Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/30/1986Tuesday, September 30, 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 30, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; and Margaret C. Bowman. Absent was William C. Wodtke, Jr., who was still recuperating from an angino plasti procedure. Also present were Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Chairman Scurlock advised that OMB Director Baird has requested an emergency item be added to the agenda re Buildings and Contents Insurance which we were unable to obtain through the Florida League of Cities. In addition Chief John Allen has requested the addition of an item under the South County Fire District re the annual pay increase for non-union employees. Attorney Vitunac requested that Item 6M - Contract with the Mental Health Center for Psychiatric Evaluations at Jail - be pulled from the agenda as this should be going to the Sheriff rather than the county. He also requested Item 8D - Ordinance establishing Fire Lanes - be removed from the agenda and sent to the Planning & Zoning Commission for review. It has gone through the Fire Department, but should also go to the Planning 8 Zoning Commission. BOOK 65 �,;, s 4 BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com - 65 Fl�,U,837 '7 missioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke being absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) added and removed items on today's agenda as described above. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 2, 1986. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 2, 1986, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 9, 1986. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 9, 1986, as written. .. 5 The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of September 10, 1986, the final budget hearing. There were none. Commissioner Lyons stated that his only question was whether anyone had doublechecked the figures, and County Attorney Vitunac believed -OMB Director Baird has done so. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved E W � � r the Minutes of the Special Meeting of September 10, 1986, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Scurlock asked that Items 6F.(5), 6H., and 6J., be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Item 6M, was pulled off the agenda earlier by the County Attorney. A. Grounding System for Radio Tower The Board reviewed memo of the General Services Director: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 11, 1986FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners THRU: Charles P. Balczun SUBJECT: Grounding system for County Administrator Radio Tower H. T. "Sonny° an REFERENCES: FROM: Director General Services In the past, we have suffered several dollars worth of damage at our radio tower in Kiwanis-Hobart Park as a result of being struck by lightning. This does not include the "down time" of the radio equipment that serves our public safety agencies. Our local service technician, along with Commissioner Scurlock, went to. -Manatee, County about a month ago to visit their Communications facility, and noted they are using a grounding system comprised of three (3) water wells using copper pipe. They had been suffering numerous problems with lightning and went to this type grounding system in an effort to reduce the liability. Since the installation of the wells, they have not suffered one strike by lightning. Indian River Memorial Hospital contracted with Omnicom, Inc., a telecommunications engineering consulting firm, to evaluate their radio system. One of their recommendations was to improve the grounding system at our tower. Staff has obtained two quotes to install the above described system at our tower. It is anticipated we will have to drill to an approximate depth of 40 feet at a cost of $2400.00. Should the depth - not be sufficient, it would cost an additional $20.00 per foot. - It is recommended that the Board authorize this project at a price not to exceed $5,000.00. This will be funded from the Radio Tower Receipts Fund which now has a balance in excess of $12,500.00. LS E P 3 0 1 Sjidn 6 3 31 BOOK U r..,r. F TA r SEP 3 0 1986 4 BOOK 6� .z ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized installation of a grounding system for the radio tower at Kiwanis-Hobart Park, cost of the project not to ex- ceed $5,000; funding from the Radio Tower Receipts Fund. B. Guard Tower, County Jail, Phase I The Board reviewed memo of General Services Director Dean and proposal by Frizzell Architects: TO:The Honorable Members DATE: September 15, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners THRU: Charles P. Balczun SUBJECT: Guard Tower County Administrator Indian River County Jail Phase I H. T. "Sonn Dean FROM: Director REFERENCES: General Services At the time of design for Phase I of the jail project, there was not any 'thought given to a need for a guard tower. Since then, the jail Administrator and staff determined it is absolutely necessary to have a tower constructed and strategically located outside the fenced area adjacent to the recreation yard. The general contractor has advised this writer that any change order ifi his contract would necessitate an extension of time plus the cost of construction. Since the general contract is close to expiration, " and the pressure is on for completion, it is felt that an alternate method of construction be recommended. I have personally talked with W. R. Frizzell's project personnel, and they have agreed to let Mr. Walt Swentzell, site representative, supervise this project without additional cost. Osceola County jail people were contacted in reference to a prefabricated tower they had installed at their new jail site and the cost exceeded $23,000. Based on the need, and information as provided, staff recommends approval of the project as submitted. Funds to construct the tower will be taken from the construction contingency fund. 4 n July 28, 1,986 Mr. Sonny Dean Director of General Services Indian River County - 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32961 0 RE: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL - PHASE 1 Jail Tower Dear Sonny: FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS 1766 c AUG 1936 REC ES - .Gerierd Services > �Q �NlMr1l Per your request we have put together a cost list for the --- proposed _..,.proposed guard tower with labor and materials. Proposal does not include taxes, insurance or permit costs. We discussed this and your thoughts at that time were that -you did not Want to include these items. BREAKDOWN. 1. Concrete, mortar, re -bar, sand, etc. Rinker of Vero Beach $1,051. 2. Masonry, flush-C.M.U. ribbed C.M.U. By RSH on site (materials only) 460. 3. Rough hardware - allowance 100. 4. Framing and trim lumber Diamond Lumber - Vero Beach 9817, 5. Trusses - Tru -line, Ft. Pierce 100. 6. Roof, 26 ga. V -crimp Atlantic Roofing, Vero Beach - (includes roof installation) 695. 7. Steel stairs and angles - Barry's Iron, Vero Beach ' (includes installation) 5,500. -8. Chain link fence 30. Robert Caron Construction of Vero Beach has given a price for: ^1. Masonry labor, forms, place & finish concrete, labor framing and trim $3,800. 2. Allowance for concrete testing & soil testing 300. 3. Allowance for telephone & electrical conduit & box 500. 4. Allowance for painting 500. 2 S62•�b 16, Sonny, I would like to go over this proposal convenience. Please call. with you at your Very truly yours, W. R. FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS, INC. Ben DiPalma Project Administrator W. R. Frizzell Architects, Inc. ♦ Suite 202 ♦ Royal Palm Square♦ 1400 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers. Florida 33907-1093 (813) 939-1220 E BOOK � FA IL 840 14 BOOK 65 841 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved construction of a guard tower at the County Jail, Phase I, as described above; funds to be taken from the construction contingency fund. C. Change Order #2, County Jail, Phase II The Board reviewed memo of General Services Director Dean: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 19, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners THRU: Charles P. Balczun SUBJECT: Indian River County Jail County Administrator Phase II Change Order Number 2 H. T. "Sonny" e n FROM: Director REFERENCES: -General Services The time delay for issuance of the Building Permit was primarily due to Staff's inability to coordinate and compile the necessary information. No one person -or department can be blamed. Staff concurs with our Architect,•and recommends the nine (9) day extension, without the paying of monies. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved Change Order #2, County Jail, Phase II, as recommended by staff. 6 1878 FRIZZ. ARCHITECTS OWNER 0 ARCHITECT 0 CHANGE ORDER CONTRACTOR ❑ FIELD ❑ OTHER PROJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL - CHANGE ORDER NO: TWO (2 ) (name, address) PHASE II OWNER: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO: (Contractor) r SCHOPKE CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING, INC. 1620 Tangerine Street Melbourne, Florida 32901 L DATE: September 12, 1986 -71 ARCHITECTS PROJECT NO: 1878 CONTRACT FOR: General Construction CONTRACT DATED: M I y 28, 1986 J YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE SUBJECT JOB: 1. Extension of time (9 days) for delay of job. TOTAL Ann nvnts r The Contract Time will be 0ncreased0VKV*XNJRt iafiAW :by n i nL —(9 ) Days. The Data of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of Me Contractor Indicates his agreement herewith. Including any adjustment In the Contract Sum or Contract Time. ORIGINAL CONTRACT ......... ........................... $ 1, 903, 286.00 FORMER CHANGE ORDERS .. # 1: deduct............ s 2,100, 00 s 1,901,186.00 THIS CHANGE ORDER................................................................................ $ —0— REVISED CONTRACT PRICE ... S 1, 901. 186.00 SIGNED: W. I BY APPROVED: SCHOPKE CONSTRUG"I'ION AND ACCEPTED: BOARD OF COLZM CONMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUN'T'Y, FMR.MA OWNER BY A G - DATE e D. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Appl. (Helen Barr) The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner DeBlois: 7 pp S E P 0 1986 BOOK 65 PVGE ®42 r SEP 3 0 196 t BOOK 6 Fac . �' TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 12, 1986FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: t SUBJECT: Robert M. seat ng, 01ICP Planning & Development Director THROUGH: Art Challacombe Chief, Environmental Planning _FROM:Roland M. DeBlois Staff Planner KtAD Environmental Planning D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA- TIONS REFERENCES: Section Der/Barr/TM#86-691 DIS:ROLAND It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County .Commissioners at their - regular meeting of September .23; 1986. 14n DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO. 31-124672-4 - Applicant: Mrs. Helen E. Barr, c/o Lloyd & Associates, 1835 20th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960. Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian River in John's Island Subdivision, Plat 40, adjacent to Lot 1, Section 13, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. The upland property associated with the project is located in the Town of Indian River Shores. - Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a private single dock with a 195' x 6' main access pier and 26' x 41' terminal platform (total square footage: 2,236'). 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, Florida Administrative Code The project is located in the Town of Indian River Shores. Therefore, the focus of staff review is on potential County and regional impact rather than site-specific impact; an in-depth field inspection of the project site was not conducted. The project is not to be located within County jurisdiction and is not subject to County requirements. Also, the project is proposed to be located on privately owned bottomlands and is not subject to requirements of Chapter 16Q-20 of the Florida Administrative Code, relating to docks located in the Indian River Aquatic Preserve. 8 Staff has not determined the extent to which the submerged bottomlands of the proposed project area will be impacted; the effect of Indian River development on ecologically valuable seagrass beds should be considered. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners autho- rize staff to forward the following comments regarding this project to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation: 1) The dockage project is proposed to be located within the Town of Indian River Shores and therefore is not subject to County Code requirements. 2) The Department of Environmental Regulation' and other - appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumu- lative 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 Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized staff to forward comments to the DER as set out above. E. Release of Easements - Oslo Park (Summerall) The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Heath: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 5, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. lCdzitrn, AIS Planning & Devel pmen Director RELEASE OF EASEMENTS REQUESTED BY BELINDA K. AND JAMES SUMMERALL LOTS 4 & 5, BLOCK C, OSLO PARK SUBDIVISION, UNIT #2 _FROM: Charles W. Heath REFERENCES: Summerall 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 September -23; 1986. - DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Belinda K. & James D. Summerall, owners of the subject property, for release of the common side lot five (5) foot utility and drainage easements of Lots 4 and 5, Block C, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit #2, being the Southerly five (5) feet of Lot 4, and the Northerly five 9 A SEP 3 0 1986 BOOK 65 F,1 Ur 8.45 feet of Lot 5, according to Plat thereof as recorded in the Official Record Book 4, Page 13, of Indian River County, Florida. These lots are fifty (50) feet in width, and one -hundred and thirty-eight (138) feet in depth. It is Mr. and Mrs. Summerall's intention to construct a single-family residence on these combined lots. The current zoning classification is RS -6, Single -Family residential. The land use designation is LD -2, Low Density Residential, up to six (6) units per acre. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: This request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company, Florida Power and Light Company, Florida Cablevision Corporation, the County Utilities Department, and the County Right-of-way Department. None of these agencies had any objections to the release of these easements. The zoning staff analysis, which included an on-site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled by the existing front and rear drainage swales. It is the staff's opinion that to release the common five (5) foot side lot utility and drainage easements, being the Southerly five (5) feet of Lot 4, and the Northerly five (5) feet of Lot 5, Block C, Oslo.Park Subdivision, Unit #2, would have no adverse effect to the surrounding area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board, through adoption of a resolution, release the common side lot five (5) foot utility and drainage easements, being the Southerly five (5) feet of Lot 4, and the Northerly five (5) feet of Lot 5, Block C, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit -#2, Plat Book 4, Page 13, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 86-83 releasing the common side lot 5' easements, Lots 4 and 5, Block C, Oslo Park Subdi- vision, as requested by James Summerall. 10 O Z< (B31)LEGALLIB m1 RESOLUTION NO. 86-83 A RESOLUTIONOF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE OSLO PARK SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described below, and WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no public purpose, _ NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County. Florida that: This release of easement is executed by Indian River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1860 25th Street. Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to James and Belinda Sumnerali, whose mailing address is 1055 19th Avenue S.W.. Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantee; as follows: Indian River County does hereby abandon all right. title, and interest that it may have in the following described easements: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bowman. and adopted on the 30th day of Septemher, 1986, by the following vote: Commissioner Scurlock Aye Commissioner Lyons Aye Commissioner Bird Aye Commissioner Bowman Aye Commissioner Wodtke Absent The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 30th day of September, 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Bon-C-.-5curlock, Jr. Chairman "EXHIBIT A" The common side lot five (5) foot utility and drainage easements of Lots 4 and 5, Block C, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit #2 being the Southerly five (5) feet of Lot 4, and the Northerly five feet of Lot 5, according to Plat thereof as recorded in the Official Record Book 4, Page 13, of Indian River County, Florida. Lots 4 and 5, Block C, Oslo Park Subdivision., Unit #2 are found in Plat Book 4, Page 13 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. 11 BOOK SEP 3 0 1936 10 F. ANNUAL BIDS 4 F(1.) Annual Bid #298 - Traffic Signal Equipment BOOK 65 FA -UE 847 .4 The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 8, 1986 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird ` SUBJECT:. IRC Bid #298 -Traffic Signal Equipment Director, Budget 0 fice (Annual Bid) --FROM: Cc��.r{-+,,v: ,� REFERENCES: Carolyn Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #298 -Traffic Signal Equipment for the Traffic Engineering Department. 17 Bids were sent out. Of the 9 Bid Proposals received, 2 were "No Bids". 2. Alternatives and Analysis This was an attempt to perhaps get lower prices on traffic signal equipment used frequently. However, we are currently getting better prices from some vendors that did not bid. Also, there were few bidders on several items. .. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #298 be rejected and staff be authorized to continue purchasing the, items from the vendor with the best price. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) rejected Bid #298 as recommended by staff and authorized staff to continue purchasing Traffic Signal Equipment from the vendor with the best price. F(2.) Annual Bid #299 -Hardware-Traffic Signs The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: 0 12 l TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 8, 1986 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: IRC BID #299 -Hardware -Traffic Signs Director, Budget 0 ice (Annual Bid) --FROM: �-�- z� �z.�c REFERENCES: Carolyn Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A:M. for IRC #299 -Hardware -Traffic Signs for the Traffic Engineering Department. 9 Bids were sent out. Of the 5 Bids received, 1 was a "No Bid". 2.Alternatives and Analysis The low bidders are as follows: Universal Signs - Item #1 Dave Smith & Co.- Item#7 and 8 Municipal Supply - Items 2, 3, 4 5 and 9 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #299 be awarded to the low bidders as noted & that Items 6 and 10 be rejected. Funds are budgeted for FY86/87 in Account #111-245-541=035.36. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #299 (Hardware -Traffic Signs) to the low bidders, Universal Signs, Dave Smith & Co., and Municipal Supply, for the items as listed above and as recom- mended by staff and rejected Items #6 and #10, all per the following bid tabulation: 13 SEP 3 0 1986 BOOK 65 r,�„ 848 r SEP 30 1986 BOOK UJ f��E.O F(3_) Annual Bid #300 - Aluminum Blanks The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: 14 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION ti c 1 v m "o ti c .o` c u qj' BID NO. IRC BID #299 DATE OF OPENING Aug. 28, 1986 " BID TITLE HARDWARE -TRAFFIC SIGNS ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT 1. Posts, Delineator, 6/ft Galy. 1.12 lbs/ft. EA NO 0 5 25 NB 3180 2. Posts Rib-bak, 12/ft Galy. 2.0 lbs/ft a. per 100 11 18 14 25 11 16 h- per 00 10 20 I i . Street Name Sign Brackets, Alum. # 1UF Su r-lok or equivalent Standard Set Screws: 45° Sign -to -sign bracket EA 3 1( 3,09 ° - -brakcet EA 900 Post -to -sign bracket EA 0 1800 Post -to -sign bracket EA 2 61 3. 1 3 25 I 4. Posts Round Tube,.31" O.D. Alum. 12/ft .156 wall thickness as per FOOT Specifications EA 42151 NB 5f 28 , _5. Sign Brackets Type I for 31" O.D. Round Posts Alum. as per FDOT Specifications EA NB 5 15 NB NB 5 50 t 6. Alum. Channel 1.5" x 1.5" x -1251 100 LF NB NB 468 00 . Post Round Tube, 4.5" OD Alum 12/ft _ EA k 103 20 46 98 NB 8. Post, Round Tube, 4.9' O.D. Alum 16/ft. EA 137 60 62 92 NB 9. Sign Bracket, Type 11 for 4.5" O.D. Round Post EA NB NB 10- Span Wire Mount Sign Panel AssembIY4 Type B PA NB 15 00 NB 95 150 11. Nnmal de liver tiime in dais e pt �f Purchase^_rder 21-30 days 30-60 days 14-21 days 21-45 days F(3_) Annual Bid #300 - Aluminum Blanks The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: 14 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 8, 1986 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT:. IRC Bid #300 -Aluminum Blanks Director, Budget *Office (Annual Bid) _FROM: CC-Ls-� - C -� REFERENCES: Carolyn Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department I. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #300 -Aluminum Blanks for the Traffic Engineering Department. 20 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 8 Bids received, 15 were "No Bids". 2. Alternatives and Analysis The overall low bidder is Vulcan Sign, Foley, Al. Vulcan Sign has the current bid and delivery has been good. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #300 be awarded to the low bidder, Vulcan Sign, Foley Al. Funds are budgeted for FY86-87 in Account #111-245-541-035.36• ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #300 (Aluminum Blanks) to the low bidder, Vulcan Sign, as recommended by staff, per the following bid tabulation: 15 BOOK 65 ra�_-L 850 SEP 3 0 1986 BOOK 16 0 IRC 00 .. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION I - 3011 Octagon EA ■■■■■■■■■�■■■■o■ MEN ■■ 2. 3611 Triangle EA ■■■■■■■■■©m©mm■m©mm■m ■■■■■■■■■�■■■loom■■■■ I■ �: NO ■■■ MEN ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■o■ 4. 3611 Pentagon (School) ■i ■■■■�■�!!��lm■■■W ■I■ ■■■■■mm■■■■■■O■ MIN= ■®i■ 5 2411 Pentagon (Route Marker) EA i ■■a■■■me■©m©mm■mmmiii MOM■■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■MM■'■ 6. 1811 Diamond ■■■■■■■■■■�1�■A!�■■■ e■■■■■e■m■■�■■■■■■ ■1■ .,,.,. m■m■■■■■m■ ■■e■me ■i■ ■o■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■m■■i■ 18. 3611 Diamond EA mmlomemim ■N m■■■i■■■■■■mmommom ■ ■M■■E■■immumemomme■ ■ ■■■■■■■�■�■■■m■■ ■ ■■■ NINON mommmmommo■ ■ iii■■i■o■■i■■■■m■■ ■■■■ 13-1811 x 611 EA ■e�■�■M■®m■emM■®11115■■■■■■■■■■■e■i■■■■l■ ■■■■■■■e■■em�m■�■■se �■ 22. 2411 x 3611 ■�■■�■i■■■em■e , ■� . ■�®■rm■■■■m�■i■�■■gym■s■ 16 0 I -L t. J r%nnudi DIu 9f3UI - -Roau zz)iriping ralnt The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 8, 1986 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: IRC Bid#301-Road Striping Paint Director, Budget Office (Annual Bid) --FROM: (. L� — m-4—' REFERENCES: Carolyn,Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #301 -Road Striping Paint for the Traffic Engineering Department. 10 Bid Proposals were sent out, 6 Bids were received 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Baltimore Paint and Chemicals, Baltimore, Md. The second low bid was submitted by Roadway Supply, the current vendor for road striping paint. 17 Boob 65 852 1■N1■■■■■1!!�Mp�■1■■�!�■� ■ 25. 3011 x 84t EA 28. 3011 x 3611 EA' �■�■���m■m■ts m■ ■ ■en ■■e■■■■�■■ ■e 29.36" x 1211 EA 30.481, x 1811 EA 11101 ■■■■ ■■■No ■■��■■ ME MENOMONIE ON No momma■■ ■■ . ■■mm■■ ■■■■■■i 60" x 3011 EA IMESIMENMEEME MEN MEMO Normal33. ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■NONE after receipt of Purchase .. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Days ■■■■■■■■■�!�■■e■�■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■!■e!■■e■■■■■ ■■ I -L t. J r%nnudi DIu 9f3UI - -Roau zz)iriping ralnt The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 8, 1986 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: IRC Bid#301-Road Striping Paint Director, Budget Office (Annual Bid) --FROM: (. L� — m-4—' REFERENCES: Carolyn,Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #301 -Road Striping Paint for the Traffic Engineering Department. 10 Bid Proposals were sent out, 6 Bids were received 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Baltimore Paint and Chemicals, Baltimore, Md. The second low bid was submitted by Roadway Supply, the current vendor for road striping paint. 17 Boob 65 852 F7� 7 S E P 3 0 1966600Kij Because the Roadway Paint is manufactured in Florida, delivery time is only 3-7 days, therefore, guaranteeing the freshness of the paint. t 3• Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #301 be awarded to Roadway Supply. Funds are budgeted for FY86-87 in Account #111-245-541=035-35. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #301 (Road Striping Paint) to the second low bidder, Roadway Supply, as recommended by staff, per the following bid tabulation: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street yero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION u'd F 1 0 �' �3 VO V. Q � aQA� i°J'� wr k 4 y y 6!" '0- a3 Fpm SO v c'� �o m �Q mm m� cti�v; o� �C``CC c,o BID NO. IRC BID N30 DATE OF OPENING Au 2$ 1986 BID TITLE ROAD STRIPING PAINT ITEM N0. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT* PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIt PRICE UNIT PRICE I_ nil Rag -White gal pails) Gallo 22 s 12 5 50 7 95 6 533 11 11 2. Oil Base -Yellow (5 gal) " Gallon 5 24 5 12 5 50 7 95 6 324 11 94 . T 3. Oil Base -Black (5 gal pails) Gall 5 01 5 50 6 95 6 139 NB -95 4. Water Base -White -Yellow (5 gal Pails) Gallon 6 6 SO 6 95 6 96E 7 35 5. Water Base -Yellow (5 gal pails) Gallon 64 6 So 6 95 6 889 7 70 1 1 6. Days required for delivery Days 14 d s 30-6 10 cays days da da)s F(5.) Annual Bid #302 - Bahia S St. Augustine Sod The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: 18 l TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 2, 1986 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: IRC BID #302 -Bahia Sod & St. Augustine Director, Budget Office Sod (Annual Bid) --FROM: _�'��-�.,�1\�o-- zC� c.G REFERENCES. CarolynGoodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #302 -Bahia Sod and St. Augustine Sod for the Road S Bridge Department. 13 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 5 Bids received, 1 was a "No Bid". 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Landscaping by Riverside, Vero Beach. Landscaping by Riverside was awarded the bid for sod 2 years ago and were cancelled mid -year because of poor service and non-availability of sod. The second low bid was -submitted by Sod Laid, Vero Beach, who currently hold the bid for sod. Service over the past year has been excellent. 3..Recommendation and Funding It is the recommendation of staff that IRC #302 be awarded to the second low bidder, Sod Laid, Inc. Vero Beach. Funds are budgeted for FY 86-87 in Account #111-214-541-035.39. Discussion arose re the fact that the low bidder had rendered unsatisfactory service in the past, and Commissioner Bird reported that he had contacted the low bidder to discuss this, and he now feels his operation is considerably different than it was two years ago and believed his previous problems would not occur again. He did not feel strongly enough to take this to court, but he would like to be given'a second chance some time. Attorney Vitunac confirmed that the Board's position in awarding to the second low bidder is supportable. R• gp . 19 BOOK U F° SEP 30 1996 BOOK 6 5 Fro �c 8 5' 5 Chairman Scurlock stated that he would like to establish < some procedure for reevaluating those who were low bidders but have not performed in the past. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #302 (Bahia Sod and St. Augustine Sod) to the second low bidder, Sod Laid, Vero Beach, as recommended by staff, per the following bid tabulation: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION �y u_a 1 J° a" a be tiF U , ti° r" v y ` y vm v mi mm •�m�m u a o D o Q3 io 0° 43m "�°i 4,!+ BID N0. IRC BID $30 DATE OF OPENING Aug. 28, 1986 BID TITLE BAHIA SOD E ST AUGUSTINE SOD ITEMNO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE I. 1. Bahia Sod Per Pallet NB 0 00 31 05 idA ISO 33 71 450 Sq. Ft. 2. St. Augustine Sod Per Pallet ---- 41 25 52 00 57 50 62 45 500 sq. ft. — Furnish deliver E install Sod on Prepared Surface anywhere in Count 37 80 39 60 40 50 42 53 Bahia Sod 450 sq. ft. St. Augustine Sod 500 Sq. Ft. 61 00 6 0 72 4 F(6.) Annual Bid #303 - Type 11 Asphalt Concrete The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: 20 i D TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 2, 1986 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: IRC BID #303-Type'll Asphalt Conprete Director, Budget qOfice (Annual Bid) . --FROM:I�Z�tz-e-4' REFERENCES: Carolyn�Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #303 -Type II Asphalt Concrete for the Road & Bridge Department. 7 Bids were sent out, 4 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was received from Dickerson, Inc. Dickerson currently has the bid for Type II Asphalt Concrete. This years bid is $3.00 per ton less than last year. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #303. be awarded to Dickerson, Inc. Funds are budgeted for FY86-87 in Account #111-214-541-35.39. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #303 (Type II Asphalt Concrete) to the low bidder, Dickerson, Inc., as recommended by staff, per the following bid tabulation: 21 BOOK 65 s t 9 E P 3 0 1996 BOOK 5 pni 857 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS c°j q 1840 25th Street i •1 1 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 m BID TABULATION 0 k o v; a 01 v L" BID NO. DATE OF OPENING IRC B I D #303 Aug. 28, 1986 0 Lo QF �°J a a ? til L y'�,y 44� q A. BID TITLE TYPE 11 ASPHALT CONCRETE _SUREACE._COURSE __.. FRIAIITE NOM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT i 1. Type II Asphalt Concrete Surface Course Material various _quan i i cida_ t variqu times as needed. Est. 500/T 30 90 57 00 28 00 27 40 P U lid—Spreading2. Haul Ing approved mechanical spreader, and furnishing TYPE 11 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course Material all in accordance with F1 State .Dept. Specifications, Est. 000 NB NB 41 00 36 25 F(7.) Annual Bid #304 - Road Stabilization Material The Board.reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 10, 1989 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird * SUBJECT:. IRC BID #304 -Road Stabilization Director, Budget Office Material (Annual Bid) FROM: ,ems,% 1�,�'��.�'�, REFERENCES: Carolyn�qbodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #304 -Road Stabilization Material for the Road r; Bridge Department. 9 Bid Proposals were sent out, 5 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis This is'a new bid this year. Road and Bridge has previously been mining the material, however, they can't do it fast enough to keep up with the demand. The low bid was submitted by Black Hawk Quarries, Palm Bay, Fl. 22 I s i However, because it is 32 miles from the Road & Bridge compound to Black Hawk Quarries the 40c per ton savings would be outweighed by the fuel and time expended. The second low bidder is Global Paving, Vero Beach, Fl. 3. Recommendation and Funding .� It is recommended that IRC #304 be awarded to the second low bidder, Global Paving, Vero Beach, F1. Funds are budgeted for FY86-87 in Account #111-214-541-035.39• ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Clom- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #304 (Road Stabilization Material) to the second low bidder, Global Paving, Vero -Beach, as recommended by staff, per the following bid tabulation: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 h O L p� •. yo"z- FQ BID TABULATION m h m m m� BID NOtRC B I D #304 DATE OF OPENING Aug. 28, 1986 wyD 0 0 � L "a" y �a Q W 1 m4'0 44 J, Q ko LE BID�IaAD STABILIZATION MATERIAL 4� ITE NOM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT ROAD STABILIZATION MATERIAL 1. Delivered to the County as directed PER TON 4 50 5 75 NB 1 4 25 5 40 0 Cu. yd cu y 2. Picked up by County PER TON 1 90 1 90 2 90 1 50 2 95 2 60 cu y F(8.) Annual Bid #305 --Soil Cement Base _& Limerock Base The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: 23 A BOOK O FAGS 58 to 4 SEP 3 0 1986 sooK 85 TO:Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 2 l 86 FILE: - THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: -IRC BID #305 -Soil Cement Base and Director, Budget Office Limerock Base (Annual Bid) r --FROM: C,lvt. P-��,,L, ,�-CtiLc_� REFERENCES: Carolyn Goodrich, Manager Purchasi'ng Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #305 -Soil Cement Base and Limerock Base for the Road .& Bridge Department. 4 Bids were sent out, 4 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid for Item #1 -Soil Cement Base in the amount of $2.40 per sq. yd., was submitted by both Pan American Engineering, Vero Beach and Dickerson, Inc., Stuart. The low bid for Item #2-Limerock Base was submitted by Global Paving, Vero Beach. Both items are lower than' last years bid. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that Item #1 be awarded to Pan American Engineering, the local vendor, and Item #2 to Global Paving. ` Funds are budgeted for FY86-87 in Account #111-214-541-035.39. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #305 (Soil Cement Base C Limerock Base) to low bidder,. Pan American Engineering, for Item #1 and low bidder, Global Paving, for Item #2 as recom- mended by staff, per the following bid tabulation: - 24 L BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION i u c^ •. BID NO. DATE OF OPENING a� ���°� �y IRC BID X305 Aug. 2$,1986 0 0 �a F C.1 of m a c o 4m�4 . * u BID TITLE SOIL CEMENT BASE & LIMEROCK BASE ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRIC 1. CONSTRUCTION OF_ SO L CEMENT BASE Sq. Yd NO NB 2 40 2 40 2 LIMEROCK RASE Sq yd 3 90 NB 5 55_ 5 40 F(9.) Annual Bid #306 - Asphalt Coated Corregated & Aluminum Nfe t aT—P I pe The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 2, 1986 FILE: THRU: Joseph' A. Baird SUBJECT: IRC BID #306 -Asphalt Coated Director, Budget Of�ice Corregated S Aluminum Metal Pipe (Annual Bid) •� �L REFERENCES: __FROM. Carolyn g6odrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for - IRC #306 -Asphalt Coated Corregated is Aluminum Metal Pipe for Road & Bridge Department. 9 Bids were sent out, 3 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The overall low bidder is Gator Culvert, Lantana, F1. The County uses very little 84" and 96" pipe. The bid prices are lower than last years bid. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #306 be awarded to the low bidder, Gator Culvert. 25 BOOK 65 rt1G;.860 1• 4 Bom 65 FAJ,k861 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #306 (Asphalt Coated Corregated 6 Aluminum, Metal Pipe) to the low bidder, Gator Culvert, as recommended by staff, per the follow- ing bid tabulation: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street yero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION .4 4 m 1 v o a y m (1) �m ,� 940 �� 1 UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE BID NO. IRC BID X306 DATE OF OPENING Aug. 2$ 1986 BID TITLE ASPHALT COATED CORREGATED E ALUMINUM METAL PIPE ITEM DESCRIPTION r NO. 1. Asphalt Coated Steel Corregated Pipe 121, - 16 Gauge PER FT 4 60 4 25 4 81 1611 �� 6 43 5 94 6 91 2411 14 Gauge 3 „ „ 11 10 03 2 q 11 0 10 13 63 9 2 36:1 I'14 7r 13 L61L 16 6 42" 12 Gauge " 24 49 21 56 2h 59 fig„ 11 " „ It 11 28 33 04 51 24 36 6 90 28 33 _93 . 79 6011 10 Gau e 49 64 40 81 45 57 7218 to 84" 8 Gauge " 02 781 114 35 7 37 2. ALUMINUM METAL PIPE 1211 - 16 -Gauge PER FT. „ 1, 11 4 5 41 4 5 18 18 4 5 64 80 1811 Is" 4 6 16 6. 81 24" 14 Gauge 8 to 04 11 45 " " 12 04 12 6 14 20 11 11 15 D3 16 96 4211 - 12 Gauge 08 24 04 2 83 811 _ It " 27 58 27 41 31 73 411 It" 32 97 30 84 35 65 6011 10 Gauge " 48 84 43 79 50 86 7211 11 " 58 15 52 47 60 71 8411 8 Gauge. " 101 76 89 98 88 1 691 it " 123 13 102 93 971 O 26 F(10.) Annual Bid #307 - Reinforced_ Concrete Pipe The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 2, 1986 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT:. IRC Bid #307 -Reinforced Concrete Pi -pe Director, Budget 0 fi e (Annual Bid) --FROM: ��-LL c� �� f t-te-& REFERENCES: Carolyn Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #307 -Reinforced Concrete Pipe for the Road & Bridge Department, 6 Bids were sent out, 3 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Southern Culvert, Pinellas Park, F1. Southern Culvert holds the current bid for reinforced concrete pipe. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #307 be awarded to the low bidder, Southern Culvert. Funds are budgeted for FY86-87 in Account #111-214-541-035.32. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #307 (Reinforced Concrete Pipe) to the low bidder, Southern Culvert, as recommended by staff, per the following bid tabulation: 27 BOOK Boa 65 FnF 863 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 251h Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION 4 LQ m Q1 CL wCIO 0 17J o Ok � �c , Q0 10 Lo � . � ar yoQc 3 BID NO. IRC BID N307 DATE OF OPENING Aug. 28, 1986 BID TITLE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PR 1. Reinforced Concrete Pipe -Meets DOT Specifications Class 3-0 Ring 8/ft Lengths. Diameter as follows; I 11 Per Ft. 6 69 6 97 6 75 18" 8 69 9 12 8 85 24" 13 3L 1 0 1 50 3011 18 i4 1 19161 1 1 10 - 5;' 26 23 27 36 26 65 42" 36 22 37 8 36 8 48" it 45 O1 46-96. 45 75 54" 11.56 41 NB 57 35 . 60" 68 8 " it 80 66 82 DO 2" " 20 11 " NB 135 00 F(11.) Annual Bid #308 - Road Rock The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE:sept. 2, 1986 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird Director, Budget Office SUBJECT:. IRC BID #308 -Road Rock (Annual Bid) A --FROM: REFERENCES: Carolyn Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #308 -Road Rock for the Road s Bridge Department. 7 Bids were sent out, 5 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid for Item #1 -Road Rock delivered to the County, was submitted by Global Paving, Vero Beach, F1. Although Global Paving was not low bidder on Item #2 -Road Rock picked up.by the 28 County, the cost of picking up in Lake Wales or Ft. Pierce wouic outweigh the difference per ton. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC_#308 be awarded to the overall low bidder, Global Paving, Vero Beach, Fl. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #308 (Road Rock) to the overall low bidder, Global Paving, Vero Beach. as recommended by staff, per the following bid tabulation: BOARD OF'COLINTY COMMISSIONERS t 1840 25th Street y 'Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION 0 �VI,.� NO. BID IRC BI D N308 DATE OF OPENING Aug. 28, 1986 3� a 3° a Q' 1k, ¢' � 01 w � _ ¢0 • � o Lo ��� , m ,�F' �4� BID TITLE ROAD ROCK (OLITE OR NARANG TYPE)�o ITEM NO DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE 1. Approximately 150 tons of Pit Run, Miami Olite, Coquina, Ocala or Narange Type Road Rock _ Delivered to the County as directed. Per Ton 15 00 15 50 NB 7 40 8 25 Picked up by the County' Per To 4 50 4 25 5 00 5 5.9— F(12.) Annual Bid #309 - Ready -mix Concrete The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: 29 SES 3D 1986 BOOK 65 FF,JF 864 SEP 30 196 BOOK 65 F'r� d TO:Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 2, 1986 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: IRC Bid #309 -Ready -Mix Concrete Director, Budget Office (Annual Bid) --FROM: 4, REFERENCES: Carolyn(Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #309 -Ready -Mix Concrete for the Road & Bridge Department. 5 Bid Proposals were sent out, 3 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Russell Concrete, Vero Beach, F1. The bid prices are the same as last years bid. Russell Concrete has the current bid. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #309 be awarded to the low bidder, Russell Concrete. Funds are budgeted for FY86-87 in Account 1#111-214-541-035.33• ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #309 to the low bidder, Russell Concrete, as rec- ommended by staff, per the following bid tabulation: 3.0 J H BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION I k c a, ua+' 10� y i m e y o c o c �� �� / BID NO. IRC B I D #'3091 DATE OF OPENING Aug. 28, 1986 BID TITLE READY MIX CONCRETE NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE _-- UNIT PRICE - - -- UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT 1. Ready -Mix Concrete 2,500 psi Per Yd 40 00 38 70 40 50 2. Ready -Mix Concrete 3,000 psi ' Per Yd 41 50 40 15 41 0o . Ready -Mix Concrete Per Yd _},p00 psi NB 43 25 44 00' uantiry Purcha,;e without Min, ad—Charge d 5yd 5 d 5• Less than minimum load charge Per Yd 50 00 1000 50100 1I per d Ads F(13.) Annual Bid #310 - Straight Sand -Cement Endwalls The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 2, 1986 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT:- IRC BID #310 -Straight Sand -Cement Director, Budget 0 fice Endwalls (Annual Bid) j -FROM: -u� . �`' rz t<<L. REFERENCES: Carolyn�Goodrich, Manager Purchas i -rig Department 1. Description and Conditions B -,ids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M., 31 800K BSEP 3 0 1986 4 BOOK 65 867 si for IRC #310 -Straight Sand -Cement Endwalls for the Road S Bridge Department. 5 Bids were sent out, 1 Bid was received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The only bid was submitted by Davis Construction, Vero Beach, F1. The bid prices are the same as the current bid. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #310 be awarded to the only bidder, Davis Construction. Funds are budgeted for FY86-87 in Account #111-214-541-035.39• ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #310 (Straight Sand -Cement Endwalls) to the only bidder, Davis Construction, as recom- mended by staff, per the following bid tabulation: 32 iii BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION 04� y u' � a a° m BID NO. IRC BID #310 DATE OF OPENING Aug. 28, 1986 BID TITLE STRAIGHT SAND-CEMENT ENDWALLS ITEM DESCRIPTION ' NO. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT -� 1. 9' x 21' Straight Endwall, i Double Wall/Double Footer EA F259000 _ _Z,_9' x 21' Straight Endwall Single Wall/Double footer EA 1960 00 3, 8' x 21' Straight Endwall, Double Wall/Double Footer EA 2415 00 - i 4. 8' x 21' Straight Endwall, I Single Wall/Double Footer EA 1820 00 5. 7' x 5' Straight Endwall, �! Double Wall/Double Footer EA 524 00 I i 6. 7' x 5' Straight Endwall, Single Wall/Double Footer EA 420 00 P 7 5' x 7' 5_tca1ght Endwa 1 Double Wall/Double Footer EA 595 00 8. 5' x 7' Straight Endwall, Single Wall/Double Footer EA 455 00 _ F(14.) Annual Bid #312_- Fire_ Extinguisher Inspection & Servicing The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: 33 SES 30 1986 BOOK FKE 868 SEP 8 0 1986 4 TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: Joseph A. Baird rc�) Director, Budget Of ice BOOK 65 r,i.1;186.9 DATE: Sept. 9, 1986 FILE: SUBJECT: IRC BID #312 -Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Servicing _.FROM: d� REFERENCES: Carolyn oodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #312 -Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Servicing. 6 Bid Proposals were sent out, 5 Bids were received. 2. Recommendation Because of some confusion regarding the specifications, it is requested that IRC #312 be rejected and staff authorized to re -write the specs.and re -bid. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) rejected Bid #312 as recommended by staff and authorized staff to rewrite the specs and rebid. F(15.) Annual Bid #313 - Typewriter Maintenance Contract The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: 34 TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: Joseph A. Baird Director, Budget 0 fice DATE: Sept. 3, 1986 FILE: SUBJECT: IRC Bid #313 -Typewriter Maintenance Contract (Annual Bid) FROM: %�1�e.�, REFERENCES: Carolyn,Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Thursday, August 28, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #313 -Typewriter Maintenance Contract for maintenance of all typewriters under the Board of County Commissioners, Clerks Office and Property Appraiser. 7 Bid Proposals were sent out, 5 Bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bidder based on total cost, is Business Machine Service, Okeechobee, F1. Business Machine Service has the current bid. As of Sept. 1, we had placed 60 calls for machines under the Board. Based on approximately $50.00 per call for typewriters and 575-100 per call for word processors, (if not under contract) it is less expensive for us to have a maintenance contract. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #313 be awarded to Business Machine Service. Funds are budgeted by each department under Maintenance of Office Equipment. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #313 (Typewriter Maintenance Contract) to the low bidder based on total cost, Business Machine Service, as recommended by staff, per the following bid tabulation: SEP 30 1986 35 BOOK 65 r,�-UE 870 s 4 BOOK `raGF. G. Final Payment Intersection Improvements (Old Dixie & 8th St.) e�—L_._9m T t Fi ` n c . The Board reviewed memo of Civil Engineer Michelle Terry: TO:THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE September 24, 191;R -E: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun County Administrator Jamefi!W. /Dafis, P.E. Public Works Director _.FROM, Michelle A. Terry, • Civil Engineer Final Payment to SUBJECT:. Dennis L. Smith, Inc. Intersection Improvements to Old Dixie Hwy. & 8th Street Public Works Project 8331 REFERENCES: DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Construction of the intersection improvements was completed by September 1986. The original contract of $91,589.50 was decreased -by $4,484.00 making a total contract price of $87,105.50. A field change 36 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS i 1840 25th Street �Q o6y \ Vero Beach, Florida 32960 y BID TABULATLON y vv ,�� lv C `C �� U' LC � tiIRC BID NO.=DATE OF OPENING DID Aug. 28, 1 h �'` " ; o BID TITLE TYPEWRITER MAINTENANCE ¢�Q� Fa m°'�% Q1 �; ITEM = - --- NO. DESCRIPTION i UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT F 1. Electric Typewriter EA 30 00 5 00 45 00 47100 1 1 59 00 2. Electronic Typewriter EA QQ 65. 00 65 00 89 00 See el 3. S stet Word Processor EA 150 00 175 00 70.00. 270.001 375 00 4. Canon VP2000 Word Processor EA - 00 70100 NB 275 00 5• Time required for service technician to provide service after receiving call. 6 h 4-8 hrs Cano 20 79 00 Cano 30 89 00 Cano 35Q 125 00 Cano 40 125 00 Canot 5 1 200 00 IBM WhPP nn Total BCC 00 4170 00 3330 00 4768 00 7297 00 �4235 Total Clerk 4 00 1340 00 1¢30 00 1808 00 1944 00 Total Prop. App. 3 !,g 00 3 0 00 420 00 502 00 511 00605 5880 00 S380100 707E on c�c� n, _00 G. Final Payment Intersection Improvements (Old Dixie & 8th St.) e�—L_._9m T t Fi ` n c . The Board reviewed memo of Civil Engineer Michelle Terry: TO:THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE September 24, 191;R -E: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun County Administrator Jamefi!W. /Dafis, P.E. Public Works Director _.FROM, Michelle A. Terry, • Civil Engineer Final Payment to SUBJECT:. Dennis L. Smith, Inc. Intersection Improvements to Old Dixie Hwy. & 8th Street Public Works Project 8331 REFERENCES: DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Construction of the intersection improvements was completed by September 1986. The original contract of $91,589.50 was decreased -by $4,484.00 making a total contract price of $87,105.50. A field change 36 was made and increased the contract by $1,080.00. This change order is attached. The new Contrat price is $88,185.50. Final inspections by members of the Engineering Staff have been conducted. The staff is satisfied that the project has been completed properly and within the specified time requirements. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING The Engineering Staff recommends that final payment in the amount of $88,185.50 be remitted to Dennis L. Smith, Inc. Funds will come from the 8th Street Intersection Improvement Account #306-214-541. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved final payment to Dennis L. Smith, Inc., in the amount of $88,185.50 for intersection im- provements at 8th St. 8 Old Dixie per staff recom- mendation and authorized the Chairman to sign the attached Change Order. F T � Distribution lu: OWNLR U ARCHITECT ❑ '701 CON I RACTC)R [-1 I IELO f I 011LIR I 1 PROJECT: (name. address) TO (Ctmtmour). 1—Dennis L. Smith, Inc. P.O. Box 2954 Vero Beach, FL 32961 Public Works Division Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL _32960 (I IAN( A ORI )I R NUMIUR: 2 INIIIATION {)AIE: May 24, 1986 ENGINEER"S PR< )IEC 1 NO: 8331 c O,N 1 Rt 1 1 uR. Intersection Improvements for 8th Street & Old Dixie Highway L CC)NTRAC1 GATE: You are directed to make the follovving change, in this Cctntr,ua: DELETE Bid Item No. 160-5 Stabilized Sub -base Type C (12") DELETE Bid Item No. 200-1 Lim -rock Base (8" Primed) 3 ADD Bid Item No. 200-1 Limerock Base (12" Primed) 2400 S.Y. $1.65/S.Y. 2400 S.Y. $6.25/S.Y. 2400 S.Y. $8.35/S.Y. $ 3,960.00 15,000.00 $18,960.00 $20,040.00 Not valid until signed by both the Ocaner and Architect. S+gnatun• r,( the Contractor indicates hro agreerttent heratt, including .rny 1k11u5trnvnt it, tnc (,"r.tract Sum or C .:vr.,et r,mr• The original (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed ,Maximum Cost) was .. 91 589.50 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ... . . $ 4,484.00 The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) prior to tht, Change Order ,•..,% ..... $ 87,105.50 the (Contract Sum) ((;uaranteed Maximum Cost) will be tincre.ssed) (decrea,.,rdr tui t hanged) 1,08(`.00 by this Change Order ................... The new (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) including this Change Order will he $ 88' �o •50 37 BOOK The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this C ange Order therefore is r Ralph N sc i a STs g�neer B C()NTRA('T(C¢ )�jtflll �- _ Indian Ri rPr County hp nni-s L.Smit-h,— i3G. Address Addrer 1840 25th Set P_o_ Box 2954 _ ;'-*1011 /al *2*Q Y 113 BOOK 6D Fr�6L i { ) Days. Authdrized. -.Indian--Rivea<--County K) W.".) R 1840 – 25th StrPgt Addrv,o, _ Vero Beach,FF' . 3 1iY----�_G -- -- DAN �O — AIA DOCUMENT 0701 ( HANG[ (,KD, n A,*11 I'C" l i)r; ' !t. 71 .7."•ry r THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARC.HIIEC:IN, C» r%IW 1uKA A%[ . N N wASHIN�.f ur�,i. � 'ut"n, H. Sailboard Center Lease )f- r G701 — 1978 The Board reviewed memo of Assistant County Attorney Bruce Barkett: TO: The Board of County Commissioners DATE: . September 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Sailboard Center Lease FROM: Bruce Barket`tA,,', Assistant County Attorney On September 11 the Parks and Recreation Committee recommended renewal of the lease of County property on the Wabasso Causeway to the Sailboard Center. Two items must be decided by the Board: 1. When the lease was first approved, the County required the Sailboard Center to purchase insurance for $1,000,000.00 aggregate coverage. The Sailboard Center has indicted that it is unable to purchase insurance in this amount any longer simply because carriers are not selling such policies. Since Florida Statutes waive sovereign immunities only to the ,extent of $100,000.00 per person/$200,000 per occurrence, it is my recommendation that the Board reduce the insurance requirement for the Sailboard Center to the $300,000.00 combined single limit which the Center is able to purchase. 