Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/6/1984Wednesday, June 6, 1984_ 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, June 6, 1984, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent was Margaret C. Bowman due to illness. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Attorney Brandenburg led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Chairman Scurlock stated that his item is not actually an addition, but needs clarification. He had intended for the item of response to Congressman Nelson in regard to beach renourishment to be considered on today's agenda. He believed this actually is covered under the related item - (15A) - a resolution from the Taxpayers Association requesting the County to institute a program for protection of the beaches, and believed it would be most appropriate to hear from Commissioner Wodtke, the chairman of the Beach Restoration and Preservation Committee, at that time. Commissioner Lyons stated he would agree to the addition with the understanding that item is on the agenda for discussion only and no action will be taken. Chairman Scurlock asked if Commissioner Lyons did not wish to find an answer for Mr. Nelson today, and Commis- sioner Lyons stated that he would like to, but he has not seen and did not believe the public has seen a report which JUN 61984 aoo 57 PAU 1 JUN 61984 BOOK 57 FAGE 262 .. shows the pros and cons of doing this project. Until such time as the public can see this and there can be public debate, he was not ready to take action. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to add the Chairman's item regarding a response to Congressman Nelson on beach renourish- ment to today's agenda for information purposes only. Commissioner Wodtke asked how soon we could have a Special Meeting called to respond to the Congressman, and it was believed that this would require 48 hours notice. In further discussion, the Chairman noted that he was going to the Jail conference and would not be back until Friday afternoon. Commissioner Lyons did not see why this could not wait until next Wednesday's meeting, and it was noted that the Mayor of Vero Beach is going to Washington tomorrow. Chairman Scurlock reported that he did attend the meeting of the Beach Restoration and Preservation Committee as an observer and also attended the City Council meeting and has heard this now for about the third time. He be- lieved that he had asked for this item to be on this agenda at the last meeting, but it seems that it didn't get on the agenda the way he thought it was going to. Mrs. Forlani, Administrative Aide to the Board, stated that this was staff's error as she had felt the entire matter would be covered under Item 15A and did not list it separately. Commissioner Lyons did not mind this being discussed, but continued to stress that he did not want any action taken. 2 Chairman Scurlock emphasized that he had intended it to be discussed and action taken and believed he had made this clear at the last meeting and is on record that he would add it to the agenda in order to be able to give Congressman Nelson a response regarding the referendum. Commissioner Lyons wished to be fair and felt in that case, it is a different matter. Chairman Scurlock suggested that this item be added to the agenda as Item 15B for information, and then if it becomes apparent that action should be taken, we will go with that. Commissioner Lyons agreed. Commissioner Bird asked if there is any legal problem with taking action today, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that there was not. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0). Chairman Scurlock next reported that he attended a meeting last night re a possible water and sewer transfer with the City, and he would like to have his report on that meeting added to the agenda so that he can be sure he has the concurrence of the Commission to move ahead with more discussions. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) added the above item to the agenda. Administrator Wright informed the Board that the Town of Indian River Shores has requested that Item 7 E re the County assuming control and maintenance of Old Winter Beach Road within the Town limits be deleted from the agenda. 3 JUN S 1984 BOOK 57 PAGE'263 JUN 61984 BOOK 57 uJE264 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) agreed to delete Agenda Item 7 E as requested by the Town of Indian River Shores. Attorney Brandenburg requested that a License Agreement with the FEC be added as an emergency item as it must be executed by the railroad before we can commence work at the 12th St: crossing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) added the above item to the agenda as requested by the County Attorney. Attorney Brandenburg reported that we need to appoint Directors of the Board's choice for the County Fair Charter and requested that this be added under Commissioner Bird's items. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0) added the above item as requested by the County Attorney. Attorney Brandenburg noted that we are approaching a critical date in our 2.75 million dollar revenue bond issue. He became aware Monday that various documents need to be sub- mitted to FmHA and he would like to add to the agenda a blanket request for approval of a loan resolution, a right of way certificate, and any other documents that may be required by FmHA. 4 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) added the above item as requested by the County Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 16, 1984. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 16, 1984, as written. CLERKS AGENDA Some discussion ensued as to having a Clerk's Consent Agenda, and it was agreed to look into this. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the issuance of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificates as follows: Cert. # 2 to Helen Hanson - $30.86 Cert. # 1 to Helen Hanson - $ 6.11 Cert. #13 to Helen Hanson - $31.63 Cert. #10 to Helen Hanson Properties - $29.61 Cert. #399 to Edra S. & Haynes Young - $40.57 CONSENT AGENDA It was noted that Item E has been deleted from the Consent Agenda, and Commissioner Wodtke and Chairman Scurlock requested that Items B and D be removed for purposes of discussion. 5 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 FACE265 r JUN 61994 BOOK 57 MA;E266, A. Approval of Appointment of Part-time Deputies ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the following part-time Deputies appointed by Sheriff Dobeck: John F. McCorkle Joseph R. Harvey, III - C. Addition of Members to Countywide Recreation Study Committee Commissioner Bird reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County DATE:. May 23, 1984 FILE: Commissioners SUBJECT: County -gide Recreation Study Committee FROM: Richard N. Bird, REFERENCES: County Commissioner Please find attached a listing of proposed members to be added to the County -Wide Recreation Study Committee. If you have any comments, please advise me before June 6, 1984, as I will be asking you to appoint these members to this Committee at that time. DON DEESON 2166 - 53 Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32962 Telephone: 567-8400 (Sun Bank) Executive Director w/Sun Bank Indian River n/a COOKE GRAVLEE 2735 Sixth Place Vero Beach, FL Telephone: 569-3728 (Office: 569-5500) Has worked at First Bankers in Vero Beach since 1978 6 � � r BOB SCURFIELD Attorney at Law 125 Twelth Place, SE Vero Beach, FL 32962 Telephone: 567-4361 (office - Piper Aircraft) EUGENE DOUGLAS 4696 - 57 Avenue Vero Beach, FL Telephone: 567-7481 Youth Minister at Wabasso Church of God ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the appointment of the following to the Countywide Recreation Study Committee: Eugene Douglas C. Cooke Gravlee, III Bob Scurfield Don Deeson F. Agreement w/John Hamilton & Sons re Blue Cypress Lake Dock Extension ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved Agreement with John Hamilton & Sons, Inc., to construct an extension to the boat dock at Blue Cypress Lake Park. 7 aJUILI 61984 Boa 57 PAGE 267 r JUN 6 1984 Boa 57. PAGE268 FORM OF AGREEMENT • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BLUE CYPRESS LAKE PARK BOAT DOCK EXTENSION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT 8411 FBIP B 84 4029 DIVISION I THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the day of May 1984 , be and between John Hamilton and (Name) Sons, Inc., P.O. Box 274, Grant, Florida 32949 (Address) hereinafter called the Contractor, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Florida, hereinafter called the County. WITNESSETH: That the Contractor and -the County-, for the consideration here- inafter named, agree as follows: Article 1. SCOPE OF THE WORK: The Contractor shall furnish all of the materials and perform all the work shown on.the Drawings and described in the Specifications entitled "Indian River County Blue Cypress Lake Park Florida Boatina Improvement Trust B 8 44029. Boat Dock extension Indian River County Project #8411, Number FBI? B 84 4029 - Division I for Indian River County, Florida and shall do everything required by this Agreement and Contract Documents. Article 2. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION: The Contractor will be required to commence work under this Contract within ten (10) calendar days after the date of receipt by him of Notice -to -Proceed, and.to complete the work ready for use in not more than forty five (45) days. The Contractor agrees to reimburse Indian River County, Florida, as liquidated damages for each calendar day elapsing between the date . herein specified as the day of full completion and the actual day of such completion of the contract work the amount of $25 per calendar day. Article 3. THE CONTRACT SUM: The County will pay the Contractor $ 11692.00 for performance of the Contract, subject to additions and deductions provided therein. Article 4. PROGRESS PAYMENTS: The County will make no partial payments. A. 5. ACC. ?TANCZ AND FINAL PAYMENT: Upon receipt of written notice that the work is ready for final inspection and acceptance, the County Engineer will promptly make such inspection and when he finds the work accept- able under the terms of the Contract and the Contract fully performed, he will promptly issue a final certi- ficate, over his own signature, stating that the N, JU11 L work provided for in this Contract has been completed, and acceptance by him under the terms and the conditions thereof is recommended and the entire balance found to be due the Contractor will be paid to the Contractor by the County following County Commission's approval of the final Contract payment. Prior to final acceptance by the Engineer, the Con- tractor shall verify, in the Engineer's presence, that all facilities or equipment, etc. perform their proper task or function in the manner in which they were intended. The operation of all other equipment, fittings, etc. which are necessary for the proper functioning of the facility shall be tested, any equipment, etc. that fails or is found to be improperly placed or in any way does not perform as the design intended shall be completely corrected by the Contrac- tor at the Contractor's expense. Such equipment, etc., shall then be retested by the Contractor in the presence of the Engineer, until it is accepted ,by the Engineer. Issuance of final acceptance will not be made until all equipment, etc., have been approved by the Engineer. Before issuance of final certificate,. the Contractor shall submit evidence satisfactory to the County Engineer that all payrolls, material bills, and other indebtedness connected with the work have been paid. An affidavit must be submitted by the Contractor to the County Engineer stating that all indebtedness connected with the work has been paid. Such affidavit will be signed by a duly authorized officer of the contracting firm, will bear the firm's seal, and will be notarized and attested by two witnesses. A Waiver -of -Lien form signed by a duly authorized officer of the subcontracting firm, notarized and attested by two witnesses is required from each Sub contractor engaged under the scope of tYis Contract, and must accompany the request for final payment. The making and acceptance of the final payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims by the County, other than those arising from unsettled liens, from faulty work appearing after final payment or from requirements of the Specifications and of all claims by the Contractor, except those previously made and still unsettled. Article 6. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: Call for Bids, Addendum as Required, Instructions to Bidders, General Condi- tions, Sup"_ementary General Conditions, Certifications or Nonsecr_:sted Facilities, Bid Proposal Question- naire Bid Sond, Form of Agreement, Opinion of Attorney, Affidavit, Final Payment, Periodic Estimate for Par- tial Payme-=, Technical Specifications, and the Drawings, _form the Contract and they are as full,, a part o_f-is Contract as if the same were hereto attached or herein repeated. 9 6 1984 BOOK 57 PAcE26.9 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 FADE 270 Article 7. LIABILITY INSURANCE: The Contractor, upon his part, agrees to protect, indemnify, save harmless, and insure the County from any liability to any persons for injuries to the person, including homicide, or damage to property, resulting from the acts or omissions of the Contractor in performing his obligations under this Contract. The parties expressly recognize that the relationship between the County and the Contractor is that of independent contractors, and that neither the Contractor nor any of his servants, agents, or employees shall ever be considered to be an agent, servant or employee of the County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement the day and year first written above. (Contractor) Signed and sealed by the Contr ctor in the presence of - max !��/•-.,fir By: `_"Pl"esideht Attest: (Seal) Signed and sealed by the Owner in the presence of: &-7 Approved:6-6-84 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (Owner) GZ M14 By: Don C. Scp rlock, . , .Chairman Attest: A.t' Freda Wright: County Clerk�/ �' • nom, (Sea By: Michael Wright County Administr for By: Je n Office of Budget and Management I This foregoing Contract Agreement is in cor��orm according to law and is hereby approved: '--7 "-7 ry/Brandenburg unty Attorney Attorney for Contracto 10 - M M BID SCHEDULE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BLUE CYPRESS LAKE PARK COUNTY PROJECT DIVISION I - BOAT DOCK EXTENSION Bid Description Estimated Unit Unit Amount Item Quantity Price 1 Construct and install a 5'x12' wood floating boat dock, connect to existing dock (no pilings included or required) Complete with four (4) 24"x 48"x19" Poly floats, stainless steel bolts and nails, aluminum corner brackets. PT yellow pine .6 treatment,30' rubber bumper, including but not limited to all materials, equipment, transportation, L. S. S 1692.00.$ 1692.00 }candling, labor, services and other items necessary, including restoration and site cleanup. TOTAL BID L.S. = Lump Sum 11 JUN 6 1984 goox 57PA,F 271 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 PP, E 27 G. Final Plat Approval - Fly -In Ranches Subdivision The Board reviewed the following staff memo: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 22, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners FINAL P LAT SUBJECT: FLY -IN RANCHES RSU SUBDOVAL IVI- SION i S ION Robert M. Keatinr, A P Planning & Development Director FROM: Clare Z. PoupardY REFERENCES: Fly -In S/D Staff Planner DIS:CLARE It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the regular meeting of June 6, 1984. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: - Fly -In Ranches is a ±77.9 acre, 14 lot subdivision. The subject property is located west of I-95 on the southern side of Tripson Trail. The site is zoned A, Agricultural (.2 dwelling units/acre), and also has an Agricultural land use designation (.2 dwelling units/acre). The proposed density of the subdivision is .18 dwelling units/acre. Thus, the average lot size in the development is 5.6 acres. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Because each of the lots in this subdivision is larger than 5 acres in size, the applicants have elected to file an Affidavit of Exemption. According to the provisions of the County's Subdivision Ordinance, if a subdivision has lots 5 acres in size or larger, the applicant is exempt from meeting the requirements of Section 9 of the Subdivision Ordinance; this is the Required Improvements section of the ordinance. Therefore, the developer is not required to install the usual on-site improvements such as paving and drainage. However, if this option is chosen, the developer must record an Affidavit of Exemption with the subdivision final plat, prohibiting the re -subdivision of any of the newly created lots without the filing of a plat. The applicant has met all the requirements for final plat approval as outlined in Section 6(c) Affidavit of Exemption, in the County's Subdivision Ordinance. An affidavit has been prepared in conjunction with the final platy and both will be recorded after final plat approval is granted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval to Fly -In Ranches Subdivision. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) granted Final Plat Approval to Fly -In Ranches Subdivision as recommended by staff.. 12 H. Budget Amendment - Position Transfer The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 29, 1984 SUBJECT: Position Transfer At. m FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES: OMB Director FILE: The following budget amendment is to refelct the transfer of an employee position from the Purchasing department to the Building Operations department Account Title Regular Salaries Fica Retirement Ins/ Life -Health Work Comp. Regular Salaries Fica Retirement Ins./ Life -Health Work Comp. *Account No. 001-220-519-11,12 001-220.-.519-12.11 001<-220-519-12.12. 001-220-519-12.1^•, 001-2120-5119-12-14 001-216-519-11.12 001216-519-12.11 001-216-519.12.12 001-216-519-12.13 001-216519-12.14 Increase 3,975 279 435 448 128 Decrease ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the above budget amendment as recommended by the OMB Director. 3,975 279 435 448 128 I. Release of Easement - Oslo Park (Calahan) The Board reviewed memo of the Code Enforcement staff, as follows: 13 JUN 6 M BOOK 57 PACE 273 JUN 6 1994 5OOK 57 Fm -JE 274 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 24, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY DENNIS B. CALAHAN; W ` SUBJECT: SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 17 Robert M. Keatin , CP AND 18, BLOCK F, OSLO PARK Planning & Development Director SUBDIVISION, UNIT 3 THROUGH: Larry W. Burkhart Chief, Code Enforcement Department FROM -B,4040 tt Dav s REFERENCES: D. Calahan Code Enforcement Officer DIS:CDENF It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 6, 1984. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Dennis B. Calahan, owner of the subject property, for release of the common side lot 5 foot easement of Lots 17 and 18, Block F, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3, these easements being the North 5 feet of Lot 17, Block F and the South 5 feet of Lot 18, Block F, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3, found in Plat Book 4, Page 19. These lots are 50 feet in width and 100 feet in depth. It is Mr. Calahan's intention to consolidate the two lots and construct a fence around his residence on the site. The current zoning classification is R-1, Single Family Residen- tial. The land use designation is LD -2, Low Density Residen- tial, up to six units per acre. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power & Light Company, Florida Cablevision, Inc., and the Utility and Right-of-way Departments. Based upon their review, there were no objections to release of the easement. The zoning staff analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled by the existing front and rear swales. It is the zoning staff's opinion that to release the common side lot 5 foot utility and drainage easement, being the north 5 feet of Lot 17, Block F, and the South 5 feet of Lot 18, Block F, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3, would have no adverse effect. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolution, the release of the common side lot 5 foot utility and drainage easement, being the north 5 feet of Lot 17, Block F, and the south 5 feet of Lot 18, Block F, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3. 14 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 84-38 granting a Release of the 5' common side lot utility and drainage easement between Lots 17 and 18, Block F, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3, to Dennis Calahan. 15 JUN 6 1924 Boa 5,7 F;CE 275 JUN 6 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-38 BOOK 57 Pr1UE 2 7 6 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the common side lot 5 foot easement of lots 17 and 18, Block F, Unit 3 Oslo Park Subdivision, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 19, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3 for public utility purposes, and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement have been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the follow- ing lot line easements in Oslo Park, Unit 3 Subdivision, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: The common side lot 5 foot easement of lots 17 and 18, Block F, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3 according to the Plat of the same filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 4, Page 19. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This 6th day of ATTEST: Freda Wright,' Clo tk June 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY:'A jZ - Don C. ScurlocR1 Jr., C rman JUN RELEASE OF EASEMENT This Release of Easement, executed this 6th day of June , 1984, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political sub- division of the State of Florida, first party; Dennis B. Calahan, whose mailing address is 1465 17th Court, S.W., Vero Beach, Florida, 32962, second party: WITNESSETH That the said party of the first part for and in consi- deration of the sum of One Lollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easements, lying on land situated in the County of Indian River, State of Florida, to -wit: The common side lot 5 foot easement of lots 17 and 18, Block F, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 19, Public Records of Indian River County. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest, equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law and the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and del 'vered inpresence of: ZA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: �„� C zom� Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Ch f5tman ATTEST: Freda Wright, Clerk BOCK 57 FA -H277 -JUN 6 1984 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER BOOK 57 FAGE 27® I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements personally appeared, Don C. Scurlock, Jr., as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and Freda Wright, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to me known to be the persons duly authorized by said County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision. WITNESS by hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of , 1984. a,. NotarT Pu c, State of F ,da at Large: My Commission Expi es•;••.. ROTARY PUBLIC STxTF &FLORID BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE LINDc , MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1986 B. Replacement of Vehicle Using Renewal & Replacement Fund_ The Board reviewed memo of Assistant Utilities Director Joseph Baird, as follows: TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: May 30, 1984 FILE: CountA Commissioners THRU, T�r' AfG. Pinto SUBJECT: PERMISSION TO REPLACE A Utility Service Director VEHICLE USING RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT FUND FROM: Joseph A. Baird REFERENCES: Assistant Utilities Director Vehicle 74,al973 Maverick, needs major repairs to make the automobile useable. These repairs include a new engine, a radiator, and the front end rebuilt. According to Fleet Management, the cost of parts and labor to repair this vehicle will exceed $21700.00. It•-d'oes not seem feasible to expend these kind of funds on a vehicle of this age, therefore, we are requesting authorization from the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County to draw from our Renewal and Replacement Reserve Fund to replace this 1973 Maverick with a new 1/2 'Ion Pickup. Chairman Scurlock asked whether this was a budgeted item, and if not, why it can't wait until next year. He 5 also wished to know if the R&R fund normally is used for this purpose. OMB Director Barton confirmed that it is used for that purpose, but generally they are not budgeted for renewal and replacement on enterprise accounts. Utilities Director Pinto explained that the truck engine blew up, and it is the one used for meter reading. It is a normal pickup truck; it has over 100,000 miles on it, and, therefore, they didn't want to put money into repairing it. Chairman Scurlock asked why a small car couldn't be used instead of a truck, and Administrator Wright explained that the meter reader also carries a certain amount of supplies. 17 BOOK 57 FACE 279 j6._ JUN 61984 � JUN 1884 aooK 57 FA -E280 Director Pinto further explained that they do not have someone in their department who works solely as a meter reader, and they need a more versatile vehicle. Chairman Scurlock brought up the vehicles available in the County complex, and the Administrator believed that the Building Department cars were all junked but one. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner*Bird, to authorize the Utility Department to draw from their Renewal and Replacement Reserve Fund to replace the 1973 Maverick with a new 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck. Commissioner Wodtke inquired about cost, and Director Pinto assured him that the vehicle, which would be the mini- mum truck they could buy, would be from the State Bid list. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0). D, Release of Performance Bond - M.C.C. Subdivision Public Works Director Davis reviewed his memo, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 30, 1984 FILE: The Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: Request for Release of Subdivisio Grassing Cash Bond - M.C.C. Subdivision - Old Dixie Highway at 2nd Place FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.REFERENCES: Michael Grivas to Jim Davis Public Works Director dated May 18, 1984 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On October 21, 1981, the Board of County Commissioners granted Final Plat Approval for M.C.C. Subdivision subject to the devel- oper posting a $900 performance bond for grassing and earthwork. At this time, one of the owners is requesting release of the bond. Mr. Clifford Reuter issued the $900 check to the County for the bond. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Public Works staff has inspected the site and concur that grassing is complete. The owner, however, is not maintaining nor mowing the drainage detention areas. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the County release the $900 performance bond to Clifford Reuter, one of three owners, subject to the owner maintaining and mowing the drainage areas as conditioned at the time of Final Plat Approval. Funding to be from the County's Escrow account. No interest shall be applied since this was not agreed upon when deposited. Commissioner Wodtke noted that the letter from Mr. Grivas referred to an $800 bond. Director Davis believed the confusion arose from the fact that there are three owners of the property, one of whom wrote the check. He confirmed that the County did receive a check for $900. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously 19 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 FACE 2181 JUN 6 1984 B0OK 57 FACE 282 (4-0) approved release of the $900 performance bond to Clifford Reuter subject to the owner maintaining and mowing the drainage areas as agreed at the time of Final Plat Approval. PROCLAMATION - "HIRE -A -VET" MONTH The Chairman read aloud the following Proclamation designating June, 1984, as "HIRE -A -VET" MONTH, which will be presented to Veterans Service Officer Jerry Cook. 20 v P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, of the many important days we celebrate during the year, few are more worthy of special observance than "HIRE -A -VET" month; and WHEREAS, there are many citizens of Indian River County who served in the armed forces when our freedom was challenged, and many of the veterans of the Korean Conflict and the Vietnam Era have been unable to find employment within the boundaries of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the _.Department of Labor of the United States of America and the Veterans Administration have seen fit to declare the month of June, 1984 as'"HIRE-A-VET" month; and WHEREAS, any honorably discharged veteran of the Korean or Vietnam conflagrations who has been unemployed for the last fifteen months and is still unable to find employment in this County, is advised to seek out the Vero Beach Job Service Office or the Veterans Services Office at his or her earliest - opportunity; and WHEREAS, Congress has passed legislation appropriating money to fund the program, and many employers are sincerely interested in participating in the program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the month of June, 1984 be designated as "HIRE -A -VET" MONTH and it is urged that full publicity be given to the Emergency Veterans Job Training Act alerting eligible veterans to seek out all available information. ATTEST: Freda Wright, Cyrk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Don C. Scurlock, Jr., ChAirman BOOK ? PACE 283 JUN 6 1984 VOTING MACHINE WAREHOUSE BOOK 57 PAGE 234 The Board reviewed memos from the General Services Director and Supervisor of Elections Rosemary Richey, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 18, _ 1984 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: VOTING MACHINE WAREHOUSE County Administrator FROM: L. S . To y I Thomas REFERENCES: General Services Director Attached is a request dated May 4, 1984 from Rosemary Richey, Supervisor of Elections, for air conditioning and insulation at the voting machine warehouse. Lynn Williams' estimate of the cost is as follows: AIR CONDITIONING (STATE CONTRACT) $2,180 - 5 @ $436 640 - 1 @ $640 $25,820 Subtotal $ 980.10 American Insulation Low Bid 200.00 Humidistats* 600.00 Electric Contracted $4,600.10 Grand Total ( Controls are available to add to each unit that will control them by humidity as well as temperature) Funding: Rosemary Richey advises me that the State reversed its position on the special State Senate election and has refunded her for this election with a check in the amount of $7,793.45. 