The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/3/1981WEDNESDAY,..JUNE 3, 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, JUNE 3, 1981, AT 8:30 O'CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE PATRICK B. LYONS, CHAIRMAN; WILLIAM C. WODTKE, SJR., VICE CHAIRMAN; DICK BIRD; ALFRED GROVER FLETCHER; AND DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. ALSO PRESENT WERE NEIL A. NELSON, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; L.S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; .JEFFREY K. BARTON, FINANCE DIRECTOR; DAN FLEISCHMAN, BAILIFF; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES AND JANICE CALDWELL, DEPUTY CLERKS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. ATTORNEY COLLINS LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, AND THE REV. LESLIE AVCHIN, CHRIST METHODIST -BY -THE SEA, GAVE THE INVOCATION. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA. FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON REQUESTED ADDING A BUDGET ITEM. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM CONCERNING THE LIBRARY BOARD. ATTORNEY COLLINS REQUESTED ADDING, AN ITEM REGARDING TREASURE COAST UTILITIES. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REQUESTED ADDING A MATTER CONCERNING THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AN EXCAVATION AND FILL PROJECT; AND AN ITEM CONCERNING COLONIAL HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. COMMISSIONER BIRD REQUESTED A DISCUSSION OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING. CHAIRMAN LYONS REQUESTED -ADDING THE DISCUSSION OF A MEMO FROM JOHN THOMAS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. JUN 3 1981 JUN 31981 boa 46- PACE 572 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO ADD THE EMERGENCY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA. APPROVAL OF MINUTES THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 6, 1981. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 6, 1981, AS WRITTEN. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 15, 1981. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 15, 1981, AS WRITTEN. MUTES MINUTES. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INITIATED A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT THE MINUTES WERE A RESUME OF THE TAPED RECORDING OF THE MEETINGS. ATTORNEY COLLINS ADVISED THAT THE MINUTES WERE OFFICIAL AND SHOULD BE RELIED ON; BUT IF AMBIGUITY ARISES, AND UNDER LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, FINAL RELIANCE WOULD BE ON THE TAPED RECORDING OF THE MEETING. • •,:p ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE STATE WITNESS PAYROLL, CIRCUIT COURT, SPRING TERM, 1981, IN THE AMOUNT OF $425.49. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE FOLLOWING TAX SALE CERTIFICATES: DUANE SUDBROCK #1102 $36.72 DUANE SUDBROCK 968 17.31 TAX SALE CERTIFICATES (CONTINUED): LUCIEN MICHAUD & STEPHANIE MICHAUD #1113 $18.97 LUCIEN MICHAUD & STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1118 16.87 LUCIEN MICHAUD & STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1115 28.20 LUCIEN MICHAUD & STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1120 16.87 LUCIEN MICHAUD & STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1103 19.14 LUCIEN MICHAUD & STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1128 16.87 LUCIEN MICHAUD & STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1149 28.20 LUCIEN MICHAUD & STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1158 27.18 LUCIEN MICHAUD_& STEPHANIE MICHAUD 693 18.27 LUCIEN MICHAUD & STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1121 16.87 STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1108 24.29 STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1111 21.13 STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1109 33.37 STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1113 21.13 STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1099 23.38 STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1122 22.23 STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1137 32.27 STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1149 30.68 STEPHANIE MICHAUD 716 23.03 STEPHANIE MICHAUD 1115 21.13 THE FOLLOWING REPORT WAS RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK: REPORT OF JUVENILES IN JAIL - APRIL, 1981 ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE- SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, AND AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN FOR BUDGET ACCOUNT AMENDMENT N0. 1. ACCOUNT NAME ACCOUNT N0. INCREASE DECREASE EXPENSE BUDGET OFFICE 001-600-521-99.93 $20,000 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCY SHERIFF 001-199-513-99.91 - $20,000 JUN3 1981 3 600ii 6 PAGE 5 ! 3 �� - — r-- Indian River . _ COUNT) /6 7 Sheriff sDepartment no } Amendment rY 80-81 May 20,_T98]__-___- -_ 0115-- __ _____�______ T0 Indian River C0UcT' |n",o�''elxe''�/po,ova|fo/m*am°non�o!of�h�ShenMsDepa� �� uu|C,"n/�Ccmm'sz/one,� 0hqina|DoUAoi vLa�� mnUc`! Buugo, ^ccountt� Fi 1980_81 /i,./.^��.'' ' 4i i SALARY DF 3||EP'|rr 29,820^00 f 300,00 29,920,00 ^� I SaLAA|EC OF DEPUTIES xIND 1`502,837.00 -0- 1,502,837.00 FUr!DS PEME�� o[� ��r^�'�� 294,787.00 -U- 294,787.00 - - EXPEmSES OT:[R T1H.,MH 828^592'00 - + 18,065'00 546,657^00 l3Q,764.00 f l 6�� 132,399.00 45 EQUIPMENT- -_ " ^ �------/ �(I |mVEST|GAT|ONS 7^500`00 � -0- 7,500,00 20,000.00 -20,000.00 -O- CONTINGENCIES -- ' � TOTAL �U�GET � 2°614'100'00 � 20'000^00 � 2,614.100. 00 | | . . . is Commuamn',s �a/r June '3,I98}-- Cbaizzuaol Doarc� of County CormiGoioners Title-------------- - --- Thmixtncenifvmmmism/dgwocrnorrapproved June 3, 1981 Tido:_Coznty Finance Director 11M. -ITS 21111 THE BOARD NEXT DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING: • ��r, i 1. � Dear Mr. Walker: Confirming our conversation during my visit with you yesterday, Hobart Brothers Company is entering, into a joint venture to develop.all of the lands we own west of the railroad tracks to the park and both north and south of Hobart Road. This venture, when it is presented and approved by the County Corunission, will have its own mining permit, therefore,'I would like to cancel our present mining permit which has been inactive for several years. We have had on deposit with ttio Count',' since May 14, 1976, $8,000 plus the interest that has accumul.atcd. Wouid you please tell ,ne what steps to take to have this cancelled and to receive a check for the deposit plus interest due Hobart Brothers_Company. Sincereliv. Fred P. Briggs District Manager L POOK4 PACE 575 JUN 31991 _ 5 _ Reply to HOBART ARC WELDING SYSTEMS — VERO BENCH Hobart Brothers Company P. 0. Box 1600 Vero Beach Fl 32960 ta:'::i:.. Y. Phone: (305) 567.5201 v c May 19, 1981 d a 0 o. v c o - 2 Mr. Dewey Walker Zoning Administrator E ID Indian River County Planning & Zoning 2121 14th Avenue 01 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Walker: Confirming our conversation during my visit with you yesterday, Hobart Brothers Company is entering, into a joint venture to develop.all of the lands we own west of the railroad tracks to the park and both north and south of Hobart Road. This venture, when it is presented and approved by the County Corunission, will have its own mining permit, therefore,'I would like to cancel our present mining permit which has been inactive for several years. We have had on deposit with ttio Count',' since May 14, 1976, $8,000 plus the interest that has accumul.atcd. Wouid you please tell ,ne what steps to take to have this cancelled and to receive a check for the deposit plus interest due Hobart Brothers_Company. Sincereliv. Fred P. Briggs District Manager L POOK4 PACE 575 JUN 31991 _ 5 JUN 31981 MEMO TO: Board of County Commissioners �5� FROM: Jeff Barton, Finance Director SUBJECT: Refund of Mining Deposit- Hobart Brothers DATE: May 27, 1981 BOOK 8 PnE 576 On 5/17/76, Hobart Brothers made a mining permit deposit to the county's general escrow account -in the amount of $8,000.00. They have asked that the cash bond be returned plus interest. There is no aggrement as to the interest and I need authorization form the Board. If interest were to be—paid at the passbook rate of 5', for the 5 years and 2 weeks the interest would amount to $2,015.38. Attached are the letters from zoning and copies of the request for re- fund from Hobart. FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON ADVISED THAT THERE WAS NO WRITTEN CONTRACT, THEREFORE, HE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO PAY THE INTEREST. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT THIS MATTER TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE EXISTING MINING ORDINANCE CAME INTO EFFECT. HE THEN INQUIRED IF THE COUNTY MADE VERIFICATION THAT THE RECLAMATION WAS COMPLETE, WHICH WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE BOND. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER FLETCHER, TO TABLE THE MATTER OF REFUNDING THE MINING DEPOSIT UNTIL VERIFICATION OF THE RECLAMATION HAS BEEN MADE, AND TO PLACE IT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNTY CHARGE AN INSPECTION FEE. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT AFTER A MINING ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED, A RESOLUTION COULD BE PREPARED TO ESTABLISH RATES AND POLICIES FOR MINING. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE OF BUDGET HEARINGS: June 2, 1981 FROM: JEFFREY K. i3AIUCN, FINANCE DIRECMR IN RE: Budget Hearings for Fiscal Year 1981-82 The follawing budget hearing dates will be at 1:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. as listed below: June 15, 1981 - Monday - School Board Meeting Pbm 1:00 P.M. - Sheriff / County Jail 2:00 P.M. - Housing Authority/ Rental Assistance/ Camunity Development 3:00 P.M. - Veterans Service 3:30 P.M. - Youth Guidance 3:45 P.M.-- Ag. Extension 4:00 P.M. - Recreation / North County Recreation 4:15 P.M. - IRC Soil & Water Conservation 4:30 P.M. - Welfare / Medicade 5:00 P.M. - Civil Defense 5:30 P.M. - B.C.C. Operations June 16, 1981 - Tuesday - School Board Meeting ROcn 1:00 P.M. - Purchasing 1:30 P.M. - Zoning 2:00 P.M. - Planning 2:30 P.M. - Personnel 3:00 P.M. - County Administrator/ County Fngineerinq/ Dept. of Public Works/ Building operations/ Adminstration Building & Courthouse June 18, 1981 - Thursday - School Beard Meeting Room 1:00 P.M. - Utilities 2:00 P.M. - Landfill/ Refuse Disposal 3:00 P.M. - Parks 4:00 P.M. - Road and Bridges / Vehicle Maintanance June 22, 1981 - Monday - City Hall 1:00 P.M. - Supervisor of Elections/ Elections 1:30 P.M.. - State Attorney 1:45 P.M. - Public Defender 2:00 P.M. - Property Appraiser 2:30 P.M. - Tax Collector 3:00 P.M. - Clerk to Board/ County Court/ Circuit Court/ Court Reporting June 23, 1981 - Tuesday - City Hall 1:00 P.M. - Humane Society 1:30"P.M. P.M. - YMCA 2:00 P.M. - IRC Ambulance Sauad 2:30 P.M. - Sebastian Ambulance Squad 3:00_P.M. P.M. - Visiting Nurses Association 4:00 P.M. - IRC Library 5:00 P.M. - Vero Beach Recreation Department June 24, 1981 - Wednesday - City Hall 1:00 P.M. - Mental Health Board # 9 Mental Health Center 2:00 P.M. - IRC Council on Aging 2:30 P.M. - Spouse Abuse 3:00 P.M. - Sheltered Workshop June 29 & 30, 1981 - Monday & Tuesday - School Board Meeting Room _ Clean-up JUN 31991 9 BOOK 46 PAGE 577 JUN 31981 rn..:. 578 RF�LEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST - .JOSEPH & DOROTHY MEDIATE ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-34 RELEASING THE SIDE LOT LINE EASEMENTS LYING BETWEEN LOTS 23 AND 24, BLOCK F, UNIT 3, OSLO PARK, AS REQUESTED BY .JOSEPH & DOROTHY MEDIATE, RESOLUTION N0. 81-34 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the side lot line easements lying between Lots 23 and 24, Block F, Unit 3, Oslo Park, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 4, page 19, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo Park, Unit 3 for public utility purposes; and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement has, been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Oslo Park, Unit 3, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: Those side lot easements lying between Lots 23 and 24, Block F, according to the Plat of same filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 4, page 19. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements herein- above referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This 3rd Attest: Freda Wright, Clerk day of June , 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA JUN 31981 BOOK 46 PACE 5 19 UN a 1991 .� BOOK 46 PACE 580 RELEASE OF EASEMENT This Release of Easement, executed this 3rd day of June 1981, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IRIDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, first party; to Joseph and Dorothy Mediate, whose mailing address is 326 10th Court, Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, second party: - WITNESSETH: That the said party of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon, and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easement, lying on land situate in the County of Indian River County, State of Florida, to -wit: Those side lot easements lying between Lots 23 and 24, Block F, Oslo Park, Unit 3, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4, page 19, public records of Indian River County, Fiorida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belong or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest, equity and claim whatsoever of the said first party either in law or equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law the day and year first above wri tten. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence ot: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attest STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that cm this day before me an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements personally appeared, PATRICK B. LYGNS, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to me known to be the persons duly authorized by said County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision. (WITNESS my hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this �� day of 1931. o ary blic, tate o-- lorida Large +y commi ss ion xpi res : °Ltt ST>TE Of FLCRIDn AT LARD .1ISSICN UPIRES A'_Y 9 14r2 (Notary Seal) t4W aNa- U INS. UNDERYMTLkS JUN 31981 t, BOOK 1rAGE 581 _._ ' JUIN 31991 ®o� 6 pacE 582 ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-35 RELEASING THE SIDE LOT LINE EASEMENTS LYING BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK B, OSLO PARK, AS REQUESTED BY HARRY RIGHTON. RESOLUTION NO. 81-35 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the side lot line easements lying between Lots 1 and Z, Block B, Oslo Park, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 3, page 96, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo Park for public utility purposes; and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement has been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Oslo Park shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: Those side lot easements lying between Lots 1 and 2, Block B, according to the Plat of the same filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 3, page 96. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements herein- above referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This 3rd day of June 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN4aic COUNTY, FLORIDA By: B. Lyon hairman Attest: Freda Wright, Clerk JUN 31981 BooK 46 PACE 583 JUN 31991 BQQK 46 PAGE X84 RELEASE OF EASEMENT This Release of Easement, executed this 3rd day of June , 1981, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF-I14DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, first party; to Harry,Righton, whose mailing address is 2244 S.E. Stn Court, Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, second party: - WITNESSETH: That the said party of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon, and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easement, lying on land situate in the County of Indian River County, State of Florida, to -wit: Those side lot easements lying between Lots 1 and 2, Block B, Oslo Park, a subdivision as recorded in Plat book 3, page 96, public records of Indian River County, Florida. TO DAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest, equity and claim whatsoever of the said first party either in law or equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA M. Att STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER 'M M I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements personally appeared, PATRICK; B. LYONS, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to -me known to be the persons duly authorized by said County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision. WITNESS my hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of 1981. (Notary Seal) N-otary Pub]' State of F o ida Large My comm ss n expires: �dC".RY °U3lf� S ? O' FLCRIDI AT LARGE SONXD 'Pu t;C .'RI iERS �QtIJt P4([ .- Juh 3,1981 46 PACE 586 . ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-36 RELEASING THE SIDE LOT LINE EASEMENTS LYING BETWEEN LOTS 21 AND 22, BLOCK N, OSLO PARK UNIT 2, AS REQUESTED BY CHARLES W. HEATH RESOLUTION NO. 81-36 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the side lot line easements lying between Lots 21 and 22, Block N, Oslo Park, Unit 2, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 4, page 13, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo Park, Unit 2 for public utility purposes; and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement has been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Oslo Park, Unit 2, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: Those side lot easements lying between Lots 21 and 22, Block N, according to the Plat of the same filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 4, page 13. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements herein- above referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This 3rd day of June Attest: reda Wright, Clerk z 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS LONERS OF INDIAN RIj-ER COUNTY, FLORIDA atrick B: L"yfns,)Chairman Jun 31981 BooK 46 PAGE587 I JUN 31991 RELEASE OF EASEMENT gak _ ?acE588 this Release of Easement, executed this 3rd day of June , 1981, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, first party; to Charles William Heath, whose mailing address is 2419 S.E. 2nd Court, Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, second party: - WITNESSETH: That the said party of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon, and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easement, lying on land situate in the County of Indian River County, State of Florida, to -wit: Those side lot easements lying between Lots 21 and 22, Block N, Oslo Park, Unit 2, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4, page 13, public records of Indian River County, Florida. TT HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest, equity and claim whatsoever of the said first party either in law or equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party -r-rever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA Attest• r , Freda Wright, Cier STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements personally appeared, PATRICK; B. LYONS, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to -me known to be the persons duly authorized by said County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision. WITNESS my hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this $� day of aa -e--' , 1981. (Notary Seal) G . V - &n�,ovt4 �;otary Pu c, State or or a at Large Piy commission expires: wC'-.PYs..at LARGE BITERS • �� ----- FACE --- - 31981 G . V - &n�,ovt4 �;otary Pu c, State or or a at Large Piy commission expires: wC'-.PYs..at LARGE BITERS • �� ----- FACE --- - JAN BOOK 46 MEMO ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-37 RELEASING THE SIDE LOT LINE EASEMENTS LYING BETWEEN LOTS 7 AND S, BLOCK 1, SEBASTIAN GROVE ESTATES, AS REQUESTED BY THOMAS GRIFFITH. RESOLUTION NO. 81-37 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the side lot line easements lying between Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Sebastian Grove Estates, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 5, page 85, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Sebastian Grove Estates for public utility purposes; and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement has been -submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Sebastian Grove Estates shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: Those side lot easements lying between Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, according to the Plat of the same filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 5, at page 85. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements herein- above referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This 3rd day of June Attest: Freda Wright; Clerk 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA IN JUN 31%70 806K 46 PAGE 59 JUN 31991 46 PAGE592 RELEASE OF EASEMENT This Release of Easement, executed this 3rd day of June 1981, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, first party; to Thomas Griffith, whose mailing address is 9959 Nicole Lane, Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, second party: WITNESSETH: That the said party of the first part for and in of the . sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon, and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easement, lying on land situate in the County of Indian River County, State of Florida, to -wit: Those side lot easements lying between Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Sebastian Grove Estates, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 5, page 85, public records of Indian River County, Florida. TO NAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest, equity and claim whatsoever of the said first party either in law or equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law the day and year first above wri tten. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RI COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: atri Lyons Attest: Freda Wright, Clerk STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements personally appeared, PATRICK B. LYONS, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to me known to be -the persons duly authorized by said County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision. WITNESS my hand and seal in the County and Stata last aforesaid this S_��day of 0 1981. ;votary Pu 'c, State of Florio at Large My commission expires: NQO ARY PU3LIC i = J' FLORIDA AT LARGE _,NY IDLY 3 i?? (Notary Seal) e0Ne a T RU c�+, , �,� IJND7,T;IRITERS AN 31981 BOOK 46 Pw,593 JUN 3 *1989 SECTION 8 EXISTING HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BooK 46 PATE 594 THE BOARD,NEXT CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM: Chairman Vice Chairman PATRICK B. LYONS WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR. A. GROVER FLETCHER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. District 2 District 4 District 1 District 3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 NEIL A. NELSON - County Administrator Lawyers Title Building 2345 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 562-4186 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of C ty Commissioners FROM: Edward J`i- egari May 27, 1981 DICK BIRD District 5 Secretary to Board Telephone: (305) 569-1940 SUBJECT: Section 8 Existing Housing Assistance Program A/C/C Federal Contributions FY 1982 Under our Annual Contributions Contract A-3409 with the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, we are required to submit HUD Form 52672 (Estimate of Required Annual Contri- bution) and 52673 (Estimate of Total Required Annual Contri- butions), requisitioning funds to cover -our Section 8 Housing Assistance Program for FY 1982. Our Section 8 Program has had 462 applicants and has given rental assistance to 118 families, elderly and handi- capped individuals, with 93 currently under lease agreements. I respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners' concurrence in the execution of Forms 52672 and 52673 by the Chairman. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE FOR THE SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM - ESTIMATE OF TOTAL REQUIRED ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. U.S. DEPART*ENT OF HOUSING.AND URBAN DE'. £LOPMENT SECTION 8 -HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM ESTIMATE OF TOTAL REQUIRED ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS M e- AND ADDRESS OF PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 800, 20th Place, Suite 3 Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 'D FIELD OFFICE U.S. Dept. o_ HUD 661 Riverside Ave. Jacksonville, Fla. 32204 ,1 REGIONAL OFFICE U.S. Dept. of HUD Richard B. Russell Fed. Bldg. 75 Spring St., SW Atlanta. Ga. in i(1'i F'• O- CCT NUMBER 0-111 YI';•_ CF i_EASING METHOD 'fChecr'::rno) (12) I. l -] N'3W Construction 7. '`j Rehabilitation 3. ftcJ1 Existing FY ENDING 193K82 t131 l e , Match 31 2. EI June 30 3e k_J September 30 d. U December 31 NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS (15-18) 126 NUMBER OF UNIT MONTHS 1.512 _ SUFRAISSION gySj ice] Original El Revision Revision Number AC CONTRACT NUMBER (26) APPROVED ESTIMATE OR REQUESTED ,AMOUNT N E R E OUIR ED ANNUAL PER PHA HUD viB i k ITEM DESCRIPTION CONTRIBUTIONS LODI ICATI"S (Column 1) (Column 2) (Cabers° 3) __f" 1 f29-381 (39-48) (49-501 MAXIMUM ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION 'ti%'° '%`°'+gid•°%° •::•...:•>;.::.a,:e; ::•::•'roa::o••• „ .�i :;opo;i :°••° a o° o. e a :;: _;•:�:;••'°'•°°° ••e•e:a•e° 225 204 Maximum Annual Contribution Authorized Pt'oA Maximum Annual Contributions Applicable to a Period of Less than 12 Months hs 0 .••e,re .••...,. •iia• a• .°r a� o o e e :• . . °. ••none � •..•.,°., ::: °0:: i i :°:w •e :•s 71: ..._ A40ximum Annual Contributions for Fiscal Year (Line 01 plus 0.., ) 22520 f j Project Account—Balance of End of Current Fiscal Year—Estimated or Actual - :178 139 ,mance Previous Fiscal Year f s _ ) :`°°:•'°ii'a'a •' •.•*.•�;��;�, ..: ;:%e;e e% o�::•::: •• °;:':•;•o:;°•:: :•:•::• 247 639 '.otal Annual Contributions Available -Estimated or Actual (Line 03 piss Lrne 0•f) 472 '843 a ESTIMATE OF REQUIRED ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS (Housing Assistance and Administration) yd_ Hosing Assistance Payments -Form HUD -52672, Port 1, Line 1 i, -258.408 253.408 )r. Administrative Fee -Form HUD -52672, Part Line 03 39,327 27 08. independent Public Accountant Audit Costs 2 S00 2 500 INITIAL ESTIMATE OF REQUIRED ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS (Preliminary Costs) 0 U9 Preliminary Administrative Expense -Prior to ACC -Form HUD -52671, Port IA, IU Preliminary Administrative Expense -After ACC -Form HUD -52611, Parr IB,' Line 280 . 0 O 11, Nonexpendable Equipment -Form HUD -52671, Part 11, Line 350 0 0 12. Total Annual Contributions Required -Requested Year 300,23157^ 13. Deficit at End of Current Year -Estimated or Actual 0 Li. Total Annual Contributions Required 300,235 U{ 1 J. Excess Project Account Balance at End of Requested Fiscal Yeot (bine 05, ::%e •: e:;:•:•:°.•°O°ea• °•�P•••;b°' .. Column 2minus Line 14 Column 2) ••�: • • o • •' :• °••:•.,P:e•: °•;;''';;;:°'°° ; • %,off s s e,•e i°• ao tae d I� • 608 �. Provision for Project Account -Requested Fiscal Year-Increose(Uecrease)(Line 15 (75,031) minus Line 04) :•:•::;%•:;.°:'::e,:• � ••eea :•:;:' •....... s , - ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS . sone.,•J I) Total Annual Contributions Approved -Requested Fiscal Year (Line 14, Column lu, Inerfase. itany,,a .re 1 :.. .•��%� °.••, :• •:�::::; °°•:�°•i°: : 300,235 I Source of Total Annual Contributions Approved -Requested Fiscal Yeor :%m•.�.%.•a•; , (a) ftaquested Fiscal Year Maximum Annual Contributions Authorized (Line 03 or ie. Line 17, whichever is lesser) :°:`::�:•° %% %:;�:�;�;;Y:•:•: 225 204 751,031 W Project Account (Line 17 minus Line Wal)°°° . ' '°''' ; ° %:. �.•:°:° hME AND TITLE OF PHA APPROVING OFFICIAL SI NA iT E � �1 DATE PATRICK B LYONS CHAIRWIN tAISSIONERS BOARD OF W 1•ME AND TITLE OF HUD FIELD OFFICE SIGNATURE DATE °PROVING OFFICIAL - n a_tvr A 0 PW r% r - 1 rvt ;Edon is Obsoleta i won 2U PA _._ 3 1981 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DCVELOPMENT SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM ESTIMATE OF REQUIRED ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS '+% •'•'.E. AND ADDRESS OF PUBLIC HOUSING AGFh'.-Y Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 800, 20th Place, Suite 3 Vero Beach, Ila. 32960 PROJFCTNUMBER ) FF I I.29—E132— 01 TYPE OF LEASING METHOD 121 !Check one) New Construction I LJ FRehabilitatioc 21_7 Existing 31X] ENDING (13) 1h!1 (Check one) Mar 31 1[--] Sep 30 3 [N Jun 30 2 [-] Dec 31 4C7 t NUMHER OF DWELLING UNITS (IS -1®) 126 UC) FIE L,D OFFICE-- -THUD RFGIUKhL OFFICE - -- -- U.S. Dept. of HUD U.S. Dept. Of HUD 661 Riverside Av. Richard B. Russell Fed. Bldg i~ Jacksonville, Fla. 175 Spring St., SW 32204 Atlanta, Ga. 30303 AC CONTRACT NUMBER -x Original A-3409 H 1512 [_; Revision Revision No. PART I - ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS REQUIRED (26) (29) - - (30-33) - - (34-3d) (39-43) - —(44-48) (49-54) (55-64) I i AMOUNT MONTHLY UNIT ANNUAL L NE I 512E OF NO. OF MONTHLY DWELLING PAYABLE HOUSING MONTHS HOUSING, ..,;,. DWELLING GROSS N0. BY FAMILY ASSISTANCE UNDER ASSISTANCt--'`. UNITS I UNITS RENT TOWARD I PAYMENTS LEASE PAYPIERTS < GROSS RENT Y (U I (21 (3) i 141 U1 � OBRE v i 7 175___.-. 51 124 0? IBR ------ - �3_208- --4 -- (r3 -- 154 636 213R 48 ;?�4-- - �5--- 181 S76 - - 3BR------�-_7 41_-- 0., I -.48R-- __ .- _ _ 3 —_345----- --� 88-- - 257 36 9.25' TOTAL 1512 2581.4-08 N (nl 1' BASIS I ; PER- CENT L' 15.00 • yr u; Cht)on is Q (29.34) - ---- UNIT MONTHS ---- (' ) 1512 PART 2 - CALCULATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FEE (26) -- (35-39) 1 - (40-441 HUD -APPROVED 2 -BR I ALLOWABLE FAIR MARKET RENT I PERCENT (2) i (3) 306 I .085 (45-541 • ADMINISTRATIVE FEE (4) 39,327 2,680 39,327 �UL-52672 i12 -77r :;; . LETTER TO LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION CHAIRMAN LYONS RELATED INFORMATION IN A LETTER FROM JOHN THOMAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSION ASSOCIATION. HE POINTED OUT THAT FUNDS ARE BEING REMOVED FROM MANDATED PROGRAMS TO THE COUNTIES AND WONDERED IF THE BOARD WANTED TO SUPPORT A LETTER TO OUR LEGISLATIVE TEAM AND ASK THEM TO "CUT IT OUT. It ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION REQUESTING THAT MANDATORY PROGRAMS WITHOUT FUNDING NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. DECELERATION LANE - U. S. #1 AT VERO SHORES COMMISSIONER WODTKE REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING LETTERS; JUN 31991 27 Y ' JUN 31981 BOOK 46 PAGE 598 Villages of Vero Beach Highlands May 29, 1981 W. Wodtke, Commissioner County Commission Courthouse 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Bill, As we discussed on the telephone, I received approval from Bob Ehrling, President of General Development, regarding the Decel- eration/Turning Lane for Vero Shores. This approval was based on the information, bids and plans you gave me. I will wait to hear from you as to who will do the work and our payment of same to the County. Thank you for your efforts in helping us both respond to this request from the residents of Vero Shores. Very truly yours, T. J. Maureau, III General Manager TJMIII/sdl 2055 S.E. U.S. 1, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone 305 569 4300 A General Development Community INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTER — OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Vice Chairman William C. Wodtke Thru: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator FROM: James -W. Davis, County Engineer. 1)1P DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS DATE: June 2, 1981 FILE: SUBJECT: Vero Shores Deceleration/Turning Lane along Northbound US1 REFERENCES - The Department of Public Works has investigated the construction of the above subject deceleration/turning lane. The Florida D.O.T. has stated that.the following requirements are applicable: 1) Construct 125 lineal feet of storage lane 2) Construct 175 lineal feet of transition 3) Structural section to include 12" thick stabilized subgrade 8'z" of Limerock base, and 2" of D.O.T. Type 1 asphalt. Mr. Gillick of the Florida D.O.T. is allowing an 11' wide storage lane since the curve is super elevated and passenger vehicles are pre- dominantly using this lane. This 11' minimum width is also a require- ment of Federally funded roads which US 1 is included. A 12' wide lane is usually required. Also in lieu of constructing the 12" thick subgrade, a 12" thick base course can be constructed over the existing subgrade material. This alter- nate is permissible by the D.O.T. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The following alternatives are presented 1) Construct an 11' wide storage lane 125 l.f. long and a 175' transition lane Approximate cost $6,050. These costs are based upon verbal quotes from road building contractors in the area. 2) Provide no relief to northbound US 1 motorists turning right into Vero Shores Subdivision and allow an existing hazardous situation to remain. RECOMMENDATIONS It is highly recommended that an 11' wide deceleration/turning lane be constructed along northbound US Highway 1 in the vicinity of Vero Shores Entrance at a cost of approximately $6,050. JUN 31081 29 BobK PAGE 599 1%7_ JUN 31931 BOOK June -2, 1981 Vero Shores Deceleration/Turning Lane Bids received over the phone from Local Contractors Bid Received * John Troglen & Co. $5,775. ** Dickerson & Co. 5,500. Global Paving 5,980. County Estimate to Do 14ork "In House" 6,344. Bid + ` 10% Contingency $6,352.50 6,050.00 6,578.00 6,978.00 * Bid does not include Soil testing nor Traffic Control ** Low Bid based on 12" limerock base in lieu of 12" subgrade and 81z" 1 i n-erock base 6 PACE 600 COMMISSIONER WODTKE THEN REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THIS WORK TO BE DONE, AS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD FULLY REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INQUIRED WHAT SORT OF VEHICLE DID COMMISSIONER WODTKE ENVISION FOR THE COUNTY BEING REIMBURSED FOR THESE COSTS — AN AGREEMENT PREPARED BY OUR ATTORNEY TO BE SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES? COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THAT AUTHORIZATION BY THE BOARD TO HAVE THE WORK DONE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE WORK FOR THE DECELERATION LANE ON U. S. #1 AT VERO SHORES BE DONE, SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF FUNDS PRIOR TO LETTING THE CONTRACT, VILLAGE GREEN — TRAFFIC ON ROUTE 60 CHAIRMAN LYONS BRIEFLY MENTIONED THAT EVENTUALLY THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A DECELERATION LANE IN THE VICINITY OF VILLAGE GREEN DUE TO THE HEAVY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, AND THE BOARD AGREED. __ 30 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER BROUGHT THE BOARD UP-TO-DATE ON THE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION BY READING THE FOLLOWING: May 28, 1981 Honorable Pat Lyons, Indian River County Court House Vero Beach, Florida Dear Chairman Lyons: v Aev, .. 59;7Vw 129W Chairman Board of Commissioners 32960 At its May meeting, the Board of Directors of the Indian River County Library Association --after careful consideration of indepen- dent studies by the County Ad Hoc Committee, The Florida State Library and an internal study by the Association's Long Range Planning Committee --unanimously adoptedthe following motion: It is the intent of the Board, subject to approval of the 'Library Association, that we accept the report of the Long Range Planning Committee that the County be requested 1. To call for a referendum to set up a special taxing district. 2. If this fails, that we ask the County Commission to set up a taxing district under County home rule ordinance. As Association President, I have called for a special meeting of the.L.ibrary Association to vote on this matter. The meeting will be held at the County Library, 7 P.M., June 9, 1981. As soon as the Association's decision is known, I will contact you to arrange -further discussions concerning the future of the Library/County relationship. Your®Riveer E. JPresident Indiibrary Association JUN 31981 31 POGK, 46 PA fF 60 FF"- -7 JUN 31981 50oK 46 FACE602 IKA IG& .,4arX, /fear iw J >r �o INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LIBRARY ASSOCIATION NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Dear Association Member: As President of our Association, I am calling a special meeting of all Association Members on .Tune 9, 1981, at 7:00 P.M., in the Indian River County Library. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss a motion which was unanimously adopted by the Library Board of Directors at its May meeting and then to vote on implementing the transfer of the library to some form of County Government supported operation. The Board's motion reads as follows: It is the intent of the Board, subject to the approval of the Library Association, that we accept the report of the Long Range Planning Committee that the County be requested: 1. To call for a referendum to set up a special taxing district. 