The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2/25/1981s � � WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 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, FEBRUARY 25, 1981, 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, JR. ALSO -PRESENT WERE NEIL A. NELSON, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; L.S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR; DAN FLEISCHMAN, BAILIFF; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES AND JANICE CALDWELL, DEPUTY CLERKS. GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; AND JEFFREY K. BARTON, FINANCE DIRECTOR, ARRIVED AT THE MEETING APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER AS THEY WERE ATTENDING A MEETING. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. COMMISSIONER WODTKE LED,THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, AND THE REVEREND LESLIE AVCHIN, CHRIST METHODIST BY -THE -SEA, GAVE THE INVOCATION. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA. CHAIRMAN LYONS REQUESTED ADDING THE FOLLOWING: A REPORT ON THE MEETING HELD YESTERDAY WITH THE DER IN CONNECTION WITH TREASURE COAST UTILITIES; AND THE NAMES OF COMMISSIONER BIRD AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK UNDER THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MATTERS; APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION THANKING THE PEOPLE WHO HELPED WITH THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WABASSO BEACH PARK; AND A REQUEST FROM MAYOR GOFF REGARDING RADAR EQUIPMENT FOR THE AIRPORT. COMMISSIONER WODTKE REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM REGARDING A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT CONCERNING THE BARRIER ISLAND STUDY. COMMISSIONER BIRD REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM REGARDING THE VACANCY ON THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION. FEB 251981 BOOK 45 PAvE 842 F E 8 Z5 1981 Boa 4e5_ ; PAA43 A ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE ADDITION OF THESE EMERGENCY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA. CHAIRMAN LYONS REQUESTED THE FOLLOWING LETTER FROM PHYLLIS C. WEBB, OPPOSING THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. HALL TO THE ZONING COMMISSION, BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD: February 24, 1981 Mr. Pat Lyons, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County Courthouse 2145 14th Avenue Vero Bead, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Lyons and County Commisionerss As a long time resident of Vero Beach I am protesting the appointment of real estate developers to the Planning and Zoning Board. We, of course, must have some large real estate developments, but the quality of life for the average, middle-income Indian River citizen has been greatly diminished to the point that many are being driven out of the county. I also hope that in the future, people appointed to this commission will have lived here longer than a few months. How can a newcomer who has not experienced the rapid growth of Indian River County possibly have the perspective to make important decisions for our future? Thanks for carefully weighing all future appointments to the Planning and Zoning Board. Sincerely yours, -J, G� Phyllis . Webb a ' 0 `� - �� - 1 ► ► a DISCUSSION FOLLOWED CONCERNING THE RESOLUTION THAT WOULD EXPRESS THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD TO ALL THOSE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE BEAUTIFICATION OF WABASSO BEACH PARK. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE RESOLUTION WOULD BE BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE ALL CONTRIBUTORS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 8I-10 THANKING THOSE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE WABASSO BEACH PARK. RESOLUTION SI-lO WILL BE MADE PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN REID.(NEXT PAGE NO. IS 4) illeNT-saM ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THAT THE RED CROSS FLAG BE FLOWN UNDER THE AMERICAN FLAG AT THE COURTHOUSE FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH IN HONOR OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS TOOTH ANNIVERSARY. PROCLAMATION - AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH DR. STANLEY B. ABELSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND CHAIRMAN LYONS READ ALOUD THE FOLLOWING PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF MARCH AS AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH: B 251981 soap 5 pact $44 FE 4 , .. Fr— FEB 251981, ]' R 0 C L A M A T I 0 N $ooK 45 : PAcE,845 Y � t x WHEREAS, the AMERICAN RED CROSS is always there when disaster strikes; and WHEREAS, 1981 is the 11100th Anniversary" of the AMERICAN RED CROSS, we take time to recognize that since its founding the AMERICAN RED CROSS has reflected, responded to, and helped guide the times. Throughout a century of service, it has sustained and projected what are recognized as basic values of this nation - individual responsibility and neighborly concern. The Red Cross flag has become the emblem of this concern not only in Indian River County, but with our Armed Forces throughout the world; and WHEREAS, the AMERICAN RED CROSS has become the nation's largest volunteer agency whose commitment is true to the American ideal of people freely and unselfishly sharing their energies and resources in a democratic spirit. Its history represents the individual visions and talents of millions of volunteers through the years; and WHEREAS, the local Chapter of AMERICAN RED CROSS provides many services to the County, including periodic blood pressure checks, C.P.R. courses and first aid courses; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, That The Month of March shall be designated as: "NATIONAL RED CROSS MONTH" and expresses its appreciation to the AMERICAN RED CROSS for the good work it has done both on the National and Local level for the benefit of the Community. BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that in honor of the thousands of Red Cross volunteers who have served in the County, the Red Cross flag will proudly fly over the Indian River County Courthouse as a reminder of all who see it that only their support will keep the Red Cross ready for a new century of service. BOARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IND N IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Patric k B. L ons Chairman � r � DR. ABELSON PRESENTED THE CHAIRMAN THE RED CROSS FLAG TO BE USED AT THE COURTHOUSE DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH, THEN RETURNED. APPROVAL OF MINUTES THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 1981. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REFERRED TO PAGE 55, LINE 6, AND REQUESTED THE WORD "FORCE If BE DELETED AND INSERT "ENFORCE OUR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH." COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REFERRED TO PAGE 56, LINE 9, INSERT "FOR SIX MONTHS" AFTER THE WORD "BANNED." THOSE CORRECTIONS HAVING BEEN MADE, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 1981, AS WRITTEN. REZONING OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. I'RWIN - TABLED PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THAT THE ADVERTISED REZONING OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MR, IRWIN WAS TABLED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PENDING COMPLETION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NEXT DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING BID RECOMMENDATIONS: FEB 25 1981 6 Boot 45,11 --- F E B 25 1981 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM Box . 45'PA0847 TO: Chairman, DATE: February 20, 1981 FILE: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Chairman, Bid Committee SUBJECT: Bid Recommendations REFERENCES: 1. Indian River County Bids #73 through #78 were opened and recorded at 10:00 A.M., February 17, 1981. Bids #79 through 81 were opened and recorded at 10:00 A.M., February 19, 1981. Both of these openings and recordings were held at a public meeting in the County Administrator's office, 2345 14th Ave., Vero Beach, Fl. These meetings were so advertised in the Vero Beach Press Journal on January 24, 1981 and February 5, 1981. Bid #73 - Movement of Modular Building 7 Bid Proposals sent out, 3 received Rodney Hall Movers $4200.00 Low Bidder LaPlant-Adair Movers 7200.00 Russell Bldg. Movers 6275.00 Recommend Bid #73 be awarded to the low bidder. Fund Account # 102-214-541-66.49 Bid #74 - Two (2) Diesel Tractors, Ford M6600 or equal equipped with 31' Motrim Bush Hog with a 5' Rotary Cutter 9 Bid Proposals sent out, 4 received Taylor-Munnell $27,957.00 x 2 = $55,914.00 Low Bidder Sunrise Ford Tractor 29,037.00 x 2 = 58,074.00 Minton Equip. Co. 29,300.00 x 2 = 58,600.00 Pippin Tractor No Bid Recommend Bid #74 be awarded to the low bidder Fund Account # 102-214-541-66.49 Bid #74 - Two (2) Diesel Tractors, Massey -Ferguson M-275 or equal 9 Bid Proposals sent out,. 4 received Pippin Tractor Co. $12,746.00 x 2 a $25,492.00 Low Bidder Minton Equip. Co. 13,500.00 x 2 4 •27,000.00 Taylor-Munnell 14,000.00 x 2 = '28,000.00 Sunrise Ford Tractor 15,713.00 x 2 = 31,426.00 Recommend Bid 474 be awarded to the low bidder Fund Account # 102-214-541-66.49 Bid 175 - Aluminum Blanks for Street and Road Signs 4 Bid Proposals sent out, 3 received Fairchild -Lowell Corp. Vulcan Signs Dave Smith Co. Overall Low Bidder Recommend award be made to low bidder. These blanks were bid as each with no specific quantity guaranteed. Fund Account # 002-214-541-66.44 Bid #76 - One (1) 3/4 Ton Crew Cab 8 Bid Proposals sent out, 4 received Ft. Pierce Dodge $8464.32 + A/T 181.90 - $8646.22 Low Bidder Fred Coyne Chevrolet 8482-.00 + A/T 344.00 = 8826.00 Minton Equip. Co. No Bid Velde Ford No Bid Recommend award to low bidder Fund Account # 102-214-541-66.42 Bid 176 - One (1) 3/4 Ton Pickup Cab & Chassis 8 Bid Proposals sent out, 4 received Ft. Pierce Dodge $6997.17 (less trade-in) 405.00 = 6592.17 + A/T 181.90 - + A/T 181.90 - $6777.04 Low Bidder Minton Equip. Co. 8949.96 (less trade-in)1000.00 = 7949.96 + A/T 332.83 = 9242.74 less trade1000.00 = 8242.74 8282.79 Fred Coyne Chevrolet 7490.00 (less trade-in) 600.00 = 6890.00 + A/T 344.00 = 8588.17 x 2 = 17176.34 Fred Coyne Chevrolet 7234.00 Velde Ford 7731.17 (less Trade-in) 300..00 -7431.17 + A/T 332.83 - 7764.00 Recommend award to low bidder Fund Account U 102-214-541-66.42 Bid 077 - Two (2) One Ton Truck Cab & Chassis 8 Bid Proposals sent out, 4 received Ft. Pierce Dodge 7448.20 less trade 400.00 ;- 7048.20 + A/T 181.90 - 7230.10 x 2 = $14,460.20 Low Bidder Minton Equip..Co. 9242.74 less trade1000.00 = 8242.74 + A/T 345.43 = 8588.17 x 2 = 17176.34 Fred Coyne Chevrolet 7415.00 less trade 250.00 = 7165.00 + A/T 345.00 = 7510.00 x 2 - 15020.00 Velde Ford 8455.90 less trade 300.00 = 8155.90 + A/T 345.43 = 8501.33 x 2 - 17002.66 Recommend low bidder. Fund Account # 102-214-541-66.42 Bid 178 - One (1) 5-6 yd. Dump Truck 8 Bid Proposals Sent out, 3 received Velde Ford 23,055.94 less trade 3000.00 = 20,055.94 Minton Equip. Co 23,776.30 less trade 3000.00 = 20,776.30 Ft. Pierce Dodge No Bid Recommend award to low bidder Fund Account # 102-214-541-66.42 Low Bidder FEB 2 51961 s Boa 45 P.GF 848 FEB 251981 ;a _ - Boar 45 'PAGE 849 ON BID #73 FOR THE MOVEMENT OF THE MODULAR BUILDING, MR. NELSON ADVISED THAT RODNEY HALL MOVERS WAS LOW BIDDER AT $4,200, AND HE RECOMMENDED THAT THEY BE AWARDED THE BID. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED BID #73 OF RODNEY HALL MOVERS FOR THE MOVEMENT OF THE MODULAR BUILDING, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,200; TO BE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT #102-214-541-66.49. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED BID #74 OF TAYLOR-MUNNELL FOR TWO DIESEL TRACTORS, FORD M6600 OR EQUAL EQUIPPED WITH 31' MOTRIM BUSH HOG WITH A 5f ROTARY CUTTER, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,914; TO BE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT #102-214-541, 66.49. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED BID #74 OF PIPPIN TRACTOR CO. FOR TWO DIESEL TRACTORS, MASSEY-FERGUSON M-275 OR EQUAL, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,492; TO BE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT #102-214-541-66.49. ATTORNEY COLLINS ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT 9:10 O'CLOCK A.M. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON THEN DISCUSSED BID #75 FOR ALUMINUM BLANKS FOR STREET AND ROAD SIGNS, AND RECOMMENDED FAIRCHILD-LOWELL CORP. AS THE OVERALL LOW BIDDER) THIS WOULD BE A BLANKET CONTRACT. HE EXPLAINED THAT THIS TYPE OF BLANKET CONTRACT IS USED FOR ALL BULK ITEMS. LENGTHY DISCUSSED ENSUED. MR. NELSON SUGGESTED THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION BE INCORPORATED INTO THE MINUTES SHOWING THE UNIT PRICES OF THE ALUMINUM BLANKS:. 9 BID TABULATION0 �4 �+y �v U"" BID NO. IRC X75 DATE OF OPENING February 17, 1981 BID TITLE Aluminum Blanks Street & Road Signs) ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE Aluminum Blanks (Street & Road Signs) 1. 30" Octagon (Stop Sign) Ea. 10 22 2. 12" x 24"' Ea. 1,48 3,84 3 72 3. 15" x 21" Ea. 3 81 4 19 4 06 4. 18" x 24" Ea. 5. 18" x 30" Ea. 6 53 7 19 6 96 6. 18" x 48" Ea. 10 45 11 51 11 14 7. 24" x 30" Ea. 8 16 9160 9 30 8. 24" x 42" Ea. 12 20 13 43 13100 9. 30" x 54" Ea. 19160 21 58 20 89 10. 24" Diamond Ea. 6 96 7 7 7 43 11. 30" (Diamond) Ea. 10 19 11 99 11 61 12. 36" (Diamond) Ea. 15 167 17 27 16 72 13. 48" x 48" Ea. 27 88 30 170 29 72 14. 6" x 18" Ea. 1 39 1 3 1 39 15. 6" x 24" Ea. 1 69 1 3 1 87 16. 6" x 30" 2 03 2 141 2 33 17. 8" x 24" Ea. 2 132 2 56 2 48 18. Pentagon -(County Road Sin) Ea. 6 24 6,24 6 04 19. Normal delivery time in days after receipt of Purchase Order Days FEB 25 1981 10 DE 11 t J PACE ODU FEB 251981 90DK 5 PAQ1851 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED BID #75 OF FAIRCHILD-LOWELL CORP. FOR ALUMINUM BLANKS FOR STREET AND ROAD SIGNS, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS; TO BE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT #002-214-541-66.44. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED BID #76 OF FT. PIERCE DODGE FOR ONE 3/4 TON CREW CAB, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS; TO BE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT #102-214-541-66.42. THE BOARD DISCUSSED BID #76 CONCERNING THE TYPE OF VEHICLES THAT WERE USED FOR TRADE-IN. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE TRADE-IN VEHICLE BE IDENTIFIED ON THE BID RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FUTURE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED BID #76 OF FT. PIERCE DODGE FOR ONE 3/4 TON PICKUP CAB & CHASSIS, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS; TO BE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT #102-214-541-66.42. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED BID #77 of FT. PIERCE DODGE FOR TWO ONE TON TRUCK CAB & CHASSIS, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS; TO BE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT #102-214-541-66-42. FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT 9:25 O'CLOCK A.M. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED BID #78 OF VELDE FORD FOR ONE 5-6 YD. DUMP TRUCK, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS; TO BE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT #102-214-541-66.42. COMMISSIONER LYONS SUGGESTED THAT THE THREE REMAINING BIDS BE DISCUSSED LATER THIS AFTERNOON.. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING REQUEST BY CLIFF REUTER THE HOUR OF 9:15 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: I `°' (Business Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit ohrt, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO CLIFF REUTER AND LEONARD HATALA BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 125,66, ART CHALLACOMBE, SENIOR PLANNER, REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING STAFF REPORT: ZONING CHANGE - STAFF REPORT Cliff Reuter & Heonard Hatala (uviner) Initiated by the Planning & Zoning Commission Agnt Address 10-30-80 Date of Application IRC-80-ZC-22 #447 Appl i cation Number Rezoning from R -2B to C-1 (District District Preliminary Final Hearing PROPOSED USE AND LOCATION: The 1.4 acre site is located on the south side of Oslo Road adjacent to the west side of the proposed extension of 20th Avenue. The C-1, Commercial district is surrounded by R -2B, Residential District, 12 FEB 25 1981 45 -,,PA -GE 8 P- e% VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that thp, Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: River County, Florida, is reviewing the STATE OF FLORIDA feasibility of making the following changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of In - Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath dian Diver County, Florida, which changes says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published and additions are substantially as follows: at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated on the south side of Oslo Road, 500' west of 19th Avenue S.W., in IndianRiverCounty, Florida, a to -wit: r _ The west 90' of the east 390' of the north 200' w in the matter of�LGse Q �/c/1 Get . �Si 1 �L�1 of Tract 3, Section- 26, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida, Be changed from R-28 District to C-1 Commercial District. A public hearing in relation thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an in the Court, was pub- opportunity to be heard, will be held by said, Planning and Zoning Commission in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, Vero Beach, � �� / Florida, on Thursday, January 8, 1981, at 7:45 lished in said newspaper in the issues of 7 d p.m., after which said. public hearing in relation thereto.at which' parties in interest' and.citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River ' County, Florida, in the Council Chamber of the City Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore February 25,1981, at 9: 15 a.m. been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been enteredBoard of County Commissioners ' as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida .Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- Patrick By: - B. Lyons, Chairman tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or Indian River County Planning . corporation an discount, rebate commission or refund for the p y purpose of securing this adver- and Zoning Commission By: Harold Winkler, Chairman tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Dec. 21, 28, 1980.. Q may} Sworn to and subscribed before me this _qday of A. D. I `°' (Business Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit ohrt, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO CLIFF REUTER AND LEONARD HATALA BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 125,66, ART CHALLACOMBE, SENIOR PLANNER, REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING STAFF REPORT: ZONING CHANGE - STAFF REPORT Cliff Reuter & Heonard Hatala (uviner) Initiated by the Planning & Zoning Commission Agnt Address 10-30-80 Date of Application IRC-80-ZC-22 #447 Appl i cation Number Rezoning from R -2B to C-1 (District District Preliminary Final Hearing PROPOSED USE AND LOCATION: The 1.4 acre site is located on the south side of Oslo Road adjacent to the west side of the proposed extension of 20th Avenue. The C-1, Commercial district is surrounded by R -2B, Residential District, 12 FEB 25 1981 45 -,,PA -GE 8 P- e% FEB 25 1981 5 PAGE853 EXISTING SITUATION: This rezoning request initiated by the Planning and Zoning Commission is prompted by the need to extend 20th Avenue and to acquire the needed 90 feet of R.O.W. The commercially zoned property is part of a proposed 38 acre residential development which will also utilize 20th Avenue. In order to attain the necessary 100 foot for the intended R.O.W. for 20th Avenue in this area, 90 feet must come from one property owner because of existing development along Oslo Road. RECOMMENDATION: The developer has agreed to dedicate the requested R.O.W. This 90 feet would constitute approximately one-third of the site, thus the rezoning will compensate that loss without increasing or decreasing the size or configuration of the commercial Ndistrict. Thus, staff recommends approval. Dayid M. ever Planning and Zoning Director DMR: j t THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO BE HEARD. CLIFF REUTER APPROACHED THE BOARD AND COMMENTED BRIEFLY ABOUT THE PROPERTY AND NOTED THAT THEY PLANNED TO BUILD STORES ON THE SITE. ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE 81-7 REZONING PROPERTY FROM R -2B MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO C-1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AS REQUESTED BY CLIFF REUTER. �1 WHERE'S, the Board of County Cuiwflssioners o Indian River County, Florida, did p.ubli;h and send its notice of Intent to re- zone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation `thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning 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 following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The west 90` of the east 390' of the north 200' of Tract 3, Section 26, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida Be changed from R -2B Multiple Family District to C-1 Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. This Ordinance shall take effect March 2, 1981. ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT A MOTION WOULD BE NEEDED TO RESCIND THE CHANGES THAT WERE APPROVED AT THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 1981 — RESOLUTION 81-6 SHOULD STAND AS IT ORIGINALLY READ, AS EXPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM: FEB 251981 14 Book 45 NtGE8;34 F E B 25 1981 MEMORANDUM: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Attorney Joe Collins DATE: February 17, 1981 mbK 45 .PACE S55 The attached Resolution and Minutes were amended at our last meeting during the approval of the Minutes. I believe the original Resolution is correct in its original form and would request that the prior amend- ment motion be either retracted or amended approving the original documents as they appeared. The reason the documents are correct is that the $236,000 figure is a "not to exceed" figure, there- fore, authority was given not to exceed $236,000. The actual note was drafted and delivered to the First Citrus Bank in the amo.unt of $210,000. GGC,Jr. :ef Att. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD RESCIND THEIR PREVIOUS ACTION REGARDING THE CORRECTION OF RESOLUTION 81-6 AT THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 1981. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT THE BOARD WAS NOT BEING SPECIFIC ENOUGH BY NOT IDENTIFYING THE SYSTEM AS "GIFFORD SEWER SYSTEM" IN RESOLUTION 81-6. ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT BY REFERRING TO IT AS "SECOND SERIES 1979," IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO INCLUDE IT BY NAME. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED BY• A VOTE OF 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. APPROVAL OF CLERK'S AGENDA DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING A PISTOL PERMIT. ROY RAYMOND, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, EXPLAINED THAT THE APPLICANT MUST TAKE THE FIREARMS TRAINING PROGRAM, AND HIS BACKGROUND IS CHECKED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. DISCUSSION AROSE ABOUT THE DEPUTIES APPOINTED BY SHERIFF DOBECK,AND THE BOARD AGREED IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THEIR POSITIONS, SUCH AS PART-TIME, OR AUXILIARY, WERE DESIGNATED. FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON REFERRED TO HIS BUDGET AMENDMENT ^ IN ITEM 4 AND ADVISED THAT $3:442 SHOULD BE CORRECTED TO READ $3,400. ACTIVITY. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE DISAPPROVED OF THIS ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR: ROBERT DI BASSIE BILLY CARLTON LAW ARTHUR CHAPMAN MYERS ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE FOR THE FOLLOWING DEPUTIES APPOINTED BY SHERIFF DOBECK: EDWINA ANN THOMAS FRED KENDALL WELLFORD E. HARDEE WILLIAM L. MYERS WILLIAM E. .JOHNSON ALLEN E. MORRIS ROBERT B. YATES, SJR. BERNARD STECHER CONNIE R. HAMLIN MARY KRISTINA DOUGLAS DWAYNE B. MORRIS ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED TAX SALE CERTIFICATE No. 501 IN THE AMOUNT OF $5.14 FOR .JOHN R. HENSLER. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE REQUEST FOR A WORKSHOP SESSION FOR CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. w DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE SPECIFIC TIME AND DATE FOR THE CLERKS WORKSHOP SESSION WOULD BE DISCUSSED LATER TN THE AFTERNOON DURING THE "ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS.` 10 �ooK 45 FEB 251981 F E B 25 1981 BooK 45,. -nu 857 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE STATE WITNESS PAYROLL, CIRCUIT COURT, FALL TERM, 1980, IN THE AMOUNT OF $57.33. THE FOLLOWING REPORTS WERE RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK: REPORT N0. 9810 MADE ON THE AUDIT FOR THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1979 DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DTSTRICT, AS FOLLOWS: AUDIT REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING 9-30-80 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1980 STATEMENT OF CONDITION DATED 9-30-80 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR FY 1980-81 MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM— MISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE BUDGET AMENDMENT REGARDING THE AgUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND; CORRECTING THE FIGURE OF $3,442 TO READ $3,400;,RECOMMENDED BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, AS FOLLOWS: ACCOUNT TITLE MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER CURRENT CHARGES AND OBLIGATIONS OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENT — OTHER E(JUIP. ENGINEERING SERV. ACCOUNT No, INCREASE 108-000-349-09.00 $3,400 108-226-554-34.99 400 108-226-554-34.99 2,600 108-226-554-34.49 200 108-226-554-33.13 200 THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. ma i i_rmj►_GREW' eul THE HOUR OF 9:45 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 cn oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a� in the matter of1&; ct tt e in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of _�7Ai�/ . /1, .2.4, /Y5�1 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 befc me is day of 01�e7 A. 1). (Business Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Cou t, dian River County, Florida) r NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, is reviewing the feasibility of making the following changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of Indian 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 at the Southeast corner of the intersection of S.R. A -1-A and Windward Way in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Lot S5, The Moorings Unit 1, Plat Book 8, pp. 6, said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. - Be changed from C -IA Restricted Com- mercial District to R -2C Multiple Family 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 the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the Council Chamber of the -City Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, February 2S, 1981, at9:4SA.M. Board of County Commissioners Indiar. River County, Florida By: Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman Jan. 18, 20, 1981. NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC BEARING WAS SENT TO .JORGE GONZALEZ BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 125,66. ART CHALLACOMBE, SENIOR PLANNER, REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING STAFF REPORT: ZONING CHANGE - STAFF REPORT The Moorings Development Co. Owner Jorge Gonzales Agent 2125 Windward Way Address Vero Beach, FL 32960 r _ - (Date of Application) IRC ZC 80.-20 (Application -Number) Rezoning from C -1A to R -2C (District TDistrict Preliminary Final X Hearing PROPOSED USE AND LOCATION: Subject site of approximately 11 acres is located on the Atlantic Ocean south of Windward Way, east of S.R. A -1-A in The Moorings Subdivision. Applicant plans to develop a condominium project. FEB 251991 18 BQGX ,, 45 .PACE 858 I FEB 251981 EXISTING SITUATION: Subject property contains one single family residence at the end of Windward Way on the oceanfront. The remaining property is level with scattered vegetation. Billows and Sable Reef condo- miniums are directly north of subject property; the adjacent area to the south is vacant and zoned R -1A. The subject property and the area across A -1-A north of Spyglass Lane are zoned C -1A. The adjacent developed area to the north is R -2C and R-2. RECOMMENDATION: While the need for commercial districts in the area is recognized, it is felt there are adequate remaining sites available for commercial aftivities. The zoning to the northeast has a m Aimum density of 15 units per acre and is developed to an approximate density of 10 units per acre. The zonings to the northwest provide a maximum density of 12 units per acre and is developed at 9 units per acre. The vacant adjacent parcel to the south is zoned R -1A Residential (4.3 units per acre). In considering the existing development and zoning as well as the overall intent of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends rezoning to R -2B Multi -Family Residential which allows a maximum density of 8.1 units per acre. David M. ever, Planning and Zoning Director I DR:mr DOROTHY HUDSON, REPRESENTING THE MOORINGS, EXPLAINED THAT THERE ARE WATER TAPS AND A SEWER TREATMENT PLANT AVAILABLE FOR THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION; AND THEY CONTEMPLATE BUILDING FAR LESS THAN IS NOTED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SHE CONTINUED THAT EACH PROJECT THE MOORINGS HAS BUILT IN THE PAST HAS BEEN DIFFERENT, AND THIS PROCESS HAS ALLOWED THEM A GREAT DEAL OF FLEXIBILITY. MS. HUDSON ASKED THE BOARD TO GRANT THE REQUESTED ZONING AS IT WOULD BRING LOT 55 MORE IN LINE WITH THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IN LINE WITH THE PRESENT PLAN; IT WOULD LOWER THE INTENSITY OF THIS USE; MAKE A BETTER BUFFER; AND ALLOW A GREAT DEAL OF FLEXIBILITY. CHRISTOPHER BLACKMAN, DIRECTOR OF MARKETING, DISTRIBUTED BROCHURES TO THE BOARD DESIGNATING THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE PLANNED FOR THE AREA UNDER DISCUSSION. JAMES BEINDORF, ENGINEER, STATED HE HAS BEEN WITH THE MOORINGS SINCE THEIR BEGINNING IN 19681 AND NOTED THE AREA IN QUESTION WAS ZONED C -1A AT THAT TIME - IT WAS CONSIDERED A HOLDING PATTERN. .JORGE GONZALEZ, PRESIDENT OF THE MOORINGS, POINTED OUT THAT THE ORIGINAL ZONING IN 1968 WAS C -1A, WHICH PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL, AND TODAY THAT DOES NOT EXIST. HE ADDED THAT THE NEED FOR ZONING CAME ABOUT AFTER THE ORDINANCES WERE MADE IN 1971. MR. GONZALEZ REFERRED TO A RECENT SURVEY MADE BY LANDAUER THAT THE MOORINGS AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY DOES NOT NEED ANY ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL AREA, AND THE REMAINING BALANCE OF COMMERCIAL WOULD BE MORE THAN AMPLE FOR THE AREA. HE ADDED THAT CLOSE TO 200 ACRES HAVE BEEN GIVEN UP FOR GREEN, OPEN AND RECREATIONAL AREA. MR. GONZALEZ NOTED THAT THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN A GOOD BALANCE OF SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENCES, AND THIS REZONING WOULD ENABLE LOT 55 TO BE COMPATIBLE TO THE SURROUNDING AREA, HE STRESSED THAT THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO MAINTAIN THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE QUALITY IN ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPING AND CONSTRUCTION. MR, GONZALEZ CONCLUDED THAT THIS REZONING WILL KEEP A LOW DENSITY WHICH IS EVEN LOWER THAN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER COMMENTED THAT THEY HAVE NEVER QUESTIONED THE MOORINGS° DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, THE PLANNING STAFF JUST FELT THAT THE R-213 IS A MULTI -FAMILY CATEGORY AND THEY WOULD RATHER SEE LESS DENSITY ON THE BEACH. HE CONTINUED THAT HE PREFERS HOLDING DOWN DENSITIES RIGHT AT THE BEACH AREAS AND DOING SOMETHING' MORE INTENSE AWAY FROM THE BEACH. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED THE PLANNING DIRECTOR IF HE FELT CONFIDENT THERE WAS AN ACCEPTABLE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AVAILABLE AT THAT LOCATION, AND MR. REVER RESPONDED AFFIRMATIVELY. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE BOARD ADOPT ORDINANCE 81-8 REZONING PROPERTY FROM C -IA RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO R -2C MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT, AS REQUESTED BY THE MOORINGS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. F E B 25 1981 w soon 45 I FEB 251981 50 5 PAcE 861 ORDINANCE NO. 81-8 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 � M and citizens 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 following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Lot 55, The Moorings Unit 1, Plat Book 8, pp. 6, said land lying and being in Indian River County Be changed from C -1A Restricted Commercial District to R --2C Multiple Family District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. This Ordinance shall take effect March 2, 1981. ROY RAYMOND, CHIEF DEPUTY, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING LETTERS FROM SHERIFF DOBECK: P. O. BOX 608 PHONE 562.7911 R.T."Tld' DOBECK • ivojii�v ren rn coc .v n - MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION F.F20 IIEJCII, FLORID:\ ;it-10GO February 10, 1981 Mr. Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County Indian River County Courthouse, Room 205 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Commissioner Lyons: On February 3, 1981 the Florida Department of Corrections conducted an in-depth two day inspection of the Indian River County Jail. During this inspection a number of violations involving building safety, record keeping, and jail staffing were pointed out to me and my jail administrator. During an exit interview with the inspectors I was advised that the majority of these problems have been in existence for quite some time and although pointed out in previous inspections, very little had been done to correct the condition. While sympathetic with our problems as well as the financial burden placed on the county, two specific areas required immediate mandatory correction. 1. The immediate construction of two adequate fire escape doors on the second floor detention area. 2. The immediate hiring of trained female personnel to serve as matrons in the female detention areas. Since I feel that this will require a major budgetary amend- ment, I am requesting an appearance before the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County at the February 25th meeting to discuss this problem. Thank you for your consideration. V t ly yours, 4 Gey-' �• °-L'.�/ . T. 'Tim' Dobeck Sheriff of Indain River County Air FEB 2 51981 22 Box 45 - PAGE cm2 FEB 251981 pro P. O. BOX 608 PHONE 562.7911 February 18, 1981 Honorable Patrick B. Lyons Board of County Commissioners 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Lyons: BOOK 45 PAGE C? R.T."T1M' DOBECK • KVDIAN RIVER COUI\71T MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION N'11R0 131..1011. I'1.0r?IDA 32000 I would like to take this opportunity, by letter, to address and thank the Commission for allowing us to make our presentation before the Commission. I am unable to attend this meeting as my Chief Jail Administrator andI are attending the National Correction Institute which is a two week extensive school dealing with problems that our facility is now faced with. My Chief Deputy, Major Roy Raymond is well versed on our presentation and will act on my behalf during my absence. Major Raymond.is aware of my feelings regarding this matter and will be able to answer any questions for me. During the month of January my personnel conducted an extensive study involving the shortage of personnel in the area of the Jail and Communications. A letter of recommendation has been forwarded to County Administrator Neil Nelson, requesting the construction of a Security fire escape from the second story be undertaken. By law I am not able to appropriate funds or spend money from my budget to correct or add structures to my existing facility. My staff will be more than happy to provide any information or assistance in this matter. This is an item the Commission will have to review as I am only the custodian of the facility. However, I cannot stress enough the need and emergency for this fire escape. I am always reminded of several tragedies that have occurred in correction facilities through out the state. One that immediately comes to mind is the tragic fire in the Seminole County Jail, during this fire 11 lives were lost, 10 inmates and 1 correctional officer. As a result the county was faced with a total of 51 civil law suits, some still unsettled. We, as elected officials must immediately take steps to assure this civil burden does not fall on the people of Indian River County. I would also like to bring to the Commissions attention that these problems did not appear in the last 30 days. As a newly elected Sheriff, I inherited a problem compounded by lack of maintenance. These repairs on the facility and additional manpower could have and should have been avoided by setting aside in the budget over the last 5 years monies to correct the problem and the burden would have not been on my shoulders to ask for these funds. The lack of proper preparation over the last 5 years on budget matters, gives the appearance that we are over spending. Gentl-emen this is not the case, as you will see during the last 5 years all services and responsibilities have increased greatly, however no personnel has been requested comparable to our growth. As a result of this we are now in an emergency situation and must take immediate action to bring our staff and facility closer to state regulations or stand the risk of having our facility closed. My personnel has worked very hard over the last month to clean the facility and comply with state regulations but without proper staffing it is almost an impossibility. We have been able to correct and comply with many of the request by the state with no expense to the people of Indian River County and to the State Correctional Officials to whom have been very helpful in aiding us in correction of our smaller problems, but have been directed to correct as soon as possible the issues before the Commission. 23 Gentlemen, in closing, I would never intentionally place any undue expense or burden on the Commission or the people of Indian River County through improper spending or fatty budgeting. I can only stress that through proper planning and budgeting we can avoid such problems in the future. In order to keep the Commissioners and the people of Indian River County free of morale as well. as civil burden, I am hoping the Commission will agree with the immediate need and urgency of our problem and unanimously support our proposals as presented and help us correct these deficiencies as soon as possible. Respectively, R.T. "TIM" DOBECK, Sheriff j Indian River County CHAIRMAN LYONS INQUIRED WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TO OBTAIN AN ADEQUATE FIRE ESCAPE. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT ONE FIRE ESCAPE COULD BE REPAIRED AT A COST OF $300; AND TO CONSTRUCT AN ENCLOSED FIRE ESCAPE, IT WOULD COST APPROXIMATELY $4,000 OR $5,000. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO REPAIR THE FIRE ESCAPE, WITH FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $300, TO BE USED FROM THE JAIL MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT; AND BRING BACK A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD FOR THE SECOND FIRE ESCAPE. CHIEF DEPUTY RAYMOND NEXT DISCUSSED THE HIRING OF FEMALE PERSONNEL, AND SEVERAL SUGGESTIONS WERE CONSIDERED BY THEIR DEPART— MENT: IMMEDIATELY HIRE A SUFFICIENT STAFF OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS; FARM OUT FEMALE PRISONERS; OR RELEASE ALL FEMALE INMATES NOW HOUSED IN THE JAIL. THE LAST TWO SUGGESTIONS WERE DISCARDED, AND HE DETERMINED THAT THE ONLY FEASIBLE ANSWER WOULD BE TO HIRE SIX FULL TIME MATRONS — $52,489.44 WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FISCAL YEAR TO COVER THEIR SALARY AND UNIFORMS. CHIEF DEPUTY RAYMOND COMMENTED THAT THE MATRONS COULD ALSO HANDLE THE PAPERWORK. "HE STRESSED THAT IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH STATE REGULATIONS, THERE WAS A TRAINING PERIOD FOR THE INDIVIDUALS. LENGTHY DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDING THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MATRONS. FEB 25 1981 24 6o DK. 45., F -AGE S64 FEB 25 1981 ac►�K 45 P'Ar,F=865 COMMISSIONER WODTKE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS REQUESTED BY THE SHERIFF, AND FELT THERE WERE FUNDS IN THE SHERIFF'S CONTINGENCY FUND THAT HE SHOULD HAVE USED. HE FIRMLY FELT THAT THE TIME TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER WOULD BE DURING THE BUDGET HEARINGS, WHICH WILL BE STARTING IN JUNE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FY APPRECIATED THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR THE MATRONS BUT DID NOT KNOW WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO OBTAIN THESE FUNDS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUDGET YEAR, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INTERJECTED BY READING A LETTER TO THE BOARD CRITICIZING THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT THAT WAS SIGNED MERELY "CONCERNED TAXPAYER." MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE REQUEST OF $52,490 FOR THE HIRING OF SIX FEMALE OFFICERS, AS REQUESTED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. DISCUSSION OF THE FUNDING FOR THIS REQUEST FOLLOWED AT LENGTH. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE SHERIFF NEEDS TO SUPPLY THE BOARD WITH A BUDGET FORM; IT MUST BE SIGNED BY THE CHAIRMAN$ AND THEN IT MUST BE SENT TO TALLAHASSEE. