HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/11/19850
Wednesday, September 11, 1985
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,
September 11, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B.
Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N.
Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also
present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; L. S.
"Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Charles P.
Vitunac, 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 Administrator
Wright led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
The Administrator wished to add an item considering awarding
of the bid for the Gifford Park picnic shelter. This is neces-
sary in order to meet the completion date, and he asked that it
be added to the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to add under the Chairman's
items an appointment to the Public Library Advisory Board to
replace Michael Rose.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously added
the above items to today's agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 21,
1985. There were none.
SEP 111985
8001( ;� Fr1JE 0�
J
SEP 111995 BOOK ., MUE s 2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting oft
August 21, 1985, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Administrator Wright requested that Item C be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Wodtke
requested the removal of Item I.
A. Approval of Renewal Pistol Permits
The Board reviewed memo of the Administrator, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 27, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMITS -
RENEWALS
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following have applied thru the Clerk's Office for renewal
of their pistol permits:
James C. Knapp
Michael P. Riggio
Robert A. Weems, Sr.
Velma Webb Gore
All requirements of the ordinance have been met.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved renewal applications for a Permit to
carry a concealed firearm for the following:
James C. Knapp
Michael P. Riggio
Robert A. Weems, Sr.
Velma Webb Gore
B. Approval of New Pistol Permit Applications
The Board reviewed memo of the Administrator, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 27, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMITS - NEW
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following have applied thru the Clerk's Office for new
pistol permits:
John Eugene Mariani
Elton i. Schwarz
All requirements of the ordinance have been met.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved applications for a Permit to carry a
concealed firearm for John Eugene Marian! and
Elton H. Schwarz.
C. Release of Funds Held for Improvements - Seagrove West Subdv.
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Stan Boling:
3
SEP 111985
W
2 FADE 03
SEP 111985 BOOK 62 PAPUE U4
TO: Board of County DATE: August 30, 1985 FILE:
Commissioners -
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator SUBJECT: RELEASE OF FUNDS HELD
FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SEAGROVE WEST
( ,`J� SUBDIVISION
avis, Public Works Director
FROM: Stan Boling n REFERENCES:
Staff Planner f
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners -at their
regular meeting of September 11, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The owner/developer of Seagrove West subdivision, Harbor Federal
Savings and Loan Association, is requesting release of $503,191.24
held in trust for the County by the Chairman of the Indian River
County Commission and Director of the Office of Management and
Budget (both as trustees) in a Harbor Federal Savings and Loan
trust account. The funds are being held to secure the contract
(#SD -80-16-229) and Assumption Agreement to construct required
improvements in Seagrove West subdivision.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The project engineer has certified that all construction of
improvements has been performed in accordance with the approved
construction drawings; he has also submitted release of lien
statements from project contractors. The City of Vero Beach has
certified that all water and sewer utilities have been approved,
and the County Public Works Director has issued a certificate of
completion, certifying that all required improvements have been
constructed and are approved.
Therefore, the terms of the construction contract and Assumption
Agreement, and the terms of the Cash Deposit and Trust Agreement
have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
--^:.Staff. recommends that the Board of County Commissioners, in
accordance with the trust agreement, authorize the trustees. to
disburse the $503,191.24 held in the trust account to the
"-'bwnerrdeveloper or his designee by adopting the attached:-.:=
resolution. Funding to be from the Seagrove West subdivision'
---trust account.
The OMB Director pointed out that the release of these funds
needs to be authorized by the adoption of a Resolution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
4
1
� � w
adopted Resolution 85-87 authorizing the trustees
to disburse the $503,191.24 held in the trust
account to the owner/developer of Seagrove West
Subdivision or his designee.
RESOLUTION 85- 87
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS HELD UNDER
THE TERMS OF A TRUST AGREEMENT BETWEEN HARBOR FEDERAL SAVINGS
AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, AND HARBOR FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION.
WHEREAS, Indian River County (County), with the Chairman of
the Indian River County Commission and the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget (Trustees), Harbor Federal
Savings and Loan Association (Developer), and Harbor Federal
Savings and Loan Association (Bank), have entered into a cash
deposit and trust agreement; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, Developer has
made a written request for disbursement of funds held by the
Bank to guarantee construction of required improvements, and has
submitted an engineer's certification of the completed work,
release of lien statements from project contractors, and
certification from the City of Vero Beach that required
utilities have been constructed and approved; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, the Public
Works Director has caused an inspection of the improvements and
has issued a certificate of completion, and recommends a
disbursement of all funds held by the Bank in the trust account.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
Trustees shall make a disbursement of funds
in the amount of $503,191.24 from the trust
account held by Bank to Developer or to any
third party or parties upon which Developer
may otherwise agree.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Wodtke , and upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereugltnh declared hetemvolution duly passed
and adopted this day of p ,1985.
Attest:
SEP 111985
BOARD
OF IX
FREDA WRIGHT,er�„� n
STATE OF FLORIDA �" �I J
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
5
COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOOK b? PAUE 00
rEP 1 �98� �
S 1 BOOK PAGE
D. Release Portion_ of Funds Held for Improvements_- Old Sugar
Mill Estates Unit III
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Stan Boling:
TO: Board of County DATE: August 30, 1985 FILE:
Commissioners _
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator SUBJECT: RELEASE OF A PORTION
OF ESCROWED FUNDS HELD
DIVISION HEAD ONCURRENCE: FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN
! OLD SUGAR MILL
c. ESTATES UNIT THREE
Jim Da.- s, Public Works Director SUBDIVISION
FROM:stan Boling REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of September 11, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Beindorf and Associates, Inc., the authorized Old Sugar Mill
Estates Unit Three subdivision developer, is requesting release
of a portion of the funds held to guarantee the construction of
required subdivision improvements. A total of $115,000.00 is
being held by First Bankers of Indian River County as part of a
three -party cash deposit and escrow agreement between the
developer, the County and the bank.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The project engineer has certified that all work has been
completed in accordance with the construction contract and
escrow agreement. The Public Works Director has inspected the
improvements and stated that all required work is complete. At
this time, the developer is requesting that $90,000.00 be
released. The remaining $25,000.00 is to be retained until the
developer posts a 1 year maintenance bond to cover the road and
drainage improvements which are to be accepted by the County.
Upon receipt of a maintenance bond, the Public Works Director
will issue a certificate of completion, officially accepting the
improvements for the County, and the developer will request
release of the remaining $25,000.00
The release of $90,000.00 at this time is in accordance with the
construction contract and escrow agreement.
-RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that *the Board of County Commissioners
authorize the release of $90,000.00 from the Old Sugar Mill:-*
Estates Unit Three escrow account by adopting the attached
resolution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
� � r
SEP 111955
adopted Resolution 85-88 authorizing the re-
lease of $90,000 from the Old Sugar Mill
Estates Unit Three escrow account.
RESOLUTION 85-88
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF A PORTION OF THE
FUNDS HELD UNDER THE TERMS OF AN ESCROW AGREEMENT BETWEEN
BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC., THE FIRST BANKERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO GUARANTEE THE CONSTRUCTION OF
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS IN OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES UNIT THREE
SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, Indian River County (County), Beindorf and
Associates, Inc. (developer), and THE FIRST BANKERS of Indian
River County (Bank) have entered into a cash deposit and escrow
agreement; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, the Developer
has made a written request for disbursement of funds held to
guarantee required improvements, and has submitted an engineer's
certification that all required improvements have been
constructed and are complete; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, the Public
Works Director has caused an inspection of the required
improvements and is satisfied that all required improvements
have been completed, and recommends a disbursement of a certain
portion of the funds held in escrow by the Bank.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
Funds from the escrow account in the amount of $90,000.00
be disbursed by Bank to Developer or to any third party or
parties upon which Bank and Developer may agree. Funds in
the amount of $25,000.00 shall remain in the escrow account
under the terms of the existing agreement and until a
maintenance bond is submitted pursuant to section 8(b) of
the subdivision and platting ordinance.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Wndtk, , and upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thert�pon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this ?M day of September ,1985.
BOARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF I RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
.ATRICK B. LYON
r I
v / CHAIRMAN
Attest:
FREDA WRIGHT, C/Le�p� Q L�IJ
STATE OF FLORIDA C-1 - e
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
% ..77
PAGE
BOOK 7
-I
SEP 111985 9009( 62 PACE 0
E. Change Order #1 -SR 60 Wastewater (Coastline Utilities)
The Board reviewed memo of Assistant Utilities Director
Baird:
TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE:
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT SUBJECT:
DIRECTOR, UTILITES
FROM:
JOSEPH A. BAIRD
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UTILITIES
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION^
AUGUST 2^, ' 9,5
CHANGE ORDER #1 ON ROUTE
60 WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
The Contractor on the Route 60 Wastewater Improvements, Coastline
Utilities, has submitted the first change order on the Project.
Change order #1 is for the deletion of gravity sanitary sewer,
the installation of an additional Route 60 casing crossing and
installation of magnetic marking tape. The net effect will be a
reduction of $14,146.70 on the overall contract price.
Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, Inc., consulting engineers for the
Route 60 sewer project has reviewed the change order and concur
with the request.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve Change Order #1 for the Route 60 Wastewater
Improvement Contract.
2. Disapprove Change Order #1 for the Route 60 Wastewater
Improvement Contract.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the Honorable Board of County Commissioners
approve Coastline Utilities request for Change Order #1 on this
contract with Indian River County. .
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order #1, Route 60 Wastewater
Improvements - Coastline Utilities.
8
No. ...1.....
CHANGE ORDER
Dated .. Ampot. 9.. 1985
2130-2
OWNEWs Project No.....
U84-2............... ENGINEER's Project No. .......................
project , , State Road 60 , Wastewi tex,;1npxvveMpUtS.. .
ILI
CONTRACTOR .....CaaatUrte Jrm.lNage.L Qpjistruptip1i. Cprp....................
Contract For . Andian .Rivez-Cciun.t y........... Contract Date .... July.. 2P.. 1965 ............
TO: .,, Mr..Frank Monte,. President, Coastline Utilities,.Inc.
................•....._
. ... . . . . .... .. .................. ....
CONTRACTOR
'You are directed to make the changes noted below in the subject Contract:
Indian fiver County
t•
t:ic•::,. -. "': "°— ... .. ....... OWNER ................ .
�S• .�J'.i .. Ali ...iii .. .- � p
Septembe 8.5
at
.... .. ......:... . 19. ... .
Nature of the Changes Delete manholes 13 and 14 plus gravity mainline between manholes
12 to 13 and 13 to 14 as per Exhibit No. 1
Install casing crossing and stub -out at station 152+90 sheets 1 and 2 of
Exhibit No. 2.
Install 38,990 ft. of 2" magnetic marking tape over P.V.C. force main
Enclosures:
Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
These changes result in the following adjustment of Contract Price and Contract Time:
Contract Price Prior to This Change Order
Net (1nareo4 (Decrease) Resulting from this Change Order
Current Contract Price Including This Change Order
NSPE-ACEC 19108-11(1978 Edition)
O 1978. National Society of
Profusiond Engirteen
9
$ ,1J330r377:00....._..:.
S ....14,146:70..........
$............
SEP 111985 BOOK PA)E (09
SEP 11 .1995
BOOK L2 PACE -10
Contract Time Prior to This Change Order ......................180........ ... ... ........ .
(Days or Date)
Net (Increase) (Decrease) Resulting from This Change Order ....................... .................. .
(Days)
Current Contract Time Including This Change Order ...............180......... ............ .
(Dayyss or Date)
)
The Above Changes Are Approved: ....Williams, liatfiel( & ,S.t.wr.,, J c.... .
_ ��������ENG PEER
By... ............
Date .. WA��-
.4? S ...(....... . 19.5J.
The Above Changes Are Accepted: .CQaRtUne. UL:iJ-t.tJ-es./Nagel. Construction.
CONTRACTOR
By.....................................
Date............................ .19.....
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY !
S.R. 60 WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
A. Deletions of existing quantities in current contract.
Bid Deleted Unit
Item Item Units Cost
1) Delete M.H. No. 13 7A 1 $925
7B 6 $110
7C 7.06 $110
$925
$110
$110
2) Delete M.H. No. 14
3) Delete M.H. run between
Manholes 12 to 13
4) Delete M.H. run between
Manholes 13 to 14
7A
7B
7C
6D
6A
6B
6C
1
6
2.26
50
$56
35 $84
15 $86
225 $54
TOTAL DELETIONS
B. Addition of casing crossing and stub—out at station no. 152+90.
TOTAL ADDITION a
C. Addition of 2" magnetic marking tape over P.V.C. force main.
38,990 ft. x $0.15/ft.
TOTAL ADDITION =
TOTAL CONTRACT CHANGE =
10
Deleted
Cos t
$ 925.00
$ 660.00
$ 776.60
$ 925.00
$ 660.00
$ 248.60
$ 2,800.00
$ 2,940.00
$ 1,290.00
$13,770.00
$24,995.20
$ 5,000.00
$ 5,848.50
H $14,146.70
_I
F. Change Order #2 - SR 60 Wastewater (Coastline Utilities)
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, ?.995
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO, D SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER #2 ON
UTILITY SERVICES ROUTE 60 WASTEWATER
IMPROVEMENTS
FROM: JOSEPH A. BAIRD, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVICES
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION -
The Contractor on the Route 60 Wastewater Improvements, Coastline
Utilities, has submitted Change Order #2 on the project. Change
Order #2 is for the addition and deletion of force main segments,
the deletion of a canal culvert crossing and the raising of gravity
sewers. The net effect will be a reduction of $42,816.25 on the
overall contract price.
Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, Inc., consulting engineers for the
Route 60 sewer project has reviewed the change order and they concur
with the request.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve Change Order #2 for the Route 60 Wastewater
Improvements Contract.
2. Disapprove Change Order #2 for the Route 60 Wastewater
Improvements Contract.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve
Coastline Utilities request for Change Order #2 on this contract
with Indian River County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order #2, Route 60 Wastewater
Improvements — Coastline Utilities.
11
SEP 111985
BOOK phij
SEP 111985 BOOK '69 F,�GF
s
No. .........
CHANGE ORDER
Dated ..8-27-85 , , , , ,
OWNER's Project No. ...1144-2 ............... ENGINEER'S Project No. ....2130-2 .............
Project.. State .RQad.60 Wastewater Improvements,,
CONTRACTOR ..Qgastzline,Utilities Inc./Nagel Construction, Inc.
Contract For ..Jr)4J4q .RJYq'; .94urItY .......... Contract Dau July .28, 1985 ,,, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
To: .Mr.Frank Monte, President, Coastline Utilities: Inc: ....
CONTRACTOR
You are directed to make the changes noted below in the subject Contract:
Indian River County
! ' `WW. ... .......OWNER..... .....
Approved as to forrn
and Ie�al sufficiency
Y...........
By 85
Ctt.rle> P. \'iiUrtac Dated September, ......... 19........
County Atto:aev
Nature of the Changes — Additions and deletions to force main segments
— Delete canal culvert crossing
— Raise gravity sewers
Enclosures: Exhibit 1
These changes result in the following adjustment of Contract Price and Contract Time:
Contract Price Prior to This Change Order S . 1...316.,3.7.7..1313..........
Net QWW (Decrease) Resulting from this Change Order S .... 42:..816.•,25......... .
Current Contract Price Including This Change Order $ , .%,.2;73 ,,414.05, , , , , , , , , ,
Contract Time Prior to This Change Order ................ . 180_ . , ........ • .
.......... .
(Days or Date)
NetY*KHW1URKVjgW Resulting from This Change Order ........ ............... ............. .
(Days)
Current Contract Time including This Change Order ......... , 1.8.0 ...................................
(Days or Date)
The Above Changes Are Approved•Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, Inc.
ENGINE
By ... ... 0....y.. ... .
Date .... d .-...... �......... , 19. 8s. .
The Above Changes Are Accepted:
Coastline_Uti W!Bs/Nagal Construction
CONTRACTOR
ay •! ..��"''li lir/ rn'............. .
Date ........ .......19.85. .
12
77
EXHIBIT 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - S.R. 60 WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
CHANGE ORDER WORK
I. Raise 10" gravity main along
Poinciana Ave. 3.7 feet.
a. Delete 410 ft. @ 12-16 ft.
cut. Item 6(C) A $54.00/ft.
b. Delete 946 ft. @ 16-20 ft.
cut. Item 6(D) @ $56.00/ft.
c. Add 1,356 ft. @ 12-16 ft.
cut. Item 6(C) @ $54.00/ft.
II. Raise 10" gravity mains along
Tract 9, 30 ft. utility easement
by 4.0 ft.
a. Delete 624 ft. @ 16-20 ft.
cut. Item 6(D) @ $56.00/ft.
b. Add 624 ft. @ $ 12-16 ft.
cut. Item 6(C) @ $54.00/ft.-'
III. Raise manholes 11 and 12 by 4.0 ft.
a. Delete 8 ft. @ over 12 ft.
cut. Item 7(C) @ $110.00/ft.
IV. Raise manhole 6, 7, 8 & 9 by 3.7 ft.
a. Delete 14.8 ft. @ over 12 ft. cut.
Item 7(C) @ $110.00/ft.
V. Raise manhole no. 10 by 4 ft.
VI. Raise Pump station 11 by 4 ft.
VII. Delete 3,975 ft. of 8" force main
from station 0+00 to 39+25 at stub -out.
Item 2(B) @ $14.45/ft.
VIII. Add 2,555 ft. of 12" force main on
treatment plant site.
Item 2(D) @ $17.10/ft.
IX. Delete canal crossing at 8th Street
as shown on plans sheet 14.
