO BUY THE SERVICES REQUESTED. 55 Box .. 45 Fra 72i Q JAN 2 81981 aoox -5 N2722 IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD THAT THE MAIN CONCERN IS TO BE SURE THAT ALL THE FACTS ARE MADE KNOWN TO THE PEOPLE. PARTICIPATION IN PROPOSED PARK AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF 43RD AVENUE AND 16TH STREET CHAIRMAN LYONS DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF PARTICIPATION IN A PROPOSED PARK AT 43RD AVENUE AND 16TH STREET TO BE DEVELOPED AS A SORT OF JOINT CITY -COUNTY PARK. HE FELT THE BOARD MIGHT WANT TO GIVE THIS TO COMMISSIONER BIRD AS A RECREATION COMMISSION ITEM. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK AGREED THIS COULD BE PRESENTED TO THE RECREATION COMMISSION, BUT FELT WE SHOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL. DISCUSSION CONTINUED, AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT THERE IS A VERY HIGH DENSITY IN THAT AREA, AND THE PROPOSED PARK WAS LOOKED AT AS A RELIEF FOR THE AREA AND TO PROVIDE SOME PASSIVE RECREATION AREA. HE NOTED THAT AS YOU MOVE DOWN THE LINE, THESE AREAS GO BY THE WAYSIDE, AND WE NEED RECREATION FOR ALL OUR CITIZENS. COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT HE WOULD CONTACT MAYOR GOFF IN THIS REGARD. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT WE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN FAIR TO DR. FENNER, OWNER OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY, AND HE WOULD STRONGLY r RECOMMEND THAT WE TAKE STEPS TO DEMOLISH THIS UNSIGHTLY, HAZARDOUS STRUCTURE, HE REPORTED THAT ARCHITECT JOHN CALMES HAS INSPECTED THIS PROPERTY AND SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING REPORT: �l a �cJ , titI W December 22, 1980 HighOn=�December 3nsds otel iection `JS�d� 980 , 11-If,c.� Photos xl and #2 are a general overall view of the highlands Motel looking; to the west. Photo #3 is a view of the pool looking to the west. The pool seems to be structurally sound; however, there are some small cracks in the x,�valls of the finish material with more dominant cracks between the floor of the pool and the walls. The deck of the pool has settled and has pulled away from the walls in some places as much as an inch. 56 Me etluipinent room exhibite-n photo -,I is below grade ains about •1 inches of water. The electrical equipment shown adoesonot m00t current cocles. All 'Xirini= is not in co:lduit and there are fci�es in lieu of broakerti iI, the main panol. They rlay steps exhibiter(i in be dangerous with photo -"5 have ;mall tread ,viii,cli we Cc el with current :standards no hand •.ail anti for p7,l)lic pools�rob�bly would not comply The canopy over they covered walk is constructed of 2 by pi's which are 16 inches on center. The canopy sags in some areas as exhibited in photo #G. Some of the sag results from rotting of the supporting beam shown in photo #7. There is a missing column as shown i Photo #8 and an inappropriate sized beam as shown in photo #J. There are no hurricane anchors on the walkway roof structure which is contrary t0 --the present code. Rather than to describe each unit separately,I will define some typical problems common to all units in varying degrees. There is evidence of termites in roof structures. In photo #10 it is apparent that termite damage is excessive. In some areas it is obvious that the roof leaks in numerous places. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any insulation in existence; current energy codes require some form of insulation. Photo #11 exhibits the inaccessibility to the bathroom by the handicapped. There are no grab bars, the door is 2 ft. wide, and there is not enough room for a wheel chair to maneuver. Electrically the units are not up to code as the distribution panel, shown in photo #12, is of the fuse type _instead of the breaker type currently required. Photo #x`13 extlibits wiring that is not in conduit. This photo also shotes tile. absense of a roof, a condition existingin several units. The windows that are still in Place -are in a bad state of repair (see photo #14) and of the jalousie type which will not meet the current energy code due to the high air infiltration rates. Most of the doors, as in photo #15, are similar to the windows in that they fail to meet energy code requirements. Some of the units have gas wall heaters which are beyond the state of repair. (see photo .#16) In the center lobby a portion of the roof load is being supported by an aluminum frame. In photo #17 there is a stress crack in the glass due to improper structural support. Photo #18 shows what will be called the storage building for this report. The shed roof is constructed with 2 by 4's which are too small for the span as exhibited by the deflection shown in photo #19. Inside the storage building there has been a fire which completely severed the two roof joists shown in photo #20. In my general inspection of the site, nowhere was there evidence of either a water treatment plant or a sewer treatment plant. Under current regulations, for a motel, both of the above items would be required. I have to assume that the facility is on a septic'' tank system and a private water supply. It is obvious from photos #1 and #2 that the project would not comply with currant landscape ordinances. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMIS - STONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE ATTORNEY AND THE ADMINISTRATOR BE DIRECTED TO PURSUE THE DEMOLITION OF THE HAZARDOUS STRUCTURE KNOWN AS HIGHLAND MOTEL AND THAT THE OWNER BE SO NOTIFIED. JAN 28 1981 57 80ox 5 -PavE'f2J JAN 281981 '45 %E724 5%%724 COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT HE WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE COUNTY'S PROCEDURES, AND HE HOPED WE HAVE A UNIFORM APPROACH TO SUCH DEMOLITION AND THAT WE DOCUMENT WHY WE ARE ZEROING IN ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE, CHAIRMAN LYONS ASSURED HIM THAT COUNTY POLICY IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED, HIS ONLY QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE REPORT RECEIVED FROM ARCHITECT .JOHN CALMES IS SUFFICIENT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT IT WAS. COMMISSIONER BIRD NOTED THAT IN THE BACKUP MATERIAL IS A LETTER SENT STATING THAT WE WERE GOING TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION ON MAY 8TH, AND HE WISHED TO KNOW WHY WE DID NOT PROCEED AT THAT TIME. ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT DR. FENNER CAME IN AND SAID HE WAS GOING TO MAKE REPAIRS AND BRING THIS STRUCTURE UP TO CODE, WE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION THAT HE HAD APPLIED FOR A SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION LOAN TO DO THIS, WE CONTACTED THE SBA, REVIEWED THE STATUS OF THIS SITE, AND ASKED IF THEY REALLY INTENDED TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO LEND MONEY FOR REPAIRING A STRUCTURE, WHICH, IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATION, WAS UNREPAIRABLE. THE SBA REVIEWED THIS MATTER AND DETERMINED THAT CERTAIN REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THEM BY DR. FENNER WERE NOT CORRECT. THE MATTER WAS THEN -PUT ON THE SHELF TEMPORARILY. ATTORNEY COLLINS CONTINUED THAT HE WAS VERY RELUCTANT TO TELL,THE COMMISSION TO TEAR DOWN THIS STRUCTURE WHEN THE OWNER SAID HE HAD A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. APPARENTLY, THAT ALTERNATIVE IS NOT AVAILABLE, BUT RATHER THAN ACT ON THE PREVIOUS NOTICE OF MAY 8TH, ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE WOULD PREFER TO GIVE THIS MAN ONE MORE HEARING BEFORE TAKING ACTION, QUESTION AROSE ABOUT FUNDS BUDGETED FOR DEMOLITION, AND FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON EXPLAINED THAT NO MONEY IS BUDGETED. IF THE DEMOLITION IS DONE WITH OUR PERSONNEL, ROAD & BRIDGE ACCUMULATES OUR COST FOR MANPOWER, EQUIPMENT, LANDFILL COSTS, ETC., AND THEN THE ATTORNEY.PREPARES A LIEN TO BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION IF IT AUTHORIZED DEMOLITION. COMMISSIONER BIRD POINTED OUT THAT THE MOTION PROVIDES THE OWNER ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE DEMOLITION IS CARRIED 0 UT . COMMISSIONER FLETCHER HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT DR. FENNER'S PREVIOUS HEARING, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF COMMISSIONER FLETCHER LOOKED THROUGH THE ATTORNEY'S FILE ON THIS MATTER BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF PROMISES WHICH DR. FENNER HAS MADE TO THE COUNTY, NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN FULFILLED, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER BROUGHT UP THE SUNSET RESTAURANT AS A COMPARISON AND FELT PEOPLE WOULD ASK WHY THE COUNTY WOULD TAKE THIS MOTEL DOWN RATHER THAN THE SUNSET RESTAURANT WHICH APPEARS TO BE COMING DOWN PIECE BY PIECE AND PRESENTS A VERY GREAT HAZARD, ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT THERE ARE MANY PLACES IN THIS COUNTY THAT NEED ATTENTION, THIS PARTICULAR MATTER HAS BEEN GOING ON -SINCE 1968, HE EXPLAINED THE ON-GOING COUNTY PROCEDURE WHERE BUILDING DIRECTOR RYMER BRINGS IN A LIST OF HAZARDOUS STRUCTURES, AND THE BOARD HAS A HEARING IN REGARD TO EACH ONE, HE NOTED THAT THIS SUNSET RESTAURANT MAY BE ON SUCH A LIST; THIS IS A LONG, SLOW PROCESS, AND WE ARE NOT SINGLING OUT ANYONE, ALL ARE TREATED ALIKE, AND THEY ARE GIVEN A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER POINTED OUT THAT SUCH DEMOLITION TAKES ENERGY, EQUIPMENT, FUEL, ETC., FROM THE COUNTY'S PRIMARY FUNCTION OF MAINTAINING ROADS, PARKS, ETC., AND HE FELT PEOPLE WOULD FEEL WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO DO AND WERE GOING OUT LOOKING FOR A LITTLE SOME- THING EXTRA TO DO. CHAIRMAN LYONS POINTED OUT THAT THE DEMOLITION OF HAZARDOUS STRUCTURE IS PART OF THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY AS RELATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 - 0, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING. 59 8 JAN 28 1981 aax' 45 PAU 14 JAN 2 81981 FURNISHINGS FOR CLERK OF COURZ BOOK 45 PAC£, 726 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO: MEMORANDUM January 20, 1981 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: County Administrator SUBJECT: Furnishings for the Clerk of Court Freda Wright has identified certain furnishings to include desks, chairs, credenza, shelving, counters and a teller door to augment the furnishings that she currently has. These items will be needed upon moving into her new spaces at the courthouse building. The attached memo from the Director of Materials list these items and the total amount. Upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners, I will direct the Director of Materials to order these items and deliver to the Clerk of Court upon receipt. Money required to pay for these furnishings will be taken out of the account budgeted, furnishings for the new Administrative Building. C Chairman PATAICK B. LYONS District 2 s Neil A.` Telson, County Adm2nistrator Vice Chav:rnan WILLIAM C. W00TKE, JA. A. GROVEA 171 ETC!' A DON C. CCURLOCK, JA. 0,3IriCt 4 - D:;tra.! I { BOARD 01" i.rOU.,,rr7 1r `'OAlj,,IISr.71VNG11S 2147 1'01 A r en ue. 4'cro Beacrrt, Florida 32960 NEIL A. NELSON - County Administrator Lawyers Title Building 2545 141h Avr nua. Vero neach, Florida 1,1860 Telephone (005) 562-41136 January 19, 1981 I To: County Administrator Fro:n: Director of Materjal Subject: Furnishings for tilt Clerk of Ccurt DICK BIRO DrSlnct S 5ecre!sry to E?.'ar,- TeleChone (305) 564 '94i. 1< As per your instructious, tiie zoilc.,rin- list of furr.isl:ini;s �:,r,� obtained frog' the Clerk of CLaui t, 2. I unuerstand these lu ni;;iii?l j, Lust. be available 15, 1981. Therefore, t e do net :_aye r1:c1c ;h le:3c : ir: ' Lu bid these items, I hone obtaiiicLi prlc:c!s f:o:I: ver.i snit:! in Lite ti -A2 11.icjt(:d, 'fi)e.,se prices inclu; c� .ill :•iiiri iand all 1_atioi: costs. nn Shelving for exhibit rncx� Teller door, for traffic fine collck,t _ n Wall mounted 6' desk 26' counter. with LaLu, locl%ed cabinets, recessed area for valici at !n.; machine, etc. :�Llb-L0C<iI (1) Desk, Executive (Freda Wright) -(1) Credenza (Freda Wright) (2) Sidechair 0 87.95 (1) Executive swivel chair (Freda Wright) (1) Bookcase (1) Typewriter -.table g (5) Secretarial desks 0299.95 (5) Secretarial chairs 0123.95 }cL�--- Jim Flynd Less 10" Sub -total Sub -total Total 407.0" 3 7 5_7 . (10 i190.A 481.95 281.95 175.90 199.95 8.95 64.95 1499.75 619.75 34 13 .15 341.31 3071.84 5190.53 8262.37 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EMPHASIZED THAT THIS FURNITURE IS IN ADDITION TO WHAT MRS. WRIGHT HAS IN HER OFFICES NOW AND WILL BE NEEDED WHEN SHE MOVES INTO HER NEW OFFICES IN THE COURTHOUSE. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HIS ONLY QUESTION WAS WHY NOT BID, AND MR. NELSON AND FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON EXPLAINED THAT THESE ITEMS ARE ALL ON STATE BID PRICE. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED IF THAT MEANT THEY ARE OFF THE STATE CONTRACT, AND MR, NELSON REPLIED AFFIRMATIVELY. COMMISSIONER BIRD RAISED THE QUESTION THAT THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION SET ASIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR FURNISHINGS, ETC., AND HE WISHED TO KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY GUIDELINES AS TO WHO GETS HOW MUCH OF THIS. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT THE ONLY GUIDELINE IS THAT WE ARE NOT REFURNISHING EVERYTHING. THERE WAS NO ALLOCATION MADE TO ANY PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT, BUT WE DO HAVE A CONTINGENCY WHICH IT IS BELIEVED IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL NEEDS, FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON NOTED THAT THE FUND IS SET UP TO COVER THE COURTHOUSE AND THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, TO APPROVE THE FURNISHINGS FOR THE CLERK OF COURT AS OUTLINED IN THE MEMO OF JANUARY 19, 1981, THE TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,262.37. JAN 28 1981 61 BOOK 1,45 _FAtt 727. JAN 2 8 198 728 COMMISSIONER BIRD REQUESTED A 60 SECOND SUMMARY OF WHAT THE STATE BID PROCEDURE MEANS, FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON EXPLAINED THAT THE STATE INVITES PRICES FROM ALL DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS AND VENDORS ON EVERY KIND OF THING YOU CAN THINK OF, AND THIS IS THE PRICE THAT THEY WILL FURNISH THOSE MATERIALS TO YOU FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR WITH NO PRICE INCREASE. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4-0, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING. LEGAL FILING STORAGE SYSTEM FOR THE CLERK OF COURT THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING LETTER FROM CLERK FREDA WRIGHT: January 20, 1981 Air. Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County Courthouse Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 Dear Mr. Lyons: As you are well aware, the entire Clerk's Department is in a state of transition, and in the process of determining how to rearrange offices and relocate personnel, the following fact, which will necessitate a drastic change in our present filing.storage system, has come to light. 1. The space provided for the Court Departments is not adequate to house both personnel and files due to several reasons. a. The need to bring the legal files up from the basement because the way they are stored presently is both illegal according to State Statutes for the storing of legal files and against the local fire code. b. The continuing normal gain of case files in all de- partments, and the increase in this gain due to County growth and increasing population. C. The fact that when some of these departments are moved to their new quarters in the Courthouse, they will not have room even sufficient to store the files they presently have, much less allow for future growth. For the above reasons, I have had a space analysis done by Mr. Hargreaves of Lundia, Myers Industries, and in the attached detailed report, I believe lie has provided us with a workable solution. Yours sincerely, FREDA WRIGHT, CLERK By o% LL,411.._ 042 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT THE CLERKS OFFICE STARTED OUT USING FOUR DRAWER FILING CABINETS, AND HE BELIEVED THAT WE HAVE RETAINED EVERYTHING THAT HAS EVER COME INTO THE CLERK'S OFFICE SINCE ITS INCEPTION, HE NOTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE CLERK HAS INSTITUTED A MICROFILMING PROCESS, SHE STILL HAS TO MAINTAIN RECORDS AND NEEDS THE STORAGE SPACE. CLERK FREDA RIGHT CONFIRMED THAT SHE NEVER HAS HAD ADE- QUATE FILING SPACE, AND FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON NOTED THAT THE FILES REFERRED TO ARE THE CIRCUIT COURT FILES - CASE LOADS THAT HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM IN THE PAST. THESE ARE NOT ACCOUNTING RECORDS, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT THERE IS A PROVISION WHERE YOU CAN APPLY TO THE STATE ARCHIVES FOR ELIMINATION OF SOME RECORDS AND HE ASKED IF THE CLERK IS PURSUING THAT AVENUE. MRS, WRIGHT CONFIRMED .THAT SHE HAS BEEN. CHAIRMAN LYONS AGREED THAT WE DO HAVE A SAFETY PROBLEM. THERE IS NOW A ROOM WHERE FOUR DRAWER FILE CABINETS ARE PILED ON TOP OF FOUR DRAWER CABINETS, WHICH IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. MRS. WRIGHT AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON BOTH CONFIRMED THAT SHE HAS A USE FOR EVERY EXISTING CABINET IN ADDITION TO THE REQUESTED MOBILE .STORAGE SYSTEM, AND THE PROPOSED SYSTEM WOULD GIVE HER THE CAPABILITY OF MAINTAINING HER FILES FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED IF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM WOULD ELIMINATE THE FILES IN THE BASEMENT, AND FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON STATED THAT IT WOULD NOT ELIMINATE THE ACCOUNTING RECORDS, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN TO THE STATE ARCHIVES WITH THOSE ON AN ON-GOING BASIS. THE COURT RECORDS, HOWEVER, NEED TO BE PLACED WHERE THEY ARE BETTER PROTECTED. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED ABOUT THE PROPOSED USE OF THE BASEMENT IN THE OVERALL PLAN, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT IT WAS TO BE USED FOR STORAGE, BUT OF ITEMS OTHER THAN COURT RECORDS, FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON CONFIRMED THAT THE STATUTES ARE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW THE COURT RECORDS MUST BE STORED, AND THE CLERK READ A SECTION FROM THE CLERK'S MANUAL WHICH RECOMMENDS MOBILE STORAGE.SYSTEMS FOR LEGAL FILES.. X 7219. F_ JAN 28 1981 amK 4 ?A�E.7 0 COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT THE SPACE ANALYSIS PRESENTED A COMPARISON OF THE COST PER FILING INCH BETWEEN USING FOUR DRAWER CABINETS AND THE MOBILE STORAGE SYSTEM, AND APPARENTLY THE COST OF THE FILING CABINETS WOULD AMOUNT TO APPROXIMATELY $14,000. HE DISCUSSED A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF'A MOBILE STORAGE SYSTEM AS RECOMMENDED IN THE SPACE ANALYSIS, OR EQUIVALENT, FOR A COST NOT TO EXCEED $16,077, DISCUSSION AROSE ABOUT THE NECESSITY TO GO TO BID AND WHAT OTHER FIRMS SUPPLY THIS TYPE OF FILING SYSTEM., DISCUSSION NEXT ENSUED ABOUT WHETHER THIS WAS STATE CONTRACT PRICE, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS NOT COMING FROM THE STATE; IT IS A GENERAL SERVICES ACCOUNT. THE PRICES THIS COMPANY CAN GIVE US WOULD BE THE SAME PRICE THAT A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY WOULD BUY IT AT. HE NOTED THAT THE BOARD WOULD NOT BE WRONG IN BUYING FROM A GSA SOURCE AND NOT GOING FOR BIDS, BUT THE LUNDIA REPRESENTATIVE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE BOARD DOES WANT TO GO FOR BIDS. MR. NELSON CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE BID SPECIFICA- TIONS VERY EXACT SO WE CAN GET SOMETHING COMPARABLE AND AS OF GOOD A QUALITY. HE DID FEEL THAT THE STUDY MR. HARGREAVES HAS DONE SHOULD COUNT FOR SOMETHING IN OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE BIDS. CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT HE JUST ASK FOR THE MOBILE STORAGEiSYSTEM SUGGESTED OR EQUIVALENT, AND THEN IT IS UP TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S STAFF TO DECIDE IF THE BIDS SUBMITTED MEET THE QUALITY DESIRED. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT ONE THING WE HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND IS THAT THROUGH OUR SUNSHINE LAW AND GETTING MATERIAL OUT TO THE BOARD, THIS STUDY WAS PUT OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS DID REPORT THE COST, WHICH REALLY COMPROMISES THE PRICING. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED--T-HAT THIS IS THE SECOND TIME LATELY THAT THIS SITUATION HAS ARISEN AND WE SHOULD GIVE SOME THOUGHT TO HOW TO PREVENT THIS IN THE FUTURE. THE BOARD MEMBERS CON- CURRED, HOWEVER, THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO FOLLOW OUR NORMAL BIDDING PROCEDURES. 64 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT AS LONG AS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO UTILIZE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE SPACE ANALYSIS, HE BELIEVED THEY COULD MAKE A FINE EVALUATION, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER FLETCHER, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED ADVERTISING FOR BIDS FOR A MOBILE STORAGE SYSTEM FOR THE.CLERK FOR Rooms #109, #112 AND #114, ADMINISTRATOR~ NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO EXPEDITE THIS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE A SYSTEM SUCH AS THIS HAS TO BE COORDINATED WITH INSTALLATION OF THE CARPET; THEREFORE, HE WOULD GO OUT FOR BID IMMEDIATELY AND GIVE IT AS SHORT A RESPONSE TIME AS ALLOWED, DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE TIME INVOLVED, AND THE ADMINIS- TRATION FELT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 90 DAYS TO ALLOW FOR ADVERTISING, ORDERING MATERIALS, DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION, ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT THE BOARD HAD PREVIOUSLY GIVEN THE ABOVE REPLAT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND THIS PROBABLY SHOULD BE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL; HE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS IS NOT IN FINAL PLAT FORM. HE CONTINUED THAT HE HAS BEEN LED TO BELIEVE THAT THS MAN HAS BEEN SELLING LOTS ALREADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER DID NOT THINK ANYONE HAD REALIZED THIS WAS TO BE IN FINAL FORM AND STATED THAT HE WOULD WITHDRAW IT FROM THE AGENDA. DISCUSSION AROSE ABOUT THE PROPERTY OWNER BEING INFORMED THAT HE IS IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE BY SELLING LOTS BEFORE THE FINAL PLAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND RECORDED, ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THIS SHOULD BE VERIFIED FIRST, AND THEN WHEN IT IS CONFIRMED, WE COULD PUT A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ON HIM, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, THE BOARD INSTRUCTED THE ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE THIS MATTER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. 65 JAN 28 1981 mix., 45.. E*7-31 JAN 281981 Boax 5 *E 7:32 ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT HE FELT THE PLAT SHOULD CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. HE GAVE A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NARANJA SHELLMOUND TRACT PROPERTY, WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED ON WHAT IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED A SWAMP LOCATED ON MASSEY ROAD AT THE CUTOFF AT_THE WEST END OF THE WABASSO BRIDGE CAUSEWAY. HE NOTED THAT THE LAST TIME -THE PROPERTY OWNER APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD, THE COUNTY GOT CONCESSIONS AS FAR AS FILLING, DRAINAGE, AND PAVING ETC., AND HE BELIEVED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED AT THAT TIME. THE ATTORNEY FELT IT IS STRANGE TO GET THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BACK AGAIN AND SUGGESTED THAT FRANK CLARK, OWNER OF SAID PROPERTY, BE GIVEN NOTICE TO APPEAR AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. THE BOARD CONCURRED. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - WEST LAKE PARK SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THIS SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED OFF OF 43RD AVENUE IN THE VICINITY OF 2ND STREET. DISCUSSION AROSE ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF INGRESS AND EGRESS, AND WHETHER A TREND TO LIMITED INGRESS AND EGRESS IS DEVELOPING. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT HE BATTLED ABOUT THIS WITH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, BUT A CUL DE SAC WAS AGREED ON. HE NOTED THAT THIS IS A VERY SMALL SUBDIVISION, AND THEY LOOK ON IT AS BEING VERY PRIVATE, MR. REVER STATED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOME SUBDIVISIONS BEING DEVELOPED IN THIS MANNER, AND, IN'FACT, WITH SOME YOU CAN `T DO ANYTHING ELSE, BUT HE FELT WE HAVE TO GET OUR ROAD SITUATION SQUARED AWAY, HE POINTED OUT THAT THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL IN REQUIRING THAT LOTS 1, 11, AND 13 HAVE A NON -ACCESS STRIP ON 43RD AVENUE, BUT THE TRC DID OVERTURN THEIR RECOMMENDATION RE INGRESS AND EGRESS. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK DISCUSSED THE MAKE UP OF THE TRC, THEIR VARIOUS AREAS OF EXPERTISE, AND THAT FACT THAT THE MAJORITY, WHO ARE OTHER THAN PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS, CAN. -OVERRULE ON PLANNING MATTERS. COMMISSIONER BIRD SUGGESTED THAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER HAVING THE INDIVIDUAL ENTITIES APPROVE ONLY THEIR PARTICULAR AREA OF CONCERN. •r PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE EACH ENTITY INVOLVED SUBMIT A WRITTEN REPORT EVEN THOUGH THE TRC MIGHT HAVE AN OVERALL RECOMMENDATION, AND CHAIRMAN LYONS AGREED WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS HAVE TO SAY. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HIS STAFF IS GOING TO COME BACK WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN REGARD TO THIS WHOLE SITUATION. DISCUSSION CONTINUED, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE HAS SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE DEDICATION. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS NOT SIGNED PROPERLY; THEY NEED TWO WITNESSES. SECONDLY, THEY ARE TALK- ING ABOUT TRACTS A AND B TO BE DEEDED TO THE COUNTY, AND HE WISHED TO BE SURE THE DEEDS ARE IN HAND WHEN THE RECORDING TAKES PLACE. THIRDLY, HE FELT IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO LET THE SIDE LOT LINE EASEMENTS VARY AS THEY NEED TO BE KEPT UNIFORM IN ORDER TO CONNECT UP. ON LOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER BIRD, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, THE BOARD AGREED TO TABLE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF WEST LAKE PARK SUBDI- VISION TO THE NEXT MEETING OR UNTIL THEY MAKE THE NECESSARY ADJUST- MENTS IN THE DEDICATION, SCHEDULING OF ROAD WORKSHOP MEETING ADMINISTRATOR NELSON PROPOSED THAT TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17TH, AT 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M. BE DESIGNATED FOR A WORKSHOP MEETING ON ROADS, AND HE PASSED OUT AN OUTLINE OF WHAT THEY HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH, THE BOARD CONCURRED WITH THE DATE SUGGESTED. 67 JAN 28 1981 BooK 45 PAu lJ r 45 'PACE?'. 4 THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO FROM ADMINISTRATOR NELSON: BOARD OF COUNTY COMAJISSIONERS 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 NEIL A. NELSON - County Administrator Lawyers Title Building 2345 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 329GO Telephone: (305) 562-4186 MEMORANDUM Secretary to Beard Telephone: (305) 569-1940 January 21, 1931 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: County Administrator SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard Extension Re -Design of South Bound Pavement Royal Palm Blvd. North to the Main Canal Encl: Reynolds, Smith & Hills Letter Dated 1-6-81, Same Subject Reynolds, Smith & Hills planned to use the previous Architect's design of Indian River Boulevard Extension from Royal Palm Boulevard north to the canal. In their detail study of Greiner's design, it was discovered that the ditch that drains Royal Palm Boulevard area was to be relocated to the west. This relocation of the ditch was to provide enough area to construct a turning lane. The workshop group that met December 12th to discuss the re -design, felt that the relocation would cause many problems and delays. At that time, RS&H were requested to re -design the south bound pavement area to provide for traffic movement and eliminate the ditch relocation. - This re -design will cost approximately $1200.00. However, the construction costs saved in not relocating the ditch justifies the re -design cost. It is therefore recommended that the County Administrator be authorized to confirm in writing that the County -is desirous.of this re -design and is authorizing the additional cost of approximately $1200.00. • .a Neell A Nelson, Coui ty n.istrator ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT THE DITCH IN QUESTION IS ON CITY PROPERTY; IT IS USED TO DRAIN THE ROYAL PALM AREA, WHICH IS A VERY CRITICAL AREA. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK QUESTIONED WHETHER THERE WOULD BE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON RESIDENTS OF THE AREA, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR BELIEVED IT WOULD*'BE A POSITIVE IMPACT AND THAT IT WOULD HAVE A GREATER IMPACT IF WE ALLOWED THE DITCH TO BE MOVED. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, THE BOARD, BY A 3 TO 1 VOTE, APPROVED CHANGE ORDER #I2 TO COVER ADDITIONAL SERVICES BY REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS FOR REDESIGN OF THE INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD EXT.; COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. COMMISSIONER WODTKE RETURNED TO THE MEETING AT 5:18 01CLOCK P.M. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - CASSARA HEIGHTS SSD CHAIRMAN LYONS EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE DRAINAGE OF CASSARA HEIGHTS. MARVIN CARTER OF CARTER ASSOCIATES SPOKE ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS, PETER AND MARJORIE CASSARA, HE DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE OF THE AREA AND SAW ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM IN ENGINEERING A PROPER DRAINAGE FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THIS PROPERTY. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REQUESTED THAT WHEN THE DRAINAGE PLAN IS DEVELOPED, THAT HIS OFFICE BE SUPPLIED WITH A COPY TO REVIEW, AND MR. CARTER STATED THAT WAS THEIR INTENT AND HAS BEEN THEIR CUSTOM SO THEY CAN WORK OUT ANY PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY MOVE FORWARD. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION THEN ENSUED REGARDING THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED WITH THE ALIGNMENT OF 32ND AVENUE AND WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNTY SHOULD ACCEPT THE DITCHES AND ROAD. THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ROAD IN THE SUBDIVISION BENEFITS NO ONE EXCEPT THE PEOPLE WHO BUY AND BUILD IN THAT PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION, AND HE DID NOT FEEL THE COUNTY SHOULD ACCEPT THE ROAD AND DITCHES FOR MAINTENANCE BECAUSE THE ROAD IS NOT A THOROUGHFARE AND DOES NOT BENEFIT THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY, JAN 28 1981 69 so0' 45 IFA�,E 7°35 JAN 28198145 B60X.PACE •,i�1 MR. CARTER STATED THAT MR. CASSARA HAD INTENDED TO DEDICATE THE STREETS, ETC., TO THE COUNTY, BUT IF IT IS THE COMMISSIONS WISH NOT TO ACCEPT THESE STREETS, THEY THEN WILL PROCEED WITH PRIVATE STREETS. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INQUIRED ABOUT THE SITUATION WHERE THERE IS ONLY ONE ROAD IN AND OUT OF A SUBDIVISION AND WHETHER THESE ROADS ARE GENERALLY DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT WE HAVE ACCEPTED SOME IN THE PAST, COLONIAL TERRACE BEING A GOOD EXAMPLE, BUT HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THIS PRACTICE. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT WE DONT HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DO THIS,AND THE CHAIRMAN AGREED. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE BOARD FELT WE MUST BE CONSISTENT AND SHOULD SET A POLICY. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER NOTED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE A POLICY TO BE SET IN THIS REGARD AS THERE HASNIT BEEN ONE BEFORE. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT IF THE DEVELOPER CHOOSES TO PLAT A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND HAVE ONLY ONE INGRESS AND EGRESS, OBVIOUSLY HE WANTS TO KEEP IT PRIVATE OR TO HAVE AS MANY LOTS AS POSSIBLE. HE NOTED THE ONLY PEOPLE -USING THOSE ROADS WILL BE THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO THROUGH TRAFFIC AND HE DID NOT SEE WHY THE TAXPAYERS FOR GENERATIONS TO COME SHOULD MAINTAIN A ROAD THAT ONLY A FEW PEOPLE ARE USING. COMMISSIONER WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT THESE ROADS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE BUILT TO COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS WHETHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AND CONTINUED THAT HE COULD NOT THINK OF ANY SUBDIVISION WE HAVE APPROVED WHERE THE ROADS WERE REQUIRED TO BE BUILT TO COUNTY SPECIFI- CATIONS THAT WE HAVE NOT ACCEPTED THE ROADS IF THE DEVELOPER WISHED TO DEDICATE THEM TO THE COUNTY. AS TO THE ROAD ­HAVING TO BE A THOROUGHFARE, HE POINTED OUT THAT EVEN IF THE ROAD WERE EXTENDED, IT WOULD ONLY CONNECT UP TWO DIVISIONS AND THEY COULDNIT GO FURTHER THAN 8TH STREET IN ANY EVENT. a COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK POINTED OUT THAT AT THE LAST MEETING THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO HAVE COLONIAL TFRRACE OPENED UP TO CONNECTOR ROADS, HE NOTED THAT IF WE ACCEPT ALL ROADS BUILT TO COUNTY STANDARDS, THEN ALL THE PEOPLE WILL BE TREATED EQUALLY, AND THESE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE TAXPAYERS, TOO, DEBATE"CONTINUED WITH MR. CARTER AND ENGINEER LLOYD EMPHASIZING THAT WHETHER THE STREETS WHICH ARE BUILT TO COUNTY STANDARDS, ARE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, THESE PEOPLE ARE STILL PAYING TAXES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STREETS. CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT HE WAS BEGINNING TO DEPART FROM HIS FORMER SUPPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR`S POINT OF VIEW BECAUSE THESE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE A PART OF THE COUNTY ALSO, AND HE NOW FELT THE ROADS WOULD HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED. LENGTHY DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADS AND THE NECESSITY TO BUILD TO COUNTY STANDARDS. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER BIRD, TO GRANT TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF CASSARA HEIGHTS SUB- DIVISION AND INCORPORATE INTO THE MINUTES THE REMARKS MADE BY MR. CARTER THAT AS THEY DEVELOP THE DRAINAGE, THEY WILL COME BACK TO THE COUNTY AND GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DRAINAGE PLANS BEFORE THEY GO TO CONTRACT) AND TO AGREE IF THE DEVELOPER WANTS THE ROADS PRIVATE, THEY WOULD BE PRIVATE, BUT IF HE WISHES TO CLASSIFY THEM AS PUBLIC, WE WILL ACCEPT THEM IF THEY ARE BUILT TO COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF THE DEVELOPER COULD STATE AT THIS TIME WHAT HIS INTENTIONS ARE, AND MR, CARTER POINTED OUT THAT HE IS NOT THE DEVELOPER�BUT MR. CASSARA'S ORIGINAL INTENTION WAS TO DEDICATE THE STREETS TO THE COUNTY AND HE HAS SAID THAT IF THIS WOULD BE A PROBLEM, HE WOULD MAKE THEM PRIVATE STREETS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 71 Boot 45 puf 7:37 JAN 2 8 1981 JAN 291991., noK .. 45 PAGE -738 1 0► C_ MI M-WORMIMAIMM CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT HE IS DISTURBED BY THE FACT THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A RUSH TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY ON THE -NORTH BEACH AND THAT WE STILL HAVE CONSIDERABLE AREA UP THERE THAT IS DIFFERENT IN ZONING THAN THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. HE STATED THAT HE HAD EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT LARGE CHUNKS OF THIS PROPERTY ARE JUST BEFORE BEING BROUGHT IN FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND HE, THEREFORE, WOULD LIKE THIS COMMISSION TO INSTITUTE THE REZONING PROCESS ON THE LAND THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING COMPRE- HENSIVE LAND USE PLAN TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT, EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME PROPERTY THAT MAY HAVE TO BE REZONED AGAIN AFTER THIS IS DONE. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY, THE BOARD HAS THE RIGHT TO REZONE AS LONG AS WE HAVE REASONABLE STANDARDS, BUT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO TAKE THAT ACTION PRIOR TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS VESTING THEIR RIGHTS BY SPENDING A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY FOR PLANNING, GETTING PERMITS, ETC. IT, THEREFORE, IS IMPORTANT, IF IT IS THE BOARDS INTENT TO REZONE, THAT THESE PROPERTY OWNERS BE NOTIFIED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE ATTORNEYS OTHER POINT WAS THAT WE HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN GUIDED BY THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE COUNTY, AND HE FELT THAT THE PROBABILITY OF SUSTAINING THE BOARDS ACTIONS IN COURT ARE{MUCH SOUNDER BY REZONING CONSISTENT TO THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN THAN TO A PROPOSED PLAN WHICH IS NOT YET ADOPTED. CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DISCUSS DENSITIES AND DEFINITIONS. MR. REVER INFORMED THE,BOARD THAT THE DEFINITION THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW FOR THE SO-CALLED MEDIUM DENSITY ISA VERY BROAD DEFINITION, AND THE LOWER END OF THAT MEDIUM DENSITY INCLUDES WHAT WE ARE PRO- POSING ON THE NEW PLAN. HE, THEREFORE,,FELT THE BOARD WOULD NOT BE OUT OF BOUNDS TO REZONE TO THE 6 UNITS PROPOSED IN THE RECENT ORDINANCE 13ECAUSE IT WOULD FIT INTO THIS CATEGORY. IT WAS NOTED THAT UNDER THE CURRENT LAND USE PLAN WHICH WE ADOPTED AS A GUIDE, THE LOW DENSITY IS 0-4, MEDIUM DENSITY 4-12 AND HIGH DENSITY 12-16, — _72 =- ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT HISTORICALLY WE ALWAYS HAVE TALKED IN TERMS OF S UNITS AS BEING MEDIUM DENSITY AND IF THE BOARD WANTS TO MAKE AN INROAD INTO THE DENSITY THAT IS THERE PRESENTLY, HE FELT THE BEST POSSIBILITY OF AVOIDING LITIGATION WOULD BE TO REZONE TO 8 RATHER THAN 6. HE REALIZED THAT MR. REVER IS LOOKING AT THE PLANNING ASPECT, -BUT HE I.S LOOKING TO KEEP THE COUNTY OUT OF COURT. CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO DO THE REZONING AND HAVE IT STICK RATHER THAN HAVE AN ABORTIVE EFFORT. HE, THEREFORE, WAS WILLING TO AGREE TO 8 UNITS PER ACRE, BUT FELT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE GET ON WITH IT. COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED WHAT AREA THE CHAIRMAN WAS TALKING ABOUT, AND HE STATED THE AREA NORTH OF THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES TO THE NORTH COUNTY LINE - THE PROPERTY IN THIS AREA THAT IS PRESENTLY ZONED AT 15 UNITS AN ACRE, OR R-2. DISCUSSION AROSE ABOUT THE AREA DESIGNATED TOURIST - COMMERCIAL WHICH HAS A DENSITY OF ABOUT 43, AND PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER FELT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD GIVE THE BOARD AN ANALYSIS AND RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES. HE NOTED THAT THE ZONING DOES NOT NECESSARILY GO ALONG WITH THE COLORS INDICATED ON THE LAND USE GUIDE MAP. COMMISSIONER BIRD NOTED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS SHORT OF STAFF AT PRESENT, AND PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER AGREED BUT STATED HE FELT THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND THAT THEY CAN OVERLAY SOME MAPS AND PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH SOME INFORMATION QUITE QUICKLY. ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT IF THE BOARD IS INCLINED TO MOVE AHEAD IN THIS AREA WHICH IS ZONED 15 UNITS AN ACRE (R-2), THAT THE COUNTY WRITE TO THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO PUT THEM ON NOTICE THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING THE PLANNER WILL BE PRESENTING STATISTICS AND INFORMATION REGARDING A POSSIBLE REZONING AND THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER TAKING ACTION. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT THE CHAIRMAN SHOULD WRITE THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY OWNERS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ATTORNEY. JAN 28 1981 73 8009. , 45 PayE7 "J" JAN 281981 BDDK ... 45 PAGt 744 ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAVE DRAFTED A PROPOSED ORDINANCE SETTING OUT NEW REZONING PROCEDURES. HE COMMENTED THAT THEY HAVE FURTHER CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO MAKE TO THE DRAFT SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD FOR THEIR INFORMATION, AND WHAT HE IS LOOKING FOR AT THIS TIME IS MERELY AUTHORITY TO ADVERTISE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISING REZONING PROCEDURES. RESOLUTION 81-7 RE USE OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES ON CHECK WARRANTS NOT EXCEEDING $3,000 ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION AMENDS RESOLUTION 80-126 TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES ON CHECK WARRANTS NOT EXCEEDING $3,0001 AND THIS ITEM WAS ADDED TO TODAY IS AGENDA ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS THIS MORNING AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLERK. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED.BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED RESOLUTION 81=7'AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. 0 e =4 S RESOLUTION 170. 