Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/19/1986Wednesday, February 19, 1986 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, February 19, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Director of Intergovernmental Relations; OMB Director Joseph Baird; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Reverend Fred McCellan of First Presbyterian Church gave the invocation, and Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Administrator Wright requested three additions to today's Agenda: 1) A budget amendment which deals with the.race track funds and the necessary money for dune restoration at Wabasso and Tracking Station Parks. 2) Selection of two firms to do the bid preparation and estimating of construction costs for the second phase of the Jail. .3) Report on the Data Processing Committee Chairman Lyons requested the addition to today's Consent Agenda of Item I - Street Closing in Forest Park Subdivision on March 26th for Block Party. FEB 19 1986 BOOK -63 mu 630 FEB 19 1966BooK 63 Fa. -E6'31 Attorney Vitunac requested the deletion of Item 12 - I Acceptance of Donation of Indian River Boulevard Right-of-way Parcels - because the Tanens need another week to check the surveys and get a certified survey of what they are donating. Kimley-Horn just gave them the surveys yesterday. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any changes or additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 29, 1986. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 1/29/86, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Lyons requested that Item F be removed for discussion, and Commissioner Bowman requested that Item E be removed also. A. Approval of New Applications for a Permit to Carry a Concealed Firearm for: The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/5/86: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 5, 1986 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMITS - NEW FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES: County Administrator The following persons have made application through the Clerk's Office for new pistol permits: Kenneth Lee Champ Jack D. Reeder James Ronald Allen II All requirements of the ordinance have been met. 2 4. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously issued a permit to carry a concealed firearm to the following: Kenneth Lee Champ Jack D. Reeder James R. Allen, II B. Scheduling_of a_Public Hearing to Consider_a Rate Increase for Sewer Rates for General Development_ Utilities, Vero Highlands The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/12/86: TO: THE BOARD OF COUNTY DATE: COMMISSIONERS THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT0y, SUBJECT: DIRECTOR OF UTILV CES FROM: JEFFREY-K.BARTON ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVICES DESCRIPTION and CONDITIONS FEBRUARY 12, 1986 SET PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITY - VERO HIGHLANDS At a meeting on Thursday, February 6, 1986 with the people from General Development Utilities, they requested a public hearing to consider the rate increase for sewer rates for General Development Utilities - Vero Highlands. The suggested date being: Wednesday, March 19, 1986 at 7:30 pm County Commission Chambers RECOMMENDATIONS Utility Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the staff to advertise the public hearing as proposed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized staff to advertise for a public hearing on Wednesday, March 19, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. in the County Commission Chambers to consider a sewer rate increase for General Development Utilities, Vero Highlands. 3 FEB 19 1986 Boa 63 pay 63? Fp""FEB 19 1986 BOOK. 63 PAGE633 C. Scheduling of a Public Hearing to Consider Interim Rate Increase for Solid Waste_ Facility__ County_ Landfill The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/12/86: TO: THE BOARD OF COUNTY DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1986 COMMISSIONERS THRU: TERRANCE G. PIN4SERVICES SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR PUBLIC DIRECTOR OF UTI HEARING FOR INTERIM RATE INCREASE FOR SOLID WASTE FACILITY - LANDFILL FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVICES DESCRIPTION and CONDITIONS Our consultants, Camp, Dresser, & Mckee, Inc. have submitted their study (under seperate cover) for an interim rate increase for the Solid Waste Facility. It is advisable that we handle this as soon as possible because the budget for FY 85-86 was approved based on the need for a rate increase as soon as possible. RECOMMENDATIONS Utility Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize advertisment for a public hearing for the rate increase to be held on Wednesday, March 19, 1986 at 9:15 am in the Commission Chambers. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized staff to advertise for a Public Hearing on Wednesday, March 19, 1986 at 9:15 A.M. in the County Commission Chambers to consider an interim rate increase for the solid waste facility at the County Landfill. D. IRC BID #277 -- Two Aeri.al Intersection Flashing Beacons The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/7/86: 4 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: FEB. 7, 1986 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #277 -Two Aerial Intersection County Administrator Flashing Beacons FROM: (L-4- REFERENCES: Carolyn ,�.3 odrich, Manager Purchasiliig Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Tuesday, February 4, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #277 -Two Aerial Intersection Flashing Beacons for the Traffic Engineering Department. 5 Bid Proposals were sent out, 3 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Signal Construction, Jupiter, F1., in the amount of $11.722.00. The bid meets all specifications. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #277 be awarded to the low bidder, Signal Construction Co., Jupiter, F1 in the amount of $11,722.00. Funds to come from Account #105-214-541-66.44. ON MOTION by Commission Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously awarded IRC Bid #277 to the low bidder, Signal Construction Company of Jupiter, Florida, in the amount of $11,722 for two aerial intersection flashing beacons, as recommended by Purchasing Manager Carolyn Goodrich. 5 is E B 9 1986 BOOK - 63 a -E 634 3vkRG Or .- : -• .-. 18r..�r BOOK 63 mu 635 Veto Beach, Flotioa 32960 BID TABULATION 4 w �o"� a! i ,o b t,°moih'e¢ BID NO IRC §ID #277 DATE OF OPENING 2-4-86 BID TITLE TWO AERIAL INTERSECTION . FLASHING BEACONS ITEM DESCRIPTION NO. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT 1. 620-1-1 Grounding Electrode 100 LF 200 00 580 00 454 00 2. 632-7-1 Cable (signal) 2 PI 918 0 1098 00 630 00 3. 634-4-112 Span Wire Assembly 2PI 1413 00 3744 00 7.22 00 4 2PA 865 00 986 00 1122 00 5. 641-14-36 Concrete Strain Pole (Type V 1 Ea 1271 50 12527 100 1671 00 A A41 -14 -IR Cone ete Strain Pole (Type V 1 Ea 1347 50 2600 00 1681 001 1 7: 650-3-111 Traffic Signal (One Direction) 2 PA 625 00 290 100 716 00 R_ 60-1-112 Traffic Signal 82800 746 00 984 00 (Two -Direction) 2 PA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION v°cam rmpi �;yJa ^y yl, �m v 810 NO. IRC BIDp277 DATE OF OPENING Feb. 4, 1986 BID TITLE TWO AERIAL INTERSECTION FLASHING BEACONS ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT 9. 650-3-113 Traffic Signal (Three -Direction) 2 PA 1180 00 1152 00 1214 00 10. 650-3-114 Traffic Signal (Four -Direction) 1 PA 66700 751 00 710 00 11, 670-4-1 Flashing Beacon Controller Assembly 2 PA 1167 00 1458 00 1336 00 2 -- Reduction Assembly 2 PA 291 00 1 616 1001 328 00 13. 690-10 Remove Traffic Signal Head Assembly 2 PA 23 O 98 00 78 00 14. 690-30 Remove Poles Wood 4 EA 776 00 1416 00 2092 00 - e S -o ssembl 2 EA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION 90 00 a" 4t H r�.°i, °jQ z;4 246 00 308 00 ^ .^ V w 3 c m J, a ci°pi �hcF BID NO. DATE OF OPENING IRC BID x'277 2-4-86 BIDTITLEF G riNlERS BEACONS ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT 1 Total 11722 00 18308 00 14046 00 within Earliest date�o sta�p� 30 d 5 30-45 da s 60 a E. Release of Easement Request by Nelson H. Ade - Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision, Lots 4 and 7. Block 3 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/10/86: TO: The Honorable Members. DATE: February 10, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT SUBJECT: REQUEST BY NELSON H. ADE SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 4, AND 71 BLOCK 3, SEBASTIAN Obert M. Keatin I GROVE ESTATES SUBDIVISION Planning & Devel pmerie Director FROM: Betty Davis REFERENCES: R/E Ade Code Enforcement Officer DIS:REMS It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 19, 1986. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Nelson H. Ade, owner of the subject property, for release of the rear lot 5' easement of Lots 4, and 7, Block 3, Sebastian Grove Estates. The easements described as the southwesterly 5' of Lot 7, Block 3, and the northeasterly 5' of Lot 4, Block 3, Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision. These lots are 70' in width by 110' deep. Mr. Ade's intention is to consolidate the lots into one large building site meeting the criteria of the C -H, zoning district, for construction of a business on the site. The current zoning classification is C -H, Heavy Commercial District. The property is located within the Commercial Industrial Node, just to the south of Sebastian City limits. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power & Light Company, Jones Intercable, and the Utility and Right-of-way Departments. Based upon their review, there were no objections to release of the easements. The zoning staff analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled on-site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolution, the release of the rear lot 5' easement of Lots 4 and 7, Block 3, Sebastian Grove Estates; being the southwesterly 5' of Lot 7, Block 3 and the northeasterly 5' of Lot 4, Block 3, Sebastian Grove Estates; as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 85 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. BOOK 63 PnEW6 r-FEB 19.1986 BOOK 63 PAGE 63 7 Commissioner Bowman noted that this property sits on the sand ridge and it is zoned CH, Heavy Commercial . She understood that the applicant intends to sell and install solar shield coating and insulation. She felt we should be very cautious of what we put on that sand ridge. Planning 8 Development Director Robert Keating assured Commissioner Bowman that staff had looked very closely at that use during the site plan process. He reported that they are presently working with the St. Johns River Water Management District to come up with criteria for quantity and quality of water with respect to development on the sand ridge. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 86-8, granting a release of the rear lot 5' easement on Lots 4 and 7, Block 3, Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision, as requested by Nelson H. Ade. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 86-8 WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the rear lot 5' easement of Lots 4 and 7, Block 3, Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision, being the southwesterly 5' of Lot 7, Block 3, and the northeasterly 5' of Lot 4, Block 3, Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Official Record Book 5, Page 85, of Indian River County, Florida. WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision for public utility purposes, and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements have been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: The rear lot 5' easement of Lots 4 and 7, Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision, being the southwesterly 5' of Lot 7, Block 3, Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision and the northeasterly 5' of Lot 4, Block 3, Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision, ac6rding the the Plat thereof as recorded in Official R�cord Book 5, Page 85, of the Indian River County, Florida. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they herebyre authorized and directed to execute a release of said,'lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper i for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian -River County, Florida. This 19th day of February 1986. Land s to form BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ufficiency OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ett BY:y Don C. Scurlock, ATTEST: Chairman FEB 19 196. . BOCK 63 F+bt�„'C 638�redaWr�jjgh' tC.r �I r7 -1 FEB 9 1981,101) RELEASE OF EASEMENT BOOK 63 FnUF 639 This Release of Easement, executed this 19thday of February, 1986, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision or the State of Florida, first party; Nelson H. Ade, whose mailing address is 168 -Harris Drive, Sebastian, Florida 32958, second party: WITNESSETH That the said party of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of ONe Dollar ($1.00) and -other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easements, lying on land situated in the County of Indian River, State of Florida, to -wit: The rear lot 5' easement of Lots 4 and 7, Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision, being the southwesterly 5' of Lot 7, Block 3, Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision and the northeasterly 5' of Lot 4, Block 3, Sebastian Grove Estates Subdivision, according to the Plat of same recorded in Official Record Book 5, Page 85 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all.and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest, equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law and the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: /L ez- /. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA'S e BY: Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: �/�Q��,.,WMEMN , ��s �tfst+tt� Freda Wright, C, erk i Bruce Bgieft 4, i<G * , F. Approval of Out -of -County Travel Commissioner Lyons wished to extend the approval to include the two librarians from the County Public Library System to attend the one -day library seminar in Kissimmee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved out -of -county travel for Commissioner Lyons and two librarians to attend the Library Interior Planning and Design Seminar in Kissimmee/0'rlando on March 27, 1986. G. Execution of FmHA Requirements for Gifford Utility Improvement Loan The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/12/86: TO.Board of county DATE: 2 1 8 FILE: Commissioners SUBJECTBoard Action at its *Meeting 2/19/86 (CONSENT) I FROM: Charles P.Vitunac, REFERENCES: County Attorney Request authorization for Chairman to execute the attached three documents (six originals of each), which are routine requirements of the FmHA in connection with the $9.2 million Gifford loan for utility improvements. The documents to be executed are: (1) USDA-FmHA Loan Resolution (Position 5) (2) FHA 400--1 Equal Opportunity Agreement (Position 6) (3) USDA-FmHA Assurance Agreement (Position 3) ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 86-9 and authorized the Chairman to sign the necessary documents re FmHA.requirements for Gifford Utility Improvement Loan. 11 LIEB 19 1986 Boa 63 'JL. 640 USDA-FmHA Form FmHA 1942-47 (Rev. 11-84) A RESOLUTION OF THE RESOLUTION 86-9 Position 5 C RESOLUTION 86-09 LOAN RESOLUTION (Public Bodies) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Boa 63 rnE 641 FORM APPROVED OMB NO. 0575-0015 OF THE COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE INCURRENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A PORTION OF THE COST OF ACQUIRING, CONSTRUCTING, ENLARGING, IMPROVING, AND/OR EXTENDING ITS -C—MBTNED WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM FACILITY TO SERVE AN AREA LAWFULLY WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION TO SERVE WHEREAS, it is necessary for the - County of Indian River, Florida (Public Body) (h6rein after called association) to raise a portion of the cost of such undertaking by issuance of its bonds in the principal amount of Nine Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($9,200,000) pursuant to the provisions of a resolution WHEREAS, the association intends to obtain assistance from the Farmers Home Administration, United States Department of Agricul- ture, (herein called the Government) acting under the provisions of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) in the planning, financing, and supervision of such undertaking and to purchasing of bonds lawfully issued, in the event that no other acceptable purchaser for such bonds is found by the association: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises the association hereby resolves: 1. To have prepared on its behalf and to adopt an ordinance or resolution for the issuance of its bonds and containing such items and in such forms are required by STATE statutes and as are agreeable and acceptable to the Government. 2. To refinance the unpaid balance, in whole or in part, of its bonds upon the request of the Government if at any time it shall appear to the Government that the association is able to refinance its bonds by obtaining a loan for such purposes from responsible cooperative or private sources at reasonable rates and terms for loans for similar purposes and periods of time as required by section 333(c) of said Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983(c)). 3. To provide for, execute, and comply with Form FmHA 400-4, "Assurance Agreement'; and Form FmHA 400-1, "Equal Opportunity Agreement', including an "Equal Op; :rtunity Clause", which clause is to be incorporated in, or attached as a rider to, each construction contract and subcontract involving in ex, --;s of $10,000. 4. To indemnify the Government for any payments made or losses suffered by the Government on behalf of the association. Such indemnification shall be payable from the sar ^ source of funus pledged to pay the bonds or any other legal per- missible source. 5. That upon default in the payments of any principal and accrued interest on the bonds or in the performance of any cov- enant or agreement contained herein or in the instruments incident to making or insuring the loan, the Governnment at its option may (a) declare the entire principal amount then outstanding and accrued interest immediately due and pay- able, (b) for the account of the association (payable from the source of funds pledged to pay the bonds or any other legally permissible source) incur and pay reasonable expenses for repair, maintenance, and operation of the facility and such other reasonable expenses as may be necessary to cure the cause of default, and/or (c) take possession of the facility, repair, maintain, and operate or rent it. Default under the provisions of this Resolution or any instrument incident to the making or insuring of the loan may be construed by the Government to constitute default under any other instrument held by the Government and executed or assumed by the Association, and default under any such instrument may be construed by the Government to constitute default hereunder. 6. Not to sell, transfer, lease, or otherwise encumber the facility or any portion thereof, or interest therein, not permit others to do so, without the prior written consent of the Government. 7. Not to borrow any money from any source, enter into any contract or agreement, or incur any other liabilities in con- nection with making enlargements, improvements or extensions to, or for any other purpose in connection with the facility (exclusive of normal maintenance) without the prior written consent of the Government if such undertaking would involve the source of funds pledged to pay the bonds. 8 To place the proceeds of the bonds on deposit in an account and in a manner approved by the Government. Funds may be deposited in institutions insured by the State or Federal Government or invested in readily marketable'securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Any income from these accounts will be considered as revenues of the system. 9. To comply with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations and to continually operate and maintain the facility in good condition. 10. To provide for the receipt of adequate revenues to meet the requirements of debt service, operation and maintenance, and the establishment of adequate reserves. No free service or use of the facility will be permitted. 11. To acquire and maintain such insurance coverage including fidelity bonds as may be required by the Government. 12. To establish and maintain such books and records relating to the operation of the facility and its financial affairs and to provide for required audit thereof in such a manner as may be required by the Government, to provide the Government without its request, a copy of each such audit, and to make and forward to the Government such additional information and reports as it may from time to time require. The agreement to provide the information collected through the loan resolution is required to obtain FmHA loan/grant assistance and the information so collected is used to determine compliance with the covenants of this resolution and applicable FmHA regulations. 12 � � i 13. To provide the Government at all reasonable times access to all books and records relating to the facility and access to the property of the system so that the Government may ascertain that the association is complying with the provisions hereof and of the instruments incident to the making or insuring of the loan. 14. In cases where the Government requires that a reserve account be established and maintained, when necessary, disburse- ments from the reserve account may be used for payments due on the bond if sufficient funds are not available in the general or debt service accounts. With the prior written approval of the Government, funds may be withdrawn for: (a) Paying the cost of repairing or replacing any damage to the facility which may have been caused by catastrophe. (b) Repairing or replacing short-lived assets. (c) Making extensions or improvements to the facility. Any time funds are disbursed from the reserve account, additional deposits will be required until the reserve account has reached the required funded level. 15. To provide adequate service to all persons within the service area who can feasibly and legally be served and to obtain FmHA's concurrence prior to refusing new or adequate services to such persons. Upon failure to provide services which are feasible and legal, such person shall have a direct right of action against the association or public body. 16. In the case of a grant in the sum not to exceed $ _0_ , the association hereby accepts the grant under the terms as offered by the Government and that the and of the association are hereby authorized and empowered to take all action necessary or appropriate in the execution of all written instruments as may be required in regard to or as evidence of such grant and the association hereby resolves to operate the facility under the terns as offered in said grant agreement(s). The provisions hereof and the provisions of all instruments incident to the making or the insuring of the loan, unless otherwise specifically provided by the terms of such instrument, shall be binding upon the association as long as the bonds are held or insured by the Government. The provisions of sections 6 through 15 hereof may be provided for in more specific detail in the bond resolution or ordinance; to the extent that the provisions contained in such bond resolution or ordinance should be found to be inconsistent with the provisions hereof, these provisions shall be construed as controlling as between the association and the Government. The vote was: Yeas 5 Nays 0 Absent 0 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the County of Indian River has duly adopted this Resolution and caused to be executed by the offic S wut►.duplic#ei 9i .this :_. 19th day of February 86 Ap�i o: d as 10 form 19 _. and Saba! Sufficiency County of Indian River (SEAL) f" By By Charles F Vitunac Attest: County Attorney Title Chairman of the Board Count r,,. io Title Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, as Clerk of the County of Indian River hereby certify that the Board of County Commissioners of such Association is composed of e members, of whom five constituting a quorum, were present at a meeting thereof duly called and held on the day of –February , 19 86 ;that the foregoing resolution was adopted at such meeting by the vote shown above; and that said resolution has not been rescinded or amended in any way. Dated, this o?D day of — February 19 86 it U S. Government Printing oltice: isu—su-ooeniu6 'Title Clerk of the Board of Count Conuniss onerG 13 FEB 191986-,A42 63. Fa,� 642 s FEB 19 1966 BOOK 63 FAIGE 643 Form FHA 400-1 (Rev. 6-26-72) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AGREEMENT This agreement, dated Februar 19 1986 ._.__.. _.._-.._.._.... _.....__.....between __.._...._...._._..Y__ .._ .. -- the CountyofIndian River, Florida 15;-called"Recipient" whether -one or more) -and the Farmers Home Administration, United States Department of rein Agriculture, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Labor (herein called the `Secretary') issued under the authority of Executive Order 11246, as amended, witnesseth: In consideration of financial assistance (whether by a loan, grant, loan guaranty, or other form of financial assistance) made or to be made by the Farmers Home Administration to Recipient, Recipient hereby agrees, if the cash cost of construction work performed by Recipient or a constfuction contract financed with such financial assistance exceeds $10,000 --unless exempted by rules, regulations or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued persuant to Section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965. 1. To incorporate or. cause to be incorporated into any contract for construction work, or modification thereof, subject to the relevant rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary or of any prior authority that remain in effect, which is paid for in whole or in part with the aid of such financial assistance, the following "Equal Opportunity Clause": During the p6rformance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows: (a) The contractor 'will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action Ut ensure that applicants are employed, and that employeesare treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such attion shall include, but not be limited, to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; A., "recruitment"or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for. training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the Farmers Home Adm; -..►ration setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. (b) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (c) The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the Farmers Home Administration, advising the said labor union or workers' representative of the contractor's commitments under this agreement as required pursuant to section 202(3)- of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment. (d) The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of all rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor and of any prior authority which remain in effect. (e) The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, rules, regulations, and orders, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by the Farmers Home Administration, Office of Equal Opportunity, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders. (f) In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the Equal Opportunity (Federally Assisted Construction) clause or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended is whole or in part and the contractor may be declaied ineligible for further Government Contracts or Federally Assisted construction contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1g65, - and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, of by rule, regulation or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as provided by Law. (g) The contractor will include the provisions of this Equal Opportunity (Federally Assisted Construction) clause in every subcontract or purchase order, unless exempted by the rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each such subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the Farmers Home Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, that in the event the contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the Farmers Home Administration, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interest of the United States. Position 6 FHA 400-1 (Rev. 6-26-72) 14 r 2. To be bound by the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Clause in construction work performed by Recipient and paid for in whole or in part with the aid of such financial assistance. 