22 MEMO TO: SUBJECT: May 4, 1984 TOMMY THOMAS VOTING MACHINE WAREHOUSE IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR INVESTMENT IN OUR VOTING MACHINES WE NEED TO HAVE THE VOTING MACHINE WAREHOUSE INSULATED AND AIR-CONDITIONED. THE TEMPERATURE EXCEEDS 110 DEGREES AND IT IS SHOWING UP ON THE MACHINES (MOISTURE COLLECTING) MORE PROBLEMS INCOUNTERED AT LAST ELECTIONS THAN EVER BEFORE. VOTING MACHINES MECH. WILL BE WORKING THRU THE SUMMER TO INSURE THAT MACHINES ARE IN GOOD CONDITION FOR THE THREE ELECTIONS COMING UP. WE HAVE A LOT OF MONEY INVOLVED IN THESE MACHINES AND SHOULD TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS TO KEEP THEM IN BEST OF CONDITION. ROSEMARY RICHE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Commissioner Lyons noted that we will be taking on a larger monthly power bill and wished to know if the ware- house is adequately insulated. Administrator Wright assured him that the insulation needed to keep the power bill down will be provided. This is included in the estimate. Mainly, it is important to keep the humidity down. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized having the voting machine warehouse air conditioned and insulated per staff estimate as above and approved a budget transfer from the Supervisor of Elec- tions to the Administrator, as set out in the following budget amendment: 23 JUN 61994 BOCK 57 PA.GE 285 r JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 FnUE 2-86 Account Title Account*No. Increase Decrease Supervisor of Elections 001-000-341-55.00 4,601 Other Imp, except Bldg 001-220-519-66.39 11,601 Other Mach & Equip_ 001-220-519-66.43 3,000 PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO COMMERCIAL - 27TH AVE. & 5th St. (Eddy) The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 14 a Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, fora period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed biUore me thi day of A.D. 19 usiness Manager) 0� I aillb /P (Clerk of the Circuit CourVndian River County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a Counfy Ordinance amending the Land Use Ele- ment of the Comprehensive Plan by redesignat- ing land from: LD -2, "Low Density Residential 2" (up to 6 units/acre) to "Commercial." The sub- ject property presently owned by Lu- cmtla W. Eddy Is located on the north- east comer of 27th Avenue (S.R. 607) and 5th Streak S.W. (Rebel Road). The subject property is described as: The south 6311-95 -feet, of the Wait 20 acres of Tract 5, Section 23, Township 33 South, Range 39 East,according to the last general plat of lands of the In- .. dian River Farms Company filed In the office of the clerk of the circuit court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2;, Page 25; said land now lying and being = in Indian River County, Florida 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 Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County"Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1640 25th Street,. ,Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, June 6, 1984, at 9:15 A.M. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he/she may need to ensure thata verba= tim 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 B :-s-Don C. Scurlock Jr." Chairman May 16,29, 19M. Chief Planner Richard Shearer reviewed staff memo, as follows: 24 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 11, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVVII�SION HEAD CONCURRENCF�UEJECT: Robert M. K&&i , AICP Planning & Development Director FROM' Richard Shearer, AICP OEFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planni LUCINDA EDDY REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR 7.42 ACRES FROM LD -2, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2, TO COMMERCIAL Eddy 7.42 Acres RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 6, 1984. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicant, Lucinda W. Eddy, is requesting to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 7.42 acres located on the east side of 27th (Emerson) Avenue and the north side of 5th Street, SW (Rebel Road) from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), to Commercial. The applicant proposes to develop this site as a shopping center. On April 26, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend that this request be denied because they wanted to discourage further strip commercial development along 27th Avenue. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the application will be pregen-ted. The description of the current and futur surrounding areas, potential impacts utility systems, and any significant environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern reasonableness of the analysis will include a e land uses of the site and on the transportation and adverse impacts on The subject property is currently undeveloped. The west half of the property is zoned C-1, Commercial District, and the east half is zoned R-1, Single -Family District. East of the subject property is vacant land zoned R-1. South of the subject property, across Rebel Road, is vacant land zoned C-1. West of the subject property, across 27th Avenue, is Skatetown. North of Skatetown is a commercial building containing the E -Z Brew Coffee Service and a real estate office. Further north is a mobile home park. South of Skatetown is a single-family residence. West of Skatetown is a single-family subdivision. North of the subject property are two single-family homes and a mobile home. Further north is a gasoline station. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the lands north, south, and east of it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land west of the subject property, across 27th Avenue, is designated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). 25 JUN 6 41984 pp BOOK 57 PAGE 20 JUN 6 1984 BOCK 57 FnUE 28© The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan discourages strip commercial development along major streets such as 27th Avenue, but encourages compact commercial development in identified commercial nodes. Presently, there is scattered commercial development along 27th Avenue between the South Relief Canal and the County line. This two and three-quarter (2 3/4) mile long corridor along 27th Avenue has been strip zoned commercial for many years. Redesignating the subject property Commercial will encourage further strip commercial development along 27th Avenue which is contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Transportation Svstem The subject property has direct access to 27th Avenue (classified as a primary collectorstreet on the Thoroughfare Plan) and to Rebel Road (classified as a secondary collector street). Utilizing the maximum development allowed under a plan amendment and commercial zoning of all of the property, the development of the property would attract approximately 5,537 average annual daily trips (AADT). Under the LD -2 land use designation, the subject property would generate a maximum of 338 AADT. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. TT+i 1 i +-i cc County water and wastewater facilities are not available for the subject property. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the commercial node policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the applicant's request. Commissioner Bird wished to know, since this commerci- ally zoned property which is shown as Residential on the Land Use Map, is not in a commercial node or an MXD, what the Commission's latitude is in regard to approving or not approving the request to use it as commercial. Attorney Brandenburg noted that there is a catch-all phrase in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which states that certain parcels because of their unique circumstances may be suitable for commercial development although they don't meet the requirements for being in a commercial node. In order to utilize that provision, the Board would have to make several findings - (1) the property is not suitable for a commercial node, and (2) that the circumstances relating to 26 the'property are sufficiently unique to differentiate it. _ from other properties and justify a commercial designation. The applicant, Mrs. Eddy, of 275 Date Palm Road, informed the Board that she has owned the subject property since 1955, and planned to build a center there. The property is located on a corner with Skatetown across the street and an old grocery store, a filling station, and other commercial enterprises in the vicinity; it is a busy spot. Mrs. Eddy did not believe anyone would want to live on a state highway and, therefore, could not understand why it is desired to change this to residential, which she felt is very unfair after she has been paying taxes on this property as commercial for many years. Mrs. Eddy stated that she has had a lot of calls from her neighbors who also think it is very unfair. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lyons commented that this property is a borderline issue and not very clean cut, and he wondered if the fact that the drainage canal seems to separate those neighborhoods as far as traffic is concerned might not have some bearing on whether this location in itself is a little different than some others we are looking at. Chief Planner Shearer agreed that property north of the canal area is predominantly single family and south of the canal there has been less interest in residential construc- tion; also the area on the west side of 27th Avenue is predominantly commercial, but he did not feel that would be enough to justify designating this property commercial. 27 JUN 694 r;` mcrof JUN 1994 g.19rr 57 FnE 290 Discussion continued regarding the fact that this is not a clean cut situation because of Skatetown and the other commercial activities located in the neighborhood, and it was further noted that there is some recent commercial construction which is further impacting the area. Staff explained that existing commercial enterprises are grandfathered in and that may be why some commercial construction is occurring. In further discussion it was noted that the west portion of Mrs. Eddy's property, approximately 330' deep fronting on 27th Avenue, is zoned commercial with the eastern portion being zoned R-1. There is a similar situation on the west side of 27th Avenue, and there is residential development on the west side; in fact, there is a subdivision going in with 1/2 acre lots right behind the skating rink. Planner Shearer believed that staff's position on Mrs. Eddy's property was that this might be an area which could be considered for multiple family since it is LD -2. The possibility of allowing Mrs. Eddy to use her property to a depth of 330' off of 27th for commercial and having the balance of the property to the east remain residential was brought up. Planner Shearer agreed that is a possibility, but emphasized that staff feels the whole property could be used for residential. Commissioner Wodtke noted that the east side of 27th Ave. between Oslo and Rebel Road is really all undeveloped land; he would be reluctant to consider anything other than' the 330' for commercial and really felt that is premature at this time. Planning Director Keating emphasized that staff's position is that of inhibiting strip commercial, and he further believed that we are going to be faced with a 28 lot of requests for commercial on property contiguous to_ _ commercial. If this request is approved, he felt the Board probably is automatically conferring a future commercial designation on the properties north and south of the subject property, and the question is where does it end. Mrs. Eddy noted that all her properties were changed to residential from business; she is only requesting two be kept commercial where there is business across the street, and she did not feel she is being unfair requesting that. Discussion continued at length regarding the skating rink, the other businesses in the area, the natural separation defined by the canal, the possibility of multiple family development, etc. Chairman Scurlock stressed the "domino" effect of commercial next to commercial and believed we would have to be careful to find something very specific to justify allowing commercial. He felt there are many similar spots in the County and that this is not a unique situation. He also brought up the fact that there is multi family located across from The Forum and next to the Jungle Club on 6th Avenue, and he felt multi family would be a good use. In the continuing discussion, Commissioner Bird explained to Mrs. Eddy that the Commission is trying to eliminate strip zoning, and we have to stop allowing it to spread at some point; we are not just picking on her property. Mrs. Eddy felt it is very unfair. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to deny Mrs. Eddy's request for amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to Commercial for her 7.42 acres at Emerson Ave. & Rebel Rd.; said property to remain designated LD -2. 29 JUN 6 1984 eooK, 57 MCE291 r JUN 6 1984 Boon 57 FrcE292 Commissioner Bird further explained to Mrs. Eddy that the LD -2 designation will provide the flexibility for her to come up with a plan for apartment units or multi family of some type, but the property would have to be rezoned. Mrs. Eddy asked if she would have to pay again for a new survey, etc., to have such a rezoning, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that we could not rezone the property to multiple today, but the County could initiate the rezoning action and give Mrs. Eddy this consideration. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0). MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, for the County to initiate a rezoning to R -2D of the 7.42 acres belonging to Mrs. Eddy at the corner of 27th Avenue and 5th St. S.W. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we have initiated many zoning changes along with the Comprehensive Plan changes as he did not want to set a precedent. Mr. Keating stated that we have initiated quite a few and the staff would come in and do this normally through the administrative rezoning process. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0). PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO COMMERCIAL - 27th AVE. & COUNTY LINE CANAL (Eddy) The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy _ . Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 30 � � r VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of Aw J41.7t% 6reo in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of Court, was pub- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, 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 sub ribe befor e s day of A.D. 19 e (Business Manager) (SEAL) of the Circuit Cc 4A, Indian River County, Florida) NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of, a County Ordinance amending the Land Use Ele- ment of the Comprehensive Plan by redesignat- ing land from: LO -2, "Low De Residential 2" (up to 6 units/acre) to "Commercial." The sub- Lu- ciinnde W My, Is locaatted on they owned north- east comer of 27th Avenue (S.R. 607) and the County line canal. The sub act property is described as: A parcel of land being a part of Tract 13 pus canal) In Section 35, Township 33 ,south, Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of lands of Indian River Farms Company, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25, public. records of SL Lucie County, Florida, now Indian River County, Florida, described as follows: Begin at the Intersection of the South Township line of Township 33 South and the East right-of-way line of Emerson Avenue, and run North a distance of 100 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence run East a distance of 647.50 feet; thence run North a distance of 307.63 feet; thence West a distance of 647.50 feet; thence run South a distance of 307.63 feet to the Point of Beginning. A public hearing at which parties in interesi and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 250 Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, June 6,1984, at 9:15 A.M. If any person decides to appeal any decisior made on the above matter, he/she will need F record of the proceedings, and for such pur• poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba• tim 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 Byr.-s-Don C. Scurlock Jr. Chairman May 16, 29,1984. Chief Planner Shearer reviewed the following memo: TO: DATE: FILE: The Honorable Members May 11, 1984 of the Board of County Commissioners LUCINDA EDDY REQUEST TO - AMEND THE COMP PLAN FOR 4.4 ACRES FROM LD -2, DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCISUBJECT: LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2, TO COMMERCIAL Robert M. Kea in AICP Planning & Development Director FROM: �s REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP Eddy 4.4 Acres Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2 It is requested consideration by regular meeting - that the data herein the Board of County of June 6, 1984. 31 presented be given formal Commissioners at their SUN 6 1984 RooK 5 7 PAGE 293 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 F,-UE294 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicant, Lucinda W. Eddy, is requesting to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 4.4 acres located on the east side of 27th (Emerson) Avenue and north of the County line canal from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), to Commercial. The applicant proposes to develop this site for commercial uses. On April 26, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 -to -1 to recommend denial of this request. The Commission felt that redesignating the subject property to Commercial was premature. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property contains a single-family residence and a mobile home. The west half of the property is zoned C-1, Commercial District, and the east half is zoned R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre). North and east of the subject property is a fish farm zoned A, Agricultural District. Further north is a single-family residence and vacant land in a C-1 zoning district. South of the subject property, across the canal in St. Lucie County, is a single- family subdivision and a nursery. West of the subject property is the Pony Keg and a Zippy Mart in a C-1 zoning district. Further west is a single-family subdivision in an R-1, Single - Family District. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the lands north and east of it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land west of the subject property, across 27th Avenue, is designated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The land south of the subject property is in St. Lucie County. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan discourages strip commercial development along major streets such as 27th Avenue, but encourages compact commercial development in identified commercial nodes. Presently, there is scattered commercial development along 27th Avenue between the South Relief Canal and the County line. This two and three-quarter (2 3/4) mile long corridor along 27th Avenue has been strip zoned commercial for many years. Redesignating the subject property Commercial will encourage further strip commercial development along 27th Avenue which is contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to 27th Avenue (classified as a primary collector street on the Thoroughfare - -Plan). Utilizing the maximum development allowed under a plan 32 _I amendment and commercial zoning of all of the property, the - development of the property would attract approximately 3,955 average annual daily trips (AADT). Under the LD -2 land use designation, the subject property would generate 198 AADT. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. TT+ -4 l 4 +-4 oc County water and wastewater facilities are not available for the subject property. RECOMMENDATION - Based on the above analysis, including the commercial node policies of the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the applicant's request. Mr. Shearer again emphasized that staff is trying to discourage further commercial along major roads. He noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 3 to 1 for denial of the amendment, and at that time, they did discuss the possibility of either designating this as a neighborhood node or including it in a node which could include the uses on the west side. The commercial uses on the west side currently contain 2.75 acres of land, and Mrs. Eddy has 4.4 acres, for a total of around 7 acres, which would make up a neighborhood node. The Planning & Zoning Commission however, felt it would be premature to designate it as a neighborhood node while the county was in the process of analyzing policies regarding nodes. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Mrs. Eddy, owner of the subject property, pointed out that in this vicinity there is a Zippy Mart, the Pony Keg, a nursery and a fish farm, and wished to know what the Board felt she should do with her property. It was determined that no one further wished to be heard. 33 BOCK 57 FACE295 J UN 6 1984 BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. 57 pntE2,96. Commissioner Bird stated that if ever there was a place in the county to put a neighborhood node, he felt this was it. It is a long way from any other center and it is near the St. Lucie County line. There are four existing commercial businesses in the area, and including Mrs. Eddy's property, we still could stay within the maximum acreage for the node. He realized staff still is working on the neighborhood node policy, but did feel this property would qualify. Commissioner Lyons concurred, and felt the proximity to St. Lucie County was an important factor. A Motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan redesignating the subject property from LD -2 to Commercial was discussed, and Commissioners Wodtke and Bird felt that rather than amend the Plan, which requires an Ordinance, the area should just be designated as a neighborhood node. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, to designate a neighbor- hood node area at the intersection of 27th Avenue and County Line Canal, and include Mrs. Eddy's 4.4 acres. Commissioner Wodtke inquired if we could rezone the R-1 piece of Mrs. Eddy's property into Commercial at the same time, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that Mrs. Eddy has not put in an application for a rezoning so she will have to come back for the rezoning or the County will have to initiate it. 34 Commissioner Bird explained to Mrs. Eddy that based on the Motion that is on the floor, she can go ahead and use the part of her property that is zoned C-1, but if she wants to use the portion that is zoned R-1 as commercial, she would have to come in with a rezoning request. If she feels that the 300' or so of commercial is adequate, she might not want to rezone the property in the rear, but she always could come back and request that at a later date. Mrs. Eddy asked if she would have to come up with more money, and it was explained only if she came in with a rezoning request. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Commissioner Wodtke stated that a point he wished to bring up was the desirability of being able to address the rezoning at the same time as a redesignation so the applicant would not have to come back with a new application requiring additional staff time, a rehearing, etc. Director Keating noted that in many instances staff will recommend the applicant also apply for a rezoning at the same time. However, in some cases, the applicant simply neglects to do so. Planner Shearer noted that if the CLUP would require a rezoning, staff gives the applicant a rezoning application and informs them of the procedures so that these can be considered simultaneously. However, when someone requests a Comprehensive Plan amendment that staff does not feel will be approved, they do not encourage the applicant to apply for the rezoning at the same time because of the cost in- volved. Mr. Shearer brought up the possibility of consid- ering a change in the fee schedule if both procedures were handled at the same time. 35 L_ JUN 61984 Boa 57 FACE 29 1 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 FAGS 298 The Chairman requested that staff come back with a recommendation as to a possible change in the fee schedule. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING TO C-2 CITRUS RD. EAST OF OLD DIXIE (Blanchard) The hour of 9:30 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 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of 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 subs¢{ibed jpefore l tttf's7 � day of A.D. 19 (SEAL) / f��J4-flBusiness Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Cou , Indian River County, Florida) NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of i ttyy Counordinance rezoning land from: "Restricted Commercial District" to C-2, "Heavy Commercial District." The subject property presently owned by Ro- bert E. Blanchard is located 490' East of Old Dixie Highway on the South side of 4th Street The subject property is described as: Commencing at the NE comer of the NW+/4 of the, SETA of Section 13, Town- ship 33S, Range 39E, run West on the North line of said NWIA of SETA of Sec- tion 13, a distance of 340' to the Point of Beginning; thence run South 104.5'; thence run West 140.0% thence North 104.51 to the North line of the NWIA of the SE%, of Section 13; thence run East along said North line to the Point of Beginning.. 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 Com- missioners 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, June 8, 1984, at 9:30 A.M. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba- tim 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 May 78, 29, 1984. Chief Planner Shearer reviewed the following memo: 36 � s � I TO: DATE: FILE: The Honorable Members May 1, 1984 of the Board of County Commissioners BLANCHARD REQUEST TO REZONE .34 ACRES FROM DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE, C-lA, RESTRICTED COM- 8UBJECT: MERCIAL DISTRICT, TO C -2, HEAVY COMMERCIAL Robert M. KezftinG AICP DISTRICT Planning & Development Director FROM: �b REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP Blanchard Rezoning Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 6, 1984. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS - The applicant, Robert Blanchard, is requesting to rezone .34 acres located on the south side of. 4th Street (Citrus Road) and 490 feet east of Old Dixie Highway from C-lA, Restricted Commercial District, to C-2, Heavy Commercial District. The applicant proposes to use this property for warehouses or mini -warehouses. On April 26, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS Iii this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts.on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is currently undeveloped. The subject property and all of the lands immediately adjacent to it are zoned C-lA. East of the subject property are two single-family homes which are nonconforming uses in the C-lA district. Further east is a mobile home park in an R-1MP, Mobile Home Park District. South of the subject property are mini -warehouses which are a nonconforming use in the C-lA district. Further south are commercial.subdivisions in a C-1, Commercial District. These subdivisions are currently being developed for contractors offices, auto repair facilities, and retail sales of tires and lawn mowers. West of the subject property are two mobile homes and the Baker Brothers wholesale refrigerating equipment facility (all nonconforming uses in the C-lA district), and an unfinished furniture showroom. North of the subject property is a retirement home, vacant land, and two single-family residences. Further north are mini -warehouses in an M-1, Restricted Industrial District. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of the land around it as part of the U.S. 1 Mixed -Use Corridor. The Plan states that commercial and industrial land uses are 37 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 5.7 PAGE�99 FF,- JUN 61984 Boox 57 F': E 30® anticipated to utilize most of the land within this corridor. While the subject property and the land immediately adjacent to it are zoned C-lA, this does not appear to be an appropriate zoning classification for this area. On April 6, 1983, the Board of County Commissioners approved a request to rezone 17.1 acres located south of the subject property from C-lA to C-1, Commercial District to allow contractor's offices and general commercial uses. That request was approved before the C-2 district was created. Based on the existing land use pattern in this area, which includes wholesaling and warehousing which are not permitted in C-1 or C-lA zoning districts, but are allowed in C-2 districts, the proposed C-2 zoning of the subject property seems appropriate. In addition, other lands around the subject property should be considered for rezoning to C-2. Transportation Svstem The subject property has direct access to 4th Street (classified as a secondary collector on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under a rezoning to C-2 would attract 32 average annual daily trips (AADT). Under the existing C-lA zoning, the maximum development of the subject property could attract up to 600 AADT. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood hazard area. Utilities County water facilities are available in this area. No County wastewater facilities are available. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, particularly the existing land use pattern and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommenda- tion, staff recommends approval. In addition, staff recommends that the County initiate a rezoning to C-2 for the land adjacent to the subject property to maintain a consistent zoning pattern and to alleviate the nonconforming use status of the wholesale and warehouse facilities in the area. Mr. Shearer reported that the applicant talked to staff about an appropriate zoning, and staff felt C-2 would be preferable to M-1 in this area considering the surrounding uses. Staff felt the C-2 should cover a large area and therefore, recommended that additional area be rezoned. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted approval of the Blanchard request and then on May 24th voted to recommend approval for . rezoning 29 acres in this same area to C-2 as they felt this would give the area a more consistent land pattern. M The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be . heard. There were none. Commissioner Bird noted that this request is only for rezoning .34 of an acre, but apparently there will be additional acreage to be zoned C-2, and Mr. Shearer confirmed that another 29 acres will be coming before the Board for rezoning in July. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to adopt Ordinance 84-33 rezoning .34 acres south of 4th St. and east of Old Dixie to C-2 as requested by Robert Blanchard. Commissioner Lyons inquired whether the fact that additional property in this same area is coming before the Board to be considered for rezoning to C-2 would prevent this rezoning from being considered spot zoning. Mr. Shearer noted that it would be spot zoning, but only for a couple of weeks. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. (4-0) 39 JUN 6 1984 Boa 57 FAcE301 J UN 6 1984 BOOK ORDINANCE NO. 84-33 e PnUE30 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Commencing at the NE corner of the NW'h of the SEk of Section 13, Township 33S, Range 39E, run West on the North line of said NWh of SEk of Section 13, a distance of 340' to the Point of Beginning; thence run South 104.51; thence run West 140.01; thence North 104.5' to the North line of the NWk of the SE4 of Section 13; thence run East along said North line to the Point of Beginning. Be changed from C-lA, "Restricted Commercial District" to C-2, "Heavy Commercial District". All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 6.th day of June 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: DON C. SCU OCK, JR. Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 13 day of June , 1984. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 19th day of June, 1984, at 11'A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE 70.4 - ACRES TO R-1 (NORTH OF WABASSO RD.) The hour of 9:30 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 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero /Beach inIndianRiver County, Florida, that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of— in the Court, was pub- �, fished in said newspaper in the issues of._J�/ids 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 marl mater 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 athant further says that he has neither pard nor promised any person. firm or corporation any discount, rebate commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication to the said newspaper. 4 Sworn to and subscribed be' re me .s day of A.D. 19 O Business Manager) (Cle}k of a Ctrcu(t Cou t, ndran River County, Flonda) (SEAL) 1� NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing initiated by Intlian River County to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezoning land from: C-1, "Commercial District," to R-1, "Single -Family District" The subject property is located on the north side of C.R. S10 ('::abossa Road) west of 58th Avenue, south of 86th Street, east of 66th avenue-. The subject property is described as: - The South 660 feet of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Public Records of Indian River County. less and except the .:est 334 feet of the South 3220 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE V. of the SW r4 and right-of-way of C.R. 510 (85th Street) as it now exists. Said Iced lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion 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, June 6, 1984, at 9:30 A.M. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the anove mat- ter, he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and for sucl purposes, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the Proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which tie appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Dan C. Scurlock Chairman May 19, 29, 1984. Chief Planner Shearer reviewed staff memo: 41 BOOK 57 PAGE 303 _4 1 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 FACE •�� 1�:, TO: BATE: - FILE: The Honorable Members May 1, 1984 of the Board of County Commissioners - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE 70.4 DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCFSUB.JECT: ACRES FROM C-1, COM- MERCIAL DISTRICT, TO R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY Robert M..Keat ng, ICP DISTRICT Planning & Development Director FROM: K5.- REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP Co.Int. 70.4 Ac. Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting .of June 6, 1984. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The County is initiating a request to rezone 70.4 acres located on the north side of Wabasso Road between Kings Highway (58th Avenue) and 66th Avenue from C-1, Commercial District, to R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre). This request was initiated because a home owner within the subject property was unable to get a building permit to build an addition to her house because it is a nonconforming use in the C-1 zoning district. On April 26, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property currently consists of undeveloped land, single-family residences, churches, a grocery store, some vacant transient worker quarters, and a citrus grove. North of the subject property are single-family homes, a church and vacant land in an R-3, Multiple -Dwelling District (up to 15 units/acre). East of the subject property is.a vacant commercial building, vacant land, and a house in a C-1 district. Further east is a flea market, the Franklin Dale Company, and residences in an M-1, Restricted Industrial District. South of the subject property are single-family residences and duplexes in R-1, R-2, and C-1 zoning districts, and commercial buildings in a C-1 district. West of the subject property is undeveloped land. Future Land Use Pattern "The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of the property north, east, and west of it as LD -2, Low - Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land south of the subject property, across Wabasso Road, is designated as 42 LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). Based on the LD -2 land use designation and the existing land use pattern of the subject property, the R-1 zoning district appears to be the most appropriate zoning for the subject property. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to Wabasso Road (classified as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under the proposed R-1 zoning would generate approximately 2,800 average annual daily trips. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is -it in a floodprone area. T74- i-4 oma. County water and wastewater facilities are not available for the subject property. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Planner Shearer explained that there is a little jog shown because there is a piece that is presently zoned R-1. This is part of an area that traditionally has been zoned commercial, but there are almost no commercial uses in the area. On the south side of Wabasso Road a neighborhood node has been designated to include the Roberson Hotel and some other existing commercial uses, and it is felt that is sufficient for the area. He continued that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended the rezoning, but since then an owner of a little over 30 acres in this area has requested that, instead of R-1, they receive a multiple family zoning category since they have considerable property to the north which is presently zoned multiple family. Staff felt this is a reasonable request, particularly because there is a commercial/industrial node at U.S.I and Wabasso Road that one day could extend to Kings Highway. Mr. Shearer stated that staff would be willing to cut this request in half, with just the area to the west being rezoned R-1. The property to the east could be rezoned to R -2D, but that would have to go back to the Planning & 43 JUN 6 i884 Boor 5 7PnE 305 cj JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 Fn.GE-106 Zoning Commission and we would only address the western portion today. Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that we can separate this issue. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Attorney Michael O'Haire appeared for the applicant who wished to have the multiple family zoning, which the Planning Department agrees is rdasonable, and asked that his client's property be deleted from the rezoning to R-1. Mr. O'Haire stated that he has supplied staff with a legal description of the property to be deleted. The Chairman determined that no one further wished to be heard. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Ordinance 84-34 rezoning acreage on the north side of Wabasso Road between Kings Highway and 66th Avenue to R-1, with the excep- tion of the property described by Attorney O'Haire. 44 • .146 1 & M A wHEREAs, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The South 660 feet of the Southwest 1/4 and the South 660 feet of the West l0 acres of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Public Records of Indian River County, less and except the West 334 feet of the South 320 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and right-of- way of C.R. 510 (85th Street) as it now exists. Said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed fran C-1, Commercial District, to R-1, Single - Family District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 6 th day ,of June 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY C(MMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 13 day of June , 1984. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 19 day of June, 1984, at 11 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. �� �� 80 BOOK 57 PAGE -307 F"- JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 308 PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC ON 40TH AVE. SOUTH OF 14TH ST. Assistant County Attorney Chris Paull sat in for County Attorney Brandenburg since Mr. Brandenburg resides in the area under discussion. Staff Planner Karen Craver made the staff presentation and recommendation, as follows: TO: DATE: - FILE: The Honorable Members May 30, 1984 of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A Robert M. Keating, ICP CUL-DE-SAC Planning & Development Director FROM: REFERENCES: Karen M. Craver Assessment Dist. Staff Planner \\X�� \ DIS:KAREN It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 6, 1984. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The residents of 40th Avenue between 12th and 14th Streets have petitioned the Indian River County Commission to establish a Special Assessment District for the purpose of providing a cul-de-sac on 40th Avenue, south of 14th Street. The bound- aries of the Special District shall include all properties abutting 40th Avenue extending north from 12th Street to 14th Street; platted as Phyl-Ann Terrace Subdivision. The petition for the creation of the District has been submitted in conjunc- tion with a request for conceptual approval of the abandonment of approximately 65 feet of 40th Avenue right-of-way, between the southern right-of-way line of 14th Street and the proposed cul-de-sac. A formal public hearing regarding the abandonment will be held after construction drawings of the cul-de-sac are designed and an exact legal description of the area to be abandoned can be ascertained. Conceptual approval of the abandonment is necessary to warrant the production of con- struction drawings by the County Engineering Department. The design $rawings will also determine the construction costs and thereby provide for the establishment of the Special District assessment roll. The property owners have requested that the assessment be on a "per lot basis". The property owners wish to convert the subject portion of 40th Avenue into a dead end cul-de-sac for various reasons. 40th Avenue currently provides a direct connection between 12th Street and the commercial areas along State Road 60. Such a connection leads to a higher traffic volume and speed in excess of that which is reasonably expected for an interior subdivi- 46 sion street. The residents feel that the volume and speed of the traffic create a danger for the young children in the area as there are no sidewalks along the street. 14th Street is the demarcation line between the single-family neighborhood to the south and the multi -family neighborhood to the north. It is also the Vero Beach/Indian River County interface. ANALYSIS: The continuity of 40th Avenue as a local subdivision road between 12th Street and State Road 60 is not desirable as it does not discourage through traffic or excessive speed. Safe pedestrian travel is also hindered by such a roadway pattern. On January 19, 1983, the County Commission vacated the plat of Ravina Gardens Subdivision which was to be developed immediate- ly west of Phyl-Ann Terrace. The plat depicted a single street (41st Avenue) extending from 12th Street north to 14th Street. 41st Avenue was to continue north to 16th Street through a multi -family development. At the time of vacation of the Ravina Gardens plat, the Commission granted preliminary plat approval for Laurel Court Subdivision. Laurel Court was designed with access off of 12th Street and a cul-de-sac at 14th Street in order to separate the single-family subdivision from the multi -family neighborhood to the north. The approved plat is identical to the situation which the residents of Phyl-Ann Terrace wish to create. Planning principles incor- porated into the Comprehensive Plan encourage the separation of multi -family and single-family neighborhoods. The proposed project will serve as a buffer between the differing high and low intensity uses and decrease the volume of through traffic entering both the single-family neighborhood and multi -family neighborhood, an area populated by even more children than the single-family section. Existing right-of-way on 40th Avenue is 60 feet, which is adequate to construct a cul-de-sac with a 30 foot radius. It will be necessary to obtain additional right-of-way around the cul-de-sac in order to ensure proper drainage. Currently the lots drain towards the front, and miami curbs route the run-off towards 12th Street.. The construction of the cul-de-sac at 14th Street will not inhibit the existing drainage pattern. It is recommended that portions of the pavement in the 13th Street right-of-way be removed in order to allow for an even more improved drainage system. A section of pavement will have to remain as the residence at the northeast corner of 40th Avenue and 13th Street is accessed off of 13th Street. Law enforcement, fire, and ambulance service to the residents of 40th Avenue between 12th and 16th Streets will not be negatively impacted by the proposed cul-de-sac. The multi- family area to the north will be easily accessed via 16th Street and Phyl-Ann Terrace by way of 12th Street. Due to the fact that there are 10 projects on the waiting list for then County Petition Paving Program, the proposed project could not be scheduled for approximately 9 months. It would be preferable for the construction to be done by an outside contractor, although the engineering can be done by the County Engineering Department. It is also recommended that the County not be responsible for maintaining the landscaped area designed as a buffer for the cul-de-sac. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the Board grant conceptual approval of the right-of-way abandonment and instruct the Engineering Department to prepare construction drawings of the cul-de-sac and a preliminary assessment. It is recommended that the Engineering Department then advertise a public hearing regarding the abandonment of right-of-way and the retention of easements, approval of which should be followed by the creation of the actual assessment roll. 47 J UN 6 1984 BOOK 57 PAGE 3x,19 f JUN 619947 -3 I BOOK 5 9 PAGE•�4 Planner Craver emphasized the desirability of separating single and multiple family neighborhoods and thereby decreasing traffic volume and speed on a local subdivision road. She reported that one thing was left out of the recommendation that should be added and that is that a bike path be incorporated into the cul-de-sac to connect 40th Ave. and 14th St. Commissioner Wodtke commented that generally we require that streets go through and connect and he wondered if this is a change in policy. Public Works Director Davis explained that usually we request subdivisions that are primarily new development to connect to existing land that perhaps does not have proper road frontage or that interconnects subdivision streets. In this situation where you have multi family development to the north of 14th St. and single family to the south, it is a good planning concept to segregate the two neighborhoods, and the Traffic Engineer feels it would create a better situation to channel the traffic to a collector road network. Staff tries to look at each individual situation on its own merit, and they feel there is justification in this case. Commissioner Wodtke wished to know who pays for this engineering work, and Mr. Davis stated that the improvements will be paid for by the residents. We can do the engineering work in-house and just put it on our project list. Discussion ensued regarding the process for abandon- ment, assessment, etc., and Attorney Paull informed the Board that there will have to be two public hearings - one to approve the assessment roll and another regarding the abandonment. He believed they can be held simultaneously. M M M r a ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) granted conceptual approval of the above right-of-way abandonment; instructed the Engineering Department to prepare construction drawings of the proposed cul-de-sac on 40th Ave. south of 14th St.; and authorized staff to advertise for the required public hearings. Attorney Brandenburg introduced a group of his neighbors who attended the meeting and expressed their appreciation of the Board action. PROPOSED CHANGES TO SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS Planning Director Keating reviewed the proposed changes as set out in the following memo: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 29, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners PROPOSED CHANGES TO SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS FROM: RMK REFERENCES: Robert M. Keating, AICP Site Rev. Proc. Planning & Development.Director DIS:BUD. It is requested that the data herein presented be given consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 6, 1984._ DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Two issues have continually been presented to the Planning Department as needing attention. These are the time required for site plan approval and the definition of minor site plan. Representatives of the development community have recently requested that the staff address the problems of both exces- sive site plan review time and the strict definition of minor site plan. 49 BOOK 57 PAGE 311 JUN 61994 BOOK 5 7 FA, -UE •312 At present, the site plan process takes approximately eight weeks on the average from submittal of a complete application to Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the project. The most time consuming portion of this process is the staff review. As for minor site plans, the current definition is that a minor site plan is any project which does not require drainage review as provided in ordinance 82-28; which does not involve permanent structures exceeding twenty-five hundred (2500) square feet in size; which does not involve additibns to existing structures which would increase the size of the existing structure by more than ten (10) percent or by 2500 square feet; and which does not involve adding impervious structures such as driveways and parking areas which would increase the existing impervious area by more than fifteen percent or twenty parking spaces. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Recently, the staff met with the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission to address these issues. At that meeting, agreement was reached regarding proposed changes to the process. These proposed changes were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting of May 24, 1984. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 - 0 to endorse the proposed changes and to recommend these changes to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. The principal change proposed for the site plan review process is the establishment of a technical review committee. Composed of staff representatives from the various County reviewing departments and the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, this committee would meet on a weekly basis and dictate comments for site plans under review; the discrepancy letter for a project would be written at the meeting. Each department would have had the opportunity to review the plan for at least a week prior to the meeting. This contrasts with the present system where each department separately reviews a plan and provides its comments to the Planning Department which reviews the plan last, drafts the discrepancy letter, and transmits it to the applicant. The objective of establishing the technical review committee is to reduce the review time of site plans from approximately four weeks at present to two weeks or less. Along with that change, it is proposed that minor site plan approval become an administrative function. According to this recommenda- tion, minor site plans would be reviewed by the technical review committee. When all comments or discrepancies are satisfied, the plan' would then be approved administratively and signed by the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion instead of -being submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval at a regular meeting. Finally, it is recommended that the definition of minor site plan be modified. It is suggested that all non-residential projects involving less than 5,000 square feet of new imper- vious surface area be considered as minor site plans. For residential projects, however, it is recommended that proj- ects consisting of a single building having four or fewer units be designated as a minor site plan; this would replace the existing criteria for determining minor site plans. All residential projects with more than one building or having only a single building with more than four units would still be considered major site plans. 50 To establish the development review committee, only a proce- dural change would be necessary. Revision of the minor site plan definition and implementation of the system of adminis- tratively approving minor site plans, however, would necessi- tate amending the Zoning Code. Presently, all multi -family uses are listed as special exceptions in the Zoning Code, and specialvexception uses require Planning and Zoning Commission approval. Both that provision of the Zoning Code and the section of code defining minor site plans would need to be amended to implement the system. RECOMMENDATION: The staff .recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed changes to the site plan review process. The staff also recommends that the Board direct the staff to establish a technical review committee and to initiate Zoning Code amendments providing for the administrative approval of minor site plans and for the revision of the minor site plan definition. Administrator Wright reported that staff has agonized over procedures to speed up the site plan process for some time, and from an administrative level, he wished to assure the Board that staff considers site plan review to be one of the most important considerations of their processing. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that in the various meetings with members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff members, it was made plain that our key concern was not only to streamline the process, but to maintain its integrity. Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission, believed that staff takes care of these minor site plans very well and that it is not necessary for them to go through such a lengthy process. Mrs. Eggert did wish to make it clear that this is not something they are looking at lightly and staff will keep the Planning & Zoning Commission well informed so that if there is any difference of feeling, these plans can be brought back to the Commis- sion immediately. Mrs. Eggert did feel the recommended changes are a good first step in speeding up the site plan review process. Commissioner Wodtke noted that the proposed technical review committee specifically names the chairman of the 51 JUN 619BOOK 57 PAGE313 84 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 FACE314 Planning & Zoning Commission as a member. Apparently this will require attendance at weekly meetings, and he felt it should state "chairman or designee." Mrs. Eggert agreed. Discussion followed as to approving the proposed changes, but scheduling this to be looked at again in six months or so. Tom Culler, Chairman of the Construction Industry Management Council (CIMC), expressed the Council's belief that this is a good streamlining process. They are especially hopeful that the Technical Review Committee may afford them the opportunity to learn on the day they submit an application exactly what Planning & Zoning Commission agenda they will be on, which, in turn, will enable them to give their clients more specific information. Mr. Culler felt if everything went smoothly, site plan approval could be obtained within 32 weeks, and this would really be a welcome change. There are some other changes they would like considered, but he believed the Planning & Zoning Commission felt it should have the Board's consent before moving ahead on these. Chairman Scurlock assured Mr. Culler that the Commission wishes to do everything possible to streamline this process and noted that he is particularly interested in paralleling activities wherever possible rather than having to move from A to B to C, etc. Planning Director Keating felt the changes Mr. Culler is referring to relate to having the county go to a conceptual site plan approval process. He continued that he would like authorization to do an analysis on this from the staff point of view. Mrs. Eggert agreed this was worth investigation, and clarified that by "conceptual," the contractors are saying that they would like to be able to some in with a pian that will set out what is needed without having to go to actual 52 � � r construction drawings; they are not talking about just a. _ pretty rendering. She felt this might be workable except possibly relating to drainage. Commissioner Wodtke felt we really need to look into this as it gets very expensive to make major changes in design and construction drawings. He agreed that we have a competent staff and professional people and felt they should be given some latitude to make administrative decisions. Mrs. Eggert stated that she was very pleased with the present staff and had a lot of confidence in them. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) accepted the recommendation of staff for changes to the minor site plan review process and establishment of a Technical Review Committee, with the understanding that the Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission or designee will be a member of the technical review committee, and authorized staff to look into any further stream- lining that might.be desirable for processing of major site plans. DISCUSS MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STREET PAVING The Board reviewed staff memo as follows: 53 JUN 6 1994 BOOK 57 PACE315 JUN 6 1994 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 25, 1984 of the Board of County Commissioners BOOR 5 7 fA-CE 316 FILE: DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: MODIFICATION TO THE COUNTY'S SUBDIVISION SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 83-24 TO � REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STREET PAVING Robert M. Keatliig, CP Planning & Development Director FROM: Clare Z. Poupard,i. ;r REFERENCES: Co. S/D Ord. Staff Planner DIS:CLARE Itis requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting -on June 6, 1984. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The attached analysis was undertaken at the request of the Board of County Commissioners. The Board requested that the Planning Department investigate the possibility of amending the subdivision ordinance. The proposed amendment would require that any new subdivision development be connected to a paved road. If no paved roads abut a proposed subdivision, the subdivision's developer would be responsible for extending the nearest paved road to the development. The subdivision ordinance currently requires that a new subdivision's internal streets must be paved and that any streets which abut a new development must be paved. However, streets which abut a development must only be paved along the project's length. If there are no paved streets surrounding this area, the develop- er is not required to extend the pavement to the nearest paved street. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The Planning Department has reviewed the proposed amendment in the :Following manner. Staff reviewed information about the number of unpaved roads in Indian River County and the direc- tion which new residential development is taking. Staff also considered alternatives to the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting that the Board of County Commissioners consider this analysis and determine whether the Planning Department should proceed with an amendment to the subdivision ordinance and what form this amendment should take. Commissioner Wodtke felt this matter might very well require a workshop meeting. He had a question re the statement on page 7 of the 10 page staff analysis in Paragraph V. DISADVANTAGES OF PROPOSED CHANGE, which reads that "....no new subdivision has been developed, which did have frontage on a paved road....." He asked if this 54 M should not read "which did not have frontage," and staff_ _ confirmed that it should. Commissioner Wodtke then brought up petition paving, and believed we can always get a request from property owners to go into that program. Public Works Director Davis pointed out that our petition paving policy does require a certain percentage of signatures, and the problem is that if a developer has a 1/4 mile of unpaved road to his development and those people are not interested and will not sign, he cannot obtain a valid petition. Chairman Scurlock noted the ordinance says we do not have to have any signatures for a special improvement, and Commissioner Lyons felt that was correct, but believed there would have to be an awfully good reason to take that action. Commissioner Wodtke brought up the example of 16th St. where there is an on-going project but 16th St. is not paved to the end and asked if in such a case, we could not require the developer to pave that road all the way back to join the pavement, and then as other development occurs in that area, he could recoup the cost. Director Davis felt if the County wanted to take the posture that a developer would only have to pay 500 of the cost of paving the collector road and the County would pay the other 50%, that should be a separate policy and separate part of the Zoning Code; he believed, however, that the County would not be able to bear that burden financially. Chairman Scurlock believed there is a real question about the bookkeeping that would be involved. He noted that money is sitting in escrow for improvements that may never happen, and he had a real concern about a monitoring vehicle to be sure those monies are expended in a proper way and that additional revenue generated from those funds stays in the same kitty. 55 UN 6 1984 BOOK 57 PAGE 317 `JUN 9 1994 BOOK 57 FACE 318 Planning Director Keating informed the Board that staff has a short presentation if they wished to hear it, but Chairman Scurlock felt it would be appropriate to have a Motion to schedule a workshop and notify interested parties, i.e., civic associations, realtors, developers, etc., and then have the presentation at that time. Discussion followed regarding the fact that the road impact fee study has a definite correlation to this subject, and Public Works Director Davis confirmed the study will accomplish two things which are very important before the Board considers this item - it will inventory our right-of-ways and also we may be able to set up an accounting mechanism to allow monies to be received in a certain traffic zone and be spent in that traffic zone. Attorney Brandenburg noted that the Board has hired the consultant to do this study, and it is just a matter of entering into the contractual agreement. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized staff to schedule a workshop at an appropriate time in regard to considering the status of the Road Impact ordinance, etc. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL & VARIANCE REQUEST - PINECREST III SUBD. Staff Planner Clare Poupard made the staff presenta- tion, as follows: 56 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: May 30, 1984 SUBJECT: FILE: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PINECREST III SUBDIVISION ' . _J��A 6 k Robert M. keatin , Al Planning & Developmen Director FROM: Clare Z. Poupard /fIf REFERENCES: Pinecrest III Staff Planner J DIS:CLARE It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on June 6, 1984. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Pinecrest #3 Subdivision is comprised of 32 lots on a ±10 acre site.. The development is located west of Old Dixie Highway and north of 4th Street. The .subject property is zoned R-1 (6.2 dwelling units/acre) and has a LD -2 land use designation (6 dwelling units/acre). The project's proposed density is 3.2 dwelling units/acre. The applicant received preliminary plat approval on September 2, 1981. This approval would have elapsed on March 2, 1983. However, the applicant received a six month extension, and thus, preliminary plat approval expired on September 2, 1983. Therefore, the applicant is making a two -fold request. The applicant is requesting that the Board of County Commissioners grant a variance from the time limit provision of the County's subdivision ordinance, and that the Board of County Commission- ers subsequently grant final. plat approval to Pinecrest #3 Subdivision. V ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The first request made by the applicant is for a variance from the time limit provision of the County's Subdivision Ordinance. According to the provisions of Section A(3)(g) of the County's Subdivision Ordinance 75-3, (the ordinance which was in effect at the time that the Pinecrest III Subdivision preliminary plat approval request was submitted and approved), "g) The following limitations and conditions are placed on the preliminary plat approvals given by the Board: (1) The approval of the Board shall have full force and effect for a period of 18 months from the date of approval. An extension may be granted by the Board. (2) If no final plat has been filed for the area covered by the preliminary plat before the approval period has elapsed, the approval shall be revoked. If final plats are filed for only a portion of the preliminary plat, the approval on the remaining portions shall be revoked unless an extension of time has been granted by the Board." As the ordinance states, if a final plat has not been filed before the preliminary plat approval expires, plat approval becomes null and void. However, the proposed Pinecrest III 57 JUN6 I9 4 BOOK 57 PAUE319 JUN 6 4 BOOK 57 FgE.190 subdivision is essentially complete. The subdivision's interi- or street is paved. The water distribution system in the subdivision has been installed and accepted by the County's Utilities Division. The drainage system is also complete. Because of the extent of the work which had been done prior to the expiration of preliminary plat approval, the applicants have requested that the Board of County Commissioners waive the time limit provision of the ordinance. In addition to taking into consideration the amount of work which has been done on site, staff considered what new County ordinances would be applied to this- development, if a re- application for preliminary plat approval became necessary. In the time since this subdivision received preliminary plat approval, the County has adopted new stormwater drainage, subdivision, and tree protection ordinances. In addition, the state has adopted -new laws concerning the use of septic tanks. In reviewing the Pinecrest III Subdivision application from the perspective of these ordinances, it seems that the subdi- vision's design would not change substantially if a reapplica- tion were necessary. The County Engineer has reviewed the variance request and stated that the subdivision's on-site drainage is adequate. The Utilities Division has confirmed that the water system has been inspected and is complete. All lots within the subdivision meet the state's h acre minimum lot size requirement for the use of septic tanks, where a public water, system is available. The Planning and Development Division has reviewed the variance request and original subdi- vision application for conformance with the County's new Subdivision Ordinance 83-24. Thus, it seems that, if the Board of County Commissioners denied the variance request and required the applicant to resubmit a request for preliminary plat approval, the County would not benefit to any large degree. The applicant's request for final plat approval has also been reviewed by staff. As stated previously, the development's on-sitevimprovements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Division and Utilities Division. In addition, the developer has posted a $900 seeding maintenance bond. The final -plat is in conformance with the approved preliminary plat. And, finally, the final plat has been approved as to legal sufficiency by the County Attorney's office. Thus, all County requirements for final plat approval have been met by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the analysis presented herein, staff is making the following recommendations. First, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant a variance from the time limit provision of the Subdivision Ordinance, thus extending preliminary plat approval until final plat approval is granted. Secondly, staff recommends that the Board of County Commission-. ers grant final plat approval to Pinecrest #3 Subdivision and accept the $900 bond posted by the applicant to ensure that the grass seeding is maintained. M M MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to accept staff recommen- dation to grant Pinecrest III Subdivision a variance from the time limit provision of the Subdivision Ordinance; to grant them Final Plat Approval; and to accept their $900 bond to ensure that the grass seeding is maintained. Commissioner Wodtke hoped this would not encourage people to follow this practice, and Director Keating reported that staff recently instituted a system where they notify people substantially before the 18 month deadline so that applicants will have plenty of notice and can either request an extension in time or know they won't have a valid plan. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0). AGREEMENT W/FLA. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES RE AMBERSAND BEACH DUNE PROTECTION PROJECT The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: 59 JUN 6 1984 R�aK 57 PACE321 JUN 6 1984 I BOOK 57 Pnur ??? TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 24, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Keating, AI — Planning & Development Director AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO PAR- TICIPATE IN THE AMBERSAND BEACH DUNE PROTECTION PROJECT FROM: Arthur Challacombe REFERENCES: Ambersand Proj . . Chief, Environmental Section DIS:MISC1 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 6, 1984. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: - On May 16, 1984, the Florida Department of Natural Resources sent the Planning and Development Division two (2) copies of the project agreement to construct a dune walkover and revege- tate the dune at Ambersand Beach. This project is part of a $51,630 beach erosion control assistance grant. On May 22, 1984, the Governor's Cabinet approved the agreement. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The total project estimated cost is $21,500 for the 6' x 70' dune walkover, dune reconstruction, and dune revegetation. Indian River County's share of this project cost will be approximately $5,375. Under the terms of the agreement, the project must be completed on or before December 1, 1984. Site plan approval and the D.N.R. coastal construction permit have already been secured. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission authorize the Chairman to enter into the agreement with the State and authorize staff to commence with the bid procedures for the Ambersand project. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Agreement with the Florida Department of Natural Resources re Ambersand Beach Dune Protection Project and authorized the signature of the Chairman. (Said Agreement is hereby made a part of the Official Records) FLORIDA DEPAR914ENr OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF SEA01ES AND SHORES EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM Project Agreement THIS AGREF�, dated this 6 day of June , 19 84 by and between the Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores, hereinafter referred to as DEPARTMENT, and the County of Indian River , Florida, hereinafter referred to as LOCAL SPONSOR. WITNESSETH: That in and for the mutual covenants between the DEPAR24M and the IOCAL SPONSOR, it is agreed as follows: 1. The Governor and Cabinet, sitting as Head of the Department of Natural Resources, at their meeting of approved this agreement in accordance with Chapter 161.091, Florida Statutes, on behalf of the LOCAL SPONSOR for the erosion control project known as the Ambersana Beach Dune Protection Project , hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT'. 2. The IOCAL SPONSOR agrees to perform or cause the performance of eligible activities for the PROJECT identified in Paragraph 3 of this agreement, such performance being in accordance with the PROJECT plans and specifications in DEPARTMENr permit number AIR -87 M dated April 26- 1984 r_ which are incorporated and by reference made a part of this agreement, at the approved PROJECT location site, a description of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Attachment "A." DEPARTMENT' and the IACAL SPONSOR agree that the estimated cost of eli- 3. The gible items for the PROJECT are as follows: Eligible Item Estimated Cost 75% 25% Department Local Cost cost Total Cost 15,50O Dune walkover 61X70' + 114,9r;3,875 Dune Construction 79;n 250 1,000 3 ,750 1,250 5,000 Dune Revegetation Total Eligible Item Cost 16,125 5,375 21,500 '� -6,19-84.1 BOOK 57 PACE323 .- JUN JUN ,Ae1qMRna= and the LocAL SPONSOR further agree that any and 1 800f vh.-,. 3 24 ties associated with the PROJECT that are not shown in the above eligible item listing are the responsibility of the LOCAL SPONSOR and are not a part of this agreement. The DEPARDWT's financial obligation shall not exceed the sum of Citi for this PROJECT or 75% of the actual eligible PROJECT cost► whichever is less. The LOCAL SPONSOR financial obligation shall be $5,375 for this PROJECT or 25% of the actual eligible PROJECT cost. In the event the total PROJECT cost at completion exceeds the estimated cost of $21,500 ► the LOCAL SPONSOR shall assume full responsibility for and shall pay all costs in excess of $21,500 . 4. The IACAL SPONSOR will submit a request for reimbursement of funds on such forms, as attached hereto as Attachment "B", as furnished to the IACAL SPONSOR by the DEPART not more frequently than monthly. These forms shall be certified as accurate by the LOCAL SPONSOR PROTECT Administrator and the LOCAL SPONSOR PROTECT Financial Officer and submitted to the DEpARTMENr as a payment request. The contract manager has 30 days after receipt of an interim report and billing to determine that the work has been accomplished prior to approving the billing for payment and 60 days after receipt of the final report and billing to perform the final inspec- tion and certification that the project has been completed pursuant to the contract before approving the final billing for payment. Upon approval of the payment request the DEPAR'IMM shall disburse the funds due the LOCAL SPONSOR less ten percent (10%) which will be retained on account. The cumulative retainage shall be disbursed to the LOCAL SPONSOR when the PROJECT is certified complete by the LOCAL SPONSOR and the DEPARMW staff. A final PROJECT certification inspection by the DEPARMENT staff shall be made not more than 60 days after the PROJECT has been certified as complete by the LOCAL SPONSOR. 5. The LOCAL SPONSOR shall commence construction of the PROJECT on or after execution of this agreement, and shall complete the project on or before — December 1, 1984 , The DEpARrnaM and the IACAL SPONSOR agree that there shall be no reimbursement of funds by the 'DEPARTMERr for any obligations or expenditures for the PROJECT made prior to the commencement elate of this PROJECT. The effective date of the PROJECT legislative appropriation is July 1, 1983. The LOCAL SPONSOR shall execute a project construction contract or have started the PROJECT by force account by April 1,1985 ` Failure by the LOCAL SPONSOR to execute a project or have started the PROTECT by force account shall cause the appropriation to revert and the Wt to be cancelled. �r M 6. The LOCAL SPONSOR agrees that it will make every reasonable effort to insure the continued public ownership of those lands lying upland of the PROTECT site and further agrees to make every reasonable effort to insure the maintenance of the public access and vehicular parking area lying upland from the PROJECT site during the life of the PROJECT. defined as Ten years 7. The LOCAL SPONSOR will not discriminate against anyone with regard to race, creed, sex, national origin, or location of user's residence during or after construction of the PROJECT. The FOCAL SPONSOR will comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations regarding discrimination. 8. The IACAL SPONSOR hereby insures that it has in force and shall maintain in force throughout the PROJECT period all insurance coverage to include those classifications as listed in Standard Liability Insurance Manuals, which most nearly reflect the operation of the LOCAL SPONSOR which are necessary for the PROJECT and which are appropriate and allowable pursuant to Florida Statutes. All insurance policies shall be issued by companies authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Florida. 9. The PROTECT SPONSOR shall fully comply with all applicable laws concerning bidding and purchasing. 10. The LOCAL SPONSOR will hold and save the DEPARTMENT harmless from liabi- lity of any nature or kind, including cost and expenses for or on account of any or all suits or damages of any character resulting from injuries or damages sustained by any person(s) or property by virtue of the existence of the PROJECT. 11. The LOCAL SPONSOR will permit the DEPARTMENT's staff to examine all PROJECT records and grant them rights to audit any PROTECT books, docu- ments, and papers during the PROJECT construction and following completion of the PROTECT. The LOCAL SPONSOR whall maintain the records, books, documents, and papers for at least three (3) years following completion of the PROTECT. This agreement can be unilaterally, cancelled by the DEPARZI = should the LOCAL SPONSOR refuse to allow public access to all documents, papers, letters, or other material made or received in conjunction (3) JUN 6 8� BOOK G FACE 35 JUN 6 1984 BOOK : 57Ft�A26, with the contract pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida statutes. Following receipt of an audit report identifying any reimbur- sement due the DEPARTMENT for noncompliance with the agreement, the LOCAL SPONSOR will be allowed a maximum of 60 days to submit any additional per- tinent documentation to offset the amount identified as being due the DEPARTMENT. 12. The LOCAL SPONSOR will appoint a liaison officer to be responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this PROTECT agreement and for the submission of progress reports at least every 90 days from the date of the execution of this agreement until the PROJECT is certified complete. Each progress report shall be submitted to the DEPARTMENT within 15 days after the due date of the progress report. 13. In the event the LOCAL SPONSOR fails to comply with the terms and con- ditions of this agreement, the agreement may be considered null and void, and the DEPARTMENT will have the right to cancel its financial and legal obligation as identified in this agreement and may demand reimbursement of any and all funds disbursed to the LOCAL SPONSOR for this PROJECT. 14. The DEPAR 4ERr's contract manager for the PROJECT shall be responsible for insuring performance of the terms and conditions of this agreement and shall serve as a liaison with the LOCAL SPONSOR and shall approve all LOCAL SPONSOR requests for payment. The DEPARTMENT's contract manager is Lonnie L. Ryder for the Division of Beaches and shores, or his successor. 15. This agreement and the incorporated Attachments A and B represent the entire agreement of the parties. Any amendments of the provisions of this contract shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing and duly signed by each of the parties hereto. 16. Any inequities that may subsequently appear in this agreement shall be subject to negotiation upon written request of either party, and the par- ties agree to negotiate in good faith as to any such inequities. 17. This agreement shall be executed in duplicate, each copy of which shall for all purposes be considered an original. 18. Special conditions: a. The LOCAL SPONSOR shall, at a minimum, comply with the monetary limits for -4- titive acquisition of burials and services as requi Chapter 287, Florida Statutes, and written documentation shall be main- tained aimtained to justify any departure from this requirement. Chapter 287, Florida Statutes, is expressly made a part of this agreement and is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. b. For this PROJECT only, labor, material and contractual services, as specified in Attachment"B", are eli- gible for reimbursement. c. Department of Natural Resources Rule Number 16B-36, entitled Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program is expressly made a part of this agreement and is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. d. For any year in which this contract extends beyond the end of the DEPARTmE+1T's fiscal year (June 30), then performance by the DEPARTMENr under this contract shall be subject to and contingent upon the availability of funds lawfully appropriated to the DEPARTMENT for the purposes of this contract. e. If reimbursement of travel expenses is provided for in this contract then such reimbursement shall be subject to and comply with Section 112-061, Florida Statutes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto executed this agreement on the day and year first above written. ( Seal) State of Florida DEP 0 NAOESOURCES By: Elton q1 Gissendanner Executive Director ATTES:!"' By: Freda Wright,, .qrk Signature '(Seal.) P' M� - �/ a, � D C S 1 k J Approved: 676-84 APPRO By: �-v Contract Administrator APPROVED By: Contract Manager JUN 6 1984 Name on cur oc r. ellatilitall Title Board of County Commissioners da APP R FO AND LEGALITY By, A orney for' De of Natural Resources / c. -5- A{)pro and le yA'vi. Er;:rdenb my Attorrey BOOK PAGE 3 7 JUN.- 6 1984_ X;=. Boozy �acE 328 Attachment "A" • AMBERSAND BEACH PROPOSED OVERWALK & VEGETATION 12 PARKING SPACES INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA 1 0 1 ! 3 AMIL15 APPIROX*SCALE t tso,uso ow ATTACHMENT B FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF BEACHES AND SNORES Erosion Control Program Request For Payment 1. Name of Project: 2. Billing No. 3. Grantee: 4. Billing Period: 5. Payment Requested: k. Type of Costs Incurred: Direct Stock Contractual Labor Cost Material Cost Material Cost Cost Total Cost Erosion Control Sand Search coni tori ng notal Cost 1. Share of Costs Incurred: State Share of Total Cost Local Share of Total Cost :rosion Control Erosion Control ;and Search Sand Search Toni tori_ng Monitoring .otal Total .ote: The total state share plus the total local share of cost incurred must equal the total of all cost incurred as identifed in "A" (Type of Costs Incurred). �. State Funds Obligated: Less Previous Payments: Less This Payment: Less Retainage (lOb): State Funds Remaining: Local Funds Obligated: Less Previous Credits: Lest This Credit: Local Funds Remaining: CERTIFICATION: I certify that this billing is correct and just and is based upon actual obligation(s) of record by the project sponsor; that payment from the State Government has not been received; that the work and/or services are in accordance with the Department os Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores' approved project agreement including any amendments thereto; and that progress of the work and/or services are satisfactory and are consistent with the amount billed. Name of Project Tdministrator Signature of Project Administrator Date Name of Project Financial Signature of ProjectinancT a ate Officer Officer )NP. Form 72-101 (4-83) JUN 6 1884 �oo� 57 Favi 329 JUN' 1984 Attachment "B" BOOK Material and Supplies 1. Eligible - All costs of materials and supplies consumed or expended in accomplishing the project including direct purchases as well as withdrawals from grantee's stock. 2. Ineligible - Costs of small tools ( shovels, saws, hammers, drills, etc.) and clothing or uniforms worn by employees. Operating expendables or replacement parts purchased for grantee owned equipment used on the project. Direct Purchases - Vendor invoices must be maintained which should include a description of the items purchased, quantily purchased, unit cost and total cost, less applicable discounts. Invoices must also contain the delivery date and signature of a responsible project employee along with a description of the general use for such materials and supplies. Purchase orders, requisitions and competitive bid documentation must be maintained for such purchases. Cancelled warrants must be maintained as evidence of payment for such purchases. Grantee Stock - Materials or supplies taken from grantee's stock or inventory must be supported by material requisitions or other job order/project cost records signed by the storekeeper and a responsible project employee. These source documents must describe items in detail and identify the general use of such materials in the project. Appropriate records (i.e., vendor invoices, cancelled checks, etc.) must be maintained to. reflect unit costs of the materials. Note: Only actual costs paid to vendors (based upon grantee's inventory method) shall be eligible for reimburse- ment. No warehouse or overhead charges added by the grantee shall be allowed. TOTAL $ Certification: I hereby certify that the materials Certification: I hereby certify that detailed material reported above were used in accomplishing this project. requisitions, job order cost sheets, cost allocation records and other appropriate documentation have been maintained as required to support the material costs claimed above and are available for audit upon request. Project A(iministrator Date Project Financial Officer Date DNR Form 72-105 (4-83) DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF BEACHES AND SHORES , Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program Cyn - GRANTEE STOCK MATERLAL COST M w C13 (Grantee) (Project) L Billing Period Billing # 0 Material Requisition General Description c� Material Cost °C1 Date Number H II U TOTAL $ Certification: I hereby certify that the materials Certification: I hereby certify that detailed material reported above were used in accomplishing this project. requisitions, job order cost sheets, cost allocation records and other appropriate documentation have been maintained as required to support the material costs claimed above and are available for audit upon request. Project A(iministrator Date Project Financial Officer Date DNR Form 72-105 (4-83) r JUN 61994 ATACH�NT ° " BppX �7 PAGE 33 2 Material and Su 1 i es 1. Eligible - All costs of materials and supplies consumed or expended in accomplishing the project including direct purchases as well as withdrawals from grantee's stock. 2. Ineligible - Costs of small tools (shovels, saws, hammers, drills, etc.) and clothing or uniforms worn by employees. Operating expendables or replacement parts purchased for grantee owned equipment used on the project. Direct Purchases - Vendor invoices must be maintained which should include a description of the items purchased, quantity purchased, unit cost and total cost, less applicable discounts. Invoices must also contain the delivery date and signature of a responsible project employee along with a description of the general use for such materials and supplies. Purchase orders, requisitions and competitive bid documentation must be maintained for such purchases. Cancelled warrants must be maintained as evidence of payment for such purchases. ' Grantee Stock - Materials or supplies ° taken from grantee's stock or inventory must be supported by material requisitions r. other job order/project cost records signed by the storekeeper and a responsible pNoject employee. These source documents must describe items in detail and identify the general use of such materials in the project. Appropriate records (i.e., vendor invoices, cancelled checks, etc.) must be maintained to reflect unit costs of the materials. Note: Only actual costs paid to vendors (based upon grantee's inventory method) shall be eligible for reimburse- ment. No warehouse or overhead .charges. added by the grantee shall be allowed. . 1 " i DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF BEACHES AND SHORES Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program LJJ DIRECT MATERIAL PURCHASES c`.z (Grantee) (Project) Billing Period Billing # a Check or Project General Vendor Name Voucher Number Cost Description i� U TOTAL $ Certification: I hereby certify that the purchases noted above were used in accomplishing the project. Project Administrator Date DNR Form 72-103 (4-83) i Certification: I hereby certify that invoices, cancelled checks, and other purchasing documentation have been maintained as required to support the costs reported above and are available for audit upon request. Project Financial Officer Date � JUN 6194� � ATTA%._ -LiT "B" BOOK 57 P�-�f �34 Contractual Services 1. Eligible - Costs of work performed by private or independent contractors that is directly related to the accomplishment of the project for a grantee. 2. Ineligible - Costs for work performed by private or independent contractors pursuant to cost plus or contingency fee contracts. Services provided for a grantee by private or independent contractors shall be evidenced by a formal .agreement or contract executed by all appropriate parties specifying the exact terms and conditions. Competitive bid specifications and actual bids received shall be maintained by the grantee. The selection and awarding of such contractual services by the grantee shall be subject to the Department's approval if specified in the project agreement. 4. 1 1 1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF BEACHES AND SHORES C"1 Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program w ca . CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4 Summary of Invoices (Grantee) (Project) 0 Billing Period Billing # Date of Invoice Invoice Number Vendor Check Number Amount of Invoice n z� H bd TOTAL $ Certification: I hereby certify that the purchases noted above were used in accomplishing the project. Project Administrator. DNR Form 72-102 (4-83) Date Certification: I hereby certify that invoices, cancelled checks, and other purchasing documentation have been maintained as required to support the costs reported above and are available for audit upon request. 00M Project Financial Officer Date a� JUN G 1994 CHAPTER 287 DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES; DUTIES PART I PURCHASING PART III COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND SERVICES PART I PURCHASING Boa 57 FA -UE -336 I 287.001 Legislative intent. 287.012 Definitions. 287.022 Purchase of insurance. 287.025 Prohibition against certain insurance coverage on specified state property or insurable subjects. 287.032 Purpose of division. 287.042 Powers, duties, and functions. 287.043 Printing or reproduction facilities; cost records. 287.052 Contracts for acquisition or purchase of commodities. 287.055 Acquisition of professional architectural, engineering, landscape architectural, or land -surveying services; definitions; procedures; contingent fees prohibited; penalties. 287.057 Procurement of contractual services. 287.058 Contract document. 287.059 Private legal services. 287.072 Delegation of authority to purchase. 287.082 Commodities manufactured in state given preference. 287.083 Purchase of commodities. 287.0834 Motor vehicles; energy-saving equipment and additives. 287.084 Preference to Florida businesses. 287.092 Preference to certain foreign manufacturers. 287.094 Minority business enterprise programs; penalty for false representation. 287.095 Department of Corrections; prison industry programs. 287.102 Class B printing. 287.114 Duties of the Auditor General. 287.115 Comptroller; quarterly reports. 287.121 Assistance of Department of Legal Affairs. 287.131 Assistance of Department of Insurance. 287.001 Legislative intent.-- The Legislature recognizes that fair and open competition is a basic tenet of public procurement; that such competition reduces the appearance and opportunity for favoritism and inspires public confidence that contracts are awarded equitably and economically; and that documentation of.the acts taken and effective monitoring mechanisms are important means of curbing any improprieties and establishing public confidence in the process by which contractual services are procured. It is essential to the effective and ethical procurement of contractual services that there be a system of uniform procedures to be utilized by state agencies in managing and procuring contractual services; that detailed justification of agency decisions in the procurement of contractual services be maintained; and that adherence by the agency and the consultant to specific ethical considerations be required. History. --s. 3, ch. 82-196. 287.012 Definitions.-- The following definitions shall apply in part I of this chapter: (1) "Agency" means any of the various state officers, departments, boards, commissions, divisions, bureaus, and councils and any other unit of organization, however designated, of the executive branch of state government. (2) "Commodity" means any of the various supplies, materials, goods, merchandise, class B printing, equipment, and other personal property purchased, leased, or otherwise contracted for by the state and its agencies. However, commodities purchased for resale except class B printing are excluded from this definition. (3)(a) "Contractual service" means the rendering by a contractor of its time and dffort rather than the furnishing of specific commodities. Such services may include, but are not limited to, evaluations; consultations; maintenance; accounting; security; management systems; management consulting; educational training programs; research and development studies or reports on the findings of consultants engaged thereunder; and professional, technical, and social services and shall apply only to those services rendered by individuals and firms who are independent contractors. - (b) "Contractual service" does not include: 1. Artistic services. 2. Academic program reviews or lectures by individuals. 3. Auditing services. 4. Legal services including paralegals, expert witnesses including appraisal services, and court reporters. 5. Health services involving examination, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, medical consultation or administration. 