2. If this fails, that we ask the County Commission to set up a taxing district under County home rule ordinance. a The Board has considered a number of alternatives for financial support, and feels that although it would be desirable to continue on a private basis, this is no longer possible. Transfer enabling access to a county -wide tax base as recommended in two independent studies (County Ad Hoc Committee, 1980: Florida State Library 1981) should provide the best solution to present and future library needs. I urge you to be present to cast your vote on this issue - the most important since the Library's founding by the Woman's Club 65 years ago. Yours 1 11 k E. dler, President Ind River County Library Association _" m m LARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE COMMISSIONER BIRD REVIEWED THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MAY 28, 1981 AND ADVISED THAT GARY SCHEIDT WAS ELECTED VICE CHAIRMAN. OTHER HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MEETING WERE: 1. A PRESENTATION WAS MADE REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE 16TH STREET RECREATION COMPLEX, AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THE COUNTY COULD PARTICIPATE IN ONE-THIRD OF THE COST, THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE CITY OF VERO BEACH WOULD ALSO PARTICIPATE IN THE ESTIMATED $123,000 PROJECT, OR $41,000 EACH. 2. DISCUSSION WAS HELD REGARDING THE TRACKING STATION PROPERTY AND PLANS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE GRANT APPLICATION. A SPECIAL COMMITTEE WAS RECOMMENDED TO CONTINUE DESIGN AND PLANNING FOR THE PARK AREA - AL MACADAM AND RENE VANDEVOORDE WOULD BE A PART OF THAT COMMITTEE AND MORE MEMBERS WOULD BE ADDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD. 3. THE RECREATION BUDGET FOR 1981-82 WAS REVIEWED AND THE NEWLY CREATED COMMITTEE FELT THEY WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE IN- DEPTH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BUDGET, AND WOULD FORWARD THEIR BUDGET TO THE BOARD. 4. BLUE CYPRESS LAKE WAS BRIEFLY DISCUSSED - THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF DRY LAND THERE RESTRICTS EXTENSIVE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, DISCUSSION WAS BRIEFLY HELD REGARDING THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE TRACKING STATION PROPERTY, AND IT WAS DECIDED -TO PUT A HOLD ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THAT COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE HAD A MEETING WITH CITY COUNCILMAN GREGG REGARDING ITEMS OF MUTUAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE -SOUTH BEACH WATER. HE ADDED THAT ATTORNEY COLLINS PRESENTLY IS IN THE PROCESS OF DRAFTING AN AGREEMENT BASED ON THESE ITEMS, AND HOPED TO HAVE IT AVAILABLE FOR THE BOARD BY AUGUST 1ST. JUN 31981 33 BooK 46 PAcE 603 JUN 31991 AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT COUNTY'S INTEREST THE BOARD NEXT DISCUSSED THE -FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM: TO: DATE: FILE: Board of County Commissioners May 28, 1981 SUBJECT: FROM: Attorney George G. REFERENCES: Collins-, Jr. Commissioners, regarding the Administration Building Arbitration, and Clifford R. O'Donnell versus Indian River County, these matters are now at the litigation stage. On behalf of, the firm, I would appreciate authority to represent the County's interests. Regarding Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc., it is re- commended that Eric Meyers, of Shutts - Bowen, along with our 6 PnE 6o4 7 firm's coordination, be retained to represent the County's interests. ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY'S INTERESTS, AND THAT HIS RECOMMENDATION BE APPROVED, AS SET OUT IN THE MEMO OF MAY 28, 1981. TREASURE COAST UTILITIES ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT ENGINEER .JOHN ROBBINS, UTILITIES DIRECTOR GEORGE LINER.,AND HE MET WITH CHARLES BURKETT IN REFERENCE TO APPRAISING THE TREASURE COAST UTILITIES SYSTEM. HE ADDED THAT HE ANTICIPATED THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE USED IN THE COURT PROCEEDINGS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE APPRAISAL OF THE TREASURE COAST UTILITIES BY CHARLES BURKETT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. B COMMISSIONER WODTKE DISCUSSED THE DANGEROUS INTERSECTION AT GLENDALE AND 27TH AVENUE AND STRESSED HOW VITAL IT WAS TO HAVE SIGNALIZATION INSTALLED AT THAT LOCATION. IN ORDER TO PROCEED, HE ADDED, PERMISSION MUST FIRST BE OBTAINED SINCE 27TH AVENUE IS A STATE ROAD. HE SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD REQUEST DOT TO DO A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AT THAT INTERSECTION. COMMISSIONER WODTKE THEN READ THE FOLLOWING LETTERS ALOUD TO THE BOARD: 636 27th Avenue Vero Beach, Fla 32960 May 27, 1981 Hon. Bill Wodtke Indian River County Board of Commissioners P. 0. Box 8 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Wodtke: How many more accidents must we have on 27th Ave. and 8th Street before we can get a caution light (at least) ? On May 25, 1981, a little after 6 p.m.,T heard the screech of brakes, a loud crunch of metal against metal, looked out the front door and saw a small red car careen across the road and turn over into the ditch in front of Bill Locke's house. A 19 -year old mother died as a result of that accident, her 2 -year old son in serious condition in the hospital. In the fifteen years plus I have lived near this intersection, I have heard and seen the aftermath of many accidents, but I believe this is the first fatality. The 3 -car accident of a year ago (in April) was classified a "mini -disaster". Miraculously, no one died in that one. Our efficient ambulance squad did a terrific job, and I shall never forget that night. The State owns 27th Avenue, which I realize impedes what actions our county can take. All of my neighbors are depressed over this latest accident --the loss of a young mother of two children is hard to shrug off. 1 Can't something be done to stop this slaughter on 27th Avenue? •, J ` 4 JUIN 31981 35 BOOK 46 PACE 6®5 JUN 3 c19 1 Box 46 PAU 60. 6 June 1, 1981 Mr. William Wodtke Indian River Board of County Commissioners Post Office Box 8 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mrtke : " It is my understanding that at the next meeting of the Board of County Commissioners the subject of the 27th Avenue and Eighth Street interesection will be discussed. I wish to bring to the Board's attention that my firm has represented several parties who were involved in accidents at that intersection. - Therefore, not only as a citizen of this community, but as an attorney who has represented clients of loved ones who were not only severely injured at this intersection but who have lost their lives, I strongly recommend that the Board consider a traffic light to be installed at this intersection for the protection of all who travel these apparently dangerous_ and hazardous roads as well as for the protection of those families living in the immediate area. Your consideration is appreciated. livan JUN 3 �®i37 BOOK 6 WE 607 - Plfu Offices ,�$Ulliilan and r_ r�`` 1601 20th STREET 201 SOUTH SECOND STREET POST OFFICE BOX 2620 SUITE 207 CHARLES A. SULLIVAN VERO BEACH, FLORIDA32960 FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA WILLIAM M. COBB 1305; 567-4371 (305) 465-8500 MARK ORR MAP< ORR PLEASE REPLY TO: CHARLES A. SULLIVAN. JR. RESIDENT PARTNER VERO BEACH OFFICE June 1, 1981 Mr. William Wodtke Indian River Board of County Commissioners Post Office Box 8 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mrtke : " It is my understanding that at the next meeting of the Board of County Commissioners the subject of the 27th Avenue and Eighth Street interesection will be discussed. I wish to bring to the Board's attention that my firm has represented several parties who were involved in accidents at that intersection. - Therefore, not only as a citizen of this community, but as an attorney who has represented clients of loved ones who were not only severely injured at this intersection but who have lost their lives, I strongly recommend that the Board consider a traffic light to be installed at this intersection for the protection of all who travel these apparently dangerous_ and hazardous roads as well as for the protection of those families living in the immediate area. Your consideration is appreciated. livan JUN 3 �®i37 BOOK 6 WE 607 - JUN 31991 Moo 46 FAGF 600 May 30, 1981 Indian River County Commission P. O. Box 8 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Gentlemen: Memorial Day. Early dinner for our family, with my two sons leaving to go out for a while. A bare few minutes later - the horror sequence begins again for me, and for those of us living by the 27th Avenue (S-607)- Glendale Road (County 612) crossing. The loud grinding crash - the long deep silence - the painful cries of those still able to cry. The wail of the ambulance ® the sirens of the rushing Sheriff cars. Selfishly, my first thoughts are of my sons. Who will it be this time one of mine - my neighborhood friends - or someone unknown to me, but belonging to someone else who will suffer with and for the victim, Selfishly again, I am thankful to find that this time it was not one of my sons ® nor was it one of my neighbors a but this time it was a young mother and her baby, and two other young people. Right or wrong, their lives are either gone, or changed for the rest of their lives. How many times has this scene been repeated at this same crossing Bill Locke knows. His yard has been the graveyard for the mangled bodies and wrecked cars and cycles. A few days later, the crews were out repainting the signs on the road at this crossing - too late for these victims - and even this is not the answer or it would not happen over and over and over again. Someone within the County and State system must realize that we indeed have a traffic problem here ® the record will be clear on this. Lives must be put before dollars for the cost of a more effective traffic control. Action must come before more prolonged "surveys". Concern must come before neglect. We in the neighborhood know this time it was not one of us, or ours, but the next time ???????? For we know it will come again. Can you help us to silence that crash, the ambulance, the Sheriff's cars and the trama in the hearts of each of us in this area as all this unfolds. I don't want the next episode to occur. The next victim will be someone dear to someone ® perhaps one of you ® or perhaps this time I might find it to be one of my own. Sincerely, cc: Vero Beach Press Journal (Mr . James R. Mason) P. O. Box 986 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 38 LENGTHY DISCUSSION ENSUED AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT BLINKING CAUTION LIGHTS COULD BE ERECTED, AND THAT IT MIGHT BE WORTH CONSIDERING HAVING THE INTERSECTION AT CITRUS ROAD AND 27TH AVENUE STUDIED AT THE SAME TIME. WILLIAM KOOLAGE, INTERESTED CITIZEN, APPROACHED THE BOARD AND FELT THE BOARD SHOULD BE FORCEFUL WITH DOT IN)PURSUING THIS MATTER. HE FELT THE DOT SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE DEATH COUNT AT THAT LOCATION, RATHER THAT JUST A TRAFFIC COUNT. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE COUNTY WOULD PAY.FOR THE SIGNALIZATION AT THAT INTERSECTION, IF THE STATE DIDNIT HAVE THE FUNDING FOR IT. MORE DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO CONTACT DOT ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS TO REQUEST CONSIDERATION FOR SIGNALIZATION AT 8TH STREET (G:LENDALE) AND 27TH AVENUE, AND THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR BE AUTHORIZED TO IMMEDIATELY INSTALL ALL ALLOWABLE WARNINGS ON THE COUNTY PORTION OF GLENDALE ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE INTER- SECTION, WHICH MAY INCLUDE RUMBLE STRIPS AND CAUTION SIGNALS AS THE INTERSECTION IS BEING APPROACHED. BILL LOCKE, 27TH AVENUE, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND STATED THAT HE HAS SEEN MANY PEOPLE IN FRONT OF HIS HOME MANGLED, BLEEDING, A14D DYING AS A RESULT OF THE MANY ACCIDENTS AT THE INTERSECTION. HE URGED THE BOARD TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, AS NOBODY LIKES TO SEE CHILDREN BLEEDING. THE BOARD ASSURED EVERYONE THAT IMMEDIATE STEPS WERE BEING TAKEN. PROCLAMATION - NATFONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER rLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK BEGINNING JUNE 7, 1981 As NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, JUN 31981 39 gooK 46 PAGE609 JUN 3 1981 46 FAf,F 610 CHAIRMAN LYONS THEN READ THE FOLLOWING PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTED IT TO MR. RYAN OF THE COAST GUARD AUXILIARY: n PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, more Americans each -year are choosing recreational boating as an ideal way to relax with their families and friends. All too often, however, what starts out as a pleasant cruise ends in tragedy because boatmen fail to teach their families to swim, fail to properly equip their craft with life preservers and other protective devices, or fail to instruct their passenger on the use of such devices prior to a boating cruise; and WHEREAS, every year, about 1300 lives are lost in boating accidents. These fatalities can .be reduced and boating made more pleasurable if those who engage in it will emphasize boating safety rules; and WHEREAS, recognizing the need for that emphasis, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved June 4, 1958 (72 Stat. 179), has requested the President to proclaim the week of June 7-13, 1981, as National Safe Boating Week. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, do hereby designate the week beginning June 7, 1981, as NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. I urge all who use our waterways to acquire those skills essential to their own safety and that of others and to apply them carefully. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 3rd day of June, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty- -one. P trick nsrt. rman and of County 'ssioners of Indian River Cou Florida 40 RMARINOMMERIMMIN THE BOARD NEXT REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUMS: TO: Neil Nelson DATE: May 27, 1981 FILE: County Administrator SUBJECT: Beach Colony, Riverbend, Sea Oaks, and Surf and Raquet Club site plans FROM: �- David M. e�v r REFERENCES: Planning and Zoning Director It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formai consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. 1. Description and Conditions Below are listed the submitted projects which are within the boundaries of the North Beach Rezoning. A. Riverbend, Unit I, Phase I - Application for site plan approval for 14 multi- family units within the Riverbend Master Plan was submitted October 10, 1980. This project had a gross density of 5.0 units per acre. -The project was reviewed by the T.R.C. March 17, 1981, and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 9, 1981. B. Riverbend Master Plan - The Master Plan was submitted November 10, 1980 for approximately 619 residential units, marina, recreation/utility facilities. Applicant requested review and conceptual approval; however, Indian River County Ordinance does not -have a legal mechanism to grant or deny "conceptual approval" and no action was taken by either the Technical Review Committee (T.R.C.) or the Planning and Zoning Commission -(P & Z). C. Riverbend Phases I, II, III, IV - Application for site plan approval for 619 residential units on 84 acres (average gross density 7.4 units per acre) was submitted May 22, 1981. The project includes a clubhouse, marina, draw bridge, and water/sewer facilities. This project is scheduled for T.R.C. review in July, 1981. D. Beach Colony -Master Plan - Application for "conceptual approval" of 709 resi- dential units on 93 acres was submitted May'5, 1981. The project's average gross density is approximately 7.7 units per acre. This -is scheduled for review at the June 2, 1981 T.R.C. meeting. E.- Beach Colony, Unit I, Phase I - Application for site plan approval of 11 single- family detached condominium units was submitted May 5, 1981. The project is scheduled for T.R.C. review June 2, 1981. F. Sea Oaks - Application for site plan approval of 720 multi -family residential units on 97 acres was made May 11, 1981. The project includes a clubhouse, marina, bridge, and water/sewer facilities. The average gross density is approximately 7.2 units per acre. The applicant has submitted for a Binding Letter of Interpretation. JUN 3.1981 41 Mo'K 46 PAGE 611 JUN 31991 �o� 46 PAr,F 612 G. Surf and Raquet Club - Application for site plan approval -of 60 mid -rise con- dominium and 8 villas on approximately 10 acres was submitted April 3, 1981. The project includes water/sewer facilities, clijbhouse, and tennis courts. The average gross density is approximately 7.1 units per acre. This project was reviewed at the May 23, 1981 T.R.C. meeting, and is scheduled for review by the P & Z on May 28, 1981. 2. Alternatives and Analysis Staff is presently reviewing site plan applications which encompass approximately 187 acres of the total 316 acres included in the North Beach Rezoning. These applications contain a total of 2,127 residential units; all the densities are below 8 units per acre. Because we cannot provide a "conceptual review", there are effectively only 1,418 units under official site plan review. A - B. Riverbend Master Plan and Riverbend Unit I, Phase I - Indian River County has no legal mechanism with which to grant or deny "conceptual approval". Thus no action was taken on the Riverbend Master Plan. The Riverbend Unit I, Phase I has received final site plan approval. Therefore, neither the Riverbend site plan or the Riverbend Master. Plan is included in this analysis. C. Riverbend Phases I, II, III, IV - The follc-,iing items are -deficient or contain insufficient information for review: 1) The scale is not adequate for review of setback, building separations, R.O.W. widths, etc. 2) Parking is not clearly indicated in the phases west of A -1-A. 3) Location of fences is not indicate. 4) A 6' chain link fence in "urbanized areas" is inappropriate (exceeds height limitation specified in Zoning Ordinance). 5) Considering the amount of existing vegetation indicated on the east side of A -1-A, it is unclear why only.8 palms are to remain. 6) There is not enough detail concerning coastal setback, dune preservation, and walkways to allow review or evaluation. 7) The issue of developing in flood plain is not addressed. 8) There are no deceleration"lanes. 9) It is unclear what a "Lake/Retention" area is. 10) Culvert sizes are not indicated. 11) There is no indication of anticipated effects of such a large, single retention pond (Phase I). 12) The site of. -the approved Unit I, Phase I is not shown. 13) There are no detailed plans for draw bridge nor discussion of the impacts. 14) The capacity, depth, water circulation of the marina are not shown. 15) NO D.E.R. PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED for the marina. 16) Mangrove preservation is not addressed. 