Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3/17/1982
Wednesday, March 17, 1982 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, March 17, 1982, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Alfred Grover Fletcher, Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; Patrick B. Lyons; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were David L. Greene, Assistant County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Coordinator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director; Curtis Stone, Bailiff; and Virginia Hargreaves and Janice Caldwell, Deputy Clerks. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Commissioner Fletcher led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Commissioner Wodtke gave the invocation. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA The Chairman asked if there were any additions to the Agenda. Commissioner Lyons requested adding an item regarding a report on his activities in connection with the Library. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the emergency item to the Agenda, as requested by Commissioner Lyons. Attorney Brandenburg requested adding an item regarding a resolution for the undeveloped Barrier Island; a contract regarding Pebble Bay sewage area; negotiations on garbage franchises; and a franchise agreement with the City of Vero Beach for water, sewer and electric utilities. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the MAR 171982 80,0K 49 PALE143 � 171992 MAR �K 49 r-p.ee 144 addition of the emergency items to the Agenda, as requested by the Attorney. Assistant County Administrator Greene requested adding an item regarding the medical team, and related matters concerning the Courthouse. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the emergency items to the Agenda, as requested by Mr. Greene. Chairman Scurlock requested adding an item regarding Community Development Corporation. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the emergency 'item to the Agenda, as requested' by the Chairman. Commissioner Bird requested that Item 12-E-1, regarding the Neighborhood School Recreation Concept, be deleted from the Agenda. Commissioner Bird requested adding a brief report on his trip to Orlando for the Governor's Council on Physical Fitness and,,Sports; and an item regarding a problem at Donald McDonald Park, preferably to be heard at 2:00 P.M. On' Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the emergency items to the Agenda, as requested ' by Commissioner Bird. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 17, 1982. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded, by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 17, 1982. CLERK TO THE BOARD A. Budget Amendment— Transportation Disadvantaged Services On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the Budget Amendment for Transportation Disadvantaged Services Contract, as recommended by the Finance Director, as follows: March 8, 1982 To: Board of County Commissioners fq�rom: Jeffrey K. Barton ' Re: Budget Amendment for Transportation Disadvantaged Services Contract Please adopt the following budget amendment to establish the estimated receipts for the Transportation Disadvantaged Services Contract signed. with the Department of Transporation and the appropriation for the Con- tract signed with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Account Title Account Number Increase Decrease Disadvantaged Services 004-000-334-41..00 8,000. Other Professional Services 004-205-515-33.19 8,000. B. Budget Amendment - Copier in the Mail Room A brief discussion ensued. Chairman Scurlock hoped that the Board could address the cost allocation for the copier back to each department at budget time. On Motion by Commissioner, Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the Budget Amendment for the Copier in the Mail- Room, recommended by the Finance Director, as follows: MAR 17 1982 3 �o% = �:9 F �c14K PIP— MAR 171982 To: "from: Re: , Board of County Commissioners, Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Officer Rent Office Equipment, Copier in Mail Room om 4 � wtic 146, March 9, 1982 The following budget amendment is necessary because, the I.B.M. Copier was budgeted in the County Planning and Zoning Department. The machine has been moved to the mail room and we are paying the expenses out of the County Administrators budget. I recommend that these funds be adopted as part of the additional funds approved. Account Title Account Number Increase Decrease Transfers Out 004-199-513-99.91 6,500. Rent-Offide-Equipment 004'-205-51"5-34.43 6,500. Transfers In 001-000-381-20.00 6,500. Rent -Office Equipment 001-201-512-34.43 6,500. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Scurlock requested taking Item D off the Consent Agenda in order to discuss a question he had ._.. pertaining to the matter. A.- Reports on File The following reports were received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Traffic Violation Bureau - Special Trust Fund, month of February, 1982 - $32,853.02. Traffic Violation Fines by name - February, 1982. Report on Indian River County Jail deficiencies and Sheriff's Department corrective plan of action dated January 19, 1982. B. Release of Easement The Board reviewed the following memorandum dated March 4, 1982: 4 - TO. The Honorable Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 4, 1982 FILE: SUBJECT: Release of Easement Request by Meiser Construction FROM: David Greene REFERENCES: Assistant County Administrator It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the County Commission. DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS _ The County has been petitioned by Meiser Construction to=".release the common side lot 2.5 foot easements of Lots 17 and 18 and Lots 18 and 19 on Block C of Oslo Park Subdivisi.on. The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power and Light, and the Utility and Right -of -Way Departments. The Planning and Zoning staff analysis, which includes a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled by the existing front and rear swales. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS A) To release the easements. This would allow Meiser Construction to develop the three adjacent lots as one parcel. The release of the easements is not anticipated.to have any adverse effect. B) If„_the County decides to not release the..easemenrs, it would be denying the applicant the opportunity to develop the three adjacent lots as one parcel. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the release of the common side lot 2.5 foot easements of Lots 17 and 18 and Lots 18 and 19 on Block C of Oslo Park Subdivision, as outlined in Alternative A. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 82-38 for release of side lot 2.5' easements of Lots 17 and 18 and Lots 18 and 19 on Block C of Oslo Park Sub— division, as requested by Meiser Construction. MAR 17 1982 5 WOK 9 PA,U d4 7 r- MAR 17 1982 1 .49 f-. , x.48 •RESOLUTION NO. $2-38 .WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the common side lot line easements of Lots 17 & 18 and Lots 18 & 19 on Block C of Oslo Park Subdivision, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo Park Subdivision 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 IND111N RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following .a lot line easements in Olso Park Subdivision shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: Those common side lot 2.5 foot easements of Lots 17 & 18 and Lots 18 & 19 on Block C of Oslo Park Subdivision, 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 2, Page 25. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioner and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records..of Indian River County, Florida. This 17th day of March ,1982.. BOARD OF COUNTY COMI.1ISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: < C Attest: Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Ch.irman _X17V Approved to Iorni fy and ingafr,iit' Freda Wright, Cfrk tzB i a Cl:; Z, � Liu. f e, trGs%niy Alt n CJ • RELEASE OF EAScMENT This Release of Easement, executed this 17th doy of March 1982 by the BOARD OF COUNTY COP-MISSIONERS OF IJDIA.N RIMER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, first party; Meiser Construction, whose mailing address is 695 Glenveiw Terrace, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960 second p rt : WITNESSETH: That the said party of the first part for and in considera- tion 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 sail first party has in and to the following described easement, lyi-ng on ;and situated in the County of Indian River County, State of Florida, to i t: - Those common side lot 2.5 foot easements of Lots 17 & 18 and Lots 18 & 19 on Block C of Oslo Park Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25, public records of Indian River County, Florida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest equ'i't tQ' the on1 9 y y'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 and the day and year first above written. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF Signed, sealed -and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA delivered in the presece of: _ lite BY • _ G MAR 171982 Don C. Scurlock, Jr., airman Atte's t Freda Wright, Clerk t )!'C11,`•,�,(�: a,,C�` t��rrr a Gni? !2f 3i 1` ' i°n , ;;r ( By Gar, 1. Brandenbur. C I Attorn .149. MAR 171982 BOOK 49 rwA50 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 acknowledge vents personally appeared, DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., 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, tome know to be the persons duly authorized by said County to execute the foregoing i=nstrument and. they acknowledged before me that they executed the same for,,and on behalf of the said political subdivision. WITNESS by hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of of A— 1952. t a "L Notary Pub ,• State:r:of-Flor da a 1ai-ge My commission expires: $COTARY Pt181.IC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARCH MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1482 (i 0 t a ry Seal) D Tii8S1 MER -1 INS. UNDERWRITERS r C. Release of Maintenance Bond The Board considered the following memorandum dated March 5, 1982: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners THRU: David L. Greene; Assistant County Administrator DATE: March 5, 1982 FI LE: SUBJECT: Request for Release of Maintenance Bond - Crystal Sands Unit II Subdivision FROM: James w. Davis, REFERENCES: James W. Davis, Public Works Direct Public forks Director to Bryant Carter, Oct. 30, 1981 Bryant Carter to Neil Nelson dated October 19, 1981 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On August 6, 1981 Mr. Bryant Carter developer of Crystal Sands Unit II Subdivision located east of Gifford Park off of 43rd Avenue, submitted a $968. cash maintenance bond for seeding the stivales. This bond ivas submitted as a condition to Final Plat Approval. By copy of the above referenced letter, the oti%ner is requesting release of the $968. bond since seeding hos germinated. ALTEPUATIVES AND ANALYSIS Inspection by the Public Works Department on March 2, 1982 revealed that seeding has sufficiently germinated. The alternatives include 1) Approving release of the $968. cash maintenance bond 2) Deny request to release bond. Since germination is complete, there is no reason to deny this request. RECO`,r E\'DATIONS A10 FUNDING Staff recommends release of the $968. cash maintenance bond for Crystal Sands Unit II Subdivision. Funding to be from the County's Escrow account. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the Release of Maintenance Bond for Crystal Sands Unit II Subdivision, as requested by Bryan Carter, Developer. E. Hazardous Structure -Rev. Willie Jones The Board considered the following memorandum dated March 11, 1982: MAR 17 19.82 9 � Jx 49 r� r 1DI MAR 171982 �d 49 152 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 11, 1982 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Status Report Rev. Willie Jones Hazardous Structure FROM: REFERENCES: David L. Greene Assistant County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION On January 6, 1982 the Board accepted the recommendation of the Administrator's Office wherein authorization was requested to seek the removal of=the hazardous structure belonging to Rev. Willie Jones. This strupture is located at 2110 41st Street, in Gifford. Mr. Jones has made considerable progress toward the cleaning up of this property. The termite ridden structure that was located on the property has been removed and a general clean-up effort has been on going. Staff will continue to monitor this situation and work closely with Rev. Willie Jones regarding the clean-up effort. We will continue to keep the Commission appraised of the progress. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously accepted the status -'report of the hazardous structure owned by Rev. Willie Jones. F. Hazardous Structure - Davis Temple The Board considered the following memorandum dated March 11, 1982: 10 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 11, 1982 the Board of County Commissioners FILE: SUBJECT:. Status Report Davis Temple Churc, FROM: Dav i6 ' c�reene REFERENCES: Assistant County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION On December 2, 1981 the Commission granted Davis Temple ChurQh a 90 day extension to repair or demolish the burned out building located at 3446 45th Place. Mr. Ed Schumucker of Total Development Inc., has notified the County that the drawings are now complete and have -been submitted to the City/County Building Department for their approval. Bids have been solicited and received by Total Development concerning the repairs to the building. Staff will continue to monitor this situation and work closely with Mr. Schu- mucker and the representatives of Davis Temple in order to bring this matter to a close. We will continue to keep the Commission appraised of the progress. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously accepted the '. w - d . x status report of the Hazardous Structure owned by the Davis Temple. D. Status Report - Various Projects The Board reviewed the following memorandum dated March 8, 1982: MAR 17 1982 11 Box,49 pnc 153 MAR 171982 goa 49 rwu 154 TO: The honorable Members of the DATE: March 8, 1982 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THRU: David L. Greene, Assistant County Administrator yN FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Rtblic 1%'orks Director SUBJECT: Status Report 1) Gifford Street Light Project 2) R.D. Carter Road Paving Project 3. Traffic Signal Installation - 8th Street and 28th Avenue REFERENCES: The status of the above subject projects are as follows: 1) Gifford Street Lighting Project: The City of Vero Beach is 90o complete with street light installation as per conversation witR ruzzy Cox, City of Vero Beach Electrical Engineering Manager on March 5, 1982. The City is primarily responsible for the Southern and Eastern portion of the Street Light District. Mr. Herman Firsh, Florida Power and Light Co., via telephone conversation on March 8, 1982 stated that Florida Power & Light has not begun instal- lation yet, however, by March 10, 1982, he should have a fira schedule. It is anticipated that all lights in the City's service area will be installed by March 11; 1982 (approx. 184 lights). There are complaints received that lights are not in a desirable location or not bright enough. To relocate a light would cost about 5300. if a - pole were required.. 2) R. D. Carter Rd. A survey was ordered in October 1981 from Surveying Consultants, Paul Ro-sskamp, Registered Land -Surveyor, as approved by the Roard'bf County Commissioners in Sept. 1981. Most of the survey work is complete and the Public Works Department has received a -preliminary drawin . The individual lot lines are being researched. Unfortunately, the surveyor Paul Rosskamp, has had a number of heart attacks and has been in tho hospital for a number of weeks. This has delayed the project. Also, the Indian River Farms Drainage District has informed the Count` that a Bridge is required across the 35th avenue canal where a culvert now exists. This shall require the staff requesting additional funds bevond the $50,000 appropriated for this 1 mile length of road. If the completed survey is not delivered by March 31, 1932, I recommend having another local surveyor complete the survey. The County has not paid for any survey work to date. 3) Traffic.Signal Installation - 8th St. and 27th Avenue: The poles for the flashing beacon will be installed Nlonda)• morning, March 8, 1982. The County has received permission from Florida Potter and Light for electrical service. This installation should be complete during the month of March. If you wish additional information on these items, please so indicate. Chairman Scurlock stated he had a question regarding the lighting situation on the road to the hospital. He commented that the County may have a responsibility to provide some lighting on that road as it was very dark. He requested that Mr. Greene follow up on the matter. Commissioner Lyons reported the south side of that road to the hospital was not in the street lighting district. Discussion followed regarding the various projects in the status report. Commissioner Vdodtke inquired about the right-of-way problem along R. D. Carter Road and advised that he would assist if any problems arose. _ Assistant Administrator Greene commented that he would._ check into that matter. On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the status report of the Gifford Street Lighting Project; the R. D. Carter Road Paving Project; and the Traffic Signal Installation at 8th Street and 211th Avenue. RESOLUTION - BARRIER ISLAND 2. Q.- _ Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the proposed resolution and letter to Ric Davidge, of the Department of Interior, concerning the Barrier Island. Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board adopt Resolution 82-40 concerning the undeveloped portion of the Barrier Island, and authorize the signature of the Chairman. Commissioner Wodtke suggested sending a map along with the Resolution and letter. Senior Planner Challacombe advised that the map was part of the attachments. He continued that it was the Planning Department's hope that the Department of Interior will redefine their definition of the undeveloped coastal barrier. B90K 9 PAU 1 MAR 171982 13 MAR 171982 I 49 :PA,,,r 156 The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Mr. Challacombe advised that Engineer Lloyd would be delivering the material under discussion to the proper officials at the Department of Interior. 2 a 'E RESOLUTION N0, 82-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMMENTING UPON THE MAPS OF THE PROPOSED UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITION OF "UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIER" AS CONTAINED IN THE OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1981. WHEREAS, the Office of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior has requested Indian River County to comment upon maps showing a tentative delineation of un- developed coastal barrier units as well as an interpretation of the definition of "undeveloped coastal barrier", and WHEREAS, all areas designated as "undeveloped coastal barrier" will be ineligible for Federal Flood Insurance for new construction or substantial improvements to existing structures after October 1, 1983, and f - WHEREAS, Indian River County held a public hearing on March 10, 1982 to receive comments on the proposal from all inter- ested parties, and WHEREAS, the proposed maps prepared by the Department of the Interior are based on maps originally prepared in 1949 and updated in 1970 all consisting of aerial surveys without any veri- fication from on the ground, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is concerned that the data considered .in preparation of the maps, which will form the basis for the availability of flood insurance and possibly other Federal and State programs, is inadequate, and WHEREAS, as a result of using unverified and outdated data the proposed designations of undeveloped coastal barrier are grossly erroneous, and WHEREAS, the County, following extensive public hearings and study, has recently adopted the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, a planning instrument required under the law of the State of Florida, which acts as a residential density cap in the area which has been tentatively designated by the Department of Interior as "undeveloped", and WHEREAS, local government is in the best position to MAS 17 1982 -1- ��oK '49 I°Abr 157 MAR 171982 n�K 49 , 4r� plan for the ever increasing needs of its residents including the ability to determine which land is suitable for future development and which land, considering all factors unique to the community, is currently considered'developed. The proposed delineation of undeveloped land by the Department of Interior is a broad brushed approach to a traditionally local matter, and WHEREAS, the process of planning for future growth at the local level requires careful technical and scientific evalua- tion of the effects of development and the best methods to meet the development's impacts several years in advance. In this pro- cess counties must provide capital expansion projects to meet water, sewer, road and school needs. Both the County and the City of Vero Beach in their planning efforts have oversized cer- tain facilities (i.e. water and sewer lines, power transmission lines, etc.) to enable them to provide essential services in the = e A future to much of the area delineated as undeveloped. These pro- jects have been made possible by the use of studies showing that the areas delineated as "undeveloped" will someday become contri- butors to the system. The proposed designation of lands pre- viously earmarked by the community for "planned growth" as "undeveloped" will impede the orderly expansion of necessary government services,.and WHEREAS, a substantial portion of the Barrier Island tentatively designated as undeveloped is composed of citrus groves which have -,existed since the turn of the century and are a vital part of the Indian River County economic community. The citrus land is an intensive agricultural use constituting a highly developed status of land use with an infrastructure of attendant structures, roads, canals, and irrigation systems which have significantly changed the land's natural geomorphic and ecological processes and do not fall within the definition of undeveloped coastal barrier, and WHEREAS, the Department of Interior's interpretation of the definition of undeveloped coastal barrier does not adequately provide for the status of citrus properties, and WHEREAS, it appears that the Federal government is -2- beginning a process of withdrawing from the Federally Insured Flood Insurance Program, however as a point of beginning, it has chosen the most actuarially sound portion of the program to drop. This decision places an overwhelming burden upon those remaining within the program and the taxpayers, and WHEREAS, it would appear that the guidelines as proposed have not been uniformly applied to similar lands in that many miles of land which contains less of an infrastructure in other locales have been desiqnated as developed while land of a higher intensity development in Indian River County has been designated "undeveloped". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. the foregoing recitals are approved; 2. the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to execute the attached letter setting forth specific Indian River County concerns and objections to the proposed maps and the Department of Interior's interpretation of the definition of "undeveloped coastal barriers"; 3. Indian River County objects to the Department of Interior's interpretation of the term undeveloped barrier island; 4. the definition, as-prop6sed,. if applied properly and uniformly should exclude the coastal barrier island lying in Indian River County from the "undeveloped" classification; 5. Indian River County strenuously objects to the Department of Interior's interference in the County's efforts to plan for future growth and urban services; 6. the other coastal communities in Florida are urged to examine this proposal carefully and direct their comments to the Department of Interior; and 7. the State Association of County Commissioners is requested to examine this proposal and urge the adoption by the Department of Interior of a definition of undeveloped coastal barrier that takes into consideration unique local concerns and to further urge the adoption of maps which correctly identify the status of the coastal barriers. MAR 171982 -3- MAR 171982 BOOKC'r I �9 .ht�L1� The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Fletcher who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird I and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman,Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Dick Bird Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17th day of March , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. Chairman Attest. 