6. Services provided to persons with mental or physical disabilities by not- for-profit corporations which have obtained an exemption under the provisions of s. 501(x)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or when such services are governed by the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122. However, in acquiring such services, the agency shall consider the ability of the contractor, past performances,willingness to meet time requirements, and price. 7. Medicaid services delivered to an eligible Medicaid recipient by a health care provider who has not previously applied for and received a Medicaid provider number from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services shall be exempt from the provisions of this section. However, this exception shall be valid for a period not to exceed 90 days after the date of delivery of service to the Medicaid recipient and shall not be renewed by the department. 8. Family placement services. The acquisition of services from other governmental agencies and the performance of services in-house; other than those performed by an employee in an authorized position, wherein the rate of pay for the performance of such services does not exceed the rate of pay for an equivalent authorized position, shall not be subject to the provisions of this part. Contracts for types of services included in paragraph (b) shall be subject to the requirements of ss. 287.058, 287.059, 287.094, and the laws relating to the Comptroller's authority to audit expenditures for contractual services. (4) "Division" means the Division of Purchasing of the Department of General_ Services. (5) "Minority-owned firm or company" means any legal entity, other than a joint venture, which is organized to engage in commercial transactions and which is at least 51 -percent owned and controlled by minority persons. "Minority person" means a member of a socially or economically disadvantaged group which for the purposes of this section includes blacks not of Hispanic origin, Hispanics, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Pacific Islanders, women, and physically or mentally disabled persons. As used in this section, "physically or mentally disabled person" means a person who has a physical, mental, or emotional impair- ment, defect, disease, ailment, or disability of a permanent nature which in any way limits the type of employment for which the person would otherwise be qualified. (6) "Artist" means an individual or group of individuals who profess and - practice a demonstrated creative talent and skill in the area of music, dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic arts, craft arts, industrial design, costume design, fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio, or tape and sound recording or in any other related field. (7) "Extension" means increasing the time allowed for the contract period due to circumstances which, without fault of either party, make performance impracti- cable or impossible, or which prevent a new contract from being executed, with a proportional increase in the total dollar amount, which is to be based on the method and rate previously established in the contract. (8) "Renewal" means contracting with the same contractor for an additional contract period after the initial contract, only if pursuant to contract terms specifically providing for such renewal. History. --s. 22, ch. 69-106, s. 1, ch. 80-374; ss. 4, 8, ch. 82-196. 287.022 Purchase of insurance. -- (1) Insurance, while not a commodity, nevertheless shall be purchased for all agencies by the division, and the procedures for purchasing insurance shall be the same as those set forth herein for the purchase of commodities. (2) When an insurer or agent pays a commission or any portion thereof to any person, on insurance purchased under part I of this chapter, such payment shall be reported to the division in writing and under oath within 30 days thereafter. Any failure to report as required herein shall subject the insurer or agent to the penalties provided in s. 624.15. History. --s. 22, ch. 69-106. UN 6 1984 goon 57 PACE 3037 -3 - BOOK 57 PAGE 338 287.025 Prohibition against certain insurance coverage on specified state property or insurable subjects. -- (1) No primary contract of insurance shall be purchased on insurable subjects or property titled in the name of the state or its departments, divisions, bureaus, commissions, or agencies with respect to any of the following properties, coverages, or insurable subjects: (a) Physical damage insurance on motor vehicles which are licensed for use on the public highways of this state. For the purpose of this chapter, the term "physical damage insurance" means coverage against collision, upset or overturn, fire, theft, combined additional coverage, or comprehensive; (b) Physical damage insurance on watercraft and related equipment; (c) Loss of rental income on any buildings unless financed in whole or in part by revenue bonds or certificates and such coverage is required by the terms thereof; (d) Miscellaneous equipment which is subject to a transportation feature and subject to ordinarily being covered by an inland marine insurance floater. The term "miscellaneous equipment" does not include boilers and machinery or nuclear equipment; (e) Museum collections, artifacts, relics, or fine arts; (f) Hull coverage on aircraft; (g) Glass insurance; (h) Coverage for loss against vandalism or malicious mischief unless these perils are included within an all risks of physical loss form; and (i) Insurance against loss or damage to livestock and services of a veterinary for such animals. (2) Excess insurance may be purchased to cover loss for physical damage on the above-described properties or risk if the aggregate exposure at any one location or actual cash value of any one item exceeds the sum of $50,000. However, no excess insurance shall be purchased on any items listed in paragraphs (c), (e), (g), (h), and (i), regardless of value or risk. (3) Any items, property, or insurable subjects titled in the name of the state or its departments, divisions, bureaus, commissions, or agencies which are not included or insured by the Florida Fire Insurance Trust Fund under chapter 284 or specifically designated not to be insured by this section shall be eligible subjects for insurance coverage through commercial insurance carriers as other-dise provided by law. (4) No primary insurance contracts shall be purchased on any property or insurable subjects when the same is loaned to, leased by, or intended to be leased by, the state or its departments, divisions, bureaus, commissions, or agencies unless such coverage is required by the terms of the lease agreement and unless the insurance coverages required by the provisions of the lease are approved in writing by the Department of General Services. History. --ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, ch. 70-435; s. 1, ch. 73-64. 287.032 Purpose of division. --It shall be the purpose of the Division of Purchasing: (1) To promote efficiency, economy, and the conservation of energy and to effect coordination in the purchase of commodities for the state; and. (2) To provide uniform contractual service procurement policies, rules, procedures, and forms for use by the various agencies in procuring contractual services. History. --s. 22, ch. 69-106; s. 8, ch. 69-82; s. 1, ch. 76-29; s. 1, ch: 77-316; s. 2, ch. 80-374; s. 7, ch. 82-196. 287.042 Powers, duties, and functions. --The division shall have the following powers, duties, and functions: (1) To canvass all sources of supply and contract for the purchase, lease, or acquisition in any manner, including purchase by installment sales or lease - purchase contracts which may provide for the payment of interest on unpaid portions of the purchase price, of all commodities required by the state government or any of its agencies under competitive bidding or by contractual negotiation. Any contract providing for deferred payments and the payment of interest shall be subject to specific rules -adopted by the division. (2) To plan and coordinate purchases in volume and to negotiate and execute purchasing agreements and contracts under which the division shall require state agencies to purchase commodities and under which a county, municipality, or other local public agency may.purchase commodities. Purchases by any county, municipality, or other local public agency under the provisions in the state purchasing contracts shall be exempt from the competitive bid requirements otherwise applying to their purchases. (3) To have general supervision, through the state agencies, of all storerooms and stores operated by the agencies; to provide for transfer or exchange of commodities among all state agencies and the sale of all commodities which are surplus, obsolete, or unused, and to have supervision of inventories of all r, commodities belonging to the state agencies. The duties imposed by this section shall not relieve any state agency from accountability for commodities under its i control. (4) To establish a system of coordinated, uniform procurement policies, procedures, and practices to be used by agencies in acquiring contractual services, which shall include but not be limited to: (a) Development of a list of interested vendors to be maintained by classes of contractual services. This list shall not be used to prequalify vendors or to exclude any interested vendor from bidding. All vendors listed in a particular class shall be mailed, by the agency, at the address provided to the division by the vendor, a notice of the request for proposals at least 28 days prior to the date set for submittal of proposals. Notice of invitation to bids shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the date set for submittal of bids. (b) Development of procedures for the releasing of invitation for bids and request for proposals which shall include, but not be limited to, notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly at least 28 days prior to the date set for submittal of bids or proposals. (c) Development of procedures for the receipt and opening of bids or proposals by an agency. (d) Development of procedures to be used by an agency in deciding to contract, including, but not limited to, identifying and assessing in writing project needs and requirements, availability of agency employees, budgetary constraints or availability, facility equipment availability, current and projected agency work load capabilities, and the ability of any other state agency to perform the services. (e) Development of procedures to be used by an agency in maintaining a contract file for each contract which shall include, but not be limited to, all pertinent information relating to the contract during the preparatory stages, a copy of the invitation for bids or request for proposals, documentation relating to the bid process, opening of bids, evaluation and tabulation of bids, and determination and notice of award of contract. (f) Development of procedures to be used by an agency in identifying contractual services that could be provided bylminority-owned firms or companies or minority persons. Each agency is encouraged to annually set aside a sum of money not to exceed 5 percent of the moneys actually expended for contractual services during the previous fiscal year and reported to the Legislature pursuant to s. 216.023, for the purpose of entering into contracts with qualified, responsive, minority- owned firms or companies or minority persons. Any individual falsely represent- ing any firm or company as being minority owned and controlled is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable pursuant to s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (5) To prescribe the methods of securing bids or negotiating and awarding commodity contracts, unless otherwise provided by law. (6) To prescribe specific commodities and quantities to be purchased locally. (7) To govern the purchase by any agency of any commodity; to establish _ standards and specifications for any commodity; and to set the maximum fair prices that shall be paid for any commodity. (8) To establish definitions and classes of contractual services. The authority of the division under this section shall not be construed to impair or interfere with the determination by state agencies of their need for, or their use of, services including particular specifications. (9) To furnish copies of any commodity purchasing and contractual service rules to the Comptroller and all agencies affected thereby. Thereafter, no agency shall purchase any commodity covered by purchasing rules without prior approval of the division. The Comptroller shall not approve any account or direct any payment of any account for the purchase of any commodity or the procurement of any contractual service covered by a purchasing or contractual service rule except as authorized therein. The division shall furnish copies of rules adopted by the division to any county, municipality, or other local public agency requesting them. (10) To require that every agency furnish information relative to its commodity and contractual services purchases and methods of purchasing commodities and contractual services to the division when so requested. (11) To prepare statistical data concerning the method of procurement, terms, usage, and disposition of contractual services by state agencies. All such affected agencies shall furnish such information for this purpose as the division may call for on such forms or in such manner as the division may prescribe. (12) To establish and maintain programs for the purpose of disseminating information to government, industry, educational institutions, and the general public concerning policies, procedures, rules, and forms for the procurement of contractual services. JUN 6 1984 aooK 57 PnE339 JUN 61984 BOOK 57 PAGE4 (13) Except as otherwise provided herein, to adopt rules necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, including the authority to delegate to any state agency any and all of the responsibility conferred by this section, retaining to the division any and all authority for supervision thereof. Such purchasing of commodities and procurement of contractual services by state agencies shall be in strict accordance with the rules and procedures prescribed by the Department of General Services. History. --s. 22, ch. 69-106; s. 1, ch. 70-150; s. 1, ch. 79-92; s. 3, ch. 80-374; s. 179, ch. 81-259; ss. 4, 8, ch. 82-196. lNote.--The words "Minority-owned firms or companies or minority persons" were substituted by the editors for the words "minority owned firms, companies, or individuals." 287.043 Printing or reproduction facilities; cost records. --If any of the funds appropriated to any agency are to be expended for equipping, operating, or main- taining printing, duplicating, or reproduction services or facilities, -then each such agency shall furnish such cost records to the division as may be prescribed by the division. Nothing herein shall authorize the purchase of any printing, duplicating, or reproduction equipment except under such rules and regulations as are adopted by the division. All such equipment shall be used for efficient and economical production of printed material directly related to business of the state. History. --s. 22, ch. 69-106; s. 1, ch. 77-345. 287.052 Contracts for acquisition or purchase of commodities. --Commodities shall not be acquired by any agency pursuant to any contract for services or incidental to the services performed thereunder. Any contract providing for the acquisition of both services and commodities shall be deemed to be a contract for the acquisition or purchase of commodities, except that service contracts may provide for purchase of reports on the findings of consultants engaged thereunder. History. --s. 22, ch. 69-106. 287.055 Acquisition of professional architectural, engineering, landscape architectural, or land -surveying services; definitions; procedures; contingent fees prohibited; penalties. -- (1) SHORT TITLE. --This section shall be known as the "Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act." (2) DEFINITIONS. --For purposes of this section: (a) "Professional services" shall mean those services within the scope of the practice of architecture, professional engineering, landscape architecture, or registered land surveying, as defined by the laws of the state, or those performed by any architect, professional engineer, landscape architect, or registered land surveyor in connection with his professional employment or practice. (b) "Agency" means the state or a state agency, municipality, or political subdivision, a school district or a school board. (c) "Firm" means any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice architecture, engineering, or land surveying in the state. (d) "Compensation" means the total amount paid by the agency for professional services. (e) "Agency official" means any elected or appointed officeholder, employee, consultant, person in the category of other personal service or any other.person receiving compensation from the state, a state agency, municipality, or political subdivision, a school district or a school board. (f) "Project" means that fixed capital outlay study or planning activity described in the public notice of the state or a state agency pursuant to paragraph (3)(a). An agency shall prescribe by administrative rule procedures for the determination of a project under its jurisdiction. Such procedures may include: 1. Determination of a project which constitutes a grouping of minor construction, rehabilitation, or renovation activities. 2. Determination of a project which constitutes a grouping of substantially similar construction, rehabilitation, or renovation activities. (g) A "continuing contract" is a contract for professional services entered into in accordance with all the procedures of this act between an agency and a firm whereby the firm provides professional services to the agency for work of a specified nature as outlined in the contract required by the agency with no time limitation except that the contract shall provide a termination clause. (3) PUBLIC &NNOUNCEMENT AND QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES. -- "(a) Each agency shall publicly announce, in a uniform and consistent manner, each occasion when professional services are required to be purchased for a project whose basic construction cost is estimated by the agency to be more than $100,000 or for a planning or study activity when the fee for professional services L_ KLJ ml exceeds $5,000, except in cases of valid public emergencies so certified by the agency head. Public notice shall include a general description of the project and shall indicate how interested consultants can apply for consideration. (b) Each agency shall encourage firms engaged in the lawful practice of their profession who desire to provide professional services to the agency to submit annually a statement of qualifications and performance data. - - (c) Any firm or individual desiring to provide professional services to the agency must first be certified by the agency as qualified pursuant to law and the regulations of the agency. The agency shall make a finding that the firm or individual to be employed is fully qualified to render the required service. Among the factors to be considered in making this finding are the capabilities, adequacy of personnel, past record, and experience of the firm or individual. (d) Each agency shall adopt administrative procedures for the evaluation of professional services, including, but not limited to, capabilities, adequacy of personnel, past record and experience, and such other factors as may be determined by the agency to be applicable to its particular requirements. (e) The public shall not be excluded from the proceedings under this section. (4) COMPETITIVE SELECTION.— (a) For each proposed project, the agency shall evaluate current statements of qualifications and performance data on file with the agency, together with those that may be submitted by other firms regarding the proposed project, and shall conduct discussions with, and may require public presentations by, no less than three firms, regarding their qualifications, approach to the project, and ability to furnish the required service. (b) The agency shall select, in order of preference, no less than three firms deemed to be most highly qualified to perform the required services after consider- ing such factors as the ability of professional personnel, past performance, willingness to meet time and budget requirements, location, recent, current, and projected work loads of the firms, and the volume of work previously awarded to the firm by the agency, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms, provided such distribution does not violate the principle of selection of the most highly qualified firms. (c) This subsection shall not apply to a professional service contract for a project whose basic construction cost is estimated by the agency to be $100,000 or less or for a planning or study activity when the fee for professional services is $5,000 or less. (d) Nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit continuing contracts between firm and agency. (5) COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION. -- (a) The agency shall negotiate a contract with the most qualified firm for professional services at compensation which the agency determines is fair, competi- tive, and reasonable. In making such determination the agency shall conduct a detailed analysis of the cost of the professional services required in addition to considering their scope and complexity. For all lump -sum or cost -plus -a -fixed - fee professional service contracts over $50,000, the agency shall require the firm receiving the award to execute a truth -in -negotiation certificate stating that wage rates and other factual unit costs supporting the compensation are accurate, complete, and current at the time of contracting. Any professional service - contract under which such a certificate is required shall contain a provision that the original contract price and any additions thereto shall be adjusted to exclude any significant sums by which the agency determines the contract price was increased due to inaccurate, incomplete, or noncurrent wage rates and other factual.unit costs. All such contract adjustments shall be made within 1 year following the end of the contract. (b) Should the agency be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm considered to be the most qualified at a price the agency determines to be fair, competitive, and reasonable, negotiations with that firm shall be formally terminated. The agency shall then undertake negotiations with the second most qualified firm. Failing accord with the second most qualified firm, the agency shall terminate negotiations. The agency shall then undertake negotiations with the third most qualified firm. (c) Should the agency be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the selected firms, the agency shall select additional firms in order of their competence and qualification and continue negotiations in accordance with this subsection until an agreement is reached. (6) PROHIBITION AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES. -- (a) Each contract entered into by the agency for professional services shall contain a prohibition against contingent fees as follows: "The architect (or registered land surveyor or professional engineer, as applicable) warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the architect (or registered land surveyor, or professional engineer, as applicable) to solicit or secure this agreement and that JUN 9 '�84 BOOS 5I PAGE J41 J JUIN 6 1984 BOOK 5 9 FACE 4 I he has not paid or agreed to pay any person, company, corporation, individual, or firm, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the architect ( or registered land surveyor or professional engineer, as applicable) any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this agreement. For the breach or violation provision the agency shall have the right to terminate the agreement with - of this , g y g our liability and, at its discretion, to deduct from the contract price, or other- wise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, gift, or consideration. (b) Any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, or company, other than a bona fide employee working solely for an architect, professional engineer, or registered land surveyor, who offers, agrees, or contracts to solicit or secure agency contracts for professional services for any other individual, company; corporation, partnership, or firm, and to be paid, or is paid, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or any other consideration contingent upon, or resulting from, the award or the making of a contract for professional services shall, upon conviction in a competent court of this state, be found guilty of a first degree misdemeanor punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (c) Any architect, professional engineer, or registered land surveyor, or any group, association, company, corporation, firm, or partnership thereof, who shall offer to pay, or pay, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration contingent upon, or resulting from, the award or making of any agency contract for professional services, shall, upon conviction in a state court of competent authority, be found guilty of a first degree misdemeanor punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (d) Any agency official who offers to solicit or secure, or solicits or secures, a contract for professional services and to be paid, or is paid, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or any other consideration contingent upon the award or making of such a contract for professional services between the agency and any individual person, company, firm, partnership, or corporation shall, upon conviction by a court of competent authority be found guilty of a first degree misdemeanor punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (7) AUTHORITY OF DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES. --Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Department of General Services, Division of Building Construction and Property Management, shall be the agency of state government which is solely and exclusively authorized and empowered to administer and perform the functions described in subsections (3), (4), and (5) respecting all projects for which the funds necessary to complete same are appropriated to the Department of General Services, irrespective of whether such projects are intended for the use and benefit of the Department of General Services or any other agency of government. However, nothing herein shall be construed to be in derogation of any authority conferred on the Department of General Services by other express provisions of law. Additionally, any agency of government may, with the approval of the Department of General Services, delegate to the Department of General Services authority to administer and perform the functions described in subsections (3), (4), and (5).. Under the terms of the delegation, the agency may reserve its right to accept or reject a proposed contract. (8) STATE ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL AGENCIES. --On professional service contracts for which the fee is over $25,000, the Department of Transportation or the Department of General Services shall provide, upon request by a municipality, political subdivision, school board, or school district, and upon reimbursement of the costs involved, assistance in selecting consultants and in negotiating consultant contracts. (9) APPLICABILITY TO EXISTING CONTRACTS. --Nothing in this section shall affect the validity or effect of any contracts in existence on July 1, 1973. (10) REUSE OF EXISTING PLANS. --Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, there shall be no .public notice requirement or utilization of the selection process as provided in this section for projects in which the agency is able to reuse existing plans from a prior project. However, subsequent to July 1, 1975, public notice for any plans which are intended to be reused at some future time shall contain a statement which provides that the plans are subject to reuse in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. (11) CONSTRUCTION OF LAW. --Nothing in the amendment of this section by ch. 75-281, Laws of Florida, is intended to supersede the provisions of ss. 235.211 and 235.31. History. --ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ch. 73-19; ss. 1, 2, 3, ch. 75-281; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 1, ch. 77-199. 