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STRESSED THAT THE BOARD DOES HAVE A SIGNIFICANT LIABILITY AND COULD SEE NO RECOURSE OTHER THAN TO PROVIDE THE HIRING OF THE MATRONS IN ORDER TO MEET STATE STANDARDS, BUT HE ALSO FELT IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE AT BUDGET TIME. COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED HE WAS UNEASY ABOUT THE LACK OF SCRUTINY OR SUPERVISION OF THE PRISONERS DURING THEIR CONFINEMENT, AND SUGGESTED THE MATRONS MAKE VISUAL INSPECTIONS OF THE PRISONERS, IF POSSIBLE. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER AMENDED HIS MOTION, AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION AS FOLLOWS: MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE BOARD INDICATE ITS WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT A BUDGET AMENDMENT FROM THE SHERIFF, AUTHORIZE THE SIGNATURE � s � OF THE CHAIRMAN ON THAT BUDGETARY CHANGE, AND AMEND THE BUDGET FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF HIRING SIX FEMALE PERSONNEL AS MATRONS, AS FOLLOWS: AccroUNT NAME ACCOUNT No. INCREASE DECREASE BUDGET EXPENDITURES - SHERIFF RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES 001-600-521-99.93 001-199-513-99.91 $52,490 $52,490 CHAIRMAN LYONS STRESSED THAT HE WOULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION ON THE BASIS THAT THE SHERIFF WOULD COME BACK WITH TWO FIGURES: TOTAL MILES DRIVEN FOR ALL VEHICLES, AND THE TOTAL NUMBER GALLONS OF GAS. HE WAS HOPEFUL THAT THE SHERIFF WOULD CUT HIS FUEL COST AS HE FELT THEY COULD NOT AFFORD TO DRIVE BIG CARS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CHIEF DEPUTY RAYMOND PROCEEDED TO EXPLAIN THE CRITICAL AREA IN THEIR COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION AND REQUESTED THE HIRING OF FOUR COMMUNICATIONS PERSONNEL - WITH SALARY AND UNIFORMS FOR THE SEVEN MONTHS REMAINING IN THE FISCAL YEAR, THEY REQUESTED $29,628.04 FROM THE BOARD. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING THE SHORTAGE OF MANPOWER AND SEVERAL OF THE COMMISSIONERS FELT THIS REQUEST WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE AT BUDGET TIME. FINANCE DTRECTOR BARTON POINTED OUT THAT THE RETIREMENT PERCENTAGE WAS CALCULATED INCORRECTLY,AND THE FIGURE SHOULD BE ADJUSTED TO READ $28,610. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COM— MISSIONER WODTKE, THAT THE BOARD PROVIDE THE $28,610 FOR THE BALANCE OF�THE YEAR TO HIRE 4 ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS, ACCEPT THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FROM THE SHERIFF, AUTHORIZE THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN ON THAT BUDGETARY CHANGE, AND AMEND THE BUDGET FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF HIRING FOUR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS, AS FOLLOWS: FEB 25 1981 26 aQo 45 PAGE 866 ACCOUNT NAME BUDGET EXPENDITURES - SHERIFF RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES ACCOUNT NO. .. 8009 45 PAGE S6 7 INCREASE DEcRE� 001-600-521-99.93 $28,610 001-199-513-99.91 $28,610 COMMISSIONER WODTKE REITERATED THAT HE HAD HOPED THE SHERIFF COULD USE HIS CONTINGENCY FUND FOR THE HIRING OF THE FOUR COMMUNICATION OFFICERS. HE ALSO FELT THAT THE COMMUNICATIONS PROBLEM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HIRING MATRONS. COMMISSIONER BIRD SUGGESTED A COMPROMISE BE'CONSIDERED TO AUTHORIZE THE FUNDS FOR ONLY TWO ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL, AND AT BUDGET TIME, REEVALUATE THIS SITUATION. HE STATED HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION AND MAKE ANOTHER MOTION FOR TWO PEOPLE TO BE HIRED INSTEAD OF FOUR PEOPLE, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 3 TO 2, WITH COMMISSIONER BIRD AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 1 LJ Bowen Supply Co, Ltd.. Plant city, Fia4 .lo -S 31384 ., J U GET ACCOUNT AMENDMENTDATE Indian River COUNTY REQUESTED FORM 76-7.4 Sheriff's Department No.: l Supplement FY: 1980-81 February 25, 1981 TO: Indian River COUNTY I hereby request approval for the amendment of the Sheriff's Department budget as set forth below: Board of County Commissioners (� R. T. "Tim" DobeckSheriff `-j Original Budget or Last Amended Budget Including Amend - Budget Accounts FY 1980-81 Amendments Requested ments Requested 411 SALARY OF SHERIFF $ 29,620.00 $ $ 29,620.00 0 °Q 412 SALARIES OF DEPUTIES AND ASSISTANTS 1,444,037.00 58,800.00 1,502,837.00 42 MATCHING FUNDS, SOCIAL SECURITY, RETIREMENT, & OTHER BENEFITS 283,693.00 11,094.00 294,787.00 43/4 EXPENSES OTHER THAN SALARIES 617,387.00 11 ,205.00 628,592.00 45 EQUIPMENT 130,764.00 130,764.00 46 INVESTIGATIOM 7,500.00 7,500.00 47 CONTINGENCIES 20,000.00 20,000.00 TOTAL BUDGET $ 2,533.001.00 $ 81,099.00 $ 2,614.100.00 This is to a no ge rece-tp a and of County Commissioners. This is to certify that this budget account amendment has been Approved/Disapproved - Date: Y Date: 'dl a'�1 Signat 'gnature Chairman, Boar County � Title: Commissioners, I.R.C., Fiori'da Title: - � LLJ Li Bowen Supply Co, Ltd.. Plant city, Fia4 .lo -S 31384 ., J FEB 251981x 45 PA PUBLIC HEARING ---PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING PROCEDURES 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 Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being ro/yy�� a Z"1�' in the matter of d4d, A S" a lz in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of In `r'" . ad 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 before me thi d of n (Business Manager) (SEAL) is (Clerk of the Circuit Court, In River County, Florida) NOTICE NOTICE 4S HEREBY GIVEN that the Board. of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on. February 25, 1981, at 11:00 A.M. in the City Council Chambers in the Vero Beach City Hall'.. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance Amending Indian River County Code of County Ordinances, Appendix A.— Zoning, -Zoning, Section 27 Zoning Amendments, Subsection (b) Amendment Procedure; by providing for a new Amendment Procedure; - by providing for the payment of Application Fees; by providing for the payment of other expenses Incurred in the Amendment Procedure; by providing for appeals;,and providing for an effective date.-. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons Feb. 4,1981 _ .. AFTER A BRIEF DISCUSSION, IT WAS DECIDED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER LUNCH. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE RECESSED AND CONTINUED AT 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. TODAY. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT 12:00 NOON FOR LUNCH AND RECONVENED AT 1:45 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT. CHAIRMAN LYONS REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING WHICH WAS CON- TINUED FROM THE MORNING SESSION AND ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THE MAJOR CHANGE IN THE PRESENT PROCEDURE IS THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN OUT THE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING BOTH TO THE ZONING BOARD AND THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND MAKE THE GRANTING OF A PUBLIC HEARING AUTOMATIC; THEY HAVE PUT IN GREATER DETAIL THE CRITERIA AS TO WHAT MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPLICATION; AND THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY THE AUTOMATIC APPEAL PROVISION WHERE THE REZONING REQUEST WOULD APPEAR ON THE COUNTY COMMISSION AGENDA AFTER DENIAL WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS APPEALED. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE ZONING DEPARTMENT CURRENTLY IS POSTING SIGNS AT THE SITE OF A PROPOSED REZONING, BUT THIS REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT A PROPOSED TIME LIMITA- TION FOR RESUBMISSION OF A PROPOSAL WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED WILL COME BEFORE THE BOARD AS A SEPARATE ITEM AT A LATER DATE. ATTORNEY COLLINS MENTIONED A TECHNICAL CORRECTION NEEDED IN SUB -SECTION (5) PAGE 3 WHICH WOULD REQUIRE CHANGING 30 WORK DAYS TO 45 WORK DAYS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON INCLUDING A PROVISION ABOUT POSTING SIGNS, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE AS A MATTER OF COURTESY, AND IT WAS FELT THIS COULD BE ADDED AS ANOTHER SECTION. IT WAS PROPOSED THAT THE POSTING OF THE SIGNS MIGHT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENT. FURTHER DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO INCLUDING THE COST OF SUCH SIGNS IN THE FEE STRUCTURE, AND PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING HE WOULD SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL AN INTERNAL PROCEDURE AND RATE SCHEDULE; THE RATES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION. r 30 rEB 251981 6gQll 45 oAGE 870 FEB 25 1981 o0oK 45 PAGE 871 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER QUESTIONED SECTION Z, PARAGRAPH (B) WHICH STATES THAT IN THE EVENT MORE THAN IO LOTS OR PARCELS ARE BEING REZONED, NOTIFICATION SHALL BE BY PUBLISHED NOTICE ONLY, AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT WHEN A LARGE NUMBER OF PARCELS ARE INVOLVED, IT PUTS A TREMENDOUS BURDEN ON THE STAFF TO SEND OUT THE MANY NOTICES IN- VOLVED; IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THIS INVOLVES ONLY THE NOTICE TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, NOT THE NOTICE TO THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY TO BE REZONED. DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT HAVING THESE NOTICES SENT BY CERTI- FIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, AND IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THE COST WAS WORTH IT, ADMINISTRATOR NELSON QUESTIONED WHO SPECIFICALLY WAS TO MAKE UP AND PUBLISH THE NOTICE OF THE REZONING HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE CLERK IS REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO NOTIFY EACH REAL PROPERTY OWNER, AND THE ORDINANCE STATES THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION SHALL PUBLISH THE NOTICE OF HEARING PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CARRYING OUT THAT FUNCTION AND HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE BOARD'S SECRETARY IN THIS REGARD, AND HE FELT THEY COULD CONTINUE TO DO S0, ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT THE ORDINANCE WAS IN A SENSE BY-PASSING HIS OFFICE BY HAVING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WORK DIRECTLY WITH THE CLERK AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S SECRETARY AND THAT THIS SHOULD BE ROUTED THROUGH HIS OFFICE. IN DISCUSSION, THE BOARD POINTED OUT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR ACTUALLY IS HEAD OF THE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENTS; HE CAN SEE ANY OF THE DOCUMENTATION ANY TIME HE WISHES; AND THEY DID NOT FEEL IT NECESSARY TO HAVE THIS WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT CAN BE HANDLED INTERNALLY. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AGREED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD BE KEPT ADVISED OF THE REZONING PROCESS. DISCUSSION THEN FOLLOWED WITH REGARD TO OBTAINING THE CORRECT ADDRESSES FOR NOTIFICATION PURPOSES, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO SEND THE NOTICE, NOT TO 31 SEE THAT IT IS RECEIVED, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT THE NOTICES SHOULD BE SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. FURTHER DISCUS- SION ENSUED IN REGARD TO COSTS OF SUCH CERTIFIED MAIL AND THE POSSI- BILITY OF RECOVERING THE COSTS IN THE FEES, AND IT WAS AGREED THAT THE ORDINANCE SHOULD STATE IN SECTION (2) (B) AND SECTION (7) THAT THE NOTICES WILL BE SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE FURTHER WISHED TO BE HEARD, WILLIAM KOOLAGE OF SIS 26TH AVENUE URGED ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. - COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WISHED A FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, AND PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THAT IT IS SIMPLY A STREAMLINING OF THE PRESENT PROCESS. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER BIRD, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 81-9 SUBJECT TO CHANGES AS FOLLOWS: ON PAGE 3, ADDITION OF PARAGRAPH STATING THAT "PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHALL DIRECT AT LEAST ONE SIGN TO BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY IN THE MOST CONSPICUOUS PLACE OR PLACES. THIS SIGN SHALL CONTAIN, BUT NOT BE LIMITED T0, A MAP OF THE PROPOSED AREA TO BE REZONED, AS WELL AS THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS TO BE HELD." PAGE 31 SECTION (B) SHALL STATE "SHALL MAIL A WRITTEN NOTICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 300.FEET....." AND THE SAME STIPULATION SHALL BE INCLUDED IN SECTION (7). THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 4 TO 1, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSI- T I.0 N . 32 FEB 25 1981 t tooK : 45 FACE 87.2 F� wn ..FEB 251981 Max 45 PAG -73 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 81- 9 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING INDIAN FIVER COUNTY CODE OF COUNTY ORDINANCES APPENDIX A - ZONING, SEC- TION 27 ZONING: MIENDMENTS, SUBSECTION (b) AMENDMENT PROCEDURES, BY PROVIDING FOR A NEW AMENDMENT PROCEDURE; BY PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF APPLICATION FEES; BY PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF OTHER EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE; BY PROVIDING FOR APPEALS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Indian River County Code of County Ordinances Appendix A - Zoning, Section 27 Zoning Amendments, Subsection (b) Amendment Procedures, which previously read: Sec. 27. Zoning amendments. (b) Amendment procedures. Persons authorized under paragraph (a) to request zoning changes or amendments shall submit a petition on forms with the required fee and in the manner provided from time to time by resolution of the board of county commissioners. The appli- cant shall pay to the county an application fee as established by resolution of the board of county commissioners for each requested change; provided, however, that as many lots or parcels of property as the applicant may desire may be included in any single petition if they constitute one contiguous area. Within ten (10) days the county planning office will transmit the petition with its comments to the county zoning department. The zoning department shall trans- mit copies of the petition and the county planning office's comments to the members of the county zoning commission at least seven (7) days prior to the zoning commission's first consideration of the petition. The county zoning department shall notify the applicant of the time and place of the county zoning commission meeting to consider the applicant's petition. Should the county zoning com- mission tentatively approve the petition, public hearings shall be held by the county zoning commission and the board of county com- missioners. Should the county zoning commission deny tentative approval and the applicant wishes to appeal the decision to the board of county commissioners of Indian River County, the county zoning department shall transmit copies of the petition, the county planning office's comments and the minutes of the zoning commission meeting to each member of the board of county commissioners at least seven (7) days before the board shall consider the appeal. The county zoning department shall notify the applicant of the time and place of -the meeting at which the board of county commissioners will hear the appeal. Should the board of county commissioners tentatively approve the petition, the county zoning commission and the board of county commissioners will proceed to hold public hearings on the petition. Should the board of county commissioners deny tentative approval, the applicant may withdraw his peitition and the fee depos- ited shall be returned to him. Should the applicant desire public hearings, he shall inform the board of county commissioners and the county zoning commission and the board of county commissioners will proceed with public hearings and the fee deposited shall remain the property of the county. The county zoning commission shall hold the first public hearing on any petition. At least seven (7) days prior to the board of county commissioners' public hearing on any petition, the county zoning department shall transmit to each commissioner, copies of the petition, the county planning office's comments, and all minutes of the county zoning commission concerning the petition. When public hearings are held, then in addition to meeting the state M M statutes' notice requirements, the county administrator or his designee shall mail a written notice to all property owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the outer limits of the area described in the petition requesting a change, advising all such owners as shown upon the last prepared and completed tax. assessment roll of the county, in simple terms, the proposed change and the time and place of the public hearing. In the event more than ten (10) lots or parcels are being rezoned, notification shall be by public notice only. The provisions hereof providing for mail- ing notice is directory only, and the failure to mail such notice shall not affect any change or amendment of said zoning ordinance. Indian River County Code of County Ordinances Appendix A - Zoning, Section 27 Zoning Amendments, Subsection (b) Amendment Procedures, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 27. Zoning amendments. (b) Amendment procedures. (1) Every such proposed change or amendment or rezoning to this chapter shall be submitted in writing to the County Planning and Zoning Department. a. When the application or petition is initiated by persons or other entities authorized under paragraph (a), the application shall describe by legal description and by street address, where possible, the property to be affected by the proposed change, setting forth the present zoning applicable thereto and specifying the district, zone or use requested by the applicant. The application shall also include a copy of the deed or other conveying instrument indicating present legal and/or equitable ownership to- gether with an authorization from the owner of the subject property if the applicant is not the owner. The applica- tion shall also include a survey of the property proposed to be rezoned. Such application shall be in a form sub- stantially in accordance with the form prescribed by the County Planning and Zoning Department and approved by the County Commission. b. All such applications or petitions shall include a verified statement showing each and every individual person having a legal and/or equitable ownership interest in the property upon which the application for rezoning is sought. c, Each application shall include a publication and applica- tion fee as from time to time established.by resolution of -2 BOON 45 PAGE 874 FEB 25 1981 F E 8 25 1981 _I Bak - 45 PACE 8 i the Board of County Commissioners for each requested change; provided, however, that as many lots or parcels of property as the applicant may desire may be included in a single petition if they constitute one contiguous area. (2) The County Planning and Zoning Department shall have twenty (20) work days from the date the completed application and required fees are submitted to review and comment upon the application. The County Planning and Zoning Department shall then place the completed application on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; pro- vided, however, that the following publication requirements are met prior to the public hearing before the County Planning and Zoning Commission. a. The County Planning and Zoning Department shall cause a publication of the material contents of the application, together with a map indicating the area proposed to be rezoned, at least fifteen (15) days, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, prior to the County Planning and Zoning Commission's public hearing on the application, unless Florida Statutes mandate different notice requirements. b. Additionally, the County Planning and Zoning Department shall mail a written (certified return receipt requested) notice to all property owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the outer limits of the area de- scribed in the petition requesting a change, advising all such owners as shown upon the last prepared and completed tax assessment roll of the County, in simple terms, the proposed change and the time and place of the public hearing. In the event that more than ten (10) lots or parcels are being rezoned, notification shall be by published notice only. The Planning Department shall erect and conspicuously place upon the subject property at least one (1) notice which shall contain 1) Map of property which is the subject of the rezoning petition; 2) Present zoning and requested rezoning classification; -3- 3) Dates of scheduled hearings. C. The provisions hereof for mailing notice are directory only and the failure to mail such notices shall not affect any change or amendment of said zoning ordinance. (3) After the public hearing, the County Planning and Zoning Com- mission