Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/25/1985Wednesday, September 25, 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 25, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent was Commissioner Richard N. Bird, who was out of town on County business. 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 Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Sc-urlock wished to add the three following items, all to do with the Library, under the Chairman's matters: 1) Retroactive approval to sign the Library Agreement for State Aid; 2) Authorization to sign the application for State Aid to Libraries; and 3) A Resolution authorizing execution of the Library Agreement for 1985-86, appoint the Head Librarian, and authorizing submission of the annual application for state aid. It was suggested that these be added to the Consent Agenda. ,(Commissioner Wodtke was out of the meeting temporarily on a `conference call.) , Administrator Wright wished to add two items - discussion of a bond forfeiture for Henry Fischer's mining operation and purchase of a Sanitary Landfill wheel loader. SEP 25 1985 BOOS~ r •:- BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room, the Board unanimously (3-0) added the above items to today's agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or PAUL additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 4, 1985. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 4, 1985, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Scurlock requested that Item O re Custodial Services be removed for discussion. A. Minutes & Report - Sebastian River Drainage District 8 IRC Public Health Unit The following documents were received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Board of Sebastian River Drainage District held on 6/4/85, and Minutes of Annual Meeting of Landowners of Sebastian River Drainage District - 6/4/85 Report of activities and expenditures of the IRC Public Health Unit for period ending 6/30/85 B. and C. - Reports, Traffic Violation The following reports were received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund, Month of August, 1985, $44,825.02 Traffic Fines by Name, August, 1985 2 T- v D. Budget Amendment, Sheriff's Office The Board reviewed the following letter from Sheriff Dobeck: P. O. BOX 608 PHONE 569-6700 September 16, 1985 Honorable Pat Lyons, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 39260 Dear Pat: R.T."TW DOBECK • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32961 We are submitting a budget amendment transferring $21,256 from Ac- count 364.41.00, Surplus Sales Furniture/Equipment to 521.10.23, Life and Health Insurance, to cover the unanticipated increased cost of health insurance premiums. Since ly, 1 R. T. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff Indian River County ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the following budget amendment to cover the increased cost of health insurance premiums as requested by the Sheriff. 3 SEP ? 5 1995 BOOK Bonen Supp;y Co- Ltd. Piart City. Fla BUDGET ACCOUNT AMENDMENT DATE REQUESTED TNflTAN RTURR Sheriff's Department COUNTY No.: 7 FY: 1984-85 September 16, 1985 Form 82-7.4 TO: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY I hereby request approval for the amendment of the eriff' Depa ent budget a se forth below: Board of County Commissioners `� N Sheriff R T "Tim Dobeck Original Budget or Last ' Amended Budget Including Amendments Budget Accounts FY 1984-85 Amendments Requested Requested .10 Personal Services $ _ 2,712,960 s ----21,256 $ 21734,216 .30 Operating Expenses 654,659 654,659 .60 Capital Outlay 238,438 238,438 364.41.00 Surplus Sales 21,256 _ Contingency 5 DUD 5,000 TOTAL BUDGET $ 3,611,052 $ $ 3, 612 . 1nR T 's ' to cknowledge rece. t b the Board of County Commissioners This is to certify that this budget account amendment has been A Date: Approved / Disapproved q'as—i5s Si eture' Signature Date: itle:Chairman Boar County Commissioners Title: Director Office of Management & Budget Indian River County Bonen Supp;y Co- Ltd. Piart City. Fla E. Agreement between the Dept. of Corrections, IR Correctional Institution, and IRC Sanitary Landfill The Board reviewed the following letter dated 9/5/85: TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: z, �SJ'IIII � FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DI EC 0 DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS INDIAN RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Department of Corrections Indian River County Correctional Institution. and the Indian River County Sanitary Landfill located on 17th Street SW, Vero Beach, Florida, have drafted the attached agreement to utilize inmate labor for the general maintenance of the Landfill at the above -referenced location. This agreement has been in force since the beginning of the operation of the Landfill. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the attached agreement between the Department of Corrections Indian River County Correctional Institution and Indian River County Sanitary Landfili. 2. Disapprove the attached agreement between the Department of - Cbrrections Indian River County Correctional Institution and Indian River County Sanitary Landfill. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the attached Agreement between the Department of Corrections Indian River County Correctional Institution and Indian River County Sanitary Landfill be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. SEP 25 1985 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke out of the room, and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Agreement Between the Department of Corrections Indian River Correctional Institution and Indian River County Sanitary Landfill and authorized the Chairman's signature. 5 BOOK SEP 25 1985 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT _ BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOOK fAGc,_ Pursuant to Florida Statute 946.40, the Indian River Correctional Institution, herein known as IRCI and Indian River County, enters into a Memorandum of Agreement for the purpose of utilizing inmate labor for general maintenance at the Indian River County Landfill, hereinafter referred to as Landfill, located on 17th St SW, Vero Beach, Florida. This Agreement shall remain in full force until one or both parties cancel said Agree- ment by'providing 30 day advance notice of cancellation. This Agreement may be revised or altered by mutual agreement of the parties involved, provided however, that the Agreement is reviewed and renewed at least annually. Inmates assigned to this public -works project shall be under the overall administrative supervision of IRCI. Inmates who have been classified minimum custody according to Department of Corrections rules may be utilized by the Landfill without a Correctional Officer or other authorized Department of Corrections employee present during transit to, from, and at the work site. The County agrees to: 1. Schedule the use of one minimum custody inmate to be supervised by Landfill personnel. The number of inmates utilized may be changed upon mutual agreement of the Superintendent of IRCI and the Supervisor of the Landfill. Said change shall be made part of this Agreement by adendum. -. 2. Transport inmate to and from work site by. employee of the Landfill in an authorized County vehicle, assuming responsibility for direct inmate supervision. 3. Provide IRCI a sehedule of work hours which the inmate will be worked, provided the work day does not exceed 10 hours, including travel time, for a five day work week. Advise in advance IRCI if the inmate will not be picked up on any particular day(s), or advise IRCI if inmate will be returning to IRCI late. -4. Provide all tools, equipment and personal items such as gloves, -boots ' loves,boots, hard hats, etc., necessary to perform work in a safe and effective manner. 5. Utilize responsible personnel to supervise inmate. Landfill inmate supervisor(s) will be instructed on Department of Corrections Rules and Regulations relative - to supervising inmate. 6. Notify IRCI immediately when Landfill inmate supervisor knows of an inmate escape. 7. Evaluate performance of inmate under Landfill supervision and report to IRCI any failure of inmate to perform his task in a satisfactory manner. 8. Within the scope of Landfill inmate supervisor training, provide first aid for on-the-job injuries. When an injury requires emergency medical treatment,' transport inmate immediately to nearest medical facility and provide security until relieved by IRCI. If an inmate becomes ill while at the work -site and does not require emergency medical treatment, notify IRCI for instructions. .Report all injuries, regardless of seriousness, to IRCI. IRCI will be responsible for all medical expenses. 9. Ensure that inmate(s) are not exposed to or have access to work areas where weapons or other tactical equipment is stored or used. 6 � ) 5 r- AGREEMENT Page 2' - IRCI agrees to: 1. Provide the Landfill with a minimum of one minimum custody inmate during the normal work week. Inmate is subject to emergency work. 2. To the maximum extent possible, assign the same inmate to the Landfill work crew on a day-to-day basis. In -those situations where the same inmate cannot be assigned, minimum custody alternates will be provided. 3. To provide inmate with all personal items of clothing, appropriate to the season of the year and with lunches for a noon meal. 4. To provide inmate physically able to perform manual labor. 5. Provide transportation back to IRCI for inmate that refuses to work or becomes incapacitated during workday. Where possible, provide a replacement when this occurs. 6. Be responsible for apprehending escapees. ' 7. Be responsible for administering all disciplinary action against inmate for infractions committed while under the Landfill's supervision. 8. Notify the Landfill in writing of any event where Landfill inmate supervisor fails to provide proper inmate supervision. 9. Provide orientation for Landfill inmate supervisor. IRCI'and Landfill mutually agree to: 1. To designate IRCI and Landfill employee to be contact for coordinating daily operations, problems, etc. 2. To assist each other in any or all civil liabilities resulting from inmate .supervision. IRCI contact will be the Administration Lieutenant: 569-5100 (205) SC 454-5484 Landfill contact will be Bill Cook, Superintendent This Memorandum of Agreement constitutes the complete understanding between IRCI and the Landfill for the use of inmate labor. . 9C Ind n Iver Correceional Insti Director, Region IV as to ty Commissioners 6a > P.'4'Vilson County Attorney. 9.z J Al Date Date Date SEP 25 195 �•...T =.-"-'-'�.z:-.-"s-.--..:-r�vr=iE=_-n �..-"^-.<v�."-.g�T+.-.� +Ya-..�- __-�.. .. _ _. .. ._,'.. :.. -�__ r_Ci..-;iV:��. �... ,-�..-.. _ ,._ �.._-y-Y�%w-�c- � .. .... v--.. _ SEP 25 1985 BOOK F. Traffic Signal Operation and Maintenance Order 1-885, U.S. #1 and 15th Place The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/13/85: TO: DATE: FILE: The Honorable Members of September 13, 1985 the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright, SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Operation and County Administrator Maintenance Order 1-85 James W. Davis, P. Public Works Directo FROM: Michael REFERENCES: Michael Orr lic Traffic Engineer DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS As a condition for a certificate of occupancy for Building C2 of the Luria's Plaza Shopping Center, an agreement between the owners of Luria's and the owners of K -Mart Plaza was required for sharing the cost of signalizing the intersection of US 1 and 15th Place (south driveway of K -Mart) . As maintaining agency for the traffic signal, the Florida Department of Transportation is requiring the County to sign an agreement to operate and maintain the signal. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The County may sign the attached Maintenance and Operation Order enabling the shopping centers to proceed With the installation of a traffic signal at US 1 and 15th Place or refuse to sign the Order and suspend construction of the signal. RDCONMENDATION AND FUNDING It is reccmmended that the Board of.County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to sign Traffic Signal Maintenance and Operation Order 1-85. Construction shall be through private funding. Maintenance funds budgeted in Account #111-245-541-34.67 Operation Funds budgeted in Account #111-245-541-34.31. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Traffic Signal and Maintenance Order 1-85, and authorized the Chairman's signature. 7 A. 0 Page 2 State of Florida Department of Transportation TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 6 OPERATION ORDER NO. 1-85 D.O.T. DISTRICT 4 COUN'i PUBLIC BODY (MAINTAINING AGENCY). Indian River County Indian River B. 1. All signalized intersections and signal systems covered by this order -are referenced to an agreement of record dated July 21, 1980 between_ the Department and Public Body.and no supplemental agreement is required. 2. The Public Body,is hereby authorized and requested to undertake the maintenance and operation of one (1) signalized intersections on the State Highway System as listed in part C of this order. The following previous- ly numbered and dated orders shall remain in effect and are not altered by this order. Identification of Type of Equipment and Installations to be maintained. (PART C IS ATTACHED) ACKN AND Signature Date: '9/25/85 _ apf IcK. Lyo s Title: Ch Oman, Bd. of C((=4 Commissioners ----------------------- ----------------- FLORIDA DEPART rr OF TW4SPORTATTON ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPROVED: i Signature: Date: District Traffic Operations Engineer Copies:: District Traffic Operations Office State Traffic Operations Office Public Body 7a SEP 25 1985 ' BOOK �� L�& FAGE ��� SEP 25 1955 ®ooK N�uE G. Traffic Signal Maintenance and Operation Order 2-85; State Road 60 at 90th Avenue The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/10/85: TO: DATE: FILE: THE HONORABLE DUMBERS OF September 10, 1985 THE BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS THROUGH: TRAFFIC SIGNAL NfA2NTIIVANCE Michael Wright, SUBJECT: AND OPERATION ORDER 2-85; County Administrator STATE ROAD 60 AT 90TH AVENUE James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Dir FROM:" Michael L. Orr, REFERENCES: Traffic Engineer DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Transportation Planning Committee in 1984 concurred with a staff report Which recommended signalization at State Road 60 and 90th Avenue. Instal- lation is scheduled for December, 1985. Construction and Maintenance funds are budgeted for fiscal. year 1985-86. The Florida Department of Transpor- tation requires that the County agree to maintain and operate this signal. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The County may sign the attached Maintenance and Operation Order and Proceed to install the traffic signal or refuse to sign the Order and not signalize the intersection. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that the Board of County Ca missioners authorize the Chairman to sign Traffic Signal Maintenance and Operation Order 2-85. Construction funds. budgeted in Account # 111-245-541-66.44. Maintenance funds budgeted in Account # 111-245-541-34.67. Operation funds budgeted in Account # 111-245-541-34.31. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Traffic Signal Maintenance and Operation Order 2-85 at SR -60 and 90th Avenue and authorized the Chairman's signature. 8 An Pag 2 State of Florida Department of Transportation TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE b OPERATION ORDER NO. 2-85 A. D.O.T. DISTRICT 4 COUNTY Indian River PUBLIC BODY (MAINTAINING AGENCY) Indian River County + B. 1. All signalized intersections and signal systems covered by this order -are referenced to an agreement of record dated July 21, 1980 between -the Department and Public Body and no supe emental agreement is required. 2. The Public Body is hereby authorized and requested to undertake the maintenance and operation of one (1) signalized intersections on the State Highway System as listed in part C of`this order. The following previous- ly numbered and dated orders shall remain in effect and are not altered by this order. Identification of Type of Equipment and Installationd to be Maintained. (PART C IS ATTACHED) ------------------APPROVALS---- PUBLIC BODY ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPROV/ / .r SignatL/4aKC �Bd. nsTitle:n, of Co tyCommissioners Date: 9/25/85 ----------------------- ----------------- FLORIDA DEPARITUTF OF TRANSPORTATION ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPROVED: Signature: District Traffic Operations Engineer Copies: District Traffic Operations Office State Traffic ,Operations Office Public Body 7 SEP 215 1955 Date: BOOK L 2 SEP 25 1985 Boos � �E H. Authorization to Advertise for Bid for the Modification of the Whispering Palms_Pumping Station The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/17/85: TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT FROM: JOSEPH A. BA RD DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ADVER- TISE FOR BID FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE WHISPERING PALMS PUMPING STATION Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. have re -designed the Whispering Palms lift station to bring the facility to current County specifications. Indian River County Utilities Department is requesting permission to advertise for bids to modify the Whispering Palms lift station. The cost of modifying the lift station is estimated at $30,000.00 and funding will be from the Renewal and Replacement monies. The expenditure is to take place during the 1985/86 fiscal year. ALTERNATIVES 1. Authorize the advertisement for bids on the modification to the Whispering Palms pumping station. 