Item 5(H) @ $21,420.00
R. Add 16" s 12" polylined reducer
XI. Delete one, 6 -inch plug valve.
Item 4(A) @ $560.00
XII. Delete one, 8 -inch plug valve.
Item 4(B) @ $850.00
XIII. Add one 12 -inch plug valve.
Item 4(D) @ $1,810.00
XIV. Delete one Air Release Valve
XV. (lunge DIP restrained joint
specification from TR -flea to
mechanical joint w/retainer gland.
However, all conflict'crossings with
less than seven feet of cover shall be
deflected under conflict using DIP. Plan
detail for these shallow conflict
crossings shall not be applicable.
SUBTOTALS
TOTAL CONTRACT DEDUCT e
L_SEP 111985
13
DELETE
$22,140.00
$52,976.00
$34,944.00
$880.00
$1,628.00
ADD
$73,224.00
$33,696.00
No change - Included in P.S.
11 - Lump Sum.
$ 500.00
$57,438.75
$21,420.00
$ 560.00
$ 850.00
$ 2,500.00
No change
$195,836.75
$ 42,816.25
$43,690.50
$ 600.00
$ 1,810.00
$153,020.50
6� A j, C1
BOOK ,, •FAGE
Fr -
SEP 111985
Boar ? F ~ a 11
G. Change Order #4 - SR 60 Water - (Caldwell Tanks)
The Board reviewed memo of the Assistant Utilities Director:
TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: AUGUST 30, 17%,
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER #4 FOR
DIRECTOR, UTILITI l i CONTRACT ON ROUTE 60
WATER PROJECT
FROM:
JOSEPH A.'BAIRD
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UTILITIES
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Change Order #4 for Contract 1 (Caldwell Tanks, Inc.) on the
Route 60 water line is to finalize the project. The change order
brought the final contract amount into conformance with the
project's measured as -built quantities. The overall effect is an
increase of $940.00 on the total contract price.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve Change Order #4 for Contract #1 (Caldwell Tanks,
Inc.) on Route 60 water line project will be a $940.00
increase on the total contract price.
2. Disapprove Change Order #4 for Contract #1 (Caldwell Tanks,
Inc.) on Route 60 water line project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Honorable Board of County Commissioners
approve Change Order #4 for Contract #1 (Caldwell Tanks, Inc.)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order #4, Route 60 Water Project,
(Caldwell Tanks).
14
uNt rLD STAT : DFPAfi i'MF"` , dr AGRICULTURE. rvrr+v► trrr•rrvvto v'ae NO. 057-1•0042
t or:n i :;MA 4.4-7 � (,I,%R.%IFRS
110M ADMINISTRATION H0EA "o.iF al
(hey r i f �u1
14
(Contract fl)
CONTRACT CIGINGE 016DEK DATE
AUGUST 15. 1985
STATE
FLORIDA
cati A,Z Few COUNTY
Indian River County Water Project U84--1/Contract 1 INDIAN RIVER
Owats►• .....
Indian River Country_
r� .. Caldwell Tanks, Ina �__ ..:.::.. ................_......._.._... _......__....___.._..__-_. _..�..__U 3 1985
(t: ono»:tor)
Yu;..err here :.t Mqut-,ted to comply -Aith the following changes from ti,e contract plans and specifications:
f)esrciption of Changes DECREASE INCREASE
i>,.n.e:.•w ental Plans curd SQecifications Attached) in Contract Price in Contract Price
1.Additional 231 of waterf main 231 @ $80/LF S
over bid amomt
2. Delete paving at entrance of access road 900,00
$ 1,840.00
TOTALS S1 840.00
._.900.00.........___._ ........._! _
NFT CiIAN(;F IN CONTRACT PRICE S .._.. .... ... ... ... .... _..._.. 940.110
To bring contract amount in confo=ante with As built quantities.
1 nv a :..:....t .,t the Contract will be ( (increased) By The Sum Of: Nuie hundred forty dollars
` DolIars. (s 940.00
l': a i.».tcatt Total Including this and previous Change Orders will Be:.a,�tMn lumdrd thityfitm_i-h mi-sa d
one hundred �..
• ppprovcd as to form
I ::. C.,:.it...t LJ Provided fat Completion Will Be -, ,_ --_ M__ 4 (Un nged)zlll aL,,ca1 sufficiency Day
:ties .: •na. V.111 r sI ent to the contract and all provisions will a y herei�y
j1w .•'� Ginariz�� itunac
(OerrrerJ ; .{i�wle)!"rJ''•:j`''?:i ts•. t
(Uwn�r'a A rehrraet/ fEnarn eer) • (Dote)
J Rl15IRS
-
G.Alton Duncan..Vice Pres—C?pns. &Engrg_ tcon+..ero.r (Dote)
;i : t....f is% i 1+.tiA
(Same and Title)
,.• •,,. • e:•,,,, w.q t:e usbd as tw and of any Number copies required: 4 No further montes or otnar benefits may be paid out under this
�, i•., t' a asr.y� es cJ�sstra.::ean contract, program unless this report Is completed and flied as r"ulr••d by
Time to complete: 30 min. existing law and regulations (r C.F.R. Part 1924).
i. a �;K, t,otti»tCe)+t5:o !'o.ttrrl►r is 1'mIIA 424-7 (Rev. 6-11-80) '
�p
15BOOK FADE 1
SEP 111985
S E P 111985
H. Bid #247 Refuse Container Truck
BOOK ,FSG€ 1
The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Aug. 29, 1985 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #247 -One (1) New
County Administrator 1985 or 1986 Refuse Container
Truck
FROM: a EFERENCES:
Carolyn Go rich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received August 23, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #247 -One
(1) New 1985 or 1986 Refuse Container Truck for the Refuse Department.
20 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 18 Bid Proposals returned,
2 were "No Bids".
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by Transtat Equipment, Orlando, F1., in the
amount of $64,094.00. The vehicle is a Ford LT9000 (same as the 2 cab -
chassis purchased in FY84-85 for the Refuse Department) with a Galbreath
1.15-011-194 hoist. The bid meets all specifications.
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #247 be awarded to the low bidder, Transtat
Equipment Orlando, F1. _
There is $70,000.00 budgeted for FY85-86 in Account #001-209-534-66.42.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #247 for one new Ford LT9000 Refuse
Container Truck to the low bidder Transtat
Equipment, Orlando, Fla., in the amount of
$64,094.00 per the following bid tabulation:
16
w'�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street y • I�
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION Qy"{br -I
BID NO. DATE OF OPEN NG `'� �j o? `' ¢, c�Q' �a �• ^
Clk-
IRC BID #247 Aug. 23, 198 o c �.� oma. a ° � � 4 AZ
CIO
BID TITHE One �1 i New 19895 or 1986 s�' Q� �° .� F •� o
Refuse Con a ner Truc 3'
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT
1. One (1).'New 1985 or 1986 Refuse
Container Truck 1 Each NB I NB 167229 00 15399 00 68839 81 54200 00 69320 00 70332 00
hoist cab-
onl chassis
2. Das required for delivery after
receipt . of Purchase Order onl
Days 120 30-45 120 • 105 �-
Ford
690SI I 690S
Galbre th E -Z L ft Tri -Pik G& H
LO
U5 -OR- U5-011- G50-0 - 00
HC -5#1500 M
174 174 17.4
CL
W
0
0
m
LV
Cn
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach. Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
-o v
¢, t°'4.
a
F v
'°
ate'`'
� , •
�o ``' �v°
•�' ,� o ,� o ,c 3"
v 4 � x, c +�+ `Q o
�� �° `�°'° ° s
~�'`' Q' �' `'m`tr
v
� � �
A�
m" co cy r°
�� fF zQ z
~ o r o
BID NO.D�4TE
IRC BID #247
OF OP N NG
Aug. 23, 18�
BID TITLE One J1I New 1985 or 1986
_efuse -Con a ner Truc
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT
1. One 1 New 1985 or 1986 Refuse
Container Truck 1 Each
68261
00
66397
00
70388
00
69839 00
69694 00
64467
06
64403
00
64094
00
2. Das required for delivery after
recei t•of Purchase Order
Days
120
90 130-15 120-150 120
90-1 0
150-180
9071 0
Peterb It
White lPeterbilt Ford Mack
Ford lFord
I
Ford
WCS64 359 LT9000 RD
LT900
LT900
LT900
Hesco E -Z -L ft . E -Z E -Z E -Z E -Z
Qalbmatf
Galbrpatfi
Tom
TTG50-0 - Pack Pack Pack Pack
U5 -0R
U5-oFL
174 RTF -8 RTF -8 RTF-8RTF- 0
194
194
1
1
00
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
C F
�-•
BID NO.
