Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/19/1983Wednesday, January 19, 1983 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, January 19, 1983, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Alfred Grover Fletcher, Patrick B. Lyons; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Community Services Director; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director; Dan Fleischman, Bailiff; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Commissioner Fletcher led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Reverend Stan Sanford, First Baptist Church, Wabasso, gave the invocation. INTRODUCTION OF AIDE TO .CONGRESSMAN TOM LEWIS Chairman Bird introduced Ms. Sandi Fodi, Aide to Congressman Tom Lewis. _ Ms. Fodi informed those present that Congressman Lewis is anxious to be of service to those in Indian River County and will have hours when he will be available in Vero Beach City Hall on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month. She reported that Congressman Lewis can be contacted at his main officer 8895 North Military Trail, Suite 304B Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. 33410 and at his branch office: 50 Kendrick St., Room 104 b Stuart, Fla. 33494 ADDITIONS TO AGENDA The Chairman asked if there were any additions to the Agenda. Administrator Wright wished to add an item regarding JAN 19 1983 x 52 FwF 56R r JAIL 19 198 approval of expenses for student Ken Ferrington, who prepared a master plan for Hobart Park. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously added the above emergency item to the agenda as requested by the Administrator. Administrator Wright had two financial matters to be added to the agenda - participation in the State Board of Investment pool and approval of signatures on warrants etc., for the newly elected Chairman and Vice Chairman. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously added the above emergency additions to today's agenda as requested by the Administrator. Attorney Brandenburg wished to add approval of an agreement between the County and the City for use of power poles between the Administration Building and the Courthouse so that installation can be started as soon as possible. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously added consideration of the above agreement to today's agenda. Attorney Brandenburg reported that our Legislative Delegation is going to be meeting February 8th at City Hall, and if the Commission has any ideas re local bills, we need to bring these to the Delegation's attention. He reported that in the process of working on a new Subdivision Ordinance, they would 2 like to be allowed to clean up the Code by repealing the old Special Acts that apply to the County and he will supply the Board a list of these at the February 2nd meeting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously added the item re attendance at the meeting of the Legislative Delegation to today's agenda as requested by the. Attorney. Board Secretary Elizabeth Forlani reported that the Commission needs.to approve the Bond of C. Reed Knight who was re-elected to the Mosquito Control Board. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously - authorized adding approval of the above bond to the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Decem- ber 1, 1982. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1, 1982, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 15, 1982. Attorney Brandenburg reported that he had made some changes 3 JAN 19 1983 to 52 pruq'571, r JAN 19 1993 aux q e4.. in the Contract on Page 68 and the corrected contract page should be inserted. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of December 15, 1982, as written, with the above insertion. CLERK TO BOARD A. Budget Amendment - Radiological Monitoring Course To: �Frcm: Re: ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the following budget amendment re a Radiological Monitoring Course. January 6, 1983 . Bcard of County Commissioners Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director Radiological Monitoring Course The following Budget amendment is necessary to correctly allocate the revenues and expenses on the above referenced cWrse. Account '110e Disaster Preparedness` Regular Salaries Other .'Rrofess i ona t services Outside Printing Telephone Travel Office Supp`l i es Meetings & Seminars Regular Salaries Other Mach. & Equip Automotive Account Number 001-000=342-41.00 001-208-525-11.12 001-208-525-33.19 001-208-525-34.72 001-208-525-34.11 001-208-525-34.02 001-208-525-35.11 001-208-525-35.43 001-208-525-11.12 001-208-525-66.49 001-208-525-66.42 ncre__e Dec ease 2,865 1,403 184 109 280 25 55 46 45 387 105 B. Budget Amendment re Closing of South County Water Taxing District The Board reviewed the proposed amendment as follows: 4 January 7, 1983 ' `)moo; , Board Pf County Commissioners - From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director Subject: Closing of South Indian River County Water Taxing District Fund We would like to close out the South Indian.River County Water Taxing District Fund and transfer the remaining cash to the South County Water Plant Construction Fund. , rbcommend the following budget amendment be adopted to close out the Water Taxing District.Fund and transfer the cash to the Construction Fund. Account Number Account Title Increase P ----ease 113-000-389-40.00 Cash Forward Oct 1 101-642 113-116-581-99.21 Fund Transfers Out 10,642 421-000-381-20.00 Fund Transfers In 10,642 421-230-533-66.51 Construction in Process 10,642 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to approve the above amendment necessary for closing out the South County Water Taxing District Fund. Commissioner Scurlock's basic question involved his philosophy re taking money in a district which now has been expanded to a much larger area, i.e., you actually have taxed a small number of people and the benefit is occurring to a larger area. He agreed it would be too cumbersome to try to rebate this money and just wished to express his concern for the record. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. C. Participation in State. Investment Pool Assistant Finance Director Ed Fry informed the Board that the State Board of Administration has established an investment board in which the counties may participate; it is a matter of 5x PAr 7 JAN 19 1983 r JAN 19 1983 � 59Crrp wiring funds to them to invest and simply creates another investment vehicle. The State requests that the County indicate their wish to participate in this pool by Resolution. In further discussion, Community Services Director Thomas reported that the State's track record of investments has been exceptionally good, and Mr. Fry stated that the State will furnish us with a report on the investments made and the interest returned. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-3 authorizing partici- pation in the State investment pool. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 83- 3 A RESOLUTION OF'THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,. FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN. ACCOUNT WITH THE STATE ` BOARD OF"ADMINISTRATION AND TO TRANSMIT COUNTY FUNDS TO THE STATE BOARD'OF ADMINISTRATION'S INVESTMENT �• POOL. WHEREAS, Indian Diver County from time to time has funds on hand in excess'of current needs, and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of Indian River County that funds be invested in such a manner as to yield the highest return possible consistent with proper safe- guards for the handling of governmental funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. That the Finance Director of Indian River County, . Jeffrey.Barton, is hereby authorized to transmit such funds to the State Board of Administration to be invested according to appli- cable laws of the State of Florida consistent with the needs of Indian River County. Furthermore, the Finance Director is author- ized to withdraw funds frora the State Board of Administration in the name of Indian River County by giving timely notice together with confirmation 'oy lette • executed by the Finance Director and County P,dmifiist.•<:jtox , iicha<�� tirigilt. 2. T; -,at tills aa_horization shall be continuing in nature until revoked by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner• ' Scurlock who moved its -(dO�Otion. The motion was.seconded by Commissioner Lyons and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice -Chairman non C.Jr. Aye Commissioner A. Grover Fletcher Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons ' Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly 7` to 62 wE -5751 r JAN 19 1983 - WK passed and adopted this 19th day of January 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By A/ RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Attest: •1 �r��-il�/� �_ . � FREDA WRIGHT, CqSr APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGASzIE � BRANDENBURGJ .Attorney _j D. Resolution Authorizing Signatures ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-4 directing County de- positories to honor certain authorized signatures. � � r RESOLUTION NO. 83_4 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DIRECTING COUNTY DEPOSI- TORIES TO HONOR CERTAIN AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES ON COUNTY WARRANTS AND OTHER ORDERS FOR PAYMENT. WHEREAS, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY on January 5, 1983 held an election for the office of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, the County Commission did nominate and select RICHARD N. BIRD as CHAIRPZAN and DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., as VICE CHAIRMAN, and WHEREAS, FREDA WRIGHT was elected CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY effective January 4, 1977, and also serves as a CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS pursuant to Florida Statutes Sec. 125.167, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary to reinstruct the County's depositories as to the signatures necessary to honor County warrants, checks or other orders for the payment of money drawn in the Commission's name, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, sitting in regular session that: 1. The County Commission has in the past designated certain banking institutions as official depositories of County funds, such designations are hereby ratified and affirmed, and 2. That each designated depository of the Commission is hereby requested, authorized and directed to honor checks, warrants or other orders for the payment of money drawn in the Commission's name, including those payable to the individual order of any person or persons whose name or names appear thereon, when bearing the facsimile signature of the Chairman of the County Commission and the facsimile signature of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, when said check warrants or other orders for the payment of money equals or does not exceed the sum of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00), and JAN 19 1983 9 alox 52 PAVE 577 The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commission Lyons and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner A. Grover Fletcher Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 19th day of January, 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMIISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER/COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Richard N. Bird, Chairman Attest:d,2� Freda Wright, C rk APPROVED TO FORM AND LEG FF T9fF Xr BY ttorney STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER tefore me personally appeared FREDA WRIGHT, RICHARD N. BIRD AND DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. to me known and known to me to be the persons who executed the foregoing instrument and having been placed under oath have indicated that the foregoing are their actual and facsimile signatures, this 19 10 M day of January, 1983. lel/ c71;,11t'1. T�lOTARY PUBLIC STATE O, [ BONDED THRU GENERAL INSMAP4 .E UNO`11 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUIk 1'0. 1986 M M WHEREAS, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if a check, warrant or other order for the payment of money drawn in the Commission's name exceeds the sum of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00), said designated depositories are authorized and directed to honor checks, warrants or other orders for the payment of money drawn in the Commission's name, only when such check, warrant or other order for the payment of money bears the facsimile signature of the Chairman and Clerk of the Circuit Court and further bears the original signature of either the Chairman, Vice Chairman or Clerk of the Circuit Court. Said actual and facsimile signatures appear below: (1) Freda Wright , ,1 Clerk of the Circuit Court(�I _ Actual Facsimile (2) Richard N. Bird Chairman Z�d Actual G Facsimile (3) Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Vice Chairman BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above named signatories are hereby. authorized to execute any and all signature cards and agreements as requested by the respective banking institutions designated as official depositories by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the use of facsimile signatures is as authorized by Florida Statutes Chap. 116.34 the "Uniform Facsimile Signature of Public Officials Act". 11 PAU F," -- :JAN � N 191983 CONSENT AGENDA A. Release of Easement - Matakaetis, Oslo Park The Board reviewed.staff recommendation: � Kire� a�E TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: December 27, 1982 FILE: 1182-12-04-010 Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST County Administrator BY MARK MATAKAETIS - SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 19 AND 20, BLOCK DIVI ON HEAD C CURRENC : A, OSLO PARK SUBDIVISION, UNIT 3 Pry buce King . `' a. REFERENCES: Charles Kindig Zoning Inspector This is in response to a Release of Easement request by Mark Matakaetis, owner of the subject property. It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Mark Matakaetis to release the common side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 19 and 20; Block A, **Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3. The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power and Light, Flm-ida`Cablc, Inc. and the Utility and Right -of -4,W Departments. The Zoning staff analysis, which includes a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled by the existing front, rear and side swales. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: After site inspection by Zoning Inspector Charles Kiridig, it is the Zoning Department's opinion that to release the common side lot 5 foot easements Of lots 19 and 20, Block A, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3, would have no adverse effect and would allow the petitioner to utilize these 2 lots as one larger, single family residential lot. However, if the easements are not released, the petitioner will be denied his request to utilize these 2 lots as one :larger parcel. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the release of the common side lot 5 foot easements of lots 19 and 20, Block A, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-5, approving Release of the common side lot 5' easements of Lots 19 12 and 20, Block A, Oslo Park Subdivision, as re- quested by Mark Matakaetis, and authorized the signature of the Chairman. RESOLUTION N0. 8 3-5 ,WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the common side lot 5 foot easements of lots 19 and'20, Block A, Oslo Park Subidivsion, Unit 3, according to the Plab-of same recorded in Plat Book 4, page 19, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo Pdr►k Subdivision,Unit 3 for the public utility and drainage purposes, and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements has been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY.THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot'line,easements in Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: The common side lot'5 foot easements of lots '19 and 20: Block A, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3', according to the Plat of the same filed �i in the nff.,ice of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Hook 4, Page 79. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board.of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements hereina3ove referred to in form Proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of :.indian River County, Florida. This 19th day of January 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Richard N. Bird, Chairman 13 flex 50990 tW'- JOIN 19 1983 0 B. Release of Bond - Fran 0. Ross ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign Release of Bond on Fran 0. Ross, who has resigned from the Hospital Board of Trustees. C. Approval of Bond - C. Reed Knight ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the signature of all Board members on the Bond of C. Reed Knight, Trustee of the Indian River Mosquito Control,Board. BOOK �� 1 � Said Bond is on File in the Office of the Clerk. D. Attendance at Meeting of Legislative Delegation ON MOTION BY Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the Attorney to attend the meeting of our Legislative Delegation on February 8th and discuss possible repeal of Special Acts. CLERK REQUESTS CLARIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR EMPLOYEES TO ATTEND SCHOOLS, ETC. The Board reviewed memos from Attorney Brandenburg, Administrator Wright, and former Administrator Nelson: 14 TO: Board of 'DATE: January 6, 1983 FELE:. County commissioners FROM Cary M. -Brandenburg County Attorney SUBJECT: Request of Freda Wright, County Clerk to Clarify Expenditures of County Funds for Educational and Incidental Expenses for Employees of the County to Attend-Naxiotis Seminars and Schools. REFERENCES: Attached to this memorandum you will find a letter from Freda Wright requesting the County.Commission to establish a policy clarifying the expenditure of County funds for employees to attend seminars and other educational opportunities. Public funds may not be expended unless the expenditure promotes a public purpose.. With respect to educational programs for public employees, the primary test to be applied is whether the training program is one which will improve the efficiency of the employee to ]�erfoam tasks that will benefit the public in general. The train_ - Ing which is meant to train an employee for basic qualifications necessary for the performance of their duties cannot be paid. However, training specifically designed to improve the efficiency of an employee who is already qualified for the position he or she currently holds and which training is necessary to carry out responsibilities of the County may be paid at public expense. To determine which category a specific educational opportunity falls within, one must examine the content of the program and the minimum qualifications necessary under the employee's job descrip- tion. If..the employee is Lequired to have a degree of knowledge offered in the course to obtain the position initially under the job description, then the course may not be paid for out of the public treasury. If, on the other hand, the course is designed to improve efficiency of an employee who is already otherwi,e quali- f.ied to hold the position he or she, currently has, •tasen -1-he conuse. may be paid for if its content is deemed worthwhil._to. ji and attendance would improve efficiency and thus very ��. Cc)"jitt�y purpose. What t s p�ubl i c; type of courses serve a public purpose mll;,t be looked.at on a case by case basis by the County Administrator or the County Commission. With respect to travel expenses, Florida.Statutes 5112.061 (3) a, b provides for reimbursement of travel for an official business trip together with reimbursement for expenses necessarily incurred. The State Statute provides maximum amounts of reimbursement. The employee seeking reimbursement must substantiate the expenses and that the expenses were necessary in order to fulfill this assign- ment which caused the travel. Consequently, the identity of the employee and the employee's scope of duties under his or her posi.- tion and the purpose of the travel must be reviewed to determine eligibility for reimbursement. In addition to the general law referenced above, Indian River County has'a special act adopted in 1963 (Special Act Chapter 63-1436 Section 1) which provides "Members and employees of the Board of County Commissioners, when traveling outside the boundaries of Indian River County, whether within or without the state, on official County business duly authorized in open meeting, shall be allowed the same mileage and the same 15 a BOOK 2 PA"F 5183 JAS 1 9P 1983 JAN 19 1983 subsistence per diem as are allowed elected officials of the state and employees of the state, respectively, or actual reasonable expenses, at the election of the member or the employee." Under this section the employee or member of the County Commission is not limited .to .the maximum expenses: provided for- by Florida Statutes 5112.061 et seq and the only limiting factor is reason- ableness. The County Administrator or Board of County Commissioners may wish to establish a procedure or guideline for establishing the reasonableness of an expenditure. Respectfully spbmitteal, ,Ggry^ Brandenburg / ounty Attorney �-- GMB/mg O: The Honorable Members of DATE: January 10, 1983 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Michael Wr County Adm s or Request of Freda Wright on SUBJECT: Travel Policy REFERENCES: Attached is a memorandum from former County Administrator Neil Nelson suggesting a travel policy for county employees. Also attached is a copy of the December 17, 1980 minutes that basically approved the policy. Unless you have objections, T'see no reason to `:hangF the policy. I require division directors to approve all requests before they are submitted to me for final approval. This procedure appears to be working. With regard to reimbursement, I suggest we follow the State of Florida guidelines. I will make sure you are provided with information on approved travel as it occurs. If you have any questions or desire additional infor- mation, please advise. 15a December 1, 1980 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil -A. Nelson, County Administrator SUBJECT: Delegation of Travel Permission My office has researched the Florida Statutes for determination of authority to allow budgeted authorized employee travel. 1. Paragraph 112.061 (2).(A) specifies the County as a legal agency of the state. 2. Paragraph 112.061 (2) (B) specifies the agency head as the highest policy-making authority of a public authority or, in our case, the R Board of County Commissioners. 3. Paragraph 112.061 (3) (A) specifies, "All travel must be aythorized and approved by the head of the agency, or his designated represen ntive, from whose funds the traveler is paid." The sub -paragraph continues, "In every instance, prior to the approval, the head of the agency ma, request a signed statcuient by the traveler's supervisor, stating that such travel is on the official business of the state and also si;at'ng the purpose of such travel." Based on the above information, I request the following action by the Boat -,- of County Commissioners:. As the designatedrepresentativeof the Board, allow me to authorize officla, travel of career classification personnel of the County with the following provisions: 1. Appropriate expl ana ti oil .of the travel, signed by me appears on the travel voucher. 2.. The Board shall be notified of request approvals at the next schedu;ec Board of County Commissioner's meeting after said travel has been performed. Nei A. Nelson County Administrator Clerk Freda Wright reported that there have been requests for attendance at various functions where she has questioned the legality of using County funds for these purposes, and she would like this clarified to keep all departments out of trouble. Commissioner Lyons felt that the Attorney's statement is quite clear. 16 JAN 19 198 Pw 585 rJAN 19 1-983,� K `d �1 . MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, to confirm our original policy which was outlined in former Administrator Nelson's memo dated Decem- ber 1, 1980 and Mr. Wright's memo of January 10, 1983, with the understanding that if the amount involved goes over budget, it is then required to come before the Commission for authorization. Mrs. Wright believed that in the past we have had some expenses approved that really were in the gray area as to the type of education involved. Commissioner Scurlock felt the Attorney is available at any time if a legal opinion is needed in regard to reimbursement. Discussion continued regarding County policy, and it was agreed that one of the keys is for the department head to identify that there is a need for the particular training rather than this being employee initiated. It was also emphasized that when anyone is hired, they already should have the basic training required to qualify for that position. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we are going to follow the State guidelines on travel and expenses and disregard the Special Act, and Commissioner Scurlock stated that his Motion related specifically to State guidelines and would exclude Special Acts. Discussion continued as to the state travel allowance of 20� per mile, and Commissioner Wodtke commented on the fact that although being able to use his private plane to transport officials to Tallahassee could well be cheaper than the price of commercial round trip tickets, he could not do this for 20� per mile, and Administrator Wright also felt there are times when it is cheaper to charter a plane. In further discussion it was generally felt there should be some flexibility allowed. 17 A Commissioners Scurlock and Fletcher agreed to modify the Motion to allow the flexibility to come back to the Board for approval of any deviation from the specified guidelines. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion as modified. It was voted on and carried unani- mously. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNT' 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 ails in the matter of �'i� chi' cG/ f14-) in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of D45te ' Court, was pub- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in. said Indian River County, 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, for a 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. Sworn to and subscribed (SEAL) JAN 19 1983 (Clerk of the Circuit day of �• A.D. 19 rt�.) NOTICE OF INTENTTOCONSIDER COUNTY ORDINANCE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County will Conduct a public j hearin4 on January 19, 1983, at 9:00 A.M. in the Commission Chambers at the County Ad -j ministration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero! Beach, Florida, to consider adoption of an ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 80-17 AND SECTION 4-32 OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND OR DINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,! AMENDMENTS TO STANDARD BUILDING. CODE, DELETING THE PROVISION THAT REQUIRES ONE-HALF OF THE REQUIRED' PERMIT FEE TO BE PAID AT THE TIME: OF FILING THE APPLICATION,. PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION IN CODE, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he -she willneed al record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he -she may, need to ensure that a ver- batim record of the proceedings is Made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beath, Florida 32960 i Attention: Liz Forlani Dec. 30, 1982, 18 DO 52 P��E r JAN 19 193 BOOK - ' .; �" , Attorney Brandenburg reported that this is a clean-up from an earlier meeting where the Board adopted a Resolution setting up new building fees. This particular provision regarding paying half of the required permit fee at the time of filing the. application conflicted with the new standards and it, therefore, is necessary to repeal that provision. Commissioner Fletcher had several questions and considerable discussion ensued. Commissioner Wodtke noted that the City actually collects 1h altogether (they collect $50 when they get the plan and then $100 later) , and- Attorney Brandenburg stated that is what the Commission already had adopted. In further discussion, it was noted that the whole fee structure was put together as a package to generate enough revenue to support the department and to assure that we are compensated for the time spent on plan study and inspections. Commissioner Scurlock believed that the uniformity has had many benefits and noted that we have not had any complaints since the new schedule was instituted. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Fletcher voted in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote, adopted Ordinance 83-7. 19 ORDINANCE NO. 83- 7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 80-17 AND SECTION 4-32 OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, AMENDMENTS TO STANDARD BUILDING CODE, DELETING THE PROVISION THAT REQUIRES ONE-HALF OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT FEE TO BE PAID AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPLICATION, PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION IN -CODE, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,.sitting in regular session this 19th day of January, 1983, that; SECTION 1.. Indian River County Ordinance No. 80-17 Section 8 is hereby amended so:that the -paragraph entitled, SECTION 107.40, reads as follows; Schedule of permit fees. Section 107.4 is amended to read: On all buildings, structures or alterations requiring a building permit as set forth -in Section 105, a fee shall be paid in accordance with a schedule of fees as established by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, by resolution. 9ne-hal �-e��_the-rer�uired-fie-as-est�ma�ed,bp-tl�e btA-Id n -of ici:r 1-sh< 1 -be-pain-st-the-time-of-€ l erg-tkre app�����ct��sr�-and-�,1'ae-ba1«�yce-of-the-fee-s�aa�r�-be-�sa�ci-when-eke btti�c�xs�e�-pe.trftit-:�-ienuee�- SECTION 2. All ordinances applicable, in Indian River County which ar,� in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 3. INCORPORATION IN CODE. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. SECTION 4,. SEVERABILITY. If any section,'part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the -remaining portions of this Ordinance; and it shall 20 JAN 19 1983 AN 1.9 1983 CODING: Words' in strtlek-thrOUgh type are deletions from Px i s f• i n rn 1 a To be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. - SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this. 19th day of January, 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIIAAN RRIVER COUNTY r BY /Ge _/" t // RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department.of State of the State of Florida this 27th day of January 1983. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of St received on this 31st day of January , 1983, at Mt A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.* APPRON7E0 .=' S TO FOITi ANiD LEGAL By BRANDENBURG, ounty Attorney FINAL PAYMENT - JAIL SECURITY FENCING The Board reviewed staff recommendation, as follows: 21 TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: January 4, 1983 FILE: Board of County Commissioners Through: Michael Wright, ✓ County Administrator SUBJECT: Final Payment - Indian River county Jail Security Fencing FROM: Jim Davt ' Public Director REFERENCES: DESCRIPTION AM CONDITIONS The Security Fencing installation at the County Jail is complete. The original contract between Indian River County and Martin Fence Company dated August 4, 1982 defined the project cost at $18,250. The original time of completion was October 12, 1982. A partial payment in the amount of $13,961.25 was issued in December, 1982. The outstanding contract balance is $4,288.75. ALTERNATIVES AMID ANALYSIS The Ja l Administrator, Bill Baird, and the Public Works Director have inspected the work and find the materials and installation to substantially conform to the contract documents. Due to delay of equipment shipments and work performed by other contractors, the 49 days that the contractor exceeded the 30 day time of impletion Is justified. The work was substantially cOMPlete on December 1, 1982, and the one year warranty period commenced on December 1, 1982. The contractor has submitted subcontractor affidavits and release of lien forms; however, the contractor has shown that payment to subcontractors, Paul White Electric in the amount of $572.52 and to T.P.A., Inc. in the amount of $2112.56, is still outstanding. The County Attorney's office has no objection to the issuance of 3 checks as follows: 1) One check payable to Martin Fend Co. and Paul White Electric, Inc. in the amount of $572.52. 2) One check payable to Martin Fence Co. and T.P.A., Inc. in the amount of $2112.56. 3) One check payable to Martin Fence Co. in the amount of $1603.67. XXT4 MATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that: 1) Project No. 8122 - Indian River County Jail Improvements - Bid Item No. 3 - Security Fencing - Martin Fence Co. - be accepted as complete as of December 1, 1982. 2) Final payment be made in the amount of .$4,288.75 by issuance of three separate checks as follows: 1) Martin Fence Co. and Paul White Electric, Inc. — $572.52 2) Martin Fence Co. and T.P.A., Inc. $2112.56 3) Martin. Fence Co. - $1603.67 3) A time extension be granted of 49 days to the original completion date of October 12, 1982, and that liquidated damages be waived. 22 ('OK C9, PAVE. JAN 19 1983 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner -Fletcher, the Board unanimously approved the staff recommendation as in memo of January 4, 1983, above. AUTHORIZATION OF PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF BEACH BONDS MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, to authorize William R. Hough & Co. to commence preparation of the docu- ments required for Issuance of $5,000,000 Beach Bonds. Commissioner Scurlock reported that at the Finance Advisory Committee meeting, they asked Hough & Co. to run through their computer all impacts of the various payback periods, 5 - 10 - 20 years, etc., re impact on the taxpayer. The advantages of moving ahead quickly to get the bond proceeds invested and working for us was emphasized. It was further noted that we do not pay Hough & Co. until we get the money from the bonds and also that the law requires that 85% of this money be expended within a three year period. Attorney Brandenburg commented that the only thing you have to have at time of closing is a vehicle to support the reasonable expectation that you will spend all the money within the three year period, and the Administrator emphasized that this money is not tied to the Save our Coast Program. Commissioner Wodtke stated that in his mind it was tied to that program, but other Board.members disagreed and felt that is only one of the options we have in regard to purchasing beachfront property. Commissioner Wodtke asked if this goes on ad valorem or whether it is outside the millage cap, and Mr. Thomas confirmed that it is outside the cap. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. WORKSHOP DATE FOR DISCUSSION OF CODY REPORT The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: TO: Michael J. Wright DATE: January 10, 1983 FILE: County Administrator THRU: C. B. Har Jr. Ph. D. SUBJECT: CODY REPORT Asst, toy tAdministrator/ Personn Director S FROM: __ REFERENCES: Lois M. Hoder Personnel Manager Descriptions and Conditions At the April 4, 1982, Commission meeting, the Board authorized the Administrator's office to seek proposals from Management Consulting firms to perform aWage and Salary Survey. Five firms responded with bids varying from -$4,500 to $22,100. During the July 21, 1982 meeting, the Board approved the low bid of $4,500 to Cody and Associates with the understanding they would furnish —the County with an implementation booklet, which they have done. Participating in the study along with the Board of County Commissioners were the Clerk of Circuit Court and the Property Appraiser's offices. Recommendations Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners meet with Mr. Nick Pellegrino of Cody.& Associates, the County Administrator, Personnel Director, County Attorney, Personnel Manager, Clerk of Circuit Court, and Property Appraiser in a workshop session to review and discuss in detail these reports. Further recommend that the workshop meeting be scheduled for Thursday January 20, 1983, at 9:00 a.m. in the County Commission Conference Room. Considerable discussion ensued, and the Board indicated that it did not feel the report submitted by Cody is ready for a workshop session; among other things, there are elements that are riot sufficiently documented. 24 JAN 19 1983 PArs rad On�' Fb�"F �.`� JAN 1 9 1983 Commissioner Fletcher agreed the report needs further work, but felt a workshop would be beneficial. Commissione" Scurlock noted that the format isn't even right - in some places they have a salary grade and they don't have a range for it. He felt there were many various errors. Chairman Bird asked how we convey all this to Cody without a workshop, and Commissioner Lyons noted that the Administrator -has had communications from the Board members and will forward these comments to Cody. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously agreed to delay the proposed workshop with Cody & Associates until the consultants submit a further report -within 30 days; each Board member to convey any problems he has with the present report to the Administrator. Bid #151 Front End Loader The Board reviewed recommendation of the Purchasing Manager: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 11, 1983 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator FROM: Caroly Goodrich Purchasing Manager 1. Description and Conditions SUBJECT: IRC BID #151 - One (1) Front End Loader REFERENCES: Bids were received December 21, 1982 at 10:00 A.M. for IRC Bid #151 - One (1) Front End Loader for the Road & Bridge Department. This machine will be used -in the shell pit for stockpiling and loading trucks. Also to be used for -petition paving for removing trees and underbrush. It will replace Veh. #67 — 1969 Cat D4 Dozer which will be sold to the Landfill. 25 � � r 15 B.id_proposals were sent out. Of the 11 Bid Proposals received, 2 were "No Bids". 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by M.D. Moody & Sons, Inc., for a Furukawa in the amount Of $93,119.00. Jack McCorkle of the Fleet Management Department has talked with personnel at the City of Clearwater who have (1) Furukawa End Loader and also with Barco Construction in Jacksonville who have (4) Furukawa End Loaders. Both have had excellent experience with the Furukawa and have had no problems with service or the availability of parts. M.D. Moody & Sons demonstrated the Furukawa at the Road & Bridge Department on January 10th. The Furukawa meets allminimumspecifications and will meet the requirements of the Road & Bridge Department. The second low bid was submitted by Sunrise Ford for a Ford A-66 in the amount of 101,000. However, the Ford is a smaller End Loader and does not meet mininjum specifi-- cations. The third low bid was submitted by Linder Industrial Machinery for a Clark 125C in the amount of $102,000.00. The bid meets all minimum specifications. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC Bid #151 be awarded to M.D. Moody & Sons fora Furukawa in the amount of $93,119.00. There is $225,000.00 budgeted in Account #004-214-541-66-43. Some discussion ensued, and Commissioner Scurlock requested that in the future the unencumbered balance in the budgeted account be shown also. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously award.Bid #151 for one Furukawa End Loader to the low bidder M. D. ,Moody & Sons in the amount of $93,119.00 as recommended by staff. .I { ..- BORRO OF COUNTY COMWWONERB - 2143 -14th Avenue - Ymo Beaeh. Rkhtae MW i O � A BID TABULATION e' 8t) NO. DAT! OF OI'HM01011'e'. 810 TITLE - 4 SAE and loader rake of n bucket 26 JAN 19 198 ��x MT Peso F'JAN 19 193 BID # 152 - Road Grader BOOK 029.(A. -UP, 1 The Board reviewed the following memo from the Public Works Director: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: January 10, 1983 FILE: s Board of County Commissioners Through: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: Award of Bid - IRC #152 - Road and Bridge Dept. Road CLader FROM: Jim Davis, NVI REFERENCES: Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND cODIDITIONS During the 1982/83 Board of county C ffudssioner's Budget Hearings, the Board appsnved $103,000 for the purchase of a Road Grader. Specifications for the purchase of the equipment were prepared by the Road and Bridge Superintendent aLd Vehicle Maintenance Director. Bids were publicly adverUsed November 20-26, 1982% and bids were opened and recorded on December21,-1982, at a public meeting held in the County Admini •i-rator office. The grader is to be used as a "finish" grader for road paving to replacs Grader.' #48 (1963 Caterpillar), which is to be used as a speare. ALTERNATIV'Eg mism ANALYSIS Ten bidders respondedto the call for bids. Five -responded with a no bid. Of the five bidders submitting prices, four bidders met all minim= specifidations. The ti ee low bids that substantially met specifications were as follows: 1) Florida -Georgia Tractor - Galion Model A500 $65,839J.1 2) 2K911y factor -, Caterpillar Model 120G $69,5ia. my 3) Tinder -• Tndustrial Machinery Co. CIu mion D710A $70,536.00 Bids received during this bidding period were substantially below these received 3ast year. 7he Cat grader bid price is $42,927. below last year's bid of $112,498, alis, even below the 1980 bid price. It appears that the .recent re�ssiml has placed us ij, 'buyer's market". The CaLatp . lax. Grader bid rLeets or exceeds all Spec-:.Lf_i_ca• i( -)ms. The ,t :Lion Gra,4 meet: all specifications except that the windshield does not open. BE.,sed Qn i ne teb1rjj.t:al specifications -listed on the manufacturer's brodwre, the Caterpillax (-wader ,iF e. heavie.•+ more substantial grader. The advantages to purchase the Caterpillar -Grader fur L-.1 additional cost of $3,731.83 is as follows: 1) The County has a spare parts stock since we currently have _5 C,) t erpjLLa, _ � grader: 2) The County mechanics are experienced in working on Caterpillar graders. The Ccrrity does own a Galion grader and has no spare parts stock. 3) The County operators and all local grader csgmers contacted are of the o�,ir,ion that the Caterpillar is a superior grader, with a higher resale/salvage value. 27 Also, the Road and Bridge Dept. would prefer to keep the replacment.1963 Caterpillar Grader as a spare since it is in good condition due to recent repairs. This grader is intended to be used as a spare so that when a gr;oder is being repaired, the grader, operators will be able to con'cinue on their route,. Also, petition paving projecL.9 are expected to increase. RECCMM=ONS Am FUNDING It is recomrended that the bid be awarded to Kelly Tractor Co. in the anr=t of $69,571. for a Caterpillar 120 Series G Motor Grader. Funding to be from Road and Bridge Dept. Acct. #004-214-541-66.43 Heavy Lau pment, unencumbered balance as of 1-07-83 is $613,295, (Budgeted $655,813.) Motion was made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, to award Bid #152 to the Kelly Tractor Co., the second low bidder, for a Caterpillar Grader, Model 120G, in the amount of $69,571.00, as recommended by the Public Works Director. Commissioner Fletcher felt some consideration should be given to the fact that we now have about 6 Caterpillar graders. We also, however, have a Galion Grader, and although he understands the advantages of Caterpillar and the parts situation, Commissioner Fletcher believed the Galion is a comparable machine; it has given us good service; and there is a $4,000 difference. He further felt the fact that we have all Caterpillar gradersmightgive us some problems in future bidding and also parts pricing. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that a road grader is something we keep forever, and resale value, therefore, would not be such a big factor. Public Works Director Davis believed the main consideration is that the Caterpillar is a heavier more substantial graderand that for a difference of only $3,000 or so, we would be justified in going to the heavier machine. Discussion ensued as to whether a heavier grader necessarily does a better job. Commissioner Scurlock withdrew his Motion. Bill Miller, representative of Florida -Georgia Tractor Co., believed that weight does not have that much to do with performance. He stated that they feel the Galion grader is 28 took 7 9 1983 � arrim comparable, as well as being the low bid. He felt they have done a good job on parts and service, and emphasized that the Galion the County now owns has been found very satisfactory. Discussion arose as to the time it takes to get spare parts, and Mr. Miller reported that his company has six branches in the state and parts could be obtained over night in instances. Ile pointed out that Caterpillar has been on strike for four months, which is bound to affect their parts situation. Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke to accept the recommendation of staff and award the Bid to Kelly Tractor for a Caterpillar grader since this is a heavier machine; our operators have experience in operation and maintenance of the Caterpillar equipment; and we can transfer parts. The Motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Bird concurred with Commissioner Fletcher that, in this instance, we have a close enough comparison that we might hurt ourselves in future bidding if we did not go with the low bidder. ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner Wodtke voting in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote awarded Bid 0152 to the low bidder, Florida -- Georgia Tractor for a Galion Road Grader in the amount of $75,839.17. VACATING PLAT OF RAVINIA GARDENS SUBDIVISION Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the following memo, confirming that this matter is properly before the Board and all require- ments for vacation have been met. He explained that the idea is to vacate the plat and replat more in accord with the current County standards. 29 ro: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 12, 1983 Fl. SUBJECT: Plat vacation Hearing for Ravinia Gardens Subdivision --Resolution FROM: Christoph J. Paull REFERENCES: Assistant County Attorney Laurel Homes, Inc., represented by Peter Robinson and Attorney Richard Bogosian, have submitted an application requesting that the Board of County Commissioners vacate an old plat known as Ravinia Gardens Subdivision. This plat vacation is requested in conjunc- tion with the re -platting of the property as 'Laurel Court Subdivision. You will note that preliminary plat approval for Laurel Court Subdivision is the next item on this agenda. The application and all supporting documentation has been sub- miljted, reviewed and found to be in order and is available for inspaz,c.;tion in the Community Development Department. This mattez has been published by the applicant in accordance with Florida Statutes on January 7th and January 14th. pequired Action In the absence of objection following input from all concerned, the recommended action is to move approval of attached resolution. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-6 vacating and annulling the Plat of Ravinia Gardens Subdivision. 30 9 198F JAN 5 LL - B flK tw �09 r JAN 19 1983 aw 52 ma ' '337359 RESOLUTION NO. 83- 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, VACATING AND ANNULLING THE PLAT OF RAVINIA GARDENS SUBDIVISION, PLAT BOOK 1 PAGE 66, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, §177.101 of Florida Statutes authorizes the BoacG 014 County Commissioners to adopt resolutions vacating sub- division plats in whole or in part, returning the property con- tained therein to acreage and vacating all streets and easements which have not become necessary for the public's use; and WHEREAS, the County has received an application from Laurel Builders, Inc., requesting that it vacate the plat pre- sently of record for the subdivision known as Ravinia Gardens, approved February 15, 1926, and recorded in Plat Book.1 Page 66 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, which plat is a subdivision of the west 10 acres of the east 20 acres of Tract 5, Section 10, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, as designated on the last general plat of the lands of the Indian River Farms Company, filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County", Florida, said land now lying in Indian River County, Florid; and WHEREAS, the applicant has shown that it is the fee simple owner of all that ;property described by said plat with the, except.Lon of those street:3 dedicated therein to the public; and, that said stre,�ts have never been constructed or opened for use by the traveling public; and; that vacation of this plat will not affect the own--rship or r.ght of convenient access of persons own- ing other part.s of this subdivision, as there are none; and WHEREAS, the applicant has presented certification that all currently due state and local taxes affecting said property have been paid; and WHEREAS, applicant has published proper legal notice of A. its application to the County for this vacation and annulment, in , � Lr, accordance with Florida Statutes 5177.101 (4); and S-0 WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board of County =1 aE C; _. Commissioners that once adopted and duly recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Cour-,:, this resolution shall have the. 31 effect of vacating said plat, returning the properti.es described therein to acreage, and vacating all easements and rights-of-way shown thereon within the bounds of said plat, excepting from this vacation, however., the rights-of-way dedicated for 12th Street and 14th Street: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The foregoing recitals are acknowledged, affirmed, and ratified in their entirety; and r , 2. The plat for Ravinia Gardens, filed in..Plat Book 1 Page 66 of the Public. Records of'Indian River County., Florida, is hereby vacated, annulled, and returned to acreage in its entirety, excepting, however, the rights-of-way shown thereon for 12th and 14th. Streets; and 3. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is directed to r receive this resolution for recordation in the Official Records of Indian River County and to make proper notation in the margin of the plat of Ravinia Gardens, giving reference to this action and resolution. . The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption-. The motion was seconded by Coatmissioner Lyons and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as fol Lows: Chairivan Richard N. Bird Aye Vice-Chair;tlan Doi C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commi:3sioner A. Grove,: Fletcher Aye Commissioner Patrick 3. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this Attest; FREDA WRIGHT, Clea JAN 19 11983 19th day of January , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ©. By RICHARD N. BIRD 4 Chairman -0 . y • . iy CIS M::r .rf '�r'` • a � 7 177. C 32 JAN 1 0 1983 J _ PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - LAUREL COURT SUBDIVISION The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Zimmerman: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 29,1982 FILE: of the Board of County IRC -82-07 #238 Commissioners I DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Approval of Laurel Court Subdivision Patrick Bruce King, A C , FROM: Clare ZimmermanGI REFERENCES: Staff Planner It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their meeting on January 19, 1983. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Laurel Court isa ± 9.8 acre, 31 lot subdivision located between 12th and 14th Streets, east of 42nd Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, 6 units/acre allowable density an'd has a land use classification of LD -2 Low Density Residential which also has an allowable density of 6 units/acre. The subdivision is located on property which has previously been platted as Ravinia Gardens Subdivision. The applicant has submitted a request that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution vacating the plat of Ravinia Gardens. He has also submitted all the information to support this request as required by Florida Statutes Chapter 177.101. An agenda item requesting that a plat vacation resolution be adopted for this property has also been prepared for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their January 19, 1983 meeting. Sanitary sewer and water services are to be provided by the City of Vero Beach. All streets, right-of-way and easements are to be dedicated to the.County. The subdivision was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee at their meeting on September 7, 1982, and the applicant has complied with the recommendations made by the TRC. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The Public Works Division has recommended that the following extra drainage provisionsshould be included in the subdivision's design: 1) A minimum finish floor elevation of +24 above MSL shall be established for each dwelling. 2) Road grade shall be no. lower than elevation 21.4, 3) To minimize street flooding and infiltration of the sanitary sewers, lot grading for each site shall provide side lot swales and additional detention of stormwater. 33 4) The rear lot swales shall be sloped at a grade of at least .1%, so that they will be drained. 5) Future 12th Street right-of-way areas may be graded to provide additional storage. 6) Back flow preventing devices (flap gates or similar type) should be installed at the ends of the 24" CMP's within 12th Street right-of-ways. The applicant has agreed to implement these provisions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that preliminary plat approval be granted to Laurel Court Subdivision subject to the following conditions:. 1. That"the.-applicant complies.with the provisions listed in items 1-6 above. 2. That the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution vacating the existing Ravinia Gardens plat. It is recommended that a typical lot grading plan be submitted or an overall subdivision grading plan be submitted to provide storage of approximately 3" of rainfall or more. This -storage should be at an elevation below the lowest proposed road grade, or such that the crown of the road is not inundated by the 10 year storm. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to grant preliminary plat approval to Laurel Court Subdivision, subject to conditions 1 through 6 as recommended by staff. Developer Peter Robinson stated that he was in agreement with the conditions listed. Commissioner Fletcher raised a question about abandoning thoroughfares, and Community Development Director King did not believe this will have a detrimental impact on any cross flows. He noted that 12th Street is becoming a minor collector. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - LURIA'S PLAZA The Board reviewed staff memo dated January 6, 1983, and addendum memo, dated January 19th, as follows: 34 JAN 1.9 1983 �' x � PACE603 rJAN 19 198 r� v� TO: The Honorable Members of. DATE: January 6, 1983 FILE: SD -82-12-003 the Board of County #258 Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: -44 atrick Bruce King, I FROM: Clare ZimmermanA t Staff Planner UU SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Approval of Luria's Plaza at Vero Beach Subdivision REFERENCES: It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on January 19, 1983. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Luria's Plaza Subdivision was created as a result of two outparcels which front on U.S. #1 being separated from the Luria's Shopping Plaza development by the owners. A condition of site plan approval for this development was that the 3 lots and the extension of 10th Avenue which were formed in the development process be platted and recorded according to the County's Subdivision Ordinance 75-3 The subject property is 12.98 acres in size. It is zoned C-1 Commercial, and has a MXD Mixed -Use District land use designation. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES: The developer is authorized to make connections to both County water and sewer facilities. The applicant has agreed to provide access for Lots 1 and 2 onto U.S. #1 from Lot 3. Thus, traffic from these lots will not have to enter directly onto U.S. #1 However, the applicant has not specified on the plat that a non -access -easement- - on-access:easement__ alongLthe�eaatern borders: of .rots 1 and 2 will be provided. The County recommends that a 5' non -access easement be placed along the eastern borders of Lots 1 and 2 to insure that ingress and egress directly onto U.S. #1 from these sites is avoided. Also, the applicant has dedicated a 20' right-of-way along U.S. #1 to the public for future road widening. This dedication has been indicated on the face of the plat, but has been omitted from the Certificate of Dedication which the applicant hassubmitted to the County. The applicant has agreed, in a letter to the County, to correct this omission. The Certificate of Dedication will be altered to iaciude the dedication of 20' of right-of-way along U.S. #1. Right-of-way deeds for the unopened portion of 10th Avenue have also been submitted to the County. Drainage and utility easements have been provided by the applicant as recommended by County Staff. RECQMMENDATION: Staff recommends that preliminary plat approval of Luria's Plaza Subdivision be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) that a 5' non -access easement be placed along the eastern borders of Lots 1 and 2 2) that _the applicant change the Certificate of Dedication to include the dedication to the public of a 20' right-of-way along U.S. #1 for future road widening. 35 TO. The Honorable Members DATE: January 19, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: LURIA'S PLAZA SUBDIVISION atrick Bruce King, A CP FROM: Clare Zimmerman C REFERENCES: Staff Planner v It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commis- sioners at their meeting on January 19, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: This memo has been prepared as an addendum to the Board of -- ­�•�;, County Commissioners agenda item titled Preliminary Plat Approval of Luria's Plaza at Vero Beach Subdivision _Since, in this case, the subdivision review process involved property where site plan approval had been granted for construction on one of the lots being subdivided, site plan modifications have occurred on site subsequent to the original site plan approval. These changes have necessitated further staff review of the subdivision plat and additional recommendations are being made. Since the site plan approval was granted subject to the conditions that: 1) The County's subdivision procedure be followed, as per the County's subdivision Ordinance'15-3 and 2) The traffic circulation be slightly amended to meet she approval of the County Traffic Engineer; it is requested that the Board of County Commissioners consider these additional recommendations. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: During the initial subdivision review, a drainage easement was provided along the northern border of the property to allow access to a portion of the drainage system on the site. Since that time, the Planning Department"has received correspondence indicating that this pipeline is being put in a different location than shown on the original site plan. For that reason it is recommended that the drainage easement shown on the preliminary plat be relocated to correspond with the actual location of the pipe. Because of the subdivision's size, location and the type of development involved, it is recommended that the developer install one street light at the entrances of the proposed shopping plaza at both U.S.#1 and 10th Avenue. Also, because of the impact which a development of this size would have on the traffic on U.S.#1, it is recommended that some method of facilitating ingress and egress to the proposed subdivision be provided by the developer. 36 JAN 1 D `r9-3 wx 52 Pae X05 geox 5 2 Fd'Gr �' ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: (Continued) Staff recommends that a deceleration taper lane be con- structed by the developer along U.S.#1. This lane should be 0'(0 feet) wide at the northern boundary of Tract l and taper to 12' wide at the entrance to the shopping plaza (a distance of 141.41, as platted). This would eliminate southbound traffic which is entering the shopping plaza from having to stop on U.S.#1 to complete their turn. In con- structing this taper lane, the developer should be responsi- ble for relocating any sidewalks, curbing and powerline poles as may be necessary. The developer must get all D.O.T. permits as required. In order to avoid possible accidents from traffic entering and exiting the shopping plaza, it is also recommended that the inbound traffic be limited to one lane in the entrance drive and that the second inbound land, which has been proposed on the site plan, should be utilized as a traffic divider with a 10' wide planter median being constructed in it. Staff also recommends that the 25' wide drive which paral--- �lels the retention basin and curves around the northeast corner of the property be reconstructed so that it is a stub _street which extends to the property line, rather than a curve. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that preliminary plat approval be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) That the drainage easement shown on the northern border of the plat be relocated to conform with the actual location of the pipe. 2) That one street light be t ' both shopping plaza on U.S.#1 and the entrance tto the he rplaza ance ta�,the 10th Avenue. 3) That the applicant construct a deceleration taper lane along the length of Tract 1 as described herein. This required construction should include relocation of side- walks, curbs and powerline poles as necessary. All required D.O.T. permits must also be obtained by the applicant. 4) That the applicant construct a 10' wide planter median down the middle of the entrance drive as described herein. 5) That the applicant construct the 25' wide strip.of parking pavement which parallels the retention basin so as to form a stub street which extends to the property line at the northeast corner of the property line as described herein. 36a Mr. King noted that certain concerns have surfaced basically concerning the access to this shopping center from U.S., and staff now is recommending approval subject to the conditions set out on the second page of the addendum memo. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the developer is in agreement with these five conditions, and Mr. King felt he is in agreement with all but one. On-site traffic circulation is the main concern. Commissioner Lyons believed we have a severe problem on U.S.I, and we must assure that nothing further is created to worsen the situation. Mr. King explained the recommended conditions, noting that they are trying to make provision that should the property to the north be developed in a commercial nature, the projects can be tied together to facilitate the traffic flow. Considerable discussion ensued regarding alternative means of ingress and egress and the fact that staff wishes to have a stub road at the northeast corner of the property as well as ingress and egress at 10th Avenue, which is on the northwest corner. Public Works Director Davis reported that staff has been confused about the status of the developer's negotiations concerning the property to the north and as to the stage of development they have arrived at for the old trailer park between K -Mart Plaza and Luria's Plaza. Bob Bannerman, Project Manager for Luria's Plaza, reported that development of the adjacent property could be one year or possibly five years down the road. They are interested only in what they are developing at this time and cannot commit the developer any further as they have no idea what may go on that property in the future. Discussion continued at length about the necessity to have good planning, and Commissioner Fletcher asked if Mr. Bannerman would agree the adjacent property most likely would be used for something that would. require a high traffic flow. 37 1 154 %E6 0 7 rJAN 19 1983 Mr. Bannerman believed so, but noted they have many different ideas as to how to use this property. It was emphasized that the primary concern is to leave an opening on the corner to tie into the adjacent property, whatever it is used for. Mr. Bannerman argued that you would lose your stacking ability if you put another driveway that close to U. S. 1 and that would create a worse situation. Discussion continued regarding the traffic situation drainage, etc., and Chairman Bird asked if Mr. Bannerman was in agreement with the five conditions recommended. Mr. Bannerman stated this is the first time he has seen them. In further discussion, it was felt that Mr. King and Mr. Bannerman should have some time to review the proposed conditions along with the Traffic Engineer. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously tabled further consideration of Luria's Plaza preliminary plat until later in the meeting. BID #153 - Truck Mounted 3/4 yd. Crane/Dragline, 20 Ton The Board reviewed the following recommendation: 38 TO. Board of County Commissioners DATE' . January 10, 1983 FjLE'; THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: IRC Bid #153 - (1) Truck Mounted 3/4 yd. Crane/Dragline, 20 Ton Carolo rich !REFERENCES: Purchasing Department Manager Y. Description and Conditions Bids were received December 21, 1982 at 10:00 A.M., for IRC Bid #153 - (1) Truck Mounted 3/4 yd. Crane/Dragline, 20 Ton (Minimum crane rating), for the Road 6 Bridge Department. This machine is used for bridge repair and digging of shell. It will replace the old Koering dragline (1970 Chassis, 1964 Cab) which is in very poor condition. It is intended that this machine be sold at auction. 8 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 6 Bid Proposals received, 5 were f°No Bids", r(See attached Tabulation sheet for reasons for "No Bid"). 2. Alternatives and Analysis The only bidder was H F. Mason Equipmexit Co Oporation, Hialeah9, FT.�'in csie amount of $149,851,00 for a Little Giant Model 48. 1'he.folloptions are offered: ow 3/_4 yd. Dragline Bucket $35387.00 Weighload System (Installed) 7,780.00 3. Recommendationand Funding It is recommended that IRC Bid #153 be awasxued to the only `uldder, H. F, M*-tson for a Little Giant Model 48, ($149,85.1_,00) with the optional Weighload SysL:em ($71780.00), for a total of $357;631.00. The optional bucket is not required, as the Road & Bridge Department has a bucket that can be used on the dragline. There is $1929000.00 budgeted in Account #004-214-541-66.43 for the purchase of a dragline. Purchasing Manager Goodrich reported that they were able to find only one manufacturer who supplies a dragline of this size. Discussion ensued re being able to assure -this is a competitive price. Public 11orks Director Davis noted that many manufacturers who used to produce these size draglines no longer do so. 39 000K PAVE cog_ JAN 19 193 JAN 19 1983 He reported that they included a figure of $192,000 in their budget for this item based on phone calls made at that time, and he believed we are getting a good price due to the state of the economy. Mr. Davis informed the Board that this will replace the present dragline which is a similar size and is used in our bridge program. Commissioner Fletcher confirmed that most manufacturers now are going to hydraulic cranes and have gotten away from the smaller size. He recommended that we do not buy the weighload system as, upon doing some research, he has determined that end line pneumatic gauges on the air control. will give the same results. He further suggested that we make sure this is a three line machine. Albert Van Auken•, Road & Bridge Superintendent, concurred with Commissioner Fletcher's recommendation. Discussion followed on the need for the 3/4 yard bucket, and it was generally agreed there is a need for this size bucket, which can be used on another dragline. ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #153 for one truck -mounted 20 ton Little Giant crane/dragline with 3/4 yd. dragline bucket, to H. F. Mason Equipment Corp., in the amount of $149,85.1.00, deleting the weighload system and requesting the manufacturer to install end line gauges as discussed at no additional cost, and with the assurance this is a three line machine. BID #154 - FLATBED DUMP TRUCK The Board reviewed the following recommendation: 40 TO; Boardof County Commissioners [SATE; January 10, 1983 THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: IRC Bid #154 - One (1) 1983 Flatbed Dump Truck FROM: Carol Goodrich - REFERENCES: Purchasing Department Manager 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received December 21, 1982 at 10;00 A.M. for IRC Bid #154 - One (1) 1983 Flatbed Dump Truck, for the Road 8 Bridge Department. This vehicle will be used for ditch work. It replaces Veh. #25 - 1974 Ford which will be sold to the Utilities Dept. 19 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the b Bid Proposals returned; 1 was a 4 To—WIT . 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Bay Ford, Tampa, F1., in the amount of $22,063,61 with a delivery time of 45 - 90 days. The bid met all specifications. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended tha IRC Bid #154 be awarded to the low bidder, Bay Ford, in the amount of $22,063.61. There is $28,400.00 budgeted in Account #004-214-541-66.43 for the purchase of a flatbed dump truck. MOTION WAS MADE by 'Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to award Bid #154 to the low bidder, Bay. Ford, for a 1983 Flatbed Dump Truck in the amount of $22,063.61. Commissioner Fletcher noted that the specifications call for brown paint which he believed is a change from our current paint. Administrator Wright reported that this was requested to avoid confusion between our vehicles and those of a local contractor. This however, is the Board's option and if they prefer to stay with green, that is fine. 41 AN 19 1983 eK PACE fly. JAN 1'9 AIR, Public Works Supervisor Van Auken noted that the intent was to change the fleet over to the brown color slowly. Commissioner Scurlock believed there is some merit in being able to identify your equipment. Commissioner Fletcher appreciated the problem, but did not feel just changing the color would eliminate the problem, and stated that when we specify a color, he would prefer to specify an option, which he felt would allow better prices. He noted we can always repaint the vehicles ourselves if we wish. Considerable discussion ensued re having the color an option, and the merits of having the fleet the same color for purposes of identification and to eliminate complaints about unauthorized use of vehicles. Purchasing Manager Goodrich pointed out that the large vehicles are generally ordered and only the smaller trucks might be sitting on a lot. She agreed that when the desired vehicle is on the lot, you might be able to get a little better price if you did not specify color. Argument continued in regard to making the color optional with brown preferred. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke for purposes of discussion, to instruct the Purchasing Department when bidding vehicles that the color of paint is optional on all vehicles and that a price should be obtained both on what is available and what it would take to change the color. Commissioner Lyons favored uniformity in the department to provide the ability to identify the vehicles, but stated he would vote for the Motion if there were a limitation on the size of the equipment as the larger vehicles very likely would not be on the lot in any event. 42 F Commissioner Wodtke also felt the vehicles should be a certain color, but that we should determine the prices on the various options. After further discussion, Commissioner Fletcher agreed to reword his Motion to specify a specific color in the baste bids, but to let the manufacturer supply whatever color is available and up to departmental standards. The Administrator believed the majority of the vehicles will be ordered and the color, therefore, would make no difference in the price.. Chairman Bird asked for clarification of the Motion on the floor, and Commissioner Fletcher restated the Motion as follows: ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously directed the Purchasing Department on future bid proposal forms when we specify paint color to use the words "available manufacturer's color" and request an optional bid on the standard County department color. Additional discussion followed regarding color, with Commissioner Fletcher asking if the Board was agreeable to brown as the County color, and Chairman Bird felt it would be brown for the Road & Bridge vehicles and green for the Parks Department. Mr. Van Auken again emphasized that the repainting is an attritional process. BID # 155 - 1983 3/4 TON CAB &CHASSIS The Board reviewed staff recommendation as follows: 43 4K 2 PAv 613 1 JAN 19 1983. I BOOK5,2,PtabF.4 TO Board or County Commissioners DATE: January 10, 1983 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: IRC Bid #155 - One (1) 1983 3/4 Ton Cab 6 Chassis FROM: Carol Goodrich REFERENCES: Purchasing Department Manager 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received December 21, 1982 at 10:00 A.M., for IRC Bid #155 .- One (1) 1983 3/4 Ton Cab Chassis for the Road & Bridge Department. This vehicle will have a bed put on it and will be primarily used for a crew truck to pick up prisoners for bike path cleaning, cutting brush, etc. t This truck replaces the 2 trucks given to Landfill and Civil Defense. 16 Bid Proposals were sent out, 6 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Sunshine Dodge, Melbourne, F1. in the amount of $7,797.67. Delivery time of 45-60 days. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC Bid #155 be awarded to the low bidder, Sunshine Dodge, in the amount of $7,797.67. There is $129000.00 budgeted in Account #004-214-541-66.42 for the purchase of a 3/4 Ton Cab & Chassis. Commissioner Fletcher questioned the need for an 8 cylinder engine. Mr. Davis noted that it is to be used to transport prisoners to work in various areas, and he believed 8 cylinder would provide the power needed to transport the load. He did not feel that you would get that much better mileage with a 6 cylinder engine carrying that kind of a load. Mr. Van Auken pointed out that these trucks not only transport personnel, but have to carry lawn mowers and other equipment; they have to be able to pull off the road in varying 44 kinds of terrain and need the power to pull them back out. He did not believe Dodge makes a 6 cylinder truck of this site. Mr. Van Auken reported that Road & Bridge is shy a truck, and when we pick up prisoners, he has to put his crew in another truck; he felt the use of prisoners, however, will pay for the truck. Mr. Van Auken stressed that they do need the truck now.as they transferred two trucks away - one to the Landfill and one to Civil Defense, and he did not believe they were compensated for these trucks. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote awarded Bid #155 to the low bidder, Sunshine Dodge, for a 1983 3/4 Ton Cab & Chassis 8 cylinder in the amount of $7,797.67. Commissioner Fletcher discussed warranties for rustproofing and suggested that we also request an optional bid on rust - proofing as he felt possibly we could do better locally and should have that option. ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously directed that future bid specifications specify that rustproofing will be an optional add-on and require that the vehicle be bid with and without the manufacturer's rustproofing. BID #156 - 12- 14 YARD DUMP TRUCK The Board reviewed the following bid recommendation: 45 JAN 19 1983 WK FACE61 JAN 19 1983 MW �42 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 10, 1983 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: IRC Bid #156 - One (1) 1983 Truck, 12-14 yd. Dump FROM: Carol n Goodrich Purchasing Department Manager REFERENCES: I. Description and Conditions Bids were received December 21, 1982 at 10:00 A.M., for IRC Bid #156 - One (1) 1983 12-14 yd. Dump Truck for the Road & Bridge Department. This vehicle will be used for petition paving and also in Nrrth County for hauling shell. It replaces Veh. #8 - 1974 Ford which will be repaired and used as a spare. 18 Sia Proposals were sent out, 5 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Tampa, F1., in the amount of $36,280.00. However, tilt hood is an additional $575.00, for a total bid of $36,855.00. The bid submitted by Southside Ford, Jacksonville, F1., in the amount of $36,850.00 includes tilt hood as standard equipment. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC Bid #156 be awarded to Southside Ford in the amount of $36,850.00. Delivery time of 90-120 days. There is $49,000.00 budgeted in Account #004-214-541-66.43 for the purchase of a 12-14 yd. dump truck. Commissioner Fletcher inquired about the size and horsepower of the diesel engine. That information was not quickly available, and it was agreed to delay action on this bid until further information was received. BID #157 - 2 DIESEL TRACTORS The Board reviewed the following memo: 46 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 12, 1983 FILE: THRU': Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #157 - Two (2) New Tractors, County Administrator Diesel, w/6/ft Rotary Mowers FROM: Carolyn Goodri ch REFERENCES: Purchasing Manager 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received December 21, 1982 at 10:00 A.M. for IRC Bid #157 - Two (2) Diesel Tractors, w/6ft Rotary Mowers for the Road & Bridge Department. One new tractor will be used for boxblade and ditch buster and the second for mowing.. Equipment #51 - 1964 International Tractor will be sold to the Utilities Department. 14 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 14 Bid Proposals received, 4 were "No Bids". 