3. To notify all prospective contractors to file the required 'Compliance Statement', .Form FHA 400-6, with their bids. 4. Form AD -425, Instructions to Contractors, will accompany the notice of award of the contract. Bid conditions for all nonexempt Federal and Federally assisted construction-ontracts require inclusion of the appropriate "Hometown" or "Imposed" plan affirmative action and equal employment opportunity requirements. All bidders must comply with the bid conditions contained in the invitation to be considered responsible bidders and hence eligible for the award. S. To assist and cooperate actively with the Farmers Home Administration and the Secretary in obtaining the compliance of contractors and subcontractors with the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Clause and the said rules, regulations, and orders, to obtain and furnish to the Farmers Home Administration and the Secretary, Form AD -560, Certification of Nonsegregated Facilities, to submit the Monthly Manpower Utilization Report, Optional Form 66, as required and such other information as they may require for the supervision of such compliance, and to otherwise assist the Farmers Home Administration in the discharge of its primary responsibility for securing compliance. 6. To refrain from entering into any contract, or extension or other modification of a contract, subject to such Executive Order with a contractor debarred from Government contracts or federally assisted construction contracts pursuant to Part II, Subpart D, of such Executive Order or to prior authority; and to carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Clause as may be imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by the Fanners Home Administration or the Secretary pursuant to such Subpart D. 7. That if Recipient fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the Fanners Home Administration may take any or all of the following actions: (a) cancel, terminate, or suspend said financial assistance in whole or in part; (b) refrain from extending any further assistance under the program involved until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from Recipient; and (c) refer the case to the Office of Equal Opportunity, U. S. Department of Agriculture for appropriate action. . Witness the due execution hereof by Recipient on this, the date first above written. Recipient (CORPORATE -SEAL) At 1 ' ��'; )A -.t 14� Clerk of the Baard; of Secretary County CoMmissione'rs Recipient County of Tndi nn Riv r__Fl nri ria Name of Corporate Recipient ByL,,ZA l C Chairman o t e Board f resider.. County Commissioners Approved as to form and legal sufficiency By 91A Charles P. Vitunac County /Attorney 15 8ooK 63 FAUE 644 USDA-FmHA Form FmHA 400.4 (Rev. 8-29-79) Position .i' C ASSURANCE AGREEMENT C (Under Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964) The Countv of Indian River, Florida (name of recipient) BOOK 63 P";Gr 645 ("Recipient" herein) hereby assures the U. S. Department of Agriculture that Recipient is in compliance with and will continue to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d et. seq.), 7 CFR Part 15, and Fanners Home Administration regulations promulgated thereunder, 7 C.F.R. §1901.202. In accordance with that Act and the regulations referred to above, Recipient agrees that in connection with any program or activity for which Recipient receives Federal financial assistance (as such term is defined in 7 C.F.R. §14.2) no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination. 1. Recipient agrees that any transfer of any aided facility, other than personal property, by sale, lease or other conveyance otcontract, shall be, and shall be made expressly, subject to the obligations of this agreement and transferee's assumption thereof. 2. Recipient shall: (a) Keep such records and submit to the Government such timely, complete, and accurate information as the Government may determine to be necessary to ascertain our/my compliance with this agreement and the regulations. (b) Permit access by authorized employees of the Farmers Home Administration or the U.S. Department of Agriculture during normal business hours to such books, records, accounts and other sources of information and its facilities as may be pertinent to ascertaining such compliance. (c) Make available to users, participants, beneficiaries and other interested persons such information regarding the provisions of this agreement and the regulations, and in such manner as the Farmers Home Administration or the U.S. Department of Agriculture finds necessary to inform such persons of the protection assured them against discrimination. 3. The obligations of this agreement shall continue (a) As to any real property, including any structure, acouired or improved with the aid of the Federal financial assistance, so long as such real property is used for the purpose for which ti 7ederal financial assistance is made or for another purpose which affords similar services or benefits, or for as long as the Recipient retains ownership or possession of the property, whichever is longer. (b) As to any personal property acquired or improved with the aid of the Federal financial assistance, so long as Recipient retains ownership or possession of the property. (c) As to any other aided facility or activity, until the last advance of funds under the loan or -rant has been made 4. Upon any breach or violation of this agreement the Government may, at its option: (a) Terminate or refuse to render or continue financial assistance for the aid of the property, facility, project, service or activity. (b) Enforce this agreement by suit for specific performance or by any other available remedy under the laws of the United States or the State in which the breach or violation occurs. Rights and remedies provided for under this agreement shall be cumulative. In witness whereof, �o C9uny.of Indian RiveE,__ orida�_ on this (name of recipient) date has caused this agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers and its seal affixed hereto, or, if a natural person, has hereunto executed this agreehient. lS E' A ,L) Attest:1�%(� * uTitle S..GPO:1981-0-785-013/1520 Clerlciof the Board of County Commissioners 16 �County _of�Ind -River, Florida Recipient February ....19, 1986 _ Date Appruv, d s to r rin and IoZZ :i! By 00 . Ch--- V -t, nuc C-DUrIty - ® r S H. Release of Performance/Maintenance Bond Florence Acres Subdivision The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/11/86: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 11, 1986 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: Request for Release of Performance/Maintenance Bond - Florence Acres Subdivision (40th Avenue North of 4th Street) - Peter Sabonjohn - Applicant FROM:James W. Davis, P.E. , REFERENCES: Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Peter Sabonjohn, developer of Florence Acres Subdivision, is requesting release of the $4,100 performance/maintenance bond for Florence Acres Subdivision. This bond was posted in June, 1985, for the following: 1) Grassing $1,600 2) Drainage 1,000 3) Road Maintenance 1,500 $4,100 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS On Feb. 10, 1986, the Public Works staff inspected the Subdivision. Grassing has germinated and the drainage system is functioning. Approximately 600 of the road in the Subdivision (40th Ave) was resurfaced by the developer. Minor drainage erosion and swale maintenance needs to be accomplished. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that the $4,100 cash bond be `returned to Mr. Sabonjohn subject to the swales being mowed. Funding to be from the County's escrow account. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the release of the $4100 cash bond held under the terms of an escrow agreement between Peter Sabonjohn, Jr., Florida National Bank, and Indian River County to guarantee the construction of required improvements in Florence Acres Subdivision, subject to the swales being mowed. 17 FEB 19 1996 BOOK 63 F��cF 646 FEB 19 1966 BOOK 63 mft 647 (.Request to Close Forest Cay in Forest Park Subdivision for Block Party The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/18/86: TO: THE HwoRABLE MamBERs of DATE: February 18, 1986 FILE: T -- THE BOARD OF COUNTY CCMIISSIONERS THROUal: Michael Wright, County Adninistrator SUBJECT: Request to Close Forest Cay In Forest Park Subdivision For For Block Party FROM: Michael L. Orr, REFERENCES: Memo from Frank M. Traffic Engineer Benedick, Vice Pres. Forest dated Feb.17, 1986 Residents along Forest Cay in Forest Park Subdivision have requested permission to close a short section of Forest Cay from 4:00PM to 6:00PM on Friday, March 21, 1986 (rain date scheduled for March 25), for the purpose of a Property Owner Association Block Party. Staff has no objection to this request, provided that: 1) Proper barricades as permitted by the Traffic Engineering Department are installed. 2) • A block representative be listed as a contact person in charge of the event in case the road needs to be opened. 3) Access to emergency vehicles be maintained. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the request to close a short section of Forest Cay from 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Friday, March 21, 1986, with a rain date of March 25th, for the purpose of a Property Owners Association Block Party. PROCLAMATION__ LITERACY WEEK, FEB. 22 - FEB. 28 Chairman Scurlock read the following proclamation aloud and presented it to Barbara Dillon, who accepted in behalf of the Indian River Reading Council. Mrs. Dillon listed several of the many local activities planned for Literacy Week. 18 s •r P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS,. - .the International Reading Association and the members of the Indian River Reading Council dedicate their efforts to promoting literacy in Indian River County; and v WHEREAS,.we recognize all people who make significant efforts'to promote literacy; and.. WHEREAS, the International Reading Association and the Indian River -Reading Council will be joining the week long observance by participating in special events planned by members of the Indian River Reading Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the week of February 22 - 28, 1986, shall be designated as LITERACY WEEK in Indian River County, and all citizens are urged to support the efforts of the International Reading Association and the members of the Indian River Reading Council in promoting literacy in Indian River County. • 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ' � G Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman ATTEST: Freda Wright, Clerk Adopted February 19, 1986 19 648 FE1 X96 �aaK FA,� FEB 19 1986 BOOK 63 P,il 649 REPLACEMENT OF COURTHOUSE ROOF The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/11/86: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 11, 1986FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: Courthouse Roof THRU: H.T. "Sonny" an Replacement Director, Genera ervices FROM: L AWilliams uperintendent REFERENCES: Buildings and Grounds DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The existing roof on the Indian River County Courthouse was installed during the 1981 Renovation Project. The roof is covered by the manufacturer with a five (5) year repair or replacement bond. Koppers, Inc. is the manufacturer of the roofing material used on both the Courthouse and the Administration Building. Koppers is no longer manufacturing the material used, due to failures in several installations. Koppers is also attempting to "buy out" the remaining months of the warranty bonds, including the one covering the Courthouse. The Courthouse has several areas where the roofing has deteriorated to a point where repairs are no longer practical. This fact is known, and agreed to, by the Manufacturers' field representative and insurance company. Three separate roofing contractors have inspected the roof and all have agreed that replacement is both warranted and required to solve our present roofing problems. Several attempts to remedy the roof leaks by factory appointed contractors have failed to solve the problem. The Building and Grounds staff have attempted emergency repairs, which have not helped. Koppers or their representatives have not attempted any repairs since the determination was made that a new roof was warranted, a period of well over a year, They have made a feeble attempt at securing an estimate and contractor for replacement of the roof. After some time, they notified staff to contact a roofing contractor of our choice and acquire an estimate. The claims supervisor for the Traveler's Insurance Company (Koppers Insuror) verbally agreed to a complete replacement with the Insurance Company "footing" the entire bill. Staff contacted Atlantic Roofing, Vero Beach, for an estimate. Atlantic examinded the roof, agreed that a roof was warranted, but failed to supply us with an estimate. Advanced roofing of Ft. Lauderdale also failed to supply an estimate after a review of the roof. After these two attempts by staff to secure an estimate, Lucas Waterproofing submitted a bid of $33,000. Lucas was awarded the bid for the annex and