2. Do not authorize the advertisement for bids on the modification to the Whispering Palms pumping station. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Honorable Board of County Commissioners authorize the advertisement for bids for the Whispering Palms pumping station. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) authorized the advertisement for bids for the Whispering Palms pumping station. I._ Authorization to Advertise for Bids to Sandblast and Repaint the Vista Royale Wastewater Plant The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/17/85: 10 C:�] TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT' SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ADVER- TISE FOR BIDS TO SAND- BLAST AND REPAINT THE VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER PLANT FROM: JOSEPH A. BAIRD DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Vista Royale wastewater plant has not been painted since the facility was taken over by the County. The plant is showing slight deterioration and as a preventative maintenance item it needs to be sandblasted and painted. The estimated cost is approximately $20,000.00 and the funding is to be from the Renewal and Replacement monies. The expenditure is to take place in the 1985/86 fiscal year. ALTERNATIVES 1. Authorize Indian River County Utilities Department to advertise for bids to sandblast and repaint the Vista Royale wastewater plant. 2. Do not authorize Indian River County Utilities Department to advertise for bids to sandblast and repaint the Vista Royale wastewater plant. RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the Honorable Board of County Commissioners authorize Indian River County Utilities Department to advertise for bids to sandblast and repaint the Vista Royale wastewater plant. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) authorized the advertisement for bids for sandbl'asting and repainting of the Vista Royale Wastewater Plant. J. Reject Bid Received for Refurbishing and Painting of 150,000 Gallon Water Tank The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/17/85: 11 SEP 25 1985 Boort U SEP 25 1995 BOOK PAGE TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 SUBJECT: REJECT BID RECEIVED FOR REFURBISHING AND PAINTING OF 150,000 GALLON ELEVATED WATER TANK FROM: JOSEPH A. BAIRD DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Indian River County' -opened bids on Tuesday, May 7, 1985 at 1:30 P.M. for the repair and repainting of the 150,000 gallon elevated water storage tank. The only bidder, Ridge Sandblasting & Painting Co., Inc. submitted a bid in the amount of $45,000.00. Due to the lack of response, both Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc., the consulting engineers on the project and the Indian River County Utility Staff feel that we should reject the Ridge Sandblasting & Painting Co., Inc. bid and re -advertise the project. ALTERNATIVES .I 1. Reject the Ridge Sandblasting & Painting Co., Inc. bid for refurbishing the elevated tank and authorize Indian River County Utilities to re -advertise the project. 2. Accept the Ridge Sandblasting & Painting, Inc. bid in the amount of $45,000.00. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Honorable Board of County Commissioners reject the Ridge Sandblasting & Painting Co., Inc. bid and re -advertise this project. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) rejected the bid received from Ridge Sandblasting & Painting Co. Inc. and authorized the re -advertisement of the project. 12 K. Execution of Contract between HRS and IRC for Operation of County Health Department The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/17/85: TO: Board of County Commissioners Q�- ct FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director DATE: September 17, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT: Annual Contract HRS - Indian River County REFERENCES: Attached is the Contract between HRS and Indian River County for the operation of the Health Department under Dr. Tucker. The Contract is the same format as last year. On page 4, paragraph VIII.B, the amount of $376,427. breaks down as follows: Indian River County $254,781 Draw -down from Public Health Unit Trust 64,431 Fees Authorized by IRC 53,215 Payment by IRC School Board 4,000 $376,427 The Chairman should be authorized to sign the five (5) copies of the Contract which needs to be in Tallahassee at HRS prior to September 25, 1985. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Annual Contract between HRS and IRC for Operation of the County Health Dept., and authorized the Chairman's signature. (CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK) 13 SEP 25 1995 BOOK PAGE SEP 25 1985 BOOK PAUGE L. Release of Assessment Lien - SR -60 Water -- Westgate Colony Subdivision - Walter E. Rice ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved Release of Assessment Lien for one ERU SR -60 Water to Walter E. Rice for Lot 4, Block 3, Westgate Colony Subdivision. State Road 60 Water Project RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN For and in consideration of the sum of $970.45 RECEIVED from WALTER E. RICE, 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: Lot 4, Block 3 of WESTGATE COLONY SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 94, of the 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 25th day of September, 1985. Attested and countersigned: ', / i , Freda Wright,C erk 1 geA S /mi V1form and .. ---- , sst. County Attorney Instrument prepared by and should be returned to: COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BOARD O O NTY COMMISSIONERS INDIA IV COU T FLORIDA B . P rick B. L ns, hairman 14 s � � M. Release of Assessment Lien - SR -60 Water - Vista Plantation, Building 16 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved Release of Assessment Lien for 12 ERUs SR -60 Water to Vista Plantation, Building 16 and 12 ERUs for Building 17. 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 BEACH, 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. 16 of VISTA PLANTATION, according to the Declaration of Condominium, recorded in O. 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 25th day September 1985. Attested and countersigned: n Freda Wright,lerk Ap o ed form and 1 al of en' y ! I estrument P. tfilson, unty Attorney prepared by jd should be returned to: CHARLES P. VITUNAC, County Attorney 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 BOARD F COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDI N RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA tek o S. 1y4 Chairman 15 BOOK F'1GE,:� SEP 2 5 1955 BOOKS cc: I 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 BEACH, 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. 17 of VISTA PLANTATION. according to the Declaration of Condominium, recorded in O. 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 25th day September 1985. Attested and countersigned: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS /i INDI IAV -R ) VER COUNT , FLORIDA Freda Wright, Perk y L c ons hairman Ap,pnved o fo m and 1 gal suf n mes P. Wilson, - As istant County Attorney nstrument prepared by and should be returned to: CHARLES P. VITUNAC, County Attorney 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 N. Selection of Engineering Services - IRC Landfill The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/18/85: 16 TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1985 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTG SUBJECT: ENGINEERING SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIVISION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY OF UTILITY SERVICES LANDFILL FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Indian River County advertised for and subsequently received on July 26, 1985, proposals for engineering services in solid waste management and the design and operation of landfills. The scope of services that were to be provided are as follows: 1. Development of a Solid Waste Management Master Plan addressing the following as a minimum A. Evaluation of existing facilities and operations. B. Investigation of alternative methods of solid waste disposal. C. Feasibility of a County operated hazardous waste collection, storage and transfer operations. D. Evaluation and feasibility of solid waste compaction and/or • transfer stations. E. Investigation of the treatment and disposal of waste sludges and septage. F. Evaluation of composting. 2. Design, preparation of plans and construction supervision of required improvements in the landfill facility. 3. Design and preparation of plans and specifications for the closing of Phase I and the construction of Phase II of the Landfill. The following engineering firms submitted proposals: 1. 2. 3. 4. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan William M. Bishop Gee & Jenson in association with Heyden-Wegman and Geraghty and Miller The four firms made a formal presentation before a Selection Committee on August 12, 1985. The Selection Committee requested the two most qualified firms (Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. and Gee & Jenson, et al) to provide a second presentation with those individuals who would actually be working on the project in attendance. A second presentation was provided by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. and Gee & Jenson, et al, on September 13, 1985. At that time the Selection Committee chose Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. as the number one choice. SEP 25 1985 16a„,, , BOOK �� FAG€ c'.Ow � SEP 25 1985 BOOK' F'AGCP� The order of selection on all four firms was as follows: 1. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 2. Gee & Jenson in association with Heyden-Wegman and Geraghty and Miller 3. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan 4., William M. Bishop, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Copies of the proposals submitted by each firm are attached for reference. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. as the number one choice and authorize Staff to negotiate contracts for engineering services covering the scope of services listed above. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. as number one choice in the negotiations for the selection of engineers for solid waste management and design and operation of landfills, as recommended by staff. O. Award of Bid for Custodial Services - Courthouse & Annex The Board reviewed memo of Lynn Williams, Superintendent of Buildings & Grounds, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 17, 1985FILE: the Board of County Commissioners Thru: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: ' Custodial Services Courthouse Annex and State's Thru: H. T. "Sonny" De Attorneys Building General Services Di c or RO ynn Williams REFERENCES: Superintendent Buildings & Grounds DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Letters requesting proposals for -Contracted Custodial Service were _ sgnt to nine (9) local firms. The service is to include all items 17 now provided by our in-house staff. The Commission instructed staff, during budget workshops, to obtain proposals for custodial services effective Fiscal year 85-86. All bids were sealed when submitted and opened on September 17, 1985 at 9:00 a.m. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Four (4) firms responded to staff's request by submitting proposals. Each firm listed items covered by their service and all were given walk-through tours of the areas covered by the Contract. The Annual cost for each firm submitting proposals is listed below: Coast to Coast Janitor $23,616 Soundview Cleaning $33,800 Doug Reese Cleaning $35,820 Cunningham Cleaning Service $53,088 RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends approval of Custodial Services Bid to Coast to Coast Janitor Service, Inc. Funding is provided in Buildings and Grounds Budget line item #001-220-519-33.49. Commissioner Scurlock stated that his question is why is there no cost comparison made in terms of County crews assuming that function, possibly by the addition of one more worker, for instance. Chairman Lyons did not feel this is a great deal of service for the amount of money involved. Superintendent Lynn Williams reported that in comparison to the low bid of $23,616, the in-house cost for this service would be approximately $30,000 with fringes figured in; this would be for two men. This service covers the main Courthouse, the Annex and the State's Attorney's building. Administrator Wright believed we talked about this at length at budget time and thought we would try this with outside services for one year. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to award the bid for custodial services for the Courthouse, the Courthouse Annex, and the State Attorney's building for fiscal year 1985-86 to Coast to Coast Janitor Service, Inc., in the amount of $23,616; funding from line item 001-220-519-33.49. 18 BOOK SEP 2 6'A ' 519© 85 r� utP� SEP 25 1955 BOOK • �A& Chairman Lyons inquired whether we are in a position to terminate these services if they are not satisfactory as we have had some bad experiences in the past. Superintendent Williams assured him there is a 30 -day termination clause. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (3-0). CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK P. Budget Amendment - Beach Renourishment Project The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/18/85: TO: Board of County CommissioneDATE: September 18, 1985 FILE: THROUGH: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: Budget Amendment Beach Renourishment Project FROM: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas �,FF�F j� Intergovernmental CoorQl'1 REPENCES: We will not complete the sand renourishment and dune vegetation by the end of the fiscal year. The original appropriation for this project was $35,800.00. We have only spent $12,250.00. I request that $23,550.00 be carried forward to the 1985-86 budget so that we may complete this project. This money should be carried forward to Account # 001-210-572-33.19. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the above budget amendment as recommended by Director Thomas. 19 Q. Authorization for -Out -of -County Travel - Beach Restoration Symposium ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved out -of -county travel for Commissioners and staff to attend the Beach Restoration Symposium in Miami on October 29-31, 1985. R. Final Assessment Roll: The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/11/85: r0: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 11, 1985 FILE: The Board of County Commissioners ` THROUGH: Michael Wright, Final Assessment Roll County Administrator lst St. -27th Ave. to 32nd SUBJECT: 3rd St -18th Ave. to 20th Ave. 18th Court -6th St to 8th St. James W.'Davis, P.E. 19th Ave. -2nd St. to 4th St. Public Works Directo FROM: Michelle A: ferry REFERENCES: Chief, Road Design Section DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The paving of 1st Street, 3rd Street, 18th.Court and 19th Avenue is com- plete. The final cost and preliminary estimate for the work was: Final Cost/FF Prelim. Cost/FF Final Cost Prelim. Estimate 19th Avenue $8.8297 $9.99 $20,968.88.. $31,643.00 3rd Street $9.2491 $10.18 $ 9,730.08 $14,273.00 1st Street $7.0981 $9.17 $21,581.22 $37,168.00 18th Court $9.0221 $10.45 $20,975.46 $32,389.25 All construction costs are under the original estimates. The Final Assess- ment Rolls have been prepared and are ready to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be paid within 90 days or in two equal installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-four months foram the due date at an interest rate of 1% over the Prime Rate established by the Board of County Commissioners. The assessments for those lots fronting both 19th Avenue and 3rd Street are to be paid within 90 days or in three equal annual installments also at an interest rate of 1% over Prime Rate. The due date is 90 days after the final determination of the special assessment. 20 EP 25 199 BOOK FA ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since the final assessment to the benefited owners will be less than computed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only alternative presented is to approve the final assessment rolls. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that the Final Assessment Rolls for the paving of 19th Avenue, 3rd Street, 1st Street, and 18th Court be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that they be transmitted to: the Office of the Clerk to the Board for Collection. ON'MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the following Final Assessment Rolls and directed that they be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for collection at 101% interest: 19th Ave, between 2nd 8 4th Sts. $20,968.88 3rd St. between 18th 8 20th Aves. 9,730.08 1st St. between 27th and 32nd Aves. 21,581.22 18th Ct. between 6th 8 8th Sts. 20,975.46 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK S. Retro -Active Approval of County/Library Agreement ON MOTIONbyCommissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) granted retro -active approval of the Indian River County Library Agreement for Fiscal Year 1985-86, and authorized the Chairman's signature. 21 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LIBRARY AGREEMENT FISCAL YEAR 1985 - 86 THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 2,0-�6/-day of 1985, by and between the Indian River County Library Association, Inc., and the Sebastian River Library Association, Inc. iD • (hereinafter participating libraries), and Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter County). WHEREAS, library services in Indian River County are to be provided by two independent non-profit library associations, with the assistance of the County through direct appropriations and as a channel for receiving state and federal grant dollars; and WHEREAS, as requested by the State Division of Library Services pursuant to the Division's interpretation of Chapter 257 of Florida Statutes and regulations promulgated thereunder, and as deemed appropriate by the County, a contractual relationship should exist between the County and participating private libraries as a prerequisite for federal, state and local assistance; and WHEREAS, the Indian River County Library Association, Inc., has, in the past, provided library services to the citizens of Indian River County and the County desires that the Indian River County Library Association, Inc., continue to provide, along with the Sebastian River Library Association, Inc., library services for_, the. benefit of the citizens of Indian River County in accordance with the requirements of Florida Statutes Ch. 257 and the Florida Administrative Code, as both may be amended from time to time; and in furtherance of this end the parties desire to enter into the following agreement. WITNESSETH: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual promises and covenants set forth below, the parties agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE: This agreement is entered into for the purpose of providing funds to continue the delivery of public -1- SEP 2 5 1985 BOOK � � FAc 7_ � SEP 25 1995 BOOK FAUC u library services in Indian River County in accordance with minimum standards of operation and service to us.ers, and accountability to public funding entities. 2. ALL FACILITIES PUBLIC: Each library facility owned, operated, or controlled by a participating library shall hereafter be designated as a public library within the Indian River County Library Unit, and shall remain open and available to all residents of Indian River County on a non-discriminatory basis. 3. MINIMUM OPERATIONAL STANDARDS: Each participating library agrees to provide services in accordance with the follow- ing prescribed minimum standards and guidelines: A. At least one of the participating libraries shall remain open to the public not less than forty (40) hours for any given week, it being understood and agreed that the partici- pating libraries shall coordinate among themselves to insure that this provision is satisfied. B. "Library services," as that term may from time to time be defined by State law or the State Division of Library Services, shall be provided free of charge to all residents of Indian River County. Nothing in this provision shall prohibit adoption by a participating library of: (i) rules requiring patrons to first obtain a library card, where no charge is made to the patron for the initial issuance thereof; (ii) rules establishing fines, penalties, or charges for overdue, damaged, destroyed, or lost materials; or (iii) a rental book system wherein rental materials shall consist solely of extra or additional copies of titles or material, the first copy of which is regularly available free of charge. C. Each participating library shall obtain, at its own expense, an annual audit to be prepared by an independent certified public accountant and furnished within ninety (90) days following the close of each library's fiscal year to the County Library Advisory Board for review and comment to the Board of County Commissioners. D. Library materials of each participating library -2- M M M shall be freely available for use, display, and lending by the other in a reasonable manner and for reasonable periods of times, provided that the borrowing library shall be responsible to the lending library for the timely return or replacement of such materials. E. The governing body of each participating library shall conduct its regular meetings no less than quarterly, and shall publish reasonable advance notice of such meetings in a newspaper of county -wide circulation. All such meetings shall be open to the public. Current copies of the Articles of Incorporation, By -Laws, and published rules of operation for each library shall be kept on file with the County. Each participating library shall make available to the County and its Library Advisory Board copies of the final approved minutes for said meetings, together with periodic financial reports generated during the ordinary course of operation. 4. TERM OF AGREEMENT; RENEWAL; ANNUAL BUDGET SUBMITTAL This agreement shall be in effect upon execution by all parties until the end of the County's fiscal year 1985-86. Prior to renewal of this agreement for the ensuing fiscal year, each participating library shall submit to the Library Advisory Board on or before April 15, 1985 its proposed operating budget for said fiscal year, for review and comment to the Board of County - Commissioners, who shall then establish funding levels for said renewal term. ' 5. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF COUNTY LIBRARY UNIT: The participating libraries jointly: A. Shall be responsible for supervising and directing the duties and functions of the administrative head of the library unit (head librarian) including the promulgation of the job description for that position. B. Shall nominate prior to the beginning of the fiscal year an individual meeting the qualifications set forth by applicable state law to serve as the administrative head of the library unit (head librarian), subject to actual appointment by Board of County Commission Resolution to be made prior to the -3- SEP 25 1995 BOOK �fyU� n fi 6. OWNERSHIP OF LIBRARY ASSETS UPON DISSOLUTION OF A PARTICIPATING LIBRARY: In the event of dissolution of a participating library during the term of this agreement, where such library is not simultaneously reestablished to provide library services, each participating library agrees to distribute, convey, transfer, or assign to the County all of the assets, personal property, equipment, books, subscriptions, and any other materials, resources, or items used in the operation of its library, which are attributable to the funds allocated or expended during the term of this agreement, to be used exclusively by the County or its designate for the continuation of library services within Indian River County. 7. PUBLIC FUNDING PROVISION: For fiscal year 1985- 1986 the County agrees to allocate the following dollar amounts for each of the participating libraries to be expended only for library operations in accordance with this agreement: A. Indian River County Library Association, Inc. --the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($160,000.00), together with two-thirds of state or federal grant monies received by the County for allocation to the participating libraries, unless the parties agree otherwise as to such grant monies. B. Sebastian River Library Association, Inc. --the sum of EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($80,000.00), together with one-third (1/3) of state or federal grant monies received by the County for allocation to the participating libraries, unless the parties agree otherwise to such grant monies. C. Unless agreed otherwise by the County and the party concerned, funds allocated hereunder shall be made available to a participating library in twelve equal monthly installments. 8. AMENDMENT OR REVISION OF AGREEMENT: This agreement may be modified or amended in part, or in whole, including amendment to allow for additional participating library groups to -4- M M SEP � r, MS BOOK L2 Fret ! L) beginning of the fiscal year. Each party to this agreement signifies its acceptance of any appointment so made and agrees to establish internal operating procedures to accommodate the establishment of this position. C. Shall operate independently from and shall not be under the control or auspices of the County Library Advisory Board. 6. OWNERSHIP OF LIBRARY ASSETS UPON DISSOLUTION OF A PARTICIPATING LIBRARY: In the event of dissolution of a participating library during the term of this agreement, where such library is not simultaneously reestablished to provide library services, each participating library agrees to distribute, convey, transfer, or assign to the County all of the assets, personal property, equipment, books, subscriptions, and any other materials, resources, or items used in the operation of its library, which are attributable to the funds allocated or expended during the term of this agreement, to be used exclusively by the County or its designate for the continuation of library services within Indian River County. 7. PUBLIC FUNDING PROVISION: For fiscal year 1985- 1986 the County agrees to allocate the following dollar amounts for each of the participating libraries to be expended only for library operations in accordance with this agreement: A. Indian River County Library Association, Inc. --the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($160,000.00), together with two-thirds of state or federal grant monies received by the County for allocation to the participating libraries, unless the parties agree otherwise as to such grant monies. B. Sebastian River Library Association, Inc. --the sum of EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($80,000.00), together with one-third (1/3) of state or federal grant monies received by the County for allocation to the participating libraries, unless the parties agree otherwise to such grant monies. C. Unless agreed otherwise by the County and the party concerned, funds allocated hereunder shall be made available to a participating library in twelve equal monthly installments. 8. AMENDMENT OR REVISION OF AGREEMENT: This agreement may be modified or amended in part, or in whole, including amendment to allow for additional participating library groups to -4- M M join the library unit, only upon the execution by all parties of a written amendment hereto. 9. COVENANTS: The covenants contained herein exist only during the term of this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement on the dates contained below. r Date: ' u Date: S"ember Dates APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: BRUCE BARRETT, Assistant County Attorney SEP 25 1985 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LIBRARY SEBASTIAN RIVER LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, INC. Attest: -�--� Tit BOARD�F CO NTY COMMISSIONERS OF NDS RIVER COUNTY airman ,_ Attest: FRED WR T Clerk of, :C jl rrcui t Court -5- BOOK . DGGE SEP 25 1985 ®ooK r)" T. Approval of Library Application for State Aid ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by sm Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Library Application for State Aid and authorized the Chairman's signature. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF LIBRARY SERVICES APPLICATION FOR STATE AID TO LIBRARIES - _ .. _ The Board of County -Commissioners of - INDIAN RIVER County hereby applies to the Division of Library Services of the Florida Department of State for an operating grant for public library service as authorized under Chapter 257, Florida Statutes, for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1985 and ending September 30, 1986. We certify that the following amounts were centrally expended for the operation of public library service during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1984. Total Expenditures, October 1, 1983 -September 30, 1984 • $ 4;2,922.00 Less, State Aid RECEIVED ($ 14, 012.34 ) Less, LSCA Program Grants RECEIVED ($ ) Less, Other State and Federal Program Grants RECEIVED ($ ) Less, Any Funds not Expended CENTRALLY ($ ) Total Local Expenditures Qualified for Matching $ 258,909.66 We certify that the following amounts, exclusive of federal and state grants, will be available and expended centrally for public library use during fiscal year 1985-1986. County Appropriations (County funds from local sources only) $ 240,000.00 * City Appropriations (City funds from local sources only) $ Other (Specify) $ * Affidavit from each city providing funds optional. TOTAL $ 240,000.00 27 M a This library service is provided through contracts with the following cities and counties: Indian River County The yield of a one mill tax in this county is $3,099,856 The Applicant agrees to expend any grant awarded pursuant to this Application in full compliance with -the terms and conditions of Chapter 257, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 1B-2, Florida Administrative Code, relating to county free public libraries and the State Library, which Chapters are incorporated by reference as part of this Application and attached hereto. Clerk of the Circuit CQOt September -25, 1985 Date 86 -Al -2- 28 Indian River County Board of County Carmissioners BOOK �- �SP-25-985-.1�._ .x :� r, .�.�.�.:.. ,�. _���..:_X ._ _ . _ - _ SEP 25 1985 BOOK Lb PA -U 02 � ZUt U. Resolution 85-115 - Authorizing Execution of Library Application_ for State Aid and appointment of Head Librarian ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room and Commissioner Bird absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) adopted Resolution 85-115, authorizing execution of the Library Agreement for Fiscal Year 1985-1986; appointing Mary Kiser as Head Librarian for the Fiscal Year; and authorizing the submission of the annual application for state aid to the State Library of Florida. 29 RESOLUTION NO. 85- 115 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING ESECU- TION OF THE LIBRARY AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985- 1986; APPOINTING MARY RISER AS HEAD LIBRARIAN FOR THE FISCAL YEAR; AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL APPLICATION FOR STATE AID TO THE STATE LIBRARY OF FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the delivery of Public Library services to the citizens of Indian River County is an appropriate and worthwhile goal deserving of support by state and local government; and WHEREAS, two independent non-profit library associa- tions have again agreed to provide public library services within the County for the next fiscal year in accordance with State law governing public libraries and the provisions of the attached agreement, in consideration for financial support by the County in the amounts stated in the agreement; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to formally appoint an indi- vidual meeting the State's requirements to serve as the "Head Librarian" for purposes of administering the County Library Unit; and WHEREAS, the receipt of funding assistance from the State Library of Florida requires submission by the Board of County Commissioners of a formal application therefor on or before October 1, 1985. NOW THEREFORE BE- IT RESOLVED BY THE' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSSIONERS as follows: 1. The Indian River County Library Agreement for fiscal year 1985-86, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is hereby approved and the Chairman and Clerk are authorized and directed to execute same; 2. Mrs. Mary Riser, the Librarian for the Indian River County Library Association, Inc. is hereby appointed as the Head Librarian to serve as the Administrative Head of the County Library Unit comprised of the libraries which are parties hereto; and SEP 25 1985 BOOK FAGS,�o-� SEP 25 1995 -� o � BOOK FAGr 3. The Chairman and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and cause the proper filing of the application for State aid to libraries, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, for fiscal year 1985-86. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman 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 Absent Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent 85-115 The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. duly passed and adopted this 25th day of September , 1985. BOARD 0 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TNIARIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ICI B. rman • V Attest: t/ ".4- FREDA WRIGHT Clerk o Cir rt ill Co . APPROVED AS TO FORM LEGAL UFFICI CY Bruce Barkett, Assistant County Attorney -2- PRD SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL - 60 OAKS PROJECT The hour of 9:05 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 Weekly 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 weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being - a In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of oq�e�year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and aff(a t 'further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporati� any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisementifor•pu6lication in.,the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this. day of A.D. k (Clerk of the (SEAL) ` " ' NOTICE —PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the granting of a Planned Residential Development (P R.D.) spe- cial exception approval Of properly, located on the south side of State Road 60 approximately Ya mile west of 58th Avenue, is presently owned by Planned Development Corporation: The subject property is described as: The East 10 acres of the West 20,07' acres of Tract 10, section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of lands of Indian River Farms Company filed In the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, -Florida, in plat book 2, paga 25; said land now lying and being In Indian River County, Florida A public hearing at which parties in In- terest and citizens shall have an oppor tunny to to heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of In than River County, Florida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County q Administration Building, located at 1840.; 25th Street, Vero Beach, ' Florida on Wednesday, September 25,-1985 at 9:05 a.m. _ ~ • if any person decides to appeal an decision made on the above matter, he% . she will need a record of the proceed. Inge, and for such purposes, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners'.,_,, By: -s -Patrick B. Lytes Chairman Sept. 3,17..1985. Staff Planner Boling made the following presentation: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 16, 198flLE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: PRD SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL FOR 60,OAKS Robert M. Keat ng, ICP PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Planning & Development Director DEVELOPMENT FROM: Stan Boling 9 REFERENCES: Staff Planne It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 25, 1985. 32 SEP.5 199- BOOK .0 PAU-E,,jD SEP 25 1985 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: BOOK 9 FAG g LY Section 25(A).4. of the Zoning Code establishes regulations and provisions governing the planned residential development (PRD) review and approval procedures. Under the regulations, PRD proposals must be granted the following approvals: 1) PRD special exception approval, 2) Preliminary PRD Plan (site plan and preliminary plat) approval, 3) Land development permit, and 4) Final PRD Plan (final plat) approval. The PRD ordinance encourages the concurrent review and consideration of the first two steps. The applicant, Planned Development Corporation, Bob McKnight, Sr. Vice President, is seeking approval of the first two steps and has submitted plans for special exception approval as well as a preliminary PRD plan. At their regular meeting of August 22, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant PRD special exception approval to the 60 Oaks project. The Commission also voted to approve the submitted preliminary PRD plan, subject to the Board granting PRD special exception approval to the project. Therefore, if the Board grants PRD special exception approval, the 60 Oaks - preliminary PRD plan will be automatically approved. Planned Development Corporation is now requesting that the Board grant PRD special exception approval to the 60 Oaks project. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The °60 Oaks project is located on the south side of State Road 60, approximately } mile west of 58th Avenue (King's Highway). The PRD is to consist of 60 attached single family units. Individual lots and units (each unit/sharing a common wall with the adjacent unit) will be privately owned and maintained. The proposed street, Sixty Oaks Lane, and the two stormwater management tracts are to be owned and maintained by a property owners association. The following is an analysis of the 60 Oaks project, based on the submitted and conditionally approved preliminary PRD plan. 1) Size of Property: 10.0 acres 2) Zoning Classification: RM -6, Residential Multi -family up to 6 units/acre 3) Land Use Designation: LD -2, Low Density Residential 4) Proposed Building Density: 6.0 units/acre 5) Surrounding Land Uses: North: State Road 60, single family subdivision (RS -6) South: Indian River Community College campus (A) East: groves, single family residence (A) West: single family residences (RS -6) 6) Landscaping and Buffering: The site plan is in conformance with the landscape ordinance (84-47). The perimeter (rear yard) building setbacks range from 25' to 451. Existing trees are located within the perimeter area; 3' high evergreen hedges are to be provided in perimeter areas where trees are to be removed. 33 M 7) Off-street spaces required: 120 total (2 per unit) provided: 120 total (2 per unit) 8) Unit Floor Area: ranges from 955 to 1255 sq. ft. 9) Traffic Circulation: lots are to be directly accessed via Sixty Oaks Lane, a cul-de-sac road. The Developer will provide a west bound left -turn deceleration lane at the existing State Road 60 median cut. just to the west of the proposed project entrance. 10) Drainage Plan: The County Engineer has approved the conceptual drainage plan. A stormwater management permit will need to be issued along with the required land development permit. 11) Utilities: County water and sewer service is to be utilized. The County Utilities Division has approved the conceptual water and sewer plans; however, water and sewer construction plans will need to be approved- prior to the issuance of a land development permit. In accordance with the PRD ordinance, the following RM -6 zoning district requirements will be waived upon final approval of the preliminary PRD plan: RM -6 Proposed minimum lot size: 7,000 sq. ft. 4,000 to 8,800 sq. ft. minimum lot width: 70 ft. 25 ft. (at front yard set back) to 80 ft. front yard setbacks: 25 ft. 20 ft. to 35 ft. side yard setbacks: 10 ft. 0 ft. to 20 ft. The proposed PRD special exception use and conditionally approved preliminary plan are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant PRD special exception approval to the 60 Oaks project.. Planner Boling noted that this is the first PRD the Board has considered so he would like to outline the general process involved. He noted that one of the advantages of the PRD is that based on the design of the plan and its compatibility with surrounding uses, certain normal setbacks and regulations can be waived. The first step involves staff review of a conceptual plan. The second part of the process is to submit a preliminary PRD plan which would contain a site plan and a preliminary plan. After that the applicant would pull a land development permit to build the roads and other basic infrastructure for the project. 34 BOOK � FAU-9,4-7 �m SEP 25 1985 SEP 2S. 1995 BOOK PA,E The final PRD plan would consist of a final plat to plat tracts and lots, and dedicate R/W and easements. The ordinance encourages doing the first two steps concurrently, and that is what 60 Oaks has done. Mr. Boling further noted that the proposed project consists of 10 acres with 60 attached single family units; they are looking at a range of setbacks between 25' and 45' from the perimeter and will have trees and hedging in places where the setback comes closer. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that one thing we would be adopting in this is a vehicle for zero setback for sideyards, which really allows more open space, and Planner Boling confirmed that they have quite a bit more open space in this type project than they would in others. They are designing this as single family attached units with the common wall between the units actually being on the lot line. The density remains the same as the normal RM -6. Chairman Lyons noted that the road will meander through the trees, and Public Works Director Davis stated that they have guaranteed there will be at least 6' between the road edge and any large object. He understood everyone's desire to protect the trees and staff is trying to work it out. The Chairman stated if people want to have a road meander through trees, he had a problem making them take the trees out. Commissioner Scurlock felt that is fine with a private road, but with a public road, it could entail some major liability. He asked what our liability is if it remains a private road and we don't accept it. County Attorney Vitunac did not think there would be any. Commissioner Wodtke entered the meeting at 9:24 o'clock A.M. Commissioner Bowman referred to the following location map of the project and stated that was her idea of duplexes and not 00 35 e !x Planner Boling explained that these people will actually own the lot and the building; it is not a rental situation. Attorney William Caldwell appeared on behalf of the developer and stated that they would like to be able to leave the trees and wish to know how to go about this. Director Keating explained that before any permits to do the work can be issued, they have to submit construction drawings and then it will be determined how this can be done. Attorney Caldwell wished to know what the Public Works Director will do about the 6' clearance of the trees. Director Davis noted that he will do whatever the Board directs, but emphasized that on this particular project the drainage is an open swale design, and this will make it difficult to save all the trees. Commissioner Scurlock noted that the intent -is simply to save as many trees as possible. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we have an established drainage survey for this whole area adjacent to the college. He felt this project will be in the crux of that drainage problem and believed there are no rear lot easements at all in some of these neighborhoods. He felt this must be addressed, and Commissioner Scurlock confirmed that the Community College is e talking about building 500 dorms on their site, which is quite close. ®e 36 SEP .5 1985 BOOK 62 r:. SEP 25 1985 Boa L9Pw Acts gs Director Davis advised that staff knows the area very well and tries to be very careful when any project comes in that the development does not impact the area, but if we can solve a problem at the same time and kill two birds with one stone, we try to do that. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) accepted staff's recommendation and granted PRD Special Exception approval to the 60 Oaks project. PETITION PAVING - 9TH COURT, 13th AVE., 15TH AVE., 11th LANE SW 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: 37 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach. Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally accessed J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Veto Beach in Indian River County. Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being a r�� in the matter of GGR' 1/iyid �5 In the �) C`ourt. was pub• lished in said newspaper in the issues of 4e' T �q 1J Atflant 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. ��1/ Sworn to and subscri for a IN day a A.D. 19 XS uea snags+) (SEAL)(Clerk of the Circuit Court. Indian RiW County, Florida) . • a) 9th Caut Wlwaeit 2nd Suaet Piro -•�. ' • Sa.9" Kula Canaf :: • . , +ia1 C Lots 1 through 10: Stock N. Lbts 1S'• . '• through 19,.Bfock O as Mem. an tta' Piet or prolan filler. Nelghis Su 31 Of on # � i- an record In Plat Book 7 Page 31 m elm : q `. PVbile Records Qf Indkn River COWgy..':•• lToma.. : y. •-. -,;.._ ,.. Lai; r: b)11th Lane Sou9iwest 1245'+ -west of :._ . '• Old Dixie Highway -.+, - •.•'t t:;Y- -.. Lots 1 through 10. "ebdt P.', Leto. 1, ihrthlgh 8, Block R. and 2837 feet of lot A. y T. Block 0. Lots 9.9. and 10. Block O. as . shown an the Plat of plate Heights Sub- :,i divislo n umt 4 on record W Put Book 4. Page 91 of the Public Reeds of Indian River County, with FloridaToget That potion of the forum" described t property. lying west of Me West right of, L'-•.&TThe Sour 440 feeway Ime of Old ethe orth No fed � • of the East % of the Southeast % of the Northeast u of Section 2S. ToenMhp 33 South. Range 39 East AND ALSO the Smuts 440 feet of MB NmOi 890 fee Of • . a' Ole Southwest b of the Northwest % of Section 30. Township 33 South. Range 40 East LESS theJfor Me :: Floods East Coast Ra hoed ht of M IM Me •::+lend of waw fa Did Dixie Hiehwav_ and • ►'due River County. Florida -t;' - Ii Sam tract being In Indian Rhier Cowdy - .:1 Florida. i IL.. -;.—; 'c e) 13m'Avenue between 1a Shaw 'e;' Southwest and 2nd Street '- ": Lou 1 through 17. Sloek A. Lob I?-,,:,: Mr tugh 32, Block D, as Mown on the' ' Plat W Indian Rolm Heights Subdivision. 'r Unit 5: on record In Plat Book 7, Page 17 - Of the Public Records of trMian River d 15Counth Avenue between let Strati . Southwest and 2nd Strew - lots S through 10. Block A; Lois 1..... ( Block 8; mW�otsL H'• LOU th""Ormrou8 �1 :. •.. ' 3: as ahorvin on Ms Plat W md4n Rarer Helphts SuDewfabn. Uel! 4, on rseord In Rel Book e, Page 88 0l ths Publk3 .., Racerda m Indian Rkar Counts. FtorlOa..�'i: 38 E P 25. 1995 .. "pUtrilC ItOTR! f PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Nal Ft1e frmro o Ceunly Commrokme"' o Indian Rear Coiduy. Rnda. or ens told a putille heaai0 at 9.15 a- an Wednesday. September 25. 1995. In the Coenu- alen Chambers located a 160 25M Street Vero Beach. Flenda, to consider adGUMM of do IOF resowaore lowing ad�RESOLUTtMMes A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM MbeM�eOFwniwniuANrl .r WHEREAS. ifie'County PimOe WOAS Depart merit hall received ■ Public fmprownlmn Petr• NaiQnad by man Nan N m Ole ownlme of • 1.. ihw area m m seatless permtited. ra• WHEREAS. the peat _ ms sen+ vert kia and ' -Wlwm the edomW worargrp juPWueOgdee.,a.' esdmatell ameda at ordinance $1.27. s been ZFRREEAS. t . total u&namwileft de�at oo* pro• posed Imaoremmnts ts 3119,985.52: and !, J WHEREAS. ate sbead aasrr 1 provided tr• fpireorepta�tdye within 9re � given record ben be. In an anmunl edual to"ae� of Seventy- ' -five Percent (75 ) at lee iota til a the ptojaet 0.which number Wm" Silead of Peso frottage '::.Yawned by Me *am blame to ins total . number of Wroal feet of road hm" vette the +• .. area specially benefited. and slue became due and payable at the Office of the Tax Cotiecmr of `. Indian River County bluely (90) days atter the :.•Bnsl daterminauto of tiro apaela rifts Oldmafxs 81-27. and .. WHEREAS, Indian ltiWr Count elu0 pay the .-.tmnalnld9 twentyfivs perarertt (25%) at this !Olaf cord of the protect and WHERFA3, any special aSsea+nlent not pard wMdin sem nmeiy (so) day perlcd Shan bear th• {mast beyond the due dais at •rate establlMeO by Vie Board of Camay Cmnaeiavonms at Ota NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BYTW • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF V4• DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as loges 1. The foregoing tecitals are affirmed and red. Bed in Neu entirely. 2. A "act Providing far paving and drsM"- improvements to 9th Corot between 2nd Street and fi% South Relief Cane: 11th Lull South- West. 1245' +- West of Om Dhds Highway. 13M Avenue between 1st Street S.W. and 2nd Street and 151h Avenue between 1st Street Southwest and 2nd Street heretofore designated as Public Wdrke Proieces No. 8473. 8429. 8425, 5424. to specovey. is hereby approved to to the terms outlined above and all applicable MgWte• mess of Ordinance 51.27. The foregosrg resolution was offered by Can- missiamr who proved Its adoptmn. The motion was seconded, - by DOmmlissimer -and, upon bailiff pa to a Vote. me vote was as follows: Chairmen Patrick a Lyons .4 •>o_. Vice -Chairman Dan C. Scwkk*. Jf. •.:'"�' Commission 14argerM C. eodrmmr• Commissioner EiR N. Biro - Commissi«Ix Wukam C. Woeks. Jr. t •� ' The Chairman thereupon declare) tiro Motu - don 1 ed S"+and adopted this 00 4 BOARDOFCOUNTY . FT•' COMMISSIONERS ,: +r OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA . B/ PATRICK 8. LYONS "Chairmen • Ahest FR EDA WRIGHT. Cork ' .. APPROVED AS TO FORM : = • " AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY .By . ��i�f-,4 Co. Attorneys OttN:s i•'Y'•'?i PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that at OM same public hearing, the Board of County Can• m4.lioners Mall also hear all Interested persons regartmg the proposed req for the improv Tents dO$Cnbed M the above resolution. The Prolim nary Assessment Bolt and Petition is cut- rentiy of Ne with the Public Works Dwoon and Is open for Inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and S 00 p.m.. Monday through Friday. V a person decodes ro appeal arty aeewlen made by the Commusron with respect to and matter Considered at mrs hyeuq. he Ina need a racod of the proCeedatgs, enol that, for such PWP05a. - he may need to enswri 0W a vmbshm 1­o ol: the aoceemnnas a made. whit record _1W --- the ""'pony and evwnoa upon which pea tip- pultsto be based. 