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by -LaBelle Tractor Corporation., LaBelle, Fl. for 2 Belarus tractors with Woods rotary mowers. Total cost $23,066.16. Engine and parts for the.Belarus are manufactured in Russia, the tractors are assembled in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. There is a large parts warehouse in Wisconsin, *LaBelle Tractor guarantees parts within 72 hrs. or they will loan a tractor. Jack McCorkle from the Fleet Management Department has talked with Bill Baxter of Bessemer Properties, Stuart, Fl. They have had 2 Belarus tractors in use for 3 years. There has been very little down time, machines are easy to work on and the availability of parts.has been excellent. Jack McCorkle and Dennis Gentile from the Road & Bridge Department went to LaBelle Tractor Company to look at the Belarus tractor and to observe a demonstration. The second low bid was submitted by Sunrise Ford Company for 2 Ford 6610 tractors with Ford 943 mowers Total cost $31,580.00. However, this bid was submitted with standard 6 ply tires, rather than 8 ply required in the specifications. The third low bid was submitted by Atlantic Machine Works for an Allis-Chalmers 6060 with an IMCO mower. Total cost $31,800.00. The fourth low bid was submitted by Taylor & Munnell for 2 CASE tractors w/Hardee mower. Total Cost $32,476.00. Administrator Wright commented on the fact that there is no staff recommendation and stated that he, however, would recommend that we go with the next low bidder rather than with the Soviet - made Belarus tractor as we have no record of proven ability. 47 JAN 19 1983 BOOK ?. PA 17 PPP'JAN 19 1933 BOOK Commissioner Fletcher pointed out that the research done by Mr. McCorkle and Mr. Gentile of the Road & Bridge Department with a firm in Stuart apparently has demonstrated that this equipment had an excellent record; there is a considerable difference in the prices bid; and he would recommend that we give serious consideration to the Belarus tractor. Administrator Wright stressed that Mr. Fletcher is talking about only three years of experience while we are talking about running these tractors up to ten years. He further felt it possible that the touchy relations between the Soviet Union and America could present future problems. Commissioner Fletcher noted that we also can run into problems when American firms go on strike. He felt the fact that the machine is easy to work on is an important factor and believed it is necessary that we support the most economical and efficient products. Chairman Bird asked the Attorney for his advice on how to handle a situation where there is such a difference in price. Attorney Brandenburg stated that if the low bidder meets all specifications and there is a large differential, we must justify going with the low bidder on a basis that can be supportable. Commissioner Wodtke suggested making a Motion to reject all bids as the low bid does not meet specifications and the other bid does not come within the amount budgeted, but it was pointed out that the low bid does meet specifications. MOTION WAS MADE by.Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to award Bid #157 to the low bidder LaBelle Tractor Corporation for 2 Belarus tractors in the amount of $23,066.16. Commissioner Lyons noted that he was reluctant to buy a HN Russian tractor, but could not find the facts to justify that it is not a proper bid, and also, the experience we know of is satisfactory. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would rather rebid as he could not help but feel our constituents would rather buy equipment that was not built in Russia. THE CHAIP14AN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and failed 2 to 3 with Commissioners Wodtke, Scurlock and Chairman Bird voting in opposition. Commissioner Wodtke wished to make a Motion to reject all bids and rebid with the specification that we do not want Russian made equipment. The Attorney informed him while it is permissible to specify the type of equipment desired, you cannot preclude a qualified bidder from bidding. Commissioner Lyons suggested.that we might specify a product with an inventory of parts which would not be dependent upon foreign diplomatic relations. In the considerable debate which followed, it was pointed out that manufacture of the Russian tractor also involves a local distributor in Florida and a firm in Wisconsin and supplies a living for some American citizens. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner Wodtke voted in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote, agreed to reconsider their previous action. On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner Wodtke voted in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote awarded 49 JAN 1 1903 0POK PA 9 i Fr - JAN 9 1983 -I WK Bid #157 to LaBelle Tractor Corporation for two Belarus Diesel Tractors w/6ft. Rotary Mowers in the amount of $23,066.16. BID #156 - 12-14 YARD DUMP TRUCK. (Continued) PAN Public Works Director reported that the diesel engine is a 200 h.p. Caterpillar 3208 engine. Some discussion ensued on the need for this large an engine, and Administrator Wright submitted that the larger engine is needed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #156 to Southside Ford Co. for a 1983 12-14 yard dumptruck in the amount of $36,850, as recommended by staff. BID #158 - LOADER RAKE The Board reviewed staff recommendation as follows: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 5, 1983 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC Bid #158 - (1) Loader Rake County Administrator FROM: Carol Goodrich REFERENCES: Purchasing Manager 1. Description and Conditions At the November 3, 1982 Commission meeting, the Board authorized the Road & Bridge Department to advertise for bids for front End Loader Rake. Bids were received December 21, 1982 at 10:00 A.M. for IRC Bid #158 Loader Rake. 11 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 6 Bid Proposals received, 1 was a "No Bid". 50 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid of $3,820.00 for a Pemberton rake was submitted by F1. - Ga. Tractor, Tampa, F1. (delivery time of 14 days) and Atlantic Machine Works, Vero Beach, Fl. (delivery time of 3-5 days). y 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC Bid #158 be awarded to the local vendor, Atlantic Machine Works, in the amount of $3,820.00. Funds to come from Account #004-214-541-66-49. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #158 to Atlantic Machine Works for a Pemberton Rake in the amount.of $3,820.00 as recommended by staff. BID #159 - REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE The Board reviewed staff recommendation as follows: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 5, 1983 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC Bid #159 - Reinforced Concrete PipE County Administrator FROM: Carol Goodrich REFERENCES: Purchasing Manager 1. Descri tion and Conditions Bids were received December 21, 1982 at 10:00 A.M. for IRC Bid #159 - Reinforced Concrete Pipe for the Road & Bridge Department. 7 Bid Proposals were sent.out. Of the 4 Bids returned, 2 were "No Bids". 2. Alternatives and Analysis This is an annual bid and the county reserves the right to order any quantity of any size pipe throughout the year. The low bidder on all sizes of concrete pipe is St. Regis Paper, Southern Culvert Operations. (See attached Bid Tabulation Sheet). 51 PAV JAN 19 1983 I JAN 19 1983 L omm 59 ; F 9 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC Bid #159 be awarded to St. Regis Paper, Southern Culvert Operations. Funds to come from Account #004-214-541-35-32. Commissioner Fletcher noted that the bids were so close he asked that it be confirmed in writing that this is a delivered price, and it was confirmed. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED. by Commissioner Fletcher"to award Bid #¢159 to St. Regis Paper, Southern Culvert Operations, f.o.b. Indian River County, for all sizes of concrete pipe as listed on the tabulation sheet. Some discussion ensued on the fact that this is an annual bid where we are not specifying any specific amount, but it does not lock us in so we cannot buy at a better price during the year; it merely assures that we won't have to pay any more than this for the pipe during the year. THE CHAIP14AN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 -14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 44 X- 4, J� a '� O '� BID TABULATION �`" •`' BID NO. DATE OF OPENING IRC 11159 December 21, 1982 BID TITLE Reinforced Concrete Pipe ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRIC 1 Reinforced Concrete Pipe I NB NB 15" Per ft. 5 5 63 18" Per ft. 7 0 7 4 24" Per Ft. 11 3 11 2 30" Per ft. 16 5 15 5 36" Per ft. 23 n 21 n 42" Per ft, 31 30 hO 48" Per ft. 37 3 54" Per ft. 49 72 46 0 60" Per ft. 59 56 56 3 66" Per ft. 718 66 5 72" Per ft. 82 0 1 77 7 52 BID #-161 - ELECTRONIC DISTANCE MEASURING DEVICE The Board reviewed staff recommendation as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: January 6, 1983 FILE: Board of County Commissioners Through: Michael Wright, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director . a- W • ELI I. • SUBJECT: Purchase of Electronic Distance Measur Device for County Surveying Section - IRC Bid #161 REFERENCES:. Dave Jones, P.L.S., to Jim Davis dated January 4, 1983 The. County Surveyor has several surveys to perform which require the use of an Electronic Distance Measuring device (EDM). The cost to rent an E.D.M. is $750. per month or $250. per week (as per quotation from three Surveying Supply Companies). Since Ivey Projects will Probably demand use of an E.D.M., especially working in and across the Indian River, it is recom anded that the County purchase the instru- ment. To detent the cost for the E.D.M., the County Purchasing Department advertised for bids. The low bid for the E.D.M. and accessory equipment was sub- m#ted by Florida Level and Transit in the amount of $4,410. Seven bidders responded with two no bids being submitted. ALTERATIVES AND ANALYSIS Tb accomplish the necessary surveys, the County would expend $16,250. in outside survey fees. In the future, an E.D.M. will be a necessary item for the survey crews. WMC • + -It Io w t It is recommended that the low bid be awarded to Florida Level and Transit Co. in the amount of $4,410. Funding to be accornplished by line transfer of $4,410. from Account #004-243-519-33.19 (D.P.W. Other Professional Services - unencumbered balance $9,750.) to 004-243-519-66.40 (Capital Outlay - Machinery and Equipment). Public Works Director Davis noted that this equipment was not budgeted, but $10,000 was set aside in the. Roads & Bridges Professional Services account. Mr. Davis believed that this equipment would increase the capabilities of our survey section to the point where we could do the work in-house rather than have to employ professional services since this equipment would enable staff to shoot a distance as long as a mile in a matter of seconds. 53 .1 N 19 1983 %E 2 rJAN 19 1983 ON MOTION BY Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously awarded Bid.#161 to Florida Level and Transit Co. for the Electronic Distance Measuring Device in the amount of $4,410 and approved the necessary line transfer as set out in.the above memo. APPROVE EXPENSES FOR WORK DONE BY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA STUDENT Administrator Wright explained that last year we worked cooperatively with the University at Gainesville to get a student to do a conceptual plan for Round Island Park with the understanding that we would reimburse the student for any direct expenses incurred. Kim Moyer of the University of Florida developed a Master Plan for the development of Round Island Park and was paid accordingly. This year we again worked cooperatively with the University, and student Ken Ferrington developed a conceptual plan for Kiwanis-Hobart Park. His direct expenses amounted to $453. This is budgeted in the Planning Department under funds for contractual and outside services. Board approval is required in order to reimburse Mr. Ferrington since we do not have a contract with him. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the Finance Department to reimburse Ken Ferrington in the amount of $453.00 for expenses as explained above. RESOLUTION IN REGARD TO LIMITING HUTCHINSON ISLAND STUDY Attorney Brandenburg noted that when the Commission appointed members to the Committee established by the Governor to 54 conduct a study of Hutchinson Island, they had some severe reser- vations about the extent of the committee's activities in this County and wished to express these reservations in a Resolution. The Resolution being considered by the Board today requests the Governor to clarify the purpose and role of that committee so that the extent of Indian River County's involvement would be limited to transportation items only. He noted that one of the original justifications for our being involved was the need for disaster evacuation. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to adopt Reso- lution 83-7 requesting that the Governor limit Indian River County's involvement in the Hutchinson Island Study to consideration of the county transportation system. Commissioner Wodtke felt this should be further limited to the County transportation system as specifically related to disaster preparedness, and Attorney Brandenburg did not feel such a modification would be found objectionable. Commissioner Fletcher wished to know what the Commission feared from having a complete study conducted by the state. Ed Schlitt, local realtor, commented that after visiting with the Governor's office in Tallahassee, he had found that nobody really objected to Indian River County participating in this Committee on a limited basis. Mr. Schlitt emphasized that our County, working in coordination with developers and property owners, has done a very good job developing an overall plan that will be a model for the entire state. He personally felt there is no reason for our county to be subjected to some things that might come out of this study, and he believed that the possibility of the government shutting down any development on the barrier island really exists. ` a, 5 5 JAN 19 1983 fox tAv -62.5 JAN 19 1983 Jeannette Lier, member - of the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Committee, stated that it would be much easier doing a good job in this committee if she had a specific idea of what the Commission wished. Commissioner Lyons, who also is a member of the new Study Committee, believed the committee has a very open charter which would allow them to take in more territory than originally intended. He did not wish them to solve problems we don't think we have. Commissioner Scurlock concurred and felt very strongly that local issues should be addressed locally. Pat Corrigan, local rancher and land owner, believed that Commissioner Scurlock has expressed his concern that this study could result in the State becoming more and more deeply involved in matters that should be handled locally. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he generally is not in favor of squandering monies on broad range studies; this however, is a study that has been ordered, and he was in favor of having the Resolution expanded to include water resources planning, waste management planning and wetlands reclamation planning so that we can get a whole overview. He believed that if the State does make any threats, we can handle them at the time they occur. Commissioner Wodtke had no problem if this committee wants to consult with us, but did not want that group to come up with a recommendation as to what is going to occur in Indian River County. He emphasized that we are doing our own water study, and did not feel we want someone else to do the same study. Commissioner Fletcher continued to argue that we need the overall report, but it was generally felt we might get not only the report, but also a set of conditions. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CALLED FOR THE QUESTION to adopt Resolution 83-7. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. 56 RESOLUTION NO. 8'3- 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REQUESTING THAT THE STUDY OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY THE RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY GOVERNOR BOB GRAHAM FOR HUTCHINSON ISLAND BE LIMITED TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. WHEREAS, the County Commissioners, in Resolution No. 82-125, adopted on November 17, 1982, expressed the concerns of the County Commission of Indian River County of.being included in a resource planning study that is designated and;aimed at a problem with land development practicesf and growth management Policy existing on Hutchinson Island, the boundaries of which are located outside Indian River.County; and WHEREAS, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council on July 16, 1982, voted to request that the confines of a study -by a resource planning and management committee be limited to Hutchinson Island located solely in Martin and St. Lucie Counties; and WHEREAS, the letter from Governor Bob Graham appointing representatives to the resource planning and management committee ' for Hutchinson 'sland identified as one of the potential serious problems in the Hutchinson Island area the need to evacuate the Island in the event of a natural or radiological emergency; and 'NHEREAS, tl;e County Co.tliiili.ssion strongly maintains that Indian River County is aet9.ng responsibly in enacting its current Comprehensive Plan and in adininistering land use controls for Indian Riffier. County and particularly the Barrier Island and str.•enuonsly objects to any implication Eor the need to designate the Barrier Island in Indian River County as part of the study of the resource planning and management committee for Hutchinson Island other than for the purposes of evaluating the transporta- tion system within Indian River County and its relationship to the need to evacuate Hutchinson Island in the event of a natural or radiological emergency. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that; 1. Governor Graham is hereby urged to clarify the scope 57 JAN 1 9-1983 eke -2' J of�the study of Indian River County by the resource planning and management committee for Hutchinson Island and to limit such study to an analysis of the transportation system as it.relates to disaster preparedness relief in Indian River County to determine the adequacy of transportation systems to accommodate the need to evacuate Hutchinson Island in the event of a natural or radiological emergency. 2. Governor Graham is respectfully requested to forward a letter to .each representative of the resource planning and management committee for 'Hutchinson Island clarifying the scope of.:,:; the study of.Indian.River County's transportation system as it relates to disaster preparedness relief. r 3,,, That a copy of this. Resolution be forwarded to the Governor of the State of Florida, the Secretary.of the State -of Florida, Department of Veteran and Community Affairs, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Legislative Delegation for Indian River County, and the County Commissioners of Martin and St. Lucie Counties. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyons and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice -Chairman ikon C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner A. Grover Fletcher Nay Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 19th day of January , 1983. Attest: :dam a L&�- FREDA WRIGHT, Cle M BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA B11. ��,✓ 1 �� 1 z r RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY - RIVER BEND MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, to authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement with Florida Land Company in regard to dedication of a 10' right of way. Commissioner Fletcher commented that this had been authorized previously in the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1, 1982, and it was felt there was no problem with authorizing it twice. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. DEDICATION THIS AGREEMENT entered, into this � _ day of 198g, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, apolitical subdivision of the State -of Florida, (hereinafter referred to as "County"), and FLORIDA LAND COMPANY, a Florida corporation, (}iereinafter referred to as "Owner"). 59 BOOK 29 JAN 19 1983 F'JAN, 19 198 e� BAR ^g fpc , WHEREAS, Owner is developer of a condominium project located on North A -1-A in Indian River County, said project being known as "RIVER BEND, PHASE 1"; and WHEREAS, Owner received approval by Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission of its site plan covering the "RIVER BEND, PHASE 1" development on•August 26, 1982; and WHEREAS, an Appeal was filed by the owner to the _. Indian River County Commission, said Appeal being taken from a decision by the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission to the effect that a certain perimeter and security wall would not be permitted to be placed within ten (10') feet of the existing right-of-way for State Road A -1-A, said decision being premi!ced upon the requirements of the transportation element of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto have reached an agreement, the results of which would settle all issues arising by virtue of the Appeal and the parties now desire to reduce their understandings to writing. IT IS THEREFORE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. PROPERTY DZSCRIPTION: A legal description for the ten (10') foot strip adjoining the present one hundred (1001) foot right -of -war for State.Road A -1-A on the west which .is the subject of this instrument is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. DEDICATION: Owner hereby dedicates to the public forever for the purpose of expanding State Road A -1 -A's right-of-way that property described in Exhibit A subject to the happening of the following two conditions; (a) That Owner elects to construct the perimeter and security wall within ten (101) feet of the existing right-of-way for State Road A -1-A, and .o M (b) Indian River County, the State of Florida or other.governmental entity -accepts bids for the widening of State Road A -1-A which will require the use of the ten (10,') foot r .strip which is the subject of this dedication. PROVIDED FURTHER, that this dedication shall automatically expire should the Owner not elect to construct the perimeter and security wall within ten (101) feet of the existing.right-of -way for State Road A -1-A. This dedication shall be accepted by the Board of County Commissioners by a resolution adopted -by the County -Commission reciting the book and page number of this recorded agreement and the dates at which the bids for the widening of the road were accepted. The County shall give Owner notice that the dedication has been accepted and shall specify a time period within which Owner will be required to remove this security and perimeter wall, said time period shall not be less than sixty (60) days. Owner hereby agrees to remove the wall at its sole expense. Owner shall be permitted to relocate said wall (but shall not be obligated to do so) westerly of the right-of-way established by this dedication according to the building permit process then in existence in. Indian River County. 3. BINDING EFFECT: This agreement shall be recorded in the Public Records of Indian River County and shall be binding upon owners, successors and assigns. The obligation to remove the perimeter and security wall (providing same is placed within the ten (101) foot strip) shall be enforceable'against any and all property owners associations and/or condominium associations formed in connection with the development of RIVER BEND PHASE 1 Project. Owner shall take all necessary steps to impose said obligation upon any such association or other organization by reference to this agreement and any condominium declarations or restrictive covenants filed in connection with 61 BOOKrN PW 631 JAN 19 1983 ti Ato f 0 cti surfici'; the development of RIVER BEND PHASE 1 Proje�t. a WITNESSES: + C�Uy i hit, rte,rt�tlrg INDIAN R-17 By t Chairman, Board of County Commissibners . i k'-74 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER FL RRI A L O"ANY- By JOtes H. Newlon xecutiue Vice President I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 25th day of January 198_', personally appeared before me R' har • N. Bird , as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, to me personally known, and he acknowledged before me . that he executed the foregoing Dedication for the uses and purposes therein expressed. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal in said County and State the day and yeGr-first above written. 4Notarr ic _BLIC'S OF FLORID BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UNcj r STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Mr COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY a 1986 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the `9. L�ii_/ l a day of 1982,. personal Y PPeaS'eci before me �„ r 5 Of F1,0RIDA LAND COf-iPANY, a Florida corporation, to me personally known, and he acknowledged before me that he executed the foregoing Dedication for the uses and purposes therein expressed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal in said County and St to the day and year first above written. l2 ri L� r- '~ Z����� No tar Pub ~ic Not Puff c, State of Florida at Larr;e PREPARED BY: Gary M. Brandenburg My Commission Expires May 3, 1885 County Attorney Bonded By Lawyers Surety Company Vero Beach, F1 32960 62 �r r «r 4 EXHIBIT', • LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR 10 FOOT'EASEMENT ON A 1-A FOR RIVER BEND WALL. - ' . `• `, • - The 10 feet lying West of and adjacent to the West right-of-way line of State .Road A -1-A in Government Lot 7, Section 26,Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, and being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Northwest corner of Government Lot 7, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County; thence run South 890 55' 06" East and along the North line of said Government Lot 7 a distance of 465.64 feet to the West right-of-way line of State Road A -1-A and the Point of Beginning of the following described parcel. From the Point of Beginning run South 310 10'.36" East and along the said West right-of-way line of State -Road A -1-A a distance of 1547.49 feet to the South line of the aforesaid Government Lot 7; thence run North 890 45'. 