warehouse roof replacements during fiscal year 84- 85. Notification to the Insurance Company brought a reply of authorization of $15,000 towards the cost of replacement. The roof leaks have caused damage to several rooms in the Courthouse including Courtrooms A and C. 20 RECOMMENDATION Authorize staff to solicit emergency bids for immediate replace- ment of the courthouse roof with payment to come from the Board of County Commission Contingency Fund and instruct County Attor- ney's staff to begin litigation. Replacement will take between three to four weeks depending upon weather and court schedules. Replacement during the summer months would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. General Services Director Sonny Dean advised of the substantial damage to the Courthouse because of the leaking roof. Assistant County Attorney James Wilson reported that he has been in contact with the insurance company, who have informed us that they intend to pay only $15,000. They also intend to pro -rate the warranty because the roof has been installed for 5 years with no problems, according to them. The warranty specifically states that if there are any leaks or problems with the roof, the company will repair/replace the roof at their cost. Furthermore, they have not indicated that our estimate is not reasonable. Attorney Wilson felt that $33,000 is a reasonable price and recommended that the Board authorize the Legal Department to initiate a lawsuit against them in an attempt to regain the full amount of the roof repairs and also authorize the replacement of the roof as soon as possible. Commissioner Lyons asked about the other damage, and Administrator Wright explained that staff wants authorization to repair everything and sue for everything. Funding will come from the general contingencies which presently has a balance of $194,538. Lynn Williams, Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds, reported that he had received another estimate from a roofer just this morning, and he recommends replacing the entire roof all the way downtothe deck at a price of $56,000. The $33,000 figure is to reroof over the existing two layers of roofing; however, 21 BOOK 63 F.4,c 650 FEB 19.1996 F'F -E B 19 1986 BOOK 63 PAGE 61 the insulation between the roofs has now deteriorated to a point where it needs to be removed as it is.saturated with water. He noted the warranty does not state specifically that we can recoup costs for interior damages, but the roof over Courthouse C leaks every time it rains. Administrator Wright suggested that the Board authorize the County Attorney to sue and authorize staff to solicit emergency bids on replacement of the Courthouse roof and bring this back at the next meeting. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we had a written authorization from Koppers to go ahead and secure the bid, and Attorney Wilson advised that the authorization was given over the phone. Commissioner Bird asked how disruptive this would be to the activities in the Courthouse, and Mr. Williams felt it has the potential to be very disruptive; however, it can be done in sections. Chairman Scurlock suggested we coordinate the project with the judges' schedules and try to get the roofing done without too much disruption. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized the County Attorney's Office to file the appropriate lawsuit and authorized staff to secure additional bids and bring them back to the Board with a recommendation. PUBLIC -HEARING - AMENDING SWIMMING POOL CODE 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: 22 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 - fished 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 ire Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he ha.s neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount; rebate, commission or refund for therpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed day of A.D. (B sjn ss Man erl t� r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF COUNTY ORDINANCE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will. conduct a Public Hearing on Wednesday, February 19, 1986 at 9:15 A.M. in the Commission• Chambers at the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero. Beach, Florida' to consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE X; ADOPTING THE STAND- ARD SWIMMING POOL , CODE, 1985 EDITION; REPEALING SECTION 4-60 OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; CREAT- ING ARTICLE I, SECTION 4-1 OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CONDITION OF THE PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR IN- CORPORATION IN CODE, SEVERABIL- ITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. If any person decides to appeal a decision made on the above matter, a record of the proceedings will be required for such purposes, and he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Jan. 31, 1986 Assistant County Attorney James Wilson explained that the proposed ordinance is a bit of a clean up on the Building Code, Section I of the standard Swimming Pool Code and also adopts the 1985 edition. There are some changes in Section II under "Condition of Permit". The old ordinance stated that construction would have to commence within 6 months, and we have had to define "commencement of construction". Building Director Ester Rymer feels the best way to determine compliance with this would be when the second inspection is completed, which is the foundation inspection. Commissioner Lyons noted that under "Condition of Permit" it says that one or more extensions can be given and he preferred to have a limit on the number of extensions. Administrator Wright suggested taking out "or more". The Commissioners agreed that one extension was enough. 23 FEB 19 1986 Boa BOOK 63 FAGE 653 Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 86-18, adopting.the standard Swimming Pool Code, 1985 edition, with the change noted in the Conditions of Permit, Section 1A. 24 ORDINANCE NO. 86-18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE X; ADOPTING THE STANDARD SWIMMING POOL CODE, 1985 EDITION; REPEALING SECTION 4-60 OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; CREATING ARTICLE I, SECTION 4-1 OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CONDITION OF THE PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION IN CODE, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION 1 Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 4, Article X is hereby amended to read as follows: The Standard Swimming Pool Code, 1985 edition, as published by the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. is hereby adopted by Indian River County as the Swimming Pool Code for Indian River County, Florida, subject to the limitations, exceptions and modifications set forth herein. SECTION 2 Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances Section 4-60 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3 Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article 1, Section 4-1 is hereby created to read as follows: Condition of the Permit. A. The building official shall act upon an appplication for a permit with plans as filed, or as amended, without unreasonable or unnecessary delay. A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and shall not be construed as authority to violate, cancel, alter, or set aside any of the provisions of this code, nor shall such issuance of a permit prevent the building official from • thereafter requiring correction of errors in plans or in construction, or of violations of this code. Any permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by it shall have been commenced within six (6) months after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of one year after the:time the work is commenced; provided, that for cause, one extension of time for a period not exceeding ninety (90) days may be allowed in writing by the building official. FEB 19 1986 -1- ROOK 6J. PAF 654 r-- 1986 sou 63 FA„r 655 B. For the purposes of .this section, work authorized by permits shall be considered commenced if, within six (6) months, the complete foundation system has been constructed, and said foundation has been inspected and approved by the building official, or, if the permit is issued for a structure using monolithic construction methods, then the work shall be considered commenced if the rough plumbing system has been installed and said plumbing system has been inspected and approved by,.the building official. SECTION 4 INCORPORATION IN CODE This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of Ordinances of Indian River County and the word "ordinance” may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word and sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such purposes. SECTION 5 SEVERABILITY If any Section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase, I or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitu- tional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance; and it'shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 6 EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from Secretary of State of the State of Florida of official acknow- legement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian County, Florida, on this 19 day of February , 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By 2�C, Atte t DON C. SCUR CK, JR., Ch rman ; J , FREDA WRIGHT, Cl k 25a ® -2- PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR THE SEBASTIAN/U.S. #1 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida :7NOTICEOFREGULATION OFLAND USE' 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA° ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Irndiart Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath FtWp H�of ahs Public hearing t whichCommissioners,a; says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published � hexad. mthe ry � rtur+uC n at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being of the County AdmWatration Building, located at 1640 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. oni Wedneadey. February 19, 1666, at 9:15 a.m. to NdPE�I�OFAN OROINCOFTHEBOARD - '� COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN s / RIVER COUNTY, ESTABLISHING In the matter of ✓%'�°t.Gdl/!' 4 BOUNDARIES FOR THE 40 ACRE 1 SEBASTIAN CITY LIMITS/U.S. HIGH. WAY &I COMMERCIALANDUSTRiAl. . t`'. /' �•/ — OUTH OF THE SOUTHERNCSEEASTIAN CITY LIMITS. AND WEST OF THE INDIAN RIVER AS GENERALLY DEPICTED ON THE LAND In the Court, was pub- USE MAP AND DESCRIBED IN THE TEAT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVID. 1 ING FOR THE BOUNDARY MAP OF THE Hatted in said newspaper in the issues of ,& — DIODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. A map of the proposed rode Doundary is Irvai"a at the Planning Department off" an the second floor of the County Administration Building. Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision Vero Beach, in said Indian River er County,newspaper eFlorida, and that the said news a has heretofore which may be mads at this meeting win need to neurs that a verbatim record of the proceedings been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been Is made. which includes teatimMny and entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun. upon which the appeal is based. ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached co of Indian Rover County Y P 9 PY Board of County Commissioners advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person. firm By�on C. Seurock, Jr_ or corporation any discount. rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this Jen 30 Feb1t 1986 advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Q/ Sworn to and subscribetl before me this �! �Y — .A.D. 19 v T l siness M ger) (SEALa (Clerk of the Circuit Cburt, I(yan River County, Florida) Staff Planner Robert Melsom reviewed the following memo dated 1/27/86: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 27, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: e2 SUBJECT: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST Robert M. Keatin , AI TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES Planning & Developme Director FOR THE SEBASTIAN/U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL/ f7 THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP INDUSTRIAL NODE Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: REFERENCES: �GM Robert G. Melsom Sebastian/U.S.#1 COMM/ q}aff U1 annar F Tong RnngP Planning TNr)iT4T, RnR7 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 19, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish boundaries for the 40 acre commercial/ industrial. node at the southern city limits of Sebastian and U.S. Highway #1. 26 FEB BOOK 63Fmsi 19 196 B 1 1986 . i BOOK 63 PAGE 657 On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the text of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan which provided for establishing node boundaries for each of the nodes as generally depicted on the land use map and described in the text of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. On October 10, 1985, the staff presented proposed boundaries for the Sebastian City Limits/U.S. Highway #1 commercial/ industrial node to the Planning and Zoning Commission. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and instructed the staff to revaluate the node boundaries to determine if the boundary could be adjusted to include the Kroegel Homestead property. Subsequently, staff reevaluated the node boundary and determined that 3.51 acres of the Kroegel Homestead property could be included in the node boundary if 3,5 acres of residentially developed land were deleted from staff's original proposal; It is staff's position that the new proposed boundary is amenable to all parties involved given the size constraint of the node. On January 23, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS Two alternative sets of boundaries were prepared for this node. The first alternative was considered on October 10, 1985. Subsequently, a second alternative was prepared based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's desire to adjust the node boundary to include the Kroegel Homestead. Both the proposed and alternative boundaries of the Sebastian/ U.S. Highway #1 commercial/industrial node were prepared based on the following criteria: 1. The general description and size constraint of the node as described in the text of the land use element; 2. The existing commercial uses in the general area of the node; , 3. The existing zoning pattern; 4. Property boundaries; 5. Physical considerations; 6. Environmental constraints; and 7. Access to the transportation network. Existing Land Use Pattern All of the existing commercial uses in the general area of the node are included within the proposed node boundary. These existing commercial uses include Sebastian Electric and Plumbing Company, Mavco Inc., Clarks Welding Shop, Palmers Motel and Guest Cottages, Morgans' Liquor Store, Moodys' Tire and Battery Ware- house, Ocean Mist Seafood and Steaks, Dyers Auto -body Frame and Wrecker Service, Sebastian Plumbing, Halmar Diesel Service, and several mini -warehousing facilities. The node is*surrounded by existing commercial development to the north, in the City of Sebastian, the Indian River and existing residential development to the east, and south, the Sebastian Highland residential development and undeveloped land to the west and southwest. 27 - M M Future Land Use All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive Plan. The Sebastian/U.S. Highway #1 node is described as: "There is a forty (40) acre commercial/industrial node located on U.S. #1 at the South Sebastian city limits." The proposed node boundary includes commercial property on the east side of U.S. Highway #1, south of the Sebastian City limits, and all of the commercial property in the Sebastian Groves Subdivision, South of County Road 512, and west of Old Dixie Highway. The general area of the node will concentrate future commercial uses around existing commercial uses on U.S. Highway #1 and in the Sebastian Groves Subdivision. It is the staff's position that the impact any new commercial development will have on adjacent residential uses will be lessened due to the adoption of new dimensional and bufferyard requirements for commercial uses. The acreage represented in the proposed node boundary does not include the acreage of properties which are designated as MXD. The MXD area is defined as being a corridor located on the west side of U.S. Highway #1 to a point three hundred feet west of the F.E.C. Railroad or Old Dixie Highway, whichever is most westerly, and extends south from the southern city limits of Sebastian to the northern limits of Vero Beach. The Comprehensive Plan states that commercial and industrial land uses are anticipated to "utilize" the majority of land area within the corridor. In this context, utilize means that the MXD area is for'the expansion of existing commercial, industrial or residential uses according to the predominant land use pattern. Nodes provide for the antic- ipated commercial and industrial growth in the County for the twenty year life of the Plan. However, the proposed node boundaries are superimposed on the MXD area to provide a continuous boundary for the Sebastian/U.S. Highway #1 node, allowing growth to occur in the MXD area in conformance with the predominant land use pattern. The proposed boundaries follow property boundaries in all in- stances. Physical Considerations The slope of the land in the node is from slight to moderate in character, -.elevations range from 10' to 30' mean sea -level. The most notable physical feature is the sand ridge which runs parallel to Old Dixie Highway. The soils in the node possess the following properties: fair to good compaction characteristics, low shrink -swell potential, moderate to excessively well drained. Overall, the aforementioned physical features indicate good development potential. Environment The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive. However, all of the land east of U.S. Highway #1 is subject to flooding, and is located in the 100 year floodplain as depicted on the flood insurance rate map for the area. Also a portion of the node (Sebastian Grove Subdivision) is located on the sand ridge aquifer recharge area. A land use survey of this area provided the following information. A substantial amount of development has occured on the sand ridge in this area, and only 5.5 acres which may have development potential remain. It is staff's opinion that any proposed commercial development will have a minimal impact on the aquifer or aquifer recharge in this area. 28 BOOK 6 3 FADE ��8 19 B • • Access to the Transportation Network BOOK 63 FAGF 659 All of the parcels of land located in Sebastian Groves Subdivi- sion have primary access to local streets (Woodmere Road, High Street and Hewlett Drive) and secondary access to County Road 512 (designated as an Arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan), and Old Dixie Highway (classified as a Secondary Collector street).-. The remaining parcels of land in the node have either direct, or secondary access to U.S. Highway #1 (designated as an Arterial on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, explained that the P & Z Commission had requested staff to go back and include the Kroegel Homestead within the boundaries of the node. Commissioner Bowman noted that this is a very strange looking node as it extends about 8/10s of a mile from CR -512 down to the turnoff at Indian River Drive. Commissioner Wodtke asked what 3.5 acres were being taken out of the node to make room for the Kroegel property, and Planner Melsom stated that 3.5 acres of primarily residential property were deleted from the northern end of the proposed boundaries. Commissioner Lyons asked what other type of commercial uses are along the river, and Mr. Shearer advised that they are listed on page 2 of the staff memo under Existing Land Use Pattern. Chairman Scurlock reported how concerned the St. Johns River Water Management District is about the impact on the river from development, and {pointed out there is no water or wastewater service available. Commissioner Lyons felt it is a growing problem and did not want to see any additional development of any kind along the river that doesn't have sewer service. Commissioner Bowman believed that basically this is a single family area and there would be just a few uses that would be grandfathered in, such as the Ferndale Lodge. The welding shop listed is actually alongside the road, not anywhere near the 29 river. The area along the river is one of the prime real estate areas in this county and there are just a few lots left. Mr. Shearer confirmed that the nodal boundaries follow property lines whenever possible. He pointed out that the P 6 Z Commission feel that this node should be strictly a commercial node, not a commercial/industrial node. Chairman Scurlock was concerned whether the densities in that area would meet the Health Department's criteria for permitting septic systems, and Commissioner Bowman added that she knew that some of the places along there have been dumping raw sewage in the ditch for years. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Rodney Kroegel, 11296 South Indian River Drive, introduced his daughter Janice Timinsky, who is representing his sister, Freda Thompson, who has property adjacent to his on the south side. He emphasized that he has lived on this property since 1903 and it has been used commercially since he established the Sebastian Electric and Plumbing Company in 1918. Mrs. Timinsky explained that after the October meeting, her family had felt sure that all of the Kroegel Homestead would be included in the node which would bring it to the bend of Indian River Drive. However, the P 6 Z Commission went by the tax rolls and only included the 3.5 acres that her father resides on. The Kroegel Homestead property actually covers 7.5 acres and the family is concerned about having their property divided by two different zonings. Chairman Scurlock understood that staff's recommendation does not include the entire Kroegel Homestead, gnly about half of it. Mrs. Timinsky confirmed that there are commercial uses on the entire 7.5 acres. She and her husband have a branch office of the Miami Audio Visual Company, her aunt has a nursery, and her father has the plumbing company. 30 FE 1 ��� BOOKPACE 660 FEB 19 196 BOOK 6 3 Director Keating explained that if it was zoned commercial and used commercial at the time the Comp Plan was adopted, they can change the use, expand the use, or sell the property to someone who could change the use as long as it was a legally conforming use. Chairman Scurlock felt that was another reason not to include it in the node. Commissioner Lyons certainly did not want to encourage expansion of commercial in that area and wondered why the node had to go towards the river instead of extending between the railroad tracks and U.S. #1. Mr. Shearer explained that there have been a number of nodes that straddle the MXD area, such as the Oslo Road/U.S. #1 node, where the node acreage is not sufficient to include all the MXD area. Staff has dealt with these situations by putting the node on either side of the MXD area. Mrs. Timinsky stated that seven generations of Kroegels have continued to live on that land and they don't intend to change it. They wish to keep it the way it has been for the last 100 years. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Bird asked if we have the legal ability today to expand the node beyond the 40 acres, and County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that the hearing was advertised in such a manner that would not allow the boundaries to be changed without having another public hearing. Mr. Shearer advised that although they could not add to the 40 acres today, they might be able to delete, but Commissioner Bird did not feel right in deleting anything because those owners might not be here to day to object. 31 Attorney Vitunac pointed out that they have considered making these advertisements more general so that we might have any combination of acres in a certain area to reach the total acreage of a node. That way everyone in the neighborhood would be on notice that they may or may not be included in the node. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board establish the boundaries of the node as indicated on the map with the exception of the property on the east side of Indian River Drive. Under discussion, the Board discussed the property on the east side of Indian River Drive and felt that the net effect of the Motion would be that the Kroegels could continue to use their property as they are now, expand it or sell it with the use. Commissioner Bowman wished to see the entire node situation revisited. Chairman Scurlock felt that if the goal is not to have any additional acreage in commercial, the Board should go ahead and include it in the node. Commissioner Bird believed that by not including the Kroegel property in the node, it leaves a cloud over the commercial use of their property and that is the reason they wish to have it clarified as being in the node. Commissioner Lyons wanted to try to avoid any expansions of commercial uses on the east side of the street, and Director Keating felt that the Motion under discussion would accomplish that objective, but suggested that the Board direct staff to go ahead and reduce the size of the node and initiate a rezoning of this property to residential which would grandfather in any existing commercial uses, but not allow their expansion in the future. 32 FEBL- 19 1.9 86 NO. 63 PAGE 662 rFEB 19-1986 BOOK COMMISSIONER LYONS rephrased his Motion and 63 U-17693 7 COMMISSIONER BOWMAN SECONDED the Motion to state: That the Board authorize the size of the node to be reduced and that the County initiate rezoning of that piece on the east side of Indian River Drive to residential with the understanding that the existing uses are grandfathered in. Commissioner Bird did not intend to vote for the Motion because the owners of some of the existing uses did not realize their property would be affected today and they are not here to speak. Commissioner Wodtke felt that since the area has been used for commercial for years and since staff has done a lot of homework on this matter, that the Board should include the Kroegel Homestead property in the node. Chairman Scurlock was concerned that a rezoning of that area would make some additional existing commercial uses in there non -conforming, and didn't feel that was fair. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion failed by a 2-3 vote, Commissioners Bird, Wodtke and Scurlock dissenting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board by a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Bowman and Lyons dissenting, adopted Ordinance 86-19, providing for the establishment of the boundaries of the Sebastian/U.S. #1 commercial/ industrial node as outlined on the map and recommended by staff. 33 ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 19 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION- ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISH- ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 40 ACRE U.S.# 1 AT THE SOUTH SEBASTIAN CITY LIMITS COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE BOUNDARY MAP, DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida have amended the County's Comprehensive Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commer- cial, commercial/industrial, industrial, tourist/commercial, and hospital/commercial node; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing and subsequently' made a recommendation to u establish boundaries for this node; and, WHEREAS, rThe Board of County Commissioners has held 'a public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners is empowered to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of the County's Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1 The attached map labeled as "Attachment A" and the description labeled as "Attachment B" shall be the official boundaries of the 40 acre U.S. #1 at the South Sebastian City Limits Commercial/Industrial Node. EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. FEB 19.1986 BOOK 63 Fq-,,F 64 FE 19 1966 Boa 63 F,,, b65 ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 19 Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on the 19th day of February 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: d DON C. SCURL CK, Jr., AIRMAN Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State, of Florida this 27th day of February 1986. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 3rd day of March , 1986 at 11:00 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFIICIENCY. BRUCE BARKETT, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY Seb./U.S. 1 Node Ord. ROBERT "All T ll Sebastian C1 Commercial / Industrial Node —= Proposed Node Boundary 35 FES 19 1986 BOOK F'4`J..6 ' r � FEB 19 1986 I'Bll BOOK 63 FAE 667 DESCRIPTION OF SEBASTIAN/U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE BEGINNING AT A POINT 300 FEET WEST OF THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST AND ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE; THENCE RUN SOUTH ALONG THE WEST RIGHT- OF-WAY OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1,910 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 690 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE STATE ROAD DITCH TO THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER; THENCE RUN SOUTH, ALONG THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER APPROXIMATELY 760 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE APPROXI- MATELY 815 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 560 FEET; THENCE RUN IN A SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION APPROXIMATELY 160 FEET TO ,THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1; THENCE RUN IN A NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION APPROXIMATELY 3,020 FEET ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE RUN WEST CROSSING U.S. HIGHWAY #1, THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY AND CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF BLOCK ONE OF THE SEBASTIAN GROVE ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPROXIMATELY 1,785 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH TO THE CENTER LINE OF HARRISON STREET ALSO BEING THE SEBASTIAN CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET; THENCE RUN IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE SOUTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HARRISON STREET, APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 4, OF THE SEBASTIAN GROVES SUBDIVISION. THENCE RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE EASTERN LOT LINES OF LOTS 7, 6, and 5 FOR A DISTANCE OF 190 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 21 OF THE SEBASTIAN GROVES SUBDIVISION; THENCE RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE EASTERN LOT LINES OF LOTS 21, AND 22, FOR A DISTANCE OF 130 FEET TO A POINT ON THE �l NORTIiEAST CORNER OF LOT 23 OF TIIE SEBASTIAN GROVES SUBDIVI— SION, THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 490 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERN RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1; THENCE RUN IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 240 FEET; THENCE RUN IN A NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 15 FEET; THENCE RUN IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 20 FEET; THENCE. RUN IN A NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 45 FEET; THENCE RUN DUE EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 211 FEET; THENCE RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 215 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 40.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Descript. Sebast./U.S.#1 ROB2 ' FES 19 1986 BOOK 63 fr1jC.668 F'FE 19 1988 BOOK 63 FADE 669 PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE ENLARGED HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a 50<2W/ in the matter of _40� in the �^ % Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of�yL�'t�6 6L U Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. // Sworn to and subscribed before me this (SEAL) _ nG,67Rn. day of A.D. 19 7"" ` 7s an r 16• k Circ ' , redia Iver County, Florida) M NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE - NOTICE OF PUBLIC TO CONSIDER THE RING ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Indian liver County Board of County Commissioners, shall hold a public hearing at which parties in m- erest and citizens shall have an opportunity to 'a heard, in the County Commission Chambers If the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Nednesday, February 19, 1988, at 9:15 a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF ...,, 1hr v nnURA1c cinNERS OF INDIAN 1TAL COMMERCIAL NODE LO - D EAST OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1 IG BARBER AVENUE, AS GEN - LY DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OFLAND USE AND _ D -ONTHE ENT LAND EUSE MAP OF LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE PREHENSIVE PLAN: PROVIDING �c nni WrIARY MAP OF THE NODE AND EFFEG I nrn urs i =- A map of the proposed node boundary, is available at the.Pianning Department office on the second floor of the County Administration Building. : a decision Anyone who may wish to appealany which may be made at this meeting will need to ngs is made, hicnsure that a hInc Includes testimony andtim record of the evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr.,. Chairman Jan. 30, Feb. 11, 19811 Staff Planner Robert Melsom reviewed the following staff memo dated 2/10/86: 36 TO:' The Honorable Members DATE: February 10, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST Robert Keatihgj_AI a� TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES Planning & Development" Director FOR THE ENLARGED HOSPITAL /COMMERCIAL NODE FROM: 9. REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP a Hospital/Commercial Node rhi af' T.nng-Rana P1 anni ng RORRRT It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 19, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish boundaries for the 205 acre hospital/commercial node located along 37th Street (Barber Avenue). On April 10, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners adopted boundaries for the 130 acre hospital/commercial node. At that time, the Board indicated that they felt the node should be enlarged to include all of the hospital's property which consists of 75 acres. This would enlarge the hospital/ commercial node from -130 to 205 acres. On December 18, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which enlarged the hospi- tal/commercial node to 205 acres. On January 23, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. On January 29, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners approved the nonresidential zoning conversion ordinance. This ordinance rezoned all of the Geoffrey Subdivision to RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential District. The southernmost part of the subdivision has been proposed for inclusion in the node previously. However, on two previous occasions, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that it was not appropriate to include this part of the Geoffrey Subdivision in the node. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the factors used to determine the proposed enlarged node boundary is presented. The analysis includes a description of the current and future land uses of the node, physical and environmental considerations. The proposed boundary for the enlarged hospital commercial node was prepared based on the following criteria: 1. The current adopted node boundary; 2. The general description and size constraint of the node as described in the text of the land use element; 3. The existing medical uses in the general area of the node; 37 ` 67 FEB 19 1986 sooK F, FEB 9 1981 4. The existing zoning pattern; 5. Property boundaries; 6. Physical considerations; 7. Environmental constraints; and 8. Access to the transportation network. Existing Land Use Pattern BOOK 63 P UF. 6 t 1 All of the existing medical uses in the general area of the node are included within the proposed enlarged node boundary. These existing uses include: Indian River Medical Center, Indian River Village Care Center, Vero Care Center, Medical Arts Center; Rehabilitation Hospital (under construction), Indian River Associates Medical Office Building (site plan approved), and Rivendell Psychiatric Hospital (site plan approved). The node is surrounded by undeveloped land to the north, existing residential development to the west, undeveloped land to the east, and undeveloped land and residential development to the south. Future Land Use Pattern All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive Plan. The hospital commercial node is described as: A two hundred five (205) acre hospital commercial node is located north of the present Indian River Hospital along 37th Street (Barber Avenue). Commercial uses related to the needs of the hospital shall be the primary use permitted as well as residential uses. Based on the Comprehensive Plan's definition of the node as being located north of the hospital, staff has interpreted this to mean that the hospital was not originally considered part of the node. However, now that the hospital and surrounding area is zoned MED, Medical District, it does seem more logical to include the hospital in the hospital commercial node. The proposed node boundaries will include the hospital's property which consists of 75 acres and a 10 acre parcel of land directly south of the Indian River Medical Center property and east of the hospital's property. The proposed enlarged node boundaries follow the existing hospital property boundaries, and transect a parcel of land to the east of the hospital. This is a 29.94 acre parcel of land, and transecting it with the proposed enlarged node boundary will allow the property owner to develop a portion of his land for medical or commercial use. Physical Considerations The slope of the land in the node is from slight to moderate in character; elevations range from 5' to 10' mean sea -level. The soils in the proposed enlarged node possess the following prop- erties: poor compaction and shrink -swell characteristics, and are poorly drained. Overall, the aforementioned physical fea- tures indicate poor development potential. — Environment Generally, the node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive; however, approximately one acre is located in a high marsh area in the eastern portion of the node, as depicted on the National Wetlands Inventory Map. A site inspection on December 31, 1985 revealed that there was no standing water on the site. 38 Approximately 75 acres of land in the eastern portion of the node is located within the 100 year Flood plain as depicted on the Flood Rate -Insurance Map (FIRM) for the area. Access to the Transportation Network The parcels of land located in the proposed enlarged hospi- tal/commercial node have either primary or secondary access to 37th Street (designated as a Secondary Collector on the Thorough- fare Plan). RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Commissioner Bird felt there has been some confusion on whether or no -t Blocks 14 and 15 of the Geoffrey Subdivision were included in the node. Mr. Shearer recalled that on two separate occasions the Board took the position of not including the two blocks after the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff had recommended their inclusion. Commissioner Lyons asked if proposed boundaries included the triangular piece on Block 13, and Mr. Shearer advised that it was not included. Commissioner Bird hoped that staff's recommendation not to include those blocks was not due to the Board's earlier two decisions as he hoped that staff will continue to recommend their convictions regardless of how the Board votes. Director Keating stated that basically staff was reacting to boundaries that had been previous approved and the addition of the hospital acreage to the xiode. Staff would agree to have those blocks included, as they don't feel there is a problem with it. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if .anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Michael O'Haire, attorney representing Jill Pease, owner of property in Block 15, emphasized that he has been before this Board previously on this issue. He did not feel that it made any 39 FEB 1.9 '� � BOOK 6 FA F 6 6 BOOK planning sense to exclude Blocks 14 and 15 from the hospital node. He recalled that in April of last year those blocks were included in the node, but the Board in their infinite wisdom, deleted those blocks without the owners being aware there was even a possibility of that happening. Attorney O'Haire believed that the black community feels that they would be better served by having these two blocks in commercial/medical buildings. He questioned whether anyone would ever build residential on those 50 -ft. lots. He emphasized that a residential use cannot be forced and urged the Board to include Blocks 14 and 15 in the hospital node. William Collins, attorney representing J. D. Malone, owner of property along the east side of U.S. #1 and the north side of 37th Street, the entrance to the hospital node, objected to the change in zoning from C-1 to RM -8 and circulated the following graphic of the Geoffrey Subdivision: 40 r id 1 38th ST. — — -- -- — 50' 50 F JAN. 1, 1983 146 .. 'S0 yo fs3 145 147 148 fs� O GC--- r i71 3 'u'\ 1441 42 I41 O O 1 1 �-- '2 c 152 153 °- �i 156- 56-164 164 1431 162 161 160 1 5 501 157 50.. E JAN. 1, 1978 F JAN. 1, 1983 .. 