shall report its recommendations to the County Commis- sion for final action. A denial of the application by the County Planning and 'Zoning Commission, unless appealed as provided for herein, or reconsidered, will be final. (4) Appeals. Any applicant who is aggrieved by the decision of the County Planning and Zoning Commission regarding rezoning applications shall within fifteen (15) days of the decision of the County Planning and Zoning Commission file a written notice of intent to appeal the County Planning and Zoning Commission decision with the Director of the County Planning and Zoning Office, the Chairman of the County Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Chairman of the County Commission. (5) Upon receipt of the recommendations from the County Planning and Zoning Commission, or upon receipt of a written notice of intent to appeal the County Commission shall consider the proposed change, amendment or rezoning application and appeal within.forty-five (45) work days of the submission of said recommendations or written notice of intent to appeal. (6) When a public hearing is held on an application for change, amendment or rezoning before the County Commission involving less than five (50) percent of the total land area of the County, the Board of County Commissioners shall direct its Clerk to notify by mail each real property owner whose land will be rezoned, stating the substance of the proposed rezon- ing as it affects the property owner, and stating a time and place for one or more public hearings on such rezoning, at least thirty (30) days prior to the date set for the public hearing. The County Commission shall, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing for rezoning, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, publish notice of intent to con- sider the rezoning in a newspaper of general circulation within the County. -4- � FEB 251981 R60X 45 pAcES.76 FEB 25 1981 BOOK 45 PAGE 877 (7) Additionally, the County Planning and Zoning Department, on behalf of the County Commission, shall mail a written (certified return receipt requested) notice to all property owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the outer limits of the area described in the petition requesting a change, advising all such owners as shown upon the last prepared and completed tax assessment roll of the County, in simple terms, the proposed change action of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the time and place of the public hearing. In the event that more than ten (10) lots or parcels are being rezoned, notification shall be by published notice only. The sign or signs erected pursuant to Wb. of this Ordinance shall be amended to reflect the hearing date before the Board of County Commissioners. (8) The provisions hereof for mailing notice are directory only and the failure to mail such notices shall not affect any change or amendment of said zoning ordinance. (9) In cases in which the proposed rezoning involves five (50) percent or more of the total land area of the County, the Board of County Commissioners shall provide for public notice and hearings as provided for in Chapter 125 Florida Statutes (1979) as amended. This Ordinance shall take effect as provided for by law. This Ordinance shall take effect March 4, 1981. � � r APPROVAL OF LEASE FOR OFFICE SPACE FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT HE HAD WRITTEN .JOHN MOORE,' OWNER OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER PRESENTLY HAS HIS OFFICE IN REGARD TO RENEWAL OF THE LEASE. MR. MOORE WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AND JUST ARRIVED BACK, HE SINCE HAS QUOTED A RATE OF $600 A MONTH, WHICH IS AN INCREASE FROM THE OLD RATE OF $450. BASED ON COST OF LIVING INCREASES, THE RATE WOULD HAVE COMPUTED TO $610. ATTORNEY COLLINS CONTINUED THAT THE ARRANGEMENT WITH MR. MOORE IS THAT WE CAN TERMINATE AT ANY TIME UPON GIVING SIX MONTHS NOTICE. THE PROPOSED LEASE IS FOR 18 MONTHS AT A FIXED RATE OF $600 PER MONTH. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ADMONISHED THE ATTORNEY FOR BRINGING THE BOARD A LEASE TO CONSIDER THAT WILL EXPIRE WITHIN THREE DAYS. HE FELT WITH MORE NOTICE THE BOARD WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET OUT AND LOOK AROUND, COMPARE RENTS, AND PERHAPS FIND LESS COSTLY SPACE. IT WAS NOTED THAT IT IS NOT THE ATTORNEYS FUNCTION TO KEEP TRACK OF THE LEASES AND FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE COSTS IN- VOLVED IN MOVING AN ENTIRE OFFICE WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY OUTWEIGH ANY SLIGHT VARIATION IN RENT WHICH MIGHT BE OBTAINED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FURTHER NOTED THAT, IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, WE HAD HOPED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE CHANGEOVER TO THE RENOVATED OFFICES BEFORE GETTING INVOLVED IN RENEWING LEASES. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO BRING THESE MATTERS TO THE BOARD. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER BIRD, TO APPROVE A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR SPACE FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER AS OUTLINED AT THE $600 PER MONTH FIGURE AND A TERMINATION RIGHT ON SIX MONTHS NOTICE. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WISHED TO HAVE THE MINUTES REFLECT THAT HIS QUESTION AS TO WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO KEEP TRACK OF THESE LEASES HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED, AND WILLIAM KOOLAGE STATED THAT AS A CITIZEN HE FELT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT SOMEONE FOLLOW UP ON THESE LEASES AND THE QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED. HE DID NOT FEEL IT SHOULD BE THE ATTORNEYS RESPONSIBILITY. 2 51981 goo t 45 PAoE 878 FEB 38 FEB 25 1981 - 86% 45 PAGE 879 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT THE RESPONSIBILITY NEVER HAS BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED; THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND THE STATE'S ATTORNEY, FOR EXAMPLE, NORMALLY KEEP TRACK OF THEIR OWN LEASES AND BRING THEM TO THE BOARD FOR RENEWING. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT WE SHOULD ESTABLISH PROMPTLY SOME SORT OF MONITORING FUNCTION INTERNALLY WITH REGARD TO LEASES. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON BELIEVED THIS FUNCTION SHOULD BE HANDLED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS OFFICE; THEY ARE AT PRESENT MANAGING SOME LEASES AND NOT OTHERS BECAUSE SPACES HAVE BEEN LEASED BY DIFFERENT AGENCIES, ETC., AND THIS HAS NOT BEEN ACCURATELY DEFINED. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO I WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. DISCUSSION RE TREASURE COAST UTILITIES ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPART- MENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION CAME DOWN TO MEET WITH VARIOUS COUNTY OFFICIALS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE COUNTY'S POSITION AND ALTERNATIVES WOULD BE BECAUSE THE COURT ORDER TO TREASURE COAST UTILITIES WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF SHUTTING DOWN THE SEWER SYSTEM SERVING WHISPERING PALMS AND DIXIE GARDENS SUBDIVISIONS. VARIOUS OPTIONS WERE DISCUSSED, INCLUDING THAT OF ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS OF LOTS IN THOSE TWO SUBDIVISIONS TO PUT IN THEIR OWN SEPTIC TANKS SINCE IT APPEARS OBVIOUS THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A SOLUTION PRIOR TO THE DATE THE ORDER TAKES EFFECT. ATTORNEY COLLINS REQUESTED THAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZE HIM TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT TO TRY AND OBTAIN SOME REASONABLE EXTEN- SIONS TO ALLOW US TO EFFECTUATE A SOLUTION. DR. FLOOD, COUNTY HEALTH DIRECTOR, INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE USE OF SEPTIC TANKS IN THIS AREA IS FEASIBLE BECAUSE FORTUNATELY - THIS AREA IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST IN THE COUNTY. IT OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO.GET THE PLANT BACK IN PROPER SHAPE, BUT THAT APPARENTLY IS NOT POSSIBLE AT THIS TIME. WITHOUT A MEANS OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL, THESE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO BE EVICTED, AND THERE ARE ABOUT 115-130 HOMES AFFECTED, ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE USING TAX MONEY TO HELP WITH THIS SITUATION. � � r COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF OUR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT DOES NOT HAVE FACILITIES TO TAKE THE UTILITY OWNER TO COURT AND DEMAND THAT HE MAKE THE SYSTEM SAFE AND MAINTAIN IT PROPERLY. HE BELIEVED THE RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE OWNER WHERE IT BELONGS. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT OUR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT DOES HAVE THIS PROVISION, AND THAT IS THE THRUST OF THE DER ACTION, BUT THE OWNER IS HIDING BEHIND A SHELL CORPORATION. DR. FLOOD CONFIRMED THAT THE DER HAD A VERY SHARP LAWYER PRESENT AT THE MEETING, AND THERE WASN'T AN AVENUE WE COULD SUGGEST TO GET AT THE OWNER THAT THEY HADNIT ALREADY INVESTIGATED. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED ABOUT THE PHYSICAL ASSETS IN— VOLVED, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THE ASSETS ARE THE LINES IN THE GROUND, THE PLANT ON SITE, AND A SMALL PIECE OF REAL ESTATE (ABOUT 1/3 ACRE.) THE ATTORNEY STATED THAT THE BOARD IS NOT IN A POSITION TO TAKE ANY ACTION WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO GIVE THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THE DEFAULTS THEY KNOW OF IN THE SYSTEM, AND HE RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD ALLOW HIM TO SET UP SUCH A HEARING AND BRING EVERYBODY TOGETHER. HERCULES KONTOULAS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE IS A HOME OWNER IN THE AFFECTED AREA AND HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS. HE STATED THIS SUB— DIVISION WAS DESIGNED WITH SANITARY SEWER AND WATER, AND IF HE HAD TO PUT IN A SEPTIC TANK, HE WOULD OBJECT VERY STRENUOUSLY. HE DID NOT BELIEVE IT IS THE PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE,THAT THE SYSTEM WORKS, BUT FELT THAT THE UTILITY OWNER SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE TO BRING THIS SYSTEM UP TO STANDARDS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT THIS SYSTEM IS OWNED BY A CORPORATION, AND IF THAT CORPORATION IS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE, IT PRESENTS ALL KINDS OF DIFFICULTIES. HE ASKED IF THE OPTION PRESENTED MR. KONTOULAS WAS TO PUT IN A SEPTIC TANK OR PAY THE COUNTY THREE OR FOUR TIMES MORE TO PUT IN'A PROPER PLANT, WHAT HIS REACTION WOULD BE. MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT WANT TO ABANDON HIS HOME BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE ANY SEWER. FEB 251991 40 BOOK 45.6'cE '00 O)0 FEB 25 1981 mai- PAGE 881 ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF HE COULD TELL THE JUDGE AT THE HEARING TOMORROW THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WERE GOING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE. HE FELT THE SUGGESTED PUBLIC HEARING WOULD REQUIRE THREE HOURS AT LEAST, AND WE NEED TO ADVERTISE AND HAVE A SPECIFIC DATE. COMgISSIONER FLETCHER NOTED„THAT THIS IS A PRIME OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT OUR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. COMMISSIONER BIRD HOPED WE WOULD NOT TAKE ANY ACTION THAT WOULD IN ANY WAY DILUTE THE PRESSURE PUT ON MR. SALTER, OWNER OF TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, AND THE ATTORNEY BELIEVED THAT PRESSURE SHOULD BE EXERTED FROM EVERY POSSIBLE ANGLE'AND THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS A REQUIRED PART OF THE DUE PROCESS, WOULD HELP INCREASE THE PRESSURE. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO VARIOUS DATES, AND MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, TO AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING RE TREASURE COAST UTILITIES FOR MONDAY, MARCH 16, 19811 AT 7:30 O'CLOCK P.M. AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO RECEIVE INPUT FROM VARIOUS AGENCIES, AND AFTER GATHER- ING ALL THE FACTS, REACH A DECISION AT A LATER DATE. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO WORDING THE ADVERTISEMENT SO THAT THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT TO EXPECT AND MAKE IT SUFFICIENTLY LARGE TO CATCH THE PUBLIC EYE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE WISHED TO HAVE A PRESS RELEASE ABOUT THE HEARING AND ASKED THE COOPERATION OF THE PRESS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO JOIN WITH THE DER IN APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST TREASURE COAST UTILITIES IN- VOLVING BOTH SEWER AND/OR WATER. CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE KONTOULAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDERS #10 AND #11 FOR THE COURTHOUSE. #10 INVOLVES iii r TELEPHONE GROUNDS FOR THE NEW TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH ENDS OF THE COURTHOUSE AND IN THE BASEMENT. THIS WAS AN OMISSION BY THE ARCHITECT'S ELECTRICAL ENGINEER; #11 IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE DUCT WORK EXISTING IN THE OLD ADMINISTRATION AREA IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPLY THAT ROOM. MR. KONTOULAS CONTINUED THAT CHANGE ORDER #14 RE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING PROVIDES FINISHES AS A CLARIFICATION OF #13 BECAUSE ON THE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS THERE WERE SOME CORRIDOR NUMBERS THAT WERE REPEATED. THIS AGAIN IS AN ERROR ON THE ARCHITECT'S PART. HE STATED THAT HE WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS CHANGE ORDER ALSO AND NOTED THAT AFTER APPROVAL OF THIS CHANGE ORDER, THE TOTAL OVERAGE ON THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WOULD BE $205,475, WHICH PLUS AN OVERAGE OF $130,076 ON THE COURTHOUSE, WOULD BE A TOTAL OVERAGE OF APPROXIMATELY $335,500. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT WHEN HE FIRST CAME ON THE COMMISSION, HE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE OVERAGE FIGURES FOR THIS RENOVATION, AND HE WISHED TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AN OVERAGE OF $500,000 TO $1,000,000, HE WAS NOT SO ABSURD. MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT THE PROVISION ABOUT FIREWALLS IS THE LARGEST OUTSTANDING CHANGE ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED, AND HE DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WILL BE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT AFTER THAT. HE STATED THAT THE OVERAGE WILL NOT APPROACH A MILLION DOLLARS. DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO THE OVERAGE, WHICH IT WAS AGREED WAS SIGNIFICANT, AND COORDINATOR THOMAS WISHED TO POINT OUT THAT THE REPORT HE AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TURNED IN TO THE BOARD WAS AN OVER- ALL REPORT OF THE ENTIRE FINANCING OF THE RENOVATIONS, INCLUDING NOT ONLY THE CHANGE ORDERS, BUT ALSO THE INCOME WHICH THE FINANCE OFFICER HAS GENERATED AND SOME CONTINGENCIES. HE NOTED THAT OBVIOUSLY WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT, AND THEY NOW ARE TALKING ABOUT SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCING BASED ON RACt TRACK MONEY; A LITTLE LEEWAY WAS PURPOSELY LEFT IN THE AMOUNT OF THE RACE TRACK FUNDS ORIGINALLY ENCUMBERED. 42 ` Pn' E-882 FEB 251981 FEB 25 1981 Book=- 45 PAcf!8$3 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0. 10 - COURTHOUSE IN THE AMOUNT OF $724.271 INCLUDING THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY AP- PROVING THE CHANGE ORDER, THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0, 11 - COURTHOUSE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,884.16, INCLUDING THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER, THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0. 14 - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,304,96, INCLUDING THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER, THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. PROJECT: Indian River County (name, address) County Courthouse CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: .10 (Ten) TO (Contractor) �einhold Construction, Inc. ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9364 p. 0. Box 666 CONTRACT FOR.Addi t ions and Renovations Cocoa, FL. 32922 L CONTRACT DATE: 4-2-80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP -28 Provide new grounds P new telephone backboards in Rms. 205 24.2 and 243 and In the Basement of the Courthouse Bldg. $7 7 Grounds shall be run as per attached CP -28 for location and materials The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time required beyomd the contract complition date. Additional timd will be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The contractor will be paid for the additional required days at the rate of $300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are reflected in CP -28. I The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 689,000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S 127,508.47 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 186,508.47 The Contract Sum will be (increased) (dRr Wa,0+ by this Change Order . . . S 724.27 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . S 817,232.74 The Contract Time will be 60"za"J) (douaaJ" (unchanged) by ® ( •� ) Divs. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Connell metcal Eddy Reinhold Construction, Inc. Indian River County AR HITECT CONT-PACTCOR Ow 'ER -__1320 a P_o�B�x66f: -7-1_L4th_Ave- Address Address Addres Coral Gables, F1 33134 Cocoa, FL. 32922 V each, F BY --- --- DATE 2 Q��f _DATE D^TSE C;roZ4� AIA DOCUMIN't W01 - CHA%Gr ORDER - APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIMS • d 1970 - THE AMERICAN t%,siiiuu or ARCH1110S. 1731 N1W YORK AVE.. N%V. WASHING10N. D.C. 20006 44 ,.ONE PACE �K , 45 PAGE '88.4 CHANGE ARCti11ECT �] ORDER Fo o RACtoR CU U AIA DOCUM[N1 G701 OTttFR PROJECT: Indian River County (name, address) County Courthouse CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: .10 (Ten) TO (Contractor) �einhold Construction, Inc. ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9364 p. 0. Box 666 CONTRACT FOR.Addi t ions and Renovations Cocoa, FL. 32922 L CONTRACT DATE: 4-2-80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP -28 Provide new grounds P new telephone backboards in Rms. 205 24.2 and 243 and In the Basement of the Courthouse Bldg. $7 7 Grounds shall be run as per attached CP -28 for location and materials The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time required beyomd the contract complition date. Additional timd will be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The contractor will be paid for the additional required days at the rate of $300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are reflected in CP -28. I The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 689,000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S 127,508.47 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 186,508.47 The Contract Sum will be (increased) (dRr Wa,0+ by this Change Order . . . S 724.27 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . S 817,232.74 The Contract Time will be 60"za"J) (douaaJ" (unchanged) by ® ( •� ) Divs. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Connell metcal Eddy Reinhold Construction, Inc. Indian River County AR HITECT CONT-PACTCOR Ow 'ER -__1320 a P_o�B�x66f: -7-1_L4th_Ave- Address Address Addres Coral Gables, F1 33134 Cocoa, FL. 32922 V each, F BY --- --- DATE 2 Q��f _DATE D^TSE C;roZ4� AIA DOCUMIN't W01 - CHA%Gr ORDER - APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIMS • d 1970 - THE AMERICAN t%,siiiuu or ARCH1110S. 1731 N1W YORK AVE.. N%V. WASHING10N. D.C. 20006 44 ,.ONE PACE �K , 45 PAGE '88.4 CHANGE • OWNER ARCHITECT ❑� ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER PROJECT: indjan River County (name. address) County Courthouse 45 PnE 885 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 11 (eleven) TO (Contractor) Reinhold Cggstruction , Inc. ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9364 P.O. Box 666 CONTRACT FOR: Additions & Renovat lions Cocoa, F1. 32922 L I CONTRACT DATE: 4-2-80 You are directed to make the following changes6n this Contract: CP- 31 Provide Flex, duct in Room 105 as per Instructions on attached SK -1 $ 1,844.16 The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time required beyond the contract complition date. Additional time will be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The contractor will be paid for the additional required days at the rate of $300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are reflected in CP -31 - See Attached Change Proposal The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 689,000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders S 128, 232.74 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 817:232:74 232' 74 The Contract Sum will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by this Change Order . . . S 1,844.16 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . s 819,076.90 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by 1 - ) Days. The bate of'Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is N A rnnnell Metcalf & Eddy Reinhold Construction Inc. Indian River County ARCHITECT 1320 $. Dixie Hiway CONTRACTOFD n Box 666 OWNER Address Coral Gab]S .