287.057 Procurement of contractual services. -- (1) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions, the definitions set forth in s. 287.012, shall apply: (a) "Invitation for bids" means any document, whether attached or by reference, used for soliciting bids when the agency is capable of defining the scope of work required. in addition to incorporated specifically (b) "Request for proposals" means any document, whether attached or incorporated by reference, used for soliciting proposals when the agency is incapable of specifically defining the scope of work required. (c) "Qualified bidder or offeror" means a person who has the capability in all repects to perform fully the contract requirements and has the integrity and reliability which will assure good faith performance. (d) "Responsive bidder" means a person who has submitted a bid which conforms in all material respects to the invitation for bids. (2) Unless otherwise authorized by law, all contracts for contractual services shall be awarded by competitive sealed bidding. An invitation for bids shall be issued which shall include a detailed description of the services sought, the date for submittal of bids, and all contractual terms and conditions applicable to the procurement of contractual services, including the criteria which shall include, but need not be limited to, price, to be used in determining acceptability of the bid. If the agency contemplates renewal of the contract, it shall be so stated in the invitation for bids. The bid shall include the price for each year for which the contract may be renewed. Evaluation of bids shall include consideration of the total cost for each year as quoted by the bidder. No criteria may be used iii determining acceptability of the bid that was not set forth in the invitation for bids. The contract shall be awarded with reasonable promptness by written notice to the qualified and responsive bidder who submits the lowest and best bid. This bid must be determined in writing to meet the requirements and criteria set forth in the invitation for bids. (3) When an agency determines in writing that the use of competitive sealed bidding is not practicable, contractual services shall be procured by competitive sealed proposals. A request for proposals which includes a statement of the services sought and all contractual terms and conditions applicable to the procurement of contractual services, including the criteria, which shall include, but need not be limited to, price, to be used in determining acceptability of the proposal shall be issued. If the agency contemplates renewal of the contract, it shall be so stated in the request for proposals. The proposal shall include the price for each year for which the contract may be renewed. Evaluation of proposals shall include consideration of the total cost for each year as quoted by the proposer. To assure full understanding of and responsiveness to the solicitation requirements, discussions may be conducted with qualified offerors. The offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment prior to the submittal date specified in the request for proposals with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals. The award shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the state, taking into consideration price and the other criteria set forth in the request for proposals. The contract file shall contain the basis on which the award is made. (4) When the price of contractual services is less than $2,500, an agency shall not be required to use the competitive procedures set forth in subsections (2) and (3). However, the agency shall not divide the procurement of contractual services so as to avoid the requirements of subsections (2) and (3). (5) A contract for contractual services may be awarded without competition if it is determined in writing that such services are available from only one source; however, if such contract is for an amount greater than $5,000, the agency shall secure prior approval from the division. (6) A contract for contractual services may be awarded without competition if state or federal law prescribes with whom the agency must contract or if the rate of payment is established during the appropriations process. (7) If only one response to an invitation for bids or request for proposals is received, the agency may proceed with the procurement of the contractual services pursuant to subsection (5). (8) If no response to an invitation for bids or request for proposals is received, the agency may proceed with the procurement of contractual services pursuant to subsection (5). (9) Failure of the division to approve or disapprove the request of an agency for prior approval pursuant to subsections (5), (7), and (8) within 21 days after receiving the request for prior approval or within 14 days after receiving addi- tional materials requested by the division from the agency shall constitute prior approval by the division. (10) If two equal responses to an invitation for bids or request for proposals are received and one response is from a minority-owned firm or company, the agency shall enter into a contract with the minority-owned firm or company. (11) If the head of any agency determines in writing that an immediate danger to the public health, safety, welfare, or other substantial loss to the state, requires emergency action, the agency may proceed with the procurement of the contractual services necessitated by the immediate danger without competition. However, such emergency procurements shall be made with such competition as is JUN 6 1984 Boox 57 Pn V Pr --y BOOK 57 ���� 3� JUN 6 1994 4 practicable under the circumstances. The agency shall furnish copies certified under oath of the written determination and any other documents relating to the emergency action to the division. (12) Extension of a contract for contractual services shall be in writing for a period not to exceed 6 months and shall be subject to the same terms and condi- tions set forth in the initial contract. The extension may, however, provide for an increase in the total dollar amount of the contract based on the method and rate established in the initial contract. There shall be only one extension of a contract unless the failure to meet the criteria set forth in the contract for completion of the contract is due to events beyond the contractor's control. (13) Renewal of a contract for contractual services shall be in writing and shall be subject to the same terms and conditions set forth in the initial contract. The cost of any contemplated renewals shall be included in the invitation for bids or request for proposals. Renewals are to be done on a yearly basis and contracts shall not be renewed for more than 2 years unless competitively procured. Renewals shall be contingent upon satisfactory performance evaluations by the agency. (14) For each contractual services contract, the agency shall designate an employee to function as contract manager who shall be responsible for enforcing performance of the contract terms and conditions and who shall serve as a liaison with the contractor and shall approve all invoices prior to payment. (15) Each agency shall designate one employee who, in addition to his existing duties, shall serve as a contract administrator responsible for maintaining a contract file and financial information on all contractual services contracts and who shall serve as a liaison with the contract managers and the division. (16) A selection team of at least three employees who have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which contractual services are sought shall be appointed by the agency head to aid in the selection of contractors for contracts of more than $50,000. (17) Each agency shall establish a review and approval process for all contractual services contracts costing more than $5,000 which shall include, but not be limited to, program, financial, and legal review and approval. Said reviews and approvals shall be obtained prior to the contract being executed. (18) No person receiving a contract that has not been procured pursuant to subsection (2) or subsection (3) to perform a feasibility study of the potential implementation of a subsequent contract, participating in the drafting of an - invitation for bids or request for proposals, or developing a program for future implementation, shall be eligible to contract with the agency for any other contracts dealing with that specific subject matter; nor shall any firm in which such person has any interest be eligible to receive such contract. (19) Nothing in this section shall affect the validity or effect of any contract in existence on the effective date of this act. 287.058 Contract document. -- (1) Every procurement of contractual services, except for the providing of health and mental health services or drugs in the examination, diagnosis or treat- ment of sick or injured state employees or the providing of other benefits as required by the provisions of chapter 440, shall be evidenced by a written agree- ment embodying all provisions and conditions of the procurement of such services, which provisions and conditions shall include but shall not be limited to: (a) A provision that bills for fees or other compensation for services or expenses shall be submitted in detail sufficient for a proper preaudit and post - audit therof. (b) A provision that bills for any travel expenses shall be submitted in accordance with s. 112.061. A state agency may establish rates lower than the maximum provided in s. 112.061. (c) A provision allowing unilateral cancellation by the agency for refusal by the contractor to allow public access to all documents, papers, letters, or other material subject to the provisions of chapter 119 and made or received by the contractor in conjunction with the contract. (d) A provision dividing the contract into units of deliverables, which shall include, but not be limited to, reports, findings, and drafts, that must be received and accepted in writing by the contract manager prior to payment. (e) A provision specifying the criteria and the final date by which such criteria must be met for completion of the contract. (f) Where applicable, a provision specifying that the contract may be renewed on a yearly basis, for a maximum of 2 years after the initial contract; the terms under which the cost may change as determined in the invitation for bids or request for proposals; and that renewals shall be contingent upon satisfactory performance evaluations by the agency and subject to the availability of funds. (2) The written agreement shall be signed by the agency head and the contractor prior to the rendering of any contractual service, except in the case of a valid emergency as certified by the agency head. M M M -10- 287.059 Private legal services. -- (1) No funds shall be expended by an agency for private legal services without the prior approval of the Attorney General. This approval shall include a certifi- cation that the private legal services requested cannot be provided by the office of the Attorney General or that such private legal services are cost effective in the opinion of the Attorney General.. The office of the Attorney General shall respond to the request of an agency for prior approval within 10 working days after receiving the request for prior approval. (2) This section does not apply to contracts for: (a) Legal services entered into by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for child support enforcement pursuant to s. 409.2557; (b) Child dependency or termination of parental rights under chapter 39; (c) Services to be provided by legal services organizations to indigent clients; (d) Services procured by the Executive Office of the Governor or any department under the jurisdiction of a Cabinet officer; (e) Legal services necessary pursuant to part II of chapter 284; or (f) Contracts for legal services entered into by the Board of Regents for defense of comprehensive general liability claims, including professional liability claims, which are covered by the self-insurance programs created pursuant to s. 240.213. History. --s. 5, ch. 82-196. 287.072 Delegation of authority to purchase. -- (1) Except as limited herein, the division may delegate the authority for the contracting for, or the purchase, lease, or acquisition of, commodities in the following cases: (a) Technical instruments and supplies, technical books, and other printed matter on technical subjects; manuscripts, maps, books, pamphlets, and periodicals for the use of the State Library or any other library in the state supported in whole or in part by state funds. (b) Perishable articles, such as fresh vegetables, fruit, fish, meat, eggs, and milk. No other article shall be considered perishable within the meaning of this clause unless so classified by the division. (c) Life and health insurance when no part of the premium is paid by the state. (2) All contracts for, or purchases, leases, or acquisitions of, commodities described in this section made directly by the agencies shall, whenever possible, be based on two or more competitive bids. Whenever an order, contract, lease, or acquisition of such commodities is awarded by any agency, a copy of such order, contract, lease, or other document together with a record of the competitive bids, if any, upon which it was based shall be forwarded to the division. History. --s. 22, 69-106 287.082 Commodities manufactured in state given preference. --Whenever two or more competitive bids are received, one or more of which relates to commodities manufactured within this state, and whenever all things stated. -in such received bids are equal with respect to price, quality, and service, the commodities manufactured within this state shall be given preference. History. --s. 22, ch. 69-106. 287.083 Purchase of commodities. -- (1) It shall be the policy of the state for the Division of Purchasing to consider the life -cycle cost of commodities purchased by the state, when applicable and feasible as determined by the.division. (2) Definitions. --For the purpose of this section: (a) "Major energy -consuming product" means any article so designated by the division. (b) "Energy -efficiency standard" means a performance standard which prescribes the relationship of the energy use of a product to its useful output of services. (3)(a) The division is authorized to establish by rule energy -efficiency standards for major energy -consuming products. (b) When federal energy -efficiency standards exist, the division shall, when feasible, adopt standards at least as stringent as the federal standards. (4) When energy -efficiency standards are established, life -cycle costs shall be used by the division in contracting for major energy -consuming products. (5) In determining the life -cycle cost, the division may consider the acquisition cost of the product; the energy consumption and the projected cost of energy over the useful life of the product; and the anticipated trade-in, resale, or salvage value of the product. History. --s. 2, ch. 77-316; s. 25, ch. 81-169. 287.0834 Motor vehicles; energy-saving equipment and additives. --Each motor vehicle purchased by the state and each motor vehicle leased by the state for a ,SUN 61984 aoaK 57 FADE 345 F -11- .JUN 6 1984 Boa 57' Y PAGE34 " period in excess of 1 year shall use devices, equipment, and additives that have been certified as energy saving and approved for use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and that have been determined to be cost effective by the Department of General Services. History. --s. 1, ch. 82-68. 287.084 Preference to Florida businesses. -- (1) When a county, municipality, school district, or other political subdivision of the state is required to make purchases of personal property through competitive bidding and the lowest responsible bid is by a bidder whose principal place of business is in a state or'political subdivision thereof which grants a preference for the purchase of such personal property to a person whose principal place of business is in such state, then the county, municipality, school district, or other political subdivision of this state may award a preference to the lowest responsible bidder having a principal place of business within this state, which preference is equal to the preference granted by the state or'political subdivision thereof in which the lowest responsible bidder has his principal place of business. However, this section shall not apply to transportation projects for which federal aid funds are available. (2) If an invitation for bids provides for the granting of such preference as is provided herein, any bidder whose principal place of business is outside the State of Florida must accompany any written bid documents with a written opinion of an attorney at law licensed to practice law in that foreign state, as to the preferences, if any or none, granted by the law of that state to its own business entities whose principal places of business are in that foreign state in the letting of any or all public contracts. History. --s. 1, ch. 77-460; s. 117, ch. 79-400. 287.092 Preference to certain foreign manufacturers. --Any foreign manufacturing company with a factory in the state and employing over 200 employees working in the state shall have preference over any other foreign company when price, quality, and service are the same, regardless of where the product is manufactured. History. --s. 22, ch. 69-106. 287.094 Minority business enterprise programs; penalty for false representation. -- (1) "Minority business enterprise" means any legal entity, other than a joint venture, which is organized to engage in commercial transactions and which is at least 51 -percent owned and controlled by minority persons. (2) "Minority person" means a person who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States and who is: (a) A black, a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa; (b) An Hispanic person, a person of Spanish or Portuguese culture with origins in Mexico, South America, Central America, or the Caribbean Islands, regardless of race; (c) An Asian, a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands; (d) An American Indian or Alaskan Native, a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America; or (e) A woman. (3) It is unlawful for any individual to falsely represent any entity as a minority business enterprise for purposes of qualifying for certification as such an enterprise under a program of a state agency which, in compliance with -federal law, is designed to assist minority business enterprises in the receipt of contracts with the agency for the provision of goods or services. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. History. --s. 2, ch. 82-196. 287.095 Department of Corrections; prison industry programs. -- (1) The purchase of raw materials for use by the Department of Corrections in its prison industry programs to manufacture or process products for resale is exempt from the provisions of this part. (2) The provisions of this part shall not apply to any purchases of commodities or contractual services made by any state agency from the department or by the nonprofit corporation organized under s. 945.135. History. --s. 1, ch. 82-76; s. 3, ch. 82-409. -287.102 Class B printing. --No general contract shall be let to cover printing designated as class B, but each job coming under this classification shall be let separately, under regulations adopted by the division, to the lowest responsible bidder. Such contract shall apply only to the work under consideration and competitive bids shall be required on all purchases in excess of $1,000. All -12 - public printing governed hereby shall be done in accordance with s. 283.03. _ History. --s. 22, ch. 69-106; s. 2, ch. 76-71; s. 3, ch. 78-145; s. 5, ch. 79-135. _ 287.114 Duties of the Auditor General. --The Auditor General shall make an annual performance audit of and report on the Division of Purchasing and submit such report to the Legislative Auditing Committee within 60 days after the affected agency has responded to the findings of the audit. History. --s. 6, ch. 80-374. 287.115 Comptroller; quarterly reports. --The Comptroller shall submit to the office of the Auditor General, on a quarterly basis, a report on. those contractual service contracts disallowed pursuant to s. 287.042(9), which shall include, but not be limited to, the name of the user agency, the name of the firm or individual from which the contractual service was to be acquired, a description of the contractual service, the financial terms of the contract, and the reason for rejection. Sixty days prior to the beginning of each legislative session, the Comptroller shall submit a compilation of the four preceding quarterly reports to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. History. --s. 6, ch. 80-374. 287.121 Assistance of Department of Legal Affairs. --The Department of Legal Affairs shall assist in the preparation of forms of contracts and of contractual language for use in all contracts governed by this part of chapter 287. History. --ss. 11, 22, 35, ch. 69-106. 287.131 Assistance of Department of Insurance. --The Department of Insurance shall provide the division with technical assistance in all matters pertaining to the purchase of insurance for all agencies, and shall make surveys of the insurance needs of the state and all departments thereof, including the benefits, if any, of self-insurance. History. --ss. 13, 22, 35, ch. 69-106. �l1N aooK 7 PACE 347 JUN 6 1994 Bm 5 7 PAGE 348 RESOLUTION - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL SR60 WATER LINE Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that this is a Resolution setting up the equalization hearing on the preliminary assessment roll. There is a list of property owners attached, and the Attorney stated that he has a map in his office showing which properties these are. This list is being verified by the Utilities Department, and there are a few math errors in the extensions which will be corrected before the final assessment is put.on record. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 84-39 with the understanding that certain numbers will be corrected. 61 RESOLUTION NO. 84-39 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PREPARED BY THE ENGINEERS FOR ASSESSABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENTS IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; FIXING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR AN EQUALIZATION HEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL, AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE THEREOF; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereinafter called "Board" and "County," respectively) that: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION. This resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 83-46 of the County, applicable provisions of Chapter 170, Florida Statutes (1983), and other applicable provisions of law. SECTION 2. FINDINGS. It is hereby found and determined as follows that: A. By adoption of Resolution No. 84-26, the Board has stated the nature of the assessable water distribution improve- ments (hereinafter called "Project") in the County specified by such resolution, determined when the assessments are to be paid, estimated the cost of the Project and satisfied all other require- ments of Section 170.03, Florida Statutes (1983). B. Resolution No. 84-26 of the Board has been published by the Clerk of the Board in a newspaper of general circulation in the County. C. A preliminary assessment roll with respect to the Project has been prepared and filed with the Board. D. It is necessary and desirable that a public hearing on the Project and the assessments be set in accordance with the requirements of Section 170.07, Florida Statutes (1983), and notice thereof be given to the affected property owners. SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF ASSESSMENT ROLL. The preliminary assessment roll prepared by the engineers for such Project, pre- sently on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board, is hereby approved. 62 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 FACE349 r AN F 1984 Boon 57 Face X50 SECTION 4. EQUALIZATION HEARING. The lith day of July, 1984, at 9:45 o'clock A.M. at County Commission Chambers, in Vero Beach, Florida, is fixed as the time and place of a meet- ing of the Board at which the owners of the properties to be assessed or other persons interested therein may appear before the Board and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of the Project, the cost thereof, the manner of payment therefor and the amount thereof to be assessed against each parcel of property specially benefited. SECTION 5. NOTICE OF HEARING. The Clerk of the Board is directed to cause a notice of such hearing to be mailed to each affected property owner at his last known address and to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the County, once each week for 2 consecutive weeks, the final publication being at least one week prior to the date of the equalization hearing. Such notice shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT EQUALIZATION HEARING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA To: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida (hereinafter called "Board" and "County," respectively) will meet on July 11th, 1984, at 9:45 o'clock A.M. in County Commission Chambers at Vero Beach, Florida, to hear objections of all owners of property to be assessed and all interested persons to the following assessable improvements in the County, the cost of such improvements, the manner of payment for such improvements and the amount thereof to be assessed against each parcel of property specially benefited. Such assessable water distribution improvements consist of the con- struction of an extension of a 20 inch water line from the existing combined water and sewer system of the County, and the construction of a water tower, a portion of which will be financed through the 63 M M issuance of revenue bonds by the County (hereinafter called "Project"). The Project will be constructed in the following unin- corporated area of the County: Water line from Oslo Road to 43rd Avenue north to 8th or 12th Street, then west to Kings High- way, then north to St. Road 60, water tower to be constructed along route of water line. The Board has examined the assessment roll and has determined that a portion of the entire cost of the Project in the amount of $2;0`,0;:M..sha11 be assessed against the properties specially benefited thereby. The Board has approved the preliminary assessment roll as required by law. The description of each pro- perty to be assessed and the amount to be assessed to each parcel of property may be ascertained at the office of the Clerk of the Board. The special assessments to be levied against the proper- ties specially benefited from the Project may be paid in cash in not exceeding 10 equal yearly installments with interest at a rate not to exceed 1% ab.ove the interest rate on the bonds of notes, as the case may be, to be issued to finance the cost of the Project. If the special assessments are not paid when due, there shall be added a penalty at the rate of 1% per month until paid; provided, however, that such assessments may be prepaid at any time within 30 days after the Project is completed and a resolution accepting the same has been adopted by the Board, but such prepaid assessments shall bear interest at the rate borne by the bonds or the notes, as the case may be, described above, and shall include, if deemed necessary by the Board; a prepayment fee not to exceed the applicable redemption premium, if any, for such notes or bonds, as the case may be, if they were to be redeemed on the next available redemption date. The special assessments shall be levied against such benefited pro- perties on an available tap basis to the properties receiving benefit by virtue of the availability of potable water. Any special assess - 64 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 Ni0E 351 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 PAGE •.352 ment liens upon benefited properties, resulting from special assess- ments levied in accordance with the provisions of this resolution, shall be extinguished upon the recording by the Board in the Official Records of the County, an affidavit or affidavits executed by the Chairman of the Board to the effect that sufficient security has been deposited with the County in order to insure timely payment of the amounts of such special assessments or the installments thereof, as the case may be. At the above named time and place, the Board will receive any objections of interested persons. After receiving and consider- ing all objections of interested persons, the Board shall at such hearing or thereafter either annul or sustain or modify in whole or in part the preliminary assessments as indicated on such roll, either by confirming the preliminary assessments against any or all lots or parcels described therein or by cancelling, increasing or reducing the same according to the special benefits which the Board decided each such lot or parcel has received or will receive on account of the Project. Dated this 6th day of June . 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: C Don C. Scurlock., Jr. rman Attest: c Freda .right, Clerk V'cthG�lte�' C SECTION 6. PROOF OF NOTICE. Mailing of such notice shall be proved by affidavit of the Clerk of the Board filed in her office. Publication of such notice shall be verified by affi- davit of the publisher filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board. SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. effect immediately upon its adoption. 65 This resolution shall take J. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wodtke and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice -Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Absent Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 6th day of June , 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By / DON . SCURL CR, JR. Chairman Attest: ' FREDA WRIGHT U j Clerk p'''V APPROVED FO AND LEG FFI By ptM�Attorney B DENBURG M. BOOK 57 PACE 353 JUN 61984 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL BOOK 57 FACE 354 Assessment/Distribution Schedule and Identifying Letters as they correspond to the Assessment Plat on file in the office of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. PREL IMTNI ARY ITEM OWNER ERU'S ASSESSMENT A-1 Ben Bailey, III, an individual 65 65,000 A-2 Ben Bailey, III, an individual 60 60,000 B Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc. 5815 585,000 C-1 John H. Sutherland, as Trustee 107 107,000 C-2 John H. Sutherland, as Trustee 108 108,000 C-3 Sixty Oaks, Inc. 60 60,000 C-4 Kingswood West, Inc. 50 50,000 D-1 George Childers -Lynn Lee 52 52,000 D-2 George Childers -Westgate Colony 28 28,000 (Individual owners and property Descriptions listed on attached sheets) Property assessment to George Childers E-.1 E. Clifford Norris., as Trustee 96 96,0100 E-2 Charles D.M. Gibbons and Marie L. 79 79,000 Gibons E-3 Rag No. 1 Partnership 385 385,000 F Central Assembly of God, Inc., of Vero 20 209000 Beach, Florida G Paul E. Austin 59 59,000 H Temple Beth Shalom of Vero Beach, Inc. 1 1,000 I Strazzulla Bros. Co., Inc. 40 40,000 J Tamara Gardens Development, Co., Inc. 52 52,000 K Beach Bank at Vero Beach 28 28,000 L Florida National Bank 1 1,000 M-1 Ralph Evans, as Trustee 20 20,000 M-2 Ralph Evans, as Trustee 26 26,000 M-3 Ralph Evans, as Trustee 10 10,000 M-4 Ralph Evans, as Trustee 1 1,000 M-5 Ralph Evans, as Trustee 20 209000 N Elsebeth M. Sexton, Ralph Waldo Sexton 70 70,000 and Charles Randolph Sexton as Trustees of Trust "b" under the Will of Waldo E. Sexton, deceased 0 Samuel E. Moon, Sr. a/k/a Sam E. Moon, 15 15,000 a 1/2 interest; and Nancy Thomas Moon, a 1/2 interest; each 1/2 interest as joint tenants in common, not with right of survivorship P y and Bailey, a Floridtnership i&. I 12 12 Pat Corrigan $z7u5u AGREEMENT W/FLORIDA LAND CO. - JUNGLE TRAIL Attorney Brandenburg noted that this agreement has been in controversy for sometime. The proposed agreement has been before the Scenic Roads & Trails Committee and they recommended adoption. The Agreement establishes the county's right to the roadway, the extent of the roadway for the duration of the Florida Land Company's property, and at the same time straightens up some title questions Florida Land had because of the uncertainty of the roadway. Commissioner Bird commented that at sometime he would like this brought back before the Board so we could see the areas to be stabilized. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Agreement with Florida Land Company re Jungle Trail and authorized the signature of the Chairman. (SAID AGREEMENT IS. HEREBY MADE A PART. OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD) JUN 6 1984 Booz 57 FAcF 355 JUN 61984 kv BOOK 57 pnf_356 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day by and between Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, herein- after called the "County" and Florida Land Company, a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "Land Company." WHEREAS, Jungle Trail is a public road established in the early 1900s and formally declared a fifty foot wide public road by resolution of the St. Lucie County Commission in regular session on June 2, 1925, as set forth in the official records of St. Lucie County Book 4, page 349 (then known as Orchid Road), and WHEREAS, members of the general public have continu- ously and uninterruptedly under claim of right traveled the road for at least the last sixty years and the roadway has been main- tained by County forces for at least the last twenty years, and WHEREAS, in 1976 the Board of County Commissioners approved and filed a maintenance map in the public records of Indian River County pursuant to Florida Statutes 595.361, and WHEREAS, a portion of Jungle Trail transverses land owned by the Land Company and runs along the shoreline of the Indian River, and WHEREAS, over the years the bank of the Inlian River ha -1 been changed by the forces of erosion to the extent that recent surveys show the right of way alignment set forth in the 1976 maintenance map extending into the river while at the same time showing portions of the current roadbed as traveled by the public extending onto Land Company property, and WHEREAS, the Land Company has made known its objec- tions to the road alignment as shown on the 1976 maintenance map on file in the County, and The Land Company has contested the width location and extent of the Right of Way, and WHEREAS, the County in the interim has applied to the State of Florida for permission to perform certain shore stabilization activities along the shoreline, and -1- WHEREAS, the Land Company has objected to the permitting of the project and the matter has been referred to an administrative hearing officer under the provisions of Florida Statutes 5120, NOW THEREFORE, the parties desire to resolve their differences by entering into this agreement, forever settling the location and public ownership of Jungle Trail as it transverses the Land Company's property and the boundary line of the Land Company's property; the parties agree as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein as a representation of the parties upon which this agreement is based. 