51" West and along the South line of Government Lot 7 a distance of 11.72 feet, to a point on a line which lies 10 feet West of and parallel'to the West right-of-way line of State Road A -1-A; thence run North 310 10' 36 West -and along the line which lies 10 feet West of and parallel to the West right-of- way of State Road A -1-A a distance of 1547.45 feet to the North line -of , Government Lot -7; thence run South 890 55' 06" East and along the North line of. Government Lot 7, a distance of 11.70 feet to the West right-of-way line of State Road A -1-A and the Point of Beginning. November 29, 1982 63 rJAN 19 193 AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF VERO BEACH RE USE OF UTILITY POLES ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved an Agreement with the City of Vero Beach allowing use of certain City owned utility poles located between the County Administration Building and the County Courthouse. Said Agreement will be put on file in the Office of the Clerk when fully executed and received. DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO REPEALING SPECIAL ACTS Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he would like to attend the meeting of our Legislative Delegation to discuss cleaning up the County Code by repealing the old Special Acts and bring back a recommendation. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the County Attorney to attend the meeting of the Legislative Delegation and dis- cuss repeal of the Special Acts as above. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT - LURIA'S PLAZA (Continued) Mr. King reported that they have reviewed the proposed conditions with the local project manager for Luria's Plaza, who apparently is not in total agreement with them. Staff, there- fore, requests that this matter be tabled to a later meeting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously agreed to defer consideration of preliminary plat approval for Luria's Plaza until a later meeting. 64 The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at 12:00 Noon for lunch and reconvened at 1:35 o'clock with the same members present. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING (J.R.COOK) OSLO & U.S.1 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: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published DeilyWr Vero Beach, Indian River County, FI d64 9�' C -In_ <) % COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA O 0 Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. S artn, Jri�1iQ oath' says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a da IrtspapeF pftblishw at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of iti i ement, behig a in the matter of a in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County; 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, for a 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. Sworn to and subscribed before me this (Clerk of the (SEAL) JAN 19 1983 day of Citi', A.D. 19r,3 Court, 65 NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING Notice Of hearing to consider the following Proposal to rezone land from: . C-1, "Commercial District" to C -IA, "Restricted Commercial." The subject Property presently owned by Mecca Two, Inc., is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 1, south of 9th Street, S.W. The t is ontribed as: Commencing a Pint he North Line'of the Northwest V4 of Section 30; Township 33 South; Range 40 East where said line is in. tersected by the Easterly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 1, as said Easterly right-of- way line existed prior to November 7,,1953; and from said point run North 89 degrees 57' 51" East on said north Section line a distance Of 80.78 feet to its intersection of the East righV Of -way line of S.R.O. No. $ per (Road Section No. BUS-IS0,206) as existing on September 19, 1982, thence South 12 degrees 04' 36" East 51.12 feet to the Point of Beginning of the surveyed parcel. thence run North 89 degrees S7' Sl East, 332.80 feet along the South right -of -Kray line of Oslo Road as recorded in O.R. Book 142,' Page 664 of Indian River County, Florida; thence feet; thence Northh 89th 00ddeegrreeeess 57451' East 75.001 feet; thence South 00 degrees 49' 41- West,[ 23S.76 feet, thence South 69 degrees S7' S1111 West, 342.55 feet to the present easterly right - of -Way line of U.S. Highway No. 1 as existing on September 19, 1982, thence run North 12l degrees 04' 36" West, 292.16 feet along this easterly right-of-way line to the Point of Beginning. Subject to all easements and -or; rights-of-way of record Containing 2.37 acres more or lets. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners Of- Indian River County, Florida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, January 19,1983, 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 ensure that a verbatim record of 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-Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairman Dec. 30, 1982, Jan. 12. IM. PUt—P F7 IAN' 19 -1983 BOOK RIG Community Development Director King reviewed staff memo, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 10, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners J. R. COOK'S REQUEST TO DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: REZONE ± 2.37 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF Patrick Bruce King, OSLO ROAD AND U.S. #1 FROM C-1, COM[+4ERCIAL TO C1A, RESTRICTED FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: coMRcIAL Environmental Planner It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the County Commission at their regular meeting on January 19, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: On December 9, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the applicant's request to rezone a 2.37 acre parcel located on the southeast corner of Oslo Road and U.S. #1 from C-1, Commercial to C-lA, Restricted Commercial. The subject property is the site of a 26 bed nursing home which was established in 1949. At that time, the C-1, Commercial Zoning District included nursing homes as a permitted use. Subsequent revisions of the zoning ordinance have eliminated nursing homes as a permitted use. Thus, this nursing home has become a nonconforming use. Section 25 (j) states: 1) Continuation on nonconforrnities: Nonconformities may be continued so long as they remain otherwise lawful, subject to the remaining provisions of this section. 2) Expansion or change of nonconfomnities: No nonconformity shall be enlarged or changed to a different nonconformity except upon a determination by the County Administrator that the change results in a lessening of the degree of nonconformity. The applicant proposes to add 60 beds to the existing facility. Under the provisions of Section 25 (j), the applicant may not expand his nursing facility as long as it is a nonconforming use. Approval of the proposed rezoning will change the nursing home status from nonconforming to a conforming use, thus allowing the applicant to expand his nursing facility. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: Environment - The area is not in a flood hazard area, nor does it contain environmentally sensitive areas. The site is developed and contains urban landscaping materials. Utilities - Water service is presently available to the site. The Oslo Road Fire Station serves the area with an approximate 3-4 minute response time.. The Indian River County ambulance squad estimates they have a 5-7 minute response time. Both the fire station and the ambulance squad may provide emergency medical attention. land Use - The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Oslo Road and U.S. #1 intersection. The parcel adjacent to the subject property on the east is vacant. Residences are located approximately 1,100 east of U.S. #1. The entomology laboratories are located on Oslo Road, approximately 2,600 feet east of U.S. #1. The parcels on the northeast and the northwest corner of the Oslo Road, U.S. #1 intersection are presently vacant. A vacant commercial building is located on the southwest corner of the intersection. A flea market is located. approxi, mately 700 feet south of Oslo Road on the west side of U.S.#1. Tanmy's Transmission is opposite this flea market on the east side of U.S. #1. Tanglewood Mobile Hone Park is located, approximately 1,500 feet south of Oslo Road on the east side of U.S. #1. The subject property lies within an ID -'2, Low Density (maximum 6 units/acre) land use designation. The site is located at an intersection which has an 80 acre commercial node designation. The subject property is adjacent to 1,340 foot strip of C-lA, Cammercial Zoning District located on, Oslo Road, east of U.S. #1. .An R-lW, Mobile Home Park Zoning District is located south of the property on the east side of U.S. 41. The southwest corner of Oslo Road and U.S. #l, opposite the subject property, is zoned M-1. The northeast corner of Oslo Road and U.S. #1 is also zoned C-1, Commercial. The proposed rezoning would be compatible with the existing zoning config- uration around the intersection. Traffic/Roads - The capacity for U.S. #1 in the vicinity of the subject Property is approximately 24,000 ADT's. The nursing hone and its Proposed expansion is anticipated to generate a total of 200 ADT's. This traffic represents .8o increase in ADT's on U.S. #1. The Peak Hour Trips for a nursing hone are 2:00 - 4:00 PM, while Peak Hour Traffic for other development anticipated to locate around the area would be 4:00 - 6:00 P.M. Neither the total volume of ADT's or the Peak Hour Trips are anticipated to have a significant impact on U.S. #1. The subject property is located at an intersection of two major arterials. As the nodal area develops, this intersection will require monitoring and analysis. RECai,nWATION The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and allows a use compatible with the existing land use pattern of the area. Therefore, staff recommends approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Elmer Arendas, who lives next to the proposed project, wished to know how the proposed change to C-lA would affect his property. Mr. King explained that the C-lA is a more restrictive zoning, but the rezoning would affect only the Cook property; it would not have any direct impact on the use Mr. Arendas makes of his property. 67 BOOK PnE 63 t. JAN 19 1983 5%,? Pzi;F t It was further noted that there is an 80 acre commercial node at the intersection of Oslo & U.S.1, and this rezoning is just to bring the nursing home into compliance with our ordinance. Franklin Henley, owner of adjoining property to the rear, also was assured that his zoning would not be changed by the proposed rezoning. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher inquired about the sewerage situation. Mr. Cook reported that they are now on a septic tank,but will have their own package plant. They will tie into County water. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-8 rezoning the property as advertised to C-lA as requested by J.R.Cook. ORDINANCE NO.83- 8 WHEREAS, the Board of County Conani.ssioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intont.to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREVoRE, .: BE IT OR[)AJNED 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: Commencing at a Point on the North Line of the northwest 34- of Section 30; Township 33 South; Range 40 East where said line is intersected by the easterly right -of --way line of U.S. Highway No. 1, as said easterly right-of-way line existed prior to November 7, 1953; and from said point run North 89057151" Easton said North Section Linea distance of 80.78 feet to its intersection of the East right-of-way line of S.R.D. No. 5 per (Road Section No. 8805-150,206) as existing on September 19, 1982, thence South 12004136" East 51.12 feet to the Point of Beginning of the surveyed parcel thence run North 89057151" East, 332.80 feet along the South right-of-way line of Oslo Road as recorded in O.R. Book 142, page 664, of Indian, River County, Florida; thence run South 000 49' 41" West, 50.00 feet, thence North 890 57' 51" East 75.00 feet; thence South 00° 49' 41" West, 235.76 feet, thence South 891 57' 51" West, 342.55 feet to the present easterly right-of-way line of U.S Highway No. 1 as existing on . Septen,twi 19, 1982, thence nin North 120 04' 36" West, 292.16 c!et a 7 nr c i hli s3 easterly r -r at -of way line to (he. Point of L ���inrtaslc . Subject to all az,,setrerits and/or rights-of-way (..*oiic.ai-ninq 2.37 acres more or less. Re chanc; -. r1 D•c u C-1, C anrercial to C- +A, Restricted Commercial. Ali with the rreanilig and inrent and as set forth and describer in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River.County, Florida or, this 19thday of January , 1983. t:rc PVA -' ? 01' COUNTY CONIMISS IONER.S OF INDTM IRIVL:I? CO0Wj Y By 1 J RIC1-lARD N. BIRD, Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 27th day of January 1y8;, Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 31stday of January , 1983, at 2:00 A.M./PX. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED�TO FORM AND LEGAL STJtT CIDjCY. ,.fii2 �rK. B��UDEi�7BURG, C unty Attorney 9w 52 miot 639 JAN 19 1983 CONTRACT FOR DR. FRAZIER - EMS CONSULTANT Attorney Brandenburg reported that he had prepared a contract with Dr. Frazier at the request of the Commmission, which lines out the services specified in the previous meeting. Dr. Frazier will be an independent contractor, and the agreement continues on a month to month basis not to exceed the total sum of $10,000 at the rate of $1,500 per month. Also involved with this item would be a general discussion on where the funds should come from. The Attorney felt there is a discrepancy as to what District budget these funds should come from. Commissioner Scurlock reported that it was the consensus of the South County Fire Advisory Committee that the South County Fire District, which is a separate entity, should not be involved in the funding at any level, especially as there is no contribution from the North or West County Fire Districts. In the ensuing discussion, it was pointed out that this involves emergency services for the whole county, and it was generally felt this should come from the General Fund contingency account. Lengthy discussion followed as to the goals authorized for the Emergency Medical Services Council, and Commissioner Scurlock felt the consensus of the Commission had been that the primary emphasis should focus on existing sources and their utilization. Commissioner Lyons believed that the contract as drafted was broader than we had in mind. He cited the three goals authorized for the EMS Council at the Commission meeting of December lst (1. report on how to maximize the emergency effort with available resources; 2. recommend what future services might be; and 3. recommend sources of funding) and felt this is what the contract should authorize, plus additional tasks that might be authorized by the Commission, such as standardization and coordination of the existing emergency medical services. 70 Commissioner Fletcher concurred that the consultant's priorities should be aimed at providing us with a review of the current emergency services,the operation thereof, and an effort to streamline same. Attorney Brandenburg stated that he would revise the contract to set out the three specific items previously authorized and such other matters as the Commission may request in writing from time to time, and he would take out paragraphs 4a through 4e in the contract as drafted. It was further pointed out that these emergency services involve all the emergency services in the county and, therefore, the word "volunteer" should be deleted. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the Attorney to draft an appropriate agreement.with Dr. Frazier reflecting the comments of this Commission and authorized the signature of the Chairman. 71 AN 1`9 1983 �� 641 WK 52 AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES ":Z— THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 141-a(day of January, 1983, by and between Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and William H. Frazier, M.D., hereinafter referred to as the "Doctor", with respect to consulting services for the establishment of a County -wide Emergency Medical Service System. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Indian River County hereby engages the services of the Doctor commencing on December 1, 1982, and thereafter to continue on a month-to-month basis subject to termination as provided herein. 2. During the term of this agreement, the Doctor shall be compensated by Indian River County in the amount of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS and 00/100 ($1,500.00) a month. The total compensation currently allocated for this purpose is TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND 00/100 ($10,000.00) and this contract shall terminate or be renegotiated by Indian River County at such time as total compensation paid to the Doctor by Indian River County reaches TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND 00/100 ($10,000.00). 3. This contract shall be construed as providing services to Indian River County by the hiring of a consultant who shall be considered at all times to be an independent contractor of Indian River County and who will not be entitled to any of the benefits enjoyed by direct employees of the County including but not limited to the withholding of Federal income tax, FICA., insurance, medical benefits and workman compensation benefits. 4. The Doctor will provide: (a) Consulting services and advise Indian River County on methods to maximize the current volunteer and other emergency service effort with currently available resources, and (b) Recommend a course of action for future services and an estimate of the cost thereof, and (c) Recommend sources of funding for current and future services, and 72 (d) Advise Indian River County on such other matters as the Board of County Commissioners shall request in writing from time to time. 5. Termination. This arrangement may be terminated by either party upon fifteen (15) days written notice to the other. 6. This agreement shall take effect retroactivetly as of December 1, 1982. WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the date above written. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDI RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By RICHARD N. Al' ', ,-::ChAA i4nan Attest FREDA WRjGHT,- olerk WILLIAM H. FRAZI R, M.D. APPROVEDZATO FOR: AND LEG SUF C By G y BRAND ENB G aun y Attorney AUTHORIZE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CODE ENFORCE4ENT BOARD Attorney Brandenburg noted that sometime ago his office presented the Board with the idea of establishing a Code Enforcement Board. He now has drafted a proposed ordinance and would like the Board's input before it is published for a public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher stated that he personally would like to see each'member of the Commission appoint one member and have two additional members appointed by a majority of the Commission. His reasoning was that this is a diverse community, and, in a sense, the Commissioners are transferring some of their representation to this Board; he felt this ought to be reflected in the appointees. He did not, however, feel the Commission 73 JAN 19 1993 KPA U J A N 19 1983 ®K F members should be limited to choosing from their own districts. The Board concurred with this suggestion. Commissioner Fletcher further suggested that the ordinance require that members of the Board shall be residents of the County with experience in the fields of zoning and building,.but delete the word "control," and then state "whenever possible, the membership shall include ....." Commissioner Scurlock did not understand the intent of specifying that the membership shall include an architect, an engineer, a businessman, etc., and Attorney Brandenburg explained that the Statute indicates almost this exact wording. It does say "whenever possible." The rationale is that this board will be confronted with a wide variety of issues and it would be beneficial to have experience in all fields represented. Lengthy discussion continued regarding membership require- ments and the need for technical expertise, and it was pointed out that, in effect, this is a board of judges who can impose penalties, and they will be enforcing all codes - building, zoning, health, etc. Attorney Brandenburg recommended that the wording read "the membership shall include, whenever possible,....." Discussion then ensued regarding length of the terms of the appointees, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that all terms after the initial appointment are three year terms. He noted that it is not required that any member be reappointed. Commissioner Fletcher brought up Section 5 - Removal from the Board - where it states "if any member should move or discontinue his occupation..." He wished to know if the Attorney felt that was necessary. Attorney Brandenburg believed that provision could be deleted. Commissioner Lyons discussed the wording at the top of Page 4, which states that the Code Inspector may proceed directly to 74 M M M M M the procedure in Section 8 without notifying the violator in advance. He believed that wording should be added at the end of this paragraph as follows: "while at the same time making every reasonable effort to notify the violator." Commissioner Fletcher questioned the provision in Section 6 which would authorize the Code Enforcement Board to retain legal counsel, and it was explained that if Attorney Brandenburg were made attorney for the Code Enforcement Board, the Commission would be taking away his availability to serve as attorney for the Planning & Zoning Department or other involved County departments since this would represent a conflict of interest. Considerable discussion followed as to whether the penalties allowed would be sufficient to pay the cost of hiring an attorney for this board, the actual need for the board, and what other legal remedy the Commission might have to deal with code violators. Attorney Brandenburg stated that the Commission's only remedy would be to take the violator to court and file suit, which can be a very costly proposition. The whole basis for the Code Enforcement Board is to try to provide a quick, cost efficient way of handling disputes. Commissioner Fletcher felt the problem of having to have an outside counsel could be relieved if our current code and ordinances were such that staff could read their meaning plainly, but it was pointed out that after the violation is determined, the County Commission does not have the right to fine anyone; we do not have the teeth to enforce the Code. Attorney Brandenburg felt there is no doubt that the Code Enforcement Board will cost the County some money and pointed out that if the Commission is happy with the way the Code is being enforced now, they do not. have to set up the Code Enforcement Board. Commissioner Lyons felt the question is whether we will gain enough from this Board to get our money's worth, and he believed 75 JAN 19 193 WKPA � JAN 19 193 we are spending more than this now in a completely frustrated effort to make people comply with the code. Discussion continued at length about whether it is worth the gamble, and Commissioner Lyons pointed out that if it turns out this Board is too expensive, we can always dissolve it. He believed that, as the situation stands today, this is a very unsatisfactory area. Commissioner Scurlock wished some statistics about the volume of work involved, and Administrator Wright felt there are one or two cases of Code violation a day. Commissioner Wodtke noted that the Ordinance talks about a lien against the land on which the violation exists. He believed a great majority of these violations occur in rental situations and hoped the ordinance could provide greater ability to address that by fining the person actually creating the violation. Chairman Bird believed we must try to maintain a certain standard of living in the county and felt we do need the teeth to enforce our ordinances. In further discussion, it was noted that before this board can be set up, there has to be a public hearing, appointment of the board members, etc., all of which will take several months. Commissioner Fletcher continued to debate the need for such a Board, stating that if each violator were pursued in the proper form with the ordinances we have now, we would not have these problems. Attorney Brandenburg believed the proposed Board will be a very useful tool, because people will be more likely to comply when faced with a penalty. MOTION WAS 14ADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to authorize the advertise- ment of a public hearing in regard to establishing a Code Enforcement Board. 76 M Commissioner Fletcher had another amendment on Page 5, Section 9, Powers of the Enforcement Board, and felt this should read powers "and responsibilities." Also on Page 4, under Section 4, where it states the record of the proceedings shall be preserved for purposes of review, Commissioner Fletcher wished the words "and available for public review' to be added. Attorney Brandenburg confirmed this would be done. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. RESOLUTION REFUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD NO. 9 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to adopt,Resolution 83-8 requesting the Legislative Delegation, the Depart- ment of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and Mental Health District Board No. 9 to provide a fair and reasonable funding formula for mental health services and alcohol rehabilitation in Indian River County. Commissioner Fletcher stated that he would vote for the proposed resolution if it says we will get all the money back that we put in. Commissioner Lyons noted that they only get so much money and we are saying we want our fair share and want it done on an equitable basis. Commissioner Fletcher wished the resolution to require that whatever was generated out of this County would come back here. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. 77 JAN 19 1983 Pw'K ?As € 6,4 JAN 19 198 C C:8 RESOLUTION NO. 83- 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REQUESTING THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND MENTAL HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD NO. 9 TO PROVIDE A FAIR AND REASONABLE PER CAPITA FUNDING FORMULA FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ALCOHOL REHABILITATION SERVICES IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. WHEREAS, Indian River County was included with Palm Beach County in Mental Health District Board No. 9 in 1977, and WHEREAS, Indian River County was assured at the time of merger of the previous Boards that this County's needs would be satisfied through a fair funding formula, and WHEREAS, through a series of allocation actions Indian River County has not received adequate funds for services and the funds that have been received have been allocated according to a formula which does not treat Indian River County residents fairly, and WHEREAS, the per capita needs for services of these kinds are the same regardless of the County, its size or population, and WHEREAS, the earmarking of funds for specific purposes and uses in specific counties deprives Indian River County residents of a fair distribution of their tax dollars, and WHEREAS, the distribution of in-patient and residential mental health care facilities in the five -county area is inequitable; a 15 -bed facility serves all four counties while Palm Beach County is served by in excess of 160 beds, and WHEREAS, South Florida State Hospital has also reduced its capacity to serve residents of Indian River County further highlighting the problem, and WHEREAS, it appears that the per capita allocation of state funded mental health treatment beds is weighted in favor of Palm Beach County to the detriment of the remaining four counties, and WHEREAS, the current budget for the nine month period ending June 30, 1983, provides per capita allocations of $5.03 for,, residents in the four -county area and $8.82 for residents -of Palm V& L Beach County for mental health and alcohol related services, and WHEREAS, the residents of Indian River County demand fair treatment from the State legislature and the Mental Health Board No. 9, and WHEREAS, Mental Health Board No. 9 has agreed at the request of Indian River County to conduct a complete review of the funding mechanisms. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY.THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SITTING IN REGULAR SESSION this 19th day of January , 1983, that 1. Indian River County requests the legislature not to earmark funds for specific counties or purposes in the next fiscal year and further requests that all such funds be expended according to the Mental Health District Plan, and 2. Indian River County requests our legislative delegation to take the necessary steps to assure their constituents in Indian River County receive a fair share of State funding for these services, and 3. Mental Health Board No. 9 is once again requested to review their funding formula and change it so as to provide the four -county area with adequate funds to meet our residents needs. 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 Richard N. Bird Aye Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner A. Grover Fletcher, Nay Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 19th '. Attests FREDA WRIGHT, Clerk APPROVED AND LEGM By: JAN 19 1983 day of January , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RI,VVEERR CCOUNN�TY, F IDA BY f�_.�� RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Attorney 79 so .5.20 ?AD( 649 00 e CONVEYANCE TO COUNTY OF LAND IN HILLCREST SUBDIVISION The Board reviewed the following letter from Attorney Sherman Smith, Jr.: LAW 03PP11DIMS ®lAdministratory #ttarney ersonF® Public Works Comirunity Dev. SNA EL J. GARAVAOLIA -• D ORES j?. DECAPRIO Utilities , :'`.���✓ Finance r Other TO: January 6, 1983 Board of County Commissioners Indian River County County Administration Building 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Gentlemen: Mainland - Office Calvin B. Brown, representing The First Bankers of Indian River County, has forwarded to me a trustee's deed from the bank to meas the surviving trustee of Vero Sign Service, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation, conveying a parcel of land with easements and certain well facilities in Hillcrest Subdivision. I am advised that in 1951, a trust deed was executed by Vero Sign Service to the bank. The bank wishes to terminate its responsibilities; hence, the deed to me. I am further advised that the county has established a public water system to serve the Hillcrest Subdivision. It, therefore, appears proper to me that I should convey the property to the county. - I enclose herewith a copy of the trust deed the original trustee's deed from the bank to me, together with the bank's attorneys' check to the order of Freda Wright, Clerk, to cover documentary stamps and recording. If it is the desire of the Board that this property be conveyed to the county, then I suggest that you direct the county attorney to prepare an appropriate quit -claim deed, send it to me and I will execute it and return it with the understanding that then the deed to me and the deed from me will be consecutively recorded. SNS,Jr.:SMP Encs. Sincerely, Sherman N. Smith cc: Mr, Gary Brandenburg' Mr. Calvin B. Brown 80 Jr, ti co. o �C `�8p �.: , T .411"N coQ `M eco �y S N N. S 1� MIC V- PNA I RE JERO CNARLE t�RI S. Ire}�" 1 ALAN S. POLA • CF�SR. . LAW 03PP11DIMS ®lAdministratory #ttarney ersonF® Public Works Comirunity Dev. SNA EL J. GARAVAOLIA -• D ORES j?. DECAPRIO Utilities , :'`.���✓ Finance r Other TO: January 6, 1983 Board of County Commissioners Indian River County County Administration Building 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Gentlemen: Mainland - Office Calvin B. Brown, representing The First Bankers of Indian River County, has forwarded to me a trustee's deed from the bank to meas the surviving trustee of Vero Sign Service, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation, conveying a parcel of land with easements and certain well facilities in Hillcrest Subdivision. I am advised that in 1951, a trust deed was executed by Vero Sign Service to the bank. The bank wishes to terminate its responsibilities; hence, the deed to me. I am further advised that the county has established a public water system to serve the Hillcrest Subdivision. It, therefore, appears proper to me that I should convey the property to the county. - I enclose herewith a copy of the trust deed the original trustee's deed from the bank to me, together with the bank's attorneys' check to the order of Freda Wright, Clerk, to cover documentary stamps and recording. If it is the desire of the Board that this property be conveyed to the county, then I suggest that you direct the county attorney to prepare an appropriate quit -claim deed, send it to me and I will execute it and return it with the understanding that then the deed to me and the deed from me will be consecutively recorded. SNS,Jr.:SMP Encs. Sincerely, Sherman N. Smith cc: Mr, Gary Brandenburg' Mr. Calvin B. Brown 80 Jr, ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously accepted the parcel of land in Hillcrest Subdi- vision, as described in the above letter, and authorized the Attorney to take the appropriate legal steps for acceptance of same.. REQUEST BY TOWN OF.ORCHID FOR SEAT ON REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL The Board reviewed letter from the Town Clerk of Orchid: &/1 culllla ONE DEERFIELD DRIVE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 MAYOR, mon2=K Lee Johnston VICE MAYOR, ANNE DENBY MICHAEL TOWN CLERK, Michael G. Kissner January 7, 1983 Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street, Suite N-158 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Municipal Rotation to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Dear Comndssioners : 4 a At the Town of Orchid meeting held December 8,982 Resolution 80-99 of the Board of County Commissioners was discussed. aAt that time the Town Council expressed the opinion that should a municipality choose to relinquish its rights to designate a municipal representative or.alterna.te�during its scheduled term, the next municipality in the scheduled rotation should be able to designate a representative or alternate. , As we understand at the present, the Indian River Shores representative has requested to serve an additional year as representative to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council dining what would normally be the term for Fellsmere's representative and Orchid] alternate. If our understanding is correct, the Town of Orchid feels that-.should.have7the option of designating an alternate to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for this year and a representative next year. a We look forward to your response, as Orchid wishes.to exercise this option if possible. ACTION DEPARPMENT Sincerely, J. V4•r11(�Ii-Si0t,c; J 'chael G. Klssner Town Clerk Gu10 :C A orkS 81 di �. 193 a ? PA�� X51 1 r JAN 19 1983 . FEW ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously appointed the representative from the Town of Orchid as alternate for the municipal representa- tive to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for 1983. REQUEST BY CITY OF VERO BEACH FOR PERMANENT SEAT ON REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL The Board discussed the letter from the City of Vero Beach and Commissioner Lyon's memo, which are as follows: 3M 2 3 DISTr•(BJTION LIST e ' City Of Vero Beach Curnmissioners ��/y gti 9'y P. 0. BOX 1389 - 1033 -20th PLACE Administrator Attorney CIO 0 ., ° am;: VERO BEACH FLORIDA - 32960 Personnel �� � Telephone 367-3151 p (1 Pub i{L Works V, OFFICE OF T >a� � MAYOR �• �� �%,if. �t I—omi-1 iU.lity Dee, r- U ti I t! e s Fiaaro.--.e Oth.-r Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Indian River County Board of Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Scurlock: The City Council, at their meeting on December 7, 1982, voted unanimously to convey to the County Commission, their desire to have a permanent seat on the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Inasmuch as we are the largest municipality in Indian River County we believe it is important that we have a permanent representative on this Planning Council. This would of course be in addition to the existing seat which could continue to rotate between the remaining municipalities. If you wish the City to directly approach the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council concerning this matter please let us know as, soon as possible. Very truly yours, William H. Cochrane Mayor 82 TO: Chairman Dick Bird and January ,19 TO. County Commissioners DATE: E: SUBJECT: Letter from Mayor William H. Cochrane ff `,/ .- FROM: Patrick Lo s REFERENCES: In looking at the request from Bill Cochrane for a permanent seat for Vero. Beach, I thought a. survey of the number of communities in Palm Beach County of over 20,000 population, would be interesting. They are as follows: Boca Raton 50,408 Boynton Beach 36,489 Delray Beach 36,476 Lake. Worth 27,048 Riviera Beach 26,289 West Palm Bouch 63,996 It is hard to see how a permanent seat for Vero Beach could be set up without having permanent seats for the above communities. The question of a permanent seat for Vero Beach was argued by me at the time the membership for the Planning Council was determined. As a result of the various problems of -voting and representation, the existing formula was finally adopted. I do not see how Vero Beach could be included without a major overhaul in the representation of the Regional Planning Council. In the ensuing discussion, Commissioner Scurlock believed any further action should be directed straight to the Regional Planning Council. He did not believe however, they would give another permanent seat. Commissioner Lyons was of the opinion that another permanent seat would create a real problem by disturbing the present balance of the membership, and Commissioner Wodtke stated that if this were the only other permanent seat available, he would not be in favor of it. Chairman Bird suggested that we convey the message to the City of Vero Beach that while we recognize there is a difference in the number of persons represented by the five municipalities JAN 19 1983 10K 9 pw 653 r'? PnE 054 JAN 19 1993 within the county, the Commission does feel that each munici- pality should have the opportunity to have representation on the two year rotational basis presently in effect. We would not, however, oppose the City of Vero Beach approaching the Regional Planning Council directly with their request. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously authorized the Chairman to write the City of Vero Beach as set out above. COMMITTEE APPOINTMEENTS A, Building Code Board of Adjustment and Appeal ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously appointed Jon M. Ma.ngeot to the Building_ Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the length of his term to be established upon research by the County Attorney. B. Extension Overall Advisory Committee Discussion ensued regarding appointments to the Extension Overall Advisory Committee. Commissioners Scurlock and Lyons and Chairman Bird reviewed the qualifications of their appointees and made the following recommendations. Commissioner Scurlock indicated his recommendation for appointment to the Extension Overall Advisory Committee would be Katheryn F. Dean, and this recommendation was unanimously approved by the Board. Commissioner Lyons indicated his recommendation for appointment to the Extension Overall Advisory Committee would be Sally Travis Jones, and this recommendation was unanimously approved by the Board. WE Chairman Bird indicated his recommendation for appointment to the Extension Overall Advisory Committee would be Hildie Tripson, and this recommendation was unanimously approved by the Board. C. Economic Opportunity Council ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously appointed Leonard S. Craven to the Economic Opportunities Council as recommended by Com- missioner Lyons. Commissioner Bird noted that at a previous meeting he had recommended the reappointment of Harold Winkler, but Mr. Winkler has since indicated that he is resigning due to other obligations. Chairman Bird indicated his recommendation for appointment to the Economic Opportunities Council as a replacement for Mr. Winkler would be Helen Wright, a retired nurse, and this recommendation was unanimously approved by the Board. D. South County Fire Advisory Committee The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at 3:14 o'clock P.M. in order that the District Board of Fire Commis- sioners of the South Indian River County Fire District might convene. Those Minutes will be prepared separately. E. North County Fire Advisory Committee The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:16 P.M. and recessed immediately in order that the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Indian River County Fire District might convene. Those Minutes will be prepared separately. JAN 19 1983 85 1502 PAGE�5 �A K . Fr6 The Board of County Commissioners thereupon reconvened at 3:20 o'clock P.M. with the same members present. F. Finance Advisory Committee Commissioner Scurlock informed the Board that Bill Lewis is no longer with the Beach Bank, but is now an account executive with Merrill Lynch, and he would like to recommend the appointment of Mr. Lewis to the Finance Advisory Committee to complete that committee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously appointed William Lewis to serve on the Finance Advisory Committee. REPORT ON PARKS AND RECREATION COMRZITTEE A. Signs at Sebastian Inlet Park Chairman Bird reported that a letter was sent to Dr. Gissendanner of the Department of Natural Resources asking for direction signs at SR 510 and SR AlA informing people of the State Park at Sebastian Inlet. These will be erected within the next few weeks. B. Prindle Catamaran Fleet Commissioner Bird informed the Board that the Parks and Recreation Committee has been working with the Prindle Catamaran Fleet #49 regarding their request for a safe and legal place to launch across the dunes and into the surf; in addition, people with small boats and diving gear do not have a way to tra- verse the dune line. It was suggested that Ambersand Beach be considered for this purpose since there actually has been a wash - through there; we are planning to restore the dune line; and this park is remote and not heavily used. They would like to obtain. some estimates on a wider approved dune cross-over and would also erect signs that swimming is not recommended in that area. Commissioner Lyons felt the cross-over sounds fine, but questioned whether there is sufficient room for parking cars and trailers. It was noted that this park actually extends all the way to the river, and the river section is not being used currently. It was further noted that the Catamaran Fleet indicated they would raise the necessary funding. Chairman Bird stated that he will ask staff to make preliminary designs and a cost estimate. C. Donald MacDonald Park Chairman Bird continued that they inspected this several months ago. We have had a continuing problem with maintenance and repair, but some money was made available by the Governor and the.dock and boardwalks have been repaired and a lot of trails have.been cleaned up. We do need to improve security there and are looking into some form of gate or some security structure so people cannot camp there, etc., without paying a fee. D. Dale Wimbrow Park The Chairman reported that we have had some washouts around the launching ramp at this Park and will try to make some improvements with a grader. E. Round Island Park Chairman Bird noted that a marl ramp has been graded here to help launch boats and we have been asked to :see about applying some hard surface on the.marl. He felt that hopefully wecan do this in an inexpensive way. F. Oslo Day Beacons The work has been started on installation of the day beacons and we are in the process of developing new park signs to be installed. 87 JAN 19 198 Z PAVFP5 7 G. Sebastian State Park Chairman Bird reported that the Parks & Recreation Committee feels we are being neglected in the area of Sebastian State Park. There have been considerable improvements made on the north side of the inlet and very little on the south side; we have a great deal of beachfront available for use, but no way to get to it since the State has not provided us with any dune cross -overs, walkways, etc. Representative Dale Patchett has written the State Department of Natural Resources about this. REPORT ON BEACH ACQUISITION SUB -COMMITTEE Chairman Bird reported this sub -committee's first recommendation was that the County Commission pledge up to 500 of the purchase price oaf the two parcels the State is now considering under the Save Our Coast Program, but revised their recommendation' after receiving the following information as to amounts pledged by competing counties: i SAVE OUR COAST PROGRAM Martin County - 70 Acres Total Cost $22.19 million - County share 5.0 million - County 22% Volusia County - 231 Acres Total Cost: $3.4 million - County share 1.25 million - County 36.7% Pasco County - 46 Acres Total.Cost: $3.2 million - County share .5 million - County 16% I ' Lee County Total Cost: $17.25 million - County share is land - Broward County Total Cost: $42.7 million - County share 7.0 million - County 17% Administrator Wright confirmed that we have submitted all the paperwork which consists primarily of a conceptual development plan for the park, and they want a commitment that we will develop in the reasonably near future. Commissioner Scurlock stated that -before he votes for a resolution, he wanted to have a complete outline of the basic guidelines and control measures the state would have over the land, - who holds the actual title - charging of fees - management practices, etc. In the following discussion, Board members continued to express their various concerns about the strings that might be attached to these funds. Chairman Bird felt undoubtedly there will be some strings, but stressed that the Save Our Coast Program is only one of our alternatives: in obtaining this land. He pointed out, however, that this presents us with an opportunity to use $35 of County money to match the State's $65 to acquire more park land, and noted that Martin County is planning on going into an enterprise type situation. Commissioner Scurlock asked if we can indicate in the Resolution that we will commit a certain level of funding, but base it on the ability to do certain things. Attorney Brandenburg noted that the recommendation was to pay 35% contingent on being able to work out a satisfactory management agreement and`a satisfactory negotiation with the property owners. He commented that there are six other points we have not addressed specifically, dealing with such things as the date the money would be available, confirmation of agreement to develop for public use, etc. Commissioner Scurlock noted that we have no money set aside for development and felt the referendum limited us specifically to use the funds for acquisition of property. It was felt that you can always plan and this is just a conceptual plan; Administrator Wright stressed that time is of 89 L JAN 19 1983 r);g JAN 19 1983 WK the essence, and noted that we can back out of this right up until the time we actually sign the deeds. Mr. Thomas felt the State basically wishes to be assured we have the money. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to adopt Resolution 83-9 stating that we would participate at the one-third funding level and we have very specific concerns re control and management of the property to be acquired. Board members continued to raise questions, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that this Resolution should be sent out before the next Regular Meeting of the Board. It was agreed that Administrator Wright would review the Resolution with each Commissioner, and if anyone disagreed with the wording, he would relay this to the Chairman so that a Special Meeting could be called. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION to adopt Resolution 83-9. It was voted on and carried unanimously. M RESOLUTION NO. 83- 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,. CLARIFYING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'S DESIRE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA "SAVE OUR COAST" PROGRAM. WHEREAS, Indian River County has recognized the need to acquire and preserve for recreational purposes beachfront land on the Atlantic Ocean, and WHEREAS, Indian River County has called for a referendum of qualified voters of the County on the question of whether to issue up to $5,000,000 in general obligation bonds to be used --for the purchase of beachfront property on the Atlantic Ocean, and WHEREAS, the voters of Indian River County approved_ the issuance of the bonds and the County Commission subsequently adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds, and WHEREAS, the bond issue has been validated by the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit with an appeal period to expire on January 27, 1983, and WHEREAS, Indian River County now desires to participate in the State of Florida "Save Our Coast" Program to maximize the resources of the County and the State in a cooperative manner and further desires to define the extent to which the County is willing to participate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COviMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The funds from the Indian River County $5,000,000 beach bond issue are anticipated to be available in early February, 1983. 2. Indian River County desires to participate with the State in the purchase of the "Walker" and "Nutt" properties described in Attachment "A" hereto to the extent of one-third (1/3) of the State appzaisad value p; cov.ided the County and State can reach a suitable management and operation agreement and provided the respective property owners are willing to sell the property at a price satisfactory to Indian River County. 3. Indian River County will develop the property as County, State and Federal funds become available as needed to 91 JAN 19 1983 c52 %1`61 IN �A N 19 1983 facilitate its appropriate public use for outdoor recreation. 4. Indian River County will attempt to open the facility to public use as soon after acquisition as is practicable. 5. Indian River County desires to enter into a management and operation's agreement for the parks consistent with the County's park and recreation program and philosophies and the goals of the State of Florida. 6. Indian River County intends to manage, operate and keep the facilities open for public recreational purposes in perpetuity. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyons and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chainnan Richard N. Bird Aye Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner A. Grover Fletcher Aye Commissioner Patrick B: Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 19th day of January , 1983. Attest: FREDA WRIGHT, CleX_k APPROVED�-AS TO _,FORM' AND By Rei. BRANDENBURG qG o u uty Attorney 92 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman M M REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE Commissioner Scurlock gave a detailed report on the various items being considered by the Transportation Planning Committee, noting that it is felt some additional traffic counts need to be taken in the Barrier Island relating to traffic across the bridges. They also are reviewing our traffic signal maintenance policy, and have sent a letter to the DOT regarding bridge opening times. Priorities have been assigned to studies of various street intersections. The Committee also has reviewed the proposed 1983 Road Program. 