7)") FREDA WRIGHT_, C1erdc,, APPROVED AS TO FORS! AND LEPL L SUF ICI Cy BY i All Y RA DENBG C n y AttorneyU BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 NEIL A. NELSON - County Administrator Telephone: (305) 567-8000 March 15, 1982 Mr. Ric Davidge Chairman, Coastal Barriers Task Force DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Mr. Davidge, Secretary to Board Telephone: (305) 567-6000 The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, staff and citizens have reviewed the "Draft Undeveloped Coastal Barriers: Definitions and Criteria", and the maps which designate a large portion of our County as undeveloped. The proposed definitions and criteria are not complete or consistent and do not accurately reflect the situation in Indian River County. Specific issues which were not sufficiently addressed in the draft definitions and criteria include: 1. Citrus groves and other agricultural development were not mentioned. The Citrus industry is a vital aspect of the Indian River County economy and lifestyle. A complement of supporting industry including packing houses and fruit shipping have also developed and be- come vital elements of our local economy. In the area proposed on the maps there are approximately 1596.19 acres of producing groves. The fruit produced within this area is known world wide as the "Famous Orchid Island Fruit". A complement of roads, bridges, utility lines, canals, barns and the homes of the grove owners and workers presently exist within the area. We would like to emphasize that the groves are a developed in- dustrial area. 2. The issue of vested rights has not been adequately addressed. Many developers have spent thousands of dollars and met development standards applied by Indian River County. According to the draft definitions and criteria, these sites will be included in the undeveloped area. The expense incurred by the developers and the local government approval indicates that these sites will soon be developed at urban densities and this should be reflect- ed on the proposed maps. 3. Indian River County -has spent the past seven years developing a Comprehensive Plan. On the local level .the barrier island has been extensively studied and analyzed. It is our intention to govern growth and development of the barrier island through local land use and zoning regulations. These regulations have obviously proved very effective in'the past and will continue to be effective in monitoring growth and development. The Comprehensive Plan provides -for the extension of water and sewer services to the barrier island and financial and contractual committments toward planning.and installation of these services have been made by the County. The Planning process included anticipating the revenue which would-be generated from providing service to the future barrier island residents. A proposal to limit or slow growth other than from the local level will eliminate the effectiveness of our plan and place an undue financial burden upon the County. All of the barrier island within Indian River County is developed or has the capability of being developed under the constraints of the Comprehensive Plan "maximum density of 3 to 6 units/acre".. 4. The definitions have not been uniformly applied within Indian River County or beyond the County's boundaries. There are many miles of coastline to,the north which were not proposed as an undeveloped coastal barrier. Existing development of this land is similar to or less intensive than designated areas within Indian River County. 5. It appears that the Federal Government is incrementally withdrawing from the flood insurance business. This procedure places an undue hardship on owners of land and structures in the areas which will become ineligible for Federal Flood Insurance first. Private industry will not immediately assume the responsibility of insuring such a limited and high risk flood hazard area, lie cannot over emphasize the point that the Federal Government should remove itself totally from the flood insurance business on a wholesale basis. County staff, resource and time limitations did not allow for an exten- sive study of the technical aspects of the Draft definitions and cri- teria. The proposed maps are arbitrary and unreasonable. We strongly urge the Department of the Interior to remove all of our County from the proposed maps. M11171982 19 N;,rl 49 mc 161 MAR 171982 Keeping the above comments foremost in your mind, if the Draft defini- tions and criteria are adopted, we offer the following comments. Within the proposed Undeveloped Coastal Barrier in Indian River County there are several areas :which meet or exceed the criteria established in order to be considered developed. These areas are: 1. Ambersand Subdivision - approximately 48 acres divided into 4 iots with 19 + existing structures. Development density is approximately .39 units/acre. Location is Section 33, Township 30S, Range 39E, at the northern end of the desig- nated area. 2. Riverside Estates Subdivision - Appr.oximately 5.82 acres divided into 22 lots with three existing single-family residences. Development density is approximately 1.94 units/ acre. Location is Section 36, Township 31S, Range 39E, near the southern end of the designated area. 3. A portion of Johns Island Subdivision - Approximately 265 • -acres-with 117 single�Eamily residences. Development density is approximately .44 units/acre. Location is Section 6, Township 32S, Range 40E and Section 1, -Township 32S, Range 39E, forming the southern boundary of the designated area. 4. White Surf'Subdivision - Approximately 1.77 acres divided into three lots with one single family residence. Location is Section 34, Township 33S, Range 40E, near the St. Lucie County Line. Additionally, several errors were made in the information summary developed by the Department of the. Interior. These include: 1. Section 7 reads 4,060'total acres and staff's calculations incti.cate 4,167 total acres. 2. Section 8 reads 3.1 Beach length (miles) and staff's calcu- lations indicate -approximately 8.75 miles. 3. Section 9 indicated no publicly owned land exists, however, KEerrsand Beach Park is 3.2 acres and-o-wned by the County. 4. Section 12 - Jungle Trail is an unpaved, scenic route, owever, the information su-,Tnary indicates Jungle Trail as a paved road. Respectfully, � n Don C. Scurlock, Chairman Indian River County Board of County Corunissioners DCS/b P1r . Ric Davidge March 15, 1982 Page 4 Enclosures: 1. Plat of Ambersand Subdivision. 2. Plat of Riverside Estates Subdivision. ' 3. Plat of Johns Island Subdivision. 4. Plat of White Surf Subdivision. 5. Map -of Subdivision Locations. 6. Letter and enclosures from Robert C. Nall to Dennis Ragsdale, Staff Planner, dated February 25, 1982. 7. Letter from Jack G. Rose to Commissioner Pat Lyons, dated March 3, 1982. 8. Letter from Charles -E. Davis to Mr. David Greene, Assistant County Administrator, dated March 9, 1982. 9. Letter from Robert E. Briggs to Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. dated March 10, 1982. 10. Resolution adopted by the Town of Orchid on February 18, 1982. cc: The Honorable Paula Hawkins The Honorable.L. A. "Skip" Bafalis The Honorable Dale Patchett _ =V. 1.P . Mf: Mark Gumula, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Agency Mr. Hardy Pierce, U.S. Department of the Interior Mr. James Watt, Secretary of -the U.S. Department of the Interior Mr. Jack Hauptman, U.S. Department of the Interior Ms. Barbara Henderson, Department of Veteran and Community Affairs Mr. David L. Greene, Assistant County Administrator MAR 17198249 4., X o.�5 Z04vd 04 Mlf`l 41 �V 1-4.r Ar-, Z "r aL 4T �xSy�t:w Vs T 1.'Ar, 151,v Jam Ik .44", A 1, TZ 411 r! Talc z 7 711 1 2 C"-) .4 4V MIL ZL 27 /7, /7 17/, ........ .. . .......... 7_777/_ -7, 7LT- 77- /per t , w wx I I r - L -:7 _ _ �_ PLAT BOOK 5- ra PA CIE 5 0 DOCKET 92915a FIZI V E R S I D LE E S TA- T E S BEING A SUG01VISION OF THE SOUTH 333' OF GOVT. LOTS 9 5 .9. SEC. 36, TWP. 31 S. RANGE oc—ry cr•k".- w.Iri. 39E. EXCEPT HOWEVER THE EAST 1299.50'OF GOVT. LOT 9. .4 . ...... ...... :Ill"t" IN -4 C 73 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE )ii 77 TH. PLACE tic 0ra - NP O Zi, • 9 11 13 16Is 19 21 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE )ii 77 TH. PLACE 44 a� tic 0ra - NP O Zi, 10 12 14 16Is 20 22 44 a� tic 0ra - NP Zi, 10 12 14 16Is 20 22 st ZT, S co 14 71C. t'. . ..... .. .... ... 'co 3;L . ...... ...... .. .. ..... . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .... I. . *-,. cm row L � GGA'. LOT I UJ.D WINTER UE -C.01 7 WAD TRACT 1-1- GOV. LOT 2 II :I I ( a 15 oe TkACT 115 GEM! 15 L N D) ClArIKER ISLAND GOV. LOT 6 -T-- --- ---4- I 1, r �i` L 0 JOHN'S I'5L PLA ri U SE. ENLARGED 1/,; rc V :4 T���.- 4 ED 1/4 SEC Im SEC IA 1^82 MAR 17 49 IP7 x'71982 LAW OFFICES MCKINNON & STEWART CHARTERED•• POST OFFICE BOX 3345 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 CHARLES R. MCKINNON WILLIAM J. STEWART ROBERT C. NALL February 25, 1982 HAND DELIVERY Mr. Dennis Ragsdale Staff Planner Indian River County Planning & Zoning Department County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida .32960. Re:" Department of Interior.Coastal°Barrier Maps Dear Mr. Ragsdale 3355 OCEAN DRIVE TELEPHONE (305) 231-3500 With regard to th'e' lab.ove captioned matter,. enclosed for your information please -find a copy of my .letter on behalf of the Johri's Island Property Owners Association, Inc. As you know, it is our. contention that the northern portion of John's Island has been erroneously classified as "undeveloped" on the Draft Coastal Barrier Maps. If your research shows different figures with respect to acreage, number of structures and the resulting density set forth in my letter, I would appreciate it if 'you would inform me of those differences. We request that the,Indian River County Planning &_Zoning Department recommend to the County Commission and to other concerned governmental agencies that John's Island be classified as "developed" in the final Coastal Barrier Maps. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Robert C. Nall RCN : dcg Enclosure CC: John's Island Property Ocaners Association, Inc. 3 LAIN OFFICES MCKINNON & STEWART CHARTERED POST OFFICE BOX 3345 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 CHARLES R. McKINNON WILLIAM J. STEV ART ROPERT C. NALL February 23, 1982- Mr. Jack Hauptman Staff Director Coastal Barriers Task Force Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. Albert Green, Ph.D. National Park Service Washington, D.C. 3355 OCEAN DRIVE TELEPHONE (305) 231-3500 Re: Request for change in categorization of John's Island, Town of Indaan Raver Shores, Indian River County, Florida, from undeveloped to developed coastal barrier fastland. Gentlemen: This law firm represents the John's Island Property Owners Association, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation consisting of landowners in the John's Island residential development in the Town of Indian River Shores, Indian River County, Florida. The coastal barrier maps accompanying the Draft Infor- mation Surmaiaries for Undeveloped 'Coastal Barriers categorize the northern portion of Jchn's Island as undeveloped coastal barrier. The affected area is marked in yellcw on the enclosed copy of the pertinent portion of the coastal barrier map. The Department of the Interior has requested comments and recom- mendations concerning the accuracy of the Draft Information Summaries. Please regard this letter as a request on behalf of the John's Island Property Owners Association, Inc., to change the coastal barrier map to show that -the northern portion of John's Island, heretofore classified as undeveloped, is developed in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Draft Information Summary for the reasons that follow. MAR: 1-7 .1982-_. Phar pA l8 MAR. 17198Z Mr. Jack Hauptman Mr. Albert Green February 24, 1982 Page Two BOOK 49R,. 1 ,E1 70 The Draft Information Summary in its definition of un- developed coastal barriers sets forth three requirements, all of which must be met, for a coastal barrier to be classified as undeveloped. The portion of John's Island categorized on the present coastal barrier map as undeveloped does not meet two of the three requirements necessary for an area to be categorized as undeveloped. (1) The first requirement is that within all or part of an undeveloped coastal barrier, few man-made structures may be present. (a) In connection with the structures require- ment, a density threshold of one structure per five acres of fastland is used for categorizing a coastal barrier as developed. ;If the density of structures is greater than one unit per five acres, the fastland-is developed. If the density is less than one unit per five acres, the fastla4d is undeveloped. A compg3�gon o,f the present coastal barrier map with an -aerial photograph prepared in January 1981, by the Florida Department of Transportation for the Florida Department of Revenue, indicates that approximately 264.85 acres of fastland in the northern portion of John's Island have been categorized as undeveloped on the coastal barrier map. The aerial photograph, which has had plat map overlays added and is marked to show precisely the area which we seek to classify as developed, will be submitted to you at the February 24, 1982, meeting in Fort Pierce, Florida, on the - undeveloped coastal barrier map. , The photograph indicates that there are 107 structures, as defined in the Draft Informa- tion Summary, on that portion of John's Island classified as undeveloped. Since the aerial photograph was taken in January 1981, 1.0 nc-i structures have -been added to that portion of John's Island for a total of 117 structures. Using these figures for calculation, there 2.21 units per 5 acres of fastland. There- fore, under the Draft Information Surnmary ret1tii.rements, that portion of John's Island should be categorized as developed. T !?r. Jack Hauptman :Ir . filbert Green February 24, 1982 Page Three (b) Moreover, the Draft Information Summary states that all or part of a coastal barrier :•ill be considered.developed, even when there is.less than one structure per five acres, if a full complement of infrastructure is in place. The portion of'John's Island categorized as un ' developed does, in fact, have a full complement of infrastructure. Roads, docks,.water supply, sewage system, and electrical services are, and have been, in place and available to the residents. (c) Even absent the required number of structures and absent an infrastructure, a coastal barrier may still be developed as long as it is a part of a "phased development" and has been part of the overall plans for the development since its inception. The northern portion of John's island meets this criterionvalso. (2) A second requirement for categorizing a coastal barrier as undeveloped is that the structures present and man's activities thereon must *not significantly impede geomorphic and ecological processes. The very nature -and extent of the John's island development has changed the geo- morphic and ecological processes although develop- ment, at all times, has been designed and implemented in harmony with the environment. In summary, that portion of John's Island categorized as undeveloped should be reclassified as developed under the requirements of the Draft Information Summaries for the following reasons: (1) The density of structures is 2.21 units per 5 acres of fastland and this density exceeds the 1 unit per 5 acre threshold necessary for coastal barrier fastland to be categorized as developed; (2) a full complement of infrastructure is in place;-. (3) the coa:;tal barrier is part of a phased develop- ment; and (4) the structures and man's activities thereon have altered the geomorphic and ecological processes on that portion of the coastal barrier. nor 49 PA6r 7i MAR 17 1982 r MAR 17 1982 mr. Jack Hauptman Pair. Albert Green February 24, 1982 Page Four For reference, attached'please find a listing of all the plats, with Indian River County Plat Book numbers and pages, in the total John's Island residential development. Very truly yours, /ge �f,C— . - 2 �a Robert C. Nall RCN:dcg Enclosure cc: The Honorable L.A. "Skip" Balifis The Honorable R. Dale Patchett Mr. Ric Davidge, Chairman, Coastal Barriers Task Force, U.S. Department of the Interior Indian River County Commission f Indian River County Planning and Zoning Departmdnt Town of Indian River Shores Indian River Shores Planning, Zoning and Variance Board ' John's Island Prtpbrty C*m ers Association,, Inc-. f .. fir!':,.,. - a. - . _ . �_ —_.•~ J/}c Ytl:) '�--��''- -".•.+ '••Ta. ` r -�J. { ./' ••.?• •%`� '1 elf �1 • ~' ' Ali`,., .. • .. �� �. . � �- _ ! ; .d •� t /, '•A • l- _ _ _ . i. - -- �1 � - j_ J; _ . `: _ _ • t _ ,'.. . .41 Aj 77 �. .` ' :' _ '. ...�r K• .�C�, - /• .. `' .. J .n --; - .r �- �/, .rte ,. I..t ; = —. ,.t .I •, I I • /� (w •/,'`' ��( \" ' yam' / ' r q � = •�•' -,� `.':' %// � � '` f 4 _ r t r 1 i '•1 .!,'• _!• _ ,,.•,,../ \ •uc;r.�r-r :a'S.,�t: � ..: i:r�•.,� `r. :+v A. ••i". .--. `�'• _ �� `(. niJr.�- ... ,_,. a� .�-1 4•^ 1: -f;,•,, 7S: 1'11 � r' _ '; � t - -p+ 4 - - - t.. �,, �.G.� ':d/' • UI alOi-t: � S j:r,l•� �.,�! C.` a.t}:-tii-�+-;.t. �•r+.:%11 ��- iG t:d� �:`�•`! •� '•J� �;,rrt�,•" 1h. • t••<rr, j iY)I�• cTt ` Al�1i ;:c?• ;�•�� �}1•I•'t -'�. 1[ }. 411.%j'L,• .,•.' }' V� u 1 l / i^ alt-;:�.1(( bytr4 1...\ T ri-`'. Qts'r tit M oft'!� 1 �1, ♦ ij '!r'.i. i _ T _ ; j:• *r 114 , �• :'.'t:- 1 it l ! �lJ l4t_ri':♦ 1' t._ ,+i 'v -'•' r i,.iif.'./��^i� , �� u , \�+1•L1 yt t !.. / \- �1<'vJ1!':! .,cG .>(F ..- ;: i ,� ••I ..a•'• _,�: P� . 1T � 1 � y ! .. �.. :lL '..r. .c::� .�: .i:;'.�'f••Y• _ 'i',�'t,.4 'i'1 t',. '4i�f;rJ,��.. Jt/• .. fiti�.i .� -� .. _ . to r ` u 2 (..-�•.•-�v l" �.t /�11 , _ •�t`t • •� D•�r v, rl %.1..` r` t� ,may •.�t.L:!'t• .- � � );.'_ d:, ���`• n 1 ` 1-'�\•\ ^'\ •l a _ r.;-, '�\ ••� .,S 1 / r �•f.. i! ;�•- - .,•� _ fj~ �'C`,lrY�r`�'J, ^ _ 1 �.'• \�'<\\�,\-\a, t-lr`.t.`':":r+�1 .�:r•t.-t �'�.� •S;�' ,M ••,« \ \� OG-a'?x:7• �_ ti ,�,. ? * ' - . � . �,� .. � Y, `?�•�,j`',s',•<. ', ::��t��:k�= S 1 �:;'-K.=' ;F', ':�• � ' .. 1�'' . •-j _ ,� �.;:�,�j( � `\i'\L^, ,, t.. _ H ;.- �(:.`{ J<- ,; l.r�. �`w:`t':'.i� y. Y�c.!••'il �+.r�L .� 5 ,\ -v' .xy�t,I �x'�+\ \\\S 1 �'_ ,'}'�t. .. • ! h:'` ��.. .r . .. ' O'7 'C� J • t /.tr�:,l . �.,: • �/ �:c �+. • _ �(.� ,L. -�"S' .�: .:y . •' • . _.t. • ` -'Tl ,r ''\ .^ \•\ \ .l, ` + h \ « e "`i' �'',ii .�:ti�.,•' .. _ � _�_—o :•' +i•<�:)i>~yrS+.l�•'_.c..�t` ��lS. - (�F y � t•: T �; .(/ - �' .i'�- a, �� `{ t �� �" \ •r. _ rC_ j;••r. _ _. � .t"-+ t.�:Sl•j', .-� •t• �,jry /�..i`Ia �•-�F�``r`.1`:��.�.+Ye. ��',.l';r> i.,, •Y. t_'/��.t. i•i����`y'lTf � l��`\\C.\ \ \•\•+t,.r<��\�,;;�+• -' - .V�y "� ` J, ! j, •.,,./• i•l.{''y' cfv.�,„`•• Ut __ I .vi -f;•., •r 1 \ \: °:j.:u ,. \ti r •;. v..,-' '���,�✓�� �\1 a\4 t"•\,! •` ' '��' - `-�• "'s �riL•s L- �.! :.1 :' � i .-'F �'.�:ti �. y.. •L".ti�.f-,l, mac:• ,.(�,Y, .p % "�^Sf - "t trj=ir-. w `,:� M\\ \\` ` \\ 't.. "n ' -�,'' /------r.:., •� ✓-c'�.�� j� .�1� � Y.5'C/' � �(tt: Z-.;, ak.�< !: � \ t (/• �,3;,�• :.Sf �. •j,i1}� ( � �.(1 a\' \ ` (\\�\ \ \\\ ` \t�y'�,•, . •' "` «•"•_'_•F � ��_� � - U '`. 1 �tk'• t.• . ';!�•` ,3,..�. -Z' /Q •f'\rt ' . j._Y.... J: t� :l ,.: •' •��J rte✓' T !.,\1,a1 \ °•\\r %'-ZS ,.\ 1.` \ \\ \\ \ �: l y t I: a t.\\� r� 1. l' /• rr r%.•':x' 'n'ltr'•1•' :. ..`yr, t t l n' f _ •1..0 ` , tf�, .t' t]r � L . 7 •..(}�` 'r, %� �•r•. � r'" / Er •r, L.,,!'; `r•t _ .. 1 �a t'_� 1 f �•'`. •t. '' =.-T•.'r:f .'�•y'r l� �,• � .+�..L r.• tr1 �1','`'� 1 \\ f \ 1 \ \' ... :;'.. � ti•i I� ' ~. \ .. j .� �` � . C'� ,.� '` ,�.i,� 1.1 �' t j F.�K.� � : S➢ G�'i•.::li✓. .. tel: \:;", Yom,' �c..�„ lji:'-'.t _ :� .0 a?�c �'j`-','-L+•�/ �— }� �. : \ f �,.. >. ;/ . \\ \ \ \\ ,i •;a •}j_ Y� \ .i•`i-•� - I„ '� `' .�!r.•Y1,(,j (�-- 1' i. �-, t= �.a• -•.;�� a .x,�lf,.w-.•""•' ',1 \.:� v i-.\ \ \•', �:1' � Q �` _ '=1 f• .t -C: {•.. a t +� \ \' u\\\ \ \\ 1 \ \ \� r '�� :*v a, > - r: �' 'rl'• f� _ 1.� r�iy :i'r :.i �� .� 4 i = / may', \\ �\ \� f 1 + \ \\ \ \\ \\ . �+'.r �,'..�'"�: • tcc ' �' {.' : �,• ..� V;t l \ d•' r ��b.�;1�-'� �t.-r.r r=:;-%.. _ ... - - ���� .-:2' • ��•; 4_1\ 1..( 1. (\ • \ \` � \� 1 ` �� � \ 1 � \ ` 1 ��' '.t.r •t'>�.. a: �F.':r. / � ` � N.�t"�` ?: _, o' ti '�•'�:+.}.y ��• !1-'I:1� l.•�.�. �y"Y,.•%IF„L, �i � `,\\\\ \\ \ \\\l``'i 1, Zr wv ' � � 1: r^ 'i' `l: • � t , . �. 1 � � cy�'� � 3 3 \� "r1. y '-- „ t ' `"""./. q' .k �+ :� � � \� \ \ 1 \\ \ � \ � � i ` + —' ,—�-'�'— < •'� --•� `�`.``�iJ,\\\`' a•� � \\• \i� \�\• !�\�..,,,- �-tC\� \`\�\ '\\ _�-v« �Y',�i4.: ���—_;-,�-.y --• T1s ---- - - . \ Y _ _^..�-"~ �- ` - • -- � f,'�,�\�\ CSS.\ t4��~ �'�.�.. \�\ \ �� \{ � \ �'�L,,\� � `(-t���1tT.;��s�X � •`` �.+• -' ^.�f ' ., _ - ' _ • MAR I71982 I - JACK G. ROSE I IOHN'S ISLAND DrUVE JOHN'S IS):AND VERO BEACII, FLORIDA 32960 Commissioner Pat Lyons Indian River County 1840 25th St. Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Barrier Islands Dear Pat: March 3, 1982 The proposed changes in Federal and State laws regarding barrier islands do not seem fair and are not in the best in- terest of Indian River County. I have reviewed all of the maps, proposed State and Federal bills and held meetings with interested parties and the Town of Indian River Shores. It seems to me.the County Commission should oppose the proposed changes as they will be economically a negative in- fluence on our County and our tax base. Without support of the Commission, private people ti -rill not be able to get proper consideration in my opinion. JGR:ra Respectfully, I VERO BEACI^! - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF REALTORS° 1' Post Office Drawer 2182 Ponce De Leon Circle REALTOR"' Vero Beach, Florida 32960 ; Phone (305) 567.3510 re Undeveloped Coastal Barriers" -Maps Public Hearing, March 10, 1982 :larch 9, 1982 Mr. David Greene Assistant County Administrator Board of County Commissioners Indian River County Vero Beach, Florida Cear Mr. Greene: Wednesday morning you will be h'jaring-comments frdm the public regarding the U.S. Department of Interior's definition of "undeveloped coastal barriers" and "flood -prone" lands in our county. The Vero Beach -Indian River County Board of Realtors is greatly.concerned with the designation of such areas and the subsequent effect that the des- ignation will have on the availability of Federal Flood Insurance as of October 1, 1983. In question are criteria used by the Department of Interior in drawing up its maps of Indian River County. Our research indicates 1. use of outdated maps of the county which do not correctly reflect the current development of coastal barrier regions (residential, grove or other) ; and - 2. inclusion of areas which are historically considered non "flood -prone," specifically North county citrus groves, the Orchid township, portions of John's Island and various individually owned parcels. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the methodology by which the Department of Interior determined "flood -prone" and "undeveloped coastal barber" regions is not uniform .... is not accurate in reflect- ing the development of these areas .... and is net cc-nolete in differ- entiating areas which are currently prone to fla,d from those which have not experienced flooding for over seventy-five years. MAR 71982 . -� �,� not r_ REACTOR "`' is a registered mark wh�c� idenUl�es a protess�ona in real est3le wt,J s.roscnbes to a strict. coCn of Etn,cs• as a n,emper of t' c MAR 171982 County Commissioners ;March 9, 1982 Page `No moi. 49-rvuF176 As a professional organization concerned with the protection of private property rights of landowners in our county, we are directly opposed to sweeping generalizations made by a distant bureaucracy which has demonstrated its lack of knowledge of Indian River County. On behalf of private property owners - individual homeowners as well as citrus grove owners - we oppose the indiscrim- inate use of meaningless terminology which, if left unchallenged, may very well precipitate the loss of private property rights to Indian River County landowners. We therefore urge your support of our efforts to modify the maps currently under .review, so that they will correctly reflect Indian River County's coastal barrier regions. Respectfully, Vero Beach -Indian River County Board of Realtors a Charles E. Davis Chairman Legislative Committee s 8850.N01111.%1.\ \:c ro 13cac h. 1:1.32960 (J05) 5S9 -O666 L 4 } idarch 10, 1982 Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Board of County Commissioners Indian River County Re: Department of Interior Maps Dear Commissioner Scurlock: I am writing this letter to request that the County Commission notify ...the Department of Interior to remove r*ndi,an Rmi ver County `frofn the draft maps which are currently.in circulation. At our particular project., Sea Oaks, there are a number of specific governmental actions which have been obtained. I feel these actions give us the right to continue to develop without being subjected to new Federal Legislation, and that Indian.River County should assist us in protecting our vested rights. I would like to summarize the major governmental approvals which we have received to date: 6-1-81 Purchased property in North Beach area of Indian River County known as Sea Oaks. 6-23-81'Received letter from State of Florida Department of Veteran & Community Affairs, Division of Local Resource Management. Findings of letter: A. The Division finds this development will not impact regionally significant natural resources. B. The Division finds this development will not highly impact regional public facilities. C. Traffic count in the first quarter of 1981 shows 4,353 average daily trips on SR 510 and 3,700 average daily trips on SR A -1-A in the vicinity of this project. BAR 171982 F7— MAR 171982 moo Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Board of County Commissioners March 10, 1982 Page Two C. continued: Estimated current capacity at level of service C for both roads is 12,200 average daily trips. The District IV office.of the Florida Department of Transportation stated this project will -not reduce the level of service on either regional road. D. Telephone discussions with the Bureau of Disaster Preparedness indicated evacuation of the island in case of emergency will not be adversely affected by the project. Analysis of potential impacts on natural resources, water system, waste water treatment and road system establishes that Sea Oaks will not have significant regional impacts. 7-9-81 Received unanimous site plan approval from Indian River County. The plan calls for 720 units to be built on the 127 acre parcel. This is an average density of 5.7 units per acre. The elevation of this property'at the coastal construction setback line is 20 feet. The elevation of the main thoroughfare (A -1-A) is approximately 10 feet. '3 1-20-82 A resolution was unanimously passed by the Indian River County Commission to conceptually approve of a joint water facility on the North Barrier Island for an average of -1,500,000 gallons per day of water. This facility is to be constructed with the joint cooperation of the surrounding developers in this area. It will also provide potable water to the Summerplace develop- ment, which has been exempted from Federal flood insurance maps. 2-9-82 We have received permission to drill a well on site from St. John's Water Management District. Our consumptive use permit application for Sea Oaks has a hearing scheduled for March 1982. This permit has already been recommended for approval by staff for 700,000 gallons per day. I would appreciate your favorable consideration of our request. Very trul yours, Robert E. Briggs Fanaging Director WK. RESOLUTION �tiiiLRE:1S, the Town of Orchid, Indian River County, Florida, has speciically reviewed the United States Department of Interior Draft "lap dated January, 1982, delineating the undeveloped coastal barrier designated as "Vero Beach Unit P-10, Indian River County, Florida", and ` WHEREAS, it appears from the review of the aforementioned map that the Town of Orchid is designated as -coastal barriers to be covered and included within the provisions of said map draft, and 1-1-1IEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Orchid, after due consideration of all factors considers its lands to be a developed area and irould like to express and note the following: 1. That there was a United States Post Office established on August 27, 1837 and remained active until 1-925. -A school house was built in 1915 and served the community for ten years. The first orange groves planted for commercial harvest were planted in 1890 and in 1902 the first commercial plantings of grapefruit were esta- blished; and since that time in 1902, all available land suitable for commercial agricultural use has been in a developed state. 