IRC BID #247
DATEOF OPEN�1 G
Aug. 23, 1985
BID TITLE One �1 New 19855 or 1986
Refuse Con a ner Truc
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
1. One 1 New 1985 or 1986 Refuse
Container Truck 1 Each
65312
00
68840
00
2. Days required for delivery after
receipt of Purchase Order
Days
150-180
120
Ford
Mack
E -Z
Galbr
ath
Pack
Q5-011-
5-ORRTF
RTF8
194
I. Budget Amendment Request - Sheriff
The Board reviewed letter from Sheriff Dobeck, as follows:
19
SEP 111985'BOOK '� � PAGE ��
SEP 111985
heriff
P. O*BOX 608
PHONE 569-6700
August 29, 1985
ti��,v SEP •�6'�
o y�5 cs�
ftZCZ1 D cn
RD C
.,V"
Ho' ..-b -le -Pat Lyons, Chairman
Board- of County Commissioners
Indian River County
2815 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Pat:
BOOK
R.T."TIM" DOBECK - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32961
As in the past, we are returning money to the Board that has been
collected for special duty overtime. This.money has been earned for
time worked by uniform personnel for outside organizations, school
functions and special traffic details. We have paid $10.00 for each
hour worked out of our budgeted funds.
This year we are requesting the Board to return to us the $8,860.55,
the amount remitted from October 1, 1984 through July 9, 1985. We
are making this request due to unexpected expenditures, i.e., termi-
nations and insurance costs.
Sincerely,
s.
R. T. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff
Indian River County
The OMB Director reported that this would increase Account
001-000-341.52.00 (Fees Collected by Sheriff) and also increase
Account 001-600-586-99.04 (Budget Trans. - Sheriff).
Commissioner Wodtke asked if that outside money goes in and
out in salaries with all fringe benefits added.
OMB Director Barton stated that is what the outsiders are
paying the Sheriff to have his deputies at these functions, and
then he pays the deputies.
20
i
-1
Commissioner Scurlock wondered if by offering that service
to private events, we are getting involved with overtime as he
felt we need to be cautious about this.
Commissioner Wodtke believed if the deputies do this on
their time off and provide security and are paid for it, that is
fine, but if that money comes in and we have to pay retirement,
fringes, etc., possibly they are only getting $6.00 or so out of
the $10.00. With the Garcia decision on overtime, it could end
up being time and a half. He felt the Administrator should check
into this.
Discussion continued as to whether this would represent
overtime pay.
a
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, it was unanimously agreed
to table the above item until the Administrator
can check into it and bring back further information.
J. Release of Assessment Lien SR-60—Water (Tamara Gardens)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved Release of Assessment Lien for one
ERU SR 60 Water to Tamara Gardens Condominium,
Unit 2B Phase I, and authorized the signature
of the Chairman.
21
SEP 11 1995 BOOK L, PAGE �
SEP 111985
BOOK- PAGE
State Road 60 Water Project
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
For and in consideration of the sum of $970.45
RECEIVED from LEONARD J. HATALA and CONSTANCE C. HATALA,
his wife, in hand this day paid, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, (the "County") hereby
releases the property hereinafter described from a certain special
assessment lien recorded by the County in its Official Records, Book
0691, Page 0077, for a special assessment in the amount of $970.45,
plus accrued interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum,
levied in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 83-46 of
the County, as amended, and Resolution No. 84-47 of the Board of
County Commissioners of the County; and hereby declares such special
assessment lien fully satisfied. The property, located in Indian
River County, is more fully described as follows:
Condominium Unit 2-B of TAMARA GARDENS CONDOMINIUM,
Phase I, according to the Declaration of Condominium,
recorded in O. R. Book 667, Page 1183, of Indian
River County records, as amended.
Executed by the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested and
counte,rsig,ned by the Clerk of such Board, all as of this 11th day
1'II ,//!",,
September;,, 1985.
Attested and countersigned: BOARD O OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAI ER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Freda 'W,right,,,�Cl k B .......E �t
Phairman
ick B. Lyo s,
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
l
CHARLES P. VITUNAC,
County Attorney
22
K. Release of Assessment Lien SR 60 Water (Vista Plantation)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved Release of Assessment Lien for 24
ERUs SR 60 Water, for Building 12, Vista Plan-
tation, and authorized the signature of the
Chairman.
State Road 60 Water Project ';
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
For and in consideration of the sum of $11,645.40,
plus interest and costs, RECEIVED from VISTA PROPERTIES OF VERO
BEACIi, INC., in hand this day paid, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, (the
"County") hereby releases the property hereinafter described from a
certain special assessment lien recorded by the County in its
Official Records, Book 0691, Page 0077, for a special assessment in
the amount of $970.45 per equivalent residential unit reserved,
plus accrued interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum,
levied in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 83-46 of
the County, as amended, and Resolution No. 84-47 of the Board of
County Commissioners of the County; and hereby declares such
special assessment lien fully satisfied. The property, located in
Indian River County, is more fully described as follows:
Building No. 12 of VISTA PLANTATION,
according to the Declaration of Condominium,
recorded in 0. R. Book 699, Page 1817,
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
Executed by the
Chairman
of the
Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River
County,
Florida,
and attested and
countersigned by- the Clerk of
such Board, all as
of this 11th day
September....,. 1985.
Attested 'and :countersigned:
BOARD
BOXY
OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
`
,(] ;
INDI
FLORIDA
Freda Wright,.•' CI rk
B
PA
trick B.
Lyo s,
23
hairman
BOOK PAGE kF.
Fr—
SEP 111985
L. Award Bid - Gifford Park Picnic Shelter
The Board reviewed memo of Civil Engineer Boone, as follows:
TO: DATE: FILE:
The Honorable Members of the September 9, 1985
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: SUBJECT:
Michael Wright, GIFFORD PARK PICNIC SHELTER
County Administrator ATnIARD OF BID - PROTECT N0. 8535
James W. Davis, P. .,
Public Works Director
FROM'
ffrey A. Boone, /� REFERENCES:
Civil Engineer
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Public Works Division has prepared the Contract Documents and Specifi-
cations for the material supply for the 16' x 28' Gifford Park Picnic Shelter.
Advertisement for Bids were published on Tuesday, August 27, and Wednesday
August 28, 1985 in the Vero Beach Press -Journal. Bids were received until.
2:00 Fan, Friday, September 6, 1985 when they were opened publicly with Carolyn
Goodrich, Jim _Davis, Tcamny Thomas and myself present. Low Bidder for the Base
Bid, to supply all materials and engineering plans for the structure, was the
Hunter-Knepshield Company of 8101 Warwick Avenue, Louisville, Ky 40222 in the
amount of $4948.
ANALYSIS
The Public Works Division has reviewed all bids and will administer the
awarded contract.
Since the Contract, to supply the materials and engineered plans within twenty
(20) days, must be complete on or before October 1, 1985 to meet the time
constraints established by the. Parks Department, we recommend that the bid be
awarded to the Hunter Knepshield Ccmpany in the amount of $4948. The Public
Works Division will inmiediately issue a notice to proceed upon award of the
bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
awarded the Bid for the Gifford Park lPicnic
Shelter to the low bidder Hunter-Knepshield
Company in the amount of $4,948 as recommended
by staff and per the following bid tabulation:
(SAID .CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE)
24
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
�•
� >
J
BID NO.
DATE OF OPENING
Sept,6 985
BID TITLE Gifford Park Picnic Shelter
ITEM DESCRIPTION
NO.
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRI
1. Furnish deliver 8 unload within
20 days one (1) 16 x 28 picnic s
sbelter.33
�o?�
O a
-0
Y7o a
a o
41VVJPo
r,
9- Film i sh within
drawings, etc.
'D
0 _D
.90 0
0 0
0
Bid 'Bond
./
✓
TOTAL
IV ?J_
00
S3
v
76o
d -o
604
b0
ALTERNATE
Furnish deliver 6 unload within
60 days one 1 16 x 28 picnic
Gam
Do
D50;z
a.
`✓90�
Dv
S«�
o a
Furnish within 60 days nn=letp
drawings,. etc.
3S�
4
200
00
— O
Soo
0o
Bid Bond
TOTAL
Da
a7,S
O D
D0
0-0
I
T
- I
I
-
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING SORENSEN/BRADSHAVV/BECKER TO C -1A
The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
25
SEP 111985
BOOK t PAGE
J
SEP 111985
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-
-01n Zoo
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
N&L��� 1995
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. I
Sworn to and subscribefor M thin day omega!` ��l.D. 19 O 5
(SEAL)
Manager)
N./ i�'4L_1 " -
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
BOOK PAGE
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
County ordinance rezoning land from: RM -6.
lultiple-Family Residential District to CAA. Re
Iricted Commercial District. The subject prop
-
rty is presently owned by Charles J. Bradshaw,
I. William Becker, and J. Dale Sorensen and is
)cated south of State Road 60 and west of 74th
,venue (Range Line Road).
The subject property is described as:
A parcel in the East 25.61 acres of Tract
9, Section 1,'Township 33 South, Rango
38 East, according to the last general
plat of the Indian River Farms Company
'as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25,
Public Records of St Lucie County, Flor-
ida, now Indian River County, Florida;
more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the,
South right-of-way for State Road No. 60
'including the adjacent drainage ease-
ment) and the West right-of-way of 74th
Avenue run South along said West right-
of-way 361.5 feet; thence run West, par-
allel with the right-of-way of State Road
No. 60 361.5 feet; thence run North par-
allel with aforesaid 74th Avenue right-of-
way; thence run East along said right of
way, 361.5 feet to the Point of Beginning.
