HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/16/1986Tuesday, September 16, 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 Tuesday,
September 16, 1986, at 10:30 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman;
Margaret C. Bowman; and Richard N. Bird. Absent was William C.
Wodtke, Jr., who was recuperating from an angino plasti
procedure. Also present were Charles P. Balczun, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of
County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman_ called the meeting to order.
Reverend Peter Hill of First Baptist Church gave the
invocation, and Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
Chairman Scurlock introduced Charles P. Balczun, the new
County Administrator, and welcomed him aboard.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Balczun requested the addition to today's
Agenda of the Professional Architectural Services Agreement for
Golden Sands Beach Park.
Attorney Vitunac requested the addition of a possible
settlement with Koppers re the Courthouse roof litigation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wodtke being absent) added the above
items to today's Agenda.
e
BOOK b5 P,1.G 73
SEP 16 1996 � .
800K ? PAGE 7,KP�
eb
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 26,
1986. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 8/26/86,
as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 9/3/86. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 9/3/86,
as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock requested that Item E be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Fellsmere Water Control District Proposed Budget
Put on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board:
Copy of Fellsmere Water Control District Proposed
Budget - FY 1986-87
B. Appointment of Jean Versteeg to Public Library Advisory Board
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
appointed Jean Versteeg to the Public Library Advisory
Board.
2
r
C. Approval of Out -of -County Travel -_Library Workshop -
TaTTaFiassee - -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved out -of -county travel for Commissioners
and staff to attend the Library Workshop in Tallahassee
on October 9-10, 1986.
D. Approval of Out -of -County Travel - SAAC Conference - Ft.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved out -of -county travel for Commissioners
and staff to attend the SAAC Conference in Ft.
Lauderdale, October 8-10, 1986.
E, Approval of Out -of -County Travel -for Commissioners and Staff,
andPayment Tor'oommmissio—n C5ndidates totten o i aste
Lanaf i l l Ru l eo-imp I i ante -W-orFR op -
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/8/86:
TO: County Commissioners DATE: September 8, 1986
FILE:
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Landfill
Rule Compliance Workshop
a
FROM: Patric B. ons REFERENCES:
vice al a
I would like to suggest that we pay for the attendance of any of
the candidates for County Commission who would want to attend the
solid waste landfill rule conference in Orlando on October 1,
1986.
I am placing this on the agenda also to ask for approval for
County Commissioners.and appropriate staff members to attend.
Chairman Scurlock was concerned about paying for County
Commission candidates to attend seminars prior to their election,
because he felt it might set a precedent.
3
BOOK 6 5 PAGE 3 6
SE 16 1986
FF -
SEP 16 1986 BOOK 65 FnUF io37
Commissioner Lyons explained that he placed this on the
Agenda today because he felt it was a matter of judgement. Since
the Solid Waste Landfill Workshop is scheduled for October, a
month before election, he felt the candidates for the County
Commission seats should have the opportunity to attend because
solid waste disposal will be one of the biggest problems facing
this county.
Commissioner Bird agreed that it would be beneficial for the
candidates to familiarize themselves with this important topic,
but had a problem with paying for their travel.
Candidate Carolyn Eggert asked if the candidates could
attend if they pay their own pay, and Chairman Scurlock felt in
that case, the Board would encourage them to go.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved out -of -county travel for Commissioners
and staff to attend the Solid Waste Landfill Rule
Compliance Workshop in Orlando on October 1, 1986,
and approved County sponsorship in registration for
the workshop for those County Commission candidates
wishing to attend at their own expense.
F. Surplus Property
The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich:
4
TO: Board of County Commissioners ®ATE: Sept. 5, 1986 FILE:
THRU: Joseph A. Baird
Director, Budget Office
SUBJECT: Surplus Property
FROM. I REFERENCES:
Carolyn Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Attached is a list of equipment no longer being used by the
County. All equipment listed has been replaced by new equipment.
Most equipment has extremely high mileage and would need extensive
repairs, the cost of which would be prohibitive.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The equipment must be declared surplus property, so they can be
advertised and sold to the highest bidder.
3. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners declare
the equipment as surplus property so it can be sold.
ASSET
DESCRIPTION
DATE PURCHASED
COST
DEPARTMENT
0005
1973 Ford Maverick
3-19-73
$ 3.039.72
Traffic Engineering
X677
1972 Ford Cab -Ch
9-08-72
18,996.00
Refuse
7724
1976 Ford P/U
1 - 76
6,000.00
Refuse
2101
1973 Ford Maverick
6-01-73
2,904.19
Parks
1705
1974 International
8-07-74
2,800.00
Parks
Cub Tractor Mower
3191
1979 Dodge 3/4 Ton
2-21-79
6,215.70
Parks
Crew Cab P/U Truck
1699
1972 Massey Ferguson
2-23-72
3,398.00
Road E Bridge
Tractor w/side bar
1700
1972 Massey Ferguson
2-23-72
3,398.00
Road b Bridge
Tractor w/side bar
3221
1979 Datsun P/U Truck
6-13-79
4,647-00
Utilities
3711
1981 Datsun P/U Truck
3-04-81'
5,400.00
Utilities
5
BOOK 65 FACE 73- 8
0
0
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
P� f'E 739
.a
. e.
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
declared the above listed equipment surplus
property so that it may be sold.
G. Change Order #1 8 Final Payment - S. Gifford Rd. Potable
mer Syst—em €xpansion
The Board reviewed memo of the Assistant Utility Director:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: September 8, 1986
��
THRU: .� errance G. Pinto
ilr'Director of Utility Services
�J
FROM,z4 Jeffrey K. Barton
�-'Assistant Director of Utility Services
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER #1 AND FINAL PAYMENT
SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD
16" POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EXPANSION
BACKGROUND
The County entered into a contract with Coastline Utilities to
build County PROJECT UW86-10-DS, a 16" Diameter Potable Water
Distribution System Expansion/So. Gifford Road. The contractor has
completed the work and submitted Change Order #1 to correct
quantities used on the project. This Change Order #1 lowers the
contract amount by $4,889.73 to $101,994.27 for the project.
Enclosed are the following:
1) Change Order #1
2) Release of Liens from contractor
3) Request for Final Payment and release of retainage.
RECOMMENDATION
Utility Staff recommends the following:
1) Approve Change Order #1, reducing contract by $4,889.73
2) Approve final payment and release of retainage for a total
amount of $10,199.43.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved Change Order#1 reducing the contract by
$4,889.73 and approved final payment and release of
retainage for a total of $10,199.43.
6
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE 106,884.00
DATE: August 26, 1986 REVISED CONTRACT PRICE 101,994.27
JOB NAME Indian River County Pro ect #US86-10-DS
16" 0 Potable Water Distribution System Expansion
OWNER: Indian River County, Florida
The amount of the Contract will be decreased by the sum of: four thousand, eight
hundred, eight -nine and 73/100 dollars. ($4,889.73)
The Contract total, including this Change Order, will be: one hundred one thousand,
nine hundred ninety-four and 27/100 dollars. ($101,994.27)
This document will become supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply
hereto.
Date:
Contract
ORIGINAL
REVISED
UNIT
ORIGINAL
TOTAL
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
PRICE
UNITS
PRICE
CHANGE
CHANGE
PRICE
1
Mobilization
LS
1.0
200.00
---
---
$ 200.00
2
16110 DIP WM
24.30
3450 LF
83,835.00
(—) 90 L
(—)2187.00
81,648.00
3
12110 DIP WM
17.84/LF
60 LF
1,070.40
(—) 19 LF(—)
338.96
731.44
4
8110 DIP WM
13.11/LF
60 LF
786.60
(-) 17 LF(-)
222.87
563.73
5
6110 DIP WM
10.95/LF
75 LF
821.25
(-) 37 LF(-)
405.15
416.10
6
16110 BF Valves
1700/EA
3
5,100.00
---
---
5,100.00
7
6110 Gate Valves
315/EA
5
1,575.00
---
---
1,575.00
$
Paved Rd. Restor.
15.00/LF
250 LF
3,750.00
(-)117 L
(-)1755.00
1,995.00
9
Non-Pvd. Rd. Restor.
8.00/LF
50 LF
400.00
---
---
400.00
10
Seed & Mulch
.35/LF
3345 LF
1,170.75
(+) 55
(+. 19.25
1,190.00 _
11
Wet Tap w/Valve
1305/EA
1,305.00
---
---
1,305.00
12
12x12 wet Tap w/Valu
2370/EA
2,370.00
---
---
2,370.00
13
Fire Hydrant
1500/EA
3
4,500-00
---
---
4,500-00
TOTAL
106,884.00
4,889.73$101,994.27
The amount of the Contract will be decreased by the sum of: four thousand, eight
hundred, eight -nine and 73/100 dollars. ($4,889.73)
The Contract total, including this Change Order, will be: one hundred one thousand,
nine hundred ninety-four and 27/100 dollars. ($101,994.27)
This document will become supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply
hereto.
7
BOOK 65 PAF. 740
A
Date:
Contract
r nk Monte o s li e Utilities, Inc.
Engineer: N I
Date:
Paw
Step E.. Moler, P.E.; Sippel, Masteller, Lorenz & Hoo r,
c.