17) Utilization of Jungle Trail for access and marina channel cuts is unacceptable due to erosion and limitations of the right-of-way width. 18) The plans are not sealed by architect or engineer. 19) Landscape plan is inadequate. D. Beach Colony Master Plan - The applicant is requesting "conceptual approval" and the County has no legal mechanism to grant or deny this. E. Beach Colony Unit I, Phase I - The follo�,ving items are deficient or contain insufficient information for review: 1) The major collector must have a 50' R.O.W. 2) There is no indication at what level of development deceleration lanes will be constructed. 3) The streets are not named. 4) Total floor coverage is not shown. 5) Water/sewer franchise data is not provided. 6) Landscape plan does not meet Count, requirements. 7) Fire protection is not addressed. F. Sea Oaks - The following items are deficient or contain insufficient information for review: 1) Applicant has requested a Binding Letter of Interpretation. There are 13 additional items requested by the State. 2) The application lacks a survey. 3) The application lacks adequate elevation and engineering information for the bridge and marina. 4) 'The floor plan types are not clearly indicated on the site plan. 5) The scale is too small to check building separation, setbacks, etc. 6) Phasing may need adjustment. 7) There is no indication of level of development for construction of deceleration lanes. 8) Lacks sufficient data on clubhouse. 9) Lacks sufficient data concerning dune preservation. G. -Surf and Raquet Club - A copy of the Planning staff's recommendation for approval is 'attached. The Riverbend, Beach Colony, and Sea Oaks projects are in the process of review. The applicants are given opportunities to correct deficiencies. However, new issues may be raised as staff continues it's review, through T.R.C. review and through the request for a Binding Letter of Interpretation. 3. Recommendation As part of the regional review process of Sea Oaks request for a Binding Letter of Interpretation, staff will request that the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council include Riverbend and Beach Colony as part of their total review. 4. Distribution 1. Neil Nelson 2. Steve Houlihan 3. Board of County Commissioners 4. Planning and Zoning Commission 5. Attachments A) Staff recommendations for Surf and Raquet Club B) Sea Oaks request for a Binding Letter of Interpretation C) Sea Oaks application D) Riverbend applications E) Response to Sea Oaks request for Binding Letter JUN 3 1981 43 BOOK 46 PAGE 613 JUN 3,1981 TO: Patrick Chairman Board of B. Lyons, DATE: -June 2, 1981 County Commissioners m6K 46 PAGE 614 FILE: SUBJECT: North Beach Residential Densities FROM: George G. Collins, Jr., REFERENCES: County Attorney In view of the controversy surrounding the question of residential densities on the North Beach area of the Barrier Island,.I would like to take this opportunity to review the options available to the Board and to consider the possible ramifications of those choices. Data regarding pending applications for site plan approval.on the North Beach contained in the memorandum dated May 27, 1981, by Dave Rever should be considered supplemental to .this discussion. The Board -has two alternatives available: 1) To initiate another interim rezoning of the North Beach area, or 2) To deal with the question of North Beach densities through adoption of the land use element of the comprehensive plan. Because of the scope of the proposed development and the equally sizable opposition it seems inevitable that: aggrieved parties on one side or the other will institute litigation. Because both the land use element of the comprehensive plan and a Board initiated rezoning will be subject to essentially the same.challenges, we will review in general terms the possible bases for claims against the County and attempt to point out any advantage attached to the respective alternatives. Basic land use decisions rendered under either a rezoning or the land use element of comprehensive plan will be subject to the same standard, i.e., is the rezoning or density decision reasonable in view of avail- able facts. The substantive basis for equitable claims against the County will be constitutional issues relating to due process, equal protection and taking of private property without just compensation. An additional basis for this type of claim will be to allege that cer- tain rights have been vested and, therefore, that the County is unable to enforce any subsequently enacted zoning to the property in question which is more restrictive than that which was previously in effect. Coupled with the claim for equitable relief will undoubtedly be claims for monetary damages basod upon 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This is an alleged violation of civil rights based upon the same constitutional grounds stated above, the only difference being that monetary damages are the relief requested. As in the Treasure Coast Utilities litigation, it is likely that the individual members of the Board as well as the County will be joined as defendants in an action of this nature. In addition, both alternatives will be subject to any procedural claims that may be available. Potential vesting claims are the major concern at the present time and difficult to assess. This concept applies where an -individual, in good faith, relies upon an affirmative act or omission of a governmental body and makes a substantial change in position or incurs obligations and expenses based on that act. When vested rights are found, the de- cision is based upon the belief it would be highly unjust to destroy the rights upon which the individual already has relied to his detriment. The outcome is based strictly upon a factual analysis. r Since it is not possible to render an opinion whether any of the proposed North Beach developments is in a position to favorably assert a vesting claim, we would recommend that any developers who feel that their rights have become vested under existing zoning should be given the opportunity to present, as a part of the public hearings on either a rezoning or the land use element of the comprehensive plan, any evi- dence that they feel pertinent to establish their claim. After such a presentation, the Board would be in a better position to weigh the validity of the claim and, if deemed meritorious, appropriate adjustments could be made in either the land use element or the zoning ordinance prior to adoption. Because the state mandated comprehensive plan will be the result of an intensive, well documented planning process, it would be preferable to defend any claims based upon densities determined under the compre- hensive plan.rather than upon another Board initiated rezoning. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT THE OVERALL DENSITY MUST BE REDUCED IN THE NORTH BEACH AREA AND THE OVER-ALL COUNTY BASED ON CONTINUED INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AND THE BARRIER ISLAND STUDY. HE CONTINUED THAT WHETHER ALTERNATIVE 1 OR 2 WAS CHOSEN FROM THE ATTORNEY'S MEMORANDUM, HE FELT THEY SHOULD ENTER INTO AN INTERIM REZONING, ENACT A MORATORIUM, AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE INPUT. PROCEDURE, DISCUSSION WAS HELD ABOUT FOLLOWING THE PROPER LEGAL MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM-- MISSIONER FLETCHER, TO AUTHORIZE THE STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING THE WEST SIDE OF AIA TO R2A AND THE EAST SIDE OF AIA TO R2D.IN THE NORTH BEACH AREA. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED HE FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO VOTE FOR THE MOTION AS SOME PARTS OF THAT AREA ARE ZONED FOR 15 UNITS PER ACRE AND BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBLE VESTED INTEREST THAT MIGHT BE THERE. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THE VARIOUS TYPES OF ZONING AND THEIR DENSITIES. LENGTHY DISCUSSION ENSUED, AND THE ATTORNEY POINTED OUT THAT THS BOARD OUGHT TO CONSIDER THE HANDLING OF THIS ISSUE IN RELATION- SHIP TO THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, AS IT COULD THEN BE HANDLED WITH MORE FLEXIBILITY. JUN 31991 45 6 PAGE 615 �°G� `� L_ JUN 31991 6 urF 616 COMMISSIONER BIRD INQUIRED WHAT COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK'S BASIS WAS FOR MAKING HIS MOTION FOR RZA ZONING. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK RESPONDED THAT THE OCEANSIDE WAS MORE DESIRABLE AND THIS WOULD ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE OCEAN, AND TO HAVE MORE OPEN SPACE. HE FELT TRANSITIONAL ZONES SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO BE FAIR TO DEVELOPERS ON THE BARRIER ISLAND. _ ATTORNEY MICHAEL O'HAIRE CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO MAKE A PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATION TO NOT CLOSE ANY OPTIONS FOR DENSITY - HE FELT ALL OPTIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. JIM SELLEN, OF CLADDING, LOPEZ & SELLEN FROM ORLANDO, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO POINT OUT SOME MISCONCEPTIONS, AND MAKE CERTAIN FACTS AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD. HE CONTINUED THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION THAT THE DOWN -ZONING IN THE AREA WAS ESSENTIAL, BUT THE BOARD NEEDED TO BE AWARE THEY WOULD BE FACING ANOTHER PROBLEM WHEN GOING TO LOWER DENSITY - THE COST OF SPRAWL, HE THEN COMPARED THE IMPACT OF SINGLE FAMILY MAKING 13 TRIPS A DAY AS OPPOSED TO MULTI- FAMILY MAKING ONLY 8 TRIPS A DAY. MR. SELLEN POINTED OUT THAT IF YOU HAVE 4 UNITS INSTEAD OF 6 UNITS PER ACRE, THAT DOES NOT SAY YOU WILL HAVE BETTER QUALITY - BUT THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE COST, AS A RESULT OF TRAFFIC AND SEWERAGE, WILL BE GREATER, HE ADDED THAT THIS WAS NOT HIS OPINION ALONE, AS THE EPA AND HUD HAVE ALSO STATED THIS FACT. MR. SELLEN REITERATED THAT DENSITY HAS NO RELATIONSHIP TO QUALITY. COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT HE DOES NOT LIKE THE PRESENT ZONING of 15 UNITS PER ACRE; HE HAD SUPPORTED THE RZB MOTION BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT EVEN LOWER THAN THAT. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN LOWERING THE DENSITIES, THE COUNTY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CONSIDERABLE POTENTIAL LITIGATION. HE STATED HE WAS CONVINCED THAT 6 UNITS OF MULTI -FAMILY REQUIRES LESS SERVICE THAN 4 UNITS OF SINGLE FAMILY. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED IT WAS HIS OPINION THAT SERVICES WILL HAVE TO BE PROVIDED AND IT IS MUCH LESS IN A MULTI -FAMILY CLASSIFICATION THAN IN, SINGLE FAMILY. IN MULTI -FAMILY ZONED AREAS, THERE WOULD BE SOME PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS WHO WOULD HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THERE WOULD BE LESS PEOPLE ON A YEAR-ROUND BASIS. HE ADDED THAT, IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, THOSE SERVICES WOULD BE ON A FULL-TIME BASIS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE AGAIN EXPRESSED GREAT CONCERN OF POSSIBLE PROBLEMS WITH VESTED INTEREST IN THE AREA. HE COMMENTED THAT WHEN REZONING WENT FROM 15 TO S UNITS PER ACRE, IT WAS DONE IN A COOPERATIVE WAY WITH A PROPERTY OWNER; THE PROBLEMS WERE MUTUALLY WORKED OUT, AND HE FELT THIS PROCEDURE WOULD ELIMINATE A LOT OF LAW SUITS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT DENSITY, THE DENSITY CAP IS VERY SELDOM REACHED. HE ALSO THOUGHT THAT SINGLING OUT AN AREA FOR A MORATORIUM WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA; HE FELT YOU HAD BETTER HAVE GOOD FACTS AND BE ABLE TO DEFEND YOUR POSITION. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AT GREAT LENGTH REGARDING THE PROBLEMS OF SINGLING OUT ONE SPECIFIC AREA. COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED THAT BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS, HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION, AND IF IT FAILED, HE WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO INITIATE 6 UNITS AN ACRE, WHICH HE THOUGHT WAS DEFENDABLE. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 3 TO Z, WITH COMMISSIONERS WODTKE AND BIRD VOTING IN OPPOSITION. DISCUSSION THEN FOLLOWED CONCERNING A MORATORIUM FOR THE SAME AREA. THE ATTORNEY EXPLAINED THAT THE BROADER THE AREA WAS FOR THE MORATORIUM, THE MORE DEFENDABLE IT WOULD BECOME. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER FLETCHER, TO ENACT A MORATORIUM WITHIN 6O DAYS OR SUCH LESSER TIME, IN ORDER TO STOP THE ON -RUSH OF SITE PLANS, AND WHICH WOULD -COINCIDE WITH THE REZONING OF THE NORTH BEACH AREA, WHICH IS NORTH OF THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES'TO THE NORTH COUNTY LINE ON THE BARRIER ISLAND. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT THE MORATORIUM WOULD L - AFFECT ANY NEW APPLICATIONS FOR SITE PLANS AND THOSE THAT ARE NOW IN PROCESS. JUN 31981 47 46 PACE 617 BOOK 46 FAA18 JUN 31991 A DEBATE TOOK PLACE REGARDING THE SITE PLANS THAT ARE PRESENTLY BEING PROCESSED. ATTORNEY COLLINS THOUGHT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT COULD NOT STOP THEIR PROCESSING AND NEEDED TO PROCEED ON A REGULAR SCHEDULE. CHAIRMAN LYONS SUMMARIZED THAT THE BOARD WAS CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF ENACTING AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO APPROVE NO MORE SITE PLANS IN THE NORTH BEACH AREA UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE -AREA IS OR IS NOT REZONED AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE WAS NEEDED, AS WELL AS A 4/5 VOTE. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WANTED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE HAVING THE ATTORNEY DRAW UP AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE FOR A MORATORIUM ON SITE PLANS TO BE CONSIDERED AT A SPECIAL MEETING ON THE 10TH OF JUNE AT 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 3 TO 2, WITH COMMISSIONERS WODTKE AND BIRD VOTING IN OPPOSITION. PUBLIC HEARING --PROPOSED MINING ORDINANCE 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: F VERA BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA NOTICE Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. :vho on oath NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspacer published County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being June 3, 1981 at 11:00 A.M., in the City Council Chambers in the Vero Beach City Hall, to �A consider the adoption of an a Ordinance amending Section. 25(r), Ap- pendix A — Zoning, General Provisions, Z��9. p� Mining and Excavation, by providing for the in the matter of �.t ( regulation of land mining in Indian River County; defining terms; establishing ob- jectives and minimum procedures for permit j applications and issuance; providing for en- forcement and penalties for violations - providing for limitation of liability of County officials and employees; providing for in the Court, was pub- severability and providing an effective date. PCF/ If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above lished in said newspaper in the issues of 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. Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Board Of County Commissioners Of Indian River County, Florida Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore By: -s-Patrick B. Lyons been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered Chairman as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida May 14,1981. 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. � •�' 1 Sworn to before / , .. i �% 'r y and subscribed me this day of A.D. �v j C* 9 ` l usiness Manager).^ ' a ��_ZL '_A( (Clerk of the Circuit Court I ian River County, Florida) (SEAL) ti =' ASSISTANT ATTORNEY HOULIHAN ADVISED THAT SENIOR PLANNER CHALLACOMBE WOULD GIVE THE BOARD A PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED MINING ORDINANCE, AND THAT HARRY G. RODIS, OF THE USGS, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, WOULD ALSO MAKE A PRESENTATION. ATTORNEY HOULIHAN THEN RECOMMENDED THAT THE OLD ORDINANCE BE LEFT IN EFFECT FOR ONE YEAR FOR THOSE PERSONS HAVING RENEWALS ON THEIR MINING PERMITS. CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS THE COUNTY HAD WITH CERTAIN OPERATORS OVER A PERIOI? OF TIME. -HE CONTINUED THAT A COMMITTEE WAS FORMED, HEADED BY MAGGIE BOWMAN, A GREAT DEAL OF RESEARCH WAS DONE, AND THEY CAME UP WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED MINING ORDINANCE. . JUN 31991 49 BOOK 46 PAGE 619 JUN 31991 46 PAr,F b2® MAGGIE BOWMAN CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND STATED THAT IT WAS LONG FELT THAT THE MINING ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN LOOSELY AND THERE WERE MANY PROBLEMS, SUCH AS MINERS ABUSING THE WATER TABLE AND LEAVING UNSIGHTLY POTHOLES, WITH NO RESTORATION OF THE -LAND. SHE'ADVISED THAT HER COMMITTEE COLLECTED 13 ORDINANCES FROM OTHER COUNTIES AND TOOK THE BEST SECTIONS THEY COULD FIND FROM THEM; THEY DID THEIR OWN WRITING OF SOME OF THE SECTIONS, AND HAD THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND ENGINEERS SIT IN ON SOME OF THE MEETINGS FOR THEIR INPUT, IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH THE PROPOSED MINING ORDINANCE. SENIOR PLANNER CHALLACOMBE COMMENTED THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH HOW MUCH AND WHERE TO REMOVE THE FILL, AND THE MAIN INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS TO PROTECT THE SHALLOW AQUIFER FROM DEGREDATION. THE RECOMMENDATION THEY HAD DISCUSSED FOR SAND REMOVAL WOULD BE WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE MEAN ANNUAL HIGH WATER TABLE. MR, CHALLACOMBE THEN REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING LETTER: STATE OF FLORIDA APR 15 1981 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING 2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 April 13, 1981 Mr. Art Challcombe 2121 - 14th Avenue Planning and Zoning Department Indian River County Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Art: BOB GRAHAM GOVERNOR VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL SECRETARY As I mentioned on the phone April 2nd, my impression is that the Indian River County Land Mining Ordinance (DRAFT) proposes an adminis- trative process for reviewing plans and permitting mining operations in the county. The wording appears sufficient'to permit technical or. regulatory controls to be added but few actual standards are specified. The requirement that operations not pollute the air or water, create soil erosion, etc., represents a performance standards approach which places the burden of proof on the applicants to show their operations will meet these standards. The general requirement that mining on the sand ridge should not remove sand which is within feet of the mean annual high water table is the principal standard to which I will comment. The purpose of such a requirement is to protect the resource and natural functions of the shallow aquifer. M, .