All the above situate in Indian River
County, . Florida and containing 3.00
acres, more or less.
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 Commision Chambers of the County Ad-
ministration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, Sep-
tember 11, 1985, at 9:10 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 the testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons,
Chairman
Aug. 22; Sept. 3, 1985.
Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the following staff
presentation:
26
1
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 27, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SORENSEN/BRADSHAW/BECKER
SUBJECT: FROM ERMST REZONE 3 ACRES
-6O MULTIPLE -FAMILY
sem
Robert M. Keat' g, ICP RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO
Planning & Development Director C-lA, RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT
FROMiihard Shearer, AICD REFERENCES: ZC-141 BCC Memo/Caldwell
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 September 11, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
William Caldwell, an agent ,for J. Dale Sorenson, Charles J.
Bradshaw, and R. William Becker, the owners, is requesting to
rezone 3 acres located south of State Road 60 and west of 74th
Avenue (Range Line Road) from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre) to C -1A; Restricted Commercial
District.
The applicants are requesting that this property be designated as
a neighborhood commercial node.
On June 5, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which established criteria
for the establishment of neighborhood commercial nodes. On June
12, 1985, the Board rezoned three acres located at the northwest
corner...of :State Road 60 and 74th Avenue (immediately north of the
subject -property) from RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential Dis-
trict, to C -1A, Restricted Commercial District. Before approving
the rezoning, the Board determined that they would review all
neighborhood node applications received prior to June 5, 1985,
under the neighborhood node criteria contained in the Comprehen-
sive Plan prior to the amendment adopted on June 5, 1985. That
criteria provides for the establishment of neighborhood commer-
cial nodes of 2 -to -8.. acres in size to supplement the general
commercial nodes. However, these nodes were not to contribute to
strip commercial development which would be contrary to the
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
Since the Sorenson/Bradshaw/Becker request was submitted on May
28, 1985, it was reviewed under the provisions of the neighbor-
hood node criteria originally included within the comprehensive
plan. On June 27, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property and the land south and west of it is cur-
rently being.used as pasture land. The land north of the subject
27
SEP 111985 BOOK PAGE"
I
r
h l)
BOOS
property, across State Road 60, is zoned RM -8 and is being
developed for a Total Care Center with a 3 -acre neighborhood
commercial node zoned C-lA. Northeast of the subject property is
Village Green East zoned RMH-8, Mobile Home Residential District,
and C-1, Commercial District. East of the subject property,
across 74th Avenue, is a citrus grove zoned A, Agricultural
District.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of
the land around it (except for the land to the east) as MD -1,
Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre. The land east
of the subject property is designated as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre).
The Board of County Commissioners has indicated that they will
review this request based on the neighborhood node criteria in
effect when the application was received by the County. However,
the Board established a neighborhood commercial node on the
northwest corner of State Road 60 and 74th Avenue on June 12,
1985, and the County's previous policy had been "first come,
first served". Moreover, because this proposed neighborhood
commercial node is less than three-quarters of a mile from the
east boundary of the State Road 60 and I-95 commercial/industrial
node, located at 80th Avenue, and is only 200 feet from the
neighborhood commercial node on the north side of State Road 60,
establishing another neighborhood commercial node at this inter-
section would encourage further strip commercial development
along State Road 60. If the demand for commercial land at this
intersection exceeds the amount available in the three acre
neighborhood node, then the better alternative would be for the
applicant to petition the County to amend the Comprehensive Plan
to establish a general commercial node at this intersection.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to State Road 60 (clas---
sified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan) and to
74th Avenue (classified as a secondary collector street). The
maximum development of the subject property under the requested
C-lA zoning could attract up to 5,694 average annual daily trips.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally'sensi-
tive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities,
A County watermain is in place along State Road 60. The County
has plans to provide wastewater service to this area in the near
future.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this
rezoning request because they reviewed it under the Comprehensive
Plan provisions for neighborhood nodes in effect when the appli-
cation was submitted. Those provisions allowed neighborhood
nodes up to eight acres in size. While the Planning and Zoning
Commission felt that the subject property could be included with
the property to the north as a neighborhood node, staff feels
that granting this request would encourage further strip commer-
cial development along State Road 60. For this reason, staff
recommends -that this request be denied.
28
r
M
Commissioner Scurlock wondered what effect the proposed
rezoning would have on 74th Avenue, which currently is a
substantial traffic problem. It is a primary access to roads to
the south and west, and it is frequented by large citrus trucks.
Chairman Lyons further pointed out that Walker Avenue, which
has access to Village Green, connects with 74th Avenue, and we
are going to have Indian River Estates with 350 units right next
to it. He agreed that we are lining up for some kind of a
traffic problem, and felt possibly the entrance to the Estates
should be changed.
Planning Director Keating believed that Indian River Estates
access will be off 74th Avenue, but noted that they are
dedicating a substantial amount of right-of-way; they will move
it so it lines up north and south and will pave it north of SR
60.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we will have to consider this
request the same as we did across the street even though the
rules have changed in the meantime, but even so, he felt we must
consider all these factors. He asked if this is the last
request for a neighborhood node under the old rules and was
assured that it was.
Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern about the truck
traffic on Ranch Road.
The Chairman asked if we are going to assign this traffic
problem to the Transportation Planning Committee or staff, and
Commissioner Scurlock believed staff will make an analysis to
the TPC and then it will come back to the Commission.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney William Caldwell came before the Board representing
the applicant and noted that on June 5th, the Commission adopted
the new neighborhood node standards, at which time two petitions
were already in. In those discussions, he believed it was con-
cluded that the 2-8 acre node was something that could take place
on the four corners of an intersection and that the word
29
BOOK ��FALE �7
SEP ,, ,
LZ1 � 195
SES 1 195
BOOK i PAGE P�!
"contiguous" in the new provisions wouldn't apply to the old
standards. The week following the adoption of the new standards,
the Board approved a node based on the old standards for ACTS.
and ACTS reduced their request to three acres. Based on this,
the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval
of his clients request for rezoning three acres to C -1A. Attor-
ney Caldwell contended that based on the old standards, they are
part of a neighborhood node, and if granted it would be six
acres. He believed in previous discussions it has been noted
that SR 60 is not the typical neighborhood node situation, which
generally occurs on secondary roads as opposed to main arterials.
He then asked if the C -1A zoning category is still on the books,
and Planner Shearer stated that it is, but it will be changed.
Question arose as to what new category is most comparable to
C -1A, and Director Keating believed it probably would be CN,
which was particularly established for neighborhood nodes.
After further discussion re categories, Attorney Caldwell
stated that he would like to stay with C -1A at this time.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 85-76 rezoning
the said 3 acres from RM -6 to C -1A as requested.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that he voted against the Motion
for the ACTS node, but it was approved based on the old criteria.
To be consistent he would like to vote against this Motion also,
but in fairness, he felt this should be allowed.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
30
ORDINANCE NO. 85- 76
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
County, Florida, to -wit:
A parcel in the East 25.61 acres of Tract 9, Section
1, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, according to the
last general plat of the Indian River Farms Company
as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25, Public Records
of St. Lucie County, Florida, now Indian River
County, Florida, more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the South right-of-
way for State Road No. 60 (including the adjacent
drainage easement) and the West right-of-way of 74th
Avenue run South along said West right-of-way 361.5
feet; thence run West, parallel with the right-of-way
of State Road No. 60 361.5 feet; thence run North
parallel with aforesaid 74th Avenue right-of-way,
361.5 feet to State Road No. 60 right-of-way; thence
run East along said right of way, 361.5 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
All the above situate in Indian River County, Florida
and containing 3.00 acres, more or less.
Be changed from RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District, to C-lA, Restricted
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 lltYday of September 1985.
BOARD OF -COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BV:
TRICK B.
Chairman
31
BOOS
SEP 111985
APPOINTMENT TO PUBLIC LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
BOOK 2.2 PAGE
The Board reviewed the following memo from Chairman Lyons:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Public Library Advisory Board
DATE: September 11, 1985
SUBJECT: Board Nomination
I would like to take this opportunity to nominate Mrs. Peg
Rondeau as a member of the Public Library Advisory Board. She
would be taking Mr. Michael Rose's place who is unable to ful-
fill his membership obligations due to previous commitments.
Mrs. Rondeau earned her Library of Science degree from
Drexel University (Philadelphia) and received her undergraduate
degree from the University of Pennsylvania.
Her qualifications include the directorship of the New
Canaan, Connecticut library for 11 years. In that capacity, she
was responsible for the planning and implementation of a two
million dollar building program for that institution.
In 1982, Mrs. Rondeau moved to Florida and settled in
Sebastian. At that time, she took on the responsibility of
designing and organizing the newly formed Sebastian River
Library. She has remained closely associated with that library
since that time, on a volunteer basis.