'S0 yo fs3 X44 Iss fs� O /lo i71 3 O 149 150 151 152 153 15 4 155 156- 56-164 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 0 E3 1I.2 1 1b 1 2 2 158 157 sd 169 170 171 172 I p - ID E JAN. 1, 1978 F JAN. 1, 1983 Dex— A84 EH yo X44 1(07 l6 fL1' /lo i71 3 ONos _ O 5 e n' r « . r ad $ r « u r} o « I i .165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 I p - AIRPORT g 186 187•`• 1 8- 189 t90 191 1 a 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 - 194 2 C9 214 a 213 ; a� � �� G) t�ti to �1 501 a - « • « « r �� Y - - Fft ✓®t co mon a rrcj o i r- e -.a i cD be rx -- /' T a - - 0 r►' f - AC'- s '/ e`'T Q. / C. m u� ^ f' y ...=-�9's�.•..ad+ - - - REVISION E JAN. 1, 1978 F JAN. 1, 1983 Dex— A84 EH yo ' ' 371h PLACE 5 e n' r « . r ad $ r « u r} o « I ct' ACH X40 �F p - AIRPORT g 186 187•`• 1 8- 189 t90 191 I92 202 203 2 z05', 205 20T 1et n �. Ise = 1 7 3 1960195 _ - 194 193 ! 216? 215 214 a 213 ; a� I lei1 o y ILI 1 '1 1 o ' 37th ST BARBER AVE. Y - - Fft ✓®t co mon a rrcj o i r- e -.a i cD be rx -- /' T a - - 0 r►' f - AC'- s '/ e`'T Q. / C. m u� ^ f' y ...=-�9's�.•..ad+ - - - REVISION E JAN. 1, 1978 F JAN. 1, 1983 Dex— A84 EH EMS fflo� A JA's B JC. r?"'I C JAPo D -Li AS FEB 19 1986 Attorney Collins pointed out that the triangular piece of property in Block 13 is owned by his client, who took a poll of .the residents in Blocks 14 and 15 to see how they felt about their property being rezoned to residential.. He noted that the majority of the lightly shaded lots shown on the graphic represent residents who are in favor of commercial zoning, and the darker shaded areas represent either out -of -county or out-of-state owners. Only the owners of lots 211 and 212 were in favor of residential zoning. After the January 29th meeting at which the property was rezoned from C-1 to RM -8, Mr. Malone circulated a petition in the neighborhood, specifically, Blocks 14 and 15, and received 46 signatures from those who are in favor of commercial zoning. He stressed that the problem is that the RM -8 zoning requires a 20 -ft. front setback and a 25 -ft. rear setback, but Mr. Malone's property is only 25 ft. deep at the widest point and contains less than 6000 square feet. If Mr. Malone removed his present non -conforming use, a tractor service which has been there for 18 years, he would be left with a piece of residential property without the proper lot dimensions to allow a single family home. Mr. Malone is investigating having an alley to the east side of the property abandoned in order to add 20 feet of depth to his parcel. However, that still would only give him space for one single-family home. Commissioner Bowman asked if the graphic represented owners or tenants, and J_, D. Malone stated that most of the people who live on those blocks are owners of the property, and they all agreed to it except one lady who said she was sick and couldn't sign, but would go along with whatever the rest of the people in the block wanted. Attorney Collins advised that he had the tax rolls available if someone wanted to check to see who owned what. He stressed that most of these lots were not developed at this point. Cliff Reuter, 517 Camelia Lane, presented a 2 -year old aerial plat map of the area showing the owners of the lots, and 42 s � � suggested a comparison of those names to the names on Mr. Malone's petition. He stated he owns property jointly with the Pease and Idlette families and that they presently have a contract with builder Kent Grohne for the sale of the property. After spending a lot of time in the Planning Department and attending the P & Z meetings, they were shocked and dismayed to find out that their C-1 zoning had been changed to residential. He urged the Board to follow the P 8 Z recommendation and rezone it back to commercial. Ellis Buckner, owner of Mr. Boo Boo's Barbeque and a tenant of J. D. Malone, objected to that property being rezoned from commercial to residential. He was concerned that he would not be allowed to operate his business in a residential area and urged the Board to rezone that property back to commercial. Planner Shearer noted that the hospital district does allow carry -out restaurants. A. J. Harris, 1850 38th Place, owner of property on Barber Lane, understood Mr. Malone's position, but was concerned about the effect on the community. He felt that even with a buffer zone, the boundary line would be more appropriate at Barber Avenue instead of behind Blocks 14 and 15. He believed some people would have to relocate and stressed how painful it is to leave one's home. Kent Grohne explained that he is the builder who has a contract to buy the property owned by the Reuter, Pease and Idlette families. He emphasized that he spent several thousand dollars and took his commercial project right up to site plan approval just to find out that the property was rezoned to RM -8 on January 29th. He urged the Board to rezone this property back to commercial. Reverend Elton Charlie Jones, 1710 38th Lane, opposed the inclusion of any of the Geoffrey Subdivision, as he, too, had convassed the community and felt that many people were deceived into signing the petition because they were led to believe that 43 F 1 �9�6 BOOK 63 Fs';F 676 F � B 19 1986 BOOK 63 P,gC,E 677 Scurlock asked,how many of their property would be more valuable if it was rezoned to commercial. Several people had told him this morning that they want their names taken off that petition. His survey shows they don't want to move, they want it to stay residential. Chairman Scurlock asked,how many of the homes are occupied by owners, and Rev. Jones felt the majority of them were owners, but pointed out that there were many vacant lots in Blocks 14 and 15, and many of those owners live out of state. He stressed that the residents in the subdivision want it to remain residential. He pointed out that if Mr. Malone's property were to be included in the node, there is a 70 ft. limit and he could actually do less with his property. Most of the lots there are 50 ft. wide so if they are rezoned in the medical zoning, the investors would have to buy up several lots in order to build. The congregation of the Church of God By Faith, Inc., located on 37th Place which is directly across from the back of the lots in Blocks 14 and 15, are opposed to commercial zoning. They wish it to remain residential. Referring to Mr. Grohne's position, he found it hard to believe that any builder would spend several thousand dollars on a project before buying the property. Rafus Russ, owner of 2 lots on Barber Avenue, urged the Board to rezone the property back to commercial. Tom Pease, 607 Tulip Lane, emphasized that staff and the P & Z Commission had twice recommended these blocks be included in the hospital node -and they had felt satisfied that they would be. He believed that medical buildings would be a benefit to the community. Attorney Collins called out the following names of several owners in Blocks 13, 14 and 15 who came to today's meeting to support commercial zoning: J. D. Malone, all of Block 13; Lots 185, 199 and 201 are owned by the County; Louise Davis, Lots 186 and 187; Sandra Glover, Lots 188, 197 and 198; Annie Mae Smith, Lot #189; George Buckner, Lots 193 and 194; Rafus Russ, Lots 206 and 207; Tom and Jill Pease, Lots 213, 214 and 215. 44 Rivers Anderson, P.O. Box 61, Vero Beach, representing Frances Walker, owner of 3 lots in the SE corner of Block 15, expressed great concern that the Board rezoned those blocks to residential after staff and the P & Z Commission had twice recommended they be included in the hospital/commercial node. He pointed out that the church might be able to utilize the parking lot of a commercial/medical building on Sundays or after hours. He urged the Board to include Blocks 14 and 15 in the hospital node. Mr. Lacey, 1225 37th Avenue, objected to the residential zoning, and understood that his property at 3434 U.S. #1 (inside the Vero Beach city limits on the south side of Barber Avenue) is still zoned C-1, but that half of his property located in the county is now residential. Kent Grohne questioned why 50-600 of the people were unaware of the rezoning meetings, and Chairman Scurlock explained that the public hearings of January 14th and January 29th were properly advertised and he believed it is the owner's responsibility to attend the hearings. Mr. Grohne again stressed that he was working with staff all along and staff told him that although the property was not in the medical zone, it was C-1. Sandra Glover, owner of 3 lots in Blocks 14 and 15, objected to her property being rezoned to residential because she and her husband purchased it 9 years ago as commercial and intend to build suitable medical buildings. She felt this is the best use for the property and asked the Board not to downgrade their property. Jill Pease, 607 Tulip Lane, recalled at the January 29th meeting the Commission suggested that they bring support from the people who live in the specific area of Blocks 14 and 15 in the Geoffrey Subdivision and that is what they have done. She hoped that it is clear that the people who have signed the petition are property owners in that specific area. Mrs. Pease believed this 45 FEB 19 1986 Bou 63 Pau 678 FFFEB 19 1986 BOOK 3 F,.,E 679 issue would come up again and again as long as the entrance to the hospital node remained residential. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board authorize staff to do whatever is necessary to include Blocks 13, 14, and 15 in the hospital/commercial node. Under discussion, Commissioner Bird noted that while he had voted against this twice before, it was because he thought he was trying to protect the residents in that area. After today's input, he felt there is significant support from the residents to rezone those blocks back to commercial. Administrator Wright asked what the timeframe would be if this passes today, and Mr. Shearer advised that they could bring it back within 4 weeks, after the public hearing notices are published. Commissioner Bowman was not convinced that the majority of the people who live in that neighborhood want commercial zoning. She believed that they have been misled and that people would be displaced by the rezoning, and wondered where they would relocate. Previously there had been a hope to obtain a grant to redevelop this property as residential, but there wouldn't be much of a chance of that happening now. Chairman Scurlock intended to vote for the Motion even though he was inclined towards keeping the neighborhood residential as long as possible, but felt his decision should be based on good planning. Commissioner Wodtke wondered if there was anyone in attendance who now feel they were deceived or misled, and asked 46 if anyone in attendance wished to remove their name from Mr. Malone's petition in favor of commercial zoning. No one wished to remove their name, but one gentleman, George Buckner, asked to sign the petition. SAID PETITION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Commissioner Wodtke felt that because Barber Avenue is the entrance to the hospital node and because of the difficulty in building homes on those 50 -ft. lots, commercial is the best use of the property. He intended to vote for the -Motion, but he assured the residents that he would not vote to extend the node any further into that subdivision. He hoped that when the Planning staff looks at site plans for commercial/medical buildings on those blocks, they consider the needs of the adjacent property owners. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion passed on a 4-1 vote, Commissioner Bowman dissenting. DISCUSSION REGARDING STATUS_ OF_RYANWOOD_SHOPPING CENTER Chairman Scurlock wanted it made perfectly clear that the County is not holding up the shopping center; we have nothing at all to do with the delay. It is a financial matter between the developer of that project, his lending institutions and contractors. Administrator Wright explained that the developer had planned to talk about a temporary median cut on SR -60 this morning, but had notified him that they could not not be here this morning and asked for this matter to be put on next week's Agenda at 11:00 o'clock A.M. Commissioner Bowman recalled that they had to make improvements to Kings Highway, and Chairman Scurlock understood that they have escrowed money with the County for certain improvements, but Administrator Wright advised that the road improvements were a condition of site plan. All road improvements have to be in before they will be issued a Certificate of Occupancy. 47 Boa 63 Fi r US Boos 63 'P" ,c 6810 Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that the only bond escrowed was for utilities. Administrator Wright felt that it was going to go through because it is too good of a place to let go and too much money has been invested. It is too far along for someone not to finish it. A notice of foreclosure has been filed, but that will take another 60-90 days. FORFEITURE OF BOND - CHARLIE PRICE MINING OPERATION The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/5/86: TO: DATE: FILE: The Honorable Members February 5, 1986 of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURR515JECT: REQUEST TO REQUIRE FORFEITURE OF BOND FOR CHARLIE PRICE MINING OPERATION Robert M. X a ing; AICP Planning & Develo ment Director FROM: Betty Davis REFERENCES: price 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 on February 19, 1986. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On March 9, 1978, the County Planning and Zoning Commission approved a sand mining application, submitted by Charlie Price of Global Paving Inc., to mine 5.6 acres of an 18 acre parcel of_ agriculturally zoned land, located off 22nd Street4, S.W. and Highway I-95 in Section 36, Township 33, Range 38, Indian River Farms Company Subdivision. At that time, the applicant tendered to Indian River County a bond of $10,000. The subject bond was conditioned upon compliance with the approved site plan, with forfeiture of the bond possible if the applicant.failed to comply with the site plan as approved, which includes restoration of the site. Although the County's mining ordinance does not delineate a time frame within which a mining operation must be com- pleted, 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 times during the entire period of the operation. 