2. The Committee recommended removal of a requirement that the Sailboard.Center riot accept money on the Causeway. The attached lease allows the Sailboard Center to lease -- sailboards from the Causeway. It is recommended that the lease be approved with the revisions stated herein. Chairman Scurlock stated that his concern is not with this particular lease, but its ramifications as related to potential additional requests. In addition, if we are talking about establishing a business on that causeway, he was not sure $100 is 38 M M M enough for an annual lease. He believed the liability question has been answered in that we have sovereign immunity. Commissioner Bowman commented that she does object to their collecting money on the causeway and actually carrying on a business at that location. Commissioner Bird noted that we tried this on a trial basis for a year, and he believed that both he and the Recreation Committee feel that, as far as recreation is concerned, that this is bit different than operating a hot dog stand, for instance. It is providing a tremendous recreational benefit to the people of the county, and many people come just to watch. He pointed out that of all the sailboards seen out there, probably 2/3 or more belong to private individuals. The people of the Sailboard Center are there to mainly instruct and look out for their safety, and they also keep the area policed. They are only there in the afternoons from noon till about 5 o'clock, and there is not a big flow of business. It would be very cumbersome to require a person who wants to rent a board to go back up the highway and pay his fee, and Commissioner Bird did not feel it is necessary. He further pointed out that we have a 60 day cancellation clause in the lease. Chairman Scurlock did not feel the actual cash transaction poses any problem. His concern was the long range implications as he felt we would have a difficult time saying no to another business - jet skis, for instance. Commissioner Bird did not believe there is a problem as long as we stay with short term leases, and he felt that jet skis are something quite different and involve a much different liability. Commissioner Bowman felt there should be some regulation limiting this to water related sports. Certainly, she felt we would want to be able to prohibit a mobile hot dog stand or such type enterprises, and Chairman Scurlock believed the Board is saying this is the time to get more specific about the overall picture and set up some rules. s• 39 pp SEP 3 0 1986 SEP 30 1966 BOOK F,� UE 875 Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas reported that the Parks & Recreation Committee did deny hot dog stands last year. However, he noted that on the beaches, particularly during tourist season, people want to rent a surfboard, a chair or an umbrella, and in the past we did have such a lease. He further noted that the Board authorized funds to proceed on the development of Golden Sands Park, and the contract they are working on for this deals with things of concession nature as well as fees. If it is found this contract is satisfactory, he would like to consider expanding it countywide. Chairman Scurlock continued to discuss at what time do we get to the point when we want to start regulating this business when it starts grossing a lot of money. Commissioner Bird noted that so far the operation is very limited in size. As it grows, we may have to become more sophis- ticated about it. He agreed the Causeway is becoming very popular, and advised there are plans under way right now to limit ingress and egress off the Causeway, put in some improved parking areas and some landscaped areas, etc. Chairman Scurlock felt that he can vote for the proposed lease at this time, but he would like the Parks & Recreation Committee to address long range plans and set up parameters. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Agreement with Sailboard Center and authorized the signature of the Chairman. 40 9/30/86MML(l3nm� AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of October, 1986, by and between Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and Burchard Hazen, Jr. and Patricia Hazen, doing business as The Sailboard Center, located at 9125 U. S. Highway No. 1, Wabasso, Florida 32957, hereinafter referred to as "SAILBOARD CENTER". W I T N E S S E T H: That, in consideration of the following mutual covenants and agreements, the parties hereto state as follows: 1. COUNTY agrees: a, to permit SAILBOARD CENTER, its agents and employees to occupy and use the County park premises located at the Wabasso Causeway, Indian River County, Florida, for the purpose of renting sailboards and instructing renters, owners and prospective purchasers of sailboards the proper and safe methods of operating such equipment. 2. SAILBOARD CENTER agrees: a, to pay the COUNTY $100.00 per,year for the non-exclusive right to occupy the park premises at Wabasso Causeway for the purposes stated herein; b, to abide by all provisions of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida, particularly those relating to parks and recreation as contained in Chapter 174; C. to indemnify and hold the COUNTY harmless and defend COUNTY from any and all claims, actions, proceedings at law, damages or liability of any kind whatsoever, relating to SAILBOARD CENTER'S use of the park premises; d, to require all persons utilizing services of SAILBOARD CENTER on park premises to sign a waiver of liability incorporating the terms of Paragraph 2.c, of this agreement; e, to maintain public liability insurance, naming the COUNTY as additional insured, with policy limits of no. less than $100,000.00 per person and $300,000.00 per incident or occurence; and f. to remove all equipment and property of SAILBOARD CENTER from park premises at the end of each business day. 3. This agreement shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date set forth herein and shall be renewable on an annual basis subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. However, either party may terminate this agreement upon sixty (60) days' written notice. In the event of any default or violation of the provisions of this agreement, COUNTY shall notify SAILBOARD CENTER, in writing, and may terminate this agreement immediately. SE 3 0 1986 BOOK 65 Pro .876 r 4 -7 Bou Ft4 JC V L ti IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Indian River County and The Sailboard Center have caused this agreement to be signed in their respective names. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: 6o�`e--- -- i14�r oc� Chairman 1. Elections Office Request Carry -Over to FY 1986 -87 -Budget The Board reviewed memo from the Supervisor of Elections: ANN ROBINSON SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS 1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394 TELEPHONES: (305) 567-8187 or 567-8000 September 24, 1986 Aon. Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman, Board of County Commissioners REi Agenda item for BCC meeting of September 30, 1986 There is $1000 in the elections capital outlay account, 001-700-519-66.41, for the purchase of two used Precinct Ballot Counters (PBCs) as approved by the BCC earlier this fiscal year. Two sets of used PBCs have been sent to us, but I sent them back because they did not count correctly. Thus this transaction cannot be completed this fiscal year. I request that the BCC reallocate this $1000 to us for the coming fiscal year. If you approve, this would be a budget amendment from your contingency fund to add $1000 to the elections budget in 001-700-519-66.41. If you approve this request, I will leave $1000 in the elections account 001-700-519-66.41 to revert to the BCC at the end of this fiscal year. Thank you, 044� R Ann Robinson Supervisor of Elections ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the budget amendment requested by the Supervisor of. Elections. 42 J. Change Orders, Sandridge Golf Course Intergovernmental Coordinator Thomas reviewed the following memo and letters: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: Sept. 23, 1986 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Change Orders - Sandridge Golf Course FROM: L. S. ommy° Thomas REFERENCES. Intergo ermental Coordinator Please find attached Change Orders # 9 and #10 on the Sandridge Golf Course. Explanations for the need for these change orders are given in the letters and change orders themselves. Mr. Tommy Thomas September 15, 19861 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Tommy: Enclosed please find change order #6 for purchase and installation of 350' of 18" Aluminum pipe, 3600 feet of 3/4" PVC pipe, and I quart of PVC cement. Guettler & Sons original bid was based on 905 feet of 18" aluminum pipe as indicated on the Bid Proposal Form, rather than 1255 feet of pipe indicated on the construction plans; therefore their bid was based upon 350 feet less pipe than what was required. The additional 3/4" PVC pipe is for holes 2 through 8. The pipe which was to be used for this was used to connect the Hydraulic Booster Pump to the existing well. (See enclosed Purchase Order #14522.) Originally the Hydraulic Booster Pump was to be located at a potable water source in the Maintenance area. It was determined that this potable water source would not be available in time for use with the irrigation system, requiring a tap -in into the existing well. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call. Sincerely, LINKS DESIGN, INC. 1/7 C . oddk—_ BRUCE C. SHELDON ASSOCIATE 704 S. Missouri Ave. 9 SEP 30 196 LINKS DESIGN INC. Lakeland. Florida 33801 43 (813) 688-8383 BOOK D to CARTER ASSOC A7.17LS. i NcJ,. C0NNSU1;TI:NG ENGINI:LIZS AND LAND SURV 9 E P 3 0 1966 MARVIN E. CARTER, R.L.S. DANA HOWARD, R.L.S. DEAN F. LUETHIE, P.E. X Mr. Tommy Thomas Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Fla. 32950 Dear Tommy: September 10, 198 1705 - 21st STREET VERO BEACH, FL. 32960 30S - 5 2- n.5t:.— � J � ZEP Re: Golf Cart Bridges County Golf Course - Zhao Req' d Lateral G Canal Per your request we are pleased to submit the following proposal design of. two golf cart bridges (wooden) for the County's Golf Course. Given Conditions: I. Bridges will be utilized for golf carts, small pickups and pedes- trn-ins• Weight load limit 5 tons. 2. Spans of the bridges shall be a minimum of 15 feet. Width of bridge shall be 15 feet, for one way traffic. Pedestrain walkway should be separated from vehicular traffic by curb. Engineering Fees: 1. Field X -sections of each location Crew 4 firs. @ $70.00/hr. = $280.00 Drafting 2 hrs. @ $35.00/hr. = 70.00 $350.00 2. Soils investigation by Fraser Engineering & Testing 2 - 30' Dutch Cone Borings = $350,00 3. Bridge design and specifications (on Plans) Principal Engineer 4 hrs. @ $70.00/hr. = $ 280.00 Design Engineer 24 hrs. @ $55.00/hr. = 1,230.00 Drafting 32 hrs. C $35.00/hr. = 1,120.00 $2,720.00 4. Bid Documents if required Design Engineer 8 hrs. @ $55.00/hr. = $ 440.00 5. Construction Administration and Inspection during construction would be performed at an hourly rate. Design Engineer @ $55.00/hr. Field Inspector @ $22.00/hr. We appreciate the opportunity to be of.service to you and if this proposal is acceptable please advise. Very truly yours, CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC. 44 Dean F. Luethje, P.E. { Mr. Thomas informed the Board that he had made a mistake. In the letter received from Carter Associates, there were a number of items, and on his worksheet, he inadvertently deleted all but the first three items; so, change order (No. 10) is correct and should be just for items 1, 2 and 3, or a total of $3,420. The Chairman had questions about how we selected Carter Associates instead of CCL, and Mr. Thomas explained one of the reasons he went with them is that it involved the drainage district, which he felt they were more familiar with, and the other reason was that he was completely dissatisfied with the engineer the architect furnished. He is handling this by a direct change order to the contractor, and we will let out the bid because if he had gone back through the architect, he would have added his fee on to it. Chairman Scurlock wished to know if the architect has signed off and said CCL is out and Carter is in as he did not want them arguing about who is on the job, and Mr. Thomas confirmed that the architect has agreed orally and said that they will write a letter of confirmation. He noted that the bridge design was not in the scope of work of CCL anyway.. Board members wished to be sure we are covered on this, and Mr. Thomas advised that he did go to Assistant County Attorney Barkett and asked if he was in the clear in the manner he was handling this, and Attorney Barkett said as long as it was a change order, he was in the clear. Attorney Vitunac noted that, in other words, this is something that wasn't even in the specs for the first engineering. It is like a brand new project. It was explained that the engineer will work for Guettler, and Guettler will get a subcontractor to build the bridges; we are initiating a change order because we left the bridges out. Public Works Director Davis clarified that we are expanding the scope of work for the actual contractor who is building the 45 SEP 3 0 1986 BOOK 65 F;{ L W SEP 3 0 1966 BOOK 65 PAI -H.881 golf course, and we are going to the contractor, who we went through the competitive bidding to select, and saying we want you to furnish a turn -key operation for the bridges. Chairman Scurlock asked why we can't just amend the contract with Guettler "x" number of dollars, and Director Davis stated that is what we are doing. The Chairman asked if this is for the engineering and the construction, and Mr. Davis stated just the engineering. The Chairman noted that actually there will be two change orders - one for the engineering and one for the actual construction. This was confirmed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved Change Order No. 9 and No. 10 Sandridge Golf Club, with Guettler 8 Sons in the amounts of $6,881.11 and $3,420.00 as outlined above. 46 3 4 K INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB CWITMACT CIMMC[ ORDER M CNAMCi oaDtS no. 9 Proj•ect Sandridge Golf Cluhio. natal 9/15/86 - Cwcraac•rt Guettler & Sons Condition•• The changes described herein •hall be governed by the torus and eonditions of the Comers". mad "ell flat is GNP way altar the torus of tb• Coatcact, but shall hereafter be a pace of the Coatraet. ITIN DRRCRIPTtan - r'z insrallation o 18" alum 3/4" Schedule 40 PVC Pipe Cement Net Change 16-881.11 UNIT I UNIT COST W 100 t. 13.50 qt. 4.11 OUA TITV AMOUNT 350' 2541.00 350' 3850:00 3600' 486.00 1 4.11 -Addltloa ♦ ! 6. 881.11 Deduction(-) C•ntratt Amount prior to Change Order ! Revised Costreat Amount ! Ramses for Change. Error in architects original footage of 18" pipe. 3/4" - additional pipe for hydraulic pump system Acceptable To#' ► 1' omcml 9/15/86 ontrmctor a Representative Recouunended by,L'�,% r Y , golf couFS arc i.ec�` , Approved b �' !" lDates owner l f,2 47 BOOK EP 3 0 1986 r � Sip Q BOOK INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB CONTRACT CNAACM ORDER . CHAN= ORDER N0. 10 projects Sandridge Golf Club No. Dates 9-22-86 Contractors GUETI'LER & SONS Conditional the changes described herein shall be governed by the torma and coeditioas of the Contract, and shell not in any ray alter the terms of the Coetraet, but shall hereafter be a part of -the Contract. J IRM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY AMOUNT NO 1. 1 ENGINEERING 3420.00 Not Change A4dition • ! 3420.00 De4uction(-) Contract Amount prior to Chonge Order RavLse4 Contract Amount Saaeon for Change. Engineering for bridges -NOT included in original contract. Acceptobto Tel = f r as Contractor i Rep "antat►ve O.K. Bruce Sheldon Recommended by (nhon�l Dates 9/23/86 golf cou )se _ a_r_ ch-� sec L Approved by� k,�L=—icDates owner 1;)1". 48 K. Release of Assessment Lines - Glendale Lakes & Phyl-Ann Terr. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved Release of Assessment Lien (paving & drainage) on Lots 16 6 17, Block 5, Glendale Lakes Subdivision for Lloyd Merrill and Release of Assessment Lien (paving & landscaping) Lot 2, Phyl-Ann Terrace Subdivision for Norman Rosenbaum. RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN For and in consideration of the sum of $1,264.74, RECEIVED from Lloyd Kent Merrill and Margery A. Merrill, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (the "County") hereby releases the property hereinafter described from a certain special assessment lien recorded by the County in its Official Records, Book 0666, Page 0376, for a special assessment in the amount of $1,264.74 levied in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 81-27 of the County; and hereby declares such special assessment lien fully satisfied. The property, located in Indian River County, is more fully described as - follows: Lots 16 & 17, Block 5, as shown on the Plat of Glendale Lakes Subdivision on record in Plat Book 2 Page 25 of Public Records of St. Lucie County, Flor.ida. All of above land now lying and being in Indian River County. . Executed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested and countersigned by the Clerk of such Board, all as of this 30th day of September, 1986. Attested and countersigned BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IRIDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA It �R�6A VAI GA7ero 6�� S�0 1 . ' �h a T rma n C i rcu i , Coy, / 49 BOOK 6 f'�GE 884 S E P 3 0 1986 4 RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN BOOK 65 Nruc H 8S-5 For and in consideration of the sum of $297.95, RECEIVED from Norman and Doris A. Rosenbaum, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (the "County") hereby releases the property hereinafter described from a certain special assessment lien recorded by the County in its Official Records, Book 0710, Page 2093, for a special assessment in the amount of $297.95 levied in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 81-27 of the County; and hereby declares such special assessment lien fully satisfied. The property, located in Indian River County, is more fully described as follows: Lot 2, Phyl-Ann Terrace Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 59, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. Executed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested and countersigned by the Clerk of such Board, all as of this 30th day of September, •1986, Attested and countersigned BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: r REDA—WRT�FiT , o f DON . 5MR r KZ h a i rma n Circuit Cur&w, L. Approval to Apply for Tax Deeds The Board reviewed memo of Assistant County Attorney Barkett: 50 TO: The Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 22, 1986 SUBJECT Approval of County to Apply for Tax Deeds FROM: Bruce Barkettj1 Assistant County Attorney have attached a copy of a letter from Gene Morris, County Tax Collector, explaining that there are three tax certificates held by Indian River County which are now eligible for tax deed applications. A tax certificate is a I ien against the land for unpaid. taxes and the County may apply for tax deeds on the properties for which there are tax certificates which are over -two years old. This request is for the Board of County Commissioners to authorize the application for tax deeds for the three properties eligible, and for the following funding to process the applications: 1. $135.00 to Gene Morris, Tax Collector, for 207year tax search fees at $45.00 per parcel. 2. $22.9.20 to Freda Wright, Clerk of Circuit Court, for Clerk's fees and advertising costs at $76.40 per parcel. 3. $36.00 to Tim Dobeck, Sheriff, for the Sheriff's posting - fees at $12.00 per parcel. The attached three tax certificates have been approved as to form and legal sufficiency. Tax Crtf. No. Date of Sale Legal Description 1521 May 31, 1984 Smith Plaza Sub 1-18 Lot 17 Block 2 (0 R Bk 500 PP 716). 1538 May 31, 1984 Cannon Sub PBI 2-77 Lot 44 Ft X 155 Ft in SW Cor of Lot 20 as D Bk 56, PP 75 (OR Bk 469 PP 985). 1548 May 31, 1984 Section 15-33-39 Ind Riv Farms Co Sub PBS 2-25 S 60 Ft of E 200 Ft of W 450 Ft of N 1/2 of S 20.1 A of W 30 A of Tr 12 as in D Bk 33, PP 55. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the application for tax deed for the three properties listed and the funding necessary to process the applications as set out above. 51 BoUf. t SEP 3 0 1966 BOOK PROCLAMATION - AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS Chairman Scurlock read aloud the following Proclamation designating the month of October, 1986, for observance of the Indian River Chapter, AMERICAN RED CROSS, 60TH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION, and presented it to Jim Ledbetter, who expressed his thanks. P•R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, the AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS is the instrument chosen by the United States Congress to help carry out the obligations assumed by the government under certain international treaties known as the Geneva or Red Cross Convention; and WHEREAS, the AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS°s Congressional Charter imposes upon them the duties to act as the medium of voluntary relief and communication between the American people and their armed forces, and to carry on a system of National and International relief to prevent and mitigate suffering caused by disaster; and WHEREAS, nationally and locally the AMERICAN RED CROSS is governed by volunteers and it is financed totally by voluntary contributions; all services rendered are free to individuals in need; and - WHEREAS, the INDIAN RIVER CHAPTER of the AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS was certified as being organized and obligated to engage in RED CROSS activities in conformity with the policies and regulations prescribed by the Central Committee at Washington over the signatures of President Calvin Coolidge and Secretary Mabel T. Boardman, October 20, 1926; and WHEREAS, October 20, 1986 will be the 60th year of operation of the, INDIAN RIVER CHAPTER of the AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS of Indian River* County, Florida, that the month of October, 1986 be designated for observance of ` INDIAN RIVER CHAPTER, AMERICAN RED CROSS, 60TH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION in Indian River County, and the Board further urges all citizens -of-the County to participate and support this worthy occasion. Adopted September 30, 1986 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA � C DON SCURLOCK, J ., CHAIRMAN W PROCLAMATION - LUPUS AWARENESS Chairman Scurlock read aloud the following Proclamation proclaiming that the month of October, 1986, be recognized as LUPUS.AWARENESS MONTH, and presented it to Frances Badame, who expressed thanks and spoke of their fund raising efforts. P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus is a chronic, inflammatory disease of connective tissue which affects 50,000 new victims each year; and WHEREAS, today there are nearly one million people in the United States suffering from this disease, most of them women of child-bearing age, but Lupus can affect anyone of any age; and WHEREAS, this little known disease is more common than Leukemia, Muscular Dystrophy and Multiple Sclerosis; and WHEREAS, Lupus symptoms commonly include skin lesions, weakness and fatigue, chills, fever and sensitivity to sunlight.; and WHEREAS, the cause of Lupus remains a mystery, and while it often can be controlled with the use of drugs, there is no known cure for the disease; and WHEREAS, the Lupus Foundation and Support Group is an all volunteer, non-profit organization whose purpose is to lend moral support to Lupus patients and their families, increase general public awareness of the disease through educational programs, and help provide funding for Lupus research; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COiMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the month of October, 1986 be recognized as LUPUS AWARENESS MONTH in Indian River County, Florida in an effort to promote an awareness and understanding of the disease. Adopted September 30, 1986 gEP 30 196 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA -, C DON C. SCU LUCK, .R., CHAIRMAN 53 1 SEP 3 0 1996 BOOK D FnuE889 PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RE POLLING PLACES The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, Y to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: NOTICE—PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of STATE OF FLORIDA County Commissioners of Indian River County, Before the undersi Heti authority g y personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par - ties In Interest and citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard, in the County Commiselon says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published Chambers of the County Administration Build - at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being Ing, located at 1840 25th SL, Vero Beach, Flor- Ida, on Tuesday, September 30, 1988, at 9:10 consider the adoption of an Ordinance �1 ee.mti� AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SEC-- TION 23.3 SITE PLAN REVIEW STAND- in the matter of ARDS OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN I AS THE ZONING CODE, BY CREATING- - A NEW PARAGRAPH 23.3 (J) (5) POLL- ING PLACE AVAILABILITY; REQUIRING CHURCHESBUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT SERVE AS COMMON RECREATIONAL in the Court, was pub- FACILITIES BE DESIGNATED AS POL-„:: ING PLACES; AND PROVIDING FOR RE S�j ZQ �(j6 lished in said newspaper in the issues of --j�� 6 l PEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. „.. •.:;: A Doppyy of the pprroposed ordinance Is available t the %1.nnfng fJepartment office on the second oor of the County Administration Building: Anyone who may wish to appeal any ecision hloh may be made at this meeting will need to Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, nsure that a verbatim record of the proceeding made which Includes the testimony and evI- and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as upon which the appeal will be based. Indian River County as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in sbid Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- Board of CountyCommissloners a *.