--33T34 Add—ressCa-c0ZY1 � —32922 Addre Ve 0-9 ey By Fly DATE 2 I 3Y S) DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT 0701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAS • 0 1970 . THE ONE PACE A1:ERICAN INSTIML Of ARCHIIECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, W'ASHINCTON, D.C. 20006 45 M PROJECT: Indian River County (name, address) County Administration Bldg. TO (Contractor) (—Reinhold Construction Inc. P.O. Box 666 Cocoa, Fl. 32922 r CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 14(Fourteen) ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9363 CONTRACT FOR: Additions & Renovations L I CONTRACT DATE:Apr i 1 2, 1980 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP -40 Corridor S-180- Provide finishes as per clarification # 13 $ 4,304.96 The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time required beyond the contract compiition date. Additional time will be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The contractor will be paid for the additional required days at the rate of $300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are reflected in CP -40. (See attached Change Proposal) The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2 , 748 , 000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 201,170.27 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,949,170-27 The Contract Sum will be (increased) (dem) ( by this Change Order . . . S 4, 304.96 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . S 2,953,475.23 The Contract Time will be'(irsf *ed) (+eared) (unchanged) by a { ) Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Connell Metcalf and Eddy Reinhold Construction Inc. Indian River County ARC I CONTR CO01VNE �� S. Dixie Hwy fS,b,R Box 666 1145 14th Ave Address Coral Gables, F1, 33134 Address Cocoa, Fl. —32522—Addres ero Beach, DATE Z I 1 0 J ;�! % DATE Z S l eA AIA DOCUMENT 0701 . CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAS • O 1970 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS, 173S NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGION, D.C. 20006 FEB 25 1981 L 46 2 9$U OSE PAGE 45 ma'8,86 ---CHANGE OWNER ARCHITECT ARCHIT [] [] ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD �] ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County (name, address) County Administration Bldg. TO (Contractor) (—Reinhold Construction Inc. P.O. Box 666 Cocoa, Fl. 32922 r CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 14(Fourteen) ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9363 CONTRACT FOR: Additions & Renovations L I CONTRACT DATE:Apr i 1 2, 1980 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP -40 Corridor S-180- Provide finishes as per clarification # 13 $ 4,304.96 The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time required beyond the contract compiition date. Additional time will be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The contractor will be paid for the additional required days at the rate of $300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are reflected in CP -40. (See attached Change Proposal) The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2 , 748 , 000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 201,170.27 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,949,170-27 The Contract Sum will be (increased) (dem) ( by this Change Order . . . S 4, 304.96 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . S 2,953,475.23 The Contract Time will be'(irsf *ed) (+eared) (unchanged) by a { ) Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Connell Metcalf and Eddy Reinhold Construction Inc. Indian River County ARC I CONTR CO01VNE �� S. Dixie Hwy fS,b,R Box 666 1145 14th Ave Address Coral Gables, F1, 33134 Address Cocoa, Fl. —32522—Addres ero Beach, DATE Z I 1 0 J ;�! % DATE Z S l eA AIA DOCUMENT 0701 . CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAS • O 1970 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS, 173S NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGION, D.C. 20006 FEB 25 1981 L 46 2 9$U OSE PAGE 45 ma'8,86 Fr'_ 'I FEB 25 1981 sow-'�4 145 PkcE 88 7 MR. KONTOULAS REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER AND ACCEPT CHANGE ORDER N0. 15 — COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, WHICH HE HAD JUST RECEIVED IN THE MAIL. HE EXPLAINED THAT THESE TWO DOORS WERE DISCUSSED SOMETIME AGO, BUT THE INFORMATION GOT LOST IN THE ARCHI— TECT�S OFFICE, THE ORIGINAL PLANS HAD ALUMINUM DOORS AND FRAMES, WHICH WILL NOT. MEET -CODE, AND IT IS, THEREFORE, IMPERATIVE THAT THE PROPER DOORS BE ORDERED. THIS INVOLVES THE NORTH DOOR JUST EAST OF THE TWO ELEVATORS AND THE DOOR THAT LEADS INTO THE EMPLOYEES LOUNGE. MR, KONTOULAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER N0. 15, COMMISSIONER WODTKE QUESTIONED A TIME OF SIX HOURS TO SUPER— VISE INSTALLATION OF THESE DOORS. MR. KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ORIGINAL DOORS WERE TO BE PUT IN BY A SUB—CONTRACTOR AND NOW REINHOLD'S MEN WILL DO THIS WORK. MR. SNODGRASS OF REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION CONFIRMED THAT HE NOW WILL HAVE THEIR CREWS DO THIS BECAUSE THE SUB—CONTRACTOR IS A STOREFRONT CONTRACTOR WHO WORKS IN ALUMINUM AND.GLASS, NOT STEEL, AND HE CANNOT INSTALL THE FIRE—RATED DOORS. MR. SNODGRASS POINTED OUT THAT THE CHANGE PROPOSAL REGARDING THESE DOORS WAS IN THE WORKS APPROXIMATELY THREE MONTHS, AND THEY STILL ARE WAITING FOR THESE DOORS. HE FELT THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A DELAY THE CONTRACTOR CANNOT GO ON TOLERATING OR THE BOARD EITHER. MR. KONTOULAS REPORTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS WRITTEN THE ARCHITECT ABOUT THIS PROBLEM, AND THEY NOW HAVE A NEW MEMBER OF CONNELL, METCALF & EDDY COMING UP HERE, A MR. GRAZIANI. THE FIRST MAN THEY SENT UP HAD A SERIOUS PHYSICAL PROBLEM AND HAD TO LEAVE. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED MR. SNODGRASS FOR A POSSIBLE COMPLETION DATE, MR, SNODGRASS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT TODAY HE WAS FORCED TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE ARCHITECT WITHDRAWING THEIR PROPOSAL ON THE FIRE— WALLS BECAUSE THE VALIDITY OF THEIR PROPOSAL EXPIRED A FEW DAYS AGO; THEY CANNOT MAKE A PROPOSAL THAT CAN BE ACCEPTED JUST ANY TIME SOMEONE GETS AROUND TO IT. HE STATED HE WOULD LIKE A SET PERIOD OF 15 DAYS RESPONSE TIME. AS TO A POSSIBLE COMPLETION DATE, HE BELIEVED THE 47 CONTRACT TIME WAS UP IN JULY, BUT HE NOW WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DELAYED Z TO 3 MONTHS, AND HE WOULD HAZARD A GUESS AT OCTOBER FOR A COMPLETION DATE. HE STATED THAT THEY NOW HAVE THE HARDWARE WHICH THEY DELAYED IN ORDERING BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT TOLD WHAT HARDWARE WAS WANTED. MR. KONTOULAS COMMENTED THAT MR. SNODGRASS HAD TO WORK ON HIS PROPOSAL REGARDING THE FIREWALLS OVER THREE WEEKS AND NOW IS ONLY ALLOWING US 15 DAYS TO RESPOND, WHICH HE DID NOT FEEL WAS ADEQUATE. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO HOW WE CAN BEST AVOID THESE DELAYS IN GETTING CHANGE ORDERS THROUGH. MR. SNODGRESS COMMENTED THAT THE ARCHITECT PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN SENDING A REPRESENTATIVE UP MORE FREQUENTLY, MR. KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT THEY FIRST INITIATED THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT TO SEND A REPRESENTATIVE UP HERE THREE DAYS A WEEK, BUT WHEN THEY FELT THEY WERE OVER THE HUMP, THEY CUT THIS DOWN TO TWO DAYS AND THEN TO ONE DAY PER WEEK. NOW, HOWEVER, SOME OTHER THINGS HAVE DEVELOPED, BUT MR. KONTOULAS STILL FELT THAT HAVING MR. GRAZIANI COME UP ONE DAY A WEEK WAS SUFFICIENT. HE NOTED THAT THE CHARGE FOR HIS SERVICES IS $300 PER DAY, OR $900 PER WEEK FOR THREE DAYS. DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO THE NEED FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE TO BE HERE MORE FREQUENTLY TO SHORTEN DELAY IN RESPONSE TIMES, AND THE COST FOR HIS SERVICES AS OPPOSED TO ALL RELATED COSTS, I.E., OUTSIDE LEASES, TELEPHONE EXPENSE, THE CONTRACTOR'S OVERHEAD EXPENSES FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS, ETC. THE CHAIRMAN FAVORED HAVING THE ARCHITECT S REPRESENTATIVE AVAILABLE MORE FREQUENTLY. MR. KONTOULAS DISCUSSED DELAYS AS RELATED TO THE SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETINGS, AND IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE BOARD HAS AGREED THAT THEY WILL MEET ANY TIME NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH CHANGE ORDERS. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING THE COMPLEX PROBLEM OF COSTLY DELAYS, AND INTERESTED CITIZEN, WILLIAM KOOLAGE, URGED THAT THE BOARD CHECK FURTHER INTO THE COSTS PER DAY FOR THE HIRING OF A MAN FROM THE ARCHITECT S OFFICE TO WORK ON SITE SEVERAL DAYS A WEEK AS OPPOSED TO THE COST OF THE DELAYS CAUSED BY NOT HAVING HIM ON THE JOB. m FEB 251991 80014. �g PAGES$8- L F E B 25 1981 800f � 45 PACE 889 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT IT MIGHT ENHANCE OUR POSITION FOR THE ATTORNEY TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE ARCHITECT ABOUT THEIR SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT AND HAVING A MAN UP HERE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0. 15 - COUNTY ADMINISTRATIoU BUILDING IN THE AMOUNT,OF $1,084.301 WITH THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER, THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. CHANGE CANNEX 0 ARCHITECT ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD E)OTHER AIA DOCUMENT 0701 THE PROJECT: Indian River County (name, addresseoun t y Administration Bldg TO (Contractor) (— Reinhold Construction Inc P.O. Box 666 Cocoa, Fl. 32922 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 15(f if teen) ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9363 CONTRACT FOR: Additions & Renovations I CONTRACT DATE: April 2, 1980 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: Provide new Hol low metal door and frame, label "B" at entance to room (Door N-154) N-157. Provide new hollow metal door and frame -label "A" at North wall of Corridor S-132. ( Door S-160) $1,084.30 The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time required beyond the contract completion date. Additional time will be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The contractor will be paid for the additional required days at a rate of $300.00 (Three Hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are reflected in the attached back-up material. The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . ... . . $ 2, 748, 000, 00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . g 205,475.23 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . .S 2,953,475.23 The Contract Sum will be (increased) ( "J) by this Change Order . . . $ 1,084.30 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . $2,954,559.53 The Contract Time will be (' (unchanged) by Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is _Connell. Metcalf S' Eddy Reinhold_�onstru�tion�n� Indian Riy r ARCHITECT 1320 S. Dixie Hiway CONTRACTOR P�0. BOX 666 pW�-t--COUPty ara}-Gabfies t 3134 �Ve 14th Ave Address � � Address �tiCt7a,"-ft�'32g27--- dress Vel—B`ta��,�1`-32�60 Y�� DATE V z G f By DATE : �- "Z •— :2k- DATE AIA D ENT C711 - CHANCE ORDER - APRIL 1970 EDITION - AIAS - 0 1970 THE AMERICAN I�NSTI UTE Of ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE.. NW, WASHINGTON, D.C.•20006 ONE PACE 50 800F 4c . PACE S90 FEB 251981 _I F E B 25 1981 Boox 45 PAGE 891 AUTHORIZATION TO RESUBMIT PRE -APPLICATION ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - 1981 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ED REGAN CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO URGE APPROVAL OF RESUBMISSION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PRE -APPLICATION AS EXPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO FROM CHAIRMAN LYONS.: Chairman Vice Chairman PATRICK S. LYONS WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR. A. GROVER FLETCHER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. District 2 District 4 District 1 District 3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 NEIL A. NELSON - County Administrator Lawyers Title Building 2345 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 562-4186 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Pat Lyons, Chairman DICK BIRD District 5 Secretary to Board Telephone: (305) 569-1940 February 16, 1981 SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Pre -application FY 1981 Attached is a memorandum dated February 10, 1981 from Edward J. Regan indicating that we nearly got the gold ring this time around on the merry-go-round. They tell us that if we will re- submit with some changes and some additional data they will put another gold ring in the machine and let us take one more grab at it. The re -submission must be done by June 1, 1981, and will cost us about $6,500. This is in addition to the approximately $12,000 we have spent in the last three previous submissions. The new submission will be for about one-third of the amount of the orig- inal submission and will represent a one-year program as compared to a three-year program. The understanding is that if we operate successfully they will look favorably on funding for additional years. We will need a HAP (Housing Assistance Plan) and a finalized full application. The services of a consultant are required in order to meet the time constraint. It is my recommendation that we find ways to fund this prog- ram since we have spent so much money already, and we do have for the first time a recognizably favorable response from HUD. MR. REGAN FELT THAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO DO THE HAP (HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN) EVEN IF THE CHANCE FOR RE -SUBMISSION WERE NOT OFFERED TO US. THE WORK THE HAP WOULD REQUIRE WOULD AMOUNT TO ABOUT $4,000 WORTH OF EFFORT, WHILE THE RESUBMISSION APPLICATION IS ROUGHLY ABOUT $2,500 WORTH OF EFFORT, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT BASICALLY, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE FOR RESUBMISSION IS $2,500 AND NOT $6,500, AND MR. REGAN STATED THAT HE VIEWED THE HAP AND THE RESUBMISSION AS ONE EFFORT, AND THE $6,500 IS NEEDED TO STAY IN THE BALLGAME. MR. REGAN COMMENTED THAT THE INQUIRIES MADE BY SENATOR LAWTON CHILES, SENATOR PAULA HAWKINS, AND REPRESENTATIVE BAFALIS, HAD BEEN A GREAT HELP IN DRAWING ATTENTION TO OUR APPLICATION, AND HE NOW WAS REQUEST- ING A MOTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BE AUTHORIZED TO COORDINATE A SUBMISSION TO HUD OF A HAP AND A FINALIZED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FOR 1981, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $6,500, INCLUDING EXPENDITURES FOR CONSULTING SERVICES, COMMISSIONER BIRD NOTED THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED THREE PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS AT AN EXPENDITURE OF ABOUT $12,000, AND WISHED TO KNOW WHAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE NEW SUBMISSION THAT WILL COST AN ADDITIONAL $6,500 AND WHY WE CANNOT DO THIS IN-HOUSE. MR. REGAN STATED WE ARE TALKING ABOUT $2,500 WORTH OF WORK ON THE APPLICATION; THE BULK OF THE COST IS IN THE HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN. HE THEN WENT INTO FIGURES IN REGARD TO HOUSING THE COUNTY THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND FELT THE FIGURES WE DO HAVE ARE REASONABLY ACCURATE. CHAIRMAN LYONS QUESTIONED WHY WE HAVE TO SPEND MONEY ON THE HAP IF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IS REASONABLY ACCURATE, AND MR, REGAN STATED THAT EVERY THREE YEARS A PLAN EXPIRES, AND OURS IS ABOUT TO. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THE FIGURES MR, REGAN IS USING PRESENTLY ARE BASED ON THE 1970 CENSUS AS MODIFIED, AND WE WILL GET THE 1980 CENSUS FIGURES IN APRIL; WE WERE PREVIOUSLY FUNDED IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND HAVE ALL THIS INFORMA- TION; S0, WHY CAN'T WE JUST UPDATE THIS INFORMATION ON A LOCAL BASIS. 52 80011 .45 pmt'892 FEB 25 1981 F E B 25 1981 o 4: SAGE 83 PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THAT THE CENSUS MATERIAL IS COLLECTED ON A SUPPOSEDLY SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF A PARTIAL SURVEY. THE HAP IS A MUCH MORE IN-DEPTH IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC PROBLEMS WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE YOU TO GO OUT IN THE FIELD, HOUSE TO HOUSE, AND SHOW ACTUAL PICTURES. QUESTIONS CONTINUED AS TO WHY THIS WORK CANNOT BE HANDLED IN-HOUSE. IT WAS NOTED THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IS OFFERING THEIR ASSISTANCE. CHAIRMAN LYONS BELIEVED THE HOUSING AUTHORITY CAN DO THE APPLICATION FOR RESUBMISSION, BUT THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH LABOR AVAILABLE TO DO THE HAP, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT THE HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN APPARENTLY IS NEEDED TO CONTINUE WITH OUR O.N-GOING OPERATION WHILE THE $2,50O APPLIES ONLY TO THE COST OF RESUBMISSION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRE -APPLICATION; HE WAS OF THE OPINION WE ARE JUST GAMBLING ON GETTING ANY MORE MONEY FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND HE DID NOT FEEL THE LETTER WE HAVE RECEIVED IS PARTICULARLY ENCOURAGING. CHAIRMAN LYONS POINTED OUT THAT IT IS THE MOST ENCOURAGING LETTER WE HAVE RECEIVED TO DATE. MR. REGAN EXPLAINED THAT WHAT WE HAVE EFFECTIVELY DONE IS LET HUD KNOW THAT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IS HERE; WE ARE A SMALL COUNTY, ONLY 60,OW PEOPLE, AND IT IS HARD TO GET THE MONEY, WE HAVE, HOWEVER, GOTTEN OTHER FUNDS - SECTION S HOUSING ASSISTANCE, ETC.- AND NOT TO STAY IN THERE AND LET THEM KNOW WE ARE FIGHTING HARD FOR THESE FUNDS WOULD BE A GRIEVOUS ERROR. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY NEEDING THE HAP IN ORDER TO KEEP OPERATIVE, AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THAT A PORTION OF THE COST OF THE PLAN SHOULD BE CHARGEABLE TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IN THE FORM OF A LOAN. MR. REGAN POINTED OUT THAT IF WE - SHOULD GET A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT, THE TOTAL COSTS ARE REFUNDABLE AGAINST THE GRANT. COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM, AND FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON STATED THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A TRANSFER FROM ONE OF THE RESERVE ACCOUNTS TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY OPERATING ON BORROWED MONEY. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE VIEWS THIS VYING FOR FUNDS AS A GAMBLE THAT IS CONTINUING WHEN THE GAME ACTUALLY HAS ENDED, MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR FUNDS AS REQUESTED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND, COMMISSIONER WODTKE REVIEWED THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROGRAM AND THE VERY WORTHWHILE THINGS WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO WITH THOSE FUNDS IN AN AREA THAT BADLY NEEDED ATTENTION WE COULD NOT HAVE AFFORDED OTHERWISE, HE NOTED THAT OUR TRACK RECORD IN THE UTILIZATION OF THESE FUNDS IS OUTSTANDING IN THE UNITED STATES AS A WHOLE, AND HE, THEREFORE, COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS, HE DID NOT WISH TO GIVE UP THE PROGRAM AT THIS POINT, BUT IF WE CANNOT GET FUNDED THIS TIME, HE DID NOT WISH TO KEEP ON SPENDING MONEY FOR APPLICATIONS, MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, TO APPROVE THE AUTHORIZATION OF $6,500 FOR RESUBMIS- SION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PRE -APPLICATION AND THE HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN AS EXPLAINED IN CHAIRMAN LYONS' MEMO OF FEBRUARY 16, 1981; THE FUNDS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCY AND TRANSFERRED TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY AND $4,000 OF THIS AMOUNT TO BE IN THE FORM OF A LOAN IF THESE FUNDS DO NOT QUALIFY AS A REIMBURSABLE ITEM UNDER THE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, MR. REGAN STATED THERE IS NO''PROVISION IN THE HOUSING AUTHOR- ITY BUDGET FOR SUCH A LOAN, AND HE WOULD NEED THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD APPROVAL BEFORE MAKING SUCH A COMMITMENT, ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT IT ACTUALLY IS THE COUNTY MAKING THE APPLICATION, NOT THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND HE FELT THIS IS THE COUNTY'S PAYMENT. FINANCE OFFICER BARTON REPORTED THAT WE SET THE HOUSING AUTHORITY UP AS A SEPARATE DEPARTMENT WITHIN OUR FUNDING ON TOTAL HOUSING AND TRANSFERRED MONEY TO THEM TO DO THE PROJECT FOR THE BOARD, WE HAVE ALSO LENT THEM MONEY. CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT THEY ARE OUR AGENT IN THIS INSTANCE, AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED HE DELIBERATELY SEPARATED OUT THE $4,000 54 FEB 25 1981 BOCK 45 `PAGE`$4� I _I FEB 25191 coax 45 PhGE 895 FOR THE HAP BECAUSE HE UNDERSTOOD THE HOUSING AUTHORITY HAS TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION WHETHER WE GO WITH THE GRANT OR NOT. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER NOTED THAT THE HAP IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WILL BOLSTER THE HOUSING ELEMENT. SINCE PLANNING HAS A FUND THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO OUTSIDE HELP, HE FELT POSSIBLY PART OF THE NEEDED FUNDS COULD BE DERIVED FROM THAT SOURCE BECAUSE THIS IS A DIRECT INPUT INTO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S WORK. CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT WE COULD GO ALONG WITH THE MOTION AS PRESENTLY WORDED, AND IF DESIRABLE, IT COULD BE AMENDED AT A LATER DATE. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. FIRE DISTRICT MEETINGS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT 4:05 O'CLOCK P.M. SO THAT THE DISTRICT BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MIGHT CONVENE. MINUTES OF THE MEETING WILL BE PREPARED SEPARATELY. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECONVENED AT 4:12 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT AND IMMEDIATELY RECESSED IN ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE NORTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MIGHT CONVENE. MINUTES OF THE MEETING WILL.BE PREPARED SEPARATELY. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER RECONVENED AT 4:20 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT. REPORT ON CHANGE PROPOSAL RE FIREWALLS - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BLDG, CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE KONTOULAS REPORTED THAT HE HAD CALLED THE ARCHITECT IN RE CHANGE PROPOSAL 37A INVOLVING THE FIREWALLS, AND THE ARCHITECT HAS SOME QUESTION ON $20,000 FOR CEILINGS, WHICH HE BELIEVED INCLUDED ELECTRICAL COSTS THAT SHOULD NOT BE IN THERE. HE IS WRITING THE CONTRACTOR THAT WE OBJECT TO THESE ITEMS AND THEY SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED BID #79, WHICH INVOLVES THE OFFICE FURNISHINGS FOR THE CLERK OF COURT AS OUTLINED AND AUTHORIZED AT THE MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 1981, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,262.37. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE BIDS WERE REVIEWED AGAINST THE FLORIDA STATE CONTRACT, AND EVERY ITEM THAT WAS BID AS SPECIFIED FLORIDA STATE CONTRACT IS CHEAPER. THEY ARE, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDING THE FURNISHINGS BE PURCHASED USING THE FLORIDA STATE CONTRACTS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE ADMINISTRATORS RECOM- MENDATION IN REGARD TO BID #79 AND AUTHORIZED THE PURCHASE OF THE SPECIFIED FURNISHINGS FOR THE CLERK OF COURT FROM THE FLORIDA STATE CONTRACTS AT AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THAT PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED, OR $8,262.37; FUNDING TO BE FROM ACCT. #102-220-519-66.41. Sebastian Business Supply and David Gallup Co. submitted No Bids. Recommend furniture be purchased using State of Florida Contracts. BID #80 - MOBILE STORAGE SYSTEM FOR THE CLERK OF COURT - ROOMS #109, #112, #114. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING BID ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED THE BID BE AWARDED TO LUNDIA, MYERS INDUSTRIES AS THE LOW BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS. HE NOTED THAT THESE BIDS ALSO HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CLERK AND THE FINANCE OFFICER, WHO HELPED IN MAKING THE ANALYSIS. FEB 25 1981 56 BOOK 45'- PAGE 0 ' Halsey- Office Tech -Data Max F1. State Griffith Products Corp. Davis Contract Chair, Stout #330 *141.25 *154.10 *361.30 NB 144.22 Chair, Boling 3721 163.80 *111.90 *152.95 NB 93.04 Desk,Alma 1760-72F 404.95 *410.70 447.95 NB 326.00 Desk,Alma 1762-A 665.61 *565.95 425.95 NB 400.00 Credenza,Alma 1700 -CA -60 253.75 *288.10 295.-95 NB 252.00 Chair,Harter 1630-C 123.95 * 68.65 *115.10 NB 96.95 Desk,Steelcase #330600 NB *537.40 _ 425.95 627.00 342.04 Bookcase, Hale #1160 214.00 NB NB NB 133.00 Sebastian Business Supply and David Gallup Co. submitted No Bids. Recommend furniture be purchased using State of Florida Contracts. BID #80 - MOBILE STORAGE SYSTEM FOR THE CLERK OF COURT - ROOMS #109, #112, #114. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING BID ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED THE BID BE AWARDED TO LUNDIA, MYERS INDUSTRIES AS THE LOW BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS. HE NOTED THAT THESE BIDS ALSO HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CLERK AND THE FINANCE OFFICER, WHO HELPED IN MAKING THE ANALYSIS. FEB 25 1981 56 BOOK 45'- PAGE 0 ' FEB 251981 soap 45 PAGE $9'7 4. Six (6) bid proposals were sent out, five (5) were received. Tech Data Corp. *17,694.00 Fla Business Systems S & L Business Products Lundia,Meyers Industries Newton Seating Company Recommend award to Lundia,Meyers Industries. **14,750.00 ***13,143.00 16,406.07 Low bidder meeting specifications & 20,110.00 requirements * Tech Data Corporation bid "fixed shelving" not mobile. ** Fla Business Systems submitted plans for storage in room A-112 only, they did not submit plans for rooms A-109 and A-114. They submitted storage space for 8820 filing inches at a cost of 1.67 per inch compared to 1.43 cost per inch as submitted by Lundia,Meyers for all rooms. *** S & L Business Products submitted their storage with 8 shelves in height. This in itself is very impractical for clerks to"file and retrieve records,' the clerks would have to use ladders for access to the higher levels. S & L Business Products list in their specifications a maximum weight capacity of their rolling carriages to be,1500 pounds, our files will weigh approximately 1960 pounds per rolling carriage. S & L Business Products has "open ends" storage, therefore we will be unable to lock and secure juvenile records. Lundia, Meyers Industries and Newton Seating Company submitted proposals that meet the clerks requirements. The Lundia system will provide 11,424 inches of filing space with ample growth potential. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COPf',ISSIONFR SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AWARDED BID #80 FOR A MOBILE STORAGE SYSTEM FOR THE CLERK OF COURT — ROOMS #1091 #112, #1141 TO LUNDIA, MYERS INDUSTRIES, INC., AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,406.07, FUNDING TO BE FROM AcCT. #102-220-519-66.41. BID #81 — CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTER, TELLER DOOR AND MALL MOUNTED DESK FOR CLERK OF COURT. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING BID ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED THE BID BE AWARDED TO THE ONLY BIDDER. Bid 1181 - Construction of Counter, Teller Door and Wall Mounted Desk for Clerk of Court. 6 Bid Proposals sent out, 1 received Westgate Cabinet &.Millwork Shop Counter Door/Teller Desk Total Days for delivery - 14 $3757.00 407.00 385.00 $4549.00 Recommend award to only bidder. Westgate Cabinet Shop is an excellent craftsman. This company did the majority of all cabinet -type work at Indian River Community College with excellent satisfaction. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AWARDED BID #81 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTER, TELLER DOOR AND WALL MOUNTED DESK FOR THE CLERK OF COURT TO WESTGATE CABINET '& MILLWORK SHOP AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,549; FUNDING TO BE FROM ACCT. #102- 221-519-66,41, ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT BASICALLY THE BOARD HAS BEEN APPRAISED OF THE SITUATION THAT HAS EXISTED ON THE CONTRACT FOR IMPLE- MENTATION DOCUMENTS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, RMBR, AND THEIR SUB -CONTRACTOR, POST, BUCKLEY. THE PLAN- .... .. .. _ . .. NING DIRECTOR HAS BEEN WORKING HARD ON THIS WITH ATTORNEY SOVIERO, AND THEY HAVE DRAWN AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT PINNING DOWN DATES WHEN THE REQUIRED WORK IS TO BE COMPLETED AND, IF NOT COMPLETED BY THAT DATE, WHAT EVENTS WILL TAKE PLACE. THE ATTORNEY NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE TIME FRAME IS SHORT, HIS OFFICE IS RECOMMENDING EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE PROVISIONS FAVORABLE TO THE COUNTY. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER REPORTED THAT THE TWO CONTRACTORS HAVE SAID THEY CAN MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMENDMENT. THIS IS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT DOLLARS, AND, IN FACT, THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL PENALTY IF THEY DO NOT MEET THE DATE AGREED UPON. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH RMBR ARCHITECT -PLANNERS, INC., AND AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN. FEB 251991 58 900K 40' P�.tE Snus a rEB 251981 45 PAGE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered.into this 25th day of February, 1981, by and between Indian River County, Florida, hereinafter called th_� "County", and RMBR Architects -Planners, Inc., a Florida corporation, 515 Bay Street, Tampa, Florida, hereinafter called the "Contractor", as an amendment to an Agreement dated June 24th, 1980. W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, the County and the Contractor intend to amend that certain Agreement of June 24th, 1980, between the County and the Contractor; and WHEREAS, the County intends that the Contractor perform, to the County's satisfaction, the services set out in Exhibit "A" by not later than February 28th, 1981; and WHEREAS, the Contractor agrees to provide the services and material.-. enumerated in the attached Exhibit "A" by February 28th, 1981, except the , services and materials set out in Phase I of Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree and covenant aE follows: 1. INTEGRATION OF TERMS OF PRIOR AGREEMENT. The parties hereto agree to faithfully perform all material provisions of that certain Agreement dated June 24th, 1980, between the County and the Contractor not in conflict with the amendments herein set forth. 2. CONTRACTOR'S DUTIES. The Contractor shall perform all services set 'forth in the attached Exhibit "A", and further agrees that the produr of these services will be either delivered to the Director of the Plannii-: and Zoning Department, or postmarked by the close of business on Februar- 28th, 1981, except those services and materials set out in Phase I of Exhibit "A". The Contractor further agrees to perform all material prov- sions of that certain Contract dated June 24th, 1980, between the Contra for and the County, not in conflict with provisions of this amendment. 3. DUTIES OF THE COUNTY. The County agrees to faithfully perform all terms of that certain Agreement dated June 24th, 1980, between the County and the Contractor not in conflict with the terms of this amend- ment, and further agrees to pay to the Contractor the sum of. $9,389.45 as partial compensation for materials and services rendered by the Contractor to the County to date under the provisions of. the June 24th, 1980, Agreement. 4. PENALTIES. If the Contractor fails to deliver to the County the materials and services described in Exhibit "A" by the deadline — established'in paragraph 2, the Contractor shall forfeit the sum of $2,500.00 as liquidated damages for the first day that the Contractor fails to deliver the materials and services described in Exhibit "A". The parties further agree that the amount of $700.00 per day shall be deducted from the compensation to the Contractor for ,each successive day after the first day of nondelivery for the failure of the Contractor to deliver the materials and services as described in Exhibit "A". The parties further agree that the sum of $700.00 per day as liquidated damages shall continue through and including march 10th, 1981. 5. REMEDIES. If. the Contractor fails to produce the materials and services described in Exhibit "A" by the close of business on March 10th, 1981, that in addition to the liquidated damages described in paragraph 4, the Contractor agrees to deliver to the County by the close of busin- ess on March 11th, 1981, all materials, notes, and other pertinent data relating to the materials and services described in Exhibit "A". The parties further agree that the provisions of this Amendment to the Agreement may be enforced by injunctive relief or other equitable or legal remedies. 6. INTEGRATED DOCUMENT. This Amendment to the Pgreement is an integrated written document, and any previous agreements not incorporates' herein, and any subsequent amendments or clarifications must be in writing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and Contractor have executed this Amendment to Agreement as of the date first above written. Attest: au Signature C1 Freda Wright, Clerk Name and Title Approved As To Legal Form and Adequacy: Signature Name and Title FEB 251991 -2- Ad0 tP ed 2-25_-81- Indifiver County Florida P ric Bo Lyon:; By: - - Chafrman,' Boa d of Pounty r Commi.ssiont�rs� an River County E1 ori da Name and Title eooK 45 PACE 90'0 FEB 25 1981 Attest: ,C1s�J Signature. G�.g/ Name and Title a 45 , PAGE9U1 RPIBR Architects -Planners, Inc. (Contractor) By: Siqnature UWW 9 -4-AZOA1 P�PFIir.L.yr Name and Title M .. s CONTRACT AMENDMENT SCHEDULE "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Phase I Participation in two (2) public meetings with Planning and Zoning Commission and/or County Commission. A summary memorandum report which addresses the items regarding the plan, listed below: - Continuity of policy structure and internal consistency - Compliance with L.G.C.P.*A. requirements Economic implications - Relationship of plan concepts to regulatory codes and other imple- mentation considerations Phase II Evaluation and Revision The basic purposes of this phase will be to evaluate the degree of compliance between the Comprehensive Plan and several specific development codes which are either adopted or being considered by the County and to draft recommended revisions. Although the recommended code revisions may be substantial in scope, a concerted effort will be made to utilize all portions of existing codes that have gained acceptance in County regulatory operations. The specific codes to be included in this phase are as follows: 1) Zoning, except zoning district maps; 2) Subdivision regulations; 3) Site planning regulations; 4) Landscaping regulations; 5) Tree ordinance 6) Mining regulations;,and 7) Land clearing regulations. The results of the evaluation and review will be utilized in the process of setting the concepts and organizing the proposed revisions and development of new ordinances. This is a key part of this phase because it delineates the scope and form of the revisions and additions before investing time into the writing effort. County input into this phase will be accomplished through public work- shop meetings. BOOK : ` 45 PAGE 902' FEB 251981 Fr- -FEB 25 1991 8009 45 wf 903 Based upon conceptual approval by the County of the review and evaluation findings, identifying general concepts and courses of action necessary to meet stated policies in the elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the.consultant will. prepare a draft of the development and land alteration codes specified above in 1 through 7. This may include revisions of substantial technical content and administrative procedures or creation of entirely new code documents. The following will receive major attention in these products: 1) Density and land use parameters in zoning classifications which will be consistent with density and land use provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) Design review standards and procedures for site plans, subdivisions, planned unit developments, and designated special uses; 3) Regulation of and technical standards for those activities that result in fundamental alteration of land resources during the development process, i.e. land clearing, mining, landscaping, tree removal; and 4) Organization and presentation of development codes for clarity and efficient use. Legal Services. All legal research, opinions and review of legal sufficiency pertaining to the revisions of the enumerated development codes will be provided by Indian River County at no cost to the consultant. DEDiCATIO OF WABAsso BEACH PARK - RESOLUTION 81-11 ON POTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 8I-11 DEDICATING WABASSO BEACH PARK PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC RECREATION AREA IN PERPETUITY. RESOLUTION NO. 81- 11 A RESOLUTION DEDICATING THE WABASSO BEACH PARK PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC PARK TO BE MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY AS A PUBLIC RECREATION AREA. WHEREAS, Indian River County and the Department of Natural Resources'of the State of Florida executed a Development Agreement on July 1, 1980, pursuant to the Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program; and WHEREAS, the County by the execution of the Development Agreement agreed to dedicate to the public in perpetuity as a recreation area available to the general public for recreational purposes only the land described in Exhibit A, said land commonly being referred to as the Wabasso Beach Park property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Wabasso Beach Park property, more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, is hereby dedicated to the public in perpetuity as a recreation area available to the general public for recrea- tional purposes only. �)JJ'4 A.�' 4BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �f� OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Witn s Attest: Freda Wright Clerk of Circuit Court Adopted 2-25-.81 FEB 25 1981 Patrick B. hyo Chairman ®ooh 45 mcf.904 � Fp- -fEB 251981 v= N=4- E!W� i I MOM* PAEZCE.L- N=' 1- LOT 10 , gLOCIC. p, 5U/A/AEQPLpCE Wla-1, PLAT'1`3004C G, PAGG5CO, INol4A! 2{VrciLj . COUI.IT`(,1=LO2106 PA2CEL t^,Ia z - PAQV- & a E A . •3LOC14- U/AG\EQPL&CE. KI It PLAT5004L G, P4GE 5 r-, IMr) 14KI 0-IVEa PaQCE1- Na 3 "(5EGINNINC !NT A POINT wwtCH 15 24(0.25 FEET E4FjT OF T4 -4E NOQ,TLIWE5T COQ.I.tert of-•-- C-OVEIZI.4/.,EF.IT LOT I, SECTION 2(0, TO\VQ5"iP 31 '50LJ , RAMC -E 39 E•aST, At.ltJ ?-5 FEET - NO2.TH OF T4 -!E t.10M-r" LINE OG bAtD LOT I., TWEWCE Eo5T z.3t.35 t=EET To -rwr- WtG-W -- \V4-reCL LINE OF THE &-rLANTtC OCEAN ; THENCE "0(L -r SaA- ( ALONG 64tr) HIGH %PATER. LINE 1115.4 FEEE-r; THENCE. NOebrr, PACi4LLEl.. TO THE NORTH OF 5&%r) LOT I, A g1tjTANCB_ OP 403.5 FEET; TF"tEIJCE JOLITH tOrj•O FEET TO THE POIt.IT OF P,EC-INNIIJC *1 COAITAINIRJC .. orJE H4LF 13EthlE 4 FL'>2TtOtJ of GOVERN/AEIJT LOT (o, IN SECTION 23,TO\VN5NIP 3t So uTH, rzANCE 39 6Ab'r; PARCEL K124 r9 £{-Iti4A 1414C- 4T d POmj-r wwcu-4 I�j 31 b•`� FE1=T E�°jT OF TUE NOt2TH\VEjY GORNEQ Oc QO\[EQN' /KENT LOT 1, 6EGTlOt.4 2Cv,T0\val �j4-11P 34 bOUTH, ¢SNC -E 55 F4,y 4'\lr) 25• SET 5c>LrrW OK TbtE MOQTI-1 LINE OF'S�It� LOT 1;-rWP-WCE *6,5T p&UALL£.L TO THE NOGL 14 LI,JE OF LOT l 1165.5- FEET To T1 -IE L 1ej \v[-rF_ix LINE OF TWE 4TL614TIC O-eAQ; THENCE.. fjOUTIIEt.'LLw( ALOw1C SA,q HIC.t•1 \V&TE2 LIME NfjOU-r 115.4 P4QALL EL TO THE. NORTH (-•IAiF= OF bdlo LOT 1, A 015TA10CE OF As30UT [.51.35 FEEr; rHatoce NO2TH 105.0, FEET TO-rwtE POINT OF gEc-INI.tIw.Ic, cO"-r4lQt+.LG ouE i`4&LF 4C:LE'- NOTE: DESCQIPTIONt) 5140\\!N IN QUOTATION ^4r2V5 OE110TE OQICII.IAL tLECOQQ PEED rEc�GtZIPTIONj St1PPLIED g'( 1wDl&" cL,vE¢ cOuNT (,AN.( \/AQIATtoN 9E'\NMF CALL r)TO TwF- /AF -4N HIC-I-t\V6Tea LINE OF THE A'iLANTIc OCEAN &JJ0 T"F' ExIyT'WC- DII&EN51Ow1y To -"LIE /hEAN HtGt-4\vATEQ LINE OF THE ATLANTIC oc.E4hl ARE NO\V crjwl.SIDE¢4tjLY G2EATE.2 OUc TO+I'-11F-TING OF �jHOGt_ELIIJE. CErZTl E lC4T lQ"' J.oA jN I -10\\/4&¢J7 TSO HE2Et3`! CE2TlFY TWAT I G!h 4 guL�! LICEIJjEf) ANr) PRACTICttJC 1-41Jp 5UIZVMyom tlj TWE t)T4TE OF FLOMID4 AND THAT UNDE2 /Ay 5UPE1zvlt>t OtJ AN 4CTU4L SUQv" \VA'5 14,4t7E. PER 4(joVET OF 6C9_ 14WD 145 A T2UE nwa) CORQECT 2EP2E jFNTATION OF TLJ )_ PROPE 2TY, LANnS TWO\vti HE2EON \vE2E NOT dgjTCL 4CTED FO2 At7 PtTtot.lbl.. QtC-HTj•oC• \v AY AND(OR E4g Etti>=,NTS. THEII.E a¢� nto VtSIaJL.E EA1ct20dU-1 ��l.Et.lT'�j AcILO••fj TL1C,"! P4pPE2TY t_INEt) 4t, bHb.V LJ, EXGE PT 4'y St•10\vN owl gd1O C.E[ZTt C'IC6T E. Iw.1 \Y 1T w.1Ej, \vuEQ.EOF 1 L14VE. uE2EtJ1JT0 exac JTEfJ THIS cctZTtFICATE .T.utS ��-" 04Y OFlwpRc,..t, I�J80, 1'jEINC TLtE GATE �'y 0,t= -r"C C OATE 0410 JUIZV" ",4&5 In4D6. NOTE 0o, -IA Ho\ve1�J FLA. 2.L.!.. Nt 2HO�J ELEv�TtOnIS ryA)ED C>-1 0EPoa' kA,.MtjT or NaTuQAL I2E5ouCMe5 ¢ANG-P- Pt2./!\, Na, 40 EL[VpTt01.413 1 .:Y \ 4a Exhibit_ ' }` A 1 I MOM* PAEZCE.L- N=' 1- LOT 10 , gLOCIC. p, 5U/A/AEQPLpCE Wla-1, PLAT'1`3004C G, PAGG5CO, INol4A! 2{VrciLj . COUI.IT`(,1=LO2106 PA2CEL t^,Ia z - PAQV- & a E A . •3LOC14- U/AG\EQPL&CE. KI It PLAT5004L G, P4GE 5 r-, IMr) 14KI 0-IVEa PaQCE1- Na 3 "(5EGINNINC !NT A POINT wwtCH 15 24(0.25 FEET E4FjT OF T4 -4E NOQ,TLIWE5T COQ.I.tert of-•-- C-OVEIZI.4/.,EF.IT LOT I, SECTION 2(0, TO\VQ5"iP 31 '50LJ , RAMC -E 39 E•aST, At.ltJ ?