8]- A RESOLUTION t'1MENDINC RESOLUTION NO. 80-126 WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, enacted Resolution No. 80-126 on November 10th, 1980, and WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 80-126 provided that each desig- nated depository of the Commission be 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, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 80-126 further provided that of the two signatures, one must be an actual signature and one may be f a facsimile signature, and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the -Board of Counts Commis- sioners of Indian River County, Florida, to amend the signature and facsimile reauirements for check warrants and other orders for the payment of money drawn in the Commission's name: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that each depository of the County Commission designated in Resolution No. 80-126 be, and it is hereby requested, authorized, and directed that said depositories honor check warrants or other orders for the payment of money drawn in the Commission's name, including those payable tc the individual order of any person or persons whose name or names appear thereon, when bearing the facsimile signature of the Chair- man of the County Commission and the facsimile signature of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, when said check warrants or other orders for the payment of money equals or does not exceed the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00): BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if a check warrant or other order for the payment of money drawn in the Comanission's name exceeds the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00), the depositories of the Commission designated in Resolution No. 80-126 are authorized JAN 28 1981 Baa 45 -PA -GE -74. A N 2 8 19 81 mox 45 PAGE 742 and directed to honor check warrants or other orders for the pay- ment of money drawn in the Commission's name, only when such check warrant or other order for the payment of money bears the facsimile signature of the Chairman and Clerk of the Circuit Court and further bears the original signature of either the Chairman, Vice_Chairman, or Clerk of the Circuit Court. appear below: Said actual and facsimile signatures (1) Freda Wright '\ (Clerk of the Circuit Court) f��,(_,7 ,i Actual l (2) Patrick B. Lyons (Chairman) (3) William C. Wodtke, Jr. (Vice Chairman) Facsimile Facsimile Facsimile 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 Ordinance: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the use of facsimile signatures is as authorized by Florida Statutes Chapter 116 the "Uniform Facsimile Signature of Public Officials Act". We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that there is no pro- vision 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 January 28th, 1981, and is in conformity with the provisions of said Commission. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDI.AN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attest: By Freda Wright Cle.kr' of Circuit Court lick B. Lyons CTiairman DISCUSSION RE SOUTH COUNTY BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT THE UNDERWRITER, SMITH BARNEY, HAS PUT TWO ITEMS IN THEIR PROPOSAL WHICH THEY WILL REQUIRE THE COUNTY TO SIGN PURSUANT TO THE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES. ONE OF THE ITEMS CONCERNS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE UNDERWRITERS TO SUBMIT A 2% GOOD FAITH CHECK RATHER THAN THE 1% PROPOSED BY THEM, THIS PERCENTAGE IS POSTED TO INSURE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO SELL THE NOTES, AND IF THEY DON ITITHEY FORFEIT THIS AMOUNT, SECONDLY, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE ATTORNEY FELT, SMITH BARNEY IS REQUIRING THE COUNTY TO WARRANT CERTAIN ITEMS OF INFORMATION THAT APPEAR IN THE BANS AND RESOLUTIONS RATHER THAN TO REPRESENT THEM. ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT IF YOU REPRESENT SOMETING AND IT IS FOUND NOT TO BE TRUE, THEN YOU CAN BE TAKEN TO COURT ON A TORT ACTION AND IT BECOMES A MATTER OF PROOF AS TO WHETHER YOU HAVE MISREPRESENTED A FACT; IF YOU WARRANT SOMETHING,'YOU CAN °T PUT ON ANY DEFENSE BECAUSE IT EITHER IS OR IT ISN'T. A WARRANTY IS A CONTRACT ACTION WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN A COURT ACTION AND HAS DIFFERENT REPERCUSSIONS AND POTENTIAL DANGERS, ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT FEEL WE WILL GIVE SMITH BARNEY ANY INFORMA- TION THAT IS NOT CORRECT, BUT NOTED YOU CAN NEVER BE TOTALLY SURE. HE CONTINUED THAT HISTORICALLY IN THIS STATE WHEN THIS COUNTY HAS DEALT WITH UNDERWRITERS, WE HAVE ONLY HAD TO REPRESENT MATTERS OF FACT, NOT TO WARRANT THEM,AND OUR BOND COUNSEL IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE NOT WARRANT THE ITEMS. THE ATTORNEY INFORMED THE BOARD THAT AT THIS POINT WE ARE LOGGERHEADS, AND HE BROUGHT THIS MATTER TO THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE THE WAY WE WANT TO GO, HE NOTED THAT OUR BOND COUNSEL HAS SAID THAT SMITH BARNEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCEPT REPRE- SENTATIONS, AND IF THEY ARE NOT, WE DO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE HAS WORKED ALONG WITH ATTORNEY COLLINS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS ON THIS MATTER. THAT HAS COMPLICATED THE MATTER EVEN MORE IS THAT SMITH BARN -EY IS MOVING INTO FLORIDA AND IS TRYING TO ESTABLISH A POSITION WHERE THEY REQUIRE A WARRANTY, HE CONTINUED THAT THE REASON SMITH BARNEY IS TAKING SUCH A STRONG POSITION WITH OUR COUNTY, WHICH ACTUALLY I%J JAN 28 1981 scow. 45 PAGE 743 1 JAN 28 1981 BODK 4 5 FAGS 744 IS A VERY SMALL DEAL FOR THEM, IS THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO JEOPARDIZE THEIR POSITION IN THEIR DEALINGS ON VERY LARGE ISSUES WHICH INVOLVE 200 OR 300 MILLION. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK PERSONALLY RECOMMENDED THAT WE ACCEPT OUR BOND COUNSELS OPINION AND NOT GIVE THE WARRANTY; HE.WAS NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE ESCROW OF 1% OR 2%. COORDINATOR THOMAS STATED THAT HE SAW NO REASON FOR THE COUNTY TO BE SMITH BARNEY'S PAWN IN THEIR LEGAL PROBLEM, AND IF WE CAN T GET AN IMMEDIATE ANSWER FROM THEM, HE WOULD HOPE THE COMMISSION WOULD AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK AND HIM, TO PROCEED IMMEDIATELY TO DO BUSINESS WITH SOMEBODY ELSE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE BOND ISSUE HAS BEEN VALIDATED AND WE NEED TO GET IT INTO THE MARKET.. IF WE CANNOT DO IT THROUGH ANOTHER BONDING HOUSE, THEN IT WILL BE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO AUTHORIZE THEM TO PROCEED ON ALTERNATIVE FINANCING, POSSIBLY WITH A DRAWDOWN FROM THE FMHA. HE EMPHASIZED THAT TIMING IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE MARKET CONDITIONS ARE VERY FAVORABLE RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD,.THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF BOND COUNSEL, FREEMAN, RICHARDSON, WATSON, KELLY & LIVERMORE, AND OUR LOCAL ATTORNEY, AND AGREED TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS AND NOT WARRANTIES 1 TO SMITH BARNEY AND ALSO TO HOLD TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR A 2% GOOD FAITH CHECK FROM THE UNDERWRITERS. ATTORNEY COLLINS WISHED IT MADE CLEAR THAT HE, TOO, RELIES ON OUR BOND COUNSEL. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO I VOTE, AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR TO CONTACT SMITH BARNEY IMMEDIATELY TO MAKE THEM AWARE OF THE COUNTY'S POSITION.AND IF SMITH BARNEY WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT POSITION, OR DOES NOT ANSWER BY FEBRUARY 2ND, AUTHORIZED THEM TO LOOK FOR OTHER UNDERWRITERS OR APPROACH FMHA. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER EXPLAINED THAT HE VOTED IN OPPOSITION BECAUSE HE STILL HAS PROBLEMS WITH THE PATH WE ARE TRAVELING RE A SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM. DISCUSSION RE FLEA MARKETS COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE WAS BECOMING EXCEEDINGLY CONCERNED AB'OUT''THE TRAFFIC SITUATION BY THE FLEA MARKET SOUTH OF THE CITY AND WISHED THE BOARD TO CONSIDER ASKING THE D.O.T. TO IN- STALL NO PARKING SIGNS ON THE SHOULDER OF U.S.1 FROM OSLO ROAD SOUTH TO WHERE THERE IS A CANAL. HE COMMENTED THAT THERE ARE TEN SUCH SIGNS NORTH OF NORTH WINTER BEACH ROAD WHERE AT ONE TIME THERE WAS CONCERN WITH PARKING FOR A CARNIVAL OR SOMETHING OF THE SORT. HE NOTED THAT WE HAVE KEPT MOVING THESE SIGNS AROUND, AND HE WOULD LIKE TO GET PERMISSION FROM THE D.O.T. TO PUT THESE ON THE�RIGHT-OF-WAY BY THE FLEA MARKET, ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT HE ALREADY IS IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE NECESSARY PERMISSION; HE HAS CONTACTED THE HIGHWAY PATROL, AND THEY WILL ENFORCE THIS REGULATION WHEN THE SIGNS ARE UP. DISCUSSION RE SCHEDULING OF BUDGET SESSIONS COMMISSIONER WODTKE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT WHEN HE AND COMMISSIONER BIRD WENT TO TALLAHASSEE, HE ATTENDED A SEMINAR ON BUDGET AND FINANCE, AND THEY HAD A SESSION ON THE T.R.I.M. BILL. HE NOTED THAT IT BECAME VERY EVIDENT THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER STARTING OUR BUDGETS EARLIER THAN WE HAVE IN THE PAST. WE HAVE HISTORICALLY'STARTED BUDGET SESSION IN JULY, WORKING THROUGH AUGUST AND INTO SEPTEMBER, BUT THE T.R.I.M. BILL WILL MAKE IT NECESSARY TO SET THE SCHEDULE EXPECTING TO GET THE PRELIMINARY FIGURES IN JUNE FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER MAKE THE CERTIFIED FIGURE AVAILABLE TO US BY .JULY IST. ,%.__COMMISSIONER WODTKE REALIZED THAT IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THE VARIOUS AGENCIES, DEPARTMENTS, ETC., TO PROJECT SO FAR AHEAD, BUT WISHED THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER MOVING AHEAD ON REVISING OUR SCHEDULE. JAN 2 819.1 79 soox 45 Fact 745 Boo.x ' 45Pace % W FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON STATTED THAT HIS OFFICE ALREADY HAS DISCUSSED THIS, AND THEY BELIEVE THAT PREPARING THE BUDGETS EARLIER WOULD BE A BETTER SITUATION. HE CONTINUED THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO SPEED UP, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO START MAKING UP THE BUDGET PACKS AND GETTING THEM OUT TO THE DEPARTMENTS BEFORE MUCH LONGER, MR. BARTON REPORTED THAT HIS ORIGINAL DISCUSSION WITH HIS STAFF WAS TO HAVE THE TENTATIVE BUDGET PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE MIDDLE OF JUNE AND THEN START HAVING THE HEARINGS WITH THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES BY THE MIDDLE OF .JUNE AND EARLY JULY. DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO WHETHER THE TIMING SHOULD BE EVEN EARLIER, AND THE NEED TO PICK UP SIX MONTHS ACTUAL FIGURES. THE CHAIRMAN REQUESTED FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON AND COM- MISSIONER WODTKE TO GET TOGETHER AND WORK UP A PROPOSED SCHEDULE. PROPOSED CHECKLIST FOR AGENDA MATERIAL COMMISSIONER WODTKE NEXT REPORTED THAT AT A SEMINAR IN TALLAHASSEE, HE OBTAINED A SAMPLE CHECKLIST USED BY SOME COUNTIES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ITEMS ARE READY TO BE INCLUDED ON THE COMMIS- SIONSIS AGENDA, THIS CHECKLIST, WHICH HAS THE BACKUP MATERIAL ATTACHED TO IT, INCLUDES QUESTIONS SUCH AS: IS THIS AN EXCEPTION TO COUNTY POLICY? HAS THE COST BEEN BUDGETED? CAN THE WORK BE DONE BY THE CURRENT STAFF? DO WE HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CARRY THIS OUT? HOW DOES IT AFFECT OTHER ENTITIES? IN DISCUSSION, THE BOARD AGREED THAT THIS COULD BE A VALU- ABLE MANAGEMENT TOOL IN SETTING UP THE AGENDA AND POSSIBLY CUTTING DOWN ON THE LENGTH OF THE MEETINGS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REMINDED THE BOARD THAT HE IS THE COMMISSIONS REPRESENTATIVE ON THE LIBRARY BOARD AND HAS BEEN ATTEND- ING THE MEETINGS. HE NOTED THAT THERE IS A STUDY UNDER WAY RIGHT NOW REFERENCE A $2,000 GRANT FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA. COMMIS- SIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT IT SEEMS THAT THEY ARE LEANING TOWARDS THE COUNTY TAKING OVER THAT OPERATION, WHICH DOES NOT SIT REAL WELL r° r- WITH HIM. HE WISHED EVERYONE TO BE AWARE OF HIS ATTITUDE, BECAUSE HE IS REPRESENTING THE COMMISSIONERS ON THIS BOARD, HE CONTINUED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT ON ANY DEFINITE GOALS AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL IN THE STUDY CONFIGURATION. DISCUSSION ON REEVALUATING DISTRICTS COMMISSIONER FLETCHER NOTED THAT THIS IS THE TEN YEAR PERIOD WHERE WE, BY CHOICE OR BY LAW, ARE ALLOWED TO GO OUT AND RE-EVALUATE THE FIVE POLITICAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THIS COUNTY TO SEE IF WE ARE EQUALLY PROPORTIONED AS TO POPULATION. HE WISHED TO KNOW IF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE, OR IF THEY FEEL WE SHOULD GO OUT AND DO A HEAD COUNT AND SEE IF THE DISTRICTS EACH DO HAVE A PROPORTIONATE SHARE, WHICH HE BELIEVED I$ REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INQUIRED IF WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO SUCH A RE-EVALUATION, AND COMMISSIONER FLETCHER BELIEVED THAT THE STATUTE LEAVES IT TO THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT HE HAD TALKED TO THE SUPER- VISOR OF REGISTRATION ABOUT THIS MATTER, BUT FELT WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER OUR OFFICIAL CENSUS FIGURES COME OUT. HE NOTED THAT IN THE MEANTIME OUR DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN FROZEN BY LAW AND WE COULD NOT CHANGE BOUNDARIES EXCEPT ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS WHERE THEY WERE EXTREMELY OVERBALANCED. EVEN IF SUCH RE-EVALUATING IS NOT MANDATORY, HE FELT WE SHOULD DO IT. HE NOTED THAT THE CENSUS DISTRICTS DO NOT ACTUALLY TALLY WITH THE POLITICAL DISTRICTS, AND HE DID NOT KNOW IF THE PROPORTIONS ARE DETERMINED BY POPULATION OR REGISTERED VOTERS, VOTERS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER BELIEVED THAT IT IS BY REGISTERED CHAIRMAN LYONS REQUESTED COMMISSIONER FLETCHER TO RESEARCH THIS MATTER FURTHER WITH THE ATTORNEY AND COME BACK WITH A REPORT AND A RECOMMENDATION. JAN 2 8 1981 goo 5 PAGE 147 JAN 28 1991 .660K 45 PAGE 748 THE BOARD REVIEWED THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION IN RE ESTABLISH- MENT OF A FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE COUNTY. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8I-8 CREATING A FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT HE HAD A FEW SUGGESTED MINOR CHANGES. HE THEN BROUGHT UP THE WORDING RE BOND COUNSEL IN PARAGRAPH 2 UNDER DUTIES BUT AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, DECIDED IT WAS SATISFACTORY AS PROPOSED, THE CHAIRMAN THEN DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, PARAGRAPH 2, AND SUGGESTED THAT IT BE CHANGED TO READ THAT THE "REGULAR EX -OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE SHALL BE EITHER THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND EITHER THE FINANCE DIRECTOR OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE." COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT UNDER COMMITTEE MEETINGS, PARAGRAPH 3 STATES THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS SHALL BE RECORDED AND TRANSCRIBED BY A RECORDING SECRETARY SUPPLIED BY THE COUNTY OR THE CLERK. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE RESOLUTION ALSO STATES THAT THIS COMMITTEE SHALL HAVE NO BUDGET AND HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST INVOLVED SIN HAVING THE MINUTES TRANSCRIBED. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS FELT THAT IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT JUST TO STATE THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS SHALL BE RECORDED. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8I-8 AS CORRECTED ABOVE. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. :I RESOLUTION NO. 81-8 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER.COUNTY, FLORIDA, that there is hereby created and established a finance advisory committee within Indian River County, hereinafter known as the FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. The purpose, responsibilities, limitation, organizational structure, qualifications of members, appointment of members, terms of office of members and meetings shall all be according to the following guidelines: A. PURPOSE. The FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE is formed to develop information which would be helpful in administering the fiscal affairs of the County on a sound and business -like basis. f B. RESPONSIBILITIES. It shall be the responsibility of the FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE to: 1. Furnish advice to the County Commission on financial and accounting matters; 2. Provide counseling with the County Administrator and Finance Director on similar matters; and 3. It is the intent that the FINANCE ADVISORY COM - COMMITTEE will not be involved in the day-to-day investments but shall review and advise on administrative procedures on a periodic basis, striving to improve investment goals and the procedures to accomplish those goals. C. DUTIES:: 1. Assist the County Commission in the selection of an an accounting firm to perform an independent annual audit of the financial records and statements of the County (and Constitutional Officer's budget). 2. Screen and recommend to the County Commission the selection of bond counsel in connection with any proposed bond issues. Book 45 FAGf-749 JAN'`2 8 1981 r� JAN 2 8 1987 .. BOOK �� PAr,E'�5O 1 3. Conduct a continuing review of the investment program of the County to maximize the return on money invested. 4. Initiate studies or inquiries on financial and accounting matters which may be deemed advisable by the FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE and/or the County Commission. 5. Investigate financing options available to the County on major capital improvements projects and all expenditures, making recommendations accordingly. D. LIMITATIONS: The FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE shall: 1. Act only in an advisory capacity. 2. Have no authority to implement any of its recommendations. 3. Be nonpolitical in nature. 4. Have no budget. E. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE: 1. The FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE shall consist of five (5) members; all of whom shall be residents of Indian River County; one of whom shall be Chairman, one Vice -Chairman and one Secretary. 2. Regular ex -officio members of the COMMITTEE shall be either the County Administrator or his authorized representative, and either the Finance Director or his authorized representative. F. QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS: COMMITTEE Members shall have diversified experience in financial and/or accounting fields. G. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS: 1. The members of the FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE shall be appointed by majority vote of the County Commission, such appointments to be made no later than January 31st of each year, except for initial appointments. 2. The COMMITTEE shal elect annually its Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary. 3. Each COMMITTEE member shall serve at the pleasure of the County Commission. Any appointment may be terminated = -2- _. as a majority of the County Commission determines. H. TERM OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS. 1. The term of Office shall commence upon appointment and shall run for an approximately two-year period, except initially two members shall be appointed for one year and three members for two years. 2. The terms of office shall be arranged so that not more than three (3) shall expire at any one time. 3. In the event a COMMITTEE member: does not complete a full term of office, the term of office of the replacing member shall terminate at the expiration date of the member replaced; a replacing member may be eligible for reappointment to a new two-year term of office. I. COMMITTEE MEETINGS: } 1. Meetings shall be at the call of the COMMITTEE Chairman. 2. The meetings shall be conducted in the County Commission Chamber or other appropriate public place. 3. The minutes of the meetings shall be recorded. Said Resolution shall be effective as of the day of 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Attest Freda Wright;' Clerk JAN 28 1981 L_ - trick B. Lyon�,/Chairman BOOK 4_ PAGE 75-1 JAN 28 1981 Booz 45 '%E 762 COMMISSIONER BIRD REPORTED THAT HE ATTENDED A MEETING AT THE SCHOOL BOARD OFFICE IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED SOCCER COMPLEX AT 12TH STREET AND 20TH AVENUE, WHICH WAS GIVEN CONSIDERABLE CONSIDERATION BY THE PREVIOUS BOARD BEFORE BEING DROPPED WHEN THE CITY REJECTED THE PROPOSED THREE-WAY AGREEMENT. THIS PROJECT NOW HAS BEEN REVIVED. COMMISSIONER BIRD BELIEVED THE EARLIER PROPOSAL WAS MORE ELABORATE THAN IS BEING CONSIDERED NOW AND WHAT ACTUALLY WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED WOULD BE THE THREE SOCCER FIELDS AND HOPEFULLY THE ACCESS ROAD. HE NOTED THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD IS DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT; APPARENTLY THE CITY HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COUNTY'S FUTURE INTENTIONS IN REGARD TO RECREATION IN THE COUNTY. COMMISSIONER BIRD CONTINUED THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD INTENDS TO DEVELOP AT LEAST ONE FIELD ON THEIR OWN, IF NECESSARY, BUT THEY ARE ASKING FOR THREE WAY PARTICIPATION SO THAT ALL THREE FIELDS CAN BE BUILT, COMMISSIONER BIRD NOTED THAT THE ACCESS ROAD IS ON COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE SCHOOL BOARD OWNS THE PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR THE FIELDS. HE STATED THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH DID SHOW SOME FAVORABLE RESPONSE AT THEIR LAST MEETING AND WERE WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE COUNTY. THEIR MAIN CONCERN SEEMS TO BE GOING INTO THE EXPENSE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED COMPLEX IF THE COUNTY A FEW YEARS FROM NOW INTENDS TO BRANCH OUT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE OF COMPLEX AND DUPLICATE THESE FACILITIES. COMMISSIONER BIRD CONTINUED THAT HE WAS VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATIONAL CONCEPT AND FELT WE HAVE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY IN A JOINT EFFORT WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD TO DEVELOP SOME SITES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, BUT HE ALSO FELT WE WILL HAVE THE NEED FOR A PRIMARY NUCLEUS OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY WHERE THE MAIN POPULATION BASE IS. HE THEN DISCUSSED PUTTING IN A PROPER ACCESS ROAD AS PART OF OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE OVERALL PROJECT. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HIS MAIN OBJECTION IS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING AN ADDITIONAL THREE FIELDS IN THIS HIGHLY CONGESTED AREA, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED PUTTING THE FACILITIES OUT WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE AND DECENTRALIZING. HE BELIEVED THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED IN REGARD TO OUR FUTURE IN RECREATION AND MAYBE WE SHOULD ADDRESS THIS NOW BEFORE INVESTING $60,000. DISCUSSION CONTINUED ABOUT AVAILABLE PUBLIC LAND, AND THE NEED TO DEVELOP OUR OWN PROGRAM. COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT WE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE ORGANIZED ACTIVITIES, AND HE WAS TALKING ABOUT ORGANIZED LEAGUES, AND MEETS THAT WOULD BE HELD AT THE CENTRALIZED FIELDS. HE DID NOT FEEL THESE FIELDS WOULD BE WASTED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE AGREED THAT SOCCER IS A GOOD UPCOMING CONTACT TYPE OF SPORT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT IS SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES A LARGE PIECE OF LAND. HE NOTED WHEN YOU TAKE A FOOTBALL FIELD OR SOCCER FIELD AND PUT LIGHTS AROUND IT, IT IS A PRETTY SPECIFIC DESIGNATED USE AND THREE FIELDS WOULD ABOUT USE UP ALL THE REST OF THE LAND IN THIS LOCATION. HE CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING, BUT DID NOT FEEL WE SHOULD HAVE THREE LIGHTED FIELDS ALL IN ONE AREA BUT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING WITH MORE FLEXIBILITY THAT COULD SERVE MORE PURPOSES. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER NOTED THAT HE WOULD BE EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR WITH NORTH COUNTY RESIDENTS IF HE APPROVED ANOTHER DOLLAR GOING TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH FOR RECREATION. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK POINTED OUT THAT MANY PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO TRANSPORT THEIR KIDS INTO THE CITY AND FEEL STRONGLY THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE FIELDS IN OTHER AREAS OF THE COUNTY. DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO THE EXTREMELY CROWDED AND HAZARDOUS TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ON 16TH STREET. CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT HE HAD HEARD THAT THERE IS SOME QUESTION ABOUT PUTTING IN THAT BIG A COMPLEX AS FAR AS REGARDS COUNTY PARTICIPATION AND THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO EXPEND THAT MUCH MONEY, WE SHOULD TRY TO SPREAD IT OUT A BIT IN THE COUNTY. IT WAS AGREED THAT COMMISSIONER BIRD WOULD CONVEY THE COMMISSION°S FEELINGS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD AND REPORT FURTHER AT THE NEXT MEETING. 87 JAN 2 8 198 1 i45 NAGE 753 , AP Po I N\TMENyyT,-PTCI_ 1 q, , BOARD MEMBER,. T0, E.Oy TED THAT HE HAI DISCUSSED THE REQUI NE . TO REPRESENTTHEM rr aA It v yV37df''St�� E EXPRESSED. GREAT:,, CC A PROBLEM WITH.4THE1 OF AP POINTMENT=.. OMMISSION.ER' ODTKE NOTED THAT HE +.V TO CONTINUE; TO DO HIS JOB ON THE BOARD BUT WISHED I" HE APPOINTED MR SESACK THAT' .'MR.`.. SESACK IS NOT GOI'N( FOR HIM' HE AGREED,E HOWEVER, HE WOULD APPOINT_ .THAT ORDER THAT THEY COULD HAVE A' QUORUM ON THE EAC. B( .i r a { } r _ OF. INDIAN RIVER COUNT R'C P 0. BOX `2766 VERO.-BEACH FLORIDA t - I -HER BY APPOINTBarry SesAgk: RI-PRESFNT ME`AND INDIAN, fiT1 E,R CCIUNTX, ON.T11E ' r' E_ 0": C A"11) TO TAIL PAPZT AR' A hili L-1'1 I"1)G E y t BOARD MEMBER. 1'I1i)i I'ST001) -1':1P,'1' A2 ANf i'IN S11T11 A1'1 1'.('i,?{! AI .t 1JOTT CI: , A!; 1)I.T N %)i!y t :l: `. I1'iULD 1 COUNTY OF I Y r � 1L 7 .� liOls RD_ 01` COtity'"%1 Co " sN N' ABOUT THE 3 IRED PROCEDL NTED MR SES UNDERSTOOD I TO BE; SPEAKIj R. SESACKIN r ins RD OF PROPOSED WORKSHOP RE UTILITY RATES IN GIFFORD AREA COMMISSIONER BIRD INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAS BEEN CONTACTED BY FRED PLAIR IN REGARD TO THE UTILITY RATES IN THE GIFFORD AREA. HE FELT WE NEED TO GET SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED FOR THESE PEOPLE, AND NOTED THAT WHEN WE GET FIGURES FROM THE AUDIT, WE WILL HAVE SOME BASIS. COMMISSIONER BIRD SUGGESTED THAT AT THAT TIME WE SHOULD HAVE A WORKSHOP MEETING TO GIVE THE PEOPLE THE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO EXPLAIN THE SITUATION. ,CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AGREEMENT WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR REVIEW OF CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE COUNTY F COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE MEETINGS OF JUNE 4, 1980 AND JUNE 181 1980, 89 Box 45 put 5 JAN 28 1981 Ll } JAN 2 8 1981 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER.COUNTY, FLORIDA AND POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC. 800X' 45 PAGE 756 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this Z-3 day of 19111 by and between Indian River County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereinafter referred to as the CONSULTANT. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the COUNTY proposes to do certain work towards accomplishment of the project described in Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY desires to engage the CONSULTANT to perform certain pro- fessional services pertinent to such work in accordance with this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT desires to provide such professional services in accordance with this Agreement; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits which will accrue to the parties hereto in carrying out the terms of this Agreement, it is mutually understood and agreed as follows: I. GENERAL SCOPE OF THIS AGREEMENT The relationship of the CONSULTANT to the COUNTY will be that. of a profes- sional consultant, and the CONSULTANT will provide the professional and tech- nical services required under this Agreement in accordance with acceptable plann- ing practices and ethical standards. II. EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANT TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES The COUNTY .hereby agrees to engage the CONSULTANT, and the CONSULTANT hereby agrees to perform the services hereinafter set forth under Scope of Services. The scope of services to be provided to accomplish the COUNTY'S objectives is set forth in Attachment B, subject, however, to the inclusion of additional services as provided in IV.F. III. PERIOD OF SERVICE A. The CONSULTANT will begin work promptly after receipt of a fully executed copy of this Agreement; such receipt shall constitute written notice to proceed. The CONSULTANT shall not be bound by the work schedule contained herein (Exhibit 2) unless a fully executed copy of this agreement shall be delivered to the CONSULTANT on or before January 15, 1981. B. The CONSULTANT agrees to hold the lump sum fees, as outlined in Attachment C to this Agreement, constant for six (6) months from the date of execution of this Agreement. After that date, the fees contained in Attach- ment C shall be subject to renegotiation; any change in such fees shall apply only to the unfinished services as of the effective date of such change. IV. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS A. The COUNTY shall furnish, without charge to the CONSULTANT, certain data, more particularly described as follows: copies of any or all maps, air photos, records, reports, ordinances, resolutions, schedules, correspondence or other items currently in the possession of, or readily obtainable by the COUNTY, when the use of such materials may be needed by the CONSULTANT for the effective performance of its obligations under this Agreement. B. The CONSULTANT represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this Agree- ment. Such personnel shall not be employees of, or have any contractual re- lationship with the COUNTY. The parties acknowledge that the CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and that its agents, employees and representatives shall not be deemed to be employees or agents of the COUNTY. C. All of the services required hereunder will be performed by the CON- SULTANT or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified to perform such services. D. None of the work or services covered by this Agreement shall be sub- contracted without prior written approval of the COUNTY. E. The CONSULTANT agrees to provide the COUNTY with the products out- lined in the Scope of Services. F. Notwithstanding that specific services are enumerated in Attachment B, the CONSULTANT will, upon written request of the COUNTY, provide any and all other planning and civil engineering consulting services normally falling within the capability of the CONSULTANT; provided, however, that such addi- tional services shall result in extra compensation to the CONSULTANT, as pro- vided in Attachment C. It is understood and agreed that if such additional services are requested, this Agreement shall be considered as a continuing contract with respect thereto. G. The COUNTY hereby acknowledges that estimates of probable construc- tion cost cannot be guaranteed, and such estimates are not to be construed as a promise to design facilities within a cost limitation. JAN 28 1981 JAN 28 1981 Box 45 P�,rE- H. The CONSULTANT shall at all times carry, on all operations here- under, workman's compensation insurance, public liability and property damage insurance, and automotive public liability and property damage insurance. I. It is understood and agreed that the CONSULTANT'S services under this Agreement do not include participation, whatsoever, in any litigation. Should such services be required, a supplemental agreement may be negotiated between the COUNTY and the CONSULTANT describing the services desired and providing a basis for compensation to the CONSULTANT. J. The COUNTY and the CONSULTANT each binds itself and its successors, legal representatives, and assigns to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, legal representatives, and assigns of such other party, in respect to all covenants of this Agreement; and, neither the COUNTY nor the CONSULTANT will assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement with- out the prior written consent of the other. K. No officer or employee of the COUNTY and no member of its governing body shall participate in any decision relating to this contract which affects his personal interest or have any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof. L. No reports, maps or other documents produced in whole or in part under this contract shall be the subject of an application for copyright by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT. M. The COUNTY represents that it is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the authority to engage the professional services des- cribed in Attachment B and accept the obligation to pay for such services under the provisions of Attachment C. V. COMPENSATION The CONSULTANT shall be compensated for all services rendered under this Agree- ment in accordance with the provisions of Attachment C. VI. PROHIBITION AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES The CONSULTANT warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any persons, company, corporation, individual or firm, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. � s VII. TERMINATION M This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven days prior written notice, in the event of substantial failure to perform in accordance with the terms hereof by the other party through no fault of the terminating party. If this Agreement is terminated, the CONSULTANT shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Attachment C for all work performed up to the date of termination and will supply to the COUNTY the product of its efforts up to the date the Agreement is terminated. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made and executed this Agreement upon the terms and conditions above stated on the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. 4511 N. Himes, Suite 245 Tampa, Florida 33614,E Attest um4i iia E. PEF (Seal) JAN 28 1981 siaent MIN COUNTY Indian River County, Florida '� ILe-' .r _'. ,1 Attest -.(Seal ) JAN 28 1981 sooK 45' PArE 760 Date ATTACHMENT A - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Project: Indian River County Comprehensive Planning Program Location: Indian River County, Florida The nature, character, COUNTY'S objectives and limits of the proposed project are described as follows: Preparation of draft reports of the following elements of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan for review and adoption consideration: 1. Transportation Element 2. Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage and Potable Water Element 3. ConservatiWCoastal Zone Element 4. Housing Element 5. Recreation and Open Space Element Draft reports will be designed to propose objectives, policies and strategies for each subject area that are suitable to serve as a guide for County officials in making general and comprehensive decisions concerning future development in the County. Initials of Signatories: (F-6) For the—'CONSULTANT Date he COUNTY Date Date ATTACHMENT B - SCOPE OF SERVICES The services to be provided by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement fall generally in the category of Comprehensive Planning and are described in detail as follows: I. CONSULTANT'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. PLAN ELEMENTS TO BE PREPARED The CONSULTANT shall prepare draft proposals for the following elements of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan: 1. Transportation Element 2. Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage and Potable Water Element 3. Conservation/Coastal Zone Element 4. Housing Element 5. Recreation and Open Space Element B. METHOD OF STUDY 1. 'Data Collection a. The CONSULTANT will rely on data from current element drafts, available reports, maps and publications provided by the COUNTY as the primary basis for identifying the type and extent of problems and needs and for indicating the level and extent of resources available to the COUNTY for implementing development proposals. The work program assumes a minimal role for the CONSULTANT in assembling data needed for report preparation. b. The CONSULTANT will rely primarily on COUNTY planning staff and proposals in current element drafts or related studies to provide an initial interpretation of local public concerns, policy positions, and tentatively acceptable types of COUNTY implementing actions as a basis for development of initial draft proposals. 2. Plan Development a. Each draft plan element will be developed as an integral part of a comprehensive plan that is intended to serve as a guide for future COUNTY decisions affecting the general and long-term direction and character ..of growth and development in Indian River County. JAN 28 1981 sa c 45 Fia, 1 JAN 28 1981 r }Boos 45 Pae` 762 As such, proposals will focus primarily on establishing key considerations, principles and positions for the COUNTY to adhere to in development decision-making in order to increase the consistency and continuity of its posture on development issues. b. Proposals will be grouped in a policy hierarchy to be followed in preparation of all elements. The hierarchy will be designed to facilitate use of policies from multiple documents to guide decision-making. A tentative outline and description of the policy hierarchy components is presented in Exhibit 1, attached hereto. C. Proposals will focus on COUNTY roles and responsibilities rather than on describing roles of other public entities in meeting local development needs. d. A major objective in plan development will be to provide a means of integrating capital improvement proposals into a C. MEETINGS unified capital improvement program framework. The work program will concentrate on developing general service program funding and scheduling strategies rather than on specific improvement proposals, but major projects described in other studies will be presented when information is available and would be appropriate for inclusion. The CONSULTANT shall participate in three meetings in Vero Beach as part of this work program, which meetings are as follows: Two meetings will be held with COUNTY planning staff during preparation of draft reports for the purpose of obtaining data; interpreting local concerns, policy positions and acceptable implementing approaches; and reviewing and discussing preliminary proposals. The third meeting will be held with the County Planning and Zoning Commission after draft elements have been submitted for the purpose of reviewing and discussing draft proposals. D. DRAFT REPORTS The CONSULTANT shall provide one (1) draft copy of each plan element to the COUNTY in written (untyped) text and sketch graphics form. Drafts shall contain all text, tables and graphics intended to be presented in a document proposed for adoption consideration. Addi- tions and changes requested by COUNTY planning staff after submis- sion of drafts but prior to presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be incorporated in the draft copy in written and sketch graphics form. II. COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES The COUNTY shall: A. Provide all maps, records, reports, ordinances and other materials currently held by the COUNTY or otherwise readily available which are needed by the CONSULTANT for base information in preparation of draft plan elements. B. Make planning staff available to advise and direct the CONSULTANT as to development concerns and planning provisions that are thought to be appropriate for inclusion in draft documents. C. Be responsible for typing, preparation of graphic materials, and duplication of draft reports. D. Prepare text and/or graphic materials for use in presentation of proposals to the Planning and Zoning Commission. III. PERIOD OF SERVICE Draft reports described in Part I.D. of this Attachment for all Elements in Part I.A. of this Attachment shall be submitted to the COUNTY on or before March 31, 1981. These reports shall be submitted in accordance with the schedule agreed upon by the CONSULTANT and the COUNTY planning staff prior to the execution of the Work Program Activities, which sche- dule is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission identified in Part I.C. of this Attachment shall be held on or before April 15, 1981. Initials of Signatories: / zz For the CONSULTANT or the COUNTY Date /k -,Xe ZV Date JAN 28 1981 ' . fs-a JAN 281981 EXHIBIT 1 ELEMENT FORMAT DESCRIPTION BooK 45 PAGE x'64 All elements prepared in this work program will be organized according to a common format to facilitate proper understanding and use of the plan. A tentative format is outlined and described here as a means of generally indi- cating the planned scope and depth of materials to be presented in draft ele- ments. I. INTRODUCTION SECTION This section will describe: ° The purpose and scope of the element; ° The relationship of the element to other plan elements; ° Key conditions and assumptions that were observed when the element was prepared and that, therefore, became a basis for policies in the element. Information in this introduction section is not planning policy, but it can help users of the plan understand the uses and. limitations of the ele- ment's policy provisions. __One important function it serves is -to reveal the logic of the plan's design. Without this, many people, whose views of what a plan is or should be, would misinterpret this plan and therefore use it impro- perly. II. POLICY HIERARCHY This section will present plan proposals that, after the element is adopted, will become official statements of local government policy. Proposals will be grouped according to the functions they are to serve in guiding decision-making. The policy groups will form a hierarchy designed to allow the plan to offer maximum information to decision - makers without curtailing the flexibility of the COUNTY'S continuing deci- sion-making process by committing it to carry out specific actions that were drawn up based largely on general information and prediction. Pro- posed components will include: EXHIBIT 1 (Continued) A. Objectives -- these will identify expectations of using the plan by indicating what should be realistically achievable in a specified time frame. Words such as "upgrade," "expand", and "reduce" set a general direction for action but do not at this point indicate how it will take place. B. Standards -- these will be performance measures the COUNTY will strive to attain in development of facilities and services or protec- tion of natural resources. In most cases they are used to plan for or evaluate the quality of facilties, services or resources areawide or in large geographic sectors -- not individual development pro- posals. The COUNTY'S progress toward its stated objectives can be P measured by determining the extent to which these standards are met in.future development. C. Development Policies -- These will outline COUNTY roles in seeing that the adopted standards are met. All COUNTY decisions must be consistent with these policies which generally define how, when and/ or where the COUNTY will use its resources: 1. Spending power -- policies indicate priority needs for, and types of areas to be served by public facilities, service and natural resources programs. 