-s-DonC.Scurlock,Jr. Chairman tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or SSA 10,1988 - corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed fore a thi day of A. D. • Manager) _4Business (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Cou , Indian River County, Florida) Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation, as follows: 54 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 16, 198PIM: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: - SUBJECT:. ZONING ORDINANCE AMEND - Robert M. Keat ng „ICP MENT CONCERNING DESIG- Planning & Develop`tnent Director NATION OF POLLING PLACES _FROM: Richard Shearer, REFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planning Zoning Memo pnot2 It is requested that the data herein. presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 30, 1986. - DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Ann Robinson, the Supervisor of Elections, has requested that the Planning Department require future large residential developments to furnish a location on site, such as a clubhouse, for polling places. This request was based on the facts that the County's population and number of registered voters is increasing rapidly and that the elections office has had difficulty in finding appropriate facilities to serve as polling places in some areas. On August 28, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of thin -ordinance. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In reviewing this request, the planning staff has determined that the appropriate time to -require that space be designated for polling places is when developments receive site plan approval. Moreover, the staff feels that not only should large developments with common meeting facilities be required to designate areas for polling places, but that all residential developments which require site plan approval and propose common meeting facilities and all churches which contain common meeting facilities should be required to designate such areas. These areas would be available so that if the need arose in the future, the necessary polling places would be available. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance. Planner Shearer noted that the proposed ordinance is roughly based on a Collier County ordinance except they did not just base it on PRDs. Chairman Scurlock asked the County Attorney if we have the legal ability to request this, and Attorney Vitunac believed it is the same theory applied if the development is causing an 55 -SEP 3 0 1986 BOOK b5 Ff{"E 89' a SEP 3 ® 198& EQQI( 65 FnE 8,91 increased burdenn o the county in regard to impact. on roads, 4 schools, fire protection, etc. The county has the legal right to require a new development to provide a place for people to vote just as they would to provide sidewalks and streets. Planner Shearer advised that if the development, for instance, is a private development with a guard gate, then the polling place would be only for the people in that development, not people coming in from the vicinity. Chairman Scurlock understood the idea behind the ordinance, and agreed that the residents in a large community such as Village Green would be receptive, but the only place he could see this would really apply is where people don't want it. He asked what necessitated us drawing up an ordinance without it first coming to the Commission. If we spend staff time on such things, he felt it should come from the Commission. He did not want people to be able to come in off the street and cause staff to spend hours working on something like this. Planning Director Keating advised that we do have a fee where this can be done, but if the Board desires, they can have a different policy. The Chairman and Commissioner Bird agreed that a lot of staff time can be involved with this and priorities must be set so that staff does not spend thousands of hours needlessly. Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that one of the things he was going to suggest in -the new Code review was a procedure for ordinances where they would come to the Board first to see if the Board desired to.proceed with them. Questions continued regarding how this would apply to dif- ferent type developments, and Director Keating noted that this is just a provision of site plan approval; so it would just affect new developments. Commissioner Bird did not see any threshold relating to the size of the development, and Director Keating stated it would only be those that have a clubhouse common facility, 56 Mo Discussion ensued in regard to continuing on and opening the public hearing or tabling the matter. It was generally agreed that this ordinance needs a lot more work, and Commissioner Bird stressed that it should be tied to some type of size.. Motion was made by Commissioner Bowman to table. Further discussion continued on the need to readvertise or whether it might be better just to postpone the hearing, and Commissioner Bowman withdrew her Motion. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0) agreed to post- pone the hearing on the proposed ordinance re designa tion of polling places to a time certain at the December 2nd meeting and have staff workshop it in the interim. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE IN RS -3 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: 57 BOOK Ptd. � 8.92 s 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 matter of in the Court, was pub - A 0 4Aj- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; 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 adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me thi day of f usiness Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit CourtWndian River County, Florida) (SEAL) BOOK 65 " E��p NOTICE—PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of lounty Commissioners of Indian River County, londa, shall hold a public hearing at which par- es In Interest and citizens shall have an oppor- C" to be heard In .the County Commission fhambore of the bounty Administration Build- tg, located at 1840 25th St., Vero Beach, Flor- is, on Tuesday, September 30, 1985, at 9:15 i.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance ntlUed: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. q FLORIDA, AMENDING SEC- TION 8 (A� RS -3 AND RS -8, SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AREA REQUIREMENT FROM 900 SQUARE FEET AND F THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT FROM 15 TC LOS OF RECORD N THEOF FOR DATE. A coppyy of theproposed ordinance Is available d the planning Department office on the second loor of the County Administration Buiidinp. Anyone who may wish to appeal airy decision which may be made at this meeting will need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedingg i made which includes the testimony and evh lance upon which the appeal will be based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Dan C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation: 58 TO: The honorable Members DATE: September 16, 198FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: r SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE Robert M. Keatig, A AMENDMENT CONCERNING Planning & DE lopmer16 Director MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE IN RS -3 ZONING �S DISTRICT. Richard Shearer, _FROM: Chief, Long -Range Plann#V'uFERENCES:zoning Ord. Memo It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 30, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Subsequent to the County rezoning all of the unincorporated areas of the County in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, several problems have arisen in developing lots -of -record which have an LD -1 land use designation (allowing up to 3 units/acre) and which are now zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (upr to 3 units/acre). Many of these lots were platted under the old R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6 units/acre), regulations and some RS -3 zoned lots were platted prior to the County having a zoning ordinance. Many of these lots cannot meet the minimum size or dimension criteria of the RS -3 district so are nonconforming lots -of -record. The main problems are that the new RS -3 district requires a minimum dwelling unit size of 1200 square feet and a. minimum side yard setback of 15 feet. The old R-1 zoning district had a minimum dwelling unit size of 750 square feet and a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet. Moreover, the RS -3 district has a minimum lot width of 80 feet while the old R-1 district had a minimum lot width of 70 feet and several of the nonconforming lots -of -record in the RS -3 district were platted before the County had a zoning ordinance and are only 60 feet wide. Property owners have complained about 15 foot side yard setbacks on 60 foot wide lots which limit the width of houses to 30 feet. However, the largest problem has been in Vero Lake Estates where property owners are complaining about having to construct 1200 square foot houses on $2,500 lots. On August 28, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The planning staff feels that the RS -3 regulations are creating unnecessary hardships for many property owners who have nonconforming lots -of -record which were not designed to meet the RS -3 minimum requirements. While the staff feels that the RS -3 regulations are appropriate for the majority of the land designated as LD -1 on the Comprehensive Plan and that the RS -3 regulations should be applied to future subdivisions, some relief is necessary for the nonconforming lots -of -record which cannot meet the new RS -3 requirements. In order to grant some relief without damaging the integrity of the RS -3 district, staff -has prepared a proposed amendment to the RS -3 district which would allow nonconforming lots -of -record which are 70 feet or less in width to have their minimum side yard setback reduced to 10 feet. The proposed amendment would also reduce the minimum dwelling unit size for nonconforming lots -of -record to 900 square feet. 59 SEP 30 M6 aOu.. a F k,,; .. 894 4 RECOMMENDATION BOOK F'"r`. Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval of the attached zoning ordinance amendment. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioher Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 86-65 re- ducing the minimum floor area and side yard setback requirement for certain non -conforming lots in RS -3. Commissioner Bowman inquired whether this will result in having more houses built on 50' lots, and Planner Shearer noted that we really don't have anything to prevent them building on 50' lots. Chairman Scurlock commented on the fact that both the Commission and the public are having some difficulty with the various zoning designations, RS -3 and RS -6, for example. He believed it actually is impossible to attain 6 units most of the time and it is hard to explain that you really can't get that many. He felt possibly we should create some new categories and clarify these designations somehow so that they reflect what they really do. Director Keating noted that staff has struggled with this, and it seems that RS -6 is the biggest problem. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0), Commissioner Wodtke being absent. 60 8/21/86 pnot2 LR -Planning RS/vh ORDINANCE NO. 86- 65 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 6 (A). RS -3 AND RS -6, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE; PROVIDING FOR REDUCING THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENT FROM 1200 TO 900 SQUARE FEET AND REDUCING THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM 15 FEET TO 10 FEET FOR CERTAIN NON -CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD IN THE RS -3 ZONING DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. i BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1 Table 6 ,(Ay: Size and Dimension Criteria of Section 6 1,4y. RS -3 and RS -6, Single -Family Residential Districts, is hereby _ amended as follows: TABLE 6 AAY : SIZE AND DIMENSION CRITERIA RS -3 AND RS -6 DISTRICTS -- ZONING DISTRICT RS -3 - RS -6 REGULATION UNIT OF MEASURE MAX. DENSITY 3.0 6.0 d.u. per gross acre MIN. LOT SIZE 12,0001 7,0002 square feet MIN. LOT WIDTH 80 70 feet MIN. YARD - Front 25 20 - Side 15�- 10 feet - Rear 25 20 MIN. FLOOR AREA - SF 1,200 750 square feet MAX. BLDG. HEIGHT 35 35 feet MAX. LOT COVERAGE 30 30 % of lot MIN. OPEN SPACE 40 40 % of lot Notes: 1. In no case shall the density exceed three (3) dwelling units per acre. s 2. In no case shall the density exceed six (6) dwelling units per acre. CODING: Words in type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.SEP 3 0 T"86 Q BOOK `,� � SEP 30 1966 r� Q r BOOK F��I;r 89 ORDINANCE NO. 86- 65 3 The minimum side yard shall be reduced to ,10 feet for nonconforming lots of record lawfully created prior to April 11, 1985, which are .70 feet or less in width. 4 The minimum floor area shall be reduced to 900 square feet.. For dwellings constructed on nonconforming lots of record lawfully created prior to April 11, 1985, which contain less than 12,000 square feet of land area. SECTION 2 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 3 CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be Changed to '°section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY If in any section, part of a sentance, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not .affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. ' SECTION 5 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official CODING: Words intype are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. r ORDINANCE NO. 86- 65 acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this September 1986. 30th day of BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By /iw C _4e,1Lo&A Don Scurlock, Jr.,/ airman ORDINANCE RE SINGLE FAMILY DOCKS 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 Weekly I 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 I a d in the matter of in the the 1 �+( , Court, was Pub - 41. /`� lished in said newspaper in the issues of , Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County,. Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; 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 adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. /0 JV/7 Sworn to and subscribed beforevme thi;.,, �`��y day of A.D. W__1 • v-�w�y C • _ 0 j _a(Business Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Cou , Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) 63 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Rorlda, shall hold a public hearing at which par - gas In Interest and'ciUzens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard In the County Commission Chambers of the bounty Administration Build -1 Ing, located'at 1840 25th SL, Vero Beach, Flor- ida, onTuesday, September 30, 1988, at 9:15 a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled , AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SEC- TION 25.1. REGULATIONS FOR SPE- CIFIC PECIFIC IANCTIONgqD(( )U)SES; .AND AMENDING DISTRICT; SEACTIONI4( )G1 RFD URAL FRINGE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; 'SECTION 5(A). RS -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SECTION 9 (A). RS -3 & RS,6 SINGLE FAMILY REST- DENTIAL DISTRICTS; SECTION 9(A). RT -8, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DIS- TRICT; SECTION 10(A), RM -3, RM -4, & RM -8 MULTIPLE FAMILLY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; AND SECTION 11(A). RM -8, RM -10, & RM -14 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; OF APPEN- DIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. KNOWN AS THE ZON- ING CODE, ALLOWING FOR THE LIM FAD CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE - M LY DOCKS IN RESIDENTIAL ZO FOR RECEIVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE " PERMIT: PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF F CATION;NFLICTiNG SEVERABILITYORDINAN;AND EFFFDI- FEC- TIVE DATE. A copy of the proposed ordinance to avallabl at the Planning Department office on the second, floor of the County Administration Building. II Anyone who may wish to appeal any declsionl which may be made at this meeting will need td ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedingg is made which Includes the testimony and evh dente upon which the appeal will be based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners B :-s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman Sept 10,1see BOOK 6 5 F 8( Environmental Planner Challacombe made the following presentation: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 29. 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMEND- MENTS TO ALLOW SINGLE SUBJECT:. FAMILY DOCKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO Robert M. Keatil, Al CONSTRUCTION OF A PRINCI, Planning & Developme t Director PAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING -FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: Single Family Docks Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal - consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on September 30, 1986. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On July 16, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to prepare the required ordinance amendments which would -allow a single family dock to be constructed on a vacant lot prior to the construction of a principal residential dwelling. This direction came as the result of concern from several owners of vacant waterfront lots regarding possible state and federal regulations which could prohibit single dock construction or make permitting more difficult. At the public hearing held on August 28, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The ordinance amendments provide for the construction of single docks in all residential zoning districts where a single family residential dwelling is permitted, including dock construction in multiple family residential districts when proposed to be accompanied by a single family dwelling at some time in the future. The proposed ordinance amendments provide for single dock construction as an administrative permit to be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission pursuant to the procedures esta- blished in Section 23, Indian River County Code of Laws & Ordinances relating to site plan approval. With the designation of single-family docks on vacant lots as administrative permit uses, the Planning and Zoning Commission then has the opportunity to attach reasonable conditions to approval of dock requests. This may eliminate some of the potential undesirable effects caused by accessory uses without associated principal uses. The ordinance revisions also set certain informational and performance criteria which must be met by an applicant. 64 � r � 1 Specifically, these include: 5) submittal of a site plan depicting the dimensions, elevations and location of the dock structure; submittal of all applicable permits and lease or consent of use agreements; the posting of a $5,000 removal bond; the construction of the dock on pilings so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts; construction of the dock such that it will not impede water flow or navigation. w As structured, the attached ordinance will accomplish the desired objective; that is, it will ensure that riverfront property owners may construct docks without the expense of erecting a principal dwelling in order to protect themselves from possible state or federal legislation. It is staff's opinion, however, that accessory structures should not be permitted without an associated principal structure. Residential areas are designed primarily for housing, and stand-alone accessory structures have the potential to cause problems for such an area. Unlike most ordinances, this amendment to the zoning code would allow construction of a structure, yet prohibit its use. The mechanism employed to implement that provision is: a required removal bond to secure removal of the dock in the event that it is utilized prior to construction of a principal dwelling -on the subject property. Basically, this aspect of the ordinance recognizes both the pot?ntial adverse effects of independent accessory structures and the need to vest riverfront property owners with the ability to have dockage facilities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance. Planner Challacombe advised there is one minor correction to be made on the first page of the proposed ordinance. The RS -3 District should be included in paragraph b. as it is in the remainder of the ordinance. He further reported that he did check with the City of Vero Beach, and they have had no major problems with enforcement of their dock ordinance. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed - the public hearing. 65 As 0 BOOK 65 Fa E OOO e e Ep 3 ® 1936 BOOK 65 P�vJE 90� Commissioner Bowman noted that this amendment to the Zoning 4 Code will allow construction of a structure but not its use; so, why can't we just vest the permit? - Attorney Vitunac advised that all vested permits expire after a certain time if you don't proceed, and Director Keating agreed it would be preferable to do it that way, but he did not think it can be done. Commissioner Lyons believed people just want insurance against a change in the rules. Chairman Scurlock wanted to make sure we are only going to allow docks in the places they normally would be allowed, and Planner Challacombe assured him that this is all reviewed through the same procedure and staff would have to see all associated permits.. Commissioner Bowman questioned the use of the wording " vested riparian rights" in paragraph a. on Page 1 of the proposed ordinance as she felt riparian suggested that you own the bottom lands. She suggested saying "riparian access." Planner Challacombe believed that riparian rights just suggests there are certain legal rights of access, and this was confirmed by Attorney Vitunac, who stated that one does not actually own the bottom land. Discussion continued regarding the legal definition of riparian rights. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to adopt Ordinance 86-66 with the condition that the use of riparian rights be limited to access but not use of the bottom lands. Commissioner Bowman commented that the Coding phrase states that "Words underlined are additions." She felt possibly this should state double underlined because all the headings are underlined. 66 Assistant County Attorney Barkett advised the Board that riparian rights are the rights attaching to waterfront owners, not to the bottom lands. They are generally rights of access, ingress and egress and rights to use and recreate on the waterfront; they attach to any person who owns property that abuts a waterway; they do not imply ownership of the bottom lands. Commissioner Lyons asked that this be.made part of the record. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0). ORDINANCE NO. 86 66 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 25-1(c), REGULATIONS _FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES; AND AMENDING SECTION 4(A). A-1 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT; SECTION 4(A).l RFD RURAL FRINGE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; SECTION 5(A). RS -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SECTION 6(A). -RS -3 & RS -6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; SECTION 9(A). RT -6, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SECTION 10(A), RM -3, RM -4, & RM -6 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; AND SECTION 11(A). RM -8, RM -10 & RM -14 MULTIPLE FAMILY DIS- TRICTS; OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, ALLOWING FOR THE LIMITED CON- STRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY DOCKS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DIS- TRICTS; PROVIDING CRITERIA AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RECEIVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: OVOMTn" 1 Section 25.1(c) is hereby amended as follows: (7) Single family docks constructed prior to the construc- tion of a. principal single-family dwelling unit (Administrative Permit) ORDINANCE 86-66 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN ITS ENTIRETY. 