-5 FEET - NO2.TH OF T4 -!E t.10M-r" LINE OG bAtD LOT I., TWEWCE Eo5T z.3t.35 t=EET To -rwr- WtG-W -- \V4-reCL LINE OF THE &-rLANTtC OCEAN ; THENCE "0(L -r SaA- ( ALONG 64tr) HIGH %PATER. LINE 1115.4 FEEE-r; THENCE. NOebrr, PACi4LLEl.. TO THE NORTH OF 5&%r) LOT I, A g1tjTANCB_ OP 403.5 FEET; TF"tEIJCE JOLITH tOrj•O FEET TO THE POIt.IT OF P,EC-INNIIJC *1 COAITAINIRJC .. orJE H4LF 13EthlE 4 FL'>2TtOtJ of GOVERN/AEIJT LOT (o, IN SECTION 23,TO\VN5NIP 3t So uTH, rzANCE 39 6Ab'r; PARCEL K124 r9 £{-Iti4A 1414C- 4T d POmj-r wwcu-4 I�j 31 b•`� FE1=T E�°jT OF TUE NOt2TH\VEjY GORNEQ Oc QO\[EQN' /KENT LOT 1, 6EGTlOt.4 2Cv,T0\val �j4-11P 34 bOUTH, ¢SNC -E 55 F4,y 4'\lr) 25• SET 5c>LrrW OK TbtE MOQTI-1 LINE OF'S�It� LOT 1;-rWP-WCE *6,5T p&UALL£.L TO THE NOGL 14 LI,JE OF LOT l 1165.5- FEET To T1 -IE L 1ej \v[-rF_ix LINE OF TWE 4TL614TIC O-eAQ; THENCE.. fjOUTIIEt.'LLw( ALOw1C SA,q HIC.t•1 \V&TE2 LIME NfjOU-r 115.4 P4QALL EL TO THE. NORTH (-•IAiF= OF bdlo LOT 1, A 015TA10CE OF As30UT [.51.35 FEEr; rHatoce NO2TH 105.0, FEET TO-rwtE POINT OF gEc-INI.tIw.Ic, cO"-r4lQt+.LG ouE i`4&LF 4C:LE'- NOTE: DESCQIPTIONt) 5140\\!N IN QUOTATION ^4r2V5 OE110TE OQICII.IAL tLECOQQ PEED rEc�GtZIPTIONj St1PPLIED g'( 1wDl&" cL,vE¢ cOuNT (,AN.( \/AQIATtoN 9E'\NMF CALL r)TO TwF- /AF -4N HIC-I-t\V6Tea LINE OF THE A'iLANTIc OCEAN &JJ0 T"F' ExIyT'WC- DII&EN51Ow1y To -"LIE /hEAN HtGt-4\vATEQ LINE OF THE ATLANTIC oc.E4hl ARE NO\V crjwl.SIDE¢4tjLY G2EATE.2 OUc TO+I'-11F-TING OF �jHOGt_ELIIJE. CErZTl E lC4T lQ"' J.oA jN I -10\\/4&¢J7 TSO HE2Et3`! CE2TlFY TWAT I G!h 4 guL�! LICEIJjEf) ANr) PRACTICttJC 1-41Jp 5UIZVMyom tlj TWE t)T4TE OF FLOMID4 AND THAT UNDE2 /Ay 5UPE1zvlt>t OtJ AN 4CTU4L SUQv" \VA'5 14,4t7E. PER 4(joVET OF 6C9_ 14WD 145 A T2UE nwa) CORQECT 2EP2E jFNTATION OF TLJ )_ PROPE 2TY, LANnS TWO\vti HE2EON \vE2E NOT dgjTCL 4CTED FO2 At7 PtTtot.lbl.. QtC-HTj•oC• \v AY AND(OR E4g Etti>=,NTS. THEII.E a¢� nto VtSIaJL.E EA1ct20dU-1 ��l.Et.lT'�j AcILO••fj TL1C,"! P4pPE2TY t_INEt) 4t, bHb.V LJ, EXGE PT 4'y St•10\vN owl gd1O C.E[ZTt C'IC6T E. Iw.1 \Y 1T w.1Ej, \vuEQ.EOF 1 L14VE. uE2EtJ1JT0 exac JTEfJ THIS cctZTtFICATE .T.utS ��-" 04Y OFlwpRc,..t, I�J80, 1'jEINC TLtE GATE �'y 0,t= -r"C C OATE 0410 JUIZV" ",4&5 In4D6. NOTE 0o, -IA Ho\ve1�J FLA. 2.L.!.. Nt 2HO�J ELEv�TtOnIS ryA)ED C>-1 0EPoa' kA,.MtjT or NaTuQAL I2E5ouCMe5 ¢ANG-P- Pt2./!\, Na, 40 EL[VpTt01.413 1 .:Y \ 4a Exhibit_ ' }` A �J AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO COUNTY CODE RE LIMITATIONS FORINSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANKS ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT BASICALLY WHAT HE HAS DONE IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS COMPILE THE COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS COUNTY AGENCIES REGARDING A LIMITATION OF 4 UNITS PER ACRE ON SEPTIC TANKS IN AN EFFORT TO CLEAR UP SECTION 24-42 OF THE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES WHERE THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME AMBIGUITY. HE WISHED TO HAVE AUTHORITY TO ADVERTISE. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER BIRD, TO AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING TO CLARIFY SECTION 24-42 AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE FOUND THE PRESENT WORDING IN THIS SECTION CLEAR AND HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THE WORDING IN THE DRAFT. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE WILL BE GLAD TO HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS TO COMPILE IN THE FINAL DRAFT. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REPORT ON PLANNING & ZONING WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18TH IN ANSWER TO COMMISSIONER BIRD'S INQUIRY ABOUT A LETTER FROM CAROLYN EGGERT, CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMIS- SION HELD A WORKSHOP MEETING ON FEBRUARY 28TH AT WHICH VARIOUS GROUPS WHO HAVE BEEN VOCALLY CRITICIZING DENSITY WERE PRESENT. HE STATED THAT THEY DEFINITELY INTEND TO LOOK INTO THE DENSITY SITUATION ONE MORE TIME BEFORE WE GO TO A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION FOR TRACKING STATION RECREATIONAL AREA - RESOLUTION 81-12 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THIS:!GRANT APPLICATION IS INTENDED TO DEVELOP THAT PORTION OF THE TRACKING STATION PROPERTY WHICH WOULD ABUT FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY'S AREA, HE FELT MOST OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE SEEN THE BASIC PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES GAZEBOS, DUNE CROSSINGS, PARKING, ETC, THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COST IS FEB 251981 sG 45 pkcE 906 FEB 25 1981 am 45 .put 90'7 $269,000; THE STATE WILL.GIVE US A GRANT OF $179,466; AND WE WILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH $89,534. THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT BASICALLY WHAT HE IS ASKING FOR IS APPROVAL OF SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION, APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR THE COUNTY'S 1/3 SHARE, AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY ENGINEER TO ACT AS LIAISON AGENT, AND ALSO ADOPTION OF THE REQUIRED RESOLUTION. ADMINISTRATQR NELSON CONTINUED THATTHE PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED IS ONLY A CONCEPTUAL PLAN, NOT A FINALIZED PLAN, WHICH WILL, OF COURSE, HAVE TO BE DONE IN MORE INTRICATE DETAIL. THIS IS THE SAME WAY IT WAS HANDLED FOR THE WABASSO BEACH PARK AREA. COORDINATOR THOMAS EXPLAINED THAT THE TIME ELEMENT AGAIN NECESSITATES THIS, AND FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON WILL HAND DELIVER THE GRANT APPLICATION TO TALLAHASSEE, IF APPROVED, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO 1 VOTE, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION, APPROVED SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION AS DESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES REQUESTING A $179,466 GRANT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO 1 VOTE, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION, ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-12 CONFIRMING THE INTENT TO APPLY FOR THE ABOVE.GRANT, THE INTENT TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, AND DESIGNATING NAMES DAVIS, COUNTY ENGINEER, AS LIAISON AGENT FOR THE COUNTY. 1' RESOLUTION NO. 91- 12 WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA intends to apply to the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources for a two-for-one (State/Applicant) matching fund grant of $179,466.00, to make sorely needed improvements to the Indian River County Tracking Station.Recreation Areal and WHEREAS, said BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, does retain ownership, jurisdictional control, and maintain said park and facilities; and WHEREAS, continued maintenance and proposed improvements to this public beach park facility will be in the interest of all the citizens of Indian River County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, which was duly est,ablished'by Special Act of the Florida Statutes adopted on the 30th day of June, 1925, that this official document does hereby eertify'the Board of County Commissioners intent and agreement to apply for the above mentioned grant, and addi- tionally to strive to implement the proposed improvements as delineated in the Grant Application to which this Resolution will be attached; AND FURTHER THAT, Mr. James W. Davis, P.E., County Engineer of the Indian River County Engineering Department, 2345 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960, Phone (305) 562-41860 is hereby authorized to be the County Liaison person charged with the responsibility to prepare, plan, and coordinate said application and development programs and BE IM FURTHER RESOLVED that thin Resolution was passed by a vote of to , of the b6mmissioners present® This 25th day of February , 1991. ATTEST: 9 Freda Wright, Cler FEB 25 1981 - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDI R COUNTY, FLORIDA n Boo 45 PAGE 9M$ r E B 25 1981 Boa, 45 Put 909 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED HIS FOLLOWING MEMO: February 16, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator SUBJECT: Beach Restoration Program Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation request to be filed with Federal Government for all projects eligible for 1983 funding in the State of Florida Description and Conditions The last week of February, 1981, is the deadline for filing by the Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation a funding request to the Federal Government for all eligible Beach Restoration projects proposed for construction in the State of Florida during Fiscal Year 1983. The Indian River County Beach Restoration Program as developed and proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, even though not yet completely approved by Congress, does recommend 1983 for possible commencement. The Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation request for funding such projects is one of the preliminary, noncomprehensive steps in the overall procedure. The D.E.R. has requested Counties at this time to make their preliminary needs known. This is a necessary step "to get in line" for Federal Funding considerations. Alternatives and Analysis At this time, this preliminary step is recommended. The City of Vero Beach's consultant in Coastal Engineering, Tom Campbell, P.E., with Arthur V: Strock and Associates, Deerfield Beach, Florida, has brought this to the attention of the city and they, in turn, have notified us of this matter. Since time is of the essence, Arthur V. Strock and Associates has offered to prepare the application to the D.E.R. for submittal by Indian River County. Since this firm is familiar with the needs as addressed by the application and also familiar with the Indian River County Project, they can prepare the application at a lower cost to the citizens of Indian River County than our staff in this short time period. Therefore, at the recommendation of the County Staff, we have instructed Arthur V. Strock and Associates, Consulting Engineers, to proceed in preparing this application to the Florida D.E.R. Approximate cost for preparing the application is $300.00 as quoted by Tom Campbell, P.E. on February 16, 1981. Recommendation and Fundi Critical timing on this matter has necessitated requesting Arthur V. Strock and Associates to proceed in applying to the State of Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation for preliminary 1983 funding considerations to implement the Indian River County Beach Restoration Program. This action in no way obligates the County at this point in time, however, it is merely a preliminary procedure to "get us in line" at this time. We therefore, recommend after the fact approval of the following: JD: rt 1. Authorize the firm of Arthur V. Strock and Associates to prepare an application to the Florida D.E.R. for a request for funding of the Indian River County Beach Restoration Program. 2. Approve funding in the amount of $300.00 for the preparation of the above application. 69 s _ � COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE HAS SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE CONCEPT OF JUST PUMPING SAND ON THE BEACHES, BUT THE PROPOSED ACTION WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE CITY IN THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ACTUALLY ACCEPTING THE PROGRAM, BUT JUST GETTING IN LINE IF WE SHOULD CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE; SO, HE, THEREFORE, WOULD VOTE IN FAVOR. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER BIRD, TO AUTHORIZE THE FIRM OF ARTHUR V. STROCK AND ASSOCIATES, FOR A TOTAL DOLLAR FIGURE NOT TO EXCEED $300, TO PREPARE AND FILE AN APPLICATION TO THE D.E.R. TO REQUEST FUNDING OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACH RESTORATION PROGRAM. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER OBJECTED TO THIS ACTION AS ENCOURAGING THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO CONTINUE "MILKING EVERY DUCK THEY CAN FIND." HE FELT PUMPING SAND ON THE BEACHES IS AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY AND COMMENDED THE GROUP WHO DID THEIR OWN SANDBAGGING BY THE DRIFTWOOD. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE FIRM PREPARING THIS APPLICA- TION IS AN ENGINEERING FIRM, AND IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR THAT THE BOARD IS NOT HIRING AN ENGINEERING FIRM, BUT JUST AUTHORIZING COMPLETION OF A FORM TO BE SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT SINCE THERE ISN'T ANY ACTUAL ENGINEERING, INVOLVED, WE SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF DOING THIS IN-HOUSE. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK POINTED OUT THAT WE ARE ONLY GETTING THIS DONE AT THE $300 PRICE BECAUSE THIS FIRM IS INVOLVED IN DOING THE WORK FOR THE CITY OF VERO BEACH. HE BELIEVED IT WOULD COST US MORE THAN $300 TO DO THE WORK OURSELVES SINCE THEY ARE ALREADY IN THE PROCESS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF THE APPLICATION WOULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR REVIEW BEFORE FILING, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT THE DEADLINE IS THE LAST WEEK IN FEBRUARY. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT OBLIGATE US TO ACCEPT FUNDS OR PARTICI- PATE IN THE PROGRAM. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. FEB 251981 70 90UK 45 Pari 91 FEB 25 1981 n BOOK, 45 PAGE 911 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL — FOREST LAKE-SuBDivisION ADMINISTRATOR NELSON RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AS SET OUT IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTER — OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE:, February 13, 1981 FILE: HMM-00153 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Approval, Forest Lake Subdivision FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: County Administrator Subject subdivision was staffed through the Subdivision Review Committee on February 3, 1981 with tentative recommended approval based upon certain matters being worked out to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. The County Engineer and the developer have met and the matters that were in need of change and/or improvement have been rectified on the proposed preliminary plat. Therefore, under the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance, I recommend that the County Commission approve this preliminary plat as it does now meet the applicable Ordinance. APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR February 25, 1981 Date 7 n BY ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED TENTATIVE APPROVAL TO THE PRE- LIMINARY PLAT OF FOREST LAKE SUBDIVISION AS SUBMITTED. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AS SET OUT IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO, BASED ON THE ATTORNEYS APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION. HE NOTED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN MOST COOPERATIVE IN MEETING ALL OUR DEMANDS. ATTORNEY COLLINS CONFIRMED THAT HE HAS REVIEWED THE SAID CERTIFICATION, AND IT MEETS HIS APPROVAL. MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator SUBJECT: West Lake Park Subdivision, Final Plat Approval Descriptions & Conditions February 16, 1" During the regular scheduled February 11, 1981, meeting of the Board, the above subject Final Plat was not approved since the Certificate of Dedication was not in accordance with Subdivision Regulation 75-3 as stated by the.County Attorney This item has been corrected. The Planning Department, Engineering Division, and County Attorney have reviewed the revised Final Plat and they have no objection to the Final Plat approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Alternatives and Analysis The Registered Land Surveyor -of -Record for the above subject plat is requesting approval for the revised Final Plat. Recommendation and Funding Based upon the recommendations of the staff, we have no objections to the Final Plat approval of West Lake Park. The following recommendations are presented: 1. The approval of West Lake Park Final Plat be placed on the February 25, 1981, regular scheduled meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. 2, The Final Plat of West Lake Park Subdivision be approved. These items have no financial impact upon the budget of Indian River County. } N. A. N. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL TO WEST LAKE PARK SUBDIVISION. it FEB 25 1981 72 BOOK'.; OOK., 45 fAGE 912 F E g 25 1981 .$ 4 �acE 113 KELTON REPORT RE BOARD MEETINGS. AGENDA, MINUTES, ETC. — APPROVED THE BOARD REVIEWED ADMINISTRATOR NELSONS MEMO: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTER — OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Members of DATE: February 5, 1981 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Board Meetings and Agenda FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: Board Workshop & K. & A. Report County Administrator As requested by the Board of County Commissioners at it's workshop session of February 4, 1981, the Administration has reviewed recommendations included in the Kelton Report and workshop comments by members of the Board. We have also reviewed the potential impact of the Board's meeting schedule with the Finance and Planning & Zoning Directors. Based upon the indicated reviews, the Administration submits the following recommendations: I. Regular Board Meetings It is recommended regular meetings of the Board of County Commissioners be set for 8:30 A.M. on the first and third Wednesday of each month, beginning April 1, 1981. Zoning Hearings should be held beginning at 1:30 P.M. on the third Wednesday of each month (second meeting beginning April 15, 1981.) II. Work - Sessions It is recommended that regular Board work -sessions be set for 7:00 P.M. on the second Wednesday of each month. The primary purpose of these work -sessions should be the exploration/discussion of policy matters, goals, objectives and overall planning. Secondary use of work -sessions should provide adequate time for discussion of complex, technical or detailed matters coming before the Board for formal action at a later date. _Additional work -sessions and/or Special Meetings should be called on an "as - needed" basis. III. Agenda Preparation It is recommended the Board accept recommendations of the Kelton Report regarding establishment of a "consent agenda", assignment of Agenda responsibility and authority to the County Administrator, and improvement of staff work and supporting documentation. Along these lines, the Administration has issued appropriate directions and sample agenda item format to all departments. These changes should be effective immediately,.and should quickly become evident in the Agenda Package. IV. Minutes Preparation of the Board's Minutes falls within the jurisdiction of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in her capacity as Ex -Officio Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. Accordingly, the Administration recommends the Board direct the preparation, for the Chairman's signature, of a request to the Clerk, that the Board Minutes be further condensed. Also included within that communication should be a suggestion that the Clerk may wish to investigate the feasibility, productivity improvement and cost of obtaining a word processing unit for minutes preparation and other associated tasks. The Administration believes implementation of the above recommendations, along with improvement in the quality of staff work, should facilitate more effective and productive meetings of the Board of County Commisssioners. The revised procedures will place a greater work load on this office. The full impact of that increased work load can not be determined until full implementation has occurred. It is highly probable that additional personnel will be required and the Administration will monitor the work load impact during implementation and will advise the Board. The Administration requests Board approval of the above recommendations, and direction to proceed accordingly. APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: FOo 'I R ° Dat BY eop COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT IT WAS HIS IMPRESSION THAT, ALTHOUGH THESE WORKSHOP SESSIONS ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE A PUBLIC FORUM, WE WOULD ALLOW SOME INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC AND THESE WOULD NOT BE CLOSED SESSIONS. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS AGREED THAT LIMITED PUBLIC INPUT WOULD BE ALLOWED AND THAT RATHER THAN HAVE A RESTRICTIVE AGENDA, THE WORKSHOP SESSIONS SHOULD REMAIN RELATIVELY UNSTRUCTURED TO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT IT IS THE INTENT TO GO TO DAYTIME WORKSHOP SESSIONS AFTER THE END OF THE SCHOOL YEAR. THE BOARD AGREED WITH THE ADOPTION OF A CONSENT AGENDA FROM WHICH ANY ONE COMMIS- SIONER MAY REMOVE AN ITEM, AND FURTHER CONDENSATION OF THE MINUTES, PLUS CONSIDERATION OF THE�POSSIBLE ADVANTAGES OF ;OBTAINING A WORD PROCESSING UNIT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING ADOPTION OF PROCEDURES SET OUT IN THE KELTON REPORT AND AGREED THAT THE EVENING WORKSHOP SESSIONS WILL MOVE TO DAY- TIME SESSIONS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TOWARDS THE END OF THE SCHOOL YEAR. BOOK ..