2. Regulatory power -- policies indicate what the COUNTY'S expec- tations of the private sector will be when it reviews develop- ment proposals. They point out how, when and where regulatory powers will be used and for what purposes. They will not, how- ever, duplicate or replace the more specific development standards and requirements that actually are to be included in regulatory ordinances. y 3. "Public Spokesman" authority -- policies indicate positions the COUNTY will take in dealing with private groups on a nonregu- latory basis, or in coordinating its programs with other public agencies. The COUNTY does not "require" these entities JAN 28 1981 Box 45 PAa 765 BOOK 45^ F'Au 766, to use their resources to accomplish COUNTY objectives, but it can "influence", "encourage" and "cooperate" with them to expand resources available for achieving them. 0 D. Strategies -- these will suggest approaches for putting COUNTY roles (identified under Development Policies) into action. They will represent what appears to be the most workable and effective approach for achieving objectives based on information available when the plan is prepared. Since time and money limitations of this work program prohibit extensive evaluation and development of approaches that may be possible, proposals submitted here should be subjected to further review and refinement after drafts are submitted and prior to adoption. III. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES This section will present information that can be used in setting up continuing programs of the local planning effort after adoption of the element. The information will relate to proposals made in the draft element and will be used chiefly to integrate its implementing needs with those of other plan elements. Like the Strategies from which these are drawn, work program constraints will often limit the level of detail possible and thus will necessitate further review and refinement before adoption. Types of information to be presented would include: 1. Summary of immediate planning needs and scheduling for the follow-up work program. Z. Economic feasibility assessments -- general funding approaches and costs for proposed capital improvements where these can be readily identified. 3. Element updating and evaluation approach. EXHIBIT 2 WORK PROGRAM ACTIVITIES This Exhibit presents a schedule for completion and submission of draft reports by the CONSULTANT for review by COUNTY planning staff. The schedule assumes full execution of this Agreement, thereby authorizing the CONSULTANT to proceed, by January 15, 1981. If the CONSULTANT'S services called for under this Agreement are delayed for reasons beyond the CONSULTANT'S control, the following schedule of performance shall be adjusted appropriately. This schedule is hereby made a part of Attachment B of this Agreement. Draft Element 1. Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage and Potable Water Element 2. Housing Element 3. Conservation/Coastal Zone Element 4. Recreation and Open Space Element 5. Transportation Element 0 JAN 28 1981 Due Date January 30, 1981 --February 6, 1981 February 20, 1981 March 13, 1981 March 20, 1981 aoac .767 JAN 2 8 1991 Date ATTACHMENT C - COMPENSATION Bou 5 .�iGF 758 I. METHOD OF COMPENSATION A. LUMP SUM The COUNTY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for the professional services called for under Attachment B of this Agreement in a Lump Sum amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000). For COUNTY'S internal bud- get purposes, the following summary estimates budget amounts for indivi- dual elements: 1. Transportation Element $ 3,290 2. Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage and Potable Water Element 1,460 3. Conservation/Coastal Zone Element 2,560 4. Housing Element 2,860 5. Recreation and Open Space Element 1,830 TOTAL $12,000 except as provided herein B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Services authorized by the COUNTY other than those specifically listed in Attachment B shall be considered additional services for which the COUNTY shall compensate the CONSULTANT. Additional services shall include revi- sions to work previously performed that are required because of a change in the data or criteria furnished to the CONSULTANT, or a change in the scope or concept of the project initiated by the COUNTY and/or services that are required by changes in the requirements of public agencies, after work under this Agreement has commenced. Compensation for addi- tional services shall be as follows: 1. Time Charges. The COUNTY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for the additional services by taking the direct personnel expense of all those persons engaged directly on the COUNTY'S work and adding a sur- charge of 150% for overhead and profit. Direct personnel expense is defined as the cost of salaries (including sick leave, vacation, and holiday pay applicable thereto) of engineers/planners, technicians, draftsmen, typists (reports/specifications), surveymen, etc., for time directly chargeable to the project; plus payroll taxes, retirement and _rance benefits. M 2. Professional Associates. The COUNTY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT for the direct cost plus an administrative charge of 10% for the services of Professional Associates, who expertise is required to complete the additional services. Such services may include electrical, mechanical, aerial photography, architectural, etc. 3. Out -Of -Pocket Expense. The COUNTY shall reimburse the CONSULTANT for all out-of-pocket expenses directly chargeable to the additional services at actual cost incurred, plus a service charge of 10%. Such charges shall be itemized and included in the monthly invoices for time charges and shall be submitted and paid as provided for time charges. Typical reimbursable expenses include travel, lodging, meals and travel expenses when traveling in the COUNTY'S behalf, identifiable communica- tion expenses, identifiable reproduction costs, computer machine time charges, survey supplies, special accounting expenses not applicable to I general overhead. II.. METHOD OF PAYMENT MONTHLY INVOICE 1. Lump Sum Payments. The CONSULTANT shall submit an invoice at the end of each month requesting payment of the total amount, less ten (10) percent retainage for the element draft(s) submitted during the month. A final invoice for the retainage portion ($1,200) shall be sub- mitted forty-five (45) days after submission of the last draft element or after presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, whichever is earlier. 2. Payments for Additional Services. Charges for additional services accomplished during each month shall be submitted as part of the monthly invoices described in this section. 3. All invoices shall be due and payable by the COUNTY upon receipt. Initials of Signatories: For the C ULTANT Wvithe C UNTY Date 11 -3v -,F0 JAN 2 8 1981 Date J — /& -,Ff 86% 45 Tu 769. JAN 2 8 1981 BOOK 45 PAGE 770 FORTY YEAR LEASE WITH THE EXCHANGE HOME OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FOR A YOUTH MANOR IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 1980. 9 104 FORTY YEAR LEASE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER THIS LEASE made and executed in duplicate this qday of Aa j 198 , by and between INDIAN RIVER C04m, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its Board of County Commissioners hereinafter referred to as Lessor; and EXCMHGE HOME OF INDIAN RIMER COUNTY# INC., a Florida non-profit corporation, hereinafter called the Lessee, which terms shall include its assigns, and successors, unless to the contrary appears from the context. WITHE SSETHs That than said Lessor, in consideration of the rent hereinafter E expressed to be paid, does lease unto the said Lessee, ao11 that ground end premises situate, lying and being in Indian River County, State of Florida, described as follows# to -wits That part East of the U.S. Highway 1 right of way, of the South �1 of the North % of the South 2, of the Southwest % of the Northeast 14, of Section 10a, Township 32 South, Mange 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD Ti1E SAMEs Unto the sat d use of said Lessee: for a term of Forty (40) years, beginning on the V'ILLday of er'A A, A7 ) 1986s the said Lessee yielding and paying unto the said Lessor, the total rent of .Forty Dollars 040.00) payables at the rate of One Dollar ($1.00) per year, during the teras of this Lease, said rent or yearly sum to be ,aid in equal annual installments in advance, to wits on the ay of _ ,®� 1911, and on the day of '° ,a) of each year thereafter. And the said Lessee further covenants with the said Lessor the V JAN 281981 -1- at o 4 Fay 7 191 JAN 28 soax 45 Pg� 772 r following shall constitute the terms and conditions covered by this Lease Agreements A. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS BY LESSEE The Lessee will construct a housing facility which is to provide living space to minors who ares a. Between the ages of five (5) and fifteen (15) years, and, b. Whose parents and/or legal guardians reside in Indian River County, Florida, or minors whose Mediate past parents and/ or guardians resided in Indian River County, Florida, and, c. Who have been adjudicated Dependant pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, or, It d. Who meet the criteria of above paragraphs A and B, and whose problems are similar to those of adjudicated Dependants. The construction of said housing facility shall includes a. Recreational facilities, b. A substantial heavily wooded, landscaped outdoor area, if at all possible. c. In constructing all improvements on the site, lessee shall leave as many trees as possible. The said Lessee will handle such construction, at its sole cost, in compliance with all applic'-ible permits and authorization, and building and zoning lavas in compliance with ail other laws, ordinances, orders, rules, regulations and requirements of all.Federal, State and Municipal Governments. The said land will at all times be kept free of liens, as 4 result of such construction and installation (except in the mortgage 1 or mortgages hereinafter authorized) for services performed and tabor and materials supplied, or claimed to have been supplied thereto; and the Lessee will not install any personal property within said improvements under chattel mortgages, conditional bills of sale, or other title retention instruments. The Lessee will maintain Workmen's Compensation insurance at its sole expense, covering all persons employed in construction and installation of said project and with respect to whom death or bodily injury claims could be asserted, against the Lessor or Lessee or the -2- said parcel of land and it will maintain, at its sole expense, general liability insurance for the mutual benefit of the Lessee and the Lessor with reasonable limits to be determined by the Lessor, at all times when such construction is in progress. The period of time within which the construction of said facility must be completed by the Lessee will be enlarged by any delays caused without fault or neglect on the part of the Lessee by acts of God, strikes, lockouts# or any other conditions which are not attributable to, or not caused by the Lessee's default or neglect to exercise due diligence. The Lessee shall commence construction not later than one year from the dateof this Lease, and shall proceed with the completion thereof within one (1) year. It is acknowledged that this Lease may be subject to a first mortgage which will' encumber the leasehold interest and improvements on the demised property from the Lessee to a lending institution, which mortgage is to be used for financing the construction of the facility to be erected thereon, and the Lessor agrees to execute such instruments as are necessary to effect such construction mortgage, provided,; however, that any such mortgage or encumbrance will, in all respects, be subject to and subordinate to the rights of the Lessor herein and to the rights of all persons claiming by, through or under the Lessor by reason or in connection with this Lease. Nothing in this Lease will ever be construed as empowering the Lessee to encumber.or cause the Lessor to encoumber the title or interest of the Lessor. The Lessor's lien 4n this Lease will be subject and �ubordinate•to the lien of any mortgage made by any lending institution provided that the proceeds of such mortgage are utilized in their entirety for the erection of the project which has been declared as the subject to this property. llowever# the foreclosure of any such mortgage will not terminate this lease or any part thereof or extinguish or diminish the rights of the Lessor in and to the property covered by this Lease by the foreclosed mortgage. All rent or other monies due hereunder, will abate while any such Mortgagee holds title to sPid project but all liability for the e3 mox 45 PAS 77 JAN 28 1981 1 payment of such rent and other monies will immediately resume upon the conveyance of any title by the institutional Mortgagee. B. USE OF THE DEMISED PREMISES The use of the demised premises is restricted to those imposed by the Lessor as set out in the Minutes of the Board of County Commissioners held on the 30th day of July, 1980. This use shall be a home for Dependent or similarly situated children to be operated by the Lessee. The facility shall strive to achieve a homelike, as opposed to institutional, atmosphere. Occupancy of the facility erected upon the subject property shall be determined by the Lessor to the extent required, and shall include but not be limited to minors as hereinbefore described and a supervisory staff. The Lessor has and will establish such easements as are necessary for the use of the demised premises by all of those entitled to such use. C. INSURANCE TO BE OBTAINED BY LESSEE a. The Lessee will cause to be written a policy or policies -of Insurance in the form generally known as public liability and property { damage and/or owner's, landlord and tenant policies, insuring the Lessee against any and all claims and