Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/16/1981MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1981 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1053 20TH PLACE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON MONDAY, MARCH 161 1981, AT 7:15 O'CLOCK P.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; GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; .JEFFREY K. BARTON, FINANCE OFFICER; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERK. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCED IT WAS BEING HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING RE THE OPERATION AND PRESENT STATUS OF THE TREASURE COAST UTILITIES FRANCHISE. THE HOUR OF 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: VERO.BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL 1 Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida • NOTICE COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS - 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 . SIONERS will hold a public hearing concerning the opera - at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being - - tion and present status of the Treasure Coast Utilities Fran - a �rE chise, originally issued to Southern Gulf ' Utilities by Resolution enacted February 16th, 1960, and subsequently in the matter of A3 -aie assigned to Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc., by�'�Resolution the lished in said newspaper in the issues of Court, was pub- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at - Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this '-� c+aty A.D.4f& (Bus Manager) aBAu (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian i er County, Florida) MARS 198 No. 76732, to determine whether termination of the fran- chise is in the public interest. The County Commission will meet on March 16th, 1981, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers at City Holl, Vero Beach, Florida, to accept testimony, from state agency representatives and in- terested citizens, particularly those within the franchise area, Whispering Palms SubdIVIion and Dixie Gardens Subdivision. The Board of CountY'Commissioners will then determine, based upon the .testi r> any, whether to limit or restrict the franchise or terminate and cancel the same in whole or in part if proper reasons therefor are found by the Board. t w> If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need a record of the pro- ceedings, and for such purposes he may need to insure that a'verbatim record of the pr eedin- is made, which record includes the testimony iria Adence on which the ap- peal is based *- " t BOARD OFC UNTY COMMISSIONERS k� F -4-46F INDIAN RWER COUNTY, FLORIDA .. Z 3w:, R �I61Aie"iS-�k'•�F:n.��Js+'iY"%7"..?1.=; '#u -" .'� S } ice' ; y� tp =¢�{." ,,. ,,,By /S/ Patric B. Lyons :r , ;•yYr Chat an`'$ is March 5, 1981 _ n MAR 16 1981 BOOK- F� CHAIRMAN LYONS ANNOUNCED THAT THIS ACTUALLY IS A FACT- FINDING MEETING IN RESPONSE TO .JUDGE SHARPS ORDER TO SHUT THE UTILITY DOWN, TO HEAR PRESENTATIONS AS TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE FACILITY, TO GAIN THE PUBLIC INPUT, AND TO HEAR FROM THE DER AND FROM TREASURE COAST UTILITY.- HE STATED THAT WE DO NOT EXPECT TO REACH ANY DECISION TONIGHT. ATTORNEY COLLINS THEN GAVE A HISTORY OF THE FRANCHISE, WHICH ORIGINALLY WAS GRANTED TO SOUTHERN GULF UTILITIES, INC., IN 1960. HE SPOKE OF THE CONSIDERABLE REDUCTION OF THE FRANCHISE AREA - IN 19731 THE CONTINUING HISTORY OF POOR SERVICE, THE TRANSFER OF THE FRANCHISE IN 1976 To TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, INC., AND THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF THE FRANCHISE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING RESOLUTION 76-32 IN REGARD TO INCORPORATING THE LINES IN THE FUTURE IN THE COUNTY SYSTEM. MR. SALTER, THE PRESENT OWNER, PURCHASED THE STOCK OF TREASURE COAST UTILITIES FROM MR. LOHMAN IN 1976 SUBSEQUENT TO THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF THE FRANCHISE AND RESOLUTION 76-32. ATTORNEY COLLINS THEN LISTED THE LEGAL ACTION TAKEN, BEGINNING WITH THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT AGAINST TREASURE COAST UTILITIES IN MAY OF 1976 BY THE DER FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THEIR REGULATIONS. THE SUIT CONTINUED UNRESOLVED THROUGH 1977 AND IN SEPTEMBER OF 1978 A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED BY THE DER. THIS COMPLAINT WAS NOT ANSWERED, A DEFAULT WAS ENTERED IN DECEMBER OF 1978, AND ON APRIL 8, 1980, JUDGE SHARP ENTERED AN ORDER ENJOINING THE COMPANY FROM OPERATION AND REQUIRING THAT A $75,000 BOND BE POSTED WITH THE PROVISION.THAT THE BOND FUNDS WERE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER FACILITIES TO SERVICE THE AREA. THE BOND WAS NOT RAISED NOR THE ORDER COMPLIED WITH; AN ORDER OF CONTEMPT OF COURT WAS ENTERED BY JUDGE SHARP ON FEBRUARY 20, 1981; AND TREASURE COAST UTILITIES NOW HAS FILED A MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RELIEF FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT. CHAIRMAN LYONS ANNOUNCED THAT ALL WITNESSES WILL BE SWORN IN AND QUESTIONED UNDER OATH. DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN COUNTY CONSULTING ENGINEER, JOHN ROBBINS,WITH THE FIRM OF SVERDRUP & PARCEL. MAR j"81 � . � MR. ROBBINS REPORTED ON HIS SITE INSPECTION OF THE WASTE WATER FACILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH TREASURE COAST UTILITIES ACCOMPANIED BY UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER, AND ENTERED INTO THE RECORD HIS MEMO TO ADMINISTRATOR NELSON DATED MARCH 13TH WHICH EXPLAINS THE CONDITIONS IN DETAIL AS FOLLOWS: SVERDRUP & PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AND BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (A JOINT VENTURE) Project No. 5383-A March 13, 1981 MFMnRANnIIM TO: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator FROM: John A. Robbins, Fngineer. l(F�' Sverdrup & Parcel and AsSOCiates, Inc. and Beindorf and Associates, Inc. (A Joint Venture) George Liner,.Utilities Director Indian River County, Florida RE: Treasure Coast Utilities Franchise Water and Sewerage System Site Inspection March 11, 1981 Site inspection began at the eastern most pump station of Treasure Coast Utilities. The pump station consisted of a concrete pump control building with a single sewage pump (above ground type). The nameplate on the pump has been corroded but, it appears to be a Gorman -Rupp Type 13-A, close coupled sewage pump. There is only one pump in the pump station. The condi- tion at the time of inspection revealed station failure evidenced by the high level alarm light. The pump control mechanism was set to the hand mode and was not operating; two of the relay boxes and switchgear were open, and although the reset button was pushed, the pumps did not start.- It appears this lift station, at this time of inspection, is inoperable. The overall condition of the pump station is very poor, although some painting has occurred. The interior of the pumphoUse appears to have had sewage in it by evidence of a high water mark, and there is some corrosion evidenced on some of the existing valving and piping. There appears to be signs of a maintenance effort due to a modification to the -pump actuation system, but the system is inoperable. There is evidence that the lift station has been vandalized by the fact that the exterior door into the pump station has a large hole in it, and the locking hasp has been broken. Water service to 46 MAR 161981 5 BOOK 46 h,1 E 6 the lift station appears to be'shut off. Also, there is no back flow preventor on the hose bibb. Photograph No. 1 is of the east lift station of the Treasure Coast system. The inspection continued to the sewage treatment plant which is located south of Treasure Coast Subdivision and north of Oslo Road, with access off of Oslo Road. The road leading into the sewage treatment facility was blocked by demolition and debris material, and the road is inaccessible. The only access to the treatment facility at this point is by foot. The vege- tation around the treatment facility is very high, and the general effect is the treatment facility is not very well kept. This is evidenced by the fact there is vegetation growing out of the top of the treatment facility and around the base of the structure at grade level. There is evidence of raw sewage deposits in an area approximately 15 to 20 feet around the treatment plant. It appears this material could be a foot thick. The chlorine contact chamber appears to be inoperable. There is a very large tree growing in and beside the structure, which, with the location of the particular tree, would keep the facility from being operable. There is another structure located adjacent to the chlorine contact chamber. It ap- pears to be an old chlorination building. This building is in a severe state of disrepair. Photograph No. 2 is of the chlorination building. Access was obtained to the top of the treatment facility which appears to be an Imhoff process. The access bridge across the facility has collapsed and is no longer a functional element. There is vegetation growing out of the top of the facility, and there are bubbles coming up in the stagnant liquid within the treatment facility, which would appear to be gas generated by anaerobic conditions. The treatment facility is not operating as a sewage treatment plant, and is totally non-operable. There are houses located within 300 feet of the pinat, and there is some odor present, probably as a result of anaerobic conditions taking place within the concrete Imhoff tank. Photograph No. 3 was taken atop the treatment plant looking west and shows the condition of the access bridge, and also shows the proximity of houses to the plant. The water treatment facility. There is evidence that there has been some maintenance performed. This is given by the fact that screens have been replaced on the aerators. The building itself, the control building, appears to have been painted, and there appears to have been some maintenance done on the hydropneumatic tank.* However, a detailed inspection is not available at this time due to the fact that the entire perimeter of the treatment facility is fenced and the fencing is locked. Another inspection at another time will be performed on the interior system. The inspection continued to southern most pump station of the Treasure Coast Utilities Franchise. The lift station is of similar design and construction as that of the eastern lift station. This lift station appears to have been vandalized. There appears to be a bypass of a flexible hose from the lift station with the discharge of this flexible hose laying on the ground and south of the lift station. There is raw sewage in an area approximately 50 to 75 feet wide, and approximately 300 to 400 feet in length extending to the south. The hose is on the ground and appears to be the source of the raw sewage due to erosion taking place at the discharge of the hose. The apparent use of this lift station is to bypass the plant entirely and discharge raw sewage onto the ground. The discharge of this pump station is ponding on the ground and there is a great deal of odor associated with it also. The interior portion of the lift station was not accessible due to the appearance of raw sewage in the base of the lift station. It appears there is a submersible pump lowered into the wet well and is plugged into an auxiliary outlet in the lift station. The main pumps appear MAR 1 � 4E . � • 11' • 1 • / i' •1 rs � R "5' '3 aP t .c 'r5 VPER- ` �r :.�'': ,,�<x t v*y'+`LS3,tg" x rr r � yxF{ ry*y 7 S �rwsi' ss a� *�crytia �m' �a yj C.t"tFg,,.�.., ,_ ,`•' ! � :zi4• •' "� k .��,E'k A . g gi +y ra �, "`t _ V..c �ytrr S�S k�1k •c-_ . a i � .4 Y'�xk w'��-��n�sa_5�y. %✓ a �, i � ,'+3. ..R'�,�.�t 1` T .N� .w�,r.,�+"� ,�...r aas�',=„r„4, aak.:�t�';��a�: i,Ju �!i"^i�-s���.`y�✓ts��v.- .�.��f,+a*'t`.a d�14q„ ��t�� r r� ,�. t�h �. ,( ,.4 �� "1¢ �M Nis _A.-.^i1.. T�-��Y 3d� S.' \ ^�f.—� '•l 3r i{ r�� a� .g c c¢c ,• `, �'rrF -L �f,t*: '� y'� "#* y �k�nSi��'�4'�i �a�e RSka� �'t '� °1-ar _ !� yyy x sa'N S' L h as f a 1 ;Al h.w� x *, k, x- +i Yh sD�. .`k3� MMM'e.' �' afi "" 5ai RaeT 00 fc�7�r ti "•+a - ! }jf"[`' ` to iii�`"*g !" `` ,.� '-f2'iy�`,�"?z c,.t�r '§ s€`+ t��ir2•'r'�c� 'L�'.s` 'x '� `x. p?s—�Y i�+x'� ..�`� 2v ;x ;�*'a ^�>� 'ru r na'�St.� k�. r � . r a4.k`�'3"4►w `T� f"s a`a .r<" est x* .�� --s... f� a.p. �.WRA 11.0 w c toY,w,v;rixlha aT r} � �,S r A r � • ® GEORGE LINER, WHO REPORTED THAT ABOUT 50 TIMES SINCE EARLY SEPTEMBER HIS DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CALLED BY DESPERATE CUSTOMERS OF TREASURE COAST UTILITIES ASKING FOR RELIEF FROM VARIOUS PROBLEMS, INCLUDING RAW SEWAGE BACKING UP INTO THEIR TUBS AND SHOWER DRAINS. MR. LINER STATED THAT ONE WEEKEND, WHEN HE WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANYONE TO CALL IN, HE HAD A PORTABLE PUMP INSTALLED AND RAN IT OVER THE WEEKEND TO GIVE THE RESIDENTS SOME RELIEF. THE CUSTOMERS ALSO CALLED BECAUSE OF A DROP IN WATER PRESSURE WHICH CAUSED LOSS OF SERVICE. MR, LINER NOTED THIS CAN CAUSE CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS AND IS ABOUT THE WORST THING YOU CAN HAVE ON A WATER SYSTEM. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY CHECKED FOR CHLORINE RESIDUAL SEVERAL TIMES AND FOUND NONE. IN ADDITION, THERE HAVE BEEN CALLS FROM CUSTOMERS WHO QUESTIONED THEIR BILLS AND HAD NO ONE TO CONTACT. MR, LINER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE WAS RECENTLY NOTIFIED THAT ASHTON UTILITIES WAS OPERATING THE SYSTEM, AND HE SINCE HAS LEARNED THAT THEY CHECK THE PLANT ABOUT TWICE A WEEK; THIS IS A VIOLATION OF FLORIDA CODE WHICH REQUIRES DAILY CHECK- ING FOR EVEN THE SMALLEST PLANT. MR. LINER STATED THAT AFTER INSPECTING THESE FACILITIES, HE WOULD HAZARD A GUESS THAT IT WAS IN EXCESS OF A YEAR SINCE AN OPERATOR DID ANY MAINTENANCE ON THE PLANT, DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN COUNTY HEALTH DIRECTOR C. C. FLOOD. DR. FLOOD STATED THAT THIS PLANT HAS BEEN A SORE SPOT WITH HIM AND HIS STAFF FOR 20 YEARS, REGARDLESS OF WHO HAS RUN IT OR OWNED IT. THE PLANT HAS BEEN OUT OF SERVICE MANY TIMES; THEY HAVE HAD COMPLAINTS OF SEWER BACK UP; CONSTANT COMPLAINTS ABOUT WATER QUALITY AND PURITY; AND PETITIONS FROM PEOPLE BEGGING FOR HELP. LATE IN 1979 AND 1980 IT REALLY GOT BAD, AND SOME OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT REPORTS INCLUDE PICTURES OF RAW SEWAGE ON THE GROUND AND IN THE PLANT AREA. DR, FLOOD NOTED THAT THIS PLANT HAS BEEN RUN AS A MINIMAL OPERATION, AND STATED THAT HE CONSIDERS THIS PLANT AS NOW OPERATED A HEALTH HAZARD. MAR 161981 HE CONTINUED THAT THE WATER SERVICE ALSO HAS BEEN w- MINIMAL, AND THERE HAVE BEEN TWO TIMES WHEN THE BACTERIAL QUALITY BECAME CONTAMINATED TO THE POINT WHERE IT WAS FELT THE ONLY SAFE PROCEDURE WAS FOR THESE PEOPLE TO BOIL EVERY DROP THEY USED. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE CONTEMPT ORDER ISSUED BY JUDGE SHARP HAS THE WORDING IN IT THAT THE SYSTEM IS TO BE SHUT DOWN, WHICH HE BELIEVED IS THE PRIME REASON THE COUNTY COMMISSION CALLED THIS MEETING TO BRING ALL THE PARTIES TOGETHER TO OUTLINE WHERE THE PROBLEM AREAS ARE AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE FULLY ADVISED AS TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CONDITION. THE ATTORNEY STATED THAT HE ASKED THE TAX COLLECTOR TO PROVIDE US WITH THE STATUS OF THE AD VALOREM TAXES ON THIS PROPERTY, A SUMMARY OF WHICH IS MADE PART OF THE RECORD, AS FOLLOWS: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY GENE E. MORRIS TELEPHONE: (308) 862.2303 TAX COLLECTOR P. o. sox 1509 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA - 32960 Page 1 of 2 pages March 16, 1981 George J. Collins, Jr. Atty. County Attorney 744 Beachland Blvd. Vero Beach, FL. 32960 Dear Mr. Collins: The following is a list of delinquent and current taxes on properties in the name of Treasure Coast Utilities Inc.; ) Personal Property Taxes 24-33-39 S 660 ft. of N 975.7 ft. of SW 1/4 of SE1/4 lying W of Lat. J Whispering Palms Sub Unit 4 Lot 1 B1k10 Dixie Gardens Sub Unit 4 Tract A iAR 1.6 1981 N 1976 ----$3351.23 1977. ---- $3372.89 1978 ---- $2701.44 1979 ----$2140.02 1980 ---- $2258.56 Total -- $13824.14 1976 ---- $ 523.32 1977 ---- $ 579.55 1978 ---- $ 499.60 1979 =--- $ 145.57 1980 ---- $ 139.58 Total ---X887.62 1979 ---- $ 798.16 1980 ---- $ 810.57 1608.73 1980 ---- $3.18 800K 46 PAGE ?® MAR 161981 800!( 46 PAGE 71 Page 2 of 2 Whispering Palms Sub Unit 4 Lot 2 Block 10 i Whispering Palms Sub Unit 4 Lot 14 Block 10 March 16, 1981 1976 ---- $109.75 1977'---- $124.50 1978 ---- $100.75 1979 ---- $ 83.00 1980 --=_$ 69.39 Total --- $487.39 If we may be of further assistance, please advise. 1976 ---= $101.39 1977 ---- $117.03 1978 ---- $ 93.17 1979 ---- $ 75.03 1980 ---- $ 63.51 Total --- 450.13 Sincerely yours, AfW.', • ( Gene E. Morris County Tax Collector ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT MOST OF THESE TAXES HAVE NOT BEEN PAID SINCE 1976, AND PUBLIC RECORDS ALSO INDICATE THAT A MORTGAGE FORE— CLOSURE SUIT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST TREASURE COAST UTILITIES BY FORSYTH STREET INVESTMENTS, INC., A COPY OF WHICH COMPLAINT IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE RECORD. iwn Q: s NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CIVIL CASE NO.a, RSYTH STREET INVESTMENTS, INC., Florida Corporation, Plaintiff EASURE COAST UTILITIES, INC.., Florida Corporation, Defendant COMPLAINT Plaintiff, FORSYTH STREET INVESTMENTS, INC., a Florida orporation, sues Defendant, TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, INC., a da Corporation and alleges: 1. This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property in Indian River County, Florida. 2. On May 7, 1976, defendant, TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, INC. a Florida Corporation, executed and delivered a promissory note and a mortgage securing payment of it to SOUTHERN GULF UTILITIES, INC.; the mortgage was recorded on May 7, 1976 in Official Record Book 517, page 427, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, and mortgaged the property described in it, then owned by and in possession of the mortgagor, a copy of the mortgage containing a copy of the note being -attached. 3. Plaintiff owns and holds the note and mortgage. 4. Defendant has defaulted under the note and mortgage by failing to make the payment due May 7, 1978 and by failing -to pay the taxes which are due and payable on said property and by failing to keep the mortgaged property insured as required by the terms of the mortgage. 5. Plaintiff declares the full amount payable under the note and mortgage to be due. 6. Defendant owes Plaintiff $2,000.00 that is due on principal on the note and mortgage, interest from May 7, 1977, court costs and title search expense for ascertaining necessary 'HARD P.BOcosIAN II parties to this action. B©a 46 PAGE 72 ,.x., .?:�_,.. . .` •::. �. .ii �`.�'4..�, .. S - nP •at <>.;2i ^.'?�T...��e _ - _ ... � � a.y .Py+py -£z ,.#s �. s NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CIVIL CASE NO.a, RSYTH STREET INVESTMENTS, INC., Florida Corporation, Plaintiff EASURE COAST UTILITIES, INC.., Florida Corporation, Defendant COMPLAINT Plaintiff, FORSYTH STREET INVESTMENTS, INC., a Florida orporation, sues Defendant, TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, INC., a da Corporation and alleges: 1. This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property in Indian River County, Florida. 2. On May 7, 1976, defendant, TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, INC. a Florida Corporation, executed and delivered a promissory note and a mortgage securing payment of it to SOUTHERN GULF UTILITIES, INC.; the mortgage was recorded on May 7, 1976 in Official Record Book 517, page 427, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, and mortgaged the property described in it, then owned by and in possession of the mortgagor, a copy of the mortgage containing a copy of the note being -attached. 3. Plaintiff owns and holds the note and mortgage. 4. Defendant has defaulted under the note and mortgage by failing to make the payment due May 7, 1978 and by failing -to pay the taxes which are due and payable on said property and by failing to keep the mortgaged property insured as required by the terms of the mortgage. 5. Plaintiff declares the full amount payable under the note and mortgage to be due. 6. Defendant owes Plaintiff $2,000.00 that is due on principal on the note and mortgage, interest from May 7, 1977, court costs and title search expense for ascertaining necessary 'HARD P.BOcosIAN II parties to this action. B©a 46 PAGE 72 MAR Boor 4-6 .7 encs' 161981 fee for his services. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands an accounting of the sum due to laintiff under the note and mortgage and if the sum is not paid thin the time set by this Court, that the property to be sold to satisfy Plaintiff's claim and if the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to pay Plaintiff's claim, that a deficiency judgment e entered for the sum remaining unpaid against the defendant and that the estate of defendant and all persons claiming under or inst defendant since the filing of the notice of lis pendens e foreclosed. nicnara r. nogosian Attorney at Law 1418 21st Street Vero Beach, Florida DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN DONALD TRAVIS SALTER, OWNER AND PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDER OF TREASURE COAST UTILITIES. MR. SALTER STATED THAT WHEN HE PURCHASED THE CAPITAL STOCK IN 19781 HE WAS AWARE OF THE VIOLATION, BUT WAS NOT AWARE OF HOW GRIEVOUS1 T.WAS BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER PRIVATE UTILITIES IN THE COUNTY THAT WERE IN COMPLETELY THE SAME POSTURE, AND THE COUNTY ITSELF WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE DER IN RUNNING THE GIFFORD SYSTEM. MR. SALTER THEN WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT NEW SYSTEMS HE TRIED TO BUY; HOW HE MISSED OUT ON ONE AND THEN LOCATED A VERY FINE SYSTEM IN SILVER SPRINGS, WHICH WAS ON LINE AND OPERATING A SYSTEM FOR A LARGER SUBDIVISION THAN HIS. HE CONTINUED THAT HE CHECKED THE DER REPORTS ON THIS SYSTEM, PURCHASED THE SYSTEM, AND IN THAT SAME PROCESS ENGAGED AN ENGINEER AND OBTAINED A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FROM THE DER. IN THE INTERVENING PERIOD, HE REQUESTED TO BE PUT ON THE COMMISSION MAR 1 6M w � AGENDA BECAUSE THE FUNDING BANK WHO WAS GOING TO BE PUTTING UP THE LARGEST SHARE OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL HAD A FEW QUESTIONS. MR. SALTER STATED THAT HE DID NOT GET PUT ON THE AGENDA, BUT HE DID HAVE A PRIVATE WORK MEETING AT ATTORNEY COLLINS' OFFICE WITH COMMISSIONER WODTKE AND MR. BEINDORF, AT WHICH TIME HE TOLD THEM OF HIS INTENTION TO INSTALL THIS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT WHICH ALREADY HAD BEEN PURCHASED AND NOTED THAT ALL HE WANTED AT THAT TIME WAS SOME SORT OF TIMETABLE BY VIRTUE OF THAT FACT THAT THE COUNTY IS GETTING INTO THE WATER BUSINESS AND THE BANK NEEDED TO SET AN AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE ON THE LOAN. MR. SALTER STATED THAT IT WAS DURING THAT MEETING THAT HE WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH TIMETABLE OR NO SUCH INFORMATION COULD BE PROVIDED HIM, AND THAT ALSO WAS THE FIRST TIME HE LEARNED OF RESOLUTION 76-321 WHICH RESOLUTION PLACES A LEGAL TITLE CLOUD OVER EVERY ASSET, EVERY PIECE OF PROPERTY, EVERYTHING THE COUNTY OWNS, HOLDS OR HAS ANY RIGHTS T0, INCLUDING THE FRANCHISE, THE RIGHT TO SERVE CUSTOMERS, THE WATER MAINS, THE EASEMENTS, ETC. HE CONTINUED THAT HE WAS GREATLY TAKEN ABACK BY THIS BECAUSE "OBVIOUSLY HE OWNED THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE," AND HE SAID "YOU DONT REALLY MEAN THIS," BUT THE BASIC RESPONSE WAS THAT "WE MOST CERTAINLY DO MEAN IT; WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOU OVER AND FOR GRATIS, I.E., WE ARE GOING TO CONFISCATE YOU. WE DONT KNOW WHEN, BUT WE ARE GOING TO DO IT." MR. SALTER WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE BANK, UPON LEARNING OF THIS, CALLED ALL THE LOAN THAT WAS OUTSTANDING,, AND IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE BANK LOAN, HE HAD TO SELL THE NEW SEWAGE PLANT AT A LOSS. IN SPITE OF THIS, MR. SALTER STATED THAT HE STANDS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL A PLANT TO MEET DER STANDARDS, IF THE COUNTY WILL GIVE HIM SOME TIMETABLE AS TO WHEN THEY WILL BE IN THE WATER''BUSINESS IN THE SOUTH COUNTY AND ASSURE HIM THAT THE REVENUES OF THE COMPANY, THE SEWAGE TREATMENT.,PLANT, OR LINES WILL NOT BE CONFISCATED WITHOUT PAYMENT. AT A MEETING ON FEBRUARY 27TH, HOWEVER, WITH ATTORNEY COLLINS AND CHAIRMAN LYONS, HE COULD GET NO SUCH ASSURANCES, AND IN FACT, CHAIRMAN LYONS PUT A DOLLAR BILL ON BOOK, 46 WE 74 THREE BIDS - ONE FROM ASHTON UTIU TIES, WHO HAS BEEN IN THE BUSINESS 30 YEARS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,7801 FOR PURCHASE OF THE PLANT, REFURBISHING IT, DOING THE MINIMUM SITE WORK, INSTALLING IT - A TURN KEY OPERATION. MR: SALTER THEN COMMENTED THAT IT IS THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE TO PAY THE PIPER AND NOTED THAT THE DER WANTS HIM TO PUT IN ANOTHER WEL'LFIELD EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE IN THE WATER BUSINESS SHORTLY. HE STATED THAT SINCE THE COUNTY IS GOING FORWARD, HE IS WILLING TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO ACCOMPLISH AN ORDERLY PHASING OF AFFAIRS. MR. SALTER NEXT REFERRED TO THE "INFLAMMATORY" REMARKS MADE BY DR. FLOOD, WHICH HE DID NOT BELIEVE DR. FLOOD COULD BACK UP. HE AGREED THERE WAS A BOILED WATER NOTICE ISSUED IN 1979 WITH RESPECT TO ONE TEST SAMPLING, BUT STATED THAT OCCURRED WHEN HIS CONTRACTORS, INSTEAD OF TAKING THE SAMPLE TO A PRIVATE CHEMIST AS THEY WERE SUPPOSED T0, SENT IT TO THE STATE LABORATORY FOR FREE TESTING AND SOMEWHERE ALONG THE ROUTE, THE BOTTLES WERE CONTAMINATED. MR. SALTER WARRANTED THAT THE WATER IS SAFE IN EVERY RESPECT AS MANDATED BY THE STATE AND THE COUNTY AND THAT HE HAS THE CHEMISTS TESTS TO PROVE IT. QUESTIONS FOLLOWED AS TO WHETHER THE PLANT EVER HAS BEEN OPERATING SINCE MR. SALTER OWNED IT, AND MR. SALTER STATED THAT IT HAS NOT; IT HAS NEVER MET STATE COMPLIANCE AND DID NOT MEET IT WITH SOUTHERN GULF OR MR. LOHMAN. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE, OF THE' PROVISIONS -OF RESOLUTION 76-32 AT THE TIME HE PURCHASED THE USED PLANT LOCATED AT SILVER SPRINGS. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK POINTED OUT THAT MR. SALTER HAS SAID HE IS NOT WILLING TO CONTINUE THE OPERATION ON A SEWER ONLY BASIS AND IN ADDITION, THIS SYSTEM HAS CONTINUED TO DEPRECIATE OVER TWENTY YEARS. OBVIOUSLY, THEREFORE, THERE IS VERY LITTLE VALUE LEFT; S0, WHY SHOULD THE COUNTY ALLOW HIM TO PUT IN A NEW PLANT AND HAVE TO MAR 1M1 BUY THAT RATHER THAN NEGOTIATE FOR THE PRESENT PLANT AND THEN PUT IN AN OPERATION THAT WILL MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. MR. SALTER COMMENTED THAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO THINK THE SYSTEM IS VALUELESS ALTHOUGH THE STATE AUDITOR HAS PUT A VALUE ON IT OF $170,000. HE STATED THAT HE HAS PAID A NUMBER OF THE REAL ESTATE TAXES ON THIS PROPERTY, BUT NOT THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES. DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO THE IMPACT OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF RESOLUTION 76-32 BY TREASURE COAST UTILITIES AND WHETHER MR. SLATER, AS AN ATTORNEY, SHOULD NOT HAVE REVIEWED ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SYSTEM BEFORE HE PURCHASED IT. MR. SALTER STATED THAT HE WAS NOT ASKING ANYONE TO PAY FOR HIS IGNORANCE, ALTHOUGH MR. LOHMAN KEPT CERTAIN THINGS FROM HIM; THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. HE CONTINUED TO ARGUE THAT THE ISSUE IS RESOLUTION 76-32 WHICH PUTS A CLOUD OVER THE PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS BY GIVING THE COUNTY CONFISCATORY RIGHTS. HE FURTHER EMPHASIZED THAT TREASURE COAST UTILITIES IS A PURE UTILITY, NOT A DEVELOPER, AND THEY CANNOT RECOVER THE COST OF THE SYSTEM THROUGH THE SALE OF LAND, HOUSES, ETC. DISCUSSION CONTINUED, AND IT WAS ASCERTAINED THAT MR. SALTER HAS RECEIVED REVENUES FOR SEWER SERVICE SINCE HE HAS OWNED THE PROPERTY. SINCE THE WATER RATE HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE 1976, IT WAS ASKED WHY HE HAD NOT PETITIONED FOR A RATE INCREASE TO ENABLE HIM TO PROVIDE GOOD QUALITY WATER. MR. SALTER STATED THAT HE WAS APPRISED THAT HE WOULD NEED A CERTIFIED PUBLIC AUDIT TO APPLY FOR A RATE INCREASE AND THE COMPANY COULD NOT AFFORD THAT. HE CONTINUED THAT HE HAS PAID SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS TO HAVE THE LIFT STATIONS REPAIRED, BUT THERE HAS BEEN VANDALISM AND BROWN -OUTS, WHICH CAUSED THE BACK UPS. T� ATfTHIS POINT MR. SALTER STATED THAT,HE WOULD SUPPLY THE CONTRACTS, CANCELLED CHECKS, CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, DRAWINGS MADE FOR THE PLANT IN 1979, TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. SAID DOCUMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED., 13 Roux 46 UL76 I ` MAR 1 61981 DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN WILLIAM BOSTWICK, DISTRICT ENGINEER, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, PERMITTING SECTION, ORLANDO. THE BOARD QUESTIONED WHY, SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN DEFICIENCIES IN THIS PLANT -IN THE PAST, THE ACTION HAS NOT COME TO THIS POINT PRIOR TO THIS TIME, AND MR. BOSTWICK EXPLAINED THAT THE DEADLINE FOR REQUIRING SECONDARY TREATMENT WAS 1973. SINCE THAT TIME THERE HAS BEEN A REORGANIZATION WITHIN THE DER; THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL KIND OF PROCESSES; THEY HAVE ISSUED SOME CONSTRUCTION PERMITS RELATIVE TO THIS; AND IN ADDITION, THEY HAVE DEALT WITH THREE DIFFERENT OWNERS SINCE 1975. ALL OF THIS TAKES TIME, AND THEY HAVE LIMITED PERSONNEL, QUESTION THEN AROSE AS TO THE STATEMENT IN THE FLYER PASSED OUT BY TSR. SALTER, WHICH STATES THAT 877 OF THE SEWERAGE PLANTS IN THE U.S.A. DO NOT COMPLY WITH DER STANDARDS, AND MR. BOSTWICK REPORTED THAT THEY HAVE THREE PLANTS IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECONDARY TREATMENT, ONE OF WHICH THE COUNTY IS CURRENTLY TRYING TO SOLVE. COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED IF THE ORDER SHUTTING DOWN THE PLANT WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF DER ACTION, AND MR. BOSTWICK EXPLAINED THAT THEY GO THROUGH ALL THEIR REGULAR PROCEDURE; IF THAT FAILS, THAT THEY GO TO THE .BUDGE, WHO TAKES ACTION AS HE SEES FIT. THE DER DID NOT PROPOSE CLOSING THE PLANT AS A REMEDY FOR THE SITUATION; THE .BUDGE ISSUED THE ORDER BECAUSE HE RULED TREASURE COAST IN CONTEMPT OF HIS PREVIOUS ORDER. IT WAS ASKED IF THE DER HAS RUN INTO OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS EXCREMENT A FOOT DEEP AROUND THE SEWAGE PLANT AND WHETHER IT IS A HEALTH HAZARD. MR. BOSTWICK STATED THAT THEY HAVE RUN INTO SIMILAR SITUATIONS, AND IT IS A DEFINITE THREAT TO HEALTH; IN ADDITION EVIDENCE WAS GIVEN IN REGARD TO THE PUMPING OF RAW SEWAGE ONTO THE GROUND, AND THIS ALSO IS A HEALTH HAZARD. COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED IF A TEMPORARY PUMP WAS PLACED IN THE LIFT STATION AND RAW SEWAGE PUMPED OUT ONTO THE GROUND WITH MR. SALTERS KNOWLEDGE. MAR 1 � "I - MR. SALTER REQUESTED THAT GARY ASHTON OF ASHTON UTILITIES RESPOND TO THIS SINCE THEY WERE THE ONES HE PAID TO HAVE PUMPS AND MOTORS REPLACED IN THE LIFT STATIONS. UTILITIES. DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN GARY ASHTON OF ASHTON MR. ASHTON CONTENTJED THAT PUMPING THE WASTE ONTO THE GROUND IN THE WOODS WAS PREFERABLE TO HAVING IT BACK UP INTO HOUSES. MR. ASHTON CONFIRMED THAT WITHIN THE LAST FEW MONTHS, HIS FIRM REPAIRED THE PUMPS IN THE LIFT STATIONS, REPLACED SEALS AND BUSHINGS AND REWOUND THE MOTORS; HOWEVER, THE COLD WEATHER CAUSED A POWER OUTAGE, WHICH CAUSED THE WATER TO RISE, AND WHEN THE PUMPS CAME BACK ON IN THE WATER, THEY BURNED OUT. IN ADDITION, HE NOTED THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS ACTS OF VANDALISM. QUESTION AROSE AS TO WHY THESE WERE NOT SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS, AND MR. ASHTON NOTED THAT THE SYSTEM IS OVER 20YEARS OLD AND HE DID KNOW IF THEY HAD SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS AT THAT TIME. DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN IRA MCALLISTER, COUNTY UTILITY DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, WHO INFORMED THOSE PRESENT THAT HE HAS MADE FREQUENT TRIPS TO THE LIFT STATIONS IN QUESTION; THE DOOR LOCKS HAVE BEEN BROKEN OFF FOR THE LAST SEVEN MONTHS, AND HE DID NOT SEE THE LIFT STATION OPERATING DURING THIS TIME EXCEPT WHEN THE TEMPORARY PUMP WAS IN THERE PUMPING THE SEWAGE OUT ONTO THE GROUND. CHAIRMAN LYONS INQUIRED ABOUT THE TRUTH OF THE STATEMENT MADE THAT MR. SALTER HAS NO WAY OF RECOVERING HIS COST IF HE PUT IN A SEWAGE -TREATMENT PLANT, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT MR. — SALTER PURCHASED STOCK AND SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WERE UNDER THAT FRANCHISE. HE DID NOT FEEL IT IS UP TO THE COUNTY TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT MR. SALTER CAN RETIRE HIS DEBT SERVICEol AND IF MR. SALTER FELT THE INVESTMENT WAS WORTHWHILE ENOUGH TO INVEST IN, HE SHOULD BE WILLING TO CARRY THROUGH ON HIS OBLIGATIONS. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. z� 15 M$� S F ST. SW WHO TESTIFIED THAT SEWAGE BACKED UP IN HIS HOUSE, AS WELL AS HIS NEIGHBOR'S, AND AFTER THREE DAYS OF COMPLAINING, THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD GET RELIEF WAS TO RAISE THE LIDS ON THE MANHOLE COVER IN HIS YARD TO RELEASE SOME OF THE PRESSURE ON THE SYSTEM AND LET THE RAW SEWAGE RUN INTO THEIR YARDS. DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN ANTHONY STOCKS, 703 4TH PLACE SW. 'MR. STOCK REFERRED TO DR. FLOOD'S STATEMENTS ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE WATER AND ASKED IF THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE,' IN CASE OF AN -EPIDEMIC. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED HE COULD NOT TELL THE PEOPLE WHETHER THEY CAN OR CANNOT SUE, BUT HE POINTED OUT THAT THE FRANCHISE INCORPORATES STANDARDS THAT ARE TO BE MET. DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN KENNETH PECK, 613 5TH PLACE, SW, WHO STATED THAT HE HAS REGISTERED COMPLAINTS WITH THE BOARD'S SECRETARY ABOUT THE TYPE OF SERVICE THEY RECEIVE AND WHO NOTED THAT EVERYONE PRESENT HAS COMPLAINTS AND HAS SUFFERED FROM THEM FOR YEARS. MR. PECK FELT THAT THE COMMISSION BEARS SOME RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS MATTER AND SUGGESTED THAT IF SEPTIC TANKS ARE THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION, THAT THE COUNTY PURCHASE THE TANKS AND ALLOW THE RESIDENTS TO PAY BACK THE COST OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. HE ALSO FELT THAT IF THE RESIDENTS HAVE TO GO TO THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE OF PUTTING IN SEPTIC TANKS, THEY SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED FOR HOOK-UP TO THE FUTURE COUNTY SYSTEM. MR. PECK EXPRESSED SYMPATHY FOR MR. SALTER, BUT FELT THAT AS A KNOWLEDGEABLE ATTORNEY, HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER THAN TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS BUSINESS. A DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN SANDRA SWISHER, 2553 2ND ST, SW, WHO WISHED TO KNOW IF IT WERE CORRECTIAS STATED BY MR. SALTERITHAT A CERTIFIED AUDITED STATEMENT IS REQUIRED TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A RATE INCREASE. IT WAS GENERALLY FELT THAT THE BOARD IN THE PAST HAS ACCEPTED LESS THAN A FULLY CERTIFIED AUDITED STATEMENT, THOUGH MORE MAR 1�1 16 THAN JUST PENCILED FIGURES, ETC., ARE DESIRED. FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON STATED THAT WE HAVE NEVER ASKED FOR A CERTIFIED AUDIT, BUT THAT WE DID ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE IXORA UTILITIES CASE. MRS. SWISHER STATED THAT SHE BELIEVED IT WAS INDICATED THAT IXORA WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A CERTIFIED AUDIT, AND SHE HAD ASKED IN ORDER TO SET A PRECEDENT`,WITH THIS STATEMENT TONIGHT. DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN PATSY HERNDON, 624 4TH PLACE SW. MRS. HERNDON POINTED OUT THAT APPARENTLY MR. SLATER CAN'T PROVIDE THE SERVICE AND THE COUNTY WONT COME IN AT THIS TIME, AND THE RESIDENTS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE STALEMATED AND CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE. SHE CONTINUED THAT HER CHILDREN CANT TAKE A BATH BECAUSE THE CHLORINE BURNS THEIR EYES; THEY CANT DRINK THE WATER OR EVEN FLUSH A TOILET, AND ALL EVERYONE DOES IS TALK ABOUT TAXES AND LAWSUITS, BUT NOTHING IS BEING ACCOMPLISHED. MRS. HERNDON EMPHASIZED THAT THESE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR 20 YEARS AND BEGGED THAT THE COUNTY DO SOME— THING TONIGHT AND NOT LET THEM JUST HANG ANOTHER FIVE YEARS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS HEARING WAS CALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRYING TO DO SOMETHING TO DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION; ALSO, THERE ARE THREE NEW COMMISSIONERS ON THE BOARD, AND WHILE THERE CAN BE NO ANSWER TONIGHT, THE COMMISSION IS FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS AND TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD. DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN CHRISTINE BROWNING, RESIDENT OF OSLO, WHO PRESENTED THE FOLLOWING PETITION SIGNED BY OSLO RESIDENTS URGING THE CLOSING AND REMOVAL OF THE TREASURE COAST UTILITIES PLANT, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THEIR AREA. f 17 BaOK 46 PAGE MAR 161981 PETITION TO CLOSE THE TREASURE COAST UTILITIES SEWER PLANT TO: County Commissioners Indian River County Vero Beach, FL -_ 1 We, the undersigned, do request and -do urge the immediate closure of the Treasure Coast Utilities sewer plant.. There is a great need for this plant to be closed. It is a nuisance to the commun- ity that lives around""it. ' This sewer plant is located in Oslo. We, the residents of Oslo, all have wells and the raw effluent runoff of this sewer plant is running over ,the side of this tank untreated going into the ground which offers a threat of contaminating our water systems. Our children are playing in the sand; some have sores on their bodies. We believe this is a result of this sewer plant. This dilapidated -wastewater treatment plant is a health problem and a health hazard to us that live around it and inhale this foul odor daily. It is located near our homes, but we are not connected to it. We all have private sewers. This sewer plant violates all health standards to everyone involved. We urge its immediate closure and removal. NAMES C . Aw, U ry (41 r �1 THE CLERK. 6TMP W qC1;:q , /�C,, ✓��" l /// ._.. �/.'� LCA �r�• T/' 1131" 17 fed � � f % +.' t4' / 1%'1 THE BALANCE OF THE PETITION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF MAR 1V%l I" . M a l DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN ANTHONY HARVEY, 604 5TH STREET SW, WHO EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING IN A LARGE NUMBER OF SEPTIC TANKS ON THESE SMALL LOTS AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT IT MIGHT HAVE ON THE EXISTING WELLS,IN OSLO. HE FELT THAT IF THE PEOPLE PRESENT WERE JOHNS ISLAND RESIDENTS, THE BOARD WOULD GIVE THEM AN ANSWER TONIGHT. CHAIRMAN LYONS ASSURED MR. HARVEY THAT THE BOARD IS NOT STALLING, BUT IS TRYING TO BRING THIS MATTER TO A HEAD AND DETERMINE WHAT IS THE MOST RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO TO CURE THIS SITUATION. HE POINTED OUT THAT UNTIL TONIGHT THE THREE NEW COMMISSIONERS WERE NOT PRIVILEGED TO KNOW ALL THE HISTORY OF THIS PROBLEM, AND THIS MEETING HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL. AS TO THE SEPTIC TANK QUESTION, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THE DER. DR. FLOOD REPORTED THAT THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS ON THE RIDGE SO THAT SEPTIC TANKS WILL WORK, AND MOST OF THE HOMES ARE SMALL ENOUGH THAT THE MINIMUM TANK WOULD BE FINE. HE FELT THE POSITIONING OF THE SEPTIC TANKS COULD BE DONE SO THEY WILL NOT CONTAMINATE PROPERLY LOCATED WELLS, BUT IF THERE ARE ILLEGAL UNPERMITTED WELLS IN THE AREA, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER. DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN RAY SCENT, 1675 IST COURT. MR. SCENT SPOKE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BEING A REAL ESTATE AGENT WHO HAS SOLD MANY OF THESE RESIDENTS THEIR HOMES. HE NOTED THIS PROBLEM IS AFFECTING PROPERTY VALUES, AND HE OBJECTED TO THE COUNTY PUTTING THESE PEOPLE IN A POSITION WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE TO EXPEND $600-$700 TO PUT IN SEPTIC TANKS. MR. SCENT POINTED OUT THAT WITH THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY, THEY COULD FORM A COOPERATIVE AND BUY MR. SALTER OUT THEMSELVES, MR. SCENT CONTINUED THAT MR. SALTER APPARENTLY IS WILLING TO SPEND MONEY ON THIS SYSTAM, AND HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE COUNTY COULD!NOT EITHER GIVE MR. SALTER A GUARANTEE THAT HE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN BUSINESS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS OR ELSE STATE THAT HE WILL BE PAID A CERTAIN AMOUNT FOR THE SYSTEM. 19 Boox 46 pmuF .82 NAR 16 1981 COMMISSIONER WODTKE AGREED THAT WHAT MR, SCENT HAS SAID SOUNDS VERY SIMPLE, BUT WHEN YOU COME DOWN TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS AND THE COUNTY..HAS NO RIGHT TO TAKE IT OVER UNLESS WE ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE AND THEN ADD THE FACT THAT THIS BUSINESS IS PRESENTLY TIED UP IN LITIGATION, IT IS NOT SIMPLE. ATTORNEY COLLINS REQUESTED THAT MR. SCENT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT TONIGHT THE COMMISSION IS INITIATING LEGAL PROCESS TO TAKE THE STEPS HE I.� ASKING THEY TAKE AND THAT HE LET THE COMMISSION TAKE THESE STEPS AND NOT PRESS THEM TO TAKE STEPS THAT ARE NOT LAWFUL AND NOT WITHIN THE PROCESS. MR. SCENT URGED THAT THE BOARD TAKE WHATEVER ACTION THEY CAN AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE. TIME. MR. SALTER -AGAIN STATED THAT THEIR WATER QUALITY IS FINE, AND WENT ON TO SAY THAT IF THE COUNTY WANTS TO TAKE OVER THE SYSTEM FOR ANY REASON, HE HAS MADE THE OFFER TO MR. LYONS AND MR. COLLINS BEFORE, AND HE WILL GO INTO ARBITRATION AND HAVE A PHASED -OUT TURNOVER. CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT HE WOULD ACCEPT MR. SALTER S STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD. DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN CATHERINE STANFORD, 673 5TH STREET SW, WHO DESCRIBED HER PROBLEMS WITH THE QUALITY OF THE WATER FROM TREASURE COAST UTILITY - ITS APPEARANCE, THE SCUM ON IT, ITS EFFECT ON HER HANDS AND HER HAIR AND HER CONCERN ABOUT ITS POSSIBLE CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON HER INTERNALLY. DEPUTY CLERK HARGREAVES SWORE IN LEROY BENNETT, ROUTE 1, Box 421, FORT PIERCE, DIRECTOR OF EAST COAST SELF-HELP HOUSING. MR. BENNETT STATED THAT THEY HAVE BUILT 13 HOMES IN THIS AREA, AND THEY ARE DEPENDENT ON THE SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM FOR THEIR EXISTENCE; HE NOTED THE FAMILIES LIVING IN THE AREA ARE IN THE LOW INCOME BRACKET AND CANNOT AFFORD TO PUT IN SEPTIC TANKS. HE STATED THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE SILVER SPRING PLANT MR. SALTER HAD TALKED ABOUT AND HE WAS DISAPPOINTED WHEN THAT DID NOT WORK OUT.- MR. BENNETT BELIEVED THAT WITH THE BOARD WORKING ALONG WITH MR. SALTER, THIS PROBLEM CAN BE RESOLVED, AND HE EMPHASIZED THAT HE WOULD HATE TO SEE SEPTIC TANKS GO IN THIS AREA. CHAIRMAN LYONS RECESSED THE MEETING FOR -TEN MINUTES AT 10 O'CLOCK P.M. CHAIRMAN LYONS CALLED THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER, HE ASSURED THOSE PRESENT THAT THIS PROBLEM WILL BE SOLVED ASID THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION WOULD NOT STAND IDLY BY AND LET THEM BE WITHOUT SEWER OR WATER SERVICE. THE CHAIRMAN URGED THAT THE BOARD TONIGHT SET SOME SORT OF A TIME LIMIT FOR REACHING A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER PROCEEDED TO REVIEW THE HISTORY OF THE SITUATION AS HE HAD HEARD IT TONIGHT AND THE VARIOUS OWNERSHIPS. HE NOTED THAT IT APPEARS THAT MR. SALTER NOW HAS TURNED AROUND AND SAID TO THE COUNTY THAT HE HAS BEEN HAD AND HE SEES SOME LEGAL POTHOLES WHERE HE CAN BE UNHAD BY USING THE CUSTOMERS TO LEVERAGE THE COM- MISSION INTO GIVING HIM WHAT HE WOULD LIKE. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FOUND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT MR. SALTER, AS AN ATTORNEY, WOULD BE SO NAIVE THAT HE WOULD NOT CHECK INTO WHAT HE WAS BUYING. HE STATED THAT THE BASIC ASSUMPTION HE RECEIVED FROM THE CROWD TONIGHT IS THAT THEY ARE BASICALLY SAYING "PAY HIM NO MATTER WHAT HE WANTS, AND LET'S GET ON WITH THE PROGRAM." MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE RESPONDED IN THE NEGATIVE, AND NOTED THAT IF MR. SALTER WAS TAKEN, THAT WAS HIS FAULT, AND THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SUFFER FOR THAT. COMMISSIONER BIRD WISHED TO CLARIFY WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS GENERALLY MISUNDERSTOOD ABOUT THE WORDING OF RESOLUTION 76-32 AND THE STATEMENT THAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO "CONFISCATE" THIS SYSTEM. HE EXPLAINED THAT BACK IN 1978 THE COUNTY FORESAW THEY WERE GOING TO BE GOING INTO THE WATER AND SEWER BUSINESS IN.CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THAT COUNTY; S0, AT THAT TIME, A CLAUSE WAS INSERTED STATING THAT AT THE TIME THE COUNTY HAD THE CAPABILITY OF PROVIDING COUNTY WATER AND SEWER SERVICE, THEN THE DISTRIBUTION LINES THAT WERE IN THE MAR 161981 GROUND WOULD BE TURNED OVER TO THE COUNTY AT NO CHARGE TO TIE INTO THE COUNTY'S MAINS SO THAT SERVICE COULD BE PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY ANYTHING ABOVE GROUND, THE PACKAGE PLANTS, ETC., THAT HAD SOME.VALUE, THE FRANCHISEE COULD SELL OR DISPOSE OF AS HE SAW FIT AND WE, THEREFORE, ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT TAKING THE SYSTEM OVER FREE. COM- MISSIONER BIRD FURTHER NOTED THAT MANY FRANCHISE OWNERS HAVE SIGNED SIMILAR AGREEMENTS SINCE THAT TIME AGREEING TO DO JUST THATi CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT PACKAGE PLANTS ACTUALLY ARE QUITE MARKETABLE AND CAN BE MOVED FROM PLACE TO PLACE, IF THEY ARE KEPT IN GOOD REPAIR. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED THE PEOPLE PRESENT IF THEY HAD A -CHOICE AND COULD DO IT OVER AGAIN WHETHER THEY WOULD PREFER SEPTIC TANKS OR TO BE ON A SYSTEM, AND EVERYONE PRESENT EMPHATICALLY AGREED THEY PREFERRED TO BE ON A SYSTEM. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS - EITHER DECIDE WE WISH MR. SALTER TO CONTINUE IN OPERATION OR DECIDE IT IS BEST FOR THE COUNTY TO TAKE OVER THE SYSTEM. SINCE MR. SALTER HAS SAID IT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO BE IN THE SEWER BUSINESS ONLY, AND THE COUNTY IS IN THE PROCESS OF GOING INTO THE WATER BUSINESS, HE FELT WE ARE AT A POINT OF DISCUSSING WHAT THE SYSTEM IS WORTH. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, HOWEVER, DID NOT BELIEVE THE SYSTEM IS WORTH $124,000 AS MR. SALTER CLAIMS, AND NOTED THAT ACTUALLY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE IS THE DOLLAR IMPACT ON THE PEOPLE. HE BELIEVED THEIR LONG TERM BEST INTERESTS WOULD BE SERVED BY THE COUNTY TAKING OVER, BUT THE PRICE IS THE QUESTION. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM TONIGHT, BUT IT IS A SITUATION THAT IS IN THE COURTS AND THERE IS PENDING ACTION. HE BELIEVED THAT THE HEARING TONIGHT WILL PUT THE COMMISSION IN A POSTURE THAT HOPEFULLY WE CAN MOVE VERY FAST IN SOME AREA FOR A SOLUTION. HE CERTAINLY AGREED THAT THE PEOPLE NEED ASSURANCE THAT THEY WILL HAVE SEWER AND WATER AND NOTED THAT SEPTIC TANKS WERE INVESTIGATED ONLY MAR 1=1 22 AS A VERY LAST RESORT. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASSURED THOSE PRESENT THAT THE COUNTY WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE AS ALLOWED BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO REACH A SOLUTION. CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO TAKE A STAND THAT WE WILL COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM WITHIN THE NEXT 60-90 DAYS, AND HE ASSURED THOSE PRESENT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE A SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENT TO RECEIVE SEWER SERVICE. THE PEOPLE WISHED THIS CERTIFIED AND WISHED TO BE KEPT POSTED AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING, CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT WE WILL DO THE BEST WE CAN AND WILL KEEP THE MEDIA POSTED AS TO WHAT IS GOING ON. ATTORNEY COLLINS AGAIN ASKED THOSE PRESENT TO KEEP THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE BY REMEMBERING THAT THIS MEETING WAS CALLED BY THEIR COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE REACHING OUT TO THEM; THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING WAS AND IS TO ESTABLISH THE VARIOUS AREAS OF DEFAULT BY TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, AND THE ATTORNEY FELT THAT BY THE FIRST MEETING IN APRIL, A RECOMMENDATION COULD BE MADE RE PARTICULAR AREAS AND TIME FRAMES BY WHICH THEY SHOULD BE CURED. CHAIRMAN LYONS ALSO FELT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER IN THE NEXT 60-90 DAYS AND ASKED THE BOARD'S FEELINGS ABOUT ir.1" COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT WE SHOULD SET THAT TIME FRAME AND DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO STAND BY IT. THE BOARD AGREED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE, AS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DISTRICT AFFECTED, WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE ANYONE CONTACT HIM REGARDING THIS MATTER EITHER AT HIS HOME OR HIS BUSINESS. A LADY IN THE AUDIENCE ASKED IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT FRANCHISES ARE LIVED UP TO. SHE FELT THE PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING NOW FOR THE LAXITY ON THE PART OF PAST COMMISSIONS. �oG 46 FAcE _8-6 .arm r'�'^��rrfihe'� ..,.. ..'�.t"���-^" •�+ca�;eca��fcTM ;-;n •- �+e,..,�as�. � - ,? a� -r+". '�".�*ac .r,..rn. e-• was MAR 16-1981 BOOK COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INFORMED THOSE PRESENT THAT THE BOARD IS IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING OUR FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS, AND HE FELT SUPERVISION OF THESE FRANCHISES WILL IMPROVE. HE AGREED THIS PROCESS NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. ON MOTION„BY COMMISSIONER'BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. RESOLUTION 8I-15 - RE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC FLOW RESULTING FROM THE f NEED FOR EVACUATION FROM ST. LUCIE COUNTY ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-15 EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT THE IMPACT OF POPULATION INCREASES ALLOWED ON THE NORTH BARRIER ISLAND IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY AS IT AFFECTS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. MAR IL q= - RESOLUTION NO. 81-15 WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, at their meeting on March 11,1981, discussed the impact of substantial population increases on the South Barrier Island in both Indian River and St. Lucie Counties, North of the St. Lucie Inlet; and WHEREAS, it is not the purpose of this Resolution to deter development within St. Lucie County but only to point out certain limitations of A -1-A and the North bridge in St. Lucie County; and WHEREAS, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan contemplates a density of three (3) units per acre and a height of thirty-five (35) feet on the Barrier Island South of the South City limits of the City of Vero Beach to the North County line of St. Lucie'County; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County is concerned about the effects on traffic flows within Indian River County if there is a need for evacuation from St. Lucie County re- sulting from a pending natural disaster or civil emergency; NOW, THEREFORE, BE•IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM- MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that a question is raised as to the ability of A -1-A and the St. Lucie County North bridge to handle substantial increases in traffic flow resulting from either evacuation because of pending natural disaster or civil emergency, or increased density resulting from high-rise multi -family structures and increase of commercial densities within the limited area of the North Barrier Island in St. Lucie County; and t BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board requests development on the North Beach of St. Lucie County on the Barrier Island be reviewed by the appropriate governmental officials taking into consideration the limitations that exist as to access to and from the Barrier f MAR J1981 THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON LOTION MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:40 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: 10""k l f� Os CLERK �A 3 27 4, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1981 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MET IN SPECIAL SESSION IN ROOM 202, 2001.BUILDING, 2001 9TH AVENUE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1981, AT 7;00 O'CLOCK P.M. PRESENT WERE PATRICK B. LYONS, CHAIRMAN; WILLIAM C. WODTKE, .JR., VICE CHAIRMAN; DICK BIRD; AND DON C. SCURLOCK, ,JR. ABSENT WAS ALFRED GROVER FLETCHER. ALSO PRESENT WERE NEIL A. NELSON, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS, .JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY -COMMISSIONERS; L.S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERK. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS BEING HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECT AND THE CONTRACTOR TO COME TO SOME AGREEMENT ABOUT THE CHANGE ORDER FOR FIREWALLS AT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. LYN GRAZIANI REPRESENTING ARCHITECTS, CONNELL METCALF & EDDY, STATED THAT THEY HAVE REVIEWED THE FIREWALL SITUATION AS PROMISED AND ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 2.2.9 OF THE AIA GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR THE CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION HAVE PUT IN WRITING THEIR OPINION, WHICH IS REALLY A RECAP OF WHAT MR. KIRSCH PRESENTED TO THE BOARD LAST MEETING. SAID OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION RE A WORK ORDER ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES. ^ter � ia«*c• ^,q.'"' '!""��, ^'«-s'.a.-�=cavi•-° , ."-- mcy��- ?..0 � . - <,.o-.�.�-�r�' s'w.'�,. Tit.. ^-�•m^�+�,'�,: i,�'h �"•+%'�'�t ,�'�._"'' r MAR 18 19 1 _ 1o� h cul nll Metanalf & Eddy ARICH1TECTl.1RE. Ei,!G,1,,.EEP1N1G I'l_Ai`ePJIIG _ 1320 South Dixie Highway P.O. Box 341939 Coral Gables Florida 33134 305/665 9241 March 17, 1981 - Mr. Neil Nelson Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida%' 32960 Re: Patch, Repair and'Replacement.of Existing Fire Walls Dear Mr. Nelson: The Contractor takes the position that he is not obligated to patch, repair or replace existing fire walls and has submitted a change proposal to do the work. It appears that there is a di Aute and/or other matter in question between the Contractor and Own r relating to the execution of. the work and/or the interpretation the con- tract documents. Under Article 2.2.9 of the AIA general conditions for the Contract for Construction, we have reviewed the plans and specifications as they relate to the fire walls for'the Indian River,County Adminis— tration Building Renovation Project. We find them to be clear and sufficient. Ceilings were removed prior to bid, so as to allow the Contractor to examine the existing fire walls in a pre-bid review meeting at the site. No questions were asked. The Contractor should have known and been aware that this work was included in the contract. The work should be performed according to local codes to provide a one hour fire wall. This decision is final, but subject to appeal under Article 2.2.12. Any demand for arbitration of,a claim, dis- pute or other matter covered by such decision must be made within thirty days of receiving this written decision. Failure to demand arbitration will result in the Architect's decision becoming final and binding upon the Owner and the Contractor. Very truly yours, CONNELL METCALF & EDDY Fred H. Kirsch Director of Operations FHK:cb (9369) cc: H. Kontoulas L. Snodgrass •a' Connell Metcalf & Eddy 1320 South Dixie Highway P.O. Box 341939 Coral Gables Florida 33134 305/6659241 March 17, 1981 /Mr. Neil Nelson Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Fire Walls for the Indian River County Administration Building. Dear Mr. Nelson: We recommend that the Owner issue a work order for the Contractor to complete the work of repairing and/or re acing and installing the fire walls at the Indian River County Administration Building, as shown on the drawings and detailed in the fire wall list included herein and previously issued to Owner and Contractor. Please request the Contractor to submit a formal proposal for. this work prior to commencement. Very truly yours, CONNELL METCALF & EDDY Fred H. Kirsch Director of Operations. FHK:cb (9369) Enclosure cc: H. Kontoulas I L. Snodgrass r. '._ MA1181981 �� � � FIRETIALLS _ FW 1' Patch masonry FW 2 Extend new stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure FW 3 To be built as indicated on plans -to underside of structure FW 4 To be built as indicated on plans to underside'' of structure FW 5 To be built as indicated on plans 'to underside of structure FPI 6 To be built 'as. indicated on plans," to underside . of structure FW 7 Patch masonry FW 8 Patch masonry FW 9 To be built as indicated in*change pro osal to ' underside of structure FW 10 Overlay fireboard "X" panels ceiling to under -_i ; side of structure on existing studs FW 11. Provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides installed to underside of structure. FW 12. Patch masonry a FW 13 Patch masonry FW 14 ,Provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides installed to underside of structure FW 15 Overlay fireboard "X" panels both sides ceiling to underside of structure over existing metal truss studs and provide new stud & fireboard. "X" both sides as indicated on pians to under- side of structure FW 16 Provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides installed to underside of structure FW 17 Overlay fireboard "X" panels both sides ceiling to underside of structure over existing metal truss studs and provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides as indicated on plans to under-. side of structure k FIREWALLS FW 18 i FW 19 FW 20 FW 21 FW 22 FW 23 ,FW 24 FW 25 FVT 2 6 FW 27 FW 28 FW 29 overlay fireboard "X" panels both sides ceiling to underside of structure over existing metal truss studs and provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides as indicated on plans to under- side of structure overlay fireboard "X" panels both sides.ceiling to underside of structure over_e:,isting metal truss studs and provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides ceiling to underside.of structure overlay fireboard "X" panels both sides ceiling to underside of structure over existing metal truss studs and extend new stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure' (Same as 20) Patch masonry Patch masonry Extend existing CMU wall with stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structu a and extend existing wood stud & plaster wall with stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure. Provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides as indicated on plans to underside of structure Extend existing CMU wall with stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure Provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure Extend existing stud & plaster wall with stud &fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure and provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides as indicated on plans to underside of structure (Same as 27) Patch masonry FW 30(Same as 27) Existing Provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides as indicated on plans to underside of structure FW 31 (Same as 30) New a " Page 3 VAR FIREWALLS FW 32- (Same as 27) - FW 33 Patch masonry i FW 34 Patch masonry FW 35 (Same as 30) Wew FW 36 Patch masonry FW 37 (Same as 30) New FW 38 Patch masonry FW 39 , (Same as 25) FW 40 Extend existing stud & plaster wall with stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure.. Provide new stud & fireboard "X" -- both.sides as indicated on plans to u derside of structure. Extend existing CMU wit stud. & fireboard "X" both sides to, undersid of structure • FW 41 (Same as 25) x" FW 42 (Same as 30) New FW 43 Extend existing stud & fireboard "X" with stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure and provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides as indicated on plans -to underside of structure. FW 44 (Same as 30) wew ni 45 (Same as 30) New FW 46 (Same as 30) New FW 47-_ Patch existing wall FW 48 (Same as 30) New FW 49 (Same as 30) New I FW 50 Overlay fireboard "X" panels both sides ceiling to underside of structure over existing truss. studs FW 51 Patch Masonry' r FIREWALLS FW 52 (Same as 50 & 53) FW 53 Provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides as indicated on plans to underside of structure FW 54 (Same as 53) FW 55 Extend existing CMU wall with stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure and extend existing lath &•plaster wall with stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure FW 56 (Same as 53) i FW 57 (Same as 50) FW 58 (Same as 50) (Same as 53) FW 59 (Same as 50) FW 60 (Same as 53) FW 61 (Same as 50) FW 60A Extend existing stud & plaster wall with stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of• structure FW 61A (Same as 60A) FW 62 (Same as 53) FW 62A ,Patch masonry FW 63 (Same as 53) FW 64 (Same as 53) _ FW 65 (Same as 50) FW 56A Patch masonry y FW 57A Patch masonry t FW 58A I (Same as 60A) FW 64A.- Extend existing stud & plaster wall with stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure. Patch masonry. Provide new stud :. & fireboard "X" both sides as indicated on plans to underside of structure. I r A x ry �QOKt PAGE ..2 :n Page 5 �IA� 18198 i 1.. -.. , F . FIREWALLS FW 63A (Same as 60A) FW 65A Extend existing stud & plaster wall with stud & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure. Provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides as indicated.on plans to unde'rside. of structure. FW 66 Patch existing wall FW 62A Patch masonry FW 59A Patch masonry FW 67 Overlay fireboard "X" panels both sides ceiling.. to underside of structure over ekisting.truss ,- studs FW 68 Provide new stud & fireboard "X" both sides as indicated on plans to underside of st ucture ' FW 69 (Same as 68) FW 70 (Same as 67) FW 71 (Existing same as 67) and Extend'new partition,-;._ with stud & fireboard "X" both sides to under- Y' side of structure '. FW 72 (Same as 67) FW 73 (Same as 67) FW 74 (Existing same as 67) and Provide new stud & fireboard "X" both.sides as indicated on plans to underside of structure FW 75 - (Same as 67) FW 76 Extend new partition with stud' & fireboard "X" both sides to underside of structure FW 77 (Sarre as 74) \ , FW 78 Patch masonry FW 78A Patch masonry ' FW 79 Extend existing stud & plaster with stud &. fireboard "X" panels both sides to underside of structure r; wrr FIREWALLS FW 8o FW 81 FW 82 FW 83 FW 84 FW 85 FW 86 FW 87 i FW 88 �t FW 89 FW 90 FW 91 FW 92 FW 93 FW 94 FW 95 (Same as 76) Patch masonry Patch masonry overlay fireboard "X" panels both sides ceiling to underside of structure over existing truss studs (Same as 83) Provide new stud & firewall "X" both sides as indicated on plans to underside of structure (Same as 85) (Same as 83) and (Same as 85) (Same as 83) and (Same as 85) (Same as 85) Patch masonry Extend fireboard "X" panels both sides to._ underside of structure Extend fireboard "X" panels both sides to under- side of structure and provide new stud & fire - board "X" both sides as indicated on plans to underside of structure. overlay fireboard "X" panels both sides ceiling to underside of structure over existing truss studs. Provide new studs & firewall "X" both sides as indicated on plans.to underside of structure. (Same as 93) (Same as 83) 77 132fl S6uth pixie mg*twoy Coral Cables Fkxda 331 PO. Box 311939 3Ml665 9211 MR. GRAZIANI COMMENTED THAT AT THE LAST MEETING THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF BREAKING DOWN THE LIST OF THE FIREWALLS; HOWEVER, THERE ARE 95 FIREWALLS, AND THE ARCHITECT FEELS THE PROBLEM SHOULD BE KEPT IN ONE PIECE AND ANALYZED AS ONE SITUATION. HE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THEY REQUESTED THE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A FORMAL PROPOSAL FOR THIS WORK BECAUSE THE CONTRACTOR PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED A CHANGE PROPOSAL OF APPROXIMATELY $93,000 AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADDED THINGS TO IT VERBALLY AND VERBALLY TOOK THINGS OUT; WE, THERE- FORE, REALLY DON T HAVE A WRITTEN UP-TO-DATE SCOPE OF WHERE WE STAND, CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED WHETHER THE LIST INCLUDES ONLY INCOMPLETE FIREWALLS BECAUSE HE BELIEVED SOME WERE DONE EARLIER, AND HE DID NOT WANT TO ARBITRATE WORK WE HAVE ALREADY SETTLED ON. MR. GRAZIANI EXPLAINED THAT THE LIST SETS OUT IF THE FIREWALL WAS ALREADY IN THE CONTRACT; IT SIMPLY CLARIFIES THAT WILL BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT. ATTORNEY COLLINS INQUIRED WHERE THIS IS SHOWN, AND MR. GRAZIANI EXPLAINED THAT THE LIST DESIGNATES THAT FIREWALLS 3, 4, 5 AND 6, FOR INSTANCE, ARE TO BE BUILT AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS, MEANING THAT IT IS ALREADY IN THE CONTRACT. IN OTHER WORDS, FIREWALLS 3, 4, 5 AND 6 WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACTORS LAST WRITTEN PROPOSAL; S0, THE CONTRACTOR ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ALREADY IN THE CONTRACT AND, ACCORDINGLY, DID NOT PUT THEM IN AGAIN. CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT WE ARE CONTENDING THAT ALL OF IT WAS INDICATED ON THE PLANS, AND MR. GRAZIANI AGREED. DEBATE FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT WAS AGREED UPON AND WHAT WAS ADDITIONAL WORK WITH MR. SNODGRASS OF REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION CONTENDING THAT THERE IS A VERY CLEAR AND DISTINCT SYMBOL ON THE DRAWINGS INDICATING NEW FIREWALL CONSTRUCTION AND THAT THE,CONTRACTOR HAD PROVIDED ALL THE CONSTRUCTION THE SYMBOLS CALLED FOR. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE CONTRACTOR MOST CERTAINLY DISAGREES WITH THE ARCHITECTS DECISION AS SET OUT IN THE TWO LETTERS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD, AND THE CONTRACTOR MOST CERTAINLY WILL REQUEST ARBITRATION IF THE BOARD GOES THE WAY THE ARCHITECT HAS RECOMMENDED. 11 MR. REINHOLD POINTED OUT THAT THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE ARCHITECT REPRESENTED TO THE BOARD AS FIREWALL CONSTRUCTION WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, BUT WERE ISSUED AT A LATER DATE ALONG WITH A DIRECTIVE TO THE CONTRACTOR REQUESTING THAT HE PREPARE A PROPOSAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE ADDITIONAL FIREWALLS. CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT THERE OBVIOUSLY IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO SETTLE THAT QUESTION TONIGHT. OUR OBJECT gONIGHT IS TO GET THE JOB DONE AND THEN FIND OUT WHAT INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT. MR. REINHOLD NEXT POINTED OUT THAT THE LETTER UNDER DISCUSSION DIRECTS THE CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT A ONE-HOUR FIREWALL. HE NOTED THAT THEY PRESENTLY ARE WORKING UNDER THE COUNTY'S CONSULTANT AND DOING WHAT HE TELLS THEM TO DO AND HE IS SAYING IT IS A ONE-HOUR FIREWALL; IN SOME CASES, THE CONTRACTOR DOES NOT AGREE THAT IT IS. MR. REINHOLD CONTINUED THAT IF THEY ARE TO BUILD THE ONE-HOUR FIREWALL UNDER THE COUNTY CODE, THEY WILL HAVE TO RETAIN A CONSULTANT OF THEIR OWN. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT IF THE CONTRACTOR WILL RELY ON THE ARCHITECTS SPECIFICATIONS, THE OWNERS WILL BE SATISFIED. HE POINTED OUT THAT IF THE CONTRACTOR DID THE WORK IN THE FIRST PART UNDER THE SPECIFICATIONS AS THE ARCHITECT DELINEATED, THEY CAN DQ IT NOW. MR. REINHOLD STATED THAT THEY ARE BEING TOLD TO CONSTRUCT ONE-HOUR FIREWALLS BUT WITHOUT PUTTING IN ONE-HOUR FIRE RATED DOORS, ETC., WHICH WOULD NEGATE THE VALIDITY OF THE ONE-HOUR FIREWALL. MR. GRAZIANI FELT SURE THAT AS THEY GO ALONG THE ARCHITECT COULD ANSWER EVERY QUESTION AND STATED THAT IF THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS TO CLARIFY, THEY WILL. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT A LETTER HAS BEEN PREPARED THAT WILL ISSUE A WORK ORDER TO PERFORM THE COMPLETE WORK ON THE FIREWALLS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND DETAILED IN THE FIREWALL LIST AND ALSO REQUEST THAT THE CONTRACTOR SUBMIT A FORMAL PROPOSAL PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THIS WORK. HE NOTED THAT THIS .m WILL SERVE TO GET THE WORK STARTED AND THE ARGUMENT WILL BE HANDLED AFTER THE WORK IS COMPLETED. HE RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE THE SIGNING OF SUCH A LETTER. CHAIRMAN LYONS WISHED IT UNDERSTOOD THE.ARCHITECTS WILL SUPPLY THE NECESSARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION WHEREBY THE CONTRACTOR CAN MEET THE TERMS OF THIS WORK ORDER, AND MR, GRAZIANI AGREED, MR. SNODGRASS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY WILL OBJECT TO THIS ORDER AND ASK FOR ARBITRATION BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDING CONSTRUCTION TO AN EXISTING WALL, AND THEY KNOW IT WON T MAKE A FIRE -RATED WALL IN TOTO. THEY ALSO WOULD HAVE TO OBJECT TO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NO CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS AS TO WHAT DOCUMENTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE THE PLANS THE ARCHITECT JUST PRESENTED ARE NOT PART OF THE CONTRACT, BUT ARE DOCUMENTS THEY SENT THE CONTRACTOR TO MAKE A PROPOSAL ON, HE STATED THEY WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF THE ORDER COULD BE MADE A LITTLE CLEARER. MR. GRAZIANI STATED THAT THE ORDER WOULD IDENTIFY THE CHANGES BY NUMBER, ETC., AND CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED IT IS UP TO THE ARCHITECT TO CLARIFY ALL THIS. DISCUSSION AGAIN AROSE ABOUT WHAT WORK IS CONSIDERED ADDI- TIONAL WORK AND WHAT BEARING THE FACT THAT THE CEILINGS WERE EXPOSED PRIOR TO BIDDING MIGHT HAVE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE WISHED THE ARCHITECTS ASSURANCE THAT THE NECESSARY INFORMATION WAS INCORPORATED IN THE LETTER AND THE BACKUP INFORMATION TO INSURE THAT THE CONTRACTOR COULD COMPLETE THE WORK ON THE FIREWALLS AND TO INSURE IT WOULD RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WITH THE FIREWALL QUESTION BEING COMPLETELY RESOLVED IN ARBITRATION. MR. GRAZIANI BELIEVED WHEN THE WORK ORDER IS ISSUED, THERE WILL BE MORE J NFORMATION. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK DID NOT FEEL WE SHOULD BE IN A POSITION TONIGHT OF DEBATING WHO IS AT FAULT IN THIS SITUATION, BUT FELT WE SHOULD TAKE THE NECESSARY ACTION TO MOVE THE PROJECT FORWARD AND ENABLE US TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 13 1 ��.- `�r� �^t*w�cs+,^ __ "'.�, gam-..• .t. :�:.-�- .�: ?a' "c--`�'�,� r 'a" �'rx MAR 181981© l MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE RECOMMENDED LETTER WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE AUTHORITY FOR CONNELL, METCALF & EDDY TO ISSUE A WORK ORDER FOR REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION, INC., TO PERFORM THE WORK IN COMPLETE REPAIR, REPLACEMENT AND/OR INSTALLATION OF THE FIREWALLS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND DETAILED IN THE FIREWALL LIST FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING; REQUEST THE CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT A FORMAL PROPOSAL- FOR THIS WORK PRIORsTO COMMENCEMENT; AND REQUIRE THAT THE ARCHITECT SUPPLY ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER WODTKE WISHED TO KNOW, IF ADDITIONAL INFORMA— TION IS GOING TO BE NEEDED, WHY IT WAS NOT PREPARED BEFORE TONIGHT, AND MR. GRAZIANI EXPLAINED THAT, BY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, HE MEANT ONLY ANY SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS THE CONTRACTOR MIGHT HAVE ABOUT REPAIRING A PARTICULAR FIREWALL. THE BOARD WISHED FURTHER ASSURANCE THAT THE CONTRACTORS ARE BEING INSTRUCTED TO BUILD SO THAT WE CAN OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND WHETHER WE HAVE ANY REASON TO EXPECT THAT THE COMPLETED WALLS WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, MR. GRAZIANI STATED THAT THEY HAVE TO, AND.COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED IF THE ARCHITECT WILL CERTIFY THAT THESE ARE ONE—HOUR FIREWALLS. MR. GRAZIANI EXPLAINED THAT THE ARCHITECT DOES NOT CERTIFY THIS; IT IS THE FIRE MARSHALL WHO APPROVES THEM HE REPORTED THAT THEY HAD MET WITH THE FIRE MARSHALL AND BUILDING INSPECTOR TO DISCUSS THESE WALLS AND WALK THE BUILDING,AND THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR DOING THE FIREWALLS AS SET OUT ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THEM. MR. KONTOULAS NOTED THE ARCHITECT WILL HAVE TO CERTIFY IN WRITING TO THE BUILDING DEPART— MENT THAT THE BUILDING MEETS CODE. COMMISSIONER BIRD NOTED THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS SAYING HE DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION, AND MR. GRAZIANI STATED THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO CLARIFY ANY QUESTION. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4 - 0, AND THE CHAIRMAN SIGNED THE RECOMMENDED LETTER TO THE ARCHITECT AS FOLLOWS: Chairman Vice Chairman PATRICK S. LYONS WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR. A. DROVER FLETCHER DON C. SCURLOCK. JR. DICK BIRD District 2 District 4 District 1 District 3 District b BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 f NEIL A. NELSON - County Administrator Lawyers Title Building 2345 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 562-4186 Secretary to Board Telephone: (305) 569-1940 March 18, 1981- Mr. Fred Kirsch Connell, Metcalf & Eddy 1320 South Dixie Highway P. 0. Box 341939 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 ' Re: Firewalls, Indian River County Administration Building Dear Mr. Kirsch: This letter will constitute authority for Connell, Metcalf & Eddy to issue a work order for the Contractor, Reinhold Construction, Inc. to perform the work in complete repair, replacement and/or installation of the firewalls as shown on the..drawings and detailed in the firewall list for the Indian River County Administration Building. Please request that the contractor submit a formal proposal for this work prior to commencment. Sincerely yours, • A � e /Patr ck B. Lyons, Cha' m n Board of County Commss'oners THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 7:40 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: CLERK Ckj j AN MAR 181981 15 - BOCK 46 pha 105 .i WEDNESDAY, MARCH 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, MARCH 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; GEORGE G. COLLINS, .JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; .JEFFREY K. BARTON, FINANCE DIRECTOR; NEAL BIRD, BAILIFF; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES AND JANICE CALDWELL, DEPUTY CLERKS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, AND PASTOR GARY E. RUSSELL, SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH, GAVE THE INVOCATION. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REQUESTED ADDING A REPORT REGARDING THE GIFFORD SEWER AND WATER COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE REQUESTED ADDING A DISCUSSION ON THE FINAL TAX ROLL; AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, HE REQUESTED ADDING A RESOLUTION HONORING GARY PARRIS. CHAIRMAN LYONS REQUESTED ADDING A PROCLAMATION HONORING HOWARD BASS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ATTORNEY COLLINS REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM CONCERNING INDIAN RIVER -SHORES ANNEXATION. ADMINISTRATOR.NELSON REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM CONCERNING PARKING ON,WABASSO BEACH. COMMISSIONER BIRD REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM REGARDING THE RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE. ��� 46 PA Fl. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE ADDITION OF THE EMERGENCY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA. 111117101a WE low THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 11, 1981. COMMISSIONER BIRD SUGGESTED THAT LINES 14 AND 15 BE DELETED FROM PAGE 22. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 11, 1981, AS CORRECTED. W1141"Im"02MI THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING REQUEST FROM FREDA WRIGHT:. TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: FREDA WRIGHT, CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR CLERK TO THE BOARD FUNCTION CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - BUDGET PROPOSAL: 1. FINANCE -0- 2. DATA PROCESSING $20,500.00 3. RECORDING SECRETARIES 3,000.00 Total request for balance $23,500.00 of fiscal year 1981 The Data Processing Department needs two additional programmers to help complete the conversion to the System 38 computer on a timely basis. Our target date for completing the conversion (batch to batch) is August, 1981. Once the system has been converted the programming must be completed from the batch mode to an on-line mode. This should take another six to nine months before the staff can get involved in any new applications. At the same time a committment has been made to both the Sheriff and the Property Appraiser to process all their general ledger and check disbursements, effective October 1, 1981. The staff requirements will be handled in the following manner: (1) Hiring one (1) additional employee (programmer), (2) Promotion and training of one (1) person presently on our staff. Funding is necessary for the additional employee for the balance of the fiscal year plus benefits and educational expenses are necessary for both persons. Equipment for recording secretaries for Board Minutes. A word processing system from IBM on a lease basis. The system is designed to speed up the process of editing, correcting and printing the Minutes of the Commission meetings. 2 LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING THE HIRING OF A COMPUTER PROGRAMMER, AND OF THE VARIOUS PROJECTS INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSION FROM THE OLD SYSTEM TO THE NEW SYSTEM. FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON SURMISED THE NEW PROGRAMMER WOULD PROBABLY BE NEEDED FOR THREE YEARS TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT. CHAIRMAN LYONS.DI9;'tUSSED HAVING THE FINGERPRINT FILE FROM THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT INCLUDED ON THE COMPUTER.AND IT WAS DETERMINED THIS WAS NOT AS YET INCLUDED .IN THE PROJECT. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE WORD PROCESSING EQUIPMENT FOR THE RECORDING SECRETARIES, WHICH IS TO BE HANDLED ON A LEASE BASIS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR DATA PROCESSING (THE NEW EMPLOYEES POSITION TO BE ELIMINATED IN THREE YEARS) AND FOR THE RECORDING SECRETARIES, REQUESTED BY FREDA WRIGHT, AS FOLLOWS: ACCOuNT NAME ACCOUNT No, INCREASE DECREASE TRANSFER BUDGET 001-300-581-99.93 $3,000.00 OFFICE - FINANCE TRANSFER BUDGET 001-301-516-99.93 20,500,00 OFFICE - D.P. .RESERVE FOR 001-199-513-99.91 $23,500.00 CONTINGENCY ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE CHAIRMAN`S SIGNATURE - FOR DEPUTIES DAVID CHANDLER AND J. PAT CORRIGAN APPOINTED BY SHERIFF DOBECK. - ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE STATE WITNESS PAYROLL, CIRCUIT COURT, FALL -TERM, 1980, IN THE AMOUNT OF $42.35. THE FOLLOWING REPORT WAS THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK: R,:2 5 ' RECEIVED` -AND PLACED ON FILE IN MINUTES OF MEETING -Of THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, FELLSMERE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT, NOV. 13, 1980 k �o� 4 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE LEASE EXTENSIONS AT THE 14TH AVENUE PLAZA, SPACES #4 AND #S SOUTH, AND SPACE #%,. AS FOLLOWS: The Lease between 14TH AVENUE PLAZA, as Landlord and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, as Tenant dated April 9, 1980, for Space # 4 & 5 South 2345 14th Avenue is hereby modified to extend the term of the lease to August 31, 1981. _ The tenant shall have the right to continue to occupy the premises starting S'eptemeber 1, 1981, on a month-to-month basis at the same rental provided the tenant shall give a minimum of sixty (60) days notice to vacate. Paragraph 2.05 shall apply to the above extensions of the lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have signed and sealed this lease as of the /3 y:. day of LiT7r ,t /5 1981. WITNESS: — LANDLORD: 14TH AVENUE PLAZA BY: TENANVF BOAR,J"WAP. P Approved March 25, 1981 E77 The Lease between 14TH AVENUE PLAZA, as Landlord and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, as Tenant dated April 9, 1980, for Space # 7 2345 14th Avenue is hereby modified to extend the term of the lease to August 31, 1981. The tenant shall have the right to continue to occupy the premises starting Septemeber 1, 1981, on a month-to-month basis at the same rental provided the tenant shall give a minimum of sixty (60) days notice to vacate. Paragraph 2.05 shall apply to`the above extensions of the lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have signed and sealed this lease as of the /3, /I, day of 1981. WITNESS: X LANDLORD: 14TH AVENUE PLAZA ONERS Approved March 25, 1981 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR: RUDY HUBBARD C. REED KNIGHT EARL D. WITHERBY _ ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR WILLIAM G. JEWETT. E. PROCLAMAT ION HONORING HOWARD BASS ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED A PROCLAMATION HONORING HOWARD BASS, AS FOLLOWS: t ,2.5181 ; 5 �Oi�� F'AcE x.10 . 7 57 ,� exk is t MAR 2 51981 46, 1 WHEREAS, HOWARD BASS HAS RETIRED EFFECTIVE THE 26TH DAY OF PARCH I981,.AS A MECHANIC FOR THE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND WHEREAS, HOWARD BASS BEGAN WORK WITH INDIAN RIVER s COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT EIGHT YEARS AGO AND HAS BEEN A'DILIGENT AND CAPABLE EMPLOYEE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SINCE THAT TIME, AND WHEREAS, HOWARD BASS HAS WORKED WITH.THE FORESTRY DIVISION FOR FOUR YEARS AND WITH THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS FOR A TOTAL OF OVER TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THIS COUNTY; AND WHEREAS, HOWARD BASS HAS HAD A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORK HE PERFORMED AND DURING HIS TIME OF EMPLOYMENT WAS A VERY LOYAL AND CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE; NOWj THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT THE BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, HEREBY EXPRESS THEIR GRADITUDE TO HOWARD BASS FOR HIS FINE EMPLOYMENT RECORD AND CONTRIBUTION TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DATED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH 1081 _, VERO BEACH, COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA, BOARD OF COUNTY C0MMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By -PATRICK B LYONS, HA RMAN F. RESOLUTION HONORING GARY PARRIS ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 8I-18 HONORING GARY PARRIS. v P 7 ©QK 46 wF112 WHEREAS, GARY PARRIS became interested in sports and athletics as a young boy; and WHEREAS, GARY PARRIS first participated in competitive sports in the City Recreation League when he moved to Vero Beach; and WHEREAS, GARY PARRIS, upon entering high school, played varsity basketball, varsity baseball and varsity track in the 9th grade. At that time 9th graders were not permitted to play varsity football and, in all probability, it was for that reason alone that he did not parti- cipate in varsity football while in the 9th grade; and WHEREAS, GARY PARRIS, participated in all four sports in the 10th, 11th and 12th grades, making All State basketball and All State baseball in his junior year, and All State football in both his junior and senior years in high school and named All State Sophomore of the year in 1966 in football and Athlete of the Decade of the 1960's; and WHEREAS, during his high school career,GARY PARRIS was recruited by more than fifty major colleges for his football expertise; and WHEREAS, from among the many choices given to him, GARY PARRIS chose Florida State University for his college where he played varsity football for the Florida State Seminoles for three years; and -WHEREAS, while at Florida State University, GARY PARRIS received honors and was voted All South in both his junior and senior years and was named A. P. All American in his senior year at Florida State University; and WHEREAS, GARY PARRIS entered professional football when he was drafted by the San Diego Chargers in 1973. He then went to the Cleveland Browns where he played for four years and finally, GARY PARRIS played with the St. Louis Cardinals during the last two years of his professional football career; and WHEREAS, GARY PARRIS displayed exemplary skill and sportsmanship during his career as a professional football player. He was awarded the game ball on the Monday night T. V. game while with Cleveland against the New England Patriots in 1977 and in the same year was awarded the game ball in a game against the Miami Dolphins. In the same year GARY PARRIS led the Cleveland Browns in touchdown re- ceptions.. In 1979, while playing with the St. Louis Cardinals, GARY PARRIS was.again awarded with the game balls in games against the Houston Oilers and the New York Giants; and WHEREAS, GARY PARRIS, during his athletic career, in high school, college and as a professional, has represented our community in a most commendable manner; and WHEREAS, Indian River County wishes to honor one of its outstanding citizens for the recognition he has brought to the County by his numerous accomplishments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board on behalf of itself and the citizens of Indian River County, expresses its appreciation to GARY PARRIS for his many accomplishments in the world of athletics and for the sportsmanlike example he has set for the young people of our community; and 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board wishes GARY PARRIS continued success in his future endeavors. Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 25th day of Marrh , 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By •°` d - R P4trick B. Lyons, Chair{nan THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING REQUEST CONCERNING PURCHASES FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS OUTSIDE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S AREA: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA f INTER -'OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Conmiissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson County Administrator DATE: 3_17_81 FILE: SUBJECT: Request for Purchases for Other Departments Outside the County Administrator's Area REFERENCES: 1. Description and Conditions The Materials Management Department has been requested to purchase items for governmental departments outside the Administrator's area of responsibility. We can support these requests and furnish the materials requested; however, there is an administrative cost associated with these purchases. 2. Alternatives and Analysis Each purchase process does take time and an administrative mark up should be assessed. For all items we carry in stock, 10% would be a fair mark up. On all items of capital expense; i.e_., equipment, the department can be billed directly and therefore, no administrative expense is incurred. 3. Recommendation t It is recomnended that we continue to purchase for departments outside the Administrator's area of responsibility when requested. That those items we have in stock and we incur an administrative handling cost, a 10% mark up be included in the bill. For those items that we can have the department billed directly, no marX- up be assessed. tda 46 PS E IA MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCKITHAT THE RECOMMENDATION BE DENIED. LENGTHY DISCUSSION ENSUED,AND THE BOARD OBJECTED TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 10% SURCHARGE. FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON POINTED OUT IT WOULD BE BEST FOR EXPLAINED THAT THE AUDITORS HAVE LL THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS TO USE CENTRALIZED PURCHASING PROCEDURES. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WITHDREW HIS MOTION, AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WITHDREW HIS SECOND. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IN THE PRECEDING MEMORANDUM, LESS THE 10% SURCHARGE.. D._ SOUTH BEACH WATER -SYSTEM WORKSHOP THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTER — OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 19, 1981 FILE: The Board of County Commission SUBJECT: South Beach Water System - Workshop FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: County Administrator The Board of County Commissioners has previously scheduled a workshop for discussion of the South Beach Water System proposals for Thursday, March 26, 1981. In order to allow suffic.ient.time for accumulation of additional data and analysis of this additional material, the Administration recommends the proposed workshop be re -scheduled for April 8, 1981 at 7:00 P.M. at the Vero Beach City Hall. The Board's meeting with Florida Department of Transportation Personnel scheduled for 1:30 P.M. on March 26, 1981 would remain unchanged. Board concurrence with the above recommendation is requested. APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR BY !�J ADMINISTRATOR NELSON SUGGESTED THAT SINCE PLANNING & ZONING IS MEETING ON APRIL 8TH IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, THIS WORKSHOP MEETING COULD MOVE ITS LOCATION. THE BOARD AGREED TO MEET ON APRIL 8TH AT 7:00 P.M. AT A LOCATION TO BE ANNOUNCED. 7 COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS SALARY CHAIRMAN LYONS RECOMMENDED THAT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR NELSON'S SALARY BE INCREASED TO $32,500 AS HE HAS BEEN THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SIX MONTHS. THIS INCREASE WOULD MAKE HIS SALARY MORE CONSISTENT WITH HIS POSITION AND REMOVE IT FROM THE RANGE OF THE ASSISTANT ADMINIS- TRATOR I S SALARY. CHAIRMAN LYONS CONTINUED THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION IS ROUGHLY A 10% INCREASE. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD TO APPROVE INCREASING ADMINISTRATOR NELSON'S COMPENSATION TO $32,500. COMMISSIONER BIRD COMPLIMENTED THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR BRINGING A GREAT DEAL OF PROFESSIONALISM TO THAT DEPARTMENT. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION, NOT BECAUSE OF,ADMINISTRATOR NELSON PERSONALLY, BUT HE FELT THIS WAS A NUMBERS GAME SO AN ASSISTANT CAN BE HIRED. - THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. CHAIRMAN LYONS REPORTED THAT HE MET WITH ATTORNEY .JENNINGS, WHO.REPRESENT:ED THE .JAYCEES IN GIFFORD, AND THEY DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE IN GIFFORD WANTED TO HAVE ADDITIONAL SERVICES. HE SUGGESTED TO .ATTORNEY JENNINGS THAT THE VARIOUS GROUPS IN GIFFORD FORM A COMMITTEE; HE STRESSED THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO GIVE THEM ALL THE HELP THEY NEEDED AS LONG AS IT INVOLVED THE MAJORITY OF GIFFORD. CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THE GROUP CONTACT FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT TO DETERMINE WHAT THE COST WOULD BE FOR STREET LIGHTS. -._MAR 2 51981 11 48, PACE IJ& VIEW AND THOUGHT THE VOTING MACHINES SHOULD BE -USED TO ASK THE COMMUNITY WHAT THEIR NEEDS WERE, IN A DEMOCRATIC FASHION. COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM HAVING A REFERENDUM BECAUSE THE LIONS SHARE OF THE TAXABLE PROPERTIES IN THAT AREA DO NOf BELONG TO THE REGISTERED VOTERS. CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT IF THEY WILL FORM A COMMITTEE AND COME UP WITH WHAT THEY WANT TO D0, THE BOARD CAN THEN ADVISE THEM WHAT THE COST WOULD BE. -a-IS.C.US ION RE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SALE OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT HE RECENTLY ATTENDED A MEETING OF THE ANTI-DRUG GROUP WHERE THEY SUGGESTED AN ORDINANCE BE PASSED PROHIBITING THE SALE OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. HE THEN RECOMMENDED THAT IF THE BOARD WAS IN AGREEMENT, THE ATTORNEY COULD PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR THE NEXT MEETING SIMILAR TO THE ONE THE CITY OF VERO BEACH HAS. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE ATTORNEY DRAFT AN ORDINANCE SIMILAR TO THE ONE RECENTLY PASSED BY THE CITY OF VERO BEACH FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AT THE NEXT MEETING. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. CHAIRMAN LYONS EXPRESSED GREAT CONCERN ABOUT WOOD BEING DESTROYED AND THOUGHT A PROGRAM COULD BE SET UP TO OBTAIN FIREWOOD FROM THE LANDFILL. HE THEN ASKED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO WORK ON SETTING UP AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM TO TRY TO SAVE THIS FIREWOOD. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK AGREED THAT IT WAS RIDICULOUS TO FILL UP THE SANITARY LANDFILL WITH CLEAN FILL AND WAS HOPEFUL THAT A PROGRAM COULD BE IMPLEMENTED. I" LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND THE BOARD SUGGESTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR STUDY THE SITUATION AND RECOMMEND AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM TO SAVE THE FIREWOOD. COMMISSIONER BIRD PREVIEWED THE FOLLOWING WITH THE BOARD: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTER Composition of Committee: 1 appointment - Indian River County Commission 1 appointment - City Council Vero Beach 1 appointment - City Council Sebastian 1 appointment - City Council Fellsmere 1 appointment - City Council Indian River Shores 1 appointment - Resident Gifford Community 1 appointment - School Board of Indian River County x 1 appointment - Chairman City Recreation Committee 1 appointment - Chairman North County Recreation Committee Ex Officio Members City of Vero Beach Recreation Director Indian River County 'Planning & Zoning Director City of Vero Beach Planning & Zoning Director Scope of Responsibility:. 1. Study existing facilities and programs. 2. Develop short range and long range plans for better utilization of exisitng and f:ture facilities and programs, to include acquisition of additional lands. 3. Help promote and develop cooperation and coordination between the county government, municipal governments, and the Indian River County School Board. 4. Conduct public hearings to generate citizens ideas and interest in recreation. 5. Ultimately help develop a master plan for county wide recreation. j AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, THE BOARD FELT THAT ANOTHER ITEM REGARDING ALTERNATIVES FOR FUNDING SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITY. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THAT THE -.BOARD ADOPT RESOLUTION 8I-19 APPROVING THE COMPOSITION OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE AND THAT COMMISSIONER BIRD BE APPOINTED TO THE COMMITTEE. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON 13 BOOK 46 PAGE x.1,5 AAR 2 5 W 6 Boor 46 PACE 1 RESOLUTION NO. 81- 19 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that there is hereby created and established a parks and recreation committee within Indian River County, hereinafter known as the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE. The purpose, organizational structure, appointment of members and terms of office of members'shall be according to the following guidelines: A. PURPOSE: The INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE is formed to develop improved recreational facilities and promote cooperation and coordination between the various County agencies. B: RESPONSIBILITIES: It shall be the responsibility of the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE to: 1. Study existing facilities and programs; 2. Develop short range and long range plans for better utilization of existing and future -facilities and programs, to include acquisition of additional lands; 3. Help promote and develop cooperation and coordination between the County government, Municipal governments and the Indian River County School Board; 4. Conduct public hearings to generate citizens ideas and interest in recreation; 5. Ultimately help develop a master plan for County -wide recreation; 6. Develop a plan for allocation of funding between the various municipalities and County and provide alternative plans for funding as appropriate; a 7. Review the present use oft School Board properties and recommend areas of improvement and methods to increase utilization; 8. Encourage those organizations and governmental entities who have historically helped themselves. C. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE: 1. The INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE shall consist of nine (9) members all of whom shall be residents of Indian River County, consisting of one (1) member to be appointed by each.of the following designated areas: Indian River County Commission City Council Vero Beach City Council - Sebastian City Council - Fellsmere City Council - Indian River Shores Resident of Gifford Community School Board of Indian River County Chairman City Recreation Committee Chairman North County Recreation Committee 2. Regular ex officio members of the COMMITTEE shall be the the City of Vero Beach Recreation Director, Indian River County Planning and Zoning Director and City of Vero Beach Planning and Zoning Director. 3. The first Chairman of the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE shall be the appointment from the Board of County Commissioners, thereafter the COMMITTEE shall annually elect a Chairman from within its ranks. D. TERM OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS: 1. The term of office shall commence upon appointment and shall shall run for approximately a one-year period or at the pleasure of the appointing body. 2. In the event a COMMITTEE member does not complete a full term of office, the term of office of the replacing member shall terminate at the expiration date of the member replaced. E. COMMITTEE MEETINGS: .Meetings shall be at the call of the COMMITTEE Chairman. MAR 2 51981 BOOK 46 FACE 120 ,�... ,ry>.?w xG ...'.<.:�'3,.acw^.TM. r; a.:.y a -r. ,. - -,—:- r, -,_.,A..'. -•—r -?---'TT"'""'"-.-,, ...,�.. T^ ----n.'- "5 d'^ pY,�y�.r rmrcu�Pc 7 1 71., MAR 2 51981 6 BoG . 4 Ft.GE�. Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 25th day of March , 1981. Attest: Freda Wright, V erk MAR 2 51981 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN R R COUNTY, FLORIDA By P rick B. Lyons,^airlaan w I GIFFORD SEWER AND WATER COMMITTEE COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK DISCUSSED THE OLD RESOLUTION THAT DATES BACK TO 1978 FOR THE GIFFORD SEWER AND WATER COMMITTEE, AND SUGGESTED THAT A NEW RESOLUTION BE DRAFTED BY THE ATTORNEY APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN GIFFORD. HE FELT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THIS RESOLUTION IN TIME FOR THE MEETING ON APRIL 13TH OF THE GIFFORD SEWER AND WATER COMMITTEE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-20 REVISING THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTION FOR THE GIFFORD SEWER AND WATER COMMITTEE TO INCLUDE THE APPOINTMENT OF NEW REPRESENTATIVES FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN GIFFORD. RECEIVED. RESOLUTION 81-20 WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN ►i OR 2-5-198t 17 BOOK 46 PAGE 122 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ADVISED THE BOARD THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SYSTEM SET UP WHEREBY THE PURCHASER IN A SUBDIVISION WOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE WATER, SEWER, OR SEPTIC TANK SITUATION. THIS, HE FELT, WOULD PUT-tHE PURCHASER ON NOTICE SO THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO PLEAD HIS SHORTCOMINGS TO THE GOVERNMENT. HE CONTINUED THAT PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER ADVISED HE WOULD LOOK INTO THE MATTER AND f HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS BY APRIL 1ST. LENGTHY DISCUSSION ENSUED AND IT WAS FELT THIS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED AT A WORKSHOP MEETING. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTIFIED THE BOARD THAT THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF REWORKING THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AT THE PRESENT TIME - COVERING EXACTLY THE THINGS COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WAS CONCERNED ABOUT. COMMISSIONER BIRD DISCUSSED THE FEASIBILITY OF MAKING IT A REQUIREMENT FOR A DEVELOPER TO PAY FOR THE COUNTY ROAD THAT HE WOULD BE IMPACTING. DISCUSSION NEXT FOLLOWED ABOUT DEVELOPERS CREATING TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED COUNTY ROADS. THE BOARD FELT THESE MATTERS SHOULD BE PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE APRIL 8TH WORKSHOP. V_ TAX ROLL COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD NO TAXING BODY WOULD RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS; NOW HE EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD COULD GET MONEY FROM THE INCREASED TAX ROLL. HE FELT THE TAXPAYERS OF THE COUNTY�HAD NO IDEA THIS WAS HAPPENING. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED - THE BOARD FELT IT WAS VERY DISTURBING, AND THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE SOME POSITIVE ACTION. IT WAS DECIDED TO z ASK PROPERTY APPRAISER NOLTE TO COME AND DISCUSS THIS MATTER LATER IN THE AFTERNOON WITH THE BOARD, k MAR 2 51991 77 BOCIt 4P;fifiE. SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS - DISCUSSION . COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ADVISED THE BOARD THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SYSTEM SET UP WHEREBY THE PURCHASER IN A SUBDIVISION WOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE WATER, SEWER, OR SEPTIC TANK SITUATION. THIS, HE FELT, WOULD PUT-tHE PURCHASER ON NOTICE SO THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO PLEAD HIS SHORTCOMINGS TO THE GOVERNMENT. HE CONTINUED THAT PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER ADVISED HE WOULD LOOK INTO THE MATTER AND f HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS BY APRIL 1ST. LENGTHY DISCUSSION ENSUED AND IT WAS FELT THIS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED AT A WORKSHOP MEETING. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTIFIED THE BOARD THAT THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF REWORKING THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AT THE PRESENT TIME - COVERING EXACTLY THE THINGS COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WAS CONCERNED ABOUT. COMMISSIONER BIRD DISCUSSED THE FEASIBILITY OF MAKING IT A REQUIREMENT FOR A DEVELOPER TO PAY FOR THE COUNTY ROAD THAT HE WOULD BE IMPACTING. DISCUSSION NEXT FOLLOWED ABOUT DEVELOPERS CREATING TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED COUNTY ROADS. THE BOARD FELT THESE MATTERS SHOULD BE PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE APRIL 8TH WORKSHOP. V_ TAX ROLL COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD NO TAXING BODY WOULD RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS; NOW HE EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD COULD GET MONEY FROM THE INCREASED TAX ROLL. HE FELT THE TAXPAYERS OF THE COUNTY�HAD NO IDEA THIS WAS HAPPENING. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED - THE BOARD FELT IT WAS VERY DISTURBING, AND THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE SOME POSITIVE ACTION. IT WAS DECIDED TO z ASK PROPERTY APPRAISER NOLTE TO COME AND DISCUSS THIS MATTER LATER IN THE AFTERNOON WITH THE BOARD, k MAR 2 51991 .M PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4-38 ENERGY EFFICIENCY BUILDING CODE ADOPTED; AMENDMENTS 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: 7 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 a !:;24� in the matter of �.� . 1 �� �L� !Z—3j? 3j? in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- #isernent; 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 fof publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me (SEAL) of&AIL. A.D._4z—jy— -(Bessc'Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indibn)River County, Florida) NOTICE - NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board i of County Commissioners of Indian River County„ Florida, will hold a public hearing on March 25, 1981, at 11:00 A.AA., in the' City Council Chambers In the Vero Beach City Hall to consider the adoptioe of an , Ordinance amending Indian River County i Code of County Ordinances Section 438 Energy Efficiency Building Code Adopted; ,! Amendments to provide for a new Model Energy Efficiency Code as mandated by the 1980 Florida Legislature and providing for an effective date. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida Byi-s-Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman Mar. 5, 1981. s THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO BE HEARD. THERE WERE NONE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THIS IS A UNIFORM CODE THROUGHOUT 19 Boor MAR 2 51981 soon 4 , c i- 5 MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD�FOR THE BOARD TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 81-12 AMENDING THE CODE OF COUNTY ORDINANCES SECTION 4-38 ENERGY EFFICIENCY BUILDING CODE ADOPTED; AMENDMENTS; TO PROVIDE FOR A NEW MODEL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE AS MANDATED BY THE 1980 FLORIDA LESIGLATURE; AND PROVIDE FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIER 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. il 20 = INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 81-12 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF COUNTY ORDINANCES SECTION 4-38 ENERGY EFFICIENCY BUILDING CODE ADOPTED; AMENDMENTS; TO PROVIDE FOR A NEW MODEL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE AS MANDATED BY THE 1980 FLORIDA LEGISLATURE; 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 Section 4-38, which previously read: Sec. 4-38. Energy efficiency building code adopted; amendments. (a) On March 21, 1979, Indian River County adopted as an additional building code for said county the "Indian River County Energy Efficiency Building Code," also known as "The Code For Energy Conservation In New Building Construction With Florida Amendments," and referred to herein as the "energy code," three (3) copies of which are on file in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Indian River County, Florida, all of which are hereby made a part of the Indian River County Code of Ordin- ances as if herewith completely incorporated herein subject only to specific additions, deletions, and amendments as set forth in this sec- tion 4-38. Any person, firm or corporation, violating or convicted of a violation of any provisions of said code for which a penalty is or may be provided, shall be in that manner punished, otherwise, or in addition thereto, shall be punished as prescribed by law. (b) Add the following sentence to the introductory paragraph of Section 101.3(a) at page 1-2 of the energy code: Only those portions of the structure which are actually renovated shall be required to meet this energy code. (c) Replace Section 101.3(a)2 at page 1-2 of the energy code, which as amended will read: 2. Exempt buildings: a. Any building or portion thereof whose peak design rate of energy usage for all purposes is less than one watt (3.4 British thermal units per hour) per square foot of floor area for all purposes. b. Any building which is neither heated nor cooled. c. Any mobile home. d. Any building or portion thereof subject to standards established by the United States. J e. Any historical building as described in Section 267.021(6), Florida Statutes. f. Any state building that must conform to the more stringent "Florida Energy Conservation Act of 1974" and amendments thereto. (d) Replace Section 101.3(b)2 at pages 1-3 and 1-4 of the energy code, which as amended will read: 2. Exempted public buildings means: a. Any public building or portion thereof whose peak design rated energy usage for all purposes is less than one watt (3.4 Btu's per hour) per square foot of floor area for all purposes. b. Any public building which is neither heated nor cooled. 5- 1981 �n ' -r-A6;26 c. Any mobile home. d. Any buildings or portion thereof subject to standards established by the United States. e. Any state building that must conform to the more stringent "Florida Energy Conservation in Buildings Act of 1974" and amendments thereto. (e) Add the following definition to Section 201.1 on page 2-4 of the energy code: Heated slab. A flopr, usually constructed of concrete, that has heat energy supplied"into the slab to provide heating to an interior space. (f) Add the following sentence at page 5-2 of the energy code immedi- ately following the last sentence of paragraph 502.2(a)(1): Equation I -A may be used. (g) Add the following paragraphs at page 5-2 of the energy code, following paragraph 502.2(a)3: 502.2(b). Insulating/Solar Glass Equivalence: Table 5-2C in Section 502.3(c) shows shading coefficients for solar glass which are equivalent to insulating glass. This table is applicable for residential buildings. 502.3(c). Insulating/Solar Glass Equivalence: Table 5-2C indicates the maximum shading coefficients for single -pane solar glass which are equivalent to dual -pane insulating glass with a U value of 0.65 or larger. (h) Replace Table 5-1 at page 5-3 of the energy code with the following Table and new Footnote 1 and amended Footnote 2: Element Table 5-1 Type Al and A2 Residential Buildings Mode Value Walls Heating or Cooling Uo 0.30 Max.2 Roof/ceiling Heating or Cooling Uo 0.05 Max. Floors over unheated spaces Heating or Cooling Uo 0.30 Max. Heated slab on grade Heating R 3.4 Min. 1For A2 buildings U + 0.38 Max. is permitted. 2Roof/ceiling assemblies in which the finished interior surface is the underside of the roof deck, a maximum value Uois 0.09 Btu/h ft. 2 F. (i) Add the following Equation 1-A on a new page of the energy code- numbered odenumbered 5-6.1: 6 Z Equation 1-A U + M x UwAw + U 9 A 9 + U d A d Where: UO = The average or combined thermal transmittance of the gross exterior wall area. A = The gross exterior wall area. MAR 25 1981 46 ..'r 4. .. c. Any mobile home. d. Any buildings or portion thereof subject to standards established by the United States. e. Any state building that must conform to the more stringent "Florida Energy Conservation in Buildings Act of 1974" and amendments thereto. (e) Add the following definition to Section 201.1 on page 2-4 of the energy code: Heated slab. A flopr, usually constructed of concrete, that has heat energy supplied"into the slab to provide heating to an interior space. (f) Add the following sentence at page 5-2 of the energy code immedi- ately following the last sentence of paragraph 502.2(a)(1): Equation I -A may be used. (g) Add the following paragraphs at page 5-2 of the energy code, following paragraph 502.2(a)3: 502.2(b). Insulating/Solar Glass Equivalence: Table 5-2C in Section 502.3(c) shows shading coefficients for solar glass which are equivalent to insulating glass. This table is applicable for residential buildings. 502.3(c). Insulating/Solar Glass Equivalence: Table 5-2C indicates the maximum shading coefficients for single -pane solar glass which are equivalent to dual -pane insulating glass with a U value of 0.65 or larger. (h) Replace Table 5-1 at page 5-3 of the energy code with the following Table and new Footnote 1 and amended Footnote 2: Element Table 5-1 Type Al and A2 Residential Buildings Mode Value Walls Heating or Cooling Uo 0.30 Max.2 Roof/ceiling Heating or Cooling Uo 0.05 Max. Floors over unheated spaces Heating or Cooling Uo 0.30 Max. Heated slab on grade Heating R 3.4 Min. 1For A2 buildings U + 0.38 Max. is permitted. 2Roof/ceiling assemblies in which the finished interior surface is the underside of the roof deck, a maximum value Uois 0.09 Btu/h ft. 2 F. (i) Add the following Equation 1-A on a new page of the energy code- numbered odenumbered 5-6.1: 6 Z Equation 1-A U + M x UwAw + U 9 A 9 + U d A d Where: UO = The average or combined thermal transmittance of the gross exterior wall area. A = The gross exterior wall area. Uw = The thermal transmittance of the opaque wall. A = Opaque wall area. Ug = The thermal transmittance of the glazing. Ag = Glazing area. U = The thermal transmittance of the doors. Ad = Door area. M = Correction factor for mass based on specific heat, density and climate. 7 9 (j) Add the following Table 5-2C after Table 5-2B at page 5-8 of the energy code: Table 5-2C Insulating/Solar Glass Equivalence Equivalent Shading Coefficients Climatological Zones 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.55 0.55 0.58 0.64 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.70 '0.70 After calculating compliance of U values, the designer may substi- tute equal amounts of solar glass with the above shading coefficients (or lower) for insulating glass with U values of 0.65 (or higher). (k) Paragraph 503.2(a) at page 5-10 of the energy code is hereby amended as follows: 503.2(a). Calculation Procedures: For purposes of sizing HVAC systems, the procedures described in Chapters 24, 25, or 26 of Std. RS -1 may be used, or an equivalent computation procedure. This code does not regulate HVAC system sizing. HVAC systems may be -sized using weather criteria not contained in this code. This code does not stipulate designer safety factors, provisions for future - expansion, or other factors which affect equipment sizing. (1) Add the following paragraph 503.4(b)(4) following paragraph 503.4(b)(3)(e) at page 5-14 of the energy code: 503.4 (b) (4) . - Electric resistance comfort heating equipment may be used separately or in conjunction with straight air conditioning units or other HVAC systems. The manufacturer of electric resistance comfort heating equipment shall make available to prospective purchasers, designers, or contractors full load energy input over the range of voltages at which the equipment is intented to operate. (m) Subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Subsection 503.7(a) on page 5-18 of the energy code are hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Where used to control heating..only, a maximum temperature setting of 72 F. 2. Where used to control cooling only, a minimum temperature of 79 F. 3. Where used to control both heating and cooling, it shall have a maximum heating mode temperature setting of 72 F and a minimum cooling mode temperature setting of 78 F and shall be capable of operating the system.heating and cooling in sequence. It shall be adjustable to 5 1981 3- 46ME128 soMAR 25 1981 , provide a temperature range of up to 10 F between full heating and full cooling in sequence. It shall be adjustable to provide a temperature range of up to 10 F between full heating and full cooling, except as followed in 503.3(c)4b. (n) The introductory paragraph of Section 503.9 in the energy code as adopted March 21, 1979, remains as follows: All duct work shall be constructed -and erected in accordance with standards RS -15, RS -16, RS -17, RS -18, RS -19, or RS -20, as applicable, which standards supersede the standards in Section 502 of the Standard Mechanical Code now or hereafter in effect as adopted by the county. The other provisions of Chapter V of the said mechanical code apply to the extent the specific criteria are not addressed in any applicable RS standards. If there is a conflict between any provisions of Chapter V of said mechanical code as amended or hereafter and the RS standards, the RS standards shall control. Subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Section 503.9,are not amended. This amendment continues from the original adoption of the energy code on March 21, 1979. (o) Add the following paragraph 504.2(a)2 at page 5-26 of the energy code between "when tested in accordance with Standard RS -7" and "EXCEPTION:-:" All gas-/ and oil -fired water heaters having an input rate over 75,000 Btu/h (22kw) but less than 4,000 Btu/h per gallon (0.3 kw/liter) of -self -stored water shall also have a standby loss not exceeding: X = 2.8 + p/002 Q/V Where Q = rated input in Btu/h; V =3 rated volume in gallons (S = 2.8 + 25/9 Q/I for V of 1.52 m or less; or S = 2.8 + 41 Q/V for V exceeding 1.52 m ) when tested in accordance with Section 2.8 of Standard RS -7. (For determining the efficiency of oil fired units, CF = 1.0; Q = total gallons of oil consumed; and H = total heating value of the oil in Btu/gallon). (p) The italicized paragraph in paragraph (e) of Section 505.2 of the energy code remains deleted. Said deleted paragraph reads as follows: A single meter for the building can be installed to determine power company charges with submetering for each tenant to prorate the charges between tenants. (q) Add the following after the last sentence of paragraph 602.2(a) at page 6-1 of the energy code: Charts 6-C and 6-D shall be used for Group R buildings. Thermal mass factor M = 0.8. (r) Subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Subsection 603.3 on page 6-5 of the energy code are hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Where used to control heating only, a maximum temperature setting of 72 F. J. 2. Where used to control cooling only, a minimum temperature setting of 78 F. (s) Add Chart 6-C by an inserted new pagb numbered 6-10.1 following page 6-10 of the energy code. Add the following sentence under the heading of said Chart 6-C: (Includes mass factor of 0.8) Also add Chart 6-D to the reverse side of said new page 6-10; number said reverse side page 6-10.2 and add the following under the heading of said Chart 6-D: (Includes mass factor of 0.8) -4- (t) Add the following sentence as a new paragraph following the last paragraph of Section 802.1 (following the paragraph referring to Column F) and immediately before Section 802.2 at page 8-2 of the energy code: Infiltration need not be calculated as part of the design -day method. (u) Alternate pages 1-2A, 1-4A, 5-15A, 5-16A, 5-17A, 6-4A, and 6-5A are not adopted by the county. Appendix Tables 6-1A at page 6-11, 6-1B at page 6-12, 6-1C at page 6-13, 6-2 and 6-3 both at page 6-14 as they existed on March 21, 1979 are deleted from the Indian River County Energy Code. The State of Florida is now amending said Appendix Tables. When each amended appendix table is adopted by the state, each state - adopted amendment shall automatically become a part of the energy code as typical assemblies, and which shall not be all inclusive. Alternate Table 6-1B has been adopted by the State of Florida and shall be inserted at page 6-12 of the energy code as a typical assemblage. (v) The Indian River County Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall have jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the building official regard- ing the Indian River County Energy Code and the standards therein. (w) Add additional Section 9, Residential Point System Method dated August 30, 1979 prepared by Brabham, Kuhns, DeBay, and Dr. Roger Messen- ger and Dr. Jose Villanueva which Addendum to the Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction is incorporated into this section with three (3) copies on file in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Indian River County, said addendum numbered 901.0 through 903.5. (x) Add an additional Section 10, Florida Power and Light Company Optional Energy -Saving Features/Point Awards which shall read: 1001 Limited solely to single-family residential structures where it is established that the Florida Power and Light Company Optional Energy - Saving Features/Point Awards system meets or exceeds criteria established in the energy code as amended by this section, the building department shall be authorized to accept an application that meets or exceeds one hundred (100) points over the Florida Power and Light Company Optional Energy -Saving Features/Point Awards in lieu of other methods of compu- tation as provided in the energy code. The Florida Power and Light Company criteria designated Optional Energy -Saving Features/Point Awards, is hereby incorporated into this section with three (3) copies on file in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Indian River County, Florida. (Ord. No. 79-6, X 1, 3-26-79; Ord. No. 80-4, X 1, 2-11-80) 'Cross reference -Mechanical code, X X 4-101, 4-102. Indian River County Code of County Ordinances Section 4-38 is amended to read as follows: Sec. 4-38. Energy efficiency building code adopted; amendments. (a) Effective October 1, 1980, the 1980 Florida Legislature mandated Chapter 80-193, Laws of Florida, which state in essence that the Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code replaces all other codes addressing energy code standards in the State of Florida. Therefore, Indian River County does hereby adopt the Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction, published by the Governor's Energy Office for the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Codes and Standards, effective October 1, 1980, a copy of which is on file in the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Department and which is hereby made a part of the Code of County Ordinances as if herewith completely incorporated herein. (b) Violations and penalties. Any person, firm or corporation, or anyone acting in behalf thereof, who shall violate or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Section, as amended, shall upon conviction be punished by fine not to—exceed $500.00. The Board of County Commissioners may enforce provisions of this Ordinance by seeking injunctive relief, or any other remedies provided by law. This Ordinance shall take effect March 30, 1981. 01 A -6- MAR 2� 51981 Ordinances as if herewith completely incorporated herein. (b) Violations and penalties. Any person, firm or corporation, or anyone acting in behalf thereof, who shall violate or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Section, as amended, shall upon conviction be punished by fine not to—exceed $500.00. The Board of County Commissioners may enforce provisions of this Ordinance by seeking injunctive relief, or any other remedies provided by law. This Ordinance shall take effect March 30, 1981. 01 A -6- FIRE DISTRICT MEETINGS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT 11:28 O'CLOCK A.M. SO THAT THE DISTRICT BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MIGHT CONVENE. MINUTES OF THAT MEETING WILL BE PREPARED SEPARATELY. d} THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECONVENED AT 11:32 O'CLOCK A.M. AND PROMPTLY RECESSED SO THAT THE DISTRICT BOARD OF FIRE COMMIS- SIONERS OF THE NORTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MIGHT CONVENE. MINUTES OF THAT MEETING WILL BE PREPARED SEPARATELY. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECONVENED AT 11:36 O'CLOCK A.M. SUIT FILED BY DR. C. FENNER - DISCUSSION ATTORNEY COLLINS ADVISED THAT HE RECENTLY RECEIVED SERVICE ON A LAWSUIT FILED BY DR. FENNER AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS. HE CONTINUED THAT THIS MATTER NEEDS TO BE APPROPRIATELY FUNDED AND NOTED THAT THE BOARD COULD DECLARE FUNDS BE EXPENDED FOR THIS SUIT. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS INSURANCE TO COVER THIS TYPE OF LAWSUIT, AND THE ATTORNEY STATED HE WOULD REVIEW THE INSURANCE COVERAGE WITH THE CARRIER. MOST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS FELT THE ATTORNEY SHOULD CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT SINCE THE PROBLEM OF A HAZARDOUS STRUCTURE,II.S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER DISAGREED AND THOUGHT JUST ADVISING DR. FENNER THAT HIS BUILDING WAS A HAZARDOUS STRUCTURE SHOULD BE THE EXTENT OF THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THE J LITIGATION WAS OVER BEFORE THE DEMOLITION TOOK PLACE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THAT FUNDS BE APPROPRIATED FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE COMMISSIONERS NAMED IN THE SUIT IN THE EVENT THE ATTORNEY FINDS THERE IS NOT --SUFFICIENT INSURANCE COVERAGE. 27 C 4161. PAcf 132 OBTAINED BEFORE DEMOLITION:'OF THE HAZARDOUS STRUCTURE OWNED BY DR. FENNER. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONERILETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. INDIAN RIVER SHORES ANNEXATION ATTORNEY COLLINS ADVISED THE BOARD THAT THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES IS TRYING TO DETERMINE THEIR BOUNDARIES, AND THEY PLAN TO HAVE A MEETING REGARDING THIS MATTER, HE COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO STAY ABREAST OF THIS PARTICULAR MATTER AND ATTEND THE MEETING; AND INQUIRED IF THE BOARD WANTED TO GIVE HIM ANY GUIDANCE. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE BOARD WANTED ATTORNEY COLLINS TO ATTEND THE MEETING; THAT HE BE INSTRUCTED TO ADVISE THE BOARD WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION OF THE PARK PROPERTY AT THE TRACKING STATION; THAT THE 70' ACQUIRED IN THE NORTH BEACH AREA BE EXCLUDED; AND ANYTHING THAT IS COUNTY PROPERTY SHOULD BE EXLUDED FROM THE ANNEXATION. x.: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT 12:00 O'CLOCK NOON FOR LUNCH AND RECONVENED AT 1:45 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT, DEPUTY CLERK VIRGINIA HARGREAVES TOOK OVER FROM DEPUTY CLERK JANICE CALDWELL FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING. TAX ROLL CHAIRMAN LYONS INFORMED THOSE PRESENT THAT DR. BURNS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, AND PROPERTY APPRAISER DAVID NOLTE, WERE PRESENT TO DISCUSS THE FACT THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET CHARGED FOR THE INCREASE IN MILLAGE EVEN THOUGH THE LAW SAID THERE WOULD BE NO INCREASE BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED VALUATIONS; THE BOARDS UNDERSTANDING s 28 w. HAD BEEN THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO INCREASE THE DOLLARS COLLECTED FOR ANY PURPOSE, BUT WOULD ROLL BACK MILLAGES. THE COUNTY COMMISSION FEELS THAT THIS IS AN UNFAIR SITUATION AND ARE TRYING TO FIND SOME WAY TO COMBAT IT AND NOT HAVE AN INCREASE OF TAXES AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE INCREASE IN VALUATION. PROPERTY APPRAISER`7NOLTE EXPLAINED THAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE ESTIMATE ON THE INTERIM TAX ROLL WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WAS GREATLY IN EXCESS OF THE ACTUAL TAX ROLL FIGURE. THIS RESULTED IN A 1.5 MILLION DEFICIT IN THE STATE BUDGET. IN JULY OF LAST YEAR, THE NUMBER WAS SET UPON WHICH THE COMPUTATION OF THE REQUIRED LOCAL EFFORT WAS BASED. SINCE THE INTERIM TAX ROLL DID NOT COME IN UNTIL SEPTEMBER, THE ,JULY ESTIMATE WAS OUT OF LINE. MR. NOLTE STATED THAT HIS UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM BUDGET HAS NOT CHANGED FROM THE INTERIM TO THE FINAL ROLL. THE STATE HAS ADVANCED THE SHORTFALL TO BE PAID BACK OUT OF THE ADDITIONAL REVENUES GENERATED FROM THE FINAL TAX ROLL; THEY MET THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW, IF NOT THE LETTER. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF ALL COUNTIES WHO WENT THE ROUTE OF AN INTERIM TAX ROLL HAD THE SAME PROBLEM, AND MR. NOLTE REPORTED THAT MANATEE COUNTY WENT THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS WITH AN INTERIM ROLL BUT THEN WENT BACK AND PETITIONED THAT THE INTERIM ROLL BE MADE THE FINAL ROLL, WHICH SAVED THE ADDITIONAL FINAL EFFORT DOLLARS. MR. NOLTE THEN WENT ON TO REPORT THAT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HAS SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS OF EQUITY IN THE TAX ROLL, I.E., THE HURRICANE DAMAGED CONDOMINIUM UNITS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM FULL VALUE TO LAND VALUE WERE NOT REDUCED IN VALUE. IN ADDITION, ANYONE WHO TOOK OUT A BUILDING PERMIT WAS PUT ON THE INTERIM ROLL ON THEIR 1981 VALUATION, WHICH COULD RESULT IN SERIOUS INEQUITIES BETWEEN NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT.:.SOMEONE MERELY TOOK OUT A BUILDING PERMIT. MR. NOLTE FELT THESE INEQUITIES WOULD NEGATE ANY EFFORT TO MAKE THE INTERIM ROLL THE FINAL ROLL AS WAS DONE IN MANATEE COUNTY. 29 134 �, 7 s - .• .;w a �-�-* m� _ DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS -TO THE EFFECT OF ADJUSTMENT OF THESE INEQUITIES ON THE REVENUES TO BE COLLECTED, AND MR. NOLTE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IF THE VALUES WERE ROLLED BACK TO MAKE THEM EQUITABLE, THE COUNTY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COLLECT THE MONIES NEEDED TO RUN THE COUNTY AND MEET THE BUDGETS. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT WITH THE NEW HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION LAW, MOST OF THE LOW PRICED PROPERTY HAS COME OFF THE TAX ROLLS, WHICH IS ANOTHER REASON PEOPLE WITH HIGHER PRICED PROPERTY ARE SEEING THEIR TAXES GO UP CONSIDERABLY. IT IS A VERY UNUSUAL SITUATION, AND THERE HAVE BEEN MASSIVE SHIFTS IN THE TAX BURDEN IN THIS COUNTY AND THE STATE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED HOW THE SCHOOL BOARD CAN FINALIZE THEIR BUDGET ON THE 1.5 MILLION FIGURE WHEN THE COUNTY PROVIDED THEM THE TENTATIVE ROLL FIGURE OF 1.2 MILLION. DR BURNS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, COMMENTED THAT THE DOR ESTIMATE OF THE TAX ROLL IS WHAT THEY WERE FIRST TOLD TO BUDGET ON, OR 1.5 MILLION; THIS IS WHAT THE STATE SAID THE ASSESSMENTS WOULD BE. THEY DID THIS STATEWIDE, AND THE LEGISLATURE SET A MILLAGE OF 4.804 AND THEN THE SCHOOL BOARD COULD GO UP TO 1.6 ON LOCAL DISCRE- TIONARY MILLAGE. DR. BURNS NOTED THAT THE ADOPTION OF THE INTERIM ROLL IS WHAT REALLY MESSED UP THE SCHOOL BOARD BECAUSE 1.6 TIMES WHAT THE ROLL SHOULD HAVE BEEN IS A LOT MORE MONEY THAN 1.6 TIMES 1.2 MILLION; SO, THEY LOST $87,000 OF MONEY THAT WAS LEGITIMATELY THEIRS IN THE FIRST PLACE. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD MILLAGE HAS TO ROLL BACK TO THE 1.2 MILLION; THEY DON'T GET ANY MORE; HOWEVER, THE STATE MILLAGE STAYS THE SAME. DR. BURNS COMMENTED THAT IF THE CIRCUIT COURT .JUDGE STAYED WITH THE INTERIM ROLL, THERE IS NO DOUBT IN HIS MIND THAT THE DOR WOULD SUE TO MAKE THIS COUNTY GO BACK TO A REALISTIC ROLL SO THAT STATE COULD GET THE MONEY THAT WAS PROJECTED TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE fN BROWARD COUNTY ALONE, THE STATE WOULD BE PASSING UP MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IF THEY DIDN'T FORCE THE ISSUE. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE EXTRA FUNDS RAISED FROM THE REASSESSMENT WILL GO TO THE STATE, AND THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD WON'T GET A DIME. 30 COMMISSIONER WODTKE EMPHASIZED THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAD NOT BEEN MADE AWARE OF ALL THIS, AND IT WAS SAID AT THE TIME THAT NO ONE IS GOING TO GET ANY EXTRA DOLLARS. DR. BURNS COMMENTED THAT NO ONE IS EXCEPT THE STATE; IT SEEMS THAT THE T.R.I.M. BILL APPLIES TO LOCAL OFFICIALS BUT NOT THE STATE. COMMISSIONER WODTKt ASKED WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN REGARD TO THE STATE MANDATE FOR 100% VALUE ASSESSMENT AND WHETHER THEY HAVE CERTIFIED ROLLS THAT HAVE NOT,MET THOSE STANDARDS, PROPERTY APPRAISER NOLTE STATED THAT AT THE TIME OF ELECTION, HE WAS TOLD ONE ROLL HAD BEEN CERTIFIED AT 88%. HE NOTED THE STATE USES PRIMARY SALES DATA - YOU TAKE THE BUYING AND SELLING PRICE OFF THAT, WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE 12-15%, AND THEN IF YOU HAD A ROLL AT 100% OF JUST VALUE, IT WOULD BE 85% OF WHAT THE ACTUAL SALE WAS. IT WAS HIS FEELING THAT A 90% TAX ROLL WOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE, BUT HE COULD NOT BE POSITIVE. HE COMMENTED THAT HE BELIEVED THE ORIGINAL ESTIMATE THE STATE USED WAS SUPPLIED BY THE LOCAL OFFICE. DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS ON THE ESTIMATED ROLL, AND MR. NOLTE STATED IF THE 80 VALUES COULD BE RULED BACK TO MAKE THE ROLL UNIFORM WITH THE 1979 VALUES, HE WOULD HAVE VERY LITTLE TROUBLE, BUT THE EQUITY PROBLEM IS QUITE SUBSTANTIAL IN THE INTERIM TAX ROLL. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT WHERE THE AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFI- CATION WAS GRANTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD IN 1979, IT WAS DENIED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IN 1980, AND THAT ALSO WILL SHOW UP. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AN INTERIM ROLL, THE COMMISSION THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AN IDENTICAL ROLL PLUS NEW CONSTRUCTION, NOT AN INTERIM ROLL THAT HAD BEEN ADJUSTED AND AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS NOT ALLOWED FOR 1981. MR.