G
Date •
p
Owner: i
Terrance G. Pinto, rector; Indian River County
Utilities
Department
H. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Applications -
(Kennedy;
Huschle;
- Bowser;�isfiop;-Sorenson~;-KrauseT
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner
Roland
DeBlois:
7
BOOK 65 PAF. 740
A
BOOK 65 F,�GF.74
TO; The Honorable MembersDATE: September 4, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
e � 2 /,-, _- , 7 � W �� SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keating,
Planning & Deve'lop t Director
THROUGH: Art Cha./ acombe
Chief, Environmental Planning Section
D.E.R, ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATIONS'
FROM:Roland M. Deslois REFERENCES: TM#86-665
Staff Planner RtA0 DIS:ROLAND
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on September 16, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO.S
31-124105-4, 31-124107-4, 31-124108-4, 31-124110-4, 31-124109-4,
& 31-124106-4
APPLICATION DESCRIPTIONS:
1) Application No. 31-124106-4_
Applicant:( Alister Kennedy,)c/o Lloyd and Associates,
1835 20thet Verso -Beach, Florida 32960.
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River, adjacent to Lot 10, Riomar Bay Subdivi-
sion, Unit II, Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 40.
East, Indian River County, Florida. The upland
property associated with the project is located on
Lake Drive, in the City of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a
private single dock, L-shaped with a 56' x 4' main
access pier and,40' x 6' terminal platform. No sewage
pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed. No
dredging or filling will be performed.
2) Application No. 31-124107-4_
Applicant:; Mr. Charles Huschle, c/o Lloyd and Associ-
ates, 1835 20th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960.
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River in Pirate's Cove, adjacent to Lot 80,
"The Anchor", Moorings Subdivision, Section 21, Town-
ship 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County,
Florida. The upland property associated with the
project is located on Springline Drive, in the unincor-
porated portion of the County.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a
private single T-shaped dock, with a 9' x 4' access
pier and 30' x 5' T -section. No sewage pump -out or
fueling facilities are proposed. No dredging or
filling will be performed.
3) Application No. 31-124108-4:
Applicant:, Mr. Anthony Bowser, 'c/o Lloyd and Associ-
ated, 1,835 20th Street, Vero -Beach, Florida 32960.
- Waterwav & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River, adjacent to Lot 25, Cache Cay Subdivi-
sion, Section 30, Township 32 South, Range 40 East,
Indian River County, Florida. The upland property
associated with the project is located at 30 Cache Cay
Drive, in the City of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a
private single L-shaped dock, with a 30' x 4' main
access pier and 20' x 6' terminal platform. No sewage
pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed. No
dredging or filling will be performed.
4) Application No. 31-124110-4: _ _
Applicant:Mr. Richard' Tshop. Bic/o Lloyd and
Associates,-35----2"0th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
32960.
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River, adjacent .to Lot 13, Cache Cay Subdivi-
sion, Section 30, Township 32 South, Range 40 East,
Indian River County, Florida. The upland property
associated with the project is located on Cache Cay
Drive, in the City of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a
private single .L-shaped dock, with a 30' x 4' main
access pier and 20' x 6' terminal platform. No sewage
Pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed. No.
dredging or filling will be performed.
5) Application No. 31-124109-4: ;
Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. J. D. Sorensen c/o Lloyd and
Associates, 1835 20th
32960. Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River, adjacent to Lot 21, Pebble Bay Estates
Subdivision, Section 19, Township 32 South, Range 40
East, Indian River County, Florida. The upland
property associated with the project is located on
Pebble Bay Circle, in the unincorporated portion of
County.
Work & Pur ose: The applicant proposes to construct a
private single L-shaped dock, with a 14' x 4' main
access pier and 26' x 6' terminal platform. No sewage
pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed. No
dredging or filling will be performed.
6) Application No. 31-124105-4:
Applicant:` Mr. Vernon Krause, c/o Lloyd and Associ-
ates, 1835-2-}th Street, Vero -Beach, Florida, 32960.
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River, adjacent to Lot 66, Castaway Cove
Subdivision Wave IV, Section 8, Township 33 South,
Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida. The
upland property associated with the project is located
on Orchid Oak Drive, in the City of Vero Beach.
9
BOOK U f't�GE
SEP 16 1996
SEP 16 1986
BOOK 65 F'b:GE 143
Work & Purpose: The applicant.proposes to construct a
private single L-shaped dock, with a 60' x 5' main
access pier and 20' x 10' terminal platform. No
sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed..
No dredging or filling will be performed.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management'Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
- The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
- The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
- Chapter 16Q-20 of the Florida Administrative Code
In reviewing the proposed dockage -projects, only two of the six
projects are located in the unincorporated portion of the
County. Subsequently, the focus of staff review is on potential
County and regional impacts rather- than site-specific impacts;
in-depth field inspections of the project sites were not con-
ducted.
Chapter 16Q-20 of the Florida Administrative Code sets parame-
ters for private residential single docks located in the Indian
River Aquatic Preserve.- Section 16Q -20.04(5)(b), Florida
Administrative Code, sets .forth specific design standards and
criteria for private single docks, among which are the follow-
ing: 0 .,
Any main access dock shall be limited to a maximum width of
four (4) feet; and
Terminal platform size shall be no more than 160 square
feet.
Staff has not determined if the docks proposed by Applicant
.Krause (No. 31-124105-4) and Applicant Sorensen (No. 31-124109-
4) are located in the Aquatic Preserve or if they are to be
located on privately owned bottomlands. If the projects are
located in the Preserve, the project proposed by Applicant
Krause exceeds the above cited design standards and criteria.
The remaining four (4) proposed docks are not located in the
Indian River Aquatic Preserve and therefore are not subject to
Chapter 16Q-20 requirements.
No dredging or filling is proposed in the construction of any of
the six dockage projects. In that respect, the projects will
result in minimal additional impact to areas where private
single docks have been previously permitted.
Staff has not determined the extent to which the submerged
bottomlands of the proposed project areas will be impacted; the
effect of Indian River development on ecologically valuable
seagrass beds should be considered.
10
® M
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners autho-
rize staff to forward the following comments regarding these
projects to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should coordinate with the D.N.R. to
determine if the proposed projects in applications no.
31-124105-4 and 31-124109-4 are located in the Indian River
Aquatic Preserve and therefore subject to requirements of
Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code;
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and appropriate
agencies should consider the potential cumulative impacts
of dockage projects upon the Florida Manatee;
3) The Department of Environmental' Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of marina projects on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized staff to forward the comments recommended
re the above projects.
I. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Applications - (Goode; Hale Jr.;
i✓a i n )Saxton; �cc tT z'-l� omarr Bay On T t TTS -r
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner DeBlois:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 5, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
OBJECT:
Robert M. Kea ig, A
Planning & Developmefit Director
THROUGH: Art Challacombe
Chief, Environmental Planning
D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA-
TIONS
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois REFERENCES: Riomar Bay DER
Staff Planner t�jb DIS:ROLAND TM#86-675
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on September 16, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO.S
31-124371-4
31-124320-4
31-124319-4
31-124315-4
31-1243144
31-124313-4
(Lot 11,
Sea Grove West)
(Lot 5,
Ricmar Bay #2)
(Lot 3,
Riomar Bay #2)
(Lot 19,
Ricmar Bay #2)
(Lot 6,
Ricmar Bay #2)
(Lot 2,
Rianar Bay #2)
11
31-124307-4
(Lot
34,
Ricmar Bay
#2)
31-124305-4
(Lot
36,
Rianar Bay
#2)
31-124304-4
(Lot
37,
Ricmar Bay
#2)
31-124303-4
(Lot
39,
Ricmar Bay
#2)
31-124302-4
(Lot
40,
Riamar Bay
#2)
.31-124301-4
(Lot
41,
Rianar Bay
#2)
S E P 16 1986 BOOK 65- PAGE 744
BOOK 65 PAE 745
31-124312-4 (Lot 20,
Rianar Bay #2)
31-124299-4
(Lot 42, Ricmar Bay #2)
31-124311-4 (Lot 21,
Rianar Bay #2)
31-124298-4
(Lot 44, Rianar Bay #2)
31-124309-4 (Lot 32,
Rianar Bay #2)
31-124297-4
(Tract F, Rianar Bay #2)
31-124308-4 (Lot 33,
Rianar Bay #2)
31-124296-4
(Tract G, Rianar Bay #2)
APPLICATION NO. 31-124371-4:
Applicant: Robert Goode
303 Spy Glass Lane
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River, adjacent to Lot 11, Sea Grove West
Subdivision, Section 16, Township 33 South, Range 40
East, Indian River County, Florida. The upland
property associated with the project is 281 Riverway
Drive, located in the unincorporated portion of the
County.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct
a private single L-shaped dock, with a 40' x 4' amain
access pier and 20' x 8' terminal platform. No
dredging or fill is to occur.
RIOMAR BAY (UNIT TWO) APPLICATIONS:
Applicants: Steve Hale, Jr. (Lot 5)
James Cain (Lot 3)
George Paxton (Lot 19)
Dr. & Mrs. Don Schultz (Lot 6)
Riomar Bay Unit Two, Inc. (remaining 15
referenced lots/applications)
c/o Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Waterway & Location: The projects are located on
privately owned bottomlands in the, Indian River,
adjacent to the above referenced lots, Riomar Bay
Subdivision, Unit Two, Section 5, Township 33 South,..
Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida. The
projects are proposed to be located within the City
of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose:. The applicants propose to construct
nineteen (19) private residential single docks, each
Iw located on separate lots within the Riomar Bay
Subdivision, Unit Two. Seventeen (17) of the pro-
posed docks are identical in design, consisting of a
45' x 4' main access pier and 20' x 5' T -section.
The dock proposed for Lot 19 has a "slanted L -shape"
design, with a 60' x 6' main access pier and 20' x 8'
terminal platform. An L-shaped dock is also proposed
for Lot 6, with a 50' x 4' main access pier and 20' x
5' terminal platform. No dredging or filling is to
occur regarding any of the proposed dock projects.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan
Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
12
The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
Chapter 16Q-20 of the Florida Administrative -Code
The dock proposed by Applicant Goode (No. 31-124371-4) on Lot
11 of Seagrove West Subdivision is to be located in the Indian
River Aquatic Preserve and, therefore, is subject to the
requirements of Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code.
Staff was unable to determine if the project proposed by
Applicant Goode complies with all requirements of the County
Code and Chapter 16Q-20, in that drawings of the project were
not submitted with the D.E.R application. If mangrove altera-
tion is to occur as a result of dock construction, approval by
both the Department of Natural Resources and the County is
required.
The nineteen (19) dockage projects proposed to be located in
Riomar Bay Subdivision, Unit Two, -are to be located within the -
City of Vero Beach and are not subject to County Code require-
ments. The docks are to be on privately owned bottomlands and,
therefore, are not subject to Chapter 16Q-20 requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners author-
ize staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R with the following
comments:
1) No dock construction shall be permitted by Indian River
County for the project proposed by Applicant Goode (No.
31-124371-4) until the requirements of all local
ordinances related to dock facilities and mangrove pro-
tection have been addressed;
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should coordinate with the D.N.R., in
that the project proposed by Applicant Goode (No. 31-
124371-4) is located within the Indian River Aquatic
Preserve and therefore subject to requirements of Chapter
16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code;
3) The nineteen (19) dockage projects proposed to be located
in Riomar Bay Unit. Two are within the City of Vero Beach
and therefore are not subject to County Code requirements;
4) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of the projects on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River;
5) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumula-
tive'impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida Manatee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized staff to forward the comments recommended
re the above projects.
13
BOOK 65 wj-c 746
L_ SEP 16 196 J
S EP 1986 BOOK 65 Fac, 747
J. Release Letter of Credit & Accept Warranty Maintenance
Agreement-- i✓ i t rus—RTage— 3;Z
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Boling:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 5, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
CITRUS RIDGE SUBDIVISION
Robert M. Keating, ICP SUBJECT: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Planning & Development Director SECURITY
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling ,/?.61 REFERENCES: Citrus Ridge
Staff Planner STAN2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of September 16, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On January 15, 1986 the Board granted final plat approval to the
Citrus Ridge subdivision, a 20 lot subdivision located on the
north side of 2nd Street, west of Old Dixie Highway. At that
time, the owner/ applicant, Charles Sullivan, Sr., contracted with
the County to finish construction of some remaining subdivision
improvements. An irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of
$90,000.00 was posted to secure the construction contract. The
applicant is now requesting that the Board release the $90,000.00
letter of credit and accept an executed warranty maintenance
agreement and corresponding letter of credit in the amount of
$13,075.00.
ANALYSIS:
The Public Works department has inspected the subdivision and has
verified that all required improvements have been constructed and
are acceptable. Public Works has indicated that the construction
contract letter of credit may now be released. The project
engineer has certified that 25% of the actual cost of improvements
is $13,075.00. The applicant has now submitted an executed
warranty maintenance agreement and letter of credit for
$13,075.00. The Board may now substitute the construction
contract and security for the warranty maintenance agreement and
security. The applicant's submittals satisfy all applicable
County requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of County Commissioners release the $90,000.00
letter of credit No. 85165 from the First Bankers of Indian River
County and accept the submitted warranty maintenance agreement and
irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $13,075.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) agreed to
release the $90,000 Letter of Credit No. 85165 from
14
The First Bankers and accept the submitted warranty
maintenance agreement and new irrevocable letter of
credit No. 1090 of First Union National Bank of Florida
for $13,075 as recommended by staff.
K. Change Order #4 — I.R.C. Jail, Phase I
The Board reviewed memo of General Services Director Dean:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 5, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
THRU: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas SUBJECT: Change Order No. 4
Acting County I.R.C. Jail, Phase I
Administrator
FROM: H• T. "Sonny
Director
General Sery
s
an REFERENCES:
The following miscellaneous items are being submitted by the
contractor and approved by our architect:
1. This conduit was needed for CRT connection to the jail
computer system.
2. Jail administrator decided item was not needed.
3. Special electrical controlled water main valve for emergency
cut-off to "B" building.
4. Jail administrator decided item was not needed.
5. Fountains were requested by county.
6. County personnel found this discrepency, and requested
corrective action.
7. County personnel requested this change for maintenance
purposes.
9. These items were inadvertently left out of the design.
County will pay for equipment and installation only.
10. County Staff felt this was not an expense that should be paid
by Indian River County.
11. These items were inadvertently left out of the design.
County will pay for equipment and installation only.
12. There was a conflict in Architect's specifications that
caused oversized frames to be ordered.
Staff recommends Board approval of subject change order for $1,378.00
as amended.
15
SEP 16 11986 BooK 65 PAcE 748
4
BOOK 65 rr�. c 49
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
Change Order No. 4, I.R.County Jail, Phase I, for
$1,378 as amended.
SAID CHANGE ORDER WILL BE PUT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.
L. Change Order #1, I.R.County Jail, Phase II
The Board reviewed memo of General Services Director Dean:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 9, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
THRU: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1
Acting County Indian River County Jail
Administrator Phase II
y"
FROM: Directoronn D n REFERENCES:
General Services
Schopke Construction and Engineering, Inc was authorized a change of
sub -contractor for commercial laundry equipment on the subject
project. This change will necessitate a deduction from the general
.contract of $2,100.00.
Staff recommends approval.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
Change Order No. 1, I.R.County Jail, Phase II, author-
izing a change of sub -contractor for commercial laundry
equipment and deducting $2,100 from the general contract.
16
A y
1878
t
FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS OWNER ❑
ARCHITECT ❑
CHANGE ORDER CONTRACTOR ❑
FIELD ❑ RECEIVED AUG 2 9 1988
OTHER
PROJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL - CHANGE ORDER NO: One (1)
(name, address) PHASE II
OWNER: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DATE: August 27, 1986
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
TO: (Contractor)
r SCHOPKE CONSTRUCTION & -71ARCHITECTS PROJECT NO: 1878
ENGINEERING, INC. CONTRACT FOR: General Construction
1620 Tangerine Street
Melbourne, Florida 32901 CONTRACT DATED: May 28, 1986
L .J
YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE SUBJECT JOB:
1. Substitution of commercial laundry equipment
from Baring Industries, Inc. to Commercial
Laundry Equipment Company
2. (For information (Inly) The attached list of
subcontractors and suppliers, approved by G.C.
an 8/18/86 and WRFAI on 8/22/86, 1.s the FINAL
list as submitted by G.C.
The Contract Time will be XK changed) by — U —
The Date o1 Substantial Completion as o1 the date o1 this Change Order therefore Is
TOTAL
( 0 ) Days.
Ann ncmiM
Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect.
Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjusmnnt In the Contract Sum or Contract Time.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT ................................... S 1, 903, 286.00
FORMER CHANGE ORDERS .............................. S —0— S 1, 903, 286.00
THIS CHANGE ORDER....................................................................................(1Qb-DEDUCT)....$ 2,100.00
REVISED CONTRACT PRICE... S . 1, 901, 186.00
SIGNED:
W. R. FRIZZELL 'ARCHITECTS, INC.
BY 1� Z i 46
APPROVED:
SCHOPKE CONSTRUCTION AND
ENGINEERING, Ili.
co CTO
t
BY
DATE
PAGE 1 OF 1 PAGES
17
ACCEPTED:
BOARD OF COUNTY CON-=IONER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
OWNE
BY G
DATE
BOOK 65 PAGE 750
e
rSEP 1�
BOOK
iA[ lI(vTml l )Kl�� .
Schopke Construction G Engineering, Inc.