2. In 1965 the community of Orchid applied for and was granted a Town Charter to preserve the character", b e- uty and charm which the .•• v . original settlors found in the area. Responsible decisions and actions are certainly in evidence to this day exemplifying the careful and judicious planning and development o.f the Town of Orchid while preserving its distinctive natural beauty. 3. In the seventeen years since the Town of Orchid's incorpora- tion, never has the Town accepted or received Federal or State revenue-sharing monies nor has any Federal or State revenue monies been expended for flood xeliPf. 4. The Town Council chose not toimplementthe Federal flood insurance map for the Town of Orchid due to the experiences of the past ninety-five (95) years of never having to evacuate the island due to flood, high water or overwash. 5. That the Town of Orchid is rural in natureyand extensive portions of the Town have been developed into citrus groves which are presently cultivated and maintained, and grove maintenance MAR 171982 am 49 P&r_179 MAR 1'71982 buildings and facilities presently exist within the To,..n as well as residences of private citizens with correspondlllg infrastructure for these residences, buildings and facilities as defined per page 17 of the Department of Interior Definition Draft, dated January 15, 1982, and accordingly; the Town of Orchid is not an "'undeveloped barrier island" in the sense that term is used in the Vero Beach P-10 Draft Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Orchid, that the Town of Orchid shall and does hereby state of record that it opposes the designation of being an undeveloped area as defined and described and set fortis in the Vero Beach P-10 Draft Map. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Orchid that a copy=.of this Rgsolution be sent to the Chairman of the Board of a -x County Commissioners of Indian,River County, Florida, and to the Planning Department of Vero Beach, Florida, and to the United States Department of Interior. TOWN OF ORCHID By/ 1, Lee-IJohnsto,i, Mayor Town Cler- . Date passed:..�J' RESOLUTION RE COLLECTION & TRANSMITTAL OF IMPACT FEES Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke; that the Board adopt Resolution 82-39 authorizing the execution of a memorandum of agreement between the County and the Town of Indian River Shores providing for the collection and transmittal of certain impact fees. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. MAR 171982 ROOK 49 MUM 39 MAR 171982 8,m 49. PnF 182 RESOLUTION NO. 82- 39 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION AND TRANSMITTAL OF CERTAIN IMPACT FEES. WHEREAS, the County -and the Town are working together with the City of Vero Beach to provide a unified system of waste water treatment and collection to serve parts of the Town and portions of the unincorporated sections of the Barrier Island, and WHEREAS, the County, Town and City of Vero Beach have previously entered into a tripartite agreement dated November 5, 1980, and WHEREAS, under the terms of the agreement, the County assumed the responsibility for raising money for the initial installation or upgrading -'of `the waste water facilities in the unincorporated area lying north of the north city limits of the City of Vero Beach and south of the Town's limits; the Town to raise such funds relating to initial installation and upgrading within the Town service area, and WHEREAS, the Town has undertaken to annex certain pro- perties that were formerly within the unincorporated area to be - served by the agreement, and WHEREAS, the Town has agreed to pay their pro -rata share of the County's cost to serve areas east of A -1-A which have been annexed by the Town by collecting fees which include the ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVEN DOLLAR and'FIFTY CENT ($187.50) connec- tion fee charged by the City of Vero Beach and an amount repre- senting the distribution of the cost of the initial installation and upgrading of the waste water system, and WHEREAS, as part of the November 5, 1980, understanding the County agreed to pay the Town the pipe cost of running a six-inch (611) line from the Pebble Bay Lift Station to the north city limits (six-inch force main equivalent) plus pro -rata appur- tenant costs which the parties now agree may be off in the manner indicated herein against monies Town owes County -1- pursuant to the attached agreement, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary for the parties to set forth their mutual understandings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the attached memorandum of agreement between Indian River County and the Town of Indian River Shores is approved and the Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners are authorized to execute the attached memorandum of agreement. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wodtke and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.- Aye Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher NAY Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons -`Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke,"Jr. Aye Commissioner Dick Bird Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17th day of March , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attest:-�I_J, FREDA WRIGHT, Cle APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEaL SUZFIC1,EN By Y14. 'BRANDEN n y Attorney By G DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. Chairman e 00 . t MAR 171982 0.3 -2 -N 49 MAR 171982 49 MEMORANDUM DUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND / THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES THIS AGREEMENT made this Z '�' day of January, 1982, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Town". WHEREAS, the County and the Town are working together with the City of Vero'Beach to provide a unified system of wastewater treatment to serve parts of the town and portions of the unincorporated section of the Barrier island, and a -- - a "1 WHEREAS, the County,RTcwm and City of Vero Beach'have previously entered into a tripartite Agreement dated November 5, 1980, and WHEREAS, under the terms of the Agreement the County assumed the responsibility for raising money for the initial installation or upgrading of the wastewater facilities in the unincorporated area lying north of the north City Limits of the City of Vero Beach and south of the Town's limits; the Town to raise such funds relating to initial installation and upgrading within the Town service area, and WHEREAS, the Town has undertaken to annex certain properties that were formerly within the unincorporated area to be served by the Agreement, and WHEREAS, the Town has agreed to pay their pro rata share of the County's cost to serve areas east of A -1-A which have been annexed by the Town by collecting fees which include the $187.50 connection fee charged by the City of Vero Beach and an amount representing the distribution of the cost of the initial installation and upgrading of the wastewater system, and WHEREAS, as part of the November 5, 1980, understanding the County agreed to pay to the Tcwn the pipe cost of running a six (5") inch line from the Pebble Bay lift station to the North City Limits (6" force main equivalent) plus prorated appurtenant costs which the parties now agree may -1- — — be set off, in the manner indicated herein, against monies Town owes County hereunder, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary for the parties to set forth their mutual understandings in writing in this Agreement; FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE COVENANTS SET FORTH HEREIN, the parties agree as follows; 1. The foregoing recitals are correct and incorporated herein. 2. The Town is hereby bound to pay the County in the manner provided herein. The connection fee of $747.35 for each of seventy-five (75) connections; being comprised of: Pebble Beach Villas 72 Eckerd Drugs 1 7-11 Store 1 Bank -1 Total 75 the Town's total obligation being $56,051.25.. 3. The Town agrees that this connection fee established by the County is a fair and equitable way to offset the initial capital costs of the necessary initial installation and upgrading of the wastewater system by the County pursuant to the November 5, 1980, tripartite Agreement. 4. The County agrees that the irony derived from the Town under this Agreement will be utilized by County to fulfill the obligations undertaken by County,in the November 5,1-1'980, kripartite Agreement, including the expenditure of funds on the Pebble Bay Sewage Area Wastewater Improvement (Project #6765 Sverdrup Assocs., Inc. and Beindorf & Associates, Inc. a joint venture). 5. The County may request payment from the Town each time the County makes an expenditure in furtherance of its obligations in the November 5, 1980, tripartite contract, or in the County's option, may accumulate expenditures prior to requesting payment from the Town. Within seven (7) days of the request for payment by the County, the Town will pay an amount which bears the same proportion to the Town's total obligation to the County as the expenditure bears to the County's total anticipated expenditure on the project. 6. The County recognizes that pursuant to the November 5, 1980, Agreement the County is obligated to pay to the Town the pipe cost of running I� -2- MAR 1 1982 99D 49 F%tF �8�' LIAR 1 1982 Q a riK 49 t : F 186 a six (611) inch line frau the Pebble Bay lift station to the North City Limits of Vero Beach plus prorated appurtenant costs. The Town may set off against its payment to County the amount expended by Town, in building the 6" force main equivalent. Only those expenditures actually made by the Town by the date payment is due County may set off. 7. This Memorandum of Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties as to the subject matter contained herein and may be modififed only by the mutual consent of both parties in writing. Approved to form legal supcier4. / Ap¢roved as form and legal suf f ' iency. ,ice Ihdran River eShores Atto y BOARD OF QOUNTY OOMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By DON C. SCMUDCR,JR. Chai ATTEST: FREDA wRIGHT,-Clerk of Circuit Court INDIAN RIVER SHORES Mayor ATTEST: Town C erk REQUEST FROM ATTORNEY BROWN TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL The Board reviewed the letter dated March 8, 1982 from Attorney Calvin B. Brown, as follows: C DllinSj Brown, I•C ald- ell & Gnrt t it CHARTERED ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL D. BURCH - 1934 - 1976 • PLEASE REPLY TO' -- ) - P.O. BOX 3685 GEORGE G. COLLINS. JR. March 8 1982 744 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD CALVIN B. BROWN VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32950 WILL:ATA W. CALOWELL 305.231-4343 BURNEVJ.CARTER C P.O. BOX 266 221 NORTH U.S. NO. t SEBASTIAN. FLORIDA 32958 305-589.31 S5 Gerry Bra^de:�erg, Esquire - Ccunty n. torney, Indian River County Cour ministration Building 10,40 25th Street Vero Eeach, Florida 32960 Fe:- ine County Conmi.ssion of Indian River County vs. Reinhold Construction and Connell, Metcalf 8 Eddy, Inc. Indian River County/Circuit Court Case No. 81-788 BAar Gary: I have, for some time, been contemplating withdrawing as counsel for Indian River County in the Reinhold/Connell, Metcalf litigation. I have now come to the conclusion that it is in the best interest of everyone for me to withdraw. �. I am advising you of this fact, and request that you, as County Attorney, advise the County Commission of my actions. I feel that you have been "aboard" long enough to get a grasp of the situation and have confidence in your ability to adequately protect the County's interest. I have my files in order and will deliver them to you accordingly. I will also be most happy to sit down with you and review any aspects of the case which you feel need reviewing. I am enclosing a Stipulation For Substitution Of Counsel and request that you sign -this and have an agent for the County Commission sign it and file it with the Court. Lastly, I am enclosing a statement of our charges from the last billing period to date. I ask that you have this processed for payrent. Very truly yours, '1 I CALVI`d B. BRCt711 MAR 171982 45 WOK 9 FAE:1857 MAR 1'71982 PAUL D. BURCH - 1934 - 1976 GEORGE G. COLLINS. JR. CALVIN B. BROWN WILLIAM W. CA.LDWELL BURNEYJ.CARTER �o1115, Brown, Caldwell & Caner CHARTERED ATTORNEYS AT LAW March 5, 1982 Mr. Jeff Barton County Finance Officer Indian River County 2145 14th Avenue Vero'Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Board of County Commissioners vs. and Connell, Metcalf 8 Eddy, Inc. Indian River County/Circuit Court NOK 49 FAbc 188 t PLEASE REPLY TO: X. P.O BOX 3696 744 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32950 305.231.4343 D P.O. BOX 266 221 NORTH U S. NO, 1 SEBASTIAN. FLORIDA 32958 30S -S89-3156 Reinhold Construction Case No. 81-788 STATEMENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED FROM 10/10/81 TO DATE: Attorneys Fees, re: Preparation of Order on Motion To Dismiss, review and coordination of appeal/Reinhold, review and coordination of appeal/CME, review on Motion For Stay and Research relative to same, review of Objections on Request To Produce and research, review of Answer and Affi mative Defenses - CME,Response To Affirmative Defenses, preparation of Motion To Compel, resear h, attendance at hearing, review of Motion For Protective Order, hearing on Motion For Protective Order, review of Interrogatories, review of Response on Mdtion To Produce, negotiations and draftingrof Stipulation on Reallignment of Parties, correspondence, miscellaneous meetings with clients,, phone calls to and from clients and opposing counsel, complete review of project for structuring settlement, negotiations and meetings on payment of draw request. fi4,200.00 Costs Advanced: Technical Advisory Service, Inc..........$175.00 Zambataro F Associates ................... 27.00 L.D. phone calls ......................... 11.72 Duplication costs (402 9-250 ............ 100.50 TOTAL AMOU.IT DUE.......................................4 Attorney Brandenburg advised that Attorney Brown had expressed a desire to withdraw from the case in order to allow his office to proceed from this point forward. Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, to authorize the Chairman to execute the Substitution of Counsel, and to pay the outstanding fees to Attorney Brown in the amount of $4,514.22 from the Construction Account. Commissioner Lyons inquired if this action would prejudice the County's case in the Reinhold/Connell litigation. Attorney Brandenburg responded negatively. He added that the County would be wise to" authorize him to hire a - construction litigation expert. Commissioner Bird suggested the Attorney come back to the Board with a cost estimate for the services of a construction litigation expert. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously authorized the Attorney to seek the -services of a construction litigation expert for a recommendation on our controversy with the contractor and architect and return to the Board with a proposal. PEBBLE BAY WASTE WATER SYSTEM The Board reviewed the following memorandum dated March 16, 1982: MAR 17 1982 47 MAR 171982 wK X49 PA,6490. x.90. TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 16, 1982 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Emergency Consideration for Pebble Bay Waste [,Tater System Improvements FROM: REFERENCES: David L. Greene Assistant County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On November 30, 1981 the Indian River County Board of Commissioners awarded the contract for the Pebble Bay area wastewater system im- provements to Bain Underground Utilities, Inc. for a cost of $114,578.35. ".a On December 16, 1981 details were completed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners to assess the users. of the improvements who will benefit from the project. The resolution was prepared and is being offered to the Board of Commissioners on March 17, 1982, after being advertised, which will set in motion the means to fully fund the anticipated expenses of the project. Meanwhile, the order to proceed with the contract work was issued March 3, 1982 to Bain Underground Utilities, Inc. Because of the time it took, for various reasons, the contractor declared he could not proceed with the contract at the price of $114,578.35. Because of his added expenses due to delays, a price of $1.,500.00 was negotiated to cover his costs. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS 1. Alternative one would be to accept the contractors' offer to expedite proceeding with the.improvements as planned and presently contracted. 2. Alternative two would be to reject the contractors's offer and ready ertise for bids. If this alternative is chosen, it is doubtful if the overall contract cost could be the same. This would have the effect of changing all previous cost analysis and thereby the impact assessment required to cover the improvement costs. The closest bid above Bain's was by JOBEA. for the amount of $153,513.50. Although at this time we cannot change the bid award, we could expect rebids to be approximately this.amount, $38,935.15 more.than the Bain contract. Therefore, we are much better off financially to pay the added $1,500.00. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Approval of Alternative one is recommended by the Staff. added cost should be obtained from the contingency fund. The $1,500.00 Attorney Brandenburg explained that Mr. Bain felt he should not be held to his original bid since it was submitted six months ago. Assistant Administrator Greene and the Attorney have met with Mr. Bain, and suggested a change order could be authorized to compensate for the delay. The Attorney advised that the money would come from the Contingency Fund. On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously accepted the offer from Bain Underground Utilities, Inc., and authorized the change order, as recommended by the Attorney, for the Pebble Bay Waste Water System improvements -in the amount of $1,500, the money to be used from the Contingency�Fund. NEGOTIATIONS FOR UNIFORM GARBAGE FRANCHISE Attorney Brandenburg asked the Board for permission to contact Rural Sanitation to commence negotiations for a new franchise so that the County will have both garbage companies living under the same rules. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize the Attorney . IF" " a to negotiate with Rural Sanitation for a uniform garbage franchise. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. UTILITIES FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CITY OF VERO BEACH Attorney Brandenburg requested permission to begin negotiations with the City of Vero Beach for a franchise to operate their water, sewer, and electric utilities in the unincorporated portion of the County. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, that the Attorney be authorized to start negotiations for a franchise with the City of Vero Beach to operate its utilities in the County. MAR 171982 09 49 MAR 17.1982 Commissioner Bird inquired what guidelines he would be using in this regard. Attorney Brandenburg stated that he 'would make the .initial contact with the City Manager and ask him to attend a meeting to discuss this situation. Discussion followed, and it was determined that if a fee were to be involved, it would have to be first considered by the Board. Commissioner Bird stated that he would vote for the Motion, but he felt much more information would have to be obtained on this matter. Commissioner Fletcher planned to vote against the Motion as he felt it would cause a rate increase. The Chairman 6a141.ed for the question. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 3 to 2, with Commissioners Fletcher and Wodtke voting in opposition. PLAN FOR 16th STREET The Board reviewed the memorandum dated March 10, 1982 as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners THRU: David L. Greene, Assistant County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, ' )�� Public Works Director DATE: March 10, 1982 FILE: SUBJECT: 16th Street Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Plan REFERENCES: DESCRIPTION' AND CONDITIONS The Transportation Planning Committee, during its regularly scheduled March 9, 1982 meeting, unanimously approved the Sixteenth Street Traffic Improve- ment Plan with the following amendments: . 1) At this time, the recommendation to make 14th Avenue one-way south bound and Old Dixie Highway one-way northbound was not approved. It is felt that -more public imput and study is needed in this area. 2) Yellow flashing beacons should be installed at all School Zones (20 Mph) 3) In lieu of installing barrier type curbing, a standard non -mountable drainage curb and an aesthetic architectural barrier would be installed along the north side of 16th Street. Also, the following addenda were approved to the original Preliminary report: 1) A sidewalk be added along the"south�of 16th Street east of the High School. 2) Transition improvements were made at 20th Avenue south of 12th Street. 3) The existing bike path along 20th Avenue north of 12th Street is to be widened to 81. The committee recommends that proposed and existing bike paths also be designated as both bike and pedestrian paths. Also, the Technical Complement will work with the School officials in managing traffic & pedestrians in all school areas. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Transportation Planning Committee has completed the review of this report and.recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to implement improvements was included in the CommitteeIsaction. To implement improvements, the following alternatives are recommended: s MAR 171982 51 0 -ox 49 MAR 171982 WaE 194 Alternative No. 1 Approval of the 16th Street Traffic Improvement Plan by the Board of County Commissioners is recommended subject to the above amendments and addenda.. To implement the plan, the following action should be approved: 1) Approve the placement of the $2,900,000 project on the Indian River County Road Improvement Program (5 year Cash Flow Program). Funding to come from the 3.6 million dollars deposited in the Transportation Trust Fund. 2) Authorize the County Public Works Director to begin advertizing for a Consulting Engineering Firm to perform engineering design, inspection, and contract management services. A selection committee to include the Members of the Technical Complement of the Transportation Planning Committee can screen applicants and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. The cost for engineering services (estimated approximately $220,000.) is included in the Project Cost Estimate. 3) Authorize the Public Works Department to act as the County's lead department in this project. Alternative No. 2 1) Approve the funding as recommended in Alternative No. 1 above. 2) Approve the following.�new positions within the Public Works Engineering Division and perform certain Engineering and inspection services with County staff Approx. Yearly Salary and Benefits 1) Florida Registered Engineer $ 452,000. 2) Two Draft Persons $ 463,000. 3) Florida Registered Land Surveyor/Inspector $ 33,000. 4) Two Surveying Technicians $ 36,000. 5) Purchase Support Equipment including $ 30000. Vehicles, Survey instruments, etc. , . $190,000. Certain.miscelianeous services,such as soil borings, services to acquire permits, -design of traffic control equipment, etc. will be required. The above -staff will be used primarily for project management. Their services can be used in other areas when not required on 16th Street. The impact of the above recommendation includes: 1) Funding increased staff within the Public Works Department, Engineering Division and approving said position. 2) Longer design time and project completion. 3) Additional administrative costs associated with the project. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the 16th Street Traffic Improvement Plan be approved as amended by the Transportation Planning Committee. Based upon current unbudgeted positions in the Public Works Department, it is recommended that Alternative No.l be approved. Funding to come from the Transportation Trust Fund. 1 D L MARCH 12, 1982 ROAD IMPROVEMENT PRO GRAM— F'LC .; 'vaw't:ciiav!�tu rr:.vl ary ai�n^� I�u� haw 1"P io:r ... i .: a ..e?. 83 .. i„ ., t •rv� � ti 543352345235533586365960437073812390339363.969401340524142142}3•,0603 .5 O �?84726W-W-+77,':'• c -- J lug MOTOR FUEL COLLECTIONS .(SO /o.OF 5thand6th CENT G�4S TAX 9.3153, 53 53.- 53. 531 $3 ,53;_53, 53, 53. .531 53 53.-53, 5$ 53: 53_-53 53 531 53, 53 53 53 - -MONTH)-- . _ - - r ( 014 .PER .MONY -- — r — -- L 1 1 •. � .. . _. __ .._.. H� - - - -- —i --- -- 43, 40. 37, 35, 331 35, -.:G tx Ri:I�iva 45 47 48 50 50 52 50 52; 53_55,J5_56 .56.-57;. 58;, 59, 57,-501 46 FIGURES- IN -THOUSANDS., F. DOLLARS--- LEI 1 STORM GROVE ROAD i _-RIGHT. OF WAY. _:.. i—_*_-• i - t- - 61hSTREET US4 TO 6t6AVE__,I AVE__—I--r — — R GHT __-- -- — QONSTRUCTION - -- 1---- 16th STREET TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS _- -----__—_--_ RIGHT OF WAY,-__ ENGINEERING _ CONSTRUCTION__ _-�-- 1— �- _ 190 — -• �—+----! _ �..-1..'h-. i 1 ( "-f :i _�—.1 - I — -- -- — -1525,_251a - — -------' --- --a - - 1 I" _50..50 _.50.220! 201 101 _5. 5._2. .2, 2. 21 11 1 - 300 60040'0.30C. 300.200. 230. 200 1 1 11 } ' r- 1 -- 1 r. y ..MAR_ 17.1,982. APPENTIX XI R ECOKOENDIT PROJECT COSH' ESi'I\i' 1 i 1 -to Si EET SI: 5 to F. E. C. R. R. F.L. C. I'.. R. crossing T_nterse;.zicn - 10th Avenue Signalitation 16th, STREET Roadway F.E.C.R.R. to Old D;'Xie (including intersection im, rovemients) Intersection - Old Dixie High.ay Sib alization subtotal (2) Roadway - Old Dixie to 20th Avenue Intersection - 14th Avenue Signalization Intersection - 20th Avenue paving and drainage signalization Subtotal (3) Subtotal 16th STREET - SR 5 to 20th -'Avenue (1)+(2)+(3) Contin�;,Lncy 200 Engineering 10a Total NP 49 FA,6496- Revised March 9, 1982 $ 239,011;.00 (w,50 .00 25,i:0 I . L) $ 111,100.00 28,000.00 139,100.0;1 $ 3_5,550.00 35,000.00 32%100.03 30,000.00 $1,201,567.00 2:0,313.10 1,441,380.