2. County hereby authorizes the County Attorney to prepare and the Chairman of the County Commission and Clerk to execute a County Deed in favor of the land company containing the legal description as set forth in Exhibit "A" of that portion of the roadway as described on the 1976 Maintenance Map, that exists west of the new alignment of the road, and including the following language: "The purpose of this deed is to convey all the right title and interest of Indian River County in and to the above described property arising by virtue of the filing of that certain Maintenance Map recorded in Official Record Book 9 , page 40 , public records of Indian River County, Florida." 3. Indian River County shall take all actions neces- sary to clear the public records of the 1976 Maintenance Map for the length of the Land Company's property. Indian River County may file a new Maintenance Map showing the road as realigned according to the legal description set forth in attachment "B" hereto. (o'5��� �,•�/ 4. �\Prio P£o the County's actions taken with respect \ `.,, Y P to paragraphs'2 and�3�kl_ve, the Land Company shall deed to Indian River County by warranty deed all land comprising the new right- of-way as set forth in Attachment "B" hereto, together with any releases that may be necessary to clear the property of any mortgages. The County Attorney shall hold the deed in escrow L_ JUN 61984 -2- BOOK 57 PAGE 357 JUN 61984 G fV BOOK 57 PAGE3Z8 A Z7 qql� until County has completed its responsibility under Paragraph 2 and 3.A't 5. The Land Company shall have the new right-of-way surveyed and staked out in a manner as to be plainly visible to County road crews. 6. Indian River County shall abandon its application to D.E.R. with respect to the property located along the shoreline of the Land Company's property. The County may proceed with its shoreline stabilization along othet properties along the roadway not abutting the Land Company's property. The Land Company agrees to stabilize at a minimum those areas sought to be stabilized under the County's application for Shoreline Stabilization #310678588 along the roadway within its boundaries. The Land Company shall immediately use its best efforts to design a shoreline stabilization project which shall include at a minimum those areas that were to be stabilized under the County's Application for Permit for Shoreline Stabilization No. 310678588. The Land Company shall design the project in an environmentally sensitive manner and the project shall be subject to the review and approval of Indian River County Administration prior to submitting an. application to the Department of Environmental Regulation. The Land Company agrees to submit such an application to the County within ninety (90). days of the execution of this agreement and to the Department of Environmental Regulation with a proper application for a permit within thirty (30) days thereafter. Both parties may mutually agree in the future to extend these time limitations in writing. Upon approval and issuance of all permits required, Land Company shall commence the Stabilization Project and complete the project within one year. after issuance of the permits. 7. The entire costs of the shoreline stabilization project shall be borne by the Land Company. The Land Company agrees to post an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $20,000 at the time the Land Company delivers the deed referenced -3- M _ in Paragraph 4 to the County Attorney, which letter of credit may be drawn upon by the County after adoption by the Board of County Commissioners of a Resolution asserting that the Land Company has not fulfilled its obligation to stabilize the shoreline within the time limits provided under this Agreement. In which case County will proceed to resubmit its application for stabilization to the Department of Environmental Regulation (File No. 310678588) and upon permitting use the funds to complete the project. Iii the event the County proceeds with the project under this paragraph, then the Land Company hereby waives any and all objections to the permitting and construction of such project by the County including but not limited to objections based on assertions that the County lacks ownership of the abutting property, the type, extent, or degree of any materials or construction techniques proposed to be used. If the County causes the construction to occur with the use of funds drawn from the letter of credit the County shall not thereby acquire any rights to the ownership of the improvements or the property to which they are made. 8. Land Company agrees to establish a fifty (50) foot deep building setback line from the new right-of-way line of Jungle Trail by the imposition of deed restrictions recorded in the public records of Indian Rivnr County in a form satisfactory to the County Attorney, along the eastern boundary of the newly realigned right-of-way provided further that this deed restriction shall not prevent landscaping in accordance with applicably County Ordinances, construction of perimeter walls or fences, in accord- ance with applicable County Ordinances. This deed restriction shall be in favor of and enforceable by the County and shall be submitted to the County Attorney and proper executed form at the same time as the deed referenced in paragraph 4 hereof. 9. This agreement may be enforced by either party by applying to a court of competent jurisdiction for injunctive relief. In the event either party resorts to a court proceeding -4- JUN 6 1984 aoax 57 PAGE359 JUN " 61994 � BOOK 57 PACE 360 or administrative hearing procedures to enforce its rights under this agreement the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and the cost of the action from the losing party. 10. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and may not be altered except in writing signed by both parties. Either party to this Agreement ,nay record the Agreement in the Official Public Records of Indian River County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the date set forth next to their signa- tures. Date: Date: I- 4R APPROVEDF;TO FORM LEGAL SU F I ENZY : ,l BOARD OF COUNTY CO11giSSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'''''' ' •. By: !i DON C. SCURL CR` JR V Chairman ' Attest: FREDA WRIGHT,, erk FLr0RIDA LARD OMPANY 7-1 By: Vic P-"Piep;'en(X , Attest. QUIT -CLAIM DEED is on file in the Office of the Clerk -5- M ® _ • EXHMM'A" 1 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LANDS WEST OF JUNGLE TRAIL All that portion of Government Lot 5, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, less the South 411.84 feet thereof, lying west of Jungle Trail, as the same is relocated from the location shown on maintenance map filed in Plat Book 9, Page 40, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; said parcel bounded as follows: On the East by the right-of-way for Jungle Trail; on the South by the North - line of the South 411.84 Feet of said Government Lot 5; on the West by the mean high water line of the Indian River; on the North by the South line of the North 330 feet of said Government Lot 5. t t 1 J N 6 1984 August 17, 1983 BOOK 5 7 FACE 361 JUN 61994 L EXHIBIT "B" tip BOOK 5 7 F'AGE382 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RELOCATION OF JUNGLE TRAIL IN PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 52 SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST. Being a relocation of a portion of that certain forty (40) foot wide maintenance right-of-way covering Jungle Trail as the same is shown on map thereof filed in Plat Book 9, Bage 40 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; the relocated forty (40) foot wide maintenance right -of- way being controlled by a baseline which is ten (10) feet westerly of the east line thereof, all measured at right angles thereto, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Point of Reverse Curve Station 119 + 38.97 as the same is shown in said Plat Book 9, Page 40; said point being the beginning of curve to the right, having a central angle of 020 49' 00", a radius of 2,033.58 a chord of 99.97 feet, bearing North 280 54' 09" West; thence northwesterly along said curve, 99.98 feet; thence North 270 29' 39" West 80.06 feet to a point on the North line of the South 411.84 feet of Government Lot 5, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East; said point being the beginning of a curve to the left, having a central angle of 210 37' 16", a radius of 384.56 feet, a chord of 144.26 feet bearing North 380 18' 17" West; thence northwesterly along said curve 145.12 feet; thence run North 490 06' 55" West, 277.71 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left, having a central angle of 140 08' 58" a radius of 645.71 feet, a chord of 159.06 feet bearing North 560 11' 24" West, thence northwesterly along said curve 159.46 feet; thence run North 630 15' 53" West, 335.43 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right, having a central angle of 590 11' 0611, a radius of 132.59 feet a chord of 130.95 feet bearing North 330 40' 19" West, thence northwesterly along said curve 136.96 feet to a point marking a reversed curve; said point being the beginning of a curve to the left, having a central angle of 080 11' 00", a radius of 708.96 feet, a chord of 101.17 feet bearing North 080 10' 16" West, thence northwesterly M along said curve 101.26 feet; thence run North 120 15' 46" West, 19.54 feet to a point marking the intersection of the relocated baseline with the baseline as shown in said Plat Book 9, Page 40; thence run North 120 15' 46" West; along" said baseline 124.61 feet to the intersection with the North line of Government Lot 5, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East; Said point of intersection being Station 133 t 22.53 on the original baseline shown in said Plat Book 9, Page 40, and ranging South 880 42' 27" West a distance of 1104.89 feet from the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 5. August 16, 1983 Revised April 30, 1984 6 jn84 ` BOOK 57 PAGE JUN A 4 B0a 57 FAGE36 LETTER OF INTENT - FmHA (IXORA/TREASURE COAST) 2.75M ISSUE Attorney Brandenburg explained the history of the situation relating to the purchase of the Treasure Coast and Ixora systems, the need to expand our customer base towards the SR 60 area, the combining of two revenue bond issues, the complications that arose with the marketing of the notes, and the need to get all the required paperwork to FmHA before the call date of July lst to avoid having to refinance the interim note, which would cost the County $150,000. He noted that one further complication is that in order to get the lA commitment letter from FmHA, the construction contracts must be let before the assessments are out for the water line along SR 60. We do, however, have an agreement with the developers about the assessments and will put provisions in the construction contract to take care of any contingencies that may occur. The immediate concern is to get all the paperwork to the FmHA, and, therefore, the Board needs to execute the amended Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions and other related items. Administrator Wright.informed the Board that the bids on Ixora and Treasure Coast came in slightly under budget. Commissioner Wodtke noted that the letter from FmHA says the County will furnish evidence that 8,369 water users have agreed to connect. Attorney Brandenburg explained how this came about was that the FmHA looked at the county preliminary engineering report of the area, saw all the homes in the area where the county is going to expand and went under the assumption of a mandatory hook-up policy. The Attorney believed the point is that the project was determined to be financially feasible with just Treasure Coast and Ixora and none of the additional connections out SR 60, and FmHA really doesn't care what that number was; they recognize that realistically we will not be able to hook up 100% of those homes, and that 69 M matter will have to be amended prior to closing on the _ bonds. He further noted that the numbers on the letter do not correspond exactly to the numbers on the assessment roll and we have to make them match. Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that because of the critical timing of the situation, this has not been before the Finance Advisory Committee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Amended Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions re the 2.75 million dollar water and sewer revenue bond issue as discussed and authorized the signature of the Chairman. • f UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Form FHA 442-46 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION (Rev. 1-9-69) LETTER OF INTENT TO MEET CONDITIONS Date June 6, 1984 TO: Farmers Home Administration United States Department of Agriculture P. O. Box 3767 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 (County Office Address) We have reviewed and understand the conditions set forth in your letter dated 1 aomendiM the letter dated April 12, 1982 attached hereto as exhibits A and B, respectively. It is our intent to meet all of them not later than S entP�r . 19R4 TmnTAN RTN7Fp lY T=y (dame of Association) BY DON C. SaJRLOCK, JR. Chairman, Board of County CaTmi.ssioners (Title) 70 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 PACE365 I JUN 6 1994 BOOK 57 PAGE 366 �+oway United States Farmers Department of Home P.O. Box 3767 -* Agriculture Administration West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman, Indian River County Board of County Commissioners RE: 1840 -25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Scurlock: May 16, 1984 750,000 Gallon Elevated Water Storage Tank and Water Mains South County System (revised) Project U 84-1 This letter amends the previous Letter of Conditions dated April 21, 1982, concerning improvements to the South County System. Based on the revised above referenced project, the loan docket may be completed on the basis of a loan in the amount of approximately $871,200, with the County generating Utility Impact Fees of approximately $646,000, and developer contributions being collected in an approximate amount of $1,342,700. Prior to beginning construction or prior to closing of the FmHA loan, whichever occurs first, the County will furnish evidence that 8369 water users have agreed to pay monthly charges for services to be received from the total facility being financed. A rate schedule will be adopted by the County providing for the user rates as shown in Appendix "A" attached. Please complete and return the attached Form FmHA 442-46, "Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions," if you desire to have further consideration given your revised project application request. Sincerely, �..Y '� %� .a y�.'� DISTRISUTION LIST ''CHARLIE B. HUDNELL CCi111?liS��G,IerS District Director v Administrator Attorney Enclosures �n,1 ti Personnel— I cc: So, CP o n ? Public Works Q, r+ i ^ Community Dev. T GO 13 V Utilities �G--- `r� �,% Finance, �u' Ia, Farmers Home Administration is an Equal Opportunii y�tlpL •'LJ Other r nn n n Complaints of dscnminanon should sent to: Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, O.C.20250 71 S ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RE 2.75M BOND ISSUE A. Loan Resolution Attorney Brandenburg explained that this is a standard FmHA form resolution, wherein the County agrees to all the FmHA regulations. This is required for every FmHA bond issue. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 84-40, the FmHA Loan Resolution re the 2.75 million dollar bond issue. 72 JUN 6 1984 BOOR 57 FACE 367 JUN 61994 USDA-FmHA Form FmHA 442.47 (Rev. 2-5-81) BOOK 57 PAGF.368 Position S RESOLUTION 84-40' LOAN RESOLUTION, (Public Bodies) -.----- A RESOLUTION OF THE - - Baa d Of -C.011-01-31 COMMIS -611013P -Cr,- OF THE County, of Tndi an Riyp-r Fl-nri da r AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE INCURRENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PURPOSE AN PRO- VIDING A PORTION OF THE COST OF ACQUIRING, CONSTRUCTING, ENLARGING, IMPROVING, AN combined otable water Droduction 'and distribution and EXTENDING ITS FACILITY TO SERVE AN AREA LAWFULLY WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION TO SERVE. WHEREAS, it is necessary for the County, Florida ` "d ) (herein after called association) to raise a portion of thefcosi`of such undertaking by issuance of its bonds in the principal amount of 1zap -n bllmd-�edand -Elft.)t bumized doll., - pursuant to the provisions of cozen to R GL1.lii; ioi3 iRg i - 6 7 - WHEREAS, the association intends to obtain assistance from & Farmers Home Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, (herein called the Government) acting under the provisions of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) in the planning, financing, and supervision of such undertaking and to purchasing of bonds law- fully issued, in the event that no other acceptable purchaser for such bonds is found by the association: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises the association hereby resolves: 1. To have prepared on its behalf and to adopt an ordinance or resolution for the issuance of its bonds and con- taining such items and in such forms as are required by STATE statutes and as are agreeable and acceptable to the Government. 2. To refinance the unpaid balance; in whole or in part, bf its bonds upon the request of the Government if at any time it shall appear to the Government that the association is able to refinance its bonds by obtaining a loan for such purposes from responsible cooperative or private sources at reasonable rates and terms for loans for similar purposes and periods of time as required by section 333(c) of said Consolidated Farm and Rural Develop- ment Act (7 U.S.C. 1983(c)). 3. To provide for, execute, and comply with Form FmHA 4004, "Nondiscrimination Agreement"; and Form FmHA 400-1, "Equal Opportunity Agreement", including an "Equal Opportunity Clause", which clause is to be incorporated in, or attached as a rider to, each construction contract and subcontract involving in excess of $10,000. , , ; 4. To indemnify the Government for any payments made or losses suffered by the Government on behalf of the association. Such indemnification shall be payable from the same source of funds pledged to pay the bonds or any other legal permissible source. S. That upon default in the payments of any principal and accrued interest on the bonds or in the performance of any covenant or agreement contained herein or' in the instruments incident to making or insuring the loan, the Government, at its option may (a) declare the entire principal amount then outstanding and accrued interest immediately due and payable, (b) for the account of the. association (payable from the source of funds pledged to pay the bonds or any other legally permissible source) incur and pay reasonable expenses for repair, main- tenance, and operation of the facility and such other reasonable expenses as may be necessary to cure the cause of default, and/or (c) take possession of the facility, repair, maintain, and operate or rent it. Default under the provisions of this Resolution or any instrument incident to the making or insuring of the loan may be construed by the Government to constitute default under any other instrument held by the Government and executed or assumed by the association, and default under any such instrument may be construed by the Government to constitute default hereunder. 6. Not to sell, transfer, lease, or otherwise encumber the facility or any portion thereof, or interest therein, not per- mit others to do so, without the prior written consent of the Government. 7. Not to borrow any money from any source, enter into any contract or agreement, or incur any other liabilities in connection with making enlargements, improvements or extensions to, or for any other purpose in connection with the facility (exclusive of normal maintenance) without the prior written consent of the Government if such undertaking would involve the source of funds pledged to pay the bonds. 8. To place the proceeds of the bonds on deposit in an account, in a bank, and in a manner approved by the Govern- ment. 9. To comply with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations and to continually operate and maintain the facility in good condition. 10. To provide for the receipt of adequate revenues to meet the requirements of debt service, operation and main- tenance, and the establishment of adequate reserves. No free service or use of the facility will be permitted. 11. To acquire and maintain such insurance coverage including fidelity bonds as may be required by the Government. 73 S I M 12. To establish and maintain such books and records relating to the '*rat ofi of }he' facilji}l ;and'.�its `�`inancial affairs and to provide for required audit theteoPin' such 'a manner as' may be required b}i the'Goverf'iinetii;'t&'provide the Government without its request, a copy of each such audit, and to make and forward to the Government such addi- tional information and reports as it may from time to time require.' r;;:. <,:;ccs; , :ru,; 13. To provide the Government at all reasonables times access to all books and records relating to the facility and access to the property of the system so that the Government may ascertain that"the-'associition'iscoinplying�witti the ' visions hereof and of,tho instruments incident to the making or insuring of the loan. 14. To provide adequate service to all persons within the service area who canTeasibly•and legally be'sorved and to'obtain FmHA's concurrence prior to refusing new or adequate' services to such persons.: Upon failure :to p%obide ser`vice's which are feasible and legal, such person shall have a direct right of action against 7the 'association•of public'body.'' 15. In thecase of a grant i .. >, .,. • , ; , =.: •,. , ,:,: ;; -.Ij:I _ ` �. •I ;�,, , : r, , r•;..:. .• -.. n the. sum not to exceed $ - ,the association hereby accepts the grant'undeuthe tetras as•offered by the Government and that the ' 0 r "r:rr•: it % , rl; . r .,, !; 1i-. ,'J. and 0 . . .+ .f r,c.:.S'r r (L ►ri:: ." `i ".W of the�issociation 46, hereby authorized and ei n)ppwered to ,iake: alb action necessary or appropriate in the execution of all written instruments as may be required in regard.tq.orastevidence•of.such grant and the association hereby resolves to operate the facility.under the terms as offered in said grant agreement(s): ` r iC • - :i ;1.; z,; .;, , .. ,r•; :cr,l :;' r'rrt t :.: `r`i 't.:'' i(;I ,:•.,:,: The provisions hereof and the provisions of all instruments incident to the makin `;of the irisurin of 1ie�Ta' ' wisespecificallyprovided b ' the terms of such instruments, n '` i • .,. r. • g st unless ds are P Y shall be binding upon the aser- sociation as tong as the bonds are held or insured by the Government. The provisions of sections 6 through 13 hereof rnay,be:providud for in more specific detail in the bond resolution or ordinance; to the extent that the provisions contained in such bond resolution; or ordinance should be found to be inconsistent with the provisions hereof, these provisions shall be construed as controlling as between the association and the Government. The vote W83:.:; •.., ,. :. ,� ,.tt... � :fir. - �: :e• .. Yeas 4 Nays nAbsent IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Rnard of f`nimty ('nmmi sainnerG r of the Tndi an Ri x7or Cniint-IZ Fl nri ria has duly adopted this Resolution and caused it to be executed by the officers below in duplicate on this h 'day of Time jq! Approved 0. for andAleg e (SEAL) Don r' ar Sc irl0C r, Attest: •Brafide. n. 'Title t l ` Ch'a riilais` " ;'` :' `r '. ►�::'�:;:' :': 464A 11A L J4 My- got ,--- f - Fr Title V. J4 , �'--.--• -• ' - ... ___ .._...............---_...._..._ • . --- CERTIFICATION ; ,::•:i}; ., r,z �� ,:, 1, the undersigned, as r.1 0t -1t " )"J} of thee' .._ i - _ - `Rnarc of ('iiiin "_V Cnt+m'+M1%..•+es of Indian River County, Florida, hereby certify that the._-Rn�nn nF MMITV rn�uMTggTn`T.++.+ LL� K i`of "such Association is composed of members, of whom — 4 constituting a quorum, we're present at a meeting thereof duly called and held on the tir1, da , ..;T u�';, t, �,.,. • ,, •.•� : ;'lir'`'„u t,.,. �,r:..�;: , ,..:•;;., ;,.: y of ,,n P ,19 $L; thAeffiegdtegoiAg lesolut7oit was adopted at such meeting by the vote shown above; and that said resolution has not"ben re'e•fsciddoamendeil-in Dated, this rh dayof °U'8'QP0'19a'4-7"31' ►J, Frecla ]Tright, C1 rk to the Title Board ofCounty Commissioners 74 BOOK e� Q FACE•�6c� JUN 61984 JUN 6 1984 B. Right -of -Way Certificate BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the Chairman to execute the FHA Right -of -Way Certificate and all other documents necessary to perfect the 2.75 million dollar bond issue. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Form FHA 442-21 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION (Rev. 7-6-70) RIGHT—OF—WAY CERTIFICATE The undersigned, Rnnrrl of rnrnmt'v n i ssione s of Indian Ri hereby certifies except as noted in item 4 below: through its Chairman, 7 57 PAGE37o rids, —I 1. That the undersigned has acquired and presently holds continuous and adequate tights -of -way on private lands needed for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities to be installed, repaired, or enlarged with the proceeds of a loan made or insured by, and/or a grant from, Farmers Home Administration and such omissions, defects, or restrictions as may exist will in no substantial way or manner endanger the value or the operation of the facilities. 2. That the undersigned has acquired the necessary permits, franchises, and authorizations or other instruments by whatsoever name designated, from public utilities and public bodies, commissions, or agencies authorizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities upon, along, or across streets, roads, .highways, and public utilities. 3. That the attached "Right-of-way Map" shows the location and description of all land and rights -of --way acquired by right of use or adverse possession and by legal conveyances such as right-of-way or easement deeds, permits, '1 or other instruments. 4. Exceptions: See Exhibit "A" (Note: Item #3 _ "Right-of-way Map" - is on file in the office of the County Attorney) ITNESS WHEREOF, applicant hereunto affixes its name and corporate seal this A _h day of Attest: VA.,4, 1A)A t*n P. (Secretory) Cl k ,WV V. ,fie. RETITAR I110 awell 1►0 WAK910-1 MR10 to) 0 _' I By Don C. Scurlock r. Title Gha rman County Commission 75 U EXHIBIT "A" 1. Right -of -Way permit from Indian River County Farms Water Control District. Application has been submitted and permit is scheduled to be issued on June 15, 1984. 2. In the event a Right -of -Way gap is subsequently discovered, the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to exercise the right and power of Eminent Domain pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 127.01(1) and 153.03(5). LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that we have just received a License Agreement with the railroad which we must have executed before we can start work on boring and jacking under the railroad crossing at 12th Street. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the Chairman to execute the License Agreement with the Florida East Coast Railway Company as described above. Said Agreement will be made a part of the Official Record when fully executed and received. RECOMMENDATION RE BARRIER ISLAND NAME The Board reviewed the following letter received from the chairman of the Scenic Roads and Trails Committee: 76 L- JUN A 11984 Boas 57 PAGE 371 JUN 6 1984 Mr. Patrick B. Lyons Vice Chairman Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Commissioner Lyons: I BOOK 57 Pn,F 372 4835 66th Avenue �lQ/ `HERS 4� Vero Beach, Florida 32960 May 25, 1984 Re: Letter Report - Barrier Island Name In accordance with your request of May 17, 1984, a special -called meeting of the Scenic Roads and Trails Committee was held to discuss the historical references, maps and correspondences relating to the question of the correct name for the barrier island in Indian River County. After reviewing the various documents and receiving positive comments from the Indian River County Historical Society, our committee recommends that the County Commission reaffirm the name of Orchid Island as the correct historical name within the boundaries of Indian River County; and to recommend to St. Lucie County and the City of Ft. Pierce that the name should also be applied to that portion of St. Lucie County from the Indian River County line to the existing Ft. Pierce Inlet. Further it was recommended that the State of Florida and appropriate state agencies be advised of this name and all mapping agencies show this name on future maps. We have attached a review of the documents and historical references using an outline of dates to substantiate this Committee's recommendations. Although the barrier island has been called Orchid Island since the late 1800s, the name has never been submitted to the U.S. Board of Geographic Names for approval, therefore Orchid Island is not used officially. On the other hand, the name of North Hutchinson Island, which was coined by State of Florida Department of Community Affairs approximately two years ago, has not been recognized either by this Federal Board and should not officially be used. With the Indian River County Commission's acceptance of our recommendations, a copy of completed Form 9-1343A (Domestic Geographic Name Proposal) should be submitted to the U.S. Board. Along with this Form the documentation from the historical research done by the Orchid Island Historical Committee, the Indian River County Historical Society and the Indian River County Scenic Roads and Historical Trails Committee should go to support this proposal. It is the feeling of the Scenic Trails Committee that with the approval of Indian River County, the City of Vero Beach, the Town of Orchid and the Town of Indian River Shores plus the historical documentation, Orchid Island will, at last, be officially recognized as the correct name of our barrier island. If our Committee can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Mrs. Ruth Stanbridge Chairman 77 Commissioner Bird stated that he felt he had received_ all the input he needed to justify the name of Orchid Island, and Commissioner Lyons also was in favor of authorizing staff to fill out the appropriate application and other forms necessary to make the name of Orchid Island official. He noted, however, that we don't have jurisdic- tion over the entire island down to the inlet and reported that he did notify the St. Lucie County Commission and also the Mayor of Fort Pierce that we were considering this issue and there was going to be a meeting of the committee. Ruth Stanbridge, Chairman of the Scenic Roads & Trails Committee, reported that the Mayor did not attend the meet- ing, and the County Attorney had confirmed that this County Commission could only extend the name to the Indian River County line. Mrs. Stanbridge believed that the U.S. Board of Geographic Names would prefer a geological boundary, and felt if the Indian River County Commission recommended that the name for the entire island down to the Fort Pierce Inlet, they would consider that in their decision. Discussion ensued on having further contact with St. Lucie County officials in this regard. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized staff to fill out the appro- priate application and other forms necessary to recommend to the U.S. Board of Geographic Names that the barrier island be designated officially as Orchid Island to the Indian River County line, noting that we would very much like to have the whole island all the way south to the Fort Pierce Inlet named Orchid Island, and again communicate with St. Lucie County to ask them if they would go along with this. 78 JUN 6 1994 Box 57 PAPE 3 i3 L J JUN 6 1984 . BooK 57 PAPE 374 TAXPAYERS ASSOC. RESOLUTION REQUESTING COUNTY TO INSTITUTE PROGRAM FOR PROTECTION OF THE BEACHES The Board reviewed the following Resolution received from the Taxpayers Association of Indian River County: P. O. BOX 1751 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA TRXPRYERS RSSOCIflTIOn V-9MBUTION?l'.ISI' 32s50 OF .Commisswers tom— AdminL=a r v — ,164 �o� InDIRR RIVER COUnTY, IOC. attorney Mph +n N Mersanndl A NON-PROFrr CORPORATION CHARTERED IN 1957 FlJ'bUr Wbfks C0rw.=nftN Lev. er than spending the public's money; it does not appear to belong to anyb 11RWptation is .Lflj overwhelming to bestow it on somebody." - Calvin Coolidge �� 21, IFlifl%11.C� � G Ma pth&, 1984, 4 Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman County Corrmission 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Scurlock: In March, 1983, the Taxpayers Association of Indian River County, Inc., submitted to the City Council a resolution passed by the membership. On May 9, 1984, the membership was asked to reaffirm their stand on the beach erosion problem. They voted upon and approved the some resolution, which is as follows: RESOLVED that: The Taxpayers Association of Indian River County requests the County Corrmissioners of Indian River County and the City Council of the City of Vero Beach institute a program for the protection of the beaches of the county and city by: 1. Provision of some means to protect against windblown sand losses; 2. Development of viable dune protection by vegetation; 3. Possible use of "beach trim-ning" to recover sand moved by storms to nearby offshore locations; 4. Make the construction set -back line more restrictive than the state set -back line; and 5. If not already in effect, immediately start a fund for future use on beach erosion projects. Please include the reading of this resolution on the agenda -.of your next County Commission meeting. JS/bvz Respectful submitted, J p initz, Pr s1 ent 79 M Commissioner Lyons inquired what the term "beach _ _ trimming" means, and OMB Director Barton explained that it involves taking a bulldozer out about 3' into the ocean and pulling the sand back on the dune line. He noted that the State of Florida does not consider this acceptable practice and will not permit it. In discussion, the Board members noted that the County already has established a policy in regard to requiring dune cross -overs, dune vegetation, etc., and about the only thing we have not done is make the construction setback line more restrictive than the State's. Since no representative of the Taxpayers Association was present, the Chairman accepted their letter to be made part of the record and asked Commissioner Wodtke, Chairman of the Beach Restoration and Preservation Committee, to report on the committee's recommendation. Commissioner Wodtke reported that a special meeting of the Beach Restoration and Preservation Committee was called after receipt of the phone call from Congressman Nelson. The Congressman had felt there was a commitment the project would be done and.that all that remained to be decided was how to raise the funds. If there was to be a referendum for or against the project, he could not recommend including the project in this year's appropriations budgets. This could set us back severely or even entirely eliminate the project from consideration. Commissioner Wodtke continued that our staff has worked diligently with City representatives and officials studying various alternatives for funding the project, i.e., what the cost would be if it were to be paid for by all the taxpayers in the county on a uniform basis through ad valorem tax, if the City assumed a certain level of participation, if an MSTU could be set up etc., and whatever form was looked at, it seemed we were looking at a 60/40 or possibly a 70/30 80 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 5 A FA,E 375 JUN 6198* BOOK 57 fAGE376 split between residents of the City of Vero Beach and the County. Commissioner Wodtke then went to a blackboard to demonstrate how they finally arrived at the recommended 60/40 split. He explained that the project cost includes a project in Vero Beach as well as one at Sebastian Inlet. The new updated cost is 3.6 million. Of that the federal government would pay 1.78 million, or about 490; the non-federal share is 1.82 million, and of that the State of Florida will provide approximately 1.625 million. This leaves about $555,000 as the local share. We have always known there would be certain local expenses, i.e., permitting, right-of-way, the Property Appraiser and Tax Assessor's fees for collecting, etc., which have been projected in the area of $100,000. They, therefore used $650,000 as the project's local share cost. OMB Director Barton confirmed that $650,000 was the gross number, including all the various expense items for trying to collect, etc. and he hoped it would work down to $555,000 net. He continued that the committee tried many different scenarios for raising these funds, and ended up between 70/30 and 60/40 as the range which showed the most equity for everyone. Most of the formulas as to how they arrived at that plotting range are very difficult to explain, but they finally came up with 60% for the county and 40% for the city, or $390,000 for the County and $260,000 for the City. Mr. Barton noted that we have the option, if the county chose, to assess a millage countywide for any portion. The City of Vero Beach would be given a credit for that portion paid for by their taxable value in the City, and then they would make up the difference by whatever vehicle they wished. Mr. Barton reported the county's 60% converted to a millage rate to be assessed 81 countywide turns out to be 1544 per thousand dollars of _ _ taxable value. Commissioner Wodtke emphasized that this is just an example of how this would be if we were to raise $390,000 and charge it to the total countywide taxable values. Discussion continued as to how the municipalities, other than the City of Vero Beach would participate, and Mr. Barton reported that it was not planned to ask any municipality other than Vero Beach to make any additional contribution over what their residents would be paying in a countywide tax. Based on the 1983 Tax Roll, this would amount to about $22,963 for Sebastian and $56,068 for Indian River Shores. The West County Fire District which is for property west of I-95, equates to most of our agricultural district, and they would pay $16,306. Commissioner Wodtke brought up the possibility of entering into a side agreement with the Town of Indian River Shores because of some special benefits they might receive as they are located right on the ocean. Commissioner Bird noted that it seems the bulk would come from where the bulk of taxable value is located, and Mr. Barton agreed that most of the value ends up being stacked towards the river and the beach. Chairman Scurlock believed there is an increasing assessed value located to the west, and Mr. Barton concurred that probably is the tendency, but this formula was meant for a one-time up -front assessment to do this project; it was not the intent to use it over and over again. He further pointed out that the formula just discussed was merely intended to give an example from which the Board could get an idea of the equity and the cost of doing the first project. Commissioner Lyons commended them for coming up with an example, but emphasized that his question as to who is 82 JUN 6 1984 BOOK 5 7 Pa -UE 377 r JUN 6 1984 BooK 57 F'h,E3°78 . buying what and who is paying for it has not been answered. He believed there is no question but that the beach is an asset to this county, but he did not know what it is worth to the person who lives on Kings Highway as compared to the business in Sexton Plaza. Another question to be answered is what happens if we don't do anything. Commissioner Lyons believed that undoubtedly the sea will continue to rise and probably at an accelerated rate, and we are going to have to continue to try to save the property that is there. If we don't nourish the beach, then we get sea walls and the beach will disappear there, but there still will be a lot of beaches south of those sea walls that will benefit from this erosion. Therefore, there is the option of not doing anything except build sea walls which the property owners can build themselves, and just forget that beach. Commissioner Lyons continued to stress that all he is convinced of is that we are pouring sand down a rat hole; that he does not have the answer to what the value is to people in different places in the county; and that he would like to have further analysis. OMB Director Barton stated that to put it all together in an economic feasibility study to come up with the answers Commissioner Lyons desires can only be a "what if" scenario. There are probably 15 to 25 variables you could play with in every situation, and each one will provide a different answer. Commissioner Bird noted that he went to Miami Beach when they had sea walls, and he has been there since the renourishing of the beaches, and it is an 1,000% more attractive place today than it was with the sea walls. Discussion continued re sea walls, and the Chairman noted there is a permitted sea wall for The Spires right now. 83 Commissioner Lyons stated that he just wished to know - if that is a viable alternative. He did realize the beaches gather people here, but there are a lot of beaches besides that two miles on Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Barton noted that at the present time most of our tourists come to that area of the beach where it is zoned for motels. Commissioner Wodtke reported that the study done by the Corps on benefit cost ratio showed that for every dollar spent there would be $2.66 worth of benefit. The project being proposed is not just for the benefit of the upland property owners. The federal government and the state are convinced it is a benefit to all the people for the beaches to be protected and available for all, and therefore, they are willing to pay the major share of the cost. He felt for someone to say as an individual, how is this going to benefit me, you would how to say either I use the beach or I don't use the beach. You could also say how is it going to benefit me if we dredge the river when I don't have a boat, etc. Commissioner Wodtke continued to stress that the beach is an important asset, and we are only being asked to spend 13� on the dollar on a local basis to be assured it is there. As to sea walls, which undoubtedly would be permitted, every one that is built will further deteriorate the shoreline. Commissioner Lyons did not doubt it would help the tourist trade to have the beach renourished, and he also did believe it would help keep his property value up. Although he felt the benefit cost ratio arrived at by the Corps was questionable, he was willing to discount that, but he still did not have the answer to his questions. Chairman Scurlock noted that we have been studying this for seven years, and he did not know if there are any other answers. Although we never will be able to determine a 84 BOOK 57 PAGE 3 19 JUN 6 V984 J JUN 6 1984 BOOK 57 PACE 380 specific benefit ratio for everyone, the Chairman felt there is no question that the significant impact is on the city. The issue, however, is if you put sea walls there, what effect will it have on the City of Vero Beach, and Vero Beach is an integral part of the county. For all these years we have kept passing resolutions that say we want to keep the door open before we make a final commitment, and now it appears we have reached the point where we finally have to make a decision as to initiating Phase I and the only thing we are committed to is $650,000. Although he does not like beach pumping, the Chairman felt we must face this as reasonable men, and stated that he would support the first phase with the absolute assurance that we have not committed for the long haul and also with the assurance from the City that those are county beaches as well as city and there will be no discriminatory fees. He further emphasized that if in the future it seems there is going to be a commitment to a 34-50 million -dollar project, then we would go to the public. Chairman Scurlock further noted that we are dealing with this with only a four member Commission, which does not make it easy, but in his opinion, we cannot delay even a few weeks. Commissioner Wodtke noted that at the City Council meeting last night concern was expressed that if we do this project, we are locked in for 50 years of continuous renourishment, but he has verified again today with Mr. Hobbs of the Corps of Engineers that there will be no reference in the agreement we have with the Corps as to fifty years. Commissioner Wodtke went on to explain that when you have your money up front, then you go to the Corps and make an agreement that the initial renourishment will occur. For each additional renourishment, there will be a complete new analysis and the local money must be up front, but you do not have to renegotiate a new contract each time; 85 -, o you do, however, have the advantage of a guarantee that -it - will be based on the same federal and state funding formula. He emphasized that if we don't come up with the local dollars, the project will not be done. Chairman Scurlock stated that it was his understanding then that Commissioner Wodtke would not have any opposition to a motion that would authorize the recommended funding formula for the first phase and authorize us to communicate to the appropriate agencies that this is on go with the county without a referendum, but with us requiring from the city a non-discriminatory use of the beach and holding the possibility of going to the people on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th phases, etc., as an open question that we would resolve at that time. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the state would require that the beach be open to the public in general. He discussed having forums to explain this to the public, and noted that the City still will have to determine how they will raise their monies. Chairman Scurlock noted that Councilman Gregg did indicate some interest in looking into some special benefit assessment. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to approve the recommendation of the Beach Restoration and Preservation Committee for a split of 60% from the County and 40% from the City of Vero Beach for the local share of the proposed beach restoration project; to notify our representa- tives in Washington that we are continuing endorsement of the project and it will be com- pleted and it is not subject to a referendum; and it is with the assurance that the sponsor is not :. JUN 6 19v4 BOOK 57 FAGS SI Jvm 6 1984 BOOK 57 PAAS? obligated and has the option at any future date to discontinue the program after the initial project, with the understanding that the beaches will be available to the city and county residents on a non-discriminatory basis. Commissioner Lyons stated that the Chairman had convinced him that this matter was supposed to have been on the agenda so he is withdrawing'his objection to taking action. He did wish to know, however, why the split is 60% for the county and 40% for the city and not the other way around. Commissioner Wodtke replied that the Arthur Strock report indicated that 71% of the users of the beach are county residents, but because the upland owners obviously have some special benefits, the formula was set at 60/40. Commissioner Wodtke felt strongly there is an overall responsibility for everyone in the county to maintain our roads, bridges, waterways, etc.; he did wish we had a tourist tax so that the tourists could contribute directly. Commissioner Wodtke continued that he would like to have some ongoing funding for maintenance of the dunes, seagrass, etc., and he believed we need to follow this up. Commissioner Lyons emphasized that he did not wish to be an obstructionist; he just wanted everybody to understand what they are going to be paying for and why. He inquired whether a statement was made in connection with the Motion about a referendum for continuing renourishment beyond the first phase. Chairman Scurlock believed what he suggested was that when we get to the point where we are talking about estab- lishing an on-going project with a 40-50 year life and spending many millions of dollars, then there should be a referendum. W Commissioner Lyons stated that he felt as if he has - been trapped and he does not like it, but he believed he has to be a realist and if he is to vote for this, he wished to be sure the motion contains the thought that if there is a continuing process, it will go to a referendum. He asked if the Vero Beach Civic Association had any official statement they wished to make. A representative of the Civic Association stated that they do not have a position on it and it would have to go to their Board of Directors. Discussion continued at length regarding the fact that this first phase involves a local expenditure of approxi- mately $650,000, which is a very different matter from the long term project which would involve many millions. Commissioner Wodtke brought up the need to determine an erosion control line. He noted that sand moves from one place to another, washing out in some places and building up in others, and from the mean high water line, it becomes private property. We need a definitive line to evaluate this movement and he believed we will have better data regarding this in the future. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0). DISCUSSION RE OFFICIAL SONG FOR COUNTY Michael Gray, county resident, came before the Board to request that the song" Indian River Sunrise," which he composed, be designated as the official song of Indian River County. He noted that it has been played over local AM and FM stations and has been very well received as evidenced by letters from Pete Noel, Program Director of WGYL, and Jerry Binkley, General Manager of WTTB, supporting his request. Said letters are on file in the Office of the Clerk. 88 JUN 6 Boa 57 FACE383 JUN f 1984 BOOK 57 pt -384 Commissioner Wodtke felt for this Commission to take a position to say that something is the official song or official motto, flower, etc., that we need to have sufficient time to receive significant public input and reaction. Discussion continued as to the idea of accepting Mr. Gray's song as the song for the year. A cassette recording of "Indian River Sunrise" was played aloud. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted "Indian River Sunrise" by Michael Gray as the official song of Indian River County for the year 1984. REPORT ON DISCUSSION WITH CITY OF VERO BEACH RE WASTEWATER SERVICE Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that he and members of staff appeared before the Vero Beach City Council last night in regard to the possibility of transferring wastewater service from one area to another. Councilman Gregg suggested we assume responsibility in the Hospital area and for that the City would be interested in serving the South Beach area. The Chairman did not believe that is a viable solution in that the Hospital has a contract with the City of Vero Beach for service at a significantly different rate structure. The Chairman continued that the City basically took the position that they have no capacity and that it is not their responsibility to service any additional areas. He, as well as staff, felt confident that if we pursued legal action, there is a responsibility, but we are hoping to negotiate to see if some kind of workable timely solution can be reached. i � r Chairman Scurlock noted that we expressed our willingness to work with the City to try and provide good quality service for all residents, and he was very disappointed to get no answer of a positive aspect after being put from agenda to another agenda. He stated that he will continue to talk with Councilman Gregg and see if we can come up with something different and staff will continue to document our position re legal action. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Chairman be authorized to continue to pursue and negotiate a possible transfer of services with the City of Vero Beach. Discussion ensued as to the advisability of contacting the Hospital, and Chairman Scurlock reported that the basic suggestion from Mr. Gregg was to take whatever capacity would be required in the south beach areas and get an equal capacity in the hospital area, i.e., if 600,000 gallons per day were required for South Beach, we would commit 600,000 gallons of capacity for the hospital node when needed out of the north plant when we built it. The Hospital would continue to be billed under the City rate structure, but the County, in fact, would be providing the service. They, therefore, would be under a rate structure developed on 1972 capital. Mr. Gregg may modify his position, and that is what the discussions would be about. Obviously the Hospital has no interest in increasing their bill. Administrator Wright believed it would almost double their cost. Commissioner Bird commented that there seems to be a question as to the City's plant capacity. .m JUN 6 1984 Boa 57 F-AcE 385 JUN 6 1994 BOOK 57 PAcE3,86 Chairman Scurlock stated they are basing their opinion on a study by Lloyd & Associates, which he felt is absolutely unrealistic because it assumes every lot in the City will be built on and sewered. He personally believed there is additional capacity available. Attorney Brandenburg made the point that the City did a thorough analysis on the South Beach and that analysis indicated they could provide that service. Although they are not supplying South Beach, they now are saying they have no capacity. Commissioner Lyons noted that if the hospital does have a major expansion and the requirement for sewage is greatly increased, he believed it would require a major expenditure on the part of the City of Vero Beach to accommodate such an expansion. He wished to know if the Chairman was saying that they are going to do that at no cost to the hospital. Administrator Wright felt they would have -to pay the impact fee for ERU's. Chairman Scurlock noted that there has never been an impact fee; it is a connection fee. He felt he should meet with Mr. Gregg and see what his proposal is in more finite terms. Fred Mansing of Roseland expressed the opinion that the time the County has spent on this issue and the attitude expressed by the City of Vero Beach really warrants looking into forming a countywide sewer and water authority to get this all under one thumb. Mr. Little is looking out for Vero Beach, and he felt it is time the county looks out for* the county. Chairman Scurlock assured Mr. Mansing we are looking into the situation, but he did not believe we have the authority to form a countywide sewer and water authority. 91 REPORT ON GIFFORD COMMUNITY BUILDING SITE Commissioner Bird reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County DATE: June 5, 19 8 4 FILE: Commissioners SUBJECT: Gifford Community Building FROM: Richard N. Bird, REFERENCES: Commissioner For approximately one year, I have been working with leaders of the Gifford community and the Gifford Progressive Civic League on a project that would culminate in the building of a Gifford. Community Building. I have secured the voluntary services of Architect Charles Block to design the building; and in searching for a suitable site, I recently approached the Town of Indian River Shores with the idea of their making two acres of the Gifford Park site available to the County as a building site for the Community Building. As you have probably heard, the Town Council did vote unanimously recently to donate two acres of the park land to the County for the above purpose. This two acres would be located at the northeast corner of the Park adjacent to Lindsey Road. It is my feeling that we should accept this donation of land and be prepared to then convey ownership of this parcel to the Progressive Civic League once their development plans are finalized and funds are available for the Community Building. I feel that the residents of the Gifford community should own and operate this facility either through the Progressive Civic League or some other organization. Their leadership has indicated to me that this would also be their desire, and with the above thoughts in mind, I would recommend that the Board of County Commissioners instruct our County Attorney to work with the Attorney for the Town of Indian River Shores to accomplish the conveyance of the above property at the earliest possible date. I understand that there will be certain reverter clauses and other reservations that will come as a part of the transfer of land. A part of this procedure will require that the property will be surveyed by our County survey crew. Once this survey is completed, I will need to pass this -information along to Charles Block so that he might proceed further with construction plans for the building and an overall site plan. I believe that the above location is the best that has been made available to the Gifford community and that the site ties in well with the existing Park being developed there. I can envision a tremendous amount of use of the building and the adjacent recreational facilities for many community outings and activities. I urge you to support these recommendations and to expedite this matter further. 92 BACK 157 FACE387 JUN 6 7984 JUN 6 1984 Boa 57 PAGE388 Chairman Scurlock inquired if the property would be transferred by lease or whether title would be conveyed to the Progressive Civic League, and Commissioner Bird felt they would need something to enable them to show possession to be permanent enough to warrant financing. Discussion ensued as to a reverter clause, and Commissioner Bird explained that there will be reverters in the agreement with Indian River Shores, and we, in turn, will have to pass those reverters along to whatever entity we turn this over to. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized Commissioner Bird to continue to work along the lines just reviewed and instructed the County Attorney to work with the Indian River Shores attorney to accomplish the conveyance of the above property. COUNTYWIDE RECREATION STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT Commissioner Bird noted that on today's Consent Agenda additional names were added to this committee. The com- mittee is continuing its research and has contacted other counties; they are working with the School Board and identifying school sites and existing recreational sites, etc., Commissioner Bird hoped in the next three to four months to have a recommendation as to how the Committee feels recreation can be improved in the county to provide more equitable recreation opportunities. GOLF COURSE FEASIBILITY STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT Commissioner Bird informed the Board that as of yesterday, the Committee has acquired a little over $4,000 towards the payment for a feasibility study. The committee 93 has done about as much as they can up to this point re the costs of building and maintaining, etc. What they really need is the revenue feasibility study to determine accurately how much revenue we can reasonably expect to generate. He noted that their self-imposed timetable calls for being completed by the end of this year and having it ready to come to the Commission for a decision by 1985. Tentatively the National Golf Association is holding a slot open to do a study for us in about September. Commissioner Bird stated that when the committee has the funds in hand, about July 1st, they will come back to the Commission and ask permission to enter into an agreement with the National Golf Foundation. COUNTY FAIR CHARTER DIRECTORS Commissioner Bird noted that the Fair Charter has been brought to the point where the Commission needs to go ahead and name the Charter members, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that they are the subscribers to the Charter - there are 26 of those individuals plus 5 Directors. Of the Directors, there must be a president, vice president, secretary and treasurer. The Firefighters get to pick the president and the secretary treasurer, and the Commission picks the vice president. The Firefighters have picked Bill Tripp as President and Joe Earman as Secretary Treasurer. Commissioner Bird has expressed his willingness to be Vice President. That leaves open two Director positions - one of which is to be picked mutually between the Fire- fighters and the County, and the other one would be the County's choice. Commissioner Bird informed the Board that since Attorney Brandenburg has worked on this and helped put it all together, he suggested that Mr. Brandenburg serve as the director mutually agreeable between the Firefighters and the 94 BOOK 57 PAGE 389 � JUN 6194 J JUN 6 M4 soa 57 PAGE390 County, and the Firefighters have agreed. This leaves one Director position open. Chairman Scurlock suggested this position be filled by Michael Wodtke. Commissioner Wodtke asked if a Director has to be on the list of subscribers, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that a Director can be a subscriber also, if desired. He has to be a member; he does not necessarily have to be a subscriber. Commissioner Bird noted that of the 26 subscribers, the County will appoint 13 and the Firefighters 13. Since this is pretty much an honorary type thing and we have staff members who have done a tremendous amount of work on this project, he suggested that we name for our appointments staff people such as Intergovernmental Coordinator "Tommy Thomas, Engineer Don Finney, Public Works Director Jim Davis, Urban Forester Paul Palmiotto, possibly all the County Commissioners, etc. Commissioner Bird reported that the fairgrounds construction is coming along well and will be done by January. The several bills and accounts against the County having been audited were examined and found to be correct were approved and warrants issued in settlement of same as follows: Treasury Fund Nos. 10159 - 10570 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. W There being no further business, on Motion made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:10 o'clock P.M. Attest: JUN 6 1984 Ds 4e— Chairman Chairman BOOK 7 FACE•. 91