>. 45 PAGE,914 FEB 251981 74 FEB 251961 800K 45 PAGE 915 DISCUSSION OF REQUEST TO DEED LOTS I & 2, BLOCK 96, FELLSMERE, TO THE SCHOOL BOARD THE HISTORY OF THE ABOVE LOTS AND THE SCHOOL BOARD S REQUEST IS EXPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA w " INTER - OFFICE MEN40RANDUM TO: The Hon. Pat Lyons, Chmn. DATE: 2-13-81 FILE: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Lots 1 & 2, Block 96, Fellsmere FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: County Administrator In response to Jim's letter to you dated February 10, 1981 concerning the subject lots, I submit the following items of information and recommendations: These lots have been before the Board on two previous occasions. The first time, the County had advertised these lots forsale and the then Superintendent of Indian River Schools, Bill McClure, forwarded a letter to the Board dated September 2, 1977, reminding the Commission of a commitment that was made to the School Board. This is the letter that Jim Burns refers to in his letter. The second time this issue was before the Board, Jim Burns requested that the County give the School Board the lots in order that they would be able to trade with the City of Fellsmere for a more desirable school site area. Tommy Thomas recommended to the Board not to give up the lots because they were valuable. Discussion ensued and the final action that was decided was for Commissioner Siebert to contact Jim Burns concerning this issue. We have checked with Jim and Bunny did not contact him concerning this issue. The City of Fellsmere would lose their recreation area in the Washington Square site if they gave the site to the School Board. Fellsmere would not mind giving the Washington Square site to the School Board; however, would need to relocate their recreation area on Lots 1 & 2, Block 96. Joe Suit has offered to make this offer in writing, upon receipt of these lots. They would guarantee that a recreation area would be built on these lots. I would recommend that the County give the lots to the School Board and approve the exchange with the City of Fellsmere. A suggested agenda memo is enclosed. NAN/ep Neil Nelson, Coun�ydmini�strator 75 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE HAS DISCUSSED THIS WITH FELLSMERE RESIDENTS, AND THEY AGREE SUCH AN EXCHANGE OF LOTS WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO FELLSMERE. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INQUIRED IF WE HAVE A SPECIFIC COMMIT- MENT TO THE SCHOOL BOARD ON THESE LOTS, BECAUSE IF WE DO NOT, HE DID NOT KNOW ON WHAT BASIS WE WOULD BE TRANSFERRING THESE LOTS WITH NO COMPENSATION, WHICH HE FELT WOULD SET A PRECEDENT. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPLIED THAT THE RECORDS HAVE BEEN SEARCHE AND NO COMMITMENT CAN BE FOUND OTHER THAN THE STATEMENT OF THE FORMER SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT THAT THE COUNTY HAD PROMISED THEM THOSE LOTS. HE NOTED THAT WE HAVE CONVEYED PROPERTY TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, INCLUDING THE SCHOOL BOARD, ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS. COORDINATOR THOMAS CONCURRED THAT WE HAVE CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH PROPERTY BY THE SUNSHINE CENTER, AND WE HAVE CON- VEYED TO THE DOT AND THEY HAVE CONVEYED TO US. AS TO THE LEGALITY, HE BELIEVED IF THE PROPERTY IS TO BE USED FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE, IT IS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO CONVEY IT. ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED THE BOARD HAS THIS POWER, BUT IT IS THEIR DECISION AS TO WHETHER THEY WISH TO CONVEY WITHOUT ANY COMPENSA- TION. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING THE 15 ACRES FOR THE OSLO SCHOOL SITE WHERE WE ASKED FOR COMPENSATION BECAUSE THE SCHOOL BOARD COULD NOT PAY FOR THE ROAD. DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO WHETHER CONVEYANCE OF THE SAID LOTS WOULD INVOLVE THE COUNTY IN ANY FURTHER LIABILITY OF ANY KIND, I.E., WIDENING OF ROADS, ETC., AND IF S0, WHETHER COMPENSATION SHOULD BE REQUIRED. IT WAS NOTED THESE LOTS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY OF FELLSMERE AT THE MAIN INTERSECTION. THE COORDINATOR INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE ONLY STREET FOR WHICH THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY WOULD BE 512, AND THIS HA§ BEEN COMPLETELY RECONSTRUCTED RECENTLY. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK QUESTIONED WHY WE ARE GETTING INVOLVED IN THIS BARGAINING SITUATION AND WHY WE ARE GIVING AWAY ANYTHING. FEB 25 1981 76 BOOK .45 PAGE 916t, FEB 251981 soon 45 PAc€ 917 CHAIRMAN LYONS AGREED THAT THERE IS A BASIC QUESTION INVOLVED AS TO WHY WE SHOULD.GIVE COUNTY PROPERTY, WHICH HAS VALUE, TO THE SCHOOL BOARD WHICH HAS ITS OWN TAXING AUTHORITY. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER SUGGESTED THAT HE DISCUSS THIS WITH MAYOR SUIT AND GET A LITTLE MORE IN-DEPTH BACKGROUND. HE NOTED THAT HE KNEW OF A RIECE OF PROPERTY IN ROSELAND WHICH THE SCHOOL BOARD OWNS THAT THE COUNTY MIGHT POSSIBLY WANT. CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT IF THE COUNTY COMES OUT WITH A PIECE OF PROPERTY EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WE NOW HAVE, THAT WOULD BE FINE, BUT HE DID NOT FEEL WE SHOULD JUST GIVE THE PROPERTY AWAY TO ANOTHER TAXING BODY. HE ASKED IF THE BOARD WISHED COMMISSIONER FLETCHER TO PURSUE THIS MATTER, AND THEY AGREED THAT THEY DID WISH HIM TO PURSUE IT BECAUSE WHILE WE ARE SYMPATHETIC TO THE SCHOOL BOARDS PROBLEM, MORE ANSWERS ARE NEEDED. COORDINATOR THOMAS NOTED THAT HE HAD OPPOSED GIVING AWAY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT ONE TIME IN THE PAST BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY PIECE OF PROPERTY WE OWN OF ANY CONSEQUENCE IN THE FELLSMERE AREA, AND HE FELT IT COULD PROBABLY HAVE A USE IN THE FUTURE. PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED FOR THE BOARDS COMMENTS ON HIS ROUGH DRAFT OF A RESOLUTION FOR A PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED EXPANDING THE PROPOSED DUTIES OF SUCH A COMMITTEE TO INCLUDE WORKING WITH THE CIVIL DEFENSE OPERATION ON THEIR OVERALL LONG RANGE PLANS AND THEREBY AVOID DUPLICATION. HE NOTED THEY HAVE TO DEVELOP AN EMERGENCY NUCLEAR DISASTER PLAN, HURRI- CAN EVACUATION PLANS, ETC. CHAIRMAN LYONS AGREED THIS WAS A GOOD SUGGESTION AND ALSO FELT THAT SUCH A COMMITTEE WOULD BE A.GOOD GROUP TO TRY TO SOLVE THE 911 PROBLEM. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT CITIZENS COMING TO SUCH A COMMITTEE WITH COMPLAINTS, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE SHERIFF, WHO IS A CONSTITU- TIONAL OFFICER, HAS HIS OWN.GUIDELINES RELATING TO THIS. � � r 77 THE CHAIRMAN REQUESTED THE BOARD MEMBERS TO SUBMIT NAMES TO APPOINT TO THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE AND NOTED THAT THE RESOLUTION CREATING A PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE WILL BE SUBMITTED IN FINAL FORM FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING, APPROVAL OF LETTER IN SUPPORT OF RADAR EQUIPMENT AT VERO BEACH AIRPORT CHAIRMAN LYONS ANNOUNCED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED A LETTER FROM VERO BEACH MAYOR DOFF STATING THAT THE CITY IS WRITING SENATORS CHILES AND HAWKINS IN REGARD TO THE NEED FOR RADAR EQUIPMENT FOR THE VERO BEACH AIRPORT, BOTH BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEM OF DRUG DROPS AT SECLUDED AIRFIELDS IN THE COUNTY AND FOR SAFETY PURPOSES BECAUSE OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF PLANES IN AND OUT OF THE AIRPORT DAILY. MAYOR DOFF IS REQUESTING THAT THE COUNTY WRITE A LETTER SUPPORTING THE NEED FOR THIS EQUIPMENT. THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THIS WAS VERY WORTHWHILE, AND HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE BOARD PERMISSION TO WRITE SUCH A LETTER. COMMISSIONER WODTKE CONCURRED THAT RADAR WOULD BE A WORTHWHILE ACQUISITION. HE COMMENTED THAT RADAR HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR THE AIRPORT FOR SOME TIME, AND IT IS A QUESTION OF FUNDING. HE FELT THEY CERTAINLY QUALIFY AS FAR AS AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC DUE TO THE MANY STUDENT PILOTS WHO MAKE DAILY USE OF THE AIRPORT, AND IT WOULD BE OF GREAT ASSISTANCE TO THE FLYERS, IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS AGREED THAT THE CHAIRMAN WOULD WRITE A LETTER AS REQUESTED, DISCISSION RE COUNTY USE OF CHEMICALS COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REPORTED THAT HE, COMMISSIONER BIRD AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON, ATTENDED THE FEBRUARY 20TH MEETING HELD BY THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN REGARDING THE USE OF THE CHEMICAL 2,4D, AND IT WAS STATED THAT IF IT IS .APPLIED PROPERLY, IT IS ,SAFE. HE NOTED THAT HE IS CONTINUING TO DO RESEARCH ON THIS CHEMICAL AND WOULD RE- QUEST, WITH THE BAORD'S APPROVAL, THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HONOR THE REQUEST OF ANY RESIDENT WHOSE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO ANY DITCHES WHERE CHEMICALS ARE BEING APPLIED, TO HAVE THESE DITCHES EITHER SPRAYED OR NOT SPRAYED. FEB 25 1981 78 BODK, 5 PAGE �18 1FEB 25 1981 Booz 45 NAGE 919 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT ANY TIME SOMEONE SAYS THEY WILL KEEP THEIR DITCH CLEAN AND DOES NOT WISH IT SPRAYED, WE DO NOT SPRAY. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REQUESTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR FORMU- LATE A WRITTEN POLICY SETTING OUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING, STORING AND APPLYING THE CHEMICALS USED IN THE COUNTY BECAUSE THERE IB NONE PRESENTLY. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO WRITE SUCH A POLICY AND HAVE IT ADOPTED, INCLUDING THE POSSIBLE USE OF AN ADVISOR ON A PART TIME BASIS WHO COULD CONSTANTLY REVIEW OUR USE OF CHEMICALS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. DISCUSSION REGARDING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION TO REPLACE RICHARD MCCLEARY COMMISSIONER BIRD NOTED THAT AT THE LAST MEETING, HE HAD RECOMMENDED THE APPOINTMENT OF LARRY HALL TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AS A REPLACEMENT FOR RICHARD MCCLEARY. IT SEEMS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CONTROVERSY HAS ARISEN REGARDING THE SUGGESTED APPOINTMENT OF A REALTOR TO THIS BOARD, EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF LETTERS WRITTEN TO THE EDITORIAL SECTION OF THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER IN OPPOSITION. COMMIS- SIONER BIRD STATED THAT HE STILL FEELS STRONGLY THAT MR. HALL WOULD BE A MOST WORTHWHILE ADDITION TO THAT BOARD AND WOULD AGAIN RECOMMEND HIM IF MR. HALL WERE STILL WILLING TO SERVE, BUT HE NOW HAS RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING LETTER FROM MR, HALL WITHDRAWING HIS NAME: February 25, 1981 Mr. Dick Bird County Commissioners Indian River County Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 Dear Dick: After considerable deliberation I have reached the conclusion that I should withdraw my name from nomination to the Planning and Zoning Board. I regret that my nomination has created the amount of controversy that it has and apologize for any embarrassment to you. In my opinion, the Planning and Zoning Board should represent a cross section of all the citizens of the county and should not be unduly influenced by any special interest groups. I felt that I was a person of integrity, with a tremendous amount of working knowledge of the area and of the function of the Planning and Zoning. I felt it extremely unfair that I be labeled as "Realtor" and bad without the opportunity to express my philosophy and feelings about our county and its future. I do not endorse "high density" or "rapid growth". I chose this community for its unique character and fully intend to do everything in my power to see that the quality of life we enjoy is maintained. I hope you understand that my withdrawal is done with considerable thought and some amount of hurt personal pride at not being given an opportunity to present my views to those bodies opposed to my nomination. I will continue to work to serve this county, as I have done in the past, from a non -official position. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. yours, Hal l COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT HE WILL CONTINUE TO FIND NAMES TO SUBMIT AND FELT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO SEAT SOMEONE ON THIS BOARD AS SHORTLY AS POSSIBLE. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT STRONGLY THAT THE PRESENT PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTMENT TO ALL OF OUR BOARDS IS LACKING. HE SUGGESTED THAT EACH COMMISSIONER SHOULD RECEIVE ALL THE RESUMES SAND CONDUCT PERSONAL INTERVIEWS, WHICH PROCEDURE HE HAD FOUND EFFECTIVE IN HIS PAST GOVERN— MENTAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE CITY; THEY HAVE ALWAYS OPERATED UNDER THAT PROCEDURE, AND HE STRONGLY URGED THAT THE COMMISSION RECONSIDER ITS PRESENT POLICY. 80 Book 45 ?Ac -E -920 FEB 251981 FEB 25 1981 809. 45 pAcE-921 CHAIRMAN LYONS AGREED THERE IS A NEED FOR A CHANGE IN PROCEDURES. COMMISSIONER WODTKE APPRECIATED THE COMMENTS MADE, BUT POINTED OUT THAT THE COUNTY'S SITUATION IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE CITY'S IN THAT THE CITY IS A RELATIVELY CONFINED AREA WHEREAS THE COUNTY IS MUCH MORE SPREAD OUT AND DIVERSIFIED. HE PELIEVED SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS ARE EACH COMMISSIONER'S RESPONSIBILITY AND AN IMPORTANT PREROGATIVE AND POWER, AND HE WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF TAKING APPLICATIONS AT LARGE BECAUSE HE FELT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMISSIONER FROM THE NORTH COUNTY, FOR INSTANCE, SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUGGEST SOMEONE FROM HIS DISTRICT TO SERVE. IN ADDITION, BY TAKING APPLICATIONS AT LARGE, HE FELT YOU WILL TEND TO GET RECOMMENDATIONS SPONSORED BY THE VARIOUS CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS AND THAT YOU WILL NOT GET THE REAL STRONG INDIVIDUAL WE NEED TO SIT DOWN OBJECTIVELY AND REACH DECISIONS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE CONTINUED TO DISCUSS THE OVERALL MAKEUP OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND THE NEED TO HAVE REPRE- SENTATIVES FROM DIFFERENT SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION WITH KNOWLEDGE IN VARIOUS AREAS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT BASICALLY HE SAW THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AS AN EXTENSION OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER WHO IS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE TO REPRESENT A CERTAIN PHILOSOPHY OF GOV- ERNMENT. HE BELIEVED THAT EXTENSION IS NECESSARY ON THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION. HE SUGGESTED AS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT PERHAPS EACH COMMISSIONER SHOULD OFFER THREE CHOICES INSTEAD OF JUST MAKING ONE RECOMMENDATION. COMMISSIONER BIRD AND CHAIRMAN LYONS DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJEC- TION TO THAT SUGGESTION, ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOTED THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET PEOPLE TO AGREE TO TAKE THIS JOB, WHICH IS DIFFICULT AND THANKLESS. COMMISSIONER BIRD POINTED OUT THAT THE SYSTEM WE ARE USING HAS BEEN USED OVER LONG YEARS, AND HE DID NOT FEEL WE SHOULD OVER -REACT BECAUSE OF ONE BAD APPOINTMENT. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT WE ALREADY HAVE UNDERGONE SOME TRANSITION IN OUR PROCEDURES IN THAT FORMERLY THE VOTE WAS PRACTICALLY ALWAYS UNANIMOUS AND NOW IT IS NOT. COMMISSIONER WODTKE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT ANYONE BEING PUT THROUGH THE TYPE OF TREATMENT JUST ACCORDED TO MR. HALL. HE FELT THE TYPE OF APPROACH SUGGESTED PUTS A GREAT DEAL OF PRESSURE ON THE INDIVIDUAL, AND WE NEED PEOPLE TO SERVE WHO HAVE KNOWLEDGE AND INTEGRITY AND ARE WILLING TO ASSIST US, COMMISSIONER BIRD RECOMMENDED THAT WE STAY WITH THE PRESENT PROCEDURE. HE STATED THAT HE WILL COME BACK WITH MORE THAN ONE RECOM- MENDATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND WOULD HOPE IT COULD BE ACTED ON IN FINAL -FORM AT THE NEXT MEETING INSTEAD OF WAITING TILL THE FOLLOWING ONE. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE WOULD WORK WITHIN THE SYSTEM HOWEVER IT IS SET UP. CLARIFICATION RE FUTURE FOR BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REPORTED THAT HE HAS A REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF VERO BEACH FOR A CLARIFICATION ON OUR MOVEMENT IN THE BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT FOR THE NEXT BUDGET YEAR. THEY SUG- GESTED WE IN SOME WAY CONTACT THEM AND INDICATE WHETHER WE WILL CONTINUE ON THE SAME BASIS; THEY NEED SOME GUIDELINES. FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE_ COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT WE HAVE NOT AS YET MADE ANY APPOINTMENTS TO THE NEWLY CREATED FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND HE ENCOURAGED THE COMMISSIONERS TO SEEK OUT APPLICANTS AND PROCEED TO MAKE THIS AN ACTIVE FUNCTIONING COMMITTEE. RECREATION WORKSHOP --MARCH 18TH COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE AGENDA FOR THE RECREATION WORKSHOP TO BE AS PRODUCTIVE AS POSSIBLE AND WOULD LIKE TO HAVE INPUT AS TO WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR HEAR AS BACK UP MATERIAL. HE STATED THAT HE WILL HAVE MAPS SHOWING THE PRESENT RECREATION AREAS AND PARKS AND WILL GIVE A HISTORY OF THE COUNTY'S INVOLVEMENT IN RECREATION. THIS WILL BE A COUNTY COMMISSION WORKSHOP, NOT A JOINT WORKSHOP. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT HE CONTACT THE NORTH COUNTY RECREATION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AND POSSIBLY THE CITY RECREATIONAL DIRECTOR TO EXPLAIN THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS AND HOW THEY FUNCTION. FEB 251981 L. m BOOK , .45 PAGE 922 .101 Lei 1 - , . .. - MeLoll N "OF 45. PAGE 923 CHANGE ORDER #12 - COURTHOUSE, SIGNED BY ADMINISTRATOR NELSON PER COMMISSION AUTHORIZATION OF AUGUST 22, 19791 IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES. —CH ANGEOVA NER ' El ARCHITECT ❑ ORDER CONTRACTOR ❑ FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County (name, address)County- Courthouse TO (Contractor) CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: _12 (TWelth) Reinhold Construction Inc. --j ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9364 P.O. Box 666 CONTRACT FOR:Add i t ions and renovations Cocoa, F1. 32922 L I CONTRACT DATE: You are directed to make the following change in this Contract: T CP -.3o Provide new convenience receptacles, in Rooms 239 and 243 $1,809.26 The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time required beyond the contract completion date. Additional time will be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The contractor will be paid for the additional required days at the rate of $300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs.The number of days are reflected in CP -30. See Attached Change Proposal The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 689, 000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s 130,076.90 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . , . , , , $ 819, 076.90 The Contract Sum will be (increased) ) ( 1,809.26 g g ) by this Change Order; � 820,886.16 The new Contract Sum including this Chane Order will be . The Contract Time will be (in�!) (drac&%m*4 (unchanged) by ( - ) Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Connell Metcal & Eddy Reinhold Construction Inc. Indian River County ARCHITECT 1320 S. Dixie Hiway CONTRACTOR P.O. Box 666 OWNER2145 14th Ave. Address Cora Ga es add Cocoa; FT2�- Address ero Beacb,Fl. BgYy _ B Y IF DATE 7, 2 S DATE %; DATE 83 RESOLUTION 81-9 AS1WvED AT THE REGULAR MEE4"OF FEBRUARY 11, 1981, IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES. RESOLUTION NO. 81-9 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following members are hereby appointed to the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MOBILE HOME AD HOC COMMITTEE, for the designated areas: NO INTEREST OR AFFILIATION WITH MOBILE HOME PARKS: NORMAN MILLER HERALD BLUM MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS: NORMAN BAKER DAVE CHAFFIN RESIDENTS OF MOBILE HOME PARKS: FREDERICK W. MESSNER, JR. RAY B. GRIFFIN JOHN E. SULLIVAN EX OFFICIO MEMBER: JOHN POWERS, Assistant State Attorney Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 11th day of 'February , 1981. BOARD OF COPTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RI R OUNTY, FLORID By P -rick B. Lyons, Attest: Freda Wright,, Cl:' rk rman BOOK 45 WE -924 FEB 251981 r FEB 251981 . mot 45 ?Aci 925 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. 69460 - 69604 INCLUSIVE. SUCH BILLS AND ACCOUNTS BEING ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE WARRANTS SO ISSUED FROM THE RESPUCTIVE 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 6:25 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: CLERK