0- ,..r„I r. ,; „i: k1l id f r iciino.-rnnq S! fVu t•ti
1 r).`0 i , , ,. ,; Y M, t o,, ,- FL 32Q0 l 305 , 123 9354
Lc. 12794
I INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL — PHASE II
LIS ( UB T S
WORK ITEM
EARTHWORK
SOIL TREATMENT
FENCING
PLAYING COURTS
.CONCRETE
LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE ROOF
MASONRY
METALS—HANDRAILS s STAIRS
ROUGH AND FINISH CARPENTRY
LAMINATE MILLWORK
WATER REPELLANTS AND DAM PROOFING
ROOFING AND SHEET METAL
CAULKING AND SEALANTS
INSULATION
FINISH HARD(VARL ( NOT COVERED SY
SOUTHERN STEEL )
STEEL DOORS AND FRAMES ( NOT COV
BY SOUTHER STEEL )
ALUMINUM, GLASS AND STOREFRONT
LATH AND PLASTER
GYPSUM DRYWALL
CERAMIC TILE
ACOUSTICAL
FLOOR COVERINGS
PAINTING
ACCESS FLOORING
COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT
DETENTION EQUIPMENT
DETENTION ELECTRONICS
FIRE PROTECTION
PLUMBING
HVAC
ELECTRICAL
CONCRETE
REBAR
65 F,,-F.7Or' 1
SUBCONTRACTOR
SCHOPKE CONSTRUCTION £ ENGINEERING, INC.
SPENCER PEST CONTROL
SHARPE FENCE CO.
DISTRIBUTORS OF FLORIDA, INC.
SCHOPKE CONSTRUCTION £ ENGINEERING', INC.
AIRLITE PRODUCTS CORP.
SCHOPKE CONSTRUCTION £ ENGINEERING, INC.
(MOVEN (DIRE PRODUCTS OF PITTSBURGH, INC.
SCHOPKE CONSTRUCTION £ ENGINEERING, INC.
tREviE COMM WATCOMMERCIAL ��'F?IO , Ef
P.G. PAINTING COMPANY
IRIIECTRHOPKE C0FPSMlSWW6b*CW RINd, INC.
ALLIED METAL PRODUCTS
Corrections orcoma m.h m?,��.M hjo
remew do AkL I,�.l�c � ? uringthis
r Rance with
reo+::is�mQrSEI'K'F$IDE:-c(a�:;;:cats^r;� ;hlsrhpc!<1s
ri f
otlt:S, tr lf:r.evF�3HF&�01►IhNL/,s�ri� on•��t
g1Yen +r. fh' e t ` SHE'WtOMPANV! wtcrmahon
for caat:rm, `D1F �,PEn1'ri.r� tf2'E'P°"QCa?
UO
sektib,=kC4n5frUCUUn.
zimr,SHERWJN:-,1011LIccs+dlnth,: tradea. an;;
periormn�g i�`: "Pok,?lVT'1N0: ,C0MPAJNVrr.
ACOUSTI ENGINEERING OF FLO]
w.WMAEKlAkc�., �ZY QUIPA(E1
SOUTHERN T�27 JJ
�, _. ELECT(T�AI
P,ON /CTRrDA _8 T_FAtS.
CO.
H
INC.
COLKI T S ET METAL £ AIR CONDITIONING
FMR ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL — PHASE 11
SUPPLIERSLIST OF
SUPPLY ITEM
CONCRETE JOISTS
MASONRY (STANDARD UNITS)
MASONRY (SPECIAL UNITS)
ROOF ACCESSORIES
CHALK AND TACK BOARDS
TOILET PARTITIONS
TOILET ACCESSORIES
FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AND CABINETS
TELEPHONE ENCLOSURE
BASKET RACKS
FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT
GRAPHICS
18
SUPPLIER
RINKER MATERIALS
HUGHES SUPPLY
PRESTRESSED SYSTEMS, INC.
RINKER MATERIALS
DEMACO CORP.
HUGHES SUPPLY
DISTRIBUTORS OF FLORIDA, INC.
HUGHES SUPPLY`
HUGHES SUPPLY
HUGHES SUPPLY
DISTRIBUTORS OF FLORIDA, INC.
LYON METAL PRODUCTS
BOYNTON RESTAURANT SUPPLY
ENGRAVED SIGNS OF THE PALM BEACHES
M. Fund Transfers - (Kiwanis Hobart Park)
The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director, as follows:
. I
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: September 5, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
THROUGH: Tommy Thomas
Acting County Administrator
and SUBJECT: Fund Transfers
Terry Pinta
Utilities Director
FROM: Joseph A. Baird REFERENCES:
OMB Director
Staff is requesting authorization to transfer $300,000 from the Utility
Impact Fee fund (472) to fund 418 to pay for effluent disposal and potable
water supply rights at Kiwanfs Hobart Park.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized
the transfer of $300,000 from the Utility Impact Fee
Fund (472) to fund 418 to pay for effluent disposal
and potable water supply rights at Kiwanis Hobart Park.
PROCLAMATION - EMERGENCY MEDICINE WEEK
Chairman Scurlock read the following proclamation aloud and
prsented it to Dr. Dudley Teel, an emergency room physician at
Indian River Memorial Hospital:
19
SEP 165 9
BOOK
U5 FACUE 752
r�g��
SEP 16
P R O C L A M A T I O N
BOOK5--rk�ct 753
WHEREAS, September 21-27, 1986 has been designated EMERGENCY
MEDICINE WEEK; and
WHEREAS, the theme for EMERGENCY MEDICINE WEEK in Indian
River County is "Children Can Help"; and
WHEREAS, the children of the county are recognized as
important helpers in many emergency situations, both now and in
the future; and
WHEREAS, the County of Indian River, State of Florida,
wishes to pay tribute to the dedicated people in all phases of
emergency medical services who provide skilled and compassionate
health care to our citizens;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS of Indian River County, Florida that the week of
September 21-27, 1986 be recognized as
EMERGENCY MEDICINE WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board urges all citizens of
Indian River County, Florida to recognize and support the
volunteers and professionals who provide emergency services to
this county, and conduct educational programs which assist both
adults and children in rendering aid during certain emergencies.
Adopted September 16, 1986
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Don C. Scurlock, Jt hairman
20
PUBLIC HEARING - USES OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS
The hour of 10:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication, to
wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
j. 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 matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
o Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
Gond class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
fperiod of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
ti ent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
co ation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisetnt for publication in the said newspaper.
O
SworeM and subscribed afore this day of - A.D.
usiness Manager)
tP aj f
(Clerk of the Circuit Court; Indian River CAUrity-, Florida)
(SEAL)
BSEP 1
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 18th
day of September, 1988, at the hour of 10:30 o'-
clock A.M., In the County Commission Cham-
bers, a Budget Heating will. be held on the uses
of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds.
Below is a budget atimmary showing the pro -
Posed ,uses of the Federal
unds. Revenue Sharing;
FI
BOARD OF•COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. Il
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BUDGET YEAR 1986-87
FEDERAL I
REVENUE SHARING'
FUND
I. Estimated Receipts & Balances:
Federal Sources
State Sources
Local Sources
Less 516 per F.S. 129.01(2xb)
Transfers i
"Cash Balance Forward t r'
Oct. 11 1988 •220,000
Total Estimated
Receipts & Balances 220,000
II: Aproprlations: -
General Government
Public Safety
Transportation (Capitaq @�I
Total Appropriations195,600
Reserve for Contingencies^ 24,4001
Cash Forward Sept 30, 1987
Total Budget 220,000'
You are 'advised to attend the scheduled
Budget Hearing and make written or oral com-
ments on the entire Budget in relationship of En=
titiement Funds to the Budget.
You are further advised that additional. Infor-
mation regarding the proposed Budget Is aval
able for public Inspection at the Budget Office in
the County Administration Building, 1840 25th
Street, during normal business hours prior.to the
Budget Hearing.
Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida
By: Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,, Chairman.
Sept. 8,1988
OMB Director Joe Baird explained that the total Federal
Revenue Sharing budget for this year is $220,000. The Revenue
item is cash forward which is the estimated cash balance that
will be left over at the end of this year. We are not
anticipating receiving any money from the Federal government next
year since Congress has not officially reinstated the Federal
Revenue Sharing program as yet. On the Expense side, we have
$195,600 for capital improvements and $24,400 in contingencies,
making up the entire $220,000. The capital equipment is a piece
21
BOOK 0 Fr?U 0 �q
S EP 16 1956 BOOK 65 c,4,E 755
of equipment for Road and Bridge, and this is consistent with
previous years.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Resolution 86-81, adopting a final budget
of $220,000 for fiscal year 1986-87 for the Federal
Revenue Sharing Fund, and authorized the Chairman's
signature.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-81
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS_ OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ADOPTING A FINAL BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 FOR THE FEDERAL
REVENUE SHARING FUND.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has held the necessary budget hearings as provided by
Florida law, has considered all expenditures set forth in the
budgets, and now determines that adoption of the budget is in the
best interest of the citizens of Indian River County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
that
the Board of
County Commissioners hereby
adopts the budget
set
forth in the
attachment to this resolution
for the following
fund;
FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND
The foregoing resolution
was
offered
by
Commissioner
Lyons who moved its adoption.