- NOLTE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT FROM THE TIME THE T. R.I.M. BILL WAS SENT OUT, THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICE, UNDER MR. LAW'S ADMINISTRATION, CONTINUED WORKING ON THE INTERIM ROLL AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS UP UNTIL THE TIME THE BILLS WERE SENT OUT. MR. NOLTE NOTED THAT THE INTERIM TAX ROLL IS A BRAND NEW PROCEDURE, AND JARI-519� ,8 31 WPAGE 1.36 MAR 251981 '' BOOK HE DID NOT THINK ANYONE KNEW HOW THE LAW WOULD ACT; THE SCHOOL BOARD WAS THE FIRST TO DISCOVER THEY WERE BEING HURT BY THE INTERIM ROLL WHICH WAS ESTIMATED GREATLY IN EXCESS OF THE ACTUAL TAX ROLL. COMMISSIONER WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT IF THE BOARD HAD NOT CHOSEN TO GO WITH THE INTERIM ROLL,'THE SCHOOL BOARD WOULD HAVE HAD NO FUNDS. HE STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN ENLIGHTENED BY WHAT HE HAS HEARD TODAY, AND IT ALL SEEMS TO COME DOWN TO THE POINT THAT WE DID NOT KNOW WHAT WE WERE DOING; THE STATE DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING; AND THE TAXPAYERS WERE LESS INFORMED THAN WE WERE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT DIRECT CONTACT BE MADE WITH THE COUNTIES WHO HAVE BEEN OPERATING ON AN INTERIM ROLL TO SEE WHAT THEIR POSITION IS GOING TO BE. HE COMMENTED THAT IF THE DOR HAS MADE A MISTAKE IN THEIR ESTIMATES, HE FELT THEY SHOULD BE THE ONES TO ABSORB IT. CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT HE WILL CALL THE CHAIRMEN OF THE COUNTIES INVOLVED IN INTERIM ROLLS. HE FELT IT IS APPARENT OUR WHOLE ACTION WAS PREDICATED ON A ROLL THAT WAS DEFECTIVE. THE BOARD DISCUSSED VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES, AND CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT WE JUST ROLL BACK THE 4.504 MANDATED BY THE STATE FOR THE SCHOOL TAX AND LET THE STATE SUE US IF THEY WANT MORE. COMMIS- SIONER FLETCHER AGREED. 11 AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS AGREED THAT WE DO NEED ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM THE OTHER COUNTIES INVOLVED TO DETERMINE IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING COLLECTIVELY AND THAT THE CHAIRMAN SHOULD CONTACT THEM. DR. BURNS ASSURED THE COMMISSION THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD WANTS TO WORK WITH'THEM AND WILL GIVE CONSIDERATION TO WHATEVER THE COUNTY COMMISSION WANTS TO DO. _PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - TIMBERWOO,p ESTATES SUBDV, C THE BOARD REVIEWED A MEMO FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AS FOLLOWS: TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS DATE: March 19, 1981 FI LE: SUBJECT: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval, Timberwood Estates Subdivision - 10.8 Acre Subdivision containing 18 (half acre) lots - North of 8th Street 600 feet west of 27th Avenue - Owner: Daniel A. bell - Land Surveyor: S.P. Musick REFERENC . This preliminary plat was brought before the Technical Review Committee in November, 1980 and approved with certain revisions recommended. All revisions have been completed with the exception that connection to the road to Sylvan Estates to the north has not been designed. ALTERNATIVE - AND ANALYSIS The tentative plat is in compliance with T.R.C. recommendations --with the exception that the road does not connect to Sylvan Estates. The land use pattern and road configuration established with the approval of Sylvan Estates Subdivision plat make it unlikely that 10th Street will be paved. Therefore, the proposed street with a cul-de-sac at the north end is felt to be an acceptable road design. The applicant has voluntarily provided drainage and access easements at the north end of the subdivision; thus the setbacks on lots 8 and 11 will protect the homes in the event 10th Street should be developed. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Approval is recommended for the Preliminary Plat of Timberwood Estates Subdivision. I No funding considerations are pertinent for this item. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT THEY HAD SOME PROBLEM WITH THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ON LOTH ST., BUT AFTER LOOKING AT THE CON- FIGURATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS IN THIS AREA, THERE IS NO WAY A ROAD LOGICALLY COULD GO THROUGH TO LOTH ST.; IT, THEREFORE, DID NOT MAKE SENSE TO ASK FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM TI�iBERWOOD ESTATES FOR A STREET. THEY HAVE MET ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE BOARD REVIEWED THE ROAD SITUATION WITH PETE MUSICK, SURVEYOR, AND DISCUSSED VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES. IT WAS NOTED THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD HAVE TO BE PURCHASED. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION. ,1981 33 BOQK 46 PAGE 138 MAR 251991 FINAL APPROVAL - NARANJA TRACT SHELLMOUND BEACH THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM: TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: March 16, 1981 FILE: County Commissioners SUBJECT: Final Plat Approval - Replat of Naranja Tract Shellmound Beach 9.5 Acre Site containing 11 Lots bordering the Indian River to the East and Massey Road to the West FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: County Administrator Descriptions and Conditions The subject subdivision is a replat of a small, isolated area along the Indian River. Australian Pine trees in the ',unimproved Massey Road right-of-way to the west of the site complicate ingress -egress to the lots, and will hinder future drainage and roadway improvements. A $10,000. cash bond has been provided by the developer to pave Massey Road. Tree removal and drainage of Massey Road is not included in this bond amount. Furthermore, no drainage swales have been constructed by the developer. The Engineer has been notified of the tree problem and since the trees are in the County road- way, he does not feel that removing them is his clients responsibility. Alternatives and Analysis Since the roots of the Australian Pines are of a shallow, spreading type, proper road and drainage construction will probably necessitate tree removal. Once' -Final Plat approval is given, those lot purchasers desiring to build may request the County to remove the trees, pave Massey Road, and provide additional drainage. The $10,000. escrow amount will not cover the cost of tree removal, road paving, and necessary drainage work. Recommendations and Funding Based on the above, it is the staff's recommendation that additional funds be placed in escrow to cover tree removal and drainage improvements along Massey Road. Those additional funds shall be as estimated by the Engineer - of -Record and approved by the County Engineer. Contingent upon this require- ment, the staff recommends approval of this Final Plat request. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTEDz. {THAT MASSEY ROAD IS A VERY NARROW DIRT ROAD WHICH THE COUNTY HAS MAINTAINED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND IT IS NOT REALLY BIG ENOUGH TO PAVE UNLESS YOU TOOK OUT ALL THE PINES AND CREATED A DRAINAGE SYSTEM. THIS IS WHY THEY ARE RECOMMENDING ADDITIONAL FUNDS BE PLACED IN ESCROW FOR TREE REMOVAL. FRANK CLARK, ATTORNEY FOR THE OWNER, QUESTIONED THAT ALL THE PINES WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED AND, IN ANY EVENT, HE DID NOT SEE WHERE THEY LEGALLY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT SOME- THING LOCATED ON COUNTY PROPERTY. HE ALSO DID NOT FEEL THE REQUIRE- MENT TO PAY FOR HALF THE ROAD WAS BASICALLY FAIR. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EXPLAINED THAT IT IS COUNTY POLICY TO REQUIRE THAT MONEY BE PUT IN ESCROW FOR PAVING THE HALF ROAD. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE DEVELOPER COULD LEAVE THE ROAD AS IT IS AND NEVER PAVE IT; IF, HOWEVER, THEY DID GO AHEAD AND BUILD THE ROAD, THE TREES WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED, AND IT IS ESTIMATED THAT TREE REMOVAL WOULD AMOUNT TO AROUND $15,000. THE ADMINISTRATOR CONTINUED THAT ONCE THE ROAD IS PAVED TO COUNTY STANDARDS, THE COUNTY ASSUMES MORE LIABILITY, AND HE RECOMMENDED LEAVING THE ROAD AS IT IS IF THE TREES ARE GOING TO BE LEFT THERE. QUESTIONS FOLLOWED ABOUT DRAINAGE. THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THE DRAINAGE WOULD BE EAST AND WEST, AND IT IS BELIEVED THAT THREE CULVERTS CROSSING UNDER THE ROAD AND GOING INTO THE DRAINAGE DITCH ON THE WEST SIDE OF MASSEY WOULD ADEQUATELY HANDLE THE SITUATION. ATTORNEY CLARK STATED THAT HE HAD NOT SEEN ANY WATER STANDING ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THE. OWNER WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE CULVERTS. ESCROW. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO THE $10,000 PRESENTLY IN COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT IF WE TAKE ANY MONEY ON THIS ROAD, PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPECT WE ARE GOING TO PAVE THE ROAD, AND IF WE DON T HAVE ENOUGH IN ESCROW, IT WILL BE A PROBLEM. HE FELT WE SHOULD GIVE THE MONEY BACK. t DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO POSSIBLE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPERTY AND WHETHER THE..POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS ARE FULLY AWARE OF THEM. ATTORNEY CLARK OBJECTED STRONGLY TO INCLUSION ON THE PLAT OF WORDING STATING THAT THIS IS BUILT ON A STUMP DUMP. HE NOTED THAT M�R,R 5 198, 1 35 BOOK 46 PAUF 140 HE HAS NO PERSONAL INFORMATION THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY SO, AND HE HAD QUESTIONED .JOE MICHAELS, LONGTIME RESIDENT OF THIS AREA, WHO HAD STATED THAT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT USED AS A STUMP DUMP FOR .JOHN'S ISLAND SINCE 1971. MR. CLARK CONTINUED THAT THE MINUTES OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REFLECT A STATEMENT THAT IT WAS UNFAIR AND UNNECESSARY TO INCLUDE SUCH A STATEMENT ON THE PLAT, IN ADDITION, TESTING CARRIED OUT BY THEIR ENGINEERS HAS NOT INDICATED THE PRESENCE OF A STUMP DUMP, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE KNEW FOR A FACT THAT AT LEAST LOTS 7 THROUGH 11 WERE FILLED WITH A COMBINATION OF DIRT, LOGS AND DEBRIS. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO WHETHER TO RETURN THE $10,000 IN ESCROW FOR PAVING THE ROAD. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT MASSEY"ROAD IS A BEAUTIFUL SPOT QUITE SIMILAR TO .JUNGLE TRAIL WHICH WE HAVE NEVER PAVED. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SOME DRAINAGE, THE ADMINISTRATOR FELT WE SHOULD HAVE THE ENGINEER OF RECORD DESIGN AND INSTALL CULVERTS AND GIVE THEM THE $10,000 -BACK. ATTORNEY CLARK BELIEVED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE DEVELOPER AND REMARKS MADE BY PROSPECTIVE BUYERS, THAT THERE IS NO GREAT MOTIVATION FOR A PAVED ROAD, AND THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THE TREES TO REMAIN.THERE. COMMISSIONER BIRD POINTED OUT THAT PROPER DRAINAGE IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLAT, AND WHILE HE DID NOT WANT TO PAVE THE ROAD AND PREFERRED TO KEEP THE PINE TREES, HE FELT WE SHOULD KEEP THE $10,000 IN ESCROW FOR WHAT MAY ARISE IN THE FUTURE. OWNER RICK BEUTTELL COMMENTED THAT THIS IS THE SECOND OR THIRD TIME THEY HAVE HAD TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD, AND EVERY TIME THEY GET A NEW SET OF RULES. HE ASKED IF THEY DO PUT CULVERTS IN, IF THEY STILL WILL BE ABLE TO GET FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TODAY. THE BOARD GENERALLY FELT IT COULD BE GIVEN,.SUBJECT TO DOING THIS WORK. ENGINEER .JAMES FOWLER, SPEAKING AS AN INTERESTED OBSERVER, NOTED THAT WHEN HIS PLATS COME BEFORE THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, 36 MAR 2 � 1 981 box 4 :: HE HAS NO PERSONAL INFORMATION THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY SO, AND HE HAD QUESTIONED .JOE MICHAELS, LONGTIME RESIDENT OF THIS AREA, WHO HAD STATED THAT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT USED AS A STUMP DUMP FOR .JOHN'S ISLAND SINCE 1971. MR. CLARK CONTINUED THAT THE MINUTES OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REFLECT A STATEMENT THAT IT WAS UNFAIR AND UNNECESSARY TO INCLUDE SUCH A STATEMENT ON THE PLAT, IN ADDITION, TESTING CARRIED OUT BY THEIR ENGINEERS HAS NOT INDICATED THE PRESENCE OF A STUMP DUMP, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE KNEW FOR A FACT THAT AT LEAST LOTS 7 THROUGH 11 WERE FILLED WITH A COMBINATION OF DIRT, LOGS AND DEBRIS. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO WHETHER TO RETURN THE $10,000 IN ESCROW FOR PAVING THE ROAD. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT MASSEY"ROAD IS A BEAUTIFUL SPOT QUITE SIMILAR TO .JUNGLE TRAIL WHICH WE HAVE NEVER PAVED. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SOME DRAINAGE, THE ADMINISTRATOR FELT WE SHOULD HAVE THE ENGINEER OF RECORD DESIGN AND INSTALL CULVERTS AND GIVE THEM THE $10,000 -BACK. ATTORNEY CLARK BELIEVED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE DEVELOPER AND REMARKS MADE BY PROSPECTIVE BUYERS, THAT THERE IS NO GREAT MOTIVATION FOR A PAVED ROAD, AND THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THE TREES TO REMAIN.THERE. COMMISSIONER BIRD POINTED OUT THAT PROPER DRAINAGE IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLAT, AND WHILE HE DID NOT WANT TO PAVE THE ROAD AND PREFERRED TO KEEP THE PINE TREES, HE FELT WE SHOULD KEEP THE $10,000 IN ESCROW FOR WHAT MAY ARISE IN THE FUTURE. OWNER RICK BEUTTELL COMMENTED THAT THIS IS THE SECOND OR THIRD TIME THEY HAVE HAD TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD, AND EVERY TIME THEY GET A NEW SET OF RULES. HE ASKED IF THEY DO PUT CULVERTS IN, IF THEY STILL WILL BE ABLE TO GET FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TODAY. THE BOARD GENERALLY FELT IT COULD BE GIVEN,.SUBJECT TO DOING THIS WORK. ENGINEER .JAMES FOWLER, SPEAKING AS AN INTERESTED OBSERVER, NOTED THAT WHEN HIS PLATS COME BEFORE THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, 36 THEY WANT THEM TO SHOW AN EASEMENT WHETHER IT IS EVER USED OR NOT BECAUSE THE COUNTY MAY WANT ONE IN THE FUTURE, HE FURTHER NOTED THAT DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE PLAT BECAUSE IT IS NOT PART OF THE PLAT LAW; THEY ARE SHOWN ON THE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS,. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER SCURLOCK, TO GRANT?FINAL APPROVAL OF NARANJA TRACT SHELLMOUND BEACH SUBJECT TO CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BEING REFLECTED ON THE PLAT; .JOINDER OF THE MORTGAGEE; THEM$10,000 ESCROWED FOR PAVING OF THE ROAD TO BE RETURNED; AND IN LIEU OF PAVING THE ROAD, THE NECESSARY DRAINAGE TO BE PROVIDED TO MEET APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF, WHO HAVE THE PREROGATIVE TO GO BACK TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER INPUT, IF FELT NECESSARY. DISCUSSION THEN AROSE AS TO NOTE #5 ON THE PLAT WHICH REFERS TO THE PROPERTY FORMERLY BEING A STUMP DUMP. MR. BEUTTELLtPROTESTED THIS LANGUAGE NOTING THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WAS ACCURATE INFORMATION AND TESTS FROM SOIL BORINGS HAVE INDICATED IT IS NOT. HE FELT THE STATEMENT WAS UNFAIR TO HIM AS A DEVELOPER. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED TO AMEND NOTE #5 TO READ AS FOLLOWS: "IT IS BELIEVED THAT PORTIONS OF THIS AREA WERE PREVIOUSLY USED FOR STUMP DISPOSAL AND ARE LIABLE TO REQUIRE EXTENSIVE FILLING BEFORE HOUSES CAN BE BUILT." COMMISSIONERS WODTKE AND SCURLOCK AGREED TO INCORPORATE THIS WORDING IN THEIR MOTION. THE DRAINAGE PROBLEM AGAIN CAME UP, AND MR. BEUTTELL NOTED THAT NO WATER EVER STANDS ON MASSEY ROAD THAT HE KNOWS OF, BUT HE QUESTIONED WHETHER IT MIGHT NOT CHANGE THE SITUATION IF THEY WERE TO PUT THE DRAINAGE IN NOW, AND THEN THE VARIOUS LOT OWNERS CAME IN AND FILLED. DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT CULVERTS WERE THE PROPER SOLUTION OR WHETHER WE SHOULD KEEP THE..$10,000 AND CALL IT DRAINAGE MONEY, BUT NOT REQUIRE THE CULVERTS. COMMISSIONER BIRD POINTED OUT THAT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS WERE BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 37 BOOK 46 PAGE 142 MAR 2 51991 pox 4 wE14311, ROAD WOULD BE PAVED AND PROPER SWALES INSTALLED TO CREATE SOME DRAINAGE. IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO REQUIRE PAVING OF THE ROAD OR REMOVAL OF THE TREES, HE DID NOT FEEL THE TRC HAS -'.REV I EWED THE DRAINAGE AS IT EXISTS TODAY AND FELT WE, THEREFORE, NEED MORE ADVICE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED'THAT THE MOTION CALLS FOR THE DRAINAGE TO BE PROVIDED TO MEET THE APPROVAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF, WHO HAVE THE PREROGATIVE TO GO BACK TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE." THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED RE NOTE #5. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH COMMIS- SIONER BIRD VOTING IN OPPOSITION. TO: FROM: THE ADMINISTRATOR REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO: The Honorable Board of County DATE: March 18, 1981 FILE: Commissioners Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator Description and Conditions SUBJECT: Final Plat Approval - Turtle Cove Subdivision - Approximately 14.5 Acres accomodating 21 Lots North of County Road 510, east of A -1-A Owner in Fee Simple - Number 11 Corporation Richard P. Letsinger - President REFERENCES: The.Surveyor-of-Record of the above subject project, James A. Fowler, has requested Final Plat approval for the above subject project. The County staff has reviewed the Final Plat and the following has been submitted as a result of staff comments: 1) A maintenance cash bond in the amount of $4,140.40 to be held by the County until seed germination hag occurred and approved by the County Engineer. 2) A Certificate -of -Surveyor -of -Record that all improvements are complete in accordance with Preliminary Plat Approval and County Standards. 3) Dedication on the Plat that grants 20' of additional Right -of -Way along A -1-A as an addition to that state road. M Alternative and Analysis The preliminary plat requirements are complete or cash bond has been posted for uncompleted items. Recommendations and Funding The County staff recommends approval of the subject Final Plat. This item has no funding considerations to present before the Board of County Commissioners. .� ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL OF TURTLE COVE SUBDIVISION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - SEAGROVE SUBDIVISION THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO; TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS DATE: March 18, 1981 FILE: SUBJECT: Final Plat Approval Seagrove Subdivision, Unit 5 Approximately 2.7 acres containing 8 lots east of A -1-A in South Beach Area. Owner: Tomac, Inc, - Kenneth Padgett, Agent REFERENCES: Request for Final Plat approval has been submitted for the above subject project. The County staff has reviewed the Final Plat and the developer has complied with Staff's comments. A rear lot easement is to be added on the Final Plat drawing, but since the Engineer -of -record is not local, this addition may not appear on the drawing prior to the March 25, 1981 Board meeting. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES Since the Final Plat is in accordance with the approved Preliminary Plat except for the addition of a rear lot easement, which the owner agreed to add prior to final recording, the staff does not object to the':' -placement of this Final Plat approval on the agenda of the regularly scheduled March 25, 1981 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING --.. Based on staff comments, it is recommended that Final Plat approval be granted for Seagrove Subdivision, Unit 5 contingent upon the inclusion of a 10' rear lot easement placed on all lots on the Final Plat drawing prior to signature by the County staff and County Officials. No funding considerations are necessary for this item. .198 39 BOOK 46 ` FA6E 144 J IWAR 25 1981 BOOK 46 PAGE l4 1 5 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THIS SUBDIVISION MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT THAT PREVIOUSLY THE DEVELOPER, KENNETH PADGETT, HAD AGREED TO A 10' EASEMENT, AND.THEN INSTRUCTED HIS STAFF TO PUT A 5' EASEMENT ON THE REAR LOTS. WE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BASED ON A 10' EASEMENT AND VERIFICATION THAT SEAGROVE STILL OWNS THE LAND TO BE CONVEYED BY QUIT CLAIM DEED. COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED WHY MR. PADGETT OBJECTED TO THE 10' EASEMENT, AND PAT MURRAY, SECRETARY TO MR. PADGETT, STATED THAT MR. PADGETT FELT THE 10' EASEMENT IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE ALL UTILITIES ARE IN THE FRONT STRIP; THERE ARE NO UTILITIES IN THE REAR. THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT IN 1976 THIS PROPERTY HAD A _10' BEACH ACCESS STRIP. WE TALKED TO MR. PADGETT, AND HE SAID HE HAD CHANGED THE BEACH ACCESS AND ALL UTILITIES ARE COMING THROUGH THE FRONT. WE ARE TRYING TO HOLD HIM TO WHAT IS REFLECTED BACK IN 1976. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER DID NOT KNOW OF ANY EQUIPMENT THAT CAN WORK ON 5', AND MRS. MURRAY EMPHASIZED THAT ALL UTILITIES ARE ON THE VERY FRONT 10' EASEMENT AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BACK AT ALL. SHE STATED THAT THERE IS A LITTLE WALKWAY FOR PEDESTRIAN BEACH ACCESS. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT FOR SOME REASON WHEN THE FINAL PLAT FOR UNIT III WAS RECORDED, IT ONLY SHOWED A 10' UTILITY EASEMENT, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC WORDS "BEACH ACCESS," THEN IT IS NOT BEACH ACCESS. MRS. MURRAY CONFIRMED THIS IS ALREADY RECORDED AS A UTILITY EASEMENT. -IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE BOARD INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD PREFER THIS TO BE BEACH ACCESS AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED AND NOT A UTILITY EASEMENT. a ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT BELIEVE THE RECORDED DOCUMENT COULD BE CHANGED WITHOUT EVERY PROPERTY OWNER IN UNIT III AGREEING TO IT, AND IT IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL THEY WOULD AGREE. MRS. MURRAY NOTED THAT THESE LOTS WERE NOT SOLD WITH SOMEONE BEING TOLD PEOPLE WOULD BE WALKING IN 10' OF THEIR BACK YARD. CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMISSION TAKE THE POSITION THAT WE WILL APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT AT SUCH TIME AS THE SITUATION IS CLEARED UP ON THE BEACH ACCESS SINCE HE BELIEVED THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A BEACH ACCESS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT WE SHOULD CONTINUE WITH ACCESS SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE, AND IF THIS WAS PUT IN AS A 10' UTILITY EASEMENT, THEN WE SHOULD CONTINUE THROUGH WITH IT JUST SO THERE IS A 10' EASEMENT THERE, WHATEVER IT IS CALLED. ON LOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD BY A 4 TO I VOTE, CHAIRMAN LYONS VOTING IN OPPOSITION, GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL TO SEAGROVE SUBDIVISION, UNIT 51 SUBJECT TO THE CHANGE NOTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR - THE INCLUSION OF A 10' REAR LOT UTILITY EASEMENT BEING PLACED ON THE PLAT PREVIOUS TO SIGNATURE BY THE COUNTY - AND INCLUSION OF AN OPINION OF AN ATTORNEY'AS TO THE RIGHT OF VEROMAR DEVELOPMENT LTD. TO CONVEY 20' ON THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY ADJOINING AIA. FINAL APPROVAL - BENTWOOD TERRACE SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO RECOMMENDING FINAL APPROVAL OF BENTWOOD TERRACE CONDITIONED UPON ACCEPTANCE OF A CASH MAINTENANCE BOND FOR SEEDING GERMINATION: 41 BOOK 46 Phu 146 FROM: Neil A. Nelson County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS SUBJECT: Request for Final Plat approval Bentwood Terrace Subdivision, Approximately 6 Acres Containing 9 lots North of Citrus Road East of 43rd Avenue._ Owner: James E. Sabonjohn REFERENCES: On behalf of the owner, the surveyor -of -record, James Fowler, is requesting Final Plat approval of the subject subdivision. The County staff has reviewed the Final Plat in accordance with Preliminary Plat requirements and all discrepancy items have been resolved. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since seeding of easements and swales has not germinated, the owner, at the request of the County Engineer, has posted a $300.00 cash maintenance bond to be held by the County Finance Director until germination is acceptable and approved. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING The County staff recommends approval of the Final Plat for Bentwood Terrace Subdivision and acceptance of the $300.00 cash maintenance bond for seeding germination. No funding considerations are necessary.for this item. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL OF BENTWOOD TERRACE SUBDIVISION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. CHANGEORDER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT OF $2,662 RELATES TO CHANGES NEEDED TO BRING THE ELEVATOR IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE AND THE $3,193 IS FOR INSTALLATION AND LABOR FOR THE JURY BOX RENOVATIONS. { COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF THE CABINET SHOP IS GOING TO ABSORB ANY OF THIS COST, AND MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT THE MILLWORK SHOP WILL NOT ABSORB THIS COST; THIS IS STRICTLY THE CONTRACTORS END OF IT. 42 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0. 15 - COURT- HOUSE, 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. C1 iANGE OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ORDER CONTRACTOR ❑ FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: ..15 (name, address) Courthouse TO (Contractor) F -Reinhold Construction Inc. ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9364 P.O. Box 666 CONTRACT FORAdd i 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 -32 Install "B" label door in Rm 102 and telephone $2,662,44 unit in elevator Cab. CODE REQUIREMENT CP -33 Installation and labor for jury box renovations. $3,193.97 AT OWNERS REQUEST The proposed changes 6n the wDrk may result in additional 'ime required beyond the contract completion date. Additional t e will be added to the contract; that is directly related to his change order. The contractor will be paid for the additional required day at the z rate of $300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. TOTAL j 55,6 z+i The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ Net change by previous Change Orders . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . S The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ The Contract Sum will be (increased)by this Change Order. . $ The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . S The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is CONNELL 14ETCALF EDDY AP( III II CT — _13.24 S-- D!xi-e-Bighway Address Coral Gables, FL 33134 L/ DATE 3 / 17 RFIN11OLD CONSTRUCTION INC ( ON I RACUOR Address Cocoa, FL 32922 BY DATE 689, 000. o0 . 