- M Geohydrology In Iridian River County there is a shallow aquifer supporting a water table at an average depth of twelve feet below land surface, and the deeper Floridan Aquifer at 300-600 feet depths. Floridan Aquifer water has elevated chloride levels and thus is used primarily for irrigation purposes. This situation leaves the shallow aquifer as the single source for good quality ground water. Water levels in the shallow zone rise and fall in response to rainfall illustrating that the infiltration of rain water recharges the aquifer. Soil material above the water table is a natural filtration medium screening out some pollutants and providing a degree of water quality protection for the shallow aquifer. Since all surface water is potential recharge, not only rainwater, this system is important to ground water quality protection, and it functions without public expense. Height of Capillary Zone The subsurface occurrence of ground water is divided into zones of saturation and aeration. In the zone of saturation all the interstices are filled with ground water; the water table represents the top of this zone. A capillary zone extends above the visible water table to the limit of capillary rise of water; the thickness of the zone varies with soil or rock texture. From this capillary limit to the ground surface is the zone of aeration wherein the interstices are occupied partially by water and partially by air. This zone provides vertical recharge/storage for the water table aquifer. Water transmitted through the zone of aeration maintains the water table, and excess water causes the water table to rise. The thickness of this zone, along with the soil permeability rate, affects the storage of infiltrating water. Surface waters -run off if rainfall exceeds the soil percolation rate, and when the soil is saturated. To estimate the limit of a capillary zone, I referred to a chart showing the distribution of moisture above the water table in experi- ments in a fine sand (Ground Water Hydrology, D. K. Todd). The capillary zone appears to terminate within two (2) feet above the visible water table. A method for approximating typical capillary fringe heights is: hc. _ .3 ,d is the pore diameter, mm. Typical d pore diameter for fine sands is .lmm, yielding he = 10 inches. This estimate compares favorably with another table showing he = one foot for fine sand (Applied Hydrogeology, C. W. Fetter, Jr.). You described the sand ridge to be generally composed of fine sands overlying medium sands. The maximum capillary rise for fine sands should not exceed two feet. If medium sands are the predominant "lithologic texture at the water table depth, then the maximum capil- lary rise should be less than one foot. Comments Now, with an objective to protect the water table and capillary fringe, you can merely incorporate these minimum figures into the ordinance. However, I suggest some additional footage for two reasons: JUN 31981 1) Surface waters recharge the shallow aquifer through the soil cover and some minimum additional thickness should be maintained to provide for filtration of the recharging water (Water Quality), and 51 BOOK 4U PACE6�fi JUN 31981 BOOK 46 PM7 622 2) Some storage capacity above the water table is desirable to provide for extreme water table fluctuations or rainfall periods, and a high water table should be encouraged to protect against saltwater intrusion promoted by increased withdrawals in -coastal wellfields. , Therefore, in response to your request for comments, my suggestion is that land mining operations should not mine below five (5) feet above the mean annual high water table. Indian River County has some interesting geological and hydrolo- - gical factors which are important to its future. Utilizing brackish Floridan Aquifer water to irrigate on top of the shallow aquifer must be monitored very conscientiously to prevent water quality degrada- tion of your primary ground water aquifer. I understand the United States Geological Survey and Water Management District have some investigations and plans for placing observation wells along the ridge. Perhaps the county would consider partially participating in.this joint effort as a inexpensive means of securing desirable information. I hope these suggestions are useful in your efforts with the ordinance. Additional comments are noted on the enclosed draft. Sincerely, James AicNe Groundwater Section County Ordinances - Reference List Polk County Ordinance 72-3 Zoning, Planned Sand Mine Operation Ordinance 75-2 Limerock Mining Article IV - Part 2, Section 4-2. P -1 -Planned Mining Operations, Phosphate Manatee County (currently being discussed for re -write Z-92, Section VI, Para. 16 as amended, Zoning Ordinance Desoto County Ordinance 74-6 Article XXI of Zoning Code Sarasota County Ordinance 72-83 Mining Hardee County Amendment #1 to Zoning Ordinance 73-6, §25 M-1, Mining and Earth Moving Hillsborough County Ordinance 74-6 Phosphate Mining 52 MR. RODIS CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND DISPLAYED SEVERAL VIEW GRAPHS TO ILLUSTRATE TO THE BOARD WHY THE SHALLOW AQUIFER WAS SO IMPORTANT TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. HE REPORTED THAT THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER WAS MOSTLY SALTY AND THAT THE WATER MOVES ONLY A FEW INCHES A YEAR IN THE AQUIFER. MR. RODIS POINTED OUT THAT ONE OF THE STANDARD WAYS TO KNOW HOW MUCH WATER YOU HAVE IS THAT YOU HAVE 40' OF FRESH WATER BENEATH EVERY 1' OF SEA LEVEL, AND AFTER THE RAINY SEASON THERE IS USUALLY A RISE OF 3' OR 4' IN THE WATER TABLE. MR. RODIS STRESSED THAT FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'S LONG TERM WATER SUPPLY, THE SHALLOW AQUIFER SHOULD BE MAINTAINED TO PREVENT INTRUSION OF SALT WATER. HE ADDED THAT THE BIGGEST ROBBER THE WATER TABLE HAS IS NATURE ITSELF BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS ROOT SYSTEMS, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO LEAVE THE LAND IN ITS NATURAL STATE BECAUSE WHEN YOU START DIGGING PONDS AND LAKES, MORE OF OUR WATER IS LOST BY EVAPORATION, AND MR, RODIS AGREED. CHAIRMAN LYONS THEN ANNOUNCED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE CONTINUED UNTIL 1:45 P.M. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECESSED FOR LUNCH AT 12:00 NOON AND RECONVENED AT 1:45 P.fl. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BIRD INQUIRED WHAT THE BASIC DIFFERENCES WERE BETWEEN THE OLD MINING ORDINANCE AND THE ONE BEING PROPOSED. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER POINTED OUT THAT PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS NO CONTROL OF THE MINING DEPTH, IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THERE WILL BE STANDARDIZED CONTROL, THE PROCEDURES WILL BE SPELLED OUT MORE SPECIFICALLY, THERE WILL BE A MORE DEFINED RECLAMATION PROGRAM, PROTECTION OF THE WATER TABLE, AND MINING OPERATIONS WOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC IN CONNECTION WITH DEVELOPMENT. COMMISSIONER BIRD INQUIRED IF THERE WAS A COST ANALYSIS PERFORMED TO DETERMINE WHAT THE COSTS WOULD BE TO A PROSPECTIVE. MINER. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT THERE WAS NO COST ANALYSIS DONE - MERELY A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROCEDURES. LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING LAND MINING AND THE VARIOUS DEFINITIONS IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. JUN 31991 53 BOOK 46 PAcE 6?3 ROor PAF 6`,4 DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDING THE REPEATED DAILY IMPACT OF BRIDGES USED FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OF A MINING SITE; ALSO OF WAYS TO PROTECT THE COUNTY FROM OVER -LOADING THE BRIDGES. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO BE HEARD. DONALD S. VICKERS, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND READ THE FOLLOWING LETTER: Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County Aero Beach, Florida Dear Commissioners: My name is Donald S. Vickers, president of DARL Investment Company P. 0. Box 184, Sebastian, Fl. 32958. DARL Investment Company holds a current mining permit in Indian River County, and is actively involved in the sand business. I am here to protest the adoption of the proposed mining ordinance at this public hearing. In my opinion, the existing mining ordinance is adequate to prevent unregulated mining operations, and ensure reasonable reclamation of mined areas. The proposed ordinance will be costly to establish, difficult to enforce, cause unreasonable delays on permit applications, increase the cost of fill dirt, and divert future mining activity to adjoining counties. Mining operations are limited to lands zoned agricultural, and in many cases mining may well be the only profitable use of this land. Any reclamation project involving a residential or commercial development will depend on a doubtful request for a zoning change, and will be in direct conflict with the comprehensive land use plan now being considered. The existing mining ordinance is adequate and we desperately need less regulation of private industry by governmental agencies anxious to protect us from our -selves. TOM LOCKWOOD, RESIDENT OF VERO BEACH, TOLD THE BOARD THAT HIS COMPANY HAD THREE MINING PERMITS: GRAVE.S BROTHERS, MR. CHATHAM, AND HOBART BROTHERS. HE FELT THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER THE LENGTH OF TIME IT HAS TAKEN TODAY TO REVIEW THE 24 PAGES OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS AN INDICATION OF THE AMOUNT OF DETAILS INVOLVED, AS COMPARED TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE OF ONLY TWO PAGES. MR. LOCKWOOD SUGGESTED THAT IT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL TO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSED MINING ORDINANCE. HE FELT IT WAS A VERY COMPLICATED PROCEDURE PLUS THE COST HAD NOT YET BEEN ADDRESSED. MR, LOCKWOOD WONDERED IF THEY WERE REALLY CORRECTING OR CREATING A PROBLEM AND FELT THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AT A WORKSHOP MEETING. COMMISSIONER BIRD STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A CERTIFIED ENGINEER GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND ESTABLISH WHAT IT WOULD COST. MR. LOCKWOOD INTERJECTED THAT THE COMMITTEE WORKED LONG AND HARD ON THIS PROJECT AND IT HAD TAKEN A GREAT DEAL OF TIME,_BUT HE DID NOT THINK THE JOB WAS FINISHED YET. HE REITERATED THAT SOMEONE SHOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS ONE TIME AS AN EXERCISE TO SEE IF IT WOULD WORK, WILLIAM KOOLAGE, INTERESTED CITIZEN, EXPRESSED HIS DIS- APPOINTMENT, AND COMMENTED THAT THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN A WORKSHOP WHERE ALL THE DETAILS COULD HAVE BEEN STUDIED BY THE BOARD. HE ADDED THAT THE INFORMATION SHOULD BE DIGESTED AND THEN ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD BE HELD AFTER THE DETAILS ARE FULLY UNDERSTOOD. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE BOARD DECIDED, AFTER QUITE A LENGTHY AND DETAILED DISCUSSION, THAT A WORKSHOP WAS NECESSARY BEFORE REACHING A DECISION, AND THAT MANY REVISIONS TO THE MINING ORDINANCE WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE, SUCH AS: JUN 3 7981 55 Boa 46 PAGE 625 JUN 31991 my 46 Fvku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t PRIMARY" AFTER "PRECISE," STRIKE "ALL," AND OMIT SECOND SENTENCE IN SECTION 6C(9). 15. PAGE 81 SECTION 6(7) - AFTER "HIGH," ADD "AS AVAILABLE." 16. PAGE 5, SECTION 5D(4) - ENGINEER DAVIS PREFERRED TO SEE IT REWRITTEN SO THE APPLICANT WOULD SUBMIT THIS. COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT HE WOULD RATHER KNOW WHAT THE MCO WOULD SAY IT WOULD COST RATHER THAN WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD SAY. 17, PAGE 11, SECTION 6(3)(C) - CHANGE 10 WORK DAYS TO "15" AND 20 WORK DAYS TO "25." 18. PAGE 18, SECTION 9(C)(5) - AFTER `SPECIES," ADD "THROUGH THE FORESTRY DEPT." 19. PAGE 18, SECTION 9, NINTH LINE FROM TOP, STRIKE "REQUIRED" AND ADD "RECOMMENDED." COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER IF HIS STAFF COULD REALLY ENFORCE THIS ORDINANCE, MR. REVER FELT THE BURDEN FOR ENFORCEMENT SHIFTS FROM THE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT TO THE ENGINEER, AS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS JUST A PART OF THE PROCESS. HE ADDED THAT THIS IS NOW A MUCH MORE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT AND IT REALLY NOW LIES IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THEY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK THEN ASKED THE ENGINEER IF THERE WAS ADEQUATE STAFF IN HIS DEPARTMENT TO DEVOTE THE TIME NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDINANCE. ENGINEER DAVIS STATED THAT BY TRANSFERRING IT TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, IT WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP ON HIS TIME, AND HE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ADEQUATE STAFF. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AND IT WAS DETERMINED TO HAVE A WORKSHOP. MEETING ON FRIDAY, .JUNE 19, 1981 AT 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M, AT CITY HALL. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO RECONSIDER THE PROPOSED MINING ORDINANCE AT A LATER DATE. JUN 31981 57 =;«: JUN 31981 000 6 ' PAGE 628 DEPUTY CLERK VIRGINIA HARGREAVES TOOK OVER FROM DEPUTY CLERK JANICE CALDWELL AT 4:20 O'CLOCK P.M. FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - KINGSWOOD SUBDIVISION COUNTY ENGINEER JAMES DAVIS REVIEWED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S MEMO AS FOLLOWS: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 19, 1981 FILE: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS SUBJECT: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval Kingswood Subdivision Approximately 10.42 acres containing 17 halfacre lots zoned R-1 Location: North of South -Winter Beach Rd. west of Kings Highway AtP_�RENC �g : n1ow Sunbelt Inc. or Trustee The Engineer -of -Record, Harlan Peterson, is requesting the proposed subdivision be considered for Preliminary Plat Approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The Technical Review Committee approved the pre- liminary plan during their May 12, 1981 meeting contingent upon approval by the County Engineer of the drainage design. The Engineer -of -Record has revised the drainage system in communication with the County Engineer. Also, seeding of the backlot swales has been recommended as in conformance with past County policy. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES The Engineer -of -Record has complied with the Technical Review Committee and staff recommendations with the exception of noting seeding.of.the back - lot swales. Since this item is not included in the Subdivision Regulation, the Engineer claims he has not received formal notice of this requirement. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Approval of the Preliminary Plat of Kingswood Subdivision is recommended subject to the addition of seeding of backlot drainage easements on the drawings. There are no funding considerations to be considered for this item. ENGINEER DAVIS COMMENTED THAT THE ROAD IS CURVILINEAR AS IS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND APPROVAL IS RECOMMENDED SUBJECT TO SEEDING OF THE BACKLOT SWALES. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, TO GRANT TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF KINDSWOOD SUBDIVISION AS RECOM- MENDED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IN HIS MEMO OF MAY 191 1981. DISCUSSION ENSUED RE THE CURVING ROAD, AND ENGINEER HARLAN PETERSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE ROAD IS PUBLIC AS ARE ALL THE EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WISHED TO BE SURE THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE UTILITY EASEMENTS THAT ARE NOT AFFECTED BY CURVATURE OF THE ROAD, AND ENGINEER DAVIS REPORTED THAT THE EASEMENTS ARE ADEQUATE EVEN THOUGH THE ROAD IS CURVED AND HE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE DESIGN. ATTORNEY COLLINS QUESTIONED IF THESE SAME PEOPLE ALSO HAVE A FINAL PLAT UP, AND ENGINEER DAVIS STATED THAT WAS A DIFFERENT SUBDI- VISION - KINGSLAKE NOT KINGSWOOD. ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT IT IS THE SAME PEOPLE, HOWEVER, AND HE NOTED FOR THE RECORD THAT THEY OWN THIS PROPERTY AS TRUSTEE AND A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO ACT AS TRUSTEE; THIS IS A TITLE PROBLEM AND SHOULD BE CLEARED UP. HE DID NOT WISH THE BOARD TO TAKE ANY ACTION REGARDING THIS OTHER THAN TO INCLUDE HIS COMMENTS IN THE RECORD. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED WHERE THE DRAINAGE AT THE ENTRANCE RUNS T0, AND ENGINEER PETERSON STATED THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING CULVERT, AND THEY ARE INCREASING IT. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION STORM GROVE ROAD ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT THIS IS JUST A FINAL CLEANING UP OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STORM GROVE ROAD AS EXPLAINED IN HIS MEMO: JUN 31981 59 r=gip 6 '-A99: . JUN 31981 bw 46 FACE630 TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 18, 1981 FILE: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS SUBJECT: Right-of-way Acquisition by Florida D.O.T Storm Grove Road.from West of Lateral "A" (505) to East of U.S: I. D.O.T. Budget Item #425532 Project No. 88508-2601 REFERENCES: Letter: C.C. Barrett, Jr., Florida D.O.T. to. Neil Nelson -dated May 4,19, Prior to the Secondary Road System being transferred to the County jurisdiction, the Florida D.O.T. initiated the right-of-way acquisition for the subject project. The County, upon receipt of the Secondary System, was given the construction drawings as prepared by the D.O.T. to administer the actual construction. The State D.O.T. is in the Final Judgement stage of Right-of-way acquisition. They have spent $120,980. from the Transport- ation -Trust Fund to date on the County's behalf. At this time, the D.O.T. is requesting that the County sign the attached agreement authorizing $2000. be spent from the County's Secondary Trust Fund for the completion of Storm Grove Road right-of-way acquisition. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES As the acquisition of this right-of-way is over 98% complete and construction drawings are on file with the County, the signing of this agreement would "wrap up" the loose ends of.right-of-way acquisition. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the attached Joint Project Agreement between the Florida D.O.T. and Indian River County by which the County agrees to remit to the D.O.T. not more than $2000. from the Transportation Trust Fund for completion of right-of-way acquisition be approved. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT WE THOUGHT WE HAD ALL OF THIS CLEANED UP, BUT THE D.O.T. HAS COME BACK WITH ANOTHER $1,1OO BILL. RALPH EVANS, OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY LAWYER, WAS CONTACTED, AND,HE HAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE GO AHEAD WITH THE $2,000 AGREEMENT REQUESTED BY THE D.O.T. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-39 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE D.O.T. RE STORM GROVE ROAD IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,000. RESOLUTION NO. 81-39 WHEREAS, the FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, contemplate entering into a joint project agreement reqarding Budget Item Number 425352, Project Number 88508-2601, State Road Storm Grove Road from West of Lateral A/505 to East of SR 5/U.S.#1 in the COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, which was duly established by Special Act of the Florida Statutes adopted on the 30th of June 1925, THAT THE BOARD HEREBY approves and authorizes its CHAIRMAN, PATRICK B. LYONS, to execute the above defined Project Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, this Resolution was passed by a vote of 5 to 0 of the Commissioners present. This 3rd Attest: 4FreaWright, lerk day of June , 1981. JUN 3 1,%l BOOK 46 PACE 6.31 JUN 31991 46 pAlr632 JOINT PRWFCT ACRFFMEfdT This Agreerc,ni , r.,&, and entcred into this 3rd day of _ ^T -June lcrl , by 'ind "'(Awven the Stat(- Cif F1Gr`ria Ocip,i-mart of Transport':,tion, here -in -after called the D'1p.irt:rcnt and T.z 3i _ ;Zig r Cc unry, Flc,rida herr-in-after called the Countv. fieference: Resolution NLE,�,or –8139 passed and adopted rn this 3rd —^�!A &y of June 1QO1 authorizini the eyecut.ion of this Project Agreement between the State of Florida PPpartment of Transpor- tationii:tt and _ in..,i;iv,� ___-- _ County, Florida, attached to and made i, P; rt hereof.. WITNESSETH W'he'reas, Legislation, Florida Statues 339.08 and Florida Statues 339.09, i�akQ it necessary, in order for the peoartment to undertake or comulete the folio%ing projects, that the County enter into an anreement with the Pepartri-ot sreLi fi Cally rp fered to as rudget Item Numt ll- . 25352 Project Nur„ter State Read from West of L-iter�tl A/ '; ;� to in County' �f Incl i uZ I ivy r _ and the Departi-nt and the Count' deer', i t to he in the ptibl is irtcrest for th- t to fund the t0.. t or 'i'tw !'h” is t:.3 I; .L Now therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to o(c.r to each of the parties hereto, it i-, aclreed as follows: 1. The County agrees to rer;it from Countv fun0s to the Depa-rtment ut)or execution of this agreement, the estimated amount of j ��'�`�• which includes nepartment overhead charges. Final remittance shill r)e made by the Ccunty to the Department upon receipt of ar invoice showing final cost less advance estimated pa.yment. In the event the final cost is less than the advance pavrent Tade `)y the County, the Department will rofund excess payrent on completion and acceptarce of saga project by the Department" JOINT PROJECT AGREEr':FNT Pace Two of Tlgo idte; �. •, t ;i Budget Item Pio.. State Project No.. 2. The Department aqrees that it shall maintain accurate reccrds reflecting the acutual costs of said project and that these records shall he maintained by the Department at its' Tallahassee Office and made avail- able to the County for inspection and/or copying during the regular business hours of the Department upon fire (5) days written notice. Ttle County her, by agrees to identify, defend, save and hold harmless the Department from all claims, demands liabilities, and suits of any nature whatsoever arising out -of, hecause of, or due to the br^ach of this aareer-P,nt by the County, its, anrnts, or employees or due to any act or occurrence or adinission or co,m+nissioi of the County, its' agents, or employees, it is specifically understood and agrned that this indemnification clause does net cover or indemnify the Department for its own negl hence or breach of con- tract. In witness whereof, the parties hereonto caused these presents to be signed by their duly authorized officers, the daY and year first above written. Tn,, i:::i Eli ver ____ County, Florida Aft hail -man," S'bard f my Conmissioi�er�- A.+tern [itir,��ii,%1 ,�eai } Clerk JUN 3 198, j Stato of Florida nenartment of Transportation By: neput-y Secretary for Administratior �xecutive Secretar",, BOOK 4 6 PAGE 6:33 JUN31981 Boa " 46 FAUF,634 PURCHASE OF BUILDING MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STORAGE SHELTERS AT COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE COMPLEX THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 19, 1981 FI LE: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Request for Approval to Purchase Building Materials for Construction of Storage Shelters at the County Road and Bridge Department Complex FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Road and Bridge Department has obtained material prices for the construction of two 24' x 168' Equipment Storage shelter buildings proposed for the Road and Bridge Department complex on South Gifford Road. The construction of these shelters was discussed during the 1980-§1 Budget sessions. The funds for materials are available from Federal Revenue Sharing account #102-214-541-66-29. Labor will be furnished by County personnel. Bids :wre received from 4 suppliers for timber and connectors and 3 suppliers for pre-engineered roof trusses. Since the bids received amount to more than $5,000, prior to purchase of materials, the Purchasing Dept. recommends Board approval of the purchasing. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES The attached memo from the Road and Bridge Dept. Superintendent summarizes the bids received. Copies of the bids are attached. Minor changes in the design of the buildings, since bids have been received, will necessitate increasing the low bid for timber and connectors by $1,760 to $13,228.36 as submitted by:Sturgis Lumber and Plywood Co. The low bid for trusses was - submitted by Florida Truss and Fabricators in the amount of $4,376.10. Concrete and reinforcing steel will be purchased under the County's annual contract. The total project cost is $27,946.57. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the following low bids for materials to construct the equipment storage shelters be approved and the Road and Bridge Depart- ment be authorized to proceed with purchasing materials and construction 1)Timber and Connectors - Sturgis Lumber and Plywood Co. Bid Amount $11,468.36 Additional Materials Required Based upon Bid Price 1,760.00 Total $13,228.36 2)Pre Engineered Roof Trusses Florida Truss and Fabricators 4,376.10 3) Concrete and Reinforcing Steel - Russell Concrete 10,342.11 Total $27,946.57 ment. Funding to be from Account. # 102-214-541-66.29 Road and Bridge Depart - 64 COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT DURING BUDGET HEARINGS $50,000 WAS INCLUDED IN THE ROAD & BRIDGE BUDGET FOR HALF A WAREHOUSE. THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR EQUIPMENT SHEDS TO GO AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE YARD SO THAT ALL THE EQUIPMENT SITTING IN THE WEATHER CAN BE COVERED; THE FUNDS FOR THESE WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE MONEY SET ASIDE FOR THE HALF WAREHOUSE. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FAVORED THE BUILDING OF THE OPEN EQUIPMENT SHEDS AND FELT THEY WOULD SHELTER THE EQUIPMENT AND PROVIDE MORE FREEDOM AND FLOW THAN AN ENCLOSED WAREHOUSE, ENGINEER DAVIS REPORTED THAT THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES, WHICH WILL HAVE NO WALLS ON ALL FOUR SIDES, ARE BUILT WITH POLES SUPPORTING A PITCHED ROOF AND WILL BE SET ON A REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB FOOTING. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THESE BUILDINGS BEING CONSTRUCTED IN LIEU OF THE BIG WAREHOUSE, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EXPLAINED THAT THEY REWORKED THE PROJECT AND DECIDED TO GO THIS WAY INSTEAD. HE THEN REVIEWED THE BIDS, NOTING THAT THEY WENT TO FOUR LUMBER COMPANIES AND THREE TRUSS COMPANIES. THE CONCRETE WILL BE SUPPLIED BY RUSSELL CON- CRETE, WHO WAS AWARDED OUR ANNUAL BID. DISCUSSION CONTINUED RE DESIGN, AND ENGINEER DAVIS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHELTERS HAD TO BE UPGRADED TO SOME DEGREE TO ALLOW FOR HURRICANE WIND LOADING. THE BOARD AGREED AS TO THE ADVISABILITY OF HAVING A CONCRETE FLOORING. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE ADMINISTRATORS RECOMMENDA- TION RE MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STORAGE SHELTERS AT THE COUNTY ROAD AND BIRDGE COMPLEX AS SET OUT IN HIS MEMO OF MAY 19TH; FUNDING TO BE FROM ACCOUNT #102-214-541-66.29. FINAL APPROVAL - SEA GROVE SUBDIVISION. UNIT 6 ENGINEER DAVIS NOTED THAT THE SEA GROVE PROJECT HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN UNITS, AND THIS SHOULD WRAP UP THE DEVELOPMENT AS EXPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO. THIS PARTICULAR UNIT IS IN THE NORTH- WEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT ON S.R. AlA, JUN 3 7981 65 c4-� 46 PAGE635 JUN g 1981 TO:The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator Description and Conditions DATE: May 28, 1981 "OF FILE: 46 �e(1fi 6°1JU SUBJECT: Request for Final Plat Approval Seagrove Subdivision Unit 6 Location: East of State Road A -1-A South of Smugglers Cove Subdivision REFERENCES: The owners, Vero Mar Development, Ltd. and E.L. Faulman, are requesting Final Plat Approval for the last phase of Seagrove Subdivision, Unit 6.containing 6 lots and two tracts ("A" and "B"). The Engineer -of -Record has certified that all improve- ments have been constructed in accordance with Indian River County s-tandard speci- fications and that there is no outstanding indebtedness for the improvement. that The County staff has reviewed the Final Plat drawings and it was requested 1) The 20' wide strip of land previously deeded to the County along A -1-A should be deleted from the legal.description and should be noted as deeded to the County in the Dedications. The owner has agreed to this revision and other minor changes. 2) An easement including all of Tract "B" be granted to the County for future utility access and to connect to the 10' easement along the north line of Government Lot 5. Tracts "A" and "B" are to be retained by Vero Mar Development, Ltd. and are to be used as landscape areas. Alternatives and Analysis The Project is in conformance with the requirements of Preliminary Plat approval. The County staff has reviewed the Final Plat, The Engineer -of -Record has certified that the improvements are in conformance with Subdivision Ordinance 75-3, and the Engineering Division has inspected that portion of the improvements within Unit 6. Recommendations and Funding It is recommended that Final Plat Approval be granted for Seagrove Subdivision Unit 6 subject to Tract "B" being designated as an utility easement -to the County. There are no funding considerations to be considered for this item. ENGINEER DAVIS REPORTED THAT THE TRACT "B" EASEMENT HAS BEEN ADDED ON THE PLAT, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS CONFIRMED THAT IT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL OF SEAGROVE SUBDIVI- SION UNIT 6 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. BID RECOMMEN MTIONS ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED BIDS #84 AND #85, EXPLAINING THAT THEY HAD TO REPLACE A BULLDOZER FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL. THEY HAD AN ALLIS CHALMERS BULLDOZER THAT HAD BEEN DOWN MORE THAN IT HAD BEEN OPERATING. THE ADMINISTRATOR NOTED THAT THEY CHOSE TO GO WITH THE TOTAL COST BIDDING AGAIN SO THAT WE COULD GET QUALITY MATERIAL, AND HE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE GO WITH CATERPILLAR TRACTOR FROM KELLY TRACTOR. HE REVIEWED THE BIDDING ON THE TRACTOR, AS FOLLOWS: Bid #84 - Track Type Diesel Powered Dozer (Total Cost Bid) 6 Bid Proposals sent out, 4 received Florida -Georgia Tractor and M.D. Moody & Sons submitted "No Bids". Kelly Tractor 1. Dozer $123,845 2. Trade-in, 1977 Fiat -Allis Dozer, M -14C, Equip. 4116 (25,000) 3. Total - #1 less #2 981845 4. Cost of Bond 1,778 5. Total 100,623 6. Guaranteed value at end of 5000 operating hours or 5 years (whichever comes first) 86,000 - 7. Item #3 less Item #6 (Difference) 12845 8. Guaranteed cost of repairs for 5000 operating hours or 5 years (whichever comes first) 32,500 9. Total Cost Bid (Item #4, plus 1� Item #7, plus Item #8) 47,1231 DeWind Mach. Co, $109,346 (32,500) 76;846 2,250 79,096 62,000 140846 36,500 53,596 Delivery after receipt of Purchase Order 30-45 days 30-45 days Recommend Bid 484 be awarded to the low cost bidder - Kelly Tractor Co. for a Caterpillar D6 Dozer. -Fund Account - Landfill - #411-217-534-66.49 THE ADMINISTRATOR EMPHASIZED THAT WE HAVE HAD NOTHING BUT TROUBLE WITH THE PRESENT ALLIS-CHALMERS BULLDOZER, THE MAJOR PROBLEM BEING THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE INTERCHANGEABLE PARTS, THE PARTS HAVE TO JUN 31991 67 Boa -46 PACE -637 JUN 31981 - BOOK 46 PAGE 638 BE MANUFACTURED BY ALLIS-CHALMERS; IT IS A FRENCH DERIVATIVE AND VERY DIFFICULT TO GET PARTS FOR. DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO WHY WE BID ONLY TOTAL COST, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR FELT THE COMMISSION HAD AGREED THAT TOTAL COST BIDDING WAS THE WAY TO GO FOR QUALITY, AND NOTED THAT IT, IN ADDITION, ALLOWS YOU TO PROJECT WELL INTO THE FUTURE BECAUSE OF THE GUARANTEED.TRADE-I'N VALUE. COMMISSIONER BIRD AGREED THAT THE TRADE-IN FIGURES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES AS COMPARED BETWEEN REWIND AND KELLY, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED IF A BID WAS RECEIVED FROM INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR NOTED THAT SIX REQUESTS WERE SENT OUT AND FOUR REPLIES RECEIVED, TWO OF WHICH WERE NO BIDS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE NO BIDS WERE DUE TO THE REQUIREMENT OF TOTAL COST BIDDING AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME COMPANIES WITH COMPARABLE EQUIPMENT WHO WILL NOT BID TOTAL COST, IT WAS -GENERALLY AGREED THAT WE SHOULD KEEP OUR OPTIONS OPEN AND BID BOTH WAYS. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON AGREED THAT THIS WILL BE DONE IN THE FUTURE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AWARDED BID #84 FOR A CATERPILLAR D6 DOZER TO KELLY TRACTOR CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $123,845 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE BID COMMITTEE; FUNDING FROM ACCOUNT #411-217-534-66.49. THE ADMINISTRATOR NEXT REVIEWED BID #85 AS FOLLOWS: Bid 1185 - Pump for Irrigation Svstem at New Administration Buildin 7 Bid Proposals sent out, 3 received United Irrigation Co. 15-30 days to complete 3123.00)(Low Bidder) Jacobs Electric Co. 15-30 days to complete 4195.00 McCullers-Howard Co. 15-30 days to complete 4988.00 Recommend Bid #85 be awarded to the low bidder, United Irrigation. Fund Account #301-130-519-66.51 THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO THE LARGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LOW BIDDER AND THE HIGH BIDDER, AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE HIGH BIDDER BID 10 H.P. RATHER THAN 7.5 H.P. BY MISTAKE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AWARDED BID #85 FOR AN IRRIGATION PUMP TO UNITED IRRIGATION COMPANY, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,123; FUNDING TO BE FROM ACCOUNT #301-130-519-66,51. REQUEST FROM CITY OF FELLSMERE RE CURBING THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE CITY OF FELLSMERE'S REQUEST FOR CURBING AS DETAILED IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator JUN DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS DATE: May 18, 1981 FI LE: SUBJECT: Request from Mayor Thomas, City of Fellsmere, for the County to Install Curbing along C.R. 507 (Broadway Blvd.) REFERENCES: Mayor Alvin Thomas, to Neil Nelson, Letter dated May 8, 1981 The Mayor on the Behalf of the Fellsmere City Council is requesting the County to install curbing along the median strip within County Road 507 right-of-way (Broadway Boulevard). The Department of Public Works has in this median, and it is estimated that approximately 3,500 lineal feet of curb is required. The estimated cost for this construction is $7.50 per lineal foot or $26,250. The City of Fellsmere is having difficulties in maintaining this area due to vandals driving on the median strip and thereby destroying grass, shrubbery, etc. ANALYSIS AND -ALTERNATIVES Four alternatives are suggested for consideration. Alternative 1. The County Road and Bridge Department has approximately 170 L.F. of steel curb forms on hand. The County could temporarily donate the use of these forms to the City.for this Construction. The labor involved in pre- paring the subgrade and setting the forms for the curb construction could possibly be performed by way of a community participation project using volunteer residents of the area and the City of Fellsmere. Concrete and reinforcing steel costs are estimated at $6,000. These. costs could be shared 50/50 between the City and Indian River County. Alternative 2 The County approve this request and fund the $26,250. estimated cost from the Road and Bridge Department budgeted funds. Construction drawings would have to be prepared and bids solicited by the County. Alternative 3 ' The County deny this request and recommend the City of Fellsmere pursue this construction. BOOK 6 PACE 639 69 JUN 31981 40 P31F640 Alternative 4 The City and County equally share in the cost of this construction. The County's share of $13,125. could be funded from the Road and Bridge Department budgeted funds. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Alternative number l which recommends the donation by the County of the use of the curb forms and the County contributing 50% of the materials cost for this construction is recommended. Funding to be from Account # 004-214-541-35.39 Poad and Bridge Department in the Amount of $3000. THE ADMINISTRATOR NOTED THAT THEY ARE RECOMMENDING A SELF— HELP PROGRAM AS THE CURBING WOULD BE QUITE EXPENSIVE. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS— SIONER FLETCHER, TO INSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ADVISE MAYOR SUIT OF HIS MEMO AND THAT THE BOARD DEFER ANY ACTION ON THIS MATTER UNTIL MAYOR SUIT HAS TIME TO COME FORWARD TO DISCUSS IT. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT HE HAD CALLED THE FELLSMERE CITY CLERK YESTERDAY AFTERNOON TO ASK FOR SOME INPUT, AND WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ANSWER. HE THEN INQUIRED ABOUT GIVING THE ROAD BACK, AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS ROAD WAS TURNED OVER TO US BY THE STATE D.O.T. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WISHED TO KNOW IF WE SHOULD OFFER THE ROAD TO THE MUNICIPALITY, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THIS ROAD GOES INTO BREVARD COUNTY AND THIS WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE. DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO THE FACT THAT THE MAYOR HAD BEEN CONTACTED BUT DID NOT COME TO THE MEETING. THE CHAIRMAN SUGGESTED THAT IF THE MAYOR DID WISH TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER, THAT WAS FINE, BUT IN THE EVENT THEY DID WISH TO BORROW THE FORMS, HE FELT THERE SHOULD BE SOME POSITIVE ACTION SO THEY COULD GO AHEAD AND DO SO. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER WODTKE WITHDREW HIS MOTION AND COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WITHDREW HIS SECOND. COMMISSIONER BIRD SUGGESTED A FIFTH ALTERNATIVE WHEREBY THE COUNTY WOULD SIMPLY LEND THE MUNICIPALITY THE FORMS AND NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY OTHER WAY. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMIS— SIONER BIRD, THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BE INSTRUCTED TO ADD ALTERNA— TIVE 5 TO HIS MEMO, STATING THAT THE COUNTY IS WILLING TO LOAN THE CITY OF FELLSMERE THE NECESSARY FORMS FOR THE CURBING WORK AT NO COST, AND TO SEND THE MAYOR OF FELLSMERE A COPY OF THE MEMO WITH A LETTER EXPLAIN— ING THE BOARD'S FEELINGS. DISCUSSION THEN AROSE REGARDING THE FACT THAT SINCE THIS IS A COUNTY ROAD THERE IS A CERTAIN LIABILITY CONNECTED WITH IT, AND THE CURBING MAY HAVE TO MEET COUNTY STANDARDS. COUNTY ENGINEER DAVIS BE— LIEVED WE CAN REFER TO D.O,T. SPECIFICATIONS, COMMISSIONER BIRD SUGGESTED THAT WE ALSO OFFER THE CITY OF FELLSMERE THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER TO HELP WITH DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE BOARD AGREED. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNTY PARTICIPATION RE HIRING AGRICULTURAL AGENT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT PETER SPYKE, AGRICULTURAL AGENT, RESIGNED SOMETIME AGO, AND IN THE PROCESS OF REPLACING THE AGRICULTURAL AGENT, THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ADVERTISES AND CHOOSES A NUMBER OF TOP APPLICANTS, THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY EITHER TO INTERVIEW ALL THE APPLICANTS OR JUST THE TOP THREE, WHICH HAS BEEN THE POLICY IN THE PAST, COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR JUDY WAKEFIELD IS RECOMMENDING THAT INSTEAD OF THE ENTIRE BOARD INTERVIEWING THESE APPLICANTS THAT A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BOARD, ALONG WITH THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE THAT SHE HAS RECOMMENDED, INTERVIEW THE APPLICANTS, THIS IS EXPLAINED IN HER MEMO: TO: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator FROM: 9 Judith A. Wakefield County.Extension Director DATE: May 26, 1981 FILE: SUBJECT: County participation in hiring Agriculture Agent REFERENCES: Attachments A, B & C Applications have been received by the personnel department of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service in Gainesville for the vacant position of the Extension Agriculture Agent in Indian River County. (See attachment A for position announcement.) The qualified applicants will be interviewed in Gainesville during the week of June 8-12. There are some matters that involve the Board of County Commissioners. Since the Agriculture Agent will also be an Indian River County employee he must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners or an appointed - interviewing committee. (See attachment B.) The Board of County Commissioners can decide if they would prefer the top applicant to be interviewed and approved (or -not) in the County or the top 3 applicants to be brought to Indian River County for inter- viewing, and the final selection made here. (See attachment C.) _ .JUN 3 M1 71 Book 46 PAcF641 JUN 31991 ma 46 uu 642 If the Board wishes to have the top 3 applicants interviewed and the selection made here in the county, Dr. John Woeste, Dean for Extension, 1038 McCarty Hall, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, must be sent a proclamation as designated on page t�:o of attachment C. As the Board of County Commissioners is extremely busy and its mem- bers are not heavily involved in agriculture, the Extension Service is recommending the interviewing committee be made up of one or two commis- sioners, the county personnel director and representatives of the citrus and agriculture industry in this county. The follo�-ling individuals have expressed interest in serving on such a committee: David Gunter (562-0905)- Chairman of Board' of Directors, Indian River Farm Bureau Ralph Lindsey (567-5188) - representing our Extension Citrus Advisory Committee Doug Bournique (562-2728) - Indian River Citrus League "Tunny" Siebert (589-9168) - representing citrus marketing Pat Corrigan (567-7141) - representing the cattle industry and citrus The portion of the Agriculture Agent's salary that is paid by the County is included in both the present and the '81-'82 budgets. There are appropriate funds in the Extension Service's current budget for paying travel expenses of interviewee(s). DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE MAKE UP OF THE INTERVIEWING COMMITTEE, AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE VOLUNTEERED TO BE THE BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE. ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, THE -BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-38 STATING THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WISHES TO OPERATE UNDER OPTION 2 OF THE SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR THE COUNTY EXTENSION FACULTY; THAT NOTIFICATION BE SENT TO THE DEAN OF THE FLORIDA 000PERA- TIVE EXTENSION -SERVICE IN RESOLUTION FORM; THAT THE THREE CANDIDATES BE BROUGHT TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND THAT EXPENSES AS ALLOWED BY THE STATE BE PAID FOR THE APPLICANTS ; AND THAT WE HAVE A REPRESENTA- TIVE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE INTERVIEWING COMMITTEE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THIS BOARD FOR FINAL SELECTION. RESOLUTION NO. 81-38 WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 240.505, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has the option of selecting procedures for the selection of a County Extension Faculty, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Board selects Option 2 of the Selection Procedure, authorizes notifi- cation of the appropriate State personnel as to the Selection and authorizes Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. to coordinate implementation of Option 2 on behalf of the Commission. Attest: Freda Wiight Clerk of Circuit Court BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA -ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT THE INTERVIEWING COMMITTEE WOULD BE MADE UP OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS RECOMMENDED BY THE COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR WITH COMMISSIONER WODTKE ACTING AS THE BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE: DAVID BUNTER; RALPH LINDSEY; DOUG BOURNIQUE; "BUNNY" SIEBERT; AND PAT CORRIGAN. COMMISSIONER WODTKE INFORMED THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO ANY PARTICULAR QUALIFICATIONS THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED, SUCH AS EXPERTISE IN CITRUS, SOIL USAGE, WATER RESOURCES, CATTLE, ETC. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER EXPRESSED INTEREST IN BEING -INVOLVED IN REVIEWING THE APPLICANTS. JUN 31981 73 BOOK 6' PAGE 643 JUR 3198��k, RAGE 644 REVISION TO PRELIMINARY PLAT OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR NELSON BROUGHT UP AN EMERGENCY MATTER REGARDING COLONIAL HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AS EXPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: June 1,-1981 FILE: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Revision to Preliminary Plat Colonial Heights Subdivision FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On May 29, 1981, several residents of Colonial Terrace Subdivision ardently objected to the clearing of trees along the western boundry of Colonial Heights Subdivision. Commissioner Bird, the County Administrator and the County Engineer visited the site and spoke with various Colonial Terrace residents, John Trodglen, the Contractor and Frank Zorc, Developer. The original Preliminary Plat drawing approved January 14, 1981 -calls for a -drainage swale to be constructed along the western Colonial Heights property line in a 10' wide easement adjacent to a 15' wide dedicated roadway east of Colonial Terrace Subdivision. This 10' wide easement contains numerous oaks and other trees desirable for preserving. The 15' dedicated right-of-way to the west is clear and is not intended to be used for road purposes in the future. It was agreed upon by the developer that he would stop work in this area until further investigation and re- commendations were made. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS An alternative to relocate the drainage swale 10' west to the 15' dedicated County right-of-way was presented to the property owners of Colonial Terrace and the developer, Frank Zorc. All parties agreed that this action would save the trees and cause no undue hardship. The County staff including the County attorney has recommended that this is a viable al tern ati ve . RECOMMENDATIONS PND FUNDING It is recommended that the Preliminary Plat of Colonial Heights Subdivision be revised to show the western drainage swale relocated to the 15' dedicated County Road right-of-way. There are no funding considerations to be considered for this matter. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT MR. ZORC WAS IN THE PROCESS OF CLEARING THE IO' UTILITY EASEMENT ON HIS PROPERTY IN THE AREA OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AS APPROVED ON HIS SITE PLAN. HE AGREED TO HALT WORK UNTIL THE BOARD COULD DECIDE IF THE ABOVE ALTERNA- TIVE WAS AGREEABLE. 74 COMMISSIONER BIRD NOTED THAT QUITE A FEW OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA WERE PRESENT AT THE SITE, AND THEY WERE UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF THE ALTERNATIVE OF RELOCATING THE DRAINAGE SWALE, DISCUSSION THEN ENSUED IN REGARD TO PRESERVING THE NATIVE VEGETATION FOR A BUFFER AND THE FACT THAT WHEN THE LOTS, WHICH ARE NOW SINGLE FAMILY HOMESITES, ARE SOLD, THIS AREA WILL BECOME THEIR BACKYARDS, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE USE OF THE EAST 10' OF THE 15' ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WEST OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION FOR A DRAINAGE SWALE AND THE AMENDING OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ACCORDINGLY; THE WEST 10' OF THE LOTS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT TO BE RETAINED IN ITS NATIVE VEGETATION, EXCAVATION AND FILL DESIRED BY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT VERNON WRIGHT, SUPERIN- TENDENT OF THE FIRST OFFENDER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, HAS PROPOSED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY AS SET OUT IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO: TO: The Honorable P1embers of the DATE: June 2, 1981 FILE: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Indian River County - Indian River Correctional Institute Excavation and Fi 11 Project - FROM: Nei 1 A. Nelson, REFERENCES: County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Superintendent of -the Indian River Correctional Institute has _proposed an agreement between the Institute and the County Landfill oper- ation to excavate and use approximately 95,000 cubic yards of fill for cover material at the County Landfill south of Oslo Road. The landfill was originally planned for a 10' high cover, but now the County has per- -mission from the State D.E.R. to construct a 30' high overburden. This change in design requires a large amount of additional fill material which must.be mixed and placed over the solid waste. Since the landfill is adjacent to the Correctional Institute, the fill can be transported easily. In return for donating this fill, the Correctional Institute is re- questing the County to fill certain areas on the Correctional Institute property with excavated material (approximately 70,000 cubic yards) and thereby,,creating a better security lake system surrounding the Institute. Also, some of the fill will'be used to create a roadway leading to the landfill. JUN 31981 75 Boas '46 PAPE 645 JUN 3 1981 46 f,AF 646 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives are as follows: Alternative 1 - Approve the agreement with the Indian River Correctional Institute and use the excess excavated fill for overburden at the landfill site in return for excavation and fill work at the Correctional Institute. This will save the County the expense of purchasing fill.from outside sources and will benefit the Landfill operation. I This will also mutually benefit the Institute by creating a betten security situation and more usable land. No State D.E.R. permits are required for the work. Alternative 2 - Purchase fill from outside sources in the future when our existing pit is depleted— RECOPMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Since this project will mutually benefit both the Correctional Institute, who has helped the County in the past by supplying free labor on many tasks, and the County landfill, the staff recommends approval of this agreement. No direct funding is applicable for this item. The cost of machinery and labor will be absorbed in the landfill operations budget. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT WE COULD EASILY MOVE OUR MINING OPERATION TO THE CORRECTIONAL INSITUTE AREA INSTEAD OF THE BORROW PIT, AND THIS WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL IN EXTENDING THE LIFE OF OUR LANDFILL SINCE WE ARE GOING UP MUCH HIGHER THAN ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED. OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS LOOKED INTO THIS, AND WE ARE CAPABLE OF CARRYING THIS OUT WITH OUR OWN LANDFILL EQUIPMENT. THE ADMINISTRATOR CONTINUED THAT THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE HAS WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH THE COUNTY IN SUPPLYING WORKING PARTIES TO HELP IN MOVING OUR PERSONNEL AND EQUIP- MENT, CLEANING UP LIFT STATIONS, ETC., AND WE HAVE HAD AN EXCELLENT WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO GET A MINING PERMIT AND FELT PERHAPS THIS COULD BE UTILIZIED AS A TEST CASE TO SEE JUST HOW CUMBERSOME THE PROPOSED MINING ORDINANCE IS, HE REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, WHICH HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE ATTORNEY AND FOUND SATISFACTORY WITH SOME MINOR CORRECTIONS. COMMISSIONER BIRD ASSUMED THAT IN THIS AGREEMENT WE ARE PROTECTED AND HELD HARMLESS IN REGARD TO USING COUNTY EQUIPMENT OFF OF OUR PROPERTY, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC HOLD HARMLESS CLAUSE IN THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT, HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IF IT IS A STATE ACTION, IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THEY COMPLY WITH OUR ORDINANCES. CHAIRMAN LYONS INQUIRED WHETHER WE WILL MAKE OR LOSE MONEY ON THIS PROJECT, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR BELIEVED THAT WE WILL BENEFIT FROM IT, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE AS DISCUSSED AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE ATTORNEY, 0 77 JUN 31991 RooK 46 PacF647 JUN 31981 BooK 46 PAGE 648 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made the 19 day of June , 1981, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter called "County", and the STATE OF FLORIDA by and through the INDIAN RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, hereinafter called "State", heirs, successors and assigris, WHEREAS, State desires County to excavate certain areas -of the property occupied by the Indian River Correctional Institution, the site plan of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", creating attractive lakes and fill material to fill certain low areas of State's property and, through the excavation, to improve drainage to State's lands, and WHEREAS, County is desirous of obtaining surplus fill from the above excavation to use on County's lard fill, and WHEREAS, both State and County deem it in their best interests to enter into this cooperative agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises, the parties agree as follows: 1. County shall excavate a minimum of 165,000 cubic yards of fill according .to the site plan attached as Exhibit "A", redistrib- uting 70,000 cubic yards over Exhibit "A" as noted. The balance of 95,000 cubic yards plus any addition if there is excess shall be- come the property of County and be removed to County's land fill site for use as land fill. 2. The parties agree that, if additional .fi.11., is available through the deepening of any ponds, the County shall be entitled to remove said fill and use at the land fill site. 3. Areas to be excavated by County are designated as A, B and C on Exhibit "A". 4. Areas to be filled and graded by County are indicated as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on Exhibit "A". 5. County shall use its equipment and 7-anpower and all work shall be done in a workmanlike fashion. 6. Prior to any excavation, County shall perform necessary staking to insure that all dirt removal and redistribution are according to Exhibit "A". 7. State shall be responsible for fine grading, seeding and other related finish work to be done in stages after County has completed its excavation, filling and rough grading, all according to Exhibit "A". 8. County shall fill and grade proposed mobile home lots to an average extension of 35 feet., and the parties shall jointly agree to the elevations for other filling and grading as set forth within this Agreement and Exhibit "A". 9. County shall slope all lake edges except those in the outer perimeter of the property for safety purposes and prevention of erosion. Said slope shall be designated on Exhibit "A". 10. The lakes to be excavated shall be dug to an average depth of 10 feet except in certain designated areas which may be excavated up to 30 feet if additional fill is necessary. Notes as to the designated areas allowing the deepening of lakes to 30 feet shall appear on Exhibit "A". 11., County shall construct an elevated and graded unimproved roadway of at least 12 feet in width around designated portions of the perimeter of the property. This road shall include two connec- tions with the county road at the southern corners of the property and another connection with the paved road through the center of the mobile home park. Said roads are designated on the site plan, Exhibit "A". County shall construct said roads with dredged mater- ial excavated from the property. County shall add no marle or other stable material except as shall be provided by State. 12. Both County and State agree that this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days' written notice to the other, but in the event of termination County shall have the right to remove sufficient fill from the site to compensate for the services that County has performed to State as of the time of termination. 