1983 ROAD PROGRAM The Board reviewed recommendation of the Public Works Director, as follows: 0 93 B�TKPA�ti JAN 19 1983 I JAN 19 1983 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: January 4, 1983 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright, County Administrator FROM: Jim Davis, Public Workssrector SUBJECT: 1983 Indian. River County Roads Workshop REFERENCES: On March 4, 1981, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a Roads Workshop to discuss and establish a future course of direction for road improvements in Indian River County. The Petition Paving Program, the paving of R.D. Carter Road from 43rd Avenue to 27th Avenue, and other projects have been established and constructed to implement direction given at that 1981 workshop. To continue the evaluation of road improvement options and funding, the Public Works Department Staff has recently investigated certain alternative road construction methods, local road classifications, design standards, and funding options. The Road Program pro- posed begins by classifying the local road system (those roads serving less than approxi- mately 10OrV.P.D.) and applying design standards for all County road classifications using alternate road construction techniques that, in applicable situations, reduce the cost of construction of existing County roads. Alternative funding methods are presented. The double surface treatment (D.S.T.) construction method is introduced as an alterna- tive to hot -mix asphalt at a cost reduction of approximately 40% where application is recommended. . Traffic engineering data for many high volume local roads (subdivision feeder roads) has been recently obtained. This data reveals that local subdivision feeder roads have. significant traffic volume. An incentive for public participation in paving these "feeder" roads is presented in funding options. The Road and Bridge Department has transmitted a 150 lb. sample of the County's shell from the 4th Street Shell Pit for the D.O.T. Materials Testing Lab to analyze the material for suitability as a road base material.. Whereas the shell is not recommended by the D.O.T. for high volume roads, it is suggested that the shell be used as a base material for low volume (non -through) streets. The result is that -the County can pave lower volume, cul-de-sac, and non -through streets at a lesser cost, RECON�OMTION It is recommended that the proposed Road Improvement Program be considered by the Board of County Commissioners at a Workshop meeting, preferably in the month of January, 1983. 93a INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS I. INTRODUCTION The primary transportation mode of Indian River County is the motor vehicle which utilizes the approximately 626 miles of County maintained roadways. Of the total road mileage, approximately 420 miles of the network is unpaved, marl and shell construction. Maintenance of the paved system is costly and drainage facilities are constantly the recipient of fine sediment eroding from the road surface. A paving program coordinated with road use classification is needed in the County defining pavement design section and funding alternatives. II. ROAD FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION On January 20, 1982, the Indian River County Board of County Com- missioners approved the Official Thoroughfare Plan for the County. This map designates certain corridors as: Arterial Roads.- Roads that carry major traffic flow through the County arfd connect major population centers. Examples include S.R. 60, U.S. Highway 1, and S.R. A -1-A. Primary Collector Roads - Roads that collect traffic from medium population centers and large traffic generators such as large residential areas or commercial centers and channel traffic to the Arterial System. The main function of Primary Collector Roads is for efficient, medium speed intercounty travel. Examples include 12th Street, Lateral "A"Road, and 43rd Avenue. Seconia-a Collector Roads - Roads that occur at regular intervals and collect traffic Trom local subdivision streets to the primary and Arterial System. The Secondary Collector also. serves as access to major developments and sites. Examples include Walker Avenue, 8th Street (Glendale Road)'and 20th Avenue. The above classification contains the major County road network. The local road system contains roads serving usually less than 1000 V.P.D. and carries smaller traffic volumes. Such local roads are classified as follows: Local Subdivision Feeder Roads - Roads that collect traffic from short subdivision resi ential streets and individual structures and channel traffic to the Collector System. Traffic volumes should range from 300 to 1000 V.P.D. At least 5 connecting side streets intersect per a mile. Residential Streets - Serve as primary access to living units. Traffic volume should be at least 150 V.P.D. at "built out" condition. Cul -de -Sac and Non -Through -Streets - Traffic volume should not exceed 150 V.P.D. The above functional classification shall form the basis for analyzing structural road needs, pavement types, and financial allocations. III. ROAD IMPROVE ENT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR EXISTING COUNTY ROADS The following design standards apply to.the County's Functional Classification network existing and maintained by the County: JAN 19 198 �crK Pk;' r 19 198 K 2 r�` ' 1) JAN 3 � �: . Arterial, Primary Collector, and Secondary Collector Roads - Flex= le Pavement Asphalt, Base, S gra a or Rig= Pavement (Concrete) design in accordance with Florida D.O.T. Structural Design methods. Local it Subdivision Feeder Roads - Flexible Pavement consisting of 8StID-111-zed Subgra e, 6" Limerock or Soil Cement Base and a 1" or 1i" Asphalt Surface Coarse. Double Surface Treatment may be used where rough texture is acceptable. Residential Streets - Flexible Pavement Design consisting of 8" Stabilized Su grade, 6" Limerock or Soil Cement Base., and 1" - 12" Asphalt Wearing Surface. Double Surface Treatment may be used at the Property Owner's consent where rough texture is amenable. Cul -de -Sac and Non -Through Streets - Compacted, 8" Shell Base with 1" Asphalt Wearing Surface or Double Surface Treatment, where texture is acceptable. IV. FUNDING To fund road improvements on the local level in Indian River County, two general revenue sources are available. The Florida D.O.T. adminis- tered Secondary Trust Fund (Second Gas Tax - 5th and 6th Cent) allocates approximately $50,000 per month to Indian River County. This revenue is intended to be used to fund major long range improvements to the Arterial, Primary Collector, and Secondary Collector Road System. Currently (date of report 11-16-82), Indian River County has a $43,127,650.52 balance in this Fund. Two Projects.estimated to cost $3.1 million are currently approved, as recommended by the Transportation Planning Committee. The local road system has historically and is proposed to be funded by the budgeted Municipal Service Fund Road and Bridge Department Road Materials Account (Fund 004-214).- For FY 82-83, $600,000 was approved for road materials. The following Funding Program is proposed for the Local toad System: The estimated costs to pave the existing local roads are as follows: Existing Local Subdivision Feeder Roads and Residential Streets 8" Shell Subgrade Preparation - This work is usually complete as a part of the existing unimproved road. 6" Base Construction $3.00/s.y. x 23 ft. wide 9 s.f./s.y. - $7.68/L.F. t 1" Asphalt $41.00/tan x 18 s.y. x 22 ft. wide ton 9 s.f./s.y. _ $5.60/L.F. " (Alternate D.S.T.) ($1.25/s.y. x 2.5 s.y./L.F.) = ($3.13/L.F.) Sod 20 ft. wide x $.12/S.F. _ $2.40/L.F. Related Drainage Work = $2.00/L.F. Engineering, Survey, Stake Out = $1.00/L.F. Total - Asphalt $18.68/L.F. (Total - D.S.T.) ($16.21/L.F.) Drainage Culvert = $110.00 per 20' section Existing Cul -de -Sac and Non -Through Streets 8 Shell Subgrade - This work is usually complete as a part of the existing unimproved road: 1" Asphalt $5.60/L.F. (Alternate D.S.T.) ($3.13/L.F.) Sod $2.40/L.F. Related Drainage Turk $2.00/L.F. Engineering, Survey, Staking $1.00/L.F. Total $11.00/L.F. (Total - D.S.T.) $8.53/L.F.) For a typical 34mile long road, the following petition paving assessment would apply: Estimated front footage per h mile long street 2280 F.F. Local Subdivision Feeder Road and Residential Streets Asphalt Road - 1320 L.F. x $18.68/L.F. t 2280 F.F. _ $10.81/F.F. Resident's Share $8.11/F.F. County's Share $2.71/F.F. D.S.T. Road - 1320 L.F. x $18.21/L.F. = 2280 F.F. _ $ 9.38/F.F. Resident's Share $7.04/T'.F. County's Share $2.34/F.F. Cul -de -Sac and Non -Through Streets Asphalt.Road - 1320 L.F. x $11.00/L.F. = 2280 F.F. _ $ 6.37/F.F. Resident's'Share $4.78/F.F. County's Share $1.59/F.F. D.S.T. Road - 1320 L.F. x $8.53/L.F. = 2280 F.F. _ $ 4.94/F.F. Resident's Share $3.71/F.F. County's Share $1.23/F.F. The above costs do not include driveway im provements nor drainage culvert installation. Alternative Funding Policies The following alternative funding policies are presented: Alternative No. 1 Assess all petitioners one uniform rate per front foot regardless of the type of road. Based. upon the previous pavement cost calculations, a•front foot- age cost of $ * would apply. As established by the County's Special Assessment Ordinance, at least two-thirds of the owners and/or the owners of two-thirds of the total front footage should sign the petition. JAN 19 1983 wK 2 667 JAN 19 1983 Pros: 1) Easy to administer. 2) Assessment would not discriminate against traffic Patterns on streets. 3) Would reduce assessments under current paving Program. Cons: 1) Number of petitions for through streets and non - through streets would have to be approximately equal for the program to balance. * Range between $3.71 and $8.11 Alternative No. 2 The following assessment method could be utilized based upon traffic volume. Local Subdivision Feeder Road Fund road improvements based on traffic count: Volute 500 to 1000 V.P.D. - County's Share 60% Benefitted Owner's Share 40% Petition Paving Volume 300 to 500 V.P.D. - County's Share 50% - Benefitted. Owner's Share 50% Petition Paving Volume less than 300 V.P.D. - Petition Paving 75% Benefitted Owner's/25% County Residential Streets, Cul -de -Sac Roads and Non -Through Roads Shall be funded by current Petition Paving Program formula: 75% Cost paid by Property Owners 25% Cost paid by County Pros: 1) Incentive to pave higher use roads. Cons: 1) County share increases, thereby total paved miles Per Year may decrease. Alternative No. 3 Continue on course with the existing Petition Paving formula of 75% cost by Property Owners/25% cost by County - regardless of road classifi- cation. Pros: 1) No change in policy is made. Cons: 1) Burden of paving feeder roads continues to be placed on fronting property owners. 2) There is no incentive to pave roads with high traffic counts. Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the local road classification system, road improvement design standards for existing County roads, and funding of the following projects. There currently is approximately $475,000 unencumbered in the Road and Bridge Department Road Materials Account. 1) Approve funding of $129,150 for resurfacing and widening mprovements of the following roads: la) 16th Ave. - 12th St. to 14th St. Cost - $ 8,200. Traffic Count - 1986 VPD lb) Gibson St. - Roseland Rd. to Lift Station Cost -$24,600. Traffic Count - 1110 VPD lc) 23rd St. S.W. 6th Ave. to 12th Ave. S.W. Cost - $47,970. Traffic Count - 1899 VPD ld) Kings Hwy. - 4th St. to 12th St. Cost - $48,380. Traffic Count - 2000 VPD 2) Approve the funding for pavement of the following roads: 2a) Road leading to Oslo Lift Station Cost - $16.21/L.F. x 1600 L.F. _ $ 25,936. 901 VPD 2b) 2nd St. - old Dixie Hwy. to 10th Ct. Cost - $13.28/L.F. x 2640 L.F. _ $ 35,060. 723 VPD 2c) 18th Ave. - Thcapson School to 13th St. S.W. Cost - $13.28/L.F. x 900 L.F. _ $ 11,952. 326 VPD Subtotal $ 72,948. 3) Approve funding of paving the following .,test section" Subdivision Feeder Roads with Double Surface Treatment: 3a) 32nd Ave. - 1st St. S.W. to 4th St. Cost - $10.81/L.F. x 2640 L.F. _ $ 28,539. 272 VPD 3b) ist St. - 50th Ave. to 43rd Ave. Cost - $10.81/L.F. x 2640 L.F. _ $ 28,539. 474 VPD 3c) 14th St. S.W. - 27th Ave. to 17th Ave. Cost - $10.81/L.F. x 3000 L.F. _ $ 32,430. 400 VPD 3d) Elaine St. - 126th St. to Gibson St. (130th St.) Cost - $10.81/L.F. x*2640 L.F. _ $ 28,539. 377 VPD Subtotal $118,047. Total $320,145. 4) Of the ring $154,855, $100,000 should be transferred .to the Petition Paving Account for petition projects. The surplus $54,855 should remain in the account for miscellaneous road material expenses. / JAN 19 1983 ex PAVE J WK JAN 19 1983 Commissioner Lyons suggested that the Gifford area might be substituted for one of those listed under "test section," but the Public Works Director explained that these roads were not only selected based on soil conditions, but right-of-way width, good drainage provisions, etc. Board members congratulated Mr. Davis on an outstanding job and felt this is a great step forward in our county road program. Commissioner Scurlock reported that the Transportation Committee felt Alternative No. 2 was by far the best alternative and they basically recommended that the program be approved as submitted. Mr. Davis informed the Board that staff prefers Alternative No. 2 also because it sets up a sharing formula and ties it to traffic count. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously adopted the 1983 Road Program and approved Alternative No. 2. STATUS - DOUGLAS SCHOOL Commissioner Lyons reported that a discussion on the Douglas School was put on the agenda because of some concern the Sheriff had regarding this property. Commissioner Lyons continued that he has looked over the property and did not see any additional damage, and since the Sheriff cannot be at the meeting today, he would like to defer this discussion until the next meeting. Some discussion ensued as to the fact that the Department of Corrections has indicated they might be able to make some arrangements with Mrs. Ingram, and that it might be well to indicate there is another interest and there are alternatives. REPORT ON BUILDING COMMITTEE Commissioner Wodtke discussed the figures in the report submitted by the City of Vero Beach in regard to the dollar cost 94 � � r which would be involved in maintaining their own Building Department and the dollar cost involved in maintaining the joint City -County Department. It was felt there might be some shortfall in the staff needed, but possibly this could be handled by some reallocation of duties. Commissioner Wodtke continued that the committee did not work on transition of the Building Department, but believed that would fall in line after a decision was reached. He noted that the City is concerned about the County's ability to take over this department; they know how their operation functions now, but have questions about our new people on staff and feel we need to have more time to see if we can handle the situation on our own. Commissioner Scurlock noted that if we were seriously considering taking over the Building Department, he felt it would be beneficial for the Commission to express its concern for existing employees and existing retirement programs, etc., and Commissioner Wodtke confirmed that Building Director Rymer would like some decision to.be made as soon as possible because she has employees who are wondering if they will have a job or whether they should look for another one. He continued that one definite reaction he did get immediately was to the level of authority we have in the County, i.e., the Building Department responsible to the Community Development Director, who is responsible to the County Administrator. Mr. Nason stated that would not be acceptable. The City has direct authority from Mrs. Rymer to the City Manager and there was a great deal of concern about this. Discussion continued regarding operation and management of the Building Department, and it was felt the City should realize that we have the same objectives they do and that we certainly do not want a Building Department that is unresponsive to problems. Commissioner Lyons felt it has been indicated that the County is big enough to be able to operate a Building Department successfully financially, and he believed the time has come to bring the Building Department over and that we owe it to the 95 JAN, 19 1983 J A N 19 1993 gem F present employees to let them know where they stand and to find a way to effect this transfer painlessly as possible. Chairman Bird commented that if we develop the option that each entity should run its own department, he hoped that we would get some indication how smoothly that could happen so we could have some continuity about what is being done. Commissioner Fletcher stated that he would want to indicate that alternative would be our last resort. As far as the Building Director answering directly to the Administrator, he stated would have no problem with that, knowing the complexity of the departments involved. Commissioner Scurlock believed we need a workshop with the City Council to resolve these various questions, and Commissioner Lyons further suggested that we might put together a motion indicating the Commission's attitude regarding protection of jobs and get a policy statement ready for the next meeting. The Board agreed. REPORT ON BEACH PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION COMMITTEE Commissioner Wodtke reported that the City of Vero Beach has hired Arthur Strock to do a study analyzing the Corps project, updating it, studying funding levels, etc., and they have some statistical information as to how property owners would benefit compared to the general taxpayer. Commissioner Wodtke continued to discuss sources of funding - the tax district approach, etc., and reported that he indicated to the Committee that in order for the County to make a hard and fast final decision, we need to know what our options are as to the type of approach to funding, tax structure, etc., and we need to have full cooperation from all the municipalities since we do not want to go ahead and make a decision and then find out later that the municipalities would object to a taxing district. He informed the Board that Councilwoman Cain felt very strongly about bringing the committee's function to a point where a -final decision is made about whether we do the project or not. 96 m Commissioner Scurlock stated that he took it as an affront to have Councilwoman Cain indicate that the County is sitting here doing nothing, and he would like to have the Commission consider having the Chairman write her a -letter emphasizing that we are not "waffling;" that we are researching the funding; and we have traveled to various beaches and viewed similar projects, .which he believed has made quite a change in some attitudes. The main consideration, however, is how do we pay for it, and until the dollars and cents are addressed, he did not know how we can do anything more than we ar.e. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to write a letter to Councilwoman Cain expressing the above sentiments. Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that we have received a letter from the DER asking us to consider any proposals we have for the 1985 Public Works Program. The County submitted an application for the 1983 program for the beach restoration project and $130,000 was earmarked for additional engineering in that program; in 1984 we submitted an application for the beach project itself which was over $2,000,000; 1985 is up for applications, and the staff feels we should write a letter to the DER stating we wish to keep our 1983 and 1984 funding status on line in case this project ever did become a reality. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Fletcher voted in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote directed the Public Works Director to draft.a letter to the DER as above and bring it back to the next meeting. 97 JAN 19 1993 . 52 PAGF- P3 J r JAN 19 193 DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF MINUTES WK 5 2' .FAGF V111 A :- Resolution 82-122, Pinestead water .and Sewerage System Franchise, having being fully executed and received is hereby made a part of the Minutes as approved at the meeting of November 17, 1982. 171 RESOLUTION NO. 82-122 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida: c innmTnLT T This Resolution shall be known and may be cited as the "Pinestead Water and Sewerage System Franchise." SECTION II For the purpose of this Resolution, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not inconsistent with the context, words using the present tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular and vice versa. The word "shall" is always mandatory. (a) "County" is Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida. (b) "County Engineer" may be "County Administrator," or "Utilities Director." (c) "Corporation" is the Grantee of rights under this franchise, to wit: Aristek-Champion Utility Company, a Florida corporation. (d) "Board" is the Board of County Commissioners of the County. (e) "Person" is any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or organization of.any kind. (f) "Territory" means the area located in Indian River County, Florida, outside the corporate limits of any municipality as the same is more particularly defined and described herein. (g) "Water System" shall mean and include any real estate, attachments, fixtures, impounded. water, water mains, services, valves, meters, plant, wells, pipes, tanks, reservoirs, systems, facility or other property, real or personal, used or useful or having the present capacity for future use in connection with the obtaining, treatment, SAN 19 1983 r JANJ 9 4983 BOOK 159 supplying and distribution of water to the public for human consumption, fire protection, irrigation, consumption by business or industry and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall embrace all necessary appurtenances and equipment and shall include all property, rights, easements and franchises relating to any such system and deemed necessary or convenient for the operation thereof. (h) "Sewerage System" shall mean and include any plant, system, facility or property used or useful or having the present capacity for the future use in connection with the collection, treatment, purification or disposal of sewage effluent and residue for the public and without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition shall embrace treatment plants, pumping stations, intercepting sewers, pressure limes, mains, laterals and all necessary appurtenances and equipment and shall include all property rights, easements and franchises relating to any such system and deemed necessary or convenient ;for the operation thereof. (i) "Service" means supplying to a user the distribution of water and collection of sewage and the treatment of both. (j) "Hookup and/or Connection" is the connecting of potential user's property to the water and/or sewerage system in order to utilize the Corporation's services. SECTION III There is hereby granted by the County to the Corpor- ation the non-exclusive franchise, right and privilege to erect, construct, operate and maintain a water system and sewerage system within the described territory as herein provided and for these purposes to sell and distribute treated water and to charge for collection and disposal of sewage within the territory, and for these purposes to establish the necessary facilities and equipment and to lay and maintain the necessary lines, pipes, mains and other appurtenances necessary therefor in, along, under and across - 2 - � � r M M the public alleys, streets, roads, highway and other public places of the County; provided, however, that the County reserves the right to permit the use of such public places for and all other lawful purposes and subject always to the paramount right of the public in and to such public places. The Aristek-Champion Utility Company shall, at all times during the life of this franchise, be subject to all lawful exercise of the police power and regulatory authority of the County and to such regulation as the County shall hereafter by resolution provide. The Corporation shall supply the County with copies of its Department of Environmental Regulation monthly operating reports and trouble reports, if any. The right is hereby reserved to the County to adopt, in addition to the provisions herein contained and existing applicable resolutions or laws, such additional regulations as it shall find necessary in the exercise of the police power and lawful authority vested in said County, provided that.such regulations shall be reasonable and not conflict with the rights herein granted and not in conflict with the laws of the State of Florida. The County shall have the right, but not the duty, to supervise all construction or installation work performed. SECTION IV The territory in which this franchise shall be appli- cable is all that part of Indian River County, Florida, located within the following described boundary lines,.to wit: See attached Exhibit "A". CZr(`TTn'KT 17 It is expressly understood and agreed by and between the Aristek-Champion Utility Company and the County that the Corporation shall save the County and members of the Board - 3 - aw 52rPA F r,JAN,*l 9 1983 , PnO� 078 harmless from any loss sustained by the County on account of any suit, judgment, execution, claim or demand whatsoever resulting from negligence, or intentional wanton, willful and reckless acts on the part of the Aristek-Champion Utility Company in the construction, operation or maintenance of the water and sewerage systems under the terms of this franchise. The parties agree that in the construction of this section, the claim of any person resulting from negligence on the part of the Corporation may be prosecuted directly by such person against the Corporation. The County shall notify the Corporation promptly after presentation of any claim or demand. SECTION VI The Corporation shall maintain and operate its water and sewage plants and systems and render efficient service in accordance with the rules and regulations as are or