The
motion
was
seconded by
22
I
Commissioner Bow man and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtk.e, Jr. Absent
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 16th day of September, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI'SSIONE
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORID,
By C
Don Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Attest:
EDA WRIGHT 'Cl er kPIAJ �w
V.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND/LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
Charles P. Vitunac
County Attorney
P.EVISED 9/3/86
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - OTHER OPERATING FUNDS - PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 86-87
FEDERAL 1985 REF. SECTION 8 HOUSING SECONDARY SPECIAL LA14 PISTOL PARKS
REVENUE & IMPROV. RENTAL AUTHOPITY ROADS CONST. ENFORCEMERT PERMITS DEVELOPMENT
SHARING BONDS ASSISTANCE FUND TRUST FUND FUND FUND FUND
Estimated Receipts & Balances
Federal Sources 660,703 18,295
State Sources 1.064,497 731,000
Local Sources 73.385 1,954,400 97,000 1,500 3,000
Less 5., per F.S. 129.01(2)(b) (134,270) (150)
Transfers 51,025
Cash Forward Oct. 1. 1986 220,000 3,066,664 102,935 1,600 110,000
Total Estimated Receipts & Balances � T,�OS4;447 � � ''1435- , . 3,000
PRIATIONS
General Tovernment
1,064.497
Public Safety
1,500
Physical Environment
Transportation
195,600
50,000
Economic Environment
734,093
69,320
Human Services
Culture/Recreation
53,300
Interfund Transfers
4 278 000
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
-F3T;O-9T
69,320 4,328.'000
.500
`53,300
Reserve for Contingencies
24,400
650.000
149,935 950
19.700
Cash Foesrd Sept. 30, 1987
63_9; 994
50.000 500
40.000
TOTAL BUDGET
220,000 TOTT,7W -7�A 093-
�6 6.61/,/94
�99�', 33- r93r
713,000
�23
SEP 16 1986 BOOK D ��a'L
R
D
SEP
16 1956
sooK 6 5
Fac -L 757
CONSTRUCTION
BIDS ON SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/9/86:
TO: The Honorable Members ®ATE: September 9, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
THRU : - L.. S . "Tommy" Thomas
Acting County
Administrator
R.
H. T. "Sonny"
FROM:
Director 4
General Services
SUBJECT: Sheriff's Administration
Building — Construction
Project
REFERENCES:
On Wednesday, September 3, 1986, bids to construct the subject
project were received. The.Architect and County Staff opened the
bids for review as per policy.
The attached list of bidders.are -submitted in priority beginning with
the lowest, for the Board's action.
e
Mr. Charles Block, Architect, will make his oral recommendation at
the Board of County Commissioner's meeting on Tuesday, September 16,
1986.
24
1
iJ
BASE BID PLUS
ALTERNATES 1 AND 2
$2,107,000.00
$2,120,000.00 Ln
N
$2,190,000.00
$2,174,900.00
$2,353,980.00
$2,418,000.00
SHERIFF'S ADM. BLDG
9-3-86
s
CONTRACTOR
BASE BID
ALTERNATE #1
ALTERNATE #2
BASE BID PLUS
BASE BID PLUS
(STORAGE BLDG.)
(SALES TAX)
ALTERNATE #1
ALTERNATE #2
P.W.R. CORP
$2,252,000.00
($148,000.00)
$3,000.00
$2,104,000.00
$2,255,000.00
Schopke Const.
$2,255,000.00
($135,000.00)
$0.00
$2,120,000.00
$2,255,000.00
D.I.C. Const.
$2,298,000.00
($93,000.00)
($15,000.00)
$2,205,000.00
$2,283,000.00
Hensick & Sons
$2,299,900.00
($130,000.00)
$5,000.00
$2,169,900.00
$2,304,900.00
Jendoco Const.
$2,496,000.00
($142,000.00)
($20.00)
$2,354,000.00
$2,49.5,980.00
Lombard Co.
$2,523,000.00
($120,000.00)
$15,000.00
$2,403,000.00
$2,538,000.00
iJ
BASE BID PLUS
ALTERNATES 1 AND 2
$2,107,000.00
$2,120,000.00 Ln
N
$2,190,000.00
$2,174,900.00
$2,353,980.00
$2,418,000.00
4
BOOK 65 Fr+;i.7 9
Z 3— A
Sheriffs Administration Cost Estimate
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1.0
CONCRETE
$ 494,010
2.0
ROOFING
138,930
-3.0
SITEWORK/FILL
219,880
4.0
GLASS & DOORS
55,440
5.0 ,
FINISHES
136,950
6.0
PARTITIONS
82,500
7.0
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
165,000
- 8.0
PLUMBING125,500
9.0
ELECTRIC
152,000
X10.0
HVAC
135,500
11.0
INSULATION
1,980
12.0
LANDSCAPING
39,930
13.0
IRRIGATION
14,850
14.0
GENERAL CONDITIONS
158,600
15.0
EQUIPMENT SPECIAL CONDITIONS
77,090
SUBTOTAL 1,993,160
5% CONTINGENCIES 99,908
SUBTOTAL $2.098,068
I
MAINTENANCE SHOP BUILDING 70,875
CONFISCATED PROPERTY STRUCTURE 323,098
TOTAL $2,492,041
Architect Charles Block compared the construction bids with
respect to Base Bids and Alternates #1 (Storage Building) and #2
(Sales Tax).
Chairman Scurlock understood that the low bidder on the base
bid plus Alternates #1 and #2 was P.W.R. Corporation with
$2,107,000, and Mr. Block stated that basically their
recommendation is to look at it from the base bid, since they did
not know how the Commission wanted to address the two alternates.
t
26
77
General Services Director Sonny Dean explained that they
have estimated that approximately $30,000 in equipment and
material would come under the sales tax exemption, and it was
proposed that we split that savings between the contractor and
the County, and anything over $30,000 would be split evenly.
Chairman Scurlock understood that the base bid plus the
alternates does not include the 911 area or the additional CAD
system, and Mr. Block confirmed that it only includes the shell.
Nothing else relating to 911 is in this figure, nor is any
conduit connection between the Sheriff's Building and the Jail. -
Chairman Scurlock stressed that -the County Administrator and
the Finance Advisory Committee are going to need some budget
numbers in order to start talking about what we are going to have
to go out and borrow, not only on the shortfall on the 9.85'
million issue, but also for these additional facilities that are
getting ready to come on line.
OMB Director Baird asked if this bid covers site work, and
Mr. Block stated that this includes only the site work that was
bid out by the County Engineering, inclusive of the parking lot,
and everything.due on site. There are some minor items that
already have been brought before the Commission in a change order
fashion for sewer connection, etc.
Commissioner Lyons noted that $13,000 was budgeted for water
and sewer for each Phase I and Phase Il, and those came in at
$23,000 instead of $26,000, but there was nothing budgeted for
the Sheriff's Building for water and sewer.
Director Dean confirmed that the only thing that the County
is to do in the Sheriff's Building is to make the water tap and
come under the road with it, and then the contractor takes over
from that point, which includes anything that has to be done for
the water service to that building.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that transportation impact
fees and utility fees are not included in this figure, and Mr.
Block confirmed that they were not, nor is furniture.
27
SEP 16 1986 BOOK
05 r,,1;, 760
0
0
SEP 16 1956 BOOKg
U�R a p, FH,l1C 761
. ao
Director Baird asked if this includes the items listed in
the above Cost Estimate, and Mr. Block confirmed that it did,
except for water, sewer, and paving of the parking lot and
entrance road.
Director Dean noted that representatives from P.W.R. are in
attendance this morning if the Commissioners had any questions.
He explained that P.W.R. Corporation is in Highland City,
Florida, which is in the Orlando area. P.W.R. is also the low
bidder on the IRC Housing Authority project, which is scheduled
to break ground within 2-3 weeks, and Farmers Home Administration
has given them good ratings on all the references they checked.
Chairman Scurlock asked about pre -qualification of sub-
contractors, and Mr. Block stated that he is qualifying the
drawing specifications and is looking to the general contractor
to do the job for a stipulated sum.
Chairman Scurlock understood then that we would be looking
to•the contractor to give us the complete facility, and whoever
he uses to complete the project would be at his complete
discretion.
Commissioner Lyons preferred to go with the third lowest
bidder, a very reliable local firm, and asked Attorney Vitunac if
we had the ability to do that.
Mr. Block felt that the difference of $47,000 between the
low bidder and Hensick 8 Sons was too great to ignore.
Attorney Vitunac recalled that when the City of Vero Beach
went with a firm that was not the lowest bidder, they were in
court for almost a year before eventually winning. However, in
that case, the low bidder had some problems. He advised the
Board to go with the low bidder unless there is some specific
reason why we feel they cannot do the job.
Chairman Scurlock believed that we must have a significant
reason to deviate from the low bidder, and he did not see that as
a possibility in this case.
28
Commissioner Bird agreed with Commissioner Lyons in that he
preferred to have the bid awarded to a local firm because he
would like to see this 2 million spent right here in Indian River
County.
Mr. Block advised that P.W.R. has been in business for the
past one and a half years and is an off -shoot of a company that
had been in business for 20 years. He felt pretty comfortable
with the firm because he is familiar with the work they have
done.
William Essot, president and part owner of P.W.R. Corpora-
tion, advised that the major subcontractors they will be using on
this project are local subs. He noted that their most recent
project was the construction of an 80 -unit day care center in
Georgia with funding from the Farmers Home Administration.
Further, P.W.R. is offering a bond from Hartford, which is the
best you can get.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there was any present litigation
with Schopke, and Mr. Block believed that most of that trouble
has been laid to rest.