134,5b2.01 823562,01 5,856.41 829,418.42 ( -- ) Days. INDIAN_RIVFR CO-UNTY__._,_._ 0"'N(R 2.11+5 _14-th_Ave ---- Address Ver each, FL 32 60 — ATE AIA DOCUMENT 6701 ° CHAhGE ORDER • APRIL 1570 EDITION • AIA$ • C 1570 . THE O%E PAGE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS, 1735 `Ew' YORK AVE., NW, wASMINGTON. D C. 20006 nE148 MAR 251981 MR. REINHOLD OF REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION WISHED TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SEVERAL MATTERS, THE FIRST BEING A LETTER DATED MARCH 20TH, OF WHICH HE HAD RECENTLY BEEN MADE AWARE, ADDRESSED TO GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, SIGNED BY ATTORNEY CAL BROWN AS THE BOARDS COUNSEL. HE THEN PROCEEDED TO READ ALOUD THIS LETTER RELATIVE TO THE PERFORMANCE BOND PUT UP BY REINHOLD-;CONSTRUCTION, WHICH PUT GULF INSURANCE COMPANY ON NOTICE THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS IN DEFAULT OF THE CONTRACT FOR REASONS ItTOONUMEROUS TO ENUMERATE It AND SUGGESTED THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY PROCEED ACCORDINGLY. MR. REINHOLD STATED THAT REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION IS CONFORMING TO EVERY PART OF THEIR CONTRACT. HE WAS VERY UPSET BY THIS LETTER AND WISHED TO_KNOW IF THE COMMISSION HAD AUTHORIZED THEIR ATTORNEY TO WRITE IT. ATTORNEY COLLINS RESPONDED THAT THE BOND REQUIRES THAT THE BONDING COMPANY BE PUT ON NOTICE IF THERE ARE ANY DISPUTES THAT MAY GENERATE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE; THIS IS CUSTOMARY EVERY DAY PROCEDURE, AND HE DID NOT BELIEVE THIS SORT OF LETTER REQUIRED COMMISSION APPROVAL BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS APPROPRIATE. HE EXPRESSED REGRET THAT MR. REINHOLD WAS UPSET, BUT FELT THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD KNOW THAT SUCH A LETTER IS COMMON TO THE TRADE WHEN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS ARISE. IT WAS NOTED THAT AT THE LAST MEETING, IT WAS AGREED THERE WAS A"DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN SOME AREAS AND THAT IT WOULD BE NECES- SARY TO GO TO ARBITRATION. MR. REINHOLD STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THIS LETTER IS LIBELOUS; IT IS FULL OF FAULTS AND DOES NOTHING BUT HARM THE CONTRACTOR IN HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS SURETY COMPANY. MR. REINHOLD REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD'DIRECT THEIR COUNSEL TO WRITE THE INSURANCE COMPANY A LETTER THAT PROPERLY DELINEATES THE PROBLEM AND SETS OUT THE SPECIFICS, WHICH ARE NOT "TOO NUMEROUS TO ENUMERATE." ATTORNEY COLLINS REITERATED THAT IT WAS NOT THEIR INTENT TO HARM THE CONTRACTOR, BUT JUST TO PUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY ON NOTICE. HE CONTINUED THAT PROJECT CONSTRUCTION REPRESENTATIVE, HERCULES KONTOULAS, IS COMPOUNDING A SPECIFIC LIST OF ALL PROBLEMS, AND WHEN THAT IS COMPLETED, HE WILL BE GLAD TO GO OVER IT IN DETAIL. CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD MR. REINHOLD'S CONCERN AND THAT HE HAS ASKED US TO DO A SPECIFIC THING; OUR LAWYER HAS INDICATED HE IS WILLING TO DO A SPECIFIC THING; WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUESTING AND WILL TRY TO HELP. MR, REINHOLD THEN WENT ON TO DISCUSS FIREWALLS, NOTING THAT AT THE EVENING MEETING OF MARCH 18TH, IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT A LETTER WAS SENT TO THE COUNTY'S CONSULTANT REGARDING CERTAIN FIREWALL CONSTRUCTION. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT AS OF THIS DATE, THE CONTRACTOR HAS RECEIVED NO INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE COUNTY'S CONSULTANT, EITHER VER- BALLY OR IN WRITTEN FORM. MR. REINHOLD CONTINUED THAT HIS UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE REQUESTED TO PREPARE AN ESTIMATE FOR THE WORK THAT WAS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. HE THEN REVIEWED THE WORK THE CONTRACTOR ALREADY HAS DONE IN RESPECT TO PREPARING SUCH AN ESTIMATE,_NOTING THAT IN NOVEMBER OF 1980, THEY ACCOMPLISHED WHAT WAS INDIdATED ON THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AS ALL THE FIREWALL WORK. THEY CALLED THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ASKED THEM TO REVIEW THAT WORK BEFORE THEY COVERED IT UP, AND IT WAS AT THIS JUNCTURE THAT ADDITIONAL WORK WAS DISCOVERED. ON NOVEMBER 101 19801 REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION RECEIVED THE FIRST WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A CHANGE PROPOSAL RE FIREWALLS, ACCOM- PANIED WITH A SET OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTING THE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ONE- HOUR FIRE RATED WALLS WHERE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE FIRE ZONES AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED DRAWINGS. MR. REINHOLD THEN READ ALOUD THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE TO CHANGE PROPOSAL N0. 37, DATED JANUARY 131 19811 AS FOLLOWS: 45 s R��.A 150 r ®, El ; MAR 2 51981 January 13; 1981 Connell, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. P. 0. Boy 341939 Coral Gables,` F1:" 33134' Attn; Mr. F. Kirsch e- i Indian River County Administration building Add. & Renov. ; Vero Beach, Florida Gentlemen:' In response to your. Change Proposal'Na: 37; --she Contractor will provide the-chaff(ses,praosed in the work as conditioned herein for an amount of Zia$ 4q� ;Y3~1 ;A cost summary of this proposal is attached. This Proposal is based upon the following conditio6s and/or limitationsa 1) All walls indicated on the proposal drawings to be fire -rated will be extended to the deck above and/or repaired and sealed in a manner and with materials which to the best of -the Contractor's knowledge are consistent with that required for construction of one hour fire rated walls. Existing portions of tea, ,Ts �soi cated will be treated only as required by the Contract Documents, and the Contractor can not therefore assure the fire rating of - - the antire wall. ,21 All doors and frames occurring in walls indicated on the proposal -drawings to be fire -rated will be replaced with doors and frames ,properly labeled ("n")*for a one hour fire rating and the area surrounding such frames repaired. Door sizes and types will be In accord with the door schedule. 3) The amounts included for finish hardware and its installation arc contingent upon your approval of the hardware schedule provided by the hardware supplier, a copy of which is attached. 4) An allowance only is included for additional hollow metal work until firm requirements are determined. n 5) An allowance only is included for additional electrical wtork which may be required and can only be determined when hard- ware requirements are firm and some of the walls are extended.. 6) 'Thirty one (31) fire dampers will be provided in ductwork which penetrates vialls indicatedto be fire rated and are_ not provided othervilse.`, ,To accomplish the proposed changes in the work -nay require as much as 1150_1'daya of Contfact-Time; provided hollow metal work can be obtained in the rl=wal time period. The fined overhead costs associated with this" project are $400:00 .peil-day`.—Therefore-the total additional', cost which may result frown tine extended timo required isl $60 OW.00* iia ch includes allowable -general overhead and fees. e . If you wish to make the proposed changes ih the work please issue a change order adjusting Lhe Contract Suri and Time by'the above amounts as soon as possible to avoid or minimize any delays which way other-, wise occur and which would increase costs.' This proposal is valid For 15 days from this date, after which it is subject to withdrawal and revision. Very truly yours, REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION,, ' I;;C. L. A. Snodgrass Vice -President MR. KONTOULAS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAD TALKED TO THE ARCHITECT TODAY, AND THE WORK ORDER HAS BEEN MAILED. MR. REINHOLD CONTINUED TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE CONTRACTOR ALREADY HAS SUBMITTED THREE PROPOSALS BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SURE THE COMMISSION REALIZED THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS DONE THIS AND THAT ANOTHER PROPOSAL WOULD ONLY COST MORE MONEY. HE CONTINUED THAT THE FOREGOING PROPOSAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $204,444 WAS WHAT THEY BELIEVED WOULD CREATE TRUE ONE-HOUR FIRE WALLS, THE ARCHITECT THOUGHT THIS WAS TOO MUCH, AND THE CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED ANOTHER PROPOSAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $03,000 ON FEBRUARY 5TH, BUT IT WAS FOR SUBSTANDARD CONSTRUCTION AND DID NOT INCLUDE ALL THE ITEMS NECESSARY. ANOTHER CHANGE PROPOSAL WAS WRITTEN, N0, 37A, AND REINHOLD RESPONDED WITH ANOTHER LETTER; THEN ON FEBRUARY 25TH, THEY WROTE A LETTER TO THE ARCHITECT STATING THAT THE VALIDITY OF THEIR PROPOSAL HAD EXPIRED. MR. REINHOLD STATED IT IS THEIR POSITION THAT REINHOLD HAS DONE EVERYTHING WITHIN THE TERMS OF THEIR CONTRACT AND STANDS READY TO FULFILL THE CONTRACT. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE COURTHOUSE, ABOUT 90% OF THE AREAS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED, MR. REINHOLD AGAIN EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF COR- RECTING THE INACCURACIES OF THE LETTER SENT BY COUNSEL TO HIS SURETY COMPANY, DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO THE NEED FOR ANOTHER PROPOSAL FROM THE CONTRACTOR, MR. KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ARCHITECT WISHED THIS BECAUSE SOME THINGS WERE CHANGED VERBALLY, AND THE ARCHITECT WISHED THE $93,000 QUOTATION TO BE -A WRITTEN QUOTATION, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT A STATEMENT WAS MADE IN REGARD TO A PROPOSAL BEING MADE BY THE ARCHITECT CALLING FOR SUB- STANDARD CONSTRUCTION. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED HE UNDERSTOOD THAT AFTER THE FIRST PROPOSAL FOR $204,000, A MEETING WAS HELD BETWEEN THE BUILDING OFFICIALS, THE CONTRACTOR AND THE ARCHITECTjj.0 DETERMINE WHERE SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS COULD BE REDUCED AND STILL MEET STANDARDS. MR, REINHOLD STATED IT IS THE CONTRACTORS OPINION THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION IS A COMPROMISE TO WHAT THE CODE CALLS FOR. COMMISSIONER BIRD LEFT THE MEETING AT 4:50 O'CLOCK P.M, 5 X981 47 �oox 46 Fur LIAR 2 51981 DISCUSSION CONTINUED ABOVE THE IMPORTANCE OF MOVING THE JOB AHEAD, AND THE CONTRACTOR RECEIVING THE NECESSARY LETTER FROM THE ARCHITECT, COMMISSIONER WODTKE EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT WE ADDRESSED THIS ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS A WEEK AGO, AND THE CONTRACTOR HAS NOT AS YET RECEIVED THE LETTER FROM THE ARCHITECT. HE REQUESTED THAT ATTORNEY COLLINS REVIEW THE LETTER*WRITTEN BY ATTORNEY BROWN AND COMMENTED THAT HE BELIEVED MR. REINHOLD SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE LETTER. THE CHAIRMAN CONCURRED. RETRO-ACTIVEAPPROVAL FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC . ........ _. HEARING TO APPROVE SITE TO BE PURCHASED AND DEVELOPED EDWARD REGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INDIAN RIVER HOUSING; AUTHORITY, EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS NOT RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF THE SITE, BUT SIMPLY RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO PUT PEOPLE ON NOTICE OF THE SITE UNDER',CONSIDERATION. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD BY A 3 TO 1 VOTE GRANTED RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF THE ADVERTISEMENT OF A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, AS EX- PLAINED ABOVE; COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION AND COMMIS- SIONER BIRD BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETING. LEASE,W.ITH CITY OF FELLSMERE FOR COUNTY -OWNED -LOTS ATTORNEY COLLINS REQUESTED AN EMERGENCY ITEM BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA SO. THAT THE BOARD COULD FORMALLY AUTHORIZE HIM TO PREPARE A LEASE WITH THE CITY OF FELLSMERE AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY BY A 4-0 VOTE, COMMISSIONER BIRD HAVING LEFT THE MEETING EARLIER, ADDED THE EMERGENCY ITEM AS REQUESTED BY THE ATTORNEY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER 4'SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO DRAW UP A 20 -YEAR LEASE WITH THE CITY OF FELLSMERE AT $1.00 A YEAR, WITH A ONE YEAR TERMINATION CLAUSE, FOR COUNTY -OWNED LOTS I & 2, BLOCK 96, FOR RECREATION PURPOSES ONLY. RESOLUTION 81-21 IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE 81-9 AMENDING REZONING ,PROCEDURES ATTORNEY COLLINS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION AND IN- FORMED THE BOARD OF THE FOLLOWING CHANGES SUGGESTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN EXHIBIT "C" - NEW APPLICATION FEES: 2, SUBDIVISION REVIEW A) 10 ACRES OR LESS B) OVER 10 ACRES (DELETE VERB IN THE MIDDLE, 3, ZONING CHANGES C) MORE THAN 100 ACRES $150 $150 + $25,00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 25 ACRES OR FRAC ION THEREOF OVER �0 ACRES, $250 + $50,00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 25 ACRES OR FRACTION THEREOF OVER 00 ACRES, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-21 IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE 81-9 AMENDING REZONING PROCEDURES, WITH THE CHANGES LISTED ABOVE, 49 R BOOK 46 `n:154 RESOLUTION NO. 81- 21 WHEREAS, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, enacted Ordinance No. 81-9 on March 4th, 1981; and WHEREAS, said Ordinance No. 81-9 required that the Applica- tion for Zoning Change be in a form approved by the Board of _ County Commission'drs; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board of County Commis- sioners to adopt, approve, and ratify, the attached Summary of Rezoning Procedures; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board of County Commis- sioners to adopt the attached schedule of New Application Fees, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the attached Application for Zoning Change, Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "A", which is specifically incorporated herein by reference; the attached Summary of Rezoning Procedures, Exhibit "B", which is specifically incorporated herein by reference, and the New Application Fees, Exhibit "C", which is specifically incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted and ratified for use by the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Department and the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAR-17Z VER COUNTY, FLORIDA UTJ Attest: Freda Wright Clerk of Circuit Court Adopted: March 25 , 1981 Patrick B. Ly Chairman • it MAR 2 51981 goo RESOLUTION NO. 81- 21 WHEREAS, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, enacted Ordinance No. 81-9 on March 4th, 1981; and WHEREAS, said Ordinance No. 81-9 required that the Applica- tion for Zoning Change be in a form approved by the Board of _ County Commission'drs; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board of County Commis- sioners to adopt, approve, and ratify, the attached Summary of Rezoning Procedures; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board of County Commis- sioners to adopt the attached schedule of New Application Fees, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the attached Application for Zoning Change, Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "A", which is specifically incorporated herein by reference; the attached Summary of Rezoning Procedures, Exhibit "B", which is specifically incorporated herein by reference, and the New Application Fees, Exhibit "C", which is specifically incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted and ratified for use by the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Department and the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAR-17Z VER COUNTY, FLORIDA UTJ Attest: Freda Wright Clerk of Circuit Court Adopted: March 25 , 1981 Patrick B. Ly Chairman APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE RECEIVED: REVIEW PERIOD ENDS: P & Z HEARING: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: DATE ACCEPTED: NOTICE PUBLISHED: FEE PAID: FILE NO.: AMOUNT: OWNER: (if other than applicant) PHONE: ADDRESS: EXISTING ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: EXISTING USE: PROPOSED USE: Signature of Applicant The applicant is encouraged to seek a pre -application conference with Planning & Zoning Department staff in order to resolve or avoid problems connected with the rezoning pro- posal. Application must be filed with the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Depart- .. ment, Telephone No. 569-1150 or 567-5142. The following items must be attached to the application: 1. If applicant is other than the owner(s), a sworn statement of authorization must accompany each copy of this application. 2. A verified statement naming every individual having legal or equitable ownership in the property. .10 3. A co.py of the owner's deed must accompany each copy of this application. 4. A current owner's title policy, a certificate of title from a title company, or an attorney's opinion evidencing fee ownership of the property. 5. If property is not located within a recorded subdivision, a copy of a survey of the subject property must accompany each copy of this application. 6. A check, money order or cash in the amount of $ made payable to the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners to be submitted after applicant has received a letter of adequacy. Exhibit "A" ;[AR Z5 1981 P;pr !t ...,6 SUMMARY OF REZONING 'PROCEDURES 1. Applicant files application. This application shall include: A) survey of subject property, sealed by a licensed surveyor' B) legal description of subject property C) recorded deed or other conveying MAR 2 51991 Boa 46-1 AIGE15 SUMMARY OF REZONING 'PROCEDURES 1. Applicant files application. This application shall include: A) survey of subject property, sealed by a licensed surveyor' B) legal description of subject property C) recorded deed or other conveying instrument D) title insurance or an attorney's opinion E) a verified statement naming every individual having legal and/or equitable ownership F) letter of authorization when necessary 2. Within five (5) working days, the Planning and Zoning Department shall notify the applicant by letter of any deficiencies of the application; and if there are no deficiencies, the application shall be deemed accepted and the applicant shall receive a letter of acceptance of the application. 3. Applicant pays a fee per the attached fee schedule upon receipt of the letter of acceptance of the application. The 20 -day review procedure begins upon receipt of this fee. 4. Dates for the Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission are established in accordance with required advertising and noticing pursuant to Ordinance and State Law. 5. Notice -of Public Hearing and proposed Ordinance is prepared. 6. Graphics are prepared by staff, including: A) location maps for signs and publication of Notice of Public Hearing B) transparency for presentation 7. Publication of legal notice as required by Ordinance and State Law. B. Zoning Division review, including: A) site visit B) placement of signs C) written comment to Planning Division 9. Notification of surrounding property owners by staff. 10. Planning Division review and comment. 11. Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Exhib m". -2- 12. Upon the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation for approval or applicant's letter of request for appeal of recom- mendation from disapproval, the second review period of forty- five (45) days begins. 13. The Planning and Zoning Department shall provide summary of information of review materials to the County Clerk and the County Administrator. This information shall include: A) Planning and Zoning Department recommendations for time of Public Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners B) Application and notarized authorization when a proposed rezoning is initiated by other than the property owner C) Deed showing ownership of property D) Survey with correct legal description of property to be rezoned E) List of all property owners if rezoning is not initiated by the owner of the property F) Staff report G) Location maps H) Notice or advertisement of Public Hearing I) Proof of publication J) Proposed Ordinance 14. Zoning Division shall revise posted zoning signs to reflect County Commission Public Hearing date. 15. Publication of Notice of Public Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners as required by Ordinance and State Law. 16. Public Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be held. 17. Upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners, t11 he Zoning Atlas shall be amended. 18. The Zoning Division shall remove zoning signs:t nn00, li. RaGK .Ar. 6 MAR 251981 NEW APPLICATION FEES 46a�f.`'' 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW a) Mobile homes, canopies, fences, walls, parking, drives or structures and im- pervious surfaces of less than 750 sq. ft. b) Additions, minor or accessory struc- tures with total impervious surfaces over 750 sq. ft. and less than 2,500 sq. ft. c) Major site plans not requiring review by Technical Review Committee d) Site plans requiring review by Techni- cal Review Committee with building coverage up to 99,999 sq. ft. or if site is less than 10 acres e) Site plan requiring review by Technical Review Committee with building coverage over 100,000 sq. ft. or if site is 10 acres or more f) Developments of Regional Impact 2. SUBDIVISION REVIEW a) 10 acres or less b) Over 10 acres 3. ZONING CHANGES a) Less than 5 acres b).: 5 - 100 acres c) More than 100 acres 4. ZONING PERMIT (ZONING CERTIFICATE AND ADDRESS a) Mobile homes, fences, walls, additions and minor or accessory structures b) Single family dwellings C) Multiple family dwellings 5. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT (VARIANCE) 6. MINING PERMIT 7. MINING PERMIT RENEWAL 8. ZONING ORDINANCE 9. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Exhibit= FEE $ 25.00 50.00 150.00 200.00 400.00 750.00 150.00 150.00 + 25.00 for each addi- tional 25 acres or fraction thereof, over 10 acres 100.00 250.00 250 + 50.00 for each additional 25 acres or frac- tion thereof, over 100 acres. 10.00 25.00 50.00 50.00 400.00 100.00 12.50 + 1.50 postage 3.00 + 1.00 postage for mailing _ DISCUSSION RE TREASURE COAST UTILITIES ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING RECENTLY HELD ON TREASURE COAST UTILITIES WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESENTING THE VARIOUS ITEMS OF DEFICIENCY REVOLVING AROUND THIS SYSTEM AND TO GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE SYSTEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND ANY ADDITIONAL AREAS OF DEFAULT OF WHICH WE MIGHT NOT BE KNOWLEDGEABLE. HE CONTINUED THAT UTILITY DIRECTOR LINER HAS GONE THROUGH THE FRANCHISE AREA, PICKED OUT AREAS AND SET FORTH DEFAULTS,' -AND THE ATTORNEY RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD NOW AUTHORIZE THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT TO SEND A LETTER TO THE FRANCHISE HOLDER OUTLINING THE DEFICIENCIES AND SETTING A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS WITHIN WHICH THEY ARE TO BE CURED. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY=COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT TO COMPILE THE DEFAULT AREAS IN THE TREASURE COAST UTILITIES FRANCHISE AND SEND A LETTER TO THE FRANCHISE HOLDER, OUTLINING SUCH DEFICIENCIES AND SETTING A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS WITHIN WHICH THOSE DEFICIENCIES ARE TO BE CURED, AND REQUESTING THE COMPANY °S FINANCIAL DATA FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED HOW THE BOARD WOULD FEEL ABOUT AUTHORIZING THE INITIAL ENGINEERING ON WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER IN THE EVENT MR. SALTER DOES NOT CURE THE DEFICIENCIES. 'DISCUSSION ENSUED ON THE POSSIBLE COST INVOLVED AND THE EXTENT OF THE ENGINEERING DESIRED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE DID NOT FEEL THAT THIS WOULD INVOLVE A GREAT EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BUT WOULD BE AIMED MAINLY AT HAVING THE ENGINEER IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO TELL 1 US WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE, I.E. HOW WE COULD BEEF THE SYSTEM UP TO MAKE IT WORKABLE, ETC. HE DID NOT FEEL WE WOULD BE SPENDING MORE THAN $1,500, ADMINISTRATOR NELSON SUGGESTED,SINCE THE ENGINEER ALREADY HAS DONE THE INITIAL INVENTORY, --THAT A NOT TO EXCEED $I,000 LIMIT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. 55 BOOK 46 PAG 160 MAR 2 51991 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER'SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS— SIGNER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE JOINT VENTURE TO PROCEED WITH A STUDY RE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES FOR MAKING THE TREASURE COAST UTILITIES SYSTEM OPERABLE, THE COST OF THE STUDY NOT TO EXCEED $1,000, DISCUSSION RE PROPOSED SALARY GUIDELINES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981-82 THE BOARD REVIEWED ADMINISTRATOR NELSONS MEMO RECOMMENDING MERIT INCREASES AND COST OF LIVING INCREASES, AS FOLLOWS: TO: The Honorable Members of ®ATE: March 19, 1981 FILE: The Board of County Commissioners. SUBJECT: Budgetary Guidelines Re: Cost of Living & Merit Adjustments FROM: Nei 1 1 sons/ Or�REFERENCES: County dministrator The Administration is in the early stages of development of it's budget proposal for fiscal year 1981-82. To assist in development of the proposed budget, it is requested that the Board provide guidelines for planning and budgetary purposes, regarding cost of living adjustments and merit adjustments to the employee salary schedules. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The most recent United States Department of Labor statistics indicate an increase in the consumer price index from January, 1980 until January, 1981 of 11.7%. This percentage applies for both "all urban consumers" and for "urban wage earners and clerical workers". In order to provide a compensation program, which will retain good County employees, as well as attract new employees when vacancies do occur, it is necessary that County Government maintain competative wage rates within it's labor market area. It is also necessary that current employees not be expected to diminish their real purchasing power as a result of increases in the cost of living. It is also necessary that County employees have an opportunity to be rewarded for their performance on the job. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION The Administration believes that it is necessary to establish guidelines for cost of living and merit salary adjustments at this time, to be utilized in preparation of the fiscal year 1981-82 budget proposals. Based upon the available data and past Board policies, the Administration recommends the Board establish guidelines for salary adjustments, as follows: I. Cost of living adjustment - 9%. 2. Merit increases - Up to 5%. All adjustments would be effective during fiscal year 1981-82 beginning October 1, 1981, and would be subject to further review by the Board of County Commissioners during it's budget review and approval process. There would be no financial impact upon the fiscal year 1980-81 budget. The estimated impact for fiscal year 1981-82 will be $388,077.00. The Administration respectfully requests Board concurrence with the above guidelines and recommends the Administration be directed to proceed with preparation of the FY 81-82 budget, in accordance with these guidelines. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT ONLY THE MOST OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEES WOULD GET THE 5% MERIT INCREASE, AND HE FELT THIS IS A GOOD INCENTIVE PROGRAM. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK QUESTIONED THE KIND OF ANALYSIS USED TO COME UP WITH THESE FIGURES, WHICH HE FELT WERE HIGH, AND WISHED TO KNOW WHO DETERMINES PERFORMANCE, THE ADMINISTRATOR EXPLAINED THE ANNUAL EVALUATION OF EMPLOYEES AND HOW IT IS CARRIED OUT. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK POINTED OUT THAT THE COUNTY IS ONE OF THE FEW THAT OFFERS A HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR THE FAMILY, AND IN THAT PROGRAM ITSELF, THERE IS A BUILT—IN AUTOMATIC INCREASE. HE WISHED TO KNOW IF WE ARE COMPARING OURSELVES TO LIKE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, ETC., NOT ONLY IN DOLLARS AND CENTS, BUT IN FRINGE BENEFITS. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON AGREED THAT THE FRINGE BENEFITS WE DO HAVE ARE EXCELLENT. HE NOTED THAT WE BACKED OFF THE 11.7% CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND POINTED OUT THE GOVERNMENT IS GIVING 12.6% ON THEIR COST OF LIVING INCREASE. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT THAT THE BOARD HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO REACH A DECISION AT THIS TIME. CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT WE DO HAVE TO COME TO A DECISION ON THIS AT A VERY EARLY DATE BECAUSE WE DO LIKE TO STAY TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS; THEREFORE, UNLESS Wt SET OUR POLICY, WE COULD GET INTO A HODGE PODGE SITUATION. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT THAT WAS -REASON TO BE ESPECIALLY CAREFUL... COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED, IN THAT WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND EVERYONE IS LOOKING AT US FOR A COMPARISON RATE, HE WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE BEGIN 1981 WITH A NEW DOWNWARD TREND. 57 flBK MAR 2 51981 soon 46 )� MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER TO PROPOSE A 6% COST OF LIVING INCREASE AND MERIT INCREASES OF A POSSIBLE 6% MAXIMUM. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND, COMMISSIONER WODTKE DISCUSSED THE CODY PLAN THE BOARD ADOPTED IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO TO GET THE COUNTY INTO THE PROPER PAY SCALES, JOB DESCRIPTIONS, ETC., AND AFFORD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN WITH A MERIT TYPE RAISE. HE BELIEVED WE ARE DEVELOPING DEPARTMENT HEADS WITH'THE STRENGTH AND FORTITUDE TO ANALYZE PEOPLE FAIRLY. COMMISSIONER WODTKE WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT HIS DESIRE TO GIVE EVERY- ONE A RAISE, BUT POINTED OUT THAT THESE RAISES RESULT IN HAVING TO PAY ADDITIONAL FICA, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, ETC., AND IT, THEREFORE, COSTS A LOT MORE THAN 11% TO GET AN 11% SALARY RAISE. HE CONTINUED THAT HE FELT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE URGINGS OF PRESIDENT REAGAN AND MAKE SACRIFICES TO PREVENT THE SPIRAL IN OUR ECONOMY. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT A TOTAL, WHETHER IT BE COST OF LIVING OR MERIT INCREASE, AND HE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM OF EXCEEDING ANYTHING IN THE COMING YEAR OVER 9% OR 10% TOTAL. HE NOTED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE ANY DOCUMENTED FIGURES ON WHICH TO BASE THESE FIGURES AND HE WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH WAITING FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. HE COMMENTED, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEW COMMISSIONERS, THAT HE_HAS NOT BEEN IN THE MAJORITY IN THE PAST IN REGARD TO HIS THOUGHTS REGARDING SALARY INCREASES, AND HE HAS NOT BEEN IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SALARY RAISES WE HAVE NAD, WHICH IS NO REFLECTION ON THE EMPLOYEES. COMMISSIONER WODTKE BELIEVED WE NEED TO PAY FAIR AND ADEQUATE WAGES FOR THE RESPECTIVE JOBS, BUT HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH ADDING PERCENT ON PERCENT YEAR AFTER YEAR. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT WE HAVE AN ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND REITERATED THAT WE NEED MORE OF A TOTAL PICTURE AND MORE DETAILED INFORMATION. CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT WE ALSO HAVE AN ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE EMPLOYEES AND MUST COME UP WITH AN ANSWER AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT A COST OF LIVING INCREASE RAISING THE RANGES AS SET OUT IN THE CODY REPORT. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON POINTED OUT THAT THE COST OF LIVING KEEPS THAT RANGE WITHIN THE NORM, AND A COST OF LIVING INCREASE IS A REASON TO CHANGE THE SALARY SCALE. HE NOTED THAT APPARENTLY WHAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IS A COMPLETE ANALYSIS ON THE BENEFITS. HE COMMENTED THAT WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION IS NOT PART OF THE BENEFIT PACKAGE. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT HEALTH INSURANCE IS THE BIG BENEFIT. CHAIRMAN LYONS BELIEVED THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS AN UNDER- STANDING OF WHAT THE BOARD WISHES,AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION BACK AS SOON AS WE CAN. CITY COUNCILMAN GREGG BROUGHT UP THE POINT THAT THE COMMIS- SION ACTS AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTH COUNTY FIRE TAXING DISTRICT AND ASKED IF IT IS THE COMMISSION`S INTENT TO SET THE PARAMETERS FOR THE TAXING UNIT. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT IT WAS AGREED THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH WOULD ACCEPT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT THEY WOULD HANDLE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE FIREMEN IS BARGAINING UNIT. DISCUSSION CONTINUED REGARDING THE AFFECT THE ANNOUNCING OF PROPOSED SALARY GUIDELINES BY THE COUNTY COULD HAVE ON SUCH NEGOTIATIONS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT POSSIBLY THE COMMISSION EITHER SHOULD ADVISE THEIR VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS TO PREPARE THEIR BUDGET REQUESTS BASED ON LAST YEAR S SALARIES AND ADVISE THAT ALL SALARY INCREASES WILL BE ADDRESSED AS WE GET INTO THE BUDGET SESSION, OR ELSE RECOMMEND A 3% COST OF LIVING INCREASE AND MERIT RAISES OF 5.5% TO KEEP US IN POSITION AND THEN MAKE FINAL ADJUSTMENTS AFTER COMPLETING THE BUDGET AND DETERMINING IF WE HAVE THE MONEY AVAILABLE. _ COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK DISCUSSED THE ESTIMATED IMPACT FIGURE OF $388,077.00, WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR EXPLAINED IS THE IMPACT ON DIRECT SALARIES COST, AND AGAIN EMPHASIZED THE NEED FOR MORE DETAILED IMPACT FIGURES. THE ADMINISTRATOR WILL SUPPLY THE BOARD WITH AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT FIGURES AS DISCUSSED. e 0 0 �ooK 4 pAu 16-4 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATIONS RE ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO BLUE CYPRESS .LAKE PARK SET. OUT IN THE ADMINIS— TRATOR�S MEMO OF MARCH 5, 1981, AS FOLLOWS: TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: March 5, 1981 FILE: County Commissioners SUBJECT: Blue Cypress Lake Park Electrical Service Installation FROM: Rei, At Nelson' REFERENCES: County Administrator Description & Conditions At the present time there is no electrical service available at the above site to energize the 3/4 horsepower pump purchased to supply water to the existing restroom facility at this park: The Health Department has put the County on notice that water being supplied to the sanitary facilities from an artesian well has inadequate pressure. 'Furthermore, future needs of the park will require electrical service. Alternatives and Analysis Based on the above, it is the staff's opinion that a 450 amp, 110 volt service is recommended at the above site to meet existing need and future planning needs for providing additional camping facilities. Peace River Electric Co. which serves this area, states that the County must install a service pole, electrical panel, breaker, weatherhead and meter box so the service can be supplied. Informal quotations from Indian River Electric Co. estimate the cost of providing the above at approximately $1,100. The alternatives are to: 1) Provide electrical service for supplying water to the existing sanitary facilities and reserve capability for future needs at an estimated cost of $1,100. 2) -Provide electrical service with capacity to only meet the needs of the existing sanitary facilities with no reserve capacity at an estimated cost of $900. 3) Provide no service and cease operation of the park sanitary facilities. 60 PAS Recommendations and Funding The staff recommends the following: 1) Authorize providing electrical service for supplying water to the existing sanitary facilities and reserve capacity for future needs at an estimated cost of $1,100. 2) Approve funding from account #001-210-572-34.66 in the amount of $1,100. DISCUSSION RE INCREASING PARKING AREA AT WABASSO BEACH PARK ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE SOD FROM ONE AREA OF WABASSO BEACH PARK IN ORDER TO CREATE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE IN A PREVIOUS PICNIC AREA; THIS WILL NOT SOLVE THE PARKING PROBLEM, BUT WOULD HELP ALLEVIATE IT TO SOME EXTENT. HE BELIEVED THE PARKING AREA IS MORE URGENTLY NEEDED THAN THE PICNIC AREA. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT THE KEY IS TO HAVE MORE BEACH FOR PEOPLE, NOT FOR CARS, AND WAS OF THE OPINION WE ARE NEGATING THE INITIAL PURPOSE OF HAVING A PICNIC AREA FOR PEOPLE TO ENJOY. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF PICNIC AREA IN THE PAVILIONS AND THAT PEOPLE MAINLY COME THERE TO USE THE BEACH, NOT TO PICNIC. CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT STRONGLY THAT THE MAIN USE OF THE PARK IS TO FIND A PLACE TO PARK IN ORDER TO GET TO THE BEACH, IT WAS NOTED THAT A SITE PLAN FOR A MOTEL DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF THE PARK IS SHORTLY COMING UP FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AND THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING MORE RIGHT—OF—WAY. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK SUGGESTED SPENDING MONEY TO DEVELOP OUR TWO 70' BEACH ACCESSES. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE PROHIBIT— ING THE USE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN COUNTY PARKS. THERE HAVE BEEN COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE ABOUT THE USE OF ALCOHOL AT THIS PARK, AND HE WOULD LIKE TO`SEE SIGNS POSTED PER THE TERMS OF OUR ORDINANCE TO AID THE SHERIFF`S DEPARTMENT IN ENFORCING IT. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THIS IS POSTED AT HOBART PARK, BUT NOT AT WABASSO BEACH PARK. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER TO LEAVE WABASSO BEACH PARK AS IT IS. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 61 poor 46j,� MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER SCURLOCK, TO TABLE ANY ACTION ON THE ADMI-NISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION RE PARKING SPACE AT WABASSO BEACH PARK UNTIL WE LEARN MORE ABOUT THE MOTEL'S SITE PLAN. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, AND THE MOTION WAS DEFEATED WITH A Z TO Z VOTE; COMMISSIONERS FLETCHER AND SCURLOCK VOTING IN FAVOR; COMMISSIONER WODTKE AND CHAIRMAN LYONS VOTING IN OPPOSITION. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EXPLAINED THAT THE PROPOSED PARKING AREA IS NOT TO BE PAVED; THEY JUST INTEND TO TAKE OUT THE POSTS WHICH PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DRIVING IN THIS AREA, WHICH WILL PROVIDE SPACE FOR ABOUT 17 ADDITIONAL CARS. HE NOTED THAT WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY DEVELOPING THIS PARK, AND IT HAS BECOME VERY POPULAR, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD BY A 3-1 VOTE ACCEPTED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR CREATING ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA AT WABASSO BEACH PARK, -WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A TEMPORARY PARKING FACILITY AND FURTHER STUDY IS NEEDED FOR A PERMANENT LOCATION, AND DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO POST THE NECESSARY SIGNS AT THE PARK SETTING OUT THE COUNTY'S ESTABLISHED RULES APPOINTMENTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LYONS ANNOUNCED THAT HIS EARLIER STATEMENT IN REGARD TO APPOINTMENTS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE BEING MADE AT THE NEXT MEETING SHOULD BE CORRECTED TO THE SECOND MEETING IN APRIL. RESOLUTION 81-13 RESOLUTION 81-13 APPOINTING RICHARD PARENT TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION TO COMPLETE THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF RICHARD MCCLEARY IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE MEETING OF MARCH 11, 1981. RESOLUTION N0. 81- 13 WHEREAS, there now exists a vacancy on the Indian River Planning and Zoning Commission from District 5 due to resignation of RICHARD R. Mthe cCLEARY; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BO COMMISSIONERS OF ARD OF COUNTY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PARENT is r FLORIDA, That RICHARD hereby appointed to fill the vacanc the unexpired term of Y and complete RICHARD R. McCLEARY, to end in January of 1985. Said Resolution shall become effective as day of March °f the 111 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY J- 1I— __ UAF Attest': , Freda Wright,:;, jerk AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH JOHN MOORE,` PRESIDENT OF BLOOMFIELD-VERO CORPORATION, EXTENDING THE LEASE FOR SPACE FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES AS APPROVED AT THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 1981. 63 4 §AR'2;51981 eoGx jai �. MAR 2 1981 ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT �UGK 46 PAGE 169 THIS ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT entered into this % day of1981, A.D. by and between BLOOMFIELD-VERO CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, party of the first part, here- inafter called Lessor, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political sub- division of the State of Florida, party of the second part, here- ;inafter called Lessee, WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee entered into a Lease Agreement on the 28th day of February, 1977, a copy of which is attached here- to and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to extend the Lease and modify the- rental term as set forth. !,' NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of all monies in hand paid, i 'the parties agree as follows: i. 1. Paragraph I of Exhibit "A" is amended to commence on March 1, 1981 and expiring September 30, 1982. However, Lessee, ;upon three (3) months written notice during the term may termin- ate this Lease prior to its extended expiration date. 2. Paragraph II of Exhibit "A" is modified to substitute a ;rental payment of Six Hundred and no/100 Dollars ($600.00) per i ;month for the present Four Hundred Fifty and no/100 Dollars i!, ($450.00) per month. it 3. All other terms and conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A" shall continue in full force and effect during the extended ,term of the Lease. i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunder executed this instrument for the purposes herein expressed, the day and year above written. Signed, sealed and delivered !yin the presence of: Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: D-VERO CORPORATION BY esident (SEAL) AVTEST : Assistant BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IND IAi VER CO Y, FLORIDA BY . A��.i , w ( .qF.AT.1 IZP ATTEST: d , � i-/ Clerk THE FOLLOWING CHANGE ORDERS SIGNED BY ADMINISTRATOR NELSON PER COMMISSION AUTHORIZATION OF AUGUST 22, 1979, ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES: COURTHOUSE - No, 13 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - N0, 16 No. 14 No, 18 No, 16 No, 20 } CHANGE GWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMENT 6701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 13 (Thirteen) (name, address) County Courthouse TO (Contractor) (— Reinhold Constructdon Inc. P.O. Box 666 Coacoa,Fi. 32922 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9364 . CONTRACT FOR: Adds. & Renovations L CONTRACT DATE: 4-2-80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: 3 CP -38' Remodel Judges bench and platform, Provide new wall hand rail, relocate and extend Jury Box PARTIAL PROPOSAL- INCLUDES ONLY MATERIAL FOR THE WORK INDICATED ABOVE $2,390.83 (Mat 11, only) 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. Owner Request The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 689,000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . $ 131,922.16 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 820, 922.16 The Contract Sum will be (increased) (decreased) (uncha'hged) by this Change Order. . . $ 2,390.83 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . .... S 823,312.99 . The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( - ) Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is ARCHIRM14txie fiviW y Address Coral tiables 1-1 33134 B DATE Reinhold -Construction Inc. _Indian River County CONTRACTORP.O. Box 666 OWNER 2145 14th Ave. Address ocoa, 11. 2922 Add�esVero eac F1 -3296D By DATE DATE ow 10— AIA DOCUMENT 6791 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAS • 0 1970 • THE ONE PAGE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS, 1715 NEW YORK AVE., NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000 , 1 58 65 �aox rar 110 1 MAR 251981 CHANGED Gtiti'NER p ORDER — ARCHITfCT CONTRACTOR (� AlA DOCUmfNi G701 fIEID [] OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County (name, address) Courthouse TO (Contractor) CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: ..14 (fourteen) F- Reinhold Construction Inc. ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9364 P.O. Box 666 Cocoa, F1. 32922 CONTRACT FOR: Adds. & Renovations L J CONTRACT DATE: 4-2-80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP -35 Provide obscure glass panels in bottom panels of windows in Rooms 241,232,203, and 206 $249,02 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 requred days at the rate of $300.00(threehundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. OWNER REQUEST The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . , i 689, 000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was .S 134,312.99 The Contract Sum will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by this Change Order . , , $ 823,312.99 02 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be 249.02 The Contracr'Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by . . ' $ �.8�3 "823,562.01 The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is ( -- ) Days. t.Dnnell Metcalf & Eddy Reinhold Construction Inc. ARCHI I tLt 1320 S. Dixie Hiway CONTRACTOR P.O. Box 6Z- -- /sddress Cur'l—Gabtes,-- f -t 3316 ress BY V BY DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT 6701 CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION AIA;' • 0 1970 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 _ Indian River County &"-7N—'ER T 45-T4t1FA Ee. Address Vero Beac F x'60 BY DATE J — 2 -- ONE PAGE •r CHANGE ARC ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County r, CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 16 (sixteen) (name, address) County Courthouse TO (Contractor) `Reinhold Construction Inc. ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO:9364 p.0.Box 666 CONTRACT FOR:Additions and Renovations Cocoa, Florida 32922 L.. CONTRACT DATE: 4-2-80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: C R CP -34 Rerw ve existing roof framing as required, provide new $1,726.85 roof framing and new roof hatch enclosure walls as per sketches, in room #207. Existing field conditions, The proposed changes in the work may result in additions) time required beyond the contract completion date. Additional time will be added to thae contract that is diredtly 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. 0 The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 689,000.00 Net change by previous Change Orden . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • . $ 140 , 418.42 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 829,418.42 The Contract Sum will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by this Change Order . . . E 1,726.85 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . $ 831 ,145.27 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( - - ) Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Address Coral Gabl F 33134 BY DATE / 11 REINHPID CONSTRUCTION IN CONTRACTOR.. Address Cocoa, FL 32922 BY— DATE /" / J'/ INDIAN,RIVER COUNTY OWNER 2145 14th Ave Address Vero Beach, FL 32960 BY ) DATE t� I AIA DOCUMENT GM - CHANGE ORDER - APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIA® - ® 1970 • THE ONE PAGE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 CHANGE ORDER AlA DOCUMENT G701 OWNER ❑ ARCIiITECT (] CONTRACTOR ❑ FIELD ❑ OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County' (name,address)County Administration Bldg. TO (Contractor) , Reinhold Construction Inc. P.O. Box 666 Cocoa, F1. 32922 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 16 (Sixteen) ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9363 CONTRACT FORAdd i t ions # Renovations (_ I CONTRACT DATE: April 2,1980 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP.#i31-R/A Grilles to Rooms S257, S259. In Room S261 241, X 24" C19. Diffuser and" R/A door grille, $838.65 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 -31 SEE ATTACHED CHANGE PROPOSAL The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . $ 2,748,000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 206,559.53 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . $ 2,954,559.53 . The Contract Sum will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by this Change Order . $ 838.65 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,955,398.18 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( __ ) Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is V/A Cnnna11___13etcal.f EdJylReinhoTd_Cons_tructionInc.. _ Indian River Country ARCHIIEC1T320 S. Dixie Hiway CO!�TRACTOip-0, Box 666 OWNER 2145 14th Ave. Address Cora GaTiTes�1-33 T3# Add—ess Cocoa,—FI-X32922-- Ver�BeactT; FL -32960 Address BY BY L ' (� �l L � �BY _ L . L•�J DATE — ! —y ! DATE�i i y _-�_L DATE 3 "l — AIA DOCUMENT 6701 - CHANGE ORDER - APRIL 1970 EDITION - AIAS - © 1970 - THE AMERICAN In$11TU7E OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 ONE PAGE CHANGE - GWNER ❑ ARCHITECT (o] ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMENT 0701 OTHER PROJECT: Ind i an River County CHANCE ORDER NUMBER: 18 (name,address) Administration Building p TO (Contractor) ' ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9363 Reinhold Construction Inc. CONTRACT FOR: Additions and renovations P.O.Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 L _j CONTRACT DATE: Aprd 1 2, 1980 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP -45 New electrical and telephone outlets per attached sketch The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time required beyond the contract completion date. Additional time will be addeddto 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 -45. The above described wank to be accomplished at the request of the owner $1,360.57 The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2 , 748 , 000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 312 ,120, 10 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,961,120.10 The Contract Sum will be (increased) 6A?4MX1*V9y this Change Order . . . S 1,360.57 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,962,480.67 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( -- ) Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is CONNELL METCALF AND EDDY AfSV9'V. Dixie Highway Address Coral Gables FL 3134 B DATE I I '7 /rP I RE INHOLD CONSTR�T ION tNt� IND IAN R 1VER COUNZY _ P.O-Box O NER P.0_Box 96 2.14514th Ave Address Address Cocoa, FL 32922 Vero Beach, FL 32960 BY r BY DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT G7l1 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIA6 • m 1970 • THE ONE PAGE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVT., NW, WASHINGION, D.C. 20006 nu 46 PnF174 MAR 2 51991 MANGE 3RDER AIA DOCUNIMT G701 OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT _... H CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 20 (name, address) County Administration Bldg, BOOK TO (Contractor) r— 7 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO:9363 Reinho'1 d Construction Inc. CONTRACT FOR: Add i t ions and Renovations P,0 -Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 L_ CONTRACT DATE: April 2, 19FO You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: Change the ceiling heights in areas where recessed lighting $1,536.50 asod roof joists need clearance. This is due to concealed and unforeseen job conditions. 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 requested are reflected In the attached documents. The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . S 2 , 748 , 000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . $ 221 ,613.19 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2,969,613.19 The Contract Sum will be UncreasedAAM9isW"M1 by this Change Order . . . S 1,536.56 The neN Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,971 , 149• %5 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( -- ) Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore Is SONNE,i„_ METCALF & EDDY Af rlaEcSTL Dixie Highway Address Coral Gables, F1, 33134 _ BY L_ A. DATE f' 2 c RFjNHQ D t STRKTJ,_ON iNC__ CFPV.Yox 966 Address Co-oa, FL 32922 BY DATE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1145' 14th Ave_ Address Vero Beach, FL 32960 r ' BY C DATE AM DOCUMENT G701 - CHANCE ORDER - APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAe, - O 1970 - THE O%j PACE AMERICAN I%STITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 E71 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, 69817 - 69940 INCLUSIVE. SUCH BILLS AND ACCOUNTS BEING ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE WARRANTS SO ISSUED FROM THE RESPECTIVE BONDS BEING LISTED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTE BOOK AS PROVIDED BY THE`RULtS 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 6:02 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: CLERK 71 POOK f 46 N,T176