13. State agrees to hold County harmless from liability that may occur as a result of County's excavation and grading activities as set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, County and State have executed this JUN 3 i Bm 46 PAGE 649 ` - - ---- - ..._....�._.._�.o.--.....�... w�Fmvoavraar�a�•rmaaa�a.ette�rac�xswsrzrz JUN 31981 BOOK 4 Fnr. - 050 Agreement as of the date first above written. STATE OF FLORIDA INDIAN RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 4 Witness Super nten t Mr COMMI, ;LURIDA AT LAR(;1 •JNDED iH MAR. IS lob j A�� •,f .t.::,. UNDFRWRIiERc , INDIAN' RIVER COUNTY By rNi)/'fin ll" ^ Patrs'. Lyons, r- a'man, Board of County Co ssioners Attest; Freda Wright, er of the Circuit Court ` CHANGE ORDERS - #35 AND #37 - ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE HERCULES KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT CHANGE ORDER #35 (CP -67) CALLS FOR TWO 400 AMP FUSES TO BE INSTALLED IN THE MAIN SWITCH GEAR OF THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. HE EXPLAINED THAT WE HAVE TWO CHILLERS WE ARE USING, AND THESE WERE ELECTRIFIED BY REMOTE PANELS AND THEN WERE FED BACK TO THE MAIN DIS- CONNECT. IT APPEARS THE OLD FUSES WERE TAKEN OUT AND THEY OMITTED TO PUT THE NEW ONES IN. MR. KONTOULAS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS CHANGE ORDER BE APPROVED, COSTS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE MR. KONTOULAS NOTED THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LARGE FUSES IN THE MAIN SWITCH GEAR PANEL AND COMMENTED THAT THIS ALSO INCLUDES THE ADDITIONAL WIRING NEEDED. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED RELATING TO THE FACT THAT THE WIRING IS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED, AND CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO APPROVE A CHANGE ORDER AND THEN GO INTO ARBITRATION BECAUSE THIS DOESNIT CONNECT TO ANYTHING. MR, KONTOULAS ASSURED HIM THAT ALL THIS IS ALLOWED FOR AND UNDERSTOOD, BUT IN THE FUTURE, HE WOULD HAVE IT DETAILED MORE EXPLICITLY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER NO. 35 - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,384.761 WITH THE NORMAL STIPULATION'THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER, THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. i JUN 3198, 81 poor 46 PacF 651 JUN 31991 Aook 46 u"F 652 CHANGE OWNER p 234,617.26 ARCHITECT ❑ ORDER CONTRACTOR p 2,.986,002.02 , FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER OWNER 2.145 14th PROJECT: Indian River County - (name, address) Administration Building TO (Contractor) Reinhold Construction Inc. ' P.O.Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 35 7 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO:9363 CONTRACT FORAdd i t ions and Renovations - L I CONTRACT DATE:4-2-80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP -67 Provide two 400 amp,3-pole fusible switch units in existing main distribution switchboard spaces 02-3 & D4 -2 -at the - owners request to correct unforeseen conditions. The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time required beyond the contract completion date. Additional time wilt be added to the contract that is directly reiated to this change order.- The contractor` will be paid for the addiilonal squired days at the rate of $300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are not reflected in the attached documents. The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . The Contract Sum will be (increased) Yde*MW 4&kUXgYM'by this Change Order. The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is CONNELL METCALF & EDDY REiNHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR _T ?n in [)ixtp Ntg�V P Ilex '5 Address Address Coral sa�at� siFL 33134 Cocoa, FL 32922 $3,384.76 . S 2,748,000.00 , . S 234,617.26 S 2,982,617.26 , S 3,384.76 . S 2,.986,002.02 , ( - - ) Days. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY OWNER 2.145 14th Ave Address , Vero Beach, FL 32960 BY BY DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT 0791 • CHANCE ORDER ..d 19'70 EDITION • AIAO • ® 1470 • THE ONE FACE AMfRICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,-_: YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 c'�+' MR. KONTOULAS NEXT REVIEWED CHANGE ORDER N0, 37 - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, WHICH ENCOMPASSES CHANGE PROPOSAL NOS, 57 AND 57A AND IS TO PROVIDE TWO NEW DOORS IN THE SCHOOL BOARD AREA AND LAMI- NATE WALLS AND REPAIR WALLS AT VARIOUS STAIRS, AS LISTED. HE STATED THAT THIS SHOULD CLARIFY EVERYTHING WITH REGARD TO DAMAGED WALLS, AND THESE ARE ALL THE STAIRS - THE 3 -STORY STAIRS AND THE 2 -STORY STAIRS. THE WALLS AND STAIRS ARE NOT IN THE SCHOOL BOARD AREA, MR. KONTOULAS CONTINUED THAT THIS IS ANOTHER CASE OF ERROR AND OMISSION, AND HE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE ORDER BECAUSE HE FELT NOT TO REPAIR THESE AREAS WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE BUILDING. HE NOTED THAT THE ARCHITECT DID QUESTION THE COST, AND MR. SNODGRASS OF REINHOLD CONSTRUC- TION SAID THEY HAD REVIEWED THEIR COST AND COULD NOT REDUCE THEIR FIGURE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0, 37 - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,294,98 WITH THE NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER, THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. JUN 3 , 83 mox 46 KT 653 L_ JUN uox 46 F -AGF 654 CHANGE OWNER ❑ ARCHITf CT ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ , AIA DOCUMENT 0701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 37 (name, address) Administration Bu) l d i n� - TO (Contractor) ARCHI_TECT'S PROJECT NO:9363 r Reinhold Construction Inc. CONTRACT FO RAdditions and Renovations P.o.Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 [_ CONTRACT DATE:4-2-80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP -57 & CP -57A Provide new doors W159 & W129, laminate walls and repair walls at stairs S142,S201, S301, S14i, $211" and S317 as described 1n the attached Change Proposals. -,At the request of the owner to correct unforeseen field conditions. $13,294.98 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 contractof will be paid for the additional required idays at the rate of$300.00.(three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are not reflected in the attached documents. The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2 , 748, 000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 239,411.32 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2,987,411.'82 The Contract Sum will be (increased) (Z 964" SXKMKir1`j*8Kby this Change Order. . . $ 13,294.98 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . S 3 , 000 , 706.80 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( - - ) Days. Tr,e Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is CONNELL METCALF EDDY REiNHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. INDIAN RIVED, COUNTY ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR ONN ER 137n Sn n1xiP i9 way p n Box 666 21 � 14th Ave Address Address Address -Coral GV es, FL 33134 Cocoa, FL 32922 Vero Beach, EZ.. 32960 AIA DOCUMENT C.711 • CHANGE ORDER ` APRIL 19701 t?IT[ON • AIAI& j 0 1470 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1715 NEW YORK NW. WASHY*: ')N, D.C. 2M ONE PAGE By_ _ 6Y DATE rJ 2- DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT C.711 • CHANGE ORDER ` APRIL 19701 t?IT[ON • AIAI& j 0 1470 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1715 NEW YORK NW. WASHY*: ')N, D.C. 2M ONE PAGE DISCUSSION RE CHANGE ORDER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 4TH & 5TH COURTROOMS AND VARIOUS OTHER ITEMS ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IT APPEARS WE HAVE TO USE THE SAME ARCHITECTS FOR DESIGN OF THE FIFTH COURTROOM IN THE ANNEX, AND THIS WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE, MR. KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT HE WROTE THE ADMINISTRATOR A MEMO REGARDING FIVE ITEMS - THE FIRE ESCAPE WHICH WE HAVE TO DO; CHANGES THE SHERIFF WANTS ADDING SOME PARTITIONS; THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S REQUEST FOR TEARING DOWN A WALL; AND THE FOURTH AND FIFTH COURTROOMS, THE ARCHITECTS ARE WILLING TO PROCESS ALL OF THESE ITEMS AS A CHANGE ORDER, AND EACH ITEM COULD BE TREATED INDIVIDUALLY; THEY WOULD, HOWEVER, WANT A $15,000 FEE JUST FOR THE COURTROOM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, WHICH ARE A SEPARATE THING ALTOGETHER. THE ARCHITECTS WOULD WANT THE ADMINISTRATOR TO PROVIDE A LETTER AGREEING THAT WE WOULD PAY THEM FOR THESE CHANGES AS CHANGE ORDERS, AND UNDER THEIR GENERAL CONDITIONS, THEY CAN GET THIS FEE, HE NOTED THAT THEY WONT DO THIS WORK UNLESS WE GIVE THEM A LETTER. COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED WHY WE CANNOT FINISH OUR PRESENT PROJECT, GET OUT OF BUSINESS WITH THESE PEOPLE, AND THEN GO AHEAD AND HAVE OUR LOCAL PEOPLE DESIGN THE COURTROOM, ETC. DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE, THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING THE WORK OURSELVES, THE COMPLETION DATES OF THE VARIOUS CON- TRACTS, AND THE FACT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO RID OURSELVES COMPLETELY OF THE ARCHITECT AND HIS SERVICES.BEFORE WE COULD CONTRACT WITH ANYONE ELSE. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT WE ARE NOT ON THE FRIENDLIEST OF TERMS WITH THE ARCHITECT RIGHT NOW, BUT MIGHT BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE. HE TALKED ABOUT THE MOMENTUM OF THE PROJECT AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE A SAVING BY STOPPING AND THEN STARTING UP ALL OVER AGAIN. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON DID NOT FEEL THIS WOULD ACCOMPLISH ANY GREAT SAVINGS BECAUSE ARCHITECTS, LOCAL OR OTHERWISE, DO NOT WORK CHEAPLY. HE NOTED WE ARE PAYING A CONSIDERABLE FEE TO A LOCAL ARCHI- TECT FOR HIS WORK ON CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRE STATIONS, AND THEY ARE ALREADY PRE -STRUCTURED. M Sul 85 BooK 46 PA -"F655 JUS 31 11oo6 n 656 DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON THE BOARDS RELUCTANCE TO EXPAND AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARCHITECT WITH WHOM WE ALREADY ARE HAVING PROBLEMS, ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT THE MAJOR ARGUMENT FOR CON- TINUING WITH THE SAME ARCHITECT IS CONVENIENCE BECAUSE WE COULD NOT EVEN START ON THE COURTROOM PROJECT UNTIL ALL OTHER RENOVATIONS WERE TOTALLY COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK IN AND START UP AGAIN. MR. KONTOULAS AGREED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ADVERTISE AND GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ALL THIS HAS TO BE PLANNED OUT, AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING IN THE ANNEX MUST BE CONSIDERED. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STILL WONDERED IF WE COULD SAVE MONEY BY DOING THIS OURSELVES, AND MR..KONTOULAS DID NOT BELIEVE WE COULD. HE NOTED THE SHERIFFS CHANGES ARE VERY MINOR. ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT ATTORNEY STEWART HAS ACCUMULATED A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMA- TION ABOUT HOW THE ADDITIONAL COURTROOM SHOULD BE DESIGNED. MR. KONTOULAS RECOMMENDED THAT IN ALL THE ITEMS, EXCEPT THE FOURTH AND FIFTH COURTROOMS, WE GO AHEAD AND GET THE CHANGE PROPOSAL PRICED OUT TO SEE WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. THE FOURTH AND FIFTH COURT- ROOMS, WHICH IS A LOT OF WORK ON THE ARCHITECT S PART, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL FEE, BUT THE REST WE COULD GO AHEAD AND TREAT AS A REGULAR CHANGE ORDER'. m,i THE BOARD AGREED WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION. THE FOLLOWING CHANGE ORDERS SIGNED BY ADMINISTRATOR NELSON PER COMMISSION AUTHORIZATION OF AUGUST 11, 1979, ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES: ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: N0. 33 No. 34 No. 36 :• i CHANGE OWNER p ARCHITECT D ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 33 (name.address) Administration Building - TO (Contractor) - -� r ARCHITECT'S PROJECT No:9363 Reinhold Construction Inc. CONTRACT FORAdditions and Renovations P.O. Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 L CONTRACT DATE: 4-2-8o You are directed to make the following, changes in this Contract: CP -71 Provide moistureproof gypsum board ceilings in toilet $643,44 rooms S112 & S113 CP -78 In room N112 rempve freezer insulation and laminate $667.13 wall with drywall in its place. CP -80 There is moisture damage to walls in room N113. Correct $647.76 damage and laminate damaged area with gypsum wall board. CP -85 Laminate north, south and west walls t5at are not finished $409.50 in room N139. ' The above at the owners request to correct unforeseen conditions in the field. Tot al-T2,3�7,b3_ The proposed changes in the to-.)rk may result in additional time required beyond the contract completion date. Additional time Hili be added to the contract that is directly related to this change order. The contractor° ori11 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 not reflected in the attached documents. The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S $2 , 748 , 000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 229,236.07 , The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,977,836.07 The Contract Sum will be (increased) by this Change Order . . . $ 2,367.83 , The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . ... . . . . . $ 2.,980,203.90 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( - - ) Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is CON4ELL METCALF E EDDY ARCHITECT t37n S nixip,H(ghway Address . EM DATE 1/ .S REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. COP n P Address Cocoa, FL 32922 By DATE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COWy ER 2i4S 149 Ave Address , Vero Beach, FL 32960 �9 V� QY DATE J � 2 i AIA DOCUMENT Gni CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1470 EDITION • AIAS • 0 1070 • THE ANE PAGE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHiTECT$,1715 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. AM JUN 31981 R10 4 PAGE 657 4uh � i -V81 COWNER D CHANGE ARCHITECT p ORDER CONTRACTOR C� FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 34 (name.address) Administration Building TO (Contractor) ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO:9363 r Reinhold Construction Inc. CONTRACT fORAdditions and Renovations P.o.Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 L. . I CONTRACT DATE:4-2-80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CP -61 In room S101 revise telling height to 8'-6" and provide 101HVAC diffuser per attached CP -61 & CP -61A CP -64 Eliminate metal frame and glass at rooms Slll & S109 at the owners request. Show credit.own2rs request. CP -65 In lab room S-126 provide new sink and relocate thermostat per attached CP -65 at owners request. CP -68 Provide moisture resistant gypsum wallboard ceilings in toilet rooms S137, 5138, S141 & S142.Requested by owner to correct unforeseen conditions. CP -81 Cut bottom from metal doors 2nd floor meth. room to correct unforseen condition requested by owner. $1,107.74 V-175.00) $925.25 $407.52 $147.85 Total $Z,413-36 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 contractof 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 not reflected In the attached documents. s 2,748,000.00 The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . S 232,203-90 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,980,203.90 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,413.36 The Contract Sum will be (increased) Xd4EydjVdj>DjK&MgM>by this Change order. . . $ The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . .. . . . . . . S 2,982,617.26 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 & EDDY REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR aox 666 Ow�+IER 21- 5 14th Ave 137n sn ntxio Highway p.,o Address Address Coral ab es. FL 33134 Cocoa FL 32922 Address Vero Beach,} Fill 32960 , BY By DATE S�JL-j DATE �' ` �- ( DATE AIA DOCUMENT G71" • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 17ffl.Z: (TION AIAe s @ IM • THE ONE FACE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS,173S NEW YORK Alvt. NW, WASH-,- i _.:)N. D.C. ZM I CHANGE WNER AO CHITECT 0 ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD AIA DOCUMENT 0701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County (name, address) Administration Building TO (Contractor) r Reinhold Construction Inc. P.O.Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 36 7 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO:9363 CONTRACT FORAdditions and Renovations I CONTRACT DATE:4-2-80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: Item #1 Provide furring and drywall at the back of re -used electric panels at owners request to correct an unforeseen condition. $473.13 .Item #2 Provide additional soffit work a spaces 5206, 5209, S245, S247, S248, S254, S259, 5261, 5264 and S262. At the request of the owner to correct unforeseen conditions. $936.67 Total $1,409.80 The proposed changes in the w3rk 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 slays at the rate of$300.00 (three hundred) per day for fixed overhead costs. The number of days requested are not reflected in the attached documents. The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 2 , 748 , 000.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 238,002.02 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,986,002.02 The Contract Sum will be (increased) 4t1$X4�li;d7(XltOld) by this Change Order . . . $ 1 , 409.80 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . $ 2,987,411.82 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 EDDY ARCHITECT 112n Rn- ntxte HiQhway Address BY DATE REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. CONTRACTOR P 0 Box 666 Address Cocoa, FL 32922 By— DATE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY O�W� N�ER 2145 14th Ave Address , Vero Beach, FL 32960 BY DATE S'—_ 2-q i AIA DOCUMENT 0761 • CHANGE ORDER ® APRtI 1510 EDITION • AIAA • ® 1470 • THE ONE PAGE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. =M JUN 31981 RooF 4b PA'GF 659 JUN 3 1981 46 ACT660 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. 70789 - 70904 INCLUSIVE. SUCH BILLS AND ACCOUNTS BEING ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE WARRANTS SO ISSUED FROM THE RESPECTIVE BONDS BEING LISTED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTE BOOK AS PROVIDED BY THE RULES OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, REFERENCE TO SUCH RECORD AND LIST SO RECORDED BEING MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 6:10 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: CLERK