-+0 1;,188.00 sl,556,Ub8.4J 20th AVENUE Roadway - 16th Street to 18th Street Roadway - 12th Street to 16th Street Intersection - 12th Street.20th Avenue Drainage and Pavement Signalization , Subtotal Contingency 200 Subtotal Engineering A% Total ' Pedestrian Facilities 16th Street: Bikeway (Class I) - SR 5 to 20th Avenue (included in 16th Street Roadway Costs) Bikeway (Class I) - 20th Avenue to 29th Avenue (pavement and 10' additional ROW assuming existing structures do not conflict) Sidewalk - 16th Street south side School Zone Beacons Rosewood Elementary School (16th Street ) Vero Beach High School (16th Street)..,.,,, •--Vero Beach Elementary School (12th Street) Vehicular/Pedestrian Barrier (north side) 20th Avenue: Bikeway (C1assI) - 12th Street to 18th Street Widen Existing 6' pavement to 81) Subtotal Contingency 20% Subtotal Engineering 10% Total 27th AVENUE Intersection - 16th Street/27th Avenue Left turn lanes 16th Street approaches Signalization MAR 17 1982 Subtotal Contingency 20% Engineering 100 Total WOK Revised March 9, 19t $ 122,750.00 255,458.00 167,000.00 25,000.00 570,208.00 114, 041.60 684,249.60 68,414.96 ' 752,674.56 -0- 89,500.00 39,750.00 3,000.00 3,900.00 3,000.00 24,000.00 $ 4,200.00 166;450.00 33,290.00 199,740.00 19,974.00 219,714.00- $ 202,500.00 28,000.00 230,500.00 46;100.00 276,600.00 27,660.00 $304,260.00 49 1AU-19-7, MAk _1-71982 PROJECT TOTAL 16th Street 20th Avenue Pedestrian Facilities 27th Avenue .{ a Notes: (1) Utility relocation not included (2) 4-laning additional cost $6001000.00 (3) FDOT proposed SR 5/17th Street improvement ($200,000.00) are not included. (4) Pedestrian Bridge over 16th Street at Vero Beach High School estimated at $400,000.00 Revised March 9, 19k, $ 11586,068.40 752,674.56 219,714.00 304,260.00 2,862.716.96 SIXTEENTH STREET TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUIRARY OF RECOMDIENDATIONS AS APPROVED BY THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MARCH 9, 1982 Traffic Control Devices 1. Adjust posted speed limits on 16th Street in conformance with FDOT standards 2. Install school zone flashing beacons for all school zones, including Vero Beach Elementary School in conformance with FDOT standards. 3. Refurbish and install essential traffic control devices the entire length of 16th Street as shown on the Traffic Operations strip Maps. 4. Install or upgrade signalization at the following intersections: 10th Avenue, Old Dixie Highway, 14th Avenue, 20th Avenue, and 27th Avenue. S. Establish truck prohibitions on 16th Street west of Old Dixie Highway. Vehicular Facilities 1. Provide a three -lane roadway with exclusive left -turn lanes for 16th Street from US 1 to 20th Avenue. 2. Provide left -turn lanes for the 16th Street approaches to 27th Avenue. 3. E.tend the northbound side of 20th Avenuetffom 18th Street south*to" 12th Street to create a dual one-way pair. 4. Improve 12th Street to a four -lane facility during the next five to ten years. S. Obtain public input regarding the designation of Old Dixie Highway and 14th Avenue as a one-way pair between SR 60 and the intersection of Seminole Avenue and Old Dixie. Pedestrian Facilities 1. Install curbing on the north side of 16th Street between 20th Avenue and 14th Avenue to accommodate drainage. 2. Install an aesthetic barrier on the north side of 16th Street between 20th Avenue and 14th Court to isolate pedestrian and vehicular traffic and to regulate points of access. 3. Install a Class I bikepath on the north side of 16th Street from U S 1 to 29th Avenue. 4. Improve the existing Class I bikepath on the east side of 20th Avenue from 12th Street to 18th Street. 5. Install sidewalk on the south side of 16th Street from US 1 to 20th Avenue. 6. Work with the School Board on internal traffic patterns, parking areas, and vehicular regulations in the Vero Beach.High School vicinity. MAR 1'71982 ma 49 Prat 199 MAR__1 7 1982 I Mr. Grover Fletcher Chairman, Transportation Planning Committee Administration Building Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Grover: BOOK "�� FAtE 200. 4835 66th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 March 5, 1982 Re: Sixteenth Street- -3 n Traffic Improvement Plan The Safety Committee of the County Council of PTAs would like,very much to compliment Mr. Jim Davis and his staff for the tremendous amount of work they have done obtaining the data necessary to complete this preliminary Traffic Improvement Plan for Sixteenth Street, We feel that this preliminary plan presented in February to the Transportation Planning Committee is a viable way to obtain solutions to the many problems existing along that roadway. We have reviewed and would like to comment on several aspects covered under this preliminary plan. 1) We agiee with the staff's recommendation that the pedestrian bridge alternative should not be considered. The age of the students that would use this overhead bridge leads us to believe that "herding" them onto such a walkway would not solve the safety problem. Most of these students are old enough to drive vehicles -and we feel that they are old enough to properly use simple, designated pedestrian walkways. If it is found that the newly designated and restricted walkways and parking areas on city property or school property are abused, strict enforcement of city and school rules should then be undertaken by the proper authorities. 2) The internal flow of buses and other vehicular 7traffic on the High School grounds should be coordinated with the newly designed 16th Street traffic flow plan. It is imperative that an effort be made by the techincal members, especially those representing the school and the county to address this problem. The Appendix VII entitled School Traffic Stud, presents only a detailed description of the number of vehicular and pedestrians that use this 16th Street/Citrus Bowl complex area. It does not address the internal flora on the high school groan's and the school traffic flo;r in relation to the surrounding streets (16th Street, 20th .lverllio, 16th Avenue and 17th Avenue) . Even thou,,:,,h this Appendix mentions the Vero Beach Junior c:; ,h and the Voro Beach Elemerltiry School; again, a detailed description of vehicular and pedestrian flo-,! is not given. `.:'e :7ere ver',' disappointed that P1OSe::ooll ElL'Mentar`: School, 1JCated d1riCt1'; on 16th Street was not even mentioned. `:r. Fletcher Pae 2 3. Problems, conflicts and possible solutions to the safety of our school children were not explored by school authorities; in our opinion, this Appendix is most definitely incomplete. 3) We request that recommendations to increase the speed limits west of 27th Avenue to 43rd Avenue.be deleted. In fact, we feel that a decrease in the speed for that area adjacent to the YMCA and the Rosewood Elementary School may be needed in the future. With the proposed new bike path and the improvements to 16th Street, more pedestrians including many more children will be using this area not only during the school year, but for summer recreation. It is highly possible that the speed limits now in this area will be too high. We would like the Rosewood School/YMCA complex noted in the Final Traffic Improvement Plan as an area of increased pedestrian use and proper studies scheduled periodically. 4) We realize that 12th Street has been designated as a primary road on the county's future transportation plan. We would like it to be noted also in the Final Traffic Improvement Plan that the intersection of the new proposed 20th Avenue extension will join 12th Street at the Vero Beach Elementary School. At the present time, the widen 12th -Street at the school•- stefts to be sufficient, but we urge the county traffic engineer and his staff to monitor this intersection periodically. It is highly possible, in our opinion, that safety problems with vehicular and pedestrians at this school could arise due to the extension of 20th Avenue. With this monitoring the county will be able to handle any problems before they get out -of -hand as on 16th Street. Again, we, the County Council of PTAs, feel relieved and refreshed at the concerted effort that has resulted in a first class approach to what seemed six months ago an almost impossible task. Sincerely yours, Ruth Stanbridge President County Council of PTAs /rs CC. Mr. Gar, Lindsey MAR 171982 N K 49 . FnE a MAR 17.1982 . 606 . ; 49 PAkm Commissioner Wodtke suggested having a workshop with the School Board to discuss the 16th Street traffic and pedestrian improvement plan, as he was not ready to give his .final approval. Commissioner Lyons commented that the School Board had representation in the Transportation Planning Committee. Discussion ensued regarding School Board representation, and it was felt the School Board must make every attempt to take care of their internal traffic problems. Commissioner Bird commented that he was confused about the area to the north of the softball field and wondered if that was included in the $2.9 million estimate. He then referred to the agreement11the County, the City, and the School Board have regarding the funding of the Recreation Complex, and felt possibly this could all be done at the same time the improvements are made on 16th Street. Lengthy discussion followed regarding the right-of-way and the traffic situation. Commissioner Fletcher advised that 16th Street will have 4 additional red lights in the future. - Commissioner_Wodtke inquired if there was enough money in the fund for right-of-way acquisition. Engineer Davis talked about the relocation of utilities; these were not figured in the cost allocation. Costs that are not included are utility relocation, improvements to the 17th Street/U.S. #1 intersection that the DOT has designed, and the overhead pedestrian bridge. He then advised they found out from the DOT that the cost for the overhead bridge would be $400,000, and they were recommending that this not be included in the project. . Commissioner Bird talked about bike paths in the area t from 20th Avenue to 29th Avenue on the north side of the 0 � i r street, which he felt were going to be the most expensive in the County. Mr. Davis commented that they want to acquire 10' from the property owners in order for the 10' corridor, and if the property owners do not agree to sell the 101, then they might have to go to condemnation. He advised that the estimate of cost of the rights-of-way from 20th to 29th Avenue was approximately $90,000. Commissioner Wodtke inquired if this corridor was all on County roads. Mr. Davis advised that most of it was but there was a small portion of DOT property on 27th Avenue. Commissioner Wodtke again expressed his interest to have more interplay with the School Board. Commissioner Fletcher advised that he talked to Superintendent Burns about the future plans of the School Board. He continued that.they were encouraging them to put in a parking lot on the site; he believed this to be a potential problem and that it should be addressed now. Discussion ensued about Citrus Bowl parking. Commissioner Fletcher advised their committee discussed the possibility of eliminating the parking at that location. He then spoke of the traffic that was generated because of various school activities. Lengthy discussion followed about what improvements would take place east of 14th Avenue. Mr. Davis advised they would be widening the pavement to three lanes, with a shoulder, a bike path and some swale drainage. Chairman Scurlock stated that this was a total look at the situation on 16th Street and the committee has come up with their best solution; it was a joint effort which got full support. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, that the Board accept Alternate #1 MAR 171982 61 nox 49 FAL► J MAR 171982 and the recommendations of the Transportation Planning f Committee as indicated in the letter of March 10, 1982. Commissioner Bird hoped that, at some point, realistic -cost estimates for the project could be obtained. Mr. Davis reported they have done the best they could on the cost estimate and the preliminary designs. He felt it was a good cost estimate and does not look for any surprises. Commissioner Lyons complimented the committee and Engineers Davis and Orr for all their work; it had been a cooperative effort. Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern over obtaining property for this project. He again wanted an opportunity to further discuss the traffic and parking with the School Board. Commissioner Wodtke stated they must be able to control and "in and out traffic" or it could be a problem. Mr. Greene commented that if the School Board wanted to expand and make an impact on the County, they would have to go through a site plan approval. This issue came up two or three months ago and the School Board was aware of this, he .. added. ._ Frank Zorc, interested citizen, came before the Board and he agreed that the Transportation Planning Committee had done a fantastic job; he also felt the School Board had been well represented. Mr. Zorc referred to the question about building four lanes on 20th Avenue between 16th and 18th Streets that goes by St. Francis Manor. He reported that enough land had already been allocated for this project. He expressed concern about the pedestrian overpass on 16th Street and urged the Board to give this a little more thought, and felt the figure of $400,000 was a little too high. Commissioner Bird stated that he was willing to vote for the Motion but because of the interplay, would like to suggest that a workshop meeting be held with the School Board. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and passed unanimously. Commissioner Lyons asked that the Transportation Planning Committee take another look at at the pedestrian overpass and get a closer estimate of the cost. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE REPLACEMENT A brief discussion ensued regarding a request that Willis W. Clark be replaced by John F. Curtin, Town Engineer of Indian River Shores, on the Transportation Planning Committee. It was determined that the ordinance states a voting member should be an elected official; the Board felt it should remain that way. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he would look into the matter. ROSELAND DRAINAGE The Board next considered the following memorandum dated March 8, 1982: .. ' 6-': Y MAR 171982 63 - 8 a ROCK 49 f73i. MAR 17 1982 TCS: The honorable INIembors of the DATE: March 8, 1982 Board of County Com-mi.ssioners THROUGH: -David L. Greene SUBJECT: Roseland Drainage Assistant County Administror a FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES: Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS �Px.: 49 ;F�4�2(16 FILE: The Engineering Division inspected a drainage complaint in the Roseland area and has researched the location of a major drainage outfall course t-rhich is vital to the drainage of the area south of Roseland Road. The following is a brief review of the problem: An Past -west drainage ditch:.,i.s located within a portion of the unopened right-of-way of Harrison Street between Wauregan Avenue and Brevard Avenue. This portion of Harrison Street has not been accepted for maintenance by the County and as a result, the drainage canal has not been maintained. A number of roads which have been maintained by the County drain into the Harrison Street ditch and these roads are having critical drainage problems. The canal flows east to a private lot owned by firs. Helen Hanson on the east side of hTauregan, then south to a culvert under Roseland Road, thence to the Sebastian River. Mr. Marcellino, who lives on the corner of Brevard and Harrison, initiated the complaint. The County should consider maintaining the outfall ditch and get proper easement thru private property ,here necessary. See the attached dr,aWins, u 1. ALTEMNFIVES QNT) kKUYSIS The following alternatives are presented Alternative i\To. 1. Authorize that a survey be made of the existing ditch through Mrs. iiansen's property, prepare a legal description for an easement through the property, and request Mrs. Hanson to convey to the County such easement. The County would then assume maintenance of the existing ditch to a pipe under Roseland Roa:l. The impact this alternative would have includes the County maintainin approx- imately 1500 L.F. of ditch. Alternative \o. 2 Deny the authorization to maintain the drainage ditch, thereby allrn•:ing the drainage problem to remain. RE--M1•'IFND TION AND FENDING It is recoimended that the Engineering Division and Road and Bridge Division be authorized to proceed -with Alternative No. 1 , thereby requestlrc an easer:cnt from Mrs. Hanson, which she has already agreed to grant. There are no direct costs to the County beyond the additional staff and maintenance work required. 1 -63RD AVEfgUE p N 82ND cdu T cU O r32ND J AVENUE 7 � rn 81ST COURT D M �— C3 N t3J G'3 _ rn, d1-1 SA TRF ET) � v t, --� �scIM;;vQL F_ 82raD:,.., cau� � r*> � 82ND n � n L C � rvi m m iO5CE0EA ST. 81ST CQURl' � :l I -J CA tr1 Ria AVENUE P 81 ST. AVENUEw-- -� , y - t 1 MAR 171982 ,SOK -49 Mul 208 Engineer Davis explained the situation and then displayed a map to the Board. He asked the Board for the authority to have a survey made of the existing ditch. Mr. . Davis hoped to clear land on Mrs. Hansen's property and open up the drainage to the pipe on Roseland Road by hand - not by using heavy equipment. He continued that he was asking for permission to do selective maintenance work. c Commissioner Bird asked if the County had a legal or moral obligation in this matter. The Attorney advised that the County was not under any legal obligation to provide that drainage. Commissioner Bird wondered if this would be setting a legal precedent once this improvement was made. The Attorney noted it would appear that if the County accepted the easement from Mrs. Hansen, they would be obligated to maintain it forever. Discussion followed about possibility of putting in new ditches and pipes. It was pointed out that Roseland had a lot of natural drainage. Frank Zorc,'on behalf of his father, approached the Board and stated that he was concerned about the meandering aspect of the easement and felt it should be aligned properly. He commented that this drainage problem had been present for 33 years; since his father lived there. Mr. Zorc noted that his father had offered to give the County a permanent easement, and asked that his pond be filled in and phased out. Discussion followed about working out an agreement with the property owners. Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to authorize the Attorney to draft a proposed agreement with the property owners necessary to give the County access, on a temporary basis, to assist the County with the drainage, as indicated in the memorandum of March 8, 1982. Commissioner Lyons noted that the cleaning would be minor, without the use of heavy machinery. Commissioner Wodtke stated that this fact should be in the agreement. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. COMPLAINT OF FP&L POLES BY PROPERTY OWNERS Engineer Davis reviewed the memorandum dated March 8, 1982, as follows: TO: The fiono:able Mci-;ibers of the Board of County Commissioners THRU: David L. Greene, �Ssistant County Administrator FROM: Jx„es IV. Davis, P.F., Public .forks Director DATE: march s, 1932 - FILE: SUBJECT: Complaint Petition by SIV 21st Street Property Owners - F.P.& L. Poles REFERENCES: c... : V., " _ 11 s . This is in response to a complaint petition to the Board of County Commissioners dated Feb. 27, 1932 from Charles B. Smith, Sr., and other property owners on SIV 21st Street, Vero Beach Highlands. The complaint involves the location of Florida Power and Light Company transmission line poles at the front of the properties. It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the County Commission. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Florida Power & Light Company constructed a feeder line on the north side of SIV 21st Street from SIV 1st Avenue to Sunset Drive in the Vero Beach Highlands. They submitted a permit application to the County to do this work. The site was inspected by the Public Works Department and permit number 1644 was issued on June 5, 1931. FP & L considered five (5) alternatives before construction was begun. These alternatives can be found in a letter written to COMMi.SSioner IVodtke from Bob Conkle of Florida Power & Light (copy attached). According to Resolution Number 77-112 which is a franchise agreement between Indian River County and Florida Power & Light Company, Section 1 states, " that there is hereby granted to Florida Power & light Company (herein called the""Grantee") its successors and assigns, the non-execlusive right, privilege or franchise to construct, maintain, and operate in, under, upon, over and across the present and future streets, alleys, bridges, easements and other public places throughout all the unincorporated areas of Indian River Coram)', Florida," which authorized Florida Power & Light to do this type of work. Furthermore, since the lines are feeder, the installation placed certain constraints not typical of service lines. MAR` 1, 71982 66 49 MAR 17.1982 WOK 494CEZ The property oti4ners on 21st Street in the Vero Highlands petitioned the Board of County Commissioners on February 27, 1932 concerning feeder line Constriction by Florida Poker and Light Company. Their complaint is that: 1) They are opposed to the location of the Feeder -Line on Slat 21st Street. 2) That the permit should not have been issued without an annoucement to the people. The property owners feel that another alternative should have been selected for the feeder -line. They also feel that they have been damaged by the constriction. ALTEP.N kMT-S AND-WUYSIS In reviewing•the complaint, the following alternatives are presented: :Alternative No. 1 Since Indian Fiver County Resolution Number 77-112 grants Florida Power and Light Company the right to use County right of way and the Public Service Corm.ission mandates that the installation be performed in an economic manner so that electric rates are minimized, alternative number l would be to allotr the existing installation to remain. Alternative No. 2 Florida Power $ Light Company should tie into the existing line on the south psi -dc- of SIV 21st Street. ,This would require Florida Power and Light to purchase or acquire a private easement on said south side. Alternative No. 3 The feeder line should be installed underground. This would require the users down line to fund the underground construction. RECOMMENDATION AIV•D FUNDING After consideration of those issues presented before the Board pertaining to this subject, the Pub 1 is Works Department recommends Alternative No.. one. No direct funding by the County is applicable. Febru'=y 279 1982 ir. Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman, and :.:embers of the Indian River County Cor:^.mission. Indien River County Administration Bldg. the undersign=s (of the Vero: Highlands ;roup), in disrLtte Frith Florida Power Zig�it (PPs,:Z) are Woquestin to be placed on your a ge2:da of the Commi ssi on t s meeting. on March L'179 - 19820 Referirg to our letter to the Commission on or about January 27, 19821_ vie e_;plained our problem idth 1Ta:1 who placed lajige feeder -dine poles in our frond yards,. the street right-of-w%r.. Therefore, t,*e r:oul d lilte the opportu ii -'7 to explain. our damages and losses that this. has. caused, and to have you. reconsider FPGZ t s permit. 17e feel some error must surely have been made becaure FP2:1 had the advantage of a ohange• Ln the County office heed when Lb_-, Gentile gave 'he pe=ni.t. There vere no questionEF asked, no investigation made aaOi no announcement to the people who would be disaavaotaged. ::s. Gentile said himself$ the permit to use the- front could have b een denied. ;.e have faith that this uoTwiasion1. . unlike PP2T is con6drned. first with the welfare of the homeo,�rnersin Indian Rf ver. County. You nay cOnf i.rm our agenda. a pointy ant ,x�ith the fol:lo��ring member: :.r. Charles Bo Smith Sr.., 114 SE 21st St. Vero Beach,. Fla. Phone: 562-4084 3296E Respectflilly,. the undersigned;' r qv /y L %L7��✓�'✓-lam ��� ^: �O'n, '�-,.� !• �'-' . y /i '%;�/t-.•�.��-- tib,-ti;,z:�-_-��,;,�-- .� - -. _._ `r � MAR 171982 WOK 49 PAQ121 , 68 MAR 171982 anuary 21, 1932 Comm`s sioner Bill Wodtke I :dian ?sive. County board of Co-mmiss ione rs Post 'Office. Box 3 Vee o Boach, rL 32961 Lear. Cor..LLissi.oner Wodt_ke: gin=:• `t�^.:i.:a.'. et�.� r .:r,�.'1 '5/d�E � X.g^ ' • .* FL0F:IDA P , LIGE$ T,°,R JOK Air. Dennis Gentile of the County Engineering Department has requested, in your behalf, the reasoning for locating an electrical feeder line along Si -f 21 Street in Vero Beach highlands. I am very much z::ara that our customers along SW 21 Street are objecting to having the pole line relocated directly in front of their property. Their uranin question was: :'+ny wasn't the existing pole line used or an alternative route found? =I hope to arMwer their question. Because of increasing electrical demand in Indian Ri-ver County, Florida rower & Light Company needed to increase feeder capacity and rel--c-bility in the sero Beach Highlands - US 1 area. This required iracreasing the anaacity of the existing feeder along SW 21 Street from Su -rise Drive to SW 1 Avenue. The existing feeder line was located on the south side of S,•1 21 Street in unplatted, private property unsecured by a recorded eas-zmr nt. The most important tactors to consider in routing an ove.!:cad feeder line are: accessibility for maintenance, initial cost, future maintenance costs, probability of future relocation, and v; ;dant impact on existing customers. There were five alternative for the feeder capacity. 1) _Reconductor the existing line in place; 2) F.eroute the lire to SW 27 ?lace; 3) Reroute the line to rear easemept of Siff 21 Street; 4) Install underground feeder; S) Reroute the line to the north side of SW 21 Street. Alternative #1 was not chosen because the existing pole lisle ::as; not in easement or public right-of-way, and the line would have to be rebuilt energized at premium Inbor costs. ti'r:lative V. Was not ChOSer .be:ause it Would require addlt__onal poles. anchors, and coni!Llctl.'s; 1t would place a po'_e: 11-.'! a street that, at t:lr_' present, dee;; not :l:i'Je a 1)C is and it would require c}:tonsive- rebtAld'ing of rhe lines. ..%ti:rna-'.vo i1.3 Was not caosen because It would re!;a ire rebuil d: rF, t;:, e::iStill; re. -.r lot pole line energized, addi.ti-o-al. and exp-nsive guying would be needed, ---.-..dua nto.:1:1Rcc, ` would be a problem because of inaccessibiiiL"y. �4 Was not chosen because the diff-rantial expense O: 111.3 .'