I feel Mrs. Rondeau is eminently qualified to take on the
responsibilities of being a member of the Public Library Advisory
Board and that she would be an asset to this Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
appointed Mrs. Peg Rondeau to the Public
Library Advisory Board to fill the vacancy
left by the resignation of Michael Rose.
STATUS OF SEA OAKS HOTEL SITE PLAN APPLICATION
Planning Director Keating reviewed the following memo in
detail:
32
� f
s
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 30, 1985 FELE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
SUBJECT:
SEA OAKS HOTEL SITE
PLAN APPLICATION
FILE #IRC -8I -SP -14
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICA"REFERENCES:
Director
Planning & Development Division
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of September 11, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
In January of 1985, the staff presented the Board of County
Commissioners with information regarding the status of three
developments on the north barrier island. Because of a
failure to commence construction, two of those developments
had their site plan approval terminated by the Board. The
third project, the Sea Oaks Hotel, was found to have com-
menced and maintained construction. Therefore, the Board,
after tabling this matter at the January meeting, determined
that the Sea Oaks Hotel site plan was valid when it recon-
sidered this matter at its February 10, 1985 meeting.
One condition imposed upon Gordon Nutt, developer of the
subject property, by the Board at their February meeting was
that he revise his approved site plan to conform to ordi-
nances which had been adopted subsequent to approval of the
original site plan. Among these new ordinances were revised
parking standards, stormwater management regulations, --
off-site improvement requirements, and others. At their
February meeting, the Board directed the developer to work
with the staff and by April 20, 1985 submit a revised site
plan meeting these requirements. The Board also directed the
staff to inform the Board when the developer had complied
with these requirements and to provide the Board with a
status report regarding.progress on the hotel on August 21,
1985..
On May 8, 1985, the staff reported to the Board that the
developer had submitted a:'revised site plan which was suffi-
cient for the staff to review to determine if the developer
had met the County Commission's February 20, 1985 mandate to
comply with recently enacted requirements. At that meeting,
the Board directed the staff to determine what provisions had
been made and what formal agreements had been approved to
service the site with utilities.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Since submittal of the revised site plan on April 19, 1985,
the staff has continued to work with the developer regarding
this project. On May 10, 1985, the staff sent a letter to
the developer's attorney requesting a copy of the agreements
for reserving water taps and wastewater capacity for the
proposed hotel. That information was received by the staff
33
SEP 111985 BOOK C FAGS
r SEP 111985
I
B00K PAGE 4
on July 11, 1985. Subsequently, the staff completed its
review of the revised site plan and transmitted comments to
the developer and his engineer.
Three issues must be addressed to adequately assess the
status of the project. These are: (1) the availability of
utilities to service the project; (2) the status of the
revised site plan; and (3) the level of construction activity
maintained on site in the last six months. Each of these
will be considered separately.
Utilities
On July 11, 1985, the staff received copies of
agreements between Gordon Nutt and Sea Oaks Devel-
opment Company relating to the provision of utility
services to the Sea Oaks Hotel project. In that
correspondence, Mr. Nutt's attorney indicated that
developer agreements with North Beach Water Company
and Sea Oaks Development Company are currently
being finalized.
The utility agreement submitted by the developer
references a developer agreement to be executed
between the developer and North Beach Water Compa-
ny. The existing agreement, however, does commit
the Sea Oaks Development Company to provide the
developer with both water and wastewater service
exceeding the needs of the proposed hotel. The
agreement also requires the Sea Oaks Development
Company to extend water distribution and wastewater
collection systems to the hotel site, and it
specifies both costs and timeframes. Based upon
these agreements, then, it appears that adequate
provisions for utilities have been made for the
project.
Site Plan
Staff comments on the revised site plan were not
transmitted to the applicant until recently. Most
of the comments were only minor in nature, since
the developer had agreed to most of the major site
changes prior to submittal of the revised plan.
The remaining substantive item involves dedication
of right-of-way. Once this issue is adequately
addressed, the revised site plan can be approved.
°. Hotel Construction
'Since the February 20, 1985 meeting of the Board of
County Commissioners, the staff has monitored
construction activity at the project site. During
this time, construction has been maintained on the
villa building which was under construction then.
According to Building Department records, three
inspections have been -made of the subject project
in 1985. Two inspections involved the perimeter
beam and were conducted in March and April; the
other was a framing inspection conducted on July
12, 1985. In addition, an electrical permit was
issued for the project in August of 1985.
Based upon the staff inspection, it appears that
progress is being made on the one structure under
34
construction. According to the construction
schedule submitted by the developer on April 18,
1985, however, schematic plans for the hotel should
be completed by this time. The schedule also calls
for construction documents, bidding and award of
contract, permitting, and commencement of con-
struction for the villas to have been accomplished
by now. According to the schedule, the hotel
should be completed by September 1, 1987, and the
villas should be completed by September 1, 1986.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
accept this status report and find that a good faith effort
has been made to maintain construction on the subject proj-
ect. The staff further recommends that the Board order the
developer to comply with the following requirements.
° that the developer submit to the staff executed
developer's agreements relating to utility services
to the site by November 11, 1985;
° that the developer comply with all requirements and
obtain approval of the revised site plan by October
10, 1985 and -
0 that the developer comply with his proposed
construction schedule.
It is also recommended that the Board direct the staff to
continue monitoring progress on this project and provide the
Board with a status report on the project on January 11,
1986.
Director Keating summarized that this site plan, which is
located on the southwest quadrant of SR A -1-A and CR 510 on the
Barrier Island, was considered for termination, but it was
determined that it had commenced and that it was a valid site
plan. He then showed slides of construction taking place on one
of the villas which has progressed steadily and stated that staff
does feel the developer has maintained construction, but are
concerned that he continue to maintain his construction schedule
and would like to keep on monitoring it.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that this has been a really
difficult task and he has not been a particular believer in Mr.
Nutt and his good faith effort. Mr. Nutt now has demonstrated
that he has spent substantial monies and he does have reserva-
35
SEP 111985
BOOK : PAGE
�'�
SEP 11
1985
BOOK
�'� F��UL 1-1 d ru
tions
for utility taps; Commissioner Scurlock, however,
still had
some concern about the actual reservation of water and wastewater
for the project, which comes through execution of an option.
Commissioner Scurlock explained in detail how Sea Oaks
purchased part of Mr. Nutt's hotel property, and as a part of the
purchase agreement guaranteed Mr. Nutt a total of 710 ERCs, which
was broken out into some specifics re the number of hotel rooms,
etc., but there was some flexibility as to the changes that could
take place on that. Then Sea Oaks entered into a developer's
agreement with North Beach Water Company and reserved 897 taps,
which means that Sea Oaks presently has only 187 ERCs for its
total project as 710 are for Mr. Nutt's property. He noted that
to complicate this even further, it seems they are equating an
ERC to a 5/8' meter as opposed to a gallonage - they are saying
500 gpd per ERC, and under our county ordinance a hotel isn't 1
ERC, it is .20; so, you have to have five hotel rooms to reach 1
ERC. When you start trying to track this and see who has what
reserved, it becomes a very difficult task. Also, when you look
at their tariff for North Beach Water, it doesn't make much
sense. Commissioner Scurlock noted that this, however, is not
related to the good faith effort; it just causes him concern as
to whether Sea Oaks has reserved enough capacity to do its own
project. He continued that he has been working with Utilities
Director Pinto and wants to meet with North Beach Water Company
as he is not sure they know what they are doing.
Utilities Director Pinto stated his only comment is that the
tariff we are looking at has not been approved by the Commission
yet; so, we have the ability to get into this.
Chairman Lyons asked if Commissioner Scurlock is saying that
the developer could come back in a few years and say he can't
meet his development commitment because he doesn't have water.
Commissioner Scurlock clarified that what he is saying is
that legally Mr. Nutt has reserved sufficient taps to build his
project, but since there is no formal relationship between Sea
36
Oaks and North Beach Water other than the existing developer's
agreement that only equals 897 taps, of which 710 are reserved
for Mr. Nutt, if Sea Oaks should suddenly get a large expansion
of their project and start borrowing from those taps committed to
Mr. Nutt, then when he wants to build there could be a problem.
In other words, Gordon Nutt with his Sea Oaks Hotel has never
reserved any taps directly from North Beach Water; he has done it
through an option which came about when he sold property to the
other Sea Oaks group.
In discussion, it was noted that we have so-called Sea Oaks
A and Sea Oaks B, and Administrator Wright suggested we call the
Sea Oaks community Zaremba to keep them separate. He believed
there are less than 100 units built or under construction for
Zaremba for the coming year; so, he felt we have time to work
this out.