67 r� s BOOK ;1 FAE � SEP 3 0 1986 (� r� (300K 65 FAGE c�0cY WATER IMPROVEMENTS - RIVER SHORES ESTATES SUBDIVISION The hour of 9:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J, Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumai, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a:� ifs /r, tam t� in the matter of In the c/ Court, was pub-, listed in said newspaper in the issues of i Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published. in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; 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 adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. OJ Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. i tdiness Manager) (5(:AL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County,. Florida) � PUBLIC NOTICE - TRACTS A'& BAND LOTS -1-37 OF PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of County IRIVER SHORES ESTATES SUBDW.' Commissioners of Indian.Rhrer County, Florida, SION, UNIT 1; RI hold a public hearing at 9:45 am. on Tues- TRACT A AND LOTS 1-34 OF RIVER day, September 30, 1888 in the Commission SHORES ESTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT Chambers located at 1840 26th Street, Vero 2; Beach; Florida, to consider adoption :,,:,f�LOTS 134 OF RIVER SHORES ES - lowing proposedreaolutlon:TATESSUBDIVISION,UNfT3 - RESQLUTION NO. —LOTS 1-15 OF RIVER SHORES ES-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT 4; COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN 1.93 ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY; ' RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING1 . PARCEL NUMBER 29 33 40 00000 0010 FOR CERTAIN WATER IMPROVE . -r 01.1; MENTS IN THE RIVER SHORES ES- 27.32 ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY, TATE3 SUBDIVISION, PROVIDING THE PARCEL NUMBER 29 33 40 00000 0010 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF 00001.0• PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS; NUM- 17.9 ARE PARCEL OF PROPERTY, BER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS AND PARCEL NUMBER 30 33 40 00000 1000 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF AREA I 004.0; AND SPECIFICALLY SERVED. }.. 6.58 ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY, WHEREAS, the Indian Rim County Udiifles = PARCEL NUMBER 30 33 40 00000 3000 Department has reeceived a public Improvement 0033'0,. t Mon requesting Estates Simprovements bd os on elong 12ther NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Street S.W., 12th Street S.E.'and 12th Place,'BO'RD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IN- Street, and DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; as follows: WHEREAS, the Indian River County Utilities 1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed grid Department recognize a need for water im- , tsfled in their entirely. provements within the River Shores Estates Sub- 2. A project providing for water Subdivision Improvements ifvision; and :, ' , _,.- In River Shares Estates Subdivision and WHEREAS, the Indian River County Public certain properties adjacent thereto, here- ftles Health Department has expressed Concern re- designated as Indian River. County U ap- 3ardin I the safety and quality of Ste exis<hng j Number the ter 4 DS, Is hereby ap- irinking water resources within the River Shores subject q the terms outlined above and Estates Subdivision and has recommendad pub- scab a requirements w Ordinance y Co le water be provided to the Subdivision.- and foregoing resolution was offered by Com- . WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 81-27. the over who moved 3oard of County Commissioners of Indian River �o� u� being 'ounty Is authorized to Improve and establish to vote, the vote was as follows: arvices and water system Improvements, and i Chairman Dont. Schulock, Jr. suthorized to provide for payment of the whole Vice -Chairman Patrick B. Lyons wst thereof by levying and collecting assess- , Commissioner Richard N. Bird vents upon property deemed to benefit by such CommissionerVargaret C. Bowman mprovements; and Commissioner Wiliam C. Wodtke, Jr. WHEREAS. conceptual design work Including '-The Chairman thereupon declared the resblu- me estimates for constructionof water kn duly' passed and adopted this day Rim nents In the Shores Estates Su sionOf, 1988, las been completed by the Indian River. County ., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Jtilities Department and Its contracted englrnw OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/ FLORIDA anrtgd firm, Masteller and Moler Assoclates, Inc C Scudock, Jr, n, WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the pro, ATTEST t msed water Improvements to the owners of -8-Freft Wright Cleric' a" )roperty, that will benefit'from the project Is Approved as to form 6162.868.76; and and legal sufficiency: , WHEREAS, the special assessment provided.s-Charles P. Vitunac ; *reundershall be an equal proportion of 100%( N the total cost of the project for each t1 PLE�t ASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE ttuf at the ,ecord owner of property within the specific area Same public hearing, the Board Of County Com- )enefited, and on which a reddens is located missionere shall also hear all Interested persona )r could be located; and . - I . regarding the proposed ASSESSMENT ROLL. for Provided WHEREAS, the special assessment proimprovements described in the above resolu- tereunder shall become due and payable at Ireton, The Preliminary Assessment Roll and Pet )Moe of the Tax Collector of Indian River County is currently on file with the County Division tlnety (90) days after the final determination ofm Utility Services and the office of the County he spedal assessment pursuant,to Ordinance Administrator and is open for Ir on be - i1 -27; and tween the hours of 8:30 arc. and 53300 pm, Mon - V 9&EAS, all special assessments not P81d day through Friday.. within said ninety (90) day:period shall thereuml-if a person decides to appeal any decision made con become payable in equal Installments In by the Commission with respect to Jany matter each of the succeeding 11" years -with Interestgonaidered at this hearing; he will.need k record established at 12% from the expiration of salgctf the proceedings and that, for such .purpose nhrety (90) days. payable annually; but any as he or she may need to ensure that a�verbatrni sessment becoming so Payable4r), installmentorscord of the proceedings Is made which record may be paid at any time together with Interestindudes the testimony and evidence (fin which accrued thereon to date of p rlt and appeal is to be based , # , 'WHEREAS. aft exeminat6on cit Ire new INDIAN RiVER COUN Y R tend the anticipated usage Of the proposed Itn- ff , L. S. THOMAS provements, the Board of County Comm i ; ACTiNG COUNTY ADMiNIISTRA,' OR are has determined that the following descni Sept. "12;1988 Drooertes shall receive direct and spedai ktrroet6>esahrcmovemente.-towlii. ._. _ Ron Brooks, Environmental Engineering Specialist, made the staff presentation: 68 L= TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO S DATE: September 17, 1986 THRU: Terrance G. Pinto Director of Utility Services FROM: Ronald R. BrooksiG, f Environmental Engineering Specialist SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR WATER IMPROVEMENTS IN RIVER SHORES ESTATES SUBDIVISION BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS When the South County Reverse Osmosis Water Plant was proposed for construction, property owners within the River Shores Estates Subdivision petitioned to be included in the service area of the initial construction phase of the proposed County water system. Unfortunately, provision of water service to the subdivision was apparently not cost effective at the time and water service was not provided. With the development of Grove Isle, a water main was extended from Oslo Road south along U.S. 1, thereby providing water service availability to River Shores Estates. On June 9, 1986, a petition for water service, with the signatures of approximately 43% of the property owners in River Shores Estates, was again submitted. The River Shores Estates Subdivision is located adjacent to the Indian River and the eastern' half of the subdivision was historically an environmentally sensitive area that was dredged and filled to provide a typical finger canal residential community. Within the subdivision,..the fresh water aquifer is extremely shallow and is subject to salt water intrusion, thereby providing very limited drinking water resources that are highly susceptible to contamination. Some of the property owners, having been unable to obtain usable water from the shallow fresh water aquifer, have elected to construct very expensive floridan °aquifer wells. -However, water from the flor_idan aquifer still requires very expensive treatment to provide safe drinking water. The Indian River County Public Health Unit has recommended (Exhibit I) that a public water system be constructed within the subdivision due to the prevalence of groundwater contamination in the very limited groundwater resources. As indicated in their memorandum, conditions for a serious health problem presently exist and they will only worsen with further development of the subdivision. The Division of Utility Services likewise recognizes a need for a safe and dependable water supply within the subdivision. It appears inevitable that a water system will have to be provided and, with the rising construction costs, now is the time to provide the service with the least expense to the property owners. - Under Ordinance 81-27, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to establish services and improvements, to include water systems. The Commission may do so at its discretion without petition. The Board is also authorized to provide for the payment of the improvements by levying and collecting special assessments upon properties deemed to benefit by such improvement. A cost estimate and proposal for engineering services (Exhibit II) for provision of water improvements to Indian River Shores Estates and certain properties adjacent thereto has been prepared by the engineering firm, Masteller and Moler Associates, Inc. The Division of Utility Services has also prepared a Preliminary Assessment Roll (Exhibit III) and determined a total estimated cost of $162,868.76 to the property owners for the water improvements. 69 BOOK S E P 30 198 BOOK 5 F,Gr 905 The proposed project will initially be paid with funds in the Utility Impact Fee Fund. Advertisement of the public hearing and preliminary assessment roll was provided by public notice (Exhibit IV) in a local newspaper and all property owners have been notified by certified mail (Exhibit V) pursuant to the requirements of Ordinance 81=27. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners evaluate the need for a safe and dependable water supply within the River Shores Estates Subdivision and, after consideration of public input at the public hearing, exercise its authority under Ordinance 81-27 to provide water improvements by: 1. Adopting the attached Resolution providing for the construction of water improvements subject to the terms of said Resolution and with an interest rate of 12%. 2. Approving the Preliminary Assessment Roll with any changes that may be required by the Board.as a result of the public hearing. 3. Authorizing the use of water Impact Fees to provide initial funding of the project. 4. Authorizing the Chairman of the Board to execute the attached scope of engineering services by Masteller and Moler, Inc. 5. Authorize the Division -of Utility Services to advertise for bids and proceed with the construction of the subject water improvements. Chairman Scurlock inquired about the level of chlorides the residents are experiencing in the deep wells, and Engineer Brooks noted that staff has not done testing, but historically in this area the TDS levels can run from 600 to 1000. Safe water standards are 250 on chlorides and 500 on TDS. Chairman noted that apparently the deep wells far exceed the parameters set by the State Safe Water Drinking Act. Engineer Brooks reviewed the potential for contamination in wells drawing from the shallow aquifer with salt water intrusion, septic tanks, etc. He advised that the assessment roll will be approximately $1,300 for each property owner and is done per property where single family residences are feasible. On a double lot where another structure cannot be built, there will not be an assessment. 70 M Chairman Scurlock noted that the assessment actually is on an ERU basis rather than lineal footage. Commissioner Bird inquired about payment options, and Mr. Brooks explained that it is proposed that they pay it up front in 90 days or they can spread it out over five years at 12% interest and pay it through the Tax Collector's office. They also can make other arrangements with the Utility Department. Chairman Scurlock asked if someone could not get a health permit and could not get a potable well, whether we still would issue a building permit and allow construction to take place. Mr. Brooks believed it is conceivable we would because there are methods of treating the water. Michael Galanis of Environmental Health and Acting County Health Director informed the Board that basically there are'no standards for private wells in the State of Florida. 'Unfortunately the law says if you have your own private water supply, it can be of any standard you want it to be, but if you serve water to the public or the supply serves four or -more connections, then it has to begin meeting certain standards. Chairman Scurlock asked if the water in River Shores Estates Subdivision is safe or not, and Mr. Galanis stated that while he did not think it is unique in this community, he did believe it could cause adverse reactions to people's health. Utilities Director Terry Pinto wished to point out that the system is also being designed to provide fire protection, and it was noted that this does give a break in fire insurance premiums with many companies. Discussion arose about the fact that the $1,300 takes the line to the property line not to the house, and Assistant Utilities Director Barton advised that the fee is divided into two parts. The basic fee is to extend the lines down the street. The people then have the option to connect to the system, and if they chose to connect, they then pay the impact fee for plant capacity, 71 BOOK b5 Ft4GE. a SEP 3 0 1996 BOOK ujt 9.07 which is $1,140, plus $115 for the meter and a security deposit of $40.00. Commissioner Bird inquired about the average cost for running from our line to the resident's house, and Assistant Director Barton noted that it depends on where their well connects into the house. It basically calls for using 111PVC line from the meter into the house, and Mr. Barton estimated the cost to be between $150-200. The total cost of all fees to actually get in service is around $3,000. Utilities Director Pinto felt it should be understood that the assessment for the improvements is mandatory, but impact fees will be paid only when someone chooses to connect. Those owning empty lots, however, will not be able to put in a well, and will have to connect to the system when they build. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Robert Caron of River Shores made the point that the percentage that was taken was only against residences.that are in existence, and there are about 4 to 10 out on the canals that are inclined to go in also. He believed most of those he has talked to are for the water. Virgil Tetzworth, River Shores resident, advised that he is a property appraiser. Approximately 400 of the subdivision is undeveloped at present, and he felt now is the time to bring the water in before more people build and you may have more opposition. Mr. Tetzworth, based on his own experience, felt the amount of cost to bring water to the subdivision, including impact fees, etc., would wash out when compared to the value that would be added to the property because of the availability of water. Chairman Scurlock asked how many people present were in favor of the improvements, and about 20 people raised their hands while about 5 indicated their opposition. 72 W ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Resolution 86-84 pro- viding for construction of water improvements at River Shores Estates at 12% interest and also to approve the remaining staff recommendations 2 'through 5 as set out in memo dated September 17, 1986. Commissioner Bird felt a bit uncomfortable with the 12% interest rate since the prime is now 71%, but he realized this can change. Director Pinto felt it must be kept in mind that we have a self-supporting utility department; we have to lay the cash out for that amount of time, and we would rather not do that. He noted that the people do have the ability to borrow elsewhere. George Kulzycki of River Shores wished to have some idea of when all the steps in the required process can be completed and they can get water. It was explained that the Motion made would adopt the preliminary assessment roll, authorize the engineering services needed for design, as well as authorize advertising for bids and proceeding with construction. Utilities Director Pinto estimated they could have water in about three months. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0) 73 A 9/8/86 UTIL RRB/h RESOLUTION NO. 86-84 BOOK 65 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA., PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN WATER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE RIVER SHORES ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF AREA SPECIFICALLY SERVED. WHEREAS, the Indian River County Utilities Department has received a public improvement petition requesting water improvements within the River Shores Estates Subdivision along 12th Street, S.W., 12th Street, S.E., and 12th Place, S.E.; and WHEREAS, the Indian River County Utilities Department recognizes a need for water improvements within the River Shores Estates Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Indian River Countv Public Health Department has expressed concern regarding the safety and quality of the existing drinking water resources within the River Shores Estates Subdivision and has recommended public water be provided to -the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 81-27, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County is authorized to improve and establish services and water system improve- ments, and is authorized to provide for payment of the whole cost thereof by levying and collecting assessments upon property deemed to -benefit by such improvements; and WHEREAS, conceptual design work including cost estimates for construction of water improvements in the River Shores Estates Subdivision has been completed by the Indian River County Utilities Department and its contracted engineering firm, Masteller and Moler Associates, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed water improvements to the owners of property that will benefit from the project is $162,868.76; and -1- WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall be an equal proportion of 100% of the total cost of the project for each given record owner of property within the specific area benefited, and on which a residence is located or could be located; and WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall become due and payable at the office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County. ninety (90) days after the final determination of the special assessment pursuant to Ordinance 81-27 and WHEREAS, all special assessments not paid within said ninety (90) day period shall thereupon become payable in equal installments in each of the succeeding five years with interest established at 12% from the expiration of said ninety (90) days, payable annually; but any assessment becoming so payable in installments may be paid at any time together with interest accrued thereon to date of payment; and WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and the anticipated usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the following described properties shall receive direct and special benefit from these improvements, to wit: TRACTS A & B AND LOTS 1-37 OF RIVER SHORES ESTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1; TRACT A AND LOTS 1-34 OF RIVER SHORES ESTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT 2; LOTS 1-34 OF RIVER SHORES ESTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT 3; LOTS 1-15 OF RIVER SHORES ESTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT 4; 1.93 ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY, PARCEL NUMBER 29 33 40 00000 0010 0i.1; 27.32 ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY, PARCEL NUMBER 29 33 40 00000 0010 00001.0; 17.9 ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY, PARCEL NUMBER 30 33 40 00000 1000 00004.0; AND 6.58 ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY, PARCEL NUMBER 30 33 40 00000 3000 0033.0. -2- SEP 3 0 1986 BOOK 65 FvuE. 91® t BOOK 65 Pfa,r .1�. .c NOW THEREFORE,_BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and satisfied in their entirety. 2. A project providing for water improvements within River Shores Estates Subdivision and along certain properties adjacent thereto, heretofore designated as Indian River County Utilities Project Number UW86-14-DS, is hereby approved subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable requirements of Ordinance 81-27. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons , who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman , and upon being put to vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice -Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke,Jr. Absent The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 30th day of Snpt .mb .r , 1986. ATTEST: t i%eeex -4� Fred Wrigh_t,1 erk Q Ali . C . Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: �!" � , ' Z , -4 Do . Scurloc , Jr Chairman i RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT PETITION - CRIPPEN The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being Z/46L I a in the matter of _ /,;& in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; 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 adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed (SEAL) t (Clerk of the Circuit it • i(Business Manager) River County, Florida) NtOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A PETI-TION FOR THE CLOSING,' ABANDONMENT, AND VACATION OF 133rd STREET LYING ATA POWT--.OF, BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET SOUTH OF THE 133RD STREET/ROSE- LAND ROAD INTERSECTION AND EXTENDING rULLUVWS: Description: LYING IN SECTION 21 OF 'THE FLEMING GRANT., "'SAID' RIGHT-OF-WAY 'BEING MORE '; PARTICULARLYDESCRIBED AS' FOL �; LOWS: -,THAT 'PORTION. -OF; 4133RD STREET `. FOUNDED ON THE NORTH BYrTHE i 'EASTERLY PROJECTION -OF'', THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 19 ON THE "SOUTH 'BY THE EASTERLY -PROJEC- TION OF THE SOUTH LINE. OF,LOT,18, ON THE WEST BY THE NORTWPROP- is ERTY LINES OF SAID LOTS 18 AND 19 AND ON THE EAST BY THE WESTERLY -_ RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD ALL OF THE ,., ABOVE SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF AA BERRY'S SUBDIVISION OF ' SECTION 21, FLEMING GRANT. ACCORDING TO' THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN . PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 14, PUBLIC RECORDS OF.- ST. - LUCIE -COUNTY ;`-NOW INDIAN RIVER. COUNTY,. PLOR• .` A public hearing at whichpaiilesin Interest and citizens shall have an, opportunity to be heard, will be. held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the Commission Chambers of the County Adminis- tration Building, located at 1840 25th St., Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, • September 30, 1988, at 10:00 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be meds at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made which Includes,theAestimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal will be based Indian River County Board of County Comrnissloners By: -s -Don C. Scu►lock, Jr Chairman . Sept. 22,1988,: Attorney Vitunac raised a question about the legality of the ad which apparently was only published on September 22nd and by law should have been published twice. Staff explained that the ad was first run on September 10th, but there was a minor error in the legal description which was rectified and run again at the later date. The proof was from the later publication. Staff later supplied the proof dated 77 BOOK U5 F,vu-L 12 4 4 • q; Boot 5 P{,F 913 September 10th, which is as follows, and Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that there was proper notice. ` 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 > r v in the matter of In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; 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 adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. r - Sworn to and subs6ribed3kFfore me this o day of A.D. � a a q��'4�tdusiness Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SFAL) NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A PETI- TION FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT, AND VACATION OF 133RD STREET LYING AT A POINT OF BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY 250 FT. EAST OF THE 133RD STREET/ROSELAND ROAD INTERSECTION AND EXTENDING AN ADDITIONAL 389 FT. EAST. SAID ROAD BEING MORE, PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOL- LOWS: Description: LYING IN SECTION 21 OF THE FLEMING GRANT. SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS FOL_ LOWS:, THAT PORTION OF 133RD STREET BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE EASTERLY PROJECTION OF THE NORTH UNE OF LOT 19 ON THE _ SOUTH BY THE EASTERLY PROJEC- TION OF THE SOUTH UNE OF LOT 18 ON THE WEST BY 'i'HE NORTH PROP- ERTY LINES OF SAID LOTS 18 AND 19 AND ON THE EAST BY THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD ALL OF THE ABOVE SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF A.A. BERRY'S SUBDIVISION OF SECTION PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 14, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, NOW INDIAN . RIVER. COUNTY, FLOR, IOA.' A public hearing at which parde's In Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missionere of Indian River County, Florida, In the Commission Chambers of the County AdminIs- tration Building, located at 1840 25th St, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday.. September 30, 1988, at 10:00 am. - Anyone whom may wish to appeal any decl- slon which may be .made at this meeting will lead to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro. *eding is made which Includes the testimony Ind evidence upon which the appeal will be )ased. Indian River County V Board of County Commisslcners B -s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr Chairman iept.10,19M , . Staff Planner David Nearing made the following staff. presentation: 78 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 9, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: W. RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT Robert M. Kea ing l- AICP SUBJECT: PETITION SUBMITTED BY Planning & Development Director STANDISH F. CRIPPEN, JR. THROUGH: Michael K. Miller Mo Chief, Current Development _FROM: David C. Nearing REFERENCES: Crippen Staff Planner a -e4 DAVE It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of Tuesday, September 30, 1986. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Mr. Standish F. Crippen has submitted a right-of-way abandonment petition requesting that the County abandon a section of 133rd Street which lies approximately 250 feet south of the 133rd Street/Roseland Road intersection and extends an additional 269 feet south. The applicant is requesting this abandonment due to the fact that the road has not yet been constructed, and --the applicant desires frontage upon the FEC railroad to develop the property for industrial use as permitted in the IL, Light Industrial Zoning District. The petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way, as per guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners for processing right-of-way abandonment applications. All reviewing agencies, which included the Public Works Division, the Utilities Division, Florida Power arid Light and Southern Bell, recommended approval of the petition for abandonment. However, the County Public Works and Utilities Departments have requested that this portion of 133rd Street proposed for abandonment be granted to the County as a drainage and utilities easement. The petitioner is in agreement with this request. ANALYSIS The 50 ft. wide unimproved right-of-way is not part of the roadway system noted on the County Thoroughfare Plan and its need as such is not anticipated. It is the opinion of the petitioner that this portion of 133rd Street hinders proper development of the property for uses permitted by the zoning district in which this property lies and therefore its abandonment is reasonable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County abandon its rights wide portion of 133rd Street right-of-way:, with the the requested drainage and utility easement,) and Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners t attached Resolution (Attachment #3). 79 BOOK to the 50 foot exception of authorize the o execute the 'r{uE 914 4 BOOK 65 mu.915 Chairman Scurlock asked why we are only abandoning a portion rather than the whole thing, and Planner Nearing advised that this was the only portion requested and staff deals with this on a case by case basis. Commissioner Bird wondered, in a case such as this where quite an amount of land would revert to the property owner and enhance his property, whether the county should receive some compensation. Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that it depends on how the County got the land. The law says even if you have title as opposed to an easement, when your need for the road disappears, it should go back to the property from which it came without purchase. Attorney Vitunac noted, however, that the Board in their decision to declare this property surplus could say that unless we get some money for it, we are going to keep it as a road; there is some bargaining room. . Chairman Scurlock had a great deal of reluctance to -abandon any right-of-way or easement because he could remember when the City Council had to buy back R/Ws they had abandoned. Commissioner Bird noted that if all these properties run from the railroad tracks through to Gibson Road and they can access off of Gibson Road, then perhaps we don't need that R/W. Chairman Scurlock asked if the petitioner's issue is that he needs access to the railroad for a spur, couldn't that be accomplished without giving up all our rights. Planner Nearing felt we are covering this by requesting easements. Staff at present sees no plans for ever putting in a right-of-way; it would not be a good intersection design with Roseland Road and the railroad tracks, and the right-of-way is also substandard in size. Commissioner Bowman also expressed her disinclination to give away property. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. 80 M M M Glenn Schroeder of Fleming Grant Road informed the Board that he owns Lot 17 of A.A.Berry Subdivision, and he felt if the Board abandons this as requested, it will hinder his future plans. His property is the piece directly adjacent and east of the dump, and his present access is a narrow dirt path. Fred Mensing of 129th St., Roseland, came before the Board to speak of potential future industrial development in the area and the importance of access. He noted that some ofthelots in this area are very deep lots and there are some owners who would like to subdivide. He further stated that he is involved with people who are dealing with General Development Corp, on a large piece of property in this area (possibly 50 acres) zoned industrial, which they are offering at $40,000 an acre. Mr. Mensing stated that the access to this property is from uncompleted Gibson'St., for which there is an 100' R/W, and from 79th or 80th -Avenue to Roseland Road, there is a 50' R/W. These streets were platted by Florida Land Development Company in about 1913 when this was -St. Lucie County, and it is quite confusing. Mr. Mensing went on to discuss the possibility of the County trading off the railroad crossing at Bay Street or Old Dixie for one in this area or building a bridge to cross the railroad which Director Davis estimated would cost from $70-90,000. He also brought up the possibility of Gibson St. being a one-way street, and urged the county to retain what has been there since 1913 unless they sell it at its fair market value. Mr. Mensing felt the right-of-way requested was something around 6001, not 295' and would give the petitioner close to an acre of land at $40,000 an acre. Jack Davis, commercial real estate consultant, came before the Board representing the petitioner, Standish Crippen, Jr. He explained that their feeling initially was that the road had not been used and had no foreseeable use. Therefore, they applied for the abandonment since they do want a railroad siding. Mr. Davis noted they had talked to staff about access at Gibson St., �" 81 SEP nu 65 V'D'U. 9l6 SEP 3 ® 1956 BOOK 65 FnUU 91 7 and he believed Mr. Schroeder does have access at Gibson. He 4 continued that it was their understanding that Gibson at some point in time would be extended down to 9th Street, and he also felt it was a requirement of the Saint Sebastian PUD that they take the crossing at 9th Street across to U.S.1 for their secondary access. Mr. Davis argued that their request is a reasonable one - the county is retaining all this for a drainage and utility easement, and he also did not agree that $40,000 an acre is necessarily a fair market value. Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Mensing if he knew how the county did acquire this property, and Mr. Mensing advised that it appears in the replat of the A.A.Berry Subdivision in 1913 but whether it was a request of the St. Lucie County Commission at that time or whether it was purchased, he had no idea. It was done at the same time as all of the streets in the original townsite of Roseland. Commissioner Bird believed our policy has been that if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that we have no need for the property, we deed it back, but he believed in this case there is a question and we must be very conservative. He would like to be cooperative with Mr. Crippen and possibly allow him the use of the right-of-way in some reasonable fashion, but as far as deeding it to him outright, he believed the property undoubtedly has some value to the Crippens and to the county as well. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. Director Keating commented that the Zoning Code says if property abuts a railroad, there is no setback requirement. With the R/W there is a 20' setback. That would not affect establishment of an easement. Staff also assumed that a lot of people who want 82 W light industrial by the railroad would be Looking at a railroad siding, and the road R/W could significantly affect that. Staff looked at this very carefully to be sure all the properties accessing the R/W do have a form of access, and they all currently can access off Gibson St. Discussion continued at length, and Commissioner Lyons pointed out that you certainly are not going to put a dock on the main line of the railroad, you will have to put a spur somewhere; so, he could not understand why it is so important to get rid of that street. He stated that he personally will vote against giving up the R/W because he felt a project can be accommodated and still leave the R/W. One of these days there will be a major upheaval in that area to get a reasonable traffic pattern, and before we give up anything, he felt we should be very sure what our traffic pattern will be. Commissioner Bird agreed it could be that area eventually will be something like the corridor we have between U.S.1 and Old Dixie in the Wabasso area, and we might want to put that street in rather than having the access shared by residential and commercial. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) denied the abandonment requested by Mr. Crippen, but suggested he work with staff to try to find a vehicle to enable him to utilize the property across that 50' R/W in some temporary fashion that would not preclude our ever putting a road there. RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT PETITION - ROSELAND UNITED METHODIST CHURCH The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 83 BOOK 65 SEP 3 0 1986 SEP 30 1986 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly ti 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 J;+� /_%� • / "/ l `;% V Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the, said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; 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 adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this ` day of A. D. ' • 9usiness Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court dean River County, Florida) BOOK 65 [ii%U. M -_ NOTICE OVPU&uc NG NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A PETI-1 TION FOR THE AND VACATION OF A CLOS FOO ABA. LYING IN THE CENTER OF BLOCK 9 TOWNSITE OF ROSELAND SUBDIVISION RUNNING IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION BETWEEN JOSIE AND; BAIRD STREETS. SAID ALLEY BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Description: A 16 FOOT ALLEY LYING NORTH AND ADJACENT TO LOTS 6, 7, S. 9 and.10 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN. SITE OF ROSELAND ACCORDING TO PLAT FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 43. SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Public lswhich InInteresthel atng havanpponun to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com. missioners of Indian River County. Florida, In the Commission Chambers of the County Adminle- tration Building, located at 1640 25th St., Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday. September 30,. 1986.8t 10:00 a.m. Anyone whom may wish to appeal any deci- sion which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro= ceeandddievdenceauponhwhichclthe appeal�wiUobe based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman Sept 10, 1966 Staff. Planner David Nearing made the following presentation: TO: The Honorable Members ®ATE: September 10, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT Robert M. Keating, ..-W1CP SUBJECT: PETITION SUBMITTED BY Planning & Development Director THE ROSELAND UNITED METHODIST CHURCH THROUGH: Michael K. Miller �,�n Chief, Current Development �1"` -FROM: David C. Nearing REFERENCES: Roseland Church Staff Planner telt DAVE It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of Tuesday, September 30, 1986. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The Roseland United Methodist Church requesting that the County abandon an center of Block 9 of the Townsite of Josie and Baird Streets. The church ow the south right-of-way line of the a] church structure, classroom facilities, by the church are currently located. 84 has submitted a petition alley ROW which lies in the Roseland extending between ns the -property which abuts .ley on which the existing and a thrift -shop operated On June 12, 1986, the Roseland United Methodist Church submitted a site plan which proposed the construction of a 3,300 square foot addition to the existing church structure. The existing church structure is approximately 15 feet from the north property line that abuts the alley ROW in question and the proposed addition is also 15 feet from the alley. Although churches are considered to be a use which requires special exception approval in an RS -3, Single Family Residential District, this is an addition to an existing special exception use and no public hearings are required in order for the facility to be enlarged. The new facility must conform to the regulations for this specific land use as set forth in County Code Section 25.1(F)(3). One of the criteria of this section states that no building or structure shall be located closer than 30 feet to any property line abutting a residential use or district [Sec. 25. 1 (F) (3) (d) (1) 1. The existing structure is located only 15 feet from the north property line, and the plan proposes to attach the new structure to the existing structure which would also place it only 15 feet from the property line. This would cause the new structure to be in violation of the setback requirements. However, abandonment of the alley will provide additional space for construction of the addition in conformance with setback requirements. The petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way, as per guidelines established by the pard of County Commissioners for processing right-of-way abandonaient applications. All reviewing agencies, which included the Public Works Division, the Utilities Division, Florida Power and Light and Southern Bell, recommended approval of the petition for abandonment. Staff also contacted the four property owners whose property abuts the alley to the north, since they had chosen to utilize the alley for access instead- of Seminole Street, a platted right- of-way abutting Block 9 on the north. Two of the property owners responded and requested that the alley be retained since they -have been using the alley to gain access to parking in the rear of their property. Even though two of the lots use the alley for access, no paved drives, garages, or other types of automobile shelters have been installed. ANALYSIS In analyzing this petition, staff examined the impact of abandoning the alley in Block 9 of the Townsite of Roseland Subdivision. The alley causes'a situation where all abutting lots have a double frontage. Such a situation is highly discouraged by staff and the current subdivision ordinance, and in certain cases, special, design modifications such as buffer yards or additional lot depth are now required. Double frontage lots could allow several points of access to the thoroughfare system, where staff normally attempts to limit the number of access points. Also the dimen- sions of the alley do not allow for safe two-way traffic flow, and meet only the dimensional requirements of a one-way flow pattern, However, this situation is not being properly controlled by any accepted means such as directional signs or pavement markings. This situation also allows for the potential infraction of the County Code concerning parking in the required rear yard setbacks. Parking is allowed in the front yard setbacks but prohibited .in all other required yards. The alley, though a principal means, is not the exclusive means of access. Currently only two of the five lots which abut the north side of the alley utilize it for access; one utilizes access off of Baird Street, and the remaining two are vacant. The alley is only marginally improved, being unpaved, ungraded, and only cleared of most vegetative obstructions. There are no apparent signs of maintenance. St+ 85 BOOK 6 5 FA"iE 92® 4 SEP 3 4 198 E;oo� F�cr. -I The applicant chose to pursue the abandonment of the alley in question because abandonment of the alley would provide additional distance between the existing facility and the residential properties to the north. Though the site design for the church expansion would still require alteration, the applicant would be able to develop the site in a manner more in accordance with the originally submitted design. Should the alley be abandoned, it would allow the church to develop its property more in line with what the petitioner desires and in conformance with current County standards. The 16 foot wide alley is not part of the roadway system desig- nated by the County Thoroughfare Plan, and its need as such is not anticipated. ALTERNATIVES In reviewing this petition, staff has examined several alternatives to the situation. In developing these alternatives, staff took into account the opinions of the surrounding property owners and the situation of the petitioner. Following are a list of alternatives developed: 1. The Commission may deny the petition. This course of action would result in no change in the status of the alley, and it would allow those currently utilizing it to continue. However, this would result in the petitioner being forced to redesign his proposed site plan, producing a design less suitable to his needs. This would then leave the option for the petitioner to obtain a variance from the ordinance in reference to.the setback requirements. However, if it cannot be shown that the applicant suffers from a hardship peculiar to this property, which would deny use of the property, the granting of a variance is unlikely. If a variance were not granted, the remaining- recourse would be to apply for a change in the ordinance dealing with the required setback. 2. 'The Commission may grant the request for abandonment. This course of action would aid the petitioner in completing his project. Those properties currently utilizing the alley for access would have the option of relocating their access to Seminole Street, or arranging for private access easements through the former alley. The latter would cause no change from the former situation except for ownership of the alley property. The easement situation would, of course, be a matter which the parties involved would be required to work out privately. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: (1) Accept option number two, granting of the abandonment, and allowing the properties involved to arrange for private access easements, and (2) authorize the Chairman of the County Commission to execute the attached Resolution (Attachment #3). Chairman Scurlock noted that it appears some individuals do use that alley for access and would have some problem with the County giving it up. Planner Nearing believed that the church would be agreeable to allowing them an access easement to continue using it as they have in'the past. 86 Discussion ensued in regard to how we insure that these residents can continue to maintain their use of the access, and Attorney Vitunac advised that the church can enter into an access agreement with anyone who has a problem. Commissioner Lyons felt that should have been done before we proceed with the abandonment, and Attorney Vitunac noted that the Board could make the abandonment subject to the church making such agreements. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. David Rever of Carter Associates came before the Board representing the church and confirmed that the church intends to work with those who have a problem re use of the alleyway. They do need the additional property, and they would certainly ask that the Board approve the abandonment with the condition that the church grant an easement so these people can continue their use of the alleyway. Commissioner Bowman felt if there are five lots involved, they should all have that right. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 86-85 abandoning the 16' alley as re- quested by the Roseland United Methodist Church with the understanding the church will grant ease- ments to all the lots backing on that alley for access. 87 noD f � t J Bou 65 F �� 9 RESOLUTION NO. 86-85 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT, AND VACATION OF A 16 FOOT ALLEY LYING IN THE CENTER OF BLOCK 9 TOWN - SITE OF ROSELAND SUBDIVISION RUNNING IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION BETWEEN JOSIE AND BAIRD STREETS. WHEREAS, on July 21, 1986, the County received a duly execut- ed and documented petition from the Roseland United Methodist Church, P. 0. Box 157, Roseland Road, Roseland, Florida, request- ing the County to close, vacate, abandon, and disclaim any right, title, and interest of the County and the public in and to the 16 foot alley lying in the center of Block 9 Townsite of Roseland subdivision running in an easterly direction between Josie and Baird Streets. WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §336.10, notice of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly published; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting documents, staff investigation and. report, and testimony of all those interested and present, the Board finds that said right- of-way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within any municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity of the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to any given private property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS- SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. All right, title and interest of the County and the public in and to that certain right-of-way being more particularly described as: A 16 FOOT ALLEY LYING NORTH AND ADJACENT TO LOTS 6,7,8,9 and 10 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ROSELAND ACCORDING TO PLAT FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 43. SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered, discon- tinued, remised and released. 2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the date of adoption hereof; and 3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution together with the proofs of publication required by Florida Statutes §336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River County without undue delay. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice -Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent RESOLUTION NO. 36-85 The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 30th day of September , 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER OUN Y LORIDA BY: / C Don C. Scurlock r. Attest: , Freda Wright, T e lj' State of Florida VI County of Indian o�lU« I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer my authorized in this State and County to take acknowledge ents, personally appeared DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. and FREDA WRIGIT, as Y Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and Clerk, respec- tively, to me known to be the-, persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and officia seal i the County and State last aforesaid this 3,671lday of A.D., 1986. Na ary IMbliC ' HUMANA HOSPITAL - HOSPITAL FRANCHISE RATE STRUCTURE The hour of 10:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: rM 89 BOOK 6 4 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida BOOK 65 P,4JE?0 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: mon '' q1""" """ 4 - a�on STATE OF FLORIDA V. B Florida at Tuesday the 30th day of September, IM. tO 00neider tM Before the undersigned authority personally a g y pe y ppeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published re4� m Hwnana Hospaai Water Systmn Fran chile to establish a water rete schedule. Thr at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being rate schedule will to brown �� n, $5.00 per EWlvalent 1.000allon1$zooPar .. - . a J`!r1�t�Lf , iallism "Meatier of �Dmm9 PW monttht��t�a�-�'Fnn.: .. CONNECTION - FEE> NILL in the matter of f/�� t.4 --�r CHARGED. --' ' ,,!:.1 The proposed rete Schedule Is bailed ' on ttt85-55 opera0n9 - and does .. not re5act tun recovery agog costa and return on Capital n* ...4 AU Interested Parties, will be hearQ this18th of SepMmber. in the Court, was pub- 11Dated , OF COUNTY BOARD OF - Al INDIAN RIVER 6OU OCrAJFL.fished in said newspaper in the Issues of>` -J. RLSIONERS ;DON C. fICURLOCK. JR.. - CHAIRMAN ' SaIIL23,24,25.119811 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; 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 adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Swam to and subscribed before me this day o A.D. vyt,• e 005 �� %1�`� r (Business Manager) kill I (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (ShAU Franchise Coordinator Lisa Abernethy reviewed the following memo and letter from Humana Hospital: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: L. S. THOMAS ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO c DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES FROM: LISA M. ABERNETHY FRANCHISE COORDINATOR DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO ESTABLISH FRANCHISE RATE STRUCTURE BACKGROUND DATE: August 26, 1986 Humana Hospital was granted a -water system franchise in May of this year. At this time, the franchise is in full compliance with the exception of this final phase to establish their rate structure. RECOMMENDATION Utility staff has reviewed the rate structure for the water franchise. Staff has, internally approved the proposed rates and asks the Board of County Commissioners to set a public hearing date so that these rates may be discussed and approved accordingly. U1 771 -Aumana Hospital Sebastian August 8, 1986 i v i.. ■ i. Lisa M. Abernethy Franchise Administrator Division of Utility Services Indian River County Utilities Department 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Ms. Abernethy: Per your letter dated June 17, 1.986, the following is an explanation and proposal of our rate schedule for our Water System Franchise on Amdeco/Medical Office Building. As I explained to you, we have no history on which to base our rates. I compiled the expenses that are related to our water system and projected that the Amdeco/Medical Office Building will be responsible for approximately 4% of those expenses. Below is the projected cost per month for this Medical Office Building: Electric $80 Chlorination 15 Maintenance 3 Water Treatment 26 Depreciation on 2 Well Total $126 Based on the above expenses, I propose the following rate schedule: $x.00 per ERU (0-1000 gal.) 2.00 billing fee per month 1.99 per 1,000 gal. thereafter 6% of gross billing per month for franchise fee We project that each unit will use approximately 8,000 gallons of water per month and based on this usage our rates will cover the operating costs of the water plant. The hospital will not have a connection fee for each unit. I have attached documentation to support the projected costs. If any additional information is needed, please contact me. I look forward to being notified of the public hearing date. Sincerely, Mitchell B. Smith Executive Director 91 SEP 30 198 ma6 c ���? A S E P 30 1986 BOOP( 6 5f't�Ijr ? Chairman Scurlock inquired if Mrs. Abernethy believed these rates will cover the situation so that we are not setting an artificial rate structure, and Mrs. Abernethy confirmed that she believed the rates are adequate. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Carlos Milanes, Associate Director of Humana Hospital, informed the Board that the intent of the Hospital is not to open up a utility department; they are basically supplying the offices of the physicians on their property, and these rates simply cover their operating expenses. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 86-86 setting the rate structure for the Humana Hospital Water System Franchise. 92 =7/86 UTIL LMA/H RESOLUTION NO. 86-86 WHEREAS, Humana, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Sebastian Water System Franchise has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida for a rate schedule; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a duly noticed public hearing on September 30, 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following rate schedule for Humana Hospital Sebastian Water System Franchise is hereby adopted to become effective the 15th day of October, 1986: MONTHLY CHARGES $5.00 PER ERU (0-1000 GAL.) $2.00 BILLING FEE PER MONTH $1.99 PER 1,000 GAL. THEREAFTER 6% OF GROSS BILLING PER MONTH FOR FRANCHISE FEE The hospital will not have a connection fee for each unit. This Resolution adopted the 30th day of September , 1986. i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: q By: i Freda,Wright Don C. Scur ock, ., Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: C arles P. Vitunac County Attorney �o Approved for Utility matters: Jeffrdy K. NBarton Assistant Dilrector Division of -Utility Services BOOK 65 NK, F. 2.08 s t DISCUSSION RE 10TH COURT S.W. BOOK u�?' The Board reviewed letter received from the Oslo Concerned Citizens League: September 23, 1986 To; Board of County Commissioners Indian River County, FL Dear Sirs; The Oslo Concerned Citizen League feels that it is necessary to request another hearing on the outcome of 10th Court, S.W. All of the requirements for the petition have been fulfilled by our end but there still seems to be a delay on the county's behalf. We would like to clear up this matter as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. q�� erely,T. Wiggins, President Assistant County Attorney Wilson noted that normally in our petition paving program the County pays 25% and the residents pay 75%, but in this particular case, the County agreed to pay 750. We have gotten deeds from most of the people, giving us the necessary right-of-way, but the main problem is that we have one resident who is unalterably opposed to the road being built and paved, and the only way to acquire that property would be through condemnation. This woman has a home on a lot which is 70' deep; we need 201, which would leave her doorstep about 5' from the road right-of-way. Attorney Wilson did not think there is any other way to put the road through this area, and the problem with condemnation is the cost involved. The Attorney's office, therefore, needs to know if the Board is willing to include that cost as part of the petition paving, and also, Attorney Wilson was not'sure we can show the.public necessity for the taking of 94 M this property. He noted that the property itself is worth very little, probably no more than $2,000 to $3,000. In discussion it was noted that Public Works has put this on regular maintenance rotation the same as other dirt roads in the County, and Chairman Scurlock believed if we keep it on the maintenance map another 2 to 3 years, we get the right-of-way anyway. Commissioner Lyons believed we only get- what we maintain, and he asked whether we are maintaining this road to within 5' of her doorway now, Director Davis explained that is what Attorney Wilson was talking about - the R/W bine; what we are looking at is a 35' R/W, inside of which we would probably build an 18' road, and that would be about 14' to 15' from her doorstep. He did feel we can prove condemnation is necessary for the pubric welfare, safety, etc., but agreed we also could go in two years, survey and file a prescriptive maintenance map, and then go in and pave the road. Attorney Vitunac believed that is construct and maintain for four years, and Director Davis advised that we have added material to the road and done a considerable amount of work as it was not passable. Attorney Wilson noted that in the cost of condemnation, we not only have to pay for the property, but for the resident's attorney and for her appraisal as well as our appraisal. The Chairman asked if the total cost would be in the neighborhood of $3,000 to $4,000, and Attorney Wilson felt it would be least that. Commissioner Lyons asked if there is a satisfactory road there now, and Director Davis stated that it is greatly improved. Joe Wiggins, President of the Oslo Concerned Citizen's League, agreed the road is a whole lot better, but what everybody cannot understand is how one person can delay a project that was started three years ago. He noted that cars still can't pass each other on the road, and the bottleneck is this one person's 95 BOOK 6 5 F,�EE 930 r�. r i BOOK 6 property. Mr. Wiggins did not feel the county should have to pay this one person because they will be using the road too. Chairman Scurlock asked if the neighbors have talked with this lady, and Mr. Wiggins confirmed that they have, and she is not only definitely against the road, she is piling boulders there now, which makes it dangerous. Attorney Wilson noted that he has been working on this for• about two years, and Director Davis stated that he was working on it for a year and a half before that. Mr. Wiggins advised that another reason they want to get this road out of the way is that Oslo Road probably will be mainly rezoned commercial, and they need roads in the area because they can't get permits to build on their property. He believed the Board was going to*do a study of roads in that area, and he emphasized that the residents don't want to have to wait several more years for the county to acquire this property. Commissioner Bird agreed that three years ago we did commit to pave this road, and he expressed his reluctance to throw away all the work that has been expended to get to this point; he felt we should bite the bullet and acquire this property so we can complete the road. Commissioner Bowman felt before we do condemn, we need a mediator as it seems this has worked into a neighborhood fracas. Chairman Scurlock asked if this would beaddedto the assessment roll, and Attorney Wilson stated that when the paving costs are done, it would be added to the assessment roll, but the Board would have to decide if that cost would be absorbed by the county or assessed on the 75/25 split. Commissioner Bird felt we should throw the condemnation cost into the total pot and assess on the 75125 split previously agreed to. 96 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized staff to proceed with condemnation, the county to pay the cost of condemnation, which is to be included in the total assessment roll, based on the County paying 75% and the residents 25%. SHERIFF'S CAD SYSTEM A. Approval to Join Consortium The Board reviewed the following letters from Don Hylton, Director of Information Systems, and from Sheriff Dobeck: -7 �__ �. . FREDA WRIGHT CLERK, CIRCUIT COURT AND RECORDER_ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (305) 567.8000 P. O. BOX 1028 VERO BEACH - FLORIDA 32961-1028 ` c n?TI T?Cyd LIS September 22, 1986+. T• .! Cc,ni r: ssia ers The Hon. Patrick B. Lyons - 'fil'''let E„s FF° e -- County Commissioner `� F. S — 1840 25th Street -- Vero Beach, Florida 32960 V r�rcC'Cr In re: Evaluation of C.A.D. Consortium ^`theC,._,,t,�.,,-_::Ttt••J Dear Mr. Lyons: tJ I would like to qualify my remarks by saying I have no personal interest in what the Sheriff decides to do in his quest for more automation of the functions of his office. I whole heartedly agree with him that I have very little expertise in the functions of law enforcement. I also want it to be made very clear that I had no say in the decision of the County Commission to send me to St. Louis County to evaluate the C.A.D. system that the Sheriff feels is the one for his operation. What will follow will be an analysis of what I found based solely on the data processing aspects of the system in question. It will be totally ob- jective. With this out of the way, I will continue with my report. In the days just prior to my going out to St. Louis County alot of questions were raised about the feasibility of Indian River County spending $32,000.00 to join the consortium that will try to produce a very comprehensive C.A.D. system to be available to all members of the consortium. I have built this report around those questions and the answers I received. 97 SEP 3 0 1986 Boa 65 v,, -U-. 932 SEP 3 0 1986 Boa .c I. How do we interface the C.A.D. system to other systems in the County? A. The project director is very firm on the concept that C.A.D. must be a stand alone dedicated system with no other applications that will interfere with its performance. His concept is that the C.A.D. system will produce an interim record that can be passed to any other well Y known computer system for further processing. I agree with his concept, it works very well at his site now. II. How do we address the records management problem? A. They pass a record to a Data General MV8000 computer that uses COBOL as its major language where it is processed by an'application called C.A.R.E. III. What is C.A.R.E. (Computer Assisted Record Entry)? What is its cost? How do we get it? A. This is where I found the most problems with what our people thought they understood and what was the real situation. St. Louis County has C.A.R.E. running on a Data General MV8000. It interfaces with their current version of C.A.D. They propose to produce an updated version of this application only after the new version of C.A.D. is completed and only then if the members of the consortium agree to put up the funds like they are doing with the C.A.D. There are no plans at this time to make C.A.R.E. available in its current form to run with the new version of C.A.D. because it will only run on Data General MV models of computers and to adapt it would be very expensive. IV. How, who and cost of changes to the C.A.D. system after it is. delivered? A. There will be no changes made by the consortium after delivery unless needed to correct operational capabilities of the system and a benefit to all users. If the user wants customizing done, it will be his responsibility. V. How large a system will be required to operate the system in Indian River County? A. 15 CRT's 1 tape drive 2 disk drives with 277 M/B of storage 2 C.P.U.'s with 4 M/B of memory each A rough cost of $125,000.00 to $150,000.00 depending on brand of com- puter and how well we negotiate the price. VI. The amount of staff to operate the C.A.D. system? A. They feel you will need only the communications personnel to operate the system. No professional data processing staff will be required. I disagree with this strongly based on all my years of experience in the field. I feel at least one senior programmer analyst will be needed. VII. When will the package be delivered? A. If all goes according to plan, it will be available Jan. 1, 1988. VIII. What about creating the G.E.O. data base? A. This is a major undertaking that under the best efforts will take two man years to produce. ''' 98 O IX. What about interface to court system? A. They have no interface to the court system except through the use of tapes passed bacK and forth. They have access to the court system by use of a third CRT at the dispatch console that is outside of the C.A.D. system. The court system of St. Louis County runs on two IBM mainframes. Access to NCIC and other databases is handled the same way with the added CRT at the console. X. Start up and on going support after the system is delivered? A. We all have to understand that all the people in the consortium hold jobs with their respective governments and the amount of time' that they will be able to give will be very limited. They are bank- ing on getting a system that is very user friendly and having it thoroughly documented to cut down the need for support. If on site support is needed, we will have to pay all expenses of the person sent with no guarantee one will be available. XI. Physical space requirements needed? A. A sound conditioned room -about 30 x 40 to house four complaint takers and two dispatchers as well as a supervisor console. XII_ Electrical and air condition requirements? A. A standard office environment is all that is needed. They do not have power backup but in Vero we would have to have a UPS to support the system at an estimated cost of $25,000 to $30,000. XIII. Future use of mobile units? A. Allowances will be made to give the.C.A.D. system the ability to handle M.D.T.'s, but no analysis of the hardware or its cost has been done. Two vendors have shown an interest and they are Motorola and MDI. XIV. If Indian River decides to not become a charter member will the system still be available? At what cost? A. The thinking now is that once it is developed and all costs are met as planned, the consortium will be able to make the system available to others at a cost of $40,000. XV. What is the size and status of the current C.A.D. system installed in At. Louis County? A. The current C.A.D. system was written for Minneapolis, Minnesota by Arthur D. Little at a cost of over $400,000. It was given to St. Louis County where it now supports a population of over 500,000 people. They handle 610,000 incoming calls per year with five dispatchers. The current system is capable of handling police, fire and EMS, but St. Louis County only uses the police portion. The system is written in assembler language making it almost impossible to modify, that is the reason St. Louis wants to rewrite it. It currently runs on a Data General S-130 with another S-130 as backup. Each of the five _ dispatch consoles in place cost $40,000 including furniture and com- munications equipment. St. Louis County was able to reduce its records section from 70 people to 29 and still handle over 250,000 incidents each year with C.A.R.E. You can see clearly they are much larger than we are and this is an important factor I think. j i 99 BOOK a rr{lr.91134 t S E p 3 0 1986 BOOK 5 PACE. 935 XVI. Summary of my evaluation of the C.A.D. system. I was very impressed with the people involved. The current C.A.D. system was extremely well designed and written and since the new C.A.D. system will be essentially an updated version of the current one I have very few reservations that they will produce a good pro- duct. The C.A.R.E. system was the better product, I felt, and was being utilized extremely well. After over five hours of discussion with the people of St. Louis County Police Dept., I drew the following conclusion which is the same one I have always had and that is -the lack of any guarantee that we will get anything for our money. I feel strongly that when you use taxpayers money you do not have the latitude to enter into risky ventures that you have when employing your own money or that of a major corporation. I presented this feeling to Mr. Turner and he concurred that there was a certain amount of risk involved so we started to explore ways to surmount this problem. XVII. A recommended plan of action. 1. Indian River has in the hands of the Data Processing Committee a S-130 Data General computer - 'an exact copy of what St. Louis County is currently operating it's C.A.D. system on. This computer and it's accessories which cost the County over $140,000.00 is scheduled to be declared surplus since it was replaced by the Property Appraiser. We have been assured it is in excellent condition by Mr. Nolte. 2. We could install this computer almost immediately in any acceptable location to the Sheriff. 3. Mr. Turner has offered to give to the County the complete current C.A.D. system plus complete documentation and assistance to install it on the S-130. 4. The Sheriff can purchase a Data General W8000 for approximately $65,000 that will run the C.A.R.E. system which Mr. Turner has also offered to give to the County with documentation free of charge. This MV8000 will serve as the backup computer to another MV8000 when the new C.A.D. system is delivered, thus serving dual functions and saving the County alot of money. 5. This pian will allow Indian River to develope it's GEO Data Base, train it's operators to operate the new C.A.D. before delivery, serve the dispatch and records management needs of the County while we wait for the new system, utilize $140,000 worth of equipment that is due to be scraped, purchase equipment that will not have to be disposed of after one year, provide the County with an.excellent records management system at no additional cost. 6. The above plan also removes all the risk in joining the consortium. The commissioners will not be in a position of gambling with taxpayers money because if the worst situation happens and no C.A.D. package - is delivered, we will have excellent value in hand for the $32,000 that was spent and our operational needs will not suffer. But on the other hand, if every thing goes as planned, we will install the new C.A.D. system in 1988 with a minimum of problems because we will have a years' operations behind us which should produce a well trained staff. The software that is being given to us has a market value in excess of $100,000. 100 XVIII. Mr. Turner and I worked on this for several hours and I feel we are being offered an opportunity that is almost too good to be true and the County should not miss this opportunity to provide a needed service to it's residents at a very reasonable cost and without any risk. XIX. In closing, I have provided answers to all the questions that have been raised as well as a viable solution to the problem of risk. Again I must state I am not an employee of the Board nor the Sheriff. I have no personal interest short of what is best for the taxpayers of this County. I have tried to give to you the benefit of my years of experi- ence and expertise in data processing. In the past when I have done this, I have been criticized unfairly and accused of trying to build an empire. I am a professional trying to do my job as h see it and as such I recommend that you join the consortium as soon as possible, but the decision is one you will have to make using additional information not covered in this report. I appreciated the opportunity to be of service to you and hope this in- formation will help you make the right decision for the good of the County. _ Sincerely AnHyt o Director of Information Systems cc: Freda Wright All County Commissioners Sheriff Dobeck 101 WWI na 6 5 Fh4j-.936 4 7 > 1+tp> yW �' Y P. O. BOX 608 PHONE 569.6700 September 18, 1986 BOOK 65 E�. � 93 R.T."TIM" DOBECK - IVDIAIV RI17ER COUNTY MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION VEI20 BEACH, FLORIDA 32961 -0008 - Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Doug: The attached information is provided per your request and exhibits the estimated costs to establish an interim E911/CAD system utilizing renovated space in the current Communications Division and the trans- fer of this operation to the new facility upon completion. Attachment I - Details the cost of radio equipment, positions, tele- phone equipment and recording equipment for the interim operation. All --equipment purchased during this phase will transfer to the new facility. Attachment II - Details the cost of computer hardware and software solely for the operation of the CAD system which includes the GEO base information. Attachment III - Details the costs of the computer hardware and soft- -ware to provide back-up for the CAD computer and to provide operation- al capabilities for departmental operations. Attachment IV - Details the costs to set up the 911 operation in the new taciTity. As previously noted, all of the equipment purchased on Attachment I will transfer to the new facility. I trust this information will enable you and the other members of the commission to reach a decision relative to this matter. As you are aware, we are facing an October 1, 1986 deadline for us to join the Consortium at a substantial savings to the County, Sincerely, R. T. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff Indian River County 102 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT INTERIM CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL DISPATCH COST ANALYSIS 911 Installation Equipment R- Radio Equipment Labor, Radio Installation Console #1 Console #2 Labor, Console Tone Control Equipment Temporary Move and Equipment Removal Renovation of Existing Space Renovation Electrical New Positions 6 each Dispatcher Positions Salary, 6 x 12,764 Social Security Retirement Ins. Hosp. Ins. Life Ins. Liab. -Telephone Equipment Recording Equipment TOTAL $ 76,584 5,478 10,026 11,160 564 1,200 103 Attachment I -- $ 41,250 6,800 11,040 30,960 2,120 3,500 2,000 500 2,000 10070' $105,012 $ 11,089 $ 18,069 $234,340 SEP 3 0 7986 aooK D "gip- 8 [E f,r 3 Boa 65 F' t 930 - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Attachment II - COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH - E911 COMPUTER COST ANALYSIS Hardware AT&T 62-400, 4 MB Main Memory 576 MB Hard Disk, 20 Ports $ 77,988 Printer, 60OLPM 9,345 Interfaces, 4 @ $3,385 County IBM System 38 13,540 City of Vero Beach PD Indian River Shores PD FCIC/NCIC CRT's, 15 @ $770 each _ 11,550 $112,423 Software Consort um CAD System Oracle Rights 32,000 10,000 $ 42,000 This system will be utilized solely to operate the CAD system which will include -storage capability for the GEO Base _Add: 10% of Hardward cost for cables and connectors $ 11,242 104 $T6 _5 ==j 6 5 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTttachment III CAD BACK-UP/DEPARTMENT OPERATION COMPUTER COST ANALYSIS Hardware AT&T 3B 5, Core, APU, 1MB Main Memory, $ 54,825 with operational software 6 each disk drive w/340M6 each @ $12,963 77,778 Tape Drive 10,200 4MB Hard Memory _ ` 11,900 I. 0. Accelerator 8,500 Blocks, Buses, Controllers 15,300 Host Ports (32) 7,650 Printer (600 LPM) 9,345 Uninterrupted Power Supply A 95,498 CRT's, 45 @ $800 ea 25,000 Printers, 8 @ $800 ea 34,650 Software, CARE & Departmental Operations6,400 ADD: 10% of Hardware cost for cables and connectors This system will 25,000 19,500 serve as aback -up for the 3B2-400. The data will be "dumped" on a register basis from the 3B2-400 on to the - 3B-15 which will be "operating the system" for the Department. The system will provide for Computer Aided Records Entry, Jail Operations, Accounting & Finance, Payroll/Personnel, Warrants, & Civil. The. Detective Bureau will have access to all data thru links with the County System for investigative work. $30 g06 g INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTttachment IV NEW 911 CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL DISPATCH COST ANALYSIS Equipment Consoles, Additional Six (6) Labor, Consoles, Wiring & Installation Office Furnishings 4 ea ecretarial Desks @ $410 8 ea Filing Cabinets @ $135 2 ea Bookcases @ $162 3 ea Work Table @ $295 18 ea Side Chairs @ $135 14 ea Secretarial Chairs @ $135 SEP 30 1986 $104,211 11,560 $115,71 • $ 1,640 1,080 324 885 2,430 540 $ 6,899 105 BOOK DD 0 SEP 3 ® 1986 Boo5. F,�-U 941 Chairman Scurlock felt Mr. Hylton's recommendation is quite i clear, and apparently we have to act quickly. Sheriff Dobeck noted that he and Mr. Hylton are finally in agreement on a lot of things. The Sheriff believed that Mr. Hylton gave a fair and extensive report to the Commission and certainly cleared up any questions there might have been about the benefit to be derived from the time he spent in St. Louis County. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) author- ized the expenditure of $32,000 to join the CAD Consortium. Sheriff Dobeck felt the backup information provided indicates that if the Consortium does not develop information over and above the CAD system, the CARE system we will be getting, which will operate on the equipment we have in surplus right now that he is recommending we buy, is well over $100,000 of software in itself. This was confirmed by Mr. Hylton. Chairman Scurlock did not think we need to make the decision today, but stated that at some point very near at hand, he would like to get an opinion from the County Attorney as to what our ability is to takeover the Data Processing function for Indian River County under the County Administrator, and Commissioner Lyons stated that he would recommend that highly. Attorney Vitunac advised that he has done his research and believed we can do that; he just hasn't put it in writing yet. Discussion ensued on the next steps to be taken re the CAD system, and Chairman Scurlock suggested a Motion to accept the Property Appraiser's offer to give the surplus equipment (S-130 Data General Computer) back to the county. u. Commissioner Lyons advised that equipment now belongs to the Data Processing Committee, and he will call the Committee together and recommend that it be transferred to the Sheriff. Sheriff Dobeck next asked for direction from the. Commission with regard to the purchase of a Data General MV8000, which is recommended by Mr. Hylton to operate the CARE package that will be available to us at no charge. He noted that it was indicated initially that the Data General would cost about $65,Q00, and he asked if Mr. Hylton thought the DATA General MV8000 would be comparable to the ATT MB2400. Mr. Hylton could not be sure, but felt it would be close as they are competing machines. Sheriff Dobeck believed the cost of the hardware itself for the ATT is about $77,000, and he felt the Data General would be in that range also. There are associated costs, however, with CRTs, the interface, and the high speed printers. He stated that he will determine the specific cost and come back with a true figure., which he felt will be somewhere between $112,00 and $120,000. Mr. Hylton advised that there are some pieces of excess equipment that will also work as long as you stay with the Data General concept. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved in concept the general layout recommended by the Sheriff, the Sheriff to come back with specific numbers in the next two weeks. B. Interim Cost of Operating the Central Dispatch_ System Sheriff Dobeck advised that Attachment #1 with his letter of September 18th sets out the interim cost of operating the central dispatch system from the current location. This shows a total of $234,000 for equipment and personnel, and he is requesting that the Commission allow him to move forward and purchase the 107 SEP 3 0 1986 BOD 4 SEP 3 0 19306 BOOK 6 5 r,r9 4 3 equipment for the radio room, if it is still their intent for him to take over this operation on January 1st. Commissioner Lyons wished to be assured this will be equipment that can be moved, and the Sheriff confirmed that it all will be able to be moved on site in the new building. Commissioner Lyons noted we will have to have interim funding and then this will come out of the bond issue. OMB Director Baird advised that if it is a capital cost for the 911 system, it can be funded through the surcharge. Sheriff Dobeck emphasized the need to address the 6 new position for the communications center as it cannot become operational without them. He did not know if that has to be appropriated from another area of the budget or it it can come out of some alternative funding. OMB Director Baird stated that this would have to come out of General Fund contingencies. Discussion continued in regard to having the computer available January 1st, and Commissioner Bird asked if this is purchased on state contract. Sheriff Dobeck advised that they currently have all General Electric equipment, and it would be almost impossible for any other major company to come in and bid a total change that would be compatible. They are not required to put this out to bid, and these are all state contract items in any event. General Services Director Dean confirmed these items would be under state contract or purchased through GSA. Chairman Scurlock noted that none of the new positions were included in the Sheriff's budget, and Sheriff Dobeck pointed out that the decision to operate the 911 system strictly out the Sheriff's Department was made after the budget was done. Chairman Scurlock inquired about any corresponding reduction in personnel in the Fire Department, for example, because there are dispatchers there. 108 OMB Director Baird pointed out that is a separate special taxing district and we cannot co -mingle the funds, and some discussion ensued re the possibility of contracting for some services. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that he just did not want to fund six dispatchers in two different places. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved manning the 911 station for central dispatch and directed that staff get together with Administrator Balczun and come back with a recommendation as to how this should be financed. C. Bulletproof Vests for Deputies Sheriff Dobeck informed the Board that it appears he will be able to turn back to the Commission this year about $60-80,000, depending on the overtime associated with last week's tragedy. Chairman Scurlock commented that is about enough to pay for the new communications positions, and Sheriff Dobeck stated that if the Board would like to put that back in his budget to pay for those positions, he certainly would have no problem with that. However, there are enough funds available even over and above that $60-80,000 to purchase 105 bulletproof vests for his men, which is what he would like to do. The Sheriff felt if his officers had been provided with these vests, perhaps Deputy Kaczkoski would still be with us. By transferring some of this money, he felt he can commit to the Commission that he can still give somewhere between $60-80,000 back over and above the purchase of these vests. They do not have any vests at the present time. He advised that he has had a budget amendment prepared to cover - the above transfer if the Board wished to approve it. 109 ROCK F � t 944 SEP 6 SEP 3 0 1986 BooK 65 rnjF 945 Commissioner Lyons wondered, in this hot climate, if the A officers will wear the vests, and the Sheriff stated that it will be made mandatory. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the following budget amendment as requested by the Sheriff to transfer funds for the purchase of bulletproof vests. Commissioner Bird felt The Hundred Club had bought some bulletproof vests at one time, and Sheriff Dobeck believed they did buy about 20 in 1977, but the material in these vests breaks down after five years and they need to be replaced. Commissioner Lyons informed the Sheriff that he has received a tremendous number of complaints about the accident frequency on 43rd Avenue, and he asked if the Sheriff could increase his patrol there to get people slowed down. Sheriff Dobeck confirmed that would be done. 110 1 1 C, BUDGET ACCOUNT AMENDMENT i . _ INDIAN RIVER___ counTY Sher -t s Department too —_ FY: 1985186--_ INDIAN RIVER _ ___COUNTY Board of County Commissioners • DATE REQUESTED SeQtember 30 1986 I hereby request approval for the amendment of the her "`'s Department bud as set forth below: R. _ . __ _ Ck Srer1lf Original Budget or Last Amended Budget Accounts FY__ 198_5184_ _ .10 Personal Services 521 $ 3,197,027 .30 Operating Expenses 920,191 .60 Capital Outlay 518,289 x Amendments Requested S – 27.000 + 27,000 Budget Including Amendments Requested $ 3,197,027 _ 893,191 545,289 Contingency TOTAL BUDGET __-4,635,50.7. $ _ -0- _ $ __ 4,635,507 *Requesting.a transfer of funds from Personal Services to Capital for the purpose of purchasing 105 bullet-proof vests @ $257 each. Th..s ncr,n :,I •dge receipt b. the Board of Cuunl; Cornmiss,one�rs 2)1.31 - --------- - -- Dat,. 9-30-86— Signature Title. Chairman 'rhes is 'o : ertify that this bu zet account amendment has been Apprc,.__- - Disaz)proveC _ -- ----- — ----- -- — Date: -- St,:-ature Title: r'1 r"1 ri PRO BOOK 65 F,Au,� X47 FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT - LANDFILL PERSONNEL The Board reviewed memo from the Utilities staff, as follows: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONE S DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY,SER#i. S RONALD R. BROOKS I ✓ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT LANDFILL PERSONNEL On occasion, a fire will erupt within waste material at the County Landfill. Once a fire has started, it will be fed by methane gas that is generated by the decomposing waste and vented to the surface of the landfill site. . As a result, the fire cannot be extinguished with water, thereby rendering the efforts of the Fire Department with their present equipment ineffective. The only way to extinguish a landfill fire is to cover it with soil as soon as possible and cut off the source of oxygen. This procedure requires that the landfill- equipment operators penetrate the..smoking fire zone and cover the material with soil. Any fire that develops at the landfill requires immediate action to prevent spreading and -to eliminate the danger to employees. However, the employees presently do not have breathing apparatus available at the landfill site to protect themselves from smoke inhalation, thereby reducing their ability to provide a timely response to fires. Smoke inhalation is a dangerous situation in any circumstances; however, in a landfill fire it could be extremely dangerous as there is no telling what type of material could be burning. CONCLUSION To provide for immediate fire response by the employees with reduced danger from smoke inhalation, it is necessary to have self-contained breathing apparatus available at the landfill site. At least two apparatuses should be available at the site for immediate use. The Fire Department can provide additional backup units if needed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board authorize the purchase of a minimum of two self-contained breathing apparatuses for use by thet_ landfill personnel. The apparatuses will be similar to equipmen used by the Fire Department and will cost approximately $1,100.00 each. in 112 Chairman Scurlock asked Fire Chief Allen if possibly he has some such surplus equipment available. Fire Chief Allen stated that they have some older units, but they have had a great deal of use and he would not recommend they continue to be used. He noted that he did tell them they should stay with MSA self-contained breathing apparatus because the fire district carries all the parts. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved purchase of two self-contained breathing apparatus at $1,100 each for use by the Landfill personnel, funding from the Landfill Account to be worked out by Assistant Utilities Director Barton. 113 BOK FF, 948 SEP 30 1986 BOOK 5 rnUE -49 e is TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE - SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE The Board reviewed the following staff memo: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 22, 1986 FILE'' of the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FOR SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE Robert M. Keating, AICP /Uv`� Director, Planning evel. James Davis, P.E. Director Public Wor s Richard Shearer, AICP __FROM: Chief, Long -Range FENCES: Mike Orr, Traffic Engineer-ptL It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 30, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS On -.September 2, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners discussed the appropiate method to utilize in calculating a traffic impact fee for the Sandridge Golf Course. At that time, the Board decided to follow the public works division's recommendation that the fee be calculated based on required parking spaces. - An unresolved issue was how many trip ends per parking space per day should be used to determine the impact fee. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report lists a range of 1.8 to .16.4 trip ends per day per parking space for golf courses with an -average trip rate of 5.3 trip ends. The staff originally felt that the 5.3 trip ends per parking space per day should be utilized to -calculate the impact fee. In order to verify that the 5.3 trip ends was the appropriate trip rate, the traffic engineer took traffic counts at the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course for comparison. These counts yielded an average weekday rate of 381 trip ends for the 18 hole golf course. The County would require 4 parking spaces per hole or 72 parking spaces which is the same number of spaces required for Sandridge. The average trip rate is calculated by dividing the 381 trip ends by 72 required parking spaces resulting in a trip rate.of 5.29 per parking space. Based on this study, the 5.3 trip seems to be appropriate. 114 The FEES program prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates was utilized to calculate a base traffic impact fee per parking space based on 5.3 trip ends per parking space. The FEES program generated a base fee of $395 which when multiplied by the required number of parking spaces would result in a traffic impact fee of $28,440 as follows: $395 base fee X 72 parking spaces = $28,440 Based on this calculation, the current traffic impact fee for the Sandridge Golf Course would be $28,440. However, any additional development of the golf course which required additiolnal parking spaces would require an additional traffic impact fee at a rate of $395 per parking space. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the 5.3 trip ends per parking space trip rate be utilized in calculating the traffic impact fee for the Sandridge Golf Course. Chairman Scurlock commented that this ended up more than we anticipated, and Commissioner Bird expressed the wish that there could have been a way to grandfather the course in before this took effect as it is an expense which was not anticipated. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) accepted staff's recommendation that the 5.3 trip ends per parking space trip rate be utilized in calculating the traffic impact fee for the Sandridge Golf Course. 115 SEP 3 0 1986 Boa 6 5Fac, 050 SEP 3 ® 1986 BooK XH -951 HEARING DATE GRAND HARBOR SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION REQUEST 4 The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Boling: _TO: The Honorable Members ofPATE: September 22, 1986 FELE' the Board of County Commi' ssioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: �2L� — HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER Robert M. Keafting;7AICP SUBJECT: GRAND HARBOR SUBSTANTIAL Planning & Development Director DEVIATION REQUEST THROUGH: Michael K. Miller KVO Chief, Current Development f - _FROM: Stan soling i.?. /j. REFERENCES: BCC Staff Planner HARBOR It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 30, 1986. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On August 15, 1986, Grand Harbor, Inc. submitted a Substantial Deviation Application for Development Approval to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The request for a substantial deviation from the adopted development order (D.O.) for the Grand Harbor DRI proposes to add a ±178.4 acre tract of land to*the project to be developed as a second golf course with single-family homes. The application also proposes to add 72 sailboat slips to the marina which is currently permitted for 72 unrestricted boat slips under the existing D.O. Pursuant to the normal D.R.I. substantial deviation review pro- cess, the regional planning council has now notified the county that the submitted substantial deviation application is complete and sufficient for review. The County must now notify the planning council as to the date of the hearing at which the substantial deviation request and corresponding D.O. amendment will be considered. ANALYSIS The County is required to publish the hearing date at least 60 days in advance of the actual hearing. The hearing date should allow ample time to'receive the planning council's recommendation as well as the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission. A hearing date set for the December 9, 1986 regular Board of County Commissioners meeting would meet the 60 day state notice requirement and allow ample review time for the regional planning council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. - RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County certain public hearing date, to consider tial deviation request, for the December County Commissioners meeting. 116 Commissioners set a time the Grand Harbor substan- 9, 1986 regular Board of L� L_I ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) set. a time certain public hearing date to consider the Grand Harbor substantial deviation request for the December 9, 1986, regular Board meeting. SALARIES - FY86-87 Administrator Balczun reported that it is time for the Board to consider adjusting pay scales for non-union personnel. He has met with Personnel Director Lois Hoder, and it is their feeling that the most appropriate across -the -Board adjustment would be 2.5%, plus merit raises ranging from .6o for satisfactory per- formance through 2.6% for outstanding performance. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the pay adjustments recommended by the Administrator. Administrative Aide Liz Forlani asked if this would cover her department also, and this was confirmed. BUILDING AND CONTENTS INSURANCE OMB Director Baird reviewed the following memo: 117 Book 65 Pt1i,H W TO: Honorable Board of County Commi s s i overs FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director BOOK DATE: September 30, 1986 FILE: SUBJECT: Building and Contents Insurance REFERENCES: Florida League of Cities notified Indian River County that they were unable to obtain building and contents insurance to be effective Wednesday, October 1, 1986. The County's present building and contents insurance ex- pires today, Tuesday, September 30, 1986. We have contacted the Hamilton - Arden Insurance Agency, our current carrier, and they feel that the policy may be able to be extended another year. Staff would like authorization from the Honorable Board of County Com- missioners to negotiate property and contents insurance as soon as possible. Director Baird informed the Board that Hamilton Arden Insurance is trying to get this coverage through our old carrier, and Mr. Arden does not feel this should be a problem. Discussion followed as to the cost of such insurance, and Director Baird did not know the cost yet, but noted that last year we estimated $115,298, which we felt was going to be high. Chairman Scurlock expressed the hope that we take a look at self-insurance, and Commissioner Bowman advised that this was discussed at the last Tri -County Council meeting and they are going to make a study of it. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to authorize OMB Director Baird to negotiate building and contents insurance coverage and authorize the Chairman to sign. 118 OMB Director Baird emphasized that if we can't get this coverage, we will be uninsured at midnight, and Commissioner Bird noted that in the event this insurance comes back at double the cost of last year, he would rather see us uninsured for a few days while we shop around. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0).1 FURTHER DISCUSSION RE SHERIFF'S CAD SYSTEM Commissioner Bird requested some clarification on the action taken earlier on the Sheriff's matters. In regard to the equipment needed for central dispatch, he noted the Board was additionally provided with a proposal from Communications International listing equipment to install microwave communications capabilities from Hobart Park tower site to the new Sheriff's communication complex in the amount of $67,240, and he wished to know if this was included along with the other equipment. Chairman Scurlock advised that we have been asking for budget figures to plug into the bond issue, and this proposal is simply providing those numbers. General Services Director Dean believed the only thing the Commission took action on was the Cad Consortium and also the equipment it was going to take to put the central communications in operation as of January 1st. Anything above that has not been addressed at this time. Commissioner Bird noted that, in other words, we didn't authorize the purchase of the equipment in the proposal from Communications International; we just received the information to • plug into the bond issue. This was confirmed by the Chairman and General Services Director, and OMB Director Baird advised that he will send a Letter to the Sheriff setting out the Board's action. On October 1st, Director Baird sent the Sheriff the following letter: 119 SEP 3 0 1986 BOOK 65 NG)E 954 4 Telephone: (305) 567-8000 - October 1, 1986 l - R.T. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff Indian River -County 2145 14th Avenue Courthouse Annex Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Dobeck: BOOK uz) PAGF. 955 Suncom Telephone: 424-1011 Richard Dees and I have reviewed action taken by the Honorable Board of County Commissioners on September 30, 1986 relating to 911 system and C.A.D. Consortium. Our findings are as follows: 1. Board of County Commissioners authorized $32,000 be sent to C.A.D. Consortium. 2. Board of County Commissioners authorized the expenditure of $129,328 for the interim central dispatch operations per the attachment 1 of your letter dated September 18, 1986 to the Commission. 3. The Sheriff and County staff are to work together to pro- vide total cost breakdown of hardware and related cost for the operation of the 911 and C.A.D. Consortium package. In order to finalize the future financial planning, total cost break- down is needed by October 14, 1986. ,If you have any questions or any further information is required, please let me know. Sincerely, Joseph A Baird OMB Director REPORT ON UTILITIES SEWER PROGRAM EXPANSION - NORTH COUNTY Chairman Scurlock advised that he, Utilities Director Pinto, and staff, met with the City Council of Sebastian at a public hearing to present the findings of their North County wastewater study. It looks as if we have demonstrated the economic feasibility of servicing about 2,175 acres, which is basically comprised of the U.S.I corridor east of the railroad tracks. 120 We have had M M interest expressed amounting to around 4,983 ERUs, and he will be coming to the Commission re bonds to do a project similar to the one on SR60. The corridor being considered goes from Roseland Shopping Center to basically Pelican Pointe and provides for elimination of 16 package plants. The only opposition encountered at the meeting was an insistence that additional areas be included, particularly the Sebastian Highlands area which has an existing franchise. This will all come back in a formal report. Commissioner Lyons wished to know how far west this might go on SR 512, and the Chairman stated that it would not be very far right now as there is not enough to cost justify it at this point. Commissioner Lyons was concerned about Chesser Gap, and Utilities Director Pinto stated that they may be able to come in on the proposed system. Commissioner Bowman inquired about River's Edge and the Fischer development, and Director Pinto advised that they will look at something special for River's Edge because of the problems they are experiencing. It was agreed that the important part is to get the core system set up. REPORT ON SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB Commissioner Bird reported that by the end of this week they will have planted probably nine holes entirely, and after the architect gives final approval on the shaping on the other nine, they will plant that nine, water and pray for warm weather. AGREEMENT ESTABLISH TRI -COUNTY COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Commissioner Bowman advised that more changes have been • made, and she will bring the agreement back at another meeting. 121 m• S E P 3 0 1986 BOOK 65 raf 956 SEP 30 1956 BOOK 65 Ic c.957 Commissioner Lyons was not enthusiastic about such an agreement. He felt it is great to get together, but he was not in favor of delineating any power to the Tri -County Council. He further did not understand why just the City of Vero Beach was included and stated he personally would not vote for an agreement that does not include an offer to all our municipalities to join in. He also was concerned about one representative, one vote, and felt the voting should be proportionate. He also objected to the statement requiring the representative to take steps to obtain "binding approval" of its governing body. Commissioner Bowman felt that statement has been eliminated. She believed that she had requested that the Commissioners submit written comments and noted that this has been going on for months. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE The Chairman announced that immediately upon the close of today's meeting, the Board -would reconvene acting as the Board of Fire Commissioners of South Indian River County Fire District. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:00 o'clock Noon. ATTEST: Clerk 122 G Chairman I