..1.. underc;round cable Would have to be borne by t:1i requesting an underground feeder. This under,., -.ld feedar Would require large S'x3'x6' switching cabirc•ts to ;e installed on th'-o e h6meowers' property in r:iee' r to serve any future development in the area. W M 69 Alternative `5 was chosen beca,—,-e it could provide a secure location in public right -of --way at property corners for the poles it would require the least rebuilding of energized lines; visual impact should have been minimal since there was an existing pole line on the street; it is accessiule for maintenance; and it -..is the least expensive alternative. i ro:li c tli.nt our custcmers' objections to this line will probably not b2 plzcz:cd by the reasoning offered here, but I want to e- basize that kcepinS costs down while maintaining system reliability is the best war I _an .ecp their electric bilis dc -.:Ti. If any "silver lining" can be soon, it would be that these poles can be used for future street lights or outdoor security lights. If Z can be of any further assistance, please call me at 557-4120, 207. Sincerely ;:ours, (/7 Bob Conkle Engineering Department Mr. Davis commented that Staff recommended Alternate #1 be approved to allow the existing installation to remain. Harry Schindehette, of Florida Power & Light, approached the Board and explained that the feeder lines did not directly feed the customers in Vero Beach Highlands, but instead, lateral lines service their area. Commissioner Lyons wondered if FP&L looked at the Z aesthetics of the matter, as we -11 as" the economics, when placing the poles and the feeder cables. Mr. Schindehette responded that FP&L knows where objections do come from, and the aesthetics were considered in this case. He advised they also looked at the possibility of putting the lines underground. This job costs about $27,000 to construct, he reported, and to go underground, it would cost an additional $18,000. He stressed that one of the key factors was having accessibility to the main line; FP&L tried to keep them on streets where they can get to them rapidly. Mr. Schindehette noted that another aspect was that you cannot kill the power line while the work was being performed; MAR 171982 70 K 49 PAA 213 � 1 MAR 17 198we f 49 Fxb-L214 therefore, an "energized price" would have to be taken into consideration. FP&L figured all the aspects when considering this job, he stated. Commissioner Wodtke advised that he spent some time with the Engineering Department and the Attorney regarding this matter. He was concerned for the property owners because of the aesthetic effect it had on their property. He noted that the right-of-way was not accessible for any maintenance in the rear; it was a difficult problem and he agreed that Mr. and Mrs. Smith had a severe problem. Mr. Schindehette stated that this was not an easy problem and no matter where FP&L would put this line, somebody would have the poles in the front or the back of . their property. L More discussion ensued. Commissioner Wodtke referred to Mr. Smith's lot with the tie -down anchor line, and inquired about a concrete pole there instead. Mr. Schindehette advised that a concrete pole would be expensive. Charlie= Smith, Vero Highlands resident, came to the Board and'stated that the tie -down anchor line was in his front yard. He felt that FP&L could have chosen other alternatives, and gave various examples. Mr. Smith thought that FP&L could have met with the neighbors to get their input. He stressed that he would like to get the anchor line out of his front yard. Mr. Schindehette explained that FP&L did study other alternatives and felt their choice was the best one. Dir. E. Berlin, 21st Street resident in Vero Beach Highlands, came before the Board. He thought FP&L could have done the same thing a block further back, and he was gravely concerned that the property values of their homes would be reduced. Vera Steiner, Vero Beach Highlands resident, approached the Board, and expressed great distress for having a big ugly pole in her yard. Over the years, she had put a lot of hard work in her yard and now felt the poles decreased the value of homes in the area. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the rights under the existing franchise with FP&L. The Attorney noted that it would be very difficult to build a case against FP&L as they have obtained the necessary permits, and their installation does not interfere with ingress and egress. Mr. Davis stated their staff did the field inspection and explained that the County does have the prerogative of denying the permit. After studying the franchise with FP&L, they saw no reason to deny issuance of the permits, he added. Mr. Davis pointed out that they do not contact all of the property owners affected by right-of-way permits; it would be a monumental task. The Attorney felt there could be some procedure of notifying property owners in the future. Commissioner Lyons agreed that the surprise to the property owners was the big thing involved in this situation. An interested citizen, from Vero Beach Highlands, approached the Board and expressed concern about the rights of the property owners in issuing the permit, not just the rights,of FP&Z. He thought that the permit might have been issued illegally as nothing was ever said to the property owners in the Highlands. Commissioner Fletcher stated he thought the Bosard learned something from all of this; it was one of the prices we pay for growth. MAR 171982 m NO 49 FADE 72 - J MAR 17 1982 .49 Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Bird, that the Board accept Alternate 1 in the - memorandum dated March 8, 1982, as recommended by the County Engineer. Commissioner Bird stated that the County Attorney had outlined the rules to the Board, based on the agreement with FP&L, but he still did not like having the poles in the front yards of the Vero Beach Highlands residents. Commissioner Wodtke wished there was something the Board could do, but they do not have a mechanism for this type of situation. He then asked Mr. Schindehette to reevaluate the pole and anchor situation on Mr. Smith's property to see if something else could be done. Mr. Schindehette" responded that the Board had his commitment that FP&L would look into the matter and try to come up with a solution. Chairman Scurlock stated that the Board accepted the fact that FP&L would take another look at the anchor poles. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. STATUS REPORT ON 911 - Mary -Jane Goetzfried, 911 Coordinator, approached the Board acid reviewed the following memorandum dated March 11, 1982: _73 TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: David L Greene Assistant County Administrator DATE: March 11, 1982 FILE: SUBJECT: ENHANCED 911 PROGRA UPDATE FROM: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried REFERENCES: 911 Project Coordinator The implementation of the Enhanced 911 Program for Indian River County is 70% complete, with an anticipated cutover date of October 1, 1982. The task of cataloging all streets in the County has been completed. At this time the Planning staff is in the process of resolving any discrepancies that may have occurred in the original data collection. Southern Bell has set a target date of June 8, 1982 for the reso- lution of the discrepancy file, however, staff estimates this task will be completed by May 3, 1982, at which time, Southern Bell customer records will concur with all data inputted by Indian River County; the ultimate goal in providing emergency service to the residents of our County _ V: , - The computer equipment, for dispatching purposes, to be located at the Sheriff's office and the Vero Beach Police Department will be arriving June 3, 1982. One month is allotted for the installa- tion of the equipment allowing three months for the testing of the hardware and software. Many community functions are planned to instill public awareness and cooperation. All public relations will be coordinated with Southern Bell. The County has fulfilled its responsibilities in a timely manner.. The Enhanced 911 Program will be available to the residents of Indian.River County on October 1, 1982 as originally anticipated. MAR 171982 74 mai 49 pie 217 3 MAR 171982 TO: Jeff . Barton Finance Director DATE: March 16, 1982 FILE: 49 SUBJECT: FINTANCIAL ALLOCATION FOR 911 PROGr�: FROM: Mary -Jane Goetzfried REFERENCES: 911 Project Coordinator To confirm our conversation of March 11, 1982 concerning the financial arrangements for the E911 Program. 8 - J: n It is anticipated that the 911 System will become operational on October 1, 1982, at which time billing will begin. Rates will be based on the actual number of main stations in service when the system is cut -over. The annual maintenance fees qu©ted here are based on projected numbers, actual costs will not be determined until the service is operational. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE ESTABLISMIMITT Computer software $ 48,960 $ 66,400 is hardware (Sheriff's Office) 18,240 27,048 93,44-9 Computer hardware (VB Police Dept.)'16,224 24,894* TOTAL $ 83,424 The City of Vero Beach will fund the establishment of its part of the system. All other costs, totalling $176,872, will be assumed by Indian River County. When budgeting for the 1382-83 Fiscal Year, please keep in mind the E911 Program will require a total allocation of $176,872 from the general fund, $40,000 of which is to be reallocated from the 1981-82 Budget. I trust you will 'see this is adequately provided for. I appreciate your time and effort. Mrs. Goetzfried gave a brief history of the project. She reported that in this particular system, when a person dials 911, the computer automatically gives a general location and three names that would be responding to that person's specific area. Mrs. Goetzfried noted that in order for this equipment to be effective, a lot of data had to be given to Southern Bell, and the majority of that work was done by the Pilot Club purely on a volunteer basis. Since accumulating all the data, she added, they are now trying to resolve the discrepancy file. The City of Vero Beach, Sebastian and Indian River Shores are working with them on the program and in June, a public awareness; program will be starting, Mrs. Goetzfried reported. She added that it will take one month to install the equipment and then they will start three months of testing. She then reviewed the financial statement dated March 16th, and commented that this was a long project and it could never have been done without the help of Daphne Strickland. Miss Chaffee, interested citizen, expressed concern about the people that do not have phones in their home. Mrs. Goetzfried stated that they would have to use coin phones. A brief discussion ensued. Chairman Scurlock stated that whether you have a phone in your home or not, every resident would have protection since all emergencies do not always occur within a person's home. Commissioner Fletcher thanked Mrs.. Goetzfried and Ms. Strickland for the work they have done and will continue to do on the 911 Program. The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at 12:17 o'clock P.M. for lunch and reconvened at 1:45 o'clock P.M. with the same members present, Deputy Clerk Hargreaves taking over from Deputy Clerk Caldwell for the remainder of the meeting. 76 MAR 171992 NoK 9 %E219 MAR 1'71982. 49 PAgh P2Q PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING WEHR PROPERTY TO R-lAA The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: NERCO BEACH ,PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a In the matter of / `,4 11© a -a in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues o - e-, /L) �R Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, fora period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; 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 advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sword to and subscribed bef re me is��°� day o A.D. 19 l^L �. ��Ir111�.[Yv�.l►.v.... 1 1� (SEAL) iness Manager) ndian River County, Florida) NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board Of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, is reviewing the feasibility of making the following changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, which changes and additions are substantially as follows: j 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated between U.S. HIGHWAY I and THE INDIAN RIVER, approximately 800 feet south of 110th Street in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: COMMENCE at the Northwest corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest !b of Section 17, Township 31S, Range 39E; thence run S 89 degrees — 38 feet — 22 inches E along the North line of said Section 17, 84.96 feet to the East R.O.W. of U.S. No. 1; thence S 25 degrees — 57 feet — 59 inches E, 39.05 feet to the in- tersection of the South R.O.W. of State Department lateral ditch No. 5 and the East R.O.W. of U.S. No. 1; thence S 89 degrees — 38 feet — 22 inches E, along the South R.O.W. of lateral ditch No. 5, 670 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence run S 25 degrees — 57 feet — 59 inches E, 361.27 feet; thence S 89 degrees — 38 feet — 22 inches E, 655 feet more or less to the Indian River to the intersection with the southerly line of; State Department lateral ditch No. 5, recorded in O.R.B. 102, Page 347; thence N 89 degrees — 38 feet — 22 inches W, 623 feet more or less to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Be rezoned from R-3 Multiple Dwelling District to R -IAA Single Family District. A public hearing in relation thereto at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by said Board of ,County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County Com- mission's Chambers of the County Ad- ministration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, March 17,1982, at 1:30 P.M. - If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he may need to insure that a verbatim recordof the proceedings is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Doug C. Scurlock, Jr. Feb. 23, March 10, 1982. Notice of the Public Hearing was sent to all affected property owners by Freda Wright, Clerk of Circuit Court, as required by Florida Statute 125.66, and copies of same are on file in the Office of the Clerk. Planner Dennis Ragsdale reviewed the following staff recommendation: 7= TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners d, FROM. iqeil Nelson County Administrator DATE: February 5, 1982 FILE: IRC-8I-ZC-30 #456 SUBJECT: DALE WEHR' S REQUEST TO REZONE, 4.8 ACRES FROM R-3, MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-lAA, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (2.6 UNITS/ ACRE) REFERENCES: It is recommended that the data herein presented be formally considered in the form of a public hearing on March 17, 1982. . DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The applicant is requesting that 4.8 acres of land be rezoned from R-3, Multi -Family Residential (up to 15 units/acre) to R-1AA, Single Family Residential (2.6 units/acre). The property is located on the, west bank of the Indian River, north of the entrance to Sebastian Highlands. Reflections on the River, situated on the south, is approximately a 32 acre, 240 unit, multi -family development, which recently received site plan approval. A 136 unit condominium development is proposed directly north, and a vacant C -1A, Restricted Commercial District lies west of the subject property. ALTERNATIVES -AND ANALYSIS: A) Approve the request to rezone the 4.8 acre parcel from R-3, Multi - Family Residential to R-lAA, Single Family Residential (2.6 units/ acre) . If this alternative is selected, a substantial down zoning would occur. Higher density multi -family developments are located to the north and south; however, the requested low density, Single Family Residential zoning is more compatible with the somewhat sensitive river front property. This alternative complies with the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan, which designates the property as LD -2 (up to 6 units/acre). B) Deny the request to rezone the 4.8 acre parcel from R-3, Multi - Family Residential to R-lAA, Single Family.Residential (2.6 units/ acre) . This alternative would maintain the existing situation which does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element and is not consistent with the County's policy of promoting low density development. RECOL1IENDATION : The staff recommends Alternative A, approve the request to rezone the subject property from R-3 to R-lAA. This would reduce the allowable development on the site from 72 units to 12 units. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved this recommend- ation in their regular meeting of January 28, 1982. MAR 171982 78 MAR 171992 wx 49 *E222 -7 Dale Wehr, owner of the subject property, came before the Board explaining that his property is at old Pelican Point near Sebastian where a condominium project was started and then abandoned. He, stated that he has already dismantled the old buildings and wants to put in a small subdivision. Mr. Wehr continued that his subdivision would have homes of a good caliber with deed restrictions and would result in an upgrading of the area. Planner Ragsdale concurred that Mr. Wehr's proposed subdivision would be a substantial upzoning and the staff would strongly recommend approval. He noted that it does conform with the density set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which will allow up to 6. The Planning & Zoning Commission also gave` their unanimous approval to this project. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Mrs. Lucinda Eddy informed the Board that she is the owner of property which adjoins the subject property to the south. She did not oppose the proposed rezoning, but wished to be assured that it would not affect her present zoning. She has an apartment building on her property and would not want the density to be less than 6. In discussion, it was explained that this particular rezoning would have no impact on Mrs. Eddy's property, but when the Comprehensive Plan is adopted, her property would have to be changed from R-3 to be consistent with the Plan which would allow 6 units to the acre. On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, to adopt Ordinance -82-6 rezoning the property as advertised. T Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the memo talks of rezoning the 4.8 acre parcel while the Resolution cites 3.9 acres; Mr. Ragsdale explained that the request was for the R-3 District as shown on the map; however, there is a road that runs through, which they are not recommending rezoning. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 82-6 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and ciizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map.be changed in order that the following described --property situated in -Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: COMMENCE at the Northwest corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, Township 31S, Range 39E; thence run S 890 - 38' - 22" E along the North line of said Section 17, 84.96 feet to the East R.O.W. of U.S. #1; thence S 250 - 57' - 59" E, 39.05 feet to the intersection of the South R.O.W. of State Department lateral ditch No. 5 and the East R.O.W. of U.S. #1; thence S 890 - 38' - 22" E, along the South R.O.W. of lateral ditch No. 5670' to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence run S 250 - 57' -59" E, 361.27 feet; thence S 890 - 38' - 22" E, 655 feet more or less to the Indian River; thence Northwesterly along the Indian River to the intersection with the southerly line of State Department lateral ditch No. 5, recorded in O.R.B. 102, Page 347; thence N 890 - 38' - 22" W, 623 feet more or less to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 3.9 acres, more or less. To be changed from R-3 Multiple Dwelling District to R-lAA Single Family District. MAR 171982 All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. This Ordinance shall take effect March 23, 1982. BoOK 49 pag44 MAR 17:1982 Mak . REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TRANSITION PERIOD FOR WILMOTH APPEAL OF SITE PLAN DENIAL Mr. Ragsdale reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: March 8, 1982 FILE: IRC -8I -SP -160 County Commissioners SUBJECT: FRANK & SUSAN WILMOTH' S APPEAL OF SITE PLAN DE14IAL AND REQUEST FOR A 60 DAY EXTENSION OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD PROVIDED IN' THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM: David Greene REFERENCES: Acting County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On December 28, 1982 the Wilmoths submitted a site plan applica- tion for a retail sales facility to be located at 725 27th Avenue, S.W, Being submitted prior to the adoption of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the application is a •L.ransition petition and may be approved if adjudged compatible with either the 1975 or 1982 Comprehensive Plans. The site plan application was discussed on January 28, 1982 in the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff's position is that a retail sales facility is not compatible with the 1975 Plan, which designates the site as low density (0-3 units/acre) or the 1982 Plan, which designates the site as LD -1 (up to 3 units/acre). The Planning and Zoning Commission in a unanimous decision, allowed the applicant 30 days to ammend the application so that it would be compatible with either the 1975 or 1982 Comprehensive Plans. Prior to the expiration of the 30 day period, the Applicant's attorney, Mr. Jerome Quinn, requested the application, which had not been ammended, be brought again, before the Planning and Zoning Commission. On February 25, 1982 in the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Com- mission, the application was denied unanimously. The Planning and Zoning Department received a letter of appeal from the applicants attorney on March 4, 1982. Included in the letter is a request for a 60 day extension of the transition period as provided in the 1982 Land Use Element. The current 60 day period will expire on March 19, 1982 and a 60 day ex- tension will expire on May 18, 1982. RECO111MENDATION : 1) 2) The County Commission set a public hearing date of April 21, 1982 to hear the appeal. A sixty day extension of the transition period be granted. On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized staff to advertise a public hearing for April 21, 1982, and granted a 60 day extension of the transition period to May 18, 1982. PROPOSED COUNTY PARKS ORDINANCE The Board reviewed Commissioner Bird's memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 24, 1932 FILE: SUBJECT: Park & Recreation Committee recommended proposed County Park Ordinance FROM: Dick Bird, Chairman REFERENCES: Park & Recreation Committee The Park and Recreation Committee is recommending that the County adopt their proposed Ordinance. It has come to our attention that we are very lacking in Rules and Regulations governing conduct and usage of our park facilities. A sub -committee consisting of Al MacA.dam, Bill Cook and Charlie Park spent a great deal of time reviewing existing Ordinances and developing the proposed Ordinance. We are hoping.that this Ordinance wi-11 be -adopted by -Indian River County, and subsequent)y adopted by all the municipalities within the County as standardized Rules and Regulations in local parks regardless of their locations. After review, and any changes.proposed by the members of the Commission, I would suggest the proposed Ordinance be submitted to the County Attorney for his final perusal and approval. At that time, it should be brought back to the Commission for final approval. I am also sending a copy of the proposed Ordinance to Sheriff Dobeck for any.comments he might make, since he will have the ultimate responsibility of enforecement of the rules and regulations. Commissioner -Bird reported that the proposed ordinance was put together after a study was made of the present ordinances in existence in various municipalities and in surrounding counties. He further noted that the Sheriff has read the proposed Ordinance and found no problems relating to enforcing it. Commissioner Bird continued that they were MAR 171982 82 NOK '49. PAGE 5 MAR 1'71982 49 PAE.226 hoping that not only would the County adopt the proposed ordinance or some variation of it, but that we would request the municipalities to look at it and hopefully adopt a similar ordinance so we could have uniform rules throughout the county. Chairman Scurlock stated that his main concern is to be sure we have specific criteria in regard to permits that would be issued. Commissioner Bird stated that he had a problem relating to a group of ten or more being required to obtain a permit as there actually could be ten people in one family. Al MacAdams gave a presentation explaining the procedure by which they arrived at the proposed ordinance, which' 'they hope will "set a standard . for the county as a whole. He noted that this draft has been submitted to the Attorney for the Town of Indian River Shores, and he has heard no criticism so far. Discussion ensued as to how the provisions prohibiting any motor driven device and also prohibiting sale of any items on the premises would relate to Blue Cypress Lake Park. It was noted that there is a pro shop at Memorial Island Park and a concession stand at South Beach and felt that there should be some provision that would cover the permitting of this type activity in certain instances. The Board proceeded to review the proposed Ordinance page by page. Commissioner Fletcher discussed "Equestrian Activity" on Page 7, noting that -in Roseland there are no specific bridle paths and he wondered if it is the intent to eliminate horseback riding. Park Supervisor Bill Cook did not believe this would affect many parks in Roseland; he noted that we have no control over the State Park in any event. The main problem is at Hobart Park where we do not want horses in the picnic area or the swimming area. Considerable discussion took place regarding Section 10 on Page 9 relating to Noise - what criteria can be used to determine what constitutes "noise," - whether this provision would make it illegal for someone to play the tape deck in their car, etc. Commissioner Lyons suggested the use of a decibel meter, which is quite inexpensive, noting that the City of Vero Beach has an ordinance limiting noise as measured in decibels. Park Supervisor Cook commented that the proposed draft was taken principally from the Brevard County Ordinance which has been in effect the last two or three years. He felt that requiring a permit to use an amplifying system allows you, at least, to determine their intent, and in regard to cars playing radios, he felt that nothing will happen until someone makes a complaint. Commissioner Lyons still believed we must have something specific to measure noise, and Mr. MacAdams felt Y- c - OR z there should be a specific Noise Ordinance for the whole county, not just parks. He noted that the Town of Indian River Shores addressed the noise problem caused by construction workers who had radios blaring away constantly, and the problem of loud noise is confronting them now in the Tracking`Station Park. Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he had drafted a Noise Ordinance for another county, which ordinance has a provision specifically relating to beach and parks activities. He pointed out that the proposed ordinance has segregated rules and regulations, making violation of a regulation a misdemeanor. Attorney Brandenburg felt if the Board wants certain action to be a criminal action, this has to be made more specific. MAR 171982 84 na 49 z27 MAR 171982 49 The Board next questioned whether the speed limit of 5 mph required on Page 11 was realistic. Supervisor Cook felt it should not be any more than that in a place such as Wabasso Beach Park where there is a limited parking area and many cars. He did not believe we should get tied in with State standards, which are much too fast, and felt that 10 mph is more realistic. In further discussion, it was felt that all parks should be posted with specific speed limits. The problems related to Provision 26 on Page 12, prohibiting glass bottles or containers were discussed next, and it was noted that this could be interpreted to include such things as drinking glasses or mayonnaise jars. Supervisor Cook spoke in detail of the great problem presented in cleaning up broken glass. It was generally felt this provision should be made more specific. Commissioner Wodtke questioned enforcing the provision requiring a leash on a surfboard, and discussion followed in regard to the problems occasioned by fishing in the surf, and the danger to people swimming and walking by. Commissioner Bird felt that Provision 22 should be studied a,little more; he believed it is mainly saying that you can"only engage in certain activities in a specific area. Chairman Scurlock wished it spelled out that these requirements are the same on all beaches. Discussion continued in regard to permits, reserva- tions, size of group, length of time for obtaining permits, appealing, etc., and Commissioner Fletcher felt that we must notify people within seven days in writing when a permit is denied. Commissioner Wodtke discussed the provision re depositing a proper fee as established for the activity, and 8W asked if they have to pay for the permit or put up a deposit to utilize the park. Supervisor Cook felt that is up to the Board and noted that as of now, they have no charges except $1.50 an hour for a canoe. Acting Administrator Greene reported that staff will present a recommendation re fees to be considered along with the ordinance. On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the Attorney and staff to continue to work on the Parks Ordinance and when they feel they have it in final form to schedule and advertise a public hearing for final adoption. , Commissioner Lyons noted that the Sheriff has said that he cannot delegate the Police Department of Indian River Shores to enforce the rules in the -County Park, and he felt there must be some way to work this out so that the police in Indian River Shores can enforce the rules not only in the Indian River Shores portion of the park but also in the County portion. He requested that Attorney Brandenburg look Q. c y : s into this, and Mr. MacAdams reported that Indian River Shores Attorney Clem is looking into this also. VANDALISM AT DONALD MAC DONALD PARK Commissioner Bird informed the Board that some years ago Indian River County entered into a lease agreement with the Florida Forestry Service on land the County owns fronting on the Sebastian River in the Roseland area. The State needed a site for a fire tower, as well as for storing equipment and housing some personnel, and in return, they agreed to help the County develop a campground and park on this 35 acres. The fire tower now has been taken down; the Forestry Department, however, still has their buildings and equipment there. They have been maintaining this park as a MAR 17 1982 86 UCK 49 ?At E229 40 430 MAR 171982 P campground, but they are having a problem trying to maintain the facilities and keep them up to standards. Ralph Van Hoek of the Division of Forestry gave the Board a detailed report- on the problems they are encountering due to vandalism at the park, with people coming at night, destroying picnic tables and grills, injuring cars, trying to burn the bath house, etc. He noted that although the Department has two men stationed there, they are not there 24 hours a day. Forester Van Hoek explained that the Forestry Department currently is experiencing a financial crunch with the State and any funds to maintain the park must come out of their fire fighting budget; therefore, they would like to petition the Commission to keep £he park open for lday use only so they can close it at night when most of the vandalism occurs. He noted that most of the year the park stays quite empty, but during the winter months, they get the overflow from Sebastian Inlet State Park. Commissioner Bird informed the Board that he had contacted Ney Landrum of the State Division of Parks & Recreation in Tallahassee, and they definitely would not be interested in this park because of its size and location, as well as' their budget problems. He was told they do occasionally. have some funds available in this area for capital improvements, but they do not have funds for maintenance or replacement. They did express willingness to cooperate with management advice through the personnel at the Sebastian Inlet Park. Park Supervisor Bill Cook expressed his desire to see this park keep operating as an overnight campground since it is the only place in the County besides Sebastian Inlet where someone can legally camp overnight. There is a fee of $5.20 a night. a Discussion ensued as to the possibility of the County taking over the park, making it a more attractive facility and possibly having a fee to make it more viable. It was generally agreed the potential is there, but the problem is funds. It was further noted that $5.20 a night is a fairly standard fee for this type camping facility. Forester Van Hoek reported that all the funds now collected from the park fees go into the General Fund in Tallahassee. He expressed concern about their giving over control of the park to the county since this is an ideal location for the Forestry Department to keep their equipment to handle north county forest fires and brought up the possibility of locking the camp at night and giving the campers keys. Chairman Scurlock assured Forester Van Hoek that the County would keep space available for the Forestry personnel and their equipment, but stated that he would like to authorize Commissioner Bird and Supervisor Cook to see if there is a vehicle to keep this park open and make it self-supporting, especially since it is the only campground the County has. Commissioner Bird commented that it is really a rough campground and would require some improvements, and Mr. Van Hoek felt to bring it back up to standard would require $2,000-$3,000. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would like the Intergovernmental Coordinator to trace where the park fees go and see if there is any chance of getting them back. After further discussion, it was decided to let Commissioner Bird and staff continue to work on this problem and come up with some recommendations. 4: MAR 1'719 88 N Y, Ff��F23 W W W H W W U) U) 4 W a F� W A4 >1 a Q N 4J -V a) N N a tp L� w O 44 O O P a 4J U .ri O zI tr 0 •t"i 0 r -i O w •i-) .r.i 3 O 'I-) to r(1)r-, r•r .}) rd VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published DORY Vero searh, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority Personalty appeared J. J. Schumenn, Jr, who on oath says that ea is Business Manager of the Florida; that he attached ero Beach Icopydaily of advertisement, newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, + in the matter of in the ,�nq ve Court, Was pub- L•/Y lished in said newspaper in the Issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, morsaid tubi shed in said Indian lrR ver Countynd that , Florida, each ahe said lly and has been s heretalorO been coasse y P entered as second class mail platter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River COUP, ly. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisemnt; arid altiant further says that he or corporation any discount, rebate. commission orpromisedither paid nor refund the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspa Pper. / ".! . oC% l A.O. Sworn to and subscribed bet re me this _ day 19 utiness Manager) ( jerk of the Circuit Cb t, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) E 1 SHORES ,, S"'CL:fT C=RCtiADr ;,U0. •AOP..es Z. J. �:;1�1;i e.,,,�� : ••mss , b NOTICE OF ��'- r, '�, •,e = o ° " - ��`....iM-...e!: missioners of Indian River County finds and PUBLIC HEARING ,' . .s; "'+ - , G• ' •'� s "� !qua Please be adv". ed that the Board of County r ru;i",e r , Board of County Commissioners at the time of improvements to the collection and pumping Commissioners of Indian River County will suxr ,n,c,�• „��'s�' -. u.aa„ F• payable In two equal installments, the first WHEREAS, the total estimated prorated hold a Public Hearing on March 17,1982 at 2:00 GOY. LOT 9 C••' second, oneyear from the duedafe. -NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the property described in Exhibit "A'• is �'. e ,. CJ MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, P.M, in the County Commission Chambers, •County • , 1% �^ '" ` property described in Exhibit "A" shall V%:� receive a direct and special beieW from the Administration Building, 1840 2Sth . Street, Vero Beach,� Florida, to consider co.00"'".'r a ••• .. •• •" WHEREAS, the special assessment ;; I% i provided hereunder shall become due and � adoption of the following Resolution which takeover of total waste water sewage by the Indian River County ninety days after the final - determination of the special assessment ,(•U `' •' "' to the terms outlined above and the requirements of Ordinance No. 01.27, Provides for the levying 0} a special s'O%..J „^ :.� I assessment for sewage system improvements: •1p�T 'RESOLUTION NO. 82. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF .. „ .. -'° G. L.10 G, L.I `\ '.COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, PURSUANT TO OR• DI NANCE NO. 81.21, PROVIDING FOR THE ' ;. a •. w --"^' ` "° '•°' �•k•+)r,s� ," a �JY ,• J �' _`-,, •, ~)t—'"-1 * ij ;, I 1 METHOD OF ASSESSMENT TO RAISE SIJ • �,^,� , , . ,� SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO ELIMINATE A', PACKAGE a••. ' ° " SEWAGE TREATMENT '••�••' ' SYSTEM, BRING A DETERIORATED ".., "° COLLECTION AND PUMPING SYSTEM UP G? •2 r e r az° TO ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS FOR THE i�.� ' ULTIMATE TAKEOVER OF TOTAL WASTE •' WATER SERVICE BY THE CITY OF VERO •- BEACH) PROVIDING FOR THE TOTAL •''•• •"•• '„ •" ��, ' ESTIMATED COST OF THE . PROJECT; PROVIDING 0 r FOR THE METHOD OF ,;�••- ;' +'-�' \•� �'-7� 1 PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS BY THE 9 ,• „ ..,. e•• \; " OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY SPECIALLY orae•,,, \ •' BENEFITED BY THE PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR Cab » ,'+� r� •sCKERD. •-� T• DRUG' THE NUMBER OF AN- NUAL INSTALLMENTS AND A DESCRIP- '� a"+• O •.. ^ee '%Q i \ ".4� ' TION OF .,� ��• "' "• allot THE' AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITED. 80V }M'• --, •nJ . WHEREAS, The Beall Of County Com -s = o ° " - ��`....iM-...e!: missioners of Indian River County finds and .�° determines that it is necessary and in the PEBBLE BAY ES1 Public's best interest to eliminate a certain - -- package sewage treatment system and make , Board of County Commissioners at the time of improvements to the collection and pumping preparation of the final assessment roll, system within the area described in Exhibit. • A, , and payable In two equal installments, the first WHEREAS, the total estimated prorated - being, six months from the due date and the cost of the Improvements necessary to service second, oneyear from the duedafe. -NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the property described in Exhibit "A'• is BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM- - $154, 509.05, and WHEREAS, the Board of •County Com- MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, missioners alter examination of the utilisation FLORIDA,as follows: of the proposed improvements determines that •the 1. The foregoing recitals are ratified and property described in Exhibit "A" shall approved, and receive a direct and special beieW from the 2. The project to provide for the elimination proposed improvements, and of a package sewage treatment plant and bring WHEREAS, the special assessment a deteriorated collection and pumping system i provided hereunder shall become due and by to acceptable standards for the ultimate payable at the Office of the Tax Collector of takeover of total waste water sewage by the Indian River County ninety days after the final - determination of the special assessment City of Vero Beach Is hereby approved subject pursuant to the provistods of Ordinance 81.27, to the terms outlined above and the requirements of Ordinance No. 01.27, - any assessments not paid within said period - shall bear interest a1 a rate established by the The fore9aing resolution was offered by VIL(-A5 Commissioner—who Moved Its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner— and, upon being put to a vote, me vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock Jr. Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Commissioner William C. Wodtke Jr. Commissioner Dick Bird The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this — day Of —,1982. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida By: Don C. Scurlock Jr. Attest: Freda Wright. Clerk Approved as 10 form and legal sufficiency By; Gary M. Brandenburg, County Attorney March 1, 1982. March 12, 14, 1982, - 1 1 The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 11, 1932 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Resolution for Assessing Users. of Pebble Bay, Sewage System for Required Improvements FROM: REFERENCES: City/County/Town Wastewater David L. Greene Agreement, Dated Nov. 5, 198' Assistant County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The County is in the process of implementing the legal requirements of the Referenced Agreement. Engineering Plans and Specifications were prepared and have been approved. Bids have been received and the construction contract awarded for improvements needed to refurb- ish the ,system to acceptable standards. This will eliminate" -the need for the package sewage treatment plant. After completion, the system will be transferred to the City of Vero Beach. The contract was awarded to Bain Underground Utilities on -November 30, 1981. Work for the Indian River Shores part of the sewer system has delayed the work for the County's portion of the overall project. At the meeting of December 16, 1981, the Commission approved a unit impact fee of $747.35 with the County bearing an added cost of $37,175.90 to defray the financial obligation of Indian River County to cover expected costs of $154,509.85. The expense items to be borne break down as follows (from excerpt sof tie Decembet 10, 1981 memo): ITEM 1. Remaining Construction Cost - (Indian River Shores' cost has been subtracted) 2. Engineering and Resident Inspection (Indian River Shores' cost has been subtracted) 3. Ads 4. City of Vero Beach Impact Fees (157 units) 5. Reimbursement Cost to Indian River Shores 6. Contingencies 7. Interest During Construction TOTAL COST TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COST $ 82,019.29 13,570.00 25.00' 29,437.50 19,458.06 5,000.00 5,000.00 $154,509.85 49 233 . MAR 171982 90 GGK �F r MAR 171982 9 F bE2 The Town of Indian River Shores on February 25, 1982, approved the plan to pay the portion of the impact fees for the area annexed by them but being serviced by the Pebble Bay Sewer System. This cost for the sev enty- five (75 ) units will be $56,051.25. This covers the pro -rata cost of the annexed area and includes the $187.50 per unit impact fee to be paid to the City of Vero Beach as follows: Town of Indian River Shores Pro -rata Cost $41,989.06 City of Vero Beach Impact Fee 14.062.50 TOTAL $56,051.56 To implement the assessments as noted above, Ordinance 81-21 is being inv-oked as the means for equitably --assessing each of .the units as explained above. This ordinance requires the public notice of this meeting be published at least fifteen (15) days prior to the meeting. It was so published and a copy is provided as Attachment B. On March 2, 1982 a letter and Information Bulletin was sent to each property owner of record informing them of the history of the sewage system and the need for improvement. An assessment roll has been prepared that would require properties within the County to pay their proper share of the impact fees as determined at the December 16, 1981 meeting. The assessment roll breaks down to the following number of units for assessment: No. of Units Pebble Bay Subdivision 52 Harbour Island Club Condominiums 41 Vera Cruz Condominiums 57 County Park 4 FIT Project 3 157 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Inasmuch as the cost of improvements are imminent and the fact that the system will be turned over to the City of Vero Beach, there is ,no opportunity to recover any of the construction costs through servicing.. The only alternative 'is to assess on a unit basis those benefitting by the improvements. For a fair assessment, these properties should have the assessment pro -rated in order to provide proper financial coverage of the expenses as'noted. It should be further noted that Harbor Island Club paid $36,000.00 impact fees which cover more than their normal share of the impact; they paid extra for the anticipated rework of the sewage pumping station to which they are connected. This pumping station construct - tion is part of the present contractual work being performed. Inasmuch as the payments were $900 per unit with provision to go to $1,000 per unit if necessary, we should not assess another $747.35 for each unit. Their share of $30,641.35 should be paid from the $36,000.00 they previously paid. RECOMMENDATION.AND FUNDING Approval of the Resolution is recommended. This will allow Staff to continue its efforts toward bringing this matter to a conclusion. 9= - The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. John Reynolds of 4711 Pebble Bay Circle stated that he personally felt the Board has come up with a pretty reasonable solution, but he also felt that Administrator Nelson's letter of March 2nd points up the fact that part of the original investment for the wastewater system was - included in the initial cost of the lots sold to residents of Pebble Bay Estates Subdivision while no costs were allocated to the lands which now consist of Vera Cruz, Sea Watch and Pebble Beach Villas Condominiums. Mr. Reynolds noted that this demonstrates that the people in Pebble Bay Estates proper are picking up some of the tab that should be allocated to others. Commissioner Lyons explained that the proposed assessment really has nothing to do with what happened in the past, but is looking at the situation facing us today. It is the amount required to bring the system up to standards, to overcome the objections of the DER, and allow connection to Vero Beach. Chairman Scurlock felt that the developer did receive some compensation for. the system from the unit cost of the original units, and Mr. Reynolds stated that was his point - they were picking up more than their share. Commissioner Wodtke noted that this has been one of the biggest sewer problems in the county for years, and it is possible Mr. Reynolds may be more right than wrong. He emphasized that what we are accomplishing, however, it the ability to transmit this waste to the City of Vero Beach and to eliminate what may have been a greater cost to all those in Pebble Bay if we had to enlarge that plant or do whatever was necessary to meet EPA standards. Commissioner Lyons expressed sympathy, but noted there are only so many ways we can go. He felt the County has MAR 17 19 2 49 .�� r 2 a 92 MAR 171982 600K PAbE236 bent overbackwards in absorbing some of the cost and did not feel we can go any further. Col. Jacobs of 4695 Pebble Bay Circle informed the Board one of the reasons he originally bought in Pebble Bay was because they had underground utilities and their own sewage system. He noted that the original purchasers were charged approximately $400 to hook into the sewer system. Chairman Scurlock asked if the $400 was a part of the purchase price of the lot or'if it was conveyed separate and apart from the purchase price. Col. Jacobs believed it was paid separately after they bought their lots. They could not have septic tanks, and he believed the charge to the owner was the same as if they paid 'for a septic tank. No one further wished to be heard. On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, to adopt Resolution 82-41, providing the - method of assessment to raise sufficient funds to eliminate a package -sewage treatment system, etc. Commissioner Lyons emphasized the thought and worry put into this problem by the Commission and believed the bright side is that the residents shouldn't have any more sewage troubles and also they will have the availability of a park nearby on the ocean. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. 9= - RESOLUTION NO. 82-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 81-27, PROVIDING FOR THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT TO RAISE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO ELIMINATE A PACKAGE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM, BRING A DETERIORATED COLLECTION AND PUMPING SYSTEM UP TO ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS FOR THE ULTIMATE TAKEOVER OF TOTAL WASTE WATER SERVICE BY THE CI'T'Y OF VERO BEACH; PROVIDING FOR THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR THE METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS BY THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY THE PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR THE NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS AND A DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITED. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County finds and determines that it is necessary and in the public's best interest to eliminate a certain package sewage treat- ment system and make improvements to the collection and pumping system within the area described in Exhibit "A",,.and WHEREAS, the total estimated prorated cost of the improvements necessary to service the property described in Exhibit "A" is $154,509.85, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners after examina- tion of the utilization of the proposed improvements determines that the property described in Exhibit "A" shall receive a direct and special benefit from the proposed improvements, and WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall become due and payable at the Office of the Tax Collector pf Indian River County ninety days after the final determination of the special assessment pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance 81-27, any assessments not paid within said period shall bear interest at a rate established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of preparation of the final assessment roll, payable in two equal installments; the first being, six months from the due date and the second, one year from the due date. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: and 1. The foregoing recitals are ratified and approved, 2. The project to provide for the elimination of a package sewage treatment plant and bring a deteriorated collection and pumping system up to acceptable standards for the ultimate MAR 171992 —1— ekm 49 PA'K237 MAR 171992 NO 49, PnE 238 takeover of total waste water sewage by the City of Vero Beach is hereby approved subject to the terms outlined above and the requirements of Ordinance No. 81-27. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Nay Commissioner Patrick $. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Dick Bird` Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17th day of March , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUINTY, FLORIDA By DON C. SCUt2LOCK, JR. AA�l,� Chairman Attest: /l�l�[Q. 1/1)Ao at Freda Wright Clerk PLN APPROVED TO FO AND LEG SUF Y By ;= G RY/ S. BRANDEN URG �u ty Attorney 1715'. Z:.n1aa.1 P.8.1. 8-69 Eki"f'� �r A 9 , ..7y, ,� •--- .i?,�_�r, �`�� R :P' 0 ^ )M@� � cAAe T APP 1 '^:, !t .�•� '... V i. -� ALJ ;t'y <� � l=v c �' � � r 1!1 L.. 634 822 55' Omt y TD "Mosr_ • � ' • tP � - 11 M o SEA WATCH CONDO. {` AQj-`AwS Wmvtipi TRACT A 812 17' 1 SEA WATCH LANE 311.72' �\ s Hf� INDIAN o° '1 63.o t55.38' 14_0' 140`'f los' � o _ �1 I • � � 116.a1� .O' � � O N"O V' � / 1 O `� C..J O '1-i �•T b � •}.' {1 390 5 45 ! °I'•. .8.-. m T•.___2�i6- ^q'wI ��f1I�.�16/..1;- 4.I„Aa'Q II�,I°0:;i�C{, 1^''}�iI'.��IiII ooH 12.;�a.�;, o•o�° _'p `�"qo `�56 I m•„`l`.=\"4 � `;'`_��� �o°� .� ' '`• p .1\.\1I�^S51?O' 140, G/ %1440'..1..33' 1 a ao a 1431.4 Z' 352.71, �•.1., t0°• 100' 401.3'ti) 68 .Sto o 7Om 404.38' IIO100' 1o0 t'tr �\ �C�12,1{� �°(Y N SCREEF LANE 394.13'o°i 2' \lo O 1 vti,•. 3 143'4100' 100.06.3 m 100 96.07' LANE J 1 N 7 6 90I 0 - '" m. L� U ' IOp_ 3 O• '400.25' l n�ii a t� ^. 'I II „ 5 , ti . ) o - d. 1 ,p .c1`y 100' 100' 100' IOJ' 141.42' 1 W O �N ` ! es as' 4 3� 27 - r p 1. 143.az' loo' too* loo* loo' 'f ) 1 1 n 139 .31 14 19 t9IS 16 17 IS0 , i {4 r1 �� �6'� `�t �-•�,;'4 417 78' - ` •�=.�^ - _ ! S „ 402.76' a. d O 100100' 100' too' too' 0 120�1 N fti PEBBLE LANE g18,yg' D 381.66' 145.42' IDO 10,0' VERA CR100' IDO' J+a' Z5 1 t ^ UZ CON00. o` 21 O\` f\!S�•1 ...i 22_,� 3ss.6i 1c7 Q +� 'PHASE t°,,.26 25 24 23 2 375.81, L� =r �� ,a too' too' loo' too' too' 32 too' too' Io0' 32 .� REC.AREA Ig3.az' too' „ 9 > 331.50• \1a s � �-/ - �\ r• T z6a.31' ~�2 � 27 ;, 28 29 30 31 .:1 \ 1J's .. 069` n 326.4�4' HASE 2o � 100' too' roo' loo' loo• 33s.HARBOUR IS D 9 323.86' SURF LANE 143.42 ,10 •,100' 12(.88 v 34 GOV. LOT a ^ CLUB VILLAS , F-! �' .� 39 38 37 36 c 343•oO CONDO.; too' too' loo' ' to � Izt.ea' �O- 35 ;~ 20.7' ` G •/' . . , o 367.8' '. 1 y a: 11!.98 - •7: ,�.•.':' 75.81 �O - 1 BAY e0• �6 UJ/�J 00: :� 4 RC i:� 15 9 1 I `1 43. qn'. G. L. 10 G. I� �142.76 74 g6� r 50 tv(b 48 -47 L'' 46 ° �i 49' 16- C Q q�9(B, 70' 110' 40' 69 °, {y0 , 210' 206' 2o'S 4\ 161.33' O6• 110' 110' 83• f o w r ° ° p 0 - - - y 49 50 51 - 5g , (D 7 0. `BS lZ 90 2g, 110' 110' 138.87' , O• 210• 49' 206* �^1 se' 92' 285' 1p2•g8' 110' IIO' 179.05 6 . )o•°- _`l r7 20 - 21 - 22 �a � . s t 110, roa�y 33 A 3�. t o �4 431.20' `33 • 3`2 11 • 24 O. \ N h �i OIJD "zµ ?s• p1597 �sJ ° 31 +� gyp � . ��3 !; � J_.. 