Director Keating suggested that the Board let him contact
Zaremba and work this out. He reported that in 1981 site plans
for both these projects - the Sea Oaks hotel and the Sea Oaks
residential development - were approved under two separate
ownerships, Gordon Nutt owning the hotel and Zaremba owning the
residential community. Staff saw there were 700 or so taps
reserved and that was sufficient for the Zaremba community;
staff also looked and saw that Gordon Nutt through this option
agreement had been committed a certain number of taps. These
taps, however, were committed from Zaremba, who, to have these on
hand, would had to have reserved double the number that they did.
It was generally agreed we need to get all these facts
together, and the Administrator stated that if the Board will so
direct, staff will check into this.
Attorney Stewart could only inform the Board that they are
working on a developer's agreement with North Beach Water Company
for both water and wastewater.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that he could only say that
37
SEP 111985 BOOK f FADE e,
-I
'SEP 11.1985
BOOK
Mr. Nutt has been very cooperative; he believed that Mr. Nutt has
the same concerns that he does and that he has acted in good
faith. He emphasized that the key is to have the water there
when we need it, and stated he would be happy to work with
Director Pinto and staff on this matter which is very
complicated.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the staff recommendations as set out in
memo of Director Keating dated August 30, 1985,
and authorized Commissioner Scurlock and staff to
pursue the questions raised re utility items and
bring a report back to the Board as soon as possible.
JOINT MEETING - D.O.T./REP. PATCHETT/COUNTY COMMISSION
Commissioner Wodtke noted that this meeting came about
because of concern that has arisen re lack of adequate mainte-
nance of the state roads in our district. We have received many
complaints from the public about the maintenance of drainage
ditches along the road, the sidewalks, etc., particularly along
27th Avenue, that now is a state road, and we can see evidence of
the lack of maintenance ourselves. This meeting was set up to
see i,f we could get someone from the D.O.T. to explain their
maintenance program and inform us whether there is any alternate
way we can approach this problem if the state is not able to do
what is necessary, i.e., can we have some contractual arrangement
so the work can be done that should be done and what funds can be
made available. He requested that someone from the state tell
us about their maintenance schedule and explain what the problem
has been with maintaining the roads as they have been maintained
in the past.
38
William Fowler informed the Board that he used to be known
as the District Engineer for the D.O.T. and is now known as
Deputy Assistant Secretary, of which there are nine altogether -
three in Tallahassee and one in each of the districts. He
introduced Jim Chandler, District Director of Operations; Ron
Register, District Maintenance Engineer; and Jim Byron, who is
responsible for maintenance in this four county area, operating
out of Fort Pierce.
Mr. Fowler noted that the budget for this four -county area
of the District is generally used in maintenance activities of
two types - routine and periodic, and he felt what the Commission
is talking about is the routine maintenance. Mr. Fowler stated
that three things control how often and how well they carry out
the maintenance. (1) The amount of money allocated internally to
the Department each year. Those funds are approved for the whole
state and then divided up proportionately by the mileage on the
system. (2) If there is not enough money to take care of all the
need and maintenance up to a given standard, that deficit ideally
is prorated and equally shared around the state. (3) Sometimes
there are emergency situations that cannot be anticipated, and
the Department does not have an emergency fund any more; this
would come right out of the operating budget. Mr. Fowler then
asked Ron Register to speak to the specifics of the maintenance
schedule as it relates to this county.
Chairman Lyons reported that we have a letter of complaint
from Mrs. Elizabeth Mason, re 27th Avenue, which he would turn
over to Mr. Register. The letter is as follows:
39
SEP 111985 BOOK ( FAGE e2,
SEP 11 1985
BOOK (�
Elizabeth H. Mason
t� P. O. Box 986
BOARD Cppp� -„7 Vero Beach, Florida 32961-0986
COM. M1913SlOPrE('s
w:� Atiagus'."2Qc„ 1985,
Wi `tke, Jr., j
County Commissioners -, •`,�:�...,
`y Ci�i
Indian River County Board of County Fi� , M ica
Commissioners
1840 - 25th Street C
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: State Maintained Roads in Indian River County
Dear Bill:
I was pleased to read in the Press Journal that
you were angry with the DOT for their neglect of State
roads in Indian River County.
I..live on 27th Avenue, south of Road 60. The
lack of maintenance on 27th avenue is constantly visable.
The State rarely mows or cleans the right-of-way, and
the sidewalks and bike path are always overgrown.
When the weeds become so tall I can barely see
to get out of my driveway, I begin calling the local
DOT office to ask when they plan to mow. They say
their equipment is broken"just now" - or they are
on a bigger job on some other road and can't get to
it now - or some other excuse. It seems to me their
Policy is to wait until adjacent property owners
become so concerned that they mow it themselves, thus
doing the DOT's work for them. Our driveways constantly
wash into the drainage ditch with no attempt made to
"secure" or bulkhead the driveways.
I hope you have some luck in your attempt to obtain
some cooperation and constructive improvement in the
maintenance policy of the DOT throughout our County.
With school starting soon, I do wish at least the side-
walks and bike path could be "cleared" for use of our
little people. I had understood a few years ago when
the telephone company installed cables along 27th
Avenue and broke sidewalks and crushed culverts
with their heavy equipment, that all this was to
have been repaired. The broken sidewalks remain,
and my culvert and manytothers along 27th Avenue
are so mangled that they certainly impede the flow
of water.
I just thought I would add a little fuel to
your fire - if complaints such as mine might help
your cause.'
Sincerely,
a� . a� �aa_tet/
(Mrs.) Elizabeth H. Mason
Mr. Register explained that their budget is set up for the
whole district as to what they are capable of doing with their
forces either by means of contract maintenance or internal forces
and equipment. Due to the fact that they are short on manpower,
40
they have been going to contract maintenance quite heavily and
they have numerous contracts at the present time. The Fort
Pierce area of the District consists of four counties -
Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin and Indian River Counties. Last
year they had programmed in not quite a million dollars for
Indian River County, and this year they have programmed 1.2
million, but this is all based on the amount of budget money they
actually receive. Mr. Register reported that last year they
expended about $623,000 in the county, which is all they could
put in at that time because they did not get all the funds they
requested and they go where the need is the greatest.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if they ever contract with county
forces or just with private contractors.
Mr. Register believed that the 6th District at one time
contracted the street lights with the county, but in this
District most of their contracts are with private contractors.
Mr. Fowler stated that there is a fairly strong feeling
within the Department to move in that direction from a policy
standpoint and contract with local government in those areas
where it is felt desirable by local government - primarily litter
pickup and mowing, which seem to be the most troublesome things.
He noted that cities and counties generally desire higher
standards than the D.O.T. is able to supply, and he believed that
is a way to go in the future.
Administrator Wright inquired if such an arrangement could
be considered this fiscal year, and Mr. Fowler believed it might
be possible to work something out even this year.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that they had indicated there
was a shortage of manpower and he wished to know the average
salary for a mowing operator on a state level.
Mr. Fowler believed it was about $4.00 an hour and stated
that their salaries at all levels are generally non-competitive
with local counties.
41
•
BOOK C-,' F��� ��
SEP 11 . 1985
BOOK PAGE 42
Commissioner Wodtke asked how much of the 1.2 million pro-
grammed for Indian River County would be for routine maintenance,
and Mr. Register felt probably half.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we need to focus in on three
things. First, we want to be sure that a fair share of the money
appropriated to this district comes to us. Second, we need to
establish priorities by working with the D.O.T. re surfacing,
litter pickup, mowing, etc. Third, would be to have some sort
of participation by local government whereby we can receive some
dollars if we have county people do this work. He noted that we
have had this past year situations on the Route 60 corridor where
you literally could not see a passenger vehicle from one side to
the other. This is not a safe situation, and the corridors into
our community project the image of our community.
Chairman Lyons stressed his belief that we have to make sure
the basic level provided by the state is sufficient as we do not
want a situation where the state does nothing and we do it all;
Commissioner Scurlock believed the message Tallahassee is
sending us is that they yielded to the desire for local control
and now they will let the counties do more. He noted they did
give us the gas tax option to provide funds.
Commissioner Wodtke believed in years past the D.O.T. mowed
on a basic schedule of every three to four weeks, but now it is
much less often. He asked what the routine schedule is now.
Mr. Fowler assured the Board that he did understand their
concerns, especially about gateways into cities, etc. He stated
they will work with local government and believed they need to
have these kinds of discussion with every county and city and
come to some understanding re the roads about which there is a
particular concern, particularly from the aesthetic standpoint.
On the issue of adequate funding for maintenance, he noted that
several years ago a Senator from Miami got on a real crusade
about going after D.O.T. maintenance; he got people in the
Legislature to listen; and now there has been a tendency to take
42
l ;1
some money away from the D.O.T. to force them to be efficient.
As a result, Mr. Fowler stated, the D.O.T. is not funded anywhere
near to their standard of maintenance, and, in fact, is at about
60% of the resources they need to do what they have defined as an
adequate program. Therefore, because of the liability situation,
the D.O.T. chose to spend money on safety measures rather than
aesthetics.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if they would basically say that
the D.O.T. only has enough money to maintain the roads at 600 of
their minimum maintenance requirements.