48 Due to the impending cancellation of the bond, staff feels that some action must be taken to ensure that the County has adequate funds to restore the subject property to an accept- able condition. The subject bond is due to be cancelled on February 23, 1986, and the mining operation has not been completed. / ANALYSIS: On January 24, 1986, the applicant was notified that the County would need continued bond coverage for his mining operation effective through completion of the project. Subsequent conversations have not resulted in renewal of a 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 prior to cancellation of his present bond. 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 necessary, using funds from the bond. Since the bond provides the funds for site restora- tion and the bond is due to be cancelled on February 23, 1986 without restoration having been completed, staff feels that the County should exercise its option and require forfeiture of the bond. These funds could 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 the County take the necessary actions to bring the subject mining operation into conformance with the County's Code. Director Keating explained that the bond is due to expire on March 15, 1986 and no arrangements have been made to extend it. As a matter of fact, their insurance agent has notified them that they no longer issue those bonds. Betty Davis of Code Enforcement reported that they have notified h'im by certified mail and she had talked with them this morning. 49 BOOKFA'cF 6 FEB 19 1986 BOOK 63 rmu 6-S3 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted staff's recommendation to call in the $10,000 bond at the appropriate time unless other financial arrangements are made. Gwenn Bennett advised that if the bond cannot be renewed, the mining operation intends to post the cash. STATUS REPORT ON SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB Administrator Wright reported that they plan to meet with the contractor next Monday to renegotiate the construction costs on the golf course. Commissioner Bird hoped to bring back a positive report at the next Commission meeting, but felt that we might have to adjust our proposed timetable a bit. Chairman Scurlock advised that bond counsel is proceeding to have things all in place ready to issue when we give him the notice which probably would be within 60-90 days. He reported that Ambec, the insurance agency which has indicated they will insure the golf course issuer, will probably require the race track funds to be pledged. He felt we must be very cautious with those funds because they are the primary source of funds on the golf course issue. Commissioner Lyons wished to see them pledged because the State might decide we cannot have them in the future. OMB Director Joseph Baird explained that he, Administrator Wright and Attorney Vitunac had talked to the bond counsel and even if we were to finance the 30 months of capitalized interest, we will have to bring the money in there and transfer it out. We just have to acknowledge that we have the interest covered and then drop it out at the bottom. It is just a pass through and we can handle it and they are going to put that in writing to us. 50 BUDGET AMENDMENT `_ RACE _TRACK REVENUE - DUNE RESTORATION The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/18/86: TO: Honorable Board of County ®ATE: February 18, 1986 FILE: Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright County Administrator FROM: Joseh A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: Budget Amendment REFERENCES: Account Title Account Number Increase Decrease Racing Tax Revenue Cash Forward - Sept. 30 202-000-335-16.00 202-117-513-99.92 $446,500 446,500 Fund Transfers In Construction in Progress 301-000-381-20.00 301-132-521-66.51 $380,000 380,000 Racing Tax Revenue Other Improvements-Excpt Bldgs 001-000-335-16.00 001-210-572-66.39 446,500 Reserve for Contingency Fund Transfers'Out 001-199-581-99.91 23,261 43,239 001-199-581-99.21 380,000 Explanation: Race Track tax revenues for the 1985/86 year in the amount of $446,500 were budgeted to be received and expended in the 1980/81 Series Bond Fund (202). , there - The 1980/81 series bonds were defeased with proceeds from our recent bond issue fore, the pledge against the Race Track funds was temporarily released and of the money was no longer needed in Fund 202. the use The County staff took into consideration this additional revenue of $446,500 during the bond issue and did not borrow the full amount necessary to do the capital projects. The $380,000 that was not borrowed was to come from the Race Track reve- nues. This has left $66,500 of which staff recommends the Honorable Board of County Commissioners use for the following purposes: In the meeting of April 24, 1985, the Honorable Board of County Commissioners approved and authorized $35,800 -be used for dune restoration at Wabasso Beach and the Tracking Station. (see attached) The project was started and $12,538 was ex- pended in the 1984/85 fiscal year. The $23,261 that is necessary to complete the project was not budgeted in the 1985/86.year. We are requestin the Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve $23,261 of the remaining 66,500, to be used to complete the project as the Board has approved and that the remaining $43,239 be put in the General Fund Contingency for future use. The above journal entries will accommodate the request set forth above if the Board of County Commissioners approve. Director Baird explained that $446,550 of race track revenue monies is shown coming through:the 1980-81 bond series fund, which we have now defeased and staff is recommending that we take that money and transfer it over into the general contingency fund 51 FEB 10 Boer; 63 684 �1 J FEB 9 7986 and use $380,000 as a shortfall on capital projects on the $9.8 million issue. All of this was anticipated earlier by staff and last April the Board authorized $23,261 to be spent on dune restoration for the two parks. However, the money to complete that project was not brought forward to the new fiscal year; therefore, the recommendation is that we add this to our line item budget with the remaining monies put into general fund contingencies. Administrator Wright advised that this move would give us a balance of $237,000 in general contingencies, but the $50,000-$60,000 for the Courthouse roof will have to be deducted from that figure. Commissioner Wodtke wished to have a moratorium on spending any more money from contingencies, and Chairman Scurlock agreed that the Board should take the position not to spend any more money on capital purchases or hire any replacement of personnel until we receive a complete report, including the liability insurance figure. Administrator Wright stated that they would hate that report in the next two weeks, but he did not feel it was necessary to have a moratorium right now. He pointed out .that in some depart- ments a moratorium on hiring might liquidate the entire department. Commissioner Wodtke believed that contingencies are for emergencies only and that we should not go along spending a twelfth of the fund every month because even greater emergencies might arise in the next month or two. Administrator Wright pointed out that he cannot spend a cent out of contingencies without bringing it to the Board for approval. Commissioner Bird felt we should continue to consider each situation on a case by case basis. Director Baird did not feel we are in any danger now, but should tighten our belt. 52 M M M Administrator Wright felt he got the Board's message not to bring anymore requests for contingencies unless it is an absolutely critical situation. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment as recommended by staff. COUNTY JAIL PROJECT - PHASE II - BID ESTIMATES The Board reviewed the following memo and letter dated 2/12/86 and 1/22/86, respectively: TCMichael Wright DATE: February 12, 1986 FILE: ' County Administrator Sonny n FROM: Direct r General Services SUBJECT: Independent Bid Estimates Phase II - Indian River County Jail Project REFERENCES: Attached are three estimates on subject project as requested by the Board of County Commissioners. Since we are on a very tight schedule, I am requesting some guidance at this time to expedite the procedure. We are moving forward with obtaining information from all parties concerned to be ready for either negotiating a price with R.S.H. or going out to bid. I will discuss equipment and price with Willo in Decatur, Alabama on Thursday, February 13, 1986. 53 BOOK 63 us -1686 January 22, 1986 Mr. Sonny Dean Director of General Services Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 RE: -INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL Boor 6J Pf,: 687 FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS 1766 JAN 1586 RECEIVED Genera Services Dear Mr. Dean: Following is a list of independent cost estimating firms which we believe are qualified to prepare responsible estimates for the jail addition. CMS is a relatively small Florida firm, while MDA has a large international operation. The other two are national f irms with Florida branches. Shall I ask them to send you brochures? vf. CONSTRUCTION COST SYSTEMS Suite 2021 5700 Memorial Drive Tampa, Florida 33615 (813) 887-5600 w% CMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 1031 Sunset Drive Miami, Florida 33173 (305) 596-5082 3. HANSCOMB ASSOCIATES, INC. One Tampa City Center Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 273-8063 4. MDA Suite 400 699 Prince Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (703) 836-0880 Sincerely, W. R. FRIZZ ARCHITE , I C. George H. Bai� A President MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approved staff's recommendation to contract with Construction Cost Systems and Hanscomb Associates, Inc. for a total price of $8500 for costing out the construction of the second phase of the new Jail. 54 Under discussion, Commissioner Lyons explained that these two firms will cost out the construction costs of the project so that we will know if we get a good price from the local contractor. If we don't get a good price, we will have an idea of what the upper level cost will be if we have to go out to bid on the project. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion passed by a vote of 4-1, Chairman Scurlock dissenting. DISCUSSION RE DATA PROCESSING COMMITTEE REPORT Administrator Wright advised that the Data Processing Committee met yesterday and accepted the consultant's plans with regards to consolidation of the Data Processing, and, in essence, creating it as an enterprise account. He believed there were 14 recommendations and the Committee approved 13. The report and the recommendations will be coming to the Board under separate cover as they were just too laborious to add today. He recommended setting up a joint workshop meeting with the constitutional officers involved and the County Commission simply to discuss setting up the Data Processing program. Chairman Scurlock understood there is great interest in going to a "cad" system where the Planning Department or Utilities Department could develop all the information in such a way that a developer could walk in and say "All right, Utilities, what do I have to do?" And you would pull it down on the screen, and it would say you are responsible for a 6" line - here's your nearest connection point, etc., - and you could punch in to get the same type information for roads, water, etc. Administrator Wright believed that is the type of question that could be answered at the workshop. Commissioner Lyons as.ked if the Sheriff is going to be involved in this, and Administrator Wright confirmed that the Sheriff would be involved. 55 BOOK 63 Fa,UE 6SS BOOK 63 P" E. V Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone was going out now and purchasing equipment, and Administrator Wright advised that Property Appraiser Nolte needs some equipment and that is addressed in the report, but it will be compatible. He did not know if it would be compatible with the "cad" system, but it will be compatible through a networking system. He just simply hasn't asked that question. The Administrator stressed that what we want to do is reduce our costs, and not only does the Property Appraiser need a program, we need it in Utilities, in Planning, and in Engineering. Commissioner Wodtke believed that basically this agreement seems to be totally acceptable to all the constitutional officers at this time anyway. Compromises will probably be made, but it is a good beginning point. He felt one of the key points is that while we might continue to have some separate systems for a while, the staff in the operations of our Data Processing is going to be unified under a central head, and there will not be separate heads for each constitutional officer's data processing department: We are going to try to utilize what we have and maximize on the investment that's there now by bringing all the technicians and all the technical staff together to the authority of the Data Processing Board. The next move is going to be a unified move towards maybe even more of a total consolidation down the line. The technology seems to change so fast in this kind of business that is hard to project more than 2-3 years down the road. Although we spent very little capital last year, there is going to be significant monies involved. He felt that after the Commissioners read the report and have a chance to workshop it, we will find out where we are heading and whether the constitutional officers are willing to make an agreement. Chairman Scurlock raised the question of microfilming the mounds of documents accumulating in the building, and Administrator Wright believed microfilming is a natural extension of the Data Processing responsibilities. 1 M Commissioner Lyons wished to have the library system included in the microfilming program also. Administrator Wright felt this is the beginning of an agreement to agree and a master step in diplomacy. There being no further business, on Motion duly made and seconded the Board adjourned at 12:00 noon. ATTEST: Clerk 57. Chairman Boa 63�.a.,F..69-0