1 r'._'-. �•; ----- . 30-40.5 ,�.,, 24 r._ "C V34 y9 f! '1° �J 29 8 96.ea ^ 0 2348.38' 29 , b 28 27 `„ 26 6'Ji• e, (c,[I- E . 1bi 1f a L7 A i�°. 35 6 �t 1 •S. °. \.\IYJY\l �J� A 1 { \ *•' 36 ti '".10 e'4}• 133.43' I16.6 79 63, �jo F 7 9•'i I ''2 T 11 Be .y- t�...� 4 .• 07 IO � 2 P - 50R/W IU., 7 37 3a• SOUTH 41 _-J ^,- -'��"�\ \ _ J,• �+ 118 37' 110.03• 110' _ 105.57- ` A °B,?, F wp \ 1 �Q++ 38 •y1 v '`� 42g6'_0 A`. 45 `�f'{f 4 a- a5 .1 MAR 17 182 \\\ 39 - 40 - 41 42 - 43 \ •LY `2.S 17 65' 110 110 111 .*e}lc i ts3047'. ---'a-`-^i'„cs:'+',."+�s'•w �: - r..+,..Z+ti'1 •y ..yc. �i ar. '-*�dJw-._:::;x =• Za•.�.."�".a�'•.":�ii �. __ Wim: MAR 171982 CHANGE ORDER #1 — SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM Staff recommendation is as follows: TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: March 5, 1982 FILE: County Commissioners 49 PAuF240 Contract Change Order #1, for SUBJECT: South County Water System, Contract Part I Distribution,' System. FROM: David Greene, REFEREiNCES: Acting County Administrator I • 4W Description and Conditions The Change Order is comprised of three items, and involves three separate installations. The first two items are awaiting approval of the Administration and the Board of County Commissioners before proceeding with t4em, the third item was approved because of the emergency nature of the --item and the work has been done'in order to save the County money. Item #1 is a change to make the South Beach water line connection to South County water system costing $5,600.00. This change provides -for the future connection of the 20" ductile iron pipe that will be a sub- aqueous crossing from the area of the connection along U.S. #1. Install- ation at this time with this contract will enable the contractor to perform the task with equipment already in place, thereby saving the relocation cost: It will also avoid difficulties with future tap -ins. Attachment B to the Charge Order identifies the component expenses that total to the $5,600.00. Change Item #2 is for the relocation of the meter that inter- connects the County with City of Vero Beach. The relocation of this meter will involve moving it from the area of Vero N4all to an area close to the city limits on Old Dixie with the cost projected to be $6,500.00. This meter is required as an interconnection for the purpose of purchasing water from the City of Vero Beach. Moving the meter location will serve a two -fold purpose: 1) The water service of Vero 'fall will be provided by Indian River County, that is, the accounts will be transferred from City of Vero Beach to Indian River County upon completion of this change. 2) lVith the County owning the mains in=.the vicinity of Vero Mall, with this transFer, Indian River County can augment the planned inter- connection with a water main route that runs from the Vero Mall cast of the railroad tracks to the elevated water storage tower at the old slid -Florida site. This interconnection is required for both fire flow and improvement to the existing distribution system as required by flow analysis. Clian�e Item #3 is a task of.de-watering the south side of Oslo Road on the east side of U.S. #1 to provide for water main stub -out across Oslo Road. The cost of this is $1,500.00 and the work has already been done. This work provided a future connection from'Oslo Road running southward without having to come back at a much higher cost, (estimated to be between $3,500.00 and $5,500.00). Before this work was done, discussions were held between the Utilities Department, the consulting enineer and the County Administration. It was decided to proceed with the work because the contractor was set up to do the work at that time. Alternative and Analvsis The Alternatives to each of these items are as -follows: 1) Eliminating this change will increase the price to do this same woi,� at a later date and also present complications by -this same or a different contractor at the time the proposed type of tap is installed. It is felt that the low unit prices bid by this contractor will save the county money in the long run. 2) The alternative of not relocating the meter under this change order would be to go for bids to have. the same work done as one alternative, another alternative would be to not do it al all which would put the county into an unsafe or more expensive solution to providing the back-up water connection to the elevated storage tower. 3) The fact that the work was authorized previously and has already been performed leaves us without an alternative in this case. Recommendation and Funding The administration and staff and engineering consultant recommend the approval of the change order as proposed totalling to $13,600.00 for all three items. Upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners, this change order will be forwarded by the engineering consultant to Farmer's Home Administration to have this work covered under the existing contractural arrangements with Scarborough and Farmer's Home Administration. Until the refinancing is completed with the Farmer's Home Administration, this cost should come from the project contingency fund. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote, accepted the staff recommendation and approved Contract Change Order #1, South County Water System, in the amount of $13,600. MAR 171982 98 A. ooP 49 PAE 241 MAR 1'7 1992 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FORM APPROVED OMB No. 40-R5007 Form FmIiA 4'_4-7 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION ORDER NO. (Rev. 6-11-80) 1 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER South County Water System, !dater System Improvements Contract Part I - Distribution System CONTRACT FOR Indian River County, Florida OWNER r DATE I 02/11/82 STATE Florida COUNTY Indian River County Scarborough Constructors, Inc. To (Contractor) You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plans and specifications: Description of Changes DECREASE INCREASE (Supplemental Plans and Specifications Attached) in Contract Price in Contract Price 1. South Beach water line connection to South �$ County Water System 2. Relocation of 6" meter and meter vault frorr 12th St. to Old Dixie 3. -Dewatering south side of -Oslo Road on the east side of U.S. 1 to provide for connec- tion to River Shores JUSTIFICATION: $ 5,600.00 6,500.00 1,500.00 ......... _.._---------------- 13 600.00 TOTALS S -------•----•--------•--....___.. r-_. _....:..._.. - .-----•--..__. SEE ATTACHMENTS "A", "B" AND "C" amount of the Contract will be)WWU&-Xa0 (Increased) By The Sum Of: Thirteen thousand six ndred and 00/100------------------------------------- Dollars (S 13,600.00 ) Contract Total Including this and previous Change Orders Will Be: Nine hundred fifteen thousand x hundred ninety seven and -35/100 -------------------- Dollars (S 915,697.35 ), e Contract Period Provided for Completion Will BeXFAMXd%)%(dUeU" (Unchanged): -O- Days. is document w 11 become a supplement to the contr a d all provisions will apply hereto. Requested �✓ Q3//7 I -- (Owner) (Oµ•net) (Dete�� Recommended p/ P _ 2 f2j � l (�jwner's Architect/Engineer) (Date) Accepted`(_/�:. (Contractor) (Date) Approved By FmHA 7 (Name and Title) (Date) This Information will be used as record of any Number copies required: 4 No further monies or other benefits may be paid out under this Changes to the original construction contract. I program unless this report Is completed and filed as required by Time to complete: 30 min. I existing law and regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 1924). a U.S.GPO:1980-0t)W11811514 P 0 i i t FmHA 424-7 (Rev. 6-11-80) ` T: CZ :S Tl T' - F T1 $ 5,600.00 6,500.00 1,500.00 ......... _.._---------------- 13 600.00 TOTALS S -------•----•--------•--....___.. r-_. _....:..._.. - .-----•--..__. SEE ATTACHMENTS "A", "B" AND "C" amount of the Contract will be)WWU&-Xa0 (Increased) By The Sum Of: Thirteen thousand six ndred and 00/100------------------------------------- Dollars (S 13,600.00 ) Contract Total Including this and previous Change Orders Will Be: Nine hundred fifteen thousand x hundred ninety seven and -35/100 -------------------- Dollars (S 915,697.35 ), e Contract Period Provided for Completion Will BeXFAMXd%)%(dUeU" (Unchanged): -O- Days. is document w 11 become a supplement to the contr a d all provisions will apply hereto. Requested �✓ Q3//7 I -- (Owner) (Oµ•net) (Dete�� Recommended p/ P _ 2 f2j � l (�jwner's Architect/Engineer) (Date) Accepted`(_/�:. (Contractor) (Date) Approved By FmHA 7 (Name and Title) (Date) This Information will be used as record of any Number copies required: 4 No further monies or other benefits may be paid out under this Changes to the original construction contract. I program unless this report Is completed and filed as required by Time to complete: 30 min. I existing law and regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 1924). a U.S.GPO:1980-0t)W11811514 P 0 i i t FmHA 424-7 (Rev. 6-11-80) ` DISSOLUTION OF JOINT VENTURE The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 10, 1982 the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Dissolution of Sverdrup icates, Inc. Associates. FROM: REFERENCES: David L. Greene _ Assistant County Administrator y DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: FILE: of Joint Venture & Parcel and Assoc- - Beindorf and ` The joint venture of Sverdrup & Parcel - Beindorf and Associates have been providing engineering services under contracts with Indian River County primarily on matters related to water, sewer and utilities. Both firms comprising the joint venture are desirous of dissolving the joint venture. Beindorf and Associates, Inc., desires to assign all interests in the joint venture to Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. Sverdrup & Parcel would then assume all responsibilities and obligations to contracts with Indian River County and fulfill all responsibilities and obligations as a single entity. However, the assignment of Beindorf and Associates interests to Sverdrup & Parcel is conditioned on the written approval ofvthe Indian River Count -y Board of County Commissioners. For this reason, Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., and Beindorf and Associates, Inc., have requested the Boards consideration and approval. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., has advised the Administrator's Office of the desire to assume Beindorf's interest in the joint venture and further, they have met with the County Attorney and Commissioner Scurlock to discuss this matter:, The Attorney has recommended the County require a written statement from the County's Bond Counsel confirming the assignment would not jeopardize any of the Bonds in effect on projects where the joint venture is the Engineer. Further, the Attorney has also recommended the County require written approval of Farmers Home Administration of the assignment and state the assignment would not affect any FMHA Loan obligations to Indian River County. MAR 171982 100 @OOK 49 ' PSA-bE243, MAR 1'71982 M 9 cnr244 There are two alternatives recommended for consideration in this matter and are as follows: 1. The Board of County Commissioners approve the assignment of Beindorf and Associates, Inc., interests in the joint venture to Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. A. Engineering services under contract would be single source with respect to performance and responsibility. B. Letters would be required confirming no detrimental effects on existing Bonds or Loan obligations. 2. The Board of County Commissioners not approve the assignment of Beindorf and Associates, Inc., interests to Sverdrup & Parcel. A. No change would occur with respect to the existing relationship the County has with the joint venture. B. The two engineering firms would be restricted in their pursuit of business. From the County's position, Sverdrup & Parcel desires to perform work for Indian River County and Beindorf and Associates desires to work in the private sector. ,L REC01%2MENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended to approve Alternative 1 thereby approving the assignment of Beindorf and Associates interest in the joint venture contracts with Indian River County to Sverdrup & Parcel. Sverdrup & Parcel has submitted an assignment document to the Attorney's Office for review. The document has been executed by both Engineering Firms and is attached for review. Attached for review and consideration are letters from the County's - Bond Counsel stating no detrimental effects would occur on approval of the assignment and from Farmers Home Administration a statement indicating concurrence.of the assignment. .. It is further recommended the Chairman be authorized to approve the attached assignment document: Engineer John Robbins of Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. reported that his firm and the firm of Beindorf and Associates, Inc., have been in business together with Indian River County for about 11 years, and it is now time for them to go their different ways. It is the desire of Sverdrup & Parcel to continue with the County. Mr. Robbins continued that he met with the Acting State Director of FmHA in Gainesville, and it was indicated that FmHA will be in formal concurrence when the Board indicates approval of the proposed assignment by Beindorf and Associates, Inc., to Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. Chairman Scurlock stated that his only concern was whether the liability of existing contracts has been adequately addressed. • Attorney Brandenburg felt that is covered in the proposed Resolution. In further discussion, Board members expressed their confidence in Sverdrup & Parcel but regret at losing the services of Jim Beindorf for whose dedication, loyalty and local knowledge, they have a great respect. Mr. Beindorf explained that this break-up of the two firms is not one in which any animosity is involved. He noted that he is really an engineer who deals more with the private sector, and the only reason he didn't break away from the Joint Venturesome years ago was his desire to see the Gifford water and sewer system become a reality. He stated that he has enjoyed his relationship with the Commission over the years, but now that the County finally has gotten firmly into the utilities business, he felt it was a good time to make a break. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner, Fletcher, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 82-42, approving an assignment of contract between' Beindorf and Associates, Inc., unto Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. MAR 171982 102 ni., K 49 PhbE S r MAR 171982 49 mu)246 RESOLUTION NO. 82-42 RESOLUTION OF'THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT BETWEEN BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC., UNTO SVERDRUP & PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. WHEREAS, Indian River County has retained the services of Beindorf and Associates, Inc. and Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. (a joint venture) to perform the necessary engi- neering services for several County water and sewer projects, and WHEREAS, Beindorf and Associates, Inc. now desires to assign all of their contractual obligations with the County to Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., and WHEREAS, under the attached Assignment of Contract Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. agrees to perform all of the services remaining to be performed under the contracts between the joint venture and the County, and WHEREAS, the County's special bond counsel has issued an opinion indicating that the assignment will not adversely affect any of the County's outstanding financial obligations, and WHEREAS, the Farmers Homes Loan Administration has issued a letter approving the assignment and indicating that it will not affect the County's ability to finance projects with their department. .. t- c b z NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the attached Assignment of Contract is approved and further that the approval of the attached Assignment of Contract shall not constitute a novation of any obligations undertaken by the joint venture or Beindorf and Associates, Inc. and the Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners are authorized to execute four copies of the Assignment of Contract. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fletcher and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Dick Bird Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17th day of March , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DON C. SCUR OCK, JR. Chairman Attest:. L FREDA WRIGHT, Cltkk APPROVED ,AS TO FORM AND LEG .,AS I CY By G YBRANDE URG Qun y Attorne n ; 3 : 11 MAR 171982 -2- AOR 49 'r F247- r `MAR 171982 ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT pops 9 PA6E 248 For and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable considerations not necessary to recite herein, paid and to be paid to Beindorf and Associates, Inc., the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, Beindorf and Associates, Inc., have as of this nineteenth day of February, 1982, assigned, transferred and set over and do hereby assign, transfer and set over unto Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation, duly licensed to provide professional engineering services in the State of Florida, all of the corporation's right, title and interest in and to the contracts between Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. and Beindorf and Associates, Inc., a joint venture, and Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, identified on Appendix A hereof, as respects services to be performed thereunder on and after the aforementioned date. By acceptance of this assignment and in consideration thereof, Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. does hereby agree to perform all services remaining to be performed under said contracts and to discharge all of the duties, obligations and liabilities of Beindorf and Associates, Inc., respecting such remaining services under the terms and provisions of said contracts. All drawings, contract documents, field studies and reports, memoranda, files and records of every kind and nature maintained by Beindorf and Associates, Inc., and pertaining to the above-described projects are also hereby assigned to Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. which acknowledges receipt of the delivery thereof.. Beindorf and Associates, Inc. continues to=be responsible as a member of the joint venture of Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. and Beindorf and Associates, Inc., for the services performed by the joint venture prior to this assignment and Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. will be solely responsible for the services performed on and after the date of the assignment. Further, all compensation for services per- formed on said projects prior to that date shall be payable to Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. and Beindorf and Associates, Inc., a joint venture, in accordance with the contract therefor. This assignment is conditioned as respects any project set out in Appendix A, upon the written approval of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Beindorf and Associates, Inc. has caused its name to be subscribed hereto as of the nineteenth day of February, 1982. BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC. By: - A Title : �G✓i ACCEPTED BY: SVERDRUP & CELAND ASSOCIATES, Inc. By:C 1W Pre t ASSIMJENT APPROVED: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUN COISAISSIONERS BY: 2L Title: Don C.Scurlock, J4, Chairman r" � APPENDIX A CONTRACTS BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY CC MSSIONERS AND SVERDRUP & PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AND BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC., A JOINT VENTURE - IN FORCE ON FEBRUARY 19, 1982 1. Modification No. 1, dated October 5, 1977, to Agreement For Engineering Services, dated December 20, 1972, for renovations and extensions to water supply system and sewage treatment facilities in Gifford area. 2. Letter modification, dated July 30, 1979, to Agreement for Engineering Services, dated June 21, 1972, as amended September 21, 1973, for technical consultation, inspection, planning and general assistance to Utilities Department upon its request. . s _ . 3 3. Modifications, dated June 23, 1980, to Agreement For Engineering Services, dated June 21, 1972, as amended September 21, 1973, for preparation of addendum to the 201 Facilities Plan. 4. Authorization, dated October 19, 1979, under Agreement For Engineering Services, dated December 20, 1972, to review test programs and search for water treatment plant site. 5. Modification, dated December 20, 1979 and May 20, 1980, to Agreement For Engineering Services, dated June 21, 1972, as amended September 21, 1973, for renovation of Pebble Bay Area Sewerage System. 6. Authorization, dated February 21, 1980, under Agreement For Engineering Services,.dated December 20, 1972, for final drawings, contract documents and specifications for the South Municipal Tax District Water System Improvements Project. 7. Modification No. 6, dated November 4, 1981, to Agreement For Engineering Services, dated December 20, 1972, as amended by Modification Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for South Beach water system design. 8. Authorization, dated October 23, 1981, under Agreement For Engineering Services, dated December 20, 1972, for North County water and wastewater analysis. 9. Authorization, dated February 10, 1982, under Agreement For Engineering Services, dated December 20, 1972, for services in connection with location and acquisition of site for ground storage tank and site plan approval for South Beach water system. MAR 171982 106 Bou 4T POSE 249 MAR 171982 0909 49 P -4u250 APPOINTMENTS TO MOBILE HOME ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman Scurlock opened the floor for nominations of two representatives of the resident sector. Commissioner Fletcher placed the following in nomination for representatives of the Resident sector: Thomas H. Carmody, Jr., of Holiday Village Mobile Homes Park Saul L. Krieger, of Village Green Mobile Home Park Commissioner Wodtke placed in nomination for representative of the Resident sector: Richard W. Metter of Village Green Mobile Home Park On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded' by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously closed the nominations for mobile home park residents. The Chairman asked for a Roll Call vote: Commissioner Bird: Saul Kreiger Thomas Carmody Commissioner Fletcher: Commissioner Lyons: Chairman Scurlock: Commissioner Wodtke: Saul Kreiger Thomas Carmody Saul Kreiger Thomas Carmody Y- e e z. Saul Kreiger Thomas Carmody Richard Metter Thomas Carmody Saul Kreiger received 4 votes, Thomas Carmody received 5 votes, and Richard Metter received 1 vote. Messrs. Kreiger and Carmody were elected representatives of the Resident Sector. Commissioner Fletcher placed in nomination for representatives of the park owners: Bernard Covington of Heritage Village Henry Donatelli of Su -Rene Mobile Home Village On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously closed the nominations for representatives of park owners and cast a unanimous ballot for the two above nominees. Commissioner Fletcher placed in nomination for the at -large segment: Earle Hall of Vero Shores Edward S. Davis, Jr., Tides Road On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously closed the nominations for the at -large segment and cast a unanimous ballot for the two above nominees. It was noted that it will be necessary to look for one more representative for the at -large segment. In the meantime, the Board secretary was instructed to send out a , letter informing those who have been selected and thanking the others for submitting their resumes. Mr. Sullivan noted that four members are to be appointed for a term of two years and three members for a one year term. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously designated Messrs. Carmody, Donatelli and Davis to serve one year terms. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously designated Messrs. Kreiger, Covington and Hall to serve two year terms. Mr. Sullivan expressed his gratification at seeing 12 years of effort reach a culmination in the establishment of the Mobile Home Advisory Committee and thanked the Board secretaries for their help. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE BOND - COLONIAL HEIGHTS The Board reviewed the memo and recommendation of the Public Works Director, as follows: MAR 171992 P*00149",- 9 ,-:PAE 25i 108 Fp,"- MAR 171982 TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: March 5, 1982 Board of County Commissioners I, THRU: David Greene, Assistant County Administrator FROM: Jim Davis, Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS FILE: SUBJECT: Request for Release of Maintenance Bond - Colonial Heights Subdivision REFERENCES: Frank L. Zorc to Neil Nelson ,dated Feb. 3, 1982 On July 20, 1981, Mr. Frank Zorc, developer of Colonial Heights Subdivision located west of Old Dixie Highway and south of 8th Street, submitted an $8,780. cash maintenance performance bond to cover the burning/removal of cleared material; seeding and germination of grass in swale and easement areas, and the installation of traffic control signs within the development. This bond was approved by the Board of County Commissioners as a condition of granting Final Plat Approval on July -15, 1981. By copy�oof the ,above referenced letter, Mr. Zorc is -requesting release of this bond. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Inspection by the Public Works Department on Feb. 25, 1982 revealed that seeding germination does not exist in the following areas: 1) Along 6th Place west of Old Dixie Hwy. Approx. 6000 S.F. 2) At the intersection of 6th Street and 9th Avenue - Approx. 6000 S.F. 3) At the intersection of 6th Street and 9 Ct. - Approx. 6000 S.F. _ 4) Within the side. lots easements between lots 9 and 10 and beti;een lots 14 and 15 - approx 10,000 S.F. Total area = Approx. 28,000 S.F. Mr. Zorc was notified of this matter, however, he states that seeding was performed and the severe drought weather has impaired the permanent rooting of the seed. Mr. Zorc claims that the -work covered by the Bond was all accom- plished, and that the $8,780. amount should be released so that the Contractor, Trodglen Co. can be paid for the work. He also states that any maintenance required by the developer, i.e. reseeding or sodding, will be perfoimcd by him when improved weather conditions prevail. In analysing the areas that have not germinated, approximately $3000. would cover regrassing even if sod is required for erosion protection. The following alternatives are presented: Alternative No. 1 Release to Mr. Zorc $5,780.