Mr. Fowler confirmed that statement and emphasized that this
is even more true of routine maintenance than periodic
maintenance because the routine maintenance is what gets
neglected when there is a shortfall of funds.
Commissioner Bird inquired about interstates, and Mr. Fowler
explained that they have a contract with the federal government
to do these interstates, and they do a lot of contract
maintenance on the Turnpike.
Commissioner Bird asked if they spend any state money on
federal roads, and Mr. Fowler stated that the federal government
does not pay for maintenance; it is all state money. They will
help with some repairs, but not if it is called maintenance.
Jim Byron, local D.O.T. representative, noted there are some
critical issues involved in keeping maintenance up to the
standards the County requires. The D.O.T. has two mowing
machines in the county, and they are in continual operation
except for breakdowns. This allows the D.O.T to mow the primary
system about two times.a year.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if this means they only mow U.S.1
twice a year, and Mr. Byron agreed that was correct unless the
county gave up some of the other part of the local system.
Commissioner Bird wished to know how often the D.O.T. would
mow to maintain their standards if the funds were available, and
Mr. Byron felt it would be at least four times yearly.
43
SEP 111985 >3 or; PAG E
SEP 111985
BOX Fr1Ut
Commissioner Bird asked Public Works Director Davis about
our county standards, and Director Davis noted that on a county
level, we have more equipment and more miles. We try to shoot
for a 6-7 week interval, but we do have equipment problems also.
He informed the Board that we have been looking into establishing
a maintenance management system in the future working with the
National Association of County Engineers.
Representative Dale Patchett believed this discussion is
about as informative to him as the County from the maintenance
standpoint. From the Legislative standpoint, however,
maintenance dollars are the last on the list. With shortfalls in
overall funding and the demand for new bridges, new roads,
repaving, etc., the emphasis shifted to the safety standpoint
because the more traffic, the more accidents, and courts were
finding the D.O.T. liable. The Legislature, therefore, put more
pressure into correcting intersections, improving guard rails to
lessen impacts, and those type of things. They wanted to shift
monies where the counties wanted them and did change the gas tax
and then the price of gas fell. They tried to rewrite that and
need a major change of D.O.T. structure and funding. They also
did put out the optional gas tax to try and help the counties.:
Representative Patchett stated that the Legislature is trying to
come up with another solution for more funds, but the federal
government has cut the state back. Florida has some roads that
other states don't require and has a different budget process for
the D.O.T. in that we allocate a lump sum of money to the D.O.T.,
which they internally separate into the various districts, and he
believed when they are done with this, the maintenance money is
what is left over; it is the last thing on the state's budget.
Representative Patchett further noted that for a long time it was
impossible for local government to contract with the D.O.T., but
now it is possible; so, he felt we are making progress slowly.
Discussion ensued on the percentage of the D.O.T. budget
44
1
D
that would be allocated to maintenance, and Mr. Fowler estimated
about 150 of the total budget.
Representative Patchett pointed out that when major projects
such as the Barber Bridge, etc., are accelerated, something else
is eliminated, and they do steal items out of the maintenance
budget for things such road design, etc., when priorities are
changed. He stated that he has never been happy with our D.O.T.
budgeting process where we give them lump sums to divide out as
we really cannot tell if each county is getting its fair share.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that for the past 11 years
that he has been on the Commission, we have always gotten along
well with the D.O.T., and he only wanted this meeting to be
constructive.
Mr. Fowler stated that he could not deny that they have had
to neglect the aesthetics.
Discussion ensued regarding the $660,000 spent in the county
last year, and Mr. Fowler believed that was mainly all for
routine maintenance, i.e., mowing, litter pickup, guard rail and
sidewalk repair.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that in the road reclassification
done by the state, we took back Old Dixie and the D.O.T. took
back 27th Avenue, and this has become one of our major source of
complaints. It is a residential neighborhood, and the county did
maintain it at a higher standard.
Mr. Byron stated that they are not doing well in their
drainage cleanup, and one of the reasons is the philosophy in the
Department to relate priorities to the condition of the roadway.
If it is satisfactory drainagewise, then.you set your priority to
what may impinge on the safety of the roadway. They do not look
at aesthetics, but just see if it is functioning with respect to
the roadway. He agreed this is not an acceptable approach, but
it is all the D.O.T. can afford. He further noted that one of the
tractors used in the county has been down for six months.
45
SEP 111985 6 62 ma.. 48
E P 11 1985
8QOA 62 FAG(, 4G
Amazement was expressed that a piece of equipment could be
down for this length of time, and Mr. Fowler explained that,
except in emergencies, they are not allowed to contract with
local businessmen for repairs. They have two contract centers
around the state where they send their heavy equipment for
repairs, and while this is being done, they are out of business.
Mr. Byron confirmed that they have two draglines for the
four -county area and have to ship that piece of equipment to
Jacksonville -to have it serviced and overhauled.
Representative Patchett explained that the D.O.T. and
General Services Department are both executive rule-making
agencies. The D.O.T. used to service its own equipment, but now
General Services handles it, and the Legislature is not happy
with it. There are heavy equipment places in South Florida as
well as in Jacksonville, and the present set up doesn't make
sense. It is frustrating because you cannot get a response or
answer on this from General Services.
Considerable discussion ensued on the inefficiency of this
arrangement, and Representative Patchett reported that a
committee has been appointed to look into this type of thing to
see if the delivery of such infrastructure services can be
streamlined. He noted that sometimes the crews that you see
leaning on shovels are a result of the equipment breakdown.
Chairman Lyons commented that he did not vote for the 24 gas
tax in order to spend that money cutting weeds, and he did not
believe that was what the Legislature had in mind either.
Representative Patchett felt the Legislature did have road
improvements in mind, but also believed this would free up monies
in the overall budgets.
Commissioner Scurlock stated his feeling was the opposite of
the Chairman; he felt these monies might help Public Works add
some people and our impact fees would help with road improve-
ments. He did believe that in our County we have maintained a
higher standard that what is available with the D.O.T, and he,
46
therefore, felt we should implement some coordinated effort with
the D.O.T. to raise these standards where we are having
complaints.
Commissioner Bird felt we have to depend on our state repre-
sentatives to try and get the D.O.T. funded adequately. He did
agree priority has to be on keeping roads safe rather than
aesthetics and then the money left over should go to maintenance.
If the funding is short of meeting our standards, then we have to
see how we can work this out cooperatively.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that his personal approach to
this would be to have the Public Works Director give us more
specifics and then set aside a portion of those monies for that
activity the next year.
Administrator Wright stated that the bottom line of the
whole thing is priorities. If the desire is to spend money on
mowing grass, we have to take the money for that from something
else.
Commissioner Scurlock asked how much the 24 gas tax brings
in yearly, and Director Davis stated about $112,000 per quarter
or $448,000 yearly.
Chairman Lyons suggested Director Davis get together with
the D.O.T. and come up with a joint program and come back and
tell the Board how he feel this would be allocated.
Commissioner Wodtke felt the key thing he has learned today
is that in order for the state to meet the minimum standards,
they need to mow about every 6-8 weeks, and they say they have
enough funds to do this only every 26 weeks. He believed we
should try to get this district additional money so they can meet
their minimum standards and that we should work cooperatively and
assist - if some of their machinery is down, possibly we can get
together on that. He also would like to have joint meetings at
least in the four -county area of the district.
Mr. Fowler confirmed that he certainly would like to
participate in some workshops, and he believed we need to start
47 3?
SEP 11 1985
L_
a
SEP 111985 BOOK L_2! PAGE 4-2
at a county level and a local maintenance engineer level. He
noted they are in the process of some reorganization of personnel
structure, and when this is done can schedule a workshop meeting,
hopefully within 60 days or less.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized the Public Works Director to work
with the D.O.T. to come up with a proper mix
on this maintenance schedule for at least our
major access points into the community and then
bring that back to the Commission so we can see
where the money is going to come from and how we
accomplish this.
Representative Patchett emphasized that he needs to know
what the monies involved are as their budgetary process starts in
January.
Director Davis believed many Commissioners have received
calls on the Rockridge outfall. He noted there has been some
money appropriated in the D.O.T. 5 year plan for some work on
that outfall, but looking at the dollars appropriated, he was not
sure what could be accomplished with that money. We have done a
lot of work on their local state system, and he would like to
maximize use of the money appropriated in the D.O.T. plan to work
with that outfall, which he believed is the number one mainte-
nance complaint we have in the D.O.T. system. He stated that he
would like to solve that problem as a capital improvement, not as
continual maintenance.
Terry Goff, Mayor of the City of Vero Beach, spoke of his
feeling that revival of the twin pairs project would solve some
City traffic problems. He was glad to see representatives of the
48
1 1
D.O.T. here today and expressed the hope that they can work with
the City as well as the County.
Chairman Lyons thanked those from the D.O.T. and
Representative Patchett for their time and their cooperation.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:08 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
Chairman
49 BOOK Q PAGUE 49
SEP 1.1 1985 I