may be set forth by the Board from time to time, which shall include but not be limited to "Construction Specifications for Water Distribution and Sewage Collection Facilities" promulgated by Indian River County Utilities Department, July, 1980, or as amended. The County shall require the Corporation to comply with the above standards. Prior to the issuance ofa construction permit, the Corporation's project engineer shall certify to the County that the design standards as set forth in said "Construction Specifications" of the Indian River County. Utilities Department, July, 1980, or as amended, will be met by completion of the project as shown on the plans submitted. The Corporation shall cause said certification to be submitted to the County along with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation appli- cations pplications and plans, for County review. Submission to the County for review may occur simultaneously with submission of said documents to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Upon approval by the County of the plants and - 4 - - M M systems, a permit shall be issued to the Aristek-Champion Utility Company for the construction thereof. Upon the completion of all construction of the water and sewage treatment plans and distribution and collection systems, the project engineer for the Corporation shall certify, under seal, that the systems have been constructed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifi- cations previously approved and that the systems meet all of the standards required by the County, including pressure and leakage tests and chlorination and bacteriological tests for the water distribution system. The Corporation shall also submit to the County two sets of "as -built" drawings, consisting of one set in reproducable sepia and one set of regular blueprints. Upon receipt of certification from the engineer, the County will issue a letter acknowledging the construction of the water and sewerage systems. No service is to be provided to customers until such time as the County issues a letter of acknowledgement. The issuance of said letter shall not be unreasonably withheld. Corporation shall grant necessary easements to County without charge to connect the water and/or sewerage systems to County's Master Water and/or Sewerage Systems and such easements as are necessary to provide access to the sewer systems and water systems. The Corporation shall pay a $1,000.00 franchise application fee at the time of the submission of the fran- chise resolution. The corporation shall.design all facilities within the Franchise Area to conform to the Indian River County Master Plan for utilities, when applicable. SECTION VII All of the facilities of the Corporation shall be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Department of Environmental Regulation of the State of Florida and the quantity and quality of potable - 5 - JAN 19 1983 8"K 52 PAGe 679 JAN _9 1983 water delivered and sold and the manner of collection and disposal of sewage shall at all times be and remain not in- ferior to the quality standards for public water supply and public sewage collection and other rules, regulations and standards now or hereafter adopted by the Department of En- vironmental Regulation of the State of Florida, or other governmental body having jurisdiction. The Corporation shall maintain, within the new (Pinestead) development area, suf- ficient water pressure and mains of sufficient size with fire hydrants and other facilities necessary in the water distribution system to furnish fire protection at any and all areas within the new (Pinestead) development area ser- viced by the Corporation. Said fire flow standard shall be a minimum of 500 gallons per minute for a duration of 2 hours for residential units of 2 or less floors and 1,000 gallons per minute for a duration of 2 hours for commercial units or residential units of 3 or more floors. The area to be served by this franchise agreement is to be utilized solely as a rental mobile home park with at- tendant structures and facilities in which the mobile home lots are rented to residents with the resident owning the mobile home on the rental lot. The lot rent shall include the cost of water and sewer which shall not be stated as a separate charge. So long as water and sewer are furnished as a part of lot rental, there shall be no necessity of indi- vidually metering the water and sewer for each consumer. The Corporation shall provide an accurate master meter or meters through which all water used in the franchise area will be metered. The County shall have the authority to enter upon the franchise area lands to test the accuracy of this meter or meters. The company agrees to apply for a new franchise from Indian River County at such time as the property covered by this franchise is converted to any type of ownership or use other than a rental mobile home park. The company _ M further acknowledges that should the park ever be converted to other than a rental mobile home park the County may require individual meters. The entire cost of the meters and installation shall be borne by the company. The Corporation shall only allow such mobile homes to use the park as are equipped with plumbing and fixtures that promote the conservation of water. Any irrigation system installed shall be designed to promote the efficient use of water and shall be equipped with water sensors. The company -shall establish guidelines and methods of monitoring the conservation of water in the park and shall submit a copy of such policies to the County. Whenever it is necessary to shut off or interrupt service for the purpose of making repairs or installations, the Corporation shall do so at such times as will cause the least amount of inconvenience to its consumers and, unless such repairs are unforeseen and immediately necessary, it shall give not less than five (5) days' notice thereof to its consumers for non -emergencies. Corporation shall respond to all customer service complaints within twenty-four (24) hours. SECTION VIII (a) The Corporation shall have`the authority to promulgate such rules, regulations, terms and conditions covering the conduct of its business as shall be reasonably necessary to enable the Corporation to exercise its rights and perform its obligations under this franchise and to issue an uninterrupted service to each and all of its consumers; provided, however, that such rules, regulations, terms and conditions shall not be in conflict with the laws of the State of Florida and all of the same shall be subject to.the approval of the Board. (b) If in the judgment of the Board of County Commissioners, any of the provisions of (a) above are unreason- able, the Corporation., before discretionary action is taken � JAN 19 1983 F'JAN.1 1983 BOOK PA P by the Board of County Commissioners, can request said Board that a group of arbitrators be appointed and such group shall consist of: 1. County Engineer 2. Corporation Engineer 3. One person selected by the above two persons; and this Board of Arbitrators shall make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, but such recommendations are not mandatory. Any final decision the Arbitrators or Board may have with respect to this franchise can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Indian River County by either party. SECTION IX All water pipes, mains, hydrants, valves, blowoffs and sewer mains and manholes and other fixtures laid or placed by the Corporation,. -for the water and sewerage systems shall be so located in the dedicated easements in the County after approval by County Engineer so as not to obstruct or inter- fere with other uses made of such public places already installed. The Corporation shall, whenever practicable, avoid interfering with the use of any street, alley orother highway where the paving or surface of the same would be disturbed. In case of any disturbance of County -owned pavement, sidewalk, driveway or other surfacing, the Corporation shall, at its own cost and expense and in a manner approved by the County Engineer, replace and restore all such surface so disturbed in as good condition as before said work was commenced -and shall maintain the restoration in an approved condition for a period of one (1) year. In the event that any time the County shall lawfully elect to alter or change the grade or to relocate or widen or otherwise change any such County -owned right-of-way, the Corporation shall, upon reasonable notice by the County, remove, relay, and relocate its fixtures at the Corporation's expense in the ordinary course of business. The Corporation shall not locate any of _ M M - M M its facilities or do any construction which would create any obstructions or conditions which are or may become dangerous to the traveling public. In the event any such public place under or upon which the Corporation shall have located its facilities shall be closed, abandoned, vacated or discon- tinued, the Board may terminate such easement or license of the Corporation thereto; provided, however, in the event of this termination of easement, the party requesting such termination shall pay to the Corporation, in advance, its cost of removal and relocation of the removed facilities in order to continue its service as theretofore existing, or the County shall retain an easement not less than ten (10) feet in width for the benefit of the Corporation and its facilities. SECTION X The Corporation shall not, as to rates, charges, service facilities, rules, regulations or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any person or subject any person to any prejudice or disadvantage. SECTION XI (a) The Corporation shall furnish, supply, install and make available to any and all persons within the territory making demand therefor, its public water system and its public sewerage system, and shall provide such demanding person with its services and facilities; provided, however, that the Board may, upon application of the Corporation, extend time for providing such service to such demanding person. In the event the Corporation fails to provide its services and facilities either as a water system or sewer system or both to any area within the territory within the time specified by the Board, then in such event the County may, by resolution of the Board, limit, restrict and confine the territory to that area then being serviced by water and/or sewerage by the Corporation or such, greater 9 - JAS 19X93 K �pre68:3 JAN 19 1983 0 BOOK FAW P ) , 4 area as the Board shall determine; and thereafter, the territory shall be only the area set forth in the reso- lution adopted by the Board. SECTION XII The Corporation or its Shareholders shall not sell or transfer its plants or systems or corporate stock to another or transfer any rights under this franchise to another without the approval of the Board. No such sale or transfer after such approval shall be effective until the vendee, assignee or lessee has filed with the Board an instrument in writing reciting.the fact of such transfer and accepting the terms of this franchise and agreeing to perform all of the conditions thereof. In any event, this franchise shall not be transferable and assignable until notice or request for transfer and assignment shall be given by the Corporation to the Board in writing accompanied by a request from the proposed transferee, which application shall contain infor- mation concerning the financial status and other qualifications of the proposed transferee and such other information as the Board may require. A public hearing shall be held on such request, of which notice shall be given by publication in a newspaper regularly published in the County at least one time not more than one month or less than one week preceding such hearing. Certified proof of publication of such notice shall be filed with the Board. The Board shall act within ninety (90) days upon such request. The consent by the Board to any assignment of this franchise shall not be unreasonably withheld.. Any sale or transfer by the Corpor- ation or Shareholders of the Corporation taking place contrary to the terms and conditions of this paragraph shall be considered by the Board to be a default by the Corporation under this franchise agreement and subject this franchise to termination. - 10 - - W M SECTION XIII Corporation warrants adequate capacity to service existing or anticipated customers and agrees not to provide water and/or sewerage service unless adequate capacity is available at the time any new connection is made. SECTION XIV (a) The Corporation shall make no separate charge for water or sewer service to persons using the facilities of the Corporation within the area served by this franchise. (b) There shall be no connection charge for water or sewer service provided by the Corporation. (c) The Corporation shall pay to the County a franchise fee equal to $.068 per thousand gallons of water consumed by all water users in the franchise area. It is understood that this fee has been calculated using a base of three (3%) per cent of gross revenues of standard County rates at the time of adoption of this resolution; if the County franchise fee or water and sewer rates change, this fee shall be automatically adjusted. The fee shall be paid to the County on October 1st of each fiscal year SECTION XV Escrow Fund for Maintenance and Replacement The Corporation shall establish an escrow fund con- ditioned to pay for repairs, maintenance, and replacement of water and/or sewer facilities in the event the Corporation fails to meet its responsibilities under this franchise, and the County is required to make expenditures for the water or sewer system. The Corporation shall pay to the escrow fund the sum of $100.00 per mobile home lot to establish the fund. Payment for each lot into said fund shall be made before the lot is occupied. Payment into the escrow fund shall continue until the sum of $20,000.00 is deposited. The fund shall be maintained at this level with the Corporation receiving any JAN 19 1993 I AN '59 interest from the fund and making up any deficiency in the fund. The Board of County Commissioners may review the necessity and sufficiency of the fund at any time and subsequent to a.public hearing may require the Corporation to increase or allow the Corporation to decrease the amount escrowed pursuant to this section. This escrow fund shall be maintained at a bank in Indian River County and funds may not be withdrawn by the Corporation without the written consent of the County. The County may withdraw monies from this fund upon default of the Corporation for purposes of maintaining the water or sewer franchise. In the event the County provides a public water or sewer system to the franchise area and the Corporation ties into the publicly owned system pursuant to this agreement, the County Commission shall conduct a review of the necessity of requiring the Corporation to continue escrowing funds for the maintenance of the water distribution and sewage collection system on site. An accounting of this fund shall be furnished to the County annually or more frequently as required by the County. Connecting to. County System Both parties acknowledge that the area covered by this franchise is planned for a public water and sewerage system and that this franchise is granted by the County to foster the accomplishment of this goal. The Corporation agrees that at such time the County supplies the franchise area with either a publicly owned water or sewerage system the Corporation shall discontinue supplying the area with the respective service and shall tie into the County system at a point in the franchise area to be determined by the County. The Corporation agrees to grant to County on demand and without charge all necessary easements to - 12 - M connect a public water or sewer system to the franchise area. At such time as the public system is available, the Corporation agrees to connect to the public system and pay all impact fees, connection fees, contributions in aid of construction or other applicable fee, charge or assessment then in effect. This franchise resolution shall automatically terminate upon the County supplying the franchise area with a water or sewer system that is publicly available and the Corporation shall have no con- tinued rights whatsoever with respect to providing the franchise area with the service then supplied by the County; however, the Corporation shall have the continuing duty to maintain and repair the water distribution system and sewage collection system located on site and shall do so in accordance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. The County shall only be responsible for facilities up to the point of interconnection with the franchise area. Prior to connection to the County system reasonable impact fees may be established by the County and shall be paid by the Corporation. Upon tieing to the County water or sewer facility, the Corporation may disengage the treatment facility (water and/or sewer) and have no further responsibility to furnish such treatment. SECTION XVI The Corporation shall at all times maintain public liability and property damage insurance in such amounts as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Corporation shall cause County to be duly notified by the Insuror in the event of any modi- fications or deletions of the insurance as set forth in said Exhibit"B". Said amounts shall be adjusted by the Corporation, as shall be required from time to time by the Board in, - 13 - JAN 19 1983 WR 2 FAQ€ 7 JAW � � e, � 1993 BOOK � P'��lG r/ Q a �_1� accordance with good business practices as determined by safe business standards as established by the Board for the protection of the County and the general public and for any liability which may result from any action of the Corporation. If any person serviced by the Corporation under this fran- chise complains to the Board concerning the rates, charges and/or operations of such utility and the Corporation, after request is made upon it by the Board, fails to satisfy or remedy such complaint or objections as not proper, the Board may thereupon, after due notice to such utility, schedule a hearing concerning such complaint or objection and the Board may review same according to the provisions herein. If the Board enters its order pursuant to such hearing and the Corporation feels it is aggrieved by such order, the Cor- poration may seek review of the Board's action by proceedings in the Circuit Court of the County; otherwise, the Corporation shall promptly comply with the order of the Board. SECTION XVII Should the Corporation desire to establish rates and charges or should the Corporation desire to increase any charges established and approved by the Board, then the Corporation shall notify the Board in writing, setting forth the schedule of rates and charges which it proposes. A public hearing shall then be held on such request, of which notice shall be given by publication in a newspaper regularly published in said County at least one time not more than one month or less than one week preceding such hearing. Certified proof of publication of such notice shall be filed with the Board. Said hearing may thereafter be continued from time to time as determined by the Board. If the Board enters an order pursuant to such hearing and the Corporation or any person feels aggrieved by such order, then the Corporation or such person may seek review of the Board's action by proceeding in the Circuit Court of the County. The Board shall act on the rate request within ninety (90) days. - 14 - SECTION XVIII Prior to the Corporation placing any of its facilities in any of the public places as herein authorized, the Corporation shall make application to and obtain a permit from the County Engineer authorizing said construction in the same manner as permits are authorized in the County for the use of the public roads as shall now or hereafter be established by regulations of the County. The County shall have the right when special circumstances exist to determine the time in which such construction shall be done. SECTION XIX If the Corporation fails or refuses to promptly, faith - c Wr fully keep, perform and abide by the terms and conditions of this franchise, then the Board shall give the Corporation written notice of such deficiencies or defaults and a reasonable time within which the Corporation shall remedy the same, which notice shall specify the deficiency or default. If the Corporation fails to remedy such deficiency or default within the time required by the notice from the Board, the Board may thereafter schedule a hearing concerning the same with reasonable notice thereof to the Corporation, and after such hearing at which all interested parties shall be heard, the Board may levy liquidated damages of $50.00 per day that said deficiency or default exists from the date of said hearing held by the Board; and the Board may further limit or restrict this franchise or may terminate and cancel the same in whole or in part if proper reasons thereby are found by the Board. If the Board enters an order pursuant to such hearing and the Corporation or any other person feels aggrieved by such order, the utility or such other person may seek review of the Board's action by proceedings in the Circuit Court of the County. SECTION XX County shall have the right, but not the duty to monitor construction of the facilities. Prior to connection, 15 - al� 19 1993 g lA N 19 1983 Rook '5' P the County shall conduct an inspection of the unit and facilities to be connected to the system. Corporation shall pay an inspection fee of $20.00 per unit payable at the time of inspection. SECTION XXI It is specifically agreed by and between the parties hereto that this franchise shall be considered a franchise agreement and as such a contractual instrument recognized under the Statutes and Laws of the State of Florida. SECTION XXII If any word, sections, clause or part of this resolution is held invalid, such portion shall be deemed a separate and independent part and the same shall not invalidate the remainder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, has caused this franchise to be executed in the name of the County of Indian River by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and its seal to be affixed and attested by its Clerk, all pursuant to the resolution of the Board of County Commissioners adopted on the 17th day of November , 1982. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: a COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA By: / •a. C Doug Scurlock, Chairma Board of County Commis Toners Clerk a J p,';•a rm ar �r,;e^; ur Cos t;. r,itornay - 16 - ACCEPTANCE OF.FRANCHISE ARISTEK-CHAMPION UTILITY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, does hereby accept the foregoing franchise, and for their successors and assigns does hereby covenant and agree to comply with and abide by all of the terms, conditions and provisions therein set forth and contained. DATED at Livonia, ..-Wayne . County,. Midbi:gam, _ .., . . - _''- this 22 day of December 1982. WITNESS: STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF WAYNE ARISTEK-CHa'.UT_yZTY`'COMPANY By: John eibel,.President I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this -day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared JOHN SEIBEL as President of ARISTEK-CHAMPION UTILITY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, and he acknowledged before me that he executed the foregoing instrument for the uses and purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the State and County aforesaid this 22 day of December 1982. My Commission Expires: Uoiark, �,9, .�_fll: r/ :P. i r:,•�n'E -'-: Dil'..5/. � �9•: M•: a]8i4 my cal;1roi5S;Q1" B::�Ji1�s aE46��&iiil3Ji ;"_ x983 Notary Public, State �of Hich ig an. - 17 - JAN 19 1983 J EXHIBIT "A" Tracts 3, 4, 5 and 6, Section 11, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, and that part of Tracts 1 and 8, Section 10, Town- ship 33 South, Range 38 East, lying Easterly of the East right of way line of I-95, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie -County, Florida, in Plat Book 2 at page 25; said lands now situate, lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENCY Commercial Insurance Managers, Inc. 8123 Castleton Road Indianapolis, IN 46250 NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF INSURED Champion Home Communities, Inca et. al. 12886 Fairlane., Box 3330 Livonia, Michigan 48150 Type and location of Property P ---- N I 0 ;i COMPANY See Special Conditions Binder ,o. Effective 12:01 am 10_28 19 82 Expires C12:01 am []Noon 12-28 9 82 El This binder is issued to extend coverage in the above named company per expiring policy # (except as noted beicw) Description of Operation/Vehicles/Property Water/Sewage Treatment Plant Under Construction in Vero Beach, Flordia r a era a/Perils/ orevss I Arnt of Insurance I Dad. 1. Umbrella Liability - $2,000,000 Limit 2. Carriers - Umbrella: Safety Mutual Casualty Corp. Others: The Travelers Insurance Co. ff JAN Date ACC R�u ; , (lj-;,) - Commerciallnsurance :Managers, Inc. -tet-� VVUTRT'P _f!Wl �acnuccu; :t:ca l -•'?'';yta'TfV'te , 'X e iPe y „ .._ • Broad Form Endorsement X ,:gid. r:»_ -2,000 -500,000 500,000 Included " X - - XMichigan _ 500,000 Michlgan=, Flordia 100,000 1. Umbrella Liability - $2,000,000 Limit 2. Carriers - Umbrella: Safety Mutual Casualty Corp. Others: The Travelers Insurance Co. ff JAN Date ACC R�u ; , (lj-;,) - Commerciallnsurance :Managers, Inc. -tet-� VVUTRT'P _f!Wl � .] A N 19 1983 ,"X94 The several bills and accounts ag-Ainst the County having been audited were examined and found to be correct were approved and warrants issued in settlement of same as follows: Treasury Fund Nos. 84072 - 84318 inclusive. Such bills and accounts being on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the warrants so issued from the respective bonds being listed in the Supplemental Minute Book as provided by the rules of the Legislative Auditor, reference to such record and list so recorded being made a part of these Minutes. There being no further business, on Motion made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 4:55 o'clock P.M. Attest: Clerk 99 0204�01�- I L -I Chairman