*of the bond which represents that portion of the work complete and acceptable. The remaining $3,000. should be retained by the County until the proper erosion control exists. Alternative No. 2 Release to Mr. Zorc the entire $8,780. bond and request him to reseed and/or sod the above areas once the weather conditions are adequate. RECONrENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that Alternative No. 1 be approved thereby releasing to Mr. Zorc the $5,780. and the County retain $3000. for providing erosion protection/grassing to those deficient areas. Funding to come from the County's escrow account. On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously accepted staff recommendation, Alternative No. 1, retaining $3,000 of the bond. TEMPORARY CLOSING`OF COUNTY ROAD 507 - FELLSMERE 2. q The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners THRU: David L. Greene, Assistant County Administrator Cd DATE: March 10, 1982 FI LE: SUBJECT: Temporary Closing of CR 507 FROM: James iv. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES. Public -works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In response to a request from Vance C. Roach, Jr., Chief of Police for the City of Fellsmere, the closing of County Road 507 between CR 512 and S. Carolina Avenue in Fellsmere from 10:30 am to 6:00pm on March 27, 1982 was investigated. The following conditions will be involved with the requested road closure: 1. Alternate routes for traffic detoured from CR 507 at the subject roadway segment are available. 2. The Fellsmere Police Department will operate the required detour. 3. The number of drivers inconvenienced by, and the extent of, the detour will be relatively small. 4. Indian River County should not be required to expend any funds to grant this request. MAR 171982 49 m llo MAR i 71982 .49 PAE254 ALTERNATIVES The Board of County Commissioners may approve or deny the request for the temporary closure of CR 507. RECONr� EEMMTION It is recommended that the request to close CR 507 to traffic during the stated time be approved due to four (4) favorable conditions previously presented. Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve staff recommendation to close CR 507 as outlined in memo dated March 10, 1982. Commissioner Fletcher informed the Board that the request did not really include everything Mrs. Ellis wanted to include. She also wants to use CR 512 and go east towards Roseland for the parade, then turn north on Willis Street, back west again on New York to Broadway and back out onto CR 512 and into the new school area. The request actually states "blocking of the road," and it should be "control of the road at times when the parade is on it." Commissioner Fletcher reported that the Fellsmere Police will be in charge of traffic control. Commissioner Wodtke withdrew his Motion. On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the request of the Fellsmere Chief of Police to use CR 507 and CR 512 for the purposes of the Fellsmere Day Parade on March 27, 1982. REPORT RE STATUS OF SEARCH FOR NEW COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Dr. C.. B. Hardin informed the Board that he has contacted 11 executive search firms by telephone and asked for rates, copies of contracts, a general outline of the way they would go about processing an applicant, etc.; they refused to discuss fees via telephone. He further advised the Board that newspaper ads have been prepared to be released when the Board makes the decision whether to go with an executive search firm or in-house. r � � Discussion ensued as to the merits of employing a search firm, and Commissioner Lyons stated he had no problem with this, but emphasized that he would like someone who has had Florida experience and he wished to be sure what the applicant's environmental stance is. Commissioner Wodtke stated that the only thing he would like to use such a firm for would be to help generate qualified applicants. He personally felt all five Commissioners must have a lot of contact with whomever we hire and understand his views. Chairman Scurlock commented that in the process he has been involved with in the past,.the firm meets individually with the Commissioners to determine the qualifications desired; then they do£the initial screening required to come up with whatever number of applicants the Board wishes to interview. He felt the main reason for going to a .search firm was because of the present burden on our personnel and noted the goal is to have a fair, open and objective decision made by all five Commissioners. Dr. Hardin agreed that the decision must be made here: He noted the reason they selected 11 firms was to give the Commission an oppprtunity to make a selection, and pointed out that we could select one firm to search or possibly two or three. Commissioner Bird did not have any problem with checking out fee schedules, etc., but stated if the fee should turn out to be a considerable amount, he would not be in favor of using a search firm. Commissioner Wodtke commented that travel expenses of the applicant, etc., generally are in addition to the fee, and it was noted that all this is what will be determined. Chairman Scurlock stated that he would appreciate these firms being directed not to contact the Commissioners personally. MAR 17 1992 112 BOOK .49' PA;E � J MAR 171982 BID #118 - STREET & ROAD SIGN BLANKS, ETC. The Board reviewed the following bid recommendation: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 12, 1982 F1 LE: SUBJECT: Bid Recommendation - IRC #118 FROM: David L. Greene REFERENCES: Assistant County Administrator 1. DESCRIPTIONS & C014DITIONS A public meeting was held at 11:00 A.M., February 23, 1982 in the County Administrator's Office, 1840 25th St., Vero Beach, F1. TKs meeting was advertised.on January 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 1982. 2. ALTERNATIVE'S AND ANALYSIS The purpbse of this meeting was to open and record the following bid: IRC #118 - Aluminum Street & Road Sign Blanks - Posts & Brackets 8 Bid Proposals were sent out, 4 received. See attached Bid Tabulation. Sign posts & brackets were not bid during the period 2/81 thru 1/82. During this period, the County purchased the following posts and brackets: 12' posts 500 Avg. Price 11.58-v,Total $5790.00 s 6' posts 200 " " 4.09 818.00 91UF brackets 500 " " 4.70 2350.00 Traffic Engineering anticipates their requirements for post and brackets during bid period -2/82 - 2/83 to be far greater than the previous period. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS & FUNDING A. Recommend IRC Bid#118 be split as follows: B. Award the Aluminum Sign Blanks to Vulcan Signs & Stampings, Foley, Alabama, the overall low bidder for sign blanks. C. Award the Street Sign Brackets, 6/ft Delineator Posts and 12/ft Galvanized Sign Posts to Municipal Supply & Sign, Naples, Fl., because of'the saving in ordering quantities of 500 or more. Fund Account #111-214-541-66-44 Funds Available $12,000.00 On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously accepted staff recommendation and awarded the bid on aluminum sign blanks � � r to Vulcan Signs & Stampings of Foley, Alabama, low bidder, and awarded the bid on street sign brackets, 6/ft. delineator posts and 12/ft galvanized sign posts to Municipal Supply & Sign, Naples, Fla. ADD-ON ITEM - MEDICAL TEAM FOR COURTHOUSE Dr. Hardin reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners Thru: David Greene Asst. County Administrator DATE: March 12, 1982 FI LE: SUBJECT: Medical Team for Courthouse A FROM: •` B. Hardin, Jr. y. D. Asst. -to the County Admini _� S • REFERENCE • Meeting, March 10, 1982, strator/Personnel Director Judge Smith and Judge StikstsitZer 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In response to the direction given by the Board of County Commissioners at a special meeting held on March 3, 1982, a follow-up meeting was held with Judge Smith and Judge Stikelether on March 5, 1982. At this time we proceeded to outline to them the action the Board now desired to pursue.. The result of this meeting was their acceptance of the County's proposed plan. On March 8, 1982, a folloW7up memo con- firming the results of the March 5, 1982 meeting was submitted to Judge Smith (with copies to all Judges) confirming the results of our follow-up meeting. (Copy of --this memo is attachment #1). On March 9, 1982, Judge Stikelether, at Judge Smith's direction, contacted this writer and informed him that the medical team, selected from the University of South Florida, would not be acceptable to him (Judge Smith). Judge Smith had been in touch with his personal physician concerning an eye problem and his physician suggested he now go to Shands Hospital at the University of Flo- rida for further evaluation of his eye problem. Judge Smith and Judge Stikelether plan to visit Shands at their own expense. The Judge is now asking us to attempt to locate a similar team to that selected at Southern Florida University from The Uni- versity of Florida. At the request of this writer, Chairman Doug Scurlock, Gary Brandenburg, County Attorney and Lynn Williams requested a meeting with Judge Smith and Judge Stikelether to further pursue this matter. This meeting was held on March 10, 1982. 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Judge Smith states that since he has analyzed the vita of both Dr. Alexioa and Dr. Husting, only Dr. Husting might be acceptable to him. His preference is that we now contact a team of experts from The University of Florida since it has a much better medical center and is a much larger school. His opinion is that since they have al- ready examined Judge Stikelether, Gina Edwards, Laurie Kundrot and Shirley Woodworth, that perhaps they would be more acquainted and better qualified to perform -the tests, etc. that we need to have done. At the end of this meeting, Judge Smith agreed to give us the final results of his tests at Shands to the extent that the problem of the Courthouse did or it did not contribute to the cause of his eye problem. Both MAR 171982 a}.�aK 19 9 PAR257 114 - MAR 171982 O A19 Pkib,t'258 Judge Smith and Judge Stikelether expressed deep concern over further delay in re- moving and replacing the carpet in the courtroom so that it may be used for jury trials that are forthcoming. Once work is completed, it should be kept in mind that all persons who appear to be highly sensitive to the unknown cause of the problem at the courthouse should be asked to use the County Courtroom fire escape as an entrance and exit to the newly refurbished offices and courtroom in order to avoid exposure. On Wednesday, March 10, 1982, the only firm that had given us an estimate to remove the carpet ($2,000.00) was called in to do the job. Once they removed the carpet, we found that the most inexpensive way to remove the mastic from the floor was to also remove the parquet flooring. Judge Stikelether was very concerned about any chemicals which would be absorbed by applying direct to the parquet flooring. In addition, the contractor indicated that to use chemicals would also soak around the parquet and cause those tiles to come loose thus creating a more monumental problem. It was C. B. HardinIsdecision to remove the parquet after Mr. Williams conferred with the Judge and getting his concurrence. 3. REConv=ATIONS & FUNDING A. It is recommended that staff contact The University of Florida, Gainesville! and get their recommendation as to the type of experts needed to give a com- plete review and an analysis of the cause of the health problems that con- tinue to exist at the courthouse. B. That the Board of County Commissioners request a written agreement from Judge Smith and Judge Stikelether and all others involved with health problems, that they will accept the team recommended by The University of Florida and that those with medical problems directly, will disclose to the qualified physician team members any prior or current medical information required by that team so that they may successfully arrive at a determination of the cause of the problem. C. That staff be authorized to write bid specifications with Judges' concurrence and to request bids for carpeting to replace that carpeting removed from the county courtroom and the County Judges Offices. D. That staff be authorized to write bid specifications with Judges' concurrence and request bids to complete any and all alterations to return the county courtroom and the county Judges offices to their original condition prior to demolition. E. Once all work has been completed that all entry to and from the north end of the county courthouse by highly sensitized persons be made through the fire escape leading into that section of the courthouse until such time as it would appear no further action is required of the Board of County Commissioners. F. That funding be paid out of the County Commission Contingency Account No. 102-199-584-99.91. Dr. Hardin next read aloud the following letter received from Industrial Hygienist Jack Radcliffe: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT JACK C. RADCLIFFE 1554 S.E. Sunshine Avenue Port St. Lucie, Florida 33452 Feb. 109 1982 To: Dr. C.B . Hardin, Jr. 9 Ph. D. RECEIVED Assistant to the County Administrator 1840 25th Street MAR it Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Indian River Court House Air Contamination Dear Dr. Hardin: As requested by you and Commissioner Pat Lyons a review of various reports made by official agencies and private consultants regarding air contamination in the Indian River Court House was made on M. 99 1982. In addition a walk-through survey of the Court House was made in the company of one of your aides, Lynn Williams. The reports of HRS of Florida dated may 26 and Sept 16, 1981 and that of E & D environmenta'.;.Inalys�s and design, inc. dated July 20, 1981 were carefully read. Their findings regarding formaldehyde confirm its presence in some areas with -a decrease in levels with time. The various measurements on solvent vapors, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and comments on pigeon droppings, asbestos and ventil- ation modifications were noted. As a practicing Industrial Hygienist for over forty years I find their methods of sampling9'analysis and recommendations to be sound. To hire me would result in a similar approach to the alleged problem with probably similar results and recommendations. Such an expenditure would be unfair to the citizens of your county. It is understood that a study of actual air flows in the ventilation and air conditimning systems in the Court House was conducted on . Feb. 239 1982 by Mr. K6smeiryo Were I hired by you this would have been a part of my survey. A report on Mro Kesmeiryts findings was not yet in your file, thus no comment on this subject can be made by me. I conclude from the review of others reports and the walk-through survey of the interior and roof of the Court House that your office has systematically studied this alleged problem in a manner consis- tent with good Industrial Hygiene practice. The comments made by those other investigators regarding the lack of any health hazard from formaldehyde or other contaminants is well based on their data. Assuming there are no dramatic findings by Mr. Kesmeiry in his air flow studies, I suggest that no further recommendations are required. Occasionally in my type of work a hysterical reaction to slight odors occurs. I would hypothesize that this is the case at the Indian River Court House. In such cases only the passage of time with no measurable human effects moderates the claims. (305) 334-2680 Very truly yours, Jack C. dcliffe Certified Industrial Hygienist '9 MAR 171982 116 .�FH�E 2�9 r MAR 171982 toK 49 Pm - 260 Discussion ensued as to the fact that Dr. Alexiou, one of the members of the medical team unacceptable to the Judges, has very impressive credentials in the fields of Public Health, Preventive Medicine, Epidemiology, and Occupational and Industrial Health, although his speciality is Pediatrics. Maintenance Supervisor Lynn Williams reported that he had a telephone conversation with the Chief of Staff at Shands Hospital, who stated that his staff did not feel they could evaluate the records of those county employees who had visited Shands from an environmental position. He recommended obtaining someone from the University of Florida, and Mr. Williams stated that he did speak to a Dr. Allen, an analytical chemist. Dr. Allen, however, is not a medical doctor, and he was not sure about any relationship they could make between the medical records and the environment. He believed their staff did not think the problem was in the Courthouse. Discussion continued as to the next step to take with the University of Florida. Chairman Scurlock noted that Judge Smith had stated to him that he concurred we may never be able to identify what this problem is no matter how many experts we bring in, and felt it may just go away based on removing the carpet. Chairman Scurlock was of the opinion we could bring experts in from now on and it wouldn't make any difference. Commissioner Wodtke believed the statement had been made that if the University of Florida could not recommend someone, the Judges would accept whomever we recommended and would turn their records over to these people. Dr. Hardin reviewed the alternatives recommended in his memo, and Commissioner Fletcher spoke in favor of approving Alternatives C and D. -7 Commissioner Wodtke stated that in no way would he support Alternative C, which is to write bid specifications with the Judges' concurrence and request bids for carpeting to replace that removed. ' Commissioner Fletcher commented that we can spin our wheels on this forever, and he felt we should go ahead and fix it as the Judges have requested and minimize the taxpayer's expense to get this done. Commissioner Lyons stated that he would not vote to spend any money to put new carpets in the Judges' offices until we have more information. Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher to authorize staff to implement Recommendation C in memo from Dr. Hardin dated March 12, 198f.*' Motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Scurlock expressed his feeling that the only way to resolve this problem is to take the one courtroom, block everything off and experiment by placing a carpet in there - this may lead us to a satisfactory solution, and then we do the next office and the next until the Chambers are fully available and the Judges are fully satisfied. Chairma-n Lyons asked how we would know what carpet would be the correct one to use, and Chairman Scurlock did not know. He felt these people were sensitized and the average person does not have a problem. Commissioner Lyons believed that we will have carpets back, but that it is untimely at this point. Commissioner Wodtke had no problem in voting for carpet once the medical and other tests are done. He pointed out the problem could be caused by the fibres in the rug or it could be a combination of other things - it could turn out that the new carpet also would exude irritating fumes. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he could approve Recommendations A and B, and Commissioner Bird agreed. MAR 17 1982 118 e-vor 49 ME 261 MAR 1"71982 abk 49 Chairman Scurlock suggested just getting bid specifications, and Commissioner Bird questioned how you would write these specifications. He felt the medical team should do an analysis and make a recommendation re carpet. Discussion continued as to agreeing that upon recommendation from the medical team, Items C and D would be activated. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that D would authorize alterations to return the courtroom and offices "to their original condition prior to demolition," which includes many things other than carpet.* Motion was made by Commissioner'Wodtke,� seconded by Commissioner Bird, to approve Recommendations A and B and state that we expect a recommendation from the medical team as described in A and B as to the type of floor covering to be installed. Considerable discussion ensued as to returning the courtroom, etc., "back to the original condition," and whether that would include tearing out all Judges' platforms, etc. The problem of the glue from the carpet adhering to the wooden floor was brought up, and also the fact that three of our staff people are spending enormous amounts of time at the Courthouse and expected to appear immediately upon demand. On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously extended the meeting until 5:15 o'clock P.M. Argument continued as to the advisability of putting in new carpet before knowing what the medical problem is, and Commissioner Lyons finally conceded that he would agree to go along with C and D as long as we take enough time. He stated that he would like to add an amendment to the Motion to authorize C and D with the help of A and B. - �9 Commissioner Bird stated that he would not vote for such an amendment because D is worded much too broadly in stating that it will be returned to the original condition. He noted that the ceiling has been painted, the air conditioning changed, etc. Considerable discussion continued on the various elements involved. The Chairman called for the question on the Motion as originally worded to approve A and B and obtain a recommendation from the medical team as to the type of floor covering to be installed. Commissioners Wodtke, Bird and Lyons voted in favor; Commissioner Fletcher and Chairman Scurlock voted in bpposi"tion. The Motibh carried 3 to 2. PROPOSED GIFFORD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Chairman Scurlock reported that the Gifford community has formed a non-profit Community Development Corporation so they can receive grant money from the State. They have received a resume from John Silvera, a consultant, and the Board of Directors have come up with an agreement for him to render services' to help the Community Development Corporation with fund raising. Mr. Silvera has indicated that he�would not want to accept a position if the County Commission is not receptive to working with this group. Dorothea McGriff, President of the Gifford Community Development Corporation, has, therefore, requested a letter from the Commission indicating their feeling in this regard. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, that the Chairman be authorized to sign a letter indicating that this Commission has no objection to the Gifford community forming a Community Development Corporation and that the Commission wishes them the greatest success. MAR 171992 120 MAR 1'71982. NXIA 49 Commissioner Fletcher stated that his impression was that we are being asked to review this, not approve it or deny it. He asked if the Board wants the Motion to indicate that we reviewed this and adopted it. Commissioner Bird stated that he did not have any problem with the way the Motion is worded. Chairman Scurlock explained that they did not ask that we okay their contract, but just authorize a letter indicating that we don't have any problems with Mr. Silvera. The Chairman stated that he would like, with Attorney Brandenburg's help, to construct a letter indicating that Mr. Silvera is welcome to come to the county and work with the organization. Commissioner Bird requested that if the Chairman and Attorney should discover there is more involved than we have been led to believe, that they please bring this matter back to the Board. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. CHANGE ORDER #70 - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING The following Change ~Order signed by Administrator Nelson per Commission authorization of August 11, 1979, is hereby made a part of the Minutes: W =21 -Ct,.faNGE OWNER ARCHITECT ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER PROJECT: Indian River County (name, address) County Administration Bldg. TO (Contractor) F Reinhold Construction Inc. P.O.Box 666 Cocoa, FL 32922 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 70 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 9363 CONTRACT FOR: Add i t ions and Renovations L J CONTRACT DATE:4/2/80 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: Credit per Reinhold's Memorandum,.Dated Dec. 28, 1981, to Delete 200 ft. of 12" Sewer pipe and Associated Items from CP -28. ($3,227.80) CP -58 - Exterior Stucco Repair Total this C.O. 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 contractot° 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" ref hected In the attached documents. 200.00 ($3,027.80) The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 21748,000.00. Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 351, 391.81 . The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,099,391.81. The Contract Sum will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by this Change Order . . . $ (3,027.80) The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . $ 31096,364.01. 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 1W6TESo. Dixie Highway Address Coral Ga _;es, FL 33134 BY r •--�--- _ DATE �CL' REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION INC. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY C-ONTRT.U, ox°R666 14th Ave Add, Address ocoa,F1� 1,$22 Vero Beach, FL 32960 BY E AIA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIA® • m 1970 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 MAR 171992 122 DATE4 C �� _P ONE PAGE Bim 9 MOE 405. MAR 17 1992 AMOK 49 u, 'F' 266 SELECTIVE MAINTENANCE ON CANAL D The License to perform Seld.ctive Maintenance is hereby made a part of the record, as approved at the Regular Meeting of February 2, 1982. LICENSE TO PERFORM SELECTIVE MAINTENANCE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SEBASTIAN RIVER DRAINAGE DISTRICT do hereby grant Indian River County the priviledge of performing selective maintenance on the north 2200 lineal feet of Canal "D" (located west of the District's west dike) subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1) Indian R ver County shall not enlarge, widen or deepen -a Canal "D" without the direct permission of the Sebastian River Drainage District. 2) No Maintenance within Canal "D" shall be performed without at least seven (7) days notice by the County to the Sebastian River Drainage District. THIS LICENSE shall be effective March 1, 1982 and shall be in effect until a written cancellation notice is given to Indian River County. EXECUTED this 1st day of March 1982. kv. 0 SEBASTIAN RIVER DRAIAGE DISTRICT There being no further business, on Motion made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 5:20 o'clock P.M. Attest: Clerk Chairman I- - V.., " - . 1. A. . '267 MAR 171982 124 49