2 lnda Rwo Coiatly • '•. "rlu'i�a'.+. Mrchae WngeL Sept %" "huneonli " WW shall be payable the finat to be train the due dam a - twenty -four t24) ioonV mined that Oro shao receive a mY83iOneq 1180 �_ spacial beiletit BOOK,+�� PAGE SEP 25 1985 BOOK U9, PAGE; Michelle Terry, Chief, Road Design Section, made the following staff presentation: TO: THE HONORABLE NIERS OF= DATE: September 11, 1985 FILE: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH: MICHAEL WRIGHT, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR JAMES W. DAVIS,P.E. PUBLIC WORKS DI FROM: A. TERRY, CHIEF, ROAD DESIGN SECTION PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PA VING OF 9TH COURT BE'T'WEEN 2ND SUBJECT: �T AND SO, RELIEF CANAL; 13TH AVENUE BETWEEN 1ST STREET TO 2ND STREET; 15TH AVENUE BETWEEN 1ST STREET SOUTHWEST TO 2ND STREET; 11TH LANE SOUTHWEST 1245' WEST OF OLD DIXIE REFERENCES: DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Petitions have been received from property owners of the following streets: 1) 9th Court between 2nd Street and South Relief Canal (Preliminary Cost $19,595.90, 69% consent) 1,447.40 front footage; 2) 13th Avenue between 1st Street S.W. and 2nd Street (Preliminary Cost $33,850.30, 78% consent) 2463.39 front footage; 3) 15th Avenue between 1st Street S.W. and 2nd Street (Preliminary Cost $33,850.30, 71% consent) 2332.85 front footage; 4) 11th Lane S.W. 1245' West of Old Dixie Highway (Preliminary Cost $32,689.02, 67% consent) 2308.76 front footage. Preliminary assessment rolls have been prepared for the paving and drainage improvements. The total costs of these projects is approximately $119,985.52. There is approximately $97,718.60 (as money from other roads is replenished to the Petition Paving Account these roads will be paved) in the FY84/85 budget for Petition Paving, Account No. 703-214-541-35.39. Also, advertisement of the Public Hearing and notifications to the property owners has been performed. RECONIl4ENDATION AND FUNDING After consideration of the public input provided at the Public Hearing, it is recommended that motions be made to: 1) Adopt resolutions, providing for the paving and drainage improvements for each petition paving project, subject to the terms outlined in the Resolutions. The applicable interest rate shall be 1% over the Prime Rate at the time the final assessment roll is approved. 2) Approve preliminary assessment rolls including any changes made as a result of the Public Hearing. 3) Allocate $119,985.52 from the Petition Paving Account to fund this work. 4) The Road and Bridge Department be notified to schedule construction, probably in late 1985 or when funding is available. 39 The Chairman announced that we would deal with the various roads one at a time. He opened the public hearing on the petition°paving of 9th Court between 2nd Street and the South Relief Canal and asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Charles Aparicio inquired about the price of culverts, and Ms. Terry advised that he would have to check with individual suppliers. She believed the price runs about $120 for a 20' culvert. Ms. Terry recommended that the property owners in the area get together and contact one supplier, which would probably be more economical, and stated that staff would be glad to assist them with this. Mr. Aparicio inquired about interest, payments, penalties, etc. He was informed that the county charges interest at 1% over the prime rate, and if the payments are not made a lien is attached to the property, which will cloud the title. Mr. Aparicio wished to know if sod is included in the assessed amount, and Ms. Terry stated that it is but only on the right-of-way. Mr. Aparacio then wished to know when the paving will commence, and Director Davis noted that it is hard to predict when these jobs will be scheduled as we have done so many in the last year our petition paving fund needs to be replenished. He felt it would be six months at the most. Discussion continued as to replenishing the petition paving fund as payments come in from other streets, and Director Davis noted that owners could advance monies and accelerate the paving. Administrator Wright did not feel we should get into that procedure as yet and felt it would be preferable to loan the _ petition paving fund some money. Commissioner Scurlock did not believe we should get into that discussion at this time, and assured Mr. Aparicio that the 40 - SEP 25 1995 BOOK:;4� PAGE 4 1 SEP 25 1985 13ooK k F�UC paving will be done as fast as possible. The maximum time would be six months. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 85-116 providing for the paving and drainage improvements on 9th Court between 2nd Street and the South Relief Canal, the interest rate to be 1% over the Prime Rate at the time of approval of the final assessment roll; approved the preliminary assessment roll; allocated $19,595.90 from the Petition Paving Account to fund this work; and notified the Road and Bridge Department to schedule construction when funding is available. 41 RESOLUTION NO. 85-116 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY camaSSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CER MIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT TO 9TH COURT BETWEEN 2ND STREET AND SOUTH RELIEF CANAL; PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAVAENr OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMUM, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY BENEFITED. WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has received a public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the owners of property in the area to be specially benefited, requesting paving and drainage improvements to 9th Court between 2nd Street and the South Relief Canal; and WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and meets the requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost esti- mates has been completed by the Public Works Division; and WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed im- provements is $19,595.90;,and W SMAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall, for any given record owner of property within the area specially bene- fited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-five percent (75%) of the total cost of the project which the number of lineal feet of road frontage owned by the given owner bears to the total number of lineal feet of road frontage within the area specially benefited, and shall become due and payable at the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County ninety (90) days after the final determination of the special assessment pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the remaining twenty-five percent(25%) of the total cost of the project; and WF]EREA.S, any special assessment not paid within said ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at a rate established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of prepar- ation of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable in two (2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12) months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-four(24) months from the due date; and WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the following described properties shall receive a direct and special benefit from these improvements, to wit: 9th Court between 2nd Street and South Relief Canal Lots 1 through 10, Block N, Lots 11 through 19, Block O as shown on the Plat of Indian River Heights Subdivision on record in Plat Book 7 Page 31 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. BOOK LbL,FAULr SEP 25 1985 -a SEP 25 1955 GE BOOK `� F�� NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in their entirety. 2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve- ments to 9th Court between 2nd Street and South Relief Canal, heretofore designated as Public Works Project N0.8423, is hereby approved subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable requirements of Ordinance 81-27. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commis- sioner Bowman 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 Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Absent Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 25th day of September , 1985. Attest: /� a j FREDA WRIGHT, Cl :•• ' ' � • • •. � 1 •' Iii' • I� ..�,�1 o�i' • • ' U B. The Chairman thereupon opened the public hearing on the petition paving of 13th Avenue between 1st St.S.W. and 2nd St. and asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Considerable argument arose as to whether it was 1st St. S.W. or just 1st St., and the Public Works Director assured the Chairman that staff does know where the property in question is. It was determined that no one further wished to be heard. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. 43 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 85-117 providing for the paving and drainage improvements on 13th Ave, between 1st St, and 2nd St., the interest rate to be 1% over the Prime Rate at the time of approval of the final assessment roll; approved the preliminary assessment roll; allocated $33,850.30 from the Petition Paving Account to fund this work; and notified the Road and Bridge Department to schedule construction when funding is available. 44 SEP 25 19v BOOK -_�_.. ..��P �vaxf y�.�TJ r... -a.,.. ., :: _-:.�cn _-.�.r`�.'�'�` g'!'..__.t--a�'it., �.-:_..-.- _ .,_--.--�-� . .. _ ...-. ..._ � ... -. �a-r. .. �.•/Tw - -� - SEP 2 5 155 aooK RESOLUTION NO. 85-117 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE.IMPROVEMENT TO 13TH AVENUE BETWEEN IST STREET SOUTHWEST AND 2ND STREET; PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMM OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY BENEFITED. WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has received a public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the owners of property in the area to be specially benefited, requesting paving and drainage improvements to 13th Avenue between 1st Street S.W. and 2nd Street; and WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and meets the requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost esti- mates has been completed by the Public Works Division; and WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed im- provements is $33,850.30; and WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall, for any given record owner of property within the area specially bene- fited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-five percent (75%) of the total cost of the project which the number of lineal feet of road frontage owned by the given owner bears to the total number of Lineal feet of road frontage within the area specially benefited, and shall become due and payable at the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County ninety (90) days after the final determination of the special assessment pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the remaining twenty-five percent(25%) of the total cost of the project; and WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at a rate established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of prepar- ation of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable in two (2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12) months fran the due date and the second to be made twenty-four(24) months from the due date; and WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the following described properties shall receive a direct and special benefit from these improvements, to wit: Lots 1 through 17, Block A, Lots 17 through 32, Block D, as shown on the Plat of Indian River Heights Subdivision, Unit 6; on record in Plat Book 7, Page 17 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in their entirety. 2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve- ments to 13th Avenue between 1st Street S.W. And 2nd Street, heretofore designated as Public Works Project No.8429, is hereby approved subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable requirements of Ordinance 81-27. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock Who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by commis- sioner Bowman 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 Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Absent Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 25th day of September , 1985. s The Chairman opened the public hearing on the petition paving of 15th Ave. from 1st St. S.W. to 2nd St. and asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. 46 BOOK� F�Gt.� SEP 25 1935 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 85-118 providing for the paving and drainage improvements on 15th Ave. between 1st St. S.W. and 2nd St., the interest rate to be 10 over the Prime Rate at the time of approval of the final assessment roll; approved the preliminary assessment roll; allocated $33,850.30 from the Petition Paving Account to fund this work; and notified the Road and Bridge Department to schedule construction when funding is available. 47 RESOLUTION NO. 85-118 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR C EMUN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT TO 15TH AVENUE BEZ'WEEN 1ST STREET SOUTHWEST AND 2ND STREET; PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PANT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTAT r A JENTS , AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY BENEFITED. WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has received a public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the owners of property in the area to be specially benefited, requesting paving and drainage improvements to 15th Avenue between 1st Street Southwest and 2nd Street; and WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and meets the requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost esti- mates has been completed by the Public Works Division; and WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed im- provements is $33,850.30; and ,q WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall, for any given record owner of property within the area specially bene- fited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-five percent (75%) of the total cost of the project which the number of lineal feet of road frontage owned by the given owner bears to the total number of lineal feet of road frontage within the area specially benefited, and shall become due and payable at the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County ninety (90) days after the final determination of the special assessment pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the remaining twenty-five percent(25%) of the total cost of the project; and WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at a rate established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of prepar- ation of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable in two (2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12) months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-four(24) months from the due date; and WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the following described properties shall receive a direct and special benefit from these improvements, to wit: 15th Avenue between 1st Street Southwest and 2nd Street Lots 6 through 10, Block A; Lots 1 through 5, Block H; Lots 10 through 18, Block B; and Lots 1 through 9, Block C; as shown on the Plat of Indian River Heights Subdivision, Unit 4, on record in Plat Book 6, Page 86 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. SEP 25 1995 BOOK BOOK U2 PAGE f NOW 'FORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: their entirety. 1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in 2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve- ments to 15th Avenue between 1st Street Southwest and 2nd Street, heretofore designated as Public Works Project N6.8424, is hereby ap- proved subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable require- ments; of Ordinance 81-27. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commis- sioner 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 Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Absent Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman, thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 25th day of September , 1985. BOARD OFCOUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF I MIAl RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA The Chairman next opened the public hearing on the petition paving of 11th Lane S.W. 1245' west of Old Dixie and asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Public Works Director Davis noted that this street is bordered on the north by a proposed subdivision which has been approved by the county. It serves as a double frontage road for the lots to the south of the street - 12th St. S.W. serves the lots to the south and 11th Lane S.W. serves the same lots on the north. We have received a petition from the developer to the north, but since then one of those signing has withdrawn, which results in about 60% of the front footage being represented on the petition. We also have received a few letters from some of the lot owners on the south indicating their opposition because 49 of the double frontage situation. Director Davis continued that staff feels the road should be paved. The development to the north has been approved, and if this paving is not approved, it will create 8 or 10 lots without a paved road. Commissioner Scurlock believed the ordinance requires that there be paved roads, and Director Keating advised that the developer was given the option of either going to -petition paving or paving it himself. This is not an internal road within the subdivision. Director Davis reported that the developer is dedicating 25' additional right-of-way in addition to the 35' existing. When this paving was originally proposed, we did have a valid petition. Commissioner Scurlock asked why the developer should not pay - he needs access to those lots, and that should be his burden. Director Keating explained that staff gives the developer the option of petition paving because there are other lots involved, and it is the old equity situation; if he paves, he will be giving a benefit to other lots. Administrator Wright believed this is a unique situation because the single lots going from street to street can access either road. He asked which way the houses face. Director Davis stated that there are some existing houses that front on 12th St, which is not paved either, but there are a number of vacant lots. James Lawhon, developer of the subdivision on the north side, stated that seven lots front on the street. He informed. the Board that he is putting in full 1/4 acre lots, not counting the streets, and he has a street that comes off of 11th and goes in and through the property. He did not understand why the petition he presented is no longer valid and went on to inform the Board that a lady whose signature was removed by her husband, actually is in favor of having the street paved. 50 S E P 25 1985 BOOK �','. �:-^ i.-�-rz'i� . <.i -_...-.-..tet'...._ .<�.s n-K,.pa�' _.�aY.:»c. ,+lop.�sY-.-.�. _=.. ..:. :� ..—:.�_ ._ _ -. ... _ rte- �... -...- .c. .. �. _ _ _ ..'y+�_.SF= g3ia rc. ,�issf'pc„'-"YrJ�.'"3 �•�v..+.-�PPM1, -. �. SEP 25 1985 BOOK FAGE Mrs. Lawhon confirmed that Mrs. Condon, whose signature was removed, is here this morning but because of health reasons has requested that Mrs. Lawhon inform the Board for her that she does want the street paved. Mr. Lawhon believed what he was proposing was doing a lot of good for the people in the area; actually 11th Lane is nothing more than an alley; and this would solve the dust problem. He felt that lots that go from street to street do have some responsibility. Ms. Terry noted that even with Mrs. Condon's signature the petition only represents.about 360 of the property owners that front that portion, but Director Davis noted that this does represent about 650 of the frontage involved. Our policy is to require 66.60, or 2/3 of the frontage. Commissioner Scurlock believed the Board could accept the petition and declare it valid at any percent. Corinne Bean, 3234 12th St. S.W., came before the Board representing her neighbors and read a statement setting out the following reasons for their opposition to the paving of 11th Lane: they live on the ridge and have no drainage problem; they are between two streets, 11th Lane being their alley; their houses all face 12th St. S.W., (there are only 2 homes facing 11th Lane.) If there is only one paved road in Dixie Heights, it will be a speedway, and if any road is to be paved, they would prefer it to be 12th St. on which they front. She further stated that none of them ever had a dust problem until Mr. Lawhon brought his heavy equipment in. Mrs. Bean believed Mr. Lawhon's only motivation is developing for his profit at their expense; she questioned why he totally cleared the area fronting Old Dixie; and further claimed that he had made false statements to Mrs. Hammill, a resident of the neighborhood, implying that he would pay her share. Discussion ensued at length regarding the double frontage 51 situation, which way the homes presently there face, how they may face on the vacant lots in the future, the need for the road to be paved as required by our ordinance, county policy re half streets, etc., and Chairman Lyons stated that he has great difficulty in asking the people who face 12th St.�,,to pay a petition paving assessment for 11th Lane for which they actually have no use. Director Keating noted that the double frontage was developed when Dixie Heights was created, and there will be additional lots to the west in the future. The reason we have the requirement for the developer to pave roads contiguous is that this is the point in time where we have some leverage over the people. After further debate, County Attorney Vitunac pointed out that one of the guiding lights in petition paving is the amount of benefit everyone gets, and we could adjust the assessment per the benefit received. Commissioner Scurlock inquired how the residents would feel if the assessment were adjusted with the developer making up the difference, and Mrs. Bean felt they would not be totally in favor of it but believed they would go along with it. Gary Stafford, 334 12th St. S.W., stated that all of those Mrs. Bean spoke for face 12th St., and he did not see any benefit to them in sharing in the cost of paving 11th Court. Dan Fleischman, 450 11th Lane S.W., stated that actually he is not involved in this since the paving would end about two lots before him, but the reason he came is that the developer con- vinced his wife that they were involved and also convinced her. that this was settled last week. He, therefore, questioned Mr. Lawhon's creditability, and believed that instead of improving the area he has degraded it by putting a mining pit about 10-20' deep on the corner of 11th Lane and Old Dixie. Mr. Fleischman felt Mr. Lawhon should put in his own road or at least make up the difference. 52 SEP 5 1985 BOOK U� PAGE SEP 25 1955 BOOKPAGE Ann Marie Hammill spoke in opposition to the paving because she has two small children and worries about their safety if the street is paved. David Weaver, 460 11th Lane S.W., adjacent to Mr. Fleischman, agreed with his statements and stated that they were also misled by the developer to believe that they would have full benefit of that street being paved all the way down. They, therefore, would like their signatures removed from the petition they signed Fast November. Commissioner Wodtke commented that generally on a petition paving program, you try to do the largest area possible: he believed that staff would like to have paved to the lots further west and did believe that was the original intent. He asked why the paving was stopped where it was rather than going further west. Director Davis confirmed that there was an attempt to increase the scope of the project, but Mr. Lawhon was not able to obtain sufficient signatures; his original intent was to include the whole street all the way to 4th Avenue. Commissioner Scurlock asked if any thought has been given to abandoning that alley, and there was loud protest from the audience stating that 11th Lane is not an alley. Audrey McCleary stated that the petition presented to them misrepresented the cost as being about $400, which they knew could not be correct, and they did not sign. She felt to have the street stop in the middle of a block doesn't make any sense, and did not feel it would be fair for them to be assessed. Audrey Biemann informed the Board that she owns two of the double frontage lots. She intends to build houses on them facing 11th Court and believed the houses facing 12th Street were built facing the wrong direction. She was in favor of paving 11th Lane and also would be in favor of paving 12th St. Mrs. McCleary stated that she and her husband intend to 53 � � r build on some lots there also, and all the houses they build will face 12th Street. Mr. Lawhon believed that one lady who said they did not sign, bought the lot since the petition was signed. He further stated that the cost he quoted was exactly what staff told him -- somewhere between $600 to $800 -- that was back in 1983. Chairman Lyons felt that this matter has been pretty well aired at this point and asked for a Motion to close the hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. Considerable discussion ensued as to who receives the most benefit from the pavings and should bear the cost, and Director Keating agreed that the double frontage make this very difficult, and that is why staff is currently doing a study and will bring the Board a recommendation on the entire road paving issue within the next month. Commissioner Wodtke noted that county regulations require the road to be paved, but because of the problem with the double frontage situation, he brought up the thought of stopping this petition right where it extends past 4th St. S.W., and possibly have the county pick up more of the cost, i.e., 1/3 instead of 25%. Discussion followed as to setting a precedent and the need to develop a policy, etc., and the Chairman felt we should deny the petition and send this back to the Planning Department to come back with something consistent with what we are doing now. Commissioner Scurlock noted that if we deny the petition and the subdivision is developed, the developer will have to pay for the road. Mrs. Lowhan emphasized that up until yesterday afternoon at 4 o'clock, they had a verified petition. The same people who 54 S �ooK EP 5 `985 Faccf SEPBOOKFAG E ,-, J signed in 1983 still want the road paved, and she requested that the Board approve the petition. Chairman Lyons explained that this does not hinge on whether they had a verified petition or not; the Commission is trying to work out costs and route. In further discussion, it was pointed out that the advantage of petition paving is that the County paves the road at County cost. Commissioner Scurlock believed some did indicate they would be willing to pay something towards the paving as they apparently felt there would be some benefit, and Commissioner Wodtke noted that certainly if someone is going to build a house there facing 11th Lane, it would be a definite benefit to them. Attorney Vitunac again emphasized that the assessment can be figured on the specific benefit to each particular lot, vacant or otherwise; the charge, however, cannot exceed the special benefit. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to deny the petition paving request for 11th Lane S.W. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that this would allow the developer the ability to come back with another plan which would go through staff and back to this Commission, and then we could address with some consistency what we are going to do in these situations. He stated that he was not opposed to working something out, and he did not believe there is any waiting period involved. In further discussion, it was noted that at this point there is certainly a cloud on the petition as to how many actually signed up. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0) 55 � � r APPEAL OF RIVERFRONT GROVES - SITE PLAN APPROVAL 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 theundersigned 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 01 in the matter of - 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 subscribed befog me (SEAL) 0 er) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian RivkvCounty, Florida) dng as tha:local planning agency: approm tne-' s_ -site plan :applidation;, submitted by, f0brlydrd ,Groves. Inc. to constructs 900 squarefoot otficir -addition t9 the fterfrootAroves packs .g houaer located'onthe south side -of 49th Streenn peSw 4,.U.S..#t. and Old Dixie Highway 11AFThs Indian,,, r County ,boa► o gCommissioners wil ,conduct a ublic hearing r9 Planning &@DevelopmentDivision of the decision by the Planning and Zoning= Cornmission .to app.. prove the site plan. The publIc-bearing, of which`; parties in interest. and OMzens shall have an op-. portunity to be.heard will. be held by, said Board; of County Commissioners in':the County Com ".1985, at 9:30 ax If any person `made on,the at sure that a verb made, which it upon which the ". Indian Ri Board of Byy:-s-Pai aChairma NSept. 6.18,:19& Director Keating gave an overview of the following staff ----memo: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 12, 198EFILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: APPEAL ORIVER SUBJECT: GROVES, INW SSITET Robert M. Kea 1 g, CP PLAN APPROVAL Planning & Development Director FROM: staff M. Crarer REFERENCES: It is requested that the data herein presented be given consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at regular meeting of September 25, 1985. 56 formal their c� 67 ii BOOK L ` PAH cdC SEP 25 1995 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: BOOK P,� U -E n On August 22, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a minor site plan application submitted by Riverfront Groves. Approval was granted to construct a 900 square foot addition to the existing office on the packing house site, situated between U.S. Highway #1 and Old Dixie Highway, on the south side of 49th Street (Lindsey Road). The Planning and Development Division had recommended that approval be given with the condition that the western 7 feet of the subject property be dedicated to the County, as Old Dixie right-of-way, prior to the release of the approved site plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission did not concur with staff's recommendation, and granted the approval unconditionally. The Commission disagreed with the condition based upon the minimal impact the minor addition would have on Old Dixie, and it was their desire to have the issue. of right-of-way dedication as a requirement of minor site plan approval addressed by the County Commission. The Planning and Development Division is therefore appealing the site plan approval. ANALYSIS: During the review process, the Technical Review Committee informed the applicant that Old Dixie is a secondary collector with a required minimum right-of-way width of 80 feet. The section of Old Dixie adjacent to Riverfront Groves has a right-of-way width of 66 feet; therefore, the applicant was told that the western 7 feet of the site would have to be dedicated to the County, prior to the release of the approved site plan. The right-of-way dedication requirement is specifically mandated by Section 23 of the Zoning Code, Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures. The Site Plan Review Standards section of the ordinance states that the County Thoroughfare Plan shall be the standard for dedicating rights-of-way, and the existing right-of-way for this particular section of Old Dixie is deficient according to the requirements of the Thoroughfare Plan. The review standards further state that "the land lying within the proposed development which is necessary to widen or extend roadways to the standards designated in the Indian River County Thoroughfare Plan, or to provide adequate land area for utilities, sidewalks and/or bikepaths shall be dedicated to the County by the applicant prior to the release of the site plan". The applicability section of the site plan review standards states that "the standards established herein shall apply to all site plan applications reviewed pursuant to the procedures of this Code". No differentiation is made between the requirements for a minor site plan approval and major site plan approval with regard to right-of-way dedication. RECOMMENDATION: Staff appealed the site plan approval for two reasons. First, in approving the application without requiring the right-of-way dedication, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not comply with the Site Plan Ordinance. Secondly, the Planning and Zoning Commission encouraged the staff to appeal their decision in order to obtain a clear policy statement regarding required right-of-way dedication as it applies to minor versus major site plans. 