A Motion by Commissioner Lyons that the contract be awarded
to P.W.R. Corporation, in the amount of $2,255,000, at the base
bid plus Alternate #2, leaving in the full maintenance building,
died for Lack of a Second.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board on a 3-1 vote, Commissioner
Lyons dissenting and Commissioner Wodtke being absent,
awarded the construction contract to the low bidder,
P.W.R. Corporation, in the amount of $2,107,000, which
is the base bid plus Alternates 1 and 2.
Director Dean advised the next step is to get the contract
signed by P.W.R. and brought back to the Board for final
approval.
29
V
BOOK 65' F`,a::�E 762
a
SEP
BOOK 65 F,a,UE 763
Mr. Block felt that by working with staff, they could
provide some estimated final figures, and Chairman Scurlock
stressed the importance of having all items on the project
included and placed on a check list -- landscaping, impact fees,
debt service, water service, generator, etc.
Director Dean reported that he and Director Baird have been
working on a check list for this project.
CONTACT S ON FT,L9 TV. THP QFPW,. K QF TH-F' .CLEAK TQ TNF BOARD
REQUEST TO ADD THE ST. JOHNS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT -TO I.R.C.
HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/9/86:
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: September 9, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Add -the St. Johns Water Control
District to Indian River County's
Health Plan
FROM: Josep A. Baird REFERENCES:
OMB Director
The St. Johns Water Control District has requested that Indian River County
look into the possibility of adding their employees to the County health plan.
Staff has contacted Gulf life Insurance Company and we are able to add these em-
pyoyees to the insurance plan, however, they do not recommend we do so. Our
health insurance is basically a self-funded plan and every employee we add is
an additional liability. Currently, the St. Johns Water Control District has
six employees of which five are married and one is single.
Obtaining health insurance for a small group of employees has become al-
most cost prohibitive in some instances. The above mentioned district is
looking at Indian River County's health plan so thay they may offer their em-
ployees a good health plan at a lesser cost to the taxpayers.
OMB Director Joe Baird explained that Indian River County's
health insurance plan is self insured. If we.take people on our
plan who are in poor health, it will cost the County money, and
if we accept new people, possibly we should not cover pre-
existing conditions.
Commissioner Bird felt that we should handle this in a
professional manner, the same way as if we were an independent
30
insurance company, by requiring physicals and excluding coverage
for pre-existing conditions.
Chairman Scurlock suggested that the matter be tabled until
the new County Administrator has had a chance to review it,
because he has a great deal of expertise in these matters.
Commissioner Lyons felt very strongly that we should
consider the request because the County represents the only
vehicle for these kinds of groups to obtain group rates. He
maintained that Fellsmere's request to join was also a proper
request and that we should consider taking these government
groups into our plan. He stressed that there is no reason to
believe these people are in poorer health than our employees.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4'-0)
requested the County Administrator to research
the matter and bring a recommendation back to the
Board.
ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR COUNTY HEALTH CLINIC
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/10/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 10, 1986FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
THRU: L. S. 'Tommy" Thomas SUBJECT: I.R.C. Health Clinic Project
Acting County Information item - Additional
Administrator Service for Architect
I1
FROM: H. T. "sonny" an REFERENCES:
Director
General Services
In our contract with Lemuel Ramos and Associates, Architect on the
subject project, we negotiated an hourly fee for his services that
were required and were not covered in the general conditions.
31
SEP 16 1986 Bou 65 m:.-1764
BOOK rk�,H 165
.0
The attached bill is for services under this portion`of the contract.
The work was necessary to determine what existing equipment could be
used in the new building and what new equipment was needed.
This requirement is not unique to the Clinic as the same type
services were performed for our other building projects.
If any of the Board has questions, or disagrees with this procedure,
please let me know.
,-N
LEMUEL RAMOS AND ASSOCIATES n ARCH ITE CTS.!PLANNERS/INTE RIORS 07000 SW 62 AVENUE MIAMI FL 33143 03051666-2884
INVOICE;
DATE ;
LRA ;
TO: Mr. H.T. Dean
Director, General Services
1840 25th. St.
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Indian River County Health Clinic - Equipment
#7
JULY 28, 1986
r;8 6
fr. r •
JUL 85
RECEIVED -_
Gerwa[ _
f' Services /
As per contract, the additional services rendered on the Non -Building
Selections are computed on an hourly basis. Total hours expended for
completion of Equipment Inventory are 135 hours. 11
TOTAL HOURS
$50.00/ HOUR
TOTAL
TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE
Yresicen v
LEMUEL RAMOS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
135
X 50
$6,750.00
$6,750.00
Commissioner Bird believed that we had the ability in-house
to take an inventory of this type and had never authorized this
work at $50 an hour, and Director Dean explained that the late
32
Dr. Tucker requested this because he did not feel even he had the
expertise to determine what equipment was needed.
Commissioner Lyons emphasized that the reason we hired this
particular architect was because of his medical expertise.
Chairman Scurlock understood that the architect is having
some difficulty meeting the budget, and wondered if the budget
was a little on the high side to begin with. He questioned
whether it would be too costly for us to proceed with the design
represented in the model presented to the Board by the architect.
Personally, he was not looking to win an award for design, but
just wanted to see a functional health facility.
Commissioner Bird asked if the Board authorized the
architect to proceed with final construction drawings on this
plan, and Director Dean said the architect had been to the Board
twice.
Commissioner Bird remembered seeing him only once, when he
brought the model in and we discussed taking off some of the
gingerbread.
Chairman Scurlock advised that when he met with the
architect, the architect specifically asked if he needed to do
additional renderings or if he could use the model, and he told
him that basically it was a Commission decision. He suggested
that the Board request the new Administrator to look into this
project also, as he would like to have his guidance.
Commissioner Bird still did not understand how the architect
proceeded this far without coming back to the Board.
Reading from the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 21,
1986, Chairman Scurlock advised that the Board unanimously (4-01,
he being absent) passed a Motion approving the conceptual plan
for the County Health Clinic and authorizing Architect Ramos to
proceed with final construction drawings in preparing for bid.
The Minutes also state that "Administrator Wright asked if the
e
Board wanted to see the final plan before it went to bid, and it
33
S UP 16 1986 BOCK 6 Ftq:GE 766
SEP 16 1986 Boa 65 Fal- 767
was generally indicated that they did." Chairman Scurlock felt
i the Minutes make it very clear that the Board wanted it back.
Chairman Scurlock wondered why we need specially designed
beams, glassed -in panels and open stairways.
Intergovernmental Relations Director Tommy Thomas felt that
since this building will be located next to the County Adminis-
tration Building, the ramifications of future development should
be considered and agreed that the matter should be deferred until
the new Administrator has had a chance to review it-.
Commissioner Lyons believed that while we don't want a lot
of gingerbread in this design, we must realize that whatever
building we put up there is going to last for at least 50 years
and we want to be proud of it.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) referred the
above matter to the County Administrator to research
and bring a recommendation back to the Board.
Commissioner Bird felt that now is the time to cut out the
things that are not cost feasible before we get this building all
designed and the bids come in way out of line.
Director Dean confirmed that the furniture will be bought
through the County Purchasing Dept.
PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR GOLDEN SANDS
BEACH PARK
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/16/86:
34
TO:THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF ®ATE: September 16, 19RH-E:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Charles Balczun, County Administrator
Tommy Thomas, Intgvty� SUBJECT:
Relations
Professional Architectural
Services Agreement for
Golden Sands Beach Park
J
FROM: Pume.b1ScWWorrks1Direct U REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Staff has prepared the subject agreement for design and grant
application services for Golden Sands Beach Park. This agreement
contains the following:
1) Preliminary Phase - prepare a conceptual master plan for the
park and a grant application for D.N.R. F.R.D,A.P. funding.
2) Financial Feasibility Phase - to study "user fee" feasibility
for this or other recreational facilities.
3) Final Design Phase - to prepare construction drawings and
contract documents.
The Parks and Recreation Committee reviewed this agreement September
11, 1986.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Compensation in the amount of $6,680.00 for the Preliminary Phase
has been negotiated. This amount is approximately 15% of the cost for
total design based on a $500,000.00 construction cost.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends the Chairman be authorized to sign the agreement.
Funding to be from Parks Trust Fund #113-210-572-033.13. The balance in
this account is $128,813.00.
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that the DNR grant
application time will expire on October 31, 1986, and the first
thing we must do is apply for the DNR/FRDAP funding.
Commissioner Bird asked if the timeframe would allow the
architect to present his preliminary phase design to the
Recreation Committee and the Board of County Commissioners before
e
we submit the grant application, and Director Davis confirmed
that it would because the architect has agreed to attend three
35
SEP 16 1986 BOOK 65 FAu 768
SEP 16 U6 6.5FrA.sr 769
meetings so that we can receive plenty of input from everyone
involved.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the Professional Architectural/Planning
Service Agreement with Mayes, Sudderth and Etheredge,
Inc., of Orlando, Florida, with the compensation as
set out in the above memo, and authorized the
Chairman's signature.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
DISCUSSION RE COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/9/86:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charle i un c, County Attorney
DATE: September 9, 1986
RE: FAIRGROUNDS
For the last several years :the Board of County Commissioners and the
Firefighters Association have cooperated in presenting a County Fair
at County -owned land on Kings Highway near Kiwanis-Hobart Park. To be
an authorized County Fair the County had to create a Fair Corporation,
pursuant to Chapter 616, Florida Statutes, and this was done (Indian
River County Fair Association, Inc.).