demands made by any person or persons whomsoever for injuries received in connection with the use, operation and maintenance of the improvements, buildings, equipment, furniture, fixtures, recreational facilities noir or hereafter constructed or brought upon the demised premises and for any other risk generally insured against by such policy. Each class of which shall be written within limits not less than $300,000.00 for damages incurred or claimed by any one person and for not less than $1,000,000.00 for damages incurred by more than one person. All such policies wiil appear in the name of the Lessee and Lessor, as their respective interest may appear, as the persons Insured by such policy or policies and the original or a true copy of each such policy or policies will be delivered to the Lessee and to the Lessor promptly when written, together with adequate avid en�f the fact that the premiums e- _Q fore are paid in full, and, in any event, such policies and evidence of payment by the Lessee of the premiums will be delivered by the Lessee to the Lessor before the expiration of any then similar coverage and in time to assure the Lessor that such coverage will be carried continuously. The Lessee will keep insured any and all buildings, improve- nts,.equipment, furniture and fixtures, now or hereafter constructed or brought upon said demised premises in good and responsible insurance companies authorized to do business in the State of Florida, for protection against all loss ordam age to such property by fire, windstorm or causes insured against by "extended coverage10; and wherever the doctrine of co-insurance might apply to any such insurance, then the amount of the insurance so carried by the said Lessee will be at all times sufficient to prevent co-insurance on the part of the Lessor and the Lessee. All such policies will be payable in the event of loss, jointly to the Lessor and the Lessee, as their respective interests may appear. Nothing herein contained, however, shall be construed as pro- hibiting that an attachment may be made to such policy or policies of a standard Mortgage clause, but, in such event, the said mortgage clause will Identify briefly the interest of the Mortgagee, such, for examples "First Mortgagee Leasehold Interest" or "Mortgage of Lessee's interest in Lease". The amount of insurance required as specified in this paragraph, will be an amount equal to the maximum insurable replacement value, as determined annually by the Lessee,# its successors and assigns or agents, and as approved by the Lessor. D. ASSIGNMENT This Lease shall not be assigned without the consent of the Lessor. E. INDEMINIFICATIONS The Lessees covenant and agree with the Lessor that during the entire term of this Lease, it will indify and save harmless the lessor against any and all claims, debts, demands, or obligations -5- a�oK - 5 PACE 775 JAN 2 81981 900K 45 PAGE. 776 which may be made against the Lessor or against the Lessor's title in the premises, arising by reason of or in connection with the ` making of this Lease and the ownership by the Lessee of the interest hereby created; and if it becomes necessary for the Lessor to defend any action seeking to impose any such liability the Lessee will pay the Lessor all costs of court and reasonhble attorneys fees incurred by the Wssor in effecting such defense, plus any other sums which the Lessor may be called upon to pay by reason of the entry of a Judgment against the Lessor in the litigation in which such claim is asserted. F. LESSEE'S DUTY TO KEEP DEMISED PREMISES IN GOOD REPAIR The Lessee will keep all improvements, buildings, equipment, furniture and fixtures constructed or brought upon the demised premises, in a good state of repair and first class condition, and will not suffer nor permit any waste or neglect of any of said property. The Lessee will repair, replace, renovate, and generally maintain the property as oftne as it may be necessary in order to keep it in first class repair and condition. G. QUIET ENJOYMENT The Lessee shall have quiet and undisturbed and continuous possession in use of the demised premises free from any claims of the Lessor, subsequent to the completion of the construction described herein so long as it keeps and performs all of the covenants and conditions to be kept and performed by it herein. This provision will not extend to any interruption in the possession of the Lessee occasioned by its failure to keep in good standing any mortgage encumbering -its interest in this Lease. H. LESSOR'S RIGHT OF ENTRY The Lessor will have the right to enter upon the demised premises at"all reasonable times to examine the condition and use thereof; provided that such right will be exercised in such a manner as not to interfere with the Lessee in the conduct of the Lessee's project on the demised premises. I. EXPIRATION PROVISION Upon the expiration of this Lease, all buildings, fixtures, _ -A_ recreational facilities and permanent improvements placed upon the above described property shall become the property of the Lessor and thereupon the Lessor shall be entitled to immediate possession of same. J. REMEDIES UPON DEFAULT In -•the event of any default, made by the Lessee in the payment of any of the rent herein provided It shall and may be lawful for the Lessor at its election, to declare said demised term ended and to reenter upon said premises either with or without process of law. Though this be a long Lease, the parties understand and agree that the relationship between them is that of landlord and tenant, and that the Lessee specifically acknowledged that all statutory proceedings in the State of Florida, regulating the relptionship of landlord and tenant, and the remedies accruing to the landlord upon default of the tenant, respecting collectin g of rent or repossession of the premises, accrue to the Lessor hereinunder. There shall be no forfeiture of the term because of any default on the part of the Lessee unless the Lessee shall fail to cure such default within thirty 430, days after written notice by the Lessor to do so. If at the expiration of such thirty -day period after such notice, such default, which was the basis of such notice, shall continue to exist, the Lessor may give to the Lessee written notice of intention to end the term of this Lease, specifying a day not less than five days thereafter, whereupon the term shall end and then, upon the day so specified, in said second notice, the term of this Lease shall expire as fully and as completely as if that day were th% date herein definitely fixed for the expiration date of the term. The Lessor shall, upon serving on the Lessee any notice of default or any other notice under this Lease, simultaneously serve a copy of such notice upon the secured party, and no notice of such default shall be deemed to have been duly given unless and until a copy thereof has been so served upon the secured party. The secured party shall there- -7 - Box 4-5 fw 777 J,A N 2 91991 soox 45 PAGE 778 upon have the same time within which to remedy or cause to be remedied the defaults complained of as is'allowed to the Lessee, and the Lessor shall accept such performance by or at the instigation of the secured party as if such performance had been accomplished by the Lessee. For the purpose of this article, no default on the part of the Lessee, in the performance of worts to be performed, or acts to be done, or conditions to be remedied, which cannot reasonably be completed within the grace period, shall be deemed to exist, if steps shall, in good faith, have been commenced promptly to rectify the same# and shall be prosecuted to completion with diligence and continuity. Anything herein contained notwithstanding, while such security interes remains in effect, if, before the expiration of ten days after the date of service of a notice to terminate this lease for any reason whatsoever, the secured party shall have paid to the Lessor all rent and additional rent and shall have complied, or shall engage in the work of complying with the requirements of this Lease by reason of which default such notice has been sent, then the Lessor shall not be entitled to terminate this lease and any such notice of termination theretofore given shall be void and of no effect. If the Lessor elects to terminate this Lease by reason of any default of the Lessee, the secured party shall not only have and be subrogated to all rights of the Lessee with respect to curing such default, but shall also have the right to postpone and extend the specified date for the tervnination of this Lease as fixed by the Lessor i in its notice of termination, for a period of not more than six months, prot1 ded that: (1) the secured party shall cure any then existing default and, meanwhile, pay the rent and additonal rent and perform all of the other requirements of this Lease required to be performed by the Lessee; (2) No further defaults shall accrue hereunder during such extended period; and (3) the secured party forthwith takes 0 steps to acquire the Lessee's interest in this Lease by fore- closure of its security interest or otherwise. K. MISCELLANEOUS Management of project herein anticipated shall be in accordance with management policies as follows: a. A Board of Directors serving pursuant to the Articles of Incorporation and ByLaws of Lessee shall oversee and implement the policies and provisions of this Lease. The Lessee will be required to submit periodic financial statements and audits and will be subject to any reasonable rules and regulations set out by the Board of County Compaissioners of Indian River County. In'planning improvements the Lessee shall consider future compatible uses by the Lessor on or adjacent to the site such as well fields or public recreation areas. All plans and specifications covering the,proposed facility to be erected on said demised premises shall be submitted to the Lessor for approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Lessee will not amend its Articles of Incorporation or its By -Laws as a non-profit corporation, during the term of this Lease, in such a manner as to affect or impair, the rights of the Lessor herein, and unless the Lessor shall first approve any such amendments In writing upon proper submission of such proposed amendments to thea. The invalidity of any terms or provisions of this Lease, or any part of any terms or provisions, will not effect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Any such valid term or provision or part of any terms or provisions, shall be deemed stricken from this Lease. The various rights, powers, options, elections, privileges, and/or remedies, of the Lessors contained in this Lease, will be construed as cumulative, and no one of them will be construed as being exclusive of the other or exclusive of any rights or priorities provided by law. The Lessee shall be responsible for the upkeep of all yard and landscaped areas of the despised portion and at its sole cost. The Lessee shall be required to furnish any facilities or V JAN 281981 7 JAN 28 1981 BOOK r � i OAU7$ services of any kind, such as, but not limited to, crater, steam, heat, gas, hot water, electricity, light and/or power, and the Lessee shall pay all charges for such services or any type of communications used, rendered, or supplied upon or in connection with the leased , property, and shall indemnify the Lessors against any liability or damages on such account. The Lessee shall indemnify the Lessor against all costs, expenses, liabilities, law suits, damages, injunctions, suits, fines, penalties, claims, and dens nds$ including reasonable counsel fees, arising out of any violation or default in these covenants. There shall be no cancellation, surrender, acceptance of surrender, or modification of this Lease, without the prior consent in writing of the secured party. The Lessee shall be responsible for all taxes and assessments, if.any, that may now or hereafter be levied against the leased property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Lessor and Lessee have hereunto, by their respective authorized representatives, set their hands and seals this day of •� , 1980. ATTEST: BOARD",OUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IPuihfv/ RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA d rt ATTEST: Marie Anderson, Secretary IN P ESENCE OF: ` r <� a4fto Board of County Commissioners Indian River County,, Florida S IWAKWTAWAVA As to Exchan County, Inc. ver -10- rman EXCHANGE HOME OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, INC. BYR /) -, / "� /rte /J seph R. ianfrone P esident „ it��uUrrrr,r {corp. seal A 177 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before map the undersigned officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared t'ArRtcK 3 , L } OW -s to me known to be the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, who acknowledged before its that he executedthe within and foregoing lease as Chairman of said Board pursuant Ito 'authority bf said Board and on its behalf. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the State and County last aforesaid this day of 3-j4A.), 1981. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER koiary-P4blfcv State of Ftbrida,,At Large Ply Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY S 1982 BONDED THRU GENER,IL INS. UIVDERYdiLtTFRS I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before mes the undersigned officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared JOSEPH R. CIANFRONE and MARIE ANDERSON, well known to me to be the President and Secretary respectively of Exchange Home of Indian River County, Inc., the corporation named in the foregoing instruments and that they severally acknowledged executing the same. in the presence of two subcribing witnesses, freely and voluntarily under authority duly vested in them by said corporation. WITNESS my ham,¢ an official seal in the State and County last aforesaid this 22a—day of 1980. L. Notary Pblic,/State of Florida At Large Ply C jssion Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 16 1982 DONDED AiRU GENERAL INS. UNDERWRITERS Boa 46 PAGE f 81 k� K 45 PAGE 782 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. 69115 - 69288 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 7:28 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: i C = 116