57 _ ® M Due to the fact that Riverfront Groves submitted the application under the current Site Plan Ordinance, staff is recommending that the appeal be granted, the Planning and Zoning Commission decision be overturned, and the recommendation of the Planning and Development Division be enacted. Staff also recommends that the Board set a specific policy regarding right-of-way dedication, and if a differentiation is to be made between the dedication requirement for minors and majors, instruct the staff to pursue amending the ordinance. Director Keating summarized that the applicant only wanted to put up a 900 sq. ft. office addition, but the new site plan ordinance does not differentiate between minor and major site plans in terms of right-of-way requirement. The property has frontage on Old Dixie; there is 66' of right-of-way there, but it is a secondary collector and the Comprehensive Plan says it needs 80'. Therefore, the applicant needs to dedicate half of the deficit or an additional 7' of right-of-way. The Planning & Zoning Commission approved the site plan without requiring that dedication, and staff appealed their decision, on the advice of the Planning 8 Zoning Commission, to have this issue clarified by the Commission and some policy set. Commissioner Scurlock believed staff is saying don't put any more in a bag that is already full. However, the reasonableness of whether the roadway can ever be expanded in the future is also a consideration, and until we have a workshop, we cannot come up with a recommended policy that can be applied consistently. Commissioner Scurlock did not feel we can say carte blanche that we are not going to look for the right-of-way, but we do need some criteria. Chairman Lyons asked the County Attorney whether it is the law that the right-of-way be obtained because if it is, he believed the Commission is charged with upholding the law. Attorney Vitunac noted that the law in question is a local ordinance, and he believed the issue is whether we want to 58 BOOK FA'H S E P 25 1985 BOOK FA:t 02 i2 address a change in that law; he felt that Attorney O'Haire will say this is in violation of a higher law. Commissioner Bowman asked if it would be legal to require the FEC Railway to give the 141, which probably would entail condemning and purchasing. She noted that perhaps the land owners on either side would rather pay an impact fee so that we could acquire from FEC. Director Keating noted that is an issue he has been avoiding; in -cases on Old Dixie, staff has only asked for half because it was assumed we could get the other half from FEC when we needed it, but it appears that may not be a good assumption. Attorney Vitunac stated that if the County, which has condemnation powers, wants to condemn land owned by FEC, which also has condemnation powers, it is a balancing of impacts and he believed it requires a high burden of proof. Discussion ensued as to whether we are going to enlarge Old Dixie in that area or change the road network, and Public Works Director Davis explained that most of the land along Old Dixie is zoned for fairly high use, and the need for additional right-of- way can be justified for turn lanes, deceleration lanes, etc. He did feel comfortable with the 80' right-of-way. Commissioner Bowman did not believe we are saying that if land on either side of Old Dixie is going to be developed, it is either a question of providing better right-of-way or stopping development on Old Dixie. Chairman Lyons pointed out that we have an ordinance that requires certain things. The Planning & Zoning Commission apparently chose to ignore that ordinance, and now it is up to us either to say the ordinance should be enforced or that it should be changed. Commissioner Scurlock believed the Planning & Zoning Commission acted illegally. Attorney O'Haire came before the Board representing the applicant, Riverfront Groves, and stated that the ordinance as 59 _ M M - M applied to this property is illegal; it is confiscatory; and if the Commission does pursue it, he will litigate and the Commission will end up paying his fees for proving inverse condemnation. He further noted that it will be a cold day in August before the County gets any land from the FEC. Attorney O'Haire talked about the right-of-way on U.S.I, which was four laned to ease the pressures on Old Dixie. He believed if the Board set a policy of getting additional right-of-way on Old Dixie, it would be completely arbitrary because it is such a mix of residential and commercial, and he again emphasized that to require his clients to give 3600 sq, ft, of right-of-way to put in a 900 sq. ft. building - a multiple of 4 in land area - is illegal. Further, there is an equipment shed some 100' in length, which if the right-of-way were granted, would be within 11' of the right-of-way of Old Dixie, and this would create another illegality or non -conformity. Attorney O'Haire emphasized that this matter comes to the Board with the unanimous recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission that the ordinance not be enforced. He felt it is absurd that they have been four months just trying to get to a point where they can apply for a building permit for 900 sq, ft. of office space. Commissioner Scurlock asked about other roads with a similar situation, i.e., where there is no realistic possibility of really needing that R/W or having an ability to expand the road system. Public Works Director Davis stated that the only tool we have at this time to make that judgment would be the 20 -year plan that.Barton-Aschmann is working on. They say that this area of Old Dixie will not be over capacity, but they do _ feel the need for left turn lanes, etc., to mitigate development impacts. Administrator Wright encouraged the Board not to look at this from the perspective of changing our road classification system, but to look at it from a perspective of whether we want to require right-of-way dedication for minor site plans. SEP 25 1985 BOOK PAGE, SEP 25 1985 BOOK� F'�1G.t 2� Commissioner Scurlock stated that we do want to get the right-of-way whenever we can get it, but we don't want to get right-of-way that we will never use and that causes an undue burden. Director Davis felt there will be a need for the right-of-way on Old Dixie probably within 20 years, but not for a major four laning - just to mitigate the intersections, accesses onto the road, etc. Attorney O'Haire stated that the County cannot require the right-of-way legally unless the requirement is tied to the impact of what is taking place on the property. Attorney Vitunac confirmed that any time the impact of the project is far less than the requirement for the road right-of-way, you have the issue of an invalid taking without compensation. Chairman Lyons asked what action the Attorney would suggest, and Attorney Vitunac believed the Board should ask their professionals if the impact of this property warrants the requirement of this right-of-way. Director Keating stating that staff's position is that the impact of this project is not consistent with the improvement required, but felt there is a deficiency somewhere if every time there is a site plan, staff has to determine whether or not the impact is greater than the benefit. Commissioner Scurlock asked the County Attorney if he felt there is a latitude for the Board to require the right-of-way without changing the ordinance, and Attorney Vitunac believed the Board can find that it is unconstitutional to do that here and can direct staff to look at at again. It was his opinion that we would stand a substantial chance of losing this case if it went to court. Discussion followed as to finding a vehicle to deal with this situation, and Commissioner Wodtke noted that in the case in question today, the 7' of right-of-way would result in making one 61 building non -conforming and completely illegal. He also did not believe we are going to get 7' from the FEC. Director Keating felt the whole issue here is to avoid the condemnation process by tying these deficiencies to site plan approval. Attorney Vitunac noted that if there is some impact from the said project, possibly the Board could have 1' of right-of-way dedicated. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know if the Attorney was saying that the Board could take action today and still live up to the intent of the ordinance, and then have staff look at it and recommend a possible modification to address these situations which are unique. Attorney Vitunac confirmed that could be done. He believed the full 7' would be unconstitutional because it could not be justified. Discussion ensued at length regarding a formula to figure out a lesser amount of right-of-way, how to determine the amount of impact, etc. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock to deny the appeal and instruct staff to reevaluate the requirements of minor site plans. Commissioner Scurlock commented that a denial means there would be no dedication of right-of-way at all simply because we can't identify the impact, but he believed that staff has indicated the impact would be minimal. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 62 SEP 25 1985 BOOK U� PAGc d ' SEP 25 1995 " ', BOOK g& PAU-t ; APPEAL CONDITION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES, UNIT 5 (Continued) The Board considered the following memo of Staff Planner amm TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 16, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: ATTACHED FTOOTHE TION Robert M. Keatin , AIS PRELIMINARY*PLAT Planning & Devel pmen Director' APPROVAL OF OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES UNIT 5 SUBDIVISION FRONhan Boling REFERENCES: ,Q• .•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 25, 1985. DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS: At their regular meeting of May 23, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission, in -accordance with the staff's recommendation, attached a condition to the preliminary plat approval granted for Old Sugar Mill Estates Unit 5. The condition required a dedication of right-of-way 50' wide along the project's 12th Street frontage. The condition is necessary to bring the plat into conformance with the Thoroughfare Plan and subdivision ordinance. On May 24, 1985, attorney Bill Caldwell, on behalf of the owner/ applicant, Ralph W. Sexton, appealed the right-of-way dedication -condition. On June 26, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners considered this appeal. At that time, the Board continued consideration of the appeal until ~the September 25, 1985 Board meeting. The appeal was continued to allow time for the County to hold a workshop on right-of-way acquisition. It was staff's opinion that the Board could better act on the appeal after holding such a workshop and forming a policy or policies regarding the implementation of the Thoroughfare Plan and acquisition of right-of-way along roadways bordered by canals. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Many of the main roads in the county are bordered by canals and canal rights-of-way. The presence of the canals causes problems in equitably implementing the Thoroughfare Plane and applying subdivision right-of-way requirements, since additional right-of-way is only required from property owners on one side of a street. The condition attached to the Old Sugar Mill Estates Unit Five preliminary plat approval, and the subsequent appeal of that condition, exemplifies the right-of-way problems encountered in such situations. 63 Currently, the 12th Street right-of-way width along the proposed Unit Five frontage is only 50 feet. An additional 50 feet of right-of-way is needed to bring this segment of 12th Street into conformance with the Thoroughfare Plan, Comprehensive Plan and the subdivision ordinance. All 50 feet of the additional right-of-way needs to come from the north side of 12th Street, because the right-of-way is bounded to the south by a 30 foot wide Indian River Farms Drainaqe District canal right-of-way. The existence and location of the canal and right-of-way is, in effect, a barrier to acquiring future additional right-of-way to the south. In these situations, it is currently the county's policy to add right-of-way from the north side of the street. A workshop, at which the fairness of present right-of-way dedication policy and alternatives are to be studied and considered, has not yet been scheduled. Staff, and the applicant, are still in favor of having the Board withhold final action on this appeal until after a workshop has been held. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners continue the hearing of this appeal to a time after a right-of-way workshop has been held. It was noted that the first hearing was advertised for June 26th and continued at that time until today, and Planner Boling reported that staff would like to continue it once again to December 11th. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) agreed to continue the public hearing on appeal of the condition attached to the preliminary plat approval of Old Sugar Mill Estates, Unit 5, to December 11, 1985. SEP 25 1985 64 BOOKppppb� p SEP 25 1985 BOOK PAGE 5'`v Director Keating noted that the second part of this relates to why the staff wanted this matter continued. As mentioned before, staff is bringing several issues to the Board -- storm water management on single family lots, right-of-way dedication with canals on one side, and road paving -- and he believed it would be advantageous for the Board to have a joint meeting with the Planning & Zoning Commission on this. After some discussion, the Board agreed to call a Special Meeting to be -held jointly with the Planning & Zoning Commission at 9:30 o'clock A.M. on October 31st. ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR COUNTY HEALTH UNIT Dr. Tucker, Director of the Indian River County Public Health Unit, came before the Board per his letter, as follows: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT 2525 14TH AvENuE VERO BEACH, FL 32960 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TELEPHONE (305) 567-1101 1840 25TH STREET -SUITE N-1 18 SUN -COM 451.5302 VERO BEACH. FL 32960 TELEPHONE (305) 567-8000 EXT. 229 SUN -COM 424.1229 Sept. 18, 1985 E Honorable Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman of the Board, Indian River County Commissioners Dear Mr. Chairman: At the budget hearing in July, Indian River County Public Health Unit was directed to work with Commissioner Wodtke on solving the severe space problems of the County Health Unit. I wish to thank Commissioner Wodtke, kli.ke Wright and Sonny Dean for their efforts and interest. As a result several options have arisen: 1. Renovation of the Southern Bell building. 2. Construction of the new CM facility. We, therefore, request that we be put on the County Ca mtission Agenda on Wednesday, September 25, 1985 to review these options. 65 - Enclosed is a letter from Suzanne Marshall, State Medical Facilities Architect, detailing the costs of the proposed renovation and an estimate of new con- struction costs. A plan of the first floor clinical service area and the second floor administrative section is submitted for your consideration. Also enclosed is a report prepared by the College of Architecture entitled, "Designing the County Health Unit". It is most important that key staff and I meets with each Commissioner individually before the meeting to fully explain our options. I will be available September 19 and 23. Please contact Joan Lewis to set up an appointment. Please notify me of the approximate time that the CHU will be addressing the Board. J.B. Tucker, M.D. IRCPHU, Director Dr. Tucker noted that Commissioner Wodtke led the task force in looking for a facility and identified one existing building that could serve their needs sizewise. He reported that he submitted plans to the Medical Facilities Architect in Tallahassee for review to determine what she felt it would cost to renovate the proposed building. Dr. Tucker noted that, in addition, several sites have been identified where a new facility could be built - one near the Administration Building, one near the new Jail, also at the old Jail site near Vero Beach High School, and possibly on the Indian River Memorial Hospital campus. He reported that the Medical Facilities Architect indicated purchase and renovation costs would certainly equal or possibly exceed new construction costs. Speaking for the Health Department, Dr. Tucker stated they could live with any of the above sites, but he did not know how long they could continue to live with the present site. Commissioner Scurlock stated that a recent visit to the Health Department had served to demonstrate graphically to him the desperate need for more space. He felt the two most likely sites were the land adjacent to the Administration Building which has the positive benefit of interacting with some of the agencies 66 -79 SEP 25 1 1985 BOOK FA-cE SEP 25 1985 BOOKPAcE28U in this building; the other prime site being at the new Jail site which would probably involve acquiring additional land. He believed that brings us back to the land near the Administration Building, and stated he would support moving ahead with that site. He noted that we need to be assured that we have adequate parking and access, but believed this would serve to centralize facilities and even offer the possibility of moving some offices to the new site. Commissioner Scurlock believed we have validated enough monies to accommodate nearly a three million dollar project and felt we should go ahead and design the facility to deliver the type of services we are charged with rather than try to "jerry rig" something else. Commissioner Wodtke did agree those are the two best possibilities for sites, especially with the availability of sewer and water and availability of compatible services. If we have to buy additional land at the Jail site, he believed we will want it for correctional facilities, and, therefore, if we do need to buy some additional land, he felt we should try to buy it here. Commissioner Wodtke then discussed the possibility of a land swap with the City, parking, etc. He also discussed the need for more space at the present Administration Building and the possibility of going up a few more floors or moving the School Board. He stressed the need for a master plan for the whole area. Commissioner Scurlock believed we need to authorize Commissioner Wodtke to work on a master plan and to go ahead with procuring an architect to dovetail all this. Administrator Wright stated that he would like to be able to begin the competitive bidding procedure for an architect. He pointed out that we have a very definite need for additional space in this building right now. If we put the Health Department adjacent to this facility, he believed we will need to acquire more land and look at this from the standpoint of where we will be in five to ten years. He agreed that adding a fourth 67 M and fifth floor to the Administration Building is a definite possibility to be considered. Dr. Tucker commented that Tallahassee feels that co -location is extremely important in order to get human services together. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to authorize staff to work with Commissioner Wodtke and proceed with a master plan for additional space for the Health Department as well as the Administration Building and to begin advertising for architects. Chairman Lyons cautioned that we must remember when we had the site plan approved for this building, we guaranteed a certain amount of additional parking space to be reserved over there, and he wanted to be sure we don't try to use that twice. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0) ELECTRICAL GROUNDING IMPROVEMENTS AT WATER PLANT Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following staff memo and stated that they are very satisfied with the firm of DSS Engineers and would hope their recommendations could be carried out as quickly as possible. W SEP 25 199 - BOOK F: UZ TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 COUNTY COMMISSIONER THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT SUBJECT: APPROVE DSS ENGINEERS PROPOSAL FOR ELECTRICAL GROUNDING IMPROVEMENTS AT WATER PLANT AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS ON THE ELECTRICAL �` GROUNDING IMPROVEMENTS FROM: JOSEPH A. IRD DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Indian River County's Reverse Osmosis water plant has been struck by lightening twice during the last year. On both occasions the severe electrical damage almost paralyzed the water plant. --This is a situation which the Utilities Department cannot affoxd to have recur. Due to the extreme importance of the electrical equipment at the water plant, the Utilities Department authorized DSS Engineers, Inc. to evaluate the lightening problem. The attached report done by DSS Engineers, Inc. found deficiencies in the electrical grounding at the reverse osmosis plant. The engineer suggests electrical grounding improvements be done as soon as possible. The estimated cost of the improvements is: $ 5,488.00 Engineering Services $18,000.00 Estimated cost of work by electrical contractor $23,488.00 Estimated Total Cost Attached is an engineering proposal from DSS Engineers, Inc., for the electrical ground improvements in the amount of $5,488.00. In order to expedite the project, the Utility Staff would also like permission from the Honorable Board of County Commissioners to advertise for bids on the Electrical Grounding Improvements. ALTERNATIVES 1: Approve the engineering proposal from DSS Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $5,488.00 and authorize the Utilitv Department to advertise for bids for the reverse osmosis water plant electrical grounding improvements. 2. Disapprove the engineering proposal from DSS Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $5,488.00 and not authorize the Utility Department to advertise for bids for the reverse osmosis water plant electrical grounding improvements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve the engineering proposal from DSS Engineers, Inc. and authorize staff to advertise for bids on the electrical grounding improvements. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the engineering proposal from DSS Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $5,488 and authorized the Utility Department to advertise for bids for the reverse osmosis water plant electrical grounding improvements. PURCHASE OF SANITARY LANDFILL WHEEL LOADER Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following memo: TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF SANITARY LANDFILL WHEEL LOADER FROM: TERRANCE Gi'^'Pr.'9i,, RECTOR DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The landfill has a Fiat Crawler that has worn out and must be replaced. This crawler has limited use and we feel that if it is replaced with a rubber tire front end loader, a used machine in good shape will do the same job. This machine will be used for moving trees and vegetation debris to the air curtain for burning and cleaning the inside of the burner out. It has been difficult finding a used machine in good enough repair to purchase. As soon as we located one, it would sell before we managed to get proper Commission approval. We have now found a machine that fits our needs and have used it at the landfill on a trial basis for a month. The price is lower than other quotes we have received. Two current quotations received for wheel loaders are listed below: 1. Ring Power Corporation submitted a quotation for a wheel loader and rake in the amount of $40,500.00, a used 1980 Caterpillar 930 wheel loader, SIN 79JO9547, equipped with 2-1/4 cubic yard bucket and 17.5 X 25 tires, and a 930 stacking rake. The net price quoted on this vehicle includes a $10,000.00 trade in allowance for one used Fiat model 14B, SIN 12324. 2. Stack Equipment submitted a quotation for a wheel loader and rake in the amount of $38,000.00, a used 1984 Clark/Michigan Model 45C wheel loader SIN 473C297CB equipped with a GM 4-53 Diesel Engine, 2 Yd. Bucket with bolt on cutting edge and spillguard, ROPS, CWT,17.5X25(L-2) Tires, and new standard loader rake #LR -1890-3-785. The net price quoted on this vehicle includes a $20,000.00 trade in allowance for one used Fiat model 14B, SIN 12324. 70 SEP 2.5 BOOK Fa GE I S E P 2, � 1995 BOOKk� �t4�E ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the purchase of Ring Power Corporation wheel loader in the net amount (after the trade in allowance) of $40,500.00. 2. Approve the purchase of Stack Equipment wheel loader in the net amount (after the trade in allowance) of $38,000.00 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve the Stack Equipment quotation for the wheel loader and standard loader rake as described above in the net amount of $38,000.00. Director Pinto explained that this involves a rubber tire front end loader instead of the crawler track we have presently. He noted that they had budgeted originally for a new piece of equipment, but found if we bought the size necessary for dirt hauling, it would be too large for moving trees and cleaning the incinerator. They, therefore, would like to purchase this used piece of equipment to service the air curtain incinerator and then when we get further into our planning for our Landfill, reassess what other types of earth moving equipment we are going to need. He noted that one of the problems with the crawler track machine is that it was not intended to go long distances, and it got worn out. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the purchase of the Stack Equipment wheel - loader and standard loader rake in the net amount of $38,000, as recommended by staff. RECLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE PAY GRADES The Administrator informed the Board that he believed we need to readjust some classifications, and the following are his suggestions, as well as those of the Attorney and Administrative Aide Elizabeth Forlani: 71 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 18, 1985 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Reclassification of Employee Pay Grades FROM: Michael Wright - REFERENCES: County Administrator After reviewing the County's pay grade system and increas- ing responsibilities of certain positions, I recommend the following reclassifications: Classification Current Pay Grade Proposed Pay Grade Intergovernmental Coord. Adm. A Adm. B General Services Director Adm. B Adm. C Public Works Director Adm. B Adm. D Planning & Dev. Director Adm. A Adm. B Utilities Director Adm. A. Adm. C Building. -Director Adm. A Adm. B Detention Administrator P.G. 27 Adm. A Asst. Utilities Dir. P.G. 23 P.G. 27 Road & Bridge Supt. P.G. 23 P.G. 27 Asst. Road & Bridge Supt. P.G. 18 P.G. 21 Asst. Parks Supt. P.G. 10 P.G. _ 15 Parks Supt. P.G. 21 P.G. 23 Liz Forlani has requested the reclassification of an existing Administrative Secretary to Administrative Aide. The current position is a pay grade 11 and the new position is a pay grade 12. Charles Vitunac is requesting the Assistant County Attorney's position be elevated from pay grade 19 to Administrative A. 72 SEP 25 1985 KIN L, PAGE SEP 25 19B5 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BCC I SALARY SCHEDULE 1984-1985 BOOK • Cf] PAGE PAY GRADE MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY GRADE MINIMUM MAXIMUM 3 HRLY 4.04 5.70- 12 HRLY 6.27 8.84 BI -WKLY 323.19 456.00 BI -WKLY 501.81 707.20 ANNUAL 8,403.00 11,856.00 ANNUAL 13.1047.00 18,387.20 4 HRLY 4.24 5.97 13 HRLY 6.58 9.28 BI -WKLY 339.31 447.60 BI -WKLY 526.54 742.40 ANNUAL 8,822.00 12,417.60 ANNUAL 13,690.00 19,302.40 5 HRLY 4.46 6.29 14 HRLY 6.91 9.74 - BI -WKLY 356.42 503.20 BI -WKLY 552.23 779.20 ANNUAL 9,267.00 13,083.20 ANNUAL 14,358.00 20,259.20 6 HRLY 4.68 6.60 15 HRLY 7.26-- 10.24 BI -WKLY 374.50 528.00 BI -WKLY 578.85 819.20 ANNUAL 91737.00 13,728.00 ANNUAL 15,050.00 21,299.20 7 HRLY 4.92 6.94 16 HRLY 7.61 10.73 BI -WKLY 393.50 555.20 BI -WKLY 608.31 858.40 ANNUAL 10,231.00 14,435.20 ANNUAL 15,816.00 22,318.40 8 HRLY 5.16 7.27 17 HRLY 8.00 11.29 BI -WKLY 412.81 581.60 BI -WKLY -639.65 903.20 ANNUAL 10,733.00 15,121.60 ANNUAL 16,631.00 23,483.20 9 HRLY 5.42 7.64 18 HRLY 8.40 11.85 BI -WKLY 433.42 611.20 BI -WKLY 672.00 948.00 ANNUAL 11,269.00 Y15,891.20 ANNUAL 17,472.00 24,648.00 10 HRLY 5.69 8.02 19 HRLY 8.82 12.44 BI -WKLY 454.30 641.60 BI -WKLY 705.27 995.20 ANNUAL 11,811.00 16,681.60 ANNUAL 18,337.00 25,875.20 11 HRLY 5.97 8.42 20• HRLY 9.26 13.06 BI -WKLY 477.15 673.60 BI -WKLY 740.38 1044.80 ANNUAL 12,406.00 17,513.60 ANNUAL 19,250.00 27,164.80 73 PAY GRADE MINIMUM MAXIMUM 21 HRLY 9.72 13.71 BI -WKLY 777.42 1096.80 ANNUAL 20,213.00 28,516.80 22 HRLY 10.20 14.40 BI -WKLY 816.27 1152.00 ANNUAL 21,223.00 29,952.00 23 HRLY 10.72 15.12 BI -WKLY 857.58 1209.60 ANNUAL 22,297.00 31,449.60 24 HRLY 11.26 15.87 BI -WKLY 900.81 1269.60 ANNUAL 23,421.00 33,009.60 25 HRLY 11.82 16.68 BI -WKLY 945.58 1334.40 ANNUAL 24,585.00 34,694.40 26 HRLY 12.41 17.49 BI -WKLY 992.81 1399.20 ANNUAL 25,813.00 36,379.20 27 HRLY 13.03 18.35 BI -WKLY 1042.38 1468.00 ANNUAL 27,102.00 38,168.00 ADMINISTRATIVE SALARY SCHEDULE SALARY RANGE - ADM A SALARY RANGE - ADM B SALARY RANGE - ADM C SALARY RANGE - ADM D SALARY RANGE - ADM E SALARY RANGE - ADM F SALARY RANGE - ADM G $30,000 - 40,500 r 311500 - 42,500 330000 - 44,500 r 34,500 - 461500-- 361000 - 481600 37,500 - -50,625 39,500 - 53,000 74 L SEP 5 198 ;�,7 BOO L)PAGE r SEP 25 1955 BOOK Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the total cost of the proposed adjustments, and Administrator Wright stated that there is actually no cost involved at this time. He is simply asking for reclassification of paygrades at this point and then will look at salaries. In some cases, there will be no increase. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the reclassifications listed in the Administrator's memo dated September 18, 1985. DISCUSS FORFEITURE OF BOND - FISCHER MINING OPERATION Director Keating reviewed staff memo, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 19, 198f iLE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: REQUEST TO REQUIRE _ SUBJECT: FORFEITURE OF BOND FOR r DR. HENRY FISCHER MINING OPERATION Robert M. Keating, CP Planning & Development Director FROM: REFERENCES: Betty Davis H. Fischer Code Enforcement Officer DIS:BETTY It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September.25, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND -CONDITIONS: On April 9, 1981, the County Planning and Zoning Commission approved an application submitted by Dr. Henry Fischer to mine 9 acres of an 18.43 acre parcel of agricultural zoned land located north of County Road 512 and East of 101st Avenue in Section 21, Township 31S, Range 39 East, Indian River Farms Company Subdivision. At that time, the applicant, in accordance with requirements of the County's mining ordinance, tendered to Indian River County a bond of $10,000. The subject bond was to ensure compliance with the approved site plan, with forfeiture of the bond possible if the applicant failed to comply with the site plan as approved, including restoration of the site. Although the County's mining ordinance does not delineate a time frame within which a mining operation must be completed, it does however, as stated in Section 25(r)(11) of the County's Code of Laws and Ordinances, require a bond to be effective for full coverage protection at all time during the entire period of the operation. 75 M W M Due to the impending expiration of the bond, the staff feels that some action must be taken to ensure that the County has adequate funds to restore the subject property to an acceptable condition. The subject bond is due to expire on October 1, 1985, and the mining operation has not been completed. ANALYSIS: In October 1984, subsequent to the required annual mining site inspection, the applicant was notified by certified mail of existing violations on the subject property, and he was notified that an active bond was required for full coverage protection until the mining process was complete, including restoration of the site. Subsequent conversations and letters have not resulted in a renewal of the continuation certificate for the bond, nor has restoration of the site occurred. It is staff's position that the applicant has not acted in good faith to comply with the County's Code of Laws and Ordinances by renewing his bond in an adequate time period before its expiration. The mining ordinance requires that performance bonds for completion of such projects remain active as a means of ensuring restoration of the site by the County, if neces- sary, using funds from the bond. Since the bond provides the funds for site restoration _ and -the bond is due to expire on October 1, 1985 without restoration having been completed, staff feels that the County should exercise its option and require forfeiture of the bond. These funds should then be used by the County to bring the subject mining operation into conformance with the approved site plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the $10,000.00 bond be forfeited and that the County take the necessary actions to bring the subject mining operation into conformance with the County Code. Director Keating noted that a mining operator is required to keep a $10,000 bond in force to insure the area will be restored when mining is completed, and also has to renew his mining permit annually. This past year, when Dr. Fischer came to renew his mining permit, we had a hard time getting the bond renewed. It kept getting delayed for about six months. The bond now is due to expire October 1st, and staff just wanted to bring it to the Commission's attention before it expired. He continued that just last night, Dr. Fischer did get a one-year bond extension to us, but staff still will request that the bond be called if he does not proceed to get a valid mining permit showing he has adequate use of the property. Staff does want to go through the due process situation, and no action is needed at this time. 76 SEP 25 1985 BOOK FAa SEP 25 1985 BOOK ; F,1UE There being no further business, on Motion duly made, - seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:35 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: Clerk