It is now appropriate to formalize the relationship between the
County, the Corporation, and the Firefighters Association. Pursuant
to that goal a meeting was held on September 4, 1986, in the County
Attorney's Office with Commissioner Bird; Wallace Rich, Chief of the
Bureau of Fairs and. Expositions for the State of Florida; Tommy
Thomas, Acting County Administrator; Joe Baird, OMB Director; Bill
Tripp, representing the Firefighters Association; and me. The
following recommendations were made: -
LEASE OF LAND & PROPERTY
1. There should be a formal lease between the Board of County
Commissioners and the Corporation for a term of years at a fair
market rent. This lease will determine whether the County or the
Corporation will build the necessary buildings and whether the
value of those buildings*will be included in the rental payments.
Construction needs to begin in October of this year so that the
36
building will be ready for the Fair in March of 1987. Members of
the Firefighters Association have volunteered to do the labor and
other work to keep the cost of the building low.
The construction financing cost of the building, $120,000, could
be available soon after October 1st by inter -fund borrowing if
the County builds the building. However, this inter -fund
borrowing would need to be repaid within the fiscal year. One
available repayment source (the permanent financing) would be the
refunding issue of the County jail, which is tentatively
scheduled to occur in fiscal year 1986-87. The payments on the
permanent financing would be made by the Corporation from
proceeds from the annual County Fair.
Alternatively, the Corporation could lease only the land and be
responsible itself for construction of the fair buildings. The
Corporation could borrow directly from a financial institution on
a note secured by the revenue of the Fair and not by a lien on
the land or buildings at the fairgrounds. Giving such a lien or
mortgage may require referendum approval and is thus not an
available alternative.
A third choice would be for the Firefighters Association to
borrow the money from a local bank and construct the building.
They would then retain a larger portion of Fair proceeds than
would otherwise be the case, which proceeds would be used by the
Firefighters Association to retire its building debt.
WHO RUNS NON -FAIR FAIRGROUND ACTIVITIES?
2. The contract between the County a•nd•the Corporation must also
determine which entity will be responsible for operating the
fairgrounds for the eleven months of the year not used by the
County Fair.
The County Commission could lease the fairgrounds to the
Corporation for one month of the year only and retain rights to
use and operate the fairgrounds area for the other eleven months,
or the Corporation could be responsible for the fairgrounds for
the entire year and be in charge of subletting the property
in
the off months and collecting rents and accounting for these.
The committee preferred this latter alternative, understanding
that this would entaila more active supervision by the trustees
and officers of the Corporation over the fairgrounds.
MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
3. Once the contract between
been entered into, it will
enter into a management
Association for presenting
determine the prices which
rides will be held, and the
Fair.
the County and the Corporation has
be necessary for the Corporation to
agreement with the Firefighters
the Fair. This agreement will
will be charged, what exhibits and
disposition of the profits from the
The committee suggested that a certain percentage be retained by
the Firefighters Association after the costs of the Fair have
been deducted. This should used by the Firefighters for their
Burn Fund. The remaining percentage will be retained by the
Corporation for use in paying annual rental charges to the County
and payments on any building costs as well as for establishing a
fund for the continued development of the fairgrounds. In
addition the Corporation will be authorized to make contributions
to the County's General Fund over and above the annual rental
payments.
It was also envisioned that in the long run the Fair Association
may have its own staff with an office, secretary, and
administrative staff.
37
SEP 16 10286 BOOK 65 PAEE 7 d 0
SEP 16 IS36 BOOK 65 7-11
CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP
4. This may also be a convenient time to re -visit the charter of the
Corporation to ensure that its membership is consistent to
the new policies which may be established by the County pursuant
to this memorandum. Currently the Board of County Commissioners
_appoints two members as does the Firefighters Association, and.
these four members choose a fifth.
The committee respectfully requests direction from the Board of County
Commissioners so that the County Attorney's Office can prepare the
necessary documents.
Attorney Vitunac recommended that the new County Adminis-
trator consider the options on this matter during the next week.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know exactly who represents
the Fair Corporation, and Attorney Vitunac listed the following:
He and Commissioner Bird represent the County; Bill Tripp and Joe
Earman, Jr. represent the Firefighters, and Mike Wodtke is a
member at large.
Chairman Scurlock noted that from day one, the firefighters
have presented what has come to be called the County Fair;
however the South County Firefighter's Fair only takes up two
weeks of the year. Other counties have expanded their fair-
grounds into multi-million dollar operations, and he believed the
Fair Corporation will have to become sophisticated in a very
short time, with a very strong administrator running the
day-to-day operations.
Commissioner Bird agre.ed that it was reaching that point in
a hurry. Up to this point, it has been a very smooth running
function, but the operation is growing rapidly. The firefighters
are ready to construct a $180,000 building out there and donate
it to the County, and a few agricultural groups have indicated
that the will be
y making substantial donations as well.
Intergovernmental Relations Director Tommy Thomas advised
that Planning and Public Works are doing an update on the.overall
site plan for the Fairgrounds, and he has asked staff to consider
expanding the plan to include the entire Kiwanis-Hobart Park.
Commissioner Bird reported that Ralph Brescia of the
38
County's Engineering Dept. has said that he would be glad to take
on the development of a conceptual plan for the entire area.
Public Works Director Jim Davis felt that while staff could
look at traffic, parking, drainage, etc., it should be up to the
Recreation Committee and the Board of County Commissioners to
make policy decisions on what uses to provide in the Fairgrounds.
He wondered if the Board might be interested in getting some
outside help in regard to the basics of what a fairgrounds should
be, and Chairman Scurlock understood that Director Davis is
indicating that we don't have the expertise in-house.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the Fair Corporation can have
25 or more members, who are original subscribers, but there.is no
mention made in this law about directors. It states that these
subscribers select the officers to run the day-to-day affairs.
He felt that our Charter needs to be amended to fit this law and
that this would be an appropriate time to address the matter
because some of the 25 members have moved out of the county.
The Commissioners indicated their approval of the County
Attorney's recommendations.
TOWN OF ORCHID GROWTH MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/10/86:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
DATE: September 10, 1986
SUBJECT: Town chid G owth Management Agreement
FROM: Char es P. Vitunac
County Attorney
Indian River County entered into an agreement with
the Town of Orchid in January, 1985 after the Governor and
Cabinet began the process of designating part of Orchid
Island as an area of critical state concern. The agreement
was part of an attempt to avoid that designation.
r
The 1985 agreement was to assure that "development
densities will be coordinated with road capacity to assure
that development will not, create traffic..." which exceeds
efficient and safe standards. The method incorporated to
39
S 086 Boole 65 F{:,F 772
a
EP 16 1966
BOOK 1
d�
accomplish that goal was to allocate the available capacity
of the Wabasso Bridge (19,100 average daily trips at Level
of Service "D") between the County and the Town. Within the
applicable traffic zone, 780 of the acreage was within the
unincorporated area of the County, while 220 of the acreage
was within the Town. Therefore, the County and the Town
agreed to allocate 14,898 average daily trips to the County
and 4,202 average daily trips to the Town.
Because the 1985 agreement did not impose specific
density requirements, ttie County became concerned that the
Town of Orchid would permit development which was not
compatible with the surrounding County zoning. A proposal
was presented to the Board of County Commissioners to
abolish the Town of Orchid by Special Act of the Legislature
and Representative Dale Patchett offered his assistance.
However the Board of County Commissioners decided in the
interests of fairness to have the County staff meet with the
Town to see if the interests of the County could be
protected by some way other than disincorporation.
To address this problem, the County Attorney's
.Office met with Town Attorney, Darrell Fennell; Deerfield
Groves Attorney, Harold Melville; and Planning Director, Bob
Keating. At that meeting it was made known that 100% of the
real property in the Town boundaries is owned by 6eerfield
Groves Partnership. The only assurance offered by Deerfield
(and by the Town) that development density within the Town
would not exceed that in the adjacent unincorporated area
was a proposed agreement whereby the County, the Town, and
Deerfield Groves Partnership.would agree to limit density to
six units per acre within the Town and the unincorporated
area of the County in the applicable traffic zone.
Deerfield Groves insists that the agreement include
provisions which limit the County's zoning to six units per
acre and which prohibit the County from seeking to have the
Town abolished by the Florida Legislature. This proposed
agreement is attached for your review. It is unenforceable.
Zoning authority is a police power. Florida cases
establish that a government cannot waive its police powers
by contract. For that reason, there is a strong likelihood
that the attached agreement, as well as any similar one
which might be proposed, would be unenforceable.
Consequently, I cannot recommend that'the proposed agreement
be executed.
I respectfully request direction from the Board
how it wishes to proceed.
Attorney Vitunac explained that the Town of Orchid has only
9 residents and every single acre of land in the Town is owned by
a land developer. He recalled that a year ago the Board asked
the Legal Dept. to get with the attorneys for the developer, whom
he is treating synonymously with the attorneys for the Town, and
Assistant County Attorney Bruce Barkett met with them several
times and has arrived at this contract, which is the only way to
bind zoning that the developer would agree to; however, the
contract is not enforceable.
40
Attorney Vitunac added that the Growth Management Plan has a
requirement that the County enter into negotiations with the
cities to allocate the available traffic capacities on the road
network, and the Town of Orchid is one of these entitites.
However, there is no legal document that will protect the
County's interest in what the Town wishes to do with respect to
its own zoning, Comp Plan, densities, etc. He believed that,
legally, the Town of Orchid is a threat to the County's Zoning
Code, because there are too few people living in it to affect the
transition of power if there is a bad vote, and also because the
Town is owned 100% by a land developer.
Chairman Scurlock questioned, if the Town is willing to
agree to densities and a transportation allocation that is
consistent with the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the
barrier island, what the purpose is of having a town in the first
place.
Commissioner Bowman remembered that in 1965 when the Town of
Orchid was formed, it was thought even then that it was a very
dangerous situation.
Chairman Scurlock asked about the possibility of
deannexation, and Attorney Vitunac advised that it is legal for a
town to contract.
Planning 6 Development Director Robert Keating noted that
under new land use legislation, the County does have a lot more
responsibility and review power with respect to changing the Comp
Plan. Orchid's Comp Plan was prepared several years ago before
the County had the ability to review it and take action on local
comp plans, and when staff did review it, they found that it is
very general and not specific enough to set certain densities.
If Orchid wanted to change their plan substantially, they would
have to be reviewed by the County, the region, and the State.
The appeal would be to the Governor in the long run.
Attorney Vitunac believed that we just have the power to
41
BOOK 65 r,�ct 774
4
S EP
16
1986
BOOK
65 F,{GE 175
comment,
not a veto power, but Commissioner Lyons
believed that
the Regional Planning Council has a veto power in these matters.
Commissioner Bird agreed it is a threat, but felt that
perhaps we have some safeguards. He did not feel that it is
laying there ticking like a time bomb.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that the concern is more than
just densities, it is altitude restrictions and allowable land
uses.
The Commissioners agreed that as the Town of Orchid
currently exists, there is no purpose in having a town
established.
Attorney Vitunac advised that this is the appropriate time
to draft special bills for the legislature and if the County is
of a mind, the Legal Department could draft a bill to be given to
our State Legislator after approval by the Board.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board request State
Representative Dale Patchett to initiate special
legislation to disincorporate the Town of Orchid.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird suggested that before we
go to that extreme, we sit-down with the representatives of the
Town of Orchid and tedl them our concerns, and he was informed
that this had been done and the unenforceable contract is the
result of that discussion.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that all the original people
have pulled out and are gone, and Attorney Vitunac stressed that
we are not depriving them of using their land; we are just
putting them under the County's land use requirements.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0).
42
COURTHOUSE ROOF LITIGATION/SETTLEMENT OFFER
Assistant County Attorney Bruce Barkett reviewed the
following memo and his recommendation for making a counter offer
of $30,000, but noted that Attorney Vitunac feels that perhaps we
might want to go ahead and settle for the $27,544.13.
TO:
The Board
of
County Commissioners
DATE:
September
10,
1986
SUBJECT: Courthouse Roof Litigation/Settlement Offer
FROM: Bruce Barkett
Assistant County Attorney
The Courthouse roof was guaranteed by Koppers
Company, Inc. for five years, commencing March 1, 1981. In
the event of a leak covered by. the guarantee, Koppers is
required to make repairs to put the roof and/or flashing in
watertight condition.
When leaks were reported in 1982 it appears from
the files (though it is not certain) that Koppers had
repairs made by the original roofer, Triple M Roofing
Company.
When leaks were reported following the
Thanksgiving Storm in 1984, Koppers did not have the leaks
repaired, and the County was forced to make emergency,
temporary repairs. Following that event it became
increasingly apparent that the roof would require
replacement. The roofing membrane (Koppers' product) was
bubbling, foil backing was separating, and the seams in the
roofing material were leaking.
Koppers made an offer of $7,500.00 to settle the
County's claim in January, 1985. That offer was rejected
and a written demand to honor the guarantee was submitted by
thus office on July 31, 1985. Following that we obtained an
estimate from Lucas Waterproofing to repair the roof for
$33,000.00. Koppers offered to settle for $15,000.00 and
again we rejected this.offer. I filed a lawsuit in March,
1986 and Koppers responded with an offer to settle for
$21,000.00, which we also rejected.
The roof has now been replaced by Lucas
Waterproofing, at a cost of $39,000.00. That amount
reflects the cost of removing the old roof, an option Lucas
considered unnecessary when it submitted its original
estimate of $33,000.00, but which the County later required.
Koppers' current offer consists of the following
elements:
1. $25,350.00 - Roof replacement. Koppers re-
duced the actual replacement cost
of the roof because, it argues,
the County got 32 years' service
out of its roof; some of the
replacement work was unnecessary
43
SEP 16 286 BOOK 65 °�4E 776
u
BOOK 65 f',gcF 7 17
or not covered by Koppers'
guarantee; and the County now has
a 12 -year guarantee, which is a
benefit to the County.
2. $ 1,894.13 - Repair and re -paint damaged ceil-
ing.
3. $ 300.00 - Repair of walls in stairway.
T27,5 4.13 - TOTAL
RECOMMENDATION: County counteroffer for $30,000.Koppers'
ofT r does not take into account the cost of filing and
serving process in this action, or the fact that three
attorneys and several other staff members have had to devote
time because of Koppers' failure to honor its .guarantee.
Further, it would cost Koppers more to go to trial than the
County, although it could cost the County several thousand
dollars. Finally, Koppers' argument that because the County
benefits from a new 12 -year guarantee, Koppers should offer
less money, has no merit. Therefore, even though there is
always a risk that when you go to trial you will lose, or
you will recover less than what is offered to settle, the
proposed counteroffer of $30,000 is recommended.
Commissioner Lyons asked Lynn Williams, Superintendent of
Building 8 Grounds, whether the $2200 is enough to cover the
repairs in the Courthouse, and Mr. Williams felt that they have
done a pretty good job of coming back and meeting the costs of
the repairs that can actually be related to the roof leaking.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized the Legal Dept. to accept Koppers'
offer of $27,544.-13 in settlement of the Courthouse
roof litigation.
TRANSPORTATION 8 PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Lyons reviewed the following Summary of Actions
dated 9/10/86:
44
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
September 10, 1986
1. County Road 4512 Curb Cut Control Plan:
Committee recommends that left -turn restrictions be applied
to driveways onto CR #512 between Laconia Street and U.S. #1
according to three warrants:
a. distance from major intersections
b. level of service "C" traffic volume
c. left -turn accidents
Staff was asked to submit various improvement alternatives
with associated cost estimates for the CR #512 corridor at
the October meeting.
2. Sixteenth Street Corridor Signal Optimization Plan:
Committee approved staff report recommending the following
low-cost improvements to improve traffic flow:
a. install loop detectors on 16th Street
b. retime the signal controllers to provide longer
green time on 16th Street
C. remove four selected left -tarn signal phases.
3. Countv Road #510 Extension North of CR #512:
Committee recommends that CR #510 not be extended north of
CR #512 because of its undesirable location. A private road
serving local land parcels would be appropriate in this
location. Staff was directed to report back on a location
of a new north/south collector corridor to serve property
north of CR #512 and east of I-95.
4. Right -of -Way Reservation Map:
Committee directed staff to prepare a list of Thoroughfare
Plan roadways where development pressure is anticipated in
the next 5 to 10 year.s in order to file a reservation map
for expanded rights-of-way.
5. Corridor Study, 43rd Avenue:
Committee directed staff to study and prepare a report on
the 43rd Avenue corridor in six months.
6. Intersection Study - SR #60 at 44th Avenue:
The Chairman requested, and the Committee concurred, that
this item be reviewed, again, towards a better solution to
the problem.
7. Proposed Road Access, Aerodrome Subdivision:
The Chairman requested, and the Committee concurred, to
honor Attorney Collins' request to appear before the
Committee to speak on this issue.
45
BOOK 65 P,vJr 778
G E P
1986
BOOK 6 5 E, E 7 7 9
On
Item #5, Commissioner Bird hoped the 43rd Avenue corridor
study could be expanded to include the intersection of 43rd
Avenue and Walker Avenue, because he felt that is one of the most
dangerous intersections in the county and really should have a
light.
STATUS REPORT ON SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB
Commissioner Bird reported that the architect was here last
Saturday and, all in all, was well pleased with the -progress. The
irrigation system is presently working on at least 9 of the holes
and the driving range, and so far everything on that system has
checked out well.
The tentative schedule is to fumigate the greens this week
and then begin planting the grass which will take 3-4 weeks to
complete. Construction has begun on the maintenance building,
and Walker Construction is digging the footer and pouring the
foundation this week. The brochure for the fund raising effort
is in its final form and should be printed in about two weeks,
and Golf Director Bob Komarinetz is working on the proper layout
in the clubhouse.
Chairman Scurlock suggested that under the Sandridge Golf
Club's name in the brochure, it should read: "Owned and operated
by Indian River County," and Commissioner Bird agreed that would.
be a good idea.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:20 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
jj�Jie`c"
Clerk
46
A rn 5=
Chairnan